In the late 1940s, the newly independent US Air Force faced a number of challenges, two of which were paramount: developing a reliable strategic nuclear bomber, and developing interceptors capable of defending the United States from the Soviet Union’s strategic nuclear bombers. The USAF had a plan in mind—the so-called “1954 Interceptor” that would evolve into the F-102 Delta Dagger and F-106 Delta Dart—but these were still some years away. To bridge the gap, Northrop was developing the F-89 Scorpion, but delays to the Scorpion project meant that the United States was theoretically defenseless until it entered service. The USAF then called for interceptors that could be converted quickly from existing aircraft. This would evolve into two aircraft: the F-94 Starfire and F-86D Sabre Dog.

 

The F-86D started life as the F-95A. Unlike the F-94, which was a fairly straightforward conversion of the T-33A Shooting Star trainer into an interceptor, the F-95 was designed to be flown by one man. In previous dedicated interceptors, a two-man crew was deemed optimum, as the second man would operate the complicated radars of the day. A single-seat interceptor was unheard of, but as the 1954 Interceptor was also going to be a single-seat aircraft, the F-95 would provide valuable research into the concept. To achieve this, however, the fire control system would have to have advanced computers assisting the pilot.

 

Though it was based on the F-86 Sabre day fighter, the F-95 had less than 30 percent commonality with its parent design: the fuselage was deeper, wider, and longer; the intake had to be redesigned to accommodate the nose radar; the tail was larger; the engine was upgraded with an afterburner for quick takeoffs and climbs; and the canopy was changed to a hinged type rather than the sliding model on the F-86. The latter’s machine gun armament was deleted in favor of an underfuselage tray of 24 Mighty Mouse folding-fin aerial rockets (FFARs).

 

As the F-95 prototype neared completion, there was some thought that Congress might cancel the aircraft: it was redundant with the F-89 and F-94 also entering service. The F-95 did have the Sabre’s remarkable combat record behind it, and in a funding dodge, North American changed the designation from F-95 to F-86D, making it seem like just another Sabre variant, rather than the nearly entirely new aircraft that it was. This also earned the aircraft its informal nickname: Sabre Dog, based on the old phonetic alphabet for D.

 

Some pilots, however, claimed the Dog stood for the way the F-86D flew. While it did not have the same propensity to go into uncontrollable pitchups like the F-86 (which was known as the “Sabre Dance”), it could easily be overcorrected, with much the same fatal results. It was not as easy to fly as the “standard” F-86, and the fire control computer, as could be expected for an early 1950s aircraft, was not very reliable. An optical sight was provided for the pilot if the computer went down, which was frequently. Moreover, North American, operating in “emergency” mode, could turn out F-86Ds before Hughes could complete the fire control system. At one point, over 300 F-86Ds sat idle at the North American plant, waiting for computers. Because of the balky computer and the flying characteristics of the Sabre Dog, it was considered the most complicated aircraft to fly in the USAF, requiring a training syllabus matched only by the B-47 Stratojet.

 

The United States was not the only nation that needed interceptors, and several NATO nations requested F-86Ds of their own. The fire control system was considered too advanced for export, however, and instead it was downgraded to a simper version, the rocket tray was removed and replaced with four 20mm cannon, and it was supplied to friendly nations as the F-86K. While still not the easiest aircraft to fly, the pilot had a better chance of scoring a kill with the more accurate cannon, and the F-86K was successful in NATO service. Subsequently, a number of F-86Ds were returned to North American, undergoing an avionics upgrade, a simpler cockpit layout, and extended wingtips. This resulted in the F-86L, which was used by several Air National Guard interceptor units into the mid-1960s. While American Sabre Dogs only carried rockets, foreign aircraft were modified to carry AIM-9 Sidewinders later. 16 foreign air forces flew Sabre Dogs.

 

2847 F-86D and associated variants were built, and were the most prolific interceptor in the West during the late 1950s and early 1960s. Most were replaced by more advanced aircraft beginning in the mid-1960s, but a few Yugoslavian F-86Ks soldiered on into the early 1980s. None were ever involved in combat. Today, a handful remain in museums.

 

This F-86D, 51-6261, has sat in front of the Chandler, Arizona city offices for decades. Originally supplied to the USAF in 1952, no record can be found which units it served with. (The 161st Fighter-Interceptor Group of the Arizona ANG did fly Sabre Dogs for a short period of the late 1950s, but these were the later F-86L versions; probably 51-6261 did not fly with the Arizona ANG.) In 1960, after it was retired from service, it was donated to Chandler as a memorial to pilots killed from nearby Williams AFB, and has been there ever since.

 

Once more, Google Maps and the Arizona Gate Guards site directed me to this aircraft, which a friend and I found on a hot day in June 2020. The Arizona sun hasn't been kind to 51-6261, as the markings have badly faded--and weren't accurate to begin with, as "52-10115" was never a USAF tail number. It could use some TLC, but is at a fairly easy to find location.

 

EDIT (2024): 51-6261 has since been moved to Chandler's Veteran Memorial Park, which is a better place for it. I'm not sure if it's had any restoration work done.

Though the US Navy reconsidered its decision to retire the AD Skyraider after the Korean War, it was still a piston-engined attack aircraft designed during World War II, while the Navy preferred going to a modern, all-jet attack/fighter fleet. To supplement and then replace the AD, the Navy issued a requirement for a jet attack fighter weighing no more than 48,000 pounds, capable of carrying tactical nuclear weapons, and with a speed of at least 550 miles an hour. The Navy was not surprised when Douglas’ chief designer, Edward Heinemann, submitted a proposal for a delta-winged, light attack jet—they were surprised to find that it met all of the requirements, yet weighed in at only 23,000 pounds, less than half the required weight. It was also so small that it did not need folding wings to fit on aircraft carrier elevators. Heinemann deliberately omitted as much weight as possible to bring the aircraft in under weight, and subsequently, at a lower unit cost than anticipated. One part of this effort was external structural ribbing for the rudder; this “temporary” solution would be used on every aircraft produced.

 

Heinemann’s design was quickly ordered by the Navy as the A4D Skyhawk. The first A4D-1 flew in June 1952, with deliveries to the fleet beginning in 1956. Pilots used to the increasingly larger and more powerful aircraft the US Navy fielded in the late 1950s, such as the F3H Demon and F4H Phantom II, were surprised at the diminutive A4D, which looked toylike on the decks of Forrestal-class supercarriers. It quickly earned the nicknames “Tinkertoy Bomber,” “Scooter,” and “Heinemann’s Hot Rod.”

 

The Skyhawk—redesignated A-4 in 1962—also quickly gained a reputation for reliability and nimbleness. Despite its small size, it could carry its own weight in bombs and still turn inside anything in the inventory, even the purpose-built F-8 Crusader fighter. For this reason, the Navy began assigning A-4C Skyhawks as “emergency fighter” detachments to Essex-class antisubmarine carriers, as these ships, still equipped with World War II-era hydraulic catapults and limited in deck space, could not carry the more modern F-4. Besides their internal 20mm cannon, A-4s could also carry up to four Sidewinder missiles.

 

It would be in the Vietnam War that the A-4 would prove its worth. Besides its large bombload and superb manuverability, the Skyhawk was also found to be able to take considerable punishment. Several A-4s returned to their carriers missing pieces of rudder or with holes shot through the wings. At the beginning of American involvement, the Navy began replacing the older A-4C “short-nose” models with the improved A-4E, which added a fifth hardpoint and a longer nose with more advanced avionics; this was quickly supplemented by the A-4F, which added a dorsal hump with still more avionics and ECM equipment.

 

Until the A-7 Corsair II began arriving in the fleet in the late 1960s, the A-4 represented the backbone of naval light attack units, operating alongside the A-6 Intruder in striking targets throughout Southeast Asia. On land, A-4s served with Marine Corps units, and proved so reliable and well-liked that the Marines decided not to use the A-7 at all. The Skyhawk also proved itself to be adaptable to other missions: A-4s carried out the US Navy’s first precision strike mission, a 1967 attack on the Hanoi thermal powerplant with AGM-62 Walleye missiles, and also served as Wild Weasel/Iron Hand suppression of enemy air defense aircraft, armed with AGM-45 Shrikes.

 

Though they were slower than the F-4 and F-8, and lacked the A-6’s ability to fly in the worst of inclement weather, the Skyhawk was not defenseless against enemy MiGs: it was the only American aircraft that could turn with a MiG-17 if it was “clean” of bombs, and only one A-4 was lost to enemy aircraft during the Vietnam War. In turn, one A-4, piloted by Lieutenant Commander Ted Schwartz, shot down a MiG-17 with Zuni rockets in 1967. Skyhawks would drop the first and last bombs of US Navy aircraft in the Vietnam War, and flew more sorties than any other naval aircraft—and paid a commensurate price: 362 Skyhawks were shot down or lost in accidents during the war, the most of any one type. Two A-4 pilots won the Medal of Honor during Vietnam, James Stockdale and Michael Estocin, the latter posthumously; longtime prisoner of war Everett Alvarez Jr. was also an A-4 pilot, as was fellow POW and later Presidential candidate, John McCain.

 

The A-4’s story did not end with Vietnam. Recognizing its superb manueverability, the US Navy began building adversary units with Skyhawks simulating the MiG-17 as part of the Top Gun program, beginning in 1969. These stripped down “Mongoose” A-4s proved to be a match even against far more advanced F-14 Tomcats and F-18 Hornets, and A-4s remained in the adversary role until 1998. Alongside these aircraft, the Navy used two-seat TA-4J Skyhawks as advanced trainers until 2003, while Marine units continued to use the penultimate A-4M Skyhawk in the light attack role until after the First Gulf War in 1991; Marine OA-4M “fast FAC” forward air control aircraft flew as late as 1998. The TA-4J was replaced by the T-45 Goshawk; there has never truly been a replacement for the A-4E adversaries and A-4M light attack aircraft, though the AV-8B Harrier supplemented them.

 

While Vietnam was the last war for American Skyhawks, foreign users would put the aircraft to further use. Israel would use their A-4H/Ns in the Yom Kippur War with heavy casualties, due to more advanced Egyptian and Syrian air defenses; better luck was had in the Lebanon War of 1982. Argentina’s A-4B/Qs saw extensive service over the Falklands in 1982, impressing even their British adversaries with hair-raising low-level bomb runs against British ships in San Carlos Water: though the Argentine aircraft took severe punishment from Fleet Air Arm Sea Harriers, they also sank or damaged five ships. Finally, Kuwait used their A-4KU Skyhawks from the beginning of the First Gulf War.

 

Overall, 2960 A-4s were produced and flew with the air arms of eleven nations; Argentina, Israel, Brazil, and Singapore still fly them—Brazil’s A-4s still fly from carriers, while Singapore’s A-4SUs are extensively upgraded with turbofan engines and F-16 radar. Still others survive as government contract aggressor aircraft, or in private hands, while many are preserved in museums.

 

Bureau Number 148571 started off as a A4D-2N in 1961, when it was assigned to VA-172 ("Blue Bolts") aboard the USS Enterprise (CVN-65). It would serve in various other Atlantic Fleet attack squadrons from thence on, mainly with VA-66 ("Waldos") aboard the USS Intrepid (CV-11), USS Forrestal (CV-59), and USS Independence (CV-62). In 1970, it was reassigned to the USMC Reserve, serving in detachments at NAS South Weymouth, Maine and NAS Alameda, California, where it was retired in 1973.

 

148571 was not destined for the scrapyard, though. Flight Systems Inc. needed a high speed chase aircraft as part of a military contract to test the Tomahawk cruise missile and Pershing II medium-range ballistic missile. 148571 was leased to Flight Systems as the first combat aircraft (as opposed to trainers) ever to be used by a civilian company. This paved the way for Flight Systems--later Tracor and today BAE Systems--to operate other fighters, such as the F-100 Super Sabre. Now registered as N401FS, 148571 flew with Flight Systems from 1974 to 1981, when it was retired for good. Later that same year, it was donated to the Pima Air and Space Museum.

 

Today, 148571/N401FS serves as something of a gate guard for Pima, as it sits at the entrance of the parking lot and thus is the first aircraft a visitor gets a close look at. It is kept in immaculate condition--Flight Systems' scheme makes any aircraft look good, and the A-4 is certainly no exception. Since I'm a huge fan of the Skyhawk, being "greeted" by one right in the parking lot of Pima set the tone for a great day.

+++ 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 Douglas A-4 Skyhawk is a single-seat subsonic carrier-capable light 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.

 

Skyhawks played key roles in the Vietnam War, the Yom Kippur War, and the Falklands War. Sixty years after the aircraft's first flight in 1954, some of the 2,960 produced (through February 1979). The Skyhawk found many users all around the world, and some still remain in service with the Argentine Air Force and the Brazilian Naval Aviation. Operators in Asia included Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand.

 

Thailand procured the Skyhawk in 1984, for the Royal Thai Navy air arm to be used for naval and air space surveillance, against sea surface targets and for close air support for the Royal Thai Marine Corps. A total of thirty aircraft were purchased from the USA, twenty-four single seaters and six two-seat TA-4J trainers.

 

The single seaters were refurbished A-4Cs from USN overstock, modernized to a standard that came close to the USN’s A-4L, but with some specific differences and unique features that made them suitable for all-weather strike operations. This modified version was re-designated as A-4LT and featured the late Skyhawk versions’ distinct “Camelback” fairing that house the additional avionics as well as a heat exchanger. The most distinctive external difference to any other Skyhawk version was a unique, pointed radome.

 

The update for Thailand included an AN/APQ-126 terrain following radar in the nose, which was integrated into an ILAAS digital navigation system – a very modern system of its era. The radar also fed a navigation and weapons delivery computer which made possible accurate delivery of bombs from a greater stand-off distance, greatly improving survivability.

Further special equipment for the Thai Skyhawks included, among others, a Hughes AN/ASB-19 Angle Rate Bombing System, a Bendix AN/APN-141 Low altitude radar altimeter, an AN/AVQ-7(V) Head Up display (HUD), air refueling capability (with a fixed but detachable refueling probe), a brake parachute housing below the jet pipe, two additional underwing hardpoints (for a total for five, like the A-4E) and an increased payload. Avionics were modernized and expanded, giving the Thai Skyhawks ability to carry modern AIM-9L Sidewinder AAMs and AGM-65 Maverick AGMs. The latter became, beyond standard iron bombs and pods with unguided missiles, the aircrafts’ main armament against naval targets.

However, despite the modernization of the avionics, the A-4LTs retained the A-4Cs’ Wright J65-W-20 engine with 8,200 lbf (36 kN) of takeoff thrust.

 

The first aircraft were delivered in December 1985 to the Royal Thai Navy (RTN / กองทัพเรือไทย / Kong thap ruea thai), carrying a USN grey/white livery. They served in the No.104 RTN Squadron, distributed among two wings based at U-Tapao near Bangkok and at Songkhla in the south of Thailand, close to the Malaysian border. During regular overhauls (executed at Singapore Aircraft Industries, now ST Aerospace), the RTN Skyhawks soon received a new wraparound camouflage with reduced insignia and markings.

 

While in service, the Thai Skyhawks soon suffered from frequent maintenance issues and a low availability rate, since replacement parts for the reliable yet old J65 engine became more and more difficult to obtain. At times, half of the A-4LT fleet had to remain grounded because of engine problems. In consequence, the Thai Skyhawks were in the mid-Nineties supplemented by fourteen Vought A-7E Corsairs (plus four two-seaters) in the coastal defense, sea patrol and anti-shipping role. In 1999, they were retired and replaced by Royal Thai Air Force F-16s.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: one

Length: 40 ft 3 in (12.29 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-20 turbojet with 8,200 lbf (36 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× 20 mm (0.79 in) Colt Mk. 12 cannons in the wing roots, 100 RPG

Total effective payload of up to 7,700 lb (3,500 kg) on five hardpoints

- 1× Centerline: 3,500 lb capability

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

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

  

The kit and its assembly:

I originally had this project stashed away for the upcoming "1 Week Group Build" at whatifmodelers.com in June 2020, but since the current "In the Navy" GB had some days to go (and even received a two week extension) I decided to tackle this build on short notice.

 

The original idea was simply to build an A-4L, a modernized A-4C for the USN Reserve units, but similar machines had also been exported to Malaysia. For the naval theme I came across the Royal Thai Navy and its A-7E Corsairs - and from that the idea of a Skyhawk predecessor from the Eighties was born.

 

Instead of an A-4C (Fujimi does one in 1:72, but it's a rare kit) I based my build upon the nice Airfix A-4B/Q kit. Its biggest difference is the shorter nose, so that I decided to modify this "flaw" first and added a pointed radome instead of the usual blunt Skyhawk nose; not certain where it came from – it looks very Sea-Harrier-ish, but it’s actually the tip of a large drop tank (Italeri Tornado?). Nevertheless, this small change created a weird look, even more so with the black paint added to it later.

 

Further additions and mods are a dorsal avionics bulge from an Italeri A-4M, a scratched kinked refueling probe (made from wire and white glue, the early Skyhawks had straight probes but this would certainly interfere with the new radar in the nose), a brake parachute fairing under the tail (scratched, too, from sprue material) and additional antennae under the nose and behind the cockpit. Nothing fancy, rather details from more modern Skyhawk versions.

The AGM-65 Maverick missiles and their respective launch rails came from an Italeri Saab 39 Gripen, the drop tank on the ventral pylon is OOB.

  

Painting and markings:

This was a tough decision. The Thai Corsairs as primary (and historically later) benchmark carried a standard USN grey/white high-viz livery, even though with small roundels. There were also VTOL Harriers (former Spanish Matadors) operated for a short period by the Thai navy on board of the multi-purpose carrier HTMS Chakri Naruebet, which wore a darker two-tone grey livery, pretty boring, too. I rather wanted something more exciting (if not exotic), a more modern wraparound scheme, suited for both overwater and high-altitude duties. That brought me to the Thai F-5Ts (a.k.a. Tigris), which carried - among others - a quite unique US export/aggressor scheme in three shades of light grey, including FS 35414, which looked like a pale turquoise on these machines. I furthermore took inspiration by early Indonesian A-4s, which also carried an US export scheme, nicknamed "Grape", which included darker shades of blue, blue-gray and the bright FS 35414, too.

 

I eventually settled upon a compromise between these two liveries and tried to adapt the standard F-5 aggressor camouflage pattern for the A-4, made up from FS 36440 (Light Gull Grey), 35164 (Intermediate Blue) and 35414 (Light Blue). Current Thai L-39 Albatros trainers seem to carry a similar livery, even though I am not certain about the tones that are actually used.

The basic enamel paints I used are Humbrol 129 and 144, and for the greenish Light Blue I used "Fulcrum Grey Green" from Modelmaster (#2134), a tone that is quite greenish but markedly darker and more dull than e.g. Humbrol 65, so that the color would not stand out brightly from the other greys and better fit between them. Worked quite well.

 

The inside of the slats as well as of the air brakes on the flanks were painted in bright red (Humbrol 19), while the landing gear and the interior of the air intake were painted in white (Humbrol 130). The cockpit was painted in a bluish mid grey (Revell 57).

 

After basic overall painting, the model received the usual light black ink washing and some post-panel-shading, for a lightly used/weathered look.

Most decals/markings come from a Thai Harrier (from an Italeri AV-8A kit), some other markings and stencils were puzzled together from the scrap box, e.g. from a USN F-5E aggressor and from a Peruvian Mirage 2000. Some additional details like the black gun soot areas on the wing roots or the fine white lines on the radome were created with generic decal sheet material.

Finally, the kit received an overall coat of matt acrylic varnish, except for the radome, which became semi-gloss.

  

As intended, this build was realized in just a couple of days - and I am positively surprised how good the Skyhawk looks in its unusual, if not exotic colors! This fictional livery certainly looks different from a potential standard USN grey/white outfit, and more exciting than a dull grey-in-grey livery. And it’s so weird that it even adds some credibility to this whiffy aircraft model. 😉

+++ 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 Douglas A-4 Skyhawk is a single-seat subsonic carrier-capable light 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.

 

Skyhawks played key roles in the Vietnam War, the Yom Kippur War, and the Falklands War. Sixty years after the aircraft's first flight in 1954, some of the 2,960 produced (through February 1979). The Skyhawk found many users all around the world, and some still remain in service with the Argentine Air Force and the Brazilian Naval Aviation. Operators in Asia included Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand.

 

Thailand procured the Skyhawk in 1984, for the Royal Thai Navy air arm to be used for naval and air space surveillance, against sea surface targets and for close air support for the Royal Thai Marine Corps. A total of thirty aircraft were purchased from the USA, twenty-four single seaters and six two-seat TA-4J trainers.

 

The single seaters were refurbished A-4Cs from USN overstock, modernized to a standard that came close to the USN’s A-4L, but with some specific differences and unique features that made them suitable for all-weather strike operations. This modified version was re-designated as A-4LT and featured the late Skyhawk versions’ distinct “Camelback” fairing that house the additional avionics as well as a heat exchanger. The most distinctive external difference to any other Skyhawk version was a unique, pointed radome.

 

The update for Thailand included an AN/APQ-126 terrain following radar in the nose, which was integrated into an ILAAS digital navigation system – a very modern system of its era. The radar also fed a navigation and weapons delivery computer which made possible accurate delivery of bombs from a greater stand-off distance, greatly improving survivability.

Further special equipment for the Thai Skyhawks included, among others, a Hughes AN/ASB-19 Angle Rate Bombing System, a Bendix AN/APN-141 Low altitude radar altimeter, an AN/AVQ-7(V) Head Up display (HUD), air refueling capability (with a fixed but detachable refueling probe), a brake parachute housing below the jet pipe, two additional underwing hardpoints (for a total for five, like the A-4E) and an increased payload. Avionics were modernized and expanded, giving the Thai Skyhawks ability to carry modern AIM-9L Sidewinder AAMs and AGM-65 Maverick AGMs. The latter became, beyond standard iron bombs and pods with unguided missiles, the aircrafts’ main armament against naval targets.

However, despite the modernization of the avionics, the A-4LTs retained the A-4Cs’ Wright J65-W-20 engine with 8,200 lbf (36 kN) of takeoff thrust.

 

The first aircraft were delivered in December 1985 to the Royal Thai Navy (RTN / กองทัพเรือไทย / Kong thap ruea thai), carrying a USN grey/white livery. They served in the No.104 RTN Squadron, distributed among two wings based at U-Tapao near Bangkok and at Songkhla in the south of Thailand, close to the Malaysian border. During regular overhauls (executed at Singapore Aircraft Industries, now ST Aerospace), the RTN Skyhawks soon received a new wraparound camouflage with reduced insignia and markings.

 

While in service, the Thai Skyhawks soon suffered from frequent maintenance issues and a low availability rate, since replacement parts for the reliable yet old J65 engine became more and more difficult to obtain. At times, half of the A-4LT fleet had to remain grounded because of engine problems. In consequence, the Thai Skyhawks were in the mid-Nineties supplemented by fourteen Vought A-7E Corsairs (plus four two-seaters) in the coastal defense, sea patrol and anti-shipping role. In 1999, they were retired and replaced by Royal Thai Air Force F-16s.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: one

Length: 40 ft 3 in (12.29 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-20 turbojet with 8,200 lbf (36 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× 20 mm (0.79 in) Colt Mk. 12 cannons in the wing roots, 100 RPG

Total effective payload of up to 7,700 lb (3,500 kg) on five hardpoints

- 1× Centerline: 3,500 lb capability

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

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

  

The kit and its assembly:

I originally had this project stashed away for the upcoming "1 Week Group Build" at whatifmodelers.com in June 2020, but since the current "In the Navy" GB had some days to go (and even received a two week extension) I decided to tackle this build on short notice.

 

The original idea was simply to build an A-4L, a modernized A-4C for the USN Reserve units, but similar machines had also been exported to Malaysia. For the naval theme I came across the Royal Thai Navy and its A-7E Corsairs - and from that the idea of a Skyhawk predecessor from the Eighties was born.

 

Instead of an A-4C (Fujimi does one in 1:72, but it's a rare kit) I based my build upon the nice Airfix A-4B/Q kit. Its biggest difference is the shorter nose, so that I decided to modify this "flaw" first and added a pointed radome instead of the usual blunt Skyhawk nose; not certain where it came from – it looks very Sea-Harrier-ish, but it’s actually the tip of a large drop tank (Italeri Tornado?). Nevertheless, this small change created a weird look, even more so with the black paint added to it later.

 

Further additions and mods are a dorsal avionics bulge from an Italeri A-4M, a scratched kinked refueling probe (made from wire and white glue, the early Skyhawks had straight probes but this would certainly interfere with the new radar in the nose), a brake parachute fairing under the tail (scratched, too, from sprue material) and additional antennae under the nose and behind the cockpit. Nothing fancy, rather details from more modern Skyhawk versions.

The AGM-65 Maverick missiles and their respective launch rails came from an Italeri Saab 39 Gripen, the drop tank on the ventral pylon is OOB.

  

Painting and markings:

This was a tough decision. The Thai Corsairs as primary (and historically later) benchmark carried a standard USN grey/white high-viz livery, even though with small roundels. There were also VTOL Harriers (former Spanish Matadors) operated for a short period by the Thai navy on board of the multi-purpose carrier HTMS Chakri Naruebet, which wore a darker two-tone grey livery, pretty boring, too. I rather wanted something more exciting (if not exotic), a more modern wraparound scheme, suited for both overwater and high-altitude duties. That brought me to the Thai F-5Ts (a.k.a. Tigris), which carried - among others - a quite unique US export/aggressor scheme in three shades of light grey, including FS 35414, which looked like a pale turquoise on these machines. I furthermore took inspiration by early Indonesian A-4s, which also carried an US export scheme, nicknamed "Grape", which included darker shades of blue, blue-gray and the bright FS 35414, too.

 

I eventually settled upon a compromise between these two liveries and tried to adapt the standard F-5 aggressor camouflage pattern for the A-4, made up from FS 36440 (Light Gull Grey), 35164 (Intermediate Blue) and 35414 (Light Blue). Current Thai L-39 Albatros trainers seem to carry a similar livery, even though I am not certain about the tones that are actually used.

The basic enamel paints I used are Humbrol 129 and 144, and for the greenish Light Blue I used "Fulcrum Grey Green" from Modelmaster (#2134), a tone that is quite greenish but markedly darker and more dull than e.g. Humbrol 65, so that the color would not stand out brightly from the other greys and better fit between them. Worked quite well.

 

The inside of the slats as well as of the air brakes on the flanks were painted in bright red (Humbrol 19), while the landing gear and the interior of the air intake were painted in white (Humbrol 130). The cockpit was painted in a bluish mid grey (Revell 57).

 

After basic overall painting, the model received the usual light black ink washing and some post-panel-shading, for a lightly used/weathered look.

Most decals/markings come from a Thai Harrier (from an Italeri AV-8A kit), some other markings and stencils were puzzled together from the scrap box, e.g. from a USN F-5E aggressor and from a Peruvian Mirage 2000. Some additional details like the black gun soot areas on the wing roots or the fine white lines on the radome were created with generic decal sheet material.

Finally, the kit received an overall coat of matt acrylic varnish, except for the radome, which became semi-gloss.

  

As intended, this build was realized in just a couple of days - and I am positively surprised how good the Skyhawk looks in its unusual, if not exotic colors! This fictional livery certainly looks different from a potential standard USN grey/white outfit, and more exciting than a dull grey-in-grey livery. And it’s so weird that it even adds some credibility to this whiffy aircraft model. 😉

+++ 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 Douglas A-4 Skyhawk is a single-seat subsonic carrier-capable light 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.

 

Skyhawks played key roles in the Vietnam War, the Yom Kippur War, and the Falklands War. Sixty years after the aircraft's first flight in 1954, some of the 2,960 produced (through February 1979). The Skyhawk found many users all around the world, and some still remain in service with the Argentine Air Force and the Brazilian Naval Aviation. Operators in Asia included Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand.

 

Thailand procured the Skyhawk in 1984, for the Royal Thai Navy air arm to be used for naval and air space surveillance, against sea surface targets and for close air support for the Royal Thai Marine Corps. A total of thirty aircraft were purchased from the USA, twenty-four single seaters and six two-seat TA-4J trainers.

 

The single seaters were refurbished A-4Cs from USN overstock, modernized to a standard that came close to the USN’s A-4L, but with some specific differences and unique features that made them suitable for all-weather strike operations. This modified version was re-designated as A-4LT and featured the late Skyhawk versions’ distinct “Camelback” fairing that house the additional avionics as well as a heat exchanger. The most distinctive external difference to any other Skyhawk version was a unique, pointed radome.

 

The update for Thailand included an AN/APQ-126 terrain following radar in the nose, which was integrated into an ILAAS digital navigation system – a very modern system of its era. The radar also fed a navigation and weapons delivery computer which made possible accurate delivery of bombs from a greater stand-off distance, greatly improving survivability.

Further special equipment for the Thai Skyhawks included, among others, a Hughes AN/ASB-19 Angle Rate Bombing System, a Bendix AN/APN-141 Low altitude radar altimeter, an AN/AVQ-7(V) Head Up display (HUD), air refueling capability (with a fixed but detachable refueling probe), a brake parachute housing below the jet pipe, two additional underwing hardpoints (for a total for five, like the A-4E) and an increased payload. Avionics were modernized and expanded, giving the Thai Skyhawks ability to carry modern AIM-9L Sidewinder AAMs and AGM-65 Maverick AGMs. The latter became, beyond standard iron bombs and pods with unguided missiles, the aircrafts’ main armament against naval targets.

However, despite the modernization of the avionics, the A-4LTs retained the A-4Cs’ Wright J65-W-20 engine with 8,200 lbf (36 kN) of takeoff thrust.

 

The first aircraft were delivered in December 1985 to the Royal Thai Navy (RTN / กองทัพเรือไทย / Kong thap ruea thai), carrying a USN grey/white livery. They served in the No.104 RTN Squadron, distributed among two wings based at U-Tapao near Bangkok and at Songkhla in the south of Thailand, close to the Malaysian border. During regular overhauls (executed at Singapore Aircraft Industries, now ST Aerospace), the RTN Skyhawks soon received a new wraparound camouflage with reduced insignia and markings.

 

While in service, the Thai Skyhawks soon suffered from frequent maintenance issues and a low availability rate, since replacement parts for the reliable yet old J65 engine became more and more difficult to obtain. At times, half of the A-4LT fleet had to remain grounded because of engine problems. In consequence, the Thai Skyhawks were in the mid-Nineties supplemented by fourteen Vought A-7E Corsairs (plus four two-seaters) in the coastal defense, sea patrol and anti-shipping role. In 1999, they were retired and replaced by Royal Thai Air Force F-16s.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: one

Length: 40 ft 3 in (12.29 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-20 turbojet with 8,200 lbf (36 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× 20 mm (0.79 in) Colt Mk. 12 cannons in the wing roots, 100 RPG

Total effective payload of up to 7,700 lb (3,500 kg) on five hardpoints

- 1× Centerline: 3,500 lb capability

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

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

  

The kit and its assembly:

I originally had this project stashed away for the upcoming "1 Week Group Build" at whatifmodelers.com in June 2020, but since the current "In the Navy" GB had some days to go (and even received a two week extension) I decided to tackle this build on short notice.

 

The original idea was simply to build an A-4L, a modernized A-4C for the USN Reserve units, but similar machines had also been exported to Malaysia. For the naval theme I came across the Royal Thai Navy and its A-7E Corsairs - and from that the idea of a Skyhawk predecessor from the Eighties was born.

 

Instead of an A-4C (Fujimi does one in 1:72, but it's a rare kit) I based my build upon the nice Airfix A-4B/Q kit. Its biggest difference is the shorter nose, so that I decided to modify this "flaw" first and added a pointed radome instead of the usual blunt Skyhawk nose; not certain where it came from – it looks very Sea-Harrier-ish, but it’s actually the tip of a large drop tank (Italeri Tornado?). Nevertheless, this small change created a weird look, even more so with the black paint added to it later.

 

Further additions and mods are a dorsal avionics bulge from an Italeri A-4M, a scratched kinked refueling probe (made from wire and white glue, the early Skyhawks had straight probes but this would certainly interfere with the new radar in the nose), a brake parachute fairing under the tail (scratched, too, from sprue material) and additional antennae under the nose and behind the cockpit. Nothing fancy, rather details from more modern Skyhawk versions.

The AGM-65 Maverick missiles and their respective launch rails came from an Italeri Saab 39 Gripen, the drop tank on the ventral pylon is OOB.

  

Painting and markings:

This was a tough decision. The Thai Corsairs as primary (and historically later) benchmark carried a standard USN grey/white high-viz livery, even though with small roundels. There were also VTOL Harriers (former Spanish Matadors) operated for a short period by the Thai navy on board of the multi-purpose carrier HTMS Chakri Naruebet, which wore a darker two-tone grey livery, pretty boring, too. I rather wanted something more exciting (if not exotic), a more modern wraparound scheme, suited for both overwater and high-altitude duties. That brought me to the Thai F-5Ts (a.k.a. Tigris), which carried - among others - a quite unique US export/aggressor scheme in three shades of light grey, including FS 35414, which looked like a pale turquoise on these machines. I furthermore took inspiration by early Indonesian A-4s, which also carried an US export scheme, nicknamed "Grape", which included darker shades of blue, blue-gray and the bright FS 35414, too.

 

I eventually settled upon a compromise between these two liveries and tried to adapt the standard F-5 aggressor camouflage pattern for the A-4, made up from FS 36440 (Light Gull Grey), 35164 (Intermediate Blue) and 35414 (Light Blue). Current Thai L-39 Albatros trainers seem to carry a similar livery, even though I am not certain about the tones that are actually used.

The basic enamel paints I used are Humbrol 129 and 144, and for the greenish Light Blue I used "Fulcrum Grey Green" from Modelmaster (#2134), a tone that is quite greenish but markedly darker and more dull than e.g. Humbrol 65, so that the color would not stand out brightly from the other greys and better fit between them. Worked quite well.

 

The inside of the slats as well as of the air brakes on the flanks were painted in bright red (Humbrol 19), while the landing gear and the interior of the air intake were painted in white (Humbrol 130). The cockpit was painted in a bluish mid grey (Revell 57).

 

After basic overall painting, the model received the usual light black ink washing and some post-panel-shading, for a lightly used/weathered look.

Most decals/markings come from a Thai Harrier (from an Italeri AV-8A kit), some other markings and stencils were puzzled together from the scrap box, e.g. from a USN F-5E aggressor and from a Peruvian Mirage 2000. Some additional details like the black gun soot areas on the wing roots or the fine white lines on the radome were created with generic decal sheet material.

Finally, the kit received an overall coat of matt acrylic varnish, except for the radome, which became semi-gloss.

  

As intended, this build was realized in just a couple of days - and I am positively surprised how good the Skyhawk looks in its unusual, if not exotic colors! This fictional livery certainly looks different from a potential standard USN grey/white outfit, and more exciting than a dull grey-in-grey livery. And it’s so weird that it even adds some credibility to this whiffy aircraft model. 😉

+++ 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 US Marine Corps' lessons learned from the Korean war included the need for a ground attack aircraft with a better performance than the AU-1 Corsair, as well as a higher effectiveness than the jet fighters of the 50ies era.

 

The AU-1 (re-designated from F4U-6) had been a dedicated U.S. Marines attack variant of the Vought F4U fighter with extra armor to protect the pilot and fuel tank, and the oil coolers relocated inboard to reduce vulnerability to ground fire. The fighter's supercharger had been simplified as the design was intended for low-altitude operation. Extra weapon racks were also fitted.

 

Ready for combat the AU-1 weighed 20% more than a fully loaded F4U-4 and was capable of carrying 8,200 lb of bombs, missiles or drop tanks. The AU-1 had a maximum speed of 238 miles per hour at 9,500 ft, when loaded with 4,600 lb of bombs and a 150-gallon drop-tank. When loaded with eight rockets and two 150-gallon drop-tanks, maximum speed was 298 mph at 19,700 ft. When not carrying external loads, maximum speed was 389 mph at 14,000 ft.

 

First produced in 1952, the AU-1 had been a useful addition. But it had become clear, by the end of the Korean War, that the age of the piston engine fighter plane was more or less over. Based on this insight and several studies based on the experience since WWII, Vought offered the USMC an improved ground attack aircraft on a private venture basis under the internal project handle V-381.

The machine was the result of initial attack aircraft studies and roughly based on the F4U's outlines, and a more conservative alternative to the A2U, a proposed attack derivative of the F7U Cutlass, which never came to fruition.

 

The V-381 study incorporated proven elements like the characteristic inverted gull wing, which allowed a short and sturdy landing gear, but it differed considerably in many other details and its internal structure, due to a different engine. The aircraft was to be powered by a T-56 turboprop engine and would fit into a heavier class than the F4U, rather comparable to the US Navy's AD Skyraider but almost as fast as a jet fighter of its time – yet more reliable and rugged for low level operations in direct range of small caliber weapons.

 

The USMC was immediately interested, while the USN declined the proposal (even though much of the V-381’s insights were re-used in the V-406). Compared with the AU-1, the XA3U featured many detail improvements. One of these distinctive modifications was a new cockpit with a bubble canopy. Thanks to the different internal layout of the aircraft the cockpit could be moved forward by about 3', eliminating the abysmal field of view from the F4U's cockpit on the ground and during deck landings. Another significant change was a cruciform tail. This new arrangement had become necessary in order to avoid damage and turbulences from the hot turboprop efflux - the latter's exhaust was bifurcated and placed in the fuselage flanks, slightly deflected downwards and right at the wings' trailing edge, where the residual thrust from the engine helped during liftoff. The characteristic tail arrangement also became the source of the aircraft's official name, the 'Sea Scorpion'.

 

Armament consisted of four 0.79 in (20 mm) M2 cannon with 250 RPG in the wings, plus a total of fifteen hardpoints under fuselage and wings for a wide range of ordnance and a total weight of 8,000 lb (3,600 kg). The landing gear retracted backwards into the wings, rotating 90°, and the tail wheel with an attached arrester hook was fully retractable, too. The T-56 turboprop with 4.050 hp (2.977 kW) replaced the R-2800 radial and its complex compressor installment, driving a four-blade Hamilton propeller on the XA2U.

 

In June 1954 the first XA3U prototype made its maiden flight. Initial flights tests showed a very good performance at low and medium altitude, but directional stability was rather poor and the fin area had to be enlarged, resulting in the X3AU-1. Another new feature became a reversible six blade propeller of smaller diameter, which would improve reaction time to throttle input. In this guise, the A3U-1 entered series production and USMC service in early 1956, just in time to take the place of the AU-1 which was phased out in 1957.

But, by that time, the technical development had already rendered the A3U at least questionable, if not obsolete, so only a single batch of 45 aircraft was ordered and eventually built. Types like the North American FJ-4 Fury or the Douglas A4D Skyhawk offered a better performance as well as a nuclear strike capability that the A3U lacked, even though the turboprop aircraft was popular because of its ruggedness and good low altitude handling.

With its sophisticated design the A3U served well in its intended shipborne CAS role. In 1958 the machines were upgraded to carry AGM-12 Bullpup missiles, becoming subsequently designated A3U-2. Up to four missiles could be carried under the wings, plus a guidance pod that was carried on one of the outermost wing hardpoints.

 

The A3Us were deployed during several occasions, including Cuba from 1959 to 1960 to protect Americans during the Cuban Revolution, Thailand in May-July 1962 to support the government's struggles against Communists as well as Operation Power Pack in 1965 in Haiti to prevent a second Communist nation on America's doorstep.

 

Anyway, no A3U actually fired in anger, their main task had rather been sabre-rattling and representing the USMC with dramatic weapon loads at low altitude. Since ever more potent aircraft entered the USMC, like the F-4 Phantom II, the Sea Scorpion's career ended already in 1968 – and despite its usefulness in the theatre of operations, the A2U was not deployed to Vietnam.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1 pilot

Length: 33 ft 8 in (10.2 m)

Wingspan: 41 ft 0 in (12.5 m)

Wingspan, folded: 17 ft 0.5 in (5.2 m)

Height: 14 ft 9 in (4.50 m)

Empty weight: 11,968 lb (5,429 kg)

Loaded weight: 18,106 lb (8,213 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 25,000 lb (11,340 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Allison T-56-A-6 turboprop engine, rated at 4.050 hp (2.977 kW)

plus approximately 750 lbs of thrust from the exhaust

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 446 mph (717 km/h) at 26.200 ft (using emergency power)

Stall speed: 89 mph (143 km/h) clean

Range: 1,316 mi (1,144 nmi, 2,115 km) on internal fuel

Service ceiling: 41,500ft (12,649 m)

Rate of climb: 3,870ft/min (19.7 m/s) at sea-level

 

Armament:

4 × 0.79 in (20 mm) M2 cannon with 250 RPG in the wings

15 hardpoints for a total of up to 8,000 lb (3,600 kg) of ordnance, including bombs,

torpedoes, mine dispensers, unguided rockets, and gun pods

  

The kit and its assembly:

Well, this Frankenstein creation was actually spawned by the rather simple idea of a turboprop-powered F4U, following a discussion at whatifmodelers.com concerning my “Turbo Fury” conversion and the potential of T-56 engine nacelles from a C-130 on other aircraft. After three Turbo Furies I still had a final T-56 resin nacelle left in the stash (from OzMods), and eventually tackled this project with the idea of an AU-1 replacement for the USMC in the mid Fifties.

 

Anyway, with such a modernized version in mind, new ideas popped up – e.g. square wing tips. When I found a pair of leftover outer wings from a Matchbox A3D Skyknight (and they matched up well in shape and size, even the wing profile!) things unfolded into something … different.

 

The basis for this project was an Italeri F4U-5 from 1994 (a very nice kit!), even though in the later Revell re-boxing. The Skyknight wings replaced the F4U’s outer wings and added about 1” total wingspan to the kit. In order to compensate for this, I thought about moving the tail fin further back, but eventually implanted a completely new and slightly longer tail section from an A.W. Meteor night fighter (also Matchbox), because it perfectly extends the F4U’s fuselage lines! Consequently, the original tail wheel well had to be closed and moved backwards.

 

Another idea was to move the cockpit forward and lower the rear fuselage, for a more up-to-date bubble canopy. The OOB cockpit from the F4U was kept but placed under a new opening – more or less located where the F4U’s main fuselage tank would have been. The ejection seat is new, too, and the canopy comes from a vintage NOVO Supermarine Attacker. The whole spine was cut away and re-sculpted with putty, as well as the fuselage section around the canopy.

 

For the new resin T-56, the front end of the fuselage was cut away and lots of putty and sculpting created a new transition between the narrower Herc engine with its oval diameter and the round F4U fuselage.

The spinner comes from the OzMod engine set, but the propeller blades were scratched: these once belonged to a vintage Airfix D.H. Mosquito kit. The rather massive, single blades were cut off, their originally round tips squared and then glued onto the resin spinner. A metal axis and a styrene adapter inside of the resin engine were added as adapters, allowing a free spin.

 

Once the fuselage and the wings were mated, the horizontal stabilizers had to be added. The F4U parts could not be used because of their round tips, and they had become just too small for the bigger airframe. Implants had to be used once more, and in this case the stabilizers are the outer wing sections from a heavily rivet-infected 1:100 Breguet Alize from Heller. Odd, but they had just the right shape and chord length for the new position.

 

After these had been fitted, the fin turned out to be too small for the new and overall bigger aircraft. Finding a solution was not easy, and I eventually added a new fin tip, a part from a Revell (FROG) P-39 stabilizer, maybe 30 years old!

 

In order to make the intended CAS role believable a LOT of hardpoints were added, all taken from an old Airfix/Heller A-1E Skyraider. The ordnance is an iron bomb mix, IIRC these come from a Monogram A-10 and a Matchbox A-7D.

 

Anyway, building this monstrosity was massive kitbashing work, and the whole thing evolved rather gradually: What started as a simple engine swap and maybe some cosmetic surgery ended up in multiple body transplants and a bigger aircraft than originally envisaged, kind of a ‘Skyraider 2.0’.

  

Painting and markings:

Nothing truly fancy, rather the standard USN high-viz livery with Light Gull Grey (FS 36440, Modelmaster enamel) upper surfaces and white undersides and rudders. Compared to the USN, the USMC machines would be rather timid and less flamboyant concerning marking colors, so I only added a little red trim to the fin and around the cockpit. The landing gear and the respective wells were kept in white, like the undersides, with bright red trim around the edges, and the cockpit is Zinc Chromate Green.

 

The decals were puzzled together from the scrap box. Since almost and surface details was lost due to the massive bodywork on fuselage and wings, I painted some panel lines with a pencil and emphasized them with lighter, dry-brushed panel shadings. The effect, at least from some distance, turned out much better than expected! Additionally, some wear and dirt was simulated through a light black in wash. Soot stains, esp. around the jet exhausts, were created with grinded graphite, and some dry painting with silver was done on the leading edges. Finally, everything was sealed under a coat of matt acrylic varnish.

  

Well, what was to simply become a turboprop-powered F4U turned into something …different. The A3U looks exotic, but not bad or implausible – the thing reminds me of the offspring between a Ju 87 dive bomber and a Westland Whirlwind fighter, and there’s some Fairey Firefly an Il-2 single-seater lineage to it, too? As a positive aspect, this kitbash model reminds IMHO at first glance only remotely of the F4U that it once was, so I think the whiffing work is quite effective. :D

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

In Autumn 1946, the Saab company began internal studies aimed at developing a replacement aircraft for the Saab B 18/S 18 as Sweden's standard attack aircraft. In 1948, Saab was formally approached by the Swedish Government with a request to investigate the development of a turbojet-powered strike aircraft to replace a series of 1940s vintage attack, reconnaissance, and night-fighter aircraft then in the Flygvapnet’s inventory. On 20 December 1948, a phase one contract for the design and mock-up of the proposed aircraft was issued. The requirements laid out by the Swedish Air Force were demanding: the aircraft had to be able to attack anywhere along Sweden's 2,000 km (1,245 miles) of coastline within one hour of launch from a central location, and it had to be capable of being launched in any weather conditions, at day or night.

 

In response, Saab elected to develop a twin-seat aircraft with a low-mounted swept wing and equipped with advanced electronics. On 3 November 1952, the first prototype, under the handle “Fpl 32” (flygplan = aircraft) conducted its first flight. A small batch of prototypes completed design and evaluation trials with series production of the newly designated Saab 32 Lansen beginning in 1953. The first production A 32A Lansen attack aircraft were delivered to the Swedish Air Force and proceeded through to mid-1958, at which point manufacturing activity switched to the Lansen’s other two major scheduled variants, the J 32B all-weather fighter and the photo reconnaissance S 32C, optimized for maritime operations.

 

The idea behind the J 32 originated from the late 1940s: Even before the SAAB 29 Tunnan had taken to the air, discussions began between SAAB and the Swedish Aviation Administration regarding a future night fighter aircraft with a jet engine. Since the end of the war, the Swedish Air Force had wanted a night fighter aircraft but was forced to put these on the shelf due to cost reasons. In the end, they managed to obtain sixty de Haviland Mosquito night fighter aircraft (then designated J 30) from Great Britain as a low-budget solution, but the J 30 was far from modern at the end of the 1940s and talks with SAAB regarding a domestic alternative continued.

At the beginning of the 1950s, the Fpl 32 project was in full swing and the aircraft was selected as the basis for an indigenous all-weather jet night fighter with a sighting radar and various heavier weapons to be able to shoot down bombers – at the time of the J 32B’s design, the main bomber threat was expected to enter Swedish airspace at subsonic speed and at high altitude. The original idea was that this aircraft would replace the J 30 Mosquito from 1955 onwards, but this proved to be impossible as the J 30 fleet needed to be replaced long before this and the A 32A as initial/main varia of the Fpl 32 had priority. Because of this operational gap, in January 1951 the Swedish Air Force ordered the British de Haviland Venom (then designated J 33) as an interim all-weather fighter and plans for the J 32B were postponed until later with the idea that the Lansen’s fighter variant would replace the J 33 at the end of the 1950s and benefit from technological progress until then.

 

On 7 January 1957, the first J 32B conducted its maiden flight, and it was a considerable step forward from the A 32A attack aircraft – in fact, excepts for the hull, it had only little in common with the attack variant! The new fighter version was powered by a Rolls-Royce Avon Mk 47A (locally designated RM6A) which gave as much thrust without an afterburner as the SAAB A 32A's original RM5A2 did with an afterburner, greatly improving the aircraft’s rate of climb and acceleration, even though the J 32B remained only transonic.

The armament consisted of four heavier fixed 30 mm ADEN m/55 automatic cannon in a slightly re-contoured nose, plus Rb 24/AIM-9B Sidewinder IR-guided AAMs and various unguided rockets against air and ground targets. Instead of the A 32A’s Ericsson mapping and navigation radar, which was compatible with the indigenous Rb 04C anti-ship missile, one of the earliest cruise missiles in western service, the J 32B carried a PS-42/A. This was a search/tracking X-band radar with a gyro-stabilized antenna with a swivel range of 60° to each side and +60°/−30° up/down. The radar featured the option of a 3D display for both WSO and pilot and its data could be directly displayed in the pilot’s Sikte 6A HUD, a very modern solution at the time.

 

A total of 118 aircraft (S/N 32501-32620) were produced between 1958 and 1960, serving in four fighter units. However, the J 32B only served for just under 12 years as a fighter aircraft in the Swedish Air Force: aviation technology progressed very quickly during the 1960s and already in 1966, the J 32B began to be replaced by the J 35F, which itself was already an advanced all-weather interceptor version of the supersonic Draken. In 1969 only the Jämtland's Air Flotilla (F4) still had the J 32B left in service and the type began to be completely retired from frontline service. In 1970 the plane flew in service for the last time and in 1973 the J 32B was officially phased out of the air force, and scrapping began in 1974.

 

However, the J 32Bs’ career was not over yet: At the beginning of the 1970s, Målflygdivisionen (MFD for short, the “Target Air Division”) was still using old J 29Fs as target tugs and for other training purposes, and they needed to be replaced. The choice fell on the much more capable, robust and readily available J 32B. Twenty-four machines were transferred to the MFD in 1971 to be used for training purposes, losing their radar and cannon armament. Six of these six J 32Bs were in 1972 modified into dedicated target tugs under the designation J 32D, six more J 32Bs were left unmodified and allocated to various second-line tasks such as radio testing and ground training.

The other twelve J 32Bs (s/n 32507, -510, -512, -515, -529, -541, -543, -569, -571, -592, -607 and -612) became jamming aircraft through the implementation of ECR equipment under the designation J 32E. This electronics package included internally:

- An INGEBORG signal reconnaissance receiver with antennae in the radome,

covering S, C and L radar frequency bands

- A G24 jamming transmitter, also with its antenna in the radome, covering alternatively

S, C and L frequency bands. This device co-operated with the external ADRIAN jamming pod

- Apparatus 91B; a broadband jammer, later integrated with INGEBORG

- MORE, a jammer and search station for the VHF and UHF bands

- FB-6 tape player/recorder; used, among other things, to send false messages/interference

Additional, external equipment included:

- PETRUS: jamming pod, X-band, also radar warning, intended for jamming aircraft

and active missile radars

- ADRIAN: jamming pod, active on S- and C-band, intended for jamming land-based and

shipboard radars

- BOZ-1, -3, -9 and -100 chaff dispenser pods

 

Outwardly, the J 32E differed from its brethren only through some blade antennae around the hull, and they initially retained the fighters’ blue-green paint scheme and their tactical markings so that they were hard to distinguish from the original fighters. Over time, orange day-glow markings were added to improve visibility during training sessions. However, during the mid-Nineties, three machines received during scheduled overhauls a new all-grey low-visibility camouflage with toned-down markings, and they received the “16M” unit identifier – the only MFD aircraft to carry these openly.

 

When a J 32E crashed in 1975, three of the remaining six training J 32Bs were modified into J 32Es in 1979 to fill the ranks. The MFD kept operating the small J 32Ds and Es fleet well into the Nineties and the special unit survived two flotilla and four defense engagements. At that time, the Målflygdivisionen was part of the Swedish Air Force’s Upplands Flygflottilj (F16), but it was based at Malmen air base near Linköpping (where the Swedish Air Force’s Försökscentralen was located, too) as a detachment unit and therefore the machines received the unit identifier “F16M”, even though the “M” suffix did normally not appear on the aircraft. However, through a defense ministry decision in 1996 the Target Air Division and its associated companies as well as the aircraft workshop at Malmen were to be decommissioned, what meant the end of the whole unit. On June 26, 1997, a ceremony was held over the disbandment of the division, where, among other things, twelve J 32Es made a formation flight over Östergötland.

After the decommissioning of the division, however, the Lansens were still not ‘dead’ yet: the J 32D target tugs were kept operational by a private operator and received civil registrations, and eight flightworthy J 32Es were passed over to FMV:Prov (Provningsavdelningen vid Försvarets materielverk, the material testing department of the Swedish Air Force’s Försökscentralen) to serve on, while other airframes without any more future potential were handed over to museums as exhibition pieces, or eventually scrapped. The surviving J 32Es served on in the electronic aggressor/trainer role until 1999 when they were finally replaced by ten modified Sk 37E Viggen two-seaters, after their development and conversion had taken longer than expected.

 

However, this was still not the end of the Saab 32, which turned out to be even more long-lived: By 2010, at least two Lansens were still operational, having the sole task of taking high altitude air samples for research purposes in collaboration with the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority, and by 2012 a total of three Lansens reportedly remained in active service in Sweden.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 2

Length: 14.94 m (49 ft 0 in)

Wingspan: 13 m (42 ft 8 in)

Height: 4.65 m (15 ft 3 in)

Wing area: 37.4 m² (403 sq ft)

Airfoil: NACA 64A010

Empty weight: 7,500 kg (16,535 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 13,500 kg (29,762 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1× Svenska Flygmotor RM6A afterburning turbojet

(a Rolls Royce Avon Mk.47A outfitted with an indigenous afterburner),

delivering 4,88 kp dry and 6,500 kp with reheat

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 1,200 km/h (750 mph, 650 kn)

Range: 2,000 km (1,200 mi, 1,100 nmi) with internal fuel only

Service ceiling: 15,000 m (49,000 ft)

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

 

Armament:

No internal weapons.

13× external hardpoints (five major pylons and eight more for light weapons)

for a wide variety of up to 3.000 kg of ordnance, typically only used

for ECM and chaff/flare dispenser pods and/or a conformal ventral auxiliary tank

  

The kit and its assembly:

This is a what-if project that I had on my idea list for a long time, but never got the nerve to do it because it is just a mild modification – the model depicts a real aircraft type, just with a fictional livery for it (see below).

The plan to create a J 32E from Heller’s A 32 kit from 1982 predated any OOB option, though. Tarangus has been offering a dedicated J 32B/E kit since 2016, but I stuck to my original plan to convert a Heller fighter bomber which I had in The Stash™, anyway)- also because I find the Tarangus kit prohibitively expensive (for what you get), even though it might have saved some work.

 

The Heller A 32A kit was basically built OOB, even though changing it into a J 32B (and even further into an “E”) called for some major modifications. These could have been scratched, but out of convenience I invested into a dedicated Maestro Models conversion set that offers resin replacements for a modified gun bay (which has more pronounced “cheek fairings” than the attack aircraft, the lower section is similar to the S 32C camera nose), a new jet exhaust and also the Lansen’s unique conformal belly tank – for the cost of a NIB Heller Saab 32 kit alone, though… :-/

Implanting the Maestro Models parts was straightforward and relatively easy. The J 32B gun bay replaces the OOB parts from the Heller kit, fits well and does not require more PSR than the original part. Since the model depicts a gun-less J 32E, I faired the gun ports over.

 

The RM6A exhaust was a bit more challenging – it is a bit longer and wider than the A 32A’s RM5. It’s not much, maybe 1mm in each dimension, so that the tail opening had to be widened and slightly re-contoured to accept the new one-piece resin pipe. The belly tank matched the kit’s ventral contours well. As an extra, the Maestro Models set also offers the J 32B’s different tail skid, which is placed further back on the fighter than on the attack and recce aircraft.

 

The J 32E’s characteristic collection of sizable blade antennae all around the hull was scratched from 0.5 mm styrene sheet. Furthermore, the flaps were lowered, an emergency fuel outlet was added under the tail, the canopy (very clear, but quite thick!) cut into two parts for optional open display, and the air intake walls were extended inside of the fuselage with styrene sheet.

 

Under the wings, four pylons (the Heller kit unfortunately comes totally devoid of any ordnance or even hardpoints!) from the spares box were added that carry scratched BOZ-1 chaff dispensers and a pair of ADRIAN/PETRUS ECM pod dummies – all made from drop tanks, incidentally from Swedish aircraft (Mistercraft Saab 35 and Matchbox Saab 29). Sure, there are short-run aftermarket sets for this special equipment that might come closer to the real thing(s), but I do not think that the (quite considerable) investments in all these exotic aftermarket items are worthwhile when most of them are pretty easy to scratch.

  

Painting and markings:

The paint scheme was the actual reason to build a J 32E: the fundamental plan was to build a Lansen in the Swedish air superiority low-viz two-tone paint scheme from the Nineties, and the IMHO only sensible option beyond pure fantasy was the real J 32E as “canvas”. I used JAS 39 Gripens as reference: their upper tone is called Pansargrå 5431-17M (“Tank Grey”, which is, according to trustworthy sources, very close to FS 36173, U.S. Neutral Grey), while the undersides are painted in Duvagrå 5431-14M (“Dove Grey”; approximately FS 36373, a tone called “High Low Visibility Light Grey”). Surprisingly, other Swedish types in low-viz livery used different shades; the JA 37s and late J 35Js were painted in tones called mörkgrå 033M and grå 032M, even though AJSF 37s and AFAIK a single SK 37 were painted with the Gripen colors, too.

 

After checking a lot of Gripen pictures I selected different tones, though, because the greys appear much lighter in real life, esp. on the lower surfaces. I ended up with FS 36231 (Dark Gull Grey, Humbrol 140, a bit lighter than the Neutral Grey) and RLM 63 (Lichtgrau, Testors 2077, a very pale and cold tone). The aircraft received a low waterline with a blurry edge, and the light grey was raised at the nose up to the radome, as seen on JA 37s and JAS 39s. To make the low-viz Lansen look a little less uniform I painted the lower rear section of the fuselage in Revell 91 and 99, simulating bare metal – a measure that had been done with many Lansens because leaking fuel and oil from the engine bay would wash off any paint in this area, leaving a rather tatty look. Di-electric fairings like the nose radome and the fin tip were painted with a brownish light grey (Revell 75) instead of black, reducing contrast and simulating bare and worn fiber glass. Small details like the white tips of the small wing fences and the underwing pylons were adapted from real-world Lansens.

 

After a light black ink wash, I emphasized single panels with Humbrol 125 and 165 on the upper surfaces and 147 and 196 underneath. Additionally, grinded graphite was used for weathering and a grimy look – an effective method, thanks to the kit’s fine raised panel lines. The silver wing leading edges were created with decal sheet material and not painted, a clean and convenient solution that avoids masking mess.

 

The ECM and chaff dispenser pods were painted in a slightly different shade of grey (FS 36440, Humbrol 40). As a subtle contrast the conformal belly tank was painted with Humbrol 247 (RLM 76), a tone that comes close to the Lansens’ standard camouflage from the Sixties’ green/blue livery, with a darker front end (Humbrol 145) and a bare metal tail section.

 

The cockpit interior was, according to pictures of real aircraft, painted in a greenish grey; I used Revell 67 (RAL 7009, Grüngrau) for most surfaces and slightly darker Humbrol 163 for dashboards and instrument panels. The landing gear wells as well as the flaps’ interior became Aluminum Bronze (Humbrol 56), while the landing gear struts were painted in a bluish dark green (Humbrol 195) with olive drab (Revell 46) wheel hubs - a detail seen on some real-life Saab 32s and a nice contrast to the light grey all around.

 

All markings/decals came from RBD Studio/Moose Republic aftermarket sheets for Saab 32 and 37. From the latter the low-viz national markings and the day-glo orange tactical codes were taken, while most stencils came from the Lansen sheet. Unfortunately, the Heller kit’s OOB sheet is pretty minimalistic – but the real A/S 32s did not carry many markings, anyway. Finally, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish. As a confusing detail I gave the aircraft an explicit “16M” unit identifier, created with single black 4 mm letters/numbers. As a stark contrast and a modern peace-time element I also gave the Lansen the typical huge day-glo orange tactical codes on the upper wings that were carried by the Swedish interceptors of the time.

  

A relatively simple build, thanks to the resin conversion set – otherwise, creating a more or less believable J 32E from Heller’s A 32 kit is a tough challenge. Though expensive, the parts fit and work well, and I’d recommend the set, because the shape of the J 32B’s lower nose is quite complex and scratching the bigger jet pipe needs a proper basis. The modern low-viz livery suits the vintage yet elegant Lansen well, even though it reveals the aircraft’s bulk and size; in all-grey, the Lansen has something shark- or even whale-ish to it? The aircraft/livery combo looks pretty exotic, but not uncredible - like a proven war horse.

The ski area around the town has a network of 25 lifts, capable of moving more than 40,000 people per hour - the highest capacity in Victoria. The highest lifted point is 1780 m at Grimus Chairlift and the base altitude is 1375 m at the Chalet Creek loading station on the Horse Hill chairlift / gondola. The lifts are owned by Groset, a part of the Grollo group of companies.

   

A Mount Buller Post Office opened on 17 February 1958.

 

Before 1984 Mount Buller was serviced by two lift companies that involved the skier needing to purchase two lift tickets to ski the whole mountain. In 1985, the two lift companies merged, allowing skiers to ski the whole mountain with one ticket. Today, Mount Buller is serviced by 24 lifts covering a wide range of terrain. In 1993, with an increasing number of visitors, the ski resort built a new quad chairlift called Wombat Lift on the skiers right of Little Buller spur to relieve the traffic on Federation triple chairlift. 2005 saw the addition of the Emirates quad chairlift to the lift network. A new six-seater chairlift — the Holden Express — was installed over the 2007/08 summer and is operational for 2008. This addition saw the decommissioning of one of the oldest chairs of the mountain — the Abom (previously known as Helicopter), along with Blue Bullet A list of every ski tow to ever operate at Mount Buller can be found at

In response to a US Army requirement for an armored car capable of scouting ahead of mechanized divisions, the White Motor Company offered a four-wheeled design. Though it was not the best design the Army could get, it was the best one they could afford, and White's design was ordered in 1937 as the M3 Scout Car. In service, it would often be known as the White Scout Car.

 

After the initial batch of 75 was completed, the Army ordered an improved version, the M3A1, as part of its pre-Pearl Harbor expansion. This version was longer and wider, and meant for a more dual-purpose role as both scout and infantry carrier, with provision for seven soldiers and three machine guns to support them with. The M3A1 entered service in 1940.

 

In combat, the M3 was a disappointment. It was fast enough on roads, but its offroad capability was poor, it could not defend itself against anything but infantry, and its open-topped design made it miserable in inclement weather, as well as easy to destroy with a well-placed grenade. After the North African campaign came to an end, the Army began withdrawing it from frontline service, turning it into a prime mover, ambulance, and general utility vehicle. Many were provided to other Allies through Lend-Lease, and quite a few remained in service in various roles postwar, albeit with foreign armies.

 

One other useful purpose for the White Scout Car was as a mobile command post, which was what General George S. Patton Jr. utilized it for. Other than additional radios, Patton's White was the basic M3A1. He used the White mainly during the "charge across France" to keep up with the fast-moving Third Army.

 

Dad built a White Scout Car in 1/35 scale to go along with his Tamiya Patton figure, then added in some of Patton's command staff, including Colonel Charles Codman, and Patton's dog, Willie. Dad wanted to redo the interior and the figures, so he removed them, but passed away before he could finish the rebuild.

  

The F-105 Thunderchief, which would become a legend in the history of the Vietnam War, started out very modestly as a proposal for a large, supersonic replacement for the RF-84F Thunderflash tactical reconnaissance fighter in 1951. Later this was expanded by Republic’s famous chief designer, Alexander Kartveli, to a nuclear-capable, high-speed, low-altitude penetration tactical fighter-bomber which could also replace the F-84 Thunderstreak.

 

The USAF liked the idea, as the F-84 had shown itself to be at a disadvantage against Chinese and Soviet-flown MiG-15s over Korea, and ordered 200 of the new design before it was even finalized. This order was reduced to only 37 aircraft with the end of the Korean War, but nonetheless the first YF-105A Thunderchief flew in October 1955. Although it was equipped with an interim J57 engine and had drag problems, it still achieved supersonic speed. When the design was further refined as the YF-105B, with the J75 engine and area ruling, it went over Mach 2. This was in spite of the fact that the design had mushroomed in size from Kartveli’s initial idea to one of the largest and heaviest fighter ever to serve with the USAF: fully loaded, the F-105 was heavier than a B-17 bomber. The USAF ordered 1800 F-105s, though this would be reduced to 830 examples.

 

Almost immediately, the F-105 began to be plagued with problems. Some of the trouble could be traced to the normal teething problems of any new aircraft, but for awhile it seemed the Thunderchief was too hot to handle, with a catastrophically high accident rate. This led to the aircraft getting the nickname of “Thud,” supposedly for the sound it made when hitting the ground, along with other not-so-affectionate monikers such as “Ultra Hog” and “Squat Bomber.” Despite its immense size and bad reputation, however, the F-105 was superb at high speeds, especially at low level, was difficult to stall, and its cockpit was commended for its ergonomic layout. Earlier “narrow-nose” F-105Bs were replaced by wider-nosed, radar-equipped F-105Ds, the mainline version of the Thunderchief, while two-seat F-105Fs were built as conversion trainers.

 

Had it not been for the Vietnam War, however, the F-105 might have gone down in history as simply another mildly successful 1950s era design. Deployed to Vietnam at the beginning of the American involvement there in 1964, the Thunderchief was soon heading to North Vietnam to attack targets there in the opening rounds of Operation Rolling Thunder; this was in spite of the fact that the F-105 was designed primarily as a low-level (and, as its pilots insisted, one-way) tactical nuclear bomber. Instead, F-105s were heading north festooned with conventional bombs.

 

As Rolling Thunder gradually expanded to all of North Vietnam, now-camouflaged Thuds “going Downtown” became iconic, fighting their way through the densest concentration of antiaircraft fire in history, along with SAMs and MiG fighters. The F-105 now gained a reputation for something else: toughness, a Republic hallmark. Nor were they defenseless: unlike the USAF’s primary fighter, the F-4 Phantom II, the F-105 retained an internal 20mm gatling cannon, and MiG-17s which engaged F-105s was far from a foregone conclusion, as 27 MiGs were shot down by F-105s for the loss of about 20. If nothing else, Thud pilots no longer burdened with bombs could simply elect to head home at Mach 2 and two thousand feet, outdistancing any MiG defenders.

 

If the Thud had any weakness, it was its hydraulic system, which was found to be extremely vulnerable to damage. However, it was likely more due to poor tactics and the restrictive Rules of Engagement, which sent F-105s into battle on predictable routes, unable to return fire on SAM sites until missiles were launched at them, and their F-4 escorts hamstrung by being forced to wait until MiGs were on attack runs before the MiGs could be engaged. The tropical climate also took a toll on man and machine, with the end result that 382 F-105s were lost over Vietnam, nearly half of all Thuds ever produced and the highest loss rate of any USAF aircraft.

The combination of a high loss rate and the fact that the F-105 really was not designed to be used in the fashion it was over Vietnam led to the type’s gradual withdrawal after 1968 in favor of more F-4s and a USAF version of the USN’s A-7 Corsair II. An improved all-weather bombing system, Thunderstick II, was given to a few of the F-105D survivors, but this was not used operationally.

 

The Thud soldiered on another decade in Air National Guard and Reserve units until February 1984, when the type was finally retired in favor of the F-16, and its spiritual successor, the A-10 Thunderbolt II.

 

This F-105D, 61-0088, was one of the few Thuds never to see combat over Vietnam. Delivered to the 49th TFW at Spangdahlem, West Germany, it served with USAFE until 1967, when it was transferred to McConnell AFB, Kansas to train new F-105 pilots heading to Southeast Asia. With the drawdown of the Thud force, it was transferred to the Air Force Reserve in 1972, and was among the last F-105s to be retired by the USAF in 1982. It was donated to Grissom AFB for display in their airpark a year later.

 

61-0088 sits here looking rather brand-new; it was recently repainted. It carries standard USAF Southeast Asia camouflage, and currently lacks both a tailcode and tail numbers. Previously, this aircraft carried an erroneous "IN" tailcode, but the Indiana ANG never flew F-105s. The yellow ring around the nose usually indicates a Thud assigned to PACAF units, so more than likely 61-0088 will get a Vietnam-assigned wing code. Though the F-105 always looks a little naked without bombs, this aircraft is remarkably well preserved.

+++ 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 Douglas A-4 Skyhawk is a single-seat subsonic carrier-capable light 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.

 

Skyhawks played key roles in the Vietnam War, the Yom Kippur War, and the Falklands War. Sixty years after the aircraft's first flight in 1954, some of the 2,960 produced (through February 1979). The Skyhawk found many users all around the world, and some still remain in service with the Argentine Air Force and the Brazilian Naval Aviation. Operators in Asia included Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand.

 

Thailand procured the Skyhawk in 1984, for the Royal Thai Navy air arm to be used for naval and air space surveillance, against sea surface targets and for close air support for the Royal Thai Marine Corps. A total of thirty aircraft were purchased from the USA, twenty-four single seaters and six two-seat TA-4J trainers.

 

The single seaters were refurbished A-4Cs from USN overstock, modernized to a standard that came close to the USN’s A-4L, but with some specific differences and unique features that made them suitable for all-weather strike operations. This modified version was re-designated as A-4LT and featured the late Skyhawk versions’ distinct “Camelback” fairing that house the additional avionics as well as a heat exchanger. The most distinctive external difference to any other Skyhawk version was a unique, pointed radome.

 

The update for Thailand included an AN/APQ-126 terrain following radar in the nose, which was integrated into an ILAAS digital navigation system – a very modern system of its era. The radar also fed a navigation and weapons delivery computer which made possible accurate delivery of bombs from a greater stand-off distance, greatly improving survivability.

Further special equipment for the Thai Skyhawks included, among others, a Hughes AN/ASB-19 Angle Rate Bombing System, a Bendix AN/APN-141 Low altitude radar altimeter, an AN/AVQ-7(V) Head Up display (HUD), air refueling capability (with a fixed but detachable refueling probe), a brake parachute housing below the jet pipe, two additional underwing hardpoints (for a total for five, like the A-4E) and an increased payload. Avionics were modernized and expanded, giving the Thai Skyhawks ability to carry modern AIM-9L Sidewinder AAMs and AGM-65 Maverick AGMs. The latter became, beyond standard iron bombs and pods with unguided missiles, the aircrafts’ main armament against naval targets.

However, despite the modernization of the avionics, the A-4LTs retained the A-4Cs’ Wright J65-W-20 engine with 8,200 lbf (36 kN) of takeoff thrust.

 

The first aircraft were delivered in December 1985 to the Royal Thai Navy (RTN / กองทัพเรือไทย / Kong thap ruea thai), carrying a USN grey/white livery. They served in the No.104 RTN Squadron, distributed among two wings based at U-Tapao near Bangkok and at Songkhla in the south of Thailand, close to the Malaysian border. During regular overhauls (executed at Singapore Aircraft Industries, now ST Aerospace), the RTN Skyhawks soon received a new wraparound camouflage with reduced insignia and markings.

 

While in service, the Thai Skyhawks soon suffered from frequent maintenance issues and a low availability rate, since replacement parts for the reliable yet old J65 engine became more and more difficult to obtain. At times, half of the A-4LT fleet had to remain grounded because of engine problems. In consequence, the Thai Skyhawks were in the mid-Nineties supplemented by fourteen Vought A-7E Corsairs (plus four two-seaters) in the coastal defense, sea patrol and anti-shipping role. In 1999, they were retired and replaced by Royal Thai Air Force F-16s.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: one

Length: 40 ft 3 in (12.29 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-20 turbojet with 8,200 lbf (36 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× 20 mm (0.79 in) Colt Mk. 12 cannons in the wing roots, 100 RPG

Total effective payload of up to 7,700 lb (3,500 kg) on five hardpoints

- 1× Centerline: 3,500 lb capability

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

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

  

The kit and its assembly:

I originally had this project stashed away for the upcoming "1 Week Group Build" at whatifmodelers.com in June 2020, but since the current "In the Navy" GB had some days to go (and even received a two week extension) I decided to tackle this build on short notice.

 

The original idea was simply to build an A-4L, a modernized A-4C for the USN Reserve units, but similar machines had also been exported to Malaysia. For the naval theme I came across the Royal Thai Navy and its A-7E Corsairs - and from that the idea of a Skyhawk predecessor from the Eighties was born.

 

Instead of an A-4C (Fujimi does one in 1:72, but it's a rare kit) I based my build upon the nice Airfix A-4B/Q kit. Its biggest difference is the shorter nose, so that I decided to modify this "flaw" first and added a pointed radome instead of the usual blunt Skyhawk nose; not certain where it came from – it looks very Sea-Harrier-ish, but it’s actually the tip of a large drop tank (Italeri Tornado?). Nevertheless, this small change created a weird look, even more so with the black paint added to it later.

 

Further additions and mods are a dorsal avionics bulge from an Italeri A-4M, a scratched kinked refueling probe (made from wire and white glue, the early Skyhawks had straight probes but this would certainly interfere with the new radar in the nose), a brake parachute fairing under the tail (scratched, too, from sprue material) and additional antennae under the nose and behind the cockpit. Nothing fancy, rather details from more modern Skyhawk versions.

The AGM-65 Maverick missiles and their respective launch rails came from an Italeri Saab 39 Gripen, the drop tank on the ventral pylon is OOB.

  

Painting and markings:

This was a tough decision. The Thai Corsairs as primary (and historically later) benchmark carried a standard USN grey/white high-viz livery, even though with small roundels. There were also VTOL Harriers (former Spanish Matadors) operated for a short period by the Thai navy on board of the multi-purpose carrier HTMS Chakri Naruebet, which wore a darker two-tone grey livery, pretty boring, too. I rather wanted something more exciting (if not exotic), a more modern wraparound scheme, suited for both overwater and high-altitude duties. That brought me to the Thai F-5Ts (a.k.a. Tigris), which carried - among others - a quite unique US export/aggressor scheme in three shades of light grey, including FS 35414, which looked like a pale turquoise on these machines. I furthermore took inspiration by early Indonesian A-4s, which also carried an US export scheme, nicknamed "Grape", which included darker shades of blue, blue-gray and the bright FS 35414, too.

 

I eventually settled upon a compromise between these two liveries and tried to adapt the standard F-5 aggressor camouflage pattern for the A-4, made up from FS 36440 (Light Gull Grey), 35164 (Intermediate Blue) and 35414 (Light Blue). Current Thai L-39 Albatros trainers seem to carry a similar livery, even though I am not certain about the tones that are actually used.

The basic enamel paints I used are Humbrol 129 and 144, and for the greenish Light Blue I used "Fulcrum Grey Green" from Modelmaster (#2134), a tone that is quite greenish but markedly darker and more dull than e.g. Humbrol 65, so that the color would not stand out brightly from the other greys and better fit between them. Worked quite well.

 

The inside of the slats as well as of the air brakes on the flanks were painted in bright red (Humbrol 19), while the landing gear and the interior of the air intake were painted in white (Humbrol 130). The cockpit was painted in a bluish mid grey (Revell 57).

 

After basic overall painting, the model received the usual light black ink washing and some post-panel-shading, for a lightly used/weathered look.

Most decals/markings come from a Thai Harrier (from an Italeri AV-8A kit), some other markings and stencils were puzzled together from the scrap box, e.g. from a USN F-5E aggressor and from a Peruvian Mirage 2000. Some additional details like the black gun soot areas on the wing roots or the fine white lines on the radome were created with generic decal sheet material.

Finally, the kit received an overall coat of matt acrylic varnish, except for the radome, which became semi-gloss.

  

As intended, this build was realized in just a couple of days - and I am positively surprised how good the Skyhawk looks in its unusual, if not exotic colors! This fictional livery certainly looks different from a potential standard USN grey/white outfit, and more exciting than a dull grey-in-grey livery. And it’s so weird that it even adds some credibility to this whiffy aircraft model. 😉

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

 

Some background:

Following the end of the Second World War, Poland was politically dominated by the neighboring Soviet Union; as a consequence, the Polish aviation industry underwent vast changes at the behest of the Soviets. While the nation's design offices had been liquidated, some former members had joined Poland's Aviation Institute (IL) and performed some limited work on various original projects, even though such efforts were initially officially discouraged. As such, it was at IL that the effort to design would become the first jet aircraft to be developed in Poland originated; however, during the late 1950s, responsibility for the design work on the program was transferred to aircraft manufacturer PZL-Mielec at an early stage in order that IL could resume its primary mission of scientific and technological research. Much of the design work on the program was produced in response to the specified needs of a requirement issued by the Polish Air Force for a capable jet-propelled trainer aircraft, which was seeking a replacement for the piston-engine PZL TS-8 Bies at the time.

 

Polish government officials came to openly regard the project as being of considerable importance to the nation's aviation industry, thus vigorous efforts were made to support the development of the TS-11. The main designer was Polish aeronautical engineer Tadeusz Sołtyk; his initials was the source for part of the type's official designation TS-11. Early on, it was decided to adopt a foreign-sourced turbojet engine to power the aircraft. Quickly, the British Armstrong Siddeley Viper had emerged as the company's favored option; however, reportedly, negotiations for its acquisition eventually broken down; accordingly, work on the project was delayed until a suitable domestically-built powerplant had reached an advanced stage of development.

 

On 5 February 1960, the first prototype conducted its maiden flight, powered by an imported Viper 8 engine, capable of producing up to 7.80 kN (1,750 lbf) of thrust. On 11 September 1960, the aircraft's existence was publicly revealed during an aerial display held over Lodz. The next pair of prototypes, which performed their first flights during March and July 1961 respectively, were instead powered by a Polish copy of the Viper engine, designated as the WSK HO-10. The flight test program that the three prototypes were subjected to had both demonstrated the capabilities of the new aircraft and its suitability for satisfying the Polish Air Force's stated requirements for a trainer jet; as such, it was soon accepted by the Polish Air Force.

 

During 1963, the first production model of the type, designated as the TS-11 Iskra (Spark) bis A, commenced delivery to the service. From about 1966, new-build aircraft were furnished with a newer Polish-designed turbojet engine, designated as the WSK SO-1, which was capable of producing up to 9.80 kN (2,200 lbf) of thrust and reportedly gave the TS-11 a top speed of 497 mph. From 1969 onwards, the improved WSK SO-3 engine became available, offering considerably longer times between overhauls; this engine was later improved into the WSK SO-3W, which was able to generate 10.80 kN (2,425 lbf) of thrust.

 

During the 1960s, the Iskra competed to be selected as the standard jet trainer for the Warsaw Pact, the Soviet Union had given Poland a promise to support its aviation industry and to favor the procurement of suitable aircraft for this purpose from Polish manufacturers. However, the Iskra was not selected for this role, it had lost out to the Czechoslovak Aero L-29 “Delfín”, another newly-designed jet-propelled trainer aircraft. Largely as a result of this decision, Poland became the only Warsaw Pact member to adopt the Iskra while most others adopting the rival Delfin instead, and foreign sales to other countries were highly limited.

 

During 1975, an initial batch of 50 Iskra bis D trainer aircraft were exported to India, and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited acquired license production rights for the aircraft, which became domestically known as the HAL HJT-18 "Dawon". Beyond the basic trainer variant Dawon T.1, India also adapted projected versions of the TS-11 that had never gone into production in Poland, e. g. the Iskra BR 200, locally known as the Dawon GR.2.

 

This variant was a single-seated light attack and reconnaissance aircraft, which used the two-seater airframe but had the rear cockpit faired over. In order to expand the type's performance and ordnance, HAL improved the original design and mounted a more powerful Rolls Royce Viper turbojet with an increased airflow. Wingtip tanks were added, improving range and loiter time, and the cockpit received kevlar armor against small caliber arms for low altitude operations. Instead of the trainer version's optional single 23mm cannon in the nose section the additional space through the empty instructor's seat was used for a pair of 30mm Aden cannon in the lower fuselage flanks and its ammunition, as well as for additional navigation and communication avionics.

 

The Indian Air Force procured 64 of these light aircraft from 1978 onwards, which partly replaced the outdated HAL HF-24 "Marut" fleet. These machines even saw hot combat action in 1984, when India launched Operation Meghdoot to capture the Siachen Glacier in the contested Kashmir region.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: One

Length: 11.15 m (36 ft 7 in)

Wingspan (incl. tip tanks): 11.01 m (36 ft 1 in)

Height: 3.50 m (11 ft 5½ in)

Wing area: 17.5 m² (188 ft²)

Empty weight: 2,760 kg (6,080 lb)

Loaded weight: 4,234 kg (9,325 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 4,540 kg (10,000 lb)

Powerplant:

1 × Rolls-Royce Viper turbojet, rated at 12.2 kN (2,700 lbf)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 760 km/h (419 knots, 472 mph) at 5,000 m (16,400 ft)

Cruise speed: 600 km/h (324 knots, 373 mph)

Stall speed: 140 km/h (92 knots, 106 mph) (power off, flaps down)

Range: 1,500 km (828 nmi, 931 mi)

Service ceiling: 12,000 m (39,300 ft)

Rate of climb: 16.8 m/s (3,300 ft/min)

 

Armament:

2x 30 mm Aden cannon with 120 RPG in the lower nose

4 underwing pylons, up to 1.200 kg (2.640 lb) of bombs, unguided rocket pods or gun packs

  

The kit and its assembly:

I have already butchered several of these former Intech kits from Poland, but never built one as an Iskra. Since the kit comes with optional parts to build the planned Iskra 200 BR single-seater, I gave the kit a try - and had the idea to create an "Indian Tiger" of it, as a part of a bigger plan for a future build project (see below).

 

Building the Mistercraft TS-11 is not a pleasant experience, though. The kit comes cheap, and that's what you get. While it comes with some nice features like an engine dummy, two optional canopies and ordnance loads, the whole thing tends to be crude. There's flash, gaps, a surface finish that partly looks as if the molds had been sand-blasted, mediocre if not poor fit, and the clear parts do not deserve this description – they are utterly streaky. You can certainly make something out of it with lots of effort, but it's IMHO not a good basis for an ambitious build.

 

The biggest issue I had were the parts for the single seat cockpit. There are no locator pins, and when you manage to put the canopy onto the fuselage there remains a considerable hole in the spine where the two-seater canopy would be attached. As a result, lots of PSR was necessary around the optional parts. I also scratched a rear bulkhead for the cockpit (which normally would remain empty and “open”) and added some equipment/boxes behind the pilot's seat. Messy affair.

 

Even though I’d have loved to replace the main wheels (the OOB parts had sinkholes and poorly molded details) I stuck with them because of the complicated cover arrangement, trying to cover the worst flaws under other parts. The jet exhaust was replaced, too, since I saved the engine dummy for the spares box.

 

On the wing tips, the tips were slightly trimmed and I added tanks from an 1:144 Tornado (Dragon) - a small detail that lets the Iskra appear a bit beafier than it actually is. For the same reason I omitted the single cannon in the nose with its characteristic bump, and replaced it with two guns: leftover parts from KP MiG-19 kits, plus a pair of differently shaped, smaller fairings alongside the lower flanks.

 

The ordnance comes from the scrap box, since I wanted a little more muscle than the OOB options. I went for a pair of unguided missile launchers (from a Kangnam Yak-38) and a pair of Soviet iron bombs (KP Su-25).

  

Painting and markings:

Well, the real motivation behind this build is that I used this kit as a proof-of-concept test for a planned build of the Indian Air Force's famous MiG-21 "C 992" of No. 1 Squadron that bore a striking tiger stripe scheme – but, unfortunately, there's no conclusive color picture of the aircraft, and painting suggestions remain contradictive, if not speculative. Some profiles show the aircraft with a grey of silver fuselage underside, while some have the tiger stripes wrapped around the fuselage, or not. Some have the upper camouflage wrapped around the whole fuselage, so that only the wings’ undersides remain in a light color. Some sources also claim that no darker, basic tone had been applied at all to the upper sides, and that the stripes had been directly painted on the bare aluminum surface of the Fishbed.

The worst, color-wise thing I found for this specific aircraft were in the painting instructions of the Fujimi kit: opaque FS 34227 as basic color seems to be totally off to me... But you also find suggestions of a yellowish sand tone, mid-stone, even some greenish slate grey, whatever. Fascinating subject!

 

From what I learned about the aircraft from various sources, the scheme looks like a kind of translucent/thin layer of olive drab/greenish earth or khaki tone over bare metal on all upper surfaces and wrapped around the fuselage – very light, if there was any paint at all. Alternatively, the bare metal must have been very weathered and dull, since pictures of C992 reveal no metallic shine at all.

 

On top of that, the tiger stripes (most probably in black, but there are suggestions of dark brown or green, too…) were applied manually, apparently by at least three painters who were probably working at the same time on different sections of the Indian Fishbed. Since I have the build of this aircraft on my agenda, some day, and a plan to re-create the special paint finish, this Iskra single seater was used as a test bed.

 

External painting started with an overall coat of acrylic aluminum (Revell 99), with some panels on the wings in grey (a protective lacquer, frequently applied on real-life Iskras). Then came a coat of highly thinned FS 34087 (Olive Drab) from Modelmaster, mixed with a little of Humbrol 72 (Khaki Drill) and applied with a soft, flat brush, leaving out areas where later the decals would be placed.

 

Once dry, the camouflaged areas received a wet sanding treatment, so that the edges would become bare metal again, and, here and there, the impression of flaked/worn paint was created.

 

Next came the tiger stripes. I somewhat wanted to create the three-different-painters look of C992, and so I not only used three different brushes for this task, I also used three different shades of black (acrylic “Flat Black”, "Tar Black" and “Anthracite” from Revell). Again, once dry, light sanding created a flaked/worn look.

 

The wings' undersides were left in aluminum, as well as the fuselage. This differs from the C992 benchmark, but I found the Iskra’s low stance to be more conclusive with an all NMF underside.

 

Cockpit and landing gear interior became medium grey (FS 36231). In a wake of Soviet-ism I painted the wheel discs in bright green, as a small color contrast to the otherwise rather murky aircraft.

 

The markings are a mix of IAF roundels for an early MiG-21 from a Begemot sheet, while the tactical code was taken from the Mistercraft OOB sheet. The yellow 10 Squadron badge was created with PC software and printed on white decal sheet – another, nice color highlight.

  

It looks harmless, but building the Mistercraft Iskra was a real PITA - now I know why I formerly only butchered this kit for donor parts... However, with the little modifications I made and some different ordnance the light aircraft sells its "attack/recce" role well, and the tiger livery looks pretty unique and ...Indian. And, once more, the beauty pics reveal that this paint scheme, while looking primarily decorative, is actually quite effective over typical northern Indian landscapes. C 992 can come! :D

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

In Autumn 1946, the Saab company began internal studies aimed at developing a replacement aircraft for the Saab B 18/S 18 as Sweden's standard attack aircraft. In 1948, Saab was formally approached by the Swedish Government with a request to investigate the development of a turbojet-powered strike aircraft to replace a series of 1940s vintage attack, reconnaissance, and night-fighter aircraft then in the Flygvapnet’s inventory. On 20 December 1948, a phase one contract for the design and mock-up of the proposed aircraft was issued. The requirements laid out by the Swedish Air Force were demanding: the aircraft had to be able to attack anywhere along Sweden's 2,000 km (1,245 miles) of coastline within one hour of launch from a central location, and it had to be capable of being launched in any weather conditions, at day or night.

 

In response, Saab elected to develop a twin-seat aircraft with a low-mounted swept wing and equipped with advanced electronics. On 3 November 1952, the first prototype, under the handle “Fpl 32” (flygplan = aircraft) conducted its first flight. A small batch of prototypes completed design and evaluation trials with series production of the newly designated Saab 32 Lansen beginning in 1953. The first production A 32A Lansen attack aircraft were delivered to the Swedish Air Force and proceeded through to mid-1958, at which point manufacturing activity switched to the Lansen’s other two major scheduled variants, the J 32B all-weather fighter and the photo reconnaissance S 32C, optimized for maritime operations.

 

The idea behind the J 32 originated from the late 1940s: Even before the SAAB 29 Tunnan had taken to the air, discussions began between SAAB and the Swedish Aviation Administration regarding a future night fighter aircraft with a jet engine. Since the end of the war, the Swedish Air Force had wanted a night fighter aircraft but was forced to put these on the shelf due to cost reasons. In the end, they managed to obtain sixty de Haviland Mosquito night fighter aircraft (then designated J 30) from Great Britain as a low-budget solution, but the J 30 was far from modern at the end of the 1940s and talks with SAAB regarding a domestic alternative continued.

At the beginning of the 1950s, the Fpl 32 project was in full swing and the aircraft was selected as the basis for an indigenous all-weather jet night fighter with a sighting radar and various heavier weapons to be able to shoot down bombers – at the time of the J 32B’s design, the main bomber threat was expected to enter Swedish airspace at subsonic speed and at high altitude. The original idea was that this aircraft would replace the J 30 Mosquito from 1955 onwards, but this proved to be impossible as the J 30 fleet needed to be replaced long before this and the A 32A as initial/main varia of the Fpl 32 had priority. Because of this operational gap, in January 1951 the Swedish Air Force ordered the British de Haviland Venom (then designated J 33) as an interim all-weather fighter and plans for the J 32B were postponed until later with the idea that the Lansen’s fighter variant would replace the J 33 at the end of the 1950s and benefit from technological progress until then.

 

On 7 January 1957, the first J 32B conducted its maiden flight, and it was a considerable step forward from the A 32A attack aircraft – in fact, excepts for the hull, it had only little in common with the attack variant! The new fighter version was powered by a Rolls-Royce Avon Mk 47A (locally designated RM6A) which gave as much thrust without an afterburner as the SAAB A 32A's original RM5A2 did with an afterburner, greatly improving the aircraft’s rate of climb and acceleration, even though the J 32B remained only transonic.

The armament consisted of four heavier fixed 30 mm ADEN m/55 automatic cannon in a slightly re-contoured nose, plus Rb 24/AIM-9B Sidewinder IR-guided AAMs and various unguided rockets against air and ground targets. Instead of the A 32A’s Ericsson mapping and navigation radar, which was compatible with the indigenous Rb 04C anti-ship missile, one of the earliest cruise missiles in western service, the J 32B carried a PS-42/A. This was a search/tracking X-band radar with a gyro-stabilized antenna with a swivel range of 60° to each side and +60°/−30° up/down. The radar featured the option of a 3D display for both WSO and pilot and its data could be directly displayed in the pilot’s Sikte 6A HUD, a very modern solution at the time.

 

A total of 118 aircraft (S/N 32501-32620) were produced between 1958 and 1960, serving in four fighter units. However, the J 32B only served for just under 12 years as a fighter aircraft in the Swedish Air Force: aviation technology progressed very quickly during the 1960s and already in 1966, the J 32B began to be replaced by the J 35F, which itself was already an advanced all-weather interceptor version of the supersonic Draken. In 1969 only the Jämtland's Air Flotilla (F4) still had the J 32B left in service and the type began to be completely retired from frontline service. In 1970 the plane flew in service for the last time and in 1973 the J 32B was officially phased out of the air force, and scrapping began in 1974.

 

However, the J 32Bs’ career was not over yet: At the beginning of the 1970s, Målflygdivisionen (MFD for short, the “Target Air Division”) was still using old J 29Fs as target tugs and for other training purposes, and they needed to be replaced. The choice fell on the much more capable, robust and readily available J 32B. Twenty-four machines were transferred to the MFD in 1971 to be used for training purposes, losing their radar and cannon armament. Six of these six J 32Bs were in 1972 modified into dedicated target tugs under the designation J 32D, six more J 32Bs were left unmodified and allocated to various second-line tasks such as radio testing and ground training.

The other twelve J 32Bs (s/n 32507, -510, -512, -515, -529, -541, -543, -569, -571, -592, -607 and -612) became jamming aircraft through the implementation of ECR equipment under the designation J 32E. This electronics package included internally:

- An INGEBORG signal reconnaissance receiver with antennae in the radome,

covering S, C and L radar frequency bands

- A G24 jamming transmitter, also with its antenna in the radome, covering alternatively

S, C and L frequency bands. This device co-operated with the external ADRIAN jamming pod

- Apparatus 91B; a broadband jammer, later integrated with INGEBORG

- MORE, a jammer and search station for the VHF and UHF bands

- FB-6 tape player/recorder; used, among other things, to send false messages/interference

Additional, external equipment included:

- PETRUS: jamming pod, X-band, also radar warning, intended for jamming aircraft

and active missile radars

- ADRIAN: jamming pod, active on S- and C-band, intended for jamming land-based and

shipboard radars

- BOZ-1, -3, -9 and -100 chaff dispenser pods

 

Outwardly, the J 32E differed from its brethren only through some blade antennae around the hull, and they initially retained the fighters’ blue-green paint scheme and their tactical markings so that they were hard to distinguish from the original fighters. Over time, orange day-glow markings were added to improve visibility during training sessions. However, during the mid-Nineties, three machines received during scheduled overhauls a new all-grey low-visibility camouflage with toned-down markings, and they received the “16M” unit identifier – the only MFD aircraft to carry these openly.

 

When a J 32E crashed in 1975, three of the remaining six training J 32Bs were modified into J 32Es in 1979 to fill the ranks. The MFD kept operating the small J 32Ds and Es fleet well into the Nineties and the special unit survived two flotilla and four defense engagements. At that time, the Målflygdivisionen was part of the Swedish Air Force’s Upplands Flygflottilj (F16), but it was based at Malmen air base near Linköpping (where the Swedish Air Force’s Försökscentralen was located, too) as a detachment unit and therefore the machines received the unit identifier “F16M”, even though the “M” suffix did normally not appear on the aircraft. However, through a defense ministry decision in 1996 the Target Air Division and its associated companies as well as the aircraft workshop at Malmen were to be decommissioned, what meant the end of the whole unit. On June 26, 1997, a ceremony was held over the disbandment of the division, where, among other things, twelve J 32Es made a formation flight over Östergötland.

After the decommissioning of the division, however, the Lansens were still not ‘dead’ yet: the J 32D target tugs were kept operational by a private operator and received civil registrations, and eight flightworthy J 32Es were passed over to FMV:Prov (Provningsavdelningen vid Försvarets materielverk, the material testing department of the Swedish Air Force’s Försökscentralen) to serve on, while other airframes without any more future potential were handed over to museums as exhibition pieces, or eventually scrapped. The surviving J 32Es served on in the electronic aggressor/trainer role until 1999 when they were finally replaced by ten modified Sk 37E Viggen two-seaters, after their development and conversion had taken longer than expected.

 

However, this was still not the end of the Saab 32, which turned out to be even more long-lived: By 2010, at least two Lansens were still operational, having the sole task of taking high altitude air samples for research purposes in collaboration with the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority, and by 2012 a total of three Lansens reportedly remained in active service in Sweden.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 2

Length: 14.94 m (49 ft 0 in)

Wingspan: 13 m (42 ft 8 in)

Height: 4.65 m (15 ft 3 in)

Wing area: 37.4 m² (403 sq ft)

Airfoil: NACA 64A010

Empty weight: 7,500 kg (16,535 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 13,500 kg (29,762 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1× Svenska Flygmotor RM6A afterburning turbojet

(a Rolls Royce Avon Mk.47A outfitted with an indigenous afterburner),

delivering 4,88 kp dry and 6,500 kp with reheat

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 1,200 km/h (750 mph, 650 kn)

Range: 2,000 km (1,200 mi, 1,100 nmi) with internal fuel only

Service ceiling: 15,000 m (49,000 ft)

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

 

Armament:

No internal weapons.

13× external hardpoints (five major pylons and eight more for light weapons)

for a wide variety of up to 3.000 kg of ordnance, typically only used

for ECM and chaff/flare dispenser pods and/or a conformal ventral auxiliary tank

  

The kit and its assembly:

This is a what-if project that I had on my idea list for a long time, but never got the nerve to do it because it is just a mild modification – the model depicts a real aircraft type, just with a fictional livery for it (see below).

The plan to create a J 32E from Heller’s A 32 kit from 1982 predated any OOB option, though. Tarangus has been offering a dedicated J 32B/E kit since 2016, but I stuck to my original plan to convert a Heller fighter bomber which I had in The Stash™, anyway)- also because I find the Tarangus kit prohibitively expensive (for what you get), even though it might have saved some work.

 

The Heller A 32A kit was basically built OOB, even though changing it into a J 32B (and even further into an “E”) called for some major modifications. These could have been scratched, but out of convenience I invested into a dedicated Maestro Models conversion set that offers resin replacements for a modified gun bay (which has more pronounced “cheek fairings” than the attack aircraft, the lower section is similar to the S 32C camera nose), a new jet exhaust and also the Lansen’s unique conformal belly tank – for the cost of a NIB Heller Saab 32 kit alone, though… :-/

Implanting the Maestro Models parts was straightforward and relatively easy. The J 32B gun bay replaces the OOB parts from the Heller kit, fits well and does not require more PSR than the original part. Since the model depicts a gun-less J 32E, I faired the gun ports over.

 

The RM6A exhaust was a bit more challenging – it is a bit longer and wider than the A 32A’s RM5. It’s not much, maybe 1mm in each dimension, so that the tail opening had to be widened and slightly re-contoured to accept the new one-piece resin pipe. The belly tank matched the kit’s ventral contours well. As an extra, the Maestro Models set also offers the J 32B’s different tail skid, which is placed further back on the fighter than on the attack and recce aircraft.

 

The J 32E’s characteristic collection of sizable blade antennae all around the hull was scratched from 0.5 mm styrene sheet. Furthermore, the flaps were lowered, an emergency fuel outlet was added under the tail, the canopy (very clear, but quite thick!) cut into two parts for optional open display, and the air intake walls were extended inside of the fuselage with styrene sheet.

 

Under the wings, four pylons (the Heller kit unfortunately comes totally devoid of any ordnance or even hardpoints!) from the spares box were added that carry scratched BOZ-1 chaff dispensers and a pair of ADRIAN/PETRUS ECM pod dummies – all made from drop tanks, incidentally from Swedish aircraft (Mistercraft Saab 35 and Matchbox Saab 29). Sure, there are short-run aftermarket sets for this special equipment that might come closer to the real thing(s), but I do not think that the (quite considerable) investments in all these exotic aftermarket items are worthwhile when most of them are pretty easy to scratch.

  

Painting and markings:

The paint scheme was the actual reason to build a J 32E: the fundamental plan was to build a Lansen in the Swedish air superiority low-viz two-tone paint scheme from the Nineties, and the IMHO only sensible option beyond pure fantasy was the real J 32E as “canvas”. I used JAS 39 Gripens as reference: their upper tone is called Pansargrå 5431-17M (“Tank Grey”, which is, according to trustworthy sources, very close to FS 36173, U.S. Neutral Grey), while the undersides are painted in Duvagrå 5431-14M (“Dove Grey”; approximately FS 36373, a tone called “High Low Visibility Light Grey”). Surprisingly, other Swedish types in low-viz livery used different shades; the JA 37s and late J 35Js were painted in tones called mörkgrå 033M and grå 032M, even though AJSF 37s and AFAIK a single SK 37 were painted with the Gripen colors, too.

 

After checking a lot of Gripen pictures I selected different tones, though, because the greys appear much lighter in real life, esp. on the lower surfaces. I ended up with FS 36231 (Dark Gull Grey, Humbrol 140, a bit lighter than the Neutral Grey) and RLM 63 (Lichtgrau, Testors 2077, a very pale and cold tone). The aircraft received a low waterline with a blurry edge, and the light grey was raised at the nose up to the radome, as seen on JA 37s and JAS 39s. To make the low-viz Lansen look a little less uniform I painted the lower rear section of the fuselage in Revell 91 and 99, simulating bare metal – a measure that had been done with many Lansens because leaking fuel and oil from the engine bay would wash off any paint in this area, leaving a rather tatty look. Di-electric fairings like the nose radome and the fin tip were painted with a brownish light grey (Revell 75) instead of black, reducing contrast and simulating bare and worn fiber glass. Small details like the white tips of the small wing fences and the underwing pylons were adapted from real-world Lansens.

 

After a light black ink wash, I emphasized single panels with Humbrol 125 and 165 on the upper surfaces and 147 and 196 underneath. Additionally, grinded graphite was used for weathering and a grimy look – an effective method, thanks to the kit’s fine raised panel lines. The silver wing leading edges were created with decal sheet material and not painted, a clean and convenient solution that avoids masking mess.

 

The ECM and chaff dispenser pods were painted in a slightly different shade of grey (FS 36440, Humbrol 40). As a subtle contrast the conformal belly tank was painted with Humbrol 247 (RLM 76), a tone that comes close to the Lansens’ standard camouflage from the Sixties’ green/blue livery, with a darker front end (Humbrol 145) and a bare metal tail section.

 

The cockpit interior was, according to pictures of real aircraft, painted in a greenish grey; I used Revell 67 (RAL 7009, Grüngrau) for most surfaces and slightly darker Humbrol 163 for dashboards and instrument panels. The landing gear wells as well as the flaps’ interior became Aluminum Bronze (Humbrol 56), while the landing gear struts were painted in a bluish dark green (Humbrol 195) with olive drab (Revell 46) wheel hubs - a detail seen on some real-life Saab 32s and a nice contrast to the light grey all around.

 

All markings/decals came from RBD Studio/Moose Republic aftermarket sheets for Saab 32 and 37. From the latter the low-viz national markings and the day-glo orange tactical codes were taken, while most stencils came from the Lansen sheet. Unfortunately, the Heller kit’s OOB sheet is pretty minimalistic – but the real A/S 32s did not carry many markings, anyway. Finally, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish. As a confusing detail I gave the aircraft an explicit “16M” unit identifier, created with single black 4 mm letters/numbers. As a stark contrast and a modern peace-time element I also gave the Lansen the typical huge day-glo orange tactical codes on the upper wings that were carried by the Swedish interceptors of the time.

  

A relatively simple build, thanks to the resin conversion set – otherwise, creating a more or less believable J 32E from Heller’s A 32 kit is a tough challenge. Though expensive, the parts fit and work well, and I’d recommend the set, because the shape of the J 32B’s lower nose is quite complex and scratching the bigger jet pipe needs a proper basis. The modern low-viz livery suits the vintage yet elegant Lansen well, even though it reveals the aircraft’s bulk and size; in all-grey, the Lansen has something shark- or even whale-ish to it? The aircraft/livery combo looks pretty exotic, but not uncredible - like a proven war horse.

The collaborative Nottingham H.O.U.S.E (Home Optimising the Use of Solar Energy) project between Saint-Gobain and the University of Nottingham has travelled an incredible journey. As main sponsor Saint-Gobain assisted the group of Architecture and Engineering students to detail and specify their vision of a viable starter home for the UK market, which not only met the 2016 ‘zero carbon’ challenge but also met the needs of a couple moving in to their first home that was capable of supporting a growing family.

 

Saint-Gobain helped review and detail the specification, using products and solutions from the breadth and depth of the Saint-Gobain product range.

The display reads:

 

ADA in Vietnam – M42 Duster

 

Combat experience in the Korea War quickly showed that while the M19 40mm Gun Motor Carriage was a capable platform, it needed improvement. By 1952, a new anti-aircraft tank was in development, designated the T141. The new vehicle used the same turret and gun mount from the M19, but mated it with the larger, more powerful M41 Walker Bulldog light tank hull. The resulting vehicle was standardized as the M42 40mm Gun Motor Carriage by 1952 and entered full production that year.

 

However, with the service entry of the Nike Ajax system in 1953, the Army was focused on missile systems and with the introduction of the Hawk missile in the late 1950s, the M42 was quickly passed to National Guard units and all but removed from the active inventory by 1963.

 

Just two years later, US forces entered combat in South Vietnam. Two Hawk missile battalions were deployed to provide air defense around Saigon and along the DMZ, but an additional system was needed to cover potential low-altitude threats. In addition to the air defense requirement, the Army also needed a vehicle that could provide heavy firepower for both convoy escort and firebase defense. The M42 was back in demand and by the beginning of 1966, three battalions were formed for service in Vietnam.

 

Those three units, 1st Battalion, 44th Artillery; 4th Battalion, 60th Artillery; and 5th Battalion, 2nd Artillery arrived in-theater by mid-year and immediately had a significant impact on operations in their respective areas of operation. Each “Duster” battalion had a quad .50 battery and searchlight battery attached, forming an air defense task force that could respond to both air and ground threats, day or night.

 

On 20 June 1968, Air Defense and Field Artillery split the Artillery branch and the Duster, Quad, Searchlight and Hawk units were then designated ADA rather than “Artillery,” with the parenthetical Automatic Weapons, Searchlight or Guided Missile designation.

 

The story of Army Air Defense in Vietnam provides a fascinating contrast to the operations and equipment of the rest of the branch during the 1960s and early 1970s. While Army Air Defense of the day was focused on the strategic threat of a Soviet nuclear strike and were using the latest technology to deter that threat, the three ADA Duster battalions effectively used weapon systems from the “last war” to provide low altitude air defense and on-call direct fire support to infantry and artillery units across the entirety of South Vietnam from 1966 through 1972.

 

M42 Duster Specifications:

 

Weight: 50,000 lbs fully loaded

Height: 9 feet 4 inches

Length: 19 feet

Width: 10 feet 7 inches

Crew: Commander, driver, two loaders, two gunners

Armament: Two M2A1 40mm automatic anti-aircraft guns with 240 rounds per gun; 1-2 7.62 M60 Machine Guns with 1,750 rounds

Main Armament Rate of Fire: 120 rounds per minute, per gun

Engine: Continental AOS-895-3 6-cylinder opposed gasoline engine

Range: 100 miles

Speed 45 mph

 

The museum’s Duster served with the 1-44th Artillery in 1968.

 

The Duster occasionally towed the M332 ammunition trailer, which doubled the Duster’s ammunition capacity. However, it would be a liability in combat and would normally be removed before the Duster would be used in the convoy escort role.

 

Most Dusters in Vietnam carried some form of artwork. Usually the crew would name both the front hatch and the gun shield above the main armament.

 

Sergeant Mitchell W. Stout was born in Lenoir City, Tennessee on 24 February, 1950. He enlisted in the Army on 15 August 1967 and served his first tour in Vietnam as a rifleman with the 2nd Battalion, 47th Infantry Regiment in the Mekong Delta from August 1968 to August 1969. After completing his first tour, SGT Stout rotated back to the US, but returned to South Vietnam just five months later as a M42 Duster crewman.

 

Three months into his second tour, SGT Stout was commanding an M42 Duster at the Khe Gio bridge along Route 9, a strategic east-west route that was the supply lifeline to friendly outposts in western I Corps.

 

SGT Mitchell Stout

C/1-44th Artillery (Automatic Weapons), Khe Gio Bridge

 

The U.S. Army outpost at Khe Gio Bridge on Highway 9 near the DMZ was overrun by North Vietnamese troops on 12 March 1970. Fourteen Americans held the outpost along with a platoon of ARVN Infantry. Two M42 Dusters from C Battery 1-44th Artillery gave the small force a significant amount of firepower to protect the bridge, while an M151A1 searchlight jeep from G Battery, 29th Artillery provided nighttime battlefield illumination. Of those fourteen Americans, two were killed in action, five wounded and one was captured. Yet they fought valiantly and protected the bridge on Route 9, sparing it from destruction. Sergeant Mitchell Stout’s actions during the battle would earn him a posthumous Medal of Honor:

 

Citation:

 

Sgt. Stout distinguished himself during an attack by a North Vietnamese Army Sapper company on his unit's firing position at Khe Gio Bridge. Sgt. Stout was in a bunker with members of a searchlight crew when the position came under heavy enemy mortar fire and ground attack. When the intensity of the mortar attack subsided, an enemy grenade was thrown into the bunker. Displaying great courage, Sgt. Stout ran to the grenade, picked it up, and started out of the bunker. As he reached the door, the grenade exploded. By holding the grenade close to his body and shielding its blast, he protected his fellow soldiers in the bunker from further injury or death. Sgt. Stout's conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action, at the cost of his own life, are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon him, his unit and the U.S. Army.

 

Taken December 13th, 2013.

At the beginning of the Vietnam War, there was little interest in a dedicated counterinsurgency (COIN) aircraft. The USAF was too committed to an all-jet, nuclear-capable force, while the US Army was satisfied with its helicopter fleet; the Navy concentrated on its carriers, and while the Marines were mildly interested, they lacked funding.

 

Vietnam was to change that. Horrendous losses among US Army UH-1s was to lead to a rethinking of helicopter doctrine, and pointed up the lack of a dedicated COIN aircraft. The USAF found itself depending on World War II-era A-26K Invaders, former US Navy A-1 Skyraiders, and converted trainers like the T-28 Trojan. The USAF also found itself in the market for a better forward air control (FAC) aircraft, due to the high loss rate of its O-1 Birddogs and O-2 Skymasters. Finally, the US Navy needed something to better cover its Mobile River Force units in the Mekong Delta, which could not always depend on USAF air support. In 1963, all three services issued a requirement for a new light design capable of performing as both a COIN and FAC aircraft. North American's NA-300 was selected in 1964 and designated OV-10A Bronco.

 

The OV-10 design drew heavily on independent research done at the China Lake research establishment, which in turn was inspired by the World War II P-38 Lightning fighter. The P-38 used a central "gondola" fuselage to concentrate all of its firepower along the centerline, which made for better accuracy; the OV-10 would do the same. As in the P-38, the engines were contained in twin booms that stretched back to the tail. The Bronco's four machine gun armament was placed in sponsons on either side of the fuselage, while ordnance was carried beneath the sponsons. To satisfy the USAF's requirements for a FAC aircraft, the two-man crew flew underneath a large, spacious canopy that gave them superb visibility. Because the Marines wanted an aircraft that could carry a Recon team, the fuselage was extended and, if the rear seat was removed, five paratroopers could be squeezed into the back, or two stretchers.

 

When the OV-10 arrived in Vietnam in 1968, there was a fear that the Bronco would be the jack of all trades and master of none. In fact, it proved to be excellent in all of its roles. As a FAC, it was a huge improvement over the slower O-1 and O-2; as a COIN aircraft, it was also a good aircraft, though it could not carry the same amount of ordnance as an A-1. The Navy equipped one squadron with OV-10As as VAL-4--nicknamed the "Black Ponies" for their dark green camouflage--and these were used extensively over the Mekong Delta. There were problems with the design: the airframe was actually too heavy for the engines, which left it underpowered, and ditching was invariably fatal for the pilot, as his seat tended to hurl forward into the instrument panel. Nonetheless, the Bronco turned in a sterling performance in Southeast Asia.

 

Though the Navy transferred its surviving Black Ponies to the Marines after the end of American involvement in Vietnam, the USAF and Marines would keep theirs for the next 20 years. For the 1970s and 1980s, the OV-10 replaced all other FAC designs in USAF service, aside from a handful of OA-37B Dragonfly squadrons. The Marines also kept their OV-10s and further refined the design by adding all-weather capability in the long-nosed OV-10D variant.

 

By the First Gulf War in 1991, the OV-10 was starting to show its age. The USAF began retiring its fleet even before Desert Storm; the Bronco was considered to be too slow to survive a modern air defense environment. Though the Marines used some of their OV-10Ds, the loss of two aircraft also led the USMC to retire their Broncos after war's end. Both services chose jets as replacements--the USAF with modified OA-10A Thunderbolt IIs, and the Marines with two-seat all-weather F/A-18Ds.

 

OV-10s were also a mild export success, going to seven other countries, mainly in the COIN role. Most have since been retired in favor of newer designs, though the Philippines still has a large and active OV-10 force. The type enjoyed a brief renaissance in 2015 when two former Marine OV-10Ds were taken up by the USAF for use against ISIS forces in Iraq, to see if the design was still viable. Though the OV-10s performed well, the USAF is not likely to put it back into production. 360 were built, and at least 25 are on display in museums aside from the aircraft that are still operational.

 

68-3787, shown here, is a Vietnam War veteran; it served with the 20th Tactical Air Support Squadron at Da Nang, South Vietnam, between 1970 and 1972. These aircraft used the callsign "Nail," alongside O-2 "Covey" FACs and nighttime "Sleepytime" FACs. I'm not sure where it went after Vietnam, but there's a good chance it served with the 601st Tactical Air Support Wing at Sembach, West Germany--in which case, this might not be the first time I've seen this aircraft! It was retired in 1991 and donated to the National Museum of the USAF.

 

Though 1980s-era OV-10s were camouflaged in "Europe Two" green and gray, 68-3787 was restored to the overall light gray used by Broncos over Vietnam. It is displayed with four LAU-3 rocket launchers (loaded with smoke and white phosphorus rockets to mark targets, though these could be used against enemy personnel in emergencies) and an external drop tank.

 

Since I grew up with OV-10s when my dad was at Sembach, it was a treat to see one of them again.

The Lockheed C-130 Hercules was originally desinged as an assault transport capable of operating from unpaved,hastily prepared airstrips.On August 23,1953,the Lockheed C-130 Hercules made its first flight.By 1976 more than 1,200 Lockheed C-130 Hercules had been ordered,including aircraft equipped for radar weather mapping and reconnasissance,mid-air space capsule recovery,search and rescue,ambulance service,drone launching,and mid-air refuling of helicopters.The Lockheed C-130 Hercules could transport up to 92 combat troops and their gerar or 45,000 pounds of cargo.Where facilities were inadequte,the Lockheed C-130 Hercules could deliver its cargo by parachute or by low altitude ground-cable extraction without landing.

 

Twenty-eight Lockheed C-130 Hercules were converted to side-firing gunships,primarily for night attacks against ground targets.This Lockheed AC-130A Hercules was modified at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,Ohio,as the prototype for the gunship version and was initially equipped with 20 milimeter cannons and 7.62 milimeter miniguns milti barrel guns,a searchlight and target sensors.After testing in Southeast Asia in 1967,it was used as a test bed for additional armament,sensor and fire control development.Later AC-130 Hercules gunships mounted improved sensors,a digital fire control computer and heavier armament.

 

Lockheed AC-130

--------------------------

With the success of the Douglas AC-47D Skytrain "Spooky" or "Puff the Magic Dragon" and "Puff" gunships in Southeast Asia,the U.S.Air Force created two modification programs for improved and larger gunships.The Fairchild AC-119G Flying Boxcar "Shadows" and Fairchild AC-119K Flying Boxcar "Stingers"were developed under the Gunship III program and the Lockheed AC-130A Hercules was developed under the Gunship II program.

 

Compared to the Douglas AC-47D Skytrain "Spooky" or "Puff the Magic Dragon" and "Puff",the Lockheed AC-130A Hercules "spectre" gunship were equipped with more bigger guns--four MXU-470 7.62 milimeter miniguns and four M-61A1 20 milimeter cannons.Gunship II program was also equipped with a more sophisticated avions suite including the Night Observition Divice,Forward Looking InfraRed,side looking radar,beacon tracking radar and a fire control computer system.The Locckheed AC-130A Hercules was also equipped with a 20 kilowatt (1.5 million candlepower) illumnution and a flare launcher.

 

On Febuary 26,1967,the first aircraft (Lockheed JC-130A Hercules S/N 54-1626) was selected for conversion into the prototype Lockheed AC-130 Hercules gunship.The modification were done in April 1967 and May 1967 at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,Ohio,by the Aeronaultical Systems Division.Flight testing of the prototype was done primarly at Eglin Air Force Base ,Florida,and began on June 6,1967.Testing and addition modifications were done throughout the sumer of 1967.By early September,the aircraft Lockheed AC-130A Hercules was certifed ready for combat testing.The Lockheed AC-130A Hercules prototype was flown to Nha Trang Air Base,South Vietnam arriving on September 21,1967,for a 90-day test program.

 

Combat test and Evaluation

-------------------------------------

The prototype Lockheed AC-130A Hercules Gunship II program (initial designated Gunboat) was modified at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,Ohio,in the spring of 1967.Initial flight was done during the summer of 1967,primarly at Eglin Air Force Base,Florida.The aircraft Lockheed AC-130A Hercules was flown to South Vietnam for follow-on-flight tsting under combat conditions.

 

The Lockheed AC-130A Hercules arrived at Nha Trang Air Base,South Vietnam on September 21,1967.The initial test of the Gunship II program involved Close Aip Support in the southern region of South Vietnam in the Mekong River Delta area.Close Air Support was a critical mission since suppot of Troops in Contact always took precedence over gunship missions.The next of test evaluated the aircrat's Lockheed AC-130A Hercules interdiction capabilities primarily against enemy trucks operating on the Ho Chi Minh Trail in the Tiger Hound (southeast quadrant of the panhandle) area of Laos.The final phase of test program involved flying armed reconnasissance missions in central highlands of South Vietnam (2nd Army Corps area).Actual combat sorties were flown between September 24,1967 and December 1,1967.

 

The result of combat test program were very encourging.The Gunship II program was particularly good at interdiction of enemy supply vehicles.Of the 94 vehicles sighted,38 vehicles were destroyed (verified direct hits and secondary explosions or sustained fire).During the combat evaluation,the Lockheed AC-130A Hercules fired more than 85,000 rounds of 20 milimeter cannon ammunition and more than 220,000 rounds of 7.62 milimeter miniguns ammunition While the combat test program was successful,there were some serios promblems indentified which would require fixing before the "production" Lockheed AC-130A Hercules modification program could begin.

 

After the prototype Lockheed AC-130A Hercules completed its initial combat evalution in early December 1967,problems inentifed during the test program were evaluated and integrated into an upgrade and overhaul plane expected to take until midsumer 1968.However,because of the success of first combat test,General William C.Westmoreland,Commander of the United States Military Assistance Command,Vietnam,requested the Lockheed AC-130A Hercules be returned to Vietnam as soon as possible,so it could be used before the start of the "wet "season Monsoon in late spring 1968.General William W.Momyer,Commander of the 7th Air Force,dircted the Lockheed AC-130A Hercules overhaul include only essential fixes and the gunship be returned to Vietnam by the begining of spring 1968.The overhaul was completed in early Febyary 1968 and the aircraft Lockheed AC-130A Hercules arrived back in Southeast Asia on Febuary 12,1968.During the second combat test,the Gunship II program was based at Ubon Royal Thai Air Force Base,Thailand,a forward operating location of the 14th Air Commando Wing based at Nha Trang Air Base,South Vietnam (location of the first combat test).

 

The Lockheed AC-130A Hercules prototype conducted the second combat evaluation between Febuary 27,1968 and May 14,1968.Fourty-three combat missions were flown over Laos,primarily in the "Steel Tiger" area of the panhandle.Eight hundred 74 enemy vehicles were sighted--212 vehicles were destroyed and 107 damaged.The Lockheed AC-130A Hercules also destroyed 37 milimeter antiaircraft artillery (AAA) site and damaged four more 37 milimeter antiaircraft artillery (AAA) sites.

 

Because of some early problems with the gunship's fire control system and often heavy antiaricraft artillery (AAA),the Lockheed AC-130A Hercules teamed up with Cessna O-2 Skymaster "Covey" forward air controllers and Lockheed C-130 Hercules "Blindbat" flare ships.The Lockheed C-130 Hercules "Blindbat" was very effective detecting targets using its star light scope;however,it flew a preditable search pattern altiudes (right hand circular or race track at 8,000 feet - 11,000 feet altitude).Enemy gunners were quickly to realize if they heard or saw the unarmed Lockheed C-130 Hercules "Blindbat" orbiting their position,an attack styrike imminet and to hold fire waiting on the strike aircraft.The Lockheed AC-130A Hercules was highly vulnerable in this situation,so if a Lockheed C-130 Hercules "Blindbat" spotted a target,it would relay the information to the Lockheed AC-130 Hercules gunship to achieve some amount of surprise when attacking defended ground targets,although most cases,the Lockheed AC-130A Hercules simply avoided areas known to contain heavy enemy antiaircaft artillery (AAA).

 

The Lockheed AC-130A Hercules worked well using the Cessna O-2 Skymaster "Covey" as a seeker aircraft.In general,the Cessna O-2 Skymaster "Covey" would fly slightly higher and inside the gunship's orbit.When an enemy antiaircraft artillery (AAA) position was spotted,the Cessna O-2 Skymaster "Covey" marked the gun and called for a "fast mover' to attack it while the Lockheed AC-130A Hercules moved off to search for truck traffic in areas within little or no antiaircraft artillery (AAA) gun positions.

 

The overhaul conclusion of the second test program was the Lockheed AC-130A Hercules would be extremely effective in intericting supply lines if the antiaircraft artillery (AAA) defense were neutralized.Note: Because of the bombing halt in place during the spring of 1968,three Cessna O-2 Skymaster "Coveys",one Lockheed C-130 Hercules "Blindbat",and three McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom IIs based at Ubon Royal Thai Air Force Base,Thailand were shot down over Laos (May 1968)--the enemy used the time to set-up many antiaircraft artillery (AAA) sites along the Ho Chi Minh Trail routes through southern Laos.

 

Following the second combat evaluation,all major aircraft systems and components were critiqued based on combat performance,ease of maintenance and reliablity.The illuminator system was broken throughout the test period and was eventually romoved from the aircraft Lockheed AC-130A Hercules.Problems with the sysem included lack of spar parts,poor repair manuals and contamination of the water cooling system.The LAU-74 semiautomatic flare launcher installed beside the illuminator on the aft ramp worked well througghout the tests.When the fire control computer was 'down',the pilot sometimes resorted to Douglas AC-47d Skytrain "Spooky' or "Puff the Magic Dragon"and "Puff" style tactics --drop flares to light the target and manually site the gun and "walk" the tracer path to the target.The fire control radar (DPN-34) was broken much of the time and required extensive maintenance between flights.The evaluation team recommanded an entire new system be used on all further Lockheed AC-130 Hercules gunship conversions.The infrared tracking system was unable,but required a very exerienced operator to continuously track a ground target with the aircraft Lockheed AC-130A Hercules in attack mode (30 degree left bank.The guns all performed well and only minor jamming problems (fixable inflight by the gunners) were reported.The fire control system performed well in direct fire operation (no offset computations)but was drone to problems otherwise.The fire control computer was subject to in-flight failure but working well when it was functional.The Night Observation Device worked well and was among the most reliable pieces of equipment on the Gunship II program Lockheed AC-130A Hercules prototype.The navigation equipment worked well and most problems were associated with the Lockheed AC-130A Hercules attack tactics.For Example,the search radar had a limited range of 30 miles and tended to have roll stabilzation problems druning sustained bank flight.

 

The typical Lockheed AC-130a Hercules attack profile was flown at 5,000 feet above ground level (AGL) for armer reconnaissance missions and interdirction missions.If moderate or heavy antiaircraft artillery (AAA) fire encountered the aircraft would attack from 6,500 feet or 8,000 feet above ground level (AGL)(in most cases,the Gunship II program would depart areas with hevey antiaircraft artillery (AAA) without attacking).For close air support of Troop In Contact (TIC) the aircraft Lockheed AC-130A hercules would fly as low as 3,500 feet above ground level (AGL) to improve gun accuracy.The standard speed was 145 knots.The aircraft Lockheed AC-130A Hercules while in a 30 degree left bank and guns were depressed 20 degrees (down).This combined with an approximate 10 degrees ballistic arc caused the round to impact the target area at approximatley 60 degrees (from horizontal).This high angle of incidence produced good results even when penetrating the jungle canopy.The 20 milimeter "Vulcan" cannon were primary weapons used and a 2-second burst (75-100 rounds) from a single 20 milimeter cannon was usually sufficient to destroy an enemy truck.When firing on a group of vehicles located close to one another,two 20 milimeter cannons were fired simultaneously.The only time all eight guns (four 20 milimeter cannons and 7.62 milimeter miniguns)were fired together when attacking an enemy antiaircraft artillery (AAA) site.When the Gunship II program encounted an antiaircraft artillery (AAA) site didn't attack it (this was usually the case),a flare,timed to ignite when it hit the ground,was sometimes dropped on the site to mark it (and be avoided by the Gunship and any forward air controller (FAC) aircraft in the area).

 

The final recommendation of evaluation team included the need for an upgrade fire control system which could minmize the time over target,reliable maintain lock,and store multiple target locations.The need for larger caliber guns to deal; with antiaircraft artillery (AAA0 sites and armored vehicles was also included in the report.The evaluation team suggested a 25 milimeter cannon;however,follow-on gunships included 40 milimeter cannons and some were equipped with a 105 milimeter howitzer!

 

M-102 105 MM Canon

------------------------------

Designed for easy transport by helicopter or light vehicles,the M-102 105 milimeter cannon first saw service in Southeast Asia with the U.S.Army in 1966.The M-102's light weight made it well-suited for use on Lockheed AC-130A Hercules gunships.One of the side-firing 40 milimeter guns on the Lockheed AC-130A Hercules was replaced with the modifed M-102 105 milimeter cannon to increase the firepower.

 

Other Lockheed AC-130A Hercules gunships,however,used the powerful M-102 105 milimeter cannon effectively against enemy targets.

The MOL Northern Juvenile, capable of carrying 8,800 twenty-foot equivalent units, set a record today as the largest container ship to ever call on Jacksonville. The ship, which transited the Suez Canal from Asia before reaching the U.S. east coast, loaded and offloaded cargo at JAXPORT’s TraPac Container Terminal at Dames Point.

More than 1 million containers move through Jacksonville's public and private marine terminals annually. Jacksonville boasts the widest shipping channel in the Southeast U.S., wide enough for two ships to pass at the same time and offers worldwide cargo service from more than 40 ocean carriers, including direct service with Europe, Africa, South America, the Caribbean and other key markets.

Florida is now the nation’s third most populous state – and more than 60 million U.S. consumers live within a one-day truck drive of Jacksonville’s port. JAXPORT terminals are serviced by three U.S. interstates (I-10, I-95 and I-75), and the city has 36 daily train departures via three railroads: CSX, Norfolk Southern, and Florida East Coast. The port’s equal balance of imports and exports provides backhaul opportunities, saving money and maximizing transportation costs.

JAXPORT has invested $600 million in recent infrastructure investments in everything from cranes to docks to rail and a newly authorized project to deepen the federal shipping channel.

 

The display reads:

 

ADA in Vietnam – M42 Duster

 

Combat experience in the Korea War quickly showed that while the M19 40mm Gun Motor Carriage was a capable platform, it needed improvement. By 1952, a new anti-aircraft tank was in development, designated the T141. The new vehicle used the same turret and gun mount from the M19, but mated it with the larger, more powerful M41 Walker Bulldog light tank hull. The resulting vehicle was standardized as the M42 40mm Gun Motor Carriage by 1952 and entered full production that year.

 

However, with the service entry of the Nike Ajax system in 1953, the Army was focused on missile systems and with the introduction of the Hawk missile in the late 1950s, the M42 was quickly passed to National Guard units and all but removed from the active inventory by 1963.

 

Just two years later, US forces entered combat in South Vietnam. Two Hawk missile battalions were deployed to provide air defense around Saigon and along the DMZ, but an additional system was needed to cover potential low-altitude threats. In addition to the air defense requirement, the Army also needed a vehicle that could provide heavy firepower for both convoy escort and firebase defense. The M42 was back in demand and by the beginning of 1966, three battalions were formed for service in Vietnam.

 

Those three units, 1st Battalion, 44th Artillery; 4th Battalion, 60th Artillery; and 5th Battalion, 2nd Artillery arrived in-theater by mid-year and immediately had a significant impact on operations in their respective areas of operation. Each “Duster” battalion had a quad .50 battery and searchlight battery attached, forming an air defense task force that could respond to both air and ground threats, day or night.

 

On 20 June 1968, Air Defense and Field Artillery split the Artillery branch and the Duster, Quad, Searchlight and Hawk units were then designated ADA rather than “Artillery,” with the parenthetical Automatic Weapons, Searchlight or Guided Missile designation.

 

The story of Army Air Defense in Vietnam provides a fascinating contrast to the operations and equipment of the rest of the branch during the 1960s and early 1970s. While Army Air Defense of the day was focused on the strategic threat of a Soviet nuclear strike and were using the latest technology to deter that threat, the three ADA Duster battalions effectively used weapon systems from the “last war” to provide low altitude air defense and on-call direct fire support to infantry and artillery units across the entirety of South Vietnam from 1966 through 1972.

 

M42 Duster Specifications:

 

Weight: 50,000 lbs fully loaded

Height: 9 feet 4 inches

Length: 19 feet

Width: 10 feet 7 inches

Crew: Commander, driver, two loaders, two gunners

Armament: Two M2A1 40mm automatic anti-aircraft guns with 240 rounds per gun; 1-2 7.62 M60 Machine Guns with 1,750 rounds

Main Armament Rate of Fire: 120 rounds per minute, per gun

Engine: Continental AOS-895-3 6-cylinder opposed gasoline engine

Range: 100 miles

Speed 45 mph

 

The museum’s Duster served with the 1-44th Artillery in 1968.

 

The Duster occasionally towed the M332 ammunition trailer, which doubled the Duster’s ammunition capacity. However, it would be a liability in combat and would normally be removed before the Duster would be used in the convoy escort role.

 

Most Dusters in Vietnam carried some form of artwork. Usually the crew would name both the front hatch and the gun shield above the main armament.

 

Sergeant Mitchell W. Stout was born in Lenoir City, Tennessee on 24 February, 1950. He enlisted in the Army on 15 August 1967 and served his first tour in Vietnam as a rifleman with the 2nd Battalion, 47th Infantry Regiment in the Mekong Delta from August 1968 to August 1969. After completing his first tour, SGT Stout rotated back to the US, but returned to South Vietnam just five months later as a M42 Duster crewman.

 

Three months into his second tour, SGT Stout was commanding an M42 Duster at the Khe Gio bridge along Route 9, a strategic east-west route that was the supply lifeline to friendly outposts in western I Corps.

 

SGT Mitchell Stout

C/1-44th Artillery (Automatic Weapons), Khe Gio Bridge

 

The U.S. Army outpost at Khe Gio Bridge on Highway 9 near the DMZ was overrun by North Vietnamese troops on 12 March 1970. Fourteen Americans held the outpost along with a platoon of ARVN Infantry. Two M42 Dusters from C Battery 1-44th Artillery gave the small force a significant amount of firepower to protect the bridge, while an M151A1 searchlight jeep from G Battery, 29th Artillery provided nighttime battlefield illumination. Of those fourteen Americans, two were killed in action, five wounded and one was captured. Yet they fought valiantly and protected the bridge on Route 9, sparing it from destruction. Sergeant Mitchell Stout’s actions during the battle would earn him a posthumous Medal of Honor:

 

Citation:

 

Sgt. Stout distinguished himself during an attack by a North Vietnamese Army Sapper company on his unit's firing position at Khe Gio Bridge. Sgt. Stout was in a bunker with members of a searchlight crew when the position came under heavy enemy mortar fire and ground attack. When the intensity of the mortar attack subsided, an enemy grenade was thrown into the bunker. Displaying great courage, Sgt. Stout ran to the grenade, picked it up, and started out of the bunker. As he reached the door, the grenade exploded. By holding the grenade close to his body and shielding its blast, he protected his fellow soldiers in the bunker from further injury or death. Sgt. Stout's conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action, at the cost of his own life, are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon him, his unit and the U.S. Army.

 

Taken December 13th, 2013.

The eventlocation of the Swatch Girls Pro seen today on 3nd of June 2011 in Hossegor, France.

 

The world’s top female surfers proved by pairing up grace, strength and talent, that they are capable of taking the sport to new heights.

 

The 2nd SWATCH GIRLS PRO France 2011 in Hossegor delivered a firework of spectacular surfing! Moving through the rounds, the ladies faced strong currents and fast crashing waves. Heat after heat they tackled the rough challenge by laying down outstanding performances with technical, smooth and stylish surfing. Unfortunately last year’s winner and 4-time World Champion Stephanie Gilmore (AUS) and top favourite Coco Ho (HAW) were already eliminated in the early rounds.

 

In the end Sally Fitzgibbons (AUS) defeated Sage Erickson (USA) on an epic final day of competition to win the SWATCH GIRLS PRO France at Seignosse in Hossegor.

 

Both Fitzgibbons and Erickson surfed at their limit on the final day of competition in front of the packed holiday crowd who flocked to the beach to support some of the world’s finest women’s surfers, but it was Fitzgibbons who found the scores needed to take the victory over the American surfer.

 

Fitzgibbons, who is currently rated No. 2 on the elite ASP Women’s World Title Series, competed in her second consecutive SWATCH GIRLS PRO France event and her victory marks her third major ASP win this year.

 

Erickson was impressive throughout the entire competition, eventually defeating Sarah Baum (ZAF) in the Semifinals, but was unable to surpass Fitzgibbons for the win.

 

Sarah Mason Wins 2-Star Swatch Girls Pro Junior France

 

Sarah Mason (Gisbourne, NZL) 16, today took out the ASP 2-Star Swatch Girls Pro Junior France over Dimity Stoyle (Sunshine Coast QLD, AUS) 19, it a closely contested 35-minute final that went down to the wire in tricky 3ft (1m) waves at Les Bourdaines.

 

Europe’s finest under-21 athletes faced some of the world’s best up-and-comers in the Swatch Girls Pro Junior France in their attempt to qualify for the ASP World Junior Series which starts October 3, in Bali, Indonesia.

 

Mason, who impressed the entire event with her precise and stylish forehand attack, left little to chance in the 35-minute final getting off to a quick start to open her account and then built on her two-wave total to claim victory with 11.73 out of 20. The quietly spoken goofy-footer was a standout performer in the ASP 6-Star Swatch Girls Pro France and backed it up with a commanding performance against her fellow Pro Junior members.

 

“It is amazing. I am so happy and it is one of my best results for sure. It was tricky to try and pick the good ones but I picked a couple so it was great. All the girls are definitely ripping so you have to step up the level to get through your heats so I am stoked with the win. It has been super fun and I have enjoyed the entire event so to win is just amazing.”

 

Dimity Stoyle was unable to bridge the gap over her opponent in the final finishing second despite holding priority several times in the later stages of the encounter. The Swatch Girls Pro Junior France has proved the perfect training ground for Stoyle to continue with her excellent results already obtained this season on the ASP Australasia Pro Junior series where she is currently ranked nº2.

 

“I am still happy with second and I really wanted to win here but I tried my best. This is the best event I have been in so far it is really good the set up, the waves and everyone loves it. I can’t believe how good the French crowd are. They love surfing and they love us all so I am definitely going to come back.”

 

Felicity Palmateer (Perth WA, AUS) 18, ranked nº9 on the ASP Women’s Star Tour, finished equal 3rd in a low scoring tactical heat against Stoyle where positioning and priority tactics towards the final part played a major role as the frequency of set waves dropped.

 

“When I first paddled out I thought it was breaking more out the back but as the tide started to change it moved in and became a little inconsistent. At the start of the heat there were heaps of waves but then it went slow and priority came into play and I kept trying to get one. I am not really fussed because I am travelling with Dimity (Stoyle) and stoked that she has made the final.”

 

Palmateer has used the Swatch Girls Pro Junior France as a building block towards her ultimate goal of being full-time on the ASP Women’s World Tour. Her objectives are clear and 2011 is an extremely important year.

 

“I would love to get a World Junior title but at the moment my goal is to qualify for the World Tour through the Star events. If I can get more practice without that much pressure on me like this year and then if I qualify it will be even better for 2012.”

 

Bianca Buitendag (ZAF) 17, placed 3rd in the Swatch Girls Pro Junior France after failing to oust eventual event winner Sarah Mason in semi-final nº1. Buitendag looked dangerous throughout the final day of competition and was unlucky not to find any quality scoring waves in a slow heat. Trailing for the majority of the encounter, Buitendag secured her best ride in the final moments which proved not enough to advance.

 

“The swell definitely dropped and although the conditions were quite nice I didn’t get any good scoring waves. I have a Pro Junior event coming up in South Africa and it is very important to get a result there to qualify for the World Juniors.”

 

Maud Le Car (St Martin, FRA) 19, claimed the best result of the European contingent finishing equal 5th to jump to nº1 position on the ASP Women’s European Pro Junior series. Le Car led a low scoring quarter-final bout against Bianca Buitendag until losing priority in a tactical error which allowed her opponent to sneak under her guard and claim the modest score required to win.

 

“I didn’t surf really well in that heat and I am a little bit disappointed because it is for the selection to the World Juniors with the other European girls. The waves were not the best and it was difficult to catch some good waves and unfortunately I didn’t make it. It is really good to be at the top but I have some other contests to improve and to do some good results and to make it to the World Juniors.”

 

The Swatch Time to Tear Expression Session was won by the team composed of Swatch Girls Pro France finalists Sally Fitzgibbons (AUS), Sage Erickson (USA) and equal 3rd placed Courtney Conlogue (USA) in a dynamic display of modern progressive surfing in the punchy 3ft peaks in front of a packed surf hungry audience lining the shore.

 

The Swatch Girls Pro is webcast LIVE on www.swatchgirlspro.com

 

For all results, videos, daily highlights, photos and news log-on to www.swatchgirlsproor www.aspeurope.com

 

Swatch Girls Pro Junior France Final Result

Sarah Mason (NZL) 11.73 Def. Dimity Stoyle (AUS) 10.27

 

Swatch Girls Pro Junior France Semi-Final Results

Heat 1: Sarah Mason (NZL) 14.00 Def. Bianca Buitendag (ZAF) 9.60

Heat 2: Dimity Stoyle (AUS) 10.67 Def. Felicity Palmateer (AUS) 9.57

 

Swatch Girls Pro Junior France Quarter-Final Results

Heat 1: Sarah Mason (NZL) 12.75 Def. Lakey Peterson (USA) 6.25

Heat 2: Bianca Buitendag (ZAF) 8.95 Def. Maud Le Car (FRA) 8.50

Heat 3: Dimity Stoyle (AUS) 11.00 Def. Georgia Fish (AUS) 4.50

Heat 4: Felicity Palmateer (AUS) 17.00 Def. Nao Omura (JPN) 8.75

 

Swatch Girls Pro Junior France Round Three Results

Heat 1: Sarah Mason (NZL) 15.25, Maud Le Car (FRA) 11.00, Marie Dejean (FRA) 9.35, Camille Davila (FRA) 4.90

Heat 2: Bianca Buitendag (ZAF) 14.50, Lakey Peterson (USA) 11.50, Justine Dupont (FRA) 10.75, Phillipa Anderson (AUS) 5.10

Heat 3: Georgia Fish (AUS) 12.50, Felicity Palmateer (AUS) 9.15, Joanne Defay (FRA) 7.15, Loiola Canales (EUK) 2.90

Heat 4: Nao Omura (JPN) 10.00, Dimity Stoyle (AUS) 9.50, Barbara Segatto (BRA) 3.90, Ana Morau (FRA) 3.05

 

Photos Aquashot/ASPEurope - Swatch

+++ 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 Douglas A-4 Skyhawk is a single-seat subsonic carrier-capable light 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.

 

Skyhawks played key roles in the Vietnam War, the Yom Kippur War, and the Falklands War. Sixty years after the aircraft's first flight in 1954, some of the 2,960 produced (through February 1979). The Skyhawk found many users all around the world, and some still remain in service with the Argentine Air Force and the Brazilian Naval Aviation. Operators in Asia included Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand.

 

Thailand procured the Skyhawk in 1984, for the Royal Thai Navy air arm to be used for naval and air space surveillance, against sea surface targets and for close air support for the Royal Thai Marine Corps. A total of thirty aircraft were purchased from the USA, twenty-four single seaters and six two-seat TA-4J trainers.

 

The single seaters were refurbished A-4Cs from USN overstock, modernized to a standard that came close to the USN’s A-4L, but with some specific differences and unique features that made them suitable for all-weather strike operations. This modified version was re-designated as A-4LT and featured the late Skyhawk versions’ distinct “Camelback” fairing that house the additional avionics as well as a heat exchanger. The most distinctive external difference to any other Skyhawk version was a unique, pointed radome.

 

The update for Thailand included an AN/APQ-126 terrain following radar in the nose, which was integrated into an ILAAS digital navigation system – a very modern system of its era. The radar also fed a navigation and weapons delivery computer which made possible accurate delivery of bombs from a greater stand-off distance, greatly improving survivability.

Further special equipment for the Thai Skyhawks included, among others, a Hughes AN/ASB-19 Angle Rate Bombing System, a Bendix AN/APN-141 Low altitude radar altimeter, an AN/AVQ-7(V) Head Up display (HUD), air refueling capability (with a fixed but detachable refueling probe), a brake parachute housing below the jet pipe, two additional underwing hardpoints (for a total for five, like the A-4E) and an increased payload. Avionics were modernized and expanded, giving the Thai Skyhawks ability to carry modern AIM-9L Sidewinder AAMs and AGM-65 Maverick AGMs. The latter became, beyond standard iron bombs and pods with unguided missiles, the aircrafts’ main armament against naval targets.

However, despite the modernization of the avionics, the A-4LTs retained the A-4Cs’ Wright J65-W-20 engine with 8,200 lbf (36 kN) of takeoff thrust.

 

The first aircraft were delivered in December 1985 to the Royal Thai Navy (RTN / กองทัพเรือไทย / Kong thap ruea thai), carrying a USN grey/white livery. They served in the No.104 RTN Squadron, distributed among two wings based at U-Tapao near Bangkok and at Songkhla in the south of Thailand, close to the Malaysian border. During regular overhauls (executed at Singapore Aircraft Industries, now ST Aerospace), the RTN Skyhawks soon received a new wraparound camouflage with reduced insignia and markings.

 

While in service, the Thai Skyhawks soon suffered from frequent maintenance issues and a low availability rate, since replacement parts for the reliable yet old J65 engine became more and more difficult to obtain. At times, half of the A-4LT fleet had to remain grounded because of engine problems. In consequence, the Thai Skyhawks were in the mid-Nineties supplemented by fourteen Vought A-7E Corsairs (plus four two-seaters) in the coastal defense, sea patrol and anti-shipping role. In 1999, they were retired and replaced by Royal Thai Air Force F-16s.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: one

Length: 40 ft 3 in (12.29 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-20 turbojet with 8,200 lbf (36 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× 20 mm (0.79 in) Colt Mk. 12 cannons in the wing roots, 100 RPG

Total effective payload of up to 7,700 lb (3,500 kg) on five hardpoints

- 1× Centerline: 3,500 lb capability

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

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

  

The kit and its assembly:

I originally had this project stashed away for the upcoming "1 Week Group Build" at whatifmodelers.com in June 2020, but since the current "In the Navy" GB had some days to go (and even received a two week extension) I decided to tackle this build on short notice.

 

The original idea was simply to build an A-4L, a modernized A-4C for the USN Reserve units, but similar machines had also been exported to Malaysia. For the naval theme I came across the Royal Thai Navy and its A-7E Corsairs - and from that the idea of a Skyhawk predecessor from the Eighties was born.

 

Instead of an A-4C (Fujimi does one in 1:72, but it's a rare kit) I based my build upon the nice Airfix A-4B/Q kit. Its biggest difference is the shorter nose, so that I decided to modify this "flaw" first and added a pointed radome instead of the usual blunt Skyhawk nose; not certain where it came from – it looks very Sea-Harrier-ish, but it’s actually the tip of a large drop tank (Italeri Tornado?). Nevertheless, this small change created a weird look, even more so with the black paint added to it later.

 

Further additions and mods are a dorsal avionics bulge from an Italeri A-4M, a scratched kinked refueling probe (made from wire and white glue, the early Skyhawks had straight probes but this would certainly interfere with the new radar in the nose), a brake parachute fairing under the tail (scratched, too, from sprue material) and additional antennae under the nose and behind the cockpit. Nothing fancy, rather details from more modern Skyhawk versions.

The AGM-65 Maverick missiles and their respective launch rails came from an Italeri Saab 39 Gripen, the drop tank on the ventral pylon is OOB.

  

Painting and markings:

This was a tough decision. The Thai Corsairs as primary (and historically later) benchmark carried a standard USN grey/white high-viz livery, even though with small roundels. There were also VTOL Harriers (former Spanish Matadors) operated for a short period by the Thai navy on board of the multi-purpose carrier HTMS Chakri Naruebet, which wore a darker two-tone grey livery, pretty boring, too. I rather wanted something more exciting (if not exotic), a more modern wraparound scheme, suited for both overwater and high-altitude duties. That brought me to the Thai F-5Ts (a.k.a. Tigris), which carried - among others - a quite unique US export/aggressor scheme in three shades of light grey, including FS 35414, which looked like a pale turquoise on these machines. I furthermore took inspiration by early Indonesian A-4s, which also carried an US export scheme, nicknamed "Grape", which included darker shades of blue, blue-gray and the bright FS 35414, too.

 

I eventually settled upon a compromise between these two liveries and tried to adapt the standard F-5 aggressor camouflage pattern for the A-4, made up from FS 36440 (Light Gull Grey), 35164 (Intermediate Blue) and 35414 (Light Blue). Current Thai L-39 Albatros trainers seem to carry a similar livery, even though I am not certain about the tones that are actually used.

The basic enamel paints I used are Humbrol 129 and 144, and for the greenish Light Blue I used "Fulcrum Grey Green" from Modelmaster (#2134), a tone that is quite greenish but markedly darker and more dull than e.g. Humbrol 65, so that the color would not stand out brightly from the other greys and better fit between them. Worked quite well.

 

The inside of the slats as well as of the air brakes on the flanks were painted in bright red (Humbrol 19), while the landing gear and the interior of the air intake were painted in white (Humbrol 130). The cockpit was painted in a bluish mid grey (Revell 57).

 

After basic overall painting, the model received the usual light black ink washing and some post-panel-shading, for a lightly used/weathered look.

Most decals/markings come from a Thai Harrier (from an Italeri AV-8A kit), some other markings and stencils were puzzled together from the scrap box, e.g. from a USN F-5E aggressor and from a Peruvian Mirage 2000. Some additional details like the black gun soot areas on the wing roots or the fine white lines on the radome were created with generic decal sheet material.

Finally, the kit received an overall coat of matt acrylic varnish, except for the radome, which became semi-gloss.

  

As intended, this build was realized in just a couple of days - and I am positively surprised how good the Skyhawk looks in its unusual, if not exotic colors! This fictional livery certainly looks different from a potential standard USN grey/white outfit, and more exciting than a dull grey-in-grey livery. And it’s so weird that it even adds some credibility to this whiffy aircraft model. 😉

+++ 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 Douglas A-4 Skyhawk is a single-seat subsonic carrier-capable light 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.

 

Skyhawks played key roles in the Vietnam War, the Yom Kippur War, and the Falklands War. Sixty years after the aircraft's first flight in 1954, some of the 2,960 produced (through February 1979). The Skyhawk found many users all around the world, and some still remain in service with the Argentine Air Force and the Brazilian Naval Aviation. Operators in Asia included Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand.

 

Thailand procured the Skyhawk in 1984, for the Royal Thai Navy air arm to be used for naval and air space surveillance, against sea surface targets and for close air support for the Royal Thai Marine Corps. A total of thirty aircraft were purchased from the USA, twenty-four single seaters and six two-seat TA-4J trainers.

 

The single seaters were refurbished A-4Cs from USN overstock, modernized to a standard that came close to the USN’s A-4L, but with some specific differences and unique features that made them suitable for all-weather strike operations. This modified version was re-designated as A-4LT and featured the late Skyhawk versions’ distinct “Camelback” fairing that house the additional avionics as well as a heat exchanger. The most distinctive external difference to any other Skyhawk version was a unique, pointed radome.

 

The update for Thailand included an AN/APQ-126 terrain following radar in the nose, which was integrated into an ILAAS digital navigation system – a very modern system of its era. The radar also fed a navigation and weapons delivery computer which made possible accurate delivery of bombs from a greater stand-off distance, greatly improving survivability.

Further special equipment for the Thai Skyhawks included, among others, a Hughes AN/ASB-19 Angle Rate Bombing System, a Bendix AN/APN-141 Low altitude radar altimeter, an AN/AVQ-7(V) Head Up display (HUD), air refueling capability (with a fixed but detachable refueling probe), a brake parachute housing below the jet pipe, two additional underwing hardpoints (for a total for five, like the A-4E) and an increased payload. Avionics were modernized and expanded, giving the Thai Skyhawks ability to carry modern AIM-9L Sidewinder AAMs and AGM-65 Maverick AGMs. The latter became, beyond standard iron bombs and pods with unguided missiles, the aircrafts’ main armament against naval targets.

However, despite the modernization of the avionics, the A-4LTs retained the A-4Cs’ Wright J65-W-20 engine with 8,200 lbf (36 kN) of takeoff thrust.

 

The first aircraft were delivered in December 1985 to the Royal Thai Navy (RTN / กองทัพเรือไทย / Kong thap ruea thai), carrying a USN grey/white livery. They served in the No.104 RTN Squadron, distributed among two wings based at U-Tapao near Bangkok and at Songkhla in the south of Thailand, close to the Malaysian border. During regular overhauls (executed at Singapore Aircraft Industries, now ST Aerospace), the RTN Skyhawks soon received a new wraparound camouflage with reduced insignia and markings.

 

While in service, the Thai Skyhawks soon suffered from frequent maintenance issues and a low availability rate, since replacement parts for the reliable yet old J65 engine became more and more difficult to obtain. At times, half of the A-4LT fleet had to remain grounded because of engine problems. In consequence, the Thai Skyhawks were in the mid-Nineties supplemented by fourteen Vought A-7E Corsairs (plus four two-seaters) in the coastal defense, sea patrol and anti-shipping role. In 1999, they were retired and replaced by Royal Thai Air Force F-16s.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: one

Length: 40 ft 3 in (12.29 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-20 turbojet with 8,200 lbf (36 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× 20 mm (0.79 in) Colt Mk. 12 cannons in the wing roots, 100 RPG

Total effective payload of up to 7,700 lb (3,500 kg) on five hardpoints

- 1× Centerline: 3,500 lb capability

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

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

  

The kit and its assembly:

I originally had this project stashed away for the upcoming "1 Week Group Build" at whatifmodelers.com in June 2020, but since the current "In the Navy" GB had some days to go (and even received a two week extension) I decided to tackle this build on short notice.

 

The original idea was simply to build an A-4L, a modernized A-4C for the USN Reserve units, but similar machines had also been exported to Malaysia. For the naval theme I came across the Royal Thai Navy and its A-7E Corsairs - and from that the idea of a Skyhawk predecessor from the Eighties was born.

 

Instead of an A-4C (Fujimi does one in 1:72, but it's a rare kit) I based my build upon the nice Airfix A-4B/Q kit. Its biggest difference is the shorter nose, so that I decided to modify this "flaw" first and added a pointed radome instead of the usual blunt Skyhawk nose; not certain where it came from – it looks very Sea-Harrier-ish, but it’s actually the tip of a large drop tank (Italeri Tornado?). Nevertheless, this small change created a weird look, even more so with the black paint added to it later.

 

Further additions and mods are a dorsal avionics bulge from an Italeri A-4M, a scratched kinked refueling probe (made from wire and white glue, the early Skyhawks had straight probes but this would certainly interfere with the new radar in the nose), a brake parachute fairing under the tail (scratched, too, from sprue material) and additional antennae under the nose and behind the cockpit. Nothing fancy, rather details from more modern Skyhawk versions.

The AGM-65 Maverick missiles and their respective launch rails came from an Italeri Saab 39 Gripen, the drop tank on the ventral pylon is OOB.

  

Painting and markings:

This was a tough decision. The Thai Corsairs as primary (and historically later) benchmark carried a standard USN grey/white high-viz livery, even though with small roundels. There were also VTOL Harriers (former Spanish Matadors) operated for a short period by the Thai navy on board of the multi-purpose carrier HTMS Chakri Naruebet, which wore a darker two-tone grey livery, pretty boring, too. I rather wanted something more exciting (if not exotic), a more modern wraparound scheme, suited for both overwater and high-altitude duties. That brought me to the Thai F-5Ts (a.k.a. Tigris), which carried - among others - a quite unique US export/aggressor scheme in three shades of light grey, including FS 35414, which looked like a pale turquoise on these machines. I furthermore took inspiration by early Indonesian A-4s, which also carried an US export scheme, nicknamed "Grape", which included darker shades of blue, blue-gray and the bright FS 35414, too.

 

I eventually settled upon a compromise between these two liveries and tried to adapt the standard F-5 aggressor camouflage pattern for the A-4, made up from FS 36440 (Light Gull Grey), 35164 (Intermediate Blue) and 35414 (Light Blue). Current Thai L-39 Albatros trainers seem to carry a similar livery, even though I am not certain about the tones that are actually used.

The basic enamel paints I used are Humbrol 129 and 144, and for the greenish Light Blue I used "Fulcrum Grey Green" from Modelmaster (#2134), a tone that is quite greenish but markedly darker and more dull than e.g. Humbrol 65, so that the color would not stand out brightly from the other greys and better fit between them. Worked quite well.

 

The inside of the slats as well as of the air brakes on the flanks were painted in bright red (Humbrol 19), while the landing gear and the interior of the air intake were painted in white (Humbrol 130). The cockpit was painted in a bluish mid grey (Revell 57).

 

After basic overall painting, the model received the usual light black ink washing and some post-panel-shading, for a lightly used/weathered look.

Most decals/markings come from a Thai Harrier (from an Italeri AV-8A kit), some other markings and stencils were puzzled together from the scrap box, e.g. from a USN F-5E aggressor and from a Peruvian Mirage 2000. Some additional details like the black gun soot areas on the wing roots or the fine white lines on the radome were created with generic decal sheet material.

Finally, the kit received an overall coat of matt acrylic varnish, except for the radome, which became semi-gloss.

  

As intended, this build was realized in just a couple of days - and I am positively surprised how good the Skyhawk looks in its unusual, if not exotic colors! This fictional livery certainly looks different from a potential standard USN grey/white outfit, and more exciting than a dull grey-in-grey livery. And it’s so weird that it even adds some credibility to this whiffy aircraft model. 😉

Some background:

The need for a specialized self-propelled anti-aircraft gun, capable of keeping up with the armored 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 turretless 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 first proposal for the Kugelblitz envisioned mounting a modified anti-aircraft turret, which had originally been developed for U-boats, on the Panzer IV chassis. It was armed with dual 30 mm MK 303 Brunn guns. However, this was eventually abandoned, since development of this gun had not yet been completed, and, in any case, the entire production run of this weapon turret would have been reserved for Germany's Kriegsmarine. However, enough firepower that enabled the Flakpanzer to cope with armoured attack aircraft, namely the Soviet Ilyushin Il-2, which was a major threat to German tanks, was direly needed.

 

As the best readily available alternative, the Kugelblitz eventually used the 30 mm MK 103 cannon in a Zwillingsflak ("twin flak") 103/38 arrangement, and it combined the chassis and basic superstructure of the existing Panzer IV medium battle tank with a newly designed turret. This vehicle received the official designation SdKfz. 161/7 Leichter Flakpanzer IV 3 cm „Kugelblitz”.

 

The turret’s construction was unique, because its spherical body, which was protected with 20 mm steel shells in front and back, was hanging in a ring mount from the Tiger I, suspended by two spigots – it was effectively an independent capsule that only slightly protruded from the tank’s upper side and kept the vehicle’s profile very low, unlike its predecessors. 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 turret was fully enclosed, with full overhead protection, 360° traverse and (rather limited) space for the crew of three plus weapons and ammunition. Driver and radio operator were located in the front of the hull, as with all German tanks. 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. The spare ammunition was located on the right side. Each of these three crew members had separate hatch doors, which they could use to enter or exit the vehicle. The gunner assistants’ hatch doors each had a small round shaped extra hatch, which were used for mounting sighting devices, and there were plans to outfit the turret with a stereoscopic range finder for the commander.

 

The tank’s MK 103 was a powerful 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 Kaliber 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 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. Due to the fact that the MK 103 cannons produced a lot of powder smoke when operated, fume extractors were added, which was another novelty.

 

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, anyway. 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, 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.

 

By early 1945, only around 50 operational vehicles had been built and production of the SdKfz. 161/7 already ceased in May. The first five produced vehicles were given to the newly formed “Panzerflak Ersatz- und Ausbildungsabteilung” (armored Flak training and replacement battalion) located near the city of Ohrdruf (Freistaat Thüringen region in central Germany). One company was divided into three platoons equipped with a mix of different Flakpanzers vehicles. The first platoon was equipped with the Wirbelwind, the second with Ostwind, and the third platoon was equipped with experimental vehicles, such as the Kugelblitz or the “Zerstörer 45”, which was basically a Wirbelwind with a 3-cm-Flak-Vierling 103/38 (armed with four MK 103s).

 

During the unit’s initial trials and deployments, the 3 cm Flak 38 turned out to be a troublesome design, largely because of the strong vibration when firing, and gun smoke frequently filled the turret with hazardous effects on the crews. The vibrations made the target aiming difficult and could even cause damage on the mounting itself – but due to the dire war situation, production was kept up. However, during the running production of the Kugelblitz turret, reinforcements to the mount structure were gradually added, as well as improved sighting systems. None of the operational SdKfz. 161/7s received these upgrades, though, since it was only regarded as a transitional model that filled the most urgent defense gaps. Later production Panzer IV Kugelblitz vehicles were almost exclusively sent to units that defended Berlin, where they fought against the Soviet assault on the German capital.

  

Specifications:

Crew: Five (commander/gunner, 2 assistants, driver, radio operator)

Weight: 23 tons

Length: 5.92 m (19 ft 5 in)

Width: 2.88 m (9 ft 5 ¼ in)

Height: 2.3 m (7 ft 6 ½ in)

Suspension: Leaf spring

Fuel capacity: 470 l (120 US gal)

 

Armour:

10 – 50 mm (0.39 – 1.96 in)

 

Performance:

Maximum road speed: 40 km/h (25 mph)

Sustained road speed: 34 km/h (21.1 mph)

Off-road speed: 24 km/h (15 mph)

Operational range: 210 km (125 mi); 130 km (80 mi) off-road

Power/weight: 13 PS/t

 

Engine:

Maybach HL 120 TRM V12 petrol engine with 300 PS (296 hp, 221 kW)

 

Transmission:

ZF Synchromesh SSG 77 gear with 6 forward and 1 reverse ratios

 

Armament:

2× 30 mm 3 cm Flak 38 (MK 103/3) with a total of 1.200 rounds

1× 7.92 mm Maschinengewehr 34 with 1,250 rounds in bow mount

  

The kit and its assembly:

This is a model of a tank that actually existed, but only in marginal numbers – not more than five Panzer IV with the revolutionary Kugelblitz turret are known to have existed or even seen service. However, it fits well into the ranks of fictional/projected Heer ’46 tanks, and I have been wanting to build or create one for along time.

 

There are some 1:72 kits available, e. g. from Mako, but they are rare and/or expensive. So I rather went for an improvisation approach, and it turned out to be very successful. The complete turret comes from one of the Modelcollect “Vierfüssler” mecha kits – these carry such an installation under the belly(!), what makes absolutely NO sense to me. I especially wonder how the crew is supposed to enter and operate the turret in its upside down position? Not to mention a totally confined field of fire…

 

However, the Modelcollect Kugelblitz tower comes complete with its bearing and the armored collar. It was simply mated with the hull from a late Hasegawa Panzer IV – in my case even a Wirbelwind, which also came with some suitable additional details like stowing boxes for gun barrels. The attachment ring for the turret had just to be widened far enough to accept the Kugelblitz installation – and it worked well! Very simple, but highly effective.

  

Painting and markings:

Well, this did not work 100% as intended. I wanted to emphasize the fact that the tanks would have been built from revamped hulls, so I gave all parts an initial overall coat with RAL 3009, Oxydrot. These were then overpainted with a three-tone Hinterhalt scheme in Dunkelgelb (RAL 7028), Olivgrün (RAL 6003) and Rotbraun (RAL 8012). The pattern was adapted from a Wirbelwind, which I had found in literature, consisting of narrow stripes across the hull with additional spots of Dunkelgelb on top of the darker tones. In order to emphasize the idea of a converted tank with the turret coming from another source, I gave the latter a uniform Dunkelgelb livery.

 

The colors used were Humbrol enamels, this time a different selection of tones, namely 167 (RAF Hemp), 159 (Khaki Drab) and a mix of 160 and 10 (German Rotbraun and Chocolate Brown, for a darker hue). However, I wanted the Oxydrot to shine through the camouflage, but despite efforts with thinned paint and sparse use of the enamels the effect is not as visible as expected. I left it that way, though, here and there the red primer is visible, but a lot of the livery became obscured through the following wash with dark red brown, highly thinned acrylic paint and a final coat of pigment dust on the model’s lower areas.

 

The original black vinyl track was treated with a cloudy mix of grey, red brown and iron acrylic paint, and finally dusted with pigments, too.

 

The decals were gathered from several sources – the tactical code was puzzled together with Roman and Arabic numbers in red (seen on some vehicles from assault gun units), the emblem on the turret shows Berlin’s mascot, the bear, taken from a Modelcollect Heer ’46 kit’s sheet.

 

Some dry-brushing with light grey was done to simulate dust and worn edges, but not too much since the vehicle was to be presented in a more or less new state. And then the model was sealed with acrylic matt varnish.

  

A relatively simple build, since only the turret was exchanged/transplanted. The result looks better than expected, though, and the Kugelblitz turret fit into the Panzer IV hull like the hand into a tight glove. Very convincing. And I might add another Kugelblitz variant, this time either on a Hetzer hull (which was a real alternative to the Panzer IV) or on an E-25, it seems as if an 1:72 kit becomes soon available from Modelcollect.

 

Israeli Police Yamam unit during Counter Terror Training

 

The Yamam (Hebrew: ימ"מ‎, an acronym for Special Central Unit (יחידה מרכזית מיוחדת, Yehida Merkazit Meyuhedet)) is the elite civilian counter-terrorism unit in Israel. The Yamam is capable of both hostage-rescue operations and offensive take-over raids against targets in civilian areas. Besides military duties, it also performs SWAT duties and undercover police work.

 

Name and structure

 

In Israel the Yamam is also known as the "Unit for Counter-Terror Warfare" (Hebrew: היחידה ללוחמה בטרור‎). It is subordinate to the Ministry of Internal Security central command and is part of the civilian Israel Police force, specifically the Israel Border Police. Its operators and officers are professional policemen on payroll, usually with infantry experience from their military service within the Israel Defense Forces. Yamam recruits its members exclusively from Israeli units.

 

Responsibilities

 

The unit is primarily responsible for civilian hostage rescue within Israel's borders, but from about the mid-1990s it has also been used for tasks such as arresting police suspects who have barricaded themselves in structures and requiring specialized extraction methods, as well as in personal security for VIPs and in counter-terror operations within the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The Yamam are schooled in basic Arabic and dress to assimilate within the Arab population to avoid detection in order to carry out raids to arrest those suspected of conducting terrorist activities within Israel.

However, most of the Yamam's activity is classified, and published Yamam operations are often credited to other units.

 

Organisation

 

The Yamam has around 200 officers, and consists a headquarters element, an intelligence section and a small team responsible for the development of new operational techniques and testing new equipment. Aside from these central elements, the bulk of the unit is divided into a number of sections, each consisting of five teams, each containing operators with a particular specialization, so that the section includes within its numbers all the elements needed for a successful operation: roping team, entry team, medic team, sniping team, dog team, EOD team (demolition and bomb disposal). Thus, whereas an IDF special forces operation needs to assemble elements from different specialist units, in Yamam, they are all permanently part of the same unit, living, training and operating together.

 

Officers

 

Applicants for Yamam must be between 22 and 30 years old and must have completed their three-year infantry service in the IDF with a level 7 of IDF training or higher, although no previous police experience is required. Unlike American SWAT teams, the YAMAM is a professional unit with only combat duties and no other police type work. The selection process includes a "hell week" said to be one of the hardest in the world. This level of difficulty is achieved because all the applicants are already seasoned combat soldiers, like the US Delta force. The skills they are looking for in every candidate are: intelligence, physical fitness, motivation, trustworthiness, accountability, maturity, stability, judgment, decisiveness, teamwork, influence, and communication. Training lasts 6 months and is carried out in the unit's own training center, although some use is made of the facilities at the IDF Counter Terror Warfare School (LOTAR, Unit 707.) The course is divided into an three-month general CT training period at the end of which recruits are selected for their specialization and then concentrate for the remaining four months on that specialization. Upon graduation, individuals are posted to fill gaps in the sections. Yamam considers that it has several advantages over the IDF counter-terror units, first, because the men are more mature, most in their mid 30's and early 40's, and spend much longer in the unit than the equivalent military units, and, second, because the units contain a far broader range of ages and experience.

The Yamam is self-dependent, training its own operators in all fields, such as sniping, reconnaissance, dog operating, bomb disposal, etc. As a result, the Yamam has a rapid deployment time and high coordination between various squads (sniping squad, entry team, engagement force, etc.).

Waiting in the rain & in vain for 60103 Flying Scotsman at Ampthill Crossing 4/11/2017 (It was 25 minutes earlier than scThe British Rail Class 222 is a diesel multiple unit high-speed train capable of 125 mph (200 km/h). Twenty-seven units have been built in Belgium by Bombardier Transportation.

 

The Class 222 is similar to the Class 220 Voyager and Class 221 Super Voyager trains used by CrossCountry and Virgin Trains, but it has a different interior. The Class 222 trains have more components fitted under the floors to free up space within the body. Since 2009 East Midlands Trains has been the only train operating company using Class 222s.

All coaches are equipped with a Cummins QSK19 diesel engine of 750 hp (560 kW) at 1800 rpm.[2] This powers a generator, which supplies current to motors driving two axles per coach. Approximately 1,350 miles (2,170 km) can be travelled between each refuelling.

 

Class 222 have rheostatic braking using the motors in reverse to generate electricity which is dissipated as heat through resistors situated on the roof of each coach; this saves on brake pad wear.

 

In common with the Class 220s, B5000 lightweight bogies are used - these are easily recognisable since the entire outer surface of the wheel is visible, with inboard axle bearings.

 

The Class 222 are fitted with Dellner couplers,[3] as on Class 220 Voyager and Class 221 SuperVoyager trains,[3] though these units cannot work together in service because the Class 222 electrical connections are incompatible with the Class 220 and Class 221 trains.[3][clarification needed]

 

All Class 222 units are maintained at the dedicated Etches Park depot in Derby, just south of Derby station.

 

Formation[edit]

 

Seven car length Class 222 No. 222003 at London St Pancras

 

Five car length Class 222 No. 222016 at Bedford

Class 222 units are currently running in the following formations:

 

East Midlands Trains: seven cars with 236 standard seats and 106 first-class seats.

 

Coach A - Standard Class with driving cab and reservable space for two bikes

Coach B - Standard Class

Coach C - Standard Class

Coach D - Standard Class with Buffet counter

Coach F - First Class

Coach G - First Class

Coach H - First Class, kitchen and driving cab

East Midlands Trains: five cars with 192 standard seats and 50 first-class seats

 

Coach A - Standard Class with driving cab and reservable space for two bikes

Coach B - Standard Class

Coach C - Standard Class with Buffet counter

Coach D - Standard Class / First Class composite

Coach G - First Class, kitchen and driving cab

East Midlands Trains: four cars with 132 standard seats and 33 first-class seats

 

Coach A - Standard Class with driving cab and reservable space for two bikes

Coach B - Standard Class with Buffet counter

Coach D - Standard Class / First Class composite

Coach G - First Class, kitchen and driving cab

The four- and five-car units can be coupled to form 9/10-car services at peak times. When coupled together, coaches A-G are found in the front unit and the rear coaches become labelled J, K, L, M, N, with the first-class seats in coaches J and K.

 

Initially, the 23 units ordered for Midland Mainline were 4-car and 9-car. Over time these have been gradually modified to the current formations. The 4-car units ordered by Hull Trains had an option when constructed to be extended to 5-cars if required.[4]

East Midlands Trains has named the following Meridians:

 

Unit numberNameDate namedNamed byNotes

222 001The Entrepreneur Express22 September 2011Tim Shoveller, East Midlands Trains Managing DirectorNamed to kick off the start of the 2011 entrepreneur festival MADE

222 002The Cutlers' Company18 October 2011Pamela Liversidge, Master CutlerNamed to mark the successful partnership between East Midlands Trains and Sheffield

222 003Tornado24 March 2009Tim Shoveller, East Midlands Trains Managing DirectorDriving car 60163 named as it has the same number as Tornado

222 004Children's Hospital Sheffield26 February 2013Michael Vaughan, Charity PatonTo mark the successful partnership between East Midlands Trains and the Sheffield Children's Hospital

222 006The Carbon Cutter31 May 2011Philip Hammond, Transport SecretaryTo mark the introduction of eco-mode to the fleet

222 008Derby Etches Park13 September 2014David Horne, East Midlands Trains Managing DirectorNamed as part of the open day at Derby Etches Park

222 015175 Years of Derby's Railways 1839 - 201418 July 2014Paul Atterbury, Antiques Roadshow Expert and railway authorTo mark 175 years of railways in Derby

222 022Invest In Nottingham19 September 2011Jon Collins, leader of Nottingham City CouncilNamed to launch the 2011 Invest in Nottingham day

222 011Sheffield City Battalion 1914-191811 November 2014Ron Wiltshire, Royal British Legion representativeNamed to honour Sheffield City Battalion who fought in the World War I

 

East Midlands Trains Class 222/0 No. 222018 at Loughborough.

In 2008 further rearrangements were made to the sets: another carriage was removed from the eight-car Meridians, except for 222 007, which has been reduced to five cars.[6] The surplus coaches were then added to the remaining four-car Meridians to make six seven-car sets (222 001-222 006) and 17 five-car sets (222 007-222 023). This took place from March to October 2008; as part of the process, two first-class coaches removed from 222 007 were converted to standard class and part first class.

 

The seven-car trains are almost exclusively used on the fast services between London St Pancras and Sheffield. These do not operate the London St Pancras-Leeds, although the service is via Sheffield. The five-car trains are mainly used between London St Pancras and Sheffield, Nottingham or Corby on semi-fast services. The four-car trains supplement the five-car trains on these services.

 

In December 2008 the Class 222 Meridians started work on the hourly London St Pancras to Sheffield services, because they have faster acceleration than the High Speed Trains and so were able to reduce the Sheffield to London journey time by 12 minutes. The hourly Nottingham service was then transferred to High Speed Train running to cover for the Meridians now working the hourly Sheffield fast service.[7]

 

In February 2009, 222 101 and 222 102 transferred from Hull Trains to East Midlands Trains, and were quickly repainted in the East Midlands Trains white livery. 222 104 followed from Hull Trains later in the year. 222 103 followed a few months after 222 104 after repairs had been completed (see below). 222 103 has now been reinstated for service after two years for repairs after the unit fell from jacks at Bombardier, Crofton in early 2007.

heduled and sitting in my car it passed by heard but not seen)

 

Geralt: As capable soldiers, I'm sure the Blue Stripes aren't behind inciting the people against magic-users. But I will need to see your spymaster.

Roche: Is that all? If this spares my men, the favor will be well worth it.

  

Capable of 12 frames per second burst mode shooting (RAW+JPEG), the snapper can also capture 14 frames per second with the mirror locked up and the camera shooting JPEGs.

  

---

Check out my preview of the EOS-1D X here:

Canon EOS-1D X exclusive hands-on

   

More photos here:

Canon EOS-1D X unveiling: photo gallery

   

Follow me on Twitter @ ShawnCNETAsia

 

and check out CNET Asia Cameras for your daily camera fix:)

Like many of the fans who endured the cold, drizzly conditions inside Reliant Stadium to start the game, the Texans took a few minutes to warm up Sunday afternoon in the regular season finale against the Chicago Bears.

 

After a wake-up call courtesy of a momentum-changing sack by defensive end Mario Williams and a stern message from coach Gary Kubiak, the fans were treated to a spectacular offensive display led by Pro Bowler Andre Johnson and rookie running back Steve Slaton .

 

The 31-24 win gave Houston its second-consecutive 8-8 record to end the season, and it shut out the Bears from postseason contention.

Texans owner Bob McNair admired the team's strong finish to the season.

 

"I'd rather be 16-0," McNair said. "But I think starting out the way we did, 0-4, coming back, understand that only nine other teams have ever done that (start 0-4 and finish .500 or better) in this history of the NFL. So I think it was an accomplishment for our team."

 

Early on, the Texans appeared to suffer from the same malaise they showed at Oakland a week earlier. But the team erased a 10-0 deficit in the first quarter with 21 unanswered points to take a 21-10 lead early in the third quarter.

 

In that stretch, Johnson scored back-to-back touchdowns to bring the franchise-record crowd of 70,838 to its feet. The Pro Bowler finished with 10 catches for 148 yards (14.8 avg.) to end the season with the NFL lead in receptions (115) and receiving yards (1,575).

 

Meanwhile, Slaton rebounded from a first half in which he totaled only 19 rushing yards and lost a fumble to put the offense on his back in the final quarter of play. By gaining 128 total yards from scrimmage and scoring a touchdown in the game, Slaton may have sealed NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year honors.

 

Slaton’s five-yard gain with 1:24 remaining in the contest gave Houston a first down and allowed the team to run out the remainder of the clock.

 

"I really like the way we came back and played after we played pretty poorly on both sides of the ball throughout the first quarter," Kubiak said.

 

Chicago scored its first touchdown with 5:57 remaining in the first quarter when wide receiver Brandon Lloyd stretched out for a four-yard touchdown grab near the front left pylon. A 15-yard reception by wide receiver Devin Hester and a 15-yard penalty on defensive end Tim Bulman for roughing the passer set up the score.

 

Wide receiver André Davis ' 39-yard kickoff return down the Bears' sideline gave the Texans solid field position at their 42-yard line to begin their second possession. But Slaton fumbled on the first play from scrimmage after being tackled by cornerback Charles Tillman. Defensive end Alex Brown recovered the fumble and returned it 17 yards to the Houston 38.

 

Three plays later, Robbie Gould's 37-yard field goal made the score 10-0.

 

The next drive started promising when quarterback Matt Schaub threw a tight spiral to Davis for a 33-yard gain up the middle of the field. But tight end Owen Daniels was penalized 15 yards for unnecessary roughness on the next play, and Schaub was flagged 10 yards for intentional grounding one play later to derail the drive and force a punt.

 

Upon returning to the sideline, the offense received an earful from Kubiak.

 

"I just didn't think we were going about our business the way we were capable of playing," Kubiak said. "That's not us. We're usually a pretty poised group as a football team and right there is losing poise and getting a shot in on a guy and all of a sudden it took a lot of momentum away from us."

 

With 11:26 left in the first half, Chicago took over at the Houston 49 following a three-and-out series by the Texans. But Williams saved the defense with his 12th sack of the season by tackling quarterback Kyle Orton at the Chicago 45 for a 10-yard loss on third down.

 

From there, Johnson caught three passes for 72 yards, including a 43-yard touchdown where he dragged two defenders with him over the goal line. Kris Brown's extra point cut the Bears' lead to 10-7 with 5:50 remaining before halftime.

 

Running back Ryan Moats forced a fumble on the ensuing kickoff when he tackled Devin Hester. Brown dove on the ball at the Chicago 38 for the Texans' first takeaway.

 

On third-and-goal at the three-yard line, Schaub threw a fade route to Johnson in the back right corner of the end zone, and Johnson ripped away the ball from Tillman for the score.

 

Safety Danieal Manning returned the opening kickoff of the second half 40 yards to the Chicago 45. But on third-and-six, rookie safety Dominique Barber blitzed off the right side to sack Orton for a nine-yard loss.

 

Picking up where he left off in the first half, Johnson gained 21 yards to the Houston 48 on his first reception of the third quarter. Later, Slaton's 17-yard catch and wide receiver Kevin Walter's 23-yard grab helped give the Texans a first down at the Chicago 17.

 

Moats scored his first touchdown with the team on a two-yard rush off the left guard to cap the nine-play drive. Brown's extra point extended the Texans' lead to 21-10 with 8:30 left in the third quarter.

 

The Bears refused to lie down and responded with a seven-play, 77-yard drive over 3:00. A 37-yard catch by Hester to the Texans' one-yard line set up Orton's touchdown pass to tight end Greg Olsen.

 

Late in the third quarter, the Texans moved into scoring range thanks to a 33-yard catch by Daniels to the Chicago 15. On third-and-10 at the 15-yard line, wide receiver David Anderson made a diving nine-yard reception, and Schaub dove forward on fourth down to keep the drive alive.

 

Following two short rushes by Slaton, Schaub's pass intended for Anderson on third-and-goal from the four-yard line fell incomplete, setting up Brown's 22-yard field goal.

 

Following a Chicago punt to the Houston 11 midway through the fourth quarter, Schaub drove the offense 89 yards in 11 plays. On the first play of the series, he avoided a safety on first down by tossing a pass in the flats to Slaton, who outran a defensive lineman for an 11-yard gain. Two plays later, Slaton rushed for 47 yards before Manning tackled him at the Chicago 29.

 

A 14-yard reception by Johnson set up Slaton's 15-yard touchdown run, but a holding call on right guard Mike Brisiel negated the score. On the next run by Slaton, he was tackled and fumbled after a one-yard run, but Kubiak challenged the call. Replays showed Slaton's elbow was down before the ball came loose, and officials overturned the call.

 

On third-and-14, Bears linebacker Nick Roach was penalized for holding, giving the Texans an automatic first down at the 14-yard line. Slaton capped the team’s second-consecutive 11-play series with a two-yard touchdown run to make the score 31-17 after Brown's extra point.

 

The Bears made things interesting by picking apart the Texans' prevent defense on an 11-play, 72-yard drive over 1:55. On fourth-and-one at the Houston 11, Orton dove forward for a first down at the two-minute warning. He moved the Bears to the one-yard line by finding running back Adrian Peterson open on a nine-yard screen pass.

 

Safety Eugene Wilson was injured on the play, resulting in a burned timeout for Houston. Once play was restored, Orton pushed his way over the goal line for a touchdown that made the score 31-23 with 1:29 left in the game.

 

But Gould’s onside kick was recovered by Walter at the Chicago 44, and Slaton preserved the win on his final carry of the game for five yards and a first down.

March Field Air Museum

 

In over forty years of service, stretching from the jungles of Vietnam to the deserts of the Persian Gulf, the Lockheed C-141 Starlifter the Air Force’s first jet-powered, heavy-lift cargo aircraft has earned the title of Americas airlift workhorse.

 

A product of John F. Kennedy’s first official order as President, the C-141 was designed to be a fast, long-range strategic and tactical transport capable of delivering 60,000 pounds of cargo 3,500 miles while retaining the slow speed capability to airdrop paratroopers and cargo while in-flight. Produced on-time and under budget, Lockheed engineers gave the C-141 a high-mounted wing swept back 25 degrees for high-speed performance, powerful flaps for low-speed capability, four under-wing TF33 turbofan engines, integral wing fuel tanks, a T-tail, externally housed landing gear, dual paratroop doors and rear-mounted clamshell doors with an integral loading ramp for quick on and off loads.

 

Brought into service in October 1964, in less than seven months squadrons of C-141s began ten years of nearly daily flights into Southeast Asia, carrying troops, equipment, supplies, medevacing wounded and, in 1973’s Operation Homecoming, repatriating freed POWs. In April 1975, C-141s airlifted the last remaining American personnel from Saigon as it fell to North Vietnamese forces.

 

In the following years, Starlifters supplied U.S. forces throughout the world, aiding in humanitarian efforts and military conflicts in Grenada and Panama and providing support to Israeli forces during several flare-ups in the

Middle East. In the first half of 1990, modified C-141Bs with 23-foot fuselage extensions permitting an increased cargo capacity of 13 pallets, 205 troops, 168 fully loaded paratroopers or 103 litters for wounded and equipped with an aerial re-fueling capability, were engaged in Operation Desert Shield. In an around the clock strategic airlift push, C-141Bs landed in Saudi Arabia at an astounding rate of one every seven minutes.

 

The last C-141 left the U.S. inventory in 2006 replaced by a new generation of global airlift, the C-17 Globemaster III.

 

The museum's C-141B Starlifter serial number 65-0257, currently on loan from the National Museum of the U.S.A.F., the “Spirit of the Inland Empire” entered active service in 1966. Its assignments have included Travis AFB, CA. McCord AFB, WA. Norton AFB, CA. and finally the 452nd Air Mobility Wing, at March. After completing 44,130 flight hours 65-0257 retired and moved across the runway to the March Field Air Museum on November 10, 1999.

Is anyone capable of looking at an inchworm and NOT singing to it? Do you suppose inchworms get tired of hearing "Inchworm, inchworm, measuring the marigolds ..."?

 

(For a charming version, see:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wtk-ZmYlxPA )

 

In Beneficial Moments

Waiting in the rain & in vain for 60103 Flying Scotsman at Ampthill Crossing 4/11/2017 (It was 25 minutes earlier than scheduled and sitting in my car it passed by heard but not seen)

The British Rail Class 222 is a diesel multiple unit high-speed train capable of 125 mph (200 km/h). Twenty-seven units have been built in Belgium by Bombardier Transportation.

 

The Class 222 is similar to the Class 220 Voyager and Class 221 Super Voyager trains used by CrossCountry and Virgin Trains, but it has a different interior. The Class 222 trains have more components fitted under the floors to free up space within the body. Since 2009 East Midlands Trains has been the only train operating company using Class 222s.

All coaches are equipped with a Cummins QSK19 diesel engine of 750 hp (560 kW) at 1800 rpm.[2] This powers a generator, which supplies current to motors driving two axles per coach. Approximately 1,350 miles (2,170 km) can be travelled between each refuelling.

 

Class 222 have rheostatic braking using the motors in reverse to generate electricity which is dissipated as heat through resistors situated on the roof of each coach; this saves on brake pad wear.

 

In common with the Class 220s, B5000 lightweight bogies are used - these are easily recognisable since the entire outer surface of the wheel is visible, with inboard axle bearings.

 

The Class 222 are fitted with Dellner couplers,[3] as on Class 220 Voyager and Class 221 SuperVoyager trains,[3] though these units cannot work together in service because the Class 222 electrical connections are incompatible with the Class 220 and Class 221 trains.[3][clarification needed]

 

All Class 222 units are maintained at the dedicated Etches Park depot in Derby, just south of Derby station.

 

Formation[edit]

 

Seven car length Class 222 No. 222003 at London St Pancras

 

Five car length Class 222 No. 222016 at Bedford

Class 222 units are currently running in the following formations:

 

East Midlands Trains: seven cars with 236 standard seats and 106 first-class seats.

 

Coach A - Standard Class with driving cab and reservable space for two bikes

Coach B - Standard Class

Coach C - Standard Class

Coach D - Standard Class with Buffet counter

Coach F - First Class

Coach G - First Class

Coach H - First Class, kitchen and driving cab

East Midlands Trains: five cars with 192 standard seats and 50 first-class seats

 

Coach A - Standard Class with driving cab and reservable space for two bikes

Coach B - Standard Class

Coach C - Standard Class with Buffet counter

Coach D - Standard Class / First Class composite

Coach G - First Class, kitchen and driving cab

East Midlands Trains: four cars with 132 standard seats and 33 first-class seats

 

Coach A - Standard Class with driving cab and reservable space for two bikes

Coach B - Standard Class with Buffet counter

Coach D - Standard Class / First Class composite

Coach G - First Class, kitchen and driving cab

The four- and five-car units can be coupled to form 9/10-car services at peak times. When coupled together, coaches A-G are found in the front unit and the rear coaches become labelled J, K, L, M, N, with the first-class seats in coaches J and K.

 

Initially, the 23 units ordered for Midland Mainline were 4-car and 9-car. Over time these have been gradually modified to the current formations. The 4-car units ordered by Hull Trains had an option when constructed to be extended to 5-cars if required.[4]

East Midlands Trains has named the following Meridians:

 

Unit numberNameDate namedNamed byNotes

222 001The Entrepreneur Express22 September 2011Tim Shoveller, East Midlands Trains Managing DirectorNamed to kick off the start of the 2011 entrepreneur festival MADE

222 002The Cutlers' Company18 October 2011Pamela Liversidge, Master CutlerNamed to mark the successful partnership between East Midlands Trains and Sheffield

222 003Tornado24 March 2009Tim Shoveller, East Midlands Trains Managing DirectorDriving car 60163 named as it has the same number as Tornado

222 004Children's Hospital Sheffield26 February 2013Michael Vaughan, Charity PatonTo mark the successful partnership between East Midlands Trains and the Sheffield Children's Hospital

222 006The Carbon Cutter31 May 2011Philip Hammond, Transport SecretaryTo mark the introduction of eco-mode to the fleet

222 008Derby Etches Park13 September 2014David Horne, East Midlands Trains Managing DirectorNamed as part of the open day at Derby Etches Park

222 015175 Years of Derby's Railways 1839 - 201418 July 2014Paul Atterbury, Antiques Roadshow Expert and railway authorTo mark 175 years of railways in Derby

222 022Invest In Nottingham19 September 2011Jon Collins, leader of Nottingham City CouncilNamed to launch the 2011 Invest in Nottingham day

222 011Sheffield City Battalion 1914-191811 November 2014Ron Wiltshire, Royal British Legion representativeNamed to honour Sheffield City Battalion who fought in the World War I

 

East Midlands Trains Class 222/0 No. 222018 at Loughborough.

In 2008 further rearrangements were made to the sets: another carriage was removed from the eight-car Meridians, except for 222 007, which has been reduced to five cars.[6] The surplus coaches were then added to the remaining four-car Meridians to make six seven-car sets (222 001-222 006) and 17 five-car sets (222 007-222 023). This took place from March to October 2008; as part of the process, two first-class coaches removed from 222 007 were converted to standard class and part first class.

 

The seven-car trains are almost exclusively used on the fast services between London St Pancras and Sheffield. These do not operate the London St Pancras-Leeds, although the service is via Sheffield. The five-car trains are mainly used between London St Pancras and Sheffield, Nottingham or Corby on semi-fast services. The four-car trains supplement the five-car trains on these services.

 

In December 2008 the Class 222 Meridians started work on the hourly London St Pancras to Sheffield services, because they have faster acceleration than the High Speed Trains and so were able to reduce the Sheffield to London journey time by 12 minutes. The hourly Nottingham service was then transferred to High Speed Train running to cover for the Meridians now working the hourly Sheffield fast service.[7]

 

In February 2009, 222 101 and 222 102 transferred from Hull Trains to East Midlands Trains, and were quickly repainted in the East Midlands Trains white livery. 222 104 followed from Hull Trains later in the year. 222 103 followed a few months after 222 104 after repairs had been completed (see below). 222 103 has now been reinstated for service after two years for repairs after the unit fell from jacks at Bombardier, Crofton in early 2007.

 

Some background:

The need for a specialized self-propelled anti-aircraft gun, capable of keeping up with the armored 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 turretless 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 first proposal for the Kugelblitz envisioned mounting a modified anti-aircraft turret, which had originally been developed for U-boats, on the Panzer IV chassis. It was armed with dual 30 mm MK 303 Brunn guns. However, this was eventually abandoned, since development of this gun had not yet been completed, and, in any case, the entire production run of this weapon turret would have been reserved for Germany's Kriegsmarine. However, enough firepower that enabled the Flakpanzer to cope with armoured attack aircraft, namely the Soviet Ilyushin Il-2, which was a major threat to German tanks, was direly needed.

 

As the best readily available alternative, the Kugelblitz eventually used the 30 mm MK 103 cannon in a Zwillingsflak ("twin flak") 103/38 arrangement, and it combined the chassis and basic superstructure of the existing Panzer IV medium battle tank with a newly designed turret. This vehicle received the official designation SdKfz. 161/7 Leichter Flakpanzer IV 3 cm „Kugelblitz”.

 

The turret’s construction was unique, because its spherical body, which was protected with 20 mm steel shells in front and back, was hanging in a ring mount from the Tiger I, suspended by two spigots – it was effectively an independent capsule that only slightly protruded from the tank’s upper side and kept the vehicle’s profile very low, unlike its predecessors. 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 turret was fully enclosed, with full overhead protection, 360° traverse and (rather limited) space for the crew of three plus weapons and ammunition. Driver and radio operator were located in the front of the hull, as with all German tanks. 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. The spare ammunition was located on the right side. Each of these three crew members had separate hatch doors, which they could use to enter or exit the vehicle. The gunner assistants’ hatch doors each had a small round shaped extra hatch, which were used for mounting sighting devices, and there were plans to outfit the turret with a stereoscopic range finder for the commander.

 

The tank’s MK 103 was a powerful 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 Kaliber 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 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. Due to the fact that the MK 103 cannons produced a lot of powder smoke when operated, fume extractors were added, which was another novelty.

 

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, anyway. 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, 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.

 

By early 1945, only around 50 operational vehicles had been built and production of the SdKfz. 161/7 already ceased in May. The first five produced vehicles were given to the newly formed “Panzerflak Ersatz- und Ausbildungsabteilung” (armored Flak training and replacement battalion) located near the city of Ohrdruf (Freistaat Thüringen region in central Germany). One company was divided into three platoons equipped with a mix of different Flakpanzers vehicles. The first platoon was equipped with the Wirbelwind, the second with Ostwind, and the third platoon was equipped with experimental vehicles, such as the Kugelblitz or the “Zerstörer 45”, which was basically a Wirbelwind with a 3-cm-Flak-Vierling 103/38 (armed with four MK 103s).

 

During the unit’s initial trials and deployments, the 3 cm Flak 38 turned out to be a troublesome design, largely because of the strong vibration when firing, and gun smoke frequently filled the turret with hazardous effects on the crews. The vibrations made the target aiming difficult and could even cause damage on the mounting itself – but due to the dire war situation, production was kept up. However, during the running production of the Kugelblitz turret, reinforcements to the mount structure were gradually added, as well as improved sighting systems. None of the operational SdKfz. 161/7s received these upgrades, though, since it was only regarded as a transitional model that filled the most urgent defense gaps. Later production Panzer IV Kugelblitz vehicles were almost exclusively sent to units that defended Berlin, where they fought against the Soviet assault on the German capital.

  

Specifications:

Crew: Five (commander/gunner, 2 assistants, driver, radio operator)

Weight: 23 tons

Length: 5.92 m (19 ft 5 in)

Width: 2.88 m (9 ft 5 ¼ in)

Height: 2.3 m (7 ft 6 ½ in)

Suspension: Leaf spring

Fuel capacity: 470 l (120 US gal)

 

Armour:

10 – 50 mm (0.39 – 1.96 in)

 

Performance:

Maximum road speed: 40 km/h (25 mph)

Sustained road speed: 34 km/h (21.1 mph)

Off-road speed: 24 km/h (15 mph)

Operational range: 210 km (125 mi); 130 km (80 mi) off-road

Power/weight: 13 PS/t

 

Engine:

Maybach HL 120 TRM V12 petrol engine with 300 PS (296 hp, 221 kW)

 

Transmission:

ZF Synchromesh SSG 77 gear with 6 forward and 1 reverse ratios

 

Armament:

2× 30 mm 3 cm Flak 38 (MK 103/3) with a total of 1.200 rounds

1× 7.92 mm Maschinengewehr 34 with 1,250 rounds in bow mount

  

The kit and its assembly:

This is a model of a tank that actually existed, but only in marginal numbers – not more than five Panzer IV with the revolutionary Kugelblitz turret are known to have existed or even seen service. However, it fits well into the ranks of fictional/projected Heer ’46 tanks, and I have been wanting to build or create one for along time.

 

There are some 1:72 kits available, e. g. from Mako, but they are rare and/or expensive. So I rather went for an improvisation approach, and it turned out to be very successful. The complete turret comes from one of the Modelcollect “Vierfüssler” mecha kits – these carry such an installation under the belly(!), what makes absolutely NO sense to me. I especially wonder how the crew is supposed to enter and operate the turret in its upside down position? Not to mention a totally confined field of fire…

 

However, the Modelcollect Kugelblitz tower comes complete with its bearing and the armored collar. It was simply mated with the hull from a late Hasegawa Panzer IV – in my case even a Wirbelwind, which also came with some suitable additional details like stowing boxes for gun barrels. The attachment ring for the turret had just to be widened far enough to accept the Kugelblitz installation – and it worked well! Very simple, but highly effective.

  

Painting and markings:

Well, this did not work 100% as intended. I wanted to emphasize the fact that the tanks would have been built from revamped hulls, so I gave all parts an initial overall coat with RAL 3009, Oxydrot. These were then overpainted with a three-tone Hinterhalt scheme in Dunkelgelb (RAL 7028), Olivgrün (RAL 6003) and Rotbraun (RAL 8012). The pattern was adapted from a Wirbelwind, which I had found in literature, consisting of narrow stripes across the hull with additional spots of Dunkelgelb on top of the darker tones. In order to emphasize the idea of a converted tank with the turret coming from another source, I gave the latter a uniform Dunkelgelb livery.

 

The colors used were Humbrol enamels, this time a different selection of tones, namely 167 (RAF Hemp), 159 (Khaki Drab) and a mix of 160 and 10 (German Rotbraun and Chocolate Brown, for a darker hue). However, I wanted the Oxydrot to shine through the camouflage, but despite efforts with thinned paint and sparse use of the enamels the effect is not as visible as expected. I left it that way, though, here and there the red primer is visible, but a lot of the livery became obscured through the following wash with dark red brown, highly thinned acrylic paint and a final coat of pigment dust on the model’s lower areas.

 

The original black vinyl track was treated with a cloudy mix of grey, red brown and iron acrylic paint, and finally dusted with pigments, too.

 

The decals were gathered from several sources – the tactical code was puzzled together with Roman and Arabic numbers in red (seen on some vehicles from assault gun units), the emblem on the turret shows Berlin’s mascot, the bear, taken from a Modelcollect Heer ’46 kit’s sheet.

 

Some dry-brushing with light grey was done to simulate dust and worn edges, but not too much since the vehicle was to be presented in a more or less new state. And then the model was sealed with acrylic matt varnish.

  

A relatively simple build, since only the turret was exchanged/transplanted. The result looks better than expected, though, and the Kugelblitz turret fit into the Panzer IV hull like the hand into a tight glove. Very convincing. And I might add another Kugelblitz variant, this time either on a Hetzer hull (which was a real alternative to the Panzer IV) or on an E-25, it seems as if an 1:72 kit becomes soon available from Modelcollect.

 

India & Pakistan Owe their Freedom to Allama Mashriqi

 

By Nasim Yousaf

 

Has a powerful ruler ever transferred power without facing a significant threat to their rule? The Indian sub-continent’s freedom was inconceivable without Allama Mashriqi’s private army of over five million uniformed Khaksars who threatened British rule. Considering this reality, India and Pakistan owe their independence to Allama Inayatullah Khan Al-Mashriqi – a legend and a great freedom fighter.

 

Allama Mashriqi’s struggle to revive the glory of the Indian nation started with his poetic work, Kharita, which he wrote in his youth (1902-1909). In 1912, Mashriqi discussed his future aims to liberate the nation when he spoke at a graduation dinner (hosted by the Indian Society of Cambridge University in his honor):

 

“[translation]…Our educational achievements bear testimony to the fact that India can produce unparalleled brains that can defeat the British minds. India is capable of producing superior brains that can make the nation’s future brighter. After we return from here, we must ponder how to break the chains of slavery from the British…We should keep our vision high and enlarge our aims and goals so we can be free from the chains of slavery as soon as possible” (Al-Mashriqi by Dr. Mohammad Azmatullah Bhatti).

 

Later, Mashriqi’s work Tazkirah (published in 1925) spoke of jihad as well as the rise and fall of nations and was a step towards bringing revolt against British rule. In 1926, Mashriqi embarked on a trip to Egypt and Europe; there, he delivered a lecture on his book Tazkirah, jihad and fighting colonial rule. In Germany, Mashriqi was received by Helene von Nostitz-Wallwitz, the niece of German President Hindenburg (Al-Islah, May 31, 1935). While in Germany, Mashriqi discussed the aforementioned topics with Albert Einstein, Helene, and other prominent individuals; these conversations reflected his mindset of bringing an uprising in foreign lands (as well as in India) against the oppression of British colonial rule. Earlier, while in Egypt at the International Caliphate Conference, Mashriqi succeeded in defeating a British plan to have a Caliph of their choice elected to control the Muslim world. During the trip, Mashriqi acted courageously and ignored the risks of being persecuted or even hanged for treachery against the British Empire in foreign lands…and that too as a government employee.

 

Meanwhile in India, M.A. Jinnah, M.K. Gandhi, the All-India Muslim League, and Indian National Congress had not taken any concrete steps to bring revolt or overturn British rule. Anyone who attempted to rise against British rule was either ruthlessly crushed or faced the end of his/her political career. As such, Muslim and Hindu leadership adopted ineffective methods such as passing resolutions, taking out rallies and raising anti-British slogans. Mashriqi felt that such methods were useless and would not end the British Raj.

 

In 1930, Mashriqi resigned from his lucrative job to bring independence to the nation. Risking the lives of himself and his family, Mashriqi launched a private army called the Khaksar Movement. Enrollment in the combative and revolutionary Movement was tough; the masses were not only dispirited, but scared to risk their lives for freedom. In order to promote his mission, Mashriqi traveled in buses, tongas, or third-class compartments of trains and walked for miles at a time in poverty-stricken and rural areas. He was indistinguishable from the common people. This was a man who could have easily accepted an Ambassadorship and title of “Sir” (both of which he was offered by the British in 1920) and continued to draw a hefty salary, brushing shoulders with the British rulers and leading a life of utmost luxury. However, he chose to fight for the people instead.

 

In 1934, Mashriqi launched the Al-Islah weekly newspaper. The Times of India (August 08, 1938) wrote, “The publication of Al-Islah gave a fresh impetus to the [Khaksar] movement which spread to other regions such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran [as well as Bahrain, Burma, Ceylon, Egypt, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Yemen, and U.K].” By the late 1930s, from Peshawar to Rangoon, the private army of Khaksars had grown to millions.

 

Throughout these years, the Khaksars continued their activities, including military camps where mock wars were held using belchas (spades), swords, batons, and sometime even cannons. Many Khaksars had willingly signed pledges in blood indicating that they would lay their lives and property if necessary for the cause of freedom. The Khaksars paraded in the streets of India and spread their message against British rule, including running slides in cinemas, chalking walls, distributing pamphlets and flyers and through Al-Islah. By 1939, Mashriqi had prepared a plan to oust British rule. Later that year, he paralyzed the Government of U.P. Thereafter, Mashriqi formed a parallel government, published a plan (in Al-Islah newspaper) to divide India into 14 provinces, issued currency notes, and ordered the enrollment of an additional 2.5 million Muslim and non-Muslim Khaksars.

 

By now, the strength of the Khaksars had been revealed and the British foresaw Mashriqi taking over. Under intense pressure, the rulers began to make promises of freedom for India and started conversations with M.A. Jinnah, M.K. Gandhi, and others. The Government also took immediate action by launching an anti-Mashriqi campaign in the media; Khaksar activities and the Al-Islah journal were banned. A large number of Khaksars were mercilessly killed by police on March 19, 1940. Mashriqi, his sons, and thousands of Khaksars were arrested. Mashriqi’s young daughters received death threats and threats of abduction. Intelligence agencies were alerted. While in jail, life was made miserable for Mashriqi and the Khaksars; many individuals were kept in solitary confinement and several got life imprisonment. While their activities were banned, the Khaksar Tehrik continued operating from the underground; Al-Islah’s publishing operations were moved to other cities (Aligarh and Calcutta). To overcome censoring of mail and phone calls, they employed the use of secret codes. The Government repression brought additional uprise in the country against British rule.

 

While in jail, Mashriqi was informed that in order to obtain his release, he must announce the disbandment of the Movement; he refused and instead kept a fast unto death that made the rulers fearful of additional backlash from the public and forced them to release Mashriqi after two years in jail without a trial (strict restrictions on his movements remained after release). Thus, Mashriqi, his family, and the Khaksars refused to surrender and the rulers failed to suppress the Khaksar Tehrik.

 

Upon his release (despite restrictions on his movements), Mashriqi asked Jinnah, Gandhi, and other leaders to form a joint front and stand with him so he could end British rule. He also pushed for a Jinnah-Gandhi meeting and continued to promote Hindu-Muslim unity. However, vested interests prevented these leaders from joining hands with Mashriqi.

 

As the British continued holding talks with their favored leaders, Mashriqi continuing pushing rigorously for a revolt. In 1946, Mashriqi succeeded in bringing about a Bombay Naval Mutiny on February 18, 1946 (Al-Islah, March 08, 1946), which also prompted mutiny within the other armed forces.

 

On June 08, 1946, at the Khaksar Headquarters in Icchra (Lahore), Mashriqi addressed a gathering of Khaksars, soldiers released from the armed forces after World War II, and the soldiers of the defeated Indian National Army (INA) of Subhas Chandra Bose: “after sixteen years of unprecedented self-sacrifices, we are now ardent to reach our objective as fast as possible, and within the next few months will do anything and everything to achieve our goal” (Al-Islah June 14, 1946).

 

Final preparations for a revolt for independence took place in November 1946 at a historic Khaksar Camp in Peshawar (from November 07-10, 1946), where mock wars and military exercises were held. Mashriqi addressed a crowd of 110,000 Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, and others; he shed light on the self-seeking and futile politics of Indian leaders and gave an account of the British exploitations of India’s resources. The speech sparked a sense that further abuse by the rulers would no longer be tolerated and their rule must come to an end. Thereafter, on December 01, 1946, Mashriqi distributed a pamphlet in India proclaiming:

 

“[translation] Idara-i-Aliya [Khaksar Headquarters] shall soon issue an order that in the entire India, four million [sources quote a range from 4-5 million members] Khaksars, side by side with hundreds of thousands rather millions of supporters shall march simultaneously…This moment shall dawn upon us very soon and that is why it is being ordered that a grand preparation for this historical day should commence immediately…so that British can clearly witness the day of India’s freedom…”

 

With this bold announcement, a British hold on power was no longer possible. As such, Prime Minister Clement Attlee announced a transfer of power by no later than June 1948. Mashriqi suspected that the announcement could be a ploy to divert public attention or to buy time to create dissent within the country (for example, by encouraging ongoing Muslim-Hindu riots), so that the British could justify and extend their rule.

 

To close the door on any such ploys, Mashriqi ordered 300,000 Khaksars to assemble on June 30th, 1947 in Delhi; this order put the final nail in the coffin for the British Raj. Such a huge assembly of this private army of Khaksars would enable them to take over all important installations – including radio/broadcasting stations, newspaper offices, British officials’ lodges, and government offices. Immediately following these steps, an overturn of British rule was to be announced via media. The timing of this coup d’état was fitting, as the entire nation (including the armed forces, who had already revolted against the regime) wanted an end to British rule. With this impending massive assembly of Khaksars in Delhi, the rulers saw the writing on the wall; they feared their humiliation and defeat at the hands of the Khaksars and angry masses. Moreover, the rulers could not accept a united India…and that too at the hands of Allama Mashriqi.

 

Therefore, without any other compelling reason, a transfer of power was undertaken by the British in an extraordinary rush; on June 3rd, 1947, the Viceroy of India, Lord Mountbatten, announced a plan to partition India. Mountbatten called a hurried meeting of their selected Muslim and Hindu leaders and asked them to accept the plan immediately. The selected leaders saw power falling in the hands of Mashriqi and he becoming the champion of freedom if they did not accept the plan. Jealousy and vested interests came into play. M. K. Gandhi, Jinnah’s All-India Muslim League, and the Indian National Congress accepted the plan almost immediately. Mashriqi tried to prevent the All-India Muslim League from signing off on the plan, but was “stabbed” (The Canberra Times, Australia, June 11, 1947) on the same day that the League accepted the plan (June 09, 1947). It was obvious that the motive of this stabbing was to keep Mashriqi from stopping the partition of India (in order to have a united independence).

 

The partition plan was accepted and announced all over the world only about two weeks before the assembly of the Khaksars was to take place. Logically speaking, can it actually be called a “transfer of power”? The British handed over control of the nation in a rush because the Khaksars were on the verge of forcibly ending their rule; indeed, over 100,000 (Dawn July 02, 1947 reported “70,000 to 80,000”) Khaksars had already entered Delhi despite strict measures in place.

 

The establishments in India and Pakistan and historians overstate the role of the British’s preferred leaders, while failing to recognize the reality of what led to independence. Neither Jinnah nor Gandhi had the street power to overturn-British rule; it is for this reason that they were seeking a transfer of power, which they obtained based on the threat posed to British rule by the powerful Khaksar Movement. Historians have thus far presented history from a colonial or Pakistani/Indian state point of view, rather than based on the facts on the ground.

 

Instead of giving credit to Mashriqi, some historians provide flimsy reasons for the end of British rule. Some of the reasons they cite are:

 

(1) Gandhi’s methods and Jinnah’s constitutional fight brought freedom to India and Pakistan respectively -- this argument is neither supported by human history nor the realities on the ground, as colonial rulers do not voluntarily relinquish their power without a significant threat to their rule.

 

(2) The British fast-forwarded transfer of power and left quickly to avoid blame for the massive killings that would ensue -- this argument also does not make sense as the massive communal riots/killings began on Direct Action Day (August 16, 1946), so an early transfer of power would not have helped the rulers avoid blame. Even if we were to accept these writers’ claims, why would Lord Mountbatten then become the first Governor General of India and why would many Britishers continue to hold important positions in Pakistan and India?

 

(3) The British left India because after World War II, they became economically weak and could not keep their hold on India -- this claim does not hold water. India’s rich resources would have helped them to recover their losses from the war.

 

(4) The end of the British Raj came about because of Subhas Chandra Bose’s Indian National Army (INA) -- the INA was defeated in 1945 and thereafter, Subhas Chandra Bose was not on the scene anymore (he was either killed or went into hiding as claimed).

 

The Pakistani, Indian, and United Kingdom establishments do not let the truth come out. Despite my open letters to the Chief Justices of the Supreme Courts and the Prime Ministers of Pakistan and India, both countries (and the U.K.) have not declassified Mashriqi and the Khaksar Tehrik’s confiscated papers from the pre-post partition era. In order to hide the truth, Mashriqi’s role is also excluded from the educational curriculum and academic discussions everywhere. The Partition Museum in Amritsar, Lahore Museum, London Museum and others do not display Mashriqi and the Khaksar Tehrik’s artifacts.

 

Despite the current state of affairs, the ground realities speak loudly to Mashriqi’s heroic fight; without Mashriqi’s private army of Khaksars, the British rulers would not have even come to the table to discuss the freedom of the Indian sub-continent (now Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan), leave alone quit the lucrative sub-continent. As such, both countries owe their independence to Mashriqi and he is a founding father of India and Pakistan.

 

Nasim Yousaf is a biographer and grandson of Allama Mashriqi. Yousaf’s works have been published in peer-reviewed encyclopedias and academic journals (including at Harvard University and by Springer of Europe), and he has presented papers at academic conferences, including at Cornell University.

 

Copyright © 2020 Nasim Yousaf

 

Published:

 

Kashmir Images (Srinagar, Kashmir), August 22, 2020

Pakistan Link (USA), August 28, 2020

The Miracle (Canada), August 28, 2020

Brisbane Indian Times (Australia), September 12, 2020

Asian World News (United Kingdom), August 20, 2020

Isma Times (India), Aug 20, 2020

Muslim Mirror (India), August 25, 2020

New Age Islam (India), August 21, 2020

Fast Kashmir, (Kashmir), Aug 20, 2020

 

***

 

2) archive.org/details/india-pakistan-owe-their-freedom-to-a...

 

2) issuu.com/nasimyousaf

 

#AllamaMashriqi #AllamaMashriqiVirtualMuseum #KhaksarMovement #Khaksars #TwoNationTheory #Partition #PartitionofIndia #OralHistory #BritishEmpire #PakistanHistory #IndianHistory #FreedomMovement #LahoreMuseum #PartitionMuseum #AmritsarMuseum #PartitionMuseumAmritsar #Lahore #Twitter #YouTube #SocialMedia #CollectionsUnited

+++ 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 Lockheed F-94 Starfire was a first-generation jet aircraft of the United States Air Force. It was developed from the twin-seat Lockheed T-33 Shooting Star in the late 1940s as an all-weather, day/night interceptor, replacing the propeller-driven North American F-82 Twin Mustang in this role. The system was designed to overtake the F-80 in terms of performance, but more so to intercept the new high-level Soviet bombers capable of nuclear attacks on America and her Allies - in particular, the new Tupelov Tu-4. The F-94 was furthermore the first operational USAF fighter equipped with an afterburner and was the first jet-powered all-weather fighter to enter combat during the Korean War in January 1953.

 

The initial production model, the F-94A, entered operational service in May 1950. Its armament consisted of four 0.50 in (12.7 mm) M3 Browning machine guns mounted in the fuselage with the muzzles exiting under the radome for the APG-33 radar, a derivative from the AN/APG-3, which directed the Convair B-36's tail guns and had a range of up to 20 miles (32 km). Two 165 US Gallon (1,204 litre) drop tanks, as carried by the F-80 and T-33, were carried on the wingtips. Alternatively, these could be replaced by a pair of 1,000 lb (454 kg) bombs under the wings, giving the aircraft a secondary fighter bomber capability. 109 were produced.

 

The subsequent F-94B, which entered service in January 1951, was outwardly virtually identical to the F-94A. Its Allison J33 turbojet had a number of modifications made, though, which made it a very reliable engine. The pilot was provided with a roomier cockpit and the canopy received a bow frame in the center between the two crew members. A new Instrument Landing System (ILS) was fitted, too, which made operations at night and/or in bad weather much safer. However, this new variant’s punch with just four machine guns remained weak, and, to improve the load of fire, wing-mounted pods with two additional pairs of 0.5” machine guns were introduced – but these hardly improved the interceptor’s effectiveness. 356 of the F-94B were nevertheless built.

 

The following F-94C was extensively modified and initially designated F-97, but it was ultimately decided just to treat it as a new version of the F-94. USAF interest was lukewarm since aircraft technology had already developed at a fast pace – supersonic performance had already become standard. Lockheed funded development themselves, converting two F-94B airframes to YF-94C prototypes for evaluation with a completely new, much thinner wing, a swept tail surface and a more powerful Pratt & Whitney J48. This was a license-built version of the afterburning Rolls-Royce Tay, which produced a dry thrust of 6,350 pounds-force (28.2 kN) and approximately 8,750 pounds-force (38.9 kN) with afterburning. Instead of machine guns, the proposed new variant was exclusively armed with unguided air-to-air missiles.

Tests were positive and eventually the F-94C was adopted for USAF service, since it was the best interim solution for an all-weather fighter at that time. It still had to rely on Ground Control Interception Radar (GCI) sites to vector the interceptor to intruding aircraft, though.

 

The F-94C's introduction and the availability of the more effective Northrop F-89C/D Scorpion and the North American F-86D Sabre interceptors led to a quick relegation of the earlier F-94 variants from mid-1954 onwards to second line units and to Air National Guards. By 1955 most of them had already been phased out of USAF service, and some of these relatively young surplus machines were subsequently exported or handed over to friendly nations, too. When sent to the ANG, the F-94As were modified by Lockheed to F-94B standards and then returned to the ANG as B models. They primarily replaced outdated F-80C Shooting Stars and F-51D/H Mustangs.

 

At that time the USAF was looking for a tactical reconnaissance aircraft, a more effective successor for the RF-80A which had shown its worth and weaknesses during the Korea War. For instance, the plane could not fly at low altitude long enough to perform suitable visual reconnaissance, and its camera equipment was still based on WWII standards. Lockheed saw the opportunity to fill this operational gap with conversions of existing F-94A/B airframes, which had, in most cases, only had clocked few flying hours, primarily at high altitudes where Soviet bombers were expected to lurk, and still a lot of airframe life to offer. This led to another private venture, the RF-94B, auspiciously christened “Stargazer”.

 

The RF-94B was based on the F-94B interceptor with its J33 engine and the original unswept tail. The F-94B’s wings were retained but received a different leading-edge profile to better cope with operations at low altitude. The interceptor’s nose with the radome and the machine guns underneath was replaced by a new all-metal nose cone, which was more than 3 feet longer than the former radar nose, with windows for several sets of cameras; the wedge-shaped nose cone quickly earned the aircraft the unofficial nickname “Crocodile”.

One camera was looking ahead into flight direction and could be mounted at different angled downward (but not moved during flight), followed by two oblique cameras, looking to the left and the right, and a vertical camera as well as a long-range camera focussed on the horizon, which was behind a round window at port side. An additional, spacious compartment in front of the landing gear well held an innovative Tri-Metrogen horizon-to-horizon view system that consisted of three synchronized cameras. Coupled with a computerized control system based on light, speed, and altitude, it adjusted camera settings to produce pictures with greater delineation.

All cameras could be triggered individually by pilot or a dedicated observer/camera systems operator in the 2nd seat. Talking into a wire recorder, the crew could describe ground movements that might not have appeared in still pictures. A vertical view finder with a periscopic presentation on the cockpit panel was added for the pilot to enhance visual reconnaissance and target identification directly under the aircraft. Using magnesium flares carried under its wings in flash-ejector cartridges, the RF-94B was furthermore able to fly night missions.

The RF-94B was supposed to operate unarmed, but it could still carry a pair of 1.000 lb bombs under its wings or, thanks to added plumbings, an extra pair of drop tanks for ferry flights. The F-94A/B’s machine gun pods as well as the F-94C’s unguided missile launchers could be mounted to the wings, too, making it a viable attack aircraft in a secondary role.

 

The USAF was highly interested in this update proposal for the outdated interceptors (almost 500 F-94A/Bs had been built) and ordered 100 RF-94B conversions with an option for 100 more – just when a severe (and superior) competitor entered the stage after a lot of development troubles: Republic’s RF-84F Thunderflash reconnaissance version. The first YRF-84F had already been completed in February 1952 and it had an overall slightly better performance than the RF-94B. However, it offered more internal space for reconnaissance systems and was able to carry up to fifteen cameras with the support of many automatized systems, so that it was a single seater. Being largely identical to the F-84F and sharing its technical and logistical infrastructures, the USAF decided on short notice to change its procurement decision and rather adopt the more modern and promising Thunderflash as its standard tactical reconnaissance aircraft. The RF-94B conversion order was reduced to the initial 100 aircraft, and to avoid operational complexity these aircraft were exclusively delivered to Air National Guardss that had experience with the F-94A/B to replace their obsolete RF-80As.

 

Gradual replacement lasted until 1958, and while the RF-94B’s performance was overall better than the RF-80A’s, it was still disappointing and not the expected tactical intelligence gathering leap forward. The airframe did not cope well with constant low-level operations, and the aircraft’s marginal speed and handling did not ensure its survivability. However, unlike the RF-84F, which suffered from frequent engine problems, the Stargazers’ J33 made them highly reliable platforms – even though the complex Tri-Metrogen device turned out to be capricious, so that it was soon replaced with up to three standard cameras.

 

For better handling and less drag esp. at low altitude, the F-94B’s large Fletcher type wingtip tanks were frequently replaced with smaller ones with about half capacity. It also became common practice to operate the RF-94Bs with only a crew of one, and from 1960 on the RF-94B was, thanks to its second seat, more and more used as a trainer before pilots mounted more potent reconnaissance aircraft like the RF-101 Voodoo, which eventually replaced the RF-94B in ANG service. The last RF-94B was phased out in 1968, and, unlike the RF-84F, it was not operated by any foreign air force.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 2 (but frequently operated by a single pilot)

Length: 43 ft 4 3/4 in (13.25 m)

Wingspan (with tip tanks): 40 ft 9 1/2 in (12.45 m)

Height: 12 ft. 2 (3.73 m)

Wing area: 234' 8" sq ft (29.11 m²)

Empty weight: 10,064 lb (4,570 kg)

Loaded weight: 15,330 lb (6,960 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 24,184 lb (10,970 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Allison J33-A-33 turbojet, rated at 4,600 lbf (20.4 kN) continuous thrust,

5,400 lbf (24 kN) with water injection and 6,000 lbf (26.6 kN) thrust with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 630 mph (1,014 km/h) at height and in level flight

Range: 930 mi (813 nmi, 1,500 km) in combat configuration with two drop tanks

Ferry range: 1,457 mi (1,275 nmi, 2,345 km)

Service ceiling: 42,750 ft (14,000 m)

Rate of climb: 6,858 ft/min (34.9 m/s)

Wing loading: 57.4 lb/ft² (384 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight: 0.48

 

Armament:

No internal guns; 2x 165 US Gallon (1,204 liter) drop tanks on the wing tips and…

2x underwing hardpoints for two additional 165 US Gallon (1,204 liter) ferry tanks

or bombs of up to 1.000 lb (454 kg) caliber each, plus…

2x optional (rarely fitted) pods on the wings’ leading edges with either a pair of 0.5" (12.7 mm)

machine guns or twelve 2.75” (70 mm) Mk 4/Mk 40 Folding-Fin Aerial Rockets each

  

The kit and its assembly:

This project was originally earmarked as a submission for the 2021 “Reconnaissance & Surveillance” group build at whatifmodellers.com, in the form of a Heller F-94B with a new nose section. The inspiration behind this build was the real-world EF-94C (s/n 50-963): a solitary conversion with a bulbous camera nose. However, the EF-94C was not a reconnaissance aircraft but rather a chase plane/camera ship for the Air Research and Development Command, hence its unusual designation with the suffix “E”, standing for “Exempt” instead of the more appropriate “R” for a dedicated recce aircraft. There also was another EF-94C, but this was a totally different kind of aircraft: an ejection seat testbed.

 

I had a surplus Heller F-94B kit in The Stash™ and it was built almost completely OOB and did – except for some sinkholes and standard PSR work – not pose any problem. In fact, the old Heller Starfire model is IMHO a pretty good representation of the aircraft. O.K., its age might show, but almost anything you could ask for at 1:72 scale is there, including a decent, detailed cockpit.

 

The biggest change was the new camera nose, and it was scratched from an unlikely donor part: it consists of a Matchbox B-17G tail gunner station, slimmed down by the gunner station glazing's width at the seam in the middle, and this "sandwich" was furthermore turned upside down. Getting the transitional sections right took lots of PSR, though, and I added some styrene profiles to integrate the new nose into the rest of the hull. It was unintentional, but the new nose profile reminds a lot of a RF-101 recce Voodoo, and there's, with the straight wings, a very F-89ish look to the aircraft now? There's also something F2H-2ish about the outlines?

 

The large original wing tip tanks were cut off and replaced with smaller alternatives from a Hasegawa A-37. Because it was easy to realize on this kit I lowered the flaps, together with open ventral air brakes. The cockpit was taken OOB, I just modified the work station on the rear seat and replaced the rubber sight protector for the WSO with two screens for a camera operator. Finally, the one-piece cockpit glazing was cut into two parts to present the model with an open canopy.

  

Painting and markings:

This was a tough decision: either an NMF finish (the natural first choice), an overall light grey anti-corrosive coat of paint, both with relatively colorful unit markings, or camouflage. The USAF’s earlier RF-80As carried a unique scheme in olive drab/neutral grey with a medium waterline, but that would look rather vintage on the F-94. I decided that some tactical camouflage would make most sense on this kind of aircraft and eventually settled for the USAF’s SEA scheme with reduced tactical markings, which – after some field tests and improvisations in Vietnam – became standardized and was officially introduced to USAF aircraft around 1965 as well as to ANG units.

 

Even though I had already built a camouflaged F-94 some time ago (a Hellenic aircraft in worn SEA colors), I settled for this route. The basic colors (FS 30219, 34227, 34279 and 36622) all came from Humbrol (118, 117, 116 and 28, respectively), and for the pattern I adapted the paint scheme of the USAF’s probably only T-33 in SEA colors: a trainer based on Iceland during the Seventies and available as a markings option in one of the Special Hobby 1:32 T-33 kits. The low waterline received a wavy shape, inspired by an early ANG RF-101 in SEA camouflage I came across in a book. The new SEA scheme was apparently applied with a lot of enthusiasm and properness when it was brand new, but this quickly vaned. As an extra, the wing tip tanks received black anti-glare sections on their inner faces and a black anti-glare panel was added in front of the windscreen - a decal from a T-33 aftermarket sheet. Beyond a black ink wash the model received some subtle panel post-shading, but rather to emphasize surface details than for serious weathering.

 

The cockpit became very dark grey (Revell 06) while the landing gear wells were kept in zinc chromate green primer (Humbrol 80, Grass Green), with bright red (Humbrol 60, Matt Red) cover interiors and struts and wheels in aluminum (Humbrol 56). The interior of the flaps and the ventral air brakes became red, too.

 

The decals/markings came from a Special Hobby 1:72 F-86H; there’s a dedicated ANG boxing of the kit that comes with an optional camouflaged aircraft of the NY ANG, the least unit to operate the “Sabre Hog” during the Seventies. Since this 138th TFS formerly operated the F-94A/B, it was a perfect option for the RF-94B! I just used a different Bu. No. code on the fin, taken from a PrintScale A/T-37 set, and most stencils were perocured from the scrap box.

After a final light treatment with graphite around the afterburner for a more metallic shine of the iron metallic (Revell 97) underneath, the kit was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish (Italeri).

  

A camouflaged F-94 is an unusual sight, but it works very well. The new/longer nose considerably changes the aircraft's profile, and even though the change is massive, the "Crocodile" looks surprisingly plausible, if not believable! And, despite the long nose, the aircraft looks pretty sleek, especially in the air.

+++ 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 Lockheed F-94 Starfire was a first-generation jet aircraft of the United States Air Force. It was developed from the twin-seat Lockheed T-33 Shooting Star in the late 1940s as an all-weather, day/night interceptor, replacing the propeller-driven North American F-82 Twin Mustang in this role. The system was designed to overtake the F-80 in terms of performance, but more so to intercept the new high-level Soviet bombers capable of nuclear attacks on America and her Allies - in particular, the new Tupelov Tu-4. The F-94 was furthermore the first operational USAF fighter equipped with an afterburner and was the first jet-powered all-weather fighter to enter combat during the Korean War in January 1953.

 

The initial production model, the F-94A, entered operational service in May 1950. Its armament consisted of four 0.50 in (12.7 mm) M3 Browning machine guns mounted in the fuselage with the muzzles exiting under the radome for the APG-33 radar, a derivative from the AN/APG-3, which directed the Convair B-36's tail guns and had a range of up to 20 miles (32 km). Two 165 US Gallon (1,204 litre) drop tanks, as carried by the F-80 and T-33, were carried on the wingtips. Alternatively, these could be replaced by a pair of 1,000 lb (454 kg) bombs under the wings, giving the aircraft a secondary fighter bomber capability. 109 were produced.

 

The subsequent F-94B, which entered service in January 1951, was outwardly virtually identical to the F-94A. Its Allison J33 turbojet had a number of modifications made, though, which made it a very reliable engine. The pilot was provided with a roomier cockpit and the canopy received a bow frame in the center between the two crew members. A new Instrument Landing System (ILS) was fitted, too, which made operations at night and/or in bad weather much safer. However, this new variant’s punch with just four machine guns remained weak, and, to improve the load of fire, wing-mounted pods with two additional pairs of 0.5” machine guns were introduced – but these hardly improved the interceptor’s effectiveness. 356 of the F-94B were nevertheless built.

 

The following F-94C was extensively modified and initially designated F-97, but it was ultimately decided just to treat it as a new version of the F-94. USAF interest was lukewarm since aircraft technology had already developed at a fast pace – supersonic performance had already become standard. Lockheed funded development themselves, converting two F-94B airframes to YF-94C prototypes for evaluation with a completely new, much thinner wing, a swept tail surface and a more powerful Pratt & Whitney J48. This was a license-built version of the afterburning Rolls-Royce Tay, which produced a dry thrust of 6,350 pounds-force (28.2 kN) and approximately 8,750 pounds-force (38.9 kN) with afterburning. Instead of machine guns, the proposed new variant was exclusively armed with unguided air-to-air missiles.

Tests were positive and eventually the F-94C was adopted for USAF service, since it was the best interim solution for an all-weather fighter at that time. It still had to rely on Ground Control Interception Radar (GCI) sites to vector the interceptor to intruding aircraft, though.

 

The F-94C's introduction and the availability of the more effective Northrop F-89C/D Scorpion and the North American F-86D Sabre interceptors led to a quick relegation of the earlier F-94 variants from mid-1954 onwards to second line units and to Air National Guards. By 1955 most of them had already been phased out of USAF service, and some of these relatively young surplus machines were subsequently exported or handed over to friendly nations, too. When sent to the ANG, the F-94As were modified by Lockheed to F-94B standards and then returned to the ANG as B models. They primarily replaced outdated F-80C Shooting Stars and F-51D/H Mustangs.

 

At that time the USAF was looking for a tactical reconnaissance aircraft, a more effective successor for the RF-80A which had shown its worth and weaknesses during the Korea War. For instance, the plane could not fly at low altitude long enough to perform suitable visual reconnaissance, and its camera equipment was still based on WWII standards. Lockheed saw the opportunity to fill this operational gap with conversions of existing F-94A/B airframes, which had, in most cases, only had clocked few flying hours, primarily at high altitudes where Soviet bombers were expected to lurk, and still a lot of airframe life to offer. This led to another private venture, the RF-94B, auspiciously christened “Stargazer”.

 

The RF-94B was based on the F-94B interceptor with its J33 engine and the original unswept tail. The F-94B’s wings were retained but received a different leading-edge profile to better cope with operations at low altitude. The interceptor’s nose with the radome and the machine guns underneath was replaced by a new all-metal nose cone, which was more than 3 feet longer than the former radar nose, with windows for several sets of cameras; the wedge-shaped nose cone quickly earned the aircraft the unofficial nickname “Crocodile”.

One camera was looking ahead into flight direction and could be mounted at different angled downward (but not moved during flight), followed by two oblique cameras, looking to the left and the right, and a vertical camera as well as a long-range camera focussed on the horizon, which was behind a round window at port side. An additional, spacious compartment in front of the landing gear well held an innovative Tri-Metrogen horizon-to-horizon view system that consisted of three synchronized cameras. Coupled with a computerized control system based on light, speed, and altitude, it adjusted camera settings to produce pictures with greater delineation.

All cameras could be triggered individually by pilot or a dedicated observer/camera systems operator in the 2nd seat. Talking into a wire recorder, the crew could describe ground movements that might not have appeared in still pictures. A vertical view finder with a periscopic presentation on the cockpit panel was added for the pilot to enhance visual reconnaissance and target identification directly under the aircraft. Using magnesium flares carried under its wings in flash-ejector cartridges, the RF-94B was furthermore able to fly night missions.

The RF-94B was supposed to operate unarmed, but it could still carry a pair of 1.000 lb bombs under its wings or, thanks to added plumbings, an extra pair of drop tanks for ferry flights. The F-94A/B’s machine gun pods as well as the F-94C’s unguided missile launchers could be mounted to the wings, too, making it a viable attack aircraft in a secondary role.

 

The USAF was highly interested in this update proposal for the outdated interceptors (almost 500 F-94A/Bs had been built) and ordered 100 RF-94B conversions with an option for 100 more – just when a severe (and superior) competitor entered the stage after a lot of development troubles: Republic’s RF-84F Thunderflash reconnaissance version. The first YRF-84F had already been completed in February 1952 and it had an overall slightly better performance than the RF-94B. However, it offered more internal space for reconnaissance systems and was able to carry up to fifteen cameras with the support of many automatized systems, so that it was a single seater. Being largely identical to the F-84F and sharing its technical and logistical infrastructures, the USAF decided on short notice to change its procurement decision and rather adopt the more modern and promising Thunderflash as its standard tactical reconnaissance aircraft. The RF-94B conversion order was reduced to the initial 100 aircraft, and to avoid operational complexity these aircraft were exclusively delivered to Air National Guardss that had experience with the F-94A/B to replace their obsolete RF-80As.

 

Gradual replacement lasted until 1958, and while the RF-94B’s performance was overall better than the RF-80A’s, it was still disappointing and not the expected tactical intelligence gathering leap forward. The airframe did not cope well with constant low-level operations, and the aircraft’s marginal speed and handling did not ensure its survivability. However, unlike the RF-84F, which suffered from frequent engine problems, the Stargazers’ J33 made them highly reliable platforms – even though the complex Tri-Metrogen device turned out to be capricious, so that it was soon replaced with up to three standard cameras.

 

For better handling and less drag esp. at low altitude, the F-94B’s large Fletcher type wingtip tanks were frequently replaced with smaller ones with about half capacity. It also became common practice to operate the RF-94Bs with only a crew of one, and from 1960 on the RF-94B was, thanks to its second seat, more and more used as a trainer before pilots mounted more potent reconnaissance aircraft like the RF-101 Voodoo, which eventually replaced the RF-94B in ANG service. The last RF-94B was phased out in 1968, and, unlike the RF-84F, it was not operated by any foreign air force.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 2 (but frequently operated by a single pilot)

Length: 43 ft 4 3/4 in (13.25 m)

Wingspan (with tip tanks): 40 ft 9 1/2 in (12.45 m)

Height: 12 ft. 2 (3.73 m)

Wing area: 234' 8" sq ft (29.11 m²)

Empty weight: 10,064 lb (4,570 kg)

Loaded weight: 15,330 lb (6,960 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 24,184 lb (10,970 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Allison J33-A-33 turbojet, rated at 4,600 lbf (20.4 kN) continuous thrust,

5,400 lbf (24 kN) with water injection and 6,000 lbf (26.6 kN) thrust with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 630 mph (1,014 km/h) at height and in level flight

Range: 930 mi (813 nmi, 1,500 km) in combat configuration with two drop tanks

Ferry range: 1,457 mi (1,275 nmi, 2,345 km)

Service ceiling: 42,750 ft (14,000 m)

Rate of climb: 6,858 ft/min (34.9 m/s)

Wing loading: 57.4 lb/ft² (384 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight: 0.48

 

Armament:

No internal guns; 2x 165 US Gallon (1,204 liter) drop tanks on the wing tips and…

2x underwing hardpoints for two additional 165 US Gallon (1,204 liter) ferry tanks

or bombs of up to 1.000 lb (454 kg) caliber each, plus…

2x optional (rarely fitted) pods on the wings’ leading edges with either a pair of 0.5" (12.7 mm)

machine guns or twelve 2.75” (70 mm) Mk 4/Mk 40 Folding-Fin Aerial Rockets each

  

The kit and its assembly:

This project was originally earmarked as a submission for the 2021 “Reconnaissance & Surveillance” group build at whatifmodellers.com, in the form of a Heller F-94B with a new nose section. The inspiration behind this build was the real-world EF-94C (s/n 50-963): a solitary conversion with a bulbous camera nose. However, the EF-94C was not a reconnaissance aircraft but rather a chase plane/camera ship for the Air Research and Development Command, hence its unusual designation with the suffix “E”, standing for “Exempt” instead of the more appropriate “R” for a dedicated recce aircraft. There also was another EF-94C, but this was a totally different kind of aircraft: an ejection seat testbed.

 

I had a surplus Heller F-94B kit in The Stash™ and it was built almost completely OOB and did – except for some sinkholes and standard PSR work – not pose any problem. In fact, the old Heller Starfire model is IMHO a pretty good representation of the aircraft. O.K., its age might show, but almost anything you could ask for at 1:72 scale is there, including a decent, detailed cockpit.

 

The biggest change was the new camera nose, and it was scratched from an unlikely donor part: it consists of a Matchbox B-17G tail gunner station, slimmed down by the gunner station glazing's width at the seam in the middle, and this "sandwich" was furthermore turned upside down. Getting the transitional sections right took lots of PSR, though, and I added some styrene profiles to integrate the new nose into the rest of the hull. It was unintentional, but the new nose profile reminds a lot of a RF-101 recce Voodoo, and there's, with the straight wings, a very F-89ish look to the aircraft now? There's also something F2H-2ish about the outlines?

 

The large original wing tip tanks were cut off and replaced with smaller alternatives from a Hasegawa A-37. Because it was easy to realize on this kit I lowered the flaps, together with open ventral air brakes. The cockpit was taken OOB, I just modified the work station on the rear seat and replaced the rubber sight protector for the WSO with two screens for a camera operator. Finally, the one-piece cockpit glazing was cut into two parts to present the model with an open canopy.

  

Painting and markings:

This was a tough decision: either an NMF finish (the natural first choice), an overall light grey anti-corrosive coat of paint, both with relatively colorful unit markings, or camouflage. The USAF’s earlier RF-80As carried a unique scheme in olive drab/neutral grey with a medium waterline, but that would look rather vintage on the F-94. I decided that some tactical camouflage would make most sense on this kind of aircraft and eventually settled for the USAF’s SEA scheme with reduced tactical markings, which – after some field tests and improvisations in Vietnam – became standardized and was officially introduced to USAF aircraft around 1965 as well as to ANG units.

 

Even though I had already built a camouflaged F-94 some time ago (a Hellenic aircraft in worn SEA colors), I settled for this route. The basic colors (FS 30219, 34227, 34279 and 36622) all came from Humbrol (118, 117, 116 and 28, respectively), and for the pattern I adapted the paint scheme of the USAF’s probably only T-33 in SEA colors: a trainer based on Iceland during the Seventies and available as a markings option in one of the Special Hobby 1:32 T-33 kits. The low waterline received a wavy shape, inspired by an early ANG RF-101 in SEA camouflage I came across in a book. The new SEA scheme was apparently applied with a lot of enthusiasm and properness when it was brand new, but this quickly vaned. As an extra, the wing tip tanks received black anti-glare sections on their inner faces and a black anti-glare panel was added in front of the windscreen - a decal from a T-33 aftermarket sheet. Beyond a black ink wash the model received some subtle panel post-shading, but rather to emphasize surface details than for serious weathering.

 

The cockpit became very dark grey (Revell 06) while the landing gear wells were kept in zinc chromate green primer (Humbrol 80, Grass Green), with bright red (Humbrol 60, Matt Red) cover interiors and struts and wheels in aluminum (Humbrol 56). The interior of the flaps and the ventral air brakes became red, too.

 

The decals/markings came from a Special Hobby 1:72 F-86H; there’s a dedicated ANG boxing of the kit that comes with an optional camouflaged aircraft of the NY ANG, the least unit to operate the “Sabre Hog” during the Seventies. Since this 138th TFS formerly operated the F-94A/B, it was a perfect option for the RF-94B! I just used a different Bu. No. code on the fin, taken from a PrintScale A/T-37 set, and most stencils were perocured from the scrap box.

After a final light treatment with graphite around the afterburner for a more metallic shine of the iron metallic (Revell 97) underneath, the kit was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish (Italeri).

  

A camouflaged F-94 is an unusual sight, but it works very well. The new/longer nose considerably changes the aircraft's profile, and even though the change is massive, the "Crocodile" looks surprisingly plausible, if not believable! And, despite the long nose, the aircraft looks pretty sleek, especially in the air.

A couple of weeks back, we met a couple in a pub in Canterbury, and they had been out exploring the city and said they were disappointed by the cathedral.

 

Not enough labels they said.

 

That not withstanding, I thought it had been some time since I last had been, so decided to revisit, see the pillars of Reculver church in the crypt and take the big lens for some detail shots.

 

We arrived just after ten, so the cathedral was pretty free of other guests, just a few guides waiting for groups and couples to guide.

 

I went round with the 50mm first, before concentrating on the medieval glass which is mostly on the south side.

 

But as you will see, the lens picked up so much more.

 

Thing is, there is always someone interesting to talk to, or wants to talk to you. As I went around, I spoke with about three guides about the project and things I have seen in the churches of the county, and the wonderful people I have met. And that continued in the cathedral.

 

I have time to look at the tombs in the Trinity Chapel, and see that Henry IV and his wife are in a tomb there, rather than ay Westminster Abbey. So I photograph them, and the Black Prince on the southern side of the chapel, along with the Bishops and Archbishops between.

 

Round to the transept and a chance to change lenses, and put on the 140-400mm for some detailed shots.

 

I go round the cathedral again.

 

Initially at some of the memorials on the walls and the canopy of the pulpit, but it is the windows that are calling.

 

At least it was a bright, sunny day outside, which meant light was good in the cathedral with most shots coming out fine with no camera shake.

 

As I edit the shots I am stunned at the details of windows so high up they mostly seem like blocks of colour.

 

And so far, I have only just started to edit these shots.

 

------------------------------------------

 

St Augustine, the first Archbishop of Canterbury, arrived on the coast of Kent as a missionary to England in 597AD. He came from Rome, sent by Pope Gregory the Great. It is said that Gregory had been struck by the beauty of Angle slaves he saw for sale in the city market and despatched Augustine and some monks to convert them to Christianity. Augustine was given a church at Canterbury (St Martin’s, after St Martin of Tours, still standing today) by the local King, Ethelbert whose Queen, Bertha, a French Princess, was already a Christian.This building had been a place of worship during the Roman occupation of Britain and is the oldest church in England still in use. Augustine had been consecrated a bishop in France and was later made an archbishop by the Pope. He established his seat within the Roman city walls (the word cathedral is derived from the the Latin word for a chair ‘cathedra’, which is itself taken from the Greek ‘kathedra’ meaning seat.) and built the first cathedral there, becoming the first Archbishop of Canterbury. Since that time, there has been a community around the Cathedral offering daily prayer to God; this community is arguably the oldest organisation in the English speaking world. The present Archbishop, The Most Revd Justin Welby, is 105th in the line of succession from Augustine. Until the 10th century, the Cathedral community lived as the household of the Archbishop. During the 10th century, it became a formal community of Benedictine monks, which continued until the monastery was dissolved by King Henry VIII in 1540. Augustine’s original building lies beneath the floor of the Nave – it was extensively rebuilt and enlarged by the Saxons, and the Cathedral was rebuilt completely by the Normans in 1070 following a major fire. There have been many additions to the building over the last nine hundred years, but parts of the Quire and some of the windows and their stained glass date from the 12th century. By 1077, Archbishop Lanfranc had rebuilt it as a Norman church, described as “nearly perfect”. A staircase and parts of the North Wall – in the area of the North West transept also called the Martyrdom – remain from that building.

 

Canterbury’s role as one of the world’s most important pilgrimage centres in Europe is inextricably linked to the murder of its most famous Archbishop, Thomas Becket, in 1170. When, after a long lasting dispute, King Henry II is said to have exclaimed “Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?”, four knights set off for Canterbury and murdered Thomas in his own cathedral. A sword stroke was so violent that it sliced the crown off his skull and shattered the blade’s tip on the pavement. The murder took place in what is now known as The Martyrdom. When shortly afterwards, miracles were said to take place, Canterbury became one of Europe’s most important pilgrimage centres.

 

The work of the Cathedral as a monastery came to an end in 1540, when the monastery was closed on the orders of King Henry VIII. Its role as a place of prayer continued – as it does to this day. Once the monastery had been suppressed, responsibility for the services and upkeep was given to a group of clergy known as the Chapter of Canterbury. Today, the Cathedral is still governed by the Dean and four Canons, together (in recent years) with four lay people and the Archdeacon of Ashford. During the Civil War of the 1640s, the Cathedral suffered damage at the hands of the Puritans; much of the medieval stained glass was smashed and horses were stabled in the Nave. After the Restoration in 1660, several years were spent in repairing the building. In the early 19th Century, the North West tower was found to be dangerous, and, although it dated from Lanfranc’s time, it was demolished in the early 1830s and replaced by a copy of the South West tower, thus giving a symmetrical appearance to the west end of the Cathedral. During the Second World War, the Precincts were heavily damaged by enemy action and the Cathedral’s Library was destroyed. Thankfully, the Cathedral itself was not seriously harmed, due to the bravery of the team of fire watchers, who patrolled the roofs and dealt with the incendiary bombs dropped by enemy bombers. Today, the Cathedral stands as a place where prayer to God has been offered daily for over 1,400 years; nearly 2,000 Services are held each year, as well as countless private prayers from individuals. The Cathedral offers a warm welcome to all visitors – its aim is to show people Jesus, which we do through the splendour of the building as well as the beauty of the worship.

 

www.canterbury-cathedral.org/heritage/history/cathedral-h...

 

-------------------------------------------

 

History of the cathedral

THE ORIGIN of a Christian church on the scite of the present cathedral, is supposed to have taken place as early as the Roman empire in Britain, for the use of the antient faithful and believing soldiers of their garrison here; and that Augustine found such a one standing here, adjoining to king Ethelbert's palace, which was included in the king's gift to him.

 

This supposition is founded on the records of the priory of Christ-church, (fn. 1) concurring with the common opinion of almost all our historians, who tell us of a church in Canterbury, which Augustine found standing in the east part of the city, which he had of king Ethelbert's gift, which after his consecration at Arles, in France, he commended by special dedication to the patronage of our blessed Saviour. (fn. 2)

 

According to others, the foundations only of an old church formerly built by the believing Romans, were left here, on which Augustine erected that, which he afterwards dedicated to out Saviour; (fn. 3) and indeed it is not probable that king Ethelbert should have suffered the unsightly ruins of a Christian church, which, being a Pagan, must have been very obnoxious to him, so close to his palace, and supposing these ruins had been here, would he not have suffered them to be repaired, rather than have obliged his Christian queen to travel daily to such a distance as St. Martin's church, or St. Pancrace's chapel, for the performance of her devotions.

 

Some indeed have conjectured that the church found by St. Augustine, in the east part of the city, was that of St.Martin, truly so situated; and urge in favor of it, that there have not been at any time any remains of British or Roman bricks discovered scattered in or about this church of our Saviour, those infallible, as Mr. Somner stiles them, signs of antiquity, and so generally found in buildings, which have been erected on, or close to the spot where more antient ones have stood. But to proceed, king Ethelbert's donation to Augustine was made in the year 596, who immediately afterwards went over to France, and was consecrated a bishop at Arles, and after his return, as soon as he had sufficiently finished a church here, whether built out of ruins or anew, it matters not, he exercised his episcopal function in the dedication of it, says the register of Christ-church, to the honor of Christ our Saviour; whence it afterwards obtained the name of Christ-church. (fn. 4)

 

From the time of Augustine for the space of upwards of three hundred years, there is not found in any printed or manuscript chronicle, the least mention of the fabric of this church, so that it is probable nothing befell it worthy of being recorded; however it should be mentioned, that during that period the revenues of it were much increased, for in the leiger books of it there are registered more than fifty donations of manors, lands, &c. so large and bountiful, as became the munificence of kings and nobles to confer. (fn. 5)

 

It is supposed, especially as we find no mention made of any thing to the contrary, that the fabric of this church for two hundred years after Augustine's time, met with no considerable molestations; but afterwards, the frequent invasions of the Danes involved both the civil and ecclesiastical state of this country in continual troubles and dangers; in the confusion of which, this church appears to have run into a state of decay; for when Odo was promoted to the archbishopric, in the year 938, the roof of it was in a ruinous condition; age had impaired it, and neglect had made it extremely dangerous; the walls of it were of an uneven height, according as it had been more or less decayed, and the roof of the church seemed ready to fall down on the heads of those underneath. All this the archbishop undertook to repair, and then covered the whole church with lead; to finish which, it took three years, as Osbern tells us, in the life of Odo; (fn. 6) and further, that there was not to be found a church of so large a size, capable of containing so great a multitude of people, and thus, perhaps, it continued without any material change happening to it, till the year 1011; a dismal and fatal year to this church and city; a time of unspeakable confusion and calamities; for in the month of September that year, the Danes, after a siege of twenty days, entered this city by force, burnt the houses, made a lamentable slaughter of the inhabitants, rifled this church, and then set it on fire, insomuch, that the lead with which archbishop Odo had covered it, being melted, ran down on those who were underneath. The sull story of this calamity is given by Osbern, in the life of archbishop Odo, an abridgement of which the reader will find below. (fn. 7)

 

The church now lay in ruins, without a roof, the bare walls only standing, and in this desolate condition it remained as long as the fury of the Danes prevailed, who after they had burnt the church, carried away archbishop Alphage with them, kept him in prison seven months, and then put him to death, in the year 1012, the year after which Living, or Livingus, succeeded him as archbishop, though it was rather in his calamities than in his seat of dignity, for he too was chained up by the Danes in a loathsome dungeon for seven months, before he was set free, but he so sensibly felt the deplorable state of this country, which he foresaw was every day growing worse and worse, that by a voluntary exile, he withdrew himself out of the nation, to find some solitary retirement, where he might bewail those desolations of his country, to which he was not able to bring any relief, but by his continual prayers. (fn. 8) He just outlived this storm, returned into England, and before he died saw peace and quientness restored to this land by king Canute, who gaining to himself the sole sovereignty over the nation, made it his first business to repair the injuries which had been done to the churches and monasteries in this kingdom, by his father's and his own wars. (fn. 9)

 

As for this church, archbishop Ægelnoth, who presided over it from the year 1020 to the year 1038, began and finished the repair, or rather the rebuilding of it, assisted in it by the royal munificence of the king, (fn. 10) who in 1023 presented his crown of gold to this church, and restored to it the port of Sandwich, with its liberties. (fn. 11) Notwithstanding this, in less than forty years afterwards, when Lanfranc soon after the Norman conquest came to the see, he found this church reduced almost to nothing by fire, and dilapidations; for Eadmer says, it had been consumed by a third conflagration, prior to the year of his advancement to it, in which fire almost all the antient records of the privileges of it had perished. (fn. 12)

 

The same writer has given us a description of this old church, as it was before Lanfranc came to the see; by which we learn, that at the east end there was an altar adjoining to the wall of the church, of rough unhewn stone, cemented with mortar, erected by archbishop Odo, for a repository of the body of Wilfrid, archbishop of York, which Odo had translated from Rippon hither, giving it here the highest place; at a convenient distance from this, westward, there was another altar, dedicated to Christ our Saviour, at which divine service was daily celebrated. In this altar was inclosed the head of St. Swithin, with many other relics, which archbishop Alphage brought with him from Winchester. Passing from this altar westward, many steps led down to the choir and nave, which were both even, or upon the same level. At the bottom of the steps, there was a passage into the undercroft, under all the east part of the church. (fn. 13) At the east end of which, was an altar, in which was inclosed, according to old tradition, the head of St. Furseus. From hence by a winding passage, at the west end of it, was the tomb of St. Dunstan, (fn. 14) but separated from the undercroft by a strong stone wall; over the tomb was erected a monument, pyramid wife, and at the head of it an altar, (fn. 15) for the mattin service. Between these steps, or passage into the undercroft and the nave, was the choir, (fn. 16) which was separated from the nave by a fair and decent partition, to keep off the crowds of people that usually were in the body of the church, so that the singing of the chanters in the choir might not be disturbed. About the middle of the length of the nave, were two towers or steeples, built without the walls; one on the south, and the other on the north side. In the former was the altar of St. Gregory, where was an entrance into the church by the south door, and where law controversies and pleas concerning secular matters were exercised. (fn. 17) In the latter, or north tower, was a passage for the monks into the church, from the monastery; here were the cloysters, where the novices were instructed in their religious rules and offices, and where the monks conversed together. In this tower was the altar of St. Martin. At the west end of the church was a chapel, dedicated to the blessed Virgin Mary, to which there was an ascent by steps, and at the east end of it an altar, dedicated to her, in which was inclosed the head of St. Astroburta the Virgin; and at the western part of it was the archbishop's pontifical chair, made of large stones, compacted together with mortar; a fair piece of work, and placed at a convenient distance from the altar, close to the wall of the church. (fn. 18)

 

To return now to archbishop Lanfranc, who was sent for from Normandy in 1073, being the fourth year of the Conqueror's reign, to fill this see, a time, when a man of a noble spirit, equal to the laborious task he was to undertake, was wanting especially for this church; and that he was such, the several great works which were performed by him, were incontestable proofs, as well as of his great and generous mind. At the first sight of the ruinous condition of this church, says the historian, the archbishop was struck with astonishment, and almost despaired of seeing that and the monastery re edified; but his care and perseverance raised both in all its parts anew, and that in a novel and more magnificent kind and form of structure, than had been hardly in any place before made use of in this kingdom, which made it a precedent and pattern to succeeding structures of this kind; (fn. 19) and new monasteries and churches were built after the example of it; for it should be observed, that before the coming of the Normans most of the churches and monasteries in this kingdom were of wood; (all the monasteries in my realm, says king Edgar, in his charter to the abbey of Malmesbury, dated anno 974, to the outward sight are nothing but worm-eaten and rotten timber and boards) but after the Norman conquest, such timber fabrics grew out of use, and gave place to stone buildings raised upon arches; a form of structure introduced into general use by that nation, and in these parts surnished with stone from Caen, in Normandy. (fn. 20) After this fashion archbishop Lanfranc rebuilt the whole church from the foundation, with the palace and monastery, the wall which encompassed the court, and all the offices belonging to the monastery within the wall, finishing the whole nearly within the compass of seven years; (fn. 21) besides which, he furnished the church with ornaments and rich vestments; after which, the whole being perfected, he altered the name of it, by a dedication of it to the Holy Trinity; whereas, before it was called the church of our Saviour, or Christ-church, and from the above time it bore (as by Domesday book appears) the name of the church of the Holy Trinity; this new church being built on the same spot on which the antient one stood, though on a far different model.

 

After Lanfranc's death, archbishop Anselm succeeded in the year 1093, to the see of Canterbury, and must be esteemed a principal benefactor to this church; for though his time was perplexed with a continued series of troubles, of which both banishment and poverty made no small part, which in a great measure prevented him from bestowing that cost on his church, which he would otherwise have done, yet it was through his patronage and protection, and through his care and persuasions, that the fabric of it, begun and perfected by his predecessor, became enlarged and rose to still greater splendor. (fn. 22)

 

In order to carry this forward, upon the vacancy of the priory, he constituted Ernulph and Conrad, the first in 1104, the latter in 1108, priors of this church; to whose care, being men of generous and noble minds, and of singular skill in these matters, he, during his troubles, not only committed the management of this work, but of all his other concerns during his absence.

 

Probably archbishop Anselm, on being recalled from banishment on king Henry's accession to the throne, had pulled down that part of the church built by Lanfranc, from the great tower in the middle of it to the east end, intending to rebuild it upon a still larger and more magnificent plan; when being borne down by the king's displeasure, he intrusted prior Ernulph with the work, who raised up the building with such splendor, says Malmesbury, that the like was not to be seen in all England; (fn. 23) but the short time Ernulph continued in this office did not permit him to see his undertaking finished. (fn. 24) This was left to his successor Conrad, who, as the obituary of Christ church informs us, by his great industry, magnificently perfected the choir, which his predecessor had left unfinished, (fn. 25) adorning it with curious pictures, and enriching it with many precious ornaments. (fn. 26)

 

This great undertaking was not entirely compleated at the death of archbishop Anselm, which happened in 1109, anno 9 Henry I. nor indeed for the space of five years afterwards, during which the see of Canterbury continued vacant; when being finished, in honour of its builder, and on account of its more than ordinary beauty, it gained the name of the glorious choir of Conrad. (fn. 27)

 

After the see of Canterbury had continued thus vacant for five years, Ralph, or as some call him, Rodulph, bishop of Rochester, was translated to it in the year 1114, at whose coming to it, the church was dedicated anew to the Holy Trinity, the name which had been before given to it by Lanfranc. (fn. 28) The only particular description we have of this church when thus finished, is from Gervas, the monk of this monastery, and that proves imperfect, as to the choir of Lanfranc, which had been taken down soon after his death; (fn. 29) the following is his account of the nave, or western part of it below the choir, being that which had been erected by archbishop Lanfranc, as has been before mentioned. From him we learn, that the west end, where the chapel of the Virgin Mary stood before, was now adorned with two stately towers, on the top of which were gilded pinnacles. The nave or body was supported by eight pair of pillars. At the east end of the nave, on the north side, was an oratory, dedicated in honor to the blessed Virgin, in lieu, I suppose, of the chapel, that had in the former church been dedicated to her at the west end. Between the nave and the choir there was built a great tower or steeple, as it were in the centre of the whole fabric; (fn. 30) under this tower was erected the altar of the Holy Cross; over a partition, which separated this tower from the nave, a beam was laid across from one side to the other of the church; upon the middle of this beam was fixed a great cross, between the images of the Virgin Mary and St. John, and between two cherubims. The pinnacle on the top of this tower, was a gilded cherub, and hence it was called the angel steeple; a name it is frequently called by at this day. (fn. 31)

 

This great tower had on each side a cross isle, called the north and south wings, which were uniform, of the same model and dimensions; each of them had a strong pillar in the middle for a support to the roof, and each of them had two doors or passages, by which an entrance was open to the east parts of the church. At one of these doors there was a descent by a few steps into the undercroft; at the other, there was an ascent by many steps into the upper parts of the church, that is, the choir, and the isles on each side of it. Near every one of these doors or passages, an altar was erected; at the upper door in the south wing, there was an altar in honour of All Saints; and at the lower door there was one of St. Michael; and before this altar on the south side was buried archbishop Fleologild; and on the north side, the holy Virgin Siburgis, whom St. Dunstan highly admired for her sanctity. In the north isle, by the upper door, was the altar of St. Blaze; and by the lower door, that of St. Benedict. In this wing had been interred four archbishops, Adelm and Ceolnoth, behind the altar, and Egelnoth and Wlfelm before it. At the entrance into this wing, Rodulph and his successor William Corboil, both archbishops, were buried. (fn. 32)

 

Hence, he continues, we go up by some steps into the great tower, and before us there is a door and steps leading down into the south wing, and on the right hand a pair of folding doors, with stairs going down into the nave of the church; but without turning to any of these, let us ascend eastward, till by several more steps we come to the west end of Conrad's choir; being now at the entrance of the choir, Gervas tells us, that he neither saw the choir built by Lanfranc, nor found it described by any one; that Eadmer had made mention of it, without giving any account of it, as he had done of the old church, the reason of which appears to be, that Lanfranc's choir did not long survive its founder, being pulled down as before-mentioned, by archbishop Anselm; so that it could not stand more than twenty years; therefore the want of a particular description of it will appear no great defect in the history of this church, especially as the deficiency is here supplied by Gervas's full relation of the new choir of Conrad, built instead of it; of which, whoever desires to know the whole architecture and model observed in the fabric, the order, number, height and form of the pillars and windows, may know the whole of it from him. The roof of it, he tells us, (fn. 33) was beautified with curious paintings representing heaven; (fn. 34) in several respects it was agreeable to the present choir, the stalls were large and framed of carved wood. In the middle of it, there hung a gilded crown, on which were placed four and twenty tapers of wax. From the choir an ascent of three steps led to the presbiterium, or place for the presbiters; here, he says, it would be proper to stop a little and take notice of the high altar, which was dedicated to the name of CHRIST. It was placed between two other altars, the one of St. Dunstan, the other of St. Alphage; at the east corners of the high altar were fixed two pillars of wood, beautified with silver and gold; upon these pillars was placed a beam, adorned with gold, which reached across the church, upon it there were placed the glory, (fn. 35) the images of St. Dunstan and St. Alphage, and seven chests or coffers overlaid with gold, full of the relics of many saints. Between those pillars was a cross gilded all over, and upon the upper beam of the cross were set sixty bright crystals.

 

Beyond this, by an ascent of eight steps towards the east, behind the altar, was the archiepiscopal throne, which Gervas calls the patriarchal chair, made of one stone; in this chair, according to the custom of the church, the archbishop used to sit, upon principal festivals, in his pontifical ornaments, whilst the solemn offices of religion were celebrated, until the consecration of the host, when he came down to the high altar, and there performed the solemnity of consecration. Still further, eastward, behind the patriarchal chair, (fn. 36) was a chapel in the front of the whole church, in which was an altar, dedicated to the Holy Trinity; behind which were laid the bones of two archbishops, Odo of Canterbury, and Wilfrid of York; by this chapel on the south side near the wall of the church, was laid the body of archbishop Lanfranc, and on the north side, the body of archbishop Theobald. Here it is to be observed, that under the whole east part of the church, from the angel steeple, there was an undercrost or crypt, (fn. 37) in which were several altars, chapels and sepulchres; under the chapel of the Trinity before-mentioned, were two altars, on the south side, the altar of St. Augustine, the apostle of the English nation, by which archbishop Athelred was interred. On the north side was the altar of St. John Baptist, by which was laid the body of archbishop Eadsin; under the high altar was the chapel and altar of the blessed Virgin Mary, to whom the whole undercroft was dedicated.

 

To return now, he continues, to the place where the bresbyterium and choir meet, where on each side there was a cross isle (as was to be seen in his time) which might be called the upper south and north wings; on the east side of each of these wings were two half circular recesses or nooks in the wall, arched over after the form of porticoes. Each of them had an altar, and there was the like number of altars under them in the crost. In the north wing, the north portico had the altar of St. Martin, by which were interred the bodies of two archbishops, Wlfred on the right, and Living on the left hand; under it in the croft, was the altar of St. Mary Magdalen. The other portico in this wing, had the altar of St. Stephen, and by it were buried two archbishops, Athelard on the left hand, and Cuthbert on the right; in the croft under it, was the altar of St. Nicholas. In the south wing, the north portico had the altar of St. John the Evangelist, and by it the bodies of Æthelgar and Aluric, archbishops, were laid. In the croft under it was the altar of St. Paulinus, by which the body of archbishop Siricius was interred. In the south portico was the altar of St. Gregory, by which were laid the corps of the two archbishops Bregwin and Plegmund. In the croft under it was the altar of St. Owen, archbishop of Roan, and underneath in the croft, not far from it the altar of St. Catherine.

 

Passing from these cross isles eastward there were two towers, one on the north, the other on the south side of the church. In the tower on the north side was the altar of St. Andrew, which gave name to the tower; under it, in the croft, was the altar of the Holy Innocents; the tower on the south side had the altar of St. Peter and St. Paul, behind which the body of St. Anselm was interred, which afterwards gave name both to the altar and tower (fn. 38) (now called St. Anselm's). The wings or isles on each side of the choir had nothing in particular to be taken notice of.— Thus far Gervas, from whose description we in particular learn, where several of the bodies of the old archbishops were deposited, and probably the ashes of some of them remain in the same places to this day.

 

As this building, deservedly called the glorious choir of Conrad, was a magnificent work, so the undertaking of it at that time will appear almost beyond example, especially when the several circumstances of it are considered; but that it was carried forward at the archbishop's cost, exceeds all belief. It was in the discouraging reign of king William Rufus, a prince notorious in the records of history, for all manner of sacrilegious rapine, that archbishop Anselm was promoted to this see; when he found the lands and revenues of this church so miserably wasted and spoiled, that there was hardly enough left for his bare subsistence; who, in the first years that he sat in the archiepiscopal chair, struggled with poverty, wants and continual vexations through the king's displeasure, (fn. 39) and whose three next years were spent in banishment, during all which time he borrowed money for his present maintenance; who being called home by king Henry I. at his coming to the crown, laboured to pay the debts he had contracted during the time of his banishment, and instead of enjoying that tranquility and ease he hoped for, was, within two years afterwards, again sent into banishment upon a fresh displeasure conceived against him by the king, who then seized upon all the revenues of the archbishopric, (fn. 40) which he retained in his own hands for no less than four years.

 

Under these hard circumstances, it would have been surprizing indeed, that the archbishop should have been able to carry on so great a work, and yet we are told it, as a truth, by the testimonies of history; but this must surely be understood with the interpretation of his having been the patron, protector and encourager, rather than the builder of this work, which he entrusted to the care and management of the priors Ernulph and Conrad, and sanctioned their employing, as Lanfranc had done before, the revenues and stock of the church to this use. (fn. 41)

 

In this state as above-mentioned, without any thing material happening to it, this church continued till about the year 1130, anno 30 Henry I. when it seems to have suffered some damage by a fire; (fn. 42) but how much, there is no record left to inform us; however it could not be of any great account, for it was sufficiently repaired, and that mostly at the cost of archbishop Corboil, who then sat in the chair of this see, (fn. 43) before the 4th of May that year, on which day, being Rogation Sunday, the bishops performed the dedication of it with great splendor and magnificence, such, says Gervas, col. 1664, as had not been heard of since the dedication of the temple of Solomon; the king, the queen, David, king of Scots, all the archbishops, and the nobility of both kingdoms being present at it, when this church's former name was restored again, being henceforward commonly called Christ-church. (fn. 44)

 

Among the manuscripts of Trinity college library, in Cambridge, in a very curious triple psalter of St. Jerome, in Latin, written by the monk Eadwyn, whose picture is at the beginning of it, is a plan or drawing made by him, being an attempt towards a representation of this church and monastery, as they stood between the years 1130 and 1174; which makes it probable, that he was one of the monks of it, and the more so, as the drawing has not any kind of relation to the plalter or sacred hymns contained in the manuscript.

 

His plan, if so it may be called, for it is neither such, nor an upright, nor a prospect, and yet something of all together; but notwithstanding this rudeness of the draftsman, it shews very plain that it was intended for this church and priory, and gives us a very clear knowledge, more than we have been able to learn from any description we have besides, of what both were at the above period of time. (fn. 45)

 

Forty-four years after this dedication, on the 5th of September, anno 1174, being the 20th year of king Henry II.'s reign, a fire happened, which consumed great part of this stately edifice, namely, the whole choir, from the angel steeple to the east end of the church, together with the prior's lodgings, the chapel of the Virgin Mary, the infirmary, and some other offices belonging to the monastery; but the angel steeple, the lower cross isles, and the nave appear to have received no material injury from the flames. (fn. 46) The narrative of this accident is told by Gervas, the monk of Canterbury, so often quoted before, who was an eye witness of this calamity, as follows:

 

Three small houses in the city near the old gate of the monastery took fire by accident, a strong south wind carried the flakes of fire to the top of the church, and lodged them between the joints of the lead, driving them to the timbers under it; this kindled a fire there, which was not discerned till the melted lead gave a free passage for the flames to appear above the church, and the wind gaining by this means a further power of increasing them, drove them inwardly, insomuch that the danger became immediately past all possibility of relief. The timber of the roof being all of it on fire, fell down into the choir, where the stalls of the manks, made of large pieces of carved wood, afforded plenty of fuel to the flames, and great part of the stone work, through the vehement heat of the fire, was so weakened, as to be brought to irreparable ruin, and besides the fabric itself, the many rich ornaments in the church were devoured by the flames.

 

The choir being thus laid in ashes, the monks removed from amidst the ruins, the bodies of the two saints, whom they called patrons of the church, the archbishops Dunstan and Alphage, and deposited them by the altar of the great cross, in the nave of the church; (fn. 47) and from this time they celebrated the daily religious offices in the oratory of the blessed Virgin Mary in the nave, and continued to do so for more than five years, when the choir being re edified, they returned to it again. (fn. 48)

 

Upon this destruction of the church, the prior and convent, without any delay, consulted on the most speedy and effectual method of rebuilding it, resolving to finish it in such a manner, as should surpass all the former choirs of it, as well in beauty as size and magnificence. To effect this, they sent for the most skilful architects that could be found either in France or England. These surveyed the walls and pillars, which remained standing, but they found great part of them so weakened by the fire, that they could no ways be built upon with any safety; and it was accordingly resolved, that such of them should be taken down; a whole year was spent in doing this, and in providing materials for the new building, for which they sent abroad for the best stone that could be procured; Gervas has given a large account, (fn. 49) how far this work advanced year by year; what methods and rules of architecture were observed, and other particulars relating to the rebuilding of this church; all which the curious reader may consult at his leisure; it will be sufficient to observe here, that the new building was larger in height and length, and more beautiful in every respect, than the choir of Conrad; for the roof was considerably advanced above what it was before, and was arched over with stone; whereas before it was composed of timber and boards. The capitals of the pillars were now beautified with different sculptures of carvework; whereas, they were before plain, and six pillars more were added than there were before. The former choir had but one triforium, or inner gallery, but now there were two made round it, and one in each side isle and three in the cross isles; before, there were no marble pillars, but such were now added to it in abundance. In forwarding this great work, the monks had spent eight years, when they could proceed no further for want of money; but a fresh supply coming in from the offerings at St. Thomas's tomb, so much more than was necessary for perfecting the repair they were engaged in, as encouraged them to set about a more grand design, which was to pull down the eastern extremity of the church, with the small chapel of the Holy Trinity adjoining to it, and to erect upon a stately undercroft, a most magnificent one instead of it, equally lofty with the roof of the church, and making a part of it, which the former one did not, except by a door into it; but this new chapel, which was dedicated likewise to the Holy Trinity, was not finished till some time after the rest of the church; at the east end of this chapel another handsome one, though small, was afterwards erected at the extremity of the whole building, since called Becket's crown, on purpose for an altar and the reception of some part of his relics; (fn. 50) further mention of which will be made hereafter.

 

The eastern parts of this church, as Mr. Gostling observes, have the appearance of much greater antiquity than what is generally allowed to them; and indeed if we examine the outside walls and the cross wings on each side of the choir, it will appear, that the whole of them was not rebuilt at the time the choir was, and that great part of them was suffered to remain, though altered, added to, and adapted as far as could be, to the new building erected at that time; the traces of several circular windows and other openings, which were then stopped up, removed, or altered, still appearing on the walls both of the isles and the cross wings, through the white-wash with which they are covered; and on the south side of the south isle, the vaulting of the roof as well as the triforium, which could not be contrived so as to be adjusted to the places of the upper windows, plainly shew it. To which may be added, that the base or foot of one of the westernmost large pillars of the choir on the north side, is strengthened with a strong iron band round it, by which it should seem to have been one of those pillars which had been weakened by the fire, but was judged of sufficient firmness, with this precaution, to remain for the use of the new fabric.

 

The outside of this part of the church is a corroborating proof of what has been mentioned above, as well in the method, as in the ornaments of the building.— The outside of it towards the south, from St. Michael's chapel eastward, is adorned with a range of small pillars, about six inches diameter, and about three feet high, some with santastic shasts and capitals, others with plain ones; these support little arches, which intersect each other; and this chain or girdle of pillars is continued round the small tower, the eastern cross isle and the chapel of St. Anselm, to the buildings added in honour of the Holy Trinity, and St. Thomas Becket, where they leave off. The casing of St. Michael's chapel has none of them, but the chapel of the Virgin Mary, answering to it on the north side of the church, not being fitted to the wall, shews some of them behind it; which seems as if they had been continued before, quite round the eastern parts of the church.

 

These pillars, which rise from about the level of the pavement, within the walls above them, are remarkably plain and bare of ornaments; but the tower above mentioned and its opposite, as soon as they rise clear of the building, are enriched with stories of this colonade, one above another, up to the platform from whence their spires rise; and the remains of the two larger towers eastward, called St. Anselm's, and that answering to it on the north side of the church, called St. Andrew's are decorated much after the same manner, as high as they remain at present.

 

At the time of the before-mentioned fire, which so fatally destroyed the upper part of this church, the undercrost, with the vaulting over it, seems to have remained entire, and unhurt by it.

 

The vaulting of the undercrost, on which the floor of the choir and eastern parts of the church is raised, is supported by pillars, whose capitals are as various and fantastical as those of the smaller ones described before, and so are their shafts, some being round, others canted, twisted, or carved, so that hardly any two of them are alike, except such as are quite plain.

 

These, I suppose, may be concluded to be of the same age, and if buildings in the same stile may be conjectured to be so from thence, the antiquity of this part of the church may be judged, though historians have left us in the dark in relation to it.

 

In Leland's Collectanea, there is an account and description of a vault under the chancel of the antient church of St. Peter, in Oxford, called Grymbald's crypt, being allowed by all, to have been built by him; (fn. 51) Grymbald was one of those great and accomplished men, whom king Alfred invited into England about the year 885, to assist him in restoring Christianity, learning and the liberal arts. (fn. 52) Those who compare the vaults or undercrost of the church of Canterbury, with the description and prints given of Grymbald's crypt, (fn. 53) will easily perceive, that two buildings could hardly have been erected more strongly resembling each other, except that this at Canterbury is larger, and more pro fusely decorated with variety of fancied ornaments, the shafts of several of the pillars here being twisted, or otherwise varied, and many of the captials exactly in the same grotesque taste as those in Grymbald's crypt. (fn. 54) Hence it may be supposed, that those whom archbishop Lanfranc employed as architects and designers of his building at Canterbury, took their model of it, at least of this part of it, from that crypt, and this undercrost now remaining is the same, as was originally built by him, as far eastward, as to that part which begins under the chapel of the Holy Trinity, where it appears to be of a later date, erected at the same time as the chapel. The part built by Lanfranc continues at this time as firm and entire, as it was at the very building of it, though upwards of seven hundred years old. (fn. 55)

 

But to return to the new building; though the church was not compleatly finished till the end of the year 1184, yet it was so far advanced towards it, that, in 1180, on April 19, being Easter eve, (fn. 56) the archbishop, prior and monks entered the new choir, with a solemn procession, singing Te Deum, for their happy return to it. Three days before which they had privately, by night, carried the bodies of St. Dunstan and St. Alphage to the places prepared for them near the high altar. The body likewise of queen Edive (which after the fire had been removed from the north cross isle, where it lay before, under a stately gilded shrine) to the altar of the great cross, was taken up, carried into the vestry, and thence to the altar of St. Martin, where it was placed under the coffin of archbishop Livinge. In the month of July following the altar of the Holy Trinity was demolished, and the bodies of those archbishops, which had been laid in that part of the church, were removed to other places. Odo's body was laid under St. Dunstan's and Wilfrid's under St. Alphage's; Lanfranc's was deposited nigh the altar of St. Martin, and Theobald's at that of the blessed Virgin, in the nave of the church, (fn. 57) under a marble tomb; and soon afterwards the two archbishops, on the right and left hand of archbishop Becket in the undercrost, were taken up and placed under the altar of St. Mary there. (fn. 58)

 

After a warning so terrible, as had lately been given, it seemed most necessary to provide against the danger of fire for the time to come; the flames, which had so lately destroyed a considerable part of the church and monastery, were caused by some small houses, which had taken fire at a small distance from the church.— There still remained some other houses near it, which belonged to the abbot and convent of St. Augustine; for these the monks of Christ-church created, by an exchange, which could not be effected till the king interposed, and by his royal authority, in a manner, compelled the abbot and convent to a composition for this purpose, which was dated in the year 1177, that was three years after the late fire of this church. (fn. 59)

 

These houses were immediately pulled down, and it proved a providential and an effectual means of preserving the church from the like calamity; for in the year 1180, on May 22, this new choir, being not then compleated, though it had been used the month be fore, as has been already mentioned, there happened a fire in the city, which burnt down many houses, and the flames bent their course towards the church, which was again in great danger; but the houses near it being taken away, the fire was stopped, and the church escaped being burnt again. (fn. 60)

 

Although there is no mention of a new dedication of the church at this time, yet the change made in the name of it has been thought by some to imply a formal solemnity of this kind, as it appears to have been from henceforth usually called the church of St. Thomas the Martyr, and to have continued so for above 350 years afterwards.

 

New names to churches, it is true. have been usually attended by formal consecrations of them; and had there been any such solemnity here, undoubtedly the same would not have passed by unnoticed by every historian, the circumstance of it must have been notorious, and the magnificence equal at least to the other dedications of this church, which have been constantly mentioned by them; but here was no need of any such ceremony, for although the general voice then burst forth to honour this church with the name of St. Thomas, the universal object of praise and adoration, then stiled the glorious martyr, yet it reached no further, for the name it had received at the former dedication, notwithstanding this common appellation of it, still remained in reality, and it still retained invariably in all records and writings, the name of Christ church only, as appears by many such remaining among the archives of the dean and chapter; and though on the seal of this church, which was changed about this time; the counter side of it had a representation of Becket's martyrdom, yet on the front of it was continued that of the church, and round it an inscription with the former name of Christ church; which seal remained in force till the dissolution of the priory.

 

It may not be improper to mention here some transactions, worthy of observation, relating to this favorite saint, which passed from the time of his being murdered, to that of his translation to the splendid shrine prepared for his relics.

 

Archbishop Thomas Becket was barbarously murdered in this church on Dec. 29, 1170, being the 16th year of king Henry II. and his body was privately buried towards the east end of the undercrost. The monks tell us, that about the Easter following, miracles began to be wrought by him, first at his tomb, then in the undercrost, and in every part of the whole fabric of the church; afterwards throughout England, and lastly, throughout the rest of the world. (fn. 61) The same of these miracles procured him the honour of a formal canonization from pope Alexander III. whose bull for that purpose is dated March 13, in the year 1172. (fn. 62) This declaration of the pope was soon known in all places, and the reports of his miracles were every where sounded abroad. (fn. 63)

 

Hereupon crowds of zealots, led on by a phrenzy of devotion, hastened to kneel at his tomb. In 1177, Philip, earl of Flanders, came hither for that purpose, when king Henry met and had a conference with him at Canterbury. (fn. 64) In June 1178, king Henry returning from Normandy, visited the sepulchre of this new saint; and in July following, William, archbishop of Rhemes, came from France, with a large retinue, to perform his vows to St. Thomas of Canterbury, where the king met him and received him honourably. In the year 1179, Lewis, king of France, came into England; before which neither he nor any of his predecessors had ever set foot in this kingdom. (fn. 65) He landed at Dover, where king Henry waited his arrival, and on August 23, the two kings came to Canterbury, with a great train of nobility of both nations, and were received with due honour and great joy, by the archbishop, with his com-provincial bishops, and the prior and the whole convent. (fn. 66)

 

King Lewis came in the manner and habit of a pilgrim, and was conducted to the tomb of St. Thomas by a solemn procession; he there offered his cup of gold and a royal precious stone, (fn. 67) and gave the convent a yearly rent for ever, of a hundred muids of wine, to be paid by himself and his successors; which grant was confirmed by his royal charter, under his seal, and delivered next day to the convent; (fn. 68) after he had staid here two, (fn. 69) or as others say, three days, (fn. 70) during which the oblations of gold and silver made were so great, that the relation of them almost exceeded credibility. (fn. 71) In 1181, king Henry, in his return from Normandy, again paid his devotions at this tomb. These visits were the early fruits of the adoration of the new sainted martyr, and these royal examples of kings and great persons were followed by multitudes, who crowded to present with full hands their oblations at his tomb.— Hence the convent was enabled to carry forward the building of the new choir, and they applied all this vast income to the fabric of the church, as the present case instantly required, for which they had the leave and consent of the archbishop, confirmed by the bulls of several succeeding popes. (fn. 72)

 

¶From the liberal oblations of these royal and noble personages at the tomb of St. Thomas, the expences of rebuilding the choir appear to have been in a great measure supplied, nor did their devotion and offerings to the new saint, after it was compleated, any ways abate, but, on the contrary, they daily increased; for in the year 1184, Philip, archbishop of Cologne, and Philip, earl of Flanders, came together to pay their vows at this tomb, and were met here by king Henry, who gave them an invitation to London. (fn. 73) In 1194, John, archbishop of Lions; in the year afterwards, John, archbishop of York; and in the year 1199, king John, performed their devotions at the foot of this tomb. (fn. 74) King Richard I. likewise, on his release from captivity in Germany, landing on the 30th of March at Sandwich, proceeded from thence, as an humble stranger on foot, towards Canterbury, to return his grateful thanks to God and St. Thomas for his release. (fn. 75) All these by name, with many nobles and multitudes of others, of all sorts and descriptions, visited the saint with humble adoration and rich oblations, whilst his body lay in the undercrost. In the mean time the chapel and altar at the upper part of the east end of the church, which had been formerly consecrated to the Holy Trinity, were demolished, and again prepared with great splendor, for the reception of this saint, who being now placed there, implanted his name not only on the chapel and altar, but on the whole church, which was from thenceforth known only by that of the church of St. Thomas the martyr.

  

On July 7, anno 1220, the remains of St. Thomas were translated from his tomb to his new shrine, with the greatest solemnity and rejoicings. Pandulph, the pope's legate, the archbishops of Canterbury and Rheims, and many bishops and abbots, carried the coffin on their shoulders, and placed it on the new shrine, and the king graced these solemnities with his royal presence. (fn. 76) The archbishop of Canterbury provided forage along all the road, between London and Canterbury, for the horses of all such as should come to them, and he caused several pipes and conduits to run with wine in different parts of the city. This, with the other expences arising during the time, was so great, that he left a debt on the see, which archbishop Boniface, his fourth successor in it, was hardly enabled to discharge.

 

¶The saint being now placed in his new repository, became the vain object of adoration to the deluded people, and afterwards numbers of licences were granted to strangers by the king, to visit this shrine. (fn. 77) The titles of glorious, of saint and martyr, were among those given to him; (fn. 78) such veneration had all people for his relics, that the religious of several cathedral churches and monasteries, used all their endeavours to obtain some of them, and thought themselves happy and rich in the possession of the smallest portion of them. (fn. 79) Besides this, there were erected and dedicated to his honour, many churches, chapels, altars and hospitals in different places, both in this kingdom and abroad. (fn. 80) Thus this saint, even whilst he lay in his obscure tomb in the undercroft, brought such large and constant supplies of money, as enabled the monks to finish this beautiful choir, and the eastern parts of the church; and when he was translated to the most exalted and honourable place in it, a still larger abundance of gain filled their coffers, which continued as a plentiful supply to them, from year to year, to the time of the reformation, and the final abolition of the priory itself.

 

www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-kent/vol11/pp306-383

Former Fire Chief Thomas Harrigan, 46, lies dying in a Miami hospital room, suffering from mesothelioma, black lung, heart failure, and other diseases linked to his exposure to toxic substances while working on the Ground Zero rubble pile for three months after 9/11.Doctors have given him until July to live. On the day these photos were taken, he had receved a letter cutting off his Social Security disability payments, saying that he was capable of working

Tear gas canisters capable of quelling a riot in minutes were suspended from the ceiling of the Alcatraz dining hall. These canisters could be remotely activated from both the Gun Gallery and outside observation points but were never used. The dining hall and kitchen was one of the most dangerous areas of the prison. Guards were unarmed, inmates were gathered together, and eating utensils could proxy for dangerous weapons. To keep the situation under control, the officials ran the dining hall strictly and made sure meals were varied and well prepared. An armed guard kept close watch from a walkway outside the main window. At the end of each 20 minute meal, the inmates' forks, spoons and knives were laid out on the table and carefully counted.

 

The main cell house on Alcatraz Island was the largest steel-reinforced concrete building in the world when it was built in 1912. Designed to hold up to 600 prisoners, it was the brainchild and pride of Major Reuben B. Turner, construction engineer and first commandant of the military. Central steam heat, skylights and electricity contributed to its reputation as a model, modern, facility.

 

Like any other structure on the island, construction presented challenges. Material and equipment had to be shipped in on barges. Mixing cement, the main building element, required fresh water not naturally available on the land. Labor was largely provided by unskilled inmates.

 

Like prisons within a prison, four free standing cellblocks stood within the cellhouse so that no cell adjoined an outside wall or ceiling that a prisoner might tunnel through. Before it assumed its role as a maximum-security lockup, tool-proof bars replaced the flat, soft-steel barriers of the military prison and gun galleries were built at either end of the two main cell blocks.

 

Alcatraz Island, a 22-acre island located 1.5 miles offshore in San Francisco Bay, has served as a lighthouse, a military fortification, and a prison. In 1972, the island often referred to as The Rock, became a national recreation area operated by the National Park Service as part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) and is currently open to tours.

 

The island was first discovered in 1775 by Spaniard Juan Manuel de Ayala, who charted the bay and named it "La Isla de los Alcatraces," or "The Island of the Pelicans." The island's earliest recorded owner is Julian Workman was the island's earliest recorded owner, given it by Mexican governor Pio Pico in 1846 to build a lighthouse. Following the acquisition of California in 1848, the United States fortified the island for positioning of coastal batteries. When the civil War broke out in 1861, the island mounted 85 cannons (increased to 105 by 1866) and served as the San Francisco Arsenal. Alcatraz never fired its guns but was used to imprison Confederate sympathizers. In 1867, a brick jailhouse was built and in 1868, Alcatraz was designated a long-term detention facility for military prisoners--a role it prominently played during the Spanish-American War.

 

After the 1906 Earthquake, civilian prisoners were transferred to Alcatraz, and the facilities were slowly expanded at the beginning of the century. Construction on Major Reuben Turner's huge concrete main cell block was completed in 1912. The Fortress was deactivated as a military prison in 1933 and transferred to the Department of Justice, becoming a Federal Bureau of Prisons federal prison the following year. During its 29 years of operation, the penitentiary claimed no prisoners had ever successfully escaped--36 prisoners were involved in 14 attempts; 23 were caught, six were shot and killed, and three were lost at sea and never found. Alcatraz held such notable criminals as Al Capone, Robert Franklin Stroud (better known as the "Birdman of Alcatraz"), George "Machine Gun" Kelly, James "Whitey" Bulger, and Alvin "Creepy Karpis" Karpowicz (who served more time at Alcatraz than any other inmate).

 

Far more expensive to operate than other prisons, Alcatraz was closed on March 21, 1963 by Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy. From 1969-1971, the island was occupied by a multi-tribal group of Native Americans, culminating in the Trail of Broken Treaties.

 

National Register #76000209 (1976)

This snap is just a proof of principal for using two identical 'Series two' Speedlites both wired from the hot-shoe using ETTL.

 

If you already have 2 Speedlites available, this approach may represent the cheapest route into macro style flash illumination. It tends to be more reliable than 'Canon Wireless - Light/IR type' in bright sunlit ambient scenarios.

 

If your two Speedlites are non-identical, even if they are both ETTL capable, one of the units (at least) must be operating in simple M flash mode. Some Canon bodies do not have a simple 'pc' sync outlet (eg. T1i/500D, 60D etc) - those that do (7D etcetc), could simply run an M speedlite from that while simultaneously using the camera's hot-shoe (corded, if you like) as normal.

 

Using a pair of identical 580ExIIs on a 7D's hot-shoe (but see just above), extending to the left, is the Ishoot TTL 'Dual' cord for Canon. From that cord's proximal (nearer) female hot-shoe, a Canon OC-E3 ETTL cord (could be a perfect short clone) extends to the right. At the distal (far) end of both are two series 'II' Canon 580ExII Speedlites. They are identical twins showing exactly the same settings, in every respect, on their screens. As shown, they work perfectly; both in ETTL or both in M flash, controlled from the camera's screen. If you require one of the two to be set to M, set the left Ishoot 'Dual' TTL cord borne unit to M, using its own buttons/controls. If you require both units to be working in M flash, start with them both showing ETTL on their screens and then switch them to M together, using the camera's internal Flash menu screen. If you require an M flash power ratio between identical 'II' series units from a recent high level flash control body, use a 'Universal translator' (simple 'fire now' only pass-through) hot-shoe adaptor under the Ishoot 'Dual' TTL cord borne 'II' series unit. And set that unit's M power fraction on the unit itself with its own buttons. The other 'II' series unit on the OC-E3 cord may still be set from the camera's screen. (If your camera body doesn't support attached flash menu settings, switch everything off, set both Ex units to M and the same M power fraction setting. Then swich the camera on again last.)

 

A similar setup can work with pre '08 Canon Kit. For instance, a 20D wired up in the same way, can control and use two identical twin 550Exs under ETTL - camera set FEC works as normal and affects both Speedlites symmetrically. If only one Ex unit is set to M, it should be the the Ishoot TTL 'Dual' cord borne unit. Alternatively, both may be set to M, using their own buttons/controls.

 

In either setting, any unit operating in ETTL, may have its contribution varied using FEC applied via the camera body. If two units are operating under ETTL, don't try to vary their FECs differently. If you need a ratio under ETTL (both) then achieve it by varying flash to subject distance, speedlite ND filters or different light modification between the units.

 

Extra info:

 

‘Dual’ TTL cord notes – Canon only

 

~All 'Dual' TTL cords are unorthodox – so don’t assume they will work as expected. There are lots of wrinkles/idiosyncrasies

~Although much more reliable than pc cords – even momentary discontinuity across a hot-shoe interface can defeat a setup. If you are getting unexpected outcomes, triple check these interfaces

~‘II’ series Ex Speedlites with high level control from a capable camera body behave differently to ‘pre-II’ series units. ‘II’ series units are more choosey/idiosyncratic. 'Switch on' sequence is peripheral then central ie both Speedlites before camera body.

~Ishoot, Youngnuo, Phottix, Vello & Godox all make Dual TTL cords – please assume that they all behave differently

~Identical twin Ex units setup identically in every respect and outputting identically, might work in ETTL (but then the only way to achieve a ratio is via flash to subject distance, ND filters or light modification). But any departure from that rule is very unlikely to work, so, if departing from that rule, one unit, at least, should be set to M using its own buttons/controls.

 

Aeroscopia est un musée aéronautique français implanté à Blagnac (Haute-Garonne), près du site AéroConstellation, et accueille notamment deux exemplaires du Concorde, dont l'ouverture a eu lieu le 14 janvier 2015

 

Le tarmac Sud du musée n'est capable d'accueillir que trois gros appareils. L'installation des appareils fut définitivement terminée après que le premier prototype de l'A400M-180 y fut arrivé le 16 juillet 2015, en dépit de la possibilité de 360 000 euros de TVA.

 

Concorde, F-BVFC, MSN209 aux couleurs d'Air France

Caravelle 12, F-BTOE, MSN280 aux couleurs d'Air Inter, dernier exemplaire construit

A400M-180, F-WWMT, MSN001 stationné depuis le 16 juillet 2015

 

La réalisation en 2019 du nouveau tarmac au Nord du musée permet l'accueil d'appareils supplémentaires issus des entreprises locales Airbus et ATR. Le transfert des avions entre le site Airbus "Lagardère" et le musée a lieu sur une semaine, à raison d'un appareil par jour :

 

ATR 72-600, F-WWEY, MSN098 aux couleurs d'ATR, transféré sur site le 26 août 2019, premier exemplaire du 72 dans sa version 600

Airbus A340-600, F-WWCA, MSN360 aux couleurs d'Airbus, transféré sur site le 27 août 2019, premier exemplaire de l'A340 dans sa version 600

Airbus A320-111, F-WWAI, MSN001 aux anciennes couleurs d'Airbus, transféré sur site le 28 août 2019, premier exemplaire de l'A320 : inauguration le 14 février 1987 en présence de Lady Diana et du Prince Charles, premier vol le 22 février 1987

Airbus A380-800, F-WXXL, MSN002 aux couleurs d'Airbus, transféré sur site le 29 août 2019, second exemplaire de l'A380. Les deux ponts de cet appareil sont visitables, ainsi que le cockpit.

ATR 42-300, F-WEGC, MSN003 aux anciennes couleurs d'ATR, transféré sur site le 30 août 2019, troisième exemplaire du 42. Cet exemplaire est décoré aux couleurs du MSN001 et porte l'immatriculation F-WEGA

 

Concorde, F-WTSB, MSN201 (ANAE), il s'agit d'un appareil de présérie qui a servi entre autres à transporter plusieurs présidents de la République française.

Airbus A300B4-203, F-WUAB, MSN238 (Airbus Heritage), décoré aux couleurs du prototype, au lieu de MSN001 démantelé. L'intérieur est visitable. Dans la première section des vitrages transparents permettent de voir la structure et les systèmes de l'avion, tandis que dans les sections suivantes sont représentés des aménagements de première classe et VIP.

Super Guppy de l'association Ailes Anciennes Toulouse, l'appareil qui servait au transport des tronçons d'Airbus est exposé porte ouverte, et une passerelle permet l'accès à la soute où un film est projeté. L'ouverture n'a pas été une mince affaire, l'appareil n'ayant pas été ouvert pendant 15 ans. L'aide des anciens mécaniciens de l'avion a été primordiale pour permettre une ouverture en toute sécurité.

 

Corvette (Airbus)

Falcon 10 no 02, prototype ayant servi aux essais du turboréacteur Larzac (Ailes Anciennes Toulouse)

Fouga Magister (AAT)

Gazelle prototype (AAT)

Mirage III C (AAT)

Nord 1100 (AAT)

Lockheed F-104G (AAT)

MiG-15 (AAT)

MS.760 Paris (AAT)

Vought F-8E(FN) Crusader et son réacteur (AAT)

Alouette II Marine (AAT)

Cessna Skymaster (AAT)

Fairchild Metro, ancien avion de Météo-France (AAT)

HM-293, de Rodolphe Grunberg

Chagnes MicroStar, avion de construction amateur, version biréacteur de Rutan VariViggen (AAT)

Saab J35OE Draken (AAT)

 

Aeroscopia is a French aeronautical museum located in Blagnac (Haute-Garonne), near the AéroConstellation site, and notably hosts two copies of the Concorde, which opened on January 14, 2015

 

The south tarmac of the museum can only accommodate three large aircraft. The installation of the devices was definitively finished after the first prototype of the A400M-180 arrived there on July 16, 2015, despite the possibility of 360,000 euros in VAT.

 

Concorde, F-BVFC, MSN209 in Air France colors

Caravelle 12, F-BTOE, MSN280 in Air Inter colors, last model built

A400M-180, F-WWMT, MSN001 parked since July 16, 2015

 

The construction in 2019 of the new tarmac north of the museum will accommodate additional aircraft from local Airbus and ATR companies. The transfer of planes between the Airbus "Lagardère" site and the museum takes place over a week, at the rate of one aircraft per day:

 

ATR 72-600, F-WWEY, MSN098 in ATR colors, transferred to site on August 26, 2019, first copy of the 72 in its 600 version

Airbus A340-600, F-WWCA, MSN360 in Airbus colors, transferred to site on August 27, 2019, first copy of the A340 in its 600 version

Airbus A320-111, F-WWAI, MSN001 in the old Airbus colors, transferred to site on August 28, 2019, first copy of the A320: inauguration on February 14, 1987 in the presence of Lady Diana and Prince Charles, first flight on February 22, 1987

Airbus A380-800, F-WXXL, MSN002 in Airbus colors, transferred to site on August 29, 2019, second copy of the A380. The two decks of this aircraft can be visited, as well as the cockpit.

ATR 42-300, F-WEGC, MSN003 in the old ATR colors, transferred to the site on August 30, 2019, third specimen of the 42. This specimen is decorated in the colors of the MSN001 and bears the registration F-WEGA

 

Concorde, F-WTSB, MSN201 (ANAE), this is a pre-production aircraft which was used, among other things, to transport several presidents of the French Republic.

Airbus A300B4-203, F-WUAB, MSN238 (Airbus Heritage), decorated in the colors of the prototype, instead of dismantled MSN001. The interior can be visited. In the first section transparent glazing allows to see the structure and systems of the aircraft, while in the following sections are shown first class and VIP fittings.

Super Guppy from the Ailes Anciennes Toulouse association, the aircraft which was used to transport the Airbus sections is on display with the door open, and a gangway allows access to the hold where a film is shown. Opening was no small feat, as the device has not been opened for 15 years. The help of the former mechanics of the aircraft was essential to allow a safe opening.

 

Corvette (Airbus)

Falcon 10 no 02, prototype used for testing the Larzac turbojet engine (Ailes Anciennes Toulouse)

Fouga Magister (AAT)

Prototype Gazelle (AAT)

Mirage III C (AAT)

North 1100 (AAT)

Lockheed F-104G (AAT)

MiG-15 (AAT)

MS.760 Paris (AAT)

Vought F-8E (FN) Crusader and its engine (AAT)

Alouette II Marine (AAT)

Cessna Skymaster (AAT)

Fairchild Metro, former Météo-France (AAT) aircraft

HM-293, by Rodolphe Grunberg

Chagnes MicroStar, amateur-built aircraft, twin-jet version of Rutan VariViggen (AAT)

Saab J35OE Draken (AAT)

India & Pakistan Owe their Freedom to Allama Mashriqi

 

By Nasim Yousaf

 

Has a powerful ruler ever transferred power without facing a significant threat to their rule? The Indian sub-continent’s freedom was inconceivable without Allama Mashriqi’s private army of over five million uniformed Khaksars who threatened British rule. Considering this reality, India and Pakistan owe their independence to Allama Inayatullah Khan Al-Mashriqi – a legend and a great freedom fighter.

 

Allama Mashriqi’s struggle to revive the glory of the Indian nation started with his poetic work, Kharita, which he wrote in his youth (1902-1909). In 1912, Mashriqi discussed his future aims to liberate the nation when he spoke at a graduation dinner (hosted by the Indian Society of Cambridge University in his honor):

 

“[translation]…Our educational achievements bear testimony to the fact that India can produce unparalleled brains that can defeat the British minds. India is capable of producing superior brains that can make the nation’s future brighter. After we return from here, we must ponder how to break the chains of slavery from the British…We should keep our vision high and enlarge our aims and goals so we can be free from the chains of slavery as soon as possible” (Al-Mashriqi by Dr. Mohammad Azmatullah Bhatti).

 

Later, Mashriqi’s work Tazkirah (published in 1925) spoke of jihad as well as the rise and fall of nations and was a step towards bringing revolt against British rule. In 1926, Mashriqi embarked on a trip to Egypt and Europe; there, he delivered a lecture on his book Tazkirah, jihad and fighting colonial rule. In Germany, Mashriqi was received by Helene von Nostitz-Wallwitz, the niece of German President Hindenburg (Al-Islah, May 31, 1935). While in Germany, Mashriqi discussed the aforementioned topics with Albert Einstein, Helene, and other prominent individuals; these conversations reflected his mindset of bringing an uprising in foreign lands (as well as in India) against the oppression of British colonial rule. Earlier, while in Egypt at the International Caliphate Conference, Mashriqi succeeded in defeating a British plan to have a Caliph of their choice elected to control the Muslim world. During the trip, Mashriqi acted courageously and ignored the risks of being persecuted or even hanged for treachery against the British Empire in foreign lands…and that too as a government employee.

 

Meanwhile in India, M.A. Jinnah, M.K. Gandhi, the All-India Muslim League, and Indian National Congress had not taken any concrete steps to bring revolt or overturn British rule. Anyone who attempted to rise against British rule was either ruthlessly crushed or faced the end of his/her political career. As such, Muslim and Hindu leadership adopted ineffective methods such as passing resolutions, taking out rallies and raising anti-British slogans. Mashriqi felt that such methods were useless and would not end the British Raj.

 

In 1930, Mashriqi resigned from his lucrative job to bring independence to the nation. Risking the lives of himself and his family, Mashriqi launched a private army called the Khaksar Movement. Enrollment in the combative and revolutionary Movement was tough; the masses were not only dispirited, but scared to risk their lives for freedom. In order to promote his mission, Mashriqi traveled in buses, tongas, or third-class compartments of trains and walked for miles at a time in poverty-stricken and rural areas. He was indistinguishable from the common people. This was a man who could have easily accepted an Ambassadorship and title of “Sir” (both of which he was offered by the British in 1920) and continued to draw a hefty salary, brushing shoulders with the British rulers and leading a life of utmost luxury. However, he chose to fight for the people instead.

 

In 1934, Mashriqi launched the Al-Islah weekly newspaper. The Times of India (August 08, 1938) wrote, “The publication of Al-Islah gave a fresh impetus to the [Khaksar] movement which spread to other regions such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran [as well as Bahrain, Burma, Ceylon, Egypt, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Yemen, and U.K].” By the late 1930s, from Peshawar to Rangoon, the private army of Khaksars had grown to millions.

 

Throughout these years, the Khaksars continued their activities, including military camps where mock wars were held using belchas (spades), swords, batons, and sometime even cannons. Many Khaksars had willingly signed pledges in blood indicating that they would lay their lives and property if necessary for the cause of freedom. The Khaksars paraded in the streets of India and spread their message against British rule, including running slides in cinemas, chalking walls, distributing pamphlets and flyers and through Al-Islah. By 1939, Mashriqi had prepared a plan to oust British rule. Later that year, he paralyzed the Government of U.P. Thereafter, Mashriqi formed a parallel government, published a plan (in Al-Islah newspaper) to divide India into 14 provinces, issued currency notes, and ordered the enrollment of an additional 2.5 million Muslim and non-Muslim Khaksars.

 

By now, the strength of the Khaksars had been revealed and the British foresaw Mashriqi taking over. Under intense pressure, the rulers began to make promises of freedom for India and started conversations with M.A. Jinnah, M.K. Gandhi, and others. The Government also took immediate action by launching an anti-Mashriqi campaign in the media; Khaksar activities and the Al-Islah journal were banned. A large number of Khaksars were mercilessly killed by police on March 19, 1940. Mashriqi, his sons, and thousands of Khaksars were arrested. Mashriqi’s young daughters received death threats and threats of abduction. Intelligence agencies were alerted. While in jail, life was made miserable for Mashriqi and the Khaksars; many individuals were kept in solitary confinement and several got life imprisonment. While their activities were banned, the Khaksar Tehrik continued operating from the underground; Al-Islah’s publishing operations were moved to other cities (Aligarh and Calcutta). To overcome censoring of mail and phone calls, they employed the use of secret codes. The Government repression brought additional uprise in the country against British rule.

 

While in jail, Mashriqi was informed that in order to obtain his release, he must announce the disbandment of the Movement; he refused and instead kept a fast unto death that made the rulers fearful of additional backlash from the public and forced them to release Mashriqi after two years in jail without a trial (strict restrictions on his movements remained after release). Thus, Mashriqi, his family, and the Khaksars refused to surrender and the rulers failed to suppress the Khaksar Tehrik.

 

Upon his release (despite restrictions on his movements), Mashriqi asked Jinnah, Gandhi, and other leaders to form a joint front and stand with him so he could end British rule. He also pushed for a Jinnah-Gandhi meeting and continued to promote Hindu-Muslim unity. However, vested interests prevented these leaders from joining hands with Mashriqi.

 

As the British continued holding talks with their favored leaders, Mashriqi continuing pushing rigorously for a revolt. In 1946, Mashriqi succeeded in bringing about a Bombay Naval Mutiny on February 18, 1946 (Al-Islah, March 08, 1946), which also prompted mutiny within the other armed forces.

 

On June 08, 1946, at the Khaksar Headquarters in Icchra (Lahore), Mashriqi addressed a gathering of Khaksars, soldiers released from the armed forces after World War II, and the soldiers of the defeated Indian National Army (INA) of Subhas Chandra Bose: “after sixteen years of unprecedented self-sacrifices, we are now ardent to reach our objective as fast as possible, and within the next few months will do anything and everything to achieve our goal” (Al-Islah June 14, 1946).

 

Final preparations for a revolt for independence took place in November 1946 at a historic Khaksar Camp in Peshawar (from November 07-10, 1946), where mock wars and military exercises were held. Mashriqi addressed a crowd of 110,000 Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, and others; he shed light on the self-seeking and futile politics of Indian leaders and gave an account of the British exploitations of India’s resources. The speech sparked a sense that further abuse by the rulers would no longer be tolerated and their rule must come to an end. Thereafter, on December 01, 1946, Mashriqi distributed a pamphlet in India proclaiming:

 

“[translation] Idara-i-Aliya [Khaksar Headquarters] shall soon issue an order that in the entire India, four million [sources quote a range from 4-5 million members] Khaksars, side by side with hundreds of thousands rather millions of supporters shall march simultaneously…This moment shall dawn upon us very soon and that is why it is being ordered that a grand preparation for this historical day should commence immediately…so that British can clearly witness the day of India’s freedom…”

 

With this bold announcement, a British hold on power was no longer possible. As such, Prime Minister Clement Attlee announced a transfer of power by no later than June 1948. Mashriqi suspected that the announcement could be a ploy to divert public attention or to buy time to create dissent within the country (for example, by encouraging ongoing Muslim-Hindu riots), so that the British could justify and extend their rule.

 

To close the door on any such ploys, Mashriqi ordered 300,000 Khaksars to assemble on June 30th, 1947 in Delhi; this order put the final nail in the coffin for the British Raj. Such a huge assembly of this private army of Khaksars would enable them to take over all important installations – including radio/broadcasting stations, newspaper offices, British officials’ lodges, and government offices. Immediately following these steps, an overturn of British rule was to be announced via media. The timing of this coup d’état was fitting, as the entire nation (including the armed forces, who had already revolted against the regime) wanted an end to British rule. With this impending massive assembly of Khaksars in Delhi, the rulers saw the writing on the wall; they feared their humiliation and defeat at the hands of the Khaksars and angry masses. Moreover, the rulers could not accept a united India…and that too at the hands of Allama Mashriqi.

 

Therefore, without any other compelling reason, a transfer of power was undertaken by the British in an extraordinary rush; on June 3rd, 1947, the Viceroy of India, Lord Mountbatten, announced a plan to partition India. Mountbatten called a hurried meeting of their selected Muslim and Hindu leaders and asked them to accept the plan immediately. The selected leaders saw power falling in the hands of Mashriqi and he becoming the champion of freedom if they did not accept the plan. Jealousy and vested interests came into play. M. K. Gandhi, Jinnah’s All-India Muslim League, and the Indian National Congress accepted the plan almost immediately. Mashriqi tried to prevent the All-India Muslim League from signing off on the plan, but was “stabbed” (The Canberra Times, Australia, June 11, 1947) on the same day that the League accepted the plan (June 09, 1947). It was obvious that the motive of this stabbing was to keep Mashriqi from stopping the partition of India (in order to have a united independence).

 

The partition plan was accepted and announced all over the world only about two weeks before the assembly of the Khaksars was to take place. Logically speaking, can it actually be called a “transfer of power”? The British handed over control of the nation in a rush because the Khaksars were on the verge of forcibly ending their rule; indeed, over 100,000 (Dawn July 02, 1947 reported “70,000 to 80,000”) Khaksars had already entered Delhi despite strict measures in place.

 

The establishments in India and Pakistan and historians overstate the role of the British’s preferred leaders, while failing to recognize the reality of what led to independence. Neither Jinnah nor Gandhi had the street power to overturn-British rule; it is for this reason that they were seeking a transfer of power, which they obtained based on the threat posed to British rule by the powerful Khaksar Movement. Historians have thus far presented history from a colonial or Pakistani/Indian state point of view, rather than based on the facts on the ground.

 

Instead of giving credit to Mashriqi, some historians provide flimsy reasons for the end of British rule. Some of the reasons they cite are:

 

(1) Gandhi’s methods and Jinnah’s constitutional fight brought freedom to India and Pakistan respectively -- this argument is neither supported by human history nor the realities on the ground, as colonial rulers do not voluntarily relinquish their power without a significant threat to their rule.

 

(2) The British fast-forwarded transfer of power and left quickly to avoid blame for the massive killings that would ensue -- this argument also does not make sense as the massive communal riots/killings began on Direct Action Day (August 16, 1946), so an early transfer of power would not have helped the rulers avoid blame. Even if we were to accept these writers’ claims, why would Lord Mountbatten then become the first Governor General of India and why would many Britishers continue to hold important positions in Pakistan and India?

 

(3) The British left India because after World War II, they became economically weak and could not keep their hold on India -- this claim does not hold water. India’s rich resources would have helped them to recover their losses from the war.

 

(4) The end of the British Raj came about because of Subhas Chandra Bose’s Indian National Army (INA) -- the INA was defeated in 1945 and thereafter, Subhas Chandra Bose was not on the scene anymore (he was either killed or went into hiding as claimed).

 

The Pakistani, Indian, and United Kingdom establishments do not let the truth come out. Despite my open letters to the Chief Justices of the Supreme Courts and the Prime Ministers of Pakistan and India, both countries (and the U.K.) have not declassified Mashriqi and the Khaksar Tehrik’s confiscated papers from the pre-post partition era. In order to hide the truth, Mashriqi’s role is also excluded from the educational curriculum and academic discussions everywhere. The Partition Museum in Amritsar, Lahore Museum, London Museum and others do not display Mashriqi and the Khaksar Tehrik’s artifacts.

 

Despite the current state of affairs, the ground realities speak loudly to Mashriqi’s heroic fight; without Mashriqi’s private army of Khaksars, the British rulers would not have even come to the table to discuss the freedom of the Indian sub-continent (now Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan), leave alone quit the lucrative sub-continent. As such, both countries owe their independence to Mashriqi and he is a founding father of India and Pakistan.

 

Nasim Yousaf is a biographer and grandson of Allama Mashriqi. Yousaf’s works have been published in peer-reviewed encyclopedias and academic journals (including at Harvard University and by Springer of Europe), and he has presented papers at academic conferences, including at Cornell University.

 

Copyright © 2020 Nasim Yousaf

 

Published:

 

Kashmir Images (Srinagar, Kashmir), August 22, 2020

Pakistan Link (USA), August 28, 2020

The Miracle (Canada), August 28, 2020

Brisbane Indian Times (Australia), September 12, 2020

Asian World News (United Kingdom), August 20, 2020

Isma Times (India), Aug 20, 2020

Muslim Mirror (India), August 25, 2020

New Age Islam (India), August 21, 2020

Fast Kashmir, (Kashmir), Aug 20, 2020

 

***

 

2) archive.org/details/india-pakistan-owe-their-freedom-to-a...

 

2) issuu.com/nasimyousaf

 

#AllamaMashriqi #AllamaMashriqiVirtualMuseum #KhaksarMovement #Khaksars #TwoNationTheory #Partition #PartitionofIndia #OralHistory #BritishEmpire #PakistanHistory #IndianHistory #FreedomMovement #LahoreMuseum #PartitionMuseum #AmritsarMuseum #PartitionMuseumAmritsar #Lahore #Twitter #YouTube #SocialMedia #CollectionsUnited

To quote that international superstar singer and her very capable vocals ;-p "Oops I Did It Again"! Although i've failed in recent weeks to buy much of anything genuinely new and interesting off the pegs of our retailers I did manage to find yet more of these new 2017 recoloured VW Transporter T3 Crew Cabs in various ASDA stores. Admittedly i've only found them on my quest to find Batch H as I already have plenty but the novelty of these extraordinary good diecasts hasn't subsided enough yet for me to leave them behind! How could I when they look this polished and professional, its a normal commercial vehicle from the 80's and 90's for heavens sake but I can't believe how good it has turned out especially compared to the original debut version. Its Matchbox at their very finest and all it took was to give it a plain colour, some very much needed front tampo treatment and those delicious chrome disc wheels and voila... diecast perfection! Mint and boxed.

Not long after the F-4C Phantom II entered USAF service in the early 1960s, the service issued a requirement for a heavy, all-missile equipped interceptor with variable-sweep wings and a top speed of nearly Mach 3. This requirement was soon cancelled, however, due to two events: the Vietnam War and the flight of the Soviet MiG-25 Foxbat. Over North Vietnam, the heavy, all-missile F-4 had found itself at a disadvantage against smaller, lighter, gun-equipped MiG-17s, while the new Foxbat was erroneously thought to be a generation ahead of anything then in American service, both agile and capable of Mach 3 performance.

 

The USAF changed its requirement to a lighter aircraft that would include an internal gun, with an emphasis on performance; it rejected a Grumman proposal for a land-based version of the F-14 Tomcat as being too heavy. The new F-X proposal did away with maintenance-intensive swing wings in favor of a more conventional, easier to repair and produce fighter with a high thrust-to-weight ratio and superb performance in the vertical, once more drawing on the Vietnam experience, where North Vietnamese fighters had performed poorly in vertical maneuvers. Almost as much emphasis was given to the F-X’s radar, which had to have look-down, shoot-down capability—another failure of American technology over Vietnam. McDonnell Douglas’ twin-tailed proposal won the F-X competition, despite being roughly the same weight as a F-4E Phantom II, and more expensive; demands for lighter and less expensive fighters as an alternative to this new YF-15 Eagle led to the development of the F-16 Fighting Falcon and F/A-18 Hornet.

 

The first F-15 flew in July 1972 and immediately exhibited superb flight characteristics: for its size, which was slightly larger than a F-4, it was very agile. The combination of powerful turbofan engines and thrust-to-weight ratio made the F-15 one of the first fighters to be able to accelerate in a climb, rather than lose speed. Like the F-4, it used a mix of conformal-fuselage mounted AIM-7 Sparrows and wing rail-mounted AIM-9 Sidewinders, but unlike the F-4, the F-15 was built from the start with an internal 20mm gatling cannon. From a fighter pilot’s standpoint, the best part of the F-15, aside from its phenomenal performance, was the bubbletop canopy, set forward from the wide fuselage, giving superb all-around visibility.

 

The cost of the F-15 was brought into question, especially after the defection of a MiG-25 pilot in 1975 revealed that the Foxbat was nowhere near as capable as originally thought, but this only led the USAF to go with a mix of the F-15 and the less expensive F-16, which would prove to be superb “stablemates” in the decades to come. F-15As entered USAF service in 1976. Almost immediately, the F-15A was supplemented and supplanted by the F-15C, which introduced improved avionics, engines, and radar; F-15As underwent the Multi-Stage Improvement Program (MSIP) beginning in 1983, which rendered them basically identical to F-15Cs, and the two types are indistinguishable externally. The F-15 was also developed into the F-15E Strike Eagle attack aircraft, described separately.

 

Though the F-15 was costly, the F-14 Tomcat was even more expensive, and so Israel chose the Eagle as the replacement for the Mirage III in 1978. Not long after the first Israel F-15As became operational, the Eagle scored its first kills over Syrian MiG-21s in 1979. This was to begin the F-15’s excellent combat record: during the 1982 Lebanon War, Israeli F-15s added 40 more kills over MiG-21s, MiG-23 Floggers, and MiG-25s; Saudi Arabia, which had received F-15s in 1981, added two Iranian F-4Es in 1984.

 

The F-15’s shining moment was during the First Gulf War with Iraq in 1991. Eagles had been among the first aircraft deployed to the Gulf region in what was, at the time, the longest deployment ever undertaken by fighters—a grueling 14-hour flight from Langely AFB, Virginia, to Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, soon after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1990. The Eagle fleet, which included Saudi F-15Cs, was added to during Operation Desert Shield; when Desert Storm was unleashed in January 1991, F-15s were in the vanguard, their target the Iraqi Air Force. Over the next six weeks, F-15s achieved air supremacy over Iraq, scoring 34 kills over mostly MiG-23s and MiG-29s, while the Saudis added two Mirage F.1s to the total. Four Yugoslavian MiG-29s fell to F-15 missiles in 1999, bringing the F-15’s tally to 105 kills to date during its career: in return, no F-15s have been lost in aerial combat.

 

The F-15 Eagle remains the backbone of the USAF’s fighter community, despite suffering from a shortage of parts in the late 1990s and increasing age. F-15s have been updated to carry the AIM-120 AMRAAM and AIM-9X, while Israeli F-15s carry a mix of the AMRAAM and the deadly Python IV helmet-guided missile. The F-22 Raptor was meant to wholly replace the F-15, but the cancellation of further F-22 production in 2010 has, as of this writing, left a gap between F-22s in service and F-15s needing to be replaced. As a result, the F-15C may remain in service as late as 2025, with about 70 being updated as “Legacy Eagles”—these aircraft are receiving the same AESA advanced radar as the F-22. Boeing (which absorbed McDonnell Douglas) has also offered an advanced variant of the F-15, the so-called “Silent Eagle” that incorporates features of the F-22 into the F-15E airframe, which is still in production. F-15s also continue to serve with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Japan. Though getting aged by fighter standards, F-15s will be around for a long time to come.

 

Finding a F-15 in an out of the way location like Zion, Illinois was a bit of a surprise, but the Russell Military Museum has 75-0084, a F-15B, on display. One of the first F-15Bs delivered to the USAF, 75-0084 seems to have spent most of its career as a trainer and testbed, serving with the 325th Fighter Weapons Wing at Tyndall AFB, Florida and then the 46th Test Wing at nearby Eglin AFB. In addition to its duties as a trainer, 75-0084 also occasionally undertook Operation Coronet Eagle sorties in the Gulf of Mexico, assisting Coast Guard and Drug Enforcement Agency forces in intercepting suspected drug runners. As a high-time Eagle, it was retired around 2010.

 

After that, its history becomes somewhat murky. According to the Russell Military Museum, it was acquired for their museum after being used as a ground maintenance trainer (GF-15B) at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, but other sources hold that it was donated either to the Chanute AFB Museum at Rantoul, Illinois or the Evergreen Aviation Museum in McMinnville, Oregon--or both. Given that much of the Chanute museum's collection was acquired by other Midwest museums after it closed in 2016, it may be a former Chanute aircraft.

 

Either way, 74-0084 has seen some better days. It is missing both rudders and its engines, and several inspection panels are open (reinforcing the theory that it was used as a ground trainer) The canopy and cockpit are intact, however, and visitors can use the airstairs to look inside. It is painted in faded Mod Eagle camouflage, with equally faded 46th TW patches and tail stripes.

+++ 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 Lockheed F-94 Starfire was a first-generation jet aircraft of the United States Air Force. It was developed from the twin-seat Lockheed T-33 Shooting Star in the late 1940s as an all-weather, day/night interceptor, replacing the propeller-driven North American F-82 Twin Mustang in this role. The system was designed to overtake the F-80 in terms of performance, but more so to intercept the new high-level Soviet bombers capable of nuclear attacks on America and her Allies - in particular, the new Tupelov Tu-4. The F-94 was furthermore the first operational USAF fighter equipped with an afterburner and was the first jet-powered all-weather fighter to enter combat during the Korean War in January 1953.

 

The initial production model was the F-94A, which entered operational service in May 1950. Its armament consisted of four 0.50 in (12.7 mm) M3 Browning machine guns mounted in the fuselage with the muzzles exiting under the radome for the APG-33 rader, a derivative from the AN/APG-3, which directed the Convair B-36's tail guns and had a range of up to 20 miles (32 km). Two 165 US Gallon (1,204 litre) drop tanks, as carried by the F-80 and T-33, were carried on the wingtips. Alternatively, these could be replaced by a pair of 1,000 lb (454 kg) bombs under the wings, giving the aircraft a secondary fighter bomber capability. 109 were produced.

 

The subsequent F-94B, which entered service in January 1951, was outwardly virtually identical to the F-94A. The Allison J33 turbojet had a number of modifications made, though, which made it a very reliable engine. The pilot was provided with a more roomy cockpit and the canopy was replaced by a canopy with a bow frame in the center between the two crew members, as well as a new Instrument Landing System (ILS). However, this new variant’s punch with just four machine guns remained weak, and, in order to improve the load of fire, wing-mounted pods with two additional pairs with machine guns were introduced – but these hardly improved the interceptor’s effectiveness. 356 of the F-94B were built.

 

The following F-94C was extensively modified and initially designated F-97, but it was ultimately decided just to treat it as a new version of the F-94. USAF interest was lukewarm, since aircraft technology developed at a fast pace in the Fifties. Lockheed funded development themselves, converting two F-94B airframes to YF-94C prototypes for evaluation with a completely new, much thinner wing, a swept tail surface and a more powerful Pratt & Whitney J48, a license-built version of the afterburning Rolls-Royce Tay, which produced a dry thrust of 6,350 pounds-force (28.2 kN) and approximately 8,750 pounds-force (38.9 kN) with afterburning. Instead of machine guns, the new variant was exclusively armed with more effective unguided air-to-air missiles.

Eventually, the type was adopted for USAF service, since it was the best interim solution for an all-weather fighter at that time, but it still had to rely on Ground Control Interception Radar (GCI) sites to vector the interceptor to intruding aircraft.

 

Anyway, The F-94C's introduction and the availability of more effective Northrop F-89C/D Scorpion and the North American F-86D Sabre interceptors led to a quick relegation of the earlier F-94 variants from mid-1954 onwards to second line units and Air National Guards. By 1955 most of them had been phased out of USAF service. However, some of these relatively young surplus machines were subsequently exported to friendly nations, esp. to NATO countries in dire need for all-weather interceptors at the organization’s outer frontiers where Soviet bomber attacks had to be expected.

 

One of these foreign operators was Greece. In 1952, Greece was admitted to NATO and the country’s Air Force was, with US assistance, rebuilt and organized according to NATO standards. New aircraft were introduced, namely jet fighters which meant a thorough modernization. The first types flown by the Hellenic Air Force were the Republic F-84G Thunderjet (about 100 examples) and the Lockheed F-94B Starfire (about thirty aircraft).

The Hellenic F-94Bs represented the USAF’s standard, but for their second life they were modified to carry, as an alternative to the type’s standard machine gun pods under the wings, a pair of pods with unguided air-to-air missiles, similar to the F-94C. Their designation remained unchanged, though.

This first generation of jets in Hellenic service became operational in 1955 and played an important role within NATO's defense strategy in the south-eastern Europe in the following years. They also took part in Operation Deep Water, a 1957 NATO naval exercise held in the Mediterranean Sea that simulated protecting the Dardanelles from a Soviet invasion and featured a simulated nuclear air strike in the Gallipoli area, reflecting NATO's nuclear umbrella policy to offset the Soviet Union's numerical superiority of ground forces in Europe.

 

In the late 1960s, the F-84 fighters were replaced by the Canadair Sabre 2 from British and Canadian surplus stocks and the Hellenic Air Force acquired new jet aircraft. These included the Lockheed F-104G Starfighter, the Northrop F-5 Freedom Fighter and the Convair F-102 Delta Dagger. The latter entered service in service 1969 and gradually replaced the F-94Bs in the all-weather interceptor role until 1971.

In the mid-1970s the Hellenic Air Force was further modernized with deliveries of the Dassault Mirage F1CG fleet, Vought A-7Hs (including a number of TA-7Hs) and the first batch of McDonnell-Douglas F-4E Phantom IIs, upgraded versions of which still serve today.

 

After their replacement through the F-102 the Hellenic F-94Bs were still used as advanced trainers, primarily for aspiring WSOs but also for weapon training against ground targets. But by the mid Seventies, all Hellenic F-94Bs had been phased out.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 2

Length: 40 ft 1 in (12.24 m)

Wingspan: 38 ft 9 in (12.16 m)

Height: 12 ft. 2 (3.73 m)

Wing area: 234' 8" sq ft (29.11 m²)

Empty weight: 10,064 lb (4,570 kg)

Loaded weight: 15,330 lb (6,960 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 24,184 lb (10,970 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Allison J33-A-33 turbojet, rated at 4,600 lbf (20.4 kN) continuous thrust

and 6,000 lbf (26.6 kN) thrust with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 630 mph (1,014 km/h) at height and in level flight

Range: 930 mi (813 nmi, 1,500 km) in combat configuration with two drop tanks

Ferry range: 1,457 mi (1,275 nmi, 2,345 km)

Service ceiling: 42,750 ft (14,000 m)

Rate of climb: 6,858 ft/min (34.9 m/s)

Wing loading: 57.4 lb/ft² (384 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight: 0.48

 

Armament:

4x 0.5"0 (12.7 mm) machine guns in the lower nose section

2x 165 US Gallon (1,204 litre) drop tanks on the wing tips

2x underwing hardpoints for

- two pods with a pair of 0.5" (12.7 mm) machine guns each, or

- two pods with a total of 24× 2.75” (70 mm) Mk 4/Mk 40 Folding-Fin Aerial Rockets, or

- two 1.000 lb (454 kg) bombs (instead of the wing tip drop tanks)

  

The kit and its assembly:

This is a rather simple entry for the 2018 "Cold War" GB at whatifmodelers.com, in the form of a more or less OOB-built Heller F-94B in a fictional guise. The original inspiration was the idea of a camouflaged F-94, since all USAF machines had been left in bare metal finish with more or less colorful additions and markings.

 

That said, the kit was built almost completely OOB and did – except for some sinkholes and standard PSR work – not pose any problem. In fact, the old Heller Starfire model is IMHO a pretty good representation of the aircraft. O.K., its age might show, but almost anything you could ask for at 1:72 scale is there, including a decent, detailed cockpit. I just added a wire pitot under the nose and opened the gun ports, plus some machine gun barrels inside made from hollow steel needles. The main wheels had to be replaced due to sinkholes, and they appeared to be rather narrow for this massive aircraft, too. I found decent replacements from a Tamiya 1:100 F-105D.

  

Painting and markings:

Even though the F-94 never wore camouflage in real life, I chose to add some (more) color to this Hellenic Starfire. In fact, the RHAF adopted several schemes for its early jet types, including grey undersides to otherwise NMF machines grey/green NATO colors, all-around ADC Grey, the so-called Aegean Grey or the USAF's South East Asia scheme. I chose the latter, since I expected an unusual look, and the colors would be a good match for the Hellenic landscape, too.

 

The basic colors (FS 30219, 34227, 34279 and 36622) all come from Humbrol (118, 117, 116 and 28, respectively), and for the pattern I adapted the USAF’s recommendation for the C-123 Provider transport aircraft. Beyond a black ink wash and some post-shading for weathering effects the whole surface of the kit received a wet-sanding treatment for additional wear-and-tear effects, exploiting the fact that the kit is molded in silver plastic which, in the end, shines through here and there. The result is a shaggy look, but it’s not rotten and neglected.

 

The machine gun pods received black front ends (against glare), which was also added to the tip tanks’ front end inside surfaces. The radome and the fin tip were painted with a mix of Humbrol 168 (RAF Hemp) and 28, and the gun ports as well as the afterburner section were painted with Steel Metallizer.

 

Using a 340th Mira’s early F-84G for further inspiration, I decided to add some bright squadron markings to the aircraft in the form of yellow-black-checkered tip tanks. These were created with black decal squares (cut from TL Modellbau generic material) over a painted, yellow base (Humbrol 69). I considered even more markings, e.g. a checkered fin rudder or an ornamental decoration, but eventually rejected this idea in favor of the aircraft’s camouflage theme.

 

Other decals come primarily from a HiScale F-84G sheet. Some elements were taken from the Heller OOB sheet and some additional stencils were gathered from various sources, including an Xtradecal T-33 and a PrintScale F-102 sheet.

 

After some soot stains around the exhaust were added with graphite, the kit was sealed under a coat of matt acrylic varnish (Italeri).

  

An interesting result, since a camouflaged F-94 is literally unusual. I am positively surprised how good the aircraft looks in the USAF SEA livery.

Some background:

The need for a specialized self-propelled anti-aircraft gun, capable of keeping up with the armored 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 turretless 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 first proposal for the Kugelblitz envisioned mounting a modified anti-aircraft turret, which had originally been developed for U-boats, on the Panzer IV chassis. It was armed with dual 30 mm MK 303 Brunn guns. However, this was eventually abandoned, since development of this gun had not yet been completed, and, in any case, the entire production run of this weapon turret would have been reserved for Germany's Kriegsmarine. However, enough firepower that enabled the Flakpanzer to cope with armoured attack aircraft, namely the Soviet Ilyushin Il-2, which was a major threat to German tanks, was direly needed.

 

As the best readily available alternative, the Kugelblitz eventually used the 30 mm MK 103 cannon in a Zwillingsflak ("twin flak") 103/38 arrangement, and it combined the chassis and basic superstructure of the existing Panzer IV medium battle tank with a newly designed turret. This vehicle received the official designation SdKfz. 161/7 Leichter Flakpanzer IV 3 cm „Kugelblitz”.

 

The turret’s construction was unique, because its spherical body, which was protected with 20 mm steel shells in front and back, was hanging in a ring mount from the Tiger I, suspended by two spigots – it was effectively an independent capsule that only slightly protruded from the tank’s upper side and kept the vehicle’s profile very low, unlike its predecessors. 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 turret was fully enclosed, with full overhead protection, 360° traverse and (rather limited) space for the crew of three plus weapons and ammunition. Driver and radio operator were located in the front of the hull, as with all German tanks. 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. The spare ammunition was located on the right side. Each of these three crew members had separate hatch doors, which they could use to enter or exit the vehicle. The gunner assistants’ hatch doors each had a small round shaped extra hatch, which were used for mounting sighting devices, and there were plans to outfit the turret with a stereoscopic range finder for the commander.

 

The tank’s MK 103 was a powerful 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 Kaliber 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 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. Due to the fact that the MK 103 cannons produced a lot of powder smoke when operated, fume extractors were added, which was another novelty.

 

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, anyway. 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, 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.

 

By early 1945, only around 50 operational vehicles had been built and production of the SdKfz. 161/7 already ceased in May. The first five produced vehicles were given to the newly formed “Panzerflak Ersatz- und Ausbildungsabteilung” (armored Flak training and replacement battalion) located near the city of Ohrdruf (Freistaat Thüringen region in central Germany). One company was divided into three platoons equipped with a mix of different Flakpanzers vehicles. The first platoon was equipped with the Wirbelwind, the second with Ostwind, and the third platoon was equipped with experimental vehicles, such as the Kugelblitz or the “Zerstörer 45”, which was basically a Wirbelwind with a 3-cm-Flak-Vierling 103/38 (armed with four MK 103s).

 

During the unit’s initial trials and deployments, the 3 cm Flak 38 turned out to be a troublesome design, largely because of the strong vibration when firing, and gun smoke frequently filled the turret with hazardous effects on the crews. The vibrations made the target aiming difficult and could even cause damage on the mounting itself – but due to the dire war situation, production was kept up. However, during the running production of the Kugelblitz turret, reinforcements to the mount structure were gradually added, as well as improved sighting systems. None of the operational SdKfz. 161/7s received these upgrades, though, since it was only regarded as a transitional model that filled the most urgent defense gaps. Later production Panzer IV Kugelblitz vehicles were almost exclusively sent to units that defended Berlin, where they fought against the Soviet assault on the German capital.

  

Specifications:

Crew: Five (commander/gunner, 2 assistants, driver, radio operator)

Weight: 23 tons

Length: 5.92 m (19 ft 5 in)

Width: 2.88 m (9 ft 5 ¼ in)

Height: 2.3 m (7 ft 6 ½ in)

Suspension: Leaf spring

Fuel capacity: 470 l (120 US gal)

 

Armour:

10 – 50 mm (0.39 – 1.96 in)

 

Performance:

Maximum road speed: 40 km/h (25 mph)

Sustained road speed: 34 km/h (21.1 mph)

Off-road speed: 24 km/h (15 mph)

Operational range: 210 km (125 mi); 130 km (80 mi) off-road

Power/weight: 13 PS/t

 

Engine:

Maybach HL 120 TRM V12 petrol engine with 300 PS (296 hp, 221 kW)

 

Transmission:

ZF Synchromesh SSG 77 gear with 6 forward and 1 reverse ratios

 

Armament:

2× 30 mm 3 cm Flak 38 (MK 103/3) with a total of 1.200 rounds

1× 7.92 mm Maschinengewehr 34 with 1,250 rounds in bow mount

  

The kit and its assembly:

This is a model of a tank that actually existed, but only in marginal numbers – not more than five Panzer IV with the revolutionary Kugelblitz turret are known to have existed or even seen service. However, it fits well into the ranks of fictional/projected Heer ’46 tanks, and I have been wanting to build or create one for along time.

 

There are some 1:72 kits available, e. g. from Mako, but they are rare and/or expensive. So I rather went for an improvisation approach, and it turned out to be very successful. The complete turret comes from one of the Modelcollect “Vierfüssler” mecha kits – these carry such an installation under the belly(!), what makes absolutely NO sense to me. I especially wonder how the crew is supposed to enter and operate the turret in its upside down position? Not to mention a totally confined field of fire…

 

However, the Modelcollect Kugelblitz tower comes complete with its bearing and the armored collar. It was simply mated with the hull from a late Hasegawa Panzer IV – in my case even a Wirbelwind, which also came with some suitable additional details like stowing boxes for gun barrels. The attachment ring for the turret had just to be widened far enough to accept the Kugelblitz installation – and it worked well! Very simple, but highly effective.

  

Painting and markings:

Well, this did not work 100% as intended. I wanted to emphasize the fact that the tanks would have been built from revamped hulls, so I gave all parts an initial overall coat with RAL 3009, Oxydrot. These were then overpainted with a three-tone Hinterhalt scheme in Dunkelgelb (RAL 7028), Olivgrün (RAL 6003) and Rotbraun (RAL 8012). The pattern was adapted from a Wirbelwind, which I had found in literature, consisting of narrow stripes across the hull with additional spots of Dunkelgelb on top of the darker tones. In order to emphasize the idea of a converted tank with the turret coming from another source, I gave the latter a uniform Dunkelgelb livery.

 

The colors used were Humbrol enamels, this time a different selection of tones, namely 167 (RAF Hemp), 159 (Khaki Drab) and a mix of 160 and 10 (German Rotbraun and Chocolate Brown, for a darker hue). However, I wanted the Oxydrot to shine through the camouflage, but despite efforts with thinned paint and sparse use of the enamels the effect is not as visible as expected. I left it that way, though, here and there the red primer is visible, but a lot of the livery became obscured through the following wash with dark red brown, highly thinned acrylic paint and a final coat of pigment dust on the model’s lower areas.

 

The original black vinyl track was treated with a cloudy mix of grey, red brown and iron acrylic paint, and finally dusted with pigments, too.

 

The decals were gathered from several sources – the tactical code was puzzled together with Roman and Arabic numbers in red (seen on some vehicles from assault gun units), the emblem on the turret shows Berlin’s mascot, the bear, taken from a Modelcollect Heer ’46 kit’s sheet.

 

Some dry-brushing with light grey was done to simulate dust and worn edges, but not too much since the vehicle was to be presented in a more or less new state. And then the model was sealed with acrylic matt varnish.

  

A relatively simple build, since only the turret was exchanged/transplanted. The result looks better than expected, though, and the Kugelblitz turret fit into the Panzer IV hull like the hand into a tight glove. Very convincing. And I might add another Kugelblitz variant, this time either on a Hetzer hull (which was a real alternative to the Panzer IV) or on an E-25, it seems as if an 1:72 kit becomes soon available from Modelcollect.

 

Some background:

The need for a specialized self-propelled anti-aircraft gun, capable of keeping up with the armored 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 turretless 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 first proposal for the Kugelblitz envisioned mounting a modified anti-aircraft turret, which had originally been developed for U-boats, on the Panzer IV chassis. It was armed with dual 30 mm MK 303 Brunn guns. However, this was eventually abandoned, since development of this gun had not yet been completed, and, in any case, the entire production run of this weapon turret would have been reserved for Germany's Kriegsmarine. However, enough firepower that enabled the Flakpanzer to cope with armoured attack aircraft, namely the Soviet Ilyushin Il-2, which was a major threat to German tanks, was direly needed.

 

As the best readily available alternative, the Kugelblitz eventually used the 30 mm MK 103 cannon in a Zwillingsflak ("twin flak") 103/38 arrangement, and it combined the chassis and basic superstructure of the existing Panzer IV medium battle tank with a newly designed turret. This vehicle received the official designation SdKfz. 161/7 Leichter Flakpanzer IV 3 cm „Kugelblitz”.

 

The turret’s construction was unique, because its spherical body, which was protected with 20 mm steel shells in front and back, was hanging in a ring mount from the Tiger I, suspended by two spigots – it was effectively an independent capsule that only slightly protruded from the tank’s upper side and kept the vehicle’s profile very low, unlike its predecessors. 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 turret was fully enclosed, with full overhead protection, 360° traverse and (rather limited) space for the crew of three plus weapons and ammunition. Driver and radio operator were located in the front of the hull, as with all German tanks. 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. The spare ammunition was located on the right side. Each of these three crew members had separate hatch doors, which they could use to enter or exit the vehicle. The gunner assistants’ hatch doors each had a small round shaped extra hatch, which were used for mounting sighting devices, and there were plans to outfit the turret with a stereoscopic range finder for the commander.

 

The tank’s MK 103 was a powerful 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 Kaliber 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 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. Due to the fact that the MK 103 cannons produced a lot of powder smoke when operated, fume extractors were added, which was another novelty.

 

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, anyway. 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, 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.

 

By early 1945, only around 50 operational vehicles had been built and production of the SdKfz. 161/7 already ceased in May. The first five produced vehicles were given to the newly formed “Panzerflak Ersatz- und Ausbildungsabteilung” (armored Flak training and replacement battalion) located near the city of Ohrdruf (Freistaat Thüringen region in central Germany). One company was divided into three platoons equipped with a mix of different Flakpanzers vehicles. The first platoon was equipped with the Wirbelwind, the second with Ostwind, and the third platoon was equipped with experimental vehicles, such as the Kugelblitz or the “Zerstörer 45”, which was basically a Wirbelwind with a 3-cm-Flak-Vierling 103/38 (armed with four MK 103s).

 

During the unit’s initial trials and deployments, the 3 cm Flak 38 turned out to be a troublesome design, largely because of the strong vibration when firing, and gun smoke frequently filled the turret with hazardous effects on the crews. The vibrations made the target aiming difficult and could even cause damage on the mounting itself – but due to the dire war situation, production was kept up. However, during the running production of the Kugelblitz turret, reinforcements to the mount structure were gradually added, as well as improved sighting systems. None of the operational SdKfz. 161/7s received these upgrades, though, since it was only regarded as a transitional model that filled the most urgent defense gaps. Later production Panzer IV Kugelblitz vehicles were almost exclusively sent to units that defended Berlin, where they fought against the Soviet assault on the German capital.

  

Specifications:

Crew: Five (commander/gunner, 2 assistants, driver, radio operator)

Weight: 23 tons

Length: 5.92 m (19 ft 5 in)

Width: 2.88 m (9 ft 5 ¼ in)

Height: 2.3 m (7 ft 6 ½ in)

Suspension: Leaf spring

Fuel capacity: 470 l (120 US gal)

 

Armour:

10 – 50 mm (0.39 – 1.96 in)

 

Performance:

Maximum road speed: 40 km/h (25 mph)

Sustained road speed: 34 km/h (21.1 mph)

Off-road speed: 24 km/h (15 mph)

Operational range: 210 km (125 mi); 130 km (80 mi) off-road

Power/weight: 13 PS/t

 

Engine:

Maybach HL 120 TRM V12 petrol engine with 300 PS (296 hp, 221 kW)

 

Transmission:

ZF Synchromesh SSG 77 gear with 6 forward and 1 reverse ratios

 

Armament:

2× 30 mm 3 cm Flak 38 (MK 103/3) with a total of 1.200 rounds

1× 7.92 mm Maschinengewehr 34 with 1,250 rounds in bow mount

  

The kit and its assembly:

This is a model of a tank that actually existed, but only in marginal numbers – not more than five Panzer IV with the revolutionary Kugelblitz turret are known to have existed or even seen service. However, it fits well into the ranks of fictional/projected Heer ’46 tanks, and I have been wanting to build or create one for along time.

 

There are some 1:72 kits available, e. g. from Mako, but they are rare and/or expensive. So I rather went for an improvisation approach, and it turned out to be very successful. The complete turret comes from one of the Modelcollect “Vierfüssler” mecha kits – these carry such an installation under the belly(!), what makes absolutely NO sense to me. I especially wonder how the crew is supposed to enter and operate the turret in its upside down position? Not to mention a totally confined field of fire…

 

However, the Modelcollect Kugelblitz tower comes complete with its bearing and the armored collar. It was simply mated with the hull from a late Hasegawa Panzer IV – in my case even a Wirbelwind, which also came with some suitable additional details like stowing boxes for gun barrels. The attachment ring for the turret had just to be widened far enough to accept the Kugelblitz installation – and it worked well! Very simple, but highly effective.

  

Painting and markings:

Well, this did not work 100% as intended. I wanted to emphasize the fact that the tanks would have been built from revamped hulls, so I gave all parts an initial overall coat with RAL 3009, Oxydrot. These were then overpainted with a three-tone Hinterhalt scheme in Dunkelgelb (RAL 7028), Olivgrün (RAL 6003) and Rotbraun (RAL 8012). The pattern was adapted from a Wirbelwind, which I had found in literature, consisting of narrow stripes across the hull with additional spots of Dunkelgelb on top of the darker tones. In order to emphasize the idea of a converted tank with the turret coming from another source, I gave the latter a uniform Dunkelgelb livery.

 

The colors used were Humbrol enamels, this time a different selection of tones, namely 167 (RAF Hemp), 159 (Khaki Drab) and a mix of 160 and 10 (German Rotbraun and Chocolate Brown, for a darker hue). However, I wanted the Oxydrot to shine through the camouflage, but despite efforts with thinned paint and sparse use of the enamels the effect is not as visible as expected. I left it that way, though, here and there the red primer is visible, but a lot of the livery became obscured through the following wash with dark red brown, highly thinned acrylic paint and a final coat of pigment dust on the model’s lower areas.

 

The original black vinyl track was treated with a cloudy mix of grey, red brown and iron acrylic paint, and finally dusted with pigments, too.

 

The decals were gathered from several sources – the tactical code was puzzled together with Roman and Arabic numbers in red (seen on some vehicles from assault gun units), the emblem on the turret shows Berlin’s mascot, the bear, taken from a Modelcollect Heer ’46 kit’s sheet.

 

Some dry-brushing with light grey was done to simulate dust and worn edges, but not too much since the vehicle was to be presented in a more or less new state. And then the model was sealed with acrylic matt varnish.

  

A relatively simple build, since only the turret was exchanged/transplanted. The result looks better than expected, though, and the Kugelblitz turret fit into the Panzer IV hull like the hand into a tight glove. Very convincing. And I might add another Kugelblitz variant, this time either on a Hetzer hull (which was a real alternative to the Panzer IV) or on an E-25, it seems as if an 1:72 kit becomes soon available from Modelcollect.

 

The Shot:

  

Taken in a Studio Setup at the National College of Arts in Lahore, 3 continues lights and 2 strobes used to light up the scene.

  

EXIF

  

Canon EOS 6D

Exposure: 1/400

Aperture: f/2.8

Focal Length: 120mm

ISO Speed: 400 ISO

Exposure Bias: 0 Step

Metering Mode: Pattern

Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II USM ♥

  

Facebook | Twitter

For Professional Services, Please contact:

(+92) 345 588 8440

muhammadfahadraza@gmail.com

To please their base and also to prove that Leica was capable of making an all-mechanical SLR on their own, Leica designed and produced the Leica R6 in 1988.

The Leica R6 is an all-mechanical, manual metering single-lens reflex camera. Unlike the R3 through R5, the R6 shutter is mechanically timed. The meter is the only thing being powered by the batteries. Without battery power, the meter will not work, but the camera is otherwise fully functional. With their intricate clockwork timing mechanicsms, mechanical shutters are expensive to make.

 

Some useful links:

Leica R lenses on Canon DSLRs

Buying Guide for a used Leica R System

Price Guide 2008 - Leica Repairs