View allAll Photos Tagged Complement
This series complements my award-winning guidebook, Chicago in Stone and Clay: A Guide to the Windy City's Architectural Geology. Henceforth I'll just call it CSC.
The CSC section and page reference for the building featured here: 5.9; pp. 51-53.
Facing northeastward from Millennium Park. Standing just south of Anish Kapoor's "Cloud Gate" sculpture, better known as the Bean.
The focal point of this post's discussion is that glorious monster, the 83-story Aon Center, once known instead as the Standard Oil Building, and then as the Amoco Building. It was completed in 1973.
The two Prudential Plaza skyscrapers, partially visible at left, were cursorily described in Part 1 and will be featured again. As far as our beloved Bean goes, I have already showcased that stainless-steel tourist magnet in this post and its sequel. Check 'em out.
And so I now return to the title's import. The exact time of sunset is of course dependent on your latitude and longitude. But this photo seems to suggest that it's also a matter of your altitude as well.
As the Michigan Avenue streetlights captured on the Bean's mirrorlike surface indicate, we're a few minutes past sunset down at ground level. But up there on the Aon, starting at about the fortieth floor, Old Sol's rosy fingertips are still touching the off-white Mount Airy Granodiorite that replaced the original Carrara Marble cladding. So, if one is up that high, our favorite star has not yet quite slipped under the horizon.
The result is a remarkable pinkification of the mighty structure's upper portion. The same coloration effect on the Aon can be seen in both of the Bean images linked three paragraphs above.
In the comments section of Part 1 I mentioned that the dearly departed Carrara gave off a roseate glow at sunset. But obviously so can the flatter-toned Mount Airy, at least on such beautiful late-October evenings as this.
For much more on the sites touched upon here, get and read Chicago in Stone and Clay, described at its Cornell University Press webpage.
The other photos and discussions in this series can be found in my "Chicago in Stone and Clay" Companion album. In addition, you'll find other relevant images and descriptions in my Architectural Geology: Chicago album.
This new series complements my award-winning guidebook, Chicago in Stone and Clay: A Guide to the Windy City's Architectural Geology. Henceforth I'll just call it CSC.
The CSC sections and page reference for the buildings featured here: 5.7, 5.8, 5.9; pp. 47-53.
Facing northeastward from Michigan Boulevard, a little south of Washington Street.
In CSC's introduction, I state that "to the person with the heart, soul, and understandings of a geologist, the city is not a denial of nature. It’s a vast affirmation of it." And this is true of Chicago more than any other urban center I know. This place stands proud and naked on its flat. low, and ancient lakebed, interfingered with the water, sky, and land around it. And everything in it hums with vital energy received from its surroundings.
In the photo above, advection fog formed from warm spring breezes blowing over Lake Michigan's cold surface drifts between the tops of skyscrapers of three architectural generations. In the left foreground there's the first Prudential Building ("One Pru," completed in 1954). In my childhood it was the Windy City's tallest building. Its exterior materials include Indiana's Salem Limestone, aluminum, and the rare Norwegian Støren Trondhjemite.
To its right, the Aon Center (once the Standard Oil Building, then the Amoco Building), dates to 1973. Its 83-story immensity was originally clad in Carrara Marble panels—lovely and gleaming in the light, but cut too thin. When they began to buckle and fall after prolonged exposure to the lakeshore's fearsome combination of wind, ample precipitation, and temperature extremes, they were replaced at very great cost with Mount Airy Granodiorite from North Carolina.
And poking up behind One Pru's antenna is the Postmodernist Two Pru (2 Prudential Plaza, 1990). It's primarily clad in Spanish Mondariz Granite.
All these structures, and I hope many more, will be grist for my mill in coming posts of this set. Then we'll delve deeper into this remarkable city's huge inventory of geologically derived materials.
For much more on the sites touched upon here, get and read Chicago in Stone and Clay, described at its Cornell University Press webpage.
The other photos and discussions in this series can be found in my "Chicago in Stone and Clay" Companion album. In addition, you'll find other relevant images and descriptions in my Architectural Geology: Chicago album.
Complementing the previously-published CIE Leyland Beaver, this is the second post-war cab style, commonly known as the 'mouth organ' type. I have no specific knowledge of CIE road transport and simply suggest that this is representative of the vehicles operated (23-Mar-16).
All rights reserved. Follow the link below for terms and conditions, additional information about my work; and to request work from me:
www.flickr.com/photos/northernblue109/6046035749/in/set-7...
This series complements my award-winning guidebook, Chicago in Stone and Clay: A Guide to the Windy City's Architectural Geology. Henceforth I'll just call it CSC.
The CSC section and page reference for the building featured here: 9.2; pp. 142-144.
Looking northward, along the eastern elevation.
And finally we're outdoors. This oblique view of the station's Canal Street facade shows its grand Tuscan-order colonnade.
The Tuscan style resembles the Doric, but it's even less adorned, with unfluted column shafts.
And it's these columns that are one of Chicago's finest examples of the effective use of America's most widely distributed architectural rock type, the Salem Limestone.
Note that the shafts are not monolithic, but rather are composed of tall drums mortared together. This technique of modular column construction is an ancient one that goes back to classical Greece and no doubt even farther.
Regarding the stone itself, the Salem has many virtues, but its finely granular texture does not permit high-gloss polishing. Nevertheless, it can be shaped, carved, and smooth-sawn very readily. Here the flat and buff-colored stone surfaces impart the perfect stately-and-restrained effect.
The Salem, known in the building trades as "Bedford Stone" and "Indiana Limestone," is quarried in southern portion of the Hoosier State. Petrologically speaking, it's a grainstone and biocalcarenite composed of small fossils (whole forams and invertebrate fragments) in a matrix of calcite cement. It formed in a warm, shallow-marine environment of lagoons and tidal channels in the Mississippian (Lower Carboniferous) subperiod, some 340 Ma ago. At that point, much of the American Midwest was covered by an epeiric (continent-covering) sea.
For more on this site, get and read Chicago in Stone and Clay, described at its Cornell University Press webpage.
The other photos and discussions in this series can be found in my "Chicago in Stone and Clay" Companion album. In addition, you'll find other relevant images and descriptions in my Architectural Geology: Chicago album.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the model, the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
During the 1950s Douglas Aircraft studied a short- to medium-range airliner to complement their higher capacity, long range DC-8 (DC stands for “Douglas Commercial”). A medium-range four-engine Model 2067 was studied, but it did not receive enough interest from airlines and was subsequently abandoned. The idea was not dead, though, and, in 1960, Douglas signed a two-year contract with Sud Aviation for technical cooperation. Douglas would market and support the Sud Aviation Caravelle and produce a licensed version if airlines ordered large numbers. None were ordered and Douglas returned to its own design studies after the cooperation deal expired.
Towards late 1961, several design studies were already underway and various layouts considered. Initial plans envisioned a compact aircraft, powered by two engines, a gross weight of 69,000 lb (31,300 kg) and a capacity of 60-80 passengers. The aircraft was to be considerably smaller than Boeing’s 727, which was under development at that time, too, so that it would fill a different market niche. However, Douglas did not want to be late again, just as with the DC-8 versus the 707, so the development of the “small airliner” was soon pushed into two directions.
One of the development lines exploited the recent experience gathered through the cooperation with Sud Aviation, and the resulting aircraft shared the Caravelle’s general layout with a pair of the new and more economical Pratt & Whitney JT8D turbofan engines mounted to the rear fuselage and high-set horizontal stabilizers. Unlike the competing but larger Boeing 727 trijet, which used as many 707 components as possible, this aircraft, which should become the highly successful DC-9, was an all-new design with a potentially long development time.
This was a major business risk, and in order to avoid the market gap and loss of market shares to Boeing, a second design was driven forward, too. It copied Boeing’s approach for the 727: take a proven design and re-use as many proven and existing components as possible to create a new airliner. This aircraft became the DC-8/2, better known as the “Dash Two” or just “Dasher”. This aircraft heavily relied on DC-8 components – primarily the fuselage and the complete tail section, as well as structures and elements of the quad-airliner’s wings, landing gear and propulsion system. Even the engines, a pair of JT3D turbofans in underwing nacelles, were taken over from the DC-8-50 which currently came from Douglas’ production line.
The DC-8’s fuselage was relatively wide for such a compact airliner, and its inside width of 138.25 in (351.2 cm) allowed a six-abreast seating, making the passenger cabin relatively comfortable (the DC-9 developed in parallel had a narrower fuselage and offered only five-abreast seating). In fact, the Dash Two’s cabin layout initially copied many DC-8 elements like a spacious 1st class section with 12 seats, eight of them with wide benches facing each other in a kind of lounge space instead of single seats. The standard coach section comprised 66 seats with a luxurious 38” pitch. This together with the relatively large windows from the DC-8, created a roomy atmosphere.
Douglas decided to tailor the Dash Two primarily to the domestic market: in late 1962, market research had revealed that the original 60-80 seat design was too small to be attractive for North American airlines. In consequence, the Dash Two’s cabin layout was redesigned into a more conventional layout with 12 single 1st class seat in the first three rows (four abreast) plus 84 2nd class seats in fifteen rows (the last row with only four seats), so that the Dash Two’s standard passenger capacity grew to 100 seats in this standard layout and a maximum of 148 seats in a tight, pure economy seating. The needs of airlines from around the world, esp. from smaller airlines, were expected to be covered by the more sophisticated and economical DC-9.
Douglas gave approval to produce the DC-8 Dash Two in January 1963, followed by the decision to work seriously on the DC-9 in April of the same year. While this was a double burden, the Dash Two was regarded as a low risk project and somewhat as a stopgap solution until the new DC-9 would be ready. Until 1964, when the first prototype made its maiden flight, Douglas expected orders for as many as 250 aircraft from American and Canadian airlines. Launch customers included Delta Airlines and Braniff International (10 each with options for 20 and 6 more, respectively) and Bonanza Air Lines (4). Despite this limited number, production was started, since no completely new production line had to be built up – most of the Dash Two’s assembly took place in the DC-8 plant and with the same jigs and tools.
Two versions of the DC-8/2 were offered from the start. Both were powered by JT3D-1 engines, but differed in details. The basic version without water injection was designated DC-8/2-10 (or “Dash Two-Ten”). A second version featured the same engines with water injection for additional thrust and a slightly (3 ft/91 cm) extended wing span. This was offered in parallel as the -20 for operations in “hot and high” environments and for a slightly higher starting weight. Unlike the DC-8, no freight version was offered.
However, even though the Dash Two was designed for short to medium routes, its origins from a big, international airliner resulted in some weak points. For instance, the aircraft did not feature useful details like built-in airstairs or an APU that allowed operations from smaller airports with less ground infrastructure than the major airports. In fact, the Dash Two was operationally more or less confined to routes between major airports, also because it relied heavily on DC-8 maintenance infrastructure and ground crews.
Even though the Dash Two had a good timing upon market entry, many smaller airlines from the American continent remained hesitant, so that further sales quickly stalled. Things got even worse when the smaller, lighter and brand-new DC-9 entered the short-haul market and almost completely cannibalized Douglas’ Dash Two sales. Boeing’s new 737 was another direct competitor, and foreign players like the British BAC One-Eleven had entered the American market, too, despite political influence to support domestic products.
Even though the Dash Two was quite popular among its passengers and crews (it was, for its class, comfortable and handled well), the Dash Two turned out to be relatively expensive to operate, despite the many similarities with the DC-8. By 1970, only 62 aircraft had been sold. In an attempt to modernize the Dash Two’s design and make it more attractive, an upgraded version was presented in May 1971. It featured a slightly stretched fuselage for a passenger capacity of 124 (vs. 100 in the standard layout, total maximum of 162) and was powered by a pair of Pratt & Whitney JT8D-11 turbofan engines, capable of generating up to 6800 kg of thrust. This version was designated -30, but it did not find any takers in the crowded mid-range market. The DC-8/2 was already outdated.
Therefore, a half-hearted plan to replace the Dash Two -10 and -20’s JT3D engines as -40 series with more fuel-efficient 22,000 lb (98.5 kN) CFM56-2 high-bypass turbofans, together with new nacelles and pylons built by Grumman Aerospace as well as new fairings of the air intakes below the nose, never left the drawing board, despite a similar update for the DC-8 was developed and offered. Douglas had given up on the DC-8/2 and now concentrated on the DC-9 family.
Another blow against the aircraft came in the early 1970s: legislation for aircraft noise standards was being introduced in many countries. This seriously affected the Dash Two with its relatively loud JT3D engines, too, and several airlines approached Douglas (by then merged with McDonnell into McDonnell Douglas) for noise reduction modifications, but nothing was done. Third parties had developed aftermarket hushkits for the Dash Two, actually adapted from DC-8 upgrades, but beyond this measure there was no real move to keep the relatively small DC-8/2 fleet in service. In consequence, Dash Two production was stopped in 1974, with 77 aircraft having been ordered, but only 66 were ever delivered (most open orders were switched to DC-9s). By 1984 all machines had been retired.
General characteristics:
Crew: 3 (+ 3 flight attendants)
Length: 125 ft (38.16 m)
Wingspan: 105 ft 5 in (32.18 m)
Height: 42 ft 4 in (12.92 m)
Wing area: 1,970 sq ft (183 m2), 30° sweep
Empty weight: 96,562 lb (43,800 kg)
Gross weight: 172,181 lb (78,100 kg)
Fuel capacity: 46,297 lb (21,000 kg) normal; 58,422 lb (26,500 kg) maximum
Cabin width: 138.25 in (351.2 cm)
Two-class seats: 100 (12F@38" + 88Y@34")
Single-class seats: 128@34", maximum of 148 in pure economy setup
Powerplant:
2× Pratt & Whitney JT3D-1 turbofan engines, delivering 17,000 lb (76.1 kN) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 590 mph (950 km/h; 510 kn)
Cruising speed: 470–530 mph (750–850 km/h; 400–460 kn) at 32,808–39,370 ft (10,000–12,000 m)
Range: 1,320 mi (2,120 km; 1,140 nmi) with 26,455 lb (12,000 kg) payload
and 12,456 lb (5,650 kg) fuel reserve
1,709 mi (2,750 km) with 17,968 lb (8,150 kg) payload
and 12,456 lb (5,650 kg) fuel reserve
Service ceiling: 39,000 ft (12,000 m)
Rate of climb: 2,000 ft/min (10 m/s)
Take-off run at MTOW: 7,218 ft (2,200 m)
Landing run at normal landing weight: 4,757–6,070 ft (1,450–1,850 m)
The kit and its assembly:
This model was originally intended to be my final contribution to the “More or less engines” group build at whatifmodelers.com in October 2019, but procurement problems and general lack of time towards the GB’s deadline made me postpone the build, so that I could take more time for a proper build and paintjob.
The idea behind it was simple: since the original DC-8 was stretched (considerably) in order to expand its passenger capacity from 177 to 289(!) passengers, why not go the other way around and reduce its dimensions for a short/medium range airliner with just two engines, as a kind of alternative to the Boeing 737?
The basis is the Minicraft 1:144 DC-8 kit, in this case the late release which comes only in a bag without a box or any decals and which depicts a late -60/70 series aircraft with the maximum fuselage length. Inside of the fuselage halves, markings show where these parts should be cut in order to take the plugs out for shorter, earlier variants. However, my plan would be more radical!
Shortening the fuselage sound simple, but several indirect aspects have to be taken into account. For instance, wingspan has to be reduced accordingly and the aircraft’s overall proportions as well as its potential center of gravity have to be plausible, too. Furthermore, landing gear and engines will have to be modified, too.
Several measures were taken in order to find good points where the fuselage could be cut for a maximum length reduction - after all, a LOT of material had to disappear for the twin-engine variant!
First, the fuselage was completed for a solid cutting base. I decided to take out a total of three plugs, with the plan to achieve a length somewhere near a late Boeing 737, even though this turned out to be more complicated and challenging than expected. All in all, the fuselage length was reduced from ~39cm to ~26.5cm. Less than I hoped for, but anything more would have ended in a total reconstruction of the wing root sections.
Two plugs are logical, the third one in the middle, only 1.5cm long, is less obvious. But since the wing span would be reduced, too, the wings' depth at the (new) roots was also reduced, so that the original DC-8 wing roots/fuselage intersections would not match anymore. The wings themselves were, also based on late Boeing 737 and Dassault Mercure measures, were cut at a position slightly inside of the inner engine pylon positions.
Re-construction started with the rear fuselage; I initially worked separately on the cockpit section, because I filled it with as much lead as possible, and it was connected with the rest of the hull when its three segments were already completed.
The Minicraft DC-8 is basically nice and has good fit, but I found a weak spot: the fin's leading edge. Like on Minicarft’s 727's wings, which I recently built, it's virtually flat. It just looks weird if not awful, so I sculpted a more rounded edge with putty. Since the small air intakes under the radome are open, I added an internal visual block in the form of black foamed styrene.
The JT3D nacelles were taken OOB from the Minicraft kit, I used the inner pair because of the shorter pylons. They were attached under the wings in a new position, slightly outside of the original inner engine pair and of the main landing gear. The latter was modified, too: instead of the DC-8’s four-wheel bogies I used a pair of Boeing 727 struts and twin wheels, left over from the recent build. These were attached to 1.5 mm high consoles, so that the stance on the ground became level and mounted into newly cut well openings in the inner wings. The front wheel was taken OOB from the DC-8. I was a little skeptical concerning the main landing gear’s relative position (due to the wing sweep, it might have ended up too far forward), but IMHO the new arrangement looks quite fine, esp. with the engines in place, which visually shift the model’s center of gravity forward. I just had to shorten the engine pylons by maybe 2mm, because the lack of dihedral on the DC-8’s outer wing sections considerably reduce ground clearance for the engines, despite the added consoles to the landing gear. However, all in all the arrangement looks acceptable.
For the model’s in-flight pics, and also for the application of the final varnish coat, I added a ventral, vertical styrene tube in the model’s center of gravity as a display holder/adapter. Due to the massive lead weight in the nose, the adapter’s position ended up in front of the wing roots!
Painting and markings:
I usually do not build civil airliners, so I took the occasion to represent a design icon: the “flying Colors” livery of Braniff International Airlines from the early Seventies. Braniff featured several bright liveries, but my personal favorite is the simple one with uniform fuselages in varying bold colors, mated with simple, white fins, engine nacelles and wing areas.
This choice was also influenced by the fact that 26decals offers a 1:144 sheet for Braniff DC-8s of this era (remember: the bagged Minicraft kit comes without any decal sheet at all). Choosing a color was a long process. Bright red or orange were initial favorites, but the recent 727 already had orange markings, so I rather favored blue, green or even purple. I eventually settled on a light lime green, which has a high shock value and also offers a good contrast to the Braniff markings and the windows. A tone called “Lime Green” was actually an official Braniff tone (check this great overview: web.archive.org/web/20050711080200/http://www.geocities.c..., a great source provided by 26decals in the context oft he decal sheet I used, see below). But my intention was not to authentically replicate it – I rather just wanted a bright color for the model, and I like green.
The basic color I used is simple Humbrol 38 (Lime), which was applied with a brush after the wing areas had been painted in white (Humbrol 22) and aluminum (various shades, including Humbrol 11 and Revell 99). The characteristic black area around the cockpit glazing was created with mix of decals and paint, the silver ventral areas were painted with Humbrol’s Polished Aluminum Metallizer. The fin’s and the stabilizers’ leading edges were created with silver decal sheet material (TL Modellbau), grey and silver bits of similar material were used for some small details on the wings.
As already mentioned, the decals, including all windows, come from a 26decals sheet. Due to the reduced length, the windows’ and doors’ position and numbers had to be improvised. But thanks to the relatively simple livery design without cheatlines or other decorative elements, this was an easy task. Finally, the model received an overall coat of gloss acrylic varnish from the rattle can.
Just like my recent Boeing 727 with four engines, this conversion appears simple at first sight, but the execution caused some headaches. The biggest problem was the reduced depth of the shortened wings and how to mount then to the fuselage – but the attempt to take an additional fuselage plug away was an effective move that also helped to reduce overall length.
I am astonished how modern and plausible this shortened DC-8 looks. While building, the aircraft constantly reminded me of the Tupolev Tu-104 airliner, until the engines were added and it now resembled an Airbus A320!
The Breadth of EVLA Science
With its new capabilities and specifications the EVLA will complement next-generation instruments at other wavelengths, such as ALMA, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), and planned 30-meter ground-based, optical-infrared telescopes. The EVLA will be easy to use, providing simplified proposal submission, automated scheduling, and default images. These will allow astronomers to take full advantage of the scientific opportunities available at radio wavelengths.
The Magnetic Universe
Magnetic fields are important in most astrophysical contexts, but are difficult to observe. The sensitivity, frequency agility, and spectral capability of the EVLA will allow astronomers to trace the magnetic fields in X-ray emitting galaxy clusters, image the polarized emission in thousands of spiral galaxies, and map the 3D structure of magnetic fields on the Sun.
The Obscured Universe
Phenomena such as star formation and accretion onto massive black holes occur behind dense screens of dust and gas that render optical and infrared observations impossible. The EVLA will observe through these screens to probe the atmospheres of giant planets, measure thermal jet motions in young stellar objects, and to image the densest regions in nearby starburst galaxies.
The Transient Universe
Astronomical transient sources tend to be compact objects that emit synchrotron radiation from high-energy particles, radiation best observed at radio wavelengths. The EVLA will be ideal for studies of variable sources because of its high sensitivity, its ability to observe day and night under most weather conditions, and the rapid response enabled by dyanmic scheduling. The EVLA sensitivity will allow observations at higher frequencies, providing improved spatial resolution. The EVLA will, e.g., image novae and relativistic jets anywhere in the Milky Way, and measure the sizes of many tens of GRBs each year.
The Evolving Universe
The formation of stars and galacies, and the evolution of the gas content of the Universe, are exciting topics for scientists using the EVLA. Radio data can trace the evolution of neutral hydrogen and molecular gas, and provide extinction-free measurements of synchrotron, thermal free-free, and dust emission. The EVLA will distinguish dust from free-free emission in disks and jets within local star-forming regions, and will measure the star-formation rate, irrespective of dust extinction, in high-z galaxies.
Os acordáis el collar de lalyta que os enseñamos la otra vez???.... aquí os traemos otra versión!!!...
Un dulce princesa, toda rosita como ella sola, que la dulzura de sus grandes ojos, nos ayudó para inspirarnos en esta creación.
El anillo es regulable, permite ser usado para muchas tallas de dedito.
Vienen colgada en una delicada cinta de organza.
Estos complementos vienen en un precioso empaque listo para ser entregado.
Si tienes alguna duda o consulta, puedes escribirnos a dulcedecoracion@gmail.com o llamarnos al 622 42 17 55
dulce-decoracion.blogspot.com/
Recuerda tambien, que puedes seguirnos desde nuestro facebook!! Y te mantendremos informados sobre lo que pasa minuto a minuto en nuestro taller!!... Síguenos!!
El lagarto overo (Salvator merianae) es una especie de lagarto de la familia Teiidae.
Esta especie fue considerada durante mucho tiempo, sinónima de Tupinambis teguixin, actualmente mediante conteo de escamas junto con diferencias morfológicas se las denominan por separado. Tupinambis teguixin está emparentado con Tupinambis longilineus y se distribuirían geográficamente en el norte de Sudamérica y Amazonia. Mientras Salvator duseni, Salvator rufescens y Salvator merianae se distribuirían primariamente al sur de Amazonia.
Esta especie tienen un largo total de 140 cm. El color base es el marrón negruzco con brillos azulados complementado con varias bandas transversales compuestas por manchas amarillas de diferente tamaño y que llegan hasta la punta de la cola. Igualmente se observan una serie de manchas amarillas y blancas en la zona de la cabeza, cuello y extremidades.
Compléments de Buffon. t.1.
Paris :P. Pourrat Frères,1838.
biodiversitylibrary.org/page/16007939
#platypus "knuckle-walk" on land 2 protect webbing b/t toes. See 1838 illustration of this curious creature in #bhlib biodiversitylibrary.org/page/16007939
This series complements my guidebook, Milwaukee in Stone and Clay: A Guide to the Cream City's Architectural Geology. Henceforth I'll just call it MSC.
The MSC section and page references for the building featured here: 5.11; pp. 74-76.
Looking southwestward at the alley-facing eastern elevation and its north-facing Wisconsin Avenue facade.
In Part 4 of this set I mentioned that the Iron Block, like so many other buildings, is an essay in flamboyant outward display and concealed cost-cutting. Here's one last image devoted to this landmark, and it makes that point. While the sides fronting two of Milwaukee's busier streets are decked out in magnificent cast-iron units shipped all the way from New York City, the less visible elevations are much more thriftily made of locally produced Cream City Brick.
For a rundown on the cast iron and its properties and sources, see Part 1. And for the discussion of the Cream City Brick and its unique geochemistry and geologic origins, see Part 4.
And then just do as I did when I took this shot: spend a moment admiring the front's Venetian Renaissance design and marveling at how well the pale-yellow, workaday brick harmonizes with the paint colors chosen as a coating for the cast iron.
This site and many others in Milwaukee County are discussed at greater length in Milwaukee in Stone and Clay (NIU Imprint of Cornell University Press).
The other photos and discussions in this series can be found in my "Milwaukee in Stone and Clay" Companion album. Also, while you're at it, check out my Architectural Geology of Milwaukee album, too. It contains quite a few photos and descriptions of Cream City sites highlighted in other series of mine.
This church was built in 1865 on land donated to the Wesleyans by the Fitz Roy Iron Works Company. The iron beams and trusses that support the roof and walls of the church were manufactured at the Fitz Roy Iron Works.
The church annexe, seen here to the right of the church building itself, was built in 2005 and designed to complement the original church.
I'm always thrilled when I managed to capture a cabbage butterfly because they are small and never stay in one place for more than a second. But I'm doubly happy when they land on my purple liatris with my house in the background because they're color complements - and a break from the ubiquitous echinacea.
Oldsmobile introduced the 88 badge in 1949. It was named to complement the already-existing 76 and 98, and took the place of the Oldsmobile Straight-8 engined 78 in the model lineup. The new car used the same new Futuramic B-body platform as the Oldsmobile Straight-6 engined 76 but paired it with the powerful new Rocket V8 engine. This combination of a relatively small light body and large, powerful engine made it a precursor to the muscle car. The Rocket 88 vaulted Oldsmobile from a somewhat staid, conservative car to a performer that became the one to beat on the NASCAR (National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing) circuits. It won six of the nine NASCAR late-model division races in 1949, 10 of 19 in 1950, 20 of 41 in 1952, and was eventually eclipsed by the low-slung, powerful Hudson Hornet, but it was still the first real "King of NASCAR." This led to increased sales to the public. There was a pent up demand for new cars in the fast-expanding post World War II economy, and the 88 appealed to many ex-military personnel who were young and had operated powerful military equipment.
The 88 enjoyed a great success, inspiring a popular 1950s slogan, "Make a Date with a Rocket 88", and also a song, "Rocket 88", often considered the first rock and roll record. Starting with the trunk-lid emblem of the 1950 model, Oldsmobile would adopt the rocket as its logo, and the 88 name would remain in the Olds lineup until the late 1990s, almost until the end of Oldsmobile itself.
The 1949 model was equipped with an ignition key and a starter push-button to engage the starter. Pushing the starter button would engage the starter, but if the ignition key was not inserted, unlocking the ignition, the car would not start. The car was equipped with an oil bath air cleaner. At the bottom edge of the front fender directly behind the front wheel was a badge that said "Futuramic" which identified an Oldsmobile approach to simplified driving, and the presence of an automatic transmission. 1948 Oldsmobile Futuramic introduction Styling changes for the 1950 model include the replacement of a two-piece windshield with a one-piece unit and the addition of the Holiday hardtop coupe to the line. Also a three-speed manual transmission with column shift became available as a "delete for credit" option to the Hydra-Matic automatic transmission. The 88 now outsold the six-cylinder 76 lineup, which was dropped entirely after the 1950 model year. It had a 40 ft. turning circle. The 1950 model won the 1950 Carrera Panamericana.
For 1951, the 88 was now the entry-level Olds with the discontinuation of the six-cylinder 76 line, which meant that all Oldsmobiles were powered by Rocket V8s. New this year was the more upscale Super 88 line on the new GM B-body which included restyled rear body panels, a more luxurious interior, and a slightly longer 120-inch (3,000 mm) wheelbase as opposed to the 119.5-inch (3,040 mm) wheelbase which had been standard since the 88's introduction. The station wagon was discontinued and would not reappear until the 1957 model year. New was an I-beam frame. Hydraulic power windows and seats were optional.
In 1952, the base 88 shared the Super 88s rear bodypanels and wheelbase, and got a 145 horsepower (108 kW) 303 cu in (5.0 L) Rocket V8 with two-barrel carburetor while Super 88s got a more powerful 160 hp (119 kW) 303 with a new four-barrel carburetor. Other mechanical features were unchanged with styling changes amounting to new grilles, taillights, and interior revisions. New was the optional automatic headlight control.
For 1953, the base 88 was renamed the DeLuxe 88 for only this one year while the Super 88 continued as a more upscale version. Engines and transmission offerings were the same as 1952. Late in the 1953 model year, a fire destroyed GM's Hydra-Matic plant in Livonia, Michigan, which was then the only source for Hydra-Matic transmissions. The temporary loss of Hydra-Matic production led Oldsmobile to build thousands of its 1953 models with Buick's two-speed Dynaflow automatic transmissions until GM pressed its Willow Run Transmission plant into service to resume Hydra-Matic production. New options this year included Frigidaire air conditioning, power steering, and power brakes.
[Text taken from Wikipedia]
This Lego miniland-scale 1950 Oldsmobile Rocket 88 Holiday Hardtop Coupe has been created for Flickr LUGNuts' 84th Build Challenge, our 7th birthday, to the challenge theme, - "LUGNuts Turns 7…or 49 in Dog Years", - where all the previous challenge themes are available to build to. In this case challenge 62, - "Space is the Place", - for vehicles with a space related theme.
Complements of Emily (Emilygrace Photography)
www.flickr.com/photos/emerygrace/
She shot my senior photos and they are amazing :)
Complementing the park's Victorian origins but built in the 1990s by Lengard Ltd. London Borough of Tower Hamlets.
Shannon-class lifeboat (Fast Carriage Boat 2)
Vessel Information
Name: RNLI LIFEBOAT 13 03 R and J Welburn
Launch: Carriage
RNLI's Official Number: 1310
Vessel Type - Generic: SAR
Status: Active
MMSI: 235101096
Call Sign: 2GWM4
Flag: United Kingdom [GB]
Displacement: 17 long tons (17 t)
Length: 13.6 m (44 ft 7 in)
Beam: 4.5 m (14 ft 9 in)
Draught: 1.0 m (3 ft 3 in)-
Year Built: -2014
Accepted into the fleet 14/02/14
On station: 22/05/14.
Officially named: 09/05/15.
Builder: Berthon Boat Co., Lymington
Home Port: - Exmouth, Devon
Propulsion
2 × Scania DI13M, 650 hp (485 kW)
2 × Hamilton HJ 364 Waterjets
Speed:25 knots (29 mph; 46 km/h)
Range:250 nmi (460 km)
Complement:6 Crew,
FCB 2-class Fleet Details
13-03R and J Welburn131020142GWM5Exmouth, Devon. Delivered to Poole 19/03/14. On station 22/05/14. Officially named 09/05/15.
Dedicada a Noe Noe, de adicta a los complementos
Hace unos días recibí un paquete con una camiseta y este precioso colgante, todo empaquetado con un gran gusto
Grey Sheath Dress: Banana Republic
Blue Cardigan: Cable & Gauge via Filene’s Basement
Silk Scarf: Hermes (gift from mom)
Blue Suede Shoes: Banana Republic
Necklace: gift
Parola Tank Museum. Finland.
The Soviet T-28 was among the world's first medium tanks. The prototype was completed in 1931 and production began in late 1932. It was an infantry-support tank intended to break through fortified defences. The T-28 was designed to complement the heavier T-35, with which it shared many components. The type would not have that much success in combat, but it played an important role as a development project for the Soviet designers. A series of new ideas and solutions were tried out on the T-28 and were later incorporated in future models.
Design history
The T-28 was in many ways similar to the British Vickers A1E1 Independent tank. This tank greatly influenced tank design in the period between the wars, although only one prototype was manufactured in 1926. The Kirov Factory in Leningrad began manufacturing a tank, which was based on the British Independent in 1932. The T-28 tank was officially approved on August 11, 1933. The T-28 had one large turret with a 76.2mm gun and two smaller turrets with 7.62mm machine guns. A total of 503 T-28 tanks were manufactured over a period of 8 years from 1933 to 1941.
Combat history
The T-28 was deployed during the Invasion of Poland and the Winter War against Finland. During the initial stages of the Winter War, the tank was used in direct fire missions against Finnish pillboxes. In the course of these operations it was found that the armour was inadequate and programs were initiated to upgrade it. Frontal plates were upgraded from 50 mm to 80 mm and side and rear plates to 40 mm thickness. With this up-armoured version the Red Army broke through the main Finnish defensive fortification, the vaunted Mannerheim Line.
According to Russian historian M. Kolomietz's book T-28. Three-headed Stalin's Monster, over 200 T-28s were knocked out during the Winter War, but only 20 of them were in irrecoverable losses (including 2 captured by the Finnish Army). Due to proximity of the Kirov Plant, all other knocked-out tanks were repaired, some of them over five times.
T-28 tanks, with horseshoe radio antennasThe Finns knew the T-28 as the Postivaunu ("mail wagon" or stagecoach), a name which alluded to Finnish troops' discovery of Red Army field mail sacks inside the first destroyed T-28. Another explanation is that the high profile of the tank resembled the old west stagecoaches of the United States.Finns captured two T-28s during the Winter War and five in Continuation War, for a total of 7 vehicles.
The Soviets had 411 T-28 tanks when the Germans invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941. Most T-28s were lost during the first two months of the invasion, many of them abandoned after mechanical breakdown. Some T-28s took part in the 1941 winter defence of Leningrad and Moscow,[3] but after late 1941, they were rare in Red Army service; a few were operated by enemy forces.
Today three T-28s remain, two in Finland and one in Moscow. One restored T-28 is on display in Finnish field camouflage in the Parola Tank Museum, Finland.
AssessmentAlthough the T-28 was rightly considered ineffective by 1941, it is worth remembering that when the Red Army was fielding the first T-28s in 1933, the French Army was still largely equipped with the FT-17, and the Reichswehr had no tanks at all. No army had a series-production medium tank comparable to the T-28 for several years.
The T-28 had a number of advanced features for the time, including radio (in all tanks) and anti-aircraft machine-gun mounts. Just before the Second World War, many received armor upgrades, bringing its protection on par with the early PzKpfw IV, although its suspension and layout were outdated.[5]
The T-28 had significant flaws. The plunger-spring type suspension was poor, but many of the better suspension designs used in World War II tanks had not yet been developed. The engine and transmission were troublesome. Worst of all, the design was not flexible. Although the T-28 and early PzKpfw IV were comparable in armour and firepower, the sound basic design of the PzKpfw IV allowed it to be significantly upgraded, while the T-28 was a poor basis for improvement.
Unfortunately for the Red Army, by the time the T-28 saw combat in 1939, events had overtaken it. The 1930s saw the development of the first reliable high-speed suspensions, the first purpose-designed antitank guns, and a gradual increase in the firepower of tanks. The Spanish Civil War showed that infantry units with small, towed anti-tank guns could defeat most contemporary tanks, and made the under-armoured tanks from the early 1930s particularly vulnerable.
Despite heavy losses, in the Winter War the Red Army's 20th Tank Brigade, equipped with T-28s, fulfilled its mission to break the defensive Mannerheim Line. As an infantry-support tank, designed to support infantry in breakthrough operations, the T-28 in general was successful for an early 1930s design.
Variants
T-28 Model 1934 or T-28A — main production model with the same machinegun turrets, and similar main turret as the T-35 heavy tank and Model 27/32 76.2mm gun.
T-28 Model 1938 or T-28B — version with improved L-10 76.2 mm gun (from 16.5 calibres to 26 calibres), improved gun stabilization system and improved Model M-17L engine.
T-28E or T-28C — 1940 addition of appliqué armour in response to poor performance in Finland. Total front armour was increased to 80 mm, weight to 32 t, and road speed dropped to 23 km/h
T-28 Model 1940 — the final batch of about twelve tanks had the same conical turret as late-production T-35 tanks.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the model, the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
During the 1950s Douglas Aircraft studied a short- to medium-range airliner to complement their higher capacity, long range DC-8 (DC stands for “Douglas Commercial”). A medium-range four-engine Model 2067 was studied, but it did not receive enough interest from airlines and was subsequently abandoned. The idea was not dead, though, and, in 1960, Douglas signed a two-year contract with Sud Aviation for technical cooperation. Douglas would market and support the Sud Aviation Caravelle and produce a licensed version if airlines ordered large numbers. None were ordered and Douglas returned to its own design studies after the cooperation deal expired.
Towards late 1961, several design studies were already underway and various layouts considered. Initial plans envisioned a compact aircraft, powered by two engines, a gross weight of 69,000 lb (31,300 kg) and a capacity of 60-80 passengers. The aircraft was to be considerably smaller than Boeing’s 727, which was under development at that time, too, so that it would fill a different market niche. However, Douglas did not want to be late again, just as with the DC-8 versus the 707, so the development of the “small airliner” was soon pushed into two directions.
One of the development lines exploited the recent experience gathered through the cooperation with Sud Aviation, and the resulting aircraft shared the Caravelle’s general layout with a pair of the new and more economical Pratt & Whitney JT8D turbofan engines mounted to the rear fuselage and high-set horizontal stabilizers. Unlike the competing but larger Boeing 727 trijet, which used as many 707 components as possible, this aircraft, which should become the highly successful DC-9, was an all-new design with a potentially long development time.
This was a major business risk, and in order to avoid the market gap and loss of market shares to Boeing, a second design was driven forward, too. It copied Boeing’s approach for the 727: take a proven design and re-use as many proven and existing components as possible to create a new airliner. This aircraft became the DC-8/2, better known as the “Dash Two” or just “Dasher”. This aircraft heavily relied on DC-8 components – primarily the fuselage and the complete tail section, as well as structures and elements of the quad-airliner’s wings, landing gear and propulsion system. Even the engines, a pair of JT3D turbofans in underwing nacelles, were taken over from the DC-8-50 which currently came from Douglas’ production line.
The DC-8’s fuselage was relatively wide for such a compact airliner, and its inside width of 138.25 in (351.2 cm) allowed a six-abreast seating, making the passenger cabin relatively comfortable (the DC-9 developed in parallel had a narrower fuselage and offered only five-abreast seating). In fact, the Dash Two’s cabin layout initially copied many DC-8 elements like a spacious 1st class section with 12 seats, eight of them with wide benches facing each other in a kind of lounge space instead of single seats. The standard coach section comprised 66 seats with a luxurious 38” pitch. This together with the relatively large windows from the DC-8, created a roomy atmosphere.
Douglas decided to tailor the Dash Two primarily to the domestic market: in late 1962, market research had revealed that the original 60-80 seat design was too small to be attractive for North American airlines. In consequence, the Dash Two’s cabin layout was redesigned into a more conventional layout with 12 single 1st class seat in the first three rows (four abreast) plus 84 2nd class seats in fifteen rows (the last row with only four seats), so that the Dash Two’s standard passenger capacity grew to 100 seats in this standard layout and a maximum of 148 seats in a tight, pure economy seating. The needs of airlines from around the world, esp. from smaller airlines, were expected to be covered by the more sophisticated and economical DC-9.
Douglas gave approval to produce the DC-8 Dash Two in January 1963, followed by the decision to work seriously on the DC-9 in April of the same year. While this was a double burden, the Dash Two was regarded as a low risk project and somewhat as a stopgap solution until the new DC-9 would be ready. Until 1964, when the first prototype made its maiden flight, Douglas expected orders for as many as 250 aircraft from American and Canadian airlines. Launch customers included Delta Airlines and Braniff International (10 each with options for 20 and 6 more, respectively) and Bonanza Air Lines (4). Despite this limited number, production was started, since no completely new production line had to be built up – most of the Dash Two’s assembly took place in the DC-8 plant and with the same jigs and tools.
Two versions of the DC-8/2 were offered from the start. Both were powered by JT3D-1 engines, but differed in details. The basic version without water injection was designated DC-8/2-10 (or “Dash Two-Ten”). A second version featured the same engines with water injection for additional thrust and a slightly (3 ft/91 cm) extended wing span. This was offered in parallel as the -20 for operations in “hot and high” environments and for a slightly higher starting weight. Unlike the DC-8, no freight version was offered.
However, even though the Dash Two was designed for short to medium routes, its origins from a big, international airliner resulted in some weak points. For instance, the aircraft did not feature useful details like built-in airstairs or an APU that allowed operations from smaller airports with less ground infrastructure than the major airports. In fact, the Dash Two was operationally more or less confined to routes between major airports, also because it relied heavily on DC-8 maintenance infrastructure and ground crews.
Even though the Dash Two had a good timing upon market entry, many smaller airlines from the American continent remained hesitant, so that further sales quickly stalled. Things got even worse when the smaller, lighter and brand-new DC-9 entered the short-haul market and almost completely cannibalized Douglas’ Dash Two sales. Boeing’s new 737 was another direct competitor, and foreign players like the British BAC One-Eleven had entered the American market, too, despite political influence to support domestic products.
Even though the Dash Two was quite popular among its passengers and crews (it was, for its class, comfortable and handled well), the Dash Two turned out to be relatively expensive to operate, despite the many similarities with the DC-8. By 1970, only 62 aircraft had been sold. In an attempt to modernize the Dash Two’s design and make it more attractive, an upgraded version was presented in May 1971. It featured a slightly stretched fuselage for a passenger capacity of 124 (vs. 100 in the standard layout, total maximum of 162) and was powered by a pair of Pratt & Whitney JT8D-11 turbofan engines, capable of generating up to 6800 kg of thrust. This version was designated -30, but it did not find any takers in the crowded mid-range market. The DC-8/2 was already outdated.
Therefore, a half-hearted plan to replace the Dash Two -10 and -20’s JT3D engines as -40 series with more fuel-efficient 22,000 lb (98.5 kN) CFM56-2 high-bypass turbofans, together with new nacelles and pylons built by Grumman Aerospace as well as new fairings of the air intakes below the nose, never left the drawing board, despite a similar update for the DC-8 was developed and offered. Douglas had given up on the DC-8/2 and now concentrated on the DC-9 family.
Another blow against the aircraft came in the early 1970s: legislation for aircraft noise standards was being introduced in many countries. This seriously affected the Dash Two with its relatively loud JT3D engines, too, and several airlines approached Douglas (by then merged with McDonnell into McDonnell Douglas) for noise reduction modifications, but nothing was done. Third parties had developed aftermarket hushkits for the Dash Two, actually adapted from DC-8 upgrades, but beyond this measure there was no real move to keep the relatively small DC-8/2 fleet in service. In consequence, Dash Two production was stopped in 1974, with 77 aircraft having been ordered, but only 66 were ever delivered (most open orders were switched to DC-9s). By 1984 all machines had been retired.
General characteristics:
Crew: 3 (+ 3 flight attendants)
Length: 125 ft (38.16 m)
Wingspan: 105 ft 5 in (32.18 m)
Height: 42 ft 4 in (12.92 m)
Wing area: 1,970 sq ft (183 m2), 30° sweep
Empty weight: 96,562 lb (43,800 kg)
Gross weight: 172,181 lb (78,100 kg)
Fuel capacity: 46,297 lb (21,000 kg) normal; 58,422 lb (26,500 kg) maximum
Cabin width: 138.25 in (351.2 cm)
Two-class seats: 100 (12F@38" + 88Y@34")
Single-class seats: 128@34", maximum of 148 in pure economy setup
Powerplant:
2× Pratt & Whitney JT3D-1 turbofan engines, delivering 17,000 lb (76.1 kN) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 590 mph (950 km/h; 510 kn)
Cruising speed: 470–530 mph (750–850 km/h; 400–460 kn) at 32,808–39,370 ft (10,000–12,000 m)
Range: 1,320 mi (2,120 km; 1,140 nmi) with 26,455 lb (12,000 kg) payload
and 12,456 lb (5,650 kg) fuel reserve
1,709 mi (2,750 km) with 17,968 lb (8,150 kg) payload
and 12,456 lb (5,650 kg) fuel reserve
Service ceiling: 39,000 ft (12,000 m)
Rate of climb: 2,000 ft/min (10 m/s)
Take-off run at MTOW: 7,218 ft (2,200 m)
Landing run at normal landing weight: 4,757–6,070 ft (1,450–1,850 m)
The kit and its assembly:
This model was originally intended to be my final contribution to the “More or less engines” group build at whatifmodelers.com in October 2019, but procurement problems and general lack of time towards the GB’s deadline made me postpone the build, so that I could take more time for a proper build and paintjob.
The idea behind it was simple: since the original DC-8 was stretched (considerably) in order to expand its passenger capacity from 177 to 289(!) passengers, why not go the other way around and reduce its dimensions for a short/medium range airliner with just two engines, as a kind of alternative to the Boeing 737?
The basis is the Minicraft 1:144 DC-8 kit, in this case the late release which comes only in a bag without a box or any decals and which depicts a late -60/70 series aircraft with the maximum fuselage length. Inside of the fuselage halves, markings show where these parts should be cut in order to take the plugs out for shorter, earlier variants. However, my plan would be more radical!
Shortening the fuselage sound simple, but several indirect aspects have to be taken into account. For instance, wingspan has to be reduced accordingly and the aircraft’s overall proportions as well as its potential center of gravity have to be plausible, too. Furthermore, landing gear and engines will have to be modified, too.
Several measures were taken in order to find good points where the fuselage could be cut for a maximum length reduction - after all, a LOT of material had to disappear for the twin-engine variant!
First, the fuselage was completed for a solid cutting base. I decided to take out a total of three plugs, with the plan to achieve a length somewhere near a late Boeing 737, even though this turned out to be more complicated and challenging than expected. All in all, the fuselage length was reduced from ~39cm to ~26.5cm. Less than I hoped for, but anything more would have ended in a total reconstruction of the wing root sections.
Two plugs are logical, the third one in the middle, only 1.5cm long, is less obvious. But since the wing span would be reduced, too, the wings' depth at the (new) roots was also reduced, so that the original DC-8 wing roots/fuselage intersections would not match anymore. The wings themselves were, also based on late Boeing 737 and Dassault Mercure measures, were cut at a position slightly inside of the inner engine pylon positions.
Re-construction started with the rear fuselage; I initially worked separately on the cockpit section, because I filled it with as much lead as possible, and it was connected with the rest of the hull when its three segments were already completed.
The Minicraft DC-8 is basically nice and has good fit, but I found a weak spot: the fin's leading edge. Like on Minicarft’s 727's wings, which I recently built, it's virtually flat. It just looks weird if not awful, so I sculpted a more rounded edge with putty. Since the small air intakes under the radome are open, I added an internal visual block in the form of black foamed styrene.
The JT3D nacelles were taken OOB from the Minicraft kit, I used the inner pair because of the shorter pylons. They were attached under the wings in a new position, slightly outside of the original inner engine pair and of the main landing gear. The latter was modified, too: instead of the DC-8’s four-wheel bogies I used a pair of Boeing 727 struts and twin wheels, left over from the recent build. These were attached to 1.5 mm high consoles, so that the stance on the ground became level and mounted into newly cut well openings in the inner wings. The front wheel was taken OOB from the DC-8. I was a little skeptical concerning the main landing gear’s relative position (due to the wing sweep, it might have ended up too far forward), but IMHO the new arrangement looks quite fine, esp. with the engines in place, which visually shift the model’s center of gravity forward. I just had to shorten the engine pylons by maybe 2mm, because the lack of dihedral on the DC-8’s outer wing sections considerably reduce ground clearance for the engines, despite the added consoles to the landing gear. However, all in all the arrangement looks acceptable.
For the model’s in-flight pics, and also for the application of the final varnish coat, I added a ventral, vertical styrene tube in the model’s center of gravity as a display holder/adapter. Due to the massive lead weight in the nose, the adapter’s position ended up in front of the wing roots!
Painting and markings:
I usually do not build civil airliners, so I took the occasion to represent a design icon: the “flying Colors” livery of Braniff International Airlines from the early Seventies. Braniff featured several bright liveries, but my personal favorite is the simple one with uniform fuselages in varying bold colors, mated with simple, white fins, engine nacelles and wing areas.
This choice was also influenced by the fact that 26decals offers a 1:144 sheet for Braniff DC-8s of this era (remember: the bagged Minicraft kit comes without any decal sheet at all). Choosing a color was a long process. Bright red or orange were initial favorites, but the recent 727 already had orange markings, so I rather favored blue, green or even purple. I eventually settled on a light lime green, which has a high shock value and also offers a good contrast to the Braniff markings and the windows. A tone called “Lime Green” was actually an official Braniff tone (check this great overview: web.archive.org/web/20050711080200/http://www.geocities.c..., a great source provided by 26decals in the context oft he decal sheet I used, see below). But my intention was not to authentically replicate it – I rather just wanted a bright color for the model, and I like green.
The basic color I used is simple Humbrol 38 (Lime), which was applied with a brush after the wing areas had been painted in white (Humbrol 22) and aluminum (various shades, including Humbrol 11 and Revell 99). The characteristic black area around the cockpit glazing was created with mix of decals and paint, the silver ventral areas were painted with Humbrol’s Polished Aluminum Metallizer. The fin’s and the stabilizers’ leading edges were created with silver decal sheet material (TL Modellbau), grey and silver bits of similar material were used for some small details on the wings.
As already mentioned, the decals, including all windows, come from a 26decals sheet. Due to the reduced length, the windows’ and doors’ position and numbers had to be improvised. But thanks to the relatively simple livery design without cheatlines or other decorative elements, this was an easy task. Finally, the model received an overall coat of gloss acrylic varnish from the rattle can.
Just like my recent Boeing 727 with four engines, this conversion appears simple at first sight, but the execution caused some headaches. The biggest problem was the reduced depth of the shortened wings and how to mount then to the fuselage – but the attempt to take an additional fuselage plug away was an effective move that also helped to reduce overall length.
I am astonished how modern and plausible this shortened DC-8 looks. While building, the aircraft constantly reminded me of the Tupolev Tu-104 airliner, until the engines were added and it now resembled an Airbus A320!
Oldsmobile introduced the 88 badge in 1949. It was named to complement the already-existing 76 and 98, and took the place of the Oldsmobile Straight-8 engined 78 in the model lineup. The new car used the same new Futuramic B-body platform as the Oldsmobile Straight-6 engined 76 but paired it with the powerful new Rocket V8 engine. This combination of a relatively small light body and large, powerful engine made it a precursor to the muscle car. The Rocket 88 vaulted Oldsmobile from a somewhat staid, conservative car to a performer that became the one to beat on the NASCAR (National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing) circuits. It won six of the nine NASCAR late-model division races in 1949, 10 of 19 in 1950, 20 of 41 in 1952, and was eventually eclipsed by the low-slung, powerful Hudson Hornet, but it was still the first real "King of NASCAR." This led to increased sales to the public. There was a pent up demand for new cars in the fast-expanding post World War II economy, and the 88 appealed to many ex-military personnel who were young and had operated powerful military equipment.
The 88 enjoyed a great success, inspiring a popular 1950s slogan, "Make a Date with a Rocket 88", and also a song, "Rocket 88", often considered the first rock and roll record. Starting with the trunk-lid emblem of the 1950 model, Oldsmobile would adopt the rocket as its logo, and the 88 name would remain in the Olds lineup until the late 1990s, almost until the end of Oldsmobile itself.
The 1949 model was equipped with an ignition key and a starter push-button to engage the starter. Pushing the starter button would engage the starter, but if the ignition key was not inserted, unlocking the ignition, the car would not start. The car was equipped with an oil bath air cleaner. At the bottom edge of the front fender directly behind the front wheel was a badge that said "Futuramic" which identified an Oldsmobile approach to simplified driving, and the presence of an automatic transmission. 1948 Oldsmobile Futuramic introduction Styling changes for the 1950 model include the replacement of a two-piece windshield with a one-piece unit and the addition of the Holiday hardtop coupe to the line. Also a three-speed manual transmission with column shift became available as a "delete for credit" option to the Hydra-Matic automatic transmission. The 88 now outsold the six-cylinder 76 lineup, which was dropped entirely after the 1950 model year. It had a 40 ft. turning circle. The 1950 model won the 1950 Carrera Panamericana.
For 1951, the 88 was now the entry-level Olds with the discontinuation of the six-cylinder 76 line, which meant that all Oldsmobiles were powered by Rocket V8s. New this year was the more upscale Super 88 line on the new GM B-body which included restyled rear body panels, a more luxurious interior, and a slightly longer 120-inch (3,000 mm) wheelbase as opposed to the 119.5-inch (3,040 mm) wheelbase which had been standard since the 88's introduction. The station wagon was discontinued and would not reappear until the 1957 model year. New was an I-beam frame. Hydraulic power windows and seats were optional.
In 1952, the base 88 shared the Super 88s rear bodypanels and wheelbase, and got a 145 horsepower (108 kW) 303 cu in (5.0 L) Rocket V8 with two-barrel carburetor while Super 88s got a more powerful 160 hp (119 kW) 303 with a new four-barrel carburetor. Other mechanical features were unchanged with styling changes amounting to new grilles, taillights, and interior revisions. New was the optional automatic headlight control.
For 1953, the base 88 was renamed the DeLuxe 88 for only this one year while the Super 88 continued as a more upscale version. Engines and transmission offerings were the same as 1952. Late in the 1953 model year, a fire destroyed GM's Hydra-Matic plant in Livonia, Michigan, which was then the only source for Hydra-Matic transmissions. The temporary loss of Hydra-Matic production led Oldsmobile to build thousands of its 1953 models with Buick's two-speed Dynaflow automatic transmissions until GM pressed its Willow Run Transmission plant into service to resume Hydra-Matic production. New options this year included Frigidaire air conditioning, power steering, and power brakes.
[Text taken from Wikipedia]
This Lego miniland-scale 1950 Oldsmobile Rocket 88 Holiday Hardtop Coupe has been created for Flickr LUGNuts' 84th Build Challenge, our 7th birthday, to the challenge theme, - "LUGNuts Turns 7…or 49 in Dog Years", - where all the previous challenge themes are available to build to. In this case challenge 62, - "Space is the Place", - for vehicles with a space related theme.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the model, the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
During the 1950s Douglas Aircraft studied a short- to medium-range airliner to complement their higher capacity, long range DC-8 (DC stands for “Douglas Commercial”). A medium-range four-engine Model 2067 was studied, but it did not receive enough interest from airlines and was subsequently abandoned. The idea was not dead, though, and, in 1960, Douglas signed a two-year contract with Sud Aviation for technical cooperation. Douglas would market and support the Sud Aviation Caravelle and produce a licensed version if airlines ordered large numbers. None were ordered and Douglas returned to its own design studies after the cooperation deal expired.
Towards late 1961, several design studies were already underway and various layouts considered. Initial plans envisioned a compact aircraft, powered by two engines, a gross weight of 69,000 lb (31,300 kg) and a capacity of 60-80 passengers. The aircraft was to be considerably smaller than Boeing’s 727, which was under development at that time, too, so that it would fill a different market niche. However, Douglas did not want to be late again, just as with the DC-8 versus the 707, so the development of the “small airliner” was soon pushed into two directions.
One of the development lines exploited the recent experience gathered through the cooperation with Sud Aviation, and the resulting aircraft shared the Caravelle’s general layout with a pair of the new and more economical Pratt & Whitney JT8D turbofan engines mounted to the rear fuselage and high-set horizontal stabilizers. Unlike the competing but larger Boeing 727 trijet, which used as many 707 components as possible, this aircraft, which should become the highly successful DC-9, was an all-new design with a potentially long development time.
This was a major business risk, and in order to avoid the market gap and loss of market shares to Boeing, a second design was driven forward, too. It copied Boeing’s approach for the 727: take a proven design and re-use as many proven and existing components as possible to create a new airliner. This aircraft became the DC-8/2, better known as the “Dash Two” or just “Dasher”. This aircraft heavily relied on DC-8 components – primarily the fuselage and the complete tail section, as well as structures and elements of the quad-airliner’s wings, landing gear and propulsion system. Even the engines, a pair of JT3D turbofans in underwing nacelles, were taken over from the DC-8-50 which currently came from Douglas’ production line.
The DC-8’s fuselage was relatively wide for such a compact airliner, and its inside width of 138.25 in (351.2 cm) allowed a six-abreast seating, making the passenger cabin relatively comfortable (the DC-9 developed in parallel had a narrower fuselage and offered only five-abreast seating). In fact, the Dash Two’s cabin layout initially copied many DC-8 elements like a spacious 1st class section with 12 seats, eight of them with wide benches facing each other in a kind of lounge space instead of single seats. The standard coach section comprised 66 seats with a luxurious 38” pitch. This together with the relatively large windows from the DC-8, created a roomy atmosphere.
Douglas decided to tailor the Dash Two primarily to the domestic market: in late 1962, market research had revealed that the original 60-80 seat design was too small to be attractive for North American airlines. In consequence, the Dash Two’s cabin layout was redesigned into a more conventional layout with 12 single 1st class seat in the first three rows (four abreast) plus 84 2nd class seats in fifteen rows (the last row with only four seats), so that the Dash Two’s standard passenger capacity grew to 100 seats in this standard layout and a maximum of 148 seats in a tight, pure economy seating. The needs of airlines from around the world, esp. from smaller airlines, were expected to be covered by the more sophisticated and economical DC-9.
Douglas gave approval to produce the DC-8 Dash Two in January 1963, followed by the decision to work seriously on the DC-9 in April of the same year. While this was a double burden, the Dash Two was regarded as a low risk project and somewhat as a stopgap solution until the new DC-9 would be ready. Until 1964, when the first prototype made its maiden flight, Douglas expected orders for as many as 250 aircraft from American and Canadian airlines. Launch customers included Delta Airlines and Braniff International (10 each with options for 20 and 6 more, respectively) and Bonanza Air Lines (4). Despite this limited number, production was started, since no completely new production line had to be built up – most of the Dash Two’s assembly took place in the DC-8 plant and with the same jigs and tools.
Two versions of the DC-8/2 were offered from the start. Both were powered by JT3D-1 engines, but differed in details. The basic version without water injection was designated DC-8/2-10 (or “Dash Two-Ten”). A second version featured the same engines with water injection for additional thrust and a slightly (3 ft/91 cm) extended wing span. This was offered in parallel as the -20 for operations in “hot and high” environments and for a slightly higher starting weight. Unlike the DC-8, no freight version was offered.
However, even though the Dash Two was designed for short to medium routes, its origins from a big, international airliner resulted in some weak points. For instance, the aircraft did not feature useful details like built-in airstairs or an APU that allowed operations from smaller airports with less ground infrastructure than the major airports. In fact, the Dash Two was operationally more or less confined to routes between major airports, also because it relied heavily on DC-8 maintenance infrastructure and ground crews.
Even though the Dash Two had a good timing upon market entry, many smaller airlines from the American continent remained hesitant, so that further sales quickly stalled. Things got even worse when the smaller, lighter and brand-new DC-9 entered the short-haul market and almost completely cannibalized Douglas’ Dash Two sales. Boeing’s new 737 was another direct competitor, and foreign players like the British BAC One-Eleven had entered the American market, too, despite political influence to support domestic products.
Even though the Dash Two was quite popular among its passengers and crews (it was, for its class, comfortable and handled well), the Dash Two turned out to be relatively expensive to operate, despite the many similarities with the DC-8. By 1970, only 62 aircraft had been sold. In an attempt to modernize the Dash Two’s design and make it more attractive, an upgraded version was presented in May 1971. It featured a slightly stretched fuselage for a passenger capacity of 124 (vs. 100 in the standard layout, total maximum of 162) and was powered by a pair of Pratt & Whitney JT8D-11 turbofan engines, capable of generating up to 6800 kg of thrust. This version was designated -30, but it did not find any takers in the crowded mid-range market. The DC-8/2 was already outdated.
Therefore, a half-hearted plan to replace the Dash Two -10 and -20’s JT3D engines as -40 series with more fuel-efficient 22,000 lb (98.5 kN) CFM56-2 high-bypass turbofans, together with new nacelles and pylons built by Grumman Aerospace as well as new fairings of the air intakes below the nose, never left the drawing board, despite a similar update for the DC-8 was developed and offered. Douglas had given up on the DC-8/2 and now concentrated on the DC-9 family.
Another blow against the aircraft came in the early 1970s: legislation for aircraft noise standards was being introduced in many countries. This seriously affected the Dash Two with its relatively loud JT3D engines, too, and several airlines approached Douglas (by then merged with McDonnell into McDonnell Douglas) for noise reduction modifications, but nothing was done. Third parties had developed aftermarket hushkits for the Dash Two, actually adapted from DC-8 upgrades, but beyond this measure there was no real move to keep the relatively small DC-8/2 fleet in service. In consequence, Dash Two production was stopped in 1974, with 77 aircraft having been ordered, but only 66 were ever delivered (most open orders were switched to DC-9s). By 1984 all machines had been retired.
General characteristics:
Crew: 3 (+ 3 flight attendants)
Length: 125 ft (38.16 m)
Wingspan: 105 ft 5 in (32.18 m)
Height: 42 ft 4 in (12.92 m)
Wing area: 1,970 sq ft (183 m2), 30° sweep
Empty weight: 96,562 lb (43,800 kg)
Gross weight: 172,181 lb (78,100 kg)
Fuel capacity: 46,297 lb (21,000 kg) normal; 58,422 lb (26,500 kg) maximum
Cabin width: 138.25 in (351.2 cm)
Two-class seats: 100 (12F@38" + 88Y@34")
Single-class seats: 128@34", maximum of 148 in pure economy setup
Powerplant:
2× Pratt & Whitney JT3D-1 turbofan engines, delivering 17,000 lb (76.1 kN) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 590 mph (950 km/h; 510 kn)
Cruising speed: 470–530 mph (750–850 km/h; 400–460 kn) at 32,808–39,370 ft (10,000–12,000 m)
Range: 1,320 mi (2,120 km; 1,140 nmi) with 26,455 lb (12,000 kg) payload
and 12,456 lb (5,650 kg) fuel reserve
1,709 mi (2,750 km) with 17,968 lb (8,150 kg) payload
and 12,456 lb (5,650 kg) fuel reserve
Service ceiling: 39,000 ft (12,000 m)
Rate of climb: 2,000 ft/min (10 m/s)
Take-off run at MTOW: 7,218 ft (2,200 m)
Landing run at normal landing weight: 4,757–6,070 ft (1,450–1,850 m)
The kit and its assembly:
This model was originally intended to be my final contribution to the “More or less engines” group build at whatifmodelers.com in October 2019, but procurement problems and general lack of time towards the GB’s deadline made me postpone the build, so that I could take more time for a proper build and paintjob.
The idea behind it was simple: since the original DC-8 was stretched (considerably) in order to expand its passenger capacity from 177 to 289(!) passengers, why not go the other way around and reduce its dimensions for a short/medium range airliner with just two engines, as a kind of alternative to the Boeing 737?
The basis is the Minicraft 1:144 DC-8 kit, in this case the late release which comes only in a bag without a box or any decals and which depicts a late -60/70 series aircraft with the maximum fuselage length. Inside of the fuselage halves, markings show where these parts should be cut in order to take the plugs out for shorter, earlier variants. However, my plan would be more radical!
Shortening the fuselage sound simple, but several indirect aspects have to be taken into account. For instance, wingspan has to be reduced accordingly and the aircraft’s overall proportions as well as its potential center of gravity have to be plausible, too. Furthermore, landing gear and engines will have to be modified, too.
Several measures were taken in order to find good points where the fuselage could be cut for a maximum length reduction - after all, a LOT of material had to disappear for the twin-engine variant!
First, the fuselage was completed for a solid cutting base. I decided to take out a total of three plugs, with the plan to achieve a length somewhere near a late Boeing 737, even though this turned out to be more complicated and challenging than expected. All in all, the fuselage length was reduced from ~39cm to ~26.5cm. Less than I hoped for, but anything more would have ended in a total reconstruction of the wing root sections.
Two plugs are logical, the third one in the middle, only 1.5cm long, is less obvious. But since the wing span would be reduced, too, the wings' depth at the (new) roots was also reduced, so that the original DC-8 wing roots/fuselage intersections would not match anymore. The wings themselves were, also based on late Boeing 737 and Dassault Mercure measures, were cut at a position slightly inside of the inner engine pylon positions.
Re-construction started with the rear fuselage; I initially worked separately on the cockpit section, because I filled it with as much lead as possible, and it was connected with the rest of the hull when its three segments were already completed.
The Minicraft DC-8 is basically nice and has good fit, but I found a weak spot: the fin's leading edge. Like on Minicarft’s 727's wings, which I recently built, it's virtually flat. It just looks weird if not awful, so I sculpted a more rounded edge with putty. Since the small air intakes under the radome are open, I added an internal visual block in the form of black foamed styrene.
The JT3D nacelles were taken OOB from the Minicraft kit, I used the inner pair because of the shorter pylons. They were attached under the wings in a new position, slightly outside of the original inner engine pair and of the main landing gear. The latter was modified, too: instead of the DC-8’s four-wheel bogies I used a pair of Boeing 727 struts and twin wheels, left over from the recent build. These were attached to 1.5 mm high consoles, so that the stance on the ground became level and mounted into newly cut well openings in the inner wings. The front wheel was taken OOB from the DC-8. I was a little skeptical concerning the main landing gear’s relative position (due to the wing sweep, it might have ended up too far forward), but IMHO the new arrangement looks quite fine, esp. with the engines in place, which visually shift the model’s center of gravity forward. I just had to shorten the engine pylons by maybe 2mm, because the lack of dihedral on the DC-8’s outer wing sections considerably reduce ground clearance for the engines, despite the added consoles to the landing gear. However, all in all the arrangement looks acceptable.
For the model’s in-flight pics, and also for the application of the final varnish coat, I added a ventral, vertical styrene tube in the model’s center of gravity as a display holder/adapter. Due to the massive lead weight in the nose, the adapter’s position ended up in front of the wing roots!
Painting and markings:
I usually do not build civil airliners, so I took the occasion to represent a design icon: the “flying Colors” livery of Braniff International Airlines from the early Seventies. Braniff featured several bright liveries, but my personal favorite is the simple one with uniform fuselages in varying bold colors, mated with simple, white fins, engine nacelles and wing areas.
This choice was also influenced by the fact that 26decals offers a 1:144 sheet for Braniff DC-8s of this era (remember: the bagged Minicraft kit comes without any decal sheet at all). Choosing a color was a long process. Bright red or orange were initial favorites, but the recent 727 already had orange markings, so I rather favored blue, green or even purple. I eventually settled on a light lime green, which has a high shock value and also offers a good contrast to the Braniff markings and the windows. A tone called “Lime Green” was actually an official Braniff tone (check this great overview: web.archive.org/web/20050711080200/http://www.geocities.c..., a great source provided by 26decals in the context oft he decal sheet I used, see below). But my intention was not to authentically replicate it – I rather just wanted a bright color for the model, and I like green.
The basic color I used is simple Humbrol 38 (Lime), which was applied with a brush after the wing areas had been painted in white (Humbrol 22) and aluminum (various shades, including Humbrol 11 and Revell 99). The characteristic black area around the cockpit glazing was created with mix of decals and paint, the silver ventral areas were painted with Humbrol’s Polished Aluminum Metallizer. The fin’s and the stabilizers’ leading edges were created with silver decal sheet material (TL Modellbau), grey and silver bits of similar material were used for some small details on the wings.
As already mentioned, the decals, including all windows, come from a 26decals sheet. Due to the reduced length, the windows’ and doors’ position and numbers had to be improvised. But thanks to the relatively simple livery design without cheatlines or other decorative elements, this was an easy task. Finally, the model received an overall coat of gloss acrylic varnish from the rattle can.
Just like my recent Boeing 727 with four engines, this conversion appears simple at first sight, but the execution caused some headaches. The biggest problem was the reduced depth of the shortened wings and how to mount then to the fuselage – but the attempt to take an additional fuselage plug away was an effective move that also helped to reduce overall length.
I am astonished how modern and plausible this shortened DC-8 looks. While building, the aircraft constantly reminded me of the Tupolev Tu-104 airliner, until the engines were added and it now resembled an Airbus A320!
En complément á la conservation in situ (dans les habitats naturels), la conservation circa situ (dans les jardins ou propriétés des personas ou communautés adjointes aux écosystèmes initiaux) est une option beaucoup plus viable que la conservation ex situ (en culture hors de leur région d'origine), laquelle est une pure illusion et n'est pas réaliste á long terme pour moi. Ici une Stanhopea schilleriana tombée d'un arbre que j'ai sauvée et relocalisée sur un arbre circa situ (juste á proximité de sa forêt originale). Elle fleurit après s'être adaptée á son nouveau milieu et peut de nouveau participer de la pollinisation et perpétuation de son espèce. Département du Valle del Cauca. Colombie.
As a complementary measure to in situ conservation (in natural habitats), circa situ conservation (in gardens or properties of people or communities living next to original ecosystems) is a much more viable option than ex situ conservation (in cultivation out of their native region). which I think is pure illusion and not realist on the long term. Here a Stanhopea schilleriana fallen from a tree that I rescued and relocated on a circa situ tree (close to its original forest). It flowers after adapting itself to its new environment and is able again to participate to pollination and survival of its species, Valle del Cauca department, Colombia.
Como complemento a la conservación in situ (en hábitats naturales), la conservación circa situ (en jardines o propiedades de personas o comunidades pegados a los ecosistemas originales) es una opción mucho más viable que la conservación ex situ (en cultivo fuera de su región nativa), la cual es pura ilusión y no es realista a largo plazo para mi. Acá una Stanhopea schilleriana caída de su árbol que rescate y re localicé en un árbol circa situ (justo en las afueras de su bosque inicial). Florece después de haberse adaptado a su nuevo entorno y puede de nuevo participar de la polinización y supervivencia de su especie. Departamento del Valle del Cauca, Colombia.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the model, the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
During the 1950s Douglas Aircraft studied a short- to medium-range airliner to complement their higher capacity, long range DC-8 (DC stands for “Douglas Commercial”). A medium-range four-engine Model 2067 was studied, but it did not receive enough interest from airlines and was subsequently abandoned. The idea was not dead, though, and, in 1960, Douglas signed a two-year contract with Sud Aviation for technical cooperation. Douglas would market and support the Sud Aviation Caravelle and produce a licensed version if airlines ordered large numbers. None were ordered and Douglas returned to its own design studies after the cooperation deal expired.
Towards late 1961, several design studies were already underway and various layouts considered. Initial plans envisioned a compact aircraft, powered by two engines, a gross weight of 69,000 lb (31,300 kg) and a capacity of 60-80 passengers. The aircraft was to be considerably smaller than Boeing’s 727, which was under development at that time, too, so that it would fill a different market niche. However, Douglas did not want to be late again, just as with the DC-8 versus the 707, so the development of the “small airliner” was soon pushed into two directions.
One of the development lines exploited the recent experience gathered through the cooperation with Sud Aviation, and the resulting aircraft shared the Caravelle’s general layout with a pair of the new and more economical Pratt & Whitney JT8D turbofan engines mounted to the rear fuselage and high-set horizontal stabilizers. Unlike the competing but larger Boeing 727 trijet, which used as many 707 components as possible, this aircraft, which should become the highly successful DC-9, was an all-new design with a potentially long development time.
This was a major business risk, and in order to avoid the market gap and loss of market shares to Boeing, a second design was driven forward, too. It copied Boeing’s approach for the 727: take a proven design and re-use as many proven and existing components as possible to create a new airliner. This aircraft became the DC-8/2, better known as the “Dash Two” or just “Dasher”. This aircraft heavily relied on DC-8 components – primarily the fuselage and the complete tail section, as well as structures and elements of the quad-airliner’s wings, landing gear and propulsion system. Even the engines, a pair of JT3D turbofans in underwing nacelles, were taken over from the DC-8-50 which currently came from Douglas’ production line.
The DC-8’s fuselage was relatively wide for such a compact airliner, and its inside width of 138.25 in (351.2 cm) allowed a six-abreast seating, making the passenger cabin relatively comfortable (the DC-9 developed in parallel had a narrower fuselage and offered only five-abreast seating). In fact, the Dash Two’s cabin layout initially copied many DC-8 elements like a spacious 1st class section with 12 seats, eight of them with wide benches facing each other in a kind of lounge space instead of single seats. The standard coach section comprised 66 seats with a luxurious 38” pitch. This together with the relatively large windows from the DC-8, created a roomy atmosphere.
Douglas decided to tailor the Dash Two primarily to the domestic market: in late 1962, market research had revealed that the original 60-80 seat design was too small to be attractive for North American airlines. In consequence, the Dash Two’s cabin layout was redesigned into a more conventional layout with 12 single 1st class seat in the first three rows (four abreast) plus 84 2nd class seats in fifteen rows (the last row with only four seats), so that the Dash Two’s standard passenger capacity grew to 100 seats in this standard layout and a maximum of 148 seats in a tight, pure economy seating. The needs of airlines from around the world, esp. from smaller airlines, were expected to be covered by the more sophisticated and economical DC-9.
Douglas gave approval to produce the DC-8 Dash Two in January 1963, followed by the decision to work seriously on the DC-9 in April of the same year. While this was a double burden, the Dash Two was regarded as a low risk project and somewhat as a stopgap solution until the new DC-9 would be ready. Until 1964, when the first prototype made its maiden flight, Douglas expected orders for as many as 250 aircraft from American and Canadian airlines. Launch customers included Delta Airlines and Braniff International (10 each with options for 20 and 6 more, respectively) and Bonanza Air Lines (4). Despite this limited number, production was started, since no completely new production line had to be built up – most of the Dash Two’s assembly took place in the DC-8 plant and with the same jigs and tools.
Two versions of the DC-8/2 were offered from the start. Both were powered by JT3D-1 engines, but differed in details. The basic version without water injection was designated DC-8/2-10 (or “Dash Two-Ten”). A second version featured the same engines with water injection for additional thrust and a slightly (3 ft/91 cm) extended wing span. This was offered in parallel as the -20 for operations in “hot and high” environments and for a slightly higher starting weight. Unlike the DC-8, no freight version was offered.
However, even though the Dash Two was designed for short to medium routes, its origins from a big, international airliner resulted in some weak points. For instance, the aircraft did not feature useful details like built-in airstairs or an APU that allowed operations from smaller airports with less ground infrastructure than the major airports. In fact, the Dash Two was operationally more or less confined to routes between major airports, also because it relied heavily on DC-8 maintenance infrastructure and ground crews.
Even though the Dash Two had a good timing upon market entry, many smaller airlines from the American continent remained hesitant, so that further sales quickly stalled. Things got even worse when the smaller, lighter and brand-new DC-9 entered the short-haul market and almost completely cannibalized Douglas’ Dash Two sales. Boeing’s new 737 was another direct competitor, and foreign players like the British BAC One-Eleven had entered the American market, too, despite political influence to support domestic products.
Even though the Dash Two was quite popular among its passengers and crews (it was, for its class, comfortable and handled well), the Dash Two turned out to be relatively expensive to operate, despite the many similarities with the DC-8. By 1970, only 62 aircraft had been sold. In an attempt to modernize the Dash Two’s design and make it more attractive, an upgraded version was presented in May 1971. It featured a slightly stretched fuselage for a passenger capacity of 124 (vs. 100 in the standard layout, total maximum of 162) and was powered by a pair of Pratt & Whitney JT8D-11 turbofan engines, capable of generating up to 6800 kg of thrust. This version was designated -30, but it did not find any takers in the crowded mid-range market. The DC-8/2 was already outdated.
Therefore, a half-hearted plan to replace the Dash Two -10 and -20’s JT3D engines as -40 series with more fuel-efficient 22,000 lb (98.5 kN) CFM56-2 high-bypass turbofans, together with new nacelles and pylons built by Grumman Aerospace as well as new fairings of the air intakes below the nose, never left the drawing board, despite a similar update for the DC-8 was developed and offered. Douglas had given up on the DC-8/2 and now concentrated on the DC-9 family.
Another blow against the aircraft came in the early 1970s: legislation for aircraft noise standards was being introduced in many countries. This seriously affected the Dash Two with its relatively loud JT3D engines, too, and several airlines approached Douglas (by then merged with McDonnell into McDonnell Douglas) for noise reduction modifications, but nothing was done. Third parties had developed aftermarket hushkits for the Dash Two, actually adapted from DC-8 upgrades, but beyond this measure there was no real move to keep the relatively small DC-8/2 fleet in service. In consequence, Dash Two production was stopped in 1974, with 77 aircraft having been ordered, but only 66 were ever delivered (most open orders were switched to DC-9s). By 1984 all machines had been retired.
General characteristics:
Crew: 3 (+ 3 flight attendants)
Length: 125 ft (38.16 m)
Wingspan: 105 ft 5 in (32.18 m)
Height: 42 ft 4 in (12.92 m)
Wing area: 1,970 sq ft (183 m2), 30° sweep
Empty weight: 96,562 lb (43,800 kg)
Gross weight: 172,181 lb (78,100 kg)
Fuel capacity: 46,297 lb (21,000 kg) normal; 58,422 lb (26,500 kg) maximum
Cabin width: 138.25 in (351.2 cm)
Two-class seats: 100 (12F@38" + 88Y@34")
Single-class seats: 128@34", maximum of 148 in pure economy setup
Powerplant:
2× Pratt & Whitney JT3D-1 turbofan engines, delivering 17,000 lb (76.1 kN) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 590 mph (950 km/h; 510 kn)
Cruising speed: 470–530 mph (750–850 km/h; 400–460 kn) at 32,808–39,370 ft (10,000–12,000 m)
Range: 1,320 mi (2,120 km; 1,140 nmi) with 26,455 lb (12,000 kg) payload
and 12,456 lb (5,650 kg) fuel reserve
1,709 mi (2,750 km) with 17,968 lb (8,150 kg) payload
and 12,456 lb (5,650 kg) fuel reserve
Service ceiling: 39,000 ft (12,000 m)
Rate of climb: 2,000 ft/min (10 m/s)
Take-off run at MTOW: 7,218 ft (2,200 m)
Landing run at normal landing weight: 4,757–6,070 ft (1,450–1,850 m)
The kit and its assembly:
This model was originally intended to be my final contribution to the “More or less engines” group build at whatifmodelers.com in October 2019, but procurement problems and general lack of time towards the GB’s deadline made me postpone the build, so that I could take more time for a proper build and paintjob.
The idea behind it was simple: since the original DC-8 was stretched (considerably) in order to expand its passenger capacity from 177 to 289(!) passengers, why not go the other way around and reduce its dimensions for a short/medium range airliner with just two engines, as a kind of alternative to the Boeing 737?
The basis is the Minicraft 1:144 DC-8 kit, in this case the late release which comes only in a bag without a box or any decals and which depicts a late -60/70 series aircraft with the maximum fuselage length. Inside of the fuselage halves, markings show where these parts should be cut in order to take the plugs out for shorter, earlier variants. However, my plan would be more radical!
Shortening the fuselage sound simple, but several indirect aspects have to be taken into account. For instance, wingspan has to be reduced accordingly and the aircraft’s overall proportions as well as its potential center of gravity have to be plausible, too. Furthermore, landing gear and engines will have to be modified, too.
Several measures were taken in order to find good points where the fuselage could be cut for a maximum length reduction - after all, a LOT of material had to disappear for the twin-engine variant!
First, the fuselage was completed for a solid cutting base. I decided to take out a total of three plugs, with the plan to achieve a length somewhere near a late Boeing 737, even though this turned out to be more complicated and challenging than expected. All in all, the fuselage length was reduced from ~39cm to ~26.5cm. Less than I hoped for, but anything more would have ended in a total reconstruction of the wing root sections.
Two plugs are logical, the third one in the middle, only 1.5cm long, is less obvious. But since the wing span would be reduced, too, the wings' depth at the (new) roots was also reduced, so that the original DC-8 wing roots/fuselage intersections would not match anymore. The wings themselves were, also based on late Boeing 737 and Dassault Mercure measures, were cut at a position slightly inside of the inner engine pylon positions.
Re-construction started with the rear fuselage; I initially worked separately on the cockpit section, because I filled it with as much lead as possible, and it was connected with the rest of the hull when its three segments were already completed.
The Minicraft DC-8 is basically nice and has good fit, but I found a weak spot: the fin's leading edge. Like on Minicarft’s 727's wings, which I recently built, it's virtually flat. It just looks weird if not awful, so I sculpted a more rounded edge with putty. Since the small air intakes under the radome are open, I added an internal visual block in the form of black foamed styrene.
The JT3D nacelles were taken OOB from the Minicraft kit, I used the inner pair because of the shorter pylons. They were attached under the wings in a new position, slightly outside of the original inner engine pair and of the main landing gear. The latter was modified, too: instead of the DC-8’s four-wheel bogies I used a pair of Boeing 727 struts and twin wheels, left over from the recent build. These were attached to 1.5 mm high consoles, so that the stance on the ground became level and mounted into newly cut well openings in the inner wings. The front wheel was taken OOB from the DC-8. I was a little skeptical concerning the main landing gear’s relative position (due to the wing sweep, it might have ended up too far forward), but IMHO the new arrangement looks quite fine, esp. with the engines in place, which visually shift the model’s center of gravity forward. I just had to shorten the engine pylons by maybe 2mm, because the lack of dihedral on the DC-8’s outer wing sections considerably reduce ground clearance for the engines, despite the added consoles to the landing gear. However, all in all the arrangement looks acceptable.
For the model’s in-flight pics, and also for the application of the final varnish coat, I added a ventral, vertical styrene tube in the model’s center of gravity as a display holder/adapter. Due to the massive lead weight in the nose, the adapter’s position ended up in front of the wing roots!
Painting and markings:
I usually do not build civil airliners, so I took the occasion to represent a design icon: the “flying Colors” livery of Braniff International Airlines from the early Seventies. Braniff featured several bright liveries, but my personal favorite is the simple one with uniform fuselages in varying bold colors, mated with simple, white fins, engine nacelles and wing areas.
This choice was also influenced by the fact that 26decals offers a 1:144 sheet for Braniff DC-8s of this era (remember: the bagged Minicraft kit comes without any decal sheet at all). Choosing a color was a long process. Bright red or orange were initial favorites, but the recent 727 already had orange markings, so I rather favored blue, green or even purple. I eventually settled on a light lime green, which has a high shock value and also offers a good contrast to the Braniff markings and the windows. A tone called “Lime Green” was actually an official Braniff tone (check this great overview: web.archive.org/web/20050711080200/http://www.geocities.c..., a great source provided by 26decals in the context oft he decal sheet I used, see below). But my intention was not to authentically replicate it – I rather just wanted a bright color for the model, and I like green.
The basic color I used is simple Humbrol 38 (Lime), which was applied with a brush after the wing areas had been painted in white (Humbrol 22) and aluminum (various shades, including Humbrol 11 and Revell 99). The characteristic black area around the cockpit glazing was created with mix of decals and paint, the silver ventral areas were painted with Humbrol’s Polished Aluminum Metallizer. The fin’s and the stabilizers’ leading edges were created with silver decal sheet material (TL Modellbau), grey and silver bits of similar material were used for some small details on the wings.
As already mentioned, the decals, including all windows, come from a 26decals sheet. Due to the reduced length, the windows’ and doors’ position and numbers had to be improvised. But thanks to the relatively simple livery design without cheatlines or other decorative elements, this was an easy task. Finally, the model received an overall coat of gloss acrylic varnish from the rattle can.
Just like my recent Boeing 727 with four engines, this conversion appears simple at first sight, but the execution caused some headaches. The biggest problem was the reduced depth of the shortened wings and how to mount then to the fuselage – but the attempt to take an additional fuselage plug away was an effective move that also helped to reduce overall length.
I am astonished how modern and plausible this shortened DC-8 looks. While building, the aircraft constantly reminded me of the Tupolev Tu-104 airliner, until the engines were added and it now resembled an Airbus A320!