Taken back before offices were computerized and cordless phones. Photo was found on eBay.

A wrecking yard (Australian, New Zealand, and Canadian English), scrapyard (Irish and British English) or junkyard (American English) is the location of a business in dismantling where wrecked or decommissioned vehicles are brought, their usable parts are sold for use in operating vehicles, while the unusable metal parts, known as scrap metal parts, are sold to metal-recycling companies.

 

Other terms include wreck yard, wrecker's yard, salvage yard, breakers yard, dismantler and scrapheap. In the United Kingdom, car salvage yards are known as car breakers, while motorcycle salvage yards are known as bike breakers. In Australia, they are often referred to as 'Wreckers'.

 

The most common type of wreck yards are automobile wreck yards, but junkyards for motorcycles, bicycles, small airplanes and boats exist too.

 

Many salvage yards operate on a local level—when an automobile is severely damaged, has malfunctioned beyond repair, or not worth the repair, the owner may sell it to a junkyard; in some cases—as when the car has become disabled in a place where derelict cars are not allowed to be left—the car owner will pay the wrecker to haul the car away.

 

Salvage yards also buy most of the wrecked, derelict and abandoned vehicles that are sold at auction from police impound storage lots,and often buy vehicles from insurance tow yards as well.

 

The salvage yard will usually tow the vehicle from the location of its purchase to the yard, but occasionally vehicles are driven in. At the salvage yard the automobiles are typically arranged in rows, often stacked on top of one another.

 

Some yards keep inventories in their offices, as to the usable parts in each car, as well as the car's location in the yard. Many yards have computerized inventory systems. About 75% of any given vehicle can be recycled and used for other goods.

 

In recent years it is becoming increasingly common to use satellite part finder services to contact multiple salvage yards from a single source.

 

In the 20th century these were call centres that charged a premium rate for calls and compiled a facsimile that was sent to various salvage yards so they could respond directly if the part was in stock. Many of these are now Web-based with requests for parts being e-mailed instantly.

Southeast Financial Center is a two-acre development in Miami, Florida, United States. It consists of a 764 feet (233 m) tall office skyscraper and its 15-story parking garage. It was previously known as the Southeast Financial Center (1984–1992), the First Union Financial Center (1992–2003), and the Wachovia Financial Center (2003-2011). In 2011, it retook its old name of Southeast Financial Center as Wachovia merged with Wells Fargo and moved to the nearby Wells Fargo Center.

 

When topped-off in August 1983, it was the tallest building south of New York City and east of the Mississippi River, taking away the same title from the Westin Peachtree Plaza Hotel, in Atlanta, Georgia. It remained the tallest building in the southeastern U.S. until 1987, when it was surpassed by One Atlantic Center in Atlanta and the tallest in Florida until October 1, 2003, when it was surpassed by the Four Seasons Hotel and Tower, also in Miami. It remains the tallest office tower in Florida and the third tallest building in Miami.

 

Southeast Financial Center was constructed in three years with more than 500 construction workers. Approximately 6,650 tons of structural steel, 80,000 cubic yards of concrete and 7000 cubic tons of reinforcing steel bars went into its construction. The complex sits on a series of reinforced concrete grade beams tied to 150 concrete caissons as much as ten feet in diameter and to a depth of 80 feet. A steel space-frame canopy with glass skylights covers the outdoor plaza between the tower and low-rise building.

 

The tower has a composite structure. The exterior columns and beams are concrete encased steel wide flanges surrounded by reinforcing bars. The composite exterior frame was formed using hydraulic steel forms, or "flying forms," jacked into place with a "kangaroo" crane, that was located in the core and manually clamped into place. Wide flange beams topped by a metal deck and concrete form the interior floor framing. The core is A braced steel frame, designed to laterally resist wind loads. The construction of one typical floor was completed every five days.

 

The low-rise banking hall and parking building is a concrete-framed structure. Each floor consists of nearly an acre of continuously poured concrete. When the concrete had sufficiently hardened, compressed air was used to blow the forms fiberglass forms from under the completed floor. It was then rolled out to the exterior where it was raised by crane into position for the next floor.

 

The building was recognized as Miami's first and only office building to be certified for the LEED Gold award in January 2010.

 

The center was developed by a partnership consisting of Gerald D. Hines Interests, Southeast Bank and Corporate Property Investors for $180 million. It was originally built as the headquarters for Southeast Bank, which originally occupied 50 percent of the complex's space. It remained Southeast Bank's headquarters there until it was liquidated in 1991.

 

The Southeast Financial Center comprises two buildings: the 55-story office tower and the 15-story parking annex. The tower has 53 stories of office space. The first floor is dedicated for retail, the second floor is the lobby and the 55th floor was home to the luxurious Miami City Club. The parking annex has 12 floors of parking space for 1,150 cars. The first floor is dedicated for retail, the second floor is a banking hall and the 15th floor has the Downtown Athletic Club. A landscaped plaza lies between the office tower and the parking annex. An enclosed walkway connects the second story of the tower with the second story of the annex. The courtyard is partially protected from the elements by a steel and glass space frame canopy spanning the plaza and attached to the tower and annex. Southeast Bank's executive offices were located on the 38th floor. Ground was broken on the complex on December 12, 1981 and the official dedication and opening for the complex was held on October 23, 1984.

 

The Southeast Financial Center was designed by Edward Charles Bassett of Skidmore, Owings and Merrill. The Associate Architect was Spillis Candela & Partners. It has 1,145,311 ft² (106,000 m²) of office space. A typical floor has about 22,000 ft² (2,043.87 m²) of office space. Each floor has 9 ft x 9 ft (2.7 m x 2.7 m) floor to ceiling windows. (All of the building's windows are tinted except for the top floor, resulting in strikingly bright and clear views from there.) The total complex has over 2.2 million ft² (204,000 m²). The distinctive setbacks begin at the 43rd floor. Each typical floor plate has 9 corner offices and the top twelve floors have as many as 16. There are 43 elevators in the office tower. An emergency control station provides computerized monitoring for the entire complex, and four generators for backup power.

 

The Southeast Financial Center can be seen as far away as Ft. Lauderdale and halfway toward Bimini. Night space shuttle launches from Cape Canaveral 200 miles to the north were plainly visible from the higher floors. The roof of the building was featured in the Wesley Snipes motion picture Drop Zone, where an eccentric base jumper named Swoop parachutes down to the street from a suspended window cleaning trolley. The building also appeared in several episodes of the 1980s TV show Miami Vice and at the end of each episode's opening credits.

 

Zara founder Amancio Ortega purchased the building from J.P. Morgan Asset Management in December 2016. The purchase price was reportedly over $500 million, making it one of the largest real estate transactions in South Florida history.

 

Credit for the data above is given to the following websites:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Financial_Center

www.emporis.com/buildings/122292/wachovia-financial-cente...

 

© All Rights Reserved - you may not use this image in any form without my prior permission.

Yes, I can do domestic chores. This is my new computerized sewing machine and I had fun this first day I started playing seamstress.

packer blade is on top, and it rests on the partially retracted ejector blade. the two work in tandem to eject, in a computerized extend/retract sequence that keeps material from falling behind the blades. this can only be found on Amrep "Automated" units, aka ASLs.

Australia adopted horse-drawn taxis once cities were established and, in the case of Queensland, Brisbane introduced the first horse-drawn taxis, which plied throughout the city. These also included hansom cabs, a more elaborate type with a closed-in cabin for passengers with two small front doors and glass windows and their driver sitting high at the back. This type of vehicle was a standard type used in England. Hansom cabs were used in Brisbane until 1935, operating from a rank outside the Supreme Court in George Street.

 

Motor taxis were introduced into Australia not long after they were put into service in the United Kingdom and Europe. In 1906 Sydney inaugurated motorised taxis, followed soon after by the other states.

 

The taxis of the period included a variety of types, with tourers and sedans. The latter were mainly French built Renaults, which were designed as taxis, not unlike the hansom cabs. Brisbane had a number of them that plied from the ranks outside Parliament House, Brisbane in Alice Street, and the Supreme Court of Queensland building in George Street. As applied to the hansom cabs, the Renaults catered mainly for gentlemen of standing, including judges, barristers and other notables. The drivers wore uniforms with leggings, the same as those worn by chauffeurs of horse-drawn carriages.

 

Each large taxi company had telephones installed in a steel box type cover at city and suburban ranks, direct to the switch control rooms in the city.

 

Although motor vehicle taxis were being used at the time, a few horse-drawn taxis continued service in Brisbane until the early 1920s. Country towns had them for a while longer.

 

The progress through the years included many types of tourers from circa 1910 until the late 1920s, with British and American cars predominating. Makes featured such names as Buick, Dodge, Talbot, Vauxhall, Saxon, Ford, Chandler, Studebaker, Chevrolet, Hupmobile, Whippet, Oldsmobile, Marmon, Pontiac, Hudson, Oakland, Erskine, Rugby, Essex and Chrysler.

 

Sedans were added during the late 1920s and included similar makes of vehicles. This was the case with all cars being imported into Australia until World War II. American cars proved more suitable to Australian motoring conditions, especially for taxis. General Motors built thousands in Australia, as did the other American companies including Ford and Chrysler.

 

There are numerous taxi services throughout Queensland which operate in all main city centers, as far north as Thursday Island off North Queensland.

 

Prior to a taxi company being formed in Queensland, owners of taxis simply had signs on the vehicles indicating "For Hire" painted on the side, front and rear. Before 1924, all taxis plied for hire without a means of recording the mileage, other than the driver himself calculating the fare according to how far he drove his passengers. There was a fare scale, however, the driver could charge whatever he thought was nearest to the amount specified. This no doubt, brought about the introduction of meters.

 

The first taxi company in Queensland was Ascot Taxi Service which was formed in 1919 in Brisbane by two motor mechanics, Edmund William Henry Beckman and Edward Roland Videan. In 1924, the Yellow Cab Company imported their taxis from the United States, which were built especially for taxi work by the Yellow Cab Company in Chicago. The vehicle was the A2 Brougham (mustard pots)—a sedan with the driver separated from the passengers by a window with the baggage compartment in front beside him. The meter was alongside the window by the driver's side. The taxis were also the first fitted with meters in Australia. The vehicle was known as a yellow cab, having been built by the company with that name plate on the front of the radiator. The engines were also built especially for the type and were similar to the Willys Knight. The driver's compartment did not have side windows. The Broughams were taken out of service in 1936.

 

The Yellow Cab Company has now become the largest cab fleet in Brisbane and introduced the first computerized data dispatch from the control room to taxis. The system was designed to increase efficiency and provide a better and safer service for the public and increase drivers' security. The computers have been installed into the fleet of over 580 taxis.

 

The Taxi Council of Queensland is the trade association and its objective is to expand the total market for taxi services.

 

SsangYong Stavics are also currently being trialed in Queensland as 'maxi cabs'.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxis_of_Australia

  

1990 heralded a new decade with momentous change and significant events unfolding internationally and at home in Queensland. German reunification was achieved following the ‘fall’ of the Berlin Wall in November 1989. The Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia in turn declared their independence from the Soviet Union. Nelson Mandela was released after 27 years of imprisonment in South Africa, and Margaret Thatcher resigned as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom after more than 11 years in office. British computer scientist Tim Berners-Lee created the first web server and web browser, and the Hubble Space Telescope was launched from the space shuttle ‘Discovery’.

 

The Australian Labor Party’s federal election campaign was launched in Brisbane in early March before Prime Minister Bob Hawke’s government was returned later that month for a historic fourth term. Andrew Peacock resigned the leadership of the federal Liberal Party after the election defeat and was replaced by Dr John Hewson. Earlier in March, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) was founded. The inaugural Cape York Aboriginal Land Conference took place at Lockhart River in September, leading to the formation of the Cape York Land Council.

 

The nation’s first women Premiers were sworn into office this year, firstly Western Australia’s Carmen Lawrence in February followed by Victoria’s Joan Kirner in August. On the day of Kirner’s swearing in, the Hawke government announced Australia would join the international naval blockade of Iraq in the Persian Gulf. A specially convened ALP national conference in September endorsed the privatisation of Qantas and other assets, ahead of deregulation of the domestic aviation market in November. Near that month’s end, Treasurer Paul Keating declared Australia was enduring “the recession we had to have”.

 

The 1990s was a decade of transformation as infrastructure connected the state, the Internet changed how we worked and Agro was a prime-time star. These photographic highlights come from a collection of thousands of images captured by Transport and Main Roads, documenting the plans, programs and growth of Queensland throughout the decade.

 

Find this series in our catalogue: www.archivessearch.qld.gov.au/series/S20086

 

The Transport and Main Roads Visual Resource Library collection contains over 200.000 photographs and other resources from the 1920’s to 2005 from the many and varied road, transport and maritime departments over that time. It is mostly the work of the Photographic Branch and Graphic Reproduction Services Unit between the 1930s and the 1990s. Photographers Les Dixon, Bob Reid, Ian Williams, Murray Waite and Ray Burgress recorded works and events of the Department.

 

Subjects covered include road construction projects, environmental science, road fittings, public transport and road users, people at work, community engagement, official openings, sod turnings, new structures (bridges, dams and Queensland University), awards, department initiatives, safety campaigns, exhibitions and displays.

 

A Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II taxis during a combat exercise at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, May 1, 2019. The active duty 388th Fighter Wing and Reserve 419th FW, along with F-16 Fighting Falcon units from Holloman AFB, N.M. and Kunsan Air Base, South Korea, conducted an integrated combat exercise where maintainers were tasked to continually provide ready aircraft and pilots to take off in waves to simulate a large force engagement with enemy aircraft.

  

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is a family of single-seat, single-engine, all-weather, stealth, fifth-generation, multirole combat aircraft, designed for ground-attack and air-superiority missions. It is built by Lockheed Martin and many subcontractors, including Northrop Grumman, Pratt & Whitney, and BAE Systems.

 

The F-35 has three main models: the conventional takeoff and landing F-35A (CTOL), the short take-off and vertical-landing F-35B (STOVL), and the catapult-assisted take-off but arrested recovery, carrier-based F-35C (CATOBAR). The F-35 descends from the Lockheed Martin X-35, the design that was awarded the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program over the competing Boeing X-32. The official Lightning II name has proven deeply unpopular and USAF pilots have nicknamed it Panther, instead.

 

The United States principally funds F-35 development, with additional funding from other NATO members and close U.S. allies, including the United Kingdom, Italy, Australia, Canada, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, and formerly Turkey. These funders generally receive subcontracts to manufacture components for the aircraft; for example, Turkey was the sole supplier of several F-35 parts until its removal from the program in July 2019. Several other countries have ordered, or are considering ordering, the aircraft.

 

As the largest and most expensive military program ever, the F-35 became the subject of much scrutiny and criticism in the U.S. and in other countries. In 2013 and 2014, critics argued that the plane was "plagued with design flaws", with many blaming the procurement process in which Lockheed was allowed "to design, test, and produce the F-35 all at the same time," instead of identifying and fixing "defects before firing up its production line". By 2014, the program was "$163 billion over budget [and] seven years behind schedule". Critics also contend that the program's high sunk costs and political momentum make it "too big to kill".

 

The F-35 first flew on 15 December 2006. In July 2015, the United States Marines declared its first squadron of F-35B fighters ready for deployment. However, the DOD-based durability testing indicated the service life of early-production F-35B aircraft is well under the expected 8,000 flight hours, and may be as low as 2,100 flight hours. Lot 9 and later aircraft include design changes but service life testing has yet to occur. The U.S. Air Force declared its first squadron of F-35As ready for deployment in August 2016. The U.S. Navy declared its first F-35Cs ready in February 2019. In 2018, the F-35 made its combat debut with the Israeli Air Force.

 

The U.S. stated plan is to buy 2,663 F-35s, which will provide the bulk of the crewed tactical airpower of the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps in coming decades. Deliveries of the F-35 for the U.S. military are scheduled until 2037 with a projected service life up to 2070.

 

Development

 

F-35 development started in 1992 with the origins of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program and was to culminate in full production by 2018. The X-35 first flew on 24 October 2000 and the F-35A on 15 December 2006.

 

The F-35 was developed to replace most US fighter jets with the variants of a single design that would be common to all branches of the military. It was developed in co-operation with a number of foreign partners, and, unlike the F-22 Raptor, intended to be available for export. Three variants were designed: the F-35A (CTOL), the F-35B (STOVL), and the F-35C (CATOBAR). Despite being intended to share most of their parts to reduce costs and improve maintenance logistics, by 2017, the effective commonality was only 20%. The program received considerable criticism for cost overruns during development and for the total projected cost of the program over the lifetime of the jets.

 

By 2017, the program was expected to cost $406.5 billion over its lifetime (i.e. until 2070) for acquisition of the jets, and an additional $1.1 trillion for operations and maintenance. A number of design deficiencies were alleged, such as: carrying a small internal payload; performance inferior to the aircraft being replaced, particularly the F-16; lack of safety in relying on a single engine; and flaws such as the vulnerability of the fuel tank to fire and the propensity for transonic roll-off (wing drop). The possible obsolescence of stealth technology was also criticized.

  

Design

 

Overview

 

Although several experimental designs have been developed since the 1960s, such as the unsuccessful Rockwell XFV-12, the F-35B is to be the first operational supersonic STOVL stealth fighter. The single-engine F-35 resembles the larger twin-engined Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, drawing design elements from it. The exhaust duct design was inspired by the General Dynamics Model 200, proposed for a 1972 supersonic VTOL fighter requirement for the Sea Control Ship.

 

Lockheed Martin has suggested that the F-35 could replace the USAF's F-15C/D fighters in the air-superiority role and the F-15E Strike Eagle in the ground-attack role. It has also stated the F-35 is intended to have close- and long-range air-to-air capability second only to that of the F-22 Raptor, and that the F-35 has an advantage over the F-22 in basing flexibility and possesses "advanced sensors and information fusion".

 

Testifying before the House Appropriations Committee on 25 March 2009, acquisition deputy to the assistant secretary of the Air Force, Lt. Gen. Mark D. "Shack" Shackelford, stated that the F-35 is designed to be America's "premier surface-to-air missile killer, and is uniquely equipped for this mission with cutting-edge processing power, synthetic aperture radar integration techniques, and advanced target recognition".

 

Improvements

Ostensible improvements over past-generation fighter aircraft include:

 

Durable, low-maintenance stealth technology, using structural fiber mat instead of the high-maintenance coatings of legacy stealth platforms

Integrated avionics and sensor fusion that combine information from off- and on-board sensors to increase the pilot's situational awareness and improve target identification and weapon delivery, and to relay information quickly to other command and control (C2) nodes

High-speed data networking including IEEE 1394b and Fibre Channel (Fibre Channel is also used on Boeing's Super Hornet.

The Autonomic Logistics Global Sustainment, Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), and Computerized maintenance management system to help ensure the aircraft can remain operational with minimal maintenance manpower The Pentagon has moved to open up the competitive bidding by other companies. This was after Lockheed Martin stated that instead of costing 20% less than the F-16 per flight hour, the F-35 would actually cost 12% more. Though the ALGS is intended to reduce maintenance costs, the company disagrees with including the cost of this system in the aircraft ownership calculations. The USMC has implemented a workaround for a cyber vulnerability in the system. The ALIS system currently requires a shipping-container load of servers to run, but Lockheed is working on a more portable version to support the Marines' expeditionary operations.

Electro-hydrostatic actuators run by a power-by-wire flight-control system

A modern and updated flight simulator, which may be used for a greater fraction of pilot training to reduce the costly flight hours of the actual aircraft

Lightweight, powerful lithium-ion batteries to provide power to run the control surfaces in an emergency

Structural composites in the F-35 are 35% of the airframe weight (up from 25% in the F-22). The majority of these are bismaleimide and composite epoxy materials. The F-35 will be the first mass-produced aircraft to include structural nanocomposites, namely carbon nanotube-reinforced epoxy. Experience of the F-22's problems with corrosion led to the F-35 using a gap filler that causes less galvanic corrosion to the airframe's skin, designed with fewer gaps requiring filler and implementing better drainage. The relatively short 35-foot wingspan of the A and B variants is set by the F-35B's requirement to fit inside the Navy's current amphibious assault ship parking area and elevators; the F-35C's longer wing is considered to be more fuel efficient.

 

Costs

A U.S. Navy study found that the F-35 will cost 30 to 40% more to maintain than current jet fighters, not accounting for inflation over the F-35's operational lifetime. A Pentagon study concluded a $1 trillion maintenance cost for the entire fleet over its lifespan, not accounting for inflation. The F-35 program office found that as of January 2014, costs for the F-35 fleet over a 53-year lifecycle was $857 billion. Costs for the fighter have been dropping and accounted for the 22 percent life cycle drop since 2010. Lockheed stated that by 2019, pricing for the fifth-generation aircraft will be less than fourth-generation fighters. An F-35A in 2019 is expected to cost $85 million per unit complete with engines and full mission systems, inflation adjusted from $75 million in December 2013.

The Trust Building is of State significance as one of the major buildings erected in Sydney in the pre-World War I period. It is an unsurpassed example of architecture in the Interwar Commercial Palazzo style. The exterior of the building is the leading example of the first generation skyscrapers in Sydney. It is also a rare commercial purpose built building surviving in Sydney from the Edwardian Period.

 

The Trust Building is the site of the former Daily Telegraph offices, the highest circulating daily newspaper of the time. This building is one of four surviving newspaper offices built between 1900 and 1930.

Source: NSW Govt website

 

Karaoke World

Fully air-conditioned, stylish private rooms, brand new surround sound system with over 120,000+ songs to choose from and many more!

 

At Karaoke World we pride ourselves on having the most up-to-date and popular songs. With over 120,000+ songs in our computerized Karaoke System, we have songs in English, Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Vietnamese, Indonesian and Korean.

Source: Karaoke World website

   

Bangladesh Railway (BR) started its journey in this portion of the sub-continent 142 years ago. Historically Bangladesh owned the Railway network, which was a part of the sub-continent. BR has recently introduced train related information using IVR (Interactive Voice Response) system through Mobile Phone and has taken initiative for computerization of pay roll, asset management, accounting, inventory control etc. which are the steps towards the implementation of Digital Bangladesh.

 

In Bangladesh, due to the huge population in the country, an inadequate number of seats on the local trains, and punishing poverty, some people are forced to borrow a ride now and then. Some are so poor that they cant buy ticket even. They ride on the roof top as well as between the carriages of Train or seat in floor between two carriages, canteen, beside door area every where.

 

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

All rights reserved. Do not use any of the images in this stream without my permission.

Contact me at ashikmasud@gmail.com | Facebook | Twitter

Ford Escort (MkIII) 1.6SE Convertible (1984-90) Engine 1597 cc S4 OC

 

Registration Number NCA 81 E (Cherished number, originally issued from Chester)

FORD EUROPE

 

www.flickr.com/photos/45676495@N05/sets/72157623665118181...

 

The Mark III Escort was developed under the cod name Erika, and launched in 1980, unlike the Mark II the new car was more than a reskin of the previous generation Escort. The Mark III was a departure from the two previous models, the biggest changes being the adoption of front-wheel drive, and the new hatchback body. The car used Ford's contemporary design language of the period with the black louvred radiator grille and straked rear lamp clusters, as well as introducing the aerodynamic "bustle-back" bootlid stump. Sales in the United Kingdom increased, and by 1982 it had overtaken the ageing Cortina as the nation's best-selling car, beginning an eight-year run as Britain's best selling car.

 

New were the overhead camshaft CVH engines in 1.3 L and 1.6 L formats, with the older Ford Kent-based "Valencia" engine from the Fiesta powering the 1.1 L. From launch, the car was available in base (Popular), L, GL, Ghia and XR3 trim.

 

A convertible version, made by coachbuilder Karmann, appeared the same year as the five-door estate (1983). It was the first drop-top car produced by Ford Europe since the Corsair of the 1960s. The Escort Cabriolet was initially available in both XR3i and Ghia specification, but the Ghia variant was later dropped.

 

To compete with Volkswagen's Golf GTI, a hot hatch version of the Mark III was developed – the XR3. Initially this featured a tuned version of the 1.6 L CVH engine of 96bhp

fitted with a twin-choke Weber carburettor, uprated suspension and numerous cosmetic alterations.

 

The car lacked the five speed transmission and fuel injection of its Volkswagen rival a situation addressed in October 1982 for the 1983 model year with the arrival of the XR3i with 105bhp eight months behind the limited edition (8,659 examples), racetrack-influenced RS 1600i. The Cologne-developed RS received a more powerful engine with 115 PS (85 kW), thanks to computerized ignition and a modified head as well as the fuel injection

 

Diolch yn fawr am 67,367,304 o olygfeydd anhygoel, mwynhewch ac arhoswch yn ddiogel

 

Thank you 67,367,304 amazing views, enjoy and stay safe

 

Shot 02.09.2018 at Himley Hall, Wolverhampton Ref 136-080

     

Notre-Dame de Paris (French: [nɔtʁ(ə) dam də paʁi] ⓘ; meaning "Our Lady of Paris"), referred to simply as Notre-Dame,[a] is a medieval Catholic cathedral on the Île de la Cité (an island in the Seine River), in the 4th arrondissement of Paris, France. The cathedral, dedicated to the Virgin Mary, is considered one of the finest examples of French Gothic architecture. Several attributes set it apart from the earlier Romanesque style, particularly its pioneering use of the rib vault and flying buttress, its enormous and colourful rose windows, and the naturalism and abundance of its sculptural decoration.[5] Notre-Dame also stands out for its three pipe organs (one historic) and its immense church bells.[6]

 

Built during medieval France, construction of the cathedral began in 1163 under Bishop Maurice de Sully and was largely completed by 1260, though it was modified in succeeding centuries. In the 1790s, during the French Revolution, Notre-Dame suffered extensive desecration; much of its religious imagery was damaged or destroyed. In the 19th century, the coronation of Napoleon and the funerals of many of the French Republic's presidents took place at the cathedral. The 1831 publication of Victor Hugo's novel Notre-Dame de Paris (in English: The Hunchback of Notre-Dame) inspired interest which led to restoration between 1844 and 1864, supervised by Eugène Viollet-le-Duc. On 26 August 1944, the Liberation of Paris from German occupation was celebrated in Notre-Dame with the singing of the Magnificat. Beginning in 1963, the cathedral's façade was cleaned of soot and grime. Another cleaning and restoration project was carried out between 1991 and 2000.[7]

 

The cathedral is a widely recognized symbol of the city of Paris and the French nation. In 1805, it was awarded honorary status as a minor basilica. As the cathedral of the archdiocese of Paris, Notre-Dame contains the cathedra of the archbishop of Paris (currently Laurent Ulrich). In the early 21st century, approximately 12 million people visited Notre-Dame annually, making it the most visited monument in Paris.[8] The cathedral is renowned for its Lent sermons, a tradition founded in the 1830s by the Dominican Jean-Baptiste Henri Lacordaire. These sermons have increasingly been given by leading public figures or government-employed academics.

 

Over time, the cathedral has gradually been stripped of many decorations and artworks. However, the cathedral still contains Gothic, Baroque, and 19th-century sculptures, 17th- and early 18th-century altarpieces, and some of the most important relics in Christendom – including the Crown of Thorns, and a sliver and nail from the True Cross.

 

On 15 April 2019, while Notre-Dame was undergoing renovation and restoration, its roof caught fire and burned for 15 hours. The cathedral sustained serious damage. The flèche (the timber spirelet over the crossing) was destroyed, as was most of the lead-covered wooden roof above the stone vaulted ceiling.[9] This contaminated the site and nearby environment with lead.[10] Restoration proposals suggested modernizing the cathedral, but the French National Assembly rejected them, enacting a law in July 2019 that required the restoration preserve the cathedral's "historic, artistic and architectural interest".[11] The task of stabilizing the building against potential collapse was completed in November 2020.[12] The cathedral is expected to reopen on 8 December 2024; the date was confirmed by President Macron.

 

Key dates

4th century – Cathedral of Saint Étienne, dedicated to Saint Stephen, built just west of present cathedral.[14]

1163 – Bishop Maurice de Sully begins construction of new cathedral.[14]

1182 or 1185 – Choir completed, clerestory with two levels: upper level of upright windows with pointed arches, still without tracery, lower level of small rose windows.

c. 1200 – Construction of nave, with flying buttresses, completed.

c. 1210–1220 – Construction of towers begins.

c. 1210–1220 – Two new traverses join towers with nave. West rose window complete in 1220.

After 1220 – New flying buttresses added to choir walls, remodeling of the clerestories: pointed arched windows are enlarged downward, replacing the triforia, and get tracery.

1235–1245 – Chapels constructed between buttresses of nave and choir.

1250–1260 – North transept lengthened by Jean de Chelles to provide more light. North rose window constructed.[15]

1270 – South transept and rose window completed by Pierre de Montreuil.[16]

1699 – Beginning of major redecoration of interior in Louis XIV style by Hardouin Mansart and Robert de Cotte.[17]

1725–1727 – South rose window, poorly built, is reconstructed. Later entirely rebuilt in 1854.

1790 – In the French Revolution the Revolutionary Paris Commune removes all bronze, lead, and precious metals from the cathedral to be melted down.[16]

1793 – The cathedral is converted into a Temple of Reason and then Temple of the Supreme Being.

1801–1802 – With the Concordat of 1801, Napoleon restores the use of the cathedral (though not ownership) to the Catholic Church.

1804 – On 2 December, Napoleon crowns himself Emperor at Notre-Dame.

1805 – The cathedral is conceded the honor of minor basilica by Pope Pius VII, making it the first minor basilica outside of Italy.[18]

1844–1864 – Major restoration by Jean-Baptiste Lassus and Eugène Viollet-le-Duc with additions in the spirit of the original Gothic style.[19]

1871 – In final days of the Paris Commune, Communards attempt unsuccessfully to burn the cathedral.

1944 – On 26 August, General Charles de Gaulle celebrates the Liberation of Paris with a special Mass at Notre-Dame.

1949 – On 26 April, the Archbishop of Paris, Emmanuel Célestin Suhard, crowns the venerated image of Our Lady of Guadalupe in the name of Pope Pius XII.

1963 – Culture Minister André Malraux orders the cleaning of the cathedral façade of centuries of grime and soot.

2019 – On 15 April, a fire destroys a large part of the roof and the flèche.

2021 – Reconstruction begins two years after the fire that destroyed a large part of the roof and the flèche.

2024 - Expected reopening of the Cathedral to occur on 8 December.

 

It is believed that before the arrival of Christianity in France, a Gallo-Roman temple dedicated to Jupiter stood on the site of Notre-Dame. Evidence for this includes the Pillar of the Boatmen, discovered beneath the cathedral in 1710. In the 4th or 5th century, a large early Christian church, the Cathedral of Saint Étienne, was built on the site, close to the royal palace.[14] The entrance was situated about 40 metres (130 ft) west of the present west front of Notre-Dame, and the apse was located about where the west façade is today. It was roughly half the size of the later Notre-Dame, 70 metres (230 ft) long—and separated into nave and four aisles by marble columns, then decorated with mosaics.[7][20]

 

The last church before the cathedral of Notre-Dame was a Romanesque remodeling of Saint-Étienne that, although enlarged and remodeled, was found to be unfit for the growing population of Paris.[21][b] A baptistery, the Church of Saint-John-le-Rond, built about 452, was located on the north side of the west front of Notre-Dame until the work of Jacques-Germain Soufflot in the 18th century.[23]

 

In 1160, the Bishop of Paris, Maurice de Sully,[23] decided to build a new and much larger church. He summarily demolished the earlier cathedral and recycled its materials.[21] Sully decided that the new church should be built in the Gothic style, which had been inaugurated at the royal abbey of Saint Denis in the late 1130s.

 

The chronicler Jean de Saint-Victor [fr] recorded in the Memorial Historiarum that the construction of Notre-Dame began between 24 March and 25 April 1163 with the laying of the cornerstone in the presence of King Louis VII and Pope Alexander III.[24][25] Four phases of construction took place under bishops Maurice de Sully and Eudes de Sully (not related to Maurice), according to masters whose names have been lost. Analysis of vault stones that fell in the 2019 fire shows that they were quarried in Vexin, a county northwest of Paris, and presumably brought up the Seine by ferry.

 

The first phase began with the construction of the choir and its two ambulatories. According to Robert of Torigni, the choir was completed in 1177 and the high altar consecrated on 19 May 1182 by Cardinal Henri de Château-Marçay, the Papal legate in Paris, and Maurice de Sully.[28][failed verification] The second phase, from 1182 to 1190, concerned the construction of the four sections of the nave behind the choir and its aisles to the height of the clerestories. It began after the completion of the choir but ended before the final allotted section of the nave was finished. Beginning in 1190, the bases of the façade were put in place, and the first traverses were completed.[7] Heraclius of Caesarea called for the Third Crusade in 1185 from the still-incomplete cathedral.

 

Louis IX deposited the relics of the passion of Christ, which included the Crown of thorns, a nail from the Cross and a sliver of the Cross, which he had purchased at great expense from the Latin Emperor Baldwin II, in the cathedral during the construction of the Sainte-Chapelle. An under-shirt, believed to have belonged to Louis, was added to the collection of relics at some time after his death.

 

Transepts were added at the choir, where the altar was located, in order to bring more light into the centre of the church. The use of simpler four-part rather than six-part rib vaults meant that the roofs were stronger and could be higher. After Bishop Maurice de Sully's death in 1196, his successor, Eudes de Sully oversaw the completion of the transepts, and continued work on the nave, which was nearing completion at the time of his death in 1208. By this time, the western façade was already largely built, though it was not completed until around the mid-1240s. Between 1225 and 1250 the upper gallery of the nave was constructed, along with the two towers on the west façade.

 

Another significant change came in the mid-13th century, when the transepts were remodelled in the latest Rayonnant style; in the late 1240s Jean de Chelles added a gabled portal to the north transept topped by a spectacular rose window. Shortly afterward (from 1258) Pierre de Montreuil executed a similar scheme on the southern transept. Both these transept portals were richly embellished with sculpture; the south portal depicts scenes from the lives of Saint Stephen and of various local saints, while the north portal featured the infancy of Christ and the story of Theophilus in the tympanum, with a highly influential statue of the Virgin and Child in the trumeau.[30][29] Master builders Pierre de Chelles, Jean Ravy [fr], Jean le Bouteiller, and Raymond du Temple [fr] succeeded de Chelles and de Montreuil and then each other in the construction of the cathedral. Ravy completed de Chelles's rood screen and chevet chapels, then began the 15-metre (49 ft) flying buttresses of the choir. Jean le Bouteiller, Ravy's nephew, succeeded him in 1344 and was himself replaced on his death in 1363 by his deputy, Raymond du Temple.

 

Philip the Fair opened the first Estates General in the cathedral in 1302.

 

An important innovation in the 13th century was the introduction of the flying buttress. Before the buttresses, all of the weight of the roof pressed outward and down to the walls, and the abutments supporting them. With the flying buttress, the weight was carried by the ribs of the vault entirely outside the structure to a series of counter-supports, which were topped with stone pinnacles which gave them greater weight. The buttresses meant that the walls could be higher and thinner, and could have larger windows. The date of the first buttresses is not known with precision beyond an installation date in the 13th century. Art historian Andrew Tallon, however, has argued, based on detailed laser scans of the entire structure, that the buttresses were part of the original design. According to Tallon, the scans indicate that "the upper part of the building has not moved one smidgen in 800 years,"[31] whereas if they were added later some movement from prior to their addition would be expected. Tallon thus concluded that flying buttresses were present from the outset.[31] The first buttresses were replaced by larger and stronger ones in the 14th century; these had a reach of fifteen metres (50') between the walls and counter-supports.[7]

 

John of Jandun recognized the cathedral as one of Paris's three most important buildings [prominent structures] in his 1323 Treatise on the Praises of Paris:

 

That most glorious church of the most glorious Virgin Mary, mother of God, deservedly shines out, like the sun among stars. And although some speakers, by their own free judgment, because [they are] able to see only a few things easily, may say that some other is more beautiful, I believe, however, respectfully, that, if they attend more diligently to the whole and the parts, they will quickly retract this opinion. Where indeed, I ask, would they find two towers of such magnificence and perfection, so high, so large, so strong, clothed round about with such multiple varieties of ornaments? Where, I ask, would they find such a multipartite arrangement of so many lateral vaults, above and below? Where, I ask, would they find such light-filled amenities as the many surrounding chapels? Furthermore, let them tell me in what church I may see such a large cross, of which one arm separates the choir from the nave. Finally, I would willingly learn where [there are] two such circles, situated opposite each other in a straight line, which on account of their appearance are given the name of the fourth vowel [O]; among which smaller orbs and circles, with wondrous artifice, so that some arranged circularly, others angularly, surround windows ruddy with precious colours and beautiful with the most subtle figures of the pictures. In fact, I believe that this church offers the carefully discerning such cause for admiration that its inspection can scarcely sate the soul.

 

— Jean de Jandun, Tractatus de laudibus Parisius

 

On 16 December 1431, the boy-king Henry VI of England was crowned king of France in Notre-Dame, aged ten, the traditional coronation church of Reims Cathedral being under French control.[33]

 

During the Renaissance, the Gothic style fell out of style, and the internal pillars and walls of Notre-Dame were covered with tapestries.[34]

 

In 1548, rioting Huguenots damaged some of the statues of Notre-Dame, considering them idolatrous.[35]

 

The fountain [fr] in Notre-Dame's parvis was added in 1625 to provide nearby Parisians with running water.[36]

 

Since 1449, the Parisian goldsmith guild had made regular donations to the cathedral chapter. In 1630, the guild began donating a large altarpiece every year on the first of May. These works came to be known as the grands mays.[37] The subject matter was restricted to episodes from the Acts of the Apostles. The prestigious commission was awarded to the most prominent painters and, after 1648, members of the Académie Royale.

 

Seventy-six paintings had been donated by 1708, when the custom was discontinued for financial reasons. Those works were confiscated in 1793 and the majority were subsequently dispersed among regional museums in France. Those that remained in the cathedral were removed or relocated within the building by the 19th-century restorers.

 

Today, thirteen of the grands mays hang in Notre-Dame although these paintings suffered water damage during the fire of 2019 and were removed for conservation.

 

An altarpiece depicting the Visitation, painted by Jean Jouvenet in 1707, was also located in the cathedral.

 

The canon Antoine de La Porte commissioned for Louis XIV six paintings depicting the life of the Virgin Mary for the choir. At this same time, Charles de La Fosse painted his Adoration of the Magi, now in the Louvre.[38] Louis Antoine de Noailles, archbishop of Paris, extensively modified the roof of Notre-Dame in 1726, renovating its framing and removing the gargoyles with lead gutters. Noailles also strengthened the buttresses, galleries, terraces, and vaults.[39] In 1756, the cathedral's canons decided that its interior was too dark. The medieval stained glass windows, except the rosettes, were removed and replaced with plain, white glass panes.[34] Lastly, Jacques-Germain Soufflot was tasked with the modification of the portals at the front of the cathedral to allow processions to enter more easily.

 

After the French Revolution in 1789, Notre-Dame and the rest of the church's property in France was seized and made public property.[40] The cathedral was rededicated in 1793 to the Cult of Reason, and then to the Cult of the Supreme Being in 1794.[41] During this time, many of the treasures of the cathedral were either destroyed or plundered. The twenty-eight statues of biblical kings located at the west façade, mistaken for statues of French kings, were beheaded.[7][42] Many of the heads were found during a 1977 excavation nearby, and are on display at the Musée de Cluny. For a time the Goddess of Liberty replaced the Virgin Mary on several altars.[43] The cathedral's great bells escaped being melted down. All of the other large statues on the façade, with the exception of the statue of the Virgin Mary on the portal of the cloister, were destroyed.[7] The cathedral came to be used as a warehouse for the storage of food and other non-religious purposes.[35]

 

With the Concordat of 1801, Napoleon Bonaparte restored Notre-Dame to the Catholic Church, though this was only finalized on 18 April 1802. Napoleon also named Paris's new bishop, Jean-Baptiste de Belloy, who restored the cathedral's interior. Charles Percier and Pierre-François-Léonard Fontaine made quasi-Gothic modifications to Notre-Dame for the coronation of Napoleon as Emperor of the French within the cathedral. The building's exterior was whitewashed and the interior decorated in Neoclassical style, then in vogue.

 

In the decades after the Napoleonic Wars, Notre-Dame fell into such a state of disrepair that Paris officials considered its demolition. Victor Hugo, who admired the cathedral, wrote the novel Notre-Dame de Paris (published in English as The Hunchback of Notre-Dame) in 1831 to save Notre-Dame. The book was an enormous success, raising awareness of the cathedral's decaying state.[7] The same year as Hugo's novel was published, however, anti-Legitimists plundered Notre-Dame's sacristy.[45] In 1844 King Louis Philippe ordered that the church be restored.[7]

 

The architect who had hitherto been in charge of Notre-Dame's maintenance, Étienne-Hippolyte Godde, was dismissed. In his stead, Jean-Baptiste Lassus and Eugène Viollet-le-Duc, who had distinguished themselves with the restoration of the nearby Sainte-Chapelle, were appointed in 1844. The next year, Viollet-le-Duc submitted a budget of 3,888,500 francs, which was reduced to 2,650,000 francs, for the restoration of Notre-Dame and the construction of a new sacristy building. This budget was exhausted in 1850, and work stopped as Viollet-le-Duc made proposals for more money. In totality, the restoration cost over 12 million francs. Supervising a large team of sculptors, glass makers and other craftsmen, and working from drawings or engravings, Viollet-le-Duc remade or added decorations if he felt they were in the spirit of the original style. One of the latter items was a taller and more ornate flèche, to replace the original 13th-century flèche, which had been removed in 1786.[46] The decoration of the restoration included a bronze roof statue of Saint Thomas that resembles Viollet-le-Duc, as well as the sculpture of mythical creatures on the Galerie des Chimères.[35]

 

The construction of the sacristy was especially financially costly. To secure a firm foundation, it was necessary for Viollet-le-Duc's labourers to dig 9 metres (30 ft). Master glassworkers meticulously copied styles of the 13th century, as written about by art historians Antoine Lusson and Adolphe Napoléon Didron.[47]

 

During the Paris Commune of March through May 1871, the cathedral and other churches were closed, and some two hundred priests and the Archbishop of Paris were taken as hostages. In May, during the Semaine sanglante of "Bloody Week", as the army recaptured the city, the Communards targeted the cathedral, along with the Tuileries Palace and other landmarks, for destruction; the Communards piled the furniture together in order to burn the cathedral. The arson was halted when the Communard government realised that the fire would also destroy the neighbouring Hôtel-Dieu hospital, filled with hundreds of patients

 

During the liberation of Paris in August 1944, the cathedral suffered some minor damage from stray bullets. Some of the medieval glass was damaged, and was replaced by glass with modern abstract designs. On 26 August, a special Mass was held in the cathedral to celebrate the liberation of Paris from the Germans; it was attended by General Charles De Gaulle and General Philippe Leclerc.

 

In 1963, on the initiative of culture minister André Malraux and to mark the 800th anniversary of the cathedral, the façade was cleaned of the centuries of soot and grime, restoring it to its original off-white colour.[49]

 

On 19 January 1969, vandals placed a North Vietnamese flag at the top the flèche, and sabotaged the stairway leading to it. The flag was cut from the flèche by Paris Fire Brigade Sergeant Raymond Belle in a daring helicopter mission, the first of its kind in France.[50][51][52]

 

The Requiem Mass of Charles de Gaulle was held in Notre-Dame on 12 November 1970.[53] The next year, on 26 June 1971, Philippe Petit walked across a tight-rope strung between Notre-Dame's two bell towers entertaining spectators.[54]

 

After the Magnificat of 30 May 1980, Pope John Paul II celebrated Mass on the parvis of the cathedral.[55]

 

The Requiem Mass of François Mitterrand was held at the cathedral, as with past French heads of state, on 11 January 1996.[56]

 

The stone masonry of the cathedral's exterior had deteriorated in the 19th and 20th century due to increased air pollution in Paris, which accelerated erosion of decorations and discoloured the stone. By the late 1980s, several gargoyles and turrets had also fallen or become too loose to safely remain in place.[57] A decade-long renovation programme began in 1991 and replaced much of the exterior, with care given to retain the authentic architectural elements of the cathedral, including rigorous inspection of new limestone blocks.[57][58] A discreet system of electrical wires, not visible from below, was also installed on the roof to deter pigeons.[59] The cathedral's pipe organ was upgraded with a computerized system to control the mechanical connections to the pipes.[60] The west face was cleaned and restored in time for millennium celebrations in December 1999.

 

The Requiem Mass of Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger, former archbishop of Paris and Jewish convert to Catholicism, was held in Notre-Dame on 10 August 2007.[62]

 

The set of four 19th-century bells at the top of the northern towers at Notre-Dame were melted down and recast into new bronze bells in 2013, to celebrate the building's 850th anniversary. They were designed to recreate the sound of the cathedral's original bells from the 17th century.[63][64] Despite the 1990s renovation, the cathedral had continued to show signs of deterioration that prompted the national government to propose a new renovation program in the late 2010s.[65][66] The entire renovation was estimated to cost €100 million, which the archbishop of Paris planned to raise through funds from the national government and private donations.[67] A €6 million renovation of the cathedral's flèche began in late 2018 and continued into the following year, requiring the temporary removal of copper statues on the roof and other decorative elements days before the April 2019 fire.[68][69]

 

Notre-Dame began a year-long celebration of the 850th anniversary of the laying of the first building block for the cathedral on 12 December 2012.[70] During that anniversary year, on 21 May 2013, Dominique Venner, a historian and white nationalist, placed a letter on the church altar and shot himself, dying instantly. Around 1,500 visitors were evacuated from the cathedral.[71]

 

French police arrested two people on 8 September 2016 after a car containing seven gasoline canisters was found near Notre-Dame.[72]

 

On 10 February 2017, French police arrested four persons in Montpellier already known by authorities to have ties to radical Islamist organizations on charges of plotting to travel to Paris and attack the cathedral.[73] Later that year, on 6 June, visitors were shut inside Notre-Dame cathedral in Paris after a man with a hammer attacked a police officer outside.

 

Paris is the capital and most populous city of France. With an official estimated population of 2,102,650 residents as of 1 January 2023[2] in an area of more than 105 km2 (41 sq mi) Paris is the fourth-most populated city in the European Union and the 30th most densely populated city in the world in 2022. Since the 17th century, Paris has been one of the world's major centres of finance, diplomacy, commerce, culture, fashion, and gastronomy. For its leading role in the arts and sciences, as well as its early and extensive system of street lighting, in the 19th century, it became known as the City of Light.

 

The City of Paris is the centre of the Île-de-France region, or Paris Region, with an official estimated population of 12,271,794 inhabitants on 1 January 2023, or about 19% of the population of France, The Paris Region had a GDP of €765 billion (US$1.064 trillion, PPP) in 2021, the highest in the European Union. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit Worldwide Cost of Living Survey, in 2022, Paris was the city with the ninth-highest cost of living in the world.

 

Paris is a major railway, highway, and air-transport hub served by two international airports: Charles de Gaulle Airport (the third-busiest airport in Europe) and Orly Airport. Opened in 1900, the city's subway system, the Paris Métro, serves 5.23 million passengers daily; it is the second-busiest metro system in Europe after the Moscow Metro. Gare du Nord is the 24th-busiest railway station in the world and the busiest outside Japan, with 262 million passengers in 2015. Paris has one of the most sustainable transportation systems and is one of the only two cities in the world that received the Sustainable Transport Award twice.

 

Paris is especially known for its museums and architectural landmarks: the Louvre received 8.9. million visitors in 2023, on track for keeping its position as the most-visited art museum in the world. The Musée d'Orsay, Musée Marmottan Monet and Musée de l'Orangerie are noted for their collections of French Impressionist art. The Pompidou Centre Musée National d'Art Moderne, Musée Rodin and Musée Picasso are noted for their collections of modern and contemporary art. The historical district along the Seine in the city centre has been classified as a UNESCO World Heritage Site since 1991.

 

Paris hosts several United Nations organizations including UNESCO, and other international organizations such as the OECD, the OECD Development Centre, the International Bureau of Weights and Measures, the International Energy Agency, the International Federation for Human Rights, along with European bodies such as the European Space Agency, the European Banking Authority and the European Securities and Markets Authority. The football club Paris Saint-Germain and the rugby union club Stade Français are based in Paris. The 80,000-seat Stade de France, built for the 1998 FIFA World Cup, is located just north of Paris in the neighbouring commune of Saint-Denis. Paris hosts the annual French Open Grand Slam tennis tournament on the red clay of Roland Garros. The city hosted the Olympic Games in 1900 and 1924, and will host the 2024 Summer Olympics. The 1938 and 1998 FIFA World Cups, the 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup, the 2007 Rugby World Cup, as well as the 1960, 1984 and 2016 UEFA European Championships were also held in the city. Every July, the Tour de France bicycle race finishes on the Avenue des Champs-Élysées in Paris.

 

The Parisii, a sub-tribe of the Celtic Senones, inhabited the Paris area from around the middle of the 3rd century BC. One of the area's major north–south trade routes crossed the Seine on the île de la Cité, which gradually became an important trading centre. The Parisii traded with many river towns (some as far away as the Iberian Peninsula) and minted their own coins.

 

The Romans conquered the Paris Basin in 52 BC and began their settlement on Paris's Left Bank. The Roman town was originally called Lutetia (more fully, Lutetia Parisiorum, "Lutetia of the Parisii", modern French Lutèce). It became a prosperous city with a forum, baths, temples, theatres, and an amphitheatre.

 

By the end of the Western Roman Empire, the town was known as Parisius, a Latin name that would later become Paris in French. Christianity was introduced in the middle of the 3rd century AD by Saint Denis, the first Bishop of Paris: according to legend, when he refused to renounce his faith before the Roman occupiers, he was beheaded on the hill which became known as Mons Martyrum (Latin "Hill of Martyrs"), later "Montmartre", from where he walked headless to the north of the city; the place where he fell and was buried became an important religious shrine, the Basilica of Saint-Denis, and many French kings are buried there.

 

Clovis the Frank, the first king of the Merovingian dynasty, made the city his capital from 508. As the Frankish domination of Gaul began, there was a gradual immigration by the Franks to Paris and the Parisian Francien dialects were born. Fortification of the Île de la Cité failed to avert sacking by Vikings in 845, but Paris's strategic importance—with its bridges preventing ships from passing—was established by successful defence in the Siege of Paris (885–886), for which the then Count of Paris (comte de Paris), Odo of France, was elected king of West Francia. From the Capetian dynasty that began with the 987 election of Hugh Capet, Count of Paris and Duke of the Franks (duc des Francs), as king of a unified West Francia, Paris gradually became the largest and most prosperous city in France.

 

By the end of the 12th century, Paris had become the political, economic, religious, and cultural capital of France.[36] The Palais de la Cité, the royal residence, was located at the western end of the Île de la Cité. In 1163, during the reign of Louis VII, Maurice de Sully, bishop of Paris, undertook the construction of the Notre Dame Cathedral at its eastern extremity.

 

After the marshland between the river Seine and its slower 'dead arm' to its north was filled in from around the 10th century, Paris's cultural centre began to move to the Right Bank. In 1137, a new city marketplace (today's Les Halles) replaced the two smaller ones on the Île de la Cité and Place de Grève (Place de l'Hôtel de Ville). The latter location housed the headquarters of Paris's river trade corporation, an organisation that later became, unofficially (although formally in later years), Paris's first municipal government.

 

In the late 12th century, Philip Augustus extended the Louvre fortress to defend the city against river invasions from the west, gave the city its first walls between 1190 and 1215, rebuilt its bridges to either side of its central island, and paved its main thoroughfares. In 1190, he transformed Paris's former cathedral school into a student-teacher corporation that would become the University of Paris and would draw students from all of Europe.

 

With 200,000 inhabitants in 1328, Paris, then already the capital of France, was the most populous city of Europe. By comparison, London in 1300 had 80,000 inhabitants. By the early fourteenth century, so much filth had collected inside urban Europe that French and Italian cities were naming streets after human waste. In medieval Paris, several street names were inspired by merde, the French word for "shit".

 

During the Hundred Years' War, Paris was occupied by England-friendly Burgundian forces from 1418, before being occupied outright by the English when Henry V of England entered the French capital in 1420; in spite of a 1429 effort by Joan of Arc to liberate the city, it would remain under English occupation until 1436.

 

In the late 16th-century French Wars of Religion, Paris was a stronghold of the Catholic League, the organisers of 24 August 1572 St. Bartholomew's Day massacre in which thousands of French Protestants were killed. The conflicts ended when pretender to the throne Henry IV, after converting to Catholicism to gain entry to the capital, entered the city in 1594 to claim the crown of France. This king made several improvements to the capital during his reign: he completed the construction of Paris's first uncovered, sidewalk-lined bridge, the Pont Neuf, built a Louvre extension connecting it to the Tuileries Palace, and created the first Paris residential square, the Place Royale, now Place des Vosges. In spite of Henry IV's efforts to improve city circulation, the narrowness of Paris's streets was a contributing factor in his assassination near Les Halles marketplace in 1610.

 

During the 17th century, Cardinal Richelieu, chief minister of Louis XIII, was determined to make Paris the most beautiful city in Europe. He built five new bridges, a new chapel for the College of Sorbonne, and a palace for himself, the Palais-Cardinal. After Richelieu's death in 1642, it was renamed the Palais-Royal.

 

Due to the Parisian uprisings during the Fronde civil war, Louis XIV moved his court to a new palace, Versailles, in 1682. Although no longer the capital of France, arts and sciences in the city flourished with the Comédie-Française, the Academy of Painting, and the French Academy of Sciences. To demonstrate that the city was safe from attack, the king had the city walls demolished and replaced with tree-lined boulevards that would become the Grands Boulevards. Other marks of his reign were the Collège des Quatre-Nations, the Place Vendôme, the Place des Victoires, and Les Invalides.

 

18th and 19th centuries

Empire, and Haussmann's renovation of Paris

Paris grew in population from about 400,000 in 1640, to 650,000 in 1780. A new boulevard named the Champs-Élysées extended the city west to Étoile, while the working-class neighbourhood of the Faubourg Saint-Antoine on the eastern side of the city grew increasingly crowded with poor migrant workers from other regions of France.

 

Paris was the centre of an explosion of philosophic and scientific activity, known as the Age of Enlightenment. Diderot and d'Alembert published their Encyclopédie in 1751, and the Montgolfier Brothers launched the first manned flight in a hot air balloon on 21 November 1783. Paris was the financial capital of continental Europe, and the primary European centre of book publishing, fashion and the manufacture of fine furniture and luxury goods.

 

In the summer of 1789, Paris became the centre stage of the French Revolution. On 14 July, a mob seized the arsenal at the Invalides, acquiring thousands of guns, and stormed the Bastille, which was a principal symbol of royal authority. The first independent Paris Commune, or city council, met in the Hôtel de Ville and elected a Mayor, the astronomer Jean Sylvain Bailly, on 15 July.

 

Louis XVI and the royal family were brought to Paris and incarcerated in the Tuileries Palace. In 1793, as the revolution turned increasingly radical, the king, queen and mayor were beheaded by guillotine in the Reign of Terror, along with more than 16,000 others throughout France. The property of the aristocracy and the church was nationalised, and the city's churches were closed, sold or demolished. A succession of revolutionary factions ruled Paris until 9 November 1799 (coup d'état du 18 brumaire), when Napoleon Bonaparte seized power as First Consul.

 

The population of Paris had dropped by 100,000 during the Revolution, but after 1799 it surged with 160,000 new residents, reaching 660,000 by 1815. Napoleon replaced the elected government of Paris with a prefect that reported directly to him. He began erecting monuments to military glory, including the Arc de Triomphe, and improved the neglected infrastructure of the city with new fountains, the Canal de l'Ourcq, Père Lachaise Cemetery and the city's first metal bridge, the Pont des Arts.

  

The Eiffel Tower, under construction in November 1888, startled Parisians—and the world—with its modernity.

During the Restoration, the bridges and squares of Paris were returned to their pre-Revolution names; the July Revolution in 1830 (commemorated by the July Column on the Place de la Bastille) brought to power a constitutional monarch, Louis Philippe I. The first railway line to Paris opened in 1837, beginning a new period of massive migration from the provinces to the city. In 1848, Louis-Philippe was overthrown by a popular uprising in the streets of Paris. His successor, Napoleon III, alongside the newly appointed prefect of the Seine, Georges-Eugène Haussmann, launched a huge public works project to build wide new boulevards, a new opera house, a central market, new aqueducts, sewers and parks, including the Bois de Boulogne and Bois de Vincennes. In 1860, Napoleon III annexed the surrounding towns and created eight new arrondissements, expanding Paris to its current limits.

 

During the Franco-Prussian War (1870–1871), Paris was besieged by the Prussian Army. Following several months of blockade, hunger, and then bombardment by the Prussians, the city was forced to surrender on 28 January 1871. After seizing power in Paris on 28 March, a revolutionary government known as the Paris Commune held power for two months, before being harshly suppressed by the French army during the "Bloody Week" at the end of May 1871.

 

In the late 19th century, Paris hosted two major international expositions: the 1889 Universal Exposition, which featured the new Eiffel Tower, was held to mark the centennial of the French Revolution; and the 1900 Universal Exposition gave Paris the Pont Alexandre III, the Grand Palais, the Petit Palais and the first Paris Métro line. Paris became the laboratory of Naturalism (Émile Zola) and Symbolism (Charles Baudelaire and Paul Verlaine), and of Impressionism in art (Courbet, Manet, Monet, Renoir).

 

20th and 21st centuries

World War, Paris between the Wars (1919–1939), Paris in World War II, and History of Paris (1946–2000)

By 1901, the population of Paris had grown to about 2,715,000. At the beginning of the century, artists from around the world including Pablo Picasso, Modigliani, and Henri Matisse made Paris their home. It was the birthplace of Fauvism, Cubism and abstract art, and authors such as Marcel Proust were exploring new approaches to literature.

 

During the First World War, Paris sometimes found itself on the front line; 600 to 1,000 Paris taxis played a small but highly important symbolic role in transporting 6,000 soldiers to the front line at the First Battle of the Marne. The city was also bombed by Zeppelins and shelled by German long-range guns. In the years after the war, known as Les Années Folles, Paris continued to be a mecca for writers, musicians and artists from around the world, including Ernest Hemingway, Igor Stravinsky, James Joyce, Josephine Baker, Eva Kotchever, Henry Miller, Anaïs Nin, Sidney Bechet and Salvador Dalí.

 

In the years after the peace conference, the city was also home to growing numbers of students and activists from French colonies and other Asian and African countries, who later became leaders of their countries, such as Ho Chi Minh, Zhou Enlai and Léopold Sédar Senghor.

  

General Charles de Gaulle on the Champs-Élysées celebrating the liberation of Paris, 26 August 1944

On 14 June 1940, the German army marched into Paris, which had been declared an "open city". On 16–17 July 1942, following German orders, the French police and gendarmes arrested 12,884 Jews, including 4,115 children, and confined them during five days at the Vel d'Hiv (Vélodrome d'Hiver), from which they were transported by train to the extermination camp at Auschwitz. None of the children came back. On 25 August 1944, the city was liberated by the French 2nd Armoured Division and the 4th Infantry Division of the United States Army. General Charles de Gaulle led a huge and emotional crowd down the Champs Élysées towards Notre Dame de Paris, and made a rousing speech from the Hôtel de Ville.

 

In the 1950s and the 1960s, Paris became one front of the Algerian War for independence; in August 1961, the pro-independence FLN targeted and killed 11 Paris policemen, leading to the imposition of a curfew on Muslims of Algeria (who, at that time, were French citizens). On 17 October 1961, an unauthorised but peaceful protest demonstration of Algerians against the curfew led to violent confrontations between the police and demonstrators, in which at least 40 people were killed. The anti-independence Organisation armée secrète (OAS) carried out a series of bombings in Paris throughout 1961 and 1962.

 

In May 1968, protesting students occupied the Sorbonne and put up barricades in the Latin Quarter. Thousands of Parisian blue-collar workers joined the students, and the movement grew into a two-week general strike. Supporters of the government won the June elections by a large majority. The May 1968 events in France resulted in the break-up of the University of Paris into 13 independent campuses. In 1975, the National Assembly changed the status of Paris to that of other French cities and, on 25 March 1977, Jacques Chirac became the first elected mayor of Paris since 1793. The Tour Maine-Montparnasse, the tallest building in the city at 57 storeys and 210 m (689 ft) high, was built between 1969 and 1973. It was highly controversial, and it remains the only building in the centre of the city over 32 storeys high. The population of Paris dropped from 2,850,000 in 1954 to 2,152,000 in 1990, as middle-class families moved to the suburbs. A suburban railway network, the RER (Réseau Express Régional), was built to complement the Métro; the Périphérique expressway encircling the city, was completed in 1973.

 

Most of the postwar presidents of the Fifth Republic wanted to leave their own monuments in Paris; President Georges Pompidou started the Centre Georges Pompidou (1977), Valéry Giscard d'Estaing began the Musée d'Orsay (1986); President François Mitterrand had the Opéra Bastille built (1985–1989), the new site of the Bibliothèque nationale de France (1996), the Arche de la Défense (1985–1989) in La Défense, as well as the Louvre Pyramid with its underground courtyard (1983–1989); Jacques Chirac (2006), the Musée du quai Branly.

 

In the early 21st century, the population of Paris began to increase slowly again, as more young people moved into the city. It reached 2.25 million in 2011. In March 2001, Bertrand Delanoë became the first socialist mayor. He was re-elected in March 2008. In 2007, in an effort to reduce car traffic, he introduced the Vélib', a system which rents bicycles. Bertrand Delanoë also transformed a section of the highway along the Left Bank of the Seine into an urban promenade and park, the Promenade des Berges de la Seine, which he inaugurated in June 2013.

 

In 2007, President Nicolas Sarkozy launched the Grand Paris project, to integrate Paris more closely with the towns in the region around it. After many modifications, the new area, named the Metropolis of Grand Paris, with a population of 6.7 million, was created on 1 January 2016. In 2011, the City of Paris and the national government approved the plans for the Grand Paris Express, totalling 205 km (127 mi) of automated metro lines to connect Paris, the innermost three departments around Paris, airports and high-speed rail (TGV) stations, at an estimated cost of €35 billion.The system is scheduled to be completed by 2030.

 

In January 2015, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula claimed attacks across the Paris region. 1.5 million people marched in Paris in a show of solidarity against terrorism and in support of freedom of speech. In November of the same year, terrorist attacks, claimed by ISIL, killed 130 people and injured more than 350.

 

On 22 April 2016, the Paris Agreement was signed by 196 nations of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in an aim to limit the effects of climate change below 2 °C.

 

Three small pieces, of similar design and fabric..... original designs...and all figments of my imagination...nothing more.

Machine stitched,...not computerized.... and no handwork.

Two Lockheed Martin F-35B "Lightning II" fighter jets have successfully landed on board HMS Queen Elizabeth for the first time, laying the foundations for the next 50 years of fixed wing aviation in support of the UK’s Carrier Strike Capability.

 

Royal Navy Commander, Nathan Gray, 41, made history by being the first to land on board HMS Queen Elizabeth, carefully maneuvering his stealth jet onto the thermal coated deck. He was followed by Squadron Leader Andy Edgell, RAF, both of whom are test pilots, operating with the Integrated Test Force (ITF) based at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland.

 

Shortly afterwards, once a deck inspection has been conducted and the all-clear given, Cmdr Gray became the first pilot to take off using the ship’s ski-ramp.

  

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is a family of single-seat, single-engine, all-weather, stealth, fifth-generation, multirole combat aircraft, designed for ground-attack and air-superiority missions. It is built by Lockheed Martin and many subcontractors, including Northrop Grumman, Pratt & Whitney, and BAE Systems.

 

The F-35 has three main models: the conventional takeoff and landing F-35A (CTOL), the short take-off and vertical-landing F-35B (STOVL), and the catapult-assisted take-off but arrested recovery, carrier-based F-35C (CATOBAR). The F-35 descends from the Lockheed Martin X-35, the design that was awarded the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program over the competing Boeing X-32. The official Lightning II name has proven deeply unpopular and USAF pilots have nicknamed it Panther, instead.

 

The United States principally funds F-35 development, with additional funding from other NATO members and close U.S. allies, including the United Kingdom, Italy, Australia, Canada, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, and formerly Turkey. These funders generally receive subcontracts to manufacture components for the aircraft; for example, Turkey was the sole supplier of several F-35 parts until its removal from the program in July 2019. Several other countries have ordered, or are considering ordering, the aircraft.

 

As the largest and most expensive military program ever, the F-35 became the subject of much scrutiny and criticism in the U.S. and in other countries. In 2013 and 2014, critics argued that the plane was "plagued with design flaws", with many blaming the procurement process in which Lockheed was allowed "to design, test, and produce the F-35 all at the same time," instead of identifying and fixing "defects before firing up its production line". By 2014, the program was "$163 billion over budget [and] seven years behind schedule". Critics also contend that the program's high sunk costs and political momentum make it "too big to kill".

 

The F-35 first flew on 15 December 2006. In July 2015, the United States Marines declared its first squadron of F-35B fighters ready for deployment. However, the DOD-based durability testing indicated the service life of early-production F-35B aircraft is well under the expected 8,000 flight hours, and may be as low as 2,100 flight hours. Lot 9 and later aircraft include design changes but service life testing has yet to occur. The U.S. Air Force declared its first squadron of F-35As ready for deployment in August 2016. The U.S. Navy declared its first F-35Cs ready in February 2019. In 2018, the F-35 made its combat debut with the Israeli Air Force.

 

The U.S. stated plan is to buy 2,663 F-35s, which will provide the bulk of the crewed tactical airpower of the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps in coming decades. Deliveries of the F-35 for the U.S. military are scheduled until 2037 with a projected service life up to 2070.

 

Development

 

F-35 development started in 1992 with the origins of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program and was to culminate in full production by 2018. The X-35 first flew on 24 October 2000 and the F-35A on 15 December 2006.

 

The F-35 was developed to replace most US fighter jets with the variants of a single design that would be common to all branches of the military. It was developed in co-operation with a number of foreign partners, and, unlike the F-22 Raptor, intended to be available for export. Three variants were designed: the F-35A (CTOL), the F-35B (STOVL), and the F-35C (CATOBAR). Despite being intended to share most of their parts to reduce costs and improve maintenance logistics, by 2017, the effective commonality was only 20%. The program received considerable criticism for cost overruns during development and for the total projected cost of the program over the lifetime of the jets.

 

By 2017, the program was expected to cost $406.5 billion over its lifetime (i.e. until 2070) for acquisition of the jets, and an additional $1.1 trillion for operations and maintenance. A number of design deficiencies were alleged, such as: carrying a small internal payload; performance inferior to the aircraft being replaced, particularly the F-16; lack of safety in relying on a single engine; and flaws such as the vulnerability of the fuel tank to fire and the propensity for transonic roll-off (wing drop). The possible obsolescence of stealth technology was also criticized.

  

Design

 

Overview

 

Although several experimental designs have been developed since the 1960s, such as the unsuccessful Rockwell XFV-12, the F-35B is to be the first operational supersonic STOVL stealth fighter. The single-engine F-35 resembles the larger twin-engined Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, drawing design elements from it. The exhaust duct design was inspired by the General Dynamics Model 200, proposed for a 1972 supersonic VTOL fighter requirement for the Sea Control Ship.

 

Lockheed Martin has suggested that the F-35 could replace the USAF's F-15C/D fighters in the air-superiority role and the F-15E Strike Eagle in the ground-attack role. It has also stated the F-35 is intended to have close- and long-range air-to-air capability second only to that of the F-22 Raptor, and that the F-35 has an advantage over the F-22 in basing flexibility and possesses "advanced sensors and information fusion".

 

Testifying before the House Appropriations Committee on 25 March 2009, acquisition deputy to the assistant secretary of the Air Force, Lt. Gen. Mark D. "Shack" Shackelford, stated that the F-35 is designed to be America's "premier surface-to-air missile killer, and is uniquely equipped for this mission with cutting-edge processing power, synthetic aperture radar integration techniques, and advanced target recognition".

 

Improvements

Ostensible improvements over past-generation fighter aircraft include:

 

Durable, low-maintenance stealth technology, using structural fiber mat instead of the high-maintenance coatings of legacy stealth platforms

Integrated avionics and sensor fusion that combine information from off- and on-board sensors to increase the pilot's situational awareness and improve target identification and weapon delivery, and to relay information quickly to other command and control (C2) nodes

High-speed data networking including IEEE 1394b and Fibre Channel (Fibre Channel is also used on Boeing's Super Hornet.

The Autonomic Logistics Global Sustainment, Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), and Computerized maintenance management system to help ensure the aircraft can remain operational with minimal maintenance manpower The Pentagon has moved to open up the competitive bidding by other companies. This was after Lockheed Martin stated that instead of costing 20% less than the F-16 per flight hour, the F-35 would actually cost 12% more. Though the ALGS is intended to reduce maintenance costs, the company disagrees with including the cost of this system in the aircraft ownership calculations. The USMC has implemented a workaround for a cyber vulnerability in the system. The ALIS system currently requires a shipping-container load of servers to run, but Lockheed is working on a more portable version to support the Marines' expeditionary operations.

Electro-hydrostatic actuators run by a power-by-wire flight-control system

A modern and updated flight simulator, which may be used for a greater fraction of pilot training to reduce the costly flight hours of the actual aircraft

Lightweight, powerful lithium-ion batteries to provide power to run the control surfaces in an emergency

Structural composites in the F-35 are 35% of the airframe weight (up from 25% in the F-22). The majority of these are bismaleimide and composite epoxy materials. The F-35 will be the first mass-produced aircraft to include structural nanocomposites, namely carbon nanotube-reinforced epoxy. Experience of the F-22's problems with corrosion led to the F-35 using a gap filler that causes less galvanic corrosion to the airframe's skin, designed with fewer gaps requiring filler and implementing better drainage. The relatively short 35-foot wingspan of the A and B variants is set by the F-35B's requirement to fit inside the Navy's current amphibious assault ship parking area and elevators; the F-35C's longer wing is considered to be more fuel efficient.

 

Costs

A U.S. Navy study found that the F-35 will cost 30 to 40% more to maintain than current jet fighters, not accounting for inflation over the F-35's operational lifetime. A Pentagon study concluded a $1 trillion maintenance cost for the entire fleet over its lifespan, not accounting for inflation. The F-35 program office found that as of January 2014, costs for the F-35 fleet over a 53-year lifecycle was $857 billion. Costs for the fighter have been dropping and accounted for the 22 percent life cycle drop since 2010. Lockheed stated that by 2019, pricing for the fifth-generation aircraft will be less than fourth-generation fighters. An F-35A in 2019 is expected to cost $85 million per unit complete with engines and full mission systems, inflation adjusted from $75 million in December 2013.

  

Photography shot at location in Coral Gables, FL

www.doctorordonez.com

See more photos of this, and the Wikipedia article.

 

Details, quoting from Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum | Boeing B-29 Superfortress "Enola Gay":

 

Boeing's B-29 Superfortress was the most sophisticated propeller-driven bomber of World War II and the first bomber to house its crew in pressurized compartments. Although designed to fight in the European theater, the B-29 found its niche on the other side of the globe. In the Pacific, B-29s delivered a variety of aerial weapons: conventional bombs, incendiary bombs, mines, and two nuclear weapons.

 

On August 6, 1945, this Martin-built B-29-45-MO dropped the first atomic weapon used in combat on Hiroshima, Japan. Three days later, Bockscar (on display at the U.S. Air Force Museum near Dayton, Ohio) dropped a second atomic bomb on Nagasaki, Japan. Enola Gay flew as the advance weather reconnaissance aircraft that day. A third B-29, The Great Artiste, flew as an observation aircraft on both missions.

 

Transferred from the United States Air Force.

 

Manufacturer:

Boeing Aircraft Co.

Martin Co., Omaha, Nebr.

 

Date:

1945

 

Country of Origin:

United States of America

 

Dimensions:

Overall: 900 x 3020cm, 32580kg, 4300cm (29ft 6 5/16in. x 99ft 1in., 71825.9lb., 141ft 15/16in.)

 

Materials:

Polished overall aluminum finish

 

Physical Description:

Four-engine heavy bomber with semi-monoqoque fuselage and high-aspect ratio wings. Polished aluminum finish overall, standard late-World War II Army Air Forces insignia on wings and aft fuselage and serial number on vertical fin; 509th Composite Group markings painted in black; "Enola Gay" in black, block letters on lower left nose.

 

Long Description:

Boeing's B-29 Superfortress was the most sophisticated, propeller-driven, bomber to fly during World War II, and the first bomber to house its crew in pressurized compartments. Boeing installed very advanced armament, propulsion, and avionics systems into the Superfortress. During the war in the Pacific Theater, the B-29 delivered the first nuclear weapons used in combat. On August 6, 1945, Colonel Paul W. Tibbets, Jr., in command of the Superfortress Enola Gay, dropped a highly enriched uranium, explosion-type, "gun-fired," atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan. Three days later, Major Charles W. Sweeney piloted the B-29 Bockscar and dropped a highly enriched plutonium, implosion-type atomic bomb on Nagasaki, Japan. Enola Gay flew as the advance weather reconnaissance aircraft that day. On August 14, 1945, the Japanese accepted Allied terms for unconditional surrender.

 

In the late 1930s, U. S. Army Air Corps leaders recognized the need for very long-range bombers that exceeded the performance of the B-17 Flying Fortress. Several years of preliminary studies paralleled a continuous fight against those who saw limited utility in developing such an expensive and unproven aircraft but the Air Corps issued a requirement for the new bomber in February 1940. It described an airplane that could carry a maximum bomb load of 909 kg (2,000 lb) at a speed of 644 kph (400 mph) a distance of at least 8,050 km (5,000 miles). Boeing, Consolidated, Douglas, and Lockheed responded with design proposals. The Army was impressed with the Boeing design and issued a contract for two flyable prototypes in September 1940. In April 1941, the Army issued another contract for 250 aircraft plus spare parts equivalent to another 25 bombers, eight months before Pearl Harbor and nearly a year-and-a-half before the first Superfortress would fly.

 

Among the design's innovations was a long, narrow, high-aspect ratio wing equipped with large Fowler-type flaps. This wing design allowed the B-29 to fly very fast at high altitudes but maintained comfortable handling characteristics during takeoff and landing. More revolutionary was the size and sophistication of the pressurized sections of the fuselage: the flight deck forward of the wing, the gunner's compartment aft of the wing, and the tail gunner's station. For the crew, flying at extreme altitudes became much more comfortable as pressure and temperature could be regulated. To protect the Superfortress, Boeing designed a remote-controlled, defensive weapons system. Engineers placed five gun turrets on the fuselage: a turret above and behind the cockpit that housed two .50 caliber machine guns (four guns in later versions), and another turret aft near the vertical tail equipped with two machine guns; plus two more turrets beneath the fuselage, each equipped with two .50 caliber guns. One of these turrets fired from behind the nose gear and the other hung further back near the tail. Another two .50 caliber machine guns and a 20-mm cannon (in early versions of the B-29) were fitted in the tail beneath the rudder. Gunners operated these turrets by remote control--a true innovation. They aimed the guns using computerized sights, and each gunner could take control of two or more turrets to concentrate firepower on a single target.

 

Boeing also equipped the B-29 with advanced radar equipment and avionics. Depending on the type of mission, a B-29 carried the AN/APQ-13 or AN/APQ-7 Eagle radar system to aid bombing and navigation. These systems were accurate enough to permit bombing through cloud layers that completely obscured the target. The B-29B was equipped with the AN/APG-15B airborne radar gun sighting system mounted in the tail, insuring accurate defense against enemy fighters attacking at night. B-29s also routinely carried as many as twenty different types of radios and navigation devices.

 

The first XB-29 took off at Boeing Field in Seattle on September 21, 1942. By the end of the year the second aircraft was ready for flight. Fourteen service-test YB-29s followed as production began to accelerate. Building this advanced bomber required massive logistics. Boeing built new B-29 plants at Renton, Washington, and Wichita, Kansas, while Bell built a new plant at Marietta, Georgia, and Martin built one in Omaha, Nebraska. Both Curtiss-Wright and the Dodge automobile company vastly expanded their manufacturing capacity to build the bomber's powerful and complex Curtiss-Wright R-3350 turbo supercharged engines. The program required thousands of sub-contractors but with extraordinary effort, it all came together, despite major teething problems. By April 1944, the first operational B-29s of the newly formed 20th Air Force began to touch down on dusty airfields in India. By May, 130 B-29s were operational. In June, 1944, less than two years after the initial flight of the XB-29, the U. S. Army Air Forces (AAF) flew its first B-29 combat mission against targets in Bangkok, Thailand. This mission (longest of the war to date) called for 100 B-29s but only 80 reached the target area. The AAF lost no aircraft to enemy action but bombing results were mediocre. The first bombing mission against the Japanese main islands since Lt. Col. "Jimmy" Doolittle's raid against Tokyo in April 1942, occurred on June 15, again with poor results. This was also the first mission launched from airbases in China.

 

With the fall of Saipan, Tinian, and Guam in the Mariana Islands chain in August 1944, the AAF acquired airbases that lay several hundred miles closer to mainland Japan. Late in 1944, the AAF moved the XXI Bomber Command, flying B-29s, to the Marianas and the unit began bombing Japan in December. However, they employed high-altitude, precision, bombing tactics that yielded poor results. The high altitude winds were so strong that bombing computers could not compensate and the weather was so poor that rarely was visual target acquisition possible at high altitudes. In March 1945, Major General Curtis E. LeMay ordered the group to abandon these tactics and strike instead at night, from low altitude, using incendiary bombs. These firebombing raids, carried out by hundreds of B-29s, devastated much of Japan's industrial and economic infrastructure. Yet Japan fought on. Late in 1944, AAF leaders selected the Martin assembly line to produce a squadron of B-29s codenamed SILVERPLATE. Martin modified these Superfortresses by removing all gun turrets except for the tail position, removing armor plate, installing Curtiss electric propellers, and modifying the bomb bay to accommodate either the "Fat Man" or "Little Boy" versions of the atomic bomb. The AAF assigned 15 Silverplate ships to the 509th Composite Group commanded by Colonel Paul Tibbets. As the Group Commander, Tibbets had no specific aircraft assigned to him as did the mission pilots. He was entitled to fly any aircraft at any time. He named the B-29 that he flew on 6 August Enola Gay after his mother. In the early morning hours, just prior to the August 6th mission, Tibbets had a young Army Air Forces maintenance man, Private Nelson Miller, paint the name just under the pilot's window.

 

Enola Gay is a model B-29-45-MO, serial number 44-86292. The AAF accepted this aircraft on June 14, 1945, from the Martin plant at Omaha (Located at what is today Offut AFB near Bellevue), Nebraska. After the war, Army Air Forces crews flew the airplane during the Operation Crossroads atomic test program in the Pacific, although it dropped no nuclear devices during these tests, and then delivered it to Davis-Monthan Army Airfield, Arizona, for storage. Later, the U. S. Air Force flew the bomber to Park Ridge, Illinois, then transferred it to the Smithsonian Institution on July 4, 1949. Although in Smithsonian custody, the aircraft remained stored at Pyote Air Force Base, Texas, between January 1952 and December 1953. The airplane's last flight ended on December 2 when the Enola Gay touched down at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland. The bomber remained at Andrews in outdoor storage until August 1960. By then, concerned about the bomber deteriorating outdoors, the Smithsonian sent collections staff to disassemble the Superfortress and move it indoors to the Paul E. Garber Facility in Suitland, Maryland.

 

The staff at Garber began working to preserve and restore Enola Gay in December 1984. This was the largest restoration project ever undertaken at the National Air and Space Museum and the specialists anticipated the work would require from seven to nine years to complete. The project actually lasted nearly two decades and, when completed, had taken approximately 300,000 work-hours to complete. The B-29 is now displayed at the National Air and Space Museum, Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

After the country's independence from the United Kingdom, after its departure from the European Union in 2017, the young Republic of Scotland Air Corps (locally known as Poblachd na h-Alba Adhair an Airm) started a major procurement program to take over most basic duties the Royal Air Force formerly had taken over in Northern Britain. This procurement was preceded by a White Paper published by the Scottish National Party (SNP) in 2013, which had stated that an independent Scotland would have an air force equipped with up to 16 air defense aircraft, six tactical transports, utility rotorcraft and maritime patrol aircraft, and be capable of “contributing excellent conventional capabilities” to NATO. According to the document, “Key elements of air forces in place at independence, equipped initially from a negotiated share of current UK assets, will secure core tasks, principally the ability to police Scotland’s airspace, within NATO.” An in-country air command and control capability would be established within five years of a decision in favor of independence, it continues, with staff also to be “embedded within NATO structures”.

 

Outlining its ambition to establish an air force with an eventual 2,000 uniformed personnel and 300 reservists, the SNP stated the organization would initially be equipped with “a minimum of 12 interceptors in the Eurofighter/Typhoon class, based at Lossiemouth, a tactical air transport squadron, including around six Lockheed Martin C-130J Hercules, and a helicopter squadron”. The latter would not only have to take over transport duties for the army, there was also a dire need to quickly replace the former Royal Air Force’s Search and Rescue (SAR) capabilities and duties in the North with domestic resources, after this role was handed over to civilian contractor Bristow Helicopters and the RAF’s SAR units had been disbanded.

 

This led to the procurement of six AS365 Dauphin helicopters as an initial measure to keep up basic SAR capabilities, with the prospects of procuring more to become independent from the Bristow Helicopters contract. These aircraft were similar to the Eurocopter SA 366 MH-65 “Dolphin” for the United States Coast Guard but differed in many ways from them and also from any other navalized SA365 variant.

For the RoScAC’s SAR squadron, the SA 365 was taken as a starting point, but the helicopter was heavily modified and locally re-christened “Leumadair” (= Dolphin).

 

The most obvious new feature of the unique Scottish rescue variant was a fixed landing gear with the main wheels on short “stub wings” for a wider stance, stabilizing the helicopter during shipboard landings and in case of an emergency water landing - the helicopter was not able to perform water landings, even though inflatable emergency landing floats were typically fitted. Another obvious difference to other military Dauphin versions was the thimble radome on the nose for an RDR-1600 search and weather radar which is capable of detecting small targets at sea as far as 25 nautical miles away. This layout was chosen to provide the pilots with a better field of view directrly ahead of the helicopter. Additionally, an electro-optical sensor turret with an integrated FLIR sensor was mounted in a fully rotatable turret under the nose, giving the helicopter full all-weather capabilities. Less obvious were a digital glass cockpit and a computerized flight management system, which integrated state-of-the-art communications and navigation equipment. This system provided automatic flight control, and at the pilot's direction, the system would bring the aircraft to a stable hover 50 feet (15 m) above a selected object, an important safety feature in darkness or inclement weather. Selected search patterns could be flown automatically, freeing the pilot and copilot to concentrate on sighting & searching the object.

To improve performance and safety margin, more powerful Turbomeca Arriel 2C2-CG engines were used. Seventy-five percent of the structure—including rotor head, rotor blades and fuselage—consisted of corrosion-resistant composite materials. The rotor blades themselves were new, too, with BERP “paddles”at their tips, a new aerofoil and increased blade twist for increased lifting-capability and maximum speed, to compensate for the fixed landing gear and other external equipment that increased drag. To prevent leading edge erosion the blade used a rubber-based tape rather than the polyurethane used on earlier helicopters.

 

The “Leumadair HR.1”, so its official designation, became operational in mid-2019. Despite being owned by the government, the helicopters received civil registrations (SC-LEA - -LEF) and were dispersed along the Scottish coastline. They normally carried a crew of four: Pilot, Copilot, Flight Mechanic and Rescue Swimmer, even though regular flight patrols were only excuted with a crew of three. The Leumadair HR.1 was used by the RoScAC primarily for search and rescue missions, but also for homeland security patrols, cargo, drug interdiction, ice breaking, and pollution control. While the helicopters operated unarmed, they could be outfitted with manually operated light or medium machine guns in their doors.

However, the small fleet of only six helicopters was far from being enough to cover the Scottish coast and the many islands up north, so that the government prolonged the contract with Bristow Helicopters in late 2019 for two more years, and the procurement of further Leumadair HR.1 helicopters was decided in early 2020. Twelve more helicopters were ordered en suite and were expected to arrive in late 2021.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 2 pilots and 2 crew

Length: 12,06 m (39 ft 2 1/2 in)

Height: 4 m (13 ft 1 in)

Main rotor diameter: 12,10 m (39 ft 7 1/2 in)

Main rotor area: 38.54 m² (414.8 sq ft)

Empty weight: 3,128 kg (6,896 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 4,300 kg (9,480 lb)

 

Powerplant:

2× Turbomeca Arriel 2C2-CG turboshaft engines, 636 kW (853 hp) each

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 330 km/h (210 mph, 180 kn)

Cruise speed: 240 km/h (150 mph, 130 kn)

Range: 658 km (409 mi, 355 nmi)

Service ceiling: 5,486 m (17,999 ft)

 

Armament:

None installed, but provisions for a 7.62 mm M240 machine gun or a Barrett M107 0.50 in (12.7

mm) caliber precision rifle in each side door

  

The kit and its assembly:

Another chapter in my fictional alternative reality in which Scotland became an independent Republic and separated from the UK in 2017. Beyond basic aircraft for the RoScAC’s aerial defense duties I felt that maritime rescue would be another vital task for the nascent air force – and the situation that Great Britain had outsourced the SAR job to a private company called for a new solution for the independent Scotland. This led to the consideration of a relatively cheap maritime helicopter, and my choice fell on the SA365 ‘Daupin’, which has been adapted to such duties in various variants.

 

As a starting point there’s the Matchbox SA365 kit from 1983, which is a typical offer from the company: a solid kit, with mixed weak spots and nice details (e. g. the cockpit with a decent dashboard and steering columns/pedals for the crew). Revell has re-boxed this kit in 2002 as an USCG HH-65A ‘Dolphin’, but it’s technically only a painting option and the kit lacks any optional parts to actually build this type of helicopter in an authentic fashion - there are some subtle differences, and creating a convincing HH-65 from it would take a LOT of effort. Actually, it's a real scam from Revell to market the Matchbox Dauphin as a HH-65!

 

However, it was my starting basis, and for a modernized/navalized/military version of the SA365 I made some changes. For instance, I gave the helicopter a fixed landing gear, with main wheels stub wings taken from a Pavla resin upgrade/conversion set for a Lynx HAS.2, which also comes with better wheels than the Matchbox kit. The Dauphin’s landing gear wells were filled with 2C putty and in the same process took the stub wings. The front landing gear well was filled with putty, too, and a adapter to hold the front twin wheel strut was embedded. Lots of lead were hidden under the cockpit floor to ensure that this model would not becaome a tail sitter.

A thimble radome was integrated into the nose with some PSR – I opted for this layout because the fixed landing gear would block 360° radar coverage under the fuselage, and there’s not too much ground clearance or space above then cabin for a radome. Putting it on top of the rotor would have been the only other option, but I found this rather awkward. As a side benefit, the new nose changes the helicopter’s silhouette well and adds to a purposeful look.

 

The rotor blades were replaced with resin BERP blades, taken from another Pavla Lynx conversion set (for the Hobby Boss kit). Because their attachment points were very different from the Matchbox Dauphin rotor’s construction, I had to improvise a little. A rather subtle change, but the result looks very plausible and works well. Other external extras are two inflatable floating devices along the lower fuselage from a Mistercraft ASW AB 212 (UH-1) kit, the winch at port side was scratched with a piece from the aforementioned BK 117 and styrene bits. Some blade antennae were added and a sensor turret was scratched and placed in front of the front wheels. Additional air scoops for the gearbox were added, too. Inside, I added two (Matchbox) pilot figures to the cockpit, plus a third seat for a medic/observer, a storage/equipment box and a stretcher from a Revell BK 117 rescue helicopter kit. This kit also donated some small details like the rear-view mirror for the pilot and the wire-cutters - not a typical detail for a helicopter operating over the open sea, but you never know...

 

The only other adition is a technical one: I integrated a vertical styrene pipe behind the cabin as a display holder adapter for the traditional hoto shooting's in-flight scenes.

  

Painting and markings:

It took some time to settle upon a design. I wanted something bright – initially I thought about Scottish colors (white and blue), but that was not garish enough, even with some dayglo additions. The typical all-yellow RAF SAR livery was also ruled out. In the end I decided to apply a more or less uniform livery in a very bright red: Humbrol 238, which is, probably due to trademark issues, marketed as “Arrow Red (= Red Arrows)” and effectively an almost fluorescent pinkish orange-red! Only the black anti-glare panel in front of the windscreen, the radome and the white interior of the fenestron tail rotor were painted, too, the rest was created with white decal stripes and evolved gradually. Things started with a white 2mm cheatline, then came the horizontal stripes on the tail, and taking this "theme" further I added something similar to the flanks as a high contrast base for the national markings. These were improvised, too, with a 6mm blue disc and single 1.5 mm bars to create a Scottish flag. The stancils were taken from the OOB decal sheet. The interior became medium grey, the crew received bright orange jumpsuits and white "bone domes".

 

No black ink washing or post-panel-shading was done, since the Dauphin has almost no surface details to emphasize, and I wanted a new and clean look. Besides, with wll the white trim, there was already a lot going on on the hull, so that I kept things "as they were". Finally, the model was sealed with a coat of semi-gloss acrylic varnish for a light shine, except for the rotor blades and the anti-glare panel, which became matt.

  

Quite a tricky project. While the Matchbox Dauphin is not a complex kit you need patience and have to stick to the assembly order to put the hull together. PSR is needed, esp. around the engine section and for the underside. On the other side, despite being a simple model, you get a nice Dauphin from the kit - but NOT a HH-65, sorry. My fictional conversion is certainly not better, but the bright result with its modifications looks good and quite convincing, though.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

Seeking a domestic aircraft manufacturer, the Brazilian government made several investments in this area during the 1940s and '50s, but it was not until 1969 that Empresa Brasileira de Aeronáutica (EMBRAER) was created as a government-owned corporation. Born from a Brazilian government plan and having been state-run from the beginning, EMBRAER began a privatization process alongside many other state-controlled companies during the government of Fernando Henrique Cardoso. This privatization effort saw EMBRAER sold on December 7, 1994, and helped it avoid a looming bankruptcy.

 

The company's first product was a turboprop transport, the EMBRAER EMB 110 Bandeirante. In the course of years, both civil and military aircraft were developed, the focus shifted more and more to airliners, but the military work was never abandoned. The company continued to win government contracts, which included the EMB 314/T-27 Tucano trainer or the EMB 324/A-29 ground attack aircraft.

 

The EMB 320 was a bigger aircraft, though, and conceived in the early 2000s, when, with renewed economic stability, the Brazilian Air Force (Força Aérea Brasileira, FAB) underwent an extensive renewal of its inventory through several acquisition programs. The most ambitious of which was the acquisition of 36 new front-line interceptor aircraft to replace its aging Mirage III, known as the “F-X Project”.

 

In parallel, a supplement to the relatively new AMX fighter bomber (designated A-1 in Brazil) was needed, too, and this program ran under the handle “A-X Project”. While the F-X program was postponed several times until 2005, the A-X program made, thanks to its smaller budget needs, quick progress and resulted in the EMB 320 'Libélula' (Hornet), a dedicated ground attack, COIN and observation/FAC aircraft which would fill the gap between the AMX jets and various helicopters, e. g. the Mi-35M4 attack helicopter.

 

The EMB 320 was a straightforward design: a mid-wing two-turboprop-engined all-metal monoplane with retractable landing gear. Conceptually it was very similar to the Argentinian FMA IA-58 Pucara, but more sophisticated and with more compact dimensions. The aircraft was designed to operate from forward bases, in high temperature and humidity conditions in extremely rugged terrain. Repairs could be made with ordinary tools, and no ground equipment was required to start the engines.

 

The EMB 320 had a tandem cockpit arrangement; the crew of two were seated under an extensively glazed canopy on Martin-Baker Mk 6AP6A zero/zero ejection seats and were provided with dual controls. The pilot sat in front, while the rear seat would, if the mission called for it, be occupied by an observer, WSO or a flight teacher for training purposes. Armor plating was fitted to protect the crew and engines from hostile ground fire.

 

The retractable tricycle landing gear, with a double nose wheel and twin main wheels retracting into the engine nacelles, was fitted with low pressure tires to suit operations on rough ground and unprepared air strips, while the undercarriage legs were tall to give good clearance for underslung weapon loads. The undercarriage, flaps and brakes are operated hydraulically, with no pneumatic systems.

Through powerful high lift devices the EMB 320 could perform short takeoffs and landings, even on aircraft carriers and large deck amphibious assault ships without using catapults or arresting wires. Additionally, three JATO rockets could be fitted under the fuselage to allow extra-short take-off.

 

The aircraft was powered by a pair of Garrett T76-G turboprops, 1,040 hp (775.5 kW) each, driving sets of contra-rotating, three-bladed Hamilton-Standard propellers which were also capable of being used as air brakes. The engines were modified for operating on soy-derived bio-jet fuel. Alternatively the engines would operate on high-octane automobile fuel with only a slight loss of power, too.

Fuel was fed from two fuselage tanks of combined capacity of 800 l (180 imp gal; 210 US gal) and two self-sealing tanks of 460 l (100 imp gal; 120 US gal) in the wings.

 

The “Libélula”, quickly christened this way due to its slender fuselage, straight wings and the large cockpit glazing, was highly maneuverable at low altitude, had a low heat signature and incorporated 4th generation avionics and weapons system to deliver precision guided munitions at all weather conditions, day and night.

 

Armament consisted of two fixed 30 mm (1.181 in) Bernardini Mk-164 cannons in the wing roots and a total of nine external weapon hardpoints; these included a pair of launch rails at the wingtips for AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs (or ECM pods), four underwing pylons outside of the propeller radius and three underfuselage hardpoints. Chaff/flare dispensers in the tail section provided passive safety. The EMB 320 could carry more than 3.5 tons of external munitions, and loiter for three or more hours.

 

Avionics included:

● MIL-STD-1553 standards

● NVG ANVIS-9 (Night Vision)

● CCIP / CCRP / CCIL / DTOS / LCOS / SSLC (Computerized Attack Modes)

● R&S{RT} M3AR VHF/UHF airborne transceiver (two-way encrypted Data Link provision)

● HUD / HOTAS

● HMD with UFCP(Up Front Control Panel)

● Laser INS with GPS Navigational System

● CMFD (Colored Multi-Function Display) liquid crystal active matrix

● Integrated Radio Communication and Navigation

● Video Camera/Recorder

● Automatic Pilot with embedded mission planning capability

● Stormscope WX-1000E (Airborne weather mapping system)

● Laser Range Finder

● WiPak Support – (Wi-Fi integration for Paveway bombs)

● Training and Operation Support System (TOSS)

The prototype made its maiden flight on 2nd of April 2000. In August 2001, the Brazilian Air Force awarded EMBRAER a contract for 52 A-27 Libélula aircraft with options for a further 23, acquired from a contract estimated to be worth around $320 USD millions. The first aircraft was delivered in December 2003. By September 2007, 50 aircraft had entered service. The 75th, and last, aircraft was delivered to the FAB in June 2012.

 

While the Libélula has not been used in foreign conflicts the aircraft already fired in anger: One of the main missions of the aircraft was and is border patrol under the SIVAM program, and this resulted in several incidents in which weapons were fired.

 

On 3 June 2009, two BAF A-27A Libélulas, guided by an EMBRAER E-99, intercepted a Cessna U206G engaged in drug trafficking activities. Inbound from Bolivia, the Cessna was intercepted in the region of Alta Floresta d'Oeste and, after exhausting all procedures, one of the Moscarsos fired a warning shot from its 30mm cannons, after which the aircraft followed the Libélulas to Cacoal airport.

This incident was the first use of powers granted under the Shoot-Down Act, which was enacted in October 2004 in order to legislate for the downing of illegal flights. A total of 176 kg of pure cocaine base paste, enough to produce almost a ton of cocaine, was discovered on board the Cessna; the aircraft's two occupants attempted a ground escape before being arrested by Federal Police in Pimenta Bueno.

 

On 5 August 2011, Brazil started “Operation Ágata”, part of a major "Frontiers Strategic Plan" launched by President Dilma Rousseff in June, with almost 30 continuous days of rigorous military activity in the region of Brazil’s border with Colombia. It mobilized 35 aircraft and more than 3,000 military personnel of the Brazilian Army, Brazilian Navy and Brazilian Air Force surveillance against drug trafficking, illegal mining and logging, and trafficking of wild animals.

 

A-29s of 1°/3º Aviation Group (GAv), Squadron Scorpion, as well as six A-27A’s from 4°/3° GAv launched a strike upon an illicit airstrip, deploying eight 230 kg (500 lb) computer-guided Mk 82 bombs to render the airstrip unusable.

Multiple EMB 320 were assigned for night operations, locating remote jungle airstrips used by drug smuggling gangs along the border, and were typically guarded by several E-99 aircraft. The Libélulas also located targets for the A-29 Super Tucanos, allowing them to bomb the airstrips with an extremely high level of accuracy, making use of night-vision systems and computer systems calculating the impact points of munitions.

  

General characteristics

Crew: 2

Length (w/o pitot): 41 ft 10 in (12.76 m)

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

Height: 13 ft 6 2/3 in (4.14 m)

Wing area: 203.4 ft² (18.9 m²)

Empty weight: 8.920 lb (4.050 kg)

Max. take-off weight: 16.630 lb (7.550 kg)

 

Powerplant:

2× Garrett T76-G410/411 turboprops, 1,040 hp (775.5 kW) each

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 307 mph (267 kn, 495 km/h)

Range: 1.860 mi (1.620 nmi, 3.000 km)

Service ceiling: 30.160 ft (9.150 m)

Rate of climb: 2.966 ft/min (15 m/s)

 

Armament:

2× fixed 30 mm (1.181 in) Bernardini Mk-164 cannons in the wing roots with 200 RPG

9× external hardpoints for an ordnance load of 8.000 lb (3.630 kg), including smart weapons (e. g. Paveway GBUs, AGM-65B,C or D Maverick, AGM-114 Hellfire), iron bombs, cluster bombs, napalm tanks, unguided rocket pods and AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs as well as drop tanks.

  

The kit and its assembly:

This whif model is a remake of an idea I had/did many years ago from the remains of an Airfix OV-10D Bronco: converting it into a "normal" aircraft. While one could argue that this is not really exciting, I found this project pretty challenging as I wanted to make the result as plausible as possible, not just glue some leftover parts together (what I did years ago). And doing so turned a simple idea into major surgery and sculpting – or, how flickr fellow user Franclab called it, “it makes the Bronco look like the whif and the Libélula the real aircraft”.

 

The basis was a NiB OV-10A Bronco from Academy, a very good kit with a nice cockpit and lots or ordnance. Great value for the money. Design benchmark for what I had in mind was the FMA IA-58 Pucara, as it was designed for the exact same job as my EMB 320 - but details would differ.

 

The rear of the Bronco's central cabin was cut off and mated with the rear fuselage of a Matchbox Bf 110, which has a similar diameter - but the intersection between the square front of the Bronco and the oval Bf 110 fuselage was tricky (= requiring lots of putty work).

When these basic elements were fitted together, I finally decided to raise the spine. The mated fuselage parts would have had worked, but since the original high wings were missing, the EMB 320 would have had a distinctive and pointless hunchback - actually, with a rotor added, it could have become a helicopter, too!

Well, I went for the big solution, also in order to make the fuselage seam less obvious, and the whole upper rear fuselage was sculpted from 2C and NC putty. In the same process the tail was integrated into the fuselage. As a drawback, this shifted the kit's CG so far back that the lead load in the nose could not keep the front wheel down. Well, it's the price to pay for a better overall look.

 

The twin fins come from a 1:100 A-10, leftover from a Revell SnapFit kit, while the horizontal stabilizers were taken from the OV-10A, but had to be re-engraved in order to make the flap geometry plausible.

 

The wings were taken OOB and, relative to the Bronco, placed in a lower position, their original attachment point on top of the fuselage was faired over. The original plan had been to place them completely low, right where the OV-10's wing stubs would be located. But due to the engine nacelles under the wings I finally set them at mid height - otherwise, ground clearance and/or landing gear length had become a big issue - and the thing still looks stalky!

Moving the nacelles into a different (higher) wing position would have been an option, too, but that was IMHO too complicated. Since the EMD 320 would not have storage space behind the cockpit, a wing spar right through the fuselage would not be implausible. As a side effect I had to close the complete belly gap under the Bronco fuselage, again with 2C putty.

 

The Bronco’s tail booms were cut off and pointed end covers added, so that classic engine nacelles which also carry the main landing gear were created. The engine exhausts were relocated towards the nacelle’s end, and the propeller attachment modified, so that the propeller could turn freely on a metal axis and the overall look would be changed.

 

The cockpit tub was taken OOB, but armored seats from an Italeri AH-1 were used (with added headrests), as well as two crew figures, which come IIRC from a Hasegawa RA-5C Vigilante.

 

A new nose section with a sensor turret was built from scratch. It consists of parts from an AH-64 attack helicopter, mated with some styrene sheets for appropriate length. The shape was sculpted from massive material, and the result looks mean and menacing. The pitots were made from scratch, as well as the radar warning sensors on the hull.

 

The landing gear was improvised. The front strut actually belongs to a 1:200 Concorde(!) from Revell, the respective front wheels belong to an ESCI Ka-34 helicopter. For the main landing gear I used the struts from the Bronco kit, but the twin wheels are donations from the scrap box: these come from two Italeri Hawker Hawk kits.

 

The ordnance was puzzled together from the scrap box, too, as well as from Hasegawa Weapon sets. As the aircraft was supposed to have taken part in the real world “Operation Ágata”, I decided to add four light Paveway gliding bombs. Two Sidewinders and a pair of M260 rocket launchers (for seven 2.75"/70mm target marking missiles with phosphorous warheads) complete the full load.

The wing pylons come from two Italeri Tornados, those under the fuselage belong to a Matchbox Viggen and an Italeri Kfir.

 

As a final note: originally I wanted to call the aircraft “Moscardo” (= Hornet), but when it took shape its overall lines and potential agility made the dragonfly (Libélula in Portuguese) a much more appropriate namesake. So it goes... ^^

  

Painting and markings:

The reason why this turned out to be a Brazilian aircraft is the fact that I have been wanting to use the current FAB paint scheme for some time - it's basically made up from only two colors, FS 34092 (Dark Green) and FS 36176 (“F-15 Gray”, used on USAF F-15Es), paired with low-viz markings. Looks strange at first glance, like a poor man's Europe One/Lizard scheme, but over a typical rain forest scenery, low altitude and with hazy clouds around it is VERY effective, check the beauty pics which are based on BAF press releases. And it simply looks cool.

 

The pattern is based on current BAF F-5E fighters, the markings come from an FCM decal sheet and actually belong to a BAF Mirage 2000. 4º/3º GAv of the Brazilian Air Force is fictional, though, and some warning stencils were taken from the Academy kit.

 

The cockpit interior was painted in Dark Gull Gray (Humbrol 140), the landing gear wells in a yellow zinc chromate primer (Humbrol 225, Mid Stone) while the landing gear struts remained blank Aluminum, The outer wheel disks are white, while the inside is red - a detail I incorporated from some USN aircraft.

 

Painting was not spectacular - since the cockpit has a lot of glass to offer, I painted the windscreen with translucent light blue, and the observer on the rear seat received a similar sun blocker in deep blue. Translucent paint (yellow and black) was also used on the optical sensors at the nose turret as well as for position lights, all on a silver base.

 

The model was only slightly weathered thorough a black ink wash and some dry-brushing with Humbrol 140 and Testors 2076 (RLM 62) in order to emphasize panels - some panel lines were also painted onto the fuselage with thinned black ink, as the "new" rear body is devoid of any detail and difficult to engrave.

the Mamiya ZE (some were also designated ZE Quartz) was introduced in July 1980. It has a metal, quartz-controlled, focal-plane shutter and a center-weighted photo diode. An aperture-priority AE, exposure can be corrected ± two stops, and a previously-metered exposure can be locked in "AEL" position. The bayonet-mount lenses (E or EF series) have gold electronic contacts. It is interesting to note the body of the Mamiya ZE had only three electrical contacts, while the interchangeable lenses introduced with the camera had ten. They were already potentially capable of transmitting information about aperture requirements, shutter speed, and more, to subsequent generations of cameras beyond the ZE. A sophisticated central processor was incorporated into the ZE series, an indicator of the changing direction of cameras, from simple mechanical devices, to small, computerized machinery.

 

- I fell in love with this amazing camera,from the first moment i picked her up,and after developing the first roll. sometimes im finding myself staring at her just standing there on the shelf......she's a true beauty,and takes some seriously amazing pictures.

 

✚

 

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some Background:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

  

General characteristics:

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

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

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

Height: 12 ft. 2 (3.73 m)

Wing area: 234' 8" sq ft (29.11 m²)

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

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

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

 

Powerplant:

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

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

 

Performance:

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

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

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

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

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

Wing loading: 57.4 lb/ft² (384 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight: 0.48

 

Armament:

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

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

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

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

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

  

The kit and its assembly:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

  

Painting and markings:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

  

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

The said we never loved you,

those with condescending eyes,

who press their fingers together over polished desks,

and smile benignly under framed degrees,

who tap their pipes and collect their fees.

 

Where were they the day you came?

Did they hear as I gave birth,

or watch as I put you to my breast,

weeping in sweet relief that you were safe?

 

Yet they said we were cold,

and did not care for you,

oh little girls with baby curls,

and velvet skin,

and eyes so blue,

that gazed in rapture after things we could not see,

and issued racking sob for things we could not know.

 

Those with MDs and PhDs,

looked politely over their glasses and smiled,

they sent their bills in computerized window notes,

and pronounced we did not love,

and when bad times came they sat in paneled offices,

and wrote hard words in confidential files.

 

They did not see the daisies or daffodils,

you plucked with smiling zeal,

little hand held up for us to see,

or hear while riding sister piggyback,

you enthusiastic squeals of glee.

 

They drove new cars and went on holidays,

and played sophisticated mind games,

while we who did not love,

knelt down to you and held your limbs,

and fought your fright,

and stifled inward cries and tried not to hear,

as tormented screams wrenched days and hearts,

and twisted sweet features into a mask of fear.

 

One afternoon your Dad held you to him,

and felt your blood soak to his skin,

feeling his tears go with it.

How could they know of the pleasure and pain,

they were not there.

They never watched you run along the beach,

or heard your laughter in the waves and rain,

or knew the blessed peace in watching you sleep.

 

Still...

those with letters after their names.

are due respect my daughter,

and we should give it.

 

Well...

They said we never loved you dear,

God knows and you,

and they can go to hell.

The video above is short, black and white, silent, 16 mm film that has been digitalized.

 

It shows the inside the offices of the Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America Division 689 at 900 F Street NW circa 1958.

 

The offices of the union, now known as Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Local 689, were located in the Washington Loan & Trust Company building almost since inception of the union in 1917 until around 1970. The site is currently occupied by a Marriott Courtyard Hotel.

 

The film shows the door from the hallway into the union offices and shows a streetcar passing by the exterior of the building.

 

It shows union President Walter J. Bierwagen reading the union’s newspaper answering a phone at his desk.

 

Next it shows Bierwagen meeting four men: Bernard Cushman (right), a union consultant from the Labor Bureau of the Middle West; an unidentified man (center) and another (left) at what appears to be negotiations or a meeting of the Transit Employees Health & Welfare trust.

 

A chart outlining health and welfare bullet points stands behind the group and Bierwagen rises to explain the chart.

 

The Labor Bureau continues to assist the union today in contract negotiations and grievance arbitration.

 

In the next scene, Bierwagen and Cushman read copies of the union newspaper being prepared for mailing to union members.

 

A clerical worker is also shown addressing the union newspaper for mailing to members. She is using an electro-mechanical Addressograph multigraph graphotype machine.

 

Before addressing, she used what is essentially a heavy-duty typewriter to transfer the member’s name, address, phone number and date of enrollment in the union onto a metal plate.

 

The plates were then set into a feeder that delivered them to where they stamped each newspaper placed on a tray. The stamping process was activated by foot pedals.

 

This system of keeping track of members and addressing union correspondence was used up until the 1980s when the process was finally computerized.

 

The local was a pioneering organization in health care in the Washington, D.C. area turning Group Health Association (GHA) into a powerful cooperatively-run preventive health care service from the 1960s-80s. The union negotiated to add 9,000 members and dependents to the group in 1958 and used its health and welfare fund to renovate a building in Langley Park, MD in 1959 to provide the first GHA service in Prince George's County.

 

For more information and related images, see

 

Original 16 mm film by Amalgamated Transit Union Local 689. Video produced by Washington Area Spark.

 

via WordPress ift.tt/1NNCNJP

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The OV-10 Bronco was initially conceived in the early 1960s through an informal collaboration between W. H. Beckett and Colonel K. P. Rice, U.S. Marine Corps, who met at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, California, and who also happened to live near each other. The original concept was for a rugged, simple, close air support aircraft integrated with forward ground operations. At the time, the U.S. Army was still experimenting with armed helicopters, and the U.S. Air Force was not interested in close air support.

The concept aircraft was to operate from expedient forward air bases using roads as runways. Speed was to be from very slow to medium subsonic, with much longer loiter times than a pure jet. Efficient turboprop engines would give better performance than piston engines. Weapons were to be mounted on the centerline to get efficient aiming. The inventors favored strafing weapons such as self-loading recoilless rifles, which could deliver aimed explosive shells with less recoil than cannons, and a lower per-round weight than rockets. The airframe was to be designed to avoid the back blast.

 

Beckett and Rice developed a basic platform meeting these requirements, then attempted to build a fiberglass prototype in a garage. The effort produced enthusiastic supporters and an informal pamphlet describing the concept. W. H. Beckett, who had retired from the Marine Corps, went to work at North American Aviation to sell the aircraft.

The aircraft's design supported effective operations from forward bases. The OV-10 had a central nacelle containing a crew of two in tandem and space for cargo, and twin booms containing twin turboprop engines. The visually distinctive feature of the aircraft is the combination of the twin booms, with the horizontal stabilizer that connected them at the fin tips. The OV-10 could perform short takeoffs and landings, including on aircraft carriers and large-deck amphibious assault ships without using catapults or arresting wires. Further, the OV-10 was designed to take off and land on unimproved sites. Repairs could be made with ordinary tools. No ground equipment was required to start the engines. And, if necessary, the engines would operate on high-octane automobile fuel with only a slight loss of power.

 

The aircraft had responsive handling and could fly for up to 5½ hours with external fuel tanks. The cockpit had extremely good visibility for both pilot and co-pilot, provided by a wrap-around "greenhouse" that was wider than the fuselage. North American Rockwell custom ejection seats were standard, with many successful ejections during service. With the second seat removed, the OV-10 could carry 3,200 pounds (1,500 kg) of cargo, five paratroopers, or two litter patients and an attendant. Empty weight was 6,969 pounds (3,161 kg). Normal operating fueled weight with two crew was 9,908 pounds (4,494 kg). Maximum takeoff weight was 14,446 pounds (6,553 kg).

The bottom of the fuselage bore sponsons or "stub wings" that improved flight performance by decreasing aerodynamic drag underneath the fuselage. Normally, four 7.62 mm (.308 in) M60C machine guns were carried on the sponsons, accessed through large forward-opening hatches. The sponsons also had four racks to carry bombs, pods, or fuel. The wings outboard of the engines contained two additional hardpoints, one per side. Racked armament in the Vietnam War was usually seven-shot 2.75 in (70 mm) rocket pods with white phosphorus marker rounds or high-explosive rockets, or 5" (127 mm) four-shot Zuni rocket pods. Bombs, ADSIDS air-delivered/para-dropped unattended seismic sensors, Mk-6 battlefield illumination flares, and other stores were also carried.

Operational experience showed some weaknesses in the OV-10's design. It was significantly underpowered, which contributed to crashes in Vietnam in sloping terrain because the pilots could not climb fast enough. While specifications stated that the aircraft could reach 26,000 feet (7,900 m), in Vietnam the aircraft could reach only 18,000 feet (5,500 m). Also, no OV-10 pilot survived ditching the aircraft.

 

The OV-10 served in the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Marine Corps, and U.S. Navy, as well as in the service of a number of other countries. In U.S. military service, the Bronco was operated until the early Nineties, and obsoleted USAF OV-10s were passed on to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms for anti-drug operations. A number of OV-10As furthermore ended up in the hands of the California Department of Forestry (CDF) and were used for spotting fires and directing fire bombers onto hot spots.

 

This was not the end of the OV-10 in American military service, though: In 2012, the type gained new attention because of its unique qualities. A $20 million budget was allocated to activate an experimental USAF unit of two airworthy OV-10Gs, acquired from NASA and the State Department. These machines were retrofitted with military equipment and were, starting in May 2015, deployed overseas to support Operation “Inherent Resolve”, flying more than 120 combat sorties over 82 days over Iraq and Syria. Their concrete missions remained unclear, and it is speculated they provided close air support for Special Forces missions, esp. in confined urban environments where the Broncos’ loitering time and high agility at low speed and altitude made them highly effective and less vulnerable than helicopters.

Furthermore, these Broncos reputedly performed strikes with the experimental AGR-20A “Advanced Precision Kill Weapons System (APKWS)”, a Hydra 70-millimeter rocket with a laser-seeking head as guidance - developed for precision strikes against small urban targets with little collateral damage. The experiment ended satisfactorily, but the machines were retired again, and the small unit was dissolved.

 

However, the machines had shown their worth in asymmetric warfare, and the U.S. Air Force decided to invest in reactivating the OV-10 on a regular basis, despite the overhead cost of operating an additional aircraft type in relatively small numbers – but development and production of a similar new type would have caused much higher costs, with an uncertain time until an operational aircraft would be ready for service. Re-activating a proven design and updating an existing airframe appeared more efficient.

The result became the MV-10H, suitably christened “Super Bronco” but also known as “Black Pony”, after the program's internal name. This aircraft was derived from the official OV-10X proposal by Boeing from 2009 for the USAF's Light Attack/Armed Reconnaissance requirement. Initially, Boeing proposed to re-start OV-10 manufacture, but this was deemed uneconomical, due to the expected small production number of new serial aircraft, so the “Black Pony” program became a modernization project. In consequence, all airframes for the "new" MV-10Hs were recovered OV-10s of various types from the "boneyard" at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona.

 

While the revamped aircraft would maintain much of its 1960s-vintage rugged external design, modernizations included a completely new, armored central fuselage with a highly modified cockpit section, ejection seats and a computerized glass cockpit. The “Black Pony” OV-10 had full dual controls, so that either crewmen could steer the aircraft while the other operated sensors and/or weapons. This feature would also improve survivability in case of incapacitation of a crew member as the result from a hit.

The cockpit armor protected the crew and many vital systems from 23mm shells and shrapnel (e. g. from MANPADS). The crew still sat in tandem under a common, generously glazed canopy with flat, bulletproof panels for reduced sun reflections, with the pilot in the front seat and an observer/WSO behind. The Bronco’s original cargo capacity and the rear door were retained, even though the extra armor and defensive measures like chaff/flare dispensers as well as an additional fuel cell in the central fuselage limited the capacity. However, it was still possible to carry and deploy personnel, e. g. small special ops teams of up to four when the aircraft flew in clean configuration.

Additional updates for the MV-10H included structural reinforcements for a higher AUW and higher g load maneuvers, similar to OV-10D+ standards. The landing gear was also reinforced, and the aircraft kept its ability to operate from short, improvised airstrips. A fixed refueling probe was added to improve range and loiter time.

 

Intelligence sensors and smart weapon capabilities included a FLIR sensor and a laser range finder/target designator, both mounted in a small turret on the aircraft’s nose. The MV-10H was also outfitted with a data link and the ability to carry an integrated targeting pod such as the Northrop Grumman LITENING or the Lockheed Martin Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod (ATP). Also included was the Remotely Operated Video Enhanced Receiver (ROVER) to provide live sensor data and video recordings to personnel on the ground.

 

To improve overall performance and to better cope with the higher empty weight of the modified aircraft as well as with operations under hot-and-high conditions, the engines were beefed up. The new General Electric CT7-9D turboprop engines improved the Bronco's performance considerably: top speed increased by 100 mph (160 km/h), the climb rate was tripled (a weak point of early OV-10s despite the type’s good STOL capability) and both take-off as well as landing run were almost halved. The new engines called for longer nacelles, and their circular diameter markedly differed from the former Garrett T76-G-420/421 turboprop engines. To better exploit the additional power and reduce the aircraft’s audio signature, reversible contraprops, each with eight fiberglass blades, were fitted. These allowed a reduced number of revolutions per minute, resulting in less noise from the blades and their tips, while the engine responsiveness was greatly improved. The CT7-9Ds’ exhausts were fitted with muzzlers/air mixers to further reduce the aircraft's noise and heat signature.

Another novel and striking feature was the addition of so-called “tip sails” to the wings: each wingtip was elongated with a small, cigar-shaped fairing, each carrying three staggered, small “feather blade” winglets. Reputedly, this installation contributed ~10% to the higher climb rate and improved lift/drag ratio by ~6%, improving range and loiter time, too.

Drawing from the Iraq experience as well as from the USMC’s NOGS test program with a converted OV-10D as a night/all-weather gunship/reconnaissance platform, the MV-10H received a heavier gun armament: the original four light machine guns that were only good for strafing unarmored targets were deleted and their space in the sponsons replaced by avionics. Instead, the aircraft was outfitted with a lightweight M197 three-barrel 20mm gatling gun in a chin turret. This could be fixed in a forward position at high speed or when carrying forward-firing ordnance under the stub wings, or it could be deployed to cover a wide field of fire under the aircraft when it was flying slower, being either slaved to the FLIR or to a helmet sighting auto targeting system.

The original seven hardpoints were retained (1x ventral, 2x under each sponson, and another pair under the outer wings), but the total ordnance load was slightly increased and an additional pair of launch rails for AIM-9 Sidewinders or other light AAMs under the wing tips were added – not only as a defensive measure, but also with an anti-helicopter role in mind; four more Sidewinders could be carried on twin launchers under the outer wings against aerial targets. Other guided weapons cleared for the MV-10H were the light laser-guided AGR-20A and AGM-119 Hellfire missiles, the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System upgrade to the light Hydra 70 rockets, the new Laser Guided Zuni Rocket which had been cleared for service in 2010, TV-/IR-/laser-guided AGM-65 Maverick AGMs and AGM-122 Sidearm anti-radar missiles, plus a wide range of gun and missile pods, iron and cluster bombs, as well as ECM and flare/chaff pods, which were not only carried defensively, but also in order to disrupt enemy ground communication.

 

In this configuration, a contract for the conversion of twelve mothballed American Broncos to the new MV-10H standard was signed with Boeing in 2016, and the first MV-10H was handed over to the USAF in early 2018, with further deliveries lasting into early 2020. All machines were allocated to the newly founded 919th Special Operations Support Squadron at Duke Field (Florida). This unit was part of the 919th Special Operations Wing, an Air Reserve Component (ARC) of the United States Air Force. It was assigned to the Tenth Air Force of Air Force Reserve Command and an associate unit of the 1st Special Operations Wing, Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC). If mobilized the wing was gained by AFSOC (Air Force Special Operations Command) to support Special Tactics, the U.S. Air Force's special operations ground force. Similar in ability and employment to Marine Special Operations Command (MARSOC), U.S. Army Special Forces and U.S. Navy SEALs, Air Force Special Tactics personnel were typically the first to enter combat and often found themselves deep behind enemy lines in demanding, austere conditions, usually with little or no support.

 

The MV-10Hs are expected to provide support for these ground units in the form of all-weather reconnaissance and observation, close air support and also forward air control duties for supporting ground units. Precision ground strikes and protection from enemy helicopters and low-flying aircraft were other, secondary missions for the modernized Broncos, which are expected to serve well into the 2040s. Exports or conversions of foreign OV-10s to the Black Pony standard are not planned, though.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 2

Length: 42 ft 2½ in (12,88 m) incl. pitot

Wingspan: 45 ft 10½ in(14 m) incl. tip sails

Height: 15 ft 2 in (4.62 m)

Wing area: 290.95 sq ft (27.03 m²)

Airfoil: NACA 64A315

Empty weight: 9,090 lb (4,127 kg)

Gross weight: 13,068 lb (5,931 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 17,318 lb (7,862 kg)

 

Powerplant:

2× General Electric CT7-9D turboprop engines, 1,305 kW (1,750 hp) each,

driving 8-bladed Hamilton Standard 8 ft 6 in (2.59 m) diameter constant-speed,

fully feathering, reversible contra-rotating propellers with metal hub and composite blades

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 390 mph (340 kn, 625 km/h)

Combat range: 198 nmi (228 mi, 367 km)

Ferry range: 1,200 nmi (1,400 mi, 2,200 km) with auxiliary fuel

Maximum loiter time: 5.5 h with auxiliary fuel

Service ceiling: 32.750 ft (10,000 m)

13,500 ft (4.210 m) on one engine

Rate of climb: 17.400 ft/min (48 m/s) at sea level

Take-off run: 480 ft (150 m)

740 ft (227 m) to 50 ft (15 m)

1,870 ft (570 m) to 50 ft (15 m) at MTOW

Landing run: 490 ft (150 m)

785 ft (240 m) at MTOW

1,015 ft (310 m) from 50 ft (15 m)

 

Armament:

1x M197 3-barreled 20 mm Gatling cannon in a chin turret with 750 rounds ammo capacity

7x hardpoints for a total load of 5.000 lb (2,270 kg)

2x wingtip launch rails for AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs

  

The kit and its assembly:

This fictional Bronco update/conversion was simply spawned by the idea: could it be possible to replace the original cockpit section with one from an AH-1 Cobra, for a kind of gunship version?

 

The basis is the Academy OV-10D kit, mated with the cockpit section from a Fujimi AH-1S TOW Cobra (Revell re-boxing, though), chosen because of its “boxy” cockpit section with flat glass panels – I think that it conveys the idea of an armored cockpit section best. Combining these parts was not easy, though, even though the plan sound simple. Initially, the Bronco’s twin booms, wings and stabilizer were built separately, because this made PSR on these sections easier than trying the same on a completed airframe. One of the initial challenges: the different engines. I wanted something uprated, and a different look, and I had a pair of (excellent!) 1:144 resin engines from the Russian company Kompakt Zip for a Tu-95 bomber at hand, which come together with movable(!) eight-blade contraprops that were an almost perfect size match for the original three-blade props. Biggest problem: the Tu-95 nacelles have a perfectly circular diameter, while the OV-10’s booms are square and rectangular. Combining these parts and shapes was already a messy PST affair, but it worked out quite well – even though the result rather reminds of some Chinese upgrade measure (anyone know the Tu-4 copies with turboprops? This here looks similar!). But while not pretty, I think that the beafier look works well and adds to the idea of a “revived” aircraft. And you can hardly beat the menacing look of contraprops on anything...

The exotic, so-called “tip sails” on the wings, mounted on short booms, are a detail borrowed from the Shijiazhuang Y-5B-100, an updated Chinese variant/copy of the Antonov An-2 biplane transporter. The booms are simple pieces of sprue from the Bronco kit, the winglets were cut from 0.5mm styrene sheet.

 

For the cockpit donor, the AH-1’s front section was roughly built, including the engine section (which is a separate module, so that the basic kit can be sold with different engine sections), and then the helicopter hull was cut and trimmed down to match the original Bronco pod and to fit under the wing. This became more complicated than expected, because a) the AH-1 cockpit and the nose are considerably shorter than the OV-10s, b) the AH-1 fuselage is markedly taller than the Bronco’s and c) the engine section, which would end up in the area of the wing, features major recesses, making the surface very uneven – calling for massive PSR to even this out. PSR was also necessary to hide the openings for the Fujimi AH-1’s stub wings. Other issues: the front landing gear (and its well) had to be added, as well as the OV-10 wing stubs. Furthermore, the new cockpit pod’s rear section needed an aerodynamical end/fairing, but I found a leftover Academy OV-10 section from a build/kitbashing many moons ago. Perfect match!

All these challenges could be tackled, even though the AH-1 cockpit looks surprisingly stout and massive on the Bronco’s airframe - the result looks stockier than expected, but it works well for the "Gunship" theme. Lots of PSR went into the new central fuselage section, though, even before it was mated with the OV-10 wing and the rest of the model.

Once cockpit and wing were finally mated, the seams had to disappear under even more PSR and a spinal extension of the canopy had to be sculpted across the upper wing surface, which would meld with the pod’s tail in a (more or less) harmonious shape. Not an easy task, and the fairing was eventually sculpted with 2C putty, plus even more PSR… Looks quite homogenous, though.

 

After this massive body work, other hardware challenges appeared like small distractions. The landing gear was another major issue because the deeper AH-1 section lowered the ground clearance, also because of the chin turret. To counter this, I raised the OV-10’s main landing gear by ~2mm – not much, but it was enough to create a credible stance, together with the front landing gear transplant under the cockpit, which received an internal console to match the main landing gear’s length. Due to the chin turret and the shorter nose, the front wheel retracts backwards now. But this looks quite plausible, thanks to the additional space under the cockpit tub, which also made a belt feed for the gun’s ammunition supply believable.

To enhance the menacing look I gave the model a fixed refueling boom, made from 1mm steel wire and a receptor adapter sculpted with white glue. The latter stuff was also used add some antenna fairings around the hull. Some antennae, chaff dispensers and an IR decoy were taken from the Academy kit.

 

The ordnance came from various sources. The Sidewinders under the wing tips were taken from an Italeri F-16C/D kit, they look better than the missiles from the Academy Bronco kit. Their launch rails came from an Italeri Bae Hawk 200. The quadruple Hellfire launchers on the underwing hardpoints were left over from an Italeri AH-1W, and they are a perfect load for this aircraft and its role. The LAU-10 and -19 missile pods on the stub wings were taken from the OV-10 kit.

  

Painting and markings:

Finding a suitable and somewhat interesting – but still plausible – paint scheme was not easy. Taking the A-10 as benchmark, an overall light grey livery (with focus on low contrast against the sky as protection against ground fire) would have been a likely choice – and in fact the last operational American OV-10s were painted in this fashion. But in order to provide a different look I used the contemporary USAF V-22Bs and Special Operations MC-130s as benchmark, which typically carry a darker paint scheme consisting of FS 36118 (suitably “Gunship Gray” :D) from above, FS 36375 underneath, with a low, wavy waterline, plus low-viz markings. Not spectacular, but plausible – and very similar to the late r/w Colombian OV-10s.

The cockpit tub became Dark Gull Grey (FS 36231, Humbrol 140) and the landing gear white (Revell 301).

 

The model received an overall black ink washing and some post-panel-shading, to liven up the dull all-grey livery. The decals were gathered from various sources, and I settled for black USAF low-viz markings. The “stars and bars” come from a late USAF F-4, the “IP” tail code was tailored from F-16 markings and the shark mouth was taken from an Academy AH-64. Most stencils came from another Academy OV-10 sheet and some other sources.

Decals were also used to create the trim on the propeller blades and markings on the ordnance.

 

Finally, the model was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and some exhaust soot stains were added with graphite along the tail boom flanks.

  

A successful transplantation – but is this still a modified Bronco or already a kitbashing? The result looks quite plausible and menacing, even though the TOW Cobra front section appears relatively massive. But thanks to the bigger engines and extended wing tips the proportions still work. The large low-pressure tires look a bit goofy under the aircraft, but they are original. The grey livery works IMHO well, too – a more colorful or garish scheme would certainly have distracted from the modified technical basis.

A wrecking yard (Australian, New Zealand, and Canadian English), scrapyard (Irish and British English) or junkyard (American English) is the location of a business in dismantling where wrecked or decommissioned vehicles are brought, their usable parts are sold for use in operating vehicles, while the unusable metal parts, known as scrap metal parts, are sold to metal-recycling companies.

 

Other terms include wreck yard, wrecker's yard, salvage yard, breakers yard, dismantler and scrapheap. In the United Kingdom, car salvage yards are known as car breakers, while motorcycle salvage yards are known as bike breakers. In Australia, they are often referred to as 'Wreckers'.

 

The most common type of wreck yards are automobile wreck yards, but junkyards for motorcycles, bicycles, small airplanes and boats exist too.

 

Many salvage yards operate on a local level—when an automobile is severely damaged, has malfunctioned beyond repair, or not worth the repair, the owner may sell it to a junkyard; in some cases—as when the car has become disabled in a place where derelict cars are not allowed to be left—the car owner will pay the wrecker to haul the car away.

 

Salvage yards also buy most of the wrecked, derelict and abandoned vehicles that are sold at auction from police impound storage lots,and often buy vehicles from insurance tow yards as well.

 

The salvage yard will usually tow the vehicle from the location of its purchase to the yard, but occasionally vehicles are driven in. At the salvage yard the automobiles are typically arranged in rows, often stacked on top of one another.

 

Some yards keep inventories in their offices, as to the usable parts in each car, as well as the car's location in the yard. Many yards have computerized inventory systems. About 75% of any given vehicle can be recycled and used for other goods.

 

In recent years it is becoming increasingly common to use satellite part finder services to contact multiple salvage yards from a single source.

 

In the 20th century these were call centres that charged a premium rate for calls and compiled a facsimile that was sent to various salvage yards so they could respond directly if the part was in stock. Many of these are now Web-based with requests for parts being e-mailed instantly.

Comet 13P/Olbers showing off in a similar fashion to 12P/Pons-Brooks a few months ago...just fainter. Solar wind ruffling the ion tail while the dust tail fans out from tight perspective in its orbit. Our monsoon break led to good imaging conditions July 5th on Robinson Crater.

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

Specs:

Canon EOS R5

ZenithStar 61 II APO (360 mm, f/5.9)

iOptron SkyGuider Pro

17 x 120 sec.

PixInsight, Photoshop, Lightroom

 

I got overconfident in my polar alignment with the tracking mount and went for an hour's worth of two minute exposures after a couple of them turned out good. Then find out afterward that the mount was slipping a bit every other frame or more toward the end of the sequence. So only got 34 minutes of useful data. That extra half hour would've helped with detail in the tail. Anyway. Back to 60 sec. exposures from now on for sake of caution & wasted shots. (not interested in a guidescope at this point with added levels of computerized setup & $)

Photography shot at location in Coral Gables, FL

www.doctorordonez.com

A section of the old

Bekeley Library Main Branch

which still remains after the complete overhaul / rebuilding & seismic upgrading, in which several extensive brand new wings were added -

This is what used to be the main lobby

computerized

RF-84F Thunderflash is the reconnaissance version of Republic F-84F Thunderstreak. The main difference, inherited from the second YF-84F prototype, were the wing-root air intakes. These were not adopted for the fighter version due to loss of thrust. However, this arrangement permitted placement of cameras in the nose and the design was adopted for the The aircraft retained an armament of four machine guns and could carry up to fifteen cameras. Innovations included computerized controls which adjusted camera settings for light, speed, and altitude, a periscope to give the pilot better visualization of the target, and a voice recorder to let the pilot narrate his observations.

 

West German Air Force ordered 108 RF-4F aircrafts out of 715 totally built. They served in Aufklärungsgeschwader 51 (Reconnaissance Wing) and Aufklärungsgeschwader 52. In June 1965 West German Air Force began to replace Thunderflashes with RF-104G Starfighter reconnaissance version starting with AG51. On August 31th 1966 the very last RF-84F retired the Luftwaffe.

 

This particular Republic RF-84F-25-RE from West German Air Force with registration EB-344 served with the USAF 66th TRW at Sembach prior to be transferred to Luftwaffe with AG52. Now it is preserved at "Luftwaffenmuseum der Bundeswehr Berlin-Gatow".

 

Construction Number (C/N): 52-7346. Probably wears fake EB-344 markings.

Esta mujer tiene estilo nuevo de traje, tejido por ella en telar de cintura. Antes los cortes (refajos) no tenían brocado, eran de puro azul añil. Su huipil tiene colores y diseños nuevos.

 

Su faja, desafortunadamente, es computarizada, una tendencia muy mala en Guatemala, que está causando el rechazo de la ropa Maya tejida a mano. Esta ropa computarizada la hace una máquina en pocos minutos, mientras que la ropa tejida a mano puede tardar meses para hacerse. Entonces, muchas prefieren pagar el precio barato de lo computarizado, y esto, con el tiempo, será la muerte (mejor dicho el ASESINATO) de la tradición Maya. Esta ropa computarizada la hace una máquina en pocos minutos, mientras que la ropa tejida a mano puede tardar meses para hacerse. Entonces, muchas prefieren pagar el precio barato de lo computarizado, y esto, con el tiempo, será la muerte (mejor dicho el ASESINATO) de la tradición Maya. Las tejedoras no pueden competir con cosas hechas en fábrica por computadora, y por ende, muchas ya dejaron de tejer.

 

Her clothes are all hand woven on backstrap loom, except the belt, which is computerized. This is a new trend in Guatemala that is causing the death (or actual the MURDER) of the Maya tradition of weaving. A computer spits out a garment in minutes, making it look like an actual Maya weaving, whereas the real hand made thing can take months to weave. Many women opt for the much cheaper computerized weavings, to the detriment of their native Maya tradition. If you go to Guatemala, be careful not buy any computerized textiles. Turn the piece over. Do you see a bunch of white threads in a mass? That is computerized. Ask local Maya women if you’re not sure (not the vendor. The vendor will say anything to sell the piece, including lying). Buying computerized garments is very bad. Maya weavers cannot make a living when competing against factory made computerized stuff, and this is causing hand weaving to go into decline already.

  

Santiago Chimaltenango, Huehuetenango, GUATEMALA (Mam) in Oakland, CA

T-98K Косилка MBT (Косилка - Kosilka - Cutter)

 

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

 

A high tech medium tank.

 

The Косилка MBT is the newest installation in the UT armoury. Developed by the famous IC, this MBT is to be used among various members of the KWA and others around the globe. Designed to be a multirole platform.

 

It is armed with a 3-barreled mounted minigun (Mолния), a main gun, and a twin missile system (1 ATGM, 1 SAM, reloadable from hatch).

 

As with most UT tanks, it features a three-tier protection system.

 

The first tier is the composite armour. It consists of basic armour shell with an insert of alternating layers of aluminum and plastics and a controlled deformation section.

 

The second tier is the Kontakt-5 ERA (explosive reactive armor). It severely reduces the blow from kinetic projectiles. They are in the form of blocks on the turret and body or as ERA plates underneath steel outer covering. It results in much better protection than simple steel armour as featured on many other non-UT tanks.

 

The third tier is a Shtora countermeasures suite. This system includes two IR "dazzlers" on the front of the turret in the shape of blocks, four Laser warning receivers, two 3D6 aerosol grenade discharging systems and a computerized control system. The Shtora-1 warns the tank's crew when the tank has been 'painted' by a weapon-guidance laser and automatically activates the aerosol grenade launchers, effectively jamming the incoming missile. The aerosol grenades are used to mask the tank from laser rangefinders and designators as well as the optics of other weapons systems.

 

For passive guidance rocket systems, IR dazzlers create a blinding field of infrared light, "blinding" the rocket as it's IR isn't visible anymore.

 

The Arena active countermeasures suite consist of a computer, incoming projectile warning sensors, and shrapnel launchers all around the tank hull. It detects an incoming projectile, and sends out a stream of shrapnel to meet the incoming projectile. It destroys the projectile while leaving the armour intact.

 

Over time, seperate systems are upgraded. Tracks to hover, machineguns to laser weapons, stealth armour, railgun main cannon.

 

Powered by a hybrid diesel/electric engine. Fast, has good suspension, and is able to submerge completely into water without leaks. Employs an autoloader.

 

It has it's own air search radar, allowing it to use SAMs standalone. 3 kilometer range.

  

The tanks are also fitted with nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) protection equipment. It includes a mine disabling kit. The EMT-7 electromagnetic-counter mine system is installed: the EMT-7 emits an electromagnetic pulse to disable magnetic mines and disrupt electronics before the tank reaches them. The Nakidka signature reduction suite is also equipped. Nakidka is designed to reduce the probabilities of an object to be detected by Infrared, Thermal, Radar-Thermal, and Radar bands.

 

All tanks are installed with night vision and infrared cameras, with direct feed into screens inside the tank.

 

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

 

Cost: 6,000 GC Credits (7,200 GC Credits - Tier 1)

 

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

 

Credits:

Shark - Inspiration

Domoappo - Rotary Machinegun

Magnus - Workspace

 

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

 

Import Code (Use with credit to above persons):

pastebin.com/QnnvTy45

The Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II "Joint Strike Fighter" sits in a hangar loaded with dummy external munitions, Feb. 13, 2019 at Luke Air Force Base, Ariz. After completing the external pylon installation training, the weapons loading standardization crew, a team of three Airmen, became the first team at Luke to be certified on external GBU-12 bomb and AIM-9 missile loading.

  

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is a family of single-seat, single-engine, all-weather, stealth, fifth-generation, multirole combat aircraft, designed for ground-attack and air-superiority missions. It is built by Lockheed Martin and many subcontractors, including Northrop Grumman, Pratt & Whitney, and BAE Systems.

 

The F-35 has three main models: the conventional takeoff and landing F-35A (CTOL), the short take-off and vertical-landing F-35B (STOVL), and the catapult-assisted take-off but arrested recovery, carrier-based F-35C (CATOBAR). The F-35 descends from the Lockheed Martin X-35, the design that was awarded the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program over the competing Boeing X-32. The official Lightning II name has proven deeply unpopular and USAF pilots have nicknamed it Panther, instead.

 

The United States principally funds F-35 development, with additional funding from other NATO members and close U.S. allies, including the United Kingdom, Italy, Australia, Canada, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, and formerly Turkey. These funders generally receive subcontracts to manufacture components for the aircraft; for example, Turkey was the sole supplier of several F-35 parts until its removal from the program in July 2019. Several other countries have ordered, or are considering ordering, the aircraft.

 

As the largest and most expensive military program ever, the F-35 became the subject of much scrutiny and criticism in the U.S. and in other countries. In 2013 and 2014, critics argued that the plane was "plagued with design flaws", with many blaming the procurement process in which Lockheed was allowed "to design, test, and produce the F-35 all at the same time," instead of identifying and fixing "defects before firing up its production line". By 2014, the program was "$163 billion over budget [and] seven years behind schedule". Critics also contend that the program's high sunk costs and political momentum make it "too big to kill".

 

The F-35 first flew on 15 December 2006. In July 2015, the United States Marines declared its first squadron of F-35B fighters ready for deployment. However, the DOD-based durability testing indicated the service life of early-production F-35B aircraft is well under the expected 8,000 flight hours, and may be as low as 2,100 flight hours. Lot 9 and later aircraft include design changes but service life testing has yet to occur. The U.S. Air Force declared its first squadron of F-35As ready for deployment in August 2016. The U.S. Navy declared its first F-35Cs ready in February 2019. In 2018, the F-35 made its combat debut with the Israeli Air Force.

 

The U.S. stated plan is to buy 2,663 F-35s, which will provide the bulk of the crewed tactical airpower of the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps in coming decades. Deliveries of the F-35 for the U.S. military are scheduled until 2037 with a projected service life up to 2070.

 

Development

 

F-35 development started in 1992 with the origins of the "Joint Strike Fighter" (JSF) program and was to culminate in full production by 2018. The X-35 first flew on 24 October 2000 and the F-35A on 15 December 2006.

 

The F-35 was developed to replace most US fighter jets with the variants of a single design that would be common to all branches of the military. It was developed in co-operation with a number of foreign partners, and, unlike the F-22 Raptor, intended to be available for export. Three variants were designed: the F-35A (CTOL), the F-35B (STOVL), and the F-35C (CATOBAR). Despite being intended to share most of their parts to reduce costs and improve maintenance logistics, by 2017, the effective commonality was only 20%. The program received considerable criticism for cost overruns during development and for the total projected cost of the program over the lifetime of the jets.

 

By 2017, the program was expected to cost $406.5 billion over its lifetime (i.e. until 2070) for acquisition of the jets, and an additional $1.1 trillion for operations and maintenance. A number of design deficiencies were alleged, such as: carrying a small internal payload; performance inferior to the aircraft being replaced, particularly the F-16; lack of safety in relying on a single engine; and flaws such as the vulnerability of the fuel tank to fire and the propensity for transonic roll-off (wing drop). The possible obsolescence of stealth technology was also criticized.

  

Design

 

Overview

 

Although several experimental designs have been developed since the 1960s, such as the unsuccessful Rockwell XFV-12, the F-35B is to be the first operational supersonic STOVL stealth fighter. The single-engine F-35 resembles the larger twin-engined Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, drawing design elements from it. The exhaust duct design was inspired by the General Dynamics Model 200, proposed for a 1972 supersonic VTOL fighter requirement for the Sea Control Ship.

 

Lockheed Martin has suggested that the F-35 could replace the USAF's F-15C/D fighters in the air-superiority role and the F-15E Strike Eagle in the ground-attack role. It has also stated the F-35 is intended to have close- and long-range air-to-air capability second only to that of the F-22 Raptor, and that the F-35 has an advantage over the F-22 in basing flexibility and possesses "advanced sensors and information fusion".

 

Testifying before the House Appropriations Committee on 25 March 2009, acquisition deputy to the assistant secretary of the Air Force, Lt. Gen. Mark D. "Shack" Shackelford, stated that the F-35 is designed to be America's "premier surface-to-air missile killer, and is uniquely equipped for this mission with cutting-edge processing power, synthetic aperture radar integration techniques, and advanced target recognition".

  

Improvements

 

Ostensible improvements over past-generation fighter aircraft include:

 

Durable, low-maintenance stealth technology, using structural fiber mat instead of the high-maintenance coatings of legacy stealth platforms.

 

Integrated avionics and sensor fusion that combine information from off- and on-board sensors to increase the pilot's situational awareness and improve target identification and weapon delivery, and to relay information quickly to other command and control (C2) nodes.

 

High-speed data networking including IEEE 1394b and Fibre Channel (Fibre Channel is also used on Boeing's Super Hornet.

 

The Autonomic Logistics Global Sustainment, Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), and Computerized maintenance management system to help ensure the aircraft can remain operational with minimal maintenance manpower The Pentagon has moved to open up the competitive bidding by other companies. This was after Lockheed Martin stated that instead of costing 20% less than the F-16 per flight hour, the F-35 would actually cost 12% more. Though the ALGS is intended to reduce maintenance costs, the company disagrees with including the cost of this system in the aircraft ownership calculations. The USMC has implemented a workaround for a cyber vulnerability in the system. The ALIS system currently requires a shipping-container load of servers to run, but Lockheed is working on a more portable version to support the Marines' expeditionary operations.

 

Electro-hydrostatic actuators run by a power-by-wire flight-control system.

 

A modern and updated flight simulator, which may be used for a greater fraction of pilot training to reduce the costly flight hours of the actual aircraft.

 

Lightweight, powerful lithium-ion batteries to provide power to run the control surfaces in an emergency.

 

Structural composites in the F-35 are 35% of the airframe weight (up from 25% in the F-22). The majority of these are bismaleimide and composite epoxy materials. The F-35 will be the first mass-produced aircraft to include structural nanocomposites, namely carbon nanotube-reinforced epoxy. Experience of the F-22's problems with corrosion led to the F-35 using a gap filler that causes less galvanic corrosion to the airframe's skin, designed with fewer gaps requiring filler and implementing better drainage. The relatively short 35-foot wingspan of the A and B variants is set by the F-35B's requirement to fit inside the Navy's current amphibious assault ship parking area and elevators; the F-35C's longer wing is considered to be more fuel efficient.

  

Costs

 

A U.S. Navy study found that the F-35 will cost 30 to 40% more to maintain than current jet fighters, not accounting for inflation over the F-35's operational lifetime. A Pentagon study concluded a $1 trillion maintenance cost for the entire fleet over its lifespan, not accounting for inflation. The F-35 program office found that as of January 2014, costs for the F-35 fleet over a 53-year lifecycle was $857 billion. Costs for the fighter have been dropping and accounted for the 22 percent life cycle drop since 2010. Lockheed stated that by 2019, pricing for the fifth-generation aircraft will be less than fourth-generation fighters. An F-35A in 2019 is expected to cost $85 million per unit complete with engines and full mission systems, inflation adjusted from $75 million in December 2013.

Contains historic images of the 1969 moonwalk.

 

Before computerized simulation, there was Viewmaster, which--along with imagination--educated my generation. Found at "Curiosities," a fabulous treasure trove of antiques, folk art and supplies for the assemblage artist in Dallas, TX.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The Georgian Air Force and Air Defense Division (თავდაცვის ძალების ავიაციისა და საჰაერო თავდაცვის სარდლობა; tavdatsvis dzalebis aviatsiisa da sahaero tavdatsvis sardloba) was established on January 1, 1992, and in September the Georgian Air Force conducted its first combat flight during the separatist war in Abkhazia. On August 18, 1998, the two divisions were unified in a joint command structure and renamed the Georgian Air Force.

In 2010, the Georgian Air Force was abolished as a separate branch and incorporated into the Georgian Land Forces as Air and Air Defense sections. By that time, the equipment – primarily consisting of Eastern Bloc aircraft inherited from the Soviet Union after the country’s dissolution – was totally outdated, the most potent aircraft were a dozen Suchoj Su-25 attack aircraft and a handful of MiG-21U trainers.

 

In order to rejuvenate the air arm, Tbilisi Aircraft Manufacturing (TAM), also known as JSC Tbilaviamsheni and formerly known as 31st aviation factory, started a modernization program for the Su-25, for the domestic forces but also for export customers. TAM had a long tradition of aircraft production within the Soviet Union. In the 1950s the factory started the production of Mikoyan's MiG-15 and later, the MiG-17 fighter aircraft. In 1957 Tbilisi Aircraft State Association built the MiG-21 two-seater fighter-trainer aircraft and its various derivative aircraft, continuing the MiG-21 production for about 25 years. At the same time the company was manufacturing the K-10 air-to-surface guided missile. Furthermore, the first Sukhoi Su-25 (known in the West as the "Frogfoot") close support aircraft took its maiden voyage from the runway of 31st aviation factory. Since then, more than 800 SU-25s had been delivered to customers worldwide. From the first SU-25 to the 1990s, JSC Tbilaviamsheni was the only manufacturer of this aircraft, and even after the fall of the Soviet Union the production lines were still intact and spares for more than fifty complete aircraft available. Along with the SU-25 aircraft 31st aviation factory also launched large-scale production of air-to-air R-60 and R-73 IR guided missiles, a production effort that built over 6,000 missiles a year and that lasted until the early 1990s. From 1996 to 1998 the factory also produced Su-25U two-seaters.

 

In 2001 the factory started, in partnership with Elbit Systems of Israel, upgrading basic Su-25 airframes to the Su-25KM “Scorpion” variant. This was just a technical update, however, intended for former Su-25 export customers who would upgrade their less potent Su-25K export aircraft with modern avionics. The prototype aircraft made its maiden flight on 18 April 2001 at Tbilisi in full Georgian Air Force markings. The aircraft used a standard Su-25 airframe, enhanced with advanced avionics including a glass cockpit, digital map generator, helmet-mounted display, computerized weapons system, complete mission pre-plan capability, and fully redundant backup modes. Performance enhancements included a highly accurate navigation system, pinpoint weapon delivery systems, all-weather and day/night performance, NATO compatibility, state-of-the art safety and survivability features, and advanced onboard debriefing capabilities complying with international requirements. The Su-25KM had the ability to use NATO-standard Mark 82 and Mark 83 laser-guided bombs and new air-to-air missiles, the short-range Vympel R-73. This upgrade extended service life of the Su-25 airframes for another decade.

There were, however, not many customers. Manufacturing was eventually stopped at the end of 2010, after Georgian air forces have been permanently dismissed and abolished. By that time, approximately 12 Scorpions had been produced, but the Georgian Air Force still used the basic models of Su-25 because of high cost of Su-25KM and because it was destined mainly for export. According to unofficial sources several Scorpions had been transferred to Turkmenistan as part of a trade deal.

 

In the meantime, another, more ambitious project took shape at Tbilisi Aircraft Manufacturing, too: With the help of Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) the company started the development of a completely new attack aircraft, the TAM-1 “Gvelgeslas” (გველგესლას, Viper). It heavily relied on the year-long experience gathered with Su-25 production at Tblisi and on the tools at hand, but it was eventually a completely new aircraft – looking like a crossbreed between the Su-25 and the American A-10 with a T-tail.

 

This new layout had become necessary because the aircraft was to be powered by more modern, less noisy and more fuel-efficient Rolls Royce AE 3012 turbofan engines - which were originally intended to power the stillborn Yakovlev Yak-77 twin-engine business jet for up to 32 passengers, a slightly derated variant of the GMA 3012 with a 44 in diameter (112 cm) fan and procured via IAI from the United States through the company’s connection with Gulfstream Aerospace. Their larger diameter (the Su-25’s original Soyuz/Tumansky R-195 turbojets had a diameter of 109,5 cm/43.1 in) precluded the use of the former integral engine nacelles along the fuselage. To keep good ground clearance against FOD and to protect them from small arms fire, the engine layout was completely re-arranged. The fuselage was streamlined, and its internal structure was totally changed. The wings moved into a low position. The wings’ planform was almost identical to the Su-25’s, together with the characteristic tip-mounted “crocodile” air brakes. Just the leading edge inside of the “dogteeth” and the wing roots were re-designed, the latter because of the missing former engine nacelles. This resulted in a slightly increased net area, the original wingspan was retained. The bigger turbofans were then mounted in separate pods on short pylons along the rear fuselage, partly protected from below by the wings. Due to the jet efflux and the engines’ proximity to the stabilizers, these were re-located to the top of a deeper, reinforced fin for a T-tail arrangement.

 

Since the Su-25’s engine bays were now gone, the main landing gear had to be completely re-designed. Retracting them into the fuselage or into the relatively thin wings was not possible, TAM engineers settled upon a design that was very similar to the A-10: the aircraft received streamlined fairings, attached to the wings’ main spar, and positioned under the wings’ leading edges. The main legs were only semi-retractable; in flight, the wheels partly protruded from the fairings, but that hardly mattered from an aerodynamic point of view at the TAM-1’s subsonic operational speed. As a bonus they could still be used while retracted during emergency landings, improving the aircraft’s crash survivability.

 

Most flight and weapon avionics were procured from or via Elbit, including the Su-25KT’s modernized “glass cockpit”, and the TAM-1’s NATO compatibility was enhanced to appeal to a wider international export market. Beyond a total of eleven hardpoints under the wings and the fuselage for an external ordnance of up to 4.500 kg (9.900 lb), the TAM-1 was furthermore armed with an internal gun. Due to procurement issues, however, the Su-25’s original twin-barrel GSh-30-2 was replaced with an Oerlikon KDA 35mm cannon – a modern variant of the same cannon used in the German Gepard anti-aircraft tank, adapted to the use in an aircraft with a light-weight gun carriage. The KDA gun fired with a muzzle velocity of 1,440 m/s (4,700 ft/s) and a range of 5.500m, its rate of fire was typically 550 RPM. For the TAM-1, a unique feature from the SPAAG installation was adopted: the gun had two magazines, one with space for 200 rounds and another, smaller one for 50. The magazines could be filled with different types of ammunition, and the pilot was able select between them with a simple switch, adapting to the combat situation. Typical ammunition types were armor-piercing FAPDS rounds against hardened ground targets like tanks, and high explosive shells against soft ground targets and aircraft or helicopters, in a 3:1 ratio. Other ammunition types were available, too, and only 200 rounds were typically carried for balance reasons.

 

The TAM-1’s avionics included a SAGEM ULISS 81 INS, a Thomson-CSF VE-110 HUD, a TMV630 laser rangefinder in a modified nose and a TRT AHV 9 radio altimeter, with all avionics linked through a digital MIL-STD-1553B data bus and a modern “glass cockpit”. A HUD was standard, but an Elbit Systems DASH III HMD could be used by the pilot, too. The DASH GEN III was a wholly embedded design, closely integrated with the aircraft's weapon system, where the complete optical and position sensing coil package was built within the helmet (either the USAF standard HGU-55/P or the Israeli standard HGU-22/P), using a spherical visor to provide a collimated image to the pilot. A quick-disconnect wire powered the display and carried video drive signals to the helmet's Cathode Ray Tube (CRT).

 

The TAM-1’s development was long and protracted, though, primarily due to lack of resources and the fact that the Georgian air force was in an almost comatose state for several years, so that the potential prime customer for the TAM-1 was not officially available. However, the first TAM-1 prototype eventually made its maiden flight in September 2017. This was just in time, because the Georgian Air Force had formally been re-established in 2016, with plans for a major modernization and procurement program. Under the leadership of Georgian Minister of Defense Irakli Garibashvili the Air Force was re-prioritized and aircraft owned by the Georgian Air Force were being modernized and re-serviced after they were left abandoned for 4 years. This program lasted until 2020. In order to become more independent from foreign sources and support its domestic aircraft industry, the Georgian Air Force eventually ordered eight TAM-1s as Su-25K replacements, which would operate alongside a handful of modernized Su-25KMs from national stock. In the meantime, the new type also attained interest from abroad, e. g. from Bulgaria, the Congo and Cyprus. The IDF thoroughly tested two early production TAM-1s of the Georgian Air Force in 2018, too.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 15.53 m (50 ft 11 in), including pitot

Wingspan: 14.36 m (47 ft 1 in)

Height: 4.8 m (15 ft 9 in)

Wing area: 35.2 m² (378 sq ft)

Empty weight: 9,800 kg (21,605 lb)

Gross weight: 14,440 kg (31,835 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 19,300 kg (42,549 lb)

 

Powerplant:

2× Rolls-Royce AE 3012 turbofans with 44.1 kN (9,920 lbf) thrust each

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 975 km/h (606 mph, 526 kn, Mach 0.79)

Range: 1.000 km (620 mi, 540 nmi) with internal fuel, clean

Combat range: 750 km (470 mi, 400 nmi) at sea level with 4.500 kg (9,911 lb) of ordnance,

incl. two external fuel tanks

Service ceiling: 7.800 m (25,550 ft)

g limits: +6.5

Rate of climb: 58 m/s (11,400 ft/min)

 

Armament:

1× 35 mm (1.38 in) Oerlikon KDA cannon with 200 rds in two magazines

under the lower forward fuselage, offset to port side.

11× hardpoints with a capacity of up to 4.500 kg (9,911 lb) of external stores

  

The kit and its assembly:

This rather rigorous conversion had been on my project list for many years, and with the “Gunships” group build at whatifmodellers.com in late 2021 I eventually gathered my mojo to tackle it. The ingredients had already been procured long ago, but there are ideas that make you think twice before you take action…

 

This build was somewhat inspired by a CG rendition of a modified Su-25 that I came across while doing online search for potential ideas, running under the moniker “Su-125”, apparently created by someone called “Bispro” and published at DeviantArt in 2010; check this: (www.deviantart.com/bispro/art/Sukhoi-Su-125-Foghorn-15043...). The rendition shows a Su-25 with its engines re-located to the rear fuselage in separate nacelles, much like an A-10, plus a T-tail. However, as many photoshopped aircraft, the shown concept had IMHO some flaws. Where would a landing gear go, as the Su-125 still had shoulder wings? The engines’ position and size also looked fishy to me, quite small/narrow and very far high and back – I had doubts concerning the center of gravity. Nevertheless, I liked the idea, and the idea of an “A-10-esque remix” of the classic Frogfoot was born.

 

This idea was fueled even further when I found out that the Hobbycraft kit lends itself to such a conversion. The kit itself is not a brilliant Su-25 rendition, there are certainly better models of the aircraft in 1:72. However, what spoke for the kit as whiffing fodder was/is the fact that it is quite cheap (righteously so!) and AFAIK the only offering that comes with separate engine nacelles. These are attached to a completely independent central fuselage, and this avoids massive bodywork that would be necessary (if possible at all) with more conventional kits of this aircraft.

Another beneficial design feature is that the wing roots are an integral part of the original engine nacelles, forming their top side up to the fuselage spine. Through this, the original wingspan could be retained even without the nacelles, no wing extension would be necessary to retain the original proportions.

 

Work started with the central fuselage and the cockpit tub, which received a different (better) armored ejection seat and a pilot figure; the canopy remained unmodified and closed, because representing the model with an open cockpit would have required additional major body work on the spinal area behind the canopy. Inside, a new dashboard (from an Italeri BAe Hawk) was added, too – the original instrument panel is just a flat front bulkhead, there’s no space for the pilot to place the legs underneath the dashboard!

 

In parallel, the fin underwent major surgery. I initially considered an A-10-ish twin tail, but the Su-25’s high “tail stinger” prevented its implementation: the jet efflux would come very close to the tail surfaces. So, I went for something similar to the “Su-125” layout.

Mounting the OOB stabilizers to the fin was challenging, though. The fin lost its di-electric tip fairing, and it was cut into two sections, so that the tip would become long enough to match the stabilizers. A lucky find in the scrap box was a leftover tail tip from a Matchbox Blackburn Buccaneer, already shortened from a former, stillborn project: it had now the perfect length to take the Su-25 stabilizers! To make it fit on the fin, an 8mm deep section was inserted, in the form of a simple 1.5mm styrene sheet strip. Once dry, the surface was re-built with several PSR layers. Since it would sit further back on the new aircraft’s tail, the stinger with a RHAWS sensor was shortened.

 

On the fuselage, the attachment points for the wings and the engine nacelles were PSRed away and the front section filled with lots of lead beads, hoping that it would be enough to keep the model’s nose down.

 

Even though the wings had a proper span for a re-location into a low position, they still needed some attention: at the roots, there’s a ~1cm wide section without sweep (the area which would normally cover the original engine nacelles’ tops). This was mended through triangular 1.5 mm styrene wedges that extended the leading-edge sweep, roughly cut into shape once attached and later PSRed into the wings’ surfaces

 

The next construction site were the new landing gear attachment points. This had caused some serious headaches – where do you place and stow it? With new, low wings settled, the wings were the only logical place. But the wings were too thin to suitably take the retracted wheels, and, following the idea of a retrofitted existing design, I decided to adopt the A-10’s solution of nacelles into which the landing gear retracts forward, with the wheels still partly showing. This layout option appears quite plausible, since it would be a “graft-on” solution, and it also has the benefit of leaving lots of space for underwing stores, since the hardpoints’ position had to be modified now, too.

I was lucky to have a pair of A-10 landing gear nacelles at hand, left over from a wrecked Matchbox model from childhood time (the parts are probably 35 years old!). They were simply cut out, glued to the Su-25 wings and PSRed into shape. The result looked really good!

 

At this point I had to decide the model’s overall layout – where to place the wings, the tail and the new engine nacelles. The latter were not 1:72 A-10 transplants. I had some spare engine pods from the aforementioned Matchbox wreck, but these looked too rough and toylike for my taste. They were furthermore too bulky for the Su-25, which is markedly smaller than an A-10, so I had to look elsewhere. As a neat alternative for this project, I had already procured many moons ago a set of 1:144 resin PS-90A engines from a Russian company called “A.M.U.R. Reaver”, originally intended for a Tu-204 airliner or an Il-76 transport aircraft. These turbofan nacelles not only look very much like A-10 nacelles, just a bit smaller and more elegant, they are among the best resin aftermarket parts I have ever encountered: almost no flash, crisp molding, no bubbles, and perfect fit of the parts – WOW!

With these three elements at hand I was able to define the wings’ position, based on the tail, and from that the nacelles’ location, relative to the wings and the fin.

 

The next challenge: how to attach the new engines to the fuselage? The PS-90A engines came without pylons, so I had to improvise. I eventually found suitable pylons in the form of parts from F-14A underwing missile pylons, left over from an Italeri kit. Some major tailoring was necessary to find a proper position on the nacelles and on the fuselage, and PSRing these parts turned out to be quite difficult because of the tight and labyrinthine space.

 

When the engines were in place, work shifted towards the model’s underside. The landing gear was fully replaced. I initially wanted to retain the front wheel leg and the main wheels but found that the low wings would not allow a good ground clearance for underwing stores and re-arming the aircraft, a slightly taller solution was necessary. I eventually found a complete landing gear set in the scrap box, even though I am not certain to which aircraft it once belonged? I guess that the front wheel came from a Hasegawa RA-5C Vigilante, while the main gear and the wheels once belonged to an Italeri F-14A, alle struts were slightly shortened. The resulting stance is still a bit stalky, but an A-10 is also quite tall – this is just not so obvious because of the aircraft’s sheer size.

 

Due to the low wings and the landing gear pods, the Su-25’s hardpoints had to be re-arranged, and this eventually led to a layout very similar to the A-10. I gave the aircraft a pair of pylons inside of the pods, plus three hardpoints under the fuselage, even though all of these would only be used when slim ordnance was carried. I just fitted the outer pair. Outside of the landing gear fairings there would have been enough space for the Frogfoot’s original four outer for pylons, but I found this to be a little too much. So I gave it “just” three, with more space between them.

The respective ordnance is a mix for a CAS mission with dedicated and occasional targets. It consists of:

- Drop tanks under the inner wings (left over from a Bilek Su-17/22 kit)

- A pair of B-8M1 FFAR pods under the fuselage (from a vintage Mastercraft USSR weapon set)

- Two MERs with four 200 kg bombs each, mounted on the pylons outside of the landing gear (the odd MERs came from a Special Hobby IDF SMB-2 Super Mystère kit, the bombs are actually 1:100 USAF 750 lb bombs from a Tamiya F-105 Thunderchief in that scale)

- Four CBU-100 Rockeye Mk. II cluster bombs on the outer stations (from two Italeri USA/NATO weapon sets, each only offers a pair of these)

Yes, it’s a mix of Russian and NATO ordnance – but, like the real Georgian Su-25KM “Scorpion” upgrade, the TAM-1 would certainly be able to carry the same or even a wider mix, thanks to modified bomb racks and wirings. Esp. “dumb” weapons, which do not call for special targeting and guidance avionics, are qualified.

The gun under the nose was replaced with a piece from a hollow steel needle.

  

Painting and markings:

Nothing unusual here. I considered some more “exotic” options, but eventually settled for a “conservative” Soviet/Russian-style four-tone tactical camouflage, something that “normal” Su-25s would carry, too.

The disruptive pattern was adapted from a Macedonian Frogfoot but underwent some changes due to the T-tail and the engine nacelles. The basic tones were Humbrol 119 (RAF Light Earth), 150 (Forest Green), 195 (Chrome Oxide Green, RAL 6020) and 98 (Chocolate) on the upper surfaces and RLM78 from (Modelmaster #2087) from below, with a relatively low waterline, due to the low-set wings.

As usual, the model received a light black ink washing and some post-shading – especially on the hull and on the fin, where many details had either disappeared under PSR or were simply not there at all.

 

The landing gear and the lower areas of the cockpit were painted in light grey (Humbrol 64), while the upper cockpit sections were painted with bright turquoise (Modelmaster #2135). The wheel hubs were painted in bright green (Humbrol 101), while some di-electric fairings received a slightly less intense tone (Humbrol 2). A few of these flat fairings on the hull were furthermore created with green decal sheet material (from TL Modellbau) to avoid masking and corrections with paint.

 

The tactical markings became minimal, matching the look of late Georgian Su-25s. The roundels came from a Balkan Models Frogfoot sheet. The “07” was taken from a Blue Rider decal sheet, it actually belongs to a Lithuanian An-2. Some white stencils from generic MiG-21 and Mi-8 Begemot sheets were added, too, and some small markings were just painted onto the hull with yellow.

 

Some soot stains around the jet nozzles and the gun were added with graphite, and finally the kit was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish.

  

A major bodywork project – and it’s weird that this is basically just a conversion of a stock kit and no kitbashing. A true Frogfoot remix! The new engines were the biggest “outsourced” addition, the A-10 landing gear fairings were a lucky find in the scrap box, and the rest is quite generic and could have looked differently. The result is impressive and balanced, though, the fictional TAM-1 looks quite plausible. The landing gear turned out to be a bit tall and stalky, though, making the aircraft look smaller on the ground than it actually is – but I left it that way.

On Friday, December 10, 1993, I'm riding in the cab car which is leading northbound Amtrak train #312, aka "The Loop". We are nearing Broadwell, Illinois at milepost 164.2 on the SP's former GM&O mainline. Broadwell (163.4) was home to the most reliable defect detector in the history of American railroading. This detector, with its female computerized voice would belt out its stern train analyzations which could be heard by any scanner religiously from 50 miles away. This was one of the most nerve racking cab rides I was ever on. We were approaching grade crossings at 80 mph, and my heart skipped a beat at each one of them!! The Loop operated from Chicago Union Station to Springfield on weekdays only, providing service to businessmen and women with an arrival at Noon and returning to Chicago at 3:00 pm. The Loop was discontinued In 1996.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

 

Some background:

The Northrop Grumman-IAI F-24 is the latest reincarnation of the USAF "Lightweight Fighter Program" which dates back to the 1950ies and started with the development of Northrop's F-5 "Freedom Fighter".

 

The 1st generation F-5 became very successful in the export market and saw a long line of development, including the much more powerful F-5E "Tiger II" and the F-20 Tigershark (initially called F-5G). Northrop had high hopes for the F-20 in the international market; however, policy changes following Ronald Reagan's election meant the F-20 had to compete for sales against aircraft like the F-16, the USAF's latest fighter design (which was politically favored). The F-20 development program was eventually abandoned in 1986 after three prototypes had been built and a fourth partially completed.

 

But this was not the end for Northrop’s Lightweight Fighter. In the early 1980s, two X-29As experimental aircraft were built by Grumman from two existing Northrop F-5A Freedom Fighter airframes. The Grumman X-29 was a testbed for forward-swept wings, canard control surfaces, and other novel aircraft technologies. The aerodynamic instability of this arrangement increased agility but required the use of computerized fly-by-wire control. Composite materials were used to control the aeroelastic divergent twisting experienced by forward-swept wings, also reducing the weight. The NASA test program continued from 1984 to 1991 and the X-29s flew 242 times, gathering valuable data and breaking ground for new aerodynamic technologies of 4th and 5th generation fighters.

 

Even though no service aircraft directly evolved from the X-29, its innovative FBW system as well as the new material technologies also opened the door for an updated F-20 far beyond the 1990ies. It became clear that ever expensive and complex aircraft could not be the answer to modern, asymmetrical warfare in remote corners of the world, with exploding development costs and just a limited number of aircraft in service that could not generate true economies of scale, esp. when their state-of-the-art design would not permit any export.

Anyway, a global market for simpler fighter aircraft was there, as 1st generation F-16s as well as the worldwide, aging F-5E fleet and types of Soviet/Russian origin like the MiG-29 provided the need for a modern, yet light and economical jet fighter. Contemporary types like the Indian HAL Tejas, the Swedish Saab Gripen, the French Dassault Rafale and the Pakistani/Chinese FC-1/JF-17 ”Thunder” proved this trend among 4th - 4.5th generation fighter aircraft.

 

Northrop Grumman (Northrop bought Grumman in 1994) initiated studies and basic design work on a respective New Lightweight Fighter (NLF) as a private venture in 1995. Work on the NLF started at a slow pace, as the company was busy with re-structuring.

The idea of an updated lightweight fighter was fueled by another source, too: Israel. In 1998 IAI started looking in the USA for a development partner for a new, light fighter that would replace its obsolete Kfir fleet and partly relieve its F-16 and F-15 fleet from interception tasks. The domestic project for that role, the IAI Lavi, had been stillborn, but lots of its avionics and research were still at hand and waited for an airframe for completion.

The new aircraft for the IAF was to be superior to the MiG-29, at least on par with the F-16C/D, but easier to maintain, smaller and overall cheaper. Since the performance profiles appeared to be similar to what Northrop Grumman was developing under the NLF label, the US company eventually teamed up with IAI in 2000 and both started the mutual project "Namer" (=נמר, “Tiger” in Hebrew), which eventually lead to the F-24 I for the IAF which kept its project name for service and to the USAF’s F-24A “Tigershark”.

 

The F-24, as the NLF, was based on the F-20 airframe, but outwardly showed only little family heritage, onle the forward fuselage around the cockpit reminds of the original F-5 design . Many aerodynamic details, e. g. the air intakes and air ducts, were taken over from the X-29, though, as the experimental aircraft and its components had been developed for extreme maneuvers and extra high agility. Nevertheless, the X-29's forward-swept wing was considered to be too exotic and fragile for a true service aircraft, but the F-24 was to feature an Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) system.

 

AAW Technology integrates wing aerodynamics, controls, and structure to harness and control wing aeroelastic twist at high speeds and dynamic pressures. By using multiple leading and trailing edge controls like "aerodynamic tabs", subtle amounts of aeroelastic twist can be controlled to provide large amounts of wing control power, while minimizing maneuver air loads at high wing strain conditions or aerodynamic drag at low wing strain conditions. This system was initially tested on the X-29 and later on the X-53 research aircraft, a modified F-18, until 2006.

 

Both USAF and IAF versions feature this state-of-the-art aerodynamic technology, but it is uncertain if other customers will receive it. While details concerning the F-24's system have not been published yet, it is assumed that its AAW is so effective that canard foreplanes could be omitted without sacrificing lift and maneuverability, and that drag is effectively minimized as the wing profile can be adjusted according to the aircraft’s speed, altitude, payload and mission – much like a VG wing, but without its clumsy and heavy swiveling mechanism which has to bear high g forces. As a result, the F-24 is, compared to the F-20, which could carry an external payload of about 3.5 tons, rumored to be able to carry up to 5 tons of ordnance.

 

The delta wing shape proved to be a perfect choice for the required surface and flap actuators inside of the wings, and it would also offer a very good compromise between lift and drag for a wide range of performance. Anyway, there was one price to pay: in order to keep the wing profile thin and simple, the F-24’s landing gear retracts into the lower fuselage, leaving the aircraft with a relatively narrow track.

 

Another major design factor for the outstanding performance of this rather small aircraft was weight reduction and structural integrity – combined with simplicity, ruggedness and a modular construction which would allow later upgrades. Instead of “going big” and expensive, the new F-24 was to create its performance through dedicated loss of weight, which was in some part also a compensation for the AAW system in the wings and its periphery.

 

Weight was saved wherever possible, e .g. a newly developed, lightweight M199A1 gatling gun. This 20mm cannon is a three-barreled, heavily modified version of the already “stripped” M61A2 gun in the USAF’s current F-18E and F-22. One of the novel features is a pneumatic drive instead of the traditional electric mechanism, what not only saves weight but also improves trigger response. The new gun weighs only a mere 65kg (the six-barreled M61A2 weighs 92kg, the original M61A1 112 kg), but still reaches a burst rate of fire of 1.800 RPM (about 800 RPM under cyclic fire, standard practice is to fire the cannon in 30 to 50-round bursts, though) and a muzzle velocity of 1.050 metres per second (3,450 ft/s) with a PGU-28/B round.

 

While the F-16 was and is still made from 80% aluminum alloys and only from 3% composites, the F-24 makes major use of carbon fiber and other lightweight materials, which make up about 40% of the aircraft’s structure, plus an increased share of Titanium and Magnesium alloys. As a consequence and through many other weight-saving measures like keeping stealth capabilities to a minimum (even though RAM was deliberately used and many details designed to have a natural low radar signature, resulting in modest radar cross-section (RCS) reductions), a single, relatively small engine, a fuel-efficient F404-GE-402 turbofan, is enough to make the F-24 a fast and very agile aircraft, coupled with a good range. The F-24’s thrust/weight ratio is considerably higher than 1, and later versions with a vectored thrust nozzle (see below) will take this level of agility even further – with the pilot becoming the limiting factor for the aircraft’s performance.

 

USAF and IAF F-24s are outfitted with Northrop Grumman's AN/APG-80 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, also used in the F-16 Block 60 aircraft. Other customers might only receive the AN/APG-68, making the F-24 comparable to the F-16C/D.

 

The first prototype, the YF-24, flew on 8th of March 2008, followed by two more aircraft plus a static airframe until summer 2010. In early 2011 the USAF placed an initial order of 101 aircraft (probably also to stir export sales – the earlier lightweight fighters from Northrop suffered from the fact that the manufacturer’s country would not use the aircraft in its own forces). These initial aircraft will replace older F-16 in the interceptor role, or free them for fighter bomber tasks. The USN and USMC also showed interest in the aircraft for their aggressor squadrons, for dissimilar air combat training. A two-seater, called the F-24B, is supposed to follow soon, too, and a later version for 2020 onwards, tentatively designated F-24C, is to feature an even stronger F404 engine and a 3D vectoring nozzle.

 

Israel is going to produce its own version domestically from late 2014 on, which will exclusively be used by the IAF. These aircraft will be outfitted with different avionics, built by Elta in Israel, and cater to national requirements which focus more on multi-purpose service, while the USAF focusses with its F-24A on aerial combat and interception tasks.

 

International interest for the F-24A is already there: in late 2013 Grumman stated that initial talks have been made with various countries, and potential export candidates from 2015 on are Taiwan, Singapore, Thailand, Finland, Norway, Australia and Japan.

  

General F-24A characteristics:

Crew: 1 pilot

Length: 47 ft 4 in (14.4 m)

Wingspan: 27 ft 11.9 in / 8.53 m; with wingtip missiles (26 ft 8 in/ 8.13 m; without wingtip missiles)

Height: 13 ft 10 in (4.20 m)

Wing area: 36.55 m² (392 ft²)

Empty weight: 13.150 lb (5.090 kg)

Loaded weight: 15.480 lb (6.830 kg)

Max. take-off weight: 27.530 lb (12.500 kg)

 

Powerplant

1× General Electric F404-GE-402 turbofan with a dry thrust of 11,000 lbf (48.9 kN) and 17,750 lbf (79.2 kN) with afterburner

 

Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 2+

Combat radius: 300 nmi (345 mi, 556 km); for hi-lo-hi mission with 2 × 330 US gal (1,250 L) drop tanks

Ferry range: 1,490 nmi (1715 mi, 2759 km); with 3 × 330 US gal (1,250 L) drop tanks

Service ceiling: 55,000 ft (16,800 m)

Rate of climb: 52,800 ft/min (255 m/s)

Wing loading: 70.0 lb/ft² (342 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight: 1.09 (1.35 with loaded weight & 50% fuel)

 

Armament

1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M199A1 3-barreled Gatling cannon in the lower fuselage with 400 RPG

Eleven external hardpoints (two wingtip tails, six underwing hardpoints, three underfuselage hardpoints) and a total capacity of 11.000 lb (4.994 kg) of missiles (incl. AIM 9 Sidewinder and AIM 120 AMRAAM), bombs, rockets, ECM pods and drop tanks for extended range.

  

The kit and its assembly:

A spontaneous project. This major kitbash was inspired by fellow user nighthunter at whatifmodelers.com, who came up with a profile of a mashed-up US fighter, created “out of boredom”. The original idea was called F-21C, and it was to be a domestic successor to the IAI Kfirs which had been used by the US as aggressor aircraft in USN and USMC service for a few years.

 

As a weird(?) coincidence I had many of the necessary ingredients for this fictional aircraft in store, even though some parts and details were later changed. This model here is an interpretation of the original design. The idea was spun further, and the available parts that finally went into the model also had some influence on design and background.

I thank nighthunter for sharing the early ideas, inviting me to take the design to the hardware stage (sort of…) and adapting my feedback into new design sketches, too, which, in return, inspired the model building process.

 

Well, what went into this thing? To cook up a F-24 à la Dizzyfugu you just need (all in 1:72):

● Fuselage from a Hasegawa X-29, including the cockpit and the landing gear

● Fin and nose cone from an Italeri F-16A

● Inner wings from a (vintage) Hasegawa MiG-21F

● Outer wings from a F-4 (probably a J, Hasegawa or Fujimi)

 

The wing construction deviates from nighthunter’s original idea. The favorite ingredients would have been F-16XL or simple Mirage III wings, but I found the composite wing to be more attractive and “different”. The big F-16XL wings, despite their benefit of a unique shape, might also have created scale/size problems with a F-20 style fuselage? So I built hybrid wings: The MiG-21 landing gear wells were filled with putty and the F-4 outer wings simply glued onto the MiG inner wing sections, which were simply cut down in span. It sounds like an unlikely combo, but these parts fit together almost perfectly! In order to hide the F-4 origins I modified them to carry wingtip launch rails, though, which were also part of nighthunter’s original design.

 

The AAW technology detail mentioned in the background came in handy as it explains the complicated wing shape and the fact that the landing gear retracts into the fuselage, not into the wings, which would have been more plausible… Anyway, there’s still room for a simpler export version, with Mirage III or Kfir C.2/7 wings, and maybe canards?

 

Using the X-29 as basis also made fitting the new wings onto the area-ruled fuselage pretty easy, as I could use the wing root parts from the X-29 to bridge the gap. The original, forward-swept wings were just cut away, and the remains used as consoles for the new hybrid delta wings. Took some SERIOUS putty work, but the result is IMHO fine.

 

The bigger/square X-29 air intakes were taken over, and they change the look of the aircraft, making it look less F-5-ish than a true F-20 fuselage. For the same reason I kept the large fairing at the fin base, combining it with a bigger F-16 tail, though, as a counter-balance to the new, bigger wings. Again, the F-16 fin was/is part of nighthunter’s idea, so the model stays true to the original concept.

 

For the same reason I omitted the original X-29 nose, which is rather pointy, sports vanes and a large sensor boom. The F-16 nose was a plausible choice, as the AN/APG-80 is also carried by late Fighting Falcons, and its shape fits well, too.

 

All around the hull, some small details like radar warning sensors, pitots and air scoops were added. Not really necessary, but such thing add IMHO to the overall impression of such a fictional aircraft beyond the prototype stage.

 

Cockpit and landing gear were taken OOB, I just added a pilot figure and slightly modified the seat.

 

The ordnance was puzzled together from the scrap box, the AIM-9Ls come from the same F-4 kit which donated its outer wings, the AIM-120s come from an Italeri NATO weapons kit. The drop tanks belong to an F-16.

  

Painting and markings:

At first I considered an F-24I in IAF markings, or even a Japanese aircraft, but then reverted to one of nighthunter’s initial, simple ideas: an USAF aircraft in the “Hill II” paint scheme (F-16 style), made up from three shades of gray (FS 36118, 36270 and 36375) with low-viz markings and stencils. Dutch/Turkish NF-5A/Bs in the “Hill II” scheme were used as design benchmarks, too. It’s a simple livery, but on this delta wing aircraft it looks pretty interesting. I used enamels, what I had at hand: Humbrol 127 and 126, and Modelmaster's 1723.

 

A light black ink wash was applied, in order to em,phasize the engraved panel lines, in contrast to that, panels were manually highlighted through dry-brushed, lighter shades of gray (Humbrol 27, 166 and 167).

 

“Hill II” also adds to a generic, realistic touch for this whif. Doing an exotic air force thing is rather easy, but creating a convincing whif for a huge military machinery like the USAF’s takes more subtlety, I think.

 

The cockpit was painted in medium Gray (Dark Gull Grey, FS 36231, Humbrol 140), as well as the radome. The landing gear and the air intakes were painted white. The radome was painted with Revell 47 and dry-brushed with Humbrol 140.

 

Decals were puzzled together from various USAF aircraft, including sheets from an Airfix F-117, an Italeri F-15E and even an Academy OV-10D.

  

Tadah: a hardware tribute to an idea, born from boredom - and the aircraft does not look even bad at all? What I wanted to achieve was to make the F-24 neither look like a F-20, nor a Saab Gripen clone, as the latter comes close in overall shape, size and design.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The Georgian Air Force and Air Defense Division (თავდაცვის ძალების ავიაციისა და საჰაერო თავდაცვის სარდლობა; tavdatsvis dzalebis aviatsiisa da sahaero tavdatsvis sardloba) was established on January 1, 1992, and in September the Georgian Air Force conducted its first combat flight during the separatist war in Abkhazia. On August 18, 1998, the two divisions were unified in a joint command structure and renamed the Georgian Air Force.

In 2010, the Georgian Air Force was abolished as a separate branch and incorporated into the Georgian Land Forces as Air and Air Defense sections. By that time, the equipment – primarily consisting of Eastern Bloc aircraft inherited from the Soviet Union after the country’s dissolution – was totally outdated, the most potent aircraft were a dozen Suchoj Su-25 attack aircraft and a handful of MiG-21U trainers.

 

In order to rejuvenate the air arm, Tbilisi Aircraft Manufacturing (TAM), also known as JSC Tbilaviamsheni and formerly known as 31st aviation factory, started a modernization program for the Su-25, for the domestic forces but also for export customers. TAM had a long tradition of aircraft production within the Soviet Union. In the 1950s the factory started the production of Mikoyan's MiG-15 and later, the MiG-17 fighter aircraft. In 1957 Tbilisi Aircraft State Association built the MiG-21 two-seater fighter-trainer aircraft and its various derivative aircraft, continuing the MiG-21 production for about 25 years. At the same time the company was manufacturing the K-10 air-to-surface guided missile. Furthermore, the first Sukhoi Su-25 (known in the West as the "Frogfoot") close support aircraft took its maiden voyage from the runway of 31st aviation factory. Since then, more than 800 SU-25s had been delivered to customers worldwide. From the first SU-25 to the 1990s, JSC Tbilaviamsheni was the only manufacturer of this aircraft, and even after the fall of the Soviet Union the production lines were still intact and spares for more than fifty complete aircraft available. Along with the SU-25 aircraft 31st aviation factory also launched large-scale production of air-to-air R-60 and R-73 IR guided missiles, a production effort that built over 6,000 missiles a year and that lasted until the early 1990s. From 1996 to 1998 the factory also produced Su-25U two-seaters.

 

In 2001 the factory started, in partnership with Elbit Systems of Israel, upgrading basic Su-25 airframes to the Su-25KM “Scorpion” variant. This was just a technical update, however, intended for former Su-25 export customers who would upgrade their less potent Su-25K export aircraft with modern avionics. The prototype aircraft made its maiden flight on 18 April 2001 at Tbilisi in full Georgian Air Force markings. The aircraft used a standard Su-25 airframe, enhanced with advanced avionics including a glass cockpit, digital map generator, helmet-mounted display, computerized weapons system, complete mission pre-plan capability, and fully redundant backup modes. Performance enhancements included a highly accurate navigation system, pinpoint weapon delivery systems, all-weather and day/night performance, NATO compatibility, state-of-the art safety and survivability features, and advanced onboard debriefing capabilities complying with international requirements. The Su-25KM had the ability to use NATO-standard Mark 82 and Mark 83 laser-guided bombs and new air-to-air missiles, the short-range Vympel R-73. This upgrade extended service life of the Su-25 airframes for another decade.

There were, however, not many customers. Manufacturing was eventually stopped at the end of 2010, after Georgian air forces have been permanently dismissed and abolished. By that time, approximately 12 Scorpions had been produced, but the Georgian Air Force still used the basic models of Su-25 because of high cost of Su-25KM and because it was destined mainly for export. According to unofficial sources several Scorpions had been transferred to Turkmenistan as part of a trade deal.

 

In the meantime, another, more ambitious project took shape at Tbilisi Aircraft Manufacturing, too: With the help of Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) the company started the development of a completely new attack aircraft, the TAM-1 “Gvelgeslas” (გველგესლას, Viper). It heavily relied on the year-long experience gathered with Su-25 production at Tblisi and on the tools at hand, but it was eventually a completely new aircraft – looking like a crossbreed between the Su-25 and the American A-10 with a T-tail.

 

This new layout had become necessary because the aircraft was to be powered by more modern, less noisy and more fuel-efficient Rolls Royce AE 3012 turbofan engines - which were originally intended to power the stillborn Yakovlev Yak-77 twin-engine business jet for up to 32 passengers, a slightly derated variant of the GMA 3012 with a 44 in diameter (112 cm) fan and procured via IAI from the United States through the company’s connection with Gulfstream Aerospace. Their larger diameter (the Su-25’s original Soyuz/Tumansky R-195 turbojets had a diameter of 109,5 cm/43.1 in) precluded the use of the former integral engine nacelles along the fuselage. To keep good ground clearance against FOD and to protect them from small arms fire, the engine layout was completely re-arranged. The fuselage was streamlined, and its internal structure was totally changed. The wings moved into a low position. The wings’ planform was almost identical to the Su-25’s, together with the characteristic tip-mounted “crocodile” air brakes. Just the leading edge inside of the “dogteeth” and the wing roots were re-designed, the latter because of the missing former engine nacelles. This resulted in a slightly increased net area, the original wingspan was retained. The bigger turbofans were then mounted in separate pods on short pylons along the rear fuselage, partly protected from below by the wings. Due to the jet efflux and the engines’ proximity to the stabilizers, these were re-located to the top of a deeper, reinforced fin for a T-tail arrangement.

 

Since the Su-25’s engine bays were now gone, the main landing gear had to be completely re-designed. Retracting them into the fuselage or into the relatively thin wings was not possible, TAM engineers settled upon a design that was very similar to the A-10: the aircraft received streamlined fairings, attached to the wings’ main spar, and positioned under the wings’ leading edges. The main legs were only semi-retractable; in flight, the wheels partly protruded from the fairings, but that hardly mattered from an aerodynamic point of view at the TAM-1’s subsonic operational speed. As a bonus they could still be used while retracted during emergency landings, improving the aircraft’s crash survivability.

 

Most flight and weapon avionics were procured from or via Elbit, including the Su-25KT’s modernized “glass cockpit”, and the TAM-1’s NATO compatibility was enhanced to appeal to a wider international export market. Beyond a total of eleven hardpoints under the wings and the fuselage for an external ordnance of up to 4.500 kg (9.900 lb), the TAM-1 was furthermore armed with an internal gun. Due to procurement issues, however, the Su-25’s original twin-barrel GSh-30-2 was replaced with an Oerlikon KDA 35mm cannon – a modern variant of the same cannon used in the German Gepard anti-aircraft tank, adapted to the use in an aircraft with a light-weight gun carriage. The KDA gun fired with a muzzle velocity of 1,440 m/s (4,700 ft/s) and a range of 5.500m, its rate of fire was typically 550 RPM. For the TAM-1, a unique feature from the SPAAG installation was adopted: the gun had two magazines, one with space for 200 rounds and another, smaller one for 50. The magazines could be filled with different types of ammunition, and the pilot was able select between them with a simple switch, adapting to the combat situation. Typical ammunition types were armor-piercing FAPDS rounds against hardened ground targets like tanks, and high explosive shells against soft ground targets and aircraft or helicopters, in a 3:1 ratio. Other ammunition types were available, too, and only 200 rounds were typically carried for balance reasons.

 

The TAM-1’s avionics included a SAGEM ULISS 81 INS, a Thomson-CSF VE-110 HUD, a TMV630 laser rangefinder in a modified nose and a TRT AHV 9 radio altimeter, with all avionics linked through a digital MIL-STD-1553B data bus and a modern “glass cockpit”. A HUD was standard, but an Elbit Systems DASH III HMD could be used by the pilot, too. The DASH GEN III was a wholly embedded design, closely integrated with the aircraft's weapon system, where the complete optical and position sensing coil package was built within the helmet (either the USAF standard HGU-55/P or the Israeli standard HGU-22/P), using a spherical visor to provide a collimated image to the pilot. A quick-disconnect wire powered the display and carried video drive signals to the helmet's Cathode Ray Tube (CRT).

 

The TAM-1’s development was long and protracted, though, primarily due to lack of resources and the fact that the Georgian air force was in an almost comatose state for several years, so that the potential prime customer for the TAM-1 was not officially available. However, the first TAM-1 prototype eventually made its maiden flight in September 2017. This was just in time, because the Georgian Air Force had formally been re-established in 2016, with plans for a major modernization and procurement program. Under the leadership of Georgian Minister of Defense Irakli Garibashvili the Air Force was re-prioritized and aircraft owned by the Georgian Air Force were being modernized and re-serviced after they were left abandoned for 4 years. This program lasted until 2020. In order to become more independent from foreign sources and support its domestic aircraft industry, the Georgian Air Force eventually ordered eight TAM-1s as Su-25K replacements, which would operate alongside a handful of modernized Su-25KMs from national stock. In the meantime, the new type also attained interest from abroad, e. g. from Bulgaria, the Congo and Cyprus. The IDF thoroughly tested two early production TAM-1s of the Georgian Air Force in 2018, too.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 15.53 m (50 ft 11 in), including pitot

Wingspan: 14.36 m (47 ft 1 in)

Height: 4.8 m (15 ft 9 in)

Wing area: 35.2 m² (378 sq ft)

Empty weight: 9,800 kg (21,605 lb)

Gross weight: 14,440 kg (31,835 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 19,300 kg (42,549 lb)

 

Powerplant:

2× Rolls-Royce AE 3012 turbofans with 44.1 kN (9,920 lbf) thrust each

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 975 km/h (606 mph, 526 kn, Mach 0.79)

Range: 1.000 km (620 mi, 540 nmi) with internal fuel, clean

Combat range: 750 km (470 mi, 400 nmi) at sea level with 4.500 kg (9,911 lb) of ordnance,

incl. two external fuel tanks

Service ceiling: 7.800 m (25,550 ft)

g limits: +6.5

Rate of climb: 58 m/s (11,400 ft/min)

 

Armament:

1× 35 mm (1.38 in) Oerlikon KDA cannon with 200 rds in two magazines

under the lower forward fuselage, offset to port side.

11× hardpoints with a capacity of up to 4.500 kg (9,911 lb) of external stores

  

The kit and its assembly:

This rather rigorous conversion had been on my project list for many years, and with the “Gunships” group build at whatifmodellers.com in late 2021 I eventually gathered my mojo to tackle it. The ingredients had already been procured long ago, but there are ideas that make you think twice before you take action…

 

This build was somewhat inspired by a CG rendition of a modified Su-25 that I came across while doing online search for potential ideas, running under the moniker “Su-125”, apparently created by someone called “Bispro” and published at DeviantArt in 2010; check this: (www.deviantart.com/bispro/art/Sukhoi-Su-125-Foghorn-15043...). The rendition shows a Su-25 with its engines re-located to the rear fuselage in separate nacelles, much like an A-10, plus a T-tail. However, as many photoshopped aircraft, the shown concept had IMHO some flaws. Where would a landing gear go, as the Su-125 still had shoulder wings? The engines’ position and size also looked fishy to me, quite small/narrow and very far high and back – I had doubts concerning the center of gravity. Nevertheless, I liked the idea, and the idea of an “A-10-esque remix” of the classic Frogfoot was born.

 

This idea was fueled even further when I found out that the Hobbycraft kit lends itself to such a conversion. The kit itself is not a brilliant Su-25 rendition, there are certainly better models of the aircraft in 1:72. However, what spoke for the kit as whiffing fodder was/is the fact that it is quite cheap (righteously so!) and AFAIK the only offering that comes with separate engine nacelles. These are attached to a completely independent central fuselage, and this avoids massive bodywork that would be necessary (if possible at all) with more conventional kits of this aircraft.

Another beneficial design feature is that the wing roots are an integral part of the original engine nacelles, forming their top side up to the fuselage spine. Through this, the original wingspan could be retained even without the nacelles, no wing extension would be necessary to retain the original proportions.

 

Work started with the central fuselage and the cockpit tub, which received a different (better) armored ejection seat and a pilot figure; the canopy remained unmodified and closed, because representing the model with an open cockpit would have required additional major body work on the spinal area behind the canopy. Inside, a new dashboard (from an Italeri BAe Hawk) was added, too – the original instrument panel is just a flat front bulkhead, there’s no space for the pilot to place the legs underneath the dashboard!

 

In parallel, the fin underwent major surgery. I initially considered an A-10-ish twin tail, but the Su-25’s high “tail stinger” prevented its implementation: the jet efflux would come very close to the tail surfaces. So, I went for something similar to the “Su-125” layout.

Mounting the OOB stabilizers to the fin was challenging, though. The fin lost its di-electric tip fairing, and it was cut into two sections, so that the tip would become long enough to match the stabilizers. A lucky find in the scrap box was a leftover tail tip from a Matchbox Blackburn Buccaneer, already shortened from a former, stillborn project: it had now the perfect length to take the Su-25 stabilizers! To make it fit on the fin, an 8mm deep section was inserted, in the form of a simple 1.5mm styrene sheet strip. Once dry, the surface was re-built with several PSR layers. Since it would sit further back on the new aircraft’s tail, the stinger with a RHAWS sensor was shortened.

 

On the fuselage, the attachment points for the wings and the engine nacelles were PSRed away and the front section filled with lots of lead beads, hoping that it would be enough to keep the model’s nose down.

 

Even though the wings had a proper span for a re-location into a low position, they still needed some attention: at the roots, there’s a ~1cm wide section without sweep (the area which would normally cover the original engine nacelles’ tops). This was mended through triangular 1.5 mm styrene wedges that extended the leading-edge sweep, roughly cut into shape once attached and later PSRed into the wings’ surfaces

 

The next construction site were the new landing gear attachment points. This had caused some serious headaches – where do you place and stow it? With new, low wings settled, the wings were the only logical place. But the wings were too thin to suitably take the retracted wheels, and, following the idea of a retrofitted existing design, I decided to adopt the A-10’s solution of nacelles into which the landing gear retracts forward, with the wheels still partly showing. This layout option appears quite plausible, since it would be a “graft-on” solution, and it also has the benefit of leaving lots of space for underwing stores, since the hardpoints’ position had to be modified now, too.

I was lucky to have a pair of A-10 landing gear nacelles at hand, left over from a wrecked Matchbox model from childhood time (the parts are probably 35 years old!). They were simply cut out, glued to the Su-25 wings and PSRed into shape. The result looked really good!

 

At this point I had to decide the model’s overall layout – where to place the wings, the tail and the new engine nacelles. The latter were not 1:72 A-10 transplants. I had some spare engine pods from the aforementioned Matchbox wreck, but these looked too rough and toylike for my taste. They were furthermore too bulky for the Su-25, which is markedly smaller than an A-10, so I had to look elsewhere. As a neat alternative for this project, I had already procured many moons ago a set of 1:144 resin PS-90A engines from a Russian company called “A.M.U.R. Reaver”, originally intended for a Tu-204 airliner or an Il-76 transport aircraft. These turbofan nacelles not only look very much like A-10 nacelles, just a bit smaller and more elegant, they are among the best resin aftermarket parts I have ever encountered: almost no flash, crisp molding, no bubbles, and perfect fit of the parts – WOW!

With these three elements at hand I was able to define the wings’ position, based on the tail, and from that the nacelles’ location, relative to the wings and the fin.

 

The next challenge: how to attach the new engines to the fuselage? The PS-90A engines came without pylons, so I had to improvise. I eventually found suitable pylons in the form of parts from F-14A underwing missile pylons, left over from an Italeri kit. Some major tailoring was necessary to find a proper position on the nacelles and on the fuselage, and PSRing these parts turned out to be quite difficult because of the tight and labyrinthine space.

 

When the engines were in place, work shifted towards the model’s underside. The landing gear was fully replaced. I initially wanted to retain the front wheel leg and the main wheels but found that the low wings would not allow a good ground clearance for underwing stores and re-arming the aircraft, a slightly taller solution was necessary. I eventually found a complete landing gear set in the scrap box, even though I am not certain to which aircraft it once belonged? I guess that the front wheel came from a Hasegawa RA-5C Vigilante, while the main gear and the wheels once belonged to an Italeri F-14A, alle struts were slightly shortened. The resulting stance is still a bit stalky, but an A-10 is also quite tall – this is just not so obvious because of the aircraft’s sheer size.

 

Due to the low wings and the landing gear pods, the Su-25’s hardpoints had to be re-arranged, and this eventually led to a layout very similar to the A-10. I gave the aircraft a pair of pylons inside of the pods, plus three hardpoints under the fuselage, even though all of these would only be used when slim ordnance was carried. I just fitted the outer pair. Outside of the landing gear fairings there would have been enough space for the Frogfoot’s original four outer for pylons, but I found this to be a little too much. So I gave it “just” three, with more space between them.

The respective ordnance is a mix for a CAS mission with dedicated and occasional targets. It consists of:

- Drop tanks under the inner wings (left over from a Bilek Su-17/22 kit)

- A pair of B-8M1 FFAR pods under the fuselage (from a vintage Mastercraft USSR weapon set)

- Two MERs with four 200 kg bombs each, mounted on the pylons outside of the landing gear (the odd MERs came from a Special Hobby IDF SMB-2 Super Mystère kit, the bombs are actually 1:100 USAF 750 lb bombs from a Tamiya F-105 Thunderchief in that scale)

- Four CBU-100 Rockeye Mk. II cluster bombs on the outer stations (from two Italeri USA/NATO weapon sets, each only offers a pair of these)

Yes, it’s a mix of Russian and NATO ordnance – but, like the real Georgian Su-25KM “Scorpion” upgrade, the TAM-1 would certainly be able to carry the same or even a wider mix, thanks to modified bomb racks and wirings. Esp. “dumb” weapons, which do not call for special targeting and guidance avionics, are qualified.

The gun under the nose was replaced with a piece from a hollow steel needle.

  

Painting and markings:

Nothing unusual here. I considered some more “exotic” options, but eventually settled for a “conservative” Soviet/Russian-style four-tone tactical camouflage, something that “normal” Su-25s would carry, too.

The disruptive pattern was adapted from a Macedonian Frogfoot but underwent some changes due to the T-tail and the engine nacelles. The basic tones were Humbrol 119 (RAF Light Earth), 150 (Forest Green), 195 (Chrome Oxide Green, RAL 6020) and 98 (Chocolate) on the upper surfaces and RLM78 from (Modelmaster #2087) from below, with a relatively low waterline, due to the low-set wings.

As usual, the model received a light black ink washing and some post-shading – especially on the hull and on the fin, where many details had either disappeared under PSR or were simply not there at all.

 

The landing gear and the lower areas of the cockpit were painted in light grey (Humbrol 64), while the upper cockpit sections were painted with bright turquoise (Modelmaster #2135). The wheel hubs were painted in bright green (Humbrol 101), while some di-electric fairings received a slightly less intense tone (Humbrol 2). A few of these flat fairings on the hull were furthermore created with green decal sheet material (from TL Modellbau) to avoid masking and corrections with paint.

 

The tactical markings became minimal, matching the look of late Georgian Su-25s. The roundels came from a Balkan Models Frogfoot sheet. The “07” was taken from a Blue Rider decal sheet, it actually belongs to a Lithuanian An-2. Some white stencils from generic MiG-21 and Mi-8 Begemot sheets were added, too, and some small markings were just painted onto the hull with yellow.

 

Some soot stains around the jet nozzles and the gun were added with graphite, and finally the kit was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish.

  

A major bodywork project – and it’s weird that this is basically just a conversion of a stock kit and no kitbashing. A true Frogfoot remix! The new engines were the biggest “outsourced” addition, the A-10 landing gear fairings were a lucky find in the scrap box, and the rest is quite generic and could have looked differently. The result is impressive and balanced, though, the fictional TAM-1 looks quite plausible. The landing gear turned out to be a bit tall and stalky, though, making the aircraft look smaller on the ground than it actually is – but I left it that way.

The same bridge, from roughly the same angle, can be seen from a distance as well.

 

The Arboretum has an interactive map on their web site. This map is found at the Arborway Gate.

 

Pasting from Wikipedia: Arnold Arboretum:

 

• • • • •

 

The Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University is an arboretum located in the Jamaica Plain and Roslindale sections of Boston, Massachusetts. It was designed by Frederick Law Olmsted and is the second largest "link" in the Emerald Necklace.

 

History

 

The Arboretum was founded in 1872 when the President and Fellows of Harvard College became trustees of a portion of the estate of James Arnold (1781–1868).

 

In 1842, Benjamin Bussey (1757–1842), a prosperous Boston merchant and scientific farmer, donated his country estate Woodland Hill and a part of his fortune to Harvard University "for instruction in agriculture, horticulture, and related subjects". Bussey had inherited land from fellow patriot Eleazer Weld in 1800 and further enlarged his large estate between 1806 and 1837 by acquiring and consolidating various farms that had been established as early as the seventeenth century. Harvard used this land for the creation of the Bussey Institute, which was dedicated to agricultural experimentation. The first Bussey Institute building was completed in 1871 and served as headquarters for an undergraduate school of agriculture.

 

Sixteen years after Bussey's death, James Arnold, a New Bedford, Massachusetts whaling merchant, specified that a portion of his estate was to be used for "...the promotion of Agricultural, or Horticultural improvements". In 1872, when the trustees of the will of James Arnold transferred his estate to Harvard University, Arnold’s gift was combined with 120 acres (0.49 km2) of the former Bussey estate to create the Arnold Arboretum. In the deed of trust between the Arnold trustees and the College, income from Arnold’s legacy was to be used for establishing, developing and maintaining an arboretum to be known as the Arnold Arboretum which "shall contain, as far as practicable, all the trees [and] shrubs ... either indigenous or exotic, which can be raised in the open air of West Roxbury". The historical mission of the Arnold Arboretum is to increase knowledge of woody plants through research and to disseminate this knowledge through education.

 

Charles Sprague Sargent was appointed director and Arnold Professor of Botany shortly after the establishment of the institution in 1872.[2] Together with landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted he developed the road and pathway system and delineated the collection areas by family and genus, following the then current and widely accepted classification system of Bentham and Hooker. The Hunnewell building was designed by architect Alexander Wadsworth Longfellow, Jr. in 1892 and constructed with funds donated by H. H. Hunnewell in 1903. From 1946 to 1950 the landscape architect Beatrix Farrand was the landscape design consultant for the Arboretum. Her early training in the 1890s included time with Charles Sprague Sargent and chief propagator and superintendent Jackson Thornton Johnson.[3] Today the Arboretum occupies 265 acres (107 hectares) of land divided between four parcels, viz. the main Arboretum and the Peters Hill, Weld-Walter and South Street tracts. The collections, however, are located primarily in the main Arboretum and on the Peters Hill tract. The Arboretum remains one of the finest examples of a landscape designed by Frederick Law Olmsted and it is a Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site) and a National Historic Landmark.

 

Robert E. Cook is the seventh and current Director of the Arnold Arboretum. He is also the Director of the Harvard University Herbaria located in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

 

Status

 

The Arboretum is privately endowed as a department of Harvard University. The land, however, was deeded to the City of Boston in 1882 and incorporated into the so-called "Emerald Necklace". Under the agreement with the City, Harvard University was given a thousand-year lease on the property, and the University, as trustee, is directly responsible for the development, maintenance, and operation of the Arboretum; the City retains responsibility for water fountains, benches, roads, boundaries, and policing. The annual operating budget of $7,350,644 (fiscal year 2003) is largely derived from endowment, which is also managed by the University, and all Arboretum staff are University employees. Other income is obtained through granting agencies and contributors.

 

Location

 

The main Arborway gate is located on Route 203 a few hundred yards south of its junction with the Jamaicaway. Public transportation to the Arboretum is available on the MBTA Orange Line to its terminus at Forest Hills Station and by bus (#39) to the Monument in Jamaica Plain. The Arboretum is within easy walking distance from either of these points.

 

Hours

 

The grounds are open free of charge to the public from sunrise to sunset 365 days of the year. The Visitor's Center in the Hunnewell Building, 125 Arborway, is open Monday through Friday 9 a.m.–4 p.m.; Saturdays 10 a.m.–4 p.m.; Sundays 12 p.m.–4 PM. The Visitor’s Center is closed on holidays. The Library, located in the Hunnewell Building, is open Monday through Saturday, 10 a.m.–4 p.m.. The Library is closed on Sundays and holidays. Stacks are closed and the collection does not circulate.

 

Area

 

Two hundred and sixty-five acres (107 hectares) in the Jamaica Plain and Roslindale sections of Boston, Massachusetts, located at 42°19′N 71°5′W / 42.317°N 71.083°W / 42.317; -71.083, with altitudes ranging from 46 feet (15 m) in the meadow across the drive from the Hunnewell Building to 240 feet (79 m) at the top of Peters Hill.

 

Climate

 

Average yearly rainfall is 43.63 inches (1,102 mm); average snowfall, 40.2 inches (102 centimeters). Monthly mean temperature is 51.5 °F (10.8 °C); July's mean temperature is 73.5 °F (23 °C); January's is 29.6 °F (-1.3 °C). The Arboretum is located in USDA hardiness zone 6 (0 to −10 °F, −18 to −23 °C).

 

Collections (as of September 14, 2007)

 

At present, the living collections include 15,441 individual plants (including nursery holdings) belonging to 10,216 accessions representing 4,099 taxa; with particular emphasis on the ligneous species of North America and eastern Asia. Historic collections include the plant introductions from eastern Asia made by Charles Sprague Sargent, Ernest Henry Wilson, William Purdom, Joseph Hers, and Joseph Rock. Recent introductions from Asia have resulted from the 1977 Arnold Arboretum Expedition to Japan and Korea, the 1980 Sino-American Botanical Expedition to western Hubei Province, and more recent expeditions to China and Taiwan.

 

Comprehensive collections are maintained and augmented for most genera, and genera that have received particular emphasis include: Acer, Fagus, Carya, Forsythia, Taxodium, Pinus, Metasequoia, Lonicera, Magnolia, Malus, Quercus, Rhododendron, Syringa, Paulownia, Albizia, Ilex, Gleditsia and Tsuga. Other comprehensive collections include the Bradley Collection of Rosaceous Plants, the collection of conifers and dwarf conifers, and the Larz Anderson Bonsai Collection. Approximately 500 accessions are processed annually.

 

Collections policy

 

The mission of the Arnold Arboretum is to increase our knowledge of the evolution and biology of woody plants. Historically, this research has investigated the global distribution and evolutionary history of trees, shrubs and vines, with particular emphasis on the disjunct species of East Asia and North America. Today this work continues through molecular studies of the evolution and biogeography of the floras of temperate Asia, North America and Europe.

 

Research activities include molecular studies of gene evolution, investigations of plant-water relations, and the monitoring of plant phenology, vegetation succession, nutrient cycling and other factors that inform studies of environmental change. Applied work in horticulture uses the collections for studies in plant propagation, plant introduction, and environmental management. This diversity of scientific investigation is founded in a continuing commitment to acquire, grow, and document the recognized species and infraspecific taxa of ligneous plants of the Northern Hemisphere that are able to withstand the climate of the Arboretum’s 265-acre (1.07 km2) Jamaica Plain/Roslindale site.

 

As a primary resource for research in plant biology, the Arboretum’s living collections are actively developed, curated, and managed to support scientific investigation and study. To this end, acquisition policies place priority on obtaining plants that are genetically representative of documented wild populations. For each taxon, the Arnold Arboretum aspires to grow multiple accessions of known wild provenance in order to represent significant variation that may occur across the geographic range of the species. Accessions of garden or cultivated provenance are also acquired as governed by the collections policies herein.

 

For all specimens, full documentation of both provenance and history within the collection is a critical priority. Curatorial procedures provide for complete and accurate records for each accession, and document original provenance, locations in the collections, and changes in botanical identity. Herbarium specimens, DNA materials, and digital images are gathered for the collection and maintained in Arboretum data systems and the herbarium at the Roslindale site.

 

Research

 

Research on plant pathology and integrated pest management for maintenance of the living collections is constantly ongoing. Herbarium-based research focuses on the systematics and biodiversity of both temperate and tropical Asian forests, as well as the ecology and potential for sustainable use of their resources. The Arboretum's education programs offer school groups and the general public a wide range of lectures, courses, and walks focusing on the ecology and cultivation of plants. Its quarterly magazine, Arnoldia, provides in-depth information on horticulture, botany, and garden history. Current Research Initiatives

 

Plant Records

 

Plant records are maintained on a computerized database, BG-BASE 6.8 (BG-Base Inc.), which was initiated in 1985 at the request of the Arnold Arboretum and the Threatened Plants Unit (TPU) of the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC). A computerized mapping program (based on AutoCAD (Autodesk)) is linked to BG-BASE, and each accession is recorded on a series of maps at a scale of 1-inch (25 mm) to 20 feet (1:240) or 1-inch (25 mm) to 10 feet (1:120). A computer-driven embosser generates records labels. All accessioned plants in the collections are labeled with accession number, botanical name, and cultivar name (when appropriate), source information, common name, and map location. Trunk and/or display labels are also hung on many accessions and include botanical and common names and nativity. Stake labels are used to identify plants located in the Leventritt Garden and Chinese Path.

 

Grounds Maintenance

 

The grounds staff consists of the superintendent and assistant superintendent, three arborists, and ten horticultural technologists. A service garage is adjacent to the Hunnewell Building, where offices and locker rooms are located. During the summer months ten horticultural interns supplement the grounds staff. A wide array of vehicles and modern equipment, including an aerial lift truck and a John Deere backhoe and front loader, are used in grounds maintenance. Permanent grounds staff, excluding the superintendents, are members of AFL/CIO Local 615, Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

 

Nursery and Greenhouse Facilities

 

The Dana Greenhouses, located at 1050 Centre Street (with a mailing address of 125 Arborway), were completed in 1962. They comprise four service greenhouses totaling 3,744 square feet (348 m²), the headhouse with offices, cold rooms, storage areas, and a classroom. Staffing at the greenhouse includes the manager of greenhouses and nurseries, the plant propagator, two assistants, and, during the summer months, two horticultural interns. Adjacent to the greenhouse is a shade house of 3,150 square feet (293 m²), a 12,600 cubic foot (357 m³) cold storage facility, and three irrigated, inground nurseries totaling approximately one and one-half acres (6,000 m²). Also located in the greenhouse complex is the bonsai pavilion, where the Larz Anderson Bonsai Collection is displayed from the middle of April to the end of October. During the winter months the bonsai are held in the cold storage unit at temperatures slightly above freezing.

 

Isabella Welles Hunnewell Internship Program

 

The living collections department of the Arnold Arboretum offers a paid summer internship program [2] that combines hands-on training in horticulture with educational courses. Intern trainees will be accepted for 12- to 24-week appointments. Ten interns will work with the grounds maintenance department and two in the Dana Greenhouses.

 

As part of the training program, interns participate in mandatory instructional sessions and field trips in order to develop a broader sense of the Arboretum’s horticultural practices as well as those of other institutions. Sessions and field trips are led by Arnold staff members and embrace an open question and answer format encouraging all to participate. Interns often bring experience and knowledge that everyone, including staff, benefits from. It is a competitive-free learning environment.

 

Horticultural Apprenticeship

 

The Arboretum created the horticultural apprenticeship program in 1997 to provide hands-on experience in all aspects of the development, curation, and maintenance of the Arboretum's living collections to individuals interested in pursuing a career in an arboretum or botanical garden.

 

The Living Collections department of the Arnold Arboretum offers a summer internship program[4] that combines practical hands-on training in horticulture with educational courses. Fourteen Interns/Horticultural Trainees are accepted for twelve to twenty-four week appointments. Interns receive the majority of their training in one of three departments: Grounds Maintenance, Nursery and Greenhouse, or Plant Records.

 

Lilac Sunday

 

The second Sunday in May every year is "Lilac Sunday". This is the only day of the year that picnicing is allowed. In 2008, on the 100th anniversary of Lilac Sunday, the Arboretum website touted:

 

Of the thousands of flowering plants in the Arboretum, only one, the lilac, is singled out each year for a daylong celebration. On Lilac Sunday, garden enthusiasts from all over New England gather at the Arboretum to picnic, watch Morris dancing, and tour the lilac collection. On the day of the event, which takes place rain or shine, the Arboretum is open as usual from dawn to dusk.[5]

 

Associated Collections

 

The Arboretum's herbarium in Jamaica Plain holds specimens of cultivated plants that relate to the living collections (ca. 160,000). The Jamaica Plain herbarium, horticultural library, archives, and photographs are maintained in the Hunnewell building at 125 Arborway; however, the main portions of the herbarium and library collections are housed in Cambridge on the campus of Harvard University, at 22 Divinity Avenue.

 

Publications

 

The inventory of living collections is updated periodically and made available to sister botanical gardens and arboreta on request; it is also available on the Arboretum’s website (searchable inventory). Arnoldia, the quarterly magazine of the Arnold Arboretum, frequently publishes articles relating to the living collections. A Reunion of Trees[6] by Stephen A. Spongberg (curator emeritus) recounts the history of the introduction of many of the exotic species included in the Arobretum’s collections. New England Natives[7] written by horticultural research archivist Sheila Connor describes many of the trees and shrubs of the New England flora and the ways New Englanders have used them since prehistoric times. Science in the Pleasure Ground[8] by Ida Hay (former curatorial associate) constitutes an institutional biography of the Arboretum.

 

Institutional Collaborations

 

The Arboretum maintains an institutional membership in the American Public Garden Association (APGA) and the International Association of Botanical Gardens and Arboreta. Additionally, members of the staff are associated with many national and international botanical and horticultural organizations. The Arboretum is also a cooperating institution with the Center for Plant Conservation (CPC), and as an active member of the North American Plant Collections Consortium (NAPCC), it is committed to broadening and maintaining its holdings of: Acer, Carya, Fagus, Stewartia, Syringa, and Tsuga for the purposes of plant conservation, evaluation, and research. The Arboretum is also a member of the North American China Plant Exploration Consortium (NACPEC).

 

See also

 

Larz Anderson Bonsai Collection, donated by businessman and ambassador Larz Anderson

The Case Estates of the Arnold Arboretum

List of botanical gardens in the United States

North American Plant Collections Consortium

Adams-Nervine_Asylum

 

External links

 

Arnold Arboretum Official Website

Arnold Arboretum Visitor Information

Harvard University Herbaria

American Public Gardens Association (APGA)

Flora of China

Virtual Information Access (VIA) Catalog of visual resources at Harvard University.

Garden and Forest A Journal of Horticulture, Landscape Art, and Forestry (1888–1897)

Boston's Arnold Arboretum: A Place for Study and Recreation, a National Park Service Teaching with Historic Places (TwHP) lesson plan

The Emerald Necklace: Boston's Green Connection, a National Park Service Teaching with Historic Places (TwHP) lesson plan

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The OV-10 Bronco was initially conceived in the early 1960s through an informal collaboration between W. H. Beckett and Colonel K. P. Rice, U.S. Marine Corps, who met at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, California, and who also happened to live near each other. The original concept was for a rugged, simple, close air support aircraft integrated with forward ground operations. At the time, the U.S. Army was still experimenting with armed helicopters, and the U.S. Air Force was not interested in close air support.

The concept aircraft was to operate from expedient forward air bases using roads as runways. Speed was to be from very slow to medium subsonic, with much longer loiter times than a pure jet. Efficient turboprop engines would give better performance than piston engines. Weapons were to be mounted on the centerline to get efficient aiming. The inventors favored strafing weapons such as self-loading recoilless rifles, which could deliver aimed explosive shells with less recoil than cannons, and a lower per-round weight than rockets. The airframe was to be designed to avoid the back blast.

 

Beckett and Rice developed a basic platform meeting these requirements, then attempted to build a fiberglass prototype in a garage. The effort produced enthusiastic supporters and an informal pamphlet describing the concept. W. H. Beckett, who had retired from the Marine Corps, went to work at North American Aviation to sell the aircraft.

The aircraft's design supported effective operations from forward bases. The OV-10 had a central nacelle containing a crew of two in tandem and space for cargo, and twin booms containing twin turboprop engines. The visually distinctive feature of the aircraft is the combination of the twin booms, with the horizontal stabilizer that connected them at the fin tips. The OV-10 could perform short takeoffs and landings, including on aircraft carriers and large-deck amphibious assault ships without using catapults or arresting wires. Further, the OV-10 was designed to take off and land on unimproved sites. Repairs could be made with ordinary tools. No ground equipment was required to start the engines. And, if necessary, the engines would operate on high-octane automobile fuel with only a slight loss of power.

 

The aircraft had responsive handling and could fly for up to 5½ hours with external fuel tanks. The cockpit had extremely good visibility for both pilot and co-pilot, provided by a wrap-around "greenhouse" that was wider than the fuselage. North American Rockwell custom ejection seats were standard, with many successful ejections during service. With the second seat removed, the OV-10 could carry 3,200 pounds (1,500 kg) of cargo, five paratroopers, or two litter patients and an attendant. Empty weight was 6,969 pounds (3,161 kg). Normal operating fueled weight with two crew was 9,908 pounds (4,494 kg). Maximum takeoff weight was 14,446 pounds (6,553 kg).

The bottom of the fuselage bore sponsons or "stub wings" that improved flight performance by decreasing aerodynamic drag underneath the fuselage. Normally, four 7.62 mm (.308 in) M60C machine guns were carried on the sponsons, accessed through large forward-opening hatches. The sponsons also had four racks to carry bombs, pods, or fuel. The wings outboard of the engines contained two additional hardpoints, one per side. Racked armament in the Vietnam War was usually seven-shot 2.75 in (70 mm) rocket pods with white phosphorus marker rounds or high-explosive rockets, or 5" (127 mm) four-shot Zuni rocket pods. Bombs, ADSIDS air-delivered/para-dropped unattended seismic sensors, Mk-6 battlefield illumination flares, and other stores were also carried.

Operational experience showed some weaknesses in the OV-10's design. It was significantly underpowered, which contributed to crashes in Vietnam in sloping terrain because the pilots could not climb fast enough. While specifications stated that the aircraft could reach 26,000 feet (7,900 m), in Vietnam the aircraft could reach only 18,000 feet (5,500 m). Also, no OV-10 pilot survived ditching the aircraft.

 

The OV-10 served in the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Marine Corps, and U.S. Navy, as well as in the service of a number of other countries. In U.S. military service, the Bronco was operated until the early Nineties, and obsoleted USAF OV-10s were passed on to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms for anti-drug operations. A number of OV-10As furthermore ended up in the hands of the California Department of Forestry (CDF) and were used for spotting fires and directing fire bombers onto hot spots.

 

This was not the end of the OV-10 in American military service, though: In 2012, the type gained new attention because of its unique qualities. A $20 million budget was allocated to activate an experimental USAF unit of two airworthy OV-10Gs, acquired from NASA and the State Department. These machines were retrofitted with military equipment and were, starting in May 2015, deployed overseas to support Operation “Inherent Resolve”, flying more than 120 combat sorties over 82 days over Iraq and Syria. Their concrete missions remained unclear, and it is speculated they provided close air support for Special Forces missions, esp. in confined urban environments where the Broncos’ loitering time and high agility at low speed and altitude made them highly effective and less vulnerable than helicopters.

Furthermore, these Broncos reputedly performed strikes with the experimental AGR-20A “Advanced Precision Kill Weapons System (APKWS)”, a Hydra 70-millimeter rocket with a laser-seeking head as guidance - developed for precision strikes against small urban targets with little collateral damage. The experiment ended satisfactorily, but the machines were retired again, and the small unit was dissolved.

 

However, the machines had shown their worth in asymmetric warfare, and the U.S. Air Force decided to invest in reactivating the OV-10 on a regular basis, despite the overhead cost of operating an additional aircraft type in relatively small numbers – but development and production of a similar new type would have caused much higher costs, with an uncertain time until an operational aircraft would be ready for service. Re-activating a proven design and updating an existing airframe appeared more efficient.

The result became the MV-10H, suitably christened “Super Bronco” but also known as “Black Pony”, after the program's internal name. This aircraft was derived from the official OV-10X proposal by Boeing from 2009 for the USAF's Light Attack/Armed Reconnaissance requirement. Initially, Boeing proposed to re-start OV-10 manufacture, but this was deemed uneconomical, due to the expected small production number of new serial aircraft, so the “Black Pony” program became a modernization project. In consequence, all airframes for the "new" MV-10Hs were recovered OV-10s of various types from the "boneyard" at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona.

 

While the revamped aircraft would maintain much of its 1960s-vintage rugged external design, modernizations included a completely new, armored central fuselage with a highly modified cockpit section, ejection seats and a computerized glass cockpit. The “Black Pony” OV-10 had full dual controls, so that either crewmen could steer the aircraft while the other operated sensors and/or weapons. This feature would also improve survivability in case of incapacitation of a crew member as the result from a hit.

The cockpit armor protected the crew and many vital systems from 23mm shells and shrapnel (e. g. from MANPADS). The crew still sat in tandem under a common, generously glazed canopy with flat, bulletproof panels for reduced sun reflections, with the pilot in the front seat and an observer/WSO behind. The Bronco’s original cargo capacity and the rear door were retained, even though the extra armor and defensive measures like chaff/flare dispensers as well as an additional fuel cell in the central fuselage limited the capacity. However, it was still possible to carry and deploy personnel, e. g. small special ops teams of up to four when the aircraft flew in clean configuration.

Additional updates for the MV-10H included structural reinforcements for a higher AUW and higher g load maneuvers, similar to OV-10D+ standards. The landing gear was also reinforced, and the aircraft kept its ability to operate from short, improvised airstrips. A fixed refueling probe was added to improve range and loiter time.

 

Intelligence sensors and smart weapon capabilities included a FLIR sensor and a laser range finder/target designator, both mounted in a small turret on the aircraft’s nose. The MV-10H was also outfitted with a data link and the ability to carry an integrated targeting pod such as the Northrop Grumman LITENING or the Lockheed Martin Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod (ATP). Also included was the Remotely Operated Video Enhanced Receiver (ROVER) to provide live sensor data and video recordings to personnel on the ground.

 

To improve overall performance and to better cope with the higher empty weight of the modified aircraft as well as with operations under hot-and-high conditions, the engines were beefed up. The new General Electric CT7-9D turboprop engines improved the Bronco's performance considerably: top speed increased by 100 mph (160 km/h), the climb rate was tripled (a weak point of early OV-10s despite the type’s good STOL capability) and both take-off as well as landing run were almost halved. The new engines called for longer nacelles, and their circular diameter markedly differed from the former Garrett T76-G-420/421 turboprop engines. To better exploit the additional power and reduce the aircraft’s audio signature, reversible contraprops, each with eight fiberglass blades, were fitted. These allowed a reduced number of revolutions per minute, resulting in less noise from the blades and their tips, while the engine responsiveness was greatly improved. The CT7-9Ds’ exhausts were fitted with muzzlers/air mixers to further reduce the aircraft's noise and heat signature.

Another novel and striking feature was the addition of so-called “tip sails” to the wings: each wingtip was elongated with a small, cigar-shaped fairing, each carrying three staggered, small “feather blade” winglets. Reputedly, this installation contributed ~10% to the higher climb rate and improved lift/drag ratio by ~6%, improving range and loiter time, too.

Drawing from the Iraq experience as well as from the USMC’s NOGS test program with a converted OV-10D as a night/all-weather gunship/reconnaissance platform, the MV-10H received a heavier gun armament: the original four light machine guns that were only good for strafing unarmored targets were deleted and their space in the sponsons replaced by avionics. Instead, the aircraft was outfitted with a lightweight M197 three-barrel 20mm gatling gun in a chin turret. This could be fixed in a forward position at high speed or when carrying forward-firing ordnance under the stub wings, or it could be deployed to cover a wide field of fire under the aircraft when it was flying slower, being either slaved to the FLIR or to a helmet sighting auto targeting system.

The original seven hardpoints were retained (1x ventral, 2x under each sponson, and another pair under the outer wings), but the total ordnance load was slightly increased and an additional pair of launch rails for AIM-9 Sidewinders or other light AAMs under the wing tips were added – not only as a defensive measure, but also with an anti-helicopter role in mind; four more Sidewinders could be carried on twin launchers under the outer wings against aerial targets. Other guided weapons cleared for the MV-10H were the light laser-guided AGR-20A and AGM-119 Hellfire missiles, the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System upgrade to the light Hydra 70 rockets, the new Laser Guided Zuni Rocket which had been cleared for service in 2010, TV-/IR-/laser-guided AGM-65 Maverick AGMs and AGM-122 Sidearm anti-radar missiles, plus a wide range of gun and missile pods, iron and cluster bombs, as well as ECM and flare/chaff pods, which were not only carried defensively, but also in order to disrupt enemy ground communication.

 

In this configuration, a contract for the conversion of twelve mothballed American Broncos to the new MV-10H standard was signed with Boeing in 2016, and the first MV-10H was handed over to the USAF in early 2018, with further deliveries lasting into early 2020. All machines were allocated to the newly founded 919th Special Operations Support Squadron at Duke Field (Florida). This unit was part of the 919th Special Operations Wing, an Air Reserve Component (ARC) of the United States Air Force. It was assigned to the Tenth Air Force of Air Force Reserve Command and an associate unit of the 1st Special Operations Wing, Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC). If mobilized the wing was gained by AFSOC (Air Force Special Operations Command) to support Special Tactics, the U.S. Air Force's special operations ground force. Similar in ability and employment to Marine Special Operations Command (MARSOC), U.S. Army Special Forces and U.S. Navy SEALs, Air Force Special Tactics personnel were typically the first to enter combat and often found themselves deep behind enemy lines in demanding, austere conditions, usually with little or no support.

 

The MV-10Hs are expected to provide support for these ground units in the form of all-weather reconnaissance and observation, close air support and also forward air control duties for supporting ground units. Precision ground strikes and protection from enemy helicopters and low-flying aircraft were other, secondary missions for the modernized Broncos, which are expected to serve well into the 2040s. Exports or conversions of foreign OV-10s to the Black Pony standard are not planned, though.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 2

Length: 42 ft 2½ in (12,88 m) incl. pitot

Wingspan: 45 ft 10½ in(14 m) incl. tip sails

Height: 15 ft 2 in (4.62 m)

Wing area: 290.95 sq ft (27.03 m²)

Airfoil: NACA 64A315

Empty weight: 9,090 lb (4,127 kg)

Gross weight: 13,068 lb (5,931 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 17,318 lb (7,862 kg)

 

Powerplant:

2× General Electric CT7-9D turboprop engines, 1,305 kW (1,750 hp) each,

driving 8-bladed Hamilton Standard 8 ft 6 in (2.59 m) diameter constant-speed,

fully feathering, reversible contra-rotating propellers with metal hub and composite blades

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 390 mph (340 kn, 625 km/h)

Combat range: 198 nmi (228 mi, 367 km)

Ferry range: 1,200 nmi (1,400 mi, 2,200 km) with auxiliary fuel

Maximum loiter time: 5.5 h with auxiliary fuel

Service ceiling: 32.750 ft (10,000 m)

13,500 ft (4.210 m) on one engine

Rate of climb: 17.400 ft/min (48 m/s) at sea level

Take-off run: 480 ft (150 m)

740 ft (227 m) to 50 ft (15 m)

1,870 ft (570 m) to 50 ft (15 m) at MTOW

Landing run: 490 ft (150 m)

785 ft (240 m) at MTOW

1,015 ft (310 m) from 50 ft (15 m)

 

Armament:

1x M197 3-barreled 20 mm Gatling cannon in a chin turret with 750 rounds ammo capacity

7x hardpoints for a total load of 5.000 lb (2,270 kg)

2x wingtip launch rails for AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs

  

The kit and its assembly:

This fictional Bronco update/conversion was simply spawned by the idea: could it be possible to replace the original cockpit section with one from an AH-1 Cobra, for a kind of gunship version?

 

The basis is the Academy OV-10D kit, mated with the cockpit section from a Fujimi AH-1S TOW Cobra (Revell re-boxing, though), chosen because of its “boxy” cockpit section with flat glass panels – I think that it conveys the idea of an armored cockpit section best. Combining these parts was not easy, though, even though the plan sound simple. Initially, the Bronco’s twin booms, wings and stabilizer were built separately, because this made PSR on these sections easier than trying the same on a completed airframe. One of the initial challenges: the different engines. I wanted something uprated, and a different look, and I had a pair of (excellent!) 1:144 resin engines from the Russian company Kompakt Zip for a Tu-95 bomber at hand, which come together with movable(!) eight-blade contraprops that were an almost perfect size match for the original three-blade props. Biggest problem: the Tu-95 nacelles have a perfectly circular diameter, while the OV-10’s booms are square and rectangular. Combining these parts and shapes was already a messy PST affair, but it worked out quite well – even though the result rather reminds of some Chinese upgrade measure (anyone know the Tu-4 copies with turboprops? This here looks similar!). But while not pretty, I think that the beafier look works well and adds to the idea of a “revived” aircraft. And you can hardly beat the menacing look of contraprops on anything...

The exotic, so-called “tip sails” on the wings, mounted on short booms, are a detail borrowed from the Shijiazhuang Y-5B-100, an updated Chinese variant/copy of the Antonov An-2 biplane transporter. The booms are simple pieces of sprue from the Bronco kit, the winglets were cut from 0.5mm styrene sheet.

 

For the cockpit donor, the AH-1’s front section was roughly built, including the engine section (which is a separate module, so that the basic kit can be sold with different engine sections), and then the helicopter hull was cut and trimmed down to match the original Bronco pod and to fit under the wing. This became more complicated than expected, because a) the AH-1 cockpit and the nose are considerably shorter than the OV-10s, b) the AH-1 fuselage is markedly taller than the Bronco’s and c) the engine section, which would end up in the area of the wing, features major recesses, making the surface very uneven – calling for massive PSR to even this out. PSR was also necessary to hide the openings for the Fujimi AH-1’s stub wings. Other issues: the front landing gear (and its well) had to be added, as well as the OV-10 wing stubs. Furthermore, the new cockpit pod’s rear section needed an aerodynamical end/fairing, but I found a leftover Academy OV-10 section from a build/kitbashing many moons ago. Perfect match!

All these challenges could be tackled, even though the AH-1 cockpit looks surprisingly stout and massive on the Bronco’s airframe - the result looks stockier than expected, but it works well for the "Gunship" theme. Lots of PSR went into the new central fuselage section, though, even before it was mated with the OV-10 wing and the rest of the model.

Once cockpit and wing were finally mated, the seams had to disappear under even more PSR and a spinal extension of the canopy had to be sculpted across the upper wing surface, which would meld with the pod’s tail in a (more or less) harmonious shape. Not an easy task, and the fairing was eventually sculpted with 2C putty, plus even more PSR… Looks quite homogenous, though.

 

After this massive body work, other hardware challenges appeared like small distractions. The landing gear was another major issue because the deeper AH-1 section lowered the ground clearance, also because of the chin turret. To counter this, I raised the OV-10’s main landing gear by ~2mm – not much, but it was enough to create a credible stance, together with the front landing gear transplant under the cockpit, which received an internal console to match the main landing gear’s length. Due to the chin turret and the shorter nose, the front wheel retracts backwards now. But this looks quite plausible, thanks to the additional space under the cockpit tub, which also made a belt feed for the gun’s ammunition supply believable.

To enhance the menacing look I gave the model a fixed refueling boom, made from 1mm steel wire and a receptor adapter sculpted with white glue. The latter stuff was also used add some antenna fairings around the hull. Some antennae, chaff dispensers and an IR decoy were taken from the Academy kit.

 

The ordnance came from various sources. The Sidewinders under the wing tips were taken from an Italeri F-16C/D kit, they look better than the missiles from the Academy Bronco kit. Their launch rails came from an Italeri Bae Hawk 200. The quadruple Hellfire launchers on the underwing hardpoints were left over from an Italeri AH-1W, and they are a perfect load for this aircraft and its role. The LAU-10 and -19 missile pods on the stub wings were taken from the OV-10 kit.

  

Painting and markings:

Finding a suitable and somewhat interesting – but still plausible – paint scheme was not easy. Taking the A-10 as benchmark, an overall light grey livery (with focus on low contrast against the sky as protection against ground fire) would have been a likely choice – and in fact the last operational American OV-10s were painted in this fashion. But in order to provide a different look I used the contemporary USAF V-22Bs and Special Operations MC-130s as benchmark, which typically carry a darker paint scheme consisting of FS 36118 (suitably “Gunship Gray” :D) from above, FS 36375 underneath, with a low, wavy waterline, plus low-viz markings. Not spectacular, but plausible – and very similar to the late r/w Colombian OV-10s.

The cockpit tub became Dark Gull Grey (FS 36231, Humbrol 140) and the landing gear white (Revell 301).

 

The model received an overall black ink washing and some post-panel-shading, to liven up the dull all-grey livery. The decals were gathered from various sources, and I settled for black USAF low-viz markings. The “stars and bars” come from a late USAF F-4, the “IP” tail code was tailored from F-16 markings and the shark mouth was taken from an Academy AH-64. Most stencils came from another Academy OV-10 sheet and some other sources.

Decals were also used to create the trim on the propeller blades and markings on the ordnance.

 

Finally, the model was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and some exhaust soot stains were added with graphite along the tail boom flanks.

  

A successful transplantation – but is this still a modified Bronco or already a kitbashing? The result looks quite plausible and menacing, even though the TOW Cobra front section appears relatively massive. But thanks to the bigger engines and extended wing tips the proportions still work. The large low-pressure tires look a bit goofy under the aircraft, but they are original. The grey livery works IMHO well, too – a more colorful or garish scheme would certainly have distracted from the modified technical basis.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The Georgian Air Force and Air Defense Division (თავდაცვის ძალების ავიაციისა და საჰაერო თავდაცვის სარდლობა; tavdatsvis dzalebis aviatsiisa da sahaero tavdatsvis sardloba) was established on January 1, 1992, and in September the Georgian Air Force conducted its first combat flight during the separatist war in Abkhazia. On August 18, 1998, the two divisions were unified in a joint command structure and renamed the Georgian Air Force.

In 2010, the Georgian Air Force was abolished as a separate branch and incorporated into the Georgian Land Forces as Air and Air Defense sections. By that time, the equipment – primarily consisting of Eastern Bloc aircraft inherited from the Soviet Union after the country’s dissolution – was totally outdated, the most potent aircraft were a dozen Suchoj Su-25 attack aircraft and a handful of MiG-21U trainers.

 

In order to rejuvenate the air arm, Tbilisi Aircraft Manufacturing (TAM), also known as JSC Tbilaviamsheni and formerly known as 31st aviation factory, started a modernization program for the Su-25, for the domestic forces but also for export customers. TAM had a long tradition of aircraft production within the Soviet Union. In the 1950s the factory started the production of Mikoyan's MiG-15 and later, the MiG-17 fighter aircraft. In 1957 Tbilisi Aircraft State Association built the MiG-21 two-seater fighter-trainer aircraft and its various derivative aircraft, continuing the MiG-21 production for about 25 years. At the same time the company was manufacturing the K-10 air-to-surface guided missile. Furthermore, the first Sukhoi Su-25 (known in the West as the "Frogfoot") close support aircraft took its maiden voyage from the runway of 31st aviation factory. Since then, more than 800 SU-25s had been delivered to customers worldwide. From the first SU-25 to the 1990s, JSC Tbilaviamsheni was the only manufacturer of this aircraft, and even after the fall of the Soviet Union the production lines were still intact and spares for more than fifty complete aircraft available. Along with the SU-25 aircraft 31st aviation factory also launched large-scale production of air-to-air R-60 and R-73 IR guided missiles, a production effort that built over 6,000 missiles a year and that lasted until the early 1990s. From 1996 to 1998 the factory also produced Su-25U two-seaters.

 

In 2001 the factory started, in partnership with Elbit Systems of Israel, upgrading basic Su-25 airframes to the Su-25KM “Scorpion” variant. This was just a technical update, however, intended for former Su-25 export customers who would upgrade their less potent Su-25K export aircraft with modern avionics. The prototype aircraft made its maiden flight on 18 April 2001 at Tbilisi in full Georgian Air Force markings. The aircraft used a standard Su-25 airframe, enhanced with advanced avionics including a glass cockpit, digital map generator, helmet-mounted display, computerized weapons system, complete mission pre-plan capability, and fully redundant backup modes. Performance enhancements included a highly accurate navigation system, pinpoint weapon delivery systems, all-weather and day/night performance, NATO compatibility, state-of-the art safety and survivability features, and advanced onboard debriefing capabilities complying with international requirements. The Su-25KM had the ability to use NATO-standard Mark 82 and Mark 83 laser-guided bombs and new air-to-air missiles, the short-range Vympel R-73. This upgrade extended service life of the Su-25 airframes for another decade.

There were, however, not many customers. Manufacturing was eventually stopped at the end of 2010, after Georgian air forces have been permanently dismissed and abolished. By that time, approximately 12 Scorpions had been produced, but the Georgian Air Force still used the basic models of Su-25 because of high cost of Su-25KM and because it was destined mainly for export. According to unofficial sources several Scorpions had been transferred to Turkmenistan as part of a trade deal.

 

In the meantime, another, more ambitious project took shape at Tbilisi Aircraft Manufacturing, too: With the help of Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) the company started the development of a completely new attack aircraft, the TAM-1 “Gvelgeslas” (გველგესლას, Viper). It heavily relied on the year-long experience gathered with Su-25 production at Tblisi and on the tools at hand, but it was eventually a completely new aircraft – looking like a crossbreed between the Su-25 and the American A-10 with a T-tail.

 

This new layout had become necessary because the aircraft was to be powered by more modern, less noisy and more fuel-efficient Rolls Royce AE 3012 turbofan engines - which were originally intended to power the stillborn Yakovlev Yak-77 twin-engine business jet for up to 32 passengers, a slightly derated variant of the GMA 3012 with a 44 in diameter (112 cm) fan and procured via IAI from the United States through the company’s connection with Gulfstream Aerospace. Their larger diameter (the Su-25’s original Soyuz/Tumansky R-195 turbojets had a diameter of 109,5 cm/43.1 in) precluded the use of the former integral engine nacelles along the fuselage. To keep good ground clearance against FOD and to protect them from small arms fire, the engine layout was completely re-arranged. The fuselage was streamlined, and its internal structure was totally changed. The wings moved into a low position. The wings’ planform was almost identical to the Su-25’s, together with the characteristic tip-mounted “crocodile” air brakes. Just the leading edge inside of the “dogteeth” and the wing roots were re-designed, the latter because of the missing former engine nacelles. This resulted in a slightly increased net area, the original wingspan was retained. The bigger turbofans were then mounted in separate pods on short pylons along the rear fuselage, partly protected from below by the wings. Due to the jet efflux and the engines’ proximity to the stabilizers, these were re-located to the top of a deeper, reinforced fin for a T-tail arrangement.

 

Since the Su-25’s engine bays were now gone, the main landing gear had to be completely re-designed. Retracting them into the fuselage or into the relatively thin wings was not possible, TAM engineers settled upon a design that was very similar to the A-10: the aircraft received streamlined fairings, attached to the wings’ main spar, and positioned under the wings’ leading edges. The main legs were only semi-retractable; in flight, the wheels partly protruded from the fairings, but that hardly mattered from an aerodynamic point of view at the TAM-1’s subsonic operational speed. As a bonus they could still be used while retracted during emergency landings, improving the aircraft’s crash survivability.

 

Most flight and weapon avionics were procured from or via Elbit, including the Su-25KT’s modernized “glass cockpit”, and the TAM-1’s NATO compatibility was enhanced to appeal to a wider international export market. Beyond a total of eleven hardpoints under the wings and the fuselage for an external ordnance of up to 4.500 kg (9.900 lb), the TAM-1 was furthermore armed with an internal gun. Due to procurement issues, however, the Su-25’s original twin-barrel GSh-30-2 was replaced with an Oerlikon KDA 35mm cannon – a modern variant of the same cannon used in the German Gepard anti-aircraft tank, adapted to the use in an aircraft with a light-weight gun carriage. The KDA gun fired with a muzzle velocity of 1,440 m/s (4,700 ft/s) and a range of 5.500m, its rate of fire was typically 550 RPM. For the TAM-1, a unique feature from the SPAAG installation was adopted: the gun had two magazines, one with space for 200 rounds and another, smaller one for 50. The magazines could be filled with different types of ammunition, and the pilot was able select between them with a simple switch, adapting to the combat situation. Typical ammunition types were armor-piercing FAPDS rounds against hardened ground targets like tanks, and high explosive shells against soft ground targets and aircraft or helicopters, in a 3:1 ratio. Other ammunition types were available, too, and only 200 rounds were typically carried for balance reasons.

 

The TAM-1’s avionics included a SAGEM ULISS 81 INS, a Thomson-CSF VE-110 HUD, a TMV630 laser rangefinder in a modified nose and a TRT AHV 9 radio altimeter, with all avionics linked through a digital MIL-STD-1553B data bus and a modern “glass cockpit”. A HUD was standard, but an Elbit Systems DASH III HMD could be used by the pilot, too. The DASH GEN III was a wholly embedded design, closely integrated with the aircraft's weapon system, where the complete optical and position sensing coil package was built within the helmet (either the USAF standard HGU-55/P or the Israeli standard HGU-22/P), using a spherical visor to provide a collimated image to the pilot. A quick-disconnect wire powered the display and carried video drive signals to the helmet's Cathode Ray Tube (CRT).

 

The TAM-1’s development was long and protracted, though, primarily due to lack of resources and the fact that the Georgian air force was in an almost comatose state for several years, so that the potential prime customer for the TAM-1 was not officially available. However, the first TAM-1 prototype eventually made its maiden flight in September 2017. This was just in time, because the Georgian Air Force had formally been re-established in 2016, with plans for a major modernization and procurement program. Under the leadership of Georgian Minister of Defense Irakli Garibashvili the Air Force was re-prioritized and aircraft owned by the Georgian Air Force were being modernized and re-serviced after they were left abandoned for 4 years. This program lasted until 2020. In order to become more independent from foreign sources and support its domestic aircraft industry, the Georgian Air Force eventually ordered eight TAM-1s as Su-25K replacements, which would operate alongside a handful of modernized Su-25KMs from national stock. In the meantime, the new type also attained interest from abroad, e. g. from Bulgaria, the Congo and Cyprus. The IDF thoroughly tested two early production TAM-1s of the Georgian Air Force in 2018, too.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 15.53 m (50 ft 11 in), including pitot

Wingspan: 14.36 m (47 ft 1 in)

Height: 4.8 m (15 ft 9 in)

Wing area: 35.2 m² (378 sq ft)

Empty weight: 9,800 kg (21,605 lb)

Gross weight: 14,440 kg (31,835 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 19,300 kg (42,549 lb)

 

Powerplant:

2× Rolls-Royce AE 3012 turbofans with 44.1 kN (9,920 lbf) thrust each

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 975 km/h (606 mph, 526 kn, Mach 0.79)

Range: 1.000 km (620 mi, 540 nmi) with internal fuel, clean

Combat range: 750 km (470 mi, 400 nmi) at sea level with 4.500 kg (9,911 lb) of ordnance,

incl. two external fuel tanks

Service ceiling: 7.800 m (25,550 ft)

g limits: +6.5

Rate of climb: 58 m/s (11,400 ft/min)

 

Armament:

1× 35 mm (1.38 in) Oerlikon KDA cannon with 200 rds in two magazines

under the lower forward fuselage, offset to port side.

11× hardpoints with a capacity of up to 4.500 kg (9,911 lb) of external stores

  

The kit and its assembly:

This rather rigorous conversion had been on my project list for many years, and with the “Gunships” group build at whatifmodellers.com in late 2021 I eventually gathered my mojo to tackle it. The ingredients had already been procured long ago, but there are ideas that make you think twice before you take action…

 

This build was somewhat inspired by a CG rendition of a modified Su-25 that I came across while doing online search for potential ideas, running under the moniker “Su-125”, apparently created by someone called “Bispro” and published at DeviantArt in 2010; check this: (www.deviantart.com/bispro/art/Sukhoi-Su-125-Foghorn-15043...). The rendition shows a Su-25 with its engines re-located to the rear fuselage in separate nacelles, much like an A-10, plus a T-tail. However, as many photoshopped aircraft, the shown concept had IMHO some flaws. Where would a landing gear go, as the Su-125 still had shoulder wings? The engines’ position and size also looked fishy to me, quite small/narrow and very far high and back – I had doubts concerning the center of gravity. Nevertheless, I liked the idea, and the idea of an “A-10-esque remix” of the classic Frogfoot was born.

 

This idea was fueled even further when I found out that the Hobbycraft kit lends itself to such a conversion. The kit itself is not a brilliant Su-25 rendition, there are certainly better models of the aircraft in 1:72. However, what spoke for the kit as whiffing fodder was/is the fact that it is quite cheap (righteously so!) and AFAIK the only offering that comes with separate engine nacelles. These are attached to a completely independent central fuselage, and this avoids massive bodywork that would be necessary (if possible at all) with more conventional kits of this aircraft.

Another beneficial design feature is that the wing roots are an integral part of the original engine nacelles, forming their top side up to the fuselage spine. Through this, the original wingspan could be retained even without the nacelles, no wing extension would be necessary to retain the original proportions.

 

Work started with the central fuselage and the cockpit tub, which received a different (better) armored ejection seat and a pilot figure; the canopy remained unmodified and closed, because representing the model with an open cockpit would have required additional major body work on the spinal area behind the canopy. Inside, a new dashboard (from an Italeri BAe Hawk) was added, too – the original instrument panel is just a flat front bulkhead, there’s no space for the pilot to place the legs underneath the dashboard!

 

In parallel, the fin underwent major surgery. I initially considered an A-10-ish twin tail, but the Su-25’s high “tail stinger” prevented its implementation: the jet efflux would come very close to the tail surfaces. So, I went for something similar to the “Su-125” layout.

Mounting the OOB stabilizers to the fin was challenging, though. The fin lost its di-electric tip fairing, and it was cut into two sections, so that the tip would become long enough to match the stabilizers. A lucky find in the scrap box was a leftover tail tip from a Matchbox Blackburn Buccaneer, already shortened from a former, stillborn project: it had now the perfect length to take the Su-25 stabilizers! To make it fit on the fin, an 8mm deep section was inserted, in the form of a simple 1.5mm styrene sheet strip. Once dry, the surface was re-built with several PSR layers. Since it would sit further back on the new aircraft’s tail, the stinger with a RHAWS sensor was shortened.

 

On the fuselage, the attachment points for the wings and the engine nacelles were PSRed away and the front section filled with lots of lead beads, hoping that it would be enough to keep the model’s nose down.

 

Even though the wings had a proper span for a re-location into a low position, they still needed some attention: at the roots, there’s a ~1cm wide section without sweep (the area which would normally cover the original engine nacelles’ tops). This was mended through triangular 1.5 mm styrene wedges that extended the leading-edge sweep, roughly cut into shape once attached and later PSRed into the wings’ surfaces

 

The next construction site were the new landing gear attachment points. This had caused some serious headaches – where do you place and stow it? With new, low wings settled, the wings were the only logical place. But the wings were too thin to suitably take the retracted wheels, and, following the idea of a retrofitted existing design, I decided to adopt the A-10’s solution of nacelles into which the landing gear retracts forward, with the wheels still partly showing. This layout option appears quite plausible, since it would be a “graft-on” solution, and it also has the benefit of leaving lots of space for underwing stores, since the hardpoints’ position had to be modified now, too.

I was lucky to have a pair of A-10 landing gear nacelles at hand, left over from a wrecked Matchbox model from childhood time (the parts are probably 35 years old!). They were simply cut out, glued to the Su-25 wings and PSRed into shape. The result looked really good!

 

At this point I had to decide the model’s overall layout – where to place the wings, the tail and the new engine nacelles. The latter were not 1:72 A-10 transplants. I had some spare engine pods from the aforementioned Matchbox wreck, but these looked too rough and toylike for my taste. They were furthermore too bulky for the Su-25, which is markedly smaller than an A-10, so I had to look elsewhere. As a neat alternative for this project, I had already procured many moons ago a set of 1:144 resin PS-90A engines from a Russian company called “A.M.U.R. Reaver”, originally intended for a Tu-204 airliner or an Il-76 transport aircraft. These turbofan nacelles not only look very much like A-10 nacelles, just a bit smaller and more elegant, they are among the best resin aftermarket parts I have ever encountered: almost no flash, crisp molding, no bubbles, and perfect fit of the parts – WOW!

With these three elements at hand I was able to define the wings’ position, based on the tail, and from that the nacelles’ location, relative to the wings and the fin.

 

The next challenge: how to attach the new engines to the fuselage? The PS-90A engines came without pylons, so I had to improvise. I eventually found suitable pylons in the form of parts from F-14A underwing missile pylons, left over from an Italeri kit. Some major tailoring was necessary to find a proper position on the nacelles and on the fuselage, and PSRing these parts turned out to be quite difficult because of the tight and labyrinthine space.

 

When the engines were in place, work shifted towards the model’s underside. The landing gear was fully replaced. I initially wanted to retain the front wheel leg and the main wheels but found that the low wings would not allow a good ground clearance for underwing stores and re-arming the aircraft, a slightly taller solution was necessary. I eventually found a complete landing gear set in the scrap box, even though I am not certain to which aircraft it once belonged? I guess that the front wheel came from a Hasegawa RA-5C Vigilante, while the main gear and the wheels once belonged to an Italeri F-14A, alle struts were slightly shortened. The resulting stance is still a bit stalky, but an A-10 is also quite tall – this is just not so obvious because of the aircraft’s sheer size.

 

Due to the low wings and the landing gear pods, the Su-25’s hardpoints had to be re-arranged, and this eventually led to a layout very similar to the A-10. I gave the aircraft a pair of pylons inside of the pods, plus three hardpoints under the fuselage, even though all of these would only be used when slim ordnance was carried. I just fitted the outer pair. Outside of the landing gear fairings there would have been enough space for the Frogfoot’s original four outer for pylons, but I found this to be a little too much. So I gave it “just” three, with more space between them.

The respective ordnance is a mix for a CAS mission with dedicated and occasional targets. It consists of:

- Drop tanks under the inner wings (left over from a Bilek Su-17/22 kit)

- A pair of B-8M1 FFAR pods under the fuselage (from a vintage Mastercraft USSR weapon set)

- Two MERs with four 200 kg bombs each, mounted on the pylons outside of the landing gear (the odd MERs came from a Special Hobby IDF SMB-2 Super Mystère kit, the bombs are actually 1:100 USAF 750 lb bombs from a Tamiya F-105 Thunderchief in that scale)

- Four CBU-100 Rockeye Mk. II cluster bombs on the outer stations (from two Italeri USA/NATO weapon sets, each only offers a pair of these)

Yes, it’s a mix of Russian and NATO ordnance – but, like the real Georgian Su-25KM “Scorpion” upgrade, the TAM-1 would certainly be able to carry the same or even a wider mix, thanks to modified bomb racks and wirings. Esp. “dumb” weapons, which do not call for special targeting and guidance avionics, are qualified.

The gun under the nose was replaced with a piece from a hollow steel needle.

  

Painting and markings:

Nothing unusual here. I considered some more “exotic” options, but eventually settled for a “conservative” Soviet/Russian-style four-tone tactical camouflage, something that “normal” Su-25s would carry, too.

The disruptive pattern was adapted from a Macedonian Frogfoot but underwent some changes due to the T-tail and the engine nacelles. The basic tones were Humbrol 119 (RAF Light Earth), 150 (Forest Green), 195 (Chrome Oxide Green, RAL 6020) and 98 (Chocolate) on the upper surfaces and RLM78 from (Modelmaster #2087) from below, with a relatively low waterline, due to the low-set wings.

As usual, the model received a light black ink washing and some post-shading – especially on the hull and on the fin, where many details had either disappeared under PSR or were simply not there at all.

 

The landing gear and the lower areas of the cockpit were painted in light grey (Humbrol 64), while the upper cockpit sections were painted with bright turquoise (Modelmaster #2135). The wheel hubs were painted in bright green (Humbrol 101), while some di-electric fairings received a slightly less intense tone (Humbrol 2). A few of these flat fairings on the hull were furthermore created with green decal sheet material (from TL Modellbau) to avoid masking and corrections with paint.

 

The tactical markings became minimal, matching the look of late Georgian Su-25s. The roundels came from a Balkan Models Frogfoot sheet. The “07” was taken from a Blue Rider decal sheet, it actually belongs to a Lithuanian An-2. Some white stencils from generic MiG-21 and Mi-8 Begemot sheets were added, too, and some small markings were just painted onto the hull with yellow.

 

Some soot stains around the jet nozzles and the gun were added with graphite, and finally the kit was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish.

  

A major bodywork project – and it’s weird that this is basically just a conversion of a stock kit and no kitbashing. A true Frogfoot remix! The new engines were the biggest “outsourced” addition, the A-10 landing gear fairings were a lucky find in the scrap box, and the rest is quite generic and could have looked differently. The result is impressive and balanced, though, the fictional TAM-1 looks quite plausible. The landing gear turned out to be a bit tall and stalky, though, making the aircraft look smaller on the ground than it actually is – but I left it that way.

Remodel, Week 32

 

If you looked very closely in the previous photo, you may have seen an employee casually leaning against the wall just to the left of the café counter. I want to be sure to point out she wasn’t goofing off: instead, she was standing there to help café customers at the café’s new computerized order units, shown here! Unfortunately, you can no longer order at the café counter itself; you can only order by computer now. Thankfully, though, the interface isn’t too difficult to navigate at all (at least in my opinion), and this admittedly does help keep the line low and frees up the café staff to assemble orders rather than just take them.

 

Inset bottom left is a shot of the new, standard Walmart style “cameras in use” signs in the parking lot.

 

(c) 2018 Retail Retell

These places are public so these photos are too, but just as I tell where they came from, I'd appreciate if you'd say who :)

 

LEMOORE, California (June 5, 2019) The first Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 314 "Black Knights" Lockheed Martin F-35C Lightning II aircraft from Naval Air Station (NAS) Lemoore flown by CAPT Tommy Beau Locke from Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 125 "Rough Raiders" flies in formation over the Sierra's with the VFMA-314 squadron F/A-18A++, flown by LtCol Cedar Hinton aircraft "passing the lead" as part of the F/A-18 Sundown with the Black Knights.

  

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is a family of single-seat, single-engine, all-weather, stealth, fifth-generation, multirole combat aircraft, designed for ground-attack and air-superiority missions. It is built by Lockheed Martin and many subcontractors, including Northrop Grumman, Pratt & Whitney, and BAE Systems.

 

The F-35 has three main models: the conventional takeoff and landing F-35A (CTOL), the short take-off and vertical-landing F-35B (STOVL), and the catapult-assisted take-off but arrested recovery, carrier-based F-35C (CATOBAR). The F-35 descends from the Lockheed Martin X-35, the design that was awarded the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program over the competing Boeing X-32. The official Lightning II name has proven deeply unpopular and USAF pilots have nicknamed it Panther, instead.

 

The United States principally funds F-35 development, with additional funding from other NATO members and close U.S. allies, including the United Kingdom, Italy, Australia, Canada, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, and formerly Turkey. These funders generally receive subcontracts to manufacture components for the aircraft; for example, Turkey was the sole supplier of several F-35 parts until its removal from the program in July 2019. Several other countries have ordered, or are considering ordering, the aircraft.

 

As the largest and most expensive military program ever, the F-35 became the subject of much scrutiny and criticism in the U.S. and in other countries. In 2013 and 2014, critics argued that the plane was "plagued with design flaws", with many blaming the procurement process in which Lockheed was allowed "to design, test, and produce the F-35 all at the same time," instead of identifying and fixing "defects before firing up its production line". By 2014, the program was "$163 billion over budget [and] seven years behind schedule". Critics also contend that the program's high sunk costs and political momentum make it "too big to kill".

 

The F-35 first flew on 15 December 2006. In July 2015, the United States Marines declared its first squadron of F-35B fighters ready for deployment. However, the DOD-based durability testing indicated the service life of early-production F-35B aircraft is well under the expected 8,000 flight hours, and may be as low as 2,100 flight hours. Lot 9 and later aircraft include design changes but service life testing has yet to occur. The U.S. Air Force declared its first squadron of F-35As ready for deployment in August 2016. The U.S. Navy declared its first F-35Cs ready in February 2019. In 2018, the F-35 made its combat debut with the Israeli Air Force.

 

The U.S. stated plan is to buy 2,663 F-35s, which will provide the bulk of the crewed tactical airpower of the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps in coming decades. Deliveries of the F-35 for the U.S. military are scheduled until 2037 with a projected service life up to 2070.

 

Development

 

F-35 development started in 1992 with the origins of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program and was to culminate in full production by 2018. The X-35 first flew on 24 October 2000 and the F-35A on 15 December 2006.

 

The F-35 was developed to replace most US fighter jets with the variants of a single design that would be common to all branches of the military. It was developed in co-operation with a number of foreign partners, and, unlike the F-22 Raptor, intended to be available for export. Three variants were designed: the F-35A (CTOL), the F-35B (STOVL), and the F-35C (CATOBAR). Despite being intended to share most of their parts to reduce costs and improve maintenance logistics, by 2017, the effective commonality was only 20%. The program received considerable criticism for cost overruns during development and for the total projected cost of the program over the lifetime of the jets.

 

By 2017, the program was expected to cost $406.5 billion over its lifetime (i.e. until 2070) for acquisition of the jets, and an additional $1.1 trillion for operations and maintenance. A number of design deficiencies were alleged, such as: carrying a small internal payload; performance inferior to the aircraft being replaced, particularly the F-16; lack of safety in relying on a single engine; and flaws such as the vulnerability of the fuel tank to fire and the propensity for transonic roll-off (wing drop). The possible obsolescence of stealth technology was also criticized.

  

Design

 

Overview

 

Although several experimental designs have been developed since the 1960s, such as the unsuccessful Rockwell XFV-12, the F-35B is to be the first operational supersonic STOVL stealth fighter. The single-engine F-35 resembles the larger twin-engined Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, drawing design elements from it. The exhaust duct design was inspired by the General Dynamics Model 200, proposed for a 1972 supersonic VTOL fighter requirement for the Sea Control Ship.

 

Lockheed Martin has suggested that the F-35 could replace the USAF's F-15C/D fighters in the air-superiority role and the F-15E Strike Eagle in the ground-attack role. It has also stated the F-35 is intended to have close- and long-range air-to-air capability second only to that of the F-22 Raptor, and that the F-35 has an advantage over the F-22 in basing flexibility and possesses "advanced sensors and information fusion".

 

Testifying before the House Appropriations Committee on 25 March 2009, acquisition deputy to the assistant secretary of the Air Force, Lt. Gen. Mark D. "Shack" Shackelford, stated that the F-35 is designed to be America's "premier surface-to-air missile killer, and is uniquely equipped for this mission with cutting-edge processing power, synthetic aperture radar integration techniques, and advanced target recognition".

 

Improvements

Ostensible improvements over past-generation fighter aircraft include:

 

Durable, low-maintenance stealth technology, using structural fiber mat instead of the high-maintenance coatings of legacy stealth platforms

Integrated avionics and sensor fusion that combine information from off- and on-board sensors to increase the pilot's situational awareness and improve target identification and weapon delivery, and to relay information quickly to other command and control (C2) nodes

High-speed data networking including IEEE 1394b and Fibre Channel (Fibre Channel is also used on Boeing's Super Hornet.

The Autonomic Logistics Global Sustainment, Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), and Computerized maintenance management system to help ensure the aircraft can remain operational with minimal maintenance manpower The Pentagon has moved to open up the competitive bidding by other companies. This was after Lockheed Martin stated that instead of costing 20% less than the F-16 per flight hour, the F-35 would actually cost 12% more. Though the ALGS is intended to reduce maintenance costs, the company disagrees with including the cost of this system in the aircraft ownership calculations. The USMC has implemented a workaround for a cyber vulnerability in the system. The ALIS system currently requires a shipping-container load of servers to run, but Lockheed is working on a more portable version to support the Marines' expeditionary operations.

Electro-hydrostatic actuators run by a power-by-wire flight-control system

A modern and updated flight simulator, which may be used for a greater fraction of pilot training to reduce the costly flight hours of the actual aircraft

Lightweight, powerful lithium-ion batteries to provide power to run the control surfaces in an emergency

Structural composites in the F-35 are 35% of the airframe weight (up from 25% in the F-22). The majority of these are bismaleimide and composite epoxy materials. The F-35 will be the first mass-produced aircraft to include structural nanocomposites, namely carbon nanotube-reinforced epoxy. Experience of the F-22's problems with corrosion led to the F-35 using a gap filler that causes less galvanic corrosion to the airframe's skin, designed with fewer gaps requiring filler and implementing better drainage. The relatively short 35-foot wingspan of the A and B variants is set by the F-35B's requirement to fit inside the Navy's current amphibious assault ship parking area and elevators; the F-35C's longer wing is considered to be more fuel efficient.

 

Costs

A U.S. Navy study found that the F-35 will cost 30 to 40% more to maintain than current jet fighters, not accounting for inflation over the F-35's operational lifetime. A Pentagon study concluded a $1 trillion maintenance cost for the entire fleet over its lifespan, not accounting for inflation. The F-35 program office found that as of January 2014, costs for the F-35 fleet over a 53-year lifecycle was $857 billion. Costs for the fighter have been dropping and accounted for the 22 percent life cycle drop since 2010. Lockheed stated that by 2019, pricing for the fifth-generation aircraft will be less than fourth-generation fighters. An F-35A in 2019 is expected to cost $85 million per unit complete with engines and full mission systems, inflation adjusted from $75 million in December 2013.

Boeing B-29 Superfortress “FIFI”, serial number 44-62070 Profile

 

FiFi, a B-29 bomber, and one of the more notable planes, participated in a special event at the New Century Air Center in Gardner, Kansas. The event was called the Air Power History Tour, where three working World War II airplanes were on display until Sunday. The event took place August 20 through August 24 at the New Century AirCenter in Gardner Kansas. This picture taken Sunday, August 24th.

This particular aircraft was delivered to the U.S. Army Air Corps in Salina, Kansas, on July 31, 1945. It remained state-side for its entire career, assigned to several airbases including Strategic Air Command, Grand Island Field, Nebraska. It was converted to a TB-29 trainer in 1953 and transferred to the U.S. Navy in 1956 and eventually ended up at China Lake, California.

 

The B-29 was designed as a long-range heavy bomber, and whose nickname “Superfortress” is derived from the B-17 “Flying Fortress” nickname coined by Richard L. Williams, a writer and editor for the Seattle Times, when he was assigned to write a caption on a photo of the Model 299, a prototype of the B-17 that was unveiled at Boeing on July 17, 1935. Boeing presented a prototype as early as 1939, but the production version did not see combat until 1944. B-29s were flown in the Pacific Theater during World War II, where their long range and large bomb load were most needed (although two were delivered for non-combat to Europe late in the war – my dad was there in 1946 and spoke of them). The B-29 is, of course, most known for having dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (a secondary target chosen due to poor visibility over the primary target of Kokura). After its establishment in 1946, the U.S. Strategic Air Command began deployment of B-29s, some as RB-29 reconnaissance aircraft.

 

Powered by four Wright R-3350-23 Duplex/Cyclone engines, the B-29 was the first bomber to have pressurized crew compartments: forward, aft, and tail gunner positions, with a pressurized connecting tunnel over the bomb bays. It was entirely innovative in its use of an analog computerized remote-controlled sighting system for the guns. Except for the tail gunner, the gunners no longer sat in turrets but rather in sighting stations using a remote periscope sighting system for the turrets which had switches to obtain or relinquish control of the four turrets; the top turret gunner/central fire control officer had switches for changing control as to which gunner was on the target depending on his field of view; the gunners communicated via the interphone system.

 

The bombardier was generally responsible for the forward dorsal 4-gun turret and the forward ventral 2-gun turret for frontal attacks. Armament in this aircraft includes: twin-mounted General Electric .50 caliber machine guns in remote-controlled forward and rear ventral turrets and a ventral rear aft turret, and quad-mounted .50 cal. in a remote-controlled forward dorsal turret, and a pair in the tail turret. (Armament varied in these aircraft and a 20 mm cannon was added to the tail turret on some aircraft).

 

The crew generally consisted of ten: pilot, co-pilot, bombardier/togglier, flight engineer, radio operator, navigator, right gunner, left gunner, top gunner or central fire control, tail gunner (11 when radar was used). The top gunner sat in a pedestal seat nicknamed the “Barber’s Seat.” Due to the complexity of this aircraft, the flight engineer (who sat behind the co-pilot, facing aft and looking at an array of controls) had a very active role in flying the aircraft, responsible for the minute-by-minute monitoring and control of the engines. Each crew position was fitted with a 1936 Ford ashtray. The aircraft had a forward and smaller aft bomb bay and could carry a range of ordnance.

LEMOORE, California (June 5, 2019) The first Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 314 "Black Knights" Lockheed Martin F-35C Lightning II aircraft from Naval Air Station (NAS) Lemoore flown by CAPT Tommy Beau Locke from Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 125 "Rough Raiders" flies in formation over the Sierra's with the VFMA-314 squadron F/A-18A++, flown by LtCol Cedar Hinton aircraft "passing the lead" as part of the F/A-18 Sundown with the Black Knights.

  

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is a family of single-seat, single-engine, all-weather, stealth, fifth-generation, multirole combat aircraft, designed for ground-attack and air-superiority missions. It is built by Lockheed Martin and many subcontractors, including Northrop Grumman, Pratt & Whitney, and BAE Systems.

 

The F-35 has three main models: the conventional takeoff and landing F-35A (CTOL), the short take-off and vertical-landing F-35B (STOVL), and the catapult-assisted take-off but arrested recovery, carrier-based F-35C (CATOBAR). The F-35 descends from the Lockheed Martin X-35, the design that was awarded the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program over the competing Boeing X-32. The official Lightning II name has proven deeply unpopular and USAF pilots have nicknamed it Panther, instead.

 

The United States principally funds F-35 development, with additional funding from other NATO members and close U.S. allies, including the United Kingdom, Italy, Australia, Canada, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, and formerly Turkey. These funders generally receive subcontracts to manufacture components for the aircraft; for example, Turkey was the sole supplier of several F-35 parts until its removal from the program in July 2019. Several other countries have ordered, or are considering ordering, the aircraft.

 

As the largest and most expensive military program ever, the F-35 became the subject of much scrutiny and criticism in the U.S. and in other countries. In 2013 and 2014, critics argued that the plane was "plagued with design flaws", with many blaming the procurement process in which Lockheed was allowed "to design, test, and produce the F-35 all at the same time," instead of identifying and fixing "defects before firing up its production line". By 2014, the program was "$163 billion over budget [and] seven years behind schedule". Critics also contend that the program's high sunk costs and political momentum make it "too big to kill".

 

The F-35 first flew on 15 December 2006. In July 2015, the United States Marines declared its first squadron of F-35B fighters ready for deployment. However, the DOD-based durability testing indicated the service life of early-production F-35B aircraft is well under the expected 8,000 flight hours, and may be as low as 2,100 flight hours. Lot 9 and later aircraft include design changes but service life testing has yet to occur. The U.S. Air Force declared its first squadron of F-35As ready for deployment in August 2016. The U.S. Navy declared its first F-35Cs ready in February 2019. In 2018, the F-35 made its combat debut with the Israeli Air Force.

 

The U.S. stated plan is to buy 2,663 F-35s, which will provide the bulk of the crewed tactical airpower of the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps in coming decades. Deliveries of the F-35 for the U.S. military are scheduled until 2037 with a projected service life up to 2070.

 

Development

 

F-35 development started in 1992 with the origins of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program and was to culminate in full production by 2018. The X-35 first flew on 24 October 2000 and the F-35A on 15 December 2006.

 

The F-35 was developed to replace most US fighter jets with the variants of a single design that would be common to all branches of the military. It was developed in co-operation with a number of foreign partners, and, unlike the F-22 Raptor, intended to be available for export. Three variants were designed: the F-35A (CTOL), the F-35B (STOVL), and the F-35C (CATOBAR). Despite being intended to share most of their parts to reduce costs and improve maintenance logistics, by 2017, the effective commonality was only 20%. The program received considerable criticism for cost overruns during development and for the total projected cost of the program over the lifetime of the jets.

 

By 2017, the program was expected to cost $406.5 billion over its lifetime (i.e. until 2070) for acquisition of the jets, and an additional $1.1 trillion for operations and maintenance. A number of design deficiencies were alleged, such as: carrying a small internal payload; performance inferior to the aircraft being replaced, particularly the F-16; lack of safety in relying on a single engine; and flaws such as the vulnerability of the fuel tank to fire and the propensity for transonic roll-off (wing drop). The possible obsolescence of stealth technology was also criticized.

  

Design

 

Overview

 

Although several experimental designs have been developed since the 1960s, such as the unsuccessful Rockwell XFV-12, the F-35B is to be the first operational supersonic STOVL stealth fighter. The single-engine F-35 resembles the larger twin-engined Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, drawing design elements from it. The exhaust duct design was inspired by the General Dynamics Model 200, proposed for a 1972 supersonic VTOL fighter requirement for the Sea Control Ship.

 

Lockheed Martin has suggested that the F-35 could replace the USAF's F-15C/D fighters in the air-superiority role and the F-15E Strike Eagle in the ground-attack role. It has also stated the F-35 is intended to have close- and long-range air-to-air capability second only to that of the F-22 Raptor, and that the F-35 has an advantage over the F-22 in basing flexibility and possesses "advanced sensors and information fusion".

 

Testifying before the House Appropriations Committee on 25 March 2009, acquisition deputy to the assistant secretary of the Air Force, Lt. Gen. Mark D. "Shack" Shackelford, stated that the F-35 is designed to be America's "premier surface-to-air missile killer, and is uniquely equipped for this mission with cutting-edge processing power, synthetic aperture radar integration techniques, and advanced target recognition".

 

Improvements

Ostensible improvements over past-generation fighter aircraft include:

 

Durable, low-maintenance stealth technology, using structural fiber mat instead of the high-maintenance coatings of legacy stealth platforms

Integrated avionics and sensor fusion that combine information from off- and on-board sensors to increase the pilot's situational awareness and improve target identification and weapon delivery, and to relay information quickly to other command and control (C2) nodes

High-speed data networking including IEEE 1394b and Fibre Channel (Fibre Channel is also used on Boeing's Super Hornet.

The Autonomic Logistics Global Sustainment, Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), and Computerized maintenance management system to help ensure the aircraft can remain operational with minimal maintenance manpower The Pentagon has moved to open up the competitive bidding by other companies. This was after Lockheed Martin stated that instead of costing 20% less than the F-16 per flight hour, the F-35 would actually cost 12% more. Though the ALGS is intended to reduce maintenance costs, the company disagrees with including the cost of this system in the aircraft ownership calculations. The USMC has implemented a workaround for a cyber vulnerability in the system. The ALIS system currently requires a shipping-container load of servers to run, but Lockheed is working on a more portable version to support the Marines' expeditionary operations.

Electro-hydrostatic actuators run by a power-by-wire flight-control system

A modern and updated flight simulator, which may be used for a greater fraction of pilot training to reduce the costly flight hours of the actual aircraft

Lightweight, powerful lithium-ion batteries to provide power to run the control surfaces in an emergency

Structural composites in the F-35 are 35% of the airframe weight (up from 25% in the F-22). The majority of these are bismaleimide and composite epoxy materials. The F-35 will be the first mass-produced aircraft to include structural nanocomposites, namely carbon nanotube-reinforced epoxy. Experience of the F-22's problems with corrosion led to the F-35 using a gap filler that causes less galvanic corrosion to the airframe's skin, designed with fewer gaps requiring filler and implementing better drainage. The relatively short 35-foot wingspan of the A and B variants is set by the F-35B's requirement to fit inside the Navy's current amphibious assault ship parking area and elevators; the F-35C's longer wing is considered to be more fuel efficient.

 

Costs

A U.S. Navy study found that the F-35 will cost 30 to 40% more to maintain than current jet fighters, not accounting for inflation over the F-35's operational lifetime. A Pentagon study concluded a $1 trillion maintenance cost for the entire fleet over its lifespan, not accounting for inflation. The F-35 program office found that as of January 2014, costs for the F-35 fleet over a 53-year lifecycle was $857 billion. Costs for the fighter have been dropping and accounted for the 22 percent life cycle drop since 2010. Lockheed stated that by 2019, pricing for the fifth-generation aircraft will be less than fourth-generation fighters. An F-35A in 2019 is expected to cost $85 million per unit complete with engines and full mission systems, inflation adjusted from $75 million in December 2013.

ROMA ARCHEOLOGICA & RESTAURO ARCHITETTURA: 'Roma - Una bellissima passeggiata nel Foro Romano, ricostruito in 3D.': Prof. Arch. Gilbert J. Gorski & Prof. James E. Packer, 'The Roman Forum: A Reconstruction and Architectural Guide', Cambridge University Press (2015 [Forthcoming]), pp. 1-474; 60 b/w illus. 247 colour illus. Foto: Cambridge University Press (05|2015).

 

"...Thus, while millions of casual tourists visit the site [of the Roman Forum] each year, most carry away only vague ideas of how the shattered ruins before them actually appeared in antiquity; and relevant literature in English usually provides little more." (...) "Since our new, restored model of the Forum is three dimensional, we were able to document the site in a realistic manner." (...) "With these digital materials and our texts, we anticipate that future visitors to the Forum will find the site more comprehensible – and, we hope, far more rewarding – than has ever previously been the case."

 

-- Prof. Arch. Gilbert J. Gorski & Prof. James E. Packer [2012-13] in: PREFACE, xv & xviii, Prof. Arch. Gilbert J. Gorski & Prof. James E. Packer, 'The Roman Forum: A Reconstruction and Architectural Guide', Cambridge University Press (2015 [Forthcoming]), pp. 1-474; 60 b/w illus. 247 colour illus.

 

The Roman Forum was in many ways the heart of the Roman Empire. Today, the Forum exists in a fragmentary state, having been destroyed and plundered by barbarians, aristocrats, citizens and priests over the past two millennia. Enough remains, however, for archaeologists to reconstruct its spectacular buildings and monuments. This richly illustrated volume provides an architectural history of the central section of the Roman Forum during the Empire (31 BCE–476 CE), from the Temple of Julius Caesar to the monuments on the slope of the Capitoline hill. Bringing together state-of-the-art technology in architectural illustration and the expertise of a prominent Roman archaeologist, this book offers a unique reconstruction of the Forum, providing architectural history, a summary of each building's excavation and research, scaled digital plans, elevations, and reconstructed aerial images that not only shed light on the Forum's history but vividly bring it to life. With this book, scholars, students, architects and artists will be able to visualize for the first time since antiquity the character, design and appearance of the famous heart of ancient Rome.

 

- With over 300 illustrations, the majority of them in color, this is the most complete and visually striking treatment of the Forum to date.

 

- Authored by an expert team of illustrator and Roman archaeologist.

 

- The reconstructions of every monument in the Forum constitute the handsomest, most complete, most attractive series of Forum images ever done.

 

Table of Contents

 

Part I. Architecture in the Roman Forum during the Empire: A Brief History:

1. The Augustan Reconstruction

2. From the Tiberius to Phocas (14–608 CE)

Part II. The Monuments:

3. The Temple of Antoninus and Faustina

4. The Temple of Caesar (Aedes divi Iuli)

5. The Basilica Aemilia

6. The Curia

7. The Arch of Septimius Severus

8. The West Rostra

9. The Temple of Concord

10. The Temple of Vespasian

11. The Tabularium

12. Portico of the Dei Consentes

13. The Temple of Saturn

14. The Basilica Julia

15. The Arch of Tiberius

16. The Schola Xanthi

17. The Diocletianic Honorary Columns

18. The Temple of Castor and Pollux

19. The Parthian Arch of Augustus

20. The Temple of Vesta

Part III. Conclusions.

 

Look Inside

 

- Index (PDF = 159 KB)

- Marketing Excerpt (PDF = 16615 KB)

- Copyright Information Page (PDF = 136 KB)

- Front Matter (PDF = 30244 KB)

- Table of Contents (PDF = 144 KB)

 

Authors

 

Gilbert J. Gorski, University of Notre Dame, Indiana -

 

Gilbert J. Gorski is a licensed architect and the project designer for numerous buildings including the World Headquarters for the McDonald's Corporation in Oak Brook, IL, and the Oceanarium, a major addition to the John G. Shedd Aquarium in Chicago. In 1987 he was designated the Burnham Fellow by the Chicago Architectural Club and was awarded an associate fellowship to the American Academy in Rome. Since 1989 Gorski has headed his own firm specializing in design and illustration. His drawings and paintings have been included in numerous publications and exhibits on architecture and illustration. He was twice awarded the Hugh Ferriss Memorial Prize, the nation's highest singular honor in architectural illustration, by the American Society of Architectural Illustrators. He is also the recipient of an Institute Honor for Collaborative Achievement, awarded by the American Institute of Architects. He presently is an associate professor at the University of Notre Dame and holds the James A. and Louise F. Nolen Chair in Architecture.

 

James E. Packer, Northwestern University, Illinois -

 

James E. Packer is Emeritus Professor of Classics at Northwestern University. He is the author of the three-volume The Forum of Trajan in Rome (1997); of numerous articles in journals, including the American Journal of Archaeology, the Journal of Roman Archaeology, the Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma, the Maryland Historian, Natural History, Croniche Pompeiane, Technology and Culture, Curator, Inland Architect, Archeo, and Archaeology; and of articles in collections, including the Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae (1993–2000). He is the recipient of many grants, including those from the Samuel H. Kress Foundation, the Getty Grant Program, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. He has excavated at Pompeii, in the Forum of Trajan (Rome), and in the Theater of Pompey (Rome). 'The Forum of Trajan' exhibition at the opening of the new Getty Museum in Los Angeles (1997) was based on Packer's work.

 

FOTO | TEXT | FONTE | SOURCE:

 

- Prof. Arch. Gilbert J. Gorski & Prof. James E. Packer, 'The Roman Forum: A Reconstruction and Architectural Guide', Cambridge University Press (2015 [Forthcoming]), pp. 1-474; 60 b/w illus. 247 colour illus.

 

www.cambridge.org/je/academic/subjects/archaeology/classi...

 

________________________________________________

 

s.v.,

 

-- ROMA ARCHEOLOGICA & RESTAURO ARCHITETTURA: “Un marmo sopra l’altro così rialzeremo le colonne del Foro di Traiano”, LA REPUBBLICA (15|04|2015). The Forum of Trajan, comments by prof. James E. Packer | FACEBOOK (15|04|2015).

 

wp.me/pPRv6-2Y1

 

________

 

“…Imperial Rome appears to be a golden, semi-mythical city filled with splendid monuments whose ruins still regularly attract hordes of annual visitors. Yet these tourists see only battered walls,fragmentary pavements, broken columns and piles of marble fragments mutely recalling past grandeur but giving little reliable information on the layout and visual or propagandistic effects of the originally elaborately decorated buildings. (…) Consequently, most visitors to Roman sites still rely either on simplified guide books or on ‘local’ professional guides who may or may not give their audience accurate (if limited and strictly verbal) information about the sites visited.”

 

Prof. James E. Packer, Digitalizing Roman Imperial architecture in the early 21st century: purposes, data, failures and prospects. JRAS 61 (2006), pg. 309 & 312 [of pages 309-320].

 

…His [Prof. Packer’s] interest in the monument [of the Forum of Trajan] was sparked in 1972,[1] while he was preparing to guide some Northwestern University [Illinois, USA] alumni on a tour of Rome, little had been published about the forum, he found. This did not surprise him. He had just finished his dissertation of the archaeological records of Ostia, the ancient port of Rome, and “it was extraordinary how much little had been done on Ostia,” [2] he says. “So it was not surprising that the same situation existed in Rome.” In fact, all of the Imperial Forums were “kind of forgotten” – collapsed, buried and hard to get into, he says.’ In a sense, Dr. Packer’s had been preparing for much of his life to play a role in the uncovering a key part of Roman history. “Ever since I was a child, I have been fascinated by Roman buildings,” he says. “I wanted to have something to do with them, but for a long time I wasn’t sure what.” As a boy, he made three-dimensional models of such buildings as the Forum of Pompeii, the Pantheon at Ostia, and the Round Temple of Baalbek in Lebanon. Growing up in Williamsburg, Virginia he was impressed by the town’s architecture. “My mother said, ‘if you like neo-classical architecture, wait until you see the real thing.’” Certainly the Forum of Trajan bore her out.’[2] & [4].

 

Notes: 1,2,3, & 4 in, see: ROMA ARCHEOLOGICA & RESTAURO ARCHITETTURA: Prof. James. E. Packer, (ed. it.), Il Foro di Traiano a Roma. Breve studio dei monumenti (Roma 2001). “[Prof. Packer] Passeggiata virtuale nel Foro Romano [e Traiano],” LA STAMPA (02|01|1998), p. 17.

 

wp.me/pPRv6-2Ut & www.flickr.com/photos/imperial_fora_of_rome/5189852726/

 

— ROME ARCHAEOLOGY & RESTAURO ARCHITETTURA: THE ROMAN FORUM – Prof. James E. Packer & Prof. Arch. Gilbert J. Gorski, “The Roman Forum: A Reconstruction and Architectural Guide,” Cambridge University Press (forthcoming [2014]), Pp. 550. Foto: Prof. James E. Packer, scholars and students visiting the Forum of Trajan in Oct. 2013.

 

wp.me/pPRv6-1Tz

 

— ROMA ARCHEOLOGIA e RESTAURO ARCHITETTURA: Prof. James E. Packer, Il Foro di Traiano. Breve studio dei monumenti | Prof. Packer, una lezione affascinante in inglese sul Foro di Traiano Roma (10|2013). [ENGLISH] VIDEO YOUTUBE [1:00:13].

 

wp.me/pPRv6-2pu

 

— ROMA ARCHEOLOGIA & RESTAURO ARCHITETTURA: Prof. James Packer,”Digitizing Imperial Rome: A computerized Approach to the Architectural History of the Roman Imperial Forum.” James Packer, Professor Emeritus Northwestern University (2010).

 

wp.me/pPRv6-8F

 

— ROMA ARCHEOLOGICA & RESTAURO ARCHITETTURA: PROF. ANDREA CARANDINI, “IMAGO URBIS – Lazio , Roma e Suburbio,” LA SAPIENZA UNIVERSITA` DI ROMA | Arcus S.p.a | SSBAR (2015). Review of “ATLANTE DI ROMA ANTICA, Vol. I & II (2013),” by: T. P. Wiseman & J. E. Packer (2013).

 

wp.me/pPRv6-2NG

 

— ROMA ARCHEOLOGICA & RESTAURO ARCHITETTURA: Roma – I Fori Imperiali (1995-2008). The Forum of Trajan. Excavations & Related Studies (1998-2008). Prof. James. E. Packer, (ed. it.), Il Foro di Traiano a Roma. Breve studio dei monumenti (Roma 2001). [04|2008].

 

www.flickr.com/photos/imperial_fora_of_rome/2517676103/

 

— ROMA ARCHEOLOGIA e RESTUARO ARCHITETTURA: James E. Packer, Report from Rome: The Imperial Fora, a Retrospective [Relazione da Roma: I Fori Imperiali, una Retrospettiva]. AJA 101, April 1997, [PDF] 307-330. *

wp.me/pPRv6-2oq

 

______

 

Note: A very special thank you to both Prof. James E. Packer and Prof. Arch. Kevin Sarring, they were kind enough to meet with me here in Washington DC in late October 2009, prof. Packer more then generously shared with me the outline of his preliminary work for the current book: ‘The Roman Forum: A Reconstruction and Architectural Guide (2015); M. G. Conde [05|2015]

______

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some Background:

On 23 January 1992, the Lithuanian Minister of Defense signed an order establishing the staff for the Aviation Base of the Aviation Service. But an actual base in the Šiauliai airport territory (Barysiai airfield) was not established until March, when according to the ordinance of the Government of Lithuanian Republic, all the infrastructure, buildings, territory and 24 An-2 aircraft were passed from ”Lithuanian Airlines" to the Aviation Service of the Ministry of Defense in January 1992.

 

On 12 June 1992, the first time after regaining the independence of Lithuania, An-2 aircraft, marked with the double cross of Vytis on its wings – the distinguishing sign of Lithuanian Air Force – took off from Barysiai airfield. This date is considered to be the Aviation Base foundation date. In February 1993 four L-39C Albatros aircraft were brought from Kyrgyzstan.

 

After 1 March 1993 Aviation Service was reformed to the Lithuanian Air Force and Aviation Base was renamed the First Aviation Base of the Lithuanian Air Force. In January 1994 Lithuania officially applied for NATO membership, and the country also looked out for a relatively cheap multi-purpose fighter that would fulfill both air space defence and attack tasks, the latter primarily against potential targets at sea (e. g. fast hoovercraft landing ships operated by the Russian Baltic Fleet).

 

After evaluating several options, the Lithuanian Air Force settled for a surprising aircraft: the venerable MiG-21! After the demise of the Soviet Union, several international companies started to offer conversion and upgrade programs for the widely used tactical fighter, about 5.000 specimen had been built to date. One of the first companies to enter the market was Israel Aircraft Industries: IAI's Lahav Division of (IAI) had developed the so-called MiG-21 2000 upgraded fighter and ground attack version, based on the MiG-21bis and the export MiG-21MF fighter aircraft.

 

The MiG-21 2000 upgrade provided modifications to the cockpit configuration, avionics architecture and weapons systems, enabling the MiG-21 2000 to compete with Western developed fighters like the F-16 and to make the transition to Western standards. The aircraft's original systems and components were retained wherever mission effectiveness was not compromised.

IAI Lahav augmented the original weapons system by introducing an EL/M-2032 radar, developed by IAI Elta Electronic Industries, based in Ashdod. The radar, which uses a low sidelobe planar array antenna and pulse Doppler beam sharpening, provides all-altitude, all-aspect look-up / look-down and shoot-down capability, as well as beyond-visual-range capability. In order to make the radar compatible with Western ordnance, a new armament interface and control unit were added, too, which enabled computerized control and release of weapons, including third and fourth-generation air-to-air missiles and precision-guided munitions of Western and Eastern provenance.

 

This system also gave the pilot the ability to use blind attack as well as continuously computed impact point (CCIP) and dive-toss bombing techniques. CCIP bombing involves the deployment of air-to-ground weapons, using the HUD to indicate the impact point for release of the weapons. Dive-toss bombing involves the release of air-to-ground weapons at the end of a steep dive manoeuver towards the target.

 

The MiG-21 2000 cockpit featured a new pilot-friendly layout that overcame the shortcomings of the original cockpit layout, which was crowded and lacked most of the desired man-machine interface characteristics. It incorporated a head-up display (HUD), eye-level multifunction color displays, hands on throttle and stick control (HOTAS), solid-state charge coupled device (CCD) camera, videotape recorder, and a one-piece windshield.

 

The MiG-21 2000 could be equipped with a display and sight helmet (DASH) system, supplied by Elbit of Haifa, which enabled the pilot to aim the weapons simply by looking at the target. The system worked by measuring the pilot's line of sight relative to the aircraft, and transferred the information to the aircraft's sensors, avionics and weapon systems. The helmet displayed vital information, such as the missile line of sight, missile status, flight information and warning data, on the visor. The DASH helmet allowed the pilot to fly head-up and off-boresight and assisted the pilot to detect, identify and shoot earlier.

 

IAI Lahav's upgrade package could be tailored to meet the customer's specific operational and budgetary requirements - the Lithuanian package included the radar, cockpit and also the DASH update and was rumored to cost around 4 Mio. USD per aircraft, and Lithuania was, together with Romania (where 110 MiG-21 were to be updated), lead customer.

 

As conversion basis, Lithuania purchased fifteen MiG-21 airframes for an unknown sum from the Ukraine, which had inherited a considerable MiG-21 fleet after the demise of the Soviet Union but did not (want to) operate it. The deal included thirteen airworthy MiG-21bis fighters and two MiG-21U trainers with few flying hours on the clocks, and - stripped off any military equipment - the small fleet was gradually transferred as disassembled kits via air ferry in Antonov Airlines An-124 transporters to Aerostar in Romania for conversion, starting in early 1996.

 

The first batch of Lithuanian MiG-21 2000, three fighters and one trainer, arrived in mid-1997 from Bacau on their own power and with civil Ukrainian registrations, and the Lithuanian Air Force’s fighter squadron, the Naikintuvu Eskadra, became ready for service in February 1998.

The rest of the country’s small MiG-21 fleet was delivered in the course of the same year, and these aircraft were semi-officially christened "Globėjas" (Guardian). Since the late Nineties, the Globėjas fighters provide the backbone of Lithuania's air defenses, with aircraft holding Quick Reaction Alert. QRA missions – so-called Alpha Scrambles – have constantly been on the rise thanks to the Russia’s increased aggression towards NATO. The MiG’s have regularly launched to intercept and shadow Russian Air Force Il-20 intelligence gathering aircraft over the Baltic Sea, as well as Tu-16 and Tu-95 patrols and even some Sukhoi Su-27s.

 

Lithuanian pilots use “hit and run” style tactics to deal with air threats, due to the limited range and endurance of their mounts - but this is of little concern due to the country's relatively small size and the defensive nature of the machines' tasks. While the Globėjas lack a beyond-visual range missile, although they could carry one, they have the ability to carry a range of different short-range air-to-air missiles like the Israeli Python III, which Lithuania procured from Rafael in Haifa as primary air-to-air missile.

 

After Lithuania joined NATO organization in 2004, its (alongside Latvia's and Estonia's) air space has been protected by NATO. NATO members provide usually 4 fighter aircraft, based in Lithuania, to police the Baltic States’ airspace, where they support the Lithuanian MiG-21 fleet. The duties rotate between NATO members (which started in March 2004 with Belgium Air Force F-16s) and most NATO members that operate fighters have made temporary deployments to Lithuania.

 

The Lithuanian Globėjas were also in regular demand as a simulated threat, and have gone up against US F-16s, F-15s, F/A-18s and A-10s, as well as the many different European fighter types that frequently rotate into the small country, including the Eurofighter, German F-4F Phantom IIs or French Mirage 2000.

 

Anyway, the Globėjas' airframes sooner or later reached their flying hour limits, and will be phased out towards 2020. As a replacement Lithuania will begin taking delivery of its first batch of ex-Portuguese F-16s in 2016, while the Baltic States are considering in the near future to protect their airspace on their own.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 14.5 [126] m (47 ft 7 in)

Wingspan: 7.154 m (23 ft 6 in)

Height: 4 m (13 ft 6 in)

Wing area: 23.0 m² (247.3 ft²)

Empty weight: 5,846 kg (12,880 lb)

Gross weight: 8,825 kg (19,425 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1× Tumansky R25-300, rated at 40.21 kN (9,040 lbf) thrust dry

and 69.62 kN (15,650 lbf) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 2,175 km/h (1,351.48 mph)

Maximum speed: Mach 2.0

Landing speed: 350 km/h (190 kts)

Range: (internal fuel) 1,210 km (751 miles)

Service ceiling: 17,800 m (58,400 ft)

Rate of climb: 225 m/s (44,280 ft/min)

 

Armament:

1x internal 23 mm GSh-23 cannon

5x hardpoints for a wide range of guided and unguided ordnance of up to 3.310 lb (1.500 kg).

 

In QRA configuration the Lithuanian MiG-21 typically carry two or four Rafal Python III short

range air-to-air missiles and an 800l drop tank on the centerline pylon.

Against ground targets, unguided bombs of up to 1.100 lb (500kg) caliber or unguided rockets

can be carried; alternatively, a Rafael LITENING laser designation pod and three

Griffin Mk. 82 LGBs or a single Mk. 84 LGB can be carried, or optically guided weapons like up

to four AGM-65 Maverick or a single GBU-8.

  

The kit and its assembly:

This kit is the entry for the 2016 "One Week Group Build" at whatifmodelers.com, which ran from 29th of April until 8th May (so, actually nine days...). I had this project earmarked for the recent "Cold War" GB, but it fell outside of the build's time horizon. But despite the dubious kit as basis, I tackled the build since I had anything else already at hand.

 

The basis is the MiG-21-93 demonstrator kit from Ukrainian manufacturer Condor, one of the many reincarnations of the venerable KP MiG-21bis, but with some updates. You get, for instance, engraved, very fine panel lines, some typical details were added like the wraparound windscreen (wrong shape, though) and the radar warning fairing on the fin as well as an extra sprue with modern Russian ordnance – apparently from some other kit!

On the downside, there's overall mediocre fit due to the molds' age, some dubious details (anything appears softened or blurred…) or the simple lack thereof (e. g. there’s no ventral gun fairing at all). But there’s nothing that could not be mended, and after all this is just a whiffy version.

 

Since there was only one week time to build the thing and make beauty pics, the whole project remained close to OOB status, even though a lot of detail changes or additions were made in order to convert the Russian MiG-21-93 into an earlier but similar Israeli MiG-21 2000 derivative.

 

These mods include:

- A Martin Baker ejection seat, with wire trigger handles

- HUD made from clear styrene

- Lowered flaps

- An added jet pipe/interior for the otherwise bleak exhaust (parts from a Kangnam Yak-38)

- Hydraulic pipes on the landing gear, made from very thin wire

- Some more/different blade antennae

- Measuring vanes on the pitot boom

- Different GSh-23 gun fairing, from an Academy MiG-23

- Thinner blast deflector plates under the anti-surge doors

- A pair of Python III AAMs, plus respective launch rails

- Different centerline drop tank, from an F-5E

- Scratched chaff/flare dispensers under the rear fuselage (as carried by the MiG-21 2000 demonstrator)

 

Building the model went straightforward, but it took some putty work to fill some seams, dents and holes all around the kit. Biggest issue was a hole in front of the cockpit screen, where simply not enough styrene had been injected into the mould!

  

Painting and markings:

The Lithuanian Air Force as operator for this build was chosen because it would not only fit into the real world timeline (even though I doubt that there would have been any budget for this aircraft at that time, even if MiG-21s had not been upgraded at all...) and because the potential livery would be very simple: contemporary L-39 trainers, C-27L Spartan as well as some L-410 and Mi-8 transporters carry a uniform, dull grey livery. Why not apply it on an air superiority fighter, too?

 

Finding an appropriate tone was not easy, though. Some sources claim the grey tone to be FS 36306, others refer to FS 36270 or "close to Blue/Grey FS35237", but IMHO none of the cited Federal Standard tones works well. Real world Lithuanian aircraft appear pretty dark and dull, and the color also features a greenish, slate grey hue - it's a unique color indeed.

 

After some trials (and also wishing to avoid mixing) I settled for Humbrol 111 (German Field Grey, a.k.a. Uniform Grey) as basic tone. It's a rather dark choice, but I wanted some good contrast to the national markings. A full wraparound livery appeared a little too dark and boring, so I added light blue wing undersurfaces (Humbrol 115). The kit received a light black in wash and some panel shading, primarily in order to add some life to the otherwise uniform surface.

 

Details were painted according to real world MiG-21 pics: the cockpit became classic teal with light grey instrument panels, plus OOB decals for the dashboard and side consoles. The landing gear struts were painted in a light, metallic grey (Humbrol 127 + 56) while the wells were painted in an odd primer color, a mix of Aluminum, Sand and Olive Drab. Parts of the covers were painted with Humbrol 144 (Blue Grey), seen on a modernized real world MiG-21. The wheel discs became bright green.

 

IAI's MiG-21 2000 demonstrator from 1993 had a black radome (as well as later Romanian LanceR Cs), so I adapted this detail for my build. Other typical di-electric fairings on a MiG-21's hull were painted in slightly darker camouflage colors, while the fin's leading edge became dark grey.

The blast deflector plates received yellow and black warning stripes, and some potentially dangerous parts for the ground crews like the pointed anti-flutter booms were painted red. The Python IIIs were simply painted all-white, mounted on grey launch rails - a harsh contrast to the dull rest of the aircraft.

 

Main markings come from a Blue Rider Publishing aftermarket sheet for modern Lithuanian aircraft. This set also includes the small Air Force crests, which I put on the nose, as well as the typical, blue tactical codes.

The stencils come from the scrap box, the small Lithuanian flag stripes on the tail rudder were created from single decal stripes, a personal addition inspired by Lithuanian C-27J transporters. They add some more color to the otherwise murky Baltic MiG fighter.

The silver ring around the air intake as well as the stripes at the flaps and the rudder were created with simple decal stripes instead of paint.

 

Finally, after I added some graphite soot around the jet exhaust and some panle lines with a pencil (e .g. the blow-in doors and airbrake outlines), the kit was sealed with hardly thinned Revell matt acrylic varnish, trying to create a really dull finish.

  

A tough build, despite being mostly OOB, but the details took their toll. This Baltic MiG does not look flashy, but, with IAI's real world MiG-21 2000 as well as the LanceR conversion for Romania in the Nineties, this one is pretty plausible. And with the simple paint scheme, the MiG-21 looks even pretty chic!

Mujer Maya Mam de SANTIAGO CHIMALTENANGO, Guatemala, en OAKLAND, CA

 

Aquí vemos un traje muy moderno, la última moda de ropa indígena de este pueblo. Esta joven ha tejido su corte (falda) con diseños geométricos, mucho más complicados que los diseños simples copiados de Colotenango que típicamente se usaban aquí. Tiene el último estilo de huipil, negro en vez de rojo, cuello festoneado que está muy de moda por toda Guatemala, sin las mangas que desde siempre han usado aquí, y con crochet agregado para hacer “mangas”.

 

Todo esto es su trabajo menos la faja, que es computarizada, tristemente. He notado que muchas mujeres agregan una faja computarizada a un traje tejido por ellas.

 

Here we see a very modern outfit, the latest fashion, of tribal clothing from this town. This woman has woven her corte (skirt) with some geometric designs, much more complicated than the usual simple skirt designs used here. Her huipil is the latest style, black instead of the once mandatory red, with the scalloped neck that is all the rage throughout Guatemala, made in the sleeveless style now favored here by young women, with realistic flowers in the brocade and some crochet added to make faux sleeves. This is her work except the belt, which is computerized, sadly.

  

Santiago Chimaltenango, Huehuetenango, GUATEMALA (Mam) in Oakland, CA

 

The Olympus PEN-FT is the most advanced member of the PEN half-format family that flourished in the 1960s. The Pen-F is, all appearances to the contrary, an SLR, but its designers avoided the characteristic hump and bulk of other SLRs by using a Porro prism and fixing it sideways. This required some creative engineering of the shutter design, but the camera's designer, the ingenious Y. Maitani, came up with a brilliant solution there.

 

All film Pens use 35 mm film but the image only takes up half a frame and is exposed sideways, so if you hold the camera horizontally, the picture will be taken in the portrait mode.

 

Olympus offered a large line-up of high quality lenses, but in my opinion, the standard 38/f.1.8 Zuiko lens is also far and away the best choice. Almost always, I find that the field of view is exactly what I need. The lens is fast enough too. Come on. Who needs more aperture than f/1.8?

 

The FT offers off-the-prism (and thus, implicitly, through-the-lens) metering, which makes the viewfinder image a bit darker. Focusing still is a breeze, however, thanks to the microprism focusing screen. The light meter is not coupled - it indicates which f-stop to use, albeit using a proprietary numbering scheme.

 

The web abounds with detailed descriptions of the panoply of technology used in this camera, so I won't talk about that,

 

On a personal note - I find this camera a pure joy to use. There are no frills. It does what it's supposed to do, no more. So I'm not distracted and can concentrate on composing your picture, which is what I should be doing instead of fiddling with controls and menus.

 

You feel, hear and see that it's a brilliant piece of technology. A lot of complex engineering went into making it as simple as it is. Unlike modern computerized DSLRs which appear to be following the tenet that "if it was difficult to engineer it should also be difficult to use."

 

People react to it. Not like they'd react to a high-end DSLR or medium format behemoth. This camera doesn't elicit envy, it just pleases people with its looks. The reaction of the technician in the camera shop today was typical: A small gasp, followed by "Wow, that's a stunner. Let me hear the sound of her." That's right. He said "her", not "it". And then I fired her and his eyes lit up with joy and he went "Ahhhhhh ....yes!"

See what I mean? Everyone who sees her walks off with a smile on their face.

 

This is not a silent camera. But her sound is pure music to anyone who loves cameras. Granted, she has drawbacks.

 

Though she's rather heavy (which is good), the manufacturing quality isn't comparable to, say. a Leica. You see that when she twists and flexes slightly in your hands and you feel it most of all when you advance the film. That has a grindy feel to it.

 

But still. This baby was made in 1966, and I'd say she's in a very admirable state, given that she'll turn 50 next year.

BF-4 Flt 508 Mr. Peter Wilson and BF-5 Flt 370 Sqn Ldr Andy Adgell fly from HMS Queen Elizabeth on 27 Sep 2018

  

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is a family of single-seat, single-engine, all-weather, stealth, fifth-generation, multirole combat aircraft, designed for ground-attack and air-superiority missions. It is built by Lockheed Martin and many subcontractors, including Northrop Grumman, Pratt & Whitney, and BAE Systems.

 

The F-35 has three main models: the conventional takeoff and landing F-35A (CTOL), the short take-off and vertical-landing F-35B (STOVL), and the catapult-assisted take-off but arrested recovery, carrier-based F-35C (CATOBAR). The F-35 descends from the Lockheed Martin X-35, the design that was awarded the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program over the competing Boeing X-32. The official Lightning II name has proven deeply unpopular and USAF pilots have nicknamed it Panther, instead.

 

The United States principally funds F-35 development, with additional funding from other NATO members and close U.S. allies, including the United Kingdom, Italy, Australia, Canada, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, and formerly Turkey. These funders generally receive subcontracts to manufacture components for the aircraft; for example, Turkey was the sole supplier of several F-35 parts until its removal from the program in July 2019. Several other countries have ordered, or are considering ordering, the aircraft.

 

As the largest and most expensive military program ever, the F-35 became the subject of much scrutiny and criticism in the U.S. and in other countries. In 2013 and 2014, critics argued that the plane was "plagued with design flaws", with many blaming the procurement process in which Lockheed was allowed "to design, test, and produce the F-35 all at the same time," instead of identifying and fixing "defects before firing up its production line". By 2014, the program was "$163 billion over budget [and] seven years behind schedule". Critics also contend that the program's high sunk costs and political momentum make it "too big to kill".

 

The F-35 first flew on 15 December 2006. In July 2015, the United States Marines declared its first squadron of F-35B fighters ready for deployment. However, the DOD-based durability testing indicated the service life of early-production F-35B aircraft is well under the expected 8,000 flight hours, and may be as low as 2,100 flight hours. Lot 9 and later aircraft include design changes but service life testing has yet to occur. The U.S. Air Force declared its first squadron of F-35As ready for deployment in August 2016. The U.S. Navy declared its first F-35Cs ready in February 2019. In 2018, the F-35 made its combat debut with the Israeli Air Force.

 

The U.S. stated plan is to buy 2,663 F-35s, which will provide the bulk of the crewed tactical airpower of the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps in coming decades. Deliveries of the F-35 for the U.S. military are scheduled until 2037 with a projected service life up to 2070.

 

Development

 

F-35 development started in 1992 with the origins of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program and was to culminate in full production by 2018. The X-35 first flew on 24 October 2000 and the F-35A on 15 December 2006.

 

The F-35 was developed to replace most US fighter jets with the variants of a single design that would be common to all branches of the military. It was developed in co-operation with a number of foreign partners, and, unlike the F-22 Raptor, intended to be available for export. Three variants were designed: the F-35A (CTOL), the F-35B (STOVL), and the F-35C (CATOBAR). Despite being intended to share most of their parts to reduce costs and improve maintenance logistics, by 2017, the effective commonality was only 20%. The program received considerable criticism for cost overruns during development and for the total projected cost of the program over the lifetime of the jets.

 

By 2017, the program was expected to cost $406.5 billion over its lifetime (i.e. until 2070) for acquisition of the jets, and an additional $1.1 trillion for operations and maintenance. A number of design deficiencies were alleged, such as: carrying a small internal payload; performance inferior to the aircraft being replaced, particularly the F-16; lack of safety in relying on a single engine; and flaws such as the vulnerability of the fuel tank to fire and the propensity for transonic roll-off (wing drop). The possible obsolescence of stealth technology was also criticized.

  

Design

 

Overview

 

Although several experimental designs have been developed since the 1960s, such as the unsuccessful Rockwell XFV-12, the F-35B is to be the first operational supersonic STOVL stealth fighter. The single-engine F-35 resembles the larger twin-engined Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, drawing design elements from it. The exhaust duct design was inspired by the General Dynamics Model 200, proposed for a 1972 supersonic VTOL fighter requirement for the Sea Control Ship.

 

Lockheed Martin has suggested that the F-35 could replace the USAF's F-15C/D fighters in the air-superiority role and the F-15E Strike Eagle in the ground-attack role. It has also stated the F-35 is intended to have close- and long-range air-to-air capability second only to that of the F-22 Raptor, and that the F-35 has an advantage over the F-22 in basing flexibility and possesses "advanced sensors and information fusion".

 

Testifying before the House Appropriations Committee on 25 March 2009, acquisition deputy to the assistant secretary of the Air Force, Lt. Gen. Mark D. "Shack" Shackelford, stated that the F-35 is designed to be America's "premier surface-to-air missile killer, and is uniquely equipped for this mission with cutting-edge processing power, synthetic aperture radar integration techniques, and advanced target recognition".

 

Improvements

Ostensible improvements over past-generation fighter aircraft include:

 

Durable, low-maintenance stealth technology, using structural fiber mat instead of the high-maintenance coatings of legacy stealth platforms

Integrated avionics and sensor fusion that combine information from off- and on-board sensors to increase the pilot's situational awareness and improve target identification and weapon delivery, and to relay information quickly to other command and control (C2) nodes

High-speed data networking including IEEE 1394b and Fibre Channel (Fibre Channel is also used on Boeing's Super Hornet.

The Autonomic Logistics Global Sustainment, Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), and Computerized maintenance management system to help ensure the aircraft can remain operational with minimal maintenance manpower The Pentagon has moved to open up the competitive bidding by other companies. This was after Lockheed Martin stated that instead of costing 20% less than the F-16 per flight hour, the F-35 would actually cost 12% more. Though the ALGS is intended to reduce maintenance costs, the company disagrees with including the cost of this system in the aircraft ownership calculations. The USMC has implemented a workaround for a cyber vulnerability in the system. The ALIS system currently requires a shipping-container load of servers to run, but Lockheed is working on a more portable version to support the Marines' expeditionary operations.

Electro-hydrostatic actuators run by a power-by-wire flight-control system

A modern and updated flight simulator, which may be used for a greater fraction of pilot training to reduce the costly flight hours of the actual aircraft

Lightweight, powerful lithium-ion batteries to provide power to run the control surfaces in an emergency

Structural composites in the F-35 are 35% of the airframe weight (up from 25% in the F-22). The majority of these are bismaleimide and composite epoxy materials. The F-35 will be the first mass-produced aircraft to include structural nanocomposites, namely carbon nanotube-reinforced epoxy. Experience of the F-22's problems with corrosion led to the F-35 using a gap filler that causes less galvanic corrosion to the airframe's skin, designed with fewer gaps requiring filler and implementing better drainage. The relatively short 35-foot wingspan of the A and B variants is set by the F-35B's requirement to fit inside the Navy's current amphibious assault ship parking area and elevators; the F-35C's longer wing is considered to be more fuel efficient.

 

Costs

A U.S. Navy study found that the F-35 will cost 30 to 40% more to maintain than current jet fighters, not accounting for inflation over the F-35's operational lifetime. A Pentagon study concluded a $1 trillion maintenance cost for the entire fleet over its lifespan, not accounting for inflation. The F-35 program office found that as of January 2014, costs for the F-35 fleet over a 53-year lifecycle was $857 billion. Costs for the fighter have been dropping and accounted for the 22 percent life cycle drop since 2010. Lockheed stated that by 2019, pricing for the fifth-generation aircraft will be less than fourth-generation fighters. An F-35A in 2019 is expected to cost $85 million per unit complete with engines and full mission systems, inflation adjusted from $75 million in December 2013.