+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

Some background:

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

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

Specifications:

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

Weight: 22.6 t

Length: 7.74 m (25 ft 4 ¼ in)

Width: 2.98 m ( 9 ft 9 in)

Height: XXX

Ground clearance: 440 mm (1 ft 4 in)

Suspension: hydraulic all-wheel drive and steering

Armor:

Unknown, but sufficient to withstand 14.5 mm AP rounds

Performance:

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

Operational range: 720 km (445 mi)

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

Engine:

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

delivering 300 hp with petrol, 390 hp with diesel

Armament:

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

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

Two groups of four Wegmann 76 mm smoke mortars

The kit and its assembly:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Painting and markings:

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

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

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

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

Some background:

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

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

Specifications:

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

Weight: 22.6 t

Length: 7.74 m (25 ft 4 ¼ in)

Width: 2.98 m ( 9 ft 9 in)

Height: XXX

Ground clearance: 440 mm (1 ft 4 in)

Suspension: hydraulic all-wheel drive and steering

Armor:

Unknown, but sufficient to withstand 14.5 mm AP rounds

Performance:

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

Operational range: 720 km (445 mi)

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

Engine:

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

delivering 300 hp with petrol, 390 hp with diesel

Armament:

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

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

Two groups of four Wegmann 76 mm smoke mortars

The kit and its assembly:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Painting and markings:

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

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

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

Quoting 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.

The body language and pose of this man look like he is just about to give this computerized ticket machine a good talking to. I don't understand the things either... I'd rather talk to a real person.

Please view in full size for the best effect.

The Museum of Flight, Seattle.

Walking through the Concorde fuselage, I was struck by the tiny windows and somewhat cramped seats. Well, with a New York to London flight time of just under 3.5 hours, Concorde didn't need to provide its passengers with the creature comforts required to endure long-haul flights on conventional airliners.

========================================================

Here's a first-hand account of a trip on Concorde by By Jeffrey Levine in The Washington Post of December 17, 1989:

The Concorde -- transporter of the rich and famous, supersonic sled to sophisticated shores, chariot of the demigods -- has been around now for nearly a decade and a half.

Air France first went supersonic in January of 1976,featuring a flight from Paris to Rio de Janiero, and by the end of this month, the Air France Concorde will have carried about 850,000 passengers. I can now say I was one of the fleet few.

Not long ago, I found myself sitting in an opulent Air France lounge at New York's Kennedy Airport, swigging free champagne and waiting for the boarding announcement for the Paris-bound Concorde.

I tried to keep from gaping at my exquisitely outfitted and supremely blase fellow travelers, but when Sean Penn slouched over to a nearby phone, I debated whipping out my trusty auto-focus. On second thought, however, I decided I'd rather take my flight inside the plane.

When the lounge hostess made the boarding announcement, I drained my flute of champagne and headed for destiny at warp speed. As two nattily uniformed crew members checked my ticket and showed me to my seat, I had the sudden feeling that something was terribly wrong. In a flash I realized what was amiss: The crew members were smiling and politely helping me to stow my baggage, in startling contrast to the aloof soft-drink dispensers I've encountered on regular flights lately.

But as I bashed my head on a luggage rack, I realized that, in terms of passenger space, the Concorde doesn't differ much from smaller aircraft. This plane was built for speed, not comfort.

There are two gray-leather seats on each side of the aisle, and the cabin looks like a normal passenger jet that has shrunk to three-quarter size. The central aisle makes for frequent intimate encounters with other passengers, and even the serving carts are down-sized.

I settled into my seat and tried to look out the window -- a task not easily done through a window that is three panes thick and smaller than a paperback book.

But soon we were taxiing to the runway and lining up for takeoff. (No waiting behind scores of domestic flights for this bird!) The pilot, in elegant French-accented tones, warned us that we would be turning left immediately upon takeoff, and with that, he fired up the beast.

The engine note slowly grew to a sharp, overpowering, yet somehow muted whine. The plane, helping itself to plenty of runway, gradually built to a thrilling speed and nosed into the air. I was expecting to have my eyeballs pressed into my head, but there was none of the brain-compressing sensation of lift that normally comes with takeoff.

Instead, there was a sensation of terrific forward momentum, accompanied by a light juddering as the Concorde skimmed low over the water. This plane was in no hurry to gain altitude. True to his word, the pilot carved a sweeping left turn, the craft now beginning to shudder like a rocket sled on bumpy ice.

Then it leveled and began to climb -- not in a steady rise but in stages -- a shaking, racketing struggle for altitude. When I finally gathered my wits about me, I took a look at the Machmeter -- a small screen on the bulkhead registering our speed in cool green liquid crystal numbers -- to see that we were already traveling at over Mach 1, the speed of sound, or about 740 miles per hour.

We would soon reach a cruising altitude of 57,000 feet (as opposed to about 35,000 feet for most commercial aircraft) and a speed of Mach 2.2, or about 1,600 mph.

Once we reached cruising altitude and I could take stock of things, three qualities of supersonic travel became apparent.

First, turbulence is minimal way up there. We were not buffeted even once by wind.

Second, Mach 2.2 is noisy; conversation required leaning and screaming.

Third, at supersonic speed the Concorde produces a constant vibration, as much heard as felt, rather like driving rapidly over a smoothly packed gravel road.

It was as if we were flying through light sandpaper. Flying at that speed also produces heat, and when I held my face to the window I could feel warmth.

I decided to see what the brains of this machine looked like. I got permission to go forward and peer into the cockpit, half expecting to see only a large blinking computer up there, perhaps wearing a beret.

But no, there were three officers in what was a remarkably unremarkable cockpit. Absent were the video-game-like screens and computerized paraphernalia present on more modern aircraft. Instead there was the bewildering profusion of dials, gauges and switches found on the aircraft of my youth.

Nodding and mumbling under the captain's haughty gaze, I turned and headed for my seat. By now a line had built for the bathrooms, probably because, due to space considerations, the plane had only two bathrooms for its hundred passengers.

As I inched my way to the end of this squirming line, I realized that even though a person may amass tremendous wealth and travel in the most sophisticated form of transportation on earth, nothing can dispel the loss of dignity that comes of waiting in line to go to the bathroom.

When my turn came, I discovered that the bathrooms had been designed for a retromingent.

The rest of the flight? Rather uneventful. The other passengers provided little entertainment -- although one gentleman did spend the entire time wearing his raincoat, with a newspaper draped over his head and face -- and there was no movie.

The food was good, but almost everything was pureed and formed into a soft mold, which made for easy chewing but a disturbing feeling of infantility; the wine, however, was excellent (this was, after all, Air France).

Sean Penn slept the whole way. The landing was more conventional than the takeoff, although as the plane slowed to near landing speed it again turned into a shaking ox-cart.

Best of all, and to my mind the real element that made me a Concorde convert (besides the gift-wrapped leather folders that were handed out as gifts as we approached Paris), was the fact that we debarked in Paris after 3 1/2 hours, feeling refreshed, relaxed and ready to hit the Champs Elysees instead of a hotel pillow.

Air France has daily Concorde flights between New York and Paris; the current round-trip fare is $5,308.

From January through March, Air France will offer a special fare between New York and Paris, in conjunction with American Express; if you charge a first-class ticket ($4,422) on your American Express credit card, your ticket can be upgraded to a Concorde flight.

British Airways also flies the Concorde between New York and Paris; in addition, it has three Concorde flights a week from Washington to Paris, with a round-trip fare of $6,398.

Jeffrey Levine is a freelance writer in Chicago who usually takes the bus.

www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/travel/1989/12/1...

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.

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.

Notre-Dame de Paris ( French for "Our Lady of Paris"), also known as Notre-Dame Cathedral or simply Notre-Dame, is a historic Catholic cathedral on the eastern half of the Île de la Cité in the fourth arrondissement of Paris, France. The cathedral is widely considered to be one of the finest examples of French Gothic architecture, and it is among the largest and most well-known church buildings in the world. The naturalism of its sculptures and stained glass are in contrast with earlier Romanesque architecture.

As the cathedral of the Archdiocese of Paris, Notre-Dame is the parish that contains the cathedra, or official chair, of the archbishop of Paris, currently Cardinal André Vingt-Trois. The cathedral treasury is notable for its reliquary which houses some of Catholicism's most important first-class relics including the purported Crown of Thorns, a fragment of the True Cross, and one of the Holy Nails.

In the 1790s, Notre-Dame suffered desecration during the radical phase of the French Revolution when much of its religious imagery was damaged or destroyed. An extensive restoration supervised by Eugène Viollet-le-Duc began in 1845. A project of further restoration and maintenance began in 1991.

Architecture

Notre-Dame de Paris was among the first buildings in the world to use the flying buttress (arched exterior supports). The building was not originally designed to include the flying buttresses around the choir and nave but after the construction began, the thinner walls (popularized in the Gothic style) grew ever higher and stress fractures began to occur as the walls pushed outward. In response, the cathedral's architects built supports around the outside walls, and later additions continued the pattern.

Many small individually crafted statues were placed around the outside to serve as column supports and water spouts. Among these are the famous gargoyles, designed for water run-off, and chimeras. The statues were originally colored as was most of the exterior. The paint has worn off, but the gray stone was once covered with vivid colors. The cathedral was essentially complete by 1345. The cathedral has a narrow climb of 387 steps at the top of several spiral staircases; along the climb it is possible to view its most famous bell and its gargoyles in close quarters, as well as having a spectacular view across Paris when reaching the top. The design of St. Peter's Anglican Cathedral in Adelaide, Australia was inspired by Notre-Dame de Paris.

Construction history

In 1160, because the church in Paris had become the "Parisian church of the kings of Europe", Bishop Maurice de Sully deemed the previous Paris cathedral, Saint-Étienne (St Stephen's), which had been founded in the 4th century, unworthy of its lofty role, and had it demolished shortly after he assumed the title of Bishop of Paris. As with most foundation myths, this account needs to be taken with a grain of salt; archeological excavations in the 20th century suggested that the Merovingian Cathedral replaced by Sully was itself a massive structure, with a five-aisled nave and a facade some 36m across. It seems likely therefore that the faults with the previous structure were exaggerated by the Bishop to help justify the rebuilding in a newer style. According to legend, Sully had a vision of a glorious new cathedral for Paris, and sketched it on the ground outside the original church.

To begin the construction, the bishop had several houses demolished and had a new road built in order to transport materials for the rest of the cathedral. Construction began in 1163 during the reign of Louis VII, and opinion differs as to whether Sully or Pope Alexander III laid the foundation stone of the cathedral. However, both were at the ceremony in question. Bishop de Sully went on to devote most of his life and wealth to the cathedral's construction. Construction of the choir took from 1163 until around 1177 and the new High Altar was consecrated in 1182 (it was normal practice for the eastern end of a new church to be completed first, so that a temporary wall could be erected at the west of the choir, allowing the chapter to use it without interruption while the rest of the building slowly took shape). After Bishop Maurice de Sully's death in 1196, his successor, Eudes de Sully (no relation) oversaw the completion of the transepts and pressed ahead with the nave, which was nearing completion at the time of his own death in 1208. By this stage, the western facade had also been laid out, though it was not completed until around the mid-1240s. Over the construction period, numerous architects worked on the site, as is evidenced by the differing styles at different heights of the west front and towers. Between 1210 and 1220, the fourth architect oversaw the construction of the level with the rose window and the great halls beneath the towers.

The most significant change in design came in the mid 13th century, when the transepts were remodeled in the latest Rayonnant style; in the late 1240s Jean de Chelles added a gabled portal to the north transept topped off by a spectacular rose window. Shortly afterwards (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 features scenes from the lives of St 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.

Crypt

The Archaeological Crypt of the Paris Notre-Dame was created in 1965 to protect a range of historical ruins, discovered during construction work and spanning from the earliest settlement in Paris to the modern day. The crypts are managed by the Musée Carnavalet and contain a large exhibit, combining detailed models of the architecture of different time periods, and how they can be viewed within the ruins. The main feature still visible is the under-floor heating installed during the Roman occupation.

Organ and organists

Though several organs were installed in the cathedral over time, the earliest ones were inadequate for the building.[citation needed] The first more noted organ[citation needed] was finished in the 18th century by the noted builder François-Henri Clicquot. Some of Clicquot's original pipework in the pedal division continues to sound from the organ today. The organ was almost completely rebuilt and expanded in the 19th century by Aristide Cavaillé-Coll.

The position of titular organist ("head" or "chief" organist) at Notre-Dame is considered one of the most prestigious organist posts in France, along with the post of titular organist of Saint Sulpice in Paris, Cavaillé-Coll's largest instrument.

The organ has 7,374 pipes, with ca 900 classified as historical. It has 110 real stops, five 56-key manuals and a 32-key pedalboard. In December 1992, a two-year restoration of the organ was completed that fully computerized the organ under three LANs (Local Area Networks). The restoration also included a number of additions, notably two further horizontal reed stops en chamade in the Cavaille-Coll style. The Notre-Dame organ is therefore unique in France in having five fully independent reed stops en chamade.

Among the best-known organists at Notre-Dame de Paris was Louis Vierne, who held this position from 1900 to 1937. Under his tenure, the Cavaillé-Coll organ was modified in its tonal character, notably in 1902 and 1932. Léonce de Saint-Martin held the post between 1932 and 1954. Pierre Cochereau initiated further alterations (many of which were already planned by Louis Vierne), including the electrification of the action between 1959 and 1963. The original Cavaillé-Coll console, (which is now located near the organ loft), was replaced by a new console in Anglo-American style and the addition of further stops between 1965 and 1972, notably in the pedal division, the recomposition of the mixture stops, a 32' plenum in the Neo-Baroque style on the Solo manual, and finally the adding of three horizontal reed stops "en chamade" in the Iberian style.

After Cochereau's sudden death in 1984, four new titular organists were appointed at Notre-Dame in 1985: Jean-Pierre Leguay Olivier Latry, Yves Devernay (who died in 1990), and Philippe Lefebvre This was reminiscent of the 18th-century practice of the cathedral having four titular organists, each one playing for three months of the year.

Bells

The cathedral has 10 bells. The largest, Emmanuel, original to 1681, is located in the south tower and weighs just over 13 tons and is tolled to mark the hours of the day and for various occasions and services. This bell is always rung first, at least 5 seconds before the rest. Until recently, there were four additional 19th-century bells on wheels in the north tower, which were swing chimed. These bells were meant to replace nine which were removed from the cathedral during the Revolution and were rung for various services and festivals. The bells were once rung by hand before electric motors allowed them to be rung without manual labor. When it was discovered that the size of the bells could cause the entire building to vibrate, threatening its structural integrity, they were taken out of use. The bells also had external hammers for tune playing from a small clavier.

On the night of 24 August 1944 as the Île de la Cité was taken by an advance column of French and Allied armoured troops and elements of the Resistance, it was the tolling of the Emmanuel that announced to the city that its liberation was under way.

In early 2012, as part of a €2 million project, the four old bells in the north tower were deemed unsatisfactory and removed. The plan originally was to melt them down and recast new bells from the material. However, a legal challenge resulted in the bells being saved in extremis at the foundry.[11] As of early 2013, they are still merely set aside until their fate is decided. A set of 8 new bells was cast by the same foundry in Normandy that had cast the four in 1856. At the same time, a much larger bell called Marie was cast in the Netherlands—it now hangs with Emmanuel in the south tower. The 9 new bells, which were delivered to the cathedral at the same time (31 January 2013),[12] are designed to replicate.

+++ 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 T-54 and T-55 tanks were a series of Soviet main battle tanks introduced in the years following the Second World War. The first T-54 prototype was completed at Nizhny Tagil by the end of 1945. Initial production ramp up settled for 1947 at Nizhny Tagil, and 1948 for Kharkiv were halted and curtailed as many problems were uncovered; the T-34-85 still accounted for 88 percent of production through the 1950s.The T-54 eventually became the main tank for armored units of the Soviet Army, armies of the Warsaw Pact countries, and many others. T-54s and T-55s have been involved in many of the world's armed conflicts since the later part of the 20th century.

All Tirans of various versions were withdrawn from active IDF service at the end of the 1980s. Some were sold and some were converted into Achzarit APCs. However, some Tirans are still in possession of the Israeli Army, possibly in reserve or in storage. The Israeli Army had 488 Tirans in 1990, 300 in 1995, 200 in 2000, 2001 and 2002 and still 261 in 2006 and 2008.

Specifications:

Crew: Four (commander, gunner, loader, driver)

Weight: 34 tonnes (37.5 ST)

Length: 8,42 m (27 ft 7 in) with gun forward

6,37 m (20ft 10 1/2 in) hull only

Width: 3.53 m (11 ft 6 3/4 in) with side skirts

3.37 m (11 ft 1 in) hull only

Height: 2.73 m (9 ft)

Ground clearance: 0.425 m (16.73 in)

Suspension: Torsion bar

Fuel capacity: 580 l internal, plus 320 l external and 400 l in two jettisonable rear drums

Armor:

16 – 120 mm (0.63 – 4.72 in)

Performance:

Maximum road speed: 54 km/h (33.5 mph)

Off-road speed: 38 km/h (24 mph)

Operational range: 500 km on road

Up to 715 km with two 200-liter auxiliary fuel tanks

Power/weight: 17.9 hp (12.9 kW)/tonne

Engine:

1× American Detroit Diesel 8V-71T with 609 hp (438 kW)

Transmission:

Mechanical [synchromesh], 5 forward, 1 reverse gears

Armament:

1× 90mm M41/T139 gun with 60 rounds

1x coaxial .50 cal (12.7 mm) machine gun with a total of 1.000 rounds

1x .30 AA machine gun on a swivel mount with a total of 5.000 rounds

2x4 smoke grenade launchers

The kit and its assembly:

This is actually the second submissiion to the "Captured!" group build at whatifmodellers.com in November 2020, but since my first project stalled (waiting for parts that I ordered while building) I started this second tank and it made very quick progress.

Thsi what-if model has a concrete background: Israel captured during the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur conflict a lot of various Arabian tanks, including T-54/55s, PT-76s and T-62. Their numbers were so huge that many were converted on a serial basis and adopted into Israeli service or exported. So, this one became one of those modified T-55s with a new turret/gun, ERA and anti-RPG rubber side skirts. Inspiration was a little the Austrian "Kürassier" tank hunter, and the idea that many surplus 90 mm guns from upgraded M48 Patton tanks must have been available. So, why not combine everything into a dedicated IDF tank hunter?

The basis is a Trumpeter kit which went together well, just some PSR was necessary around the rear. I omitted the extra fuel drums (Israel is a rather small country...) and added some ERA plates to the front glacis plate. The biggest change is a different turret and mudguards, which come from an upgraded, late Danish M41 Walker Bulldog conversion set from S&S Models. It consists of a resin turret and many white metal parts, including the gun and the mantlet, the side skirts and some other stuff. The set is actually intended for a diecast M41 (Amercom/Altaya, Hobbymaster or Warmaster) as basis, but the parts were easy to integrate into the T-55 hull. The turret ring is a little smaller, so that a few spacers hold the new turret in place. The turret itself was taken OOB (including the smoke grenade dischargers), I just added the light machine gun and the swivel mount on the roof. IIRC, they are leftover pieces from an Italeri Merkava (very suitable!). The white metal mantlet and the resin turret were "bridged" with a woven dust cover, made from tissue paper dipped in white glue.

Themudguards are white metal pieces and needed some tailoring to fit at the front. They are actually a little too short for the T-55 hull, but taken "as is" they offered a nice opening for the drive sprocket wheels at the rear, and I settled for this simple solution.

Painting and markings:

Painting was done with paints from the rattle can - I chose a "Sinai Grey" livery for operations in the Southern regions (in the North, IDF tanks tend to be painted olive drab). After the base coat in two very similar shades of dark sand /RAL 7008 and 8000) the model received a black ink washing and dry-brushing with khaki drill (Humbrol 72) and later some light grey (Revell 75); the camouflage nets in the storage baskets were painted in olive drab (Humbrol 155) for some contrast.

The markings/decals come from a generic IDF markings set from Peddinghaus Decals. The Israeli marking system entered service after 1960 and it is still used today by the IDF, even if the meanings of some symbols are still unknown or unclear.

The white stripes on the cannon barrel identify which battalion the tank belongs to. If the tank belongs to the 1st Battalion, it only has one stripe on the barrel, if it is the 2nd Battalion, it has two stripes, and so on.

The company the tank belongs to is determined by a white Chevron, a white ‘V’ shaped symbol painted on the sides of the vehicle sometimes with a black outline. If the M-50 belonged to the 1st Company, the Chevron was pointing downwards, if the tank belonged to the 2nd Company, the ‘V’ was pointing forward. If the Chevron was pointed upwards, the vehicle belonged to the 3rd Company, and, if it pointed backward it belonged to the 4th Company.

The company identification markings have different sizes according to the space a tank has on its sides. The M48 Patton had these symbols painted on the turret and were quite big, while the Centurion had them painted on the side skirts. The Shermans had little space on the sides, and therefore, the company identification markings were painted on the side boxes, or in some cases, on the sides of the gun mantlet.

The platoon identification markings are written on the turrets and are divided in two: a number from 1 to 4 and one of the first four letters of the Hebrew alphabet: א (Aleph), ב (bet), ג (gimel) and ד (dalet ). The Arabic number, from 1 to 4, indicates the platoon to which a tank belongs to and the letter, the tank number inside each platoon. Tank number 1 of the 1st Platoon would have painted on the turret the symbol ‘1א’, tank number 2 of 3rd Platoon would have painted on the turret the symbol ‘3ב’, and so on. The platoon’s command tank only has the number without the letter, or in rare cases, the platoon commander has א, i.e. the first tank of the platoon.

Once painting and decals were done, the kit received an overall coat with matt acrylic varnish and final assembly started - namely the attempt to mount the wheels and tracks inside/thorugh the mudguards. Fiddly affair, but it worked better than expected, and as a final step I dusted the model with sand-grey mineral artist pigments.

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.

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.

Inventory number: A19500100000

+++ 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”.

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:

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".

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.

Western section of the San Francisco- Oakland Bay bridge. Connecting to Yerba Buena Island on the left.

Public light show installation (2013)

On March 5, 2013, a public art installation called "The Bay Lights" was activated on the western span's vertical cables. The installation was designed by artist Leo Villareal and consists of 25,000 LED lights. It will be on display nightly until 2015.[36] In order to reduce driver distractions, the privately funded display is not visible to users of the bridge, only to distant observers. This lighting effort is intended to form part of a larger project to "light the bay"[37] Villareal used various algorithms to generate patterns such as rainfall, reflections on water, bird flight, expanding rings, and others. Villareal's patterns and transitions will be sequenced and their duration determined by computerized random number generator to make each viewing experience unique.[38] Owing to the efficiency of the LED system the estimated operating cost is only US $15.00 per night.

All rights reserved - Copyright 2014© Henri Louis Hirschfeld

All images are exclusive property and may not be copied, downloaded, reproduced, transmitted, manipulated or used in any way without expressed, written permission of the photographer.

Parked trailer full of crushed cars ready for their final journey to the recycling plant.

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.

+++ 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.

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.

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.

+++ 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 ZSU-37-6 (“ZSU” stands for Zenitnaya Samokhodnaya Ustanovka / Зенитная Самоходная Установка = "anti-aircraft self-propelled mount"), also known as Object 511 during its development phase and later also as “ZSU-37-6 / Лена”, was a prototype for a lightly armored Soviet self-propelled, radar guided anti-aircraft weapon system that was to replace the cannon-armed ZSU-23-4 “Shilka” SPAAG.

The development of the "Shilka" began in 1957 and the vehicle was brought into service in 1965. The ZSU-23-4 was intended for AA defense of military facilities, troops, and mechanized columns on the march. The ZSU-23-4 combined a proven radar system, the non-amphibious chassis based on the GM-575 tracked vehicle, and four 23 mm autocannons. This delivered a highly effective combination of mobility with heavy firepower and considerable accuracy, outclassing all NATO anti-aircraft guns at the time. The system was widely fielded throughout the Warsaw Pact and among other pro-Soviet states. Around 2,500 ZSU-23-4s, of the total 6,500 produced, were exported to 23 countries.

Having become obsolete, the sole Object 511 prototype was retired in 1981 and mothballed. It is today part of the Military Technical Museum collection at Ivanovskaya, near Moscow, even though not part of the public exhibition and in a rather derelict state, waiting for restoration and eventual display.

Specifications:

Crew: Three (commander, gunner, driver)

Weight: about 26,000 kg (57,300 lb)

Length: 7.78 m (25 ft 5 1/2 in) with gun facing forward

6.55 m (21 ft 5 1/2 in) hull only

Width: 3.25 m (10 ft 8 in)

Height: 3.88 m (12 ft 9 in) overall,

2.66 m (8 8 1/2 ft) with search radar stowed

Suspension: Hydropneumatic

Ground clearance: 17–57 cm

Fuel capacity: 760 l (200 US gal, 170 imp gal)

Armor:

Unknown, but probably not more than 15 mm (0.6”)

Performance:

Speed: 65 km/h (40 mph) maximum on the road

Climbing ability: 0.7 m (2.3')

Maximum climb gradient: 30°

Trench crossing ability: 2.5 m (8.2')

Fording depth: 1.0 m (3.3')

Operational range: 500 km (310 mi)

Power/weight: 24 hp/t

Engine:

1× 2V-06-2S water-cooled multi-fuel diesel engine with 510 hp (380 kW)

1× auxiliary DGChM-1 single-shaft gas turbine engine with 70 hp at 6,000 rpm,

connected with a direct-current generator

Transmission:

Hydromechanical

Armament:

1× GSh-6-37 six-barreled 37mm (1.5 in) Gatling gun with 1.600 rounds,

plus 800 more in an optional, external auxiliary magazine

The kit and its assembly:

This fictional SPAAG was intended as a submission to the “Prototypes” group build at whatifmodellers.com in August 2020. Inspiration came from a Trumpeter 1:72 2P25/SA-6 launch platform which I had recently acquired with a kit lot – primarily because of the chassis, which would lend itself for a conversion into “something else”.

The idea to build an anti-aircraft tank with a gatling gun came when I did research for my recent YA-14 build and its armament. When checking the American GAU-8 cannon from the A-10 I found that there had been plans to use this weapon for a short-range SPAAG (as a replacement for the US Army’s M163), and there had been plans for even heavier weapons in this role. For instance, there had been the T249 “Vigilante” prototype: This experimental system consisted of a 37 mm T250 six-barrel Gatling gun, mounted on a lengthened M113 armored personnel carrier platform, even though with a very limited ammunition supply, good only for 5 sec. of fire – it was just a conceptual test bed. But: why not create a Soviet counterpart? Even more so, since there is/was the real-world GSh-6-30 gatling gun as a potential weapon, which had, beyond use in the MiG-27, also been used in naval defense systems. Why not use/create an uprated/bigger version, too?

From this idea, things evolved in a straightforward fashion. The Trumpeter 2P25 chassis and hull were basically taken OOB, just the front was modified for a single driver position. However, the upper hull had to be changed in order to accept the new, large turret instead of the triple SA-6 launch array.

The new turret is a parts combination: The basis comes from a Revell 1:72 M109 howitzer kit, the 155 mm barrel was replaced with a QuickBoost 1:48 resin GSh-6-30 gun for a MiG-27, and a co-axial laser rangefinder (a piece of styrene) was added on a separate mount. Unfortunately, the Revell kit does not feature a movable gun barrel, so I decided to implant a functional joint, so that the model’s weapon could be displayed in raised and low position – primarily for the “action pictures”. The mechanism was scratched from styrene tubes and a piece of foamed plastic as a “brake” that holds the weapon in place and blocks the view into the turret from the front when the weapon is raised high up. The hinge was placed behind the OOB gun mantle, which was cut into two pieces and now works as in real life.

Further mods include the dish antenna for the tracking radar (a former tank wheel), placed on a disc-shaped pedestal onto the turret front’s right side, and the retractable rotating search radar antenna, scratched from various bits and pieces and mounted onto the rear of the turret – its roof had to be cleaned up to make suitable space next to the commander’s cupola.

Another challenge was the adaptation of the new turret to the hull, because the original SA-6 launch array has only a relatively small turret ring, and it is placed relatively far ahead on the hull. The new, massive turret had to be mounted further backwards, and the raised engine cowling on the back of the hull did not make things easier.

As a consequence, I had to move the SA-6 launcher ring bearing backwards, through a major surgical intervention in the hull roof (a square section was cut out, shortened, reversed and glued back again into the opening). In order to save the M109’s turret ring for later, I gave it a completely new turret floor and transplanted the small adapter ring from the SA-6 launch array to it. Another problem arose from the bulged engine cover: it had to be replaced with something flat, otherwise the turret would not have fitted. I was lucky to find a suitable donor in the spares box, from a Leopard 1 kit. More complex mods than expected, and thankfully most of the uglier changes are hidden under the huge turret. However, Object 511 looks pretty conclusive and menacing with everything in place, and the weapon is now movable in two axis’. The only flaw is a relatively wide gap between the turret and the hull, due to a step between the combat and engine section and the relatively narrow turret ring.

Painting and markings:

AFAIK, most Soviet tank prototypes in the Seventies/Eighties received a simple, uniform olive green livery, but ,while authentic, I found this to look rather boring. Since my “Object 511” would have taken part in military maneuvers, I decided to give it an Eighties Soviet Army three-tone camouflage, which was introduced during the late Eighties. It consisted of a relatively bright olive green, a light and cold bluish grey and black-grey, applied in large patches.

This scheme was also adapted by the late GDR’s Volksarmee (called “Verzerrungsanstrich” = “Distortion scheme”) and maybe – even though I am not certain – this special paint scheme might only have been used by Soviet troops based on GDR soil? However, it’s pretty unique and looks good, so I adapted it for the model.

Based upon visual guesstimates from real life pictures and some background info concerning NVA tank paint schemes, the basic colors became Humbrol 86 (Light Olive Green; RAL 6003), Revell 57 (Grey; RAL 7000) and Revell 06 (Tar Black; RAL 9021). Each vehicle had an individual paint scheme, in this case it was based on a real world NVA lorry.

On top of the basic colors, a washing with a mix of red brown and black acrylic paint was applied, and immediately dried with a soft cotton cloth so that it only remained in recesses and around edges, simulating dirt and dust. Some additional post-shading with lighter/brighter versions of the basic tones followed.

Decals came next – the Red Stars were a rather dramatic addition and came from the Trumpeter kit’s OOB sheet. The white “511” code on the flanks was created with white 3 mm letters from TL Modellbau.

The model received a light overall dry brushing treatment with light grey (Revell 75). As a finishing touch I added some branches as additional camouflage. These are bits of dried moss (collected on the local street), colorized with simple watercolors and attached with white glue. Finally, everything was sealed and stabilized with a coat of acrylic matt varnish and some pigments (a greyish-brown mix of various artist mineral pigments) were dusted into the running gear and onto the lower hull surfaces with a soft brush.

An effective kitbashing, and while mounting the different turret to the hull looks simple, the integration of unrelated hull and turret so that they actually fit and “work” was a rather fiddly task, and it’s effectively not obvious at all (which is good but “hides” the labour pains related to the mods). However, the result looks IMHO good, like a beefed-up ZSU-23-4 “Schilka”, just what this fictional tank model is supposed to depict.

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.

+++ 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.

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.

This was taken at the southwest corner of Broadway & 91st Street...

Note: this photo was published in a Jan 1, 2010 blog titled "Quad Band Dual SIM Cellphone – Slim Touchscreen Mobile (Black)." It was also published in a Jun 7, 2010 Technologeek blog, with the same title that I used as the caption on this Flickr page. And it was published in an Aug 16, 2010 Exotic Pet Information blog, with the same title that I used as the caption on this Flickr page. It was also published in a Dec 9, 2010 blog titled "What are the top ten best cellphones in the United States, besides the iPhone?"

Moving into 2011, the photo was published in an Apr 9, 2011 blog titled "Oktoberfest takes Cambridge’s portable stage."

***********************************

Looking back on some old photos from 40-50 years ago, I was struck by how visible the differences were between the culture of then, versus the culture of now. In some cases, it was evident from the things people wore, or carried, or did, back then which they no longer do today. But sometimes it was the opposite: things that didn't exist back in the 1960s and 1970s have become a pervasive part of today's culture.

A good example is the cellphone: 20 years ago, it simply didn't exist. Even ten years ago, it was a relatively uncommon sight, and usually only on major streets of big cities. Today, of course, cell phones are everywhere, and everyone is using them in a variety of culture contexts.

However, I don't think this is a permanent phenomenon; after all, if you think back to the early 1980s, you probably would have seen a lot of people carrying Sony Walkmans, or "boom-box" portable radios -- all of which have disappeared...

If Moore's Law (which basically says that computers double in power every 18 months) holds up for another decade, then we'll have computerized gadgets approximately 100 times smaller, faster, cheaper, and better -- which means far better integration of music, camera, messaging, and phone, but also the possibility of the devices being so tiny that they're embedded into our eyeglasses, our earrings, or a tattoo on our forehead.

So the point of this album is to provide a frame of reference -- so that we can (hopefully) look back 10-20 years from now, and say, "Wasn't it really weird that we behaved in such bizarre ways while we interacted with those primitive devices?"

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 Royal Navy 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.

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

Registration Number E 250 AWV (Brighton)

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 am 83,664,099 o olygfeydd anhygoel, mae pob un yn 90cael ei werthfawrogi'n fawr.

Thanks for 83,664,099 amazing views, every one is greatly appreciated.

Shot 25.07.2021 at Beaumanor Hall, Woodhouse, Leic. 148-080

Before computerized simulation, there was Viewmaster, which--along with imagination--educated my generation. Here is a scan from a 1964 Viewmaster description booklet detailing what might happen on the Apollo 11 NASA Mission.

Released before the historic moonwalk mission, this imagined flight includes artists' renderings of the space walk.

I may have had this reel, although this one isn't mine.

I found this, and a reel featuring the actual 1969 spacewalk 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 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.

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.

The Ghost of Cassiopeia

This is IC 63 to the right (the Ghost Nebula) along with its companion IC 59 to the left. These lie 550 light years from earth in the constellation Cassiopeia. You may have noticed this constellation near the Milky Way in the northeast sky, it forms a "W" that is often used as a pointer to find the Andromeda Galaxy. The very bright star is Gamma Cassiopeiae, it is 19 times more massive than our sun and is 65,000 times brighter. It is a variable star that rotates at incredible speed that creates eruptions of mass into a surrounding disc. The mass loss is related to the brightness variations.

A most challenging object to process once the imaging data is obtained due to the bright star. It is a 2 component nebula both emission (light it emits) and reflection light from the star. It is non typical in photography capture as I used my red, green and blue broadband filters along with the hydrogen alpha narrowband. It's about 7 hours of time on the rgb filters split evenly and maybe 4 of ha narrowband. The rgb data was on 3 minute exposures and the ha on 5 minutes.

I learned to do a computerized meridian flip on the telescope so now my imaging plans are fully automated which means I can set it up, get it going and sleep while it takes photos.

+++ 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.

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.

Fan trip for farewell of BR38 from Rottweil to Konstanz, here on the Einödtalbrücke near Tuttlingen, For this occasion the 038 382 carries its pre-computerized number

Port of Itajai

Vessel Berthed (Navio Atracado)

Vessel's Details (Detalhes do Navio)

Ship Type (tipo): Cargo - Hazard A (Major) - Full Container

Year Built (ano de construção): 2008

Length x Breadth (Comprimento x Largura): 277 m X 40 m

DeadWeight (Tonelagem Bruta): 72900 t

Speed recorded (Max / Average) (Velocidade - máx /média): 22.7 / 17.9 knots

Call Sign: 3ESD8

IMO: 9372494, MMSI: 370271000

Shipbuilder Name (Construtor): Samsung Heavy Industries

Owner/Operator (Proprietário/Operador): MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co SA

Flag (Bandeira): Panama

Berth (Berço): Portonave 02

A.T.B. (Atracação): April 06,2011 11:45h

E.T.D. (Previsão de saída): April 07,2011 17:00h

Agent (Agência): MSC

Origin (Origem): BUENOS AIRES (Argentina)

Destination (Destino): RIO GRANDE (Brazil)

.

The Port of Itajai is a Brazilian port located in the City of Itajai, in the State of Santa Catarina, south Brazil.

This is the second largest port of Brazil in handling containers. It acts as export port and most of the Santa Catarina´s production passes through it.

The port of Itajai has over 15,000 m2 of covered area to warehouse products and 38,000 m2 of open area to warehouse containers. The users of the Itajai Port have at their disposal over 70 equipments to assist loadings and unloadings of 1 to 37 tons.

The port follows international safety standards. The operational units are fully computerized.

In 2010, the Port of Itajai handled a total of 954.38 thousand TEUs (Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit – international unit equivalent to a 20-foot container). Over 1.25 thousand vessels called at the Port of Itajai, including cargo and passenger vessels.

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.

via WordPress bit.ly/2gipQvb

Pernahkah Anda melihat Kencing Anda mengandung darah? Jika hal ini terjadi pada Anda, apakah yang harus Anda lakukan? Ketika saya pertama kali mengalaminya dulu, saya menjadi agak panik karena hal tersebut tidak pernah terjadi kepada saya.Jadi, pada artikel kali ini kita sama-sama akan mengetahui apakah yang seharusnya dilakukan jika urin mengandung darah.

sumber : bit.ly/2hcN5M1

Kehadiran darah di dalam air kencing dinamakan sebagai hematuria.Secara umumnya, hematuria ini ada 2 jenis.Jenis yang pertama adalah masalah di mana Anda tidak dapat melihat adanya darah di dalam kandungan air kencing dengan mata kasar.Ianya dapat terdeteksi hanya ketika dilihat menggunakan mikroskop. hematuria jenis ini disebut sebagai microscopic hematuria.

Jenis yang kedua adalah Anda dapat melihat dengan jelas urin Anda berwarna merah.Keadaan yang kedua ini dinamakan gross hematuria.Ini berarti yang Anda dapat melihat adanya darah di dalam air kemih hanya dengan melihat melalui mata telanjang.

Seringkali ketika terjadinya kondisi ini, persoalan yang sering muncul adalah “Apakah yang harus saya lakukan jika air kencing saya mengandung darah?” Atau “Haruskah saya khawatir kalau air kencing saya mengandung darah?” Mengapa hal ini membuat kita risau dan khawatir? Ini karena kebiasaannya kita tidak akan melihat darah ketika kita membuang air kecil.

Hematuria sebenarnya lebih ke tanda bagi masalah kesehatan anda dan ianya mendasari penyakit yang Anda hidapi.Perkara terbaik yang harus Anda lakukan adalah segeralah berkonsultasi dengan dokter jika Anda melihat darah di dalam air kencing.Ini penting karena dapat membantu menyembuhkan penyakit yang Anda hidapi.

Apakah penyebabnya?

Ada banyak sebab terjadinya hematuria.Sesetengahnya tidaklah begitu serius.Bagi beberapa orang, darah di dalam air kemih bisa hilang dengan sendirinya.Tetapi tidak ke beberapa individu yang lain di mana ia membutuhkan perawatan perubatan.Antara penyebab terjadinya hematuria kepada seseorang adalah:

Infeksi pada saluran kencing.Keadaan ini lebih banyak terjadi pada golongan wanita.Walau bagaimanapun juga dapat terjadi pada kaum lelaki.Jangkitan saluran kemih ini terjadi ketika mikroorganisme seperti bakteri memasuki saluran kemih Anda dan mereka akan berkembang biak di sana di mana ianya akan menyebabkan terjadinya peradangan pada saluran kencing dinamakan uretritis.Kadang-kadang bakteri ini akan menyebar ke organ-organ kemih lainnya seperti kandung kemih, ureter atau juga dapat menyebabkan infeksi pada ginjal.

Batu dalam ginjal atau kandung kencing.Beberapa zat di dalam urin Anda, terutama bila ia berkumpul, dapat membentuk batu kristal kecil. Kadang-kadang, batu kristal ini dapat menjadi lebih besar bila berada dalam jangka waktu yang lama di dalam ginjal atau kandung kemih anda.Batu yang terbentuk pada struktur saluran kemih yang lebih kecil dapat menyebabkan rasa sakit dan hematuria.

Kanker. Dalam beberapa kasus, adanya darah di dalam air kencing mungkin menjadi tanda bahwa terdapatnya sel kenser di dalam salah satu organ perkencingan anda.Namun, sebaiknya berkonsultasilah dengan dokter karena merekalah yang akan menentukan apakah hematuria Anda disebabkan oleh kanker atau tidak.

Obat-obatan. Beberapa obat dapat menyebabkan terjadinya hematuria terjadi, seperti aspirin, heparin dan antiobiotik tertentu.

Latihan. Kadang-kadang, hematuria juga bisa disebabkan dengan melakukan latihan yang berat.Ahli-ahli medis juga masih tidak mengetahui mengapa latihan dapat menyebabkan hematuria. Beberapa dari mereka percaya itu terjadi mungkin karena terjadi cedera pada kandung kemih.

Dalam beberapa kasus hematuria, penyebab yang sebenarnya tidak dapat ditemukan.

Diagnosa

Dokter Anda mungkin akan bertanya tentang masalah-masalah yang Anda hadapi dan akan melakukan pemeriksaan fisik secara menyeluruh. Kadang-kadang, mereka juga akan mengusulkan kepada Anda beberapa bentuk tes dan prosuder untuk menemukan penyebab masalah Anda dan juga untuk mengobati penyakit lain yang mungkin Anda hidapi. Contoh tes yang mungkin akan disarankan adalah menganalisis sampel air kencing dan juga tes pencitraan, seperti computerized tomography (CT) scan ataumagnetic resonance imaging (MRI), dan cystoscopy.

Perawatan

pengobatan yang dapat diambil untuk mengatasi masalah hematuria tergantung pada penyebabnya. Misalnya, jika hematuria disebabkan oleh infeksi pada saluran kemih, dokter akan memberikan obat antibiotik. Tetapi jika tidak ada masalah kesehatan yang serius ditemukan, mungkin tidak ada pengobatan yang khusus diperlukan.Walau bagaimanapun dokter mungkin masih akan menyarankan agar Anda melakukan perawatan tindak lanjut untuk memastikan masalah hematuria Anda sudah sembuh sepenuhnya.

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.

This was taken at the southwest corner of Broadway and 92nd Street; behind the woman is a PetCo pet-supply company.

Note: this photo was published in a Feb 17, 2010 Hot Mobile Phone offers blog with the same title as the caption I used on this Flickr page. It was also published in an Apr 20, 2010 LifeHacker blog, with the title"Organize Your Work Contacts by Company on Your Phone with a Simple Tweak." And it was published in a May 30, 2010 Technologeek blog, with the same title as the caption that I used on this Flickr page. It was also published in an undated (Jun 2010) Cheap Tattoo blog, with the same title as the caption that I used on this Flickr page. It was also published in an Aug 19, 2010 blog titled "Technology Abuse." And it was published in a Sep 1, 2010 blog titled "A Woman’s Perspective on Personal Self Defense."

Moving into 2011, the photo was published in a Mar 10, 2011 blog titled "Text Messaging with Google Voice? The Right Setting Depends Upon Your Particular Phone." And it was published in an Apr 9, 2011 blog titled "Las cuatro alternativas más usadas para enviar mensajes gratis a móviles." It was also published in a May 25, 2011 Getting a Tattoo Ideas, with the same caption and detailed notes that I had written on this Flickr page. And it was published in an Aug 30, 2011 Martial Arts Lovers blog, with the same caption that I used on this Flickr page.

Moving into 2012, the photo was published in a Jan 15, 2012 blog titled "I HAVE SOME A PROBLEM FOR TATTOO MACHINE AND POWER SUPPLY?" It was also published in a Jul 24, 2012 blog titled "Vocablet of the day: oblivion." And it was published in an Aug 8, 2012 blog titled "EASY WAYS TO MAKE DROP-OFF GREAT ON THE FIRST DAY OF PRESCHOOL."

Moving into 2013, the photo was published in a Mar 4, 2013 blog titled "Pulling Back The Curtain On Text Message Mobile Marketing." And it was published in a May 5, 2013 blog titled "Used Cellphones - Cheap Phones."

Moving into 2014, the photo was published in a Jan 6, 2014 blog titled "Different Ways Women Can Use Instant Messengers."

******************

Note: on Apr 20, 2010 I decided to make a couple minor editing changes. The primary objective was to reduce the extent of dark shadow (i.e., solid black color) in the woman's pants and jacket, so that you would be able to see some shades of color. There was also a bit of over-exposure ("hot spot") on the top left portion of her t-shirt...

******************

Looking back on some old photos from 40-50 years ago, I was struck by how visible the differences were between the culture of then, versus the culture of now. In some cases, it was evident from the things people wore, or carried, or did, back then which they no longer do today. But sometimes it was the opposite: things that didn't exist back in the 1960s and 1970s have become a pervasive part of today's culture.

A good example is the cellphone: 20 years ago, it simply didn't exist. Even ten years ago, it was a relatively uncommon sight, and was seen usually only on major streets of big cities. Today, of course, cell phones are everywhere, and everyone is using them in a variety of cultural contexts.

However, I don't think this is a permanent phenomenon; after all, if you think back to the early 1980s, you probably would have seen a lot of people carrying Sony Walkmans, or "boom-box" portable radios -- all of which have disappeared...

If Moore's Law (which basically says that computers double in power every 18 months) holds up for another decade, then we'll have computerized gadgets approximately 100 times smaller, faster, cheaper, and better -- which means far better integration of music, camera, messaging, and phone, but also the possibility of the devices being so tiny that they're embedded into our eyeglasses, our earrings, or a tattoo on our forehead.

So the point of this album is to provide a frame of reference -- so that we can (hopefully) look back 10-20 years from now, and say, "Wasn't it really weird that we behaved in such bizarre ways while we interacted with those primitive devices?"

This is a Photo that Sri Sathya Sai materialized for a Christian Devotee from a computerized print of the Shroud of turin. I will give details later on this awesome story.

Continuing where I left off:

After the bhajans there was a guest speaker from England, Dr. Carol Bruce Llam. She had some photos with her, pictures of the Master Jesus. These striking and unusual prints captured my attention, since I am a Christian, Jesus occupies a special place in my heart. I felt as if Sai Baba was making me really feel at home on my first visit.

Carol Bruce related an intriguing story about the source of these photos: A Christian devotee of Sai Baba went to India seeking His blessings.. During Darshan she held in her right palm a rosary with a crucifix and in her left a print of picture taken from an NASA computerized photograph depicting the face appearing on the Shroud of Turin. Baba brushed aside the the crucifix and said to her, "why do you worship a suffering Christ? " wouldn't you prefer to worship the risen and glorified Christ?" The devotee totally amazed and speechless could only shake her head energetically several times in the affirmative.

Sai Baba waved his hand over the NASA computer print and the print became blank and enlarged in size, He waved His hand again over the now blank print and as if in a dark room observing a photograph coming to life or similarly seeing a polaroid developing, what occurred defied all known scientific and material laws. Before the eyes of the astonished devotee, Sai Baba formed the image of Jesus the Christ after the resurrection. Some students who have obtained copies of this photograph have indicated that it generates powerful beneficial energies in the environment in which it is placed.

Best view www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=166346784&size=o

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

The M60 Main Battle tank was developed in the late 1950s to counteract superior Soviet tanks. It entered service in 1960 as a replacement for the M48 medium tank, and was then upgraded or retrofitted almost continuously until 1987 when production ceased. The M60A3 was usually equipped with laser range finders, computerized fire-control systems, and thermal night sights. The crew of four could fire six to eight rounds a minute. The main armament was 105mm main gun and two mounted machine guns.

Port of Itajai

Vessel Berthed (Navio Atracado)

Vessel's Details (Detalhes do Navio)

Ship Type (tipo): Dry Cargo - Full Container

Year Built (ano de construção): 2001

Length x Breadth (Comprimento x Largura): 277 m X 40 m

DeadWeight (Tonelagem Bruta): 67591 t

Speed recorded (Max / Average) (Velocidade - máx /média): 12.3 / 7.6 knots

Call Sign: A8AV9

IMO: 9214226, MMSI: 636090586

Owner/Operator (Proprietário/Operador): MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co SA

Flag (Bandeira): Liberia

Berth (Berço): Portonave 01

A.T.B. (Atracação): April 06,2011 07:35h

E.T.D. (Previsão de saída): April 07,2011 08:00h

Agent (Agência): MSC

Origin (Origem): RIO DE JANEIRO (Brazil)

Destination (Destino): PARANAGUA (Brazil)

.

The Port of Itajai is a Brazilian port located in the City of Itajai, in the State of Santa Catarina, south Brazil.

This is the second largest port of Brazil in handling containers. It acts as export port and most of the Santa Catarina´s production passes through it.

The port of Itajai has over 15,000 m2 of covered area to warehouse products and 38,000 m2 of open area to warehouse containers. The users of the Itajai Port have at their disposal over 70 equipments to assist loadings and unloadings of 1 to 37 tons.

The port follows international safety standards. The operational units are fully computerized.

In 2010, the Port of Itajai handled a total of 954.38 thousand TEUs (Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit – international unit equivalent to a 20-foot container). Over 1.25 thousand vessels called at the Port of Itajai, including cargo and passenger vessels.

Photography shot at location in Coral Gables, FL

www.doctorordonez.com

Well I'm starting to decide to jump in like so many others and try to supplement my income via photography. My primary career is and has been a remodeling and building business the past decade and now I've reached the age of 50... working on high ladders, steep roofs and on the knees all day tiling a floor no longer has the same appeal. Can still hang in there rather well, but for the first time in my life it's starting to "feel" more difficult than previous as I would always tell others around me there isn't anything to it...easy work. Combine that with an economy that has been stuck in the ditch for years with little sign or hope of improvement, owners are not willing to invest in their homes when the money spent on upgrades will simply vanish...and people now generally a first class pain in negotiations. Financing for most is impossible and materials are outrageously high. I wonder if it will ever recover in my area.

I'll still be doing it for the short term but at the age where I need to do something else. I find it important to do something enjoyable as I've had jobs I hated when younger and will never go back. I've seen better artists than I struggle in photography endeavors, but diversifying into 2 half paced markets will add up to one. I have never made any effort to get my stuff out there other than Flickr, so now hope to soon add a website and become "visible". Right now the name I have chosen would be "Landscapes of the Blue Ridge" since I'm not too fond of "insert name photography".

I have previously done framing, matting and completed pictures, and my father-in-law has a state of the art frame shop with computerized matting device, he knows lots of great methods of making things top quality so that should be a big help. Not looking to be in a big hurry as spring is really my busy time in construction, just plod along and hope I can make it work.

If anyone can do it, you can .

.

.

.

I found this on the sidewalk, in this condition, about a mile from my residence . So far as i know and recall, every flier i have from this past election with a Democratic Party candidate's photo on it and urging me to vote for the person, i found on the ground ; and any which may have been directed to my mailbox either did not make it or were filched by lock-picking memorabilia collectors . On the other hand, 6 pro-Trump fliers did make it to my mailbox .

.

I believe that it is possible for people of public trust to betray their trust ; in matters small, and matters consequential .

.

.

.

An open letter,

.

Mister President Obama, Mister Secretary Kerry, come to Allentown . This is your point of contact, or it should be .

.

Come and help motivate us to gather together in self-caucus to find out if what has been claimed in the return regarding our vote, (cast largely upon DRE machines without VVPAT), resembles the way we collectively recall voting . Come and help set aside futility which lies upon us --- not just about this past election --- but for all future ones ... for i can tell you there are some on the street who will publically say what you will not, "I think it was rigged" . Come and encourage us to forgive all who will publically say how we cast our vote, for whomever it may have been, from whomever it may have come . Come encourage us to to risk retribution by opposing publically and, may it be so, effectively one not famous for a forgiving nature .

.

There is a gulf opening on the street, between the tribes, the colors --- and you are feeding our despair by taking an untrusted and untested result as final . You look a coward smiling at people whose deeds you should oppose, if you do not ; and showing love to one whose elevation you should question, and have not . You are letting us down ; and i believe that if this mood on the street finds its own outlet, as it inevitably must --- if it is not directed toward the effective to alloy the love you feel guided to show even Mr. Donald Trump --- people will be hurt . That may include me .

.

Be daring, Mr. President . Brave the show trial the Republicans may put you through for your efforts . Brave impeachment and conviction and prison and even a death-sentence to reveal to the people of this country and this world that you have you own conviction . That you have The conviction . We are living in, "the fierce urgency of now", now ; and it is time for you to own your rhetoric .

.

If fraud exists in our election industry, and if it is as broad and deep and persistant and as favorable to the right as i believe it may be, another 2 or 4 or 8 years would only be our ticket deeper into oblivion . With a chance to fortify their position with Supreme Court and Service Commandant appointments --- solely of their own choosing --- the right wing of the Republican Party may put the Democratic Party itself on show trial if it ever again rises to the level of challenge .

.

Come also to listen to our clergy and our barbers, the latter especially ; for while a good Reverend rises to speak, a good barber rises to listen . The Democratic Party needs a farm system as badly as, (i believe), it needs honest elections . It needs local talent to bring local voters to the polls in off and off-off year elections . These people can put you in touch with those whom, though they may not have resources or a spotless record, can make up for this with aptitude and interest and the neighborhood credibility to make a strong run ; and serve well in office .

.

The chance we can do these things without you is very small .

.

.

.

Below are some items that i hope will be helpful and challenging to you ; (including some redundancy) .

.

.

.

The following is edited and expanded from a response i made on my facebook timeline, (michaelcharlesyoung), to a post by 350, (dot org) .

{

Please also see my timeline's previous posts on the matter : 09 November, 18 October, 03 August, and 09 June 2016 . Thank you .

}

.

One approach to fighting a Trump administration's likely effects on global warming might be to contest the results .

.

This could be attempted by helping voters in counties, (where DRE, {direct-recording electronic}, voting machines, {without Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail, VVPAT} were being used), (in states which went unexpectedly, or unexpectedly strongly, to Trump on election day), self-caucus to determine who it was we recall having voted for . If the such caucuses can be made sufficiently complete, and if they show results broadly different than those presented in the official return, participating voters could be asked to confirm our recollections with signed affidavits which could form the basis of class-action lawsuits challenging the returns ; (and the trade-secrecy protection of computerized voting machines’ software and hardware) . If sufficiently broad differences can be found, i believe a suit could be brought challenging the result itself .

.

{

Here i note that each DRE machine, so far as i recall having been told, is put through a "logic and accuracy test" immediately prior to the opening of each polling place .

.

As i recall, this involves a polling place worker booting the machine, and either during the boot process with instructions to the Basic Input-Output System, (BIOS), or following the loading of the Operating System, (OS), setting the system clock to an hour during which the election would be in progress . The worker then pretends to be a series of voters, casting ballots which would cover all voting options . The worker then verifies that these options have been faithfully recorded ; and if so, would clear or otherwise remove these test votes . The machine would then be rebooted for use in the election, with the system clock returned to the current time . It is important to note that the polling place worker would be acting in good faith here .

.

However, i have enough experience programming computers to believe that with sufficient skills, ingenuity, tools and access, the computerized voting machine can be programmed to pass such test --- whether or not it is also programmed to be accurate or even honest during the election . Regarding this matter, i feel that Wikipedia's page on a bundle of software called a Rootkit may have relevant information .

.

In (the at least imagined) light of the above, i believe that if broad discrepancies between the above-suggested self-caucusing and the official returns were to be found, a suit could be brought against the election result itself ... as it would mean that misrepresentation of the vote is/was either on the part of a great many self-revealed and sworn voters, or, intentionally, on the part of some skillful person or persons who had accessed and programmed, (or reprogrammed), the machines .

.

I stress that i do not consider sworn self-declaration by voters to be a "recount" of an election, but a "real" count, (should sufficient numbers of voters participate) . In my opinion, should broad discrepancies implying that anyone's vote had been undercounted, (within the computerized voting equipment), be found between the sworn, self-declared vote and the, (largely machine generated), return, the two most likely explanations would be that either

:

1) Many people who trustingly, (or grudgingly), cast ballots upon these DRE machines, (without VVPAT), would be lying in their subsequent affidavits regarding how they had voted .

Or that

:

2) The machines would have been maliciously and skillfully programmed (or reprogrammed) to lie on the record, seamlessly and invisibly ; and to do so after passing a logic and accuracy test run by polling place workers acting in good faith . In such a case, there would never have been a count of the vote to begin with, only the pretense of a count .

.

I note also that i believe criminal conspiracies have a tendency to leak in direct proportion to the number of people involved . Thus i believe that if election fraud is being conducted within the computerized voting equipment, the polling place workers themselves would probably be kept in the dark about it ; though they might be aware of irregularities such as, (hypothetically), not posting a polling place's unofficial return in the window following the election, (should this be required), for whatever duration of time this might be required .

}

.

If it can be brought to this point, i hope that Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. style demonstrations --- well dressed, well mannered, determined people exercising our right to peaceably assemble and to petition our government --- you, President Barack Obama, specifically --- for a redress of grievances, will prompt you to put our suit before the Supreme Court .

.

I live in Allentown, (Lehigh County), Pennsylvania ; where our polling places use DRE machines, (without VVPAT), (provided by Diebold) . According to the best information i have, our county delivered some 50-60% of our vote to Hillary Clinton . That seems low to me, and i have been trying to encourage the people of Allentown to self-caucus . The help of your organization and your followers would be appreciated .

.

Our neighboring county, Northampton, is said to have delivered a plurality of its vote to Donald Trump . This may also be worth checking by means of self-caucus .

.

Several counties, (including Miami-Dade), in Florida may likewise be worth the effort .

.

In the hypothetical case that both Pennsylvania and Florida were stolen for Donald Trump by means of skillful fraud on the part of people who had programmed DRE machines without VVPAT, the wrong person would now be President-elect .

.

Time seems quite short, though . I feel that protest by itself will not salvage the situation ; that demonstration had best be behind something with legal merit, (as i feel this would have) ; something which --- if you, President Obama, have the courage --- could forwarded directly to the Supreme Court .

.

If, as seems likely, the Supreme Court deadlocks, i feel that the you, as President, have the authority to convene a Court Martial --- comprised of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and of each service’s Chief Legal Officer, and of each service's Chief Information Technology Officer, plus two randomly chosen, (from among those willing and still in the service), Congressional Medal of Honor winners --- to attempt likewise to reach a ruling . This would be because our nation’s military oaths of office state first, (and presumably foremost), an obligation to support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic ; and secondly, for enlisted personnel, an obligation to obey the orders of the President of the United States, (the officer's like duty is implicit in the President's role as Commander in Chief) . Thus i feel that the military, to have a clear obligation of duty, is entitled, should the Supreme Court deadlock and the President convene Court Martial upon the matter, to issue a binding ruling .

.

I would take this logic farther . As i see it, Article Two of the U.S. Constitution gives the President, (as Commander in Chief), no authority to require the military to accept transfer of power to a person whose fitness for command, or the legitimacy of whose election, or both, is seriously in doubt . In such case, i believe that the Joint Chiefs would have the right to convene Court Martial proceedings upon the matter over and above any order or measure to the contrary .

.

Please also get in touch with verifiedvoting, (dot org), where they have maps of the counties withing Pennsylvania and Florida using DRE machines without VVPAT .

My first Bench Monday. I've given in to the craze. I figure it could be fun, and if nothing else it will give me a theme for my Mondays.

Holy geez, I couldn't figure out what number today was! I can't just look at the calendar and figure it out anymore. Gah!

Feb. 1

amybean365.blogspot.com

Graymont's Pilot Peak plant is one of the most modern and efficient lime plants in North America. The stone is quarried immediately adjacent to the plant, crushed to size and conveyed directly to the preheater kilns.

The raw material is processed in a modern, fully computerized plant which is controlled by the latest quality assurance technologies. These technologies allow us to provide our customers with a reliable supply of the highest quality lime available. A full range of sized bulk quicklime products is available. The plant is equipped with a hydrator capable of producing 300 tons of hydrated lime per day. Storage and shipping facilities are available for truck and rail delivery to customers.

www.graymont.com/en/locations/lime-plants/western-us/lime...

Another attempt at Andromeda, this time with my 400 mm and a tracking mount! (Using a dovetail adapter on a 4SE computerized mount, nothing fancy.) I stacked about 55 exposures, using 13 seconds, f/2.8, ISO 3200 per exposure. Total integration time is around 11.5 minutes. Wasn't the best viewing conditions, and combined with [alt/az] tracking errors, wind, and possibly slightly inaccurate focus, has resulted in slightly blobby stars. Still pleased with this image, and looking forward to next attempt!

+++ 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".

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 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".

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.

www.yourreview.org/Directory-Submitter-PRO-reviews Directory Submitter Pro best BONUSES (valued $200K) here after you join GRAB Directory Submitter Pro RIGHT NOW! Check Here! ALL OF THIS HUGE BONUS PACKAGE WILL BE YOURS WHEN YOU GET Directory Submitter Pro RIGHT NOW! 3 SIMPLE STEPS TO CLAIM THIS BONUSES. IMPORTANT!!! Don't forget to delete your cookies first before using discount or bonus link, to make sure you will get all bonuses. And make sure to open the link on the download page on Jvzoo and email me to get the link if you don't see it! Get2hans at me .com View the overview of some of the bonuses here docs.google.com/document/d/1S_4N4ICwG5T58CfxqeBW8XGYONEDW... To figure out how to get your BONUSES on JVZOO go here www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooNDXoOxtxg If you are on Wplus please email me at get2hans@me.com What Makes Directory site Submitter One-of-a-kind & Powerful As compared to Other Devices 1-Click Entries-- Directory site Submitter is probably the only SEO software application offered in the sector with this sort of automation. It really is a 1-click directory submitter! Immediate Verification E-mails-- Wondering whether your URL was sent, seen, approved or turned down? Do not fret just like Directory site Submitter, you'll be receiving confirmation emails within mins. No Captchas, No Hidden Prices-- This is genuinely a hands-free computerized Search Engine Optimization device where every single job is immediately managed in order to verified. No captchas to deal with, no manual labor and no hidden costs! If you are viewing this in June there are a few really cool products on the horizon. I have included opulence for life opulenceforlifebonus.com or theopulenceforlife.com And Tradeonix (trading program) tradeonixbonuses.com or tradonix.org There is also a really cool course by Todd brown here 12weekmasteryreviews.org or 12weekmasteryreviews.net 12weekmasterybonus.org or 12weekmasterybonus.net Directory Submitter Pro, Directory Submitter Pro discount, Directory Submitter Pro bonus, Directory Submitter Pro scam, Directory Submitter Pro Tool .com, Is Directory Submitter Pro scam, Directory Submitter Pro works, Directory Submitter Pro Tool results, Directory Submitter Pro Tool , Directory Submitter Pro review, Directory Submitter Pro reviews , Directory Submitter Pro bonuses, Directory Submitter Pro coupon, Hkmg, hundewantscash, Get Directory Submitter Pro Bonus, Download Directory Submitter Pro , Download Directory Submitter Pro Bonuses, Real Directory Submitter Pro Best bonuses, Best Directory Submitter Pro Bonuses, Top Directory Submitter Pro walkthrough, Over the shoulder Directory Submitter Pro tutorial, Honest Directory Submitter Pro tips, No B.S. Directory Submitter Pro best practices, Directory Submitter Pro best review, Directory Submitter Pro best reviews, Directory Submitter Pro see my bonus, Directory Submit

Framed by a perfect blue sky and a symmetrical arc of neoclassical stone, the Military Women’s Memorial stands as a solemn tribute to the more than three million women who have served in the United States Armed Forces. Located at the ceremonial entrance to Arlington National Cemetery in Washington D.C., this photo captures the serene yet powerful facade of the nation’s only major national memorial honoring women’s contributions to the military across all branches and eras.

Designed by architects Marion Weiss and Michael Manfredi, the structure—officially called the Women In Military Service For America Memorial—was completed in 1997 and integrates seamlessly into the historic landscape. It was built into the existing Hemicycle, an imposing semicircular retaining wall originally intended as part of a ceremonial gateway but left unused since the 1930s. In this view, the monumental granite arch commands attention at the center, framed by clean lines, open walkways, and elegant balustrades.

The memorial is more than architectural splendor; it functions as a museum, archive, and gathering place. Inside, visitors can explore exhibitions, personal stories, and artifacts that illuminate the complex and often underrepresented history of women in uniform—from Revolutionary War heroes disguised as men to contemporary combat commanders. At the heart of the interior is a computerized Register, cataloging the service records of women who have worn the nation’s uniform, preserving their legacies for future generations.

This photograph, taken in daylight under ideal conditions, emphasizes the clarity of the structure’s lines and the harmony between human design and natural surroundings. Leafless trees on the horizon echo the memorial's stark dignity, while the circular plaza in the foreground invites contemplation.

Located just across Memorial Avenue from the iconic Arlington Cemetery Welcome Center, the memorial is an essential stop for any visitor wishing to understand the full scope of American military service. It’s a space for quiet reflection, formal ceremonies, and education—especially on Veterans Day, Memorial Day, and during events celebrating Women’s History Month.

The Military Women’s Memorial stands as a crucial corrective to the historical erasure of women’s service. It tells a broader American story—of duty, perseverance, and change—etched in stone and carried forward through storytelling. This image captures the physical and symbolic gateway to that narrative, as timeless and resilient as the women it honors.

Another attempt at the HST palette.......a little closer

Red=OIII

Green=Ha

Blue=OIII

Orion ED102T CF Triplet Apochromatic Refractor Telescope.-RGB & OIII

Orion ST-80T "guide scope"-Ha

Orion Sirius German-equatorial Computerized Goto Mount

Images aquired using APT

Guided with Starshoot Autoguider and 50mm guide scope

Aligned and stacked with Nebulosity

Post-process with StarTools GIMP & Windows Live Photo

32 total frames: (3hrs 40 min) using an equal # of dark frames

OIII-4x300 5x600 iso 800 Canon T3i with Astronomik OIII clip-in filter

Ha-4x300 5x600 3x900 iso 800 Canon T3(modified) with Astronomik Ha clip-in filter

RGB- 6x300 5x600 iso 800 Canon T3i no filters

sites.google.com/site/astrochuck123

*****Check out my "terrestrial" pictures on:

www.flickr.com/photos/78400750@N07

From the underground steel cage fight matches at Silent Sam's, Kevin 11 prepares for combat!

“I can't change back... I'm stuck like this. LOOK AT WHAT YOU'VE DONE!”

– Kevin 11 to Four Arms

Appearance

In Kevin's pre-amalgam stage, he could fully transform from alien to alien form (with no Omnitrix symbol), or transform parts of his body into those of a different alien form. This included:

All of:

Ripjaws

Four Arms

Heatblast

Stinkfly

Upgrade

Diamondhead

Heatblast's body with the heads of:

Stinkfly

Diamondhead

Upgrade

Kevin

After he became an amalgam, Kevin 11 mostly resembled a reddish-pink version of Four Arms but with an upper left arm belonging to Heatblast, an upper right arm belonging to Diamondhead, and lower arms belonging to Wildmutt. He also had Stinkfly's wings, XLR8's tail, Ghostfreak's eye track on his chest, and an upper back resembling Upgrade's.

His head consisted of Kevin's hair and ears, two left eyes belonging to Four Arms, a right eye belonging to Grey Matter, and Ripjaws' lure, teeth, mouth/jaw interior, and gills. He wore Kevin's cargo shorts.

In a dream in Perfect Day, Kevin 11's Piscciss Volann teeth were exposed throughout the episode.

In an Ultimate Alien flashback, Kevin 11 looks the same, except he wears jean shorts and all of his eyes are green. His Upgrade pattern on his back is also different, and does not cover his neck.

Personality

As absorbing too much energy causes Kevin to lose his sanity, Kevin's sociopathic tendencies became more accentuated in this form. Since compared to his somewhat collected and laid-back demeanor before he transformed, Kevin 11 displays a lack of restraint and lucidity in many ways.

Kevin 11 is notably much quicker to anger and more confrontational, as demonstrated with his interactions with Ben Tennyson, Technorg, and his fellow inmates in the Null Void Incarcecon.

Kevin 11's lack of lucidity also shines through his tendency to quickly blame people other than himself, as demonstrated when he blames Ben for their situation fighting in the Megacruiser, not entirely knowing why he did so in the first place. He also loved fighting so much that he would fight battles whenever he could while on the Megacruiser.

However, even in this form, Kevin 11 still demonstrated a vulnerable, yet somewhat innocent side, as he ultimately realized that he needed help and so turned to Kwarrel. He was finally able to let go of the anger brought on by this transformation, thus making it easier for him to turn back to normal.

A dream world version of Kevin 11 was more beastly and primitive than the original, acting more or less animalistic.

History

After Kevin was defeated by the Omnitrix's feedback pulse in Kevin 11, he discovered that he had absorbed a sufficient amount of its energy to be able to access the DNA available to Ben, if he just concentrated hard enough. He first used this to set his hand alight with Heatblast's fire. However, Kevin became stuck as an alien, able to change between alien forms, but only able to access his human form for a short time, putting him in a situation opposite to Ben himself.

Blaming Ben for his condition, he swore revenge by going on crime sprees in different cities while as an alien to frame Ben as a criminal. He was Wildmutt in Tallahassee, Florida; Ripjaws in Chicago, Illinois; and Ghostfreak in Barstow, California. During this spree, the Special Extraterrestrial Containment Team attempted to stop him, and he crossed paths with Lieutenant Steel.

In Framed, Kevin's spree continued into San Francisco as Four Arms, where he met back up with the Tennysons. After rampaging, Kevin hid near his crime scene, and waited for Ben to come investigate after seeing him on the news.

He led Ben away and into the local mint, where he started terrorizing some guards and Gwen as Heatblast. After Ben stopped him as Diamondhead, Kevin pinned him down and revealed himself and what happened to him, stalling until SECT and Lieutenant Steel could arrive. As they ambushed the building, Kevin turned into Stinkfly and flew away, allowing Diamondhead to be mistaken for him. Kevin would later terrorize a cable car full of people as Upgrade, ripping out the brakes and letting it roll down a hill and into a bay, whilst subduing Ben as Wildmutt.

After flying away as Stinkfly, he would later wreak havoc on the Golden Gate Bridge, shooting cables loose as Diamondhead. He defeated Steel once he arrived to stop him, but before he could finish him off, Ben arrived as Four Arms. The two started fighting, with Kevin switching to Heatblast and Stinkfly, although he eventually turned back to human. As Four Arms towered over the defenseless Kevin, he spared him, telling him he was never worth it.

This enraged Kevin. He concentrated and started transforming his body. The rage of an untrained Osmosian combined with all the DNA he absorbed caused his powers to spiral out of control, causing him to mutate into a hulking amalgam of all of the ten Omnitrix aliens, which Kevin would later dub "Kevin 11" (due to having all of the powers of all ten Omnitrix aliens plus his own). He attempted to change back, but was seemingly stuck this way.

He lashed out at Four Arms, immediately overpowering him, and could only be defeated by Steel managing to call his men to fire a bazooka at him. Kevin 11 fell into the water below the bridge, but survived and eventually resurfaced.

In Grudge Match, Kevin 11 attacked Ben at a wind mill to get revenge, topping over the Rust Bucket and incapacitating Max and Gwen. As the two fought, they were beamed abord the Megacruiser by Slix Vigma; abducted and forced to fight in his gladiator games.

During their battles, Ben helped Kevin 11 to realize the advantages of his mutated form. Because Kevin 11 was an amalgam of aliens, he could mix and match their powers to make up for their reduced potency. Although forced to work together, Kevin 11's only goal was killing Ben.

After Ben and Kevin 11 succeeded in escaping, Kevin 11 attacked Ben and trapped him against the wall with Stinkfly's goo before moving in with Diamondhead's spear hand, gloating that no matter what alien Ben transformed into, he knew every one of them. Little did he know that Ben unlocked Cannonbolt, whom he transformed into just as Kevin 11 was about to murder him before getting into an escape pod.

Kevin 11 nearly barged into the pod when he was stopped by Technorg, whom Ben had spared and he declared a life debt to. After Technorg helped Cannonbolt escape, he turned his attention to Kevin (who had called him a lap dog just as he was about to kill Ben). The two were transported to a different galaxy at the end of the episode while locked in combat. Kevin defeated Technorg and took control of the Megacruiser.

In Back With a Vengeance, Kevin 11 teamed up with Vilgax to defeat Ben, and eventually managed to remove the Omnitrix with Vilgax's help while in the Null Void. However, he betrayed Vilgax in an attempt to leave both Ben and Vilgax in the Null Void and use the Omnitrix to take over the world, only for Ben to escape alongside Gwen, trick him into giving a fake watch, and leave him and Vilgax trapped instead. Kevin spent the rest of the show in the Null Void.

In Perfect Day, Kevin 11 appeared as a "tough hall monitor" in a dream, confronting the Tennysons in human form before willingly transforming. He chased the Tennysons towards the library, though they were able to lose him when Ben answers every question in a computerized test with 'C', allowing a passage out of the library to open. Kevin 11 is later seen flaking Enoch alongside SixSix only to be blown back when Ben transforms into Ultra Ben. Kevin 11 charged at the "Ultra Tennysons" only to be defeated by Ultra Ben.

In ...Nor Iron Bars a Cage, it was revealed how Kevin changed back to normal from Kevin 11. When he became a Null Void prisoner, he met another prisoner named Kwarrel, who he soon looked to as a mentor. Kwarrel taught Kevin 11 how to control his anger and powers. Soon enough, he had learned he could do much more than merely absorb and manipulate energy, he found out that he could do the same thing with matter itself.

Powers and Abilities

Amalgamation

“Diss me all you want. I'm still 10 times better than you! I've got all your powers, plus my own! I'm Kevin 11!”

– Kevin to Diamondhead.

Overall, Kevin 11 had access to the abilities of the first 10 aliens Ben ever turned into. In his pre-amalgam stage, he could fully transform into one of the aliens, or transform parts of his body into those of a different alien. He could also transform back to Human, but he lost both abilities once he became an amalgamation.

Being part-Pyronite, Kevin 11 shared many of the same powers as Heatblast, such as pyrokinesis.

Being part-Vulpimancer, Kevin 11 shared many of the same powers as Wildmutt, such as enhanced smelling.

Being part-Petrosapien, Kevin 11 shared many of the same powers as Diamondhead, such as firing crystal shard projectiles and morphing his arm into weapons. He could also generate crystals on other parts of his body, such as on his back.

Being part-Kineceleran, Kevin 11 shared many of the same powers as XLR8, such as enhanced speed, agility and reflexes.[4] His tail was also prehensile, as he was able to use it to grab on to Diamondhead's leg after being pushed off a cable car.

Being part-Tetramand, Kevin 11 shared many of the same powers as Four Arms, such as enhanced strength.

Being part-Lepidopterran, Kevin 11 shared many of the same powers as Stinkfly, such as slime spit, Kevin 11 also has Stinkfly's wings, which gives him high speed flight.

Being part-Piscciss Volann, Kevin 11 shared many of the same powers as Ripjaws, such as an expandable mouth with steel-bending jaws and sharp teeth,[4] as well as a glowing lure.

Thanks to several of Ben's aliens, Kevin 11 had enhanced durability.

Kevin 11 could combine Heatblast's flames with Stinkfly's slime to form an explosive attack.

Kevin 11 could combine XLR8's speed, Four Arms' strength and Diamondhead's durability into "one mean punch".

Weaknesses

Comparatively Weaker Abilities

“Too bad each one of those is only a tenth as powerful as mine!”

– Diamondhead to Kevin 11

Overall, as an amalgam, Kevin 11's powers were not as strong as those of Ben's aliens, because they only had one-tenth of their original strength.

Kevin 11 was vulnerable to electricity, such as that generated by shock collars.

Before turning into his amalgam stage, Kevin 11 could only stay in his human form for a short time, and could also accidentally revert back into his human form.

⋅•⋅⋅•⋅⋅•⋅⊰⋅•⋅⋅•⋅⋅•⋅⋅•⋅⋅•⋅⋅•⋅⋅•⋅⋅•⋅⋅•⋅⋅•⋅⋅•⋅∙∘☽༓☾∘∙•⋅⋅•⋅⋅•⋅⋅•⋅⋅•⋅⋅•⋅⋅•⋅⋅•⋅⋅⋅•⋅⋅⊰⋅•⋅⋅•⋅⋅•⋅⋅•⋅

A year of the shows and performers of the Bijou Planks Theater.

Ben 10

Sumo Slammers

Kevin 11

2006, Bandai

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.