View allAll Photos Tagged Computerized
+++ 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.
The T-54/55 series eventually became the most-produced tank in history. Estimated production numbers for the series range from 86,000 to 100,000. They were replaced by the T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80 and T-90 tanks in the Soviet and Russian armies but remain in use by up to 50 other armies worldwide, some having received sophisticated retrofitting.
The T-54/55 tanks were mechanically simple and robust, very simple to operate compared to Western tanks, and did not require a high level of training or education in their crew members. The T-54/55 was a relatively small main battle tank, presenting a smaller target for its opponents to hit. The tanks had good mobility thanks to their relatively light weight (which permitted easy transport by rail or flatbed truck and allowed crossing of lighter bridges), wide tracks (which gave lower ground pressure and hence good mobility on soft ground), a good cold-weather start-up system and a snorkel that allowed river crossings.
By the standards of the 1950s, the T-54 was an excellent tank combining lethal firepower, excellent armor protection and good reliability while remaining a significantly smaller and lighter tank than its NATO contemporaries—the US M48 Patton tank and the British Centurion tank. The 100 mm D-10T tank gun of the T-54 and the T-55 was also more powerful than its Western counterparts at that time (the M48 Patton initially carried a 90 mm tank gun and the Centurion Mk. 3 carried the 20-pounder (84 mm) tank gun). This advantage lasted until the T-54 began to be countered by newer Western developments like the M60 main battle tank and upgraded Centurions and M48 Pattons using the 105 mm rifled Royal Ordnance L7 or M68 gun. Due to the lack of a sub-caliber round for the 100 mm gun, and the tank's simple fire-control system, the T-54/55 was forced to rely on HEAT shaped-charge ammunition to engage tanks at long range well into the 1960s, despite the relative inaccuracy of this ammunition at long ranges. The Soviets considered this acceptable for a potential European conflict, until the development of composite armor began reducing the effectiveness of HEAT warheads and sabot rounds were developed for the D-10T gun.
T-54/55 tanks also had their drawbacks. Small size was achieved at the expense of interior space and ergonomics, which caused practical difficulties, as it constrained the physical movements of the crew and slowed operation of controls and equipment. This was a common trait of most Soviet tanks and hence height limits were set for certain tank crew positions in the Soviet Army.
The low turret profile of the tanks prevented them from depressing their main guns by more than 5° since the breech would strike the ceiling when fired, which limited the ability to cover terrain by fire from a hull-down position on a reverse slope – a tactical flaw that became apparent (and costly) during the Arab-Israeli the Six-Day War. As in most tanks of that generation, the internal ammunition supply was not shielded, increasing the risk that any enemy penetration of the fighting compartment could cause a catastrophic secondary explosion. The original T-54 lacked NBC protection, a revolving turret floor (which complicated the crew's operations), and early models lacked gun stabilization. All of these problems were corrected in the otherwise largely identical T-55 tank.
Together, the T-54/55 tanks have been manufactured in the tens of thousands, and many still remain in reserve, or even in front-line use among lower-technology fighting forces. Abundance and age together make these tanks cheap and easy to purchase. While the T-54/55 is not a match for a modern main battle tank, armor and ammunition upgrades could dramatically improve the old vehicle's performance to the point that it cannot be dismissed on the battlefield.
During the Cold War, Soviet tanks never directly faced their NATO adversaries in combat in Europe, but it became involved in many other local conflicts. For instance, the Israeli army fought against it during the Six-Day War in 1967, and many Egyptian and Syrian T-54/55s were captured. Their numbers were so great that they were repaired, modernized and even put into IDF service or exported - around 200 T-54s, T-55s and PT-76s fell into Israeli hands at that time. T-54s and T-55s were modernized to Tiran 4 or 5 standard prior to the Yom Kippur War, some outfitted with a NATO-compatible Sharir (Royal Ordnance L7) 105 mm gun and other Western equipment and weapons.
During the Yom Kippur War in 1973, Israel captured additional T-54s and T-55s, and these new vehicles led to the Ti-51 MBT (also known as “Tiran 51”)and some minor variants. This time the modifications were more thorough and included fitting an American Detroit Diesel engine, new semi-automatic hydromechanical transmission equipped with a torque converter and new air cleaners. Blazer explosive reactive armor was added to the hull and turret, a Cadillac-Gage-Textron gun stabilization system was integrated as well as an EL-OP Matador computerized fire control system. Further changes included a new low-profile commander's cupola, IR detectors, Image-intensifier night vision equipment for the commander, gunner and driver, Spectronix fire detection and suppression system, new turret basket, extensive external stowage, modernized driver's station including replacement of tillers by a steering wheel, new final drives, new all-internal fuel system and improved suspension. Basically, the T-54/55 hull was filled with new equipment, creating an almost new and different MBT! Some of these tanks were also outfitted with a detachable dozer blade and designated Ti-51Sh.
A small series of the captured Yom Kippur War tanks was furthermore re-built as so-called Ti-52s during 1974 and 1975. This program was focused on recycling T-54 and T-55 hulls that had damaged turrets or main weapons. The upgrade centered around an American 90 mm M41 cannon with a T-shaped blast deflector as new main armament, a weapon that was available in abundance after the IDF’s gun uprating of its M48 Patton tanks to the bigger L7 gun. For the Ti-52 a new, welded turret was devised, tailored to the M41 gun and its M87 mount. It was longer but narrower than the original T-54/55 turtle shell turret, but kept its low profile, and it featured prominent storage boxes at the sides and at the back that made it look outwardly bigger than it actually was. The turret had a 360° manual and electric-hydraulic traverse, (24°/sec) and the gun could be depressed to -9° and elevated to +19°. 60 rounds were carried (Fifteen in the turret, the rest in the hull). Beyond standard HE and AP ammunition types, a special HVAP round with a muzzle velocity of 3,750 ft/s (1,140 m/s) was available, too, with a maximum penetration of 15 in (380 mm) of vertical armor at 30 ft and still 9½ in (241 mm) at 2.000 yards. This was complemented by a coaxial heavy Browning .50 cal (12.7 mm) machine gun with 500 rounds (plus 500 more in reserve), a weapon that has proven to be useful and effective in asymmetric warfare. An additional .30 AA machine gun on a swivel mount and with 5.000 rounds in store was placed on the turret roof, next to the commander cupola.
The main automotive upgrade was the replacement of the original V12-W-55 engine with 560 hp with the proven American Detroit Diesel 8V-71T developing 609 hp that had already been used for other Tiran conversions. With a slightly better power/weaight ration than the original T-55 (the lighter turret and engine saved around 2 tons), performanca and handling of the Ti-52 were improved.
Other modifications included a laser rangefinder placed over the barrel, thermal/night sights for the gunner and commander, a computerized FCS, new radio equipment, complete NBC protection lining and anti-RPG rubber side skirts that also suppressed dust clouds while on the move as well as German-made smoke dischargers.
These upgraded vehicles entered service in 1975. With the conversion and different systems came a new role: The Ti-52s went from being an MBT to a tank destroyer and scout/reconnaissance vehicle. The Ti-52 was an ‘ambush predator’ and would use its small size, low profile and good maneuverability to outflank the enemy, engage, and then withdraw along pre-arranged lanes of engagement. The Ti-52 was unofficially nicknamed “עקרב/Ak'rav” (Scorpion) and became a successful conversion, but by the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s, the tank (just like the other Israeli Tiran versions as well as the original T-54/55 family) had become obsolete. Its gun simply did not have the penetrative power to combat modern armored fighting vehicles. Nevertheless, the tank served the Israeli Army well for 15 years, and it was used in combat during the 1982 Lebanon War, where it proved to be highly effective if its tactical strengths of speed and low profile could be exploited. In direct open-field confrontation it turned out to be vulnerable, esp. to dedicated anti-tank weapons of the time (AT-3 Sagger and RPG-7).
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.
+++ 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.
The T-54/55 series eventually became the most-produced tank in history. Estimated production numbers for the series range from 86,000 to 100,000. They were replaced by the T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80 and T-90 tanks in the Soviet and Russian armies but remain in use by up to 50 other armies worldwide, some having received sophisticated retrofitting.
The T-54/55 tanks were mechanically simple and robust, very simple to operate compared to Western tanks, and did not require a high level of training or education in their crew members. The T-54/55 was a relatively small main battle tank, presenting a smaller target for its opponents to hit. The tanks had good mobility thanks to their relatively light weight (which permitted easy transport by rail or flatbed truck and allowed crossing of lighter bridges), wide tracks (which gave lower ground pressure and hence good mobility on soft ground), a good cold-weather start-up system and a snorkel that allowed river crossings.
By the standards of the 1950s, the T-54 was an excellent tank combining lethal firepower, excellent armor protection and good reliability while remaining a significantly smaller and lighter tank than its NATO contemporaries—the US M48 Patton tank and the British Centurion tank. The 100 mm D-10T tank gun of the T-54 and the T-55 was also more powerful than its Western counterparts at that time (the M48 Patton initially carried a 90 mm tank gun and the Centurion Mk. 3 carried the 20-pounder (84 mm) tank gun). This advantage lasted until the T-54 began to be countered by newer Western developments like the M60 main battle tank and upgraded Centurions and M48 Pattons using the 105 mm rifled Royal Ordnance L7 or M68 gun. Due to the lack of a sub-caliber round for the 100 mm gun, and the tank's simple fire-control system, the T-54/55 was forced to rely on HEAT shaped-charge ammunition to engage tanks at long range well into the 1960s, despite the relative inaccuracy of this ammunition at long ranges. The Soviets considered this acceptable for a potential European conflict, until the development of composite armor began reducing the effectiveness of HEAT warheads and sabot rounds were developed for the D-10T gun.
T-54/55 tanks also had their drawbacks. Small size was achieved at the expense of interior space and ergonomics, which caused practical difficulties, as it constrained the physical movements of the crew and slowed operation of controls and equipment. This was a common trait of most Soviet tanks and hence height limits were set for certain tank crew positions in the Soviet Army.
The low turret profile of the tanks prevented them from depressing their main guns by more than 5° since the breech would strike the ceiling when fired, which limited the ability to cover terrain by fire from a hull-down position on a reverse slope – a tactical flaw that became apparent (and costly) during the Arab-Israeli the Six-Day War. As in most tanks of that generation, the internal ammunition supply was not shielded, increasing the risk that any enemy penetration of the fighting compartment could cause a catastrophic secondary explosion. The original T-54 lacked NBC protection, a revolving turret floor (which complicated the crew's operations), and early models lacked gun stabilization. All of these problems were corrected in the otherwise largely identical T-55 tank.
Together, the T-54/55 tanks have been manufactured in the tens of thousands, and many still remain in reserve, or even in front-line use among lower-technology fighting forces. Abundance and age together make these tanks cheap and easy to purchase. While the T-54/55 is not a match for a modern main battle tank, armor and ammunition upgrades could dramatically improve the old vehicle's performance to the point that it cannot be dismissed on the battlefield.
During the Cold War, Soviet tanks never directly faced their NATO adversaries in combat in Europe, but it became involved in many other local conflicts. For instance, the Israeli army fought against it during the Six-Day War in 1967, and many Egyptian and Syrian T-54/55s were captured. Their numbers were so great that they were repaired, modernized and even put into IDF service or exported - around 200 T-54s, T-55s and PT-76s fell into Israeli hands at that time. T-54s and T-55s were modernized to Tiran 4 or 5 standard prior to the Yom Kippur War, some outfitted with a NATO-compatible Sharir (Royal Ordnance L7) 105 mm gun and other Western equipment and weapons.
During the Yom Kippur War in 1973, Israel captured additional T-54s and T-55s, and these new vehicles led to the Ti-51 MBT (also known as “Tiran 51”)and some minor variants. This time the modifications were more thorough and included fitting an American Detroit Diesel engine, new semi-automatic hydromechanical transmission equipped with a torque converter and new air cleaners. Blazer explosive reactive armor was added to the hull and turret, a Cadillac-Gage-Textron gun stabilization system was integrated as well as an EL-OP Matador computerized fire control system. Further changes included a new low-profile commander's cupola, IR detectors, Image-intensifier night vision equipment for the commander, gunner and driver, Spectronix fire detection and suppression system, new turret basket, extensive external stowage, modernized driver's station including replacement of tillers by a steering wheel, new final drives, new all-internal fuel system and improved suspension. Basically, the T-54/55 hull was filled with new equipment, creating an almost new and different MBT! Some of these tanks were also outfitted with a detachable dozer blade and designated Ti-51Sh.
A small series of the captured Yom Kippur War tanks was furthermore re-built as so-called Ti-52s during 1974 and 1975. This program was focused on recycling T-54 and T-55 hulls that had damaged turrets or main weapons. The upgrade centered around an American 90 mm M41 cannon with a T-shaped blast deflector as new main armament, a weapon that was available in abundance after the IDF’s gun uprating of its M48 Patton tanks to the bigger L7 gun. For the Ti-52 a new, welded turret was devised, tailored to the M41 gun and its M87 mount. It was longer but narrower than the original T-54/55 turtle shell turret, but kept its low profile, and it featured prominent storage boxes at the sides and at the back that made it look outwardly bigger than it actually was. The turret had a 360° manual and electric-hydraulic traverse, (24°/sec) and the gun could be depressed to -9° and elevated to +19°. 60 rounds were carried (Fifteen in the turret, the rest in the hull). Beyond standard HE and AP ammunition types, a special HVAP round with a muzzle velocity of 3,750 ft/s (1,140 m/s) was available, too, with a maximum penetration of 15 in (380 mm) of vertical armor at 30 ft and still 9½ in (241 mm) at 2.000 yards. This was complemented by a coaxial heavy Browning .50 cal (12.7 mm) machine gun with 500 rounds (plus 500 more in reserve), a weapon that has proven to be useful and effective in asymmetric warfare. An additional .30 AA machine gun on a swivel mount and with 5.000 rounds in store was placed on the turret roof, next to the commander cupola.
The main automotive upgrade was the replacement of the original V12-W-55 engine with 560 hp with the proven American Detroit Diesel 8V-71T developing 609 hp that had already been used for other Tiran conversions. With a slightly better power/weaight ration than the original T-55 (the lighter turret and engine saved around 2 tons), performanca and handling of the Ti-52 were improved.
Other modifications included a laser rangefinder placed over the barrel, thermal/night sights for the gunner and commander, a computerized FCS, new radio equipment, complete NBC protection lining and anti-RPG rubber side skirts that also suppressed dust clouds while on the move as well as German-made smoke dischargers.
These upgraded vehicles entered service in 1975. With the conversion and different systems came a new role: The Ti-52s went from being an MBT to a tank destroyer and scout/reconnaissance vehicle. The Ti-52 was an ‘ambush predator’ and would use its small size, low profile and good maneuverability to outflank the enemy, engage, and then withdraw along pre-arranged lanes of engagement. The Ti-52 was unofficially nicknamed “עקרב/Ak'rav” (Scorpion) and became a successful conversion, but by the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s, the tank (just like the other Israeli Tiran versions as well as the original T-54/55 family) had become obsolete. Its gun simply did not have the penetrative power to combat modern armored fighting vehicles. Nevertheless, the tank served the Israeli Army well for 15 years, and it was used in combat during the 1982 Lebanon War, where it proved to be highly effective if its tactical strengths of speed and low profile could be exploited. In direct open-field confrontation it turned out to be vulnerable, esp. to dedicated anti-tank weapons of the time (AT-3 Sagger and RPG-7).
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.
Computerized alternate reality and technologically enhanced responses.
My newest Tron creation. Man has it been a while since I made figure for Tron. :D
Also new vid: www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXB138Y5fP0
Sagrada Família or Basílica i Temple Expiatori de la Sagrada Família (Catalan) or Basílica de la Sagrada Familia (Spanish) or Basilica of the Holy Family, is a large still largely unfinished church building in the Eixample district of Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain. Designed by the Catalan architect Antoni Gaudí (1852–1926), his work on Sagrada Família is part of a UNESCO World Heritage Site. On 7 November 2010, Pope Benedict XVI consecrated the church and proclaimed it a minor basilica. On 19 March 1882, construction of the Sagrada Família began under architect Francisco de Paula del Villar. In 1883, when Villar resigned, Gaudí took over as chief architect, transforming the project with his architectural and engineering style, combining Gothic and curvilinear Art Nouveau forms. Gaudí devoted the remainder of his life to the project, and he is buried in the crypt. At the time of his death in 1926, less than a quarter of the project was complete. Relying solely on private donations, the Sagrada Família's construction progressed slowly and was interrupted by the Spanish Civil War. In July 1936, revolutionaries set fire to the crypt and broke their way into the workshop, partially destroying Gaudí's original plans, drawings and plaster models, which led to 16 years of work to piece together the fragments of the master model. Construction resumed to intermittent progress in the 1950s. Advancements in technologies such as computer aided design and computerized numerical control (CNC) have since enabled faster progress and construction passed the midpoint in 2010. However, some of the project's greatest challenges remain, including the construction of ten more spires, each symbolizing an important Biblical figure in the New Testament. It was anticipated that the building would be completed by 2026, the centenary of Gaudí's death, but this has now been delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The basilica has a long history of splitting opinion among the residents of Barcelona: over the initial possibility it might compete with Barcelona's Cathedral, over Gaudí's design itself, over the possibility that work after Gaudí's death disregarded his design, and the 2007 proposal to build a tunnel nearby as part of Spain's high-speed rail link to France, possibly disturbing its stability. Describing the Sagrada Família, art critic Rainer Zerbst said "it is probably impossible to find a church building anything like it in the entire history of art", and Paul Goldberger describes it as "the most extraordinary personal interpretation of Gothic architecture since the Middle Ages". The basilica is not the cathedral church of the Archdiocese of Barcelona, as that title belongs to the Cathedral of the Holy Cross and Saint Eulalia (Barcelona Cathedral). The Basílica de la Sagrada Família was the inspiration of a bookseller, Josep Maria Bocabella, founder of Asociación Espiritual de Devotos de San José (Spiritual Association of Devotees of St. Joseph). After a visit to the Vatican in 1872, Bocabella returned from Italy with the intention of building a church inspired by the basilica at Loreto. The apse crypt of the church, funded by donations, was begun 19 March 1882, on the festival of St. Joseph, to the design of the architect Francisco de Paula del Villar, whose plan was for a Gothic revival church of a standard form. The apse crypt was completed before Villar's resignation on 18 March 1883, when Antoni Gaudí assumed responsibility for its design, which he changed radically. Gaudi began work on the church in 1883 but was not appointed Architect Director until 1884. On the subject of the extremely long construction period, Gaudí is said to have remarked: "My client is not in a hurry." When Gaudí died in 1926, the basilica was between 15 and 25 percent complete. After Gaudí's death, work continued under the direction of his main disciple Domènec Sugrañes i Gras until interrupted by the Spanish Civil War in 1936. Parts of the unfinished basilica and Gaudí's models and workshop were destroyed during the war by Catalan anarchists. The present design is based on reconstructed versions of the plans that were burned in a fire as well as on modern adaptations. Since 1940, the architects Francesc Quintana, Isidre Puig Boada, Lluís Bonet i Gari and Francesc Cardoner have carried on the work. The illumination was designed by Carles Buïgas. The director until 2012 was the son of Lluís Bonet, Jordi Bonet i Armengol. He has been introducing computers into the design and construction process since the 1980s. In 2012, Barcelona-born Jordi Faulí i Oller took over as architect of the project. Mark Burry of New Zealand serves as Executive Architect and Researcher. Sculptures by J. Busquets, Etsuro Sotoo and the controversial Josep Maria Subirachs decorate the fantastical façades. The central nave vaulting was completed in 2000 and the main tasks since then have been the construction of the transept vaults and apse. As of 2006, work concentrated on the crossing and supporting structure for the main steeple of Jesus Christ as well as the southern enclosure of the central nave, which will become the Glory façade. The church shares its site with the Sagrada Família Schools building, a school originally designed by Gaudí in 1909 for the children of the construction workers. Relocated in 2002 from the eastern corner of the site to the southern corner, the building now houses an exhibition. Chief architect Jordi Faulí announced in October 2015 that construction was 70 percent complete and had entered its final phase of raising six immense steeples. The steeples and most of the church's structure are to be completed by 2026, the centennial of Gaudí's death; as of a 2017 estimate, decorative elements should be complete by 2030 or 2032. Visitor entrance fees of €15 to €20 finance the annual construction budget of €25 million. Computer-aided design technology has been used to accelerate construction of the building. Current technology allows stone to be shaped off-site by a CNC milling machine, whereas in the 20th century the stone was carved by hand. In 2008, some renowned Catalan architects advocated halting construction to respect Gaudí's original designs, which, although they were not exhaustive and were partially destroyed, have been partially reconstructed in recent years. In 2018, the stone type needed for the construction was found in a quarry in Brinscall, near Chorley, England. The main nave was covered and an organ installed in mid-2010, allowing the still-unfinished building to be used for liturgies. The church was consecrated by Pope Benedict XVI on 7 November 2010 in front of a congregation of 6,500 people. A further 50,000 people followed the consecration Mass from outside the basilica, where more than 100 bishops and 300 priests were on hand to distribute Holy Communion. Gaudí's original design calls for a total of eighteen spires, representing in ascending order of height the Twelve Apostles, the Virgin Mary, the four Evangelists and, tallest of all, Jesus Christ. Nine spires have been built as of 2021, corresponding to four apostles at the Nativity façade and four apostles at the Passion façade and the Virgin Mary spire. According to the 2005 "Works Report" of the project's official website, drawings signed by Gaudí and recently found in the Municipal Archives, indicate that the spire of the Virgin was in fact intended by Gaudí to be shorter than those of the evangelists. The spire height will follow Gaudí's intention, which according to the report will work with the existing foundation. The Evangelists' spires will be surmounted by sculptures of their traditional symbols: a winged bull (Saint Luke), a winged man (Saint Matthew), an eagle (Saint John), and a winged lion (Saint Mark). The central spire of Jesus Christ is to be surmounted by a giant cross; its total height (172.5 meters (566 ft)) will be less than that of Montjuïc hill in Barcelona, as Gaudí believed that his creation should not surpass God's. The lower spires are surmounted by communion hosts with sheaves of wheat and chalices with bunches of grapes, representing the Eucharist. Plans call for tubular bells to be placed within the spires, driven by the force of the wind, and driving sound down into the interior of the church. Gaudí performed acoustic studies to achieve the appropriate acoustic results inside the temple. However, only one bell is currently in place.
The completion of the spires will make Sagrada Família the tallest church building in the world—11 meters taller than the current record-holder, Ulm Minster, which is 161.5 meters (530 ft) at its highest point. The Church will have three grand façades: the Nativity façade to the East, the Passion façade to the West, and the Glory façade to the South (yet to be completed). The Nativity Façade was built before work was interrupted in 1935 and bears the most direct Gaudí influence. In 2010 an organ was installed in the chancel by the Blancafort Orgueners de Montserrat organ builders. The instrument has 26 stops (1,492 pipes) on two manuals and a pedalboard. To overcome the unique acoustical challenges posed by the church's architecture and vast size, several additional organs will be installed at various points within the building. These instruments will be playable separately (from their own individual consoles) and simultaneously (from a single mobile console), yielding an organ of some 8,000 pipes when completed. Together with six other Gaudí buildings in Barcelona, part of la Sagrada Família is a UNESCO World Heritage Site, as testifying "to Gaudí's exceptional creative contribution to the development of architecture and building technology", "having represented el Modernisme of Catalonia" and "anticipated and influenced many of the forms and techniques that were relevant to the development of modern construction in the 20th century". The inscription only includes the Crypt and the Nativity Façade.
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 cruise at high speeds at high altitudes but maintained comfortable handling characteristics during slower airspeeds necessary 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 altitudes above 18,000 feet became much more comfortable as pressure and temperature could be regulated in the crew work areas. 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 enable relatively accurate 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 to assist in providing 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.
When the traditional ferris wheel lights gave way to computerized light displays a few years back, I realized it brought up a dilemma...the colors and patterns change every second and with every shot, so when you shoot a couple of dozen photos, how do you pick out the best, when they are all cool in their own way...LOL Here's just one of my picks from the other night!
Orion ED102T CF Triplet Apochromatic Refractor Telescope.
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
21 total frames: (2hrs 25min)
8x600 iso 800 Canon T3(modified) with Astronomik 12nm Ha clip-in filter w/Orion ST-80T
13x300 iso 800 Canon T3i no filters w/Orion ED 102mm
sites.google.com/site/astrochuck123
*****Check out my "terrestrial" pictures on:
a mixed Freight Rake...
PF-1 side MG of IZZATNAGAR..
at distance see-computerized reservation center and beautiful Night Lights..
and a tiny FOB ..and distance view towards nainitaal side.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Northrop Grumman-IAI F-24 is the latest reincarnation of the USAF "Lightweight Fighter Program" which dates back to the 1950ies and started with the development of Northrop's F-5 "Freedom Fighter".
The 1st generation F-5 became very successful in the export market and saw a long line of development, including the much more powerful F-5E "Tiger II" and the F-20 Tigershark (initially called F-5G). Northrop had high hopes for the F-20 in the international market; however, policy changes following Ronald Reagan's election meant the F-20 had to compete for sales against aircraft like the F-16, the USAF's latest fighter design (which was politically favored). The F-20 development program was eventually abandoned in 1986 after three prototypes had been built and a fourth partially completed.
But this was not the end for Northrop’s Lightweight Fighter. In the early 1980s, two X-29As experimental aircraft were built by Grumman from two existing Northrop F-5A Freedom Fighter airframes. The Grumman X-29 was a testbed for forward-swept wings, canard control surfaces, and other novel aircraft technologies. The aerodynamic instability of this arrangement increased agility but required the use of computerized fly-by-wire control. Composite materials were used to control the aeroelastic divergent twisting experienced by forward-swept wings, also reducing the weight. The NASA test program continued from 1984 to 1991 and the X-29s flew 242 times, gathering valuable data and breaking ground for new aerodynamic technologies of 4th and 5th generation fighters.
Even though no service aircraft directly evolved from the X-29, its innovative FBW system as well as the new material technologies also opened the door for an updated F-20 far beyond the 1990ies. It became clear that ever expensive and complex aircraft could not be the answer to modern, asymmetrical warfare in remote corners of the world, with exploding development costs and just a limited number of aircraft in service that could not generate true economies of scale, esp. when their state-of-the-art design would not permit any export.
Anyway, a global market for simpler fighter aircraft was there, as 1st generation F-16s as well as the worldwide, aging F-5E fleet and types of Soviet/Russian origin like the MiG-29 provided the need for a modern, yet light and economical jet fighter. Contemporary types like the Indian HAL Tejas, the Swedish Saab Gripen, the French Dassault Rafale and the Pakistani/Chinese FC-1/JF-17 ”Thunder” proved this trend among 4th - 4.5th generation fighter aircraft.
Northrop Grumman (Northrop bought Grumman in 1994) initiated studies and basic design work on a respective New Lightweight Fighter (NLF) as a private venture in 1995. Work on the NLF started at a slow pace, as the company was busy with re-structuring.
The idea of an updated lightweight fighter was fueled by another source, too: Israel. In 1998 IAI started looking in the USA for a development partner for a new, light fighter that would replace its obsolete Kfir fleet and partly relieve its F-16 and F-15 fleet from interception tasks. The domestic project for that role, the IAI Lavi, had been stillborn, but lots of its avionics and research were still at hand and waited for an airframe for completion.
The new aircraft for the IAF was to be superior to the MiG-29, at least on par with the F-16C/D, but easier to maintain, smaller and overall cheaper. Since the performance profiles appeared to be similar to what Northrop Grumman was developing under the NLF label, the US company eventually teamed up with IAI in 2000 and both started the mutual project "Namer" (=נמר, “Tiger” in Hebrew), which eventually lead to the F-24 I for the IAF which kept its project name for service and to the USAF’s F-24A “Tigershark”.
The F-24, as the NLF, was based on the F-20 airframe, but outwardly showed only little family heritage, onle the forward fuselage around the cockpit reminds of the original F-5 design . Many aerodynamic details, e. g. the air intakes and air ducts, were taken over from the X-29, though, as the experimental aircraft and its components had been developed for extreme maneuvers and extra high agility. Nevertheless, the X-29's forward-swept wing was considered to be too exotic and fragile for a true service aircraft, but the F-24 was to feature an Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) system.
AAW Technology integrates wing aerodynamics, controls, and structure to harness and control wing aeroelastic twist at high speeds and dynamic pressures. By using multiple leading and trailing edge controls like "aerodynamic tabs", subtle amounts of aeroelastic twist can be controlled to provide large amounts of wing control power, while minimizing maneuver air loads at high wing strain conditions or aerodynamic drag at low wing strain conditions. This system was initially tested on the X-29 and later on the X-53 research aircraft, a modified F-18, until 2006.
Both USAF and IAF versions feature this state-of-the-art aerodynamic technology, but it is uncertain if other customers will receive it. While details concerning the F-24's system have not been published yet, it is assumed that its AAW is so effective that canard foreplanes could be omitted without sacrificing lift and maneuverability, and that drag is effectively minimized as the wing profile can be adjusted according to the aircraft’s speed, altitude, payload and mission – much like a VG wing, but without its clumsy and heavy swiveling mechanism which has to bear high g forces. As a result, the F-24 is, compared to the F-20, which could carry an external payload of about 3.5 tons, rumored to be able to carry up to 5 tons of ordnance.
The delta wing shape proved to be a perfect choice for the required surface and flap actuators inside of the wings, and it would also offer a very good compromise between lift and drag for a wide range of performance. Anyway, there was one price to pay: in order to keep the wing profile thin and simple, the F-24’s landing gear retracts into the lower fuselage, leaving the aircraft with a relatively narrow track.
Another major design factor for the outstanding performance of this rather small aircraft was weight reduction and structural integrity – combined with simplicity, ruggedness and a modular construction which would allow later upgrades. Instead of “going big” and expensive, the new F-24 was to create its performance through dedicated loss of weight, which was in some part also a compensation for the AAW system in the wings and its periphery.
Weight was saved wherever possible, e .g. a newly developed, lightweight M199A1 gatling gun. This 20mm cannon is a three-barreled, heavily modified version of the already “stripped” M61A2 gun in the USAF’s current F-18E and F-22. One of the novel features is a pneumatic drive instead of the traditional electric mechanism, what not only saves weight but also improves trigger response. The new gun weighs only a mere 65kg (the six-barreled M61A2 weighs 92kg, the original M61A1 112 kg), but still reaches a burst rate of fire of 1.800 RPM (about 800 RPM under cyclic fire, standard practice is to fire the cannon in 30 to 50-round bursts, though) and a muzzle velocity of 1.050 metres per second (3,450 ft/s) with a PGU-28/B round.
While the F-16 was and is still made from 80% aluminum alloys and only from 3% composites, the F-24 makes major use of carbon fiber and other lightweight materials, which make up about 40% of the aircraft’s structure, plus an increased share of Titanium and Magnesium alloys. As a consequence and through many other weight-saving measures like keeping stealth capabilities to a minimum (even though RAM was deliberately used and many details designed to have a natural low radar signature, resulting in modest radar cross-section (RCS) reductions), a single, relatively small engine, a fuel-efficient F404-GE-402 turbofan, is enough to make the F-24 a fast and very agile aircraft, coupled with a good range. The F-24’s thrust/weight ratio is considerably higher than 1, and later versions with a vectored thrust nozzle (see below) will take this level of agility even further – with the pilot becoming the limiting factor for the aircraft’s performance.
USAF and IAF F-24s are outfitted with Northrop Grumman's AN/APG-80 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, also used in the F-16 Block 60 aircraft. Other customers might only receive the AN/APG-68, making the F-24 comparable to the F-16C/D.
The first prototype, the YF-24, flew on 8th of March 2008, followed by two more aircraft plus a static airframe until summer 2010. In early 2011 the USAF placed an initial order of 101 aircraft (probably also to stir export sales – the earlier lightweight fighters from Northrop suffered from the fact that the manufacturer’s country would not use the aircraft in its own forces). These initial aircraft will replace older F-16 in the interceptor role, or free them for fighter bomber tasks. The USN and USMC also showed interest in the aircraft for their aggressor squadrons, for dissimilar air combat training. A two-seater, called the F-24B, is supposed to follow soon, too, and a later version for 2020 onwards, tentatively designated F-24C, is to feature an even stronger F404 engine and a 3D vectoring nozzle.
Israel is going to produce its own version domestically from late 2014 on, which will exclusively be used by the IAF. These aircraft will be outfitted with different avionics, built by Elta in Israel, and cater to national requirements which focus more on multi-purpose service, while the USAF focusses with its F-24A on aerial combat and interception tasks.
International interest for the F-24A is already there: in late 2013 Grumman stated that initial talks have been made with various countries, and potential export candidates from 2015 on are Taiwan, Singapore, Thailand, Finland, Norway, Australia and Japan.
General F-24A characteristics:
Crew: 1 pilot
Length: 47 ft 4 in (14.4 m)
Wingspan: 27 ft 11.9 in / 8.53 m; with wingtip missiles (26 ft 8 in/ 8.13 m; without wingtip missiles)
Height: 13 ft 10 in (4.20 m)
Wing area: 36.55 m² (392 ft²)
Empty weight: 13.150 lb (5.090 kg)
Loaded weight: 15.480 lb (6.830 kg)
Max. take-off weight: 27.530 lb (12.500 kg)
Powerplant:
1× General Electric F404-GE-402 turbofan with a dry thrust of 11,000 lbf (48.9 kN) and 17,750 lbf (79.2 kN) with afterburner
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 2+
Combat radius: 300 nmi (345 mi, 556 km); for hi-lo-hi mission with 2 × 330 US gal (1,250 L) drop tanks
Ferry range: 1,490 nmi (1715 mi, 2759 km); with 3 × 330 US gal (1,250 L) drop tanks
Service ceiling: 55,000 ft (16,800 m)
Rate of climb: 52,800 ft/min (255 m/s)
Wing loading: 70.0 lb/ft² (342 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 1.09 (1.35 with loaded weight & 50% fuel)
Armament
1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M199A1 3-barreled Gatling cannon in the lower fuselage with 400 RPG
Eleven external hardpoints (two wingtip tails, six underwing hardpoints, three underfuselage hardpoints) and a total capacity of 11.000 lb (4.994 kg) of missiles (incl. AIM 9 Sidewinder and AIM 120 AMRAAM), bombs, rockets, ECM pods and drop tanks for extended range.
The kit and its assembly:
A spontaneous project. This major kitbash was inspired by fellow user nighthunter at whatifmodelers.com, who came up with a profile of a mashed-up US fighter, created “out of boredom”. The original idea was called F-21C, and it was to be a domestic successor to the IAI Kfirs which had been used by the US as aggressor aircraft in USN and USMC service for a few years.
As a weird(?) coincidence I had many of the necessary ingredients for this fictional aircraft in store, even though some parts and details were later changed. This model here is an interpretation of the original design. The idea was spun further, and the available parts that finally went into the model also had some influence on design and background.
I thank nighthunter for sharing the early ideas, inviting me to take the design to the hardware stage (sort of…) and adapting my feedback into new design sketches, too, which, in return, inspired the model building process.
Well, what went into this thing? To cook up a F-24 à la Dizzyfugu you just need (all in 1:72):
● Fuselage from a Hasegawa X-29, including the cockpit and the landing gear
● Fin and nose cone from an Italeri F-16A
● Inner wings from a (vintage) Hasegawa MiG-21F
● Outer wings from a F-4 (probably a J, Hasegawa or Fujimi)
The wing construction deviates from nighthunter’s original idea. The favorite ingredients would have been F-16XL or simple Mirage III wings, but I found the composite wing to be more attractive and “different”. The big F-16XL wings, despite their benefit of a unique shape, might also have created scale/size problems with a F-20 style fuselage? So I built hybrid wings: The MiG-21 landing gear wells were filled with putty and the F-4 outer wings simply glued onto the MiG inner wing sections, which were simply cut down in span. It sounds like an unlikely combo, but these parts fit together almost perfectly! In order to hide the F-4 origins I modified them to carry wingtip launch rails, though, which were also part of nighthunter’s original design.
The AAW technology detail mentioned in the background came in handy as it explains the complicated wing shape and the fact that the landing gear retracts into the fuselage, not into the wings, which would have been more plausible… Anyway, there’s still room for a simpler export version, with Mirage III or Kfir C.2/7 wings, and maybe canards?
Using the X-29 as basis also made fitting the new wings onto the area-ruled fuselage pretty easy, as I could use the wing root parts from the X-29 to bridge the gap. The original, forward-swept wings were just cut away, and the remains used as consoles for the new hybrid delta wings. Took some SERIOUS putty work, but the result is IMHO fine.
The bigger/square X-29 air intakes were taken over, and they change the look of the aircraft, making it look less F-5-ish than a true F-20 fuselage. For the same reason I kept the large fairing at the fin base, combining it with a bigger F-16 tail, though, as a counter-balance to the new, bigger wings. Again, the F-16 fin was/is part of nighthunter’s idea, so the model stays true to the original concept.
For the same reason I omitted the original X-29 nose, which is rather pointy, sports vanes and a large sensor boom. The F-16 nose was a plausible choice, as the AN/APG-80 is also carried by late Fighting Falcons, and its shape fits well, too.
All around the hull, some small details like radar warning sensors, pitots and air scoops were added. Not really necessary, but such thing add IMHO to the overall impression of such a fictional aircraft beyond the prototype stage.
Cockpit and landing gear were taken OOB, I just added a pilot figure and slightly modified the seat.
The ordnance was puzzled together from the scrap box, the AIM-9Ls come from the same F-4 kit which donated its outer wings, the AIM-120s come from an Italeri NATO weapons kit. The drop tanks belong to an F-16.
Painting and markings:
At first I considered an F-24I in IAF markings, or even a Japanese aircraft, but then reverted to one of nighthunter’s initial, simple ideas: an USAF aircraft in the “Hill II” paint scheme (F-16 style), made up from three shades of gray (FS 36118, 36270 and 36375) with low-viz markings and stencils. Dutch/Turkish NF-5A/Bs in the “Hill II” scheme were used as design benchmarks, too. It’s a simple livery, but on this delta wing aircraft it looks pretty interesting. I used enamels, what I had at hand: Humbrol 127 and 126, and Modelmaster's 1723.
A light black ink wash was applied, in order to em,phasize the engraved panel lines, in contrast to that, panels were manually highlighted through dry-brushed, lighter shades of gray (Humbrol 27, 166 and 167).
“Hill II” also adds to a generic, realistic touch for this whif. Doing an exotic air force thing is rather easy, but creating a convincing whif for a huge military machinery like the USAF’s takes more subtlety, I think.
The cockpit was painted in medium Gray (Dark Gull Grey, FS 36231, Humbrol 140), as well as the radome. The landing gear and the air intakes were painted white. The radome was painted with Revell 47 and dry-brushed with Humbrol 140.
Decals were puzzled together from various USAF aircraft, including sheets from an Airfix F-117, an Italeri F-15E and even an Academy OV-10D.
Tadah: a hardware tribute to an idea, born from boredom - and the aircraft does not look even bad at all? What I wanted to achieve was to make the F-24 neither look like a F-20, nor a Saab Gripen clone, as the latter comes close in overall shape, size and design.
The church guide says: The church's organ has one of the country's most magnificent facades in Gustavian style. designed by Erik Palmsted in 1775 and preserved almost entirely in its original condition.
The current organ was built with 60 voices 1919 by Åkerman & Lund and is Norrköping's largest church organ. The original organ work was built by the organ builder Olof Schwan. However, the organ has been rebuilt and the number of voices has been increased by the brothers Sven and Erik Nordström in 1871 and by Åkerman & Lund in 1919, who also renovated the work in 1949-1950 and 2002-2003.
After these rebuilds, the organ has 63 parts, divided between four manuals and a pedal. During the most recent renovation, a completely new keydesk was built based on the 1950 keydesk as a model, a modern computerized combination system was installed and the crown work was completed.
NS 5300 (built 2/1973) basks in the sun while sitting outside of Hershey's mainly computerized chocolate factory in Hershey, PA.
A strange anomaly - the natural and the unnatural, the real and the unreal - the original and the copy. Like Artificial Intelligence - an imitation of reality.
Just saw this passing by. Nothing staged here. I suppose the wind just blew this ribbon around. But I find it interesting. I thought the contrast is dramatic. Oh well.
Anyway, ... AI?
So how exactly does AI work?
To put it simply, AI works by combining large data sets with intuitive processing algorithms. AI can manipulate these algorithms by learning behavior patterns within the data set. It's important to understand that AI is not just one algorithm.
AI automates repetitive learning and discovery through data.
Instead of automating manual tasks, AI performs frequent, high-volume, computerized tasks. And it does so reliably and without fatigue. Of course, humans are still essential to set up the system and ask the right questions.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Northrop Grumman-IAI F-24 is the latest reincarnation of the USAF "Lightweight Fighter Program" which dates back to the 1950ies and started with the development of Northrop's F-5 "Freedom Fighter".
The 1st generation F-5 became very successful in the export market and saw a long line of development, including the much more powerful F-5E "Tiger II" and the F-20 Tigershark (initially called F-5G). Northrop had high hopes for the F-20 in the international market; however, policy changes following Ronald Reagan's election meant the F-20 had to compete for sales against aircraft like the F-16, the USAF's latest fighter design (which was politically favored). The F-20 development program was eventually abandoned in 1986 after three prototypes had been built and a fourth partially completed.
But this was not the end for Northrop’s Lightweight Fighter. In the early 1980s, two X-29As experimental aircraft were built by Grumman from two existing Northrop F-5A Freedom Fighter airframes. The Grumman X-29 was a testbed for forward-swept wings, canard control surfaces, and other novel aircraft technologies. The aerodynamic instability of this arrangement increased agility but required the use of computerized fly-by-wire control. Composite materials were used to control the aeroelastic divergent twisting experienced by forward-swept wings, also reducing the weight. The NASA test program continued from 1984 to 1991 and the X-29s flew 242 times, gathering valuable data and breaking ground for new aerodynamic technologies of 4th and 5th generation fighters.
Even though no service aircraft directly evolved from the X-29, its innovative FBW system as well as the new material technologies also opened the door for an updated F-20 far beyond the 1990ies. It became clear that ever expensive and complex aircraft could not be the answer to modern, asymmetrical warfare in remote corners of the world, with exploding development costs and just a limited number of aircraft in service that could not generate true economies of scale, esp. when their state-of-the-art design would not permit any export.
Anyway, a global market for simpler fighter aircraft was there, as 1st generation F-16s as well as the worldwide, aging F-5E fleet and types of Soviet/Russian origin like the MiG-29 provided the need for a modern, yet light and economical jet fighter. Contemporary types like the Indian HAL Tejas, the Swedish Saab Gripen, the French Dassault Rafale and the Pakistani/Chinese FC-1/JF-17 ”Thunder” proved this trend among 4th - 4.5th generation fighter aircraft.
Northrop Grumman (Northrop bought Grumman in 1994) initiated studies and basic design work on a respective New Lightweight Fighter (NLF) as a private venture in 1995. Work on the NLF started at a slow pace, as the company was busy with re-structuring.
The idea of an updated lightweight fighter was fueled by another source, too: Israel. In 1998 IAI started looking in the USA for a development partner for a new, light fighter that would replace its obsolete Kfir fleet and partly relieve its F-16 and F-15 fleet from interception tasks. The domestic project for that role, the IAI Lavi, had been stillborn, but lots of its avionics and research were still at hand and waited for an airframe for completion.
The new aircraft for the IAF was to be superior to the MiG-29, at least on par with the F-16C/D, but easier to maintain, smaller and overall cheaper. Since the performance profiles appeared to be similar to what Northrop Grumman was developing under the NLF label, the US company eventually teamed up with IAI in 2000 and both started the mutual project "Namer" (=נמר, “Tiger” in Hebrew), which eventually lead to the F-24 I for the IAF which kept its project name for service and to the USAF’s F-24A “Tigershark”.
The F-24, as the NLF, was based on the F-20 airframe, but outwardly showed only little family heritage, onle the forward fuselage around the cockpit reminds of the original F-5 design . Many aerodynamic details, e. g. the air intakes and air ducts, were taken over from the X-29, though, as the experimental aircraft and its components had been developed for extreme maneuvers and extra high agility. Nevertheless, the X-29's forward-swept wing was considered to be too exotic and fragile for a true service aircraft, but the F-24 was to feature an Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) system.
AAW Technology integrates wing aerodynamics, controls, and structure to harness and control wing aeroelastic twist at high speeds and dynamic pressures. By using multiple leading and trailing edge controls like "aerodynamic tabs", subtle amounts of aeroelastic twist can be controlled to provide large amounts of wing control power, while minimizing maneuver air loads at high wing strain conditions or aerodynamic drag at low wing strain conditions. This system was initially tested on the X-29 and later on the X-53 research aircraft, a modified F-18, until 2006.
Both USAF and IAF versions feature this state-of-the-art aerodynamic technology, but it is uncertain if other customers will receive it. While details concerning the F-24's system have not been published yet, it is assumed that its AAW is so effective that canard foreplanes could be omitted without sacrificing lift and maneuverability, and that drag is effectively minimized as the wing profile can be adjusted according to the aircraft’s speed, altitude, payload and mission – much like a VG wing, but without its clumsy and heavy swiveling mechanism which has to bear high g forces. As a result, the F-24 is, compared to the F-20, which could carry an external payload of about 3.5 tons, rumored to be able to carry up to 5 tons of ordnance.
The delta wing shape proved to be a perfect choice for the required surface and flap actuators inside of the wings, and it would also offer a very good compromise between lift and drag for a wide range of performance. Anyway, there was one price to pay: in order to keep the wing profile thin and simple, the F-24’s landing gear retracts into the lower fuselage, leaving the aircraft with a relatively narrow track.
Another major design factor for the outstanding performance of this rather small aircraft was weight reduction and structural integrity – combined with simplicity, ruggedness and a modular construction which would allow later upgrades. Instead of “going big” and expensive, the new F-24 was to create its performance through dedicated loss of weight, which was in some part also a compensation for the AAW system in the wings and its periphery.
Weight was saved wherever possible, e .g. a newly developed, lightweight M199A1 gatling gun. This 20mm cannon is a three-barreled, heavily modified version of the already “stripped” M61A2 gun in the USAF’s current F-18E and F-22. One of the novel features is a pneumatic drive instead of the traditional electric mechanism, what not only saves weight but also improves trigger response. The new gun weighs only a mere 65kg (the six-barreled M61A2 weighs 92kg, the original M61A1 112 kg), but still reaches a burst rate of fire of 1.800 RPM (about 800 RPM under cyclic fire, standard practice is to fire the cannon in 30 to 50-round bursts, though) and a muzzle velocity of 1.050 metres per second (3,450 ft/s) with a PGU-28/B round.
While the F-16 was and is still made from 80% aluminum alloys and only from 3% composites, the F-24 makes major use of carbon fiber and other lightweight materials, which make up about 40% of the aircraft’s structure, plus an increased share of Titanium and Magnesium alloys. As a consequence and through many other weight-saving measures like keeping stealth capabilities to a minimum (even though RAM was deliberately used and many details designed to have a natural low radar signature, resulting in modest radar cross-section (RCS) reductions), a single, relatively small engine, a fuel-efficient F404-GE-402 turbofan, is enough to make the F-24 a fast and very agile aircraft, coupled with a good range. The F-24’s thrust/weight ratio is considerably higher than 1, and later versions with a vectored thrust nozzle (see below) will take this level of agility even further – with the pilot becoming the limiting factor for the aircraft’s performance.
USAF and IAF F-24s are outfitted with Northrop Grumman's AN/APG-80 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, also used in the F-16 Block 60 aircraft. Other customers might only receive the AN/APG-68, making the F-24 comparable to the F-16C/D.
The first prototype, the YF-24, flew on 8th of March 2008, followed by two more aircraft plus a static airframe until summer 2010. In early 2011 the USAF placed an initial order of 101 aircraft (probably also to stir export sales – the earlier lightweight fighters from Northrop suffered from the fact that the manufacturer’s country would not use the aircraft in its own forces). These initial aircraft will replace older F-16 in the interceptor role, or free them for fighter bomber tasks. The USN and USMC also showed interest in the aircraft for their aggressor squadrons, for dissimilar air combat training. A two-seater, called the F-24B, is supposed to follow soon, too, and a later version for 2020 onwards, tentatively designated F-24C, is to feature an even stronger F404 engine and a 3D vectoring nozzle.
Israel is going to produce its own version domestically from late 2014 on, which will exclusively be used by the IAF. These aircraft will be outfitted with different avionics, built by Elta in Israel, and cater to national requirements which focus more on multi-purpose service, while the USAF focusses with its F-24A on aerial combat and interception tasks.
International interest for the F-24A is already there: in late 2013 Grumman stated that initial talks have been made with various countries, and potential export candidates from 2015 on are Taiwan, Singapore, Thailand, Finland, Norway, Australia and Japan.
General F-24A characteristics:
Crew: 1 pilot
Length: 47 ft 4 in (14.4 m)
Wingspan: 27 ft 11.9 in / 8.53 m; with wingtip missiles (26 ft 8 in/ 8.13 m; without wingtip missiles)
Height: 13 ft 10 in (4.20 m)
Wing area: 36.55 m² (392 ft²)
Empty weight: 13.150 lb (5.090 kg)
Loaded weight: 15.480 lb (6.830 kg)
Max. take-off weight: 27.530 lb (12.500 kg)
Powerplant
1× General Electric F404-GE-402 turbofan with a dry thrust of 11,000 lbf (48.9 kN) and 17,750 lbf (79.2 kN) with afterburner
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 2+
Combat radius: 300 nmi (345 mi, 556 km); for hi-lo-hi mission with 2 × 330 US gal (1,250 L) drop tanks
Ferry range: 1,490 nmi (1715 mi, 2759 km); with 3 × 330 US gal (1,250 L) drop tanks
Service ceiling: 55,000 ft (16,800 m)
Rate of climb: 52,800 ft/min (255 m/s)
Wing loading: 70.0 lb/ft² (342 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 1.09 (1.35 with loaded weight & 50% fuel)
Armament
1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M199A1 3-barreled Gatling cannon in the lower fuselage with 400 RPG
Eleven external hardpoints (two wingtip tails, six underwing hardpoints, three underfuselage hardpoints) and a total capacity of 11.000 lb (4.994 kg) of missiles (incl. AIM 9 Sidewinder and AIM 120 AMRAAM), bombs, rockets, ECM pods and drop tanks for extended range.
The kit and its assembly:
A spontaneous project. This major kitbash was inspired by fellow user nighthunter at whatifmodelers.com, who came up with a profile of a mashed-up US fighter, created “out of boredom”. The original idea was called F-21C, and it was to be a domestic successor to the IAI Kfirs which had been used by the US as aggressor aircraft in USN and USMC service for a few years.
As a weird(?) coincidence I had many of the necessary ingredients for this fictional aircraft in store, even though some parts and details were later changed. This model here is an interpretation of the original design. The idea was spun further, and the available parts that finally went into the model also had some influence on design and background.
I thank nighthunter for sharing the early ideas, inviting me to take the design to the hardware stage (sort of…) and adapting my feedback into new design sketches, too, which, in return, inspired the model building process.
Well, what went into this thing? To cook up a F-24 à la Dizzyfugu you just need (all in 1:72):
● Fuselage from a Hasegawa X-29, including the cockpit and the landing gear
● Fin and nose cone from an Italeri F-16A
● Inner wings from a (vintage) Hasegawa MiG-21F
● Outer wings from a F-4 (probably a J, Hasegawa or Fujimi)
The wing construction deviates from nighthunter’s original idea. The favorite ingredients would have been F-16XL or simple Mirage III wings, but I found the composite wing to be more attractive and “different”. The big F-16XL wings, despite their benefit of a unique shape, might also have created scale/size problems with a F-20 style fuselage? So I built hybrid wings: The MiG-21 landing gear wells were filled with putty and the F-4 outer wings simply glued onto the MiG inner wing sections, which were simply cut down in span. It sounds like an unlikely combo, but these parts fit together almost perfectly! In order to hide the F-4 origins I modified them to carry wingtip launch rails, though, which were also part of nighthunter’s original design.
The AAW technology detail mentioned in the background came in handy as it explains the complicated wing shape and the fact that the landing gear retracts into the fuselage, not into the wings, which would have been more plausible… Anyway, there’s still room for a simpler export version, with Mirage III or Kfir C.2/7 wings, and maybe canards?
Using the X-29 as basis also made fitting the new wings onto the area-ruled fuselage pretty easy, as I could use the wing root parts from the X-29 to bridge the gap. The original, forward-swept wings were just cut away, and the remains used as consoles for the new hybrid delta wings. Took some SERIOUS putty work, but the result is IMHO fine.
The bigger/square X-29 air intakes were taken over, and they change the look of the aircraft, making it look less F-5-ish than a true F-20 fuselage. For the same reason I kept the large fairing at the fin base, combining it with a bigger F-16 tail, though, as a counter-balance to the new, bigger wings. Again, the F-16 fin was/is part of nighthunter’s idea, so the model stays true to the original concept.
For the same reason I omitted the original X-29 nose, which is rather pointy, sports vanes and a large sensor boom. The F-16 nose was a plausible choice, as the AN/APG-80 is also carried by late Fighting Falcons, and its shape fits well, too.
All around the hull, some small details like radar warning sensors, pitots and air scoops were added. Not really necessary, but such thing add IMHO to the overall impression of such a fictional aircraft beyond the prototype stage.
Cockpit and landing gear were taken OOB, I just added a pilot figure and slightly modified the seat.
The ordnance was puzzled together from the scrap box, the AIM-9Ls come from the same F-4 kit which donated its outer wings, the AIM-120s come from an Italeri NATO weapons kit. The drop tanks belong to an F-16.
Painting and markings:
At first I considered an F-24I in IAF markings, or even a Japanese aircraft, but then reverted to one of nighthunter’s initial, simple ideas: an USAF aircraft in the “Hill II” paint scheme (F-16 style), made up from three shades of gray (FS 36118, 36270 and 36375) with low-viz markings and stencils. Dutch/Turkish NF-5A/Bs in the “Hill II” scheme were used as design benchmarks, too. It’s a simple livery, but on this delta wing aircraft it looks pretty interesting. I used enamels, what I had at hand: Humbrol 127 and 126, and Modelmaster's 1723.
A light black ink wash was applied, in order to em,phasize the engraved panel lines, in contrast to that, panels were manually highlighted through dry-brushed, lighter shades of gray (Humbrol 27, 166 and 167).
“Hill II” also adds to a generic, realistic touch for this whif. Doing an exotic air force thing is rather easy, but creating a convincing whif for a huge military machinery like the USAF’s takes more subtlety, I think.
The cockpit was painted in medium Gray (Dark Gull Grey, FS 36231, Humbrol 140), as well as the radome. The landing gear and the air intakes were painted white. The radome was painted with Revell 47 and dry-brushed with Humbrol 140.
Decals were puzzled together from various USAF aircraft, including sheets from an Airfix F-117, an Italeri F-15E and even an Academy OV-10D.
Tadah: a hardware tribute to an idea, born from boredom - and the aircraft does not look even bad at all? What I wanted to achieve was to make the F-24 neither look like a F-20, nor a Saab Gripen clone, as the latter comes close in overall shape, size and design.
AirTrain JFK is a 13 km (8.1 mile) rapid transit system in New York City that connects John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) to the city's subway and commuter trains. It is operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which also operates the airport and AirTrain Newark.
About 11% of all travelers arriving at or departing from JFK use the computer-operated AirTrain, according to its operator, the Port Authority. Daily paid ridership on the system has been steadily rising. Ridership increased from 7,700 per day in June 2004 to nearly 11,300 per day in June 2006. The growing popularity of AirTrain also reflects a passenger boom at JFK airport. The number of people passing through the airport jumped from 31.7 million in 2003 to an estimated 41 million in 2006.
John F. Kennedy International Airport Planners have long desired a rail connection to JFK airport, which suffers from traffic congestion on its access roads. Efforts to build a rail system moved in fits and starts over decades. Early plans took the line not only to JFK but north from Jamaica to La Guardia Airport, linking to the IRT Flushing Line. Construction began in 1998 for completion in 2002, but was delayed by the derailment of a test train on September 27, 2002, killing 23-year-old operator Kelvin DeBorgh, Jr. The system finally opened after over a year's delay on December 17, 2003.
The $1.9 billion AirTrain has become a success that defied critics who feared the project could become a boondoggle because of Queens residents' vocal complaints, the death of a worker during a test run, early problems with the doors and delays leading up to its December 2003 launch.
The AirTrain project was financed using federal Passenger Facility Charge revenue (collected as a $3 fee on each outbound flight ticket), which can only be used for airport-related improvements. Several airlines challenged the use of the PFC funds for this project, but lost in court. The State of New York paid for major renovations at Jamaica Station, in part to facilitate AirTrain connections. The project does not receive subsidies from the state or city for its operating costs, which is one of the reasons cited for its relatively high fare.
AirTrain JFK uses the same Advanced Rapid Transit (formerly Intermediate Capacity Transit System) technology from Bombardier as the SkyTrain in Vancouver, Canada and the Putra LRT in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. It draws power from a third rail, and a linear induction motor pushes magnetically against an aluminum strip in the center of the track. The computerized trains are automated and operate without conductors.
John F. Kennedy International Airport (IATA: JFK, ICAO: KJFK, FAA LID: JFK) is busiest international air passenger gateway to the United States, handling more international traffic than any other airport in North America and the leading freight gateway to the country by value of shipments. Originally known as Idelwild Airport, after the Idlewild golf course it displaced when construction started in 1943, it was renamed Major General Alexander E. Anderson Airport that same yaer, and then to New York International Airport, Anderson Field in 1948. The airport was renamed after John F. Kennedy, the 35th President of the United States, in 1964. Over ninety airlines operate out of JFK, and it currenly serves as the base of operations for JetBlue Airways and a international gateway hub for American Airlines and Delta Air Lines. In the past, it has been a hub for Eastern Air Lines, National Airlines, Pan American World Airways (Pan Am) and Trans World Airlines (TWA).
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Northrop Grumman-IAI F-24 is the latest reincarnation of the USAF "Lightweight Fighter Program" which dates back to the 1950ies and started with the development of Northrop's F-5 "Freedom Fighter".
The 1st generation F-5 became very successful in the export market and saw a long line of development, including the much more powerful F-5E "Tiger II" and the F-20 Tigershark (initially called F-5G). Northrop had high hopes for the F-20 in the international market; however, policy changes following Ronald Reagan's election meant the F-20 had to compete for sales against aircraft like the F-16, the USAF's latest fighter design (which was politically favored). The F-20 development program was eventually abandoned in 1986 after three prototypes had been built and a fourth partially completed.
But this was not the end for Northrop’s Lightweight Fighter. In the early 1980s, two X-29As experimental aircraft were built by Grumman from two existing Northrop F-5A Freedom Fighter airframes. The Grumman X-29 was a testbed for forward-swept wings, canard control surfaces, and other novel aircraft technologies. The aerodynamic instability of this arrangement increased agility but required the use of computerized fly-by-wire control. Composite materials were used to control the aeroelastic divergent twisting experienced by forward-swept wings, also reducing the weight. The NASA test program continued from 1984 to 1991 and the X-29s flew 242 times, gathering valuable data and breaking ground for new aerodynamic technologies of 4th and 5th generation fighters.
Even though no service aircraft directly evolved from the X-29, its innovative FBW system as well as the new material technologies also opened the door for an updated F-20 far beyond the 1990ies. It became clear that ever expensive and complex aircraft could not be the answer to modern, asymmetrical warfare in remote corners of the world, with exploding development costs and just a limited number of aircraft in service that could not generate true economies of scale, esp. when their state-of-the-art design would not permit any export.
Anyway, a global market for simpler fighter aircraft was there, as 1st generation F-16s as well as the worldwide, aging F-5E fleet and types of Soviet/Russian origin like the MiG-29 provided the need for a modern, yet light and economical jet fighter. Contemporary types like the Indian HAL Tejas, the Swedish Saab Gripen, the French Dassault Rafale and the Pakistani/Chinese FC-1/JF-17 ”Thunder” proved this trend among 4th - 4.5th generation fighter aircraft.
Northrop Grumman (Northrop bought Grumman in 1994) initiated studies and basic design work on a respective New Lightweight Fighter (NLF) as a private venture in 1995. Work on the NLF started at a slow pace, as the company was busy with re-structuring.
The idea of an updated lightweight fighter was fueled by another source, too: Israel. In 1998 IAI started looking in the USA for a development partner for a new, light fighter that would replace its obsolete Kfir fleet and partly relieve its F-16 and F-15 fleet from interception tasks. The domestic project for that role, the IAI Lavi, had been stillborn, but lots of its avionics and research were still at hand and waited for an airframe for completion.
The new aircraft for the IAF was to be superior to the MiG-29, at least on par with the F-16C/D, but easier to maintain, smaller and overall cheaper. Since the performance profiles appeared to be similar to what Northrop Grumman was developing under the NLF label, the US company eventually teamed up with IAI in 2000 and both started the mutual project "Namer" (=נמר, “Tiger” in Hebrew), which eventually lead to the F-24 I for the IAF which kept its project name for service and to the USAF’s F-24A “Tigershark”.
The F-24, as the NLF, was based on the F-20 airframe, but outwardly showed only little family heritage, onle the forward fuselage around the cockpit reminds of the original F-5 design . Many aerodynamic details, e. g. the air intakes and air ducts, were taken over from the X-29, though, as the experimental aircraft and its components had been developed for extreme maneuvers and extra high agility. Nevertheless, the X-29's forward-swept wing was considered to be too exotic and fragile for a true service aircraft, but the F-24 was to feature an Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) system.
AAW Technology integrates wing aerodynamics, controls, and structure to harness and control wing aeroelastic twist at high speeds and dynamic pressures. By using multiple leading and trailing edge controls like "aerodynamic tabs", subtle amounts of aeroelastic twist can be controlled to provide large amounts of wing control power, while minimizing maneuver air loads at high wing strain conditions or aerodynamic drag at low wing strain conditions. This system was initially tested on the X-29 and later on the X-53 research aircraft, a modified F-18, until 2006.
Both USAF and IAF versions feature this state-of-the-art aerodynamic technology, but it is uncertain if other customers will receive it. While details concerning the F-24's system have not been published yet, it is assumed that its AAW is so effective that canard foreplanes could be omitted without sacrificing lift and maneuverability, and that drag is effectively minimized as the wing profile can be adjusted according to the aircraft’s speed, altitude, payload and mission – much like a VG wing, but without its clumsy and heavy swiveling mechanism which has to bear high g forces. As a result, the F-24 is, compared to the F-20, which could carry an external payload of about 3.5 tons, rumored to be able to carry up to 5 tons of ordnance.
The delta wing shape proved to be a perfect choice for the required surface and flap actuators inside of the wings, and it would also offer a very good compromise between lift and drag for a wide range of performance. Anyway, there was one price to pay: in order to keep the wing profile thin and simple, the F-24’s landing gear retracts into the lower fuselage, leaving the aircraft with a relatively narrow track.
Another major design factor for the outstanding performance of this rather small aircraft was weight reduction and structural integrity – combined with simplicity, ruggedness and a modular construction which would allow later upgrades. Instead of “going big” and expensive, the new F-24 was to create its performance through dedicated loss of weight, which was in some part also a compensation for the AAW system in the wings and its periphery.
Weight was saved wherever possible, e .g. a newly developed, lightweight M199A1 gatling gun. This 20mm cannon is a three-barreled, heavily modified version of the already “stripped” M61A2 gun in the USAF’s current F-18E and F-22. One of the novel features is a pneumatic drive instead of the traditional electric mechanism, what not only saves weight but also improves trigger response. The new gun weighs only a mere 65kg (the six-barreled M61A2 weighs 92kg, the original M61A1 112 kg), but still reaches a burst rate of fire of 1.800 RPM (about 800 RPM under cyclic fire, standard practice is to fire the cannon in 30 to 50-round bursts, though) and a muzzle velocity of 1.050 metres per second (3,450 ft/s) with a PGU-28/B round.
While the F-16 was and is still made from 80% aluminum alloys and only from 3% composites, the F-24 makes major use of carbon fiber and other lightweight materials, which make up about 40% of the aircraft’s structure, plus an increased share of Titanium and Magnesium alloys. As a consequence and through many other weight-saving measures like keeping stealth capabilities to a minimum (even though RAM was deliberately used and many details designed to have a natural low radar signature, resulting in modest radar cross-section (RCS) reductions), a single, relatively small engine, a fuel-efficient F404-GE-402 turbofan, is enough to make the F-24 a fast and very agile aircraft, coupled with a good range. The F-24’s thrust/weight ratio is considerably higher than 1, and later versions with a vectored thrust nozzle (see below) will take this level of agility even further – with the pilot becoming the limiting factor for the aircraft’s performance.
USAF and IAF F-24s are outfitted with Northrop Grumman's AN/APG-80 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, also used in the F-16 Block 60 aircraft. Other customers might only receive the AN/APG-68, making the F-24 comparable to the F-16C/D.
The first prototype, the YF-24, flew on 8th of March 2008, followed by two more aircraft plus a static airframe until summer 2010. In early 2011 the USAF placed an initial order of 101 aircraft (probably also to stir export sales – the earlier lightweight fighters from Northrop suffered from the fact that the manufacturer’s country would not use the aircraft in its own forces). These initial aircraft will replace older F-16 in the interceptor role, or free them for fighter bomber tasks. The USN and USMC also showed interest in the aircraft for their aggressor squadrons, for dissimilar air combat training. A two-seater, called the F-24B, is supposed to follow soon, too, and a later version for 2020 onwards, tentatively designated F-24C, is to feature an even stronger F404 engine and a 3D vectoring nozzle.
Israel is going to produce its own version domestically from late 2014 on, which will exclusively be used by the IAF. These aircraft will be outfitted with different avionics, built by Elta in Israel, and cater to national requirements which focus more on multi-purpose service, while the USAF focusses with its F-24A on aerial combat and interception tasks.
International interest for the F-24A is already there: in late 2013 Grumman stated that initial talks have been made with various countries, and potential export candidates from 2015 on are Taiwan, Singapore, Thailand, Finland, Norway, Australia and Japan.
General F-24A characteristics:
Crew: 1 pilot
Length: 47 ft 4 in (14.4 m)
Wingspan: 27 ft 11.9 in / 8.53 m; with wingtip missiles (26 ft 8 in/ 8.13 m; without wingtip missiles)
Height: 13 ft 10 in (4.20 m)
Wing area: 36.55 m² (392 ft²)
Empty weight: 13.150 lb (5.090 kg)
Loaded weight: 15.480 lb (6.830 kg)
Max. take-off weight: 27.530 lb (12.500 kg)
Powerplant
1× General Electric F404-GE-402 turbofan with a dry thrust of 11,000 lbf (48.9 kN) and 17,750 lbf (79.2 kN) with afterburner
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 2+
Combat radius: 300 nmi (345 mi, 556 km); for hi-lo-hi mission with 2 × 330 US gal (1,250 L) drop tanks
Ferry range: 1,490 nmi (1715 mi, 2759 km); with 3 × 330 US gal (1,250 L) drop tanks
Service ceiling: 55,000 ft (16,800 m)
Rate of climb: 52,800 ft/min (255 m/s)
Wing loading: 70.0 lb/ft² (342 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 1.09 (1.35 with loaded weight & 50% fuel)
Armament
1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M199A1 3-barreled Gatling cannon in the lower fuselage with 400 RPG
Eleven external hardpoints (two wingtip tails, six underwing hardpoints, three underfuselage hardpoints) and a total capacity of 11.000 lb (4.994 kg) of missiles (incl. AIM 9 Sidewinder and AIM 120 AMRAAM), bombs, rockets, ECM pods and drop tanks for extended range.
The kit and its assembly:
A spontaneous project. This major kitbash was inspired by fellow user nighthunter at whatifmodelers.com, who came up with a profile of a mashed-up US fighter, created “out of boredom”. The original idea was called F-21C, and it was to be a domestic successor to the IAI Kfirs which had been used by the US as aggressor aircraft in USN and USMC service for a few years.
As a weird(?) coincidence I had many of the necessary ingredients for this fictional aircraft in store, even though some parts and details were later changed. This model here is an interpretation of the original design. The idea was spun further, and the available parts that finally went into the model also had some influence on design and background.
I thank nighthunter for sharing the early ideas, inviting me to take the design to the hardware stage (sort of…) and adapting my feedback into new design sketches, too, which, in return, inspired the model building process.
Well, what went into this thing? To cook up a F-24 à la Dizzyfugu you just need (all in 1:72):
● Fuselage from a Hasegawa X-29, including the cockpit and the landing gear
● Fin and nose cone from an Italeri F-16A
● Inner wings from a (vintage) Hasegawa MiG-21F
● Outer wings from a F-4 (probably a J, Hasegawa or Fujimi)
The wing construction deviates from nighthunter’s original idea. The favorite ingredients would have been F-16XL or simple Mirage III wings, but I found the composite wing to be more attractive and “different”. The big F-16XL wings, despite their benefit of a unique shape, might also have created scale/size problems with a F-20 style fuselage? So I built hybrid wings: The MiG-21 landing gear wells were filled with putty and the F-4 outer wings simply glued onto the MiG inner wing sections, which were simply cut down in span. It sounds like an unlikely combo, but these parts fit together almost perfectly! In order to hide the F-4 origins I modified them to carry wingtip launch rails, though, which were also part of nighthunter’s original design.
The AAW technology detail mentioned in the background came in handy as it explains the complicated wing shape and the fact that the landing gear retracts into the fuselage, not into the wings, which would have been more plausible… Anyway, there’s still room for a simpler export version, with Mirage III or Kfir C.2/7 wings, and maybe canards?
Using the X-29 as basis also made fitting the new wings onto the area-ruled fuselage pretty easy, as I could use the wing root parts from the X-29 to bridge the gap. The original, forward-swept wings were just cut away, and the remains used as consoles for the new hybrid delta wings. Took some SERIOUS putty work, but the result is IMHO fine.
The bigger/square X-29 air intakes were taken over, and they change the look of the aircraft, making it look less F-5-ish than a true F-20 fuselage. For the same reason I kept the large fairing at the fin base, combining it with a bigger F-16 tail, though, as a counter-balance to the new, bigger wings. Again, the F-16 fin was/is part of nighthunter’s idea, so the model stays true to the original concept.
For the same reason I omitted the original X-29 nose, which is rather pointy, sports vanes and a large sensor boom. The F-16 nose was a plausible choice, as the AN/APG-80 is also carried by late Fighting Falcons, and its shape fits well, too.
All around the hull, some small details like radar warning sensors, pitots and air scoops were added. Not really necessary, but such thing add IMHO to the overall impression of such a fictional aircraft beyond the prototype stage.
Cockpit and landing gear were taken OOB, I just added a pilot figure and slightly modified the seat.
The ordnance was puzzled together from the scrap box, the AIM-9Ls come from the same F-4 kit which donated its outer wings, the AIM-120s come from an Italeri NATO weapons kit. The drop tanks belong to an F-16.
Painting and markings:
At first I considered an F-24I in IAF markings, or even a Japanese aircraft, but then reverted to one of nighthunter’s initial, simple ideas: an USAF aircraft in the “Hill II” paint scheme (F-16 style), made up from three shades of gray (FS 36118, 36270 and 36375) with low-viz markings and stencils. Dutch/Turkish NF-5A/Bs in the “Hill II” scheme were used as design benchmarks, too. It’s a simple livery, but on this delta wing aircraft it looks pretty interesting. I used enamels, what I had at hand: Humbrol 127 and 126, and Modelmaster's 1723.
A light black ink wash was applied, in order to em,phasize the engraved panel lines, in contrast to that, panels were manually highlighted through dry-brushed, lighter shades of gray (Humbrol 27, 166 and 167).
“Hill II” also adds to a generic, realistic touch for this whif. Doing an exotic air force thing is rather easy, but creating a convincing whif for a huge military machinery like the USAF’s takes more subtlety, I think.
The cockpit was painted in medium Gray (Dark Gull Grey, FS 36231, Humbrol 140), as well as the radome. The landing gear and the air intakes were painted white. The radome was painted with Revell 47 and dry-brushed with Humbrol 140.
Decals were puzzled together from various USAF aircraft, including sheets from an Airfix F-117, an Italeri F-15E and even an Academy OV-10D.
Tadah: a hardware tribute to an idea, born from boredom - and the aircraft does not look even bad at all? What I wanted to achieve was to make the F-24 neither look like a F-20, nor a Saab Gripen clone, as the latter comes close in overall shape, size and design.
An early generation automatic bowling scorer, the Brunswick AS 80, from the 1980s. These were installed by the Playdrome in Cherry Hill, NJ soon after it took over the Super Bowl. The console was much larger then, today it is just a keyboard in a pedestal. The large overhead display is now a flat screen display.
Here is my latest marble machine. It is called Mr. Marbles because the bowtie reminds me of Mr. Peanut. This machine is made from Maple, Cherry, and Zebrawood for the bowtie, however each one I make will have a different species of wood for the bowtie to give them each a bit of uniqueness. Every part has been made by hand, no cnc milling or computerized design was used.
Here is the youtube video:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBG3hctA3P8&feature=youtu.be
Enjoy!
First astrophotographic project done in collaboration with another astrophotographer: Filippo Scopelliti.Filippo captured the luminance, while I used chrominance, hydrogen jets and I worked out the union of our two images.
The galaxy Cigar (or M 82) is a starburst galaxy located in Ursa Major, 12 million light years from us.
The "nearby" galaxy M 81 interacts with M 82 and causes hydrogen jets to escape from the central part.
Shooting data - Biasia:
19.02.2020Monte Baldo, Italy 45 ° 41 '52 "N - 10 ° 51' 32" EBortle class: 4/9
Average SQM: 20.99 mag./arc sec2
Sky-Watcher Italia Newton 200/1000 F5 reduced to 900 F4,5
Canon EOS 450D modified Baader
Coma corrector Sky-Watcher F5 reducer 0,90
Optolong filter L-ProHEQ5 Pro
9x50 finder guide telescope
ZWO ASI224 MC guide camera
62 x 180" ISO 80026 Dark22 Bias22 Flat
Shooting data - Scopelliti:
Volta Mantovana, Italy
Bortle class 5/9
Average SQM: 20.07 May / arc sec2
Computerized Dobsonian 600/2280 F3,8ZWO ASI294 MM
Coma Corrector TeleVue Paracorr Type 2
L Astronomik Filter
1500 x 1.5" Gain 400Dark
These little Gnomes are the cutest I've seen in a long while. The simple graphic style and their enthusiasm for numbers makes them even more adorable!
Detail of a multiplication card set No. 8122 designed to be used with "Charlie The Lovable Teaching Robot." Copyright 1980, Educational Insights. I found the box of cards for 50 cents at a thrift store. Apparently, Charlie was the forerunner to the Leapster-style children's computerized learning machines.
The walls of the Taj Mahal boast of an endless amount of art work that must have taken an army of expert artisans. There are geometrical shapes and recesses carved into slabs of marbles, floral designs carved right into the marble, and of course, the fabulous inlays with semiprecious stones.
The floral carvings above are over the surface of the marble, and not carved into the marble. Meaning, the designs are achieved by removing material from the surface of the marble, which is obviously far, far more work than carving the designs into the marble.
The surfaces of the marble in the areas without any designs are amazingly plane and smooth to the touch. I could see how a modern day computerized milling machine with a fine tip could be programmed to generate a carving like this. But to think people actually did this with simple hand tools some 400+ years ago and were able to achieve machine like precision is astonishing.
Just try carving your name into a bar of soap by scraping material off the soap to leave your name behind! You will appreciate the complexity of what you see here. It is just mind boggling to think of the time, effort and patience it must have taken to achieve such results.
Leica S2 + 70mm Summarit-S f/2.5
S2002042
When Reggie Jackson wanted a Gasser-era 1941 Willys, he went to his old friend Roy Brizio to cook up some retro magic recalling the days when names like Stone, Woods and Cook, Big John Mazmanian K.S. Pittman and Ohio George Montgomery ruled the quarter mile. Based on a 2 by 4 inch box frame, this superb creation has been updated with a coil-over suspension in place of the traditional leaf units. The drive train comprises a 6-71 supercharged 426 Hemi with a computerized four port Hilborn injector for maximum driveability; a Chevrolet Turbo 400 automatic cranks power back to a Ford 9-inch rear. Tradition also dictated the use of a straight front axle and original magnesium Halibrands, backed in this case by modern Wilwood 4-wheel disc brakes. The steel body is fitted with fiberglas rear fenders and a one piece Outlaw Performance front end, and the interior sports the perfect combination of lightweight padded buckets, a Moon gas pedal and full chrome roll cage. Cloaked in stunning Candy Red, this perfectly rendered old school Willys looks set to blast back in time down the old Fremont drag strip.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
Seeking a domestic aircraft manufacturer, the Brazilian government made several investments in this area during the 1940s and '50s, but it was not until 1969 that Empresa Brasileira de Aeronáutica (EMBRAER) was created as a government-owned corporation. Born from a Brazilian government plan and having been state-run from the beginning, EMBRAER began a privatization process alongside many other state-controlled companies during the government of Fernando Henrique Cardoso. This privatization effort saw EMBRAER sold on December 7, 1994, and helped it avoid a looming bankruptcy.
The company's first product was a turboprop transport, the EMBRAER EMB 110 Bandeirante. In the course of years, both civil and military aircraft were developed, the focus shifted more and more to airliners, but the military work was never abandoned. The company continued to win government contracts, which included the EMB 314/T-27 Tucano trainer or the EMB 324/A-29 ground attack aircraft.
The EMB 320 was a bigger aircraft, though, and conceived in the early 2000s, when, with renewed economic stability, the Brazilian Air Force (Força Aérea Brasileira, FAB) underwent an extensive renewal of its inventory through several acquisition programs. The most ambitious of which was the acquisition of 36 new front-line interceptor aircraft to replace its aging Mirage III, known as the “F-X Project”.
In parallel, a supplement to the relatively new AMX fighter bomber (designated A-1 in Brazil) was needed, too, and this program ran under the handle “A-X Project”. While the F-X program was postponed several times until 2005, the A-X program made, thanks to its smaller budget needs, quick progress and resulted in the EMB 320 'Libélula' (Hornet), a dedicated ground attack, COIN and observation/FAC aircraft which would fill the gap between the AMX jets and various helicopters, e. g. the Mi-35M4 attack helicopter.
The EMB 320 was a straightforward design: a mid-wing two-turboprop-engined all-metal monoplane with retractable landing gear. Conceptually it was very similar to the Argentinian FMA IA-58 Pucara, but more sophisticated and with more compact dimensions. The aircraft was designed to operate from forward bases, in high temperature and humidity conditions in extremely rugged terrain. Repairs could be made with ordinary tools, and no ground equipment was required to start the engines.
The EMB 320 had a tandem cockpit arrangement; the crew of two were seated under an extensively glazed canopy on Martin-Baker Mk 6AP6A zero/zero ejection seats and were provided with dual controls. The pilot sat in front, while the rear seat would, if the mission called for it, be occupied by an observer, WSO or a flight teacher for training purposes. Armor plating was fitted to protect the crew and engines from hostile ground fire.
The retractable tricycle landing gear, with a double nose wheel and twin main wheels retracting into the engine nacelles, was fitted with low pressure tires to suit operations on rough ground and unprepared air strips, while the undercarriage legs were tall to give good clearance for underslung weapon loads. The undercarriage, flaps and brakes are operated hydraulically, with no pneumatic systems.
Through powerful high lift devices the EMB 320 could perform short takeoffs and landings, even on aircraft carriers and large deck amphibious assault ships without using catapults or arresting wires. Additionally, three JATO rockets could be fitted under the fuselage to allow extra-short take-off.
The aircraft was powered by a pair of Garrett T76-G turboprops, 1,040 hp (775.5 kW) each, driving sets of contra-rotating, three-bladed Hamilton-Standard propellers which were also capable of being used as air brakes. The engines were modified for operating on soy-derived bio-jet fuel. Alternatively the engines would operate on high-octane automobile fuel with only a slight loss of power, too.
Fuel was fed from two fuselage tanks of combined capacity of 800 l (180 imp gal; 210 US gal) and two self-sealing tanks of 460 l (100 imp gal; 120 US gal) in the wings.
The “Libélula”, quickly christened this way due to its slender fuselage, straight wings and the large cockpit glazing, was highly maneuverable at low altitude, had a low heat signature and incorporated 4th generation avionics and weapons system to deliver precision guided munitions at all weather conditions, day and night.
Armament consisted of two fixed 30 mm (1.181 in) Bernardini Mk-164 cannons in the wing roots and a total of nine external weapon hardpoints; these included a pair of launch rails at the wingtips for AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs (or ECM pods), four underwing pylons outside of the propeller radius and three underfuselage hardpoints. Chaff/flare dispensers in the tail section provided passive safety. The EMB 320 could carry more than 3.5 tons of external munitions, and loiter for three or more hours.
Avionics included:
● MIL-STD-1553 standards
● NVG ANVIS-9 (Night Vision)
● CCIP / CCRP / CCIL / DTOS / LCOS / SSLC (Computerized Attack Modes)
● R&S{RT} M3AR VHF/UHF airborne transceiver (two-way encrypted Data Link provision)
● HUD / HOTAS
● HMD with UFCP(Up Front Control Panel)
● Laser INS with GPS Navigational System
● CMFD (Colored Multi-Function Display) liquid crystal active matrix
● Integrated Radio Communication and Navigation
● Video Camera/Recorder
● Automatic Pilot with embedded mission planning capability
● Stormscope WX-1000E (Airborne weather mapping system)
● Laser Range Finder
● WiPak Support – (Wi-Fi integration for Paveway bombs)
● Training and Operation Support System (TOSS)
The prototype made its maiden flight on 2nd of April 2000. In August 2001, the Brazilian Air Force awarded EMBRAER a contract for 52 A-27 Libélula aircraft with options for a further 23, acquired from a contract estimated to be worth around $320 USD millions. The first aircraft was delivered in December 2003. By September 2007, 50 aircraft had entered service. The 75th, and last, aircraft was delivered to the FAB in June 2012.
While the Libélula has not been used in foreign conflicts the aircraft already fired in anger: One of the main missions of the aircraft was and is border patrol under the SIVAM program, and this resulted in several incidents in which weapons were fired.
On 3 June 2009, two BAF A-27A Libélulas, guided by an EMBRAER E-99, intercepted a Cessna U206G engaged in drug trafficking activities. Inbound from Bolivia, the Cessna was intercepted in the region of Alta Floresta d'Oeste and, after exhausting all procedures, one of the Moscarsos fired a warning shot from its 30mm cannons, after which the aircraft followed the Libélulas to Cacoal airport.
This incident was the first use of powers granted under the Shoot-Down Act, which was enacted in October 2004 in order to legislate for the downing of illegal flights. A total of 176 kg of pure cocaine base paste, enough to produce almost a ton of cocaine, was discovered on board the Cessna; the aircraft's two occupants attempted a ground escape before being arrested by Federal Police in Pimenta Bueno.
On 5 August 2011, Brazil started “Operation Ágata”, part of a major "Frontiers Strategic Plan" launched by President Dilma Rousseff in June, with almost 30 continuous days of rigorous military activity in the region of Brazil’s border with Colombia. It mobilized 35 aircraft and more than 3,000 military personnel of the Brazilian Army, Brazilian Navy and Brazilian Air Force surveillance against drug trafficking, illegal mining and logging, and trafficking of wild animals.
A-29s of 1°/3º Aviation Group (GAv), Squadron Scorpion, as well as six A-27A’s from 4°/3° GAv launched a strike upon an illicit airstrip, deploying eight 230 kg (500 lb) computer-guided Mk 82 bombs to render the airstrip unusable.
Multiple EMB 320 were assigned for night operations, locating remote jungle airstrips used by drug smuggling gangs along the border, and were typically guarded by several E-99 aircraft. The Libélulas also located targets for the A-29 Super Tucanos, allowing them to bomb the airstrips with an extremely high level of accuracy, making use of night-vision systems and computer systems calculating the impact points of munitions.
General characteristics
Crew: 2
Length (w/o pitot): 41 ft 10 in (12.76 m)
Wingspan: 40 ft 9 1/2 in (12.45 m)
Height: 13 ft 6 2/3 in (4.14 m)
Wing area: 203.4 ft² (18.9 m²)
Empty weight: 8.920 lb (4.050 kg)
Max. take-off weight: 16.630 lb (7.550 kg)
Powerplant:
2× Garrett T76-G410/411 turboprops, 1,040 hp (775.5 kW) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 307 mph (267 kn, 495 km/h)
Range: 1.860 mi (1.620 nmi, 3.000 km)
Service ceiling: 30.160 ft (9.150 m)
Rate of climb: 2.966 ft/min (15 m/s)
Armament:
2× fixed 30 mm (1.181 in) Bernardini Mk-164 cannons in the wing roots with 200 RPG
9× external hardpoints for an ordnance load of 8.000 lb (3.630 kg), including smart weapons (e. g. Paveway GBUs, AGM-65B,C or D Maverick, AGM-114 Hellfire), iron bombs, cluster bombs, napalm tanks, unguided rocket pods and AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs as well as drop tanks.
The kit and its assembly:
This whif model is a remake of an idea I had/did many years ago from the remains of an Airfix OV-10D Bronco: converting it into a "normal" aircraft. While one could argue that this is not really exciting, I found this project pretty challenging as I wanted to make the result as plausible as possible, not just glue some leftover parts together (what I did years ago). And doing so turned a simple idea into major surgery and sculpting – or, how flickr fellow user Franclab called it, “it makes the Bronco look like the whif and the Libélula the real aircraft”.
The basis was a NiB OV-10A Bronco from Academy, a very good kit with a nice cockpit and lots or ordnance. Great value for the money. Design benchmark for what I had in mind was the FMA IA-58 Pucara, as it was designed for the exact same job as my EMB 320 - but details would differ.
The rear of the Bronco's central cabin was cut off and mated with the rear fuselage of a Matchbox Bf 110, which has a similar diameter - but the intersection between the square front of the Bronco and the oval Bf 110 fuselage was tricky (= requiring lots of putty work).
When these basic elements were fitted together, I finally decided to raise the spine. The mated fuselage parts would have had worked, but since the original high wings were missing, the EMB 320 would have had a distinctive and pointless hunchback - actually, with a rotor added, it could have become a helicopter, too!
Well, I went for the big solution, also in order to make the fuselage seam less obvious, and the whole upper rear fuselage was sculpted from 2C and NC putty. In the same process the tail was integrated into the fuselage. As a drawback, this shifted the kit's CG so far back that the lead load in the nose could not keep the front wheel down. Well, it's the price to pay for a better overall look.
The twin fins come from a 1:100 A-10, leftover from a Revell SnapFit kit, while the horizontal stabilizers were taken from the OV-10A, but had to be re-engraved in order to make the flap geometry plausible.
The wings were taken OOB and, relative to the Bronco, placed in a lower position, their original attachment point on top of the fuselage was faired over. The original plan had been to place them completely low, right where the OV-10's wing stubs would be located. But due to the engine nacelles under the wings I finally set them at mid height - otherwise, ground clearance and/or landing gear length had become a big issue - and the thing still looks stalky!
Moving the nacelles into a different (higher) wing position would have been an option, too, but that was IMHO too complicated. Since the EMD 320 would not have storage space behind the cockpit, a wing spar right through the fuselage would not be implausible. As a side effect I had to close the complete belly gap under the Bronco fuselage, again with 2C putty.
The Bronco’s tail booms were cut off and pointed end covers added, so that classic engine nacelles which also carry the main landing gear were created. The engine exhausts were relocated towards the nacelle’s end, and the propeller attachment modified, so that the propeller could turn freely on a metal axis and the overall look would be changed.
The cockpit tub was taken OOB, but armored seats from an Italeri AH-1 were used (with added headrests), as well as two crew figures, which come IIRC from a Hasegawa RA-5C Vigilante.
A new nose section with a sensor turret was built from scratch. It consists of parts from an AH-64 attack helicopter, mated with some styrene sheets for appropriate length. The shape was sculpted from massive material, and the result looks mean and menacing. The pitots were made from scratch, as well as the radar warning sensors on the hull.
The landing gear was improvised. The front strut actually belongs to a 1:200 Concorde(!) from Revell, the respective front wheels belong to an ESCI Ka-34 helicopter. For the main landing gear I used the struts from the Bronco kit, but the twin wheels are donations from the scrap box: these come from two Italeri Hawker Hawk kits.
The ordnance was puzzled together from the scrap box, too, as well as from Hasegawa Weapon sets. As the aircraft was supposed to have taken part in the real world “Operation Ágata”, I decided to add four light Paveway gliding bombs. Two Sidewinders and a pair of M260 rocket launchers (for seven 2.75"/70mm target marking missiles with phosphorous warheads) complete the full load.
The wing pylons come from two Italeri Tornados, those under the fuselage belong to a Matchbox Viggen and an Italeri Kfir.
As a final note: originally I wanted to call the aircraft “Moscardo” (= Hornet), but when it took shape its overall lines and potential agility made the dragonfly (Libélula in Portuguese) a much more appropriate namesake. So it goes... ^^
Painting and markings:
The reason why this turned out to be a Brazilian aircraft is the fact that I have been wanting to use the current FAB paint scheme for some time - it's basically made up from only two colors, FS 34092 (Dark Green) and FS 36176 (“F-15 Gray”, used on USAF F-15Es), paired with low-viz markings. Looks strange at first glance, like a poor man's Europe One/Lizard scheme, but over a typical rain forest scenery, low altitude and with hazy clouds around it is VERY effective, check the beauty pics which are based on BAF press releases. And it simply looks cool.
The pattern is based on current BAF F-5E fighters, the markings come from an FCM decal sheet and actually belong to a BAF Mirage 2000. 4º/3º GAv of the Brazilian Air Force is fictional, though, and some warning stencils were taken from the Academy kit.
The cockpit interior was painted in Dark Gull Gray (Humbrol 140), the landing gear wells in a yellow zinc chromate primer (Humbrol 225, Mid Stone) while the landing gear struts remained blank Aluminum, The outer wheel disks are white, while the inside is red - a detail I incorporated from some USN aircraft.
Painting was not spectacular - since the cockpit has a lot of glass to offer, I painted the windscreen with translucent light blue, and the observer on the rear seat received a similar sun blocker in deep blue. Translucent paint (yellow and black) was also used on the optical sensors at the nose turret as well as for position lights, all on a silver base.
The model was only slightly weathered thorough a black ink wash and some dry-brushing with Humbrol 140 and Testors 2076 (RLM 62) in order to emphasize panels - some panel lines were also painted onto the fuselage with thinned black ink, as the "new" rear body is devoid of any detail and difficult to engrave.
The 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
External links
Arnold Arboretum Official Website
Arnold Arboretum Visitor Information
American Public Gardens Association (APGA)
Virtual Information Access (VIA) Catalog of visual resources at Harvard University.
Garden and Forest A Journal of Horticulture, Landscape Art, and Forestry (1888–1897)
Equipment: Celestron NexStar 8SE Computerized Telescope, CGEM Mount, 80mm PHD guide scope.
Camera: Canon T1i
Exposure: 13 frames × 10min
Times Square NYC New Years Eve Midnight Ball Drop - New Years Day Celebration New York City USA 2020 - 2021
The Times Square Ball is a time ball located atop the One Times Square building in New York City, primarily utilized as part of New Year's Eve celebrations held in Times Square. Yearly at 11:59 p.m. EST on December 31, the ball is lowered 77 feet (23 m) down a specially designed flagpole, resting on the midnight to signal the start of the new year. The first ball drop in Times Square took place on December 31, 1907, and has been held annually since (except in 1942 and 1943 in observance of wartime blackouts). The ball's design has also been updated over the years to reflect new advances in technologies—its original design utilized 100 incandescent light bulbs, iron, and wood in its construction, while its current incarnation features a computerized LED lighting system and an outer surface consisting of triangle-shaped crystal panels. As of 2009, the ball is also displayed atop One Times Square year-round and is removed only for general maintenance.
The Ball is covered with a total of 2,688 Waterford Crystal triangles
"Gift of Happiness" Revealed as the 2021 Waterford Crystal Times Square New Year's Eve Ball Theme
Embrace Happiness in 2021
The Times Square ball drop is one of the best-known New Year's celebrations internationally, attended by at least one million spectators yearly, with an estimated global audience of at least 1 billion. The prevalence of the Times Square ball drop has also inspired other similar ball drops held locally in other cities and towns around the world.
“Dick Clark’s New Year’s Rockin’ Eve with Ryan Seacrest,”
Performers 2020 - 2021
6:00 pm event starts
celebration
Billy Porter
Kelly Osbourne
Jonathan Bennett
The USO Show Troupe
Cristina Lucas
Andra Day
Jimmie Allen
Gloria Gaynor - I Will Survive
Juanita Erb
Machine Gun Kelly
The Waffle Crew
Anitta - Paradinha - Brazil - Univision’s ¡Feliz 2021!
Cyndi Lauper - True Colors
Raúl de Molina
Pitbull - I Know You Want Me (Calle Ocho) - Cuba USA - Univision’s ¡Feliz 2021!
Jennifer Lopez JLo - Waiting for Tonight - The Bronx
Andra Day performs John Lennon’s Imagine
Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York City
The Waterford Crystal Times Square New Year’s Eve Ball
12:15 a.m. — End of Show
At the base of the One Times Square Building is a Walgreens store with a monitor stating Happy New Year 2021 Walgreens facing the MTA Subway exit -
Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc is listed on the NASDAQ as WBA - The NASDAQ is also located in Times Square NYC.
The closest Metropolitan Transportation Authority MTA Subway is Times Square – 42nd Street New York City Subway station - N R Q S 1 2 3 7 trains and A C E trains at 8th Avenue
The Chinese Lunar calendar follows a 12 year cycle and each of the 12 years is represented by 12 Animals which form the Chinese Zodiac. The 12 animals, are: Rat, Cow, Tiger, Rabbit, Dragon, Snake, Horse, Sheep, Monkey, Chicken, Dog, and the Pig.
2019 Pig
2020 Rat
2021 Ox
2022 Tiger
2023 Rabbit
2024 Dragon
2025 Snake
2026 Horse
2027 Sheep
2028 Monkey
2029 Rooster
2030 Dog
Photo
Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max smartphone photo
4x3
dimensions 4032 × 3024 resolution 72x72
JPEG image type
Rear lens
Phone held horizontal
Fourteenth generation of the iPhone
Released November 13, 2020
Phone sells for $1,099.00
Hashtag metadata:
#HappyNewYear #HappyNewYears #FelizAñoNuevo #FelizAnoNuevo #Feliz #AñoNuevo #AnoNuevo #TimesSquare #TimesSquareNYC #TimesSquareNYE #TimesSquareNY #TimesSquareNewYorkCity #TimesSquareNewYork #TSNYC #TSNYE #NY #NYC #NewYork #NewYorkCity #NewYearsEve #NYE #US #USA #Happy #NewYear #NewYears #December #Party #Celebration #Holiday #DickClark #RyanSeacrest #DickClarksNewYearsRockinEve #NewYearsRockinEve #FortySecondStreet #2020 #2021
Photos
Times Square, New York City, USA The United States of America, North America
12/31/2020 - 01/01/2021
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.
+++ 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 North American A-5 Vigilante (Prior to 1962 unification of Navy and Air Force designations, it was designated the A3J) was an American carrier-based supersonic bomber designed and built by North American Aviation for the United States Navy. In 1953, North American Aviation began a private study for a carrier-based, long-range, all-weather strike bomber, capable of delivering nuclear weapons at supersonic speeds. This proposal, the North American General Purpose Attack Weapon (NAGPAW) concept, was accepted by the United States Navy, with some revisions, in 1955. A contract was awarded on 29 August 1956. Its first flight occurred two years later, on 31 August 1958 in Columbus, Ohio.
At the time of its introduction, the Vigilante was one of the largest and by far the most complex aircraft to operate from a Navy aircraft carrier. It had a high-mounted swept wing with a boundary-layer control system (blown flaps) to improve low-speed lift. It had no ailerons; roll control was provided by spoilers in conjunction with differential deflection of the all-moving tail surfaces. The use of aluminum-lithium alloy for wing skins and titanium for critical structures was also unusual. The A-5 had two widely spaced General Electric J79 turbojet engines, fed by inlets with variable intake ramps, and a single large all-moving vertical stabilizer. Preliminary design studies employed twin vertical fin/rudders, but this was eventually changed to a single tall but foldable fin. The wings and the nose radome folded for carrier stowage, too. The Vigilante had a crew of two seated in tandem, a pilot and a bombardier-navigator (BN) (reconnaissance/attack navigator (RAN) on later reconnaissance versions).
The Vigilante had advanced and complex electronics when it first entered service. It had one of the first "fly-by-wire" systems on an operational aircraft (with mechanical/hydraulic backup) and a computerized AN/ASB-12 nav/attack system incorporating a head-up display ("Pilot's Projected Display Indicator" (PPDI), one of the first), multi-mode radar, radar-equipped inertial navigation system (REINS, based on technologies developed for North American's Navaho missile), closed-circuit television camera under the nose, and an early digital computer known as "Versatile Digital Analyzer" (VERDAN) to run it all.
The aircraft replaced the subsonic Douglas A-3 Skywarrior as the Navy's primary nuclear-strike aircraft, but only briefly. Given its original design as a carrier-based, supersonic, nuclear heavy attack aircraft, the Vigilante’s main armament was carried in an unusual internal "linear bomb bay" between the engines in the rear fuselage, which allowed the bomb to be dropped at supersonic speeds. The single nuclear weapon, commonly the Mk 28 bomb, was attached to two disposable fuel tanks in the cylindrical bay in an assembly known as the "stores train". A set of extendable fins was attached to the aft end of the most rearward fuel tank. These fuel tanks were to be emptied during the flight to the target and then jettisoned with the bomb by an explosive drogue gun. The stores train was propelled rearward at about 50 feet (15 m) per second (30 knots) relative to the aircraft. It then followed a ballistic path.
The Vigilante originally had two wing pylons, intended primarily for drop tanks. The second Vigilante variant, the A3J-2 (A-5B), incorporated internal tanks for an additional 460 gallons of fuel, which added a pronounced dorsal "hump", along with two additional wing hardpoints, for a total of four. Other improvements included blown flaps on the leading edge of the wing, changes to the air intakes and stronger landing gear.
The reconnaissance version of the Vigilante, the RA-5C, was based on the A-5B airframe and had slightly greater wing area and added a long canoe-shaped fairing under the fuselage for a multi-sensor reconnaissance pack. This added an APD-7 side-looking airborne radar (SLAR), AAS-21 infrared line scanner, and camera packs, as well as improved electronic countermeasures. An AN/ALQ-61 electronic intelligence system could also be carried. The RA-5C retained the AN/ASB-12 bombing system, and could, in theory, carry weapons, although it never did in service. Later-built RA-5Cs had more powerful J79-10 engines with afterburning thrust of 17,900 lbf (80 kN), the same engines as the Navy’s F-4J Phantom IIs. The reconnaissance Vigilante weighed almost five tons more than the strike version with almost the same thrust and an only modestly enlarged wing. These changes reduced its acceleration and climb rate, though it remained fast in level flight and was still fully carrier-capable.
The last Vigilante version to be developed from 1964 on and to enter service in 1966 was the EA-5D, a dedicated electronic reconnaissance and electronic warfare version, again replacing respective A-3 Skywarrior variants. With the initial experience from the Vietnam conflict, the EA-5D was primarily conceived as a fast escort for supersonic strike aircraft – namely the USN’s F-4 Phantom IIs which progressively took over more strike missions and direly needed protection from SAMs that could keep up with them during their dangerous missions over enemy territory.
The EA-5D, which was unofficially nicknamed “Electric Vigilante”, “Eva” or simply “E-V” by its crews, was based on the late RA-5C’s airframe and was easily distinguishable through its fairing at the top of the fin which contained the electronics for a Bunker-Ramo AN/ALQ-86 ECM suite. It carried ECM gear in the linear bomb bay and a 16 feet (4.9 m) long canoe-shaped ventral fairing (looking like a shortened but deeper version of the RA-5C’s camera and SLAR installation), plus a heat exchanger, a non-jettisonable auxiliary tank and AN/ALE-41 chaff dispensers in an extended tail cone. The complete installation weighed some 6,000 pounds (2,700 kg). Receivers were installed in a fin-tip pod, or "football", like that of the contemporary EA-6A. This fin array caused some lateral instability, though, which could be compensated with a pair of fins under the rear fuselage.
Like the RA-5C, the EA-5D retained the AN/ASB-12 bombing system and was – in theory – like its recce sibling capable to carry out strike missions, but this never happened either. The EA-5Ds were furthermore equipped with an AN/APQ-129 fire control radar, making the aircraft capable of SEAD missions and of firing the AGM-45 “Shrike” anti-radiation missile, although they were apparently never used in that offensive role. Up to four ram-air turbine powered ALQ-76 countermeasures pods could be carried on the underwing hardpoints, augmenting the internal AN/ALQ-86 system’s bandwidth and jamming power. To improve survivability the EA-5D was furthermore outfitted with a pair of launch rails, mounted as sub-pylons on the outsides of the outer underwing hardpoints. Each could carry a single IR-guided AIM-9 Sidewinder AAM.
Despite the Vigilante's useful service as reconnaissance and ECM platform, it was expensive and complex to operate and occupied significant amounts of precious flight and hangar deck space aboard both conventional and nuclear-powered aircraft carriers at a time when carrier air wings, with the introduction of the F-14 Tomcat and S-3 Viking, were averaging 90 aircraft, many of which were larger than their predecessors. Moreover, the Vigilante did not end the career of the A-3 Skywarrior, which would carry on as photo reconnaissance aircraft, electronic warfare platforms, aerial refueling tankers, and executive transport aircraft designated as RA-3A/B, EA-3A/B, ERA-3B, EKA-3B, KA-3B, and VA-3B, into the early 1990s.
Only 28 EA-5Ds were built (two prototypes, 15 new-build, and 11 conversions from existing A-5A and RA-5C airframes) and the United States remained the only operator of the type. The EA-5D saw extensive use in Vietnam and seven machines were lost (four to SAMs, one to a VPAF MiG-21 and two through accidents), but after the end of hostilities and massive reductions of military expenses the EA-5D was quickly phased out from frontline service in the late 1970s, after an active career of just twelve years. In service it was replaced by the subsonic but much more potent EA-6B “Prowler”, which was based on the carrier-capable A-6 “Intruder” bomber, primarily to reduce the number of types in the USN’s arsenal and therewith operating costs and complexity. Since the EA-6B offered much higher ECM capabilities, the small EA-5D fleet was never upgraded, e. g. with the 2nd generation AGM-78 “Standard” ARM or the AN/ALQ-99 ECM pods.
However, a handful of “Electric Vigilantes” remained active with VAQ-137 (“Rooks”) until the late Eighties – long enough to receive the USN’s new tactical low-visibility paint scheme. These EA-5Ds were operated from land-bases only, not assigned to a Carrier Air Group, with a dedicated tail code (“KW”) to reflect this special status. They acted primarily as electronic aggressor aircraft but were also used to simulate supersonic cruise missiles like the contemporary Soviet Kh-20 (AS-3 “Kangaroo”) or Kh-22 (AS-4 “Kennel”) against land and sea targets during training and naval NATO maneuvers. Thanks to their size, speed and flight characteristics the aircraft were also employed as supersonic bomber aggressors, mimicking Soviet Tu-22s or Su-24s. Most of the Evas therefore received more or less authentic temporary Red Star decorations on their fins, which were, however, rarely overpainted after training missions and became part of the “standard markings”.
In 1987 the machines were finally retired, their airframes had reached their structural limit and maintenance costs of the complex aircraft had become prohibitive. They were in the electronic aggressor role eventually replaced with subsonic and much more economical EA-7L Corsair IIs.
General characteristics:
Crew: 2
Length: 76 ft 6 in (23.32 m)
Wingspan: 53 ft 0 in (16.16 m)
Height: 19 ft 5 in (5.91 m)
Wing area: 701 sq ft (65.1 m)
Empty weight: 32,783 lb (14,870 kg)
Gross weight: 47,631 lb (21,605 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 63,085 lb (28,615 kg)
Fuel capacity: 2,805 US gal (10,618 L; 2,336 imp gal) internal
or 19,074 lb (8,652 kg) of JP-5,
or 24,514 lb (11,119 kg) with 2 × 400 US gal external tanks
Powerplant:
2× General Electric J79-GE-10 after-burning turbojet engines,
10,900 lbf (48 kN) thrust each dry, 17,900 lbf (80 kN) with afterburner
Performance:
Maximum speed: 1,322 mph (Mach 2, 1,149 kn, 2,128 km/h) at 40,000 ft (12,000 m)
Combat range: 974 nmi (1,121 mi, 1,804 km)
Ferry range: 1,571 nmi (1,808 mi, 2,909 km)
Service ceiling: 52,100 ft (15,900 m)
g limits: +5
Rate of climb: 33,900 ft/min (172 m/s)
Wing loading: 80.4 lb/sq ft (393 kg/m2)
Thrust/weight: 0.72
Armament:
4x underwings pylons, each with a load capability of up to 2.000 lb (950 kg),
typically occupied with 400 US gal drop tanks or ALQ-76 Tactical Jamming System (TJS)
ECM pods. Other potential loads: AN/ALE-43(V)1&4 Bulk Chaff Dispensing System pod,
a single AN/AAQ-28(V) Litening targeting pod or AGM-45 Shrike anti-radar missiles
2x launch rails for defensive AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs on the outer pylons
The kit and its assembly:
This what-if project had been lingering for a long time in the back of my mind, and I shoved it a side for years because of the model’s sheer size that eats up a lot of display space – even though I had the hardware already stashed away, collecting dust. While the build was rather inspired by its livery (see below) I wondered why the Vigilante, an elegant and impressive aircraft, had not been adapted to the ECM role? The concept of a supersonic penetrator/protector aircraft was realized by the USAF with the EF-111A Raven, but in the Vigilante’s time frame, the Vietnam War, esp. its end phase, an escort for fast USN attack aircraft might have made sense, so that I tried to mate the RA-5C with contemporary ECM technology and typical details – and the result became the fictional EA-5D.
With this idea the model became only a conversion of a basic airframe, not a spectacular kitbashing. Since I knew the Hasegawa RA-5C and its underwhelming quality/detail, I settled for the Trumpeter kit – a MUCH better but also a bit über-complicated offering. It is, however, better in any respect, even though you can ask why the cockpit has to consist of no less than thirty (!) parts (including seats and dashboard films), and the pylons as well as even the thin stabilizers and the fin have to consist of halves? One can also wonder why the kit comes with four(!) free-fall nukes but none of the RA-5C’s typical 400 gallon drop tanks? The kit features the type’s underwing flare dispensers, though. If there is something to criticize it’s the lack of air intake ducts – behind the wedge-shaped intakes and their ramps there is nothing inside the fuselage. Since I did not want to put too much effort into that flaw I simple blocked sight into the model’s body with a bulkhead made from black foamed styrene.
Everything goes together quite well, except for the fuselage halves which appear somewhat warped, and the rather massive plastic makes work easy. Despite this splendor of material, the sandwich leading and trailing edges are surprisingly thin and look pretty good.
While the RA-5C was at its core built OOB there were – naturally – some external mods to convey its ECM role. Most obvious detail is the fin top fairing, procured from a KiTech EA-6B, a shabby copy of the Hasegawa kit. This also provided the ECM pods and the pair of voluminous drop tanks.
The retrofitted Sidewinder launch rails on the outer pylons came from an Emhar FJ-4B, the then-state-of-the-art all-aspect AIM-9Ls came from a Hasegawa F-4 kit. To emphasize its electronic mission I added some antenna fairings around the hull. Beyond the fin pod, the EA-5D received sensor fairings along the flanks, inspired by the USAF F-105Gs’arrangement along the bomb bay, a shallow dorsal bulge behind the cockpits and some blister and blade antennae all around the hull.
The large ventral fairing that replaced the RA-5C’s “camera canoe” was scratched from a drop tank half, from a chunky Kangnam MiG-31, in an attempt to create something that the reminds of the EF-111’s arrangement. A ventral adapter for a display holder was integrated into the hull, too, for in-flight scenes.
A pair of long stabilizer fins was added under the rear fuselage, too, because I think that the large tail fin pod could somewhat hamper directional stability… The consist of rotor blades from a Matchbox SA.360 Dauphin helicopter.
The Vigilante’s tail cone, the former fairing for the linear bomb bay between the engines, was also heavily modified, with a thimble-shaped radome and a separate fairing for an internal chaff dispenser underneath, for a different look. To make the model look a bit more lively, esp. in its all-grey low-viz livery (see below) I mounted the flaps (all six are separate elements, and the inner pairs consist of lower and upper halves, too!) in lowered position.
Painting and markings:
The original reason to build this whiffy Vigilante was to see how the sleek and elegant aircraft would look in early USN low-viz colors! With this idea in mind the scheme was improvised and very simple: FS 36320 on the upper surfaces and FS 36375 underneath (Humbrol 128 and 127, respectively), on the flanks (with a relatively high waterline) and the fin. A slightly darker blue grey (FS 35237, Humbrol 145) was used for an anti-glare panel in front of the windshield. Most di-electric panels and the nose radome were painted in brownish light grey (RAL 7032, Revell 75), for low contrast but a significantly different color.
Inside, the landing gear as well as the air intakes were painted gloss white, the cockpit was painted in neutral grey (FS 36231) with dark grey ejection seats. The latter appears a bit tone-in-tone with the all-grey outside, but that was apparently the A-5’s interior design in real life.
To add some variety to the grey livery I painted the ordnance in “old” USN colors: the drop tanks became all-white and the ECM pods also received a white base. The AIM-9Ls on the extra launch rails (also painted white) received blue bodies as training missiles, with black seeker heads and white tail fins.
The wings’ leading edges (bare steel?) were masked and then painted with Revell 91 (iron metallic).
The whole model received a washing with thinned black ink to emphasize the many recessed rivets and panel lines, and then I added panel counter shading with lighter basic tones, also trying to create a slightly worn/weathered and not-so-uniform finish on the large grey surfaces, which underline the Vigilante’s elegant lines but also look quite boring, due to the sheer size/area, esp. from above.
The low-viz markings were improvised and puzzled together from various sources. The Red Stars on the fin were inspired by real-world aggressor markings, AFAIK some A-7Ls, EA-3Bs and A-4Fs carried such decorations, even paired with large bort numbers on the nose.
To improve the worn/grimy look I also treated the model’s surfaces with grinded graphite – only lightly, but I wanted to make the large grey areas to look even more diverse than just with the initial paint effects.
The early gun turrets on the B-29 were Sperry retractable turrets with periscope sights. However, these did not perform well and General Electric was tasked with providing an alternate design. The GE system featured stationary, non-retractable turrets operated by remotely-situated gunners using computerized gunsights. There were five turret positions: upper-forward, upper-aft, lower-forward, lower-aft, and tail. Each turret contained two 0.50-inch machine guns with the tail position containing an additional 20-mm cannon M-2 Type B cannon with 100 rounds.
All guns except the tail gun were aimed and fired remotely by a set of gunners. There were four gunner sighting positions, one in the extreme nose operated by the bombardier, and three at the position in the waist where the rear pressurized compartment was located. The new remotely-operated armament system was first installed in the third XB-29. However, the new system required a lot more electrical power, necessitating the addition of several specially-designed generators.
In this image, a B-29 from the 25th Bombardment Squadron of the 40th Bombardment Group (Very Heavy), serial number 42-24888, flies the “Hump” over the Himalayas. Named “Smilin' Jack,” this Superfortress was stationed at Chakulia, India beginning in November 1944. From India, the 40th Bomb Group planned to fly missions against Japan from airfields in China. Known as Operation Matterhorn, this endeavour saw the creation of airfields in China and the transportation of all the supplies needed, fuel, bombs, and spares over the Hump (the name given to the Himalayas). The Hump route was so dangerous and difficult that each time a B-29 flew from India to China it was counted as a combat mission. For every one Superfortress combat mission, there needed to be six round-trip cargo missions of the Hump in modified cargo and tanker B-29s. After two years of planning, construction, and logistics, only approximately 800 tons of bombs were dropped by China-based B-29s on the Japanese home islands. After the capture of the Marianas in early 1945, most B-29s operating in India and China were transferred to the Pacific.
I reworked the fuselage shape and tapering to produce cleaner lines. I also took the opportunity to refine other aspects of the original design including the profile of the engine nacelles and the remotely-operated gun turrets.
I look happy because I just figured out how to use the computerized oven in my new apartment. Last Saturday I wanted to do some simple baking and broiling and did not realize that my oven was computerized. My attempts at cooking were not very successful and completely undermined my confidence that I could cook a halfway traditional turkey and dressing dinner for Christmas. Leslie Anne suggested that I try to search for and download an operating manual for the oven online. That worked even though the oven had no visible model number.
My green beans with potatoes were already simmering on the stovetop before I started my online research. After a late start I am preparing the dressing in this photo. My tripod is set up on the dinner table aimed at the kitchen. Photography is easier in this kitchen, the floor space is about the same, I have more cabinet space, but I find the overall layout to be less efficient than my old kitchen. This countertop peninsula doubles as a half-ass bar.
In the glass mixing bowl is a mixture of cornbread and white bread stuffing plus sage and thyme. Soon I'll add mushrooms, oysters, sauteed onions and celery, melted butter, chicken broth, and a couple of beaten eggs to hold the mess together. Then I'll bake it for 30 to 45 minutes at 350 degrees F. It actually took longer in this oven. My turkey is a pre-cooked turkey breast quarter from Jenny-O that I heated for about 20 to 30 minutes.
What could be more accurate than a palm reading? A COMPUTERIZED palm reading! Complete with dot matrix printing, Jeannie the bald palm reader will tell you 10 truths about your personality as well as your lucky numbers, for only $2.00! Not a bad deal when you consider that we pay our highest ranking politicians hundreds of thousands of dollars to tell us absolutely no truth at all.
I'm not certain I remember correctly (it was late and I was tired) but I believe the star in her chest is actually an old computer monitor. I think the carny believed I was with the local newspaper from all the cameras I had dangling 'round my neck 'though I swear I never told him that I was.
Want to catch an amazing picture? At that point, purchase an advanced camera to catch brilliant pictures. Be that as it may, don't know which the best computerized camera is? At that point, precisely this is the opportune place for you to locate a best-computerised camera for you. www.insportsday.com/sony-alpha-a5000-mirrorless-digital-c...
There is a tendency in all of us to compare the old to the new. This is especially true in the preparedness community where in anticipation of hard times ahead, we look to our parents and grandparents for ideas for living a self-reliant and sustainable life.
I found this following story on the web. I thought it was worth a mention.
The Old-fashioned Way
In the line at the store, the cashier told the older woman that she should bring her own grocery bag because plastic bags weren’t good for the environment. The woman apologized to him and explained, “We didn’t have the green thing back in my day.”
The clerk responded, “That’s our problem today. The former generation did not care enough to save our environment.”
He was right, that generation didn’t have the green thing in its day. Back then, they returned their milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled.
But they didn’t have the green thing back in that customer’s day. In her day, they walked up stairs, because they didn’t have an escalator in every store and office building. They walked to the grocery store and didn’t climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time they had to go two blocks.
But she was right. They didn’t have the green thing in her day.
Back then, they washed the baby’s diapers because they didn’t have the throw-away kind. They dried clothes on a line, not in an energy gobbling machine burning up 220 volts – wind and solar power really did dry the clothes. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that old lady is right; they didn’t have the green thing back in her day.
Back then, they had one TV, or radio, in the house – not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief, not a screen the size of the state of Montana. In the kitchen, they blended and stirred by hand because they didn’t have electric machines to do everything for them.
In summer, they slept with the windows open, perhaps even out on sleeping porches, because most homes and apartments lacked air conditioning. Some people still live in those archaeological relics in most cities today. When they packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, they used a wadded up old newspaper to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.
Back then, they didn’t fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. They used a push mower that ran on human power. They exercised by working so they didn’t need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity. But she’s right; they didn’t have the green thing back then.
They drank from a fountain when they were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time they had a drink of water. They refilled their writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and they replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull. But they didn’t have the green thing back then.
Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or rode the school bus instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service. They had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And they didn’t need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest pizza joint.
But isn’t it sad that the current generation laments how wasteful the old folks were just because they didn’t have the green thing back then?
As a child we lived on a farm where you got your milk from cows not bottles, water out of the rain-water tank and food from the veggie garden.
Days of Shooting – Week 8 (w/b 27th August) Vintage
The 62nd Aircraft Maintenance Unit load crew competitors load an AIM-120 missile at Luke Air Force Base, Ariz. Oct. 6, 2017. Six of the best load crews competed against each other to determine who was best by demonstrating their loading skill in head-to-head competition on a Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II "Joint Strike Fighter"
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.
Well, well, well! What can I say about this conniving crook that would paint him as a saint?! Hmm, not one damn word comes to mind! So let's take it back to “The Beginning” and reexamine his felonious track record. The air was thick with a fair measure of gloom on that rainy evening (originally), in the Fall of 1984, when Jerrica Benton stood side by side with her younger sister, Kimber Benton, at their father Emmet Benton's funeral. Also in attendance was her bandmates/sisters Aja and Shana, her boyfriend Rio Pacheco, and a slippery, scaly python with more connections than the Mob, Eric Raymond! Jerrica and Eric became joint owners of Starlight Music after Emmet's demise, leaving Eric to his half, and Jerrica to half of what was rightfully hers. During the funeral service, he gave his deepest sympathies to her and, because he's simply a cad in a fancy suit, had the nerve to put the moves on her as Rio stared him down! Later on that day, Jerrica decided to take her mind off of her loss by returning to work. As she stepped off the elevator and opened her office door, Eric appeared lounging at his desk with a grimace of triumph and a preemptive strike to control her half of Starlight Music. He also found the right moment to introduce his female Rock band, the Misfits, who roared in on motorcycle bikes and began to close in on Jerrica like three piranhas deprived of din-din! After a few notes of “Outta My Way”, the shock-rockers joined Eric at his desk as he proposed an arrangement known as the Battle of the Bands, a competition which he rigged to please the Misfits! The day of the concert, Jem and her girls were penciled in as no-shows, but the bad girls of Rock 'n' Roll had everyone's attention and came from within seconds of winning. Then, in one swift glance, Jem and the Holograms appeared on stage (compliments of Synergy) and stole the show! Surfing high above the crowd of fans while swaying and prancing around in 6 inch designer heels, Jem and her sisters made it crystal clear that their victory was “Only the Beginning!” Keeping up with his initial arrangement, Eric then challenged Jem to the most important competition of her life, a second Battle of the Bands, provided that if she won, then he would sign over his share of Starlight Music, but if the Misfits prevailed, then he would claim FULL ownership of the entire company! With the stakes higher than before, Eric set out to cease any chance the Holograms had at winning, and ordered in his henchman, Zipper, to break into Starlight Foster House to cause a little ruckus. During a brief encounter with Kimber who was holding a lit candle stick in the dark, Zipper knocked into her as he tried to escape and inadvertently set the entire house on fire! Now well into 1985, and living at the Starlight Mansion, Jem put the “Disaster” out of her mind. And with the Holograms and their foster girls, she settled in the million dollar estate with a housewarming tour, a pool party, and a nice dinner to boot. Life was wonderful, and the Pop stars were living “Like a Dream!” Unfortunately, for Jem, the day had just begun for Eric and there was a lot of dirty work to manage, starting with his first assignment, which included Zipper and another dangerous task, this time by planting explosives under the cushions of her living room couch and blowing the entire wall to smithereens! To compound the disaster, Eric decided to hoof on over to the news reporters who showed up and caused a scene by boldly lying about the blast. These crimes were all just the tip of the iceberg. I mean, this is Eric Raymond that we're talking about. It's nearly impossible to list every single offense—I'd be here for days! I once thought of Zipper as the most revolting villain in the world of Jem, and he is still the raining champ in that department. Eric, however, is the slimy crud that clogs AND pumps the fuel into the entire series! Every lackey needs a handler—someone to answer to and serve—and in this case, Eric is the master, and Zipper is the servant. They are truly two of the biggest crooks ever, in ‘80s animation! Days later, the action continued, and Eric was in cahoots again with his favorite henchman, this time, in “Frame Up”, when he tipped off the police to search Jem's dressing room after ordering his slugs to plant prize money in there to frame her! But, when the plan fell through, he then hired a private detective named Malone to uncover her secret. Talk about a double whammy! The heat was on, in “Battle of the Bands”, when he began to focus on Synergy and became obsessed with the pictures that were taken of the mysterious machine by Malone. He was well on the trail of discovering the origins of Synergy much later in the series as well, but never followed through due to his greed for money and status. He didn't falter this time around, though, and embarked on a relentless quest to discover the facts, even placing 'lil Ashley on payroll for a brief moment, then holding her for hostage in his office and threatening that he'd hurt her if Jem didn't scurry over to Starlight Drive-In, all in an attempt to buy more time for the Misfits to win the competition! Later that evening, his world spun out of orbit when Rio crashed five knuckles into his jaw for backhanding Jerrica across her face, at Starlight Music!
Everyone assumed the crook was jailed, in “Starbright, Part One”, but he was just gearing up for his directorial debut and decided to enter into business with Pizzazz and her father's film studio. Within seconds of striking the deal with Harvey, Eric started sprouting horns as he began to hand out orders and demands, like the claus in Jem's contract that demanded she perform in the film despite being on a Misfits production. He butted heads repeatedly with Anthony Julian on set, then became embroiled in an all-out shouting match regarding who's who, forcing Anthony to walk out of the entire production! There were times when he threatened to fire half the staff and crew, and he didn't think twice about driving a wedge between Kimber and Jem by suggesting that Jem gets more attention and fanfare than her. The climax blew a fuse, when Jem quit the film after her physical altercation with Pizzazz! Jerrica, who was desperate to reason for the sake of her foster daughter, Banee, decided to return to the production and weather the storm with one and all. However, Eric was up to his old tricks again, when he pressured Jem to perform a stunt while crossing an elongated log several stories above without a stunt double, resulting in her falling to the ground! Thank goodness Rio flew in on a vine to save her! Video Montgomery caught the entire accident on tape and prepared to release the footage to the Union, but Jem begged her not to out of consideration for Banee. Pizzazz noticed them talking and encouraged Clash to destroy the video tape, and she almost succeeded, but it was Video's clever act of switching labels on the tape that sealed Eric's fate! Rio reached his breaking point during a stunt that involved Kimber and her near-death accident while running down a hill and dodging landmines that detonated off cue on account of Roxy and Clash! Eric's negligence and foul attitude towards the accident was reason enough for Rio to snatch him by the collar, lift him from off the ground and bodyslam him in front of cast and crew lol! Now, with the film in the can, and his staff in shambles, Eric was left with only his pride, and he assumed the worst was over. But karma always has a way of showing up on time. Suddenly, at the snap of a finger, the Producers Guild, Stuntman's Union, the Director's Guild and Photographer's Local all burst in and charged him with misconduct, no guild approval, hazardous conditions on the set, and failure to use qualified stunt-persons! The trickle effect began as the Union closed the production due to the tape of Jem's accident, and continued with Harvey Gabor losing a fortune in fines and lawsuits from dozens of Unions, and millions in over budgets. Guess it's just a day in the life of one senseless and heartless creature! But that's really no surprise when Eric's involved. He even went so far as to steal the profits from “The World Hunger Shindig” by recruiting, yet again, Zipper to scam a whole ticket booth off the books for $250.000 dollars. Like, really? Starving children? Shame! Actually, he had established a lack of concern and safety for children very early on in the series; the Misfits as well! It doesn't matter the weather or the season—rain, sleet or snow—Eric is there with a treasure chest full of shady deals to disperse, like in “Last Resorts”, when he caused a serious amount of damage to Rick Franklin's skiing resort by arranging accidents and rigging equipment with the intent to drive avid customers away and conquer Ricks's property.
Whether it's an attack against two or a slew, somehow he always finds a way to outfox his victims, and in “Old Meets New”, he illustrates just how cunning and ruthless he is from beginning to end! The sun basked down on a small historical section of California, particularly one building occupied by Bobby Bailey, a former rock musician. Bobby's building just so happened to be one of the first Rock 'n' Roll recording studios ever built, and a meaningful structure to music history. The former musician tried everything possible to save his building from demolition, and he fought several times against the owner to prevent condemnation. He eventually became friendly with Jem and the Holograms and they decided to assist him in his crusade. Well, on that same day, while both parties stood outside of the building removing boards from the entranceway, a huge bulldozer appeared in the distance. As the inadequate piece of machinery approached, Jem and her girls noticed Eric and the Misfits at the controllers and jumped out of the way as they lowered the wrecking ball at the building, all while barking at the tenants to “Take a Hike” so that he could demolish the property and build “The biggest record album factory on the East Coast!” Then the situation jumped from bad to worse, when Pizzazz, under Eric's supervision, decided to get her sick thrill out of swinging the wrecking ball into surrounding buildings that were occupied with tenants still inside! His greed reached new heights, in “Intrigue at Indy 500”, and he got quite sloppy with his work. It all started when he bribed famous race car driver, Martino Granzetti's sponsors, to pull out of the race to secure himself a profit. The scales gave way literally when his associate tampered with the axel on Granzetti's car prior to the race and sent him flying into the Intensive Care unit of the hospital, followed by Jem's car crash, when she tried to repair the Starlight Special in hopes of replacing Martino in the race! He took a different approach, in “The Talent Search, Part One”, and went straight for the jugular, when he tried to bribe Raya Alonso into revealing Jem's true identity. After refusing to comply, Eric had her parents nursery destroyed by vandals! Jetta decided to appoint herself as the overseer of this mission, and her first order was for the crew to bring back a black orchid as proof of their work. The mission turned out to be a bust, of course, and left Jetta with a bald patch on her scalp lol! The low-handed, cutthroat scum evaded incarceration, during “KJEM!” The drama started when he struck a shady deal with a con-artist to have the Misfits play a live radio concert opposite the opening broadcast of Jem's new radio station, KJEM, for more airplay and extra promotion—such a shady deal that even Eric wasn't fully aware of! In short, the Misfits naively became involved in a pirate broadcast, finally ending with the arrest of all four hotshots! He finally got his just deserts, in “Trick or Techrat”, when he was rewarded as the highest bidder for a chunk of property, an old opera house owned by Fredrick Vincent. His partnership with a fellow business owner to build new condos in place of the opera house was enough to seal the deal and to destroy the historical building lickety-split. The Misfits were in on the ghoulish antics as well, and were determined to destroy Jem and the Holograms' Halloween benefit concert at the opera house by staging their own concert on the opposite side of the street from the landmark. With Techrat's special effects machine, Eric had what he knew was needed to scare Jem, Kimber, Aja, Shana, Raya and the Starlight girls! Only, this time, it seems he made the mistake of stepping from behind the iron curtain to join in on the festivities by disguising himself as Mr. Vincent to force the real Fredrick Vincent to close his business. Not even the Misfits were surprised that his tricky maneuver backfired on him. And without lawyers or lifelines on his side, it was Eric's turn to FINALLY rot in a jail cell as he was arrested by the end of the night!
Once again, he demonstrated a lack of concern for children, in “The Middle of Nowhere!” The hunger to cash in on the record market was excuse enough for him to muster up the courage to approach Harvey Gabor with his plan to purchase land and open a refinery near the Alaskan pipeline. After ruining Harvey's movie studio and costing him millions in damages, Eric knew that he would have to make a hard sell and a smooth transaction to reel him in, and he accomplished his goal by elaborating that his offer could make records “more cheaply” than any other record company in the world. He added that the deal would provide a wealth of oil, and that any investor wise enough to back him would “make a fortune.” As usual, Eric was only out for himself and didn't care about robbing Uto and her loving family of Attuk Island, as well as killing the seals that populated the water and land! In the end, the Kenyak family decided that they didn't want to sell their Island, placing Eric back on Harvey's s**t list and leaving him stranded out in the Arctic cold literally! He was drunk with power while playing time-travel master, in “Journey Through Time”, and supervised Techrat's activities with a computerized device that transported Jem, the Holograms and Synergy back in time to Vienna, 1781, Pizzazz and the Misfits to Woodstock ‘69, and himself smack dab in the middle of the Mesozoic era! Eric's background bio was fleshed out, in “Out of the Past”, and revealed an early love triangle between himself, Jerrica and Rio Pacheco, surprisingly, all brought on by Jerrica herself in a desperate plea for Rio's attention! The episode also documented his rise to the top as Emmet Benton's protégé, and, more importantly, the introduction of Jerrica's mother, Jacqui Benton, and her career as a singer. Jerrica wanted to use her mother's early recordings to rerecord and create a commemorative album of her work, beginning with a modern version of “First Love”, which did wonders for Jacqui's legacy by re-entering her music back on the charts after a full decade! The idea of cutting an entire album with her mother's recordings as a guide was all she could think about, but she wasn't exactly sure where to locate the print work. One night, while working overtime at Starlight Music, she received a phone call from Eric who admitted to having her mother's tapes in his possession, and insisted that she pay a million dollars in return or grant him controlling interest over Starlight Music! Jerrica declined his ridiculous offer, but Eric was unabashed about his proposal and suggested that she meet him at his place to discuss the matter or that he would destroy the tapes. Determined to reserve her mother's legacy, she decided to bite the beat and go to his lair after all. While there, the two began to argue about the money and Eric's lack of compassion. Jerrica—thinking that he would do the right thing out of the kindness of his heart—decided to just ask him for the master tapes, but he vetoed her request and decided to punish her by throwing the recordings into his fireplace! Without delay, she raised her hand above her head and swung her palm at his cheek, leaving him with an imprint that he will always taste, feel and remember! This saga ended on a positive note due to Synergy's function for storing data in her memory bank, leaving Eric, for the umpteenth time, demolished. There's absolutely no limit to his repulsive behavior! He's always at war with Pizzazz, he was annihilated by Craig Phillips, and Riot barely tolerates him. Hell, even the Starlight girls gave him a run for his money, in “The Day the Music Died!” It's quite interesting nowadays when I view the show from a mature standpoint. I find myself shocked at the mass of illegal activity that I subjected myself to as a child lol. The ‘80s were what I define as the last days of innocence, but the decade also ushered in the age of WONDER! Of course, I didn't realize this at the precious age of 5, but it's now clear, that Eric, the Misfits, Zipper and Clash were ahead of their time, animation-wise! I mean, let's be real here, the action was what kept my generation tuned in every week and on the edge of our seats! Needless to say, Eric Raymond has always repulsed me. Even as a child, he used to frightened me with his appearance and behavior. And the Misfits were no different. I was freaked out by their evil tyranny and would yell at the television for them to just leave goody-goody Jem alooone! Seriously! Of course, now, as an adult, I love them! They make me laugh more than anything else. And their style is everything! But, with Eric, there's the feeling of disgust that was present as a child, and still remains today! With all that being said, I do believe that he is the main artery of the series.
Continuing with my thoughts above, I am very happy to see Eric in doll form. I think we can all agree that, without his presence, the Jem collection just wouldn't be the same! So yes, I am elated that Integrity finally released the head honcho of Misfits Music! Eric definitely shines in his own strange way, not necessarily color-wise, but in his own right. At times, when I scan the entire collection with my eyes, I marvel at the contrast of dark tones used for the Misfits collection, and bright tones for Jem and the Holograms. And no matter when or how many times I scan, Eric always catches my eye due to the particular aspect of muted colors used for his wardrobe. Do I think that Integrity should have given him a little more coloration to work with? No way! He is dressed in boss attire and looks exactly as he's portrayed in Jem. So there's not a long list of requirements for his clothes and accessories, and maybe that's a good thing. I just think that we're supposed to enjoy Eric for Eric, not for what he lacks. He's now arrived and that's well enough reason to celebrate the latest edition to the Misfits collection. Besides, when it comes right down to it, he doesn't really need a reason to exist—it's mandatory! I have him standing front and center in my Misfits collection, obviously where he belongs. There are no drawbacks available to evaluate. His face sculpt looks exactly like it should. There were tons of complaints from doll collectors who were teed off about the recycled head sculpt, and I can't bring myself to agree because, for someone like myself who doesn't already own a doll with the Count Dracula sculpt, this is considered a new and exciting experience for myself. It works out real well, too, because I have nothing else to go by, but Eric, and I am relieved of that! There's something strangely fascinating about the color of his hair, kinda has a dark chestnut hue, especially when viewing in the light. But it's too short, in my opinion. I think chin-length hair would have been better! At least we would have had the option to trim his hair however short we pleased. Eric's accessories were chosen with the utmost care and truly reflect his initial appearance, in Season One! This swindler is concealing one seriously expensive Rolex wristwatch and a matching chrome ring, both purchased with blood money, of course! He actually looks suave in his three-piece, intricately woven Giorgio Armani business suit. There's a nice, deep, rich gray tone to it that's very appealing! He also wears a light blue dress shirt, a red necktie and black satin socks, all Armani as well! His black leather shoes are from Gianni Versace's “Ivy League” business collection, and they look quite nice on his feet. Mr. Bossman shields his deceiving eyes with a pair of Ray-Ban shades, and carries a black Gucci briefcase that's on loan from the Yuppie collection. Inside the attaché case contains a picture of Synergy that was taken by Malone, his personal detective...still gives me chills to this day lol. The memo from Eric to Pizzazz is priceless and made me lmao! This bigwig CEO is squeaky clean, from top to bottom, without a trace of fingerprints to seal his fate, and it's apparent as to just how well-off he really is! 💰
On another note, I messaged Integrity Toys four months ago with a request regarding my idea for a special Jem doll. My request/brainchild is what I like to call, the “Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame” Jem, from “The Stingers Hit Town, Part One”, with her sparkly brown gown, huge oversized shoulder-bows, tan boa, and her pink/gold/white Rock guitar! I also requested Shana's alt guitar as an added bonus. Two days later, an employee replied that she would notify their Design Team! I will definitely continue to keep my fingers and pedicured toes crossed for this one!
My top 6 remaining dolls that I'm holding out for:
Mardi Gras Jem
Indy 500 Jem
Graphix
Sean Harrison
Lena Lerner
Zipper
©2011 Susan Ogden-All Rights Reserved Images Thruthelookingglass
HAPPY HAIRY~HEART~HUMP~DAY BOKEH WEDNESDAY!!!
Today i was feeling rather spunky! This is what happens when all the spunky doesn’t leave my body by bed time!
i have random thoughts that i have to vocalize....or in this case computerize......like...........I think this is a guy heart....and it forgot to shave this morning. It is ok with me, as i kind of like the sleepy, slightly scruffy, unshaved male face.....i love beards..............on men of course...........not so attractive on the ladies.
I think this guys heart is open and vulnerable (see....at the top where the 2 halves meet?). That is really a sweet, and endearing quality.......so, i have decided that i like this guy heart that did not shave this morning. He also seems to be standing straight and taking in some sunshine...that is a good sign...means he is not a dismal soul!! Now, as much as i like facial hair (ON MEN!), i am not thinking the hairy body here is all that attractive.....just s touch would be better....this is a bit like he is wearing a fur coat....THAT i could do without! It would be like having yet ANOTHER cat on my bed!! OK....spunky is now leading me into territory that i should not be heading into on this family station....so i will take my spunky and force it into submission....a slightly dangerous thing....you just never know where or when it will pop up next if it is suppressed and lays dormant....but i am getting tired and need to go to bed........haircut morning tomorrow!!! YAY!! i LOVE haircut day!!!
Hmmmmmmmm....wonder if spunky will show up there....THAT could get scary!!!!
The sign is on the south side of the building. Another ghost sign adorns the north facade.
The building at 623 S. Wabash Ave. was constructed in 1895 and designed by Solon S. Beman or the Studebaker Brothers Carriage Company of Fort Wayne, Indiana as its Chicago regional office and warehouse facility. It was later owned by the Brunswick Company, makers of wood furnishings and built-in furniture for libraries, universities and a variety of public commercial and governmental facilities. The building was acquired by Columbia College in 1983 and now houses classrooms, academic offices, a computerized newsroom, sciences laboratories, art studios, stage and costume design workshops and two public gallery spaces.
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.
Prod. 1981-1999/2001
Sn. 2475515
Top of the line 1981.
X-700 brochure:
"The X-700 is Minolta's fully-programmed, micro-computerized Automatic Exposure 35mm SLR. It's a simple-to-operate Automatic Exposure camera, selecting both aperture and shutter speed in Programmed Automatic Exposure mode (P mode). So all you have to do is focus-and-shoot. The X-700 also offers Aperture-Priority Automatic Exposure control (A mode) and a full-metered manual exposure control (M mode), in addition to many other features that make photography more fun and enjoyable than ever before."
wikipedia:
T"he Minolta X-700 is a 35 mm single-lens reflex film camera introduced by Minolta in 1981. It was the top model of their final manual-focus SLR series before the introduction of the auto-focus Minolta Maxxum 7000.
The X-700 was awarded the European "Camera of the Year" award in 1981, and its competitive pricing resulted in its becoming the most successful Minolta camera since the SRT line."
kenrockwell.com:
"A testament to its lasting and good design, it was introduced in the early 1980s and was in continuous production until the beginning of 2001. I had a very new one with a serial number above 3,000,000, and I also bought an X-570 (it's brother) back in 1982."
From x-700 owners manual:
Elecronically governed 35mm single-reflex AE camera.
Exposure-control modes:
Fully programmed (P), aperture-priority automatic (A), and metered manual (M).
Exposure control and functions:
Low-voltage, low current computer circuit incorporating quartz crystal for sequential control to 1/30,000-sec. accuracy, large-scale ICs, samarium-cobalt impulse-release magnets, and linear-resistance inputs) varies both aperture and shutter speed steplessly according to special "faster-speed" program in P mode, or varies shutter speed steplessly according to aperture set in A mode, to yield proper exposure for the film speed and exposure adjustment set; auto-exposure range: EV 1 to EV 18 (e.g., 1 sec. at f/1.4 to 1/1000 at f/16) at ISO 100/21° with f/1.4 lens; AE-lock device holds meter reading for exposure at that value regardless of subject-brightness changes.
Shutter:
Horizontal-traverse focal-plane type; electronically controlled stepless speeds 1/1000 to 4 sec. set automatically with endlessly rotatable selector dial locked at "P" or "A" setting or fixed speeds 1 to 1/1000 sec. or "B" (bulb) set manually at detented dial indications; electromagnetic shutter release locks when voltage too low for proper operation.
Metering:
TTL center-weighted averaging type, by silicon photocell mounted at rear of pentaprism for available light, measured full aperture for normal finder display, then at taking aperture for programmed/automatic-exposure setting/determination or stop-down display; by another SPC mounted with optic in side of mirror compartment for TTL off-film Direct Autoflash Metering at taking aperture during exposure to control burst duration of PX-series flash units.
Film-speed range:
ISO 25/150 to 1600/330 set by ASA dial that locks at 1/3-EV increments.
Exposure-adjustment control:
Up to ±2 EV continuous adjustment of P, A, or M exposure by dial that locks at zero position and each 1/2-EV setting.
Mirror:
Triple-coated oversize instant-return slide-up type.
Viewfinder:
Eye-Level fixed pentaprism type showing 95% of 24x36mm film-frame area; magnification: 02X with 50mm standard lens focused at infinity; power: -1D, adjustable with accessory Snap-On eyepiece lenses; Fresnel-field focusing screen having artificially regular-patterned matte field plus central split-image horizontally oriented focusing aid surrounded by microprism band, interchangeable with Type P1, P2, Pd, M, G, L, S, or H screens at authorized Minolta service stations; visible around frame: mode indication (P, A, or M), shutter-speed scale (1, 2, 4, 8, 15, 30, 60, 125, 250, 500, and 1000) with LED setting indication, triangular over-/under-range LED indicators blinking at 4Hz, flash-ready signal (LED next to "60" blinking at 2Hz), FDC signal ("60" LED blinking at 8Hz for 1 sec. after correct flash exposure), mis-set lens warning (mode indication blinking at 4Hz in P mode, battery check (by glowing of any LED when operating button touched or pressed slightly), f-number set with MD or MC lenses, and exposure-adjustment engaged indication (LED blinking at 4Hz); display and metering activated by normal finger contact or slight pressing of operating button and continue for 15 sec., except go out after shutter release.
Flash Sync and Control:
Hot shoe and PC terminal for X sync; camera-control contact on hot shoe for flash ready signaling and automatic setting of shutter at 1/60 sec. (except when mode/shutter-speed selector set for sync at "B") with PX and X flash units; other electronic units synchronize at 1/60 sec. and slower manual speeds or "B" setting; Class MF, M, and FP flashbulbs, at 1/15 sec. or slower settings; second contact on hot shoe for burst control by Direct Autoflash Metering with PX units.
Power:
Two 1.5v alkaline-manganese (LR44: Eveready A-76 or equiv.), two 1.55v silver-oxide (SR-44: Eveready S-76, EPX-76, or equiv.), or one 3v lithium (CR-1/3N) cell(s).
Pakistan textile industry is flourishing progressively and most the textile setups have owned the modern mean of technologies where there most of the machinery and components are equipped with computerized technology.
The embroidery art to be performed manually is still alive in the local markets and shops where the people do this work by hands and a little piece of cloth takes hours to complete a design.