computerized

Learn More

  

Korea hosts nighttime Army 10-miler

   

By W. Wayne Marlow, U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys, Public Affairs

  

CAMP HUMPHREYS, SOUTH KOREA – Over 300 runners from across the Korean peninsula took part in the second annual Army 10-miler Shadow Run hosted here Oct. 2.

 

First Lieutenant Robert Anderson of the 532nd Military Intelligence Battalion won the nighttime race, designed to mirror the Army’s annual run in Washington, D.C., in 1 hour, 3 minutes and 51 seconds. First Lieutenant Sarah Rainville took the women’s crown, finishing in 1:16:44.

 

Anderson said he initially thought only about doing his best and having a good run. But when some entrants passed him early in the race, his focused changed.

 

“I was going to try and take it easy ... but then an adrenaline rush hit and I decided to pick it up,” he said.

 

Anderson maintained a steady pace, running the second half in just two more minutes than he did the first five miles. “I felt good the whole time,” he said. “I felt like I had some left in the tank. I started training for it last year, so I’ve been upping my mileage.”

 

The Camp Humphreys shadow run will be shown on a large screen during the Army 10-miler in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 9, and Anderson plans to be there to watch it and participate in his second 10-miler of the week. “This was prep for that one,” he said.

 

Former United States Army Garrison Humphreys Command Sgt. Maj. Jason Kim fired the opening gun at 9 p.m. locally to coincide with the actual time the run will start in Washington D.C. Led by Kim’s replacement, Command Sgt. Maj. Spencer Gray, the runners started under the Super Gym walkway, then snaked their way around the airfield twice, ending up back at Super Gym.

 

“It’s an absolutely great event,” Gray said. “Soldiers work hard, so when you can do something like this to build esprit de corps, it’s a positive thing. It’s an opportunity for everyone to have a good time.”

 

The crisp, cool October air helped keep the runners fresh, as did rehydration stations manned by volunteers along the route. The constant encouragement by fellow runners and cheering from the sidelines helped push the runners toward the finish.

 

“It’s not too cold. It’s nice running weather,” Gray said. “You can always wear something to keep you warm, and if it gets too hot, you can dress down.”

 

Anderson agreed that the race featured ideal conditions. “It’s great weather, no overheating,” he said. “It’s the best weather for running.”

 

Anderson said he has three brothers in the Army who are also all enthusiastic runners, and there was another family connection of note. Specialist Charles Rodgers IV flew from Hawaii to run the race with his father, Charles Rodgers III, who manages Splish and Splash Water Park on Humphreys. The two finished with identical times of 1:32:40.

 

Besides ideal weather and enthusiastic observers, the runners were treated to replicas of Washington, D.C., monuments built by Jeffrey Hubbard of the USAG Humphreys Family, Morale Welfare and Recreation office. The replicas, made of Styrofoam and braced by wood supports, included the Vietnam Memorial, the Pentagon, the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Jefferson memorials, and the capitol. The project took about two weeks, according to Hubbard.

 

“It was to give everybody something extra to look at during the run and to do something different,” Hubbard said. “We figured looking at a poster would be kind of boring. We wanted to give them incentive to go and see the next one. They’ll be here next year. They’re built to last.”

 

Area III Sports Director Lonnie Herring credited volunteers with helping make the run a success.

 

“We had three drink tables on the trail and at the start and finish point,” he said. “We had BOSS bring in volunteers, folks standing on the road, and people handing out numbers and pace chips before the race.” The computerized chips, attached to the runners’ shoes, started and stopped when someone crossed the start and finish lines, giving everyone an accurate 10-mile time.

 

For all the logistics involved in having hundreds of people run 10 miles, Herring said most of the work was done beforehand.

 

“The pre-registration is the most time-consuming,” he said, also mentioning coordination with Military Police, road closures, medical considerations, and taxi and bus services being suspended. But all the work paid off in the end, Herring noted.

 

Prior to the run, entrants were addressed by USAG Humphreys Commander, Col. Joseph P. Moore.

 

“We’re here to have fun, and I hope your commanders told you that if you run this, there’s no P.T. tomorrow. Ten miles is no small task,” Moore said. “I’ve run this loop a lot at night. There’s plenty of light out there. The terrain is real friendly. There are no big hills, just a lot of open room to run.”

 

The top three finishers in the men’s 29 and under category were: Wbatt Reith (1:07:53); Samuel Smiths (1:09:09) and Daniel Bates (1:09:35). Following Anderson in the men’s 30-39 category were David Snow (1:12:41) and Nathan Stahl (1:18:02).

 

In the men’s 40-49 category, the top three finishers were Brett Bassett (1:14:49), Dan Burnett (1:17:06) and Felix Lassus (1:18:57). Leading the way in the men’s 50 and over category were Robert Nott (1:09:14), Mark Sullivan (1:09:57) and Kwon, Song-ki (1:19:23).

 

Following Rainville in the women’s 29 and under category were Kyle Wilson (1:22:20) and Liela Moser (1:26:01). In the women’s 30 and over category, top finishers were Sarah Stahl (1:20:45), Adam Leinen (1:27:52), and Jamila Moody (1:34:11). Taking the women’s over 40 crown was Kim, Hui-ok (1:37:06). In the women’s over 50 category, Barbara Garner (1:37:31) took first, followed by Susan Jentoft (1:43:23).

 

Photos by Edward N. Johnson, U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys, PAO

 

Learn More

Learn More

  

Humphreys hosts Army 10-miler shadow run

   

By W. Wayne Marlow, U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys, Public Affairs

  

CAMP HUMPHREYS, SOUTH KOREA – Over 300 runners from across the Korean peninsula took part in the second annual Army 10-miler Shadow Run hosted here Oct. 2.

 

First Lieutenant Robert Anderson of the 532nd Military Intelligence Battalion won the nighttime race, designed to mirror the Army’s annual run in Washington, D.C., in 1 hour, 3 minutes and 51 seconds. First Lieutenant Sarah Rainville took the women’s crown, finishing in 1:16:44.

 

Anderson said he initially thought only about doing his best and having a good run. But when some entrants passed him early in the race, his focused changed.

 

“I was going to try and take it easy ... but then an adrenaline rush hit and I decided to pick it up,” he said.

 

Anderson maintained a steady pace, running the second half in just two more minutes than he did the first five miles. “I felt good the whole time,” he said. “I felt like I had some left in the tank. I started training for it last year, so I’ve been upping my mileage.”

 

The Camp Humphreys shadow run will be shown on a large screen during the Army 10-miler in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 9, and Anderson plans to be there to watch it and participate in his second 10-miler of the week. “This was prep for that one,” he said.

 

Former United States Army Garrison Humphreys Command Sgt. Maj. Jason Kim fired the opening gun at 9 p.m. locally to coincide with the actual time the run will start in Washington D.C. Led by Kim’s replacement, Command Sgt. Maj. Spencer Gray, the runners started under the Super Gym walkway, then snaked their way around the airfield twice, ending up back at Super Gym.

 

“It’s an absolutely great event,” Gray said. “Soldiers work hard, so when you can do something like this to build esprit de corps, it’s a positive thing. It’s an opportunity for everyone to have a good time.”

 

The crisp, cool October air helped keep the runners fresh, as did rehydration stations manned by volunteers along the route. The constant encouragement by fellow runners and cheering from the sidelines helped push the runners toward the finish.

 

“It’s not too cold. It’s nice running weather,” Gray said. “You can always wear something to keep you warm, and if it gets too hot, you can dress down.”

 

Anderson agreed that the race featured ideal conditions. “It’s great weather, no overheating,” he said. “It’s the best weather for running.”

 

Anderson said he has three brothers in the Army who are also all enthusiastic runners, and there was another family connection of note. Specialist Charles Rodgers IV flew from Hawaii to run the race with his father, Charles Rodgers III, who manages Splish and Splash Water Park on Humphreys. The two finished with identical times of 1:32:40.

 

Besides ideal weather and enthusiastic observers, the runners were treated to replicas of Washington, D.C., monuments built by Jeffrey Hubbard of the USAG Humphreys Family, Morale Welfare and Recreation office. The replicas, made of Styrofoam and braced by wood supports, included the Vietnam Memorial, the Pentagon, the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Jefferson memorials, and the capitol. The project took about two weeks, according to Hubbard.

 

“It was to give everybody something extra to look at during the run and to do something different,” Hubbard said. “We figured looking at a poster would be kind of boring. We wanted to give them incentive to go and see the next one. They’ll be here next year. They’re built to last.”

 

Area III Sports Director Lonnie Herring credited volunteers with helping make the run a success.

 

“We had three drink tables on the trail and at the start and finish point,” he said. “We had BOSS bring in volunteers, folks standing on the road, and people handing out numbers and pace chips before the race.” The computerized chips, attached to the runners’ shoes, started and stopped when someone crossed the start and finish lines, giving everyone an accurate 10-mile time.

 

For all the logistics involved in having hundreds of people run 10 miles, Herring said most of the work was done beforehand.

 

“The pre-registration is the most time-consuming,” he said, also mentioning coordination with Military Police, road closures, medical considerations, and taxi and bus services being suspended. But all the work paid off in the end, Herring noted.

 

Prior to the run, entrants were addressed by USAG Humphreys Commander, Col. Joseph P. Moore.

 

“We’re here to have fun, and I hope your commanders told you that if you run this, there’s no P.T. tomorrow. Ten miles is no small task,” Moore said. “I’ve run this loop a lot at night. There’s plenty of light out there. The terrain is real friendly. There are no big hills, just a lot of open room to run.”

 

The top three finishers in the men’s 29 and under category were: Wbatt Reith (1:07:53); Samuel Smiths (1:09:09) and Daniel Bates (1:09:35). Following Anderson in the men’s 30-39 category were David Snow (1:12:41) and Nathan Stahl (1:18:02).

 

In the men’s 40-49 category, the top three finishers were Brett Bassett (1:14:49), Dan Burnett (1:17:06) and Felix Lassus (1:18:57). Leading the way in the men’s 50 and over category were Robert Nott (1:09:14), Mark Sullivan (1:09:57) and Kwon, Song-ki (1:19:23).

 

Following Rainville in the women’s 29 and under category were Kyle Wilson (1:22:20) and Liela Moser (1:26:01). In the women’s 30 and over category, top finishers were Sarah Stahl (1:20:45), Adam Leinen (1:27:52), and Jamila Moody (1:34:11). Taking the women’s over 40 crown was Kim, Hui-ok (1:37:06). In the women’s over 50 category, Barbara Garner (1:37:31) took first, followed by Susan Jentoft (1:43:23).

 

Photos courtesy U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys, FMWR Marketing

  

Click here to view the garrison’s official Facebook fan page

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some Background:

On 23 January 1992, the Lithuanian Minister of Defense signed an order establishing the staff for the Aviation Base of the Aviation Service. But an actual base in the Šiauliai airport territory (Barysiai airfield) was not established until March, when according to the ordinance of the Government of Lithuanian Republic, all the infrastructure, buildings, territory and 24 An-2 aircraft were passed from ”Lithuanian Airlines" to the Aviation Service of the Ministry of Defense in January 1992.

 

On 12 June 1992, the first time after regaining the independence of Lithuania, An-2 aircraft, marked with the double cross of Vytis on its wings – the distinguishing sign of Lithuanian Air Force – took off from Barysiai airfield. This date is considered to be the Aviation Base foundation date. In February 1993 four L-39C Albatros aircraft were brought from Kyrgyzstan.

 

After 1 March 1993 Aviation Service was reformed to the Lithuanian Air Force and Aviation Base was renamed the First Aviation Base of the Lithuanian Air Force. In January 1994 Lithuania officially applied for NATO membership, and the country also looked out for a relatively cheap multi-purpose fighter that would fulfill both air space defence and attack tasks, the latter primarily against potential targets at sea (e. g. fast hoovercraft landing ships operated by the Russian Baltic Fleet).

 

After evaluating several options, the Lithuanian Air Force settled for a surprising aircraft: the venerable MiG-21! After the demise of the Soviet Union, several international companies started to offer conversion and upgrade programs for the widely used tactical fighter, about 5.000 specimen had been built to date. One of the first companies to enter the market was Israel Aircraft Industries: IAI's Lahav Division of (IAI) had developed the so-called MiG-21 2000 upgraded fighter and ground attack version, based on the MiG-21bis and the export MiG-21MF fighter aircraft.

 

The MiG-21 2000 upgrade provided modifications to the cockpit configuration, avionics architecture and weapons systems, enabling the MiG-21 2000 to compete with Western developed fighters like the F-16 and to make the transition to Western standards. The aircraft's original systems and components were retained wherever mission effectiveness was not compromised.

IAI Lahav augmented the original weapons system by introducing an EL/M-2032 radar, developed by IAI Elta Electronic Industries, based in Ashdod. The radar, which uses a low sidelobe planar array antenna and pulse Doppler beam sharpening, provides all-altitude, all-aspect look-up / look-down and shoot-down capability, as well as beyond-visual-range capability. In order to make the radar compatible with Western ordnance, a new armament interface and control unit were added, too, which enabled computerized control and release of weapons, including third and fourth-generation air-to-air missiles and precision-guided munitions of Western and Eastern provenance.

 

This system also gave the pilot the ability to use blind attack as well as continuously computed impact point (CCIP) and dive-toss bombing techniques. CCIP bombing involves the deployment of air-to-ground weapons, using the HUD to indicate the impact point for release of the weapons. Dive-toss bombing involves the release of air-to-ground weapons at the end of a steep dive manoeuver towards the target.

 

The MiG-21 2000 cockpit featured a new pilot-friendly layout that overcame the shortcomings of the original cockpit layout, which was crowded and lacked most of the desired man-machine interface characteristics. It incorporated a head-up display (HUD), eye-level multifunction color displays, hands on throttle and stick control (HOTAS), solid-state charge coupled device (CCD) camera, videotape recorder, and a one-piece windshield.

 

The MiG-21 2000 could be equipped with a display and sight helmet (DASH) system, supplied by Elbit of Haifa, which enabled the pilot to aim the weapons simply by looking at the target. The system worked by measuring the pilot's line of sight relative to the aircraft, and transferred the information to the aircraft's sensors, avionics and weapon systems. The helmet displayed vital information, such as the missile line of sight, missile status, flight information and warning data, on the visor. The DASH helmet allowed the pilot to fly head-up and off-boresight and assisted the pilot to detect, identify and shoot earlier.

 

IAI Lahav's upgrade package could be tailored to meet the customer's specific operational and budgetary requirements - the Lithuanian package included the radar, cockpit and also the DASH update and was rumored to cost around 4 Mio. USD per aircraft, and Lithuania was, together with Romania (where 110 MiG-21 were to be updated), lead customer.

 

As conversion basis, Lithuania purchased fifteen MiG-21 airframes for an unknown sum from the Ukraine, which had inherited a considerable MiG-21 fleet after the demise of the Soviet Union but did not (want to) operate it. The deal included thirteen airworthy MiG-21bis fighters and two MiG-21U trainers with few flying hours on the clocks, and - stripped off any military equipment - the small fleet was gradually transferred as disassembled kits via air ferry in Antonov Airlines An-124 transporters to Aerostar in Romania for conversion, starting in early 1996.

 

The first batch of Lithuanian MiG-21 2000, three fighters and one trainer, arrived in mid-1997 from Bacau on their own power and with civil Ukrainian registrations, and the Lithuanian Air Force’s fighter squadron, the Naikintuvu Eskadra, became ready for service in February 1998.

The rest of the country’s small MiG-21 fleet was delivered in the course of the same year, and these aircraft were semi-officially christened "Globėjas" (Guardian). Since the late Nineties, the Globėjas fighters provide the backbone of Lithuania's air defenses, with aircraft holding Quick Reaction Alert. QRA missions – so-called Alpha Scrambles – have constantly been on the rise thanks to the Russia’s increased aggression towards NATO. The MiG’s have regularly launched to intercept and shadow Russian Air Force Il-20 intelligence gathering aircraft over the Baltic Sea, as well as Tu-16 and Tu-95 patrols and even some Sukhoi Su-27s.

 

Lithuanian pilots use “hit and run” style tactics to deal with air threats, due to the limited range and endurance of their mounts - but this is of little concern due to the country's relatively small size and the defensive nature of the machines' tasks. While the Globėjas lack a beyond-visual range missile, although they could carry one, they have the ability to carry a range of different short-range air-to-air missiles like the Israeli Python III, which Lithuania procured from Rafael in Haifa as primary air-to-air missile.

 

After Lithuania joined NATO organization in 2004, its (alongside Latvia's and Estonia's) air space has been protected by NATO. NATO members provide usually 4 fighter aircraft, based in Lithuania, to police the Baltic States’ airspace, where they support the Lithuanian MiG-21 fleet. The duties rotate between NATO members (which started in March 2004 with Belgium Air Force F-16s) and most NATO members that operate fighters have made temporary deployments to Lithuania.

 

The Lithuanian Globėjas were also in regular demand as a simulated threat, and have gone up against US F-16s, F-15s, F/A-18s and A-10s, as well as the many different European fighter types that frequently rotate into the small country, including the Eurofighter, German F-4F Phantom IIs or French Mirage 2000.

 

Anyway, the Globėjas' airframes sooner or later reached their flying hour limits, and will be phased out towards 2020. As a replacement Lithuania will begin taking delivery of its first batch of ex-Portuguese F-16s in 2016, while the Baltic States are considering in the near future to protect their airspace on their own.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 14.5 [126] m (47 ft 7 in)

Wingspan: 7.154 m (23 ft 6 in)

Height: 4 m (13 ft 6 in)

Wing area: 23.0 m² (247.3 ft²)

Empty weight: 5,846 kg (12,880 lb)

Gross weight: 8,825 kg (19,425 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1× Tumansky R25-300, rated at 40.21 kN (9,040 lbf) thrust dry

and 69.62 kN (15,650 lbf) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 2,175 km/h (1,351.48 mph)

Maximum speed: Mach 2.0

Landing speed: 350 km/h (190 kts)

Range: (internal fuel) 1,210 km (751 miles)

Service ceiling: 17,800 m (58,400 ft)

Rate of climb: 225 m/s (44,280 ft/min)

 

Armament:

1x internal 23 mm GSh-23 cannon

5x hardpoints for a wide range of guided and unguided ordnance of up to 3.310 lb (1.500 kg).

 

In QRA configuration the Lithuanian MiG-21 typically carry two or four Rafal Python III short

range air-to-air missiles and an 800l drop tank on the centerline pylon.

Against ground targets, unguided bombs of up to 1.100 lb (500kg) caliber or unguided rockets

can be carried; alternatively, a Rafael LITENING laser designation pod and three

Griffin Mk. 82 LGBs or a single Mk. 84 LGB can be carried, or optically guided weapons like up

to four AGM-65 Maverick or a single GBU-8.

  

The kit and its assembly:

This kit is the entry for the 2016 "One Week Group Build" at whatifmodelers.com, which ran from 29th of April until 8th May (so, actually nine days...). I had this project earmarked for the recent "Cold War" GB, but it fell outside of the build's time horizon. But despite the dubious kit as basis, I tackled the build since I had anything else already at hand.

 

The basis is the MiG-21-93 demonstrator kit from Ukrainian manufacturer Condor, one of the many reincarnations of the venerable KP MiG-21bis, but with some updates. You get, for instance, engraved, very fine panel lines, some typical details were added like the wraparound windscreen (wrong shape, though) and the radar warning fairing on the fin as well as an extra sprue with modern Russian ordnance – apparently from some other kit!

On the downside, there's overall mediocre fit due to the molds' age, some dubious details (anything appears softened or blurred…) or the simple lack thereof (e. g. there’s no ventral gun fairing at all). But there’s nothing that could not be mended, and after all this is just a whiffy version.

 

Since there was only one week time to build the thing and make beauty pics, the whole project remained close to OOB status, even though a lot of detail changes or additions were made in order to convert the Russian MiG-21-93 into an earlier but similar Israeli MiG-21 2000 derivative.

 

These mods include:

- A Martin Baker ejection seat, with wire trigger handles

- HUD made from clear styrene

- Lowered flaps

- An added jet pipe/interior for the otherwise bleak exhaust (parts from a Kangnam Yak-38)

- Hydraulic pipes on the landing gear, made from very thin wire

- Some more/different blade antennae

- Measuring vanes on the pitot boom

- Different GSh-23 gun fairing, from an Academy MiG-23

- Thinner blast deflector plates under the anti-surge doors

- A pair of Python III AAMs, plus respective launch rails

- Different centerline drop tank, from an F-5E

- Scratched chaff/flare dispensers under the rear fuselage (as carried by the MiG-21 2000 demonstrator)

 

Building the model went straightforward, but it took some putty work to fill some seams, dents and holes all around the kit. Biggest issue was a hole in front of the cockpit screen, where simply not enough styrene had been injected into the mould!

  

Painting and markings:

The Lithuanian Air Force as operator for this build was chosen because it would not only fit into the real world timeline (even though I doubt that there would have been any budget for this aircraft at that time, even if MiG-21s had not been upgraded at all...) and because the potential livery would be very simple: contemporary L-39 trainers, C-27L Spartan as well as some L-410 and Mi-8 transporters carry a uniform, dull grey livery. Why not apply it on an air superiority fighter, too?

 

Finding an appropriate tone was not easy, though. Some sources claim the grey tone to be FS 36306, others refer to FS 36270 or "close to Blue/Grey FS35237", but IMHO none of the cited Federal Standard tones works well. Real world Lithuanian aircraft appear pretty dark and dull, and the color also features a greenish, slate grey hue - it's a unique color indeed.

 

After some trials (and also wishing to avoid mixing) I settled for Humbrol 111 (German Field Grey, a.k.a. Uniform Grey) as basic tone. It's a rather dark choice, but I wanted some good contrast to the national markings. A full wraparound livery appeared a little too dark and boring, so I added light blue wing undersurfaces (Humbrol 115). The kit received a light black in wash and some panel shading, primarily in order to add some life to the otherwise uniform surface.

 

Details were painted according to real world MiG-21 pics: the cockpit became classic teal with light grey instrument panels, plus OOB decals for the dashboard and side consoles. The landing gear struts were painted in a light, metallic grey (Humbrol 127 + 56) while the wells were painted in an odd primer color, a mix of Aluminum, Sand and Olive Drab. Parts of the covers were painted with Humbrol 144 (Blue Grey), seen on a modernized real world MiG-21. The wheel discs became bright green.

 

IAI's MiG-21 2000 demonstrator from 1993 had a black radome (as well as later Romanian LanceR Cs), so I adapted this detail for my build. Other typical di-electric fairings on a MiG-21's hull were painted in slightly darker camouflage colors, while the fin's leading edge became dark grey.

The blast deflector plates received yellow and black warning stripes, and some potentially dangerous parts for the ground crews like the pointed anti-flutter booms were painted red. The Python IIIs were simply painted all-white, mounted on grey launch rails - a harsh contrast to the dull rest of the aircraft.

 

Main markings come from a Blue Rider Publishing aftermarket sheet for modern Lithuanian aircraft. This set also includes the small Air Force crests, which I put on the nose, as well as the typical, blue tactical codes.

The stencils come from the scrap box, the small Lithuanian flag stripes on the tail rudder were created from single decal stripes, a personal addition inspired by Lithuanian C-27J transporters. They add some more color to the otherwise murky Baltic MiG fighter.

The silver ring around the air intake as well as the stripes at the flaps and the rudder were created with simple decal stripes instead of paint.

 

Finally, after I added some graphite soot around the jet exhaust and some panle lines with a pencil (e .g. the blow-in doors and airbrake outlines), the kit was sealed with hardly thinned Revell matt acrylic varnish, trying to create a really dull finish.

  

A tough build, despite being mostly OOB, but the details took their toll. This Baltic MiG does not look flashy, but, with IAI's real world MiG-21 2000 as well as the LanceR conversion for Romania in the Nineties, this one is pretty plausible. And with the simple paint scheme, the MiG-21 looks even pretty chic!

Most of my non-computerized "moving picture" porn collection (including XXX, starring Vin Diesel, which I certainly didn't buy for the plot). NOTE: Those Triga DVDs aren't upside down, they're from England. Also note: 69 Gay Blow Jobs utilizes the "multi-angle" feature of early DVD technology, a deciding factor in its purchase... in 1998.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

 

Some background:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

  

General F-24A characteristics:

Crew: 1 pilot

Length: 47 ft 4 in (14.4 m)

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

Height: 13 ft 10 in (4.20 m)

Wing area: 36.55 m² (392 ft²)

Empty weight: 13.150 lb (5.090 kg)

Loaded weight: 15.480 lb (6.830 kg)

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

 

Powerplant

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

 

Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 2+

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

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

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

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

Wing loading: 70.0 lb/ft² (342 kg/m²)

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

 

Armament

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

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

  

The kit and its assembly:

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

  

Painting and markings:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

  

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

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

 

Some background:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

  

General F-24A characteristics:

Crew: 1 pilot

Length: 47 ft 4 in (14.4 m)

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

Height: 13 ft 10 in (4.20 m)

Wing area: 36.55 m² (392 ft²)

Empty weight: 13.150 lb (5.090 kg)

Loaded weight: 15.480 lb (6.830 kg)

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

 

Powerplant

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

 

Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 2+

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

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

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

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

Wing loading: 70.0 lb/ft² (342 kg/m²)

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

 

Armament

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

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

  

The kit and its assembly:

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

  

Painting and markings:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

  

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

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the 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.

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

Learn More

  

Korea hosts nighttime Army 10-miler

   

By W. Wayne Marlow, U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys, Public Affairs

  

CAMP HUMPHREYS, SOUTH KOREA – Over 300 runners from across the Korean peninsula took part in the second annual Army 10-miler Shadow Run hosted here Oct. 2.

 

First Lieutenant Robert Anderson of the 532nd Military Intelligence Battalion won the nighttime race, designed to mirror the Army’s annual run in Washington, D.C., in 1 hour, 3 minutes and 51 seconds. First Lieutenant Sarah Rainville took the women’s crown, finishing in 1:16:44.

 

Anderson said he initially thought only about doing his best and having a good run. But when some entrants passed him early in the race, his focused changed.

 

“I was going to try and take it easy ... but then an adrenaline rush hit and I decided to pick it up,” he said.

 

Anderson maintained a steady pace, running the second half in just two more minutes than he did the first five miles. “I felt good the whole time,” he said. “I felt like I had some left in the tank. I started training for it last year, so I’ve been upping my mileage.”

 

The Camp Humphreys shadow run will be shown on a large screen during the Army 10-miler in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 9, and Anderson plans to be there to watch it and participate in his second 10-miler of the week. “This was prep for that one,” he said.

 

Former United States Army Garrison Humphreys Command Sgt. Maj. Jason Kim fired the opening gun at 9 p.m. locally to coincide with the actual time the run will start in Washington D.C. Led by Kim’s replacement, Command Sgt. Maj. Spencer Gray, the runners started under the Super Gym walkway, then snaked their way around the airfield twice, ending up back at Super Gym.

 

“It’s an absolutely great event,” Gray said. “Soldiers work hard, so when you can do something like this to build esprit de corps, it’s a positive thing. It’s an opportunity for everyone to have a good time.”

 

The crisp, cool October air helped keep the runners fresh, as did rehydration stations manned by volunteers along the route. The constant encouragement by fellow runners and cheering from the sidelines helped push the runners toward the finish.

 

“It’s not too cold. It’s nice running weather,” Gray said. “You can always wear something to keep you warm, and if it gets too hot, you can dress down.”

 

Anderson agreed that the race featured ideal conditions. “It’s great weather, no overheating,” he said. “It’s the best weather for running.”

 

Anderson said he has three brothers in the Army who are also all enthusiastic runners, and there was another family connection of note. Specialist Charles Rodgers IV flew from Hawaii to run the race with his father, Charles Rodgers III, who manages Splish and Splash Water Park on Humphreys. The two finished with identical times of 1:32:40.

 

Besides ideal weather and enthusiastic observers, the runners were treated to replicas of Washington, D.C., monuments built by Jeffrey Hubbard of the USAG Humphreys Family, Morale Welfare and Recreation office. The replicas, made of Styrofoam and braced by wood supports, included the Vietnam Memorial, the Pentagon, the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Jefferson memorials, and the capitol. The project took about two weeks, according to Hubbard.

 

“It was to give everybody something extra to look at during the run and to do something different,” Hubbard said. “We figured looking at a poster would be kind of boring. We wanted to give them incentive to go and see the next one. They’ll be here next year. They’re built to last.”

 

Area III Sports Director Lonnie Herring credited volunteers with helping make the run a success.

 

“We had three drink tables on the trail and at the start and finish point,” he said. “We had BOSS bring in volunteers, folks standing on the road, and people handing out numbers and pace chips before the race.” The computerized chips, attached to the runners’ shoes, started and stopped when someone crossed the start and finish lines, giving everyone an accurate 10-mile time.

 

For all the logistics involved in having hundreds of people run 10 miles, Herring said most of the work was done beforehand.

 

“The pre-registration is the most time-consuming,” he said, also mentioning coordination with Military Police, road closures, medical considerations, and taxi and bus services being suspended. But all the work paid off in the end, Herring noted.

 

Prior to the run, entrants were addressed by USAG Humphreys Commander, Col. Joseph P. Moore.

 

“We’re here to have fun, and I hope your commanders told you that if you run this, there’s no P.T. tomorrow. Ten miles is no small task,” Moore said. “I’ve run this loop a lot at night. There’s plenty of light out there. The terrain is real friendly. There are no big hills, just a lot of open room to run.”

 

The top three finishers in the men’s 29 and under category were: Wbatt Reith (1:07:53); Samuel Smiths (1:09:09) and Daniel Bates (1:09:35). Following Anderson in the men’s 30-39 category were David Snow (1:12:41) and Nathan Stahl (1:18:02).

 

In the men’s 40-49 category, the top three finishers were Brett Bassett (1:14:49), Dan Burnett (1:17:06) and Felix Lassus (1:18:57). Leading the way in the men’s 50 and over category were Robert Nott (1:09:14), Mark Sullivan (1:09:57) and Kwon, Song-ki (1:19:23).

 

Following Rainville in the women’s 29 and under category were Kyle Wilson (1:22:20) and Liela Moser (1:26:01). In the women’s 30 and over category, top finishers were Sarah Stahl (1:20:45), Adam Leinen (1:27:52), and Jamila Moody (1:34:11). Taking the women’s over 40 crown was Kim, Hui-ok (1:37:06). In the women’s over 50 category, Barbara Garner (1:37:31) took first, followed by Susan Jentoft (1:43:23).

 

Photos by Edward N. Johnson, U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys, PAO

 

Learn More

Learn More

  

Humphreys hosts Army 10-miler shadow run

   

By W. Wayne Marlow, U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys, Public Affairs

  

CAMP HUMPHREYS, SOUTH KOREA – Over 300 runners from across the Korean peninsula took part in the second annual Army 10-miler Shadow Run hosted here Oct. 2.

 

First Lieutenant Robert Anderson of the 532nd Military Intelligence Battalion won the nighttime race, designed to mirror the Army’s annual run in Washington, D.C., in 1 hour, 3 minutes and 51 seconds. First Lieutenant Sarah Rainville took the women’s crown, finishing in 1:16:44.

 

Anderson said he initially thought only about doing his best and having a good run. But when some entrants passed him early in the race, his focused changed.

 

“I was going to try and take it easy ... but then an adrenaline rush hit and I decided to pick it up,” he said.

 

Anderson maintained a steady pace, running the second half in just two more minutes than he did the first five miles. “I felt good the whole time,” he said. “I felt like I had some left in the tank. I started training for it last year, so I’ve been upping my mileage.”

 

The Camp Humphreys shadow run will be shown on a large screen during the Army 10-miler in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 9, and Anderson plans to be there to watch it and participate in his second 10-miler of the week. “This was prep for that one,” he said.

 

Former United States Army Garrison Humphreys Command Sgt. Maj. Jason Kim fired the opening gun at 9 p.m. locally to coincide with the actual time the run will start in Washington D.C. Led by Kim’s replacement, Command Sgt. Maj. Spencer Gray, the runners started under the Super Gym walkway, then snaked their way around the airfield twice, ending up back at Super Gym.

 

“It’s an absolutely great event,” Gray said. “Soldiers work hard, so when you can do something like this to build esprit de corps, it’s a positive thing. It’s an opportunity for everyone to have a good time.”

 

The crisp, cool October air helped keep the runners fresh, as did rehydration stations manned by volunteers along the route. The constant encouragement by fellow runners and cheering from the sidelines helped push the runners toward the finish.

 

“It’s not too cold. It’s nice running weather,” Gray said. “You can always wear something to keep you warm, and if it gets too hot, you can dress down.”

 

Anderson agreed that the race featured ideal conditions. “It’s great weather, no overheating,” he said. “It’s the best weather for running.”

 

Anderson said he has three brothers in the Army who are also all enthusiastic runners, and there was another family connection of note. Specialist Charles Rodgers IV flew from Hawaii to run the race with his father, Charles Rodgers III, who manages Splish and Splash Water Park on Humphreys. The two finished with identical times of 1:32:40.

 

Besides ideal weather and enthusiastic observers, the runners were treated to replicas of Washington, D.C., monuments built by Jeffrey Hubbard of the USAG Humphreys Family, Morale Welfare and Recreation office. The replicas, made of Styrofoam and braced by wood supports, included the Vietnam Memorial, the Pentagon, the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Jefferson memorials, and the capitol. The project took about two weeks, according to Hubbard.

 

“It was to give everybody something extra to look at during the run and to do something different,” Hubbard said. “We figured looking at a poster would be kind of boring. We wanted to give them incentive to go and see the next one. They’ll be here next year. They’re built to last.”

 

Area III Sports Director Lonnie Herring credited volunteers with helping make the run a success.

 

“We had three drink tables on the trail and at the start and finish point,” he said. “We had BOSS bring in volunteers, folks standing on the road, and people handing out numbers and pace chips before the race.” The computerized chips, attached to the runners’ shoes, started and stopped when someone crossed the start and finish lines, giving everyone an accurate 10-mile time.

 

For all the logistics involved in having hundreds of people run 10 miles, Herring said most of the work was done beforehand.

 

“The pre-registration is the most time-consuming,” he said, also mentioning coordination with Military Police, road closures, medical considerations, and taxi and bus services being suspended. But all the work paid off in the end, Herring noted.

 

Prior to the run, entrants were addressed by USAG Humphreys Commander, Col. Joseph P. Moore.

 

“We’re here to have fun, and I hope your commanders told you that if you run this, there’s no P.T. tomorrow. Ten miles is no small task,” Moore said. “I’ve run this loop a lot at night. There’s plenty of light out there. The terrain is real friendly. There are no big hills, just a lot of open room to run.”

 

The top three finishers in the men’s 29 and under category were: Wbatt Reith (1:07:53); Samuel Smiths (1:09:09) and Daniel Bates (1:09:35). Following Anderson in the men’s 30-39 category were David Snow (1:12:41) and Nathan Stahl (1:18:02).

 

In the men’s 40-49 category, the top three finishers were Brett Bassett (1:14:49), Dan Burnett (1:17:06) and Felix Lassus (1:18:57). Leading the way in the men’s 50 and over category were Robert Nott (1:09:14), Mark Sullivan (1:09:57) and Kwon, Song-ki (1:19:23).

 

Following Rainville in the women’s 29 and under category were Kyle Wilson (1:22:20) and Liela Moser (1:26:01). In the women’s 30 and over category, top finishers were Sarah Stahl (1:20:45), Adam Leinen (1:27:52), and Jamila Moody (1:34:11). Taking the women’s over 40 crown was Kim, Hui-ok (1:37:06). In the women’s over 50 category, Barbara Garner (1:37:31) took first, followed by Susan Jentoft (1:43:23).

 

Photos courtesy U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys, FMWR Marketing

  

Click here to view the garrison’s official Facebook fan page

+++ 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.

PHOTO CAPTION: First Lieutenant Robert Anderson of the 532nd Military Intelligence Battalion bolts toward the finish line while running in Camp Humphreys' second annual Army 10-Miler Shadow Run, Oct. 2. Anderson won the race in 1 hour, 3 minutes and 51 seconds. First Lieutenant Sarah Rainville took the women's crown, finishing in 1:16:44. The race kicked off at 9 p.m. in Korea and was timed to coincide with the traditional start of the Army's annual 10-miler in Washington D.C. scheduled for Oct. 9. U.S. Army photo by Edward N. Johnson

 

Learn More

  

Korea hosts nighttime Army 10-miler

   

By W. Wayne Marlow, U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys, Public Affairs

  

CAMP HUMPHREYS, SOUTH KOREA – Over 300 runners from across the Korean peninsula took part in the second annual Army 10-miler Shadow Run hosted here Oct. 2.

 

First Lieutenant Robert Anderson of the 532nd Military Intelligence Battalion won the nighttime race, designed to mirror the Army’s annual run in Washington, D.C., in 1 hour, 3 minutes and 51 seconds. First Lieutenant Sarah Rainville took the women’s crown, finishing in 1:16:44.

 

Anderson said he initially thought only about doing his best and having a good run. But when some entrants passed him early in the race, his focused changed.

 

“I was going to try and take it easy ... but then an adrenaline rush hit and I decided to pick it up,” he said.

 

Anderson maintained a steady pace, running the second half in just two more minutes than he did the first five miles. “I felt good the whole time,” he said. “I felt like I had some left in the tank. I started training for it last year, so I’ve been upping my mileage.”

 

The Camp Humphreys shadow run will be shown on a large screen during the Army 10-miler in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 9, and Anderson plans to be there to watch it and participate in his second 10-miler of the week. “This was prep for that one,” he said.

 

Former United States Army Garrison Humphreys Command Sgt. Maj. Jason Kim fired the opening gun at 9 p.m. locally to coincide with the actual time the run will start in Washington D.C. Led by Kim’s replacement, Command Sgt. Maj. Spencer Gray, the runners started under the Super Gym walkway, then snaked their way around the airfield twice, ending up back at Super Gym.

 

“It’s an absolutely great event,” Gray said. “Soldiers work hard, so when you can do something like this to build esprit de corps, it’s a positive thing. It’s an opportunity for everyone to have a good time.”

 

The crisp, cool October air helped keep the runners fresh, as did rehydration stations manned by volunteers along the route. The constant encouragement by fellow runners and cheering from the sidelines helped push the runners toward the finish.

 

“It’s not too cold. It’s nice running weather,” Gray said. “You can always wear something to keep you warm, and if it gets too hot, you can dress down.”

 

Anderson agreed that the race featured ideal conditions. “It’s great weather, no overheating,” he said. “It’s the best weather for running.”

 

Anderson said he has three brothers in the Army who are also all enthusiastic runners, and there was another family connection of note. Specialist Charles Rodgers IV flew from Hawaii to run the race with his father, Charles Rodgers III, who manages Splish and Splash Water Park on Humphreys. The two finished with identical times of 1:32:40.

 

Besides ideal weather and enthusiastic observers, the runners were treated to replicas of Washington, D.C., monuments built by Jeffrey Hubbard of the USAG Humphreys Family, Morale Welfare and Recreation office. The replicas, made of Styrofoam and braced by wood supports, included the Vietnam Memorial, the Pentagon, the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Jefferson memorials, and the capitol. The project took about two weeks, according to Hubbard.

 

“It was to give everybody something extra to look at during the run and to do something different,” Hubbard said. “We figured looking at a poster would be kind of boring. We wanted to give them incentive to go and see the next one. They’ll be here next year. They’re built to last.”

 

Area III Sports Director Lonnie Herring credited volunteers with helping make the run a success.

 

“We had three drink tables on the trail and at the start and finish point,” he said. “We had BOSS bring in volunteers, folks standing on the road, and people handing out numbers and pace chips before the race.” The computerized chips, attached to the runners’ shoes, started and stopped when someone crossed the start and finish lines, giving everyone an accurate 10-mile time.

 

For all the logistics involved in having hundreds of people run 10 miles, Herring said most of the work was done beforehand.

 

“The pre-registration is the most time-consuming,” he said, also mentioning coordination with Military Police, road closures, medical considerations, and taxi and bus services being suspended. But all the work paid off in the end, Herring noted.

 

Prior to the run, entrants were addressed by USAG Humphreys Commander, Col. Joseph P. Moore.

 

“We’re here to have fun, and I hope your commanders told you that if you run this, there’s no P.T. tomorrow. Ten miles is no small task,” Moore said. “I’ve run this loop a lot at night. There’s plenty of light out there. The terrain is real friendly. There are no big hills, just a lot of open room to run.”

 

The top three finishers in the men’s 29 and under category were: Wbatt Reith (1:07:53); Samuel Smiths (1:09:09) and Daniel Bates (1:09:35). Following Anderson in the men’s 30-39 category were David Snow (1:12:41) and Nathan Stahl (1:18:02).

 

In the men’s 40-49 category, the top three finishers were Brett Bassett (1:14:49), Dan Burnett (1:17:06) and Felix Lassus (1:18:57). Leading the way in the men’s 50 and over category were Robert Nott (1:09:14), Mark Sullivan (1:09:57) and Kwon, Song-ki (1:19:23).

 

Following Rainville in the women’s 29 and under category were Kyle Wilson (1:22:20) and Liela Moser (1:26:01). In the women’s 30 and over category, top finishers were Sarah Stahl (1:20:45), Adam Leinen (1:27:52), and Jamila Moody (1:34:11). Taking the women’s over 40 crown was Kim, Hui-ok (1:37:06). In the women’s over 50 category, Barbara Garner (1:37:31) took first, followed by Susan Jentoft (1:43:23).

 

Photos by Edward N. Johnson, U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys, PAO

 

Learn More

+++ 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.

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

Learn More

  

Humphreys hosts Army 10-miler shadow run

   

By W. Wayne Marlow, U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys, Public Affairs

  

CAMP HUMPHREYS, SOUTH KOREA – Over 300 runners from across the Korean peninsula took part in the second annual Army 10-miler Shadow Run hosted here Oct. 2.

 

First Lieutenant Robert Anderson of the 532nd Military Intelligence Battalion won the nighttime race, designed to mirror the Army’s annual run in Washington, D.C., in 1 hour, 3 minutes and 51 seconds. First Lieutenant Sarah Rainville took the women’s crown, finishing in 1:16:44.

 

Anderson said he initially thought only about doing his best and having a good run. But when some entrants passed him early in the race, his focused changed.

 

“I was going to try and take it easy ... but then an adrenaline rush hit and I decided to pick it up,” he said.

 

Anderson maintained a steady pace, running the second half in just two more minutes than he did the first five miles. “I felt good the whole time,” he said. “I felt like I had some left in the tank. I started training for it last year, so I’ve been upping my mileage.”

 

The Camp Humphreys shadow run will be shown on a large screen during the Army 10-miler in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 9, and Anderson plans to be there to watch it and participate in his second 10-miler of the week. “This was prep for that one,” he said.

 

Former United States Army Garrison Humphreys Command Sgt. Maj. Jason Kim fired the opening gun at 9 p.m. locally to coincide with the actual time the run will start in Washington D.C. Led by Kim’s replacement, Command Sgt. Maj. Spencer Gray, the runners started under the Super Gym walkway, then snaked their way around the airfield twice, ending up back at Super Gym.

 

“It’s an absolutely great event,” Gray said. “Soldiers work hard, so when you can do something like this to build esprit de corps, it’s a positive thing. It’s an opportunity for everyone to have a good time.”

 

The crisp, cool October air helped keep the runners fresh, as did rehydration stations manned by volunteers along the route. The constant encouragement by fellow runners and cheering from the sidelines helped push the runners toward the finish.

 

“It’s not too cold. It’s nice running weather,” Gray said. “You can always wear something to keep you warm, and if it gets too hot, you can dress down.”

 

Anderson agreed that the race featured ideal conditions. “It’s great weather, no overheating,” he said. “It’s the best weather for running.”

 

Anderson said he has three brothers in the Army who are also all enthusiastic runners, and there was another family connection of note. Specialist Charles Rodgers IV flew from Hawaii to run the race with his father, Charles Rodgers III, who manages Splish and Splash Water Park on Humphreys. The two finished with identical times of 1:32:40.

 

Besides ideal weather and enthusiastic observers, the runners were treated to replicas of Washington, D.C., monuments built by Jeffrey Hubbard of the USAG Humphreys Family, Morale Welfare and Recreation office. The replicas, made of Styrofoam and braced by wood supports, included the Vietnam Memorial, the Pentagon, the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Jefferson memorials, and the capitol. The project took about two weeks, according to Hubbard.

 

“It was to give everybody something extra to look at during the run and to do something different,” Hubbard said. “We figured looking at a poster would be kind of boring. We wanted to give them incentive to go and see the next one. They’ll be here next year. They’re built to last.”

 

Area III Sports Director Lonnie Herring credited volunteers with helping make the run a success.

 

“We had three drink tables on the trail and at the start and finish point,” he said. “We had BOSS bring in volunteers, folks standing on the road, and people handing out numbers and pace chips before the race.” The computerized chips, attached to the runners’ shoes, started and stopped when someone crossed the start and finish lines, giving everyone an accurate 10-mile time.

 

For all the logistics involved in having hundreds of people run 10 miles, Herring said most of the work was done beforehand.

 

“The pre-registration is the most time-consuming,” he said, also mentioning coordination with Military Police, road closures, medical considerations, and taxi and bus services being suspended. But all the work paid off in the end, Herring noted.

 

Prior to the run, entrants were addressed by USAG Humphreys Commander, Col. Joseph P. Moore.

 

“We’re here to have fun, and I hope your commanders told you that if you run this, there’s no P.T. tomorrow. Ten miles is no small task,” Moore said. “I’ve run this loop a lot at night. There’s plenty of light out there. The terrain is real friendly. There are no big hills, just a lot of open room to run.”

 

The top three finishers in the men’s 29 and under category were: Wbatt Reith (1:07:53); Samuel Smiths (1:09:09) and Daniel Bates (1:09:35). Following Anderson in the men’s 30-39 category were David Snow (1:12:41) and Nathan Stahl (1:18:02).

 

In the men’s 40-49 category, the top three finishers were Brett Bassett (1:14:49), Dan Burnett (1:17:06) and Felix Lassus (1:18:57). Leading the way in the men’s 50 and over category were Robert Nott (1:09:14), Mark Sullivan (1:09:57) and Kwon, Song-ki (1:19:23).

 

Following Rainville in the women’s 29 and under category were Kyle Wilson (1:22:20) and Liela Moser (1:26:01). In the women’s 30 and over category, top finishers were Sarah Stahl (1:20:45), Adam Leinen (1:27:52), and Jamila Moody (1:34:11). Taking the women’s over 40 crown was Kim, Hui-ok (1:37:06). In the women’s over 50 category, Barbara Garner (1:37:31) took first, followed by Susan Jentoft (1:43:23).

 

Photos courtesy U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys, FMWR Marketing

  

Click here to view the garrison’s official Facebook fan page

Fashion design is the art of the application of design and aesthetics or natural beauty to clothing and accessories. Fashion design is influenced by cultural and social latitudes, and has varied over time and place. Fashion designers work in a number of ways in designing clothing and accessories such as bracelets and necklace, because of the time required to bring a garment onto the market, must at times anticipate changing consumer tastes.

 

Fashion designers attempt to design clothes which are functional as well as aesthetically pleasing. They must consider who is likely to wear a garment and the situations in which it will be worn. They have a wide range and combinations of materials to work with and a wide range of colors, patterns and styles to choose from. Though most clothing worn for everyday wear falls within a narrow range of conventional styles, unusual garments are usually sought for special occasions such as evening wear or party dresses.

 

Some clothes are made specifically for an individual, as in the case of haute couture or bespoke tailoring. Today, most clothing is designed for the mass market, especially casual and every-day wear.

Structure[edit]

Fashion designers can work in a number of many ways. Fashion designers may work full-time for one fashion as 'in-house designers' which owns the designs. They may work alone or as part of a team. Freelance designers work for themselves, selling their designs to fashion houses, directly to shops, or to clothing manufacturers. The garments bear the buyer's label. Some fashion designers set up their own labels, under which their designs are marketed. Some fashion designers are self-employed and design for individual clients. Other high-fashion designers cater to specialty stores or high-fashion department stores. These designers create original garments, as well as those that follow established fashion trends. Most fashion designers, however, work for apparel manufacturers, creating designs of men’s, women’s, and children’s fashions for the mass market. Large designer brands which have a 'name' as their brand such as Abercrombie & Fitch, Justice, or Juicy are likely to be designed by a team of individual designers under the direction of a designer director.

 

Designing a garment[edit]

Fashion designers work in different ways. Some sketch their ideas on paper, while others drape fabric on a dress form. When a designer is completely satisfied with the fit of the toile (or muslin), he or she will consult a professional pattern maker who then makes the finished, working version of the pattern out of card or via a computerized system. The pattern maker's job is very precise and painstaking. The fit of the finished garment depends on their accuracy. Finally, a sample garment is made up and tested on a model to make sure it is an operational outfit.

Fashion design is generally considered to have started in the 19th century with Charles Frederick Worth who was the first designer to have his label sewn into the garments that he created. Before the former draper set up his maison couture (fashion house) in Paris, clothing design and creation was handled by largely anonymous seamstresses, and high fashion descended from that worn at royal courts. Worth's success was such that he was able to dictate to his customers what they should wear, instead of following their lead as earlier dressmakers had done. The term couturier was in fact first created in order to describe him. While all articles of clothing from any time period are studied by academics as costume design, only clothing created after 1858 are considered as fashion design.

 

It was during this period that many design houses began to hire artists to sketch or paint designs for garments. The images were shown to clients, which was much cheaper than producing an actual sample garment in the workroom. If the client liked their design, they ordered it and the resulting garment made money for the house. Thus, the tradition of designers sketching out garment designs instead of presenting completed garments on models to customers began as an economy.

The garments produced by clothing manufacturers fall into three main categories, although these may be split up into additional, more specific categories

 

Haute couture[edit]

Main article: Haute couture

Until the 1950s, fashion clothing was predominately designed and manufactured on a made-to-measure or haute couture basis (French for high-sewing), with each garment being created for a specific client. A couture garment is made to order for an individual customer, and is usually made from high-quality, expensive fabric, sewn with extreme attention to detail and finish, often using time-consuming, hand-executed techniques. Look and fit take priority over the cost of materials and the time it takes to make.[1][2] Due to the high cost of each garment, haute couture makes little direct profit for the fashion houses, but is important for prestige and publicity.[3]

 

Ready-to-wear (pret-a-porter)[edit]

Main article: Ready-to-wear

Ready-to-wear clothes are a cross between haute couture and mass market. They are not made for individual customers, but great care is taken in the choice and cut of the fabric. Clothes are made in small quantities to guarantee exclusivity, so they are rather expensive. Ready-to-wear collections are usually presented by fashion houses each season during a period known as Fashion Week. This takes place on a city-wide basis and occurs twice a year. The main seasons of Fashion Week include, spring/summer, fall/winter, resort, swim, and bridal.

 

Mass market[edit]

Main article: Mass market

Currently the fashion industry relies more on mass market sales. The mass market caters for a wide range of customers, producing ready-to-wear garments using trends set by the famous names in fashion. They often wait around a season to make sure a style is going to catch on before producing their own versions of the original look. In order to save money and time, they use cheaper fabrics and simpler production techniques which can easily be done by machine. The end product can therefore be sold much more cheaply.[4][5][6]

 

There is a type of design called "kutch" design originated from the German word "kitschig" meaning "ugly" or "not aesthetically pleasing." Kitsch can also refer to "wearing or displaying something that is therefore no longer in fashion."[7] Often, high-waisted trousers, associated with the 1980s, are considered a "kitsch" fashion statement.[8]

 

Income[edit]

Globe icon.

The examples and perspective in this section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (December 2010)

Median annual wages for salaried fashion designers were $61,160 in May 2008. The middle 50 percent earned between $42,150 and $87,120.[9] The lowest 10 percent earned less than $32,150, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $124,780. Median annual earnings were $52,860 (£28,340) in apparel, piece goods, and notions - the industry employing the largest numbers of fashion designers.[10]

 

Learn More

  

Humphreys hosts Army 10-miler shadow run

   

By W. Wayne Marlow, U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys, Public Affairs

  

CAMP HUMPHREYS, SOUTH KOREA – Over 300 runners from across the Korean peninsula took part in the second annual Army 10-miler Shadow Run hosted here Oct. 2.

 

First Lieutenant Robert Anderson of the 532nd Military Intelligence Battalion won the nighttime race, designed to mirror the Army’s annual run in Washington, D.C., in 1 hour, 3 minutes and 51 seconds. First Lieutenant Sarah Rainville took the women’s crown, finishing in 1:16:44.

 

Anderson said he initially thought only about doing his best and having a good run. But when some entrants passed him early in the race, his focused changed.

 

“I was going to try and take it easy ... but then an adrenaline rush hit and I decided to pick it up,” he said.

 

Anderson maintained a steady pace, running the second half in just two more minutes than he did the first five miles. “I felt good the whole time,” he said. “I felt like I had some left in the tank. I started training for it last year, so I’ve been upping my mileage.”

 

The Camp Humphreys shadow run will be shown on a large screen during the Army 10-miler in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 9, and Anderson plans to be there to watch it and participate in his second 10-miler of the week. “This was prep for that one,” he said.

 

Former United States Army Garrison Humphreys Command Sgt. Maj. Jason Kim fired the opening gun at 9 p.m. locally to coincide with the actual time the run will start in Washington D.C. Led by Kim’s replacement, Command Sgt. Maj. Spencer Gray, the runners started under the Super Gym walkway, then snaked their way around the airfield twice, ending up back at Super Gym.

 

“It’s an absolutely great event,” Gray said. “Soldiers work hard, so when you can do something like this to build esprit de corps, it’s a positive thing. It’s an opportunity for everyone to have a good time.”

 

The crisp, cool October air helped keep the runners fresh, as did rehydration stations manned by volunteers along the route. The constant encouragement by fellow runners and cheering from the sidelines helped push the runners toward the finish.

 

“It’s not too cold. It’s nice running weather,” Gray said. “You can always wear something to keep you warm, and if it gets too hot, you can dress down.”

 

Anderson agreed that the race featured ideal conditions. “It’s great weather, no overheating,” he said. “It’s the best weather for running.”

 

Anderson said he has three brothers in the Army who are also all enthusiastic runners, and there was another family connection of note. Specialist Charles Rodgers IV flew from Hawaii to run the race with his father, Charles Rodgers III, who manages Splish and Splash Water Park on Humphreys. The two finished with identical times of 1:32:40.

 

Besides ideal weather and enthusiastic observers, the runners were treated to replicas of Washington, D.C., monuments built by Jeffrey Hubbard of the USAG Humphreys Family, Morale Welfare and Recreation office. The replicas, made of Styrofoam and braced by wood supports, included the Vietnam Memorial, the Pentagon, the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Jefferson memorials, and the capitol. The project took about two weeks, according to Hubbard.

 

“It was to give everybody something extra to look at during the run and to do something different,” Hubbard said. “We figured looking at a poster would be kind of boring. We wanted to give them incentive to go and see the next one. They’ll be here next year. They’re built to last.”

 

Area III Sports Director Lonnie Herring credited volunteers with helping make the run a success.

 

“We had three drink tables on the trail and at the start and finish point,” he said. “We had BOSS bring in volunteers, folks standing on the road, and people handing out numbers and pace chips before the race.” The computerized chips, attached to the runners’ shoes, started and stopped when someone crossed the start and finish lines, giving everyone an accurate 10-mile time.

 

For all the logistics involved in having hundreds of people run 10 miles, Herring said most of the work was done beforehand.

 

“The pre-registration is the most time-consuming,” he said, also mentioning coordination with Military Police, road closures, medical considerations, and taxi and bus services being suspended. But all the work paid off in the end, Herring noted.

 

Prior to the run, entrants were addressed by USAG Humphreys Commander, Col. Joseph P. Moore.

 

“We’re here to have fun, and I hope your commanders told you that if you run this, there’s no P.T. tomorrow. Ten miles is no small task,” Moore said. “I’ve run this loop a lot at night. There’s plenty of light out there. The terrain is real friendly. There are no big hills, just a lot of open room to run.”

 

The top three finishers in the men’s 29 and under category were: Wbatt Reith (1:07:53); Samuel Smiths (1:09:09) and Daniel Bates (1:09:35). Following Anderson in the men’s 30-39 category were David Snow (1:12:41) and Nathan Stahl (1:18:02).

 

In the men’s 40-49 category, the top three finishers were Brett Bassett (1:14:49), Dan Burnett (1:17:06) and Felix Lassus (1:18:57). Leading the way in the men’s 50 and over category were Robert Nott (1:09:14), Mark Sullivan (1:09:57) and Kwon, Song-ki (1:19:23).

 

Following Rainville in the women’s 29 and under category were Kyle Wilson (1:22:20) and Liela Moser (1:26:01). In the women’s 30 and over category, top finishers were Sarah Stahl (1:20:45), Adam Leinen (1:27:52), and Jamila Moody (1:34:11). Taking the women’s over 40 crown was Kim, Hui-ok (1:37:06). In the women’s over 50 category, Barbara Garner (1:37:31) took first, followed by Susan Jentoft (1:43:23).

 

Photos courtesy U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys, FMWR Marketing

  

Click here to view the garrison’s official Facebook fan page

1984 (part 3 of 3)

 

September 4, 1984

Progressive Conservative candidates Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton) and Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton) won their seats in the federal election. Kanata Standard, September 6, 1984:1.

 

September 5, 1984

Art Lamarche was appointed as the City of Kanata’s Carleton Separate School Board trustee. He was replacing Bill Broadfoot who was transferred to Washington. Kanata Standard, September 13, 1984:2.

 

September 6, 1984

Mitel Corporation announced entering into an agreement with the Ministry of Chinese Electronics Industry. The value of the contract was approximately $1.8 million. Kanata Standard, September 6, 1984:10.

 

September 6, 1984

Trillium Telephone Systems Inc. of Kanata signed a manufacturing agreement with Arfeen International Limited of Pakistan. The agreement was valued at $2.9 million. Kanata Standard, September 6, 1984:10.

 

September 6, 1984

The Auditor’s Report for the City of Kanata was published in the Standard. Kanata Standard, September 6, 1984:12-13.

 

September 9, 1984

An opening service of the Kanata Pentecostal Church was held at A.Y. Jackson Secondary School. Kanata Standard, August 23, 1984:20.

 

September 10, 1984

Enrollment figures were released by the Carleton Board of Education that reflected a slight increase from the previous year. Kanata Standard, September 20, 1984:1.

 

September 11, 1984

Kanata City Council hired a consultant to study Kanata’s policing situation. By January 1985, Mercer, Hinckling-Johnson was to complete a report identifying the costs and implications of four policing options that faced Council. Kanata Standard, September 20, 1984:1.

 

September 11, 1984

A study presented to Kanata City Council by City Engineer John Harkness proved that 20,000 vehicles go in each direction between Hazeldean Road and the Kanata North Industrial Park area each day. Kanata Standard, September 27, 1984:1.

 

September 12, 1984

Regional Council decided, by a slim margin, not to purchase the contentious 870 acres of wilderness land in the Carp hills. A development company and owner of the land, Aselford-Bradley, had proposed a subdivision and residential construction. The land was considered unique because there was almost no housing in the area and it was “full of wildlife.” Council had previously designated the area as “marginal resource restricted.” There had been mounting pressure on Regional Council to purchase the land for preservation, particularly from the Carp Hills Action Committee. There was much debate in the Council meeting on the size of development, the role of Council, and the meaning of land in a “natural state.” Kanata Standard, September 20, 1984:1,10.

 

September 13, 1984

A warning was published in the Standard of a youth in the area attempting to molest girls aged 5-11 in tot lots. Kanata Standard, September 13, 1984:1.

 

September 13, 1984

It was reported in the Standard that Beaverbrook sewers were in the process of being repaired, at a cost of $98,000. Kanata Standard, September 13, 1984:1.

 

September 13, 1984

Angie Taylor wrote an article in the Standard which stated that since the June 1 implementation of the Neighbourhood Watch Program, twenty crimes had been solved as a result of calls from the public to the O.P.P. Kanata Standard, September 13, 1984:5.

 

September 13, 1984

It was reported that the Hazeldean branch of the Kanata Library became computerized, at a cost of $6,000. Kanata Standard, September 13, 1984:7.

 

September 13, 1984

An inaugural meeting was held for the Kanata Senior Citizens Association. A brief formal meeting introduced the new Board of Directors and a draft Constitution. Kanata Standard, September 20, 1984:5.

 

September 18, 1984

Kanata City Council was presented with a report from the Finance Department that forecasted a mill rate increase for 1985 of 17.5 percent. In his March Notebook, Des Adam stressed: “There is nothing gained by postponing the inevitable. Before we set the tax rate for 1985, we must have a very good projection for at least the next two or three years.” Kanata Standard, September 27, 1984:3.

 

September 21, 1984

Chris’s Convenience Store was officially opened. It was located in a renovated heritage building on Dunrobin Road. Kanata Standard, October 4, 1984:10.

 

September 22, 1984

The Castlefrank Co-operative Homes Inc. complex opened in Glen Cairn. This was Kanata’s first housing co-op. Kanata Standard, September 27, 1984:9.

 

September 24, 1984

A new Seniors’ Drop-In Centre, located in the Mlacak Centre, was officially opened. Kanata Standard, September 27, 1984:7.

 

September 24, 1984

Steinbergs, in the Hazeldean Mall, began opening 24 hours a day. At the time, no other stores in the Mall intended to extend their hours. Kanata Standard, September 13, 1984:1.

 

September 24, 1984

The results of the first meeting of the season for the Kanata Beaverbrook Community Association meeting appeared in the Standard. The new Executive included Hillel Kaslove, Bob Hillary, Larry Demchuk, Erm Boyd, and Tom Rimmer. Kanata Standard, September 20, 1984:4.

 

September 25, 1984

Northern Telecom announced an $80 million expansion to their Corkstown Road complex. Kanata Standard, September 27, 1984:1.

 

September 25, 1984

Kanata City Council agreed to increase their own salaries by five percent. This brought the salary of Aldermen to $9,312 and the Mayor’s to $28,653. Kanata Standard, October 4, 1984:1.

 

September 26, 1984

Regional Council voted a second time in favour of a subdivision in the Carp Hills. They had approved the housing project on September 12, but agreed to reconsider the matter in this meeting. Marey Gregory of the Carp Hills Action Committee stated that the decision would be challenged in the Supreme Court of Ontario. Kanata Standard, October 4, 1984:1.

 

September 27, 1984

Trillium Telephone Systems Inc. of Kanata announced an increase in revenue for the second quarter ending August 24. Kanata Standard, September 27, 1984:11.

 

September 27, 1984

The Board of Directors of Mitel Corporation declared a quarterly dividend. Kanata Standard, September 27, 1984:11.

 

September 27, 1984

The Kanata Town Centre celebrated its 3rd Anniversary. Kanata Standard, September 27, 1984:13-15.

 

September 29, 1984

The Glen Cairn Tennis Club held its Annual Awards Banquet. Kanata Standard, October 4, 1984:17.

 

September 30 1984

The Old Quarry Trail was officially opened. The 1.5-km trail provided better access to various Greenbelt areas with interpretative stations. Kanata Standard, October 4, 1984:2.

 

October 2, 1984

Kanata City Council defeated a call for the return of the death penalty on a 3 to 2 vote. Alderman Eva James had asked Council to support a resolution asking Parliament to reinstate capital punishment “specifically for the offence of slaying of police officers and prison guards.” Aldermen Adam, Niebergall, and Lund voted against the motion. The motion was in response to recent police killings in Toronto and Nepean. Kanata Standard, October 4, 1984:1.

 

October 2, 1984

It was reported in the Standard that Katimavik-Hazeldean resident David Paul Bartolucci, 18, was charged with break and entering. Nearly $10,000 of merchandise was stolen from a local residence. Kanata Standard, October 4, 1984:1.

 

October 4, 1984

A.Y. Jackson Secondary School held their graduation ceremony, where a record 224 students received diplomas. Shelley McKay was Valedictorian. Kanata Standard, October 11, 1984:5.

 

October 4, 1984

Kanata’s first motel, the Journey’s End Motel, was officially opened. Kanata Standard, October 11, 1984:10.

 

October 9, 1984

Red Oaks Development Ltd. presented a housing proposal for Glamorgan Drive in Glen Cairn to the Policy and Operations Committee. The company required an Official Plan amendment to rezone the land to from low to medium density. Kanata Standard, October 18, 1984:1.

 

October 9, 1984

Kanata City Council decided to oppose Ontario Hydro’s proposed high-voltage transmission line route through Bridlewood. Opposition had previously been voiced at a public meeting on September 19. Kanata Standard, October 18, 1984:1.

 

October 10, 1984

The five Kanata community associations held a joint meeting to discuss issues of common interest. The result was that a joint committee would be formed to make recommendations on various matters. Kanata Standard, November 1, 1984:3.

 

October 11, 1984

Hans Daigeler was selected as the Liberal provincial candidate for the riding of Carleton. Kanata Standard, October 11, 1984:1.

 

October 20, 1984

Two janitorial women working in the Professional Building on Castlefrank Road in Katimavik were beaten and stabbed with a screwdriver in the middle of the afternoon. An Ottawa man, Claude John Larocque, was arrested later the next night and charged with two counts of attempted murder. Kanata Standard, October 25, 1984:1; Kanata Standard, November 22, 1984:1.

 

October 21, 1984

The Annual Mitel 10k race was held. Steve Findlay finished first with a time of 31 minutes, 15 seconds. Kanata Standard, October 25, 1984:14.

 

October 23, 1984

Kanata City Council denied Iber Homes approval for a revised plan on their 24-acre site in Katimavik-Hazeldean. The 196 unit proposal was defeated on a 2 -2 vote. There was a strong concern from residents that the plan fell outside the boundaries of the Kanata Concept, which was to have all single-unit dwellings. Mayor Wilkinson disagreed, stating that the original concept was not that restrictive, and always meant to have all types of housing. Aldermen Niebergall and Adam both thought the Iber plan did not reflect the wishes of the community. Niebergall later stated, in his Katimavik-Hazeldean Report: “Frankly, this turkey deserved to be defeated.” This is site had been in controversy since 1975. Kanata Standard, November 1, 1984:1,2, 3.

 

October 24, 1984

The Kanata Theatre opened Critic’s Choice, a play by Ira Levin. Ron Maslin, Justin Haynes, and Gwendy Tolley appeared in the production. Kanata Standard, October 25, 1984:7.

 

October 25, 1984

The Carleton Board of Education released its final statistics on enrollment. Schools in Kanata had the second highest growth rate. Kanata Standard, October 25, 1984:1,3.

 

October 25, 1984

It was reported in the Standard that Mitel Corporation had been recording losses for the past five out of six quarters. A company spokesmen, Bob Wright, stated that Mitel believed they were at the start of a “turnaround.” Kanata Standard, October 25, 1984:12.

 

October 28, 1984

Three members of the Kanata Judo Club won second place medals in a meet in Ottawa. They were Karen McDonald, Patrick Taylor, and Amnon Harel. Kanata Standard, December 6, 1984:18.

 

November 1, 1984

Days of Yore, a gift shop in Hazeldean Mall, closed its doors. It was the second closure in the Mall in less than five weeks. Kanata Standard, November 1, 1984:1

 

November 1, 1984

Grant Gelinas reported in the Standard that Kanata had been “snubbed” by Nepean in the hydro line issue. Kanata was attempting to reroute Ontario Hydro’s proposed lines away from the middle of Bridlewood. Nepean City Council voted to support the proposed route because “strictly from Nepean’s point of view,” Bridlewood was seen as the best option. An editorial in the Standard explained that this was a case of the NIMBY syndrome (Not In My Back Yard) that was becoming more prevalent in society. Kanata Standard, November 1, 1984:1,2.

 

November 4, 1984

Kanata’s largest park was dedicated “Walter Baker Park.” Kanata Standard, November 8, 1984:1.

 

November 6, 1984

A Citizen Task Force Committee was formed to deal with the proposed Ontario Hydro transmission line at upcoming hearings. Kanata Standard, November 15, 1984:1.

 

November 6, 1984

Campeau Corporation sought approval for the construction of a warehouse in the Kanata North Business Park. After some debate, primarily with regard to company not going through proper mechanisms for approval in an attempt to begin construction sooner, the building of the warehouse was approved. Kanata Standard, November 15, 1984:1.

 

November 8, 1984

Paul Dick, MP for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton, was appointed Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader Ray Hnatyshyn. Kanata Standard, November 8, 1984:2.

 

November 13, 1984

Kanata City Council once again debated the Iber Homes land development proposal. Kanata Standard, November 22, 1984:2.

 

November 15, 1984

It was reported that Hydro rates would increase an average of 4.6 percent in 1985. Kanata Standard, November 15, 1984:1.

 

November 15, 1984

It was reported that Kanata City Council had served formal notice to increase its representation on Regional Council to 2 out of 32 seats. A Standard editorial claimed that this action was long overdue. Kanata Standard, November 15, 1984:1,2.

 

November 15, 1984

The Annual General Meeting of the Pinhey’s Point Foundation was held. The newly elected Executive was Bill Berry, Bruce Elliott, Marianne Wilkinson, Jennifer Roddick, Moira Dunbar, Isabelle Jones, and Ralph Latte. Kanata Standard, December 6, 1984:6.

 

November 20, 1984

The consultant’s report commissioned by Kanata City Council to deal with the issue of policing in Kanata was released. It recommended that Kanata pay the Ontario Provincial Police for protection through its local detachment rather than contract out to Nepean or set up an independent force. A future public meeting would further explore the issue. Kanata Standard, November 22, 1984:1.

 

November 20, 1984

Nepean City Council reversed a past decision and decided to support Kanata’s attempt to divert a planned Ontario Hydro high-voltage transmission line away from Bridlewood. Kanata Standard, November 22, 1984:1.

 

November 20, 1984

Kanata City Council delayed approval of a plan to build 24 townhouse units on Glamorgan Drive in Glen Cairn in order to allow residents in the area the opportunity to meet with the developer. The plan was presented by Red Oaks Development Ltd. A petition with over 100 signatures opposed to the development was presented to Council. Kanata Standard, November 29, 1984:1.

 

November 20, 1984

Kanata City Council approved an amendment by Iber homes to rezone 24 acres of land south of Kakulu Road. After much debate and voting down of previous plans presented to Council by Iber, this decision required a significant section of the Iber lands to be zoned single family. Paul Niebergall stated in his Katimavik-Hazeldean Report: “I congratulate Council in resisting significant pressure from the developer to adopt its plan based on Iber’s requirement of a certain number of units, failing which, implicitly, an appeal would be launched to the O.M.B. Council chose to place the single family dwelling component in that aspect of the Iber plan that would least impact Iber’s need for a certain number of units. The result was a reduction of total units from 196 to 182 approximately.” Kanata Standard, December 13, 1984:4.

 

November 22, 1984

Six Kanata skaters went to Whitby, Ontario to represent the Glen Cairn Figure Skating Club at the Eastern Ontario Section Championships. The were Jane Dowling, Stephanie Mullins, Nerys Parry, Leanne Smith, Susie Stewart, and Erin Montgomery. Erin Montgomery and Jane Dowling advanced to the finals. Kanata Standard, November 22, 1984:16; Kanata Standard, December 13, 1984:29.

 

November 22, 1984

Mitel Corporation closed the sale of its semi-conductor plant in the United States. A company spokesman said that it would help the company with recent losses over the past year. Kanata Standard, November 22, 1984:20.

 

November 23, 1984

The Earl of March Secondary School held graduation ceremonies. Sue Scott was Valedictorian. Kanata Standard, November 29, 1984:8.

 

November 26, 1984

A new Professional Centre in Kanata was officially opened, located on Kakulu Road. The $2 million development was already fully rented. Kanata Standard, November 29, 1984:29.

 

November 27, 1984

Kanata City Council voted in favour of negotiating a contract with the O.P.P. for police protection, in line with the recommendation of a recently released consultant’s report on the issue. The previous day a public meeting was also held, and the general consensus was that an independent force was not a viable option at the time. A Standard editorial questioned an apparent “lack of interest” by the community on this issue, “as demonstrated by only about 50 citizens, out of a population of 25,000, being sufficiently concerned to go to the public meeting.” Kanata Standard, November 29, 1984:1,3.

 

November 28, 1984

Regional Council approved new traffic lights at the corner of Eagleson and Kakulu Roads. Kanata Standard, December 6, 1984:1.

 

November 29, 1984

It was reported in the Standard that the newly completed recreational facility of the Dunrobin Community Association was open. Kanata Standard, November 29, 1984:7; Kanata Standard, December 6, 1984:4.

 

November 30, 1984

The Kanata-Hazeldean Lioness Club held a gala social to celebrate receiving its Charter. The club’s Charter Officers were Eleanor Bellefeuille, Sheila Maxwell, Colleen Laliberte, Clare Redtman, Pearl Brule, and Marilyn Desormeaux. Kanata Standard, December 6, 1984:5.

 

December 3 , 1984

The Mr. Gas station on Old Highway 17 was robbed in the evening by three males. Martin Murphy was working alone at the time. One Ottawa man was arrested. Kanata Standard, December 6, 1984:1.

 

December 3, 1984

Kanata City Council ended their review of the 1985 operating budget. Cuts had been made to the budget to minimize the tax increase at 13 percent. Kanata Standard, December 6, 1984:1.

 

December 4, 1984

Hugh Connelly from Goulbourn/Rideau ward was elected Chairman of the Carleton Roman Catholic Separate School Board. Kanata Standard, December 20, 1984:5.

 

December 6, 1984

Arctec Canada Ltd. won government contracts worth $71,000 and $225,000. Much of the company’s research focused on shipping in the Arctic. Kanata Standard, December 6, 1984:1.

 

December 8, 1984

Nine Kanata residents were awarded Bicentennial Medals at a special ceremony held in the Congress Centre. They were: Graham Ball, Bill Berry, Erm Boyd, Hank Docter, Barbara Farmer, Doug Foster, Linda Makela, Marilyn Foster, and Art Lamarche. Kanata Standard, December 13, 1984:1-2.

 

December 9, 1984

A new Kanata subdivision, Loch March Estates, was officially opened, located on the Old Carp Road in rural Kanata. Kanata Standard, December 20, 1984:29.

 

December 11, 1984

Kanata City Council rejected the proposal by Red Oaks Development Ltd. to build 24 townhouse units on Glamorgan Drive in Glen Cairn. There had been resistance from residents in the area. Also, there had been a meeting between residents and the developer on December 5 in which no compromise was met. People were concerned that a townhouse development may turn into rental units. The site was presently zoned for 16 semi-detached units. Norm Campbell, of Red Oaks, said that with the refusal he may look at the possibility of building 9 semi-detached units on the site, a proposal that would not require any change in zoning. He added that if that were to happen, it would be built as rentals due to the high cost of development, and further stated: “I wonder what a rental community will do to the area.” Kanata Standard, December 13, 1984:1.

 

December 11, 1984

Kanata Trustee Hal Hansen was elected Chairman of the Carleton Board of Education for 1985. Kanata Standard, December 20, 1984:2.

 

December 13, 1984

Mitel Corporation announced that it was putting one-sixth of its workforce on a four-day workweek to prevent further layoffs. As part of a government work-sharing program, 60 percent of the lost day’s wages would be covered by unemployment insurance. Kanata Standard, December 13, 1984:1.

 

December 16, 1984

The March Kanata Skating Club held its Annual Competition at the Mlacak Arena. Kanata Standard, December 20, 1984:35.

 

December 17, 1984

Kanata City Council received a report of the Task Force on Long Range Planning set up by the Ottawa-Carleton Regional District Health Council stating that the Grace Hospital should immediately begin planning a move from Ottawa to Kanata. Kanata Standard, December 20, 1984:1.

 

December 18, 1984

Kanata City Council granted $20,000 to the Citizen Task Force Committee to prepare a case against Ontario Hydro’s proposed transmission line through Bridlewood. Kanata Standard, December 20, 1984:1.

 

December 18, 1984

Kanata City Council approved a plan by Costain for a new 377-house subdivision in Bridlewood, located north of the CPR tracks adjacent to Eagleson Road. This site had been added to Kanata’s Official Plan in June, 1984. Kanata Standard, December 20, 1984:1.

 

December 20, 1984

It was reported in the Standard that the Kanata Sailing Club had elected new a Executive at its Annual General Meeting, which included Doug Milne, Phil Baudouin, Jim Thompson, Ken Eaves, Mike Farrell, Bob Myhill and Phil O’Grady.

 

December 26, 1984

A fire on Boxing Day at 8 Coady Way in Beaverbrook Mansions caused an estimated $30,000 damage. Fire officials were unable to determine the cause of the fire. Kanata Standard, January 3, 1985:1.

  

Learn More

  

Humphreys hosts Army 10-miler shadow run

   

By W. Wayne Marlow, U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys, Public Affairs

  

CAMP HUMPHREYS, SOUTH KOREA – Over 300 runners from across the Korean peninsula took part in the second annual Army 10-miler Shadow Run hosted here Oct. 2.

 

First Lieutenant Robert Anderson of the 532nd Military Intelligence Battalion won the nighttime race, designed to mirror the Army’s annual run in Washington, D.C., in 1 hour, 3 minutes and 51 seconds. First Lieutenant Sarah Rainville took the women’s crown, finishing in 1:16:44.

 

Anderson said he initially thought only about doing his best and having a good run. But when some entrants passed him early in the race, his focused changed.

 

“I was going to try and take it easy ... but then an adrenaline rush hit and I decided to pick it up,” he said.

 

Anderson maintained a steady pace, running the second half in just two more minutes than he did the first five miles. “I felt good the whole time,” he said. “I felt like I had some left in the tank. I started training for it last year, so I’ve been upping my mileage.”

 

The Camp Humphreys shadow run will be shown on a large screen during the Army 10-miler in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 9, and Anderson plans to be there to watch it and participate in his second 10-miler of the week. “This was prep for that one,” he said.

 

Former United States Army Garrison Humphreys Command Sgt. Maj. Jason Kim fired the opening gun at 9 p.m. locally to coincide with the actual time the run will start in Washington D.C. Led by Kim’s replacement, Command Sgt. Maj. Spencer Gray, the runners started under the Super Gym walkway, then snaked their way around the airfield twice, ending up back at Super Gym.

 

“It’s an absolutely great event,” Gray said. “Soldiers work hard, so when you can do something like this to build esprit de corps, it’s a positive thing. It’s an opportunity for everyone to have a good time.”

 

The crisp, cool October air helped keep the runners fresh, as did rehydration stations manned by volunteers along the route. The constant encouragement by fellow runners and cheering from the sidelines helped push the runners toward the finish.

 

“It’s not too cold. It’s nice running weather,” Gray said. “You can always wear something to keep you warm, and if it gets too hot, you can dress down.”

 

Anderson agreed that the race featured ideal conditions. “It’s great weather, no overheating,” he said. “It’s the best weather for running.”

 

Anderson said he has three brothers in the Army who are also all enthusiastic runners, and there was another family connection of note. Specialist Charles Rodgers IV flew from Hawaii to run the race with his father, Charles Rodgers III, who manages Splish and Splash Water Park on Humphreys. The two finished with identical times of 1:32:40.

 

Besides ideal weather and enthusiastic observers, the runners were treated to replicas of Washington, D.C., monuments built by Jeffrey Hubbard of the USAG Humphreys Family, Morale Welfare and Recreation office. The replicas, made of Styrofoam and braced by wood supports, included the Vietnam Memorial, the Pentagon, the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Jefferson memorials, and the capitol. The project took about two weeks, according to Hubbard.

 

“It was to give everybody something extra to look at during the run and to do something different,” Hubbard said. “We figured looking at a poster would be kind of boring. We wanted to give them incentive to go and see the next one. They’ll be here next year. They’re built to last.”

 

Area III Sports Director Lonnie Herring credited volunteers with helping make the run a success.

 

“We had three drink tables on the trail and at the start and finish point,” he said. “We had BOSS bring in volunteers, folks standing on the road, and people handing out numbers and pace chips before the race.” The computerized chips, attached to the runners’ shoes, started and stopped when someone crossed the start and finish lines, giving everyone an accurate 10-mile time.

 

For all the logistics involved in having hundreds of people run 10 miles, Herring said most of the work was done beforehand.

 

“The pre-registration is the most time-consuming,” he said, also mentioning coordination with Military Police, road closures, medical considerations, and taxi and bus services being suspended. But all the work paid off in the end, Herring noted.

 

Prior to the run, entrants were addressed by USAG Humphreys Commander, Col. Joseph P. Moore.

 

“We’re here to have fun, and I hope your commanders told you that if you run this, there’s no P.T. tomorrow. Ten miles is no small task,” Moore said. “I’ve run this loop a lot at night. There’s plenty of light out there. The terrain is real friendly. There are no big hills, just a lot of open room to run.”

 

The top three finishers in the men’s 29 and under category were: Wbatt Reith (1:07:53); Samuel Smiths (1:09:09) and Daniel Bates (1:09:35). Following Anderson in the men’s 30-39 category were David Snow (1:12:41) and Nathan Stahl (1:18:02).

 

In the men’s 40-49 category, the top three finishers were Brett Bassett (1:14:49), Dan Burnett (1:17:06) and Felix Lassus (1:18:57). Leading the way in the men’s 50 and over category were Robert Nott (1:09:14), Mark Sullivan (1:09:57) and Kwon, Song-ki (1:19:23).

 

Following Rainville in the women’s 29 and under category were Kyle Wilson (1:22:20) and Liela Moser (1:26:01). In the women’s 30 and over category, top finishers were Sarah Stahl (1:20:45), Adam Leinen (1:27:52), and Jamila Moody (1:34:11). Taking the women’s over 40 crown was Kim, Hui-ok (1:37:06). In the women’s over 50 category, Barbara Garner (1:37:31) took first, followed by Susan Jentoft (1:43:23).

 

Photos courtesy U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys, FMWR Marketing

  

Click here to view the garrison’s official Facebook fan page

Learn More

  

Humphreys hosts Army 10-miler shadow run

   

By W. Wayne Marlow, U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys, Public Affairs

  

CAMP HUMPHREYS, SOUTH KOREA – Over 300 runners from across the Korean peninsula took part in the second annual Army 10-miler Shadow Run hosted here Oct. 2.

 

First Lieutenant Robert Anderson of the 532nd Military Intelligence Battalion won the nighttime race, designed to mirror the Army’s annual run in Washington, D.C., in 1 hour, 3 minutes and 51 seconds. First Lieutenant Sarah Rainville took the women’s crown, finishing in 1:16:44.

 

Anderson said he initially thought only about doing his best and having a good run. But when some entrants passed him early in the race, his focused changed.

 

“I was going to try and take it easy ... but then an adrenaline rush hit and I decided to pick it up,” he said.

 

Anderson maintained a steady pace, running the second half in just two more minutes than he did the first five miles. “I felt good the whole time,” he said. “I felt like I had some left in the tank. I started training for it last year, so I’ve been upping my mileage.”

 

The Camp Humphreys shadow run will be shown on a large screen during the Army 10-miler in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 9, and Anderson plans to be there to watch it and participate in his second 10-miler of the week. “This was prep for that one,” he said.

 

Former United States Army Garrison Humphreys Command Sgt. Maj. Jason Kim fired the opening gun at 9 p.m. locally to coincide with the actual time the run will start in Washington D.C. Led by Kim’s replacement, Command Sgt. Maj. Spencer Gray, the runners started under the Super Gym walkway, then snaked their way around the airfield twice, ending up back at Super Gym.

 

“It’s an absolutely great event,” Gray said. “Soldiers work hard, so when you can do something like this to build esprit de corps, it’s a positive thing. It’s an opportunity for everyone to have a good time.”

 

The crisp, cool October air helped keep the runners fresh, as did rehydration stations manned by volunteers along the route. The constant encouragement by fellow runners and cheering from the sidelines helped push the runners toward the finish.

 

“It’s not too cold. It’s nice running weather,” Gray said. “You can always wear something to keep you warm, and if it gets too hot, you can dress down.”

 

Anderson agreed that the race featured ideal conditions. “It’s great weather, no overheating,” he said. “It’s the best weather for running.”

 

Anderson said he has three brothers in the Army who are also all enthusiastic runners, and there was another family connection of note. Specialist Charles Rodgers IV flew from Hawaii to run the race with his father, Charles Rodgers III, who manages Splish and Splash Water Park on Humphreys. The two finished with identical times of 1:32:40.

 

Besides ideal weather and enthusiastic observers, the runners were treated to replicas of Washington, D.C., monuments built by Jeffrey Hubbard of the USAG Humphreys Family, Morale Welfare and Recreation office. The replicas, made of Styrofoam and braced by wood supports, included the Vietnam Memorial, the Pentagon, the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Jefferson memorials, and the capitol. The project took about two weeks, according to Hubbard.

 

“It was to give everybody something extra to look at during the run and to do something different,” Hubbard said. “We figured looking at a poster would be kind of boring. We wanted to give them incentive to go and see the next one. They’ll be here next year. They’re built to last.”

 

Area III Sports Director Lonnie Herring credited volunteers with helping make the run a success.

 

“We had three drink tables on the trail and at the start and finish point,” he said. “We had BOSS bring in volunteers, folks standing on the road, and people handing out numbers and pace chips before the race.” The computerized chips, attached to the runners’ shoes, started and stopped when someone crossed the start and finish lines, giving everyone an accurate 10-mile time.

 

For all the logistics involved in having hundreds of people run 10 miles, Herring said most of the work was done beforehand.

 

“The pre-registration is the most time-consuming,” he said, also mentioning coordination with Military Police, road closures, medical considerations, and taxi and bus services being suspended. But all the work paid off in the end, Herring noted.

 

Prior to the run, entrants were addressed by USAG Humphreys Commander, Col. Joseph P. Moore.

 

“We’re here to have fun, and I hope your commanders told you that if you run this, there’s no P.T. tomorrow. Ten miles is no small task,” Moore said. “I’ve run this loop a lot at night. There’s plenty of light out there. The terrain is real friendly. There are no big hills, just a lot of open room to run.”

 

The top three finishers in the men’s 29 and under category were: Wbatt Reith (1:07:53); Samuel Smiths (1:09:09) and Daniel Bates (1:09:35). Following Anderson in the men’s 30-39 category were David Snow (1:12:41) and Nathan Stahl (1:18:02).

 

In the men’s 40-49 category, the top three finishers were Brett Bassett (1:14:49), Dan Burnett (1:17:06) and Felix Lassus (1:18:57). Leading the way in the men’s 50 and over category were Robert Nott (1:09:14), Mark Sullivan (1:09:57) and Kwon, Song-ki (1:19:23).

 

Following Rainville in the women’s 29 and under category were Kyle Wilson (1:22:20) and Liela Moser (1:26:01). In the women’s 30 and over category, top finishers were Sarah Stahl (1:20:45), Adam Leinen (1:27:52), and Jamila Moody (1:34:11). Taking the women’s over 40 crown was Kim, Hui-ok (1:37:06). In the women’s over 50 category, Barbara Garner (1:37:31) took first, followed by Susan Jentoft (1:43:23).

 

Photos courtesy U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys, FMWR Marketing

  

Click here to view the garrison’s official Facebook fan page

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some Background:

On 23 January 1992, the Lithuanian Minister of Defense signed an order establishing the staff for the Aviation Base of the Aviation Service. But an actual base in the Šiauliai airport territory (Barysiai airfield) was not established until March, when according to the ordinance of the Government of Lithuanian Republic, all the infrastructure, buildings, territory and 24 An-2 aircraft were passed from ”Lithuanian Airlines" to the Aviation Service of the Ministry of Defense in January 1992.

 

On 12 June 1992, the first time after regaining the independence of Lithuania, An-2 aircraft, marked with the double cross of Vytis on its wings – the distinguishing sign of Lithuanian Air Force – took off from Barysiai airfield. This date is considered to be the Aviation Base foundation date. In February 1993 four L-39C Albatros aircraft were brought from Kyrgyzstan.

 

After 1 March 1993 Aviation Service was reformed to the Lithuanian Air Force and Aviation Base was renamed the First Aviation Base of the Lithuanian Air Force. In January 1994 Lithuania officially applied for NATO membership, and the country also looked out for a relatively cheap multi-purpose fighter that would fulfill both air space defence and attack tasks, the latter primarily against potential targets at sea (e. g. fast hoovercraft landing ships operated by the Russian Baltic Fleet).

 

After evaluating several options, the Lithuanian Air Force settled for a surprising aircraft: the venerable MiG-21! After the demise of the Soviet Union, several international companies started to offer conversion and upgrade programs for the widely used tactical fighter, about 5.000 specimen had been built to date. One of the first companies to enter the market was Israel Aircraft Industries: IAI's Lahav Division of (IAI) had developed the so-called MiG-21 2000 upgraded fighter and ground attack version, based on the MiG-21bis and the export MiG-21MF fighter aircraft.

 

The MiG-21 2000 upgrade provided modifications to the cockpit configuration, avionics architecture and weapons systems, enabling the MiG-21 2000 to compete with Western developed fighters like the F-16 and to make the transition to Western standards. The aircraft's original systems and components were retained wherever mission effectiveness was not compromised.

IAI Lahav augmented the original weapons system by introducing an EL/M-2032 radar, developed by IAI Elta Electronic Industries, based in Ashdod. The radar, which uses a low sidelobe planar array antenna and pulse Doppler beam sharpening, provides all-altitude, all-aspect look-up / look-down and shoot-down capability, as well as beyond-visual-range capability. In order to make the radar compatible with Western ordnance, a new armament interface and control unit were added, too, which enabled computerized control and release of weapons, including third and fourth-generation air-to-air missiles and precision-guided munitions of Western and Eastern provenance.

 

This system also gave the pilot the ability to use blind attack as well as continuously computed impact point (CCIP) and dive-toss bombing techniques. CCIP bombing involves the deployment of air-to-ground weapons, using the HUD to indicate the impact point for release of the weapons. Dive-toss bombing involves the release of air-to-ground weapons at the end of a steep dive manoeuver towards the target.

 

The MiG-21 2000 cockpit featured a new pilot-friendly layout that overcame the shortcomings of the original cockpit layout, which was crowded and lacked most of the desired man-machine interface characteristics. It incorporated a head-up display (HUD), eye-level multifunction color displays, hands on throttle and stick control (HOTAS), solid-state charge coupled device (CCD) camera, videotape recorder, and a one-piece windshield.

 

The MiG-21 2000 could be equipped with a display and sight helmet (DASH) system, supplied by Elbit of Haifa, which enabled the pilot to aim the weapons simply by looking at the target. The system worked by measuring the pilot's line of sight relative to the aircraft, and transferred the information to the aircraft's sensors, avionics and weapon systems. The helmet displayed vital information, such as the missile line of sight, missile status, flight information and warning data, on the visor. The DASH helmet allowed the pilot to fly head-up and off-boresight and assisted the pilot to detect, identify and shoot earlier.

 

IAI Lahav's upgrade package could be tailored to meet the customer's specific operational and budgetary requirements - the Lithuanian package included the radar, cockpit and also the DASH update and was rumored to cost around 4 Mio. USD per aircraft, and Lithuania was, together with Romania (where 110 MiG-21 were to be updated), lead customer.

 

As conversion basis, Lithuania purchased fifteen MiG-21 airframes for an unknown sum from the Ukraine, which had inherited a considerable MiG-21 fleet after the demise of the Soviet Union but did not (want to) operate it. The deal included thirteen airworthy MiG-21bis fighters and two MiG-21U trainers with few flying hours on the clocks, and - stripped off any military equipment - the small fleet was gradually transferred as disassembled kits via air ferry in Antonov Airlines An-124 transporters to Aerostar in Romania for conversion, starting in early 1996.

 

The first batch of Lithuanian MiG-21 2000, three fighters and one trainer, arrived in mid-1997 from Bacau on their own power and with civil Ukrainian registrations, and the Lithuanian Air Force’s fighter squadron, the Naikintuvu Eskadra, became ready for service in February 1998.

The rest of the country’s small MiG-21 fleet was delivered in the course of the same year, and these aircraft were semi-officially christened "Globėjas" (Guardian). Since the late Nineties, the Globėjas fighters provide the backbone of Lithuania's air defenses, with aircraft holding Quick Reaction Alert. QRA missions – so-called Alpha Scrambles – have constantly been on the rise thanks to the Russia’s increased aggression towards NATO. The MiG’s have regularly launched to intercept and shadow Russian Air Force Il-20 intelligence gathering aircraft over the Baltic Sea, as well as Tu-16 and Tu-95 patrols and even some Sukhoi Su-27s.

 

Lithuanian pilots use “hit and run” style tactics to deal with air threats, due to the limited range and endurance of their mounts - but this is of little concern due to the country's relatively small size and the defensive nature of the machines' tasks. While the Globėjas lack a beyond-visual range missile, although they could carry one, they have the ability to carry a range of different short-range air-to-air missiles like the Israeli Python III, which Lithuania procured from Rafael in Haifa as primary air-to-air missile.

 

After Lithuania joined NATO organization in 2004, its (alongside Latvia's and Estonia's) air space has been protected by NATO. NATO members provide usually 4 fighter aircraft, based in Lithuania, to police the Baltic States’ airspace, where they support the Lithuanian MiG-21 fleet. The duties rotate between NATO members (which started in March 2004 with Belgium Air Force F-16s) and most NATO members that operate fighters have made temporary deployments to Lithuania.

 

The Lithuanian Globėjas were also in regular demand as a simulated threat, and have gone up against US F-16s, F-15s, F/A-18s and A-10s, as well as the many different European fighter types that frequently rotate into the small country, including the Eurofighter, German F-4F Phantom IIs or French Mirage 2000.

 

Anyway, the Globėjas' airframes sooner or later reached their flying hour limits, and will be phased out towards 2020. As a replacement Lithuania will begin taking delivery of its first batch of ex-Portuguese F-16s in 2016, while the Baltic States are considering in the near future to protect their airspace on their own.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 14.5 [126] m (47 ft 7 in)

Wingspan: 7.154 m (23 ft 6 in)

Height: 4 m (13 ft 6 in)

Wing area: 23.0 m² (247.3 ft²)

Empty weight: 5,846 kg (12,880 lb)

Gross weight: 8,825 kg (19,425 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1× Tumansky R25-300, rated at 40.21 kN (9,040 lbf) thrust dry

and 69.62 kN (15,650 lbf) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 2,175 km/h (1,351.48 mph)

Maximum speed: Mach 2.0

Landing speed: 350 km/h (190 kts)

Range: (internal fuel) 1,210 km (751 miles)

Service ceiling: 17,800 m (58,400 ft)

Rate of climb: 225 m/s (44,280 ft/min)

 

Armament:

1x internal 23 mm GSh-23 cannon

5x hardpoints for a wide range of guided and unguided ordnance of up to 3.310 lb (1.500 kg).

 

In QRA configuration the Lithuanian MiG-21 typically carry two or four Rafal Python III short

range air-to-air missiles and an 800l drop tank on the centerline pylon.

Against ground targets, unguided bombs of up to 1.100 lb (500kg) caliber or unguided rockets

can be carried; alternatively, a Rafael LITENING laser designation pod and three

Griffin Mk. 82 LGBs or a single Mk. 84 LGB can be carried, or optically guided weapons like up

to four AGM-65 Maverick or a single GBU-8.

  

The kit and its assembly:

This kit is the entry for the 2016 "One Week Group Build" at whatifmodelers.com, which ran from 29th of April until 8th May (so, actually nine days...). I had this project earmarked for the recent "Cold War" GB, but it fell outside of the build's time horizon. But despite the dubious kit as basis, I tackled the build since I had anything else already at hand.

 

The basis is the MiG-21-93 demonstrator kit from Ukrainian manufacturer Condor, one of the many reincarnations of the venerable KP MiG-21bis, but with some updates. You get, for instance, engraved, very fine panel lines, some typical details were added like the wraparound windscreen (wrong shape, though) and the radar warning fairing on the fin as well as an extra sprue with modern Russian ordnance – apparently from some other kit!

On the downside, there's overall mediocre fit due to the molds' age, some dubious details (anything appears softened or blurred…) or the simple lack thereof (e. g. there’s no ventral gun fairing at all). But there’s nothing that could not be mended, and after all this is just a whiffy version.

 

Since there was only one week time to build the thing and make beauty pics, the whole project remained close to OOB status, even though a lot of detail changes or additions were made in order to convert the Russian MiG-21-93 into an earlier but similar Israeli MiG-21 2000 derivative.

 

These mods include:

- A Martin Baker ejection seat, with wire trigger handles

- HUD made from clear styrene

- Lowered flaps

- An added jet pipe/interior for the otherwise bleak exhaust (parts from a Kangnam Yak-38)

- Hydraulic pipes on the landing gear, made from very thin wire

- Some more/different blade antennae

- Measuring vanes on the pitot boom

- Different GSh-23 gun fairing, from an Academy MiG-23

- Thinner blast deflector plates under the anti-surge doors

- A pair of Python III AAMs, plus respective launch rails

- Different centerline drop tank, from an F-5E

- Scratched chaff/flare dispensers under the rear fuselage (as carried by the MiG-21 2000 demonstrator)

 

Building the model went straightforward, but it took some putty work to fill some seams, dents and holes all around the kit. Biggest issue was a hole in front of the cockpit screen, where simply not enough styrene had been injected into the mould!

  

Painting and markings:

The Lithuanian Air Force as operator for this build was chosen because it would not only fit into the real world timeline (even though I doubt that there would have been any budget for this aircraft at that time, even if MiG-21s had not been upgraded at all...) and because the potential livery would be very simple: contemporary L-39 trainers, C-27L Spartan as well as some L-410 and Mi-8 transporters carry a uniform, dull grey livery. Why not apply it on an air superiority fighter, too?

 

Finding an appropriate tone was not easy, though. Some sources claim the grey tone to be FS 36306, others refer to FS 36270 or "close to Blue/Grey FS35237", but IMHO none of the cited Federal Standard tones works well. Real world Lithuanian aircraft appear pretty dark and dull, and the color also features a greenish, slate grey hue - it's a unique color indeed.

 

After some trials (and also wishing to avoid mixing) I settled for Humbrol 111 (German Field Grey, a.k.a. Uniform Grey) as basic tone. It's a rather dark choice, but I wanted some good contrast to the national markings. A full wraparound livery appeared a little too dark and boring, so I added light blue wing undersurfaces (Humbrol 115). The kit received a light black in wash and some panel shading, primarily in order to add some life to the otherwise uniform surface.

 

Details were painted according to real world MiG-21 pics: the cockpit became classic teal with light grey instrument panels, plus OOB decals for the dashboard and side consoles. The landing gear struts were painted in a light, metallic grey (Humbrol 127 + 56) while the wells were painted in an odd primer color, a mix of Aluminum, Sand and Olive Drab. Parts of the covers were painted with Humbrol 144 (Blue Grey), seen on a modernized real world MiG-21. The wheel discs became bright green.

 

IAI's MiG-21 2000 demonstrator from 1993 had a black radome (as well as later Romanian LanceR Cs), so I adapted this detail for my build. Other typical di-electric fairings on a MiG-21's hull were painted in slightly darker camouflage colors, while the fin's leading edge became dark grey.

The blast deflector plates received yellow and black warning stripes, and some potentially dangerous parts for the ground crews like the pointed anti-flutter booms were painted red. The Python IIIs were simply painted all-white, mounted on grey launch rails - a harsh contrast to the dull rest of the aircraft.

 

Main markings come from a Blue Rider Publishing aftermarket sheet for modern Lithuanian aircraft. This set also includes the small Air Force crests, which I put on the nose, as well as the typical, blue tactical codes.

The stencils come from the scrap box, the small Lithuanian flag stripes on the tail rudder were created from single decal stripes, a personal addition inspired by Lithuanian C-27J transporters. They add some more color to the otherwise murky Baltic MiG fighter.

The silver ring around the air intake as well as the stripes at the flaps and the rudder were created with simple decal stripes instead of paint.

 

Finally, after I added some graphite soot around the jet exhaust and some panle lines with a pencil (e .g. the blow-in doors and airbrake outlines), the kit was sealed with hardly thinned Revell matt acrylic varnish, trying to create a really dull finish.

  

A tough build, despite being mostly OOB, but the details took their toll. This Baltic MiG does not look flashy, but, with IAI's real world MiG-21 2000 as well as the LanceR conversion for Romania in the Nineties, this one is pretty plausible. And with the simple paint scheme, the MiG-21 looks even pretty chic!

The world's largest computerized facade on the Al Bahr towers in Abu Dhabi

Photo credit: Cindy Kurman, Kurman Communications, Inc. Freedom Golf Association’s First Annual “Honor Wounded Vets 5K Run/Walk” succeeds in showing how adaptive golf is aiding vets’ road to recovery

 

The enthusiasm and good will were palpable at McDonald’s corporate campus in Oak Brook, Illinois on Sunday, October 29 as the Freedom Golf Association’s (FGA) First Annual “Honor Wounded Vets 5K Run/Walk” succeeded in drawing attention to the fact that adaptive golf is clearly helping wounded vets return to normality after their military service. The more than 100 participants conquered the 5K course to show their support for the programs of the Freedom Golf Association, which is leading the way In Illinois in bringing the joy of golf to persons with physical, emotional and developmental needs.

 

“The 5K Run/Walk was a terrific way to honor Veterans who have been wounded in their service to the country and to acknowledge Illinois’ wounded vets, a growing number of whom have taken up golf to enjoy its many physical, emotional and social benefits,” said Sally Ruecking, FGA’s Vice President of Strategic Advancement. “Adaptive golf is bringing fun into the lives of people who are often left out due to their disabilities.”

 

Cheered on by the music of the Elmhurst College Jazz Band and with welcoming remarks from E.Q. Sylvester, Chairman of FGA; radio and TV personality Bob Sirott of event co-sponsor WLS-AM radio; and Ruecking, the runners and walkers took to the track with smiles and a sense of mission. Other event sponsors included Molex LLC, Rich Harvest Farms, KF Partners LLC, and Reebie Storage and Moving.

 

The overall men’s winner was 16-year old Matt Pierce of Alsip, Illinois, who ran the 5K course in 18:59. Second place went to Thomas Potaczek of Bensenville, IL, with a time of 19:23 and third place went to Andrew Pyle of Hinsdale, IL with a time of 22:14.

 

Among the women, the overall winner was Eileen Skisak of La Grange, IL with a time of 18:59. Eileen also ran in fifth place overall. The second-place women’s winner was 12-year old Alexandra Two, with a time of 25:36; third place went to 10-year old Kelly Fergus of Chicago, with a time of 27:27.

 

Winners by age group were:

•Male 10-14: James Mercurio, Hinsdale, IL

•Male 15-19: Thomas Mercurio, Hinsdale, IL

•Male 20-24: Ben Landress, Chicago, IL

•Male 30-34: (1st) Michael Bellino, Villa Park, IL; (2nd) Nick Bada, Villa Park, IL

•Male 45-49: (1st) Jim Mercurio, Hinsdale, IL; (2nd) Carmelo Aguinir, Joliet, IL

•Male 50-54: (1st) Bob Fergus, Chicago, IL; (2nd) Ross Hurst, Clarendon Hills, IL; (3rd) Randy Pyle, Hinsdale, IL; (4th) Roger Keys, Northbrook, IL

•Male 65-69: (1st) Jerome Getter, Oak Park, IL; (2nd) John Kosmatka, Valparaiso, IN; (3rd) Karl Johnson, Woodridge, IL

•Male 70-74: James Smith, Clarendon Hills, IL

•Female 15-19: Maria Meyer, Hinsdale, IL

•Female 40-44: Lori Kosmatka, Chicago, IL

•Female 45-49: (1st) Kimberly Mercurio, Hinsdale, IL; (2nd) Arlinda Nunez, Hinsdale, IL; (3rd) Christine Two, Wilmette, IL

•Female 50-54: (1st) Joy Hyzny, Burbank, IL; (2nd) Christie Bellino, Villa Park, IL

•Female 55-59: Jud Hrad, Chicago, IL

•Female 60-64: Sue Shepard, Elmhurst, IL

•Female 65-69: Carol Raska, Oak Park, IL

 

Freedom Golf Association leads the way in bringing adaptive golf to Illinois and is an integral part of the growing national movement, which has been embraced by major golf entities such as the PGA, LPGA and USGA.

 

“Freedom Golf Association encourages corporations with cause marketing programs that help the disabled to become FGA sponsors or corporate foundation grant providers and help us grow,” said Ruecking.

  

About Freedom Golf Association

Freedom Golf Association (FGA), a 501(C)3 non-profit charitable organization, is the leading adaptive golf organization in Illinois and is a charter member of the United States Adaptive Golf Alliance. FGA was founded in July 2012 by Edmund (E.Q.) Sylvester. E.Q. is a director of the Western Golf Association (WGA), member of the United States Senior Golf Association (USSGA), member of the United States Golf Association (USGA) and a triple amputee. FGA is dedicated to bringing joy and a sense of freedom to the special needs community through their inclusion in the game of golf.

 

FGA believes that all special needs individuals deserve a chance to accomplish the same things as any others do and work towards bringing a positive transformation to their lives. FGA contributes to the positive development of those with special needs through the magic of golf.

 

FGA works to assist individuals with disabilities in many ways:

•Provides professionally run adaptive golf instructional clinics and golf events

•Engages children, adults and veterans with special needs in FREE adaptive golf instruction with other classmates

•Conducts adaptive golf training workshops to increase the number of qualified adaptive golf coaches to instruct individuals with special needs

•Provides leadership and collaboration with nationally recognized organizations on how to expand/grow adaptive golf programs

 

Based on its growing understanding of the needs of disabled golfers, the FGA has developed a ground-breaking Adaptive Golf Enhancement Program™ that increases the golfing ability of special needs golfers. FGA’s golf coaches learn this six-step process, which helps them better understand and enhance the capabilities of special needs golfers.

 

To assist coaches and special needs golfers in determining what adaptive measures would be most beneficial, FGA recently invested in what they call a “personal swing sensors and computerized program” to 1) measure the disabled golfer’s initial swing path and limitations; 2) develop an appropriate exercise program to improve flexibility and range of motion; and 3) to chart the golfer’s progress, using the initial swing measurements as a baseline.

 

In 2016, FGA provided more than 1,300 adaptive golf lessons. In the same year, 110 special needs golfers went out and played on the course. Ten individuals became trained FGA Adaptive Golf Coaches, growing the total number to 42.

 

79 cents out of every dollar received goes to FGA’s special needs golf programs and events. FGA has led 40 Chicagoland courses in becoming accessible to the disabled community.

 

For more information about the Freedom Golf Association, please visit the official website at www.fgagolf.org and the online newsroom at www.newsline360.com/freedomgolfassociation. Contact FGA by phone at 855-342-4465 or 630-455-6018, or by email at playgolf@fgagolf.org. Donations to Freedom Golf Association can be made at www.fgagolf.org/donate.html.

 

Follow FGA on Facebook at www.facebook.com/FGA4Golf. Follow FGA on Twitter at www.twitter.com/FGA4Golf.

  

"The Grumman X-29 was an American experimental aircraft that tested a forward-swept wing, canard control surfaces, and other novel aircraft technologies. The aerodynamic instability of the airframe 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. Developed by Grumman, the X-29 first flew in 1984; two X-29s were flight tested over the next decade."

 

© Ashley Wallace - All Rights Reserved

 

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

Fashion design is the art of the application of design and aesthetics or natural beauty to clothing and accessories. Fashion design is influenced by cultural and social latitudes, and has varied over time and place. Fashion designers work in a number of ways in designing clothing and accessories such as bracelets and necklace, because of the time required to bring a garment onto the market, must at times anticipate changing consumer tastes.

 

Fashion designers attempt to design clothes which are functional as well as aesthetically pleasing. They must consider who is likely to wear a garment and the situations in which it will be worn. They have a wide range and combinations of materials to work with and a wide range of colors, patterns and styles to choose from. Though most clothing worn for everyday wear falls within a narrow range of conventional styles, unusual garments are usually sought for special occasions such as evening wear or party dresses.

 

Some clothes are made specifically for an individual, as in the case of haute couture or bespoke tailoring. Today, most clothing is designed for the mass market, especially casual and every-day wear.

Structure[edit]

Fashion designers can work in a number of many ways. Fashion designers may work full-time for one fashion as 'in-house designers' which owns the designs. They may work alone or as part of a team. Freelance designers work for themselves, selling their designs to fashion houses, directly to shops, or to clothing manufacturers. The garments bear the buyer's label. Some fashion designers set up their own labels, under which their designs are marketed. Some fashion designers are self-employed and design for individual clients. Other high-fashion designers cater to specialty stores or high-fashion department stores. These designers create original garments, as well as those that follow established fashion trends. Most fashion designers, however, work for apparel manufacturers, creating designs of men’s, women’s, and children’s fashions for the mass market. Large designer brands which have a 'name' as their brand such as Abercrombie & Fitch, Justice, or Juicy are likely to be designed by a team of individual designers under the direction of a designer director.

 

Designing a garment[edit]

Fashion designers work in different ways. Some sketch their ideas on paper, while others drape fabric on a dress form. When a designer is completely satisfied with the fit of the toile (or muslin), he or she will consult a professional pattern maker who then makes the finished, working version of the pattern out of card or via a computerized system. The pattern maker's job is very precise and painstaking. The fit of the finished garment depends on their accuracy. Finally, a sample garment is made up and tested on a model to make sure it is an operational outfit.

Fashion design is generally considered to have started in the 19th century with Charles Frederick Worth who was the first designer to have his label sewn into the garments that he created. Before the former draper set up his maison couture (fashion house) in Paris, clothing design and creation was handled by largely anonymous seamstresses, and high fashion descended from that worn at royal courts. Worth's success was such that he was able to dictate to his customers what they should wear, instead of following their lead as earlier dressmakers had done. The term couturier was in fact first created in order to describe him. While all articles of clothing from any time period are studied by academics as costume design, only clothing created after 1858 are considered as fashion design.

 

It was during this period that many design houses began to hire artists to sketch or paint designs for garments. The images were shown to clients, which was much cheaper than producing an actual sample garment in the workroom. If the client liked their design, they ordered it and the resulting garment made money for the house. Thus, the tradition of designers sketching out garment designs instead of presenting completed garments on models to customers began as an economy.

The garments produced by clothing manufacturers fall into three main categories, although these may be split up into additional, more specific categories

 

Haute couture[edit]

Main article: Haute couture

Until the 1950s, fashion clothing was predominately designed and manufactured on a made-to-measure or haute couture basis (French for high-sewing), with each garment being created for a specific client. A couture garment is made to order for an individual customer, and is usually made from high-quality, expensive fabric, sewn with extreme attention to detail and finish, often using time-consuming, hand-executed techniques. Look and fit take priority over the cost of materials and the time it takes to make.[1][2] Due to the high cost of each garment, haute couture makes little direct profit for the fashion houses, but is important for prestige and publicity.[3]

 

Ready-to-wear (pret-a-porter)[edit]

Main article: Ready-to-wear

Ready-to-wear clothes are a cross between haute couture and mass market. They are not made for individual customers, but great care is taken in the choice and cut of the fabric. Clothes are made in small quantities to guarantee exclusivity, so they are rather expensive. Ready-to-wear collections are usually presented by fashion houses each season during a period known as Fashion Week. This takes place on a city-wide basis and occurs twice a year. The main seasons of Fashion Week include, spring/summer, fall/winter, resort, swim, and bridal.

 

Mass market[edit]

Main article: Mass market

Currently the fashion industry relies more on mass market sales. The mass market caters for a wide range of customers, producing ready-to-wear garments using trends set by the famous names in fashion. They often wait around a season to make sure a style is going to catch on before producing their own versions of the original look. In order to save money and time, they use cheaper fabrics and simpler production techniques which can easily be done by machine. The end product can therefore be sold much more cheaply.[4][5][6]

 

There is a type of design called "kutch" design originated from the German word "kitschig" meaning "ugly" or "not aesthetically pleasing." Kitsch can also refer to "wearing or displaying something that is therefore no longer in fashion."[7] Often, high-waisted trousers, associated with the 1980s, are considered a "kitsch" fashion statement.[8]

 

Income[edit]

Globe icon.

The examples and perspective in this section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (December 2010)

Median annual wages for salaried fashion designers were $61,160 in May 2008. The middle 50 percent earned between $42,150 and $87,120.[9] The lowest 10 percent earned less than $32,150, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $124,780. Median annual earnings were $52,860 (£28,340) in apparel, piece goods, and notions - the industry employing the largest numbers of fashion designers.[10]

 

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

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

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

 

The development of a potential successor started in 1970. At the request of the Soviet Ministry of Defense, the KBP Instrument Design Bureau in Tula started work on a new mobile anti-aircraft system as a replacement for the 23mm ZSU-23-4. The project was undertaken to improve on the observed shortcomings of the ZSU-23-4 (short range and no early warning) and to counter new ground attack aircraft in development, such as the A-10 Thunderbolt II, which was designed to be highly resistant to 23 mm cannons.

 

KBP studies demonstrated that a cannon of at least 30 mm caliber was necessary to counter these threats, and that a bigger caliber weapon would offer some more benefits. Firstly, to destroy a given target, such a weapon would only require from a third to a half of the number of shells that the ZSU-23-4’s 23 mm cannon would need. Secondly, comparison tests revealed that firing with an identical mass of 30 mm projectiles instead of 23 mm ammunition at a MiG-17 (or similarly at NATO's Hawker Hunter or Fiat G.91…) flying at 300 m/s would result in a 1.5 times greater kill probability. An increase in the maximum engagement altitude from 2,000 to 4,000 m and higher effectiveness when engaging lightly armored ground targets were also cited as potential benefits.

 

The initial requirements set for the new mobile weapon system were to achieve twice the performance in terms of the ZSU-23-4’s range, altitude and combat effectiveness. Additionally, the system should have a reaction time, from target acquisition to firing, no greater than 10 seconds, so that enemy helicopters that “popped up” from behind covers and launched fire-and-forget weapons at tanks or similar targets could be engaged effectively.

From these specifications KBP developed two schools of thought that proposed different concepts and respective vehicle prototypes: One design team followed the idea of an anti-aircraft complex with mixed cannon and missile armament, which made it effective against both low and high-flying targets but sacrificed short-range firepower. The alternative proposed by another team was a weapon carrier armed only with a heavy gatling-type gun, tailored to counter targets flying at low altitudes, esp. helicopters, filling a similar niche as the ZSU-23-4 and leaving medium to high altitude targets to specialized anti-aircraft missiles. The latter became soon known as “Object 511”.

 

Object 511 was based on the tracked and only lightly armored GM-577 chassis, produced by Minsk Tractor Works (MTZ). It featured six road wheels on each side, a drive sprocket at the rear and three return rollers. The chassis was primarily chosen because it was already in use for other anti-aircraft systems like the 2K11 “Krug” complex and could be taken more or less “off the rack”. A new feature was a hydropneumatic suspension, which was chosen in order to stabilize the chassis as firing platform and also to cope with the considerably higher all-up weight of the vehicle (27 tons vs. the ZSU-23-4’s 19 tons). Other standard equipment of Object 511 included heating, ventilation, navigational equipment, night vision aids, a 1V116 intercom and an external communications system with an R-173 receiver.

 

The hull was - as the entire vehicle - protected from small arms fire (7,62mm) and shell splinters, but not heavily armored. An NBC protection system was integrated into the chassis, as well as an automatic fire suppression system and an automatic gear change. The main engine bay, initially with a 2V-06-2 water-cooled multi-fuel diesel engine with 450 hp (331 kW) was in the rear. It was later replaced by a more powerful variant of the same engine with 510 hp (380 kW).

The driver sat in the front on the left side, with a small gas turbine APU to his right to operate the radar and hydraulic systems independently from the main engine.

Between these hull segments, the chassis carried a horseshoe-shaped turret with full 360° rotation. It was relatively large and covered more than the half of the hull’s roof, because it held the SPAAGs main armament and ammunition supply, the search and tracking radar equipment as well as a crew of two: the commander with a cupola on the right side and the gunner/radar operator on the left side, with the cannon installation and its feeding system between them. In fact, it was so large that Object 511’s engine bay was only accessible when the turret was rotated 90° to the side – unacceptable for an in-service vehicle (which would probably have been based on a bigger chassis), but accepted for the prototype which was rather focused on the turret and its complex weapon and radar systems.

 

Object 511’s centerpiece was the newly-developed Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-6-37 cannon, a heavy and experimental six-barreled 37mm gatling gun. This air-cooled weapon with electrical ignition was an upscaled version of the naval AO-18 30mm gun, which was part of an automated air defense system for ships, the AK-630 CIWS complex. Unlike most modern American rotary cannons, the GSh-6-37 was gas-operated rather than hydraulically driven, allowing it to "spin up" to maximum rate of fire more quickly. This resulted in more rounds and therefore weight of fire to be placed on target in a short burst, reduced reaction time and allowed hits even in a very small enemy engagement window.

 

The GSh-6-37 itself weighed around 524 kg (1.154 lb), the whole system, including the feed system and a full magazine, weighed 7,493 pounds (3,401 kg). The weapon had a total length of 5.01 m (16’ 7“), its barrels were 2.81 m (9’ 2½”) long. In Object 511’s turret it had an elevation between +80° and -11°, moving at 60°/sec, and a full turret rotation only took 3 seconds. Rate of fire was 4,500 rounds per minute, even though up to 5.500 RPM were theoretically possible and could be cleared with an emergency setting. However, the weapon would typically only fire short bursts of roundabout 50 rounds each, or longer bursts of 1-2 (maximum) seconds to save ammunition and to avoid overheating and damage – initially only to the barrels, but later also to avoid collateral damage from weapon operation itself (see below). Against ground targets and for prolonged, safe fire, the rate of fire could alternatively be limited to 150 RPM.

The GSh-6-37 fired 1.09 kg shells (each 338mm long) at 1,070 m/s (3.500 ft/s), developing a muzzle energy of 624,000 joules. This resulted in an effective range of 6,000 m (19.650 ft) against aerial and 7,000 m (23.0000 ft) against ground targets. Maximum firing range was past 7,160 m (23,490 ft), with the projectiles self-destructing beyond that distance. In a 1 sec. burst, the weapon delivered an impressive weight of fire of almost 100 kg.

The GSh-6-37 was belt-fed, with a closed-circuit magazine to avoid spilling casings all around and hurting friendly troops in the SPAAG’s vicinity. Typical types of ammunition were OFZT (proximity-fused incendiary fragmentation) and BZT (armor-piercing tracer, able to penetrate more than 60 mm of 30° sloped steel armor at 1.000 m/3.275’ distance). Since there was only a single ammunition supply that could not be switched, these rounds were normally loaded in 3:1 ratio—three OFZT, then one BZT, every 10th BZT round marked with a tracer. Especially the fragmentation rounds dealt extensive collateral damage, as the sheer numbers of fragments from detonating shells was sufficient to damage aircraft flying within a 200-meter radius from the impact center. This, coupled with the high density of fire, created a very effective obstacle for aerial targets and ensured a high hit probability even upon a casual and hurried attack.

 

The gun was placed in the turret front’s center, held by a massive mount with hydraulic dampers. The internal ammunition supply in the back of the turret comprised a total of 1.600 rounds, but an additional 800 rounds could be added in an external reserve feed bin, attached to the back of the turret and connected to the internal belt magazine loop through a pair of ports in the turret’s rear, normally used to reload the GSh-6-37.

 

A rotating, electronically scanned E-band (10 kW power) target acquisition radar array was mounted on the rear top of the turret that, when combined with the turret front mounted J-band (150 kW power) mono-pulse tracking radar, its dish antenna hidden under a fiberglass fairing to the right of the main weapon, formed the 1RL144 (NATO: Hot Shot) pulse-Doppler 3D radar system. Alongside, the 1A26 digital computer, a laser rangefinder co-axial to the GSh-6-37, and the 1G30 angle measurement system formed the 1A27 targeting complex.

Object 511’s target acquisition offered a 360-degree field of view, a detection range of around 18 km and could detect targets flying as low as 15 m. The array could be folded down and stowed when in transit, lying flat on the turret’s roof. The tracking radar had a range of 16 km, and a C/D-band IFF system was also fitted. The radar system was highly protected against various types of interference and was able to work properly even if there were mountains on the horizon, regardless of the background. The system made it possible to fire the GSh-6-37 on the move, against targets with a maximum target speed of up to 500 m/s, and it had an impressive reaction time of only 6-8 seconds.

Thanks to its computerized fire control system, the 1A27 was highly automated and reduced the SPAAG’s crew to only three men, making a dedicated radar operator (as on the ZSU-23-4) superfluous and saving internal space in the large but still rather cramped turret.

 

Development of Object 511 and its systems were kicked-off in 1972 but immediately slowed down with the introduction of the 9K33 “Osa” missile system, which seemed to fill the same requirement but with greater missile performance. However, after some considerable debate it was felt that a purely missile-based system would not be as effective at dealing with very low flying attack helicopters attacking at short range with no warning, as had been proven so successful in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. Since the reaction time of a gun system was around 8–10 seconds, compared to approximately 30 seconds for a missile-based system, development of Object 511 was restarted in 1973.

 

A fully functional prototype, now officially dubbed “ZSU-37-6“ to reflect its role and armament and christened “Лена” (Lena, after the Russian river in Siberia), was completed in 1975 at the Ulyanovsk Mechanical Factory, but it took until 1976 that the capricious weapon and the 1A27 radar system had been successfully integrated and made work. System testing and trials were conducted between September 1977 and December 1978 on the Donguzskiy range, where the vehicle was detected by American spy satellites and erroneously identified as a self-propelled artillery system with a fully rotating turret (similar to the American M109), as a potential successor for the SAU-122/2S1 Gvozdika or SAU-152/2S3 Akatsiya SPGs that had been introduced ten years earlier, with a lighter weapon of 100-120mm caliber and an autoloader in the large turret.

 

The tests at Donguzskiy yielded mixed results. While the 1A27 surveillance and acquisition radar complex turned out to be quite effective, the GSh-6-37 remained a constant source of problems. The gun was highly unreliable and afforded a high level of maintenance. Furthermore, it had a massive recoil of 6.250 kp/61 kN when fired (the American 30 mm GAU-8 Avenger “only” had a recoil of 4.082 kp/40 kN). As a result, targets acquired by the 1A27 system were frequently lost after a single burst of fire, so that they had to be tracked anew before the next shot could be placed.

To make matters even words, the GSh-6-37 was noted for its high and often uncomfortable vibration and extreme noise, internally and externally. Pressure shock waves from the gun muzzles made the presence of unprotected personnel in the weapon’s proximity hazardous. The GSh-6-37’s massive vibrations shook the whole vehicle and led to numerous radio and radar system failures, tearing or jamming of maintenance doors and access hatches and the cracking of optical sensors. The effects were so severe that the gun’s impact led after six months to fatigue cracks in the gun mount, the welded turret hull, fuel tanks and other systems. One spectacular and fateful showcase of the gun’s detrimental powers was a transmission failure during a field test/maneuver in summer 1978 – which unfortunately included top military brass spectators and other VIPs, who were consequently not convinced of the ZSU-37-6 and its weapon.

 

The GSh-6-37’s persisting vibration and recoil problems, as well as its general unreliability if it was not immaculately serviced, could not be satisfactorily overcome during the 2 years of state acceptance trials. Furthermore, the large and heavy turret severely hampered Object 511’s off-road performance and handling, due to the high center of gravity and the relatively small chassis, so that the weapon system’s full field potential could not be explored. Had it found its way into a serial production vehicle, it would certainly have been based on a bigger and heavier chassis, e.g. from an MBT. Other novel features tested with Object 511, e.g. the hydropneumatic suspension and the automated 1A27 fire control system, proved to be more successful.

 

However, the troublesome GSh-6-37 temporarily attained new interest in 1979 through the Soviet Union’s engagement in Afghanistan, because it became quickly clear that conventional battle tanks, with long-barreled, large caliber guns and a very limited lift angle were not suited against small targets in mountainous regions and for combat in confined areas like narrow valleys or settlements. The GSh-6-37 appeared as a promising alternative weapon, and plans were made to mount it in a more strongly armored turret onto a T-72 chassis. A wooden mockup turret was built, but the project was not proceeded further with. Nevertheless, the concept of an armored support vehicle with high firepower and alternative armament would persist and lead, in the course of the following years, to a number of prototypes that eventually spawned the BMPT "Terminator" Tank Support Fighting Vehicle.

 

More tests and attempts to cope with the gun mount continued on a limited basis through 1979, but in late 1980 trials and development of Object 511 and the GSh-6-37 were stopped altogether: the 2K22 “Tunguska” SPAAG with mixed armament, developed in parallel, was preferred and officially accepted into service. In its original form, the 2K22 was armed with four 9M311 (NATO: SA-19 “Grison”) short-range missiles in the ready-to-fire position and two 2A38 30mm autocannons, using the same 1A27 radar system as Object 511. The Tunguska entered into limited service from 1984, when the first batteries, now armed with eight missiles, were delivered to the army, and gradually replaced the ZSU-23-4.

 

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

  

Specifications:

Crew: Three (commander, gunner, driver)

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

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

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

Width: 3.25 m (10 ft 8 in)

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

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

Suspension: Hydropneumatic

Ground clearance: 17–57 cm

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

 

Armor:

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

 

Performance:

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

Climbing ability: 0.7 m (2.3')

Maximum climb gradient: 30°

Trench crossing ability: 2.5 m (8.2')

Fording depth: 1.0 m (3.3')

Operational range: 500 km (310 mi)

Power/weight: 24 hp/t

 

Engine:

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

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

connected with a direct-current generator

 

Transmission:

Hydromechanical

 

Armament:

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

plus 800 more in an optional, external auxiliary magazine

  

The kit and its assembly:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

  

Painting and markings:

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

  

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

Ryan Janek Wolowski Jennifer Lopez JLo ABC’s Dick Clark’s New Year’s Rockin’ Eve Countdown Stage sound check Times Square NYC New Years Eve 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

Learn More

  

Humphreys hosts Army 10-miler shadow run

   

By W. Wayne Marlow, U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys, Public Affairs

  

CAMP HUMPHREYS, SOUTH KOREA – Over 300 runners from across the Korean peninsula took part in the second annual Army 10-miler Shadow Run hosted here Oct. 2.

 

First Lieutenant Robert Anderson of the 532nd Military Intelligence Battalion won the nighttime race, designed to mirror the Army’s annual run in Washington, D.C., in 1 hour, 3 minutes and 51 seconds. First Lieutenant Sarah Rainville took the women’s crown, finishing in 1:16:44.

 

Anderson said he initially thought only about doing his best and having a good run. But when some entrants passed him early in the race, his focused changed.

 

“I was going to try and take it easy ... but then an adrenaline rush hit and I decided to pick it up,” he said.

 

Anderson maintained a steady pace, running the second half in just two more minutes than he did the first five miles. “I felt good the whole time,” he said. “I felt like I had some left in the tank. I started training for it last year, so I’ve been upping my mileage.”

 

The Camp Humphreys shadow run will be shown on a large screen during the Army 10-miler in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 9, and Anderson plans to be there to watch it and participate in his second 10-miler of the week. “This was prep for that one,” he said.

 

Former United States Army Garrison Humphreys Command Sgt. Maj. Jason Kim fired the opening gun at 9 p.m. locally to coincide with the actual time the run will start in Washington D.C. Led by Kim’s replacement, Command Sgt. Maj. Spencer Gray, the runners started under the Super Gym walkway, then snaked their way around the airfield twice, ending up back at Super Gym.

 

“It’s an absolutely great event,” Gray said. “Soldiers work hard, so when you can do something like this to build esprit de corps, it’s a positive thing. It’s an opportunity for everyone to have a good time.”

 

The crisp, cool October air helped keep the runners fresh, as did rehydration stations manned by volunteers along the route. The constant encouragement by fellow runners and cheering from the sidelines helped push the runners toward the finish.

 

“It’s not too cold. It’s nice running weather,” Gray said. “You can always wear something to keep you warm, and if it gets too hot, you can dress down.”

 

Anderson agreed that the race featured ideal conditions. “It’s great weather, no overheating,” he said. “It’s the best weather for running.”

 

Anderson said he has three brothers in the Army who are also all enthusiastic runners, and there was another family connection of note. Specialist Charles Rodgers IV flew from Hawaii to run the race with his father, Charles Rodgers III, who manages Splish and Splash Water Park on Humphreys. The two finished with identical times of 1:32:40.

 

Besides ideal weather and enthusiastic observers, the runners were treated to replicas of Washington, D.C., monuments built by Jeffrey Hubbard of the USAG Humphreys Family, Morale Welfare and Recreation office. The replicas, made of Styrofoam and braced by wood supports, included the Vietnam Memorial, the Pentagon, the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Jefferson memorials, and the capitol. The project took about two weeks, according to Hubbard.

 

“It was to give everybody something extra to look at during the run and to do something different,” Hubbard said. “We figured looking at a poster would be kind of boring. We wanted to give them incentive to go and see the next one. They’ll be here next year. They’re built to last.”

 

Area III Sports Director Lonnie Herring credited volunteers with helping make the run a success.

 

“We had three drink tables on the trail and at the start and finish point,” he said. “We had BOSS bring in volunteers, folks standing on the road, and people handing out numbers and pace chips before the race.” The computerized chips, attached to the runners’ shoes, started and stopped when someone crossed the start and finish lines, giving everyone an accurate 10-mile time.

 

For all the logistics involved in having hundreds of people run 10 miles, Herring said most of the work was done beforehand.

 

“The pre-registration is the most time-consuming,” he said, also mentioning coordination with Military Police, road closures, medical considerations, and taxi and bus services being suspended. But all the work paid off in the end, Herring noted.

 

Prior to the run, entrants were addressed by USAG Humphreys Commander, Col. Joseph P. Moore.

 

“We’re here to have fun, and I hope your commanders told you that if you run this, there’s no P.T. tomorrow. Ten miles is no small task,” Moore said. “I’ve run this loop a lot at night. There’s plenty of light out there. The terrain is real friendly. There are no big hills, just a lot of open room to run.”

 

The top three finishers in the men’s 29 and under category were: Wbatt Reith (1:07:53); Samuel Smiths (1:09:09) and Daniel Bates (1:09:35). Following Anderson in the men’s 30-39 category were David Snow (1:12:41) and Nathan Stahl (1:18:02).

 

In the men’s 40-49 category, the top three finishers were Brett Bassett (1:14:49), Dan Burnett (1:17:06) and Felix Lassus (1:18:57). Leading the way in the men’s 50 and over category were Robert Nott (1:09:14), Mark Sullivan (1:09:57) and Kwon, Song-ki (1:19:23).

 

Following Rainville in the women’s 29 and under category were Kyle Wilson (1:22:20) and Liela Moser (1:26:01). In the women’s 30 and over category, top finishers were Sarah Stahl (1:20:45), Adam Leinen (1:27:52), and Jamila Moody (1:34:11). Taking the women’s over 40 crown was Kim, Hui-ok (1:37:06). In the women’s over 50 category, Barbara Garner (1:37:31) took first, followed by Susan Jentoft (1:43:23).

 

Photos courtesy U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys, FMWR Marketing

  

Click here to view the garrison’s official Facebook fan page

Photo credit: Cindy Kurman, Kurman Communications, Inc. Freedom Golf Association’s First Annual “Honor Wounded Vets 5K Run/Walk” succeeds in showing how adaptive golf is aiding vets’ road to recovery

 

The enthusiasm and good will were palpable at McDonald’s corporate campus in Oak Brook, Illinois on Sunday, October 29 as the Freedom Golf Association’s (FGA) First Annual “Honor Wounded Vets 5K Run/Walk” succeeded in drawing attention to the fact that adaptive golf is clearly helping wounded vets return to normality after their military service. The more than 100 participants conquered the 5K course to show their support for the programs of the Freedom Golf Association, which is leading the way In Illinois in bringing the joy of golf to persons with physical, emotional and developmental needs.

 

“The 5K Run/Walk was a terrific way to honor Veterans who have been wounded in their service to the country and to acknowledge Illinois’ wounded vets, a growing number of whom have taken up golf to enjoy its many physical, emotional and social benefits,” said Sally Ruecking, FGA’s Vice President of Strategic Advancement. “Adaptive golf is bringing fun into the lives of people who are often left out due to their disabilities.”

 

Cheered on by the music of the Elmhurst College Jazz Band and with welcoming remarks from E.Q. Sylvester, Chairman of FGA; radio and TV personality Bob Sirott of event co-sponsor WLS-AM radio; and Ruecking, the runners and walkers took to the track with smiles and a sense of mission. Other event sponsors included Molex LLC, Rich Harvest Farms, KF Partners LLC, and Reebie Storage and Moving.

 

The overall men’s winner was 16-year old Matt Pierce of Alsip, Illinois, who ran the 5K course in 18:59. Second place went to Thomas Potaczek of Bensenville, IL, with a time of 19:23 and third place went to Andrew Pyle of Hinsdale, IL with a time of 22:14.

 

Among the women, the overall winner was Eileen Skisak of La Grange, IL with a time of 18:59. Eileen also ran in fifth place overall. The second-place women’s winner was 12-year old Alexandra Two, with a time of 25:36; third place went to 10-year old Kelly Fergus of Chicago, with a time of 27:27.

 

Winners by age group were:

•Male 10-14: James Mercurio, Hinsdale, IL

•Male 15-19: Thomas Mercurio, Hinsdale, IL

•Male 20-24: Ben Landress, Chicago, IL

•Male 30-34: (1st) Michael Bellino, Villa Park, IL; (2nd) Nick Bada, Villa Park, IL

•Male 45-49: (1st) Jim Mercurio, Hinsdale, IL; (2nd) Carmelo Aguinir, Joliet, IL

•Male 50-54: (1st) Bob Fergus, Chicago, IL; (2nd) Ross Hurst, Clarendon Hills, IL; (3rd) Randy Pyle, Hinsdale, IL; (4th) Roger Keys, Northbrook, IL

•Male 65-69: (1st) Jerome Getter, Oak Park, IL; (2nd) John Kosmatka, Valparaiso, IN; (3rd) Karl Johnson, Woodridge, IL

•Male 70-74: James Smith, Clarendon Hills, IL

•Female 15-19: Maria Meyer, Hinsdale, IL

•Female 40-44: Lori Kosmatka, Chicago, IL

•Female 45-49: (1st) Kimberly Mercurio, Hinsdale, IL; (2nd) Arlinda Nunez, Hinsdale, IL; (3rd) Christine Two, Wilmette, IL

•Female 50-54: (1st) Joy Hyzny, Burbank, IL; (2nd) Christie Bellino, Villa Park, IL

•Female 55-59: Jud Hrad, Chicago, IL

•Female 60-64: Sue Shepard, Elmhurst, IL

•Female 65-69: Carol Raska, Oak Park, IL

 

Freedom Golf Association leads the way in bringing adaptive golf to Illinois and is an integral part of the growing national movement, which has been embraced by major golf entities such as the PGA, LPGA and USGA.

 

“Freedom Golf Association encourages corporations with cause marketing programs that help the disabled to become FGA sponsors or corporate foundation grant providers and help us grow,” said Ruecking.

  

About Freedom Golf Association

Freedom Golf Association (FGA), a 501(C)3 non-profit charitable organization, is the leading adaptive golf organization in Illinois and is a charter member of the United States Adaptive Golf Alliance. FGA was founded in July 2012 by Edmund (E.Q.) Sylvester. E.Q. is a director of the Western Golf Association (WGA), member of the United States Senior Golf Association (USSGA), member of the United States Golf Association (USGA) and a triple amputee. FGA is dedicated to bringing joy and a sense of freedom to the special needs community through their inclusion in the game of golf.

 

FGA believes that all special needs individuals deserve a chance to accomplish the same things as any others do and work towards bringing a positive transformation to their lives. FGA contributes to the positive development of those with special needs through the magic of golf.

 

FGA works to assist individuals with disabilities in many ways:

•Provides professionally run adaptive golf instructional clinics and golf events

•Engages children, adults and veterans with special needs in FREE adaptive golf instruction with other classmates

•Conducts adaptive golf training workshops to increase the number of qualified adaptive golf coaches to instruct individuals with special needs

•Provides leadership and collaboration with nationally recognized organizations on how to expand/grow adaptive golf programs

 

Based on its growing understanding of the needs of disabled golfers, the FGA has developed a ground-breaking Adaptive Golf Enhancement Program™ that increases the golfing ability of special needs golfers. FGA’s golf coaches learn this six-step process, which helps them better understand and enhance the capabilities of special needs golfers.

 

To assist coaches and special needs golfers in determining what adaptive measures would be most beneficial, FGA recently invested in what they call a “personal swing sensors and computerized program” to 1) measure the disabled golfer’s initial swing path and limitations; 2) develop an appropriate exercise program to improve flexibility and range of motion; and 3) to chart the golfer’s progress, using the initial swing measurements as a baseline.

 

In 2016, FGA provided more than 1,300 adaptive golf lessons. In the same year, 110 special needs golfers went out and played on the course. Ten individuals became trained FGA Adaptive Golf Coaches, growing the total number to 42.

 

79 cents out of every dollar received goes to FGA’s special needs golf programs and events. FGA has led 40 Chicagoland courses in becoming accessible to the disabled community.

 

For more information about the Freedom Golf Association, please visit the official website at www.fgagolf.org and the online newsroom at www.newsline360.com/freedomgolfassociation. Contact FGA by phone at 855-342-4465 or 630-455-6018, or by email at playgolf@fgagolf.org. Donations to Freedom Golf Association can be made at www.fgagolf.org/donate.html.

 

Follow FGA on Facebook at www.facebook.com/FGA4Golf. Follow FGA on Twitter at www.twitter.com/FGA4Golf.

  

Photo credit: Cindy Kurman, Kurman Communications, Inc.

Freedom Golf Association’s First Annual “Honor Wounded Vets 5K Run/Walk” succeeds in showing how adaptive golf is aiding vets’ road to recovery

 

The enthusiasm and good will were palpable at McDonald’s corporate campus in Oak Brook, Illinois on Sunday, October 29 as the Freedom Golf Association’s (FGA) First Annual “Honor Wounded Vets 5K Run/Walk” succeeded in drawing attention to the fact that adaptive golf is clearly helping wounded vets return to normality after their military service. The more than 100 participants conquered the 5K course to show their support for the programs of the Freedom Golf Association, which is leading the way In Illinois in bringing the joy of golf to persons with physical, emotional and developmental needs.

 

“The 5K Run/Walk was a terrific way to honor Veterans who have been wounded in their service to the country and to acknowledge Illinois’ wounded vets, a growing number of whom have taken up golf to enjoy its many physical, emotional and social benefits,” said Sally Ruecking, FGA’s Vice President of Strategic Advancement. “Adaptive golf is bringing fun into the lives of people who are often left out due to their disabilities.”

 

Cheered on by the music of the Elmhurst College Jazz Band and with welcoming remarks from E.Q. Sylvester, Chairman of FGA; radio and TV personality Bob Sirott of event co-sponsor WLS-AM radio; and Ruecking, the runners and walkers took to the track with smiles and a sense of mission. Other event sponsors included Molex LLC, Rich Harvest Farms, KF Partners LLC, and Reebie Storage and Moving.

 

The overall men’s winner was 16-year old Matt Pierce of Alsip, Illinois, who ran the 5K course in 18:59. Second place went to Thomas Potaczek of Bensenville, IL, with a time of 19:23 and third place went to Andrew Pyle of Hinsdale, IL with a time of 22:14.

 

Among the women, the overall winner was Eileen Skisak of La Grange, IL with a time of 18:59. Eileen also ran in fifth place overall. The second-place women’s winner was 12-year old Alexandra Two, with a time of 25:36; third place went to 10-year old Kelly Fergus of Chicago, with a time of 27:27.

 

Winners by age group were:

•Male 10-14: James Mercurio, Hinsdale, IL

•Male 15-19: Thomas Mercurio, Hinsdale, IL

•Male 20-24: Ben Landress, Chicago, IL

•Male 30-34: (1st) Michael Bellino, Villa Park, IL; (2nd) Nick Bada, Villa Park, IL

•Male 45-49: (1st) Jim Mercurio, Hinsdale, IL; (2nd) Carmelo Aguinir, Joliet, IL

•Male 50-54: (1st) Bob Fergus, Chicago, IL; (2nd) Ross Hurst, Clarendon Hills, IL; (3rd) Randy Pyle, Hinsdale, IL; (4th) Roger Keys, Northbrook, IL

•Male 65-69: (1st) Jerome Getter, Oak Park, IL; (2nd) John Kosmatka, Valparaiso, IN; (3rd) Karl Johnson, Woodridge, IL

•Male 70-74: James Smith, Clarendon Hills, IL

•Female 15-19: Maria Meyer, Hinsdale, IL

•Female 40-44: Lori Kosmatka, Chicago, IL

•Female 45-49: (1st) Kimberly Mercurio, Hinsdale, IL; (2nd) Arlinda Nunez, Hinsdale, IL; (3rd) Christine Two, Wilmette, IL

•Female 50-54: (1st) Joy Hyzny, Burbank, IL; (2nd) Christie Bellino, Villa Park, IL

•Female 55-59: Jud Hrad, Chicago, IL

•Female 60-64: Sue Shepard, Elmhurst, IL

•Female 65-69: Carol Raska, Oak Park, IL

 

Freedom Golf Association leads the way in bringing adaptive golf to Illinois and is an integral part of the growing national movement, which has been embraced by major golf entities such as the PGA, LPGA and USGA.

 

“Freedom Golf Association encourages corporations with cause marketing programs that help the disabled to become FGA sponsors or corporate foundation grant providers and help us grow,” said Ruecking.

  

About Freedom Golf Association

Freedom Golf Association (FGA), a 501(C)3 non-profit charitable organization, is the leading adaptive golf organization in Illinois and is a charter member of the United States Adaptive Golf Alliance. FGA was founded in July 2012 by Edmund (E.Q.) Sylvester. E.Q. is a director of the Western Golf Association (WGA), member of the United States Senior Golf Association (USSGA), member of the United States Golf Association (USGA) and a triple amputee. FGA is dedicated to bringing joy and a sense of freedom to the special needs community through their inclusion in the game of golf.

 

FGA believes that all special needs individuals deserve a chance to accomplish the same things as any others do and work towards bringing a positive transformation to their lives. FGA contributes to the positive development of those with special needs through the magic of golf.

 

FGA works to assist individuals with disabilities in many ways:

•Provides professionally run adaptive golf instructional clinics and golf events

•Engages children, adults and veterans with special needs in FREE adaptive golf instruction with other classmates

•Conducts adaptive golf training workshops to increase the number of qualified adaptive golf coaches to instruct individuals with special needs

•Provides leadership and collaboration with nationally recognized organizations on how to expand/grow adaptive golf programs

 

Based on its growing understanding of the needs of disabled golfers, the FGA has developed a ground-breaking Adaptive Golf Enhancement Program™ that increases the golfing ability of special needs golfers. FGA’s golf coaches learn this six-step process, which helps them better understand and enhance the capabilities of special needs golfers.

 

To assist coaches and special needs golfers in determining what adaptive measures would be most beneficial, FGA recently invested in what they call a “personal swing sensors and computerized program” to 1) measure the disabled golfer’s initial swing path and limitations; 2) develop an appropriate exercise program to improve flexibility and range of motion; and 3) to chart the golfer’s progress, using the initial swing measurements as a baseline.

 

In 2016, FGA provided more than 1,300 adaptive golf lessons. In the same year, 110 special needs golfers went out and played on the course. Ten individuals became trained FGA Adaptive Golf Coaches, growing the total number to 42.

 

79 cents out of every dollar received goes to FGA’s special needs golf programs and events. FGA has led 40 Chicagoland courses in becoming accessible to the disabled community.

 

For more information about the Freedom Golf Association, please visit the official website at www.fgagolf.org and the online newsroom at www.newsline360.com/freedomgolfassociation. Contact FGA by phone at 855-342-4465 or 630-455-6018, or by email at playgolf@fgagolf.org. Donations to Freedom Golf Association can be made at www.fgagolf.org/donate.html.

 

Follow FGA on Facebook at www.facebook.com/FGA4Golf. Follow FGA on Twitter at www.twitter.com/FGA4Golf.

  

Fashion design is the art of the application of design and aesthetics or natural beauty to clothing and accessories. Fashion design is influenced by cultural and social latitudes, and has varied over time and place. Fashion designers work in a number of ways in designing clothing and accessories such as bracelets and necklace, because of the time required to bring a garment onto the market, must at times anticipate changing consumer tastes.

 

Fashion designers attempt to design clothes which are functional as well as aesthetically pleasing. They must consider who is likely to wear a garment and the situations in which it will be worn. They have a wide range and combinations of materials to work with and a wide range of colors, patterns and styles to choose from. Though most clothing worn for everyday wear falls within a narrow range of conventional styles, unusual garments are usually sought for special occasions such as evening wear or party dresses.

 

Some clothes are made specifically for an individual, as in the case of haute couture or bespoke tailoring. Today, most clothing is designed for the mass market, especially casual and every-day wear.

Structure[edit]

Fashion designers can work in a number of many ways. Fashion designers may work full-time for one fashion as 'in-house designers' which owns the designs. They may work alone or as part of a team. Freelance designers work for themselves, selling their designs to fashion houses, directly to shops, or to clothing manufacturers. The garments bear the buyer's label. Some fashion designers set up their own labels, under which their designs are marketed. Some fashion designers are self-employed and design for individual clients. Other high-fashion designers cater to specialty stores or high-fashion department stores. These designers create original garments, as well as those that follow established fashion trends. Most fashion designers, however, work for apparel manufacturers, creating designs of men’s, women’s, and children’s fashions for the mass market. Large designer brands which have a 'name' as their brand such as Abercrombie & Fitch, Justice, or Juicy are likely to be designed by a team of individual designers under the direction of a designer director.

 

Designing a garment[edit]

Fashion designers work in different ways. Some sketch their ideas on paper, while others drape fabric on a dress form. When a designer is completely satisfied with the fit of the toile (or muslin), he or she will consult a professional pattern maker who then makes the finished, working version of the pattern out of card or via a computerized system. The pattern maker's job is very precise and painstaking. The fit of the finished garment depends on their accuracy. Finally, a sample garment is made up and tested on a model to make sure it is an operational outfit.

Fashion design is generally considered to have started in the 19th century with Charles Frederick Worth who was the first designer to have his label sewn into the garments that he created. Before the former draper set up his maison couture (fashion house) in Paris, clothing design and creation was handled by largely anonymous seamstresses, and high fashion descended from that worn at royal courts. Worth's success was such that he was able to dictate to his customers what they should wear, instead of following their lead as earlier dressmakers had done. The term couturier was in fact first created in order to describe him. While all articles of clothing from any time period are studied by academics as costume design, only clothing created after 1858 are considered as fashion design.

 

It was during this period that many design houses began to hire artists to sketch or paint designs for garments. The images were shown to clients, which was much cheaper than producing an actual sample garment in the workroom. If the client liked their design, they ordered it and the resulting garment made money for the house. Thus, the tradition of designers sketching out garment designs instead of presenting completed garments on models to customers began as an economy.

The garments produced by clothing manufacturers fall into three main categories, although these may be split up into additional, more specific categories

 

Haute couture[edit]

Main article: Haute couture

Until the 1950s, fashion clothing was predominately designed and manufactured on a made-to-measure or haute couture basis (French for high-sewing), with each garment being created for a specific client. A couture garment is made to order for an individual customer, and is usually made from high-quality, expensive fabric, sewn with extreme attention to detail and finish, often using time-consuming, hand-executed techniques. Look and fit take priority over the cost of materials and the time it takes to make.[1][2] Due to the high cost of each garment, haute couture makes little direct profit for the fashion houses, but is important for prestige and publicity.[3]

 

Ready-to-wear (pret-a-porter)[edit]

Main article: Ready-to-wear

Ready-to-wear clothes are a cross between haute couture and mass market. They are not made for individual customers, but great care is taken in the choice and cut of the fabric. Clothes are made in small quantities to guarantee exclusivity, so they are rather expensive. Ready-to-wear collections are usually presented by fashion houses each season during a period known as Fashion Week. This takes place on a city-wide basis and occurs twice a year. The main seasons of Fashion Week include, spring/summer, fall/winter, resort, swim, and bridal.

 

Mass market[edit]

Main article: Mass market

Currently the fashion industry relies more on mass market sales. The mass market caters for a wide range of customers, producing ready-to-wear garments using trends set by the famous names in fashion. They often wait around a season to make sure a style is going to catch on before producing their own versions of the original look. In order to save money and time, they use cheaper fabrics and simpler production techniques which can easily be done by machine. The end product can therefore be sold much more cheaply.[4][5][6]

 

There is a type of design called "kutch" design originated from the German word "kitschig" meaning "ugly" or "not aesthetically pleasing." Kitsch can also refer to "wearing or displaying something that is therefore no longer in fashion."[7] Often, high-waisted trousers, associated with the 1980s, are considered a "kitsch" fashion statement.[8]

 

Income[edit]

Globe icon.

The examples and perspective in this section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (December 2010)

Median annual wages for salaried fashion designers were $61,160 in May 2008. The middle 50 percent earned between $42,150 and $87,120.[9] The lowest 10 percent earned less than $32,150, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $124,780. Median annual earnings were $52,860 (£28,340) in apparel, piece goods, and notions - the industry employing the largest numbers of fashion designers.[10]

 

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some Background:

On 23 January 1992, the Lithuanian Minister of Defense signed an order establishing the staff for the Aviation Base of the Aviation Service. But an actual base in the Šiauliai airport territory (Barysiai airfield) was not established until March, when according to the ordinance of the Government of Lithuanian Republic, all the infrastructure, buildings, territory and 24 An-2 aircraft were passed from ”Lithuanian Airlines" to the Aviation Service of the Ministry of Defense in January 1992.

 

On 12 June 1992, the first time after regaining the independence of Lithuania, An-2 aircraft, marked with the double cross of Vytis on its wings – the distinguishing sign of Lithuanian Air Force – took off from Barysiai airfield. This date is considered to be the Aviation Base foundation date. In February 1993 four L-39C Albatros aircraft were brought from Kyrgyzstan.

 

After 1 March 1993 Aviation Service was reformed to the Lithuanian Air Force and Aviation Base was renamed the First Aviation Base of the Lithuanian Air Force. In January 1994 Lithuania officially applied for NATO membership, and the country also looked out for a relatively cheap multi-purpose fighter that would fulfill both air space defence and attack tasks, the latter primarily against potential targets at sea (e. g. fast hoovercraft landing ships operated by the Russian Baltic Fleet).

 

After evaluating several options, the Lithuanian Air Force settled for a surprising aircraft: the venerable MiG-21! After the demise of the Soviet Union, several international companies started to offer conversion and upgrade programs for the widely used tactical fighter, about 5.000 specimen had been built to date. One of the first companies to enter the market was Israel Aircraft Industries: IAI's Lahav Division of (IAI) had developed the so-called MiG-21 2000 upgraded fighter and ground attack version, based on the MiG-21bis and the export MiG-21MF fighter aircraft.

 

The MiG-21 2000 upgrade provided modifications to the cockpit configuration, avionics architecture and weapons systems, enabling the MiG-21 2000 to compete with Western developed fighters like the F-16 and to make the transition to Western standards. The aircraft's original systems and components were retained wherever mission effectiveness was not compromised.

IAI Lahav augmented the original weapons system by introducing an EL/M-2032 radar, developed by IAI Elta Electronic Industries, based in Ashdod. The radar, which uses a low sidelobe planar array antenna and pulse Doppler beam sharpening, provides all-altitude, all-aspect look-up / look-down and shoot-down capability, as well as beyond-visual-range capability. In order to make the radar compatible with Western ordnance, a new armament interface and control unit were added, too, which enabled computerized control and release of weapons, including third and fourth-generation air-to-air missiles and precision-guided munitions of Western and Eastern provenance.

 

This system also gave the pilot the ability to use blind attack as well as continuously computed impact point (CCIP) and dive-toss bombing techniques. CCIP bombing involves the deployment of air-to-ground weapons, using the HUD to indicate the impact point for release of the weapons. Dive-toss bombing involves the release of air-to-ground weapons at the end of a steep dive manoeuver towards the target.

 

The MiG-21 2000 cockpit featured a new pilot-friendly layout that overcame the shortcomings of the original cockpit layout, which was crowded and lacked most of the desired man-machine interface characteristics. It incorporated a head-up display (HUD), eye-level multifunction color displays, hands on throttle and stick control (HOTAS), solid-state charge coupled device (CCD) camera, videotape recorder, and a one-piece windshield.

 

The MiG-21 2000 could be equipped with a display and sight helmet (DASH) system, supplied by Elbit of Haifa, which enabled the pilot to aim the weapons simply by looking at the target. The system worked by measuring the pilot's line of sight relative to the aircraft, and transferred the information to the aircraft's sensors, avionics and weapon systems. The helmet displayed vital information, such as the missile line of sight, missile status, flight information and warning data, on the visor. The DASH helmet allowed the pilot to fly head-up and off-boresight and assisted the pilot to detect, identify and shoot earlier.

 

IAI Lahav's upgrade package could be tailored to meet the customer's specific operational and budgetary requirements - the Lithuanian package included the radar, cockpit and also the DASH update and was rumored to cost around 4 Mio. USD per aircraft, and Lithuania was, together with Romania (where 110 MiG-21 were to be updated), lead customer.

 

As conversion basis, Lithuania purchased fifteen MiG-21 airframes for an unknown sum from the Ukraine, which had inherited a considerable MiG-21 fleet after the demise of the Soviet Union but did not (want to) operate it. The deal included thirteen airworthy MiG-21bis fighters and two MiG-21U trainers with few flying hours on the clocks, and - stripped off any military equipment - the small fleet was gradually transferred as disassembled kits via air ferry in Antonov Airlines An-124 transporters to Aerostar in Romania for conversion, starting in early 1996.

 

The first batch of Lithuanian MiG-21 2000, three fighters and one trainer, arrived in mid-1997 from Bacau on their own power and with civil Ukrainian registrations, and the Lithuanian Air Force’s fighter squadron, the Naikintuvu Eskadra, became ready for service in February 1998.

The rest of the country’s small MiG-21 fleet was delivered in the course of the same year, and these aircraft were semi-officially christened "Globėjas" (Guardian). Since the late Nineties, the Globėjas fighters provide the backbone of Lithuania's air defenses, with aircraft holding Quick Reaction Alert. QRA missions – so-called Alpha Scrambles – have constantly been on the rise thanks to the Russia’s increased aggression towards NATO. The MiG’s have regularly launched to intercept and shadow Russian Air Force Il-20 intelligence gathering aircraft over the Baltic Sea, as well as Tu-16 and Tu-95 patrols and even some Sukhoi Su-27s.

 

Lithuanian pilots use “hit and run” style tactics to deal with air threats, due to the limited range and endurance of their mounts - but this is of little concern due to the country's relatively small size and the defensive nature of the machines' tasks. While the Globėjas lack a beyond-visual range missile, although they could carry one, they have the ability to carry a range of different short-range air-to-air missiles like the Israeli Python III, which Lithuania procured from Rafael in Haifa as primary air-to-air missile.

 

After Lithuania joined NATO organization in 2004, its (alongside Latvia's and Estonia's) air space has been protected by NATO. NATO members provide usually 4 fighter aircraft, based in Lithuania, to police the Baltic States’ airspace, where they support the Lithuanian MiG-21 fleet. The duties rotate between NATO members (which started in March 2004 with Belgium Air Force F-16s) and most NATO members that operate fighters have made temporary deployments to Lithuania.

 

The Lithuanian Globėjas were also in regular demand as a simulated threat, and have gone up against US F-16s, F-15s, F/A-18s and A-10s, as well as the many different European fighter types that frequently rotate into the small country, including the Eurofighter, German F-4F Phantom IIs or French Mirage 2000.

 

Anyway, the Globėjas' airframes sooner or later reached their flying hour limits, and will be phased out towards 2020. As a replacement Lithuania will begin taking delivery of its first batch of ex-Portuguese F-16s in 2016, while the Baltic States are considering in the near future to protect their airspace on their own.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 14.5 [126] m (47 ft 7 in)

Wingspan: 7.154 m (23 ft 6 in)

Height: 4 m (13 ft 6 in)

Wing area: 23.0 m² (247.3 ft²)

Empty weight: 5,846 kg (12,880 lb)

Gross weight: 8,825 kg (19,425 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1× Tumansky R25-300, rated at 40.21 kN (9,040 lbf) thrust dry

and 69.62 kN (15,650 lbf) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 2,175 km/h (1,351.48 mph)

Maximum speed: Mach 2.0

Landing speed: 350 km/h (190 kts)

Range: (internal fuel) 1,210 km (751 miles)

Service ceiling: 17,800 m (58,400 ft)

Rate of climb: 225 m/s (44,280 ft/min)

 

Armament:

1x internal 23 mm GSh-23 cannon

5x hardpoints for a wide range of guided and unguided ordnance of up to 3.310 lb (1.500 kg).

 

In QRA configuration the Lithuanian MiG-21 typically carry two or four Rafal Python III short

range air-to-air missiles and an 800l drop tank on the centerline pylon.

Against ground targets, unguided bombs of up to 1.100 lb (500kg) caliber or unguided rockets

can be carried; alternatively, a Rafael LITENING laser designation pod and three

Griffin Mk. 82 LGBs or a single Mk. 84 LGB can be carried, or optically guided weapons like up

to four AGM-65 Maverick or a single GBU-8.

  

The kit and its assembly:

This kit is the entry for the 2016 "One Week Group Build" at whatifmodelers.com, which ran from 29th of April until 8th May (so, actually nine days...). I had this project earmarked for the recent "Cold War" GB, but it fell outside of the build's time horizon. But despite the dubious kit as basis, I tackled the build since I had anything else already at hand.

 

The basis is the MiG-21-93 demonstrator kit from Ukrainian manufacturer Condor, one of the many reincarnations of the venerable KP MiG-21bis, but with some updates. You get, for instance, engraved, very fine panel lines, some typical details were added like the wraparound windscreen (wrong shape, though) and the radar warning fairing on the fin as well as an extra sprue with modern Russian ordnance – apparently from some other kit!

On the downside, there's overall mediocre fit due to the molds' age, some dubious details (anything appears softened or blurred…) or the simple lack thereof (e. g. there’s no ventral gun fairing at all). But there’s nothing that could not be mended, and after all this is just a whiffy version.

 

Since there was only one week time to build the thing and make beauty pics, the whole project remained close to OOB status, even though a lot of detail changes or additions were made in order to convert the Russian MiG-21-93 into an earlier but similar Israeli MiG-21 2000 derivative.

 

These mods include:

- A Martin Baker ejection seat, with wire trigger handles

- HUD made from clear styrene

- Lowered flaps

- An added jet pipe/interior for the otherwise bleak exhaust (parts from a Kangnam Yak-38)

- Hydraulic pipes on the landing gear, made from very thin wire

- Some more/different blade antennae

- Measuring vanes on the pitot boom

- Different GSh-23 gun fairing, from an Academy MiG-23

- Thinner blast deflector plates under the anti-surge doors

- A pair of Python III AAMs, plus respective launch rails

- Different centerline drop tank, from an F-5E

- Scratched chaff/flare dispensers under the rear fuselage (as carried by the MiG-21 2000 demonstrator)

 

Building the model went straightforward, but it took some putty work to fill some seams, dents and holes all around the kit. Biggest issue was a hole in front of the cockpit screen, where simply not enough styrene had been injected into the mould!

  

Painting and markings:

The Lithuanian Air Force as operator for this build was chosen because it would not only fit into the real world timeline (even though I doubt that there would have been any budget for this aircraft at that time, even if MiG-21s had not been upgraded at all...) and because the potential livery would be very simple: contemporary L-39 trainers, C-27L Spartan as well as some L-410 and Mi-8 transporters carry a uniform, dull grey livery. Why not apply it on an air superiority fighter, too?

 

Finding an appropriate tone was not easy, though. Some sources claim the grey tone to be FS 36306, others refer to FS 36270 or "close to Blue/Grey FS35237", but IMHO none of the cited Federal Standard tones works well. Real world Lithuanian aircraft appear pretty dark and dull, and the color also features a greenish, slate grey hue - it's a unique color indeed.

 

After some trials (and also wishing to avoid mixing) I settled for Humbrol 111 (German Field Grey, a.k.a. Uniform Grey) as basic tone. It's a rather dark choice, but I wanted some good contrast to the national markings. A full wraparound livery appeared a little too dark and boring, so I added light blue wing undersurfaces (Humbrol 115). The kit received a light black in wash and some panel shading, primarily in order to add some life to the otherwise uniform surface.

 

Details were painted according to real world MiG-21 pics: the cockpit became classic teal with light grey instrument panels, plus OOB decals for the dashboard and side consoles. The landing gear struts were painted in a light, metallic grey (Humbrol 127 + 56) while the wells were painted in an odd primer color, a mix of Aluminum, Sand and Olive Drab. Parts of the covers were painted with Humbrol 144 (Blue Grey), seen on a modernized real world MiG-21. The wheel discs became bright green.

 

IAI's MiG-21 2000 demonstrator from 1993 had a black radome (as well as later Romanian LanceR Cs), so I adapted this detail for my build. Other typical di-electric fairings on a MiG-21's hull were painted in slightly darker camouflage colors, while the fin's leading edge became dark grey.

The blast deflector plates received yellow and black warning stripes, and some potentially dangerous parts for the ground crews like the pointed anti-flutter booms were painted red. The Python IIIs were simply painted all-white, mounted on grey launch rails - a harsh contrast to the dull rest of the aircraft.

 

Main markings come from a Blue Rider Publishing aftermarket sheet for modern Lithuanian aircraft. This set also includes the small Air Force crests, which I put on the nose, as well as the typical, blue tactical codes.

The stencils come from the scrap box, the small Lithuanian flag stripes on the tail rudder were created from single decal stripes, a personal addition inspired by Lithuanian C-27J transporters. They add some more color to the otherwise murky Baltic MiG fighter.

The silver ring around the air intake as well as the stripes at the flaps and the rudder were created with simple decal stripes instead of paint.

 

Finally, after I added some graphite soot around the jet exhaust and some panle lines with a pencil (e .g. the blow-in doors and airbrake outlines), the kit was sealed with hardly thinned Revell matt acrylic varnish, trying to create a really dull finish.

  

A tough build, despite being mostly OOB, but the details took their toll. This Baltic MiG does not look flashy, but, with IAI's real world MiG-21 2000 as well as the LanceR conversion for Romania in the Nineties, this one is pretty plausible. And with the simple paint scheme, the MiG-21 looks even pretty chic!

The Real Gabinete Português de Leitura (in English: Royal Portuguese Reading Room) has the largest and most valuable literary of Portuguese outside Portugal. Constructed between 1880 and 1887, it has more than 350,000 volumes in a library, fully computerized, which brings together rare books from the XVI, XVII and XVIII. The library receives a copy of Portugal for each of the works published in the country according to its status of “legal deposit”.

Its incredible architecture beauty and its rich collection transport you to the 19th century when you visit this library in Rio de Janeiro.

Learn More

  

Humphreys hosts Army 10-miler shadow run

   

By W. Wayne Marlow, U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys, Public Affairs

  

CAMP HUMPHREYS, SOUTH KOREA – Over 300 runners from across the Korean peninsula took part in the second annual Army 10-miler Shadow Run hosted here Oct. 2.

 

First Lieutenant Robert Anderson of the 532nd Military Intelligence Battalion won the nighttime race, designed to mirror the Army’s annual run in Washington, D.C., in 1 hour, 3 minutes and 51 seconds. First Lieutenant Sarah Rainville took the women’s crown, finishing in 1:16:44.

 

Anderson said he initially thought only about doing his best and having a good run. But when some entrants passed him early in the race, his focused changed.

 

“I was going to try and take it easy ... but then an adrenaline rush hit and I decided to pick it up,” he said.

 

Anderson maintained a steady pace, running the second half in just two more minutes than he did the first five miles. “I felt good the whole time,” he said. “I felt like I had some left in the tank. I started training for it last year, so I’ve been upping my mileage.”

 

The Camp Humphreys shadow run will be shown on a large screen during the Army 10-miler in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 9, and Anderson plans to be there to watch it and participate in his second 10-miler of the week. “This was prep for that one,” he said.

 

Former United States Army Garrison Humphreys Command Sgt. Maj. Jason Kim fired the opening gun at 9 p.m. locally to coincide with the actual time the run will start in Washington D.C. Led by Kim’s replacement, Command Sgt. Maj. Spencer Gray, the runners started under the Super Gym walkway, then snaked their way around the airfield twice, ending up back at Super Gym.

 

“It’s an absolutely great event,” Gray said. “Soldiers work hard, so when you can do something like this to build esprit de corps, it’s a positive thing. It’s an opportunity for everyone to have a good time.”

 

The crisp, cool October air helped keep the runners fresh, as did rehydration stations manned by volunteers along the route. The constant encouragement by fellow runners and cheering from the sidelines helped push the runners toward the finish.

 

“It’s not too cold. It’s nice running weather,” Gray said. “You can always wear something to keep you warm, and if it gets too hot, you can dress down.”

 

Anderson agreed that the race featured ideal conditions. “It’s great weather, no overheating,” he said. “It’s the best weather for running.”

 

Anderson said he has three brothers in the Army who are also all enthusiastic runners, and there was another family connection of note. Specialist Charles Rodgers IV flew from Hawaii to run the race with his father, Charles Rodgers III, who manages Splish and Splash Water Park on Humphreys. The two finished with identical times of 1:32:40.

 

Besides ideal weather and enthusiastic observers, the runners were treated to replicas of Washington, D.C., monuments built by Jeffrey Hubbard of the USAG Humphreys Family, Morale Welfare and Recreation office. The replicas, made of Styrofoam and braced by wood supports, included the Vietnam Memorial, the Pentagon, the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Jefferson memorials, and the capitol. The project took about two weeks, according to Hubbard.

 

“It was to give everybody something extra to look at during the run and to do something different,” Hubbard said. “We figured looking at a poster would be kind of boring. We wanted to give them incentive to go and see the next one. They’ll be here next year. They’re built to last.”

 

Area III Sports Director Lonnie Herring credited volunteers with helping make the run a success.

 

“We had three drink tables on the trail and at the start and finish point,” he said. “We had BOSS bring in volunteers, folks standing on the road, and people handing out numbers and pace chips before the race.” The computerized chips, attached to the runners’ shoes, started and stopped when someone crossed the start and finish lines, giving everyone an accurate 10-mile time.

 

For all the logistics involved in having hundreds of people run 10 miles, Herring said most of the work was done beforehand.

 

“The pre-registration is the most time-consuming,” he said, also mentioning coordination with Military Police, road closures, medical considerations, and taxi and bus services being suspended. But all the work paid off in the end, Herring noted.

 

Prior to the run, entrants were addressed by USAG Humphreys Commander, Col. Joseph P. Moore.

 

“We’re here to have fun, and I hope your commanders told you that if you run this, there’s no P.T. tomorrow. Ten miles is no small task,” Moore said. “I’ve run this loop a lot at night. There’s plenty of light out there. The terrain is real friendly. There are no big hills, just a lot of open room to run.”

 

The top three finishers in the men’s 29 and under category were: Wbatt Reith (1:07:53); Samuel Smiths (1:09:09) and Daniel Bates (1:09:35). Following Anderson in the men’s 30-39 category were David Snow (1:12:41) and Nathan Stahl (1:18:02).

 

In the men’s 40-49 category, the top three finishers were Brett Bassett (1:14:49), Dan Burnett (1:17:06) and Felix Lassus (1:18:57). Leading the way in the men’s 50 and over category were Robert Nott (1:09:14), Mark Sullivan (1:09:57) and Kwon, Song-ki (1:19:23).

 

Following Rainville in the women’s 29 and under category were Kyle Wilson (1:22:20) and Liela Moser (1:26:01). In the women’s 30 and over category, top finishers were Sarah Stahl (1:20:45), Adam Leinen (1:27:52), and Jamila Moody (1:34:11). Taking the women’s over 40 crown was Kim, Hui-ok (1:37:06). In the women’s over 50 category, Barbara Garner (1:37:31) took first, followed by Susan Jentoft (1:43:23).

 

Photos courtesy U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys, FMWR Marketing

  

Click here to view the garrison’s official Facebook fan page

Learn More

  

Humphreys hosts Army 10-miler shadow run

   

By W. Wayne Marlow, U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys, Public Affairs

  

CAMP HUMPHREYS, SOUTH KOREA – Over 300 runners from across the Korean peninsula took part in the second annual Army 10-miler Shadow Run hosted here Oct. 2.

 

First Lieutenant Robert Anderson of the 532nd Military Intelligence Battalion won the nighttime race, designed to mirror the Army’s annual run in Washington, D.C., in 1 hour, 3 minutes and 51 seconds. First Lieutenant Sarah Rainville took the women’s crown, finishing in 1:16:44.

 

Anderson said he initially thought only about doing his best and having a good run. But when some entrants passed him early in the race, his focused changed.

 

“I was going to try and take it easy ... but then an adrenaline rush hit and I decided to pick it up,” he said.

 

Anderson maintained a steady pace, running the second half in just two more minutes than he did the first five miles. “I felt good the whole time,” he said. “I felt like I had some left in the tank. I started training for it last year, so I’ve been upping my mileage.”

 

The Camp Humphreys shadow run will be shown on a large screen during the Army 10-miler in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 9, and Anderson plans to be there to watch it and participate in his second 10-miler of the week. “This was prep for that one,” he said.

 

Former United States Army Garrison Humphreys Command Sgt. Maj. Jason Kim fired the opening gun at 9 p.m. locally to coincide with the actual time the run will start in Washington D.C. Led by Kim’s replacement, Command Sgt. Maj. Spencer Gray, the runners started under the Super Gym walkway, then snaked their way around the airfield twice, ending up back at Super Gym.

 

“It’s an absolutely great event,” Gray said. “Soldiers work hard, so when you can do something like this to build esprit de corps, it’s a positive thing. It’s an opportunity for everyone to have a good time.”

 

The crisp, cool October air helped keep the runners fresh, as did rehydration stations manned by volunteers along the route. The constant encouragement by fellow runners and cheering from the sidelines helped push the runners toward the finish.

 

“It’s not too cold. It’s nice running weather,” Gray said. “You can always wear something to keep you warm, and if it gets too hot, you can dress down.”

 

Anderson agreed that the race featured ideal conditions. “It’s great weather, no overheating,” he said. “It’s the best weather for running.”

 

Anderson said he has three brothers in the Army who are also all enthusiastic runners, and there was another family connection of note. Specialist Charles Rodgers IV flew from Hawaii to run the race with his father, Charles Rodgers III, who manages Splish and Splash Water Park on Humphreys. The two finished with identical times of 1:32:40.

 

Besides ideal weather and enthusiastic observers, the runners were treated to replicas of Washington, D.C., monuments built by Jeffrey Hubbard of the USAG Humphreys Family, Morale Welfare and Recreation office. The replicas, made of Styrofoam and braced by wood supports, included the Vietnam Memorial, the Pentagon, the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Jefferson memorials, and the capitol. The project took about two weeks, according to Hubbard.

 

“It was to give everybody something extra to look at during the run and to do something different,” Hubbard said. “We figured looking at a poster would be kind of boring. We wanted to give them incentive to go and see the next one. They’ll be here next year. They’re built to last.”

 

Area III Sports Director Lonnie Herring credited volunteers with helping make the run a success.

 

“We had three drink tables on the trail and at the start and finish point,” he said. “We had BOSS bring in volunteers, folks standing on the road, and people handing out numbers and pace chips before the race.” The computerized chips, attached to the runners’ shoes, started and stopped when someone crossed the start and finish lines, giving everyone an accurate 10-mile time.

 

For all the logistics involved in having hundreds of people run 10 miles, Herring said most of the work was done beforehand.

 

“The pre-registration is the most time-consuming,” he said, also mentioning coordination with Military Police, road closures, medical considerations, and taxi and bus services being suspended. But all the work paid off in the end, Herring noted.

 

Prior to the run, entrants were addressed by USAG Humphreys Commander, Col. Joseph P. Moore.

 

“We’re here to have fun, and I hope your commanders told you that if you run this, there’s no P.T. tomorrow. Ten miles is no small task,” Moore said. “I’ve run this loop a lot at night. There’s plenty of light out there. The terrain is real friendly. There are no big hills, just a lot of open room to run.”

 

The top three finishers in the men’s 29 and under category were: Wbatt Reith (1:07:53); Samuel Smiths (1:09:09) and Daniel Bates (1:09:35). Following Anderson in the men’s 30-39 category were David Snow (1:12:41) and Nathan Stahl (1:18:02).

 

In the men’s 40-49 category, the top three finishers were Brett Bassett (1:14:49), Dan Burnett (1:17:06) and Felix Lassus (1:18:57). Leading the way in the men’s 50 and over category were Robert Nott (1:09:14), Mark Sullivan (1:09:57) and Kwon, Song-ki (1:19:23).

 

Following Rainville in the women’s 29 and under category were Kyle Wilson (1:22:20) and Liela Moser (1:26:01). In the women’s 30 and over category, top finishers were Sarah Stahl (1:20:45), Adam Leinen (1:27:52), and Jamila Moody (1:34:11). Taking the women’s over 40 crown was Kim, Hui-ok (1:37:06). In the women’s over 50 category, Barbara Garner (1:37:31) took first, followed by Susan Jentoft (1:43:23).

 

Photos courtesy U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys, FMWR Marketing

  

Click here to view the garrison’s official Facebook fan page

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some Background:

On 23 January 1992, the Lithuanian Minister of Defense signed an order establishing the staff for the Aviation Base of the Aviation Service. But an actual base in the Šiauliai airport territory (Barysiai airfield) was not established until March, when according to the ordinance of the Government of Lithuanian Republic, all the infrastructure, buildings, territory and 24 An-2 aircraft were passed from ”Lithuanian Airlines" to the Aviation Service of the Ministry of Defense in January 1992.

 

On 12 June 1992, the first time after regaining the independence of Lithuania, An-2 aircraft, marked with the double cross of Vytis on its wings – the distinguishing sign of Lithuanian Air Force – took off from Barysiai airfield. This date is considered to be the Aviation Base foundation date. In February 1993 four L-39C Albatros aircraft were brought from Kyrgyzstan.

 

After 1 March 1993 Aviation Service was reformed to the Lithuanian Air Force and Aviation Base was renamed the First Aviation Base of the Lithuanian Air Force. In January 1994 Lithuania officially applied for NATO membership, and the country also looked out for a relatively cheap multi-purpose fighter that would fulfill both air space defence and attack tasks, the latter primarily against potential targets at sea (e. g. fast hoovercraft landing ships operated by the Russian Baltic Fleet).

 

After evaluating several options, the Lithuanian Air Force settled for a surprising aircraft: the venerable MiG-21! After the demise of the Soviet Union, several international companies started to offer conversion and upgrade programs for the widely used tactical fighter, about 5.000 specimen had been built to date. One of the first companies to enter the market was Israel Aircraft Industries: IAI's Lahav Division of (IAI) had developed the so-called MiG-21 2000 upgraded fighter and ground attack version, based on the MiG-21bis and the export MiG-21MF fighter aircraft.

 

The MiG-21 2000 upgrade provided modifications to the cockpit configuration, avionics architecture and weapons systems, enabling the MiG-21 2000 to compete with Western developed fighters like the F-16 and to make the transition to Western standards. The aircraft's original systems and components were retained wherever mission effectiveness was not compromised.

IAI Lahav augmented the original weapons system by introducing an EL/M-2032 radar, developed by IAI Elta Electronic Industries, based in Ashdod. The radar, which uses a low sidelobe planar array antenna and pulse Doppler beam sharpening, provides all-altitude, all-aspect look-up / look-down and shoot-down capability, as well as beyond-visual-range capability. In order to make the radar compatible with Western ordnance, a new armament interface and control unit were added, too, which enabled computerized control and release of weapons, including third and fourth-generation air-to-air missiles and precision-guided munitions of Western and Eastern provenance.

 

This system also gave the pilot the ability to use blind attack as well as continuously computed impact point (CCIP) and dive-toss bombing techniques. CCIP bombing involves the deployment of air-to-ground weapons, using the HUD to indicate the impact point for release of the weapons. Dive-toss bombing involves the release of air-to-ground weapons at the end of a steep dive manoeuver towards the target.

 

The MiG-21 2000 cockpit featured a new pilot-friendly layout that overcame the shortcomings of the original cockpit layout, which was crowded and lacked most of the desired man-machine interface characteristics. It incorporated a head-up display (HUD), eye-level multifunction color displays, hands on throttle and stick control (HOTAS), solid-state charge coupled device (CCD) camera, videotape recorder, and a one-piece windshield.

 

The MiG-21 2000 could be equipped with a display and sight helmet (DASH) system, supplied by Elbit of Haifa, which enabled the pilot to aim the weapons simply by looking at the target. The system worked by measuring the pilot's line of sight relative to the aircraft, and transferred the information to the aircraft's sensors, avionics and weapon systems. The helmet displayed vital information, such as the missile line of sight, missile status, flight information and warning data, on the visor. The DASH helmet allowed the pilot to fly head-up and off-boresight and assisted the pilot to detect, identify and shoot earlier.

 

IAI Lahav's upgrade package could be tailored to meet the customer's specific operational and budgetary requirements - the Lithuanian package included the radar, cockpit and also the DASH update and was rumored to cost around 4 Mio. USD per aircraft, and Lithuania was, together with Romania (where 110 MiG-21 were to be updated), lead customer.

 

As conversion basis, Lithuania purchased fifteen MiG-21 airframes for an unknown sum from the Ukraine, which had inherited a considerable MiG-21 fleet after the demise of the Soviet Union but did not (want to) operate it. The deal included thirteen airworthy MiG-21bis fighters and two MiG-21U trainers with few flying hours on the clocks, and - stripped off any military equipment - the small fleet was gradually transferred as disassembled kits via air ferry in Antonov Airlines An-124 transporters to Aerostar in Romania for conversion, starting in early 1996.

 

The first batch of Lithuanian MiG-21 2000, three fighters and one trainer, arrived in mid-1997 from Bacau on their own power and with civil Ukrainian registrations, and the Lithuanian Air Force’s fighter squadron, the Naikintuvu Eskadra, became ready for service in February 1998.

The rest of the country’s small MiG-21 fleet was delivered in the course of the same year, and these aircraft were semi-officially christened "Globėjas" (Guardian). Since the late Nineties, the Globėjas fighters provide the backbone of Lithuania's air defenses, with aircraft holding Quick Reaction Alert. QRA missions – so-called Alpha Scrambles – have constantly been on the rise thanks to the Russia’s increased aggression towards NATO. The MiG’s have regularly launched to intercept and shadow Russian Air Force Il-20 intelligence gathering aircraft over the Baltic Sea, as well as Tu-16 and Tu-95 patrols and even some Sukhoi Su-27s.

 

Lithuanian pilots use “hit and run” style tactics to deal with air threats, due to the limited range and endurance of their mounts - but this is of little concern due to the country's relatively small size and the defensive nature of the machines' tasks. While the Globėjas lack a beyond-visual range missile, although they could carry one, they have the ability to carry a range of different short-range air-to-air missiles like the Israeli Python III, which Lithuania procured from Rafael in Haifa as primary air-to-air missile.

 

After Lithuania joined NATO organization in 2004, its (alongside Latvia's and Estonia's) air space has been protected by NATO. NATO members provide usually 4 fighter aircraft, based in Lithuania, to police the Baltic States’ airspace, where they support the Lithuanian MiG-21 fleet. The duties rotate between NATO members (which started in March 2004 with Belgium Air Force F-16s) and most NATO members that operate fighters have made temporary deployments to Lithuania.

 

The Lithuanian Globėjas were also in regular demand as a simulated threat, and have gone up against US F-16s, F-15s, F/A-18s and A-10s, as well as the many different European fighter types that frequently rotate into the small country, including the Eurofighter, German F-4F Phantom IIs or French Mirage 2000.

 

Anyway, the Globėjas' airframes sooner or later reached their flying hour limits, and will be phased out towards 2020. As a replacement Lithuania will begin taking delivery of its first batch of ex-Portuguese F-16s in 2016, while the Baltic States are considering in the near future to protect their airspace on their own.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 14.5 [126] m (47 ft 7 in)

Wingspan: 7.154 m (23 ft 6 in)

Height: 4 m (13 ft 6 in)

Wing area: 23.0 m² (247.3 ft²)

Empty weight: 5,846 kg (12,880 lb)

Gross weight: 8,825 kg (19,425 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1× Tumansky R25-300, rated at 40.21 kN (9,040 lbf) thrust dry

and 69.62 kN (15,650 lbf) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 2,175 km/h (1,351.48 mph)

Maximum speed: Mach 2.0

Landing speed: 350 km/h (190 kts)

Range: (internal fuel) 1,210 km (751 miles)

Service ceiling: 17,800 m (58,400 ft)

Rate of climb: 225 m/s (44,280 ft/min)

 

Armament:

1x internal 23 mm GSh-23 cannon

5x hardpoints for a wide range of guided and unguided ordnance of up to 3.310 lb (1.500 kg).

 

In QRA configuration the Lithuanian MiG-21 typically carry two or four Rafal Python III short

range air-to-air missiles and an 800l drop tank on the centerline pylon.

Against ground targets, unguided bombs of up to 1.100 lb (500kg) caliber or unguided rockets

can be carried; alternatively, a Rafael LITENING laser designation pod and three

Griffin Mk. 82 LGBs or a single Mk. 84 LGB can be carried, or optically guided weapons like up

to four AGM-65 Maverick or a single GBU-8.

  

The kit and its assembly:

This kit is the entry for the 2016 "One Week Group Build" at whatifmodelers.com, which ran from 29th of April until 8th May (so, actually nine days...). I had this project earmarked for the recent "Cold War" GB, but it fell outside of the build's time horizon. But despite the dubious kit as basis, I tackled the build since I had anything else already at hand.

 

The basis is the MiG-21-93 demonstrator kit from Ukrainian manufacturer Condor, one of the many reincarnations of the venerable KP MiG-21bis, but with some updates. You get, for instance, engraved, very fine panel lines, some typical details were added like the wraparound windscreen (wrong shape, though) and the radar warning fairing on the fin as well as an extra sprue with modern Russian ordnance – apparently from some other kit!

On the downside, there's overall mediocre fit due to the molds' age, some dubious details (anything appears softened or blurred…) or the simple lack thereof (e. g. there’s no ventral gun fairing at all). But there’s nothing that could not be mended, and after all this is just a whiffy version.

 

Since there was only one week time to build the thing and make beauty pics, the whole project remained close to OOB status, even though a lot of detail changes or additions were made in order to convert the Russian MiG-21-93 into an earlier but similar Israeli MiG-21 2000 derivative.

 

These mods include:

- A Martin Baker ejection seat, with wire trigger handles

- HUD made from clear styrene

- Lowered flaps

- An added jet pipe/interior for the otherwise bleak exhaust (parts from a Kangnam Yak-38)

- Hydraulic pipes on the landing gear, made from very thin wire

- Some more/different blade antennae

- Measuring vanes on the pitot boom

- Different GSh-23 gun fairing, from an Academy MiG-23

- Thinner blast deflector plates under the anti-surge doors

- A pair of Python III AAMs, plus respective launch rails

- Different centerline drop tank, from an F-5E

- Scratched chaff/flare dispensers under the rear fuselage (as carried by the MiG-21 2000 demonstrator)

 

Building the model went straightforward, but it took some putty work to fill some seams, dents and holes all around the kit. Biggest issue was a hole in front of the cockpit screen, where simply not enough styrene had been injected into the mould!

  

Painting and markings:

The Lithuanian Air Force as operator for this build was chosen because it would not only fit into the real world timeline (even though I doubt that there would have been any budget for this aircraft at that time, even if MiG-21s had not been upgraded at all...) and because the potential livery would be very simple: contemporary L-39 trainers, C-27L Spartan as well as some L-410 and Mi-8 transporters carry a uniform, dull grey livery. Why not apply it on an air superiority fighter, too?

 

Finding an appropriate tone was not easy, though. Some sources claim the grey tone to be FS 36306, others refer to FS 36270 or "close to Blue/Grey FS35237", but IMHO none of the cited Federal Standard tones works well. Real world Lithuanian aircraft appear pretty dark and dull, and the color also features a greenish, slate grey hue - it's a unique color indeed.

 

After some trials (and also wishing to avoid mixing) I settled for Humbrol 111 (German Field Grey, a.k.a. Uniform Grey) as basic tone. It's a rather dark choice, but I wanted some good contrast to the national markings. A full wraparound livery appeared a little too dark and boring, so I added light blue wing undersurfaces (Humbrol 115). The kit received a light black in wash and some panel shading, primarily in order to add some life to the otherwise uniform surface.

 

Details were painted according to real world MiG-21 pics: the cockpit became classic teal with light grey instrument panels, plus OOB decals for the dashboard and side consoles. The landing gear struts were painted in a light, metallic grey (Humbrol 127 + 56) while the wells were painted in an odd primer color, a mix of Aluminum, Sand and Olive Drab. Parts of the covers were painted with Humbrol 144 (Blue Grey), seen on a modernized real world MiG-21. The wheel discs became bright green.

 

IAI's MiG-21 2000 demonstrator from 1993 had a black radome (as well as later Romanian LanceR Cs), so I adapted this detail for my build. Other typical di-electric fairings on a MiG-21's hull were painted in slightly darker camouflage colors, while the fin's leading edge became dark grey.

The blast deflector plates received yellow and black warning stripes, and some potentially dangerous parts for the ground crews like the pointed anti-flutter booms were painted red. The Python IIIs were simply painted all-white, mounted on grey launch rails - a harsh contrast to the dull rest of the aircraft.

 

Main markings come from a Blue Rider Publishing aftermarket sheet for modern Lithuanian aircraft. This set also includes the small Air Force crests, which I put on the nose, as well as the typical, blue tactical codes.

The stencils come from the scrap box, the small Lithuanian flag stripes on the tail rudder were created from single decal stripes, a personal addition inspired by Lithuanian C-27J transporters. They add some more color to the otherwise murky Baltic MiG fighter.

The silver ring around the air intake as well as the stripes at the flaps and the rudder were created with simple decal stripes instead of paint.

 

Finally, after I added some graphite soot around the jet exhaust and some panle lines with a pencil (e .g. the blow-in doors and airbrake outlines), the kit was sealed with hardly thinned Revell matt acrylic varnish, trying to create a really dull finish.

  

A tough build, despite being mostly OOB, but the details took their toll. This Baltic MiG does not look flashy, but, with IAI's real world MiG-21 2000 as well as the LanceR conversion for Romania in the Nineties, this one is pretty plausible. And with the simple paint scheme, the MiG-21 looks even pretty chic!

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some Background:

On 23 January 1992, the Lithuanian Minister of Defense signed an order establishing the staff for the Aviation Base of the Aviation Service. But an actual base in the Šiauliai airport territory (Barysiai airfield) was not established until March, when according to the ordinance of the Government of Lithuanian Republic, all the infrastructure, buildings, territory and 24 An-2 aircraft were passed from ”Lithuanian Airlines" to the Aviation Service of the Ministry of Defense in January 1992.

 

On 12 June 1992, the first time after regaining the independence of Lithuania, An-2 aircraft, marked with the double cross of Vytis on its wings – the distinguishing sign of Lithuanian Air Force – took off from Barysiai airfield. This date is considered to be the Aviation Base foundation date. In February 1993 four L-39C Albatros aircraft were brought from Kyrgyzstan.

 

After 1 March 1993 Aviation Service was reformed to the Lithuanian Air Force and Aviation Base was renamed the First Aviation Base of the Lithuanian Air Force. In January 1994 Lithuania officially applied for NATO membership, and the country also looked out for a relatively cheap multi-purpose fighter that would fulfill both air space defence and attack tasks, the latter primarily against potential targets at sea (e. g. fast hoovercraft landing ships operated by the Russian Baltic Fleet).

 

After evaluating several options, the Lithuanian Air Force settled for a surprising aircraft: the venerable MiG-21! After the demise of the Soviet Union, several international companies started to offer conversion and upgrade programs for the widely used tactical fighter, about 5.000 specimen had been built to date. One of the first companies to enter the market was Israel Aircraft Industries: IAI's Lahav Division of (IAI) had developed the so-called MiG-21 2000 upgraded fighter and ground attack version, based on the MiG-21bis and the export MiG-21MF fighter aircraft.

 

The MiG-21 2000 upgrade provided modifications to the cockpit configuration, avionics architecture and weapons systems, enabling the MiG-21 2000 to compete with Western developed fighters like the F-16 and to make the transition to Western standards. The aircraft's original systems and components were retained wherever mission effectiveness was not compromised.

IAI Lahav augmented the original weapons system by introducing an EL/M-2032 radar, developed by IAI Elta Electronic Industries, based in Ashdod. The radar, which uses a low sidelobe planar array antenna and pulse Doppler beam sharpening, provides all-altitude, all-aspect look-up / look-down and shoot-down capability, as well as beyond-visual-range capability. In order to make the radar compatible with Western ordnance, a new armament interface and control unit were added, too, which enabled computerized control and release of weapons, including third and fourth-generation air-to-air missiles and precision-guided munitions of Western and Eastern provenance.

 

This system also gave the pilot the ability to use blind attack as well as continuously computed impact point (CCIP) and dive-toss bombing techniques. CCIP bombing involves the deployment of air-to-ground weapons, using the HUD to indicate the impact point for release of the weapons. Dive-toss bombing involves the release of air-to-ground weapons at the end of a steep dive manoeuver towards the target.

 

The MiG-21 2000 cockpit featured a new pilot-friendly layout that overcame the shortcomings of the original cockpit layout, which was crowded and lacked most of the desired man-machine interface characteristics. It incorporated a head-up display (HUD), eye-level multifunction color displays, hands on throttle and stick control (HOTAS), solid-state charge coupled device (CCD) camera, videotape recorder, and a one-piece windshield.

 

The MiG-21 2000 could be equipped with a display and sight helmet (DASH) system, supplied by Elbit of Haifa, which enabled the pilot to aim the weapons simply by looking at the target. The system worked by measuring the pilot's line of sight relative to the aircraft, and transferred the information to the aircraft's sensors, avionics and weapon systems. The helmet displayed vital information, such as the missile line of sight, missile status, flight information and warning data, on the visor. The DASH helmet allowed the pilot to fly head-up and off-boresight and assisted the pilot to detect, identify and shoot earlier.

 

IAI Lahav's upgrade package could be tailored to meet the customer's specific operational and budgetary requirements - the Lithuanian package included the radar, cockpit and also the DASH update and was rumored to cost around 4 Mio. USD per aircraft, and Lithuania was, together with Romania (where 110 MiG-21 were to be updated), lead customer.

 

As conversion basis, Lithuania purchased fifteen MiG-21 airframes for an unknown sum from the Ukraine, which had inherited a considerable MiG-21 fleet after the demise of the Soviet Union but did not (want to) operate it. The deal included thirteen airworthy MiG-21bis fighters and two MiG-21U trainers with few flying hours on the clocks, and - stripped off any military equipment - the small fleet was gradually transferred as disassembled kits via air ferry in Antonov Airlines An-124 transporters to Aerostar in Romania for conversion, starting in early 1996.

 

The first batch of Lithuanian MiG-21 2000, three fighters and one trainer, arrived in mid-1997 from Bacau on their own power and with civil Ukrainian registrations, and the Lithuanian Air Force’s fighter squadron, the Naikintuvu Eskadra, became ready for service in February 1998.

The rest of the country’s small MiG-21 fleet was delivered in the course of the same year, and these aircraft were semi-officially christened "Globėjas" (Guardian). Since the late Nineties, the Globėjas fighters provide the backbone of Lithuania's air defenses, with aircraft holding Quick Reaction Alert. QRA missions – so-called Alpha Scrambles – have constantly been on the rise thanks to the Russia’s increased aggression towards NATO. The MiG’s have regularly launched to intercept and shadow Russian Air Force Il-20 intelligence gathering aircraft over the Baltic Sea, as well as Tu-16 and Tu-95 patrols and even some Sukhoi Su-27s.

 

Lithuanian pilots use “hit and run” style tactics to deal with air threats, due to the limited range and endurance of their mounts - but this is of little concern due to the country's relatively small size and the defensive nature of the machines' tasks. While the Globėjas lack a beyond-visual range missile, although they could carry one, they have the ability to carry a range of different short-range air-to-air missiles like the Israeli Python III, which Lithuania procured from Rafael in Haifa as primary air-to-air missile.

 

After Lithuania joined NATO organization in 2004, its (alongside Latvia's and Estonia's) air space has been protected by NATO. NATO members provide usually 4 fighter aircraft, based in Lithuania, to police the Baltic States’ airspace, where they support the Lithuanian MiG-21 fleet. The duties rotate between NATO members (which started in March 2004 with Belgium Air Force F-16s) and most NATO members that operate fighters have made temporary deployments to Lithuania.

 

The Lithuanian Globėjas were also in regular demand as a simulated threat, and have gone up against US F-16s, F-15s, F/A-18s and A-10s, as well as the many different European fighter types that frequently rotate into the small country, including the Eurofighter, German F-4F Phantom IIs or French Mirage 2000.

 

Anyway, the Globėjas' airframes sooner or later reached their flying hour limits, and will be phased out towards 2020. As a replacement Lithuania will begin taking delivery of its first batch of ex-Portuguese F-16s in 2016, while the Baltic States are considering in the near future to protect their airspace on their own.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 14.5 [126] m (47 ft 7 in)

Wingspan: 7.154 m (23 ft 6 in)

Height: 4 m (13 ft 6 in)

Wing area: 23.0 m² (247.3 ft²)

Empty weight: 5,846 kg (12,880 lb)

Gross weight: 8,825 kg (19,425 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1× Tumansky R25-300, rated at 40.21 kN (9,040 lbf) thrust dry

and 69.62 kN (15,650 lbf) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 2,175 km/h (1,351.48 mph)

Maximum speed: Mach 2.0

Landing speed: 350 km/h (190 kts)

Range: (internal fuel) 1,210 km (751 miles)

Service ceiling: 17,800 m (58,400 ft)

Rate of climb: 225 m/s (44,280 ft/min)

 

Armament:

1x internal 23 mm GSh-23 cannon

5x hardpoints for a wide range of guided and unguided ordnance of up to 3.310 lb (1.500 kg).

 

In QRA configuration the Lithuanian MiG-21 typically carry two or four Rafal Python III short

range air-to-air missiles and an 800l drop tank on the centerline pylon.

Against ground targets, unguided bombs of up to 1.100 lb (500kg) caliber or unguided rockets

can be carried; alternatively, a Rafael LITENING laser designation pod and three

Griffin Mk. 82 LGBs or a single Mk. 84 LGB can be carried, or optically guided weapons like up

to four AGM-65 Maverick or a single GBU-8.

  

The kit and its assembly:

This kit is the entry for the 2016 "One Week Group Build" at whatifmodelers.com, which ran from 29th of April until 8th May (so, actually nine days...). I had this project earmarked for the recent "Cold War" GB, but it fell outside of the build's time horizon. But despite the dubious kit as basis, I tackled the build since I had anything else already at hand.

 

The basis is the MiG-21-93 demonstrator kit from Ukrainian manufacturer Condor, one of the many reincarnations of the venerable KP MiG-21bis, but with some updates. You get, for instance, engraved, very fine panel lines, some typical details were added like the wraparound windscreen (wrong shape, though) and the radar warning fairing on the fin as well as an extra sprue with modern Russian ordnance – apparently from some other kit!

On the downside, there's overall mediocre fit due to the molds' age, some dubious details (anything appears softened or blurred…) or the simple lack thereof (e. g. there’s no ventral gun fairing at all). But there’s nothing that could not be mended, and after all this is just a whiffy version.

 

Since there was only one week time to build the thing and make beauty pics, the whole project remained close to OOB status, even though a lot of detail changes or additions were made in order to convert the Russian MiG-21-93 into an earlier but similar Israeli MiG-21 2000 derivative.

 

These mods include:

- A Martin Baker ejection seat, with wire trigger handles

- HUD made from clear styrene

- Lowered flaps

- An added jet pipe/interior for the otherwise bleak exhaust (parts from a Kangnam Yak-38)

- Hydraulic pipes on the landing gear, made from very thin wire

- Some more/different blade antennae

- Measuring vanes on the pitot boom

- Different GSh-23 gun fairing, from an Academy MiG-23

- Thinner blast deflector plates under the anti-surge doors

- A pair of Python III AAMs, plus respective launch rails

- Different centerline drop tank, from an F-5E

- Scratched chaff/flare dispensers under the rear fuselage (as carried by the MiG-21 2000 demonstrator)

 

Building the model went straightforward, but it took some putty work to fill some seams, dents and holes all around the kit. Biggest issue was a hole in front of the cockpit screen, where simply not enough styrene had been injected into the mould!

  

Painting and markings:

The Lithuanian Air Force as operator for this build was chosen because it would not only fit into the real world timeline (even though I doubt that there would have been any budget for this aircraft at that time, even if MiG-21s had not been upgraded at all...) and because the potential livery would be very simple: contemporary L-39 trainers, C-27L Spartan as well as some L-410 and Mi-8 transporters carry a uniform, dull grey livery. Why not apply it on an air superiority fighter, too?

 

Finding an appropriate tone was not easy, though. Some sources claim the grey tone to be FS 36306, others refer to FS 36270 or "close to Blue/Grey FS35237", but IMHO none of the cited Federal Standard tones works well. Real world Lithuanian aircraft appear pretty dark and dull, and the color also features a greenish, slate grey hue - it's a unique color indeed.

 

After some trials (and also wishing to avoid mixing) I settled for Humbrol 111 (German Field Grey, a.k.a. Uniform Grey) as basic tone. It's a rather dark choice, but I wanted some good contrast to the national markings. A full wraparound livery appeared a little too dark and boring, so I added light blue wing undersurfaces (Humbrol 115). The kit received a light black in wash and some panel shading, primarily in order to add some life to the otherwise uniform surface.

 

Details were painted according to real world MiG-21 pics: the cockpit became classic teal with light grey instrument panels, plus OOB decals for the dashboard and side consoles. The landing gear struts were painted in a light, metallic grey (Humbrol 127 + 56) while the wells were painted in an odd primer color, a mix of Aluminum, Sand and Olive Drab. Parts of the covers were painted with Humbrol 144 (Blue Grey), seen on a modernized real world MiG-21. The wheel discs became bright green.

 

IAI's MiG-21 2000 demonstrator from 1993 had a black radome (as well as later Romanian LanceR Cs), so I adapted this detail for my build. Other typical di-electric fairings on a MiG-21's hull were painted in slightly darker camouflage colors, while the fin's leading edge became dark grey.

The blast deflector plates received yellow and black warning stripes, and some potentially dangerous parts for the ground crews like the pointed anti-flutter booms were painted red. The Python IIIs were simply painted all-white, mounted on grey launch rails - a harsh contrast to the dull rest of the aircraft.

 

Main markings come from a Blue Rider Publishing aftermarket sheet for modern Lithuanian aircraft. This set also includes the small Air Force crests, which I put on the nose, as well as the typical, blue tactical codes.

The stencils come from the scrap box, the small Lithuanian flag stripes on the tail rudder were created from single decal stripes, a personal addition inspired by Lithuanian C-27J transporters. They add some more color to the otherwise murky Baltic MiG fighter.

The silver ring around the air intake as well as the stripes at the flaps and the rudder were created with simple decal stripes instead of paint.

 

Finally, after I added some graphite soot around the jet exhaust and some panle lines with a pencil (e .g. the blow-in doors and airbrake outlines), the kit was sealed with hardly thinned Revell matt acrylic varnish, trying to create a really dull finish.

  

A tough build, despite being mostly OOB, but the details took their toll. This Baltic MiG does not look flashy, but, with IAI's real world MiG-21 2000 as well as the LanceR conversion for Romania in the Nineties, this one is pretty plausible. And with the simple paint scheme, the MiG-21 looks even pretty chic!

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some Background:

On 23 January 1992, the Lithuanian Minister of Defense signed an order establishing the staff for the Aviation Base of the Aviation Service. But an actual base in the Šiauliai airport territory (Barysiai airfield) was not established until March, when according to the ordinance of the Government of Lithuanian Republic, all the infrastructure, buildings, territory and 24 An-2 aircraft were passed from ”Lithuanian Airlines" to the Aviation Service of the Ministry of Defense in January 1992.

 

On 12 June 1992, the first time after regaining the independence of Lithuania, An-2 aircraft, marked with the double cross of Vytis on its wings – the distinguishing sign of Lithuanian Air Force – took off from Barysiai airfield. This date is considered to be the Aviation Base foundation date. In February 1993 four L-39C Albatros aircraft were brought from Kyrgyzstan.

 

After 1 March 1993 Aviation Service was reformed to the Lithuanian Air Force and Aviation Base was renamed the First Aviation Base of the Lithuanian Air Force. In January 1994 Lithuania officially applied for NATO membership, and the country also looked out for a relatively cheap multi-purpose fighter that would fulfill both air space defence and attack tasks, the latter primarily against potential targets at sea (e. g. fast hoovercraft landing ships operated by the Russian Baltic Fleet).

 

After evaluating several options, the Lithuanian Air Force settled for a surprising aircraft: the venerable MiG-21! After the demise of the Soviet Union, several international companies started to offer conversion and upgrade programs for the widely used tactical fighter, about 5.000 specimen had been built to date. One of the first companies to enter the market was Israel Aircraft Industries: IAI's Lahav Division of (IAI) had developed the so-called MiG-21 2000 upgraded fighter and ground attack version, based on the MiG-21bis and the export MiG-21MF fighter aircraft.

 

The MiG-21 2000 upgrade provided modifications to the cockpit configuration, avionics architecture and weapons systems, enabling the MiG-21 2000 to compete with Western developed fighters like the F-16 and to make the transition to Western standards. The aircraft's original systems and components were retained wherever mission effectiveness was not compromised.

IAI Lahav augmented the original weapons system by introducing an EL/M-2032 radar, developed by IAI Elta Electronic Industries, based in Ashdod. The radar, which uses a low sidelobe planar array antenna and pulse Doppler beam sharpening, provides all-altitude, all-aspect look-up / look-down and shoot-down capability, as well as beyond-visual-range capability. In order to make the radar compatible with Western ordnance, a new armament interface and control unit were added, too, which enabled computerized control and release of weapons, including third and fourth-generation air-to-air missiles and precision-guided munitions of Western and Eastern provenance.

 

This system also gave the pilot the ability to use blind attack as well as continuously computed impact point (CCIP) and dive-toss bombing techniques. CCIP bombing involves the deployment of air-to-ground weapons, using the HUD to indicate the impact point for release of the weapons. Dive-toss bombing involves the release of air-to-ground weapons at the end of a steep dive manoeuver towards the target.

 

The MiG-21 2000 cockpit featured a new pilot-friendly layout that overcame the shortcomings of the original cockpit layout, which was crowded and lacked most of the desired man-machine interface characteristics. It incorporated a head-up display (HUD), eye-level multifunction color displays, hands on throttle and stick control (HOTAS), solid-state charge coupled device (CCD) camera, videotape recorder, and a one-piece windshield.

 

The MiG-21 2000 could be equipped with a display and sight helmet (DASH) system, supplied by Elbit of Haifa, which enabled the pilot to aim the weapons simply by looking at the target. The system worked by measuring the pilot's line of sight relative to the aircraft, and transferred the information to the aircraft's sensors, avionics and weapon systems. The helmet displayed vital information, such as the missile line of sight, missile status, flight information and warning data, on the visor. The DASH helmet allowed the pilot to fly head-up and off-boresight and assisted the pilot to detect, identify and shoot earlier.

 

IAI Lahav's upgrade package could be tailored to meet the customer's specific operational and budgetary requirements - the Lithuanian package included the radar, cockpit and also the DASH update and was rumored to cost around 4 Mio. USD per aircraft, and Lithuania was, together with Romania (where 110 MiG-21 were to be updated), lead customer.

 

As conversion basis, Lithuania purchased fifteen MiG-21 airframes for an unknown sum from the Ukraine, which had inherited a considerable MiG-21 fleet after the demise of the Soviet Union but did not (want to) operate it. The deal included thirteen airworthy MiG-21bis fighters and two MiG-21U trainers with few flying hours on the clocks, and - stripped off any military equipment - the small fleet was gradually transferred as disassembled kits via air ferry in Antonov Airlines An-124 transporters to Aerostar in Romania for conversion, starting in early 1996.

 

The first batch of Lithuanian MiG-21 2000, three fighters and one trainer, arrived in mid-1997 from Bacau on their own power and with civil Ukrainian registrations, and the Lithuanian Air Force’s fighter squadron, the Naikintuvu Eskadra, became ready for service in February 1998.

The rest of the country’s small MiG-21 fleet was delivered in the course of the same year, and these aircraft were semi-officially christened "Globėjas" (Guardian). Since the late Nineties, the Globėjas fighters provide the backbone of Lithuania's air defenses, with aircraft holding Quick Reaction Alert. QRA missions – so-called Alpha Scrambles – have constantly been on the rise thanks to the Russia’s increased aggression towards NATO. The MiG’s have regularly launched to intercept and shadow Russian Air Force Il-20 intelligence gathering aircraft over the Baltic Sea, as well as Tu-16 and Tu-95 patrols and even some Sukhoi Su-27s.

 

Lithuanian pilots use “hit and run” style tactics to deal with air threats, due to the limited range and endurance of their mounts - but this is of little concern due to the country's relatively small size and the defensive nature of the machines' tasks. While the Globėjas lack a beyond-visual range missile, although they could carry one, they have the ability to carry a range of different short-range air-to-air missiles like the Israeli Python III, which Lithuania procured from Rafael in Haifa as primary air-to-air missile.

 

After Lithuania joined NATO organization in 2004, its (alongside Latvia's and Estonia's) air space has been protected by NATO. NATO members provide usually 4 fighter aircraft, based in Lithuania, to police the Baltic States’ airspace, where they support the Lithuanian MiG-21 fleet. The duties rotate between NATO members (which started in March 2004 with Belgium Air Force F-16s) and most NATO members that operate fighters have made temporary deployments to Lithuania.

 

The Lithuanian Globėjas were also in regular demand as a simulated threat, and have gone up against US F-16s, F-15s, F/A-18s and A-10s, as well as the many different European fighter types that frequently rotate into the small country, including the Eurofighter, German F-4F Phantom IIs or French Mirage 2000.

 

Anyway, the Globėjas' airframes sooner or later reached their flying hour limits, and will be phased out towards 2020. As a replacement Lithuania will begin taking delivery of its first batch of ex-Portuguese F-16s in 2016, while the Baltic States are considering in the near future to protect their airspace on their own.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 14.5 [126] m (47 ft 7 in)

Wingspan: 7.154 m (23 ft 6 in)

Height: 4 m (13 ft 6 in)

Wing area: 23.0 m² (247.3 ft²)

Empty weight: 5,846 kg (12,880 lb)

Gross weight: 8,825 kg (19,425 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1× Tumansky R25-300, rated at 40.21 kN (9,040 lbf) thrust dry

and 69.62 kN (15,650 lbf) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 2,175 km/h (1,351.48 mph)

Maximum speed: Mach 2.0

Landing speed: 350 km/h (190 kts)

Range: (internal fuel) 1,210 km (751 miles)

Service ceiling: 17,800 m (58,400 ft)

Rate of climb: 225 m/s (44,280 ft/min)

 

Armament:

1x internal 23 mm GSh-23 cannon

5x hardpoints for a wide range of guided and unguided ordnance of up to 3.310 lb (1.500 kg).

 

In QRA configuration the Lithuanian MiG-21 typically carry two or four Rafal Python III short

range air-to-air missiles and an 800l drop tank on the centerline pylon.

Against ground targets, unguided bombs of up to 1.100 lb (500kg) caliber or unguided rockets

can be carried; alternatively, a Rafael LITENING laser designation pod and three

Griffin Mk. 82 LGBs or a single Mk. 84 LGB can be carried, or optically guided weapons like up

to four AGM-65 Maverick or a single GBU-8.

  

The kit and its assembly:

This kit is the entry for the 2016 "One Week Group Build" at whatifmodelers.com, which ran from 29th of April until 8th May (so, actually nine days...). I had this project earmarked for the recent "Cold War" GB, but it fell outside of the build's time horizon. But despite the dubious kit as basis, I tackled the build since I had anything else already at hand.

 

The basis is the MiG-21-93 demonstrator kit from Ukrainian manufacturer Condor, one of the many reincarnations of the venerable KP MiG-21bis, but with some updates. You get, for instance, engraved, very fine panel lines, some typical details were added like the wraparound windscreen (wrong shape, though) and the radar warning fairing on the fin as well as an extra sprue with modern Russian ordnance – apparently from some other kit!

On the downside, there's overall mediocre fit due to the molds' age, some dubious details (anything appears softened or blurred…) or the simple lack thereof (e. g. there’s no ventral gun fairing at all). But there’s nothing that could not be mended, and after all this is just a whiffy version.

 

Since there was only one week time to build the thing and make beauty pics, the whole project remained close to OOB status, even though a lot of detail changes or additions were made in order to convert the Russian MiG-21-93 into an earlier but similar Israeli MiG-21 2000 derivative.

 

These mods include:

- A Martin Baker ejection seat, with wire trigger handles

- HUD made from clear styrene

- Lowered flaps

- An added jet pipe/interior for the otherwise bleak exhaust (parts from a Kangnam Yak-38)

- Hydraulic pipes on the landing gear, made from very thin wire

- Some more/different blade antennae

- Measuring vanes on the pitot boom

- Different GSh-23 gun fairing, from an Academy MiG-23

- Thinner blast deflector plates under the anti-surge doors

- A pair of Python III AAMs, plus respective launch rails

- Different centerline drop tank, from an F-5E

- Scratched chaff/flare dispensers under the rear fuselage (as carried by the MiG-21 2000 demonstrator)

 

Building the model went straightforward, but it took some putty work to fill some seams, dents and holes all around the kit. Biggest issue was a hole in front of the cockpit screen, where simply not enough styrene had been injected into the mould!

  

Painting and markings:

The Lithuanian Air Force as operator for this build was chosen because it would not only fit into the real world timeline (even though I doubt that there would have been any budget for this aircraft at that time, even if MiG-21s had not been upgraded at all...) and because the potential livery would be very simple: contemporary L-39 trainers, C-27L Spartan as well as some L-410 and Mi-8 transporters carry a uniform, dull grey livery. Why not apply it on an air superiority fighter, too?

 

Finding an appropriate tone was not easy, though. Some sources claim the grey tone to be FS 36306, others refer to FS 36270 or "close to Blue/Grey FS35237", but IMHO none of the cited Federal Standard tones works well. Real world Lithuanian aircraft appear pretty dark and dull, and the color also features a greenish, slate grey hue - it's a unique color indeed.

 

After some trials (and also wishing to avoid mixing) I settled for Humbrol 111 (German Field Grey, a.k.a. Uniform Grey) as basic tone. It's a rather dark choice, but I wanted some good contrast to the national markings. A full wraparound livery appeared a little too dark and boring, so I added light blue wing undersurfaces (Humbrol 115). The kit received a light black in wash and some panel shading, primarily in order to add some life to the otherwise uniform surface.

 

Details were painted according to real world MiG-21 pics: the cockpit became classic teal with light grey instrument panels, plus OOB decals for the dashboard and side consoles. The landing gear struts were painted in a light, metallic grey (Humbrol 127 + 56) while the wells were painted in an odd primer color, a mix of Aluminum, Sand and Olive Drab. Parts of the covers were painted with Humbrol 144 (Blue Grey), seen on a modernized real world MiG-21. The wheel discs became bright green.

 

IAI's MiG-21 2000 demonstrator from 1993 had a black radome (as well as later Romanian LanceR Cs), so I adapted this detail for my build. Other typical di-electric fairings on a MiG-21's hull were painted in slightly darker camouflage colors, while the fin's leading edge became dark grey.

The blast deflector plates received yellow and black warning stripes, and some potentially dangerous parts for the ground crews like the pointed anti-flutter booms were painted red. The Python IIIs were simply painted all-white, mounted on grey launch rails - a harsh contrast to the dull rest of the aircraft.

 

Main markings come from a Blue Rider Publishing aftermarket sheet for modern Lithuanian aircraft. This set also includes the small Air Force crests, which I put on the nose, as well as the typical, blue tactical codes.

The stencils come from the scrap box, the small Lithuanian flag stripes on the tail rudder were created from single decal stripes, a personal addition inspired by Lithuanian C-27J transporters. They add some more color to the otherwise murky Baltic MiG fighter.

The silver ring around the air intake as well as the stripes at the flaps and the rudder were created with simple decal stripes instead of paint.

 

Finally, after I added some graphite soot around the jet exhaust and some panle lines with a pencil (e .g. the blow-in doors and airbrake outlines), the kit was sealed with hardly thinned Revell matt acrylic varnish, trying to create a really dull finish.

  

A tough build, despite being mostly OOB, but the details took their toll. This Baltic MiG does not look flashy, but, with IAI's real world MiG-21 2000 as well as the LanceR conversion for Romania in the Nineties, this one is pretty plausible. And with the simple paint scheme, the MiG-21 looks even pretty chic!

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.

Learn More

  

Humphreys hosts Army 10-miler shadow run

   

By W. Wayne Marlow, U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys, Public Affairs

  

CAMP HUMPHREYS, SOUTH KOREA – Over 300 runners from across the Korean peninsula took part in the second annual Army 10-miler Shadow Run hosted here Oct. 2.

 

First Lieutenant Robert Anderson of the 532nd Military Intelligence Battalion won the nighttime race, designed to mirror the Army’s annual run in Washington, D.C., in 1 hour, 3 minutes and 51 seconds. First Lieutenant Sarah Rainville took the women’s crown, finishing in 1:16:44.

 

Anderson said he initially thought only about doing his best and having a good run. But when some entrants passed him early in the race, his focused changed.

 

“I was going to try and take it easy ... but then an adrenaline rush hit and I decided to pick it up,” he said.

 

Anderson maintained a steady pace, running the second half in just two more minutes than he did the first five miles. “I felt good the whole time,” he said. “I felt like I had some left in the tank. I started training for it last year, so I’ve been upping my mileage.”

 

The Camp Humphreys shadow run will be shown on a large screen during the Army 10-miler in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 9, and Anderson plans to be there to watch it and participate in his second 10-miler of the week. “This was prep for that one,” he said.

 

Former United States Army Garrison Humphreys Command Sgt. Maj. Jason Kim fired the opening gun at 9 p.m. locally to coincide with the actual time the run will start in Washington D.C. Led by Kim’s replacement, Command Sgt. Maj. Spencer Gray, the runners started under the Super Gym walkway, then snaked their way around the airfield twice, ending up back at Super Gym.

 

“It’s an absolutely great event,” Gray said. “Soldiers work hard, so when you can do something like this to build esprit de corps, it’s a positive thing. It’s an opportunity for everyone to have a good time.”

 

The crisp, cool October air helped keep the runners fresh, as did rehydration stations manned by volunteers along the route. The constant encouragement by fellow runners and cheering from the sidelines helped push the runners toward the finish.

 

“It’s not too cold. It’s nice running weather,” Gray said. “You can always wear something to keep you warm, and if it gets too hot, you can dress down.”

 

Anderson agreed that the race featured ideal conditions. “It’s great weather, no overheating,” he said. “It’s the best weather for running.”

 

Anderson said he has three brothers in the Army who are also all enthusiastic runners, and there was another family connection of note. Specialist Charles Rodgers IV flew from Hawaii to run the race with his father, Charles Rodgers III, who manages Splish and Splash Water Park on Humphreys. The two finished with identical times of 1:32:40.

 

Besides ideal weather and enthusiastic observers, the runners were treated to replicas of Washington, D.C., monuments built by Jeffrey Hubbard of the USAG Humphreys Family, Morale Welfare and Recreation office. The replicas, made of Styrofoam and braced by wood supports, included the Vietnam Memorial, the Pentagon, the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Jefferson memorials, and the capitol. The project took about two weeks, according to Hubbard.

 

“It was to give everybody something extra to look at during the run and to do something different,” Hubbard said. “We figured looking at a poster would be kind of boring. We wanted to give them incentive to go and see the next one. They’ll be here next year. They’re built to last.”

 

Area III Sports Director Lonnie Herring credited volunteers with helping make the run a success.

 

“We had three drink tables on the trail and at the start and finish point,” he said. “We had BOSS bring in volunteers, folks standing on the road, and people handing out numbers and pace chips before the race.” The computerized chips, attached to the runners’ shoes, started and stopped when someone crossed the start and finish lines, giving everyone an accurate 10-mile time.

 

For all the logistics involved in having hundreds of people run 10 miles, Herring said most of the work was done beforehand.

 

“The pre-registration is the most time-consuming,” he said, also mentioning coordination with Military Police, road closures, medical considerations, and taxi and bus services being suspended. But all the work paid off in the end, Herring noted.

 

Prior to the run, entrants were addressed by USAG Humphreys Commander, Col. Joseph P. Moore.

 

“We’re here to have fun, and I hope your commanders told you that if you run this, there’s no P.T. tomorrow. Ten miles is no small task,” Moore said. “I’ve run this loop a lot at night. There’s plenty of light out there. The terrain is real friendly. There are no big hills, just a lot of open room to run.”

 

The top three finishers in the men’s 29 and under category were: Wbatt Reith (1:07:53); Samuel Smiths (1:09:09) and Daniel Bates (1:09:35). Following Anderson in the men’s 30-39 category were David Snow (1:12:41) and Nathan Stahl (1:18:02).

 

In the men’s 40-49 category, the top three finishers were Brett Bassett (1:14:49), Dan Burnett (1:17:06) and Felix Lassus (1:18:57). Leading the way in the men’s 50 and over category were Robert Nott (1:09:14), Mark Sullivan (1:09:57) and Kwon, Song-ki (1:19:23).

 

Following Rainville in the women’s 29 and under category were Kyle Wilson (1:22:20) and Liela Moser (1:26:01). In the women’s 30 and over category, top finishers were Sarah Stahl (1:20:45), Adam Leinen (1:27:52), and Jamila Moody (1:34:11). Taking the women’s over 40 crown was Kim, Hui-ok (1:37:06). In the women’s over 50 category, Barbara Garner (1:37:31) took first, followed by Susan Jentoft (1:43:23).

 

Photos courtesy U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys, FMWR Marketing

  

Click here to view the garrison’s official Facebook fan page

Photo credit: Cindy Kurman, Kurman Communications, Inc. Freedom Golf Association’s First Annual “Honor Wounded Vets 5K Run/Walk” succeeds in showing how adaptive golf is aiding vets’ road to recovery

 

The enthusiasm and good will were palpable at McDonald’s corporate campus in Oak Brook, Illinois on Sunday, October 29 as the Freedom Golf Association’s (FGA) First Annual “Honor Wounded Vets 5K Run/Walk” succeeded in drawing attention to the fact that adaptive golf is clearly helping wounded vets return to normality after their military service. The more than 100 participants conquered the 5K course to show their support for the programs of the Freedom Golf Association, which is leading the way In Illinois in bringing the joy of golf to persons with physical, emotional and developmental needs.

 

“The 5K Run/Walk was a terrific way to honor Veterans who have been wounded in their service to the country and to acknowledge Illinois’ wounded vets, a growing number of whom have taken up golf to enjoy its many physical, emotional and social benefits,” said Sally Ruecking, FGA’s Vice President of Strategic Advancement. “Adaptive golf is bringing fun into the lives of people who are often left out due to their disabilities.”

 

Cheered on by the music of the Elmhurst College Jazz Band and with welcoming remarks from E.Q. Sylvester, Chairman of FGA; radio and TV personality Bob Sirott of event co-sponsor WLS-AM radio; and Ruecking, the runners and walkers took to the track with smiles and a sense of mission. Other event sponsors included Molex LLC, Rich Harvest Farms, KF Partners LLC, and Reebie Storage and Moving.

 

The overall men’s winner was 16-year old Matt Pierce of Alsip, Illinois, who ran the 5K course in 18:59. Second place went to Thomas Potaczek of Bensenville, IL, with a time of 19:23 and third place went to Andrew Pyle of Hinsdale, IL with a time of 22:14.

 

Among the women, the overall winner was Eileen Skisak of La Grange, IL with a time of 18:59. Eileen also ran in fifth place overall. The second-place women’s winner was 12-year old Alexandra Two, with a time of 25:36; third place went to 10-year old Kelly Fergus of Chicago, with a time of 27:27.

 

Winners by age group were:

•Male 10-14: James Mercurio, Hinsdale, IL

•Male 15-19: Thomas Mercurio, Hinsdale, IL

•Male 20-24: Ben Landress, Chicago, IL

•Male 30-34: (1st) Michael Bellino, Villa Park, IL; (2nd) Nick Bada, Villa Park, IL

•Male 45-49: (1st) Jim Mercurio, Hinsdale, IL; (2nd) Carmelo Aguinir, Joliet, IL

•Male 50-54: (1st) Bob Fergus, Chicago, IL; (2nd) Ross Hurst, Clarendon Hills, IL; (3rd) Randy Pyle, Hinsdale, IL; (4th) Roger Keys, Northbrook, IL

•Male 65-69: (1st) Jerome Getter, Oak Park, IL; (2nd) John Kosmatka, Valparaiso, IN; (3rd) Karl Johnson, Woodridge, IL

•Male 70-74: James Smith, Clarendon Hills, IL

•Female 15-19: Maria Meyer, Hinsdale, IL

•Female 40-44: Lori Kosmatka, Chicago, IL

•Female 45-49: (1st) Kimberly Mercurio, Hinsdale, IL; (2nd) Arlinda Nunez, Hinsdale, IL; (3rd) Christine Two, Wilmette, IL

•Female 50-54: (1st) Joy Hyzny, Burbank, IL; (2nd) Christie Bellino, Villa Park, IL

•Female 55-59: Jud Hrad, Chicago, IL

•Female 60-64: Sue Shepard, Elmhurst, IL

•Female 65-69: Carol Raska, Oak Park, IL

 

Freedom Golf Association leads the way in bringing adaptive golf to Illinois and is an integral part of the growing national movement, which has been embraced by major golf entities such as the PGA, LPGA and USGA.

 

“Freedom Golf Association encourages corporations with cause marketing programs that help the disabled to become FGA sponsors or corporate foundation grant providers and help us grow,” said Ruecking.

  

About Freedom Golf Association

Freedom Golf Association (FGA), a 501(C)3 non-profit charitable organization, is the leading adaptive golf organization in Illinois and is a charter member of the United States Adaptive Golf Alliance. FGA was founded in July 2012 by Edmund (E.Q.) Sylvester. E.Q. is a director of the Western Golf Association (WGA), member of the United States Senior Golf Association (USSGA), member of the United States Golf Association (USGA) and a triple amputee. FGA is dedicated to bringing joy and a sense of freedom to the special needs community through their inclusion in the game of golf.

 

FGA believes that all special needs individuals deserve a chance to accomplish the same things as any others do and work towards bringing a positive transformation to their lives. FGA contributes to the positive development of those with special needs through the magic of golf.

 

FGA works to assist individuals with disabilities in many ways:

•Provides professionally run adaptive golf instructional clinics and golf events

•Engages children, adults and veterans with special needs in FREE adaptive golf instruction with other classmates

•Conducts adaptive golf training workshops to increase the number of qualified adaptive golf coaches to instruct individuals with special needs

•Provides leadership and collaboration with nationally recognized organizations on how to expand/grow adaptive golf programs

 

Based on its growing understanding of the needs of disabled golfers, the FGA has developed a ground-breaking Adaptive Golf Enhancement Program™ that increases the golfing ability of special needs golfers. FGA’s golf coaches learn this six-step process, which helps them better understand and enhance the capabilities of special needs golfers.

 

To assist coaches and special needs golfers in determining what adaptive measures would be most beneficial, FGA recently invested in what they call a “personal swing sensors and computerized program” to 1) measure the disabled golfer’s initial swing path and limitations; 2) develop an appropriate exercise program to improve flexibility and range of motion; and 3) to chart the golfer’s progress, using the initial swing measurements as a baseline.

 

In 2016, FGA provided more than 1,300 adaptive golf lessons. In the same year, 110 special needs golfers went out and played on the course. Ten individuals became trained FGA Adaptive Golf Coaches, growing the total number to 42.

 

79 cents out of every dollar received goes to FGA’s special needs golf programs and events. FGA has led 40 Chicagoland courses in becoming accessible to the disabled community.

 

For more information about the Freedom Golf Association, please visit the official website at www.fgagolf.org and the online newsroom at www.newsline360.com/freedomgolfassociation. Contact FGA by phone at 855-342-4465 or 630-455-6018, or by email at playgolf@fgagolf.org. Donations to Freedom Golf Association can be made at www.fgagolf.org/donate.html.

 

Follow FGA on Facebook at www.facebook.com/FGA4Golf. Follow FGA on Twitter at www.twitter.com/FGA4Golf.

  

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some Background:

On 23 January 1992, the Lithuanian Minister of Defense signed an order establishing the staff for the Aviation Base of the Aviation Service. But an actual base in the Šiauliai airport territory (Barysiai airfield) was not established until March, when according to the ordinance of the Government of Lithuanian Republic, all the infrastructure, buildings, territory and 24 An-2 aircraft were passed from ”Lithuanian Airlines" to the Aviation Service of the Ministry of Defense in January 1992.

 

On 12 June 1992, the first time after regaining the independence of Lithuania, An-2 aircraft, marked with the double cross of Vytis on its wings – the distinguishing sign of Lithuanian Air Force – took off from Barysiai airfield. This date is considered to be the Aviation Base foundation date. In February 1993 four L-39C Albatros aircraft were brought from Kyrgyzstan.

 

After 1 March 1993 Aviation Service was reformed to the Lithuanian Air Force and Aviation Base was renamed the First Aviation Base of the Lithuanian Air Force. In January 1994 Lithuania officially applied for NATO membership, and the country also looked out for a relatively cheap multi-purpose fighter that would fulfill both air space defence and attack tasks, the latter primarily against potential targets at sea (e. g. fast hoovercraft landing ships operated by the Russian Baltic Fleet).

 

After evaluating several options, the Lithuanian Air Force settled for a surprising aircraft: the venerable MiG-21! After the demise of the Soviet Union, several international companies started to offer conversion and upgrade programs for the widely used tactical fighter, about 5.000 specimen had been built to date. One of the first companies to enter the market was Israel Aircraft Industries: IAI's Lahav Division of (IAI) had developed the so-called MiG-21 2000 upgraded fighter and ground attack version, based on the MiG-21bis and the export MiG-21MF fighter aircraft.

 

The MiG-21 2000 upgrade provided modifications to the cockpit configuration, avionics architecture and weapons systems, enabling the MiG-21 2000 to compete with Western developed fighters like the F-16 and to make the transition to Western standards. The aircraft's original systems and components were retained wherever mission effectiveness was not compromised.

IAI Lahav augmented the original weapons system by introducing an EL/M-2032 radar, developed by IAI Elta Electronic Industries, based in Ashdod. The radar, which uses a low sidelobe planar array antenna and pulse Doppler beam sharpening, provides all-altitude, all-aspect look-up / look-down and shoot-down capability, as well as beyond-visual-range capability. In order to make the radar compatible with Western ordnance, a new armament interface and control unit were added, too, which enabled computerized control and release of weapons, including third and fourth-generation air-to-air missiles and precision-guided munitions of Western and Eastern provenance.

 

This system also gave the pilot the ability to use blind attack as well as continuously computed impact point (CCIP) and dive-toss bombing techniques. CCIP bombing involves the deployment of air-to-ground weapons, using the HUD to indicate the impact point for release of the weapons. Dive-toss bombing involves the release of air-to-ground weapons at the end of a steep dive manoeuver towards the target.

 

The MiG-21 2000 cockpit featured a new pilot-friendly layout that overcame the shortcomings of the original cockpit layout, which was crowded and lacked most of the desired man-machine interface characteristics. It incorporated a head-up display (HUD), eye-level multifunction color displays, hands on throttle and stick control (HOTAS), solid-state charge coupled device (CCD) camera, videotape recorder, and a one-piece windshield.

 

The MiG-21 2000 could be equipped with a display and sight helmet (DASH) system, supplied by Elbit of Haifa, which enabled the pilot to aim the weapons simply by looking at the target. The system worked by measuring the pilot's line of sight relative to the aircraft, and transferred the information to the aircraft's sensors, avionics and weapon systems. The helmet displayed vital information, such as the missile line of sight, missile status, flight information and warning data, on the visor. The DASH helmet allowed the pilot to fly head-up and off-boresight and assisted the pilot to detect, identify and shoot earlier.

 

IAI Lahav's upgrade package could be tailored to meet the customer's specific operational and budgetary requirements - the Lithuanian package included the radar, cockpit and also the DASH update and was rumored to cost around 4 Mio. USD per aircraft, and Lithuania was, together with Romania (where 110 MiG-21 were to be updated), lead customer.

 

As conversion basis, Lithuania purchased fifteen MiG-21 airframes for an unknown sum from the Ukraine, which had inherited a considerable MiG-21 fleet after the demise of the Soviet Union but did not (want to) operate it. The deal included thirteen airworthy MiG-21bis fighters and two MiG-21U trainers with few flying hours on the clocks, and - stripped off any military equipment - the small fleet was gradually transferred as disassembled kits via air ferry in Antonov Airlines An-124 transporters to Aerostar in Romania for conversion, starting in early 1996.

 

The first batch of Lithuanian MiG-21 2000, three fighters and one trainer, arrived in mid-1997 from Bacau on their own power and with civil Ukrainian registrations, and the Lithuanian Air Force’s fighter squadron, the Naikintuvu Eskadra, became ready for service in February 1998.

The rest of the country’s small MiG-21 fleet was delivered in the course of the same year, and these aircraft were semi-officially christened "Globėjas" (Guardian). Since the late Nineties, the Globėjas fighters provide the backbone of Lithuania's air defenses, with aircraft holding Quick Reaction Alert. QRA missions – so-called Alpha Scrambles – have constantly been on the rise thanks to the Russia’s increased aggression towards NATO. The MiG’s have regularly launched to intercept and shadow Russian Air Force Il-20 intelligence gathering aircraft over the Baltic Sea, as well as Tu-16 and Tu-95 patrols and even some Sukhoi Su-27s.

 

Lithuanian pilots use “hit and run” style tactics to deal with air threats, due to the limited range and endurance of their mounts - but this is of little concern due to the country's relatively small size and the defensive nature of the machines' tasks. While the Globėjas lack a beyond-visual range missile, although they could carry one, they have the ability to carry a range of different short-range air-to-air missiles like the Israeli Python III, which Lithuania procured from Rafael in Haifa as primary air-to-air missile.

 

After Lithuania joined NATO organization in 2004, its (alongside Latvia's and Estonia's) air space has been protected by NATO. NATO members provide usually 4 fighter aircraft, based in Lithuania, to police the Baltic States’ airspace, where they support the Lithuanian MiG-21 fleet. The duties rotate between NATO members (which started in March 2004 with Belgium Air Force F-16s) and most NATO members that operate fighters have made temporary deployments to Lithuania.

 

The Lithuanian Globėjas were also in regular demand as a simulated threat, and have gone up against US F-16s, F-15s, F/A-18s and A-10s, as well as the many different European fighter types that frequently rotate into the small country, including the Eurofighter, German F-4F Phantom IIs or French Mirage 2000.

 

Anyway, the Globėjas' airframes sooner or later reached their flying hour limits, and will be phased out towards 2020. As a replacement Lithuania will begin taking delivery of its first batch of ex-Portuguese F-16s in 2016, while the Baltic States are considering in the near future to protect their airspace on their own.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 14.5 [126] m (47 ft 7 in)

Wingspan: 7.154 m (23 ft 6 in)

Height: 4 m (13 ft 6 in)

Wing area: 23.0 m² (247.3 ft²)

Empty weight: 5,846 kg (12,880 lb)

Gross weight: 8,825 kg (19,425 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1× Tumansky R25-300, rated at 40.21 kN (9,040 lbf) thrust dry

and 69.62 kN (15,650 lbf) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 2,175 km/h (1,351.48 mph)

Maximum speed: Mach 2.0

Landing speed: 350 km/h (190 kts)

Range: (internal fuel) 1,210 km (751 miles)

Service ceiling: 17,800 m (58,400 ft)

Rate of climb: 225 m/s (44,280 ft/min)

 

Armament:

1x internal 23 mm GSh-23 cannon

5x hardpoints for a wide range of guided and unguided ordnance of up to 3.310 lb (1.500 kg).

 

In QRA configuration the Lithuanian MiG-21 typically carry two or four Rafal Python III short

range air-to-air missiles and an 800l drop tank on the centerline pylon.

Against ground targets, unguided bombs of up to 1.100 lb (500kg) caliber or unguided rockets

can be carried; alternatively, a Rafael LITENING laser designation pod and three

Griffin Mk. 82 LGBs or a single Mk. 84 LGB can be carried, or optically guided weapons like up

to four AGM-65 Maverick or a single GBU-8.

  

The kit and its assembly:

This kit is the entry for the 2016 "One Week Group Build" at whatifmodelers.com, which ran from 29th of April until 8th May (so, actually nine days...). I had this project earmarked for the recent "Cold War" GB, but it fell outside of the build's time horizon. But despite the dubious kit as basis, I tackled the build since I had anything else already at hand.

 

The basis is the MiG-21-93 demonstrator kit from Ukrainian manufacturer Condor, one of the many reincarnations of the venerable KP MiG-21bis, but with some updates. You get, for instance, engraved, very fine panel lines, some typical details were added like the wraparound windscreen (wrong shape, though) and the radar warning fairing on the fin as well as an extra sprue with modern Russian ordnance – apparently from some other kit!

On the downside, there's overall mediocre fit due to the molds' age, some dubious details (anything appears softened or blurred…) or the simple lack thereof (e. g. there’s no ventral gun fairing at all). But there’s nothing that could not be mended, and after all this is just a whiffy version.

 

Since there was only one week time to build the thing and make beauty pics, the whole project remained close to OOB status, even though a lot of detail changes or additions were made in order to convert the Russian MiG-21-93 into an earlier but similar Israeli MiG-21 2000 derivative.

 

These mods include:

- A Martin Baker ejection seat, with wire trigger handles

- HUD made from clear styrene

- Lowered flaps

- An added jet pipe/interior for the otherwise bleak exhaust (parts from a Kangnam Yak-38)

- Hydraulic pipes on the landing gear, made from very thin wire

- Some more/different blade antennae

- Measuring vanes on the pitot boom

- Different GSh-23 gun fairing, from an Academy MiG-23

- Thinner blast deflector plates under the anti-surge doors

- A pair of Python III AAMs, plus respective launch rails

- Different centerline drop tank, from an F-5E

- Scratched chaff/flare dispensers under the rear fuselage (as carried by the MiG-21 2000 demonstrator)

 

Building the model went straightforward, but it took some putty work to fill some seams, dents and holes all around the kit. Biggest issue was a hole in front of the cockpit screen, where simply not enough styrene had been injected into the mould!

  

Painting and markings:

The Lithuanian Air Force as operator for this build was chosen because it would not only fit into the real world timeline (even though I doubt that there would have been any budget for this aircraft at that time, even if MiG-21s had not been upgraded at all...) and because the potential livery would be very simple: contemporary L-39 trainers, C-27L Spartan as well as some L-410 and Mi-8 transporters carry a uniform, dull grey livery. Why not apply it on an air superiority fighter, too?

 

Finding an appropriate tone was not easy, though. Some sources claim the grey tone to be FS 36306, others refer to FS 36270 or "close to Blue/Grey FS35237", but IMHO none of the cited Federal Standard tones works well. Real world Lithuanian aircraft appear pretty dark and dull, and the color also features a greenish, slate grey hue - it's a unique color indeed.

 

After some trials (and also wishing to avoid mixing) I settled for Humbrol 111 (German Field Grey, a.k.a. Uniform Grey) as basic tone. It's a rather dark choice, but I wanted some good contrast to the national markings. A full wraparound livery appeared a little too dark and boring, so I added light blue wing undersurfaces (Humbrol 115). The kit received a light black in wash and some panel shading, primarily in order to add some life to the otherwise uniform surface.

 

Details were painted according to real world MiG-21 pics: the cockpit became classic teal with light grey instrument panels, plus OOB decals for the dashboard and side consoles. The landing gear struts were painted in a light, metallic grey (Humbrol 127 + 56) while the wells were painted in an odd primer color, a mix of Aluminum, Sand and Olive Drab. Parts of the covers were painted with Humbrol 144 (Blue Grey), seen on a modernized real world MiG-21. The wheel discs became bright green.

 

IAI's MiG-21 2000 demonstrator from 1993 had a black radome (as well as later Romanian LanceR Cs), so I adapted this detail for my build. Other typical di-electric fairings on a MiG-21's hull were painted in slightly darker camouflage colors, while the fin's leading edge became dark grey.

The blast deflector plates received yellow and black warning stripes, and some potentially dangerous parts for the ground crews like the pointed anti-flutter booms were painted red. The Python IIIs were simply painted all-white, mounted on grey launch rails - a harsh contrast to the dull rest of the aircraft.

 

Main markings come from a Blue Rider Publishing aftermarket sheet for modern Lithuanian aircraft. This set also includes the small Air Force crests, which I put on the nose, as well as the typical, blue tactical codes.

The stencils come from the scrap box, the small Lithuanian flag stripes on the tail rudder were created from single decal stripes, a personal addition inspired by Lithuanian C-27J transporters. They add some more color to the otherwise murky Baltic MiG fighter.

The silver ring around the air intake as well as the stripes at the flaps and the rudder were created with simple decal stripes instead of paint.

 

Finally, after I added some graphite soot around the jet exhaust and some panle lines with a pencil (e .g. the blow-in doors and airbrake outlines), the kit was sealed with hardly thinned Revell matt acrylic varnish, trying to create a really dull finish.

  

A tough build, despite being mostly OOB, but the details took their toll. This Baltic MiG does not look flashy, but, with IAI's real world MiG-21 2000 as well as the LanceR conversion for Romania in the Nineties, this one is pretty plausible. And with the simple paint scheme, the MiG-21 looks even pretty chic!

Comcom: Haddon Crafstmen Computerized Typesetting

 

Herb Lubalin Study Center of Design & Typography at Cooper Union; East Village, Manhattan

I'm in the process of upgrading from my old Windows T42 to a MacBook (yay!) As a result, my desk for this week is a bit overly-computerized.

Learn More

  

Humphreys hosts Army 10-miler shadow run

   

By W. Wayne Marlow, U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys, Public Affairs

  

CAMP HUMPHREYS, SOUTH KOREA – Over 300 runners from across the Korean peninsula took part in the second annual Army 10-miler Shadow Run hosted here Oct. 2.

 

First Lieutenant Robert Anderson of the 532nd Military Intelligence Battalion won the nighttime race, designed to mirror the Army’s annual run in Washington, D.C., in 1 hour, 3 minutes and 51 seconds. First Lieutenant Sarah Rainville took the women’s crown, finishing in 1:16:44.

 

Anderson said he initially thought only about doing his best and having a good run. But when some entrants passed him early in the race, his focused changed.

 

“I was going to try and take it easy ... but then an adrenaline rush hit and I decided to pick it up,” he said.

 

Anderson maintained a steady pace, running the second half in just two more minutes than he did the first five miles. “I felt good the whole time,” he said. “I felt like I had some left in the tank. I started training for it last year, so I’ve been upping my mileage.”

 

The Camp Humphreys shadow run will be shown on a large screen during the Army 10-miler in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 9, and Anderson plans to be there to watch it and participate in his second 10-miler of the week. “This was prep for that one,” he said.

 

Former United States Army Garrison Humphreys Command Sgt. Maj. Jason Kim fired the opening gun at 9 p.m. locally to coincide with the actual time the run will start in Washington D.C. Led by Kim’s replacement, Command Sgt. Maj. Spencer Gray, the runners started under the Super Gym walkway, then snaked their way around the airfield twice, ending up back at Super Gym.

 

“It’s an absolutely great event,” Gray said. “Soldiers work hard, so when you can do something like this to build esprit de corps, it’s a positive thing. It’s an opportunity for everyone to have a good time.”

 

The crisp, cool October air helped keep the runners fresh, as did rehydration stations manned by volunteers along the route. The constant encouragement by fellow runners and cheering from the sidelines helped push the runners toward the finish.

 

“It’s not too cold. It’s nice running weather,” Gray said. “You can always wear something to keep you warm, and if it gets too hot, you can dress down.”

 

Anderson agreed that the race featured ideal conditions. “It’s great weather, no overheating,” he said. “It’s the best weather for running.”

 

Anderson said he has three brothers in the Army who are also all enthusiastic runners, and there was another family connection of note. Specialist Charles Rodgers IV flew from Hawaii to run the race with his father, Charles Rodgers III, who manages Splish and Splash Water Park on Humphreys. The two finished with identical times of 1:32:40.

 

Besides ideal weather and enthusiastic observers, the runners were treated to replicas of Washington, D.C., monuments built by Jeffrey Hubbard of the USAG Humphreys Family, Morale Welfare and Recreation office. The replicas, made of Styrofoam and braced by wood supports, included the Vietnam Memorial, the Pentagon, the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Jefferson memorials, and the capitol. The project took about two weeks, according to Hubbard.

 

“It was to give everybody something extra to look at during the run and to do something different,” Hubbard said. “We figured looking at a poster would be kind of boring. We wanted to give them incentive to go and see the next one. They’ll be here next year. They’re built to last.”

 

Area III Sports Director Lonnie Herring credited volunteers with helping make the run a success.

 

“We had three drink tables on the trail and at the start and finish point,” he said. “We had BOSS bring in volunteers, folks standing on the road, and people handing out numbers and pace chips before the race.” The computerized chips, attached to the runners’ shoes, started and stopped when someone crossed the start and finish lines, giving everyone an accurate 10-mile time.

 

For all the logistics involved in having hundreds of people run 10 miles, Herring said most of the work was done beforehand.

 

“The pre-registration is the most time-consuming,” he said, also mentioning coordination with Military Police, road closures, medical considerations, and taxi and bus services being suspended. But all the work paid off in the end, Herring noted.

 

Prior to the run, entrants were addressed by USAG Humphreys Commander, Col. Joseph P. Moore.

 

“We’re here to have fun, and I hope your commanders told you that if you run this, there’s no P.T. tomorrow. Ten miles is no small task,” Moore said. “I’ve run this loop a lot at night. There’s plenty of light out there. The terrain is real friendly. There are no big hills, just a lot of open room to run.”

 

The top three finishers in the men’s 29 and under category were: Wbatt Reith (1:07:53); Samuel Smiths (1:09:09) and Daniel Bates (1:09:35). Following Anderson in the men’s 30-39 category were David Snow (1:12:41) and Nathan Stahl (1:18:02).

 

In the men’s 40-49 category, the top three finishers were Brett Bassett (1:14:49), Dan Burnett (1:17:06) and Felix Lassus (1:18:57). Leading the way in the men’s 50 and over category were Robert Nott (1:09:14), Mark Sullivan (1:09:57) and Kwon, Song-ki (1:19:23).

 

Following Rainville in the women’s 29 and under category were Kyle Wilson (1:22:20) and Liela Moser (1:26:01). In the women’s 30 and over category, top finishers were Sarah Stahl (1:20:45), Adam Leinen (1:27:52), and Jamila Moody (1:34:11). Taking the women’s over 40 crown was Kim, Hui-ok (1:37:06). In the women’s over 50 category, Barbara Garner (1:37:31) took first, followed by Susan Jentoft (1:43:23).

 

Photos courtesy U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys, FMWR Marketing

  

Click here to view the garrison’s official Facebook fan page

Photo credit: Cindy Kurman, Kurman Communications, Inc. Freedom Golf Association’s First Annual “Honor Wounded Vets 5K Run/Walk” succeeds in showing how adaptive golf is aiding vets’ road to recovery

 

The enthusiasm and good will were palpable at McDonald’s corporate campus in Oak Brook, Illinois on Sunday, October 29 as the Freedom Golf Association’s (FGA) First Annual “Honor Wounded Vets 5K Run/Walk” succeeded in drawing attention to the fact that adaptive golf is clearly helping wounded vets return to normality after their military service. The more than 100 participants conquered the 5K course to show their support for the programs of the Freedom Golf Association, which is leading the way In Illinois in bringing the joy of golf to persons with physical, emotional and developmental needs.

 

“The 5K Run/Walk was a terrific way to honor Veterans who have been wounded in their service to the country and to acknowledge Illinois’ wounded vets, a growing number of whom have taken up golf to enjoy its many physical, emotional and social benefits,” said Sally Ruecking, FGA’s Vice President of Strategic Advancement. “Adaptive golf is bringing fun into the lives of people who are often left out due to their disabilities.”

 

Cheered on by the music of the Elmhurst College Jazz Band and with welcoming remarks from E.Q. Sylvester, Chairman of FGA; radio and TV personality Bob Sirott of event co-sponsor WLS-AM radio; and Ruecking, the runners and walkers took to the track with smiles and a sense of mission. Other event sponsors included Molex LLC, Rich Harvest Farms, KF Partners LLC, and Reebie Storage and Moving.

 

The overall men’s winner was 16-year old Matt Pierce of Alsip, Illinois, who ran the 5K course in 18:59. Second place went to Thomas Potaczek of Bensenville, IL, with a time of 19:23 and third place went to Andrew Pyle of Hinsdale, IL with a time of 22:14.

 

Among the women, the overall winner was Eileen Skisak of La Grange, IL with a time of 18:59. Eileen also ran in fifth place overall. The second-place women’s winner was 12-year old Alexandra Two, with a time of 25:36; third place went to 10-year old Kelly Fergus of Chicago, with a time of 27:27.

 

Winners by age group were:

•Male 10-14: James Mercurio, Hinsdale, IL

•Male 15-19: Thomas Mercurio, Hinsdale, IL

•Male 20-24: Ben Landress, Chicago, IL

•Male 30-34: (1st) Michael Bellino, Villa Park, IL; (2nd) Nick Bada, Villa Park, IL

•Male 45-49: (1st) Jim Mercurio, Hinsdale, IL; (2nd) Carmelo Aguinir, Joliet, IL

•Male 50-54: (1st) Bob Fergus, Chicago, IL; (2nd) Ross Hurst, Clarendon Hills, IL; (3rd) Randy Pyle, Hinsdale, IL; (4th) Roger Keys, Northbrook, IL

•Male 65-69: (1st) Jerome Getter, Oak Park, IL; (2nd) John Kosmatka, Valparaiso, IN; (3rd) Karl Johnson, Woodridge, IL

•Male 70-74: James Smith, Clarendon Hills, IL

•Female 15-19: Maria Meyer, Hinsdale, IL

•Female 40-44: Lori Kosmatka, Chicago, IL

•Female 45-49: (1st) Kimberly Mercurio, Hinsdale, IL; (2nd) Arlinda Nunez, Hinsdale, IL; (3rd) Christine Two, Wilmette, IL

•Female 50-54: (1st) Joy Hyzny, Burbank, IL; (2nd) Christie Bellino, Villa Park, IL

•Female 55-59: Jud Hrad, Chicago, IL

•Female 60-64: Sue Shepard, Elmhurst, IL

•Female 65-69: Carol Raska, Oak Park, IL

 

Freedom Golf Association leads the way in bringing adaptive golf to Illinois and is an integral part of the growing national movement, which has been embraced by major golf entities such as the PGA, LPGA and USGA.

 

“Freedom Golf Association encourages corporations with cause marketing programs that help the disabled to become FGA sponsors or corporate foundation grant providers and help us grow,” said Ruecking.

  

About Freedom Golf Association

Freedom Golf Association (FGA), a 501(C)3 non-profit charitable organization, is the leading adaptive golf organization in Illinois and is a charter member of the United States Adaptive Golf Alliance. FGA was founded in July 2012 by Edmund (E.Q.) Sylvester. E.Q. is a director of the Western Golf Association (WGA), member of the United States Senior Golf Association (USSGA), member of the United States Golf Association (USGA) and a triple amputee. FGA is dedicated to bringing joy and a sense of freedom to the special needs community through their inclusion in the game of golf.

 

FGA believes that all special needs individuals deserve a chance to accomplish the same things as any others do and work towards bringing a positive transformation to their lives. FGA contributes to the positive development of those with special needs through the magic of golf.

 

FGA works to assist individuals with disabilities in many ways:

•Provides professionally run adaptive golf instructional clinics and golf events

•Engages children, adults and veterans with special needs in FREE adaptive golf instruction with other classmates

•Conducts adaptive golf training workshops to increase the number of qualified adaptive golf coaches to instruct individuals with special needs

•Provides leadership and collaboration with nationally recognized organizations on how to expand/grow adaptive golf programs

 

Based on its growing understanding of the needs of disabled golfers, the FGA has developed a ground-breaking Adaptive Golf Enhancement Program™ that increases the golfing ability of special needs golfers. FGA’s golf coaches learn this six-step process, which helps them better understand and enhance the capabilities of special needs golfers.

 

To assist coaches and special needs golfers in determining what adaptive measures would be most beneficial, FGA recently invested in what they call a “personal swing sensors and computerized program” to 1) measure the disabled golfer’s initial swing path and limitations; 2) develop an appropriate exercise program to improve flexibility and range of motion; and 3) to chart the golfer’s progress, using the initial swing measurements as a baseline.

 

In 2016, FGA provided more than 1,300 adaptive golf lessons. In the same year, 110 special needs golfers went out and played on the course. Ten individuals became trained FGA Adaptive Golf Coaches, growing the total number to 42.

 

79 cents out of every dollar received goes to FGA’s special needs golf programs and events. FGA has led 40 Chicagoland courses in becoming accessible to the disabled community.

 

For more information about the Freedom Golf Association, please visit the official website at www.fgagolf.org and the online newsroom at www.newsline360.com/freedomgolfassociation. Contact FGA by phone at 855-342-4465 or 630-455-6018, or by email at playgolf@fgagolf.org. Donations to Freedom Golf Association can be made at www.fgagolf.org/donate.html.

 

Follow FGA on Facebook at www.facebook.com/FGA4Golf. Follow FGA on Twitter at www.twitter.com/FGA4Golf.

  

Photo credit: Cindy Kurman, Kurman Communications, Inc. Freedom Golf Association’s First Annual “Honor Wounded Vets 5K Run/Walk” succeeds in showing how adaptive golf is aiding vets’ road to recovery

 

The enthusiasm and good will were palpable at McDonald’s corporate campus in Oak Brook, Illinois on Sunday, October 29 as the Freedom Golf Association’s (FGA) First Annual “Honor Wounded Vets 5K Run/Walk” succeeded in drawing attention to the fact that adaptive golf is clearly helping wounded vets return to normality after their military service. The more than 100 participants conquered the 5K course to show their support for the programs of the Freedom Golf Association, which is leading the way In Illinois in bringing the joy of golf to persons with physical, emotional and developmental needs.

 

“The 5K Run/Walk was a terrific way to honor Veterans who have been wounded in their service to the country and to acknowledge Illinois’ wounded vets, a growing number of whom have taken up golf to enjoy its many physical, emotional and social benefits,” said Sally Ruecking, FGA’s Vice President of Strategic Advancement. “Adaptive golf is bringing fun into the lives of people who are often left out due to their disabilities.”

 

Cheered on by the music of the Elmhurst College Jazz Band and with welcoming remarks from E.Q. Sylvester, Chairman of FGA; radio and TV personality Bob Sirott of event co-sponsor WLS-AM radio; and Ruecking, the runners and walkers took to the track with smiles and a sense of mission. Other event sponsors included Molex LLC, Rich Harvest Farms, KF Partners LLC, and Reebie Storage and Moving.

 

The overall men’s winner was 16-year old Matt Pierce of Alsip, Illinois, who ran the 5K course in 18:59. Second place went to Thomas Potaczek of Bensenville, IL, with a time of 19:23 and third place went to Andrew Pyle of Hinsdale, IL with a time of 22:14.

 

Among the women, the overall winner was Eileen Skisak of La Grange, IL with a time of 18:59. Eileen also ran in fifth place overall. The second-place women’s winner was 12-year old Alexandra Two, with a time of 25:36; third place went to 10-year old Kelly Fergus of Chicago, with a time of 27:27.

 

Winners by age group were:

•Male 10-14: James Mercurio, Hinsdale, IL

•Male 15-19: Thomas Mercurio, Hinsdale, IL

•Male 20-24: Ben Landress, Chicago, IL

•Male 30-34: (1st) Michael Bellino, Villa Park, IL; (2nd) Nick Bada, Villa Park, IL

•Male 45-49: (1st) Jim Mercurio, Hinsdale, IL; (2nd) Carmelo Aguinir, Joliet, IL

•Male 50-54: (1st) Bob Fergus, Chicago, IL; (2nd) Ross Hurst, Clarendon Hills, IL; (3rd) Randy Pyle, Hinsdale, IL; (4th) Roger Keys, Northbrook, IL

•Male 65-69: (1st) Jerome Getter, Oak Park, IL; (2nd) John Kosmatka, Valparaiso, IN; (3rd) Karl Johnson, Woodridge, IL

•Male 70-74: James Smith, Clarendon Hills, IL

•Female 15-19: Maria Meyer, Hinsdale, IL

•Female 40-44: Lori Kosmatka, Chicago, IL

•Female 45-49: (1st) Kimberly Mercurio, Hinsdale, IL; (2nd) Arlinda Nunez, Hinsdale, IL; (3rd) Christine Two, Wilmette, IL

•Female 50-54: (1st) Joy Hyzny, Burbank, IL; (2nd) Christie Bellino, Villa Park, IL

•Female 55-59: Jud Hrad, Chicago, IL

•Female 60-64: Sue Shepard, Elmhurst, IL

•Female 65-69: Carol Raska, Oak Park, IL

 

Freedom Golf Association leads the way in bringing adaptive golf to Illinois and is an integral part of the growing national movement, which has been embraced by major golf entities such as the PGA, LPGA and USGA.

 

“Freedom Golf Association encourages corporations with cause marketing programs that help the disabled to become FGA sponsors or corporate foundation grant providers and help us grow,” said Ruecking.

  

About Freedom Golf Association

Freedom Golf Association (FGA), a 501(C)3 non-profit charitable organization, is the leading adaptive golf organization in Illinois and is a charter member of the United States Adaptive Golf Alliance. FGA was founded in July 2012 by Edmund (E.Q.) Sylvester. E.Q. is a director of the Western Golf Association (WGA), member of the United States Senior Golf Association (USSGA), member of the United States Golf Association (USGA) and a triple amputee. FGA is dedicated to bringing joy and a sense of freedom to the special needs community through their inclusion in the game of golf.

 

FGA believes that all special needs individuals deserve a chance to accomplish the same things as any others do and work towards bringing a positive transformation to their lives. FGA contributes to the positive development of those with special needs through the magic of golf.

 

FGA works to assist individuals with disabilities in many ways:

•Provides professionally run adaptive golf instructional clinics and golf events

•Engages children, adults and veterans with special needs in FREE adaptive golf instruction with other classmates

•Conducts adaptive golf training workshops to increase the number of qualified adaptive golf coaches to instruct individuals with special needs

•Provides leadership and collaboration with nationally recognized organizations on how to expand/grow adaptive golf programs

 

Based on its growing understanding of the needs of disabled golfers, the FGA has developed a ground-breaking Adaptive Golf Enhancement Program™ that increases the golfing ability of special needs golfers. FGA’s golf coaches learn this six-step process, which helps them better understand and enhance the capabilities of special needs golfers.

 

To assist coaches and special needs golfers in determining what adaptive measures would be most beneficial, FGA recently invested in what they call a “personal swing sensors and computerized program” to 1) measure the disabled golfer’s initial swing path and limitations; 2) develop an appropriate exercise program to improve flexibility and range of motion; and 3) to chart the golfer’s progress, using the initial swing measurements as a baseline.

 

In 2016, FGA provided more than 1,300 adaptive golf lessons. In the same year, 110 special needs golfers went out and played on the course. Ten individuals became trained FGA Adaptive Golf Coaches, growing the total number to 42.

 

79 cents out of every dollar received goes to FGA’s special needs golf programs and events. FGA has led 40 Chicagoland courses in becoming accessible to the disabled community.

 

For more information about the Freedom Golf Association, please visit the official website at www.fgagolf.org and the online newsroom at www.newsline360.com/freedomgolfassociation. Contact FGA by phone at 855-342-4465 or 630-455-6018, or by email at playgolf@fgagolf.org. Donations to Freedom Golf Association can be made at www.fgagolf.org/donate.html.

 

Follow FGA on Facebook at www.facebook.com/FGA4Golf. Follow FGA on Twitter at www.twitter.com/FGA4Golf.

  

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