View allAll Photos Tagged Entitled
On February 19th at the State Capitol, The UC Policy Advocacy Clinic released a report entitled "California's New Vagrancy Laws".
The study documents the increasing criminalization of homeless people in California through local laws mimicking shameful vagrancy laws of past eras that targeted people of color, migrants and the physically disabled.
Advocates from across the state came together for legislative visits to encourage support. St. Mary's Center Hope and Justice Advocates came out in full force sharing personal accounts of the consequences of being cited and arrested for sitting, lying and sleeping.
download the report at www.wraphome.org
contact Marina Fisher, one of the four authors at (617) 543-9955
engage volunteer donate
to the movement to pass a California Right To Rest Act visit www.wraphome.org
support St. Mary's Center Hope and Justice program
photographers
Janny Castillo
and Nicholas Cox
of boonachepresents.
youtube
flickr
This image is from a unique sketchbook of miniature watercolour ‘Views in Norway’ dating from 1864 which belonged to the Scottish author, R. M. Ballantyne.
The watercolour sketches take Ballantyne from the port of Bergen, north around the Norwegian coast up to the Arctic Circle, a journey of around 430 miles. View Ballantyne's boy's own adventure in Norway with the full exhibition on Capital Collections.
Hanna Ranch Novato, CA. Urban One is providing Project Management & Entitlement services. www.urbanone.com.
Entitled as if they are sibling brothers taking their turns of use. Just thought they seemed to be talking to each other as positioned.
New Deal mural entitled "Pursuits of Life in Mississippi" was painted in 1938 by Simka Simkhovitch behind the judge's bench. Due to it's perceived racially offensive depiction, it was covered by the blue curtain for the majority of it's history. The US courthouse has recently been sold to a private individual so access to it will be increased in the future.
Mural plaque:
www.flickr.com/photos/auvet/49293934903/in/dateposted-pub...
Presentación de la Publicación de "Improving the Assessment of Disaster Risks to Strengthen Financial Resilience" / Presentation of the publication entitled "Improving the Assessment of Disaster Risks to Strengthen Financial Resilience"
Sculpture entitled 'The Burghers of Calais' by Auguste Rodin. It is one of twelve original castings - no more than 12 are permitted by French law. This one was cast in 1908 and installed in in 1914. It commemorates an event during the Hundred Years War when Calais surrendered to the English under Edward III after an 11-month siege. With the city facing starvation, Edward offered to spare the city if 6 of its leaders surrendered to him. The first to volunteer was one of Calais' wealthiest leaders, Eustache de Saint Pierre, and he was followed by the brothers Jacques and Pierre de Wissant, Jean de Vienne, Andrieu d'Andres and Jean d'Aire. They all expected to be executed, but their lives were saved by Edward's wife Philippa of Hainault who claimed their deaths would be a bad omen for her unborn child.
Entitled "Digital Progress, Human Success", we explored how the change brought about by the new Digital Transformation continues to change perspectives and to transform companies, individuals and societies through new ways of thinking; resulting from the technological and digital knowledge we have acquired.
All of this in the purest IE style, to reconnect with our former colleagues, meet new ones and enjoy moments of leisure the event such as lunch and dinner.
+++ 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:
As early as 1985 there was a study entitled Maritime Patrol Aircraft for the 90s (MPA 90) for the German Bundeswehr, which aimed to replace the Breguet Atlantic with the P-3C Update 4. The study was carried out by the Lockheed California Company and the MBB transport and commercial aircraft division (today Airbus Deutschland, with locations in Hamburg and Bremen) together with the BWB. In 1997, Lockheed Martin offered Germany and Italy a “Orion 2000” or “P-3C Plus” as a replacement for the Breguet Atlantic BR 1150. Both countries established a management team at the Federal Office of Defense Technology and Procurement in Koblenz and signed an MPA Definition MoU on October 21, 1999. Between 2007 and 2015, Germany was supposed to receive 10 aircraft, Italy 14. On July 26, 2002, Lockheed Martin offered a P-3C with revised wings, Allison T56 engines and modern avionics. However, the program was stopped, and alternatives were searched. Among others, Airbus was eager to response and proposed in 2001 a dedicated ASW/maritime patrol aircraft based on the A320 short-/medium-range airliner, even though the development of such an aircraft would certainly take several years and it would not be ready for service before 2010.
In the meantime, in 2003, the Netherlands offered its thirteen P-3C Update 2.5, which had originally been delivered between 1982 and 1984, for sale, and Germany became interested. On October 31 of the same year, both countries signed a memorandum of understanding for the sale of 10 aircraft. It was later decided that Germany would receive eight aircraft and Portugal the remaining five. With this solution, even though only a temporary stopgap for the German naval forces, Airbus’ proposal waned from attention – but only temporarily, since things did not unfold as planned.
The contract with the Netherlands was signed on November 15, 2004, and provided for Germany to supply eight P-3Cs, spare parts, a flight simulator, and other materials at a cost of 271 million euros. For a further 24 million euros, the Dutch armed forces trained the ground and flight personnel of the Marineflieger Geschwader (Marine Aviation Squadron/MFG) 3 “Graf Zeppelin” from Nordholz air base directly in the Netherlands. The Dutch reconnaissance aircraft were supposed to be responsible for long-range maritime surveillance and reconnaissance above and under water for the German Navy for the next twenty years, while a potent and up-to-date successor would be developed domestically or together with European partners. The Luftwaffe officially received the first P-3C on May 18, 2006.
While the P-3C had been bought and delivered, the procurement program for a potential successor was launched, since it was clear that the used P-3Cs would have only a limited lifetime left on their airframes and that maintenance would escalate over time. The potential P-3 successor became the project “Magellan”, which could trace back its origins to 2001. Magellan had been proposed by Airbus after the global market with turboprop-powered maritime patrol and anti-submarine warfare aircraft had been analyzed in the late Nineties and a huge global market opportunity had been discovered – including the demand of the German Luftwaffe and its naval air arm, the Marineflieger. Another driving factor behind the project was that similar aircraft produced abroad did not fully meet European – and most specifically German – requirements, so that the development of a purpose-built indigenous aircraft became a highly attractive option, also fueled by political pressure to support the European aircraft industry. Consequently, the German Ministry of Defense submitted the domestic development of the Magellan maritime patrol aircraft as part of its April 2001 – March 2006 Five-Year Defense Plan. In October 2003, following its earlier proposal and with the P-3C deal with the Netherlands, Airbus Industries received prime contractor status and Magellan started to take shape.
To save cost and development time, the Magellan ASW aircraft was not a completely new design. Like many former ASW aircraft (e. g. the Lockheed P-3, the BAe Nimrod, and the recent Boeing P-8) it was based on the airframe of an existing airliner. In Magellan’s case it was the new Airbus A318, which shared many components with the rest of the short/medium range A320 airliner family, including body components, cockpit windows, outer wings, horizontal stabilizer, and other systems. Internal shared parts included the auxiliary power unit, cockpit panels, flight control system computer, anti-collision lights, and gear control unit. This reportedly saved US$ 3.3 billion during the aircraft’s development until 2019.
To adapt the civil airliner to its new and specialized military role, many modifications were made. The most obvious change was a switch of powerplants, from a pair of high-bypass turbofans under the wings to four smaller engines in separate underwing nacelles. This required a thorough yet invisible modification of the wings’ internal structure, which allowed two extra hardpoints for the additional engines, and this also made the wings more stress-resistant for frequent low-/medium altitude operations. An increased use of composite materials helped to limit the resulting gain in structural weight.
The four-engine design adopted for the Magellan resulted in a flight profile with better maneuverability and stability at low-speed, low-altitude flight and allowed the aircraft to continue its mission in the event of a single and even a two-engine failure. As well as greater operational survivability, the high-bypass engines provided for quiet, fuel-efficient operation. Compared with the P-3 or the Breguet Atlantic, the Magellan also had, thanks to its jet propulsion, reduced transit times in comparison to turboprop-powered competitors, and the turbofans were quieter, making it more difficult for submerged submarines to detect the aircraft above them acoustically.
Propulsion came from four Pratt & Whitney PW1000Gs, a new high-bypass geared turbofan engine (also called the GTF = geared turbofan). The gearbox between the fan and the low-pressure spool allowed each to spin at its optimal speed, allowing a higher bypass ratio for a better propulsive efficiency. Pratt & Whitney claimed the engine was 16% more fuel efficient than the previous generation, and up to 75% quieter. Additionally, response to throttle input could be improved, resulting in a higher agility especially at lower speed.
The first variant to enter service was the PW1100G for the Airbus A320neo in January 2016. The engine had teething problems after its introduction, extending to grounded aircraft and inflight failures, but this was solved soon afterwards. The Magellan was the first military aircraft to use the new GTF engine type operationally. In the Magellan, the modified engines (designated PW1700M) with only two instead of three low pressure compression stages) provided a thrust of 15.000 lb (67 kN) each, so that the four GTF engines of the Magellan offered a little more thrust than the commercial airliners’ powerplants. In flight and on long-range patrol missions, one pair of engines would frequently be shut down to save fuel and reduce the noise profile even further, and the geared fans could be automatically set at diffefent ratios so that the frequencies generated from one engine would overlay and reduce the noise profile from the other one. This system was usspoed to be so effective that the audio signature of the Magellan would resemble strong wind and not man-made sound.
From the start the Magellan was equipped with many newly developed technologies and features, particularly in terms of its avionics and mission systems. One such key feature was the use of a fly-by-optics flight control system, which essentially replaced standard metal wiring with optical fiber cables. This also had the beneficial effect of decreasing electro-magnetic disturbances to the sensors on-board in comparison to more common fly-by-wire control systems, and it also helped to make the Magellan harder to detect from the outside.
The Magellan was equipped with various sensors to enable the aircraft to perform its primary purpose of maritime patrol and detecting submarines and surface vessels; these include the AMPaR active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar from Cassidian, a Airbus Defence and Space subsidiary, which used an array consisting of three separate antennas mounted under a mutual nose radome to provide 240-degree coverage at a range of more than 450 km (280 mi). All antennae together consisted of more than 3000 very small transmitter/receiver elements that divided the azimuth range into three overlapping 90° sectors. They could examine their sectors simultaneously and could also simultaneously track many maritime and aviation targets within each sector. The number of targets that can be tracked automatically is 1,000 and the number of targets that can be combated at the same time is around 60. AMPaR (Airborne Maritime Patrol Radar) was able to track surface vessels at sea at a range of 300 km (186 mi) while high-flying aircraft of fighter size could automatically be tracked at >250 km (150 mi). Even sea-skimming missiles could be detected and tracked at >25 km (15 mi). The data obtained is passed on to a command and weapon deployment system. The ASEA radar was furthermore supplemented by an Infrared/Light sensor array with an integrated laser range finder and target designator for surface detection, which allowed passive observation and tracking as well as target illumination for guided weapons, either deployed by the Magellan itself or from another carrier.
Further mission sensors included a magnetic anomaly detector (MAD) embedded into the aircraft's tail (where it replaced the airliner’s APU, which was re-located into the left-wing root area, while a heat exchanger was mounted on the right). Sophisticated acoustic systems were also added for this purpose. Another novelty was the integration of an artificial intelligence (AI) system that directed the TACCO operator to the optimal flight course to track or attack a submarine.
Behind the cockpit, the cabin was separated into three sections, consisting of the ASW operators’ section with workstations and observer places, a rest and general storage area with a small kitchen and four bunk beds for crews working in shifts on long-term missions, and a final section for 5” sonobuoy storage and their manual deployment through a total of four two release shafts, connected with the cabin through air locks. Vertical and oblique cameras were mounted together with the sonobuoy shafts in the lower fuselage and accessible from the cabin through hatches in the floor. The two rear sections could optionally be combined and re-arranged to make room for eventual transport duties, and seats could be installed, too to offer space for up to 28 passengers.
Under the cabin floor, two separate unpressurized bomb bays, one in front of and the other behind the wings, housed the bulk of the aircraft's ASW munitions. The bomb bay was supplemented by a total of eight external hardpoints, two pairs under the inner and outer wings each. Weapons available on the Magellan included torpedoes, mines, and depth charges internally. Air-to-surface missiles (including AGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles, AGM-65 Maverick ASMs and AGM-88 HARM anti-radar missiles), air-to-air missiles (AIM-9 Sidewinder or Iris-T) for self-defense, ECM and chaff/flare dispenser pods, or bombs, including laser-guided precision weapons, were typically carried on the wing pylons externally. The sonobuoy shafts were located behind the rear bomb bay and not connected with it.
Armaments and their deployment were managed by a stores management system, which included a newly developed Universal Stores Control Unit (USCU) capable of accommodating hundreds of different munitions, including future ones and precision weapons. Multiple radar warning receivers provided all-round awareness of missile threats, which were combined with a defensive countermeasure suite. Additional fuel tanks were integrated into the fuselage, too, which extended the A318’s typical airliner range from 5.740 km (3,100 nmi) to 8.000 km (5,000 mi), making patrol missions of 18 hours and more possible without need to refuel.
In June 2007, Airbus rolled out the Magellan prototype (coded 60+10, later re-designated 98+70 and handed over to WTD 71 in Eckernförde for further development work), converted from an existing civil airliner airframe, and now official designated A318 MPA (“Maritime Patrol Aircraft”) to mark the aircraft’s heritage and role. The rollout had been delayed for three months due to the discovery of defective rivets which required remedial repairs to be performed. On 28 September 2007, the Magellan conducted its maiden flight from Hamburg Finkenwerder, where the civil A318 airliners were finally assembled, too; this lasted one hour and ended successfully.
On 31 August 2007, Airbus announced that they would produce four Magellan production airframes for the Bundesluftwaffe, with an option for four more aircraft, with a unit price of US$ 141.5 million for each aircraft and to be delivered in 2012. At that time Airbus officials claimed that the Magellan was a more capable, albeit more expensive, aircraft than the Boeing P-8 Poseidon; in comparison to the P-8, the Magellan had a greater range, a larger bomb bay, and had been optimized for the maritime patrol mission. Beyond Germany, Norway (4 aircraft), Spain (6) and Taiwan (3, with an option for 3 more) also procured the Magellan. Argentina and Chile also showed interest in the type.
Due to development and budgetary problems the delivery of the A318 MPA to the Marineflieger was delayed several times, and the anticipated maintenance problems with the former Dutch P-3Cs in German service escalated. At the end of 2016, the magazine Der Spiegel reported that none of the aircraft were operational as of September 30, 2016, and that one of the aircraft had only completed two and a half hours of flight in 10 years. Total costs could no longer be calculated, and as a result, soon not a single German P-3 was operational for at least several weeks. The situation became so severe that the German Ministry of Defense considered to lease five Boeing P-8A Poseidon as another interim solution, but in late 2019 the first Magellan Airbus was introduced to the re-established MFG 1, which had operated Tornado IDS’ in the maritime strike and reconnaissance role until 1993. At the time of their operational introduction the aircraft had already been updated: SIGINT equipment had been added (outwardly recognizable through slender wingtip pods and an extended spinal fairing in front of the fin) to survey and record radio communication. In this configuration the aircraft were officially designated A318 MPA Phase II.
However, instead of the MFG 1’s former base Jagel the unit now was located at Nordholz, where the P-3 facilities were used to operate the similar-sized A318 MPAs. Operations started only slowly, though, and during early exercises and NATO deployments to Lithuania the first two A318 MPAs (60+11 and 12) reportedly suffered radar, sensor integration, and data transfer problems, leading to more testing. 1./MFG 1 only received full operational status with its four planned initial aircraft in early 2022, and a second squadron with four more aircraft will probably only become operational with MFG 1 in 2027.
[b][u]General characteristics:[/u][/b]
Flight crew: 3
Mission crew: 8 (but operationally up to 12 with working in shifts on long-range missions)
Length: 36,52 m (118 ft 9 in) overall
Wingspan: 33,98 m (111 ft 3¾ in)
Wing area: 122.4 m² (1,318 sq ft)
Wing sweepback: 25°
Tail height: 12,24 m (40 ft 1 in)
Operating empty weight: 44.100 kg (97,100 lb)
Maximum zero-fuel weight (MZFW): 59.100 kg (130,200 lb)
Maximum landing weight (MLW): 62.100 kg (136,800 lb)
Maximum take-off weight (MTOW): 79,700 kg (175,708 lb)
[u]Powerplant[/u]:
4× Pratt & Whitney PW1700M high-bypass geared turbofan engines, 67 kN (15,000 lbf) thrust each
[u]Performance:[/u]
Maximum speed: 996 km/h (619 mph, 538 kn)
Cruise speed: 833 km/h (518 mph, 450 kn)
Range: 8,000 km (5,000 mi, 4,300 nmi)
Combat radius: 2,500 km (1,600 mi, 1,300 nmi) with 4 hours on station for anti-submarine warfare
Service ceiling: 13,520 m (44,360 ft)
[u]Armament:[/u]
2 internal bomb bays with a total of eight stations,
8 external underwing pylons
Total capacity of 9,000 kg (19,842 lb) for torpedoes, mines, depth charges, various
air-to-surface missiles (ASMs), or bombs, plus short-range AAMs for self-defense
[b]The kit and its assembly:[/b]
This fictional Airbus ASW aircraft was spawned by the Kawasaki P-1, an indigenous Japanese P-3 replacement with an unusual four-engine propulsion on a relatively small airframe. I envisioned a European alternative, inspired by the sad state of the Dutch P-3s in German duty – and that made a converted Airbus airframe a natural choice. I eventually settled for the smallest type, the A318, also because it had similar dimensions as the Japanese P-1 and procured an Eastern Express kit when I stumbled upon a priceworthy offer.
As a side information: there were real plans for an A319 ASW derivative, but this build here is unrelated (found out about it much later, after I started work on my model) and only shares the “MPA” suffix. I was not able to find any detail info about it, though.
The alternative/extra engines for my A 318 MPA turned out to be a major challenge. My initial plan to use the four nacelles with pylons from a 1:144 Revell WhiteKnight Two/SpaceShip Two kit set came to naught when I realized that these would be much too small for the A318 airframe. They eventually went into a BAe 146ish conversion of a DC-9 airframe with shoulder-mounted wings that I build a couple of weeks ago, where they looked fine. But the Magellan would require something more substantial, and finding a suitable and affordable alternative took some time and legwork. I eventually found aftermarket engine nacelles from Skyline Models for a 1:200 Hasegawa Boeing 747-200/300, made from IP with resin exhausts. They offered IMHO a good size and shape compromise, with a good level of detail for 1:144, and the quartet was affordable, too, because I did not want to buy a donor kit just for the engines. However, even though the pods look nice and have fine surface details, they do not go together at all: you have either to sand the fan discs into an unnatural oval shape or you have to bridge a massive 1 mm(!) gap on the underside when you force the halves together. The resin tail cones themselves are crisp and look very good, but they do hardly fit into the fan shroud and the pylons’ shape doesn’t match up with then, either. Fits well in style with the A318 kit, though… Did I mention that the Eastern Express A318 kit is a PITA? It has quite nice surface detail, but the bigger the parts the less they go together. Esp. the wing and fuselage halves were a TOTAL mess, the latter could only be closed through force and combining the hull with the wing halves, which have a weird construction on the lower hull – the mold layout was chosen to allow proper detail to be added around the main landing gear wells, but building this is a horror, was a nightmare, with poor fit, massive gaps and dislocations of up to 1 mm!
Talking about trouble: mounting the wacky 747 pods under the Airbus’ wings required even more hardware mods on top of the basic fit problems. The inner pair of engines went closer to the fuselage, to make more space for the outer pair, even though they ended up pretty close to the main landing gear. The A318’s original attachment points under the wings were PSRed away and the inner pair of donor pods was mounted onto the inner flap mechanism fairings. Their pylons had to be modified accordingly, though. The outer pair was mounted at about half distance from the inner engines and the wing tips. Their pylons had to be shortened, due to the low wing depth. Outside of them I added weapon stations from a Dragon 1:144 Tornado IDS, which also provided AGM-88 HARMs and Sidewinders as suitable ordnance.
The rest of modifications were more of a cosmetic kind. The biggest change was a bigger, more bulbous nose radome for the surveillance radar; in this case I used a leftover nose section from an Airfix 1:72 D.H. Venom trainer, mounted and PSRed over the Airbus’s original nose. Not a big modification, but the different nose profile changes the Airbus‘ look significantly to something P-3ish, and it resembled the Japanese P-1 a lot now.
The windscreen itself, while quite clear, had to be forced into its opening, and due to its poor fit and some gaps I PSRed it over and later used aftermarket decals to create the windscreen. Other graft-ons included a MAD boom carved from sprue material, a dorsal antenna bulge (from an Airfix A-4B kit) behind the cockpit and a pair of optical sensor turrets under the chin, somewhat B-52Gish. Under the lower rear fuselage, I added a pair of bulges for the sonobuoy launch tubes and cameras, leftover optional parts form/for a Heller Saab S32C’s camera nose. Fin and wing tips were slightly clipped, and I added scratched sensor fairings (sprue material), what considerably changes the aircraft’s look away from an airliner, and I also added a low spinal fairing (styrene profile) at the fin’s base. Finally, some blade antennae made from 0.5mm styrene sheet were mounted around the hull and small scoops for the relocated APU and heat exchangers were added.
[b]Painting and markings:[/b]
As usual, a tricky choice. The German P-3Cs did not carry a special camouflage – they simply retained the former Dutch Navy livery in all-over Light Gull Grey (FS 36440), which I found too boring to apply on the whiffy ASW Airbus. Due to the aircraft’s sheer size, I refrained from a tactical paint scheme like the rather murky three-tone wraparound Norm ’87 scheme from the Marineflieger Tornados or any of its (though interesting) development patterns or derivatives. Instead, I rather took inspiration from the Luftwaffe’s MedEvac/MRT Airbus A310s, which were painted RAL 7001 (Silbergrau, Revell 374) overall. This shade of grey comes close to FS 36375 but is colder.
For an aircraft that would not only operate at high altitude and to conceal it from above I found a uniform RAL 7001 livery too bright, so that I decided to paint the upper surfaces in a slightly darker tone, RAL 7000 (Fehgrau, Revell 57), which is, as a coincidence, the tone of most Bundesmarine surface vessels’ superstructures since 1956: a cold blue-grey tone somewhere between FS 36320 and 35237. Together with a straight and low waterline this resulted in a rather low-viz-ish livery, augmented by relatively few and small markings and stencils.
The landing gear was painted white, the walkway/Corroguard areas on the wings received a slightly different shade of grey (RAL 7005 Mausgrau, Revell 47) than the basic camouflage, and I added a slightly darker anti-glare panel (RAL 7012, Basaltgrau, Revell 77) in front of the windscreen. The nose radome and other di-electric fairings were painted in a yet another slightly brownish shade of grey (RAL 7030, Steingrau, Revell 75), to create some more variety. Some light post-panel shading was done, and to emphasize the engraved panel lines I also applied a light black ink washing.
Windscreen, windows, and doors were created with decals, partly aftermarket, partly OOB. The cabin windows’ number was reduced to reflect the aircraft’s dedicated military role. Tactical markings were few and rather lustreless. German markings and codes were procured from appropriate generic material from TL Modellbau and Peddinghaus Decals, the small MFG 1 badges came from an Italeri Marineflieger Tornado kit (with subdued Norm ’87 markings). Stencils and walkway markings on the wings came from the OOB sheet.
Finally, everything was sealed with matt acrylic varnish from a rattle can, with a light sheen instead of pure matt.
The result looks simple in its all-grey livery but getting there – esp. with the poor-fitting Eastern Express Airbus A318 as basis and the even worse donor engines – was a long and tough fight. But despite the troubles, the model of this fictional Kawasaki P-1 alternative from Europe looks pretty convincing and the four-engine layout worked well, despite the relatively compact airframe.
´
+++ 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:
As early as 1985 there was a study entitled Maritime Patrol Aircraft for the 90s (MPA 90) for the German Bundeswehr, which aimed to replace the Breguet Atlantic with the P-3C Update 4. The study was carried out by the Lockheed California Company and the MBB transport and commercial aircraft division (today Airbus Deutschland, with locations in Hamburg and Bremen) together with the BWB. In 1997, Lockheed Martin offered Germany and Italy a “Orion 2000” or “P-3C Plus” as a replacement for the Breguet Atlantic BR 1150. Both countries established a management team at the Federal Office of Defense Technology and Procurement in Koblenz and signed an MPA Definition MoU on October 21, 1999. Between 2007 and 2015, Germany was supposed to receive 10 aircraft, Italy 14. On July 26, 2002, Lockheed Martin offered a P-3C with revised wings, Allison T56 engines and modern avionics. However, the program was stopped, and alternatives were searched. Among others, Airbus was eager to response and proposed in 2001 a dedicated ASW/maritime patrol aircraft based on the A320 short-/medium-range airliner, even though the development of such an aircraft would certainly take several years and it would not be ready for service before 2010.
In the meantime, in 2003, the Netherlands offered its thirteen P-3C Update 2.5, which had originally been delivered between 1982 and 1984, for sale, and Germany became interested. On October 31 of the same year, both countries signed a memorandum of understanding for the sale of 10 aircraft. It was later decided that Germany would receive eight aircraft and Portugal the remaining five. With this solution, even though only a temporary stopgap for the German naval forces, Airbus’ proposal waned from attention – but only temporarily, since things did not unfold as planned.
The contract with the Netherlands was signed on November 15, 2004, and provided for Germany to supply eight P-3Cs, spare parts, a flight simulator, and other materials at a cost of 271 million euros. For a further 24 million euros, the Dutch armed forces trained the ground and flight personnel of the Marineflieger Geschwader (Marine Aviation Squadron/MFG) 3 “Graf Zeppelin” from Nordholz air base directly in the Netherlands. The Dutch reconnaissance aircraft were supposed to be responsible for long-range maritime surveillance and reconnaissance above and under water for the German Navy for the next twenty years, while a potent and up-to-date successor would be developed domestically or together with European partners. The Luftwaffe officially received the first P-3C on May 18, 2006.
While the P-3C had been bought and delivered, the procurement program for a potential successor was launched, since it was clear that the used P-3Cs would have only a limited lifetime left on their airframes and that maintenance would escalate over time. The potential P-3 successor became the project “Magellan”, which could trace back its origins to 2001. Magellan had been proposed by Airbus after the global market with turboprop-powered maritime patrol and anti-submarine warfare aircraft had been analyzed in the late Nineties and a huge global market opportunity had been discovered – including the demand of the German Luftwaffe and its naval air arm, the Marineflieger. Another driving factor behind the project was that similar aircraft produced abroad did not fully meet European – and most specifically German – requirements, so that the development of a purpose-built indigenous aircraft became a highly attractive option, also fueled by political pressure to support the European aircraft industry. Consequently, the German Ministry of Defense submitted the domestic development of the Magellan maritime patrol aircraft as part of its April 2001 – March 2006 Five-Year Defense Plan. In October 2003, following its earlier proposal and with the P-3C deal with the Netherlands, Airbus Industries received prime contractor status and Magellan started to take shape.
To save cost and development time, the Magellan ASW aircraft was not a completely new design. Like many former ASW aircraft (e. g. the Lockheed P-3, the BAe Nimrod, and the recent Boeing P-8) it was based on the airframe of an existing airliner. In Magellan’s case it was the new Airbus A318, which shared many components with the rest of the short/medium range A320 airliner family, including body components, cockpit windows, outer wings, horizontal stabilizer, and other systems. Internal shared parts included the auxiliary power unit, cockpit panels, flight control system computer, anti-collision lights, and gear control unit. This reportedly saved US$ 3.3 billion during the aircraft’s development until 2019.
To adapt the civil airliner to its new and specialized military role, many modifications were made. The most obvious change was a switch of powerplants, from a pair of high-bypass turbofans under the wings to four smaller engines in separate underwing nacelles. This required a thorough yet invisible modification of the wings’ internal structure, which allowed two extra hardpoints for the additional engines, and this also made the wings more stress-resistant for frequent low-/medium altitude operations. An increased use of composite materials helped to limit the resulting gain in structural weight.
The four-engine design adopted for the Magellan resulted in a flight profile with better maneuverability and stability at low-speed, low-altitude flight and allowed the aircraft to continue its mission in the event of a single and even a two-engine failure. As well as greater operational survivability, the high-bypass engines provided for quiet, fuel-efficient operation. Compared with the P-3 or the Breguet Atlantic, the Magellan also had, thanks to its jet propulsion, reduced transit times in comparison to turboprop-powered competitors, and the turbofans were quieter, making it more difficult for submerged submarines to detect the aircraft above them acoustically.
Propulsion came from four Pratt & Whitney PW1000Gs, a new high-bypass geared turbofan engine (also called the GTF = geared turbofan). The gearbox between the fan and the low-pressure spool allowed each to spin at its optimal speed, allowing a higher bypass ratio for a better propulsive efficiency. Pratt & Whitney claimed the engine was 16% more fuel efficient than the previous generation, and up to 75% quieter. Additionally, response to throttle input could be improved, resulting in a higher agility especially at lower speed.
The first variant to enter service was the PW1100G for the Airbus A320neo in January 2016. The engine had teething problems after its introduction, extending to grounded aircraft and inflight failures, but this was solved soon afterwards. The Magellan was the first military aircraft to use the new GTF engine type operationally. In the Magellan, the modified engines (designated PW1700M) with only two instead of three low pressure compression stages) provided a thrust of 15.000 lb (67 kN) each, so that the four GTF engines of the Magellan offered a little more thrust than the commercial airliners’ powerplants. In flight and on long-range patrol missions, one pair of engines would frequently be shut down to save fuel and reduce the noise profile even further, and the geared fans could be automatically set at diffefent ratios so that the frequencies generated from one engine would overlay and reduce the noise profile from the other one. This system was usspoed to be so effective that the audio signature of the Magellan would resemble strong wind and not man-made sound.
From the start the Magellan was equipped with many newly developed technologies and features, particularly in terms of its avionics and mission systems. One such key feature was the use of a fly-by-optics flight control system, which essentially replaced standard metal wiring with optical fiber cables. This also had the beneficial effect of decreasing electro-magnetic disturbances to the sensors on-board in comparison to more common fly-by-wire control systems, and it also helped to make the Magellan harder to detect from the outside.
The Magellan was equipped with various sensors to enable the aircraft to perform its primary purpose of maritime patrol and detecting submarines and surface vessels; these include the AMPaR active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar from Cassidian, a Airbus Defence and Space subsidiary, which used an array consisting of three separate antennas mounted under a mutual nose radome to provide 240-degree coverage at a range of more than 450 km (280 mi). All antennae together consisted of more than 3000 very small transmitter/receiver elements that divided the azimuth range into three overlapping 90° sectors. They could examine their sectors simultaneously and could also simultaneously track many maritime and aviation targets within each sector. The number of targets that can be tracked automatically is 1,000 and the number of targets that can be combated at the same time is around 60. AMPaR (Airborne Maritime Patrol Radar) was able to track surface vessels at sea at a range of 300 km (186 mi) while high-flying aircraft of fighter size could automatically be tracked at >250 km (150 mi). Even sea-skimming missiles could be detected and tracked at >25 km (15 mi). The data obtained is passed on to a command and weapon deployment system. The ASEA radar was furthermore supplemented by an Infrared/Light sensor array with an integrated laser range finder and target designator for surface detection, which allowed passive observation and tracking as well as target illumination for guided weapons, either deployed by the Magellan itself or from another carrier.
Further mission sensors included a magnetic anomaly detector (MAD) embedded into the aircraft's tail (where it replaced the airliner’s APU, which was re-located into the left-wing root area, while a heat exchanger was mounted on the right). Sophisticated acoustic systems were also added for this purpose. Another novelty was the integration of an artificial intelligence (AI) system that directed the TACCO operator to the optimal flight course to track or attack a submarine.
Behind the cockpit, the cabin was separated into three sections, consisting of the ASW operators’ section with workstations and observer places, a rest and general storage area with a small kitchen and four bunk beds for crews working in shifts on long-term missions, and a final section for 5” sonobuoy storage and their manual deployment through a total of four two release shafts, connected with the cabin through air locks. Vertical and oblique cameras were mounted together with the sonobuoy shafts in the lower fuselage and accessible from the cabin through hatches in the floor. The two rear sections could optionally be combined and re-arranged to make room for eventual transport duties, and seats could be installed, too to offer space for up to 28 passengers.
Under the cabin floor, two separate unpressurized bomb bays, one in front of and the other behind the wings, housed the bulk of the aircraft's ASW munitions. The bomb bay was supplemented by a total of eight external hardpoints, two pairs under the inner and outer wings each. Weapons available on the Magellan included torpedoes, mines, and depth charges internally. Air-to-surface missiles (including AGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles, AGM-65 Maverick ASMs and AGM-88 HARM anti-radar missiles), air-to-air missiles (AIM-9 Sidewinder or Iris-T) for self-defense, ECM and chaff/flare dispenser pods, or bombs, including laser-guided precision weapons, were typically carried on the wing pylons externally. The sonobuoy shafts were located behind the rear bomb bay and not connected with it.
Armaments and their deployment were managed by a stores management system, which included a newly developed Universal Stores Control Unit (USCU) capable of accommodating hundreds of different munitions, including future ones and precision weapons. Multiple radar warning receivers provided all-round awareness of missile threats, which were combined with a defensive countermeasure suite. Additional fuel tanks were integrated into the fuselage, too, which extended the A318’s typical airliner range from 5.740 km (3,100 nmi) to 8.000 km (5,000 mi), making patrol missions of 18 hours and more possible without need to refuel.
In June 2007, Airbus rolled out the Magellan prototype (coded 60+10, later re-designated 98+70 and handed over to WTD 71 in Eckernförde for further development work), converted from an existing civil airliner airframe, and now official designated A318 MPA (“Maritime Patrol Aircraft”) to mark the aircraft’s heritage and role. The rollout had been delayed for three months due to the discovery of defective rivets which required remedial repairs to be performed. On 28 September 2007, the Magellan conducted its maiden flight from Hamburg Finkenwerder, where the civil A318 airliners were finally assembled, too; this lasted one hour and ended successfully.
On 31 August 2007, Airbus announced that they would produce four Magellan production airframes for the Bundesluftwaffe, with an option for four more aircraft, with a unit price of US$ 141.5 million for each aircraft and to be delivered in 2012. At that time Airbus officials claimed that the Magellan was a more capable, albeit more expensive, aircraft than the Boeing P-8 Poseidon; in comparison to the P-8, the Magellan had a greater range, a larger bomb bay, and had been optimized for the maritime patrol mission. Beyond Germany, Norway (4 aircraft), Spain (6) and Taiwan (3, with an option for 3 more) also procured the Magellan. Argentina and Chile also showed interest in the type.
Due to development and budgetary problems the delivery of the A318 MPA to the Marineflieger was delayed several times, and the anticipated maintenance problems with the former Dutch P-3Cs in German service escalated. At the end of 2016, the magazine Der Spiegel reported that none of the aircraft were operational as of September 30, 2016, and that one of the aircraft had only completed two and a half hours of flight in 10 years. Total costs could no longer be calculated, and as a result, soon not a single German P-3 was operational for at least several weeks. The situation became so severe that the German Ministry of Defense considered to lease five Boeing P-8A Poseidon as another interim solution, but in late 2019 the first Magellan Airbus was introduced to the re-established MFG 1, which had operated Tornado IDS’ in the maritime strike and reconnaissance role until 1993. At the time of their operational introduction the aircraft had already been updated: SIGINT equipment had been added (outwardly recognizable through slender wingtip pods and an extended spinal fairing in front of the fin) to survey and record radio communication. In this configuration the aircraft were officially designated A318 MPA Phase II.
However, instead of the MFG 1’s former base Jagel the unit now was located at Nordholz, where the P-3 facilities were used to operate the similar-sized A318 MPAs. Operations started only slowly, though, and during early exercises and NATO deployments to Lithuania the first two A318 MPAs (60+11 and 12) reportedly suffered radar, sensor integration, and data transfer problems, leading to more testing. 1./MFG 1 only received full operational status with its four planned initial aircraft in early 2022, and a second squadron with four more aircraft will probably only become operational with MFG 1 in 2027.
[b][u]General characteristics:[/u][/b]
Flight crew: 3
Mission crew: 8 (but operationally up to 12 with working in shifts on long-range missions)
Length: 36,52 m (118 ft 9 in) overall
Wingspan: 33,98 m (111 ft 3¾ in)
Wing area: 122.4 m² (1,318 sq ft)
Wing sweepback: 25°
Tail height: 12,24 m (40 ft 1 in)
Operating empty weight: 44.100 kg (97,100 lb)
Maximum zero-fuel weight (MZFW): 59.100 kg (130,200 lb)
Maximum landing weight (MLW): 62.100 kg (136,800 lb)
Maximum take-off weight (MTOW): 79,700 kg (175,708 lb)
[u]Powerplant[/u]:
4× Pratt & Whitney PW1700M high-bypass geared turbofan engines, 67 kN (15,000 lbf) thrust each
[u]Performance:[/u]
Maximum speed: 996 km/h (619 mph, 538 kn)
Cruise speed: 833 km/h (518 mph, 450 kn)
Range: 8,000 km (5,000 mi, 4,300 nmi)
Combat radius: 2,500 km (1,600 mi, 1,300 nmi) with 4 hours on station for anti-submarine warfare
Service ceiling: 13,520 m (44,360 ft)
[u]Armament:[/u]
2 internal bomb bays with a total of eight stations,
8 external underwing pylons
Total capacity of 9,000 kg (19,842 lb) for torpedoes, mines, depth charges, various
air-to-surface missiles (ASMs), or bombs, plus short-range AAMs for self-defense
[b]The kit and its assembly:[/b]
This fictional Airbus ASW aircraft was spawned by the Kawasaki P-1, an indigenous Japanese P-3 replacement with an unusual four-engine propulsion on a relatively small airframe. I envisioned a European alternative, inspired by the sad state of the Dutch P-3s in German duty – and that made a converted Airbus airframe a natural choice. I eventually settled for the smallest type, the A318, also because it had similar dimensions as the Japanese P-1 and procured an Eastern Express kit when I stumbled upon a priceworthy offer.
As a side information: there were real plans for an A319 ASW derivative, but this build here is unrelated (found out about it much later, after I started work on my model) and only shares the “MPA” suffix. I was not able to find any detail info about it, though.
The alternative/extra engines for my A 318 MPA turned out to be a major challenge. My initial plan to use the four nacelles with pylons from a 1:144 Revell WhiteKnight Two/SpaceShip Two kit set came to naught when I realized that these would be much too small for the A318 airframe. They eventually went into a BAe 146ish conversion of a DC-9 airframe with shoulder-mounted wings that I build a couple of weeks ago, where they looked fine. But the Magellan would require something more substantial, and finding a suitable and affordable alternative took some time and legwork. I eventually found aftermarket engine nacelles from Skyline Models for a 1:200 Hasegawa Boeing 747-200/300, made from IP with resin exhausts. They offered IMHO a good size and shape compromise, with a good level of detail for 1:144, and the quartet was affordable, too, because I did not want to buy a donor kit just for the engines. However, even though the pods look nice and have fine surface details, they do not go together at all: you have either to sand the fan discs into an unnatural oval shape or you have to bridge a massive 1 mm(!) gap on the underside when you force the halves together. The resin tail cones themselves are crisp and look very good, but they do hardly fit into the fan shroud and the pylons’ shape doesn’t match up with then, either. Fits well in style with the A318 kit, though… Did I mention that the Eastern Express A318 kit is a PITA? It has quite nice surface detail, but the bigger the parts the less they go together. Esp. the wing and fuselage halves were a TOTAL mess, the latter could only be closed through force and combining the hull with the wing halves, which have a weird construction on the lower hull – the mold layout was chosen to allow proper detail to be added around the main landing gear wells, but building this is a horror, was a nightmare, with poor fit, massive gaps and dislocations of up to 1 mm!
Talking about trouble: mounting the wacky 747 pods under the Airbus’ wings required even more hardware mods on top of the basic fit problems. The inner pair of engines went closer to the fuselage, to make more space for the outer pair, even though they ended up pretty close to the main landing gear. The A318’s original attachment points under the wings were PSRed away and the inner pair of donor pods was mounted onto the inner flap mechanism fairings. Their pylons had to be modified accordingly, though. The outer pair was mounted at about half distance from the inner engines and the wing tips. Their pylons had to be shortened, due to the low wing depth. Outside of them I added weapon stations from a Dragon 1:144 Tornado IDS, which also provided AGM-88 HARMs and Sidewinders as suitable ordnance.
The rest of modifications were more of a cosmetic kind. The biggest change was a bigger, more bulbous nose radome for the surveillance radar; in this case I used a leftover nose section from an Airfix 1:72 D.H. Venom trainer, mounted and PSRed over the Airbus’s original nose. Not a big modification, but the different nose profile changes the Airbus‘ look significantly to something P-3ish, and it resembled the Japanese P-1 a lot now.
The windscreen itself, while quite clear, had to be forced into its opening, and due to its poor fit and some gaps I PSRed it over and later used aftermarket decals to create the windscreen. Other graft-ons included a MAD boom carved from sprue material, a dorsal antenna bulge (from an Airfix A-4B kit) behind the cockpit and a pair of optical sensor turrets under the chin, somewhat B-52Gish. Under the lower rear fuselage, I added a pair of bulges for the sonobuoy launch tubes and cameras, leftover optional parts form/for a Heller Saab S32C’s camera nose. Fin and wing tips were slightly clipped, and I added scratched sensor fairings (sprue material), what considerably changes the aircraft’s look away from an airliner, and I also added a low spinal fairing (styrene profile) at the fin’s base. Finally, some blade antennae made from 0.5mm styrene sheet were mounted around the hull and small scoops for the relocated APU and heat exchangers were added.
[b]Painting and markings:[/b]
As usual, a tricky choice. The German P-3Cs did not carry a special camouflage – they simply retained the former Dutch Navy livery in all-over Light Gull Grey (FS 36440), which I found too boring to apply on the whiffy ASW Airbus. Due to the aircraft’s sheer size, I refrained from a tactical paint scheme like the rather murky three-tone wraparound Norm ’87 scheme from the Marineflieger Tornados or any of its (though interesting) development patterns or derivatives. Instead, I rather took inspiration from the Luftwaffe’s MedEvac/MRT Airbus A310s, which were painted RAL 7001 (Silbergrau, Revell 374) overall. This shade of grey comes close to FS 36375 but is colder.
For an aircraft that would not only operate at high altitude and to conceal it from above I found a uniform RAL 7001 livery too bright, so that I decided to paint the upper surfaces in a slightly darker tone, RAL 7000 (Fehgrau, Revell 57), which is, as a coincidence, the tone of most Bundesmarine surface vessels’ superstructures since 1956: a cold blue-grey tone somewhere between FS 36320 and 35237. Together with a straight and low waterline this resulted in a rather low-viz-ish livery, augmented by relatively few and small markings and stencils.
The landing gear was painted white, the walkway/Corroguard areas on the wings received a slightly different shade of grey (RAL 7005 Mausgrau, Revell 47) than the basic camouflage, and I added a slightly darker anti-glare panel (RAL 7012, Basaltgrau, Revell 77) in front of the windscreen. The nose radome and other di-electric fairings were painted in a yet another slightly brownish shade of grey (RAL 7030, Steingrau, Revell 75), to create some more variety. Some light post-panel shading was done, and to emphasize the engraved panel lines I also applied a light black ink washing.
Windscreen, windows, and doors were created with decals, partly aftermarket, partly OOB. The cabin windows’ number was reduced to reflect the aircraft’s dedicated military role. Tactical markings were few and rather lustreless. German markings and codes were procured from appropriate generic material from TL Modellbau and Peddinghaus Decals, the small MFG 1 badges came from an Italeri Marineflieger Tornado kit (with subdued Norm ’87 markings). Stencils and walkway markings on the wings came from the OOB sheet.
Finally, everything was sealed with matt acrylic varnish from a rattle can, with a light sheen instead of pure matt.
The result looks simple in its all-grey livery but getting there – esp. with the poor-fitting Eastern Express Airbus A318 as basis and the even worse donor engines – was a long and tough fight. But despite the troubles, the model of this fictional Kawasaki P-1 alternative from Europe looks pretty convincing and the four-engine layout worked well, despite the relatively compact airframe.
´
+++ 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:
As early as 1985 there was a study entitled Maritime Patrol Aircraft for the 90s (MPA 90) for the German Bundeswehr, which aimed to replace the Breguet Atlantic with the P-3C Update 4. The study was carried out by the Lockheed California Company and the MBB transport and commercial aircraft division (today Airbus Deutschland, with locations in Hamburg and Bremen) together with the BWB. In 1997, Lockheed Martin offered Germany and Italy a “Orion 2000” or “P-3C Plus” as a replacement for the Breguet Atlantic BR 1150. Both countries established a management team at the Federal Office of Defense Technology and Procurement in Koblenz and signed an MPA Definition MoU on October 21, 1999. Between 2007 and 2015, Germany was supposed to receive 10 aircraft, Italy 14. On July 26, 2002, Lockheed Martin offered a P-3C with revised wings, Allison T56 engines and modern avionics. However, the program was stopped, and alternatives were searched. Among others, Airbus was eager to response and proposed in 2001 a dedicated ASW/maritime patrol aircraft based on the A320 short-/medium-range airliner, even though the development of such an aircraft would certainly take several years and it would not be ready for service before 2010.
In the meantime, in 2003, the Netherlands offered its thirteen P-3C Update 2.5, which had originally been delivered between 1982 and 1984, for sale, and Germany became interested. On October 31 of the same year, both countries signed a memorandum of understanding for the sale of 10 aircraft. It was later decided that Germany would receive eight aircraft and Portugal the remaining five. With this solution, even though only a temporary stopgap for the German naval forces, Airbus’ proposal waned from attention – but only temporarily, since things did not unfold as planned.
The contract with the Netherlands was signed on November 15, 2004, and provided for Germany to supply eight P-3Cs, spare parts, a flight simulator, and other materials at a cost of 271 million euros. For a further 24 million euros, the Dutch armed forces trained the ground and flight personnel of the Marineflieger Geschwader (Marine Aviation Squadron/MFG) 3 “Graf Zeppelin” from Nordholz air base directly in the Netherlands. The Dutch reconnaissance aircraft were supposed to be responsible for long-range maritime surveillance and reconnaissance above and under water for the German Navy for the next twenty years, while a potent and up-to-date successor would be developed domestically or together with European partners. The Luftwaffe officially received the first P-3C on May 18, 2006.
While the P-3C had been bought and delivered, the procurement program for a potential successor was launched, since it was clear that the used P-3Cs would have only a limited lifetime left on their airframes and that maintenance would escalate over time. The potential P-3 successor became the project “Magellan”, which could trace back its origins to 2001. Magellan had been proposed by Airbus after the global market with turboprop-powered maritime patrol and anti-submarine warfare aircraft had been analyzed in the late Nineties and a huge global market opportunity had been discovered – including the demand of the German Luftwaffe and its naval air arm, the Marineflieger. Another driving factor behind the project was that similar aircraft produced abroad did not fully meet European – and most specifically German – requirements, so that the development of a purpose-built indigenous aircraft became a highly attractive option, also fueled by political pressure to support the European aircraft industry. Consequently, the German Ministry of Defense submitted the domestic development of the Magellan maritime patrol aircraft as part of its April 2001 – March 2006 Five-Year Defense Plan. In October 2003, following its earlier proposal and with the P-3C deal with the Netherlands, Airbus Industries received prime contractor status and Magellan started to take shape.
To save cost and development time, the Magellan ASW aircraft was not a completely new design. Like many former ASW aircraft (e. g. the Lockheed P-3, the BAe Nimrod, and the recent Boeing P-8) it was based on the airframe of an existing airliner. In Magellan’s case it was the new Airbus A318, which shared many components with the rest of the short/medium range A320 airliner family, including body components, cockpit windows, outer wings, horizontal stabilizer, and other systems. Internal shared parts included the auxiliary power unit, cockpit panels, flight control system computer, anti-collision lights, and gear control unit. This reportedly saved US$ 3.3 billion during the aircraft’s development until 2019.
To adapt the civil airliner to its new and specialized military role, many modifications were made. The most obvious change was a switch of powerplants, from a pair of high-bypass turbofans under the wings to four smaller engines in separate underwing nacelles. This required a thorough yet invisible modification of the wings’ internal structure, which allowed two extra hardpoints for the additional engines, and this also made the wings more stress-resistant for frequent low-/medium altitude operations. An increased use of composite materials helped to limit the resulting gain in structural weight.
The four-engine design adopted for the Magellan resulted in a flight profile with better maneuverability and stability at low-speed, low-altitude flight and allowed the aircraft to continue its mission in the event of a single and even a two-engine failure. As well as greater operational survivability, the high-bypass engines provided for quiet, fuel-efficient operation. Compared with the P-3 or the Breguet Atlantic, the Magellan also had, thanks to its jet propulsion, reduced transit times in comparison to turboprop-powered competitors, and the turbofans were quieter, making it more difficult for submerged submarines to detect the aircraft above them acoustically.
Propulsion came from four Pratt & Whitney PW1000Gs, a new high-bypass geared turbofan engine (also called the GTF = geared turbofan). The gearbox between the fan and the low-pressure spool allowed each to spin at its optimal speed, allowing a higher bypass ratio for a better propulsive efficiency. Pratt & Whitney claimed the engine was 16% more fuel efficient than the previous generation, and up to 75% quieter. Additionally, response to throttle input could be improved, resulting in a higher agility especially at lower speed.
The first variant to enter service was the PW1100G for the Airbus A320neo in January 2016. The engine had teething problems after its introduction, extending to grounded aircraft and inflight failures, but this was solved soon afterwards. The Magellan was the first military aircraft to use the new GTF engine type operationally. In the Magellan, the modified engines (designated PW1700M) with only two instead of three low pressure compression stages) provided a thrust of 15.000 lb (67 kN) each, so that the four GTF engines of the Magellan offered a little more thrust than the commercial airliners’ powerplants. In flight and on long-range patrol missions, one pair of engines would frequently be shut down to save fuel and reduce the noise profile even further, and the geared fans could be automatically set at diffefent ratios so that the frequencies generated from one engine would overlay and reduce the noise profile from the other one. This system was usspoed to be so effective that the audio signature of the Magellan would resemble strong wind and not man-made sound.
From the start the Magellan was equipped with many newly developed technologies and features, particularly in terms of its avionics and mission systems. One such key feature was the use of a fly-by-optics flight control system, which essentially replaced standard metal wiring with optical fiber cables. This also had the beneficial effect of decreasing electro-magnetic disturbances to the sensors on-board in comparison to more common fly-by-wire control systems, and it also helped to make the Magellan harder to detect from the outside.
The Magellan was equipped with various sensors to enable the aircraft to perform its primary purpose of maritime patrol and detecting submarines and surface vessels; these include the AMPaR active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar from Cassidian, a Airbus Defence and Space subsidiary, which used an array consisting of three separate antennas mounted under a mutual nose radome to provide 240-degree coverage at a range of more than 450 km (280 mi). All antennae together consisted of more than 3000 very small transmitter/receiver elements that divided the azimuth range into three overlapping 90° sectors. They could examine their sectors simultaneously and could also simultaneously track many maritime and aviation targets within each sector. The number of targets that can be tracked automatically is 1,000 and the number of targets that can be combated at the same time is around 60. AMPaR (Airborne Maritime Patrol Radar) was able to track surface vessels at sea at a range of 300 km (186 mi) while high-flying aircraft of fighter size could automatically be tracked at >250 km (150 mi). Even sea-skimming missiles could be detected and tracked at >25 km (15 mi). The data obtained is passed on to a command and weapon deployment system. The ASEA radar was furthermore supplemented by an Infrared/Light sensor array with an integrated laser range finder and target designator for surface detection, which allowed passive observation and tracking as well as target illumination for guided weapons, either deployed by the Magellan itself or from another carrier.
Further mission sensors included a magnetic anomaly detector (MAD) embedded into the aircraft's tail (where it replaced the airliner’s APU, which was re-located into the left-wing root area, while a heat exchanger was mounted on the right). Sophisticated acoustic systems were also added for this purpose. Another novelty was the integration of an artificial intelligence (AI) system that directed the TACCO operator to the optimal flight course to track or attack a submarine.
Behind the cockpit, the cabin was separated into three sections, consisting of the ASW operators’ section with workstations and observer places, a rest and general storage area with a small kitchen and four bunk beds for crews working in shifts on long-term missions, and a final section for 5” sonobuoy storage and their manual deployment through a total of four two release shafts, connected with the cabin through air locks. Vertical and oblique cameras were mounted together with the sonobuoy shafts in the lower fuselage and accessible from the cabin through hatches in the floor. The two rear sections could optionally be combined and re-arranged to make room for eventual transport duties, and seats could be installed, too to offer space for up to 28 passengers.
Under the cabin floor, two separate unpressurized bomb bays, one in front of and the other behind the wings, housed the bulk of the aircraft's ASW munitions. The bomb bay was supplemented by a total of eight external hardpoints, two pairs under the inner and outer wings each. Weapons available on the Magellan included torpedoes, mines, and depth charges internally. Air-to-surface missiles (including AGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles, AGM-65 Maverick ASMs and AGM-88 HARM anti-radar missiles), air-to-air missiles (AIM-9 Sidewinder or Iris-T) for self-defense, ECM and chaff/flare dispenser pods, or bombs, including laser-guided precision weapons, were typically carried on the wing pylons externally. The sonobuoy shafts were located behind the rear bomb bay and not connected with it.
Armaments and their deployment were managed by a stores management system, which included a newly developed Universal Stores Control Unit (USCU) capable of accommodating hundreds of different munitions, including future ones and precision weapons. Multiple radar warning receivers provided all-round awareness of missile threats, which were combined with a defensive countermeasure suite. Additional fuel tanks were integrated into the fuselage, too, which extended the A318’s typical airliner range from 5.740 km (3,100 nmi) to 8.000 km (5,000 mi), making patrol missions of 18 hours and more possible without need to refuel.
In June 2007, Airbus rolled out the Magellan prototype (coded 60+10, later re-designated 98+70 and handed over to WTD 71 in Eckernförde for further development work), converted from an existing civil airliner airframe, and now official designated A318 MPA (“Maritime Patrol Aircraft”) to mark the aircraft’s heritage and role. The rollout had been delayed for three months due to the discovery of defective rivets which required remedial repairs to be performed. On 28 September 2007, the Magellan conducted its maiden flight from Hamburg Finkenwerder, where the civil A318 airliners were finally assembled, too; this lasted one hour and ended successfully.
On 31 August 2007, Airbus announced that they would produce four Magellan production airframes for the Bundesluftwaffe, with an option for four more aircraft, with a unit price of US$ 141.5 million for each aircraft and to be delivered in 2012. At that time Airbus officials claimed that the Magellan was a more capable, albeit more expensive, aircraft than the Boeing P-8 Poseidon; in comparison to the P-8, the Magellan had a greater range, a larger bomb bay, and had been optimized for the maritime patrol mission. Beyond Germany, Norway (4 aircraft), Spain (6) and Taiwan (3, with an option for 3 more) also procured the Magellan. Argentina and Chile also showed interest in the type.
Due to development and budgetary problems the delivery of the A318 MPA to the Marineflieger was delayed several times, and the anticipated maintenance problems with the former Dutch P-3Cs in German service escalated. At the end of 2016, the magazine Der Spiegel reported that none of the aircraft were operational as of September 30, 2016, and that one of the aircraft had only completed two and a half hours of flight in 10 years. Total costs could no longer be calculated, and as a result, soon not a single German P-3 was operational for at least several weeks. The situation became so severe that the German Ministry of Defense considered to lease five Boeing P-8A Poseidon as another interim solution, but in late 2019 the first Magellan Airbus was introduced to the re-established MFG 1, which had operated Tornado IDS’ in the maritime strike and reconnaissance role until 1993. At the time of their operational introduction the aircraft had already been updated: SIGINT equipment had been added (outwardly recognizable through slender wingtip pods and an extended spinal fairing in front of the fin) to survey and record radio communication. In this configuration the aircraft were officially designated A318 MPA Phase II.
However, instead of the MFG 1’s former base Jagel the unit now was located at Nordholz, where the P-3 facilities were used to operate the similar-sized A318 MPAs. Operations started only slowly, though, and during early exercises and NATO deployments to Lithuania the first two A318 MPAs (60+11 and 12) reportedly suffered radar, sensor integration, and data transfer problems, leading to more testing. 1./MFG 1 only received full operational status with its four planned initial aircraft in early 2022, and a second squadron with four more aircraft will probably only become operational with MFG 1 in 2027.
[b][u]General characteristics:[/u][/b]
Flight crew: 3
Mission crew: 8 (but operationally up to 12 with working in shifts on long-range missions)
Length: 36,52 m (118 ft 9 in) overall
Wingspan: 33,98 m (111 ft 3¾ in)
Wing area: 122.4 m² (1,318 sq ft)
Wing sweepback: 25°
Tail height: 12,24 m (40 ft 1 in)
Operating empty weight: 44.100 kg (97,100 lb)
Maximum zero-fuel weight (MZFW): 59.100 kg (130,200 lb)
Maximum landing weight (MLW): 62.100 kg (136,800 lb)
Maximum take-off weight (MTOW): 79,700 kg (175,708 lb)
[u]Powerplant[/u]:
4× Pratt & Whitney PW1700M high-bypass geared turbofan engines, 67 kN (15,000 lbf) thrust each
[u]Performance:[/u]
Maximum speed: 996 km/h (619 mph, 538 kn)
Cruise speed: 833 km/h (518 mph, 450 kn)
Range: 8,000 km (5,000 mi, 4,300 nmi)
Combat radius: 2,500 km (1,600 mi, 1,300 nmi) with 4 hours on station for anti-submarine warfare
Service ceiling: 13,520 m (44,360 ft)
[u]Armament:[/u]
2 internal bomb bays with a total of eight stations,
8 external underwing pylons
Total capacity of 9,000 kg (19,842 lb) for torpedoes, mines, depth charges, various
air-to-surface missiles (ASMs), or bombs, plus short-range AAMs for self-defense
[b]The kit and its assembly:[/b]
This fictional Airbus ASW aircraft was spawned by the Kawasaki P-1, an indigenous Japanese P-3 replacement with an unusual four-engine propulsion on a relatively small airframe. I envisioned a European alternative, inspired by the sad state of the Dutch P-3s in German duty – and that made a converted Airbus airframe a natural choice. I eventually settled for the smallest type, the A318, also because it had similar dimensions as the Japanese P-1 and procured an Eastern Express kit when I stumbled upon a priceworthy offer.
As a side information: there were real plans for an A319 ASW derivative, but this build here is unrelated (found out about it much later, after I started work on my model) and only shares the “MPA” suffix. I was not able to find any detail info about it, though.
The alternative/extra engines for my A 318 MPA turned out to be a major challenge. My initial plan to use the four nacelles with pylons from a 1:144 Revell WhiteKnight Two/SpaceShip Two kit set came to naught when I realized that these would be much too small for the A318 airframe. They eventually went into a BAe 146ish conversion of a DC-9 airframe with shoulder-mounted wings that I build a couple of weeks ago, where they looked fine. But the Magellan would require something more substantial, and finding a suitable and affordable alternative took some time and legwork. I eventually found aftermarket engine nacelles from Skyline Models for a 1:200 Hasegawa Boeing 747-200/300, made from IP with resin exhausts. They offered IMHO a good size and shape compromise, with a good level of detail for 1:144, and the quartet was affordable, too, because I did not want to buy a donor kit just for the engines. However, even though the pods look nice and have fine surface details, they do not go together at all: you have either to sand the fan discs into an unnatural oval shape or you have to bridge a massive 1 mm(!) gap on the underside when you force the halves together. The resin tail cones themselves are crisp and look very good, but they do hardly fit into the fan shroud and the pylons’ shape doesn’t match up with then, either. Fits well in style with the A318 kit, though… Did I mention that the Eastern Express A318 kit is a PITA? It has quite nice surface detail, but the bigger the parts the less they go together. Esp. the wing and fuselage halves were a TOTAL mess, the latter could only be closed through force and combining the hull with the wing halves, which have a weird construction on the lower hull – the mold layout was chosen to allow proper detail to be added around the main landing gear wells, but building this is a horror, was a nightmare, with poor fit, massive gaps and dislocations of up to 1 mm!
Talking about trouble: mounting the wacky 747 pods under the Airbus’ wings required even more hardware mods on top of the basic fit problems. The inner pair of engines went closer to the fuselage, to make more space for the outer pair, even though they ended up pretty close to the main landing gear. The A318’s original attachment points under the wings were PSRed away and the inner pair of donor pods was mounted onto the inner flap mechanism fairings. Their pylons had to be modified accordingly, though. The outer pair was mounted at about half distance from the inner engines and the wing tips. Their pylons had to be shortened, due to the low wing depth. Outside of them I added weapon stations from a Dragon 1:144 Tornado IDS, which also provided AGM-88 HARMs and Sidewinders as suitable ordnance.
The rest of modifications were more of a cosmetic kind. The biggest change was a bigger, more bulbous nose radome for the surveillance radar; in this case I used a leftover nose section from an Airfix 1:72 D.H. Venom trainer, mounted and PSRed over the Airbus’s original nose. Not a big modification, but the different nose profile changes the Airbus‘ look significantly to something P-3ish, and it resembled the Japanese P-1 a lot now.
The windscreen itself, while quite clear, had to be forced into its opening, and due to its poor fit and some gaps I PSRed it over and later used aftermarket decals to create the windscreen. Other graft-ons included a MAD boom carved from sprue material, a dorsal antenna bulge (from an Airfix A-4B kit) behind the cockpit and a pair of optical sensor turrets under the chin, somewhat B-52Gish. Under the lower rear fuselage, I added a pair of bulges for the sonobuoy launch tubes and cameras, leftover optional parts form/for a Heller Saab S32C’s camera nose. Fin and wing tips were slightly clipped, and I added scratched sensor fairings (sprue material), what considerably changes the aircraft’s look away from an airliner, and I also added a low spinal fairing (styrene profile) at the fin’s base. Finally, some blade antennae made from 0.5mm styrene sheet were mounted around the hull and small scoops for the relocated APU and heat exchangers were added.
[b]Painting and markings:[/b]
As usual, a tricky choice. The German P-3Cs did not carry a special camouflage – they simply retained the former Dutch Navy livery in all-over Light Gull Grey (FS 36440), which I found too boring to apply on the whiffy ASW Airbus. Due to the aircraft’s sheer size, I refrained from a tactical paint scheme like the rather murky three-tone wraparound Norm ’87 scheme from the Marineflieger Tornados or any of its (though interesting) development patterns or derivatives. Instead, I rather took inspiration from the Luftwaffe’s MedEvac/MRT Airbus A310s, which were painted RAL 7001 (Silbergrau, Revell 374) overall. This shade of grey comes close to FS 36375 but is colder.
For an aircraft that would not only operate at high altitude and to conceal it from above I found a uniform RAL 7001 livery too bright, so that I decided to paint the upper surfaces in a slightly darker tone, RAL 7000 (Fehgrau, Revell 57), which is, as a coincidence, the tone of most Bundesmarine surface vessels’ superstructures since 1956: a cold blue-grey tone somewhere between FS 36320 and 35237. Together with a straight and low waterline this resulted in a rather low-viz-ish livery, augmented by relatively few and small markings and stencils.
The landing gear was painted white, the walkway/Corroguard areas on the wings received a slightly different shade of grey (RAL 7005 Mausgrau, Revell 47) than the basic camouflage, and I added a slightly darker anti-glare panel (RAL 7012, Basaltgrau, Revell 77) in front of the windscreen. The nose radome and other di-electric fairings were painted in a yet another slightly brownish shade of grey (RAL 7030, Steingrau, Revell 75), to create some more variety. Some light post-panel shading was done, and to emphasize the engraved panel lines I also applied a light black ink washing.
Windscreen, windows, and doors were created with decals, partly aftermarket, partly OOB. The cabin windows’ number was reduced to reflect the aircraft’s dedicated military role. Tactical markings were few and rather lustreless. German markings and codes were procured from appropriate generic material from TL Modellbau and Peddinghaus Decals, the small MFG 1 badges came from an Italeri Marineflieger Tornado kit (with subdued Norm ’87 markings). Stencils and walkway markings on the wings came from the OOB sheet.
Finally, everything was sealed with matt acrylic varnish from a rattle can, with a light sheen instead of pure matt.
The result looks simple in its all-grey livery but getting there – esp. with the poor-fitting Eastern Express Airbus A318 as basis and the even worse donor engines – was a long and tough fight. But despite the troubles, the model of this fictional Kawasaki P-1 alternative from Europe looks pretty convincing and the four-engine layout worked well, despite the relatively compact airframe.
´
Andreessen Horowitz General Partner Peter Levine gives a presentation entitled “Betting on the Future of the Enterprise” during DEMO Traction, the Growth Conference, at the Mission Bay Conference Center in San Francisco, California, Wednesday, April 22, 2015. DEMO Traction is focused obsessively on growth by connecting the most promising growth startups with prospective customers, investors and strategic partners. DEMO Traction is an invite-only event for startups solving problems using cutting-edge technology who are exhibiting traction or are on the cusp of a major growth spurt. Complete coverage of DEMO Traction, the Growth Conference, can be found at bit.ly/DEMOsite. Photo by Stephen Brashear (www.stephenbrashear.com)
The Leaders Of Technique program hosted their 1st Annual Tie Ceremony entitled “A City Tied Together” on Wednesday, October 10th. This epic event symbolically connected Elizabeth’s younger and older generations by having prominent Elizabeth men donate neck ties to the members of the L.O.T. program.
+++ 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:
As early as 1985 there was a study entitled Maritime Patrol Aircraft for the 90s (MPA 90) for the German Bundeswehr, which aimed to replace the Breguet Atlantic with the P-3C Update 4. The study was carried out by the Lockheed California Company and the MBB transport and commercial aircraft division (today Airbus Deutschland, with locations in Hamburg and Bremen) together with the BWB. In 1997, Lockheed Martin offered Germany and Italy a “Orion 2000” or “P-3C Plus” as a replacement for the Breguet Atlantic BR 1150. Both countries established a management team at the Federal Office of Defense Technology and Procurement in Koblenz and signed an MPA Definition MoU on October 21, 1999. Between 2007 and 2015, Germany was supposed to receive 10 aircraft, Italy 14. On July 26, 2002, Lockheed Martin offered a P-3C with revised wings, Allison T56 engines and modern avionics. However, the program was stopped, and alternatives were searched. Among others, Airbus was eager to response and proposed in 2001 a dedicated ASW/maritime patrol aircraft based on the A320 short-/medium-range airliner, even though the development of such an aircraft would certainly take several years and it would not be ready for service before 2010.
In the meantime, in 2003, the Netherlands offered its thirteen P-3C Update 2.5, which had originally been delivered between 1982 and 1984, for sale, and Germany became interested. On October 31 of the same year, both countries signed a memorandum of understanding for the sale of 10 aircraft. It was later decided that Germany would receive eight aircraft and Portugal the remaining five. With this solution, even though only a temporary stopgap for the German naval forces, Airbus’ proposal waned from attention – but only temporarily, since things did not unfold as planned.
The contract with the Netherlands was signed on November 15, 2004, and provided for Germany to supply eight P-3Cs, spare parts, a flight simulator, and other materials at a cost of 271 million euros. For a further 24 million euros, the Dutch armed forces trained the ground and flight personnel of the Marineflieger Geschwader (Marine Aviation Squadron/MFG) 3 “Graf Zeppelin” from Nordholz air base directly in the Netherlands. The Dutch reconnaissance aircraft were supposed to be responsible for long-range maritime surveillance and reconnaissance above and under water for the German Navy for the next twenty years, while a potent and up-to-date successor would be developed domestically or together with European partners. The Luftwaffe officially received the first P-3C on May 18, 2006.
While the P-3C had been bought and delivered, the procurement program for a potential successor was launched, since it was clear that the used P-3Cs would have only a limited lifetime left on their airframes and that maintenance would escalate over time. The potential P-3 successor became the project “Magellan”, which could trace back its origins to 2001. Magellan had been proposed by Airbus after the global market with turboprop-powered maritime patrol and anti-submarine warfare aircraft had been analyzed in the late Nineties and a huge global market opportunity had been discovered – including the demand of the German Luftwaffe and its naval air arm, the Marineflieger. Another driving factor behind the project was that similar aircraft produced abroad did not fully meet European – and most specifically German – requirements, so that the development of a purpose-built indigenous aircraft became a highly attractive option, also fueled by political pressure to support the European aircraft industry. Consequently, the German Ministry of Defense submitted the domestic development of the Magellan maritime patrol aircraft as part of its April 2001 – March 2006 Five-Year Defense Plan. In October 2003, following its earlier proposal and with the P-3C deal with the Netherlands, Airbus Industries received prime contractor status and Magellan started to take shape.
To save cost and development time, the Magellan ASW aircraft was not a completely new design. Like many former ASW aircraft (e. g. the Lockheed P-3, the BAe Nimrod, and the recent Boeing P-8) it was based on the airframe of an existing airliner. In Magellan’s case it was the new Airbus A318, which shared many components with the rest of the short/medium range A320 airliner family, including body components, cockpit windows, outer wings, horizontal stabilizer, and other systems. Internal shared parts included the auxiliary power unit, cockpit panels, flight control system computer, anti-collision lights, and gear control unit. This reportedly saved US$ 3.3 billion during the aircraft’s development until 2019.
To adapt the civil airliner to its new and specialized military role, many modifications were made. The most obvious change was a switch of powerplants, from a pair of high-bypass turbofans under the wings to four smaller engines in separate underwing nacelles. This required a thorough yet invisible modification of the wings’ internal structure, which allowed two extra hardpoints for the additional engines, and this also made the wings more stress-resistant for frequent low-/medium altitude operations. An increased use of composite materials helped to limit the resulting gain in structural weight.
The four-engine design adopted for the Magellan resulted in a flight profile with better maneuverability and stability at low-speed, low-altitude flight and allowed the aircraft to continue its mission in the event of a single and even a two-engine failure. As well as greater operational survivability, the high-bypass engines provided for quiet, fuel-efficient operation. Compared with the P-3 or the Breguet Atlantic, the Magellan also had, thanks to its jet propulsion, reduced transit times in comparison to turboprop-powered competitors, and the turbofans were quieter, making it more difficult for submerged submarines to detect the aircraft above them acoustically.
Propulsion came from four Pratt & Whitney PW1000Gs, a new high-bypass geared turbofan engine (also called the GTF = geared turbofan). The gearbox between the fan and the low-pressure spool allowed each to spin at its optimal speed, allowing a higher bypass ratio for a better propulsive efficiency. Pratt & Whitney claimed the engine was 16% more fuel efficient than the previous generation, and up to 75% quieter. Additionally, response to throttle input could be improved, resulting in a higher agility especially at lower speed.
The first variant to enter service was the PW1100G for the Airbus A320neo in January 2016. The engine had teething problems after its introduction, extending to grounded aircraft and inflight failures, but this was solved soon afterwards. The Magellan was the first military aircraft to use the new GTF engine type operationally. In the Magellan, the modified engines (designated PW1700M) with only two instead of three low pressure compression stages) provided a thrust of 15.000 lb (67 kN) each, so that the four GTF engines of the Magellan offered a little more thrust than the commercial airliners’ powerplants. In flight and on long-range patrol missions, one pair of engines would frequently be shut down to save fuel and reduce the noise profile even further, and the geared fans could be automatically set at diffefent ratios so that the frequencies generated from one engine would overlay and reduce the noise profile from the other one. This system was usspoed to be so effective that the audio signature of the Magellan would resemble strong wind and not man-made sound.
From the start the Magellan was equipped with many newly developed technologies and features, particularly in terms of its avionics and mission systems. One such key feature was the use of a fly-by-optics flight control system, which essentially replaced standard metal wiring with optical fiber cables. This also had the beneficial effect of decreasing electro-magnetic disturbances to the sensors on-board in comparison to more common fly-by-wire control systems, and it also helped to make the Magellan harder to detect from the outside.
The Magellan was equipped with various sensors to enable the aircraft to perform its primary purpose of maritime patrol and detecting submarines and surface vessels; these include the AMPaR active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar from Cassidian, a Airbus Defence and Space subsidiary, which used an array consisting of three separate antennas mounted under a mutual nose radome to provide 240-degree coverage at a range of more than 450 km (280 mi). All antennae together consisted of more than 3000 very small transmitter/receiver elements that divided the azimuth range into three overlapping 90° sectors. They could examine their sectors simultaneously and could also simultaneously track many maritime and aviation targets within each sector. The number of targets that can be tracked automatically is 1,000 and the number of targets that can be combated at the same time is around 60. AMPaR (Airborne Maritime Patrol Radar) was able to track surface vessels at sea at a range of 300 km (186 mi) while high-flying aircraft of fighter size could automatically be tracked at >250 km (150 mi). Even sea-skimming missiles could be detected and tracked at >25 km (15 mi). The data obtained is passed on to a command and weapon deployment system. The ASEA radar was furthermore supplemented by an Infrared/Light sensor array with an integrated laser range finder and target designator for surface detection, which allowed passive observation and tracking as well as target illumination for guided weapons, either deployed by the Magellan itself or from another carrier.
Further mission sensors included a magnetic anomaly detector (MAD) embedded into the aircraft's tail (where it replaced the airliner’s APU, which was re-located into the left-wing root area, while a heat exchanger was mounted on the right). Sophisticated acoustic systems were also added for this purpose. Another novelty was the integration of an artificial intelligence (AI) system that directed the TACCO operator to the optimal flight course to track or attack a submarine.
Behind the cockpit, the cabin was separated into three sections, consisting of the ASW operators’ section with workstations and observer places, a rest and general storage area with a small kitchen and four bunk beds for crews working in shifts on long-term missions, and a final section for 5” sonobuoy storage and their manual deployment through a total of four two release shafts, connected with the cabin through air locks. Vertical and oblique cameras were mounted together with the sonobuoy shafts in the lower fuselage and accessible from the cabin through hatches in the floor. The two rear sections could optionally be combined and re-arranged to make room for eventual transport duties, and seats could be installed, too to offer space for up to 28 passengers.
Under the cabin floor, two separate unpressurized bomb bays, one in front of and the other behind the wings, housed the bulk of the aircraft's ASW munitions. The bomb bay was supplemented by a total of eight external hardpoints, two pairs under the inner and outer wings each. Weapons available on the Magellan included torpedoes, mines, and depth charges internally. Air-to-surface missiles (including AGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles, AGM-65 Maverick ASMs and AGM-88 HARM anti-radar missiles), air-to-air missiles (AIM-9 Sidewinder or Iris-T) for self-defense, ECM and chaff/flare dispenser pods, or bombs, including laser-guided precision weapons, were typically carried on the wing pylons externally. The sonobuoy shafts were located behind the rear bomb bay and not connected with it.
Armaments and their deployment were managed by a stores management system, which included a newly developed Universal Stores Control Unit (USCU) capable of accommodating hundreds of different munitions, including future ones and precision weapons. Multiple radar warning receivers provided all-round awareness of missile threats, which were combined with a defensive countermeasure suite. Additional fuel tanks were integrated into the fuselage, too, which extended the A318’s typical airliner range from 5.740 km (3,100 nmi) to 8.000 km (5,000 mi), making patrol missions of 18 hours and more possible without need to refuel.
In June 2007, Airbus rolled out the Magellan prototype (coded 60+10, later re-designated 98+70 and handed over to WTD 71 in Eckernförde for further development work), converted from an existing civil airliner airframe, and now official designated A318 MPA (“Maritime Patrol Aircraft”) to mark the aircraft’s heritage and role. The rollout had been delayed for three months due to the discovery of defective rivets which required remedial repairs to be performed. On 28 September 2007, the Magellan conducted its maiden flight from Hamburg Finkenwerder, where the civil A318 airliners were finally assembled, too; this lasted one hour and ended successfully.
On 31 August 2007, Airbus announced that they would produce four Magellan production airframes for the Bundesluftwaffe, with an option for four more aircraft, with a unit price of US$ 141.5 million for each aircraft and to be delivered in 2012. At that time Airbus officials claimed that the Magellan was a more capable, albeit more expensive, aircraft than the Boeing P-8 Poseidon; in comparison to the P-8, the Magellan had a greater range, a larger bomb bay, and had been optimized for the maritime patrol mission. Beyond Germany, Norway (4 aircraft), Spain (6) and Taiwan (3, with an option for 3 more) also procured the Magellan. Argentina and Chile also showed interest in the type.
Due to development and budgetary problems the delivery of the A318 MPA to the Marineflieger was delayed several times, and the anticipated maintenance problems with the former Dutch P-3Cs in German service escalated. At the end of 2016, the magazine Der Spiegel reported that none of the aircraft were operational as of September 30, 2016, and that one of the aircraft had only completed two and a half hours of flight in 10 years. Total costs could no longer be calculated, and as a result, soon not a single German P-3 was operational for at least several weeks. The situation became so severe that the German Ministry of Defense considered to lease five Boeing P-8A Poseidon as another interim solution, but in late 2019 the first Magellan Airbus was introduced to the re-established MFG 1, which had operated Tornado IDS’ in the maritime strike and reconnaissance role until 1993. At the time of their operational introduction the aircraft had already been updated: SIGINT equipment had been added (outwardly recognizable through slender wingtip pods and an extended spinal fairing in front of the fin) to survey and record radio communication. In this configuration the aircraft were officially designated A318 MPA Phase II.
However, instead of the MFG 1’s former base Jagel the unit now was located at Nordholz, where the P-3 facilities were used to operate the similar-sized A318 MPAs. Operations started only slowly, though, and during early exercises and NATO deployments to Lithuania the first two A318 MPAs (60+11 and 12) reportedly suffered radar, sensor integration, and data transfer problems, leading to more testing. 1./MFG 1 only received full operational status with its four planned initial aircraft in early 2022, and a second squadron with four more aircraft will probably only become operational with MFG 1 in 2027.
[b][u]General characteristics:[/u][/b]
Flight crew: 3
Mission crew: 8 (but operationally up to 12 with working in shifts on long-range missions)
Length: 36,52 m (118 ft 9 in) overall
Wingspan: 33,98 m (111 ft 3¾ in)
Wing area: 122.4 m² (1,318 sq ft)
Wing sweepback: 25°
Tail height: 12,24 m (40 ft 1 in)
Operating empty weight: 44.100 kg (97,100 lb)
Maximum zero-fuel weight (MZFW): 59.100 kg (130,200 lb)
Maximum landing weight (MLW): 62.100 kg (136,800 lb)
Maximum take-off weight (MTOW): 79,700 kg (175,708 lb)
[u]Powerplant[/u]:
4× Pratt & Whitney PW1700M high-bypass geared turbofan engines, 67 kN (15,000 lbf) thrust each
[u]Performance:[/u]
Maximum speed: 996 km/h (619 mph, 538 kn)
Cruise speed: 833 km/h (518 mph, 450 kn)
Range: 8,000 km (5,000 mi, 4,300 nmi)
Combat radius: 2,500 km (1,600 mi, 1,300 nmi) with 4 hours on station for anti-submarine warfare
Service ceiling: 13,520 m (44,360 ft)
[u]Armament:[/u]
2 internal bomb bays with a total of eight stations,
8 external underwing pylons
Total capacity of 9,000 kg (19,842 lb) for torpedoes, mines, depth charges, various
air-to-surface missiles (ASMs), or bombs, plus short-range AAMs for self-defense
[b]The kit and its assembly:[/b]
This fictional Airbus ASW aircraft was spawned by the Kawasaki P-1, an indigenous Japanese P-3 replacement with an unusual four-engine propulsion on a relatively small airframe. I envisioned a European alternative, inspired by the sad state of the Dutch P-3s in German duty – and that made a converted Airbus airframe a natural choice. I eventually settled for the smallest type, the A318, also because it had similar dimensions as the Japanese P-1 and procured an Eastern Express kit when I stumbled upon a priceworthy offer.
As a side information: there were real plans for an A319 ASW derivative, but this build here is unrelated (found out about it much later, after I started work on my model) and only shares the “MPA” suffix. I was not able to find any detail info about it, though.
The alternative/extra engines for my A 318 MPA turned out to be a major challenge. My initial plan to use the four nacelles with pylons from a 1:144 Revell WhiteKnight Two/SpaceShip Two kit set came to naught when I realized that these would be much too small for the A318 airframe. They eventually went into a BAe 146ish conversion of a DC-9 airframe with shoulder-mounted wings that I build a couple of weeks ago, where they looked fine. But the Magellan would require something more substantial, and finding a suitable and affordable alternative took some time and legwork. I eventually found aftermarket engine nacelles from Skyline Models for a 1:200 Hasegawa Boeing 747-200/300, made from IP with resin exhausts. They offered IMHO a good size and shape compromise, with a good level of detail for 1:144, and the quartet was affordable, too, because I did not want to buy a donor kit just for the engines. However, even though the pods look nice and have fine surface details, they do not go together at all: you have either to sand the fan discs into an unnatural oval shape or you have to bridge a massive 1 mm(!) gap on the underside when you force the halves together. The resin tail cones themselves are crisp and look very good, but they do hardly fit into the fan shroud and the pylons’ shape doesn’t match up with then, either. Fits well in style with the A318 kit, though… Did I mention that the Eastern Express A318 kit is a PITA? It has quite nice surface detail, but the bigger the parts the less they go together. Esp. the wing and fuselage halves were a TOTAL mess, the latter could only be closed through force and combining the hull with the wing halves, which have a weird construction on the lower hull – the mold layout was chosen to allow proper detail to be added around the main landing gear wells, but building this is a horror, was a nightmare, with poor fit, massive gaps and dislocations of up to 1 mm!
Talking about trouble: mounting the wacky 747 pods under the Airbus’ wings required even more hardware mods on top of the basic fit problems. The inner pair of engines went closer to the fuselage, to make more space for the outer pair, even though they ended up pretty close to the main landing gear. The A318’s original attachment points under the wings were PSRed away and the inner pair of donor pods was mounted onto the inner flap mechanism fairings. Their pylons had to be modified accordingly, though. The outer pair was mounted at about half distance from the inner engines and the wing tips. Their pylons had to be shortened, due to the low wing depth. Outside of them I added weapon stations from a Dragon 1:144 Tornado IDS, which also provided AGM-88 HARMs and Sidewinders as suitable ordnance.
The rest of modifications were more of a cosmetic kind. The biggest change was a bigger, more bulbous nose radome for the surveillance radar; in this case I used a leftover nose section from an Airfix 1:72 D.H. Venom trainer, mounted and PSRed over the Airbus’s original nose. Not a big modification, but the different nose profile changes the Airbus‘ look significantly to something P-3ish, and it resembled the Japanese P-1 a lot now.
The windscreen itself, while quite clear, had to be forced into its opening, and due to its poor fit and some gaps I PSRed it over and later used aftermarket decals to create the windscreen. Other graft-ons included a MAD boom carved from sprue material, a dorsal antenna bulge (from an Airfix A-4B kit) behind the cockpit and a pair of optical sensor turrets under the chin, somewhat B-52Gish. Under the lower rear fuselage, I added a pair of bulges for the sonobuoy launch tubes and cameras, leftover optional parts form/for a Heller Saab S32C’s camera nose. Fin and wing tips were slightly clipped, and I added scratched sensor fairings (sprue material), what considerably changes the aircraft’s look away from an airliner, and I also added a low spinal fairing (styrene profile) at the fin’s base. Finally, some blade antennae made from 0.5mm styrene sheet were mounted around the hull and small scoops for the relocated APU and heat exchangers were added.
[b]Painting and markings:[/b]
As usual, a tricky choice. The German P-3Cs did not carry a special camouflage – they simply retained the former Dutch Navy livery in all-over Light Gull Grey (FS 36440), which I found too boring to apply on the whiffy ASW Airbus. Due to the aircraft’s sheer size, I refrained from a tactical paint scheme like the rather murky three-tone wraparound Norm ’87 scheme from the Marineflieger Tornados or any of its (though interesting) development patterns or derivatives. Instead, I rather took inspiration from the Luftwaffe’s MedEvac/MRT Airbus A310s, which were painted RAL 7001 (Silbergrau, Revell 374) overall. This shade of grey comes close to FS 36375 but is colder.
For an aircraft that would not only operate at high altitude and to conceal it from above I found a uniform RAL 7001 livery too bright, so that I decided to paint the upper surfaces in a slightly darker tone, RAL 7000 (Fehgrau, Revell 57), which is, as a coincidence, the tone of most Bundesmarine surface vessels’ superstructures since 1956: a cold blue-grey tone somewhere between FS 36320 and 35237. Together with a straight and low waterline this resulted in a rather low-viz-ish livery, augmented by relatively few and small markings and stencils.
The landing gear was painted white, the walkway/Corroguard areas on the wings received a slightly different shade of grey (RAL 7005 Mausgrau, Revell 47) than the basic camouflage, and I added a slightly darker anti-glare panel (RAL 7012, Basaltgrau, Revell 77) in front of the windscreen. The nose radome and other di-electric fairings were painted in a yet another slightly brownish shade of grey (RAL 7030, Steingrau, Revell 75), to create some more variety. Some light post-panel shading was done, and to emphasize the engraved panel lines I also applied a light black ink washing.
Windscreen, windows, and doors were created with decals, partly aftermarket, partly OOB. The cabin windows’ number was reduced to reflect the aircraft’s dedicated military role. Tactical markings were few and rather lustreless. German markings and codes were procured from appropriate generic material from TL Modellbau and Peddinghaus Decals, the small MFG 1 badges came from an Italeri Marineflieger Tornado kit (with subdued Norm ’87 markings). Stencils and walkway markings on the wings came from the OOB sheet.
Finally, everything was sealed with matt acrylic varnish from a rattle can, with a light sheen instead of pure matt.
The result looks simple in its all-grey livery but getting there – esp. with the poor-fitting Eastern Express Airbus A318 as basis and the even worse donor engines – was a long and tough fight. But despite the troubles, the model of this fictional Kawasaki P-1 alternative from Europe looks pretty convincing and the four-engine layout worked well, despite the relatively compact airframe.
´
+++ 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:
As early as 1985 there was a study entitled Maritime Patrol Aircraft for the 90s (MPA 90) for the German Bundeswehr, which aimed to replace the Breguet Atlantic with the P-3C Update 4. The study was carried out by the Lockheed California Company and the MBB transport and commercial aircraft division (today Airbus Deutschland, with locations in Hamburg and Bremen) together with the BWB. In 1997, Lockheed Martin offered Germany and Italy a “Orion 2000” or “P-3C Plus” as a replacement for the Breguet Atlantic BR 1150. Both countries established a management team at the Federal Office of Defense Technology and Procurement in Koblenz and signed an MPA Definition MoU on October 21, 1999. Between 2007 and 2015, Germany was supposed to receive 10 aircraft, Italy 14. On July 26, 2002, Lockheed Martin offered a P-3C with revised wings, Allison T56 engines and modern avionics. However, the program was stopped, and alternatives were searched. Among others, Airbus was eager to response and proposed in 2001 a dedicated ASW/maritime patrol aircraft based on the A320 short-/medium-range airliner, even though the development of such an aircraft would certainly take several years and it would not be ready for service before 2010.
In the meantime, in 2003, the Netherlands offered its thirteen P-3C Update 2.5, which had originally been delivered between 1982 and 1984, for sale, and Germany became interested. On October 31 of the same year, both countries signed a memorandum of understanding for the sale of 10 aircraft. It was later decided that Germany would receive eight aircraft and Portugal the remaining five. With this solution, even though only a temporary stopgap for the German naval forces, Airbus’ proposal waned from attention – but only temporarily, since things did not unfold as planned.
The contract with the Netherlands was signed on November 15, 2004, and provided for Germany to supply eight P-3Cs, spare parts, a flight simulator, and other materials at a cost of 271 million euros. For a further 24 million euros, the Dutch armed forces trained the ground and flight personnel of the Marineflieger Geschwader (Marine Aviation Squadron/MFG) 3 “Graf Zeppelin” from Nordholz air base directly in the Netherlands. The Dutch reconnaissance aircraft were supposed to be responsible for long-range maritime surveillance and reconnaissance above and under water for the German Navy for the next twenty years, while a potent and up-to-date successor would be developed domestically or together with European partners. The Luftwaffe officially received the first P-3C on May 18, 2006.
While the P-3C had been bought and delivered, the procurement program for a potential successor was launched, since it was clear that the used P-3Cs would have only a limited lifetime left on their airframes and that maintenance would escalate over time. The potential P-3 successor became the project “Magellan”, which could trace back its origins to 2001. Magellan had been proposed by Airbus after the global market with turboprop-powered maritime patrol and anti-submarine warfare aircraft had been analyzed in the late Nineties and a huge global market opportunity had been discovered – including the demand of the German Luftwaffe and its naval air arm, the Marineflieger. Another driving factor behind the project was that similar aircraft produced abroad did not fully meet European – and most specifically German – requirements, so that the development of a purpose-built indigenous aircraft became a highly attractive option, also fueled by political pressure to support the European aircraft industry. Consequently, the German Ministry of Defense submitted the domestic development of the Magellan maritime patrol aircraft as part of its April 2001 – March 2006 Five-Year Defense Plan. In October 2003, following its earlier proposal and with the P-3C deal with the Netherlands, Airbus Industries received prime contractor status and Magellan started to take shape.
To save cost and development time, the Magellan ASW aircraft was not a completely new design. Like many former ASW aircraft (e. g. the Lockheed P-3, the BAe Nimrod, and the recent Boeing P-8) it was based on the airframe of an existing airliner. In Magellan’s case it was the new Airbus A318, which shared many components with the rest of the short/medium range A320 airliner family, including body components, cockpit windows, outer wings, horizontal stabilizer, and other systems. Internal shared parts included the auxiliary power unit, cockpit panels, flight control system computer, anti-collision lights, and gear control unit. This reportedly saved US$ 3.3 billion during the aircraft’s development until 2019.
To adapt the civil airliner to its new and specialized military role, many modifications were made. The most obvious change was a switch of powerplants, from a pair of high-bypass turbofans under the wings to four smaller engines in separate underwing nacelles. This required a thorough yet invisible modification of the wings’ internal structure, which allowed two extra hardpoints for the additional engines, and this also made the wings more stress-resistant for frequent low-/medium altitude operations. An increased use of composite materials helped to limit the resulting gain in structural weight.
The four-engine design adopted for the Magellan resulted in a flight profile with better maneuverability and stability at low-speed, low-altitude flight and allowed the aircraft to continue its mission in the event of a single and even a two-engine failure. As well as greater operational survivability, the high-bypass engines provided for quiet, fuel-efficient operation. Compared with the P-3 or the Breguet Atlantic, the Magellan also had, thanks to its jet propulsion, reduced transit times in comparison to turboprop-powered competitors, and the turbofans were quieter, making it more difficult for submerged submarines to detect the aircraft above them acoustically.
Propulsion came from four Pratt & Whitney PW1000Gs, a new high-bypass geared turbofan engine (also called the GTF = geared turbofan). The gearbox between the fan and the low-pressure spool allowed each to spin at its optimal speed, allowing a higher bypass ratio for a better propulsive efficiency. Pratt & Whitney claimed the engine was 16% more fuel efficient than the previous generation, and up to 75% quieter. Additionally, response to throttle input could be improved, resulting in a higher agility especially at lower speed.
The first variant to enter service was the PW1100G for the Airbus A320neo in January 2016. The engine had teething problems after its introduction, extending to grounded aircraft and inflight failures, but this was solved soon afterwards. The Magellan was the first military aircraft to use the new GTF engine type operationally. In the Magellan, the modified engines (designated PW1700M) with only two instead of three low pressure compression stages) provided a thrust of 15.000 lb (67 kN) each, so that the four GTF engines of the Magellan offered a little more thrust than the commercial airliners’ powerplants. In flight and on long-range patrol missions, one pair of engines would frequently be shut down to save fuel and reduce the noise profile even further, and the geared fans could be automatically set at diffefent ratios so that the frequencies generated from one engine would overlay and reduce the noise profile from the other one. This system was usspoed to be so effective that the audio signature of the Magellan would resemble strong wind and not man-made sound.
From the start the Magellan was equipped with many newly developed technologies and features, particularly in terms of its avionics and mission systems. One such key feature was the use of a fly-by-optics flight control system, which essentially replaced standard metal wiring with optical fiber cables. This also had the beneficial effect of decreasing electro-magnetic disturbances to the sensors on-board in comparison to more common fly-by-wire control systems, and it also helped to make the Magellan harder to detect from the outside.
The Magellan was equipped with various sensors to enable the aircraft to perform its primary purpose of maritime patrol and detecting submarines and surface vessels; these include the AMPaR active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar from Cassidian, a Airbus Defence and Space subsidiary, which used an array consisting of three separate antennas mounted under a mutual nose radome to provide 240-degree coverage at a range of more than 450 km (280 mi). All antennae together consisted of more than 3000 very small transmitter/receiver elements that divided the azimuth range into three overlapping 90° sectors. They could examine their sectors simultaneously and could also simultaneously track many maritime and aviation targets within each sector. The number of targets that can be tracked automatically is 1,000 and the number of targets that can be combated at the same time is around 60. AMPaR (Airborne Maritime Patrol Radar) was able to track surface vessels at sea at a range of 300 km (186 mi) while high-flying aircraft of fighter size could automatically be tracked at >250 km (150 mi). Even sea-skimming missiles could be detected and tracked at >25 km (15 mi). The data obtained is passed on to a command and weapon deployment system. The ASEA radar was furthermore supplemented by an Infrared/Light sensor array with an integrated laser range finder and target designator for surface detection, which allowed passive observation and tracking as well as target illumination for guided weapons, either deployed by the Magellan itself or from another carrier.
Further mission sensors included a magnetic anomaly detector (MAD) embedded into the aircraft's tail (where it replaced the airliner’s APU, which was re-located into the left-wing root area, while a heat exchanger was mounted on the right). Sophisticated acoustic systems were also added for this purpose. Another novelty was the integration of an artificial intelligence (AI) system that directed the TACCO operator to the optimal flight course to track or attack a submarine.
Behind the cockpit, the cabin was separated into three sections, consisting of the ASW operators’ section with workstations and observer places, a rest and general storage area with a small kitchen and four bunk beds for crews working in shifts on long-term missions, and a final section for 5” sonobuoy storage and their manual deployment through a total of four two release shafts, connected with the cabin through air locks. Vertical and oblique cameras were mounted together with the sonobuoy shafts in the lower fuselage and accessible from the cabin through hatches in the floor. The two rear sections could optionally be combined and re-arranged to make room for eventual transport duties, and seats could be installed, too to offer space for up to 28 passengers.
Under the cabin floor, two separate unpressurized bomb bays, one in front of and the other behind the wings, housed the bulk of the aircraft's ASW munitions. The bomb bay was supplemented by a total of eight external hardpoints, two pairs under the inner and outer wings each. Weapons available on the Magellan included torpedoes, mines, and depth charges internally. Air-to-surface missiles (including AGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles, AGM-65 Maverick ASMs and AGM-88 HARM anti-radar missiles), air-to-air missiles (AIM-9 Sidewinder or Iris-T) for self-defense, ECM and chaff/flare dispenser pods, or bombs, including laser-guided precision weapons, were typically carried on the wing pylons externally. The sonobuoy shafts were located behind the rear bomb bay and not connected with it.
Armaments and their deployment were managed by a stores management system, which included a newly developed Universal Stores Control Unit (USCU) capable of accommodating hundreds of different munitions, including future ones and precision weapons. Multiple radar warning receivers provided all-round awareness of missile threats, which were combined with a defensive countermeasure suite. Additional fuel tanks were integrated into the fuselage, too, which extended the A318’s typical airliner range from 5.740 km (3,100 nmi) to 8.000 km (5,000 mi), making patrol missions of 18 hours and more possible without need to refuel.
In June 2007, Airbus rolled out the Magellan prototype (coded 60+10, later re-designated 98+70 and handed over to WTD 71 in Eckernförde for further development work), converted from an existing civil airliner airframe, and now official designated A318 MPA (“Maritime Patrol Aircraft”) to mark the aircraft’s heritage and role. The rollout had been delayed for three months due to the discovery of defective rivets which required remedial repairs to be performed. On 28 September 2007, the Magellan conducted its maiden flight from Hamburg Finkenwerder, where the civil A318 airliners were finally assembled, too; this lasted one hour and ended successfully.
On 31 August 2007, Airbus announced that they would produce four Magellan production airframes for the Bundesluftwaffe, with an option for four more aircraft, with a unit price of US$ 141.5 million for each aircraft and to be delivered in 2012. At that time Airbus officials claimed that the Magellan was a more capable, albeit more expensive, aircraft than the Boeing P-8 Poseidon; in comparison to the P-8, the Magellan had a greater range, a larger bomb bay, and had been optimized for the maritime patrol mission. Beyond Germany, Norway (4 aircraft), Spain (6) and Taiwan (3, with an option for 3 more) also procured the Magellan. Argentina and Chile also showed interest in the type.
Due to development and budgetary problems the delivery of the A318 MPA to the Marineflieger was delayed several times, and the anticipated maintenance problems with the former Dutch P-3Cs in German service escalated. At the end of 2016, the magazine Der Spiegel reported that none of the aircraft were operational as of September 30, 2016, and that one of the aircraft had only completed two and a half hours of flight in 10 years. Total costs could no longer be calculated, and as a result, soon not a single German P-3 was operational for at least several weeks. The situation became so severe that the German Ministry of Defense considered to lease five Boeing P-8A Poseidon as another interim solution, but in late 2019 the first Magellan Airbus was introduced to the re-established MFG 1, which had operated Tornado IDS’ in the maritime strike and reconnaissance role until 1993. At the time of their operational introduction the aircraft had already been updated: SIGINT equipment had been added (outwardly recognizable through slender wingtip pods and an extended spinal fairing in front of the fin) to survey and record radio communication. In this configuration the aircraft were officially designated A318 MPA Phase II.
However, instead of the MFG 1’s former base Jagel the unit now was located at Nordholz, where the P-3 facilities were used to operate the similar-sized A318 MPAs. Operations started only slowly, though, and during early exercises and NATO deployments to Lithuania the first two A318 MPAs (60+11 and 12) reportedly suffered radar, sensor integration, and data transfer problems, leading to more testing. 1./MFG 1 only received full operational status with its four planned initial aircraft in early 2022, and a second squadron with four more aircraft will probably only become operational with MFG 1 in 2027.
[b][u]General characteristics:[/u][/b]
Flight crew: 3
Mission crew: 8 (but operationally up to 12 with working in shifts on long-range missions)
Length: 36,52 m (118 ft 9 in) overall
Wingspan: 33,98 m (111 ft 3¾ in)
Wing area: 122.4 m² (1,318 sq ft)
Wing sweepback: 25°
Tail height: 12,24 m (40 ft 1 in)
Operating empty weight: 44.100 kg (97,100 lb)
Maximum zero-fuel weight (MZFW): 59.100 kg (130,200 lb)
Maximum landing weight (MLW): 62.100 kg (136,800 lb)
Maximum take-off weight (MTOW): 79,700 kg (175,708 lb)
[u]Powerplant[/u]:
4× Pratt & Whitney PW1700M high-bypass geared turbofan engines, 67 kN (15,000 lbf) thrust each
[u]Performance:[/u]
Maximum speed: 996 km/h (619 mph, 538 kn)
Cruise speed: 833 km/h (518 mph, 450 kn)
Range: 8,000 km (5,000 mi, 4,300 nmi)
Combat radius: 2,500 km (1,600 mi, 1,300 nmi) with 4 hours on station for anti-submarine warfare
Service ceiling: 13,520 m (44,360 ft)
[u]Armament:[/u]
2 internal bomb bays with a total of eight stations,
8 external underwing pylons
Total capacity of 9,000 kg (19,842 lb) for torpedoes, mines, depth charges, various
air-to-surface missiles (ASMs), or bombs, plus short-range AAMs for self-defense
[b]The kit and its assembly:[/b]
This fictional Airbus ASW aircraft was spawned by the Kawasaki P-1, an indigenous Japanese P-3 replacement with an unusual four-engine propulsion on a relatively small airframe. I envisioned a European alternative, inspired by the sad state of the Dutch P-3s in German duty – and that made a converted Airbus airframe a natural choice. I eventually settled for the smallest type, the A318, also because it had similar dimensions as the Japanese P-1 and procured an Eastern Express kit when I stumbled upon a priceworthy offer.
As a side information: there were real plans for an A319 ASW derivative, but this build here is unrelated (found out about it much later, after I started work on my model) and only shares the “MPA” suffix. I was not able to find any detail info about it, though.
The alternative/extra engines for my A 318 MPA turned out to be a major challenge. My initial plan to use the four nacelles with pylons from a 1:144 Revell WhiteKnight Two/SpaceShip Two kit set came to naught when I realized that these would be much too small for the A318 airframe. They eventually went into a BAe 146ish conversion of a DC-9 airframe with shoulder-mounted wings that I build a couple of weeks ago, where they looked fine. But the Magellan would require something more substantial, and finding a suitable and affordable alternative took some time and legwork. I eventually found aftermarket engine nacelles from Skyline Models for a 1:200 Hasegawa Boeing 747-200/300, made from IP with resin exhausts. They offered IMHO a good size and shape compromise, with a good level of detail for 1:144, and the quartet was affordable, too, because I did not want to buy a donor kit just for the engines. However, even though the pods look nice and have fine surface details, they do not go together at all: you have either to sand the fan discs into an unnatural oval shape or you have to bridge a massive 1 mm(!) gap on the underside when you force the halves together. The resin tail cones themselves are crisp and look very good, but they do hardly fit into the fan shroud and the pylons’ shape doesn’t match up with then, either. Fits well in style with the A318 kit, though… Did I mention that the Eastern Express A318 kit is a PITA? It has quite nice surface detail, but the bigger the parts the less they go together. Esp. the wing and fuselage halves were a TOTAL mess, the latter could only be closed through force and combining the hull with the wing halves, which have a weird construction on the lower hull – the mold layout was chosen to allow proper detail to be added around the main landing gear wells, but building this is a horror, was a nightmare, with poor fit, massive gaps and dislocations of up to 1 mm!
Talking about trouble: mounting the wacky 747 pods under the Airbus’ wings required even more hardware mods on top of the basic fit problems. The inner pair of engines went closer to the fuselage, to make more space for the outer pair, even though they ended up pretty close to the main landing gear. The A318’s original attachment points under the wings were PSRed away and the inner pair of donor pods was mounted onto the inner flap mechanism fairings. Their pylons had to be modified accordingly, though. The outer pair was mounted at about half distance from the inner engines and the wing tips. Their pylons had to be shortened, due to the low wing depth. Outside of them I added weapon stations from a Dragon 1:144 Tornado IDS, which also provided AGM-88 HARMs and Sidewinders as suitable ordnance.
The rest of modifications were more of a cosmetic kind. The biggest change was a bigger, more bulbous nose radome for the surveillance radar; in this case I used a leftover nose section from an Airfix 1:72 D.H. Venom trainer, mounted and PSRed over the Airbus’s original nose. Not a big modification, but the different nose profile changes the Airbus‘ look significantly to something P-3ish, and it resembled the Japanese P-1 a lot now.
The windscreen itself, while quite clear, had to be forced into its opening, and due to its poor fit and some gaps I PSRed it over and later used aftermarket decals to create the windscreen. Other graft-ons included a MAD boom carved from sprue material, a dorsal antenna bulge (from an Airfix A-4B kit) behind the cockpit and a pair of optical sensor turrets under the chin, somewhat B-52Gish. Under the lower rear fuselage, I added a pair of bulges for the sonobuoy launch tubes and cameras, leftover optional parts form/for a Heller Saab S32C’s camera nose. Fin and wing tips were slightly clipped, and I added scratched sensor fairings (sprue material), what considerably changes the aircraft’s look away from an airliner, and I also added a low spinal fairing (styrene profile) at the fin’s base. Finally, some blade antennae made from 0.5mm styrene sheet were mounted around the hull and small scoops for the relocated APU and heat exchangers were added.
[b]Painting and markings:[/b]
As usual, a tricky choice. The German P-3Cs did not carry a special camouflage – they simply retained the former Dutch Navy livery in all-over Light Gull Grey (FS 36440), which I found too boring to apply on the whiffy ASW Airbus. Due to the aircraft’s sheer size, I refrained from a tactical paint scheme like the rather murky three-tone wraparound Norm ’87 scheme from the Marineflieger Tornados or any of its (though interesting) development patterns or derivatives. Instead, I rather took inspiration from the Luftwaffe’s MedEvac/MRT Airbus A310s, which were painted RAL 7001 (Silbergrau, Revell 374) overall. This shade of grey comes close to FS 36375 but is colder.
For an aircraft that would not only operate at high altitude and to conceal it from above I found a uniform RAL 7001 livery too bright, so that I decided to paint the upper surfaces in a slightly darker tone, RAL 7000 (Fehgrau, Revell 57), which is, as a coincidence, the tone of most Bundesmarine surface vessels’ superstructures since 1956: a cold blue-grey tone somewhere between FS 36320 and 35237. Together with a straight and low waterline this resulted in a rather low-viz-ish livery, augmented by relatively few and small markings and stencils.
The landing gear was painted white, the walkway/Corroguard areas on the wings received a slightly different shade of grey (RAL 7005 Mausgrau, Revell 47) than the basic camouflage, and I added a slightly darker anti-glare panel (RAL 7012, Basaltgrau, Revell 77) in front of the windscreen. The nose radome and other di-electric fairings were painted in a yet another slightly brownish shade of grey (RAL 7030, Steingrau, Revell 75), to create some more variety. Some light post-panel shading was done, and to emphasize the engraved panel lines I also applied a light black ink washing.
Windscreen, windows, and doors were created with decals, partly aftermarket, partly OOB. The cabin windows’ number was reduced to reflect the aircraft’s dedicated military role. Tactical markings were few and rather lustreless. German markings and codes were procured from appropriate generic material from TL Modellbau and Peddinghaus Decals, the small MFG 1 badges came from an Italeri Marineflieger Tornado kit (with subdued Norm ’87 markings). Stencils and walkway markings on the wings came from the OOB sheet.
Finally, everything was sealed with matt acrylic varnish from a rattle can, with a light sheen instead of pure matt.
The result looks simple in its all-grey livery but getting there – esp. with the poor-fitting Eastern Express Airbus A318 as basis and the even worse donor engines – was a long and tough fight. But despite the troubles, the model of this fictional Kawasaki P-1 alternative from Europe looks pretty convincing and the four-engine layout worked well, despite the relatively compact airframe.
´
New Deal mural entitled "Harvest" was painted by Jay Risling in 1939. When the USPS moved out in 1968 the building ( and mural) went into private hands. The mural was ripped from the wall during renovations and stored in a city owned storage building for few years. It was later discovered by a city employee who gave it to the No Man's Land Museum in Goodwell where it has remained rolled up and stored since 1975. It was unrolled for the first time in almost 50 years in July 2024 in order to determine if restoration was possible. After some on site preparation, it was moved to an art conservators studio in Amarillo Texas in 2025 for full restoration. The main farmer and the 2 farm hands have been "in painted" to replace the loss of paint over the years.
This photographic portfolio entitled “ANCESTRAL LANDSCAPES” is the result of an incredible journey in Scotland through breathtaking natural landscapes. Scotland landscape is a permanent theater, a mysterious drama in which the initial plot seems to come from ancient feuds or the echo of legends. Contrasting like its climate, Scotland offers a range of light and shadow carried by the impetuousness of the elements. Weather reports are more like predicting the future than science. As frustrating as it may sound, it forces you to make your day unexpected. The turbulence of time exacerbates the green of the hills, the darkness of the mountains and the density of the ocean. The caledonian bad weather offers atmospheres that seem to come out of the most fantastic tales and legends. In this interplay of shades and contrasts, Scotland is a perpetual painting that offers aesthetes the violence of its brushstrokes. Consistently tackling the elements in Scotland grabs you literally and figuratively. The wind blows across the plains, the rain draws a curtain over the landscape and the proud mountains impress. Scotland is home to some of the most stunning landscapes I have ever seen. Shaped by landslides and tectonic movements that have completely sculpted their surroundings, these landscapes instantly immerse you in an almost supernatural fantasy world. One does not expect to discover such an exciting landscape. Vastness constantly echoes within us through our eyes.
+++ 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:
As early as 1985 there was a study entitled Maritime Patrol Aircraft for the 90s (MPA 90) for the German Bundeswehr, which aimed to replace the Breguet Atlantic with the P-3C Update 4. The study was carried out by the Lockheed California Company and the MBB transport and commercial aircraft division (today Airbus Deutschland, with locations in Hamburg and Bremen) together with the BWB. In 1997, Lockheed Martin offered Germany and Italy a “Orion 2000” or “P-3C Plus” as a replacement for the Breguet Atlantic BR 1150. Both countries established a management team at the Federal Office of Defense Technology and Procurement in Koblenz and signed an MPA Definition MoU on October 21, 1999. Between 2007 and 2015, Germany was supposed to receive 10 aircraft, Italy 14. On July 26, 2002, Lockheed Martin offered a P-3C with revised wings, Allison T56 engines and modern avionics. However, the program was stopped, and alternatives were searched. Among others, Airbus was eager to response and proposed in 2001 a dedicated ASW/maritime patrol aircraft based on the A320 short-/medium-range airliner, even though the development of such an aircraft would certainly take several years and it would not be ready for service before 2010.
In the meantime, in 2003, the Netherlands offered its thirteen P-3C Update 2.5, which had originally been delivered between 1982 and 1984, for sale, and Germany became interested. On October 31 of the same year, both countries signed a memorandum of understanding for the sale of 10 aircraft. It was later decided that Germany would receive eight aircraft and Portugal the remaining five. With this solution, even though only a temporary stopgap for the German naval forces, Airbus’ proposal waned from attention – but only temporarily, since things did not unfold as planned.
The contract with the Netherlands was signed on November 15, 2004, and provided for Germany to supply eight P-3Cs, spare parts, a flight simulator, and other materials at a cost of 271 million euros. For a further 24 million euros, the Dutch armed forces trained the ground and flight personnel of the Marineflieger Geschwader (Marine Aviation Squadron/MFG) 3 “Graf Zeppelin” from Nordholz air base directly in the Netherlands. The Dutch reconnaissance aircraft were supposed to be responsible for long-range maritime surveillance and reconnaissance above and under water for the German Navy for the next twenty years, while a potent and up-to-date successor would be developed domestically or together with European partners. The Luftwaffe officially received the first P-3C on May 18, 2006.
While the P-3C had been bought and delivered, the procurement program for a potential successor was launched, since it was clear that the used P-3Cs would have only a limited lifetime left on their airframes and that maintenance would escalate over time. The potential P-3 successor became the project “Magellan”, which could trace back its origins to 2001. Magellan had been proposed by Airbus after the global market with turboprop-powered maritime patrol and anti-submarine warfare aircraft had been analyzed in the late Nineties and a huge global market opportunity had been discovered – including the demand of the German Luftwaffe and its naval air arm, the Marineflieger. Another driving factor behind the project was that similar aircraft produced abroad did not fully meet European – and most specifically German – requirements, so that the development of a purpose-built indigenous aircraft became a highly attractive option, also fueled by political pressure to support the European aircraft industry. Consequently, the German Ministry of Defense submitted the domestic development of the Magellan maritime patrol aircraft as part of its April 2001 – March 2006 Five-Year Defense Plan. In October 2003, following its earlier proposal and with the P-3C deal with the Netherlands, Airbus Industries received prime contractor status and Magellan started to take shape.
To save cost and development time, the Magellan ASW aircraft was not a completely new design. Like many former ASW aircraft (e. g. the Lockheed P-3, the BAe Nimrod, and the recent Boeing P-8) it was based on the airframe of an existing airliner. In Magellan’s case it was the new Airbus A318, which shared many components with the rest of the short/medium range A320 airliner family, including body components, cockpit windows, outer wings, horizontal stabilizer, and other systems. Internal shared parts included the auxiliary power unit, cockpit panels, flight control system computer, anti-collision lights, and gear control unit. This reportedly saved US$ 3.3 billion during the aircraft’s development until 2019.
To adapt the civil airliner to its new and specialized military role, many modifications were made. The most obvious change was a switch of powerplants, from a pair of high-bypass turbofans under the wings to four smaller engines in separate underwing nacelles. This required a thorough yet invisible modification of the wings’ internal structure, which allowed two extra hardpoints for the additional engines, and this also made the wings more stress-resistant for frequent low-/medium altitude operations. An increased use of composite materials helped to limit the resulting gain in structural weight.
The four-engine design adopted for the Magellan resulted in a flight profile with better maneuverability and stability at low-speed, low-altitude flight and allowed the aircraft to continue its mission in the event of a single and even a two-engine failure. As well as greater operational survivability, the high-bypass engines provided for quiet, fuel-efficient operation. Compared with the P-3 or the Breguet Atlantic, the Magellan also had, thanks to its jet propulsion, reduced transit times in comparison to turboprop-powered competitors, and the turbofans were quieter, making it more difficult for submerged submarines to detect the aircraft above them acoustically.
Propulsion came from four Pratt & Whitney PW1000Gs, a new high-bypass geared turbofan engine (also called the GTF = geared turbofan). The gearbox between the fan and the low-pressure spool allowed each to spin at its optimal speed, allowing a higher bypass ratio for a better propulsive efficiency. Pratt & Whitney claimed the engine was 16% more fuel efficient than the previous generation, and up to 75% quieter. Additionally, response to throttle input could be improved, resulting in a higher agility especially at lower speed.
The first variant to enter service was the PW1100G for the Airbus A320neo in January 2016. The engine had teething problems after its introduction, extending to grounded aircraft and inflight failures, but this was solved soon afterwards. The Magellan was the first military aircraft to use the new GTF engine type operationally. In the Magellan, the modified engines (designated PW1700M) with only two instead of three low pressure compression stages) provided a thrust of 15.000 lb (67 kN) each, so that the four GTF engines of the Magellan offered a little more thrust than the commercial airliners’ powerplants. In flight and on long-range patrol missions, one pair of engines would frequently be shut down to save fuel and reduce the noise profile even further, and the geared fans could be automatically set at diffefent ratios so that the frequencies generated from one engine would overlay and reduce the noise profile from the other one. This system was usspoed to be so effective that the audio signature of the Magellan would resemble strong wind and not man-made sound.
From the start the Magellan was equipped with many newly developed technologies and features, particularly in terms of its avionics and mission systems. One such key feature was the use of a fly-by-optics flight control system, which essentially replaced standard metal wiring with optical fiber cables. This also had the beneficial effect of decreasing electro-magnetic disturbances to the sensors on-board in comparison to more common fly-by-wire control systems, and it also helped to make the Magellan harder to detect from the outside.
The Magellan was equipped with various sensors to enable the aircraft to perform its primary purpose of maritime patrol and detecting submarines and surface vessels; these include the AMPaR active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar from Cassidian, a Airbus Defence and Space subsidiary, which used an array consisting of three separate antennas mounted under a mutual nose radome to provide 240-degree coverage at a range of more than 450 km (280 mi). All antennae together consisted of more than 3000 very small transmitter/receiver elements that divided the azimuth range into three overlapping 90° sectors. They could examine their sectors simultaneously and could also simultaneously track many maritime and aviation targets within each sector. The number of targets that can be tracked automatically is 1,000 and the number of targets that can be combated at the same time is around 60. AMPaR (Airborne Maritime Patrol Radar) was able to track surface vessels at sea at a range of 300 km (186 mi) while high-flying aircraft of fighter size could automatically be tracked at >250 km (150 mi). Even sea-skimming missiles could be detected and tracked at >25 km (15 mi). The data obtained is passed on to a command and weapon deployment system. The ASEA radar was furthermore supplemented by an Infrared/Light sensor array with an integrated laser range finder and target designator for surface detection, which allowed passive observation and tracking as well as target illumination for guided weapons, either deployed by the Magellan itself or from another carrier.
Further mission sensors included a magnetic anomaly detector (MAD) embedded into the aircraft's tail (where it replaced the airliner’s APU, which was re-located into the left-wing root area, while a heat exchanger was mounted on the right). Sophisticated acoustic systems were also added for this purpose. Another novelty was the integration of an artificial intelligence (AI) system that directed the TACCO operator to the optimal flight course to track or attack a submarine.
Behind the cockpit, the cabin was separated into three sections, consisting of the ASW operators’ section with workstations and observer places, a rest and general storage area with a small kitchen and four bunk beds for crews working in shifts on long-term missions, and a final section for 5” sonobuoy storage and their manual deployment through a total of four two release shafts, connected with the cabin through air locks. Vertical and oblique cameras were mounted together with the sonobuoy shafts in the lower fuselage and accessible from the cabin through hatches in the floor. The two rear sections could optionally be combined and re-arranged to make room for eventual transport duties, and seats could be installed, too to offer space for up to 28 passengers.
Under the cabin floor, two separate unpressurized bomb bays, one in front of and the other behind the wings, housed the bulk of the aircraft's ASW munitions. The bomb bay was supplemented by a total of eight external hardpoints, two pairs under the inner and outer wings each. Weapons available on the Magellan included torpedoes, mines, and depth charges internally. Air-to-surface missiles (including AGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles, AGM-65 Maverick ASMs and AGM-88 HARM anti-radar missiles), air-to-air missiles (AIM-9 Sidewinder or Iris-T) for self-defense, ECM and chaff/flare dispenser pods, or bombs, including laser-guided precision weapons, were typically carried on the wing pylons externally. The sonobuoy shafts were located behind the rear bomb bay and not connected with it.
Armaments and their deployment were managed by a stores management system, which included a newly developed Universal Stores Control Unit (USCU) capable of accommodating hundreds of different munitions, including future ones and precision weapons. Multiple radar warning receivers provided all-round awareness of missile threats, which were combined with a defensive countermeasure suite. Additional fuel tanks were integrated into the fuselage, too, which extended the A318’s typical airliner range from 5.740 km (3,100 nmi) to 8.000 km (5,000 mi), making patrol missions of 18 hours and more possible without need to refuel.
In June 2007, Airbus rolled out the Magellan prototype (coded 60+10, later re-designated 98+70 and handed over to WTD 71 in Eckernförde for further development work), converted from an existing civil airliner airframe, and now official designated A318 MPA (“Maritime Patrol Aircraft”) to mark the aircraft’s heritage and role. The rollout had been delayed for three months due to the discovery of defective rivets which required remedial repairs to be performed. On 28 September 2007, the Magellan conducted its maiden flight from Hamburg Finkenwerder, where the civil A318 airliners were finally assembled, too; this lasted one hour and ended successfully.
On 31 August 2007, Airbus announced that they would produce four Magellan production airframes for the Bundesluftwaffe, with an option for four more aircraft, with a unit price of US$ 141.5 million for each aircraft and to be delivered in 2012. At that time Airbus officials claimed that the Magellan was a more capable, albeit more expensive, aircraft than the Boeing P-8 Poseidon; in comparison to the P-8, the Magellan had a greater range, a larger bomb bay, and had been optimized for the maritime patrol mission. Beyond Germany, Norway (4 aircraft), Spain (6) and Taiwan (3, with an option for 3 more) also procured the Magellan. Argentina and Chile also showed interest in the type.
Due to development and budgetary problems the delivery of the A318 MPA to the Marineflieger was delayed several times, and the anticipated maintenance problems with the former Dutch P-3Cs in German service escalated. At the end of 2016, the magazine Der Spiegel reported that none of the aircraft were operational as of September 30, 2016, and that one of the aircraft had only completed two and a half hours of flight in 10 years. Total costs could no longer be calculated, and as a result, soon not a single German P-3 was operational for at least several weeks. The situation became so severe that the German Ministry of Defense considered to lease five Boeing P-8A Poseidon as another interim solution, but in late 2019 the first Magellan Airbus was introduced to the re-established MFG 1, which had operated Tornado IDS’ in the maritime strike and reconnaissance role until 1993. At the time of their operational introduction the aircraft had already been updated: SIGINT equipment had been added (outwardly recognizable through slender wingtip pods and an extended spinal fairing in front of the fin) to survey and record radio communication. In this configuration the aircraft were officially designated A318 MPA Phase II.
However, instead of the MFG 1’s former base Jagel the unit now was located at Nordholz, where the P-3 facilities were used to operate the similar-sized A318 MPAs. Operations started only slowly, though, and during early exercises and NATO deployments to Lithuania the first two A318 MPAs (60+11 and 12) reportedly suffered radar, sensor integration, and data transfer problems, leading to more testing. 1./MFG 1 only received full operational status with its four planned initial aircraft in early 2022, and a second squadron with four more aircraft will probably only become operational with MFG 1 in 2027.
[b][u]General characteristics:[/u][/b]
Flight crew: 3
Mission crew: 8 (but operationally up to 12 with working in shifts on long-range missions)
Length: 36,52 m (118 ft 9 in) overall
Wingspan: 33,98 m (111 ft 3¾ in)
Wing area: 122.4 m² (1,318 sq ft)
Wing sweepback: 25°
Tail height: 12,24 m (40 ft 1 in)
Operating empty weight: 44.100 kg (97,100 lb)
Maximum zero-fuel weight (MZFW): 59.100 kg (130,200 lb)
Maximum landing weight (MLW): 62.100 kg (136,800 lb)
Maximum take-off weight (MTOW): 79,700 kg (175,708 lb)
[u]Powerplant[/u]:
4× Pratt & Whitney PW1700M high-bypass geared turbofan engines, 67 kN (15,000 lbf) thrust each
[u]Performance:[/u]
Maximum speed: 996 km/h (619 mph, 538 kn)
Cruise speed: 833 km/h (518 mph, 450 kn)
Range: 8,000 km (5,000 mi, 4,300 nmi)
Combat radius: 2,500 km (1,600 mi, 1,300 nmi) with 4 hours on station for anti-submarine warfare
Service ceiling: 13,520 m (44,360 ft)
[u]Armament:[/u]
2 internal bomb bays with a total of eight stations,
8 external underwing pylons
Total capacity of 9,000 kg (19,842 lb) for torpedoes, mines, depth charges, various
air-to-surface missiles (ASMs), or bombs, plus short-range AAMs for self-defense
[b]The kit and its assembly:[/b]
This fictional Airbus ASW aircraft was spawned by the Kawasaki P-1, an indigenous Japanese P-3 replacement with an unusual four-engine propulsion on a relatively small airframe. I envisioned a European alternative, inspired by the sad state of the Dutch P-3s in German duty – and that made a converted Airbus airframe a natural choice. I eventually settled for the smallest type, the A318, also because it had similar dimensions as the Japanese P-1 and procured an Eastern Express kit when I stumbled upon a priceworthy offer.
As a side information: there were real plans for an A319 ASW derivative, but this build here is unrelated (found out about it much later, after I started work on my model) and only shares the “MPA” suffix. I was not able to find any detail info about it, though.
The alternative/extra engines for my A 318 MPA turned out to be a major challenge. My initial plan to use the four nacelles with pylons from a 1:144 Revell WhiteKnight Two/SpaceShip Two kit set came to naught when I realized that these would be much too small for the A318 airframe. They eventually went into a BAe 146ish conversion of a DC-9 airframe with shoulder-mounted wings that I build a couple of weeks ago, where they looked fine. But the Magellan would require something more substantial, and finding a suitable and affordable alternative took some time and legwork. I eventually found aftermarket engine nacelles from Skyline Models for a 1:200 Hasegawa Boeing 747-200/300, made from IP with resin exhausts. They offered IMHO a good size and shape compromise, with a good level of detail for 1:144, and the quartet was affordable, too, because I did not want to buy a donor kit just for the engines. However, even though the pods look nice and have fine surface details, they do not go together at all: you have either to sand the fan discs into an unnatural oval shape or you have to bridge a massive 1 mm(!) gap on the underside when you force the halves together. The resin tail cones themselves are crisp and look very good, but they do hardly fit into the fan shroud and the pylons’ shape doesn’t match up with then, either. Fits well in style with the A318 kit, though… Did I mention that the Eastern Express A318 kit is a PITA? It has quite nice surface detail, but the bigger the parts the less they go together. Esp. the wing and fuselage halves were a TOTAL mess, the latter could only be closed through force and combining the hull with the wing halves, which have a weird construction on the lower hull – the mold layout was chosen to allow proper detail to be added around the main landing gear wells, but building this is a horror, was a nightmare, with poor fit, massive gaps and dislocations of up to 1 mm!
Talking about trouble: mounting the wacky 747 pods under the Airbus’ wings required even more hardware mods on top of the basic fit problems. The inner pair of engines went closer to the fuselage, to make more space for the outer pair, even though they ended up pretty close to the main landing gear. The A318’s original attachment points under the wings were PSRed away and the inner pair of donor pods was mounted onto the inner flap mechanism fairings. Their pylons had to be modified accordingly, though. The outer pair was mounted at about half distance from the inner engines and the wing tips. Their pylons had to be shortened, due to the low wing depth. Outside of them I added weapon stations from a Dragon 1:144 Tornado IDS, which also provided AGM-88 HARMs and Sidewinders as suitable ordnance.
The rest of modifications were more of a cosmetic kind. The biggest change was a bigger, more bulbous nose radome for the surveillance radar; in this case I used a leftover nose section from an Airfix 1:72 D.H. Venom trainer, mounted and PSRed over the Airbus’s original nose. Not a big modification, but the different nose profile changes the Airbus‘ look significantly to something P-3ish, and it resembled the Japanese P-1 a lot now.
The windscreen itself, while quite clear, had to be forced into its opening, and due to its poor fit and some gaps I PSRed it over and later used aftermarket decals to create the windscreen. Other graft-ons included a MAD boom carved from sprue material, a dorsal antenna bulge (from an Airfix A-4B kit) behind the cockpit and a pair of optical sensor turrets under the chin, somewhat B-52Gish. Under the lower rear fuselage, I added a pair of bulges for the sonobuoy launch tubes and cameras, leftover optional parts form/for a Heller Saab S32C’s camera nose. Fin and wing tips were slightly clipped, and I added scratched sensor fairings (sprue material), what considerably changes the aircraft’s look away from an airliner, and I also added a low spinal fairing (styrene profile) at the fin’s base. Finally, some blade antennae made from 0.5mm styrene sheet were mounted around the hull and small scoops for the relocated APU and heat exchangers were added.
[b]Painting and markings:[/b]
As usual, a tricky choice. The German P-3Cs did not carry a special camouflage – they simply retained the former Dutch Navy livery in all-over Light Gull Grey (FS 36440), which I found too boring to apply on the whiffy ASW Airbus. Due to the aircraft’s sheer size, I refrained from a tactical paint scheme like the rather murky three-tone wraparound Norm ’87 scheme from the Marineflieger Tornados or any of its (though interesting) development patterns or derivatives. Instead, I rather took inspiration from the Luftwaffe’s MedEvac/MRT Airbus A310s, which were painted RAL 7001 (Silbergrau, Revell 374) overall. This shade of grey comes close to FS 36375 but is colder.
For an aircraft that would not only operate at high altitude and to conceal it from above I found a uniform RAL 7001 livery too bright, so that I decided to paint the upper surfaces in a slightly darker tone, RAL 7000 (Fehgrau, Revell 57), which is, as a coincidence, the tone of most Bundesmarine surface vessels’ superstructures since 1956: a cold blue-grey tone somewhere between FS 36320 and 35237. Together with a straight and low waterline this resulted in a rather low-viz-ish livery, augmented by relatively few and small markings and stencils.
The landing gear was painted white, the walkway/Corroguard areas on the wings received a slightly different shade of grey (RAL 7005 Mausgrau, Revell 47) than the basic camouflage, and I added a slightly darker anti-glare panel (RAL 7012, Basaltgrau, Revell 77) in front of the windscreen. The nose radome and other di-electric fairings were painted in a yet another slightly brownish shade of grey (RAL 7030, Steingrau, Revell 75), to create some more variety. Some light post-panel shading was done, and to emphasize the engraved panel lines I also applied a light black ink washing.
Windscreen, windows, and doors were created with decals, partly aftermarket, partly OOB. The cabin windows’ number was reduced to reflect the aircraft’s dedicated military role. Tactical markings were few and rather lustreless. German markings and codes were procured from appropriate generic material from TL Modellbau and Peddinghaus Decals, the small MFG 1 badges came from an Italeri Marineflieger Tornado kit (with subdued Norm ’87 markings). Stencils and walkway markings on the wings came from the OOB sheet.
Finally, everything was sealed with matt acrylic varnish from a rattle can, with a light sheen instead of pure matt.
The result looks simple in its all-grey livery but getting there – esp. with the poor-fitting Eastern Express Airbus A318 as basis and the even worse donor engines – was a long and tough fight. But despite the troubles, the model of this fictional Kawasaki P-1 alternative from Europe looks pretty convincing and the four-engine layout worked well, despite the relatively compact airframe.
´
The American Friends organized an installion protest piece for this weekend entitled Eyes Wide Open. The boots represented the fallen US soldiers in Iraq and there were some shoes present to represent some of the 100,000 Iraqi civilians who have been killed since our invasion.
Walking thru the rows of boots was overwhelming but it was the shoes of the children killed that affected me the most… some as young as 3 years old killed in this war. It was also so sad how some of the civilians were never identified… they simply “vanished” so to speak.
Donald Potter:
Photo entitled: "Near Sacre-Coeur"
As we were climbing the stairs to get to the top of Montmartre in Paris, Sophomore Sally Leaf and her friends said they wanted to stop and look around. Sally was amazed by the graffiti just a flight of stairs away from one of Paris' most treasured landmarks. She was soaking in the area, surprised by how much it resembled certain low-income areas in the U.S.While the church on top of Montmartre, Sacre-Coeur, is considered one of the most beautiful places in Paris, it is surrounded by vagabond shops and graffiti-spattered walls. When discovering and understanding a culture, it is very important to see a place for as it is, not for just what it is known for. A 90% of Montmartre is not Sacre-Coeur, and is actually quite poor.
Entitled "Digital Progress, Human Success", we explored how the change brought about by the new Digital Transformation continues to change perspectives and to transform companies, individuals and societies through new ways of thinking; resulting from the technological and digital knowledge we have acquired.
All of this in the purest IE style, to reconnect with our former colleagues, meet new ones and enjoy moments of leisure the event such as lunch and dinner.
TRAP mural entitled "Cultivation of Raspberries" painted by David Hopkins in 1937. The mural surrounded the lobby on all 4 walls. Before the post office was torn down in 1972, 3 local folks were able to remove a 4.5 x 11.5 feet section of the mural. It was held by the Hopkins Historical Society for several years but it's condition deteriorated. It was then given to the University of Minnesota's Weisman Art Museum for preservation. The mural was restored by the museum and now hangs in Senator Amy Klobucar's office in Washington D. C. I took this picture around 2005 when it was at the Weisman Museum.
Christopher L. Barrett, Executive Director, Virginia Bioinformatics Institute/Professor of Computer Science, Virginia Tech. Dr. Barrett’s talk entitled “Massively Interactive Systems: Thinking and Deciding in the Age of Big Data"
Abstract: This talk discusses advanced computationally assisted reasoning about large interaction-dominated systems. Current questions in science, from the biochemical foundations of life to the scale of the world economy, involve details of huge numbers and levels of intricate interactions. Subtle indirect causal connections and vastly extended definitions of system boundaries dominate the immediate future of scientific research. Beyond sheer numbers of details and interactions, the systems are variously layered and structured in ways perhaps best described as networks. Interactions include, and often co-create, these morphological and dynamical features, which can interact in their own right. Such “massively interacting” systems are characterized by, among other things, large amounts of data and branching behaviors. Although the amount of associated data is large, the systems do not even begin to explore their entire phase spaces. Their study is characterized by advanced computational methods. Major methodological revisions seem to be indicated.
Heretofore unavailable and rapidly growing basic source data and increasingly powerful computing resources drive complex system science toward unprecedented detail and scale. There is no obvious reason for this direction in science to change. The cost of acquiring data has historically dominated scientific costs and shaped the research environment in terms of approaches and even questions. In the several years, as the costs of social data, biological data and physical data have plummeted on a per-unit basis and as the volume of data is growing exponentially, the cost drivers for scientific research have clearly shifted from data generation to storage and analytical computation-based methods. The research environment is rapidly being reshaped by this change and, in particular, the social and bio–sciences are revolutionized by it. Moreover, the study of socially– and biologically–coupled systems (e.g., societal infrastructures and infectious disease public health policy analysis) is in flux as computation-based methods begin to greatly expand the scope of traditional problems in revolutionary ways.
How does this situation serve to guide the development of “information portal technology” for complex system science and for decision support? An example of an approach to detailed computational analysis of social and behavioral interaction with physical and infrastructure effects in the immediate aftermath of a devastating disaster will be described in this context.
New Deal plaster relief entitled “Sorting the Mail” created by Brenda Putnam in 1936 for the Caldwell NJ post office. It was taken down before 1970 and seemingly "lost". It was discovered about 5-6 years ago in a coal bin in the basement of the post office. It was restored and installed in the lobby of the West Caldwell post office April 28, 2022.
New Deal mural entitled "Indians Demanding Wagon Toll" painted in 1939 by Leo J. Beaulaurier. He also painted murals for the Billings MT post office.
Info sheet:
Through research entitled Scaling Jurisdictional Approaches in the Indonesian Palm Oil Sector, CIFOR-ICRAF and partners aim to increase the readiness of four palm oil producing regions to implement jurisdictional programmes (JPs) through a participatory, multistakeholder and gender-inclusive approach, and synthesize lessons learned from regency-level studies to strengthen sustainable palm oil initiatives at the national level.
This workshop is a forum for national actors to disseminate and discuss relevant issues, and produce recommendations that can contribute to strengthening relationships between JPs and international market demand, advertising-based certification initiatives and national and regional policies.
Photo by Fajrin Hanafi/CIFOR-ICRAF
If you use one of our photos, please credit it accordingly and let us know. You can reach us through our Flickr account or at: news@cifor-icraf.org and a.sanjaya@cifor-icraf.org
On the Saturday, I was entitled to a day of rest.. and by rest I mean I had time to run errands for other people.
I did take the time to do a few things I wanted to do last time... tried to hit up a garage sale (failed miserably).
Was in North Vancouver already, so figured why the hell not visit Thomas Haas, but actually have the luxury of being able to eat in peace and quiet.
So, so worth it. Everything was as rich and decadent as I remember it.. or at least the nibbles of it that I had as I wasn't exactly in the drivers seat last time.
Go Fish was another place I hit up again. With family visiting in September, I did the responsible thing and made sure that all the restaurants were still in good condition before suggesting they visit.
The fries weren't as good as I remember them, but the actual fish itself was in good form, with a thin batter shell and moist meat.
Now.. I have to try explaining to people with no car and no GPS how to find the place.
From my set entitled “Lysimachia”
www.flickr.com/photos/21861018@N00/sets/72157607186446572/
In my collection entitled “The Garden”
www.flickr.com/photos/21861018@N00/collections/7215760718...
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysimachia
Lysimachia is a genus of flowering plants. It is traditionally classified in the family Primulaceae but should, according to molecular phylogenetic study, be placed to the family Myrsinaceae
Lysimachia species often have yellow flowers, and grow vigorously. They tend to grow in damp conditions. Several species within Lysimachia are commonly called loosestrife, although this name is also used for plants within the genus Lythrum.
Lysimachia species are used as food plants by the larvae of some butterflies and moths, including the Dot Moth, Grey Pug, Lime-speck Pug, Small Angle Shades and V-pug.
Installation entitled "Nutrimetica, 2008" as part of the Next Wave Festival, 2008. Installation part of group show entitled "Nightclub Project" at The Men's Gallery, KIng St Melbourne. Live performance by May Bluebell.Work by Luke Warm - meatkeeper@gmail.com
Hanna Ranch Novato, CA. Urban One is providing Project Management & Entitlement services. www.urbanone.com.
The reason I entitled this photograph 'Tube' rather than 'corridor' or 'stairs' is because upon viewing it a few times, I today realized that it embodies the entire concept of the London underground.
Rather than save that title for an image of the dark tracks or a moving carriage full of city commuters, I find that the hand shined railing, the distant opposing angle corridor, and the tiled walls reflecting the overhead lighting, perfectly represent the experience of travelling on the underground system.
Knowing you are deep underground, below the bustling city, on your way somewhere different from everyone else, knowing the only way out is through a single file security gate is actually a unique experience.
One to be savoured or taken for granted, it is an experience all the same.
The 2015 UMASH Annual Forum entitled "Growing Agricultural Education: Embracing Health and Safety" was held at the Davies Center on the University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire campus on May 28, 2015. The forum was co-sponsored by the the Upper Midwest Agricultural Safety and Health Center (UMASH), the College of Nursing and Health Sciences at the University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire, the Southern Minnesota Center of Agriculture and South Central College and MN West Community and Technical College, the National Farm Medicine Center in Marshfield WI, and the Migrant Clinician's Network.
The forum included presentations highlighting existing efforts to address agricultural health and safety in educational programs, a panel discussion and a series of small group discussions focused on agricultural health and safety education and outreach. Fifty-five attendees from diverse backgrounds including healthcare, occupational health and safety, education, research, government, media, communications, immigrant services and human resources participated in the forum. The interactive format provided attendees many opportunities to network and take part in discussions with different attendees throughout the day.
Read the event summary, download the presentation slides and resources at umash.umn.edu/annualforum/
Article entitled "Acting as Master on Behalf of the People and Allowing the People to be the Master" in the August 2011 issue of the Popular Tribune. Summary: For many officials of the governing party, democracy means "Acting as master on behalf of the people" . To many Chinese, democracy means "honest officials" rule on behalf of the people. However, true democracy means allowing the people to be the masters -- that is popular soverignity, the people deciding, and the people leading the officials. The traditional concept of democracy as the people serving the officials is feudal and gets things backwards! The officials should be the servants of the people.
The way to allow the people to be the masters is to establish an effective mechanism that protects the rights of the people to information, to elect officials, to excercize oversight over official activities, to express themselves and to ensure that the rights of the people shall not be trampled upon. The old ways of thinking that predominate today must change. Today officials pay most of their attention to the officials above them. This must change to a system in which they pay attention to the people "below" and the will of the people will determine whether an official is retained or fired.
These 39 pictures entitled "Colors of Fall in Yardley . . ." were all taken around my home in late October, pre-Hurricane Sandy. Number 7968 is a photo of the tree that came crashing down on two unsuspecting cars parked underneath it at the height of the hurricane.
Fall happens to be my favorite time of year and not just because pumpkin flavors are all the rage. From late September to early November, Mother Nature puts on her most spectacular show. Trees of all types slowly transition from their standard leaves to shades of red, orange, gold, brown, and even purple. Landscapes across the country pop with vibrant colors and serve as a brief reminder just how beautiful nature can be.
It's a great time for hiking and scenic drives and below are all the resources you need to make your trip happen. Whether you want to know just why leaves change their colors or are looking for where to see specific shades, the answers are here.
So Why Do Leaves Change Colors?
The answer lies in one word: chlorophyll. It's the chemical that gives leaves their green color. Chlorophyll is also responsible for photosynthesis - a process where plants turn water and carbon dioxide into oxygen and sugar. Confused? Let's back up to the basics.
Trees take water from the ground using their roots. They also take carbon dioxide from the air. But trees need oxygen and glucose to grow big and healthy. In order to do that, they use sunlight to turn the water and carbon dioxide into oxygen and glucose. That's photosynthesis. And chlorophyll helps make it happen.
When summer ends and autumn begins, there is less sunlight since the days get shorter. This is an important hint for trees and other plants to prepare themselves for the winter. Since there isn't enough light and water during the winter for photosynthesis, trees go into rest-mode and will feed off food they have stored up over summer. While processes shut down, chlorophyll starts to disappear from the leaves, taking away the green color. As the green fades, the leaves show other colors that have been there all along - yellow and orange. They have been hidden all summer by chlorophyll and during the fall, it is their time to shine!
You're probably wondering about the other signature colors of autumn - red, purple, and brown. Well, in some trees, such as maples, glucose is trapped in the leaves after photosynthesis stops. That glucose is turned into a red color from the sunlight and the cool nights of autumn. The brown color of trees, such as oaks, is made from tannin - a waste product left in the leaves.
The brilliance of colors you see every fall is directly related to weather conditions. The brightest colors are seen when late summer is dry, and autumn has bright sunny days and cool evenings. A good supply of rainfall also keeps the leaves on trees longer and helps to enhance the color.
For more information go to this site:
When the family is out in the pool, Uggs doesn't know what to do with himself. I run around taking pictures of him.
Artist: Amanda Parer
Country: Australia
Entitle is an elaborate light installation designed in the 18th-century Rococo style and crafted using the traditional techniques of Chinese lantern- making. Covering 10 sq m, the artwork features four large decorative towers, heavily ornamented with gold and brightly coloured flowers, which surround a base displaying a light-sculpture of a mother pig and her suckling young.
From my set entitled “Cranesbill”
www.flickr.com/photos/21861018@N00/sets/72157607214202240/
In my collection entitled “The Garden”
www.flickr.com/photos/21861018@N00/collections/7215760718...
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geranium
Geranium is a genus of 422 species of flowering annual, biennial, and perennial plants that are commonly known as the cranesbills. It is found throughout the temperate regions of the world and the mountains of the tropics, but mostly in the eastern part of the Mediterranean region. These attractive flowers will grow in any soil as long as it is not waterlogged. Propagation is by semi-ripe cuttings in summer, by seed or by division in autumn or spring.
The species Geranium viscosissimum is considered to be protocarnivorous.
The name "cranesbill" derives from the appearance of the seed-heads, which have the same shape as the bill of a crane. The genus name is derived from the Greek γέρανος, géranos, or γερανός, geranós, crane. The long, palmately cleft leaves are broadly circular in form. Their rose, pink to blue or white flowers have 5 petals.
Cranesbills are eaten by the larvae of some Lepidoptera species including Brown-tail and Mouse Moth.
Confusingly, "geranium" is also the common name of members of the genus Pelargonium, which were formerly classified in the cranesbill genus. In the United States, true Geraniums are frequently distinguished from the less hardy Pelargoniums as (rather redundantly) "hardy geraniums" by gardeners and in the horticultural trade. One can make the distinction between the two by looking at the flowers: Geranium has symmetrical flowers, while Pelargonium has irregular or maculate petals. Other former members of the genus are now classified in genus Erodium, including the plants known as filarees in North America.
Entitled "Digital Progress, Human Success", we explored how the change brought about by the new Digital Transformation continues to change perspectives and to transform companies, individuals and societies through new ways of thinking; resulting from the technological and digital knowledge we have acquired.
All of this in the purest IE style, to reconnect with our former colleagues, meet new ones and enjoy moments of leisure the event such as lunch and dinner.
The NCO Leadership Center of Excellence and U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy held a graduation May 22 in the Academy’s Cooper Lecture Center for the Spouse Leadership Development Course Class 69-10. The 21 graduates attended classes totaling 42 hours of instruction in areas such as: human psychology, human relations, leadership development, conflict management, protocol/etiquette, public speaking, communications, computer operations, effective listening, team-building, family readiness group training, benefits and entitlements and health awareness.