View allAll Photos Tagged Existence
I've known of the existence of the Eastern Yellow Robin (Eopsaltria australis) in Woodlands Historic Park for a while now and have been actively looking for them for a month or more. My friend, and fellow bird photographer David, gave me some directions for locating the general area where he had seen them, and those directions took me to exactly the same area I've been searching previously. So, I ditched my usual technique (just wander around looking) for David's technique (sit down quietly and wait). As David said he would, this little male soon appeared to check me out. He has a female on a nest somewhere nearby, but not wanting to disturb them, I took a few nice shots of this little darling and left them alone.
Isn't he just the most adorable little bird you've ever seen!
If you like bird photos, you need to go and check out some of David's (see link in comment below) they are awesome.
Explored! December 5, 2012 #215
This image is for sale on RedBubble.
s/n 0670MDTR
190 bhp, 1,985 cc inline DOHC four-cylinder engine, two Weber 40 DCO/A3 carburettors, four-speed manual transmission, independent front suspension, live rear axle, hydraulic four-wheel drum brakes. Wheelbase: 2,250 mm (88.6")
- One of the most beautiful Ferrari sports racing cars ever built
- One of the finest examples in existence with known ownership and successful racing history
- Five Targa Florio entries and Winner of the Monte Pellegrino Hillclimb
- Last four-cylinder Ferrari sports racer, rarer than 250 TR and 250 GTO
In the 500 TRC, Ferrari developed what was to be one of the company’s most aesthetically beautiful, brilliantly engineered and efficient sports racing cars.
Following engineer Aurelio Lampredi’s departure from Ferrari in 1955, a new engineering team was formed for 1956, including Vittorio Jano, Alberto Massimino, Luigi Bellentani and the young Andrea Fraschetti. These highly skilled men soon came up with a new two-litre sports racing car: the 500 TR. This was the first Ferrari designated with the now legendary name “Testa Rossa.” The four-cylinder-engined type 500 TR was introduced in 1956 and was the successor to the 500 Mondial. Seventeen examples were built and became favourite sports racers for privateers the world over.
500 TRC
Half a year later the factory produced a new car, because the sports commission of the FIA issued new regulations. For the 1957 season the new Appendix C for modified sports cars took effect. The 500 TR was outlawed by the new rules, many of which concerned the bodywork. The windscreen now had to be symmetrical over the axis of the car, and width had to measure 100 cm with a height of at least 15 centimetres. A soft-top was required, and the gas tank capacity was to be 120 litres. A passenger door was mandated as well.
Engineers, mechanics and designers began a race against the clock. By the end of 1956, Ferrari announced the 500 TRC, a new model which adhered to all of the new FIA regulations.
The new model was assigned chassis Type 518 C and engine Type 131 C. Motor, gearbox and transmission were identical to the 500 TR. One of the primary differences between the TRC and the first Mondial, in addition to reduced weight, was the rear axle: a coil sprung rigid axle instead of the deDion variety. The two-litre engine reached its peak of performance in the TRC with 190 bhp.
More importantly, the chassis structure of the 500 TRC had been reinforced to increase rigidity. The front-end tubular frame members were further apart, which made it possible to mount the engine lower, thus lowering the centre of gravity of the whole car. This also allowed Pinin Farina to design an entirely new body that was lower by 10 centimetres, which was to be built by Scaglietti and is rightly regarded as one of the most beautiful and seductive Ferrari racing spiders ever built.
The Ferrari factory sold the TRC to private customers all over the world as a winning weapon in the sports car races. Several TRCs originally had two-tone paint, and not many were coloured the typical Ferrari racing red. The small group of 19 cars was produced within one year. Less than twelve months after its introduction, however, the 500 TRC was replaced by the 12-cylinder 250 Testa Rossa, which despite being more powerful was produced in greater numbers. As the last four-cylinder sports racing car, the 500 TRC truly marked the end of an era at Ferrari.
Chassis no. 0670 MDTR
The car on offer today is the 6th of these 19 total cars (17 500 TRCs and two 625 TRCs). Since it was built, it has been owned by a known succession of enthusiasts, the first two of which actively raced the car in period before the third owner and his family owned and maintained the car from 1966 to 1997 – more than three decades.
Chassis no. 0670 MDTR was sold new by the factory on 4 April, 1957 to first owner Bernardo Cammarata, a wealthy businessman and gentleman driver from Palermo, Sicily. Over the next decade, this gorgeous Ferrari was raced in Sicily up until 1966.
No fewer than five times was 0670 MDTR entered in the legendary Targa Florio, which alongside the Mille Miglia and Carrera Panamericana is certainly the most important open-road endurance racing event in history. In fact, seven years after its production, this 500 TRC still won the famous Monte Pellegrino hillclimb in Palermo, a race which the car had entered four times and performed in outstandingly every time. Some of the car’s greatest successes came with Mario Tropia of Sicily behind the wheel. Tropia, who went by the name “Caterpillar,” raced the car on loan from Cammarata and won two hillclimbs with the car in 1964 and in fact never placed lower than third overall.
Original owner Cammarata then sold the car to its second owner, the 36-year old Francesco Tagliavia, another Sicilian who continued to race it for the next three years, participating in several hillclimbs and adding to the car’s winning streak at Monte Pellegrino, where he won his class in 1965.
All told, of the 16 period races on record, 0670 MDTR finished all but two races and did not start one other. It won two hillclimbs outright and finished within the top three positions (overall and in class) a total of 11 times. All this, without ever being involved in a known accident in some of the most dangerous road races in history (its only two DNFs were due to the fact that Tagliavia was over the time limit and only completed 8 instead of 10 laps).
Italy’s pioneer Ferrari collector Giulio Dubbini, owner of the Diemme Caffé production company in Padua, realised the enormous potential of the 500 TRC and became the next owner in 1966. Dubbini campaigned 0670 MDTR over the next twenty years in historic events. The Ferrari remained in the ownership of the Dubbini family until the late 1990s – a remarkable period of over three decades. Historic racer Corrado Cupellini of Bergamo then took it over and for the next five years entered it in the Shell Ferrari Maserati Challenge race series in Europe.
The 500 TRC subsequently saw more than ten different racetracks in Belgium, Italy, England, Germany and France. In 2003 it was sold to Nick Colonna, who had Ferrari 0670 MDTR comprehensively restored and prepared for historic racing by Bert Skidmore’s The Intrepid Motorcar Company, Inc. of Sparks, Nevada at an approximate cost of over $470,000. It has also been shown on two occasions at the Palm Beach Cavallino Classic.
The car’s file includes FIA papers, Factory Assembly Sheets (Foglio di Montaggio), a letter written by the Ferrari factory in 1966, an original “Certificato di Proprietà” from the ACI (Automobile Club Italia), various period photos and restoration documentation.
The 500 TRC, with its clean and elegant lines, is regarded as one of the most beautiful sports racing Ferraris ever built. Chassis 0670 MDTR is a matching-numbers car and totally authentic. Its entire history is known and has been very carefully researched and documented by marque experts. Moreover, it is eligible for almost every historic event in the world, be it an open road, closed racecourse or manicured show field.
Some Ferraris may have achieved greater notoriety, but to the connoisseurs, none of the front-engined cars are more important and prestigious than the highly sophisticated four-cylinder 500 TRCs. Perfect aesthetics coupled with tremendous driving pleasure.
[Text from RM Auctions]
www.rmauctions.com/lots/lot.cfm?lot_id=664015
This Lego miniland-scale Ferrari 500 TRC Spider (1957 - Scaglietti), has been created for Flickr LUGNuts' 89th Build Challenge, - "Over a Million, Under a Thousand", - a challenge to build vehicles valued over one million (US) dollars, or under one thousand (US) dollars.
This particular vehicle was auctioned by the RM Auction house on Saturday, May 21, 2011, where it sold for €2,800,000 (US$3,050,600).
the absence of evidence for extraterrestrial intelligence. For the type ofestimation problem, see Fermi problem. For the music album, see Fermi Paradox (album). For the short story, see The Fermi Paradox Is Our Business Model.A graphical representation of the Arecibo message – Humanity's first
attempt to use radio waves to actively communicate its existence to alien civilizations. The Fermi paradox (or Fermi's paradox) is the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilization and humanity's lack of contact with, or evidence for, such civilizations.[1] The basic points of the argument,
made by physicists Enrico Fermi and Michael H. Hart, are:
• The Sun is a young star. There are billions of stars in the galaxy that are billions of years older;• Some of these stars likely have Earth-like planets[2] which, if the Earth is typical, may develop intelligent life;• Presumably some of these civilizations will develop interstellar travel, as Earth seems likely to do;• At any practical pace of interstellar travel, the galaxy can be completely colonized in just a few tens of millions of years.According to this line of thinking, the Earth should have already been colonized, or at least visited. But no convincing evidence of this exists.Furthermore, no confirmed signs of intelligence elsewhere have been spotted, either in our galaxy or the more than 80 billion other galaxies of
the observable universe. Hence Fermi's question "Where is everybody?"
brainu.org/files/wikipedia_fermi_paradox_information.pdf
Frank Drake in 1961 in an attempt to find a systematic means to evaluate the numerous probabilities involved in the existence of alien life. The speculative equation considers the rate of star formation in the galaxy; the fraction of stars with planets and the number per star that are habitable; the fraction of those planets that develop life; the fraction that develop intelligent life; the fraction that have detectable, technological intelligent life; and finally the length of time such communicable civilizations are detectable. The fundamental problem is that the last four terms are completely unknown, rendering statistical estimates impossible.There are two parts of the Fermi paradox that rely on empirical evidence—that there are many potential habitable planets, and that we see no evidence of life. The first point, that many suitable planets exist, was an assumption in Fermi's time that is gaining ground with the discovery of many exoplanets, and models predicting billions of habitable worlds in our galaxy..The second part of the paradox, that we see no evidence of extraterrestrial life, is also an active field of scientific research. This includes both efforts to find any indication of life,[36] and efforts specifically directed to finding intelligent life. These searches have been made since 1960, and several are ongoing?Those who think that intelligent extraterrestrial life is (nearly) impossible argue that the conditions needed for the evolution of life—or at least the evolution of biological complexity—are rare or even unique to Earth. Under this assumption, called the rare Earth hypothesis, a rejection of the mediocrity principle, complex multicellular life is regarded as exceedingly unusual.The Rare Earth hypothesis argues that the evolution of biological complexity requires a host of fortuitous circumstances, such as a galactic habitable zone, a central star and planetary system having the requisite character, the circumstellar habitable zone, a right sized terrestrial planet, the advantage of a giant guardian like Jupiter and a large natural satellite, conditions needed to ensure the planet has a magnetosphere and plate tectonics, the chemistry of the lithosphere, atmosphere, and oceans, the role of "evolutionary pumps" such as massive glaciation and rare bolide impacts, and whatever led to the appearance of the eukaryote cell, sexual reproduction and the Cambrian explosion.This is the argument that technological civilizations may usually or invariably destroy themselves before or shortly after developing radio or spaceflight technology. Possible means of annihilation are many,[68] including war, accidental environmental contamination, or poorly designed artificial intelligence. This general theme is explored both in fiction and in scientific hypothesizing. In 1966, Sagan and Shklovskii speculated that technological civilizations will either tend to destroy themselves within a century of developing interstellar communicative capability or master their self-destructive tendencies and survive for billion-year timescales.Self-annihilation may also be viewed in terms of thermodynamics: insofar as life is an ordered system that can sustain itself against the tendency to disorder, the "external transmission" or interstellar communicative phase may be the point at which the system becomes unstable and self-destructs.Another hypothesis is that an intelligent species beyond a certain point of technological capability will destroy other intelligent species as they appear. The idea that something, or someone, might be destroying intelligent life in the universe has been explored in the scientific literature. A species might undertake such extermination out of expansionist motives, paranoia, or aggression. In 1981, cosmologist Edward Harrison argued that such behavior would be an act of prudence: an intelligent species that has overcome its own self-destructive tendencies might view any other species bent on galactic expansion as a threat It has also been suggested that a successful alien species would be a superpredator, as are humans.New life might commonly die out due to runaway heating or cooling on their fledgling planets.On Earth, there have been numerous major extinction events that destroyed the majority of complex species alive at the time; the extinction of the dinosaurs is the best known example. These are thought to have been caused by events such as impact from a large meteorite, massive volcanic eruptions, or astronomical events such as gamma-ray bursts.[76] It may be the case that such extinction events are common throughout the universe and periodically destroy intelligent life, or at least its civilizations, before the species is able to develop the technology to communicate with other species.
We who live under the so called luxurious dome with limitless facilities still don't realize what is out there. How "they" are spending each moment of their life. At the very age when they need to discover the meaning of life, learning about the essence surrounding them..... they are still fighting for a nip of happiness. Still they are starving. They even have to leave the basic need of education just to bear the expectation of their love one's on those soft shoulders. And i don't know when this situation will be solved.........
What is normal? - in a world where time travel, wormholes, and the existence of parallel timelines are no longer news - and AI version 214 helps in every way - the world looks completely normal - as shown in these pictures
Kamera: Nikon FM
Linse: Nikkor-S Auto 55mm f1.2 (1970)
Film: Rollei P&R 640 @ box speed
Kjemi: Rodinal (1:25 / 13:30 min. @ 20°C)
-Monday 26 February 2024: What an eventful day - so many things happening all at once - all of which deserves looking further into:
- US Air Force soldier Aaron Bushnell self-immolates in a shocking protest outside the Israeli embassy in Washington D.C and dies from his injuries.
- Palestinian prime minister Mohammad Shtayyeh (b. 1958) and his PA government resigns.
- Jordanian Air-Force airdrops humanitarian aid of food and other supplies in Gaza
- Last day of the ICJ hearing on the legality of Israeli occupation of West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.
- Final day for Israel to deliver their report to the ICJ in the South Africa vs. Israel genocide case on what measures they have been taking in order to prevent genocide - it was delivered just hours before the deadline.
While we try to digest the rapid bombardment of suddenly fast-forward development, news and unexpected flux - for a better understanding of the context, I want to share with you a worthwile broadcast which goes deeper into the history of Palestine, the PLO and the PA:
COLONIAL LAW AND THE ERASURE OF PALESTINE
by Chris Hedges (b. 1956), The Real News Network February 2, 2024 [See and listen here]
For a century, international law derived from British colonial rule has been premised on the non-existence of Palestinians as a people.
In Palestine, the law has been used as a tool of oppression to legitimize and advance the dispossession of the Palestinian people for more than a century. From the theft of Palestinian land by legal mechanisms to the non-recognition of Palestinians as a people with the inalienable right of self-determination, the law is yet another weapon wielded against the Palestinian people by Israel and its patrons. Activist, attorney, and Rutgers University professor Noura Erakat joins The Chris Hedges Report to discuss the use of lawfare against Palestine and her new book, Justice for Some: Law and the Question of Palestine.
Studio Production: Cameron Granadino
Post-Production: Adam Coley
TRANSCRIPT
The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.
Chris Hedges:
“Time and time again,” the human rights attorney, Noura Erakat (b. 1980), writes, “we see evidence of the laws assumed insignificance in the dispossession of Palestinians. Great Britain remained committed to establishing a Jewish national homeland and Palestine, despite its legal duties as the mandatory power to shepherd local Arab peoples to independence. The permanent mandates commission remained committed to the incorporation of the Balfour Declaration into the Mandate for Palestine in contravention of the covenant of the League of Nations, which in discussing the dispossession of the communities formally belonging to the Turkish empire, stated that the wishes of these communities must be a primary consideration.”
“The United Nations proposed a partition of Palestine without legal consultation and in disregard of the existing populations wellbeing and development, which the same covenant had declared to be a sacred trust of civilization. Zionist militias established Israel by force without regard to the partition plans stipulated borders.”
“The United Nations accepted Israel as a member despite the state’s violation of the non-discrimination clauses of the partition plan and of the UN’s own condition that Israel permit the return of forcibly displaced Palestinian refugees. The very origins of the Palestinian Israeli conflict,” Erakat continues, “suggests that it is characterized by outright lawlessness and yet few conflicts have been as defined by astute attention to law and legal controversy as this one.”
“Do Jews have a right to self-determination in a territory in which they did not reside but settled? Are Palestinians a nation with the right to self-determination or are they merely a heterogeneous polity of Arabs eligible for minority rights? Did the United Nations have the authority to propose partition in contravention of the will of the local population? Are the West Bank including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip occupied as a matter of law that is, are they recognized as such by law?”
Does Israel have the right in law to self-defense against the Palestinians living in the occupied territories? Do Palestinians have the right to use armed force against Israel? Is the root of Israel’s separation barrier built predominantly in the West Bank illegal? Is Israel an apartheid regime?
Joining me, discussing these issues examined in her book, Justice For Some: Law and The Question of Palestine, is the human rights attorney and assistant professor at Rutgers University, Noura Erakat (b. 1980).
You begin the book, I think making a crucial point, and that is that the entire legal system, and this predates the establishment of the state of Israel under the British mandate, is grounded in the denial of sovereignty to the Palestinian people. And I, as we said before I went on air, reminded me very much of the construction of the American legal system, another settler colonial project, basing it on Locke’s primacy of property. So you build a legal system on a distortion. And this was something that the British imposed. Let’s go back and look at that.
Noura Erakat:
Absolutely. And so I think that the invocation of John Locke (1632-1704) is very apt here. Specifically as we were discussing earlier, Locke theorizes the social contract as was later applied in the United States as a social contract for settlers only through the exclusion of indigenous peoples and their erasure. And here what you’re describing as the perversion and the denial of sovereignty to Palestinians is what I capture as a colonial erasure, the erasure of the juridical status of Palestinians as a international people with the right to self-determination. There was never a denial that there were people on these lands, but that there was an outright denial whether these people constituted a political community with the right to exercise self-determination, what we’re using interchangeably here with sovereignty, though I would caution that sovereignty has come to take on quite new meaning beyond just statehood and self-governance. But in so far as we’re discussing this particular moment, it’s the aftermath of the First World War.
And the British have basically promised Palestine to its native peoples and promised self-determination across the former Ottoman territory is what they describe as the area a mandate. They’ve also promised Palestine and designated it as a site of Jewish settlement as captured by the Balfour Declaration, which was approved by British Parliament in 1917. That later becomes the Preambular text for the Palestine mandate, which governs the regulation of this mandate territory. Now, in so doing, and this is why I examine the language of the Balfour Declaration, the declaration itself only recognizes Jews was having a right to self-determination when they designated as a site of settlement and recognizes the original inhabitants, but only describes them as having a right to civil and religious rights. So they have the right to practice their religion freely and to move about freely, but they do not have a right to political rights.
And that’s what I capture as the colonial erasure. Once the British do that, and now it’s incorporated in the Palestine mandate in 1921, it becomes, I suggest, not just British colonial prerogative as the mandatory power. It now becomes international law and policy by which the entire permanent mandate commission, which is overseeing the governance of all the mandates. Now remember the mandates are set up as being trusteeships that will be shepherded to self-determination. But as Timothy Mitchell points out, this was about the consent of the governed. That self-determination here only meant that the governed decided who would be their mandatory power. But this becomes an other way to continue French and British colonial penetration into the Middle East and North Africa without necessarily granting independence to these peoples who have to fight for their independence. But even within that construction, they set apart Palestine as a part of international law and policy.
They set it apart from the other class A mandates in saying unlike those mandates that are being shepherded to independents that have a provisional government, that are able to represent themselves, Palestine because of its designation as a side of Jewish settlement has to be now developed in another way. And so they suppress any form of Palestinian sovereignty and self-determination even in contravention of the League of Nations covenant, which regulates the mandate territories, the mandates themselves that says, for example, “You cannot contravene the wishes of the original inhabitants.” Well, obviously we know that the inhabitants rejected Zionism and wanted self-determination, that there should be some sort of self-government, but they wouldn’t allow representative self-government because if they did, that would contravene the Balfour Declaration.
And now the Balfour Declaration was part of the Palestine mandate, which was international law. The PMC resolves this in basically saying, “Why don’t we first prioritize the settlement of Jewish persons and then we’ll move on to resolve the issue of the rights of the original inhabitants?”
And this points out to something interesting, Chris, which is often I think we give too much credit to Britain and to this imperial access of having a plan, that they planned that there would be a Jewish state. And I don’t think so. I don’t think so. I think that they wanted to thwart self-determination in general and maintain Palestine as a site where they can continually justify their intervention and their colonial penetration in order to basically compete with the French in the MENA region as well as to justify their presence through some sort of colonial benevolence.
And what crystallizes later is why this becomes the demand. Now, the Zionist demand for a Jewish state is not something that they necessarily intended and why it becomes a blunder. This becomes a blunderous policy for them as we see in the aftermath of the Second World War, when the British leave and they give this to the United Nations and they say, “We don’t know what to do anymore. We can’t resolve this. We’ve made too many promises, we’ve created a bit of a Frankenstein here.” But all that to say is that it was through their 30 years of that mandatory authority that they create the conditions that basically make ripe Zionist militias to then establish a Jewish state themselves, a Zionist state with a solid Jewish demographic majority that is contingent on the removal and dispossession of the original Palestinian people.
Chris Hedges:
Well, at the inception, the Jews and Palestine who were a small minority were essentially seen as colonial administrators. And during the Arab Revolt, 37, 38, 39, the British were arming the Zionist militias as auxiliary units. You’re write, all of it backfired. But from the inception, and this was I think the underlying point of the Balfour administration, it was through the Jewish community that essentially they were going to maintain this colony. Isn’t that correct?
Noura Erakat:
Yeah, very interesting here. This is also part of a broader colonial trope that they wanted to protect the minority Jewish population as a religious population, and it’s under this kind of benevolent auspices that they can justify their own intervention, right? But they wanted, for example, to maintain direct access and build a railroad from Haifa to Baghdad as part of a broader British vision, that this wasn’t about creating a homeland for Jews, for the British as much as it was about achieving their policy as you’re describing. A few things about the Great Revolt. The Great Revolt is so significant, not only because here the British are arming the Jewish Yeshu, the Zionists and training them in this moment leaving arms to them. At the same time, Rashid Khalidi (b. 1948) points out to us that through the course of the Great Revolt, the British actually end up decimating 10% of the male adult population either through imprisonment, exile, or outright killing.
And so this makes the Palestinians, in fact, some 10 years later when now they’re facing off with the Zionist militias in the falling apart of the partition plan, unable to resist I think more forcefully. So that’s absolutely significant.
The second thing I’ll say about the Great Revolt is that it changed British policy that whereas the British refused to reexamine their commitment to Zionism between 1917 and 1936 in the aftermath of the Great Revolt because they realized that they could not resolve this forcefully, they could not partition Palestine as a matter of force, that the Palestinians refused that outcome, that it would have to be done by force. They actually revised their Zionist policy for the first time when they issue the white paper and they walk back that policy and now say that the future will be determined by a referendum and that there will somehow be an Arab federal state instead. Obviously, none of this comes to fruition, not least of which because the Second World War begins.
Chris Hedges:
And I just, as you point out in your book, the Arab Revolt was actually quite successful. I think they even occupied, as you say, Jerusalem for five days, huge parts of the country. And the British declared martial law and brought in, was it a hundred thousand or 200,000 British troops? So it required Draconian British military power, in essence to crush these aspirations. And then as you point out, left the Palestinians weakened. You had a Jewish brigade of course in World War II incorporated into the British Army, and then they pushed through the seizure of land, 78% of land 1948 when they created the state of Israel, which is an important part.
Noura Erakat:
Before you go there, Chris, I just want to point out this point about martial law significant in three ways, I should say. Number one, the martial law regime that the British apply during the Great Revolt in order to basically crush the Palestinian insurgency and uprising is something that they’re applying across their colonial geographies and their colonial holdings, whether it be in Malay, in Kenya, in India, this is a form of their suspending all civil rights in order to be able to exercise whatever they deem necessary for their national interests. And so the colonial legacy, here, I say that to just emphasize that as exceptional as many aspects of the Palestinian struggle for liberation are, that it’s actually quite common and emblematic of a broader colonial history. The second thing that I want to point out is that upon its establishment, Israel, one of the first act of the Knesset is to adopt Britain’s emergency regime, almost verbatim, almost verbatim, for the purpose of achieving its settler colonial ambitions.
Of course, they become sovereign over 78% of Palestinian lands, but those lands still belong to Palestinians. It takes 12 years until 1960 in four phase plan where now the state of Israel, no longer the Zionist militias, are now the state forces, are incrementally taking that land through a regime of immigration law, property law, and emergency rule of which the military law is central as it’s applied solely to the Palestinian population that remains, that eventually become citizens of the state as well.
And then the third thing that I’ll say about that martial law is that once they lift the martial law, in 1966, this is precisely what now they apply to the Palestinians and the West Bank in Gaza to continue that settler colonial expansion. So the legacy, this broad global legacy of martial rule in order to achieve their colonial ambitions becomes a central organizing technology of Israeli governance in order to fulfill its own settler colonial ambitions, both within what becomes Israel as well as in what we describe as the occupied territories in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip.
Chris Hedges:
So there were two key points I picked up from your book. One, this continuum between a legal system set up by the British settler Colonial project and the Israeli settler colonial project really almost seamless and premised on exactly the same point that the Palestinians have no sovereignty, the Palestinians, Golda Meir (1898-1978), I think said they don’t exist as a people. And so just the same legal tools that the British were using to dispossess and strip Palestinians of basic rights are no different from the tools that Israel uses. Is that correct?
Noura Erakat:
I’ll modify that slightly. And also, unfortunately, [inaudible 00:18:35] D. Muir says this in an interview with the International Herald Tribune where she says, “It’s not as if there was a land with a people that we dispossessed. It was a land without a people for a people without a land.” This is emphasizing that colonial erasure, Golda Meir, Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), Chaim Weizmann (1874-1952), Arthur Ruppin (1876-1943), all of these founding figures, Zionist figures understand full well there are Palestinians, they just do not recognize them as a political community.
There’s this continuing discourse of savagery, barbarism, lack of civilization, do not know how to rule themselves. It’s a colonial project. Zionism is very much a settler colonial project, which makes this revisionism that we’re seeing today, describing it as a national self-determination movement, or worse as the greatest form of anti-colonial revolt. So laughable because it is exalted, self exalted as a colonial project. The other thing I’ll just modify slightly is that insofar as the British were concerned, it wasn’t just that they were targeting Palestinians, they were also suppressing any form of national self-determination because of their imperial interest.
They wanted to stay there, they didn’t want to leave. But the infrastructure that they set up for us, this emergency infrastructure in particular is what Zionists adopt in Toto, almost verbatim, when the Israel establishes itself and they do so whereas when the British passed, they actually impose the martial law and the emergency regime on everyone. The Jewish Zionists as well as Palestinians, when Israel adopts it in the Knesset, it’s imposed on Palestinians only in order to continue now a specific form of dispossession. What the British do is engage in immigration, which is engage in a discriminatory form of immigration that just doesn’t regulate the immigration of Jewish settlers. And also a land regime where we’re seeing a tremendous sale of lands that’s also unregulated, not regulating the market properly so that Palestinians are not necessarily stripped forcefully what they’re stripped of as their political right, their political right to represent themselves, their political right to organize their political right to make decisions on what this looks like.
But not in the same way of once Israel is established. At that point, the law is retooled specifically to transform Palestinian lands into Israel lands. And once in the form of Israel lands, that’s just the cover because if you say Israel, that means that, oh, everybody who’s a citizen of Israel. But in fact, it’s a cover to say Jewish national lands in particular because upon its establishment in 1950 and 1952, Israel bifurcates Jewish nationality from Israeli citizenship. And this is key. This is key especially to those who discuss apartheid because Israel doesn’t become an apartheid regime for failing to establish a Palestinian state and truncating Zionist sovereignty across the 1949 Armistice lines or what we know as the 1967 lines. Israel is predicated on a discriminatory framework that bifurcates Jewish nationality through which all rights flow.
This is an extraterritorial right that promises any Jewish person within outside, who’s never even heard of the state, who might be born today, to land, to employment, to housing, to education, to governance in a way that will never become accessible even to the Palestinian inhabitants that never leave. 20% of Israel’s population are the Palestinians that stay through the 1948 war, but even they don’t have those same rights. They’re only entitled to Israeli citizenship. And there’s a two-tiered system, one of nationality and citizenship, and one of citizenship only, and citizenship only is a form of second class citizenship or a fifth pillar. And so this too is part of a legal edifice that defines the state and its establishment.
Chris Hedges:
In the book, you talk about the legal recourses that Palestinians, in particular the PLO, and what I found interesting is that while they didn’t achieve their ultimate objective, they often achieve secondary objectives that benefited the Palestinian people almost by default. Can you explain that?
Noura Erakat:
Well, you’re leaving it very open-ended because as you know, I divide the book into five critical junctures. Each of those junctures is really catalyzed by some sort of violent confrontation that becomes an opportunity to recalibrate the balance of power. And in each of these episodes, that relationship between power and law becomes formative in both defining how we understand the question of what becomes the question of Palestine as articulated by the United Nations in 1948, it suddenly becomes a question, and defines the meaning of law in particular. So what the Palestinians do, and those junctures are 1917, in the aftermath of the first World War, 1967, the 1967 war, 1973, the October 1973 war, 1987, the First Palestinian Intifada and 2000, the Second Palestinian Intifada, which also shapes and defines ongoing warfare to this day when Israel shifts from a policy of occupation to explicit warfare against the Palestinians who live under its occupation.
So I say that all to lay out the audience, that I’ll just focus on the juncture and the aftermath of the 1973 war. When I articulate in the book that this was really the apex of when the Palestinian Liberation Organization due to the law astutely to achieve its national ambitions. Now, this is also nuanced because at this time in 1973, the PLO as defined by its militia forces who take over the PLO in 1968, their goal is full liberation. They want to liberate all of Palestine. They have no ambitions for a state. There’s no articulation of that. This is a decolonization movement they want to liberate. They want to free the land. In the aftermath of the 1973 war, and specifically we see this very explicitly in ’74, we might see it earlier, but very explicitly in ’74, there is now a seed planted that envisions the establishment of a truncated Palestinian state as either the stepping stone of full liberation or the final solution.
We don’t see that question resolved until 1988 when the Palestinians now enter Oslo. So I’m just setting this up for the audience to be able to explain that even we say, what do Palestinians want? At this point there’s a lot of nuance. There’s an explicit agenda of full liberation, but there’s also now a latent agenda by some elements of the PLO led by Fatah, and I would say even a very conservative element of Fatah, not all of Fatah at this time. So now what? Okay, so in ’74, the Palestinians basically make their first foray into the United Nations. Their objective is actually not to enter the United Nations. They want to enter the Middle East peace process now being shepherded by the Soviet Union, but by primarily the United States, by Nixon, who’s both the Secretary of State and the head of the National Security Council, who in pursuance of Zionist goals as well as US national interest, disaggregates the Arab Israeli question, or the Arab Israeli conflict, I should say, into an Egyptian Israeli track, a Lebanese Israeli track, a Jordanian Israeli track, a Syrian Israeli track, and leaves out the Palestinians altogether.
What the PLO really wants is to be able to negotiate on behalf of themselves and not by proxy. Failure to be able to incorporate themselves into that negotiating process, now they set their sights on the United Nations, and that’s when they enter in ’74 to pass Resolution 3236 and 3237, which together both affirms their Juridical status as a people when it says that the PLO is the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people and not merely a [inaudible 00:28:23] of refugees in need of humanitarian assistance and establishes a corrective to Resolution 242, which doubles down on their erasure by describing them as refugees only, and establishes a quid pro quo arrangement whereby Israel will enjoy permanent peace in recognition for returning all of the territories. And so this is seen as an instrument of defeat. So that’s the first kind of what, I guess, one might describe as that’s not exactly what they wanted.
What they wanted was to enter into the negotiations. This is what they do, which is also very successful. That didn’t advance their cause as much. And in the summer of ’75, they decided that they wanted to expel Israel from the United Nations in the same way that the non-aligned movement had expelled South Africa and unseated it from the United Nations. But in their effort to do so, they were primarily blocked by Egypt under the leadership of Anwar El-Sadat (1918-1981), who saw that the only pathway forward was through some sort of US alliance in order to get the Sinai back to recoup the Sinai and wanted to continue negotiations with Israel. So actually stymied this initiative to unseat Israel from the United Nations. Instead, what the Palestinians do in the summer of ’75 at the International Women’s Conference, at the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, at the non-aligned movement, amongst the organization of African Union is basically a condemnation of Zionism as a form of racism and racial discrimination.
That wasn’t the primary goal, but that was the consensus. So they come back to the general assembly and now work to create one of the most significant, I think, legal achievements when they amend the decade against racism that was targeting apartheid in Namibia and South Africa to also include a condemnation of Zionism. And we get Resolution 3379 that declares that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination that would only be rescinded by the PLO itself in 1991. And so I would say that these are just a few examples of what… I think I’m responding to your question of perhaps what Palestinians had sought and what they do instead using these legal maneuvers. And obviously all of this entry of foray is also restricting the Palestinians themselves, but it’s a restriction that they welcome in order to advance their other goals.
Chris Hedges:
Let’s talk about Oslo. You opened that chapter quoting Edward Said (1935-2003), who calls it a Palestinian Versailles, and really, I think, you make a very persuasive argument that it destroys the PLO as an effective resistance organization.
Noura Erakat:
When I started this chapter, I really was starting it and interested in it as a legal scholar, and I thought to myself, one of the offerings that I can make is to explain to a non-specialist, what did Oslo do in order to permanently subjugate Palestinians? Because that’s what it is. Oslo is a sovereignty trap. It doesn’t promise, there’s never even a mention of the Palestinian state. None of its negotiating terms promises an eventual outcome of a Palestinian state. Palestinians don’t get anything. And so I wanted to explain that, how does Israel create this new administration under Oslo to regulate access to water, access to land, access to movement? How does Oslo set up all of these strictures? But when I read the actual documents, the Declaration of Principles, also known as Oslo 1, when you read Oslo 2, that sets up this jurisdictional regime of area A, B, and C, when you read why and Taba and so on, it’s so obvious how Palestinians are subjugated that I thought to myself, well, you don’t need to be a legal expert to have this takeaway, you just need to be literate.
So instead, I decide to answer a question I don’t know the answer to yet, which is why? Why would the PLO enter into something so obviously devastating and self-defeating. And in trying to answer that question, what becomes clearer to me anyway, is that this really is about salvaging the PLO, that that’s what was being done. The PLO after its expulsion from Lebanon in 1982 in removal to Tunisia, is now no longer has a solid base where it almost oversees, one would say the infrastructure of a para state with a significant refugee population within Lebanon that constitutes an entire institution of representation and services and functioning, and also it doesn’t have the grounds for cross border attacks. That’s a significant blow. By 1987, they continue to weaken, not least because of the emergence of opposition like Hamas, that now becomes even more popular than the PLO struggle, as well as the fact that now there’s an organic movement within the West Bank in Gaza that’s leading an Intifada, an uprising so that the center of gravity shifts from the Palestinian diaspora to Palestinian lands themselves.
And this is undermining the PLO’s authority together with the fact now by the time Arafat throws his hat in and supports Saddam Hussein’s occupation of Kuwait, which in retribution Gulf states, Kuwait, number one basically says Palestinians out. And now there’s a whole loss of remittances to the Palestinians, as well as the fact that anybody that wants to support Palestine is going to support opposition and not the PLO itself. So all of these things come together to basically shape a moment where the PLO was at the edge of irrelevance, at the edge of irrelevance. And entering into the negotiations, they had a very adept team at Madrid, Washington, that saw the writing on the wall [foreign language 00:35:33] are very clear in their legal analysis in mourning that Israel is basically offering the same thing that was offered in the 1978 Middle East peace process in the negotiation between Sadat and Begin leading up to the 1979 permanent Egyptian Israeli peace, which is an autonomy framework.
That’s all they’re offering. They offered the same thing in ’78. The only difference now when they’re offering it in the lead up to the adoption of the Declaration of principles is that they’re saying that Palestinians will not only be able to govern themselves on these different plot of lands, but can also govern certain plots of land, but only there. They still won’t be able to exercise jurisdiction. And instead of electing a local government to do it, they’ll allow the PLO to do it. Those are literally the only differences between ’78 and what we ultimately see in ’93. One of the interesting things about doing this work, Chris, and this research, is that the legal literature is dominated by Israeli scholars, especially on these questions. So part of the work that I was doing was also helping to create a Palestinian archive to advance these legal arguments.
And doing that meant that I interviewed the interlocutors that were there. I interviewed the negotiators themselves, so Camille Mansour (b. 1945), who was there and was a negotiator and is a legal scholar. It’s his words where he illuminates that if you lose Palestinian representation, we go back to being just no people anymore. We had to save the PLO in order to save our status as a juridical people. But in exchange for that recognition, we basically relinquished Palestine.
The rescindment of the 1975 resolution declaring Zionism is a form of racism, is emblematic. The amendment of the charter that says that Palestinians will no longer resort to armed force when Israel is not making similar concessions. It doesn’t say we’re not resorting to armed force. The recognition of Israel. Palestinians recognize Israel. There’s no mutual recognition of a Palestine. And so Palestinians basically see and surrender what should have remained on the table as part of their negotiating leverage as a condition for entering into Oslo, which becomes the trap that they remained frankly ensconed within. Although we obviously see many, many cracks and Oslo has been dead, even though many have tried to keep it up on stilts. But that’s what’s happening. That’s what people are celebrating in 1993, even though though Edward Said, Haidar Abdel-Shafi, Nabil Shaath, and many others recognized as an instrument of defeat, this Palestine, it’s done, Palestine has been lost. And even Hanan Ashrawi (b. 1946), Dr. Hahan Ashrawi, who recognizes what a loss this is, also agrees that it was still worthwhile because they didn’t want to relinquish the status of the PLO. And so people are not stupid.
This was a very logical decision. The PNC approves Oslo, approves the DOP. So this is also not necessarily just betrayal by the PLO, even though it is betrayal by the negotiating team in Oslo, which was the back channel secret negotiation, but the negotiators in Washington had no idea about. But just adding nuance here that there was a lot. The PLO in its own documentation says that they entered into Oslo and Dr. Nabil Shaath (b. 1938), who’s also one of my interlocutors, says, “We knew it was bad, but we entered on good faith.” And that faith obviously didn’t bear out for them. It didn’t do what they had hoped.
Chris Hedges:
There was a lot of corruption. I was in Gaza after Oslo and the PLO leadership were importing their duty free Mercedes and building villas. As you point out in the book, the PA (Palestinian Authority) spends most of its budget on internal security functioning in essence as a colonial police force, the hierarchy that’s willing to do that dirty work can live very well. But we’ve now reached a point, and of course in the elections in 2006, the PA lost, Hamas won even in the West Bank. So in many ways, I don’t know if you would agree, it’s nullified itself as a credible movement on behalf of the Palestinian people at this point. Would you agree?
Noura Erakat:
100%. I think that this is consensus amongst Palestinians, which is what’s so troubling that the PA, even according to Oslo, the PA is only meant to be an administrative body. It should deliver mail. It should pick up the trash. It should complete administrative functions. It was never appointed to lead the Palestinian liberation movement, which should have remained within the purview of the PLO. But we see a collapse of the PA in the PLO in a way that blurs these lines on the firsthand. And then instead what we see, it was supposed to have a temporary function until we moved into permanent status negotiations and the establishment of the Palestinian state. There’s never a mention of the Palestinian state, Chris. Even the negotiators themselves, Yitzhak Rabin (1922-1995) who is hailed as the peacemaker and assassinated for his willingness to enter into Oslo by an Israeli settler.
Even he says there will never be a Palestinian state. So this temporary arrangement should have only lasted for five years. Let alone now we’re above three decades, and the PA has been a very, very significant instrument part and parcel of Israel’s occupation regime. It is doing the work on behalf of Israel. It is coordinating security with Israel. It is arresting Palestinians. It is providing intelligence on where Palestinians are. It is actually entering into Palestinian public squares to beat Palestinians to suppress their protests, even now against the genocide in Gaza. Just think. Just think the fact that the public sector is bloated, but the primary part of the Palestinian public sector is the security sector. And that security sector is basically policing Palestinians to protect Israel settlement enterprises. I had said before, and I’m saying now again, that in contrast, there’s no dedication, for example, to invest in the agricultural sector.
Had the PA now collapsed with a PLO invested in an agricultural sector, it might’ve been able to create and cultivate an economy that can engage in boycott of Israeli goods even rather than be flooded with Israeli goods into the market. But this also goes hand in hand with the fact that the PLO has never even endorsed boycott. There’s still committed, even if it’s a state led, a truncated Palestinian state, to that structure at the expense of liberation. And why at the expense of liberation, because this is not inclusive of all Palestinians. It’s not inclusive of the Palestinian refugees. It’s certainly not inclusive of the Palestinians who are citizens of Israel, and it doesn’t have a vision of how is it that Palestinians are going to be free from Israeli dominance as opposed to what they’re banking on, which is an autonomy arrangement whereby they will forever receive certain incremental privileges from Israel and its patron, the United States, in exchange for being good natives.
And this is the trap that we remain in, and it puts Palestinians… It makes our struggles so much harder. And many people are asking, how is Gaza? And the West Bank too. I mean, obviously the West Bank is being subject to untold and unprecedented violence from the beginning of this year, but especially since early October. But Palestinians are not even able to mount a significant and a robust resistance to protect themselves because not only are they being attacked by Israel and their settler vigilantes who are being armed, but they’re also being attacked and policed by the Palestinian authority.
Chris Hedges:
You compare the PLO to the Namibians and you make some, I think, really important points about how they were far more astute. They rejected the South African peace process as an alternative. SWAPO refused to enter South Africa’s exclusive sphere of influence and maintain an adversarial position, unlike the PLO, which has committed to US mediated bilateral talks for 25 years, SWAPO never relinquished its right to the use of force, and it never ceased its armed struggle. Talk about the difference because they were far more successful. And then of course you had Cuban troops stationed in Angola.
Noura Erakat:
I bring up Namibia in the conclusion because there is, especially in the realm of Palestine, and we see this now because of the South Africa application at the ICJ, there is a way because of the failure of politics really, and a failure of a Palestinian leadership to articulate some sort of a political program and a resistance vision. And resistance here, I mean robustly like diplomatic resistance, economic resistance, popular resistance, cultural resistance, delegitimizing, a Zionist colonial project. Nothing. There’s nothing. And in the absence of that, unfortunately, human rights and rights-based programs have taken up an inordinate amount of space in a way that even supplants the language of politics that now Palestinian politics are hollowed out instead with principles of law, which is detrimental, is detrimental because the law is only a tool. That very same law like human rights law that Palestinians use to assert their right to family and their right to not be harmed.
Settlers in the West Bank are invoking that same body of law to say that it’s their human right to maintain these lands and to be protected and to be free of Israeli state violence. The law will set up a battleground only, but that can only be resolved through politics. And so I bring that to the fore to say, because so many people bring up Namibia as an example of a very astute use of the law. Here it is. Namibia waged a multi-year legal battle where they incrementally scaffolded a legal argument at the ICJ in order to demonstrate firstly and foremost the illegitimacy of South Africa as a mandatory power and a governing power in Namibia and South Africa. And then scaffolding on top of that other rights of their right to self-determination and so on and so forth. But it’s not because of this robust jurisprudence that the Namibians ultimately gain independence. That’s necessary.
That was strategic. That helped build a language to use. It helped cultivate international support. But ultimately it wasn’t a legal decision. South Africans don’t leave Namibia because the court said so, they could care less. Ultimately why they leave is because you have Cuban forces who are fighting alongside, who are in Angola that the US wants out of Angola. This becomes a proxy for the US and the Soviet Union and Cuba being involved, and part of that negotiation of withdrawal includes withdrawal from Namibia. So there are other things happening where this influences the United States and shifts its position on apartheid as well. But the Namibians, as you point out in and as I point out in the book, are also very astute. They never enter into a South African sphere of influence. They’re offered the same thing that Palestinians are offered in the form of black homelands and autonomous governance.
They reject that. They never rescind their right and to use armed force, which is enshrined as a result of the non-aligned movement, enshrined as a right for people living under alien occupation, racism and domination. So that matters too. Now, I say all that to say to the credit of the Palestinians that this environment in which Namibia is maneuvering or Namibians are maneuvering, excuse me, doesn’t exist by the time the Palestinians are entering into Oslo. In fact, we’re seeing Namibian and South African independence. Mandela has been released. We’re seeing the fall of apartheid. We see the fall of the Soviet Union. We see the emergence of a unipolar world. So this balance of power that really did enable a different kind of liberation struggle for Namibians is not available to the Palestinians at the time. And so we can sit here retrospectively and say, “Well, nothing could have been worse than what they’ve done now.”
But all of this is conjecture, obviously. I’m less concerned about the trap that Palestinians enter into based on this balance of power based on the political considerations. I’m more concerned that they haven’t shifted course and policy when it was clear. If you didn’t know the day of like Abdel-Shafi and Said than others, you certainly knew by 2000 when the Camp David agreement collapses. Now it’s over. [inaudible 00:51:44] is besieged and killed. That’s it. There’s no excuse. Because I want to give some benefit of the doubt that they thought they couldn’t get anything better. Fine. But by 2000, you knew that this was a dead end. So there’s absolutely no explanation why Palestinians would stay in that arrangement since 2000 through 2023, a quarter of a century, knowing full well, there’s no way out.
Chris Hedges:
Well, Palestinian Street. The average Palestinian has walked away from it. They walked away from it a long time ago.
Noura Erakat:
Even in this moment, the Palestinian liberation struggle’s not being led by an official Palestinian leadership, which makes this moment even more profound, that we’re Palestinian Diaspora, Palestinians on the ground. Everybody has been coordinating and working without a centralized governance system, certainly without any means and funding, and yet has been able to mobilize in a decentralized fashion.
The Boycott National Committee establishes itself in 2005, launches an international boycott divestment in sanctions movement. This is civil society. It has nothing to do with the Palestinian leadership. The way that Palestinians bring back a condemnation of Zionism, which we see first in the Durban Conference in 2001. The review conference of the decade against racism happens in Durban, South Africa in 2001, where Palestinians raise the banner and say, “Israel’s an apartheid regime, and Zionism is racism once again.” Palestinians have never relinquished that front, and we even see it in the realm of knowledge production where scholars have reconstructed very robustly, not only making clear that Israel is a settler colonial project, but that there’s an entire realm of Palestinian indigenous studies of tradition, of economy, of belonging, of family, all sorts of tradition of land use, of sea technology that could be studied, which brings us into 2024.
The reason we remain alive as a people is because the people have insisted that we are here.
Chris Hedges:
I want to close by talking about the resistance. That was more than a hundred days of saturation, bombing of Gaza, destruction of every form of infrastructure that can sustain existence from wells to hospitals, to bakeries to schools, horrific numbers of dead. I was in Sarajevo during the war, which was awful, three to 400 shells a day, four to five dead a day, two dozen wounded a day. I only say that as a comparison to Gaza, where hundreds of people are being wounded and killed a day just to point out the scale. And yet, US intelligence estimates that only 20 to 30% of resistance or fighters, Hamas fighters, have been killed. It’s becoming clear that if Israel does not achieve its goal, which I don’t see how it will of eradicating Hamas, and Hamas and the resistance survives, which I feel it will then in any way, the Palestinians win.
And however horrific Gaza becomes other than the Yemenis, the Houthis, nobody is intervening to halt this genocide despite all the legal bodies we have at the UN and everywhere else. But talk about the resistance and whether I know how I knew one of the founders of Hamas, Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi (1947-2004) was in his house with him and his family. His wife was just killed on October 19th. And not by the way, the demonized image of a leader of Hamas. He was a pediatrician, highly educated, graduated first in his class from the University of Alexandria, very soft-spoken, brilliant figure, assassinated in 2004 along with one of his sons. Let’s talk about the resistance. And so whether you embrace the ideology of Hamas or not, for me, is irrelevant. I think it’s been amazingly successful.
Noura Erakat:
Well, I want to nuance this in many ways. I want to nuance this by having a lot of mixed feelings about strategy and moving forward. And I want to emphasize here, I think, and I understand, I understand this idea of that if they’re not defeated, they win, which is a tenant of asymmetric warfare and guerilla combat. But I can’t do that with ease, given the magnitude of loss and given just how painful it’s been.
Images that I saw last night are still ravaging me inside of what are we going to tell these kids who have suffered so much? 355,000 children because of dehydration are at risk of permanent, cognitive, under development and stunting, right? So it’s hard for me, Chris, as much as if they’re not defeated, obviously I don’t want them to be defeated. And what people don’t understand when they say that is because surrender doesn’t bring us back to an ordinary life, which is normally what war looks like. You fight, you fight, you fight, you fight, and then one party surrenders because then you just go back to ordinary life. Palestinians don’t go back to an ordinary life. So surrender is not an option. At the same time, I want to take time to mourn. Palestinians have not had time to mourn. There is such deep devastation that’s generational, that’s traumatic, that’s social, that’s political that I want to honor and hold here. And it’s very painful. It’s just very, very painful.
And I don’t know what we do. I don’t know what we do because not only are we holding onto that pain, but now we have in Israel a society that is not just quasi okay with an apartheid racist regime. They have literally become avid supporters of genocide as a matter of rights. They’re fascists, society, media, children are taunting their elders, their principal for expressing empathy for Palestinians. For me, I paused to say, what is the victory here when now we have to deal with a society? What is the exit plan? How do you defeat fascism in a world where it’s being nurtured by Germany and the United States and Britain and Canada? They’re applauding them. And so where is the accountability here? So I just countenance the language of victory, to be honest, and I know that puts me at odds and probably deflates a lot of people who want to hear something else, and I just want to ground this in something else of what it means that Israel cannot decimate Hamas military.
They cannot. There is no military solution. There is no military solution. They cannot decimate Hamas. They haven’t. Hamas is still firing rockets from the middle of Gaza City. As you point out, they’ve not even decimated half of their militants in the Gaza Strip. They’ve not turned the Palestinians against Hamas, which was part of their military objective. If anything, they’ve made Hamas more popular and robust, not only amongst Palestinians, across the air world and the world in general. And they’re not any closer to retrieving their captive, their captive military personnel or rescuing their civilian hostages, which they were only able to retrieve and return through diplomatic negotiations. Someone has to ask, how can you justify the 11th most significant military in the world? Be trust by US intelligence, with advanced weapons technology that has had no red lines for over a hundred days, that has not even come close to achieving any of its military objectives, but has certainly destroyed Palestinian life, conditions of life that’s promising devastation into the future.
We have to agree that anybody who’s now supporting this is outright supporting a terroristic program that’s basically targeting Palestinian civilians, as put by Professor [inaudible 01:01:51], Palestinian civilians are clearly the military objectives. Hamas is the collateral damage.
So I think that we have to use this to agree that there is no way out, but that the road ahead is what we absolutely need to keep our eyes on. For me, victory is liberation. Victory is a world where Palestinians are recognized as having human life that is sacred and worthy of protection and deserving of self-defense, which Palestinians have asserted over and over and refused to relinquish. I cannot believe this is in controversy.
And so insofar as the cessation, for me, first and foremost, the cessation of hostilities is necessary just to end the genocide. And then insofar as it demonstrates there’s no military solution and exposes that Zionism is predicated on just a genocidal program that’s an ongoing Nakba in their own words, Avi Dichter (b. 1952) said it clearly, “This is Gaza.” Gaza Nakba 2023. They’ve equated their peace and security to genocide and ethnic cleansing. In so far as it illuminates that in order to get us to the threshold that it’s not controversial, that it’s not controversial, that Palestinians deserve life.
Chris Hedges:
Thank you. That was Noura Erakat, human rights attorney and assistant professor at Rutgers University. I want to thank the Real News Network and his production team, Cameron Granadino, Adam Coley, David Hebden, and Kayla Rivara. You can find me at chrishedges.substack.com.
This article first appeared on The Real News Network and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
Yugoslavia was a country in Southeastern and Central Europe for most of the 20th century. It came into existence after World War I in 1918 under the name of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes by the merger of the provisional State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs (it was formed from territories of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire) with the Kingdom of Serbia, and constituted the first union of the South Slavic people as a sovereign state, following centuries in which the region had been part of the Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary. Peter I of Serbia was its first sovereign. The kingdom gained international recognition on 13 July 1922 at the Conference of Ambassadors in Paris. The official name of the state was changed to Kingdom of Yugoslavia on 3 October 1929.
Yugoslavia was invaded by the Axis powers on 6 April 1941. In 1943, a Democratic Federal Yugoslavia was proclaimed by the Partisan resistance. In 1944 King Peter II, then living in exile, recognised it as the legitimate government. The monarchy was subsequently abolished in November 1945. Yugoslavia was renamed the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia in 1946, when a communist government was established. It acquired the territories of Istria, Rijeka, and Zadar from Italy. Partisan leader Josip Broz Tito ruled the country as president until his death in 1980. In 1963, the country was renamed again, as the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY).
The six constituent republics that made up the SFRY were the SR Bosnia and Herzegovina, SR Croatia, SR Macedonia, SR Montenegro, SR Serbia, and SR Slovenia. Serbia contained two Socialist Autonomous Provinces, Vojvodina and Kosovo, which after 1974 were largely equal to the other members of the federation. After an economic and political crisis in the 1980s and the rise of nationalism, Yugoslavia broke up along its republics' borders, at first into five countries, leading to the Yugoslav Wars. From 1993 to 2017, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia tried political and military leaders from the former Yugoslavia for war crimes, genocide, and other crimes committed during those wars.
After the breakup, the republics of Montenegro and Serbia formed a reduced federative state, Serbia and Montenegro, known officially until 2003 as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). This state aspired to the status of sole legal successor to the SFRY, but those claims were opposed by the other former republics. Eventually, it accepted the opinion of the Badinter Arbitration Committee about shared succession and in 2003 its official name was changed to Serbia and Montenegro. This state dissolved when Montenegro and Serbia each became independent states in 2006, while Kosovo proclaimed its independence from Serbia in 2008.
-------------------------------
s136a 7750 EncJu1962 Grbovi i zastave Zagreb MCMLXII 5 Jugos-Mak Enciklopedija Jugoslavije Izdanje i naklada Leksikografskog zavoda FNRJ
Socijalistička Federativna Republika Jugoslavija (SFRJ; skraćeno Jugoslavija; također poznata i kao "Druga Jugoslavija") bila je država nastala 29. novembra 1943. na drugom zasjedanju AVNOJ-a u Jajcu kao zajednica 5 naroda i 6 republika, sa prvobitnim imenom Demokratska Federativna Jugoslavija (DFJ). To je ime promijenjeno 29. novembra 1945. na trećem zasjedanju AVNOJ-a u Beogradu u Federativna Narodna Republika Jugoslavija (FNRJ), da bi konačno 7. aprila 1963. dobila ime Socijalistička Federativna Republika Jugoslavija (SFRJ). Bila je jedna od osnivača Ujedinjenih nacija i Pokreta nesvrstanih.
SFRJ je bila nasljednica Kraljevine Jugoslavije (1918-41). Prestala je postojati 1992. godine osamostaljivanjem Slovenije, Hrvatske i Makedonije (1991), zatim i Bosne i Hercegovine (1992) iz federacije. Preostale republike, Srbija i Crna Gora, formirale su novu zajednicu; prvo u aprilu 1992. SR Jugoslaviju, potom 2003. državnu zajednicu Srbija i Crna Gora, a na referendumu 21. maja 2006. godine Crna Gora je istupila iz državne zajednice, stvorivši samostalnu republiku. Kosovo se 2008. godine odvojilo od Srbije proglašavanjem nezavisnosti.
Exploring the idea of existence on the astral plane. A space that is reached through meditation, lucid dreaming, or astral projection.
This is a vision experienced while experimenting with sensory deprivation and astral projection.
View more about this project here.
light is a rainbow
it hides seven colours
to bring life to our existence
life is a rainbow
it hides seven senses
to help us reach out
to the light of existence
john tiong chunghoo
As some of you know, one of my hobbies is paranormal investigation. My aim is to find strong evidence of the existence of life after death. I have used all sorts of kit, some useful and some not so useful. In an attempt to find a good way to communicate, I have made a compass Ouija. I got the idea when I was at an investigation at Anne of Cleeves house in Lewes. In one room, we appeared to be talking to a ship's captain. In another room, we appeared to be talking to someone who was rather freaked out by our electronic gadgetry, with its flashing LEDs. I wanted to design something that wouldn't look intimidating to someone from a pre-electronic age, that stood some chance of being manipulable, was capable of capturing language-based communication and that was as immune to human influence as possible. So, this. It is built on the principle that "spirits" appear to find it difficult to move physical objects, but can make changes to electromagnetic fields (such as setting off EMF meters). So, they should also be able to manipulate a compass needle, by the same principle. I finally found a large enough compass to be able to see and give us room for manoeuvre. I also needed something that could be sealed, to avoid breeze (this has a clear lid). I will be debuting it on Saturday, so will report back on whether it works. In spite of its size, I am dubious about whether movements will be precise enough to use the letters and numbers, but let's see. I always have the "Yes", "No" responses to fall back on.
This was calm room. And, there was nothing but this plant.
But, something existed there.
静かな部屋。
真ん中の存在感はたっぷりだけど。この部屋は本当は人がいなくて寂しいんじゃないかと思ったり。
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on authentic facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The РТАК-30 attack vintoplan (also known as vintokryl) owed its existence to the Mil Mi-30 plane/helicopter project that originated in 1972. The Mil Mi-30 was conceived as a transport aircraft that could hold up to 19 passengers or two tons of cargo, and its purpose was to replace the Mi-8 and Mi-17 Helicopters in both civil and military roles. With vertical takeoff through a pair of tiltrotor engine pods on the wing tips (similar in layout to the later V-22 Osprey) and the ability to fly like a normal plane, the Mil Mi-30 had a clear advantage over the older models.
Since the vintoplan concept was a completely new field of research and engineering, a dedicated design bureau was installed in the mid-Seventies at the Rostov-na-Donu helicopter factory, where most helicopters from the Mil design bureau were produced, under the title Ростов Тилт Ротор Авиационная Компания (Rostov Tilt Rotor Aircraft Company), or РТАК (RTRA), for short.
The vintoplan project lingered for some time, with basic research being conducted concerning aerodynamics, rotor design and flight control systems. Many findings later found their way into conventional planes and helicopters. At the beginning of the 1980s, the project had progressed far enough that the vintoplan received official backing so that РТАК scientists and Mil helicopter engineers assembled and tested several layouts and components for this complicated aircraft type.
At that time the Mil Mi-30 vintoplan was expected to use a single TV3-117 Turbo Shaft Engine with a four-bladed propeller rotors on each of its two pairs of stub wings of almost equal span. The engine was still installed in the fuselage and the proprotors driven by long shafts.
However, while being a very clean design, this original layout revealed several problems concerning aeroelasticity, dynamics of construction, characteristics for the converter apparatuses, aerodynamics and flight dynamics. In the course of further development stages and attempts to rectify the technical issues, the vintoplan layout went through several revisions. The layout shifted consequently from having 4 smaller engines in rotating pods on two pairs of stub wings through three engines with rotating nacelles on the front wings and a fixed, horizontal rotor over the tail and finally back to only 2 engines (much like the initial concept), but this time mounted in rotating nacelles on the wing tips and a canard stabilizer layout.
In August 1981 the Commission of the Presidium of the USSR Council of Ministers on weapons eventually issued a decree on the development of a flyworthy Mil Mi-30 vintoplan prototype. Shortly afterwards the military approved of the vintoplan, too, but desired bigger, more powerful engines in order to improve performance and weight capacity. In the course of the ensuing project refinement, the weight capacity was raised to 3-5 tons and the passenger limit to 32. In parallel, the modified type was also foreseen for civil operations as a short range feederliner, potentially replacing Yak-40 and An-24 airliners in Aeroflot service.
In 1982, РТАК took the interest from the military and proposed a dedicated attack vintoplan, based on former research and existing components of the original transport variant. This project was accepted by MAP and received the separate designation РТАК-30. However, despite having some close technical relations to the Mi-30 transport (primarily the engine nacelles, their rotation mechanism and the flight control systems), the РТАК-30 was a completely different aircraft. The timing was good, though, and the proposal was met with much interest, since the innovative vintoplan concept was to compete against traditional helicopters: the design work on the dedicated Mi-28 and Ka-50 attack helicopters had just started at that time, too, so that РТАК received green lights for the construction of five prototypes: four flyworthy machines plus one more for static ground tests.
The РТАК-30 was based on one of the early Mi-30 layouts and it combined two pairs of mid-set wings with different wing spans with a tall tail fin that ensured directional stability. Each wing carried a rotating engine nacelle with a so-called proprotor on its tip, each with three high aspect ratio blades. The proprotors were handed (i.e. revolved in opposite directions) in order to minimize torque effects and improve handling, esp. in the hover. The front and back pair of engines were cross-linked among each other on a common driveshaft, eliminating engine-out asymmetric thrust problems during V/STOL operations. In the event of the failure of one engine, it would automatically disconnect through torque spring clutches and both propellers on a pair of wings would be driven by the remaining engine.
Four engines were chosen because, despite the weight and complexity penalty, this extra power was expected to be required in order to achieve a performance that was markedly superior to a conventional helicopter like the Mi-24, the primary Soviet attack helicopter of that era the РТАК-30 was supposed to replace. It was also expected that the rotating nacelles could also be used to improve agility in level flight through a mild form of vectored thrust.
The РТАК-30’s streamlined fuselage provided ample space for avionics, fuel, a fully retractable tricycle landing gear and a two man crew in an armored side-by-side cockpit with ejection seats. The windshield was able to withstand 12.7–14.5 mm caliber bullets, the titanium cockpit tub could take hits from 20 mm cannon. An autonomous power unit (APU) was housed in the fuselage, too, making operations of the aircraft independent from ground support.
While the РТАК-30 was not intended for use as a transport, the fuselage was spacious enough to have a small compartment between the front wings spars, capable of carrying up to three people. The purpose of this was the rescue of downed helicopter crews, as a cargo hold esp. for transfer flights and as additional space for future mission equipment or extra fuel.
In vertical flight, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotor system used controls very similar to a twin or tandem-rotor helicopter. Yaw was controlled by tilting its rotors in opposite directions. Roll was provided through differential power or thrust, supported by ailerons on the rear wings. Pitch was provided through rotor cyclic or nacelle tilt and further aerodynamic surfaces on both pairs of wings. Vertical motion was controlled with conventional rotor blade pitch and a control similar to a fixed-wing engine control called a thrust control lever (TCL). The rotor heads had elastomeric bearings and the proprotor blades were made from composite materials, which could sustain 30 mm shells.
The РТАК-30 featured a helmet-mounted display for the pilot, a very modern development at its time. The pilot designated targets for the navigator/weapons officer, who proceeded to fire the weapons required to fulfill that particular task. The integrated surveillance and fire control system had two optical channels providing wide and narrow fields of view, a narrow-field-of-view optical television channel, and a laser rangefinder. The system could move within 110 degrees in azimuth and from +13 to −40 degrees in elevation and was placed in a spherical dome on top of the fuselage, just behind the cockpit.
The aircraft carried one automatic 2A42 30 mm internal gun, mounted semi-rigidly fixed near the center of the fuselage, movable only slightly in elevation and azimuth. The arrangement was also regarded as being more practical than a classic free-turning turret mount for the aircraft’s considerably higher flight speed than a normal helicopter. As a side effect, the semi-rigid mounting improved the cannon's accuracy, giving the 30 mm a longer practical range and better hit ratio at medium ranges. Ammunition supply was 460 rounds, with separate compartments for high-fragmentation, explosive incendiary, or armor-piercing rounds. The type of ammunition could be selected by the pilot during flight.
The gunner can select one of two rates of full automatic fire, low at 200 to 300 rds/min and high at 550 to 800 rds/min. The effective range when engaging ground targets such as light armored vehicles is 1,500 m, while soft-skinned targets can be engaged out to 4,000 m. Air targets can be engaged flying at low altitudes of up to 2,000 m and up to a slant range of 2,500 m.
A substantial range of weapons could be carried on four hardpoints under the front wings, plus three more under the fuselage, for a total ordnance of up to 2,500 kg (with reduced internal fuel). The РТАК-30‘s main armament comprised up to 24 laser-guided Vikhr missiles with a maximum range of some 8 km. These tube-launched missiles could be used against ground and aerial targets. A search and tracking radar was housed in a thimble radome on the РТАК-30’s nose and their laser guidance system (mounted in a separate turret under the radome) was reported to be virtually jam-proof. The system furthermore featured automatic guidance to the target, enabling evasive action immediately after missile launch. Alternatively, the system was also compatible with Ataka laser-guided anti-tank missiles.
Other weapon options included laser- or TV-guided Kh-25 missiles as well as iron bombs and napalm tanks of up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) caliber and several rocket pods, including the S-13 and S-8 rockets. The "dumb" rocket pods could be upgraded to laser guidance with the proposed Ugroza system. Against helicopters and aircraft the РТАК-30 could carry up to four R-60 and/or R-73 IR-guided AAMs. Drop tanks and gun pods could be carried, too.
When the РТАК-30's proprotors were perpendicular to the motion in the high-speed portions of the flight regime, the aircraft demonstrated a relatively high maximum speed: over 300 knots/560 km/h top speed were achieved during state acceptance trials in 1987, as well as sustained cruise speeds of 250 knots/460 km/h, which was almost twice as fast as a conventional helicopter. Furthermore, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotors and stub wings provided the aircraft with a substantially greater cruise altitude capability than conventional helicopters: during the prototypes’ tests the machines easily reached 6,000 m / 20,000 ft or more, whereas helicopters typically do not exceed 3,000 m / 10,000 ft altitude.
Flight tests in general and flight control system refinement in specific lasted until late 1988, and while the vintoplan concept proved to be sound, the technical and practical problems persisted. The aircraft was complex and heavy, and pilots found the machine to be hazardous to land, due to its low ground clearance. Due to structural limits the machine could also never be brought to its expected agility limits
During that time the Soviet Union’s internal tensions rose and more and more hampered the РТАК-30’s development. During this time, two of the prototypes were lost (the 1st and 4th machine) in accidents, and in 1989 only two machines were left in flightworthy condition (the 5th airframe had been set aside for structural ground tests). Nevertheless, the РТАК-30 made its public debut at the Paris Air Show in June 1989 (the 3rd prototype, coded “33 Yellow”), together with the Mi-28A, but was only shown in static display and did not take part in any flight show. After that, the aircraft received the NATO ASCC code "Hemlock" and caused serious concern in Western military headquarters, since the РТАК-30 had the potential to dominate the European battlefield.
And this was just about to happen: Despite the РТАК-30’s development problems, the innovative attack vintoplan was included in the Soviet Union’s 5-year plan for 1989-1995, and the vehicle was eventually expected to enter service in 1996. However, due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dwindling economics, neither the РТАК-30 nor its civil Mil Mi-30 sister did soar out in the new age of technology. In 1990 the whole program was stopped and both surviving РТАК-30 prototypes were mothballed – one (the 3rd prototype) was disassembled and its components brought to the Rostov-na-Donu Mil plant, while the other, prototype No. 1, is rumored to be stored at the Central Russian Air Force Museum in Monino, to be restored to a public exhibition piece some day.
General characteristics:
Crew: Two (pilot, copilot/WSO) plus space for up to three passengers or cargo
Length: 45 ft 7 1/2 in (13,93 m)
Rotor diameter: 20 ft 9 in (6,33 m)
Wingspan incl. engine nacelles: 42 ft 8 1/4 in (13,03 m)
Total width with rotors: 58 ft 8 1/2 in (17,93 m)
Height: 17 ft (5,18 m) at top of tailfin
Disc area: 4x 297 ft² (27,65 m²)
Wing area: 342.2 ft² (36,72 m²)
Empty weight: 8,500 kg (18,740 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 12,000 kg (26,500 lb)
Powerplant:
4× Klimov VK-2500PS-03 turboshaft turbines, 2,400 hp (1.765 kW) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 275 knots (509 km/h, 316 mph) at sea level
305 kn (565 km/h; 351 mph) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)
Cruise speed: 241 kn (277 mph, 446 km/h) at sea level
Stall speed: 110 kn (126 mph, 204 km/h) in airplane mode
Range: 879 nmi (1,011 mi, 1,627 km)
Combat radius: 390 nmi (426 mi, 722 km)
Ferry range: 1,940 nmi (2,230 mi, 3,590 km) with auxiliary external fuel tanks
Service ceiling: 25,000 ft (7,620 m)
Rate of climb: 2,320–4,000 ft/min (11.8 m/s)
Glide ratio: 4.5:1
Disc loading: 20.9 lb/ft² at 47,500 lb GW (102.23 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.259 hp/lb (427 W/kg)
Armament:
1× 30 mm (1.18 in) 2A42 multi-purpose autocannon with 450 rounds
7 external hardpoints for a maximum ordnance of 2.500 kg (5.500 lb)
The kit and its assembly:
This exotic, fictional aircraft-thing is a contribution to the “The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com in early 2019. While the propulsion system itself is not that unconventional, I deemed the quadrocopter concept (which had already been on my agenda for a while) to be suitable for a worthy submission.
The Mil Mi-30 tiltrotor aircraft, mentioned in the background above, was a real project – but my alternative combat vintoplan design is purely speculative.
I had already stashed away some donor parts, primarily two sets of tiltrotor backpacks for 1:144 Gundam mecha from Bandai, which had been released recently. While these looked a little toy-like, these parts had the charm of coming with handed propellers and stub wings that would allow the engine nacelles to swivel.
The search for a suitable fuselage turned out to be a more complex safari than expected. My initial choice was the spoofy Italeri Mi-28 kit (I initially wanted a staggered tandem cockpit), but it turned out to be much too big for what I wanted to achieve. Then I tested a “real” Mi-28 (Dragon) and a Ka-50 (Italeri), but both failed for different reasons – the Mi-28 was too slender, while the Ka-50 had the right size – but converting it for my build would have been VERY complicated, because the engine nacelles would have to go and the fuselage shape between the cockpit and the fuselage section around the original engines and stub wings would be hard to adapt. I eventually bought an Italeri Ka-52 two-seater as fuselage donor.
In order to mount the four engines to the fuselage I’d need two pairs of wings of appropriate span – and I found a pair of 1:100 A-10 wings as well as the wings from an 1:72 PZL Iskra (not perfect, but the most suitable donor parts I could find in the junkyard). On the tips of these wings, the swiveling joints for the engine nacelles from the Bandai set were glued. While mounting the rear wings was not too difficult (just the Ka-52’s OOB stabilizers had to go), the front pair of wings was more complex. The reason: the Ka-52’s engines had to go and their attachment points, which are actually shallow recesses on the kit, had to be faired over first. Instead of filling everything with putty I decided to cover the areas with 0.5mm styrene sheet first, and then do cosmetic PSR work. This worked quite well and also included a cover for the Ka-52’s original rotor mast mount. Onto these new flanks the pair of front wings was attached, in a mid position – a conceptual mistake…
The cockpit was taken OOB and the aircraft’s nose received an additional thimble radome, reminiscent of the Mi-28’s arrangement. The radome itself was created from a German 500 kg WWII bomb.
At this stage, the mid-wing mistake reared its ugly head – it had two painful consequences which I had not fully thought through. Problem #1: the engine nacelles turned out to be too long. When rotated into a vertical position, they’d potentially hit the ground! Furthermore, the ground clearance was very low – and I decided to skip the Ka-52’s OOB landing gear in favor of a heavier and esp. longer alternative, a full landing gear set from an Italeri MiG-37 “Ferret E” stealth fighter, which itself resembles a MiG-23/27 landing gear. Due to the expected higher speeds of the vintoplan I gave the landing gear full covers (partly scratched, plus some donor parts from an Academy MiG-27). It took some trials to get the new landing gear into the right position and a suitable stance – but it worked. With this benchmark I was also able to modify the engine nacelles, shortening their rear ends. They were still very (too!) close to the ground, but at least the model would not sit on them!
However, the more complete the model became, the more design flaws turned up. Another mistake is that the front and rear rotors slightly overlap when in vertical position – something that would be unthinkable in real life…
With all major components in place, however, detail work could proceed. This included the completion of the cockpit and the sensor turrets, the Ka-52 cannon and finally the ordnance. Due to the large rotors, any armament had to be concentrated around the fuselage, outside of the propeller discs. For this reason (and in order to prevent the rear engines to ingest exhaust gases from the front engines in level flight), I gave the front wings a slightly larger span, so that four underwing pylons could be fitted, plus a pair of underfuselage hardpoints.
The ordnance was puzzled together from the Italeri Ka-52 and from an ESCI Ka-34 (the fake Ka-50) kit.
Painting and markings:
With such an exotic aircraft, I rather wanted a conservative livery and opted for a typical Soviet tactical four-tone scheme from the Eighties – the idea was to build a prototype aircraft from the state acceptance trials period, not a flashy demonstrator. The scheme and the (guesstimated) colors were transferred from a Soviet air force MiG-21bis of that era, and it consists of a reddish light brown (Humbrol 119, Light Earth), a light, yellowish green (Humbrol 159, Khaki Drab), a bluish dark green (Humbrol 195, Dark Satin Green, a.k.a. RAL 6020 Chromdioxidgrün) and a dark brown (Humbrol 170, Brown Bess). For the undersides’ typical bluish grey I chose Humbrol 145 (FS 35237, Gray Blue), which is slightly lighter and less greenish than the typical Soviet tones. A light black ink wash was applied and some light post-shading was done in order to create panels that are structurally not there, augmented by some pencil lines.
The cockpit became light blue (Humbrol 89), with medium gray dashboard and consoles. The ejection seats received bright yellow seatbelts and bright blue pads – a detail seen on a Mi-28 cockpit picture.
Some dielectric fairings like the fin tip were painted in bright medium green (Humbrol 101), while some other antenna fairings were painted in pale yellow (Humbrol 71).
The landing gear struts and the interior of the wells became Aluminum Metalic (Humbrol 56), the wheels dark green discs (Humbrol 30).
The decals were puzzled together from various sources, including some Begemot sheets. Most of the stencils came from the Ka-52 OOB sheet, and generic decal sheet material was used to mark the walkways or the rotor tips and leading edges.
Only some light weathering was done to the leading edges of the wings, and then the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.
A complex kitbashing project, and it revealed some pitfalls in the course of making. However, the result looks menacing and still convincing, esp. in flight – even though the picture editing, with four artificially rotating proprotors, was probably more tedious than building the model itself!
Forests, lakes, and rivers, clouds and winds, stars and flowers, stupendous glaciers and crystal snowflakes - every form of animate or inanimate existence, leaves its impress upon the soul of man.~
Orison Swett Marden
The Northwestern League was a professional, minor baseball league that lasted from 1905 to 1917. It was represented by teams based in Washington, Montana, Oregon and British Columbia. The league became the Pacific Coast International League in 1918 - Seattle Turks (1909), Seattle Giants (1910-1917),
The Seattle Turks were a minor league baseball team based in Seattle, Washington who played a single season (1909) in the Northwestern League. In their only year of existence, the team won a Northwestern League pennant with a record of 109-58.
The Seattle Giants were a minor league baseball team that played in various leagues from 1910 to 1920. Based in Seattle, Washington, United States, they played in the Northwestern League from 1910 to 1917, the Pacific Coast International League in 1918 and 1920, and the Northwest International League in 1919. Two of their ballparks were Yesler Way Park and Dugdale Field. In 1919, they were also known as the Seattle Drydockers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rhoddy Hendrix
Position: Pitcher
Bats: Unknown • Throws: Right
Height: Tall
Weight: Medium
Born: January 28, 1887 in Detroit, Red River County, Texas
Died: January 29, 1939 (Aged 52-002d) in Seattle, WA
Full Name: Rhoddy Kirkman James Hendrix
NIckname or different spelling: Rhody (this spelling was used until the end of the 1909 season)
Rhoddy Kirkman Hendrix was born on January 28, 1887, in Detroit, Texas, USA, his father, James, was 26 and his mother, Frances, was 23. He married Alice Birk / Boyd and they had one son together. He then married Elsie L Johnson on October 3, 1924, in King, Washington, USA. He died on January 29, 1939, in Seattle, Washington, USA, at the age of 52.
Link to Rhoddy Hendrix' baseball stats - www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=hendri...
(Not to be confused with another pitcher during this time period Claude Hendrix as some of the papers did)
Link to baseball stats for Claude Hendrix - www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=hendri...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(The Daily Ardmoreite, June 23, 1907) - Hendrix to Joplin - Rhody Hendrix formerly of this city, who pitched winning ball for the Wichita Western association team last season, but has been out of the game for several weeks of the present season on account of ill health, has been loaned to the Joplin team by Wichita. It is stated that Wichita wants him for use again next year, being well fortified In the box at present.
(The Topeka State Journal, July 15, 1907) - Rhody Hendrix, the little Wichita pitcher who is with Wichita, did not make good with Joplin as he has just recovered from a severe spell of sickness. However, Holland will keep him with the Wichita team and attempt to make a winner out of him for next season.
(The Topeka State Journal, July 25, 1907) - Wichita Beacon: Pitcher Rhody Hendrix of the local baseball club arrived in the city this morning from Webb City. He has been released by the local management as he was unable to get into condition. Hendrix was popular with local fans, as he did great work for the locals last season in the pinches. Hendrix stated this morning that the fans of Webb City joined with Webb City players Saturday in their assault upon Umpire Guthrie, Hendrix said the umpire had been working In good style and the assault was entirely without cause. Hendrix left early this morning for his home In Oklahoma, where he will spend a few weeks in trying to get into condition. He has had offers from two Western association teams but does not think he can do himself justice at this time.
(The Topeka State Journal, May 16, 1908) - The Wichita team will probably sell Rhody Hendrix in a few days. Hutchinson, Enid and Dubuque have all made offers for him. Wichita has a number of good pitchers at the present time and Hendrix is not needed. He is a good pitcher, however. Wichita secured him from Tulsa in the fall of 1906. Last season he was out of the game most of the time on account of sickness.
(The Topeka State Journal, May 20, 1908) - Rhody Hendrix who has been with the Jobber twirler staff for the past two seasons has been signed up by Enid and yesterday succeeded, in winning the first game Enid has won during the past two phases of the moon. - Enid defeated Oklahoma City 4 to 3. in a ten-inning game. A wild throw by Kelsey over first brought in Bold when two men were out in the last half of the tenth and gave the Railroaders the game. Hendrix' pitching was the feature of the game.
(The Topeka State Journal, August 21, 1908) - Manager Cooley yesterday negotiated the purchase of Pitcher Rhody Hendrix from the Enid team, the same place from whence came Selby, the real star of the Topeka twirling staff. Hendrix should be In some time today, but it is not known whether he will be able to make connections or not.
(The Topeka State Journal., August 22, 1908) - Pitcher Rhody Hendrix, lately secured by Cooley from Enid, arrived here this
morning and will pitch against the Jobbers tomorrow afternoon.
(The Topeka State Journal, March 22, 1909) - Hendrix First to Report. - The locals are all due to be here Thursday. One of the players, Rhody Hendrix. is already here, having reported late Saturday night. He came from Texas but stopped off at Wichita for a few days en route. Rumor has it that Rhody is interested in Wichita to a certain extent, and the Wichita Beacon announced that his interest in Wichita would probably detain him right up to the time the train left and that his interests would be at the train to say goodby to him. Hendrix looks the picture of health and says he never felt better in his life. It's a cinch that he never looked better in his life. Hendrix has been pitching since about the first of the year. He lives in Texas where the weather is always warm. Hendrix is still a youngster and should do a lot for Mr. Cooley this season. Last season Hendrix was off color. He joined the team in mid season coming here from Enid where owing to trouble with the management he had been on the suspended list for some time. Then he was suffering from malaria, all of which is enough to take the stamina from any pitcher. He has had good records in the past and the dope looks pretty good on him. It's a safe bet that he will make some of them work hard for positions this season.
(The Topeka State Journal, June 18, 1909) - HENDRIX DID IT - Topeka Pitcher Batted in Winning Run in Fourteenth - Splendid Pitching in Pinches Won From Wichita. - Mr. Rhody Hendrix was pretty much the whole show at Association park yesterday afternoon, when the home talent piloted by his brilliant pitching took the opener from the Witches in a 14 inning struggle. The defeat of the Chesty Leaders was the result the cause was too much Hendrix. For R. H. was the pitching kiddo, the pinch bitter, the cool collected master of the situation and above all the Real Hero of the afternoon. His stock is ace high already and some of his friends are talking of him for Judge of the supreme court.
(The Topeka State Journal, August 14, 1909) - Rhody Hendrix is getting away good in the Central Association. Wednesday
on the Jacksonville grounds, he held the Jacksonville team to three scattered hits, easily securing a shutout. Burlington won by a score of 6 to 0. Hendrix copped two of the eleven hits secured by Burlington.
(The Topeka State Journal, September 02, 1909) - Rhody Hendrix In a game against Kewanee at Burlington Monday, fanned 14 men, the record for that league.
(The Topeka State Journal, September 25, 1909) - COOLEY SOLD HENDRIX - Big Pitcher Goes to Seattle for Five Hundred Dollars - Manager Dick Cooley last night announced the sale of Pitcher Rhoddy Hendrix to the Seattle club of the Northwest League for $500. Hendrix will probably leave within a day or two to join that club. Shortly after supper last night D. E. Dugdale, an old friend of Cooley, who is owner of the Seattle club, wired Cooley Inquiring for an extra pitcher. Cooley wired back that he would tell Hendrix for $500 and the deal was consummated within two hours after it had been started. Seattle is in first place and the chances are that the club will win the pennant, but Dugdale wished to fortify himself with some more pitchers. Cooley does not think that Hendrix is up to the Western League standard. He gave him a good trial extending over the first half of the season, but Hendrix fell a little shy. Later he was loaned to the Burlington club of the Central Association, and his record was so good that Cooley thought it wise to give him another chance, yesterday, Hendrix didn't make a good showing. Accordingly when Dugdale's wire came, Cooley thought it a good plan to sell. Hendrix was purchased from the Enid club in 1908 for $150.
(Morning Oregonian), November 10, 1909 - The draft of Pitcher Allen of the Seattle Northwestern League Club by Memphis has been allowed. Allen is the leading pitcher of the Northwestern League for the last season. To replace Allen, Manager Dugdale, of Seattle, has purchased Pitcher Rhoddy Hendrix from the Topeka Western League Club.
(The Topeka State Journal, February 08, 1910) - "Rhody" Hendrix is already in training and by a process of his own, he is removing about four pounds a day from his manly form.
(East Oregonian, April 27, 1910) - Tacoma - April 27. The Tacoma Tigers opened the season at home yesterday before 3500 people and were beaten by the Seattle Giants in an interesting game, 3 to 2. Schmutz for Tacoma and Rhoddy Hendrix for Seattle, pitched great ball and the hits were few. Errors played an important part in the scoring. Bennett drove in the winning run for Seattle in the sixth inning.
(The Sunday Oregonian, May 01, 1910) - TACOMA POUNDS HENDRIX - Seattle Goes Down to 9 to 3 Defeat; SEATTLE, April 30. Tacoma won from Seattle by a score of 9 to 3 in a game where heavy hitting was the feature. All Hendrix had was his fast straight ball and Tacoma hammered It all over the lot.
Urquhart Castle lies close to Drumnadrochit, on the shores of Loch Ness. This view was taken from across the Loch, near Whitefield, on General Wade's Military Road.
Seized after Edward I's invasion of Scotland, it was reclaimed by Robert the Bruce in the 14th century. It was repeatedly attacked during the 15th and 16th centuries by the MacDonald Lords of the Isles, but nowadays enjoys a more peaceful existence under the curatorship of the National Trust for Scotland.
Crystal Houses / MVRDV
MVRDV’s Crystal Houses began its existence with the request of Warenar to design a flagship store combining both Dutch heritage and international architecture on the PC Hooftstraat, Amsterdam’s one and only luxury brand street that was previously primarily residential. MVRDV wanted to make a representation of the original buildings and found a solution through an extensive use of glass. The near full-glass façade mimics the original design, down to the layering of the bricks and the details of the window frames, but is stretched vertically to comply with updated zoning laws and to allow for an increase in interior space. Glass bricks stretch up the façade of Crystal Houses, eventually dissolving into a traditional terracotta brick façade for the apartments (as stipulated in the City’s aesthetics rules), which appears to be floating above the shop floor. The design hopes to provide a solution to the loss of local character in shopping areas around the world. The increased globalisation of retail has led to the homogenisation of high-end shopping streets. Crystal Houses offer the store a window surface that contemporary stores need, whilst maintaining architectural character and individuality, resulting in a flagship store that hopes to stand out amongst the rest.
“We said to the client, ‘Let’s bring back what will be demolished but develop it further’” explains Winy Maas, architect and co-founder of MVRDV. “Crystal Houses make space for a remarkable flagship store, respect the structure of the surroundings and bring a poetic innovation in glass construction. It enables global brands to combine the overwhelming desire of transparency with a couleur locale and modernity with heritage. It can thus be applied everywhere in our historic centres.”
After conceiving the initial idea MVRDV worked closely with a number of partners to develop the technologies to make it possible. Solid glass bricks were individually cast and crafted by Poesia in Resana, near Venice. Research undertaken by the Delft University of Technology, in partnership with engineering firm ABT and contractor Wessels Zeist, led to the development of structural solutions and fabrication techniques, with the use of a high-strength, UV bonded, transparent adhesive from Delo Industrial Adhesives in Germany to cement the bricks together without the need for a more traditional mortar.
Six to ten experts worked every day for a whole year (!) in a place that bore more resemblance to a laboratory than a construction site. Due to the sensitivity of the materials, an extremely high level of accuracy and craftsmanship was required and a technical development team was onsite throughout the process. Since this construction is the first of its kind, new construction methods and tools had to be utilised: from high-tech lasers and laboratory grade UV-lamps, to slightly lower-tech Dutch full-fat milk, which, with its low transparency, proved to be an ideal liquid to function as a reflective surface for the levelling of the first layer of bricks. Despite its delicate looks, strength tests by the Delft University of Technology team proved that the glass-construction was in many ways stronger than concrete. The full-glass architrave, for instance, could withstand a force of up to 42.000 Newton; the equivalent to two full-sized SUVs.
The development of new construction methods unearthed additional possibilities for future building, such as the minimisation of waste materials. In essence, all of the glass components are completely recyclable. Waste materials from the project, such as imperfect bricks, could simply be (and were) melted down and re-moulded or entirely repurposed. Such is also true for the entire façade itself, once the building has reached the end of its life span, the whole facade can be melted down and given a new life. The only exceptions to this rule are added features which ensure the security of the building, such as a concrete ram-raid defence plinth, hidden in a blend of reflective and translucent materials and built to withstand the force of a car crashing into the building. Repair-protocols were developed in the event of any damage, allowing for the replacement of individual bricks.
With a façade made primarily out of glass it was important to ensure that energy requirements were supplied through renewable sources. Therefore, the building was designed around a ground source heat pump, its pipes leading up to 170 metres underground, allowing for an optimal indoor climate throughout the year. A crucial element when dealing with delicate, sophisticated detailing while striving for a proper energy balance at the same time.
The Santiago (1856 – 1945) is the oldest vessel in the Ships’ Graveyard at Garden Island (North Arm) and the last vessel abandoned there.
The barque traded worldwide under the flags of various nations until July 1901, when it arrived at Newcastle in New South Wales and was purchased by the Adelaide Steam Tug Company. After its arrival in Port Adelaide with a cargo of coal, the Santiago was used as a hulk until 1945, when it was abandoned at the eastern end of the Graveyard.
Today the mostly intact hull of the Santiago is exposed above the river level. We kayaked there on a day with 2.5 meter high tide. We could paddle into the ship hull. Hours later, the lip we paddled over towered above us.
The masts have been cut off and lay next to the hull; other fittings lay within the structure. Attempts are being made to stabilise the hull with sacrificial anodes (below the waterline) and rust conversion paints.
The Santiago is a rare example of an early iron-built sailing ship and is recorded in the International Register of Historic Ships as ‘Probably the oldest iron-hulled sailing ship still in existence’. The vessel is of keen interest to many local and overseas maritime enthusiasts.
canon EOS 5D
2016
IMG_0008
This photo was taken on Piccadilly near Hyde Park Corner during the anti-Trump ban march from the US embassy to Downing Street.
On Friday morning thousands of protesters armed with placards filled most of Grosvenor Square outside the American Embassy in London. They were rallying to demand that prime minister Theresa May repudiate Donald Trump's shameful blanket entry ban on all Syrian, Iraqi, Somali, Yemeni, Iranian, Sudanese and Libyan nationals for the next 90 days as well as the indefinite ban on all Syrian refugees.
Some also demanded that his planned state visit as a guest of the queen be revoked and that the British government also take decisive action to help desparate refugees and ease the conditions within the UK for asylum seekers.
By 11 am an estimated ten thousand had gathered outside the US Embassy for a march on Downing Street organized by the Stop the War Coalition, Stand Up to Racism and the Muslim Association of Britain
Among the most frequent chants heard were "May shame on you", "dump Trump", "build bridges not walls" and "refugees are welcome here". Protesters pointed out that all the countries effected were Muslim majority nations and yet none of the countries targeted had any nationals implicated in any recent terrorist attack within the United States.
Ironically it is US foreign policy in the Middle East, including years of bombing and support for regional dictators that is one of the main causes of the current refugee crisis.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Bell XP-68A owed its existence to the manufacturer’s rather disappointing outcome of its first jet fighter design, the XP-59A Airacomet. The Airacomet was a twin jet-engined fighter aircraft, designed and built during World War II after Major General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold became aware of the United Kingdom's jet program when he attended a demonstration of the Gloster E.28/39 in April 1941. He requested, and was given, the plans for the aircraft's powerplant, the Power Jets W.1, which he took back to the U.S. He also arranged for an example of the engine, the Whittle W.1X turbojet, to be flown to the U.S., along with drawings for the more powerful W.2B/23 engine and a small team of Power Jets engineers. On 4 September 1941, he offered the U.S. company General Electric a contract to produce an American version of the engine, which subsequently became the General Electric I-A. On the following day, he approached Lawrence Dale Bell, head of Bell Aircraft Corporation, to build a fighter to utilize it. As a disinformation tactic, the USAAF gave the project the designation "P-59A", to suggest it was a development of the unrelated, canceled Bell XP-59 fighter project. The P-59A was the first design fighter to have its turbojet engine and air inlet nacelles integrated within the main fuselage. The jet aircraft’s design was finalized on 9 January 1942 and the first prototype flew in October of the same year.
The following 13 service test YP-59As had a more powerful engine than their predecessor, the General Electric J31, but the improvement in performance was negligible, with top speed increased by only 5 mph and a slight reduction in the time they could be used before an overhaul was needed. One of these aircraft, the third YP-59A, was supplied to the Royal Air Force, in exchange for the first production Gloster Meteor I for evaluation and flight-offs with domestic alternatives.
British pilots found that the YP-59A compared very unfavorably with the jets that they were already flying. The United States Army Air Forces were not impressed by its performance either and cancelled the contract when fewer than half of the originally ordered aircraft had been produced. No P-59s entered combat, but the type paved the way for the next design generation of U.S. turbojet-powered aircraft and helped to develop appropriate maintenance structures and procedures.
In the meantime, a new, more powerful jet engine had been developed in Great Britain, the Halford H-1, which became later better known as the De Havilland Goblin. It was another centrifugal compressor design, but it produced almost twice as much thrust as the XP-59A’s J31 engines. Impressed by the British Gloster Meteor during the USAAF tests at Muroc Dry Lake - performance-wise as well as by the aircraft’s simplicity and ruggedness - Bell reacted promptly and proposed an alternative fighter with wing-mounted engine nacelles, since the XP-59A’s layout had proven to be aerodynamically sub-optimal and unsuited for the installation of H-1 engines. In order to save development time and because the aircraft was rather regarded as a proof-of-concept demonstrator instead of a true fighter prototype, the new aircraft was structurally based on Bell’s current piston-engine P-63 “Kingcobra”. The proposal was accepted and, in order to maintain secrecy, the new jet aircraft inherited once more a designation of a recently cancelled project, this time from the Vultee XP-68 “Tornado” fighter. Similar to the Airacomet two years before, just a simple “A” suffix was added.
Bell’s development contract covered only three XP-68A aircraft. The H-1 units were directly imported from Great Britain in secrecy, suspended in the bomb bays of B-24 Liberator bombers. A pair of these engines was mounted in mid-wing nacelles, very similar to the Gloster Meteor’s arrangement. The tailplane was given a 5° dihedral to move it out of the engine exhaust. In order to bear the new engines and their power, the wing main spars were strengthened and the main landing gear wells were moved towards the aircraft’s centerline, effectively narrowing track width. The landing gear wells now occupied the space of the former radiator ducts for the P-63’s omitted Allison V-1710 liquid-cooled V12 engine. Its former compartment behind the cockpit was used for a new fuel tank and test equipment. Having lost the propeller and its long drive shaft, the nose section was also redesigned: the front fuselage became deeper and the additional space there was used for another fuel tank in front of the cockpit and a bigger weapon bay. Different armament arrangements were envisioned, one of each was to be tested on the three prototypes: one machine would be armed with six 0.5” machine guns, another with four 20mm Hispano M2 cannon, and the third with two 37mm M10 cannon and two 0.5” machine guns. Provisions for a ventral hardpoint for a single drop tank or a 1.000 lb (550 kg) bomb were made, but this was never fitted on any of the prototypes. Additional hardpoints under the outer wings for smaller bombs or unguided missiles followed the same fate.
The three XP-68As were built at Bell’s Atlanta plant in the course of early 1944 and semi-officially christened “Airagator”. After their clandestine transfer to Muroc Dry Lake for flight tests and evaluations, the machines were quickly nicknamed “Barrelcobra” by the test staff – not only because of the characteristic shape of the engine nacelles, but also due to the sheer weight of the machines and their resulting sluggish handling on the ground and in the air. “Cadillac” was another nickname, due to the very soft acceleration through the new jet engines and the lack of vibrations that were typical for piston-engine- and propeller-driven aircraft.
Due to the structural reinforcements and modifications, the XP-68A had become a heavy aircraft with an empty weight of 4 tons and a MTOW of almost 8 tons – the same as the big P-47 Thunderbolt piston fighter, while the P-63 had an MTOW of only 10,700 lb (4,900 kg). The result was, among other flaws, a very long take-off distance, especially in the hot desert climate of the Mojave Desert (which precluded any external ordnance) and an inherent unwillingness to change direction, its turning radius was immense. More than once the brakes overheated during landing, so that extra water cooling for the main landing gear was retrofitted.
Once in the air, the aircraft proved to be quite fast – as long as it was flying in a straight line, though. Only the roll characteristics were acceptable, but flying the XP-68A remained hazardous, esp. after the loss of one of the H-1s engines: This resulted in heavily asymmetrical propulsion, making the XP-68A hard to control at all and prone to spin in level flight.
After trials and direct comparison, the XP-68A turned out not to be as fast and, even worse, much less agile than the Meteor Mk III (the RAF’s then current, operational fighter version), which even had weaker Derwent engines. The operational range was insufficient, too, esp. in regard of the planned Pacific theatre of operations, and the high overall weight precluded any considerable external load like drop tanks.
However, compared with the XP-59A, the XP-68A was a considerable step forward, but it had become quickly clear that the XP-68A and its outfit-a-propeller-design-with jet-engines approach did not bear the potential for any service fighter development: it was already outdated when the prototypes were starting their test program. No further XP-68A was ordered or built, and the three prototypes fulfilled their test and evaluation program until May 1945. During these tests, the first prototype was lost on the ground due to an engine fire. After the program’s completion, the two remaining machines were handed over to the US Navy and used for research at the NATC Patuxent River Test Centre, where they were operated until 1949 and finally scrapped.
General characteristics.
Crew: 1
Length: 33 ft 9 in (10.36 m)
Wingspan: 38 ft 4 in (11.7 m)
Height: 13 ft (3.96 m)
Wing area: 248 sq ft (23 m²)
Empty weight: 8,799 lb (3,995 kg)
Loaded weight: 15,138 lb (6,873 kg)
Max. take-off weight: 17,246 lb (7,830 kg)
Powerplant:
2× Halford H-1 (De Havilland Goblin) turbojets, rated at 3,500 lbf (15.6 kN) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 559 mph (900 km/h)
Range: 500 mi (444 nmi, 805 km)
Service ceiling: 37,565 ft (11,450 m)
Rate of climb: 3.930 ft/min (20 m/s)
Wing loading: 44.9 lb/ft² (218.97 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.45
Time to altitude: 5.0 min to 30,000 ft (9,145 m)
Armament:
4× Hispano M2 20 mm cannon with 150 rounds
One ventral hardpoint for a single drop tank or a 1.000 lb (550 kg) bomb
6× 60 lb (30 kg) rockets or 2× 500 lb (227 kg) bombs under the outer wings
The kit and its assembly:
This whiffy Kingcobra conversion was spawned by a post by fellow user nighthunter in January 2019 at whatifmodelers.com about a potential jet-powered variant. In found the idea charming, since the XP-59 had turned out to be a dud and the Gloster Meteor had been tested by the USAAF. Why not combine both into a fictional, late WWII Bell prototype?
The basic idea was simple: take a P-63 and add a Meteor’s engine nacelles, while keeping the Kingcobra’s original proportions. This sounds pretty easy but was more challenging than the first look at the outcome might suggest.
The donor kits are a vintage Airfix 1:72 Gloster Meteor Mk.III, since it has the proper, small nacelles, and an Eastern Express P-63 Kingcobra. The latter looked promising, since this kit comes with very good surface and cockpit details (even with a clear dashboard) as well as parts for several P-63 variants, including the A, C and even the exotic “pinball” manned target version. However, anything comes at a price, and the kit’s low price point is compensated by soft plastic (which turned out to be hard to sand), some flash and mediocre fit of any of the major components like fuselage halves, the wings or the clear parts. It feels a lot like a typical short-run kit. Nevertheless, I feel inclined to build another one in a more conventional fashion some day.
Work started with the H-1 nacelles, which had to be cut out from the Meteor wings. Since they come OOB only with a well-visible vertical plate and a main wing spar dummy in the air intake, I added some fine mesh to the plate – normally, you can see directly onto the engine behind the wing spar. Another issue was the fact that the Meteor’s wings are much thicker and deeper than the P-63s, so that lots of PSR work was necessary.
Simply cutting the P-63 OOB wings up and inserting the Meteor nacelles was also not possible: the P-63 has a very wide main landing gear, due to the ventral radiators and oil coolers, which were originally buried in the wing roots and under the piston engine. The only solution: move the complete landing gear (including the wells) inward, so that the nacelles could be placed as close as possible to the fuselage in a mid-span position. Furthermore, the - now useless - radiator openings had to disappear, resulting in a major redesign of the wing root sections. All of this became a major surgery task, followed by similarly messy work on the outer wings during the integration of the Meteor nacelles. LOTS of PSR, even though the outcome looks surprisingly plausible and balanced.
Work on the fuselage started in parallel. It was built mainly OOB, using the optional ventral fin for a P-63C. The exhaust stubs as well as the dorsal carburetor intake had to disappear (the latter made easy thanks to suitable optional parts for the manned target version). Since the P-63 had a conventional low stabilizer arrangement (unlike the Meteor with its cruciform tail), I gave them a slight dihedral to move them out of the engine efflux, a trick Sukhoi engineers did on the Su-11 prototype with afterburner engines in 1947, too.
Furthermore, the whole nose ahead of the cockpit was heavily re-designed, because I wanted the “new” aircraft to lose its propeller heritage and the P-63’s round and rather pointed nose. Somewhat inspired by the P-59 and the P-80, I omitted the propeller parts altogether and re-sculpted the nose with 2C putty, creating a deeper shape with a tall, oval diameter, so that the lower fuselage line was horizontally extended forward. In a profile view the aircraft now looks much more massive and P-80esque. The front landing gear was retained, just its side walls were extended downwards with the help of 0.5mm styrene sheet material, so that the original stance could be kept. Lots of lead in the nose ensured that the model would properly stand on its three wheels.
Once the rhinoplasty was done I drilled four holes into the nose and used hollow steel needles as gun barrels, with a look reminiscent of the Douglas A-20G.
Adding the (perfectly) clear parts of the canopy as a final assembly step also turned out to be a major fight against the elements.
Painting and markings:
With an USAAF WWII prototype in mind, there were only two options: either an NMF machine, or a camouflage in Olive Drab and Neutral Grey. I went for the latter and used Tamiya XF-62 for the upper surfaces and Humbrol 156 (Dark Camouflage Grey) underneath. The kit received a light black ink wash and some post shading in order to emphasize panels. A little dry-brushing with silver around the leading edges and the cockpit was done, too.
The cockpit interior became chromate green (I used Humbrol 150, Forest Green) while the landing gear wells were painted with zinc chromate yellow (Humbrol 81). The landing gear itself was painted in aluminum (Humbrol 56).
Markings/decals became minimal, puzzled together from various sources – only some “Stars and Bars” insignia and the serial number.
Somehow this conversion ended up looking a lot like the contemporary Soviet Sukhoi Su-9 and -11 (Samolyet K and LK) jet fighter prototype – unintentionally, though. But I am happy with the outcome – the P-63 ancestry is there, and the Meteor engines are recognizable, too. But everything blends into each other well, the whole affair looks very balanced and believable. This is IMHO furthermore emphasized by the simple paint scheme. A jet-powered Kingcobra? Why not…?
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on authentic facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The РТАК-30 attack vintoplan (also known as vintokryl) owed its existence to the Mil Mi-30 plane/helicopter project that originated in 1972. The Mil Mi-30 was conceived as a transport aircraft that could hold up to 19 passengers or two tons of cargo, and its purpose was to replace the Mi-8 and Mi-17 Helicopters in both civil and military roles. With vertical takeoff through a pair of tiltrotor engine pods on the wing tips (similar in layout to the later V-22 Osprey) and the ability to fly like a normal plane, the Mil Mi-30 had a clear advantage over the older models.
Since the vintoplan concept was a completely new field of research and engineering, a dedicated design bureau was installed in the mid-Seventies at the Rostov-na-Donu helicopter factory, where most helicopters from the Mil design bureau were produced, under the title Ростов Тилт Ротор Авиационная Компания (Rostov Tilt Rotor Aircraft Company), or РТАК (RTRA), for short.
The vintoplan project lingered for some time, with basic research being conducted concerning aerodynamics, rotor design and flight control systems. Many findings later found their way into conventional planes and helicopters. At the beginning of the 1980s, the project had progressed far enough that the vintoplan received official backing so that РТАК scientists and Mil helicopter engineers assembled and tested several layouts and components for this complicated aircraft type.
At that time the Mil Mi-30 vintoplan was expected to use a single TV3-117 Turbo Shaft Engine with a four-bladed propeller rotors on each of its two pairs of stub wings of almost equal span. The engine was still installed in the fuselage and the proprotors driven by long shafts.
However, while being a very clean design, this original layout revealed several problems concerning aeroelasticity, dynamics of construction, characteristics for the converter apparatuses, aerodynamics and flight dynamics. In the course of further development stages and attempts to rectify the technical issues, the vintoplan layout went through several revisions. The layout shifted consequently from having 4 smaller engines in rotating pods on two pairs of stub wings through three engines with rotating nacelles on the front wings and a fixed, horizontal rotor over the tail and finally back to only 2 engines (much like the initial concept), but this time mounted in rotating nacelles on the wing tips and a canard stabilizer layout.
In August 1981 the Commission of the Presidium of the USSR Council of Ministers on weapons eventually issued a decree on the development of a flyworthy Mil Mi-30 vintoplan prototype. Shortly afterwards the military approved of the vintoplan, too, but desired bigger, more powerful engines in order to improve performance and weight capacity. In the course of the ensuing project refinement, the weight capacity was raised to 3-5 tons and the passenger limit to 32. In parallel, the modified type was also foreseen for civil operations as a short range feederliner, potentially replacing Yak-40 and An-24 airliners in Aeroflot service.
In 1982, РТАК took the interest from the military and proposed a dedicated attack vintoplan, based on former research and existing components of the original transport variant. This project was accepted by MAP and received the separate designation РТАК-30. However, despite having some close technical relations to the Mi-30 transport (primarily the engine nacelles, their rotation mechanism and the flight control systems), the РТАК-30 was a completely different aircraft. The timing was good, though, and the proposal was met with much interest, since the innovative vintoplan concept was to compete against traditional helicopters: the design work on the dedicated Mi-28 and Ka-50 attack helicopters had just started at that time, too, so that РТАК received green lights for the construction of five prototypes: four flyworthy machines plus one more for static ground tests.
The РТАК-30 was based on one of the early Mi-30 layouts and it combined two pairs of mid-set wings with different wing spans with a tall tail fin that ensured directional stability. Each wing carried a rotating engine nacelle with a so-called proprotor on its tip, each with three high aspect ratio blades. The proprotors were handed (i.e. revolved in opposite directions) in order to minimize torque effects and improve handling, esp. in the hover. The front and back pair of engines were cross-linked among each other on a common driveshaft, eliminating engine-out asymmetric thrust problems during V/STOL operations. In the event of the failure of one engine, it would automatically disconnect through torque spring clutches and both propellers on a pair of wings would be driven by the remaining engine.
Four engines were chosen because, despite the weight and complexity penalty, this extra power was expected to be required in order to achieve a performance that was markedly superior to a conventional helicopter like the Mi-24, the primary Soviet attack helicopter of that era the РТАК-30 was supposed to replace. It was also expected that the rotating nacelles could also be used to improve agility in level flight through a mild form of vectored thrust.
The РТАК-30’s streamlined fuselage provided ample space for avionics, fuel, a fully retractable tricycle landing gear and a two man crew in an armored side-by-side cockpit with ejection seats. The windshield was able to withstand 12.7–14.5 mm caliber bullets, the titanium cockpit tub could take hits from 20 mm cannon. An autonomous power unit (APU) was housed in the fuselage, too, making operations of the aircraft independent from ground support.
While the РТАК-30 was not intended for use as a transport, the fuselage was spacious enough to have a small compartment between the front wings spars, capable of carrying up to three people. The purpose of this was the rescue of downed helicopter crews, as a cargo hold esp. for transfer flights and as additional space for future mission equipment or extra fuel.
In vertical flight, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotor system used controls very similar to a twin or tandem-rotor helicopter. Yaw was controlled by tilting its rotors in opposite directions. Roll was provided through differential power or thrust, supported by ailerons on the rear wings. Pitch was provided through rotor cyclic or nacelle tilt and further aerodynamic surfaces on both pairs of wings. Vertical motion was controlled with conventional rotor blade pitch and a control similar to a fixed-wing engine control called a thrust control lever (TCL). The rotor heads had elastomeric bearings and the proprotor blades were made from composite materials, which could sustain 30 mm shells.
The РТАК-30 featured a helmet-mounted display for the pilot, a very modern development at its time. The pilot designated targets for the navigator/weapons officer, who proceeded to fire the weapons required to fulfill that particular task. The integrated surveillance and fire control system had two optical channels providing wide and narrow fields of view, a narrow-field-of-view optical television channel, and a laser rangefinder. The system could move within 110 degrees in azimuth and from +13 to −40 degrees in elevation and was placed in a spherical dome on top of the fuselage, just behind the cockpit.
The aircraft carried one automatic 2A42 30 mm internal gun, mounted semi-rigidly fixed near the center of the fuselage, movable only slightly in elevation and azimuth. The arrangement was also regarded as being more practical than a classic free-turning turret mount for the aircraft’s considerably higher flight speed than a normal helicopter. As a side effect, the semi-rigid mounting improved the cannon's accuracy, giving the 30 mm a longer practical range and better hit ratio at medium ranges. Ammunition supply was 460 rounds, with separate compartments for high-fragmentation, explosive incendiary, or armor-piercing rounds. The type of ammunition could be selected by the pilot during flight.
The gunner can select one of two rates of full automatic fire, low at 200 to 300 rds/min and high at 550 to 800 rds/min. The effective range when engaging ground targets such as light armored vehicles is 1,500 m, while soft-skinned targets can be engaged out to 4,000 m. Air targets can be engaged flying at low altitudes of up to 2,000 m and up to a slant range of 2,500 m.
A substantial range of weapons could be carried on four hardpoints under the front wings, plus three more under the fuselage, for a total ordnance of up to 2,500 kg (with reduced internal fuel). The РТАК-30‘s main armament comprised up to 24 laser-guided Vikhr missiles with a maximum range of some 8 km. These tube-launched missiles could be used against ground and aerial targets. A search and tracking radar was housed in a thimble radome on the РТАК-30’s nose and their laser guidance system (mounted in a separate turret under the radome) was reported to be virtually jam-proof. The system furthermore featured automatic guidance to the target, enabling evasive action immediately after missile launch. Alternatively, the system was also compatible with Ataka laser-guided anti-tank missiles.
Other weapon options included laser- or TV-guided Kh-25 missiles as well as iron bombs and napalm tanks of up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) caliber and several rocket pods, including the S-13 and S-8 rockets. The "dumb" rocket pods could be upgraded to laser guidance with the proposed Ugroza system. Against helicopters and aircraft the РТАК-30 could carry up to four R-60 and/or R-73 IR-guided AAMs. Drop tanks and gun pods could be carried, too.
When the РТАК-30's proprotors were perpendicular to the motion in the high-speed portions of the flight regime, the aircraft demonstrated a relatively high maximum speed: over 300 knots/560 km/h top speed were achieved during state acceptance trials in 1987, as well as sustained cruise speeds of 250 knots/460 km/h, which was almost twice as fast as a conventional helicopter. Furthermore, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotors and stub wings provided the aircraft with a substantially greater cruise altitude capability than conventional helicopters: during the prototypes’ tests the machines easily reached 6,000 m / 20,000 ft or more, whereas helicopters typically do not exceed 3,000 m / 10,000 ft altitude.
Flight tests in general and flight control system refinement in specific lasted until late 1988, and while the vintoplan concept proved to be sound, the technical and practical problems persisted. The aircraft was complex and heavy, and pilots found the machine to be hazardous to land, due to its low ground clearance. Due to structural limits the machine could also never be brought to its expected agility limits
During that time the Soviet Union’s internal tensions rose and more and more hampered the РТАК-30’s development. During this time, two of the prototypes were lost (the 1st and 4th machine) in accidents, and in 1989 only two machines were left in flightworthy condition (the 5th airframe had been set aside for structural ground tests). Nevertheless, the РТАК-30 made its public debut at the Paris Air Show in June 1989 (the 3rd prototype, coded “33 Yellow”), together with the Mi-28A, but was only shown in static display and did not take part in any flight show. After that, the aircraft received the NATO ASCC code "Hemlock" and caused serious concern in Western military headquarters, since the РТАК-30 had the potential to dominate the European battlefield.
And this was just about to happen: Despite the РТАК-30’s development problems, the innovative attack vintoplan was included in the Soviet Union’s 5-year plan for 1989-1995, and the vehicle was eventually expected to enter service in 1996. However, due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dwindling economics, neither the РТАК-30 nor its civil Mil Mi-30 sister did soar out in the new age of technology. In 1990 the whole program was stopped and both surviving РТАК-30 prototypes were mothballed – one (the 3rd prototype) was disassembled and its components brought to the Rostov-na-Donu Mil plant, while the other, prototype No. 1, is rumored to be stored at the Central Russian Air Force Museum in Monino, to be restored to a public exhibition piece some day.
General characteristics:
Crew: Two (pilot, copilot/WSO) plus space for up to three passengers or cargo
Length: 45 ft 7 1/2 in (13,93 m)
Rotor diameter: 20 ft 9 in (6,33 m)
Wingspan incl. engine nacelles: 42 ft 8 1/4 in (13,03 m)
Total width with rotors: 58 ft 8 1/2 in (17,93 m)
Height: 17 ft (5,18 m) at top of tailfin
Disc area: 4x 297 ft² (27,65 m²)
Wing area: 342.2 ft² (36,72 m²)
Empty weight: 8,500 kg (18,740 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 12,000 kg (26,500 lb)
Powerplant:
4× Klimov VK-2500PS-03 turboshaft turbines, 2,400 hp (1.765 kW) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 275 knots (509 km/h, 316 mph) at sea level
305 kn (565 km/h; 351 mph) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)
Cruise speed: 241 kn (277 mph, 446 km/h) at sea level
Stall speed: 110 kn (126 mph, 204 km/h) in airplane mode
Range: 879 nmi (1,011 mi, 1,627 km)
Combat radius: 390 nmi (426 mi, 722 km)
Ferry range: 1,940 nmi (2,230 mi, 3,590 km) with auxiliary external fuel tanks
Service ceiling: 25,000 ft (7,620 m)
Rate of climb: 2,320–4,000 ft/min (11.8 m/s)
Glide ratio: 4.5:1
Disc loading: 20.9 lb/ft² at 47,500 lb GW (102.23 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.259 hp/lb (427 W/kg)
Armament:
1× 30 mm (1.18 in) 2A42 multi-purpose autocannon with 450 rounds
7 external hardpoints for a maximum ordnance of 2.500 kg (5.500 lb)
The kit and its assembly:
This exotic, fictional aircraft-thing is a contribution to the “The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com in early 2019. While the propulsion system itself is not that unconventional, I deemed the quadrocopter concept (which had already been on my agenda for a while) to be suitable for a worthy submission.
The Mil Mi-30 tiltrotor aircraft, mentioned in the background above, was a real project – but my alternative combat vintoplan design is purely speculative.
I had already stashed away some donor parts, primarily two sets of tiltrotor backpacks for 1:144 Gundam mecha from Bandai, which had been released recently. While these looked a little toy-like, these parts had the charm of coming with handed propellers and stub wings that would allow the engine nacelles to swivel.
The search for a suitable fuselage turned out to be a more complex safari than expected. My initial choice was the spoofy Italeri Mi-28 kit (I initially wanted a staggered tandem cockpit), but it turned out to be much too big for what I wanted to achieve. Then I tested a “real” Mi-28 (Dragon) and a Ka-50 (Italeri), but both failed for different reasons – the Mi-28 was too slender, while the Ka-50 had the right size – but converting it for my build would have been VERY complicated, because the engine nacelles would have to go and the fuselage shape between the cockpit and the fuselage section around the original engines and stub wings would be hard to adapt. I eventually bought an Italeri Ka-52 two-seater as fuselage donor.
In order to mount the four engines to the fuselage I’d need two pairs of wings of appropriate span – and I found a pair of 1:100 A-10 wings as well as the wings from an 1:72 PZL Iskra (not perfect, but the most suitable donor parts I could find in the junkyard). On the tips of these wings, the swiveling joints for the engine nacelles from the Bandai set were glued. While mounting the rear wings was not too difficult (just the Ka-52’s OOB stabilizers had to go), the front pair of wings was more complex. The reason: the Ka-52’s engines had to go and their attachment points, which are actually shallow recesses on the kit, had to be faired over first. Instead of filling everything with putty I decided to cover the areas with 0.5mm styrene sheet first, and then do cosmetic PSR work. This worked quite well and also included a cover for the Ka-52’s original rotor mast mount. Onto these new flanks the pair of front wings was attached, in a mid position – a conceptual mistake…
The cockpit was taken OOB and the aircraft’s nose received an additional thimble radome, reminiscent of the Mi-28’s arrangement. The radome itself was created from a German 500 kg WWII bomb.
At this stage, the mid-wing mistake reared its ugly head – it had two painful consequences which I had not fully thought through. Problem #1: the engine nacelles turned out to be too long. When rotated into a vertical position, they’d potentially hit the ground! Furthermore, the ground clearance was very low – and I decided to skip the Ka-52’s OOB landing gear in favor of a heavier and esp. longer alternative, a full landing gear set from an Italeri MiG-37 “Ferret E” stealth fighter, which itself resembles a MiG-23/27 landing gear. Due to the expected higher speeds of the vintoplan I gave the landing gear full covers (partly scratched, plus some donor parts from an Academy MiG-27). It took some trials to get the new landing gear into the right position and a suitable stance – but it worked. With this benchmark I was also able to modify the engine nacelles, shortening their rear ends. They were still very (too!) close to the ground, but at least the model would not sit on them!
However, the more complete the model became, the more design flaws turned up. Another mistake is that the front and rear rotors slightly overlap when in vertical position – something that would be unthinkable in real life…
With all major components in place, however, detail work could proceed. This included the completion of the cockpit and the sensor turrets, the Ka-52 cannon and finally the ordnance. Due to the large rotors, any armament had to be concentrated around the fuselage, outside of the propeller discs. For this reason (and in order to prevent the rear engines to ingest exhaust gases from the front engines in level flight), I gave the front wings a slightly larger span, so that four underwing pylons could be fitted, plus a pair of underfuselage hardpoints.
The ordnance was puzzled together from the Italeri Ka-52 and from an ESCI Ka-34 (the fake Ka-50) kit.
Painting and markings:
With such an exotic aircraft, I rather wanted a conservative livery and opted for a typical Soviet tactical four-tone scheme from the Eighties – the idea was to build a prototype aircraft from the state acceptance trials period, not a flashy demonstrator. The scheme and the (guesstimated) colors were transferred from a Soviet air force MiG-21bis of that era, and it consists of a reddish light brown (Humbrol 119, Light Earth), a light, yellowish green (Humbrol 159, Khaki Drab), a bluish dark green (Humbrol 195, Dark Satin Green, a.k.a. RAL 6020 Chromdioxidgrün) and a dark brown (Humbrol 170, Brown Bess). For the undersides’ typical bluish grey I chose Humbrol 145 (FS 35237, Gray Blue), which is slightly lighter and less greenish than the typical Soviet tones. A light black ink wash was applied and some light post-shading was done in order to create panels that are structurally not there, augmented by some pencil lines.
The cockpit became light blue (Humbrol 89), with medium gray dashboard and consoles. The ejection seats received bright yellow seatbelts and bright blue pads – a detail seen on a Mi-28 cockpit picture.
Some dielectric fairings like the fin tip were painted in bright medium green (Humbrol 101), while some other antenna fairings were painted in pale yellow (Humbrol 71).
The landing gear struts and the interior of the wells became Aluminum Metalic (Humbrol 56), the wheels dark green discs (Humbrol 30).
The decals were puzzled together from various sources, including some Begemot sheets. Most of the stencils came from the Ka-52 OOB sheet, and generic decal sheet material was used to mark the walkways or the rotor tips and leading edges.
Only some light weathering was done to the leading edges of the wings, and then the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.
A complex kitbashing project, and it revealed some pitfalls in the course of making. However, the result looks menacing and still convincing, esp. in flight – even though the picture editing, with four artificially rotating proprotors, was probably more tedious than building the model itself!