View allAll Photos Tagged External
External shot of AK1, showing the livery. The P13 bogies have yet to arrive. Hillside workshops. 24 March, 2011.
Detail of the bottom of the ariel showing how it was cut and bent to make an effective hook for Ernest's hopper windows.
Note also the way the USB extension cable is secured using cable ties.
+++ 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 Gudkov Gu-1 was a Soviet fighter aircraft produced shortly after World War II in small numbers at the start of the jet age, but work on the Gudkov Gu-1 already started in 1944. Towards the end of World War II the Soviet Union saw the need for a strategic bombing capability similar to that of the United States Army Air Forces. The Soviet VVS air arm had the locally designed Petlyakov Pe-8 four-engined heavy bomber in service at the start of the war, but only 93 had been built by the end of the war and the type had become obsolete. By that time the U.S. regularly conducted bombing raids on Japan from distant Pacific forward bases using B-29 Superfortresses, and the Soviet Air Force lacked this capability.
Joseph Stalin ordered the development of a comparable bomber, and the U.S. twice refused to supply the Soviet Union with B-29s under Lend Lease. However, on four occasions during 1944, individual B-29s made emergency landings in Soviet territory and one crashed after the crew bailed out. In accordance with the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact, the Soviets were neutral in the Pacific War and the bombers were therefore interned and kept by the Soviets. Despite Soviet neutrality, America demanded the return of the bombers, but the Soviets refused. Three repairable B-29s were flown to Moscow and delivered to the Tupolev OKB. One B-29 was dismantled, the second was used for flight tests and training, and the third one was left as a standard for cross-reference.
Stalin told Tupolev to clone the Superfortress in as short a time as possible. The reverse-engineering effort involved 900 factories and research institutes, who finished the design work during the first year. 105,000 drawings were made, and the American technology had to be adapted to local material and manufacturing standards – and ended in a thorough re-design of the B-29 “under the hood”. By the end of the second year, the Soviet industry was to produce 20 copies of the aircraft ready for State acceptance trials.
While work on what would become the Tupolev Tu-4 was on the way, the need for a long range escort fighter arose, too. Soviet officials were keen on the P-51 Mustang, but, again, the USA denied deliveries, so that an indigenous solution had to be developed. With the rising tension of international relationships, this became eventually the preferred solution, too.
While the design bureau Lavochkin had already started with work on the La-9 fighter (which entered service after WWII) and the jet age was about to begin, the task of designing a long range escort fighter for the Tu-4 was relegated to Mikhail I. Gudkov who had been designing early WWII fighters like the LaGG-1 and -3 together with Lavochkin. Internally, the new fighter received the project handle "DIS" (Dalnij Istrebitel' Soprovozhdenya ="long-range escort fighter").
In order to offer an appropriate range and performance that could engage enemy interceptors in the bombers’ target area it was soon clear that neither a pure jet nor a pure piston-engine fighter was a viable solution – a dilemma the USAAF was trying to solve towards 1945, too. The jet engine alone did not offer sufficient power, and fuel consumption was high, so that the necessary range could never be achieved with an agile fighter. Late war radials had sufficient power and offered good range, but the Soviet designers were certain that the piston engine fighter had no future – especially when fast jet fighters had to be expected over enemy territory.
Another problem arose through the fact that the Soviet Union did not have an indigenous jet engine at hand at all in late 1945. War booty from Germany in the form of Junkers Jumo 004 axial jet engines and blueprints of the more powerful HeS 011 were still under evaluation, and these powerplants alone did neither promise enough range nor power for a long range fighter aircraft. Even for short range fighters their performance was rather limited – even though fighters like the Yak-15 and the MiG-9 were designed around them.
After many layout experiments and calculation, Gudkov eventually came up with a mixed powerplant solution for the DIS project. But unlike the contemporary, relatively light I-250 (also known as MiG-13) interceptor, which added a mechanical compressor with a primitive afterburner (called VRDK) to a Klimov VK-107R inline piston engine, the DIS fighter was equipped with a powerful radial engine and carried a jet booster – similar to the US Navy’s Ryan FR-1 “Fireball”. Unlike the FR-1, though, the DIS kept a conservative tail-sitter layout and was a much bigger aircraft.
The choice for the main powerplant fell on the Shvetsov ASh-82TKF engine, driving a large four blade propeller. This was a boosted version of the same 18 cylinder twin row radial that powered the Tu-4, the ASh-73. The ASh-82TKF for the escort fighter project had a rating of 2,720 hp (2,030 kW) while the Tu-4's ASh-73TK had "only" a temporary 2,400 hp (1,800 kW) output during take-off. The airframe was designed around this massive and powerful engine, and the aircraft’s sheer size was also a result of the large fuel capacity which was necessary to meet the range target of at least 3.000 km (1.860 mi, 1.612 nmi).
The ASh-82TKF alone offered enough power for a decent performance, but in order to take on enemy jet fighters and lighter, more agile propeller-driven fighters, a single RD-20 axial-flow turbojet with 7.8 kN (1,754 lbf) thrust was added in the rear-fuselage. It was to add power for take-off and in combat situations only. Its fixed air intakes were placed on the fuselage flanks, right behind the cockpit, and the jet pipe was placed under the fin and the stabilizers.
Outwardly, Gudkov’s DIS resembled the late American P-47D or the A-1 Skyraider a lot, and the beefy aircraft was comparable in size and weight, too. But the Soviet all-metal aircraft was a completely new construction and featured relatively small and slender laminar flow wings. The wide-track landing gear retracted inwards into the inner wings while the tail wheel retracted fully into a shallow compartment under the jet pipe.
The pilot sat in a spacious cockpit under a frameless bubble canopy with very good all-round visibility and enjoyed amenities for long flights such as increased padding in the seat, armrests, and even a urinal. In addition, a full radio navigation suite was installed for the expected long range duties over long stretches of featureless landscape like the open sea.
Armament consisted of four 23 mm Nudelman-Suranov NS-23 cannons with 100 RPG in the wings, outside of the propeller arc. The guns were good for a weight of fire of 6kg (13.2 lb)/sec, a very good value. Five wet hardpoints under the fuselage, the wings outside of the landing gear well and under the wing tips could primarily carry auxiliary drop tanks or an external ordnance of up to 1.500 kg (3.300 lb).
Alternatively, iron bombs of up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) caliber could be carried on the centerline pylon, and a pair of 250 kg (550 lb) bombs under the wings, but a fighter bomber role was never seriously considered for the highly specialized and complex aircraft.
The first DIS prototype, still without the jet booster, flew in May 1947. The second prototype, with both engines installed, had its fuel capacity increased by an additional 275 l (73 US gal) in an additional fuel tank behind the cockpit. The aircraft was also fitted with larger tires to accommodate the increased all-up weight, esp. with all five 300 l drop tanks fitted for maximum range and endurance.
Flight testing continued until 1948 and the DIS concept proved to be satisfactory, even though the complicated ASh-82TKF hampered the DIS’ reliability - to the point that fitting the ASh-73TK from the Tu-4 was considered for serial production, even if this would have meant a significant reduction in performance. The RD-20 caused lots of trouble, too. Engine reliability was generally poor, and re-starting the engine in flight did not work satisfactorily – a problem that, despite several changes to the starter and ignition system, could never be fully cured. The jet engine’s placement in the tail, together with the small tail wheel, also caused problems because the pilots had to take care that the tail would not aggressively hit the ground upon landings, because the RD-20 and its attachments were easily damaged.
Nevertheless, the DIS basically fulfilled the requested performance specifications and was, despite many shortcomings, eventually cleared for production in mid 1948. It received the official designation Gudkov Gu-1, honoring the engineer behind the aircraft, even though the aircraft was produced by Lavochkin.
The first machines were delivered to VVS units in early 1949 - just in time for the Tu-4's service introduction after the Russians had toiled endlessly on solving several technical problems. In the meantime, jet fighter development had quickly progressed, even though a purely jet-powered escort fighter for the Tu-4 was still out of question. Since the Gu-1 was capricious, complex and expensive to produce, only a limited number left the factories and emphasis was put on the much simpler and more economical Lavochkin La-11 escort fighter, a lightweight evolution of the proven La-9. Both types were regarded as an interim solution until a pure jet escort fighter would be ready for service.
Operationally the Gu-1s remained closely allocated to the VVS’ bomber squadrons and became an integral part of them. Anyway, since the Tu-4 bomber never faced a serious combat situation, so did the Gu-1, which was to guard it on its missions. For instance, both types were not directly involved in the Korean War, and the Gu-1 was primarily concentrated at the NATO borders to Western Europe, since bomber attacks in this theatre would certainly need the heavy fighter’s protection.
The advent of the MiG-15 - especially the improved MiG-15bis with additional fuel capacities and drop tanks, quickly sounded the death knell for the Gu-1 and any other post-WWII piston-engine fighter in Soviet Service. As Tu-4 production ended in the Soviet Union in 1952, so did the Gu-1’s production after only about 150 aircraft. The Tu-4s and their escort fighters were withdrawn in the 1960s, being replaced by more advanced aircraft including the Tupolev Tu-16 jet bomber (starting in 1954) and the Tupolev Tu-95 turboprop bomber (starting in 1956).
The Gudkov Gu-1, receiving the NATO ASCC code “Flout”, remained a pure fighter. Even though it was not a success, some proposals for updates were made - but never carried out. These included pods with unguided S-5 air-to-air-rockets, to be carried on the wing hardpoints, bigger, non-droppable wing tip tanks for even more range or, alternatively, the addition of two pulsejet boosters on the wing tips.
There even was a highly modified mixed powerplant version on the drawing boards in 1952, the Gu-1M. Its standard radial powerplant for cruise flight was enhanced with a new, non-afterburning Mikulin AM-5 axial flow jet engine with 2.270 kgf/5,000 lbf/23 kN additional thrust in the rear fuselage. With this temporary booster, a top speed of up to 850 km/h was expected. But to no avail - the pure jet fighter promised a far better performance and effectiveness, and the Gu-1 remained the only aircraft to exclusively carry the Gudkov name.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 12 m (39 ft 4 in)
Wingspan: 14 m (45 ft 11 in)
Height: 4.65 m (15 ft 3 in)
Wing area: 28 m² (301.388 ft²)
Airfoil:
Empty weight: 4,637 kg (10,337 lb)
Loaded weight: 6.450 kg (14.220 lb)
Maximum take-off weight: 7,938 kg (17,500 lb)
Powerplant:
1× Shvetsov ASh-82TKF 18-cylinder air-cooled radial engine, rated at 2,720 hp (2,030 kW)
1x RD-20 axial-flow turbojet with 7.8 kN (1,754 lbf) thrust as temporary booster
Performance
Maximum speed: 676 km/h (420 mph) at 29,000 ft (8,839 m) with the radial only,
800 km/h (497 mph/432 kn,) with additional jet booster
Cruise speed: 440 km/h (237 kn, 273 mph)
Combat radius: 820 nmi (945 mi, 1,520 km)
Maximum range: 3.000 km (1.860 mi, 1.612 nmi) with drop tanks
Service ceiling: 14,680 m (48,170 ft)
Wing loading: 230.4 kg/m² (47.2 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 0.28 kW/kg (0.17 hp/lb)
Climb to 5,000 m (16,400 ft): 5 min 9 sec;
Climb to 10,000 m (32,800 ft): 17 min 38 sec;
Climb to 13,000 m (42,640 ft): 21 min 03 sec
Armament
4× 23 mm Nudelman-Suranov NS-23 cannons with 100 RPG in the outer wings
Five hardpoints for an external ordnance of 1.500 kg (3.300 lb)
The kit and its assembly:
This whif is the incarnation of a very effective kitbashing combo that already spawned my fictional Japanese Ki-104 fighter, and it is another submission to the 2018 “Cold War” group build at whatifmodelers.com. This purely fictional Soviet escort fighter makes use of my experiences from the first build of this kind, yet with some differences.
The kit is a bashing of various parts and pieces:
· Fuselage, wing roots, landing gear and propeller from an Academy P-47D
· Wings from an Ark Model Supermarine Attacker (ex Novo)
· Tail fin comes from a Heller F-84G
· The stabilizers were taken from an Airfix Ki-46
· Cowling from a Matchbox F6F, mounted and blended onto the P-47 front
· Jet exhaust is the intake of a Matchbox Me 262 engine pod
My choice fell onto the Academy Thunderbolt because it has engraved panel lines, offers the bubble canopy as well as good fit, detail and solid material. The belly duct had simply been sliced off, and the opening later faired over with styrene sheet and putty, so that the P-47’s deep belly would not disappear.
The F6F cowling was chosen because it looks a lot like the ASh-73TK from the Tu-4. But this came at a price: the P-47 cowling is higher, tighter and has a totally different shape. It took serious body sculpting with putty to blend the parts into each other. Inside of the engine, a styrene tube was added for a metal axis that holds the uncuffed OOB P-47 four blade propeller. The P-47’s OOB cockpit tub was retained, too, just the seat received scratched armrests for a more luxurious look.
The Attacker wings were chosen because of their "modern" laminar profile. The Novo kit itself is horrible and primitive, but acceptable for donations. OOB, the Attacker wings had too little span for the big P-47, so I decided to mount the Thunderbolt's OOB wings and cut them at a suitable point: maybe 0.5", just outside of the large main wheel wells. The intersection with the Attacker wings is almost perfect in depth and width, relatively little putty work was necessary in order to blend the parts into each other. I just had to cut out new landing gear wells from the lower halves of the Attacker wings, and with new attachment points the P-47’s complete OOB landing gear could be used.
With the new wing shape, the tail surfaces had to be changed accordingly. The trapezoid stabilizers come from an Airfix Mitsubishi Ki-46, and their shape is a good match. The P-47 fin had to go, since I wanted something bigger and a different silhouette. The fuselage below was modified with a jet exhaust, too. I actually found a leftover F-84G (Heller) tail, complete with the jet pipe and the benefit that it has plausible attachment points for the stabilizers far above the jet engine in the Gu-1’s tail.
However, the F-84 jet pipe’s diameter turned out to be too large, so I went for a smaller but practical alternative, a Junkers Jumo 004 nacelle from a Me 262 (the ancestor of the Soviet RD-20!). Its intake section was cut off, flipped upside down, the fin was glued on top of it and then the new tail was glued to the P-47 fuselage. Some (more serious) body sculpting was necessary to create a more or less harmonious transition between the parts, but it worked.
The plausible placement of the air intakes and their shape was a bit of a challenge. I wanted them to be obvious, but still keep an aerodynamic look. An initial idea had been to keep the P-47’s deep belly and widen the central oil cooler intake under the nose, but I found the idea wacky and a bit pointless, since such a long air duct would not make much sense since it would waste internal space and the long duct’s additional weight would not offer any benefit?
Another idea were air intakes in the wing roots, but these were also turned down since the landing gear wells would be in the way, and placing the ducts above or below the wings would also make no sense. A single ventral scoop (looking like a P-51 radiator bath) or two smaller, dorsal intakes (XP-81 style) behind the cockpit were other serious candidates – but these were both rejected because I wanted to keep a clean side profile.
I eventually settled for very simple, fixed side intakes, level with the jet exhaust, somewhat inspired by the Lavochkin La-200B heavy fighter prototype. The air scoops are simply parts from an Italeri Saab 39 Gripen centerline drop tank (which has a flat, oval diameter), and their shape is IMHO a perfect match.
Painting and markings:
While the model itself is a wild mix of parts with lots of improvisation involved, I wanted to keep the livery rather simple. The most plausible choice would have been an NMF finish, but I rather wanted some paint – so I used Soviet La-9 and -11 as a benchmark and settled for a simple two-tone livery: uniform light grey upper and light blue lower surfaces.
I used RAF Medium Sea Grey (Humbrol 165) and Soviet Underside Blue (Humbrol 114) as basic tones, and, after a black ink wash, these were lightened up through dry-brushed post-shading. The yellow spinner and fin tip are based on typical (subtle) squadron markings of the late 40ies era.
The cockpit as well the engine and landing gear interior became blue-grey (Revell 57), similar to the typical La-9/11’s colors. The green wheel discs and the deep blue propeller blades are not 100% in the aircraft's time frame, but I added these details in order to enhance the Soviet touch and some color accents.
Tactical markings were kept simple, too. The "38" and the Red Stars come form a Mastercraft MiG-15, the Guards badge from a Begemoth MiG-25 sheet and most of the stencils were taken from a Yak-38 sheet, also from Begemoth.
Finally, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and it received some mild soot stains and chipped paint around the cockpit and on the leading edges. Some oil stains were added around the engine (with Tamiya Smoke), too.
A massive aircraft, and this new use of the P-47/Attacker combo results again in a plausible solution. The added jet engine might appear a bit exotic, but the mixed powerplant concept was en vogue after WWII, but only a few aircraft made it beyond the prototype stage.
While painting the model I also wondered if an all dark blue livery and some USN markings could also have made this creation the Grumman JetCat? With the tall fin, the Gu-1 could also be an F8F Bearcat on steroids? Hmmm...
Sonam Kapoor, Aayushman Khurana & Jaey Gajera at Yash Raj Films Studio for the Special Screening of Bewakoofiyaan.
More Detail's on Blog : jaeygajera.tumblr.com/
#Bewakoofiyaan #YashRajFilms #NupurAsthana #AdityaChopra #HabibFaisal #AyushmannKhurrana #SonamKapoor #RishiKapoor #RaghuDixit #Bollywood #Bewakoofs #Mumbai — at Yash Raj Studios , Mumbai
place of the inequitable solutions II
europe of the arriving
how to arrive to stay
versammlung concert performance debatte film
camp, gezi park fiction / fr 12.9 — so 14.9.
The external borders of the EU remain deadly for the thousands and thousands of migrants who want to or are forced to come to Europe. But the protests in Berlin, Vienna, Hamburg and elsewhere clearly show, that we are more and more facing the claim for a right of arrival. We are aready living in the „europe of the arriving“ (V. Tsianos). People stay here and they establish their own way of living and making business, with their own network — even though politicians and bureaucrats still rely on walling-off and try hard to ignore the reality.
After one and a half years of demonstrations, manifestations, protest actions and continious struggle, „the right to stay“ for the group „Lampedusa in Hamburg“ has still not been implemented. However, major developments have taken place in this city — this developments of solidarity, engagement and political activism can be observed also in other cities, in which Refugees have organized themselves. While the battle for a solution continues, and activists build informal structures and invent strategies to outsmart the regime of repressive residence, work permits and border politics, expertise has emerged almost everywhere but because so much needs to be the done, the time to analyse these assesments is often lacking.
The idea for the weekend camp on the 12.-14. September is to bring together various expertise on several issues, ranging from border crossing, arrival, selforganization, immigration to labour legislation — and we are going to interlace this with performances, songs, films and choreography.
External view of Kelvinhaugh Gate.
Image Disclaimer - Please note that all of the images shown are for illustrative purposes only. The rooms pictured are not necessarily typical of the accommodation available at Kelvinhaugh Gate, which can vary in terms of size, configuration, and finish.
Last night I set off for Dublin Dental School for a day of external examining. There were storm winds at Dublin airport so after an hour or so circling to see if they would reduce (which they didn't), we set off and landed at Manchester and eventually a decision was made to cancel the flight at 12.30. All local hotels there were full and the flight was rescheduled for mid to late morning. Unfortunately my commitments were starting at 8.45am. So I slept at the airport and took the first train back to Birmingham. Very frustrating! Could not fault the Aer Lingus staff as the situation was out of their control. Here is a "selfie" of me at 2am trying to get some sleep in the airport.
Houghton Hall was the home of Sir Robert Walpole, Britain's first Prime Minister from 1721 to 1742.
Houghton was built between 1722 and 1735.
This is the Stable Square at Houghton Hall. Inside is the Soldier Museum, Restaurant, Gift Shop and Stables.
This is the second stables that Sir Robert Walpole built at Houghton, between 1733 and 1735. The external walls are made of the local yellow Snettisham stone and the walls are brick.
The stables replaces an earlier quadrangle built between 1719 and 1721, which was the first of its kind at a country house. But the old one was too close to the house, so Sir Robert Walpole had it demolished, and then started again on a new site further from the house and out of view.
The stables are Grade I listed.
Stables - Houghton Hall - Heritage Gateway
Stable courtyard, known as the Square. C.1730, attributable to William Kent,
but perhaps supervised by Thomas Ripley architect. For Sir Robert Walpole,
later 1st Earl of Orford. Palladian. Largely coursed carstone, some brick
on south and west facades, brick with carstone dressings to interior courtyard.
Smut pantiles and slates, 15 bay east and west and 13 bay north and south
ranges, built around a courtyard. East and west facades have 3 bay centre-
pieces, 6 bay north and south ranges. Single bay angle towers. Centre bay
has raised chamfered rusticated keyed arch, boarded door. 2 flanking bays
having single boarded doors under arches with fixed casement lunette heads.
Each bay has single 2-light casements. Raised chamfered rusticated quoins
to central bay and flanking bay angles. Centre has third storey with Diocletian
window. Flanking bays have lean-to half pediments, clasping central full
pediment, Palladio's Rendentore arrangements. 6 north and south bays have
ground floor blank bays with piers with simple bases and capitals, fixed and
opening casements in arches above. 6 north and south 2-light casements above.
End bay forms angle towers with recessed blank bays with casements in arches,
2-light casements above. Raised and chamfered angle quoins. Octagonal third
storey turrets with round arched oculuses, cornice, and octagonal slated roofs
with large scale acorn finials. 4 roundels on pedestals at parapet level,
a direct Palladio quotation. Whole facade articulated with ground level plinth
first floor platband and eaves modillion cornice. West range has in addition
carved and brick blank arches to ground floor. Coat of arms with swags in
central pediment. Late C17 from earlier house with quarterings of Sir Robert
Walpole's grandfather. 4 stacks to each ridge. North facade has blank arches
with lunettes. Single bay centrepiece with rusticated, keyed open arch, third
floor Diocletian window and pediment. South facade has brick blank arches
to ground floor. 2 stacks to each ridge. Entrance arches have 2 leaf
contemporary iron gates. Courtyard facades: 13 bay east and west, and 9 north
and south, repeat details of outer facades. Brick with carstone plinths,
platbands and modillion cornices and pediments. Contemporary 2 leaf cast iron
gates with speared dog and upper rails fixed against inner north and south
entrances. Interior: ground floor with brick quadripartite vaults. At north
east C18 stalls with oak Doric columns, with roundels marking divisions,
rectangular oak piers supporting vaults. C19 loose boxes. West range largely
converted to garages c.1900. See Isaac Ware Plans, Elevations and Sections
of Houghton. (1735) 1750 edition pls. 33, 34. Mrs Herbert Jones Houghton in
the Brake (Norwich 1878).
Sign for the Education Centre.
In dorsal view, the mantle is lanceolate and slenderest at the posterior.
The front edge is indented and raised to accommodate the protruding rhinophores.
Length 19.4 mm. Sublittoral, Orkney, Scotland. May 2017. Leg. S. Taylor.
Full SPECIES DESCRIPTION BELOW
Sets of OTHER SPECIES: www.flickr.com/photos/56388191@N08/collections/
Armina loveni (Bergh, 1866)
Authors Ian F. Smith (text) and Simon Taylor (fieldwork).
Current taxonomy: World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS)
www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=13880...
Synonyms: Pleurophyllidia loveni Bergh, 1866;
GLOSSARY below.
Among British species, A. loveni is unique in its external anatomy and mode of life, but there are closely similar Armina species elsewhere. It cannot be ruled out that DNA investigation might reveal more than one cryptic species in British waters.
Body
Up to 40 mm long, and covered by, in dorsal view, a lanceolate mantle, slenderest at the posterior 1Al flic.kr/p/25oNtA3 . It can contract from slender 2Al flic.kr/p/22GzK9s to stout 3Al flic.kr/p/FNowKT . The smooth brick-red surface has up to 50 irregularly wavy, white, longitudinal ridges 4Al flic.kr/p/22GzHRC which are more or less continuous for the length of the mantle; strong ones alternating with weaker ones 3Al flic.kr/p/FNowKT . The mantle has a whitish peripheral border 3Al flic.kr/p/FNowKT that has many protruding translucent glands ventrally 5Al flic.kr/p/FNovSF . The front edge of the mantle is indented 1Al flic.kr/p/25oNtA3 and raised 4Al flic.kr/p/22GzHRC to accommodate the protruding rhinophores. Some specimens have a broad, partial, transverse, paler zone near the anterior and slightly more than half way along the mantle 2Al flic.kr/p/22GzK9s .
The head consists of a pair of rhinophores with a forward protruding caruncle at their united base, a large, oval, cephalic shield 6Al flic.kr/p/25oNr3h and, below the shield, orange mouthparts 7Al flic.kr/p/25stCt6 . The proximal face of the shield is attached to the body along a short central section of its transverse diameter. When not burrowing in sediment, the shield is usually folded along its transverse diameter so the distal face is concealed within the fold, and the proximal face forms both the dorsum and venter of the folded shield 6Al flic.kr/p/25oNr3h . When not feeding, the orange tubular mouth 7Al flic.kr/p/25stCt6 & 8Al flic.kr/p/25oNqrs is not engorged, and a circular oral veil is exposed 5Al flic.kr/p/FNovSF . When feeding, the mouthparts containing strong jaws are everted and greatly engorged 9Al flic.kr/p/246z93K .
The cephalic shield can be held in various positions:
a) Folded flat with the distal face concealed in the fold 6Al flic.kr/p/25oNr3h ; fully exposing the rhinophores and caruncle 10Al flic.kr/p/25stBeH .
b) Partially unfolded when moving the shield into position 'c' 11Al flic.kr/p/FNou8i .
c) Completely unfolded into the form of a snow plough, with the previously hidden distal face forming the anterior of the plough 11Al flic.kr/p/FNou8i for moving through the surface layer of a soft substrate. The protruding caruncle holds a gap open between the shield and the mantle edge for an inhalent respiratory flow of water. In this configuration the proximal face is concealed.
d) With the cephalic shield forming maximum cover so only the rhinophores and a small respiratory gap are left 11Al flic.kr/p/FNou8i to project above the mud it is concealed in 12Al flic.kr/p/25stAkD .
The rhinophores are a pair of whitish ovoids with a small colourless nipple on the summit and short stems that unite at the base 13Al flic.kr/p/25stztZ . They are shallowly fluted to form vertical lamellae, but the fluting on each rhinophore can expand into about seven bifid branches when in the shelter of the raised mantle 13Al flic.kr/p/25stztZ . There is small black eye on the stem of each rhinophore. The lateral body wall is translucent white with a few dark flecks, and orange viscera are indistinctly visible within 14Al flic.kr/p/HjKSV3 . A bunch of orange, lateral lamellae is attached to the hyponotum on each side close to the head 14Al flic.kr/p/HjKSV3 , and the rest of the hyponotum is corrugated with numerous, smaller, obliquely orientated, orange/yellow (probably respiratory) ribs 5Al flic.kr/p/FNovSF .
The ample foot and mantle can easily meet 15Al flic.kr/p/246z6ir to form a secure seal against the ingress of sediment onto the mantle cavity when the slug is buried in the substrate. The sole is yellowish 16Al flic.kr/p/246z5ND or white tinged with red (Thompson & Brown, 1984) and has a median groove. The anterior is rounded with no propodial tentacles, and the posterior tapers to a point.
The penis 14Al flic.kr/p/HjKSV3 is a slender, bluntly tipped cylinder when extended on the right close to the head (Thomson & Brown, 1984).
Key identification features
Armina loveni
1: Lanceolate, smooth, brick-red mantle with irregularly wavy, white, longitudinal ridges 2Al flic.kr/p/22GzK9s .
2 Large folded cephalic shield 6Al flic.kr/p/25oNr3h that can unfold to form an anterior like a snow plough 11Al flic.kr/p/FNou8i .
3 White ovoid rhinophores with vertical grooves project from below anterior of mantle 13Al flic.kr/p/25stztZ .
4 Multiple orange/yellow (probably respiratory) ribs on underside of mantle 5Al flic.kr/p/FNovSF .
Similar species
No other north west European nudibranch has the above key features. In the Mediterranean and Bay of Biscay, A. neapolitana is virtually identical externally, but its lateral teeth are flattened and cusped (Schmekel & Portmann, 1982) while they are smooth hooks on A. loveni (17Al flic.kr/p/2pe8Loa and Thompson & Brown, 1984).
Habits and ecology
A video of the life habits of the very similar Pacific A. californica is at youtu.be/ef4nn45MDrs .
A. loveni lives sublittorally in situations lacking wave disturbance from 10m to 75m on mud 9Al flic.kr/p/246z93K , sand or gravel 10Al flic.kr/p/25stBeH where sea pens live. It feeds mainly on Virgularia mirabilis www.habitas.org.uk/marinelife/species.asp?item=D10560 and sometimes on other sea pen species such as Funiculina quadrangularis 9Al flic.kr/p/246z93K & (Picton & Morrow) www.habitas.org.uk/marinelife/species.asp?item=D10500 . To feed, it everts and engorges its mouthparts and strips the polyps from the rachis, starting at the base of the Sea pen. Denuded rachises are a sign that A. loveni is probably close by 18Al flic.kr/p/24nNCum . When not feeding, it conceals itself below the surface of soft sediment with just the rhinophores and the rim of the respiratory gap of the mantle showing 12Al flic.kr/p/25stAkD . It senses its prey with its chemoreceptor rhinophores which are always held clear of the substrate with the small eye protruding just beyond the mantle edge. The body surface is touch sensitive to predators which it repels with repugnatorial substances from glands in the mantle rim 5Al flic.kr/p/FNovSF . Thomson & Brown (1984) stated that the caruncle 13Al flic.kr/p/25stztZ is sensory, but the very similar A. californica has no caruncle, and its function of holding open the anterior respiratory gap is performed by a pair of large, white, lateral flanges (Williams, 2008). The inhalent respiratory current enters the gap and flows through the lateral lamellae 14Al flic.kr/p/HjKSV3 and over the (probably respiratory) ribs in the large mantle cavity extending the length of the animal on either side 5Al flic.kr/p/FNovSF . When buried, the cavity is kept clear of sediment by the inhalent gap being held above the substrate 12Al flic.kr/p/25stAkD , and by the ample foot and mantle probably forming a seal elsewhere 15Al flic.kr/p/246z6ir . The spawn is a tightly coiled pale pink thread.
Distribution and status
Scotland, northern half of North Sea, Kattegat, S. Norway and a few records from Ireland and SW England; probably under-recorded as conceals itself in the substrate, GBIF map www.gbif.org/species/2291818 (Large numbers in North Sea may result from a survey data input error) . Most British records are from Scotland; U.K. map NBN species.nbnatlas.org/species/NHMSYS0021056200
Discussion
This account is based on examination and photographs of a live specimen in laboratory conditions, photographs of live A. loveni in the wild and a video of the life habits of the similar A. californica. Online sources and several publications describing preserved distorted specimens were consulted. These sources differed in interpretation from each other, so it is unavoidable that this account differs from them in parts.
For the flat feature that can be raised at the anterior I have used the term cephalic shield as it is part of the head and, when required, it shields the rest of the head, and the mantle cavity.
Thompson & Brown (1976) stated, 'the head is large and flattened, produced laterally into pointed tentacles'. They made no mention of a shield, but their image 19Al flic.kr/p/25XZjXS shows that they were referring to the folded shield as the head and tentacles. Thompson & Brown (1984) made the same statement with ‘pointed tentacles’ changed to ‘blunt tentacles’ and a different image showing the ends of the folded cephalic shield as that feature. The lateral ends of the ovoid cephalic shield on live specimens do not resemble tentacles in any of the many positions they can assume 06Al flic.kr/p/25oNr3h & 11Al flic.kr/p/FNou8i . As they had no experience of live specimens, Thompson and Brown would not have seen the shield unfolded for action.
Schmekel & Portmann (1982), describing the externally similar A. neapolitana, wrote 'cephalic veil oval', which describes the form but not the function of the feature. Kolb (1998) cited this but she wrote 'oral veil distinct ' and labelled the cephalic shield on a figure of a distorted preserved specimen of A. loveni as 'oral veil'.
Though Kolb misinterpreted the cephalic shield as an oral veil there is, in fact, a circular oral veil around the mouth 05Al flic.kr/p/FNovSF but she and Thompson & Brown did not record it, probably because they studied preserved material on which the veil was hidden. Divers photographing live A. loveni in the wild rarely take ventral photographs so they, too, seem not to have observed the oral veil.
Picton & Morrow (1994 & 2023), having observed live specimens, wrote, 'The foot forms a shield across the front of the head'; but the cephalic shield 11Al flic.kr/p/FNou8i is not part of the foot as the mouth is below it 07Al flic.kr/p/25stCt6 & 08Al flic.kr/p/25oNqrs .
Acknowledgements
I gratefully thank Simon Taylor for providing a live specimen for photography, and Lin Baldock, George Brown and Becky Hitchin for use of their very informative underwater images. I thank Dr. Peter Hayward, editor of the Linnean Synopses of the British Fauna, for kind permission to reproduce part of a figure from Thompson & Brown (1976).
Links and references
Ballesteros, M., Madrenas, E. & Pontes, M. (accessed November 2023) Armina neapolitana, Guide to Opisthobranchs, OPK Opistobranquis. opistobranquis.info/en/?s=Armina+neapolitana
Eliot, C.N.E. 1910. A monograph of the British nudibranchiate mollusca. Supplementary volume. London, Ray Society. (as Pleurophyllidia loveni)
archive.org/details/british_nudibranchiate_mollusca_pt8_l...
and Plate viii
archive.org/details/british_nudibranchiate_mollusca_pt8_l...
Kolb, A. 1998. Morphology, anatomy and histology of four species of Armina Rafinesque, 1814 (Nudibranchia, Arminoidea, Arminidae) from the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean. J. Moll. Stud. 64: 355 to 386.
academic.oup.com/mollus/article/64/3/355/1012614
Picton, B. & Morrow, C. 1994. A field guide to the nudibranchs of the British Isles. London, Immel Publishing.
Picton, B. & Morrow, C. 2023. Nudibranchs of Britain, Ireland and Northwest Europe. Oxford, Princeton University Press.
Rowley, S.J. 2007. Armina loveni A sea slug. In Tyler-Walters H. and Hiscock K. (eds) Marine Life Information Network. Plymouth, Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. www.marlin.ac.uk/species/detail/2085
Schmekel, L. & Portmann, A. 1982. Opisthobranchia des Mittelmeeres, Nudibranchia und Saccoglossa. Berlin, Springer.
Thompson, T.E. & Brown, G.H. 1976. British opisthobranch molluscs. Synopses of the British Fauna (New series) No. 8. Linnean Society and Academic Press, London.
Thompson, T.E. & Brown, G.H. 1984. Biology of opisthobranch molluscs 2. London, Ray Society.
Williams, C. 2008. Attack of the sea slugs. 6 minute video on YouTube of behaviour of similar species Armina californica from Pacific, USA.
www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=315&v=ef4nn45MDrs
Current taxonomy: World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS)
www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=13880...
Glossary
caruncle = fleshy excrescence like neck wattle on turkey.
chemoreception = sensing of chemicals; “smell / taste”.
chemoreceptor = organ or cell able to sense chemicals; “smell / taste”.
cephalic = (adj.) of or on the head.
cusp = pointed projection on a tooth.
distal = away from centre of body or from point of attachment.
ELWS = extreme low water spring tide (usually near March and September equinoxes).
everted = turned outwards or inside out.
hyponotum = ventral surface of the notum (mantle).
lamellae = (of sea slugs) small plates on rhinophores or leaflets of gill.
lanceolate = narrow oval shape tapering to a point like a lance head.
mantle = sheet of tissue covering visceral mass of molluscs. Secretes shell of shelled species, and forms part or all of dorsal body surface (notum) of those without shells.
oral veil = anterior extension of head into finger-like processes or into a flat sheet, sometimes with lateral flaps.
propodial = at the front of the foot.
proximal = towards the centre of the body or point of attachment.
rachis = central shaft of a feather or Sea pen.
repugnatorial = (adj.) of an offensive subtance, or a gland producing it, that repels enemies.
rhinophore = chemoreceptor tentacle; nudibranch sea slugs have a pair on top of the head.
A project for renovation of a property in Cuffley. Visit : www.allweathercoating.co.uk/case-studies/cuffley-2/
Frontview of Voicecoil mounted on a plastic waterpipecover. The Shutter aperture is 18 mm. The actual Shutterlag is 9 msec for full opening, and another 9 msec to full close. The actual Shutter driver is a 4 pin DIP IRFD024 Hexfet with a 14 Volt DC or 5 Volt (4 X AA) + 9 Volt (NiMh 200 mAh Block) powersupply. A Future version may use an IRF530 Hexfet with a 23 Volt DC (5 Volt + (2 X 9 Volt)) powersupply with some extra hardware added to decrease the Shutterlag and Close times. Several thousands of shutter operations are possible with one set of fully charged batteries. Shutter life is maybe determined by its DIY coil connection ... The shutter weight
is only 95 gram.
Update : I changed the aperture opening to 16 mm. The actual shutterlag is
now ca. 6 msec. The openingstime of the shutter another 6 msec.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some Background:
During the 1950s, Hindustan Aircraft Limited (HAL) had developed and produced several types of trainer aircraft, such as the HAL HT-2. However, elements within the firm were eager to expand into the then-new realm of supersonic fighter aircraft. Around the same time, the Indian government was in the process of formulating a new Air Staff Requirement for a Mach 2-capable combat aircraft to equip the Indian Air Force (IAF). However, as HAL lacked the necessary experience in both developing and manufacturing frontline combat fighters, it was clear that external guidance would be invaluable; this assistance was embodied by Kurt Tank.
In 1956, HAL formally began design work on the supersonic fighter project. The Indian government, led by Jawaharlal Nehru, authorized the development of the aircraft, stating that it would aid in the development of a modern aircraft industry in India. The first phase of the project sought to develop an airframe suitable for travelling at supersonic speeds, and able to effectively perform combat missions as a fighter aircraft, while the second phase sought to domestically design and produce an engine capable of propelling the aircraft. Early on, there was an explicit adherence to satisfying the IAF's requirements for a capable fighter bomber; attributes such as a twin-engine configuration and a speed of Mach 1.4 to 1.5 were quickly emphasized, and this led to the HF-24 Marut.
On 24 June 1961, the first prototype Marut conducted its maiden flight. It was powered by the same Bristol Siddeley Orpheus 703 turbojets that had powered the Folland Gnat, also being manufactured by HAL at that time. On 1 April 1967, the first production Marut was delivered to the IAF. While originally intended only as an interim measure during testing, HAL decided to power production Maruts with a pair of unreheated Orpheus 703s, meaning the aircraft could not attain supersonic speed. Although originally conceived to operate around Mach 2 the Marut in fact was barely capable of reaching Mach 1 due to the lack of suitably powerful engines.
The IAF were reluctant to procure a fighter aircraft only marginally superior to its existing fleet of British-built Hawker Hunters. However, in 1961, the Indian Government decided to procure the Marut, nevertheless, but only 147 aircraft, including 18 two-seat trainers, were completed out of a planned 214. Just after the decision to build the lukewarm Marut, the development of a more advanced aircraft with the desired supersonic performance was initiated.
This enterprise started star-crossed, though: after the Indian Government conducted its first nuclear tests at Pokhran, international pressure prevented the import of better engines of Western origin, or at times, even spares for the Orpheus engines, so that the Marut never realized its full potential due to insufficient power, and it was relatively obsolescent by the time it reached production.
Due to these restrictions India looked for other sources for supersonic aircraft and eventually settled upon the MiG-21 F-13 from the Soviet Union, which entered service in 1964. While fast and agile, the Fishbed was only a short-range daylight interceptor. It lacked proper range for escort missions and air space patrols, and it had no radar that enabled it to conduct all-weather interceptions. To fill this operational gap, the new indigenous HF-26 project was launched around the same time.
For the nascent Indian aircraft industry, HF-26 had a demanding requirements specification: the aircraft was to achieve Mach 2 top speed at high altitude and carry a radar with a guided missile armament that allowed interceptions in any weather, day and night. The powerplant question was left open, but it was clear from the start that a Soviet engine would be needed, since an indigenous development of a suitable powerplant would take much too long and block vital resources, and western alternatives were out of reach. The mission profile and the performance requirements quickly defined the planned aircraft’s layout: To fit a radar, the air intakes with movable ramps to feed the engines were placed on the fuselage flanks. To make sure the aircraft would fulfill its high-performance demands, it was right from the outset powered by two engines, and it was decided to give it delta wings, a popular design among high-speed aircraft of the time – exemplified by the highly successful Dassault Mirage III (which was to be delivered to Pakistan in 1967). With two engines, the HF-26 would be a heavier aircraft than the Mirage III, though, and it was planned to operate the aircraft from semi-prepared airfields, so that it would receive a robust landing gear with low-pressure tires and a brake parachute.
In 1962 India was able to negotiate the delivery of Tumansky RD-9 turbojet engines from the Soviet Union, even though no afterburner was part of the deal – this had to be indigenously developed by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). However, this meant that the afterburner could be tailored to the HF-26, and this task would provide HAL with valuable engineering experience, too.
Now knowing the powerplant, HAL created a single-seater airframe around it, a rather robust design that superficially reminded of the French Mirage III, but there were fundamental differences. The HF-26 had boxy air intakes with movable ramps to control the airflow to the two engines and a relatively wide fuselage to hold them and most of the fuel in tanks between the air ducts behind the cockpit. The aircraft had a single swept fin and a rather small mid-positioned delta-wing with a 60° sweep. The pilot sat under a tight canopy that offered - similar to the Mirage III - only limited all-round vision.
The HF-26's conical nose radome covered an antenna for a ‘Garud’ interception radar – which was in fact a downgraded Soviet ‘Oryol' (Eagle; NATO reporting name 'Skip Spin') system that guided the HF-26’s main armament, a pair of semi-active radar homing (SARH) ‚Saanp’ missiles.
The Saanp missile was developed specifically for the HF-26 in India but used many components of Soviet origin, too, so that they were compatible with the radar. In performance, the Saanp was comparable with the French Matra R.530 air-to-air missile, even though the aerodynamic layout was reversed, with steering fins at the front end, right behind the SARH seaker head - overall the missile reminded of an enlarged AIM-4 Falcon. The missile weighed 180 kg and had a length of 3.5 m. Power came from a two-stage solid rocket that offered a maximum thrust of 80 kN for 2.7 s during the launch phase plus 6.5 s cruise. Maximum speed was Mach 2.7 and operational range was 1.5 to 20 km (0.9 to 12.5 miles). Two of these missiles could be carried on the main wing hardpoints in front of the landing gear wells. Alternatively, infrared-guided R-3 (AA-2 ‘Atoll’) short-range AAMs could be carried by the HF-26, too, and typically two of these were carried on the outer underwing hardpoints, which were plumbed to accept drop tanks (typically supersonic PTB-490s that were carried by the IAF's MiG-21s, too) . Initially, no internal gun was envisioned, as the HF-26 was supposed to be a pure high-speed/high-altitude interceptor that would not engage in dogfights. Two more hardpoints under the fuselage were plumbed, too, for a total of six external stations.
Due to its wing planform, the HF-26 was soon aptly called “Teer” (= Arrow), and with Soviet help the first prototype was rolled out in early 1964 and presented to the public. The first flight, however, would take place almost a year later in January 1965, due to many technical problems, and these were soon complemented by aerodynamic problems. The original delta-winged HF-26 had poor take-off and landing characteristics, and directional stability was weak, too. While a second prototype was under construction in April 1965 the first aircraft was lost after it had entered a spin from which the pilot could not escape – the aircraft crashed and its pilot was killed during the attempt to eject.
After this loss HAL investigated an enlarged fin and a modified wing design with deeper wingtips with lower sweep, which increased wing area and improved low speed handling, too. Furthermore, the fuselage shape had to be modified, too, to reduce supersonic drag, and a more pronounced area ruling was introduced. The indigenous afterburner for the RD-9 engines was unstable and troublesome, too.
It took until 1968 and three more flying prototypes (plus two static airframes) to refine the Teer for serial production service introduction. In this highly modified form, the aircraft was re-designated HF-26M and the first machines were delivered to IAF No. 3 Squadron in late 1969. However, it would take several months until a fully operational status could be achieved. By that time, it was already clear that the Teer, much like the HF-24 Marut before, could not live up to its expectations and was at the brink of becoming obsolete as it entered service. The RD-9 was not a modern engine anymore, and despite its indigenous afterburner – which turned out not only to be chronically unreliable but also to be very thirsty when engaged – the Teer had a disappointing performance: The fighter only achieved a top speed of Mach 1.6 at full power, and with full external load it hardly broke the wall of sound in level flight. Its main armament, the Saanp AAM, also turned out to be unreliable even under ideal conditions.
However, the HF-26M came just in time to take part in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and was, despite its weaknesses, extensively used – even though not necessarily in its intended role. High-flying slow bombers were not fielded during the conflict, and the Teer remained, despite its on-board radar, heavily dependent on ground control interception (GCI) to vector its pilot onto targets coming in at medium and even low altitude. The HF-26M had no capability against low-flying aircraft either, so that pilots had to engage incoming, low-flying enemy aircraft after visual identification – a task the IAF’s nimble MiG-21s were much better suited for. Escorts and air cover missions for fighter-bombers were flown, too, but the HF-26M’s limited range only made it a suitable companion for the equally short-legged Su-7s. The IAF Canberras were frequently deployed on longer range missions, but the HF-26Ms simply could not follow them all the time; for a sufficient range the Teer had to carry four drop tanks, what increased drag and only left the outer pair of underwing hardpoints (which were not plumbed) free for a pair of AA-2 missiles. With the imminent danger of aerial close range combat, though, During the conflict with Pakistan, most HF-26M's were retrofitted with rear-view mirrors in their canopies to improve the pilot's field of view, and a passive IR sensor was added in a small fairing under the nose to improve the aircraft's all-weather capabilities and avoid active radar emissions that would warn potential prey too early.
The lack of an internal gun turned out to be another great weakness of the Teer, and this was only lightly mended through the use of external gun pods. Two of these cigar-shaped pods that resembled the Soviet UPK-23 pod could be carried on the two ventral pylons, and each contained a 23 mm Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-23L autocannon of Soviet origin with 200 rounds. Technically these pods were very similar to the conformal GP-9 pods carried by the IAF MiG-21FLs. While the gun pods considerably improved the HF-26M’s firepower and versatility, the pods were draggy, blocked valuable hardpoints (from extra fuel) and their recoil tended to damage the pylons as well as the underlying aircraft structure, so that they were only commissioned to be used in an emergency.
However, beyond air-to-air weapons, the HF-26M could also carry ordnance of up to 1.000 kg (2.207 lb) on the ventral and inner wing hardpoints and up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) on the other pair of wing hardpoints, including iron bombs and/or unguided missile pods. However, the limited field of view from the cockpit over the radome as well as the relatively high wing loading did not recommend the aircraft for ground attack missions – even though these frequently happened during the conflict with Pakistan. For these tactical missions, many HF-26Ms lost their original overall natural metal finish and instead received camouflage paint schemes on squadron level, resulting in individual and sometimes even spectacular liveries. Most notable examples were the Teer fighters of No. 1 Squadron (The Tigers), which sported various camouflage adaptations of the unit’s eponym.
Despite its many deficiencies, the HF-26M became heavily involved in the Indo-Pakistan conflict. As the Indian Army tightened its grip in East Pakistan, the Indian Air Force continued with its attacks against Pakistan as the campaign developed into a series of daylight anti-airfield, anti-radar, and close-support attacks by fighter jets, with night attacks against airfields and strategic targets by Canberras and An-12s, while Pakistan responded with similar night attacks with its B-57s and C-130s.
The PAF deployed its F-6s mainly on defensive combat air patrol missions over their own bases, leaving the PAF unable to conduct effective offensive operations. Sporadic raids by the IAF continued against PAF forward air bases in Pakistan until the end of the war, and interdiction and close-support operations were maintained. One of the most successful air raids by India into West Pakistan happened on 8 December 1971, when Indian Hunter aircraft from the Pathankot-based 20 Squadron, attacked the Pakistani base in Murid and destroyed 5 F-86 aircraft on the ground.
The PAF played a more limited role in the operations, even though they were reinforced by Mirages from an unidentified Middle Eastern ally (whose identity remains unknown). The IAF was able to conduct a wide range of missions – troop support; air combat; deep penetration strikes; para-dropping behind enemy lines; feints to draw enemy fighters away from the actual target; bombing and reconnaissance. India flew 1,978 sorties in the East and about 4,000 in Pakistan, while the PAF flew about 30 and 2,840 at the respective fronts. More than 80 percent of IAF sorties were close-support and interdiction and about 45 IAF aircraft were lost, including three HF-26Ms. Pakistan lost 60 to 75 aircraft, not including any F-86s, Mirage IIIs, or the six Jordanian F-104s which failed to return to their donors. The imbalance in air losses was explained by the IAF's considerably higher sortie rate and its emphasis on ground-attack missions. The PAF, which was solely focused on air combat, was reluctant to oppose these massive attacks and rather took refuge at Iranian air bases or in concrete bunkers, refusing to offer fights and respective losses.
After the war, the HF-26M was officially regarded as outdated, and as license production of the improved MiG-21FL (designated HAL Type 77 and nicknamed “Trishul” = Trident) and later of the MiG-21M (HAL Type 88) was organized in India, the aircraft were quickly retired from frontline units. They kept on serving into the Eighties, though, but now restricted to their original interceptor role. Beyond the upgrades from the Indo-Pakistani War, only a few upgrades were made. For instance, the new R-60 AAM was introduced to the HF-26M and around 1978 small (but fixed) canards were retrofitted to the air intakes behind the cockpit that improved the Teer’s poor slow speed control and high landing speed as well as the aircraft’s overall maneuverability.
A radar upgrade, together with the introduction of better air-to-ai missiles with a higher range and look down/shoot down capability was considered but never carried out. Furthermore, the idea of a true HF-26 2nd generation variant, powered by a pair of Tumansky R-11F-300 afterburner jet engines (from the license-built MiG-21FLs), was dropped, too – even though this powerplant eventually promised to fulfill the Teer’s design promise of Mach 2 top speed. A total of only 82 HF-26s (including thirteen two-seat trainers with a lengthened fuselage and reduced fuel capacity, plus eight prototypes) were built. The last aircraft were retired from IAF service in 1988 and replaced with Mirage 2000 fighters procured from France that were armed with the Matra Super 530 AAM.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 14.97 m (49 ft ½ in)
Wingspan: 9.43 m (30 ft 11 in)
Height: 4.03 m (13 ft 2½ in)
Wing area: 30.6 m² (285 sq ft)
Empty weight: 7,000 kg (15,432 lb)
Gross weight: 10,954 kg (24,149 lb) with full internal fuel
Max takeoff weight: 15,700 kg (34,613 lb) with external stores
Powerplant:
2× Tumansky RD-9 afterburning turbojet engines; 29 kN (6,600 lbf) dry thrust each
and 36.78 kN (8,270 lbf) with afterburner
Performance:
Maximum speed: 1,700 km/h (1,056 mph; 917 kn; Mach 1.6) at 11,000 m (36,000 ft)
1,350 km/h (840 mph, 730 kn; Mach 1.1) at sea level
Combat range: 725 km (450 mi, 391 nmi) with internal fuel only
Ferry range: 1,700 km (1,100 mi, 920 nmi) with four drop tanks
Service ceiling: 18,100 m (59,400 ft)
g limits: +6.5
Time to altitude: 9,145 m (30,003 ft) in 1 minute 30 seconds
Wing loading: 555 kg/m² (114 lb/sq ft)
Armament
6× hardpoints (four underwing and two under the fuselage) for a total of 2.500 kg (5.500 lb);
Typical interceptor payload:
- two IR-guided R-3 or R-60 air-to-air-missiles or
two PTB-490 drop tanks on the outer underwing stations
- two semi-active radar-guided ‚Saanp’ air-to-air missiles or two more R-3 or R-60 AAMs
on inner underwing stations
- two 500 l drop tanks or two gun pods with a 23 mm GSh-23L autocannon and 200 RPG
each under the fuselage
The kit and its assembly:
This whiffy delta-wing fighter was inspired when I recently sliced up a PM Model Su-15 kit for my side-by-side-engine BAC Lightning build. At an early stage of the conversion, I held the Su-15 fuselage with its molded delta wings in my hand and wondered if a shortened tail section (as well as a shorter overall fuselage to keep proportions balanced) could make a delta-wing jet fighter from the Flagon base? Only a hardware experiment could yield an answer, and since the Su-15’s overall outlines look a bit retro I settled at an early stage on India as potential designer and operator, as “the thing the HF-24 Marut never was”.
True to the initial idea, work started on the tail, and I chopped off the fuselage behind the wings’ trailing edge. Some PSR was necessary to blend the separate exhaust section into the fuselage, which had to be reduced in depth through wedges that I cut out under the wings trailing edge, plus some good amount of glue and sheer force the bend the section a bit upwards. The PM Model's jet exhausts were drilled open, and I added afterburner dummies inside - anything would look better than the bleak vertical walls inside after only 2-3 mm! The original fin was omitted, because it was a bit too large for the new, smaller aircraft and its shape reminded a lot of the Suchoj heavy fighter family. It was replaced with a Mirage III/V fin, left over from a (crappy!) Pioneer 2 IAI Nesher kit.
Once the rear section was complete, I had to adjust the front end - and here the kitbashing started. First, I chopped off the cockpit section in front of the molded air intake - the Su-15’s long radome and the cockpit on top of the fuselage did not work anymore. As a remedy I remembered another Su-15 conversion I did a (long) while ago: I created a model of a planned ground attack derivative, the T-58Sh, and, as a part of the extensive body work, I transplanted the slanted nose from an academy MiG-27 between the air intakes – a stunt that was relatively easy and which appreciably lowered the cockpit position. For the HF-26M I did something similar, I just transplanted a cockpit from a Hasegawa/Academy MiG-23 with its ogival radome that size-wise better matched with the rest of the leftover Su-15 airframe.
The MiG-23 cockpit matched perfectly with the Su-15's front end, just the spinal area behind the cockpit had to be raised/re-sculpted to blend the parts smoothly together. For a different look from the Su-15 ancestry I also transplanted the front sections of the MiG-23 air intakes with their shorter ramps. Some mods had to be made to the Su-15 intake stubs, but the MiG-23 intakes were an almost perfect fit in size and shape and easy to integrate into the modified front hill. The result looks very natural!
However, when the fuselage was complete, I found that the nose appeared to be a bit too long, leaving the whole new hull with the wings somewhat off balance. As a remedy I decided at a rather late stage to shorten the nose and took out a 6 mm section in front of the cockpit - a stunt I had not planned, but sometimes you can judge things only after certain work stages. Some serious PSR was necessary to re-adjust the conical nose shape, which now looked more Mirage III-ish than planned!
The cockpit was taken mostly OOB, I just replaced the ejection seat and gave it a trigger handle made from thin wire. With the basic airframe complete it was time for details. The PM Model Su-15s massive and rather crude main landing gear was replaced with something more delicate from the scrap box, even though I retained the main wheels. The front landing gear was taken wholesale from the MiG-23, but had to be shortened for a proper stance.
A display holder adapter was integrated into the belly for the flight scenes, hidden well between the ventral ordnance.
The hardpoints, including missile launch rails, came from the MiG-23; the pylons had to be adjusted to match the Su-15's wing profile shape, the Anab missiles lost their tail sections to create the fictional Indian 'Saanp' AAMs. The R-3s on the outer stations were left over from a MP MiG-21. The ventral pylons belong to Academy MiG-23/27s, one came from the donor kit, the other was found in the spares box. The PTB-490 drop tanks also came from a KP MiG-21 (or one of its many reincarnations, not certain).
Painting and markings:
The paint scheme for this fictional aircraft was largely inspired by a picture of a whiffy and very attractive Saab 37 Viggen (an 1:72 Airfix kit) in IAF colors, apparently a model from a contest. BTW, India actually considered buying the Viggen for its Air Force!
IAF aircraft were and are known for their exotic and sometimes gawdy paint schemes, and with IAF MiG-21 “C 992” there’s even a very popular (yet obscure) aircraft that sported literal tiger stripes. The IAF Viggen model was surely inspired by this real aircraft, and I adopted something similar for my HF-26M.
IAF 1 Squadron was therefore settled, and for the paint scheme I opted for a "stripish" scheme, but not as "tigeresque" as "C 992". I found a suitable benchmark in a recent Libyian MiG-21, which carried a very disruptive two-tone grey scheme. I adapted this pattern to the HA-26M airframe and replaced its colors, similar to the IAF Viggen model, which became a greenish sand tone (a mix of Humbrol 121 with some 159; I later found out that I could have used Humbrol 83 from the beginning, though...) and a very dark olive drab (Humbrol 66, which looks like a dull dark brown in contrast with the sand tone), with bluish grey (Humbrol 247) undersides. With the large delta wings, this turned out to look very good and even effective!
For that special "Indian touch" I gave the aircraft a high-contrast fin in a design that I had seen on a real camouflaged IAF MiG-21bis: an overall dark green base with a broad, red vertical stripe which was also the shield for the fin flash and the aircraft's tactical code (on the original bare metal). The fin was first painted in green (Humbrol 2), the red stripe was created with orange-red decal sheet material. Similar material was also used to create the bare metal field for the tactical code, the yellow bars on the splitter plates and for the thin white canopy sealing.
After basic painting was done the model received an overall black ink washing, post-panel shading and extensive dry-brushing with aluminum and iron for a rather worn look.
The missiles became classic white, while the drop tanks, as a contrast to the camouflaged belly, were left in bare metal.
Decals/markings came primarily from a Begemot MiG-25 kit, the tactical codes on the fin and under the wings originally belong to an RAF post-WWII Spitfire, just the first serial letter was omitted. Stencils are few and they came from various sources. A compromise is the unit badge on the fin: I needed a tiger motif, and the only suitable option I found was the tiger head emblem on a white disc from RAF No. 74 Squadron, from the Matchbox BAC Lightning F.6&F.2A kit. It fits stylistically well, though. ;-)
Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (except for the black radome, which became a bit glossy) and finally assembled.
A spontaneous build, and the last one that I completed in 2022. However, despite a vague design plan the model evolved as it grew. Bashing the primitive PM Model Su-15 with the Academy MiG-23 parts was easier than expected, though, and the resulting fictional aircraft looks sturdy but quite believable - even though it appears to me like the unexpected child of a Mirage III/F-4 Phantom II intercourse, or like a juvenile CF-105 Arrow, just with mid-wings? Nevertheless, the disruptive paint scheme suits the delta wing fighter well, and the green/red fin is a striking contrast - it's a colorful model, but not garish.
LEGO have announced the next Modular building:
10260 Downtown Diner, 2,480 pieces
AUD249.99
Available from 1st January, no VIP early access.
The set is already listed on LEGO.com
shop.lego.com/en-AU/Downtown-Diner-10260
Discover a place where music is on the menu!
Drop in at the LEGO® Creator Expert 10260 Downtown Diner, where you’ll discover a healthy portion of fun and surprises. This impressive model features removable building sections for easy access to the detailed interior, which comprises a ground-level 1950s-style diner with a large curved front window, red bar stools, jukebox, counter and an open-plan kitchen. The mid level has a gym with boxing ring, punching bag and weight training room, while on the upper-level you’ll find a recording studio, complete with vocal booth, mixing desk and a refreshments cabinet. The facade of the building features pink-and-teal Streamline Moderne styling with a large ‘DINER’ sign. Other external features include arched windows, balconies and a staircase, plus a pink convertible car and a detailed sidewalk, complete with mailbox, parking meter, flowerpots and a streetlamp. This incredible collectible toy has been designed to provide a challenging and rewarding building experience with a touch of nostalgia and charm. Includes 6 minifigures.
Includes 6 minifigures: a chef, waitress, boxer, rock star, manager and a bodybuilder.
The 3-level Downtown Diner comes with an array of brick-built details, including a detailed facade with pink-and-teal Streamline Moderne styling and a large ‘DINER’ sign, external staircase, arched windows, drainpipe, balconies, decorative roofline, opening skylight and a rooftop terrace, plus a detailed sidewalk with a mailbox, parking meter, flowerpots and an ornate streetlamp. This set also includes a pink 1950s-style convertible.
Ground level features 1950s downtown American diner styling with a large curved front window, red barstools, benches, jukebox, candy machine, counter, 2 soda dispensers, and a kitchen with a coffee machine, stove and a cooker hood.
Mid-level features a gym with a boxing ring, punching bag, weight training room, water dispenser and a wall clock.
Upper level features a recording studio complete with vocal booth, soundproofed walls, mixing desk and a refreshments cabinet.
Take a ride in the stylish convertible and head for a diner where fast food and music are on the menu.
Help the chef prepare the fastest food in town while the roller-skating waitress lines up the orders.
Drop in at the gym for a couple of rounds in the boxing ring or a good workout on the punching bag.
Open the skylight and eavesdrop on the making of a hit album.
Accessory elements include roller skates, guitar, golden record award and a buildable barbell.
Remove the building sections to access the detailed interior.
This set includes over 2,480 pieces and is suitable for ages 16+.
New-for-January-2018 decorated elements include a decorated door, album cover, lots of teal-colored and pink-colored elements, and a dual-face minifigure with singing and smiling expressions.
Special elements include new-for-January-2018 flower stalks and flower heads, plus 1x3 ‘jumper’ plates, 2x2 plate with 2 studs and a minifigure torso with boxing gloves.
Collect and build an entire town with the LEGO® Creator Expert Modular Buildings series 10243 Parisian Restaurant, 10246 Detective’s Office, 10251 Brick Bank and 10255 Assembly Square.
Measures over 13” (34cm) high, 9” (25cm) wide and 9” (25cm) deep.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Folland 150 was directly inspired by the (modest) successes experienced by the Saro SR./A.1, a jet-powered flying boat fighter that went through trials in the late 1940ies.
The project had been kicked-off in the end phase of the 2nd World War, when the Imperial Japanese Navy with seaplane fighters such as the Nakajima A6M2-N (an adaptation of the Mitsubishi Zero) and the Kawanishi N1K demonstrated the effectiveness of a fighter seaplane.
In theory, seaplanes were ideally suited to conditions in the Pacific theatre, and could turn any relatively calm area of coast into an airbase. Their main disadvantage came from the way in which the bulk of their floatation gear penalized their performance compared to other fighters.
The new jet engines offered more power and aerodynamically cleaner designs, and the Saro SR./A.1 proved the soundness of the concept. But while the Saro SR./A.1 proved to have good performance and handling, the need for such aircraft had completely evaporated with the end of the war. Furthermore, the success of the aircraft carrier in the Pacific had demonstrated a far more effective way to project airpower over the oceans. The project was suspended and the prototype put into storage in 1950, but it was briefly resurrected in November 1950 owing to the outbreak of the Korean War, before realization of its obsolescence compared with land-based fighters, the prototype last flying in June 1951.
Anyway, this was not the end of the jet-powered flying boat fighter. After the Korean War, Saunders-Roe came up with a design called the "Saunders Roe Hydroski" (reminiscent of the Convair F2Y Sea Dart) to improve the performance closer to land-based aircraft but "received no official support". Other ship-based fighter concepts were developed and proposed, too. In the early Fifties, Folland made several proposals based on its newly developed light fighter, which would evolve into the Gnat.
The Gnat was the creation of WEW "Teddy" Petter, a British aircraft designer formerly of Westland Aircraft and English Electric. It was designed to meet the 1952 Operational Requirement OR.303 calling for a lightweight fighter. Petter believed that a small, simple fighter would offer the advantages of low purchase and operational costs. New lightweight turbojet engines that were being developed enabled the concept to take shape.
In 1951, using company funds, he began work on his lightweight fighter concept, which was designated the "Fo-141 Gnat". The Gnat was to be powered by a Bristol BE-22 Saturn turbojet with 3,800 lbf (16.9 kN 1,724 kgp) thrust. However, the Saturn was cancelled, and so Petter's unarmed proof-of-concept demonstrator for the Gnat was powered by the less powerful Armstrong Siddeley Viper 101 with 1,640 lbf (7.3 kN / 744 kgp) thrust. The demonstrator was designated Fo-139 "Midge".
From this land-based basis, several navalized variants for the use on board of smaller ships were deducted and taken to the hardware stage. The Gnat's selling point was its very small size and low weight, so that it would be easy to handle, operate and stow, even if it was no dedicated carrier.
One development direction focused on rocket-assisted ZELL (Zero-Length-Launch) and conventional landing on land-based airstrips, while another direction reverted to the idea of a light jet-powered flying boat conversion for reconnaissance and (daylight) interception and attack duties.
Both were taken to the hardware stage as private ventures (even though supported by the MoD since both concepts were regarded as fundamental research), and the flying boat project took shape under the handle Folland Fo-150, internally referred to “Project Volans”.
The Fo-150 had only rudimentary similarity with the land-based aircraft, though. Beyond the addition of a hydrodynamic, lower hull, the fuselage was stretched between the cockpit and the wings, for a better CoG distribution. The wing area was increased considerably in order to compensate for the higher all-up weight, improve handling and lower landing speed. The horizontal stabilizers were moved away from the original low position, higher onto a new cruciform tail, in order to keep these surfaces away from spray. The fin itself was slightly enlarged, too.
Power came from a modified Bristol Siddeley Viper turbojet, rated at 3,100 lbf (14 kN). In order to protect the engine from water ingestion the air intakes were extended forward under the cockpit canopy and featured spray dams. Balance in the water was achieved through semi-retractable stabilizer floats. These could be folded backwards under the wings, behind bullet-shaped fairings at about half the wing span that also contained a pair of 30mm Aden cannons. Hardpoints above and under the wings allowed the carriage of light external weapons like unguided rocket pods, or, alternatively, test equipment and camera pods.
The first airframe for Project Volans was built in Folland's facility on the western side of the Hamble peninsula and later taken to the Solent in May 1955. On 14 June 1955, the aircraft inadvertently made its first short flight during a fast taxi run – the enlarged wing created a massive ground effect that easily lifted the light aircraft up into a glide when the nose raised through wakes to a certain degree. The Fo-150’s official maiden flight was on 9 July 1955.
The underpowered engine made the fighter sluggish, and the strong uplift close to the ground made handling complicated and created violent vibration during takeoff and landing. Work on the wings leading edge profile improved this situation somewhat, but they could not cure the sluggish performance.
Otherwise, handling turned out to be good, but the Fo-150 could never show its full potential due to the weak engine. A second airframe was finished until late 1955 and joined the flight tests from early 1956 on, while a third airframe was reserved for static tests.
Anyway, even before that, the Navy had been losing interest (problems with supersonic fighters on carrier decks having been overcome, and ship-based missiles filled the aerial defense role much more efficiently than aircraft). This relegated the Fo-150 and the whole Volans program to pure experimental status. As a consequence, the two airworthy airframes were de-militarized and the aircraft kept in service as testbeds for hydrodynamics, especially for the development of planing bottoms, hydrofoils and hull shapes for high speed ships.
In 1960, WS685 was also used for the development and tests of hydroskis, while its sister ship was retired and used for spares. This program lasted until 1963, and after that, the worn-out airframe was scrapped, too.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 10.44 m (34 ft 5 in)
Wingspan: 8,71 m (28 ft 6 in)
Heigh (keel to fin tip)t: 3.74 m (12 ft 3 in)
Wing area: 19.00 m² (204.5 ft²)
Empty weight: 2,560 kg (5,644 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 4,235 kg (9,336 lb)
Powerplant:
1× Bristol Siddeley Viper turbojet, rated at 3,100 lbf (14 kN)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 695 km/h (375 knots, 432 mph) at sea level
Cruise speed: 324 km/h (175 knots, 201 mph)
Stall speed: 145 km/h (92 knots, 106 mph) with flaps down
Endurance: 1 hour 45 min
Service ceiling: 30,000 ft (9,150 m)
Armament:
2× 30mm ADEN cannon with 80 RPG in underwing pods
Two overwing hardpoints for 500lb (227kg) each,
e.g. for SNEB rocket pods containing seven 68 mm rockets
or pods with 7.62 mm machine guns
Two underwing hardpoints for 500lb (227kg) each,
for bombs or a pair of 50-Imp Gal (226 litre) drop tanks
The kit and its assembly:
Another submission to the 2016 “In the Navy” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com, and actually the consequence of a spontaneous post/comment on another modeler’s project just called “Royal Navy Gnat”, when the means and degree of navalization were still shrouded in mystery. I suggested a flying boat, inspired by the real Saro SR./A.1 and the Gnat’s high-mounted wings, which make the aircraft – or at least a model of it – suitable for a conversion.
Well, since the other Gnat turned out to become a ZELL aircraft, and I had a Matchbox Gnat in the stash, I decided to take my weird alternative idea to the (model) hardware stage.
Even though it is not obvious, pretty much of the Matchbox Gnat was used for this build, but it is masked under lots of putty and donation parts. These include:
- The lower half of a Smer SC-1 Seahawk float – a bit wide, but perfect in length
- The SC-1 also donated its stabilizer floats
- Leftover parts from a vintage (35+ years!) Matchbox F-14’s stabilizers, used as wing extensions
- Air intakes from a Matchbox F-5A, mounted upside down
- Stabilizers from a Hobby Boss MiG-15
The build went pretty straightforward: after the fuselage was done the SC-1 float was trimmed down and glued under it. Putty conceals the seams, and I am actually surprised how good these parts that were surely never meant to be united went together.
The cockpit features only the front seat, the rear position was omitted. The clear canopy was cut into three pieces, and the rear part glued onto the fuselage and blended into the overall shape with putty.
I felt that the deeper fuselage necessitated bigger wings, and instead of mounting complete donation parts I decided to keep the OOB parts and their shape, but extend them slightly with plugs – these are leftover parts from F-14 stabilizers from former projects, their width, length and also the sweep angle were perfect. In order to keep the relative wing tip position, the wing roots had to be moved forward, so that they ended up close to the cockpit and the air intakes. Again, putty conceals the intersections and was used to blend everything into each other – and with the enlarged wings this converted Gnat reminds a bit of the Me 163 Komet rocket fighter? At least, as long as the stabilizers were not mounted yet.
These come from a MiG-15 – bigger than the OOB parts, which appeared just too small for the bigger wing surface and their new position: in order to keep them clear from spray and the waterline I moved them upwards, together with a bullet fairing into the fin, which was simply divided above the rudder. The resulting fin extension was an appreciated extra, and the new cruciform tail looks very retro.
Placing the original air intakes onto the fuselage I found them to be too susceptible to water ingestion, so I wanted to extend them forward. But instead of using the OOB parts and bridging gaps with styrene pieces and putty, I found an old pair of F-5A air intakes with relative long ducts in the spares box. They were of good shape and size for the conversion, I just mounted them upside down, so that the longer leading edge is now on the intakes’ lower end, looking like a spray protector. A pair of spray dams was added to the nose, too.
How to balance the aircraft while afloat caused some headaches. The initial plan had been to place the SC-1 stabilizer floats with their slender pylons close to the wing tips, but I found this to be a very draggy solution for a jet aircraft.
The solution came while wondering where to place some armament: I used the Gnat’s (shortened) OOB slipper tanks as integral gun pods and modified their rear end into fairings for a semi-retracting float installation. The respective struts were scratched from wire and styrene.
The beaching trolley was highjacked from a vintage Revell F-16 kit (the rather clumsy one that represents the prototypes and which comes with a separate jet engine, its dolly and a small tractor). It was slightly modified and lowered, paper tissue cushions hold the model in place.
Painting and markings:
Since the flying boat version of the tiny Gnat (even if is based on the bigger trainer version!) is already exotic enough I decided to keep the livery true to the post WWII Royal Navy style, with Extra Dark Sea Grey upper surface, Sky undersides and a high waterline. In this case, Humbrol 123 and 95 are the basic tones, later treated with a black ink wash, panel lines drawn with a pencil and some panel shading with Humbrol 79 and 23, respectively. The planning surfaces were in the first place painted/primed with acrylic aluminum, so that later the enamel paint cover could be chipped away, for a lightly worn look.
The cockpit interior was painted in very dark grey (Humbrol 32). Thankfully, no landing gear had to be built and painted, but instead the custom beaching trolley became trainer yellow.
The RN markings come from various sources, and finally the kit was sealed under a coat of semi-matt acrylic varnish.
A funny project, and despite the weird idea and combination of parts the result does not look bad at all – in fact, one could think that it is a design or prop from a 1960’s James Bond movie or a Gerry Anderson creation?
As much as I do not like to think about it...autumn is well underway. I am keeping my brain in Hawaii, but my body has been shooting some gorgeous fall foliage back in reality.
The sun is life.
I bought this red corset on line. Its not v-high quality but it has allowed me to have some fun. Its a lovely red pattern and I thought I would try it externally. In this mode I think it really only goes with leggings or trousers. I went for a white blouse to give it a chance to shine
Over the years, Digital Wyzdom has acquired mastery over external penetration testing. With its experts developing several penetration methodologies and attack tools for a number of systems, it stands out as one of the best company in the field of forensics and software security. Both government and commercial organizations are on the list of their clients. Performing every task, in line with the organization's philosophy, Digital Wyzdom team stands true to its values. goo.gl/gCBwcq
R2300b (BSW521). The town of Gmünd in north east Austria is situated right on the border with what was Czechoslovakia and this was very much in communist territory back in 1965. However, there is a cross border railway line and trains used to cross into Austria headed by Czechoslovakian steam locomotives.
In this view taken from the safety of the Austrian side of the border, a cross border freight train has left České Velenice and is heading in an easterly direction towards Gmünd behind a Czech 434.2 class 2-8-0.
Thanks to Robert Day for informing me that these were rebuilds of the Austrian class 170 2-8-0s that were handed to the Czechs at independence. The 170s were 2-cylinder compounds; the rebuilds involved making them into simple engines, giving them new boilers and changing the cab profiles. The long cranked external steam pipes are the giveaway.
The first nine were rebuilt 1925-25, and then mass rebuilding started in 1930 and carried on until 1947. The class eventually consisted of 345 engines rebuilt out of the original 415 engines of the 170 class (ČSD class 434.0).
2nd June, 1965. Copyright © Ron Fisher.
A visit to the National Trust property that is Penrhyn Castle
Penrhyn Castle is a country house in Llandygai, Bangor, Gwynedd, North Wales, in the form of a Norman castle. It was originally a medieval fortified manor house, founded by Ednyfed Fychan. In 1438, Ioan ap Gruffudd was granted a licence to crenellate and he founded the stone castle and added a tower house. Samuel Wyatt reconstructed the property in the 1780s.
The present building was created between about 1822 and 1837 to designs by Thomas Hopper, who expanded and transformed the building beyond recognition. However a spiral staircase from the original property can still be seen, and a vaulted basement and other masonry were incorporated into the new structure. Hopper's client was George Hay Dawkins-Pennant, who had inherited the Penrhyn estate on the death of his second cousin, Richard Pennant, who had made his fortune from slavery in Jamaica and local slate quarries. The eldest of George's two daughters, Juliana, married Grenadier Guard, Edward Gordon Douglas, who, on inheriting the estate on George's death in 1845, adopted the hyphenated surname of Douglas-Pennant. The cost of the construction of this vast 'castle' is disputed, and very difficult to work out accurately, as much of the timber came from the family's own forestry, and much of the labour was acquired from within their own workforce at the slate quarry. It cost the Pennant family an estimated £150,000. This is the current equivalent to about £49,500,000.
Penrhyn is one of the most admired of the numerous mock castles built in the United Kingdom in the 19th century; Christopher Hussey called it, "the outstanding instance of Norman revival." The castle is a picturesque composition that stretches over 600 feet from a tall donjon containing family rooms, through the main block built around the earlier house, to the service wing and the stables.
It is built in a sombre style which allows it to possess something of the medieval fortress air despite the ground-level drawing room windows. Hopper designed all the principal interiors in a rich but restrained Norman style, with much fine plasterwork and wood and stone carving. The castle also has some specially designed Norman-style furniture, including a one-ton slate bed made for Queen Victoria when she visited in 1859.
Hugh Napier Douglas-Pennant, 4th Lord Penrhyn, died in 1949, and the castle and estate passed to his niece, Lady Janet Pelham, who, on inheritance, adopted the surname of Douglas-Pennant. In 1951, the castle and 40,000 acres (160 km²) of land were accepted by the treasury in lieu of death duties from Lady Janet. It now belongs to the National Trust and is open to the public. The site received 109,395 visitors in 2017.
Grade I Listed Building
History
The present house, built in the form of a vast Norman castle, was constructed to the design of Thomas Hopper for George Hay Dawkins-Pennant between 1820 and 1837. It has been very little altered since.
The original house on the site was a medieval manor house of C14 origin, for which a licence to crenellate was given at an unknown date between 1410 and 1431. This house survived until c1782 when it was remodelled in castellated Gothick style, replete with yellow mathematical tiles, by Samuel Wyatt for Richard Pennant. This house, the great hall of which is incorporated in the present drawing room, was remodelled in c1800, but the vast profits from the Penrhyn slate quarries enabled all the rest to be completely swept away by Hopper's vast neo-Norman fantasy, sited and built so that it could be seen not only from the quarries, but most parts of the surrounding estate, thereby emphasizing the local dominance of the Dawkins-Pennant family. The total cost is unknown but it cannot have been less than the £123,000 claimed by Catherine Sinclair in 1839.
Since 1951 the house has belonged to the National Trust, together with over 40,000 acres of the family estates around Ysbyty Ifan and the Ogwen valley.
Exterior
Country house built in the style of a vast Norman castle with other later medieval influences, so huge (its 70 roofs cover an area of over an acre (0.4ha)) that it almost defies meaningful description. The main components of the house, which is built on a north-south axis with the main elevations to east and west, are the 124ft (37.8m) high keep, based on Castle Hedingham (Essex) containing the family quarters on the south, the central range, protected by a 'barbican' terrace on the east, housing the state apartments, and the rectangular-shaped staff/service buildings and stables to the north. The whole is constructed of local rubblestone with internal brick lining, but all elevations are faced in tooled Anglesey limestone ashlar of the finest quality jointing; flat lead roofs concealed by castellated parapets. Close to, the extreme length of the building (it is about 200 yards (182.88m) long) and the fact that the ground slopes away on all sides mean that almost no complete elevation can be seen. That the most frequent views of the exterior are oblique also offered Hopper the opportunity to deploy his towers for picturesque effect, the relationship between the keep and the other towers and turrets frequently obscuring the distances between them. Another significant external feature of the castle is that it actually looks defensible making it secure at least from Pugin's famous slur of 1841 on contemporary "castles" - "Who would hammer against nailed portals, when he could kick his way through the greenhouse?" Certainly, this could never be achieved at Penrhyn and it looks every inch the impregnable fortress both architect and patron intended it to be.
East elevation: to the left is the loosely attached 4-storey keep on battered plinth with 4 tiers of deeply splayed Norman windows, 2 to each face, with chevron decoration and nook-shafts, topped by 4 square corner turrets. The dining room (distinguished by the intersecting tracery above the windows) and breakfast room to the right of the entrance gallery are protected by the long sweep of the machicolated 'barbican' terrace (carriage forecourt), curved in front of the 2 rooms and then running northwards before returning at right-angles to the west to include the gatehouse, which formed the original main entrance to the castle, and ending in a tall rectangular tower with machicolated parapet. To the right of the gatehouse are the recessed buildings of the kitchen court and to the right again the long, largely unbroken outer wall of the stable court, terminated by the square footmen's tower to the left and the rather more exuberant projecting circular dung tower with its spectacularly cantilevered bartizan on the right. From here the wall runs at right-angles to the west incorporating the impressive gatehouse to the stable court.
West elevation: beginning at the left is the hexagonal smithy tower, followed by the long run of the stable court, well provided with windows on this side as the stables lie directly behind. At the end of this the wall turns at right-angles to the west, incorporating the narrow circular-turreted gatehouse to the outer court and terminating in the machicolated circular ice tower. From here the wall runs again at a lower height enclosing the remainder of the outer court. It is, of course, the state apartments which make up the chief architectural display on the central part of this elevation, beginning with a strongly articulated but essentially rectangular tower to the left, while both the drawing room and the library have Norman windows leading directly onto the lawns, the latter terminating in a slender machicolated circular corner tower. To the right is the keep, considerably set back on this side.
Interior
Only those parts of the castle generally accessible to visitors are recorded in this description. Although not described here much of the furniture and many of the paintings (including family portraits) are also original to the house. Similarly, it should be noted that in the interests of brevity and clarity, not all significant architectural features are itemised in the following description.
Entrance gallery: one of the last parts of the castle to be built, this narrow cloister-like passage was added to the main block to heighten the sensation of entering the vast Grand Hall, which is made only partly visible by the deliberate offsetting of the intervening doorways; bronze lamp standards with wolf-heads on stone bases. Grand Hall: entering the columned aisle of this huge space, the visitor stands at a cross-roads between the 3 principal areas of the castle's plan; to the left the passage leads up to the family's private apartments on the 4 floors of the keep, to the right the door at the end leads to the extensive service quarters while ahead lies the sequence of state rooms used for entertaining guests and displayed to the public ever since the castle was built. The hall itself resembles in form, style and scale the transept of a great Norman cathedral, the great clustered columns extending upwards to a "triforium" formed on 2 sides of extraordinary compound arches; stained glass with signs of the zodiac and months of the year as in a book of hours by Thomas Willement (completed 1835). Library: has very much the atmosphere of a gentlemen’s London club with walls, columned arches and ceilings covered in the most lavish ornamentation; superb architectural bookcases and panelled walls are of oak but the arches are plaster grained to match; ornamental bosses and other devices to the rich plaster ceiling refer to the ancestry of the Dawkins and Pennant families, as do the stained glass lunettes above the windows, possibly by David Evans of Shrewsbury; 4 chimneypieces of polished Anglesey "marble", one with a frieze of fantastical carved mummers in the capitals. Drawing room (great hall of the late C18 house and its medieval predecessor): again in a neo-Norman style but the decoration is lighter and the columns more slender, the spirit of the room reflected in the 2000 delicate Maltese gilt crosses to the vaulted ceiling. Ebony room: so called on account of its furniture and "ebonised" chimneypiece and plasterwork, has at its entrance a spiral staircase from the medieval house. Grand Staircase hall: in many ways the greatest architectural achievement at Penrhyn, taking 10 years to complete, the carving in 2 contrasting stones of the highest quality; repeating abstract decorative motifs contrast with the infinitely inventive figurative carving in the newels and capitals; to the top the intricate plaster panels of the domed lantern are formed in exceptionally high relief and display both Norse and Celtic influences. Next to the grand stair is the secondary stair, itself a magnificent structure in grey sandstone with lantern, built immediately next to the grand stair so that family or guests should not meet staff on the same staircase. Reached from the columned aisle of the grand hall are the 2 remaining principal ground-floor rooms, the dining room and the breakfast room, among the last parts of the castle to be completed and clearly intended to be picture galleries as much as dining areas, the stencilled treatment of the walls in the dining room allowing both the provision of an appropriately elaborate "Norman" scheme and a large flat surface for the hanging of paintings; black marble fireplace carved by Richard Westmacott and extremely ornate ceiling with leaf bosses encircled by bands of figurative mouldings derived from the Romanesque church of Kilpeck, Herefordshire. Breakfast room has cambered beam ceiling with oak-grained finish.
Grand hall gallery: at the top of the grand staircase is vaulted and continues around the grand hall below to link with the passage to the keep, which at this level (as on the other floors) contains a suite of rooms comprising a sitting room, dressing room, bedroom and small ante-chamber, the room containing the famous slate bed also with a red Mona marble chimneypiece, one of the most spectacular in the castle. Returning to the grand hall gallery and continuing straight on rather than returning to the grand staircase the Lower India room is reached to the right: this contains an Anglesey limestone chimneypiece painted to match the ground colour of the room's Chinese wallpaper. Coming out of this room, the chapel corridor leads to the chapel gallery (used by the family) and the chapel proper below (used by staff), the latter with encaustic tiles probably reused from the old medieval chapel; stained and painted glass by David Evans (c1833).
The domestic quarters of the castle are reached along the passage from the breakfast room, which turns at right-angles to the right at the foot of the secondary staircase, the most important areas being the butler's pantry, steward's office, servants' hall, housekeeper's room, still room, housekeeper's store and housemaids' tower, while the kitchen (with its cast-iron range flanked by large and hygienic vertical slabs of Penrhyn slate) is housed on the lower ground floor. From this kitchen court, which also includes a coal store, oil vaults, brushing room, lamp room, pastry room, larder, scullery and laundry are reached the outer court with its soup kitchen, brewhouse and 2-storey ice tower and the much larger stables court which, along with the stables themselves containing their extensive slate-partitioned stalls and loose boxes, incorporates the coach house, covered ride, smithy tower, dung tower with gardeners' messroom above and footmen's tower.
Reasons for Listing
Included at Grade I as one of the most important large country houses in Wales; a superb example of the relatively short-lived Norman Revival of the early C19 and generally regarded as the masterpiece of its architect, Thomas Hopper.
Railway Museum
Room with model steam locomotives.
Midland Railway - "Princess of Wales"
sign
Frame :*CRUST BIKES* florida man
Headset :*WHITE INDUSTRIES* external headset
Handlebar :*NITTO* B802 riser bar
Front hub:*PAUL* track hub
Tire :*SOMA* cazadero tire
Front brake:*PAUL* racer brake
Brake Lever :*PAUL* canti lever
Crankset :*WHITE INDUSTRIES* eno single speed crank
Saddle :*SELLE ITALIA* flite 1990 saddle
Grip :*BL SELECT* old school bmx grip
Seat Post :*BL SELECT* aero seatpost
Pedal:*MKS* XC-III bear trap pedal
Valve cap:*CRUD CAPS* toy valve cap
John Ryan has completed deployment of a three-channel digital signage network in 500 branches of Caja Mediterráneo. The screens, placed in high-traffic areas of the branch interior and exterior, convey an array of promotional and informational messages in eight languages. The bank’s localization efforts result in thousands of simultaneous programming permutations -- all handled by John Ryan's Messaging Manager platform. Full article available at: pitch.pe/6151
External Affairs Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar visited the Queen's University in Belfast, Northern Ireland
This picture shows the nearside exterior of the vehicle, as delivered to us. The entrance can be used as a stairway into the vehicle or can be configured as a wheelchair lift if required. The offside looked similar, but with no doorway of course.
Parish church. C15 west tower: rubble flint, on a chequerwork base of stone and knapped flint. Four ashlar-faced buttresses, two diagonal. External stair turret on the south side. The string-courses differ on each face: 4 on north, 3 on south, 5 on west. One 2-light window with cusped traceried head over west
doorway, and similar windows on all 4 faces of the top stage. Clock on the south face. Small lead-covered spire. Six bells. Early C15 south porch in knapped flint on a chequerwork base. Diagonal buttresses: battlements with panels of flushwork. South face has flushwork panels, and three canopied niches with mid-C19 statues. In the spandrels of the arch over the doorway are the arms of Sir William de Bardewell (d.1434) and his wife. Two 2-light windows with cusped traceried heads. The open timber roof, restored as a memorial in 1852, has miniature hammer-beams with shields. Early C19 gault bricks on floor. Nave in random flint, with remains of external stucco. Battlemented slate roof.
Range of 5 tall 2-light C14 windows with reticulated tracery. Fine single hammer-beam roof in 12 short bays: the arched braces to the hammers alternately long and short to fit over the windows.
A carved pendant hangs from the apex of each truss. Extensive remains of painting: trailing floral designs, diagonal stripes, and simulated tracery in the spandrels of the arched braces. Angel figures remain on only four hammer beams, one carrying an open book with the date 1421. On north and south walls, traces of wall-paintings uncovered during restoration in 1850's (see Procs. Suff. Inst. Arch. Vol.II, for detailed, illustrated account).
Mid C19 poppy-head benches: low Jacobean panelling along walls. Plain octagonal C19 font: older font lying on floor nearby. War memorial in blocked north doorway: arms of George II above. On north wall, memorial to Bardwell men killed in Crimean War. Standing in north-east corner, 4 finely traceried panels from C15 rood screen. The two windows at the north-east end have medieval stained glass, including a portrait figure
of Sir William de Berdewell. Mid C19 timber pulpit. Narrow chancel arch, with a squint on each side. In south east corner, a piscina, and door to rood stair, with opening above. Chancel extensively restored in 1850's. Faced in kidney flints: knapped flint and ashlar to buttresses. 3-light memorial east window, 1863: stained glass by O'Connor. Arch-braced roof: high collars, capitals with winged angels carrying a scroll, crown, musical instrument, etc.
Whitewashed stone reredos in Victorian Early English style. Various memorials: on north wall to members of the Crofts and Reade families: on south wall, to Thomas Read, 1658, and a large monument to John Read and his wife, with their kneeling figures flanked by those of their 7 children, 1651/2.
britishlistedbuildings.co.uk
Copyright © John G. Lidstone, all rights reserved.
I hope you enjoy my work and thanks for viewing.
NO use of this image is allowed without my express prior permission and subject to compensation/payment.
I do not want my images linked in Facebook groups.
It is an offence, under law, if you remove my copyright marking, and/or post this image anywhere else without my express written permission.
If you do, and I find out, you will be reported for copyright infringement action to the host platform and/or group applicable and you will be barred by me from social media platforms I use.
The same applies to all of my images.
My ownership & copyright is also embedded in the image metadata.