Dental Fact: The average person spends roughly 38.5 days brushing their teeth! Brushing is vital for your oral health, as is flossing. Remember to brush your teeth for two minutes twice a day!

 

Visit our Website For More Info- www.absolutedental.ca/

 

Address: 1268 6 Ave N, Lethbridge, AB  T1H 5T7, Canada

I've read a lot of books, so I know bunches of stuff that sounds like it could be true.

 

TRF: I love to read. I usually never have (make) time to read though. And I usually get the urge to read at impromptu times (while driving). I also have a tendancy to read 1-5 different books at one time.

 

TOTW - Story People

96/365

 

Texture from here.

 

See what's in my library

Fuck the Facts (grindcore canadense) tocando no Pixi bar.

Paris, 15/02/09.

Fun And Interesting Facts About Foosball Tables Infographic ->> bit.ly/2xZdncr #foosball #foosballzone

in Flanders expo Gent

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

In the late 1970s the Mikoyan OKB began development of a hypersonic high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft. Designated "Izdeliye 301" (also known as 3.01), the machine had an unusual design, combining a tailless layout with variable geometry wings. The two engines fueled by kerosene were located side by side above the rear fuselage, with the single vertical fin raising above them, not unlike the Tu-22 “Blinder” bomber of that time, but also reminiscent of the US-American SR-71 Mach 3 reconnaissance aircraft.

 

Only few and rather corny information leaked into the West, and the 301 was believed not only to act as a reconnaissance plane , it was also believed to have (nuclear) bombing capabilities. Despite wind tunnel testing with models, no hardware of the 301 was ever produced - aven though the aircraft could have become a basis for a long-range interceptor that would replace by time the PVO's Tupolew Tu-28P (ASCC code "Fiddler"), a large aircraft armed solely with missiles.

 

Despite limitations, the Tu-28P served well in its role, but the concept of a very fast interceptor aircraft, lingered on, since the Soviet Union had large areas to defend against aerial intruders, esp. from the North and the East. High speed, coupled with long range and the ability to intercept an incoming target at long distances independently from ground guidance had high priority for the Soviet Air Defence Forces. Even though no official requirement was issued, the concept of Izdeliye 301 from the Seventies was eventually developed further into the fixed-wing "Izdeliye 701" ultra-long-range high-altitude interceptor in the 1980ies.

 

The impulse for this new approach came when Oleg S. Samoylovich joined the Mikoyan OKB after having worked at Suchoi OKB on the T-60S missile carrier project. Similar in overall design to the former 301, the 701 was primarily intended as a kind of successor for the MiG-31 Foxhound for the 21st century, which just had completed flight tests and was about to enter PVO's front line units.

 

Being based on a long range cruise missile carrier, the 701 would have been a huge plane, featuring a length of 30-31m, a wing span of 19m (featuring a highly swept double delta wing) and having a maximum TOW of 70 tons! Target performance figures included a top speed of 2.500km/h, a cruising speed of 2.100km/h at 17.000m and an effective range of 7.000km in supersonic or 11.000km in subsonic mode. Eventually, the 701 program was mothballed, too, being too ambitious and expensive for a specialized development that could also have been a fighter version of the Tu-22 bomber!

 

Anyway, while the MiG-31 was successfully introduced in 1979 and had evolved in into a capable long-range interceptor with a top speed of more than Mach 3 (limited to Mach 2.8 in order to protect the aircraft's structural integrity), MiG OKB decided in 1984 to take further action and to develop a next-generation technology demonstrator, knowing that even the formidable "Foxhound" was only an interim solution on the way to a true "Four plus" of even a 6th generation fighter. Other new threats like low-flying cruise missiles, the USAF's "Project Pluto" or the assumed SR-71 Mach 5 successor “Aurora” kept Soviet military officials on the edge of their seats, too.

 

Main objective was to expand the Foxhound's state-of the-art performance, and coiple it with modern features like aerodynamic instability, supercruise, stealth features and further development potential.

 

The aircraft's core mission objectives comprised:

- Provide strategic air defense and surveillance in areas not covered by ground-based air defense systems (incl. guidance of other aircraft with less sophisticated avionics)

- Top speed of Mach 3.2 or more in a dash and cruise at Mach 3.0 for prolonged periods

- Long range/high speed interception of airspace intruders of any kind, including low flying cruise missiles, UAVs and helicopters

- Intercept cruise missiles and their launch aircraft from sea level up to 30.000m altitude by reaching missile launch range in the lowest possible time after departing the loiter area

 

Because funding was scarce and no official GOR had been issued, the project was taken on as a private venture. The new project was internally known as "Izdeliye 710" or "71.0". It was based on both 301 and 701 layout ideas and the wind tunnel experiences with their unusual layouts, as well as Oleg Samoylovich's experience with the Suchoi T-4 Mach 3 bomber project and the T-60S.

 

"Izdeliye 710" was from the start intended only as a proof-of-concept prototype, yet fully functional. It would also incorporate new technologies like heat-resistant ceramics against kinetic heating at prolonged high speeds (the airframe had to resist temperatures of 300°C/570°F and more for considerable periods), but with potential for future development into a full-fledged interceptor, penetrator and reconnaissance aircraft.

 

Overall, “Izdeliye 710" looked like a shrinked version of a mix of both former MiG OKB 301 and 701 designs, limited to the MiG-31's weight class of about 40 tons TOW. Compared with the former designs, the airframe received an aerodynamically more refined, partly blended, slender fuselage that also incorporated mild stealth features like a “clean” underside, softened contours and partly shielded air intakes. Structurally, the airframe's speed limit was set at Mach 3.8.

 

From the earlier 301 design,the plane retained the variable geometry wing. Despite the system's complexity and weight, this solution was deemed to be the best approach for a combination of a high continuous top speed, extended loiter time in the mission’s patrol areas and good performance on improvised airfields. Minimum sweep was a mere 10°, while, fully swept at 68°, the wings blended into the LERXes. Additional lift was created through the fuselage shape itself, so that aerodynamic surfaces and therefore drag could be reduced.

 

Pilot and radar operator sat in tandem under a common canopy with rather limited sight. The cockpit was equipped with a modern glass cockpit with LCD screens. The aircraft’s two engines were, again, placed in a large, mutual nacelle on the upper rear fuselage, fed by large air intakes with two-dimensional vertical ramps and a carefully modulated airflow over the aircraft’s dorsal area.

 

Initially, the 71.0 was to be powered by a pair of Soloviev D-30F6 afterburning turbofans with a dry thrust of 93 kN (20,900 lbf) each, and with 152 kN (34,172 lbf) with full afterburner. These were the same engines that powered the MiG-31, but there were high hopes for the Kolesov NK-101 engine: a variable bypass engine with a maximum thrust in the 200kN range, at the time of the 71.0's design undergoing bench tests and originally developed for the advanced Suchoj T-4MS strike aircraft.

With the D-30F6, the 71.0 was expected to reach Mach 3.2 (making the aircraft capable of effectively intercepting the SR-71), but the NK-101 would offer in pure jet mode a top speed in excess of Mach 3.5 and also improve range and especially loiter time when running as a subsonic turbofan engine.

 

A single fin with an all-moving top and an additional deep rudder at its base was placed on top of the engine nacelle. Additional maneuverability at lower speed was achieved by retractable, all-moving foreplanes, stowed in narrow slits under the cockpit. Longitudinal stability at high speed was improved through deflectable stabilizers: these were kept horizontal for take-off and added to the overall lift, but they could be folded down by up to 60° in flight, acting additionally as stabilizer strakes.

 

Due to the aircraft’s slender shape and unique proportions, the 71.0 quickly received the unofficial nickname "жура́вль" (‘Zhurávl' = Crane). The aircaft’s stalky impression was emphasized even more through its unusual landing gear arrangement: Due to the limited internal space for the main landing gear wells between the weapons bay, the wing folding mechanisms and the engine nacelle, MiG OKB decided to incorporate a bicycle landing gear, normally a trademark of Yakovlew OKB designs, but a conventional landing gear could simply not be mounted, or its construction would have become much too heavy and complex.

 

In order to facilitate operations from improvised airfields and on snow the landing gear featured twin front wheels on a conventional strut and a single four wheel bogie as main wheels. Smaller, single stabilizer wheels were mounted on outriggers that retracted into slender fairings at the wings’ fixed section trailing edge, reminiscent of early Tupolev designs.

 

All standard air-to-air weaponry, as well as fuel, was to be carried internally. Main armament would be the K-100 missile (in service eventually designated R-100), stored in a large weapons bay behind the cockpit on a rotary mount. The K-100 had been under development at that time at NPO Novator, internally coded ‘Izdeliye 172’. The K-100 missile was an impressive weapon, and specifically designed to attack vital and heavily defended aerial targets like NATO’s AWACS aircraft at BVR distance.

 

Being 15’ (4.57 m) long and weighing 1.370 lb (620 kg), this huge ultra-long-range weapon had a maximum range of 250 mi (400 km) in a cruise/glide profile and attained a speed of Mach 6 with its solid rocket engine. This range could be boosted even further with a pair of jettisonable ramjets in tubular pods on the missile’s flanks for another 60 mi (100 km). The missile could attack targets ranging in altitude between 15 – 25,000 meters.

 

The weapon would initially be allocated to a specified target through the launch aircraft’s on-board radar and sent via inertial guidance into the target’s direction. Closing in, the K-100’s Agat 9B-1388 active seeker would identify the target, lock on, and independently attack it, also in coordination with other K-100’s shot at the same target, so that the attack would be coordinated in time and approach directions in order to overload defense and ensure a hit.

 

The 71.0’s internal mount could hold four of these large missiles, or, alternatively, the same number of the MiG-31’s R-33 AAMs. The mount also had a slot for the storage of additional mid- and short-range missiles for self-defense, e .g. three R-60 or two R-73 AAMs. An internal gun was not considered to be necessary, since the 71.0 or potential derivatives would fight their targets at very long distances and rather rely on a "hit-and-run" tactic, sacrificing dogfight capabilities for long loitering time in stand-by mode, high approach speed and outstanding acceleration and altitude performance.

 

Anyway, provisions were made to carry a Gsh-301-250 gun pod on a retractable hardpoint in the weapons bay instead of a K-100. Alternatively, such pods could be carried externally on four optional wing root pylons, which were primarily intended for PTB-1500 or PTB-3000 drop tanks, or further missiles - theoretically, a maximum of ten K-100 missiles could be carried, plus a pair of short-range AAMs.

 

Additionally, a "buddy-to-buffy" IFR set with a retractable drogue (probably the same system as used on the Su-24) was tested (71.2 was outfitted with a retractable refuelling probe in front of the cockpit), as well as the carriage of simple iron bombs or nuclear stores, to be delivered from very high altitudes. Several pallets with cameras and sensors (e .g. a high resolution SLAR) were also envisioned, which could easily replace the missile mounts and the folding weapon bay covers for recce missions.

 

Since there had been little official support for the project, work on the 710 up to the hardware stage made only little progress, since the MiG-31 already filled the long-range interceptor role in a sufficient fashion and offered further development potential.

A wooden mockup of the cockpit section was presented to PVO and VVS officials in 1989, and airframe work (including tests with composite materials on structural parts, including ceramic tiles for leading edges) were undertaken throughout 1990 and 1991, including test rigs for the engine nacelle and the swing wing mechanism.

 

Eventually, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 suddenly stopped most of the project work, after two prototype airframes had been completed. Their internal designations were Izdeliye 71.1 and 71.2, respectively. It took a while until the political situation as well as the ex-Soviet Air Force’s status were settled, and work on Izdeliye 710 resumed at a slow pace.

 

After taking two years to be completed, 71.1 eventually made its roll-out and maiden flight in summer 1994, just when MiG-31 production had ended. MiG OKB still had high hopes in this aircraft, since the MiG-31 would have to be replaced in the next couple of years and "Izdeliye 710" was just in time for the potential procurement process. The first prototype wore a striking all-white livery, with dark grey ceramic tiles on the wings’ leading edges standing out prominently – in this guise and with its futuristic lines the slender aircraft reminded a lot of the American Space Shuttle.

 

71.1 was primarily intended for engine and flight tests (esp. for the eagerly awaited NK-101 engines), as well as for the development of the envisioned ramjet propulsion system for full-scale production and further development of Izdeliye 710 into a Mach 3+ interceptor. No mission avionics were initially fitted to this plane, but it carried a comprehensive test equipment suite and ballast.

 

Its sister ship 71.2 flew for the first time in late 1994, wearing a more unpretentious grey/bare metal livery. This plane was earmarked for avionics development and weapons integration, especially as a test bed for the K-100 missile, which shared Izdeliye 710’s fate of being a leftover Soviet project with an uncertain future and an even more corny funding outlook.

 

Anyway, aircraft 71.2 was from the start equipped with a complete RP-31 ('Zaslon-M') weapon control system, which had been under development at that time as an upgrade for the Russian MiG-31 fleet being part of the radar’s development program secured financial support from the government and allowed the flight tests to continue. The RP-31 possessed a maximum detection range of 400 km (250 mi) against airliner-sized targets at high altitude or 200 km against fighter-sized targets; the typical width of detection along the front was given as 225 km. The system could track 24 airborne targets at one time at a range of 120 km, 6 of which could be simultaneously attacked with missiles.

 

With these capabilities the RP-31 suite could, coupled with an appropriate carrier airframe, fulfil the originally intended airspace control function and would render a dedicated and highly vulnerable airspace control aircraft (like the Beriev A-50 derivative of the Il-76 transport) more or less obsolete. A group of four aircraft equipped with the 'Zaslon-M' suite would be able to permanently control an area of airspace across a total length of 800–900 km, while having ultra-long range weapons at hand to counter any intrusion into airspace with a quicker reaction time than any ground-based fighter on QRA duty. The 71.0, outfitted with the RP-31/K-100 system, would have posed a serious threat to any aggressor.

 

In March 1995 both prototypes were eventually transferred to the Kerchenskaya Guards Air Base at Savasleyka in the Oblast Vladimir, 300 km east of Mocsow, where they received tactical codes of '11 Blue' and '12 Blue'. Besides the basic test program and the RP-31/K-100 system tests, both machines were directly evaluated against the MiG-31 and Su-27 fighters by the Air Force's 4th TsBPi PLS, based at the same site.

 

Both aircraft exceeded expectations, but also fell short in certain aspects. The 71.0’s calculated top speed of Mach 3.2 was achieved during the tests with a top speed of 3,394 km/h (2.108 mph) at 21,000 m (69.000 ft). Top speed at sea level was confirmed at 1.200 km/h (745 mph) indicated airspeed.

Combat radius with full weapon load and internal fuel only was limited to 1,450 km (900 mi) at Mach 0.8 and at an altitude of 10,000 m (33,000 ft), though, and it sank to a mere 720 km (450 mi) at Mach 2.35 and at an altitude of 18,000 m (59,000 ft). Combat range with 4x K-100 internally and 2 drop tanks was settled at 3,000 km (1,860 mi), rising to 5,400 km (3,360 mi) with one in-flight refueling, tested with the 71.2. Endurance at altitude was only slightly above 3 hours, though. Service ceiling was 22,800 m (74,680 ft), 2.000 m higher than the MiG-31.

 

While these figures were impressive, Soviet officials were not truly convinced: they did not show a significant improvement over the simpler MiG-31. MiG OKB tried to persuade the government into more flight tests and begged for access to the NK-101, but the Soviet Union's collapse halted this project, too, so that both Izdeliye 710 had to keep the Soloviev D-30F6.

 

Little is known about the Izdeliye 710 project’s progress or further developments. The initial tests lasted until at least 1997, and obviously the updated MiG-31M received official favor instead of a completely new aircraft. The K-100 was also dropped, since the R-33 missile and later its R-37 derivative sufficiently performed in the long-range aerial strike role.

 

Development on the aircraft as such seemed to have stopped with the advent of modernized Su-27 derivatives and the PAK FA project, resulting in the Suchoi T-50 prototype. Unconfirmed reports suggest that one of the prototypes (probably 71.1) was used in the development of the N014 Pulse-Doppler radar with a passive electronically scanned array antenna in the wake of the MFI program. The N014 was designed with a range of 420 km, detection target of 250km to 1m and able to track 40 targets while able to shoot against 20.

 

Most interestingly, Izdeliye 710 was never officially presented to the public, but NATO became aware of its development through satellite pictures in the early Nineties and the aircraft consequently received the ASCC reporting codename "Fastback".

 

Until today, only the two prototypes have been known to exist, and it is assumed – had the type entered service – that the long-range fighter had received the official designation "MiG-41".

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 2 (Pilot, weapon system officer)

Length (incl. pitot): 93 ft 10 in (28.66 m)

Wingspan:

- minimum 10° sweep: 69 ft 4 in (21.16 m)

- maximum 68° sweep: 48 ft 9 in (14,88 m)

Height: 23 ft 1 1/2 in (7,06 m )

Wing area: 1008.9 ft² (90.8 m²)

Weight: 88.151 lbs (39.986 kg)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed:

- Mach 3.2 (2.050 mph (3.300 km/h) at height

- 995 mph (1.600 km/h) supercruise speed at 36,000 ft (11,000 m)

- 915 mph (1.470 km/h) at sea level

Range: 3.705 miles (5.955 km) with internal fuel

Service ceiling: 75.000 ft (22.500 m)

Rate of climb: 31.000 ft/min (155 m/s)

 

Engine:

2x Soloviev D-30F6 afterburning turbofans with a dry thrust of 93 kN (20,900 lbf) each

and with 152 kN (34,172 lbf) with full afterburner.

 

Armament:

Internal weapons bay, main armament comprises a flexible missile load; basic ordnance of 4x K-100 ultra long range AAMs plus 2x R-73 short-range AAMs: other types like the R-27, R-33, R-60 and R-77 have been carried and tested, too, as well as podded guns on internal and external mounts. Alternatively, the weapon bay can hold various sensor pallets.

Four hardpoints under the wing roots, the outer pair “wet” for drop tanks of up to 3.000 l capacity, ECM pods or a buddy-buddy refueling drogue system. Maximum payload mass is 9000 kg.

  

The kit and its assembly

The second entry for the 2017 “Soviet” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com – a true Frankenstein creation, based on the scarce information about the real (but never realized) MiG 301 and 701 projects, the Suchoj T-60S, as well as some vague design sketches you can find online and in literature.

This one had been on my project list for years and I already had donor kits stashed away – but the sheer size (where will I leave it once done…?) and potential complexity kept me from tackling it.

 

The whole thing was an ambitious project and just the unique layout with a massive engine nacelle on top of the slender fuselage instead of an all-in-one design makes these aircraft an interesting topic to build. The GB was a good motivator.

 

“My” fictional interpretation of the MiG concepts is mainly based on a Dragon B-1B in 1:144 scale (fuselage, wings), a PM Model Su-15 two seater (donating the nose section and the cockpit, as well as wing parts for the fin) and a Kangnam MiG-31 (for the engine pod and some small parts). Another major ingredient is a pair of horizontal stabilizers from a 1:72 Hasegawa A-5 Vigilante.

 

Fitting the cockpit section took some major surgery and even more putty to blend the parts smoothly together. Another major surgical area was the tail; the "engine box" came to be rather straightforward, using the complete rear fuselage section from the MiG-31 and adding the intakes form the same kit, but mounted horizontally with a vertical splitter.

 

Blending the thing to the cut-away tail section of the B-1 was quite a task, though, since I not only wanted to add the element to the fuselage, but rather make it look a bit 'organic'. More than putty was necessary, I also had to made some cuts and transplantations. And after six PSR rounds I stopped counting…

 

The landing gear was built from scratch – the front wheel comes mostly from the MiG-31 kit. The central bogie and its massive leg come from a VEB Plasticart 1:100 Tu-20/95 bomber, plus some additional struts. The outriggers are leftover landing gear struts from a Hobby Boss Fw 190, mated with wheels which I believe come from a 1:200 VEB Plasticart kit, an An-24. Not certain, though. The fairings are slender MiG-21 drop tanks blended into the wing training edge. For the whole landing gear, the covers were improvised with styrene sheet, parts from a plastic straw(!) or leftover bits from the B-1B.

 

The main landing gear well was well as the weapons’ bay themselves were cut into the B-1B underside and an interior scratched from sheet and various leftover materials – I tried to maximize their space while still leaving enough room for the B-1B kit’s internal VG mechanism.

The large missiles (two were visible fitted and the rotary launcher just visibly hinted at) are, in fact, AGM-78 ‘Standard’ ARMs in a fantasy guise. They look pretty Soviet, though, like big brothers of the already not small R-33 missiles from the MiG-31.

 

While not in the focus of attention, the cockpit interior is completely new, too – OOB, the Su-15 cockpit only has a floor and rather stubby seats, under a massive single piece canopy. On top of the front wheel well (from a Hasegawa F-4) I added a new floor and added side consoles, scratched from styrene sheet. F-4 dashboards improve the decoration, and I added a pair of Soviet election seats from the scrap box – IIRC left over from two KP MiG-19 kits.

The canopy was taken OOB, I just cut it into five parts for open display. The material’s thickness does not look too bad on this aircraft – after all, it would need a rather sturdy construction when flying at Mach 3+ and withstanding the respective pressures and temperatures.

  

Painting

As a pure whif, I was free to use a weirdo design - but I rejected this idea quickly. I did not want a garish splinter scheme or a bright “Greenbottle Fly” Su-27 finish.

With the strange layout of the aircraft, the prototype idea was soon settled – and Soviet prototypes tend to look very utilitarian and lusterless, might even be left in grey. Consequently, I adapted a kind of bare look for this one, inspired by the rather shaggy Soviet Tu-22 “Blinder” bombers which carried a mix of bare metal and white and grey panels. With additional black leading edges on the aerodynamic surfaces, this would create a special/provisional but still purposeful look.

 

For the painting, I used a mix of several metallizer tones from ModelMaster and Humbrol (including Steel, Magnesium, Titanium, as well as matt and polished aluminum, and some Gun Metal and Exhaust around the engine nozzles, partly mixed with a bit of blue) and opaque tones (Humbrol 147 and 127). The “scheme” evolved panel-wise and step by step. The black leading edges were an interim addition, coming as things evolved, and they were painted first with black acrylic paint as a rough foundation and later trimmed with generic black decal stripes (from TL Modellbau). A very convenient and clean solution!

 

The radomes on nose and tail and other di-electric panels became dark grey (Humbrol 125). The cockpit tub was painted with Soviet Cockpit Teal (from ModelMaster), while the cockpit opening and canopy frames were kept in a more modest medium grey (Revell 57). On the outside of the cabin windows, a fat, deep yellow sealant frame (Humbrol 93, actually “Sand”) was added.

 

The weapon bay was painted in a yellow-ish primer tone (seen on pics of Tu-160 bombers) while the landing gear wells received a mix of gold and sand; the struts were painted in a mixed color, too, made of Humbrol 56 (Aluminum) and 34 (Flat White). The green wheel discs (Humbrol 131), a typical Soviet detail, stand out well from the rather subdued but not boring aircraft, and they make a nice contrast to the red Stars and the blue tactical code – the only major markings, besides a pair of MiG OKB logos under the cockpit.

 

Decals were puzzled together from various sheets, and I also added a lot of stencils for a more technical look. In order to enhance the prototype look further I added some photo calibration markings on the nose and the tail, made from scratch.

  

A massive kitbashing project that I had pushed away for years - but I am happy that I finally tackled it, and the result looks spectacular. The "Firefox" similarity was not intended, but this beast really looks like a movie prop - and who knwos if the Firefox was not inspired by the same projects (the MiG 301 and 701) as my kitbash model?

The background info is a bit lengthy, but there's some good background info concerning the aforementioned projects, and this aircraft - as a weapon system - would have played a very special and complex role, so a lot of explanations are worthwhile - also in order to emphasize that I di not simply try to glue some model parts together, but rather try to spin real world ideas further.

 

Mighty bird!

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 Kawasaki Ki-121 was an experimental fighter aircraft that used a license-built (Kawasaki) DB 601 liquid-cooled engine, the Ha-40, augmented by a turbosupercharger. This was at that time an unusual choice because the majority of Japanese aircraft at that time used air-cooled radial engines.

 

The Ki-121 was designed by Takeo Doi and his deputy Shin Owada of Kawasaki Aircraft Industries (Kawasaki Kokuki Kogyo K.K.) in 1942, who had already designed the Ki-60 and Ki-61 interceptors in 1940. The emphasis in the requirements was for a high speed and a good rate of climb, along with a cannon armament. This was in due response to a complete change from the usual IJAAF penchant for lightly armed, highly manoeuvrable fighters with lightweight structures, which proved to be unsatisfactory against heavy bombers and their escort fighters.

 

The first prototype of the Ki-121 emerged in March 1943 as a compact, all metal, stressed skin monoplane, bearing a strong resemblance to the Ki-61. Its tapered wings featured initially square wing tips and were built around a system of three spars; a Warren truss main spar and two auxiliary spars. The rear spar carried the split flaps and long, narrow chord ailerons, while the front spar incorporated the undercarriage pivot points. The undercarriage track was 3 metres (9 ft 10 in). The pilot's seat was mounted over the rear spar, the cockpit sported a bubble canopy, another innovative feature that allowed the pilot excellent view.

 

The first prototype was powered by an imported DB 601A-1 with a radial compressor, rated at 960 hp. This was soon replaced by an Aichi AE1 Atsuta 12 engine (a license-built, modified version of the DB 601) which was mated with a turbo supercharger, installed on the port fuselage side, right behind the engine block. This new engine put out 1.560 hp and drove a four-bladed propeller. This especially improved performance at greater heights.

Another innovative feature of the Ki-121 was the steam vapour cooling system for its engine, which had been successfully tested in parallel for the heavy Ki-64 fighter on a Ki-61 test bed. The system was installed in the outer wings. It effectively reduced drag and made an external radiator superfluous. The oil cooler was mounted under the engine (the first prototype sported a single radiator bath, which was later replaced by two drum coolers). A total fuel capacity of 550 l (121 Imp gal) was carried in self-sealing fuel tanks in the lower hull and inner wings, which could be augmented by 2 x 200 l (44 Imp gal) drop tanks under wing hardpoints.

 

The armament consisted of two synchronized, fuselage mounted 12.7 mm calibre Ho-103 machine guns which were set in a "staggered" configuration (the port weapon slightly further forward than that to starboard) just above and behind the engine. In the prototype, one German-made Mauser MG 151/20 20 mm cannon was housed in each wing, just outside of the landing gear wells and the propeller’s radius. The wing hardpoints could, alternatively to the drop tanks, carry a maximum bomb weight of 160kg each or unguided 60 lbs. air-to-air rockets.

 

From the start of flight testing it became apparent that the original design was seriously flawed in several key areas. The take-off run was unacceptably long, while in flight the aircraft displayed some directional instability, excessively heavy controls and poor control response. The spinning characteristics were described as 'dangerous' and the stalling speed was very high. On the positive side, the re-engined Ki-121 prototype showed an impressive top speed of 640 kilometres per hour (400 mph) and a very good rate of climb. Additionally, the cooling system worked well and reliably, only the oil cooler capacity had to be improved.

 

As a result the second prototype, which was still being built, was hurriedly modified in an attempt to mitigate some of the more undesirable traits. Some 100 kilograms (220 lb) was removed, primarily by replacing the MG 151 cannons with Ho-5 machine guns and through structural simplifications. The stabilizer areas were tremendously enlarged (both vertical and horizontal fins). Coupled with a slight increase in wing area to 16.80 m² (180.8 ft²) through rounded wing tip extensions this resulted in a slightly lower wing loading and better handling characteristics. Detail changes were also made to airframe sealing and to the contours of the oil cooler air intakes.

Flight tests carried on, and while most shortcomings could be ironed out, the modified prototypes still displayed most of the shortcomings, just to a lesser extent. The supercharged engine also caused teething troubles – maintenance requirements were high. By this time Kawasaki's Ki-100, which had also been designed as a dedicated interceptor as a Ki-61 derivate, was also beginning to show promise and the Koku Hombu selected this type in fulfilment of its requirements.

 

Nevertheless, the Ki-121 was approved by the Koku Hombu as 'Army Type 6 Fighter' because of its high speed. An order was placed for one additional prototype and eighteen pre-production aircraft with even more enlarged tail fins. These bore the designation Ki-121-I and were named "Hitofuki" (‘gust of wind’ or ‘blast’). A further version with enlarged wing span as a high altitude interceptor, the Ki-121-II, was also in the design stage, but did not become hardware. The use of 2 × 30 mm (1.18 in) Ho-155 cannon in the wings was also envisioned.

 

The war's soon end however stopped the construction of further planes. The number of prototypes remained two, and twelve Ki-121-I pre-production aircraft with marginal improvements reached frontline squadrons in April 1945. It is not known if the Ki-121 was actively involved in homeland defence, it never received an allied code name - active planes will probably have been mistaken for Ki-61 fighters. Eventually, the Ki-121 did not progress any further. Its place was taken by the less complicated and more promising Ki-100 with a radial engine.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 8.90 m (29 ft 2 in)

Wingspan: 10.58 m (34 ft 9 in)

Height: 3.05 m (10 ft 0 in)

Wing area: 16.80 m² (180.8 ft²)

Empty weight: 2.580 kg (5.690 lb)

Max. take-off weight: 3,900 kg (8,600 lb)

 

Maximum speed: 640 km/h (345 kn, 400 mph) at 7,500 m (24,600 ft)

Range: 950 km (515 nmi, 590 mi)

Service ceiling: 11,500 m (37,730 ft)

Time to 5,000 m altitude: 4 min 47 sec

Engine: 1 supercharged Aichi AE1T Atsuta 12 twelve-cylinder inverted vee liquid-cooled engine, rated at 1,560 hp for take-off, 1,340 hp at 2,100 m and 1,190 hp at 5,800 m.

 

Armament:

2 × 12.7 mm Ho-103 machine guns, 400 rpg, in the nose

2 × 20 mm Ho-5 cannon, 250 rpg, in the wings

Bombs: 2 × 160 kg (350 lb) bombs or 2 x 200 l (44 Imp gal) drop tanks on underwing hardpoints

  

The kit and its assembly

In case you are in doubt: this is a whiff! The fictional Ki-121 actually is an Italian Macchi C.205 'Veltro' (an Italeri kit). I settled on this machine since it can easily be mistaken for a Ki-61 – e. g. both planes used the same DB 601 engine, and originally I just wanted to create a colour version in Japanese markings. But with building progress, things turned more and more Frankenstein, so that only hull and wings are original.

 

Cosmetic surgery and replacement parts include:

 

● Bubble canopy from an A-1 Skyraider single seater (a bit large, took some putty work…)

● Rear fuselage section was lowered for the new bubble canopy

● Horizontal stabilizers from a DH.88 Comet

● Vertical stabilizer is the tip of a Ju 188 elevator

● New wheels on the original (though reversed) main landing gear struts

● Scratch-built, semi-recessed turbocharger on port side

● Relocating the original air intake to starboard, w/o the sand filter

● For-bladed propeller and spinner from a Spitfire Mk. XVI

● Wing hardpoints (empty, though, for the sake of the plane’s clear lines)

● The original C.205’s radiator bath was omitted

● Flaps were lowered/opened, with some interior details

 

No dramatic change was intended, since the C.205's lines are pretty elegant and IMHO match Kawasaki’s designs of the era, like the Ki-61 or Ki-64, well. The result is a compact machine, reminiscent of a heavily shrunk Blackburn Firebrand prototype?

  

Painting

Since the fictional history of the Ki-121 only saw a couple of fighters in uncertain front line use, I settled on a typical late IJAAF livery based on various sources and references: overall blank metal (Testor’s Metallizer Aluminium Plate #1401) with a black anti-glare panel (Humbrol 33), coupled with an improvised, dark green camouflage on the upper surfaces and some colourful squadron markings.

 

Cockpit interior surfaces were painted in ‘Aodake Iro’, simulated with a base of Aluminium (Humbrol 56) and a coat of translucent blue paint on top of that. The landing gear wells were painted in a mix of Humbrol 225 (Mid Stone) and 155 (Olive Drab), for a greenish tan colour.

 

Hinomaru and squadron emblems come from the scrap box. The blue markings are fictional, the red dragon head emblems come from an aftermarket decal sheet. They belong to the JASDF 105 Sqn, which flew Ki-61 from Aug.’44-Aug. ’45, so it is IMHO a potential/plausible user for the Ki-121-I. This sentai later switched to F-86D interceptors - and from these machines come the emblems.

 

Since the improvised camouflage easily chipped/weathered (no primer was applied), a slightly ratty look was intended. Hence, decals were already applied onto the aluminium base coat, after basic markings like the glare panel or the yellow identification marks (with Humbrol 69) on the wings’ leading edges had been painted. Then, Humbrol’s Maskol was dabbed onto certain areas with a toothbrush and a fine, stiff-bristled brush around markings and hinomaru.

On top of that, green mottles and streaks (Humbrol 159, Khaki Drab, as a simultaion of the IJAAF's "A.2 Olive Green" tone) were applied with a small brush. The idea was to create a hand-painted look, with aluminium shimmering through and many extra worn areas that show even more bare metal skin.

 

After rubbing the Maskol off, the metal surface was sealed with a semi-matte, water-based varnish, while the glare panel remained matte, as well as the propeller (spinner in Red Brown, Humbrol 160, blades in Testor’s ‘Rubber’, #1183). Worn look and details were augmented by a light wash with black ink and some light dry painting, e .g. for exhaust marks and gun smoke residues.

  

All in all, this small and rather simple model kit was built in a couple of days as a distraction from my major Venator conversion.

 

Michal Machciník: Súsošie: Pocta Ďatlovi III

G., Pocta Ďatlovi III, Dutina v ktorej sa utvára čas XXVIII-XLI, svařovaná kovová konstrukce, 270x132x124 cm, 13 kusů odlitků datlích dutin, autorská technika, PUR pěna, dřevo, (2020)

 

Julia Gryboś a Barbora Zentková: Diagnosis of the Curved Spine (2019)

 

foto: Filip Beránek

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The Latvian Air Force was first founded during the Latvian War of Independence in 1919. In 1939, the Aviation Regiment consisted of three fighter squadrons, armed with 24 Gloster Gladiator and 6 Bristol Bulldog (a fourth squadron was in organization), three reconnaissance squadrons, armed with up to 12 Letov Š-16LS, 2 Hawker Hind and 10 Stampe SV.5, and a naval reconnaissance squadron with 4 Fairey Seal and two other planes. The Soviet occupation in 1940 ended the activities of the Air Force. At that time there were almost 130 aircraft in service.

 

The post-Soviet Latvian Air Force was formed on 24 February 1992 at Spilve Airport. In August 1994, the air force moved to an ex-soviet Lielvārde Air Base. In the beginning of the new century two new and more heavy Mi-8MTV Hip helicopters were bought for search and rescue equipment duties, but they were also used for transportation of troops, evacuation and support of the Special Forces. In March 2004 Latvia joined NATO and the Ministry of Defense made the decision to improve the small country’s air defense with a dedicated fighter squadron. The country also bought two more Mi-8MTV's at the Russian Ulan Ude helicopter (rework) factory that year, augmenting the SAR fleet.

 

In 2005, soldiers of the Air Force Air Defense Wing started a training course in order to prepare an upgraded air defense. At the same time, the Latvian Air Force commenced the modernization of the surface air defense capabilities by signing a contract regarding procurement of RBS-70 manpads missiles from Sweden and negotiated the purchase or leasing of 2nd hand Saab JAS 39 Gripen. Coming from a neutral country, the Gripen was the LAF’s wish candidate for the new interceptor aircraft, but eventually Latvia could be convinced (primarily through the USA and with generous financial support thorugh the “Baltic Peace II” program) to buy eight F-5E fighters and two F-5F trainers with relatively low flying hours and in good overall condition from Switzerland. Besides the financial support, the type’s ruggedness and relatively low maintenance costs led to this choice.

 

The Northrop F-5E/F Tiger II itself was part of a highly successful supersonic light fighter family, initially designed in the late 1950s by Northrop Corporation. Being smaller and simpler than contemporaries such as the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II, the F-5 cost less to both procure and operate, making it a popular export aircraft. The F-5 started life as a privately funded light fighter program by Northrop in the 1950s. The design team wrapped a small, highly aerodynamic fighter around two compact and high-thrust General Electric J85 engines, focusing on performance and low cost of maintenance. Though primarily designed for the day air superiority role, the aircraft was also a capable ground-attack platform.

After winning the International Fighter Aircraft competition in 1970, a program aimed at providing effective low-cost fighters to American allies, Northrop introduced the second-generation F-5E Tiger II in 1972. This upgrade included more powerful engines, higher fuel capacity, greater wing area and improved leading edge extensions for a better turn rate, optional air-to-air refueling, and improved avionics including air-to-air radar. A total of 1,400 Tiger IIs were built before production ended in 1987, and the type is still in operational use in many countries round the world.

 

The Swiss F-5E airframes for Latvia were overhauled and the avionics suite modernized in 2006 and 2007 by SAI in Italy. Elbit Systems from Israel became the sub-contractor responsible for systems integration. Upgrades for the fighters included an Italian FIAR Grifo-F X band multi-mode radar with BVR (beyond-visual-range) missile and Look-down/shoot-down capabilities, making the modernized F-5E capable of deploying AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles, which were, together with AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs, part of the Baltic Peace II support for Latvia. The new radar necessitated an enlarged radome for its scanner antenna, resulting in a duckbill shape. The fighters’ port side M39 20 mm cannon was removed to make way for the additional avionics.

 

All machines received a revamped cockpit with new MIL-STD-1553R databuses, a GEC/Ferranti 4510 Head-up display/weapons delivery system, two BAE Systems MED-2067 Multi-function displays, Litton LN-93 inertial navigation system and Hands On Throttle-And-Stick controls (HOTAS) to reduce pilot workload. Reportedly, the Elisra SPS2000 radar warning receiver and countermeasure system was also installed.

 

The modernization process was completed by early 2007 and the machines were re-designated F-5L/M. By late 2007, the Latvian air defense had become operational and worked closely together with its Baltic neighbors and the NATO forces that were frequently deployed to the Baltic NATO countries.

The small Latvian F-5 fleet is expected to remain in service until 2024, even tough, if there is sufficient funding, the machines will certainly be replaced beforehand by more capable models. The Saab Gripen is still a favored candidate, but F-16C/Ds from USAF stocks are a potential option, too.

By end of 2009, the LAF’s Fighter Squadron moved to Lielvārde Air Base, in an attempt to ensure centralization of Air Force units and to establish an efficient command and control system, which will result in a reduction of the Air Force units’ maintenance costs. With the Fighter Squadron the Air Force carries out Latvian airspace surveillance, control and defense and provides air defense support to the Land Forces units.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 47 ft 4¾ in (14.45 m)

Wingspan: 26 ft 8 in (8.13 m)

Height: 13 ft 4½ in (4.08 m)

Wing area: 186 ft² (17.28 m²)

Airfoil: NACA 65A004.8 root, NACA 64A004.8 tip

Empty weight: 9,558 lb (4,349 kg)

Loaded weight: 15,745 lb (7,157 kg)

Max. take-off weight: 24,722 lb (11,214 kg)

Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.02

Drag area: 3.4 ft² (0.32 m²)

Aspect ratio: 3.82

Internal fuel: 677 U.S. gal (2,563 L)

External fuel: up to 3× 275 U.S. gal (1,040 L) drop tanks

 

Powerplant:

2× General Electric J85-GE-21B turbojet with 3,500 lbf (15.5 kN) dry thrust

and 5,000 lbf (22.2 kN) thrust with afterburner each

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 917 kn (Mach 1.6, 1,060 mph, 1,700 km/h) at altitude

Range: 760 nmi (870 mi, 1,405 km)

Ferry range: 2,010 nmi (2,310 mi, 3,700 km)

Service ceiling: 51,800 ft (15,800 m)

Rate of climb: 34,400 ft/min (175 m/s)

Lift-to-drag ratio: 10.0

 

Armament:

1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M39A2 Revolver cannon in the nose with 280 rounds

7 hardpoints (2× wing-tip AAM launch rails, 4× under-wing & 1× under-fuselage pylon stations,

only pylon stations 3, 4 and 5 are wet-plumbed) with a capacity of 7,000 pounds (3,200 kg)

  

The kit and its assembly:

A relatively simple build, originally inspired by a Blue Rider decal sheet for Latvian Air Force aircraft that I had bought some time ago, as part of a vague plan to build a modern what-if aircraft for each of the young and small Baltic states’ air forces. The first one had been a Lithuanian MiG-21, Estonia is still pending (even though there’s a vague idea), and the Lithuanian interceptor was recently spawned when I bought an Italeri F-5E as part of a kit lot, even though it lacked box, decals and instructions and had a slight damage.

 

The Tiger II was built mostly OOB, the only changes I made are replaced wing tip launch rails (they were damaged beyond repair), I omitted port side cannon and created a modified “shark nose” radome, which was sculpted with putty; in real life, the enlarged radome for the upgraded radar is 33cm deeper than the original F-5E radome, even though the aircraft’s overall length remained the same, as well as the nose profile. In order to make the model look a little less static I slightly lowered the slats and the flaps – easy to realize on this model. The leftover cannon received a better barrel, made from a hollow steel needle. The pair of AIM-120s and their respective launch rails come from a Hasegawa air-to-air weapons set. The ventral drop tank came from the kit.

 

The Italeri F-5E is a simple affair and goes together well, even though the section ahead of the air intakes called for considerable PSR work – not certain if that’s my fault or an innate flaw of the kit (which comes with an upper and lower fuselage half)? The raised panel lines are another weak point – the kit cannot conceal its age, and there are certainly better options today (e .g. from Hobby Boss).

  

Painting and markings:

I wanted something that would neither look too Western, nor a typical Soviet-style livery. The resulting paint scheme is purely fictional and was inspired by a grey North Korean MiG-21 and USAF aggressor schemes for F-5Es – both reminiscent of the Soviet “Pumpkin” paint scheme for export MiG-21s. For the choice of colors, the complex “Norm 81” scheme from German Luftwaffe F-4Fs had an influence.

 

The result became a primarily grey air superiority scheme with uniform light grey undersides (FS 36495, Humbrol 147) and light Ghost Grey (FS 36375, Humbrol 127) fuselage and fin. The wings’ upper surfaces became mostly Dark Gull Grey (FS 36231, Testors 1740) and patches of the same tone were applied to the fuselage and the fin, too. On the wings’ upper surfaces, some patches in a dull, greenish grey (Humbrol 111, Uniform Grey) were finally added in order to break the aircraft’s outlines from above. The result somewhat reminds of German WWII camouflage, even though unintentionally.

 

The radome was painted in Revell 75 (Light Grey, with a brownish hue) to set it apart from the rest of the aircraft. Humbrol 140 was used for the cockpit interior. The landing gear became classic glossy white, while the air intake interior was painted in Humbrol 127, matching the aircraft’s flanks. Only subtle post-shading and weathering was done.

 

As mentioned above, the Latvian air force markings came from a Blue Rider decal sheet. The tactical codes and the matching serial number come from a Begemot MiG-21sheet. Other fictional elements are the NATO emblem on the fin and a small squadron emblem on the nose, which is a vintage Polish air force motif.

Most stencils had to be salvaged from secondary sources, since the kit came without a decal sheet. Fortunately, I had a spare F-5E sheet left over from a Hobby Boss kit. As a final step, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri).

  

A rather simple project, but re-sculpting the nose was a tedious task. However, I am happy with the outcome and how the fictional paint scheme works. Together with the exotic Latvian roundels, this creates an interesting, if not plausible, look.

 

Thursday.

 

Start of the two day road trip.

 

I was awake before five with my allergies giving me hell. It was so bad I thought I had a cold, but it went off during the day, allergies is the best fit, but as I was feeling better later, it don't really matter. Anyway, we have breakfast, I load the car having packed the night before, and I drive Jools to the factory. And It's just me and the open road. Well, apart from all other drivers in south east England who were driving too. In fact I got caught in a train of cars heading to Folkestone behind a Dutch camper van travelling at 25mph.

 

However, onto the motorway and into the rush hour traffic of Ashford and then Maidstone before the fun that is the M25 heading into Dartford. It is odd that the most important part of the motorway is the corssing and we have to pay to use it, even if it has already been paid for and it causes god-almighty traffic jams. It's not that the money is reinvested back in the road system, as you will see later when I moan about the East Anglain road system with its myriad of bottlenecks and planning disasters.

 

I get through the queues, pay my two quid to find the southbound traffic the other side of the tunnel is at least three times as worse. And then there is the hjoy of the A12 through Essex. How can it be that a simple road causes so much pain? Is it the mad driving, the racing to get to the next junction, the pointless jams at Chelmsford. I mean who would want to go to Chelsmford? But once into the quiet county of Suffolk, I was able to turn off and head into the Dedham Vale. Or would have if the road signs would have made sense! Does it sound like I'm complaining all the time? I don't like traffic, queues or Essex. So, maybe driving through Essex in the rush hour was planning for trouble.

 

I switched on the sat nav, programmed the first port of call, Stoke by Nayland, and set off. I was lucky that my friend, Simon, had provided me with a list of fine churches to visit. All of the churches I would visit this morning would be splendid. I saw a sign for the village of Boxted, and realise that is on my list, so I head there, driving towards Church Hill, which my spidy senses tell me I might find the church. I park on the small high street through the village, with the church on my left. I leave the sat nav in the car switched on, I thought there would be no thieves in such a wonderful spot.

 

And I was right.

 

St Peter was quite spectacular, to me, inside, it was like a theatre, with a gallery containing seats and the organ, with the later being the centre of the stage. It was a delight, and is quite possibly my favourite church of all. Some doing, but I loved the church. But, I had to move on. But I tell the folks clearing bushes for the church wall how much I loved it. She had only been in once, at Christmas, but though the acoustics were good.

 

It was only a five minute drive to Soke by Nayland, I found the church and parked on the main street of the village and walked up to the churchyard noting the worker's vans parked near the porch. This could be trouble I thought.

 

It has fine glass, memorials and tiles, but I did have a run in with one of the workers. I wanted to photograph the windows, and asked if I could get by. NO. I was told. We're busy. But you're just talking. No, we're busy, and we might hot you on the head, said the stage erector. I siad I would be careful, and he retorted that he would not be held responsible if I had an accident. All in all it put a damper on the church, so I got my shots and left. I mean I can always go back.

 

I stopped at the small book shop at the cross roads and by a Sherlock Holmes novel to read if I got bored that evening, and head off for the next church.

 

It is a short drive to Polstead, the next on the list. Now, I did not plan this and I am getting the feeling that I am retracing my tracks already, in fact I was to pass through Stoke by Nayland some four times during the day. Oh well, its no real hardship.

 

Polstead lies in a shallow valley, with the village scattered up one side. I assume that the church will be on the highest point. As there are only four roads in and out of the village, it shouldn't be hard to find. I drive past the attractive cillage pond, more like a lake and head up through the village, past many wonderful looking ancient houses, but find no church. Back down into the centre of the village and out another road, and still no church. This just leaves the road I came in on, and so head back down through the village, past the pond onto the main road, or what counts as the main road, and a few yards further along is a small white sign pointing up the other side of the valley into some woods.

 

A new road has been laid, and there is a good sized car park, so I abandon the car, grab the cameras and walk into the church year. From outside St Mary looks something like a typical small Suffolk church, others might feel differently about that, but nothing too spectacular. But once inside on is met with brick-topped arches and it filled with the most wonderful light. I am awestruck, and glad that I do not research these churches beforehand so my breath can be taken away by the beauty of these churches.

 

After getting my shots I go back outside, taking a tray of quinces that are on offer and deposit a couple of quid in the box as a donation.

 

I program in Wissington into the sat nav and set off. Soon I see we are to go through Nayland, so I decide if I can find a parking space I will stop here first and snap the church. Nayland is a stunning looking large village, but, it knows it. I wanted to warm to the village, but seems to be more Aldborough that traditional working village, I could be wrong, but judging by the quantity of high powered sports cars parked in the village square, I get the feeling I am right.

 

I find a place to park, and see the church framed down Church Mews making a fine shot. So I snap that and enter the churchyard, walking round t the main entrance through the porch. Inside it is another fine church, built on a grand scale. I really warm to the church and am happy to snap it.

 

When I parked the car I saw some fashionably dressed ladies sipping coffees outside a shop, so I go in search of a cup for myself, to find it an arts shop which held classes for children to pain ceramics, with a coffee bar as a side line. Having just two tables, and a queue of several people, I assume I won't get a table and hope I can find a place somewhere else. I walk back to the car, load up and drive off towards Wissington.

 

Entering the village, I see a sign pointing to Wiston church, not the one I was looking for, but a church, so I drive down the narrow lane to the parking spot. The church is on a private estate, and they don't want cars parking near the church. Or something. But it is only a five minute walk, and it is a wonderful autumn day with lots of golden sunshine, its no chore to walk.

 

Wisset or Wissington? Is the question posed inside the church, so they are one and the same, more mangling of the mother tongue by East Anglians, then.

 

I am greeted with the sight of the wooden tower showing over a modern barn, it looks wonderful. First thing I notice is the bowed end, which reminds me of Loddon. Entry is my a grand glazed porch, but inside the walls are covered by the remains of ancient paintings, and right in front, over a door, is a dragon. Not what I was expecting. It is a delightful small church, made all the more special by the paintings, some more complete than others. And once again I have the church to myself. I am tempted to stay here longer, but it is already getting near lunchtime, and time is getting away from me.

 

jelltex.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/friday-26th-september-2014...

 

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

 

Wissington, sometimes pronounced and even spelt Wiston, is in a gentle fold of Essex, above the Stour. It looks to Colchester rather than to Ipswich, and since the closure of the Jane Walker Hospital the village has returned to being a sleepy hamlet, not particularly on the way to anywhere.

 

Norman churches are not common in Suffolk; there was wealth to rebuild most of them on the eve of the Reformation. The best Norman churches are out on the margins of the county, as though some central authority had forgotten them. Apart from Nayland, the nearest other churches to Wissington are all in Essex.

 

Having said that St Mary is Norman, a qualification must be made, since the Victorians clearly thought that it wasn't quite Norman enough. They built the eastern apse, and filled the church with 'Norman' furnishings. There is a tasteless stone Norman pulpit, an absurd stone Norman reading desk, and even, I am afraid, Norman pews.

 

You approach the church by a narrow by-road from the Bures to Nayland road, which peters out into a private lane across the Wissington Hall estate.

 

You must leave your car on the hard standing area before entering the estate. The track is a public footpath, and takes you about 200m past a field that was full of the fluffiest, most comical sheep on my last visit. The church stands above the farmyard just to the west of the hall.

 

This is not a church you will come across by accident. The setting is superb - what it must be to wake up and see it every morning. You enter the churchyard from the eastern end, the apse for a moment making the building look round. The ancient exterior promises gloom, and you'll not be disappointed. You step into a darkness that seems ancient, and if you can ignore the pews and ridiculous pulpit, you can conjure up in your mind the candle flickering and incense-clouded early middle ages.

 

A building like this has a long memory, and, unusually for Suffolk, probably had as long a life before the Reformation as it has had since.

 

There is a smell of earth, a coolness that is unchanging, whatever the weather outside. And then, as your eyes become accustomed to the gloom, you can look up to see the wonderful wall-paintings.

 

The paintings date from about 1280, and the complete range is still discernible. In common with many other survivals from this period, there are two levels.

 

The top level of paintings (the best preserved) shows the story of Christ from Annunciation to Ascension. The south wall is best of all. The sequence is shown below; hover to read the captions, click to see enlarged images. They starts at the far eastern end with the Annunciation; the angel holds a lily, and Mary's face is just visible on the right.This painting is wrongly identified as St Michael in some sources. The Visitation is lost, and we catch up on the story with one of two paintings here that are world famous. It apparently shows the Nativity (and must, to fit in with the sequence) but the imagery of it is more usually associated with the confinement of St Anne and the birth of the Blessed Virgin. It shows Mary in some pain, and her watching husband in distress, as a midwife nurses her. The problem is that, because of her immaculate conception, Mary was believed in medieval times to have given birth without pain. Although this doctrine was only formally received into the Church in the 19th century, it was widely held in medieval England.

 

The next part of the story fills two panels; in the first, an angel appears to the shepherds, one of whom is in the panel with him. His fellows gather in the next frame, while young sheep gambol without concern at their feet. In the next frame, they appear to be hurrying down to Bethlehem. In fact, the story switches at this point from St Luke's Gospel to St Matthew's, and these are the Magi travelling to greet the Christchild.

 

The journey of the Magi is followed by a two frame scene in which they offer their gifts to the infant Christ. He sits on his mother's lap, much as he does in the same scene at Thornham Parva across the county. There then follows the other world famous image; the angel appears to the Magi to tell them not to go back to Jerusalem but to return by a different route. As in the capital at Autun Cathedral, they are shown all asleep in the same bed.

 

The final two scenes in this row show the flight into Egypt and, just before the gallery intervenes and they are lost, the massacre of the innocents, with a fearsome soldier wielding a sword.

 

The painting is in ochre, with vine designs around the painted archways and alcoves that offset the subjects. The lower range is less well preserved, and is generally held to be scenes from the life of St Nicholas. I have to say that I do not find the evidence for this compelling. Certainly, the most well-preserved painting shows a man in a boat, and he appears to be holding a bishop's crozier as he blesses the sailors, as in the St Nicholas legend. However, if it wasn't a crozier, then this could just as easily be the story of Christ calming the waters of Lake Gallilee, in which case we must be open to the possibility that this is another range of scenes from the life of Christ. However, those to the east of this don't fit any obvious stories, and they are now so faint that it is easy to read almost anything into them. One figure appears to be female and holding a wheel, and so could be St Catherine. To her right, one figure pushes down the head of another - the expression on the face of the victim suggests another martyrdom.

 

There are fewer images survivng on the north wall, and they are generally in poorer condition, but several parts of the crucifixion story are clear. In one, Christ is nailed to the cross; He lies on the ground, and his executioners kneel beside him. I have seen this described as 'Christ washing the feet of his disciples, which is not impossible, but seems odd at this place in the sequence.

 

In the next, a figure holds a stick with a vinegar sponge up to the thirsting Christ, while a woman weeps at his nailed feet. The next image I take to be Christ being taken down from the cross, because the iconography is familiar; he lies with his head to the left resting in his mother's lap. However, an unusual feature is the large number of people gathered to watch; there are usually only three or four. The only other really clear image in the sequence is the risen Christ standing with his hands help open, surrounded by his friends I have seen this described as 'the last supper'.

 

There are two other major paintings on the north wall, and they are both really quite extraordinary. One is above the former north door, and shows a large and ferocious dragon. He is quite out of scale with the other images, and in quite a different style. Some sources suggest that it is part of a scene of St Margaret, but I could see no evidence for this. At the other end of the north wall, however, is the earliest known English image of St Francis. He is shown preaching to the birds in the tree. If 1280, the estimated date for this work, is broadly correct, then this could have been painted by people who were alive in the lifetime of their subject.

 

There are also the remains of a doom on the west wall above the gallery, hidden when I was last here by building work.

 

The rest of this building is as atmospheric, and the Victorian additions are obvious, so don't intrude too much. You step beyond the chancel arch into a square space that was obviously once the base of the tower, as at Ousden or Oulton. The sanctuary beyond is all Victorian. A brass inscription for a Laudian Rector has been reset in the tiles. Turning back west, you can make out the two parts of the gallery through the gloom, a royal arms of George III and two hatchments flanking it. Mortlock says that it has Fear God and Honour the King inscribed on the back. This end was undergoing repairs on my last visit.

 

Beneath the gallery, the font, later than the Norman period, is unique in Suffolk. There is one detail in particular on it that I like very much. The lions at its base are not sitting up, alert, as is common in East Anglia. They are lying down, as though the rural idyll of this place, and its ageless peace, have at last overcome them, and they have surrendered themselves to sleep.

 

St Mary, Wissington, is just south of the Sudbury to Colchester Road, where the road from Nayland to Bures cuts through. I have never found it locked.

 

www.suffolkchurches.co.uk/wissington.htm

. The armadillo found in the U.S. is called the nine-banded armadillo. Their name means 'little armored one' in Spanish.

Here are some more cool armadillo facts:

Armadillos always give birth to four identical young -- the only mammal known to do so.

All four young develop from the same egg -- and they even share the same placenta!

Armadillos are used in leprosy research because their body temperatures are low enough for them to contract the most virulent form of the disease.

They like to eat insects, snakes and love to dig and burrow with their claws. The coyote is one predator then can piece their touch armour skin.

.

Armadillos like to swim, and they are very good at it. They have a strong dog paddle, and can even go quite a distance underwater, walking along the bottom of streams and ponds. When they need to float, they gulp air into their intestines to make them more buoyant.

Armadillo teeth have no enamel (the hard outer covering of the tooth). They also have very few teeth -- just several peg-like molars. Since they primarily eat insects, they don't have to do a lot of heavy chewing, making big, strong teeth a waste of energy to grow.

Like most insect eating mammals, armadillos have a very long, sticky tongue to slurp up bugs as quickly as possible. They also are equipped with strong claws to tear open ant nests.

Armadillos have a very low metabolic rate, which means they don't waste a lot of energy producing heat. This also means that they are not good at living in cold areas, because they can't keep warm very well! They do not have any fat reserves, so they must forage for food on a daily basis. Just a few cold days in a row can be deadly to a 'dillo.

This one was scurrying about in a river park in Florida.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

The origins of the Turbo Fury reach back to 1943, when the piston-driven Hawker Sea Fury's development was formally initiated in response to a wartime requirement of the RAF.

 

As the Second World War drew to a close, the RAF cancelled their order for the aircraft. However, the Royal Navy saw the type as a suitable carrier aircraft to replace a range of increasingly obsolete or poorly suited aircraft being operated by the Fleet Air Arm. Development of the Sea Fury proceeded, and the type began entering operational service in 1947.

 

The Sea Fury had many design similarities to Hawker's preceding Tempest fighter, but the Sea Fury was a considerably lighter aircraft. Both the Sea Fury's wings and fuselage originated from the Tempest but were significantly modified and redesigned.

 

The Sea Fury attracted international orders as both a carrier and land-based aircraft; it was operated by countries including Australia, Burma, Canada, Cuba, Egypt, West Germany, Iraq, and Pakistan. The Sea Fury was retired by the majority of its military operators in the late 1950s in favour of jet-propelled aircraft. One of the largest export customers for the type, Pakistan, went a different way.

 

A total of 87 new-build Sea Furies were purchased and delivered to Pakistan between 1950 and 1952, but some ex-FAA and Iraqi Sea Furies were also subsequently purchased.

 

The Sea Fury began to be replaced by the jet-powered North American F-86 Sabre in 1955, but it became quickly clear that the Sabre was primarily a fighter, not a ground attack aircraft. It also lacked adequate performance in 'hot and high' operation theatres, and the PAF's B-57 bombers were too big for certain CAS tasks, and their number highly limited.

 

Hence the decision was taken to modernize a part of the PAF Sea Fury fleet for the ground attack role. This was to be achieved with a better engine that would deliver more power, a better overall performance as well as an extended range for prolonged loiter times close to the potential battlefield.

 

Engine choice fell on the Allison T56 turboshaft engine, which had originally been developed for the C-130 Hercules transporter (later also installed in the P-3 and E-2) - the type had just been bought by the PAF, so that low maintenance cost due to parts and infrastructure commonality was expected. Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (commonly abbreviated 'PAC') was tasked to develop a suitable update, and this lead to the integration of a turboprop engine into the Sea Fury airframe.

 

For the relatively small Sea Fury airframe the T56 was downrated to 3.000 hp, to which approximately 750 lbs of thrust from its exhaust could be added. The latter was bifurcated and ran along the fuselage flanks, ending in fairings at the wings' trailing edge. In order to cope with the additional power, the original five-bladed propeller had to be replaced by a six-bladed, indigenously developed propeller. Together with the more pointed spinner and the raised propeller position, the Sea Fury's profile changed dramatically, even though the good field of view for the pilot was retained. Officially, the modified machines were just called 'Sea Fury FB.61', inofficially they were called 'Turbo Furies' or 'وایلار' (Urdu: Wailer), for their characteristic, penetrating engine and propeller sound.

 

Internally, structural reinforcements had to be made and new wing spars were introduced. These allowed higher g forces for low level maneuvers and also carried additional ordnance hardpoints under the outer wings - these enabled the aircraft to carry HVARs of American origin and/or several small caliber bombs instead of only a single pair of up to 1.000 lb (454 kg) caliber.

 

The last piston engine Sea Furies in Pakistani service were ultimately retired in 1960, while the Turbo Fury fleet was used throughout the 1965 India-Pakistan War. After the end of hostilities, the 'Turbo Furies' were quickly phased out since it had become clear that they had become too vulnerable in battlefield conditions.

 

Some of these machines were sold to Thailand, though, where it served with the Royal Thai Marine Corps (นาวิกโยธินแห่งราชอาณาจักรไทย) in the CAS role and saw frequent use: The Chanthaburi and Trat borders with Cambodia gave the Marine Corps Department its first assignment, safeguarding the coastline and southeastern border. Since 1970 the Marine Corps' Chanthaburi-Trat Task Force had been officially assigned the defense of this area.

 

During 1972 and 1973, Thai Marines were involved in the "Sam-Chai" anti-communist operations in Phetchabun Province and the "Pha-Phum" anti-communist operations in Chiang Rai Province. In 1973 and 1974, they took part in anti-communist operations in the southern provinces of Pattani, Yala and Narathiwat. After ten years of frequent and successful use, the end of the Thai TurBo Furies came - the type was retired in late 1975. Two specimen were sold into the USA to Flight Systems Inc., where the machines were de-militarized and modified to be used as fast low-level target tugs.

 

Still, the aircraft would see a late career for the USAF, even though only an indirect one - and ironically against another WWII veteran reincarnation! In 1971 Piper Aircraft Corp. at Lakeland, Florida, built for the USAF's PAVE COIN programm (calling for a simple aircraft tailored to the ground attack role for small armies) two Piper Enforcers by heavily modifying two existing P-51 Mustang aircraft and fitting them with Lycoming T55-L9A turboprop engines, along with numerous other significant modifications.

 

Prior to the PAVE COIN evaluation, N202PE was lost in a crash off the Florida Coast. Although the Enforcer performed well in PAVE COIN, Piper failed to secure a United States Air Force contract. Anyway, Piper kept on lobbying Congress for another 8 years to force the USAF to officially re-evaluate the Enforcer.

 

Eventually in the 1979 defense bill $11.9 million was allocated for Piper to build two new prototypes and for the USAF to perform another flight evaluation. Since the Enforcer was never in the Air Force inventory, it was not given an official military designation and did not receive an Air Force serial number. Instead, it carries the Piper designation PA-48 and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) registration numbers N481PE and N482PE.

 

During 1983 and 1984 the PA-48s were pitted against several "modern" jets at 1984 at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida and Edwards Air Force Base, California. Beyond 'state of the art' competirion, the USAF wanted a direct competitor - and found Flight Systems Inc's Turbo Furies. One of these, aircraft N287FS, was leased in 1981 and revamped to military status in order to act as a further benchnmark and as aggressor.

 

By the time the machine had already undergone some major modifications, including an ejection seat for the pilot and a new five-bladed propeller plus exhaust dampers in order to minimize the machine's distinctive, penetrating noise.

Further modifications saw the re-installment of armament, including wing hardpoints and the respective wiring, as well as adding four 20mm cannon, this time domestic Pontiac M39A1 revolver cannon - easily recognizable through the longer gun barrels that protruded from the wings' leading edge.

 

During the two years of evaluation the revamped Turbo Fury fared well, while its sister ship remained in the target tug role - and it was the only machine to survive, since N287FS crashed on 8th of August 1984 at Eglin AB due to hydraulic failure, with the pilot escaping securely thanks to the new ejection seat.

  

General characteristics

Crew: One

Length: 36 ft 2 in (11.05 m)

Wingspan: 38 ft 43⁄4 in (11.69 m)

Height: 15 ft 101⁄2 in (4.84 m)

Wing area: 280 ft2 (26.01 m2)

Empty weight: 10.500 lb (4.767 kg)

Loaded weight: 14,100 lb (6.400 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 15,650 lb (7.105 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Allison T56 turboshaft engine rated at 2.206 kW (3.000 hp) plus 750 lbs of residual thrust

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 490 mph (427 knots, 790 km/h) at 18,000 ft (5,500 m)

Range: 700 mi (609 nmi, 1,126 km) with internal fuel;

1,040 mi (904 nmi, 1,674 km) with two drop tanks

Service ceiling: 35,800 ft (10,910 m)

Rate of climb: 4,320 ft/min (21.9 m/s)

 

Armament:

4× 20 mm (0.787 in) Pontiac M39A1 revolver cannon

Eight underwing hardpoints for an external load of 4.000 lb (1.814 kg),

including bombs, unguided rockets, napalm tanks or drop tanks

 

The kit and its assembly:

Turbo Fury V3.0, spinning forth the initial fictional background story of this whif conversion. The combination of a WWII figher design and a C-130 Hercules sounds unlikely, but that's what I built. The idea of revamped piston-engine aircraft for a post-WWII-use has its charm and continually brings forth impressive designs, like the real world Piper PA-48.

 

Inspiration came with a set of 1:72 aftermarket C-130J resin engine nacelles from OzMods, which I had bunkered a while ago. This time the engine was mated again to the single seater kit from Pioneer2/PM Models. The Hercules engines are an almost perfect fit - the original fuselage just had to be cut away behind the original exhaust reflectors. Some sculpting had to be done on both sides, and the wing roots filled up in order to match the new, more narrow engine, but things went really smoothly.

 

This time, the Turbo Fury was to have a more modern touch - we are in the 80ies now. So I decided to use the original C-130 sickle blades that come with the OzMods conversion kit, even though I only used five of them instead of six (the spinner was modified accordingly). Another idea was to conceal the original exhaust pipes under the cockpit - I scratched dampers with intakes that would muffle engine sound and mix the hot gases with fresh air. These break up the sleek lines of the Fury, but I think that this installation makes sense, also as a potential survival measure that reduces the aircraft's IR signature?

 

Otherwise, only little things were changed. In the cockpit a new seat and a dashboard cover were added. The underwing hardpoints were new, too, and I added some antennae for a more modern and purposeful look. All pylons are new, and the bomb ordnance was puzzled together from the spares box, including four Rockeye CBUs from an Italeri F-16, an camera pod (from an Italeri F-18, IIRC) and a single ACMI pod from an Italeri F-21.

 

Painting and markings:

Piper's PA-48 was a bit of inspiration for this build, and I wanted the final Turbo Fury to be an American aircraft. USAF use would have been unlikely, though, but a private operator like Flight Systems Inc. (Which also operated F-86 as target tugs!) opened a new opportunity, as well as the historic trials of the PA-48 in the early 80ies.

 

Well, how to paint the Turbo Fury? An early idea had been a simple, all Gunship Grey aircraft with low-viz markings, but I eventually settled for the contemporary "USMC Land Scheme", applied to helicopters (AH-1, CH-46) and some of the USMC's OA-10. On a classic airframe like the Sea Fury's it would look totally anachronistic - but for an aggressor and test aircraft? Why not?

 

This wraparound scheme consists of grey, green and black - I used FS 35237 (Humbrol 145), FS 34097 (Humbrol 105) and FS 37038 (Humbrol 85, slightly lightened with some Humbrol 32 Dark Grey). The cockpit interior was kept in dark gray, the landing gear is in Aluminum, just like on the former builds of this series.

 

As per usual the kit received a light black ink wash and some dry painting that emphasizes the panel lines.

 

Decals were puzzled together from the scrap box, with some typical US markings and modern stencils.

  

Even though the paint finish turned out to look a bit more worn than initially intended, I am very happy with the result of this "Final Turbo Fury", esp. with its modern details. It looks rather odd and purposeful! And there's still one Hercules engine left... maybe a forth Turbo Fury might come forth, in the hands of another obscure operator's hands. ;)

 

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The Boeing 727 was an American midsized, narrow-body three-engine jet aircraft built by Boeing Commercial Airplanes from the early 1960s to 1984. Intended for short and medium-length flights, it could carry 149 to 189 passengers and later models could fly up to 2,700 nautical miles (5,000 km) nonstop. It was originally powered by three Pratt & Whitney JT8D engines below the T-tail, one on each side of the rear fuselage with a center engine that connected through an S-duct to an inlet at the base of the fin.

 

The 727 followed the 707 and the 720, both quad-jet airliners, with which it shared its upper fuselage cross-section and cockpit design. The 727 was designed as a more economical alternative to the 707/720s and was tailored to operations from smaller airports, so independence from ground facilities was an important requirement. This led to one of the 727's most distinctive features: the built-in airstair that opened from the rear underbelly of the fuselage, which initially could be opened in flight (a feature that was later blocked). Nose wheel brakes were available as an option to reduce braking distance on landing, which provided reduction in braking distances of up to 150 m. In order to protect the tail section in the event of an over-rotation on take-off, the 727 was equipped with a retractable tailskid. Another innovation was the auxiliary power unit (APU), which allowed electrical and air-conditioning systems to run independently of a ground-based power supply, and without having to start one of the main engines. An unusual design feature was that the APU was mounted in a hole in the keel beam web, in the main landing gear bay.

 

The 727's fuselage had an outer diameter of 148 inches (3.8 m). This allowed six-abreast seating (three per side) and a single aisle when 18-inch (46 cm) wide coach-class seats were installed. An unusual feature of the fuselage was the 10-inch (25 cm) difference between the lower lobe forward and aft of the wing, as the higher fuselage height of the center section was simply retained towards the rear.

 

The 727 proved to be such a reliable and versatile airliner that it came to form the core of many startup airlines' fleets. The 727 was successful with airlines worldwide partly because it could use smaller runways while still flying medium-range routes. This allowed airlines to carry passengers from cities with large populations, but smaller airports, to worldwide tourist destinations. One of the features that gave the 727 its ability to land on shorter runways was its clean wing design: With no wing-mounted engines, leading-edge devices (Krueger, or hinged, flaps on the inner wing and extendable leading edge slats out to the wingtip) and trailing-edge lift enhancement equipment (triple-slotted, fowler flaps) could be used on the entire wing. Together, these high-lift devices produced a maximum wing lift coefficient of 3.0 (based on the flap-retracted wing area).

 

The 727-100 first flew in February 1963 and entered service with Eastern Air Lines in February 1964; the stretched 727-200 flew in July 1967 and entered service with Northeast Airlines that December. After the global success of the -100 and especially the stretched -200 series, Boeing considered another version, the -300 series, a thoroughly modified variant, dedicated to the South American and Asian markets and optimized for “hot and high” climate operations.

 

The basis for the -300 was the extended -200 airframe, but in order to improve security as well as landing and starting characteristics, a fourth engine was added for extra thrust. This changed the tail layout completely, since the central JT8D and its S-duct were deleted. Instead, the 727-300’s four engines were re-arranged in two new twin-nacelles along the reinforced rear fuselage, similar to the Vickers VC-10 and Ilyushin Il-62 long-range airliners, which were both bigger/heavier aircraft, though. With the fourth engine’s extra power, the -300 became the Boeing 727 variant with the shortest take-off run: only 1.5 miles were necessary to get airborne (vs. 2 miles for late 727-200 variants and even less than 1,6 miles for the lighter, early 727-100). It also had the highest operational ceiling and an improved rate of climb, but top speed and range remained virtually unaffected.

 

In order to better cope with smaller airfields with less-than-perfect runways and higher landing speeds, the -300’s landing gear was reinforced and the twin wheels on the 727’s main legs replaced with four-wheel bogies. This necessitated bigger landing gear wells and the relocation of the APU into the rear fuselage, occupying the space of the former middle engine. The 727’s tail-mounted airstair was retained, and basically any interior feature and layout of the 727-200 cabin could be ordered for the -300, too, including side freight doors and equipment for mixed cargo/passenger operations.

 

Even though thrust-reversers were planned for all four engines, the inboard devices were omitted for serial production aircraft due to continued tail plane buffeting on the prototype, which flew in March 1970 for the first time. In order to compensate for this loss of braking power, Boeing’s engineers added a unique feature to the 727-300: a drogue parachute, which could be deployed to relieve the brakes and augment the outer JT8D’s thrust reversers, once the landing speed had been reduced to 80 knots or less. The parachute was mounted in a clamshell compartment in the now empty tail section.

 

However, the improved performance came at a price: through its additional engine, the 727-300 turned out to be costly to operate, being almost on par with the 707 and 720 models, which the 727 was originally intended to replace. In consequence, this specialized variant was only built in small numbers and found only a few operators. Launch customer was Aéromexico in 1972, ordering ten -301 machines primarily for domestic and South American routes. Other major civil operators became Air India with eight -302 machines, TAME (EP Linea Aerea del Ecuador) with six -303 aircraft, and Aerolíneas Argentinas with five -304 aircraft. A total of six machines were furthermore built under the designation C-22D for military operators; two of them flew as VIP transports for the USAF (also carrying out CIA missions, the integral airstair was a convenient detail of the type), and two each flew for the air forces of Mexico and Pakistan.

 

The highest production rate of the 727 was in the 1970s. Airport noise regulations have led to 727s being equipped with hush kits, the last 727 was completed in 1984. Successor models include variants of the 737 and the 757-200. The last commercial passenger flight of the 727 was in January 2019 in Iran, even though a few machines of the type still remain in government and private use or operate as freighters.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 3 (+ 3 flight attendants)

Length: 153 ft 2 in (46.68m)

Wingspan: 108 ft (32.92m)

Height: 34 ft 11 in (10.65m)

Wing area: 1,650 sq ft (153 m²), 32° sweep

Empty weight: 100,700 lb (45,720 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 209,500 lb (95,100 kg)

Fuel capacity: 8,090 US gal (30,620 l)

Cabin width: 140 in/3.56m

Two-class seats: 134 (20F@38" + 114Y@34")

Single-class seats: 155@34", absolute maximum of 189 passengers

 

Powerplant:

4× Pratt & Whitney JT8D-11 low-bypass (0.96 to 1) turbofan engines,

delivering 15,000 lbf (66.72 kN) each

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: Mach 0.9 (961 km/h; 519 kn)

Cruise speed: Mach 0.86 (917 km/h; 495 kn)

Landing speed: 151 ml/h (244 km/h; 135 kn)

Rate of climb: 1,920 ft/min (9.8 m/s)

Maximum service ceiling: 44,550 ft (13,600 m)

Range: 1,900 nmi (2,173 ml, 3,500 km)

Takeoff distance to 35 ft (11 m): 7,860 ft (2,400 m)

Landing distance from 50 ft (15 m): 2,160ft at maximum gross landing weight with thrust reverser,

1,800ft with additional drogue parachute deployment

  

The kit and its assembly:

This model became the third and relatively spontaneous entry for the “More or less engines” group build at whatifmodelers.com. It was actually an early idea for the GB, but I rejected it at first because I usually do not build small-scale airliners and did not have any ingredient for the build at hand. However, a fellow modeler had a similar idea, a four-engine Sud Aviation Caravelle, and upon discussing the project in the forum I became eventually convinced to build this conceptual sister ship, even though the procurement of its major ingredients took some time.

 

I considered and checked several Boeing 727 kits on the market, and settled for the Minicraft kit – in particular its USAF C-22C boxing. The Revell kit, a 727-100, was rejected as outdated rubbish and due to its short fuselage, and the Airfix kit, a long -200, also fell through because of its raised surface details and simply for being an Airfix kit.

The Minicraft kit was the only option left – and even though it has its weak points, too (like the wings’ massive leading edges and a so-so fit of the fuselage halves), it turned out to be a sound basis for this modification project. Its main selling points were engraved surface details, the lack of passenger cabin window openings and separate decals for the windows. Esp. the latter two factors were an important part of my construction and painting plan for this build (see below).

 

Another important ingredient for this build were the engines. For a quad-engine conversion I found a resin set for VC-10 engines from Bra.Z Models (and procured them from Hong Kong!), which are a good match in size and shape. Furthermore, due to the more massive rear end and potential operations from less-than-perfect runways, I decided to replace the original twin main wheels with four-wheel bogies, taken from the remains of a Hasegawa 1:200 Boeing 747 kit. Since the 727’s main landing gear well doors remain closed on the ground, this change was relatively simple to make.

 

The only major change beyond the engine nacelle swap concern the fin and the tail tip: the original 2nd engine and its air intake with the S-duct had to go. This stunt was more challenging than it sounds at first, because the intake duct widens the fin’s root considerably, and the respective bulge reaches very far back, almost reaching the rudder!

This meant that a considerable portion of the fin had to be cut away, what also left a gap in the fuselage spine. The latter was filled with a piece of 0.5mm styrene sheet from inside of the fuselage (before the halves were glued together), and then a “prosthesis” from 1.5mm styrene sheet was inserted into the gap in the fin, trying to sculpt a suitable profile with a mild curve at the fin’s base, inspired the early 737s’ fin shape.

Around this skeleton, I built the new fin with the help of 2C putty, because some serious sculpting was necessary to create a suitable fin profile and shape that would blend into the existing fin section. A proper intersection at the fin’s base had to be created, too, a real 3D puzzle, more complex than one might think at first!

 

The tail exhaust opening was trimmed down to a wedge shape, and then the tail tip was filled/sculpted with a 2C putty plug, creating a clamshell shape for the fictional brake parachute container without extending the tail tip too much.

A small APU outlet was added on the new tail tip’s starboard side, too, while the APU’s intake was placed in the fin’s lower leading edge. The original ventral APU intake between the wings was faired over.

 

One of the Minicraft kit’s weak points is the shape of the wings’ leading edges: they look very crude and solid, with an almost vertical front. In an attempt to mend this flaw, I tried to give the leading edges a more rounded shape with the help of putty.

 

The model’ nose section was filled with a lot of lead and, for the model’s in-flight pics, I added a ventral, vertical styrene tube in the model’s center of gravity as a display holder adapter.

  

Painting and markings:

The idea behind this four-engine 727 was a dedicated “hot & high” variant, so I searched for an obvious operator, and it was to be a commercial airline. Mexico became my first and favorite candidate, despite the fact that Aéromexico did not operate any Boeing aircraft during the Seventies, rather a fleet of mixed Douglas aircraft. I also found the airline’s livery of that era to be very attractive, with an NMF finish and orange and black trim - very elegant and colorful.

 

Finding suitable decals became a challenge, though. After some research I found a DC-8 Aéromexico sheet from 26decals – it not only matched the intended time slot, it also had the benefit of coming with separate decals for cheat lines and windows. This was a perfect match for the window-less Minicraft Boeing 727 kit, and, as a convenient complement, the kit’s C-22 boxing had the benefit that it depicts a uniform, white aircraft, so that its decal sheet comes with “clean” window and door decals, without any colored background. A perfect match for my plan!

 

Painting was straightforward. After having finished the building phase, I gave the model an initial coat of grey acrylic primer from the rattle can. Some small surface blemishes had to be corrected, and then I added light grey panels on top of the wings and the stabilizers (Humbrol 40, gloss FS 36440). The fin as well as the engine pods and the wing tips were painted in orange; Humbrol 18 (Gloss Orange) came very close to the decals’ tone. These areas were masked with Tamiya tape and then the model received an overall coat with a tone called “White Aluminum”, also from the rattle can.

 

Thereafter, the decals for the orange and black trim were applied. Since the DC-8 decals would not fit the 727 fuselage in every place, orange paint and generic black and silver decal stripes (TL Modellbau) were used for fine-tuning. Once the “style” decals were applied, the windows were added and the model received an overall coat of gloss acrylic varnish, also from the rattle can.

 

In a final step, the landing gear (painted all glossy white) was mounted.

  

This conversion appears simple at first sight, but the execution caused some headaches. The challenge was not so much building this model, but rather getting all the major input parts and pieces together. Creating a new fin shape was also more challenging than one would expect at first sight. However, the result is quite subtle, and I guess that this fictional 727-300 might make some people look twice, since it reminds a lot of the (bigger) Vickers VC10. Indeed, the outlines are very similar.

 

cosplay acts

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

 

Some background:

NAe São Paulo is a Clemenceau-class aircraft carrier currently in service with the Brazilian Navy. São Paulo was first commissioned in 1963 by the French Navy as Foch and was transferred in 2000 to Brazil, where she became the new flagship of the Brazilian Navy. In December 2014 it was announced that São Paulo will be expected to continue active service until 2039, at which time the vessel will be nearly 80 years old.

 

From this carrier, the Marinha do Brasil operates its only fixed-wing aircraft, and these were initially A-4 Skyhawks. In 1997 Brazil negotiated a $70 million contract for purchase of 20 A-4KU and three TA-4KU Skyhawks from Kuwait. The Kuwaiti Skyhawks, modified A-4Ms and TA-4Js delivered in 1977, were among the last of those models built by Douglas. The Kuwaiti Skyhawks were selected by Brazil because of low flight time, excellent physical condition, and a favorable price tag. The Brazilian Navy Re-designated AF-1 and AF-1A Falcões (Hawks), the ex-Kuwaiti Skyhawks arrived in Arraial do Cabo on 5 September 1998.

 

Anyway, the Skyhawks' life span was limited and in 2005 the Brazilian Navy started looking for a potential replacement, while the AF-1s were to kept operational due to limited military budgets. On 14 April 2009, Brazlian aircraft manufacturer EMBRAER signed a contract to modernize 12 Skyhawks, nine AF-1s (single-seat) and three AF-1As (two-seat). This upgrade will restore the operating capacity of the Navy 1st Intercept and Attack Plane Squadron (VF-1). The program includes restoring the aircraft and their current systems, as well as implementing new avionics, radar, power production, and autonomous oxygen generating systems. The first of the 12 modified Skyhawks was delivered on 27 May 2015. EMBRAER stated that the modifications would allow the aircraft to remain operational until 2025, by which time a successor was to be fully operational.

 

Several replacement candidates were evaluated under Brazil's F-X2 fighter program together with the Air Force which was looking to replace its Northrop F‐5EM and Dassault Mirage 2000C aircraft. In October 2008, Brazil selected three finalists: the Dassault Rafale, the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet, and the SAAB JAS 39 Gripen. The Brazilian Air Force initially planned to procure at least 36 and possibly up to 120 aircraft later, while the Brazilian Navy was looking for 24 aircraft (20 single seater and 4 two-seaters with dual controls) until 2025.

 

In February 2009, SAAB submitted a tender, and on 5 January 2010, reports claimed that the final evaluation report placed the Gripen ahead of other contenders; the decisive factor was reportedly lower unit and operational costs, the most compact size and the Swedish manufacturer's willingness to accept EMBRAER as a technological partner for the aircraft's further development, especially for the navalized version.

 

Amid delays due to financial constraints, President Dilma Rousseff announced in December 2011 the Gripen NG's selection and the start of a joint Swedish-Brazilian joint venture called SABRA. Argentina and Ecuador were interested in procuring Gripens from or through Brazil, and Mexico and Argenitina were potential export targets for SABRA's navalized Gripen derivative that was tailored to the Marinha do Brasil's needs.

 

The respective SABRA aircraft was appropriately christened "Grifo" and the development of thei 4th generation fighter started immediately after closing the cooperation deal in 2011. While based on the SAAB 39, the Grifo became a very different aircraft, due to several factors. The major influence was the carrier operation capability, which called for major structural modifications and enforcements as well as special equipment like foldable wings, a strengthened landing gear, an arrester hook and a new engine that would better cope with the naval environment than the Swedish RM 12 engine, a derivative of the General Electric F404-400.

 

Additionally, the mission focus of air superiority with additional attack capabilities was reversed, and the need for excellent low speed handling for carrier approaches was requested.

 

This led to a complelety different aircraft layout, with the SAAB 39's instable canard design being changed into a conservative aircraft with conventional tailplanes. The nose section was shortened in order to provide the pilot with a better field of view, while the more powerful F414-EPE afterburning turbofan was moved slightly forward due to CG reasons, resulting in a slightly shortened rear fuselage.

 

A mock-up of the new aircraft for the Brazlian Navy was presented and approved in early 2012, and the government placed an official order for two prototypes. Even though the Grifo appeared like a completely different aircraft, it shared a lot of elements with the SAAB 39, so that development time and costs could be reduced to a minimum - and the first prototype, internally designated EMB 391-001, made its maiden flight in early 2013. The second aircraft followed 3 months later.

 

The Grifo's equipment includes an AN/APG-79 active electronically scanned array (AESA), capable of executing simultaneous air-to-air and air-to-ground attacks, and providing higher quality high-resolution ground mapping at long standoff ranges. The AESA radar can also detect smaller targets, such as inbound missiles, and can track air targets beyond the range of the aircraft's air-to-air missiles, which include the AIM-9 Sidewinder for close range and the AIM-120 AMRAAM for medium range.

 

The Grifo features, like the Gripen fighter, an advanced and integrated electronic warfare suite, capable of operating in an undetectable passive mode or to actively jam hostile radar; a missile approach warning system passively detects and tracks incoming missiles.

 

The Grifo can be tailored to specific missions through external sensor pods, e .g. for reconnaissance and target designation. These include Rafael's LITENING targeting pod, Saab's Modular Reconnaissance Pod System or Thales' Digital Joint Reconnaissance Pod. On the Brazilian Navy's request the Grifo is also designed that it can be equipped with an aerial refueling system (ARS) or "buddy store" for the refueling of other aircraft, filling the tactical airborne tanker role.

 

The two prototypes completed a thorough test program until summer 2015 and subsequently went on a sales tour in South America and Asia. In the meantime, serial production started at EMBRAER's Gavião Peixoto in November 2015. The first serial machines, now officially designated AF-2A, arrived at the Brazilian Navy's São Pedro da Aldeia air base where a new Intercept and Attack Plane Squadron, VF-2 'Arquieros' (Archers) was founded. The squadron became operational in April 2016 and Grifos embarked on NAe São Paulo for the first time in September 2016, serving alongside the venerable AF-1.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Payload: 5,300 kg (11,700 lb)

Length: 13,54 m (44 ft 4 in)

Wingspan (incl. wing tip launch rails): 8.32 m (27 ft 2 in)

Height: 4.25 m (13 ft 11 in)

Wing area: 30.0 m² (323 ft²)

Empty weight: 6,800 kg[330] (14,990 lb)

Loaded weight: 8,500 kg (18,700 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 14,000 kg (31,000 lb)

Wheel track: 2.4 m (7 ft 10 in)

Powerplant:

1 × General Electric F414-EPE afterburning turbofan with

a dry thrust of 54 kN (12,100 lbf) and 85 kN (19,100 lbf) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: Mach 2 (2,204 km/h (1,190 kn; 1,370 mph) at high altitude

Combat radius: 800 km (497 mi, 432 nmi)

Ferry range: 3,200 km (1,983 mi) with drop tanks

Service ceiling: 15,240 m (50,000 ft)

Wing loading: 283 kg/m² (58 lb/ft²)

Thrust/weight: 0.97

Maximum g-load: +9 g

 

Armament:

1× 27 mm Mauser BK-27 Revolver cannon with 120 rounds

Eight hardpoints (three on each wing and two under fuselage)

for a wide range of guide and unguided ordnance of up to 14,330 lb (6.5 t)

  

The kit and its assembly:

The fictional Grifo is the result of a generic idea of converting a canard layout aircraft like the Saab Viggen into a conventional design. The Viggen was actually a serious candidate, but then I found an Italeri Gripen in the stash without a real purpose (it had been cheap, though), and with Brazil's real world procurement as background, the more conservative Grifo was born.

 

I wanted to use as many OOB Gripen parts as possible, and there are actually only a few external donations involved – with the outlook of converting further Gripens this way. You never know… ;)

 

Work started with the wings, which were cut off of the fuselage shell. Having the landing gear retract into the fuselage (much like the X-29) is a convenient detail of the Gripen, making the wing transplantation easier than on a Viggen where the wells have to be moved, too.

 

The original canard attachment points were faired over/hidden. The pointed Gripen nose with its pitot was cut off and replaced by a shorter, more stocky nose tip - from an F-4 Phantom II IIRC. Once the fuselage was completed, the wings were mounted, closer to the air intakes. This went smoothly, only some gaps on the undersides had to be filled.

 

Once the wings were in place I had to make a decision concerning the stabilizers. Despite the plan to use as many OOB parts as possible I found the OOB canards to be too sharply swept and considered several donation options.

I eventually settled for the most unique option: the stabilizers are actually main wings from a (rather malformed) Italeri/Dragon 1:200 F-117 that comes as a set with the B-2 bomber. A part of the F-117’s fuselage flank was cut off and taken over to the Grifo, too, so that these create ‘muscular’ bulges.

 

The stabilizers were mounted on scratched consoles/trailing wing root extensions that were somewhat inspired by the F-16’s tail design – putting the stabilizers directly onto the fuselage would have looked awkward, and with this solution I was able to extend the Gripen’s BWB-design all along the fuselage. As a side effect these consoles also offered a plausible place for rearward chaff dispensers.

 

The rear fuselage was shortened by 3mm, too – through the shorter nose and the wings further forward, the rest of the aircraft looked rather tail-heavy. While 3mm does not sound much, it helped with overall proportions.

 

The cannon fairing and the OOB pylons were taken over, as well as the cockpit interior. For carrier operations, several details were added, though: folding wing mechanism seams were engraved on the wings and an arrester hook with a fairing added under the tail section, flanked by new stabilizer fins.

 

The landing gear was basically taken OOB, too, but lengthened with styrene inserts for a higher stance: the main struts are now 2mm longer, while the front strut is 3mm taller. The latter was reversed, so that a catapult hook could be added to the front side, and slightly bigger wheels were mounted, too, so that the Grifo now has a rather stalky stance with a nose-up attitude. Simple, but effective!

 

The Sidewinders were taken OOB while the pair of AGM-84 Harpoon comes from Italeri’s 1:72 NATO weapons set.

 

Painting and markings:

I used the contemporary AF-1 paint scheme in three shades of grey as benchmark. These are FS 36187 (RAF Ocean Grey), FS 36307 (Flint Grey) and FS 36515 (Canadian Voodoo Grey) - sourced from a painting guide from Brazilian decal manufacturer FCM and backed by other knowledgeable sources from the region, too. And while the Ocean Grey appears a bit dark, I think that overall the colors are authentic. All paints are Modelmaster enamels.

 

After basic painting a light black ink wash was applied and panels highlighted through dry-brushing with lighter tones.

 

The cockpit interior was painted in Neutral Grey (FS 36173), while the landing gear became all-white.

The Brazilian Navy markings had to be improvised - there are 1:72 AF-1 decals available, but either not obtainable or prohibitively expensive - or both. Therefore I rather improvised, with basic Brazilian Navy markings from a vintage FCM Decal sheet for various Brazilian aircraft.

 

The respective roundels and codes actually belong to helicopters, and I had to wing it somehow. Unfortunately, the old FCM decals turned out to be ...old. Brittle and very delicate, application was already messy and they did not adhere well to the model. To make matters worse the acrylic varnish turned cloudy, so that a lot of paintwork repair had to be done - not helping much with a satisfactory kit finish. :(

  

Another interesting conversion – I am amazed how purposeful the Grifo looks. It reminds me with its high stance of a modern A-4 Skyhawk (what it somehow is), and there’s also some Super Étendard in it, esp. in the profile? At some point before painting it also had a somewhat Chinese look - maybe because the top view and the wing planform reminds of the classic MiG-21…? The wings might have been placed 3-4mm further backwards, since it is always difficult to judge proportions while work is still, but the Grifo looks convincingly like a real aircraft (model).

 

Aeronaves bonita! :D

I have synesthesia. I see letters and numbers as colours when I read them.

Specialized FACT 11r Carbon Frame with Shimano Ultegra components, Rival EL 28 wheels, carbon seatpost (Specialized), carbon handlebar (Ritchey Superlogic).

 

Photo: Thomas Ohlsson Photography

 

www.thomasohlsson.com | 500px | Facebook | Flickr | Instagram

F.A.C.T.S. - Day 02

Ghent, Belgien

 

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

www.flickr.com/photos/mchenryarts/

www.facebook.com/McHenryArts

APPROXIMATE RELEASE DATE: 2012

MISSING ITEMS: Medal

 

PERSONAL FUN FACT: I am such a sucker for any sort of American Girl clothes. Even though McKenna has one of my least favorite Girl of the Year collections, I knew I was eventually going to get this Team Gear AND the Performance Set (preferably together). McKenna's clothes are adorable and well made, don't get me wrong. I've just never been inclined to sporty clothing. Part of why I wanted this particular set was for the slippers. I thought they made the Performance Set look more complete. American Girl was clever selling the two sets separately this way...it ensured people would spend more money (the leotard retailed for $28, this jacket for $24). That's why I'm glad I bought this secondhand in a lot with the Performance Set on eBay in 2021! I am missing the medal, but I did get a supplementary one with it (it's from a Girl of Today outfit). I also was shocked that the original bracelet was included. Both the Team Gear and the Performance Set belonged to little girls who played with them a LOT. That's how some of the smaller accessories went missing, and why the Performance Set leotard was damaged. It's miraculous that this little bracelet survived. It's so well made and gorgeous...I think it will be worn often by all my Girl of the Years! The coolest feature of this Jacket is McKenna's name which is sewn on the back. It makes up for this fake zipper. By fake, I mean that it can't actually be completely undone. You can zip it up and down the track, but you can't separate the zipper stopper so you can have the jacket hang open. I was surprised by this detail, since all my other American Girl jackets can fully open.

Original photo by Ben Grey:

www.flickr.com/photos/ben_grey/6897044942

Which is a great example of the importance of story in creating empathy

shocking facts 2019

Information sharing workshop. Jakarta, 26 July 2022.

 

Photo by Aulia Erlangga/CIFOR-ICRAF

 

www.cifor-icraf.org

 

forestsnews.cifor.org

 

If you use one of our photos, please credit it accordingly and let us know. You can reach us through our Flickr account or at: cifor-mediainfo@cgiar.org

in Flanders expo Gent

Video Mapping Philipp Geist_Ano da Alemanha no Brasil - Cristo Redentor 2014

 

„VideoInstallation by Philipp Geist“, "Philipp Geist", „Copyright 2014 Philipp Geist / VG Bildkunst 2014", www.videogeist.de, mail@videogeist.de, „Rio de Janeiro“, "Santa Marta“, „Cristo Redentor“, „Dona Marta“, „Deutschland + Brasilien 2013-2014“, “Alemanha + Brasil 2013-2014”

 

Photo by Fred Pacífico

©2014 Philipp Geist / VG BIldkunst Bonn

 

Rio de Janeiro / Brazil 2014

Christ statue (Cristo Redentor) – May 12

Dona Marta favela – May 15 and 16,2014

 

Light Art-Video-Mapping-Installations Philipp Geist in Rio de Janeiro / Brazil 2014

on the Christ statue (Cristo Redentor) - May 12 and in the Dona Marta favela - May 15 and 16,

2014

 

Installation Philipp Geist Year of Germany in Brazil 2013/2014

Concept Time Drifts May 2014

 

At the end of the Year of Germany in Brazil 2013/2014, the artist Philipp Geist (Berlin, 1976)

develops two light installations in Rio this year; the first one on the world-famous Christ statue

(Cristo Redentor) and the other installation in the Santa Marta favela. For the installation the

artist presents artistic-liberal and poetic German and Brazilian themes and develops a building

and floor light installation of colored words and phrases in Portuguese, German, and in other

international languages. The installation deals with cultural characteristics and achievements of

both countries and visualizes the issues of time and space, volatility and presence in a free

artistic style. The two projects are in fact a double project which is combined. The installation

on the symbol of Rio and Brazil, the Christ statue, is recorded and projected onto the small

buildings and huts of the favela. The Christ statue, which has been built to protect the city and

the sailors, is symbolically projected on the shantytown, the favela, in a protective way. The

installation in the favela will be seen not only on a facade as a large cinema projection or as a

static image, but on several winding buildings, the roofs, the floor and on the steps. Thus, the

visitor becomes a part of the installation and can immerse into the projection and the light and

introduce himself. Chalk crayons are put out on the streets in the favela and the young and old

residents and visitors can write and paint words on the street, the ground, the stairs or even on

the house walls. The residents and several institutions should be addressed to submit words and

associations dealing with Rio, Brazil and Germany.

For the installation, which was shown at the Luminale in 2012, the artist Philipp Geist won the

German Lighting Design Award 2013 (Deutscher Lichtdesign-Preis 2013) in the category Light Art.

The series 'Time Drifts' is characterized by the complex and subtle way of visualizing various

currents and voices in cultural contexts and to provide institutions and visitors with the

opportunity of substantive participation: different personalities, visitors and institutions may be

addressed in advance and then contribute words and associations. Current and historico-cultural

topics are researched in advance by the artist and then integrated in a sensitive and subtle way.

The projection dismisses the use of screens, because concepts and associations are projected on

a large area onto the floor surface on several facades and in theater fog. Over the course of two

days, the installation can be seen on-site in the favela on May 15 and 16 and on the Cristo

Redentor on May 12 for a day.

Short, tall, young and old visitors can interactively participate in the installation by tracing and

adding words with colored chalk crayons available on the streets. Thus, over the period of the

installation, a carpet of words is evolved with terms that are contributed locally by the visitors

by means of the temporary and volatile 'medium' of chalk crayons. Philipp Geist develops in this

way a dialogue between the place, the visitors and his artistic work.

The concrete, tangible projection of the architecture and the static terms on the floor area

represents the facts and visible relics that are responsible for our understanding of history. The

transparent and volatile projection in the fog reminds us that part of the history can not be

preserved and that it is created in our individual imagination in a single moment. Words are

briefly visible as a metaphor for transience and then disappear again. This interplay of the

various text and image layers in the space refers to the location and the history/-ies of Brazil

and Germany and the cultural exchange between the two countries. The visitors themselves are

part of the installation: they dive into the large floor projection. In this way, different

perspectives and experiences of space are unified. Abstract passages which are created, then

overlapped and displaced by each other symbolize the constant changes in history, the passage

of time and the transience of existence. Even the understanding of the past is in the flux. The

modern writings and formations created on the computer establish a connection to the present

and the possibilities of today's technology and show that the perception of history and culture

depends always on the possibilities and constraints of the present.

'Time Drifts - Words of Berlin' is part of a series of installations, which has been shown in recent

years by Philipp Geist, and which are always re-developed site-specifically and adapted to the

local conditions: In October 2012, Philipp Geist showed the installation on the entire Potsdamer

Platz (public square) and the Kolhoff Tower and Renzo Piano Tower skyscrapers. In April 2012

the installation was shown at the Luminale in Frankfurt where it was seen by more than 40,000

visitors and thus the main project of the Luminale 2012. In 2011, Philipp Geist presented the

'Time Drifts' installation in Vancouver at the Jack Poole Plaza, as well as in Montreal on the

Place des Arts in 2010. The 'Timing' installation was shown at the 2009 Glow Festival in

Eindhoven. In the end of 2009, on the occasion of the birthday of the King of Thailand, 2-3

million visitors saw his facade installation at the royal throne in Bangkok. Other projects

include: 'Timelines' at the prestigious Pallazzio delle Esposizioni (Rome, 2007), 'Time Fades'

at the Cultural Forum of Berlin and 'Broken Time Lines' at the old spa Kurhaus Ahrenshoop

(Germany, 2008).

Geist's projects are primarily characterized by their complexity concerning the integration of

space, sound and motion images. His video mapping installations waive screens and transform a

wide range of architectures in moving, picturesque light sculptures which challenge the viewer's

perception of two- and three-dimensionality.

  

www.alemanha-brasil.org/br/node/8542

www.alemanha-brasil.org/Programme/Dia/2014-05-12

www.alemanha-brasil.org/Programme/Dia/2014-05-15

www.alemanha-brasil.org/Programme/Dia/2014-05-16

  

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

 

Arte de luz - Instalações de Mapeamento de Vídeo por Philipp Geist no Rio de Janeiro / Brasil

2014 no Cristo Redentor no dia 12 de maio e na favela Santa Marta nos dias 15 e 16 de maio de

2014

 

Instalação Philipp Geist Ano Alemanha + Brasil 2013/2014

Conceito Time Drifts Maio 2014

 

No final do ano Alemnaha + Brasil 2013/2014, o artista Philipp Geist (1976, Berlim) desenvolverá

duas instalações de luz no Rio; uma delas será exibida na mundialmente famosa estátua do

Cristo Redentor, e a outra na favela Santa Marta. Para a instalação, o artista traz temas teutobrasileiros

de maneira liberal-artística e poética desenvolvendo instalações de luz em edifícios e

no solo a partir de palavras e conceitos coloridos em Português, Alemão e em outros idiomas

internacionais. A instalação lida com as peculiaridades e realizações culturais de ambos os países

e visualiza as questões de tempo e espaço e de volatilidade e presença no estilo liberal-artístico.

Os dois projetos em questão representam um projeto duplo que é combinado. A instalação na

estátua do Cristo Redentor, como um símbolo do Rio e do Brasil, será gravada e projetada nos

pequenos prédios e barracos da favela. A estátua do Cristo Redentor, que foi erguida para

proteger a cidade e os marinheiros, será então projetada como um símbolo de proteção em uma

favela. A instalação na favela é visto não apenas em uma fachada como uma projeção grande de

cinema ou como uma imagem estática, mas em vários prédios sinuosos, em telhados, no solo e

nas escadas. Desta maneira, o visitante conseguirá ser parte da instalação e imergir e mergulhar

na projeção e na luz. Na favela, será distribuído giz para pintura de rua, e os moradores e

visitantes, tanto jovens quanto velhos, podem escrever e pintar conceitos na rua, no solo, nas

escadas ou até mesmo nas paredes das casas. Os moradores e diversas instituições serão

convidados a contribuir com conceitos e associações que representam o Rio, o Brasil e a

Alemanha.

Para as instalações apresentadas na Luminal em 2012, o artista Philipp Geist ganhou o

'Deutscher Lichtdesign-Preis 2013” (Prêmio Alemão de Desenho de Luz de 2013) na categoria

Arte de Luz. A série Time Drifts caracteriza-se pela forma complexa e sutil de visualizar várias

correntes e vozes em contextos culturais e de oferecer a instituições e aos visitantes a

oportunidade de participar: diferentes personalidades, visitantes e instituições podem ser

contatados antecipadamente para contribuir com termos e associações. Temas atuais, históricos

e culturais serão previamente pesquisados pelo artista e, depois, integrados de uma forma

sensível e sutil. A projeção é realizada sem o uso de telas porque conceitos e associações são

projetados, em grande estilo, sobre a superfície do solo, em diversas frentes e envolvidos em

fumaça. Ao longo de dois dias, a instalação estará em exibição em 15 e 16 de maio na favela, e

em 12 de maio, por um dia, no Cristo Redentor.

Visitantes jovens e velhos podem envolver-se na instalação e traçar ou adicionar palavras com

giz colorido, que será distribuído, e assim participar interativamente na instalação. Desta

maneira, durante a duração da instalação, será desenvolvido um tapete de palavras. As palavras

serão fornecidas, no próprio local, pelos visitantes usando o giz, um meio temporário e volátil.

Philipp Geist desenvolve assim um diálogo entre o local, os visitantes e seu trabalho artístico.

A área de projeção concreta e tangível da arquitetura e os termos estáticos sobre a superfície do

solo representam os fatos e as relíquias visíveis que compõem a nossa compreensão da história. A

área de projeção transparente e sumindo por dentro da fumaça lembra que parte da história não

pode ser preservada e que ela é criada na nossa imaginação individual momentaneamente.

Conceitos são brevemente visíveis, como uma metáfora para a transitoriedade e, logo mais,

desaparecem. Esta interação entre as várias camadas de texto e de imagens no espaço refere-se

à localização e a(s) história(s) do Brasil e da Alemanha e o intercâmbio cultural entre os dois

países. Os próprios visitantes tornam-se parte da instalação: eles imergem na grande projeção

do solo. Desta forma, diferentes perspectivas e experiências de espaço são unidas. Passagens

abstratas que são formadas, sobrepostas e suprimidas pela próxima simbolizam as mudanças

contínuas na história, a passagem do tempo e a transitoriedade da existência. A compreensão do

passado também está no fluxo. As fontes e formações modernas criadas no computador

estabelecem uma conexão com o presente e com as possibilidades da tecnologia de hoje: a

percepção da história e da cultura sempre dependende das capacidades e limitações do

presente.

'Time Drifts - Words of Berlin' faz parte de uma série de instalações, que foram apresentadas

durante os últimos anos por Philipp Geist e que são sempre redesenvolvidas para as condições

locais específicas: em outubro de 2012, Philipp Geist exibiu a instalação em toda a praça

Potsdamer Platz (Berlim) e nos dois arranha-céus Kolhoff Tower (Berlim) e Renzo Piano Tower

(Londres). Em abril de 2012, a instalação foi apresentada no evento da Luminal em Frankfurt

onde foi vista por mais de 40.000 visitantes sendo o principal projeto da Luminal de 2012. Em

2011, Philipp Geist mostrou a instalação Time Drifts na praça Jack Poole Plaza em Vancouver

bem como em Montreal, Canadá, no centro de arte Place des Arts, em 2010. A instalação Timing

foi exibida no Glow Festival de 2009 in Eindhoven, Holanda. No final de 2009 e por ocasião do

aniversário do rei tailandês, aprox. 2 a 3 milhões de visitantes viram a instalação de fachada do

artista no trono real em Banguecoque. Seus outros projetos incluem: Time Lines, no prestigiado

museu Palazzio delle Esposizioni (Roma, 2007); Time Fades, no Fórum Cultural de Berlim;

Broken Time Lines, no antigo spa Kurhaus Ahrenshoop (Alemanha, 2008).

Os projetos de Geist são principalmente caracterizados por sua complexidade na integração de

espaço, som e imagens de movimento. Suas instalações de mapeamento de vídeo renunciam

telas e transformam uma ampla gama de arquiteturas em esculturas móveis e pitorescas que

desafiam a percepção do espectador de duas e três dimensões.

  

www.alemanha-brasil.org/br/node/8542

www.alemanha-brasil.org/Programme/Dia/2014-05-12

www.alemanha-brasil.org/Programme/Dia/2014-05-15

www.alemanha-brasil.org/Programme/Dia/2014-05-16

  

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

 

Lichtkunst-VideoMappingInstallationen Philipp Geist in Rio de Janeiro / Brasilien 2014

an der Christstatue (Cristo Redender) 12.5 und in der Favela Santa Marta 15./16.5.2014

 

Installation Philipp Geist Deutsch-Brasilianisches Jahr 2013/2014

Konzept Time Drifts Mai 2014

 

Zum Abschluss des Deutsch-Brasilianischen-Jahres 2013/2014 entwickelt der Berliner Künstler

Philipp Geist (1976) zwei Lichtinstallation in Rio d.J.; eine an der weltbekannten Christstatue

(Cristo Redender) und in die andere Installation in der Favela Santa Marta. Bei der Installation

greift der Künstler künstlerisch frei und poetisch deutsch brasilianische Themen auf und

entwickelt eine Gebäude- und Boden-Lichtinstallation aus farbigen Wörtern und Begriffen in

portugiesischer, deutscher, und in weiteren internationalen Sprachen. Die Installation thematisiert

kulturelle Besonderheiten und Errungenschaften beider Länder und visualisiert die Themen Zeit

und Raum, Flüchtigkeit und Präsenz in freien künstlerischen Art. Bei den beiden Projekten handelt

es sich um ein Doppelprojekt welches kombiniert wird. Die Installation auf das Wahrzeichen von

Rio und Brasilien die Christstatue, wird aufgenommen und auf die kleinen Gebäude und Hütten

der Favela projiziert. Die Christstatue die errichtet worden ist um die Stadt und Seeleute zu

schützen, wird so symbolisch schützend über ein Armenviertel die Favela projiziert. Dabei ist die

Installation in der Favela nicht nur auf einer Fassade als große Kinoprojektion oder als statisches

Bild zu sehen, sondern auf mehreren verwinkelten Gebäuden, den Dächern, den Boden und auf

den Stufen. Der Besucher wird vielmehr auf diese Weise selbst Teil der Installation und kann in die

Projektion und das Licht eintauchen und sich einbringen. In der Favela werden Strassenmalkreide

ausgelegt und die Bewohner und Besucher ob jung oder alt können Begriffe auf die Strasse, den

Boden, die Treppenstufen oder sogar auf die Hauswände schreiben und malen. Die Bewohner und

verschiedene Institutionen sollen angesprochen werden Assoziationen und Begriffe die für Rio,

Brasilien und Deutschland stehen einzureichen.

Für die 2012 bei der Luminale gezeigten Installation hat der Künstler Philipp Geist den Deutschen

Lichtdesign-Preis 2013 in der der Kategorie Lichtkunst gewonnen. Die Serie 'Time Drifts' zeichnet

sich aus durch die komplexe und die subtile Möglichkeit, verschiedenste Strömungen und

Stimmen in kulturellen Kontexten sichtbar zu machen und Institutionen und Besuchern die

Möglichkeit zur inhaltlichen Partizipation zu geben: Es können verschiedene Persönlichkeiten,

Besucher und Institute im Vorfeld angesprochen werden, die Begriffe und Assoziationen

beisteuern. Aktuelle und kulturhistorische Themen werden im Vorfeld vom Künstler recherchiert

und auf sensible und subtile Weise integriert. Die Projektion verzichtet auf den Einsatz von

Leinwänden, denn Begriffe und Assoziationen werden grossflächig auf die Bodenfläche, auf

mehrere Fassaden und in Theaternebel projiziert. Über den Zeitraum von 2 Tagen wird die

Installation vor Ort in der Favela am 15/16.Mai und die Installation am Cristo Redentor am 12.Mai

für einen Tag zu sehen sein.!

Kleine, große, junge und alte Besucher können sich einbringen in die Installation und mit farbiger

Straßenmalkreide, die ausgelegt wird, Wörter nachzeichnen und hinzufügen und so interaktiv an

der Installation teilnehmen. Über die Installationsdauer entsteht somit ein Wörterteppich aus

Begriffen, die vor Ort von den Besuchern selbst mittels dem temporären und flüchtigen 'Medium'

der Strassenmalkreide beigesteuert werden. Geist entwickelt auf diese Weise einen Dialog

zwischen dem Ort, den Besuchern und seiner künstlerischen Arbeit. ! !

Die konkrete, greifbare Projektionsfläche der Architektur und die statischen Begriffe auf der

Bodenfläche stehen für die Fakten und sichtbaren Relikte, welche unser Geschichtsverständnis

ausmachen. Die transparente, sich verflüchtigende Projektionsfläche im Nebel erinnert daran,

dass ein Teil der Geschichte nicht konserviert werden kann und im Moment in unserer individuellen

Vorstellung entsteht. Begriffe werden als Metapher für die Vergänglichkeit kurzzeitig sichtbar und

verschwinden sofort wieder. Dieses Zusammenspiel der verschiedenen Text- und Bildschichten im

Raum verweist auf den Ort und die Geschichte(n) Brasiliens und Deutschlands und den kulturellen

Austausch beider Länder. Die Besucher selbst werden Teil der Installation: sie tauchen in die

großflächige Bodenprojektion ein. Auf diese Weise vereinen sich unterschiedliche Perspektiven

und Raumerfahrungen. Abstrakte Passagen, die sich aufbauen, überlagern und gegenseitig

verdrängen, symbolisieren die ständigen Veränderungen in der Geschichte, den Lauf der Zeit und

die Flüchtigkeit des Seins. Auch das Verständnis von der Vergangenheit ist im Fluss. Die

modernen Schriften und Formationen, die am Computer entstanden sind, stellen eine Verbindung

zur Gegenwart und den Möglichkeiten der heutigen Technik her und zeigen, dass die Erfahrbarkeit

von Geschichte und Kultur immer von den Möglichkeiten und Rahmenbedingungen der Gegenwart

abhängig ist.

'Time Drifts - Words of Berlin' ist Teil einer Serie von Installationen, die Philipp Geist in den letzten

Jahren gezeigt hat, und die dabei immer wieder neu an die örtlichen Gegebenheiten ortsspezifisch

weiterentwickelt wird: Im Oktober 2012 zeigte Geist die Installation auf dem gesamten Potsdamer

Platz und den beiden Hochhäusern Kolhoff Tower und Renzo Piano Tower. Im April 2012 wurde die

Installation in Frankfurt auf der Luminale gezeigt, wurde von mehr als 40.000 Besuchern gesehen

und war das Hauptprojekt der Luminale 2012. Im Jahr 2011 zeigte Geist die Installation Time Drifts

in Vancouver am Jack-Poole Plaza, ebenso wie in Montreal am Place des Arts in 2010. Die

Installation 'Timing' war 2009 auf dem Glow Festival in Eindhoven zu sehen. Ende 2009 sahen

anlässlich des Geburtstages des thailändischen Königs ca. 2-3 Millionen Besucher seine

Fassadeninstallation am königlichen Thron in Bangkok. Andere Projekte waren u.a.: 'Time Lines'

am renommierten Museum delle Esposizioni (2007), 'Time Fades' am Berliner Kulturforum,

'Broken Time Lines' am alten Kurhaus Ahrenshoop (2008).

Geists Projekte sind in erster Linie gekennzeichnet durch ihre Komplexität in der Integration von

Raum, Ton und Bewegbild. Seine Video-Mapping-Installationen verzichten auf Leinwände und

verwandeln verschiedenste Architekturen in bewegte, malerische Lichtskulpturen, die die

Wahrnehmung der Betrachter von Zwei- und Dreidimensionalität herausfordern.

Some of you may have noticed that, unfortunately, owing to the fact that a certain person who sells truck photos on eBay commercially has been lifting my images from this album and selling them I have had to remove 2300 photos that didn't have a watermark. I have now run around 1700 through Lightroom and added a watermark with the intention of bulk uploading them again. Rather than watermark the existing (hidden) files in Flickr one at a time it will be easier to do it this way. I definitely won’t be adding individual tags with the make and model of each vehicle I will just add generic transport tags. Each photo is named after the vehicle and reg in any case. For anyone new to these images there is a chapter and verse explanation below. It is staggering how many times I get asked questions that a quick scan would answer or just as likely I can’t possibly answer – I didn’t take them, but, just to clarify-I do own the copyright- and I do pursue copyright theft.

 

This is a collection of scanned prints from a collection of photographs taken by the late Jim Taylor A number of years ago I was offered a large number of photographs taken by Jim Taylor, a transport photographer based in Huddersfield. The collection, 30,000 prints, 20,000 negatives – and copyright! – had been offered to me and one of the national transport magazines previously by a friend of Jim's, on behalf of Jim's wife. I initially turned them down, already having over 30,000 of my own prints filed away and taking space up. Several months later the prints were still for sale – at what was, apparently, the going rate. It was a lot of money and I deliberated for quite a while before deciding to buy them. I did however buy them directly from Jim’s wife and she delivered them personally – just to quash the occasional rumour from people who can’t mind their own business. Although some prints were sold elsewhere, particularly the popular big fleet stuff, I should have the negatives, unfortunately they came to me in a random mix, 1200 to a box, without any sort of indexing and as such it would be impossible to match negatives to prints, or, to even find a print of any particular vehicle. I have only ever looked at a handful myself unless I am scanning them. The prints are generally in excellent condition and I initially stored them in a bedroom without ever looking at any of them. In 2006 I built an extension and they had to be well protected from dust and moved a few times. Ultimately my former 6x7 box room office has become their (and my own work’s) permanent home.

I hope to avoid posting images that Jim had not taken his self, however should I inadvertently infringe another photographers copyright, please inform me by email and I will resolve the issue immediately. There are copyright issues with some of the photographs that were sold to me. A Flickr member from Scotland drew my attention to some of his own work amongst the first uploads of Jim’s work. I had a quick look through some of the 30 boxes of prints and decided that for the time being the safest thing for me to do was withdraw the majority of the earlier uploaded scans and deal with the problem – which I did. whilst the vast majority of the prints are Jims, there is a problem defining copyright of some of them, this is something that the seller did not make clear at the time. I am reasonably confident that I have since been successful in identifying Jims own work. His early work consists of many thousands of lustre 6x4 prints which are difficult to scan well, later work is almost entirely 7x5 glossy, much easier to scan. Not all of the prints are pin sharp but I can generally print successfully to A4 from a scan.

 

You may notice photographs being duplicated in this Album, unfortunately there are multiple copies of many prints (for swapping) and as I have to have a system of archiving and backing up I can only guess - using memory - if I have scanned a print before. The bigger fleets have so many similar vehicles and registration numbers that it is impossible to get it right all of the time. It is easier to scan and process a print than check my files - on three different PC’s - for duplicates. There has not been, nor will there ever be, any intention to knowingly breach anyone else's copyright. I have presented the Jim Taylor collection as exactly that-The Jim Taylor Collection- his work not mine, my own work is quite obviously mine.

Unfortunately, many truck spotters have swapped and traded their work without copyright marking it as theirs. These people never anticipated the ease with which images would be shared online in the future. I would guess that having swapped and traded photos for many years that it is almost impossible to control their future use. Anyone wanting to control the future use of their work would have been well advised to copyright mark their work (as many did) and would be well advised not to post them on photo sharing sites without a watermark as the whole point of these sites is to share the image, it is very easy for those that wish, to lift any image, despite security settings, indeed, Flickr itself, warns you that this is the case. It was this abuse and theft of my material that led me to watermark all of my later uploads. I may yet withdraw non-watermarked photos, I haven’t decided yet. (I did in the end)

To anyone reading the above it will be quite obvious that I can’t provide information regarding specific photos or potential future uploads – I didn’t take them! There are many vehicles that were well known to me as Jim only lived down the road from me (although I didn’t know him), however scanning, titling, tagging and uploading is laborious and time consuming enough, I do however provide a fair amount of information with my own transport (and other) photos. I am aware that there are requests from other Flickr users that are unanswered, I stumble across them months or years after they were posted, this isn’t deliberate. Some weekends one or two “enthusiasts” can add many hundreds of photos as favourites, this pushes requests that are in the comments section ten or twenty pages out of sight and I miss them. I also have notifications switched off, I receive around 50 emails a day through work and I don’t want even more from Flickr. Other requests, like many other things, I just plain forget – no excuses! Uploads of Jim’s photos will be infrequent as it is a boring pastime and I would much rather work on my own output.

 

in Flanders expo Gent

Attribution: (c) 2009 Dave Gray (davegrayinfo.com)

 

Facts are an important element of any decision-making process. A fact asserts that something is the case. When we as a society make decisions that affect our future, facts, and conversation or argument about what they mean, is a critical part of those decisions.

 

But what is a fact, and how do we know that something is a fact? Is there a "keeper of the facts?"

 

This little thread is an exploration of facts: What they are, how they come to be, who has access to them and why. It's especially focused on the facts that make up the sum of our scientific knowledge.

 

If you enjoy this series you might also enjoy the thread where this conversation and inquiry began.

 

<Back...Next>

Back to start

+++ 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 North American Aviation P-51 Mustang was an American long-range, single-seat fighter and fighter-bomber used during World War II, the Korean War and other conflicts.

The Mustang was conceived, designed and built by North American Aviation (NAA) in response to a specification issued directly to NAA by the British Purchasing Commission. The prototype NA-73X airframe was rolled out on 9 September 1940, 102 days after the contract was signed and, with an engine installed, first flew on 26 October.

 

The Mustang was originally designed to use the Allison V-1710 engine, which had limited high-altitude performance. It was first flown operationally by the Royal Air Force (RAF) as a tactical-reconnaissance aircraft and fighter-bomber (Mustang Mk I).

The addition of the Rolls-Royce Merlin to the P-51B/C (Mustang Mk III) model transformed the Mustang's performance at altitudes above 15,000 ft, giving it a much better performance that matched or bettered almost all of the Luftwaffe's fighters at altitude.

The definitive USAF version, which saw use in any late WWII theatre, the P-51D (Mustang Mk IV), was powered by the Packard V-1650-7, a license-built version of the Rolls-Royce Merlin 60 series two-stage two-speed supercharged engine, and armed with six .50 caliber (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns.

 

Anyway, the Mustang’s development was kept up by North American as well as in Great Britain. There, the Mustang was developed into the Mustang V (a lightweight fighter of which only one prototype reached England), the Mustang VI (a high altitude fighter version which was produced in small numbers and kept in RAF service until 1951) and the Mustang VII, a radical modification for the South East Asia Command.

 

The Mustang VII was intended as a replacement for the Hawker Hurricanes and early Spitfire variants deployed to India and Burma. One of these types’ biggest concerns had been the engine, or, more specifically, its cooling system. The Merlin’s liquid cooled system had been designed for the mild European climate, but, in the hot and humid Asian environment, the aircraft frequently faced engine problems. An air-cooled, radial engine was regarded as the more appropriate means of propulsion, and with the Bristol Centaurus a powerful option was readily available and earmarked for the Hawker Tempest.

 

Apart from the new engine and cowling, the Mustang VII prototypes were similar to the P-51D. The Centaurus engine was tightly cowled and the exhaust stacks were grouped behind and on either side of the engine. Behind these were air outlets with automatic sliding "gills".

New air intakes on the inner leading edges of both wings fed the carburetor and an oil cooler. The radial engine installation owed much to examinations of a captured Focke-Wulf Fw 190, and was clean and effective. The bigger frontal area was partly compensated by the removal of the Mustang’s characteristic, ventral radiator tunnel.

This modification also kept the overall increment of weight to only ~90 lb (41 kg) – even though the aircraft became remarkably nose-heavy and handled much different from the Merlin-powered versions. Longitudinal stability also deteriorated slightly.

 

The first Mustang Mk. VIII, PE883, flew on 28 June 1944 powered by a Centaurus I (2,000 hp/1,490 kW) driving a four-blade propeller, followed by the second, PE884. From the start, the Mustang VII was "tropicalized" for service in the South-East Asian theatre.

 

Orders were placed in September 1944 for 300 Mustang VIIs, and they were directly deployed to India and Burma. There, the Mustang VII replaced the Spitfire II and Vs in the fighter role, relegating the new RAF Thunderbolts in the region to ground attack, a task for which that type was well suited.

 

Once the Mustang VIIs were cleared for use, they were used against the Japanese in Burma by four RAF squadrons of the South East Asia Command from India. Operations with army support (operating as "cab ranks" to be called in when needed), attacks on enemy airfields and lines of communication, and escort sorties.

They proved devastating in tandem with Thunderbolts during the Japanese breakout attempt at the Sittang Bend in the final months of the war. The Mustangs were armed with two 500 lb (227 kg) bombs or, in some cases, British RP-3 rocket projectiles. The Mustang VIIs also flew escort for RAF Liberators in the bombing of Rangoon.

 

The type remained in RAF service until October 1946. After that the RAF passed 60 machines to the Indian Air Force in 1947, together with other piston fighters.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 32 ft 8 1/4 in (9.97 m)

Wingspan: 48 ft 9½ in (14.90 m)

Height: 14 ft 6 in (4.39 m)

Wing area: 235 sq ft (21.83 m²)

Airfoil: NAA/NACA 45-100 / NAA/NACA 45-100

Empty weight: 7,725 lb (3,505 kg)

Loaded weight: 9,290 lb (4,220 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 12,200 lb (5,515 kg)

Maximum fuel capacity: 419 US gal (349 imp gal; 1,590 l)

 

Powerplant:

1× Bristol Centaurus 1 18-cylinder twin-row radial engine, 2,000 hp (1,490 kW) at take-off

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 432 mph (695 km/h) at 18,400 ft (5,608 m)

Cruise speed: 362 mph (315 kn, 580 km/h)

Range: 740 mi (1,190 km) on internal fuel

Service ceiling: 36,500 ft (11,125 m)

Rate of climb: 4,700 ft/min (23.9 m/s)

 

Armament:

4× 0.787 caliber (20mm) Hispano Mk. II cannons with 200 RPG in the outer wings

Underwing hardpoints for up to 2.000 lb (907 kg) of external ordnance,

including drop tanks, a pair of bombs of up to 1.000 lb (454 kg) caliber, or six unguided missiles

  

The kit and its assembly:

This conversion was based on the rather academic question: how could a Mustang with a radial engine look like? A weird idea, if you look at the sleek aircraft. But then there was the rather handsome Fw 190 A/F, the Hawker Tempest carried both liquid-cooled and air-cooled engines, and I saw a model of a Merlin Spitfire mated with a Fw 190 BMW engine some time ago. So, why not re-do the Mustang?

 

Working things out was complex, though. Initially I wanted to graft an R-2800 onto the Mustang’s nose – I had a spare fuselage from a late Italeri F4U at hand, as well as a Matchbox P-51D... After some measuring I was certain: yes, this transplant could work!

 

Said and done, the Corsair’s front section including the engine was cut out and tailored to fit over the shortened Mustang nose which lost its Merlin. At first I retained the original belly radiator, since it would be a convenient fairing for the oil coolers. The project made good progress, but… the result did not look good, because the R-2800 is rather wide. The aircraft looked very tadpole-like.

So, while in the middle of body sculpting, I decided to change the project, switching to a British Centaurus - a featureless piece from a PM Model Sea Fury with some more changes.

 

The Centaurus’ selling point was the more slender cowling, and it goes well onto a F4U’s nose section, proven by several conversions of this kind. In order to keep the aircraft as slender as possible I removed the belly tunnel and re-located the oil coolers and air intakes into the wing roots, closer to the engine and more like the installation on the Tempest or the Sea Fury. These extended wing root fairings were created from sprue pieces and putty.

 

It is amazing how this further modification changed the Mustang’s look – the thing reminds a lot of a La-9/11 now, even though wings, tail and most of the fuselage, including the canopy, were not modified at all? I am also reminded of the F8F Bearcat?

Furthermore, after the new propeller (cuffed blades from a P-47 Thunderbolt, IIRC, with trimmed tips) with a massive spinner from a Hawker Tempest was mounted on its metal axis, this mutant Mustang looked more and more like a Reno Unlimited Class racer? Weird, but sexy!

 

Otherwise, only minor things were changed, e. g. the landing gear covers were replaced through 0.5mm styrene sheet, a dashboard was added to the cockpit and the thick canopy cut into two pieces. The six 0.5” machine guns were replaced by four short Hispano cannons made from brass.

  

Painting and markings:

With the Centaurus implant the background story and the operator idea changed. I used this opportunity to paint the aircraft in a late/post WWII SEAC livery – inspired by P-47s operated in this region.

 

The bare metal finish with dark blue ID stripes and the SEAC roundels already looked nice, but as a twist I incorporated remnants of a former Dark Green/Dark Earth camouflage, on the fuselage and the wings’ leading edges, as anti-glare panels, while the area in front of the cockpit was painted in opaque dark olive drab – a practice to be found on several RAF aircraft of that time are area.

 

The interior surface were painted with USAF Cockpit Green (Humbrol 224 and 150) and slightly dry-brushed, then the whole kit received a basic coat of Revell Acrylic Aluminum. Later, some panels were painted with different shades of Aluminum and Steel (including Metallizer and normal metallic paint). Some wet sanding blurred the outlines and enhanced the worn look.

 

Decals come from various SEAC sheets, including the blue ID stripes on wings and tail. The corresponding blue cowling ring was painted with a mix of Humbrol 15 and 104, and pretty flaky around the engine cowling.

As finishing touches some oil stains were added with Tamiya “Smoke” and some soot stains around the exhausts and the guns were added. Finally, the camouflaged areas were sealed under a matt varnish while the bare metal parts received a semi-gloss acrylic coat.

  

A weird project – one of the few of my models that somehow changed dramatically along the way, even though still true to the original idea of a radial engine Mustang. However, the result was envisioned differently, but I am still happy with the outcome. Even though there’s visually little Mustang breed left…

A FLASH IN THE FACE!!

 

I was thinking of giving this years Halloween Parade a miss due to the fact I was wasn’t feeling well. Plus we had a fine rain which is always a downer when it comes to keeping the lens and camera body dry. But I soldered on and ran into photographers I knew and only just met, as we waited on Story Street with everyone else.

 

Then came the bombshell.

 

Due to complaints last year. “No names given as to who complained?”

 

Only two designated photographer, one shooting video would be allowed to follow the parade, so we the Paisley photographers who shoot and promote our town where basically told we would be allowed to take photos as they came out the loading bay paisley centre building then to get behind the barriers.

 

FUCK OFF is how we all seen it to be!

 

This never went down well, hell it’s a f#### common law road and you the council aren’t above the fucking law you can push people off the road!!! But why stand there rowing when it’s a parade…

 

Anyway, one person was straight onto the phone to a well known paisley site that comes up top or very high in a Google Paisley search, due to their selfless promotions of our town. Needless to say people where pissed off the council could do this!!.

 

“Like I say, I no longer vote or hold any kind of faith in this council or government, not of the people but of the little fascists….”

 

Now I pointed out last years faults, where the coppers where great, as the stayed ahead of the parade and out the way. I also pointed out it was the security who where shit and remained to close to the performers, which meant they where in shot and no one, even the public wanted them in shot.

 

This mean photographers where forced to moving up instead of zooming in, trying to work round these people who should have moved up behind the police or down the side and out the f#### way. You should only see security when people are acting like c###.

 

I also pointed out last year how one security guy by the Abby wouldn’t even move one foot to the side for one f#### second to allow me to take a shot. He was told to stand their and not move….

 

If that isn’t bad enough!

 

This year a tall guy with kids kindly let me in front of him with his kids to see the drummers on stage. It was the perfect spot as we all waited for the drummers to arrive and no sooner did the arrive on stage a security guy to another stand there right in front of us and again said when I asked if he could move. He said, he wasn’t allowed to move or crouch down out the way and why he was in front of crash barriers we where behind, again an over use of unneeded security. So he stood their playing with his fucking phone, which has that? to do with security….. F### ALL THAT‘S WHAT!!

 

Matters where made worse when the photographer and video guys came in and got in front of the kids waiting longer then me. So that meant they had had their view taken and even forced to stand on the ironic crash barriers we where all behind…

 

Its bad enough the security walked around looking pissed of without them getting in everyone’s way because someone tells them, stand there and don’t move only for the public to ask if they will move, which pisses everyone off when they cant!!!… In my opinion there was way too much security.. I heard one guy say, “Don’t take my photo, I’m on the dole.“ While another said when the zombies slowly came out. “Fuck! Is this how slow the parade in going to move into town”

 

If I heard it then others heard it and that’s not cool paisley!! Your hiring people who don’t want to be there while excluding those who do and I was while worse for ware in my case!!

 

Then there was the fact the public themselves weren’t even standing behind the barriers heading up cause side and by the cross. If anything they where walking onto the road and at one point pushing through the parade just to cross the road and NO ONE STOPPED THEM…

 

It was more than possible for the paisley photographers to walk along the side of the parade instead of being forced to ask the public politely if they can squeeze in for a few minutes to take a photo before pushing on for another shot else where..

 

In saying that, the turn out was massive and the people who let me push in where fantastic and I thank you all.

 

All these photos where taken using a Hi ISO and NO FLASH. Some aren’t so sharp while others due to the ISO are noisy, but not a loud as my rant!!

  

The paisley council need to take into account its we photographers who also promote these events with our photography and its we who see the real faults and time after time you’re the ones at fault!! Plus these performers love play up to everyone’s cameras and don’t need people getting in the way….

   

+++ 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 P-74 "Charger" was a fighter aircraft built by Lockheed for the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF). Its configuration was unusual as it was designed as a twin boom pusher configuration, where the propeller is mounted in the rear of the fuselage, pushing the aircraft forward.

 

The P-74 entered service with the USAAF in late 1944, its conception dated back to 1939 when the U.S. Army Air Corps requested with the Circular Proposal R40C domestic manufacturers to develop high performance fighter types, allowing (even demanding) unusual configurations. Lockheed did not respond immediately and missed the chance to sign a development contract in mid-1940 until early 1941. Twenty-three proposals were submitted to R40C, and after a fist selection of ideas three companies, Vultee with the large XP-54 Swoose Goose, Curtiss with its XP-55 Ascender and Northrop's XP-56 Black Bullet were able to secure prototype contracts.

 

Vultee eventually won the competition, but all these innovative new aircraft suffered from various flaws or development delays, missing various performance goals, so that none ever entered service.

 

In the meantime, Lockheed had been working on the 1939 request in the background on a private venture basis, as it was clear that by 1944 a successor to the company's own P-38 Lightning had to be offered to the USAAC.

The new North American P-51 Mustang was also a sharp competitor, esp. for the Pacific conflict theatre where long range was needed. This role was filled out very well by the P-38, but it was a relatively large and complicated aircraft, so an alternative with a single engine was strived for. Even though jet engines already showed their potential, it was clear that the requested range for the new type could only be achieved through a piston engine.

 

This aircraft became the XP-74, originally christened “Laelaps”, following Lockheed’s tradition, after a female Greek mythological dog who never failed to catch what she was hunting. It was presented as a mock-up to USAAC officials on August 8th 1942 and immediately found sponsorship: with the disappointing results from the XP-54,55 and 56 was immediately ushered into the prototype stage. Its name, though, was rejected, and the more common name “Charger” was adopted.

 

Just like Lockheed’s successful P-38 the XP-74 Charger was designed as a twin-boom aircraft, but it was driven by only a single Packard (License-built Rolls Royce Merlin) V-1650 pusher engine in the aft part of the fuselage. The tail was mounted rearward between two mid-wing booms, with a four-bladed 12-ft propeller between them. The design also included a "ducted wing section" developed by the NACA that enabled installation of cooling radiators and intercoolers in the wing root section.

 

The advantages of a pusher design are that the view forward is unobstructed and armament can be concentrated in the nose, while a major drawback is difficulty in escaping from the aircraft in an emergency, as the pilot could get drawn into the propeller blades. Lockheed deliberated between systems that would eject the pilot, or jettison the propeller or the engine, via a system of explosive bolts. Lockheed eventually installed an early ejector seat which was driven by pressurized air, combined with a mechanism that would blow the canopy off. The system was successfully tested in summer 1943, even though skepticism remained among pilots.

 

Initial armament comprised one 20mm Hispano cannon and four 12.7mm Browning machine guns, the same as in the P-38, but two machine guns were relocated from the nose into the front ends of the tail booms because of the new aircraft’s smaller overall dimensions.

 

The first prototype was ready in October 1943, with a different engine and heavier armor fitted. The second prototype was built to this specification from the start, which would become the serial production standard, the P-74A.

The P-74A used the new V-1650-9 engine, a version of the Merlin that included Simmons automatic supercharger boost control with water injection, allowing War Emergency Power as high as 2,218 hp (1,500 kW). Another change concerned the armament: a longer weapon range was deemed necessary, so the gun armament was changed into four 20mm Hispano cannons, two of the placed in the fuselage nose and one in each tail boom front end. Each gun was supplied with 250 RPG.

 

Alternatively, a nose installment with a single 37mm cannon and two 12.7mm Browning MGs was tested on the first prototype, but this arrangement was found to be less effective than the four 20mm cannons. Another factor that turned this option down was the more complicated logistics demands for three different calibers in one aircraft.

 

The P-74A was ready for service in summer 1944, but its deployment into the Pacific region took until December – the 5th Air Force first units replaced most of its P-38 and also early P-47Ds with the P-74A.These new aircraft had their first clashes with Japanese forces in January 1945.

 

The P-74 was used in a variety of roles. It was designed as an intreceptor against bombers, but its good range and handling at all altitudes made it suitable for tasks like fighter sweeps against enemy airfields, support for U.S. ground forces and protection of sea convoys and transport routes.

While the P-74 could not out-turn the A6M Zero and most other Japanese fighters when flying below 200 mph (320 km/h), its superior speed coupled with a good rate of climb meant that it could utilize energy tactics, making multiple high-speed passes at its target. Also, its focused firepower was deadly to lightly armored Japanese warplanes.

 

Because of its late service introduction, only 305 P-74s were ever produced until the end of hostilities, and they were exclusively used in the Pacific theatre. The P-74's service record shows mixed results, but usually because of misinformation. P-74s have been described as being harder to fly than traditional, single-engined aircraft, but this was because of inadequate training in the first few months of service.

Another drawback was the ejection seat system – it worked basically well, but the tank for the pressurized air turned out to be very vulnerable to enemy fire. Several P-74s literally exploded in midair after cannon fire hits, and this poeblem could only be cured when the tank section behind the cockpit received a more rigid structure and additional armor. Anyway, the P-74 was quickly retired after WWII, as the USAAF focussed on P-47 and P-51.

  

General characteristics

Crew: 1

Length: 10.45 m (34 ft 3 in)

Wingspan: 11.6 m (38 ft 0 in)

Height: 3.97 (13 ft 0 in)

Wing area: 22.2 m² (238.87 ft²)

Empty weight: 3,250 kg (7,165 lb)

Loaded weight: 4,150 kg (9,149 lb)

Max. take-off weight: 4,413 kg (9,730 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1× Packard (License-built Rolls Royce Merlin) V-1650-9 ,

rated at 1,380 hp (1,030 kW) and 2,218 hp (1,500 kW) w. water injection

 

Performance

Maximum speed: 640 km/h (343 knots, 398 mph)

Cruise speed: 495 km/h (265 knots, 308 mph)

Range: 1,105 mi (1,778 km)

Ferry range: 1,330 nmi (1,530 mi, 2,460 km)

Service ceiling: 11,000 m (36,090 ft)

Rate of climb: 15 m/s (2,950 ft/min)

 

Armament

4× 20 mm (0.79 in) Hispano-Suiza HS.404 cannons with 250 RPG

2× hardpoints for up to 2,000 lb (907 kg) of bombs, 6 or 10× T64 5.0 in (127 mm) H.V.A.R rockets

  

The kit and its assembly:

This whif was inspired by a CG rendition of a Saab J21 in a natural metal finish and with (spurious) USAAF markings, probably a skin for a flight simulator. Anyway, I was more or less enchanted by the NMF on the Saab – I had to build one, and it would become the P-74, the only USAF fighter code that had never been used.

 

The kit is the venerable Heller Saab J21A, an “old style” design with raised panel lines. But it is still around and affordable. No big mods were made to the kit during its transition into a USAAF fighter, even though I changed some minor things:

● Main landing gear was completely exchanged through struts from an Airfix A-1 Skyraider and the wheels from a Hasegawa P-51D; thin wire was added as hydraulic tubes

● New propeller blades: instead of the three-bladed original I added four much broader blades with square tips (from a Heller P-51D) to the original spinner

● Different exhaust stubs, which actually belong to a Spitfire Merlin (Special Hobby kit)

● Underfuselage flap was slightly opened

● A pilot figure was added to the nice cockpit

● The gun barrels were replaced with hollow styrene tubes

  

Painting and markings:

NMF was certain, but the rest…? I wanted to have a colorful aircraft, and eventually settled for a machine in the Pacific theatre of operations. When I browsed for options I eventually decided to apply broad black stripes on wings and fuselage, typical 5th Air Force markings that were used e. g. on P-47Ds and P-51Ds.

 

Overall design benchmark for my aircraft is a P-47D-28 of 310th FS/58th FG. The tail would be all white, and the rudder sported red and white stripes, early war insignia. The red nose trim and the deep yellow spinner were taken over from this aircraft, too. The blue individual code number is a personal addition, as well as the nose art, which was puzzled together from a Czech 'Perdubice' Meeting MiG-21 and leftover bits from a Pacific use P-51.

 

The aircraft was basically painted with Aluminum Metallizer (Humbrol 27002) and Polished Steel Metallizer (Modelmaster), and some panels were contrasted with Aluminum (Humbrol 56).

The anti-glare panel in front of the cockpit was painted in Olive Drab (Humbrol 66), the red nose trim with Humbrol 19. The tail was painted with a mix of Humbrol 34 & 196, for a very light grey, and later dry-painted with pure white.

 

The black ID stripes as well as the red and blue rudder trim were not painted, but rather created through decal sheet material (from TL Modellbau), cut to size and shape to fit into their respective places. The tail was a PITA, but for the black stripes this turned out to be very effective and convenient - an experiment that willcertainly see more future use.

 

Cockpit interior was painted in Humbrol 226 (Cockpit Green) and Zinc Chromate Green from Model Master, the landing gear wells received a chrome yellow primer (Humbrol 225) finish.

The landing gear struts were kept in bare Aluminum.

 

For weathering the kit received a rubbing treatment with grinded graphite, which adds a dark, metallic shine and emphasizes the kit’s raised panel lines. Some dry painting with Aluminum was added, too, simulating chipped paint on the leading edges, and on the black ID stripes some dark grey shading was added.

  

A relatively simple whif, but I love how the Saab 21 looks in the unusual, shiny NMF finish - and the USAAF markings with the prominent ID stripes suit it well, even though it looks a bit like a circus attraction now?

2-16-08

 

My name is Lori Zarlenga- Blaquiere. I was born on September 14, 1961 in the state of Rhode Island. I am writing to you for your immediate help. My life is in immediate danger from orders issued by President George W. Bush and Rhode Island Governor Donald Carcieri to

assassinate/murder me. You can contact me at my email LoriZarlenga@gmail.com and

my space.com/lorizz Also, you can find me on “google” by entering my name as keyword. My case is legitimate. Please do not disregard my case.

 

I have evidence and tapes on top officials and law enforcement among others to support my

claims. The current Rhode Island Senators Sheldon Whitehouse , Senator Jack Reed and former Senator Lincoln Chafee, among others are covering up and will not help me.

 

I posted a diary on the Daily Kos website on August 12, 2007 with regard to my life being in immediate danger from orders issued by President George W. Bush and Rhode Island Governor Donald Carcieri to assassinate/murder me.

 

I continued to stay on the Daily Kos website until sometime after 5:00 am and received

comments from the Daily Kos members community. The Daily Kos has over 1 million

members on their website.

  

On August 12, 2007, I was uploading exhibits, photos, and evidence to the Daily Kos members that support my claims against the United States Government et al.

  

On August 12, 2007 at approximately between 5:00 am & 6:00 am a West Warwick

Police officer came out to my house at 101 Border Street West Warwick, R.I. and violently banged at the doors at my house and continued to violently bang at the doors of my house for a long period of time in a terrorizing manner. The West Warwick Police Officer was given orders to stop me from getting the truth out to the American public .

   

I Lori Ann Zarlenga state that on August 21, 2007, a West Warwick Police vehicle came

up behind the vehicle where I was located in the back seat with my 5 year

old granddaughter and my mother Victoria Zarlenga who was seated on the passenger

side and my son Michael Zarlenga who was driving the vehicle on Cowesett Avenue

West Warwick, R.I.

 

I Lori Ann Zarlenga state that the police officers proceeded to get out of their police

vehicles with their guns drawn and aimed at the vehicle where I was located in the back

seat of the vehicle along with my 5 year old granddaughter, my mother and son .

  

The Coventry police, East Greenwich Police, the Rhode Island State Police, and the West

Warwick Police were on the scene.

   

I Lori Ann Zarlenga state that a West Warwick Police Officer pulled me out of the

vehicle where I was located in the back seat near my 5 year old granddaughter, with my

mother and son in the front seat of the vehicle.

I Lori Ann Zarlenga state that the Police proceeded to slam me to the ground and force

handcuffs on me and force me in the back seat of the West Warwick Police Vehicle.

  

I repeatedly asked the West Warwick Police Officer why the police forced handcuffs on

me and forced me in the back seat of the police vehicle, but the West Warwick Police

Officer repeatedly ignored me.

   

I continued to ask the West Warwick Police Officer why the police forced handcuffs on

me and forced me in the back seat of the police vehicle, he then stated to me that he was

trying to protect me .

   

While I was in the West Warwick Police vehicle, I observed police officers saluting to

each other with regard to capturing me.

 

While I was in the back seat of the West Warwick Police vehicle, a West Warwick Police

Officer asked me if I was injured and if I needed to go to the hospital inorder to lure me

into consenting to go to the hospital.

  

I stated to the West Warwick Police officer that I did not need to go to the hospital.

The West Warwick Police Officer told me that the fire rescue was going to take me to the

hospital for a psych evaluation.

    

I stated to the West Warwick Police officer that I did not want to go to the hospital and

that I did not need a pych evaluation. However, the West Warwick Police Officer told me

that I had to get into the Fire Rescue and go to the hospital. As a result, I had no other

choice but be taken by fire rescue to Kent County Memorial Hospital for a psych

evaluation without my consent.

  

My mother told me that the police officers apologized to her and stated to my mother

that they made a mistake .

  

I was subsequently taken by ambulance and transferred

to Land mark Medical Center without my consent and held hostage in lock down mental

health unit against my will. All of the evidence that was in my favor was ignored

by the doctors, social workers, and psychiatrist at Kent County Memorial Hospital and

Landmark Medical Center. The doctors, social workers, and psychiatrist at Kent County

Memorial Hospital and Land mark Medical Center manipulated and skewed the true facts

to cause me harm in connection with helping law enforcement and United States

Government from preventing me from exposing the truth to the American people and

my case continuing on Appeal with regard to the criminal acts committed by law

enforcement and the United States Government.

  

My Mother stated to the psychiatrist and nurses at Landmark Medical Center that I was

not delusional or paranoid and that I have never been a danger to myself or others and

that I have no history of mental health, and that I have never had a history of being

prescribed psychiatric medication and that I did not need psychiatric medication

my complaints against law enforcement are legitimate.

However, Dr. Elahi disregarded my mother statements and proceeded to contact his lawyer to

discuss whether or not he should discharge me, despite all evidence in my favor.

  

My family member stated to me that nurses at Landmark Medial Center made

statements about being disgusted with Dr. Shahid Elahi for consulting with his lawyer

with regard to whether or not to discharge me and delaying my discharge.

   

The nurses at Landmark Medical Center stated to me that I did not belong at Landmark

Medical Center Mental Health Unit

  

I have never had a history of mental illness.

   

On September 4, 2007, I was discharged from Landmark Medical Center.

  

I have never had a history of being targeted by the United States Government, Federal

and State law enforcement, among others prior to my L-tryptophan lawsuit.

       

In August of 2007, I had an Appeal pending in the First Circuit United States Court of

Appeals with regard to my December 7, 2006 Complaint against the United States

Government et al. As a result, of being held hostage in the hospital from August 21, 2007

to September of 2007, along with intimidation from law enforcement, among others in

connection with the United States Government I was unable to respond important

deadlines set by the First Circuit United States Court of Appeals . As a result, my Appeal with the First Circuit United States Court of Appeals is in default/dismissed for lack of

diligent prosecution.

    

As a result of my ingestion of contaminated L-tryptophan manufactured by Showa

Denko K.K., I developed a disease Eosinphilia Myalgia Syndrome. There are

approximately 5,000 people who ingested contaminated L-tryptophan

manufactured by Showa Denko K.K., and developed a disease Eosinphilia Myalgia

Syndrome. There maybe more unreported cases of Eosinphilia Myalgia

Syndrome caused by ingestion of contaminated L-tryptophan .

   

The L-tryptophan problem is the fault of the FDA due to lack of enforcement of 172.320,

among other violations of the FDA rules. Therefore, the FDA permitted the continued

illegal use of L-tryptophan.

  

If the FDA had enforced action against Showa Denko K.K., for violation of the FDA

rules mentioned herein, then L-tryptophan would not have been on the market and sold

to the American Public and caused death and illnesses associated with the sales of L-

tryptophan .

    

On October 25, 1995, I filed a products liability lawsuit against the Defendants

Showa Denko, K.K., Showa Denko America, Inc. General Nutrition Centers (GNC), et al. in

the State of Rhode Island Superior Court.

  

My case was transferred to Rhode Island District Court, (Blaquiere v. Showa Denko, K.K.,

Showa Denko America, Inc. General Nutrition Centers (GNC), et al., C.A.No.1:95-629 ).

  

My case was subsequently transferred for discovery to (MDL) United States District Court

Columbia, South Carolina, C. A. No. 3:96-361-0.

  

My case (Blaquiere v. Showa Denko, K.K., Showa Denko America, Inc. General

Nutrition Centers (GNC), et al., (C.A.No.1:95-629 ) was remanded to Rhode Island

District Court in 2003.

 

I hired a lawyer Dennis S. Mackin in 2000/2001 who used my case to file discovery

motions in the(MDL) United States District Court Columbia, South Carolina, (C. A. No. 3:96-

361-0), damaging to the defendant ShowaDenkoK.K.,their lawyers,Cleary,Gottlieb,Steen,and

Hamilton, and the United States Government.

  

My former lawyer Dennis Mackin was paid off to withdraw from my case and to

not go forward with the discovery motions and depositions damaging to Showa

Denko K.K., their lawyers, and the United States Government.

       

The discovery sought in my case that my former attorney Dennis Mackin filed in 2001 in the(MDL) United States District Court Columbia, South Carolina, (C. A. No. 3:96-361-0) was to demonstrate that Showa Denko K.K. and its attorneys have been involved in a continuing conspiracy to not only circumvent the discovery process, but to manipulate any scientific examination of Showa Denko K.K.’s reckless and wanton conduct”.

 

The United States Government wiretapped my phones, hacked my computers, surviellanced me during my L-tryptophan litigation and to the present. The United States Government obstructed justice, unlawfully sabotage my case inside and outside of the court system at every level.

   

My former attorney Dennis Mackin stated in his October 12, 2001 Reply of Plaintiff to Defendant's Motion to Qaush Deposition of Kenneth Rabin , that "additional questions must be answered about political pressure brought to bear upon members of the South Carolina Congressional delegation."" What information was given to Senator Thurmond, Senator Hollings and Congressman Ravenell?"

   

Documents made by Showa Denko K.K. included a budget attached to their public

relation scheme which was an amount determined for congressional

contracts, including the South Carolina delegation which was for 16, 000.00.

   

My former attorney Dennis Mackin stated in his motions that, “ The research of

this Eosinophilia Myalgia Syndrome has been twisted by the endless

manipulations by Showa Denko K.K and their lawyers,Cleary,Gottlieb,Steen,and

Hamilton and their confederates”. “ Worst of all, the scientific literature now

contains representations by shills for Showa Denko K.K. that will cause erroneous

medical science in the future”.

 

The United States Government is involved in the cover up .

   

My former attorney Dennis Mackin informed me that a promoter of an EMS

 

support group was being surveillanced and that anyone that who was viewed as a

 

threat was being surveillanced and intelligence was gathered .

  

The defendant Showa Denko K.K. a corrupt corporate giant, their corrupt lawyers,

and the United States Government conspired with all the courts at every level to

sabotage my case and the L-tryptophan litigation.

 

Showa Denko K.K., their lawyers, and the United States Government view me as

a threat, since my lawsuit still remains open that is damaging against Showa

Denko K.K. and General Nutrition Centers (GNC), among others. Also, Showa Denko K.K., their lawyers, and the United States Government, President George W. Bush and Rhode Island Governor Donald Carcieri fear the threat of civil and criminal action against them for their unlawful criminal activities.

  

I pose a threat to Showa Denko K.K. and the United States Government since,

my L-tryptophan lawsuit could re-open previous settlements entered into by

2,000- 5,000 L-tryptophan litigants on the basis of fraudulent inducement and the

United States Government's involvement in the cover up.

 

They were entered into by L-tryptophan Plaintiffs who were unaware of the defendants fraudulent concealment and the United States Government's cover up.

 

Showa Denko K.K., the United States Government, President George W. Bush and

Rhode Island Governor Donald Carcieri fear a movie being made and publicizing

their criminal activities which has continued to date.

    

President George W. Bush's father former President George H. W. Bush Sr. was

President of the United States from 1989 to 1993 during the Eosiophilia Myalgia Syndrome epidemic.

  

I filed a Complaint on December 7, 2006 against the United States Government et al. in

the United States District Court of Rhode Island, CA. No. 06-534 ML. My complaint is

pending in the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The United States Government have hired

my family, among others as informants to surveillance and gather intelligence on me.

  

At the time that I filed my December 7, 2006 complaint against a number of defendants

who are employed by the United States Government, I was unaware of orders issued by

President George W. Bush and Rhode Island Governor Donald Carcieri to assasinate/

murder me.

   

I spoke to a state senator with regard to my circumstances of law enforcement on the state and federal level that have harassed, targeted, survillenced me and have come out to my house and follow me on a daily basis. Also, the West Warwick police have even parked at my grandchild’s school shortly after I exposed President George W. Bush orders to assassinate/murder me.

  

The state senator stated to me that federal law enforcement, the Attorney General of the United States, and the Department of Justice are employed by President George W. Bush.

 

Moreover, my case is not isolated by a small number of police and law enforcement targeting and surveillanceing me. There are to many law enforcement and police and government officials organized at the highest level on the federal and local level that have targeted and surviellanced me. The state senator stated that the orders to murder me are coming from the President George W. Bush .

 

Further, the Rhode Island State Police who have been targeting and surviellancing me are given orders from Rhode Island Governor Donald Carcieri

   

In June or July of 2007, President George W. Bush came to Rhode Island and went on a

private helicopter ride with Rhode Island Governor Donald Carcieri and had discussions.

      

Shortly after I filed my December 7, 2006 complaint against the United States

Government et al, two key defendants named in my complaint retired Captain Gregory

Johnson of the West Warwick Police Department and Supervisory Special Agent

Nicholas Murphy of the Federal Bureau of investigation of R.I., and there may be others

who have also retired.

  

I am targeted, followed, and surveillanced by police officers, among others in the towns and places I travel in the state of Rhode Island and out of the state of Rhode Island on a daily basis.

 

The level of intensity and the number of police targeting, surviellancing, and following me has increased after I filed my December 7, 2006 complaint. And now since I have exposed President George W. Bush who issued orders to assassinate/murder me, the level of intensity and the number of police surviellacing and following me has further increased.

  

My telephones are wiretapped. The United States Government is hacking my computers.

The Federal Bureau of investigation, among others covered up the investigation of the hacking of my computers.

  

The Federal Bureau of investigation, United States Attorneys Office , Attorney Generals office, Department of Justice, among others are covering up and aware of the fact that I was kidnapped and assaulted by a Warwick Police Officer Joseph Mee on January 22, 2006 that was organized at the highest level of United States Government to assassinate/ murder me.

   

Further, law enforcement, among others are covering up the fact that on December 15, 2005 and December 16, 2005, Captain Gregg Johnson and Officer Patrick Kelly and the Kent County Memorial Hospital Emergency Room Staff violated my constitutional rights and deprived me of liberty against my will and without my consent to cause me harm in connection with the United States Government and Showa Denko K.K.

  

On April 14, 2006, I spoke to Laura Lineberry who is Condalezza Rice's personal assistant. Laura Lineberry informed me that she could not help me with regard to my circumstances mentioned herein, and that I should leave a message with the Representative of Secretary of State. I left a message with the Representative of Secretary of State, but no one returned my call.

  

On April 14, 2006, I contacted the White House comments department in Washington, DC for help with regard to my circumstances mentioned herein, and spoke to a young lady number(77) who stated she would pass on my comments to her supervisor and that her supervisor would summarize my comments and give it to President Bush. On April 14, 2006, I was unaware that President George W. Bush issued orders to assassinate/ murder me.

  

President George W. Bush, Condalezza Rice's office , nor anyone associated with the White House, responded in any way shape or form to my plea for help with regard to my circumstances mentioned herein.

 

I have evidence of my telephone calls to the White House, among others.

 

The IP Addresses with regard to the hacking of my computers have been traced to Washington, D.C.

         

You can view my complaint at pacer.psc.uscourts.gov.

 

My login is: lz0129 My password is 3y6!pomz ( party name is under my married name of Blaquiere) December 8, 2006 thru December 8, 2007 is the date you would use to view my complaint, since December 8, 2006 is the date my complaint was entered by the United States District Court of Rhode Island.

 

The United States District Court of Rhode Island omitted my supporting exhibits on

Pacer website and have intentionally obstructed my case and deprived me of a fair judicial process, inorder to protect and insulate the United States Government et al.

   

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT DOES NOT INITIATE ACTION AGAINST SHOWA DENKO K.K. FOR THE FOLLOWING VIOLATIONS:

    

The L-tryptophan problem is the fault of the FDA due to lack of enforcement of 172.320, among other

 

violations of the FDA rules. Therefore, the FDA permitted the continued illegal use of L-tryptophan.

  

If the FDA had enforced action against Showa Denko K.K.,for violation of the FDA rules mentioned

 

herein, then L-tryptophan would not have been on the market and sold to the American Public and

 

caused death and illnesses associated with the sales of L-tryptophan in violation of the FDA rule.

     

In 1970 FDA considered L-tryptophan (amino acids) , when used as nutrients or dietary supplements, to

 

be generally recognized as safe (GRAS) for those uses, and published that fact in the code of Federal

 

Regulations.

   

In 1972 FDA engaged in rule making to withdraw and remove approximately twenty amino acids

 

including L-tryptophan from the GRAS list ( generally recognized as safe) and to regulate them as

 

approved food additives that could not be sold without FDA's prior approval in the form of a food

 

additive petition, (37 Fed. Reg. 6938; April 6, 1972).

    

In 1973 FDA promulgated a binding substantive rule that is presently on the books, the Food additive

 

regulation that makes all amino acids, when used as components of dietary supplements,

 

unsafe food additives that violate the adulteration provisions of Act. 21 C.F.R. 172. 320.

    

In 1977, FDA seized L-tryptophan tablets on the grounds that the L-tryptophan that they contained

 

was an unapproved food additive. The court, however, found for the manufacturer of the tablets

 

because L-tryptophan was still on the FDA's GRAS list, (FDA had failed to remove it after the 1973

 

rulemaking), and the manufacturer was acting in accordance with the FDA's regulation.

   

In 1977, FDA deleted the listing of twenty amino acids that were the subject of the 1973 rulemaking

 

form the GRAS list, ( 42 Fed. Reg. 56720; October 28, 1977).

  

The FDA never renewed its regulatory action against dietary supplements containing L-tryptophan .

   

The food additive regulation that the FDA adopted in 1973 does not list (approve) L-tryptophan for

 

this use, and foods that contain unapproved food additive are deemed to be adulterated (21 U.S.C. 342

 

(a) (2) (c)).

  

FDA has not brought an action since 1977 against an L-tryptophan dietary supplement.

    

The FDA sought to enforce the rule prohibiting the use of amino acids in dietary supplements in two

 

seizure actions against products containing L-tryptophan. Those seizure actions were not successful.

 

The U.S. Government voluntarily dismissed the second lawsuit because the lawsuit was controlled by

 

a very hostile judge and the government feared that it would obtain an adverse ruling that would

 

insulate all dietary supplements from regulation under the food additive provisions of the act.

  

The FDA has not made any efforts to regulate amino acids since 1982. FDA ignored the food additive

 

regulations since 1982. In 1990, there was evidence showing that 30 amino acids other than L-

 

tryptophan were being sold by at least 22 companies.

    

The FDA has failed to date to bring charges against Showa Denko K.K. Showa Denko K.K. was in

 

violation of the FDA Food additive regulation that makes all amino acids, when used as components of

 

dietary supplements, unsafe food additives that violate the adulteration provisions of Act. 21

 

C.F.R. 172. 320. FDA should have gone after Showa Denko K.K. on an adulteration charge that the

 

L-tryptophan in the supplements is an unapproved food additive under 21 U.S.C. 342 (a) (2) (c).

 

Also, FDA failed to bring charges against Showa Denko K.K. with regard to L-

 

tryptophan being unfit for food, ( 21 U.S.C. 342 (a) (3). L-trytophan associated with illness

 

Eosinophilia Myalgia Syndrome, is unfit for food.

  

The FDA could have gone after L-tryptophan supplements as drugs. The FDA could have

 

developed evidence that L-tryptophan used for therapeutic purposes to combat sleeplessness and PMS

 

which is what L-tryptophan was advertized for is considered a drug and the FDA finding L-tryptophan

 

had not met the FDA's rational food supplement test would permit the FDA to bring drug charges

 

against the product under either 21 U.S.C. 321(g) (1) (B) or (c), National Nutritional Foods

 

Association v. Mathews, 557 F.2nd 325, 334 ( 2d Cir. 1977).

  

If the FDA had enforced action against Showa Denko K.K.,for violation of the FDA rules mentioned

 

herein, then L-tryptophan would not have been on the market and sold to the American Public and

 

caused death and illnesses associated with the sales of L-tryptophan in violation of the FDA rule.

       

On the Rhode Island ACLU website, there is a lawsuit against the United States

Government for Illegally surviellacing individuals attending a peace group in Rhode

Island and in other states.

 

The United States Government has files on these peace groups and have labeled these

peace group individuals as a threat because their simply anti-war.

 

The illegal acts of our United States Government is not an example of democracy, it is a

Dictatorship ruled by a dictator President George W. Bush who has committed crimes

against humanity and has violated our human rights.

  

Representative John Conyers Jr, was the Chairman re: the July 18, 1991 hearing on the FDA oversight of L-tryptophan. Representative John Conyers Jr, is currently the Chairman of the U.S.

House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary who can call for an investigation and immediate congressional hearings into this matter.

  

Please help me by writing to congress and. to investigate and call for immediate congressional hearings into this matter. Also, contact Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Senator Jack Reed to investigate and call for congressional hearings into this matter. If the American people place enough political pressure to investigate and call for congressional hearings into this matter, then an investigation into this matter will go forward and the truth will be exposed to the American people.

 

Also, please contact Senate Majority Leader, Senator Harry Reid, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Senator Arlen Specter, Senator Charles E. Schumer, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., Senator John McCain, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Barack Obama, and all members of the Senate to call for investigation and congressional hearings with regard to law enforcement engaged in an ongoing organized crime to assassinate/murder me by orders issued by President George W. Bush.

 

President George W. Bush has scammed the American people into believing that the Iraq

war is a "just war" and that the United States military are fighting for democracy,

freedom and for our safety here at home, and yet at the same time President George W.

Bush is committing the worst crimes in american history against innocent american

citizens.

    

Please expedite the above and contact me at my email: LoriZarlenga@hotmail.com

  

You can view documents and obtain information about L-tryptophan and Eosinophilia Myalgia Syndrome on the National EMS Support Group website at www.nemsn.org

  

You can find me at myspace.com/lorizz

  

Also, you can find me at my website www.tiptopwebsite.com/lorizz.

  

I posted a letter explaining in more detail on my website and on my space.com/lorizz

  

If you have any questions or want to view my exhibits that support my December 7, 2006 complaint filed in the United States District Court of Rhode Island, then you can e-mail me and I will send you attachments you can view .

    

Thank You, Lori Zarlenga

  

in Flanders expo Gent

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

In October 1933, Hermann Göring sent out a letter requesting aircraft companies consider the design of a "high speed courier aircraft" - a thinly veiled request for a new fighter. In May 1934, this was made official and the Technisches Amt sent out a request for a single-seat interceptor for the Rüstungsflugzeug IV role, this time under the guise of a "sports aircraft". The specification was first sent to the most experienced fighter designers, Heinkel, Arado, and Focke-Wulf.

 

Heinkel's design was created primarily by twin brothers Walter and Siegfried Günter, whose designs would dominate most of Heinkel's work. They started work on Projekt 1015 in late 1933 under the guise of the original courier aircraft, based around the BMW XV radial engine. Work was already under way when the official request went out on 2 May, and on 5 May the design was renamed the He 112.

 

The primary source of inspiration for the He 112 was their earlier He 70 Blitz ("Lightning") design. The Blitz was a single-engine, four-passenger aircraft originally designed for use by Lufthansa, and it in turn was inspired by the famous Lockheed Model 9 Orion mail plane. Like many civilian designs of the time, the aircraft was pressed into military service and was used as a two-seat bomber (although mostly for reconnaissance) and served in this role in Spain. The Blitz introduced a number of new construction techniques to the Heinkel company; it was their first low-wing monoplane, their first with retractable landing gear, their first all-metal monocoque design, and its elliptical, reverse-gull wing would be seen on a number of later projects. The Blitz could almost meet the new fighter requirements itself, so it is not surprising that the Günters would choose to work with the existing design as much as possible.

 

The original He 112 was basically a scaled down version of Heinkel’s aerodynamically highly refined He 70 and shared its all metal construction, inverted gull wings, and retractable landing gear. Like the He 70, the He 112 was constructed entirely of metal, using a two-spar wing and a monocoque fuselage with flush-head rivets. The landing gear retracted outward from the low point of the wing's gull-bend, which resulted in a fairly wide span track, giving the aircraft excellent ground handling. Its only features from an older era were its open cockpit and fuselage spine behind the headrest, which were kept in order to provide excellent vision and make the biplane-trained pilots feel more comfortable.

 

The He 112 V1 started in the head-to-head contest when it arrived at Travemünde on 8 February 1936. The other three competitors had all arrived by the beginning of March. Right away, the Focke-Wulf Fw 159 and Arado Ar 80 proved to be lacking in performance, and plagued with problems, and were eliminated from serious consideration. At this point, the He 112 was the favorite over the "unknown" Bf 109, but opinions changed when the Bf 109 V2 arrived on 21 March. All the competitor aircraft had initially been equipped with the Rolls-Royce Kestrel engine, but the Bf 109 V2 had a Jumo 210. From that point on, it started to outperform the He 112 in almost every way, and even the arrival of the Jumo-engined He 112 V2 on 15 April did little to address this imbalance.

 

Eventually, the Bf 109 was chosen as the Luftwaffe’s new standard fighter, and Heinkel was left with an excellent but unwanted fighter. However, the He 112 was subsequently marketed to foreign customers, including Yugoslavia, The Netherlands, Finland, Romania and Japan, and saw a mild export and license production success during WWII’s opening stages.

 

One of the foreign countries which adopted the He 112 was Italy. The Regia Aeronautica suffered, like many other contemporary air forces, under outdated biplane types and the fast technical developments of surrounding nations. Indigenous monoplanes like the Fiat G.50 or the Macchi MC.200 and 202 were under development, but especially an aircraft with more powerful armament and longer range, primarily for bomber escort duties, was missing. Since the new high-performance Bf 109 was not be cleared for export at that time, the He 112 appeared like a good “second choice” option for both Italian and German officials.

The He 112’s range of more than 700 miles (1.100 km) and a performance similar to the Fiat G.50 and even better – despite a nominally weaker engine – was convincing enough, so that the German type would fill the Regia Aeronautica’s perceived gap well.

 

A total of 60 aircraft was ordered in 1939 (an initial batch of ten aircraft, plus fifty more), and Heinkel – knowing that the He 112’s potential was limited – reacted quickly with the He 112 E (for “Export”).

The E-1 variant was tailored to Italian specifications, but it was also stripped off of any items with high military value or innovation. For instance, in order to improve performance but not to give away the more modern and potent DB600 or Jumo 211 engines, the export aircraft for Italy received uprated Jumo 210Ga engines (rated at 730 PS/534 kW) and a new three blade propeller that would transfer the engine power into propulsion more effectively.

 

Furthermore, no armament was fitted to the export He 112s upon delivery, since the German 20mm MG FF cannon were not cleared for export, too. The Italian operators did not mind, though, since many indigenous equipment pieces would be retrofitted to the new aircraft, anyway. As a consequence, the Regia Aeronautoca’s He 112 E-1s were locally outfitted with proven weapons of domestic origin, namely a pair of 7.7 mm Breda-SAFAT machine guns in the cowling flanks with 500 RPG, plus a pair of 12.7 mm (.5 in) Breda-SAFAT machine guns in the wings with 400 RPG.

 

The Italian He 112s’ first active involvements in WWII started in July 1940, with the Italian bombings in the British Mandate of Palestine. The freshly delivered machines were not ready in time to take part in the Regia Aeronautica’s Battle of France at the Western front line, so they were directly delivered to South-Italian units and primarily used in the Mediterranean and Northern African theatre of operations.

 

The raids in the Middle East with He 112 involvement primarily centered on Tel Aviv and Haifa, but many other coastal towns such as Acre and Jaffa also suffered. Haifa was hit many times by the Italians, because of the port and refinery, starting in June 1940. The 29 July 1940 issue of Time reported a bombing at Haifa by SM82 bombers during the previous week, with a dozen casualties. According to Time Magazine, the Italians claimed a huge success, which the British did not deny. Where the British oil pipeline from Mosul reached tidewater, "Ten big Italian bombers, flying at great altitude from the Dodecanese Islands, giving the British bases at Cyprus a wide berth, dumped 50 bombs on the Haifa oil terminal and refinery."

The bombing started fires, which burned for many days afterward, and the refinery's production was blocked for nearly one month. British fighters from a base on Mt. Carmel were too late to overtake the Italians returning to their base in Italian Dodecanese. The last Italian bombing on the territories of the British Mandate of Palestine occurred in June 1941. Haifa and Tel Aviv where hit, but with little damage and few casualties.

 

Further He 112 engagements included Eastern and Western Africa, and they participated with the Regia Aeronautica’s air offensive against the British-controlled island of Malta along with the German Air Force in an attempt to gain control of the Axis sea routes from Sicily, Sardinia, and Italy to North Africa.

The final front line duty of an Italian He 112 E-1 took place in 1942, when Italian Piaggio P.108 bombers, accompanied by Italian He 112 escorts, attacked Gibraltar from Sardinia, flying a number of long-range night raids, which lasted until October 1942. By then, the He 112 in Italian service had been fully replaced by indigenous and more capable, new fighter types. Moreover, advanced Bf 109 versions were delivered in early 1943 to the Regia Aeronautica, too, and the remaining He 112 E-1 were relegated to advanced weapon training duties.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 9.22 m (30 ft 11 7/8 in)

Wingspan: 9.09 m (29 ft 9¾ in)

Height: 3.82 m (12 ft 6¾ in)

Wing area: 17 m² (183 ft²)

Empty weight: 1,617 kg (3,565 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 2,248 kg (4,957 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1× Junkers Jumo 210Ga liquid-cooled inverted V12 engine, rated at 730 hp (534 kW)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 510 km/h (317 mph)

Range: 1150 km (715 mi)

Service ceiling: 9,500 m (31,200 ft)

Wing loading: 132 kg/m² (27.1 lb/ft²)

 

Armament:

2× 7.7 mm Breda-SAFAT machine guns with 500 RPG mounted in the sides of the engine cowling

2× 12.7 mm (0.5 in) Breda-SAFAT machine guns in the wings with 400 RPG in the wings

  

The kit and its assembly:

This whiffy He 112 was inspired by a CG skin found at the warthunder.com forum (created/posted by user Arkham815). In its characteristic Italian “smoke ring” livery the depicted He 112 B looked pretty natural. Since I had a Heller He 112 stashed away without concrete plans/ideas yet, I built this one as a simple quickie and just as a fictional color variant.

 

The Heller kit dates back to 1979, and it is pretty good. You get raised panel lines, but decent interior detail and good fit. For this pseudo-Italian incarnation the kit was mostly built OOB. The only mods are a new three blade propeller (from a Hobby Boss Mitsubishi A6M and an AZ Model Spitfire V spinner, plus a metal axis and a styrene tube adapter inside the fuselage) and some oxygen bottles behind the seat.

The canopy was cut into three pieces for display, and I added some structures inside of the landing gear wells with styrene strips since they are OOB totally bleak. For the wing cannons, barrels cut from a steel needle were added (the original 20mm cannon just featured holes in the wings’ leading edge).

  

Painting and markings:

Well, the “smoke ring” camouflage used in the CG animation looks pretty on the He 112, and the aircraft’s outline similarity with the Macchi MC.205 make it a natural choice. But I did not use it for my build because it would not match the He 112’s time frame. The “smoke ring” scheme was only used from 1942 onwards, a little too late for my place in history for the Italian He 112, and it was furthermore more or less confined to the Northern African theatre of operations.

 

Consequentially, I chose an earlier standard scheme for my fictional Italian He 112, even though it would have a similar style, so that the original design idea would be kept. My choice fell on the so-called “C1A” scheme, basically an overall sand yellow with irregular, small green and brown mottles.

The colors were guesstimated, based on contemporary Regia Aeronautica aircraft. The basic Giallo Mimetico is represented through the rather yellowish Humbrol 94 (Desert Sand), later highlighted and somewhat dulled down with dry-brushed Humbrol 168 (Hemp).

The mottles were created in Bruno Mimetico with Humbrol 113 first, and “on top” came another layer with Verde Mimetico (Humbrol 150). Unlike the CG benchmark, the upper camouflage was extended under the engine and the rear fuselage, as well as around the wings’ leading edges. The wings’ undersides were painted in Grigio Mimetico (Humbrol 64).

 

The white ID band round the fuselage was created with generic decal sheet (TL Modellbau), and all other markings come basically from a vast Fiat CR.42 sheet from Sky Models with markings for roundabout 70(!!!) aircraft. The white spinner with a thin red band was adapted from a contemporary real world 162° Squadriglia Fiat CR.42. It is the only colorful addition, because I wanted to keep things rather subtle – and the mottled scheme in itself is already a spectacular sight!

 

Being an aircraft of German origin, the interior surfaces became RLM 02 (Humbrol 240), lightly dry-brushed with light grey.

 

After some soot stains with graphite the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri).

  

Part one of a Heller He 112 trilogy, and a rather simple and quick build, done in less than a week and mostly spent on the painting phase. But the He 112 looks very good in its fictional Italian livery, if not spectacular? I find it amazing how well this scheme disrupts the aircraft’s outlines, and how the marking blur into the overall livery. Only the white MTO ID markings truly stand out – an unexpected result.

 

Ford's investment in the U.S. and American jobs remains strong.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

In July 1967, the first Swedish Air Force student pilots started training on the Saab 105, a Swedish high-wing, twin-engine trainer aircraft developed in the early sixties as a private venture by Saab AB. The Swedish Air Force procured the type for various roles and issued the aircraft with the designation Sk 60.

 

The Sk 60 entered service in 1967, replacing the aging De Havilland Vampire fleet, and had a long-lasting career. But in the late Eighties, by which point the existing engines of the Swedish Air Force's Sk 60 fleet were considered to be towards the end of their technical and economic lifespan and the airframes started to show their age and wear of constant use, the Swedish Air Force started to think about a successor and/or a modernization program.

 

Saab suggested to replace the Saab 105’s Turbomeca Aubisque engines with newly-built Williams International FJ44 engines, which were lighter and less costly to operate, but this was only regarded as a stop-gap solution. In parallel, Saab also started work for a dedicated new jet trainer that would prepare pilots for the Saab 39 Gripen – also on the drawing boards at the time – and as a less sophisticated alternative to the promising but stillborn Saab 38.

 

The Saab 38 (also known as B3LA or A 38/Sk 38) was a single-engine jet trainer and attack aircraft planned by Saab during the 1970s and actually a collaboration between Saab and the Italian aircraft manufacturer Aermacchi (the aircraft resembled the AMX a lot). It was to replace the older Saab 105 jet trainer in the Swedish Air Force, too, but the aircraft never got past the drawing board and was canceled in 1979 in favor of the more advanced Saab JAS 39 Gripen multi-role fighter.

Anyway, this decision left Sweden without a replacement for the Sk 60 as transitional trainer and as a light attack and reconnaissance aircraft.

 

In 1991, Saab presented its new trainer design, internally called "FSK900", to the Swedish Air Force. The aircraft was a conservative design, with such a configurational resemblance to the Dassault-Dornier Alpha Jet that it is hard to believe Saab engineers didn't see the Alpha Jet as a model for what they wanted to do. However, even if that was the case, the FSK900 was by no means a copy of the Alpha Jet, and the two machines can be told apart at a glance. FSK900 had a muscular, rather massive appearance, while the Alpha Jet was more wasp-like and very sleek. The FSK900 was also bigger in length and span and had an empty weight about 10% greater.

 

The FSK900 was mostly made of aircraft aluminum alloys, with some control surfaces made of carbon-fiber / epoxy composite, plus very selective use of titanium. It had high-mounted swept wings, with a supercritical airfoil section and a leading-edge dogtooth; a conventional swept tail assembly; tricycle landing gear; twin engines, one mounted in a pod along each side of the fuselage; and a tandem-seat cockpit with dual controls.

 

The wings had a sweep of 27.5°, an anhedral droop of 7°, and featured ailerons for roll control as well as double slotted flaps. The tailplanes were all-moving, and also featured an anhedral of 7°. An airbrake was mounted on each side of the rear fuselage. Flight controls were hydraulic, and hydraulic systems were dual redundant.

 

The instructor and cadet sat in tandem, both on zero-zero ejection seats, with the instructor's seat in the rear raised 27 centimeters (10.6 inches) to give a good forward view. The cockpit was pressurized and featured a one-piece canopy, hinged open to the right, that provided excellent visibility.

 

The landing gear assemblies all featured single wheels, with the nose gear retracting forward and the main gear retracting forward and into the fuselage, featuring an antiskid braking system. The twin engines were two Williams International FJ44-4M turbofans without reheat, each rated at 16.89 kN (3,790 lbst). These were the same engines, that Saab had also proposed for Saab’s Sk 60 modernization program, even though a less powerful variant for the lighter aircraft.

 

The FSK900 could be fitted with two pylons under each wing and under the fuselage centerline, for a total of five hardpoint. The inner wing pylons were wet and could be used to carry 450 liter (119 US gallon) external tanks, a total external payload of 2,500 kg (5,500 lb) could be carried.

External stores included a centerline target winch for the target tug role, an air-sampling pod for detection of fallout or other atmospheric pollutants, jammer or chaff pods for electronic warfare training, a camera/sensor pod and a baggage pod for use in the liaison role. The aircraft also featured a baggage compartment in the center fuselage, which also offered space for other special equipment or future updates.

 

Potential armament comprised a conformal underfuselage pod with a single 27 mm Mauser BK-27 revolver cannon with 120 rounds (the same weapon that eventually went into the Saab Gripen).

Other weapons included various iron and cluster bombs of up to 454 kg (1.000 lb) caliber, unguided missiles of various calibers and the Rb.74 (AIM-9L Sidewinder) AAM. A radar was not mounted, but the FSK900’s nose section offered enough space for a radome.

 

The Swedish Air Force accepted the Saab design, leading to a contract for two nonflying static-test airframes and four flying prototypes. Detail design was complete by the end of 1993 and prototype construction began in the spring of 1994, leading to first flight of the initial prototype on 29 July 1994. The first production "Sk 90 A", how the basic trainer type was officially dubbed, was delivered to the Swedish Air Force in 1996.

 

In parallel, a contract was signed for the re-engining of 115 Saab Sk 60 aircraft in 1993; the number of aircraft to be upgraded was subsequently reduced as a result of cuts to the defense budget and the advent of the FSK900, of which 60 were ordered initially.

 

The Sk 90 was regarded as strong, agile, and pleasant to fly, while being cheap to operate. Sk 90 As flying in the training role typically painted in the unique “Fields & Meadows” splinter camouflage, although decorative paint jobs showed up on occasion and many aircraft received additional dayglow markings.

Some of the few aircraft given to operational squadrons, which used them for keeping up flight hours and as hacks, had apparently been painted in all-grey camouflage to match the combat aircraft they shared the flight line with.

 

With the Sk 90 S a new variant was soon introduced, replacing the Sk 60 C, two-seat ground attack/reconnaissance version for the Swedish Air Force with an extended camera nose. It featured a similar camera arrangement to the Sk 60 C with a panoramic camera, plus an avionics palet in the baggage compartment for a modular DICAST (Digital Camera And Sensor Tray) pod under the fuselage. Unlike the Sk 60 C, which was converted from existing Sk 60 A trainers, the Sk 90 S was an original design. 20 were delivered until 1997, together with the standard trainers, which were kept on the production lines at slow pace until 1999.

 

A total of 108 production Sk 90s were built, and the Swedish Air Force has no further requirement for new Sk 90s at present. Upgrades are in planning, including fit of at least some Sk 90s with a modern "glass cockpit" to provide advanced training for the Saab Gripen (which had entered service in June 1992), and a full authority digital engine control (FADEC) for the FJ44-4M turbofans. Integration of the Rb.75 (the AGM-65A/B Maverick in Swedish service) together with a pod-mounted FLIR camera system was also suggested, improving the Sk 90’s attack capability dramatically. These updates were started in 2000. The modified aircraft received the designation Sk 90 B and Sk 90 SB, respectively, and until 2006 the whole fleet was updated.

 

Tests were also made with reinforced underwing pylons that would allow the carriage of the RBS-15 anti-ship missile. Even though the Sk 90 did not carry a radar, the missile-armed trainers were considered as a linked multiplicators for Saab 39s with the appropriate avionics, so that salvoes of multiple missiles could be launched in order to overload ship defences and improve hit probability. While the latter assumption was proved as correct during field trials with two modified Sk 90s, the missiles’ extra drag and the consequent loss in agility, speed and range made the concept unpractical, since the armed Sk 90 could not keep up with the Saab 39, limit reaction time and would offer an easy target.

 

Another plan was the Sk 90 C, a two-seater with enhanced attack capabilities. Its most distict feature was a simplified PS-05/A pulse-Doppler X band multi-mode radar, developed by Ericsson and GEC-Marconi for the JAS 39 Gripen.

The system was based on the Blue Vixen radar for the Sea Harrier that also served as the basis for the Eurofighter's CAPTOR radar, and it would allow a highly improved air-to-air and air-to-ground capability, also in better concunction with the Saab Gripen as lead aircraft. Two technology demonstrators were converted from Sk 90 A trainers, but the project was shelved - due to budget restrictions and simply through the fact that the JAS 39 Gripen offered anything the Swedish Air Force had called for in just one, single weapon system, so that the Sk 90 remained in its advanced trainer and tactical recce role. The technology package was offered to foreign customers, though.

 

Despite its qualities and development potential, the Sk 90 did not attain much foreign interest. It suffered from bad timing and from the focus on domestic demands. It came effectively 10 years too late to be serious export success, and the Sk 90 was very similar to the Dassault/Dornier Alpha Jet (even though it was cheaper to operate) - at a time when the German Luftwaffe started to prematurely phaze out its attack variant and flooded the market with cheap second hand aircraft in excellent condition. Besides, the Saab Sk 90 had, with the BAe Hawk, another proven competitor with a long operational track record all over the world.

 

Modest foreign sales could be secured, though: Austria procured 36 Sk 90 Ö in 2002 (basically comparable with the updated Sk 90 B), replacing its Saab 105 fleet and keeping up its close connection with Saab since the Seventies. Malaysia showed interest, too, as well as Singapore, Myanmar, Finland, Poland and Hungary.

 

The latest interest came from the Republic of Scotland in late 2017 – after the country’s separation from the United Kingdom and building an independent air force with a supplier from a neutral country.

The Republic of Scotland’s Air Corps (RoScAC) started negotiations with Saab and the Swedish government over either eight newly built or refurbished, older Sk 90 As that were updated to C standard with the PS-05/A radar.

Scotland additionally showed interest in a small fleet of 1st generation Saab 39 interceptors that would replace the RAF fighters based on Scottish ground.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: two pilots in tandem

Length incl. pitot: 13.0 m (42 ft 8 in) for the A trainer, 13.68 m (44 ft 10 in) for the S variant

Wingspan: 9.94 m (32 ft 7 in)

Height: 4.6 m (15 ft 1 in)

Empty weight: 3,790 kg (8,360 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 7,500 kg (16,530 lb)

 

Powerplant:

2× Williams International FJ44-4M turbofans without reheat, rated at 16.89 kN (3,790 lbst) each

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 1,038 km/h (645 mph)

Range: 1,670 km (900 nm)

 

Armament:

No internal gun; five hardpoints for 2,500 kg (5,500 lb) of payload and a variety of ordnance

  

The kit and its assembly:

A simple kit travesty! This is basically the 1:72 Kawasaki T-4 from Hasegawa, with little modifications.

Originally, I wondered what an overdue Saab 105 replacement could or would look like? The interesting Saab 38 never saw the light, as mentioned above, there was also an A-10-style light attack aircraft (maybe to be built as a kitbashing some day...) and I assume that neutral Sweden would rather develop its own aircraft than procure a foreign product.

 

Consideration of the BAe Hawk, Alpha Jet and the L-39 Albatros as inspirations for this project, I eventually came across the modern but rather overlooked Japanese Kawasaki T-4 trainer – and found that it had a certain Swedish look about it? Hmm... And coupled with a very characteristic paint scheme, like “Fields & Meadows”, maybe…?

 

I wanted to keep things simple, though, so the T-4 was mostly built OOB. A pleasant experience. The kit is relatively simple and fit is very good, with only minimal PSR necessary.

 

The only changes are the underwings hardpoints, which come from a Heller SEPECAT Jaguar, the pair of drop tanks (from an Academy F-5E, IIRC), a scratched recce pod for the ventral hardpoint and a modified bow section. This camera nose is a transplant from a Marivox Saab 105, assuming that the new trainer would be employed in similar roles as the Sk 60. The respective Swedish kit comes with a lot of optional parts, including the extended Sk 60 C’s camera nose - and it fits very well onto the T-4's rounded nose.

  

Painting and markings:

Well, when building a kit is not a true challenge, maybe the paint job is? The T-4 in a "Fields & Meadows" livery was the initial inspiration for this build, so I tried to stick with the concept as far as possible, even though I'd assume that Swedish aircraft in the kit's time frame would rather be grey with subdued markings. But there's hardly anything as Swedish and spectacular as "Fields & Meadows", and this scheme would also be perfect for the tactical recce role of this build.

 

The pattern was loosely inspired by the Saab Viggens’ scheme (I found pictures of Sk 60 in Fields & Meadows, but could not puzzle together a complete view) as benchmark.

 

Painting was done with a fine brush (size 2), free-handedly. Even the waterline was created without masking tape - a clean, bigger brush (size 6) was enough to create the sharp edge. This sounds bizarre and maybe suggest a masochistic touch, but it actually worked better than expected - and I was in the lucky situation that I did not have to slavishly copy and recreate the splinter pattern on a real-world model. ;-)

 

Finding proper tones for the famous and very characteristic Swedish paint scheme was not easy, though. Pictures of real aircraft vary largely, light conditions and weathering make a proper identification difficult, to say the least. Since I wanted a simple solution (a lot of corrections during the painting process was expected), I settled upon the following enamel tones:

• Modelmaster 2060, RAF Dark Green

• Humbrol 150, Forest Green FS 34127

• Humbrol 72, Khaki Drill, for the earth tone

• A 1:1 mix of Humbrol 33 (Flat Black) + Modelmaster 2094 (RAL 7021) for a very dark grey

• Humbrol 247 (RLM 76) for the undersides

 

Painting was done from black (starting here because it was the only mixed tone), then the earth tone, light green and finally the dark green - a slow (2 full days) but rather uncomplicated process. But I think that the effort paid out, and helps selling the fictional Sk 90 idea.

 

The cockpit was painted in neutral grey, while the landing gear and the air intakes became white. A very Swedish touch are the bright green headrests - seen on Saab 37.

 

The markings were kept simple, puzzled together from various sources. Tactical codes come from a Heller Saab 37 Viggen sheet, while the roundels come from an RBD Models sheet (great stuff!) from Sweden - they actually belong to a Saab 32, but since the roundel sizes are normed the transplant onto the smaller aircraft here was easy and even plausible.

 

Some stencils were taken from the T-4 OOB sheet or gathered together from the scrap box, e .g. the "FARA" warnings.

The silver trim at the flaps and the fin rudder were made with generic 0.5mm decal stripes in silver. Similar strips in black were used to create the de-icers on the wings' leading edges.

 

Finally, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri).

  

Not tough to build, but still a challenge to paint. But the result is spectacular, and the T-4 under foreign flag looks disturbingly plausible. How could Sweden hide this aircraft from the public for so long...?

And it's certainly not the last T-4 I will build. A Scottish aircraft, as mentioned in the background, is a hot candidate - but the aircraft has a lot of OOB whiffing potential...

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

In the aftermath of the Second World War, Sweden required a strong air defense, utilizing the newly developed jet propulsion technology. This led to a pair of proposals being issued by the Saab design team, led by Lars Brising. The first of these, codenamed R101, was a cigar-shaped aircraft, which bore a resemblance to the American Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star. The second design, which would later be picked as the winner, was a barrel-shaped design, codenamed R 1001, which proved to be both faster and more agile upon closer study.

 

The original R 1001 concept had been designed around a mostly straight wing, but after Swedish engineers had obtained German research data on swept-wing designs, the prototype was altered to incorporate a 25° sweep. In order to make the wing as thin as possible, Saab elected to locate the retractable undercarriage in the aircraft's fuselage rather than into the wings.

 

Extensive wind tunnel testing performed at the Swedish Royal University of Technology and by the National Aeronautical Research Institute had also influenced aspects of the aircraft's aerodynamics, such as stability and trim across the aircraft's speed range. In order to test the design of the swept wing further and avoid any surprises, it was decided to modify a single Saab Safir. It received the designation Saab 201 and a full-scale R 1001 wing for a series of flight tests. The first 'final' sketches of the aircraft, incorporating the new information, was drawn in January 1946.

 

The originally envisioned powerplant for the new fighter type was the de Havilland Goblin turbojet engine. However, in December 1945, information on the newer and more powerful de Havilland Ghost engine became available. The new engine was deemed to be ideal for Saab's in-development aircraft, as not only did the Ghost engine had provisions for the use of a central circular air intake, the overall diameter of the engine was favorable for the planned fuselage dimensions, too. Thus, following negotiations between de Havilland and Saab, the Ghost engine was selected to power the type instead and built in license as the RM 2.

 

By February 1946 the main outline of the proposed aircraft had been clearly defined. In Autumn 1946, following the resolution of all major questions of principal and the completion of the project specification, the Swedish Air Force formally ordered the completion of the design and that three prototype aircraft be produced, giving the proposed type the designation J 29.

On 1 September 1948, the first of the Saab 29 prototypes conducted its maiden flight, which lasted for half an hour. Because of the shape of its fuselage, the Saab J 29 quickly received the nickname "Flygande Tunnan" ("The Flying Barrel"), or "Tunnan" ("The Barrel") for short. While the demeaning nickname was not appreciated by Saab, its short form was eventually officially adopted.

 

A total of four prototypes were built for the aircraft's test program. The first two lacked armament, carrying heavy test equipment instead, while the third prototype was armed with four 20mm automatic guns. Various different aerodynamic arrangements were tested, such as air brakes being installed either upon the fuselage or on the wings aft of the rear spar, along with both combined and conventional aileron/flap arrangements.

The flight test program revealed that the J 29 prototypes were capable of reaching and exceeding the maximum permissible Mach number for which they had been designed, and the flight performance figures gathered were found to be typically in excess of the predicted values.

 

In 1948 production of the type commenced and in May 1951 the first deliveries of operational production aircraft were received by F 13 Norrköping. The J 29 proved to be very successful and several variants and updates of the Tunnan were produced, including a dedicated reconnaissance variant and a dedicated all-weather fighter with an on-board radar, the J 29D.

 

The J 29D variant originally started its career as a single prototype to test the Ghost RM 2A afterburner turbojet with 27.5 kN (2,800 kgp/6,175 lbf). The new engine dramatically improved the Tunnan’s performance, esp. concerning the start phase, acceleration and climb, and was eventually adopted for the whole J 29 fighter fleet in an update program, leading to the J 29F variant.

 

However, at the time of the RM 2A trials, Sweden was more and more in need for a suitable all-weather aerial defense for its vast, neutral airspace in the vicinity of the Soviet Union. Only a single flight of the Swedish Air Force, F1 in Hässlö, operated roundabout thirty radar-equipped fighters, and these were outdated De Havilland Mosquito night fighters (locally designated J 30).

 

The highly successful J 29 was soon considered as a potential air-intercept radar carrier, offering a much more up-tp-date performance and deterrent potential against would-be intruders. Consequently, Saab started the development of an indigenous all-weather fighter on the basis of the Tunnan (originally coded “J 29R”). The work started with aerodynamic trials of different radome designs and placements on a Tunnan’s nose, e .g. inside of the circular air intake opening or above it. No major drawbacks were identified, and in 1955 the decision was made to convert thirty J 29B daylight fighters for the all weather/night fighter role. These machines officially inherited the designation J 29D.

The J 29D’s compact radar, called the PS-43/T, was designed by CSF (Compagnie Generale de Telegrahpi Sans Fil) in France after the Swedish specification. It had a wavelength of 3 cm with an effect of 100 kW, and it was to have a spiral scan pattern. Range was 15-20 km, only a slight improved against the Mosquitos’ bulky SCR-720B radar set, which only had a range of 12-16km. But the system’s compact size and the ability to be operated by the pilot alone meant a serious step forward. 34 sets were delivered together with blueprints in 1956, and the PS-43 radar system was later modified and adapted to the Saab 32 Lansen, too.

 

The structural modifications for the radar-equipped Tunnan were carried out in the course of the ensuing J 29F update program, which had started in 1954. Beyond the afterburner engine and dogtooth wing updates for the day fighters, the J 29D also received a re-designed nose section which now featured a thimble radome for the PS-43/T, integrated into the upper air intake lip, reminiscent of the F-86D’s arrangement. The air intake itself kept the original circular diameter, but the opening was slightly wider, raked forward and featured a sharper lip, for an improved airflow under the radome. Overall performance of the J 29 did not suffer, and the conversion took place swiftly thanks to a simple replacement of the nose section in front of the windscreen and the installation of a shielded tracking monitor in the cockpit.

 

Experiments with a heavier cannon armament (consisting of four, long-barreled 30mm guns in the lower fuselage) for the J 29 in general were conducted in parallel, too. But, despite showing no negative effect on the J 29’s handling or performance, this upgrade was not introduced to any of the J 29 variants in service and so the J 29D kept its original four 20mm cannon as main armament, too. Additional ordnance consisted of optional racks with 75 mm/3 in air-to-air rockets under the inner wings against large aerial targets like bombers. A pair of drop tanks could be carried on the outer pylons, too, and they were frequently carried in order to extend range and loiter time. Other loads, including bombs or unguided air-to-ground missiles, were possible, but never carried except for in practice.

 

The last converted J 29D was delivered back to the Swedish Air Force in late 1956, just in time to replace the last active J 30 Mosquitos in service, which had been gradually phased out since 1953. In parallel, the radar-equipped J 33 Venom was introduced into service, too, since the small number of J 29Ds had in the meantime turned out to be far from sufficient to effectively cover the Swedish air space against large numbers of ever faster jet bombers and reconnaissance aircraft. The J 29D fulfilled its role and duty well, though, and was just as popular as the daylight fighter versions.

 

Initially, all J 29D were delivered in bare metal finish, but they were soon adorned with additional markings on fin and wing tips for easier recognition and formation flights. A few all-weather fighters of F1 Flygflottil experimentally received the blue/green camouflage which had been adopted for the S 29C reconnaissance aircraft, but this was found to be ineffective at the typical altitudes the interceptors would operate. As a consequence, the scheme was quickly changed into the much lighter livery of the former J 30 and J 33 fighters, although the bare metal undersides and the formation markings under the wing tips were retained – even though this practice was confined to F 1 and not consequently carried out among all of the fighter squadron's J 29Ds. Some J 29D furthermore carried various forms of black ID bands for quick identification in war games, but unlike the day fighters, these markings were limited to the undersides only.

 

From 1963 onwards all frontline J 29Fs were equipped with AIM-9 Sidewinder infrared-seeking air-to-air missiles, designated Rb 24 in Swedish service. This update was also carried out among the J 29D fleet, and the new, guided missiles considerably improved the aircraft’s capabilities.

 

Anyway, the J 29D’s small number remained a fundamental problem that prevented bigger success or even export sales, and due to the quick technical advances, the J 29D remained only a stopgap solution. The much more capable Saab 32 Lansen had been under development and its dedicated all-weather fighter variant, the J 32B, had already entered service in 1958, replacing the mixed and outdated lot of radar-equipped fighters in Swedish service.

Nevertheless, the J 29D soldiered on, together with the rest of the J 29F and S 29C fleet, until 1970, even though not in front line duties anymore.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 10.80 m (35 ft 4 1/2 in)

Wingspan: 11.0 m (36 ft 1 in)

Height: 3.75 m (12 ft 4 in)

Wing area: 24.15 m² (260.0 ft²)

Empty weight: 4,845 kg (10,680 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 8,375 kg (18,465 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1× Svenska Flygmotor RM2B afterburner turbojet, rated at 6,070 lbf (27 kN)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 1,060 km/h (660 mph)

Range: 1,100 km (685 mi)

Service ceiling: 15,500 m (50,850 ft)

Rate of climb: 32.1 m/s (6,320 ft/min)

 

Armament:

4x 20mm Hispano Mark V autocannon in the lower front fuselage

Typically, a pair of 400-liter (106 US gallon) or 500-liter (132 US gallon) drop tanks was carried on the outer “wet” pylons

Further air-to-air ordnance initially consisted of 75 mm (3 in) air-to-air rockets, from 1963 onwards the J 29D could also carry up to 4x Rb 24 (AIM-9B Sidewinder) IR-guided air-to-air missiles.

Optionally (but never carried in service), the J 29D could also deploy a wide range of bombs and unguided missiles, including 145 mm (5.8 in) anti-armor rockets, 150 mm (6 in) HE (high-explosive) rockets or 180 mm (7.2 in) HE anti-ship rockets

  

The kit and its assembly:

Sweden is a prolific whiffing territory, and the Saab 29 offers some interesting options. The all-weather Tunnan was a real Saab project, and things actually got as far as the aforementioned radome shape test stage. But eventually the project was fully dropped, since Saab had been busy with standard J 29 production and conversions, so that this aircraft never materialized, just as the projected side-by-side trainer Sk 29 of the same era.

 

However, I recently came across a nice Saab 29 book which also covers some projects – including drawings of the radar-equipped Tunnan that never was. My converted model with the thimble radome and the raked air intake is based on these drawings.

 

The basic kit is the Heller Saab 29, which I deem superior to the Matchbox Tunnan, with its mix of raised and engraved panel lines and overall rather soft detail (despite the surprisingly nice cockpit). Anyway,, the Heller kit has its flaws, too, e. g. a generally weak material thickness, lack of locator pins or other stabilizing aids and some sinkholes here and there.

 

The kit was built mostly OOB, with as much lead in the gun tray as possible - and it actually stands on its own three feet/wheels! The only major change is the modified nose section. It sounds simple to graft a radome onto the Tunnan's nose, but the rhinoplasty was challenging. The whole front end had to be renewed, based on the profile drawings and sketches at hand.

 

The thimble radome is actually a recycled drop tank front end from a Hasegawa F6F Hellcat. The raked, lower aitr intake lip comes from a Matchbox Mystère IVA - but it lost its splitter, was reshaped and had the OOB air intake duct glued into place from behind. Once the intake was glued into its place, a wedge opeing was cut into the area in front of the canopy and the drop tank radome adapted to the gap, a step-by-step approach, since I wanted to have the radome slightly protrude into the airtake, but also keep a staright line in front of the windscreen.

 

Additional details include new pitots on the wing tips and some additional antennae. The heat shield for the afterburner engine is OOB, as well as the streamlined drop tanks and their pylons. I just added an additional pair of pylons (from an Acedamy MiG-23) to the inner wing, holding a pair of AIM-9Bs.

  

Painting and markings:

Finding a suitable, yet “different” scheme for the J 29 night fighter was not easy; most J 29 were left in bare metal, some carried dark green upper surfaces and some S 29C wore a paint scheme in olive green and dark blue. I eventually settled for the RAF style paint scheme that had been adopted with the J 30 Mosquito and J 33 Venom night fighters – not spectacular, but different from the Swedish early Sixties norm, and it subtly underlines the J 29D’s role.

 

The scheme was lent from RAF Venom night fighters (which was used on the Swedish J 33, too), and of the upper surfaces I used RAF tones, too: Humbrol 163 (Dark Green) and 165 (Medium Sea Grey). However, I did not want to use the grey on the lower surfaces, since I found that scheme a bit too uniform and British, so I painted the lower surfaces in NMF, with a waterline at medium height - higher than the camouflaged S 29C’s and lower than the early, camouflaged J 29A fighters (with an experimental all-green upper surface).

 

The bare metal finish was created with acrylic Aluminum (Revell 99) and Polished and Matt Aluminum Metallizer (Humbrol) added on top, highlighting single panels. Around the engine bay and the exhaust, a base with Iron (Revell 91) was laid down, with Steel Metallizer (Modelmaster) on top.

Under the wing tips, green formation markings (again Humbrol 163) were added, as well as black ID stripes (cut from generic decal sheet material). Other, Swedish adornment, like the roundels, codes or squadron markings, was taken from the OOB sheet, a PrintScale sheet for the J 29 and leftover decals from a Heller J 21.

 

Interior details were painted according to Swedish standard, thankfully there are many good pictures available. The cockpit interior became grey-green (Revell 67 comes very close to the real thing) with light grey dashboard and side consoles. The landing gear wells medium (Revell 57) grey with some dry-brushed Aluminum, while the wheel discs became grey-green, too.

  

An interesting result, through relatively little effort: the dog nose changes the look of the tubby J 29 a lot, it looks much sleeker and somewhat German now – but somehow also more retro than the original aircraft? The different paint scheme looks unusual, too, despite being relatively down-to-earth. This will certainly not be my last modified J 29, a two-seat trainer would certainly be another cool and reality based Tunnan whif?

+++ 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 DAP “Bunyip” fighter was an indigenous development as a successor for the successful CA-12 “Boomerang” fighter, which had been designed in late 1941. The main challenge to this ambition was the fact that fighter aircraft had never been manufactured before in Australia, and that the country’s aircraft industry was relatively young and only had acquired experience through license production.

 

The CA-12 proved to be successful, even though it had several weak spots. While the CA-12 was lively at low level, its performance fell away rapidly above altitudes of 15,000 ft (4,600 m), and its maximum speed of 265 knots (490 km/h) was not sufficient to make it an effective counter to Japanese fighters like the Zero and the Japanese Army's Nakajima Ki 43 ("Oscar"). Similarly, the best European fighters were reaching almost 350 knots (650 km/h), and even relatively sluggish contemporary fighters – like the Grumman F4F Wildcat and the Curtiss Kittyhawk Mk I – were substantially faster than the Boomerang.

 

As a consequence, CAC already commenced work upon a new variant which featured performance improvements in terms of speed, climb and ceiling during the CA-12’s flight testing phase. Designated CA-14, this aircraft was designed around an order for 145 U.S.-built, 1,700 hp (1,268 kW) Wright Cyclone R-2600 engines or, alternatively, by the even more powerful 1,850 hp (1,380 kW) Pratt & Whitney R-2800. In parallel, a design team around the Australian Department of Aircraft Production (DAP)’s chief engineer Robert Harford at Melbourne was also ordered to produce an independent, competitive design for a potential CA-12 successor with better overall performance characteristics, but using a different engine.

 

This was an unusual move, since DAP was an Aircraft Construction Branch of the Department of Supply and Development, an entity that had so far been primarily tasked with the license production of the Bristol Beaufort torpedo bomber, but it was per se not a design or engineering center.

However, the DAP team accepted the challenge and produced the DAP “Bunyip” in record time. This aircraft was a compact single seat fighter aircraft, powered by the British Hercules engine, which was already in RAAF use through the Bristol Beaufighter – a lucky move, since CAC’s proposal for their upgraded CA-12 turned out to be a dud: the intended R-2800 was not available for export from the USA when serial production would have started, since any R-2800 production was allocated to US companies. Even though the Australian government favored CAC’s proposal, the Bunyip was ushered into production after a mere year of development and testing.

 

The Bunyip was an all-metal construction with a low wing and a fully retractable landing gear. While it roughly shared the CA-12’s outline, it was a completely new construction and aerodynamically much more refined than the Boomerang. The widespread use of light metal alloys instead of wood resulted in a lighter and stiffer structure, and, together with a much higher surface quality and the more powerful engine, many small innovations resulted in a significant improvement in speed and climb. Standard armament consisted of six 0.5” machine guns in the outer wings, firing outside of the propeller arc, and two underwing hardpoints allowed bombs of up to 250 lb (113 kg) caliber to be carried.

 

The first production variant, the Bunyip Mk. I, was introduced into service in summer 1943. RAAF 79 squadron began combat trials of the new type in late 1943 in support of the unit’s first sweep over Japanese-held territory from Gasmata on New Britain, together with Spitfires and Boomerangs as benchmarks. During this time, the new fighters made 102 individual sorties and claimed 15 aerial victories while losing only four aircraft in combat – a very successful start, even though these initial hot operations revealed several flaws. Another problem was the type’s similarity to the Japanese Nakajima Ki-44 fighter – in order to distinguish the RAAF Bunyips, practically all machines soon received prominent, ID markings in the form of white wing leading edges and tails.

 

Four Bunyips of this initial batch were lost to non-combat causes, mostly related to engine problems: Initially, the Hercules had the tendency to overheat in the hot and humid climate, this problem was traced back to an undersized oil cooler. The carburetor intakes in the wing roots caused reliability problems, too, due to dust ingestion, and there were problems with the stabilizers that tended to flutter at high speed, too.

 

After only forty Mk. I aircraft, production quickly changed to the Bunyip Mk. II, which incorporated several detail improvements like an enlarged oil cooler (which had, due to its size, to be re-located under the cockpit), dust filters, a stiffened landing gear and a reinforced tail structure. This variant also introduced an alternative armament of four 20mm Hispano cannon in the outer wings (called Mk. IIB, while the IIA retained the original machine gun armament) as well as the option to carry up to four unguided 60 lb missiles under its wings instead of bombs, what made the Bunyip a formidable ground attack aircraft. This role eventually became the type’s primary role, since, by the time of the Bunyip Mk. II’s introduction, the Spitfire had successfully filled the interceptor role and CAC was on the verge of commencing the manufacture of Mustangs under license to meet the sought bomber escort and air superiority roles. There was also an order for 250 of the new P-51H fighters for the RAAF, which was soon changed into a license production agreement at CAC as the Commonwealth CA-21 Mustang Mk. 24.

 

The DAP Bunyip’s active career was short and intense, and the aircraft was exclusively operated by the RAAF. In service, the operating units worked closely together with the Royal New Zealand Air Force, undertaking reconnaissance, artillery observation, ground attack, and aerial resupply missions in support of Australian ground troops fighting against the Japanese on Bougainville, New Britain and New Guinea. Until August 1945 a total of 351 Bunyips were produced at DAP’s Melbourne factory. After the end of WWII, the type was quickly phased out, though. Only a handful remained in RAAF service as advanced trainers and as ground instruction airframes until 1949.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 8.6 m (28 ft 3 in)

Wingspan: 9.8 m (32 ft 2 in)

Height: 2.54 m (8 ft 4 in)

Wing area: 17.59 m2 (189.3 sq ft)

Empty weight: 2,638 kg (5,816 lb)

Gross weight: 3,315 kg (7,308 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1× Hercules XVII 14-cylinder, two-row, air-cooled radial, delivering 1,735 hp (1,294 kW),

driving a 3-bladed Hamilton Standard, 11 ft 7 in (3.53 m) diameter constant-speed fully-feathering propeller

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 632 km/h (392 mph)

Cruise speed: 400 km/h (249 mph; 216 kn) at 4,000 m (13,123 ft)

Stall speed: 150 km/h (93 mph; 81 kn)

Range: 765 km (475 miles)

Service ceiling: 11,000 m (36,089 ft)

Rate of climb: 16.7 m/s (3,280 ft/min)

Time to altitude: 5.3 minutes to 5,000 meters (16,404 ft)

 

Armament:

4× 20 mm (0.787 in) Hispano or CAC cannons with 200 RPG

Two underwing hardpoints for a total ordnance of 500 lb (227 kg),

or four launch rails for unguided 60 lb missiles

  

The kit and its assembly:

This is my submission to the 2019 “One Week Group Build” at whatifmodelers.com, and it’s actually a personal interpretation of a fantasy profile drawing created by fellow user PantherG who combined a La-5FN with an all-green RAAF livery. The result looked very convincing, and since the GB was coming up, I decided to turn the drawing into model hardware.

 

However, my build just stuck loosely to the drawing – the kit basis is an Eduard La-7, and I also wanted to get more away from the aircraft’s Soviet (and very characteristic) origins, primarily through a different, Western engine. A search in the spares box revealed the cowling from a Matchbox Bristol Beaufighter: an appropriate choice, since the engine was actually in RAAF use, and the cowling’s diameter fits well onto the La-7 fuselage. A suitable engine dummy had to be found, too, and I decided to add a spinner-less propeller for an even more different look. The latter was improvised from a B-24 propeller hub (Quickboost) and the La-7’s OOB propeller blades. It was mounted on a metal axis and a styrene tube was added behind the engine block as an adapter.

 

As a gimmick and a reminder of the CA-12’s characteristic “porcupine” exhaust, I added a similar installation to the engine, even though the flame damper had to be shortened considerably. IIRC, the exhaust stub also comes from a Matchbox Beaufighter.

 

Other changes concern the armament; all guns were moved into the outer wings, using a set of resin 20mm Hispano cannon (Pavla) for a Hawker Hurricane Mk. IIC. Additionally, I mounted four 60 lb missiles and their respective launch rails under the outer wings – also resin aftermarket parts (Pavla again).

  

Painting and markings:

PantherG’s original profile drawing showed an all-green La-5FN with Australian markings and characteristic white quick ID markings. Since I already had an RAAF Hurricane in my collection with such a livery, I rather went for a different paint scheme and went for another RAAF “classic”: upper surfaces in foliage green and earth brown, paired with sky blue undersides – plus the white markings.

 

PantherG was so kind to draw up a matching profile, based on my plans, and I stuck to it as good as possible. The real challenge became the colors, though. RAAF tones, esp. foliage green, are under heavy debate among modelers, and it is hard to find good evidence. Moreover, the RAAF seems to have been very pragmatic when it came to (re-)painting the flying equipment, there must have been a lot of variance and tolerance concerning the paints’ tones.

The most frequent recommendation for foliage green is FS 34092, but while this bluish green tone goes into the right direction, I find it (after having seen trustworthy WWII pictures of RAAF aircraft) to be much too light, lacking chroma. Furthermore, the recommendation of simply using RAF Dark Earth for the RAAF’s Earth Brown appears fishy to me, too. Again, the RAAF tone appears to be much deeper and richer, and less reddish.

 

As a consequence I decided to mix my own colors and eventually settled on a 3:1 mix of IJN Green (Modelmaster 2116) plus Humbrol 30 (Dark Green) and a 3:1 mix of Humbrol 10 (Brown) with Modelmaster 2108 (French Earth Brown) – both became relatively dark tones, but this would only make the white ID markings and the grey tactical codes better stand out. The Sky Blue underneath was also a light but rich tone and I found in Modelmaster 2131 (Medium Su-27 Blue) a suitable approximation.

The white tail was painted with a mix of Humbrol 34 and some 147 (White and Light Grey FS 36495), while the wings’ white leading edges were created with white water slide decal sheet material (TL Modellbau) and some touch-ups with white enamel paint. A convenient but somewhat tricky solution that saved time and masking hazards – I guess that painting would have been the more hazardous alternative.

 

The kit received a standard black ink wash and panels were post-shaded with lightened basic tones, visually adding surface structures that are actually not there.

 

The interior of cockpit and landing gear were painted with RAF Interior Green (Humbrol 78) – I checked several sources and pictures of museum pics, and this seems to have been the typical tone for RAAF aircraft (or at least those that had been built in Australia).

 

The decals were puzzled together from various sources. The roundels belong to an RAAF Spitfire (from a Carpena sheet), and this aircraft’s serial number was cut into pieces and re-arranged for the Bunyip. The tactical codes were created with single RAF font letters in medium sea grey from Xtradecal.

Some soot stains around the exhaust and the cannon nozzles was added with grinded graphite, and some signs of wear added on the leading edges and around the cockpit as well as the engine with dry-brushed light grey and silver. Finally, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri), and some oils stains (Tamiya Smoke) as well as small details (wire antenna, position lights) were added. Voilà.

  

Not a complex build, but the time frame of just nine days made this one, also due to the engine surgery, a tough build. Nevertheless, I am quite happy with the result – the La-7/RAAF combo just looks right, like a natural successor to the stubby CAC Boomerang.

+++ 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 Focke-Wulf Fw 190 Würger (English: Shrike) was a German single-seat, single-engine fighter aircraft designed by Kurt Tank in the late 1930s and widely used during World War II. Along with its well-known counterpart, the Messerschmitt Bf 109, the Fw 190 became the backbone of the Luftwaffe's Jagdwaffe (Fighter Force). The twin-row BMW 801 radial engine that powered most operational versions enabled the Fw 190 to lift larger loads than the Bf 109, allowing its use as a day fighter, fighter-bomber, ground-attack aircraft and, to a lesser degree, night fighter.

 

The Fw 190A started flying operationally over France in August 1941, and quickly proved superior in all but turn radius to the Royal Air Force's main front-line fighter, the Spitfire Mk. V, particularly at low and medium altitudes. The 190 maintained superiority over Allied fighters until the introduction of the improved Spitfire Mk. IX. In November/December 1942, the Fw 190 made its air combat debut on the Eastern Front, finding much success in fighter wings and specialized ground attack units called Schlachtgeschwader (Battle Wings or Strike Wings) from October 1943 onwards. The Fw 190 provided greater firepower than the Bf 109 and, at low to medium altitude, superior manoeuvrability, in the opinion of German pilots who flew both fighters.

 

The Fw 190A series' performance decreased at high altitudes (usually 6,000 m (20,000 ft) and above), which reduced its effectiveness as a high-altitude interceptor. From the Fw 190's inception, there had been ongoing efforts to address this with a turbo-supercharged BMW 801 in the B model, the much longer-nosed C model with efforts to also turbocharge its chosen Daimler-Benz DB 603 inverted V12 powerplant, and the similarly long-nosed D model with the Junkers Jumo 213. Problems with the turbocharger installations on the -B and -C subtypes meant only the D model would enter service, doing so in September 1944. While these "long nose" versions gave the Germans parity with Allied opponents, they arrived far too late in the war to have any real effect. The situation became more and more dire, so that, by early 1945, an emergency fighter variant, the Fw 190E, was rushed into production and service.

 

The Fw 190E was based on the extended D model airframe, and actually surplus airframes from the type’s production lines were converted, because its Jumo 213 inline engine was short in supply. Instead, a conversion kit for the DB 605D powerplant (the engine for the Bf 109 K) was devised in the course of just six weeks, which included a modified engine frame and a radiator bath with its respective plumbing, which would be installed under the cockpit. The rationale behind this decision was that developing a new annular radiator and engine cover would have taken too much time – and while the ventral radiator was not the aerodynamically most efficient solution, it was the most simple way to create an urgently needed high-performance fighter.

 

The DB 605D, with its Single-stage variable-speed centrifugal type supercharger and a methanol-water injection system, created an impressive performance: Using MW 50 and maximum boost, the Fw 190E was able to reach a maximum level speed of 710 km/h (440 mph) at 7,500 m (24,600 ft) altitude. Without MW 50 and using 1.80 ata, the E model still reached 670 km/h (416 mph) at 9,000 m (30,000 ft). The Initial Rate of climb was 850 m (2,790 ft)/min without MW 50 and 1,080 m (3,540 ft)/min, using MW 50. While the E model’s top speed was slightly higher than the D-9’s with its Jumo 213, it could only be achieved at lower altitudes.

 

The Fw 190E’s radio equipment was the FuG 16ZY, and the FuG 25a Erstling IFF system, as well as the FuG 125 Hermine D/F equipment, were also fitted. Internally, the oxygen bottles were relocated from the rear fuselage to the right wing.

Armament of the Fw 190E consisted of two, synchronized 13 mm (0.51 in) MG 131s in the nose with 475 RPG, firing though the propeller disc, and two more synchronized 20mm (0.78 in) MG 151/20 machine cannon with 250 RPG were mounted in the wing roots. Theoretically, a 30 mm (1.2 in) MK 108 engine-mounted cannon (Motorkanone) with 65 rounds was mounted (in the initial E-1 variant), too, but this weapon was hardly available at all (almost the complete production of the MK 108 was allocated to Me 262 and other jet fighters’ production) and it often jammed while the aircraft was manoeuvring in battle – so it was frequently removed in order to save weight, or replaced by an MK 151/20 with 100 rounds from the start (in the E-2 variant see below).

This impressive basic weaponry could even be augmented: two more cannons could be installed in the outer wings with the help of modification kits (either MG 151/20 or MK 108 with Rüstsatz R2 or R3, respectively), but this rarely happened because the weapons were not available at all. A more typical and very common modification, applied at the factory, was the Rüstsatz R1, which included racks and fusing equipment for fitting a 250 kg (550 lb) bomb or a 300l drop tank under each wing. An underfuselage hardpoint was not possible to fit, due to the ventral radiator fairing.

 

Production of the E-1 model started hastily at Fock Wulf’s Soltau plant in February 1945, and the first machines, which were immediately transferred, suffered from severe integration problems and poor manufacturing quality, even resulting in fatal losses as aircraft disintegrated in flight. After just 26 completed aircraft, production was stopped and switched to the E-2 variant in April, which, beyond a simplified gun armament, also incorporated technical improvements that eventually improved reliability to a normal level. Until the end of hostilities, probably 120 Fw 190E-2 were produced, with 50 more in various states of assembly in several factories, and probably 80 machines were operationally used at the Western front and for the defence of Berlin. A handful of these machines were also modified with a pair of vertical Rb 50/30 cameras (Rüstsatz R6) in the rear fuselage for low and medium altitude reconnaissance duties.

A planned high performance E-3 with a 2.250 hp DB 605 engine and a reduced armament (only three MG 1515/20) as well as a high altitude E-4 with a DB 603 engine, a pressurized cockpit and extended wings never materialized..

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 10.20 m (33 ft 5½ in)

Wingspan: 10.50 m (34 ft 5 in)

Height: 3.35 m (11 ft 0 in)

Wing area: 18.30 m² (196.99 ft²)

Empty weight: 3,490 kg (7,694 lb)

Loaded weight: 4,270 kg (9,413 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 4,840 kg (10,670 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1× Daimler Benz DB 605 12-cylinder inverted-Vee piston engine rated at 1.800 PS (1.295 kW)

and a temporary emergency output of 2.050 HP (1.475 kW) with MW 50 injection

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 710 km/h (440 mph) at 7,500 m (24,600 ft) altitude

Range: 835 km (519 mi)

Service ceiling: 11,410 m (37,430 ft)

Rate of climb: 18 m/s (3,540 ft/min)

Wing loading: 233 kg/m² (47.7 lb/ft²)

Power/mass: 0.30–0.35 kW/kg (0.18–0.22 hp/lb)

 

Armament:

1× 30 mm (1.2 in) engine-mounted MK 108 cannon with 65 rounds (rarely mounted)

2× 13 mm (.51 in) MG 131 machine guns with 475 RPG above the engine

2× 20 mm (.78 in) MG 151/20 cannons with 250 RPG in the wing root

Optional: 2× 250 kg (550 lb) SC 250 bombs or 300 l drop tanks under the wings

 

The kit and its assembly:

A popular what-if/Luft ‘46 topic: a Fw 190 with a late Bf 109 nose, and sometimes other transplants, too. This one was triggered by a fictional profile created by fellow user ysi_maniac at whatifmodelers.com, but it’s rather a personal interpretation of the idea than a hardware recreation of the artwork. The reason is simple: virtually putting together 2D profiles is an easy task, but when the 3rd dimension comes to play, things become more complicated.

One of the consequences is that such an aircraft would have been very unlikely in real life. Another factor against the idea is that the Daimler Benz engines were primarily earmarked for Messerschmitt products, esp. the late Bf 109. Even Kurt Tank’s Ta 152, powered by his favored DB 603, was hard to realize – and the RLM’s unwillingness to provide him with this engine delayed this high potential aircraft so far that the Fw 190 D-9, with its Jumo 213 as a fallback option, was realized as an interim/second best solution.

 

However, whifworld offers the freedom of creativity, and I have never seen a hardware realization of a Fw 190/Bf 109 hybrid, so I created the Fw 190E through the mating of a Fw 190D (Academy kit) with the engine/front end of a Bf 109K (Heller).

 

The transplantation was basically straightforward, starting with the Bf 109 engine cut off of the fuselage. Then a matching section from the Fw 190 nose was cut away, too. While the diameters of both sections (in a side view) match each other quite well, the fuselage diameter shapes are to tally different, and the Bf 109 engine is MUCH too narrow for the Fw 190. That’s the problem the CG whiffers can simply ignore.

The eventual solution concerned both donor parts: the DB 605 was widened by ~2mm through the insertion of wedge-shaped pieces of styrene between the halves. As an unwanted side effect, the Bf 109’s machine guns on the cowling would squint now, so they had to be erased with putty and re-drilled, once the body work was finished.

The fuselage section in front of the Fw 190’s cockpit was, on the other side, narrowed through wedges taken out, and some force – again narrowing the fuselage width by another ~2mm. That does not sound much, but at 1:72 these 4mm mean a major disparity! This modification also created a gap between the fuselage and the wing roots towards their front end, which had to be filled, too, and the wing roots themselves had to be re-shaped in order to match the much more narrow DB 605’s underside.

 

Furthermore, the engine internally received a styrene tube adapter for the propeller’s new metal axis, and the oil cooler intake was filled with foamed styrene (it would normally remain empty). Once the engine had dried and the fuselage halves with the OOB cockpit closed, both elements were mated and the cowling gap filled and re-sculpted with 2C putty, since the OOB part with the Fw 190’s engine-mounted machine guns would not fit anymore.

 

As a result, the profile view of the aircraft is O.K., it looks slender and quite plausible, but when you take a look from above, the (still) wide section in front of the cockpit looks odd, as well as the widened rear section of the BD 605 cowling.

 

Another central issue was the radiator installation for the DB 605. In real life, I’d expect that an annular radiator would have been the most probable solution, and the aircraft wouldn’t have differed much outwardly from the Dora. But for the sake of a different look, and following the idea of a rushed emergency conversion program that would use as many stock elements as possible, I rather went for the complete Bf 109K nose, coupled with a separate ventral radiator under the fuselage. Wing coolers (as used on board of the Bf 109) were ruled out, since I expected them to be too complicated to be quickly added to the Fw 190’s airframe and wing structure.

The radiator fairing was scratched from leftover ship hull parts – thanks to its wide and relatively flat shape, the arrangement looks quite aerodynamic and plausible.

 

The propeller had to be modified, too: I retained the Bf 109’s spinner, but rather used the Fw 190’s slightly bigger propeller blades, for a balanced look.

 

The canopy became another issue. While the Academy kit is very nice and goes together well, the clear parts, esp. the sliding part of the canopy, has a major flaw: the headrest is to be glued into it, and in order to give the builder some help with the proper position, Academy added some locator slots to the clear part. This could be nice, and the rear pair will later be covered under paint, but the front pair is plainly visible and reaches up very high into the side windows! WTF?

You can hardly sand them away, and so I dediced outright to replace the canopy altogether - I was lucky to have a Rob Tauris vacu canopy, actually for the Hasegawa Fw 190A/F in the donor bank. This does naturally not fit 100% onto the (modified) Academy fuselage, but with some (more) PSR work the vacu parts blend in quite well, and the thin material is an additional bonus.

 

Apart from the engine and the canopy, not much was changed. The landing gear is OOB, I just replaced the wing root gun barrels with hollow steel needles.

  

Painting and markings:

I did not go for anything spectacular, rather a slightly improvised look of many late-production German fighters which were painted with whatever was at hand, if at all. The overall pattern is based on the typical Fw 190D-9 scheme, with two shades of green, RLM 82 and 83 on the upper surfaces (Humbrol 102 and 75). The fuselage was painted in a greenish variant of RLM 76 (a mix of Humbrol 90 with a little 247), frequently referred to as RLM 84, but this color never officially existed. Some light mottles of the upper tones, plus an underlying layer of RLM02 mottles, were added to the flanks, too.

The wings’ undersides were left in bare metal (Revello 99), with their leading edge kept in grey primer (RLM 75, I used Humbrol 123). The undersides of the ailerons and stabilizers, as well as the vertical rudder, were painted in RLM 76 (Humbrol 247) – both a frequent late WWII practice, when the parts were manufactured in separate, outsourced factories. The mottled landing gear covers are an unusual detail, but this appreared quite frequently on late-war Fw 190s, esp. on Doras.

 

The cockpit interior was painted in dark grey (RLM 66, I used Humbrol 67), while the interior of the landing gear was painted with RLM 02 (Revell 45).

 

The tactical markings were improvised; the blue fuselage ID band for the JG 54 was created with generic decal sheet material, other markings come from various sheets, e. g. from an Academy Fw 190A/F. The black dot as a squadron marking is unusual - but as a sqaudron of a (rare) fifth group, no standard symbols were typically assigned, so this is within historic limits.

 

The kit received some light weathering thorugh dry.brushing and grinded graphite, and finally a coat with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri).

  

A more complex conversion stunt than it might seem at first glance – and proof that a virtual 2D whif is not easily transferred into hardware. The 3rd dimension still exists, and in this case it posed severe problems that could eventually be overcome with the help of (lots of) PSR. The flawed OOB canopy is another issue. However, the result does not look bad at all, even though the DB 605-powered Fw 190 somehow reminds me of the British Fairey Fulmar naval fighter, and also somewhat of the Ju 87?

Tagged by Sraperla

14 facts about me:

1.I want to travel the world.

2.I have no regrets.

3.I love life. Life is beautiful, should make the most of it.

4.I think that utter stupidity will take us all down! STUPIDITY GETS ON MY NERVES! If only some people took the time to THINK for themselves.

5.I am studying visual arts.

6.I believe that talk is just noise.

7.I am a doodling junkie.

8.I truly believe that us arab are “b6ranen”. We have it so easy and yet manage to complain about everything. THANK GOD FOR WHAT YOU HAVE! Il7mdelllah.

9.I love cooking I want to study culinary art and maybe open a restaurant on a tropical island where I’ll have my own beach house XD! Ah <3

10.I love love love tattoos if only they were Halal !

11.I consider a day not spent in making art a day gone waste.

12.I spend hours and hours just looking at art and searching for inspiration. Have a look at my favorites. I love digging into other people’s favs as well.

13.I believe that forever is a lie.

14.Some people find me intimidating and maybe a little too serious. I swear to god I don’t bite.

  

-- Johnny Budrone

 

“. . . for despite the fact that she loved him with all of the depth, craziness, and thrilling impurity a dysfunctional, narcissistic, codependent, sex, alcohol and pill-addicted woman could love, she secretly believed he was beneath her, and that he should have been grateful until his dying day that she had nobly condescended to love him.” - Colors Insulting to Nature by Cintra Wilson

 

I never wanted to be like my mother, but there are moments when I realize that I am more like here than even I imagined I would be become. This becomes painfully evident when I realize I am probably making a lot of the same mistakes she made. There is a whole mystery about her life that I do not know the details of and that I may never know. I have created my own idea of what happened to her based on the bits of information that I have gleaned from the family.

 

Every family seems to have some core secrets or dramas that comprise the fabric binding genetically similar beings together. It clans us to guard each other’s skeletons. Daddy is a transvestite. Mommy is addicted to barbiturates. What have you.

 

My family’s secret isn’t that scandalous, but I suppose it was for an immigrant family in New York City in the early 1960’s. A very Catholic immigrant family.

 

It would be inappropriate (and, frankly, not that shocking) for me to divulge such secrets to the public, suffice to say it involves my mother making bad decisions about men.

 

In my version of events, she is like me. She is so enamored by passion and the idea of love that she deposits herself into the wrong pockets of humanity, hoping to find some Adonis misfit who will, hope beyond all hope, finally get her. She will be everything he could possibly want. She will fuck him like it’s the last time every time. She will surprise him with her brilliance and stun him with her compassion. He will not have a choice but to fall under her spell.

 

The thing people don’t realize is that magic, spells, are pretty easy to cast. They are ephemeral, however. You might not notice the enchantment until it is gone. You will only feel the absence of the allure, and you will be petulant for it’s return.

 

I told my darling girlfriend, Mela, that I lavish affection upon the wrong men. I don’t know if that’s true. I don’t think it’s ever wrong to care for someone if your intentions are genuine. Even if that person doesn’t deserve your generosity. It is wrong, however, to feel foolish for having the courage to love. It is wrong to love unconditionally and then feel slighted when you are taken advantage.

 

My mother never taught me anything explicitly about how to be in relationships with men except perhaps by showing me how to manipulate situations. And now, I never know if I am sad for the wrong person. My artifice is genuine. I know I am making mistakes that seem ingrained, inherent, maybe even genetic. I do not blame her for her tainted legacy because she is a woman that I do love unreservedly. She is, after all, my mother.