fact: The 50mm f/1.8 D does NOT have the best bokeh in the world but it gets the job done

fact: a heavy vignette can be used to help create an illusion of swirliness =S

fact:saturated bright colors are so not me

fact: yes that is a form of pea

fact: NUS should get off its butt and reply to me already

+++ 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 Fiat G.91 was an Italian jet fighter aircraft, the winner of the NATO competition in 1953 as standard equipment for Allied air forces. European manufacturers were invited to submit their designs for this requested Light Weight Strike Fighter (LWSF) role. The G.91 was designed to this specification by the Italian engineer Giuseppe Gabrielli, hence the "G" designation. The competition was intended to produce an aircraft that was light, small, expendable, equipped with basic weapons and avionics and capable of operating with minimal ground support. These specifications were developed for two reasons: the first was the nuclear threat to large air bases, many cheaper aircraft could be better dispersed, and the other was to counter the trend towards larger and more expensive aircraft.

All in all, the G.91 remained in production for 19 years, the last planes retired in Italy in 1995. 756 aircraft were completed, including the prototypes and pre-production models. The assembly lines were finally closed in 1977. The Fiat G.91 enjoyed a long service life that extended over 35 years.

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 10.5 m (34 ft 5 in)

Wingspan: 8.56 m (28 ft 1 in)

Height: 4.0 m (13 ft 1 in)

Wing area: 16.4 m² (177 ft²)

Empty weight: 3,300 kg (6,830 lb)

Loaded weight: 5,640 kg (11,990 lb)

Max. take-off weight: 5,700 kg (12,100 lb)

Maximum speed: 1,125 km/h (608 kn, 700 mph) at optimum height

Range: 1,700 km (920 nmi, 1.060 mi)

Service ceiling: 13,100 m (43,000 ft)

Rate of climb: 85 m/s (16.725 ft/min)

Wing loading: 331 kg/m² (67.8 lb/ft²)

Thrust/weight: 0.42

Powerplant:

Rolls-Royce/Turbomeca Adour Mk 106 turbofan with 6,000 lb (27.0 KN) dry / 8,430 lb (37.5 KN) with reheat

Armament:

2× 30 mm (1.18 in) DEFA 552 30 mm cannon with 125 rounds per gun

4× under-wing pylon stations holding up to maximum of 1,814 kg/4,000 lb of payload, including 2x AGM-119 Penguin missiles, Matra rocket pods (each with 19× SNEB 68 mm rockets or 18× Hispano SURA R80 80 mm rockets. AIM-9 Sidewinder can be carried for self defense, as well as a wide variety of air-to-ground ordnance including unguided iron bombs, gun pods in addition to auxiliary drop tanks for extended range.

The kit and its assembly

This model came to be after finding a discussion at whatifmodelers.com, where the (tragic) fate of the Fiat G.91 was discussed. This light NATO attack fighter would have entered the air forces of virtually all European countries, but it became victim of politics and just ended up in Italy, Germany and (in late days) Portugal. Anyway, an inspiring thought is what would have been possible, e .g. in countries like Spain, Greece or Norway?

The basis is a G.91 P.A.N. from the Frecce Tricolori 50th anniversary kit, made by Italeri. It is, in fact, the Revell kit, nicely detailed and only with few trouble zones (e .g. the fuselage halves needed putty to fit, as well as the panels with the alternative guns). The kit was mostly built right out of the box. Only changes are the new radar nose - the front part of a P-61 drop tank - some antennae on the fin which sports a radar warning system. Additionally, a new and longer jet exhaust nozzle was fitted, simulating the new afterburner engine.

Landing flaps were partly opened from neutral position, the air brakes under the belly fixed into an open position (the latter is a standard kit feature, though). Further mods include a brake parachute container under the tail fin and the armament: The DEFA guns come as alternative side panels with the kit, and the guns themselves were simulated with steel tubes (syringes). The Penguin missiles as well as the ALQ-131 ECM pod come from Hasegawa weapon sets. The fourth free weapon station was filled with a Bofors BOZ-107 chaff/flare dispenser, lent from a Tornado.

Painting

The true whif comes with livery and markings, and IMHO the more subtle the look, the more convincing the result. Hence I chose a very simple livery for my G.91N: an overall finish in FS36270 (US Medium Grey, Humbrol 126), the same as RNoAF F-16 aircraft. Only contrast marks are the black nose, the colourful roundels and some red warning markings all over the plane.

The national markings come from an aftermarket sheet from TL Decals. Stencilling is taken from an old Matchbox G.91Y and the scrap box. Numbers etc. were improvised, too, based on pictures from other Norwegian planes (airliners.net is a great source for reference here).

I did some light washing with black ink to emphasize panel lines and engravings, and also did some weathering with dry-brushed lighter shades of grey (mainly Humbrol 140, very subtle), giving the uniform grey a faded/bleached look on the upper sides and leading edges. Finally, the kit received a coat of matte varnish (Dupli Color Acryllic, form the rattle can), the radome was painted with Humbrol's semi-matte varnish.

The result: a simple but effective whif, which also shows what could have become of the original G.91 design over time and technical development, if it had not become victim to political decisions and national vanities.

Cape Town, 27 October 2000

These Atalas have just hatched! And they will hang till they dry and strengthen and then fly to a nearby nectar source to gain energy and vitality. So rare to see Atalas hatch and even more rare to see so many hatching at the same time!

The Atala butterfly is strange to photograph. The colored areas are vague at the margins so the color looks like it has been dusted on a bit carelessly. But look at its marvelous tones below... deep velvety blue, bright sky blue and a brilliant red orange! It is very fast moving so getting a shot at all is always a thrill! Usually looks like a vibrant patch of astounding flying color and it's gone.

Interdependencies in nature once again. This marvelous creature owes its life to the Florida Coontie which was almost wiped out after being the money crop of the first Florida pioneers. Without the Coontie, this beauty will be gone. Coontie is the host plant and the only plant the Atala can lay its eggs on. The short, woody stem and rootstock of the Coontie grows almost completely underground and produces a terminal crown of stiff, evergreen, pinnate leaves up to 3 feet long. The brown, fleshy, erect, female or seed-bearing cones are pendent when mature. Coontie plants contain a natural toxin, which atala larvae accumulate in their bodies and use to repel birds. Without coontie, adult atalas have no place to lay eggs. No eggs means no new generations. .

Wild coonties’ demise began with starch: Long before Europeans arrived in Florida, Native Americans used coontie as a source of starch. Coontie, in fact, is a Seminole word that means “bread” or “white root” because the roots can be made into arrowroot flour. The Tequesta Indians thrived in the Arch Creek area. The oak hammock near the creek provided shade, edible plants, nuts and berries. Nearby Biscayne Bay provided shellfish, shark, manatee and turtle. North of the hammock were pine flatlands which sheltered the all-important coontie plant (Zamia integrifolia).

Around 1858 two ambitious pioneers used the creek and its natural bridge as a site for a coontie starch mill. These early entrepreneurs learned how to clean the poisonous roots and dammed up the waterway under the bridge diverting the flow through a sluice they carved out of a solid limestone bank. The water turned a wooden wheel attached to a nail-studded grinder which mashed the cootie roots into a paste-like pulp which was soaked and strained to remove any remaining poison. Laid out in wooden racks, the starch dried quickly and the sun bleached it white. In the early 1900s, several commercial factories in South Florida processed coontie roots for the manufacture of arrowroot biscuits. Unfortunately the coontie was overused and the Atala had no place to lay its eggs. In recent years, there is a great effort to reestablish coontie and as a result the Atala is coming back! And coming back abundantlyl!

Atala Eumaeus

Urban Habitat, Biscayne Park, FL

www.flickr.com/photos/jungle_mama/albums/72157637085639434

Plymouth, Mass.

www.joiseyshowaa.com

Web sites using this photo:

womc.radio.com/tag/thanksgiving-facts/

Press L to view larger and on black!

(in fact just click here if you want to see a higher res version of the shot)

Hey its been awhile since I've taken any photos with my wide angle lens, and today seemed like a good day to go wide. You know considering how nice sunset looked today, well at least I thought the clouds looks pretty cool today. So simply because of that notion I went out for a walk today with a location already in mind. This hill is actually a large mound excess of dirt piled up near my neighbourhood from the construction workers as they expand this little suburb I live in. I got to the location a little late (because I realized I forgot my tripod halfway) so by the time I got there the sun was actually JUST behind the mound. The light was still nice and all but I wonder how it would have turned out with the sun directly behind me. Also after I got off this pile of dirt my shoes were caked on with mud, really should have wore my boots but to late now.

So this photo is actually a combination of two photos one exposure for the sky and the second for myself and the ground. I simply masked myself and the ground in and spent who knows how long playing with the colours. I always have trouble colour grading landscape photos, never looks right or that good to me but this was the best I could do. Also as you can probably guess the ground was also fake tilt shifted out of focus, cause frankly the dirt and plants on that mound looked more distracting than anything. I also helped exaggerate the curvature of the mound in post as well by warping it a bit to make it more round. Another fun fact, its hard to see but I'm holding my old Minolta Maxxum 7 + Carl Zeiss 135mm F1.8 lens in this photo. Also its still winter, no snow but its cold but I didn't like the shots I took with my jacket on and opted to freeze a little bit and just wear my shirt for this shot. Either way fun times and I'm pretty happy with this shot.

The title for todays photo comes from the song "The Longest Time" by Billy Joel.

| Website | Facebook | Blogger | Twitter |

In fact, it is not all yellow lati that I have now, but they get to me faster than I have time to do, and especially upload photos.

Нет, это не все жёлтые лати, которые есть у меня сейчас, но они добираются до меня быстрее, чем я успеваю делать, а главное обрабатывать фотографии. :)

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

Some background:

Although the performance increases of jet-powered aircraft introduced towards the end of World War II over their piston-powered ancestors were breathtaking, there were those at the time who believed that much more was possible. As far back as 1943, the British Ministry of Aircraft Production had issued a specification designated "E.24/43" for a supersonic experimental jet aircraft that would be able to achieve 1,600 KPH (1,000 MPH).

The Levin served only with RAF 29 and 65 Squadron, the latter re-instated in 1970 as a dedicated fighter squadron. When in November 1984 the Tornado squadrons began to form, the Levin was gradually phased out and replaced until April 1987 by the Tornado F.3.

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length w/o pitot: 51 ft 5 in (15,70 m), 55 ft 8 in (16.99 m) overall

Wingspan incl. wingtip launch rails: 34 ft 9 in (10.54 m)

Height: 19 ft 7 in (5.97 m)

Wing area: 474.5 ft² (44.08 m²)

Empty weight: 8937 kg (lb)

Loaded weight: 13,570 kg (29,915)

Max. takeoff weight: 15,210 kg (33,530 lb)

Powerplant:

1× Rolls-Royce RB.106-10S afterburning turbojet,

rated at 20,000 lbf (89 kN) dry and 26,000 lbf (116 kN) with afterburning

Performance:

Maximum speed:

- 1,150 km/h (620 kn, 715 mph, Mach 0.94) at sea level

- 2,230 km/h (1.202 kn, 1,386 mph, Mach 2.1;), clean with 2× Red Top AAMs at high altitude

- Mach 2.4 absolute top speed in clean configuration at 50.000 ft.

Range: 1,650 km (890 nmi, 1,025 mi) on internal fuel

Combat radius: 500 km (312 mi); clean, with a pair of wing tip Red Top AAMs

Ferry range: 1,270 mi (1.100 NM/ 2.040 km) with overwing tanks

Service ceiling: 16,760 m (55,000 ft)

Rate of climb: 136.7 m/s (27,000 ft/min)

Wing loading: 76 lb/ft² (370 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight: 0.78

Takeoff roll: 950 m (3,120 ft)

Landing roll: 700 m (2,300 ft)

Armament:

2× 30 mm (1.18 in) ADEN cannons with 120 RPG in the upper front fuselage

2× wing tip hardpoints for mounting air-to-air missiles (2 Red Top of Firestreak AAMs)

2× overwing pylon stations for 260 gal ferry tanks

Optional, but rarely used: 2× hardpoints under the front fuselage for mounting air-to-air missiles

(2 Red Top of Firestreak AAMs)

The kit and its assembly:

Another contribution to the Cold War GB at whatifmodelers.com, and the realization of a project I had on the agenda for long. The EE P.6/1 was a real project for a Mach 2+ research aircraft, as described above, but it never went off the drawing board. Its engine, the RB.106, also never saw the light of day, even though its later career as the Canadian Orenda Iroquois for the stillborn CF-105.

Building this aircraft as a model appears simple, because it’s a classic Lightning (actually a F.1 with the un-kinked wing and the small fin), just with a single engine and a rather tubular fuselage. But creating this is not easy at all…

I did not want to replicate the original P.6/1, but rather a service aircraft based on the research aircraft. Therefore I used parts from a Lightning F.6 (a vintage NOVO/Frog kit). For the fuselage I settled for a Su-17, from a MasterCraft kit. The kit’s selling point was its small price tag and the fuselage construction: the VG mechanism is hidden under a separate spine piece, and I wanted to transplant the Lightning’s spine and cockpit frame, so I thought that this would make things easier.

Nope.

Putting the parts from the VERY different kits/aircraft together was a major surgery feat, with several multiple PSR sessions on the fuselage, the air intake section (opened and fitted with both an internal splitter and a bulkhead to the cockpit section), the wings, the stabilizers, the fin… This model deserves the title “kitbash” like no other, because no major sections had ever been intended to be glued together, and in the intended position!

The landing gear was more or less taken OOB, but the main struts had to be elongated by 2mm – somehow the model turned out to be a low-riding tail sitter! The cockpit interior was improvised, too, consisting of a Su-17 cockpit tub, a scratched dashboard and a Martin Baker ejection seat from an Italeri Bae Hawk trainer.

Since most of the fuselage surface consists of various materials (styrene and two kinds of putty), I did not dare to engrave panel lines – after all the PSR work almost any surface detail was gone. I rather went for a graphic solution (see below). Some antennae and air scoops were added, though.

The overwing tanks come OOB from the NOVO kit, as well as the Red Top missiles, which ended up on improvised wing tip launch rails, based on design sketches for Lightning derivatives with this layout.

Colors and markings:

There are several “classic” RAF options, but I settled for a low-viz Eighties livery taken from BAC Lightnings. There’s a surprising variety of styles, and my version is a mix of several real world aircraft.

I settled for Dark Sea Grey upper surfaces (Modelmaster Authentic) with a high waterline, a fuselage completely in Medium Sea Grey (Humbrol 165 – had to be applied twice because the first tin I used was obviously old and the paint ended up in a tone not unlike PRU Blue!) and Light aircraft Grey underwing surfaces (Humbrol 166). The leading edges under the wings are Dark Sea Grey, too.

The cockpit interior was painted in dark grey (Humbrol 32 with some dry-brushing), while the landing gear is Aluminum (Humbrol 56).

Once the basic painting was done I had to deal with the missing panel lines on the fuselage and those raised lines that were sanded away during the building process. I decided to simulate these with a soft pencil, after the whole kit was buffed with a soft cotton cloth and some grinded graphite. This way, the remaining raised panel lines were emphasized, and from these the rest was drawn up. A ruler and masking tape were used as guidance for straight lines, and this worked better than expected, with good results.

As a next step, the newly created panels were highlighted with dry-brushed lighter tones of the basic paints (FS 36492 and WWII Italian Blue Grey from Modelmaster, and Humbrol 126), more for a dramatic than a weathered effect. The gun ports and the exhaust section were painted with Modelmaster Metallizer (Titanium and Magnesium).

The decals come from several Xtradecal aftermarket sheets, including a dedicated Lightning stencils sheet, another Lightning sheet with various squadron markings and a sheet for RAF Tornado ADVs.

The code number “XS970” was earmarked to a TSR.2, AFAIK, but since it was never used on a service aircraft it would be a good option for the Levin.

The kit received a coat of matt acrylic varnish from the rattle can – jn this case the finish was intended to bear a slight shine.

This was a project with LOTS of effort, but you hardly recognize it – it’s a single engine Lightning, so what? But welding the Lightning and Su-17 parts together for something that comes close to the P.6/1 necessitated LOTS of body work and improvisation, carving it from wood would probably have been the next complicated option. Except for the surprisingly long tail I am very happy with the result, despite the model’s shaggy origins, and the low-viz livery suits the sleek aircraft IMHO very well.

The Chesapeake Bay Bridge–Tunnel

The Chesapeake Bay Bridge–Tunnel (CBBT) is a 23-mile (37 km) bridge–tunnel crossing at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, the Hampton Roads harbor, and nearby mouths of the James and Elizabeth Rivers in the American state of Virginia. It connects Northampton County on the Delmarva Peninsula and Eastern Shore with Virginia Beach, Norfolk, Chesapeake, and Portsmouth on the Western Shore and South side / Tidewater which are part of the Hampton Roads metropolitan area of eight close cities around the harbor's shores and peninsula. The Bridge-Tunnel originally combined 12 miles (19 km) of trestle, two 1-mile-long (1.6 km) tunnels, four artificial islands, four high-level bridges, approximately 2 miles (3.2 km) of causeway, and 5.5 miles (8.9 km) of northeast and southwest approach roads—crossing the Chesapeake Bay and preserving traffic on the Thimble Shoals and Chesapeake dredged shipping channels leading to the Atlantic. It replaced vehicle ferry services that operated from South Hampton Roads and from the Virginia Peninsula since the 1930s. Financed by toll revenue bonds, the Bridge–Tunnel was opened on April 15, 1964,[1] and remains one of only ten bridge–tunnel systems in the world, three of which are located in the water dominated Hampton Roads area of Tidewater Virginia.

As of May 2018 the Chesapeake Bay Bridge–Tunnel has been crossed by more than 130 million vehicles.[2] The CBBT complex carries U.S. Route 13, the main north–south highway on Virginia's Eastern Shore on the Delmarva peninsula, and, as part of the East Coast's longstanding Ocean Highway, provides the only straight direct link along the East Coast and Atlantic Ocean, between the Eastern Shore and South Hampton Roads regions, as well as an alternate route to link the Northeast U.S.A. and points in between with Norfolk and further south to the Carolinas and Florida. The Bridge–Tunnel saves motorists 95 miles (153 km) and ​1 1⁄2 hours on a trip between Virginia Beach/Norfolk and points north and east of the Chesapeake and Delaware Valley, River and Bay without going through the traffic congestion in the Baltimore–Washington Metropolitan Area further west in Maryland and Northern Virginia. The $15 toll is partially offset by some savings of highway tolls in Maryland and Delaware and avoiding often heavy traffic on north-south Interstate 95 (I-95) built in the 1960s and completed in the late 1970s and parallel older United States Route 1 (US-1) from the 1920s. From 1995 to 1999, at an additional cost of almost $200 million, the capacity of the above-water portion of bridges on the facility was increased and widened to four lanes. An upgrade of the two-lane tunnels is currently underway. [3] The crossing was officially named the Lucius J. Kellam Jr. Bridge–Tunnel in August 1987, 23 years after opening, honoring one of the civic leaders who had long worked for its development, construction and operation; it continues however to be best known as the Chesapeake Bay Bridge–Tunnel. The complex was built by and is operated by the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel District, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia governed by the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel Commission and in cooperation with the state Department of Transportation. Costs are recovered through toll collections. In 2002, a Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) study commissioned by the Virginia General Assembly concluded that "given the inability of the state to fund future capital requirements of the CBBT, the District and Commission should be retained to operate and maintain the Bridge–Tunnel as a toll facility in perpetuity."

Occasionally because of similar names, the Bridge-Tunnel is often confused with the Chesapeake Bay Bridge (also known as the Governor William Preston Lane, Jr. Memorial Bridge) further north in Maryland crossing the middle portion of the Bay from Annapolis to Kent Island on the Maryland Eastern Shore of Delmarva. It was built with two lanes and a higher suspension segment in the middle from 1949 - 1952, with a second parallel wider span of three lanes in 1973. It is one of the longest and highest bridges in the world.

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesapeake_Bay_Bridge%E2%80%93Tunnel

Chesapeake Bay

-was formed nearly 12,000 years ago when glaciers melted and flooded the Susquehanna River valley;

-is—most historians believe—named after the Algonquin word chesepiooc, meaning "great shellfish bay;"

-is approximately 200 miles long, stretching from Havre de Grace, Maryland, to Norfolk, Virginia;

-has an average depth of 21 feet (the deepest part of the Bay, a.k.a. "The Hole," is 174 feet deep and located off of Bloody Point, southeast of

Annapolis, Maryland;

-ranges from 3.4 to 35 miles wide;

-holds more than 15 trillion gallons of water;

-supports 348 species of finfish and 173 species of shellfish;

-supports more than 3,600 species of plant and animal life, including 2,700 types of plants and more than 16 species of underwater grasses;

-is fed by 50 major tributaries (or streams and rivers) every day—the largest of these are the Susquehanna, Potomac, Rappahannock, York, and James;

-produces more than 500 millions pounds of seafood harvest each year.

Source: www.cbf.org/about-the-bay/chesapeake-bay-watershed-geogra...

Fisherman Island National Wildlife Refuge

Fisherman Island is the southernmost island on the Delmarva Peninsula chain of barrier islands. Located at the entrance to the Chesapeake Bay, the island is subject to great changes in its landscape from waves and runoff. It first formed about 200 to 250 years ago.

Fisherman Island National Wildlife Refuge is located within the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's Eastern Shore of Virginia National Wildlife Refuge, and is cut in half by the presence of U.S. Highway 13 and the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel. The refuge is closed to the public.

The island is the habitat to migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and nesting waterbirds. In September 2003, the island was almost entirely flooded by Hurricane Isabel.

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisherman_Island_(Virginia)

Downtown Los Angeles from the Hollywood Hills

The North Western Road Car Company Limited is fading from the memory now, but from the 1920s to the 1970s it was one of the biggest and most famous bus companies in the North of England. Its bus services served a huge swathe of territory from Northwich in the West to the Peak District fringes of Sheffield in the East, and from Rochdale in the North to Matlock in the South.

Its end was brought about because many of its services, and almost all of its most profitable ones, were in the south of Greater Manchester and SELNEC wanted to control these - and was willing to buy the part of North Western that was in its area. What was left after that simply wasn't viable, so North Western's owner the National Bus Company split the remainder up between neighbours Trent, Crosville and Potteries.

In the 1930s, North Western was expanding fast helped by a modern fleet of Bristol saloon buses. They were designed for long journeys across the Cheshire Plain or the Derbyshire Peaks, so the coachwork by Eastern Coach Works of Lowestoft was comfortable - even sumptuous. So whether it was an express trip from Manchester to Blackpool or a short hop from Buxton to Hindlow, this was the scene that greeted you as you boarded one of the company's 1936 intake - deep cushioned seats, luggage rack and plenty of polished wood.

One tiny detail is the number on the front bulkhead - 1755. NWRCC never had a 1755, but in fact this is 755 - North Western gave its bus bodies separate numbers because it had a habit of swapping them around to keep the best bodies on the best chassis.

North Western is still fondly remembered today, decades after it disappeared, and there are several restored NWRCC buses at the Museum of Transport Greater Manchester. If you'd like to know more about the Museum of Transport and its collection of vintage buses, go to www.motgm.uk.

© Greater Manchester Transport Society. All rights reserved. Unauthorised reproduction is strictly prohibited and may result in action being taken to protect the intellectual property interests of the Society.

What do you know about the Moon? This set of infographics illustrates the most frequently asked questions and facts about Earth’s natural satellite.

ESA is teaming up with international partners to explore the Moon as a destination for both robotic missions and human explorers.

Orion, the NASA spacecraft, will bring humans farther than they have ever been before relying on the European Service Module to return humans to the Moon and take advantage of the new technology for human space transportation. ESA is providing service modules that will provide propulsion, life support, power, air and water, and control the temperature in the crew module.

Luna-Resurs is a partnership with the Russian agency Roscosmos that will carry European technology to land precisely and safely on the Moon and to drill into the surface to extract and analyse samples of the lunar terrain.

The Agency is looking at how we could extract and process local resources into useful products and services, such as drinkable water or breathable oxygen on the Moon.

The Heracles mission could take of in 2028 to allow us to gain knowledge on human-robotic interaction while landing a spacecraft on the Moon to collect samples with a rover operated from an orbiting lunar gateway and send the samples back to Earth.

Credits: ESA

Part of the complete sequence of seven early 14th century windows preserving most of their original glass in the choir clerestorey.

The attractive town of Tewkesbury has been dominated by its superb abbey church since the beginning of the 12th century, and we can be forever grateful to its townspeople for purchasing the monastic church in 1540 for £453 for use as their parish church, saving it from the fate that befell countless similar great churches across the land during the turmoil of the Dissolution. It reminds us both how lucky we are to still marvel at it today, yet also how great a loss to our heritage the period wrought when many more such buildings were so utterly plundered as to have gone without trace (the fate of the monastic buildings here and even the lady chapel of the church whose footings are laid out in the grass at the east end).

Tewkesbury Abbey is thus rightly celebrated as one of our greatest non-cathedral churches, and remarkably much of the original Norman church remains substantially intact, most apparently in the great central tower, a fine example of Romanesque architecture adorned with rows of blind-arcading. The west front is dominated by a massive Norman-arched recess (enclosing the somewhat later west window) and the nave and transepts remain largely as originally built, though this is less clear externally owing to the changes made to the windows, nearly all of which were enlarged in the 14th century in the Decorated Gothic style. This century also saw the complete rebuilding of the eastern limb of the church, of a form less common in England with radiating chapels surrounding the eastern apse of the choir (the central lady chapel sadly missing since 1540).

The interior reveals far more of the Romanesque structure with mighty columns supporting the round Norman arches of the nave arcades giving the building a great sense of solidity. The space is further enlivened by the changes made during the 14th century by the stunning vault over the nave (adorned with a rewarding series of figurative bosses) which sits surprisingly well with the Norman work below. Beyond the apsidal choir beckons, and both this and the space below the tower are enriched with stunningly complex vaulted ceilings (replete with further bosses and gilded metal stars), all ablaze with colour and gilding.

There is much to enjoy in glass here, most remarkably a complete set of 14th century glazing in the clerestorey of the choir, seven windows filled with saints and prophets (and most memorably two groups of knights in the westernmost windows on each side). A few of the figures have fared less well over the centuries but on the whole this is a wonderfully rare and well preserved scheme. There is much glass from the 19th century too, with an extensive scheme in the nave of good quality work by Hardman's, and more recently a pair of rich windows by Tom Denny were added in one of the polygonal chapels around the east end.

Some of the most memorable features are the monuments with many medieval tombs of note, primarily the effigies and chantry chapels of members of the Despenser family around the choir (two of the chantries being miniature architectural gems in their own right with exquisite fan-vaulting). In one of the apsidal chapels is the unusual cenotaph to Abbot Wakeman with his grisly cadaver effigy, a late medieval reminder of earthly mortality.

Tewkesbury Abbey is not to be missed and is every bit as rewarding as many of our cathedrals (superior in fact to all but the best). It is normally kept open and welcoming to visitors on a daily basis. I have also had the privilege of working on this great building several times over the years (as part of the team at the studio I once worked for), and have left my mark in glass in a few discreet places.

www.tewkesburyabbey.org.uk/

From the "March for Science" in St. Petersburg.

No "alternative facts" here.

+++ 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 Douglas F3D Skyknight (later designated F-10 Skyknight) was a United States twin-engined, mid-wing jet fighter aircraft manufactured by the Douglas Aircraft Company in El Segundo, California. The F3D was designed as a carrier-based all-weather night fighter and saw service with the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps. The mission of the F3D-2 was to search out and destroy enemy aircraft at night.

The F3D was not intended to be a typical sleek and nimble dogfighter, but as a standoff night fighter, packing a powerful radar system and a second crew member. It originated in 1945 with a US Navy requirement for a jet-powered, radar-equipped, carrier-based night fighter. The Douglas team led by Ed Heinemann designed around the bulky air intercept radar systems of the time, with side-by-side seating for the pilot and radar operator. The result was an aircraft with a wide, deep, and roomy fuselage. Instead of ejection seats, an escape tunnel was used.

As a night fighter that was not expected to be as fast as smaller daylight fighters, the expectation was to have a stable platform for its radar system and the four 20 mm cannon mounted in the lower fuselage. The F3D was, however, able to outturn a MiG-15 in an inside circle. The fire control system in the F3D-1 was the Westinghouse AN/APQ-35.

The AN/APQ-35 was advanced for the time, a combination of three different radars, each performing separate functions: an AN/APS-21 search radar, an AN/APG-26 tracking radar, both located in the nose, and an AN/APS-28 tail warning radar. The complexity of this vacuum tube-based radar system, which was produced before the advent of semiconductor electronics, required intensive maintenance to keep it operating properly.

The F3D Skyknight was never produced in great numbers but it did achieve many firsts in its role as a night fighter over Korea. While it never achieved the fame of the North American F-86 Sabre, it did down several Soviet-built MiG-15s as a night fighter over Korea with only one air-to-air loss of its own against a Chinese MiG-15 on the night of 29 May 1953.

In the years after the Korean War, the F3D was gradually replaced by more powerful aircraft with better radar systems. The F3D's career was not over though; its stability and spacious fuselage made it easily adaptable to other roles. The Skyknight played an important role in the development of the radar-guided AIM-7 Sparrow missile in the 1950s which led to further guided air-to-air missile developments.

In 1954, the F3D-2M was the first U.S. Navy jet aircraft to be fitted with an operational air-to-air missile: the Sparrow I,an all weather day/night BVR missile that used beam riding guidance for the aircrew to control the flight of the missile. Only 38 aircraft (12 F3D-1Ms, and 16 F3D-2Ms) were modified to use the missiles, though.

One of the F3D's main flaws, which it shared with many early jet aircraft, was its lack of power and performance. Douglas tried to mend this through a radical redesign: The resulting F3D-3 was the designation assigned to a swept-winged version (36° sweep at quarter chord) of the Skyknight. It was originally to be powered by the J46 turbojet, rated at 4.080 lbf for takeoff, which was under development but suffered serious trouble.

This led to the cancellation of the J46, and calculated performance of the F3D-3 with the substitute J34 was deemed insufficient. As an alternative the aircraft had to be modified to carry two larger and longer J47-GE-2 engines, which also powered the USN's FJ-2 "Fury" fighter.

This engine's thrust of 6.000 pounds-force (27 kN) at 7,950 rpm appeared sufficient for the heavy, swept-wing aircraft, and in 1954 an order for 287 production F3D-3s was issued, right time to upgrade the new type with the Sparrow I.

While the F3D-3's outline resembled that of its straight wing predecessors, a lot of structural changes had to be made to accommodate the shifted main wing spar, and the heavy radar equipment also took its toll: the gross weight climbed by more than 3 tons, and as a result much of the gained performance through the stronger engines and the swept wings was eaten away.

Maximum internal fuel load was 1.350 US gallons, plus a further 300 in underwing drop tanks. Overall wing surface remained the same, but the swept wing surfaces reduced the wing span.

In the end, thrust-to-weight ratio was only marginally improved and in fact, the F3D-3 had a lower rate of climb than the F3D-2, its top speed at height was only marginally higher, and stall speed climbed by more than 30 mph, making carrier landings more complicated.

It's equipment was also the same - the AN/APQ-35 was still fitted, but mainly because the large radar dish offered the largest detection range of any carrier-borne type of that time, and better radars that could match this performance were still under construction. Anyway, the F3D-3 was able to carry Sparrow I from the start, and this would soon be upgraded to Sparrow III (which became the AIM-7), and it showed much better flight characteristics at medium altitude.

Despite the ,many shortcomings the "new" aircraft represented an overall improvement over the F3D-2 and was accepted for service. Production of the F3D-3 started in 1955, but technology advanced quickly and a serious competitor with supersonic capability appeared with the McDonnell F3H Demon and the F4D Skyray - much more potent aircraft that the USN immediately preferred to the slow F3Ds. As a consequence, the production contract was cut down to only 102 aircraft.

But it came even worse: production of the swept wing Skyknight already ceased after 18 months and 71 completed airframes. Ironically, the F3D-3's successor, the F3H and its J40 engine, turned out to be more capricious than expected, which delayed the Demon's service introduction and seriously hampered its performance, so that the F3D-3 kept its all weather/night fighter role until 1960, and was eventually taken out of service in 1964 when the first F-4 Phantom II fighters appeared in USN service.

In 1962 all F3D versions were re-designated into F-10, the swept wing F3D-3 became the F-10C. The straight wing versions were used as trainers and also served as an electronic warfare platform into the Vietnam War as a precursor to the EA-6A Intruder and EA-6B Prowler, while the swept-wing fighters were completely retired as their performance and mission equipment had been outdated. The last F-10C flew in 1965.

General characteristics

Crew: two

Length: 49 ft (14.96 m)

Wingspan: 42 feet 5 inches (12.95 m)

Height: 16 ft 1 in (4.90 m)

Wing area: 400 ft² (37.16 m²)

Empty weight: 19.800 lb (8.989 kg)

Loaded weight: 28,843 lb (13.095 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 34.000 lb (15.436 kg)

Powerplant:

2× General Electric J47-GE-2 turbojets, each rated at 6.000 lbf (26,7 kN) each

Performance

Maximum speed: 630 mph (1.014 km/h) at sea level, 515 mph (829 km/h) t (6,095 m)

Cruise speed: 515 mph (829 km/h) at 40,000 feet

Stall speed: 128 mph (206 km/h)

Range: 890 mi (1.433 km) with internal fuel; 1,374 mi, 2,212 km with 2× 300 gal (1.136 l) tanks

Service ceiling: 43.000 ft (13.025 m)

Rate of climb: 2,640 ft/min (13,3 m/s)

Wing loading: 53.4 lb/ft² (383 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight: 0.353

Armament

4× 20 mm Hispano-Suiza M2 cannon, 200 rpg, in the lower nose

Four underwing hardpoints inboard of the wing folding points for up to 4.000 lb (1.816 kg)

ordnance, including AIM-7 Sparrow air-to-air missiles, 11.75 in (29.8cm) Tiny Tim rockets, two

150 or 300 US gal drop tanks or bombs of up to 2.000 lb (900 kg) caliber, plus four hardpoints

under each outer wing for a total of eight 5" HVARs or eight pods with six 2 3/4" FFARs each

The kit and its assembly:

Another project which had been on the list for some years now but finally entered the hardware stage. The F3D itself is already a more or less forgotten aircraft, and there are only a few kits available - there has been a vacu kit, the Matchbox offering and lately kits in 1:72 and 1:48 by Sword.

The swept wing F3D-3 remained on the drawing board, but would have been a very attractive evolution of the tubby Skyknight. In fact, the swept surfaces resemble those of the A3D/B-66 a Iot, and this was the spark that started the attempt to build this aircraft as a model through a kitbash.

This model is basically the Matchbox F3D coupled with wings from an Italeri B-66, even though, being much bigger, these had to be modified.

The whole new tail is based on B-66 material. The fin's chord was shortened, though, and a new leading edge (with its beautiful curvature) had to be sculpted from 2C putty. The vertical stabilizers also come from the B-66, its span was adjusted to the Skyknight's and a new root intersection was created from styrene and putty, so that a cross-shaped tail could be realized.

The tail radar dish was retained, even though sketches show the F3D-3 without it.

The wings were take 1:1 from the B-66 and match well. They just had to be shortened, I set the cut at maybe 5mm outwards of the engine pods' attachment points. They needed some re-engraving for the inner flaps, as these would touch the F3D-3's engines when lowered, but shape, depth and size are very good for the conversion.

On the fuselage, the wings' original "attachment bays" had to be filled, and the new wings needed a new position much further forward, directly behind the cockpit, in order to keep the CoG.

One big issue would be the main landing gear. On the straight wing aircraft it retracts outwards, and I kept this arrangement. No detail of the exact landing gear well position was available to me, so I used the Matchbox parts as stencils and placed the new wells as much aft as possible, cutting out new openings from the B-66 wings.

The OOB landing gear was retained, but I added some structure to the landing gear wells with plastic blister material - not to be realistic, just for the effect. A lot of lead was added in the kit's nose section, making sure it actually stands on the front wheel.

The Matchbox Skyknight basically offers no real problems, even though the air intake design leaves, by tendency some ugly seams and even gaps. I slightly pimped the cockpit with headrests, additional gauges and a gunsight, as well as two (half) pilot figures. I did not plan to present the opened cockpit and the bulbous windows do not allow a clear view onto the inside anyway, so this job was only basically done. In fact, the pilots don't have a lower body at all...

Ordnance comprises of four Sparrow III - the Sparrow I with its pointed nose could have been an option, too, but I think at the time of 1960 the early version was already phased out?

Painting and markings:

This was supposed to become a typical USN service aircraft of the 60ies, so a grey/white livery was predetermined. I had built an EF-10B many years ago from the Matchbox kit, and the grey/white guise suits the Whale well - and here it would look even better, with the new, elegant wings.

For easy painting I used semi matt white from the rattle can on the lower sides (painting the landing gear at the same time!), and then added FS 36440 (Light Gull Grey, Humbrol 129) with a brush to the upper sides. The radar nose became semi matt black (with some weathering), while the RHAWS dish was kept in tan (Humbrol 71).

In order to emphasize the landing gear and the respective wells I added a red rim to the covers.

The cockpit interior was painted in dark grey - another factor which made adding too many details there futile, too...

The aircraft's individual marking were to be authentic, and not flamboyant. In the mid 50ies the USN machines were not as colorful as in the Vietnam War era, that just started towards the 60ies.

The markings I used come primarily from an Emhar F3H Demon, which features no less than four(!) markings, all with different colors. I settled for a machine of VF-61 "Jolly Rogers", which operated from the USS Saratoga primarily in the Mediterranean from 1958 on - and shortly thereafter the unit was disbanded.

I took some of the Demon markings and modified them with very similar but somewhat more discrete markings from VMF-323, which flew FJ-4 at the time - both squadrons marked their aircraft with yellow diamonds on black background, and I had some leftover decals from a respective Xtradecal sheet in the stash.

IMHO a good result with the B-66 donation parts, even though I am not totally happy with the fin - it could have been more slender at the top, and with a longer, more elegant spine fillet, but for that the B-66 fin was just too thick. Anyway, I am not certain if anyone has ever built this aircraft? I would not call the F3D-3 elegant or beautiful, but the swept wings underline the fuselage's almost perfect teardrop shape, and the thing reminds a lot of the later Grumman A-6 Intruder?

(further information and pictures are available by clicking on the link at the end of section and of page!)

Synagogue St. Pölten

Exterior of the former St. Pölten Synagogue

The St. Pölten Synagogue was up to the November pogroms in 1938 the main synagogue of the Jewish Community of St. Pölten. The In the years 1912 to 1913 by the architects Theodor Schreier and Viktor Postelberg built Art Nouveau synagogue is located in the Dr. Karl Renner Promenade in St. Pölten and is now the headquarters of the Institute for Jewish History in Austria.

History

The old synagogue, which was demolished in favor of the new one

The first prayer rooms of in 1863 founded Jewish Community of St. Pölten were located in the premises of the former Kattunmanufaktur (cotton manufactory), the later Gasser factory at school ring. A building of this factory was adapted between 1885 and 1890 as a synagogue. This adaptation was associated with considerable effort, which is why the members of the Jewish community already since 1888 endeavoured to get a new building, until 1903 but this was rejected by the township. At this time, a redesign of the promenade was planned, which was only possible by demolition of the in the street course standing synagogue. After lengthy preparations, a preparatory committee was elected in April 1907, which in addition to building site and plans the necessary financing should provide.

1911, a building committee was chosen and agreed with the community a real estate exchange. At the architectural competition, which was tendered in the same year, participated among others Jacob Modern, Jacob Gartner, Ignaz Reiser and Theodor Schreier. The latter was together with his partner Viktor Postelberg by the Committee commissioned another project for a temple with room for 220 men and 150 women to submitt, which was then realized. The conditions for the planning work developed Rudolf Frass. The necessary funds were raised through collections and appeals for donations throughout the country, so that could be started with the construction in June 1912. The gilding works were carried out by Ferdinand Andri. After little more than a year of construction and 141 390 crowns total investment, the synagoge on 17 August 1913 was solemnly consecrated.

Destruction

On the night of 9th to the 10th November 1938 invaded several SS and SA members the rooms of the synagogue, smashed windows and set fire. The that night caused damage was limited, as the fire could be extinguished relatively quickly. On the following morning 300 to 400 people gathered, some in civilian clothes, in front of the building. They moved with the singing of political songs in the sacred spaces and destroyed them completely. The windows were broken, Torah scrolls, Torah shrine, benches and images burned. Even water pipes and door posts were torn from the walls. The books of the extensive library were largely thrown on the road and burned. Some people climbed the dome and tore the Star of David of the roof .

Almost all of the movable property of the Jewish community was destroyed or stolen . A limited set of books were placed in the city archives, the City Museum there's still a donation box and a painting of Emperor Franz Josef, which hung in the entrance area. A single prayer book is since 1998 owned again by the Jewish Community.

In the following years the side rooms of the building of the SA were used as an office, the interior was used among other things as furniture warehouse. 1942, the synagogue became the property of the city of St. Pölten, which used it as a detention center for Russian forced laborers. In last fightings and bombings in 1945 the building was further damaged.

1945

The Red Army used the former synagogue as a grain storage until it was in 1947 returned to the city. The application of restitution was recognized in 1952 by the city council, which then returned the synagogue to the Jewish Community Vienna. In the following years, the former house of God continued to decay as after the Holocaust no Jewish community in St. Pölten could establish. The domed roof showed severe damage, individual components were threatening to collapse completely and through the boarded windows came rain and snow into the by dovecotes populated house.

In 1975, the Jewish Community Vienna (IKG - Israelitische Kultusgemeinde Wien) offered the city of St. Pölten to purchase the synagogue, which did not accept the offer due to lack of uses. Then the Jewish Community Vienna wanted to initiate the demolition, but this was prevented by the fact that the Federal Monuments Office the building put under monument protection. Then it was renovated from 1980 to 1984. Here, for example, many wall paintings were recovered, on the other hand, some structural changes were made (especially removal of water basins for the ritual washing of the hands), since it was clear from the beginning that the building would not be used as a synagogue, but as an event center.

Since 1988 in the premises of the former synagogue the Institute for Jewish History of Austria is located, further regular events are realized. The original function the synagoge never could fulfill again, as too few Jews returned after the Holocaust to St. Pölten.

On the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the synagogue the City Museum in St. Pölten 2013/14 the building dedicates its own special exhibition. In doing so there is also shown a recently found photo of the interior before the destruction. It is also pointed out that the synagogue due to lack of funding already again is abandoned to a certain decay.

The St. Pölten rabbi

Interior of the synagogue with part of the dome ceiling, in the center of the former shrine

Name Period of office

Moritz Tintner 1863-1869

Adolf Kurrein 1873-1876

Samuel Marcus 1876-1878

Adolf Hahn 1878-1882

Jacob Reiss 1882-1889

Bernhard Zimmels 1889-1891

Leopold Weinsberg 1891-1897

Adolf Schächter 1897-1934

Arnold Frankfurt 1934-1936

Manfred Papo 1936-1938

Building description

Outside

The dominant element of the synagogue is the octagonal, completed by a large dome main building, to which the eastern and western side wings are attached. Connected to the synagogue is the former school building in Lederergasse 12.

Main tract

The main tract houses the former sanctuary. The facade is divided into a low ground floor, high upper floor and the dome. At the facade facing the street can be found in the two storeys each three windows, that are executed on the ground floor as low segmental arch windows with above running continuously cordon cornice. The windows on the upper floor, however, are high, rectangular windows, the space between them is divided by pilasters. The original stained glass windows were destroyed from 1938, today, clear glass can be found in the windows. Directly under the dome there is a large segment gable with representations of the Tablets of the Law, set in floral vines. Beneath it is written in Hebrew the text of Psalm 118, verse 19.

" פתחו לי שערי צדק אבא בם אודה יה "

"Open to me the gates of righteousness: I will enter and give thanks to God".

- Inscription under the law boards.

On the short, lateral oblique walls of the main building on the ground floor there are side entrances, in the transition to the dome there are embedded large oval windows.

Side wings

To the eastern side wing, which in comparison to the western tract is designed very narrowly, connects the former school building and was once home to the shrine. At the by segment gable and barrel roof completed tract can be found on the northern front in the upper floor a tall, rectangular window of the same type as that of the main wing. At the eastern side a round window is embedded, in the ground floor begins a connecting room to the school building.

The western side wing is identical to the east in the basic form, but it is significantly wider. In addition, in front of it there are entrance buildings. Both at the road side and on the opposite side between the main wing and the western annex are wide projecting semi-circular staircases, next to it can be found till half the height of the first upper floor each a buttress with two low windows. Road side, this buttress is preceded by a walk-in porch, which on three sides is open round-arched. The with triangular gable completed building ends in a concave enclosure, where a commemorative plaque is attached today. The west facade repeats the design of the main building, it can be found on the ground floor low segmental arch windows with above running continuously, jagged cordon cornice. On the first floor the windows are, however, significantly lower than in the main wing.

Former school building

The former school building has its main facade towards Lederergasse and there has the number 12. The road-side main facade of the two-storey building is divided into four axes. The window on the ground floor are round-arched disigned, the ones on the upper floor rectangularly. Between side wing of the synagogue and the main wing of the school building there is a tower-like, curved stairwell risalit up to the attic.

de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synagoge_St._P%C3%B6lten

(further information is available by clicking on the link at the end of page!)

History of the City St. Pölten

In order to present concise history of the Lower Austrian capital is in the shop of the city museum a richly illustrated full version on CD-ROM.

Tip

On the occasion of the commemoration of the pogroms of November 1938, the Institute for Jewish History of Austria its virtual Memorbuch (Memory book) for the destroyed St. Pölten Jewish community since 10th November 2012 is putting online.

Prehistory

The time from which there is no written record is named after the main materials used for tools and weapons: Stone Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age. Using the latest technologies, archaeologists from archaeological finds and aerial photographs can trace a fairly detailed picture of life at that time. Especially for the time from the settling down of the People (New Stone Age), now practicing agriculture and animal husbandry, in the territory of St. Pölten lively settlement activity can be proved. In particular, cemeteries are important for the research, because the dead were laid in the grave everyday objects and jewelry, the forms of burial changing over time - which in turn gives the archeology valuable clues for the temporal determination. At the same time, prehistory of Sankt Pölten would not be half as good documented without the construction of the expressway S33 and other large buildings, where millions of cubic meters of earth were moved - under the watchful eyes of the Federal Monuments Office!

A final primeval chapter characterized the Celts, who settled about 450 BC our area and in addition to a new culture and religion also brought with them the potter's wheel. The kingdom of Noricum influenced till the penetration of the Romans the development in our area.

Roman period, migrations

The Romans conquered in 15 BC the Celtic Empire and established hereinafter the Roman province of Noricum. Borders were protected by military camp (forts), in the hinterland emerged civilian cities, almost all systematically laid out according to the same plan. The civil and commercial city Aelium Cetium, as St. Pölten was called (city law 121/122), consisted in the 4th Century already of heated stone houses, trade and craft originated thriving urban life, before the Romans in the first third of the 5th Century retreated to Italy.

The subsequent period went down as the Migration Period in official historiography, for which the settlement of the Sankt Pöltner downtown can not be proved. Cemeteries witness the residence of the Lombards in our area, later it was the Avars, extending their empire to the Enns.

The recent archaeological excavations on the Cathedral Square 2010/2011, in fact, the previous knowledge of St.Pölten colonization not have turned upside down but enriched by many details, whose full analysis and publication are expected in the near future.

Middle Ages

With the submission of the Avars by Charlemagne around 800 AD Christianity was gaining a foothold, the Bavarian Benedictine monastery of Tegernsee establishing a daughter house here - as founder are mentioned the brothers Adalbert and Ottokar - equipped with the relics of St. Hippolytus. The name St. Ypolit over the centuries should turn into Sankt Pölten. After the Hungarian wars and the resettlement of the monastery as Canons Regular of St. Augustine under the influence of Passau St. Pölten received mid-11th Century market rights.

In the second half of the 20th century historians stated that records in which the rights of citizens were held were to be qualified as Town Charters. Vienna is indeed already in 1137 as a city ("civitas") mentioned in a document, but the oldest Viennese city charter dates only from the year 1221, while the Bishop of Passau, Konrad, already in 1159 the St. Pöltnern secured:

A St. Pöltner citizen who has to answer to the court, has the right to make use of an "advocate".

He must not be forced to rid himself of the accusation by a judgment of God.

A St. Pöltner citizen may be convicted only by statements of fellow citizens, not by strangers.

From the 13th Century exercised a city judge appointed by the lord of the city the high and low jurisdiction as chairman of the council meetings and the Municipal Court, Inner and Outer Council supported him during the finding of justice. Venue for the public verdict was the in the 13th Century created new marketplace, the "Broad Market", now the town hall square. Originally square-shaped, it was only later to a rectangle reduced. Around it arose the market district, which together with the monastery district, the wood district and the Ledererviertel (quarter of the leather goods manufacturer) was protected by a double city wall.

The dependence of St. Pölten of the bishop of Passau is shown in the municipal coat of arms and the city seal. Based on the emblem of the heraldic animal of the Lord of the city, so the Bishop of Passau, it shows an upright standing wolf holding a crosier in its paw.

Modern Times

In the course of the armed conflict between the Emperor Frederick III . and King Matthias of Hungary pledged the Bishop of Passau the town on the Hungarian king. From 1485 stood Lower Austria as a whole under Hungarian rule. The most important document of this period is the awarding of the city coat of arms by King Matthias Corvinus in the year 1487. After the death of the opponents 1490 and 1493 could Frederick's son Maximilian reconquer Lower Austria. He considered St. Pölten as spoils of war and had no intention of returning it to the diocese of Passau. The city government has often been leased subsequently, for instance, to the family Wellenstein, and later to the families Trautson and Auersperg.

That St. Pölten now was a princely city, found its expression in the coat of arms letter of the King Ferdinand I. from 1538: From now on, the wolf had no crosier anymore, and the from the viewer's point of view left half showed the reverse Austrian shield, so silver-red-silver.

To the 16th Century also goes back the construction of St. Pöltner City Hall. The 1503 by judge and council acquired house was subsequently expanded, rebuilt, extended and provided with a tower.

A for the urban history research important picture, painted in 1623, has captured scenes of the peasant uprising of 1597, but also allows a view to the city and lets the viewer read some of the details of the then state of construction. The economic inconveniences of that time were only exacerbated by the Thirty Years War, at the end of which a fifth of the houses were uninhabited and the citizenry was impoverished.

Baroque

After the successful defense against the Turks in 1683, the economy started to recover and a significant building boom began. Lower Austria turned into the land of the baroque abbeys and monasteries, as it is familiar to us today.

In St. Pölten, the change of the cityscape is closely connected to the Baroque architect Jakob Prandtauer. In addition to the Baroquisation of the interior of the cathedral, a number of buildings in St. Pölten go to his account, so the reconstruction of the castle Ochsenburg, the erection of the Schwaighof and of the core building of the Institute of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Englische Fräuleins - English Maidens) - from 1706 the seat of the first school order of St.Pölten - as well as of several bourgeois houses.

Joseph Munggenast, nephew and co-worker of Prandtauer, completed the Baroquisation of the cathedral, he baroquised the facade of the town hall (1727) and numerous bourgeois houses and designed a bridge over the Traisen which existed until 1907. In the decoration of the church buildings were throughout Tyroleans collaborating, which Jakob Prandtauer had brought along from his homeland (Tyrol) to St. Pölten, for example, Paul Troger and Peter Widerin.

Maria Theresa and her son Joseph II: Their reforms in the city of the 18th Century also left a significant mark. School foundings as a result of compulsory education, the dissolution of the monasteries and hereinafter - from 1785 - the new role of St. Pölten as a bishop's seat are consequences of their policies.

1785 was also the year of a fundamental alteration of the old Council Constitution: The city judge was replaced by one magistrate consisting of five persons, at the head was a mayor. For the first mayor the painter Josef Hackl was chosen.

The 19th century

Despite the Napoleonic Wars - St. Pölten in 1805 and 1809 was occupied by the French - and despite the state bankruptcy of 1811, increased the number of businesses constantly, although the economic importance of the city for the time being did not go beyond the near vicinity.

Against the background of monitoring by the state secret police, which prevented any political commitment between the Congress of Vienna and the 1848 revolution, the citizens withdrew into private life. Sense of family, fostering of domestic music, prominent salon societies in which even a Franz Schubert socialized, or the construction of the city theater were visible signs of this attitude.

The economic upswing of the city did not begin until after the revolution of the year 1848. A prerequisite for this was the construction of the Empress Elisabeth Western Railway, moving Vienna, Linz, soon Salzburg, too, in a reachable distance. The city walls were pulled down, St. Pölten could unfold. The convenient traffic situation favored factory start-ups, and so arose a lace factory, a revolver factory, a soap factory or, for example, as a precursor of a future large-scale enterprise, the braid, ribbon and Strickgarnerzeugung (knitting yarn production) of Matthias Salcher in Harland.

In other areas, too, the Gründerzeit (years of rapid industrial expansion in Germany - and Austria) in Sankt Pölten was honouring its name: The city got schools, a hospital, gas lanterns, canalization, hot springs and summer bath.

The 20th century

At the beginning of the 20th Century the city experienced another burst of development, initiated by the construction of the power station in 1903, because electricity was the prerequisite for the settlement of large companies. In particular, the companies Voith and Glanzstoff and the main workshop of the Federal Railways attracted many workers. New Traisen bridge, tram, Mariazell Railway and other infrastructure buildings were erected; St. Pölten obtained a synagogue. The Art Nouveau made it repeatedly into the urban architecture - just think of the Olbrich House - and inspired also the painting, as exponents worth to be mentioned are Ernst Stöhr or Ferdinand Andri.

What the outbreak of the First World War in broad outlines meant for the monarchy, on a smaller scale also St. Pölten has felt. The city was heavily impacted by the deployment of army units, a POW camp, a military hospital and a sick bay. Industrial enterprises were partly converted into war production, partly closed. Unemployment, housing emergency and food shortages long after the war still were felt painfully.

The 1919 to mayor elected Social Democrat Hubert Schnofl after the war tried to raise the standard of living of the people by improving the social welfare and health care. The founding of a housing cooperative (Wohnungsgenossenschaft), the construction of the water line and the establishment of new factories were further attempts to stimulate the stiffening economy whose descent could not be stopped until 1932.

After the National Socialist regime had stirred false hopes and plunged the world into war, St. Pölten was no longer the city as it has been before. Not only the ten devastating bombings of the last year of the war had left its marks, also the restrictive persecution of Jews and political dissidents had torn holes in the structure of the population. Ten years of Russian occupation subsequently did the rest to traumatize the population, but at this time arose from the ruins a more modern St. Pölten, with the new Traisen bridge, district heating, schools.

This trend continued, an era of recovery and modernization made the economic miracle palpable. Already in 1972 was - even if largely as a result of incorporations - exceeded the 50.000-inhabitant-limit.

Elevation to capital status (capital of Lower Austria), 10 July 1986: No other event in this dimension could have become the booster detonation of an up to now ongoing development thrust. Since then in a big way new residential and commercial areas were opened up, built infrastructure constructions, schools and universities brought into being to enrich the educational landscape. East of the Old Town arose the governmental and cultural district, and the list of architects wears sonorous names such as Ernst Hoffmann (NÖ (Lower Austria) Landhaus; Klangturm), Klaus Kada (Festspielhaus), Hans Hollein (Shedhalle and Lower Austrian Provincial Museum), Karin Bily, Paul Katzberger and Michael Loudon ( NÖ State Library and NÖ State Archive).

European Diploma, European flag, badge of honor, Europe Price: Between 1996 and 2001, received St. Pölten numerous appreciations of its EU commitment - as a sort of recognition of the Council of Europe for the dissemination of the EU-idea through international town twinnings, a major Europe exhibition or, for example, the establishment and chair of the "Network of European medium-sized cities".

On the way into the 21st century

Just now happened and already history: What the St. Pöltnern as just experienced sticks in their minds, travelers and newcomers within a short time should be told. The theater and the hospital handing over to the province of Lower Austria, a new mayor always on the go, who was able to earn since 2004 already numerous laurels (Tags: polytechnic, downtown enhancement, building lease scheme, bus concept) - all the recent changes are just now condensed into spoken and written language in order to make, from now on, the history of the young provincial capital in the 3rd millennium nachlesbar (checkable).

www.st-poelten.gv.at/Content.Node/freizeit-kultur/kultur/...

+++ 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.

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!

More than 70 million subscribers of A&E’s FYI Network have a new plant-based TV show to look forward to this July, Veg News reports.

Plant-Based by Nafsika, a new vegan television show billing itself as “the world’s first vegan lifestyle TV series,” is readying for p...

inourishgently.com/worlds-first-vegan-lifestyle-tv-series...

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

Some background:

Seeking a domestic aircraft manufacturer, the Brazilian government made several investments in this area during the 1940s and '50s, but it was not until 1969 that Empresa Brasileira de Aeronáutica (EMBRAER) was created as a government-owned corporation. Born from a Brazilian government plan and having been state-run from the beginning, EMBRAER began a privatization process alongside many other state-controlled companies during the government of Fernando Henrique Cardoso. This privatization effort saw EMBRAER sold on December 7, 1994, and helped it avoid a looming bankruptcy.

General characteristics

Crew: 2

Length (w/o pitot): 41 ft 10 in (12.76 m)

Wingspan: 40 ft 9 1/2 in (12.45 m)

Height: 13 ft 6 2/3 in (4.14 m)

Wing area: 203.4 ft² (18.9 m²)

Empty weight: 8.920 lb (4.050 kg)

Max. take-off weight: 16.630 lb (7.550 kg)

Powerplant:

2× Garrett T76-G410/411 turboprops, 1,040 hp (775.5 kW) each

Performance:

Maximum speed: 307 mph (267 kn, 495 km/h)

Range: 1.860 mi (1.620 nmi, 3.000 km)

Service ceiling: 30.160 ft (9.150 m)

Rate of climb: 2.966 ft/min (15 m/s)

Armament:

2× fixed 30 mm (1.181 in) Bernardini Mk-164 cannons in the wing roots with 200 RPG

9× external hardpoints for an ordnance load of 8.000 lb (3.630 kg), including smart weapons (e. g. Paveway GBUs, AGM-65B,C or D Maverick, AGM-114 Hellfire), iron bombs, cluster bombs, napalm tanks, unguided rocket pods and AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs as well as drop tanks.

The kit and its assembly:

This whif model is a remake of an idea I had/did many years ago from the remains of an Airfix OV-10D Bronco: converting it into a "normal" aircraft. While one could argue that this is not really exciting, I found this project pretty challenging as I wanted to make the result as plausible as possible, not just glue some leftover parts together (what I did years ago). And doing so turned a simple idea into major surgery and sculpting – or, how flickr fellow user Franclab called it, “it makes the Bronco look like the whif and the Libélula the real aircraft”.

The basis was a NiB OV-10A Bronco from Academy, a very good kit with a nice cockpit and lots or ordnance. Great value for the money. Design benchmark for what I had in mind was the FMA IA-58 Pucara, as it was designed for the exact same job as my EMB 320 - but details would differ.

The rear of the Bronco's central cabin was cut off and mated with the rear fuselage of a Matchbox Bf 110, which has a similar diameter - but the intersection between the square front of the Bronco and the oval Bf 110 fuselage was tricky (= requiring lots of putty work).

When these basic elements were fitted together, I finally decided to raise the spine. The mated fuselage parts would have had worked, but since the original high wings were missing, the EMB 320 would have had a distinctive and pointless hunchback - actually, with a rotor added, it could have become a helicopter, too!

Well, I went for the big solution, also in order to make the fuselage seam less obvious, and the whole upper rear fuselage was sculpted from 2C and NC putty. In the same process the tail was integrated into the fuselage. As a drawback, this shifted the kit's CG so far back that the lead load in the nose could not keep the front wheel down. Well, it's the price to pay for a better overall look.

The twin fins come from a 1:100 A-10, leftover from a Revell SnapFit kit, while the horizontal stabilizers were taken from the OV-10A, but had to be re-engraved in order to make the flap geometry plausible.

The wings were taken OOB and, relative to the Bronco, placed in a lower position, their original attachment point on top of the fuselage was faired over. The original plan had been to place them completely low, right where the OV-10's wing stubs would be located. But due to the engine nacelles under the wings I finally set them at mid height - otherwise, ground clearance and/or landing gear length had become a big issue - and the thing still looks stalky!

Moving the nacelles into a different (higher) wing position would have been an option, too, but that was IMHO too complicated. Since the EMD 320 would not have storage space behind the cockpit, a wing spar right through the fuselage would not be implausible. As a side effect I had to close the complete belly gap under the Bronco fuselage, again with 2C putty.

The Bronco’s tail booms were cut off and pointed end covers added, so that classic engine nacelles which also carry the main landing gear were created. The engine exhausts were relocated towards the nacelle’s end, and the propeller attachment modified, so that the propeller could turn freely on a metal axis and the overall look would be changed.

The cockpit tub was taken OOB, but armored seats from an Italeri AH-1 were used (with added headrests), as well as two crew figures, which come IIRC from a Hasegawa RA-5C Vigilante.

A new nose section with a sensor turret was built from scratch. It consists of parts from an AH-64 attack helicopter, mated with some styrene sheets for appropriate length. The shape was sculpted from massive material, and the result looks mean and menacing. The pitots were made from scratch, as well as the radar warning sensors on the hull.

The landing gear was improvised. The front strut actually belongs to a 1:200 Concorde(!) from Revell, the respective front wheels belong to an ESCI Ka-34 helicopter. For the main landing gear I used the struts from the Bronco kit, but the twin wheels are donations from the scrap box: these come from two Italeri Hawker Hawk kits.

The ordnance was puzzled together from the scrap box, too, as well as from Hasegawa Weapon sets. As the aircraft was supposed to have taken part in the real world “Operation Ágata”, I decided to add four light Paveway gliding bombs. Two Sidewinders and a pair of M260 rocket launchers (for seven 2.75"/70mm target marking missiles with phosphorous warheads) complete the full load.

The wing pylons come from two Italeri Tornados, those under the fuselage belong to a Matchbox Viggen and an Italeri Kfir.

As a final note: originally I wanted to call the aircraft “Moscardo” (= Hornet), but when it took shape its overall lines and potential agility made the dragonfly (Libélula in Portuguese) a much more appropriate namesake. So it goes... ^^

Painting and markings:

The reason why this turned out to be a Brazilian aircraft is the fact that I have been wanting to use the current FAB paint scheme for some time - it's basically made up from only two colors, FS 34092 (Dark Green) and FS 36176 (“F-15 Gray”, used on USAF F-15Es), paired with low-viz markings. Looks strange at first glance, like a poor man's Europe One/Lizard scheme, but over a typical rain forest scenery, low altitude and with hazy clouds around it is VERY effective, check the beauty pics which are based on BAF press releases. And it simply looks cool.

The pattern is based on current BAF F-5E fighters, the markings come from an FCM decal sheet and actually belong to a BAF Mirage 2000. 4º/3º GAv of the Brazilian Air Force is fictional, though, and some warning stencils were taken from the Academy kit.

The cockpit interior was painted in Dark Gull Gray (Humbrol 140), the landing gear wells in a yellow zinc chromate primer (Humbrol 225, Mid Stone) while the landing gear struts remained blank Aluminum, The outer wheel disks are white, while the inside is red - a detail I incorporated from some USN aircraft.

Painting was not spectacular - since the cockpit has a lot of glass to offer, I painted the windscreen with translucent light blue, and the observer on the rear seat received a similar sun blocker in deep blue. Translucent paint (yellow and black) was also used on the optical sensors at the nose turret as well as for position lights, all on a silver base.

The model was only slightly weathered thorough a black ink wash and some dry-brushing with Humbrol 140 and Testors 2076 (RLM 62) in order to emphasize panels - some panel lines were also painted onto the fuselage with thinned black ink, as the "new" rear body is devoid of any detail and difficult to engrave.

F.A.C.T.S. 2013

Ghent, Belgien

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

www.flickr.com/photos/mchenryarts/

www.facebook.com/McHenryArts

Pernah dengar yang namanya kaum miskin urban? Kalau kamu sempat membaca tulisan Gayatri Jayaraman, kontributor BuzzFeed di India mungkin bisa memahami istilah itu. Kaum miskin urban kerap ditujukan kepada mereka para generasi muda yang rela menahan lapar, menghabiskan seluruh pendapatannya demi sebuah eksistensi belaka dengan nongkrong di tempat-tempat ngehits dan bisa diposting di Instagram.

Gayatri menulis cerita kaum miskin urban berdasarkan observasinya di India, tapi jangan salah. Fenomena anak-anak muda kere yang penting eksis itu faktanya ada di berbagai kota besar di Indonesia. Kamu tentu akan biasa melihat segerombolan anak-anak lulusan sarjana (atau masih sekolah/kuliah) yang nongkrong di cafe-cafe mahal. Disebut mahal karena untuk sekali makan dan minum di sana bisa habis hingga dua ratus ribu rupiah.

Yap, itulah mereka generasi milenial yang ingin dianggap kekinian. Gadget yang mahal seperti iPhone, MacBook, GoPro atau kamera Mirrorless keluaran terbaru adalah hal wajib bagi mereka. Namun kaum miskin urban ini punya beragam hal yang bisa bikin kamu miris melihatnya. Miris, tapi itulah yang terjadi dewasa ini. Tak cuma Gayatri, Mardiyah Chamim seorang jurnalis Tempo juga punya cerita soal kaum urban miskin penting eksis ini.

Kembali lagi, memang sih tak ada yang keliru dengan impian jadi kaya dan hidup serba kecukupan. Namun Gayatri berpendapat bahwa tak ada yang mengajarkan bagaimana mendapat uang besar dan karir cemerlang dengan cara cepat. Butuh perjuangan panjang dan pengorbanan. Tinggal kamu wahai anak muda memilih, mau tampak mewah demi eksistensi atau meredam semuanya demi kehidupan lebih tenang hingga ujung waktu nanti.

Source: plus.kapanlagi.com/fakta-miris-kaum-miskin-urban-anak-muda-kere-yang-penting-eksis-07daec.html

dahtaukah.com/mengenal-kaum-miskin-urban/

What do you know about the Moon? This set of infographics illustrates the most frequently asked questions and facts about Earth’s natural satellite.

ESA is teaming up with international partners to explore the Moon as a destination for both robotic missions and human explorers.

Orion, the NASA spacecraft, will bring humans farther than they have ever been before relying on the European Service Module to return humans to the Moon and take advantage of the new technology for human space transportation. ESA is providing service modules that will provide propulsion, life support, power, air and water, and control the temperature in the crew module.

Luna-Resurs is a partnership with the Russian agency Roscosmos that will carry European technology to land precisely and safely on the Moon and to drill into the surface to extract and analyse samples of the lunar terrain.

The Agency is looking at how we could extract and process local resources into useful products and services, such as drinkable water or breathable oxygen on the Moon.

The Heracles mission could take of in 2028 to allow us to gain knowledge on human-robotic interaction while landing a spacecraft on the Moon to collect samples with a rover operated from an orbiting lunar gateway and send the samples back to Earth.

Credits: ESA

Nickname(s): The City of Good Neighbors, The Queen City, The City of No Illusions, The Nickel City, Queen City of the Lakes, City of Light

Location of Buffalo in New York State

First Settled

1789

Founded

1801

Population (July 1, 2010)

- City

261,310 (70th in U.S.)

- - Urban

976,703 (38th in U.S.)

- Metro

1,135,509 (47th in U.S.)

www.city-buffalo.com

Buffalo ( /ˈbʌfəloʊ/) is the second most populous city in the state of New York, after New York City.[1] Located in Western New York on the eastern shores of Lake Erie and at the head of the Niagara River across from Fort Erie, Ontario, Buffalo is the seat of Erie County[5] and the principal city of the Buffalo-Niagara Falls metropolitan area, the largest in Upstate New York. Downtown Buffalo is located 17 miles (27 km) south of Niagara Falls. Buffalo itself has a population of 261,310 (2010 Census) and the Buffalo–Niagara–Cattaraugus Combined Statistical Area is home to 1,215,826 residents.

Originating around 1789 as a small trading community near the eponymous Buffalo Creek,[3] Buffalo grew quickly after the opening of the Erie Canal in 1825, with the city as its western terminus. By 1900, Buffalo was the 8th largest city in the United States,[6] and went on to become a major railroad hub,[7] and the largest grain-milling center in the country.[8] The latter part of the 20th Century saw a reversal of fortunes: Great Lakes shipping was rerouted by the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway, and steel mills and other heavy industry relocated to places such as China.[9] With the start of Amtrak in the 1970s, Buffalo Central Terminal was also abandoned, and trains were rerouted to nearby Depew, New York (Buffalo-Depew) and Exchange Street Station. By 1990 the city had fallen back below its 1900 population levels.[10]

Today, the region's largest economic sectors are health care and education,[11] and these continue to grow despite the lagging national and worldwide economies.[12] This growth has been maintained, in part, by major expansions of the Buffalo Niagara Medical Campus[13] and The University at Buffalo.[14] The retail sector of the economy is strong with additional revenue from Canadian shoppers who wish to take advantage of the lower prices. A recent study showed that Buffalo's May 2011 unemployment rate of 7.5%[15] In 2010, Forbes rated Buffalo the 10th best place to raise a family in America.[16

+++ 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 Panther tank, officially Panzerkampfwagen V Panther (abbreviated PzKpfw V) with ordnance inventory designation Sd.Kfz. 171, was a German medium tank of World War II. It was used on the Eastern and Western Fronts from mid-1943 to the end of the war. The Panther was intended to counter the Soviet T-34 medium tank and to replace the Panzer III and Panzer IV. Nevertheless, it served alongside the Panzer IV and the heavier Tiger I until the end of the war. It is considered one of the best tanks of World War II for its excellent firepower, protection, and mobility although its reliability in early times were less impressive.

The Panther was a compromise. While having essentially the same Maybach V12 petrol (700 hp) engine as the Tiger I, it had better gun penetration, was lighter and faster, and could traverse rough terrain better than the Tiger I. The trade-off was weaker side armor, which made it vulnerable to flanking fire. The Panther proved to be effective in open country and long-range engagements.

Between 1964-1973 the USSR rebuilt the entire Syrian military from the ground up, reorganizing it along Warsaw Pact lines and equipping it with gear strictly of Soviet origin. There was no place for ex-Wehrmacht tanks and in any case, Czechoslovakia had ended spares & ammo support for the Panzer IV and the Panthers, so the types had no future. The surviving tanks were scrapped in Syria, except for a single Panzer IV survivor sold to a collector in Jordan.

Specifications:

Crew: Five (commander, gunner, loader, driver, radio operator)

Weight: 50 tonnes (55.1 long tons; 45.5 short tons)

Length: 6.87 m (22 ft 6 in) hull only

7.52 m (24 ft 7¾ in) overall with gun facing forward

Width: 3.42 m (11 ft 3 in) hull only

3,70 m (12 ft 1¾ in) with retrofitted side skirts

Height: 2.99 m (9 ft 10 in)’

Ground clearance: 56 cm (22 in)

Suspension: Double torsion bar, interleaved road wheels

Fuel capacity: 720 liters (160 imp gal; 190 US gal),

some Syrian Panthers carried two additional external 200 l fuel drums

Armor:

15–80 mm (0.6 – 3.93 in)

Performance:

Maximum road speed: 56 km/h (35 mph)

Operational range: 250 km (160 mi) on roads; 450 km (280 mi)with auxiliary fuel tanks

100 km (62 mi) cross-country

Power/weight: 14 PS (10.1 kW)/tonne (12.7 hp/ton)

Engine & transmission:

Maybach HL230 V-12 gasoline engine with 700 PS (690 hp, 515 kW)

ZF AK 7-200 gearbox with 7 forward 1 reverse gear

Armament:

1× 7,5 cm KwK 40 (L/48) with 87 rounds

2× 7.92 mm MG 34 or 42, or similar machine guns;

one co-axial with the main gun, another in the front glacis plate

with a total of 5.100 rounds (not always mounted)

Provision for a 12.7 mm DShK or Breda anti-aircraft machine gun on the commander cupola

The kit and its assembly:

A rather exotic what-if model, even though it’s almost built OOB. Inspiration came when I stumbled upon the weird Syrian Panzer IVs that were operated against Israel during the Six Day War – vehicles you would not expect there, and after more than 20 years after WWII. But when I did some more research, I was surprised about the numbers and the variety of former German tanks that Syria had gathered from various European countries, and it made me wonder if the Panther could not have been among this shaggy fleet, too?

I had a surplus Dragon Panther Spähpanzer in The Stash™, to be correct a “PzBeobWg V Ausf. G”, an observation and artillery fire guidance conversion that actually existed in small numbers, and I decided to use it as basis for this odd project. The Dragon kit has some peculiarities, though: its hull is made from primed white metal and consists of an upper and lower half that are held together by small screws! An ambiguous design, because the parts do not fit as good as IP parts, so that the model has a slightly die-cast-ish aura. PSR is necessary at the seams, but due to the metal it’s not easy to do. Furthermore, you have to use superglue everywhere, just as on a resin kit. On the other side, surface details are finely molded and crisp, even though many bits have to be added manually. However, the molded metal pins that hold the wheels are very robust and relatively thin – a feature I exploited for a modified running gear (see below).

For the modified Panther in my mind I had to retrograde the turret back to a late standard turret with mantlet parts left over from a Hasegawa kit – they fitted perfectly! The PzBeobWg V only comes with a stubby gun barrel dummy. But I changed the armament, anyway, and implanted an aftermarket white metal and brass KwK 40 L48, the weapon carried by all Syrian Panzer IVs, the Jagdpanzer IVs as well as the StuG IIIs. This standardization would IMHO make sense, even if it meant a performance downgrade from the original, longer KwK 42 L70.

For a Syrian touch, inspired by installations on the Panzer IVs, I added a mount for a heavy DShK machine gun on the commander’s cupola, which is a resin aftermarket kit from Armory Models Group (a kit that consists of no less than five fiddly parts for just a tiny machine gun!).

To change and modernize the Panther’s look further, I gave it side skirts, leftover from a ModelCollect T-72 kit, which had to be modified only slightly to fit onto the molded side skirt consoles on the Panther’s metal hull. A further late addition were the fuel barrels from a Trumpeter T-54 kit that I stumbled upon when I looked for the skirts among my pile of tank donor parts. Even though they look like foreign matter on the Panther’s tail, their high position is plausible and similar to the original arrangement on many Soviet post-WWII tanks. The whip antennae on turret and hull were created with heated black sprue material.

As a modern feature and to change the Panther’s overall look even more, I replaced its original solid “dish” road wheels with T-54/55 “starfish” wheels, which were frequently retrofitted to T-34-85s during the Fifties. These very fine aftermarket resin parts (all real-world openings are actually open, and there’s only little flash!) came from OKB Grigorovich from Bulgaria. The selling point behind this idea is/was that the Panther and T-54/55 wheels have almost the same diameter: in real life it’s 860 vs. 830 mm, so that the difference in 1:72 is negligible. Beneficially, the aftermarket wheels came in two halves, and these were thin enough to replace the Panther’s interleaved wheels without major depth problems.

Adapting the parts to the totally different wheel arrangement was tricky, though, especially due to the Dragon kit’s one-piece white metal chassis that makes any mods difficult. My solution: I retained the inner solid wheels from the Panther (since they are hardly visible in the “3rd row”), plus four pairs of T-54/55 wheels for the outer, more rows of interleaved wheels. The “inner” T-54/55 wheel halves were turned around, received holes to fit onto the metal suspension pins and scratched hub covers. The “outside” halves were taken as is but received 2 mm spacer sleeves on their back sides (styrene tube) for proper depth and simply to improve their hold on the small and rounded metal pin tips. This stunt worked better than expected and looks really good, too!

Painting and markings:

Basically very simple, and I used pictures of real Syrian Panzer IVs as benchmark. I settled for the common green livery variant, and though simple and uniform, I tried to add some “excitement” to it and attempted to make old paint shine through. The hull’s lower surface areas were first primed with RAL 7008 (Khakigrau, a rather brownish tone), then the upper surfaces were sprayed with a lighter sand brown tone, both applied from rattle cans.

On top of that, a streaky mix of Revell 45 and 46 – a guesstimate for the typical Syrian greyish, rather pale olive drab tone - was thinly applied with a soft, flat brush, so that the brownish tones underneath would shine through occasionally. Once dry, the layered/weathered effect was further emphasized through careful vertical wet-sanding and rubbing on all surfaces with a soft cotton cloth.

The rubber side skirts were painted with an anthracite base and the dry-brushed with light grey and beige.

The model then received an overall washing with a highly thinned mix of grey and dark brown acrylic artist paint. The vinyl tracks (as well as the IP spare track links on the hull) were painted, too, with a mix of grey, red brown and iron, all acrylic paints, too, that do not interact chemically with the soft vinyl.

The decals/markings are minimal; the Arabian scribble on the turret (must be a name?), using the picture of a Syrian Panzer IV as benchmark, was painted in white by hand, as well as the white circle on the turret roof. The orange ID triangles are a nice contrast, even though I was not able to come up with real-life visual evidence for them. I just found a color picture of a burned T-34-85 wreck with them, suggesting that the color was a dull orange red and not florescent orange, as claimed in some sources. I also found illustrations of the triangles as part of 1:35 decal sets for contemporary Syrian T-34-85s from FC Model Trend and Star Models, where they appear light red. For the model, they were eventually cut out from decal sheet material (TL-Modellbau, in a shade called “Rotorange”, what appears to be a good compromise).

Dry-brushing with light grey and beige to further emphasize edges and details followed. Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic vanish overall, and some additional very light extra dry-brushing with silver was done to simulate flaked paint. Dirt and rust residues were added here and there with watercolors. After final assembly, the lower areas of the model were furthermore powdered with mineral pigments to simulate dust.

The idea of a modernized WWII Panther: a simple idea that turned into a major conversion. With the resin DShK machine gun and T-54/55 wheel set the costs of this project escalated a little, but in hindsight I find that the different look and the mix of vintage German and modern Soviet elements provide this Panther with that odd touch that sets it apart from a simple paint/marking variation? I really like the outcome, and I think that the effort was worthwhile - this fictional Panther shoehorns well into its intended historical framework. :-D

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.

© Emily Reid Campbell

+++ 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 OV-10 Bronco was initially conceived in the early 1960s through an informal collaboration between W. H. Beckett and Colonel K. P. Rice, U.S. Marine Corps, who met at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, California, and who also happened to live near each other. The original concept was for a rugged, simple, close air support aircraft integrated with forward ground operations. At the time, the U.S. Army was still experimenting with armed helicopters, and the U.S. Air Force was not interested in close air support.

The concept aircraft was to operate from expedient forward air bases using roads as runways. Speed was to be from very slow to medium subsonic, with much longer loiter times than a pure jet. Efficient turboprop engines would give better performance than piston engines. Weapons were to be mounted on the centerline to get efficient aiming. The inventors favored strafing weapons such as self-loading recoilless rifles, which could deliver aimed explosive shells with less recoil than cannons, and a lower per-round weight than rockets. The airframe was to be designed to avoid the back blast.

The MV-10Hs are expected to provide support for these ground units in the form of all-weather reconnaissance and observation, close air support and also forward air control duties for supporting ground units. Precision ground strikes and protection from enemy helicopters and low-flying aircraft were other, secondary missions for the modernized Broncos, which are expected to serve well into the 2040s. Exports or conversions of foreign OV-10s to the Black Pony standard are not planned, though.

General characteristics:

Crew: 2

Length: 42 ft 2½ in (12,88 m) incl. pitot

Wingspan: 45 ft 10½ in(14 m) incl. tip sails

Height: 15 ft 2 in (4.62 m)

Wing area: 290.95 sq ft (27.03 m²)

Airfoil: NACA 64A315

Empty weight: 9,090 lb (4,127 kg)

Gross weight: 13,068 lb (5,931 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 17,318 lb (7,862 kg)

Powerplant:

2× General Electric CT7-9D turboprop engines, 1,305 kW (1,750 hp) each,

driving 8-bladed Hamilton Standard 8 ft 6 in (2.59 m) diameter constant-speed,

fully feathering, reversible contra-rotating propellers with metal hub and composite blades

Performance:

Maximum speed: 390 mph (340 kn, 625 km/h)

Combat range: 198 nmi (228 mi, 367 km)

Ferry range: 1,200 nmi (1,400 mi, 2,200 km) with auxiliary fuel

Maximum loiter time: 5.5 h with auxiliary fuel

Service ceiling: 32.750 ft (10,000 m)

13,500 ft (4.210 m) on one engine

Rate of climb: 17.400 ft/min (48 m/s) at sea level

Take-off run: 480 ft (150 m)

740 ft (227 m) to 50 ft (15 m)

1,870 ft (570 m) to 50 ft (15 m) at MTOW

Landing run: 490 ft (150 m)

785 ft (240 m) at MTOW

1,015 ft (310 m) from 50 ft (15 m)

Armament:

1x M197 3-barreled 20 mm Gatling cannon in a chin turret with 750 rounds ammo capacity

7x hardpoints for a total load of 5.000 lb (2,270 kg)

2x wingtip launch rails for AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs

The kit and its assembly:

This fictional Bronco update/conversion was simply spawned by the idea: could it be possible to replace the original cockpit section with one from an AH-1 Cobra, for a kind of gunship version?

The basis is the Academy OV-10D kit, mated with the cockpit section from a Fujimi AH-1S TOW Cobra (Revell re-boxing, though), chosen because of its “boxy” cockpit section with flat glass panels – I think that it conveys the idea of an armored cockpit section best. Combining these parts was not easy, though, even though the plan sound simple. Initially, the Bronco’s twin booms, wings and stabilizer were built separately, because this made PSR on these sections easier than trying the same on a completed airframe. One of the initial challenges: the different engines. I wanted something uprated, and a different look, and I had a pair of (excellent!) 1:144 resin engines from the Russian company Kompakt Zip for a Tu-95 bomber at hand, which come together with movable(!) eight-blade contraprops that were an almost perfect size match for the original three-blade props. Biggest problem: the Tu-95 nacelles have a perfectly circular diameter, while the OV-10’s booms are square and rectangular. Combining these parts and shapes was already a messy PST affair, but it worked out quite well – even though the result rather reminds of some Chinese upgrade measure (anyone know the Tu-4 copies with turboprops? This here looks similar!). But while not pretty, I think that the beafier look works well and adds to the idea of a “revived” aircraft. And you can hardly beat the menacing look of contraprops on anything...

The exotic, so-called “tip sails” on the wings, mounted on short booms, are a detail borrowed from the Shijiazhuang Y-5B-100, an updated Chinese variant/copy of the Antonov An-2 biplane transporter. The booms are simple pieces of sprue from the Bronco kit, the winglets were cut from 0.5mm styrene sheet.

For the cockpit donor, the AH-1’s front section was roughly built, including the engine section (which is a separate module, so that the basic kit can be sold with different engine sections), and then the helicopter hull was cut and trimmed down to match the original Bronco pod and to fit under the wing. This became more complicated than expected, because a) the AH-1 cockpit and the nose are considerably shorter than the OV-10s, b) the AH-1 fuselage is markedly taller than the Bronco’s and c) the engine section, which would end up in the area of the wing, features major recesses, making the surface very uneven – calling for massive PSR to even this out. PSR was also necessary to hide the openings for the Fujimi AH-1’s stub wings. Other issues: the front landing gear (and its well) had to be added, as well as the OV-10 wing stubs. Furthermore, the new cockpit pod’s rear section needed an aerodynamical end/fairing, but I found a leftover Academy OV-10 section from a build/kitbashing many moons ago. Perfect match!

All these challenges could be tackled, even though the AH-1 cockpit looks surprisingly stout and massive on the Bronco’s airframe - the result looks stockier than expected, but it works well for the "Gunship" theme. Lots of PSR went into the new central fuselage section, though, even before it was mated with the OV-10 wing and the rest of the model.

Once cockpit and wing were finally mated, the seams had to disappear under even more PSR and a spinal extension of the canopy had to be sculpted across the upper wing surface, which would meld with the pod’s tail in a (more or less) harmonious shape. Not an easy task, and the fairing was eventually sculpted with 2C putty, plus even more PSR… Looks quite homogenous, though.

After this massive body work, other hardware challenges appeared like small distractions. The landing gear was another major issue because the deeper AH-1 section lowered the ground clearance, also because of the chin turret. To counter this, I raised the OV-10’s main landing gear by ~2mm – not much, but it was enough to create a credible stance, together with the front landing gear transplant under the cockpit, which received an internal console to match the main landing gear’s length. Due to the chin turret and the shorter nose, the front wheel retracts backwards now. But this looks quite plausible, thanks to the additional space under the cockpit tub, which also made a belt feed for the gun’s ammunition supply believable.

To enhance the menacing look I gave the model a fixed refueling boom, made from 1mm steel wire and a receptor adapter sculpted with white glue. The latter stuff was also used add some antenna fairings around the hull. Some antennae, chaff dispensers and an IR decoy were taken from the Academy kit.

The ordnance came from various sources. The Sidewinders under the wing tips were taken from an Italeri F-16C/D kit, they look better than the missiles from the Academy Bronco kit. Their launch rails came from an Italeri Bae Hawk 200. The quadruple Hellfire launchers on the underwing hardpoints were left over from an Italeri AH-1W, and they are a perfect load for this aircraft and its role. The LAU-10 and -19 missile pods on the stub wings were taken from the OV-10 kit.

Painting and markings:

Finding a suitable and somewhat interesting – but still plausible – paint scheme was not easy. Taking the A-10 as benchmark, an overall light grey livery (with focus on low contrast against the sky as protection against ground fire) would have been a likely choice – and in fact the last operational American OV-10s were painted in this fashion. But in order to provide a different look I used the contemporary USAF V-22Bs and Special Operations MC-130s as benchmark, which typically carry a darker paint scheme consisting of FS 36118 (suitably “Gunship Gray” :D) from above, FS 36375 underneath, with a low, wavy waterline, plus low-viz markings. Not spectacular, but plausible – and very similar to the late r/w Colombian OV-10s.

The cockpit tub became Dark Gull Grey (FS 36231, Humbrol 140) and the landing gear white (Revell 301).

The model received an overall black ink washing and some post-panel-shading, to liven up the dull all-grey livery. The decals were gathered from various sources, and I settled for black USAF low-viz markings. The “stars and bars” come from a late USAF F-4, the “IP” tail code was tailored from F-16 markings and the shark mouth was taken from an Academy AH-64. Most stencils came from another Academy OV-10 sheet and some other sources.

Decals were also used to create the trim on the propeller blades and markings on the ordnance.

Finally, the model was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and some exhaust soot stains were added with graphite along the tail boom flanks.

A successful transplantation – but is this still a modified Bronco or already a kitbashing? The result looks quite plausible and menacing, even though the TOW Cobra front section appears relatively massive. But thanks to the bigger engines and extended wing tips the proportions still work. The large low-pressure tires look a bit goofy under the aircraft, but they are original. The grey livery works IMHO well, too – a more colorful or garish scheme would certainly have distracted from the modified technical basis.

+++ 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 Cessna Model 336 and 337 “Skymaster” were American twin-engine civil utility aircraft built in a unique push-pull configuration. Their engines were mounted in the nose and rear of its pod-style fuselage. Twin booms extended aft of the wings to the vertical stabilizers, with the rear engine between them. The horizontal stabilizer was aft of the pusher propeller, mounted between and connecting the two booms.

The type’s versatility, low noise level, high travel speed and good loitering time in the operational area at low speed proved to be vital assets for these public service operators and justified its relatively high maintenance costs. A handful of the modernized Spectrum SA-550 machines were still in active service after the Millennium, primarily in the USA.

General characteristics:

Crew: 1 + 3 passengers (up to 5 passengers possible in special seat configuration)

Length: 32 ft 6½ in (9.94 m)

Wingspan: 38 ft ¾ in (11.62 m)

Height: 9 ft 2 in (2.79 m)

Wing area: 201 sq ft (18.81 m²)

Aspect ratio: 7.18:1

Airfoil: NACA 2412 at root, NACA 2409 at tip

Empty weight: 2,655 lb (1,204 kg)

Max takeoff weight: 4,400 lb (1,996 kg)

Fuel capacity: 92 US gal (77 imp gal; 350 l) normal,

128 US gal (107 imp gal; 480 l) with auxiliary tank

in the cabin instead of two passenger seats

Powerplant:

1× Pratt & Whitney PT6A-27 turboprop engine, delivering 550 shp (410 kW) and

driving a four-blade McCauley fully-feathering, constant-speed propeller, 6 ft 4 in (1.93 m) diameter

Performance:

Maximum speed: 199 mph (320 km/h, 173 kn) at sea level

Cruise speed: 144 mph (232 km/h, 125 kn) at 10,000 ft (3,000 m) (econ cruise)

Stall speed: 69 mph (111 km/h, 60 kn)

Range: 1421 mi (2.288 km, 1.243 nmi) at 10.000 ft (3.050 m) altitude and economy cruise

Service ceiling: 19,500 ft (5,900 m)

Rate of climb: 1,200 ft/min (6.1 m/s)

Takeoff distance to 50 ft (15m): 1,545 ft (471 m)

Landing distance from 50 ft (15m): 1,650 ft (500 m)

The kit and its assembly:

This build is the combination of ingredients that had already been stashed away for a long time, and the “Red Lights” Group Build at whatifmodellers.com in early 2021 was a good motivator and occasion to finally put everything together.

The basis is an ARII 1:72 Cessna T337 model kit – I had purchased it long ago with the expectation to create a military Skymaster from it, but I was confused by a fixed landing gear which would make it a 336? Well, without a further concrete plan the kit preliminarily landed in The Stash™…

However, the ARII model features the optional observation windows in the doors on the starboard side, in the form of a complete(!) fuselage half, so that it lends itself to a police or firefighter aircraft of some sort. This idea was furthermore fueled by a decal sheet that I had been given from a friend, left over from a 1:72 Italeri JetRanger, with three optional police helicopter markings.

The final creative element was the real-world “Pelican” conversion of six O-2As for the US Navy, as mentioned in the background above: the front engine was replaced with a longer nose and the engine configuration changed to a pusher-only aircraft with a single powerful turboprop engine. This looked so odd that I wanted to modify the ARII Cessna in a similar fashion, too, and all these factors came together in this model.

My Arii Cessna 337 kit is a re-boxing from 2009, but its origins date back to Eidai in 1972 and that’s just what you get: a vintage thing with some flash and sinkholes, raised (but fine) surface details and pretty crude seams with bulges and gaps. Some PSR is direly necessary, esp. the fit of the fuselage halves is cringeworthy. The clear parts were no source of joy, either; especially the windscreen turned out to be thick, very streaky (to a degree that I’d almost call it opaque!) and even not fully molded! The side glazing was also not very clear. I tried to improve the situation through polishing, but if the basis is already poor, there’s little you can do about it. Hrmpf.

However, the kit was built mostly OOB, including the extra O-2 glazing in the lower doors, but with some mods. One is a (barely visible) extra tank in the cabin’s rear, plus a pilot and an observer figure placed into the tight front seats. The extended “Pelican” nose was a lucky find – I was afraid that I had had to sculpt a nose from scratch with 2C putty. But I found a radome from a Hasegawa RA-5C, left over from a model I built in the Eighties and that has since long fallen apart. However, this nose fitted almost perfectly in size and shape, I just “blunted” the tip a little. Additionally, both the hull in front of the dashboard and the Vigilante radome were filled with as many lead beads as possible to keep the nose down.

The kit’s OOB spatted, fixed landing gear was retained – even though it is dubious for a Cessna 337, because this type had a fully retractable landing gear, and the model has the landing gear covers actually molded into the lower fuselage. On the other side, the Cessna 336’s fixed landing gear looks quite different, too! However, this is a what-if model, and a fixed landing gear might have been a measure to reduce maintenance costs?

The propeller was replaced with a resin four-blade aftermarket piece (from CMK, probably the best-fitting thing on this build!) on my standard metal axis/styrene tube adapter arrangement. The propeller belongs to a Shorts Tucano, but I think that it works well on the converted Cessna and its powerful pusher engine, even though in the real world, the SA-550 is AFAIK driven by a three-blade prop. For the different engine I also enlarged the dorsal air intake with a 1.5 mm piece of styrene sheet added on top of the molded original air scoop and added a pair of ventral exhaust stubs (scratched from sprue material).

Another addition is a pair of winglets, made from 0.5 mm styrene sheet – an upgrade which I found on several late Cessna 337s in various versions. They just add to the modernized look of the aircraft. For the intended observation role, a hemispherical fairing under the nose hides a 180° camera, and I added some antennae around the hull.

However, a final word concerning the model kit itself: nothing fits, be warned! While the kit is a simple affair and looks quite good in the box, assembling it turned out to be a nightmare, with flash, sinkholes, a brittle styrene and gaps everywhere. This includes the clear parts, which are pretty thick and blurry. The worst thing is the windscreen, which is not only EXTRA thick and EXTRA blurry, it was also not completely molded, with gaps on both sides. I tried to get it clearer through manual polishing, but the streaky blurs are integral – no hope for improvement unless you completely replace the parts! If I ever build a Cessna 337/O-2 again, I will give the Airfix kit a try, it can only be better…

Painting and markings:

The choice between the operator options from the JetRanger sheet was hard, it included Sweden and Italy, but I eventually settled for the LAPD because the livery looks cool and this police department not only operates helicopters, but also some fixed-wing aircraft.

I adapted the LAPD’s classic black-and-white police helicopter livery (Gloss White and Black, Humbrol 22 and 21, respectively) to the Cessna and extended it to the wings. At this point – already upset because of the poor fit of the hardware – disaster struck in the form of Humbrol’s 22 turning into a pinkish ivory upon curing! In the tin, the paint and its pigments looked pretty white and “clean”, and I assume that it’s the thinner that caused this change. What a crap! It’s probably the third tin with 22 that causes trouble, even though in different peculiarities!

The result was total rubbish, though, and I tried to rub the paint off as good as possible on the small model with its many windows, the fixed, delicate landing gear and the wing support struts. Then I overpainted the areas with Revell 301 (Semi-matt White). While this enamel yielded the intended pure white tone, the paint itself is rather gooey and not easy to work with, so that the overall finish turned out worse than desired. At least the black paint worked properly. The demarcations were created with black decal stripes (TL Modellbau), because the tiny model left little room for complex masking measures – and I did not risk any more painting accidents.

Since the aircraft would be kept shiny and clean, I just did a light black ink washing to emphasize surface details and did a light panel post-shading on the black areas, not for weathering but rather to accent surface structures. No further weathering was done (and necessary).

The markings/decals come – as mentioned above – from an Italeri 1:72 JetRanger, but they were augmented with some additional markings, e. g. grey walkways on the wings and “L-A-P-D” in large black letters under the wings, to distract from the poor finish of the white paint around them…

Finally, the kit was sealed overall with Italeri semi-gloss acrylic varnish, just with a matt anti-glare shield in front of the windscreen, which received thin white trim lines (generic decal stripes).

A challenging build due to the Arii kit’s rather poor basis, the massive rhinoplasty and the crisp paint scheme. However, I like the result – what-if models do not always have to be armed military vehicles, there’s potential in other genres, too. And this mono-engine “Pelican” Skymaster plays its role as a “flying eye” in police service credibly and well. However, this was my first and last Eidai kit…

via Blogger ift.tt/1TBu7vc

381 East 165th Street, aka 1038 Clay Avenue, is a unusual and notable house in several respects. Located on the western edge of the Morrisania neighborhood in the South Bronx, New York City, it is heavily covered in ivy, which although not unique in New York City, is certainly rare, especially in such a highly urbanized area. This photo shows the East 165th Street facade during winter. In other times of year, when the ivy is in bloom, the facade of the building is almost completely covered. Only at this time can one see the details of the building's exterior.

The house was built in 1906 for hardware store manufacturer Francis Keil and was designed by architect Charles S. Clark. Before moving to this house, Keil and his family lived in one of the rowhouses on Clay Avenue within what is now the Clay Avenue Historic District. Keil's attraction to the area was likely due to the fact his business was located only a few blocks away. As for Clark, among his other work he also designed a row of Queen Anne stye rowhouses in the Perry Avenue Historic District, located in the northern Bronx.

381 East 165th Street is the odd duck within the City-designated Clay Avenue Historic District. The historic district, which encompasses the facing blockfronts of Clay Avenue between East 165th Street and East 166th Street, consists primarily of 2-family rowhouses. The district also includes three apartment buildings, but no other single family homes. This is also the only building in the district designed by Clark and the only one not built by developer Ernest Wenigmann. Wenigmann had owned this property, but sold it to Keil in 1906.

The historic district report refers to this area as "a distinctive enclave dating from the early period of urban development in the Bronx." The house at 381 East 165th Street is an exception inside an enclave, a truly one of a kind building. It is a good example of how New York often provides the unexpected and the beautiful, ready to be found if one keeps a lookout for it.

In the Bay

52 Weeks Project

It is a park, but in fact only an accessible strip of land along the IJ near the Oranje Sluizen (locks). But again an Amsterdam city park stripped of the project «Visit all city parks for a 52-week self-portrait».

Location: Schellingwouderpark, Amsterdam Noord (North).

Coordinates: 52°38'42" N 4°95'60" E

Reason: In September 2017 the idea was born to make a selfie in at least every park in Amsterdam with at least a little importance. After already visited 5 parks for this purpose this year, this was number 6. And this location was easy to reach after a bike ride of just over 7 kilometers from home over the Amsterdamsebrug and Schellingwouderbrug.

Schellingwouderpark: The Schellingwouderpark is a city park in Amsterdam North. It opened in January 2010. It is situated on the IJ at the Schellingwouderbrug between the Orange Locks and the Oranjewerf and is approximately 10 hectares in size. The Schellingwouderbreek located to the north of the park has since become one with the park.

The park is part of the nature project "van IJ tot Gouw" which aims to strengthen the ecological relationship between IJmeer and Waterland. Kingfisher walls and wintering places for the grass snake, the Northern vole and dragonflies are made.

The original park is accessible from a pedestrian ferry from the Noorder IJdijk and from the Schellingwouderdijk.

Schellingwouderbreek: This part of the park could be a second location of the "Park 52-Weeks" project. This week I have chosen to visit this location along the IJ (water).

Parks to visit: Parks still on my list to visit for my "52-Weeks" project are: Gerbrandypark (W), Gijsbrecht van Amstelpark (Z), Park Somerlust (E), Wertheimpark and Martin Luther Kingpark (S). In total 5 parks to go. I replaced the previously mentioned Buiksloterpark in North with Park Somerlust along the Amstel. This park is not open yet as we speak (June 2020).

To Listen ♫: Lost Frequencies & Zonderling feat. Kelvin Jones - Love To Go (Extended Mix) (Youtube)

Weather: Sunny with a haze, 25° C (also the maximum this day)

Self-portrait technics: 'Stretched arm' method without self-timer. ("SPAAL")

Interesting Fact (Whatbird.com): White-breasted Nuthatch gathers nuts and seeds, jam them into tree bark, and hammer or "hatch" the food open with their bills. A group of nuthatches are collectively known as a "jar" of nuthatches. They often travel with small mixed flocks in winter. One explanation for these flocks is that the birds gain protection from predators by the vigilance of the other birds. While the Red-breasted, Pygmy, and Brown-headed Nuthatches are mostly found in pines, the White-breasted Nuthatch prefers deciduous trees.

Thank you to all our Flickr friends.

We appreciate your visits, comments and adding this picture to your favorites!

Thank you, thank you and thank you!

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 mighty Suchoj SuCh-1 started its life in early March 1943, when the Sukhoi OKB finished work on the design of a high-speed fighter with a unique powerplant arrangement. The aircraft was an all-metal low-wing mono­plane with conventional tail surfaces. The three-section wings had constant dihedral and basically trapezoidal planform; the sta­bilizers had zero dihedral.

All in all only 120 of these powerful machines were built until the end of hostilities, as the feared mass attacks of German long range bombers did not materialize. as the Su-7 was complicated to operate and jet engines promised a far more efficient way of propulsion for high speeds, the type was already retired in 1947 and replaced by 1st generation jet fighters like the Yak-15 and MiG-9, which carried a similar armament, attained a better performance (except for the range) but weighed only half of the large and heavy SuCh-1.

.

General characteristics

Crew: One

Length: 11.75 m (38 ft 5 3/4 in)

Wingspan: 13.85 m (45 ft 3 1/4 in)

Height: 5.30 m (17 ft 4 in)

Empty weight: 5.250 kg (11.565 lb)

Max. take-off weight: 8.100 kg (17.840 lb)

Powerplant:

2× Klimov VK-107A liquid-cooled V12 engines with an output of 1.650 hp (1.210 kW) each at sea level and 900 hp (650 kW) at 8.300m (27.220 ft)

Performance:

Maximum speed: 720 km/h (447 mph) at height, clean configuration

Range: 750 km (465 mi)

Service ceiling: 11.700 m (38.400 ft)

Rate of climb: 876 m/mim (2.850 ft/min)

Armament:

1× Nudelman-Richter NR-37 37mm cannon with 60 RPG, firing through the propeller hub

2× Nudelman N-23 23mm cannons with 120 RPG in the wings

Many different cannon and machine gun arrangements coulod be found, though.

*Information about the conceptual Suchoj I-2M107 was primarily gathered from the book 'OKB Suchoj', written by Yefim Gordon & Dmitriy Komissarov; Hersham (UK), 2010.

.

The kit and its assembly (a long story!):

This abomination of an aircraft is/was real, even though the I-2M107 was never built – the fictional name Suchoj-Chizhevskiy SuCh-1 was actually chosen because I could not find any plausible Su-X code for a WWII fighter. Vladimir A. Chizhevskiy actually joined the Suchoj OKB in mid WWII, so I deemed this alternative to be plausible.

I had this on the agenda for a long time, but the horrors of kitbashing kept me from building it - until now. The current Anthony P memorial Group Build (for the deceased fellow member at whatifmodelers.com, RIP) was a good motivation to tackle this brute thing. Fortunately, I already had some major ingredients in store, so work could start asap.

From that, anything else was improvised from the scrap box, and with only a three side view of the I-2M107 as guidance. It became a true Frankenstein creation with...

● Fuselage and inner wings from the (horrible) NOVO Attacker

● Wings from an Italeri Fw 190 D-9 attached to them

● Nose is a resin Griffon from an Avro Lincoln conversion set from OzMods

● Tail cone is a radar nose from an F-4J Phantom II

● Tail fin is a horizontal stabilizer from a Matchbox SB2C Helldiver

● Vertical stabilizers come from a Matchbox Me 410

● Oil coolers are modified front landing gear wells from two Revell G.91 kits

● Cockpit hood comes from a Revell P-39 Airacobra

● Landing gear comes from an Italeri Fw 190 D-9, covers were modified/improvised

● Main wheels belong to a MPM Ryan Dark Shark

● Tail wheel belongs to a Matchbox Harrier

● The propeller was scratched, IIRC from a Grumman Hellcat drop tank front and blades from an Airfix A-1 Skyraider. Inside, a metal axis was mounted.

.

Work started with the fuselage and the wings as separate segments.

The Attacker fuselage lost its fin and the cockpit and air intakes were simply cut away, just as the tail pipe. The resin Griffon was slightly shortened at the front, but more or less directly attached to the fuselage, after I had cut out openings for the four rows of exhaust nozzles.

Then, the new tail cone was glued onto the end and the original fairings for the Attacker's stabilizer cut away and sanded even - anything had to be made new.

The wings were a bit tricky. I had hoped to use the Attacker's OOB wings, but these were not only much too small and did not have the proper shape, they also lacked landing gear wells!

Finding a solution was not easy, and I had to improvise. After some trials I decided to cut the Attacker wing span at about the width where the guns are located, and then add Fw 190 wings.

The depth would be fine, even though the Fw 190 wings were a bit thicker, and they offered a leading edge kink which was good for the original and characteristic I-2M107's wing root extensions. The latter were sculpted from a 6mm thick core or styrene sheet, added to the Attacker parts' leading edge, and the rest, as well as the lacking Attacker wing's thickness, sculpted with 2C and later NC putty.

Furthermore I cut out and sculpted landing gear wells, another challenging, since these had to cover the Attacker/Fw 190 parts' intersection! LOTS of putty work, sanding and shaving, but as a benefit I was able to use the Attacker kit's original wing/fuselage joints. Effectively, my placement turned out to be a bit far outside, so the track appears too wide - the price to pay when you work on single parts. Anyway, I left it was it turned out, as a major correction at a late working stage would mean to tear anything apart again...

Back to the nose: adding the propeller and the cockpit into the massive nose was the next working station. The propeller had to be huge, and also needed a rather big spinner. A contraprop was ruled out, even though it would have looked great here. But eventually I settled for a scratch-built thing, made from a teardrop-shaped drop tank front onto which the four blades from a A-1 Skyraider were glued. Probably the biggest prop I have ever put onto a 1:72 scale model! Since the resin nose was massive, drilling a hole and adding a metal axis to the propeller was enough.

With that in place I started carving out a cockpit opening - it worked better and easier than expected with a mini drill and a coarse shaving head! The opening is still rather small, a seat and a pilot hardly fit, but it works - I found a rather smallish pilot figure, and added a seat and some other small details from the scrap box, just to have something inside.

For a canopy I found a very old (30 years, I guess...) clear part from a Revell P-39 Airacobra in the scrap box, which was almost perfect in shape and width. It was a bit blind and stained with ancient enamel paint, but some wet sanding and serious polishing almost got it back to translucent status. Since I would not open the cockpit, this was a sufficient solution.

The asymmetrical cockpit opening was, in an initial step, faired with styrene strips, for a rough outline, and then sculpted with 2C and later NC putty, blending it into the rest of the fuselage.

For the tail surfaces, the SB2C stabilizer was cut away at its base - it is not a bad donation piece, its shape and rudder come pretty close to the I-2M107's original design!

The stabilizers I used on my kitbash come from a Me 410, and their leading edge was a cut away so that the sweep angle would be a bit larger. They lack depth, compared to the I-2M107's original design, but since the wings have become more slender, too, I think it's a good compromise, and the best what I had at hand in the spares stash.

Finally, and before detail work could start, the wings were attached to the fuselage. I eventually set them back by ~6mm, so that the new, extended leading edge would match the respective fairing on the fuselage. The resulting gap at the trailing edge was, again, filled with 2C and NC putty.

A personal change was a different oil cooler arrangement. The original location was to be in the wings' leading edge, just in front of the landing gear wells - but that appeared a bit doubtful, as I could not find a plausible solution where the exit for the air would be? Consequently, and in order to avoid even more messy putty sculpting on the wings, I decided to re-locate the oil coolers completely, into shallow, tunnel-like fairings under the wing roots, not unlike the radiator arrangement on a Spitfire or Bf 109.

In order to check the surface quality I decided to add a coat of grey primer, once the fuselage/wing segments had been connected. This showed only minor flaws, but made another turn with NC putty and wet sanding necessary.

Now it was time for finishing touches, e .g. mounting the landing gear, completing the cockpit and adding exhaust stubs - cut individually from HO scale model railroad roof tiles and inserted into the four fuselage fairings.

The canopy was fixed into place with white glue, which also helped closing some small gaps.

.

Painting and markings:

While the I-2M107 looks odd, to say the least, I wanted to keep the paint scheme rather simple and quasi-authentic. I went for a pale grey/green camouflage, used e. g. on late war Yakovlev Yak-3 fighters.

Basic colors are Humbrol 31 (Slate Grey, it has a very greenish, even teal, hue), ModelMaster 1740 (Dark Gull Grey, FS 36231) and Humbrol 167 (Barley Grey) for the lower sides with a wavy waterline. Since only marginal surface details were left over, I decided to fake panels and panel lines with paint.

Panels were simulated with lighter shades of the basic tones (RLM 62 from ModelMaster, Humbrol 140 and 127 below), panel lines were painted with highly thinned grey acrylic paint and a special brush - in German it's called a 'Schlepppinsel', it's got very long hairs and is also used to paint scallops on car models, and similar things are used for real car tuning/custom paintwork, too.

Sure, the painted panel lines are a bit rough, but I did not want to risk any damage through manual engraving on the rather delicate mixed-media surface of the kitbashed model. For an overall look or first impression it's very good, though.

As 'highlights' I added a white spinner and half of the fin was painted white, too.

The decals were puzzled together. The flashes and the tactical code number come from a Hobby Boss La-7, the Red Stars, IIRC, belong to a vintage MiG-21F from Hasegawa. The "Rodinu" slogan actually belongs to a 1:35 Soviet Tank decals set.

Finally, after some additional dry painting with light grey, some oil stains around the engines and coolers and soot stains at the exhaust stubs and guns (painted, plus some grinded graphite, as it yields a nice, metallic shimmer that looks like oil or burnt metal), everything was sealed under a coat of matt acrylic varnish.

If it had been built, the Suchoj I-2M107 must have been an impressive aircraft - it was bigger than a P-47 Thunderbolt or an A-1 Skyraider, and one can only wonder how its field performance would have been?

Similar concepts had been underway in UK, too, e. g. for a heavy naval attack aircraft, but the I-2M107 with its asymmetrical cockpit and engine arrangement were unique. A worthy whif, even if some details like the landing gear or the borrowed nose section are not 100% 'correct'.