Fact Community Transport NX57 FZC

Iveco Daily

Ely

July 2015

Protesters at the Womens March in Oakland. Today Conway explained the White House is offering "alternative" facts in reference to Trumps false claims over his inaugural attendance numbers. This is getting more Orwellian by the minute!

+++ 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 ASTA (Aerospace Technologies of Australia, formerly Government Aircraft Factories) Baza development was started in 1995 when the Royal Australian Air Force was searching for a two-seat training aircraft that would allow the transition from initial training on piston-engined aircraft to jets, and could also be used for weapon training and CAS/reconnaissance duties.

The 'Baza' (christened by a small sized bird of prey found in the forests of South Asia and Southeast Asia) has even seen serious military duty and already fired in anger: since August 2007, a detachment of No. 114 Mobile Control and Reporting Unit RAAF has been on active service at Kandahar Airfield in southern Afghanistan, and a constant detachment of six A-31's from RAAF 76 Suqadron has been assigned to armed reconnaissance and protection of approximately 75 personnel deployed with the AN/TPS-77 radar, assigned the responsibility to co-ordinate coalition air operations.

General characteristics:

Crew: 2

Length (incl. Pitot): 14.69 m (48 ft 1 ½ in)

Wingspan: 14.97 m (49 ft)

Height: 3, 75 m (12 ft 3 in)

Wing area: 30.30 m2 (326.1 sq ft)

Aspect ratio: 6.9:1

Airfoil: NACA 642A215 at root, NACA641 at tip

Empty weight: 4,020 kg (8,863 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 6,800 kg (14,991 lb)

Internal fuel capacity: 1,280 L (280 imp gal; 340 US gal)

Powerplant:

2 × Garrett TPE 331-11U-601G turboprop engines, 820 kW (1.100 hp) each

Performance:

Maximum speed: 515 km/h (311 mph; 270 kn) at 4.570 m (15.000 ft)

Cruising speed: 430 km/h (267 mph; 232 kn) at 2.500 m (8.200 ft)

Stall speed: 143 km/h (89 mph; 77 kn) (flaps and undercarriage down)

Never exceed speed: 750 km/h (466 mph; 405 kn)

Range:1.611 km (1.000 mi; 868 nmi), clean and internal fuel only

Ferry range: 3,710 km (2,305 mi; 2,003 nmi) max internal and external fuel

Service ceiling: 10,000 m (32,808 ft)

g limits: +6/-3 g

Rate of climb: 6.5 m/s (1.276 ft/min)

Armament:

2× 30 mm ADEN cannons in the lower nose

Up to 6,800 lb (3,085 kg) of weapons on nine external hardpoints

The kit and its assembly:

Like many of my whifs, this was spawned by a project at whatifmodelers.com from fellow user silverwindblade that ran under the handle "COIN aircraft from a Hawk" - and in fact, the BAe Hawk's fuselage with its staggered cockpit and good field of view appears as a good basis for a conversion.

I liked the idea VERY much, and while silverwindblade's work would rather develop into a futuristic canard layout aircraft, I decided to keep the COIN aircraft rather conservative - the FMA 58 'Pucara' from Argentina would be a proper benchmark.

The basis here is the Italeri BAe Hawk Mk. 127 kit which comes with the longer nose and modified wings for the RAAF version, as well as with false decals.

Anyway, I'd only use the fuselage, anything else is implanted, partly from unlikely donation kits! Wings incl. engine nacelles and stablizers come from the vintage box scale (1:166?) Revell Convair R3Y-2 Tradewind flying boat(!), the fin from an Academy OV-10 Bronco.

The landing gear was puzzled together, among other from parts of a 1:200 Concorde, the propellers were scratched.

Biggest mod to the fuselage is the dissection of the air intakes (and their blending with the fuselage) as well as a new tail section where the Adour jet engine's exhaust had been.

Painting and markings:

This model was agood excuse to finally apply an SIOP color scheme, which was originally carried by USAF's strategic bombers like B-52 or FB-111. But what actually inspired me were Australian C-130s - it took some time to figure out that their scheme were the USAF's SIOP colors (FS 34201, 34159 and 34079). But that made the Baza's potential user's choice (and fictional origin) easy.

As a COIN role aircraft I settled on a wraparound scheme. I found a pattern scheme on an USN Aggerssor A-4 Skyhawk that had been painted in SIOP colors, too, and adapted it for the model. Basic colors were Humbrol 31, 84 and 116, good approximations - the result looks odd, but suits the Baza well.

Later, panels were emphasized through dry painting with lighter shades and a light black ink wash was applied.

The landing gear became classic white, the cockpit interior medium gray - nothing fancy.

The markings were improvised - the Italeri Hawk Mk. 127 features RAAF 'roos, but these are printed in black - wrong for the OOB kit, but very welcome on my aircraft. The rest was salvaged from the scrap box, the tactical code A-31-06 created with single letters from TL Modellbau.

PAYPAL $15.00 GRIMETIMEMAGAZINE@GMAIL.COM

sorry i couldn't edit the picture. i felt like i haven't posted anything in a while. and i wanted to post these facts today, and i was to lazy to put "niley facts" x)

so yeah, these are REAL facts, so dont complain the badassity of it ;)

P.S. i've been seeing these facts on people's twitters and they don't even credit me. I just know for sure they're my facts, js. so, if i see them on someone's twitter without giving me credit again, i'm not posting anymore Niley facts. k? goood:)

64. E! says Nick is alot of the inspiration on Can't Be Tamed

65. Miley Cyrus was at the recording of the Year 3000 video.

66. Miley owns a JONAS shirt.

67. Nick was given a survey when he was 13, and wrote "Miley Cyrus" as his celebrity crush.

68. Billy Ray called Nick "a good kid" on Larry King in 09

69. Ryan: Are you in love with Nick Jonas? Miley; I AM NOT IN LOVE WITH NICK JONAS! R: Is he in love with you? M: Yes. Ryan: Have you made out with him? Miley: NO! Ryan; Will you makeout with him? Miley: Yes. (2007)

70. On Miley's can't be tamed album, "Scars" & "Take Me Along" is supposedly about Nick Jonas.

71. Nick sang Before The Storm in the same place he and Miley broke up. Hartford, Conneticut. (August 13, 2010.)

72. That same night, Noah tweeted Nick, "Hey Nick its noah! See ya. xoxo" She also tweeted about rockin out to Year 3000 and it being her favorite song. (August 13, 2010.)

73. Nick supposedly danced to Party In The USA at the Road Dogs Game. (August 6th, 2010)

74. Miley used to carry band-aids around specially for Nicks diabetes

75. Miley is RUMORED to be texting Nick a lot. A source says "They are not done and could possibly get together this fall"

76. Nick reportedly turned down a Duet with miley 'cause he was too busy touring with his brothers.

77. Nick changed the lyrics AGAIN to Still in Love With You from "You're not Listening" to "You're my destiny." [September 5, 2010]

78. Nick always smiles when Miley is mentioned to him at an interiew.

79. Nick and Miley both LOVE the band Coldplay.

80. Nick and Miley both got the new iPhone4 recently.

81. Paranoid is not about Miley, but it's rumored to be about Selena or Taylor Swift.

82. On the set of "Send it On", Joe & Nick would always make fun of Miley and say that she's the youngest of the cast. <-- this made me LOL. x)

83. Frankie Jonas & Noah Cyrus are team Niley.

84. "We wrote the song after a personal experience that made us grow in the ways of love and relationship And being able to perform this song with an old friend was truly amazing ." -Nick.

85. “We have one of those things where it’s kind of always there. She’s so important to me, and I’m really lucky.” - Nick.

86. Miley tweeted once: "Watching Beauty and The Beast :) Why can't I be more like Belle?" and Nick said his favorite Disney princess is Belle. [September 3, 2010.]

&

87. Nick couldn't stop smiling at the interview With Paul when they mentioned Miley. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp8qSeOks7k <-- BTW, love this interview! it's frickin hilarious. you should watch the whole thing x)

+++ 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 Dassault-Breguet Super Étendard (trans. "battle flag") is a French carrier-borne strike fighter aircraft designed by Dassault-Breguet for service with the French Navy. The aircraft was an advanced development of the Étendard IVM, the first of three prototypes, an IVM modified with the new engine and some of the new avionics, made its maiden flight on 28 October 1974. Original intentions were for 100 Super Étendard aircraft to be ordered for the French Navy, however the order placed was for 60 of the new model with options for a further 20; further budget cuts lead to only 71 Super Étendards being purchased in the end for the Aéronavele, with deliveries starting in June 1978.

No aircraft was lost during the leasing service. All aircraft were, after a major overhaul, integrated into the Aéronavale from 1988 on.

General characteristics

Crew: 1

Length: 14.31 m (45 ft 11½ in)

Wingspan: 9.60 m (31 ft 6 in)

Height: 3.86 m (12 ft 8 in)

Wing area: 28.4 m² (306.7 ft²)

Empty weight: 6,500 kg (14,330 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 12,000 kg (26,455 lb)

Powerplant: 1 × SNECMA Atar 8K-50 turbojet, 49.0 kN (11,025 lbf)

Performance

Maximum speed: 1,000 km/h (637 knots, 733 mph) at low level

Range: 1,820 km (983 nmi, 1,130 mi)

Service ceiling: 13,700 m (44,900 ft)

Rate of climb: 100 m/s[62] (19,700 ft/min)

Wing loading: 423 kg/m² (86.3 lb/ft²)

Thrust/weight: 0.42

Armament

2× 30 mm (1.18 in) DEFA 552 cannons with 125 RPG

4× underwing and 2× under-fuselage hardpoints with a capacity of 2,100 kg (4,600 lb) maximum

The kit and its assembly:

The idea for this model was inspired by a profile designed by fellow user PantherG at whatifmodelers.com, showing a German Super Étendard in a fictional Marineflieger style paint scheme. I've been fascinated by the Tornado's Norm '87 scheme - but rather not by the Tornado itself. So I was happy to have an "excuse" to build a respective what-if model, taking a virtual idea to hardware.

The model is the standard Academy Super Étendard in 1:72, which is well-detailed - only the cockpit can take some attention, esp. the ejection seat, which I replaced completely, and I also added a Matchbox pilot which had to have its legs cut off, since the cockpit seems to be designed for Asian body measures... pretty tight in there!

Basically the kit was kept OOB. Only changes were made to the ordnance, which was taken from a German Tornado (Italeri). I also drilled open the air brakes' holes under the fuselage, and lowered the flaps for a more lively look. Overall, the Sue is rather clean and not really interesting - so any additional detail helps, I guess.

Painting and markings:

This took some legwork, since I wanted to stay true to reality, despite creating a whif.

The tactical code 42+XX has so far never been allocated to a German aircraft type, but it would perfectly fit in time before the Tornado (which has 43+XX and higher numbers).

The paint scheme is supposed to be experimental - and actually both Luftwaffe and Marineflieger had been testing tactical camouflage schemes for air superiority as well as ground attack purposes on a wide range of aircraft in the 70ies and 80ies, including F-4F, RF-4E, Alpha Jets and later also Tornados. Anyway, I decided to stay close to the "real" Norm 87 scheme, which is a bit different from what PantherG suggested in his drawings.

The colors I used are authentic: RAL 7009 "Grüngrau" is Revell 67, RAL 7012 "Basaltgrau" is Revell 77 and RAL 5008 "Graublau" is available as Xtracolor X264. Consulting real RAL color samples as benchmarks, I muist say that the Revell tones are very good, but the Xtracolor paint is pretty far off. X264 is rather a dark petrol blue, reminiscent of FS35042. Graublau is much more dull and grey-ish, rather a bluish FS36081 - and on real aircraft it almost looks like tar, no blue hue at all to detect.

Anyway, I still used X264, since my 42+15 would sport an experimental paint scheme, so it would not matter much - and X264 would still be the darkest tone of the paint scheme, with good contrast to RAL 7009 and 7012, which are very similar and have almost no contrast. Interesting scheme, though, esp. due to its large color bandages all around the hull instead of smaller patches or stripes.

Best alternative I could find is Humbrol 77, which is still too greenish, though - mixing it 1:1 with Humbrol 32 might yield something that comes close to RAL 5008.

With a little shading with lighter tones (including RLM 71 from Testors, Humbrol 79 and 77, as well as some acryllic dark grey as an overall filter), a black ink wash and some dry-brushing the contrast was enhanced and the surface slightly weathered. German aircraft were kept in good shape, but at times the weather and sunlight would take their toll and bleach the colors, esp. on the upper sides - RAL 7012 would quickly deteriorate into a relatively light grey with a slight, purple hue!

Both Cerberus and BOZ-101 pods were painted in different shades of grey, though, as if they'd belong to a differently camouflaged Marineflieger aircraft. The Kormoran missiles were painted according to pics of the real thing, in a dark olive drab color.

National markings and some German stencils were taken from an Xtradecal sheet for German Tornados, as well as from a sheet of an Italeri Tornado with Luftwaffe markings. The tactical codes were created from single digits from a respective TL Modellbau decal sheet.

Cockpit interior was painted in a very dark grey, according to pictures from the real Sue. The air intake interior and the landing gear wells were kept in aluminum (Humbrol 56), while the landing gear struts received a mix of aluminum and white.

In the end, a simple project: only a fantasy paint scheme and some minor changed details to the OOB kit. But the German wraparound scheme suits the Sue well, and its service introduction in France as well as the retirement of the German Starfighters in the early 80ies makes this a potentially convincing and plausible whif. And, honestly, it was actually a relief from some recent major kit conversions and kitbashings - and a tribute to the creative spirit of PantherG at whatifmodelers.com. ^^

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.

spotted sandpiper

F.A.C.T.S. 2013

Ghent, Belgien

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

www.flickr.com/photos/mchenryarts/

www.facebook.com/McHenryArts

I consider myself a very lucky woman. Because, even if it made me suffer a lot, I always had the courage to accept the facts, and not to lie to myself.

And I don't like to delete good memories.They are a part of me, of the person I am, and of the better person I can be!

Have a great saturday you all, I'm going to town tonight, to see a show: maybe I'll take some good shot!

ciaoooo :)))

C.B. Tryon, Typographer

+++ 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 origins of the mighty Hawker Harpy date back until the late 1940ies, when the British MoD issued a specification for "an interceptor fighter with supersonic performance" under the handle F.23/49. In May 1949 OR.268 was prepared and finally issued in April 1950. It called for a twin-engine single-seat supersonic fighter to operate in Europe and desirably any other part of the world. The initial design requirements were not too demanding: a top speed of at least Mach 1.2 was called for, with climb to 50.000' (15.240m) in no more than 360 seconds. The fighter had to have a rate of climb of at least 1.000'/min (305m/min) and a minimum endurance from take-off to landing of at least 60min. At least two 30mm Aden cannon were to be carried.

Both Harpy and Lightning were hard to replace, though, as the RAF Phantoms initially also had to fill out an attack and reconnaissance role (a gap which was to be filled with the SEPECAT Jaguar), so both interceptors soldiered on until the early 1980ies. Both were replaced by the Phantoms, the large Harpy made its final flight in May 1982 while the last Lightning was retired in 1988, as the Tornado ADV was under development and would unite what even the couple of Harpy and Lighning never achieved in their service career.

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 21.52 m (70 ft 7 in)

Wingspan: 9.34 m (30 ft 8 in)

Height: 5.41 m (17 ft 9 in)

Wing area: 42.2 m² (454 ft 3 in)

Empty weight: 10,371 kg (22,864 lb)

Loaded weight: 15,288 kg (33,704 lbf)

Max. take-off weight: 18,879 kg (41,621 lbf)

Powerplant:

2× reheated Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire Sa.7LR engines, rated at 11.000lb (48.9kN) dry thrust and at 15.400lb (68.4kN) with afterburner

Performance:

Maximum speed: Mach 2.1

Combat radius with 5 min combat: 647 nmi (746 mi, 1,200 km)

Ferry range: 1.403 nmi (1.615 mi, 2.600 km) with 3 external fuel tanks

Service ceiling: 18.100 m (59.383 ft)

Rate of climb: 83 m/s (16.405 ft/min)

Wing loading: 447.4 kg/m² (MAX T-O Weight) (91.63 lb/ft² (MAX T-O Weight))

Thrust/weight: 0.5; 0.91 with afterburner (MAX T-O Weight)

Armament:

2× Aden 30mm (1.18”) cannons under the air intakes with 120 RPG

7× hard points (6 under wing and one centerline hard point) for air-to-air missiles (Firestreak or, from 1965 on, primarily Red Top), fuel on three wet pylons, or bombs, Matra pods with 18 unguided 68mm SNEB rockets, for a total maximum load of 10.000 lb (4.540 kg)

The kit and its assembly:

Hopefully royalists will forgive me for this... but did you ever see an aircraft and get the spontaneous idea what it actually could be or have been? Well, the Chinese J-8II is such a case. In fact, the J-8 was born as a scaled-up MiG-21F with two engines, and it was later modified to carry a nose radome and lateral air intakes. Somehow this large jet fighter had IMHO a British look about it… I couldn't help, it HAD to become an RAF aircraft! Totally anachronistic, but worth the try ;).

Anyway, it is still SO retro that I had to put even the modernized version back in time by about 20 years, when it would have been up to date. Just for reference: imagine that the real J-8II entered service in China when the Harpy was retired after 20 years of service in my fictional background story…

Well, to be honest I have had this one on my idea list for a long time, but as it would ‘just’ be an almost OOB build I always held in back, favoring more complicated works. Anyway, as I had a Trumpeter J-8II kit in store AND appropriate decals I decided to work the Harpy out as the first kit in 2014.

As already mentioned, this is an almost OOB build of the Trumpeter J-8II (NATO code 'Finback B'), with only minor modifications. The kit is very nice: Fit is good, you get recessed panel lines, as many details as you can ask for – just some fit issues with the fuselage halves and slight sink holes at the air intakes. While you need some putty, anyway, the thing goes together very easily.

Personal mods to create the Hawker Harpy include a Matchbox pilot figure for the cockpit, two fins ('Finback A' style) instead of the J-8II's single MiG-23 style folding fin, new drop tanks (from a Matchbox Hawker Hunter, with fins added) and four Red Top missiles (from an Eastern Express Sea Vixen) – all for a convincing RAF look.

Other small mods include e. g. getting rid of some typical Soviet-style antennae (even though I kept the almost iconic anti-flutter weights on the tailplane) and the GSh-23-2 cannon fairing under the fuselage, which was replaced by two single gun fairings for 30mm Aden cannons under the air intakes.

Painting and markings:

Classic RAF colors from the Sixties, with Dark Slate Gray/Dark Sea Gray from above and Light Aircraft Gray below (Humbrol 163, 164 and 166, respectively). The aircraft received a light black ink wash in order to emphasize the kit’s fine engraved panel lines, as well as some dry-painting with lighter shades (including Dark Slate Gray/Dark Sea Gray from Modelmaster – these tones are a tad lighter than the Humbrol counterparts, and Humbrol 196, RAL 7035).

The cockpit interior was painted in dark gray, while the landing gear wells and the other interiors were left in Aluminum. The landing gear was painted in Steel, the wheel discs white and the air brakes in red from the inside.

Decals/markings come from an Xtradecal sheet for RAF Phantom FG.1/FGR.2s, "XL196" is, AFAIK, a ‘free’ (never used) RAF serial number that fits around 1962. Some additional stencils and markings were painted onto the fuselage by brush.

After decal application the kit received an overall coat of semi-gloss Tamiya acrylic varnish.

The Hawker Harpy is/was simple kit travesty, but IMHO the resulting ‘British product’ looks very convincing and late-1950ies style?

The Zender Fact 4 Spider at the Essen Motorshow.

Scanned photograph from 1993.

NEAR IS PROUD TO ANNOUNCE the next chapter in the on-going struggle against The Man to document our railroad. NEAR will release a quarterly photo book (and accompanying DVD when available) highlighting the photography of several railroaders from North America. First up, our long time partner Wade Arthur and his Zine/DVD combo "FICTIONAL FACTS". Pre orders start NOV 1st!

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.

Cape Town, 27 October 2000

12-2016

NASA Armstrong Fact Sheet: D-558-II ''Skyrocket''

The Douglas D-558-II "Skyrockets" were among the early transonic research airplanes like the X-1, X-4, X-5, and X-92A. Three of the single-seat, swept-wing aircraft flew from 1948 to 1956 in a joint program involving the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), with its flight research done at the NACA's Muroc Flight Test Unit in California, redesignated in 1949 the High-Speed Flight Research Station (HSFRS); the Navy-Marine Corps; and the Douglas Aircraft Co. The HSFRS is now known as the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center. The Skyrocket made aviation history when it became the first airplane to fly twice the speed of sound.

NASA Armstrong Fact Sheet: D-558-II Skyrocket

The Douglas D-558-II "Skyrockets" were among the early transonic research airplanes like the X-1, X-4, X-5, and X-92A. Three of the single-seat, swept-wing aircraft flew from 1948 to 1956 in a joint program involving the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), with its flight research done at the NACA's Muroc Flight Test Unit in California, redesignated in 1949 the High-Speed Flight Research Station (HSFRS); the Navy-Marine Corps; and the Douglas Aircraft Co. The HSFRS is now known as the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center. The Skyrocket made aviation history when it became the first airplane to fly twice the speed of sound.

The II in the aircraft's designation referred to the fact that the Skyrocket was the phase-two version of what had originally been conceived as a three-phase program, with the phase-one aircraft having straight wings. The third phase, which never came to fruition, would have involved constructing a mock-up of a combat-type aircraft embodying the results from the testing of the phase one and two aircraft.

The D-558-II was first flown on Feb. 4, 1948, by John Martin, a Douglas test pilot. An NACA pilot, Scott Crossfield, became the first person to fly faster than twice the speed of sound when he piloted the D-558-II to its maximum speed of Mach 2.005 (1,291 mph) at 62,000 feet altitude on Nov. 20, 1953. Its peak altitude, 83,235 feet, a record in its day, was reached with Lt. Col. Marion Carl at the controls.

The three aircraft gathered a great deal of data about pitch-up and the coupling of lateral (yaw) and longitudinal (pitch) motions; wing and tail loads, lift, drag, and buffeting characteristics of swept-wing aircraft at transonic and supersonic speeds; and the effects of the rocket exhaust plume on lateral dynamic stability throughout the speed range. (Plume effects were a new experience for aircraft.) The number three aircraft also gathered information about the effects of external stores (bomb shapes, drop tanks) upon the aircraft's behavior in the transonic region (roughly 0.7 to 1.3 times the speed of sound).

In correlation with data from other early transonic research aircraft such as the XF-92A, this information contributed to solutions to the pitch-up problem in swept-wing aircraft.

Design

The need for transonic research airplanes grew out of two conditions that existed in the early 1940s. One was the absence of accurate wind tunnel data for the speed range from roughly Mach 0.8 to 1.2. The other was the fact that fighter aircraft like the P-38 "Lightning" were approaching these speeds in dives and breaking apart from the effects of compressibility-increased density and disturbed airflow as the speed approached that of sound, creating shock waves. People in the aeronautics community - especially the NACA, the Army Air Forces (AAF), and the Navy-agreed on the need for a research airplane with enough structural strength to withstand compressibility effects in the transonic region. The AAF preferred a rocket-powered aircraft and funded the X-1, while the NACA and Navy preferred a more conservative design and pursued the D-558, with the NACA also supporting the X-1 research.

The Navy contracted with Douglas to design the airplane, and in the course of the design process, the D-558 came to be divided into two separate phases, with phase one being a straight-wing turbojet aircraft and phase two consisting of a swept-wing design with turbojet and rocket propulsion. At the NACA's suggestion, based on the research of Robert Jones at Langley and captured German documents, Douglas and the Navy had agreed to the swept-wing design, and to provide sufficient power to propel the swept-wing airplane past Mach 1, they also agreed to add rocket propulsion.

Then, to fit both a turbojet and rocket engine in the phase two aircraft required a new fuselage. Like the D-558-I, the Skyrocket featured a horizontal stabilizer high on the vertical tail to avoid the wake from the wing. As with the X-1 and the D-558-I, the Skyrocket also featured, at NACA suggestion, a horizontal stabilizer that was thinner than the wing and movable in flight so as to avoid simultaneous shock wave effects for the wing and horizontal tail and to provide pitch (nose up or down) control when shock waves made the elevators ineffective. While Douglas was constructing the D-558-IIs, the NACA continued to furnish the contractor data it needed on aircraft performance based on tests in Langley wind tunnels and with rocket-propelled models from the Wallops Island Pilotless Aircraft Research Station.

Program History

The three airplanes flew a total of 313 times-123 by the number one aircraft (Bureau No. 37973-NACA 143), 103 by the second Skyrocket (Bureau No. 37974-NACA 144), and 87 by airplane number three (Bureau No. 37975-NACA 145). Skyrocket 143 flew all but one of its missions as part of the Douglas contractor program to test the airplane's performance.

NACA aircraft 143 was initially powered by a Westinghouse J-34-40 turbojet engine configured only for ground take-offs, but in 1954-55 the contractor modified it to an all-rocket air-launch capability featuring an LR8-RM-6, 4-chamber Reaction Motors engine rated at 6,000 pounds of thrust at sea level (the Navy designation for the Air Force's LR-11 used in the X-1). In this configuration, NACA research pilot John McKay flew the airplane only once for familiarization on September 17, 1956. The 123 flights of NACA 143 served to validate wind-tunnel predictions of the airplane's performance, except for the fact that the airplane experienced less drag above Mach 0.85 than the wind tunnels had indicated.

NACA 144 also began its flight program with a turbojet powerplant. NACA pilots Robert A. Champine and John H. Griffith flew 21 times in this configuration to test airspeed calibrations and to research longitudinal and lateral stability and control. In the process, during August of 1949 they encountered pitch-up problems, which NACA engineers recognized as serious because they could produce a limiting and dangerous restriction on flight performance. Hence, they determined to make a complete investigation of the problem.

In 1950, Douglas replaced the turbojet with an LR-8 rocket engine, and its pilot, William B. Bridgeman, flew the aircraft seven times up to a speed of Mach 1.88 (1.88 times the speed of sound) and an altitude of 79,494 feet (the latter an unofficial world's altitude record at the time, achieved on August 15, 1951). In the rocket configuration, a Navy P2B (Navy version of the B-29) launched the airplane at approximately 30,000 feet after taking off from the ground with the Skyrocket attached beneath its bomb bay. During Bridgeman's supersonic flights, he encountered a violent rolling motion known as lateral instability that was less pronounced on the Mach 1.88 flight on August 7, 1951, than on a Mach 1.85 flight in June when he pushed over to a low angle of attack (angle of the fuselage or wing to the prevailing wind direction).

The NACA engineers studied the behavior of the aircraft before beginning their own flight research in the airplane in September 1951. Over the next couple of years, NACA pilot A. Scott Crossfield flew the airplane 20 times to gather data on longitudinal and lateral stability and control, wing and tail loads, and lift, drag, and buffeting characteristics at speeds up to Mach 1.878.

At that point, Marine Lt. Col. Marion Carl flew the airplane to a new (unofficial) altitude record of 83,235 feet on August 21, 1953, and to a maximum speed of Mach 1.728.

Following Carl's completion of these flights for the Navy, NACA technicians at the High-Speed Flight Research Station (HSFRS) near Mojave, CA, outfitted the LR-8 engine's cylinders with nozzle extensions to prevent the exhaust gas from affecting the rudders at supersonic speeds. This addition also increased the engine's thrust by 6.5 percent at Mach 1.7 and 70,000 feet.

Even before Marion Carl had flown the Skyrocket, HSFRS Chief Walter C. Williams had petitioned NACA headquarters unsuccessfully to fly the aircraft to Mach 2 to garner the research data at that speed. Finally, after Crossfield had secured the agreement of the Navy's Bureau of Aeronautics, NACA director Hugh L. Dryden relaxed the organization's usual practice of leaving record setting to others and consented to attempting a flight to Mach 2.

In addition to adding the nozzle extensions, the NACA flight team at the HSFRS chilled the fuel (alcohol) so more could be poured into the tank and waxed the fuselage to reduce drag. With these preparations and employing a flight plan devised by project engineer Herman O. Ankenbruck to fly to approximately 72,000 feet and push over into a slight dive, Crossfield made aviation history on November 20, 1953, when he flew to Mach 2.005 (1,291 miles per hour). He became the first pilot to reach Mach 2 in this, the only flight in which the Skyrocket flew that fast.

Following this flight, Crossfield and NACA pilots Joseph A. Walker and John B. McKay flew the airplane for such purposes as to gather data on pressure distribution, structural loads, and structural heating, with the last flight in the program occurring on December 20, 1956, when McKay obtained dynamic stability data and sound-pressure levels at transonic speeds and above.

Meanwhile, NACA 145 had completed 21 contractor flights by Douglas pilots Eugene F. May and Bill Bridgeman in November 1950. In this jet-and-rocket-propelled craft, Scott Crossfield and Walter Jones began the NACA's investigation of pitch-up lasting from September 1951 well into the summer of 1953. They flew the Skyrocket with a variety of wing-fence, wing-slat, and leading-edge chord extension configurations, performing various maneuvers as well as straight-and-level flying at transonic speeds. While fences significantly aided recovery from pitch-up conditions, leading edge chord extensions did not, disproving wind-tunnel tests to the contrary. Slats (long, narrow auxiliary airfoils) in the fully open position eliminated pitch-up except in the speed range around Mach 0.8 to 0.85.

In June 1954, Crossfield began an investigation of the effects of external stores (bomb shapes and fuel tanks) upon the aircraft's transonic behavior. McKay and Stanley Butchart completed the NACA's investigation of this issue, with McKay flying the final mission on August 28, 1956.

Besides setting several records, the Skyrocket pilots had gathered important data and understanding about what would and would not work to provide stable, controlled flight of a swept-wing aircraft in the transonic and supersonic flight regimes. The data they gathered also helped to enable a better correlation of wind-tunnel test results with actual flight values, enhancing the abilities of designers to produce more capable aircraft for the armed services, especially those with swept wings. Moreover, data on such matters as stability and control from this and other early research airplanes aided in the design of the century series of fighter airplanes, all of which featured the movable horizontal stabilizers first employed on the X-1 and D-558 series.

The Aircraft

All three of the Skyrockets had a height of 12 feet 8 inches, a length of 42 feet, and 35-degree swept wings with a span of 25 feet.

Image right: D-558-II wing configurations.

Until configured for air launch, NACA 143 featured a Westinghouse J-34-40 turbojet engine rated at 3,000 lb of static thrust. It carried 260 gallons of aviation gasoline and weighed 10,572 lb at take-off.

NACA 144 (and NACA 143 after modification in 1955) was powered by an LR-8-RM-6 rocket engine rated at 6,000 pounds of static thrust. Its propellants were 345 gallons of liquid oxygen and 378 gallons of diluted ethyl alcohol. In its launch configuration, it weighed 15,787 lb.

NACA 145 had both an LR-8-RM-5 rocket engine rated at 6,000 pounds of static thrust and featured a Westinghouse J-34-40 turbojet engine rated at 3,000 pounds of static thrust. It carried 170 gallons of liquid oxygen, 192 gallons of diluted ethyl alcohol, and 260 gallons of aviation gasoline for a launch weight of 15,266 lb.

NACA 143 is currently in storage at the Planes of Fame Museum, Ontario, CA. The second Skyrocket, NACA 144, is in the Smithsonian Institution's National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC. NACA 145 is on display in front of the Antelope Valley College in Lancaster, CA.

P2B-1S BuNo 84029 (Formerly B-29-95-BW 45-21787) “Fertile Myrtle” (which carried the Douglas D-558-II Skyrocket research aircraft) was donated to an aviation museum in Oakland, California in 1984. It was sold to the Kermit Weeks Aviation Museum of Miami, Florida, and is on the US Civil register as N29KW. There may be an attempt to restore this plane to flying condition, using as parts some airframes acquired from the US Naval Weapons Center at China Lake, California.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

Some background:

In October 1951, a heavy tank project was underway to mount an oscillating turret with an automatically loading 120mm Gun on the hull of the 120mm Gun Tank T43. (The T43 would later be serialized as the 120mm Gun Tank M103, America’s last heavy tank.). This was the T57, and the Rheem Manufacturing Company were granted a contract to design and build two pilot turrets and autoloading systems.

During the T57’s development, it became clear that it was feasible to mount a lighter armored version of the T57 turret on the hull of the 90mm Gun Tank T48 (The T48 later became the 90mm Gun Tank M48 Patton). This combination granted the possibility of creating a ‘heavy gun tank’ that was considerably lighter (and therefore more agile and tactically flexible) than any previously designed.

In May 1953, a development project was started to create such a tank. It would be designated the 120mm Gun Tank T77, and another contract was signed with Rheem to create two pilot tanks. The T77 weighed about 50 tons, with armor of the hull being up to 110mm thick. It was originally powered by a 650 hp Continental AVSI-1790-6 V12, air-cooled twin-turbo gasoline engine. This would propel the tank to a speed of 30 mph (48 km/h). The tank was supported on a torsion bar suspension, attached to six road wheels. The drive sprocket was at the rear, while the idler was at the front. The idler wheel was of the compensating type, meaning it was attached to the closest roadwheel by an actuating arm. When the roadwheel reacted to terrain, the idler was pushed out or pulled in, keeping constant track tension. The return of the track was supported by five rollers.

In the early Eighties, there were further plans for another upgrade of the M77 fleet to a potential A2 status. This would have introduced a laser rangefinder (instead of the purely optical device) and a solid state M21 ballistic computer with a digital databus. The M21 would have allowed a pre-programmed selection and fire sequence of different ammunition types from the magazine’s chambers, plus better range and super-elevation correction. However, this did not happen because the M77 had become obsolete through the simple depletion of its exotic 120 mm ammunition from the army’s stocks. Therefore, another plan examined the possibilities of replacing the T179 gun with the 105 mm M68 rifled anti-tank gun, a license-built version of the British L7 gun, which had, despite the smaller caliber, a performance comparable to the bigger 120 mm T179. But since the M48 chassis and its armor concept had become outdated by the time, too, the M77A1 fleet was by 1986 fully replaced by the M60A3, the US Army’s new standard MBT.

Specifications:

Crew: 4 (commander, driver, loader, gunner)

Weight: 51 tons

Length: 6.946 m (22 ft 9.5 in) hull only, 10,66 m (34 ft 11 in) overall w. gun forward

Width: 3.63 m (11 ft 11 in)

Height: 3.08 m (10 ft 1 in)

Suspension: Torsion-bar

Ground clearance: 1 ft 6.2 in (0.46 m)

Fuel capacity: 385 US gal (1,457 l)

Armor:

0.5 – 5.3 in (13 – 137 mm)

Performance:

Speed:

- Maximum, road: 30 mph (48 km/h)

- Sustained, road: 25 mph (40 km/h)

- Cross country: 9.3 to 15.5 mph (15 to 25 km/h)

Climbing capability:

- 40% side slope and 60% max grade

- Vertical obstacle of 36 inches (91 cm)

- 102 inches (2.59 m) trench crossing

Fording depth: Unprepared: 4 ft (1.219 m), prepared: 8 ft (2.438 m)

Operational range: 287 ml (463 km) on road

Power/weight: 16.6 hp (12.4 kW)/tonne

Engine:

1× Continental AVDS-1790-2 V12, air-cooled twin-turbo diesel engine, 750 bhp (560 kW)

Transmission:

General Motors CD-850-3, 2-Fw/1-Rv speed GB

Armament:

1× 120 mm T179 L/60 rifled anti-tank gun with an autoloader and a total of 29 rounds

1× co-axial 7.62 mm M240C machine gun with 3.000 rounds

1× .50 cal (12.7 mm) M2 Browning (600 rounds) or .30 cal (7.62 mm) M73 machine

anti-aircraft machine gun (1.000 rounds) on the commander’s cupola with 600 rounds

The kit and its assembly:

This is another fictional creation, but, like many of my whif builds, it is rooted in reality and an extrapolation of what could have been. The oscillating tower with the M103’s 120 mm cannon and an autoloader was actually developed, and there were several tank projects that made use of it. The T77 was the final proposal, but, like the T57 on the M103 basis and other designs from the Rheem Company, the T77’s development was arduously slow, so that the project was finally canceled in 1957 by the US Ordnance Department. Two turrets were actually built, though, but they were scrapped in February 1958, and the T77 only existed on paper or in model form.

The impulse for this build actually came from a 1:72 resin turret for the T57 project from ModelTrans/Silesian Models. I found the concept cool and the turret had a very futuristic look, so that I bought a set with the vague intention to use it for a mecha conversion someday. Then it gathered dust in the stash, until I recently stumbled upon the 1:72 M103 kit from Dragon and considered a T57 build. But this kit is very rare and expensive, at least here in Germany, so I shelved this plan again. However, I started to play with the idea of a U.S. Army vehicle with a Rheem Company turret. Then I found a Revell M60 kit in the stash and considered it for a whiffy build, but eventually rejected the idea because a turret concept from the late Fifties would hardly make its way onto a tank from the late Seventies or later. When I did further research concerning the Rheem turret, I came across the real T77 project on the basis of the M48, and dug out an ESCI M48A5 from the pile (realizing that I had already hoarded three of them…!), so the M77 project was finally born.

Otherwise, the build was a straightforward affair. The T57 turret is a massive resin piece with a separate barrel and very fine surface details. Some of them, delicate lugs, were unfortunately broken off, already OOB but also by me while handling the pieces. They could be easily replaced with brass wire, though, which was also used to add small rails to the collar. The very long and thin barrel was replaced with a white metal aftermarket piece. It’s actually a barrel for a Soviet T-10 with a complex muzzle brake (made from brass), but the size was just fine and looks very good on this fictional tank.

Some details were added to the turret or transplanted from the M48 kit, e. g. the prominent IR searchlight or the machine gun on the commander cupola. Furthermore, I added a textile seal to the gap between the turret sections and to the barrel’s root, made from paper tissue drenched in thinned white glue. The same method was used to create the searchlight cover, too.

Since the turret base had a smaller diameter than the M48’s attachment opening, I had to improvise a suitable adapter with styrene strips. The M48A5 hull itself was taken OOB.

Painting and markings:

I was happy that I could place this model into a later time frame, so that the U.S. Army’s uniform Olive Drab times were already over. In the 1970s, the US Mobility Equipment Research & Design Command (MERDC) developed a system of camouflage patterns for US Army vehicles. These consisted of a set of standardized patterns for each vehicle, to be used with a set of twelve colours. The local terrain conditions and colours decided which of the paints were to be used, and on which parts of a vehicle. Then, if conditions altered, for example by a change in the weather, or by the unit moving into a new area of operations, the scheme could be quickly adjusted to suit them by replacing only one or two colours by different ones.

For example, if a vehicle was painted in the US & European winter scheme, which had a dark green and a medium brown as its predominant colours, and it started to snow, by overpainting either the green or the brown with white, one of the two snow schemes could be created. This gave a high degree of flexibility, though in practice it was hardly ever actually made use of—most vehicles were painted in one scheme and kept that.

I gave the M77 the “Winter Verdant” MERDC scheme, which was frequently used in Germany. It consists of Forest Green (FS 34079), Earth Red (FS 30117), Sand (FS 30277) and Black (FS 37038). The pattern itself was adapted from the standardized M60 MERDC scheme. Colors used were ModelMaster 1701 and 1710, plus Humbrol 238 and Revell 06. The seals on the turret and the searchlight cover were painted in a faded olive drab, the track segments with a mix of iron, dark grey and red brown.

After basic painting with brushes, the kit received a washing with thinned black and red brown acrylic paint. Decals (taken from the ESCI kit) came next, then the model received an overall dry brushing treatment with Humbrol 72 (Khaki Drill) and 168 (Hemp). Finally, everything was sealed with matt acrylic varnish from the rattle can and the lower hull areas were dusted with mineral pigments, simulating dust and mud.

Another relatively simple conversion, since only the (oscillating) turret was swapped. However, I was skeptical at first because the turret was originally intended for an M103 hull - but mounting it on a smaller M48 chassis worked well, just like in real life!

Texaco ad from the early Fifties.

Beer has food value but food has no beer value

A short drive from Wootton is Swingfield, which lies near the Folkestone to Canterbury road, the A260. In fact beside that road is St John's, a preceptory, that I will endeavour to see inside of during the summer months.

In fact, I thought St John was the sole ecclesiastical building in the parish, but in fact there is a grand church in the centre of the village, opposite what used to the village pub.

The church has a grand tower with an even grander staircase turret running up one side, and in the porch I could see the 'church open' board, all packed away, It did not look good.

But it was open, but the first thing that struck me was the fine porch, apparently 14thC.

The church is a large two cell construction, with simple box pews in the nave, with wooden pews in the chancel.

It's walls are plain with few memorials, considering its history with the Knights of St John.

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

This church is built in flint and rubble construction and the west tower has a remarkably wide stair turret. As one enters through the south porch one can see the remains of two mass dials made redundant by the construction of the porch itself. By the pulpit is a most unusual feature - the south-east window of the nave has had its sill cut away to provide space for a wooden ladder to give access to the rood loft. This window now contains a lovely stained glass representation of the Crucifixion with a charming little sun and moon at the top. At Swingfield the nineteenth-century north aisle detracts from the thirteenth-century nave; its scale, materials and lumpy effect do nothing to complement this charming church. It is currently (2005) under threat of conversion to a house.

www.kentchurches.info/church.asp?p=Swingfield

SWINGFIELD is within the ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDICTION of the diocese of Canterbury, and deanry of Dover.

¶The church, which is dedicated to St. Peter, consists of one isle and one chancel, having a square tower, with a beacon turret at the west end, in which is one bell. In the chancel are several memorials for the Pilchers, tenants of St. John's. In the isle are memorials for the Simmons's, of Smersall; arms, parted per fess and pale, three trefoils slipt. One of them, John Simmons, gent. obt. 1677, was great-grandfather of James Simmons, esq. alderman of Canterbury; memorials for the Pilchers; against the north wall is a monument for Mary, widow of Richard Pilcher, gent. of Barham, obt. 1775; arms, Pilcher, argent, on a fess dancette, gules, a fleur de lis, between three torteauxes. In the south-west window is this legend, Ora p aiabs Willi Smersolle & Margarete uxon is sue & paia Saundir Goldfiynch; above were formerly these arms, A cross impaling on a bend, cotized, a mullet between six martlets. Weever says, p. 274, there was an antient faire monument, whereon the portraiture of an armed knight, crosse legged, was to be seen, and only His jacet remaining of the inscription, and that there was this legend in a window: Orate p aia Willi Tonge & Johannis filii ejus qui banc fenestram fieri fecerunt; he died in 1478, and was buried here. And there was formerly in the windows, a figure of a knight of St. John's, habited in his furcoat of arms, a plain cross, and having his sword and spurs, and kneeling on a cushion, in a praying posture, and in one of the windows were these arms, Quarterly, first and fourth, Azure, a square castle, sable; second and third, Or, on a chevron, vert, three bawks heads erased, argent; on a chief, gules, a cross, argent; but there is nothing of these remaining now.

The rectory of this church was early appropriated to the hospital of St. John, which continued in the possessions of all the profits of it, till the dissolution of the hospital in the 32d year of king Henry VIII. After which it was granted, with the preceptory here, to Sir Anthony Aucher, who sold it to Sir Henry Palmer, in whose descendants it continued down to Sir Thomas Palmer, bart. after whose death in 1725 it passed, in manner as before-mentioned, to the Rev. Dr. Thomas Hey, of Wickham, who sold it, with St. John's, and the rectory as before-mentioned, to Mr. Brydges, of Denton, the present owner of it.

This church is now a perpetual curacy, of the yearly certified value of twenty pounds, which stipend is paid by the owner of the rectory, who has the nomination of the curate. In 1640 here were communicants one hundred and twenty-seven.

www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-kent/vol8/pp120-126

U.S. Air Force Fact Sheet THUNDERBIRDS

Mission

Officially, the Thunderbirds are known as the U.S. Air Force Air Demonstration Squadron.

The squadron’s mission is to plan and present precision aerial maneuvers to exhibit the capabilities of modern, high-performance aircraft and the high degree of professional skill required to operate those aircraft.

Within this broad mission, the team has five primary objectives: − Support Air Force recruiting and retention programs − Reinforce public confidence in the Air Force and to demonstrate to the public the professional competence of Air Force members − Strengthen morale and esprit de corps among Air Force members − Support Air Force community relations and people-to-people programs − Represent the United States and its armed forces to foreign nations and project international goodwill

The Team

The Thunderbirds squadron is an Air Combat Command unit composed of eight pilots (including six demonstration pilots), four support officers, four civilians and more than 100 enlisted personnel performing in almost 30 job specialties.

A Thunderbirds air demonstration is a mix of formation flying and solo routines. The four-jet diamond formation demonstrates the training and precision of Air Force pilots, while the lead and opposing solo aircraft highlight some of the maximum capabilities of the F-16 Fighting Falcon.

The pilots perform approximately 40 maneuvers in a demonstration. The entire show, including the ground show and air demonstration, lasts about 75 minutes. The season typically starts in March and ends in November, with the winter months used to train new members.

Officers serve a two-year assignment with the squadron, while enlisted personnel serve three to four.

The squadron performs no more than 80 air demonstrations each year and has never canceled a demonstration due to maintenance difficulty. More than 280 million people in all 50 states and 57 foreign countries have seen the red, white and blue Thunderbirds jets in more than 3,500 aerial demonstrations.

In addition to their responsibilities as the Air Force’s premier jet demonstration team, the Thunderbirds are part of our combat force. If required, the team's personnel and aircraft can be rapidly integrated into a fighter unit at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev. Since the aircraft are only slightly modified, they can be made combat-ready in less than 72 hours.

F-16 Fighting Falcon

The Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon represents the full range of capabilities possessed by the Air Force's tactical fighters. This highly-maneuverable multi-role fighter has proved to be one of the world's best precision tactical bombers and air-to-air combat aircraft. The only modifications needed to prepare aircraft for air demonstrations are a smoke-generating system and painting in Thunderbird colors. Additional information about the F-16 can be found at www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/1....

History

The Thunderbirds were officially activated June 1, 1953, as the 3600th Air Demonstration Unit at Luke AFB, Ariz. The unit was nicknamed the “Stardusters.” Their first aircraft was the straight-winged F-84G Thunderjet, a combat fighter-bomber that had seen action in Korea. Early in 1955, the team transitioned to the swept-winged F-84F Thunderstreak.

In June 1956, the team moved to its current home at Nellis. At the same time the Thunderbirds traded the veteran F-84 for the world's first supersonic fighter, the F-100 Super Sabre -- an aerial platform that would serve the Thunderbirds for 13 years. More than 1,000 demonstrations were flown in the Super Sabre, thrilling spectators around the world. In 1964, the team changed briefly to the F-105B Thunderchief, but an in-flight mishap revealed a problem with that airframe’s design. So, after only six shows, the Thunderbirds returned to the F-100.

From 1969 to 1973, the Thunderbirds flew the Air Force's front-line fighter, the F-4E Phantom II. In 1974, the Thunderbirds converted to the T-38 Talon, the world's first supersonic trainer. The T-38 was more fuel-efficient and less costly to maintain, which made it an ideal choice during the oil crisis of the 1970s.

Early in 1983, the Thunderbirds reinstituted their traditional role of demonstrating the Air Force's front-line fighter capabilities. Transition to the F-16A allowed the team to retain manpower and fuel efficiency while demonstrating to spectators the latest in fighter technology.

For additional information on our team, visit www.afthunderbirds.com.

Point of Contact

USAF Thunderbirds, Public Affairs Office; 4445 Tyndall Ave.; Nellis AFB, NV 89191-6079; DSN 682-6776 or (702) 652-6776; e-mail: USAF.Thunderbirds@nellis.af.mil

Cape Town, 27 October 2000

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 Northrop Grumman-IAI F-24 is the latest reincarnation of the USAF "Lightweight Fighter Program" which dates back to the 1950ies and started with the development of Northrop's F-5 "Freedom Fighter".

International interest for the F-24A is already there: in late 2013 Grumman stated that initial talks have been made with various countries, and potential export candidates from 2015 on are Taiwan, Singapore, Thailand, Finland, Norway, Australia and Japan.

General F-24A characteristics:

Crew: 1 pilot

Length: 47 ft 4 in (14.4 m)

Wingspan: 27 ft 11.9 in / 8.53 m; with wingtip missiles (26 ft 8 in/ 8.13 m; without wingtip missiles)

Height: 13 ft 10 in (4.20 m)

Wing area: 36.55 m² (392 ft²)

Empty weight: 13.150 lb (5.090 kg)

Loaded weight: 15.480 lb (6.830 kg)

Max. take-off weight: 27.530 lb (12.500 kg)

Powerplant

1× General Electric F404-GE-402 turbofan with a dry thrust of 11,000 lbf (48.9 kN) and 17,750 lbf (79.2 kN) with afterburner

Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 2

Combat radius: 300 nmi (345 mi, 556 km); for hi-lo-hi mission with 2 × 330 US gal (1,250 L) drop tanks

Ferry range: 1,490 nmi (1715 mi, 2759 km); with 3 × 330 US gal (1,250 L) drop tanks

Service ceiling: 55,000 ft (16,800 m)

Rate of climb: 52,800 ft/min (255 m/s)

Wing loading: 70.0 lb/ft² (342 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight: 1.09 (1.35 with loaded weight & 50% fuel)

Armament

1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M199A1 3-barreled Gatling cannon in the lower fuselage with 400 RPG

Eleven external hardpoints (two wingtip tails, six underwing hardpoints, three underfuselage hardpoints) and a total capacity of 11.000 lb (4.994 kg) of missiles (incl. AIM 9 Sidewinder and AIM 120 AMRAAM), bombs, rockets, ECM pods and drop tanks for extended range.

The kit and its assembly:

A spontaneous project. This major kitbash was inspired by fellow user nighthunter at whatifmodelers.com, who came up with a profile of a mashed-up US fighter, created “out of boredom”. The original idea was called F-21C, and it was to be a domestic successor to the IAI Kfirs which had been used by the US as aggressor aircraft in USN and USMC service for a few years.

As a weird(?) coincidence I had many of the necessary ingredients for this fictional aircraft in store, even though some parts and details were later changed. This model here is an interpretation of the original design. The idea was spun further, and the available parts that finally went into the model also had some influence on design and background.

I thank nighthunter for sharing the early ideas, inviting me to take the design to the hardware stage (sort of…) and adapting my feedback into new design sketches, too, which, in return, inspired the model building process.

Well, what went into this thing? To cook up a F-24 à la Dizzyfugu you just need (all in 1:72):

● Fuselage from a Hasegawa X-29, including the cockpit and the landing gear

● Fin and nose cone from an Italeri F-16A

● Inner wings from a (vintage) Hasegawa MiG-21F

● Outer wings from a F-4 (probably a J, Hasegawa or Fujimi)

The wing construction deviates from nighthunter’s original idea. The favorite ingredients would have been F-16XL or simple Mirage III wings, but I found the composite wing to be more attractive and “different”. The big F-16XL wings, despite their benefit of a unique shape, might also have created scale/size problems with a F-20 style fuselage? So I built hybrid wings: The MiG-21 landing gear wells were filled with putty and the F-4 outer wings simply glued onto the MiG inner wing sections, which were simply cut down in span. It sounds like an unlikely combo, but these parts fit together almost perfectly! In order to hide the F-4 origins I modified them to carry wingtip launch rails, though, which were also part of nighthunter’s original design.

The AAW technology detail mentioned in the background came in handy as it explains the complicated wing shape and the fact that the landing gear retracts into the fuselage, not into the wings, which would have been more plausible… Anyway, there’s still room for a simpler export version, with Mirage III or Kfir C.2/7 wings, and maybe canards?

Using the X-29 as basis also made fitting the new wings onto the area-ruled fuselage pretty easy, as I could use the wing root parts from the X-29 to bridge the gap. The original, forward-swept wings were just cut away, and the remains used as consoles for the new hybrid delta wings. Took some SERIOUS putty work, but the result is IMHO fine.

The bigger/square X-29 air intakes were taken over, and they change the look of the aircraft, making it look less F-5-ish than a true F-20 fuselage. For the same reason I kept the large fairing at the fin base, combining it with a bigger F-16 tail, though, as a counter-balance to the new, bigger wings. Again, the F-16 fin was/is part of nighthunter’s idea, so the model stays true to the original concept.

For the same reason I omitted the original X-29 nose, which is rather pointy, sports vanes and a large sensor boom. The F-16 nose was a plausible choice, as the AN/APG-80 is also carried by late Fighting Falcons, and its shape fits well, too.

All around the hull, some small details like radar warning sensors, pitots and air scoops were added. Not really necessary, but such thing add IMHO to the overall impression of such a fictional aircraft beyond the prototype stage.

Cockpit and landing gear were taken OOB, I just added a pilot figure and slightly modified the seat.

The ordnance was puzzled together from the scrap box, the AIM-9Ls come from the same F-4 kit which donated its outer wings, the AIM-120s come from an Italeri NATO weapons kit. The drop tanks belong to an F-16.

Painting and markings:

At first I considered an F-24I in IAF markings, or even a Japanese aircraft, but then reverted to one of nighthunter’s initial, simple ideas: an USAF aircraft in the “Hill II” paint scheme (F-16 style), made up from three shades of gray (FS 36118, 36270 and 36375) with low-viz markings and stencils. Dutch/Turkish NF-5A/Bs in the “Hill II” scheme were used as design benchmarks, too. It’s a simple livery, but on this delta wing aircraft it looks pretty interesting. I used enamels, what I had at hand: Humbrol 127 and 126, and Modelmaster's 1723.

A light black ink wash was applied, in order to em,phasize the engraved panel lines, in contrast to that, panels were manually highlighted through dry-brushed, lighter shades of gray (Humbrol 27, 166 and 167).

“Hill II” also adds to a generic, realistic touch for this whif. Doing an exotic air force thing is rather easy, but creating a convincing whif for a huge military machinery like the USAF’s takes more subtlety, I think.

The cockpit was painted in medium Gray (Dark Gull Grey, FS 36231, Humbrol 140), as well as the radome. The landing gear and the air intakes were painted white. The radome was painted with Revell 47 and dry-brushed with Humbrol 140.

Decals were puzzled together from various USAF aircraft, including sheets from an Airfix F-117, an Italeri F-15E and even an Academy OV-10D.

Tadah: a hardware tribute to an idea, born from boredom - and the aircraft does not look even bad at all? What I wanted to achieve was to make the F-24 neither look like a F-20, nor a Saab Gripen clone, as the latter comes close in overall shape, size and design.

Series of 4 Posters on Food Facts.

one: i am american (born in cincinnati, ohio), but my ancestors hailed from poland, lithuania, and italy. they all came through ellis island at the turn of the 20th century. this explains my haphazard collection of features, no? :P

two: i grew up catholic. i'm now an atheist. ditto for the husband. funny how that happens...

three: i'd prefer to live in large cities. i'm allergic to suburbs. :P i did most of my growing up in the suburbs of orlando, florida, thus (i think!) partially explaining this preference and abhorrence.

four: i am naturally blonde. it's this really gross dishwater blonde, so i've been dying it some other "better" color since about 14. right now i am on a red kick. i have also sported various shades of blonde, pink, purple and orange, sometimes more than one of such at once.

five: i think my daughter is one of the best things i've ever created. i had an ectopic pregnancy in 2002, and i was convinced i'd never have children. having her, and feeding her from my own body has convinced me that a.) my body is capable of doing (very) good things and b.) has given me new purpose in life. i am so blessed to be here, to be alive and healthy, to have the chance to see her grow. she is the light of my life.

six: my current favorite color is orange. i really like ALL colors, though. but only really in their most saturated, vivid versions. i don't really like shades or pastels nearly as much.

seven: my favorite kind of cake is carrot cake, my favorite jelly belly flavor is juicy pear, and i like my chocolate dark, dark, dark. i like my whiskey single malt, and my beer belgian.

eight: if i wasn't so focused on the arts and design, i might consider a career in medicine. my friend jessica (who's studying nursing) told me i have a medical mind. i argue that i just have a scientific mind, mostly because i just enjoy the act of thinking critically and have a rather annoying penchant for asking too many questions about just about everything. for fun, i read non-fiction books about health and medicine.

nine: i am very interested in linguistics but speak no other language but english. i have a hard time choosing which one to learn! hopefully it's not too late!

ten: i have been on a mission to bring back clip-on earrings and acid wash since 2005. i feel i have been rather successful at the latter, much to my delight.

eleven: i prefer to write in lowercase, if i can help it. i have been doing so, as a rule, since 1997.

twelve: i have two degrees, after about 6+ years of schooling. i majored in history and art history as an undergrad, and got another degree in fashion. i graduated summa cum laude from both schools (highest honors).

thirteen: i'm actually rather shy and more than a little neurotic. i can also be very moody. i'm more introverted than extroverted. when i do talk, i'm usually pretty straightforward and honest, to a fault.

fourteen: my husband is my best friend. we met at a rave in orlando on new years eve 1996, turning 1997. i trust him more than anyone else on the face of the planet.

fifteen: i really don't like wearing socks. but have to, of course. as a result, most of my socks are fairly cringeworthy to look at. thankfully they are mostly hidden by my boots, which are my favorite type of footwear. also, my husband would like me to mention that i don't like wearing belts for function...only fashion. i.e., i'd rather let my pants fall down than wear a belt through the loops. yup, i'm quirky.

sixteen: i'm moving back to new york city..., very, VERY soon. :) goodbye san francisco!

F.A.C.T.S. 2017 ||

Gent, Belgien ||

Day 01 - 21.10.2017 ||

FACTS is the largest Comic Con show in the Benelux. Each year more than 40,000 visitors gather at FACTS for two days to switch from the real world to the one of Fantasy, Comics, Action Heroes, Games, Anime and Toys. ||

FACTS is for the European fantasy fans what King's Landing is for Westeros. ||

My Bog-Post : ||

mchenryarts.wordpress.com/2017/11/05/f-a-c-t-s-2017/ ||

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ||

www.flickr.com/photos/mchenryarts ||

www.facebook.com/McHenryArts ||

People who are the main subject of the photo can use this for your personal use, for example, the use on Facebook, etc. The only requirement is a link to my Facebook or Flickr Page. ||

Nutzungsvereinbarung / Terms of Use :

mchenryarts.wordpress.com/tou/

+++ 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 Supermarine Spitfire is a British single-seat fighter aircraft that was used by the Royal Air Force and many other Allied countries during and after the Second World War. The Spitfire was built in many variants, using several wing configurations, and was produced in greater numbers than any other British aircraft.

In 1968, 12 Mirage IIIELs were delivered from France but were grounded in the late 1970s due to lack of funds. In 2000, the grounded Mirages were sold to Pakistan, and four Hunters were even revived in 2008 and served until 2014.

General characteristics:

Crew: one pilot

Length: 29 ft 11 in (9.12 m)

Wingspan: 36 ft 10 in (11.23 m)

Height: 11 ft 5 in (3.86 m)

Wing area: 242.1 ft2 (22.48 m2)

Airfoil: NACA 2209.4(tip)

Empty weight: 5,065 lb (2,297 kg)

Loaded weight: 6,622 lb (3,000 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 6,700 lb (3,039 kg)

Powerplant:

1× Rolls-Royce Merlin 60 supercharged V12 engine,

rated at 1.470 hp (1.096 kW) at 9.250 ft (2.820 m)

Performance:

Maximum speed: 370 mph, (322 kn, 595 km/h)

Combat radius: 410 nmi (470 mi, 760 km)

Ferry range: 991 nmi (1,135 mi, 1,827 km)

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

Rate of climb: 2,600 ft/min (13.2 m/s)

Wing loading: 27.35 lb/ft2 (133.5 kg/m²)

Power/mass: 0.22 hp/lb (0.36 kW/kg)

Armament:

2x 20mm Hispano Mk II cannon (120 RPG)

2x .5 in Browning machine guns (250 RPG)

Three hardpoints (1 ventral, 1 under each outer wing) for up to 1.000 lb (454 kg).

The kit and its assembly:

This whif is based on a simple idea: how did Lebanon's Air Force start? Small countries make a good whif playground, and I guess that nobody has the Lebanon on his/her list...?

Another factor was that I had some Austrian roundels left in store that could, with a green dot, easily be turned into Lebanese markings. So the theme was quickly settled, but the details take some preparation time, so the idea lingered for some time.

After some legwork I deemed a simple Spitfire with a dust filter worthy as an initial aircraft, and the respective Hobby Boss kit of a Spitfire Mk. VB in the stash came handy.

But somehow this was a bit dull, and at the inception of the Lebanon Air Force there were better option available than an early Mk. V. I still wanted a sleek, Merlin-powered Spitfire variant, though, and eventually settled for the Mk. XVI - with its clipped wings and the bubble canopy it has a very distinctive look.

When a "1 Week group Build" at whatifmodelers.com in the Easter Week 2015 was announced, I took this occassion to build the Lebanese Spitfire.

By that time I already had a basis kit at hand (Heller's Spitfire XVI) as well as some donation parts and decals.

Work was strightforward, the Heller kit was built almost OOB. It's a rather old model kit, with raised panel lines, but good detail. The material is thin, so the built item lacks some structural stability! On the other side, this makes some minor mods really easy: I lowered the flaps and moved the tail rudders slightly off of neutral position. I also opened the cockpit "door" on the left side for later static display, even though the cockpit itself was left OOB. It's a bit "flat", but for the kit's age it's pretty good, and the injected canopy is crystal clear and fits perfectly.

I had some major woes concerning the fit for the forward fuselage, and even more when I tried to mate wings and fuselage: there was a 1mm gap(!) on both sides that had to be bridged with putty, and the thin and flexible material did help much...

Other mods concern the propeller (added a styrene tube and a metal axis for free spin), the radiators (these are molded into the lower wings - sounds horrible, but is made very well and thin, I just added some foamed styrene inside as protective mesh because OOB there's just a blank "box" inside) and the kit received a dust filter - a resin piece taken from a Pavla conversion set for Hawker Hurricanes.

Painting and markings:

While a donated RAF Spitfire would certainly have carried a desert paint scheme in Dark Earth/Mid Stone/Azure Blue or a late WWII Dark Green/Ocean Grey/Light Sea Grey livery I settled for something more individual and effective for the rugged Levantine terrain.

In this case I went for the rarely used RAF 'Tropical Scheme' in Mid Stone/Dark Green from above and with Mediterrenean Blue undersides.

The pattern itself is standard RAF, the upper cammo taken down onto the dust filter's flanks was taken over from RAAF Spitfires during WWII (RAF aircraft would carry a higher waterline, with the filter painted completely in the lower surface's tone). Basic paints are RAF Dark Green from Modelmaster and Humbrol 84 (RAF Mid Stone) - rather authentic. But I used Humbrol 87 (Steel Grey) for the undersides - it's rather intense and has a greenish hue, and by far not as dark as the typical RAF Azure Blue or PRU Blue.

Interior surfaces were painted in RAF Cockpit Green (Modelmaster Authentic), while the landing gear and its wells were kept in Aluminum Dope (Humbrol 56).

Decals/markings were puzzled together and improvised. The Lebanese roundels are actually Austrian national markings into which a dark green dot has ben added manually... the fin flash and the roman/arabic codes come from an Xtradecal aftermarket sheet.

Beyond these basic markings I did not add anything flashy - in 1951 things were rather simple,

The kit received a light shading and some dry painting with light grey, plus a light black ink wash. Soot/exhaust stains were created with grinded graphite and around the engine some leaked oil was added with Tamiya's "Smoke", and everything was sealed under a coat of matt acrylic varnish.

I'll admit it's not a spectacular whif, and overall rather simple concerning build and painting. But a proud addition to whatifmodelers.com's "! Week Group Build", even though this was already finished in just three days from sprues to beauty pics...

Cape Town, 27 October 2000

THE CLIMATE CHANGE SCAM.

The facts:

CO2 is a trace gas, it makes up only 0.04% of the atmosphere.

Expressed as a fraction, that is: four hundredths of one percent!

Only 3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere is due to human activity

That is: three percent of four hundredths of one percent of CO2 in the atmosphere is likely to be caused by humans!

97% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere is from from natural sources

The UK only produced slightly over 1.% (1.02%) of the world's 3% total of CO2 caused by human activity!

That is: the UK produced around one hundredth

of the three percent total CO2 caused by humans!

The UK’s CO2 emissions have fallen by around 42% since 1990

CO2 is highly beneficial and crucial for life and plant growth.

An increase of CO2 would improve plant growth and reforestation.

The UK produces slightly over one hundredth of the human caused total of 3 percent (three hundredths) of the total four hundredths of one percent of CO2 in the atmosphere.

If you think that is a tiny, insignificant amount, you are perfectly correct.

All life is based on carbon, it is an essential food for plants. Plants obtain carbon from CO2 (Carbon Dioxide).

They separate the carbon from the oxygen which they release into the atmosphere.

The oxygen they release is also essential for life.

The idea that CO2 is a poison, or something undesirable, is preposterous nonsense. it is not based on good science, but politics, ideology and vested interests.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is very small compared to other gases, such as nitrogen, but it is essential.

The amount that humans contribute to the total CO2 is negligible. The vastly overwhelming amount - 97% is produced naturally. The idea that the other 3 percent, caused by humans, will destroy the planet is ridiculous.

Records going back centuries show that natural temperature rises are followed a rise in CO2, not the other way round. As the sea gets warmer it releases more CO2, a purely natural process. The most likely cause of the increase in temperature is activity on the Sun. The records show that it is an increase in temperature that causes an increase in CO2. This is not necessarily bad. A generally warmer climate caused by the Sun, with the resulting increase in CO2 is ideal for plant growth and a greener planet.

So, is CO2 a cause of global warming or climate change? Extremely unlikely!

You may ask; what about the scientific consensus, the claim that 97% of scientists agree that CO2 is a cause of climate change?

a) If something is repeated often enough, many people end up believing it. That’s how propaganda works.

b) Most scientists are not climate scientists, they work in other fields. They tend to respect the findings/opinions of other scientists, because they trust the scientific integrity of their peers, above any vested interests.

c) A consensus in science is not proof of anything. Scientific truth is not a democratic decision, it is not decided by a consensus, however large. That is a political concept, not a scientific one.

In science, empirical evidence is king.

The idea that a consensus opinion makes something beyond doubt, or unable to be challenged is an anathema to genuine scientific endeavour.

Science doesn’t work like that.

To impose a straightjacket on science is a fanatical position, which has the hallmark of ideological fanaticism. It is anti-science and a deplorable situation.

The common, political currency seems to be that anyone who dares to challenge the present, climate change opinion is a science denier, a term of abuse which is intended to imply they are wilfully ignorant, evil or even criminal.

That is an appalling situation. And very damaging for freedom of expression and the future of science. Scientific practice is a search for truth, not an ideology, or a political football. No genuine scientist, who has any integrity, can ever support such a situation. Any scientist who claims that manmade climate change is an irrefutable fact, or that issue is settled and the debate is over, is a disgrace to science.

There is no such thing as a ‘climate change denier’. It is a meaningless insult, invented by fanatical ideologues. All honest scientists would agree that any scientific opinion or hypothesis is only as good as the latest bit of evidence.

Inconvenient facts, the science that Al Gore doesn't want you to know:

binged.it/2WJoiRX

Piers Corbyn (brother of Jeremy Corbyn) - manmade climate change does not exist.

youtu.be/UvHMhZ1T964

Patrick Moore (one of the founders of Greenpeace) A dearth of carbon?

Dr. Moore says we were literally running out of carbon before we started to pump it back into the atmosphere, “CO2 has been declining to where it is getting close to the end of plant life, and in another 1.8 million years, life would begin to die on planet Earth for lack of CO2.”

According to Moore it is life itself that has been consuming carbon and storing it in carbonaceous rocks. He goes on to say, “billions of tons of carbonaceous rock represent carbon dioxide pulled out of the atmosphere, and because the Earth has cooled over the millennia, nature is no longer putting CO2 into the atmosphere to offset this.”

youtu.be/sXxktLAsBPo

Princeton physics professor William Happer explains why he describes some climate change scientists as a ‘cult.’

youtu.be/vro-yn59uso

Who trusts the MSM?

Their lies are not just fake news, they deliberately set out to slander those who don’t agree with the liberal left, globalist elite. Their lies are positively evil. Everyone should watch this video and they will never trust the media again: banned.video/watch?id=5f00ca7c672706002f4026a9

New NASA satellite data prove carbon dioxide is GREENING the Earth and restoring forests.

www.afinalwarning.com/500086.html?fbclid=IwAR2SoywjkPYu8-...

The latest Vegetation Index data from NASA shows that the Earth is getting progressively "greener" and lusher over time. The planet is 10 percent greener today than it was in 2000, NASA says, which means better conditions for growing crops. Forests are also expanding while deserts are becoming more fertile and usable for agriculture. All in all, the global Vegetation Index rose from 0.0936 to 0.1029 between 2000 and 2021, a 9.94 percent increase. "10 percent greening in 20 years! We are incredibly fortunate!" announced Zoe Phin, a researcher who compiled the data into a chart for her blog. "I just wish everyone felt that way. But you know not everyone does. To the extent that humans enhance global greening is precisely what social parasites want to tax and regulate. No good deed goes unpunished." A separate German study found that the globe has been greening for at least the past three decades. Satellite imagery suggests that vegetation has been expanding at a growing rate, contracting the gloom-and-doom narrative being spread by the climate alarmists.