A camera I've had for ages and have hardly ever used is the Pentax 645 11n. Recently I came across a pack of outdated Kodak Portra 400 so decided to give the Pentax a whirl. Normally I use slide film with medium format cameras but if not, Kodak Ektar would be my print film of choice, so I was interested to see how Portra would fare. As the name suggests this is a lower contrast film particularly suitable for portraits but I'm pretty pleased with the results.

I have three lenses for the Pentax - the autofocus 75mm and 45mm and a manual focus 200mm. Looking online, the generally held opinion is that the 75mm is well regarded but that the 45mm and 200mm are absolute "dogs". I bought the outfit before I had the internet so I was blissfully unaware of my mistakes. However the best lens is the one you've got so here's the results. On the day I didn't use the 200mm but the beached workboat was taken on the 45mm and the other two with the 75mm.

This is some kind of workboat. I'm not sure if it actually works as I've only ever seen it like this.

An outdated old thing given new life and a fresh coat of paint.

Rather outdated store, both inside and out. Will go in for pics soon.

Not a spectacular animation, rather a mood scene... ;-)

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

Some background:

The SAAB B31 was a Swedish jet-powered multirole aircraft, originally designed to serve as a tactical bomber, ground attack, reconnaissance and interceptor aircraft. In the aftermath of the Second World War, Sweden set about the rebuilding and modernization of its armed forces. Regarding aviation, jet propulsion had been identified as the powerplant of the future, and experience with the SAAB 21R, which had been converted from a propeller-pusher aircraft into a jet-powered fighter and attack aircraft in 1947, bolstered confidence in the home industry’s competence. The Saab 21R was only an interim solution, though. One hundred and twenty-four aircraft were planned but this number was reduced to only 64 and they were mainly used as fighter-bombers. The Flygvapnet’s standard post-war bomber, the Saab 18, a twin piston-engine design from 1944, was outdated, too, and its performance was regarded as inadequate for the Fifties. This led to a major development initiative for modern jet aircraft for the Flygvapnet in 1946, which spawned the Saab 29 ‘Tunnan’ fighter and the Saab B31 light bomber. Both aircraft were initially designed around the de Havilland Goblin turbojet of British origin, but when the more powerful de Havilland Ghost became available, this was chosen as the standard powerplant. Both aircraft incorporated such modern features as swept wings or ejection seats.

When the Saab 32’s fighter version, the J 32B, eventually became operational in 1958, it was clear that the heavy and highly limited twin-engine J31B would not remain in service for much longer. By 1963 all machines had been retired from frontline service, initially stored in reserve but scrapped by 1970. Two machines remained operational, though: as flying test beds for the Swedish Air Force’s Försökscentralen (FC) at Malmen AB, where they served until 1981 – primarily to test radar and missile guidance systems, and as radar targets for war games and anti-aircraft unit trainings.

General characteristics:

Crew: 2

Length: 15,76 m (51 ft 7 1/2 in)

Wingspan: 16.96 m (55 ft 2/3 in)

Height: 4,21 m (13 ft 9 1/2 in)

Wing area: 45 m2 (480 sq ft)

Empty weight: 9,000 kg (19,823 lb)

Gross weight: 17,500 kg (38,546 lb)

….Max takeoff weight: 19,000 kg (41,850 lb)

Fuel capacity: 5,100 L (1,350 US gal / 1,120 imp gal) maximum internal fuel

plus 2x 570 L (150 US gal, 120 imp gal) optional drop-tanks

Powerplant:

2× Svenska Flygmotor RM2F centrifugal-flow turbojet engine (Rolls Royce Ghost), each with

4,750 lbf (21.1 kN) dry thrust at 10,250 rpm and

5,400 lbf (24.02 kN) with temporary water-alcohol injection

Performance:

Maximum speed: 1,090 km/h (677 mph, 588 kn; Mach 0.9) at 10,000 ft (3,000 m)

Cruise speed: 732 km/h (455 mph, 395 kn)

Stall speed: 150 km/h (92.8 mph, 80.6 kn) with approach power

Combat range: 1.850 km (1,145 mi, 995 nmi) on internals

Ferry range: 2.200 km (1,375 mi, 1,195 nmi) with 2× 570 l drop-tanks

Service ceiling: 16,200 m (53,062 ft)

Rate of climb: 40 m/s (7.681 ft/min)

Wing loading: 87.1 lb/sq ft (388 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight: 0.32

Armament:

4× 20 mm (0.79 in) akan m/47C (license produced Hispano Mark V) autocannon with 220 RPG

48× 75 mm (3.0 in) srak m/55 (Bofors 75 mm (3.0 in) rocket "Frida") unguided air-to-air missiles

with contact fuze high-capacity warhead on retractable rack in ventral bay

(not used operationally, later completely deleted in favor of a second water-alcohol tank)

2× wet underwing hardpoints outside of the engine nacelles for 600 kg (1.321 lb) each;

alternatively a pair of Rb24 (AIM9-B Sidewinder) IR-guided air-to-air missiles

The model and its assembly:

While it does not look spectacular, the J31 (actually my second use of this designation for a Swedish Fifties all-weather fighter, the first was an A.W. Meteor NF.14, but the “31” was lent from the Spitfire PR.XIX in Swedish service as S31) was a major creation feat. It all started with a discussion with fellow Swedish board member Pellson at whatifmodellers.com about Saab prototypes, esp. the early designs. That made me wonder about a twin-jet engine aircraft, something that could replace the Saab 18 bombers much like the BAC Canberra with the RAF’s Mosquito – and looking at similar international projects of the time like the Soviet Il-29 and Yak-25 as well as the French S.O. 4050 Vautour I thought that something similar could work well for Sweden, too.

My concept started with a primary light bomber and attack role, much like the B18 and the Canberra, with the outlook to develop a radar-bearing all-weather fighter from it, which was direly needed in Sweden in the Mid-Fifties and led to the procurement of two interim types in real life, the J30 (Mosquito night fighter) and the J33 (Venom night fighter), while plans were made to equip the J29 with a radar and the Saab 32 already on the drawing boards, even though the latter’s fighter version would be delayed well into the Sixties.

The core of the build was a leftover fuselage from a Matchbox F3D Skyknight – from an incomplete kit that came OOB with one of its three sprue trees double (even though in different colours!). The canopy was also still there, and now I eventually found a good use for it. However, not much more would be taken over from the Skyknight, because the overall layout would be much different, dictated by the bulky centrifugal flow engines that were (only) available to Sweden in the late Forties and which also powered the successful J29 Tunnan. The engines could, due to their diameter and the need for ducts, not be buried in the fuselage, so that they would go under the wings, directly attached to them as in the Il-29 and Vautour. The wings would be slightly swept (around 20°), as a compromise between modernism (as on the J29) and good range/endurance, and shoulder-mounted for good ground clearance and to avoid FOP (an issue of the Yak-25).

Since the engine pods should not be too large and bulky I decided that the main wheels would not retract into them (à la Il-28) and rather follow the Vautour route: with a tandem arrangement retracting into the fuselage and with small outrigger wheels. This had, for the original bomber version, the benefit, that the internal bomb bay could become longer than with a more conventional tricycle landing gear arrangement that would full retract into the hull, much like the Douglas A3D/B.66, with a wider track. And it would look more exotic, too.

With this concept I started a donor parts safari and started work on the fuselage. First major feat was to clean the F3D’s flanks from its original engine fairings – thankfully the Matchbox kit provides them as separate parts, so omitting them was simple, but there were enough major recesses and areas beyond the F3D’s basically teardrop shape hull that had to be filled and PSRed, including the original wing attachment points in the hull’s middle.

Another issue was the cockpit, which was missing through the double sprues. I was lucky to find an original Matchbox F3D tub in the spare box, from my first Skyknight build ever in the late Eighties (then built as a Vietnam era EF-10). New seats were procured as well as two (ugly) pilot figures and a dashboard from an Italeri Tornado IDS. However, the cockpit would later cause some more trouble…

The nose was generously filled with steel balls to keep it down (you never know…), and once the hull was closed, I implanted a new rear landing gear well. In the meantime, I kept searching for engine nacelle and wing parts – both turned out to be challenging. Not that I had not enough material to choose from, but I wanted to make the parts to be as authentic as possible – the nacelles conveying a centrifugal engine inside (see the Gloster Meteor for reference), and the light wing sweep angle as well as the desire for a not-too-modern look made the wing choice really hard.

The nacelles were completed first. I remembered some leftover parts from a Matchbox Meteor night fighter, mainly the intakes, which would be perfect. But the rest of the nacelles took a while to materialize. Eventually I found engine pods from a Hobbycraft Su-25, which are separate pieces. They had a more or less square diameter shape, but their size was good and so I combined them with the round (and bigger!) Meteor NF.14 intakes, after having added trimmed-down intake cones from a Trumpeter Il-28 inside, and PSRing the different shapes into something …more natural. Even though outrigger wheels would later be added I omitted eventual wells at this point, because I had to define the stance through the tandem main wheels first, and this was still tbd.

The wing donors became a lengthy affair. At one point I became so desperate that I tried to use the wing tips from a VEB Plasticart 1:100 Tu-20/95 bomber, but that failed (thankfully!) because the parts turned out to be warped and simply too ugly for the build. I did not find any suitable material in The Stash™, tested wings from an A-6 and an F-14, nothing worked well. I eventually procured – in a forlorn move – a vintage Revell 1:113 B-47 kit. Horrible thing, but its outer wings were useful, even though they required massive modifications. Their roots were cut away to reduce span and their angle was set at about 20°; the slender tips were also cut off, resulting in an almost trapezoid shape with a slightly extended wing chord at the trailing edge of the roots. Lots of PSR was required to improve the surface and to fill some gaps from the OOB engine pod attachment points of the B-47. Ugh.

At that point I had also already found a good fin: from an Academy/Minicraft 1:144 B-1B bomber! This not only offered a very Fifties-esque round and swept shape, it also had suitable attachment points for the stabilizers for a cruciform tail, which appeared necessary due to the engines’ wing position. As a side benefit, I could use the B-47’s wing tips as stabilizers, even though they had to be PSRed a lot, too.

To attach the new wings to the F3D fuselage I made cutouts at shoulder height, but the engine pods were first mounted and PSRed under the wings. More putty and sanding mess, but it was worthwhile.

In the meantime I worked on the landing gear and used parts from the ugly VEB Plasticart Tu-20/95 to scratch a tandem layout with twin wheels and a significant nose-up stance (due to the rear wheels’ position beyond the aircraft’s centre of gravity). Once this was settled and the wings in place I could work on the outrigger wheels. These were procured from a Matchbox 1:72 Sea Harrier and mounted in scratched fairings under the engine pods, so that they could semi-retract. With the ground clearance defined by the main wheels a suitable position and length for the outriggers could be found, and in the end the J31 has a proper stance with all four legs on the ground.

Painting and markings:

I like to apply simple liveries to weird builds, and for the J31 I settled upon a NMF finish – which was typical for the contemporary J29 Tunnan fighters, too. Only the reconnaissance versions as well as the fighters of as single operational unit were ever camouflaged (in dark green and dark blue). The only other realistic cammo option would have been the standard Swedish uniform dark green over blue grey. But bare metal appeared IMHO much better suited.

As a non-standard measure the model received an overall thin coat of grey primer, primarily to identify dents and notches on its many PSRed surface areas – a good move, because a lot of small flaws could be identified and treated before a final overall coat with “White Aluminium” from a rattle can (Duplicolor, RAL 9006) was applied and details like the radome, antennae (both in black) and the landing gear and its wells (in a light bronze tone, seen on Saab 29s and 32s) were painted in detail. I think the silver underlines the J31’s clean lines well?

The model received a light black ink washing, less for true weathering but to emphasize engraved details and for a “cloudier” look of the NMF surfaces. This was further enhanced through a careful treatment with grinded graphite (which adds a truly metallic shine to the paint), and since a lot of surface details were lost through PSR I did some manual panel-shading with different silver tones and re-created panel lines all over the hull with a soft pencil, mostly free-handedly. Quite simple, but it improves the overall impression a lot.

Decals were puzzled together. The Swedish roundels came from a generic TL-Modellbau sheet, the “T” on the tail was scratched from generic white and blue stripes from the same manufacturer. The blue band around the nose was made with the same material, plus a white “T” – inspired by tactical markings from some J29s from the Fifties. Some stencils were collected from the scrap box, and black walkway borders added to the wings’ upper surfaces and the spine behind the cockpit. As a side benefit these hide some lingering inconsistencies on the wing surfaces well.

Finally, the model was sealed with semi-gloss acrylic varnish (Italeri) for a shiny finish, except for the radomes, which became matt.

It might not look spectacular or exciting, but I am quite proud of this “second” J31, because it not only was a major kitbashing project, it also conveys the Fifties “look and feel” I wanted to catch, like its contemporaries S.O. 4050 Vautour, Yak-25, or even the stillborn Baade Ba-152 airliner. From that point it turned out very well, and going for a simple NMF livery was IMHO also a good move – the J31 has a certain “space age” look? At least, this is what you can get when you combine major parts from F3D, B-47. B1, Il-28, Su-25, Tu-95 and a Gloster Meteor… 😉

This Russian front steering PAZ bus was built in an outdated style. It replaced the 1958-1968 PAZ-652 which had more or less the same look. It was technically based on a GAZ-53 truck.

PAZ means Pavlovsky Avtobusny Zavod: Pavlovo Bus Factory, and was founded in 1932. It's a division of GAZ. The company is still active.

These buses were imported in the former DDR from 1970 to 1983.

Intersting video (in Russian): www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwZgqnIIALw

Or: www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVUkjwq-9Eg

This autobus made on a Renault platform and equipped with a Renault engine (according to photo info). Bodywork done by PAZ, USSR (dank, Ivan).

Seen on an exposition about architecture in the Issoire region.

The description at the picture said it was taken at a local plant in the Issoire region. The bus was in service for employee transport to this factory.

The bus should have Renault components.

Exact date and photographer unknown.

4250 cc V8 petrol engine (originally).

4500 kg.

Production PAZ 672 Omnibus: 1968-1989.

Number seen: 1.

Issoire (Puy-de-Dôme, Fr.), Musée La Tour de l'Horloge, Rue du Ponteil, April 23, 2017.

© 2017 Sander Toonen Amsterdam | All Rights Reserved

And with advance to REALITY COPY there’s certainly no way of changing this perception only enforcing it, nothing in reality is good enough for “REALITY COPY” that is just another paradox that is not futuristic.

We might be still skeptical about the arrival of REALITY COPY, but its only before its sold at the supermarkets.

What would happen after “Reality Copy” when the progress of all possible levels of true “reality copy” (in technical sense, not psychologically-philosophical) are achieved. The reality hence is copied and sealed.

Technology won’t stop there… one wonders. What is next.

In political sense when reality in representation is something embraced by conservative social power than with “reality copy” the conservative power is the dominating from the social point of view having new level of reality and it’s copy to be controlled.

*seems like the only possibly alternative to REALITY COPY could be ultra radical Invisibility)

In principle the artist aims to deform the reality subjectively to create not the “reality copy” lacking such skills but to convey the artistic poetic goal of expressing whatever given artist wants to express.

In a matter of “reality copy” what is left for the artist to argue with and deform… to question and test… Nothing really changes socially except for more pressure applied to the issue of dealing with self-image and tools to “sell” When a person changes the image the higher the technology the more transformed is the final product.

The progress of mental growth is just as conservative as control on the “visual image of reality” and its copy.

The ongoing technological progress is irreversible as it carries percent of good with bad,

It is common knowledge how for instance internet is benefit and at the same time does damage. A person who knows about the addiction and suffers would acquire the knowledge and hope from the place the person suffers the internet of course.

Same thing is with photography and video. Reality copy would add more psychological problems to the present but create more visual attraction of true-life experience with whatever could be rediscovered in Lifecopy style. Probably is benefits pornography since it will continue same as consumption of food. The basic things… Consumerism benefits since it is super-trained for “instant reach” affect and will commercially exploit the “reality copy” to sell more of “reality copy” gadgets the phones, screens, etc.

New generation of people will repeat the cycle in new technological means of having “reality copy” as nothing new but similar to any visual information currently available.

The creative people are the ones BEHIND the time it seems in a matter of “reality copy” and being unable to have anything is an alternative.

The Invisible alternative is the ONLY ONE to question “reality copy”

That is the power of UNKNOWN.

Techno progress can deal in “reality” bringing higher resolution to the fore to sell new generation of phones and gadgets.

But it really doesn’t change the philosophical issue of questions asked by philosophers, what is life, what is art, why do we live. Questions remain unanswered when techno progress veils those questions with the promise that higher technology would bring the end to all unanswered questions and answer them for people.

So far the techno advance puts the artistic, literary and philosophical field out of business. As when people get the toys (gadgets) and the playground (the podium of internet) the art is irrelevant and completely disconnected from the social phenomenon of self-representation. Art is not interested to question something with no philosophical substance to it.

The commercial art is willing to supply more stuff for consumerism. If its reality-copy than someone empowered by financial wealth (born rich) would come up with more decorative solutions that could serve REALITY COPY in needed fashion, add more details to the “reality set” to those who can afford it.

Same way it is now when people with means live with more things.

“Reality Copy” of people without means would look just as it is in reality, gray and unexciting. To help people without means the software would offer “decoration” solutions to add the faux details able to transform the surroundings to less depressing. It would enter the person into “life copy” of vacation at Caribbean resorts… etc.

What in such situation could be philosophically questioned, if nothing changed in human morality, but techno advance manage to involve people into self-entertainment to such degree that a person is no longer interested to read books about other people or watch movies and hear news. Self-promotion is the ongoing and time-consuming thing. One has to research the “popular” topics.

As to participating in reality activities, there’s the issue of not having time for anything that doesn’t deal with self-promotion and earning a living.

ART commerce is growing commercially going Industrial since supplying consumer goods is always rewarding in sales. On the other hand this and techno revolution reduces interest of writers and philosophers to dig in depths where there is no depth. It makes such people disengaged with the process. When there are no critical voices to the established situation or some few art critics pretend to do what is expected of them – know about current situation not only on the art scene but at large - socially, and have strong voice against the trends that contribute to the lowering of culture. There’s no more liberal freedom since nobody reads the newspapers. Even if the working critics were principal enough to write articles and books they know their voice would not be heard. They are not vociferous about anything at all because there’s a concept of supporting and art endavour since art is in decline and anything that relates to art needs their support.

There are no voices to oppose the current situation for many reasons such as no younger people would be interested in such undertaking also for many reasons of being disoriented in expectation of techno changes or living their me-life.

The young ones are the invisibility movers, every day someone who is young, information and internet savvy adds the invisibility statement to their online identity. I saw it on tumblr and Iheart. (samples year web address – source)

Art consumer goods sell and make the seller get the goods since sale is the rule.

Art critics silently agree and actually it seems if they even try to disagree there is nothing in art that presently shows any direction against the established art situation.

There isn’t anything not saying a serious claim to deny aesthetic values of the art present and past, to turn away from any influence and history by the fashion avant-garde to question than resuscitate (bring back from death) art that lost vitality and practically is a dead art of dominating taste in an authoritarian culture and conformity.

Bring new blood to reinvent the art into weapon against the outlived old and positioning itself as direct opposition AGAINST art that represents culture of the present time.

Culture of consumerism that turned into visual consumerism with the help of internet is hard to oppose and challenge in any attempt of making bid public art spectacle, won’t challenge any concept but serve certain need for entertainment.

Invisible art of Paul Jaisini stands against all that is dominating and culturally regressive in the present, false visual multiplicity that imply democracy and absence of segregation in visual sphere, all inclusiveness.

On so many levels Paul Jaisini brings knowledge of how the present condition reflect on a mind. (non-linear thinking, information processing, constant analysis is the advanced state of high analytical creative mind /osd, adad is the side effect but there are more worse side effects) Shows the burst to create in manifestation of genius mind (can do any task without training) but unable to maintain the creative process as wholesome, bored with the immediate results. Invisibility is theoretical stability and result of high impact activity that gives fast result of creativity and genius realized in art. Then instability in the fact of the created art un--preserved and lost, destroyed.

On a lower level of people who start building some blog with enthusiasm dedicating time, research than abandoning it to become digital graveyard demonstrates inability to continue and search for new. Inability to face what yesterday seemed interesting and capture someone’s mind to give the creative boost.

(fast life, no sleep, high tech knowledge, constant search for new, unsatisfied… new is old – altogether supports “CONSUMERISM” when buying is haul more than physically needed, quantity is the need for new.

Invisible art as a concept seem to attract wide public and elite in such diametrically opposed combination, of people without high aesthetics in mind or the complete opposite illuminati-culturati. People with average or below average taste and aesthetic requirements are as interested and supportive as the elite. When it comes to someone in the middle- another phenomena, quite often those who are educated and intelligent take a stand against even one mention of the art being possibly somehow invisible.

These people respond very well and willing to agree with the concept as Invisible art is brought to them by mass media. In the beginning I was using internet to send out essays and saw the proof that as avant-garde wanted to reach people who never acquired artistically developed taste the invisible art was and now is more than ever suits their taste even to degree of obsession.

That’s adds insult to injury when nobody even pay attention and there’s nothing to offer as the alternative.

They want something tangible as the alternative, the grown philosophy to brew in the minds of people and artists as the sign of time.

The invisibility is the idea that has the power to antagonize the “reality copy” but not in a sense that is widely used in the present time. To express social isolation in case of the teens as seen on tumblr. (examples and variations of Invisibility trend in primitive pictures shared every day in such huge quantities no art publication ever knew, teens and pre-teens are those with passion among the rest of us, when they spread the word it goes far, same as the early internet time, when the word would go far distances to large number of people)

Historically known of the episodes when many artists tried to create the so-called invis art but it really didn’t involve much creativity except for the concepts they came up with, but in reality it involved the reduction of visual means and performance art when the audience came up with more ideas acting around the non-existent artwork than the artist.

Personally I discovered high interactive value of the “PRESUMED” invisible painting when I was getting a lot of responses with very interesting commentaries from the people who actually insisted I was sending them info about the invisible artworks. I never made any claims when sending written essays. People decided for me and probably this is the best way for the interactive dialogue to let people decide.

The only known versions of invisible artworks would be not something that can turn into a philosophical school of thought but random reductions of visual means of various artists. It all came to same MOA that involved frames etc., not the process of creativity or life long creativity that would show how such artistic philosophy develops and what various periods of the artist’s life produce by his belief in his artistic style.

The known precedents of exhibiting so-called invisible art were always random statements that never continued to develop in a distinct style.

What one usually expects is a blank canvas, a picture with some written ideas which is more a topography art, a picture that is in a wrapping of covered up and is a found object art. The only known artists who continued wrapping is Christo but his art is not considered invisible even though he hides or attempts to hide what is inside the wrapping….

Recently same as in more distant periods in time many artists are trying to reduce their visual means. There’s a difference though. In previous times artists ventured into reduction of visual means with more ease. The artworks from older times with reduced visual means had much less labor and look less worked on.

Now the reduction of visual means is something that doesn’t fall under the artistic philosophy when an artists trying to prevent an overkill of the visual imagery.

If Rothko worked on his abstract painting laboriously than in current standards his work would be considered not sale’s worthy. Now to be sale-worthy the abstraction is worked to show a lot of workmanship. Surely Rothko doesn’t want anyone to see a lot of workmanship quite the opposite, he wanted his paintings to look fresh and not overdone. And in current standards he would have to toil on every dot in his painting to perfect it.

Today’s abstract paintings look like very hard-worked on simulations of surfaces that look like some textures (varieties of plain or distressed surfaces /stone and whatever is the decorative surfaces of abstracts, patterns that are used in interior design.

Overworked, machine-like is expensive looking enough to sell in the gallery but it creates a certain amount of fatigue in time. The commerce knows about it, the fatigue would bring the art buyer to buy more to add some new life to the art collection ed infinitum.

Art commerce wants more art collectors in the times when art is selling and makes money and should be called what it is – decorative luxury items.

Art or luxury decorative items was always meant for people with wealth and they always wanted to get their money worth.

When abstract painting is done in a manner to be worthy of selling price it is not creativity of conceptual thought and has no abstracted meaning. The craft of simulating surfaces is widely known and is used in interior design. When it is unique that no other craftsman can repeat it is recognized nearly as jewelry and rag-making, etc. All the items that cost money due to the high workmanship and hours, months and sometimes years of creation. Same way was built the historical hand-made furniture. Same way the current abstract decorations will hold in time. It is made for someone as rich as royalties but it doesn’t mean that it has anything to do with artistic creativity, the most mysterious and unexplained human phenomenon.

So anyone who is interested to earn money as a maker of such luxury items and be able to place them in the store for sale – the art gallery, can come up with own recipe for surface replica and start working will find a paying job on the art scene nowadays...

It doesn’t involve questioning of morals, times and life. It involves many hours of working and ability to produce varieties of the same surfaces in good taste. Instead of questioning human spirituality, or questioning art means that someone considers irrelevant and outdated, not for any breakthrough to create something revolutionary new.

this is my first roll of film through the canon autoboy mini or as it's know elsewhere: canon sure shot dax (date) or prima 5.

the film is outdated fujifilm superia 200 june 2014

Camera: Petri Ft from 1967,

Outdated/expired Film, ISO200, expired in 2008

F3HP | 50 1.4 | kodak 100 outdated

The Catherine Palace (Russian: Екатерининский дворец) was the Rococo summer residence of the Russian tsars, located in the town of Tsarskoye Selo (Pushkin), 25 km south-east of St. Petersburg, Russia.

The residence originated in 1717, when Catherine I of Russia engaged the German architect Johann-Friedrich Braunstein to construct a summer palace for her pleasure. In 1733, Empress Anna commissioned Mikhail Zemtsov and Andrei Kvasov to expand the Catherine Palace. Empress Elizabeth, however, found her mother's residence outdated and incommodious and in May 1752 asked her court architect Bartolomeo Rastrelli to demolish the old structure and replace it with a much grander edifice in a flamboyant Rococo style. Construction lasted for four years and on 30 July 1756 the architect presented the brand-new 325-meter-long palace to the Empress, her dazed courtiers and stupefied foreign ambassadors.[citation needed]

During Elizabeth's lifetime, the palace was famed for its obscenely lavish exterior.[citation needed] More than 100 kilograms of gold were used to gild the sophisticated stucco façade and numerous statues erected on the roof. It was even rumoured that the palace's roof was constructed entirely of gold. In front of the palace a great formal garden was laid out. It centres on the azure-and-white Hermitage Pavilion near the lake, designed by Zemtsov in 1744, overhauled by Rastrelli in 1749 and formerly crowned by a grand gilded sculpture representing The Rape of Persephone. The interior of the pavilion featured dining tables with dumbwaiter mechanisms. The grand entrance to the palace is flanked by two massive "circumferences", also in the Rococo style. A delicate iron-cast grille separates the complex from the town of Tsarskoe Selo.

Although the palace is popularly associated with Catherine the Great, she actually regarded its "whipped cream" architecture as old-fashioned. When she ascended the throne, a number of statues in the park were being covered with gold, in accordance with the last wish of Empress Elizabeth, yet the new monarch had all the works suspended upon being informed about the expense. In her memoirs she censured the reckless extravagance of her predecessor:

"The palace was then being built, but it was the work of Penelope: what was done today, was destroyed tomorrow. That house has been pulled down six times to the foundation, then built up again ere it was brought to its present state. The sum of a million six hundred thousand rubles was spent on the construction. Accounts exist to prove it; but besides this sum the Empress spent much money out of her own pocket on it, without ever counting".

In order to gratify her passion for antique and Neoclassical art, Catherine employed the Scottish architect Charles Cameron who not only refurbished the interior of one wing in the Neo-Palladian style then in vogue, but also constructed the personal apartments of the Empress, a rather modest Greek Revival structure known as the Agate Rooms and situated to the left from the grand palace. Noted for their elaborate jasper decor, the rooms were designed so as to be connected to the Hanging Gardens, the Cold Baths, and the Cameron Gallery (still housing a collection of bronze statuary) - three Neoclassical edifices constructed to Cameron's designs. According to Catherine's wishes, many remarkable structures were erected for her amusement in the Catherine Park. These include the Dutch Admiralty, Creaking Pagoda, Chesme Column, Rumyantsev Obelisk, and Marble Bridge.

Upon Catherine's death in 1796, the palace was abandoned in favour of the Pavlovsk Palace. Subsequent monarchs preferred to reside in the nearby Alexander Palace and, with only two exceptions, refrained from making new additions to the Catherine Palace, regarding it as a splendid monument to Elizabeth's wealth and Catherine II's glory. In 1817, Alexander I engaged Vasily Stasov to refurbish some interiors of his grandmother's residence in the Empire style. Twenty years later, the magnificent Stasov Staircase was constructed to replace the old circular staircase leading to the Palace Chapel. Unfortunately, most of Stasov's interiors - specifically those dating from the reign of Nicholas I - have not been restored after the destruction caused by the Germans during World War Two.[citation needed]

When the German forces retreated after the siege of Leningrad, they had the residence intentionally destroyed,[1] leaving only the hollow shell of the palace behind. Prior to World War II, the Russian archivists managed to document a fair amount of the contents, which proved of great importance in reconstructing the palace. Although the largest part of the reconstruction was completed in time for the Tercentenary of St Petersburg in 2003, much work is still required to restore the palace to its former glory. In order to attract funds, the administration of the palace has leased the Grand Hall to such high-profile events as Elton John's concert for the elite audience in 2001 and the 2005 exclusive party which featured the likes of Bill Clinton, Tina Turner, Whitney Houston, Naomi Campbell, and Sting.

In Twentieth Century Fox's 1997 animated feature, "Anastasia", the Catherine Palace is depicted inaccurately as the home of the last imperial family.Although Stasov's and Cameron's Neoclassical interiors are superb manifestations of the late 18th-century and early 19th-century taste, the palace is best known for Rastrelli's grand suit of formal rooms known as the Golden Enfilade. It starts at the spacious airy ballroom, the "Grand Hall" or the "Hall of Lights", with a spectacular painted ceiling, and comprises numerous distinctively decorated smaller rooms, including the reproduced Amber Room.

The Great Hall, or the Light Gallery as it was called in the 18th century, is a formal apartment in the Russian baroque style designed by Bartolomeo Rastrelli between 1752 and 1756. The Great Hall was intended for more important receptions such as balls, formal dinners, and masquerades. The hall was painted in two colors and covers an area of approximately 1,000 square meters. Occupying the entire width of the palace, the windows on the eastern side look out onto the park while the windows of the western side look out to the palace plaza. In the evening, 696 lamps are lit on 12-15 chandeliers located near the mirrors. The halls sculptural and gilded carvings and ornimantation were created according to sketches by Rastrelli and models by Johann Franz Dunker.

Beyond the Great Hall is the dining room for the courtiers in attendance (the Courtiers-in-Attendance Dining Room). The room was designed by Rastrelli in the mid-18th century. The small room is lit by four windows which look out into the formal courtyard. The architect placed false windows with mirrors and mirrored glass on the opposite wall, making the hall more spacious and bright. Decorated in the typical baroque interior style, the hall is filled with gilded wall-carvings, complex gilded pieces on the doors, and ornamental patterns of stylized flowers. The ceiling mural was painted by a well known student of the Russian School from the mid-18th century. It is based on the Greek myth of the sun god Helios and the goddess of the dawn, Eos.

Across from the Courtiers-in-Attendance Dining Room, on the other side of the Main Staircase, is the White Formal Dining Room. The hall was used for the empresses' formal dinners or "evening meals". The walls of the dining hall were decorated with the utmost extravagance with gilded carvings. The furnishings consist of gilded carvings on the consoles. The painted mural, The Triumph of Apollo is a copy of a painting completed in the 16th century by Italian artist, Guido Reni.

The Portrait Hall is a formal apartment that covers 100 square meters of space. The room's walls boast large formal portraits of Empress Catherine I, Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, as well as paintings of Natalya Alexeyevna, sister of Peter the Great, and Empress Catherine II. The inlaid floors of the hall contain precious woods. The Drawing Room of Alexander I was designed between 1752 and 1756 and belonged to the Emperor's private suite. The drawing room stood out from the rest of the formal rooms in the palace due to the fact that the walls were covered in Chinese silk. Other decor in the room was typical for the palace's formal rooms, a ceiling mural, gilded carvings. The elegant card-tables and inlaid wood commode display Japanese, Chinese, and Berlin porcelain.

The Green Dining Room, which replaced Rastrelli's "Hanging Garden" in 1773, is the first of the rooms in the northern wing of the Catherine Palace, designed by Cameron for the future Emperor Paul and his wife. The pistachio-coloured walls of the room are lined with stucco figures by Ivan Martos. During the great fire of 1820 the room was seriously damaged, thus sharing the fate of other Cameron's interiors. It was subsequently restored under Stasov's direction.

Other Cameron's interiors include the Waiters' Room, with the inlaid floor of rosewood, amaranth and mahogany and stylish Chippendale card-tables; the Blue Formal Dining-Room, with white-and-blue silk wallpapers and Carrara marble chimneys; the Chinese Blue Drawing Room, a curious combination of Adam style with the Chinoiserie; the Choir Anteroom, with walls lined in apricot-colored silk; and the columned boudoir of Alexander I, executed in the Pompeian style.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_palace

Minolta Explorer Freedom Zoom and very outdated Kodak film.

Outdated business cards put to a great use...

I know all about the now outdated nu-rave but this is my interpretation of the trends that were in force about 8 years ago. Think Paul Oakenfeld, Rainbow Brite and Powerpuff Girls, pacifiers on chains and glazed, empty grins.

I'm wearing a tiny tshirt my wonderful ex-raver sister gifted me one year. I call it my Phantom Phreak shirt, and if you get that reference you should come over and watch Hackers with Ben and me.

It's layered over an Xhil chemise from Target. Owlsford Owl was bought there as well.

I'm wearing Leg Avenue knee socks (I like how the orange stripe matches my shirt) and armwarmers from The Garden.

The battered platform boots are Blue Asphalt.

I've got handmade plastic bead bracelets and a necklace, and I've got cheap plastic Hello Kitty hair ties in my pigtails.

My frail, outdated home internet connection is back running, and actually seems a bit faster now. We've had the fortune (against all odds!) of having three nice people from AT&T help in this matter, although it did take over a week to get it back working again. Provided it continues to work, the last two days of the Graceland 2017 photo set are scheduled for this Thursday and Friday, with a week-long tribute to the Hernando Kroger Marketplace grand opening anniversary to follow next week.

As a test of things (and to even back out the Muscle Shoals Kmart photo series), here's one from back in early July 2017. I thought the note on the door was a good explanation of why they need to hire people during the liquidations. Sadly, this location closed for good a few days ago...but not before I got a look at a very cool artifact that was uncovered while they were (already) dismantling the store last weekend! As always, views of that will be later on in the photo series.

____________________________________

Kmart, 1975(?)-built (closed Sept. 2017), Hwy. 43/72 and E. 6th St., Muscle Shoals, AL

The second roll of outdated film, 2002 I believe, that I had processed recently. I shot this 400 ISO at 200 and I am OK with the results. 400 is the highest outdated ISO I will buy...afraid that higher ISO is going to be too far gone.

Nikon FM

Nikkor 50mm f1.4 ai-s

Kodak Max 400 (expired 07/2002)? Shot at 200 iso

At its introduction in 2013 the Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV was the first plug-in hybrid SUV model available in Europe. Now some years later all electric models are the trend, even with SUV's. The Outlander now seems to be outdated.

morning seems so far away

so I'll sing a melody

and hope to god he's listening

sleeping softly while I sing

2014-09-X-E2-RSCF9257

Outdated Fuji Superia 100 in my Mamiya C330 f Professional. I am still 'Getting Used ' to it ! I clicked off shutter by mistake and LOST frame 1 !! .

Now with new people in charge for the navy, the Corsair-class was deemed outdated as they were converted Mikhail pre-drednought battleships.

The Rabid Plunderer has a much better beam to length ratio, this gives her 32 knots maximum speed. This is the perfect ship for raiding purposes, high speed and heavy armament, but can run away from battleships that can easily penetrate this cruiser's armor.

However, from the second line she can deal quite some damage with her heavy armament.

Armament:

- 6 250mm guns

-10 150mm guns

-4x2 21 inch torpedo tubes

-quad 40mm pom pom

-8 25mm AA guns (2 dual, 4 single mount)

Speed:

-32 knots

4th wall: So before anyone jumps on me for those guns, this is a smaller and faster version of the Deutschland class. As it was laid down 5 years from the current year, I mounted smaller guns and in more turrets. In my opinion the speed is also good, there is a heavy cruiser in-game with 12 8" guns that goes 30 knots, considering I have half that amount of bigger guns 32 knots should be okay.

this is my first roll of film through the canon autoboy mini or as it's know elsewhere: canon sure shot dax (date) or prima 5.

the film is outdated fujifilm superia 200 june 2014

Under the bridge /2

For dyxum.com film challenge (one-third keepers) #2

Tamron AF 28-300 zoom

Minolta Dynax 7

Outdated (June 2008) Jessops Diamond 2 Everyday 400 (Made in USA)

I put a roll of outdated Tri-X Pan in the camera on Saturday, to see what it's like to use, before I get in too deep! It has a lovely, solid feel, the bellows are light tight, and the lever wind/shutter cocking are a pleasure to use, and the shutter button is smooth and gentle, so lots of plus points.

On the minus side, I have already alluded to the filthy state of the optical block in the previous pics, and although that's not a design fault, it made it harder to use an already not very specs-wearer friendly viewfinder, which is! Another, quite un-anticipated fault, was that the spool carriers and backing plate exert very little tension on the film backing paper, so the last couple of frames were wound quite loosely onto the take up spool, resulting in a little light bleed on the edges of the last two frames.

Both these faults can be solved with a bit of effort, and I think the lens is better than this pic suggests - I stupidly used an old plastic yellow filter, because it was the only one I could find that fitted - should have just used the lens hood on it's own!

I think I will go on with this! I should mention that the daytime temp on New Years Day in our garden, when I took this, was 18.3C!

1957 Agilux Agifold, Fourth Series, f4.5/75mm AGI Anastigmat, x2 yellow filter, Outdated Tri-X Pan 400 in Caffenol 20-20-6-0.6(KBr), 5 mins pre-wash, 18 mins @21C. Scanned on Epson V500@1200 dpi.

Outdated Fuji Superia 100 in my Mamiya C330 f Professional. I am still 'Getting Used ' to it ! I clicked off shutter by mistake and LOST frame 1 !! .

Outdated Provia 100f packed into Pentacon Six equipped with Biometar 80, at 2.8 i guess. I really love to use it wide open...

The Ticonderogas were designed to be the state-of-the-art replacements of the outdated Cold War Spruance Class. 27 Ticonderogas have been completed. The first 5 of the class, including the Ticonderoga, were decommissioned early. Their lack of a VLS (vertical launch system), made them obsolete. The 22 active vessels are slated to serve until they each reach the end of their individual life expectancies. Although, with the proposed dry docking and overhaul, they would be able to serve longer.

Length - 567ft

Displacement - 9,600-9,800 tons

Propulsion - 4 GE gas turbine engines, 2 rudders, 2 reversible-pitch propellers

Range - 6,000 nmi

Performance - 32.5 knots

Compliment - 30 officers, 300 enlisted

Armament - 2x61-cell Mk 41 VLS, 8 Harpoon launchers, 2x5in Mark 45 guns, 2x25mm Mark 38 guns, 2 Phalanx CIWS, 2 Mark 32 triple torpedo launchers

Deployable Vehicles - 2 SH-60 Seahawks, inflatable dinghies

Well, one more down. This one was pretty fun to revisit. I fixed a bunch of issues from my first version, and the only thing still bothering me is that main mast. Other than that, I’m quite happy with this design. Next, I will be moving on to the Whidbey Island Class dock landing ship.

Minolta Dynax 9 and Tamron 28-300 AF zoom / outdated (2010) Agfaphoto APX 400 film / lab develop and scan

The Ticonderogas were designed to be the state-of-the-art replacements of the outdated Cold War Spruance Class. 27 Ticonderogas have been completed. The first 5 of the class, including the Ticonderoga, were decommissioned early. Their lack of a VLS (vertical launch system), made them obsolete. The 22 active vessels are slated to serve until they each reach the end of their individual life expectancies. Although, with the proposed dry docking and overhaul, they would be able to serve longer.

Length - 567ft

Displacement - 9,600-9,800 tons

Propulsion - 4 GE gas turbine engines, 2 rudders, 2 reversible-pitch propellers

Range - 6,000 nmi

Performance - 32.5 knots

Compliment - 30 officers, 300 enlisted

Armament - 2x61-cell Mk 41 VLS, 8 Harpoon launchers, 2x5in Mark 45 guns, 2x25mm Mark 38 guns, 2 Phalanx CIWS, 2 Mark 32 triple torpedo launchers

Deployable Vehicles - 2 SH-60 Seahawks, inflatable dinghies

Well, one more down. This one was pretty fun to revisit. I fixed a bunch of issues from my first version, and the only thing still bothering me is that main mast. Other than that, I’m quite happy with this design. Next, I will be moving on to the Whidbey Island Class dock landing ship.

...de temps en temps...

mp3.zing.vn/bai-hat/Sad-Violin-Various-Artists/IW8E7OF9.html

I know all about the now outdated nu-rave but this is my interpretation of the trends that were in force about 8 years ago. Think Paul Oakenfeld, Rainbow Brite and Powerpuff Girls, pacifiers on chains and glazed, empty grins.

I'm wearing a tiny tshirt my wonderful ex-raver sister gifted me one year. I call if my Phantom Phreak shirt, and if you get that reference you should come over and watch Hackers with Ben and me.

It's layered over an Xhil chemise from Target. Owlsford Owl was bought there as well.

I'm wearing Leg Avenue knee socks (I like how the orange stripe matches my shirt) and armwarmers from The Garden.

The battered platform boots are Blue Asphalt.

I've got handmade plastic bead bracelets and a necklace, and I've got cheap plastic Hello Kitty hair ties in my pigtails.

Here is my completed digital model of a Chesapeak & Ohio K-2 mikado.

C&O's K-2s and K-3s were their replacement for their aging K-1 mikados, which were outdated in their cylinder volume, boiler pressure, and driver diameter. The K-2s were the 'light' version and the K-3s were the 'heavy' version, even though the K-2s actually weighed more than the K-3s. They were used quite regularly from their debut in about 1920 until dieselization in 1952.

This model is powered by two PF L motors in the boiler, geared 1:1 to the #10 (LL) drivers, (which were designed by Glenn Holland), through a drivetrain I successfully tested physically.

I believe this model has started a new era in my modelling journey. It contains much better scale accuracy and structural integrity than I have previously been able to achieve. It also contains custom rods I designed myself, which very closely resemble the rods on Glenn Holland's NYC Mohawk, as I mentioned in a previous post.

I hope to build this model sometime within the next two years, as I have a lot of other models to finish as well. If you have read this far, thank you, and I would love to hear your thoughts in the comments.

Rollei SL66

Outdated Kodak Trix Rodinal 1+60 26ºC 8 min.

"A single sunbeam is enough to drive away many shadows."

St. Francis of Assisi

Still sporting outdated Europorte branding, GBRf no. 92032 "IMechE Railway Division" comes to a stop on the Up Fast Centre road at Northampton (between P1 and P2), working 6L48, the 1549 empty car train from Garston Car Terminal to Dagenham Dock Reception sidings. While the train would normally run non-stop via Platform 1, the congestion caused by 2 separate incidents at Crewe and London Euston caused it to be briefly held at Northampton until there was a sufficient return to normality on the WCML.

I had a lot of outdated film in my refrigerator that I'd bring for this trip, Kodak Porta 800 exp 06/2006, exposed at iso 400.

I like the grainy results that an outdated Porta film gives here =)

Hasselblad 500c/m – Zeiss Distagon 60mm Cfi – Kodak Porta 800 exp*. f/16 at 1/500 on “sunny 16”.

Sultanate of Oman – 2016.02.25

F3HP | 105 2.5 | fuji 200 outdated

M | Võ Kim Thịnh

Fuji Superia Venus 400 (outdated)

© All right reserved

All be loved at phitrieu.com

Follow me at

phitrieu.com

IG + FB | @phitrieu.pro5

Twitter | @phitrieupro5

Flickr | flickr.com/phitrieu

500px | 500px.com/phitrieu

This setup is outdated. It was working, but mounting a Dandelion chip in the small extension tube is much more comfortable. It might still be interesting for Canon users, since they can control the aperture electronically.

See an example shot here!

Mounting a lens reversely to get high magnification is a well known technique for macro photography. I did not want to dispense with the electronic link so I modded two extension tubes to ensure proper electronic connection. The process was more critical than expected, since there is surprisingly much mechanic in the tubes. Very thin wires were required (see detail) to make it fit.

Benefits:

My D90 can meter the exposure. Some flashs (like my Sigma) needs TTL metering to be driven beside maximum or minimal manual settings. With this setup I still have to correct the exposure and of course manual is still the mode I use, but ISO and flash power driven automatically is a great thing!

Of course the tubes can still be used regularly!

I've also added a 5W Cree LED as a macro light which helps significantly to find the focus spot. It is powered by an external battery.

See comments for the complete setup or have a look at my macro equipment set for the evolution of my setups.

Of course I also have a set for the resulting macro images!

Thanks for the clicks, hackaday!

F3hp | 50 1.4 | fuji 200 outdated

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

Some background:

The Georgian Air Force and Air Defense Division (თავდაცვის ძალების ავიაციისა და საჰაერო თავდაცვის სარდლობა; tavdatsvis dzalebis aviatsiisa da sahaero tavdatsvis sardloba) was established on January 1, 1992, and in September the Georgian Air Force conducted its first combat flight during the separatist war in Abkhazia. On August 18, 1998, the two divisions were unified in a joint command structure and renamed the Georgian Air Force.

In 2010, the Georgian Air Force was abolished as a separate branch and incorporated into the Georgian Land Forces as Air and Air Defense sections. By that time, the equipment – primarily consisting of Eastern Bloc aircraft inherited from the Soviet Union after the country’s dissolution – was totally outdated, the most potent aircraft were a dozen Suchoj Su-25 attack aircraft and a handful of MiG-21U trainers.

The TAM-1’s development was long and protracted, though, primarily due to lack of resources and the fact that the Georgian air force was in an almost comatose state for several years, so that the potential prime customer for the TAM-1 was not officially available. However, the first TAM-1 prototype eventually made its maiden flight in September 2017. This was just in time, because the Georgian Air Force had formally been re-established in 2016, with plans for a major modernization and procurement program. Under the leadership of Georgian Minister of Defense Irakli Garibashvili the Air Force was re-prioritized and aircraft owned by the Georgian Air Force were being modernized and re-serviced after they were left abandoned for 4 years. This program lasted until 2020. In order to become more independent from foreign sources and support its domestic aircraft industry, the Georgian Air Force eventually ordered eight TAM-1s as Su-25K replacements, which would operate alongside a handful of modernized Su-25KMs from national stock. In the meantime, the new type also attained interest from abroad, e. g. from Bulgaria, the Congo and Cyprus. The IDF thoroughly tested two early production TAM-1s of the Georgian Air Force in 2018, too.

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 15.53 m (50 ft 11 in), including pitot

Wingspan: 14.36 m (47 ft 1 in)

Height: 4.8 m (15 ft 9 in)

Wing area: 35.2 m² (378 sq ft)

Empty weight: 9,800 kg (21,605 lb)

Gross weight: 14,440 kg (31,835 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 19,300 kg (42,549 lb)

Powerplant:

2× Rolls-Royce AE 3012 turbofans with 44.1 kN (9,920 lbf) thrust each

Performance:

Maximum speed: 975 km/h (606 mph, 526 kn, Mach 0.79)

Range: 1.000 km (620 mi, 540 nmi) with internal fuel, clean

Combat range: 750 km (470 mi, 400 nmi) at sea level with 4.500 kg (9,911 lb) of ordnance,

incl. two external fuel tanks

Service ceiling: 7.800 m (25,550 ft)

g limits: +6.5

Rate of climb: 58 m/s (11,400 ft/min)

Armament:

1× 35 mm (1.38 in) Oerlikon KDA cannon with 200 rds in two magazines

under the lower forward fuselage, offset to port side.

11× hardpoints with a capacity of up to 4.500 kg (9,911 lb) of external stores

The kit and its assembly:

This rather rigorous conversion had been on my project list for many years, and with the “Gunships” group build at whatifmodellers.com in late 2021 I eventually gathered my mojo to tackle it. The ingredients had already been procured long ago, but there are ideas that make you think twice before you take action…

This build was somewhat inspired by a CG rendition of a modified Su-25 that I came across while doing online search for potential ideas, running under the moniker “Su-125”, apparently created by someone called “Bispro” and published at DeviantArt in 2010; check this: (www.deviantart.com/bispro/art/Sukhoi-Su-125-Foghorn-15043...). The rendition shows a Su-25 with its engines re-located to the rear fuselage in separate nacelles, much like an A-10, plus a T-tail. However, as many photoshopped aircraft, the shown concept had IMHO some flaws. Where would a landing gear go, as the Su-125 still had shoulder wings? The engines’ position and size also looked fishy to me, quite small/narrow and very far high and back – I had doubts concerning the center of gravity. Nevertheless, I liked the idea, and the idea of an “A-10-esque remix” of the classic Frogfoot was born.

This idea was fueled even further when I found out that the Hobbycraft kit lends itself to such a conversion. The kit itself is not a brilliant Su-25 rendition, there are certainly better models of the aircraft in 1:72. However, what spoke for the kit as whiffing fodder was/is the fact that it is quite cheap (righteously so!) and AFAIK the only offering that comes with separate engine nacelles. These are attached to a completely independent central fuselage, and this avoids massive bodywork that would be necessary (if possible at all) with more conventional kits of this aircraft.

Another beneficial design feature is that the wing roots are an integral part of the original engine nacelles, forming their top side up to the fuselage spine. Through this, the original wingspan could be retained even without the nacelles, no wing extension would be necessary to retain the original proportions.

Work started with the central fuselage and the cockpit tub, which received a different (better) armored ejection seat and a pilot figure; the canopy remained unmodified and closed, because representing the model with an open cockpit would have required additional major body work on the spinal area behind the canopy. Inside, a new dashboard (from an Italeri BAe Hawk) was added, too – the original instrument panel is just a flat front bulkhead, there’s no space for the pilot to place the legs underneath the dashboard!

In parallel, the fin underwent major surgery. I initially considered an A-10-ish twin tail, but the Su-25’s high “tail stinger” prevented its implementation: the jet efflux would come very close to the tail surfaces. So, I went for something similar to the “Su-125” layout.

Mounting the OOB stabilizers to the fin was challenging, though. The fin lost its di-electric tip fairing, and it was cut into two sections, so that the tip would become long enough to match the stabilizers. A lucky find in the scrap box was a leftover tail tip from a Matchbox Blackburn Buccaneer, already shortened from a former, stillborn project: it had now the perfect length to take the Su-25 stabilizers! To make it fit on the fin, an 8mm deep section was inserted, in the form of a simple 1.5mm styrene sheet strip. Once dry, the surface was re-built with several PSR layers. Since it would sit further back on the new aircraft’s tail, the stinger with a RHAWS sensor was shortened.

On the fuselage, the attachment points for the wings and the engine nacelles were PSRed away and the front section filled with lots of lead beads, hoping that it would be enough to keep the model’s nose down.

Even though the wings had a proper span for a re-location into a low position, they still needed some attention: at the roots, there’s a ~1cm wide section without sweep (the area which would normally cover the original engine nacelles’ tops). This was mended through triangular 1.5 mm styrene wedges that extended the leading-edge sweep, roughly cut into shape once attached and later PSRed into the wings’ surfaces

The next construction site were the new landing gear attachment points. This had caused some serious headaches – where do you place and stow it? With new, low wings settled, the wings were the only logical place. But the wings were too thin to suitably take the retracted wheels, and, following the idea of a retrofitted existing design, I decided to adopt the A-10’s solution of nacelles into which the landing gear retracts forward, with the wheels still partly showing. This layout option appears quite plausible, since it would be a “graft-on” solution, and it also has the benefit of leaving lots of space for underwing stores, since the hardpoints’ position had to be modified now, too.

I was lucky to have a pair of A-10 landing gear nacelles at hand, left over from a wrecked Matchbox model from childhood time (the parts are probably 35 years old!). They were simply cut out, glued to the Su-25 wings and PSRed into shape. The result looked really good!

At this point I had to decide the model’s overall layout – where to place the wings, the tail and the new engine nacelles. The latter were not 1:72 A-10 transplants. I had some spare engine pods from the aforementioned Matchbox wreck, but these looked too rough and toylike for my taste. They were furthermore too bulky for the Su-25, which is markedly smaller than an A-10, so I had to look elsewhere. As a neat alternative for this project, I had already procured many moons ago a set of 1:144 resin PS-90A engines from a Russian company called “A.M.U.R. Reaver”, originally intended for a Tu-204 airliner or an Il-76 transport aircraft. These turbofan nacelles not only look very much like A-10 nacelles, just a bit smaller and more elegant, they are among the best resin aftermarket parts I have ever encountered: almost no flash, crisp molding, no bubbles, and perfect fit of the parts – WOW!

With these three elements at hand I was able to define the wings’ position, based on the tail, and from that the nacelles’ location, relative to the wings and the fin.

The next challenge: how to attach the new engines to the fuselage? The PS-90A engines came without pylons, so I had to improvise. I eventually found suitable pylons in the form of parts from F-14A underwing missile pylons, left over from an Italeri kit. Some major tailoring was necessary to find a proper position on the nacelles and on the fuselage, and PSRing these parts turned out to be quite difficult because of the tight and labyrinthine space.

When the engines were in place, work shifted towards the model’s underside. The landing gear was fully replaced. I initially wanted to retain the front wheel leg and the main wheels but found that the low wings would not allow a good ground clearance for underwing stores and re-arming the aircraft, a slightly taller solution was necessary. I eventually found a complete landing gear set in the scrap box, even though I am not certain to which aircraft it once belonged? I guess that the front wheel came from a Hasegawa RA-5C Vigilante, while the main gear and the wheels once belonged to an Italeri F-14A, alle struts were slightly shortened. The resulting stance is still a bit stalky, but an A-10 is also quite tall – this is just not so obvious because of the aircraft’s sheer size.

Due to the low wings and the landing gear pods, the Su-25’s hardpoints had to be re-arranged, and this eventually led to a layout very similar to the A-10. I gave the aircraft a pair of pylons inside of the pods, plus three hardpoints under the fuselage, even though all of these would only be used when slim ordnance was carried. I just fitted the outer pair. Outside of the landing gear fairings there would have been enough space for the Frogfoot’s original four outer for pylons, but I found this to be a little too much. So I gave it “just” three, with more space between them.

The respective ordnance is a mix for a CAS mission with dedicated and occasional targets. It consists of:

- Drop tanks under the inner wings (left over from a Bilek Su-17/22 kit)

- A pair of B-8M1 FFAR pods under the fuselage (from a vintage Mastercraft USSR weapon set)

- Two MERs with four 200 kg bombs each, mounted on the pylons outside of the landing gear (the odd MERs came from a Special Hobby IDF SMB-2 Super Mystère kit, the bombs are actually 1:100 USAF 750 lb bombs from a Tamiya F-105 Thunderchief in that scale)

- Four CBU-100 Rockeye Mk. II cluster bombs on the outer stations (from two Italeri USA/NATO weapon sets, each only offers a pair of these)

Yes, it’s a mix of Russian and NATO ordnance – but, like the real Georgian Su-25KM “Scorpion” upgrade, the TAM-1 would certainly be able to carry the same or even a wider mix, thanks to modified bomb racks and wirings. Esp. “dumb” weapons, which do not call for special targeting and guidance avionics, are qualified.

The gun under the nose was replaced with a piece from a hollow steel needle.

Painting and markings:

Nothing unusual here. I considered some more “exotic” options, but eventually settled for a “conservative” Soviet/Russian-style four-tone tactical camouflage, something that “normal” Su-25s would carry, too.

The disruptive pattern was adapted from a Macedonian Frogfoot but underwent some changes due to the T-tail and the engine nacelles. The basic tones were Humbrol 119 (RAF Light Earth), 150 (Forest Green), 195 (Chrome Oxide Green, RAL 6020) and 98 (Chocolate) on the upper surfaces and RLM78 from (Modelmaster #2087) from below, with a relatively low waterline, due to the low-set wings.

As usual, the model received a light black ink washing and some post-shading – especially on the hull and on the fin, where many details had either disappeared under PSR or were simply not there at all.

The landing gear and the lower areas of the cockpit were painted in light grey (Humbrol 64), while the upper cockpit sections were painted with bright turquoise (Modelmaster #2135). The wheel hubs were painted in bright green (Humbrol 101), while some di-electric fairings received a slightly less intense tone (Humbrol 2). A few of these flat fairings on the hull were furthermore created with green decal sheet material (from TL Modellbau) to avoid masking and corrections with paint.

The tactical markings became minimal, matching the look of late Georgian Su-25s. The roundels came from a Balkan Models Frogfoot sheet. The “07” was taken from a Blue Rider decal sheet, it actually belongs to a Lithuanian An-2. Some white stencils from generic MiG-21 and Mi-8 Begemot sheets were added, too, and some small markings were just painted onto the hull with yellow.

Some soot stains around the jet nozzles and the gun were added with graphite, and finally the kit was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish.

A major bodywork project – and it’s weird that this is basically just a conversion of a stock kit and no kitbashing. A true Frogfoot remix! The new engines were the biggest “outsourced” addition, the A-10 landing gear fairings were a lucky find in the scrap box, and the rest is quite generic and could have looked differently. The result is impressive and balanced, though, the fictional TAM-1 looks quite plausible. The landing gear turned out to be a bit tall and stalky, though, making the aircraft look smaller on the ground than it actually is – but I left it that way.

F3HP | 105 2.5 | fuji 200 outdated

Heritage Class Race Rover

To stay competitive with new racing rover technologies,the Fraternal Order of Space Police decided to replace their outdated "Peacekeeper" racer with an updated design. Based closely on the winning design formula of the M-Tron SP-41, "Swift Justice was a tough contender. The Fraternal Order of Space Police used the popularity of the Galactic Terrestrial Rover Racing League to show off their controversial new color scheme. The tight competition between Space Police, M-Tron, and Blacktron helped the GTR-RL to have some of its most successful racing seasons ever.

Can you tell which 1992 Space Police set was used?

For more on the origin of the GTR-RL, watch the video trailer.

The GTR-RL is organized into three classes of racing rovers.

Heritage class rovers are built using only elements available to the theme of the racer. (i.e. a space police 1 race rover would be built using only parts from the 1989 space police theme.) Heritage class rovers represent Lego space themes up through the insectoid theme of 1998-99.

Modern class rovers are built in the same way, but represent Lego space themes from the 2001 theme Life on Mars, through present day space themes.

Unlimited class rovers are built with an unrestricted element palette and can represent Collectible Minifig themes or fan themes such as Pinktron and Suntron, etc

Check out more Race Rovers

+++ 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:

In 1948, a swept wing version of the F-84 was created with the hope of bringing performance to the level of the F-86. The last production F-84E was fitted with a swept tail, a new wing with 38.5 degrees of leading-edge sweep and 3.5 degrees of anhedral, and a J35-A-25 engine producing 5,300 pound-force (23.58 kN) of thrust. The aircraft was designated XF-96A and flew on 3 June 1950. Although the airplane was capable of 602 knots (693 mph, 1,115 km/h), the performance gain over the F-84E was considered minor. Nonetheless, it was ordered into production in July 1950 as the F-84F Thunderstreak. The F-84 designation was eventually retained because the fighter was expected to be a low-cost improvement of the straight-wing Thunderjet with over 55 percent commonality in tooling.

A handful F-96Bs were camouflaged during the late Sixties with the USAF’s new SEA scheme, but most aircraft retained their original bare metal finish with more or less colorful unit markings. Due to its limited capabilities and the introduction of the Mach 2 McDonnell F-4 Phantom, the last F-96B was retired from ANG service in 1971.

General characteristics:

Crew: 2

Length: 54t 11 1/2 in (16,77 m) incl. pitot

Wingspan: 33 ft 7.25 in (10,25 m)

Height: 16 ft 9 in (5,11 m)

Wing area: 350 sq ft (37,55 m²)

Empty weight: 13,810 lb (6.264 kg)

Gross weight: 21,035 lb (9.541 kg)

Max takeoff weight: 28,000 lb (12.701 kg)

Powerplant:

1× Wright J65-W-18 turbojet with 8,600 lbf (34 kN) dry thrust and 10,500 lbf (47 kN) with afterburner

Performance:

Maximum speed: 695 mph (1,119 km/h, 604 kn, Mach 1.1) at 35,000 ft (10,668 m)

Cruise speed: 577 mph (928 km/h, 501 kn)

Range: 810 mi (1,304 km, 704 nmi) combat radius with two droptanks

Service ceiling: 49,000 ft (15,000 m)

Rate of climb: 16,300 ft/min (83 m/s)

Wing loading: 86 lb/sq ft (423 kg/m²)

Armament:

No internal guns;

6× underwing hardpoints for a total ordnance load of up to 6,000lb (2,727 kg), including

a pair of 191.5 US gal (727 l) or 375 US gal (1.429 l) drop tanks on the inner stations

and a mix of AIM-4 Falcon (up to six), MB-1 Genie (up to two) and/or pods with

nineteen 2.75”/70 mm FFAR unguided missiles each (up to four) on the outer stations

The kit and its assembly:

This fictional missing link between the RF-84F and the F-105 was conceived for the Fifties Group Build at whatifmodellers.com, an era when the USAF used a wide variety of interceptor aircraft types and technical advancements were quick and significant – in just a decade the interceptor evolved from a subsonic machine gun-toting aircraft to a guided weapons carrier platform, capable of Mach 2.

The F-96B (I re-used Republic’s dropped designation for the swept-wing F-84F) was to display one of the many “in between” designs, and the (R)F-84F was just a suitable basis for a conversion similar to the T-33-derived F-94, just more capable and big enough to carry the nuclear Genie missile.

The basis became Italeri’s vintage RF-84F kit, a rather simple affair with raised panel lines and a mediocre fit, plus some sinkholes. This was, however, heavily modified!

Work started with the implantation of a new tandem cockpit, taken wholesale from a Heller T-33. Fitting the cockpit tub into the wider Thunderflash hull was a bit tricky, putty blobs held the implant in place. The canopy was taken from the T-33, too, just the RF-84F’s original rear side windows were cut away to offer sufficient length for the longer clear part and the cockpit side walls had to be raised to an even level with the smaller windscreen with the help of styrene strips. With these adapters the T-33 canopy fitted surprisingly well over the opening and blended well into the spine.

The camera nose section lost its tip, which was replaced with the tail cone from a Matchbox H.S. Buccaneer (actually its air brake), and the camera windows as well as the slant surfaces that held them were PSRed away for a conical shape that extended the new pointed radome. Lots of weight in the nose and under the cockpit floor ensured a safe stance on the OOB landing gear.

The rear section behind the air brakes became all-new; for an afterburner I extended and widened the tail section and implanted the rear part from a B-66 (Italeri kit, too) engine nacelle, which received a wider nozzle (left over from a Nakotne MiG-29, a featureless thing) and an interior.

To balance the longer nose I also decided to enlarge the tail surfaces and replaced the OOB fin and stabilizers with leftover parts from a Trumpeter Il-28 bomber – the fin was shortened and the stabilizers reduced in span to match the rest of the aircraft. Despite the exotic source the parts blend well into the F-84’s overall design!

To add supersonic credibility and to connect the design further with the later F-105 I modified the air intakes and cut them into a raked shape – quite easy to realize. Once the wings were in place, I also added small splitter plates, left over from an Airfix BAC Strikemaster.

As an interceptor the armament had to be adapted accordingly, and I procured the quartet of IR-guided Falcons as well as the Genie duo from an Academy F-89. The large drop tanks were taken OOB from the Italeri kit. The Genies were mounted onto their massive Scorpion pylons under the outer wings of the F-96B, while the Falcons, due to relatively little space left under the wings, required a scratched solution. I eventually settled for dual launchers on small pylons, mounted in front of the landing gear wells. The pylons originally belong to an ESCI Ka-34 “Hokum” helicopter kit (they were just short enough!), the launch rails are a halved pair of F-4 Sidewinder rails from a Hasegawa air-to-air weapons set. With everything on place the F-96B looks quite crowded.

Painting and markings:

The machine would represent a late Fifties USAF type, so that the paint options were rather limited if I wanted to be authentic. ADC Grey was introduced in the early Sixties, SEA camouflage even later, so that bare metal became a natural choice – but this can be quite attractive! The model received an overall coat with acrylic “White Aluminum” from the rattle can, plus some darked panels all over the hull (Humbrol 56 for good contrast) and an afterburner section in Revell 91 (Iron Metallic) and Humbrol’s Steel Metallizer. The radome became deep black, the anti-glare panel in front of the windscreen olive drab (Revell 46). Light grey (Revell 75) was used for some small di-electric fairings.

Interior surfaces (cockpit and landing gear wells) were painted with Zinc Chromate primer (I used Humbrol 80), while the landing gear struts became silver-grey (Humbrol 56) and the inside of the covers as well as the air brakes were painted in bright red (Humbrol 19).

Once basic painting was done the model received a black ink washing and was rubbed with grinded graphite to emphasize the raised panel lines, and the material adds a nice dark metallic shine to the silver base coat.

Another challenge was to find suitable unit markings for the Fifties era in the decal vault, which would also fit onto the model. After a long search I eventually settled for rather simple markings from a 325th FIS F-102 from an Xtradecal sheet, which only features a rather timid fin decoration.

Finding other suitable standard markings remained demanding, though. Stars-And-Bars as well as the USAF taglines were taken from the Academy F-89 that also provided the ordnance, most stencils were taken from the OOB Italeri sheet and complemented by small markings from the scrap box. The biggest problem was the creation of a matching serial number. The “FF” code was originally used for P/F-51D Mustangs during the Korea War, but after the type had been phased out it might have been re-used? The letters as well as the serial number digits were created from various markings for USAF F-100s, also from an Xtradecal sheet.

Once the decals had been applied the model was sealed with semi-gloss acrylic varnish, except for the radome, the anti-glare panel as well as the walking areas on the wings as well as parts of the afterburner section, which were coated with matt varnish.

A rather straightforward conversion, even though finishing the project took longer than expected. But the result looks surprisingly natural and plausible. Lots of PSR was needed to modify the fuselage, though, especially the tail section was not easy to integrate into the Thunderflash’s hull. Sticking to the simple NMF livery paid IMHO out, too: the livery looks very natural and believable on the fictional aircraft, and it suits the F-84’s bulbous shape well.

this is my first roll of film through the canon autoboy mini or as it's know elsewhere: canon sure shot dax (date) or prima 5.

the film is outdated fujifilm superia 200 june 2014

I have a Canon Eos 1v which was the last professional film camera produced by Canon. It's a beautiful piece of equipment which I should use more often as it guarantees excellent results. The film I used for these images was Fujifilm Provia 100. It was only slightly outdated so I decided to expose it at box speed. There was not one duff exposure on the whole roll and I was delighted.

One thing which did catch me out was the fact that I'm so used to using cameras and lenses which have some form of vibration control that I overlooked the fact I was using a long lens at a slow shutter speed, resulting in blurred images.

This is Broadford Old Pier.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

Some background:

The Austrian Air Force in its current form was created in May 1955 by the victorious Allied powers, subject to restrictions on its use of guided missiles. The Austrian State Treaty of 1955 committed Austria to permanent neutrality. Pilot training started out with a four Yak-11 Moose and four Yak-18 Max aircraft donated by the Soviet Union, and Austria purchased further light trainer types under the Military Assistance Program. Until 1960 Austria purchased training and support aircraft under the MAP, but no modern fighter aircraft; the role of a fighter was rather inadequately filled by thirty already outdated Saab 29 Tunnan, bought second-hand from the Swedish Air Force in the early 1960s which equipped two fighter bomber squadrons.

The Austrian Lightnings’ planned service period of 10 years was almost doubled, though, due to massive delays with the Eurofighter’s development: In 2002, Austria had already selected the Typhoon as its new “Phase II” air defense aircraft, having beaten the F-16 and the Saab Gripen in competition, and its introduction had been expected to occur from early 2005 on, so that the Lightnings could be gradually phased out. The purchase of 18 Typhoons was agreed on 1 July 2003, but it would take until 12 July 2007 that the first Typhoon would eventually be delivered to Zeltweg Air Base and formally enter service with the Austrian Air Force. This operational gap had to be bridged with twelve F-5E leased from Switzerland for EUR 75 mio., so that Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) duties for the Austrian airspace could be continued.

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 55 ft 3 in (16.84 m)

Wingspan: 34 ft 10 in (10.62 m)

Height: 19 ft 7 in (5.97 m)

Wing area: 474.5 sq ft (44.08 m²)

Empty weight: 31,068 lb (14,092 kg) with armament and no fuel

Gross weight: 41,076 lb (18,632 kg) with two AIM-9B, cannon, ammunition, and internal fuel

Max takeoff weight: 45,750 lb (20,752 kg)

Powerplant:

2× Rolls-Royce Avon 301R afterburning turbojet engines,

12,690 lbf (56.4 kN) thrust each dry, 16,360 lbf (72.8 kN) with afterburner

Performance:

Maximum speed: Mach 2.27 (1,500 mph+ at 40,000 ft)

Range: 738 nmi (849 mi, 1,367 km)

Combat range: 135 nmi (155 mi, 250 km) supersonic intercept radius

Range: 800 nmi (920 mi, 1,500 km) with internal fuel

1,100 nmi (1,300 mi; 2,000 km) with external overwing tanks

Service ceiling: 60,000 ft (18,000 m)

Zoom ceiling: 70,000 ft (21,000 m)

Rate of climb: 20,000 ft/min (100 m/s) sustained to 30,000 ft (9,100 m)

Zoom climb: 50,000 ft/min

Time to altitude: 2.8 min to 36,000 ft (11,000 m)

Wing loading: 76 lb/sq ft (370 kg/m²) with two AIM-9 and 1/2 fuel

Thrust/weight: 0.78 (1.03 empty)

Armament:

2× 30 mm (1.181 in) ADEN cannon with 120 RPG in the lower fuselage

2× forward fuselage hardpoints for a single AIM-9 Sidewinder AAM each

2× underwing hardpoints for 1.000 lb (454 kg) each

2× overwing pylon stations for 2.000 lb (907 kg each),

typically occupied with 260 imp gal (310 US gal; 1,200 l) ferry tanks

The kit and its assembly:

This was another submission to the “Hunter, Lightning and Canberra” group build at whatifmodellers.com in 2022 and intended as a rather simple build since it was based on an alternate reality plot: the weird story that Austria was offered a revamped fleet of ex-Saudi Arabian Lightnings is true(!), but the decision eventually fell in favor of revamped Saab J 35Ds from Sweden. For this what-if build I used the real historic timeline, replaced the aircraft, and built both story and model around this – and the result became the BAC Lightning F.56 in Austrian Air Force service.

Initially I wanted to use an Airfix BAC Lightning in The Stash™, a really nice model kit and a relatively new mold, but it turned out to be the kit’s F.2A variant. While very similar to the F.6, changing it into a F.53 analogue with the OOB parts turned out to be too complex for my taste. For instance, the F.2A kit lacks the ventral gun bay (it just comes with the auxiliary tank option since the guns are already located in front of the cockpit) and the cable conduits on the lower flanks. Procuring a suitable and priceworthy Airfix F.6 turned out to be impossible, but then I remembered a Hasegawa Lightning F.6 in The Stash™ that I had shot at ev!lbay many moons ago for a laughable price and without a concrete plan. However, this kit is pretty old: it has raised (yet quite fine, less robust than the Matchbox kit) panel lines and even comes with a pilot figure, but also many weak spots like the air intake and the jet exhausts that end in flat walls after some millimeters depth and a very basic cockpit. But for this rather simple what-if project the kit appeared to be a suitable basis, and it would eventually find a good use.

The Hasegawa Lightning was basically built OOB, even though I made some cosmetic amendments like a better seat for the pilot, hydraulic fluid lines on the landing gear made from wire or opening the flat walls inside of the air intake opening and the jet nozzles. Behind the radome, a simple splitter plate was added as well as a recessed bulkhead in front of an implanted Me 262 cockpit tub (the Hasegawa kit just offers a bare floor panel, nothing else!), the afterburners were extended inwards with parts from a Matchbox A.W. Meteor night fighter.

The Red Top AAMs and the in-flight refueling probe were omitted. Instead, I added extra F.53-style forward-swept pylons under the outer wings, scratched from 1.5 mm styrene sheet due to their odd, raked shape, and I added Sidewinder launch rails plus suitable missiles from a Hasegawa air-to-air weapons set to all four stations. After long consideration I also retained the ‘overburger’ tanks, partly because of the unique layout on the Lightning, and also because of operational considerations.

Chaff dispensers were scratched from styrene profiles and placed at the fin’s base. A fairing for the retrofitted radar warning sensor was added to the fin tip, created from 1.5 mm styrene sheet.

Painting and markings:

To reflect the “alternate reality” role of the Lightning I gave the model a livery similar to the Saab J 35Ö that were actually procured: an adaptation of the USAF “Egypt One” scheme, carried primarily by the USAF F-16s. Adapting this simple three-tone camouflage from the flat F-16 to the Draken was easy and straightforward, but applying it to a Lightning with its many vertical surfaces turned out to be a tough challenge. I eventually came up with a paint scheme that reminds of the late RAF low-viz Lightning liveries, which existed in a wide range of patterns and graduations of grey.

The colors were authentic, FS 36118, 36270 and 36375 (using Humbrol 125, 126 and 127), and I decided to emphasize the camouflage of the flanks against the horizon, so that the vertical surfaces and the fin became FS 36270. The undersides of wings, stabilizers and fuselage became FS 36375. The dark FS 36118 was only applied to the upper sides of the wings and the stabilizer, and to a high dorsal section, starting at the wing roots. As a small contrast, the tank area on the spine was painted in light grey, simulating unpainted fiber glass. The radome was painted with a streaky mix of Humbrol 155 and 56.

As usual, the model received a light black ink washing, some post-panel-shading in lighter tones, and, due to the raised panel lines, was very lightly rubbed with graphite. The cockpit interior was painted in medium grey (Revell 47) with an olive drab fabric fairing behind the black pilot seat, which received ejection handles made from thin wire as eye candy. The landing gear and the respective wells were painted in Humbrol 56 (Aluminum Dope).

The decals are a wild mix: The fuselage roundels are actually wing markings from a Hasegawa J 35OE, as well as the huge orange "06" on the wings (I could not resist; they will later be partly obscured by the overwing tanks, but the heck with it!). The roundels on the wings come from a generic TL Modellbau sheet - I found that I needed larger markings than those on the Draken.

Both unit and individual aircraft identifiers are single black DIN font digits, also from TL Modellbau. The unit badges on the fin are authentic, even though from an earlier era: they came from an Austrian J 29 of Fliegerregiment 2 from a PrintScale sheet, and all stencils were taken from the OOB low-viz RAF markings sheet, plus four small warning triangles for the underwing pylons.

A ‘what-if’ model in the purest sense, since this model depicts what could really have been: ex Saudi-Arabian export BAC Lightnings over the Austrian Alps! However, refurbished Saab J 35D Draken made the race (and later followed by the Eurofighter Typhoon at ‘Stage 2’), so that this Lightning remains fictional. It does not look bad in the ‘Egypt One’ paint scheme, though, better than expected!