View allAll Photos Tagged Outdated
Few more of TESTS of my 'Gift' NIKON F65 on old outdated KODAK GOLD 200 rated 100ASA by sticking paper over the DX coding . Taken on way to Brentwood High Street with AF Nikkor 35-80mm f4.5.6 D lens and 'Program' exposure
The scheme to replace much of the once outdated diamond fleet has been completed today with the introduction of second hand Enviro 200 MX60 GXF into service. This B37F seated vehicle has been fitted with our normal fuel saving technologies, including the ADL automated manual transition which just slots into place of the old gearbox. Our agreement with ADL also sees this bus have many rattles rectified to improve ride quality.
This bus replaces KU52 RXW, a B37F seated dennis dart. This bus has been sold already to Mid West Motors, who are coming soon to collect the bus.
Slide film, aka transparency film doesn't have the latitude of negative films. Your exposure needs to be as accurate as possible. Using it in a simple box camera seems like a challenge. Being limited to one shutter speed and one f/stop then throw some outdated, unknown storage medium format film just seemed like fun. I think the results are wonderful. This camera was a gift from Matt Ayers and it is becoming one of my favorite shooting companions.
This image was made using the 3 t0 7 ft close up lens, I think it needs some attention.
Camera: Kodak Brownie Box Camera, Model D.
Film: Kodak E100VS Slide film, 120 spooled to a Film Photography Project new 620 spool, then back to a 120 spool to be processed by The Darkroom.
www.filmphtographyproject.com/store
Image by: Leslie Lazenby,
Arlington, OH September 2015
a "hip shot" in a day market. taichung, city taiwan
nikon fa film camera
agfa apx 100 nov. 2013 outdated film
28mm nikkor lens
I took this on outdated Agfa film, carried through the heat of 79 days at sea going from France to Korea and back to the USA.
When I returned to Ohio in early 1946, I sent the film to Switzerland for processing. The slide is now almost completely faded. Using Photoshop Elements I brought it back almost to the original soft colors. Not sharp, but I decided to share the slide I found in an old desk drawer.
Taken during Armed Forces Weekend. Great bike found in the German encampment.
Camera: Leica M2, Elmar 90mm f4
Film: Outdated Plus-x
Processed by thedarkroom.com
Image by: Leslie Lazenby
May 2016, Findlay, OH
Collection Name: RG005 Secretary of State Publications Historic "Blue Book" Photograph Collection. Click here to view this entire collection on Missouri Digital Heritage.
Photographer/Studio: Unknown
Description: Interior of the computer laboratory, one of six components of the new (1986) Roger F. Rhodes Center for Teaching and Learning at Southeast Missouri State University. Each terminal has a dot matrix printer.
Coverage: United States - Missouri - Cape Girardeau County - Cape Girardeau
Date: c1986
Rights: permission granted
Credit: Courtesy of Missouri State Archives
Image Number: RG005_74_31_0248.tif
Institution: Missouri State Archives
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The history of the Swiss Air Force began in 1914 with the establishment of an ad hoc force consisting of a handful of men in outdated and largely civilian aircraft. It was only in the 1930s the military and civilian leadership decided to establish an effective air force. On 13 December 1929, in what was in retrospect referred to as the "bill to create an air force", the Federal Council asked the Swiss Federal Assembly to approve the spending of 20 million francs for the purchase of 65 French Dewoitine D.27 fighters and the manufacture of 40 Dutch (Fokker C.V-E) reconnaissance planes under license.
Although the opposition Social Democratic Party collected 42,000 signatures in a petition opposing the bill, Parliament passed it handily and declined to allow a referendum on the issue, optional at that time for spending bills. This was the start of a massive armament program that would consume more than a billion francs over the next ten years, but after Hitler's rise to power in Germany, the Social Democrats added their support to the efforts.
The program not only included the procurement of foreign aircraft the domestic industry also started to develop its own products. One of the leading manufacturers of its time in Switzerland was the Eidgenössische Konstruktionswerkstätte (English: "Federal Constructions Works"), short K+W or EKW, and later also known as F+W. It was a Swiss state-owned enterprise, established in 1867 in Thun. The company produced artillery, vehicles, and other typical military equipment, and in 1914 EKW had already started the production of the Häfeli DH-1 reconnaissance biplane. Long-standing connections to the ETH Zurich ensured the necessary know-how. EKW started the program with three military aircraft, the indigenous C-34 single-seat fighter and the fast C-36 long-range light bomber/reconnaissance monoplane, plus the C-35 two-seat reconnaissance and ground-attack biplane, which was actually a license-built Fokker C.X with a water-cooled Hispano-Suiza HS-77 V12 engine, a license-built version of the 12Ycs that also powered the C-36.
The C-34 was the direct response to a requirement issued by the Swiss Air Force for a new fighter, and was the winner of a competition against the German Arado 80, which had been offered for export and eventual license production. The German monoplane was a modern construction, but the type was uninspiring in terms of performance and suffered from a number of failures (so that the German Luftwaffe rejected it, too). Although Arado’s low-wing monoplane Arado heralded the design standard for future fighter aircraft, the Swiss Air Force preferred EKW’s conservative but more maneuverable C-34 biplane, which also offered better starting and landing characteristics and a superior rate of climb – important features in Switzerland’s mountainous theatre of operations.
The C-34’s structure was conventional and of all-metal construction. To overcome the biplane layout’s inherent speed disadvantage, EKW’s design team used flush-head rivets and as little as possible stabilizing rigging to reduce drag. The fuselage was fully planked with aluminum, as well as the fixed parts of the tail surfaces, wings and rudders were still fabric-covered. It had unequal-span biplane wings, braced by struts, with upper-wing ailerons but no flaps yet.
The prototype, which flew for the first time in March 1935, was powered by an imported German liquid-cooled BMW VI 6.0 V-12 engine with 660 hp, which drove a metal three-blade propeller with fixed pitch. The C-34’s production version, which was already introduced in September of the same year, was outfitted with a more powerful, now license-produced BMW VI 7.3 with 633 kW (850 hp), which required a bigger radiator and higher-octane fuel to achieve this performance, though. Armament consisted of two 7.5 mm (.295 in) Darne machine guns, imported from France and synchronized to fire through the propeller. Provisions were made to carry up to four 20 lb (9.1 kg) bombs under-wing, but these were hardly ever used in service.
An initial production run comprised 30 aircraft to equip a complete fighter unit. The first C-34s were delivered in a typical three-ton splinter camouflage in ochre, khaki green and red brown, over grey undersides. The machines were allocated to the so-called “Überwachungschwader” (Surveillance Squadron) at Dübendorf near Zürich, and the new biplane proved to be an instant success. The C-34 was commonly well liked by its crews, being very maneuverable and benefitting from a relatively strong fuselage structure, a favorable control arrangement, a tight turning circle. An excellent handling made the type furthermore ideal for executing aerobatic displays. After a brief and successful period of testing, orders for 80 additional C-34s were placed in 1936.
During the rising tensions in Europe Switzerland remained neutral and isolated, and the Swiss Air Force machines received prominent identification stripes in red and white on fuselage and wings. The air corps furthermore confined its activities to training and exercises, reconnaissance, and patrol.
The Swiss Air Force as an autonomous military service was created in October 1936, and the units were re-arranged to reflect this new structure. In 1938 Gottlieb Duttweiler's launched a popular initiative calling for the purchase of a thousand aircraft and the training of three thousand pilots. After 92,000 citizens signed in support, nearly twice the number necessary for a national popular vote, the federal government offered a referendum proposal in 1939 that was nearly as extensive, which was accepted by a 69 percent majority. This led to a massive procurement of additional and more up-to-date aircraft, namely the Messerschmitt Bf 109 and Morane-Saulnier 406 fighters from Germany and France, respectively, and the Moranes were license-built as D-3800 in Switzerland. By that time, the Swiss Air Force changed its aircraft designation system, and the C-34 was officially renamed C-3400.
Despite these new and more modern aircraft the C-3400s remained in service, and to supplement the fleet a further eight aircraft were built between 1941 and 1942 from spares. These machines received a simplified camouflage with dark green upper surfaces over a light blue-grey underside, similar to the imported Bf 109s from Germany, and some older C-3400s were re-painted accordingly, even though many machines retained their pre-war splinter scheme for the rest of their service life. During the same period, almost all aircraft received prominent neutrality markings in the form of bright red and white stripes on wings and fuselage.
From 1941 on, most C-3400s were gradually upgraded during overhauls. Several new features were introduced, which included a fully closed canopy that greatly improved pilot comfort esp. in wintertime, a variable pitch/constant speed propeller, a better radio set, a new gun sight and spatted main wheels. The Darne machine guns were replaced with belt-fed MAC 1934 machine guns of the same caliber from domestic production, because they were more reliable and had, with the license production of the Morane Saulnier M.S. 406, become a standard weapon in the Swiss arsenal. These modified aircraft were re-designated C-3401, even though the aircraft under this designation did not uniformly feature all improvements.
When enough monoplane fighters had widely become available for the Swiss Air Force in 1943, the C-3400/-3401 biplanes were quickly removed from front-line service. They served on in second-line surveillance and aerial patrol units, or they were transferred to training units, where most of the type (a total of 119 were built) survived the hostilities. The last C-3400/-3401 was finally withdrawn from service in 1954, and only a single specimen survived in the collection of the Aviation Museum (Flieger Flab Museum) in Dübendorf, Switzerland.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 7.2 m (23 ft 7 in)
Wingspan: 10.02 m (32 ft 10 in)
Height: 3 m (9 ft 10 in)
Wing area: 23 m2 (250 sq ft)
Airfoil: NACA M-12
Empty weight: 1,360 kg (2,998 lb)
Gross weight: 1,740 kg (3,836 lb)
Powerplant:
1× BMW VI 7.3 V-12 liquid-cooled piston engine, 634 kW (850 hp),
driving a three-bladed variable pitch metal propeller
Performance:
Maximum speed: 400 km/h (250 mph, 220 kn) at 3,000 m (9,843 ft)
Service ceiling: 11,500 m (37,700 ft)
Rate of climb: 16.67 m/s (3,281 ft/min)
Time to altitude: 5,000 m (16,404 ft) in 5 minutes 30 seconds
Wing loading: 75.7 kg/m2 (15.5 lb/sq ft)
Power/mass: 0.36 kW/kg (0.22 hp/lb)
Armament:
2× fixed, forward-firing 7.5 mm (.295 in) MAC 1934 machine guns with 600 RPG
4× underwing hardpoints for 20 lb (9.1 kg) bombs (rarely used)
The kit and its assembly:
This whiffy biplane was/is just a kit travesty – the fictional EKW C-34 is a Kawasaki Ki-10 (the ICM kit) with mild mods and Swiss pre-WWII markings. I had an eye on the quite elegant Japanese fighter for a while, and due to its engine with German roots (its Kawasaki Ha9-IIa was a license-built water-cooled BMW VI V12 engine) I thought about a European operator – and eventually I decided to make it a Swiss aircraft.
The ICM kit was built almost OOB, the only changes I made were the spatted wheels (IIRC left over from an ICM Polikarpov I-15 biplane), which needed some tweaks on the OOB struts, and the different, closed canopy (from a Hobby Boss A6M Zero), because I wanted a relatively modern look, comparable with the contemporary Avia B-534 biplane. Mounting it was tricky, because of the “step” under the windscreen, so that I had to add a console under it, and some PSR was necessary to blend the canopy, which was cut into three parts for open display, into the rounded back of the Ki-10. A scratched antenna mast was added, too, to fill the respective opening in the rear part of the dorsal glazing. Thanks to the many braces of the A6M canopy, the implant looks quite organic.
The ICM Ki-10 went together quite well, it’s a rather simple kit with only a single sprue and few parts. The biggest challenge was the upper wing, though, which is only carried by the struts. The locator pins are only marginal, and finding a proper position took some time and superglue.
I furthermore modified the propeller with a long metal axis and a tube adapter inside if the fuselage, so that it could spin freely.
Painting and markings:
The reason why the Ki-10 became a Swiss aircraft was the paint scheme – a quite attractive tricolor splinter pattern (apparently inspired by the similar German camouflage in RLM 61,62 and 63?) was the Swiss Air Force’s standard at the breakout of WWII, and I adopted it for the C-3401, too.
The pattern is vaguely based on a real C-35 biplane (presented at the Dübendorf Aviation Museum), which I deem to look authentic, and I tried to emulate its colors as good as possible. I settled on Desert Yellow (Humbrol 94, the tone is officially called “Ochre” but appears to be quite yellowish), French Khaki Green (ModelMaster 2106) and Chestnut Brown (ModelMaster 2107, another French WWII aircraft tone), with light grey (Humbrol 64) undersides. Painting the splinter scheme with a brush on a biplane like this was tricky, though. The cockpit interior was painted with a grey-green tone similar to RLM 02 (Humbrol 45), the wing struts became black.
As usual, the model received a light black ink washing, plus some post-panel shading and dry-brushing to emphasize details and to weather it, but only lightly, because the aircraft would not have been involved in fights.
The roundels on the upper wings came from a generic TL-Modellbau national markings sheet, while the red bands for the national insignia under the lower wings and on the rudder were painted. The white cross on the fin comes from a Swiss BAe Hawk trainer (Italeri), while the slightly bigger white cross under the lower wings was scratched from white decal stripes. The tactical code comes from a Croatian MiG-21UM trainer (KP kit), the unit badge is fictional and came from a Spanish Heinkel He 70.
The model was sealed overall with matt acrylic varnish, and as a final step the rigging was applied, made from heated black sprue material, using the real Ki-10 as benchmark for the connections/positions.
A pretty result, and the simple travesty of the elegant Ki-10 into a late interwar biplane from Continental Europe works surprisingly well. The spats and the closed canopy might not have been necessary, but they modernize and change the aircraft, so that its use during WWII – even though not in any offensive role – becomes even more believable. The splinter scheme suits the aircraft well, too, even though its application was a bit tricky, as well as the Swiss roundels.
Using up some Outdated FUJI PRO 160S in my 2002 HASSELBAD 501CM with A12 back. 500mm f4 CFi Distagon T*
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Saab 35 Draken ('The Kite' or 'The Dragon') was a Swedish fighter-interceptor developed and manufactured by Svenska Aeroplan Aktiebolaget (SAAB) between 1955 and 1974. Development of the Saab 35 Draken started in 1948 as the Swedish air force future replacement for the then also in development Saab 29 Tunnan dayfighter and Saab 32B Lansen night fighter. It featured an innovative but unproven double delta wing, which led to the creation of a sub-scale test aircraft, the Saab 210, which was produced and flown to test this previously unexplored aerodynamic feature. The full-scale production version entered service with frontline squadrons of the Swedish Air Force on 8 March 1960. It received the designation Flygplan 35 (Fpl 35; 'Aeroplane 35') and was produced in several variants and types, most commonly as a fighter type with the prefix J (J 35), standing for Jaktflygplan (Pursuit-aircraft), the Swedish term for fighter aircraft.
The Saab 35 Draken was known for, among other things, its many "firsts" within aviation. It was the first Western European-built combat aircraft with true supersonic capability to enter service and the first fully supersonic aircraft to be deployed in Western Europe. Design-wise it was one of, if not the first, combat aircraft designed with double delta wings, being drawn up by early 1950. The unconventional wing design also had the side effect of making it the first known aircraft to perform and be capable of the Cobra maneuver. It was also one of the first Western-European-built aircraft to exceed Mach 2 in level flight, reaching it on 14 January 1960.
The Draken functioned as an effective supersonic fighter aircraft of the Cold War period. Even though the type was designed and intended as an interceptor, the Draken was considered to be a very capable dogfighter for the era, and its large wing area allowed the compact Saab 35 to carry a relatively high payload, too. In Swedish service, it underwent several upgrades, the ultimate of these being the J 35 J model which served until 1999. The Draken was also exported to several countries and remained operational in Austria until 2005.
In Swedish service, the Saab 35 was replaced by the Saab 37 “Viggen”. Development work on the new type was already initiated at Saab in 1952 and, following the selection of a radical canard delta wing configuration, the resulting aircraft performed its first flight on 8 February 1967 and entered service on 21 June 1971. However, being a radical and new design, the service introduction of the Viggen – esp. of its initial version, the AJ 37 fighter-bomber – was not without teething troubles, and in the late Sixties the Swedish Air Force expected an attack aircraft gap in its line-up. The former A 32 A Lansen attack aircraft were reaching the end of their airframe lifetime and were simply outdated, even though it was still needed as an anti-ship attack platform for the indigenous Rb 04 guided missile, so that Saab suggested an interim solution: the conversion of seventy of the 120 produced J 35 D fighters into dedicated attack aircraft, with the designation A 35 G (Gustav).
The Saab A 35 G was heavily modified to make it into a fighter bomber aircraft. Compared to the fighter versions the outer wings where completely redesigned and the aircraft featured 9 hardpoints in total. Airframe and landing gear were strengthened to cope with an increased payload of 10,000 lb (4,540 kg) vs. the fighters’ usual 6,393 lb (2,900 kg). Several airframe components were restored or replaced to extend the life of the aircraft, and the landing gear featured low-pressure tires for a better field performance on improvised/dispersed airfields.
A wide array of ordnance could be carried, such as bombs of up to 1.000 lb (454 kg) caliber, MERs with up to six 100 kg (220 lb) bombs each, pods with unguided 75 mm or 135 mm rockets, single 14.5 cm psrak m49/56 high-explosive anti-tank rockets and, as a new weapon, the indigenous guided Rb 05 air-to-ground missile. This had been developed for the AJ 37 "Viggen in 1967 and was roughly comparable with the American AGM-12 Bullpup, but had some unique features. The Rb 05’s supersonic speed was deemed necessary to reduce the threat of surface-to-air missiles, and it allowed the missile to be deployed against slow/large aerial targets, too, making it a dual-purpose weapon. Consequently, the Rb 05’s fuze could be set by the pilot to impact mode for ground targets, or proximity mode for attacking air targets such as bombers.
The missile had a maximum range of 9 km (5.6 ml) and would usually be launched after a high-speed attack run on very low altitude and a climb to 400m for launch. Since the RB 05 was roll-stabilized, the aircraft did not need to be aimed straight at the target when launching and could immediately descend into terrain cover again, and this also made it possible to attack aerial targets from unusual angles and flight paths. Tracking the flares on the missile, the pilot would then visually guide the missile (the missile's engine was smokeless as to not obscure the view) with a small manual joystick towards the target. Guidance commands were transmitted to the missile via a jam-proof radio transmission link.
The A 35 G kept the J 35 D’s two 30 mm ADEN cannons, and a limited air defense capability was retained, too: the Gustav could carry up to four IR-guided Rb 24 (AIM-9B Sidewinder) AAMs, in addition to the Rb 05 in air-to-air mode. However, the aircraft lacked any air intercept radar, and had instead a Ferranti LRMTS (laser rangefinder and marked target seeker) and a counterweight installed in the nose, which resembled the S 35 E photo reconnaissance version’s nose, just without the windows for the side-looking cameras. For its attack role, the A 35 G received a new inertial navigation system, new altimeters and a ballistic computer from Saab called BT-9Rm, which worked with both bombs and rockets and even allowed for toss bombing. The Gustav Draken was furthermore fitted with electronic countermeasure (ECM) systems, a RHAWS and chaff and flare dispensers in their tail cones to improve its survivability over the battlefield.
The Gustav conversion program was accepted by the Swedish government in 1968. Work started in early 1969, the first revamped aircraft reached the operational units in late 1971. However, since production of the AJ 37 was starting at the same time, only 61 aircraft were eventually re-built from existing J 35 D airframes (one prototype and sixty production aircraft). Västgöta Wing (F 6) at Karlsborg was the first squadron to receive the A 35 G, replacing its A 32 A fighter bombers, the other unit to operate the type was Skaraborg Wing (F 7) at Såtenäs.
Among Sweden’s Draken fleet the Gustav was easy to recognize because it was the only version that carried the new “Fields & Meadows” splinter camouflage as standard livery. Service of the A 35 G lasted only until the early Eighties, though: as more and more AJ 37 all-weather fighter bombers reached the Swedish frontline units during the Seventies, the interim attack Draken, which was only effective under daylight and more or less good weather conditions, was withdrawn and either used for spares in the running J 35 J modernization program or directly scrapped, because many airframes had, suffering from the special stress of low-level flight operations, reached the end of their lifespan.
Another factor for the quick withdrawal was the disappointing performance of the type’s primary weapon, the Rb 05 missile: Its manual joystick steering in the cramped Draken cockpit (to be operated while the pilot was expected to fly at low altitude and evade enemy fire!) presented a number of problems, and the Rb 05’s ultimate accuracy was, even under ideal conditions, on the order of just 10 meters (33 ft), greater than desired. Targets like tanks or even ships were hard to hit with this level of scattering, combined with imminent danger for the pilot, and the air-to-air mode was even less effective. On the more modern Saab 37 the Rb 05 was therefore replaced by the Rb 75, a license-produced version of the American TV-guided AGM-65 Maverick “fire and forget” weapon. TV and laser seeker heads for the Rb 05 to improve the weapon’s accuracy and handling had been planned since the early Seventies, but were never realized.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 15.35 m (50 ft 4 in)
Wingspan: 9.42 m (30 ft 11 in)
Height: 3.89 m (12 ft 9 in)
Wing area: 49.2 m² (530 ft²)
Airfoil: 5%
Empty weight: 8,175 kg (18,006 lb)
Gross weight: 11,500 kg (25,330 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 13,554 kg (29,845 lb)
Powerplant:
1× Svenska Flygmotor RM6C (license-built Rolls Royce Avon with Swedish EBK67 afterburner)
turbojet engine, 56.5 kN (12,700 lbf) thrust dry, 77.3 kN (17,240 lbf) with afterburner
Performance:
Maximum speed: 2,150 km/h (1,335 mph, 1,168 kn) at 11,000 m (36,089 ft), clean
1,430 km/h (888 mph, 777 kn) w. two dop tanks and two 454 kg (1.00 lb) bombs
Range: 1.120 km (605 nmi; 696 mi); clean, internal fuel only
Ferry range: 2,750 km (1,480 nmi; 1,710 mi) with four external 500 l drop tanks
Service ceiling: 20,000 m (66,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 199 m/s (39,200 ft/min)
Wing loading: 231.6 kg/m² (47.4 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 0.7
Takeoff roll: 800 m (2,625 ft)
Armament:
2× 30 mm akan m/55 ADEN cannon with 100 rounds per gun
9× hardpoints with a total capacity of 4,500 kg (10.000 lb)
The kit and its assembly:
Even though the model depicts a what-if aircraft, the Draken’s proposed “Gustav” attack variant based on the J 35 D interceptor was real – even though I could not find much detail information about it. So, I took some inspiration from the contemporary Danish Saab 35XD export version, which probably had similar features to the Gustav? Another inspiring factor was a pair of Rb 05 missiles (from an Airfix Viggen) that I had bought with a spare parts lot some time ago – and an attack Draken would be the perfect carrier for these exotic (and unsuccessful) missiles.
For a low-budget build I used one of Mistercraft’s many recent re-boxings of the vintage Revell Draken from 1957(!), and this kit is nothing for those who are faint at heart. It is horrible.
The kit probably depicts a late J 35 A (already with a long tail section), but even for this variant it lacks details like the air scoops for the afterburner or a proper landing gear. The Draken’s characteristic tail wheel is also missing completely. Worst pitfall, however: there is NO interior at all, not even a lumpy seat! The canopy, the early model with struts, is disturbingly clean and crisp, though. The overall fit is mediocre at best, too – there are only a few visible seams, but any of them calls for filling and PSR. It’s a very toyish kit, even though the general outlines are O.K.
And the Mistercraft instructions are really audacious: they show all the parts that are actually NOT there at all. Suddenly a seat appears in the cockpit, a fin fairing from a J 35 D or later, or the tail wheel… And the decal sheets only roughly meet the aircraft you see in the painting instructions - there are three sheets, totally puzzled together, including material for aircraft not mentioned in the instructions, but that’s a common feature of most Mistercraft kits. But: how much can you taunt your disappointed customers?
So, this leaves lots of room for improvements, and calls for a lot of scratching and improvisation, too. First measure was to open both the air intakes (which end after 2mm in vertical walls) and the exhaust, which received an afterburner dummy deep inside to create depth. Next, I implanted a complete cockpit, consisting of s scratched dashboard (styrene sheet), the tub from an Italeri Bae Hawk trainer’s rear cockpit (which comes with neat side consoles and fits quite well) plus a shallow vintage ejection seat, probably left over from an early MiG from a KP kit or one of its many later reincarnations. As an alternative, there’s a Quickboost resin aftermarket set with a complete cockpit interior (even including side walls, IIRC intended to be used with the Hasegawa Draken) available but using it on this crappy kit would have been a waste of resources – it’s more expensive than the kit itself, and even with a fine cockpit the exterior would still remain sh!t.
Since I could not find any detail about the Gustav Draken’s equipment I gave it a laser rangefinder in a poor-fitting S 35 E (or is it a Danish export F-35?) nose that comes as an optional part with the vintage Revell mold – which is weird, because the recce Draken was built between 1963 and 1968 in 2 series, several years after the kit’s launch? Maybe the Mistercraft kit is based on the 1989 Revell re-boxing? But that kit also features an all-in-one pilot/seat part and a two-piece canopy… Weird!
Once the hull was closed many surface details had to be added. The afterburner air scoops were created from plastic profiles, which are aftermarket roof rails in H0 scale. Styrene profile material was also used to create the intakes behind the cockpit, better than nothing. The OOB pitot on the fin was very robust, and since it would be wrong on a J 35 D I cut it off and added a fairing to the fin tip, a shortened/modified ACMI pod, which bears a better pitot alternative at its tip. The pitot on the nose was scratched from heated styrene, since the kit offers no part at all.
Under the rear fuselage the whole tail wheel arrangement had to be scratched. The shallow fairing consists of a section from a Matchbox EA-6B drop tank, the wheel and its strut were tinkered together with bits from the scrap box and profile material. Not stellar, but better than OOB (= nothing!).
The landing gear struts were taken from the kit but beefed up with some details. The main wheels had to be replaced, the new ones come from a KP MiG-21, IIRC.
The ordnance consists of a pair of Rb 05’s from an Airfix Viggen, a pair of OOB drop tanks and MERs from a Matchbox A-7D, together with fourteen streamlined bombs from the same kit – twelve on the MERs and single bombs on the outer pylons. AFAIK, Sweden never used MERs on their aircraft, but the bombs come pretty close to some small bombs that I have seen as AJ 37 ordnance. Most pylons are OOB, I just added a single ventral station and two outer hardpoints under the wings. The Rb 05s received a prominent place under the air intakes on Sidewinder launch rails.
Painting and markings:
Finally a good excuse to apply the famous and complex “Fields & Meadows” paint scheme to a Draken model! However, this “combo” actually existed in real life, but only on a single aircraft: around 1980 a J 35 B (s/n 35520), aircraft “20” of F18, was painted in this fashion, but AFAIK it was only an instructional airframe. You find some pictures of this aircraft online but getting a clear three-side view (esp. from above!) as a reliable painting benchmark is impossible. However, a complete paint scheme of this aircraft is provided with one of Mistercraft’s Revell Draken re-boxings (not the one I bought, though), even though it is mismarked as a J 35 F of F10 in the instructions. One of the common Mistercraft errors, err, “surprises” (*sigh*).
Finding suitable model paints for the elaborate scheme is not easy, either, and after having applied it several times I stuck to my favorites: Humbrol 150 (Forest Green, FS 34127), 75 (Bronze Green), 118 (US Light Tan, FS 30219, a bit light but RAF Dark Earth is too somber) and Revell 06 (Tar Black, RAL 9021) on the upper surfaces and Humbrol 247 (RLM76) underneath.
A large ventral section was, typical for the J 35, left in bare metal, since leaking fuel and oil would frequently eat away any paint there. The section was painted with Revell 91 (Iron) and later treated with Matt Aluminum Metallizer (Humbrol). As per usual, the model received an overall light black ink washing and some post-shading in order to emphasize the panels, correct the splinter camouflage and dramatize the surface. Some extra weathering was done around the gun ports and the jet nozzle with graphite.
Internal details like the cockpit and the landing gear were painted with the help of Swedish Saab 35 reference pictures. The cockpit tub was painted in a dark, bluish green (Humbrol 76) with grey-green (Revell 67) side walls.
The landing gear and its respective wells were painted in a bluish grey (Revell 57), parts of the struts were painted in a bright turquoise (a mix of Humbrol 89 and 80; looks quite weird, but I like such details!). The wheel hubs became medium grey (Revell 47). The Rb 05 missiles were painted in white as live weapons, so that they stand out well from the airframe. The drop tanks received the same blue-grey as the underside (Humbrol 247). MERs and launch rails were painted in a neutral grey (RAL 7001) and the bombs became olive drab (RAL 6014, Gelboliv) with yellow rings and golden fuzes.
Decals/markings were puzzled together from a Moose Republic Saab 32 sheet (unit code number and emblem) and the spares box, including the red tactical tail code from an Italeri 1:72 Gripen and roundels from a Hasegawa Draken. Stencils were taken from the kit’s OOB sheet and also from the Hasegawa Draken sheet. Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri).
What a horror trip! The paint scheme itself was/is challenging enough, but modding the crappy vintage Revell kit into something more presentable was already a fight in itself. However, I like the outcome. “Fields & Meadows” suits the Draken with its huge and flat upper surface well, and while the Gustav conversion did not take much effort the “mud mover” ordnance under this Mach 2 fighter really looks strange and makes you wonder what this is. A nice what-if model, despite its blurriness!
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
The Fiat Macchi C.170 Brezza ("Gust of wind") was a single-seat biplane fighter which served primarily in Italy's Regia Aeronautica before and in the early stages of World War II. The aircraft was produced by the Varese firm, and entered service, in smaller numbers, with the air forces of Italy, Austria and Hungary.
In spite of the biplane configuration, the C.170 was a modern, 'sleek-looking' design based around a strong steel and alloy frame incorporating a NACA cowling housing the radial engine, with fairings for the fixed main landing gear. The C.170's upper wing was slightly larger than its lower wing, carried only by six struts and a few bracing wires. Only the upper wing featured ailerons while the lower wing carried large flaps. Although it looked slightly outdated, the aircraft proved exceptionally agile thanks to its very low wing loading and a powerful, responsive engine.
Power was provided by a 650 kW (870 hp) Fiat A.74 14 cylinder radial engine, which also drove the contemporary Fiat CR.32 fighter. With the "direttiva" (Air Ministry Specific) of 1932, Italian industrial leaders had been instructed to concentrate solely on radial engines for fighters, due to their better reliability. The A.74 was actually a re-design of the American Pratt & Whitney R-1830 SC-4 Twin Wasp made by engineers Tranquillo Zerbi and Antonio Fessia, and in the C.170 it was geared to drive a metal three-blade Fiat-Hamilton Standard 3D.41-1 propeller of 2.9 m (9.5 ft) diameter. This allowed an impressive top speed of 441 km/h (272 mph) at 6.500 m (20.000 ft), and 342 km/h (213 mph) at ground level.
The first C.170 prototype flew on 24 December 1934 in Lonate Pozzolo, Varese, with Macchi Chief Test Pilot Giuseppe Burei at the controls. It was followed by the second prototype early the next year, which flew with an armored headrest and fairing in place (the C.170 lacked any further armor!) and other minor changes that were incorporated for serial production.
Despite Macchi’s proposal for a closed cockpit canopy the cockpit remained open – Italian pilots were rather conservative. Additional protection was introduced through armored side panels, though, which would protect the pilot’s shoulders. Radio equipment was also not included, as in many other Italian fighter aircraft.
During evaluation in early 1935 the C.170 was tested against the Fiat CR.42 and the Caproni Ca.165 biplane fighters, and was judged to be on par with the CR.42, although the Ca.165 was a more modern design which boasted a higher speed at the cost of maneuverability. An initial order of 99 C.170 for Italy's Regia Aeronautica was placed to Macchi factory in summer 1935, followed by foreign interest and order options from Austria, Belgium and Spain.
Anyway, what looked like a prosperous design was soon rendered obsolete: Following the end of Italy's campaigns in East Africa, a program was started to completely re-equip the Regia Aeronautica with a new interceptor aircraft of modern design. The 10 February 1936 specifications called for an aircraft powered by a single radial engine, with a top speed of 500 km/h, climb rate at 6,000 meters of 5 minutes, with a flight endurance of two hours, and armed with a single (later increased to two) 12.7 mm (0.5 in) machine gun. That was more or less the premature end for the C.170, as Macchi and other manufacturers quickly turned to more modern monoplane designs.
Therefore, orders and production of the Macchi Brezza remained limited. Beyond the original 99 aircraft for the Regia Aeronautica only 24 further C.170s were delivered. These aircraft went in spring 1936 to Austria to equip Jagdgeschwader II at Wiener Neustadt. Immediately after their delivery the Brezza fighters were retro-fitted with radio equipment, recognizable through the antenna installation on the headrest fairing. The potential orders from Belgium and Spain were soon cancelled, due to political tensions.
As a side note, the Austrian C.170s fighters were the first aircraft to sport the new national emblem, which had been the result of a competition and won by flight engineer Rosner from the Graz-Thalerhof base. The white, equilateral triangle with the point facing downwards in a red disc was a completely new design and had (other than the flag or coats of arms) no prior basis.
The C.170s' career in Austrian service was short, though: in March 1938 the Austrian units were absorbed into the Luftwaffe, and after a brief period the aircraft were handed over to Hungary where they were used for training purposes.
Although an obsolete design, it proved to be robust, durable and effective especially in severe conditions. In spring 1943, surviving C.170s were rounded up from training schools and delivered to night ground attack units operating on the Eastern Front. The C.170 was used to conduct night harassment sorties on the Eastern Front until September 1944, when the units were disbanded, due to a lack of serviceable airframes and spare parts.
General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 8.25 m (27 ft 1 in)
Wingspan: 32 ft 3 in (9.83 m)
Height: 11 ft 9 in (3.58 m)
Wing area: 323 ft² (30.0 m²)
Empty weight: 3,217 lb (1,462 kg)
Loaded weight: 4,594 lb (2,088 kg)
Powerplant
1× Fiat A.74 R.C.38 14-cylinder air-cooled radial engine, 650 kW (870 hp) at 2,520 rpm for take-off
Performance
Maximum speed: 441 km/h (238 kn, 274 mph) at 20,000 ft
Cruise speed: 338 km/h (187 kn, 210 mph)
Range: 780 km (420 nmi, 485 mi)
Service ceiling: 10,210 m (33,500 ft)
Rate of climb: 11.8 m/s (2,340 ft/min)
Climb to 10,000 ft (3,050 m): 4.75 min
Wing loading: 69,6 kg/m² (15,3 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 311 W/kg (0.19 hp/lb)
Armament
2× 12.7 mm (0.5 in) Breda-SAFAT synchronized machine guns above the engine, 370 rpg
Some aircraft were field-modified to carry up to 8× 15 kg (33 lb) or 2× 50 or 100 kg (110/220 lb) bombs under the wings
The kit and its assembly
Inspiration for this little, whiffy biplane came when I posted a pic of an Austrian Ju 86 bomber as a reply/ suggestion to a fellow modeler's (NARSES2) search at whatifmodelers.com for “something” to make from a Gloster Gladiator.
When I looked at the paint scheme a second time I remembered that I still had some Austrian roundels in stock, as well some very old biplane spare parts... hmmm.
Biplanes are tricky to build, even OOB, and kitbashing this kind of whif would not make things easier. Anyway, I love such challenges, and the potential outcome would surely look nice, if not exotic, so I decided to tackle the project.
Basically, the following donation ingredients went into it:
● Fuselage, engine, cockpit/pilot and tail from a Revell Macchi C.200 "Saetta"
● Upper wing from a Matchbox Gloster "Gladiator"
● Lower wings from a Matchbox SBC "Helldiver"
● Wheels from a Matchbox Hs 126 (shortened)
Pretty straightforward, but even though it would be a small aircraft model, it would come with two big challenges: mounting the lower wings and shaping the resulting, gaping belly, and the custom-made struts and wirings for the upper wing.
Work started with the Macchi C.200’s fuselage, which was built OOB - just without the wing, which is a single part, different pilot (the included one is a pygmy!) and with a free spinning metal axis for the propeller.
The wing installation started with the lower wings. I glued the Helldiver wings onto the C.200 fuselage, so that the wings' trailing edge would match the C.200's wing root ends. From that, a floor plate was fitted under the fuselage and any excessive material removed, the gaps filled with lumps of 2C putty. That moved the lower wing's roots backwards, creating space at the lower forward fuselage for the new landing gear.
The latter was taken from a vintage Matchbox Hs 126 reconnaissance aircraft - probably 25, if 30 years old... Size was O.K., but the struts had to shortened by about 5mm, as thge HS 126 is a much bigger/longer aircraft than the C.200. A cut was made just above the wheel spats, material taken out, and the separate parts were glued back together again.
With the lower wings in place I started building strut supports for the upper wing from styrene strips - tricky and needs patience, but effective. I started with the outer supports, carving something SBC-style from styrene. These were glued into place, slightly canted outwards, and their length/height adapted to the upper wing’s position.
When this was settled, the upper Gladiator wing was glued into place. After a thorough drying period the short fuselage supports in front of the cockpit – again, styrene strips – were inserted into the gap. This allowed an individual lengthening, and was easier than expected, with a stable result.
After having the upper wing glued in place I added some wiring, made from heated and pulled-out styrene sprues. This not only enhances the kit's look, it also (just like in real life) improves rigidity of the model. Also a tedious task, but IMHO worth the effort. I tried thin wire, nylon strings and sewing yarn for this job, but finally the styrene solution is what worked best for me.
The exhaust installation had also to be modified: the new Hs 126 struts with spats would have been where the original C.200’s hot exhaust gases would have gone, so I added new exhaust pipes that would go between the new legs.
Other small added details included, among others, a pitot on a wing strut, a visor in front of the cockpit, a radio antenna, a ladder made from wire.
Painting and markings:
I would not call the Austrian 3+1-tone pre-WWII-scheme spectacular, but the colors are unique. My scheme is based on an Austrian Ju 86 bomber from 1938, so it fits into the intended time frame.
The colors were puzzled together from various sources and are subjective guesstimates:
● A pale, yellow-ish beige (Humbrol 74, ‘Linen’, out of production)
● A rather brownish green (Testors 1711, ‘Olive Drab’, FS 34087)
● A dark green with a yellow-ish hue (Humbrol 116, ‘US Dark Green’ FS 34079)
● Light blue for the undersides (Humbrol 65, ‘Aircraft Blue’, RLM 65)
In order to add some details I painted the area behind the engine cowling in aluminum. The respective part under the fuselage, where the exhaust gases would pass, was painted in Steel – both Testors Metallizers.
The interior surfaces were painted in a neutral Grey – but with the engine and the pilot in place you cannot see anything of that at all.
Markings are minimal: the Austrian roundels come from a TL Decals aftermarket sheet, the flag on the rudder was laid out with red paint (a mix of Humbrol 19 and 60), the white bar is a decal. The tactical code is fictional, puzzled together from single digits in various sizes (also from TL Modellbau sheets). The original documents how purely black fuselage codes, but I found these hard to read. So I chose digits with a white rim (actually, these belong to modern German Luftwaffe tactical codes in 1:32), which improve contrast a little.
The kit received a thin black ink wash and some shading/dry-painting with lighter basic tones (Humbrol 103, 155, Model Master 2138,‘Israeli Armor Sand Grey’, and Humbrol 122). After decal application, another turn with overall Hemp and Light Grey was done in order to fade contrast and to emphasize the surface structure. The wires were also painted, but only with thinned black ink and a VERY soft brush.
Finally, everything was sealed under a spray coat of matt acrylic varnish.
Voilà, and done in just about a week!
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The history of the Swiss Air Force began in 1914 with the establishment of an ad hoc force consisting of a handful of men in outdated and largely civilian aircraft. It was only in the 1930s the military and civilian leadership decided to establish an effective air force. On 13 December 1929, in what was in retrospect referred to as the "bill to create an air force", the Federal Council asked the Swiss Federal Assembly to approve the spending of 20 million francs for the purchase of 65 French Dewoitine D.27 fighters and the manufacture of 40 Dutch (Fokker C.V-E) reconnaissance planes under license.
Although the opposition Social Democratic Party collected 42,000 signatures in a petition opposing the bill, Parliament passed it handily and declined to allow a referendum on the issue, optional at that time for spending bills. This was the start of a massive armament program that would consume more than a billion francs over the next ten years, but after Hitler's rise to power in Germany, the Social Democrats added their support to the efforts.
The program not only included the procurement of foreign aircraft the domestic industry also started to develop its own products. One of the leading manufacturers of its time in Switzerland was the Eidgenössische Konstruktionswerkstätte (English: "Federal Constructions Works"), short K+W or EKW, and later also known as F+W. It was a Swiss state-owned enterprise, established in 1867 in Thun. The company produced artillery, vehicles, and other typical military equipment, and in 1914 EKW had already started the production of the Häfeli DH-1 reconnaissance biplane. Long-standing connections to the ETH Zurich ensured the necessary know-how. EKW started the program with three military aircraft, the indigenous C-34 single-seat fighter and the fast C-36 long-range light bomber/reconnaissance monoplane, plus the C-35 two-seat reconnaissance and ground-attack biplane, which was actually a license-built Fokker C.X with a water-cooled Hispano-Suiza HS-77 V12 engine, a license-built version of the 12Ycs that also powered the C-36.
The C-34 was the direct response to a requirement issued by the Swiss Air Force for a new fighter, and was the winner of a competition against the German Arado 80, which had been offered for export and eventual license production. The German monoplane was a modern construction, but the type was uninspiring in terms of performance and suffered from a number of failures (so that the German Luftwaffe rejected it, too). Although Arado’s low-wing monoplane Arado heralded the design standard for future fighter aircraft, the Swiss Air Force preferred EKW’s conservative but more maneuverable C-34 biplane, which also offered better starting and landing characteristics and a superior rate of climb – important features in Switzerland’s mountainous theatre of operations.
The C-34’s structure was conventional and of all-metal construction. To overcome the biplane layout’s inherent speed disadvantage, EKW’s design team used flush-head rivets and as little as possible stabilizing rigging to reduce drag. The fuselage was fully planked with aluminum, as well as the fixed parts of the tail surfaces, wings and rudders were still fabric-covered. It had unequal-span biplane wings, braced by struts, with upper-wing ailerons but no flaps yet.
The prototype, which flew for the first time in March 1935, was powered by an imported German liquid-cooled BMW VI 6.0 V-12 engine with 660 hp, which drove a metal three-blade propeller with fixed pitch. The C-34’s production version, which was already introduced in September of the same year, was outfitted with a more powerful, now license-produced BMW VI 7.3 with 633 kW (850 hp), which required a bigger radiator and higher-octane fuel to achieve this performance, though. Armament consisted of two 7.5 mm (.295 in) Darne machine guns, imported from France and synchronized to fire through the propeller. Provisions were made to carry up to four 20 lb (9.1 kg) bombs under-wing, but these were hardly ever used in service.
An initial production run comprised 30 aircraft to equip a complete fighter unit. The first C-34s were delivered in a typical three-ton splinter camouflage in ochre, khaki green and red brown, over grey undersides. The machines were allocated to the so-called “Überwachungschwader” (Surveillance Squadron) at Dübendorf near Zürich, and the new biplane proved to be an instant success. The C-34 was commonly well liked by its crews, being very maneuverable and benefitting from a relatively strong fuselage structure, a favorable control arrangement, a tight turning circle. An excellent handling made the type furthermore ideal for executing aerobatic displays. After a brief and successful period of testing, orders for 80 additional C-34s were placed in 1936.
During the rising tensions in Europe Switzerland remained neutral and isolated, and the Swiss Air Force machines received prominent identification stripes in red and white on fuselage and wings. The air corps furthermore confined its activities to training and exercises, reconnaissance, and patrol.
The Swiss Air Force as an autonomous military service was created in October 1936, and the units were re-arranged to reflect this new structure. In 1938 Gottlieb Duttweiler's launched a popular initiative calling for the purchase of a thousand aircraft and the training of three thousand pilots. After 92,000 citizens signed in support, nearly twice the number necessary for a national popular vote, the federal government offered a referendum proposal in 1939 that was nearly as extensive, which was accepted by a 69 percent majority. This led to a massive procurement of additional and more up-to-date aircraft, namely the Messerschmitt Bf 109 and Morane-Saulnier 406 fighters from Germany and France, respectively, and the Moranes were license-built as D-3800 in Switzerland. By that time, the Swiss Air Force changed its aircraft designation system, and the C-34 was officially renamed C-3400.
Despite these new and more modern aircraft the C-3400s remained in service, and to supplement the fleet a further eight aircraft were built between 1941 and 1942 from spares. These machines received a simplified camouflage with dark green upper surfaces over a light blue-grey underside, similar to the imported Bf 109s from Germany, and some older C-3400s were re-painted accordingly, even though many machines retained their pre-war splinter scheme for the rest of their service life. During the same period, almost all aircraft received prominent neutrality markings in the form of bright red and white stripes on wings and fuselage.
From 1941 on, most C-3400s were gradually upgraded during overhauls. Several new features were introduced, which included a fully closed canopy that greatly improved pilot comfort esp. in wintertime, a variable pitch/constant speed propeller, a better radio set, a new gun sight and spatted main wheels. The Darne machine guns were replaced with belt-fed MAC 1934 machine guns of the same caliber from domestic production, because they were more reliable and had, with the license production of the Morane Saulnier M.S. 406, become a standard weapon in the Swiss arsenal. These modified aircraft were re-designated C-3401, even though the aircraft under this designation did not uniformly feature all improvements.
When enough monoplane fighters had widely become available for the Swiss Air Force in 1943, the C-3400/-3401 biplanes were quickly removed from front-line service. They served on in second-line surveillance and aerial patrol units, or they were transferred to training units, where most of the type (a total of 119 were built) survived the hostilities. The last C-3400/-3401 was finally withdrawn from service in 1954, and only a single specimen survived in the collection of the Aviation Museum (Flieger Flab Museum) in Dübendorf, Switzerland.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 7.2 m (23 ft 7 in)
Wingspan: 10.02 m (32 ft 10 in)
Height: 3 m (9 ft 10 in)
Wing area: 23 m2 (250 sq ft)
Airfoil: NACA M-12
Empty weight: 1,360 kg (2,998 lb)
Gross weight: 1,740 kg (3,836 lb)
Powerplant:
1× BMW VI 7.3 V-12 liquid-cooled piston engine, 634 kW (850 hp),
driving a three-bladed variable pitch metal propeller
Performance:
Maximum speed: 400 km/h (250 mph, 220 kn) at 3,000 m (9,843 ft)
Service ceiling: 11,500 m (37,700 ft)
Rate of climb: 16.67 m/s (3,281 ft/min)
Time to altitude: 5,000 m (16,404 ft) in 5 minutes 30 seconds
Wing loading: 75.7 kg/m2 (15.5 lb/sq ft)
Power/mass: 0.36 kW/kg (0.22 hp/lb)
Armament:
2× fixed, forward-firing 7.5 mm (.295 in) MAC 1934 machine guns with 600 RPG
4× underwing hardpoints for 20 lb (9.1 kg) bombs (rarely used)
The kit and its assembly:
This whiffy biplane was/is just a kit travesty – the fictional EKW C-34 is a Kawasaki Ki-10 (the ICM kit) with mild mods and Swiss pre-WWII markings. I had an eye on the quite elegant Japanese fighter for a while, and due to its engine with German roots (its Kawasaki Ha9-IIa was a license-built water-cooled BMW VI V12 engine) I thought about a European operator – and eventually I decided to make it a Swiss aircraft.
The ICM kit was built almost OOB, the only changes I made were the spatted wheels (IIRC left over from an ICM Polikarpov I-15 biplane), which needed some tweaks on the OOB struts, and the different, closed canopy (from a Hobby Boss A6M Zero), because I wanted a relatively modern look, comparable with the contemporary Avia B-534 biplane. Mounting it was tricky, because of the “step” under the windscreen, so that I had to add a console under it, and some PSR was necessary to blend the canopy, which was cut into three parts for open display, into the rounded back of the Ki-10. A scratched antenna mast was added, too, to fill the respective opening in the rear part of the dorsal glazing. Thanks to the many braces of the A6M canopy, the implant looks quite organic.
The ICM Ki-10 went together quite well, it’s a rather simple kit with only a single sprue and few parts. The biggest challenge was the upper wing, though, which is only carried by the struts. The locator pins are only marginal, and finding a proper position took some time and superglue.
I furthermore modified the propeller with a long metal axis and a tube adapter inside if the fuselage, so that it could spin freely.
Painting and markings:
The reason why the Ki-10 became a Swiss aircraft was the paint scheme – a quite attractive tricolor splinter pattern (apparently inspired by the similar German camouflage in RLM 61,62 and 63?) was the Swiss Air Force’s standard at the breakout of WWII, and I adopted it for the C-3401, too.
The pattern is vaguely based on a real C-35 biplane (presented at the Dübendorf Aviation Museum), which I deem to look authentic, and I tried to emulate its colors as good as possible. I settled on Desert Yellow (Humbrol 94, the tone is officially called “Ochre” but appears to be quite yellowish), French Khaki Green (ModelMaster 2106) and Chestnut Brown (ModelMaster 2107, another French WWII aircraft tone), with light grey (Humbrol 64) undersides. Painting the splinter scheme with a brush on a biplane like this was tricky, though. The cockpit interior was painted with a grey-green tone similar to RLM 02 (Humbrol 45), the wing struts became black.
As usual, the model received a light black ink washing, plus some post-panel shading and dry-brushing to emphasize details and to weather it, but only lightly, because the aircraft would not have been involved in fights.
The roundels on the upper wings came from a generic TL-Modellbau national markings sheet, while the red bands for the national insignia under the lower wings and on the rudder were painted. The white cross on the fin comes from a Swiss BAe Hawk trainer (Italeri), while the slightly bigger white cross under the lower wings was scratched from white decal stripes. The tactical code comes from a Croatian MiG-21UM trainer (KP kit), the unit badge is fictional and came from a Spanish Heinkel He 70.
The model was sealed overall with matt acrylic varnish, and as a final step the rigging was applied, made from heated black sprue material, using the real Ki-10 as benchmark for the connections/positions.
A pretty result, and the simple travesty of the elegant Ki-10 into a late interwar biplane from Continental Europe works surprisingly well. The spats and the closed canopy might not have been necessary, but they modernize and change the aircraft, so that its use during WWII – even though not in any offensive role – becomes even more believable. The splinter scheme suits the aircraft well, too, even though its application was a bit tricky, as well as the Swiss roundels.
+++ 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:
With the end of the conflict in Africa in early 1974, the Portuguese Armed Forces went through a reorganization and shifted their focus back from counter-insurgency to honoring Portugal's commitments to NATO and preparing for a possible conflict in Europe against the Warsaw Pact. The Portuguese Air Force's F-86F Sabre and G.91 fighters were considered to be outdated in both the air defense and ground attack roles to face Soviet forces in the European operations theater. Furthermore, only a few Sabre fighters were actually in service due to problems with the engines and lack of spare parts.
After the revolution Portugal faced financial problems and the new government didn't see the modernization of the armed forces as a priority. As such the Air Force counted on the support from the United States through the military assistance programs and the offsets and compensations for the use of the Lajes Air Base. In June 1974 the Air Force Chief of Staff, General Manuel Diogo Neto, informed the US Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) in Lisbon of the interest in acquiring one F-5E Tiger II squadron and one F-4E Phantom II squadron, as well as T-38A Talon and T-41, to replace the T-33 Shooting Star and the DHC-1 Chipmunk, respectively.
The United States’ NATO delegation was worried about Portugal's capability in contributing to NATO operations and felt that the intention to purchase either the F-4E Phantom II or the F-5E Tiger II to replace the F-86F Sabre was inappropriate, given that the USA felt that the A-7D Corsair II or the A-4N Skyhawk provided a better platform for the Portuguese role in an eventual conflict with the Warsaw Pact, which was to mainly protect the Atlantic Ocean resupply routes from the United States to Europe.
By 1976 the Northrop F-5E Tiger II had become the sole preferred aircraft by the military command, which believed that this aircraft could be supplied by The Pentagon at a lower cost through the Military Assistance Program (MAP) and the Foreign Military Sales (FMS). To this end, Portugal leased Northrop T-38A Talon jet trainers, as part of the "Peace Talon" program, to establish and provide supersonic-capable lead-in fighter training and to eventually provide operational conversion.
Later in March 1976, a camouflage scheme for the F-5 was published in the Diário da República, stirring public awareness and political pressure. Nonetheless, at the time the FAP had already started analyzing the acquisition of the A-7 Corsair II as an alternative to the F-5, per the suggestion of the United States. This led to the acquisition of 30 A-7A Corsair II for 49 million dollars. But even with the A-7 taking precedence, the FAP continued interest in acquiring the F-5 for the air defense role and as a proper replacement for the outdated F-86F Sabre.
As such, a delegation was sent to Norway in July 1979 to evaluate F-5A/B aircraft of the Royal Norwegian Air Force. This offer was turned down, since the offered 11 F-5As turned out to require considerable repairs due to cracks found in the airframe. Furthermore, the FAP was particularly interested in twin-seat F-5 fighters, but the RNoAF did not plan on retiring any of its F-5B aircraft at that time. In November 1984, the United States offered four F-5As with spare engines to Portugal, but this offer was also declined, since the aircraft had already logged over 3,000 flight hours and needed thorough repair, too. In the same year, the RNoAF made a new offer of 15 to 20 F-5A/Bs, but this time the FAP declined, once more due to the airframes’ age and poor condition.
Unable to purchase any F-5 in decent condition, the FAP studied in the meantime the procurement of other second-hand fighters like the French Mirage IIIs or the SAAB 35 Draken. Negotiations with France, even though the preferred partner and with the intention to procure Mirage V fighter bombers, too, went nowhere. Eventually, a deal with Sweden could be settled in 1985 and the Saab 35 was chosen as the FAP’s new air superiority fighter.
The Draken had been developed during the 1940s and 1950s to replace Sweden's first generation of jet-powered fighter aircraft, the Saab J 29 Tunnan and, later, the fighter variant (J 32 B) of the Saab 32 Lansen. Fully developed in Sweden, the Draken was introduced into service with the Swedish Air Force in 1960 under the designation J 35 (the prefix J standing for “Jakt”, meaning “pursuit”). Early models were intended purely to perform air defense missions and the type was considered to be a capable dogfighter for the Cold War era. Later models were technically very advanced and the J 35 underwent a constant development that led to a long line of variants with several upgrades.
By the 1980s, the Swedish Air Force’s Drakens had largely been replaced by the more advanced Saab 37 Viggen fighter, while the introduction of the more capable Saab JAS 39 Gripen fighter was expected in service within a decade, although delayed. Many J 35s of earlier versions, primarily the D type as well as some early J 35 F, were therefore mothballed and/or offered for sale. Takers were Finland and Austria, some Draken also sold to private operators in the United States. A dedicated export version for Denmark, rather a strike aircraft than an interceptor, was built, too.
The FAP was interested in the J 35 F, since these aircraft were the most modern Draken variant at the time and the relatively young airframes promised a long service life. An initial batch of eight aircraft – six single seaters plus a pair of two-seat trainers – was leased by Portugal and delivered in 1986. These were effectively refurbished former Swedish Saab J 35 F interceptors and Sk 35 C trainers. Internally at Saab, the Draken versions for Portugal were designated Saab J or Sk 35 XP (“X” for export and “P” for Portugal), but this designation was not adopted officially.
For Portugal, the machines were stripped off of specialized Swedish equipment and instead outfitted with NATO-compatible avionics and other updates like the Hawé mods I & II on the P/S-01/011 radar sets to improve its resistance to ECM. In contrast to the Swedish Saab J 35 F, the avionics that were necessary to deploy the Rb 27 and Rb 28 missiles (Hughes AIM-4 Falcon with radar and IR guidance) were removed and the second gun reinstalled. The J 35 F’s IR sensor under the nose was retained and a Sherloc radar warning system of French origin, as well as chaff/flare dispensers, were added, too.
In Portuguese service, the machines were called Saab 35 FP and TP and dubbed “Dragõe”. The fighters’ main armament were, beyond the internal 30 mm cannons, AIM-9 Sidewinders. Typically, a pair of these missiles was carried under the wings, together with a pair of 500 l drop tanks under the fuselage, since the Draken had no in-flight refueling capability and just a range of 1.120 km (696 mi) in clean configuration and with internal fuel only. The machines retained a secondary strike capability, though, with iron bombs of up to 1.000 lb caliber, napalm tanks and unguided missiles in pods. The trainers were unarmed but could carry an optional single 500 l drop tank on a ventral hardpoint.
The leased aircraft batch arrived in bare metal finish, but, due to the country’s proximity to the open sea, they quickly received an overall coat with a grey anti-corrosive lacquer. They were allocated to Esquadra 201 "Falcões" at Monte Real air base, where they replaced the last operational F-86F’s. They were officially allocated to an interceptor role, but effectively they were primarily used for conversion training, together with the T-38’s which had been based at Monte Real since 1977, too.
With enough trained Draken crews at hand, a second batch of former Swedish Draken (this time twelve single seaters plus two more trainers) was bought and delivered in 1987, the machines from the initial leasing batch were eventually bought, too. This small fleet was split between Esquadra 201 and 103 (the latter at Beja air base), so that the FAP could now field two fully operational interceptor squadrons. Upon arrival, the new machines received a tactical camouflage with toned-down national and the J 35s from the initial batch were re-painted accordingly.
The ongoing process of the modernization of the Portuguese Air Force also included the launching of the SICCAP/PoACCS (Portugal Air Command and Control System) project, which was a pioneer in adopting the new architecture and concept of the NATO ACCS, being intended to replace Portugal’s old SDA air defense system. As part of these project, the air surveillance and detection units were re-equipped, including the reception of new radars and the air control center at Monsanto was enhanced. The Saab 35 FPs became an integral part of this system, so that interceptors could be guided from the ground towards potential targets.
This scenario did not last long, though: The end of the Cold War caused the Portuguese Air Force to accompany the shift of the focus of the Portuguese Armed Forces from a conventional war in Europe against the Warsaw Pact forces to the international peace enforcement missions. The FAP started to participate in a number of missions by itself or in support of missions led by the Army and the Navy, but the Saab 35s were not involved since they remained, due to their small number, dedicated to Portugal’s air space patrol and defense.
With the arrival of the first F-16 Fighting Falcon in 1994, the Saab 35s, as well as the FAP’s A-7 Corsair IIs, were gradually retired and fully replaced until 1998.
The last Saab 35 in Swedish service was retired in 1999, the last Saab 35 Draken was withdrawn from military use in Austria in 2005 – 50 years after the type first flew. However, several aircraft still fly today in private operators’ service.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 15.35 m (50 ft 4 in)
Wingspan: 9.42 m (30 ft 11 in)
Height: 3.89 m (12 ft 9 in)
Wing area: 49.2 m2 (530 ft²)
Airfoil: 5%
Empty weight: 7,865 kg (17,339 lb)
Gross weight: 11,000 kg (24,251 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 11,914 kg (26,266 lb)
Powerplant:
1× Svenska Flygmotor RM6C (license-built Rolls Royce Avon with Swedish afterburner)
turbojet engine, 56.5 kN (12,700 lbf) thrust dry, 78.4 kN (17,600 lbf) with afterburner
Performance:
Maximum speed: 2,450 km/h (1,520 mph, 1,320 kn) at 11,000 m (36,089 ft)
Maximum speed: Mach 2
Range: 1.120 km (605 nmi; 696 mi); clean, internal fuel only
Ferry range: 2,750 km (1,480 nmi; 1,710 mi) with four external 500 l drop tanks
Service ceiling: 20,000 m (66,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 199 m/s (39,200 ft/min)
Wing loading: 231.6 kg/m² (47.4 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 0.7
Takeoff roll: 800 m (2,625 ft)
Armament:
2× 30 mm AKAN M/55 ADEN cannon with 100 rounds per gun
4× hardpoints with a capacity of 2,900 kg (6,393 lb); typical interceptor ordnance:
2× 500 l ventral drop tanks and 2× AIM-9 Sidewinder under the wings
The kit and its assembly:
This what-if model came as a spontaneous idea when I browsed through the WWW for inspiration. I stumbled upon the history of the Portuguese Air Force and the fact that it did not operate any dedicated interceptor for 15 years – this task was taken over by the PAF’s A-7s(!) until the F-16 arrived in the Nineties This gap offered a lot of whiffing potential, and I had actually considered to build a whiffy FAP Mirage III for some time, since I knew that this was, together with the F-5, the favored type. However, there was also serious consideration of the Saab 35 as potential fighter alternative, too!
I found this idea so weird/exotic that I decided to build a Draken in FAP colors. The kit is the Hasegawa model, in a Revell re-boxing. I also considered the vintage Revell Saab 35 (a mold from 1957!), but after I saw the kit in a current re-boxing from Polish company Akkura, I took the chance of a reasonably priced Hasegawa kit instead. While the Akkura kit is crisply molded, it would take a lot of work to create a satisfactory “modern” Draken from it. I also had a Heller kit in store (my personal favorite), but I did not want to “sacrifice” it for this project.
The Hasegawa/Revell kit was basically built OOB. The kit is a simple, straightforward affair, with fine recessed engravings and good fit, but it’s IMHO far from extraordinary. It also has its flaws: the dashboard is totally blank, any instruments have to be created by yourself or taken from the decal sheet. There are ejection marks on the wheels and the landing gear covers, and the fit quality of some areas (e .g. the seam between the fuselage and the afterburner section) calls for PSR. The two-piece canopy is thin, very clear and fits well, the landing gear is sufficiently detailed – including the interior of the main landing gear wells.
For the FAP version I did not change much; I just replaced the seat (which OOB looks fine, I just wanted “something else”), added a radar warning antenna to the fin’s tip and chaff dispensers around the tail section, all carved from styrene profiles.
Unfortunately, the Revell re-boxing just comes with a pair of launch rails and underwing pylons, but no AA weapons at all. That’s acceptable for the anniversary machine that you can build from the kit, but leaves the other option, a grey, Swedish J35 H, without any ordnance.
The drop tanks on my build are OOB, together with their ventral hardpoints, and I added a pair of decent AIM-9J Sidewinders from a Hasegawa air-to-air weapon set for a suitable interceptor ordnance. The launch rails were recycled from the kit: they are actually missile rails with attachment points to mount them under the air intakes. The rails were separated and then attached to the OOB underwing pylons, this worked very well.
Painting and markings:
The livery was not an easy choice. Initially I favored a uniform pale grey livery with blue squadron markings, inspired by the late F-86s of FAP 51 squadron, but found this, despite being a plausible look for an interceptor, to look quite boring. For the same reason I rejected an Austria-style “Hill II” scheme or a light-grey USN-inspired “Compass Ghost” livery. The Hellenic “Ghost” wraparound scheme was another potential option, but I recently used something similar on another whif build (the Catalonian L-159 ALCA), and it would not have a typically Portuguese Cold War look.
Keeping in style with the FAP’s livery fashion during the Eighties, I rather settled upon a USAF SEA scheme, which was carried by many PAF aircraft during the Eighties, e .g. the A-7P, the G.91, and their replacement from 1993 onwards, the Alpha Jet. Instead of a wraparound version for ground attack aircraft, I rather gave the Draken light grey undersides.
The camouflage pattern itself was improvised, since I did not want to copy an existing delta wing aircraft (e.g. the USAF’s F-102 or F-106 SEA pattern, or the Belgian Mirage Vs). The basic colors are Humbrol 75 (Bronze Green; the authentic tone is FS 34079, but this lacks IMHO contrast to the lighter green), 117 (FS 34102) and 118 (FS 30219) from above, and Humbrol 28 (FS 36622) underneath.
A large ventral section was, typical for the J 35, left in bare metal, since leaking fuel and oil would frequently eat away any paint there. The section was painted with Steel Metallizer (ModelMaster) and later treated with Matt Aluminum Metallizer (Humbrol).
Internal details like the cockpit and the landing gear were painted with the help of Swedish and Austrian Saab 35 reference pictures. The cockpit tub was painted in a dark, bluish green (Humbrol 76) with grey-green (Revell 67) side walls. A piece of paper tissue covers the cockpit’s back wall, since the kit leaves a visible and rather ugly seam there, which is only partly hidden behind the seat.
The landing gear and its respective wells were painted with Humbrol 56 (Aluminum Dope), parts of the struts were painted in a bright turquoise (a mix of Humbrol 89 and 80; looks quite weird, but I like such details!). The front wheel received a dark green mudguard (Humbrol 30), the same color was also partially used on the extended emergency current generator. Missiles and launch rails were painted in gloss white (Humbrol 22).
As per usual, the model received a light black ink wash and some post-shading in order to emphasize the panels and dramatize the surface. Some extra weathering was done around the gun ports and the jet nozzle with graphite.
For markings I used the contemporary A-7Ps as benchmark: they were minimal, there were even no squadron markings or other decorations, and I think they even lacked roundels on their wings!
I gave the Draken slightly more markings: The small FAP roundels come from a PrintScale A/T-37 sheet, the fin flashes are from a TL Modellbai sheet and the tactical codes belong to a Japanese T-4 trainer. Most stencils were taken from the Revell OOB sheet, which also includes decals for the reddish sealer around the cockpit windows.
I didn’t want to leave the Draken without any squadron marking, though, so I gave it a blue band on top of the fin, as a reminiscence of the FAP 51 squadron’s markings, the former final F-86 operator which became 201 squadron in the early Eighties. These were simply done with layered white and blue decal stripes.
Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri), except for the black radome, which received a sheen varnish coat.
A relatively simple whif project, since the model was mostly built OOB with just minor cosmetic changes. However, despite its exotic operator, the USAF South East Asia scheme suits the Draken well, the whole thing looks disturbingly convincing!?
It’s also a kind of tribute build for “Sport16ing”, apparently a great fan of my what-if builds who frequently re-posts pictures and background stories (with kind permission to do so!) at deviantart.com.
Some more film from my Deceased Friend , stored in a 'Fuji COOLBAG' since the 1990's !! Not IDEAL ! I was amazed how it scanned ! Best rating was 25 ASA and it needed a bit of Contrast and Saturaton' adjustment.
Under the bridge /1
For dyxum.com film challenge (one-third keepers) #2
Tamron AF 28-300 zoom
Minolta Dynax 7
Outdated (June 2008) Jessops Diamond 2 Everyday 500 (Made in USA)
I thought it would be cool to take a group photo; 1 or 2 character from every LEGO licensed theme.
It gives you a visual of how many brands LEGO has adapted.
I update my photo every now and then, when I have the time.
I added a few extra custom characters here, including Optimus Prime, and the Colossal Titan.
This version is outdated. Click here for the final version.
I recreated this from the picture that was taken during the MacWorld 2008 Keynote. I tried to find the desktop but couldn't so I made my own. The huge version should be on interfacelift.com soon, but i'll email it to you if you msg me.
1. Ictiol. Peixe da família dos salmonídeos a que pertencem peixes muito apreciados, das águas correntes, doces e salgadas, da Europa Central.
2. Bras. Negociata; expediente.
3. Gír. Mulher formosa e elegante.
4. Pessoa importante; pessoa que sabe muito; esperta, finória.
Mamiya C330F + Kodak T-MAX 400 (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.
In order to rejuvenate the air arm, Tbilisi Aircraft Manufacturing (TAM), also known as JSC Tbilaviamsheni and formerly known as 31st aviation factory, started a modernization program for the Su-25, for the domestic forces but also for export customers. TAM had a long tradition of aircraft production within the Soviet Union. In the 1950s the factory started the production of Mikoyan's MiG-15 and later, the MiG-17 fighter aircraft. In 1957 Tbilisi Aircraft State Association built the MiG-21 two-seater fighter-trainer aircraft and its various derivative aircraft, continuing the MiG-21 production for about 25 years. At the same time the company was manufacturing the K-10 air-to-surface guided missile. Furthermore, the first Sukhoi Su-25 (known in the West as the "Frogfoot") close support aircraft took its maiden voyage from the runway of 31st aviation factory. Since then, more than 800 SU-25s had been delivered to customers worldwide. From the first SU-25 to the 1990s, JSC Tbilaviamsheni was the only manufacturer of this aircraft, and even after the fall of the Soviet Union the production lines were still intact and spares for more than fifty complete aircraft available. Along with the SU-25 aircraft 31st aviation factory also launched large-scale production of air-to-air R-60 and R-73 IR guided missiles, a production effort that built over 6,000 missiles a year and that lasted until the early 1990s. From 1996 to 1998 the factory also produced Su-25U two-seaters.
In 2001 the factory started, in partnership with Elbit Systems of Israel, upgrading basic Su-25 airframes to the Su-25KM “Scorpion” variant. This was just a technical update, however, intended for former Su-25 export customers who would upgrade their less potent Su-25K export aircraft with modern avionics. The prototype aircraft made its maiden flight on 18 April 2001 at Tbilisi in full Georgian Air Force markings. The aircraft used a standard Su-25 airframe, enhanced with advanced avionics including a glass cockpit, digital map generator, helmet-mounted display, computerized weapons system, complete mission pre-plan capability, and fully redundant backup modes. Performance enhancements included a highly accurate navigation system, pinpoint weapon delivery systems, all-weather and day/night performance, NATO compatibility, state-of-the art safety and survivability features, and advanced onboard debriefing capabilities complying with international requirements. The Su-25KM had the ability to use NATO-standard Mark 82 and Mark 83 laser-guided bombs and new air-to-air missiles, the short-range Vympel R-73. This upgrade extended service life of the Su-25 airframes for another decade.
There were, however, not many customers. Manufacturing was eventually stopped at the end of 2010, after Georgian air forces have been permanently dismissed and abolished. By that time, approximately 12 Scorpions had been produced, but the Georgian Air Force still used the basic models of Su-25 because of high cost of Su-25KM and because it was destined mainly for export. According to unofficial sources several Scorpions had been transferred to Turkmenistan as part of a trade deal.
In the meantime, another, more ambitious project took shape at Tbilisi Aircraft Manufacturing, too: With the help of Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) the company started the development of a completely new attack aircraft, the TAM-1 “Gvelgeslas” (გველგესლას, Viper). It heavily relied on the year-long experience gathered with Su-25 production at Tblisi and on the tools at hand, but it was eventually a completely new aircraft – looking like a crossbreed between the Su-25 and the American A-10 with a T-tail.
This new layout had become necessary because the aircraft was to be powered by more modern, less noisy and more fuel-efficient Rolls Royce AE 3012 turbofan engines - which were originally intended to power the stillborn Yakovlev Yak-77 twin-engine business jet for up to 32 passengers, a slightly derated variant of the GMA 3012 with a 44 in diameter (112 cm) fan and procured via IAI from the United States through the company’s connection with Gulfstream Aerospace. Their larger diameter (the Su-25’s original Soyuz/Tumansky R-195 turbojets had a diameter of 109,5 cm/43.1 in) precluded the use of the former integral engine nacelles along the fuselage. To keep good ground clearance against FOD and to protect them from small arms fire, the engine layout was completely re-arranged. The fuselage was streamlined, and its internal structure was totally changed. The wings moved into a low position. The wings’ planform was almost identical to the Su-25’s, together with the characteristic tip-mounted “crocodile” air brakes. Just the leading edge inside of the “dogteeth” and the wing roots were re-designed, the latter because of the missing former engine nacelles. This resulted in a slightly increased net area, the original wingspan was retained. The bigger turbofans were then mounted in separate pods on short pylons along the rear fuselage, partly protected from below by the wings. Due to the jet efflux and the engines’ proximity to the stabilizers, these were re-located to the top of a deeper, reinforced fin for a T-tail arrangement.
Since the Su-25’s engine bays were now gone, the main landing gear had to be completely re-designed. Retracting them into the fuselage or into the relatively thin wings was not possible, TAM engineers settled upon a design that was very similar to the A-10: the aircraft received streamlined fairings, attached to the wings’ main spar, and positioned under the wings’ leading edges. The main legs were only semi-retractable; in flight, the wheels partly protruded from the fairings, but that hardly mattered from an aerodynamic point of view at the TAM-1’s subsonic operational speed. As a bonus they could still be used while retracted during emergency landings, improving the aircraft’s crash survivability.
Most flight and weapon avionics were procured from or via Elbit, including the Su-25KT’s modernized “glass cockpit”, and the TAM-1’s NATO compatibility was enhanced to appeal to a wider international export market. Beyond a total of eleven hardpoints under the wings and the fuselage for an external ordnance of up to 4.500 kg (9.900 lb), the TAM-1 was furthermore armed with an internal gun. Due to procurement issues, however, the Su-25’s original twin-barrel GSh-30-2 was replaced with an Oerlikon KDA 35mm cannon – a modern variant of the same cannon used in the German Gepard anti-aircraft tank, adapted to the use in an aircraft with a light-weight gun carriage. The KDA gun fired with a muzzle velocity of 1,440 m/s (4,700 ft/s) and a range of 5.500m, its rate of fire was typically 550 RPM. For the TAM-1, a unique feature from the SPAAG installation was adopted: the gun had two magazines, one with space for 200 rounds and another, smaller one for 50. The magazines could be filled with different types of ammunition, and the pilot was able select between them with a simple switch, adapting to the combat situation. Typical ammunition types were armor-piercing FAPDS rounds against hardened ground targets like tanks, and high explosive shells against soft ground targets and aircraft or helicopters, in a 3:1 ratio. Other ammunition types were available, too, and only 200 rounds were typically carried for balance reasons.
The TAM-1’s avionics included a SAGEM ULISS 81 INS, a Thomson-CSF VE-110 HUD, a TMV630 laser rangefinder in a modified nose and a TRT AHV 9 radio altimeter, with all avionics linked through a digital MIL-STD-1553B data bus and a modern “glass cockpit”. A HUD was standard, but an Elbit Systems DASH III HMD could be used by the pilot, too. The DASH GEN III was a wholly embedded design, closely integrated with the aircraft's weapon system, where the complete optical and position sensing coil package was built within the helmet (either the USAF standard HGU-55/P or the Israeli standard HGU-22/P), using a spherical visor to provide a collimated image to the pilot. A quick-disconnect wire powered the display and carried video drive signals to the helmet's Cathode Ray Tube (CRT).
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.
+++ 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.
In order to rejuvenate the air arm, Tbilisi Aircraft Manufacturing (TAM), also known as JSC Tbilaviamsheni and formerly known as 31st aviation factory, started a modernization program for the Su-25, for the domestic forces but also for export customers. TAM had a long tradition of aircraft production within the Soviet Union. In the 1950s the factory started the production of Mikoyan's MiG-15 and later, the MiG-17 fighter aircraft. In 1957 Tbilisi Aircraft State Association built the MiG-21 two-seater fighter-trainer aircraft and its various derivative aircraft, continuing the MiG-21 production for about 25 years. At the same time the company was manufacturing the K-10 air-to-surface guided missile. Furthermore, the first Sukhoi Su-25 (known in the West as the "Frogfoot") close support aircraft took its maiden voyage from the runway of 31st aviation factory. Since then, more than 800 SU-25s had been delivered to customers worldwide. From the first SU-25 to the 1990s, JSC Tbilaviamsheni was the only manufacturer of this aircraft, and even after the fall of the Soviet Union the production lines were still intact and spares for more than fifty complete aircraft available. Along with the SU-25 aircraft 31st aviation factory also launched large-scale production of air-to-air R-60 and R-73 IR guided missiles, a production effort that built over 6,000 missiles a year and that lasted until the early 1990s. From 1996 to 1998 the factory also produced Su-25U two-seaters.
In 2001 the factory started, in partnership with Elbit Systems of Israel, upgrading basic Su-25 airframes to the Su-25KM “Scorpion” variant. This was just a technical update, however, intended for former Su-25 export customers who would upgrade their less potent Su-25K export aircraft with modern avionics. The prototype aircraft made its maiden flight on 18 April 2001 at Tbilisi in full Georgian Air Force markings. The aircraft used a standard Su-25 airframe, enhanced with advanced avionics including a glass cockpit, digital map generator, helmet-mounted display, computerized weapons system, complete mission pre-plan capability, and fully redundant backup modes. Performance enhancements included a highly accurate navigation system, pinpoint weapon delivery systems, all-weather and day/night performance, NATO compatibility, state-of-the art safety and survivability features, and advanced onboard debriefing capabilities complying with international requirements. The Su-25KM had the ability to use NATO-standard Mark 82 and Mark 83 laser-guided bombs and new air-to-air missiles, the short-range Vympel R-73. This upgrade extended service life of the Su-25 airframes for another decade.
There were, however, not many customers. Manufacturing was eventually stopped at the end of 2010, after Georgian air forces have been permanently dismissed and abolished. By that time, approximately 12 Scorpions had been produced, but the Georgian Air Force still used the basic models of Su-25 because of high cost of Su-25KM and because it was destined mainly for export. According to unofficial sources several Scorpions had been transferred to Turkmenistan as part of a trade deal.
In the meantime, another, more ambitious project took shape at Tbilisi Aircraft Manufacturing, too: With the help of Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) the company started the development of a completely new attack aircraft, the TAM-1 “Gvelgeslas” (გველგესლას, Viper). It heavily relied on the year-long experience gathered with Su-25 production at Tblisi and on the tools at hand, but it was eventually a completely new aircraft – looking like a crossbreed between the Su-25 and the American A-10 with a T-tail.
This new layout had become necessary because the aircraft was to be powered by more modern, less noisy and more fuel-efficient Rolls Royce AE 3012 turbofan engines - which were originally intended to power the stillborn Yakovlev Yak-77 twin-engine business jet for up to 32 passengers, a slightly derated variant of the GMA 3012 with a 44 in diameter (112 cm) fan and procured via IAI from the United States through the company’s connection with Gulfstream Aerospace. Their larger diameter (the Su-25’s original Soyuz/Tumansky R-195 turbojets had a diameter of 109,5 cm/43.1 in) precluded the use of the former integral engine nacelles along the fuselage. To keep good ground clearance against FOD and to protect them from small arms fire, the engine layout was completely re-arranged. The fuselage was streamlined, and its internal structure was totally changed. The wings moved into a low position. The wings’ planform was almost identical to the Su-25’s, together with the characteristic tip-mounted “crocodile” air brakes. Just the leading edge inside of the “dogteeth” and the wing roots were re-designed, the latter because of the missing former engine nacelles. This resulted in a slightly increased net area, the original wingspan was retained. The bigger turbofans were then mounted in separate pods on short pylons along the rear fuselage, partly protected from below by the wings. Due to the jet efflux and the engines’ proximity to the stabilizers, these were re-located to the top of a deeper, reinforced fin for a T-tail arrangement.
Since the Su-25’s engine bays were now gone, the main landing gear had to be completely re-designed. Retracting them into the fuselage or into the relatively thin wings was not possible, TAM engineers settled upon a design that was very similar to the A-10: the aircraft received streamlined fairings, attached to the wings’ main spar, and positioned under the wings’ leading edges. The main legs were only semi-retractable; in flight, the wheels partly protruded from the fairings, but that hardly mattered from an aerodynamic point of view at the TAM-1’s subsonic operational speed. As a bonus they could still be used while retracted during emergency landings, improving the aircraft’s crash survivability.
Most flight and weapon avionics were procured from or via Elbit, including the Su-25KT’s modernized “glass cockpit”, and the TAM-1’s NATO compatibility was enhanced to appeal to a wider international export market. Beyond a total of eleven hardpoints under the wings and the fuselage for an external ordnance of up to 4.500 kg (9.900 lb), the TAM-1 was furthermore armed with an internal gun. Due to procurement issues, however, the Su-25’s original twin-barrel GSh-30-2 was replaced with an Oerlikon KDA 35mm cannon – a modern variant of the same cannon used in the German Gepard anti-aircraft tank, adapted to the use in an aircraft with a light-weight gun carriage. The KDA gun fired with a muzzle velocity of 1,440 m/s (4,700 ft/s) and a range of 5.500m, its rate of fire was typically 550 RPM. For the TAM-1, a unique feature from the SPAAG installation was adopted: the gun had two magazines, one with space for 200 rounds and another, smaller one for 50. The magazines could be filled with different types of ammunition, and the pilot was able select between them with a simple switch, adapting to the combat situation. Typical ammunition types were armor-piercing FAPDS rounds against hardened ground targets like tanks, and high explosive shells against soft ground targets and aircraft or helicopters, in a 3:1 ratio. Other ammunition types were available, too, and only 200 rounds were typically carried for balance reasons.
The TAM-1’s avionics included a SAGEM ULISS 81 INS, a Thomson-CSF VE-110 HUD, a TMV630 laser rangefinder in a modified nose and a TRT AHV 9 radio altimeter, with all avionics linked through a digital MIL-STD-1553B data bus and a modern “glass cockpit”. A HUD was standard, but an Elbit Systems DASH III HMD could be used by the pilot, too. The DASH GEN III was a wholly embedded design, closely integrated with the aircraft's weapon system, where the complete optical and position sensing coil package was built within the helmet (either the USAF standard HGU-55/P or the Israeli standard HGU-22/P), using a spherical visor to provide a collimated image to the pilot. A quick-disconnect wire powered the display and carried video drive signals to the helmet's Cathode Ray Tube (CRT).
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.
Caryville, Tennessee. Outdated Fuji Astia RAP100F; 80mm Hasselblad 500EL/M. Scan from color transparency.
n 1933 when Walter Luff took over as Manager of Blackpool Corporation Transport, he found that he had a fleet of outdated trams so set about modernising his fleet. Firstly he ordered some samples of new trams, one being a ‘luxury dreadnought’ numbered 226, an open-topped double decker seating for over 90 people, and featuring centre entrances with folding doors.
The tram was so well received that a further 12 were ordered (237-249) as well as 14 similar enclosed cars (250-263). These trams became fondly known as ‘Balloons’ because of their streamlined bloated appearance. The second world war saw a decline in the use of the open-topped Balloons and a need for more closed-topped cars, so during 1942 the open-topped cars were given closed upper decks to match their sisters. One of this batch, 240, is the subject of this description sheet.
After the war the Balloons became neglected, as Walter Luff saw them as being old-fashioned and too slow to load; he saw the way forward as a frequent service using new Coronation single deckers. However, when Joseph Franklin took over as Manager, he saw the potential of the Balloon cars, which therefore started to receive repaints and extra seating capacity, with bench seats being fitted to each end of the upper deck on most of the trams, bringing their seating capacity to an astounding 94.
With hindsight, it is lucky that the Balloons were not withdrawn and scrapped, in view of the problems with the Coronations, causing them to be prematurely scrapped. There were also some minor changes made to the Balloons around this time to modernise them, with most receiving single destination displays at both ends, new rubber mounted roof windows. In 1968 all trams were renumbered, Balloons 237-263 becoming 700-726. 240 became 703.
Car 703 was painted into wartime livery in 1995 to Celebrate 50 years since VE Day and also received a trolley for a short time as it retained (and still does) most of the original Balloon features, including curved roof windows. Winter 2003 saw 703 repainted in 1980′s livery and it took part in a cavalcade with four others in 2004 to mark the 70th anniversary of the English Electric trams being built. However in 2009 703 was withdrawn from service and transferred to the Lancastrian Transport Trust.
Inspired by its similarity to English Electric tram 99 purchased by Sunderland, 703 was repainted into Sunderland red and cream livery and transferred to Beamish Museum on 15 September 2010 on a five year loan as a working exhibit, masquerading as ‘Sunderland 101’. After an overhaul, remedial work and the reinstatement of trolley current collection, 101 was launched into service at Beamish on 18 October 2011.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Sd.Kfz. 124 Wespe (German for "wasp", also known as Leichte Feldhaubitze 18/2 auf Fahrgestell Panzerkampfwagen II (Sf.), "Light field howitzer 18 on Panzer II chassis (self-propelled)"), was a German self-propelled gun developed and used during the Second World War. During the Battle of France in 1940 it became apparent that the intermediate tank of the German forces, the Panzer II, had become unsuitable as a main battle tank and outdated. Though mechanically sound, it was both under-gunned and under-armored, and its small size prevented heavier armament and armor so that its development potential was limited. The chassis, however, proved serviceable for providing mobility to the 10.5 cm field howitzer, and important artillery weapon.
The design for the Wespe was produced by Alkett, based on the Panzer II Ausf. F chassis. Among other modifications the Panzer II's engine was moved forward, and the chassis slightly lengthened to accommodate the rear-mounted 10.5 cm leFH 18 howitzer. The boxy superstructure was left open at the top and rear and only lightly armored, with 10 mm armor plate, which was just enough to stop small arms fire. The vehicles were produced by FAMO's Ursus plant in Warsaw from February 1943 until June 1944, when Soviet forces approached the frontier. By that time, 676 had been produced. An additional 159 gun-less Wespe Munitionsträger were produced, too, to serve as mobile artillery ammunition carriers.
The Panzer II chassis also found use for the design of tank hunters: Existing chassis were converted to self-propelled artillery vehicles, such as the Marder II ("marten" in English). The latter was built on the basis of the original Panzer II chassis (with the engine at the rear) in two versions, the first mounted a modified Soviet 7.62 cm gun firing German ammunition, which had been acquired in significant numbers during the German advances the Ostfront, while the other mounted the German 7.5 cm PaK 40 gun. Its high profile and thin open-topped armor provided minimal protection to the crew, though. Nevertheless, the Marder II (as well as the similar Marder III, which was based on the Czech T-38 chassis) provided a great increase in mobility and firepower over contemporary German tanks during 1942 and into 1943.
By early 1944 the war situation had worsened for Germany and ever heavier tanks, esp. at the Eastern Front, appeared. The PaK 40 was effective against almost every Allied tank until the end of the war, only struggling to penetrate heavier vehicles like the Russian IS tanks, the American M4A3E2 Sherman 'Jumbo' assault tank and M26 Pershing, and later variants of the British Churchill tank. More firepower was needed, but the powerful new 88 mm PaK 43 was in short supply or earmarked for use in heavy battle tanks, which had received priority from the Oberkommando. An alternative anti-tank was the 7.5 cm KwK 42 L/70, the main armament of the Panther medium battle tank and of the Jagdpanzer IV self-propelled anti-tank gun. On the latter it was designated as the "7.5 cm Panzerabwehrkanone 42" (7.5 cm Pak 42).
The modified 7.5 cm gun had a longer barrel that increased muzzle velocity and operating pressure, resulting in much improved range and penetration. However, the new gun required a new armor-piercing projectile, the PzGr. 39/42. Apart from the addition of wider driving bands it was otherwise identical to the older 7.5 cm PzGr. 39. The wider driving bands added a little extra weight, from 6.8 kg for the old PzGr.39, to 7.2 kg for the new PzGr.39/42. The gun was fired electrically, the primer being initiated using an electric current rather than a firing pin. The breech operated semi-automatically so that after the gun had fired, the empty shell casing was automatically ejected, and the falling wedge type breech block remained down so that the next round could be loaded. Once the round was loaded the breech closed automatically and the weapon was ready to be fired again. Three different types of ammunition were used: APCBC-HE, APCR and HE.
This 7.5 cm Pak 42’s performance was almost equal to the bigger 88 mm PaK 43, and achieved a penetration of 106 mm hardened steel plate angled at 30° from vertical at 2.000 m (vs. 132 mm with the 88 mm PaK 43).
To increase the output of vehicles armed with the new 7.5 cm Pak 42, the Oberkommando ordered the conversion of existing vehicles, so that these reinforcements could be sent to the frontlines as quickly as possible, esp. at the East where the German troops were more and more caught in defensive battles. The chassis that appeared most suitable for this task was the Sd.Kfz. 124 Wespe, due to its internal layout. The 7.5 cm Pak 42’s long barrel (it was almost 5m/more than 16’ long) required a fighting compartment at the vehicle’s rear, with the engine in front of it – and the Wespe turned out to be suitable to accept the long weapon with relatively few modifications.
For the use on the open-top Wespe, the 7.5 cm Pak 42 was combined with the mount and shield of the old towed 7.5 cm PaK 40 gun, and this new construction simply replaced the Wespe’s original 10.5 cm leFH 18 howitzer. The superstructure’s armor was only minimally modified: the front opening was narrowed, because the longer 7.5 cm Pak 42 had a more limited field of fire than the 10.5 cm leFH 18. As a positive side effect, the superstructure’s walls could be slightly reduced in height (about 10 cm/4”) due to the 7.5 cm Pak 42’s lower gun carriage and front shield.
The vehicle’s internal layout and most of the equipment remained the same, just the crew was reduced from five to four, one loader was omitted. To cope with the slightly higher overall weight and the heavier front due to the long barrel, and the necessity to traverse the vehicle to aim, the gear ratio was lowered from 1:7.33 to 1:8 to reduce the stress on final gears and the wheels were replaced with reinforced alternatives that also used less rubber. Due to the smaller rounds, the internal ammunition supply rose from the Wespe’s forty 10.5 cm rounds to fifty-one 7.5 cm rounds, even though space for the crew became scarce when the Jagdwespe was fully loaded. No other armament was carried, even though a defensive 7.92 mm MG 34 machine gun was frequently installed at the commander’s position to the right of the gun, sometimes with a protective armor shield.
Like its basis, the “Jagdwespe”, how this makeshift vehicle was unofficially called, was only lightly protected, but this was intentionally done in order to reduce the overall weight and speed up the production as much as possible. The armor thickness was also limited in order to not adversely affect the vehicle’s overall driving performance, as this was the main point of this vehicle. The use of the Panzer II light tank chassis was another reason why the armor thickness had to be kept minimal, as the added weight could significantly affect its performance.
The front armor of the hull was 30 mm thick and placed at a 75° vertical angle. The sides were 14.5 mm thick, the rear 14.5 mm at 10° horizontal and the bottom was only 5 mm thick. The front superstructure armor was 15 (or 20 mm) thick and placed at a 30° vertical angle. The sides and rear of the superstructure were 15 mm and the top 10 mm thick. The fighting compartment was protected by only 10 mm thick all-around armor. The front armor was placed at 66°, side 73°, and rear 74° vertical angle.
Strangely, the “Jagdwespe” was allocated an individual ordnance inventory designation, namely Sd. Kfz. 125. This was probably done to keep the practice of the Marder family of light Panzerjäger’s taxonomy, which had received individual Sd. Kfz. Numbers, too, despite being based on existing vehicles. Initially, mostly unarmed Wespe artillery ammunition carriers were converted into Jagdwespe SPGs, but later on Wespe SPGs – primarily damaged vehicles that were refurbished – were also modified, and a few of the final newly build Wespe hulls were finished as Sd.Kfz. 125, too. However, since battle tanks still had priority, Jagdwespe production and output was only marginal, and less than 100 vehicles were completed until early 1945.
Like the various Marder versions before that fought on all European fronts of the war, there was a large concentration of the Jagdwespe on the Eastern Front. They were used by the Panzerjäger Abteilungen of the Panzer divisions of the Heer and served as well with several Luftwaffe units to defend airfields. Like the Marders before, the Jagdwespe's weaknesses were mainly related to survivability. The combination of a relatively high silhouette and open-top fighting compartment made them vulnerable to indirect artillery fire, aircraft strafing, and grenades. The armor was also quite thin, making them vulnerable to enemy tanks or infantry with more than light machine guns or pistols.
Operationally, the Jagdwespe was best employed in defensive or overwatch roles. They were neither assault vehicles nor tank substitutes, and the open-top compartment meant operations in crowded areas such as urban environments or other close-combat situations weren't a valid tactical option. But despite their weaknesses, they were more effective than the towed antitank guns they replaced, and the 7.5 cm Pak 42 with the extended barrel meant a significant improvement in firepower. The vehicle was small, easy to conceal for an ambush and relatively agile, so that it could quickly change position after a shot, and the Panzer II chassis was mechanically reliable, what made it popular with its crews.
Specifications:
Crew: Four (commander, gunner, loader/radio operator, driver)
Weight: 12.5 tonnes (27,533 lb)
Length: 4.81 m (15 ft 9 in)
6.44 m (21 ft 1 1/2 in) overall
Width: 2.28 m (7 ft 6 in)
Height: 2.21 m (7 ft 3 in)
Suspension: Leaf spring
Fuel capacity: 170 L (45 US gal)
Armor:
5 - 30 mm (.19 - 1.18 in)
Performance:
Maximum road speed: 40 km/h (25 mph)
Operational range: 220 km (137 mi) on roads
100 km (62 mi) cross-country
Power/weight: 12.7 PS/tonne
Engine & transmission:
6-cyl petrol Maybach HL62 TR with 140 PS (138 hp, 103 kW)
Armament:
1× 7.5 cm Panzerabwehrkanone 42/L 70 (7.5 cm Pak 42) with 51 rounds
1× 7.92 mm MG 34 machine gun with 2.000 rounds
The kit and its assembly:
This relatively simple German WWII what-if SPG was spawned from the thought that the light Wespe artillery SPG might also have been used for an anti-tank SPG, with relatively few modifications. The long-barreled 7.5 cm KwK 42/L70 appeared to be a suitable weapon for this kind of vehicle around 1944, so I tried to build a respective model.
The basis became the Italeri 1:72 “Wespe” kit, which is in fact a re-boxed ESCI kit. It goes together well, and you can build upper and lower hull separately for a final “marriage”. To change the Wespe’s look a little I exchanged the solid OOB wheels with those from a Panzer III, left over from a Revell/Mako kit. They are perfect in size, but due a lack of depth of their attachment openings (I only used the outer half of the Panzer III wheels) I glued them onto the hull before painting, normally I finish them separately and mount them in a final assembly step.
For the gun I had to improvise a little, because the open casemate would allow a good look at it. I settled for a straightforward solution in the form of a Zvezda 1:72 PaK 40. The gun was taken OOB, I just removed the wheel attachment points from its chassis and replaced the short gun barrel with a muzzle brake with a aluminum 1:72 L70 barrel for a Panther Ausf. F (with a Schmalturm) from Aber. Both elements were relatively easy to combine, and the gun shield could be taken over, too. Once the gun mount’s position in the Wespe hull was defined I narrowed the front opening a little with styrene wedges, added a deflector at its base, and reduced the height of the side walls for a coherent look. All in all the transplant looks very plausible!
Since the kit provides the option I decided to leave the driver’s hatch open and install the OOB driver figure on a raised seat. For the long barrel I scratched a support that was mounted to the front hull. Looks a bit awkward, though, because it obscures the driver’s field of view – but I could not find a better solution.
The only real trouble I had with the Italeri Wespe were the tracks: they were made from a really strange (and effectively horrible) vinyl material. This material repelled EVERYTHING with a kind of lotus effect – paints of any kind, even superglue! My usual method of mounting such tracks on the main wheels did not work at all, because the track would not hold at all. During these trials I also recognized that the tracks were too long – rather unusual, because 1:72 vinyl tracks tend to be too short so that some tension is needed to lengthen them properly. Two molded “links” had to be cut away, and on the kit’s box art you can see the overlength problem when you are aware of it! I guess that the ESCI designers once assumed that the tracks would be closed into a loop (= closing the track and using heat to literally weld it together) first and then forced onto/over the wheels. I was eventually able to outsmart the tracks through the massive use of superglue under the mudguards – while the tracks still do not really stick to the glue, the large surface of the dried instant adhesive keeps the tracks in place and under light tension. Not perfect, but the tracks remain in place…
Painting and markings:
Conservative, once more a variation of the Hinterhalt scheme. Once completed, the still separate hull, gun and shield received an overall base coat with RAL 7028 Dunkelgelb (TS-3 from a rattle can). On top of that I added vertical fields with Olivgrün (RAL 6003, Humbrol 86), and finally I applied branch-like thin stripes with a dark brown (Humbrol 98, which is darker and less reddish than the authentic RAL 8012, for a stronger contrast). The idea was to mimic dense brushes during spring and summertime, and to break up the vehicle’s outlines esp. through the brown lines. Following official camouflage practice the running gear area remained uniform Dunkelgelb, as a counter-shading measure against the upper hull, and to avoid “rotating” and therefore attention-catching color patches on the wheels when the vehicle moved.
Once the camouflage was completed the main wheels received rubber rims (with Revell 09 Anthracite) and the model received a dark red-brown washing. After that, the few decals were applied and overall dry-brushing with a mix of light grey and earth brown acrylic paint was done to emphasize edges and surface details, also on the gun and in the interior. Before their tedious fitting, the vinyl tracks (which came OOB in a metallic grey finish that looked really nice) had received a washing with black and brown acrylic paint as well as dry-brushing with medium grey, too.
A relatively simple and quick project, realized in a couple of days. The concept was quite clear, and thanks to good ingredients the result looks surprisingly plausible, with relatively few and little modifications. The different Panzer III wheels were not a necessary mod, but I like their look, and painting them while being already attached to the hull posed less problems than expected. The only real trouble came through the kit’s vinyl tracks, which I’d call rubbish and recommend a replacement. If they’d be made from a less repellant material, they’d be much easier to mount (and usable). However, the small Jagdwespe really looks like a juvenile Nashorn SPG!
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 the Skye to Glenelg ferry, formerly the Balachulish ferry. It is the only manually operated turntable ferry left and well worth a trip.
1998 outdated KB200 rated 100ASA cut from bulk, processed in my home-made FX-4 Formula 1+1 and time cut to 8.5 mins Canon EF Zoom 28-70mm f3.5-4.5 Mk II + Flash
Collection Name: RG104 Department of Economic Development Commerce and Industrial Development (CID) Photograph Collection
Photographer/Studio: unknown
Description: Multiple Honeywell machines are in use at Emerson Electric. A Chart of Electromagnetic Range is on the wall to the right.
Coverage: United States - Missouri - St. Louis City
Date: n.d.
Rights: public domain
Credit: Courtesy of Missouri State Archives
Image Number: RG104_CIDPrints_047_075.tif
Institution: Missouri State Archives
Using up some outdated FUJI Neopan 400 in my 2002 HASSELBLAD 501CM with A16 back. I processed in my 'Home-Made FX-4 Formula 1+1 ' and got great negs and did DARKROOM PRINTS which I scanned on old Kodak 'Royal Bromesko WSL' cut down from 16x12" paper.
80mm f2.8 CFE Planar T* 'The Lodge 1906' with NO filter
This proposed coupe would replace the outdated Hawk. It was designed by Brooks Stevens and built in Italy by Sibona-Bassano. Stevens called this replacement 'Sceptre'.
Note the odd hubcaps.
For several reasons Studebaker had to close down its South Bend, Indiana production plant in December 1963.
Some production was replaced to their production facilities in Hamilton, Ontario (Canada). In March 1966 also this factory had to close its doors.
Imagine what kind of cars Studebaker could had offer us if it hadn't gone bankrupt. Master designers Raymond Loewy and especially Brooks Stevens had various plans and ideas for future Studebaker cars.
With a minimum of financial space Brooks Stevens was able to renew the Lark series on a spectacular way. He worked together with the Italian coach-builder Sibona-Bassano to realize his plans.
4736 cc V8 engine.
Production Studebaker Hawk Series: Autumn 1955-1964.
Production Hawk Gran Turismo: Autumn 1961-1964.
Source: www.indieauto.org/2021/12/10/1965-studebaker-lark-concept....
Screenshot, Halfweg, July 19, 2024.
© 2024 Sander Toonen Halfweg | All Rights Reserved
Collection Name: RG005 Secretary of State Publications Historic "Blue Book" Photograph Collection. Click here to view this entire collection on Missouri Digital Heritage.
Photographer/Studio: Unknown
Description: Two men work with control data machines in the hybrid computing complex area within McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Corporation.
Coverage: United States - Missouri - St. Louis City
Date: April 1968
Rights: permission granted
Credit: Courtesy of Missouri State Archives
Image Number: RG005_77_35_0747.tif
Institution: Missouri State Archives
Minolta Dynax 9 and Tamron 28-300 AF zoom / outdated (2010) Agfaphoto APX 400 film / lab develop and scan
I forgot about these and I never posted them here.
This is very outdated, her lower torso piece is now longer, her breasts have been resculpted and moved up. Her leg pieces have been put together and she now has her very first proper joints. She does, however, still... only have one arm XD;;
As you can see, I have added elf ears, and these pics actually show them half sanded (one sanded, one not. I sculpt vaguely, sand, and then carve from there. The ears are smaller now, and slightly more delicate.
I have also begun to reshape her eyes. I don't know why the fuck i keep doing this. i want them a bit bigger than this, but I can never seem to be 100% happy with them. I think after this I might just have to settle with whatever I come up with and call it a day. In the end I'm happy to be unhappy with her. I'm still hyperventilating with excitement, and so that doesn't make me sad or anything, it's a minor dissapointment lol.
Both elf ears and human ears are available as seperate heads (ie, not removable ears). I chose to start with the elf eared head because it's a harder mold to cast, and I thought I'd get that out of the way and learn at a slightly different angle. She's not very detailed, she's still waiting on some of that. She's also having her breast bone show through her upper chest, as I wanted to emphasize that she is muscular and lean, and I like it. She's not 'human' and so I'm not worried about accuracy to the human body and proportions - I think it's pretty clear that my interests for her are not exactly based off reality 8P
So, various pictures, one showing her next to a Pukifee. She is a mini mini, or a giant tiny.
One of her bum. And one of her in my hand, which is always a good example of size.
ANYHEW. gonna go and sleep. mighty tired and feeling sick after a day of packing. I promise to answer emails tomorrow, I've had a busy day and I just want to flop :< Whhhy did I think pilates was a good idea when I was already sore and needed to be busy whhhy.
ENJOY. I'll update in a few days hopefully, I am hoping to get a lot of shit done this week, and not just sculpty things. FACEUP LADY to thE RESCUE.
Night guys.
This grimey and outdated orange Greater Manchester Transport emblem (which was actually branded as "The M-blem") stands proudly aloft Rochdale Bus Station. Both emblem and station are set to disappear forever due to scheduled demolition in 2013/14, part of major modernisation works to the council offices and public transport facilities in Rochdale Town Centre.
WEEK 26 – Overstock Southaven (II)
To the right of the outdated flat panel TVs and digital home theater departments is the only non-departmental sign in the entire store (minus those that are hidden away from view in the mattress center alcove, which we saw at the start of yesterday’s photoset): an italicized phrase reading, “Big screens. Big selection. Big value.” As it applies to hhgregg, I’m sure the first one is true, but as l_dawg witnessed during the liquidation sale, the second point seems easy to argue with. And as for the last one, well, maybe, but even so it didn’t save them…
(c) 2019 Retail Retell
These places are public so these photos are too, but just as I tell where they came from, I'd appreciate if you'd say who :)
Yesterday (June 30, 2021), was truly the end of an era in northern New Jersey. For the entirety of my life, The Fireplace was a constant fixture. It was a restaurant in Paramus, NJ. It was the local burger joint, but they didn't just do burgers. Not fast food, but not diner food. The decor was very outdated and kitschy, but that was part of the allure. It never changed. Very little about this place had changed since the 1950s. The restaurant had been in existence for 65 years. And, I guess, like most things, everyone just assumed it would always be there....just like it always had.
Until, it wasn't. A few months ago, there were rumors on FB that they were going to go out of business. Another business victim of COVID. But the owners put everyone's fears to rest. And then, late at night on July 29th, they put up a new message saying that their last day would be "tomorrow". Open until 4pm. I was fortunate enough to be off for the summer, so I decided I wanted one last Fireplace meal. And I wanted pictures. I was not alone. I got there and found a HUGE line. The whole community had come out. It was a three hour long line. (And the announcement changed from "closing at 4pm" to "closing at 4pm or when food runs out".) And I endured it.
In the heat. I had had no sleep (because that's just how things go for me), I had eaten nothing all day, and by the time I was almost at the counter, I had low blood sugar, was dehydrated and on the brink of heat exhaustion and fainting. I had sun burn and was pretty miserable. But I held in there. And I'm so glad I did.
It was worth it.
I'm sure many people were and are wondering what the big deal was about. If you were a patron of The Fireplace or grew up with it as a fixture, you understand. But if you didn't, it probably seemed like a lot of ridiculous fanfare for nothing. It's very hard to put into words why it was important. But much the way music can be the backdrop to a person's life, the places we find ourselves, consistently, through all the chapters of our lives provide crucial elements of the stage of our lives. The "home" we all return to. We can look back on those places with memories from every aspect of our lives. Our childhoods, the college years, dates and break-ups, and places to collect our thoughts when life gets really hard. The Fireplace was that place. You really don't realize the importance of some of these places (and people) until they are gone. So THAT is what all the big to-do was about. Because EVERYONE (in my area) had this shared experience with this one place. I realized today that I could sit in that restaurant, look out the window, and look directly at pieces of my life that go way back to when I was just a little girl. It's funny, I never lived in Paramus. I never went to school in Paramus. I never had friends from Paramus. But because both my parents grew up in Paramus and have deep roots there, Paramus has been just as intrinsic and formative a part of my life as New Milford ever was. In fact, oddly, in many ways, it has provided more history for me than New Milford has. So, when I learned that The Fireplace was closing its' doors and I only had this one last chance to capture those memories on "film" and have one last meal there, I decided I really needed to do that. Furthermore, I knew that many people were not as fortunate as I was to have the day off. Or to be nearby enough to go. And I felt like I could give a lot of other people that experience through my pictures and by relating the experience. And I was right. There were many of you who really seemed appreciative that I was there and you could share the experience from my reports and pictures.
So, here's what's funny. I didn't sleep the night before. Maybe an hour, if I was lucky. And I needed to be up early. So, I was exhausted to begin with. I laid down to rest when I was able to, but I couldn't really SLEEP. All I could think about was, "If I fall asleep, I won't wake up in time to go to The Fireplace. I will have missed the whole thing. And I really want those pictures. I'd really like one last meal there." So, I decided to forgo the shut-eye and just go. I had NO IDEA it would be the community event that it was. And I would have fared better if I'd gone earlier. But it must have been meant to be because I pretty much got in at the end of the line of people who were actually served, and was pleasantly surprised to see that I wasn't left with the dregs. It wasn't the meal I had planned, but in some ways, it was better. I do wish I'd been better prepared (sunscreen, water, something to nibble on, and a sun umbrella), and it was by no means easy to put in a full day with no sleep, no food, sunburn and bordering on heat exhaustion, but I'm really glad I did it. It was truly a moment to commune. And in the age of Covid, not to mention our current political climate, that was a 'breath of fresh air" (that's a poor covid joke). And I really wasn't sure it was ok to be amongst all those people. I tend to not congregate with large numbers of people (although it's not a hard-and-fast rule, and I will be making another exception this coming week), this was not something I wanted to let Covid steal from me. And it was so nice for people to come together and just be kind to one another. To share a moment. It happens so infrequently anymore. At the end of it all, it was really a very surreal moment. Anyone who was left in the building was roaming around taking pictures and videos with their phones. Almost zombie-like. People didn't want to leave. Alas, change is a constant, and they say change is good. So, as sad as I am (and others are), I'm warmly happy to have the memories and warm fuzzies.
I will be adding more pictures to this album over time. They will all be public and I invite any and all people to share them. If you want the images, you can go to my FB page, where they are public, as well. From there, you can take them. Enjoy the memories.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The history of the Swiss Air Force began in 1914 with the establishment of an ad hoc force consisting of a handful of men in outdated and largely civilian aircraft. It was only in the 1930s the military and civilian leadership decided to establish an effective air force. On 13 December 1929, in what was in retrospect referred to as the "bill to create an air force", the Federal Council asked the Swiss Federal Assembly to approve the spending of 20 million francs for the purchase of 65 French Dewoitine D.27 fighters and the manufacture of 40 Dutch (Fokker C.V-E) reconnaissance planes under license.
Although the opposition Social Democratic Party collected 42,000 signatures in a petition opposing the bill, Parliament passed it handily and declined to allow a referendum on the issue, optional at that time for spending bills. This was the start of a massive armament program that would consume more than a billion francs over the next ten years, but after Hitler's rise to power in Germany, the Social Democrats added their support to the efforts.
The program not only included the procurement of foreign aircraft the domestic industry also started to develop its own products. One of the leading manufacturers of its time in Switzerland was the Eidgenössische Konstruktionswerkstätte (English: "Federal Constructions Works"), short K+W or EKW, and later also known as F+W. It was a Swiss state-owned enterprise, established in 1867 in Thun. The company produced artillery, vehicles, and other typical military equipment, and in 1914 EKW had already started the production of the Häfeli DH-1 reconnaissance biplane. Long-standing connections to the ETH Zurich ensured the necessary know-how. EKW started the program with three military aircraft, the indigenous C-34 single-seat fighter and the fast C-36 long-range light bomber/reconnaissance monoplane, plus the C-35 two-seat reconnaissance and ground-attack biplane, which was actually a license-built Fokker C.X with a water-cooled Hispano-Suiza HS-77 V12 engine, a license-built version of the 12Ycs that also powered the C-36.
The C-34 was the direct response to a requirement issued by the Swiss Air Force for a new fighter, and was the winner of a competition against the German Arado 80, which had been offered for export and eventual license production. The German monoplane was a modern construction, but the type was uninspiring in terms of performance and suffered from a number of failures (so that the German Luftwaffe rejected it, too). Although Arado’s low-wing monoplane Arado heralded the design standard for future fighter aircraft, the Swiss Air Force preferred EKW’s conservative but more maneuverable C-34 biplane, which also offered better starting and landing characteristics and a superior rate of climb – important features in Switzerland’s mountainous theatre of operations.
The C-34’s structure was conventional and of all-metal construction. To overcome the biplane layout’s inherent speed disadvantage, EKW’s design team used flush-head rivets and as little as possible stabilizing rigging to reduce drag. The fuselage was fully planked with aluminum, as well as the fixed parts of the tail surfaces, wings and rudders were still fabric-covered. It had unequal-span biplane wings, braced by struts, with upper-wing ailerons but no flaps yet.
The prototype, which flew for the first time in March 1935, was powered by an imported German liquid-cooled BMW VI 6.0 V-12 engine with 660 hp, which drove a metal three-blade propeller with fixed pitch. The C-34’s production version, which was already introduced in September of the same year, was outfitted with a more powerful, now license-produced BMW VI 7.3 with 633 kW (850 hp), which required a bigger radiator and higher-octane fuel to achieve this performance, though. Armament consisted of two 7.5 mm (.295 in) Darne machine guns, imported from France and synchronized to fire through the propeller. Provisions were made to carry up to four 20 lb (9.1 kg) bombs under-wing, but these were hardly ever used in service.
An initial production run comprised 30 aircraft to equip a complete fighter unit. The first C-34s were delivered in a typical three-ton splinter camouflage in ochre, khaki green and red brown, over grey undersides. The machines were allocated to the so-called “Überwachungschwader” (Surveillance Squadron) at Dübendorf near Zürich, and the new biplane proved to be an instant success. The C-34 was commonly well liked by its crews, being very maneuverable and benefitting from a relatively strong fuselage structure, a favorable control arrangement, a tight turning circle. An excellent handling made the type furthermore ideal for executing aerobatic displays. After a brief and successful period of testing, orders for 80 additional C-34s were placed in 1936.
During the rising tensions in Europe Switzerland remained neutral and isolated, and the Swiss Air Force machines received prominent identification stripes in red and white on fuselage and wings. The air corps furthermore confined its activities to training and exercises, reconnaissance, and patrol.
The Swiss Air Force as an autonomous military service was created in October 1936, and the units were re-arranged to reflect this new structure. In 1938 Gottlieb Duttweiler's launched a popular initiative calling for the purchase of a thousand aircraft and the training of three thousand pilots. After 92,000 citizens signed in support, nearly twice the number necessary for a national popular vote, the federal government offered a referendum proposal in 1939 that was nearly as extensive, which was accepted by a 69 percent majority. This led to a massive procurement of additional and more up-to-date aircraft, namely the Messerschmitt Bf 109 and Morane-Saulnier 406 fighters from Germany and France, respectively, and the Moranes were license-built as D-3800 in Switzerland. By that time, the Swiss Air Force changed its aircraft designation system, and the C-34 was officially renamed C-3400.
Despite these new and more modern aircraft the C-3400s remained in service, and to supplement the fleet a further eight aircraft were built between 1941 and 1942 from spares. These machines received a simplified camouflage with dark green upper surfaces over a light blue-grey underside, similar to the imported Bf 109s from Germany, and some older C-3400s were re-painted accordingly, even though many machines retained their pre-war splinter scheme for the rest of their service life. During the same period, almost all aircraft received prominent neutrality markings in the form of bright red and white stripes on wings and fuselage.
From 1941 on, most C-3400s were gradually upgraded during overhauls. Several new features were introduced, which included a fully closed canopy that greatly improved pilot comfort esp. in wintertime, a variable pitch/constant speed propeller, a better radio set, a new gun sight and spatted main wheels. The Darne machine guns were replaced with belt-fed MAC 1934 machine guns of the same caliber from domestic production, because they were more reliable and had, with the license production of the Morane Saulnier M.S. 406, become a standard weapon in the Swiss arsenal. These modified aircraft were re-designated C-3401, even though the aircraft under this designation did not uniformly feature all improvements.
When enough monoplane fighters had widely become available for the Swiss Air Force in 1943, the C-3400/-3401 biplanes were quickly removed from front-line service. They served on in second-line surveillance and aerial patrol units, or they were transferred to training units, where most of the type (a total of 119 were built) survived the hostilities. The last C-3400/-3401 was finally withdrawn from service in 1954, and only a single specimen survived in the collection of the Aviation Museum (Flieger Flab Museum) in Dübendorf, Switzerland.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 7.2 m (23 ft 7 in)
Wingspan: 10.02 m (32 ft 10 in)
Height: 3 m (9 ft 10 in)
Wing area: 23 m2 (250 sq ft)
Airfoil: NACA M-12
Empty weight: 1,360 kg (2,998 lb)
Gross weight: 1,740 kg (3,836 lb)
Powerplant:
1× BMW VI 7.3 V-12 liquid-cooled piston engine, 634 kW (850 hp),
driving a three-bladed variable pitch metal propeller
Performance:
Maximum speed: 400 km/h (250 mph, 220 kn) at 3,000 m (9,843 ft)
Service ceiling: 11,500 m (37,700 ft)
Rate of climb: 16.67 m/s (3,281 ft/min)
Time to altitude: 5,000 m (16,404 ft) in 5 minutes 30 seconds
Wing loading: 75.7 kg/m2 (15.5 lb/sq ft)
Power/mass: 0.36 kW/kg (0.22 hp/lb)
Armament:
2× fixed, forward-firing 7.5 mm (.295 in) MAC 1934 machine guns with 600 RPG
4× underwing hardpoints for 20 lb (9.1 kg) bombs (rarely used)
The kit and its assembly:
This whiffy biplane was/is just a kit travesty – the fictional EKW C-34 is a Kawasaki Ki-10 (the ICM kit) with mild mods and Swiss pre-WWII markings. I had an eye on the quite elegant Japanese fighter for a while, and due to its engine with German roots (its Kawasaki Ha9-IIa was a license-built water-cooled BMW VI V12 engine) I thought about a European operator – and eventually I decided to make it a Swiss aircraft.
The ICM kit was built almost OOB, the only changes I made were the spatted wheels (IIRC left over from an ICM Polikarpov I-15 biplane), which needed some tweaks on the OOB struts, and the different, closed canopy (from a Hobby Boss A6M Zero), because I wanted a relatively modern look, comparable with the contemporary Avia B-534 biplane. Mounting it was tricky, because of the “step” under the windscreen, so that I had to add a console under it, and some PSR was necessary to blend the canopy, which was cut into three parts for open display, into the rounded back of the Ki-10. A scratched antenna mast was added, too, to fill the respective opening in the rear part of the dorsal glazing. Thanks to the many braces of the A6M canopy, the implant looks quite organic.
The ICM Ki-10 went together quite well, it’s a rather simple kit with only a single sprue and few parts. The biggest challenge was the upper wing, though, which is only carried by the struts. The locator pins are only marginal, and finding a proper position took some time and superglue.
I furthermore modified the propeller with a long metal axis and a tube adapter inside if the fuselage, so that it could spin freely.
Painting and markings:
The reason why the Ki-10 became a Swiss aircraft was the paint scheme – a quite attractive tricolor splinter pattern (apparently inspired by the similar German camouflage in RLM 61,62 and 63?) was the Swiss Air Force’s standard at the breakout of WWII, and I adopted it for the C-3401, too.
The pattern is vaguely based on a real C-35 biplane (presented at the Dübendorf Aviation Museum), which I deem to look authentic, and I tried to emulate its colors as good as possible. I settled on Desert Yellow (Humbrol 94, the tone is officially called “Ochre” but appears to be quite yellowish), French Khaki Green (ModelMaster 2106) and Chestnut Brown (ModelMaster 2107, another French WWII aircraft tone), with light grey (Humbrol 64) undersides. Painting the splinter scheme with a brush on a biplane like this was tricky, though. The cockpit interior was painted with a grey-green tone similar to RLM 02 (Humbrol 45), the wing struts became black.
As usual, the model received a light black ink washing, plus some post-panel shading and dry-brushing to emphasize details and to weather it, but only lightly, because the aircraft would not have been involved in fights.
The roundels on the upper wings came from a generic TL-Modellbau national markings sheet, while the red bands for the national insignia under the lower wings and on the rudder were painted. The white cross on the fin comes from a Swiss BAe Hawk trainer (Italeri), while the slightly bigger white cross under the lower wings was scratched from white decal stripes. The tactical code comes from a Croatian MiG-21UM trainer (KP kit), the unit badge is fictional and came from a Spanish Heinkel He 70.
The model was sealed overall with matt acrylic varnish, and as a final step the rigging was applied, made from heated black sprue material, using the real Ki-10 as benchmark for the connections/positions.
A pretty result, and the simple travesty of the elegant Ki-10 into a late interwar biplane from Continental Europe works surprisingly well. The spats and the closed canopy might not have been necessary, but they modernize and change the aircraft, so that its use during WWII – even though not in any offensive role – becomes even more believable. The splinter scheme suits the aircraft well, too, even though its application was a bit tricky, as well as the Swiss roundels.