Due to that New Jersey was the slowest on phasing out the bad old outdated red trapezoid Children slow crossing warning blades that word IF-SAFE STOP THEN-GO because of some mean teachers at school forcing some ice cream trucks to keep their red trapezoid and made a bad and mean-spirited law of ice cream trucks requiring those bad old outdated red trapezoid children slow crossing warning blades that word IF-SAFE STOP THEN-GO which is extremely confusing to people who are death, color blind, can't read or don't speak English in some of New Jersey, I hereby MOST Amazon warehouses in New Jersey to all be converted into Blue's Clues Handy Dandy Notebook prop replica manufacturing plants, Corbeil School Bus manufacturing plants, Chalkboard Manufacturing Plants to bring back the good friendly schools with green chalkboards and electric mechanical wall bells FOREVER and convert most Amazon prime trucks in New Jersey into better and safe updated ice cream trucks with the good awesome current updated yellow trapezoid children slow crossing warning blades that word CHILDREN SLOW CROSSING and School bus stop signs which are octagon shape for the state of New Jersey to also include disabled people in the future too and tear apart the last remaining of the ice cream trucks with the bad old outdated red trapezoid children slow crossing warning blades that word IF-SAFE STOP THEN-GO and recycle all of them into brand new Blue's Clues Handy Dandy notebook prop replicas and reuse the arm the bad old outdated red trapezoid Children Slow crossing warning blades that word IF-SAFE STOP THEN-GO for the brand new stop signs of the new school buses of the future. And for this Schools will also bring back green chalkboards and electric mechanical wall bells and Corbeil school buses and adding in more Disney Snow White and Pinocchio stuff, Corduroy the Bear with two buttons on his green corduroy overalls, Blue's Clues Steve Notebooks, Little Golden Books and other kind-spirited stuff FOREVER quickly and also for schools to get rid of mean teachers, that mean scary looking grumpy face with the freaky spikey eyelashes, triangular eyes and razor blade forehead wrinkles they used to have on Gordon in the old live action model version of Thomas and Friends, Bogen Multicom 2000 systems, mean-spirited angers like Frankie Foster's anger in Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends and Chief Wiggums meanly aiming his guy in modern Simpsons, and other mean-spirited stuff FOREVER quickly.

One firefighter is openly yawning while on duty, standing near his, already outdated, but still widespread Soviet fire pump/tank truck AC-30 (130) on the chassis of ZIL-130. His colleague on the left makes even more terrible sin of fireman - he smokes! In this case, he clearly follows the motto: "Non-extingueshed cigarette butt - is a bread of fireman"

But just at this moment ...

(see next pictures in photoset)

(Firetruck standing in readiness during the parade in honor of Victory Day. Presence of emergency services, such as firebrigade, ambulance, etc is obligatory at every public event.

Kharkov, Ukraine, May, 9, 2011)

Один пожарный откровенно зевает во время выполнения служебных обязанностей, стоя возле своей, уже устаревшей, но ещё широко распространённой советской пожарной автоцистерны АЦ-30 (130) на шасси ЗиЛ-130. Его коллега слева совершает ещё более страшный для пожарного грех - он курит!!! При этом он очевидно следует девизу: "Непогашенный окурок - хлеб для пожарного".

А в это самое время...

(смотри следующие фото в фотосете)

(Пожарный автомобиль на дежурстве во время парада по случаю Дня Победы. Присутствие пожарной бригады, скорой медицинской помощи и прочих служб является обязательным на любом публичном мероприятии. Харьков, Украина, 9 мая 2011 г.)

Outdated Kodak Ektachrome 64T EPY on my Fujifilm TX-1 + 45mm

+++ 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.

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 model, the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!

Some background:

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

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

General characteristics:

Crew: 2

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

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

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

Wing area: 45 m2 (480 sq ft)

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

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

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

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

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

Powerplant:

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

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

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

Performance:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thrust/weight: 0.32

Armament:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The model and its assembly:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Painting and markings:

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

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

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

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

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

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

+++ 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.

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.

This Section is outdated (well it's still accurate but there's a better drawing here

www.flickr.com/photos/63631877@N00/4915521934/in/set-7215...

I didn't delete this version because it's where Google search results point and I don't want to loose my Google standings

The Mosquito was an outdated aircraft at the outbreak of the North-Eastern Border Conflict, but was one of the first aircraft committed to the conflict while it was still a minor skirmish and had not yet risen to a larger scale. The Mosquito was capable of easily landing of the snowy plains of the North with its landing ski's. Since most of its weight was taken up by the engine, an enclosed cockpit and armor plating couldn't be spared. It did, however, mount two heavy rifles in case of emergencies.

Unlike the steam engines of Great Steam War aircraft, which could barely produce enough power to lift themselves off the ground, diesel engines where much lighter, more powerful, didn't require as much fuel, and, most importantly, didn't require a lengthy "warm-up" time before being operational.

Pentax Program A - pentax adapter to m42 - Meyer Görlitz Trioplan 50 2.9 - Fuji Superia Extra 400 (outdated) - Scanned with Epson v700 + ColorPerfect

+++ 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.

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.

this is now outdated

this is the new one:

www.flickr.com/photos/108834608@N06/32024877997/in/datepo...

Though the A-4 Skyhawk was by no means outdated by 1962, the US Navy began work on a replacement with better range and heavier payload. The designs submitted would be necessarily heavier than the A-4, but this was not seen as much of a problem, nor was a lack of speed: the Navy was willing to trade subsonic performance for increased range and more bombs. Ling-Temco-Vought (LTV) submitted a design based loosely on its successful F-8 Crusader fighter, which was enough to beat out three other designs, and it was ordered into production as the A-7A Corsair II, named for the successful Chance-Vought fighter of World War II.

Though the A-7 was based on the F-8, the two shared very little other than basic configuration: the A-7 was stubby and wide, and definitely subsonic as intended, though it initially used the same powerplant as the F-111 Aardvark. Turn performance was excellent, if acceleration was indifferent, but the centerpiece of the Corsair II was its integrated bomb delivery system. This included the APQ-116 radar, a heads-up display, traveling map display below the radarscope, and a digital computer. Ease of maintenance was also emphasized. With no problems encountered in flight testing, the A-7A entered fleet service in 1967.

It was immediately committed to fighting in Vietnam. Though A-7s would only see action in the tail end of Operation Rolling Thunder, they were to be used extensively in South Vietnam, due to their accuracy: A-7s were capable of putting ordnance within sixty feet of friendly troops, making it well-liked. The Navy liked the USAF's A-7D variant, and subsequently adopted it, with changes for naval operations, as the A-7E. This was to be the definitive model of the Corsair II, and surviving A-7As and A-7Bs were converted to E standard.

It was a mixed batch of A-7 models that finished the war in Vietnam: A-7Bs were mostly used in the suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) Wild Weasel role, and increasingly Corsair IIs were armed with precision weapons such as the AGM-62 Walleye, which proved capable enough to destroy the infamous Thanh Hoa Bridge—albeit temporarily—in 1972. The workhorse A-7 also struck targets in the Hanoi area extensively, making it second only to the B-52 in amount of ordnance dropped on the North Vietnamese capital. Navy A-7s from USS Coral Sea participated in the last combat missions of the Vietnam War, the Mayaguez rescue mission in May 1975. 98 Navy A-7s were shot down during the conflict.

Following the end of the Vietnam War, the A-7 replaced the A-4 in Navy light attack squadrons, standardizing on the A-7E. Aside from minor upgrades, this would remain the type used by Navy units for the duration of the Corsair II’s career. A-7s would go on to participate in every military operation undertaken by the United States in the 1980s—attacks on Lebanon and the invasion of Grenada in 1983, operations against Libya in 1985, during the “Tanker War” in the Persian Gulf in 1987, and finally in the First Gulf War in 1991. In these operations, the A-7 was able to use its pinpoint bombing ability to good use; in Libya and the Persian Gulf, Corsair IIs attacked and sank numerous Libyan and Iranian patrol boats with unguided bombs. It also was the Navy’s Wild Weasel of choice during the 1980s, using the Vietnam-era Shrike before upgrading to the far superior HARM.

In Operation Desert Storm, two A-7 squadrons from John F. Kennedy were used both to attack fixed targets with “iron” bombs and Walleyes in “tank plinking”—knocking out Iraqi tanks with precision weapons. Despite there being less than 30 A-7s in theater, these aircraft were able supplements to the USAF’s A-10s and F-111s.

The First Gulf War was the A-7’s swan song. The last squadrons gave up their Corsair IIs for F/A-18 Hornets by May 1991, ending nearly thirty years of operations. Some ex-Navy A-7s were passed on to Greece, Portugal, and Thailand, and some still remain in service with Thailand and Greece. Of the 1569 A-7s built, about half were Navy types, and today 20 former US Navy A-7s are on display as gate guards and museum pieces.

This is A-7A 152675, which entered service in 1969 with VA-56 ("Champions") aboard the USS Midway (CV-41); the aircraft would see combat over Vietnam. It may have remained with only VA-56 for its entire career, which was not particularly long: it was retired in 1977. It was then sold to the Portuguese Air Force in 1983 and used as a spares source for their A-7s. When the Palm Springs Air Museum acquired 152675 in July 2020, it was in terrible shape, little more than a wreck with just a vestige of its former Navy heritage.

When I first photographed this aircraft in May 2021, restoration work was about half completed. I got a chance to go back to Palm Springs in June 2023, and 152675 was finished. The markings seem a bit sparse for VA-82 ("Marauders"), so it may not be completely done.

For the resourceful DIY-er, an outdated or broken high quality ball head can be converted or restored for duty. If you know what you're looking for, there are some nice bargains out there. I just finished my last project, a Manfrotto 488RC0 with a broken quick release, let go for $15.65.

The ball head itself was fine.

I happened to pick up a new Manfrotto MSQ6 conversion kit last year for only $15! It's Arca 'style' compatible so I knew I might use it one day.

Even bought an extra new factory plate for only $5 from the seller. The conversion was easy as heck and now I have a large ball head for $31! :)

The MSQ6 system isn't 100% Arca-Swiss compatible, so shame on Manfrotto! Perhaps that is why this $100 kit was only $15. Fortunately, my L-bracket does fit. It can't accept Arca-Swiss plates, but the Manfrotto Q6PL will fit Arca-Swiss clamps. Something to keep in mind for anyone considering the MSQ6.

Taken with My Ciro Flex Model E using outdated Ilford XP2 Super 400 ASA film. Central Sq, Cambridge, Mass.

Two-frame panorama; Minolta Dynax 9 and outdated (1999) Kodak Elite Chrome 200 film, exposed +1 EV

Nikon FM

Kodak Outdated 400 Film

The outdated fuel tanks at the red Hill fuel storage tanks on Oahu Hawaii Are leaking into Oahu‘s fresh drinking water. Numerous residents and military personnel have fallen Sick as well as animals in affected areas. The US NAVY’s solution to this is to drain all the contaminated water into Hawaii’s surrounding ocean therefore creating an oil spill further contaminating the environment, poisoning wildlife AND STILL NOT ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM. The US Navy holds on the the false claim these fuel tanks are necessary to our national security, as if clean drinking water isn’t a matter of national security? The US NAVY refuses to empty the tanks despite overwhelming evidence it is harming the land and inhabitants of Hawaii. The US NAVY ADMITS TO ALL THIS AND IS SIMPLY DOING NOTHING ABOUT IT.

This was meant to take on the world this was, but sadly it didn’t get very far! The Rover 800 had so many possibilities, so many variants could have been derived from it, but unfortunately the management was once again very quick to nip this beautiful car in the bud, and the Rover 800 would join that long line of ‘what-could-have-been’ motors that seem to pave British motoring history.

The origin of the Rover 800 goes back to the late 1970’s, when nationalised British car manufacturer and all around general failure British Leyland was absolutely desperate to fix its seemingly endless list of problems. The company had now garnered a reputation for creating some of the worst, most outdated cars of all time, the likes of the Morris Marina, the Austin Allegro and the Triumph TR7 being derided in both critical and customer reviews. A mixture of strike action by uncontrollable Trade Unions led by the infamous Red Robbo had meant that cars were only put together for a few hours per day on a three day week. As such, reliability was atrocious on a biblical scale, be it mechanical, cosmetic or electrical.

As such, in 1979, British Leyland began talks with Japanese car manufacturer Honda to try and help improve the reliability of their machines. The pioneer of this brave new deal was the Triumph Acclaim of 1980, BL’s first reliable car and not a bad little runabout. Basically a rebadged Honda Ballade, the Acclaim wasn’t meant to set the world ablaze, but it certainly helped get the company back onto people’s driveways, selling reasonably well thanks to its reliable mechanics (even if rust was something of an issue). As such, BL decided that from now on it would give its fleet a complete overhaul, basing their new models on Japanese equivalents. From 1984, the Rover 200 arrived on the scene, again, a rebadged Honda Ballade, while the Maestro and the Montego ranges also took on several tips from their Japanese counterparts, though they were primarily based on British underpinnings.

The Rover 800 however spawned quite early on, in 1981 to be exact. Following the catastrophic failure of the Rover SD1 in the American market, which only sold 774 cars before Rover removed itself from the USA altogether, the company was desperate to get another foothold across the pond. As such, the new project, dubbed project XX, would be the icing on the cake in terms of British Leyland’s fleet overhaul, a smooth and sophisticated executive saloon to conquer the world. However, plans were pushed back after the launch of the Montego and the Maestro, and thus project XX wouldn’t see the light of day again until about 1984.

Still in production and suffering from being long-in-the-tooth, the Rover SD1 was now coming up on 10 years old, and though a sublime car in terms of style and performance, it was now struggling in sales. Rover really needed to replace this golden oldie, and thus project XX was back on. In the usual fashion, Honda was consulted, and it was decided that the car would be based on that company’s own executive saloon, the Honda Legend. Jointly developed at Rover’s Cowley plant and Honda’s Tochigi development centre, both cars shared the same core structure and floorplan, but they each had their own unique exterior bodywork and interior. Under the agreement, Honda would supply the V6 petrol engine, both automatic and manual transmissions and the chassis design, whilst BL would provide the 4-cylinder petrol engine and much of the electrical systems. The agreement also included that UK-market Honda Legends would be built at the Cowley Plant, and the presence of the Legend in the UK would be smaller than that of the Rover 800, with profits from the 800 shared between the two companies.

Launched on July 10th, 1986, the Rover 800 was welcomed with warm reviews regarding its style, its performance and its reliability. Though driving performance was pretty much the same as the Honda Legend, what put the Rover above its Japanese counterpart was its sheer internal elegance and beauty, combined with a differing external design that borrowed cues from the outgoing SD1. The 800 also provided the company with some much-needed optimism, especially following the gradual breakup of British Leyland by the Thatcher Government between 1980 and 1986.

Following her election in 1979, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher took a no nonsense attitude to the striking unions, and the best form of defence was attack. To shave millions from the deficit, she reduced government spending on nationalised companies such as British Airways, British Coal Board, British Steel and British Leyland by selling them to private ownership. For British Leyland, the slow breakup of the company started with the sale of Leyland Trucks and Buses to DAF of Holland and Volvo, respectively. 1984 saw Jaguar made independent and later bought by Ford, but when rumours circulated that the remains of British Leyland would be sold to foreign ownership, share prices crashed, and the company was privatised and put into the hands of British Aerospace on the strict understanding that the company could not be sold again for four years. With this move, British Leyland was renamed Rover Group, the Austin badge being dropped, and the only remaining brands left being the eponymous Rover and sporty MG.

In the light of this tumultuous period, many of Rover and MG’s projects had to be scrapped in light of turbulent share prices and income, these projects including the Austin AR16 family car range (based largely off the Rover 800) and the MG EX-E supercar. The Rover 800 however was the first model to be released by the company following privatisation, and doing well initially in terms of sales, hopes were high that the Rover 800 would herald the end of the company’s troubled spell under British Leyland. The Rover 800 was planned to spearhead multiple Rover ventures, including a return to the US-market in the form of the Sterling, and a coupe concept to beat the world, the sublime Rover CCV.

However, British Leyland may have been gone, but their management and its incompetence remained. Rather than taking the formation of Rover Group as a golden opportunity to clean up the company’s act, to the management it was business as usual, and the Rover 800 began to suffer as a consequence. A lack of proper quality control and a cost-cutting attitude meant that despite all the Japanese reliability that had been layered on these machines in the design stage, the cars were still highly unreliable when they left the factory.

Perhaps the biggest sentiment to the 800’s failure was the Sterling in America. The Sterling had been named as such due to Rover’s reputation being tarnished by the failure of the unreliable SD1. Initial sales were very promising with the Sterling, a simple design with oodles of luxury that was price competitive with family sedan’s such as the Ford LTD and the Chevy Caprice. However, once the problems with reliability and quality began to rear their heads, sales plummeted and the Sterling very quickly fell short of its sales quota, only selling 14,000 of the forecast 30,000 cars per annum. Sales dropped year by year until eventually the Sterling brand was axed in 1991.

With the death of the Sterling came the death of the CCV, a luxury motor that had already won over investors in both Europe and the USA. The fantastic design that had wooed the American market and was ready to go on sale across the States was axed unceremoniously in 1987, and with it any attempt to try and capture the American market ever again.

In 1991, Rover Group, seeing their sales were still tumbling, and with unreliable callbacks to British Leyland like the Maestro and Montego still on sale, the company decided to have yet another shakeup to try and refresh its image. The project, dubbed R17, went back to the company’s roots of grand old England, and the Rover 800 was the first to feel its touch. The R17 facelift saw the 800’s angular lines smoothed with revised light-clusters, a low-smooth body, and the addition of a grille, attempting to harp back to the likes of the luxurious Rover P5 of the 1960’s. Engines were also updated, with the previous M16 Honda engine being replaced by a crisp 2.0L T16, which gave the car some good performance. The car was also made available in a set of additional ranges, including a coupe and the sport Vitesse, complete with a higher performance engine.

Early reviews of the R17 800 were favourable, many critics lauding its design changes and luxurious interior, especially given its price competitiveness against comparable machines such as the Vauxhall Omega and the Ford Mondeo. Even Jeremy Clarkson, a man who fervently hated Rover and everything it stood for, couldn’t help but give it a good review on Top Gear. However, motoring critics were quick to point out the fact that by this time Honda was really starting to sell heavily in the UK and Europe, and people now asked themselves why they’d want to buy the Rover 800, a near carbon-copy of the Honda Legend, for twice the price but equal performance. Wood and leather furnishings are very nice, but not all motorists are interested in that, some are just interested in a reliable and practical machine to run around in.

As such, the Rover 800’s sales domestically were very good, it becoming the best-selling car in the UK for 1992, but in Europe not so much. Though Rover 800’s did make it across the Channel, the BMW 5-Series and other contemporary European models had the market sown up clean, and the Rover 800 never truly made an impact internationally. On average, the car sold well in the early 1990’s, but as time went on the car’s place in the market fell to just over 10,000 per year by 1995. Rover needed another shake-up, and the Rover 75 did just that.

In 1994, Rover Group was sold to BMW, and their brave new star to get the company back in the good books of the motoring public was the Rover 75, an executive saloon to beat the world. With this new face in the company’s showrooms, the Rover 800 and its 10 year old design was put out to grass following its launch in 1998. Selling only around 6,500 cars in its final full year of production, the Rover 800 finished sales in 1999 and disappeared, the last relic of the British Leyland/Honda tie up from the 1980’s.

Today the Rover 800 finds itself under a mixed reception. While some argue that it was the last true Rover before the BMW buyout, others will fervently deride it as a Honda with a Rover badge, a humiliation of a Rover, and truly the point where the company lost its identity. I personally believe it to be a magnificent car, a car with purpose, a car with promise, but none of those promises fulfilled. It could have truly been the face of a new Rover in the late 1980’s, and could have returned the company to the front line of the motoring world, at least in Britain. But sadly, management incompetence won again for the British motor industry, and the Rover 800 ended its days a lukewarm reminder that we really didn’t know a good thing until it was gone.

CSX 8540, an EMD SD50-3 sits silent as CSX 5452 takes Q619 south through Flomaton Yard. The two ES44 units are much more modern, making the old SD50 seem outdated in these days.

* * * * * * * *

Myanmar, previously known as Burma, what a surprisingly amazing place. We booked this holiday to get out of our comfort zone of easy beach holidays in the Maldives. There were several times when we wondered why we did it, travel in Myanmar consists mainly of long, sometimes tedious journeys on outdated transport systems. But now, in hindsight, we realise that this was the only way to truly get a feel of how the country and people are living day to day. And by far, more so than any other holiday we have had, the people are the most memorable thing we brought back with us. They are totally charming, polite, honest, resilient, hard working and most of all truly happy people. Their sincerely happy smiles, some of which we thankfully managed to capture in our photo's, are what we mostly remember and will stay with us forever.

We all know, or think we know, about the bad old days of the Burmese regime, so we obviously had a few reservations about what we were letting ourselves in for, but as it turned out, Myanmar must be the safest place we have ever been to. There is zero crime here, 85% of the country are buddhists and all the people seem to be true to Buddha's teachings of compassion, honesty, right mindedness, right living and non-harming to any living thing. Admittedly, although the country is now a democracy, the military still retains a certain amount of power, so I guess there is still an undercurrent going on albeit out of sight of the regular tourist. However, all the people we spoke to are so much happier now, they are more or less free to speak openly, without fear of reprisals and they all feel positive about the path the country is on now.

As for the landscape, what can I say, there is nowhere like it on earth! Outside the cities the whole country seems to be in some sort of 200 year old time warp. The people are mostly farmers on small plots of land using ox carts to plough the fields and living in houses made of bamboo, wood and matting. The wierdest thing is most of them have solar power, mainly for a bit of light and to charge their mobile phones! Everyone is on their phone here.....just like the rest of the world I guess. Also, there are temples, pagodas and stupas everywhere you look, especially in Bagan, which is like the Mecca of Myanmar. We were there for the Full Moon Festival where thousands of Burmese monks and Myanmar people gather from all over the country to celebrate for three days at the Ananda Pagoda in Bagan. After possibly days travelling they stay awake for most of the three days and nights watching entertainment which includes dance, theatre, chants, recitations and singing as well as stand up comedy. Amazing belief.

A word about One Stop Travel & Tours the Myanmar company we booked with. We found them via recommendations on Tripadvisor and so glad we used them. They never asked for a deposit, they booked all our hotels, train & boat journeys, balloon ride and one internal flight all on an email handshake! We just paid them in US Dollars on arrival, saving us thousands on UK travel brochure rates, and they never let us down once. The guides were all good guys and always there to greet us at the various destinations on our tour/trek, sometimes waiting hours when the transport was late. A special thanks to Leo our Yangon guide and Eaint at the One Stop office. After leaving our Nikon Coolpix A camera charger at home we trawled the shops of Yangon eventually finding a replacement.......only to leave it plugged in the wall at our next hotel in Mandalay! We were now a ten hour boat journey away in Bagan, but a call to Eaint at the One Stop office and they got it to us two days later just before we moved on! A huge thank you to all at One Stop as this holiday produced without doubt our most amazing photographs ever!

Myanmar has been open to mainstream tourism for five years now, a lot of the people speak English now so it is relatively easy to holiday there. We are so glad we went there before it really changes, there is still a huge amount of charm and old worldliness about the place that you will not find in any other country. If you are prepared to switch off from the 21st century and just accept it for what it is you will be richly rewarded with amazing memories of a landscape like no other and a fascinating people who are genuinely happy to see you.

* * * * * * * *

To view the rest of my Photography Collection click on Link below:

www.flickr.com/photos/nevillewootton/albums

* * * * * * * *

Photography & Equipment sponsored by my web business:

www.inlinefilters.co.uk

We are UK's leading Filter Specialists, selling online to the Plant, Agricultural, Commercial Vehicle and Marine Industries.

* * * * * * * *

PLEASE NOTE: I take Photographs purely as a hobby these days so am happy to share them with anyone who enjoys them or has a use for them. If you do use them an accreditation would be nice and if you benefit from them financially a donation to www.sightsavers.org would be really nice.

* * * * * * * *

+++ 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.

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!

I never get tired of shooting this spot...

Zeiss-Ikon Super Ikonta 530/16 + Kodak Gold 100 (outdated)

* * * * * * * *

Myanmar, previously known as Burma, what a surprisingly amazing place. We booked this holiday to get out of our comfort zone of easy beach holidays in the Maldives. There were several times when we wondered why we did it, travel in Myanmar consists mainly of long, sometimes tedious journeys on outdated transport systems. But now, in hindsight, we realise that this was the only way to truly get a feel of how the country and people are living day to day. And by far, more so than any other holiday we have had, the people are the most memorable thing we brought back with us. They are totally charming, polite, honest, resilient, hard working and most of all truly happy people. Their sincerely happy smiles, some of which we thankfully managed to capture in our photo's, are what we mostly remember and will stay with us forever.

We all know, or think we know, about the bad old days of the Burmese regime, so we obviously had a few reservations about what we were letting ourselves in for, but as it turned out, Myanmar must be the safest place we have ever been to. There is zero crime here, 85% of the country are buddhists and all the people seem to be true to Buddha's teachings of compassion, honesty, right mindedness, right living and non-harming to any living thing. Admittedly, although the country is now a democracy, the military still retains a certain amount of power, so I guess there is still an undercurrent going on albeit out of sight of the regular tourist. However, all the people we spoke to are so much happier now, they are more or less free to speak openly, without fear of reprisals and they all feel positive about the path the country is on now.

As for the landscape, what can I say, there is nowhere like it on earth! Outside the cities the whole country seems to be in some sort of 200 year old time warp. The people are mostly farmers on small plots of land using ox carts to plough the fields and living in houses made of bamboo, wood and matting. The wierdest thing is most of them have solar power, mainly for a bit of light and to charge their mobile phones! Everyone is on their phone here.....just like the rest of the world I guess. Also, there are temples, pagodas and stupas everywhere you look, especially in Bagan, which is like the Mecca of Myanmar. We were there for the Full Moon Festival where thousands of Burmese monks and Myanmar people gather from all over the country to celebrate for three days at the Ananda Pagoda in Bagan. After possibly days travelling they stay awake for most of the three days and nights watching entertainment which includes dance, theatre, chants, recitations and singing as well as stand up comedy. Amazing belief.

A word about One Stop Travel & Tours the Myanmar company we booked with. We found them via recommendations on Tripadvisor and so glad we used them. They never asked for a deposit, they booked all our hotels, train & boat journeys, balloon ride and one internal flight all on an email handshake! We just paid them in US Dollars on arrival, saving us thousands on UK travel brochure rates, and they never let us down once. The guides were all good guys and always there to greet us at the various destinations on our tour/trek, sometimes waiting hours when the transport was late. A special thanks to Leo our Yangon guide and Eaint at the One Stop office. After leaving our Nikon Coolpix A camera charger at home we trawled the shops of Yangon eventually finding a replacement.......only to leave it plugged in the wall at our next hotel in Mandalay! We were now a ten hour boat journey away in Bagan, but a call to Eaint at the One Stop office and they got it to us two days later just before we moved on! A huge thank you to all at One Stop as this holiday produced without doubt our most amazing photographs ever!

Myanmar has been open to mainstream tourism for five years now, a lot of the people speak English now so it is relatively easy to holiday there. We are so glad we went there before it really changes, there is still a huge amount of charm and old worldliness about the place that you will not find in any other country. If you are prepared to switch off from the 21st century and just accept it for what it is you will be richly rewarded with amazing memories of a landscape like no other and a fascinating people who are genuinely happy to see you.

* * * * * * * *

To view the rest of my Photography Collection click on Link below:

www.flickr.com/photos/nevillewootton/albums

* * * * * * * *

Photography & Equipment sponsored by my web business:

www.inlinefilters.co.uk

We are UK's leading Filter Specialists, selling online to the Plant, Agricultural, Commercial Vehicle and Marine Industries.

* * * * * * * *

PLEASE NOTE: I take Photographs purely as a hobby these days so am happy to share them with anyone who enjoys them or has a use for them. If you do use them an accreditation would be nice and if you benefit from them financially a donation to www.sightsavers.org would be really nice.

* * * * * * * *

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

Some background:

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

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

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

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

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

Wingspan: 14.36 m (47 ft 1 in)

Height: 4.8 m (15 ft 9 in)

Wing area: 35.2 m² (378 sq ft)

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

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

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

Powerplant:

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

Performance:

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

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

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

incl. two external fuel tanks

Service ceiling: 7.800 m (25,550 ft)

g limits: +6.5

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

Armament:

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

under the lower forward fuselage, offset to port side.

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

The kit and its assembly:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Painting and markings:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This was meant to take on the world this was, but sadly it didn’t get very far! The Rover 800 had so many possibilities, so many variants could have been derived from it, but unfortunately the management was once again very quick to nip this beautiful car in the bud, and the Rover 800 would join that long line of ‘what-could-have-been’ motors that seem to pave British motoring history.

The origin of the Rover 800 goes back to the late 1970’s, when nationalised British car manufacturer and all around general failure British Leyland was absolutely desperate to fix its seemingly endless list of problems. The company had now garnered a reputation for creating some of the worst, most outdated cars of all time, the likes of the Morris Marina, the Austin Allegro and the Triumph TR7 being derided in both critical and customer reviews. A mixture of strike action by uncontrollable Trade Unions led by the infamous Red Robbo had meant that cars were only put together for a few hours per day on a three day week. As such, reliability was atrocious on a biblical scale, be it mechanical, cosmetic or electrical.

As such, in 1979, British Leyland began talks with Japanese car manufacturer Honda to try and help improve the reliability of their machines. The pioneer of this brave new deal was the Triumph Acclaim of 1980, BL’s first reliable car and not a bad little runabout. Basically a rebadged Honda Ballade, the Acclaim wasn’t meant to set the world ablaze, but it certainly helped get the company back onto people’s driveways, selling reasonably well thanks to its reliable mechanics (even if rust was something of an issue). As such, BL decided that from now on it would give its fleet a complete overhaul, basing their new models on Japanese equivalents. From 1984, the Rover 200 arrived on the scene, again, a rebadged Honda Ballade, while the Maestro and the Montego ranges also took on several tips from their Japanese counterparts, though they were primarily based on British underpinnings.

The Rover 800 however spawned quite early on, in 1981 to be exact. Following the catastrophic failure of the Rover SD1 in the American market, which only sold 774 cars before Rover removed itself from the USA altogether, the company was desperate to get another foothold across the pond. As such, the new project, dubbed project XX, would be the icing on the cake in terms of British Leyland’s fleet overhaul, a smooth and sophisticated executive saloon to conquer the world. However, plans were pushed back after the launch of the Montego and the Maestro, and thus project XX wouldn’t see the light of day again until about 1984.

Still in production and suffering from being long-in-the-tooth, the Rover SD1 was now coming up on 10 years old, and though a sublime car in terms of style and performance, it was now struggling in sales. Rover really needed to replace this golden oldie, and thus project XX was back on. In the usual fashion, Honda was consulted, and it was decided that the car would be based on that company’s own executive saloon, the Honda Legend. Jointly developed at Rover’s Cowley plant and Honda’s Tochigi development centre, both cars shared the same core structure and floorplan, but they each had their own unique exterior bodywork and interior. Under the agreement, Honda would supply the V6 petrol engine, both automatic and manual transmissions and the chassis design, whilst BL would provide the 4-cylinder petrol engine and much of the electrical systems. The agreement also included that UK-market Honda Legends would be built at the Cowley Plant, and the presence of the Legend in the UK would be smaller than that of the Rover 800, with profits from the 800 shared between the two companies.

Launched on July 10th, 1986, the Rover 800 was welcomed with warm reviews regarding its style, its performance and its reliability. Though driving performance was pretty much the same as the Honda Legend, what put the Rover above its Japanese counterpart was its sheer internal elegance and beauty, combined with a differing external design that borrowed cues from the outgoing SD1. The 800 also provided the company with some much-needed optimism, especially following the gradual breakup of British Leyland by the Thatcher Government between 1980 and 1986.

Following her election in 1979, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher took a no nonsense attitude to the striking unions, and the best form of defence was attack. To shave millions from the deficit, she reduced government spending on nationalised companies such as British Airways, British Coal Board, British Steel and British Leyland by selling them to private ownership. For British Leyland, the slow breakup of the company started with the sale of Leyland Trucks and Buses to DAF of Holland and Volvo, respectively. 1984 saw Jaguar made independent and later bought by Ford, but when rumours circulated that the remains of British Leyland would be sold to foreign ownership, share prices crashed, and the company was privatised and put into the hands of British Aerospace on the strict understanding that the company could not be sold again for four years. With this move, British Leyland was renamed Rover Group, the Austin badge being dropped, and the only remaining brands left being the eponymous Rover and sporty MG.

In the light of this tumultuous period, many of Rover and MG’s projects had to be scrapped in light of turbulent share prices and income, these projects including the Austin AR16 family car range (based largely off the Rover 800) and the MG EX-E supercar. The Rover 800 however was the first model to be released by the company following privatisation, and doing well initially in terms of sales, hopes were high that the Rover 800 would herald the end of the company’s troubled spell under British Leyland. The Rover 800 was planned to spearhead multiple Rover ventures, including a return to the US-market in the form of the Sterling, and a coupe concept to beat the world, the sublime Rover CCV.

However, British Leyland may have been gone, but their management and its incompetence remained. Rather than taking the formation of Rover Group as a golden opportunity to clean up the company’s act, to the management it was business as usual, and the Rover 800 began to suffer as a consequence. A lack of proper quality control and a cost-cutting attitude meant that despite all the Japanese reliability that had been layered on these machines in the design stage, the cars were still highly unreliable when they left the factory.

Perhaps the biggest sentiment to the 800’s failure was the Sterling in America. The Sterling had been named as such due to Rover’s reputation being tarnished by the failure of the unreliable SD1. Initial sales were very promising with the Sterling, a simple design with oodles of luxury that was price competitive with family sedan’s such as the Ford LTD and the Chevy Caprice. However, once the problems with reliability and quality began to rear their heads, sales plummeted and the Sterling very quickly fell short of its sales quota, only selling 14,000 of the forecast 30,000 cars per annum. Sales dropped year by year until eventually the Sterling brand was axed in 1991.

With the death of the Sterling came the death of the CCV, a luxury motor that had already won over investors in both Europe and the USA. The fantastic design that had wooed the American market and was ready to go on sale across the States was axed unceremoniously in 1987, and with it any attempt to try and capture the American market ever again.

In 1991, Rover Group, seeing their sales were still tumbling, and with unreliable callbacks to British Leyland like the Maestro and Montego still on sale, the company decided to have yet another shakeup to try and refresh its image. The project, dubbed R17, went back to the company’s roots of grand old England, and the Rover 800 was the first to feel its touch. The R17 facelift saw the 800’s angular lines smoothed with revised light-clusters, a low-smooth body, and the addition of a grille, attempting to harp back to the likes of the luxurious Rover P5 of the 1960’s. Engines were also updated, with the previous M16 Honda engine being replaced by a crisp 2.0L T16, which gave the car some good performance. The car was also made available in a set of additional ranges, including a coupe and the sport Vitesse, complete with a higher performance engine.

Early reviews of the R17 800 were favourable, many critics lauding its design changes and luxurious interior, especially given its price competitiveness against comparable machines such as the Vauxhall Omega and the Ford Mondeo. Even Jeremy Clarkson, a man who fervently hated Rover and everything it stood for, couldn’t help but give it a good review on Top Gear. However, motoring critics were quick to point out the fact that by this time Honda was really starting to sell heavily in the UK and Europe, and people now asked themselves why they’d want to buy the Rover 800, a near carbon-copy of the Honda Legend, for twice the price but equal performance. Wood and leather furnishings are very nice, but not all motorists are interested in that, some are just interested in a reliable and practical machine to run around in.

As such, the Rover 800’s sales domestically were very good, it becoming the best-selling car in the UK for 1992, but in Europe not so much. Though Rover 800’s did make it across the Channel, the BMW 5-Series and other contemporary European models had the market sown up clean, and the Rover 800 never truly made an impact internationally. On average, the car sold well in the early 1990’s, but as time went on the car’s place in the market fell to just over 10,000 per year by 1995. Rover needed another shake-up, and the Rover 75 did just that.

In 1994, Rover Group was sold to BMW, and their brave new star to get the company back in the good books of the motoring public was the Rover 75, an executive saloon to beat the world. With this new face in the company’s showrooms, the Rover 800 and its 10 year old design was put out to grass following its launch in 1998. Selling only around 6,500 cars in its final full year of production, the Rover 800 finished sales in 1999 and disappeared, the last relic of the British Leyland/Honda tie up from the 1980’s.

Today the Rover 800 finds itself under a mixed reception. While some argue that it was the last true Rover before the BMW buyout, others will fervently deride it as a Honda with a Rover badge, a humiliation of a Rover, and truly the point where the company lost its identity. I personally believe it to be a magnificent car, a car with purpose, a car with promise, but none of those promises fulfilled. It could have truly been the face of a new Rover in the late 1980’s, and could have returned the company to the front line of the motoring world, at least in Britain. But sadly, management incompetence won again for the British motor industry, and the Rover 800 ended its days a lukewarm reminder that we really didn’t know a good thing until it was gone.

+++ 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.

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:

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.

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!

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

Some background:

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

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

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

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

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

Wingspan: 14.36 m (47 ft 1 in)

Height: 4.8 m (15 ft 9 in)

Wing area: 35.2 m² (378 sq ft)

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

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

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

Powerplant:

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

Performance:

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

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

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

incl. two external fuel tanks

Service ceiling: 7.800 m (25,550 ft)

g limits: +6.5

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

Armament:

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

under the lower forward fuselage, offset to port side.

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

The kit and its assembly:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Painting and markings:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

Some background:

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

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

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

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

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

Wingspan: 14.36 m (47 ft 1 in)

Height: 4.8 m (15 ft 9 in)

Wing area: 35.2 m² (378 sq ft)

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

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

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

Powerplant:

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

Performance:

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

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

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

incl. two external fuel tanks

Service ceiling: 7.800 m (25,550 ft)

g limits: +6.5

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

Armament:

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

under the lower forward fuselage, offset to port side.

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

The kit and its assembly:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Painting and markings:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LOMO Compact test. Made with LCA and outdated Kodak Gold-200

Incredibly outdated (by 5 or so years) sign holder at the food court. These can be found throughout the mall - Randall Park Mall, North Randall Ohio - 6/1/08

Due to that New Jersey was the slowest on phasing out the bad old outdated red trapezoid Children slow crossing warning blades that word IF-SAFE STOP THEN-GO because of some mean teachers at school forcing some ice cream trucks to keep their red trapezoid and made a bad and mean-spirited law of ice cream trucks requiring those bad old outdated red trapezoid children slow crossing warning blades that word IF-SAFE STOP THEN-GO which is extremely confusing to people who are death, color blind, can't read or don't speak English in some of New Jersey, I hereby MOST Amazon warehouses in New Jersey to all be converted into Blue's Clues Handy Dandy Notebook prop replica manufacturing plants, Corbeil School Bus manufacturing plants, Chalkboard Manufacturing Plants to bring back the good friendly schools with green chalkboards and electric mechanical wall bells FOREVER and convert most Amazon prime trucks in New Jersey into better and safe updated ice cream trucks with the good awesome current updated yellow trapezoid children slow crossing warning blades that word CHILDREN SLOW CROSSING and School bus stop signs which are octagon shape for the state of New Jersey to also include disabled people in the future too and tear apart the last remaining of the ice cream trucks with the bad old outdated red trapezoid children slow crossing warning blades that word IF-SAFE STOP THEN-GO and recycle all of them into brand new Blue's Clues Handy Dandy notebook prop replicas and reuse the arm the bad old outdated red trapezoid Children Slow crossing warning blades that word IF-SAFE STOP THEN-GO for the brand new stop signs of the new school buses of the future. And for this Schools will also bring back green chalkboards and electric mechanical wall bells and Corbeil school buses and adding in more Disney Snow White and Pinocchio stuff, Corduroy the Bear with two buttons on his green corduroy overalls, Blue's Clues Steve Notebooks, Little Golden Books and other kind-spirited stuff FOREVER quickly and also for schools to get rid of mean teachers, that mean scary looking grumpy face with the freaky spikey eyelashes, triangular eyes and razor blade forehead wrinkles they used to have on Gordon in the old live action model version of Thomas and Friends, Bogen Multicom 2000 systems, mean-spirited angers like Frankie Foster's anger in Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends and Chief Wiggums meanly aiming his guy in modern Simpsons, and other mean-spirited stuff FOREVER quickly.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

Some background:

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

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

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

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

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

Wingspan: 14.36 m (47 ft 1 in)

Height: 4.8 m (15 ft 9 in)

Wing area: 35.2 m² (378 sq ft)

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

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

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

Powerplant:

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

Performance:

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

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

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

incl. two external fuel tanks

Service ceiling: 7.800 m (25,550 ft)

g limits: +6.5

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

Armament:

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

under the lower forward fuselage, offset to port side.

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

The kit and its assembly:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Painting and markings:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * * * * *

Myanmar, previously known as Burma, what a surprisingly amazing place. We booked this holiday to get out of our comfort zone of easy beach holidays in the Maldives. There were several times when we wondered why we did it, travel in Myanmar consists mainly of long, sometimes tedious journeys on outdated transport systems. But now, in hindsight, we realise that this was the only way to truly get a feel of how the country and people are living day to day. And by far, more so than any other holiday we have had, the people are the most memorable thing we brought back with us. They are totally charming, polite, honest, resilient, hard working and most of all truly happy people. Their sincerely happy smiles, some of which we thankfully managed to capture in our photo's, are what we mostly remember and will stay with us forever.

We all know, or think we know, about the bad old days of the Burmese regime, so we obviously had a few reservations about what we were letting ourselves in for, but as it turned out, Myanmar must be the safest place we have ever been to. There is zero crime here, 85% of the country are buddhists and all the people seem to be true to Buddha's teachings of compassion, honesty, right mindedness, right living and non-harming to any living thing. Admittedly, although the country is now a democracy, the military still retains a certain amount of power, so I guess there is still an undercurrent going on albeit out of sight of the regular tourist. However, all the people we spoke to are so much happier now, they are more or less free to speak openly, without fear of reprisals and they all feel positive about the path the country is on now.

As for the landscape, what can I say, there is nowhere like it on earth! Outside the cities the whole country seems to be in some sort of 200 year old time warp. The people are mostly farmers on small plots of land using ox carts to plough the fields and living in houses made of bamboo, wood and matting. The wierdest thing is most of them have solar power, mainly for a bit of light and to charge their mobile phones! Everyone is on their phone here.....just like the rest of the world I guess. Also, there are temples, pagodas and stupas everywhere you look, especially in Bagan, which is like the Mecca of Myanmar. We were there for the Full Moon Festival where thousands of Burmese monks and Myanmar people gather from all over the country to celebrate for three days at the Ananda Pagoda in Bagan. After possibly days travelling they stay awake for most of the three days and nights watching entertainment which includes dance, theatre, chants, recitations and singing as well as stand up comedy. Amazing belief.

A word about One Stop Travel & Tours the Myanmar company we booked with. We found them via recommendations on Tripadvisor and so glad we used them. They never asked for a deposit, they booked all our hotels, train & boat journeys, balloon ride and one internal flight all on an email handshake! We just paid them in US Dollars on arrival, saving us thousands on UK travel brochure rates, and they never let us down once. The guides were all good guys and always there to greet us at the various destinations on our tour/trek, sometimes waiting hours when the transport was late. A special thanks to Leo our Yangon guide and Eaint at the One Stop office. After leaving our Nikon Coolpix A camera charger at home we trawled the shops of Yangon eventually finding a replacement.......only to leave it plugged in the wall at our next hotel in Mandalay! We were now a ten hour boat journey away in Bagan, but a call to Eaint at the One Stop office and they got it to us two days later just before we moved on! A huge thank you to all at One Stop as this holiday produced without doubt our most amazing photographs ever!

Myanmar has been open to mainstream tourism for five years now, a lot of the people speak English now so it is relatively easy to holiday there. We are so glad we went there before it really changes, there is still a huge amount of charm and old worldliness about the place that you will not find in any other country. If you are prepared to switch off from the 21st century and just accept it for what it is you will be richly rewarded with amazing memories of a landscape like no other and a fascinating people who are genuinely happy to see you.

* * * * * * * *

To view the rest of my Photography Collection click on Link below:

www.flickr.com/photos/nevillewootton/albums

* * * * * * * *

Photography & Equipment sponsored by my web business:

www.inlinefilters.co.uk

We are UK's leading Filter Specialists, selling online to the Plant, Agricultural, Commercial Vehicle and Marine Industries.

* * * * * * * *

PLEASE NOTE: I take Photographs purely as a hobby these days so am happy to share them with anyone who enjoys them or has a use for them. If you do use them an accreditation would be nice and if you benefit from them financially a donation to www.sightsavers.org would be really nice.

* * * * * * * *

+++ 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.

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!

Bronica GS-1

50mm

Velvia 100 asa outdated at 2014

LOMO Compact test. Made with LCA and outdated Kodak Gold-200

* * * * * * * *

Myanmar, previously known as Burma, what a surprisingly amazing place. We booked this holiday to get out of our comfort zone of easy beach holidays in the Maldives. There were several times when we wondered why we did it, travel in Myanmar consists mainly of long, sometimes tedious journeys on outdated transport systems. But now, in hindsight, we realise that this was the only way to truly get a feel of how the country and people are living day to day. And by far, more so than any other holiday we have had, the people are the most memorable thing we brought back with us. They are totally charming, polite, honest, resilient, hard working and most of all truly happy people. Their sincerely happy smiles, some of which we thankfully managed to capture in our photo's, are what we mostly remember and will stay with us forever.

We all know, or think we know, about the bad old days of the Burmese regime, so we obviously had a few reservations about what we were letting ourselves in for, but as it turned out, Myanmar must be the safest place we have ever been to. There is zero crime here, 85% of the country are buddhists and all the people seem to be true to Buddha's teachings of compassion, honesty, right mindedness, right living and non-harming to any living thing. Admittedly, although the country is now a democracy, the military still retains a certain amount of power, so I guess there is still an undercurrent going on albeit out of sight of the regular tourist. However, all the people we spoke to are so much happier now, they are more or less free to speak openly, without fear of reprisals and they all feel positive about the path the country is on now.

As for the landscape, what can I say, there is nowhere like it on earth! Outside the cities the whole country seems to be in some sort of 200 year old time warp. The people are mostly farmers on small plots of land using ox carts to plough the fields and living in houses made of bamboo, wood and matting. The wierdest thing is most of them have solar power, mainly for a bit of light and to charge their mobile phones! Everyone is on their phone here.....just like the rest of the world I guess. Also, there are temples, pagodas and stupas everywhere you look, especially in Bagan, which is like the Mecca of Myanmar. We were there for the Full Moon Festival where thousands of Burmese monks and Myanmar people gather from all over the country to celebrate for three days at the Ananda Pagoda in Bagan. After possibly days travelling they stay awake for most of the three days and nights watching entertainment which includes dance, theatre, chants, recitations and singing as well as stand up comedy. Amazing belief.

A word about One Stop Travel & Tours the Myanmar company we booked with. We found them via recommendations on Tripadvisor and so glad we used them. They never asked for a deposit, they booked all our hotels, train & boat journeys, balloon ride and one internal flight all on an email handshake! We just paid them in US Dollars on arrival, saving us thousands on UK travel brochure rates, and they never let us down once. The guides were all good guys and always there to greet us at the various destinations on our tour/trek, sometimes waiting hours when the transport was late. A special thanks to Leo our Yangon guide and Eaint at the One Stop office. After leaving our Nikon Coolpix A camera charger at home we trawled the shops of Yangon eventually finding a replacement.......only to leave it plugged in the wall at our next hotel in Mandalay! We were now a ten hour boat journey away in Bagan, but a call to Eaint at the One Stop office and they got it to us two days later just before we moved on! A huge thank you to all at One Stop as this holiday produced without doubt our most amazing photographs ever!

Myanmar has been open to mainstream tourism for five years now, a lot of the people speak English now so it is relatively easy to holiday there. We are so glad we went there before it really changes, there is still a huge amount of charm and old worldliness about the place that you will not find in any other country. If you are prepared to switch off from the 21st century and just accept it for what it is you will be richly rewarded with amazing memories of a landscape like no other and a fascinating people who are genuinely happy to see you.

* * * * * * * *

To view the rest of my Photography Collection click on Link below:

www.flickr.com/photos/nevillewootton/albums

* * * * * * * *

Photography & Equipment sponsored by my web business:

www.inlinefilters.co.uk

We are UK's leading Filter Specialists, selling online to the Plant, Agricultural, Commercial Vehicle and Marine Industries.

* * * * * * * *

PLEASE NOTE: I take Photographs purely as a hobby these days so am happy to share them with anyone who enjoys them or has a use for them. If you do use them an accreditation would be nice and if you benefit from them financially a donation to www.sightsavers.org would be really nice.

* * * * * * * *

+++ 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.

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.

XPAN 45mm

Reala100 outdated 2007

Epson V700

+++ 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.

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!

+++ 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.

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.

Olivetti typewriter shot by Cambo SC and Emile Bausch brass lens (ca. 1890) on 5x7" Agfa Polipan 15 (expired 1973).

I gave the film 4 extra stops (1 per 10 year of expiry) and then 3 more for the reciprocity factor. I ended up with 4 minutes exposure.

Please take a look at my most interesting photos Or take a look at my entire portfolio

Minox B Complan

Ilford Delta 100 (outdated, from fotoimpex.de)

Adox Atomal ATM49 1+0 6'15" @ 20 degrees

My first experience with Minox and the first film I have developed myself. I tried two developers to understand which is better for Delta 100 - ATM49 and Ilford DD-X.

The biggest problem is to scan. My scanner (Epson 4490) is too blurry to get all details. I can see much more using a loupe.

Second, I do not have any special holder. This examples are scanned in medium format film holder, being fixed only from one side.

Tests with my 'gift' AF NIKKOR 70-210mm f4-5.6 zoom on different NIKON bodies for close-up and distant shots . Very poor outdated FUJI SUPERIA 200 rated 100 ASA so colours not all 'Good'

047/365

Dat mijn PRAKTICA antiek is dat wist ik.

Maar volgens Canon is mijn "Canon EOS 300D Digital" ook outdated.

De camera kan niet communiceren met windows 7 en 8, als je persé zo'n antieke camera wilt gebruiken zit je ook vast aan XP.

flickr zegt; 5,738 uploads from 190 users yesterday...ja dat is erg weinig...

IK HOOP NOG STEEDS STIEKEM DAT IEMAND EEN OPLOSSING WEET..

Ja ik weet, je kunt ook foto's uploaden via de memory-card, maar dat heb ik al een keer teveel gedaan, die minuscule koperen tandjes zijn er niet op berekend dat je die kaart er dagelijks uittrekt en weer induwt.

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

I know my old PRAKTIKA is an antique camera.

But Canon says my "Canon EOS 300D Digital" is also outdated.

I am really sad, the camara still works great, 5,738 uploads from 190 users yesterday on flickr, that is not enough?

All rights reserved © Jérôme Utter, 2015

Hasseblad 500CM

80mm f/2.8

Fuji Supéria 100 ASA