View allAll Photos Tagged Payloader
“Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) technicians reposition and level the Cassini orbiter in the Payload Hazardous Servicing Facility at KSC in July after stacking the craft’s upper equipment module on the propulsion module. A four-year, close-up study of the Saturnian system, the Cassini mission is scheduled for launch from Cape Canaveral Air Station in October 1997. It will take seven years for the spacecraft to reach Saturn. Scientific instruments carried aboard the spacecraft will study Saturn’s atmosphere, magnetic field, rings, and several moons. JPL is managing the Cassini project for NASA.”
The Callisto demonstration payload is a partnership between Lockheed Martin, Amazon and Cisco. The Callisto technology demonstration will be integrated into NASA's Orion spacecraft for the Artemis I, uncrewed mission to the Moon. Callisto uses Amazon Alexa and Webex by Cisco to test and demonstrate commercial technology for deep space voice, video and whiteboarding communications.
"In the summer of 1984, following the cancellation of Mission 41F, Karol “Bo” Bobko (front left) received a French payload specialist, with Patrick Baudry (front right) and Jean-Loup Chretien (back right) selected to train for the position. Behind Bobko is Dave Griggs. All four men are framed by the side hatch of the shuttle simulator."
I was looking for a photo for Jean-Loup Chretien to sign and came across this interesting picture, from the training of Mission 51E.
Slated to fly aboard Challenger in 1985, the flight was canceled a week before launch, owing to a problem with one of the satellites manifested for the mission.
Chretien, as noted, was the backup payload specialist to Patrick Baudry. Chretien would finally get his own shuttle flight, STS-86/Atlantis, a rendezvous with the Russian space station Mir, in 1997.
Earlier, in 1977-78, Chretien was appointed Deputy Commander of the South Air Defense Division in Aix en Provence, and he served in this position until his selection as a cosmonaut in June 1980.
He remained a French Air Force officer but was placed on detachment to CNES for his space flight activities ensuring his availability for future flights with the Shuttle (NASA), Mir (Soviet Union) or Spacelab (ESA).
A veteran of three space flights, Chretien was the 10th Intercosmos cosmonaut, and has spent a total of 43 days, 11 hours, 18 minutes, 42 seconds in space, including an EVA of 5 hours, 57 minutes.
In April 1979, the Soviet Union offered France the opportunity to fly a cosmonaut on board a joint Soviet-French space flight, along the same lines as the agreement to fly non-Soviet cosmonauts from member countries of the Intercosmos program. The offer was accepted, and France began a cosmonaut selection program in September 1979.
Chretien was one of two finalists named on June 12, 1980. He started training at the Yuri Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center in September 1980. The following year he was named as the research-cosmonaut for the prime crew of the Soyuz T-6 mission.
Soyuz T-6 was launched on June 24, 1982, and Chretien, Dzhanibekov and Ivanchenkov linked up with Salyut 7 and joined the crew of Berezovoi and Lebedev already on board. They spent nearly seven days carrying out a program of joint Soviet-French experiments, including a series of French echography cardiovascular monitoring system experiments, before returning to Earth after a flight lasting 7 days, 21 hours, 50 minutes, 42 seconds.
This flight made him the first Western non-American to go to space, as well as the first Western European.
Chretien made his second space flight as a research-cosmonaut on board Soyuz TM-7, which launched on November 26, 1988. Together with Volkov and Krikalev, he linked up with Mir 1 and joined the crew of Titov Manarov and Polyakov already on board.
They spent 22 days carrying out a program of joint Soviet-French experiments, including a 5 hour and 57 minute EVA by Volkov and Chretien during which the two men installed the French ERA experimental deployable structure and a panel of material samples.
In making the EVA, he became the first non-American and non-Soviet cosmonaut to walk in space. In addition, he was the first non-Soviet cosmonaut to make a second space flight aboard a Soviet spacecraft. The mission lasted 24 days, 18 hours, 7 minutes.
During 1990-93, Chretien participated in Buran spacecraft pilot training at the Moscow Joukovski Institute.
Lastly, he served on the crew of STS-86/Atlantis (September 25 to October 6, 1997) the seventh mission to rendezvous and dock with the Russian Space Station Mir.
Highlights included the delivery of a Mir attitude control computer, the exchange of U.S. crew members Mike Foale and David Wolf, a spacewalk by Scott Parazynski and Vladimir Titov to retrieve four experiments first deployed on Mir during the STS-76 docking mission, the transfer to Mir of 10,400 pounds of science and logistics, and the return of experiment hardware and results to Earth. Mission duration was 10 days, 19 hours, 21 minutes.
Chretien retired from NASA in 2001. In-person, Chester, Md., 27 Sept. 2015.
Retired Air Force Col. Karol. J. "Bo" Bobko became a NASA astronaut in September 1969. He was a crewmember on the highly successful Skylab Medical Experiments Altitude Test (SMEAT) -- a 56-day ground simulation of the Skylab mission, enabling crewmen to collect medical experiments baseline data and evaluate equipment, operations and procedures.
A veteran of three space flights, Bobko has logged a total of 386 hours in Space. He was the pilot on STS-6 (April 4-9, 1983); and was the mission commander on STS-51D (April 12-19, 1985) and STS-51J (October 3-7, 1985).
Bobko was pilot for STS-6, which launched from Kennedy Space Center, Florida, on April 4, 1983. During this maiden voyage of the spacecraft Challenger, the crew deployed a large communications satellite (TDRS) and the rocket stage (IUS) required to boost it to geosynchronous orbit.
The STS-6 crew also conducted the first shuttle spacewalk (EVA) and additionally conducted numerous other experiments in materials processing and the recording of lightning activities from space. There were also three Getaway Specials activated on the flight.
After 120 hours of orbital operations STS-6 landed on the concrete runway at Edwards Air Force Base, California, on April 9, 1983.
On his second mission Bobko was the commander of STS-51-D/Discovery which launched from Kennedy Space Center, Florida, on April 12, 1985.
The mission was to deploy two communications satellites, perform electrophoresis and echocardiograph operations in space, in addition to accomplishing other experiments. When one of the communications satellites malfunctioned, a daring attempt was made to activate the satellite which required an additional EVA, rendezvous, and operations with the remote manipulator arm.
After 168 hours of orbital operations Discovery landed on Runway 33 at Kennedy Space Center on April 19, 1985.
Bobko was next commander of STS-51-J, the second Space Shuttle Department of Defense mission, which launched from Kennedy Space Center, Florida, on October 3, 1985. This was the maiden voyage of the Atlantis.
After 98 hours of orbital operations, Atlantis landed on Edwards Air Force Base Lakebed Runway 23 on October 7, 1985.
In 1988, Bobko retired from NASA and the Air Force to join the firm of Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc., in Houston, Texas.
Bobko was born in New York, and was living in Seaford at the time of his selection as an astronaut. His parents used to own a soda distributorship on Sunrise Highway, he told me.
Even though I had a signed crew (launch) photo of the 51J mission, I like getting in-person signed photos of the astronauts I have met - and even though I'm sure of the authenticity of the 51J photo, I had bought that on the secondary market. (This in-person signature replaces an in-person portrait shot that I obtained myself - I rarely have more than one signed photo of a particular astro/cosmonaut.) In-person, Titusville, Fl., as part of the Atlantis 30th anniversary celebration, 3 Oct. 2015.
Inside the Payload Hazardous Servicing Facility at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida, preparations are underway to encapsulate a Cygnus cargo spacecraft in its payload fairing. The Cygnus will be launched to the International Space Station on the upcoming Orbital ATK Commercial Resupply Services-6 mission. The spacecraft is scheduled to deliver hardware and supplies to the orbiting outpost.
Photo credit: NASA/Ben Smegelsky
The N-1 was a heavy lift rocket intended to deliver payloads beyond low Earth orbit, acting as the Soviet counterpart to the NASA Saturn V rocket. This heavy lift booster had the capability of lifting very heavy loads into orbit, designed with manned extra-orbital travel in mind. Its first stage is the most powerful rocket stage ever built.
The N1-L3 version was developed to compete with the United States Apollo Saturn V to land a man on the Moon.
N1-L3 was under-funded and under-tested, and started development in October 1965, almost four years after the Saturn V. The project was badly derailed by the death of its chief designer Sergei Korolev in 1966. After four failed launch attempts, the program was suspended in 1974, and in 1976 was officially cancelled.
I will compare with a photo of the real thing.
It is a photograph taken from the height of the eyes of people.
Payloads for this model (all mine, none adapted from BrickBuff).
Top row, left to right: telescope, mobile lab, tool rack, tools that go in cabinet inside tool rack.
Middle row, left to right: gardening toolbox, planter box, bounding boxes for front, middle, and aft cargo areas (red, yellow, blue), airlock module with inner doors on the left and outer door on bottom.
Bottom row, left to right: small tool rack, airlock module with inner doors on the left and outer doors on the right, removable interior divider module, rover, trailer with crates, removable bed with coffee maker.
From left to right, NASA Press Officer, Felicia Chou; NASA Associate Administrator, Science Mission Directorate, Thomas Zurbuchen; Astrobotic Mission Director, Sharad Bhaskaran; Astrobotic CEO, John Thornton; Chairman of the Board of Intuitive Machines, Kam Ghaffarian; VP of Research and Development of Intuitive Machines, Tim Crain; President and CEO of OrbitBeyond, Siba Padhi; and Chief Science Officer, OrbitBeyond, Jon Morse talk about their lunar landers, Friday, May 31, 2019, at Goddard Space Flight Center in Md. Astrobotic, Intuitive Machines, and OrbitBeyond have been selected to provide the first lunar landers for the Artemis program's lunar surface exploration. Photo credit: (NASA/Aubrey Gemignani)
+++ 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 Messerschmitt Me 262 F was a series of multi-purpose jet planes designed by Messerschmitt for the Luftwaffe that entered service during the final phase of the Second World War in Europe. The aircraft’s design was begun in the summer of 1943 under the project handle P.1099, intended as an improvement to the successful Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighter and also as a replacement for the Arado Ar 234 bomber/reconnaissance aircraft. The primary focus was on more payload, being either usable for more fuel (since early jet engines had poor mileage and therefore range and endurance) or for weapons, including bombs in an internal bomb bay that would enable the aircraft to fulfil a similar tactical role as the British de Havilland Mosquito. Beyond this high-speed bomber (Schnellbomber) variant, the P.1099 would also be a suitable basis for a fast reconnaissance plane, interceptors and night fighters, and trainer versions were also planned.
The Messerschmitt P.1099 was a 12 m long, conventional-looking aircraft with a wingspan of 12.6 m. It had a much wider fuselage than the Messerschmitt Me 262. It had a circular shape with a diameter of 1.7m (5 ft 6¾ in) and the cockpit was now moved closer to the aircraft’s nose, above the front landing gear well. The baseline aircraft featured a side-by-side cockpit for a crew of two, even though different layouts were envisioned for the specialized variants, including single-seaters. To save development time and to use existing jigs and tools as much as possible, the P.1099 retained the wings and the tail section of the Me 262A-2a. Despite a higher total weight (the P.1099’ MTOW was about 3 tons higher), the planned powerplants were initially two uprated Junkers Jumo 004 turbojet engines, later to be replaced by more powerful Heinkel HeS 011 turbojets.
In January 1944 the P.1099 was accepted by the RLM and received, despite the aircraft’s different structure, the designation “Me 262 F”. The first variant, the Me 262 F-1 (internally designated P.1099A), was the baseline aircraft under the handle “Jäger I”, a jet-powered single seat daytime fighter. There were three planned versions, differing mainly in armament: Version F-1a was armed with four MK 108 30 mm cannon in the lower fuselage, comparable with the earlier Me 262 A fighter, just with more fuel and ammunition. Version F-1b carried two MK 103 30 mm cannon with longer range, firepower and ammunition supply, and Version F-1c was a heavy daytime fighter with two MK 108 and two MK 103 cannon in the nose.
In parallel the Me 262 F-2 was developed as a more heavily armed and armored variant, as a dedicated heavy bomber interceptor (“Pulkjäger” or “Zerstörer”) under the handle “Jäger II”. Again, three versions were foreseen: Version F-2a would be armed with a single MK 108 cannon and a heavy MK 112 55 mm cannon in the nose. Version F-2b was the same, but it was armed with a MK 114 50 mm cannon instead of the Mk 112. Both were single seaters with a heavily armored cockpit and canopy.
The F-2c was a more thoroughly modified two-seater version; it was armed with a single MG151/20 in a small nose turret, a pair of Mk 103 in the rear of the cockpit firing up- and backwards and two defensive MG 131 in remote-controlled FDL 151 barbettes in the tail. Due to the significant changes this model had the internal project designation P.1099B.
Another two-seater, the F-2d, remained very close to the original baseline aircraft with a crew of two in a side-by-side cockpit. This aircraft was armed with the standard four MK 108 in the nose, plus one launch rail under each wing for Ruhrstahl X-4 guided missiles, which were launched and steered by the second crewman via a wire connection with the mothership. This variant did not come to fruition, however, after the X-4 missile project had been cancelled in early 1945.
All P.1099 fighters also had hardpoints under the outer wings for racks with twelve 55mm R4M unguided air-to-air missiles each, a detail taken over from the Me 262 A, even though the fuel load had to be reduced to carry them. The radio equipment of all these versions would be a FuG 16, Peil G6, FuG 101 radio altimeter, FuBl 2 blind landing equipment, as well as the FuG 25a Erstling identification friend or foe transceiver.
Beyond these initial day fighter variants, further types based on the P.1099 airframe were envisioned, too. The F-3 was a dedicated night fighter version, developed in parallel to the Me 262 G. It was based on the F-2a heavy day fighter, but it carried a crew of two (the pilot and a rearward-facing radar operator) and was equipped with a FuG 240 “Berlin” radar set and a rotating dish antenna under a streamlined plywood cover in the nose. The armament consisted of four MK 108 under the nose, similar to the F-1a day fighter, plus two additional, upward-firing MK 108 cannon (“Schräge Musik”) in the rear fuselage.
Other proposed variants (with less priority, though) were the F-4 and the F-5, which were to become the basis for fast bombers and reconnaissance aircraft with only light defensive armament, typically only a pair of MG 131 in remote-controlled tail barbettes was to be carried. The F-4 resembled the baseline P.1099A, with two bomb bays in front of and behind the main landing gear wells and a crew of two seated side-by-side in a pressurized cockpit. Two MK 108 were carried in the nose, plus the MG 131 tail barbettes. The F-5 was similar but featured a glazed bomb aimer/navigator station in the nose instead of the MK 108’s and the glazing above the pilot’s station was reduced and asymmetrical. In both bomber variants the fuselage tanks were re-arranged to make room for a single SC 1.200 in the front bomb bay, but combinations of smaller bombs could be carried, too. Alternatively, mounts for up to three cameras or a 1.350 l auxiliary tank for extended range could be carried in the bays, too.
Initial flight tests of the Me 262 F in late 1944 showed severe directional instability: especially after fuel and ammunition had been depleted and the center of gravity shifted the aircraft tended to become nose-heavy and ditch down if it was not carefully monitored and trimmed by the pilot. To cope with this problem, the engine mounts were modified, so that the CoG was shifted back. Compared with the original Me 262 the engines were placed roughly 900 mm (35.5 in) further back under the wings. The emptying sequence of the fuselage tanks was also changed, and this mostly mended the problems. Another measure to mend the directional instability issues was the enlargement of the tail surfaces, even though later production aircraft frequently had smaller Me 262 A stabilizers fitted due to material shortages and simple lack of parts.- However, due to the higher weight the Me 262 F’s handling and agility were very limited – but most of its intended roles rather relied on speed, anyway, so that dogfights could be avoided.
From 1944 on the war situation worsened considerably, and production of the new Me 262 F superseded the A variant only on selected production lines. A disused mine complex under the Walpersberg mountain was adapted for the production of complete aircraft. These were hauled to the flat top of the hill where a runway had been cleared and flown out. Between 20 and 30 Me 262 Fs were built here until early 1946, primarily fighters, the underground factory being overrun by Allied troops before it could reach a meaningful output. Wings were produced in Germany's oldest motorway tunnel at Engelberg, to the west of Stuttgart. At B8 Bergkristall-Esche II, a vast network of tunnels was excavated beneath St. Georgen/Gusen, Austria, where fully equipped fuselages for the Me 262 at a planned monthly rate of 450 units on large assembly lines were to be produced from early 1945.
After the type’s introduction to frontline units in early 1945 further handling problems arose through the aircraft’ weight, resulting from its high wing load. Both starting and landing run were excessive, so that the number of airfields from which it could be operated was relatively small. No real short-term solution could be found without fully re-designing the wings, so that RATO bottles were frequently used to get a fully loaded Me 262 F up into the air from standard airfields. These were typically fitted to racks which were mounted under the fuselage, flanking the rear bomb bay.
The Me 262 F’s landing speed was dangerously high, too. A retrofittable brake parachute, housed in a simple tubular fairing under the tail, was developed to reduce the landing distance and save brakes, which frequently overheated and could set the landed aircraft aflame.
From the Me 262 F-2a “Pulkzerstörer I”, only a small number were built and eventually entered service. Its main armament, the MK 112, was a heavy German machine cannon produced by Rheinmetall-Borsig from 1945 on – in fact, the MK 112 was basically a scaled-up MK 108, a very compact weapon with relatively low weight. The MK 112 had a caliber of 55 mm and thus fired much larger shells than the 30 mm MK 108, but the rate of fire was significantly lower (300 rounds / min compared to about 600-660 rounds / min of the MK 108). This large-caliber gun was designed primarily to combat heavy bombers, its rate of fire would have been too slow for effective aerial battles with escort fighters – but the Me 262 F would not have been a dogfighter, anyway, so that the “hit-and-run” mission profile suited the aircraft well. Fire tests showed that a single MK 112 hit with mine grenades could destroy a bomber, and with a rate of fire of five shells per second this weapon could inflict considerably higher losses on the incoming streams of Allied bombers compared to other on-board weapons used on the German side. Only the unguided R4M missiles were as effective, but the MK 112 offered considerably higher accuracy and the opportunity to execute more than just a single attack run on an incoming bomber formation.
The MK 112 was mounted in the lower starboard section of the Me 262 F-2a’s nose, its barrel protruded more than 2 m (7 ft) from its nose. The gun’s drum magazine with sixty rounds partly took up the rear space of the cockpit behind the pilot and the gun mount even used up space of the weapon bay on port side, so that only a single MK 108 with 100 rounds as an additional weapon was mounted in the lower port side weapon bay.
Its sister, the Me 262 F-2b, remained on the drawing board, because its main weapon, the 50 mm MK 114 autocannon that had been derived from the 5 cm Pak 38 anti-tank gun, had turned out to be over-complicated, overweight and unreliable. A refined version was developed as the MK 214A, though, but after flight test from February 1945, but the weapon was not deployed operationally.
Only a handful Me 262 F-2a Pulkzerstörer were eventually fielded and operated before the end of hostilities – beyond the low production numbers the lack of fuel and loss of suitable airfields highly limited the aircraft’s potential. Probably less than ten were used by operational units, including JG 53 “Pik As”, in which they served alongside other interceptors, including other Me 262 variants. Typically, bomber formations were approached from the side of a bomber formation, where their silhouettes were widest, and while still out of range of the bombers' machine guns. This broadside-attack tactic was very effective, and the aircraft’s high speed allowed the interceptors to turn around 180° and make at least a second attack run from the opposite side, before the machines dashed off and returned to their bases.
General characteristics
Crew: One
Length: 14,32 m (46 ft 11 in) overall
12,00 m (39 ft 3¾ in) fuselage only, w/o brake parachute housing
Wingspan: 12,61 m (41 ft 3¾ in)
Height: 4,43 m (14 ft 6 in)
Wing area: 24,2 m² (236 sq ft)
Empty weight: 5.061 kg (11,148 lb)
Loaded weight: 8.762 kg (19,300 lb)
Max. take-off weight: 10.062 kg (22,163 lb)
Powerplant:
2× Junkers Jumo 004 C turbojets with 12 kN (2,697 lb st) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 930 km/h (577 mph, 505 kn)
Cruising speed: 805 km/h (500 mph, 438 kn) at 6.500 m (21,290 ft)
Range: 1.340 km (830 ml, 728 nm) at 6000 m with internal fuel only
Service ceiling: 11,450 m (37,570 ft)
Rate of climb: 18 m/s (3,540 ft/min) at max. weight
Armament:
1× 55 mm (1.96 in) MK 112 machine cannon with 60 rounds
1× 30 mm (1.18 in) MK 108 machine cannon with 100 rounds
Hardpoints under the outer wings for racks with twelve 55mm R4M unguided air-to-air missiles
The kit and its assembly:
This became a submission to the late 2021 “Gunships” group build at whatifmodellers.com – what would such a competition be without at least one gun-toting German Luft ’46 interceptor? The Messerschmitt P.1099 lent itself for such a build. Since 1996 Revell offers a 1:72 IP model kit of this paper aircraft, depicting more or less the two planned versions: a basic single-seat day fighter and a heavy two-seater Zerstörer, both based on the same basis.
This what-if model was based on Revell’s interpretation of the P.1099A, and the kit goes together well. Fit is very good, even though some designs are IMHO a bit dubious. The kit’s weakest point: Revell unfortunately missed the important detail of the modified engine nacelles: the kit comes with standard Me 262 wings and engines, but due to CoG reasons the P.1099 would have had its engines moved back by about 900 mm, as mentioned in the background. I corrected this on this build with some PSR – sounds simple, but since the nacelles are not expected to be stuck to the wings in their new position roughly 1 cm further back, some serious bodywork had to be done.
Otherwise the kit was basically built OOB. I just left away the inner wheels from the main landing gear because I found the twin wheels to be “too much” for this upgraded Me 262. The P.1099 might have been heavier than the Me 262, but…? And the wheels’ tractor-like tread design looks IMHO out of place, too, so that I replaced them with a pair of MiG-21 wheels, left over from a KP kit.
The cockpit was taken OOB, even though I have doubts concerning the canopy. And when you look at mockup pictures of the P.1099 you realize that cockpit access had been facilitated through a side door at starboard, similar to the D. H. Mosquito. The cockpit tub does not consider this hatch at all, and the engraved door on the fuselage (it’s actually there!) is so tiny that only a Halfling might use it?
Well, I stuck with it “as is” and just added a pilot figure (specifically from a Matchbox Hawker tempest, because it is one of the rare cases that you get a WWII pilot wearing an oxygen mask) and a “barrel” behind the bulbous pilot seat because there’s a lot of free space in this single seat variant that is otherwise occupied by a rear gunner in Revell’s P.1099B kit. I also have doubts concerning the kit’s canopy, since the original P.1099 had a cockpit for two seated side-by-side, with a canopy that resembled the D.H. Mosquito’s a lot. I am also not certain about the stabilizers – the kit comes with standard Me 262 parts, but trustworthy sources I consulted suggest that not only the fin had been enlarged (depicted well in Revell’s kit), but also the stabilizers? To improve this, I implanted a pair of modified stabilizers that came from a Heller PZL P.23 light bomber. Sounds odd, but they were a very good match in size, shape and thickness!
The only major modification concerns the armament, even though it became just a “graft-on” solution. On the lower left side, the upper gun port was PSRed away. On the right side I added a bulged fairing for the MK 112. It was sculpted from a Matchbox Saab J29 drop tank and blended into the hull with PSR. Protruding spent cases fairings were added for both guns. The MK 112 gun barrel is a resin piece, left over from a ModelTrans tank conversion set and actually depicts a German 55 mm gun, so that this became a perfect donor piece.
Since the airframe still looked rather clean and boring I finally added a pair of JATO bottle racks to the rear fuselage (scratched from styrene profile but left empty) and a brake parachute fairing under the fin, carved from a piece of sprue.
Furthermore, a display adapter was installed into the fuselage for in-flight pictures.
Painting and markings:
This became a challenge, because I wanted a rather unusual livery, neither a standard RLM 81/82/76 late-war combo nor an improvised-cammo-over-bare-metal finish. After some research I settled upon something that was actually carried by some He 177 bombers around 1944: a uniform RLM 74 (Graugrün, Humbrol 245) upper surface with “cloudy” mottles in RLM 76 (Humbrol 247). This appears like a winter camouflage, but it’s actually quite effective at medium altitude, esp. over a cloudy landscape. The original bombers had light blue (RLM 65) undersides, but for the P.1099 from a later period and as a fighter I rather used a darker shade of RLM76 in the form of Tamiya XF-23 (Light Blue). The model received a black ink washing and some post-panel-shading.
The cockpit interior became RLM 66 (Schwarzgrau, Humbrol 67) while the landing gear and the well were painted in uniform RLM 02 (I used Revell 45, a slightly more greenish tone), with wheel discs in RLM 66, too.
Unit markings became minimal and quite sober. I gave the aircraft a typical late-war “Reichsverteidigung” fuselage band, and in JG 53’s case it is plain black. The black band was deliberately chosen because it is a good, much darker contrast to the murky RLM 74, so that the latter appears lighter than it actually is, lowering the contrast to the RLM 76 spots.
The decals were puzzled together from various sources. As an aircraft of the 3rd group the unit’s ID color would be yellow, reflected in the tactical code and the fin tip. For some contrast and to emphasize the long gun barrel I gave it white and black stripes – as a security measure for ground handling. For some more variety I painted one air intake in very dark grey (Revell 06, Anthracite) and the other one in steel Metallizer, simulating replacement parts. The Balkenkreuze come from various sheets – I used simplified “low viz” versions all around. The undulating yellow bar for the 3rd group comes from a TL Modellbau sheet, while the yellow “4” came from a Fw 190 A sheet from Sky Models. A small “4” on the nose was added as a wacky detail, too, the “Pik As” unit markings came IIRC from a Hobby Boss Bf 109 sheet. Since they turned out to have poor contrast/opacity I only used a few stencils from the P.1099A sheet, but due to the disruptive paint scheme this is not apparent.
Finally, the model was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and a wire antenna, scratched from heated black sprue material, was added between cockpit and fin.
Well, this modified Messerschmitt P.1099A looks simple, but the modified engine nacelles as well as the gun fairing under the nose called for serious PSR. The result looks quite natural, though, and AFAIK this weapon configuration was actually on German drawing boards. However, I am not certain about the cockpit canopy and other details on Revell’s kit, reference information is contradictive.
The paint scheme looks good, even though it was lent from a heavy bomber, and the poor Humbrol enamels did not yield a finish that I had hoped for – the paintwork could certainly have been better, but the overall impression of a late-war Pulkzerstörer is O.K., and this eventually counts.
Inside a clean room in Building 1555 at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, technicians begin to install the first half of the Northrop Grumman Pegasus XL payload fairing around NASA's Ionospheric Connection Explorer (ICON) on Aug. 22, 2018. ICON is being prepared for its launch on the Pegasus XL rocket, which is attached beneath the company's L-1011 Stargazer aircraft. Launch is scheduled for Oct. 26, from the Skid Strip at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. ICON will study the frontier of space - the dynamic zone high in Earth's atmosphere where terrestrial weather from below meets space weather above. The explorer will help determine the physics of Earth's space environment and pave the way for mitigating its effects on our technology, communications systems and society. Photo credit: NASA/Rodney Jones
The NROL-61 mission for the National Reconnaissance Office, encapsulated inside a 4-meter payload fairing, is mated to its United Launch Alliance (ULA) Atlas V booster inside the Vertical Integration Facility (VIF) at Cape Canaveral's Space Launch Complex-41. Photo credit: United Launch Alliance
When I saw this on the shores of the Moskva River in the middle of Moscow, I thought that one of the American space shuttles had ended up being displayed here. What I didn't know is that the Soviet Union had its own space shuttle program called Buran which used spacecraft that were very similar to the American space shuttles, at least from the outside.
The Soviets decided to develop their own space shuttle program in the 1980's when they realized that the American space shuttles could carry enough military payload, possibly including nuclear weapons, and deploy them over Soviet territory, that it would constitute a major threat to their security. The Buran program had no civilian objectives, only military.
The Buran experiment was limited to one orbital flight, unmanned, which took place on November 15, 1988. The flight was a success and was the only shuttle-type spacecraft to fly unmanned, including landing in full automatic mode. The program was discontinued in 1993 after the disintegration of the Soviet Union as it was deemed unnecessary since the Cold War and the military hardware competition that came with it was pretty well over. That particular spacecraft, the one that flew, was destroyed in a massive storm that caused the collapse of the hangar where it was being kept in Kazakhstan. The one photographed here is a prototype that never flew.
Vice President Mike Pence, right, and Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., talk with Expedition 53 crew members Joe Acaba, Randy Bresnik, and Mark Vande Hei onboard the International Space Station from the Payload Operations Integration Center (POIC) of the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Monday, Sept. 25, 2017 in Huntsville, Alabama. The Vice President visited the space center to view test hardware for NASA’s Space Launch System, America’s new deep space rocket and to call the crew onboard the International Space Station. Photo Credit: (NASA/Bill Ingalls)
The third BARREL balloon--detached from the payload--ended up draped over trees near Svappavaara, Sweden, about 35 miles from the original launch site. The team recovered the balloon and payload on Aug. 19, 2015, two days after its 16-hour flight.
The NASA-funded BARREL – which stands for Balloon Array for Radiation-belt Relativistic Electron Losses – measures electrons in the atmosphere near the poles. Such electrons rain down into the atmosphere from two giant radiation belts surrounding Earth, called the Van Allen belts. For its third campaign, BARREL is launching six balloons from the Esrange Space Center in Kiruna, Sweden. BARREL is led by Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire.
Credit: NASA/Dartmouth/Alexa Halford
The BARREL team carries their third balloon payload back to their vehicle. After collecting data for nearly 16 hours, the box containing the scientific instruments floated gently back to Earth. Recovery was especially important for this balloon, since it carried a student-designed magnetometer--an instrument for measuring magnetic fields--and all of its recorded data.
The NASA-funded BARREL – which stands for Balloon Array for Radiation-belt Relativistic Electron Losses – measures electrons in the atmosphere near the poles. Such electrons rain down into the atmosphere from two giant radiation belts surrounding Earth, called the Van Allen belts. For its third campaign, BARREL is launching six balloons from the Esrange Space Center in Kiruna, Sweden. BARREL is led by Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire.
Credit: NASA/Dartmouth/Alexa Halford
Locations of DNA application on the TEXUS-49 payload.a Scheme of the TEXUS-49 payload with DNA sample 1–12 application sites b Plasmid DNA samples 1–12 were applied on the outside of the TEM (TEXUS Experiment Module) EML 4 .cI DNA samples 1–4 were applied circular at 0, 90, 180, 270 degree directly on the surface of the payload. DNA samples 5–12 were also applied with a distance of 90 degree each in the screw heads of the payload .cII DNA samples 13–15 were applied directly on the payload surface at the bottom side .d DNA samples 1–4 were pipetted directly on the surface and locations were marked with a pen .e DNA samples 5–12 were applied in the grooves of the screw heads .f DNA samples 13–15 were applied directly on the payload surface on the bottom side and locations were marked with a pen.
The BARREL team prepares their fifth balloon and payload for launch. The white box in the foreground is an air traffic control transponder and positioning unit. The main payload (not visible in the picture) contains instruments to measure the number of electrons raining down from the swaths of trapped charged particles above Earth, known as the Van Allen Belts. The orange and white fabric is a parachute that will help the payload float gently to Earth after it is detached from the translucent balloon.
The NASA-funded BARREL – which stands for Balloon Array for Radiation-belt Relativistic Electron Losses – measures electrons in the atmosphere near the poles. For its third campaign, BARREL is launching six balloons from the Esrange Space Center in Kiruna, Sweden. BARREL is led by Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire.
Credit: NASA/Dartmouth/Alexa Halford
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center enables NASA’s mission through four scientific endeavors: Earth Science, Heliophysics, Solar System Exploration, and Astrophysics. Goddard plays a leading role in NASA’s accomplishments by contributing compelling scientific knowledge to advance the Agency’s mission.
Follow us on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Find us on Instagram
See more photos of this, and the Wikipedia article.
Details, quoting from Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum | Space Shuttle Enterprise:
Manufacturer:
Rockwell International Corporation
Country of Origin:
United States of America
Dimensions:
Overall: 57 ft. tall x 122 ft. long x 78 ft. wing span, 150,000 lb.
(1737.36 x 3718.57 x 2377.44cm, 68039.6kg)
Materials:
Aluminum airframe and body with some fiberglass features; payload bay doors are graphite epoxy composite; thermal tiles are simulated (polyurethane foam) except for test samples of actual tiles and thermal blankets.
The first Space Shuttle orbiter, "Enterprise," is a full-scale test vehicle used for flights in the atmosphere and tests on the ground; it is not equipped for spaceflight. Although the airframe and flight control elements are like those of the Shuttles flown in space, this vehicle has no propulsion system and only simulated thermal tiles because these features were not needed for atmospheric and ground tests. "Enterprise" was rolled out at Rockwell International's assembly facility in Palmdale, California, in 1976. In 1977, it entered service for a nine-month-long approach-and-landing test flight program. Thereafter it was used for vibration tests and fit checks at NASA centers, and it also appeared in the 1983 Paris Air Show and the 1984 World's Fair in New Orleans. In 1985, NASA transferred "Enterprise" to the Smithsonian Institution's National Air and Space Museum.
Transferred from National Aeronautics and Space Administration
• • •
Quoting from Wikipedia | Space Shuttle Enterprise:
The Space Shuttle Enterprise (NASA Orbiter Vehicle Designation: OV-101) was the first Space Shuttle orbiter. It was built for NASA as part of the Space Shuttle program to perform test flights in the atmosphere. It was constructed without engines or a functional heat shield, and was therefore not capable of spaceflight.
Originally, Enterprise had been intended to be refitted for orbital flight, which would have made it the second space shuttle to fly after Columbia. However, during the construction of Columbia, details of the final design changed, particularly with regard to the weight of the fuselage and wings. Refitting Enterprise for spaceflight would have involved dismantling the orbiter and returning the sections to subcontractors across the country. As this was an expensive proposition, it was determined to be less costly to build Challenger around a body frame (STA-099) that had been created as a test article. Similarly, Enterprise was considered for refit to replace Challenger after the latter was destroyed, but Endeavour was built from structural spares instead.
Service
Construction began on the first orbiter on June 4, 1974. Designated OV-101, it was originally planned to be named Constitution and unveiled on Constitution Day, September 17, 1976. A write-in campaign by Trekkies to President Gerald Ford asked that the orbiter be named after the Starship Enterprise, featured on the television show Star Trek. Although Ford did not mention the campaign, the president—who during World War II had served on the aircraft carrier USS Monterey (CVL-26) that served with USS Enterprise (CV-6)—said that he was "partial to the name" and overrode NASA officials.
The design of OV-101 was not the same as that planned for OV-102, the first flight model; the tail was constructed differently, and it did not have the interfaces to mount OMS pods. A large number of subsystems—ranging from main engines to radar equipment—were not installed on this vehicle, but the capacity to add them in the future was retained. Instead of a thermal protection system, its surface was primarily fiberglass.
In mid-1976, the orbiter was used for ground vibration tests, allowing engineers to compare data from an actual flight vehicle with theoretical models.
On September 17, 1976, Enterprise was rolled out of Rockwell's plant at Palmdale, California. In recognition of its fictional namesake, Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry and most of the principal cast of the original series of Star Trek were on hand at the dedication ceremony.
Approach and landing tests (ALT)
Main article: Approach and Landing Tests
On January 31, 1977, it was taken by road to Dryden Flight Research Center at Edwards Air Force Base, to begin operational testing.
While at NASA Dryden, Enterprise was used by NASA for a variety of ground and flight tests intended to validate aspects of the shuttle program. The initial nine-month testing period was referred to by the acronym ALT, for "Approach and Landing Test". These tests included a maiden "flight" on February 18, 1977 atop a Boeing 747 Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (SCA) to measure structural loads and ground handling and braking characteristics of the mated system. Ground tests of all orbiter subsystems were carried out to verify functionality prior to atmospheric flight.
The mated Enterprise/SCA combination was then subjected to five test flights with Enterprise unmanned and unactivated. The purpose of these test flights was to measure the flight characteristics of the mated combination. These tests were followed with three test flights with Enterprise manned to test the shuttle flight control systems.
Enterprise underwent five free flights where the craft separated from the SCA and was landed under astronaut control. These tests verified the flight characteristics of the orbiter design and were carried out under several aerodynamic and weight configurations. On the fifth and final glider flight, pilot-induced oscillation problems were revealed, which had to be addressed before the first orbital launch occurred.
On August 12, 1977, the space shuttle Enterprise flew on its own for the first time.
Preparation for STS-1
Following the ALT program, Enterprise was ferried among several NASA facilities to configure the craft for vibration testing. In June 1979, it was mated with an external tank and solid rocket boosters (known as a boilerplate configuration) and tested in a launch configuration at Kennedy Space Center Launch Pad 39A.
Retirement
With the completion of critical testing, Enterprise was partially disassembled to allow certain components to be reused in other shuttles, then underwent an international tour visiting France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the U.S. states of California, Alabama, and Louisiana (during the 1984 Louisiana World Exposition). It was also used to fit-check the never-used shuttle launch pad at Vandenberg AFB, California. Finally, on November 18, 1985, Enterprise was ferried to Washington, D.C., where it became property of the Smithsonian Institution.
Post-Challenger
After the Challenger disaster, NASA considered using Enterprise as a replacement. However refitting the shuttle with all of the necessary equipment needed for it to be used in space was considered, but instead it was decided to use spares constructed at the same time as Discovery and Atlantis to build Endeavour.
Post-Columbia
In 2003, after the breakup of Columbia during re-entry, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board conducted tests at Southwest Research Institute, which used an air gun to shoot foam blocks of similar size, mass and speed to that which struck Columbia at a test structure which mechanically replicated the orbiter wing leading edge. They removed a fiberglass panel from Enterprise's wing to perform analysis of the material and attached it to the test structure, then shot a foam block at it. While the panel was not broken as a result of the test, the impact was enough to permanently deform a seal. As the reinforced carbon-carbon (RCC) panel on Columbia was 2.5 times weaker, this suggested that the RCC leading edge would have been shattered. Additional tests on the fiberglass were canceled in order not to risk damaging the test apparatus, and a panel from Discovery was tested to determine the effects of the foam on a similarly-aged RCC leading edge. On July 7, 2003, a foam impact test created a hole 41 cm by 42.5 cm (16.1 inches by 16.7 inches) in the protective RCC panel. The tests clearly demonstrated that a foam impact of the type Columbia sustained could seriously breach the protective RCC panels on the wing leading edge.
The board determined that the probable cause of the accident was that the foam impact caused a breach of a reinforced carbon-carbon panel along the leading edge of Columbia's left wing, allowing hot gases generated during re-entry to enter the wing and cause structural collapse. This caused Columbia to spin out of control, breaking up with the loss of the entire crew.
Museum exhibit
Enterprise was stored at the Smithsonian's hangar at Washington Dulles International Airport before it was restored and moved to the newly built Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum's Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center at Dulles International Airport, where it has been the centerpiece of the space collection. On April 12, 2011, NASA announced that Space Shuttle Discovery, the most traveled orbiter in the fleet, will be added to the collection once the Shuttle fleet is retired. When that happens, Enterprise will be moved to the Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum in New York City, to a newly constructed hangar adjacent to the museum. In preparation for the anticipated relocation, engineers evaluated the vehicle in early 2010 and determined that it was safe to fly on the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft once again.
Posted via email to ☛ HoloChromaCinePhotoRamaScope‽: cdevers.posterous.com/enterprise-0. See the full gallery on Posterous ...
• • • • •
See more photos of this, and the Wikipedia article.
Details, quoting from Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum | Space Shuttle Enterprise:
Manufacturer:
Rockwell International Corporation
Country of Origin:
United States of America
Dimensions:
Overall: 57 ft. tall x 122 ft. long x 78 ft. wing span, 150,000 lb.
(1737.36 x 3718.57 x 2377.44cm, 68039.6kg)
Materials:
Aluminum airframe and body with some fiberglass features; payload bay doors are graphite epoxy composite; thermal tiles are simulated (polyurethane foam) except for test samples of actual tiles and thermal blankets.
The first Space Shuttle orbiter, "Enterprise," is a full-scale test vehicle used for flights in the atmosphere and tests on the ground; it is not equipped for spaceflight. Although the airframe and flight control elements are like those of the Shuttles flown in space, this vehicle has no propulsion system and only simulated thermal tiles because these features were not needed for atmospheric and ground tests. "Enterprise" was rolled out at Rockwell International's assembly facility in Palmdale, California, in 1976. In 1977, it entered service for a nine-month-long approach-and-landing test flight program. Thereafter it was used for vibration tests and fit checks at NASA centers, and it also appeared in the 1983 Paris Air Show and the 1984 World's Fair in New Orleans. In 1985, NASA transferred "Enterprise" to the Smithsonian Institution's National Air and Space Museum.
Transferred from National Aeronautics and Space Administration
• • •
Quoting from Wikipedia | Space Shuttle Enterprise:
The Space Shuttle Enterprise (NASA Orbiter Vehicle Designation: OV-101) was the first Space Shuttle orbiter. It was built for NASA as part of the Space Shuttle program to perform test flights in the atmosphere. It was constructed without engines or a functional heat shield, and was therefore not capable of spaceflight.
Originally, Enterprise had been intended to be refitted for orbital flight, which would have made it the second space shuttle to fly after Columbia. However, during the construction of Columbia, details of the final design changed, particularly with regard to the weight of the fuselage and wings. Refitting Enterprise for spaceflight would have involved dismantling the orbiter and returning the sections to subcontractors across the country. As this was an expensive proposition, it was determined to be less costly to build Challenger around a body frame (STA-099) that had been created as a test article. Similarly, Enterprise was considered for refit to replace Challenger after the latter was destroyed, but Endeavour was built from structural spares instead.
Service
Construction began on the first orbiter on June 4, 1974. Designated OV-101, it was originally planned to be named Constitution and unveiled on Constitution Day, September 17, 1976. A write-in campaign by Trekkies to President Gerald Ford asked that the orbiter be named after the Starship Enterprise, featured on the television show Star Trek. Although Ford did not mention the campaign, the president—who during World War II had served on the aircraft carrier USS Monterey (CVL-26) that served with USS Enterprise (CV-6)—said that he was "partial to the name" and overrode NASA officials.
The design of OV-101 was not the same as that planned for OV-102, the first flight model; the tail was constructed differently, and it did not have the interfaces to mount OMS pods. A large number of subsystems—ranging from main engines to radar equipment—were not installed on this vehicle, but the capacity to add them in the future was retained. Instead of a thermal protection system, its surface was primarily fiberglass.
In mid-1976, the orbiter was used for ground vibration tests, allowing engineers to compare data from an actual flight vehicle with theoretical models.
On September 17, 1976, Enterprise was rolled out of Rockwell's plant at Palmdale, California. In recognition of its fictional namesake, Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry and most of the principal cast of the original series of Star Trek were on hand at the dedication ceremony.
Approach and landing tests (ALT)
Main article: Approach and Landing Tests
On January 31, 1977, it was taken by road to Dryden Flight Research Center at Edwards Air Force Base, to begin operational testing.
While at NASA Dryden, Enterprise was used by NASA for a variety of ground and flight tests intended to validate aspects of the shuttle program. The initial nine-month testing period was referred to by the acronym ALT, for "Approach and Landing Test". These tests included a maiden "flight" on February 18, 1977 atop a Boeing 747 Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (SCA) to measure structural loads and ground handling and braking characteristics of the mated system. Ground tests of all orbiter subsystems were carried out to verify functionality prior to atmospheric flight.
The mated Enterprise/SCA combination was then subjected to five test flights with Enterprise unmanned and unactivated. The purpose of these test flights was to measure the flight characteristics of the mated combination. These tests were followed with three test flights with Enterprise manned to test the shuttle flight control systems.
Enterprise underwent five free flights where the craft separated from the SCA and was landed under astronaut control. These tests verified the flight characteristics of the orbiter design and were carried out under several aerodynamic and weight configurations. On the fifth and final glider flight, pilot-induced oscillation problems were revealed, which had to be addressed before the first orbital launch occurred.
On August 12, 1977, the space shuttle Enterprise flew on its own for the first time.
Preparation for STS-1
Following the ALT program, Enterprise was ferried among several NASA facilities to configure the craft for vibration testing. In June 1979, it was mated with an external tank and solid rocket boosters (known as a boilerplate configuration) and tested in a launch configuration at Kennedy Space Center Launch Pad 39A.
Retirement
With the completion of critical testing, Enterprise was partially disassembled to allow certain components to be reused in other shuttles, then underwent an international tour visiting France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the U.S. states of California, Alabama, and Louisiana (during the 1984 Louisiana World Exposition). It was also used to fit-check the never-used shuttle launch pad at Vandenberg AFB, California. Finally, on November 18, 1985, Enterprise was ferried to Washington, D.C., where it became property of the Smithsonian Institution.
Post-Challenger
After the Challenger disaster, NASA considered using Enterprise as a replacement. However refitting the shuttle with all of the necessary equipment needed for it to be used in space was considered, but instead it was decided to use spares constructed at the same time as Discovery and Atlantis to build Endeavour.
Post-Columbia
In 2003, after the breakup of Columbia during re-entry, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board conducted tests at Southwest Research Institute, which used an air gun to shoot foam blocks of similar size, mass and speed to that which struck Columbia at a test structure which mechanically replicated the orbiter wing leading edge. They removed a fiberglass panel from Enterprise's wing to perform analysis of the material and attached it to the test structure, then shot a foam block at it. While the panel was not broken as a result of the test, the impact was enough to permanently deform a seal. As the reinforced carbon-carbon (RCC) panel on Columbia was 2.5 times weaker, this suggested that the RCC leading edge would have been shattered. Additional tests on the fiberglass were canceled in order not to risk damaging the test apparatus, and a panel from Discovery was tested to determine the effects of the foam on a similarly-aged RCC leading edge. On July 7, 2003, a foam impact test created a hole 41 cm by 42.5 cm (16.1 inches by 16.7 inches) in the protective RCC panel. The tests clearly demonstrated that a foam impact of the type Columbia sustained could seriously breach the protective RCC panels on the wing leading edge.
The board determined that the probable cause of the accident was that the foam impact caused a breach of a reinforced carbon-carbon panel along the leading edge of Columbia's left wing, allowing hot gases generated during re-entry to enter the wing and cause structural collapse. This caused Columbia to spin out of control, breaking up with the loss of the entire crew.
Museum exhibit
Enterprise was stored at the Smithsonian's hangar at Washington Dulles International Airport before it was restored and moved to the newly built Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum's Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center at Dulles International Airport, where it has been the centerpiece of the space collection. On April 12, 2011, NASA announced that Space Shuttle Discovery, the most traveled orbiter in the fleet, will be added to the collection once the Shuttle fleet is retired. When that happens, Enterprise will be moved to the Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum in New York City, to a newly constructed hangar adjacent to the museum. In preparation for the anticipated relocation, engineers evaluated the vehicle in early 2010 and determined that it was safe to fly on the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft once again.
Modifications continue inside the Multi-Payload Processing Facility (MPPF) at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida. In view is the Orion de-servicing platform. At far left is the Orion deservicing platform. In the center are three general purpose fuel tanks. At far right is the service platform that will be used for offline processing and fueling of the Orion spacecraft and service module stack before launch. The Ground Systems Development and Operations Program (GSDO) is overseeing the upgrades to the facility. Photo credit: NASA/Dimitri Gerondidakis
Encapsulated in its payload fairing, NASA's Interior Exploration using Seismic Investigations, Geodesy and Heat Transport, or InSight, Mars lander is transported to Space Launch Complex 3 at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. InSight will be the first mission to look deep beneath the Martian surface. It will study the planet's interior by measuring its heat output and listen for marsquakes. The spacecraft will use the seismic waves generated by marsquakes to develop a map of the planet’s deep interior. The resulting insight into Mars’ formation will provide a better understanding of how other rocky planets, including Earth, were created. InSight is scheduled for liftoff May 5, 2018.
Photo credit: USAF 30th Space Wing/Daniel Herrera
Farah Alibay, Payload Systems Engineer, NASA JPL, talks about Mars InSight during a social media briefing, Sunday, Nov. 25, 2018 at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. InSight, short for Interior Exploration using Seismic Investigations, Geodesy and Heat Transport, is a Mars lander designed to study the "inner space" of Mars: its crust, mantle, and core. InSight is scheduled to touch down on the Red Planet at approximately noon PST (3 p.m. EST) on Nov. 26. Photo Credit: (NASA/Bill Ingalls)
Fully integrated Gaia payload module with nearly all of the multilayer insulation fabric installed. Nearest to the camera, the rear of one of the primary mirrors and one of the tertiary mirrors are visible. Beneath the tertiary (smaller) mirror, the Radial Velocity Spectrometer can be seen. To the right is the Focal Plane Assembly with its charge-coupled device sensors (blue). The focal plane array, with a total of almost a billion pixels, is the largest ever developed. The integration was carried out at Astrium, Toulouse.
For further information, please visit the ESA Space Science article here.
Credits: Astrium SAS
The Callisto demonstration payload is a partnership between Lockheed Martin, Amazon and Cisco. The Callisto technology demonstration will be integrated into NASA’s Orion spacecraft for the Artemis I uncrewed mission to the Moon. Callisto uses Amazon Alexa and Webex by Cisco to test and demonstrate commercial technology for deep space voice, video and whiteboarding communications.
See more photos of this, and the Wikipedia article.
Details, quoting from Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum | Space Shuttle Enterprise:
Manufacturer:
Rockwell International Corporation
Country of Origin:
United States of America
Dimensions:
Overall: 57 ft. tall x 122 ft. long x 78 ft. wing span, 150,000 lb.
(1737.36 x 3718.57 x 2377.44cm, 68039.6kg)
Materials:
Aluminum airframe and body with some fiberglass features; payload bay doors are graphite epoxy composite; thermal tiles are simulated (polyurethane foam) except for test samples of actual tiles and thermal blankets.
The first Space Shuttle orbiter, "Enterprise," is a full-scale test vehicle used for flights in the atmosphere and tests on the ground; it is not equipped for spaceflight. Although the airframe and flight control elements are like those of the Shuttles flown in space, this vehicle has no propulsion system and only simulated thermal tiles because these features were not needed for atmospheric and ground tests. "Enterprise" was rolled out at Rockwell International's assembly facility in Palmdale, California, in 1976. In 1977, it entered service for a nine-month-long approach-and-landing test flight program. Thereafter it was used for vibration tests and fit checks at NASA centers, and it also appeared in the 1983 Paris Air Show and the 1984 World's Fair in New Orleans. In 1985, NASA transferred "Enterprise" to the Smithsonian Institution's National Air and Space Museum.
Transferred from National Aeronautics and Space Administration
• • •
Quoting from Wikipedia | Space Shuttle Enterprise:
The Space Shuttle Enterprise (NASA Orbiter Vehicle Designation: OV-101) was the first Space Shuttle orbiter. It was built for NASA as part of the Space Shuttle program to perform test flights in the atmosphere. It was constructed without engines or a functional heat shield, and was therefore not capable of spaceflight.
Originally, Enterprise had been intended to be refitted for orbital flight, which would have made it the second space shuttle to fly after Columbia. However, during the construction of Columbia, details of the final design changed, particularly with regard to the weight of the fuselage and wings. Refitting Enterprise for spaceflight would have involved dismantling the orbiter and returning the sections to subcontractors across the country. As this was an expensive proposition, it was determined to be less costly to build Challenger around a body frame (STA-099) that had been created as a test article. Similarly, Enterprise was considered for refit to replace Challenger after the latter was destroyed, but Endeavour was built from structural spares instead.
Service
Construction began on the first orbiter on June 4, 1974. Designated OV-101, it was originally planned to be named Constitution and unveiled on Constitution Day, September 17, 1976. A write-in campaign by Trekkies to President Gerald Ford asked that the orbiter be named after the Starship Enterprise, featured on the television show Star Trek. Although Ford did not mention the campaign, the president—who during World War II had served on the aircraft carrier USS Monterey (CVL-26) that served with USS Enterprise (CV-6)—said that he was "partial to the name" and overrode NASA officials.
The design of OV-101 was not the same as that planned for OV-102, the first flight model; the tail was constructed differently, and it did not have the interfaces to mount OMS pods. A large number of subsystems—ranging from main engines to radar equipment—were not installed on this vehicle, but the capacity to add them in the future was retained. Instead of a thermal protection system, its surface was primarily fiberglass.
In mid-1976, the orbiter was used for ground vibration tests, allowing engineers to compare data from an actual flight vehicle with theoretical models.
On September 17, 1976, Enterprise was rolled out of Rockwell's plant at Palmdale, California. In recognition of its fictional namesake, Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry and most of the principal cast of the original series of Star Trek were on hand at the dedication ceremony.
Approach and landing tests (ALT)
Main article: Approach and Landing Tests
On January 31, 1977, it was taken by road to Dryden Flight Research Center at Edwards Air Force Base, to begin operational testing.
While at NASA Dryden, Enterprise was used by NASA for a variety of ground and flight tests intended to validate aspects of the shuttle program. The initial nine-month testing period was referred to by the acronym ALT, for "Approach and Landing Test". These tests included a maiden "flight" on February 18, 1977 atop a Boeing 747 Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (SCA) to measure structural loads and ground handling and braking characteristics of the mated system. Ground tests of all orbiter subsystems were carried out to verify functionality prior to atmospheric flight.
The mated Enterprise/SCA combination was then subjected to five test flights with Enterprise unmanned and unactivated. The purpose of these test flights was to measure the flight characteristics of the mated combination. These tests were followed with three test flights with Enterprise manned to test the shuttle flight control systems.
Enterprise underwent five free flights where the craft separated from the SCA and was landed under astronaut control. These tests verified the flight characteristics of the orbiter design and were carried out under several aerodynamic and weight configurations. On the fifth and final glider flight, pilot-induced oscillation problems were revealed, which had to be addressed before the first orbital launch occurred.
On August 12, 1977, the space shuttle Enterprise flew on its own for the first time.
Preparation for STS-1
Following the ALT program, Enterprise was ferried among several NASA facilities to configure the craft for vibration testing. In June 1979, it was mated with an external tank and solid rocket boosters (known as a boilerplate configuration) and tested in a launch configuration at Kennedy Space Center Launch Pad 39A.
Retirement
With the completion of critical testing, Enterprise was partially disassembled to allow certain components to be reused in other shuttles, then underwent an international tour visiting France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the U.S. states of California, Alabama, and Louisiana (during the 1984 Louisiana World Exposition). It was also used to fit-check the never-used shuttle launch pad at Vandenberg AFB, California. Finally, on November 18, 1985, Enterprise was ferried to Washington, D.C., where it became property of the Smithsonian Institution.
Post-Challenger
After the Challenger disaster, NASA considered using Enterprise as a replacement. However refitting the shuttle with all of the necessary equipment needed for it to be used in space was considered, but instead it was decided to use spares constructed at the same time as Discovery and Atlantis to build Endeavour.
Post-Columbia
In 2003, after the breakup of Columbia during re-entry, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board conducted tests at Southwest Research Institute, which used an air gun to shoot foam blocks of similar size, mass and speed to that which struck Columbia at a test structure which mechanically replicated the orbiter wing leading edge. They removed a fiberglass panel from Enterprise's wing to perform analysis of the material and attached it to the test structure, then shot a foam block at it. While the panel was not broken as a result of the test, the impact was enough to permanently deform a seal. As the reinforced carbon-carbon (RCC) panel on Columbia was 2.5 times weaker, this suggested that the RCC leading edge would have been shattered. Additional tests on the fiberglass were canceled in order not to risk damaging the test apparatus, and a panel from Discovery was tested to determine the effects of the foam on a similarly-aged RCC leading edge. On July 7, 2003, a foam impact test created a hole 41 cm by 42.5 cm (16.1 inches by 16.7 inches) in the protective RCC panel. The tests clearly demonstrated that a foam impact of the type Columbia sustained could seriously breach the protective RCC panels on the wing leading edge.
The board determined that the probable cause of the accident was that the foam impact caused a breach of a reinforced carbon-carbon panel along the leading edge of Columbia's left wing, allowing hot gases generated during re-entry to enter the wing and cause structural collapse. This caused Columbia to spin out of control, breaking up with the loss of the entire crew.
Museum exhibit
Enterprise was stored at the Smithsonian's hangar at Washington Dulles International Airport before it was restored and moved to the newly built Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum's Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center at Dulles International Airport, where it has been the centerpiece of the space collection. On April 12, 2011, NASA announced that Space Shuttle Discovery, the most traveled orbiter in the fleet, will be added to the collection once the Shuttle fleet is retired. When that happens, Enterprise will be moved to the Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum in New York City, to a newly constructed hangar adjacent to the museum. In preparation for the anticipated relocation, engineers evaluated the vehicle in early 2010 and determined that it was safe to fly on the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft once again.
+++ 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 Messerschmitt Me 262 F was a series of multi-purpose jet planes designed by Messerschmitt for the Luftwaffe that entered service during the final phase of the Second World War in Europe. The aircraft’s design was begun in the summer of 1943 under the project handle P.1099, intended as an improvement to the successful Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighter and also as a replacement for the Arado Ar 234 bomber/reconnaissance aircraft. The primary focus was on more payload, being either usable for more fuel (since early jet engines had poor mileage and therefore range and endurance) or for weapons, including bombs in an internal bomb bay that would enable the aircraft to fulfil a similar tactical role as the British de Havilland Mosquito. Beyond this high-speed bomber (Schnellbomber) variant, the P.1099 would also be a suitable basis for a fast reconnaissance plane, interceptors and night fighters, and trainer versions were also planned.
The Messerschmitt P.1099 was a 12 m long, conventional-looking aircraft with a wingspan of 12.6 m. It had a much wider fuselage than the Messerschmitt Me 262. It had a circular shape with a diameter of 1.7m (5 ft 6¾ in) and the cockpit was now moved closer to the aircraft’s nose, above the front landing gear well. The baseline aircraft featured a side-by-side cockpit for a crew of two, even though different layouts were envisioned for the specialized variants, including single-seaters. To save development time and to use existing jigs and tools as much as possible, the P.1099 retained the wings and the tail section of the Me 262A-2a. Despite a higher total weight (the P.1099’ MTOW was about 3 tons higher), the planned powerplants were initially two uprated Junkers Jumo 004 turbojet engines, later to be replaced by more powerful Heinkel HeS 011 turbojets.
In January 1944 the P.1099 was accepted by the RLM and received, despite the aircraft’s different structure, the designation “Me 262 F”. The first variant, the Me 262 F-1 (internally designated P.1099A), was the baseline aircraft under the handle “Jäger I”, a jet-powered single seat daytime fighter. There were three planned versions, differing mainly in armament: Version F-1a was armed with four MK 108 30 mm cannon in the lower fuselage, comparable with the earlier Me 262 A fighter, just with more fuel and ammunition. Version F-1b carried two MK 103 30 mm cannon with longer range, firepower and ammunition supply, and Version F-1c was a heavy daytime fighter with two MK 108 and two MK 103 cannon in the nose.
In parallel the Me 262 F-2 was developed as a more heavily armed and armored variant, as a dedicated heavy bomber interceptor (“Pulkjäger” or “Zerstörer”) under the handle “Jäger II”. Again, three versions were foreseen: Version F-2a would be armed with a single MK 108 cannon and a heavy MK 112 55 mm cannon in the nose. Version F-2b was the same, but it was armed with a MK 114 50 mm cannon instead of the Mk 112. Both were single seaters with a heavily armored cockpit and canopy.
The F-2c was a more thoroughly modified two-seater version; it was armed with a single MG151/20 in a small nose turret, a pair of Mk 103 in the rear of the cockpit firing up- and backwards and two defensive MG 131 in remote-controlled FDL 151 barbettes in the tail. Due to the significant changes this model had the internal project designation P.1099B.
Another two-seater, the F-2d, remained very close to the original baseline aircraft with a crew of two in a side-by-side cockpit. This aircraft was armed with the standard four MK 108 in the nose, plus one launch rail under each wing for Ruhrstahl X-4 guided missiles, which were launched and steered by the second crewman via a wire connection with the mothership. This variant did not come to fruition, however, after the X-4 missile project had been cancelled in early 1945.
All P.1099 fighters also had hardpoints under the outer wings for racks with twelve 55mm R4M unguided air-to-air missiles each, a detail taken over from the Me 262 A, even though the fuel load had to be reduced to carry them. The radio equipment of all these versions would be a FuG 16, Peil G6, FuG 101 radio altimeter, FuBl 2 blind landing equipment, as well as the FuG 25a Erstling identification friend or foe transceiver.
Beyond these initial day fighter variants, further types based on the P.1099 airframe were envisioned, too. The F-3 was a dedicated night fighter version, developed in parallel to the Me 262 G. It was based on the F-2a heavy day fighter, but it carried a crew of two (the pilot and a rearward-facing radar operator) and was equipped with a FuG 240 “Berlin” radar set and a rotating dish antenna under a streamlined plywood cover in the nose. The armament consisted of four MK 108 under the nose, similar to the F-1a day fighter, plus two additional, upward-firing MK 108 cannon (“Schräge Musik”) in the rear fuselage.
Other proposed variants (with less priority, though) were the F-4 and the F-5, which were to become the basis for fast bombers and reconnaissance aircraft with only light defensive armament, typically only a pair of MG 131 in remote-controlled tail barbettes was to be carried. The F-4 resembled the baseline P.1099A, with two bomb bays in front of and behind the main landing gear wells and a crew of two seated side-by-side in a pressurized cockpit. Two MK 108 were carried in the nose, plus the MG 131 tail barbettes. The F-5 was similar but featured a glazed bomb aimer/navigator station in the nose instead of the MK 108’s and the glazing above the pilot’s station was reduced and asymmetrical. In both bomber variants the fuselage tanks were re-arranged to make room for a single SC 1.200 in the front bomb bay, but combinations of smaller bombs could be carried, too. Alternatively, mounts for up to three cameras or a 1.350 l auxiliary tank for extended range could be carried in the bays, too.
Initial flight tests of the Me 262 F in late 1944 showed severe directional instability: especially after fuel and ammunition had been depleted and the center of gravity shifted the aircraft tended to become nose-heavy and ditch down if it was not carefully monitored and trimmed by the pilot. To cope with this problem, the engine mounts were modified, so that the CoG was shifted back. Compared with the original Me 262 the engines were placed roughly 900 mm (35.5 in) further back under the wings. The emptying sequence of the fuselage tanks was also changed, and this mostly mended the problems. Another measure to mend the directional instability issues was the enlargement of the tail surfaces, even though later production aircraft frequently had smaller Me 262 A stabilizers fitted due to material shortages and simple lack of parts.- However, due to the higher weight the Me 262 F’s handling and agility were very limited – but most of its intended roles rather relied on speed, anyway, so that dogfights could be avoided.
From 1944 on the war situation worsened considerably, and production of the new Me 262 F superseded the A variant only on selected production lines. A disused mine complex under the Walpersberg mountain was adapted for the production of complete aircraft. These were hauled to the flat top of the hill where a runway had been cleared and flown out. Between 20 and 30 Me 262 Fs were built here until early 1946, primarily fighters, the underground factory being overrun by Allied troops before it could reach a meaningful output. Wings were produced in Germany's oldest motorway tunnel at Engelberg, to the west of Stuttgart. At B8 Bergkristall-Esche II, a vast network of tunnels was excavated beneath St. Georgen/Gusen, Austria, where fully equipped fuselages for the Me 262 at a planned monthly rate of 450 units on large assembly lines were to be produced from early 1945.
After the type’s introduction to frontline units in early 1945 further handling problems arose through the aircraft’ weight, resulting from its high wing load. Both starting and landing run were excessive, so that the number of airfields from which it could be operated was relatively small. No real short-term solution could be found without fully re-designing the wings, so that RATO bottles were frequently used to get a fully loaded Me 262 F up into the air from standard airfields. These were typically fitted to racks which were mounted under the fuselage, flanking the rear bomb bay.
The Me 262 F’s landing speed was dangerously high, too. A retrofittable brake parachute, housed in a simple tubular fairing under the tail, was developed to reduce the landing distance and save brakes, which frequently overheated and could set the landed aircraft aflame.
From the Me 262 F-2a “Pulkzerstörer I”, only a small number were built and eventually entered service. Its main armament, the MK 112, was a heavy German machine cannon produced by Rheinmetall-Borsig from 1945 on – in fact, the MK 112 was basically a scaled-up MK 108, a very compact weapon with relatively low weight. The MK 112 had a caliber of 55 mm and thus fired much larger shells than the 30 mm MK 108, but the rate of fire was significantly lower (300 rounds / min compared to about 600-660 rounds / min of the MK 108). This large-caliber gun was designed primarily to combat heavy bombers, its rate of fire would have been too slow for effective aerial battles with escort fighters – but the Me 262 F would not have been a dogfighter, anyway, so that the “hit-and-run” mission profile suited the aircraft well. Fire tests showed that a single MK 112 hit with mine grenades could destroy a bomber, and with a rate of fire of five shells per second this weapon could inflict considerably higher losses on the incoming streams of Allied bombers compared to other on-board weapons used on the German side. Only the unguided R4M missiles were as effective, but the MK 112 offered considerably higher accuracy and the opportunity to execute more than just a single attack run on an incoming bomber formation.
The MK 112 was mounted in the lower starboard section of the Me 262 F-2a’s nose, its barrel protruded more than 2 m (7 ft) from its nose. The gun’s drum magazine with sixty rounds partly took up the rear space of the cockpit behind the pilot and the gun mount even used up space of the weapon bay on port side, so that only a single MK 108 with 100 rounds as an additional weapon was mounted in the lower port side weapon bay.
Its sister, the Me 262 F-2b, remained on the drawing board, because its main weapon, the 50 mm MK 114 autocannon that had been derived from the 5 cm Pak 38 anti-tank gun, had turned out to be over-complicated, overweight and unreliable. A refined version was developed as the MK 214A, though, but after flight test from February 1945, but the weapon was not deployed operationally.
Only a handful Me 262 F-2a Pulkzerstörer were eventually fielded and operated before the end of hostilities – beyond the low production numbers the lack of fuel and loss of suitable airfields highly limited the aircraft’s potential. Probably less than ten were used by operational units, including JG 53 “Pik As”, in which they served alongside other interceptors, including other Me 262 variants. Typically, bomber formations were approached from the side of a bomber formation, where their silhouettes were widest, and while still out of range of the bombers' machine guns. This broadside-attack tactic was very effective, and the aircraft’s high speed allowed the interceptors to turn around 180° and make at least a second attack run from the opposite side, before the machines dashed off and returned to their bases.
General characteristics
Crew: One
Length: 14,32 m (46 ft 11 in) overall
12,00 m (39 ft 3¾ in) fuselage only, w/o brake parachute housing
Wingspan: 12,61 m (41 ft 3¾ in)
Height: 4,43 m (14 ft 6 in)
Wing area: 24,2 m² (236 sq ft)
Empty weight: 5.061 kg (11,148 lb)
Loaded weight: 8.762 kg (19,300 lb)
Max. take-off weight: 10.062 kg (22,163 lb)
Powerplant:
2× Junkers Jumo 004 C turbojets with 12 kN (2,697 lb st) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 930 km/h (577 mph, 505 kn)
Cruising speed: 805 km/h (500 mph, 438 kn) at 6.500 m (21,290 ft)
Range: 1.340 km (830 ml, 728 nm) at 6000 m with internal fuel only
Service ceiling: 11,450 m (37,570 ft)
Rate of climb: 18 m/s (3,540 ft/min) at max. weight
Armament:
1× 55 mm (1.96 in) MK 112 machine cannon with 60 rounds
1× 30 mm (1.18 in) MK 108 machine cannon with 100 rounds
Hardpoints under the outer wings for racks with twelve 55mm R4M unguided air-to-air missiles
The kit and its assembly:
This became a submission to the late 2021 “Gunships” group build at whatifmodellers.com – what would such a competition be without at least one gun-toting German Luft ’46 interceptor? The Messerschmitt P.1099 lent itself for such a build. Since 1996 Revell offers a 1:72 IP model kit of this paper aircraft, depicting more or less the two planned versions: a basic single-seat day fighter and a heavy two-seater Zerstörer, both based on the same basis.
This what-if model was based on Revell’s interpretation of the P.1099A, and the kit goes together well. Fit is very good, even though some designs are IMHO a bit dubious. The kit’s weakest point: Revell unfortunately missed the important detail of the modified engine nacelles: the kit comes with standard Me 262 wings and engines, but due to CoG reasons the P.1099 would have had its engines moved back by about 900 mm, as mentioned in the background. I corrected this on this build with some PSR – sounds simple, but since the nacelles are not expected to be stuck to the wings in their new position roughly 1 cm further back, some serious bodywork had to be done.
Otherwise the kit was basically built OOB. I just left away the inner wheels from the main landing gear because I found the twin wheels to be “too much” for this upgraded Me 262. The P.1099 might have been heavier than the Me 262, but…? And the wheels’ tractor-like tread design looks IMHO out of place, too, so that I replaced them with a pair of MiG-21 wheels, left over from a KP kit.
The cockpit was taken OOB, even though I have doubts concerning the canopy. And when you look at mockup pictures of the P.1099 you realize that cockpit access had been facilitated through a side door at starboard, similar to the D. H. Mosquito. The cockpit tub does not consider this hatch at all, and the engraved door on the fuselage (it’s actually there!) is so tiny that only a Halfling might use it?
Well, I stuck with it “as is” and just added a pilot figure (specifically from a Matchbox Hawker tempest, because it is one of the rare cases that you get a WWII pilot wearing an oxygen mask) and a “barrel” behind the bulbous pilot seat because there’s a lot of free space in this single seat variant that is otherwise occupied by a rear gunner in Revell’s P.1099B kit. I also have doubts concerning the kit’s canopy, since the original P.1099 had a cockpit for two seated side-by-side, with a canopy that resembled the D.H. Mosquito’s a lot. I am also not certain about the stabilizers – the kit comes with standard Me 262 parts, but trustworthy sources I consulted suggest that not only the fin had been enlarged (depicted well in Revell’s kit), but also the stabilizers? To improve this, I implanted a pair of modified stabilizers that came from a Heller PZL P.23 light bomber. Sounds odd, but they were a very good match in size, shape and thickness!
The only major modification concerns the armament, even though it became just a “graft-on” solution. On the lower left side, the upper gun port was PSRed away. On the right side I added a bulged fairing for the MK 112. It was sculpted from a Matchbox Saab J29 drop tank and blended into the hull with PSR. Protruding spent cases fairings were added for both guns. The MK 112 gun barrel is a resin piece, left over from a ModelTrans tank conversion set and actually depicts a German 55 mm gun, so that this became a perfect donor piece.
Since the airframe still looked rather clean and boring I finally added a pair of JATO bottle racks to the rear fuselage (scratched from styrene profile but left empty) and a brake parachute fairing under the fin, carved from a piece of sprue.
Furthermore, a display adapter was installed into the fuselage for in-flight pictures.
Painting and markings:
This became a challenge, because I wanted a rather unusual livery, neither a standard RLM 81/82/76 late-war combo nor an improvised-cammo-over-bare-metal finish. After some research I settled upon something that was actually carried by some He 177 bombers around 1944: a uniform RLM 74 (Graugrün, Humbrol 245) upper surface with “cloudy” mottles in RLM 76 (Humbrol 247). This appears like a winter camouflage, but it’s actually quite effective at medium altitude, esp. over a cloudy landscape. The original bombers had light blue (RLM 65) undersides, but for the P.1099 from a later period and as a fighter I rather used a darker shade of RLM76 in the form of Tamiya XF-23 (Light Blue). The model received a black ink washing and some post-panel-shading.
The cockpit interior became RLM 66 (Schwarzgrau, Humbrol 67) while the landing gear and the well were painted in uniform RLM 02 (I used Revell 45, a slightly more greenish tone), with wheel discs in RLM 66, too.
Unit markings became minimal and quite sober. I gave the aircraft a typical late-war “Reichsverteidigung” fuselage band, and in JG 53’s case it is plain black. The black band was deliberately chosen because it is a good, much darker contrast to the murky RLM 74, so that the latter appears lighter than it actually is, lowering the contrast to the RLM 76 spots.
The decals were puzzled together from various sources. As an aircraft of the 3rd group the unit’s ID color would be yellow, reflected in the tactical code and the fin tip. For some contrast and to emphasize the long gun barrel I gave it white and black stripes – as a security measure for ground handling. For some more variety I painted one air intake in very dark grey (Revell 06, Anthracite) and the other one in steel Metallizer, simulating replacement parts. The Balkenkreuze come from various sheets – I used simplified “low viz” versions all around. The undulating yellow bar for the 3rd group comes from a TL Modellbau sheet, while the yellow “4” came from a Fw 190 A sheet from Sky Models. A small “4” on the nose was added as a wacky detail, too, the “Pik As” unit markings came IIRC from a Hobby Boss Bf 109 sheet. Since they turned out to have poor contrast/opacity I only used a few stencils from the P.1099A sheet, but due to the disruptive paint scheme this is not apparent.
Finally, the model was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and a wire antenna, scratched from heated black sprue material, was added between cockpit and fin.
Well, this modified Messerschmitt P.1099A looks simple, but the modified engine nacelles as well as the gun fairing under the nose called for serious PSR. The result looks quite natural, though, and AFAIK this weapon configuration was actually on German drawing boards. However, I am not certain about the cockpit canopy and other details on Revell’s kit, reference information is contradictive.
The paint scheme looks good, even though it was lent from a heavy bomber, and the poor Humbrol enamels did not yield a finish that I had hoped for – the paintwork could certainly have been better, but the overall impression of a late-war Pulkzerstörer is O.K., and this eventually counts.
+++ 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 Messerschmitt Me 262 F was a series of multi-purpose jet planes designed by Messerschmitt for the Luftwaffe that entered service during the final phase of the Second World War in Europe. The aircraft’s design was begun in the summer of 1943 under the project handle P.1099, intended as an improvement to the successful Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighter and also as a replacement for the Arado Ar 234 bomber/reconnaissance aircraft. The primary focus was on more payload, being either usable for more fuel (since early jet engines had poor mileage and therefore range and endurance) or for weapons, including bombs in an internal bomb bay that would enable the aircraft to fulfil a similar tactical role as the British de Havilland Mosquito. Beyond this high-speed bomber (Schnellbomber) variant, the P.1099 would also be a suitable basis for a fast reconnaissance plane, interceptors and night fighters, and trainer versions were also planned.
The Messerschmitt P.1099 was a 12 m long, conventional-looking aircraft with a wingspan of 12.6 m. It had a much wider fuselage than the Messerschmitt Me 262. It had a circular shape with a diameter of 1.7m (5 ft 6¾ in) and the cockpit was now moved closer to the aircraft’s nose, above the front landing gear well. The baseline aircraft featured a side-by-side cockpit for a crew of two, even though different layouts were envisioned for the specialized variants, including single-seaters. To save development time and to use existing jigs and tools as much as possible, the P.1099 retained the wings and the tail section of the Me 262A-2a. Despite a higher total weight (the P.1099’ MTOW was about 3 tons higher), the planned powerplants were initially two uprated Junkers Jumo 004 turbojet engines, later to be replaced by more powerful Heinkel HeS 011 turbojets.
In January 1944 the P.1099 was accepted by the RLM and received, despite the aircraft’s different structure, the designation “Me 262 F”. The first variant, the Me 262 F-1 (internally designated P.1099A), was the baseline aircraft under the handle “Jäger I”, a jet-powered single seat daytime fighter. There were three planned versions, differing mainly in armament: Version F-1a was armed with four MK 108 30 mm cannon in the lower fuselage, comparable with the earlier Me 262 A fighter, just with more fuel and ammunition. Version F-1b carried two MK 103 30 mm cannon with longer range, firepower and ammunition supply, and Version F-1c was a heavy daytime fighter with two MK 108 and two MK 103 cannon in the nose.
In parallel the Me 262 F-2 was developed as a more heavily armed and armored variant, as a dedicated heavy bomber interceptor (“Pulkjäger” or “Zerstörer”) under the handle “Jäger II”. Again, three versions were foreseen: Version F-2a would be armed with a single MK 108 cannon and a heavy MK 112 55 mm cannon in the nose. Version F-2b was the same, but it was armed with a MK 114 50 mm cannon instead of the Mk 112. Both were single seaters with a heavily armored cockpit and canopy.
The F-2c was a more thoroughly modified two-seater version; it was armed with a single MG151/20 in a small nose turret, a pair of Mk 103 in the rear of the cockpit firing up- and backwards and two defensive MG 131 in remote-controlled FDL 151 barbettes in the tail. Due to the significant changes this model had the internal project designation P.1099B.
Another two-seater, the F-2d, remained very close to the original baseline aircraft with a crew of two in a side-by-side cockpit. This aircraft was armed with the standard four MK 108 in the nose, plus one launch rail under each wing for Ruhrstahl X-4 guided missiles, which were launched and steered by the second crewman via a wire connection with the mothership. This variant did not come to fruition, however, after the X-4 missile project had been cancelled in early 1945.
All P.1099 fighters also had hardpoints under the outer wings for racks with twelve 55mm R4M unguided air-to-air missiles each, a detail taken over from the Me 262 A, even though the fuel load had to be reduced to carry them. The radio equipment of all these versions would be a FuG 16, Peil G6, FuG 101 radio altimeter, FuBl 2 blind landing equipment, as well as the FuG 25a Erstling identification friend or foe transceiver.
Beyond these initial day fighter variants, further types based on the P.1099 airframe were envisioned, too. The F-3 was a dedicated night fighter version, developed in parallel to the Me 262 G. It was based on the F-2a heavy day fighter, but it carried a crew of two (the pilot and a rearward-facing radar operator) and was equipped with a FuG 240 “Berlin” radar set and a rotating dish antenna under a streamlined plywood cover in the nose. The armament consisted of four MK 108 under the nose, similar to the F-1a day fighter, plus two additional, upward-firing MK 108 cannon (“Schräge Musik”) in the rear fuselage.
Other proposed variants (with less priority, though) were the F-4 and the F-5, which were to become the basis for fast bombers and reconnaissance aircraft with only light defensive armament, typically only a pair of MG 131 in remote-controlled tail barbettes was to be carried. The F-4 resembled the baseline P.1099A, with two bomb bays in front of and behind the main landing gear wells and a crew of two seated side-by-side in a pressurized cockpit. Two MK 108 were carried in the nose, plus the MG 131 tail barbettes. The F-5 was similar but featured a glazed bomb aimer/navigator station in the nose instead of the MK 108’s and the glazing above the pilot’s station was reduced and asymmetrical. In both bomber variants the fuselage tanks were re-arranged to make room for a single SC 1.200 in the front bomb bay, but combinations of smaller bombs could be carried, too. Alternatively, mounts for up to three cameras or a 1.350 l auxiliary tank for extended range could be carried in the bays, too.
Initial flight tests of the Me 262 F in late 1944 showed severe directional instability: especially after fuel and ammunition had been depleted and the center of gravity shifted the aircraft tended to become nose-heavy and ditch down if it was not carefully monitored and trimmed by the pilot. To cope with this problem, the engine mounts were modified, so that the CoG was shifted back. Compared with the original Me 262 the engines were placed roughly 900 mm (35.5 in) further back under the wings. The emptying sequence of the fuselage tanks was also changed, and this mostly mended the problems. Another measure to mend the directional instability issues was the enlargement of the tail surfaces, even though later production aircraft frequently had smaller Me 262 A stabilizers fitted due to material shortages and simple lack of parts.- However, due to the higher weight the Me 262 F’s handling and agility were very limited – but most of its intended roles rather relied on speed, anyway, so that dogfights could be avoided.
From 1944 on the war situation worsened considerably, and production of the new Me 262 F superseded the A variant only on selected production lines. A disused mine complex under the Walpersberg mountain was adapted for the production of complete aircraft. These were hauled to the flat top of the hill where a runway had been cleared and flown out. Between 20 and 30 Me 262 Fs were built here until early 1946, primarily fighters, the underground factory being overrun by Allied troops before it could reach a meaningful output. Wings were produced in Germany's oldest motorway tunnel at Engelberg, to the west of Stuttgart. At B8 Bergkristall-Esche II, a vast network of tunnels was excavated beneath St. Georgen/Gusen, Austria, where fully equipped fuselages for the Me 262 at a planned monthly rate of 450 units on large assembly lines were to be produced from early 1945.
After the type’s introduction to frontline units in early 1945 further handling problems arose through the aircraft’ weight, resulting from its high wing load. Both starting and landing run were excessive, so that the number of airfields from which it could be operated was relatively small. No real short-term solution could be found without fully re-designing the wings, so that RATO bottles were frequently used to get a fully loaded Me 262 F up into the air from standard airfields. These were typically fitted to racks which were mounted under the fuselage, flanking the rear bomb bay.
The Me 262 F’s landing speed was dangerously high, too. A retrofittable brake parachute, housed in a simple tubular fairing under the tail, was developed to reduce the landing distance and save brakes, which frequently overheated and could set the landed aircraft aflame.
From the Me 262 F-2a “Pulkzerstörer I”, only a small number were built and eventually entered service. Its main armament, the MK 112, was a heavy German machine cannon produced by Rheinmetall-Borsig from 1945 on – in fact, the MK 112 was basically a scaled-up MK 108, a very compact weapon with relatively low weight. The MK 112 had a caliber of 55 mm and thus fired much larger shells than the 30 mm MK 108, but the rate of fire was significantly lower (300 rounds / min compared to about 600-660 rounds / min of the MK 108). This large-caliber gun was designed primarily to combat heavy bombers, its rate of fire would have been too slow for effective aerial battles with escort fighters – but the Me 262 F would not have been a dogfighter, anyway, so that the “hit-and-run” mission profile suited the aircraft well. Fire tests showed that a single MK 112 hit with mine grenades could destroy a bomber, and with a rate of fire of five shells per second this weapon could inflict considerably higher losses on the incoming streams of Allied bombers compared to other on-board weapons used on the German side. Only the unguided R4M missiles were as effective, but the MK 112 offered considerably higher accuracy and the opportunity to execute more than just a single attack run on an incoming bomber formation.
The MK 112 was mounted in the lower starboard section of the Me 262 F-2a’s nose, its barrel protruded more than 2 m (7 ft) from its nose. The gun’s drum magazine with sixty rounds partly took up the rear space of the cockpit behind the pilot and the gun mount even used up space of the weapon bay on port side, so that only a single MK 108 with 100 rounds as an additional weapon was mounted in the lower port side weapon bay.
Its sister, the Me 262 F-2b, remained on the drawing board, because its main weapon, the 50 mm MK 114 autocannon that had been derived from the 5 cm Pak 38 anti-tank gun, had turned out to be over-complicated, overweight and unreliable. A refined version was developed as the MK 214A, though, but after flight test from February 1945, but the weapon was not deployed operationally.
Only a handful Me 262 F-2a Pulkzerstörer were eventually fielded and operated before the end of hostilities – beyond the low production numbers the lack of fuel and loss of suitable airfields highly limited the aircraft’s potential. Probably less than ten were used by operational units, including JG 53 “Pik As”, in which they served alongside other interceptors, including other Me 262 variants. Typically, bomber formations were approached from the side of a bomber formation, where their silhouettes were widest, and while still out of range of the bombers' machine guns. This broadside-attack tactic was very effective, and the aircraft’s high speed allowed the interceptors to turn around 180° and make at least a second attack run from the opposite side, before the machines dashed off and returned to their bases.
General characteristics
Crew: One
Length: 14,32 m (46 ft 11 in) overall
12,00 m (39 ft 3¾ in) fuselage only, w/o brake parachute housing
Wingspan: 12,61 m (41 ft 3¾ in)
Height: 4,43 m (14 ft 6 in)
Wing area: 24,2 m² (236 sq ft)
Empty weight: 5.061 kg (11,148 lb)
Loaded weight: 8.762 kg (19,300 lb)
Max. take-off weight: 10.062 kg (22,163 lb)
Powerplant:
2× Junkers Jumo 004 C turbojets with 12 kN (2,697 lb st) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 930 km/h (577 mph, 505 kn)
Cruising speed: 805 km/h (500 mph, 438 kn) at 6.500 m (21,290 ft)
Range: 1.340 km (830 ml, 728 nm) at 6000 m with internal fuel only
Service ceiling: 11,450 m (37,570 ft)
Rate of climb: 18 m/s (3,540 ft/min) at max. weight
Armament:
1× 55 mm (1.96 in) MK 112 machine cannon with 60 rounds
1× 30 mm (1.18 in) MK 108 machine cannon with 100 rounds
Hardpoints under the outer wings for racks with twelve 55mm R4M unguided air-to-air missiles
The kit and its assembly:
This became a submission to the late 2021 “Gunships” group build at whatifmodellers.com – what would such a competition be without at least one gun-toting German Luft ’46 interceptor? The Messerschmitt P.1099 lent itself for such a build. Since 1996 Revell offers a 1:72 IP model kit of this paper aircraft, depicting more or less the two planned versions: a basic single-seat day fighter and a heavy two-seater Zerstörer, both based on the same basis.
This what-if model was based on Revell’s interpretation of the P.1099A, and the kit goes together well. Fit is very good, even though some designs are IMHO a bit dubious. The kit’s weakest point: Revell unfortunately missed the important detail of the modified engine nacelles: the kit comes with standard Me 262 wings and engines, but due to CoG reasons the P.1099 would have had its engines moved back by about 900 mm, as mentioned in the background. I corrected this on this build with some PSR – sounds simple, but since the nacelles are not expected to be stuck to the wings in their new position roughly 1 cm further back, some serious bodywork had to be done.
Otherwise the kit was basically built OOB. I just left away the inner wheels from the main landing gear because I found the twin wheels to be “too much” for this upgraded Me 262. The P.1099 might have been heavier than the Me 262, but…? And the wheels’ tractor-like tread design looks IMHO out of place, too, so that I replaced them with a pair of MiG-21 wheels, left over from a KP kit.
The cockpit was taken OOB, even though I have doubts concerning the canopy. And when you look at mockup pictures of the P.1099 you realize that cockpit access had been facilitated through a side door at starboard, similar to the D. H. Mosquito. The cockpit tub does not consider this hatch at all, and the engraved door on the fuselage (it’s actually there!) is so tiny that only a Halfling might use it?
Well, I stuck with it “as is” and just added a pilot figure (specifically from a Matchbox Hawker tempest, because it is one of the rare cases that you get a WWII pilot wearing an oxygen mask) and a “barrel” behind the bulbous pilot seat because there’s a lot of free space in this single seat variant that is otherwise occupied by a rear gunner in Revell’s P.1099B kit. I also have doubts concerning the kit’s canopy, since the original P.1099 had a cockpit for two seated side-by-side, with a canopy that resembled the D.H. Mosquito’s a lot. I am also not certain about the stabilizers – the kit comes with standard Me 262 parts, but trustworthy sources I consulted suggest that not only the fin had been enlarged (depicted well in Revell’s kit), but also the stabilizers? To improve this, I implanted a pair of modified stabilizers that came from a Heller PZL P.23 light bomber. Sounds odd, but they were a very good match in size, shape and thickness!
The only major modification concerns the armament, even though it became just a “graft-on” solution. On the lower left side, the upper gun port was PSRed away. On the right side I added a bulged fairing for the MK 112. It was sculpted from a Matchbox Saab J29 drop tank and blended into the hull with PSR. Protruding spent cases fairings were added for both guns. The MK 112 gun barrel is a resin piece, left over from a ModelTrans tank conversion set and actually depicts a German 55 mm gun, so that this became a perfect donor piece.
Since the airframe still looked rather clean and boring I finally added a pair of JATO bottle racks to the rear fuselage (scratched from styrene profile but left empty) and a brake parachute fairing under the fin, carved from a piece of sprue.
Furthermore, a display adapter was installed into the fuselage for in-flight pictures.
Painting and markings:
This became a challenge, because I wanted a rather unusual livery, neither a standard RLM 81/82/76 late-war combo nor an improvised-cammo-over-bare-metal finish. After some research I settled upon something that was actually carried by some He 177 bombers around 1944: a uniform RLM 74 (Graugrün, Humbrol 245) upper surface with “cloudy” mottles in RLM 76 (Humbrol 247). This appears like a winter camouflage, but it’s actually quite effective at medium altitude, esp. over a cloudy landscape. The original bombers had light blue (RLM 65) undersides, but for the P.1099 from a later period and as a fighter I rather used a darker shade of RLM76 in the form of Tamiya XF-23 (Light Blue). The model received a black ink washing and some post-panel-shading.
The cockpit interior became RLM 66 (Schwarzgrau, Humbrol 67) while the landing gear and the well were painted in uniform RLM 02 (I used Revell 45, a slightly more greenish tone), with wheel discs in RLM 66, too.
Unit markings became minimal and quite sober. I gave the aircraft a typical late-war “Reichsverteidigung” fuselage band, and in JG 53’s case it is plain black. The black band was deliberately chosen because it is a good, much darker contrast to the murky RLM 74, so that the latter appears lighter than it actually is, lowering the contrast to the RLM 76 spots.
The decals were puzzled together from various sources. As an aircraft of the 3rd group the unit’s ID color would be yellow, reflected in the tactical code and the fin tip. For some contrast and to emphasize the long gun barrel I gave it white and black stripes – as a security measure for ground handling. For some more variety I painted one air intake in very dark grey (Revell 06, Anthracite) and the other one in steel Metallizer, simulating replacement parts. The Balkenkreuze come from various sheets – I used simplified “low viz” versions all around. The undulating yellow bar for the 3rd group comes from a TL Modellbau sheet, while the yellow “4” came from a Fw 190 A sheet from Sky Models. A small “4” on the nose was added as a wacky detail, too, the “Pik As” unit markings came IIRC from a Hobby Boss Bf 109 sheet. Since they turned out to have poor contrast/opacity I only used a few stencils from the P.1099A sheet, but due to the disruptive paint scheme this is not apparent.
Finally, the model was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and a wire antenna, scratched from heated black sprue material, was added between cockpit and fin.
Well, this modified Messerschmitt P.1099A looks simple, but the modified engine nacelles as well as the gun fairing under the nose called for serious PSR. The result looks quite natural, though, and AFAIK this weapon configuration was actually on German drawing boards. However, I am not certain about the cockpit canopy and other details on Revell’s kit, reference information is contradictive.
The paint scheme looks good, even though it was lent from a heavy bomber, and the poor Humbrol enamels did not yield a finish that I had hoped for – the paintwork could certainly have been better, but the overall impression of a late-war Pulkzerstörer is O.K., and this eventually counts.
The Rocket Lab Electron rocket payload fairing is prepared for the encapsulation of the Educational Launch of Nanosatellites 19 (ELaNa 19) payload on Dec. 1, 2018, at the company’s facility in New Zealand. The ELaNa 19 payload comprises 10 CubeSats selected through NASA’s CubeSat Launch Initiative. The liftoff marks the debut of the agency’s innovative Venture Class Launch Services (VCLS) effort. Managed by NASA’s Launch Services Program at Kennedy Space Center in Florida, VCLS was developed to offer small payloads dedicated rides to space.
Inside the Payload Hazardous Servicing Facility at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida technicians and engineers cycle the sample return capsule (SRC) door in a test of NASA’s Origins, Spectral Interpretation, Resource Identification, Security-Regolith Explorer, or OSIRIS-REx spacecraft. Targeted for liftoff Sept. 8, 2016, aboard a United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket, OSIRIS-Rex will be the first U.S. mission to sample an asteroid, retrieve at least two ounces of surface material and return it to Earth for study. The asteroid, Bennu, may hold clues to the origin of the solar system and the source of water and organic molecules found on Earth.
Photo credit: NASA/Kim Shiflett
An operator dons a Self-Contained Atmospheric Protective Ensemble (SCAPE) suit inside a room in the Multi-Payload Processing Facility (MPPF) at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida on Oct. 31, 2018. SCAPE operators, wearing the suits, will participate in a hypergolic systems hot flow test at the MPPF. The test will serve as operational validation of the hypergol subsystem and demonstrate that the hypergols subsystem can service the Orion spacecraft, flow fuel at the required rates, drain and de-service the system, and meet the intended timeline. SCAPE suite are used in operations involving toxic propellants and are supplied with air either through a hardline or through a self-contained environmental control unit. Photo credit: NASA/Frank Michaux
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Q-6 program was initiated in the mid-1970s when, during the Battle of the Paracel Islands in 1974, the People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) and People's Liberation Army Naval Air Force (PLANAF) proved incapable of ground support missions. Due to the lack of modern avionics and ground infrastructure to support a modern air war, Chinese aircraft suffered navigation and other logistics problems that severely limited their performance. The first Chinese aircraft did not actually reach the islands until several hours after the battle was over.
In addition to the need to upgrade its logistics capability and infrastructure, China also decided that nothing-in-its-then-aircraft-inventory could fill the requirement for support missions in the South China Sea. Fighters such as the J-5, J-6, J-7, and J-8 lacked a ground attack capability and were hampered by short range. The only Chinese ground attack aircraft atr that time, the Nanchang Q-5 (a MiG-19 derivate with a solid nose, an internal weapon bay and lateral air intakes), was also short ranged and had a relatively low payload. China's bombers such as the Harbin H-5 and Xian H-6 were slow and lacked a sufficient self-defense capability. A new aircraft was therefore seen as desperately needed to fulfill a new naval strike mission in support of the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN).
Immediately after the battle, both the PLAAF and PLAN submitted their requirements for a new fighter bomber/ground attack aircraft to the 3rd Ministry of PRC. After extensive research, the 3rd Ministry decided that, based on the Chinese aeronautical industrial capability at the time, it was impossible to develop two separate airplanes at the same time. Instead, a decision was made to develop a single airplane when the prime requirements of the PLAAF and PLAN were similar, even though with different versions tailored to meet the different secondary needs of PLAAF and PLAN.
In June 1976 representatives from various aircraft factories were summoned to Beijing to discuss the project, and were instructed to come up with designs in the shortest possible time. Shenyang Aircraft Factory (later reorganized into Shenyang Aircraft Corporation) was the first to come up with a design, the JH-8 (FB-8), which was essentially a ground attack version of the large, twin-engined J-8II (F-8II) interceptor. Next came the Q-6, a new design from the Nanchang Aircraft Factory. The Xi'an Aircraft Factory (later reorganized into Xi'an Aircraft Industrial Corporation) was the last one to present a design, the Xian JH-7, also a new design.
Initially, the 3rd Ministry favored the JH-8, however because the design of the operational J-8II was still not completed the risk was considered to be too high, so it was eliminated. The projected development of JH-7 was too far out, and so the Q-6 was selected because it was believed to be the one that would be able for service the soonest.
The Q-6's distictive feature was its swing wing arrangement, and the project was China's first venture into this direction. Before the Q-6 program started, however, China had already obtained MiG-23BN and MiG-23MS aircraft from Egypt. A few downed F-111 were also provided to China by North Vietnam. Based on the research effort performed on these aircraft, it was suggested that the variable-sweep wing should be adopted for China's new ground attack aircraft.
The general designer of Nanchang Q-5, and the future academician of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (elected in 1995), Mr. Lu Xiaopeng, was named as the general designer of Q-6. Lu personally visited PLAAF and PLANAF numerous times to obtain their input, which was the base of the Tactical Technological Requirements of the Q-6 he was in charge of, and by February 1979, the general design of the attack aircraft was finalized, based on the initial requirement of the 3rd Ministry.
The original plan was to base the design of Q-6 on the MiG-23BN, the ground attack version of MiG-23. However, both PLAAF and PLAN required a true dogfight capability for self-defense. Due to the need of dogfight capability, a radar was needed, and the ground attack version of the Soviet fighter had no radar. As a result, the plan was changed to base the design on the MiG-23MS instead. But this was not a true solution: Studies revealed that in order to successfully perform the required missions for PLAAF and PLANAF, ground attack radar, as well as terrain-following radar, were needed, too. And for the intended dogfight capability, the RP-22 Sapfir-21 radar (NATO reporting name Jay Bird) of the MiG-23MS lacked the BVR capability.
Facing this technological lack the decision was made to use avionics reverse-engineered from the F-111 to makeup the MiG-23 shortcomings. But as with other technological features adopted for the Q-6, they were proven to be way too ambitious for the Chinese industrial, scientific and technological capability at the time, which resulted in prolonged development.
Problems did not stop, the airframe itself proved to be troublesome, too. Originally the design was based on the MiG-23MS, and was initially thought to be better than the MiG-23BN, because it provided more room in the nosecone to house the radar.
However, the Chinese microelectronic industry could not provide the solid state electronics needed to miniaturize the intended radar, and as a result, the size of the fuselage had theoretically to be increased from the size of the MiG-23 to that of the Su-24 to fit an appropriate radar dish with the technolgy available at that time. Research furthermore revealed that the side-intakes of the MiG-23 design were not sufficient enough to meet the required dogfight capability, so the side-intakes arrangement was changed into a single chin-intake instead, and the Q-6 is claimed to be the first Chinese aircraft to have a chin-mounted intake.
The engine itself was also a problem, since China did not possess a powerful jet fighter engine that would match the intended performance profile of the Q-6. At first there were plans to use 122.4 kN thrust of a WS-6 engine (which was used in the H-6/Tu-16 bomber!), but these were not suited for a fighter and simply too large. To match the targets of an aircraft weight of 14.500 kg, the biggest load of bombs of 4.500 kilograms and a combat radius of 900 km, the Q-6 was finally outfitted with the Wopen WS-9 afterburning turbofan - a license-built Rolls Royce RB.168 Spey Mk. 202 with 91.3 kN of thrust.
Chinese considered the greatest achievement of the Q-6 in its fly-by-wire (FBW) control of the variable-sweep wings, both were the first of its kind in China. The original goal of reverse-engineering the FBW of the F-111 proved to be way too ambitious and had to be abandoned, so a much simpler version was adopted. The triplex analog FBW of the Q-6 was effectively just slightly more advanced than the most rudimentary FBW in that the mechanical servo valves were replaced with electrical servo valves, operated by electronic controllers. But contrary to the most rudimentary FBW, where hydraulic actuators still existed, the hydraulic actuators are replaced by electrical actuators on the Q-6. Anyway, this system proved to be the major obstacle in the hardware development of the Q-6 and it took nine years to complete (1980–1988), under the personal leadership of Mr. Lu Xiaopeng.
In 1988, three prototypes were built: one for static test, one for avionics tests on the ground, and one for the variable sweep wing research. The serial aircraft for PLAAF and PLANAF would have been separate variants, called Q-6A and Q-6B, which are believed to be offered for export now (see below).
Although hailed as a technological breakthrough for the Chinese aviation and providing superior performance to fixed-wing designs (esp. the outdated Q-5), the Chinese system was more than 12% heavier than the simple mechanical-hydraulic controlled variable-sweep wing of the benchmark MiG-23, and the Q-6 avionics were still far from being up-to-date.
Once identified as an indigenous aircraft (the Q-6 was at first deemed to be a variant or straight copy of the MiG-23/27, and therefore premilinarily coded 'Flogger L'), NATO alloted the Code 'Fruitcase' to it, with suffixes for the various export variants (see below).
It was not before 1990 that the aircraft was completed and (theoretically) ready for service – but at that time, technology and military strategy had already changed, and China had been developing the more capable (but much bigger) twin-engined Xian JH-7 fighter bomber for PLAAF and PLANAF. But it would still take some years until the JH-7A would enter service with the PLANAF: in early 2004, and with the PLAAF by the end of the year.
For China, the most important factor which prevented the Q-6 introduction into PLAAF and PLANAF service, was the 'discovery' of stealth features on the battlefield: variable-sweep wing would enlarge the aircraft's radar cross section multiple times and thus making it impossible to survive on the modern battlefield, because it would be much more likely to be detected and shot down.
Anyway, internal politics did not stop China from offering the now completed airframe on the export market as A-6 'Kong Yun' ("Cloud"), as a more capable successor to the Nanchang A-5 (the export version of the MiG-19-based Q-5). From 1992 onwards, several former A-5 users bought the aircraft as A-6 multi-role fighters. It is assumed that these correspond to the Q-6's development lines for PLAAAF an PLANAF.
Current users are the Bangladeshi Air Force (8× A-6B), Myanmar Air Force (20× A-6C), Sri Lanka (11× A-6B) Korean People's Air Force (probably less than 50x A-6A) and the Sudanese Air Force (A total of about 20, 3–11 of them servicable, probably all A-6A).
A-6A ('Fruitcase A'):
The first version and despite being marketed as a "multi-role combat aircraft" a very simple variant with a small radome, probably containing a Type 226 pulse-Doppler radar (a Chinese copy of the GEC-Marconi Skyranger).
A-6B ('Fruitcase B'):
Similar in apperance to the A-6A with a bigger radome. This variant is equipped with a Chinese KLJ-6E pulse-Doppler radar (A Chinese copy of the Italian Pointer-2500 radar, the same as featured on the Chinese Q-5M Fantan attack aircraft), which gives all weather attack capability. These aircraft are also fitted with a HUD, a GPS receiver/inertial navigation system, a 360° radar warning system, a tactical radio navigation system and chaff/flare dispensers on the rear fuselage.
The Sri Lanka aircraft have been seen carrying an external FLIR pod on one of the underfuselage pylons, while the Bangladeshi Air Force aircraft exclusively feature a small fairing under the nose which is believed to contain a LR/MTS, allowing the deployment of PGM.
A-6C ('Fruitcase C'):
Dedicated ground attack variant with a solid, more slender nose and full PGM capability. The nose features a fairing with windows for an ALR-1 laser rangefinder/marked target seeker (LR/MTS) in a small ball turret, and possibly LLLTV/FLIR. This optical system offers day/night attack capability. Like the A-6B, these aircraft feature HUD, GPS, tactical radio and optional flare dispensers.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 56 ft 1 in (17.10 m)
Wingspan: 47 ft 2 in (14.4m) at 16°, 28 ft 6 in (8,7m) at 72°
Height: 15 ft 9.5 in (4.82 m)
Empty weight: 16.520 lb (7.500 kg)
Loaded weight: 28.370 lb (12.880 kg)
Max. take-off weight: 32.820 lb (14.900 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Xian WS-9 Qin Ling afterburning turbofan (a license-built Rolls Royce RB.168 Spey Mk. 202), rated at 54,6 kN (5.562kp) dry and at 91,3KN (9.305kp) at full afterburner
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 1.2 at low altitude and in clean configuration, subsonic with external ordnance; 1.055mph (1.700 km/h) at height and in clean configuration
Combat radius: 485 nmi (560 mi, 900 km)
Service ceiling: 49.180 ft (15.000 m)
Armament:
2× Type 23-III twin-barreled 23mm cannons in the wing roots with 200 RPG
7× Hardpoints (three under the fuselage, one under each fixed wing root and the mobile outer wings) for a maximum external ordnance of 10.000 lbs (4.540kg), including guided and unguided bombs, missiles, napalm tanks or 800l drop tanks; the two hardpoints under the outer wings are fixed and can only be used when the wings are kept in the most forward position (they are normally only used for drop tanks in ferry configuration).
The kit and its assembly:
This is a whif, but the Nanchang Q-6 was actually developed until 1989 – even though it never entered any service. It was over-ambitious and a dead end, overtaken by technological advances and the fact that Chinese development used to take decades rather than years.
Anyway, the Q-6 actually looked as if someone had glued the nose and air intake of a F-16 onto a MiG-23/27 fuselage - weird, but cool, so why not try this at home?
Like many kitbashing things, what sounds simple turned out to be a bit tricky in detail, even though the surgery was finally easier than expected. The model basis is pretty simple: I took an Academy MiG-27, sawed off the fuselage in the wing roots area (about 1cm, the cockpit section is an extra fuselage section), and did the same with an Italeri F-16 nose section, right behind the cockpit, where the front wheel well ends. The top insert for the single seater was left a bit longer, so that it would overlap with the MiG-23/27 spine.
When you fit these parts together, height is almost perfect, even the wing root/LERX angles match, but there are gaps left on the flanks where the original MiG-27 air intakes would be. These have to be covered, what creates lines reminiscent of the respective area on a MRCA Tornado. Furthermore, the spine behind the cockpit has to be sculpted, too.
Furthermore, the wing root levels of the MiG-23/27 and the F-16 did not match - they have a difference in height of about 4mm on the model, and this was the biggest challenge.
In order to compensate for this problem on my model, any LERX sign was removed from the F-16 nose. Inside of the F-16 section, a column was added that supports the rear upper half of the front fuselage, since the flanks had to go almost completely.
On the outside, the necessary intersections/extensions sculpted new with 2C putty, extending the MiG-23/27 lines forward. The final surface finish was done with NC putty. This major surgery was less complicated than expected - lots of work, though, but feasible.
The new front section with its blended fuselage/LERX area around the cockpit reminds surprisingly much of the MiG-29? As a side note: when you look at CG simulations of this aircraft, this area is a frequent field of trial and error. You find unconclusive, if not impossible designs.
Other changes include a less modern canopy from a MiG-21 (I think it comes from an Academy MiG-21F kit), which was more tricky to fit onto the original F-16 canopy than the LERX stuff. The F-16 canopy looked just too modern for my taste. An old Airfix pilot figure was added, too.
Another new feature is a new jet pipe, a J-79 nozzle from an Italeri Kfir that fits perfectly into the rear fuselage, and the fin. The latter was taken as a leftover part from my recent CF-151A project and comes from a 1:144 scale Tu-22M bomber (Dragon). It's higher, but less deep, and I thought that a slightly different shape and more area would be suitable for an attack aircraft. For the same reason the single, foldable stabilizer fin under the rear fuselage was replaced by two fixed strakes (from the F-16). Small details, but they change the look and make the aircraft appear more simple.
The landing gear was taken from the MiG-27, the front wheel strut had to be slightly shortened due to the reduced wheelbase on the Q-6.
The ordnance was puzzled together – according to current BAF weapons in use. I went for unguided missiles (taken from the Academy MiG-27 donation kit) and some 100kg iron bombs, leftover from a Trumpeter Il-28 bomber kit. These were arranged under the wing roots on improvised tandem MERs.
I did not even try to engrave new panel lines on the new front section - actually, almost the whole upper surface is featureless since it was made with putty. But bot 2C and NC putty are pretty touchy to drilling or engraving (as the rather fruitless attempt to drill open cavities for the two guns proved...), so I decided to just use paint effects.
Painting and markings:
I had been wanting to build a Bangladeshi Air Force aircraft for quite a long time, and the Q-6 was finally a great opportunity. As a ground attack aircraft, the livery was to reflect that role, and among modern BAF aircraft I found C-130 transporters carrying a wrap-around ‘Lizard’/’European One’ scheme, in the traditional tones of FS34102, FS34097 and FS 36081 (Humbrol 117, 149 and 32). Maybe the BAF C-130s are ex USAF aircraft? It seems to be common BAF practice to keep former users' liveries and even bort numbers! Anyway, I find the Lizard cammo on a swing wing aircraft like this rather disturbing, but overall the whole thing looks pretty cool, probably also because of the exotic roundels.
Another option would have been a two-tone green camouflage (seen on BAF An-32 transports) or a three-tone pattern of pale sand, dark brown and dark green with light blue undersides, seen on BAF A-5 fighters. The garish, blue livery of BAF MiG-29s, as well as the blue and grey patterns on BAF F-7 fighters, were ruled out, since they’d rather suggest an air superiority role.
The camouflage pattern is based on USAF A-10 aircraft, and the aircraft’s upper sides were thoroughly weathered with a black ink wash and dry-brushing in lighter shades of the basic tones. After all, my kit is to represent a Q-6 after more than 15 years of service, so that the grey would become much lighter, the dark green get a greyish-blue hue and the light green tone adapt an almost olive drab look. As a result, the aircraft does not look too dark and murky, and the missile ordnance does not stand out too much.
The roundels were improvised – Bangladeshi aircraft kits/decals are rare. AFAIK, only one 1:72 Fujimi MiG-21 offers a BAF markings option, otherwise I could not find anything else, even among aftermarket offerings. Scratching is more fun, though, so “my” markings are actually Pakistani roundels (from a TL Modellbau aftermarket sheet) with red decal discs covering the original white central disc.
The flag on the fin was cut from generic green decal sheet, the red disc was punched out from red decal sheet, just like the roundel additions. Straightforward – and highly effective! Other markings were puzzled together from the scrap box, since the Q-6 never got beyond prototype stage, anything was possible concerning stencils etc.
The bort numbers are guesstimates - typically, BAF (and also PAF) carry a full registration on the tail fin and only a three-digit code on the nose. Squadron emblems are only small and carried either on the nose or the fin, so the model is rather simple in appearance.
The cockpit interior was painted in "Russian Interior Blue-Green" (Testors 2135, a stuff also in use in China, as far as I can tell), the landing gear and its wells were kept in Aluminum (Humbrol 56). The air intake was painted in light grey from the inside, the radome became black.
+++ 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 Messerschmitt Me 262 F was a series of multi-purpose jet planes designed by Messerschmitt for the Luftwaffe that entered service during the final phase of the Second World War in Europe. The aircraft’s design was begun in the summer of 1943 under the project handle P.1099, intended as an improvement to the successful Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighter and also as a replacement for the Arado Ar 234 bomber/reconnaissance aircraft. The primary focus was on more payload, being either usable for more fuel (since early jet engines had poor mileage and therefore range and endurance) or for weapons, including bombs in an internal bomb bay that would enable the aircraft to fulfil a similar tactical role as the British de Havilland Mosquito. Beyond this high-speed bomber (Schnellbomber) variant, the P.1099 would also be a suitable basis for a fast reconnaissance plane, interceptors and night fighters, and trainer versions were also planned.
The Messerschmitt P.1099 was a 12 m long, conventional-looking aircraft with a wingspan of 12.6 m. It had a much wider fuselage than the Messerschmitt Me 262. It had a circular shape with a diameter of 1.7m (5 ft 6¾ in) and the cockpit was now moved closer to the aircraft’s nose, above the front landing gear well. The baseline aircraft featured a side-by-side cockpit for a crew of two, even though different layouts were envisioned for the specialized variants, including single-seaters. To save development time and to use existing jigs and tools as much as possible, the P.1099 retained the wings and the tail section of the Me 262A-2a. Despite a higher total weight (the P.1099’ MTOW was about 3 tons higher), the planned powerplants were initially two uprated Junkers Jumo 004 turbojet engines, later to be replaced by more powerful Heinkel HeS 011 turbojets.
In January 1944 the P.1099 was accepted by the RLM and received, despite the aircraft’s different structure, the designation “Me 262 F”. The first variant, the Me 262 F-1 (internally designated P.1099A), was the baseline aircraft under the handle “Jäger I”, a jet-powered single seat daytime fighter. There were three planned versions, differing mainly in armament: Version F-1a was armed with four MK 108 30 mm cannon in the lower fuselage, comparable with the earlier Me 262 A fighter, just with more fuel and ammunition. Version F-1b carried two MK 103 30 mm cannon with longer range, firepower and ammunition supply, and Version F-1c was a heavy daytime fighter with two MK 108 and two MK 103 cannon in the nose.
In parallel the Me 262 F-2 was developed as a more heavily armed and armored variant, as a dedicated heavy bomber interceptor (“Pulkjäger” or “Zerstörer”) under the handle “Jäger II”. Again, three versions were foreseen: Version F-2a would be armed with a single MK 108 cannon and a heavy MK 112 55 mm cannon in the nose. Version F-2b was the same, but it was armed with a MK 114 50 mm cannon instead of the Mk 112. Both were single seaters with a heavily armored cockpit and canopy.
The F-2c was a more thoroughly modified two-seater version; it was armed with a single MG151/20 in a small nose turret, a pair of Mk 103 in the rear of the cockpit firing up- and backwards and two defensive MG 131 in remote-controlled FDL 151 barbettes in the tail. Due to the significant changes this model had the internal project designation P.1099B.
Another two-seater, the F-2d, remained very close to the original baseline aircraft with a crew of two in a side-by-side cockpit. This aircraft was armed with the standard four MK 108 in the nose, plus one launch rail under each wing for Ruhrstahl X-4 guided missiles, which were launched and steered by the second crewman via a wire connection with the mothership. This variant did not come to fruition, however, after the X-4 missile project had been cancelled in early 1945.
All P.1099 fighters also had hardpoints under the outer wings for racks with twelve 55mm R4M unguided air-to-air missiles each, a detail taken over from the Me 262 A, even though the fuel load had to be reduced to carry them. The radio equipment of all these versions would be a FuG 16, Peil G6, FuG 101 radio altimeter, FuBl 2 blind landing equipment, as well as the FuG 25a Erstling identification friend or foe transceiver.
Beyond these initial day fighter variants, further types based on the P.1099 airframe were envisioned, too. The F-3 was a dedicated night fighter version, developed in parallel to the Me 262 G. It was based on the F-2a heavy day fighter, but it carried a crew of two (the pilot and a rearward-facing radar operator) and was equipped with a FuG 240 “Berlin” radar set and a rotating dish antenna under a streamlined plywood cover in the nose. The armament consisted of four MK 108 under the nose, similar to the F-1a day fighter, plus two additional, upward-firing MK 108 cannon (“Schräge Musik”) in the rear fuselage.
Other proposed variants (with less priority, though) were the F-4 and the F-5, which were to become the basis for fast bombers and reconnaissance aircraft with only light defensive armament, typically only a pair of MG 131 in remote-controlled tail barbettes was to be carried. The F-4 resembled the baseline P.1099A, with two bomb bays in front of and behind the main landing gear wells and a crew of two seated side-by-side in a pressurized cockpit. Two MK 108 were carried in the nose, plus the MG 131 tail barbettes. The F-5 was similar but featured a glazed bomb aimer/navigator station in the nose instead of the MK 108’s and the glazing above the pilot’s station was reduced and asymmetrical. In both bomber variants the fuselage tanks were re-arranged to make room for a single SC 1.200 in the front bomb bay, but combinations of smaller bombs could be carried, too. Alternatively, mounts for up to three cameras or a 1.350 l auxiliary tank for extended range could be carried in the bays, too.
Initial flight tests of the Me 262 F in late 1944 showed severe directional instability: especially after fuel and ammunition had been depleted and the center of gravity shifted the aircraft tended to become nose-heavy and ditch down if it was not carefully monitored and trimmed by the pilot. To cope with this problem, the engine mounts were modified, so that the CoG was shifted back. Compared with the original Me 262 the engines were placed roughly 900 mm (35.5 in) further back under the wings. The emptying sequence of the fuselage tanks was also changed, and this mostly mended the problems. Another measure to mend the directional instability issues was the enlargement of the tail surfaces, even though later production aircraft frequently had smaller Me 262 A stabilizers fitted due to material shortages and simple lack of parts.- However, due to the higher weight the Me 262 F’s handling and agility were very limited – but most of its intended roles rather relied on speed, anyway, so that dogfights could be avoided.
From 1944 on the war situation worsened considerably, and production of the new Me 262 F superseded the A variant only on selected production lines. A disused mine complex under the Walpersberg mountain was adapted for the production of complete aircraft. These were hauled to the flat top of the hill where a runway had been cleared and flown out. Between 20 and 30 Me 262 Fs were built here until early 1946, primarily fighters, the underground factory being overrun by Allied troops before it could reach a meaningful output. Wings were produced in Germany's oldest motorway tunnel at Engelberg, to the west of Stuttgart. At B8 Bergkristall-Esche II, a vast network of tunnels was excavated beneath St. Georgen/Gusen, Austria, where fully equipped fuselages for the Me 262 at a planned monthly rate of 450 units on large assembly lines were to be produced from early 1945.
After the type’s introduction to frontline units in early 1945 further handling problems arose through the aircraft’ weight, resulting from its high wing load. Both starting and landing run were excessive, so that the number of airfields from which it could be operated was relatively small. No real short-term solution could be found without fully re-designing the wings, so that RATO bottles were frequently used to get a fully loaded Me 262 F up into the air from standard airfields. These were typically fitted to racks which were mounted under the fuselage, flanking the rear bomb bay.
The Me 262 F’s landing speed was dangerously high, too. A retrofittable brake parachute, housed in a simple tubular fairing under the tail, was developed to reduce the landing distance and save brakes, which frequently overheated and could set the landed aircraft aflame.
From the Me 262 F-2a “Pulkzerstörer I”, only a small number were built and eventually entered service. Its main armament, the MK 112, was a heavy German machine cannon produced by Rheinmetall-Borsig from 1945 on – in fact, the MK 112 was basically a scaled-up MK 108, a very compact weapon with relatively low weight. The MK 112 had a caliber of 55 mm and thus fired much larger shells than the 30 mm MK 108, but the rate of fire was significantly lower (300 rounds / min compared to about 600-660 rounds / min of the MK 108). This large-caliber gun was designed primarily to combat heavy bombers, its rate of fire would have been too slow for effective aerial battles with escort fighters – but the Me 262 F would not have been a dogfighter, anyway, so that the “hit-and-run” mission profile suited the aircraft well. Fire tests showed that a single MK 112 hit with mine grenades could destroy a bomber, and with a rate of fire of five shells per second this weapon could inflict considerably higher losses on the incoming streams of Allied bombers compared to other on-board weapons used on the German side. Only the unguided R4M missiles were as effective, but the MK 112 offered considerably higher accuracy and the opportunity to execute more than just a single attack run on an incoming bomber formation.
The MK 112 was mounted in the lower starboard section of the Me 262 F-2a’s nose, its barrel protruded more than 2 m (7 ft) from its nose. The gun’s drum magazine with sixty rounds partly took up the rear space of the cockpit behind the pilot and the gun mount even used up space of the weapon bay on port side, so that only a single MK 108 with 100 rounds as an additional weapon was mounted in the lower port side weapon bay.
Its sister, the Me 262 F-2b, remained on the drawing board, because its main weapon, the 50 mm MK 114 autocannon that had been derived from the 5 cm Pak 38 anti-tank gun, had turned out to be over-complicated, overweight and unreliable. A refined version was developed as the MK 214A, though, but after flight test from February 1945, but the weapon was not deployed operationally.
Only a handful Me 262 F-2a Pulkzerstörer were eventually fielded and operated before the end of hostilities – beyond the low production numbers the lack of fuel and loss of suitable airfields highly limited the aircraft’s potential. Probably less than ten were used by operational units, including JG 53 “Pik As”, in which they served alongside other interceptors, including other Me 262 variants. Typically, bomber formations were approached from the side of a bomber formation, where their silhouettes were widest, and while still out of range of the bombers' machine guns. This broadside-attack tactic was very effective, and the aircraft’s high speed allowed the interceptors to turn around 180° and make at least a second attack run from the opposite side, before the machines dashed off and returned to their bases.
General characteristics
Crew: One
Length: 14,32 m (46 ft 11 in) overall
12,00 m (39 ft 3¾ in) fuselage only, w/o brake parachute housing
Wingspan: 12,61 m (41 ft 3¾ in)
Height: 4,43 m (14 ft 6 in)
Wing area: 24,2 m² (236 sq ft)
Empty weight: 5.061 kg (11,148 lb)
Loaded weight: 8.762 kg (19,300 lb)
Max. take-off weight: 10.062 kg (22,163 lb)
Powerplant:
2× Junkers Jumo 004 C turbojets with 12 kN (2,697 lb st) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 930 km/h (577 mph, 505 kn)
Cruising speed: 805 km/h (500 mph, 438 kn) at 6.500 m (21,290 ft)
Range: 1.340 km (830 ml, 728 nm) at 6000 m with internal fuel only
Service ceiling: 11,450 m (37,570 ft)
Rate of climb: 18 m/s (3,540 ft/min) at max. weight
Armament:
1× 55 mm (1.96 in) MK 112 machine cannon with 60 rounds
1× 30 mm (1.18 in) MK 108 machine cannon with 100 rounds
Hardpoints under the outer wings for racks with twelve 55mm R4M unguided air-to-air missiles
The kit and its assembly:
This became a submission to the late 2021 “Gunships” group build at whatifmodellers.com – what would such a competition be without at least one gun-toting German Luft ’46 interceptor? The Messerschmitt P.1099 lent itself for such a build. Since 1996 Revell offers a 1:72 IP model kit of this paper aircraft, depicting more or less the two planned versions: a basic single-seat day fighter and a heavy two-seater Zerstörer, both based on the same basis.
This what-if model was based on Revell’s interpretation of the P.1099A, and the kit goes together well. Fit is very good, even though some designs are IMHO a bit dubious. The kit’s weakest point: Revell unfortunately missed the important detail of the modified engine nacelles: the kit comes with standard Me 262 wings and engines, but due to CoG reasons the P.1099 would have had its engines moved back by about 900 mm, as mentioned in the background. I corrected this on this build with some PSR – sounds simple, but since the nacelles are not expected to be stuck to the wings in their new position roughly 1 cm further back, some serious bodywork had to be done.
Otherwise the kit was basically built OOB. I just left away the inner wheels from the main landing gear because I found the twin wheels to be “too much” for this upgraded Me 262. The P.1099 might have been heavier than the Me 262, but…? And the wheels’ tractor-like tread design looks IMHO out of place, too, so that I replaced them with a pair of MiG-21 wheels, left over from a KP kit.
The cockpit was taken OOB, even though I have doubts concerning the canopy. And when you look at mockup pictures of the P.1099 you realize that cockpit access had been facilitated through a side door at starboard, similar to the D. H. Mosquito. The cockpit tub does not consider this hatch at all, and the engraved door on the fuselage (it’s actually there!) is so tiny that only a Halfling might use it?
Well, I stuck with it “as is” and just added a pilot figure (specifically from a Matchbox Hawker tempest, because it is one of the rare cases that you get a WWII pilot wearing an oxygen mask) and a “barrel” behind the bulbous pilot seat because there’s a lot of free space in this single seat variant that is otherwise occupied by a rear gunner in Revell’s P.1099B kit. I also have doubts concerning the kit’s canopy, since the original P.1099 had a cockpit for two seated side-by-side, with a canopy that resembled the D.H. Mosquito’s a lot. I am also not certain about the stabilizers – the kit comes with standard Me 262 parts, but trustworthy sources I consulted suggest that not only the fin had been enlarged (depicted well in Revell’s kit), but also the stabilizers? To improve this, I implanted a pair of modified stabilizers that came from a Heller PZL P.23 light bomber. Sounds odd, but they were a very good match in size, shape and thickness!
The only major modification concerns the armament, even though it became just a “graft-on” solution. On the lower left side, the upper gun port was PSRed away. On the right side I added a bulged fairing for the MK 112. It was sculpted from a Matchbox Saab J29 drop tank and blended into the hull with PSR. Protruding spent cases fairings were added for both guns. The MK 112 gun barrel is a resin piece, left over from a ModelTrans tank conversion set and actually depicts a German 55 mm gun, so that this became a perfect donor piece.
Since the airframe still looked rather clean and boring I finally added a pair of JATO bottle racks to the rear fuselage (scratched from styrene profile but left empty) and a brake parachute fairing under the fin, carved from a piece of sprue.
Furthermore, a display adapter was installed into the fuselage for in-flight pictures.
Painting and markings:
This became a challenge, because I wanted a rather unusual livery, neither a standard RLM 81/82/76 late-war combo nor an improvised-cammo-over-bare-metal finish. After some research I settled upon something that was actually carried by some He 177 bombers around 1944: a uniform RLM 74 (Graugrün, Humbrol 245) upper surface with “cloudy” mottles in RLM 76 (Humbrol 247). This appears like a winter camouflage, but it’s actually quite effective at medium altitude, esp. over a cloudy landscape. The original bombers had light blue (RLM 65) undersides, but for the P.1099 from a later period and as a fighter I rather used a darker shade of RLM76 in the form of Tamiya XF-23 (Light Blue). The model received a black ink washing and some post-panel-shading.
The cockpit interior became RLM 66 (Schwarzgrau, Humbrol 67) while the landing gear and the well were painted in uniform RLM 02 (I used Revell 45, a slightly more greenish tone), with wheel discs in RLM 66, too.
Unit markings became minimal and quite sober. I gave the aircraft a typical late-war “Reichsverteidigung” fuselage band, and in JG 53’s case it is plain black. The black band was deliberately chosen because it is a good, much darker contrast to the murky RLM 74, so that the latter appears lighter than it actually is, lowering the contrast to the RLM 76 spots.
The decals were puzzled together from various sources. As an aircraft of the 3rd group the unit’s ID color would be yellow, reflected in the tactical code and the fin tip. For some contrast and to emphasize the long gun barrel I gave it white and black stripes – as a security measure for ground handling. For some more variety I painted one air intake in very dark grey (Revell 06, Anthracite) and the other one in steel Metallizer, simulating replacement parts. The Balkenkreuze come from various sheets – I used simplified “low viz” versions all around. The undulating yellow bar for the 3rd group comes from a TL Modellbau sheet, while the yellow “4” came from a Fw 190 A sheet from Sky Models. A small “4” on the nose was added as a wacky detail, too, the “Pik As” unit markings came IIRC from a Hobby Boss Bf 109 sheet. Since they turned out to have poor contrast/opacity I only used a few stencils from the P.1099A sheet, but due to the disruptive paint scheme this is not apparent.
Finally, the model was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and a wire antenna, scratched from heated black sprue material, was added between cockpit and fin.
Well, this modified Messerschmitt P.1099A looks simple, but the modified engine nacelles as well as the gun fairing under the nose called for serious PSR. The result looks quite natural, though, and AFAIK this weapon configuration was actually on German drawing boards. However, I am not certain about the cockpit canopy and other details on Revell’s kit, reference information is contradictive.
The paint scheme looks good, even though it was lent from a heavy bomber, and the poor Humbrol enamels did not yield a finish that I had hoped for – the paintwork could certainly have been better, but the overall impression of a late-war Pulkzerstörer is O.K., and this eventually counts.
+++ 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 Messerschmitt Me 262 F was a series of multi-purpose jet planes designed by Messerschmitt for the Luftwaffe that entered service during the final phase of the Second World War in Europe. The aircraft’s design was begun in the summer of 1943 under the project handle P.1099, intended as an improvement to the successful Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighter and also as a replacement for the Arado Ar 234 bomber/reconnaissance aircraft. The primary focus was on more payload, being either usable for more fuel (since early jet engines had poor mileage and therefore range and endurance) or for weapons, including bombs in an internal bomb bay that would enable the aircraft to fulfil a similar tactical role as the British de Havilland Mosquito. Beyond this high-speed bomber (Schnellbomber) variant, the P.1099 would also be a suitable basis for a fast reconnaissance plane, interceptors and night fighters, and trainer versions were also planned.
The Messerschmitt P.1099 was a 12 m long, conventional-looking aircraft with a wingspan of 12.6 m. It had a much wider fuselage than the Messerschmitt Me 262. It had a circular shape with a diameter of 1.7m (5 ft 6¾ in) and the cockpit was now moved closer to the aircraft’s nose, above the front landing gear well. The baseline aircraft featured a side-by-side cockpit for a crew of two, even though different layouts were envisioned for the specialized variants, including single-seaters. To save development time and to use existing jigs and tools as much as possible, the P.1099 retained the wings and the tail section of the Me 262A-2a. Despite a higher total weight (the P.1099’ MTOW was about 3 tons higher), the planned powerplants were initially two uprated Junkers Jumo 004 turbojet engines, later to be replaced by more powerful Heinkel HeS 011 turbojets.
In January 1944 the P.1099 was accepted by the RLM and received, despite the aircraft’s different structure, the designation “Me 262 F”. The first variant, the Me 262 F-1 (internally designated P.1099A), was the baseline aircraft under the handle “Jäger I”, a jet-powered single seat daytime fighter. There were three planned versions, differing mainly in armament: Version F-1a was armed with four MK 108 30 mm cannon in the lower fuselage, comparable with the earlier Me 262 A fighter, just with more fuel and ammunition. Version F-1b carried two MK 103 30 mm cannon with longer range, firepower and ammunition supply, and Version F-1c was a heavy daytime fighter with two MK 108 and two MK 103 cannon in the nose.
In parallel the Me 262 F-2 was developed as a more heavily armed and armored variant, as a dedicated heavy bomber interceptor (“Pulkjäger” or “Zerstörer”) under the handle “Jäger II”. Again, three versions were foreseen: Version F-2a would be armed with a single MK 108 cannon and a heavy MK 112 55 mm cannon in the nose. Version F-2b was the same, but it was armed with a MK 114 50 mm cannon instead of the Mk 112. Both were single seaters with a heavily armored cockpit and canopy.
The F-2c was a more thoroughly modified two-seater version; it was armed with a single MG151/20 in a small nose turret, a pair of Mk 103 in the rear of the cockpit firing up- and backwards and two defensive MG 131 in remote-controlled FDL 151 barbettes in the tail. Due to the significant changes this model had the internal project designation P.1099B.
Another two-seater, the F-2d, remained very close to the original baseline aircraft with a crew of two in a side-by-side cockpit. This aircraft was armed with the standard four MK 108 in the nose, plus one launch rail under each wing for Ruhrstahl X-4 guided missiles, which were launched and steered by the second crewman via a wire connection with the mothership. This variant did not come to fruition, however, after the X-4 missile project had been cancelled in early 1945.
All P.1099 fighters also had hardpoints under the outer wings for racks with twelve 55mm R4M unguided air-to-air missiles each, a detail taken over from the Me 262 A, even though the fuel load had to be reduced to carry them. The radio equipment of all these versions would be a FuG 16, Peil G6, FuG 101 radio altimeter, FuBl 2 blind landing equipment, as well as the FuG 25a Erstling identification friend or foe transceiver.
Beyond these initial day fighter variants, further types based on the P.1099 airframe were envisioned, too. The F-3 was a dedicated night fighter version, developed in parallel to the Me 262 G. It was based on the F-2a heavy day fighter, but it carried a crew of two (the pilot and a rearward-facing radar operator) and was equipped with a FuG 240 “Berlin” radar set and a rotating dish antenna under a streamlined plywood cover in the nose. The armament consisted of four MK 108 under the nose, similar to the F-1a day fighter, plus two additional, upward-firing MK 108 cannon (“Schräge Musik”) in the rear fuselage.
Other proposed variants (with less priority, though) were the F-4 and the F-5, which were to become the basis for fast bombers and reconnaissance aircraft with only light defensive armament, typically only a pair of MG 131 in remote-controlled tail barbettes was to be carried. The F-4 resembled the baseline P.1099A, with two bomb bays in front of and behind the main landing gear wells and a crew of two seated side-by-side in a pressurized cockpit. Two MK 108 were carried in the nose, plus the MG 131 tail barbettes. The F-5 was similar but featured a glazed bomb aimer/navigator station in the nose instead of the MK 108’s and the glazing above the pilot’s station was reduced and asymmetrical. In both bomber variants the fuselage tanks were re-arranged to make room for a single SC 1.200 in the front bomb bay, but combinations of smaller bombs could be carried, too. Alternatively, mounts for up to three cameras or a 1.350 l auxiliary tank for extended range could be carried in the bays, too.
Initial flight tests of the Me 262 F in late 1944 showed severe directional instability: especially after fuel and ammunition had been depleted and the center of gravity shifted the aircraft tended to become nose-heavy and ditch down if it was not carefully monitored and trimmed by the pilot. To cope with this problem, the engine mounts were modified, so that the CoG was shifted back. Compared with the original Me 262 the engines were placed roughly 900 mm (35.5 in) further back under the wings. The emptying sequence of the fuselage tanks was also changed, and this mostly mended the problems. Another measure to mend the directional instability issues was the enlargement of the tail surfaces, even though later production aircraft frequently had smaller Me 262 A stabilizers fitted due to material shortages and simple lack of parts.- However, due to the higher weight the Me 262 F’s handling and agility were very limited – but most of its intended roles rather relied on speed, anyway, so that dogfights could be avoided.
From 1944 on the war situation worsened considerably, and production of the new Me 262 F superseded the A variant only on selected production lines. A disused mine complex under the Walpersberg mountain was adapted for the production of complete aircraft. These were hauled to the flat top of the hill where a runway had been cleared and flown out. Between 20 and 30 Me 262 Fs were built here until early 1946, primarily fighters, the underground factory being overrun by Allied troops before it could reach a meaningful output. Wings were produced in Germany's oldest motorway tunnel at Engelberg, to the west of Stuttgart. At B8 Bergkristall-Esche II, a vast network of tunnels was excavated beneath St. Georgen/Gusen, Austria, where fully equipped fuselages for the Me 262 at a planned monthly rate of 450 units on large assembly lines were to be produced from early 1945.
After the type’s introduction to frontline units in early 1945 further handling problems arose through the aircraft’ weight, resulting from its high wing load. Both starting and landing run were excessive, so that the number of airfields from which it could be operated was relatively small. No real short-term solution could be found without fully re-designing the wings, so that RATO bottles were frequently used to get a fully loaded Me 262 F up into the air from standard airfields. These were typically fitted to racks which were mounted under the fuselage, flanking the rear bomb bay.
The Me 262 F’s landing speed was dangerously high, too. A retrofittable brake parachute, housed in a simple tubular fairing under the tail, was developed to reduce the landing distance and save brakes, which frequently overheated and could set the landed aircraft aflame.
From the Me 262 F-2a “Pulkzerstörer I”, only a small number were built and eventually entered service. Its main armament, the MK 112, was a heavy German machine cannon produced by Rheinmetall-Borsig from 1945 on – in fact, the MK 112 was basically a scaled-up MK 108, a very compact weapon with relatively low weight. The MK 112 had a caliber of 55 mm and thus fired much larger shells than the 30 mm MK 108, but the rate of fire was significantly lower (300 rounds / min compared to about 600-660 rounds / min of the MK 108). This large-caliber gun was designed primarily to combat heavy bombers, its rate of fire would have been too slow for effective aerial battles with escort fighters – but the Me 262 F would not have been a dogfighter, anyway, so that the “hit-and-run” mission profile suited the aircraft well. Fire tests showed that a single MK 112 hit with mine grenades could destroy a bomber, and with a rate of fire of five shells per second this weapon could inflict considerably higher losses on the incoming streams of Allied bombers compared to other on-board weapons used on the German side. Only the unguided R4M missiles were as effective, but the MK 112 offered considerably higher accuracy and the opportunity to execute more than just a single attack run on an incoming bomber formation.
The MK 112 was mounted in the lower starboard section of the Me 262 F-2a’s nose, its barrel protruded more than 2 m (7 ft) from its nose. The gun’s drum magazine with sixty rounds partly took up the rear space of the cockpit behind the pilot and the gun mount even used up space of the weapon bay on port side, so that only a single MK 108 with 100 rounds as an additional weapon was mounted in the lower port side weapon bay.
Its sister, the Me 262 F-2b, remained on the drawing board, because its main weapon, the 50 mm MK 114 autocannon that had been derived from the 5 cm Pak 38 anti-tank gun, had turned out to be over-complicated, overweight and unreliable. A refined version was developed as the MK 214A, though, but after flight test from February 1945, but the weapon was not deployed operationally.
Only a handful Me 262 F-2a Pulkzerstörer were eventually fielded and operated before the end of hostilities – beyond the low production numbers the lack of fuel and loss of suitable airfields highly limited the aircraft’s potential. Probably less than ten were used by operational units, including JG 53 “Pik As”, in which they served alongside other interceptors, including other Me 262 variants. Typically, bomber formations were approached from the side of a bomber formation, where their silhouettes were widest, and while still out of range of the bombers' machine guns. This broadside-attack tactic was very effective, and the aircraft’s high speed allowed the interceptors to turn around 180° and make at least a second attack run from the opposite side, before the machines dashed off and returned to their bases.
General characteristics
Crew: One
Length: 14,32 m (46 ft 11 in) overall
12,00 m (39 ft 3¾ in) fuselage only, w/o brake parachute housing
Wingspan: 12,61 m (41 ft 3¾ in)
Height: 4,43 m (14 ft 6 in)
Wing area: 24,2 m² (236 sq ft)
Empty weight: 5.061 kg (11,148 lb)
Loaded weight: 8.762 kg (19,300 lb)
Max. take-off weight: 10.062 kg (22,163 lb)
Powerplant:
2× Junkers Jumo 004 C turbojets with 12 kN (2,697 lb st) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 930 km/h (577 mph, 505 kn)
Cruising speed: 805 km/h (500 mph, 438 kn) at 6.500 m (21,290 ft)
Range: 1.340 km (830 ml, 728 nm) at 6000 m with internal fuel only
Service ceiling: 11,450 m (37,570 ft)
Rate of climb: 18 m/s (3,540 ft/min) at max. weight
Armament:
1× 55 mm (1.96 in) MK 112 machine cannon with 60 rounds
1× 30 mm (1.18 in) MK 108 machine cannon with 100 rounds
Hardpoints under the outer wings for racks with twelve 55mm R4M unguided air-to-air missiles
The kit and its assembly:
This became a submission to the late 2021 “Gunships” group build at whatifmodellers.com – what would such a competition be without at least one gun-toting German Luft ’46 interceptor? The Messerschmitt P.1099 lent itself for such a build. Since 1996 Revell offers a 1:72 IP model kit of this paper aircraft, depicting more or less the two planned versions: a basic single-seat day fighter and a heavy two-seater Zerstörer, both based on the same basis.
This what-if model was based on Revell’s interpretation of the P.1099A, and the kit goes together well. Fit is very good, even though some designs are IMHO a bit dubious. The kit’s weakest point: Revell unfortunately missed the important detail of the modified engine nacelles: the kit comes with standard Me 262 wings and engines, but due to CoG reasons the P.1099 would have had its engines moved back by about 900 mm, as mentioned in the background. I corrected this on this build with some PSR – sounds simple, but since the nacelles are not expected to be stuck to the wings in their new position roughly 1 cm further back, some serious bodywork had to be done.
Otherwise the kit was basically built OOB. I just left away the inner wheels from the main landing gear because I found the twin wheels to be “too much” for this upgraded Me 262. The P.1099 might have been heavier than the Me 262, but…? And the wheels’ tractor-like tread design looks IMHO out of place, too, so that I replaced them with a pair of MiG-21 wheels, left over from a KP kit.
The cockpit was taken OOB, even though I have doubts concerning the canopy. And when you look at mockup pictures of the P.1099 you realize that cockpit access had been facilitated through a side door at starboard, similar to the D. H. Mosquito. The cockpit tub does not consider this hatch at all, and the engraved door on the fuselage (it’s actually there!) is so tiny that only a Halfling might use it?
Well, I stuck with it “as is” and just added a pilot figure (specifically from a Matchbox Hawker tempest, because it is one of the rare cases that you get a WWII pilot wearing an oxygen mask) and a “barrel” behind the bulbous pilot seat because there’s a lot of free space in this single seat variant that is otherwise occupied by a rear gunner in Revell’s P.1099B kit. I also have doubts concerning the kit’s canopy, since the original P.1099 had a cockpit for two seated side-by-side, with a canopy that resembled the D.H. Mosquito’s a lot. I am also not certain about the stabilizers – the kit comes with standard Me 262 parts, but trustworthy sources I consulted suggest that not only the fin had been enlarged (depicted well in Revell’s kit), but also the stabilizers? To improve this, I implanted a pair of modified stabilizers that came from a Heller PZL P.23 light bomber. Sounds odd, but they were a very good match in size, shape and thickness!
The only major modification concerns the armament, even though it became just a “graft-on” solution. On the lower left side, the upper gun port was PSRed away. On the right side I added a bulged fairing for the MK 112. It was sculpted from a Matchbox Saab J29 drop tank and blended into the hull with PSR. Protruding spent cases fairings were added for both guns. The MK 112 gun barrel is a resin piece, left over from a ModelTrans tank conversion set and actually depicts a German 55 mm gun, so that this became a perfect donor piece.
Since the airframe still looked rather clean and boring I finally added a pair of JATO bottle racks to the rear fuselage (scratched from styrene profile but left empty) and a brake parachute fairing under the fin, carved from a piece of sprue.
Furthermore, a display adapter was installed into the fuselage for in-flight pictures.
Painting and markings:
This became a challenge, because I wanted a rather unusual livery, neither a standard RLM 81/82/76 late-war combo nor an improvised-cammo-over-bare-metal finish. After some research I settled upon something that was actually carried by some He 177 bombers around 1944: a uniform RLM 74 (Graugrün, Humbrol 245) upper surface with “cloudy” mottles in RLM 76 (Humbrol 247). This appears like a winter camouflage, but it’s actually quite effective at medium altitude, esp. over a cloudy landscape. The original bombers had light blue (RLM 65) undersides, but for the P.1099 from a later period and as a fighter I rather used a darker shade of RLM76 in the form of Tamiya XF-23 (Light Blue). The model received a black ink washing and some post-panel-shading.
The cockpit interior became RLM 66 (Schwarzgrau, Humbrol 67) while the landing gear and the well were painted in uniform RLM 02 (I used Revell 45, a slightly more greenish tone), with wheel discs in RLM 66, too.
Unit markings became minimal and quite sober. I gave the aircraft a typical late-war “Reichsverteidigung” fuselage band, and in JG 53’s case it is plain black. The black band was deliberately chosen because it is a good, much darker contrast to the murky RLM 74, so that the latter appears lighter than it actually is, lowering the contrast to the RLM 76 spots.
The decals were puzzled together from various sources. As an aircraft of the 3rd group the unit’s ID color would be yellow, reflected in the tactical code and the fin tip. For some contrast and to emphasize the long gun barrel I gave it white and black stripes – as a security measure for ground handling. For some more variety I painted one air intake in very dark grey (Revell 06, Anthracite) and the other one in steel Metallizer, simulating replacement parts. The Balkenkreuze come from various sheets – I used simplified “low viz” versions all around. The undulating yellow bar for the 3rd group comes from a TL Modellbau sheet, while the yellow “4” came from a Fw 190 A sheet from Sky Models. A small “4” on the nose was added as a wacky detail, too, the “Pik As” unit markings came IIRC from a Hobby Boss Bf 109 sheet. Since they turned out to have poor contrast/opacity I only used a few stencils from the P.1099A sheet, but due to the disruptive paint scheme this is not apparent.
Finally, the model was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and a wire antenna, scratched from heated black sprue material, was added between cockpit and fin.
Well, this modified Messerschmitt P.1099A looks simple, but the modified engine nacelles as well as the gun fairing under the nose called for serious PSR. The result looks quite natural, though, and AFAIK this weapon configuration was actually on German drawing boards. However, I am not certain about the cockpit canopy and other details on Revell’s kit, reference information is contradictive.
The paint scheme looks good, even though it was lent from a heavy bomber, and the poor Humbrol enamels did not yield a finish that I had hoped for – the paintwork could certainly have been better, but the overall impression of a late-war Pulkzerstörer is O.K., and this eventually counts.
+++ 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 Messerschmitt Me 262 F was a series of multi-purpose jet planes designed by Messerschmitt for the Luftwaffe that entered service during the final phase of the Second World War in Europe. The aircraft’s design was begun in the summer of 1943 under the project handle P.1099, intended as an improvement to the successful Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighter and also as a replacement for the Arado Ar 234 bomber/reconnaissance aircraft. The primary focus was on more payload, being either usable for more fuel (since early jet engines had poor mileage and therefore range and endurance) or for weapons, including bombs in an internal bomb bay that would enable the aircraft to fulfil a similar tactical role as the British de Havilland Mosquito. Beyond this high-speed bomber (Schnellbomber) variant, the P.1099 would also be a suitable basis for a fast reconnaissance plane, interceptors and night fighters, and trainer versions were also planned.
The Messerschmitt P.1099 was a 12 m long, conventional-looking aircraft with a wingspan of 12.6 m. It had a much wider fuselage than the Messerschmitt Me 262. It had a circular shape with a diameter of 1.7m (5 ft 6¾ in) and the cockpit was now moved closer to the aircraft’s nose, above the front landing gear well. The baseline aircraft featured a side-by-side cockpit for a crew of two, even though different layouts were envisioned for the specialized variants, including single-seaters. To save development time and to use existing jigs and tools as much as possible, the P.1099 retained the wings and the tail section of the Me 262A-2a. Despite a higher total weight (the P.1099’ MTOW was about 3 tons higher), the planned powerplants were initially two uprated Junkers Jumo 004 turbojet engines, later to be replaced by more powerful Heinkel HeS 011 turbojets.
In January 1944 the P.1099 was accepted by the RLM and received, despite the aircraft’s different structure, the designation “Me 262 F”. The first variant, the Me 262 F-1 (internally designated P.1099A), was the baseline aircraft under the handle “Jäger I”, a jet-powered single seat daytime fighter. There were three planned versions, differing mainly in armament: Version F-1a was armed with four MK 108 30 mm cannon in the lower fuselage, comparable with the earlier Me 262 A fighter, just with more fuel and ammunition. Version F-1b carried two MK 103 30 mm cannon with longer range, firepower and ammunition supply, and Version F-1c was a heavy daytime fighter with two MK 108 and two MK 103 cannon in the nose.
In parallel the Me 262 F-2 was developed as a more heavily armed and armored variant, as a dedicated heavy bomber interceptor (“Pulkjäger” or “Zerstörer”) under the handle “Jäger II”. Again, three versions were foreseen: Version F-2a would be armed with a single MK 108 cannon and a heavy MK 112 55 mm cannon in the nose. Version F-2b was the same, but it was armed with a MK 114 50 mm cannon instead of the Mk 112. Both were single seaters with a heavily armored cockpit and canopy.
The F-2c was a more thoroughly modified two-seater version; it was armed with a single MG151/20 in a small nose turret, a pair of Mk 103 in the rear of the cockpit firing up- and backwards and two defensive MG 131 in remote-controlled FDL 151 barbettes in the tail. Due to the significant changes this model had the internal project designation P.1099B.
Another two-seater, the F-2d, remained very close to the original baseline aircraft with a crew of two in a side-by-side cockpit. This aircraft was armed with the standard four MK 108 in the nose, plus one launch rail under each wing for Ruhrstahl X-4 guided missiles, which were launched and steered by the second crewman via a wire connection with the mothership. This variant did not come to fruition, however, after the X-4 missile project had been cancelled in early 1945.
All P.1099 fighters also had hardpoints under the outer wings for racks with twelve 55mm R4M unguided air-to-air missiles each, a detail taken over from the Me 262 A, even though the fuel load had to be reduced to carry them. The radio equipment of all these versions would be a FuG 16, Peil G6, FuG 101 radio altimeter, FuBl 2 blind landing equipment, as well as the FuG 25a Erstling identification friend or foe transceiver.
Beyond these initial day fighter variants, further types based on the P.1099 airframe were envisioned, too. The F-3 was a dedicated night fighter version, developed in parallel to the Me 262 G. It was based on the F-2a heavy day fighter, but it carried a crew of two (the pilot and a rearward-facing radar operator) and was equipped with a FuG 240 “Berlin” radar set and a rotating dish antenna under a streamlined plywood cover in the nose. The armament consisted of four MK 108 under the nose, similar to the F-1a day fighter, plus two additional, upward-firing MK 108 cannon (“Schräge Musik”) in the rear fuselage.
Other proposed variants (with less priority, though) were the F-4 and the F-5, which were to become the basis for fast bombers and reconnaissance aircraft with only light defensive armament, typically only a pair of MG 131 in remote-controlled tail barbettes was to be carried. The F-4 resembled the baseline P.1099A, with two bomb bays in front of and behind the main landing gear wells and a crew of two seated side-by-side in a pressurized cockpit. Two MK 108 were carried in the nose, plus the MG 131 tail barbettes. The F-5 was similar but featured a glazed bomb aimer/navigator station in the nose instead of the MK 108’s and the glazing above the pilot’s station was reduced and asymmetrical. In both bomber variants the fuselage tanks were re-arranged to make room for a single SC 1.200 in the front bomb bay, but combinations of smaller bombs could be carried, too. Alternatively, mounts for up to three cameras or a 1.350 l auxiliary tank for extended range could be carried in the bays, too.
Initial flight tests of the Me 262 F in late 1944 showed severe directional instability: especially after fuel and ammunition had been depleted and the center of gravity shifted the aircraft tended to become nose-heavy and ditch down if it was not carefully monitored and trimmed by the pilot. To cope with this problem, the engine mounts were modified, so that the CoG was shifted back. Compared with the original Me 262 the engines were placed roughly 900 mm (35.5 in) further back under the wings. The emptying sequence of the fuselage tanks was also changed, and this mostly mended the problems. Another measure to mend the directional instability issues was the enlargement of the tail surfaces, even though later production aircraft frequently had smaller Me 262 A stabilizers fitted due to material shortages and simple lack of parts.- However, due to the higher weight the Me 262 F’s handling and agility were very limited – but most of its intended roles rather relied on speed, anyway, so that dogfights could be avoided.
From 1944 on the war situation worsened considerably, and production of the new Me 262 F superseded the A variant only on selected production lines. A disused mine complex under the Walpersberg mountain was adapted for the production of complete aircraft. These were hauled to the flat top of the hill where a runway had been cleared and flown out. Between 20 and 30 Me 262 Fs were built here until early 1946, primarily fighters, the underground factory being overrun by Allied troops before it could reach a meaningful output. Wings were produced in Germany's oldest motorway tunnel at Engelberg, to the west of Stuttgart. At B8 Bergkristall-Esche II, a vast network of tunnels was excavated beneath St. Georgen/Gusen, Austria, where fully equipped fuselages for the Me 262 at a planned monthly rate of 450 units on large assembly lines were to be produced from early 1945.
After the type’s introduction to frontline units in early 1945 further handling problems arose through the aircraft’ weight, resulting from its high wing load. Both starting and landing run were excessive, so that the number of airfields from which it could be operated was relatively small. No real short-term solution could be found without fully re-designing the wings, so that RATO bottles were frequently used to get a fully loaded Me 262 F up into the air from standard airfields. These were typically fitted to racks which were mounted under the fuselage, flanking the rear bomb bay.
The Me 262 F’s landing speed was dangerously high, too. A retrofittable brake parachute, housed in a simple tubular fairing under the tail, was developed to reduce the landing distance and save brakes, which frequently overheated and could set the landed aircraft aflame.
From the Me 262 F-2a “Pulkzerstörer I”, only a small number were built and eventually entered service. Its main armament, the MK 112, was a heavy German machine cannon produced by Rheinmetall-Borsig from 1945 on – in fact, the MK 112 was basically a scaled-up MK 108, a very compact weapon with relatively low weight. The MK 112 had a caliber of 55 mm and thus fired much larger shells than the 30 mm MK 108, but the rate of fire was significantly lower (300 rounds / min compared to about 600-660 rounds / min of the MK 108). This large-caliber gun was designed primarily to combat heavy bombers, its rate of fire would have been too slow for effective aerial battles with escort fighters – but the Me 262 F would not have been a dogfighter, anyway, so that the “hit-and-run” mission profile suited the aircraft well. Fire tests showed that a single MK 112 hit with mine grenades could destroy a bomber, and with a rate of fire of five shells per second this weapon could inflict considerably higher losses on the incoming streams of Allied bombers compared to other on-board weapons used on the German side. Only the unguided R4M missiles were as effective, but the MK 112 offered considerably higher accuracy and the opportunity to execute more than just a single attack run on an incoming bomber formation.
The MK 112 was mounted in the lower starboard section of the Me 262 F-2a’s nose, its barrel protruded more than 2 m (7 ft) from its nose. The gun’s drum magazine with sixty rounds partly took up the rear space of the cockpit behind the pilot and the gun mount even used up space of the weapon bay on port side, so that only a single MK 108 with 100 rounds as an additional weapon was mounted in the lower port side weapon bay.
Its sister, the Me 262 F-2b, remained on the drawing board, because its main weapon, the 50 mm MK 114 autocannon that had been derived from the 5 cm Pak 38 anti-tank gun, had turned out to be over-complicated, overweight and unreliable. A refined version was developed as the MK 214A, though, but after flight test from February 1945, but the weapon was not deployed operationally.
Only a handful Me 262 F-2a Pulkzerstörer were eventually fielded and operated before the end of hostilities – beyond the low production numbers the lack of fuel and loss of suitable airfields highly limited the aircraft’s potential. Probably less than ten were used by operational units, including JG 53 “Pik As”, in which they served alongside other interceptors, including other Me 262 variants. Typically, bomber formations were approached from the side of a bomber formation, where their silhouettes were widest, and while still out of range of the bombers' machine guns. This broadside-attack tactic was very effective, and the aircraft’s high speed allowed the interceptors to turn around 180° and make at least a second attack run from the opposite side, before the machines dashed off and returned to their bases.
General characteristics
Crew: One
Length: 14,32 m (46 ft 11 in) overall
12,00 m (39 ft 3¾ in) fuselage only, w/o brake parachute housing
Wingspan: 12,61 m (41 ft 3¾ in)
Height: 4,43 m (14 ft 6 in)
Wing area: 24,2 m² (236 sq ft)
Empty weight: 5.061 kg (11,148 lb)
Loaded weight: 8.762 kg (19,300 lb)
Max. take-off weight: 10.062 kg (22,163 lb)
Powerplant:
2× Junkers Jumo 004 C turbojets with 12 kN (2,697 lb st) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 930 km/h (577 mph, 505 kn)
Cruising speed: 805 km/h (500 mph, 438 kn) at 6.500 m (21,290 ft)
Range: 1.340 km (830 ml, 728 nm) at 6000 m with internal fuel only
Service ceiling: 11,450 m (37,570 ft)
Rate of climb: 18 m/s (3,540 ft/min) at max. weight
Armament:
1× 55 mm (1.96 in) MK 112 machine cannon with 60 rounds
1× 30 mm (1.18 in) MK 108 machine cannon with 100 rounds
Hardpoints under the outer wings for racks with twelve 55mm R4M unguided air-to-air missiles
The kit and its assembly:
This became a submission to the late 2021 “Gunships” group build at whatifmodellers.com – what would such a competition be without at least one gun-toting German Luft ’46 interceptor? The Messerschmitt P.1099 lent itself for such a build. Since 1996 Revell offers a 1:72 IP model kit of this paper aircraft, depicting more or less the two planned versions: a basic single-seat day fighter and a heavy two-seater Zerstörer, both based on the same basis.
This what-if model was based on Revell’s interpretation of the P.1099A, and the kit goes together well. Fit is very good, even though some designs are IMHO a bit dubious. The kit’s weakest point: Revell unfortunately missed the important detail of the modified engine nacelles: the kit comes with standard Me 262 wings and engines, but due to CoG reasons the P.1099 would have had its engines moved back by about 900 mm, as mentioned in the background. I corrected this on this build with some PSR – sounds simple, but since the nacelles are not expected to be stuck to the wings in their new position roughly 1 cm further back, some serious bodywork had to be done.
Otherwise the kit was basically built OOB. I just left away the inner wheels from the main landing gear because I found the twin wheels to be “too much” for this upgraded Me 262. The P.1099 might have been heavier than the Me 262, but…? And the wheels’ tractor-like tread design looks IMHO out of place, too, so that I replaced them with a pair of MiG-21 wheels, left over from a KP kit.
The cockpit was taken OOB, even though I have doubts concerning the canopy. And when you look at mockup pictures of the P.1099 you realize that cockpit access had been facilitated through a side door at starboard, similar to the D. H. Mosquito. The cockpit tub does not consider this hatch at all, and the engraved door on the fuselage (it’s actually there!) is so tiny that only a Halfling might use it?
Well, I stuck with it “as is” and just added a pilot figure (specifically from a Matchbox Hawker tempest, because it is one of the rare cases that you get a WWII pilot wearing an oxygen mask) and a “barrel” behind the bulbous pilot seat because there’s a lot of free space in this single seat variant that is otherwise occupied by a rear gunner in Revell’s P.1099B kit. I also have doubts concerning the kit’s canopy, since the original P.1099 had a cockpit for two seated side-by-side, with a canopy that resembled the D.H. Mosquito’s a lot. I am also not certain about the stabilizers – the kit comes with standard Me 262 parts, but trustworthy sources I consulted suggest that not only the fin had been enlarged (depicted well in Revell’s kit), but also the stabilizers? To improve this, I implanted a pair of modified stabilizers that came from a Heller PZL P.23 light bomber. Sounds odd, but they were a very good match in size, shape and thickness!
The only major modification concerns the armament, even though it became just a “graft-on” solution. On the lower left side, the upper gun port was PSRed away. On the right side I added a bulged fairing for the MK 112. It was sculpted from a Matchbox Saab J29 drop tank and blended into the hull with PSR. Protruding spent cases fairings were added for both guns. The MK 112 gun barrel is a resin piece, left over from a ModelTrans tank conversion set and actually depicts a German 55 mm gun, so that this became a perfect donor piece.
Since the airframe still looked rather clean and boring I finally added a pair of JATO bottle racks to the rear fuselage (scratched from styrene profile but left empty) and a brake parachute fairing under the fin, carved from a piece of sprue.
Furthermore, a display adapter was installed into the fuselage for in-flight pictures.
Painting and markings:
This became a challenge, because I wanted a rather unusual livery, neither a standard RLM 81/82/76 late-war combo nor an improvised-cammo-over-bare-metal finish. After some research I settled upon something that was actually carried by some He 177 bombers around 1944: a uniform RLM 74 (Graugrün, Humbrol 245) upper surface with “cloudy” mottles in RLM 76 (Humbrol 247). This appears like a winter camouflage, but it’s actually quite effective at medium altitude, esp. over a cloudy landscape. The original bombers had light blue (RLM 65) undersides, but for the P.1099 from a later period and as a fighter I rather used a darker shade of RLM76 in the form of Tamiya XF-23 (Light Blue). The model received a black ink washing and some post-panel-shading.
The cockpit interior became RLM 66 (Schwarzgrau, Humbrol 67) while the landing gear and the well were painted in uniform RLM 02 (I used Revell 45, a slightly more greenish tone), with wheel discs in RLM 66, too.
Unit markings became minimal and quite sober. I gave the aircraft a typical late-war “Reichsverteidigung” fuselage band, and in JG 53’s case it is plain black. The black band was deliberately chosen because it is a good, much darker contrast to the murky RLM 74, so that the latter appears lighter than it actually is, lowering the contrast to the RLM 76 spots.
The decals were puzzled together from various sources. As an aircraft of the 3rd group the unit’s ID color would be yellow, reflected in the tactical code and the fin tip. For some contrast and to emphasize the long gun barrel I gave it white and black stripes – as a security measure for ground handling. For some more variety I painted one air intake in very dark grey (Revell 06, Anthracite) and the other one in steel Metallizer, simulating replacement parts. The Balkenkreuze come from various sheets – I used simplified “low viz” versions all around. The undulating yellow bar for the 3rd group comes from a TL Modellbau sheet, while the yellow “4” came from a Fw 190 A sheet from Sky Models. A small “4” on the nose was added as a wacky detail, too, the “Pik As” unit markings came IIRC from a Hobby Boss Bf 109 sheet. Since they turned out to have poor contrast/opacity I only used a few stencils from the P.1099A sheet, but due to the disruptive paint scheme this is not apparent.
Finally, the model was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and a wire antenna, scratched from heated black sprue material, was added between cockpit and fin.
Well, this modified Messerschmitt P.1099A looks simple, but the modified engine nacelles as well as the gun fairing under the nose called for serious PSR. The result looks quite natural, though, and AFAIK this weapon configuration was actually on German drawing boards. However, I am not certain about the cockpit canopy and other details on Revell’s kit, reference information is contradictive.
The paint scheme looks good, even though it was lent from a heavy bomber, and the poor Humbrol enamels did not yield a finish that I had hoped for – the paintwork could certainly have been better, but the overall impression of a late-war Pulkzerstörer is O.K., and this eventually counts.
+++ 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 Messerschmitt Me 262 F was a series of multi-purpose jet planes designed by Messerschmitt for the Luftwaffe that entered service during the final phase of the Second World War in Europe. The aircraft’s design was begun in the summer of 1943 under the project handle P.1099, intended as an improvement to the successful Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighter and also as a replacement for the Arado Ar 234 bomber/reconnaissance aircraft. The primary focus was on more payload, being either usable for more fuel (since early jet engines had poor mileage and therefore range and endurance) or for weapons, including bombs in an internal bomb bay that would enable the aircraft to fulfil a similar tactical role as the British de Havilland Mosquito. Beyond this high-speed bomber (Schnellbomber) variant, the P.1099 would also be a suitable basis for a fast reconnaissance plane, interceptors and night fighters, and trainer versions were also planned.
The Messerschmitt P.1099 was a 12 m long, conventional-looking aircraft with a wingspan of 12.6 m. It had a much wider fuselage than the Messerschmitt Me 262. It had a circular shape with a diameter of 1.7m (5 ft 6¾ in) and the cockpit was now moved closer to the aircraft’s nose, above the front landing gear well. The baseline aircraft featured a side-by-side cockpit for a crew of two, even though different layouts were envisioned for the specialized variants, including single-seaters. To save development time and to use existing jigs and tools as much as possible, the P.1099 retained the wings and the tail section of the Me 262A-2a. Despite a higher total weight (the P.1099’ MTOW was about 3 tons higher), the planned powerplants were initially two uprated Junkers Jumo 004 turbojet engines, later to be replaced by more powerful Heinkel HeS 011 turbojets.
In January 1944 the P.1099 was accepted by the RLM and received, despite the aircraft’s different structure, the designation “Me 262 F”. The first variant, the Me 262 F-1 (internally designated P.1099A), was the baseline aircraft under the handle “Jäger I”, a jet-powered single seat daytime fighter. There were three planned versions, differing mainly in armament: Version F-1a was armed with four MK 108 30 mm cannon in the lower fuselage, comparable with the earlier Me 262 A fighter, just with more fuel and ammunition. Version F-1b carried two MK 103 30 mm cannon with longer range, firepower and ammunition supply, and Version F-1c was a heavy daytime fighter with two MK 108 and two MK 103 cannon in the nose.
In parallel the Me 262 F-2 was developed as a more heavily armed and armored variant, as a dedicated heavy bomber interceptor (“Pulkjäger” or “Zerstörer”) under the handle “Jäger II”. Again, three versions were foreseen: Version F-2a would be armed with a single MK 108 cannon and a heavy MK 112 55 mm cannon in the nose. Version F-2b was the same, but it was armed with a MK 114 50 mm cannon instead of the Mk 112. Both were single seaters with a heavily armored cockpit and canopy.
The F-2c was a more thoroughly modified two-seater version; it was armed with a single MG151/20 in a small nose turret, a pair of Mk 103 in the rear of the cockpit firing up- and backwards and two defensive MG 131 in remote-controlled FDL 151 barbettes in the tail. Due to the significant changes this model had the internal project designation P.1099B.
Another two-seater, the F-2d, remained very close to the original baseline aircraft with a crew of two in a side-by-side cockpit. This aircraft was armed with the standard four MK 108 in the nose, plus one launch rail under each wing for Ruhrstahl X-4 guided missiles, which were launched and steered by the second crewman via a wire connection with the mothership. This variant did not come to fruition, however, after the X-4 missile project had been cancelled in early 1945.
All P.1099 fighters also had hardpoints under the outer wings for racks with twelve 55mm R4M unguided air-to-air missiles each, a detail taken over from the Me 262 A, even though the fuel load had to be reduced to carry them. The radio equipment of all these versions would be a FuG 16, Peil G6, FuG 101 radio altimeter, FuBl 2 blind landing equipment, as well as the FuG 25a Erstling identification friend or foe transceiver.
Beyond these initial day fighter variants, further types based on the P.1099 airframe were envisioned, too. The F-3 was a dedicated night fighter version, developed in parallel to the Me 262 G. It was based on the F-2a heavy day fighter, but it carried a crew of two (the pilot and a rearward-facing radar operator) and was equipped with a FuG 240 “Berlin” radar set and a rotating dish antenna under a streamlined plywood cover in the nose. The armament consisted of four MK 108 under the nose, similar to the F-1a day fighter, plus two additional, upward-firing MK 108 cannon (“Schräge Musik”) in the rear fuselage.
Other proposed variants (with less priority, though) were the F-4 and the F-5, which were to become the basis for fast bombers and reconnaissance aircraft with only light defensive armament, typically only a pair of MG 131 in remote-controlled tail barbettes was to be carried. The F-4 resembled the baseline P.1099A, with two bomb bays in front of and behind the main landing gear wells and a crew of two seated side-by-side in a pressurized cockpit. Two MK 108 were carried in the nose, plus the MG 131 tail barbettes. The F-5 was similar but featured a glazed bomb aimer/navigator station in the nose instead of the MK 108’s and the glazing above the pilot’s station was reduced and asymmetrical. In both bomber variants the fuselage tanks were re-arranged to make room for a single SC 1.200 in the front bomb bay, but combinations of smaller bombs could be carried, too. Alternatively, mounts for up to three cameras or a 1.350 l auxiliary tank for extended range could be carried in the bays, too.
Initial flight tests of the Me 262 F in late 1944 showed severe directional instability: especially after fuel and ammunition had been depleted and the center of gravity shifted the aircraft tended to become nose-heavy and ditch down if it was not carefully monitored and trimmed by the pilot. To cope with this problem, the engine mounts were modified, so that the CoG was shifted back. Compared with the original Me 262 the engines were placed roughly 900 mm (35.5 in) further back under the wings. The emptying sequence of the fuselage tanks was also changed, and this mostly mended the problems. Another measure to mend the directional instability issues was the enlargement of the tail surfaces, even though later production aircraft frequently had smaller Me 262 A stabilizers fitted due to material shortages and simple lack of parts.- However, due to the higher weight the Me 262 F’s handling and agility were very limited – but most of its intended roles rather relied on speed, anyway, so that dogfights could be avoided.
From 1944 on the war situation worsened considerably, and production of the new Me 262 F superseded the A variant only on selected production lines. A disused mine complex under the Walpersberg mountain was adapted for the production of complete aircraft. These were hauled to the flat top of the hill where a runway had been cleared and flown out. Between 20 and 30 Me 262 Fs were built here until early 1946, primarily fighters, the underground factory being overrun by Allied troops before it could reach a meaningful output. Wings were produced in Germany's oldest motorway tunnel at Engelberg, to the west of Stuttgart. At B8 Bergkristall-Esche II, a vast network of tunnels was excavated beneath St. Georgen/Gusen, Austria, where fully equipped fuselages for the Me 262 at a planned monthly rate of 450 units on large assembly lines were to be produced from early 1945.
After the type’s introduction to frontline units in early 1945 further handling problems arose through the aircraft’ weight, resulting from its high wing load. Both starting and landing run were excessive, so that the number of airfields from which it could be operated was relatively small. No real short-term solution could be found without fully re-designing the wings, so that RATO bottles were frequently used to get a fully loaded Me 262 F up into the air from standard airfields. These were typically fitted to racks which were mounted under the fuselage, flanking the rear bomb bay.
The Me 262 F’s landing speed was dangerously high, too. A retrofittable brake parachute, housed in a simple tubular fairing under the tail, was developed to reduce the landing distance and save brakes, which frequently overheated and could set the landed aircraft aflame.
From the Me 262 F-2a “Pulkzerstörer I”, only a small number were built and eventually entered service. Its main armament, the MK 112, was a heavy German machine cannon produced by Rheinmetall-Borsig from 1945 on – in fact, the MK 112 was basically a scaled-up MK 108, a very compact weapon with relatively low weight. The MK 112 had a caliber of 55 mm and thus fired much larger shells than the 30 mm MK 108, but the rate of fire was significantly lower (300 rounds / min compared to about 600-660 rounds / min of the MK 108). This large-caliber gun was designed primarily to combat heavy bombers, its rate of fire would have been too slow for effective aerial battles with escort fighters – but the Me 262 F would not have been a dogfighter, anyway, so that the “hit-and-run” mission profile suited the aircraft well. Fire tests showed that a single MK 112 hit with mine grenades could destroy a bomber, and with a rate of fire of five shells per second this weapon could inflict considerably higher losses on the incoming streams of Allied bombers compared to other on-board weapons used on the German side. Only the unguided R4M missiles were as effective, but the MK 112 offered considerably higher accuracy and the opportunity to execute more than just a single attack run on an incoming bomber formation.
The MK 112 was mounted in the lower starboard section of the Me 262 F-2a’s nose, its barrel protruded more than 2 m (7 ft) from its nose. The gun’s drum magazine with sixty rounds partly took up the rear space of the cockpit behind the pilot and the gun mount even used up space of the weapon bay on port side, so that only a single MK 108 with 100 rounds as an additional weapon was mounted in the lower port side weapon bay.
Its sister, the Me 262 F-2b, remained on the drawing board, because its main weapon, the 50 mm MK 114 autocannon that had been derived from the 5 cm Pak 38 anti-tank gun, had turned out to be over-complicated, overweight and unreliable. A refined version was developed as the MK 214A, though, but after flight test from February 1945, but the weapon was not deployed operationally.
Only a handful Me 262 F-2a Pulkzerstörer were eventually fielded and operated before the end of hostilities – beyond the low production numbers the lack of fuel and loss of suitable airfields highly limited the aircraft’s potential. Probably less than ten were used by operational units, including JG 53 “Pik As”, in which they served alongside other interceptors, including other Me 262 variants. Typically, bomber formations were approached from the side of a bomber formation, where their silhouettes were widest, and while still out of range of the bombers' machine guns. This broadside-attack tactic was very effective, and the aircraft’s high speed allowed the interceptors to turn around 180° and make at least a second attack run from the opposite side, before the machines dashed off and returned to their bases.
General characteristics
Crew: One
Length: 14,32 m (46 ft 11 in) overall
12,00 m (39 ft 3¾ in) fuselage only, w/o brake parachute housing
Wingspan: 12,61 m (41 ft 3¾ in)
Height: 4,43 m (14 ft 6 in)
Wing area: 24,2 m² (236 sq ft)
Empty weight: 5.061 kg (11,148 lb)
Loaded weight: 8.762 kg (19,300 lb)
Max. take-off weight: 10.062 kg (22,163 lb)
Powerplant:
2× Junkers Jumo 004 C turbojets with 12 kN (2,697 lb st) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 930 km/h (577 mph, 505 kn)
Cruising speed: 805 km/h (500 mph, 438 kn) at 6.500 m (21,290 ft)
Range: 1.340 km (830 ml, 728 nm) at 6000 m with internal fuel only
Service ceiling: 11,450 m (37,570 ft)
Rate of climb: 18 m/s (3,540 ft/min) at max. weight
Armament:
1× 55 mm (1.96 in) MK 112 machine cannon with 60 rounds
1× 30 mm (1.18 in) MK 108 machine cannon with 100 rounds
Hardpoints under the outer wings for racks with twelve 55mm R4M unguided air-to-air missiles
The kit and its assembly:
This became a submission to the late 2021 “Gunships” group build at whatifmodellers.com – what would such a competition be without at least one gun-toting German Luft ’46 interceptor? The Messerschmitt P.1099 lent itself for such a build. Since 1996 Revell offers a 1:72 IP model kit of this paper aircraft, depicting more or less the two planned versions: a basic single-seat day fighter and a heavy two-seater Zerstörer, both based on the same basis.
This what-if model was based on Revell’s interpretation of the P.1099A, and the kit goes together well. Fit is very good, even though some designs are IMHO a bit dubious. The kit’s weakest point: Revell unfortunately missed the important detail of the modified engine nacelles: the kit comes with standard Me 262 wings and engines, but due to CoG reasons the P.1099 would have had its engines moved back by about 900 mm, as mentioned in the background. I corrected this on this build with some PSR – sounds simple, but since the nacelles are not expected to be stuck to the wings in their new position roughly 1 cm further back, some serious bodywork had to be done.
Otherwise the kit was basically built OOB. I just left away the inner wheels from the main landing gear because I found the twin wheels to be “too much” for this upgraded Me 262. The P.1099 might have been heavier than the Me 262, but…? And the wheels’ tractor-like tread design looks IMHO out of place, too, so that I replaced them with a pair of MiG-21 wheels, left over from a KP kit.
The cockpit was taken OOB, even though I have doubts concerning the canopy. And when you look at mockup pictures of the P.1099 you realize that cockpit access had been facilitated through a side door at starboard, similar to the D. H. Mosquito. The cockpit tub does not consider this hatch at all, and the engraved door on the fuselage (it’s actually there!) is so tiny that only a Halfling might use it?
Well, I stuck with it “as is” and just added a pilot figure (specifically from a Matchbox Hawker tempest, because it is one of the rare cases that you get a WWII pilot wearing an oxygen mask) and a “barrel” behind the bulbous pilot seat because there’s a lot of free space in this single seat variant that is otherwise occupied by a rear gunner in Revell’s P.1099B kit. I also have doubts concerning the kit’s canopy, since the original P.1099 had a cockpit for two seated side-by-side, with a canopy that resembled the D.H. Mosquito’s a lot. I am also not certain about the stabilizers – the kit comes with standard Me 262 parts, but trustworthy sources I consulted suggest that not only the fin had been enlarged (depicted well in Revell’s kit), but also the stabilizers? To improve this, I implanted a pair of modified stabilizers that came from a Heller PZL P.23 light bomber. Sounds odd, but they were a very good match in size, shape and thickness!
The only major modification concerns the armament, even though it became just a “graft-on” solution. On the lower left side, the upper gun port was PSRed away. On the right side I added a bulged fairing for the MK 112. It was sculpted from a Matchbox Saab J29 drop tank and blended into the hull with PSR. Protruding spent cases fairings were added for both guns. The MK 112 gun barrel is a resin piece, left over from a ModelTrans tank conversion set and actually depicts a German 55 mm gun, so that this became a perfect donor piece.
Since the airframe still looked rather clean and boring I finally added a pair of JATO bottle racks to the rear fuselage (scratched from styrene profile but left empty) and a brake parachute fairing under the fin, carved from a piece of sprue.
Furthermore, a display adapter was installed into the fuselage for in-flight pictures.
Painting and markings:
This became a challenge, because I wanted a rather unusual livery, neither a standard RLM 81/82/76 late-war combo nor an improvised-cammo-over-bare-metal finish. After some research I settled upon something that was actually carried by some He 177 bombers around 1944: a uniform RLM 74 (Graugrün, Humbrol 245) upper surface with “cloudy” mottles in RLM 76 (Humbrol 247). This appears like a winter camouflage, but it’s actually quite effective at medium altitude, esp. over a cloudy landscape. The original bombers had light blue (RLM 65) undersides, but for the P.1099 from a later period and as a fighter I rather used a darker shade of RLM76 in the form of Tamiya XF-23 (Light Blue). The model received a black ink washing and some post-panel-shading.
The cockpit interior became RLM 66 (Schwarzgrau, Humbrol 67) while the landing gear and the well were painted in uniform RLM 02 (I used Revell 45, a slightly more greenish tone), with wheel discs in RLM 66, too.
Unit markings became minimal and quite sober. I gave the aircraft a typical late-war “Reichsverteidigung” fuselage band, and in JG 53’s case it is plain black. The black band was deliberately chosen because it is a good, much darker contrast to the murky RLM 74, so that the latter appears lighter than it actually is, lowering the contrast to the RLM 76 spots.
The decals were puzzled together from various sources. As an aircraft of the 3rd group the unit’s ID color would be yellow, reflected in the tactical code and the fin tip. For some contrast and to emphasize the long gun barrel I gave it white and black stripes – as a security measure for ground handling. For some more variety I painted one air intake in very dark grey (Revell 06, Anthracite) and the other one in steel Metallizer, simulating replacement parts. The Balkenkreuze come from various sheets – I used simplified “low viz” versions all around. The undulating yellow bar for the 3rd group comes from a TL Modellbau sheet, while the yellow “4” came from a Fw 190 A sheet from Sky Models. A small “4” on the nose was added as a wacky detail, too, the “Pik As” unit markings came IIRC from a Hobby Boss Bf 109 sheet. Since they turned out to have poor contrast/opacity I only used a few stencils from the P.1099A sheet, but due to the disruptive paint scheme this is not apparent.
Finally, the model was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and a wire antenna, scratched from heated black sprue material, was added between cockpit and fin.
Well, this modified Messerschmitt P.1099A looks simple, but the modified engine nacelles as well as the gun fairing under the nose called for serious PSR. The result looks quite natural, though, and AFAIK this weapon configuration was actually on German drawing boards. However, I am not certain about the cockpit canopy and other details on Revell’s kit, reference information is contradictive.
The paint scheme looks good, even though it was lent from a heavy bomber, and the poor Humbrol enamels did not yield a finish that I had hoped for – the paintwork could certainly have been better, but the overall impression of a late-war Pulkzerstörer is O.K., and this eventually counts.
+++ 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 Messerschmitt Me 262 F was a series of multi-purpose jet planes designed by Messerschmitt for the Luftwaffe that entered service during the final phase of the Second World War in Europe. The aircraft’s design was begun in the summer of 1943 under the project handle P.1099, intended as an improvement to the successful Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighter and also as a replacement for the Arado Ar 234 bomber/reconnaissance aircraft. The primary focus was on more payload, being either usable for more fuel (since early jet engines had poor mileage and therefore range and endurance) or for weapons, including bombs in an internal bomb bay that would enable the aircraft to fulfil a similar tactical role as the British de Havilland Mosquito. Beyond this high-speed bomber (Schnellbomber) variant, the P.1099 would also be a suitable basis for a fast reconnaissance plane, interceptors and night fighters, and trainer versions were also planned.
The Messerschmitt P.1099 was a 12 m long, conventional-looking aircraft with a wingspan of 12.6 m. It had a much wider fuselage than the Messerschmitt Me 262. It had a circular shape with a diameter of 1.7m (5 ft 6¾ in) and the cockpit was now moved closer to the aircraft’s nose, above the front landing gear well. The baseline aircraft featured a side-by-side cockpit for a crew of two, even though different layouts were envisioned for the specialized variants, including single-seaters. To save development time and to use existing jigs and tools as much as possible, the P.1099 retained the wings and the tail section of the Me 262A-2a. Despite a higher total weight (the P.1099’ MTOW was about 3 tons higher), the planned powerplants were initially two uprated Junkers Jumo 004 turbojet engines, later to be replaced by more powerful Heinkel HeS 011 turbojets.
In January 1944 the P.1099 was accepted by the RLM and received, despite the aircraft’s different structure, the designation “Me 262 F”. The first variant, the Me 262 F-1 (internally designated P.1099A), was the baseline aircraft under the handle “Jäger I”, a jet-powered single seat daytime fighter. There were three planned versions, differing mainly in armament: Version F-1a was armed with four MK 108 30 mm cannon in the lower fuselage, comparable with the earlier Me 262 A fighter, just with more fuel and ammunition. Version F-1b carried two MK 103 30 mm cannon with longer range, firepower and ammunition supply, and Version F-1c was a heavy daytime fighter with two MK 108 and two MK 103 cannon in the nose.
In parallel the Me 262 F-2 was developed as a more heavily armed and armored variant, as a dedicated heavy bomber interceptor (“Pulkjäger” or “Zerstörer”) under the handle “Jäger II”. Again, three versions were foreseen: Version F-2a would be armed with a single MK 108 cannon and a heavy MK 112 55 mm cannon in the nose. Version F-2b was the same, but it was armed with a MK 114 50 mm cannon instead of the Mk 112. Both were single seaters with a heavily armored cockpit and canopy.
The F-2c was a more thoroughly modified two-seater version; it was armed with a single MG151/20 in a small nose turret, a pair of Mk 103 in the rear of the cockpit firing up- and backwards and two defensive MG 131 in remote-controlled FDL 151 barbettes in the tail. Due to the significant changes this model had the internal project designation P.1099B.
Another two-seater, the F-2d, remained very close to the original baseline aircraft with a crew of two in a side-by-side cockpit. This aircraft was armed with the standard four MK 108 in the nose, plus one launch rail under each wing for Ruhrstahl X-4 guided missiles, which were launched and steered by the second crewman via a wire connection with the mothership. This variant did not come to fruition, however, after the X-4 missile project had been cancelled in early 1945.
All P.1099 fighters also had hardpoints under the outer wings for racks with twelve 55mm R4M unguided air-to-air missiles each, a detail taken over from the Me 262 A, even though the fuel load had to be reduced to carry them. The radio equipment of all these versions would be a FuG 16, Peil G6, FuG 101 radio altimeter, FuBl 2 blind landing equipment, as well as the FuG 25a Erstling identification friend or foe transceiver.
Beyond these initial day fighter variants, further types based on the P.1099 airframe were envisioned, too. The F-3 was a dedicated night fighter version, developed in parallel to the Me 262 G. It was based on the F-2a heavy day fighter, but it carried a crew of two (the pilot and a rearward-facing radar operator) and was equipped with a FuG 240 “Berlin” radar set and a rotating dish antenna under a streamlined plywood cover in the nose. The armament consisted of four MK 108 under the nose, similar to the F-1a day fighter, plus two additional, upward-firing MK 108 cannon (“Schräge Musik”) in the rear fuselage.
Other proposed variants (with less priority, though) were the F-4 and the F-5, which were to become the basis for fast bombers and reconnaissance aircraft with only light defensive armament, typically only a pair of MG 131 in remote-controlled tail barbettes was to be carried. The F-4 resembled the baseline P.1099A, with two bomb bays in front of and behind the main landing gear wells and a crew of two seated side-by-side in a pressurized cockpit. Two MK 108 were carried in the nose, plus the MG 131 tail barbettes. The F-5 was similar but featured a glazed bomb aimer/navigator station in the nose instead of the MK 108’s and the glazing above the pilot’s station was reduced and asymmetrical. In both bomber variants the fuselage tanks were re-arranged to make room for a single SC 1.200 in the front bomb bay, but combinations of smaller bombs could be carried, too. Alternatively, mounts for up to three cameras or a 1.350 l auxiliary tank for extended range could be carried in the bays, too.
Initial flight tests of the Me 262 F in late 1944 showed severe directional instability: especially after fuel and ammunition had been depleted and the center of gravity shifted the aircraft tended to become nose-heavy and ditch down if it was not carefully monitored and trimmed by the pilot. To cope with this problem, the engine mounts were modified, so that the CoG was shifted back. Compared with the original Me 262 the engines were placed roughly 900 mm (35.5 in) further back under the wings. The emptying sequence of the fuselage tanks was also changed, and this mostly mended the problems. Another measure to mend the directional instability issues was the enlargement of the tail surfaces, even though later production aircraft frequently had smaller Me 262 A stabilizers fitted due to material shortages and simple lack of parts.- However, due to the higher weight the Me 262 F’s handling and agility were very limited – but most of its intended roles rather relied on speed, anyway, so that dogfights could be avoided.
From 1944 on the war situation worsened considerably, and production of the new Me 262 F superseded the A variant only on selected production lines. A disused mine complex under the Walpersberg mountain was adapted for the production of complete aircraft. These were hauled to the flat top of the hill where a runway had been cleared and flown out. Between 20 and 30 Me 262 Fs were built here until early 1946, primarily fighters, the underground factory being overrun by Allied troops before it could reach a meaningful output. Wings were produced in Germany's oldest motorway tunnel at Engelberg, to the west of Stuttgart. At B8 Bergkristall-Esche II, a vast network of tunnels was excavated beneath St. Georgen/Gusen, Austria, where fully equipped fuselages for the Me 262 at a planned monthly rate of 450 units on large assembly lines were to be produced from early 1945.
After the type’s introduction to frontline units in early 1945 further handling problems arose through the aircraft’ weight, resulting from its high wing load. Both starting and landing run were excessive, so that the number of airfields from which it could be operated was relatively small. No real short-term solution could be found without fully re-designing the wings, so that RATO bottles were frequently used to get a fully loaded Me 262 F up into the air from standard airfields. These were typically fitted to racks which were mounted under the fuselage, flanking the rear bomb bay.
The Me 262 F’s landing speed was dangerously high, too. A retrofittable brake parachute, housed in a simple tubular fairing under the tail, was developed to reduce the landing distance and save brakes, which frequently overheated and could set the landed aircraft aflame.
From the Me 262 F-2a “Pulkzerstörer I”, only a small number were built and eventually entered service. Its main armament, the MK 112, was a heavy German machine cannon produced by Rheinmetall-Borsig from 1945 on – in fact, the MK 112 was basically a scaled-up MK 108, a very compact weapon with relatively low weight. The MK 112 had a caliber of 55 mm and thus fired much larger shells than the 30 mm MK 108, but the rate of fire was significantly lower (300 rounds / min compared to about 600-660 rounds / min of the MK 108). This large-caliber gun was designed primarily to combat heavy bombers, its rate of fire would have been too slow for effective aerial battles with escort fighters – but the Me 262 F would not have been a dogfighter, anyway, so that the “hit-and-run” mission profile suited the aircraft well. Fire tests showed that a single MK 112 hit with mine grenades could destroy a bomber, and with a rate of fire of five shells per second this weapon could inflict considerably higher losses on the incoming streams of Allied bombers compared to other on-board weapons used on the German side. Only the unguided R4M missiles were as effective, but the MK 112 offered considerably higher accuracy and the opportunity to execute more than just a single attack run on an incoming bomber formation.
The MK 112 was mounted in the lower starboard section of the Me 262 F-2a’s nose, its barrel protruded more than 2 m (7 ft) from its nose. The gun’s drum magazine with sixty rounds partly took up the rear space of the cockpit behind the pilot and the gun mount even used up space of the weapon bay on port side, so that only a single MK 108 with 100 rounds as an additional weapon was mounted in the lower port side weapon bay.
Its sister, the Me 262 F-2b, remained on the drawing board, because its main weapon, the 50 mm MK 114 autocannon that had been derived from the 5 cm Pak 38 anti-tank gun, had turned out to be over-complicated, overweight and unreliable. A refined version was developed as the MK 214A, though, but after flight test from February 1945, but the weapon was not deployed operationally.
Only a handful Me 262 F-2a Pulkzerstörer were eventually fielded and operated before the end of hostilities – beyond the low production numbers the lack of fuel and loss of suitable airfields highly limited the aircraft’s potential. Probably less than ten were used by operational units, including JG 53 “Pik As”, in which they served alongside other interceptors, including other Me 262 variants. Typically, bomber formations were approached from the side of a bomber formation, where their silhouettes were widest, and while still out of range of the bombers' machine guns. This broadside-attack tactic was very effective, and the aircraft’s high speed allowed the interceptors to turn around 180° and make at least a second attack run from the opposite side, before the machines dashed off and returned to their bases.
General characteristics
Crew: One
Length: 14,32 m (46 ft 11 in) overall
12,00 m (39 ft 3¾ in) fuselage only, w/o brake parachute housing
Wingspan: 12,61 m (41 ft 3¾ in)
Height: 4,43 m (14 ft 6 in)
Wing area: 24,2 m² (236 sq ft)
Empty weight: 5.061 kg (11,148 lb)
Loaded weight: 8.762 kg (19,300 lb)
Max. take-off weight: 10.062 kg (22,163 lb)
Powerplant:
2× Junkers Jumo 004 C turbojets with 12 kN (2,697 lb st) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 930 km/h (577 mph, 505 kn)
Cruising speed: 805 km/h (500 mph, 438 kn) at 6.500 m (21,290 ft)
Range: 1.340 km (830 ml, 728 nm) at 6000 m with internal fuel only
Service ceiling: 11,450 m (37,570 ft)
Rate of climb: 18 m/s (3,540 ft/min) at max. weight
Armament:
1× 55 mm (1.96 in) MK 112 machine cannon with 60 rounds
1× 30 mm (1.18 in) MK 108 machine cannon with 100 rounds
Hardpoints under the outer wings for racks with twelve 55mm R4M unguided air-to-air missiles
The kit and its assembly:
This became a submission to the late 2021 “Gunships” group build at whatifmodellers.com – what would such a competition be without at least one gun-toting German Luft ’46 interceptor? The Messerschmitt P.1099 lent itself for such a build. Since 1996 Revell offers a 1:72 IP model kit of this paper aircraft, depicting more or less the two planned versions: a basic single-seat day fighter and a heavy two-seater Zerstörer, both based on the same basis.
This what-if model was based on Revell’s interpretation of the P.1099A, and the kit goes together well. Fit is very good, even though some designs are IMHO a bit dubious. The kit’s weakest point: Revell unfortunately missed the important detail of the modified engine nacelles: the kit comes with standard Me 262 wings and engines, but due to CoG reasons the P.1099 would have had its engines moved back by about 900 mm, as mentioned in the background. I corrected this on this build with some PSR – sounds simple, but since the nacelles are not expected to be stuck to the wings in their new position roughly 1 cm further back, some serious bodywork had to be done.
Otherwise the kit was basically built OOB. I just left away the inner wheels from the main landing gear because I found the twin wheels to be “too much” for this upgraded Me 262. The P.1099 might have been heavier than the Me 262, but…? And the wheels’ tractor-like tread design looks IMHO out of place, too, so that I replaced them with a pair of MiG-21 wheels, left over from a KP kit.
The cockpit was taken OOB, even though I have doubts concerning the canopy. And when you look at mockup pictures of the P.1099 you realize that cockpit access had been facilitated through a side door at starboard, similar to the D. H. Mosquito. The cockpit tub does not consider this hatch at all, and the engraved door on the fuselage (it’s actually there!) is so tiny that only a Halfling might use it?
Well, I stuck with it “as is” and just added a pilot figure (specifically from a Matchbox Hawker tempest, because it is one of the rare cases that you get a WWII pilot wearing an oxygen mask) and a “barrel” behind the bulbous pilot seat because there’s a lot of free space in this single seat variant that is otherwise occupied by a rear gunner in Revell’s P.1099B kit. I also have doubts concerning the kit’s canopy, since the original P.1099 had a cockpit for two seated side-by-side, with a canopy that resembled the D.H. Mosquito’s a lot. I am also not certain about the stabilizers – the kit comes with standard Me 262 parts, but trustworthy sources I consulted suggest that not only the fin had been enlarged (depicted well in Revell’s kit), but also the stabilizers? To improve this, I implanted a pair of modified stabilizers that came from a Heller PZL P.23 light bomber. Sounds odd, but they were a very good match in size, shape and thickness!
The only major modification concerns the armament, even though it became just a “graft-on” solution. On the lower left side, the upper gun port was PSRed away. On the right side I added a bulged fairing for the MK 112. It was sculpted from a Matchbox Saab J29 drop tank and blended into the hull with PSR. Protruding spent cases fairings were added for both guns. The MK 112 gun barrel is a resin piece, left over from a ModelTrans tank conversion set and actually depicts a German 55 mm gun, so that this became a perfect donor piece.
Since the airframe still looked rather clean and boring I finally added a pair of JATO bottle racks to the rear fuselage (scratched from styrene profile but left empty) and a brake parachute fairing under the fin, carved from a piece of sprue.
Furthermore, a display adapter was installed into the fuselage for in-flight pictures.
Painting and markings:
This became a challenge, because I wanted a rather unusual livery, neither a standard RLM 81/82/76 late-war combo nor an improvised-cammo-over-bare-metal finish. After some research I settled upon something that was actually carried by some He 177 bombers around 1944: a uniform RLM 74 (Graugrün, Humbrol 245) upper surface with “cloudy” mottles in RLM 76 (Humbrol 247). This appears like a winter camouflage, but it’s actually quite effective at medium altitude, esp. over a cloudy landscape. The original bombers had light blue (RLM 65) undersides, but for the P.1099 from a later period and as a fighter I rather used a darker shade of RLM76 in the form of Tamiya XF-23 (Light Blue). The model received a black ink washing and some post-panel-shading.
The cockpit interior became RLM 66 (Schwarzgrau, Humbrol 67) while the landing gear and the well were painted in uniform RLM 02 (I used Revell 45, a slightly more greenish tone), with wheel discs in RLM 66, too.
Unit markings became minimal and quite sober. I gave the aircraft a typical late-war “Reichsverteidigung” fuselage band, and in JG 53’s case it is plain black. The black band was deliberately chosen because it is a good, much darker contrast to the murky RLM 74, so that the latter appears lighter than it actually is, lowering the contrast to the RLM 76 spots.
The decals were puzzled together from various sources. As an aircraft of the 3rd group the unit’s ID color would be yellow, reflected in the tactical code and the fin tip. For some contrast and to emphasize the long gun barrel I gave it white and black stripes – as a security measure for ground handling. For some more variety I painted one air intake in very dark grey (Revell 06, Anthracite) and the other one in steel Metallizer, simulating replacement parts. The Balkenkreuze come from various sheets – I used simplified “low viz” versions all around. The undulating yellow bar for the 3rd group comes from a TL Modellbau sheet, while the yellow “4” came from a Fw 190 A sheet from Sky Models. A small “4” on the nose was added as a wacky detail, too, the “Pik As” unit markings came IIRC from a Hobby Boss Bf 109 sheet. Since they turned out to have poor contrast/opacity I only used a few stencils from the P.1099A sheet, but due to the disruptive paint scheme this is not apparent.
Finally, the model was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and a wire antenna, scratched from heated black sprue material, was added between cockpit and fin.
Well, this modified Messerschmitt P.1099A looks simple, but the modified engine nacelles as well as the gun fairing under the nose called for serious PSR. The result looks quite natural, though, and AFAIK this weapon configuration was actually on German drawing boards. However, I am not certain about the cockpit canopy and other details on Revell’s kit, reference information is contradictive.
The paint scheme looks good, even though it was lent from a heavy bomber, and the poor Humbrol enamels did not yield a finish that I had hoped for – the paintwork could certainly have been better, but the overall impression of a late-war Pulkzerstörer is O.K., and this eventually counts.
+++ 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 Messerschmitt Me 262 F was a series of multi-purpose jet planes designed by Messerschmitt for the Luftwaffe that entered service during the final phase of the Second World War in Europe. The aircraft’s design was begun in the summer of 1943 under the project handle P.1099, intended as an improvement to the successful Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighter and also as a replacement for the Arado Ar 234 bomber/reconnaissance aircraft. The primary focus was on more payload, being either usable for more fuel (since early jet engines had poor mileage and therefore range and endurance) or for weapons, including bombs in an internal bomb bay that would enable the aircraft to fulfil a similar tactical role as the British de Havilland Mosquito. Beyond this high-speed bomber (Schnellbomber) variant, the P.1099 would also be a suitable basis for a fast reconnaissance plane, interceptors and night fighters, and trainer versions were also planned.
The Messerschmitt P.1099 was a 12 m long, conventional-looking aircraft with a wingspan of 12.6 m. It had a much wider fuselage than the Messerschmitt Me 262. It had a circular shape with a diameter of 1.7m (5 ft 6¾ in) and the cockpit was now moved closer to the aircraft’s nose, above the front landing gear well. The baseline aircraft featured a side-by-side cockpit for a crew of two, even though different layouts were envisioned for the specialized variants, including single-seaters. To save development time and to use existing jigs and tools as much as possible, the P.1099 retained the wings and the tail section of the Me 262A-2a. Despite a higher total weight (the P.1099’ MTOW was about 3 tons higher), the planned powerplants were initially two uprated Junkers Jumo 004 turbojet engines, later to be replaced by more powerful Heinkel HeS 011 turbojets.
In January 1944 the P.1099 was accepted by the RLM and received, despite the aircraft’s different structure, the designation “Me 262 F”. The first variant, the Me 262 F-1 (internally designated P.1099A), was the baseline aircraft under the handle “Jäger I”, a jet-powered single seat daytime fighter. There were three planned versions, differing mainly in armament: Version F-1a was armed with four MK 108 30 mm cannon in the lower fuselage, comparable with the earlier Me 262 A fighter, just with more fuel and ammunition. Version F-1b carried two MK 103 30 mm cannon with longer range, firepower and ammunition supply, and Version F-1c was a heavy daytime fighter with two MK 108 and two MK 103 cannon in the nose.
In parallel the Me 262 F-2 was developed as a more heavily armed and armored variant, as a dedicated heavy bomber interceptor (“Pulkjäger” or “Zerstörer”) under the handle “Jäger II”. Again, three versions were foreseen: Version F-2a would be armed with a single MK 108 cannon and a heavy MK 112 55 mm cannon in the nose. Version F-2b was the same, but it was armed with a MK 114 50 mm cannon instead of the Mk 112. Both were single seaters with a heavily armored cockpit and canopy.
The F-2c was a more thoroughly modified two-seater version; it was armed with a single MG151/20 in a small nose turret, a pair of Mk 103 in the rear of the cockpit firing up- and backwards and two defensive MG 131 in remote-controlled FDL 151 barbettes in the tail. Due to the significant changes this model had the internal project designation P.1099B.
Another two-seater, the F-2d, remained very close to the original baseline aircraft with a crew of two in a side-by-side cockpit. This aircraft was armed with the standard four MK 108 in the nose, plus one launch rail under each wing for Ruhrstahl X-4 guided missiles, which were launched and steered by the second crewman via a wire connection with the mothership. This variant did not come to fruition, however, after the X-4 missile project had been cancelled in early 1945.
All P.1099 fighters also had hardpoints under the outer wings for racks with twelve 55mm R4M unguided air-to-air missiles each, a detail taken over from the Me 262 A, even though the fuel load had to be reduced to carry them. The radio equipment of all these versions would be a FuG 16, Peil G6, FuG 101 radio altimeter, FuBl 2 blind landing equipment, as well as the FuG 25a Erstling identification friend or foe transceiver.
Beyond these initial day fighter variants, further types based on the P.1099 airframe were envisioned, too. The F-3 was a dedicated night fighter version, developed in parallel to the Me 262 G. It was based on the F-2a heavy day fighter, but it carried a crew of two (the pilot and a rearward-facing radar operator) and was equipped with a FuG 240 “Berlin” radar set and a rotating dish antenna under a streamlined plywood cover in the nose. The armament consisted of four MK 108 under the nose, similar to the F-1a day fighter, plus two additional, upward-firing MK 108 cannon (“Schräge Musik”) in the rear fuselage.
Other proposed variants (with less priority, though) were the F-4 and the F-5, which were to become the basis for fast bombers and reconnaissance aircraft with only light defensive armament, typically only a pair of MG 131 in remote-controlled tail barbettes was to be carried. The F-4 resembled the baseline P.1099A, with two bomb bays in front of and behind the main landing gear wells and a crew of two seated side-by-side in a pressurized cockpit. Two MK 108 were carried in the nose, plus the MG 131 tail barbettes. The F-5 was similar but featured a glazed bomb aimer/navigator station in the nose instead of the MK 108’s and the glazing above the pilot’s station was reduced and asymmetrical. In both bomber variants the fuselage tanks were re-arranged to make room for a single SC 1.200 in the front bomb bay, but combinations of smaller bombs could be carried, too. Alternatively, mounts for up to three cameras or a 1.350 l auxiliary tank for extended range could be carried in the bays, too.
Initial flight tests of the Me 262 F in late 1944 showed severe directional instability: especially after fuel and ammunition had been depleted and the center of gravity shifted the aircraft tended to become nose-heavy and ditch down if it was not carefully monitored and trimmed by the pilot. To cope with this problem, the engine mounts were modified, so that the CoG was shifted back. Compared with the original Me 262 the engines were placed roughly 900 mm (35.5 in) further back under the wings. The emptying sequence of the fuselage tanks was also changed, and this mostly mended the problems. Another measure to mend the directional instability issues was the enlargement of the tail surfaces, even though later production aircraft frequently had smaller Me 262 A stabilizers fitted due to material shortages and simple lack of parts.- However, due to the higher weight the Me 262 F’s handling and agility were very limited – but most of its intended roles rather relied on speed, anyway, so that dogfights could be avoided.
From 1944 on the war situation worsened considerably, and production of the new Me 262 F superseded the A variant only on selected production lines. A disused mine complex under the Walpersberg mountain was adapted for the production of complete aircraft. These were hauled to the flat top of the hill where a runway had been cleared and flown out. Between 20 and 30 Me 262 Fs were built here until early 1946, primarily fighters, the underground factory being overrun by Allied troops before it could reach a meaningful output. Wings were produced in Germany's oldest motorway tunnel at Engelberg, to the west of Stuttgart. At B8 Bergkristall-Esche II, a vast network of tunnels was excavated beneath St. Georgen/Gusen, Austria, where fully equipped fuselages for the Me 262 at a planned monthly rate of 450 units on large assembly lines were to be produced from early 1945.
After the type’s introduction to frontline units in early 1945 further handling problems arose through the aircraft’ weight, resulting from its high wing load. Both starting and landing run were excessive, so that the number of airfields from which it could be operated was relatively small. No real short-term solution could be found without fully re-designing the wings, so that RATO bottles were frequently used to get a fully loaded Me 262 F up into the air from standard airfields. These were typically fitted to racks which were mounted under the fuselage, flanking the rear bomb bay.
The Me 262 F’s landing speed was dangerously high, too. A retrofittable brake parachute, housed in a simple tubular fairing under the tail, was developed to reduce the landing distance and save brakes, which frequently overheated and could set the landed aircraft aflame.
From the Me 262 F-2a “Pulkzerstörer I”, only a small number were built and eventually entered service. Its main armament, the MK 112, was a heavy German machine cannon produced by Rheinmetall-Borsig from 1945 on – in fact, the MK 112 was basically a scaled-up MK 108, a very compact weapon with relatively low weight. The MK 112 had a caliber of 55 mm and thus fired much larger shells than the 30 mm MK 108, but the rate of fire was significantly lower (300 rounds / min compared to about 600-660 rounds / min of the MK 108). This large-caliber gun was designed primarily to combat heavy bombers, its rate of fire would have been too slow for effective aerial battles with escort fighters – but the Me 262 F would not have been a dogfighter, anyway, so that the “hit-and-run” mission profile suited the aircraft well. Fire tests showed that a single MK 112 hit with mine grenades could destroy a bomber, and with a rate of fire of five shells per second this weapon could inflict considerably higher losses on the incoming streams of Allied bombers compared to other on-board weapons used on the German side. Only the unguided R4M missiles were as effective, but the MK 112 offered considerably higher accuracy and the opportunity to execute more than just a single attack run on an incoming bomber formation.
The MK 112 was mounted in the lower starboard section of the Me 262 F-2a’s nose, its barrel protruded more than 2 m (7 ft) from its nose. The gun’s drum magazine with sixty rounds partly took up the rear space of the cockpit behind the pilot and the gun mount even used up space of the weapon bay on port side, so that only a single MK 108 with 100 rounds as an additional weapon was mounted in the lower port side weapon bay.
Its sister, the Me 262 F-2b, remained on the drawing board, because its main weapon, the 50 mm MK 114 autocannon that had been derived from the 5 cm Pak 38 anti-tank gun, had turned out to be over-complicated, overweight and unreliable. A refined version was developed as the MK 214A, though, but after flight test from February 1945, but the weapon was not deployed operationally.
Only a handful Me 262 F-2a Pulkzerstörer were eventually fielded and operated before the end of hostilities – beyond the low production numbers the lack of fuel and loss of suitable airfields highly limited the aircraft’s potential. Probably less than ten were used by operational units, including JG 53 “Pik As”, in which they served alongside other interceptors, including other Me 262 variants. Typically, bomber formations were approached from the side of a bomber formation, where their silhouettes were widest, and while still out of range of the bombers' machine guns. This broadside-attack tactic was very effective, and the aircraft’s high speed allowed the interceptors to turn around 180° and make at least a second attack run from the opposite side, before the machines dashed off and returned to their bases.
General characteristics
Crew: One
Length: 14,32 m (46 ft 11 in) overall
12,00 m (39 ft 3¾ in) fuselage only, w/o brake parachute housing
Wingspan: 12,61 m (41 ft 3¾ in)
Height: 4,43 m (14 ft 6 in)
Wing area: 24,2 m² (236 sq ft)
Empty weight: 5.061 kg (11,148 lb)
Loaded weight: 8.762 kg (19,300 lb)
Max. take-off weight: 10.062 kg (22,163 lb)
Powerplant:
2× Junkers Jumo 004 C turbojets with 12 kN (2,697 lb st) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 930 km/h (577 mph, 505 kn)
Cruising speed: 805 km/h (500 mph, 438 kn) at 6.500 m (21,290 ft)
Range: 1.340 km (830 ml, 728 nm) at 6000 m with internal fuel only
Service ceiling: 11,450 m (37,570 ft)
Rate of climb: 18 m/s (3,540 ft/min) at max. weight
Armament:
1× 55 mm (1.96 in) MK 112 machine cannon with 60 rounds
1× 30 mm (1.18 in) MK 108 machine cannon with 100 rounds
Hardpoints under the outer wings for racks with twelve 55mm R4M unguided air-to-air missiles
The kit and its assembly:
This became a submission to the late 2021 “Gunships” group build at whatifmodellers.com – what would such a competition be without at least one gun-toting German Luft ’46 interceptor? The Messerschmitt P.1099 lent itself for such a build. Since 1996 Revell offers a 1:72 IP model kit of this paper aircraft, depicting more or less the two planned versions: a basic single-seat day fighter and a heavy two-seater Zerstörer, both based on the same basis.
This what-if model was based on Revell’s interpretation of the P.1099A, and the kit goes together well. Fit is very good, even though some designs are IMHO a bit dubious. The kit’s weakest point: Revell unfortunately missed the important detail of the modified engine nacelles: the kit comes with standard Me 262 wings and engines, but due to CoG reasons the P.1099 would have had its engines moved back by about 900 mm, as mentioned in the background. I corrected this on this build with some PSR – sounds simple, but since the nacelles are not expected to be stuck to the wings in their new position roughly 1 cm further back, some serious bodywork had to be done.
Otherwise the kit was basically built OOB. I just left away the inner wheels from the main landing gear because I found the twin wheels to be “too much” for this upgraded Me 262. The P.1099 might have been heavier than the Me 262, but…? And the wheels’ tractor-like tread design looks IMHO out of place, too, so that I replaced them with a pair of MiG-21 wheels, left over from a KP kit.
The cockpit was taken OOB, even though I have doubts concerning the canopy. And when you look at mockup pictures of the P.1099 you realize that cockpit access had been facilitated through a side door at starboard, similar to the D. H. Mosquito. The cockpit tub does not consider this hatch at all, and the engraved door on the fuselage (it’s actually there!) is so tiny that only a Halfling might use it?
Well, I stuck with it “as is” and just added a pilot figure (specifically from a Matchbox Hawker tempest, because it is one of the rare cases that you get a WWII pilot wearing an oxygen mask) and a “barrel” behind the bulbous pilot seat because there’s a lot of free space in this single seat variant that is otherwise occupied by a rear gunner in Revell’s P.1099B kit. I also have doubts concerning the kit’s canopy, since the original P.1099 had a cockpit for two seated side-by-side, with a canopy that resembled the D.H. Mosquito’s a lot. I am also not certain about the stabilizers – the kit comes with standard Me 262 parts, but trustworthy sources I consulted suggest that not only the fin had been enlarged (depicted well in Revell’s kit), but also the stabilizers? To improve this, I implanted a pair of modified stabilizers that came from a Heller PZL P.23 light bomber. Sounds odd, but they were a very good match in size, shape and thickness!
The only major modification concerns the armament, even though it became just a “graft-on” solution. On the lower left side, the upper gun port was PSRed away. On the right side I added a bulged fairing for the MK 112. It was sculpted from a Matchbox Saab J29 drop tank and blended into the hull with PSR. Protruding spent cases fairings were added for both guns. The MK 112 gun barrel is a resin piece, left over from a ModelTrans tank conversion set and actually depicts a German 55 mm gun, so that this became a perfect donor piece.
Since the airframe still looked rather clean and boring I finally added a pair of JATO bottle racks to the rear fuselage (scratched from styrene profile but left empty) and a brake parachute fairing under the fin, carved from a piece of sprue.
Furthermore, a display adapter was installed into the fuselage for in-flight pictures.
Painting and markings:
This became a challenge, because I wanted a rather unusual livery, neither a standard RLM 81/82/76 late-war combo nor an improvised-cammo-over-bare-metal finish. After some research I settled upon something that was actually carried by some He 177 bombers around 1944: a uniform RLM 74 (Graugrün, Humbrol 245) upper surface with “cloudy” mottles in RLM 76 (Humbrol 247). This appears like a winter camouflage, but it’s actually quite effective at medium altitude, esp. over a cloudy landscape. The original bombers had light blue (RLM 65) undersides, but for the P.1099 from a later period and as a fighter I rather used a darker shade of RLM76 in the form of Tamiya XF-23 (Light Blue). The model received a black ink washing and some post-panel-shading.
The cockpit interior became RLM 66 (Schwarzgrau, Humbrol 67) while the landing gear and the well were painted in uniform RLM 02 (I used Revell 45, a slightly more greenish tone), with wheel discs in RLM 66, too.
Unit markings became minimal and quite sober. I gave the aircraft a typical late-war “Reichsverteidigung” fuselage band, and in JG 53’s case it is plain black. The black band was deliberately chosen because it is a good, much darker contrast to the murky RLM 74, so that the latter appears lighter than it actually is, lowering the contrast to the RLM 76 spots.
The decals were puzzled together from various sources. As an aircraft of the 3rd group the unit’s ID color would be yellow, reflected in the tactical code and the fin tip. For some contrast and to emphasize the long gun barrel I gave it white and black stripes – as a security measure for ground handling. For some more variety I painted one air intake in very dark grey (Revell 06, Anthracite) and the other one in steel Metallizer, simulating replacement parts. The Balkenkreuze come from various sheets – I used simplified “low viz” versions all around. The undulating yellow bar for the 3rd group comes from a TL Modellbau sheet, while the yellow “4” came from a Fw 190 A sheet from Sky Models. A small “4” on the nose was added as a wacky detail, too, the “Pik As” unit markings came IIRC from a Hobby Boss Bf 109 sheet. Since they turned out to have poor contrast/opacity I only used a few stencils from the P.1099A sheet, but due to the disruptive paint scheme this is not apparent.
Finally, the model was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and a wire antenna, scratched from heated black sprue material, was added between cockpit and fin.
Well, this modified Messerschmitt P.1099A looks simple, but the modified engine nacelles as well as the gun fairing under the nose called for serious PSR. The result looks quite natural, though, and AFAIK this weapon configuration was actually on German drawing boards. However, I am not certain about the cockpit canopy and other details on Revell’s kit, reference information is contradictive.
The paint scheme looks good, even though it was lent from a heavy bomber, and the poor Humbrol enamels did not yield a finish that I had hoped for – the paintwork could certainly have been better, but the overall impression of a late-war Pulkzerstörer is O.K., and this eventually counts.
The largest payload ever hauled over New Mexico highways is this 1.7 million pound transformer. It was hauled from Thoreau, NM to a Sub Station in Utah in the fall of 2015. The rig is propelled by one tugger and 5 pushers.
Discovery STO - Single Stage to Orbit Heavy Lift, Hypersonic Aircraft - 70 TON Payload - IO Aircraft
IO Aircraft: www.ioaircraft.com
Discovery STO Specs
Length:197' 6" / Span: 93' / Palyload Bay: 61' L X 15" W X 15' H / Span: 70 Ton (140,000 LBS)
Engines: U-TBCC (Unified Turbined Based Combined Cycle) Inc/Zero Atmosphere
Inlets: Adaptive REST, Originally Hapb/Larc NASA
Fuel: 125,000 Gallons 12,000 PSI H2 / 90,000 Gallons 12,000 PSI O2
Fuel Weight: Apx 72,000 LBS Total / *If liquid, would be 1.4 Million LBS
Weight: Apx 325,000 LBS EOW/Dry Weight / Apx 537,000 T/O Weight, Max Payload
Airframe: 75+% Proprietary Advanced Composites, 400,000 PSI Tensile Strength Airframe / *NO Ceramic Tiles
Thermals: 6,000F Thermal Resistance
Estimated Cost: $750 Million Each (Fly Away Price)
Estimated Launch Cost: Apx $28 Million at 140,000 LBS, Including Maintenance Costs / Under $250 per pound at Maximum Paylaod Wieght *Could Drop to Below $50 per LBS
-----------------------------
single stage to orbit, sto, space plane, falcon heavy, delta iv, hypersonic commercial aircraft, hypersonic commercial plane, hypersonic aircraft, hypersonic plane, ICAO, International Civil Aviation Orginization, hypersonic airline, tbcc, glide breaker, fighter plane, hyperonic fighter, boeing phantom express, phantom works, boeing phantom works, lockheed skunk works, hypersonic weapon, hypersonic missile, scramjet engineering, scramjet physics, boost glide, tactical glide vehicle, scramjet, turbine based combined cycle, ramjet, dual mode ramjet, darpa, onr, navair, afrl, air force research lab, office of naval research, defense advanced research project agency, defense science, missile defense agency, aerospike, hydrogen fueled, hydrogen aircraft, virgin airlines, united airlines, sas, finnair ,emirates airlines, ANA, JAL, airlines, military, physics, airline, british airways, air france, aerion supersonic, aerion, spike aerospace, boom supersonic,
-----------------------------
Unified Turbine Based Combined Cycle. Current technologies and what Lockheed is trying to force on the Dept of Defense, for that low speed Mach 5 plane DOD gave them $1 billion to build and would disintegrate above Mach 5, is TBCC. 2 separate propulsion systems in the same airframe, which requires TWICE the airframe space to use.
Unified Turbine Based Combined Cycle is 1 propulsion system cutting that airframe deficit in half, and also able to operate above Mach 10 up to Mach 15 in atmosphere, and a simple nozzle modification allows for outside atmosphere rocket mode, ie orbital capable.
Additionally, Reaction Engines maximum air breather mode is Mach 4.5, above that it will explode in flight from internal pressures are too high to operate. Thus, must switch to non air breather rocket mode to operate in atmosphere in hypersonic velocities. Which as a result, makes it not feasible for anything practical. It also takes an immense amount of fuel to function.
-------------
Advanced Additive Manufacturing for Hypersonic Aircraft
Utilizing new methods of fabrication and construction, make it possible to use additive manufacturing, dramatically reducing the time and costs of producing hypersonic platforms from missiles, aircraft, and space capable craft. Instead of aircraft being produced in piece, then bolted together; small platforms can be produced as a single unit and large platforms can be produces in large section and mated without bolting. These techniques include using exotic materials and advanced assembly processes, with an end result of streamlining the production costs and time for hypersonic aircraft; reducing months of assembly to weeks. Overall, this process greatly reduced the cost for producing hypersonic platforms. Even to such an extent that a Hellfire missile costs apx $100,000 but by utilizing our technologies, replacing it with a Mach 8-10 hypersonic missile of our physics/engineering and that missile would cost roughly $75,000 each delivered.
Materials used for these manufacturing processes are not disclosed, but overall, provides a foundation for extremely high stresses and thermodynamics, ideal for hypersonic platforms. This specific methodology and materials applications is many decades ahead of all known programs. Even to the extend of normalized space flight and re-entry, without concern of thermodynamic failure.
*Note, most entities that are experimenting with additive manufacturing for hypersonic aircraft, this makes it mainstream and standardized processes, which also applies for mass production.
What would normally be measured in years and perhaps a decade to go from drawing board to test flights, is reduced to singular months and ready for production within a year maximum.
Unified Turbine Based Combined Cycle (U-TBCC)
To date, the closest that NASA and industry have achieved for turbine based aircraft to fly at hypersonic velocities is by mounting a turbine into an aircraft and sharing the inlet with a scramjet or rocket based motor. Reaction Engines Sabre is not able to achieve hypersonic velocities and can only transition into a non air breathing rocket for beyond Mach 4.5
However, utilizing Unified Turbine Based Combine Cycle also known as U-TBCC, the two separate platforms are able to share a common inlet and the dual mode ramjet/scramjet is contained within the engine itself, which allows for a much smaller airframe footprint, thus engingeers are able to then design much higher performance aerial platforms for hypersonic flight, including the ability for constructing true single stage to orbit aircraft by utilizing a modification/version that allows for transition to outside atmosphere propulsion without any other propulsion platforms within the aircraft. By transitioning and developing aircraft to use Unified Turbine Based Combined Cycle, this propulsion system opens up new options to replace that airframe deficit for increased fuel capacity and/or payload.
Enhanced Dynamic Cavitation
Dramatically Increasing the efficiency of fuel air mixture for combustion processes at hypersonic velocities within scramjet propulsion platforms. The aspects of these processes are non disclosable.
Dynamic Scramjet Ignition Processes
For optimal scramjet ignition, a process known as Self Start is sought after, but in many cases if the platform becomes out of attitude, the scramjet will ignite. We have already solved this problem which as a result, a scramjet propulsion system can ignite at lower velocities, high velocities, at optimal attitude or not optimal attitude. It doesn't matter, it will ignite anyways at the proper point for maximum thrust capabilities at hypersonic velocities.
Hydrogen vs Kerosene Fuel Sources
Kerosene is an easy fuel to work with, and most western nations developing scramjet platforms use Kerosene for that fact. However, while kerosene has better thermal properties then Hydrogen, Hydrogen is a far superior fuel source in scramjet propulsion flight, do it having a much higher efficiency capability. Because of this aspect, in conjunction with our developments, it allows for a MUCH increased fuel to air mixture, combustion, thrust; and ability for higher speeds; instead of very low hypersonic velocities in the Mach 5-6 range. Instead, Mach 8-10 range, while we have begun developing hypersonic capabilities to exceed 15 in atmosphere within less then 5 years.
Conforming High Pressure Tank Technology for CNG and H2.
As most know in hypersonics, Hydrogen is a superior fuel source, but due to the storage abilities, can only be stored in cylinders thus much less fuel supply. Not anymore, we developed conforming high pressure storage technology for use in aerospace, automotive sectors, maritime, etc; which means any overall shape required for 8,000+ PSI CNG or Hydrogen. For hypersonic platforms, this means the ability to store a much larger volume of hydrogen vs cylinders.
As an example, X-43 flown by Nasa which flew at Mach 9.97. The fuel source was Hydrogen, which is extremely more volatile and combustible then kerosene (JP-7), via a cylinder in the main body. If it had used our technology, that entire section of the airframe would had been an 8,000 PSI H2 tank, which would had yielded 5-6 times the capacity. While the X-43 flew 11 seconds under power at Mach 9.97, at 6 times the fuel capacity would had yielded apx 66 seconds of fuel under power at Mach 9.97. If it had flew slower, around Mach 6, same principles applied would had yielded apx 500 seconds of fuel supply under power (slower speeds required less energy to maintain).
Enhanced Fuel Mixture During Shock Train Interaction
Normally, fuel injection is conducted at the correct insertion point within the shock train for maximum burn/combustion. Our methodologies differ, since almost half the fuel injection is conducted PRE shock train within the isolator, so at the point of isolator injection the fuel enhances the combustion process, which then requires less fuel injection to reach the same level of thrust capabilities.
Improved Bow Shock Interaction
Smoother interaction at hypersonic velocities and mitigating heat/stresses for beyond Mach 6 thermodynamics, which extraordinarily improves Type 3, 4, and 5 shock interaction.
6,000+ Fahrenheit Thermal Resistance
To date, the maximum thermal resistance was tested at AFRL in the spring of 2018, which resulted in a 3,200F thermal resistance for a short duration. This technology, allows for normalized hypersonic thermal resistance of 3,000-3,500F sustained, and up to 6,500F resistance for short endurance, ie 90 seconds or less. 10-20 minute resistance estimate approximately 4,500F +/- 200F.
*** This technology advancement also applies to Aerospike rocket engines, in which it is common for Aerospike's to exceed 4,500-5,000F temperatures, which results in the melting of the reversed bell housing. That melting no longer ocurrs, providing for stable combustion to ocurr for the entire flight envelope
Scramjet Propulsion Side Wall Cooling
With old technologies, side wall cooling is required for hypersonic flight and scramjet propulsion systems, otherwise the isolator and combustion regions of a scramjet would melt, even using advanced ablatives and ceramics, due to their inability to cope with very high temperatures. Using technology we have developed for very high thermodynamics and high stresses, side wall cooling is no longer required, thus removing that variable from the design process and focusing on improved ignition processes and increasing net thrust values.
Lower Threshold for Hypersonic Ignition
Active and adaptive flight dynamics, resulting in the ability for scramjet ignition at a much lower velocity, ie within ramjet envelope, between Mach 2-4, and seamless transition from supersonic to hypersonic flight, ie supersonic ramjet (scramjet). This active and dynamic aspect, has a wide variety of parameters for many flight dynamics, velocities, and altitudes; which means platforms no longer need to be engineered for specific altitude ranges or preset velocities, but those parameters can then be selected during launch configuration and are able to adapt actively in flight.
Dramatically Improved Maneuvering Capabilities at Hypersonic Velocities
Hypersonic vehicles, like their less technologically advanced brethren, use large actuator and the developers hope those controls surfaces do not disintegrate in flight. In reality, it is like rolling the dice, they may or may not survive, hence another reason why the attempt to keep velocities to Mach 6 or below. We have shrunken down control actuators while almost doubling torque and response capabilities specifically for hypersonic dynamics and extreme stresses involved, which makes it possible for maximum input authority for Mach 10 and beyond.
Paradigm Shift in Control Surface Methodologies, Increasing Control Authority (Internal Mechanical Applications)
To date, most control surfaces for hypersonic missile platforms still use fins, similar to lower speed conventional missiles, and some using ducted fins. This is mostly due to lack of comprehension of hypersonic velocities in their own favor. Instead, the body itself incorporates those control surfaces, greatly enhancing the airframe strength, opening up more space for hardware and fuel capacity; while simultaneously enhancing the platforms maneuvering capabilities.
A scramjet missile can then fly like conventional missile platforms, and not straight and level at high altitudes, losing velocity on it's decent trajectory to target. Another added benefit to this aspect, is the ability to extend range greatly, so if anyone elses hypersonic missile platform were developed for 400 mile range, falling out of the sky due to lack of glide capabilities; our platforms can easily reach 600+ miles, with minimal glide deceleration.
Inside the Payload Hazardous Servicing Facility at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida, technicians monitor the progress as a crane lowers the Orbital ATK Cygnus pressurized cargo module, enclosed in its payload fairing, onto a KAMAG transporter. The Orbital ATK CRS-7 commercial resupply services mission to the International Space Station is scheduled to launch atop a United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket from Space Launch Complex 41 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. Cygnus will deliver 7,600 pounds of supplies, equipment and scientific research materials to the space station. Photo credit: NASA/Kim Shiflett