+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

 

Some background:

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

 

At this stage, two companies submitted proposals: English Electric with the P.1, which should become the eventual winning design as the formidable Mach 2-capable BAC Lightning, and Hawker with the P.1082 and P.1086 designs. P.1082 was a sleek, supersonic development of the Hawker Hunter, which was rejected, as it only featured a single, reheated engine and too little future development potential. P.1086 vaguely resembled the later Soviet Su-15 interceptor with two engines side by side in the rear fuselage, fed by lateral air intakes and featured a cropped delta wing, paired with swept tail surfaces. P.1086 was rejected, too, as it fell short in performance in comparison with the P.1, even though the range would have been better.

 

As the Lightning entered production and service after a long and troublesome development phase until the late 1950ies, technical advances and new threats through supersonic bombers like the Tupolev Tu-22, armed with long range air-to-ground missiles had emerged. While the Lightning was an excellent interceptor with an outstanding rate of climb and a top speed of more than Mach 2.0at height, it had several shortcomings that could never really be rectified: one flaw was its limited payload of two guided AAMs (initially IR-guided Firestreaks, later radar-guided Red Top AAMs), but its biggest shortcoming was the very limited range that left esp. in the northern regions of Great Britain a defense gap.

 

This led in in 1955 to the requirement for a 'Day-Night High Altitude Fighter Aircraft' under OR.239/F.155, which was to be able to operate against enemy bombers coming in at 60.000' (18.288m) altitude and at Mach 1.3, with service entry as soon as possible and not beyond 1963 (the BAC Lightning was considered to be sufficient until about 1960). A new radar was to be developed for the aircraft, operated by a second crew member.

 

Almost all British manufacturers submitted designs, including Hawker with several proposals like the P.1103, a large aircraft based on the Hunter with a chin air intake and missile rails on its wing tips. There was also the P.1110, a much revised P.1086 design - basically an enlarged and much refined version of the 1950 concept, but now with an area-ruled fuselage and powered by two Sapphire Sa.7LR engines, rated at 11.000lb (48.9kN) dry thrust and at 15.400lb (68.4kN) with full afterburner and optimized for high altitude duty.

 

The P.1110 was still a single-seater, though, equipped with the same AI.23B radar as the BAC Lightning, which it was to support, not to replace. The Ferranti AI.23 radar supported autonomous search, automatic target tracking, and ranging for all weapons, while the pilot attack sight provided gyroscopically derived lead angle and backup stadiametric ranging for gun firing. The radar and gunsight were collectively designated the AIRPASS: Airborne Interception Radar and Pilot Attack Sight System.

 

The P.1110’s selling point was its long range (the combat radius exceeded the Lightning’s maximum range), coupled with a top speed of more than Mach 2 and the ability to carry up to six (normal payload would be four) AAMs, plus two internal cannons. Another factor that made the Hawker aircraft attractive was that it was a simple design, bearing no visible development risk, and that the bigger radome offered the option to install not only a larger antenna, but also offered the possibility to install an overall much more powerful radar system that would be more suitable for the primary long-range interception task of the type.

 

Even though Fairey’s (based on the famous Delta research aircraft) and Armstrong Whitworth’s designs were officially favored, things went in a totally different direction: in early 1957 the MoD issued its infamous White Paper that basically rang the death knell to all new fighter developments - axing the F.155 program in favor of ground-based missile defense systems – the manned fighter was considered obsolete over night!

 

Anyway, things would not change that fast in real life, and this gave way for the “last manned fighter” for the RAF: the P.1110. It was clear that it was just a stopgap solution, as the Lightning would, if any interceptor development was cut down, be the only operative interceptor for Great Britain in the near future, leaving the aforementioned weak spots esp. at the northern borders. A foreign potential option for the required aircraft, the mighty CF-105 'Arrow' from Canada, had also been recently cancelled, so the modified P.1110 was seen as the most cost-efficient domestic solution.

 

Work started fast and at good pace: the first P.1110 prototype (a total of four were to be built, one of them only a static airframe for ground tests) already made its maiden flight in September 1959. As it relied on proven avionics the type became ready for service in early 1961. The new aircraft was christened ‘Harpy F.1’ and it served alongside the BAC Lightning interceptors on long range patrol flights, high altitude interceptions and in QRA service. It partly replaced older Gloster Javelin versions in the all-weather fighter role.

 

Beyond the primary missile-toting interceptor role the Harpy could also carry an impressive load of up to 10.000 lb (4.540 kg) of other ordnance, including Matra rocket pods and iron or cluster bombs of up to 1.000 lb (454 kg) caliber.

 

The Harpy was a big aircraft and not really suited for dogfight scenarios, but it had - in contrast to the Lightning - a spacious cockpit which made long flights agreeable. Take-off and landing speeds were comparatively high, though, with a take-off speed of 231 mph (370 km/h). While the controls were responsive and precise, the aircraft was unforgiving of pilot error. Indeed, the type's attrition rate was high: 18 aircraft would be lost through accidents.

 

As only 65 were built, operating the type was costly, and towards the late 1960s already a more economical solution was searched for. The aging Lightning fleet also started to call for a replacement. The pure missile air defense had quickly turned out to be a political error, but in its wake it had caused severe consequences for Britain's aircraft industry, as aircraft development had been cut back. Eventually, as domestic types were lacking, the Spey-engined McDonnell F-4 Phantom II entered RAF service (after having been bought for the Royal Navy in the first place) in 1969.

 

Both Lightning and Harpy suffered in service under the high work load for the pilot, who had not only to engage a potential enemy at high speed but also had to operate the radar and weapons system at the same time. Another limiting factor for both types' effectiveness was the more and more obsolete Firestreak and Red Top missiles, which only had an effective range of up to 7.5 miles (12 km) and relied on IR homing. Plans to outfit the Lightning with American Falcons, Sparrows or even Sidewinders in 1958 were fruitless (either necessitating an altogether new fire control system or limiting the aircraft's performance), so that the Harpy would not benefit from more capable weapons, too - even though it offered the better development basis with its bigger radome, range and payload.

 

Only few hardware updates were actually made during the Hawker Harpy’s active service period, including the addition of a removable, fixed in-flight refueling probe, an improved escape system along with additional room for more electronic counter-measures equipment. By 1973 all machines were modified accordingly and re-designated F.1A.

 

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

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 21.52 m (70 ft 7 in)

Wingspan: 9.34 m (30 ft 8 in)

Height: 5.41 m (17 ft 9 in)

Wing area: 42.2 m² (454 ft 3 in)

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

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

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

 

Powerplant:

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

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: Mach 2.1

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

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

Service ceiling: 18.100 m (59.383 ft)

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

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

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

 

Armament:

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

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

  

The kit and its assembly:

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

 

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

  

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

  

Painting and markings:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

  

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

 

Originally the Institute for Geological Survey, now the University of Edinburgh. Refurbished and occupied by the University in 2018. Home to Edinburgh Innovations, Research Support Office, Information Services Group and the Science and Engineering College Office.

 

Murchison House 1971-77 by public sector architects Michael John Mannings and Allan Pendreigh (originally for H M Office of Works known later as the Ministry of Works, Department of the Environment and Property Services Agency).

 

The completed building featured in The Architects Journal illustrated by 14 images including a plan (Apr 27, 1977, pp 762-764). According to this source, ‘the geometry of the design livens up the elevations’ and has ‘functional justification’ as the building featured brick silos to house rock and fossil samples. Apparently it was a planning requirement that street-level access minimise intrusion and this required a two-metre excavation. The plan was symmetrically arranged with balancing wings enclosing a courtyard. This cruciform or extended H plan can be seen clearly in an aerial shot taken in 2009 (north west corner of the King’s Buildings): canmore.org.uk/collection/1148722

 

Murchison House is named after Sir Roderick Murchison (1792-1871) who was appointed director general of the Geological Survey of Great Britain in 1855. He endowed a chair of geology and mineralogy at the University of Edinburgh. canmore.org.uk/site/181043/edinburgh-west-mains-road-king...

 

According to Birse’s history of Science at the University of Edinburgh (1994) the turf was cut for Murchison House in 1971 on a site at the King’s Buildings leased from the University of Edinburgh and the ceremony marked the centenary of the Department of Geology at Edinburgh. The first professor of Geology, Archibald Geikie, was also director general of the Geological Survey – a link severed when his brother James Geikie became the second professor of geology in 1882.

 

Murchison House was the home of the Institute for Geological Survey and headquarters of the British Geological Society (BGS) for over 40 years. During this time it was home to the BGS Global Seismology Unit, which studied earthquake activity, and the UK National Centre for monitoring compliance with the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

 

In February 2016 the BGS relocated to The Lyell Centre, a purpose built site on the Heriot-Watt University campus at Riccarton. www.bgs.ac.uk/contacts/sites/edinburgh/home.html

 

The University of Edinburgh, from whom the site was leased, put out to public tender the appointment of a Design Team for an office fit out at Murchison House in January 2016. Reiach & Hall Architects are taking the lead on refurbishment "by rejigging floorplace to provide improved office and teaching accommodation" (2017). www.urbanrealm.com/news/6575/University_of_Edinburgh_to_r...

  

Kier Construction Scotland has been awarded a £7.7 million contract to carry out the transformation. Work began in mid-December 2017 and is to be complete for September 2018. The fit-out and refurbishment will create an open-plan teaching hub with study spaces, lecture theatres, exhibition spaces, Edinburgh Innovations spaces and a range of offices. www.scottishconstructionnow.com/23402/kier-wins-7-7m-cont...

 

The building has an internal area of 10150 m2.

www.ed.ac.uk/estates/buildings-information/building-profi...

 

Interior images:

canmore.org.uk/site/181043/edinburgh-west-mains-road-king...

 

Refurbished interior: www.reiachandhall.co.uk/education-research/murchison-hous...

This photo satisfies requirement 1. I took a photo of this pinecone among foliage with aperture f/5.6, ISO 100 and a exposure time of 1/80 s to underexpose the image and deliver a deep dark forest feel. I used a focal length of 55mm on my 18-55mm lens to reduce depth of field and make the subject pop. I aligned the pinecone and the branch using the rule of thirds.

This fulfills requirement #1 Caustics. My settings were 1/250 sec at f 5.6 and ISO 100. I used these settings because I wanted the background to be blurred and I didn't want it to be overexposed. In Photoshop, I adjusted the curve, exposure, and vibrance. I did this to give it a bit more contrast and a bit brighter.

This photo satisfy requirement 1. I took this photo in order to focus on the continuous lines projected on the screen in the ceiling and was not expecting people to be ziplining when I captured this image. I had my camera shutter at 1/320 to avoid motion blur as the screen was constantly changing backgrounds. In Adobe LR, I decreased the highlights.

+++ 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 Short Tucano is a two-seat turboprop basic trainer built by Short Brothers in Belfast, Northern Ireland. It is a licence-built version of the Brazilian Embraer EMB-312 Tucano. Development of the Tucano started in May 1984 after an agreement between Embraer and Short Brothers to meet a requirement to replace the BAC Jet Provost as a basic trainer with the Royal Air Force. The Royal Air Force issued Air Staff Target 412 to define the requirement for a high-performance turboprop trainer. A shortlist of designs competed for the contract; the other types considered were the Pilatus PC-9, the NDN-1T Turbo-Firecracker and the Australian Aircraft Consortium (AAC) A.20 Wamira II.

 

In 1984 Embraer sent Shorts the seventh EMB-312 airframe off the production line for modifications in order to meet AST-412 requirements. The type was displayed in September 1984 at the Farnborough Airshow featuring an uprated PT6A-25C2 engine and a ventral air brake to meet required stall speed of 60kt. However, tests undertaken at Boscombe Down later on that year indicated the need to re-engine the aircraft (to meet the RAF requirement for time to height) and the Garrett TPE331 was chosen.

 

On 21 March 1985, the Short Tucano proposal was declared the winner of the AST.412 contract worth £126 million for 130 aircraft and an option for a further 15, but the option was never taken up. The first flight of the prototype EMB-312G2 which featured a four-bladed Hartzell propeller with the Garrett TPE331-10 engine took place in Brazil on 14 February of the following year, the aircraft being then disassembled and airlifted back to Belfast on 29 March 1986 to fly again just ten days later. In June, the TPE331-10 engine was replaced by the TPE331-12B, a major difference being the integration of an Electronic Engine Controller (EEC) system.

 

In addition to the revised engine, the major differences of the Shorts Tucano are a strengthened airframe for an improved fatigue life, a cockpit layout similar to the Hawk advanced trainer, a revised oxygen system, a flight data recorder, a four-bladed propeller, ventral airbrake and restyled wingtips. Two Martin-Baker MB 8LC ejection seats are used and the canopy was modified to meet the RAF's bird strike requirements. During its production run, Shorts commonly promoted the airframe as being "100% British-built". In order to meet RAF requirements, the EMB-312 has some 900 modifications reducing commonality with the original aircraft to only 50%.

 

The first standard production model T.Mk 1 was flown on 30 December 1986 and the official rollout took place on 20 January 1987. First deliveries to the RAF took place in 1989, while the last delivery to RAF occurred 25 January 1993.

In addition to the primary order from the RAF, export customers emerged for the Shorts-produced Tucanos. The Kenyan Air Force ordered a total of 12 units and a further 16 Tucanos were exported to Kuwait. The Tucanos serving in the Kuwait Air Force were furnished to be armed and combat-capable for the purposes of weapons training and light attack duties; each aircraft features four pylons capable of mounting various rocket pods, cannons, bombs, and auxiliary fuel tanks.

 

In RAF service the Short Tucano replaced the Jet Provost as the basic trainer, preparing the student pilots for progression to BAe Hawk advanced flying training. The aircraft proved to be 70% cheaper to operate than its predecessor and the Tucano's accident record has also been remarkably better than other ab-initio training aircraft, with only five aircraft written off with no fatalities in over 20 years.

 

In March 2007, regarding experiences from the War in Afghanistan, the British Parliament was debating the idea of replacing Harriers and Tornados for armed Short Tucanos during close air support missions. This led to the Tucano TGR.2, an armed version with extensive modification, since the RAF aircraft were not fitted with wing hardpoints.

The Tucano TGR.2 was created from existing T.1 trainers in the course of standard overhaul procedures through the VT Group, which supported maintenance for the RAF. 22 aircraft were converted in the course of 2008-9, primarily through new, reinforced wings with four hardpoints that could carry up to 1.000 lb ordnance, similar to the Tucano export models. Under the hood, avionics were upgraded, too, so that the machine could carry podded sensors like FLIR pods for a limited all-weather capability or a laser target illuminator, so that smart weapons (including laser-guide bombs or the Brimstone missile) could be effectively deployed. Other external weapon loads include machine gun and cannon pods, unguided missiles and iron bombs of up to 500 lb caliber. Furthermore, up to eight Starstreak launch tubes for self-defense or against other aircraft or helicopters could be carried, too.

The full trainer capability was retained, so that the T.1's full mission spectrum remained covered, but armed training was now made possible, too. During attack missions the aircraft would be typically flown by single pilot only, even though surveillance and Forward Air Control missions would require a crew of two.

The Tucano T.1 trainer was scheduled to be withdrawn from service in 2015, and it will be replaced by the winner of the UK Military Flying Training System (UKMFTS) programme. The armed TGR.2 will be kept in service for some further years (probably 2020) and complement Operational Conversion Units, primarily for basic and weapon training, but also as aggressor aircraft in dissimilar training at low altitude.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: one–two

Length: 32 ft 4 in (9.85 m)

Wingspan: 37 ft 0 in (11.28 m)

Height: 11 ft 1¾ in (3.40 m)

Wing area: 208 ft² (19.3 m²)

Empty weight: 4,447 lb (2,017 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 7,220 lb (3,275 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1 Garrett TPE331-12B turboprop, 1,100 shp (820 kW)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 274 kn (315 mph, 507 km/h) (at 10,000–15,000 ft)

Cruise speed: 180/240 (low level) knots (253 mph, 407 km/h) (economy cruise)

Never exceed speed: 300 kts (322 mph, 555 km/h)

Stall speed: 69 kn (80 mph, 128 km/h) (flaps and gear down)

Range: 900 nmi (1,035 miles, 1,665 km)

Service ceiling: 34,000 ft (10,363 m)

Rate of climb: 3,510 ft/min (17.8 m/s)

Wing loading: 28.6 lb/ft² (140 kg/m²)

Power/mass: 0.152 hp/lb (0.250 kW/kg)

 

Armament:

No internal weapons, but 4× underwing hardpoints for 1,000 lb (454 kg) of stores

  

The kit and its assembly:

The relatively simple 7th contribution to the “RAF Centenary” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com in 2018. I had this project on the agenda for a while, and the GB was a good occasion to tackle it.

The basic idea had been a camouflaged Short Tucano in RAF service, namely in the NATO Green/Lichen Green livery typical for the RAF’s Harrier GR.5.

 

I also had already a kit stashed away, a Tucano from Premiere. The model was built basically OOB, just with a few cosmetic additions. The kit itself is rather simple and reminds of a mediocre Matchbox kit: without “trenches”, and some nice details like the wheels or separate clear parts for the position lights. But nothing actually fits together well, PSR was necessary literall everywhere. Certainly not a kit for beginners.

 

Personal changes are:

- Ejection trigger handles and filled headrests for the seats; HUDs on the dashboards

- A metal axis for the propeller and a styrene tube adapter in the front fuselage

- Some additional blade antennae and radar warning bumps

- Flare/chaff dispensers under the stabilizers

- Four underwing hardpoints with ordnance (a pair of slightly pimped SUU-11 minigun pods from a Matchbox AH-1 and two pairs of missile launch tubes, IIRC these come from a H0 scale Bo 105 wreck and are actually TOW launch tubes)

 

Despite my attempts to add as much lead as possible to the nose, the kit still won’t rest on its front wheel and tip over…

  

Painting and markings:

As mentioned above, this is basically a livery whif – and the green/green paint scheme is rather simple, too. For the NATO Green I used Tamiya XF-67, which is supposed to be the authentic tone. In the past I have used other shades of Green (Humbrol 75, but it’s too dark and bluish, and 102, which lacks yellow), but with mixed results.

The undersides, Lichen Green, were painted with Xtracolors X024, which is supposed to be the authentic tone. At first I found it to look much too dark and murky – at least for a small 1:72 model – but in combination with the NATO Green it works well. To my surprise, the tone looks quite similar to RLM 02!

For some better contrast of the soft engravings, I gave the kit a light black ink wash and did some post-shading with FS 34096 (Modelmaster) on the upper surfaces and Revell’s 45 underneath.

The cockpit was painted in Dark Sea Grey (Tamiya XF-54), while the landing gear wells became Light Aircraft Grey (Humbrol 166) and the struts, as well as the wheel discs, white.

The propeller spinner and the blades’ back side became black, while the front was painted in light grey (Humbrol 64), with blade tips in red-white-red.

 

Decals came from various aftermarket sheets (Sky Models, XXX), primarily from Harrier GR.5 aircraft. Some stencils had to be replaced, since Premiere’s OOB decal sheet turned out to be highly brittle, and any decal without any color foundation disintegrated immediately upon contact.

The canopy frames, as well as the black walkways on the wing roots, were created with generic decal stripe material.

The fancy shark mouth was a spontaneous addition, since I found the all-green aircraft to look rather bleak – and its low-viz design in black and light grey blends well into the overall look. The decals originally come from an Academy AH-64, but the eyes were placed in a higher position and the area of the front landing gear well was improvised with paint.

Finally, the kit was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish (Italeri).

  

Well, nothing spectacular, but I must say that I find the green/green livery rather attractive, and it works IMHO well with the modern Tucano.

 

+++ 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 Hawker Cyclone was an evolutionary successor to the successful Hawker Typhoon and Tempest fighters and fighter-bombers of the Second World War. The Cyclone's design process was initiated in September 1942 by Sydney Camm, one of Hawker's foremost aircraft designers, to meet the Royal Air Force’s requirement for a lightweight Tempest Mk.II and V replacement.

The project, tentatively designated Tempest Mk. VIII, was formalised in January 1943 when the Air Ministry issued Specification F.2/42 around the "Tempest Light Fighter".This was followed up by Specification F.2/43, issued in May 1943, which required a high rate of climb of not less than 4,500 ft/min (23 m/s) from ground level to 20,000 feet (6,096 m), good fighting manoeu rability and a maximum speed of at least 450 mph (724 km/h) at 22,000 feet (6,705 m). The armament was to be four 20mm Hispano V cannon with a total capacity of 600 rounds, plus the capability of carrying two bombs each up to 1,000 pounds (454 kg). In April 1943, Hawker had also received Specification N.7/43 from the Admiralty, who sought a navalized version of the developing aircraft, what eventually led to the Hawker Sea Fury, which was a completely new aircraft, which only shared the general outlines of the Tempest.

 

The Royal Air Force was looking for a quicker solution, and Camm started working on a new laminar flow wing, which would further improve the Tempest’s speed. Further refinements were done to other aerodynamic components, too, like the radiator, since the Tempest V’s liquid-cooled Napier Sabre engine was to be used. After some experiments with new arrangements, an annular radiator directly behind the propeller was chosen – certainly inspired by fast German aircraft like the Fw 190D and developed by Napier.

 

A total of three prototypes were ordered; the first one was powered by a Napier Sabre IIA liquid-cooled H-24 sleeve-valve engine, generating 2,180 hp (1,625 kW), but the second and any following aircraft carried the more powerful Sabre V with 2,340 hp, driving a Rotol four-blade propeller. Later aircraft were even to carry the Napier Sabre VII, which was capable of developing 3,400–4,000 hp (2,535–2,983 kW) and pushing the top speed to 485 mph (780 km/h) and more. The third airframe was just a static test structure. However, since the differences between the Tempest and the new aircraft had become almost as big as to its predecessor, the Typhoon, the new type received its own name Cyclone.

 

The first Cyclone Mk. I to fly, on 30 August 1944, was NV950, and it became clear soon that the modifications would improve the Cyclone’s top speed vs. the Tempest by almost 30 mph (50 km/h), but the new components would also require a longer testing period than expected. The annular radiator frequently failed and overheated, and the new, slender wings caused directional stability problems so that the complete tail section had to be re-designed. This troubling phase took more than 6 months, so that eventual service aircraft would only be ready in mid-1945 – too late for any serious impact in the conflict.

 

However, since the Hawker Fury, the land-based variant of the Sea Fury, which had been developed from the Tempest for the Royal Navy in parallel, had been cancelled, the Royal Air Force still ordered 150 Cyclone fighters (F Mk. I), of which one third would also carry cameras and other reconnaissance equipment (as Cyclone FR Mk.II). Due to the end of hostilities in late 1945, this order immediately lost priority. Consequently, the first production Cyclone fighters were delivered in summer 1946 – and in the meantime, jet fighters had rendered the piston-powered fighters obsolete, at least in RAF service. As a consequence, all Cyclones were handed over to friendly Commonwealth nations and their nascent air forces, e. g. India, Thailand or Burma. India received its first Cyclones in late 1947, just when the Kashmir conflict with Pakistan entered a hot phase. The machines became quickly involved in this conflict from early 1948 onwards.

 

Cyclones played an important role in the strikes against hostiles at Pir Badesar and the dominating Pir Kalewa. The taking of Ramgarh fort and Pt. 6944 on the west flank of Bhimbar Gali was to be a classic close support action with Indian forces carrying out a final bayonet charge against the enemy trenches whilst RIAF Cyclones and Tempests strafed and rocketed the trenches at close quarters. On a chance reconnaissance, enemy airfields were located at Gilgit and 40 NMs south, at Chilas. Cyclones flew several strikes against the landing strips in Oct and Nov 48, cratering & damaging both and destroying several hangars, barracks and radio installations. This attack destroyed Pakistani plans to build an offensive air capability in the North. Already, with Tempests and Cyclones prowling the valleys, Pakistani re-supply by Dakotas had been limited to hazardous night flying through the valleys.

 

After the end of hostilities in late 1948 and the ensuing independence, the Cyclone squadrons settled into their peace time stations. However, constant engine troubles (particularly the radiator) continued to claim aircraft and lives and the skill required to land the Cyclone because of its high approach speed continued to cause several write offs. The arrival of the jet-engined Vampire were the first signs of the Cyclone’s demise. As the IAF began a rapid expansion to an all jet force, several Tempest and Cyclone squadrons began converting to Vampires, 7 Squadron being the first in Dec 49. By this time it had already been decided that the piston-engine fighters would be relegated to the fighter lead-in role to train pilots for the new jet fighters. A conversion training flight was set up at Ambala in Sep 49 with Spitfire T Mk IXs, XVIIIs and Tempests to provide 16 hrs/six weeks of supervised Tempest training. This unit eventually moved to Hakimpet two years later and operated till the end of 1952. Some Cyclone FR Mk. IIs remained in front line service until 1954, though.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: One

Length: 35 ft 5 3/4 in (10.83 m)

Wingspan: 42 ft 5 1/2 in (12.96 m)

Height (tail down): 15 ft 6 3/4 in (4.75 m)

Wing area: 302 ft² (28 m²)

Empty weight: 9,250 lb (4,195 kg)

Loaded weight: 11,400 lb (5,176 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 13,640 lb (6,190 kg)

Powerplant:

1× Napier Sabre V liquid-cooled H-24 sleeve-valve engine with 2,340 hp (1,683 kW)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 460 mph (740 km/h) 18,400 ft (5,608 m),

Range: 740 mi (1,190 km)

1,530 mi (2,462 km) with two 90 gal (409 l) drop tanks

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

Rate of climb: 4,700 ft/min (23.9 m/s)

Wing loading: 37.75 lb/ft² (184.86 kg/m²)

Power/mass: 0.21 hp/lb (0.31 kW/kg)

 

Armament:

4× 20 mm (.79 in) Mark V Hispano cannons, 200 RPG

2× underwing hardpoints for 500 lb (227 kg) or 1,000 lb (454 kg) bombs

or 2 × 45 gal (205 l) or 2 × 90 gal (409 l) drop tanks

plus 6× 3” (76.2 mm) RP-3 rockets

  

The kit and its assembly:

Another episode in the series “Things to make and do with Supermarine Attacker wings”. And what started as a simple switch of wings eventually turned into a major kitbashing, since the model evolved from a modded Tempest into something more complex and conclusive.

 

The initial spark was the idea of a Hawker alternative to Supermarine’s Spiteful and Seafang developments – especially with their slender laminar flow wings. Wouldn’t a Hawker alternative make sense?

 

Said and done, I dug out a NOVO Attacker kit and a Matchbox Tempest, and started measuring – and the wing transplantation appeared feasible! I made the cut on the Tempest wing just outside of the oil cooler, and the Attacker wings were then attached to these stubs – after some gaps for the landing gear wells had been cut into the massive lower wing halves. The stunt went more smoothly than expected, the only cosmetic flaw is that the guns went pretty far outboard, but that’s negligible.

 

But the different wings were not enough. I had recently seen in a book a picture of a Tempest (NV 768) with an experimental annular radiator for the Sabre engine (looking like a streamlined Tempest II), and wondered if this arrangement would have been the aerodynamically more efficient solution than the bulbous chin radiator of the Tempest V and VI? I decided to integrate this feature into my build, too, even though not as a copy of the real-world arrangement. The whole nose section, even though based on the OOB Mk. V nose, was scratched and re-sculpted with lots of putty. The radiator intake comes from a FROG He 219, with the front end opened and a fan from a Matchbox Fw 190 placed inside, as well as a styrene tube for the new propeller. The latter was scratched, too, from a Matchbox He 70 spinner and single blades from an Italeri F4U, plus a metal axis. The exhaust stubs were taken OOB, but their attachment slits had to be re-engraved into the new and almost massive nose section.

 

Once the wings and the nose became more concrete, I found that the Tempest’s original rounded tail surfaces would not match with the new, square wings. Therefore I replaced the stabilizers with donations from a Heller F-84G and modified the fin with a new, square tip (from an Intech Fw 190D) and got rid of the fin fillet – both just small modifications, but they change the Tempest’s profile thoroughly.

 

In order to underline the aircraft’s new, sleek lines, I left away any ordnance – but instead I added some camera fairings: one under the rear fuselage or a pair of vertical/oblique cameras, and another camera window portside for a horizontal camera. The openings were drilled, and, after painting, the kit the camera windows were created with Humbrol Clearfix.

  

Painting and markings:

Somehow I thought that this aircraft had to carry Indian markings – and I had a set of standard Chakra Wheels from the late Forties period in my stash. The camouflage is, typical for early IAF machines of British origin, RAF standard, with Dark Green and Ocean Grey from above and Medium Sea Grey from below. I just used the more brownish pst-war RAF Dark Green tone (Humbrol 163), coupled with the rather light Ocean Grey from Modelmaster (2057). The underside became Humbrol 165. All interior surfaces were painted with RAF Interior Green, nothing fancy. The only colorful addition is the saffron-colored spinner, in an attempt to match the fin flash’s tone.

 

As a standard measure, the kit received a black ink wash and some panel post-shading with lighter tones – only subtly, since the machine was not to look too weathered and beaten, just used from its Kashmir involvements.

 

The national markings come from a Printscale Airspeed Oxford sheet, the tactical code with alternating white and black letters, depending on the underground (the sky fuselage band comes from a Matchbox Brewster Buffalo), was puzzled together from single letters from TL Modellbau – both seen on different contemporary RIAF aircraft.

As another, small individual detail I gave the machine a tactical code letter on the fuselage, and the small tiger emblems under the cockpit were home-printed from the official IAF No. 1 Squadron badge.

  

Despite the massive modifications this one is a relatively subtle result, all the changes become only visible at a second glance. A sleek aircraft, and from certain angley the Cyclone looks like an A-1 Skyraider on a diet?

 

This photo satisfies requirement 4. The colored object I used was a blue candle. The photo at the bottom was the candle shot under the street light, i.e, normal light, and we can tell the actual color of this candle. The first photo starting from the left was shot under the table lamp, and we can tell the color of the candle was lighter than the actual color. The second photo was shot under the orange lighting of a LED, which we can tell that the color was dramatically different from the actual color, and much warmer. The third photo was shot under the flashlight of iphone, which we can tell the color was much colder than the actual color. For shooting all these 4 photos, I turned off the auto white balance mode.

Though the US Navy reconsidered its decision to retire the AD Skyraider after the Korean War, it was still a piston-engined attack aircraft designed during World War II, while the Navy preferred going to a modern, all-jet attack/fighter fleet. To supplement and then replace the AD, the Navy issued a requirement for a jet attack fighter weighing no more than 48,000 pounds, capable of carrying tactical nuclear weapons, and with a speed of at least 550 miles an hour. The Navy was not surprised when Douglas’ chief designer, Edward Heinemann, submitted a proposal for a delta-winged, light attack jet—they were surprised to find that it met all of the requirements, yet weighed in at only 23,000 pounds, less than half the required weight. It was also so small that it did not need folding wings to fit on aircraft carrier elevators. Heinemann deliberately omitted as much weight as possible to bring the aircraft in under weight, and subsequently, at a lower unit cost than anticipated. One part of this effort was external structural ribbing for the rudder; this “temporary” solution would be used on every aircraft produced.

 

Heinemann’s design was quickly ordered by the Navy as the A4D Skyhawk. The first A4D-1 flew in June 1952, with deliveries to the fleet beginning in 1956. Pilots used to the increasingly larger and more powerful aircraft the US Navy fielded in the late 1950s, such as the F3H Demon and F4H Phantom II, were surprised at the diminutive A4D, which looked toylike on the decks of Forrestal-class supercarriers. It quickly earned the nicknames “Tinkertoy Bomber,” “Scooter,” and “Heinemann’s Hot Rod.”

 

The Skyhawk—redesignated A-4 in 1962—also quickly gained a reputation for reliability and nimbleness. Despite its small size, it could carry its own weight in bombs and still turn inside anything in the inventory, even the purpose-built F-8 Crusader fighter. For this reason, the Navy began assigning A-4C Skyhawks as “emergency fighter” detachments to Essex-class antisubmarine carriers, as these ships, still equipped with World War II-era hydraulic catapults and limited in deck space, could not carry the more modern F-4. Besides their internal 20mm cannon, A-4s could also carry up to four Sidewinder missiles.

 

It would be in the Vietnam War that the A-4 would prove its worth. Besides its large bombload and superb manuverability, the Skyhawk was also found to be able to take considerable punishment. Several A-4s returned to their carriers missing pieces of rudder or with holes shot through the wings. At the beginning of American involvement, the Navy began replacing the older A-4C “short-nose” models with the improved A-4E, which added a fifth hardpoint and a longer nose with more advanced avionics; this was quickly supplemented by the A-4F, which added a dorsal hump with still more avionics and ECM equipment.

 

Until the A-7 Corsair II began arriving in the fleet in the late 1960s, the A-4 represented the backbone of naval light attack units, operating alongside the A-6 Intruder in striking targets throughout Southeast Asia. On land, A-4s served with Marine Corps units, and proved so reliable and well-liked that the Marines decided not to use the A-7 at all. The Skyhawk also proved itself to be adaptable to other missions: A-4s carried out the US Navy’s first precision strike mission, a 1967 attack on the Hanoi thermal powerplant with AGM-62 Walleye missiles, and also served as Wild Weasel/Iron Hand suppression of enemy air defense aircraft, armed with AGM-45 Shrikes.

 

Though they were slower than the F-4 and F-8, and lacked the A-6’s ability to fly in the worst of inclement weather, the Skyhawk was not defenseless against enemy MiGs: it was the only American aircraft that could turn with a MiG-17 if it was “clean” of bombs, and only one A-4 was lost to enemy aircraft during the Vietnam War. In turn, one A-4, piloted by Lieutenant Commander Ted Schwartz, shot down a MiG-17 with Zuni rockets in 1967. Skyhawks would drop the first and last bombs of US Navy aircraft in the Vietnam War, and flew more sorties than any other naval aircraft—and paid a commensurate price: 362 Skyhawks were shot down or lost in accidents during the war, the most of any one type. Two A-4 pilots won the Medal of Honor during Vietnam, James Stockdale and Michael Estocin, the latter posthumously; longtime prisoner of war Everett Alvarez Jr. was also an A-4 pilot, as was fellow POW and later Presidential candidate, John McCain.

 

The A-4’s story did not end with Vietnam. Recognizing its superb manueverability, the US Navy began building adversary units with Skyhawks simulating the MiG-17 as part of the Top Gun program, beginning in 1969. These stripped down “Mongoose” A-4s proved to be a match even against far more advanced F-14 Tomcats and F-18 Hornets, and A-4s remained in the adversary role until 1998. Alongside these aircraft, the Navy used two-seat TA-4J Skyhawks as advanced trainers until 2003, while Marine units continued to use the penultimate A-4M Skyhawk in the light attack role until after the First Gulf War in 1991; Marine OA-4M “fast FAC” forward air control aircraft flew as late as 1998. The TA-4J was replaced by the T-45 Goshawk; there has never truly been a replacement for the A-4E adversaries and A-4M light attack aircraft, though the AV-8B Harrier supplemented them.

 

While Vietnam was the last war for American Skyhawks, foreign users would put the aircraft to further use. Israel would use their A-4H/Ns in the Yom Kippur War with heavy casualties, due to more advanced Egyptian and Syrian air defenses; better luck was had in the Lebanon War of 1982. Argentina’s A-4B/Qs saw extensive service over the Falklands in 1982, impressing even their British adversaries with hair-raising low-level bomb runs against British ships in San Carlos Water: though the Argentine aircraft took severe punishment from Fleet Air Arm Sea Harriers, they also sank or damaged five ships. Finally, Kuwait used their A-4KU Skyhawks from the beginning of the First Gulf War.

 

Overall, 2960 A-4s were produced and flew with the air arms of eleven nations. Quite a few survive as government contract aggressor aircraft, or in private hands, while many are preserved in museums.

 

This A-4E is Bureau Number 151064; it started its career with VA-83 ("Rampagers") aboard the USS Forrestal (CV-59) in 1965. After year stints with two Marine squadrons and the Naval Air Test Center at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, 151064 joined first VF-101 ("Grim Reapers"), then VF-171 ("Aces") at NAS Key West, Florida, from 1975 to 1984. As both of these squadrons were Fleet Replacement Squadrons for the US Navy's remaining F-4 Phantoms, 151064 likely acted as a "hack" aircraft for pilots to maintain flight hours, or as an aggressor trainer. That was certainly its next role with its next and final squadron: VF-45 ("Blackbirds"), which provided Atlantic Fleet squadrons with adversary training, still operating from Key West. 151064 would act as an aggressor A-4 until 1994, when it was retired. In 2004, it was donated to Planes of Fame in Chino, California.

 

Clearly, 151064 has seen better days. It still carries Spraylat from its days at AMARG in Arizona, and the camouflage has faded after nearly 30 years in the desert sun. The aircraft itself is intact, and at some point Planes of Fame does intend to restore the aircraft. I saw it in the museum's boneyard in May 2021.

 

The camp host at Horse Meadows actually came over to check if I had a shovel and bucket.

 

I thought a tent and sleeping bag more more traditional requirements.

Colorado Springs, CO - When living in winter conditions you have to be ready. Well you don’t have to, it is however suggested.

 

One could be rebellious and not wear propper gear or have an ice scrapper handy, one could curse the snow and deny accepting that it’s even there. Those people typically are in padded rooms or living in Los Angeles.

 

I say embrace the cold and punch snow in the face! Unless you live near Boston and for them I have no words of advice. Those conditions are nearly apocalyptic.

+++ 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 OA-1E was a response to the 1963 "tri-service" specification for the Light Armed Reconnaissance Aircraft (LARA) for U.S. Navy, Air Force and Army. The LARA requirement was based on a perceived need for a new type of "jungle fighting" versatile light attack and observation aircraft. Existing military aircraft in the observation role, such as the Cessna O-1 Bird Dog and Cessna O-2 Skymaster, were perceived as obsolescent, with too slow a speed and too small a load capacity for this flexible role.

 

A total of eleven proposals were submitted, among them were the Grumman Model 134R (a tandem-seat version of the already fielded U.S. Army's OV-1 Mohawk), the Convair Model 48 Charger, the Helio 1320, the Lockheed CL-760, a Martin design, and the North American/Rockwell NA-300. The LARA competition raged on until mid-1964, and it eventually spawned the successful OV-10 Bronco, which made its maiden flight in 1965 and eventually entered frontline service in Vietnam in 1968.

 

Douglas had proposed the D-885 design to the LARA competition, but had already been working on a concept for an armed military observation and attack aircraft, designed for battlefield surveillance and strike capabilities, in all weather conditions, day and night. This had been a private venture proposal, and USN and USMC approved it under the condition that it would be a cheap solution, being ready for front line tests in mid-1965 – much quicker than the OV-10, which also lacked the all-weather capability at that time.

 

Since time was pressing, the aircraft was based on the AD/A-1 Skyraider airframe and the program christened "Low Altitude Gunship and Obeservation System" (LAGOS). The resulting YOA-1E was based on the "Flying Dumptruck", the A-1E (AD-5) airframe with side-by-side seating and a spacious cockpit which had become necessary for the crew of three: a pilot, a co-pilot/navigator and an observer/gunman, combined with state-of-the-art sensor and weapon equipment plus the technical infrastructure for both.

 

The YOA-1E's special equipment included a relatively compact, turreted forward looking infrared (FLIR) sensor ball under the fuselage, combined with a laser target designator, a highly innovative feature at the time. The respective ‘Paveway’ series of laser-guided bombs had just been developed by Texas Instruments, starting in 1964, and the LAGOS YOA-1E had been one of the first operational aircraft that could illuminate and deploy laser-guided smart weapons. Other sensors included low-light cameras and an array of IR sensors that were installed in a bulged faring on port side. Several passive radar and IR warning sensors completed the package.

 

Tactically, the idea was to identify a ground target, lock onto it with the sensors and either mark the target with the laser for other aircraft that would deploy laser-guided ordnance, or circle around the target at maximum cannon range (which was outside of typical small arms fire) at an altitude of 6.000-8.000 feet and suppress or destroy the target with gun fire.

 

The OA-1E would not carry laser-guided bombs, though, since it lacked proper speed to deploy them effectively, and laser-guided missiles were still far beyond the horizon (the light AGM-114 Hellfire's development started in 1974, and the laser-guided AGM-65C Maverick would enter testing in 1978!).

 

But the agile and stable aircraft had other benefits: One special feature of the YOA-1E was a turreted, three-barreled 20 mm (.79 in) XM197 gun under the rear fuselage. This gatling gun, also a new development, originally for the AH-1 attack helicopter, was slaved to the FLIR aimpoint and could cover almost the complete lower hemisphere. Using a gun turret instead of fixed armament was expected to improve versatility, esp. against small, mobile targets and at very low altitude. The gun could also fire directly backwards, so that a limited rear defense was provided, too.

 

The XM197 was supplied from a massive magazine of 1.500 linked rounds that occupied much of the cabin’s rear, with a total capacity including feeder system of 1.600 rounds. This early XM 197 had a cyclic rate of fire of 650 RPM, at a muzzle velocity of 1.030 m/sec. This resulted in a potential constant fire of almost 3 min., even though standard practice was to fire the cannon in 30 to 50 round bursts, in order to save ammunition and to prevent overheating problems.

 

As a weight compensation measure, two of the A-1E’s original wing-mounted cannons were deleted, as well as the central underfuselage pylon which made way for the sensor/gun installation. The rest of the underwings hardpoints were retained, though, even though offensive ordnance was rarely carried.

 

In the course of the LAGOS program a total of four A-1E aircraft were modified, and three of them outfited for field testing of equipment and tactics. All of these machines were ready for service in late 1966. The operational trio was immediately transferred to East Asia in order to support the USMC troops, which had been sent to the Vietnam war theatre since March.

 

The three operational YOA-1Es were attached to the US Navy’s VA-33, 'Ironhides'. This was a short-lived Attack Squadron, originally based at Naval Station Sangley Point, Philippines, but deployed to Cam Ranh Air Base. There, the Skyraider squadron flew missions next to VAH-21 'Roadrunners', another special unit that operated four highly modfied AP-2H night surveillance and attack versions of the Lockheed P-2 Neptune aircraft. VAH-21 also had a field test task, because the squadron carried out night interdiction and electronic surveillance missions, as part of the USN’s Project TRIM (Trails Roads Interdiction Multi-Sensor).

 

Flying covert operations, the YOA-1E trio helped a lot in technical development, and the front line test revealed several flaws and problems of the overall concept. Primarily, the early FLIR and laser designator were not reliable under the humid climate of Vietnam.

 

The XM 197 cannon was troublesome, too. The gun itself worked well, but the ammunition feeding system was prone to jamming – a flaw that kept haunting later, helicopter-mounted variants, too. Anyway, the massive firepower earned the YOA-1E the nickname “The Ewer” and the gun turret turned out to be highly effective.

 

The OA-1Es even scored a single, documented air victory: an unsuspecting Vietnamese MiG-17PF night fighter was shot down with the XM197 in early 1970, when VA-33's OA-1E ‘01’, 'Pluto', dodged a surprise attack from behind and the gunner instinctively opened defensive fire - not an aimed counterattack, but neverthless successful!

 

The three OA-1Es were frequently deployed in a wide range of tasks and missions. These started in 1967 with reconnaissance missions at night, but with more and more experience withz the machines, their capabilities and their maintenance, a multitude of assignments were tried and accomplished.

 

One very successful role was the OA-1E’s use as mini gunships during “Sandy” (pilot recovery) missions, in which they escorted CH-53 rescue helicopters, suppressed enemy fire or supported other escorting A-1s, guiding them to hidden targets.

The LAGOS Skyraiders were also tested in pathfinder missions for faster aircraft, which would deploy their laser-guided Paveway bombs in a more effective fashion from a safe distance and from higher altitudes.

 

Another field in which the OA-1Es helped to gather tactical information for the later OV-10 was FAC duty. The Skyraider’s high loitering time proved to be very valuable, as well as its rigidity and its sophisticated sensor array.

 

Furthermore, the three Ewers accomplished aerial radiological reconnaissance, tactical air observation, artillery and naval gunfire spotting, airborne control of tactical air support operations as well as front line, low-level aerial photography. One of the machines (‘03’, 'Journey's End') was even provisionally modified to lay smoke screens, and it was extremely successful.

 

The aircraft was kept in service by its evaluators for several months and only reluctantly released. The smoke screen system did not catch on, though, due to a perceived lack of missions.

 

Racked armament in the Vietnam War was usually light. Beyond drop tanks to extend loitering time, typical loads were seven- and nineteen-shot 2.75 in (70 mm) LAU rocket pods with white phosphorus marker rounds or high-explosive rockets or 5” (127 mm) four-shot Zuni rocket pods. Bombs, ADSIDS air-delivered seismic sensors, Mk-6 battlefield illumination flares, and other stores were carried as well.

But the heavy equipment load and the XM197’s ammunition (the rounds themselves weighed more than 3.500 lb (1.600 kg)!) naturally limited the external ordnance stores’ volume and made the aircraft rather sluggish.

 

The LAGOS OA-1E proved to be too heavy and limited for a COIN aircraft, even though it was popular among the crews and basically performed well. The Skyraider airframe could take a lot of punishment and still make it home, and the low speed/low altitude handling was very good, despite the ponderous special equipment. But the aircraft could only be safely deployed in total air superiority conditions, and in the end the modern technology could not make up the old airframe’s weaknesses.

 

Consequently, the field tests were stopped in late 1970, the three machines taken back to the US and Douglas and further development of the LAGOS concept was halted, even though the insights were transferred to other developments like the OV-10D NOGS for the USMC and the AC-130 gunships for the USAF.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: Three

Length: 38 ft 10 in (11.84 m)

Wingspan: 50 ft 0¼ in (15.25 m)

Height: 15 ft 8¼ in (4.78 m)

Wing area: 400.3 ft² (37.19 m²)

Empty weight: 11,968 lb (5,429 kg)

Loaded weight: 18,106 lb (8,213 kg)

Max. take-off weight: 25,000 lb (11,340 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Wright R-3350-26WA radial engine, 2,700 hp (2,000 kW)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 322 mph (280 kn, 518 km/h) at 18,000 ft (5,500 m)

Cruise speed: 198 mph (172 kn, 319 km/h)

Range: 1,316 mi (1,144 nmi, 2,115 km)

Service ceiling: 28,500 ft (8,685 m)

Rate of climb: 2,850 ft/min (14.5 m/s)

Wing loading: 45 lb/ft² (220 kg/m²)

Power/mass: 0.15 hp/lb (250 W/kg)

 

Armament:

2× M2 20mm (0.79 in) cannon in the wings

1× XM 197 20mm (0.79 in) cannon in a ventral turret

15 hardpoints for theoretically up to 8,000 lb (3,600 kg) of external ordnance, but rarely used due to the massive ammunition magazine of the XM 197

  

The kit and its assembly:

This has been on my whif agenda for long, and was initially inspired by the OV-10D NOGS project – a Bronco with night vision sensors and a turreted cannon under its belly. I wondered if this concept could not have been tested a few years earlier, during the Vietnam conflict? The technology underwent initial field tests at that time, e. g. in form of the AP-2H or the B-57G “Tropic Moon”. Gunships like the AC-47 or AC-119 were also a proven concept – so why not meld everything into a compact aircraft?

 

The A-1E seemed a good basis, with its spacious fuselage, and the basis for this modification is the Monogram kit from the late 60ies, in this case a Revell re-boxing.

 

The kit is rather simple and has some weak points, e.g. the crude landing gear and engine, or massive ejector pin markings under the stabilizer. I only changed what I deemed necessary, as this was to become a prototype on the basis of a stock A-1E. Hence, I only changed the interior layout with a massive box (the ammunition depot, actually a Revell Me 262 cockpit tub turned upseide down…) and a work station for the observer/gunner behind the pilots’ cabin with a seat and a screen.

 

The sensor and turret balls were scratched – these are actually shoulder joints from a Dorvack PA mecha kit, fitted in matching holes in the fuselage. As a side effect, the things can be moved and the shoulder fulcrum was used to mount the cannon, so that this became moveable, too. The space between the turrets was faired as good as possible.

 

On the hull, several antennae and bumps were added, and different main wheels (IIRC from an Italeri MiG-29!) were used. The flaps were lowered, too, for a more lively look. As ordnance, two drop tanks (smaller than those that come with the kit, from an Italeri BAe Hawk), a single pair of LAU rocket launchers on the outer wing stations (from an Italeri A-4M, IIRC) and two first generation ECM pods (an ALQ-81 and ALQ-101, from a Hasegawa aircraft weapon set) were added.

  

Painting and markings:

The wrap-around paint scheme was another important factor to build this whif kit - it looks pretty cool and popped up several times in the late 60ies and the 70ies, e. g. on the USMC’s OV-10D prototypes, and on the US Navy’s AP-2Hs from VAH-21 in Vietnam.

 

The scheme was, AFAIK, made from three grey tones: FS 36118 (Gunship Grey), FS 36231 (Dark Gull Grey) and FS 36440 (Light Gull Grey), and these colors were prone to weathering and bleaching under the tropical East Asia climate, so that the Light Gull Grey appears almost like white. This was simulated with some black ink wash and dry-brushing all over the hull.

 

The interior was painted in Neutral Grey (FS 36173), while the landing gear was kept all-white.

 

The decals were puzzled together, but mostly from the Revell kit's decal sheet that offers a USAF machine and two USN machines, a blue and a grey one.

  

IMHO, the result was worth the effort - the paint scheme looks very good on the bulky Skyraider, and the changes with the weapon/sensor gondola is rather subtle, it's only obvious at second glance and it IMHO even looks plausible in this position and arrangement?

This photo was taken at kerry park, I used shutter speed 30s and f/14 aperture and ISO 100 for the camera settings. ISO 100 is to reduce the noise as much as possible. I post-process this photo to meet the requirement 5. Then, I used the brush with -100 saturation to sweep the whole picture except one small red area. In this way, you can see the whole picture is in black and white style. The small area I do not brush is in red color. It is a LED illuminated with red color. I think this small red area make this picture looks more interesting.

This clocktower photo was taken in front of the main entrance of Bellevue Square. I chose this photo for the form requirement because what really catches our attention was the 3D form of the cube where the clocks are located. At first glance, some might wonder if behind the main clock was a reflection of the clock, or another clock face from this perspective? In fact this column has 2 clocks facing different sides on the back. Moreover, we could be able to see the great lines underneath the tower, creating a great overall form for the object.

 

Image processing: Increase exposure, contrast; color-fixing.

My man-made subject fro this photo was my little sister's foot and her shoes. For this photo, I went up close, 8.3mm, bending down to get a clear shot of the details of the shoes. I thought this photo would satisfy requirement five because feet are not always focused on photo and I liked the details on children's shoes. I then went to LightRoom, cropping some of the backgrounds, and whitening the shoes to grasp the full braided details on the shoes.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

Failure of the shipboard fighter requirement issued by the Service Technique Aeronautique in June 1946 (and which had resulted in Aerocentre NC 1080, Arsenal VG 90 and Nord 2200 prototypes being built) led to consideration being given to adoption by the Aeronavale of the Grumman F9F-5 Panther.

 

In January 1951, however, the Ministère de la Marine announced the decision to adopt the de Havilland Sea Venom Mk 20, which was being developed for the Royal Navy as a side-by-side two-seat shipboard all-weather fighter and had yet to enter flight test. The first of these flew on 31 October 1952, and the name Aquilon (North Wind) being adopted. It was powered by aF iat-built de Havilland Ghost, armament comprising four 20mm cannon.

 

Non-availability of the intended Thomson AI radar restricted the Aquilon 201 two-seaters to diurnal operation, the same restriction being imposed on the next 25 aircraft which, delivered as Aquilon 202s, were entirely manufactured in France and differed in having ejection seats, an aft-sliding rather than aft-hinged cockpit canopy and a strengthened undercarriage. A decision was taken to adopt the Westinghouse APQ 65 AI radar, but, without major redesign of the airframe it was found impossible to fit this equipment in the ejection seat-equipped two-seater.

 

Production therefore continued with the Aquilon 203 single-seater, the last 25 of the 40 production examples of this version being equipped with APQ 65 radar as were the six two-seat Aquilon 204 radar trainers (not fitted with ejection seats) that brought production (a total of 121) to an end. The last of these being flown at the beginning of 1958, but already a couple of years before it was already clear that a more potent aircraft had to be found for the new French Clemenceau Class carriers that were to enter service in the 1960ies.

 

Through the fast aircraft technology development in the mid-fifties the bar was raised: the new carrier-borne fighter was to feature swept wings and be capable of supersonic speed. Therefore, SNCASO proposed in 1953 the S.O. 3200, an aircraft that roughly resembled the Dassault Mystere II (the prototype first flew on 28 September 1952) but which was more advanced and was from the start dedicated to carrier operations.

 

The S.O. 3200 featured a 40-degree swept wing (compared to the 30-degree wing of the Mystère II, plus a thinner profile), swept tail surfaces and with its lateral air intakes the aircraft reminded a lot of the Mystère IIIN prototype, but internally the aircraft had nothing in common. The cockpit was moved forward for an improved field of sight, and the outer wing panels could be folded upwards in order to save space. Four 20mm cannons were placed under the air intakes.

 

The S.O. 3200 also introduced a new generation of armament: the new aircraft was able to deploy the first French air-to-air-missile: up to four AA.20 AAMs could be carried on the four underwing hardpoints. Although the AA.20 was from the outset intended to be a fully effective operational weapon, it was generally regarded as an interim missile pending development of the R.53O series.

 

The AA.20 relied on visual guidance and direct steering thorugh the pilot. The missile received its command signals through a coded radio link (the respcetive equipment was isntalles in the S.O. 3200's nose ), governed by a miniature joystick manipulated by the pilot of the launching aircraft. This meant that the target and missile flare had to be visible to the pilot right up to the point (50ft distance) at which the proximity fuze was triggered. Steering was effected by pitch and yaw demands which bias the interruption of vibrating spoilers in the two nozzles from the missile's sustainer. And even though the AA.20 was intended as an air-to-air weapon, its guidance system meant that it could also be used againts ground targets (similar to the contemporary AGM-12 Bullpup).

 

Alternatively the S.O. 3200 could carry a pair of drop tanks (the two inner pylons were ‘wet’), up to four bombs of 1.000 lb (454 kg) caliber, pods with unguided 68mm SNEB missiles (against air and ground targets alike) or rails for unguided missiles of larger calibers.

 

The new naval aircraft was powered by a Hispano-Suiza Verdon 350 jet engine, a license-built version of the Rolls-Royce Tay. It offered, with 3,500 kgp/7,715 lbf, more thrust than the Mystère II’s Atar 101D turbojet (3,000 kgp/6,615 lbf), albeit this was necessary through the higher structural weight of the airframe and the aircraft’s special equipment for naval duties.

 

The type was accepted as S.O. 3201 and the first batch of 12 production machines became just operational as French carriers were in 1956 deployed to the eastern Mediterranean Sea during the Suez Crisis. On 3 November, F4U Corsairs from Arromanches and Lafayette, under escort of AA.20-armed S.O. 3201 fighters, bombed Egyptian airfields around Cairo.

 

Due to the merger of SNCASO and SNCASE into a new, state-owned aircraft manufacturer in the course of 1957 the aircraft was re-christened Sud Aviation ‘Bourrasque’ (meaning ‘gust of wind’ and also ‘burst of anger’). That year, a further 20 machines were ordered and production ran rather slowly, so that the second series was to be delivered until 1958.

 

Sud Aviation hoped for export sales, but they never materialized. Aircraft technology evolved in giant leaps and in 1962 the Dassault Étendard IV, a supersonic carrier-borne strike fighter aircraft, entered service with the French Navy. It was a much more modern design than the Bourrasque, and showed much more potential for future development. The Étendard was powered by a SNECMA Atar 8B axial-flow turbojet turbojet with 43.16 kN (9,703 lbf), and this engine offered a much better performance than the voluminous and technologically outdated centrifugal compressor Verdon. Additionally, the Aéronavale introduced the Vought F-8E(FN) as ship-borne fighter aircraft - both types rendered the Bourrasque totally obsolete after less than 10 years of service.

 

Hence, production was soon halted and in total only 40 aircraft were produced at all (the last eight were constructed from components and spare parts) and, together with the Aquilon, were already phased out by the Aéronavale during 1964-65.

 

But while the Aquilons had reached the end of their airframes’ life the remaining Bourrassques in good shape were sold to Israel where the naval equipment was removed and the aircraft relegated to ground attack and training roles. These aircraft were finally retired from Israeli service, together with IDF’s Mystères, on 18 March 1971.

 

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 12.89 m (42 ft 31⁄2 in)

Wingspan: 11.12 m (36 ft 53⁄4 in)

Height: 4.60 m (15 ft 1 in)

Wing area: 32.06 m² (345.1 ft²)

Empty weight: 5,860 kg (12,919 lb)

Loaded weight: 8,510 kg (18,100 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 9,500 kg (20,944 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1 × Hispano-Suiza Verdon 350 turbojet, rated at 34.32 kN (7,716 lbf)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 1,110 km/h (600 knots, 690 mph) at sea level

Range: 915 km (494  nmi, 570 mi) without internal fuel tanks,

2.280 km (1.231 nmi, 1.417 mi) with external tanks

Service ceiling: 15,000  m (49,200 ft)

Rate of climb: 40  m/s (7,874  ft/min)

 

Armament:

4× 20 mm Hispano-Suiza HS.404 cannon with 125 RPG

2.000 kg (4.405 lb) of payload on four external hardpoints,

incl. a variety of bombs, unguided rockets or drop tanks, or four AA.20 guided missiles

  

The kit and its assembly:

This whif has two origins. One was the question what a naval Mystère II or IV would have looked like, the other one was a leftover Supermarine Attacker fuselage from a shabby Novo kit, for which I had the vague idea of giving it a modern tricycle landing gear and different, maybe swept wings, creating something like an attack version of the Swift.

 

When I held a Matchbox Mystére IV in my hands I wondered if this kit could not be combined with the Attacker (both fuselages have very similar lines), and so this French naval aircraft was born. There was also the hope/idea to build more than one of these "combos"!

 

Bashing both kits was more complicated than expected, though. The Novo Attacker is basic, to express it mildly. It has no cockpit at all, the wing/fuselage intersections are in the wrong position for the Mystère's swept wings, and the latter's landing gear is also not easily compatible with the Attacker fuselage.

 

I added a very basic cockpit, using the Matchbox ejection seat and cutting the original helmet/pilot blob away, plus a cockpit floor which also acts as front lang gear well. For this, a new opening had to be cut out.

The air intake interiors are also naked, so I built some walls inside from styrene sheet and added small splitter plates that cover the intakes' edges... These walls also hide the lead that fills much of the room behind the cockpit.

 

The wing attachments had to go, leaving rather wide gaps in the flanks once the new wings were fitted. I tried to solve this through glueing the wings into place and then filling up the gaps with 2C putty, sculpting new intersections. Messy. The original attachments for the Attacker's stabilizers had to be erased and covered, too. The fin is a 100% transplant from the Mystère.

 

Once the wings were in place I found them to have slightly too much span: the Mystère is a tad bigger/voluminous than the Attacker, and with the OOB wings the whole thing did not look balanced. What to do...? :-/

 

I decided to combine this porblem's solution with an additional gimmick: foldable wings! Originally I just wanted to scribe the respective seams onto the wings, but cutting the wing tips in order to reduce the span was out of question - so I carefully cut the wings in halves and reduced the inner sections' span by about 6mm each - not much, but this improved the proportions a lot!

 

In order to present the kit with folded and spread wings, I used a trick that comes e. g. with Matchbox' EA-6B kit: different adapters. These were simply scratched from PET foil, in two layers so that they fit neatly into the openings that were left after the cutting. The PET stuff is very tough and rigid, and I made the inserts long enough that the outer panels do not hang through. Worked better than expected!

A final issue was the ordnance. I wanted a fighter payload, so the four pylons were filled with a pair of slender drop tanks (from a Matchbox F3D Skyraider) and a pair of AAMs - choice fell on the contemporary AA.20, which was also by the Aquilon night fighter. These had to be scratched, though, from sprue pieces and fins cut from styrene.

  

Painting and markings:

This is the classic Aéronavale livery in the post WWII years: all-over dark blue (FS 35042), which is pretty boring, but the Suez Crisis was a good excuse to add some more color. In this case, it's a set of black and yellow ID stripes, which was e. g. also carried by French F4U-7 that flew missions during this conflict, as well as on RAF and RN aircraft that took part, too.

 

Creating these stripes was tricky, though. Yellow is a PITA to apply, and I did also not want to go thorugh the hustle of masking and endless corrections. Hence, I created the stripes in a "mixed media" fashion: first, the stripes width and position were measured and roughly marked (taking into account the pylons, wing fence and the wings' folding sections!).

Then the inner two black stripes were laid out with black paint on the wings and fuselage. Next, the kit received its overall blue livery, and finally the stripes were added. These were cut from an opaque sheet from TL Modellbau, in apporopriate width and with excess length, and then applied on top of the paint. A VERY convenient process with only few corrections and cosmetics, and I am more than happy with the effect and finish.

 

The cockpit interior was painted in very dark grey, the landing gear was kept in Alumnim, according to typical French jets of that era.

The inside of the folded wings and their "mechanisms" were painted in flat black - there's no detail to be seen, so I tried to blend the visible parts with the black ID stripes in that wing area.

 

The kit received some panel shading with petrol blue, as well as a very light dry-brushing with Ocean Grey on the wings' leading edges and on the fuselage in order to emphazise the raised rivets and access hatches on the Attacker's parts.

 

The decals come mostly from an Italeri F4U-7 kit, as well as the scrap box and other generic TL Modellbau sheets, e. g. for the red markers on the wings for the walking zones - these were puzzled together from 1mm strips.

 

Finally, the kit received a coat of semi-gloss Tamiya varnish from the rattle can.

  

This one looks IMHO very convincing, and the Bourrasque has a true 50ies look that I wanted to achieve. I actually had the plan to build two of these (the other one would have been an Israeli machine), but the conversion/bashing became so complex that I just stuck to this single kit - but who knows, maybe... there's another Attacker fuselage in the stash! ;D

Taken in the quad during tourist season. I created a radial blur effect that I have seen in many memes online by setting a slow shutter speed and zooming the camera while shooting.

 

Post processing: Increased vibrance and saturation

When the polish government asked SAI to design a new pistol for it's special operations units, they had strict requirements that had to be met. First and foremost, the weapon is completely sealed, similar to a Nagant revolver, to make sure no gas escapes. The barrel is actually an integral silencer. and finally, the hammer is concealed similar to that of the Ruger LCR, so that even the click of the hammer will not reveal the operators location. All in all, this is the perfect stealth sidearm for small strike teams, and comes in all manner of PDW rounds to penetrate modern body armor*

 

*weapon available in FN 5.7, HK 4.6, and KA 6.35.

 

For this picture, I changed from AF to MF when keeping original focus, then got closer to the object, enabling the picture to be unfocused.

This photo satisfies requirement 2: Improve on Nature with Lightroom. I post process this image in Photoshop. I increased exposure and contrast to brighten the image, since the original image was a bit dull. Saturation level also was raised to bring out the colors of the green grass.

 

I used a small ISO of 100 because I wanted to make sure there wasn't a lot of noise in the image. An average aperture of f/4.5 was used to have a medium depth of field. Using an average aperture also helped let in some light, as the image needed it since the weather was very gloomy. I set the shutter speed to 1/50 because i wanted the let in more light into the camera, while having just enough shutter speed to not have any blur from my shaky hands.

This photo fulfilled the requirement 1 - Freeze the action

 

I took this photo at Lucky strike when playing the bowling and using my sony a6000 with E 55/210 mm lens. I used shutter speed of 1/200s but very high ISO of 20000 to freeze the entire action in the super dark enviornment. This helped me to freeze the fast movements of the ball and make it visible and clear in detail. I zoomed in the lens and made the focal length of 210.0 mm since the lane is far away from the position I stand. And I set the aperture at f/6.3 to balance the high ISO.

This photo fulfilled the requirement 2 - Show the action by blurring the foreground.

 

I took this photo at Lucky strike when playing the bowling and using my sony a6000 with E 55/210 mm lens. I used shutter speed of 1/25s but very high ISO of 20000 to freeze the moment and the items' motiong trail in the super dark enviornment. This helped me to freeze the fast movements of the bowling pins and give people sense of the movement. I zoomed in the lens and made the focal length of 210.0 mm since the lane is far away from the position I stand. And I set the aperture at f/32.0 to balance the high ISO.

This photo fulfilled the requirement 3 and 2 - Show the action by blurring the foreground and background.

 

I took this photo at Lucky strike when playing the bowling and using my sony a6000 with E 55/210 mm lens. I used shutter speed of 1/25s but very high ISO of 20000 to freeze the moment and the items' motiong trail in the super dark enviornment. This helped me to freeze the fast movements of the bowling pins and give people sense of the movement. I zoomed in the lens and made the focal length of 210.0 mm since the lane is far away from the position I stand. And I set the aperture at f/32.0 to balance the high ISO.

This is for requirement#1 Vertical vanishing point. I used these settings: f4.0 2" ISO 100. I used a low aperture because of the low light and because I wanted to keep my ISO as low as possible. I used that shutter speed in order to have the photo be properly exposed. In Photoshop, I wanted the color to pop and the contrast be really crisp so I adjusted the curves, exposure, contrast, and brightened the color slightly.

This photo fulfills requirement 3. I took this photo using manual focus and with a shutter speed of 1/2 a second. The manual focus allowed me to blur the LED lights on my keyboard, creating the orb effect. I also used rapidly changing LED colors, which the low shutter speed captured in turn giving me some unique colors.

Administrators update. Trying to keep up with information for new state evaluation requirements.

This photo is taken at UW during the sunset. I think I have made a mistake on the ISO setting since it is ISO2000, which is too high. I use f/2.8 so that the background all blurs out. In previous assignment, the requirement says that golden hour is very important for landscape photography. And I find out it is the same for portrait as well. The warm sunlight gives the portrait a different feeling. I also did some post processing in this photo to make the color looks warmer.

+++ 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 Waffenträger (Weapon Carrier) VTS3 “Diana” was a prototype for a wheeled tank destroyer. It was developed by Thyssen-Henschel (later Rheinmetall) in Kassel, Germany, in the late Seventies, in response to a German Army requirement for a highly mobile tank destroyer with the firepower of the Leopard 1 main battle tank then in service and about to be replaced with the more capable Leopard 2 MBT, but less complex and costly. The main mission of the Diana was light to medium territorial defense, protection of infantry units and other, lighter, elements of the cavalry as well as tactical reconnaissance. Instead of heavy armor it would rather use its good power-to-weight ratio, excellent range and cross-country ability (despite the wheeled design) for defense and a computerized fire control system to accomplish this mission.

 

In order to save development cost and time, the vehicle was heavily based on the Spähpanzer Luchs (Lynx), a new German 8x8 amphibious reconnaissance armored fighting vehicle that had just entered Bundeswehr service in 1975. The all-wheel drive Luchs made was well armored against light weapons, had a full NBC protection system and was characterized by its extremely low-noise running. The eight large low-pressure tires had run-flat properties, and, at speeds up to about 50 km/h, all four axles could be steered, giving the relatively large vehicle a surprising agility and very good off-road performance. As a special feature, the vehicle was equipped with a rear-facing driver with his own driving position (normally the radio operator), so that the vehicle could be driven at full speed into both directions – a heritage from German WWII designs, and a tactical advantage when the vehicle had to quickly retreat from tactical position after having been detected. The original Luchs weighed less than 20 tons, was fully amphibious and could surmount water obstacles quickly and independently using propellers at the rear and the fold back trim vane at the front. Its armament was relatively light, though, a 20 mm Rheinmetall MK 20 Rh 202 gun in the turret that was effective against both ground and air targets.

 

The Waffenträger “Diana” used the Luchs’ hull and dynamic components as basis, and Thyssen-Henschel solved the challenge to mount a large and heavy 105 mm L7 gun with its mount on the light chassis through a minimalistic, unmanned mount and an autoloader. Avoiding a traditional manned and heavy, armored turret, a lot of weight and internal volume that had to be protected could be saved, and crew safety was indirectly improved, too. This concept had concurrently been tested in the form of the VTS1 (“Versuchsträger Scheitellafette #1) experimental tank in 1976 for the Kampfpanzer 3 development, which eventually led to the Leopard 2 MBT (which retained a traditional turret, though).

 

For the “Diana” test vehicle, Thyssen-Henschel developed a new low-profile turret with a very small frontal area. Two crew members, the commander (on the right side) and the gunner (to the left), were seated in/under the gun mount, completely inside of the vehicle’s hull. The turret was a very innovative construction for its time, fully stabilized and mounted the proven 105mm L7 rifled cannon with a smoke discharger. Its autoloader contained 8 rounds in a carousel magazine. 16 more rounds could be carried in the hull, but they had to be manually re-loaded into the magazine, which was only externally accessible. A light, co-axial 7,62mm machine gun against soft targets was available, too, as well as eight defensive smoke grenade mortars.

 

The automated L7 had a rate of fire of ten rounds per minute and could fire four types of ammunition: a kinetic energy penetrator to destroy armored vehicles; a high explosive anti-tank round to destroy thin-skinned vehicles and provide anti-personnel fragmentation; a high explosive plastic round to destroy bunkers, machine gun and sniper positions, and create openings in walls for infantry to access; and a canister shot for use against dismounted infantry in the open or for smoke charges. The rounds to be fired could be pre-selected, so that the gun was able to automatically fire a certain ammunition sequence, but manual round selection was possible at any time, too.

 

In order to take the new turret, the Luchs hull had to be modified. Early calculations had revealed that a simple replacement of the Luchs’ turret with the new L7 mount would have unfavorably shifted the vehicle’s center of gravity up- and forward, making it very nose-heavy and hard to handle in rough terrain or at high speed, and the long barrel would have markedly overhung the front end, impairing handling further. It was also clear that the additional weight and the rise of the CoG made amphibious operations impossible - a fate that met the upgraded Luchs recce tanks in the Eighties, too, after several accidents with overturned vehicles during wading and drowned crews. With this insight the decision was made to omit the vehicle’s amphibious capability, save weight and complexity, and to modify the vehicle’s layout considerably to optimize the weight distribution.

 

Taking advantage of the fact that the Luchs already had two complete driver stations at both ends, a pair of late-production hulls were set aside in 1977 and their internal layout reversed. The engine bay was now in the vehicle’s front, the secured ammunition storage was placed next to it, behind the separate driver compartment, and the combat section with the turret mechanism was located behind it. Since the VTS3s were only prototypes, only minimal adaptations were made. This meant that the driver was now located on the right side of the vehicle, while and the now-rear-facing secondary driver/radio operator station ended up on the left side – much like a RHD vehicle – but this was easily accepted in the light of cost and time savings. As a result, the gun and its long, heavy barrel were now located above the vehicle’s hull, so that the overall weight distribution was almost neutral and overall dimensions remained compact.

 

Both test vehicles were completed in early 1978 and field trials immediately started. While the overall mobility was on par with the Luchs and the Diana’s high speed and low noise profile was highly appreciated, the armament was and remained a source of constant concern. Shooting in motion from the Diana turned out to be very problematic, and even firing from a standstill was troublesome. The gun mount and the vehicle’s complex suspension were able to "hold" the recoil of the full-fledged 105-mm tank gun, which had always been famous for its rather large muzzle energy. But when fired, even in the longitudinal plane, the vehicle body fell heavily towards the stern, so that the target was frequently lost and aiming had to be resumed – effectively negating the benefit from the autoloader’s high rate of fire and exposing the vehicle to potential target retaliation. Firing to the side was even worse. Several attempts were made to mend this flaw, but neither the addition of a muzzle brake, stronger shock absorbers and even hydro-pneumatic suspension elements did not solve the problem. In addition, the high muzzle flames and the resulting significant shockwave required the infantry to stay away from the vehicle intended to support them. The Bundeswehr also criticized the too small ammunition load, as well as the fact that the autoloader magazine could not be re-filled under armor protection, so that the vehicle had to retreat to safe areas to re-arm and/or to adapt to a new mission profile. This inherent flaw not only put the crew under the hazards of enemy fire, it also negated the vehicle’s NBC protection – a serious issue and likely Cold War scenario. Another weak point was the Diana’s weight: even though the net gain of weight compared with the Luchs was less than 3 tons after the conversion, this became another serious problem that led to the Diana’s demise: during trials the Bundeswehr considered the possibility to airlift the Diana, but its weight (even that of the Luchs, BTW) was too much for the Luftwaffe’s biggest own transport aircraft, the C-160 Transall. Even aircraft from other NATO members, e.g. the common C-130 Hercules, could hardly carry the vehicle. In theory, equipment had to be removed, including the cannon and parts of its mount.

 

Since the tactical value of the vehicle was doubtful and other light anti-tank weapons in the form of the HOT anti-tank missile had reached operational status, so that very light vehicles and even small infantry groups could now effectively fight against full-fledged enemy battle tanks from a safe distance, the Diana’s development was stopped in 1988. Both VTS3 prototypes were mothballed, stored at the Bundeswehr Munster Training Area camp and are still waiting to be revamped as historic exhibits alongside other prototypes like the Kampfpanzer 70 in the German Tank Museum located there, too.

  

Specifications:

Crew: 4 (commander, driver, gunner, radio operator/second driver)

Weight: 22.6 t

Length: 7.74 m (25 ft 4 ¼ in)

Width: 2.98 m ( 9 ft 9 in)

Height: XXX

Ground clearance: 440 mm (1 ft 4 in)

Suspension: hydraulic all-wheel drive and steering

 

Armor:

Unknown, but sufficient to withstand 14.5 mm AP rounds

 

Performance:

Speed: 90 km/h (56 mph) on roads

Operational range: 720 km (445 mi)

Power/weight: 13,3 hp/ton with petrol, 17,3 hp/ton with diesel

 

Engine:

1× Daimler Benz OM 403A turbocharged 10-cylinder 4-stroke multi-fuel engine,

delivering 300 hp with petrol, 390 hp with diesel

 

Armament:

1× 105 mm L7 rifled gun with autoloader (8 rounds ready, plus 16 in reserve)

1× co-axial 7.92 mm M3 machine gun with 2.000 rounds

Two groups of four Wegmann 76 mm smoke mortars

  

The kit and its assembly:

I have been a big Luchs fan since I witnessed one in action during a public Bundeswehr demo day when I was around 10 years old: a huge, boxy and futuristic vehicle with strange proportions, gigantic wheels, water propellers, a mind-boggling mobility and all of this utterly silent. Today you’d assume that this vehicle had an electric engine – spooky! So I always had a soft spot for it, and now it was time and a neat occasion to build a what-if model around it.

 

This fictional wheeled tank prototype model was spawned by a leftover Revell 1:72 Luchs kit, which I had bought some time ago primarily for the turret, used in a fictional post-WWII SdKfz. 234 “Puma” conversion. With just the chassis left I wondered what other use or equipment it might take, and, after several weeks with the idea in the back of my mind, I stumbled at Silesian Models over an M1128 resin conversion set for the Trumpeter M1126 “Stryker” 8x8 APC model. From this set as potential donor for a conversion the prototype idea with an unmanned turret was born.

 

Originally I just planned to mount the new turret onto the OOB hull, but when playing with the parts I found the look with an overhanging gun barrel and the bigger turret placed well forward on the hull goofy and unbalanced. I was about to shelf the idea again, until I recognized that the Luchs’ hull is almost symmetrical – the upper hull half could be easily reversed on the chassis tub (at least on the kit…), and this would allow much better proportions. From this conceptual change the build went straightforward, reversing the upper hull only took some minor PSR. The resin turret was taken mostly OOB, it only needed a scratched adapter to fit into the respective hull opening. I just added a co-axial machine gun fairing, antenna bases (from the Luchs kit, since they could, due to the long gun barrel, not be attached to the hull anymore) and smoke grenade mortars (also taken from the Luchs).

 

An unnerving challenge became the Luchs kit’s suspension and drive train – it took two days to assemble the vehicle’s underside alone! While this area is very accurate and delicate, the fact that almost EVERY lever and stabilizer is a separate piece on four(!) axles made the assembly a very slow process. Just for reference: the kit comes with three and a half sprues. A full one for the wheels (each consists of three parts, and more than another one for suspension and drivetrain!

Furthermore, the many hull surface details like tools or handles – these are more than a dozen bits and pieces – are separate, very fragile and small (tiny!), too. Cutting all these wee parts out and cleaning them was a tedious affair, too, plus painting them separately.

Otherwise the model went together well, but it’s certainly not good for quick builders and those with big fingers and/or poor sight.

  

Painting and markings:

The paint scheme was a conservative choice; it is a faithful adaptation of the Bundeswehr’s NATO standard camouflage for the European theatre of operations that was introduced in the Eighties. It was adopted by many armies to confuse potential aggressors from the East, so that observers could not easily identify a vehicle and its nationality. It consists of a green base with red-brown and black blotches, in Germany it was executed with RAL tones, namely 6031 (Bronze Green), 8027 (Leather Brown) and 9021 (Tar Black). The pattern was standardized for each vehicle type and I stuck to the official Luchs pattern, trying to adapt it to the new/bigger turret. I used Revell acrylic paints, since the authentic RAL tones are readily available in this product range (namely the tones 06, 65 and 84). The big tires were painted with Revell 09 (Anthracite).

 

Next the model was treated with a highly thinned washing with black and red-brown acrylic paint, before decals were applied, taken from the OOB sheet and without unit markings, since the Diana would represent a test vehicle. After sealing them with a thin coat of clear varnish the model was furthermore treated with lightly dry-brushed Revell 45 and 75 to emphasize edges and surface details, and the separately painted hull equipment was mounted. The following step was a cloudy treatment with watercolors (from a typical school paintbox, it’s great stuff for weathering!), simulating dust residue all over the hull. After a final protective coat with matt acrylic varnish I finally added some mineral artist pigments to the lower hull areas and created mud crusts on the wheels through light wet varnish traces into which pigments were “dusted”.

  

Basically a simple project, but the complex Luchs kit with its zillion of wee bits and pieces took time and cost some nerves. However, the result looks pretty good, and the Stryker turret blends well into the overall package. Not certain how realistic the swap of the Luchs’ internal layout would have been, but I think that the turret moved to the rear makes more sense than the original forward position? After all, the model is supposed to be a prototype, so there’s certainly room for creative freedom. And in classic Bundeswehr colors, the whole thing even looks pretty convincing.

 

It seems a lifetime ago, but in fact was just four weeks gone, that Jools came up to meet with me in Godmanchester before going to see Mum in Papworth.

 

I chose Godmanchester because a contact/friend on GWUK had published shots from there, and it looked interesting, and was a ten minute drive from the hospital.

 

The spire of St Mary can be seen from almost everywhere in the town, drawing me in like a flame to a moth. And thankfully it was open.

 

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

 

My children both had their birthdays the same weekend, and announced plans to invite all their friends from around the country to spend the weekend and to go out together, fifty or so of them, some of them staying over. They'd have a party in the back garden first, my son DJing. They are good children, generally trustworthy, and their mother promised to keep an eye on them. Smiling, nodding, I reached for the Holiday Inn Express website and booked myself a Saturday night at Huntingdon Holiday Inn. Two days of exploring the churches of south-west Cambridgeshire were in prospect.

 

The plan for Day One was to circumnavigate Grafham Water, the great reservoir created to serve Cambridge and Peterborough in the 1960s, taking in all the churches along the way. The slight crimp in the plan is that, to retain the rural nature of the area and to stop traffic cutting between A1 and A14, there is no road running to the north of Grafham Water other than the A14, although using the OS Landranger map I was able to piece together what I thought would be enough bridleways, byways and permissive cycle tracks to achieve this object. During the day I would visit thirteen new churches, all of which were open except for two, and they had keyholder notices.

 

It was a really hot day, and I didn't want to overstretch myself, so I made a leisurely start from Ipswich arriving in Huntingdon at about half past ten. Huntingdon is a small town really, barely 30,000 people, and it is separated by the Ouse from the older town of Godmanchester, pronounced god-m'n-chester, my first port of call. Indeed, Godmanchester is Cambridgeshire's oldest town, a major Roman settlement where Ermine Street crossed the road from Colchester to Chester. In Roman times it was the third biggest place in the east of England after Colchester and Lincoln, and was there long before Peterborough, Huntingdon and Cambridge were a twinkle in the celestial milkman's eye.

 

The Ouse and its water meadows are wide enough to make Huntingdon and Godmanchester seem separate places. For a town of less than 10,000 people it is really grand, with lots of 18th Century buildings and a delightful setting along the Ouse with islands and a park.

 

It was already shaping up into a bright, warm summer day as I reached the huge church, one of the biggest in the county, and typical in style of the Ouse valley. The spire is a familiar sight from the A14 rising above the mill on the river below. The nave south aisle you step into is alone bigger than many churches. A wide, gloomy interior, with acres of Kempe glass leavened somewhat by a good, big Burne-Jones window in the south aisle. Very urban, but with plenty of evidence of the borough's importance up until the 18th Century, at which time it was of equal size with neighbouring Huntingdon. But the Industrial Revolution changed all that. All very impressive, but not a place to gladden the heart.

 

And so, I headed south.

 

www.flickr.com/photos/norfolkodyssey/sets/72157653449416853/

 

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

 

Godmundcestre (xi cent.), Gutmuncetre, Gudmencestre, Gumencestre, Guncestre (xii cent.), Gumecestre, Gurmundcestre (xiii cent.), Godmanchester (xiv cent.).

 

The parish and borough of Godmanchester, (fn. 1) which are co-terminous, contain 4,832 acres of land and 75 acres of land covered by water. The River Ouse forms the northern boundary and divides Godmanchester from the borough of Huntingdon. The land near to the river is liable to floods, but the ground rises gradually to the south, where it is mostly arable. The population is chiefly occupied in agriculture, and in 1921 numbered 2,035 persons. In the 17th century Godmanchester was described as 'a very great county Toune, and of as great name for tillage; situate in an open ground, of a light mould, and bending to ye sun.' (fn. 2) In 1604 the borough charter tells of like conditions, and especially exempted the store horses and others employed in agriculture from the king's service. (fn. 3) The inhabitants boasted that they had formerly received kings on their progress with a pageant of nine score ploughs, (fn. 4) but in the royal progresses to and from Scotland in 1633 the borough apparently only presented Charles I and his queen with pieces of plate. (fn. 5) Later records mention feasts at the election of town officials, (fn. 6) but in the 16th century the bailiffs contributed from the town funds to many entertainments, such as bear-baiting, visits of players and of the Lord of Misrule from Offord Cluny. (fn. 7)

 

Of other industries besides agriculture, coal porterage on the Ouse was formerly an important business, and in the last century a tan-yard, jute factory, iron foundry and brick works existed, and basket-making was also carried on. (fn. 8) At the present day a stocking factory at the bridge provides a considerable amount of work, and there is also a flour mill.

 

There is a railway station near Huntingdon Bridge which is a junction for the London Midland and Scottish Railway and the London and North Eastern Railway.

 

The parish was inclosed by private Act of Parliament in 1803, (fn. 9) and the award is in the possession of the Corporation. Preserved at the Court Hall, (fn. 10) is a remarkable series of records, dating from the charter of King John in 1212 to the present day. These materials were used by Robert Fox, one of the bailiffs of the borough in 1831–2, in his History of Godmanchester. (fn. 11) Other natives of Godmanchester who may be mentioned are William of Godmanchester, who was elected Abbot of Ramsey in 1267, (fn. 12) and Stephen Marshall, the Parliamentarian divine and one of the authors of Smectymnuus, (fn. 13) published in 1641.

 

The town seems to have arisen on the site of a Roman settlement here, which has already been described. (fn. 14) Its lay-out, however, has apparently been changed to suit the later requirements of a market town. Ermine Street, the Roman road from London to the north, and the Roman roads from Sandy and the south and from Cambridge, which joined it, stop abruptly at the points where they touch what is supposed to be the site of the Roman town, and their place is taken by a road which almost circuits the medieval town and so links them up. It was customary in most medieval market towns to arrange the lay-out of the streets so as to compel the traffic to pass through the market place and pay toll. It would appear that Godmanchester was laid out in this way as a market town, although there is little evidence of an early market here. The road from St. Neots to Huntingdon enters the town by West Street towards the south end of what was intended for the market place and passes that from Cambridge towards the north end, by East Street. In the same way the traffic to and from London and the north is carried by the road on the west side of the town, through the same place.

 

Entering the town from Huntingdon on the north, after crossing Huntingdon Bridge, which has already been described, (fn. 15) the road passes over a causeway which was apparently of ancient construction, as we find that in 1279 its repair was charged on a meadow in the tenure of the prior of St. Mary's, Huntingdon. (fn. 16) In 1331 it was rebuilt (fn. 17) and in 1433 it appears that the road was carried over a series of small bridges. (fn. 18) The causeway was again rebuilt in 1637 by Robert Cooke as a thank-offering for his escape from drowning in a flood here. A stone in the parapet of the southern of the two bridges, each of eight arches, of which the causeway is composed, bears an inscription copied from an earlier one, 'Robertus Cooke ex aquis emersus hoc viatoribus sacrum D.D. 1637.' The bridges underwent repairs in 1767 and were rebuilt in 1784. The causeway (fn. 19) now forms a fine wide approach to the town, with many half-timbered houses of the 17th century and later, on either side. At the north-west corner of East Street stood the vicarage, a 17th-century house, lately demolished; adjoining it on the east side is Church Lane, leading to St. Mary's Church. A little to the east on the south side of East Street is a range of three picturesque half-timber houses with overhanging upper story and an overhanging gable at the west end. The western of the two original chimney stacks bears the date 1611 and the eastern 1613. Over a fireplace in the east room on the first floor are painted the Stuart royal arms with the initials I.R. for James I. There are other 17th-century houses in East Street. Opposite to East Street in the Causeway is the New Court or Town Hall, built in 1844, at which time this part of the Causeway was raised 2 ft. The Town Hall was largely rebuilt in 1899. (fn. 20) Queen Elizabeth's Grammar School, a brick building with tiled roof, built about 1560, faces the new Court Hall. It originally consisted of a hall and two-storied porch, bearing above the window of the upper story the inscription 'Eliz. Reg. hujus scholae fundatrix,' over which is a sundial bearing the words 'Sibi Aliisque.' It was restored in 1851 and some buildings were added on the north side. Near the school was the 'cage' for the temporary safeguarding of prisoners, which was built in 1687. The governors of the school, however, complained that the position was 'very inconvenient and unapt,' and so the overseers were ordered to build it near the Court Hall Yard. (fn. 21) In the main street, probably opposite St. Ann's Lane, was a cross called St. Ann's Cross, mentioned in 1526 (fn. 22) and 1545, (fn. 23) and may have existed as early as 1279; tenants of Godmanchester are described as 'ad crucem.' (fn. 24) The road south to old Court Hall was then apparently called Post Street and later Silver Street. Pinfold Lane, which goes off eastward, is referred to in 1539. (fn. 25) In it are the almshouses erected in 1738 by Mrs. Barbary Manser for four dwellings and rebuilt in 1859 for two dwellings. In West Street are some 17th-century half-timber houses, and on the outskirts of the town is a timber and plaster house, formerly the 'Shepherd and Dog' Inn, which bears the date 1593 in the south-west gable. The upper story formerly projected, but has been underbuilt in brick. Further west on the opposite side is Belle Isle House, a 17th-century half-timber house. Returning to the main street, the house at the northeast corner of the island site has an overhanging upper story. Near this spot stood the Horse Shoe Inn in Post Street, (fn. 26) where much of the business of the town was transacted. Southward is Old Courthall, called from the place where the Court Hall, which was pulled down in 1844, formerly stood at the junction of Silver Street and the old bridle road running to Toseland. (fn. 27) At first apparently the hall was only a covered inclosure (fn. 28) in which the view of frankpledge was held, the courts and council meetings or 'parvis' being frequently held in private houses, a custom which persisted even after the Court House was built in 1508. (fn. 29) The Court House was apparently a half-timber building with overhanging gables, and around the walls in the hall were oak benches for the bailiffs. (fn. 30) Near the hall was the 'Pondefolde,' before the gates of the prior of Merton, which may be identified with the town pound, from which Pinfold Lane possibly took its name. Here the king had the right to impound the cattle distrained at the hundred court. (fn. 31) In Old Courthall are two 17th-century inns, the Queen Victoria Inn, a timber and plaster house with overhanging upper story, and the Red Lion Inn, a brick house. Corpus Christi Lane no doubt takes its name from the gild of that name which existed in the town in the 15th century. Here and in Duck End are some 17th-century cottages.

 

Ermine Street, which is not on the site of the original street of that name, comprises some interesting 17th-century houses, particularly Tudor House, of timber and plaster, at the north end of the street. It bears the date 1600 in the south gable and 1603 on the doorway. There are also two other good timber and plaster houses of a later date in the street. On the Cambridge Road is a 16th-century half-timber house, and also a brick house with a stone panel bearing the date 1714. On the west side of the London Road, on the outskirts of the town, is Porch Farm, a 16th-century house which takes its name from a picturesque wooden porch with brick base added at the end of the century; on the opposite side of the road is Lookers Farm, a 17th-century house with a good chimney stack.

 

MANOR

 

¶The manor of GODMANCHESTER was held by Edward the Confessor as 14 hides. (fn. 32) It was valued at £40 a year, which was a sum which it paid in 1086 to William the Conqueror, who succeeded to it as crown land. (fn. 33) Thus, as ancient demesne of the crown, it acquired certain privileges and obligations. (fn. 34) Before Michaelmas, 1190, (fn. 35) Richard I granted Godmanchester to David Earl of Huntingdon, at the increased farm of £50 to hold at the king's pleasure. (fn. 36) In 1194 a new grant in fee was made to the earl and his heirs. (fn. 37) The manor appears to have been in King John's hands in 1199, (fn. 38) but in the same year a new charter was obtained by the earl, (fn. 39) who held it in 1210–12 by the service of one knight's fee. (fn. 40) It again came into the king's hands in 1212, perhaps the most important date in the history of Godmanchester, for in that year King John granted the manor to 'the men of Godmanchester' to hold at the fee-farm rent of £120 a year. (fn. 41) Subsequent grants of the manor by Henry III in 1217 to Faulkes de Breauté, (fn. 42) in 1224 to the Master of the Templars for a debt, (fn. 43) and in 1236 to Eleanor of Provence as part of her dower, (fn. 44) were presumably grants of the rent only. In 1267 the fee-farm rent was granted to Edmund Earl of Lancaster, the king's second son, to hold by military service. (fn. 45) Queen Eleanor, as a widow, unsuccessfully sued her son in 1278 for the manor. (fn. 46) The possession of the rent was also complicated by the claims of Margaret Countess of Derby, one of the eventual co-heiresses of David of Huntingdon. (fn. 47) She seems to have obtained a grant of the manor from Edward I, and a similar grant was made by Edmund for her life at the annual rent of 12d. (fn. 48) Many of her receipts to the town for the fee-farm rent are still in existence. (fn. 49) On her death it reverted to the earls of Lancaster and the manor formed part of the Duchy of Lancaster, finally merging in the crown on the accession of Henry IV. (fn. 50) In 1662, Charles II granted the annual fee-farm rent to Edward Earl of Sandwich, (fn. 51) and it is still paid by the borough to the present Earl of Sandwich.

 

The charter of 1212 had transferred all the manorial rights at Godmanchester to the men of the manor to hold from the king and his heirs. (fn. 52) The privileges attached to the manor are not specified, but David Earl of Huntingdon had sac and soc, toll and theam and infangenthief, (fn. 53) and these, with possibly further rights, were exercised by the men of Godmanchester. The grant made the town, what is somewhat rare, a self-governing manor or liberty. It did not become a borough, and except the right of self-government, and the custom of borough-English, had none of the usually accepted marks of a borough. The charter was confirmed by Edward I, Edward III, Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI, Edward IV, Henry VII, Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary and Elizabeth. (fn. 54) Richard II, however, added a definite list of the privileges enjoyed by the men of Godmanchester. In 1381 he recognised that they and their predecessors in virtue of the charter of 1212 had the chattels of felons and fugitives and waifs and strays, (fn. 55) but in his charter of 1392 they were to have chattels of felons, fugitives, suicides, outlaws and those who renounce the realm of England, infangenthief, outfangenthief, and all forfeitures within the manor, both from residents and foreigners. (fn. 56) He also expressly confirmed their privilege as tenants of ancient demesne, of freedom from toll and similar dues throughout the kingdom. (fn. 57)

 

The earlier development of the manor from pre-Conquest days, which enabled the men of Godmanchester to obtain a grant of self-government, is unfortunately obscure. We learn little from the Domesday Survey (1086) as to the status of the inhabitants, but it seems probable that the 80 villiens and 16 bordars of Godmanchester, there recorded, (fn. 58) had been a community of free sokemen, holding their lands for a rent payable to the king; indeed in 1279 the tenants of Godmanchester all claimed to be and were accepted as free sokemen, with no bondmen among them. (fn. 59) The pre-Conquest organisation seems to have persisted to some extent during the 12th century, when payments to the sheriff are entered on the Pipe Rolls as due from the commonalty (communis) of Godmanchester. (fn. 60) As already pointed out, the payment of £40 from the manor in 1066 represented the amount received by the king, and it is possible that each holding was already assessed to pay its share of this sum annually. Such a practice was certainly established after 1212, and in 1279 over 500 tenements were assessed for payment of the fee-farm rent, generally at the rate of 8d. an acre. (fn. 61) The system i still in existence, each acre now paying 1d. towards the rent.

 

The most important result of the grant of the manor was that the king's officers ceased to hold the courts, though the phrases 'the King's manor' or in Elizabeth's reign 'the Queen's court' remained in use. (fn. 62) In 1286 the two town bailiffs claimed on behalf of themselves and the commonalty of the town to have gallows and to hold the view of frankpledge freely, but it was proved that they paid an annual fine of 20s. to the sheriff for the privilege. (fn. 63) In the 15th century the Duchy court decreed that this payment should no longer be made to the sheriff. (fn. 64) The bailiffs also held the usual three-weeks court of the manor, which was peculiarly important on the ancient demesne of the crown. The court rolls are preserved at Godmanchester from 1271; at first no distinction is made in the headings of the rolls between the two courts, the view only being distinguished by the presence of the 12 jurors. (fn. 65) By 1324, however, the roll of the view was kept separately, (fn. 66) though the regular series of rolls does not begin until the reign of Edward III.

 

The privileges of the liberty of Godmanchester oelonged to the tenants of holdings assessed to the payment of the fee-farm rent, their sons, daughters and widows. (fn. 67) Sons were admitted on reaching the age of twenty, daughters at sixteen. (fn. 68) Foreigners, or those living outside the manor, were also admitted to the freedom of the town at the three-weeks court, by the consent of the commonalty, on payment of a fine and the taking of an oath. (fn. 69) Sureties were required during the 15th century, but the custom disappeared in the reign of Henry VII. (fn. 70) All tenants were bound to be present at the view of frankpledge, and they elected the twelve jurors for the year, but it is not clear whether the tenants or all admitted to the freedom made this election. (fn. 71) Besides the ordinary business of the view, the bailiffs and jurors declared the customs or by-laws of the manor and acted as a town council. The earliest enrolled declaration is in 1278–9, (fn. 72) but in 1324 the commonalty empowered the two bailiffs and the jurors to draw up a custumal which should be accepted by all. The result represents the codification of ancient usage rather than the introduction of new rules. (fn. 73)

 

A second edition of the custumal was made in 1465, and later additions of the following century have been added on the same roll. (fn. 74) In 1324, for administrative purposes, the town was divided into four quarters or wards named after the chief streets of Godmanchester. The government consisted of two bailiffs, elected for one year by the twelve jurors. The bailiffs were chosen one year from Post Street and Erning (Arning) Street and in the alternate year from West Street and East Street. The elections of all officers took place in the court held next before the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin. All rolls were given into the custody of four keepers of the common chest. The complete list of other officials is not given, but mention is made of the collectors of the fee-farm rents and the chief warden of the mills. All officials were to render account of their year of office to the two bailiffs and the jurors. (fn. 75) The rolls of the coroners of Godmanchester exist for the reign of Edward II, so that they must have been functioning in 1324, although their election is not recorded till 1482. (fn. 76) In the 15th century, the election of the officers is regularly recorded in the court books of the threeweeks court. The officials then consisted of the two bailiffs, two constables, eight collectors of the farm, two from each street, two churchwardens, four collectors of amerciaments of the view, the collectors of the aletoll, the warden of the water and the subbailiff. (fn. 77) In 1484, the record shows that three jurors of the leet were elected from each street; (fn. 78) in 1485, the warden of the swans appears, (fn. 79) and in 1486 the bellman. (fn. 80) The clerk of the court is mentioned in 1376, (fn. 81) but no election is shown till 1497, (fn. 82) and it was probably a permanent and not an annual office. The business at the three weeks court consisted of the admission of freemen, landsuits and the surrenders of land, peculiar to manors of the ancient demesne, and civil cases where the damages claimed were under 40s. (fn. 83) In 1592 it was ordained by the bailiffs and jurors that in future cases in this court should be heard by the two bailiffs, three of the twelve suitors at the court on the day of trial and three or four ex-bailiffs. (fn. 84) Appeals from the manorial court were made to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and were heard in the court of the Duchy. (fn. 85) All land in Godmanchester, except the original endowment of the church, (fn. 86) was, and still is, held in socage of the ancient demesne of the crown. (fn. 87) The tenure was never merged, as elsewhere, in copyhold, although in the 16th century land is occasionally described as held by copy of court roll. (fn. 88) Every tenement when it changed hands was surrendered in court into the hands of the bailiffs, who gave seisin to the incoming tenant on payment of a fine or gersom. (fn. 89) This procedure is still followed, but the surrenders are not made in court, but only to the mayor of the borough and, under the Law of Property (Amendment) Act of 1924, this very rare survival of socage of the ancient demesne is disappearing. Each tenement when it is surrendered to the mayor passes to the incoming tenant as ordinary freehold property. All land suits were heard in the three-weeks court; (fn. 90) the cases were begun by the king's little writ of right close. The first writ appears on a 13th-century court roll (fn. 91) and the actual writs are generally attached to the roll on which the case was recorded. (fn. 92) A writ was brought into the Court of Pleas as late as 1805. (fn. 93) The procedure closely followed that of the royal courts in freehold suits. In the early cases in the 13th and 14th centuries, an assize was held with twenty-four jurors, (fn. 94) but later fines and recoveries 'according to the custom of the manor' were more common. (fn. 95) The town was very jealous of its rights, and there were many complaints in the Duchy Courts that tenants had been impleaded in the common law or other royal courts instead of the manorial court. (fn. 96) Except in the use of the little writ of right close, the Godmanchester tenure approximated to free socage and all the terms of a freehold tenure were used: a daughter was given her land in free marriage; (fn. 97) a widow obtained her dower; (fn. 98) no servile services were paid and the land was held for suit of court and a money rent, without even the boonwork often due from freehold land. (fn. 99) From the customal of 1324, it appears that a tenant could assign, sell or bequeath his land by will, saving only the right of the widow to her dower. (fn. 100) This right of the widow persists at the present day, so that a man still cannot sell his land without his wife's consent. The only other restriction in 1324 was the rule forbidding the sale of land to a foreigner or an ecclesiastic. (fn. 101) Land still descends by the rule of Borough English to the youngest son of the first wife, unless testamentary dispositions have been made bequeathing it differently. (fn. 102)

 

BOROUGH

 

Godmanchester remained a selfgoverning manor for nearly 400 years, but in the 16th century the town was increasingly prosperous and the townspeople wished for the privileges of incorporation. In their documents the use of such terms as corporation and burgess crept in, (fn. 103) and during a lawsuit in 1569 it was claimed that Godmanchester was 'an ancient borough time out of mind.' (fn. 104) The town used a common seal, (fn. 105) but legally they were not incorporated and when, in 1585, a newly admitted tenant, named Richard Fairpoint, defied the authority of the bailiffs and commonalty, he threatened to sue the bailiffs, officials, and chief inhabitants one by one. (fn. 106)

 

A charter of incorporation was obtained from James I in 1604, and Godmanchester became a free borough, under the name of 'the Bailiffs, Assistants and Commonalty of the borough of Gumecestre, alias Godmanchester.' (fn. 107) The government of the town, however, was but slightly altered, the Common Council being formed of two Bailiffs and twelve Assistants, who replaced the jurors of the view of frankpledge in matters of town legislation. The first officials were appointed by King James, but the bailiffs after a year of office were in the future to be elected in the Court next before the Nativity of the Virgin Mary by the existing bailiffs and assistants. The assistants were appointed for life and were replaced from the burgesses of the borough by election by the bailiffs and remaining assistants. (fn. 108) It may be noticed that the new constitution was less democratic and placed the power of election in the hands of the Common Council instead of the tenants and freemen. Even the jurors of the leet were in 1615 to be impanelled by the bailiffs. (fn. 109) Other officials under the new charter were the steward, (fn. 110) recorder and town clerk. The borough and manor were granted to the corporation to hold as previously at a fee-farm rent of £120 of lawful English money. (fn. 111)

 

During the Commonwealth, preliminaries were begun for obtaining a new charter, but nothing was actually done. (fn. 112)

 

In 1684, the charter of James I was surrendered to Charles II, but it was not restored before his death (fn. 113) and the following year James II granted a new charter. (fn. 114) The differences in it were small and, after the Revolution of 1688, all corporations were ordered to resume their former charters (fn. 115) and the corporation acted under the charter of 1604 until the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835. (fn. 116)

 

The lesser officials, though not named in the charter, were unchanged after the incorporation of the borough and the jurisdiction of the courts remained the same, though they became the courts of the bailiffs, assistants and commonalty instead of the courts of the King. (fn. 117) The manorial court became known as the Court of Pleas. (fn. 118)

 

A new edition of the by-laws was promulgated in 1615, repeating the main provisions of the older custumals of 1324 and 1465 and later enactments. Considerable additions had been made in the regulations of common rights; the most important, enacted in 1607, provided that only tenements constituted or divided before 28 September 1601 should have the right of common attached to them. (fn. 119) In consequence of these common rights, the freedom of the borough became of considerable value, and large sums were paid by foreigners for admission. (fn. 120) The curious custom by which a freeman gave a bucket and two scoops on admission is mentioned in 1635. (fn. 121) Afterwards the gift was commuted for money, but the system of purchasing the freedom of the borough came to an end in 1875, and the last payment instead of the bucket and scoops was made in 1876. (fn. 122) Now the freedom is an hereditary right and freemen only sign the roll on admission.

 

In 1835 the old constitution was swept away under the Municipal Corporations Act; a mayor and 4 aldermen and 12 councillors replaced the two bailiffs and assistants and the franchise was vested in the ratepayers. (fn. 123) The Court of Pleas had been growing of less and less importance, a few cases of debts and surrenders of land being its only business, but it continued as the mayor's court till 1847. (fn. 124) Special courts, however, were held for surrenders and giving seisin of land, (fn. 125) but latterly these have taken place in the mayor's presence only. The business of the court leet is now confined entirely to the stocking of the commons. It is held once a year by the mayor, when the 'grass-hirers' are appointed for the year, but the twelve jurors are no longer impanelled. (fn. 126) The limitation of the enjoyment of common rights to freemen tenants of commonable houses has led to a good deal of litigation, while the gradual exclusion of the freemen from the government of the borough has brought about outbreaks of discontent on their part. (fn. 127)

 

The seal of the borough is circular, 15/8 in. in diameter, with the device of a fleur de lis, possibly in reference to the dedication of the Parish Church, with the legend 'Commune Sigillum Gumecestre.' It seems to be of 13th century date. The mace is of silver of excellent design and bears the date 1745. The mayoral chain is of gold with enamel medallions, given by different donors since 1896.

 

For parliamentary purposes the borough was united to Huntingdon, which sent two members to Parliament. In 1867 the representation was reduced to one member and in 1885 it was merged into the county constituency.

 

No right to hold a market appears to have been granted to Godmanchester, but it seems probable that a market was held at the Horseshoe corner. In the bailiffs' accounts for 1533, there is an item paid for crying a cow and two stray horses in the market, (fn. 128) and in 1615 it certainly was the custom to bring fish to the 'Common Market' on Fridays. (fn. 129)

 

A fair on Easter Tuesday and the following Wednesday was granted by James I in the charter of 1604, together with a court of pie-powder. (fn. 130) It developed into an important horse and cattle fair held in the streets of the town near the old Court Hall. The cattle and sheep disappeared by 1870 after the rinderpest outbreak of the previous years, (fn. 131) but the horse fair continued till Easter 1914. It had been lessening in importance for some years and has never revived since the war. The charter of James II granted a second fair on the Tuesday after the Feast of SS. Simon and Jude, but the right to hold it ceased after the resumption of the old charter in 1688. (fn. 132) The court of pie-powder was held during the 17th century, (fn. 133) but it certainly was no longer held in 1834. (fn. 134)

 

¶The control of the waters of the Ouse has always been a matter of great importance to the town of Godmanchester. In the 13th century, the obstructions in the river put up by the Abbot of Ramsey, the Prior of Huntingdon and Reginald de Grey as lords of the mills respectively at Houghton, Hartford and Hemingford Grey led to complaints on the part of Huntingdon and not of Godmanchester, (fn. 135) but in the 15th century the latter town suffered severely by the continual flooding of its meadows. A series of complaints were made to the Court of the Duchy of Lancaster by the bailiffs and commonalty (fn. 136) and finally in 1524 the right to control the floodgates at Houghton and Hemingford was transferred from the Duchy authorities to the men of Godmanchester. (fn. 137) This right still exists and has been safeguarded in the various schemes for the improvement of the Ouse navigation, begun by Arnold Spencer in 1638. (fn. 138) It was finally confirmed to the borough in a judgment of the House of Lords in 1897 against Mr. Simpson, who had in 1893 acquired by purchase the entire rights of navigation granted to Spencer, and in the following year began an action against the corporation to prevent them from opening the sluice gates at Godmanchester, Hemingford and Houghton in times of flood. (fn. 139)

 

In 1279, the bailiffs of Godmanchester claimed that the town held a free fishery by the grant of King John and that they formerly had the right, as appurtenant to the manor, of fishing from Hayle to Swiftiswere, but were prevented by the Bishop of Lincoln and others from doing so. (fn. 140) The right to the free fishery continued, and from the borough custumal drawn up in 1615, it appears that the 'common fishers' of the town were bound to bring their fish to the common market at the Horseshoe corner every Friday and whenever they had fish to sell, on pain of a fine of 6s. 8d. (fn. 141).

 

In 1086 three water-mills were attached to the manor of Godmanchester, rendering 100s. yearly to the king. (fn. 142) The mills passed with the manor (q.v.) to the men of Godmanchester and in 1279 they paid 15s. a year to the fee-farm rent and a holm containing 8 acres was attached to them. (fn. 143) At the close of the 15th century they were let on lease, and this system seems to have been continued by the corporation until 1884. (fn. 144) At that time no tenant could be found. The corporation applied for leave to sell the property, but opposition was made on the ground that the freemen had the right to have their corn ground freely on the grist stone. No sale took place and the old mill stood derelict (fn. 145) and has been finally pulled down since 1926. A windmill is mentioned in 1599, when it was sold by Robert Green to Oliver Cromwell, alias Williams. (fn. 146)

 

CHURCH

 

The Church of ST. MARY consists of a chancel (44 ft. by 20 ft.) with organ chamber and two vestries on the north side, nave (72 ft. by 27 ft.), north aisle (15 ft. wide), south aisle (19 ft. wide), west tower and spire (19 ft. by 17½ ft.) and north and south porches. The walls are of stone and pebble rubble with stone dressings, except the tower, which is of ashlar. The roof coverings are of lead.

 

¶The church is mentioned in the Domesday Survey (1086) but, except for a few stones in the walling, nothing of this early building remains. The church seems to have been rebuilt about the middle of the 13th century, and of this period are the chancel, the west wall of the nave, and small parts of the west walls of the aisles. About 1340 a north vestry was added to the chancel, and at the end of this century and extending into the next a further reconstruction took place, beginning at the west end of the aisles and embracing the arcades, clearstory and porches, and the raising and altering of the chancel. The tower and spire, being ruinous, were taken down and rebuilt in 1623. The upper part of the south porch was rebuilt probably in 1669. The roofs and parapets were repaired early in the 19th century; the church was generally restored in 1853, the vestry rebuilt and the organ chamber and choir vestry added in 1860. A general restoration took place in 1885, and the chancel was restored in 1912.

 

The 13th-century chancel, reconstructed and raised c. 1510, (fn. 147) has an east window of three modern lancets. The north wall has a 15th-century two-light window, a 14th-century doorway to the clergy vestry, a 13th-century doorway (visible in the choir vestry), and a modern arch to the organ chamber. The south wall has three 15th-century windows of two-lights, the western set within an earlier opening, and a 15th-century doorway.

 

The chancel arch is two centred and of two chamfered orders resting on similar responds; most of the stones are of the 13th century, but the arch has been reconstructed and raised, c. 1490, (fn. 148) cutting into the sills of two 13th-century lancets in the gable above, the splays of which still retain some original painted decoration. Under it is a modern; screen. The low-pitched roof is practically all modern; the jack-legs rest on modern shafts and corbels.

 

The organ chamber and the two vestries on the north are modern, but in the east wall of the former is a reset 15th-century two-light window doubtless from the north wall of the chancel; and the vestry has a 14th-century single-light window reset.

 

The nave arcades, c. 1500, are of five bays, with two-centred arches of two moulded orders supported by narrow piers formed by the continuation downward of the outer orders of the arch between two attached shafts with moulded capitals and bases. The contemporary clearstory has five two-light windows on each side. The contemporary roof is of low pitch, has moulded beams, jack-legs and braces, but has been much restored.

 

The north aisle, c. 1500, has a five-light transomed east window with remains of niches in the splays, which now opens into the organ chamber; (fn. 149) at the extreme south end is a broken piscina. The north wall has four three-light transomed windows, and a reset 13th-century doorway, above which is a blocked doorway opening into a chamber over the porch. The west wall has a four-light transomed window, to the south of which is the splay of an earlier window. The pent roof has plain beams and curved braces, and the jack-legs are supported on carved corbels.

 

The south aisle, c. 1500, has in the east wall a fivelight transomed window, and a blocked doorway to the rood staircase. The south wall has three threelight windows and a two-light window, all transomed, a doorway with a moulded arch and jamb-shafts flanked on the outside by two niches, and a squareheaded doorway to the stairs leading to the chamber over the porch. The west wall has a four-light transomed window, to the north of which is the jamb and splay of an earlier window. The stairs to the rood loft were in a circular turret outside the wall at the north-east corner, now used as a smoke flue. The roof is similar to that of the north aisle.

 

The west tower, built in 1623, (fn. 150) has a 13th-century tower arch of three chamfered orders supported on semi-octagonal responds with carved stiff-leaf capitals and moulded bases. The west doorway has a moulded two-centred arch on sunk chamfered jambs and moulded imposts; (fn. 151) above it is a sunk panel with a shield bearing a fleur de lis and a scroll inscribed 'BVRGVS GVMECESTRE,' and above this another panel with date '1623.' Still higher are a pair of twolight windows with semicircular heads. In the next stage the north and south walls have each a two-light; and the belfry has coupled two-light windows with transoms. The tower has buttresses square at the angles, and is finished with an embattled parapet with pinnacles at the angles and a large fleur-de-lis on the central merlons. Behind the parapet rises an octagonal spire with three tiers of lights all on the cardinal faces; the top is 151 ft. 3 in. above the ground. The whole of the details are strongly tinged with Renaissance feeling, but a successful attempt has been made to harmonize with the architecture of the church.

 

The 15th-century north porch has a moulded two-centred arch on jambs with engaged shafts; the side walls have each a two-light window. Single-light windows in the east and west walls light the chamber above, and there is now a modern single-light window in the north wall. There is a small chamber over this porch, but the present roof and parapets are modern.

 

The 15th-century south porch has a four-centred outer archway with lily-pot at the apex of the label; on each side of it are large niches. Each side wall has two two-light windows. The chamber above, which is of later date, has a small single-light window in each of the outer walls, and a beam in the roof is dated 1669.

 

The 13th-century font (fn. 152) is an irregular octagon with crude carved heads projecting from the diagonal faces; the stem and base are modern.

 

There are eight bells, inscribed (1) Intactum sileo percute dulce cano: T. Osborn, Downham, fecit, 1794; (2) and (3) T. Osborn, founder, 1794; (4) Thomas Osborn, fecit. Our voices shall with joyful sound. Make hills and valleys eccho round. 1794; (5) T. Osborn, fecit, 1794; (6) J. Taylor & Co., Founders, Loughborough, 1870. F. T. Mc.Dougall, D.C.L., Vicar. P. E. Tillard, Henry Quince, Churchwardens; (7) T. Osborn, founder, 1794; (8) Revd. Castle Sherard, Rector, (fn. 153) Jno. Martin, Robt. Waller, Bailiffs, Jno. Scott, Richd. Miles, Ch. Wardens, T. Osborn, fecit: 1794. A sanctus bell seems to have remained as late as 1763. (fn. 154) Osborn had cast the whole peal of eight in 1794, using the metal of an earlier set of five; (fn. 155) the old fourth bell had been cast in 1710, by a shepherd at the Angel Inn in Godmanchester. (fn. 156) The bells were rehung and the 6th bell recast in 1870; it apparently had no inscription on it.

 

The 15th-century chancel stalls have shaped divisions with carved elbows, poppy heads and misericords, and panelled and traceried fronts. The carvings on the misericords include a falcon displayed, a dog with collar and resting on a cushion, a fleur-de-lis on a shield, a hare in the midst of a sun-in-splendour, (fn. 157) an ape, a wyvern, a fox and goose, the letters W.S. on a shield, (fn. 158) a cat and mouse; on the elbows a jester, angels, crowned heads, &c.; on the poppy heads two owls back to back, four birds, wyverns, etc.

 

Some of the fronts and backs of the modern seating and some of the bench ends have 15th-century tracery inserted in them.

 

In the nave is a chained oak poor-box, circular, bound with metal, and with a painted inscription. (fn. 159)

 

On one of the south buttresses of the chancel is a late 13th-century carved wheel-dial; and on the gable of the south porch is a small dial inscribed 'G. 1623. W.S.'

 

Lying loose in the porch is a portion of a 12th-century circular stone shaft with scale ornament.

 

On the floor of the nave is an early 16th-century brass figure of a civilian, with indents for two wives, two groups of children, and inscription panel; and in the chancel is the indent of an inscription plate.

 

There are the following monuments: In the chancel, to the Rev. Geoffrey Hawkins, Rector of Higham Gobion, Beds, d. 1727 (son of Geoffrey Hawkins, Rector of Chesterton, Hunts), Mary, his wife, d. 1750, and Hannah Worley, widow, d. 1771; Martha (Maylam) wife of George Rowley, d. 1765; John Hawkins, d. 1806; the Rev. Charles Gray, Vicar, d. 1854; and windows to the Rev. Charles Gray, Vicar, 1854; the Rev. W. P. E. Lathbury, Vicar, d. 1855; the Rev. John Hartley Richardson, curate, d. 1863; and the Rev. Henry Hart Chamberlain [d. 1899]. In the nave to Elizabeth (Meadows) wife of Edward Martin, d. 1805, and Edward Martin, d. 1853; Robert Hicks, d. 1825, Mary, widow of Rev. S. Hicks, Rector of Wrestlingworth, Beds, d. 1805, John Hicks, d. 1827, and Mary widow of Robert, d. 1862; floor slabs to Alured Clarke, d. 1744, Ann, his widow, d. 1755, and John Clarke, d. 1745; William Mehew, d. 1772, and Ann his wife, d. 1793; William Mehew, d. 1792; and Richard Miles, d. 1834. In the north aisle, to Alured Clarke, d. 1744, and family; Jos. Bull, d. 1764, Ann his wife, d. 1780, and Elizabeth their daughter, d. 1791; Thomas Townsend, d. 1792, Martha his wife, d. 1789, John, their son, d. 1799, and Ann, widow of John, d. 1817, James Stratton, d. 1800, son-in-law of Tho. Townsend, Ann his wife, d. 1835, Ann their daughter, d. 1826, George Turney her husband, d. 1825, and George Turney their son, d. 1835; John Chapman, d. 1858, and Edward Theodore, his son, d. 1859, Mary Chapman, widow of John, d. 1899; War Memorial 1914–18; and windows to Bishop Francis Thomas McDougall, Vicar, erected 1903; Frederick Robert Beart, d. 1905; Emma Frances Amelia Baumgartner, d. 1911. In the south aisle, to Thomas Betts, d. 1696, and Elizabeth his wife, d. 1700; Edward Martin, d. 1799, Alice his relict, d. 1801, and Harriet their infant daughter, d. 1788; John Martin, d. 1822, and Mary his wife, d. 1854; Henry Percy Tillard, d. 1858; John Thomas Baumgartner, d. 1874; Algernon Tillard, d. 1887; Francis Bonham Tillard, d. 1903, Helen wife of General Robert Julian Baumgartner, d. 1911; Mary Emily (Tillard) wife of Col. I. F. R. Thompson, d. 1915, and Lt.-Col. Ivan Frank Ross Thompson, d. 1917; Allen Victor Herbert, d. 1918; floor slabs to Thomas Bentley, d. 1709; John Martin, d. 1752; Elizabeth daughter of Samuel and Elizabeth Fox, d. 1755; Jane, relict of John Martin, d. 1789; and windows to two children of J. T. and P. Baumgartner, d. 1827 and 1844; Phoebe, wife of John Lancaster, d. 1833; John Thomas Baumgartner, d. 1874; Philipa Julia (Baumgartner) wife of Philip Tillard, d. 1885; Philip Tillard, d. 1887; the Rev. Preston John Williams, Vicar, erected 1894; General Robert Julian Baumgartner, d. 1895. In the tower, windows to Edward Martin, d. 1835, and Elizabeth his wife, d. . . . .; and William Beart, d. 1852. In the south porch to the wife and children of the Rev. H. H. Chamberlain.

 

The registers are as follows: (i) Baptisms, 23 Dec. 1604 to 3 Jan. 1642–3; marriages, 3 Jan. 1603–4 to 30 Aug. 1653, and 6 March 1742–3 to 8 Sept. 1754; burials, 1 Feb. 1604–5 to Dec. 1647, and 1653; (ii) baptisms, 30 Sept. 1653 to 5 Aug. 1660, and three entries in 1669, 1671 and 1674; marriages, 9 Jan. 1653–4 to 16 April 1718; burials, 3 Oct. 1653 to 14 May 1717; (iii) marriages, 13 April 1718 to 11 Jan. 1753; burials, 31 March 1718 to 24 Dec. 1751; (iv) baptisms and burials, 20 Oct. 1754 to 22 April 1798; (v) the official marriage book, 1 Aug. 1754 to 5 Nov. 1783; (vi) the same, 10 Nov. 1783 to 28 Feb. 1811; (vii) baptisms and burials, 13 Jan. 1798 to 30 Dec. 1812; (viii) the official marriage book, 6 March 1811 to 25 Oct. 1812. The first two books are in considerable disorder and apparently several years are missing, and the second book is much damaged by damp. The first book has been rebound and the second requires similar treatment.

 

The church plate consists of: A silver cup of Elizabethan date, no date letter; a silver gilt cup and cover paten, hall-marked for 1559–60; a silver plate engraved 'Benedicamus Patrem et filium cum spiritu,' and inscribed 'To the Glory of God and the use of St. Mary's Church, Godmanchester, 1848. E. I. W. dedit,' hall-marked for 1846–7; a silver alms-dish, engraved 'hilarem datorem diligit Deus,' and inscribed as last, hall-marked for 1847–8; a plated dish and flagon, the latter inscribed 'The gift of Charles Gray, M.A., Vicar, to the Parish Church of Godmanchester, A.D. 1834.'

 

ADVOWSON

 

The Church of St. Mary (fn. 160) is stated to have been given with 3 hides of land by King Edgar (c. 969) to the monks of Ramsey, (fn. 161) but it was no longer in their possession at the time of the Domesday Survey (fn. 162) and they never seem to have laid claim to it. In 1086 a church and priest were attached to the manor (fn. 163) and remained in royal possession until Stephen gave the church to Merton Priory in Surrey. (fn. 164) In 1284, the endowment of the church consisted of 48 acres of land and also 15 acres of meadow held by the Prior of Merton in commutation for all tithes of hay. (fn. 165) He held other lands, but these were assessed to the fee-farm rent and were not spiritualities. (fn. 166) After the Dissolution of the Monasteries, the rectory was granted in 1542 to the dean and chapter of Westminster (fn. 167) and except during the reign of Mary and the Commonwealth they have owned it ever since. (fn. 168) It has been held by a succession of lessees and in a lease of 1640 the dean and chapter stipulated for entertainment for two days and two nights for themselves or their officers at the lessee's expense. (fn. 169)

 

Between 1209 and 1219 the vicarage was instituted and two houses, land and meadow, as well as the vicarial tithes were assigned to it. (fn. 170) The advowson of the vicarage has always been held with the rectory, (fn. 171) although the first recorded presentation by the dean and chapter of Westminster was not till 1599. (fn. 172) A custumal of the vicar's tithing was drawn up in 1599 in great detail and is specially interesting in showing the payments made from parishioners who were not landholders. (fn. 173) In the 17th century the vicarage was too poor to support a suitable vicar for the town and consequently in 1655 the Town Council decided to purchase a house called the Star, next to the vicarage, which was ruinous. (fn. 174) The Star was finally annexed to the vicarage when the dean and chapter had recovered the patronage after the Restoration. (fn. 175) The purchase of the Star is an illustration of control of church affairs by the governing body both before and after Godmanchester became a borough. In 1532 the town officials appointed an organist and the expenses incurred over his engagement were charged to the bailiffs' account. (fn. 176) In the reign of Henry VI the two churchwardens appear amongst the elected officials of the town (fn. 177) and they accounted to the bailiffs and jurors. (fn. 178) Throughout the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries the churchwardens' accounts were presented to the Town Council, although in the 18th century protest was apparently made against the practice. In 1712 a churchwarden, apparently not a freeman of the borough, brought the matter into the spiritual courts to the great indignation of the Council, who decreed that he was never to be admitted to the freedom and also indemnified his successors against any damages they might incur during the trial. (fn. 179) In 1824, the Common Council enacted a careful table of precedence for its members in the corporation pews in the chancel. (fn. 180)

 

CHANTRIES

 

The Chantry of the Blessed Mary (fn. 181) or Roode's Chantry, (fn. 182) in the parish church, was in existence in 1297 (fn. 183) and possibly earlier, since in 1279 Martin the chaplain was a town tenant of 4½ acres of land and some meadow, though his benefice is not named. (fn. 184) In 1307, Roger de Strateshill, probably the chaplain of the chantry, wished to endow it with 31 acres of land and 4 acres of meadow to provide a daily celebration of mass, but difficulties appear to have arisen with John Dalderby, Bishop of Lincoln (1300–1329). (fn. 185) The matter was taken up by the town, and at the request of Henry Roode, apparently one of the bailiffs, licence was obtained from the king in 1316 for Roger de Strateshill's gift. (fn. 186) Further gifts of land are recorded (fn. 187) and each incumbent was seemingly given seisin for his life by the bailiffs, 'who reserved the right to annul the grant, thus avoiding any grant of the lands in mortmain. (fn. 188) The chantry was thus especially associated with the town and the chaplain was bound to pray, in English, at the daily mass 'for the good state, welfare and prosperity of the Bayliffs of this town, and all the Comynalty of the same, fundars of this Chauntre.' (fn. 189) At the time of the dissolution of the chantries, the chaplain both provided assistance to the vicar and was also master of a grammar school. (fn. 190) The possessions of the chantry, together with those of the Gilds of Corpus Christi (q.v.) and the Holy Trinity (q.v.) were seized by the crown and in 1553 were leased to John Shepherd and others of the royal household for twenty-one years at an annual rent of £35 16s. 10d. (fn. 191) The fee-farm rents of £5 15s. 5d. due to the bailiffs of Godmanchester were paid by the crown until 1592, (fn. 192) when Elizabeth, in a new lease to Peter Proby, remitted the fee-farm rent and a charge of 4s. payable to the poor and received a lower rent from the lessee. (fn. 193) Soon after the grant of the charter of 1604, the borough unsuccessfully attempted to recover the chantry lands and were involved in lawsuits in the Duchy courts and considerable expenses, (fn. 194) the issue being complicated by the grant in fee, in 1606–7 by James I, of the disputed lands to Edward Newport. (fn. 195) In 1657, they were held by Robert Barnard, (fn. 196) but it seems possible that they were seized by the Commissioners for the sale of fee-farm rents during the Protectorate, (fn. 197) since at some subsequent date they were attached to the Rectory on whose 'lessee the old crown rent of £30 per annum is charged as an annuity in augmentation of the vicarage as also with the sum of £5 19s. 5d. to the annual fee-farm rent of the town.' (fn. 198)

 

The Gild of Corpus Christi is first mentioned in 1366, (fn. 199) and the fraternity was an established body in 1396. (fn. 200) It consisted of brothers and sisters governed by two wardens. (fn. 201) A later benefactor was John Copegray, chaplain of the gild and vicar of Alconbury (1463–69). (fn. 202) After the dissolution of the chantries, the endowments, which amounted in 1536 to £11 7s. 4d. a year, (fn. 203) passed with those of Roode's Chantry (q.v.). The name is still preserved in Corpus Christi Lane.

 

The Gild of the Holy Trinity was founded before 1279, when William, chaplain of the Trinity, held 1½ acre of land. (fn. 204) It was governed by two wardens (fn. 205) and is mentioned in wills of Godmanchester inhabitants, (fn. 206) but its endowments were small and at its dissolution amounted to only £3 4s. 9d. a year. (fn. 207) Edmund Archpole was then chaplain of both Corpus Christi (q.v.) and Holy Trinity Gilds, (fn. 208) but there does not seem to have been any formal amalgamation of the gilds. The lands of the gild followed the descent of those of Roode's chantry (q.v.).

 

Little is known of the origin of the Gild of St. John the Baptist, (fn. 209) but it was founded before 1359, when William Balle seems to have been the chaplain. (fn. 210) Possibly the gild had a separate chapel, since 'land next to the chapel' are mentioned at the same date. (fn. 211) The fraternity appears in the town rentals until 1549, (fn. 212) but all trace of it is afterwards lost and its lands do not appear in the certificate of chantry lands at the dissolution of the chantries. Nine acres of land formed the endowment of certain lights and lamps in the church, and they were valued at 22s. 2d. a year after deducting the fee-farm rent. (fn. 213) In 1553, obit lands appear in the lease of chantry lands to John Shepherd and to later tenants (fn. 214) and a payment of 1s. 10½d. a year to the bellman was chargeable on the chantry lands. (fn. 215)

 

At the present time there is a Particular Baptist Chapel, founded in 1815, and the Union Chapel, built in 1844, to replace an older chapel. (fn. 216)

 

CHARITIES

 

The following charities are regulated by a scheme of the Charity Commissioners dated 12 February 1926:—

 

Christopher Fisher in 1674 gave a piece of land containing 2 a. and 3 r. in Reed Meadow, and John Dryden by a declaration of trust dated 17 Dec. 1708 gave the sum of £200 which was laid out in the purchase of 24 a. 1 r. 20 p. of land, the rents to be applied in apprenticing poor children of the parish. The endowment of the charities now consists of £1,578 8s. 9d., 2½ per cent. Consols and various other sums of stock with the Official Trustees, the whole producing about £60 annually in dividends which are applied in apprenticing.

 

John Banks by will dated 19 November 1707 charged his lands and hereditaments in Dunton with a yearly payment of £12 to be applied for apprenticing and for the poor. The endowment now consists of a rentcharge of £12 per annum issuing out of Millow Hall Farm, Dunton, £21 1s. 5 per cent. War Stock and £25 4 per cent. Victory Bonds with the Official Trustees. £5, part of the rentcharge, is applied for the benefit of the poor and the residue £7 is applied for apprenticing.

 

Note.—Under clause 19 of the above-mentioned scheme the trustees are empowered to apply that part of the income applicable for apprenticing and not required for that purpose in assisting poor persons in the case of Banks's charity and in assisting poor boys for their advancement in life in the case of Fisher's and Dryden's charities.

 

Fishbourne's Charity. This charity consists of a rentcharge of 10s. per annum issuing out of hereditaments at Hartford. The rent is distributed by the mayor to four poor widows not in receipt of parish relief.

 

Anonymous Charity for Poor founded in 1727. The endowment of this charity consists of a rentcharge of 3s. 4d. per annum charged upon or issuing out of hereditaments in Post Street. This sum is distributed in bread amongst the poor of the parish.

 

Grainger's Gift. Robert Grainger by will dated 10 October 1578 charged his mansion-house in Godmanchester with one comb of wheat to be made into bread and distributed among the poor. The value of one comb of wheat is now charged upon property in Godmanchester now in the occupation of Mr. W. F. Beart and distributed to the poor of the parish in bread.

 

¶The charity known as the Rectory Charge was founded by deed dated 27 January 1443 for the benefit of the poor of the parish. The endowment consists of four quarters of wheat and three quarters of barley charged on the Rectory Farm, Godmanchester. Under the provisions of the above-mentioned scheme the vicar and the mayor (ex-officio trustees) and six representative trustees appointed by the Borough Council, were appointed the trustees of the charities.

 

Almshouses. These consist of four almshouses in East Chadleigh Lane, Godmanchester, built with money given in 1723 by Mr. Dryden, together with two small almshouses in Penfold Lane (known as Manser's Charity) formerly four houses but converted into two. There are no endowments in connection with these almshouses, which are kept in repair at the parish expense.

 

www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/hunts/vol2/pp286-296

This is R.A.Long high school. To take this photo, I stood the farthest I could away from the school to satisfy requirement 2. I then looked straight ahead from the building and shot this photo, purposely changing my aperture to f/7.6 and ISO to 800 to avoid the bright light because I wanted to make this photo have a darker mood because high school sucks. Looking at the windows, the shape of the building, and the poles, they all create parallel vertical lines. I also like the viewpoint o the grass running towards the face of the school to capture full focus on the building.

+++ 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 Dewoitine D.520 was a French fighter aircraft, designed in response to a 1936 requirement from the French Air Force for a fast, modern fighter with a good climbing speed and an armament built around a 20 mm cannon. At the time the most powerful V 12 liquid-cooled engine available in France was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y, which was less powerful, but lighter than contemporary engines such as the Rolls-Royce Merlin and Daimler-Benz DB 601. Other fighters were designed to meet the specifications but none of them entered service, or entered service in small numbers, too late to play a significant role during the Battle of France.

 

Unlike the Morane-Saulnier M.S.406, which was at that time the most numerous fighter in the French Air Force, the Dewoitine D.520 came close to being a match for the latest German types, such as the Messerschmitt Bf 109. It was slower than the Bf 109E but superior in manoeuvrability. Because of a delayed production cycle, only a small number were available for combat against the Luftwaffe. The D.520 proved to be relatively capable as a dogfighter against the Luftwaffe's inventory, but lacked sufficient numbers to make a difference.

 

Other countries – aware of the aggressive German neighbor – became interested in the D.520, too. Among them, Czechoslovakia was one of the first customers. The country was about to modernize its air force and make the transition from biplane to modern monoplane fighters, and an indigenous development, the Avia B.35, was lagging behind schedule. The Avia B.35 was designed to meet a 1935 requirement by the Czechoslovakian Air Force for a replacement for their B-534 fighter biplanes. The B.35 was an elegant, low-wing monoplane with an elliptical wing. The fuselage was constructed from welded steel tube, covered in metal ahead of and including the cockpit and fabric aft of the cockpit, while the wing was of entirely wooden construction. Rather anachronistically, the Air Force specified a fixed tailwheel undercarriage for the aircraft, in the hope that this would speed development, as the mechanism for retracting the undercarriage was not yet available.

 

However, in late 1937 it had become clear that the B.35 would not be ready soon, and the Czechoslovakian air force was in dire need for faster fighters that could cope with the German Bf 109E.

The relations to France led to the provision of the Dewoitine D.520, which was about to enter service and production, and the type was to be produced (including the engines) in license at Tatra.

 

These plans were to no avail, though: On 29 September 1938, Britain and France ceded control in the Appeasement at the Munich Conference; France ignored the military alliance it had with Czechoslovakia, and during October 1938, Nazi Germany occupied and annexed the Sudetenland border region, effectively crippling Czechoslovak defences.

In order to improve the Czechoslovak air force, twelve early D.520 fighters were directly procured from France and delivered in February 1939 (even though these machines came unarmed and had to be outfitted with weapons locally). Domestic production was expected to start – initially supported through kitted aircraft from France - in late 1939, with the plan to produce 200 aircraft. But this never happened: on 15 March 1939, the remainder ("rump") of Czechoslovakia was invaded and divided into the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia and the puppet Slovak State.

 

The small band of Czechoslovak D.520 fought valiantly with the 38th Field Flight for a few weeks, but due to the lack of spare parts and the overwhelming number of German fighters, the small fighter force only lasted for a couple of weeks, and by mid-1939 all machines were destroyed or had become unserviceable.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: one

Length: 8.6 m (28 ft 3 in)

Wingspan: 10.2 m (33 ft 5⅓ in)

Height: 2.57 m (8 ft 5 in)

Wing area: 15.87 m2 (171 ft²)

Empty weight: 2,123 kg (4,680 lb)

Loaded weight: 2,677 kg (5,902 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 2,785 kg (6,140 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1× Hispano-Suiza 12Y-45 liquid-cooled V12 engine, rated at 690 kW (930 hp)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 560 km/h (302 kn, 347 mph)

Range: 1,250 km (675 nmi, 777 mi)

Service ceiling: 10,000 m (33,000 ft)

Rate of climb: 14.3 m/s (2,820 ft/min)

Wing loading: 167 kg/m2 (34.2 lb/ft2)

Power/mass: 257 W/kg (0.156 hp/lb)

 

Armament:

1× 20 mm Hispano-Suiza HS.404 cannon with 60 RPG,

mounted between the engine’s cylinder bank and firing through the propeller hub

4× 7.92 mm (0.312 in) vz. 30 (Česká zbrojovka Strakonice) machine guns

with 250–300 RPG in the outer wings

  

The kit and its assembly:

A quickie and the reaction to a recently posted profile from fellow modeler Wenzel from the Czech Republic in April 2018 at whatifmodelers.com: a Dewoitine D.520 in Czechoslovak pre-WWII colors and markings. Even though the profile’s indicated time frame would be somewhat fishy, I liked the design of this whif. And the fact that I had a surplus Hobby Boss D.520 kit without a concrete plan (yet) in the stash made me spontaneously tackle this small project.

 

The kit was built OOB, and it is – like many small Hobby Boss kits – a very simple affair with engraved panel lines and a rather rudimentary cockpit. Another weak point is the canopy. While it is perfectly clear, the shape looks a bit odd to me, as if oversized. The fit is not bad, but unfortunately there are location pins/struts molded into the single piece part, and these remain visible even if you build the model OOB.

 

The only changes I made are some added cockpit interior details, and I cut the canopy into pieces so that it could later be presented in open position for the beauty pics.

  

Painting and markings:

I stuck with the inspiring profile, as close as possible. It did not come with detailed information about the potential Czech squadron, but after doing some legwork I found out that the profile’s markings (the “H” code and the blue propeller spinner) belong to the Czechoslovak Air Force’s 38th Letka around 1938.

 

The profile also came with FS tone suggestions, and I stuck to them as good as possible, too. For the Dark Brown (FS 30108) I used Humbrol 10 mixed with some 160. The Dark Green (FS 34097) is Humbrol 105 (Marine Green) and the Tan tone (FS 30266) is RAL 7028 (German WWII Dunkelgelb, from Modelmaster). The latter was used on purpose in order to have a less reddish sand tone on the aircraft.

I also deviated from the benchmark on the undersides, for which FS 36495 had been suggested. I found the tone to be too light for my taste and replaced it with Light Gull Grey (FS 36440, Humbrol 129). The spinner was painted with a mix of Humbrol 15 and 89, trying to match the national markings as good as possible.

 

As usual, the kit received a light black ink washing and some post-shading in order to emphasize panels.

 

The cockpit interior was painted in dark grey, while the landing gear and its wells became bluish-grey (according to French aircraft).

 

The markings were gathered from the scrap box: the Czech roundels come from a recent KP Yak-23 sheet (printed by Propagteam), the tactical letter code was created with white, modern 24” RAF code letters from Xtradecal. My only personal addition is the manufacture code on the fin in front of the roundel, taken from the OOB sheet.

 

Finally, some soot stains around the gun ports and the exhausts were added with graphite, some more very light dry-brushing with acrylic pale grey was done, and the D.520 received a coat with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri).

  

A quick and simple project, but a nice distraction from the recent Cold War builds. I like how well the D.520 blends into its fictional Czech role, due to the same engine that powered several pre-WWII Avia designs. The disruptive scheme suits the aircraft, well, too, and with the Czech roundels the whole thing can even be called colorful!

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The Boeing 727 was an American midsized, narrow-body three-engine jet aircraft built by Boeing Commercial Airplanes from the early 1960s to 1984. Intended for short and medium-length flights, it could carry 149 to 189 passengers and later models could fly up to 2,700 nautical miles (5,000 km) nonstop. It was originally powered by three Pratt & Whitney JT8D engines below the T-tail, one on each side of the rear fuselage with a center engine that connected through an S-duct to an inlet at the base of the fin.

 

The 727 followed the 707 and the 720, both quad-jet airliners, with which it shared its upper fuselage cross-section and cockpit design. The 727 was designed as a more economical alternative to the 707/720s and was tailored to operations from smaller airports, so independence from ground facilities was an important requirement. This led to one of the 727's most distinctive features: the built-in airstair that opened from the rear underbelly of the fuselage, which initially could be opened in flight (a feature that was later blocked). Nose wheel brakes were available as an option to reduce braking distance on landing, which provided reduction in braking distances of up to 150 m. In order to protect the tail section in the event of an over-rotation on take-off, the 727 was equipped with a retractable tailskid. Another innovation was the auxiliary power unit (APU), which allowed electrical and air-conditioning systems to run independently of a ground-based power supply, and without having to start one of the main engines. An unusual design feature was that the APU was mounted in a hole in the keel beam web, in the main landing gear bay.

 

The 727's fuselage had an outer diameter of 148 inches (3.8 m). This allowed six-abreast seating (three per side) and a single aisle when 18-inch (46 cm) wide coach-class seats were installed. An unusual feature of the fuselage was the 10-inch (25 cm) difference between the lower lobe forward and aft of the wing, as the higher fuselage height of the center section was simply retained towards the rear.

 

The 727 proved to be such a reliable and versatile airliner that it came to form the core of many startup airlines' fleets. The 727 was successful with airlines worldwide partly because it could use smaller runways while still flying medium-range routes. This allowed airlines to carry passengers from cities with large populations, but smaller airports, to worldwide tourist destinations. One of the features that gave the 727 its ability to land on shorter runways was its clean wing design: With no wing-mounted engines, leading-edge devices (Krueger, or hinged, flaps on the inner wing and extendable leading edge slats out to the wingtip) and trailing-edge lift enhancement equipment (triple-slotted, fowler flaps) could be used on the entire wing. Together, these high-lift devices produced a maximum wing lift coefficient of 3.0 (based on the flap-retracted wing area).

 

The 727-100 first flew in February 1963 and entered service with Eastern Air Lines in February 1964; the stretched 727-200 flew in July 1967 and entered service with Northeast Airlines that December. After the global success of the -100 and especially the stretched -200 series, Boeing considered another version, the -300 series, a thoroughly modified variant, dedicated to the South American and Asian markets and optimized for “hot and high” climate operations.

 

The basis for the -300 was the extended -200 airframe, but in order to improve security as well as landing and starting characteristics, a fourth engine was added for extra thrust. This changed the tail layout completely, since the central JT8D and its S-duct were deleted. Instead, the 727-300’s four engines were re-arranged in two new twin-nacelles along the reinforced rear fuselage, similar to the Vickers VC-10 and Ilyushin Il-62 long-range airliners, which were both bigger/heavier aircraft, though. With the fourth engine’s extra power, the -300 became the Boeing 727 variant with the shortest take-off run: only 1.5 miles were necessary to get airborne (vs. 2 miles for late 727-200 variants and even less than 1,6 miles for the lighter, early 727-100). It also had the highest operational ceiling and an improved rate of climb, but top speed and range remained virtually unaffected.

 

In order to better cope with smaller airfields with less-than-perfect runways and higher landing speeds, the -300’s landing gear was reinforced and the twin wheels on the 727’s main legs replaced with four-wheel bogies. This necessitated bigger landing gear wells and the relocation of the APU into the rear fuselage, occupying the space of the former middle engine. The 727’s tail-mounted airstair was retained, and basically any interior feature and layout of the 727-200 cabin could be ordered for the -300, too, including side freight doors and equipment for mixed cargo/passenger operations.

 

Even though thrust-reversers were planned for all four engines, the inboard devices were omitted for serial production aircraft due to continued tail plane buffeting on the prototype, which flew in March 1970 for the first time. In order to compensate for this loss of braking power, Boeing’s engineers added a unique feature to the 727-300: a drogue parachute, which could be deployed to relieve the brakes and augment the outer JT8D’s thrust reversers, once the landing speed had been reduced to 80 knots or less. The parachute was mounted in a clamshell compartment in the now empty tail section.

 

However, the improved performance came at a price: through its additional engine, the 727-300 turned out to be costly to operate, being almost on par with the 707 and 720 models, which the 727 was originally intended to replace. In consequence, this specialized variant was only built in small numbers and found only a few operators. Launch customer was Aéromexico in 1972, ordering ten -301 machines primarily for domestic and South American routes. Other major civil operators became Air India with eight -302 machines, TAME (EP Linea Aerea del Ecuador) with six -303 aircraft, and Aerolíneas Argentinas with five -304 aircraft. A total of six machines were furthermore built under the designation C-22D for military operators; two of them flew as VIP transports for the USAF (also carrying out CIA missions, the integral airstair was a convenient detail of the type), and two each flew for the air forces of Mexico and Pakistan.

 

The highest production rate of the 727 was in the 1970s. Airport noise regulations have led to 727s being equipped with hush kits, the last 727 was completed in 1984. Successor models include variants of the 737 and the 757-200. The last commercial passenger flight of the 727 was in January 2019 in Iran, even though a few machines of the type still remain in government and private use or operate as freighters.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 3 (+ 3 flight attendants)

Length: 153 ft 2 in (46.68m)

Wingspan: 108 ft (32.92m)

Height: 34 ft 11 in (10.65m)

Wing area: 1,650 sq ft (153 m²), 32° sweep

Empty weight: 100,700 lb (45,720 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 209,500 lb (95,100 kg)

Fuel capacity: 8,090 US gal (30,620 l)

Cabin width: 140 in/3.56m

Two-class seats: 134 (20F@38" + 114Y@34")

Single-class seats: 155@34", absolute maximum of 189 passengers

 

Powerplant:

4× Pratt & Whitney JT8D-11 low-bypass (0.96 to 1) turbofan engines,

delivering 15,000 lbf (66.72 kN) each

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: Mach 0.9 (961 km/h; 519 kn)

Cruise speed: Mach 0.86 (917 km/h; 495 kn)

Landing speed: 151 ml/h (244 km/h; 135 kn)

Rate of climb: 1,920 ft/min (9.8 m/s)

Maximum service ceiling: 44,550 ft (13,600 m)

Range: 1,900 nmi (2,173 ml, 3,500 km)

Takeoff distance to 35 ft (11 m): 7,860 ft (2,400 m)

Landing distance from 50 ft (15 m): 2,160ft at maximum gross landing weight with thrust reverser,

1,800ft with additional drogue parachute deployment

  

The kit and its assembly:

This model became the third and relatively spontaneous entry for the “More or less engines” group build at whatifmodelers.com. It was actually an early idea for the GB, but I rejected it at first because I usually do not build small-scale airliners and did not have any ingredient for the build at hand. However, a fellow modeler had a similar idea, a four-engine Sud Aviation Caravelle, and upon discussing the project in the forum I became eventually convinced to build this conceptual sister ship, even though the procurement of its major ingredients took some time.

 

I considered and checked several Boeing 727 kits on the market, and settled for the Minicraft kit – in particular its USAF C-22C boxing. The Revell kit, a 727-100, was rejected as outdated rubbish and due to its short fuselage, and the Airfix kit, a long -200, also fell through because of its raised surface details and simply for being an Airfix kit.

The Minicraft kit was the only option left – and even though it has its weak points, too (like the wings’ massive leading edges and a so-so fit of the fuselage halves), it turned out to be a sound basis for this modification project. Its main selling points were engraved surface details, the lack of passenger cabin window openings and separate decals for the windows. Esp. the latter two factors were an important part of my construction and painting plan for this build (see below).

 

Another important ingredient for this build were the engines. For a quad-engine conversion I found a resin set for VC-10 engines from Bra.Z Models (and procured them from Hong Kong!), which are a good match in size and shape. Furthermore, due to the more massive rear end and potential operations from less-than-perfect runways, I decided to replace the original twin main wheels with four-wheel bogies, taken from the remains of a Hasegawa 1:200 Boeing 747 kit. Since the 727’s main landing gear well doors remain closed on the ground, this change was relatively simple to make.

 

The only major change beyond the engine nacelle swap concern the fin and the tail tip: the original 2nd engine and its air intake with the S-duct had to go. This stunt was more challenging than it sounds at first, because the intake duct widens the fin’s root considerably, and the respective bulge reaches very far back, almost reaching the rudder!

This meant that a considerable portion of the fin had to be cut away, what also left a gap in the fuselage spine. The latter was filled with a piece of 0.5mm styrene sheet from inside of the fuselage (before the halves were glued together), and then a “prosthesis” from 1.5mm styrene sheet was inserted into the gap in the fin, trying to sculpt a suitable profile with a mild curve at the fin’s base, inspired the early 737s’ fin shape.

Around this skeleton, I built the new fin with the help of 2C putty, because some serious sculpting was necessary to create a suitable fin profile and shape that would blend into the existing fin section. A proper intersection at the fin’s base had to be created, too, a real 3D puzzle, more complex than one might think at first!

 

The tail exhaust opening was trimmed down to a wedge shape, and then the tail tip was filled/sculpted with a 2C putty plug, creating a clamshell shape for the fictional brake parachute container without extending the tail tip too much.

A small APU outlet was added on the new tail tip’s starboard side, too, while the APU’s intake was placed in the fin’s lower leading edge. The original ventral APU intake between the wings was faired over.

 

One of the Minicraft kit’s weak points is the shape of the wings’ leading edges: they look very crude and solid, with an almost vertical front. In an attempt to mend this flaw, I tried to give the leading edges a more rounded shape with the help of putty.

 

The model’ nose section was filled with a lot of lead and, for the model’s in-flight pics, I added a ventral, vertical styrene tube in the model’s center of gravity as a display holder adapter.

  

Painting and markings:

The idea behind this four-engine 727 was a dedicated “hot & high” variant, so I searched for an obvious operator, and it was to be a commercial airline. Mexico became my first and favorite candidate, despite the fact that Aéromexico did not operate any Boeing aircraft during the Seventies, rather a fleet of mixed Douglas aircraft. I also found the airline’s livery of that era to be very attractive, with an NMF finish and orange and black trim - very elegant and colorful.

 

Finding suitable decals became a challenge, though. After some research I found a DC-8 Aéromexico sheet from 26decals – it not only matched the intended time slot, it also had the benefit of coming with separate decals for cheat lines and windows. This was a perfect match for the window-less Minicraft Boeing 727 kit, and, as a convenient complement, the kit’s C-22 boxing had the benefit that it depicts a uniform, white aircraft, so that its decal sheet comes with “clean” window and door decals, without any colored background. A perfect match for my plan!

 

Painting was straightforward. After having finished the building phase, I gave the model an initial coat of grey acrylic primer from the rattle can. Some small surface blemishes had to be corrected, and then I added light grey panels on top of the wings and the stabilizers (Humbrol 40, gloss FS 36440). The fin as well as the engine pods and the wing tips were painted in orange; Humbrol 18 (Gloss Orange) came very close to the decals’ tone. These areas were masked with Tamiya tape and then the model received an overall coat with a tone called “White Aluminum”, also from the rattle can.

 

Thereafter, the decals for the orange and black trim were applied. Since the DC-8 decals would not fit the 727 fuselage in every place, orange paint and generic black and silver decal stripes (TL Modellbau) were used for fine-tuning. Once the “style” decals were applied, the windows were added and the model received an overall coat of gloss acrylic varnish, also from the rattle can.

 

In a final step, the landing gear (painted all glossy white) was mounted.

  

This conversion appears simple at first sight, but the execution caused some headaches. The challenge was not so much building this model, but rather getting all the major input parts and pieces together. Creating a new fin shape was also more challenging than one would expect at first sight. However, the result is quite subtle, and I guess that this fictional 727-300 might make some people look twice, since it reminds a lot of the (bigger) Vickers VC10. Indeed, the outlines are very similar.

 

This photo satisfied requirement 1, 2 and 4. I took this photo when I was waiting across the street. I used the moving car as my subject to create the motion-blurred to fulfil requirement 2. I shot this photo in a sunny afternoon, so I used ISO 50 and f / 10.0 to allow fewer lights into my camera. I chose the shutter speed as 1 / 10 to lower the noise level. Afterwards, I used Lightroom to adjust my white balance, so the colour tones are now bluer. This adjustment helps to fulfil requirement 4. The lower part of the photo is also over-exposed, which satisfied the requirement 1.

 

The trend to design bigger and more powerful tanks is universal but the results are not always impressive. The requirement for a 45 ton tank was issued in May 1941 and taken up by Dr Porsche on one hand and by Henschel & Co. on the other. Trials of prototypes in 1942 reveald that the Henschel design was the more practical and production began in July 1942. By this time specifications had changed and the tank would weigh in the region of 57 tonnes, and mount an 88mm KwK 36 gun behind a maximum 110mm of armour on the turret front.

 

It was a formidable combination. The gun was very effective and extremely accurate while the armour was proof against most contemporary anti-tank guns at anything but the closest range. Yet it was not all progress. the Tiger was so wide it had to be narrowed down to travel by rail and in bad conditions the overlapping wheels trapped mud and ice sufficient to bring the big tank to a halt. The engine had a nasty habit of catching fire while the gearbox, if subjected to great stress, was liable to break down. If this happened the repair crew had to lift the turret off to get at it.

 

For all that the Tiger was regarded as formidable. It saw action in Russia, Tunisia, Sicily, Italy and north west Europe (although production was limited to just 1,354 tanks) and it was feared by all Allied tank crews, which gave the Panzer forces a considerable pyschological advantage. Even so it would probably be fair to say that more Tigers were lost through mechanical failure than combat action.

 

Our exhibit was in service with 3 Platoon (Troop), 1 Kompanie, Schwere Panzer Abteilung 504, German Army

 

It was captured by 48 RTR, A Squadron, 4 Troop, at Djebel Djaffa, Tunisia, on 21st April 1943.

 

This tank was the first Tiger to be captured intact by British or U.S. forces when it was knocked out in the final month of the Tunisian campaign. It arrived in Tunisia some time between 22nd March and 16th April 1943 and was involved in an action with 48 RTR near Medjez-el-Bab on 21 April 1943. It knocked out two Churchills but a shot from another's six pounder stuck the gun mantlet, and although unable to penetrate the tank's thick armour, jammed the turret and wounded the commander. Damage is still visible on the mantlet, superstructure front plate and turret lifting boss. The crew abandoned the tank and it was recovered the next day and refurbished using parts from other vehicles. The Tiger was later displayed in Tunis and inspected there by King George VI and Winston Churchill. In October 1943 it was sent to the School of Tank Technology for evaluation and in November 1944 displayed on Horse Guards Parade.

 

Precise Name: Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Aus E

  

Other Names: Pz Kpw VI, SdKfz 181, VK 4501(H), SdKfz 182, Tiger Aus H1

 

DESCRIPTION

 

The Tiger has attained almost mythical status: it is the one German tank that nearly everyone recognises.

 

This is due in part to its’ psychological dominance of the battlefield – at one time every enemy tank was a ‘Tiger’ to its opponents – reinforced by the exploits of ‘tank aces’ like Michael Wittman and Otto Carius, heavily publicised by German propaganda.

 

There is no doubt that the Tiger I was a formidable weapon. This was because of its’ lethal 8.8cm gun, thick armour and excellent optical sights as well as the high standard of training of the Panzer crews. It is equally true that it had weaknesses: its’ great weight and relative lack of power restricted its’ tactical mobility, it was difficult to transport by rail, it was mechanically unreliable, it was prone to engine fires and it required frequent skilled maintenance.

 

The Germans started a limited heavy tank programme in 1937 but large-scale work didn’t begin until the spring of 1941. The object was to counter the perceived threat from new British tanks and anti-tank guns. The whole program was approached with greater urgency after German troops encountered the Soviet T34/76 and KV1 tanks in July 1941 during the invasion of the Soviet Union.

 

The development history of this first generation of German heavy tanks is complex. The first product of the heavy tank programme was the Panzerkampfwagen VI (Porsche) also known as the VK4501 (P). This was a radical design that used petrol-electric propulsion. The Porsche project experienced severe technical difficulties and it was decided in May 1941 that the Henschel Company would design a second heavy tank, the VK4501 (H) based on the components developed for an earlier, lighter, project, the VK3601.

 

It was agreed that both the Henschel and Porsche tanks would be armed with an 8.8cm gun derived from the 8.8cm Flak 18 anti-aircraft gun. The gun would be mounted in the turret originally developed by Krupp for the Porsche tank. It was also decided that the front armour would be at least 100mm thick while the sides would be 60mm thick.

 

Prototypes of both tanks were built and tested during the summer of 1942. Following these trials it was decided at the end of October 1942 that the Henschel prototype would be the new heavy tank.

 

Ninety Porsche Tigers were converted into Assault Guns called the Ferdinand. They were armed with the long 8.8cm PaK43/2.

One historian has described the development of the Henschel Tiger as ‘a rushed job’. The only major new component was the Maybach petrol engine, initially the HL210, replaced during production by the slightly larger HL230. The suspension, transmission, steering gear and hull developed from designs for earlier Henschel projects, the VK 3001 and VK3601. The turret was a modified version of the one developed for the Porsche Tiger. This reuse of existing designs could also be considered as pragmatic and sensible engineering.

 

One of the constraints on German heavy tank designs was a need to keep the weight down to less than 30 tons so that existing bridges could be used. Another was a restriction on the width of tanks to fit within the railway loading gauge, a prerequisite for strategic mobility. The weight limit made it very difficult to produce a balanced design that met the joint requirements to carry a big gun and have thick armour. The weight constraint was removed when it was realised that there were very few bridges in Eastern Europe that could bear even a 30 ton load. It was then decided that new medium and heavy tank designs should have a deep wading capability. The Tiger I eventually weighed 57 tons.

 

The Tiger hull was built from welded armour plate. The armour on the front of the superstructure and turret was 100mm thick, the sides 80mm thick. The turret was a horseshoe shape and mounted the 8.8cm KwK36 gun. The gun, 56 calibres long and with a muzzle velocity of 930 metres/second, could penetrate 13.2cms of armour inclined at 30 degrees at 1,000 metres. It was very accurate.

 

Every contemporary Allied tank was vulnerable to the Tiger I at 2,000 metres; in contrast most Allied tanks had to close to within a few hundred meters to stand any chance of damaging the Tiger. The only British tank gun that could penetrate the Tiger’s armour was the 17pdr, only available in small numbers until the last few months of the war, mounted on the Sherman Firefly and some M10 Tank destroyers.

 

The hull was carried on 8 large wheels on each side. The wheels were mounted on twin torsion bars, were interleaved and ran on very broad tracks. This running gear gave the Tiger good mobility in mud and snow. It also had several disadvantages: the interleaved wheels tended to clog with frozen mud and ice while changing a torsion bar or one of the inner wheels was lengthy and heavy job. When the Tiger was moved by rail the wide combat tracks had to be swapped for narrow transport tracks and the outermost wheels removed.

 

The Maybach petrol engine was mounted in the rear of the hull and drove the tracks via a Maybach Olvar gearbox and steering gear. Like all German war-time tanks the gearbox, steering gear and drive sprockets were located at the front of the Tiger. The engine and transmission were rather ‘delicate’ and required careful handling by the driver.

 

A total of 1,354 Tiger I tanks were built between July 1942 and May 1944. The design was continually modified in detail. The major visible changes included: a new cast commander’s cupola in place of the original dustbin shape in July 1943 and the use of steel tyred rubber cushioned road wheels from February 1944. The features needed for deep wading were no longer needed and were deleted to simplify production.

 

The Tank Museum’s Tiger is unique: it is the only one of the six surviving Tiger I tanks that is capable of running. It was the first Tiger to be captured relatively intact by either the British or the Americans. It was manufactured in February 1943: its’ chassis number is 250112. It was sent to Tunisia at some time between March 22nd and April 16th 1943 and was issued to the 3rd Platoon, 1st Kompanie, Schwere Panzer Abteilung 504 of the German Army. It was involved in an action with 4 Troop, A Squadron, 48th Royal Tank Regiment on 21 April 1943. The fighting was at Djebel Djaffa near Medjez el Bab.

 

The Tiger knocked out two British Churchill tanks but was then engaged by a third. The crew of this Churchill hit the gun mantlet of the Tiger with a 6pdr (57mm) shot and although this failed to penetrate it jammed the turret and wounded the Tiger’s commander. Damage from 6pdr hits is still visible on the front of the superstructure, the gun mantlet and the turret lifting boss. The German crew abandoned the Tiger without destroying it and it was captured by 48 RTR. It was subsequently recovered and refurbished using parts from other destroyed Tigers.

 

Prime Minister Churchill and His Majesty King George VI inspected the captured Tiger in Tunis. In October 1943 it was sent to the United Kingdom and displayed on Horse Guards Parade in London. It was then passed to the School of Tank Technology at Chertsey during November 1944 where a thorough technical evaluation was carried out. The Tiger was given to the Tank Museum after the war.

 

A painstaking restoration of the Tiger was started in the 1990s which was eventually completed with help from the National Heritage Lottery Fund. Great care was taken to recreate the original camouflage and markings. The Tiger ran under its’ own power for the first time in 2004.

 

The Tiger I was too valuable as a gun tank to be converted to other uses, although a number were completed as command tanks. Eighteen damaged hulls were rebuilt as Assault Rocket Mortar carriers, the Sturmmorser Tiger. The barrel of a rocket launching mortar is displayed in the Museum.

 

The Tiger I was issued first to the 502nd Heavy Tank Battalion of the German Army and made its combat debut on the Leningrad front in August 1942. It subsequently served with 9 other Army Heavy Tank Battalions; the 3rd Battalion of the Army’s Gross Deutschland Panzer Regiment, a number of ad hoc Army units and three SS Divisions.

 

The Tiger I fought on the Eastern front, in North Africa, Italy and Western Europe until the end of the war. It achieved a combat reputation that was totally disproportionate to the small number produced. Its heavy armour and powerful gun were well suited to the type of defensive fighting that the German Army was engaged in during the later years of the war.

 

Summary text by Mike Garth V1.0

 

VEHICLES Features

  

Full Tracked

 

Tracks/Wheels

  

Gun - KwK 36 L/56 88mm

 

Armament - Main Weapon Type

  

Snorkel

 

Additional Features

  

2 x 7.92mm MG34

 

Armament - Secondary Weapon Type

  

Maybach HL210P45 V12, water cooled

 

Engine

  

8 Forward, 4 Reverse

 

Transmission

  

Torsion Bar

 

Suspension

  

Vehicle Statistics

  

5

 

Number (Crew)

  

57tons

 

Weight (Overall)

  

38kph

 

Maximum (Speed - Road)

  

88mm

 

Calibre (Main Gun)

  

600bhp

 

Power (Engine Output)

  

125gall

 

Volume (Fuel)

  

140km

 

Radius (Range)

  

92rounds

 

Number (Projectile)

  

100mm

 

Maximum (Armour Thickness)

  

8.45m

 

Length (Overall)

  

3.70m

 

Width (Overall)

  

2.93m

 

Height (Overall)

 

(Read the entire text it the 'note' section). The playwright based “Dear Madam City Attorney McLean”upon his experiences/discussions with City of Santee, California, City Attorney Don McLean. The play examines the consequences of unethical conduct bygovernment lawyers. The play is available to anyone gratis!

 

TITLE: Dear Madam City Attorney McLean

! &n bsp; by Richard W. White

Copyright 1997; Edited, 2000.

 

CLASSIFICATION:Three-act, contemporary political drama

 

RATING: G

 

CAST: RICK - male, near fifty; thin; worn;

McLEAN – male, used to giving orders.

TAX LADY - female; self-assured; over bearing;

Ms. HOWARD - female; handsome; well dressed.

GEORGE - friendly; city cowboy; well fed.

 

LENGTH:50 minutes, plus or minus.

 

REQUIREMENTS: Permission to produce “Dear MadamCity Attorney McLean” is granted to any public or private school or theater.The playwright asks to be informed on any production of this work.

 

“Dear Madam City Attorney McLean” was written for the classroom or community theater setting, with minimal set requirements or rehearsal. Thecharacter McLEAN may be entirely read from the script, since the player is never seen. The character RICK may read much of his dialogue “from the computer monitor” (since he is writing it as he is speaking it). The glowing light (the McLEAN effect) maybe a flashlight or a small spotlight.

 

CONTACTING THE PLAYWRIGHT OR THE MAYOR:

The playwright may be contacted through by email firecat2@sbcglobal.net

  

NOTES: The playwright based “Dear Madam CityAttorney McLean” upon his experiences/discussions with Santee City Attorney DonMcLean. The play examines the consequences of unethical conduct by government lawyers. The characters of the play examine the political drama genre in contemporary America.

     

DEAR MADAM CITYATTORNEY McLEAN

  

A political drama

 

by RICHARD W.WHITE

based upondiscussions with

Donald McLean,City Attorney

City of Santee,California

        

© 1997 by Richard W. White

   

Theauthor hereby grants to everyone the right to use this play gratis!

DEARMADAM CITY ATTORNEY McLEAN

 

APolitical Drama by RICHARD W. WHITE

Based upondiscussions with

Don McLean,City Attorney,

City of Santee,California

 

CHARACTERS

 

RICK TAX LADY

McLEAN DIRECTOR

! Ms. HOWARD

GEORGE

UNNAMED COUNCILMAN

MRS. McLEAN

 

With the curtain closed, RICK, a thin, cleanbut worn man near fifty, hurrying toward old age, appears at the center of thestage.

RICK: I’m going to start byreading the first two pages of the letter I read to the Santee City Council inApril 1995. Then, I’ll get on with the play.

Rick walks to the side of the stage andtakes his place behind a small podium.

RICK: Good evening, Mr. Mayorand Santee City Council. My name is Rick: I’m a former twenty yearresident and business owner. And I came here this evening to tell you straightout, the City of Santee cheated me on the Prospect Avenue bridge project.

The City engineer, Cary Stewart, concealed survey error from me and heconcealed plan error from the surveyors. And the result was chaos. Piles weren't centered under the footings. Footings weren't aligned underthe abutments. The bridge deck had to be lowered and reduced inthickness. Some alignments were off as much as two (2) foot.

City Engineer Cary Stewart concealed the survey error because he didn't want topay for fixing his mistakes. They were his mistakes because his planswere wrong and I should have been paid for fixing the accumulated errors. But I wasn't paid. I was cheated and Cary couldn't have cheated mewithout the help of City Attorney McLean. Period.

Cary also requested extra work, which he didn't pay for. The asphaltbikeway; lowering the bridge deck and cutting off the rebar; extra rip rap; changesin the manholes. Cary kept a 'log of extras', but when the project wasfinished, Cary wouldn't pay for any of it and he wouldn't give us any reasonfor not paying.

Nearly a year after we finished the work, we demanded arbitration before theState Board. In answer to our demand, City Attorney McLean sued claiming theState didn’t have authority to hear it.

But Cary and Attorney McLean weren't satisfied to see me cheated. Andthey weren't satisfied to see me wasting my! time an d money playing lawyergames. They decided to destroy my business with a bogus defaultresolution voted on by this city council without advance notice to me. The State found 100% in my favor two months after Santee defaulted me. It’s been years: Why hasn't the Santee rescinded the default resolution? Why haven’t I been paid? Why was I cheated? Why is it okay for Santee tocheat?

Good evening.

As Rick begins to walk behind the curtain,councilwoman Lori Howard blocks his path.

RICK: If you don’t mind, we’lldo this scene here, instead of in your coffee shop, to save on set cost.

LORI: Rick, you can’t do thisplay. The council has talked about it in closed session. You can’t do it,in my coffee shop or anywhere else.”

A rotund city cowboy, George Tockstein, CityManager enters.

RICK: Hi ya,George. I’ve been wanting to talk to you.

GEORGE: (Smiling andfriendly)Rick, we, I mean the council, we, the city, would rather just rely on thefinding of the court.

RICK: George, there has neverbeen a hearing on the merits. There has never been a finding by anycourt, except the one that decided Cary’s labor complaint was bogus. Whydon’t you just ask Cary Stewart why he didn’t pay me?

LORI: You can’t do thisplay! We aren’t asking or answering anything. Come on, George,let’s get out of this play.

UnnamedCouncilman steps into Rick’ path.

MRS. McLEAN: “I don’tcare if you use my name, in this play. It’s my married nameanyway.”

UNNAMED COUCILMAN: “Rick, you can’t do this play. On the phone or anywhere else.”

RICK: I won’t say yourname, or try to describe your peculiar voice or overly long sideburns. Iwill only work with your voice and the threat that you made to me. I tookit as a threat when you told me on the phone ‘this time you have gone too far,’in response, I thought, you’d said that to me for the barbeque I had thrown forthat intercity pop-Warner football team I sponsored. I gave the barbeque as aprize for the team having won the league championship. And I won’t saynothing about seeing you at five o’clock in the morning stuffing Jack Doylecampaign signs in the truck of your late model Japanese make sedan. Ihave already decided to keep the Mayor’s name out of this by referencing themayor of La Mesa, Art Madrid, who, I ran into in the parking lot of La MesaCity Hall.”

Nameless Councilmanleaves in a huff, as Lori and George walk from the stage. The curtainopens to reveal an early morning scene. Rick takes his seat, a foldingsteel chair at a folding table, which serves as his desk, facing theaudience. He is under the glow of a desk lamp, typing at the green hazeof his small computer monitor. Books are stacked on the d! esk, whi ch is setbetween two (tall) old steel filing cabinets. The walls of the room behindthe desk are primarily old scaffolding and two-by-four wall studs with noplaster covering. The house has been gutted by reconstruction. Framed pictures hang about on open-wall studs. A door is at the back ofthe stage. A wooden plank on saw horses serves as a counter top on stageright. An electric coffee pot is set upon the plank, together with coffeecup, a jar of instant coffee, a pill bottle and a grocery bag. Twocardboard boxes, stuffed with clothing, covered with plastic trash bags, are onthe floor at the back of the stage and a sleeping bag. Drying laundryhangs about. Old books, under plastic sheets, are stacked about on thefloor.

RICK: (Reading aloudin monotone from his computer monitor.) Opening scene. At his desk in his sparsepremises, Rick is reading from his computer screen, making a sternpronouncement: (Announcing, narrative style, still reading from thecomputer screen.) Since the beginning of history, productive people have organized themselves …

(The green glow of t! he compu ter screenbecomes tinged with orange, causing RICK to stop reading.)

RICK: McLean, move offmy monitor. I can’t see to read.

McLEAN: (A demanding, butdistant sounding man who is used to giving orders, speaking from high offstage.) It’s cold over here. The warmth feels good.

RICK: (Grinning.) Then go to hell.

(The orange glow fades from the computerscreen as a glow of light appears on the small gray cloth screen that is aboveand in front of R! ick.)&nb sp;

McLEAN: That little exercisebefore the city council last night was a waste of time.

RICK: The necessity of it goesbeyond what we can see or understand just now.

McLEAN: So why did you bother?

RICK: This experience needs tobe shared. The helplessness of one man’s humanity, the richness ofpoverty, the peace I am feeling: all of this deserves to be celebrated. But more importantly, you’re not the only crooked government lawyer: peopleneed to shown what happens when the government cheats.

McLEAN: What people? Idon't understand. Who are you are talking about? You should beworking.

RICK: Michaelanglo once toldthe Pope, ‘A man doesn't work with his hands alone.’ My heart is tootroubled to work.

McLEAN: Your soul is troubled.

RICK: Look who'stalking.

McLEAN: I was surprised howgood you looked last night.

RICK: Appearances is thecheapest of modern lifes’ necessities. It’s the one perk I allow mypride.

McLEAN: Pride? You don't evenown a bed.

RICK: When all my bills arepaid, I’ll buy a bed. (Softly speaking to McLean) Now please, I’m tryingto work. (After a slight pause, starting again with the narratorvoice.) Sincethe beginning, productive people have organized themselves into governments forthe purpose of mutual benefit. Where government is honest and withoutcorruption, society prospers. Where government is dishonest, societyfails to thrive.

For thoseliving it, the correlation between the ethics of government and quality of lifeis obscure, but it is observable, by a stroke as brief and brilliant as theflash of lighting, which unites the earth and sky in the night. I haveseen this coruscation as its power passed through my existence, vaporizing mylife’s work. And I come before you as a witness, for having lived throughit, (a pause, then the dialogue flows quickly) I know that the great unseendanger that America faces today, (slowly) is the ethical depravity which is creepinginto the ranks of our government lawyers.

McLEAN: That indictment is alittle enthusiastic.

RICK: (Quietly to McLEAN): I am still editing. Nowhush, I want to finish this. (! Narratin g) For America to prosper,we need to publicly condemn the crooked government lawyer.

McLEAN: What is allthis?

RICK: I’m writing a play aboutus.

McLEAN: Us? Doesn’t seem very productive.

(RICK types during thefollowing dialogue, reading it as he types it.)

RICK: (Speaking offhand): Realistically, my options arevery limited. My only asset is experience, which would count a negativein any other enterprise, but in this play writing business, it may be anadvantage. And the risk in this undertaking is minimal, which makes itattractive. (Rick stops typing) McLean, read this, please.

McLEAN (Poetically): In search of understanding,you trespassed into timeless contemplation, and for this offense, fate has castyou adrift upon a cosmic tide, where the jetsam of humanity twines with dybbuksand bobbing ossuaries in a slick of black ink on a windless white page, toawait Dies Irae. (Plainly): This play is crap.

RICK: What should I do tocontribute to America? Go door to door, to collect secondhand integrityand slightly worn ethics for you and your law partner wife?

McLEAN: Where do you get theseideas?

RICK: I asked you thatquestion while you were still living and you did the same thing: Why don’t youanswer me? I’m trying to do some good here: or should I write Mrs. McLeana letter, setting out my concerns for America’s future?

McLEAN: Reading oldbooks?

RICK: My experience is asomber treasure. For it to have value, it must be cast into the pool ofliterature, where in the ageless waters of humanly acceptable conclusions, allthe obtuse, precisely objective, impersonal phenomenon of science and law blendtogether … to become understanding … eventually.

(RICK types the words that McLEAN isspeaking.)

McLEAN: (Conciliatory,condescending): It’s these old books, isn’t it? These used up, very old books.

RICK: (RICK stops histyping and looks at McLEAN): George Bernard Shaw was self-taught.

McLEAN: And he to was afailure, painting his ideological graffiti in other peoples’ minds. (Apause) This idea is lunacy. Why don’t you get back into business?

RICK: (Looking to McLEAN): Lunacy is inspiration indisguise, since a man with many more brains than his fellows, necessarilyappears as mad to them as one who has less.

McLEAN: And cynicism is thelast refuge of a quitter.

RICK: ‘No man is abovethe law’. Did you ever read my letters?

McLEAN: Your little ethicslessons were misdirected: I was the law.

RICK: And that is preciselythe problem: You were the government of my part of America, functioning withthe ethics of an open pit toilet, a putrid, infected zit on the economic hullof America.

McLEAN: If America has aproblem, it’s people like you, failing to contribute their talents.

RICK: One more man on the oarswon’t save a leaky boat.

McLEAN: You’re pumping bilgewater onto the deck of the sturdiest democracy ever to set sail.

RICK: I’m simply plugging thelegal rot below the waterline.

McLEAN: If this country sinks,the fatal damage will more likely spring from the infectious negative mentalityof your ilk, rather than from structural damage, legal or otherwise.

RICK: The economic hull ofAmerica is taking on water, but you are still loading lawyer ballast. Don’t you realize each business lost in a free enterprise system is anotherhole in the ship of state?

McLEAN: What ken yourintellect brings to the American political discussion is as shallow as thisso-called play.

RICK: Allowing government lawyerslike you to smash small businessmen like me, with impunity, brings this countryto a potentially dangerous crossroads. The greatness of America comesfrom the diversity of its entrepreneurs sailing in the shallows; theinnovators; the small shops; individuals working alone who aren’t swimming withthe main stream. Ben Franklin with his kite; the Wright brothers in theirbicycle shop; Ford, with his first gasoline motor on his kitchen sink onChristmas eve.

McLEAN: (Enunciatingsternly) Isee the problem here: you imagine yourself a sort of mental ventriloquist whocan cleverly project his thoughts into other people’s minds. That’s whatyou used to do with your letters to me, wasn’t it? Well, you should know,your constant little lessons in good citizenship were a waste of postagestamps.

RICK: The drama of life isn’tplayed out with thoughts alone, lawyer McLean. (The telephone ringsand RICK answers it.) Hello. (He smiles proudly.) Yeah, this is Grandpa. (Helistens carefully for a moment.) No, I didn’t die. It’s just hard for me tocome and visit. (Listening, then gently) Mommy is driving on thelittle tire? (A pause.) Oh, gee. We’ll have to do something aboutthat. (Pause a beat) Is Mommy at work? (Pause) Okay. Grampa willthink of something. You better get ready for school. Grampa lovesyou. Bye-bye.

(RICK hangs up the telephone and typesMcLEAN’s dialogue as he speaks it.)

McLEAN: A rational manacting in the real world will strike a balance between what he desires and whatcan be done. It is only in imaginary worlds that we can do whatever wewish.

RICK: (Looking at McLean) (Typing the next line ofdialogue):This is my play and I imagine you gone. Go away. I don’t need thephilosophical counsel of a crooked government lawyer.

(RICK dials the telephone while McLeanreads.)

McLEAN: Choose your friends onmoral principles and you’ll soon have less company then you have now.

RICK: (Speaking tothe telephone) Isthe boss there?

McLEAN: I am here as the voiceof reality. You can’t continue to subsist like a Brahmanistictramp.

(A noisy jet passes low, shaking the house.)

RICK: (Speaking to McLean,offhand.) Reality in practical affairs is simply a series of tradeoffs. I choose tosurvive without material flourish. (Speaking into the telephone.) Hello, John. Hey,do you still want a structural slab behind the shop? (A pause.) I’ll make you a trade: fourtires for the slab. You buy the mud. (A pause.) Thanks. (Hehangs up the handset.)

McLEAN: You have turned yourlife into a lonely tragedy.

RICK: (Typing as hespeaks): This solitude is a thing of beauty.

McLEAN: It’s been years. Have you lost all sense of time?

RICK: Contemplation is thetimeless sense and best practiced in isolation, for as Emerson said, ‘alone iswisdom’. Leave me.

McLEAN: You are not happy inthis state.

RICK: Emerson said, ‘alone ishappiness’. Leave me.

McLEAN: You need to get outamong normal people.

RICK: Emerson said, ‘the crowdthat you are obstructs my contentment’. Leave me.

McLEAN: Emerson also said,‘Life consists of what a man is thinking of all day.’

(A moment of silence.)

McLEAN: You’re a talentedfellow. You should contribute.

RICK: This is mycontribution. You were the government: why did you cheat me?

McLEAN: For me to discussparticulars of the matter would violate the attorney/client privilege. Itwould be unethical.

RICK: (Looking to McLEAN,sans typing):So tell me of your ethics.

McLEAN: You should be doingsomething.

RICK: This play issomething. Help me with it or leave me alone.

McLEAN: You don’t really wantme to leave. Without me, you would have nothing at all and you reallywould be all alone.

RICK: Why did you cheatme?

McLEAN: I was protecting myclient.

RICK: Your client was thetaxpayer, not City engineer Cary Stewart. Your duty was to the law, notyour fat wallet. ABA Rule one point two D: ‘A lawyer shall not … assist aclient in conduct that … is … fraudulent.’

McLEAN: I will not respond toyour egregious slander. I assert it was my job to protect the City.

RICK: Your engineer CaryStewart ordered the work and then wouldn’t pay for it. When I demanded Statearbitration, you sued the State, claiming it had no authority to settle thematter. It was all legal baloney, to fatten your own wallet.

McLEAN: I love the law; I wastop of my class at Cal Western in sixty-two; but I’m not being paid to argueand I won’t do it.

RICK: So then leave.

McLEAN: I see you better thanyou realize. You turned your anger inside and now it is coming fullcircle, inside out, until it’s directed against those who would help you.

RICK: You are not helpingme.

McLEAN: You’re bulliedby your own ego; you’re trying to undo what happened with shear will power. It can’t be done. You can’t shift a single grain of sand with willpower. You should start a new business. You have the ability tocreate jobs.

RICK: (Typing as hespeaks): Ihave created a new job: I am a prospector, panning the sands of my experience, (gesturingto the books)exploring the veins of these old pages, in search of understanding.

McLEAN: (Laughs): Look around you. You made a better brick layer.

RIC! K: Brick s were a hobby,something for me to love: nothing more.

McLEAN: Your hobby made asplash at City Hall when they featured your home in the newspaper homesection.

RICK: Cary used to walk hisdog by every night, to make a splash on my bricks, after Santee defaulted me.

McLEAN: I’m notsurprised. You put him on the defensive. He needed to do somethingto assuage his ego.

RICK: Your loyalty wasmisplaced in Cary. Shielding him from the Engineer’s Board investigationwas a disservice to the community and a breach of your professionaleth! ics.&nbs p;

McLEAN: For me to commentwould be a breach of the attorney client privilege.

RICK: Cary wasn’t yourclient. It was a professional breach to stonewall the engineer’s boardinvestigation for five years.

McLEAN: What’s thepoint? It’s been eight years.

RICK: (RICK puts his handsto his forehead and looks to McLean through his fingers) Eight years and I am stillunable to make any sense of it. Eight years of document searches,depositions, motions, law! yer game s. Eight years with my spirit frustrated,my aspirations chained, my family in disarray. Eight years since I spentthe last of my pride, since I could afford self respect.

McLEAN: Forget it.

RICK: All I have is my memory:it is the most of me; and it needs healing: it must be healed, because ourfuture rests on our memories; memories are the foundation of our spirit - butto be healed, they must be exposed to the light.

McLEAN: (After a long pause.) Have you read this allthe way through? You sound stilted, on artificial wooden words that willalways be too long for your social stature. Believe me, you need to getback into business.

RICK: (Tinged with irony,his hands over his lowered head): The business I know has no sense to it, ifgovernment can cheat with impunity.

McLEAN: Government must putits own interest, the good of all, before that of any individual citizen.

(Rick rises and pours himself a cup ofcoffee while speaking the following dialogue.)

RICK: ‘Injusticeanywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Whatever affects one directly,affects all indirectly’. Dr. King wrote that in his letter fromBirmingham jail.

McLEAN: And what did itget him? He was dead within six months.

RICK: What hope do any of ushave, if our government cheats?

R.W.Bro. Mark Stoiko D.D.G.M. Toronto West addressing V.W.Bro. Richard T. Morell Grand Steward in the Grand Lodge of Canada in the Province of Ontario regarding his Masonic Regalia and the work which will be expected of him.

 

The Beginning:

 

In the year 1920, immediately after the first World War, there was a great influx into Masonry and a group of Masons from the Willys Overland plant (a pioneer and manufacturer of the Jeep 4 wheel drive vehicle) situated in West Toronto, feeling there was a need for a new Lodge in this area, formed themselves into a committee for that purpose.

 

This group was headed up by W. Bro. W.L. Abernathy of Stanley Lodge # 426, Toronto and ably assisted by W. Bro. W.L. Clark and Bro. J.G. Bruce, both of Victoria Lodge, Toronto.

 

Having fulfilled all the necessary requirements, the Institutional Meeting of King Hiram Lodge, U.D., G.R.C., was held in the Annette Street Temple on April 29th, 1920.

 

After the dispensation, the Most Worshipful,The Grand Master, M.W. Bro. F.W. Harcourt authorized W. Bro. W.L. Abernathy and Charter Members to meet as a Lodge to be known as “King Hiram”.

 

On the 15th day of November, 1920, the Lodge was duly instituted and consecrated. W. Bro. W.L. Abernathy was installed in the Chair of King Solomon and the Officers were invested to their several stations in King Hiram Lodge #566, on the register of Grand Lodge.

 

The name “King Hiram” was selected as being the most suitable to fulfill the hopes of the petitioners which was to build a strong Lodge appropriately named after King Hiram Abif the chief architect and overseer of the building of King Solomon’s Temple.

 

It was resolved that the Initiation Fee be set at $ 75.00, the Affiliation Fee at $15.00 and the Annual Dues at $6.00. The Tyler’s salary was set at $100.00 per year.

 

The Worshipful Master appointed a Visiting the Sick Committee, a Musical and an Entertainment Committee. A committee to set up the by-laws, a committee to arrange for a Ladie’s Night and a committee to arrange for and provide Christmas Entertainment.

 

The first candidate to be initiated was Mr. John Rutherford on June 4th, 1920.

 

The Work for the year consisted of 42 – E.A. Degrees, 32 – F.C. Degrees and 19 – M.M. Degrees.

 

The Twenties:

 

The first King Hiram Ladie’s Night was held in the form of a reception in the banquet room. An honorarium was established to pay the Secretary $150.00 per year for his services. A special emergent meeting was held on Saturday, February 8th, 1922 to conduct 15 Master Mason Degrees which beat the previous record by one Degree. The Worshipful Master and brethren attended at the laying of the foundation stone at the Weston Masonic Temple. On March 19th, 1924, W.M. B.H. Capsey had the pleasure of initiating his son, Vincent Bertram Capsey into the First Degree of Masonry. It was adopted that the Lodge present to each candidate the Volume of the Sacred Law on which his obligation was sealed. An annual picnic was held at High Park. A committee was appointed to request the Temple Board to install a pipe organ in the Lodge Room and a piano in the Banquet Hall. King Hiram visited Niagara River Lodge in Niagara Falls, New York and on a return visit the Worshipful Master of Niagara River Lodge presented our Lodge with a gavel which had been made from a piece of oak from the Old Fort Niagara.

 

The Thirties:

 

A new Lodge was instituted in the Annette Street Temple, named Memorial Lodge, in which many of the members of King Hiram were involved. W. Bro. Gordon James is installed as Worshipful Master being the first Master of King Hiram who was initiated into the Lodge, all others being Charter Members. Grand Lodge institutes an “Unemployment Bureau” under the Masonic Board of Relief due to the economic circumstances. In May 1935, we celebrated our 15th Anniversary. The creation of a Members Night was established and the ruling Master and W. Bro. Gately of Memorial Lodge conducted the Ceremony. In 1936, Ladies Night was postponed due to the death of King George V and the Grand Master requested a three month mourning period be observed. In 1938, with deep regret we recorded the death of W. Bro. W.L. Abernathy one of the founders and the first Master of King Hiram Lodge.

 

The Fourties:

 

It was resolved that the dues of all members enlisting in the Armed Forces be waived.

 

To support the war effort, Grand Lodge inaugurated a Fund for War Relief to be contributed to by members at large through the various Lodges. King Hiram purchased 3 $100.00 Victory Bonds and a further purchase in the amount of $350.00. Past Master, W. Bro. Fred Adams was honoured by the King as a Member of the British Empire (MBE) for his work in the supply of munitions. It was decided to send Christmas gifts to our members in the Forces. Bro. S.D. Shaw is installed in the Chair of King Solomon and initiates his son, Duncan Shaw and W.A. Bruce son of Bro. J.G. Bruce, the first Secretary of our Lodge. In 1945, we celebrated our 25th Anniversary. Our Grand Master requests us to hold a Thanksgiving Service for our victory in Germany. Bro. R.F. Wright is installed in the Chair of King Solomon. November 1st, becomes known as “Charlie Tottle” Night due to his reaching his 80th birthday and also for his long service to the Lodge. Bro. C.V. Tottle was elected Secretary in 1926 and served until his death in 1950. Bro. Wm. McBurnie returns to Lodge after serving 7 years overseas in the Armed Forces. W. Bro. Wm. Gow is appointed Grand Steward. Installation Night changes from January to December due to the continual bad weather conditions in January. It was approved that the Tyler’s pay be $2.50 per meeting.

 

The Fifties:

 

W. Bro. E.D. Magett appoints Bro. Joe Kemp as Chaplain and Bro. Doug Wright as Ass’t. Secretary. R.W. Bro. Floyd Albertson is honoured for his 23 years of service as Treasurer and his work in the Lodge since its inception. Bro. A.E. (Ed) Dyer is installed in the Chair of King Solomon. Two minutes silence was observed in respect to his late Majesty, King George V1.V.W. Bro. S.D. Shaw was congratulated and presented the Regalia of Grand Steward. Meetings and discussions were held regarding the division of Toronto District A. At Grand Lodge it was decided to split the district into two districts, A1 and A2, to take place in 1955. A donation was presented to River Park Lodge to help in the rebuilding of their Temple due to the damage suffered by Hurricane Hazel. In July, 1955, Grand Lodge celebrated its 100th meeting. An open air service was held at Exhibition Park with over 2,500 in attendance. Mr. R.J. Elrick is initiated into King Hiram Lodge. V.W. Bro. Bill Gow presents V.W. Bro. Archie Wright with his Regalia of Grand Steward. Bro. Joe Kemp is installed in the Chair of King Solomon, his father Bro. J.T. Kemp presents a gift on behalf of the family.

 

The Sixties:

 

Bro. Doug Wright is installed in the Chair of King Solomon by his father ,V.W. Bro. Archie Wright. This is the first time in the history of the Lodge that a father has installed his own son. The Metro Police Team confers the E.A. Degree on Mr. Robert N. Wilson. V.W. Bro. Archie Wright presents Grand Steward Regalia to V.W. Bro. Reg Wright. King Hiram members and ladies initiate visitations to William S. Farmer Lodge #1109 in Syracuse, New York. Mr. Lewis Crocker passes a Board of Trial and is accepted as a candidate for Initiation. W. Bro. Sam Wright is Installed in the Chair of King Solomon. Dues increase to $22.00. Father and Son night featured Johnny Bower of the Toronto Maple Leafs. W. Bro. A.E. (Ed) Dyer is elected D.D.G.M. of Toronto District #1. The following year Father and Son night featured Leo Cahill, coach of the Toronto Argonauts. Bro. Robert Elrick presents a D of C wand to the Lodge in memory of his father, Bro. Robert Elrick Sr.

 

The Seventies:

 

In 1970 we celebrated our 50th Anniversary. Father, Son and Daughter night featured entertainment and movies. V.W. Bro. Archie Wright passed to the Grand Lodge Above. V.W. Bro. Bill Gow, 41 years a Past Master of King Hiram is the first member to receive a 50 year service pin. Bro. Sam Hough of Danville, California visits and later affiliates with King Hiram after moving to Toronto. Bro.’s Lloyd Lemoine and Ernest Roy Imrie receive 50 year pins. Bro. Arnold Sinclair continues to deliver profound lectures when presenting the Candidates Bible. Father and Son night features Darryl Sittler of the Toronto Maple Leafs. Lodge members enjoy memorable cruises with Bro. Bill Rhyme aboard the “Lomar”. Visitations with King Hiram Lodge #37, Ingersoll are initiated. Visitations continue which result in the creation of the King Hiram Friendship Gavel. The Rt. Hon. Chief Justice James C. McRuer of King Hiram Lodge receives a 50 year pin. Dues increase to $80.00. Bro. James Rushford Sr, is presented a plaque for his service to King Hiram as Chaplain and his 57 years in Masonry. V.W. Bro. Joe Kemp is appointed Grand Steward. Bro. Ron Padgett entertains regularly on the organ with great talent, artistry and his well known humour.

The Eighties

 

Our 60th Anniversary. V.W. Bro. Doug Wright is appointed Grand Tyler and is presented with his fathers regalia, V.W. Bro. Archie Wright. Bro. Aubrey McGill is presented a plaque for his devotion as Chairman of the Benevolent and Sick Committee. V.W. Bro. Joe Kemp and V.W. Bro. Doug Wright are honoured for their many years of service as Secretary and Treasurer of the Lodge. Members Night tradition continues with Bro. Henry Strackholder being Initiated. King Hiram makes a donation to the Barbara Turnbull Fund. W. Bro. Ernie Morrison is appointed as Assistant Grand Director of Ceremonies. Annual dues increase to $65.00. W. Bro. Robert N. Wilson is honoured and presented his Grand Steward Regalia by W. Bro. George Owttrim. A year later V.W. Bro. Robert N. Wilson is presented a plaque in recognition of his service to Masonry and King Hiram Lodge. The first District Walkathon takes place and proves to be very successful. W. Bro. Alistair Clement initiates his son, Mr. Graham Clement into King Hiram. Bro. Aubrey McGill is awarded the prestigious William Mercer Wilson Award. M.W. Bro. William R. Pellow, Grand Master attends the Installation Ceremony of Bro. Edward Grinko being placed in the Chair of King Solomon. King Hiram hosts the District Education which features St. John’s Lodge #209 from London, Ontario. King Hiram hosts a special Appreciation Night for all Past D.D.G.M.’s of Toronto District #1.

The Nineties

 

Bro. Tom Thompson visits from Scotland to share the Installation Ceremony with his brother, W. Bro. Hugh Thompson. W. Bro. Sam Wright is honoured and presented with the Regalia of Assistant Grand Secretary. Bro. Rick Morell is Installed in the Chair of King Solomon. King Hiram donates $1000.00 to the Runnymede Chronic Care Hospital Fund. W. Bro. Sam Hough passes to the Grand Lodge above. R.W. Bro. A.E. (Ed) Dyer is presented a 50 year service pin. Bro. John Kikiantonis is awarded the Canada 125 Year Award Medal. W. Bro. Edward Grinko launches the district newsletter, “The Blue Print”. W. Bro. Robert Langzik and Bro. Aubrey McGill pass to the Grand Lodge above. V.W. Bro. Robert Wilson is appointed Grand Lodge Representative to the Grand Lodge of Utah. Memorial Lodge #652 affiliates with King Hiram Lodge. W. Bro. Lew Crocker is appointed Grand Steward. W. Bro. Rick Morell serves a second term as Worshipful Master. Bro. Earl Walsh is Installed in the Chair of King Solomon. In 1995 we celebrate our 75th Anniversary. A full year of celebrations and activities is planned including a Gala Anniversary Dance. Bro. John Kikiantonis is Installed in the Chair of King Solomon by V.W. Bro. Sam Wright who substituted for W. Bro. Edward Grinko due to the death of his wife. 50 year pins are presented to V.W. Bro. Doug J.B. Wright, V.W. Bro. Ed Wilkings, Bro. George Cowie and Bro. John Cholmomdeley. 25 year Past Master pins are presented to W. Bro. Proctor, R.W. Bro. Ed Dyer, V.W. Bro. Joe Kemp, V.W. Bro. Doug Wright, V.W. Bro. Ken McLean, W. Bro. Fred Twitchin, Sr., V.W. Bro. Sam Wright, V.W. Bro. Bill Hunter and W. Bro. Doug Kelman. W. Bro. Earl Walsh is Installed in the Chair of King Solomon for a second time by W. Bro. Lew Crocker. The following year Bro. Bill Wingrove is Installed in the Master’s Chair by W. Bro. Earl Walsh. V.W. Bro. Sam Wright is also Installed as Worshipful Master for his second time, 32 years later and initiated Bro.’s Scott Hoy, Ben MacDonald and Dusty Markle. We were saddened with the passing of V.W. Bro. Doug J.B. Wright to the Grand Lodge Above. W. Bro. Rick Morell is Installed in the Chair of King Solomon by W. Bro. Hugh Thompson.

A New Millennium

 

2000 – 2005:

 

Bro. Aaron Williams is Raised to the Sublime Degree of a Master Mason. A special night and reception is held for R.W. Bro. Earl Walsh who was elected D.D.G.M. of Toronto District #1. Bro. Ken Mullings is Installed in the Chair of King Solomon by his friend and mentor, W. Bro. Hugh Thompson. V.W. Bro. Hugh McKnight is made an honourary member of the Lodge. A reception is held to present W. Bro. Robert Elrick with his Grand Lodge Regalia. Mr. Stephen Brode is Initiated into King Hiram Lodge. A special meeting is held at Central Park Lodge to congratulate Bro. Imrie on his 102nd Birthday and his 80 years a Mason. W. Bro. John Kikiantonis is Installed as Master for a second time and also re-accepts the Office the following year. W. Bro. Kikiantonis enjoys the honour and pleasure of Initiating his son, Emmanuel into Masonry. Mr. Andrew Adamyk is Initiated into King Hiram Lodge. A memorial was conducted for V.W. Bro. Robert Elrick and R.W. Bro. Robert Wilson who passed to the Grand Lodge Above. V.W. Bro. Bill Hunter receives his 50 year pin. W. Bro. Hugh Thompson passes to the Grand Lodge Above. W. Bro. Edward Grinko is Installed as master for a second time and enjoys the distinct pleasure of Initiating his son, Christopher. Mr. James Berry is also Initiated into Masonry. The Secretary’s honorarium is raised to $500.00. V.W. Bro. Ed Wilkings is made a life member of King Hiram Lodge. W. Bro. Rick Morell is Installed for the fourth time as Worshipful master. King Hiram Lodge is now in its 85th year. Mr. Daniel Berube and Michael Bonner are Initiated and Bro. Antonio Texeira is Raised to the Sublime Degree of a Master Mason. A special evening was conducted for W. Bro. Ken Mullings to celebrate his retirement and his return to Jamaica.

The intervening years between 1920 and 2005 have been momentous years of change in the History of the World.

 

Consider the Twenties, an era of building following World War I. The Depression of the Thirties. The conflict and hardship encountered due to World War II. The united efforts of rebuilding throughout the Forties and Fifties. The social changes and struggles throughout the Sixties and Seventies. The boom of the Eighties, the recession of the Nineties and the dreams and expectations of a new Millennium.

 

The years have also seen many changes in King Hiram Lodge. We have witnessed and shared in the lives of many of the Men who have been instrumental in the creation of and continuation of our Lodge.

 

Throughout the years the spirit of Masonry has always been kept alive and we have at all times remembered the wishes of our Founders, to uphold the basic principles on which the Lodge was established, “to keep this a friendly Lodge and to show true Brotherhood to All”. Our strength in the past has been in the dedication, loyalty and respect, for our Lodge by the many men who have affixed their signatures to our By-Laws.

 

Lives of great men all remind us

 

We can make our lives sublime,

 

And, departing, leave behind us

 

footprints on the sands of time

 

– Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

 

* Reprinted from the King Hiram Lodge #566 “Consecration Night” Booklet, November 15, 1920.

 

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The Saab JAS 39 Gripen (griffin) is a light single-engine multirole fighter aircraft manufactured by the Swedish aerospace company Saab. In 1979, the Swedish government began development studies for an aircraft capable of fighter, attack and reconnaissance missions to replace the Saab 35 Draken and 37 Viggen. The preferred aircraft was a single-engine, lightweight single-seater, embracing fly-by-wire technology, canards, and an aerodynamically unstable design. The powerplant selected was the Volvo-Flygmotor RM12, a license-built derivative of the General Electric F404−400; engine development priorities were weight reduction and lowering component count. A new design from Saab was selected and developed as the JAS 39, first flying in 1988.

 

The Gripen is a multirole fighter aircraft, intended as a lightweight and agile aerial platform with advanced, highly adaptable avionics. It has canard control surfaces that contribute a positive lift force at all speeds, while the generous lift from the delta wing compensates for the rear stabilizer producing negative lift at high speeds, increasing induced drag. It is capable of flying at a 70–80 degrees angle of attack.

Being intentionally unstable and employing digital fly-by-wire flight controls to maintain stability removes many flight restrictions, improves manoeuvrability and reduces drag. The Gripen also has good short takeoff performance, being able to maintain a high sink rate and strengthened to withstand the stresses of short landings. A pair of air brakes are located on the sides of the rear fuselage; the canards also angle downward to act as air brakes and decrease landing distance

 

To enable the Gripen to have a long service life, roughly 50 years, Saab designed it to have low maintenance requirements. Major systems such as the RM12 engine and PS-05/A radar are modular to reduce operating cost and increase reliability. The Gripen’s systems were designed to be flexible, so that newly developed sensors, computers and armaments could be easily integrated as technology advances. The aircraft was estimated to be roughly 67% sourced from Swedish or European suppliers and 33% from the US.

To market the aircraft internationally, Saab formed partnerships and collaborative efforts with overseas aerospace companies. One example of such efforts was Gripen International, a joint partnership between Saab and BAE Systems formed in 2001. Gripen International was responsible for marketing the aircraft, and was heavily involved in the successful export of the type to South Africa; the organisation was later dissolved amidst allegations of bribery being employed to secure foreign interest and sales. On the export market, the Gripen has achieved moderate success in sales to nations in Central Europe, South Africa and Southeast Asia.

 

The Swedish Air Force placed a total order for 204 Gripens in three batches. The first delivery of the JAS 39A/B (single seat and two seat variants) occurred on 8 June 1993, when aircraft “39102” was handed over to the Flygvapnet during a ceremony at Linköping. The final Batch three 1st generation aircraft was delivered to FMV on 26 November 2008, but in the meantime an upgraded Gripen variant, the JAS 39C/D already rolled off of the production lines and made the initial versions obsolete. The JAS C/D gradually replaced the A/B versions in the frontline units until 2012, which were then offered for export, mothballed or used for spares for the updated Swedish Gripen fleet.

 

A late European export customer became the nascent Republic of Scotland. According to a White Paper published by the Scottish National Party (SNP) in 2013, an independent Scotland would have an air force equipped with up to 16 air defense aircraft, six tactical transports, utility rotorcraft and maritime patrol aircraft, and be capable of “contributing excellent conventional capabilities” to NATO. Outlining its ambition to establish an air force with an eventual 2,000 uniformed personnel and 300 reservists, the SNP stated that the organization would initially be equipped with “a minimum of 12 interceptors in the Eurofighter/Typhoon class, based at Lossiemouth, a tactical air transport squadron, including around six Lockheed Martin C-130J Hercules, and a helicopter squadron for transport and SAR duties”.

 

According to the document, “Key elements of air forces in place at independence, equipped initially from a negotiated share of current UK assets, will secure core tasks, principally the ability to police Scotland’s airspace, within NATO.” An in-country air command and control capability would be established within five years of a decision in favor of independence, it continued, with staff also to be “embedded within NATO structures”.

This plan was immediately set into action with the foundation of the Poblachd na h-Alba Adhair an Airm (Republic of Scotland Air Corps/RoScAC) after the country's independence from Great Britain in late 2017. For the fighter role, Scotland was offered refurbished F-16C and Ds from the USA, but this was declined, as the type was considered too costly and complex. An offer from Austria to buy the country’s small Eurofighter fleet (even at a symbolic price) was rejected for the same reason.

Eventually, and in order to build a certain aura of neutrality, Scotland’s young and small air arm initially received twelve refurbished, NATO-compatible Saab JAS 39 Gripen (ten single-seater and two two-seaters) as well as Sk 90 trainers from Swedish overstock. These second hand machines were just the initial step in the mid-term procurement plan, though.

 

Even though all Scottish Gripens (locally called “Grìbhean”, designated F.1 for the JAS 39A single seaters and F.2 for the fully combat-capable JAS 39B two-seaters, respectively) were multi-role aircraft and capable of strike missions, its primary roles were interception/air defense and, to a lesser degree, reconnaissance. Due to severe budget restrictions and time pressure, these aircraft were almost identical to the Flygvapnet’s JAS 39A/B aircraft. They used the PS-05/A pulse-Doppler X band multi-mode radar, developed by Ericsson and GEC-Marconi, which was based on the latter's advanced Blue Vixen radar for the Sea Harrier that also served as the basis for the Eurofighter's CAPTOR radar. This all-weather radar is capable of locating and identifying targets 120 km (74 mi) away and automatically tracking multiple targets in the upper and lower spheres, on the ground and sea or in the air. It can guide several beyond visual range air-to-air missiles to multiple targets simultaneously. Therefore, RoScAC also procured AIM-9 Sidewinder and AIM-120 AMRAAM as primary armament for its Grìbhean fleet, plus AGM-65 Maverick air-to-ground missiles.

 

The twelve Grìbhean F.1 and F.2s formed the RoScAC’s 1st fighter (Sabaid) squadron, based at former RAF base Lossiemouth. Upon delivery and during their first months of service, the machines retained the former Swedish grey paint scheme, just with new tactical markings. In 2018, the RoScAC fighter fleet was supplemented with brand new KAI/Lockheed Martin TA-50 ‘Golden Eagle’ armed trainers from South Korea, which could also take over interceptor and air patrol duties. This expansion of resources allowed the RoScAC to initiate an update program for the JAS 39 fleet. It started in 2019 and included in-flight refueling through a fixed but detachable probe, a EuroFIRST PIRATE IRST, enhanced avionics with elements from the Swedish JAS 39C/D, and a tactical datalink.

With these updates, the machines could now also be externally fitted with Rafael's Sky Shield or LIG Nex1's ALQ-200K ECM pods, Sniper or LITENING targeting pods, and Condor 2 reconnaissance pods to further improve the machine’s electronic warfare, reconnaissance, and targeting capabilities.

The aircraft’s designations did not change, though, the only visible external change were the additional IRST fairing under the nose, and the machines received a new tactical camouflage with dark green and dark grey upper surfaces, originally introduced with the RoScAC’s TA-50s. However, all Grìbhean F.1 single seaters received individual fin designs instead of the grey camouflage, comprising simple red and yellow fins, the Scottish flag (instead of the standard fin flash) and even a large pink thistle on a white background and a white unicorn on a black background.

 

Despite being 2nd hand aircraft, the Scottish JAS 39A and Bs are expected to remain in service until at least 2035.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: one

Length: 14.1 m (46 ft 3 in)

Wingspan: 8.4 m (27 ft 7 in)

Height: 4.5 m (14 ft 9 in)

Wing area: 30 m2 (320 sq ft)

Empty weight: 6,800 kg (14,991 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 14,000 kg (30,865 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1× Volvo RM12 afterburning turbofan engine,

54 kN (12,000 lbf) dry thrust, 80.5 kN (18,100 lbf) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 2,460 km/h (1,530 mph, 1,330 kn)/Mach 2

Combat range: 800 km (500 mi, 430 nmi)

Ferry range: 3,200 km (2,000 mi, 1,700 nmi)

Service ceiling: 15,240 m (50,000 ft)

g limits: +9/-3

Wing loading: 283 kg/m2 (58 lb/sq ft)

Thrust/weight: 0.97

Takeoff distance: 500 m (1,640 ft)

Landing distance: 600 m (1,969 ft)

 

Armament:

1× 27 mm Mauser BK-27 revolver cannon with 120 rounds

8 hardpoints (Two under the fuselage, one of them dedicated to FLIR / ECM / LD / Recon pods plus

two under and one on the tip of each wing) with a capacity of 5 300 kg (11 700 lb)

  

The kit and its assembly:

Nothing spectacular – actually, this build is almost OOB and rather a livery what-if model. However, I had the plan to build a (fictional) Scottish Gripen on my agenda for some years now, since I started to build RoScAC models, and the “Back into service” group build at whatifmodlers.com in late 2019 was a good motivation to tackle this project.

 

The starting point was the Italeri JAS 39A kit, a rather simple affair that goes together well but needs some PSR on almost every seam. Not much was changed, since the model would depict a slightly updated Gripen A – the only changes I made were the additional IRST fairing under the nose, the ejection handle on the seat and a modified ordnance which consists of a pair of AIM-9L and AIM-120 (the latter including appropriate launch rails) from a Hasegawa air-to-air weapons set. The ventral drop tank is OOB.

  

Painting and markings:

The motivation a behind was actually the desire to build a Gripen in a different livery than the usual and rather dull grey-in-grey scheme. Therefore I invented a tactical paint scheme for “my” RoScAC, which is a modified RAF scheme from the Seventies with uppers surfaces in Dark Green (Humbrol 163) and Dark Sea Grey (164), medium grey flanks, pylons, drop tank and a (theoretically) grey fin (167 Barley Grey, today better known as Camouflage Grey) plus undersides in Light Aircraft Grey (166), with a relatively high and wavy waterline, so that a side or lower view would rather blend with the sky than the ground below. The scheme was designed as a compromise between air superiority and landscape camouflage and somewhat inspired by the many experimental schemes tested by the German Luftwaffe in the early Eighties. The Scottish TA-50 I built some years ago was the overall benchmark, but due to the Gripen’s highly blended fuselage/wing intersections, I just painted the flanks under the cockpit and the air intakes as well as a short portion of the tail section in Barley Grey. That’s overall darker than intended (esp. in combination with the fin decoration, see below), but anything grey above the wings would have looked awkward.

 

As a reminiscence of the late British F-4 Phantoms, which carried a grey low-viz scheme with bright fins as quick ID markings, I added such a detail to the Gripen, too – in this case in the form of a stylized Scottish flag on the fin, with some mild 3D effect. The shadow and light effects were created through wet-in-wet painting of lighter and darker shades into the basic blue (using Humbrol 25, 104 and ModelMaster French Blue). Later, the white cross was added with simple decal stripes, onto which similar light effects were added with white and light grey, too.

  

Even though this one looks similar to my Scottish TA-50, which was the first model to carry this paint scheme, I like the very different look of this Gripen through its non-all-grey paint scheme. It’s also my final build of my initial RoScAC ideas, even though I am now considering a helicopter model (an SAR SA 365 Dauphin, maybe?) in fictional Scottish markings, too.

This photo satisfies requirement 2: Motion-blurred, movement of my camera.

 

II took a photo of "Pike Place Market" with a 16-50mm lens in shutter speed priority mode and zoom out the lens when I push the button.

This photo was taken on campus and I think it fulfills requirement 4: repeating patterns. I really like repeating patterns created by the spiraling stairs and how the combination of light and dark spirals deeper down. I set my aperture to ƒ/4.0 to avoid depth of field. When editing it in Lightroom, I desaturated blue to 0 because I think blue will kind of distract the viewer's attention from the stairwell.

+++ 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 Hawker Fury was an evolutionary successor to the successful Hawker Typhoon and Tempest fighters and fighter-bombers. The Fury's design process was initiated in September 1942 by Sydney Camm, one of Hawker's foremost aircraft designers, to meet the Royal Air Force's requirement for a lightweight Tempest Mk.II replacement. The fuselage was broadly similar in form to that of the Tempest, but was a fully monocoque structure, while the cockpit level was higher, affording the pilot better all-round visibility.

 

The project was formalized in May 1943, which required a high rate of climb of not less than 4,500 ft/min (23 m/s) from ground level to 20,000 feet (6,096 m), good fighting maneuverability and a maximum speed of at least 450 mph (724 km/h) at 22,000 feet (6,705 m). The armament was to be four 20mm Hispano V cannon with a total capacity of 600 rounds, plus the capability of carrying two bombs each up to 1,000 pounds (454 kg).

In April 1943, Hawker had also received Specification N.7/43 from the Admiralty, who sought a navalized version of the developing aircraft. In response, Sidney Camm proposed the consolidation of both service's requirements under Specification F.2/43, with the alterations required for naval operations issued on a supplemental basis. Around 1944, the aircraft project finally received its name; the Royal Air Force's version becoming known as the Fury and the Fleet Air Arm's version as the Sea Fury.

 

A total of six prototypes were ordered; two were to be powered by Rolls-Royce Griffon engines, two with Centaurus XXIIs, one with a Centaurus XII and a final one as a test structure. Hawker used the internal designations P.1019 and P.1020 respectively for the Griffon and Centaurus versions, while P.1018 was also used for a Fury prototype with a Napier Sabre IV. The first Fury to fly, on 1 September 1944, was NX798 with a Centaurus XII with rigid engine mounts, powering a Rotol four-blade propeller. Second on 27 November 1944 was LA610, which had a Griffon 85 and a Rotol six-blade contra-rotating propeller.

 

With the end of the Second World War in Europe in sight, the RAF began cancelling many aircraft orders. Thus, the RAF's order for the Fury was cancelled, but development of the type was continued as the Sea Fury. The rationale behind this was the fact that many of the Navy's carrier fighters were either Lend-Lease Chance-Vought Corsair or Grumman Hellcat aircraft and thus to be returned, or, in the case of the Supermarine Seafire, had considerable drawbacks as naval aircraft such as narrow undercarriages. The Admiralty opted to procure the Sea Fury as the successor to these aircraft instead of purchasing the lend-lease aircraft outright.

 

The first Sea Fury prototype first flew at Langley, Berkshire, on 21 February 1945, powered by a Centaurus XII engine. This prototype had a "stinger"-type tailhook for arrested carrier landings, but lacked folding wings for storage. The second prototype flew on 12 October 1945 and it was powered by a Bristol Centaurus XV that turned a new, five-bladed Rotol propeller and did feature folding wings. A third prototype was powered by a Griffon 85 with a chin radiator and drove a six blade contraprop, similar to LA610 from 1944. Specification N.7/43 was modified to N.22/43, now representing an order for 200 aircraft.

Both engine variants showed virtually identical performance. While the Centaurus-powered Sea Fury had more power and was slightly lighter than the Griffon-powered variant, the latter had better aerodynamics and, thanks to the contra-rotating propeller, better low-speed handling characteristics.

 

In order to expand production of the new naval fighter as quickly as possible, Sea Fury variants with different engines were produced at different factories: 100 were to be built as F Mk. X, powered by the Centaurus engine, at Boulton-Paul's Wolverhampton factory, and another 100, powered now by a Griffon 130 with a two-stage, three-speed supercharger and fuel injection, were to be built as F Mk. XII at Hawker's Dunsfold factory.

 

Things did not unfold smoothly, though: the manufacturing agreement with Boulton-Paul was ended in early 1945 and all work on the Centaurus-powered Sea Fury transferred to Hawker Aircraft's facilities at Kingston. As a consequence, production of the F Mk. X was delayed and only the Griffon-powered F Mk. XII made it to frontline units until summer 1945, but, in fact, only a mere 50 aircraft left Dunsfold until the end of hostilities, all of them were immediately transferred to the FAA’s Pacific theatre of operations. The first twelve airframes went on board of the newly built HMS Pioneer, a Colossus class aircraft carrier, which set sails for Australia in May 1945 and then operated along the Northern coast of New-Guinea. In the vicinity of Manus Island the Sea Furies were operated by NAS 1834, replacing Corsair II and IV fighters, and they were the only machines of this type to become involved in aerial combat and CAS missions. In August 1945 the machines were transferred to HMS Indomitable; based on this carrier, they supported the liberation of Hong Kong, arriving after a landing party from HMCS Prince Robert had taken the Japanese surrender. These were among the last combat missions of the war.

 

The Sea Fury Mk. X came too late for any frontline involvement. In fact, the first machine of this variant eventually first flew on 31 January 1946, and immediately upon completion of the first three airframes, the flight testing program began at Kingston. It was soon discovered that the early Centaurus engine suffered frequent crankshaft failure due to a poorly designed lubrication system, which led to incidents of the engine seizing while in mid-flight. The problem was resolved when Bristol's improved Centaurus 18 engine replaced the earlier engine variant, but this further hampered the program.

 

From the Griffon-powered Sea Fury F Mk. XII, only 92 aircraft from the initial N.22/43 order batch of 100 were actually produced, and they did not serve long in front line units. One factor was the high-powered Griffon engine, which was prone to failure and its liquid-coolant system was not free from trouble, either. On the other side, the technically less complicated Centaurus-powered Sea Fury F. Mk. X became available in 1947 and it showed more development and also export potential, so that the Mk. XII was retired from Royal Navy units until 1949. Some of the aircraft were stored, though, and eventually handed over or sold to friendly nations.

Altogether, the Sea Fury was produced with some 875 aircraft built (number varies by source)—including prototypes and 61 two-seat T.20 trainers. Sea Furies also served in Korea and they were the last front-line piston-engine aircraft operated by the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: One

Length: 37 ft 3 in (11.37 m)

Wingspan: 38 ft 4​ ¾ in (11.69 m)

Height: 15 ft 10​1⁄2 in (4.84 m)

Wing area: 280 ft2 (26.01 m²)

Empty weight: 9,325 lb (4,233 kg)

Loaded weight: 12,510 lb (5,680 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 14,760 lb (6,700 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Rolls Royce Griffon 130 liquid-cooled V-12 engine;

maximum output of 2,420 hp (1,805 kW) at 5,000 ft (1,524 m)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 460 mph (400 knots, 740 km/h) at 18,000 ft (5,500 m)

Range: 700 mi (609 nmi, 1,126 km) with internal fuel;

1,040 mi (904 nmi, 1,674 km) with two 90 gal. drop tanks

Service ceiling: 35,800 ft (10,910 m)

Rate of climb: 4,320 ft/min (21.9 m/s)

 

Armament:

4× 20 mm (.79 in) Hispano Mk V cannon in the outer wings with 150 RPG

Up to 12× 3 in (76.2 mm) unguided rockets and/or bombs or drop tanks

for an ordnance of 2,000 lb (907 kg)

  

The kit and its assembly:

Building this kit was a spontaneous decision - but since it would fit well into the RAF Centenary Group Build at whatifmodelers.com, I used to occasion to motivate myself and create this conversion as submission #5 to the GB.

 

This build was originally triggered by a Sea Fury model, recently built by fellow user knightflyer from whatifmodelers.com: a "normal" Sea Fury in late-war FAA markings. I found the resulting aircraft pretty sexy, but wondered how I could add a personal twist? While doing some research into the Sea Fury's development I stumbled upon the Griffon-powered Fury prototype LA610, a pretty ugly aircraft with a gaping radiator intake and a menacing six blade contraprop. This one, in FAA colors...?

 

The kit is the PM Model Sea Fury, in this case an Airfix re-boxing, but this does not change anything. The kit is simple, is a bit crude (e.g. the wings trailing edges are rather massive), but it goes together well.

The conversion included a better seat for the cockpit, a dashboard, a split canopy for open display, and some rhinoplasty: the OOB Centaurus and its five blade propeller went into the spares box. Instead, a resin power egg from Red Roo for an Australian Avro Lincoln was installed in the nose. To be honest, the engine is actually a Merlin with a chin radiator, but the piece's overall outline and the radiator just look perfect for something close to the LA610 prototype! Some body sculpting was necessary to create a smooth transition in front of the cockpit, and the OOB exhaust arrangement from the Centaurus was "recycled" as radiator outlets, just very similar to LA610.

 

The contraprop is a mash-up: The spinner (which fits onto the resin engine very well, only a little trimming was necessary) comes from a Special Hobby model of a late Griffon-powered Spitfire; there are several boxings of this kit for different variants, but the main sprues are virtually identical, so that a lot of spares, including propeller variants like the six blade Rotol propeller, are available. This specific propeller is not functional, though. Both propeller sections are intended to be glued together and onto the kit’s nose, only for static build and presentation. That’s a bit disappointing, so I modified the parts with holes and a styrene axis that fits into another deep hole in the resin engine block, so that both propellers can spin – and they actually do, even though it only works when I blow into the propeller from a certain angle.

The propeller blades were replaced, too, because the original Spitfire parts turned out to be too short, on the massive Sea Fury and the gaping radiator intake maw they looked undersized. So I dug out a Novo Shackleton from the donor bank and used the blades from one of its engines for my conversion.

 

Another small modification concerns the arrestor hook: with the Special Hobby Spitfire kit at hand and its many optional parts, I added a Seafire hook to the rudder’s base, instead of the later Sea Fury’s separate hook under the rudder, for a slight retro feeling.

The flaps were lowered and the wings’ VERY thick trailing edges trimmed down significantly. The leading edges were slightly modified, too, in an attempt to get rid of their square OOB shape.

 

The ordnance was slightly modified, too: I added a pair of pylons under the wings with 500 lb bombs instead of the OOB drop tanks (I assume that these large blobs are rather ferry tanks?), the 3in missiles and their launch rails are OOB.

  

Painting and markings:

No real surprises: standard late WWII FFA colors (Dark Sea Grey/Dark Slate Grey/Sky) livery without quick ID markings on the wings and stabilizers. Basic paints were Tamiya XF-54 (Dark Sea Grey, a relatively light interpretation of the tone), Modelmaster 2056 (Dark Slate Grey, lighter than Humbrol's 224) and Tamiya XF-21 (Sky, a rather intense variation of the greenish tone). The cockpit interior was painted in RAF Cockpit Green (Humbrol 78) – it’s a bit of a guess, but AFAIK the interior of British combat aircraft was changed to black after the end of WWII? The landing gear wells were painted in the same tone, using late WWII Fairey Fireflies as benchmark.

The kit received a light blank ink wash, some post-shading treatment and dry-brushing with FS 36231 and Faded Olive Drab from Modelmaster, as well as Humbrol 90 underneath. Some more detail brushing with even lighter tones was added, too.

 

The decals/markings actually belong to a lend lease F4U during the final weeks of the war; I found the red tactical code quite interesting, even though HMS Pioneer, where the aircraft was based, was only a repair carrier, not an active combat platform for aircraft operations? Well, it’s whifworld, after all…

 

Another individual detail are the overpainted areas on fuselage, wings and fins, where the aircraft had carried standard RAF roundels upon delivery, and for the Pacific TO, the roundels were changed en route on short notice, maybe with paints from US supplies. Consequently, the overpainted sections were created with slightly different shades of the basic camouflage colors, namely Humbrol 125 (FS 36118, which was frequently used on FAA lend lease aircraft), Tamiya XF- (Olive Drab) and a mix of Humbrol 90 and 95 for the underside. Any white ID bands on the wings were left away, just the spinner’s segments were painted in black and white.

I used, according to the benchmark F4U, blue-and-white FAA roundels with USN-style white bars, but modified them with a very small, white central disc.

 

bugs

The Steinhof Church ( also: Church of St. Leopold) was built in 1904-1907, designed by Otto Wagner, and is considered one of the most important buildings of the Vienna Art Nouveau. The Roman Catholic church building is located on the grounds of "Social Medical Center Baumgartnerhöhe" in the 14th district of Vienna Penzing.

History

The Church of "St. Leopold", better known as Steinhof church (or Otto Wagner church Steinhof ) arose from the construction of the Lower Austrian State Hospital and Nursing Home for nervous and mental patients at the stone courtyard (Steinhof) 1904 until 1907. The staff responsible for the planning architect Otto Wagner had to take into account that there is a church institution for mentally ill patients, and elicited in discussions with doctors and nurses, the specific requirements of such a structure. A doctor's room, toilets and emergency exits were planned, the pews have due to injury no sharp corners. Wagner, in which projects the hygienic aspects have always been a big concern, designed instead of an ordinary holy water basin, a variant with dripping holy water to reduce the risk of infections. He designed the ground sloping down to the altar, so that patients could see better in the back rows to the front. There were also separate inputs not only for nurses but also for male and female patients, since at that time in mental hospitals segregation was prescribed. Lack of money, however, both the Cross as well as the Unterkirchen (Lower Churches) for Protestants and Jews were not realized. Also a heater was not installed.

8 October 1907 the church was opened by Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Between the Archduke, who was not very fond of the Art Nouveau style, and Otto Wagner, however, there was already the beginning of creative disagreements, why Wagner was not mentioned in the opening statement, and subsequently by the Imperial Household got no more orders. These resulting from very different views on architecture and aesthetics gap misled the Neue Freie Presse in its issue of opening day to the question: "And it's not a pretty ironic histroy that pretty much the first sensible large-scale secession building in Vienna has been built for the insanes?".

After about six years of extensive renovation, the church was established and on in October 1st 2006 reopened. Among other things, the dome was re-gilded using 2 kg of gold, replaced the drum base with artificially patinated copper sheets and the marble facade completely replaced. Windows, mosaics and figures have been carefully cleaned and restored. Now radiant with the new look and highly visible in the western part of Vienna golden dome, reminiscent of half a lemon, incidentally, owes Baumgartnerhöhe on which the church stands, it's nickname" Lemoniberg" . The church, in 2007, three new bells were made by the Grassmayr bell foundry. The church is only open for worship, as well as on Saturdays and Sundays to prevent entry. On these days, guided tours.

Architecture

St. Leopold

Severin

The church Steinhof is next to the Secession building one of the masterpieces of Art Nouveau in Vienna and has parallels with the design, designed by Otto Wagner student of Max Hegele and 1910 finished Charles Borromeo Church in Vienna's central cemetery. One of the distinctive features of the church is based on a Byzantine motif golden dome, lined the inside of a structure is supported. On the bell towers on the west front of St. Leopold enthroned as the patron of Lower Austria and Vienna and to the east of the preacher Severin. The figures were created by Richard Luksch. As well as the orientation of the church to the south rather than east introduced the representation of saints sitting rather than standing one represents a breakthrough

Under the cornice is a decorative strip with crosses and Loorbeerkränzen (laurel wreaths) that are often incorporated in Otto Wagner buildings, such as, for example, in the Postal Savings Bank or the cast iron railings of the rail. About the time used only to larger celebrations are four main entrance created by Othmar Schimkowitz angel figurines with heads bowed to the church square. In a storm the second angel was torn away from the right head and been re-soldered from the janitor, but with their heads held high. This situation was corrected for the renovation.

Stained glass window

The physical virtues

The arrangement of the stained glass windows were designed by Otto Wagner, so that the church interior is flooded with natural light as possible. The glass mosaic window in Tiffany Style created by Koloman Moser. The west window with the motto "Verily I say unto you. Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of these my brethren ye have done it unto me " shows the physical virtues. The angels on the Saints hold the humble grave cloth of Jesus. Reduces the altar when viewed from bottom to top the head.

St. Elizabeth with Roses: Feed the hungry

Rebecca St. in offering the potion: The Thirsty soak

St. Bernard: The strangers house

St. Martin with the sword to divide the mantle: The naked clothe

Visit the sick: John of God, the founder of the Order of the Brothers of Charity

John of Matha, founder of the Order of the Trinity: The released prisoners

Tobias with a shovel: the dead bury

The intellectual virtues

The east window with the motto " Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy " shows the intellectual virtues. The angel looking up at a dove. The altar lift up the head.

John the Baptist: rebuke the sinner

Francis de Sales: instruct the ignorant

Clement Mary Hofbauer advise the doubters right

St. Therese: The Afflicted comfort

The suffering injustice with patience: Joseph of Egypt

Stephan: To those who have offended us a pardon

Abraham ask for living and the dead with God

The four windows in the dome, the four evangelists.

Altarpiece

The altarpiece the promise of heaven should be originally designed by Koloman Moser. Even with the side windows there had been criticism and objections from Henry Swoboda prelate, who had been entrusted with the supervision of the Church. However, as Moser married Ditha Susi Mautner married and he converted to Protestantism, he was removed from the job despite intercessions of Otto Wagner. The already operating in parallel at this time of the order Carl Ederer submitted a design that was similar to that of Moser and originated in this form at the urging Swoboda. Moser Ederer consequently accused of plagiierens (plagiating), whereupon he had left at the urging of the other members of the Secession, from the Moser in 1905, filed suit. The trial ended with a settlement and the apology Moser Expressing liveliest regret" about the " ignorance of the circumstances". At the opening of the church in 1907, only the design of Ederer thus could be issued on cardboard. In agreement with Moser and Wagner 1910 was a renewed design of Remigius Geyling, but because of "lack of suitability" in 1911 he took off the job. The execution of 84.8 m2 and four-ton mosaic was ultimately performed by Leopold Forstner.

The altarpiece is in the middle of the blessing Christ and two angels .

Stand at his right

The Virgin Mary

St. Dymphna, patron saint of the mentally ill

St. Aloysius, who took care of plague victims and the dignified burial

St. Margaret, patron saint of women in labor and in all wounds, one of the Fourteen Holy Helpers

St. Vitus, helpers in mental illness and the patron saint of epilepsy, one of the Fourteen Holy Helpers

Severin of Noricum, the patron saint of Bavaria, the prisoners, growers and weavers as well as for fertility of the vines

Standing to his left

St. Joseph

St. Elizabeth of Thuringia, a symbol of active charity

Hermann the German, the first prior of a Dominican convent in the German speaking Friesach

St. Christopher, helpers against unsuspecting death, patron saint of travelers, one of the Fourteen Holy Helpers

St. Francis of Assisi, patron saint of the poor and social work. Helper for headaches and the plague

St. Pantaleon, Patron of doctors and midwives, one of the Fourteen Holy Helpers

On the steps of the Church kneels St. Leopold kneels and he is handing over the Steinhofkirche. The figures at the side of the altarpiece are representing Paul with sword and Peter with keys. The altar was made ​​according to designs by Otto Wagner. The mosaics of the side altars have been made by Rudolf Jettmar. The right shows the Annunciation left the Archangel Gabriel. The confessionals were manufactured by the Wiener Werkstätte.

 

Otto Wagner, Kirche Am Steinhof, 1904-07, Church Am Steinhof - Projekt Museum Am Steinhof, Otto-Wagner-Spital (Hospital)

de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirche_am_Steinhof

This photo fulfills requirement 1 because it uses a high shutter speed to freeze the action in the photo. It was taken outdoors on an overcast afternoon. The subject performed a quick hair flip which was captured mid-flip for the photo. Because the lens was adapted the lens and aperture data is wrong. A high shutter speed was used to freeze the action in the photo and manual exposure was used to prevent the subjects face from being overexposed. In post, the shadows were brought up and color and white balance adjustments were made.

Repeating Patterns at the Supreme Court

Not long after the F-4C Phantom II entered USAF service in the early 1960s, the service issued a requirement for a heavy, all-missile equipped interceptor with variable-sweep wings and a top speed of nearly Mach 3. This requirement was soon cancelled, however, due to two events: the Vietnam War and the flight of the Soviet MiG-25 Foxbat. Over North Vietnam, the heavy, all-missile F-4 had found itself at a disadvantage against smaller, lighter, gun-equipped MiG-17s, while the new Foxbat was erroneously thought to be a generation ahead of anything then in American service, both agile and capable of Mach 3 performance. The USAF changed its requirement to a lighter aircraft that would include an internal gun, with an emphasis on performance; it rejected a Grumman proposal for a land-based version of the F-14 Tomcat as being too heavy.

 

The new F-X proposal did away with maintenance-intensive swing wings in favor of a more conventional, easier to repair and produce fighter with a high thrust-to-weight ratio and superb performance in the vertical, once more drawing on the Vietnam experience, where North Vietnamese fighters had performed poorly in vertical maneuvers. Almost as much emphasis was given to the F-X’s radar, which had to have look-down, shoot-down capability—another failure of American technology over Vietnam. McDonnell Douglas’ twin-tailed proposal won the F-X competition, despite being roughly the same weight as a F-4E Phantom II, and more expensive; demands for lighter and less expensive fighters as an alternative to this new YF-15 Eagle led to the development of the F-16 Fighting Falcon and F/A-18 Hornet.

 

The first F-15 flew in July 1972 and immediately exhibited superb flight characteristics: for its size, which was slightly larger than a F-4, it was very agile. The combination of powerful turbofan engines and thrust-to-weight ratio made the F-15 one of the first fighters to be able to accelerate in a climb, rather than lose speed. Like the F-4, it used a mix of conformal-fuselage mounted AIM-7 Sparrows and wing rail-mounted AIM-9 Sidewinders, but unlike the F-4, the F-15 was built from the start with an internal 20mm gatling cannon. From a fighter pilot’s standpoint, the best part of the F-15, aside from its phenomenal performance, was the bubbletop canopy, set forward from the wide fuselage, giving superb all-around visibility.

 

Though the cost of the F-15 was brought into question, especially after the defection of a MiG-25 pilot in 1975 revealed that the Foxbat was nowhere near as capable as originally thought, but this only led the USAF to go with a mix of the F-15 and the less expensive F-16, which would prove to be superb “stablemates” in the decades to come. F-15As entered USAF service in 1976. Almost immediately, the F-15A was supplemented and supplanted by the F-15C, which introduced improved avionics, engines, and radar; F-15As underwent the Multi-Stage Improvement Program (MSIP) beginning in 1983, which rendered them basically identical to F-15Cs, and the two types are indistinguishable externally.

 

Though the F-15 was costly, the F-14 Tomcat was even more expensive, and so Israel chose the Eagle as the replacement for the Mirage III in 1978. Not long after the first Israel F-15As became operational, the Eagle scored its first kills over Syrian MiG-21s in 1979. This was to begin the F-15’s excellent combat record: during the 1982 Lebanon War, Israeli F-15s added 40 more kills over MiG-21s, MiG-23 Floggers, and MiG-25s; Saudi Arabia, which had received F-15s in 1981, added two Iranian F-4Es in 1984.

 

The F-15’s shining moment was during the First Gulf War with Iraq in 1991. Eagles had been among the first aircraft deployed to the Gulf region in what was, at the time, the longest deployment ever undertaken by fighters—a grueling 14-hour flight from Langely AFB, Virginia, to Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, soon after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1990. The Eagle fleet, which included Saudi F-15Cs, was added to during Operation Desert Shield; when Desert Storm was unleashed in January 1991, F-15s were in the vanguard, their target the Iraqi Air Force. Over the next six weeks, F-15s achieved air supremacy over Iraq, scoring 34 kills over mostly MiG-23s and MiG-29s, while the Saudis added two Mirage F.1s to the total. (A 37th kill was made by a F-15E Strike Eagle, which shot down a Mi-8 helicopter by dropping a laser-guided bomb on it.) Four Yugoslavian MiG-29s fell to F-15 missiles in 1999, bringing the F-15’s tally to 105 kills to date during its career: in return, no F-15s have been lost in aerial combat.

 

The F-15 Eagle remains the backbone of the USAF’s fighter community, despite suffering from a shortage of parts in the late 1990s and increasing age; the disintegration of a F-15A in 2007 brought home the fact that the Eagle is getting old. F-15s have been updated to carry the AIM-120 AMRAAM and AIM-9X, while Israeli F-15s carry a mix of the AMRAAM and the deadly Python IV helmet-guided missile. The F-22 Raptor was meant to wholly replace the F-15, but the cancellation of further F-22 production in 2010 has left a gap between F-22s in service and F-15s needing to be replaced. As a result, the F-15C may remain in service as late as 2025, with about 70 updated as “Legacy Eagles”—these aircraft are receiving the same AESA advanced radar as the F-22. Boeing (which absorbed McDonnell Douglas) has also offered an advanced variant of the F-15, the so-called “Silent Eagle” that incorporates features of the F-22 into the F-15E airframe, which is still in production. F-15s also continue to serve with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Japan, with no real replacement in sight. Though getting aged by fighter standards, F-15s will be around for a some time to come.

 

These two F-15Cs belonged to the 120th Fighter Wing (Montana ANG); I got this picture leaving the Wings Over the Falls airshow in Great Falls in 2012. Both these aircraft currently serve with the 144th Fighter Wing (California ANG) at Fresno.

The wings on the picture satisfy requirement two because of the wings 2-D structure. For this photo, I went to lightroom, changing the photo to black ad white. I then colored in the wing to a bright blue, emphasizing the 2-D element on the photo. The wings give a nice geometric shape of lines and circles. I also avoided giving the wing shadow to deliver requirement 2. This also satisfies requirement five because of the pop on color. The mood of this photo is very youthful and innocent, explaining how kids are very imaginative and less caring for judgment.

+++ 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 Nakajima J9N Kitsuka (中島 橘花, "Orange Blossom", pronounced Kikka in Kanji used traditionally by the Japanese) was Japan's first jet aircraft. In internal IJN documents it was also called Kōkoku Nigō Heiki (皇国二号兵器, "Imperial Weapon No.2"). After the Japanese military attaché in Germany witnessed trials of the Messerschmitt Me 262 in 1942, the Imperial Japanese Navy issued a request to Nakajima to develop a similar aircraft to be used as a fast attack bomber. Among the specifications for the design were the requirements that it should be able to be built largely by unskilled labor, and that the wings should be foldable. This latter feature was not intended for potential use on aircraft carriers, but rather to enable the aircraft to be hidden in caves and tunnels around Japan as the navy began to prepare for the defense of the home islands.

 

Nakajima designers Kazuo Ohno and Kenichi Matsumura laid out an aircraft that bore a strong but superficial resemblance to the Me 262. Compared to the Me 262, the J9N airframe was noticeably smaller and more conventional in design, with straight wings and tail surfaces, lacking the slight sweepback of the Me 262. The triangular fuselage cross section characteristic of the German design was less pronounced, due to smaller fuel tanks. The main landing gear of the Kikka was taken from the A6M Zero and the nose wheel from the tail of a Yokosuka P1Y bomber.

The Kikka was designed in preliminary form to use the Tsu-11, a rudimentary motorjet style jet engine that was essentially a ducted fan with an afterburner. Subsequent designs were planned around the Ne-10 (TR-10) centrifugal-flow turbojet, and the Ne-12, which added a four-stage axial compressor to the front of the Ne-10. Tests of this powerplant soon revealed that it would not produce anywhere near the power required to propel the aircraft, and the project was temporarily stalled. It was then decided to produce a new axial flow turbojet based on the German BMW 003.

 

Development of the engine was troubled, based on little more than photographs and a single cut-away drawing of the BMW 003. A suitable unit, the Ishikawa-jima Ne-20, was finally built in January 1945. By that time, the Kikka project was making progress and the first prototype made its maiden flight. Due to the worsening war situation, the Navy considered employing the Kikka as a kamikaze weapon, but this was quickly rejected due to the high cost and complexity associated with manufacturing contemporary turbojet engines. Other more economical projects designed specifically for kamikaze attacks, such as the simpler Nakajima Tōka (designed to absorb Japanese stock of obsolete engines), the pulsejet-powered Kawanishi Baika, and the infamous Yokosuka Ohka, were either underway or already in mass production.

 

The following month the prototype was dismantled and delivered to Kisarazu Naval Airfield where it was re-assembled and prepared for flight testing. The aircraft performed well during a 20-minute test flight, with the only concern being the length of the takeoff run – the Ne 20 only had a thrust of 4.66 kN (1,047 lbf), and the engine pair had barely sufficient power to get the aircraft off the ground. This lack of thrust also resulted in a maximum speed of just 623 km/h (387 mph, 336 kn) at sea level and 696 km/h (432 mph; 376 kn) at 10,000 m (32,808 ft).

For the second test flight, four days later, rocket assisted take off (RATO) units were fitted to the aircraft, which worked and gave the aircraft acceptable field performance. The tests went on, together with a second prototype, but despite this early test stage, the J9N was immediately rushed into production.

 

By May 1945 approximately forty airframes had been completed and handed over to IJN home defense frontline units for operational use and conversion training. These were structurally identical with the prototypes, but they were powered by more potent and reliable Ne-130 (with 8.826 kN/900 kgf) or Ne-230 (8.679 kN/885 kgf) engines, which finally gave the aircraft a competitive performance and also made the RATO boosters obsolete - unless an 800 kg bomb was carried in overload configuration. Most were J9N1 day fighter single seaters, armed with two 30 mm Type 5 cannons with 50 rounds per gun in the nose. Some operational Kitsukas had, due to the lack of equipment, the 30 mm guns replaced with lighter 20 mm Ho-5 cannon. A few were unarmed two-seaters (J9N2) with dual controls and a second seat instead of the fuselage fuel tank. This markedly limited the aircraft’s range but was accepted for a dedicated trainer, but a ventral 500 l drop tank could be carried to extend the two-seater’s range to an acceptable level.

 

A small number, both single- and two-seaters, were furthermore adapted to night fighter duties and equipped with an experimental ”FD-2” centimeter waveband radar in the nose with an “antler” antenna array, similar to German radar sets of the time. The FD-2 used four forward-facing Yagi style antennae with initially five and later with seven elements (the sideway facing rods) each. These consisted of two pairs, each with a sending (top and bot) and a receiving antenna (left and right). The set used horizontal lobe switching to find the target, an electrical shifter would continuously switch between the sets. The signal strengths would then be compared to determine the range and azimuth of the target, and the results would then be shown on a CRT display.

 

In order to fit the electronics (the FD-2 weighed around 70 kg/155 lb) the night fighters typically had one of the nose-mounted guns replaced by a fixed, obliquely firing Ho-5 gun ("Schräge Musik"-style), which was mounted in the aircraft’s flank behind the cockpit, and the 500l drop tank became a permanent installation to extend loiter time, at the expense of top speed, though. These machines received the suffix “-S” and flew, despite the FD-2’s weaknesses and limitations, a few quite effective missions against American B-29 bombers, but their impact was minimal due to the aircrafts’ small numbers and poor reliability of the still experimental radar system. However, the FD-2’s performance was rather underwhelming, though, with an insufficient range of only 3 km. Increased drag due to the antennae and countermeasures deployed by B-29 further decreased the effectiveness, and the J9N2-S’s successes could be rather attributed to experienced and motivated crews than the primitive radar.

 

Proposed follow-on J9N versions had included a reconnaissance aircraft and a fast attack aircraft that was supposed to carry a single bomb under the fuselage against ships. There was also a modified version of the design to be launched from a 200 m long catapult, the "Nakajima Kikka-kai Prototype Turbojet Special Attacker". All these proposed versions were expected to be powered by more advanced developments of the Ne-20, the Ne-330 with 13 kN (1.330 kg) thrust, but none of them reached the hardware stage.

 

The J9Ns’ overall war contribution was negligible, and after the war, several airframes (including partial airframes) were captured by Allied forces. Three airframes (including a two-seat night fighter with FD-2 radar) were brought to the U.S. for study. Today, two J9N examples survive in the National Air and Space Museum: The first is a Kikka that was taken to the Patuxent River Naval Air Base, Maryland for analysis. This aircraft is very incomplete and is believed to have been patched together from a variety of semi-completed airframes. It is currently still in storage at the Paul E. Garber Preservation, Restoration and Storage Facility in Silver Hill, MD. The second Kikka is on display at the NASM Udvar-Hazy Center in the Mary Baker Engen Restoration Hangar.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 2

Length: 8.13 m (26 ft 8 in) fuselage only

10.30 m (33 ft 8¾ in) with FD-2 antenna array

Wingspan: 10 m (32 ft 10 in)

Height: 2.95 m (9 ft 8 in)

Wing area: 13.2 m² (142 sq ft)

Empty weight: 2,300 kg (5,071 lb)

Gross weight: 3,500 kg (7,716 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 4,080 kg (8,995 lb)

 

Powerplant:

2× Ishikawajima Ne-130 or Ne-230 axial-flow turbojet engines

each with 8.83 kN/900 kg or 8.68 kN/885 kg thrust

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 785 km/h (487 mph, 426 kn)

Range: 925 km (574 mi, 502 nmi) with internal fuel

Service ceiling: 12,000 m (39,000 ft)

Rate of climb: 10.5 m/s (2,064 ft/min)

Wing loading: 265 kg/m² (54 lb/sq ft)

Thrust-to-weight ratio: 0.43

 

Armament:

1× 30 mm (1.181 in) Type 5 cannon with 50 rounds in the nose

1× 20 mm (0.787 in) Type Ho-2 cannon with 80 rounds, mounted obliquely behind the cockpit

1× ventral hardpoint for a 500 l drop tank or a single 500 kg (1,102 lb) bomb

  

The kit and its assembly:

This is in fact the second Kikka I have built, and this time it’s a two-seater from AZ Models – actually the trainer boxing, but converted into a personal night fighter interpretation. The AZ Models kit is a simple affair, but that's also its problem. In the box things look quite good, detail level is on par with a classic Matchbox kit. But unlike a Matchbox kit, the AZ Models offering does not go together well. I had to fight everywhere with poor fit, lack of locator pins, ejection marks - anything a short run model kit can throw at you! Thanks to the experience with the single-seater kit some time ago, things did not become too traumatic, but it’s still not a kit for beginners. What worked surprisingly well was the IP canopy, though, which I cut into five sections for an optional open display – even though I am not certain if the kit’s designers had put some brain into their work because the canopy’s segmentation becomes more and more dubious the further you go backwards.

 

The only personal mods is a slightly changed armament, with one nose gun deleted and faired over with a piece of styrene sheet, while the leftover gun was mounted obliquely onto the left flank. I initially considered a position behind the canopy but rejected this because of CoG reasons. Then I planned to mount it directly behind the 2nd seat, so that the barrel would protrude through the canopy, but this appeared unrealistic because the (utterly tiny) sliding canopy for the rear crewman could not have been opened anymore? Finally, I settled for an offset position in the aircraft’s flanks, partly inspired by “Schräge Musik” arrangements on some German Fw 190 night fighters.

 

The antennae come from a Jadar Model PE set for Italeri’s Me 210s, turning it either into a night fighter or a naval surveillance aircraft.

  

Painting and markings:

This became rather lusterless; many late IJN night fighters carried a uniform dark green livery with minimalistic, toned-down markings, e. g. hinomaru without a white high-contrast edge, just the yellow ID bands on the wings’ leading edges were retained.

For this look the model received an overall basis coat of Humbrol 75 (Bronze Green), later treated with a black ink washing, dry-brushed aluminum and post-shading with lighter shades of dark green (including Humbrol 116 and Revell 67). The only colorful highlight is a red fin tip (Humbrol 19) and a thin red stripe underneath (decal). The yellow and white ID bands were created with decal material.

 

The cockpit interior was painted in a yellowish-green primer (trying to simulate a typical “bamboo” shade that was used in some late-war IJN cockpits), while the landing gear wells were painted in aodake iro, a clear bluish protective lacquer. The landing gear struts themselves became semi-matt black.

 

The markings are fictional and were puzzled together from various sources. The hinomaru came from the AZ Models’ Kikka single seater sheet (since it offers six roundels w/o white edge), the tactical code on the fin was created with red numbers from a Fujimi Aichi B7A2 Ryusei.

 

Finally, the kit received a coat of matt acrylic varnish and some grinded graphite around the jet exhausts and the gun nozzles.

  

Well, this fictional Kikka night fighter looks quite dry, but that makes it IMHO more credible. The large antler antenna array might look “a bit too much”, and a real night fighter probably had a simpler arrangement with a single Yagi-style/arrow-shaped antenna, but a description of the FD-2 radar suggested the layout I chose – and it does not look bad. The oblique cannon in the flank is another odd detail, but it is not unplausible. However, with all the equipment and esp. the draggy antennae on board, the Kikka’s mediocre performance would surely have seriously suffered, probably beyond an effective use. But this is whifworld, after all. ;-)

This photo fulfilled the requirement 4 - Show the action with a burst

 

I took this photo at Lucky strike when my friend was playing the bowling and using my sony a6000 with E PZ 16-55mm lens. I used shutter speed of 1/13s but high ISO of 3200 to track the motion trail of my friends in the super dark enviornment. I used the burst mode and this helped me to freeze the fast movements and show people the story of playing the bowling. I zoomed in the lens and made the focal length of 27 mm and I set the aperture at f/4.5 to balance the ISO.

 

Since I used the software to blend 3 photos in the same picture and then I lost the EXIF to show beside.

This one is my favorite photo recently. I shot this in the golden garden beach with my friend. This fulfills the 1st requirement since I use a 1/400s which is a high shutter speed in order to capture the moment when the water of the waves freezes. In the center was my lensball. I use a 50mm/f1.8 lens on this since it was sharp enough. I also set the ISO to 100 to decrease noise points.

 

The reflection of sunlight is just amazing on the lensball. Post-processing with color editings in Lightroom and Nik-collections.