+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

In the first years of the war, the Wehrmacht had only little interest in developing self-propelled anti-aircraft guns, but as the Allies developed air superiority and dedicated attack aircraft threatened the ground troops from above, the need for more mobile and better-armed self-propelled anti-aircraft guns increased. As a stopgap solution the Wehrmacht initially adapted a variety of wheeled, half-track and tracked vehicles to serve as mobile forward air defense positions. Their tasks were to protect armor and infantry units in the field, as well as to protect temporary forward area positions such as mobile headquarters and logistic points.

 

These vehicles were only lightly armored, if at all, and rather mobilized the anti-aircraft weapons. As Allied fighter bombers and other ground attack aircraft moved from machine gun armament and bombing to air-to-ground rockets and large-caliber cannons, the air defense positions were even more vulnerable. The answer was to adapt a tank chassis with a specialized turret that would protect the gun crews while they fired upon approaching Allied aircraft. Furthermore, the vehicle would have the same mobility as the battle tanks it protected.

 

Initial German AA-tank designs were the ‘Möbelwagen’ and the ‘Wirbelwind’, both conversions of refurbished Panzer IV combat tank chassis with open platforms or turrets with four 20mm cannon. Alternatively, a single 37mm AA gun was mounted, too – but all these vehicles were just a compromise and suffered from light armor, a high silhouette and lack of crew protection.

 

Further developments of more sophisticated anti-aircraft tank designs started in late 1943 and led into different directions. One development line was the ‘Kugelblitz’, another Panzer IV variant, but this time the ball-shaped turret, armed with very effective 30 mm MK 103 cannon, was fully integrated into the hull, resulting in a low silhouette and a protected crew. However, the ‘Kugelblitz’ only featured two of these guns and the tilting turret was very cramped and complicated. Venting and ammunition feed problems led to serious delays and a prolonged development stage.

The ‘Coelian’ family of bigger turrets with various weapon options for the Panzer V (the ‘Panther’) was another direction, especially as a response against the armored Il-2 attack aircraft at the Eastern front and against flying targets at medium altitude. Targets at high altitude, esp. Allied bombers, were to be countered with the very effective 8.8 cm Flak, and there were also several attempts to mount this weapon onto a fully armored hull.

 

The primary weapon for a new low/medium altitude anti-aircraft tank was to become the heavy automatic 55 mm MK 214. Like the 30 mm MK 103 it was a former aircraft weapon, belt-fed and adapted to continuous ground use. However, in early 1944, teething troubles with the ‘Kugelblitz’ suggested that a completely enclosed turret with one or (even better) two of these new weapons, mounted on a ‘Panther’ or the new E-50/75 tank chassis, would need considerable development time. Operational vehicles were not expected to enter service before mid-1945. In order to fill this operational gap, a more effective solution than the Panzer IV AA conversions, with more range and firepower than anything else currently in service, was direly needed.

 

This situation led to yet another hasty stopgap solution, the so-called ‘Ostwind II’ weapon system, which consisted primarily of a new turret, mated with a standard medium battle tank chassis. It was developed in a hurry in the course of 1944 and already introduced towards the end of the same year. The ‘Ostwind II’ was a compromise in the worst sense: even though it used two 37 mm FlaK 43 guns in a new twin mount and offered better firepower than any former German AA tank, it also retained many weaknesses from its predecessors: an open turret with only light armor and a high silhouette. But due to the lack of time and resources, the ‘Ostwind II’ was the best thing that could be realized on short notice, and with the perspective of more effective solutions within one year’s time it was rushed into production.

 

The ‘Ostwind II’ system was an open, roughly diamond-shaped, octagonal turret, very similar in design to the Panzer IV-based ‘Wirbelwind’ and ‘Ostwind’ (which was re-designated ‘Ostwind I’). As a novelty, in order to relieve the crew from work overload, traverse and elevation of the turret was hydraulic, allowing a full elevation (-4° to +90° was possible) in just over four seconds and a full 360° traverse in 15 seconds. This had become necessary because the new turret was bigger and heaver, both the weapons and their crews required more space, so that the Ostwind II complex could not be mounted onto the Panzer IV chassis anymore and movement by hand was just a fallback option.

In order to provide the ‘Ostwind II’ with a sufficiently large chassis, it was based on the SdKfz. 171 Panzer V medium battle tank, the ‘Panther’, exploiting its bigger turret ring, armor level and performance. The Panther chassis had, by late 1944, become available for conversions in considerable numbers through damaged and/or recovered combat tanks, and updated details like new turrets or simplified road wheels were gradually introduced into production and during refurbishments. Mounting the ‘Ostwind II’ turret on the Panzer VI (Tiger) battle tank chassis had been theoretically possible, too, but it never happened, because the Tiger lacked agility and its protection level and fuel consumption were considered impractical for an SPAAG that would typically protect battle tank groups.

 

The ‘Ostwind II’ turret was built around a motorized mount for the automatic 3.7 cm FlaK 43 twin guns. These proven weapons were very effective against aircraft flying at altitudes up to 4,200 m, but they also had devastating effect against ground targets. The FlaK 43’s armor penetration was considerable when using dedicated ammunition: at 100 m distance it could penetrate 36 mm of a 60°-sloped armor, and at 800 m distance correspondingly 24 mm. The FlaK 43’s theoretical maximum rate of fire was 250 shots/minute, but it was practically kept at ~120 rpm in order to save ammunition and prevent wear of the barrels. The resulting weight of fire was 76.8 kg (169 lb) per minute, but this was only theoretical, too, because the FlaK 43 could only be fed manually by 6-round clips – effectively, only single shots or short bursts could be fired, but a trained crew could maintain fire through using alternating gun use. A more practical belt feed was at the time of the Ostwind II's creation not available yet, even though such a mechanism was already under development for the fully enclosed Coelian turret, which could also take the FlaK 43 twin guns, but the armament was separated from the turret crew.

 

The new vehicle received the official designation ‘Sd.Kfz. 171/2 Flakpanzer V’, even though ‘Ostwind II’ was more common. When production actually began and how many were built is unclear. The conversion of Panther hulls could have started in late-1944 or early-1945, with sources disagreeing. The exact number of produced vehicles is difficult to determine, either. Beside the prototype, the number of produced vehicles goes from as little as 6 to over 40. The first completed Ostwind II SPAAGs were exclusively delivered to Eastern front units and reached them in spring 1945, where they were immediately thrown into action.

All Flakpanzer vehicles at that time were allocated to special anti-aircraft tank platoons (so-called Panzer Flak Züge). These were used primarily to equip Panzer Divisions, and in some cases given to special units. By the end of March 1945, there were plans to create mixed platoons equipped with the Ostwinds and other Flakpanzers. Depending on the source, they were either to be used in combination with six Kugelblitz, six Ostwinds and four Wirbelwinds or with eight Ostwinds and three Sd.Kfz. 7/1 half-tracks. Due to the war late stage and the low number of anti-aircraft tanks of all types built, this reorganization was never truly implemented, so that most vehicles were simply directly attached to combat units, primarily to the commanding staff.

 

The Ostwind II armament proved to be very effective, but the open turret (nicknamed ‘Keksdose’ = cookie tin) left the crews vulnerable. The crew conditions esp. during wintertime were abominable, and since aiming had to rely on vision the system's efficacy was limited, esp. against low-flying targets. The situation was slightly improved when the new mobile ‘Medusa’ and ‘Basilisk’ surveillance and target acquisition systems were introduced. These combined radar and powerful visual systems and guided the FlaK crews towards incoming potential targets, what markedly improved the FlaKs' first shot hit probability. However, the radar systems rarely functioned properly, the coordination of multiple SPAAGs in the heat of a low-level air attack was a challenging task, and - to make matters worse - the new mobile radar systems were even more rare than the new SPAAGs themselves.

 

All Ostwind II tanks were built from recovered ‘Panther’ battle tanks of various versions. The new Panther-based SPAAGs gradually replaced most of the outdated Panzer IV AA variants as well as the Ostwind I. Their production immediately stopped in the course of 1945 when the more sophisticated 'Coelian' family of anti-aircraft tanks with fully enclosed turrets became available. This system was based on Panzer V hulls, too, and it was soon followed by the first E-50 SPAAGs with the new, powerful twin-55 mm gun.

  

Specifications:

Crew: Six (commander, gunner, 2× loader, driver, radio-operator/hull machine gunner)

Weight: 43.8 tonnes (43.1 long tons; 48.3 short tons)

Length (hull only): 6.87 m (22 ft 6 in)

Width: 3.42 m (11 ft 3 in)

Height: 3.53 m (11 ft 6 3/4 in)

Suspension: Double torsion bar, interleaved road wheels

Fuel capacity: 720 litres (160 imp gal; 190 US gal)

 

Armor:

15–80 mm (0.6 – 3.15 in)

 

Performance:

Maximum road speed: 46 km/h (29 mph)

Operational range: 250 km (160 mi)

Power/weight: 15.39 PS (11.5 kW)/tonne (13.77 hp/ton)

 

Engine:

Maybach HL230 P30 V-12 petrol engine with 700 PS (690 hp, 515 kW)

ZF AK 7-200 gear; 7 forward 1 reverse

 

Armament:

2× 37 mm (1.46 in) FlaK 43 cannon in twin mount with 1.200 rounds

1× 7.92 mm MG 34 machine gun in the front glacis plate with 2.500 rounds

  

The kit and its assembly:

This was a spontaneous build, more or less the recycling of leftover parts from a 1:72 Revell Ostwind tank on a Panzer III chassis that I had actually bought primarily for the chassis (it became a fictional Aufklärungspanzer III). When I looked at the leftover turret, I wondered about a beefed-up/bigger version with two 37 mm guns. Such an 'Ostwind II' was actually on the German drawing boards, but never realized - but what-if modelling can certainly change that. However, such a heavy weapon would have to be mounted on a bigger/heavier chassis, so the natural choice became the Panzer V, the Panther medium battle tank. This way, my ‘Ostwind II’ interpretation was born.

The hull for this fictional AA tank is a Hasegawa ‘Panther Ausf. G’ kit, which stems from 1973 and clearly shows its age, at least from today’s point of view. While everything fits well, the details are rather simple, if not crude (e. g. the gratings on the engine deck or the cupola on the turret). However, only the lower hull and the original wheels were used since I wanted to portray a revamped former standard battle tank.

 

The turret was a more complicated affair. It had to be completely re-constructed, to accept the enlarged twin gun and to fit onto the Panther hull. The first step was the assembly of the twin gun mount, using parts from the original Ostwind kit and additional parts from a second one. In order to save space and not to make thing uber-complicated I added the second weapon to the right side of the original gun and changed some accessories.

This, together with the distance between the barrels, gave the benchmark for the turret's reconstruction. Since the weapon had not become longer, I decided to keep things as simple as possible and just widen the open turret - I simply took the OOB Ostwind hexagonal turret (which consists of an upper and lower half), cut it up vertically and glued them onto the Panther turret's OOB base, shifting the sides just as far to the outside that the twin gun barrels would fit between them - a distance of ~0.4 inch (1 cm). At the rear the gap was simply closed with styrene sheet, while the front used shield parts from the Revell Ostwind kit that come from a ground mount for the FlaK 43. Two parts from this shield were glued together and inserted into the front gap. While this is certainly not as elegant as e. g. the Wirbelwind turret, I think that this solution was easier to integrate.

Massive PSR was necessary to blend the turret walls with the Panther turret base, and as a late modification the opening for the sight had to be moved, too. To the left of the weapons, I also added a raised protective shield for the commander.

Inside of the turret, details from the Ostwind kit(s), e. g. crew seats and ammunition clips, were recycled, too.

  

Painting and markings:

Since the Ostwind II would be based on a repaired/modified former Panzer V medium battle tank, I settled upon a relatively simple livery. The kit received a uniform finish in Dunkelgelb (RAL 7028), with a network of greenish-grey thin stripes added on top, to break up the tank's outlines and reminiscent of the British ‘Malta’ scheme, but less elaborate. The model and its parts were initially primed with matt sand brown from the rattle can (more reddish than RAL 7028) and then received an overall treatment with thinned RAL 7028 from Modelmaster, for an uneven, dirty and worn look. The stripes were created with thinned Tamiya XF-65 (Field Grey).

 

Once dry, the whole surface received a dark brown wash, details were emphasized with dry-brushing in light grey and beige. Decals were puzzled together from various German tank sheets, and the kit finally sealed with matt acrylic varnish.

 

The black vinyl tracks were also painted/weathered, with a wet-in-wet mix of black, grey, iron and red brown (all acrylics). Once mounted into place, mud and dust were simulated around the running gear and the lower hull with a greyish-brown mix of artist mineral pigments.

  

A bit of recycling and less exotic than one would expect, but it’s still a whiffy tank model that fits well into the historic gap between the realized Panzer IV AA tanks and the unrealized E-50/75 projects. Quite subtle! Creating the enlarged turret was the biggest challenge, even, even more so because it was/is an open structure and the interior can be readily seen. But the new/bigger gun fits well into it, and it even remained movable!

 

The Saint Petersburg Metro has been open since 15 November 1955. Formerly known as the V.I. Lenin Order of Lenin Leningrad Metropoliten the system exhibits many typical Soviet designs and features exquisite decorations and artwork making it one of the most attractive and elegant metros in the world. Due to the city's unique geology, the Saint Petersburg Metro is one of the deepest metro systems in the world and the deepest by the average depth of all the stations. The system's deepest station, Admiralteyskaya, is 86 metres below ground. Serving about 2 million passengers daily, it is also the 19th busiest metro system in the world.

 

Kirovsko-Vyborgskaya Line, Line 1. Narvskaya Station.

(Wikipedia)

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

In the late 1970s the Mikoyan OKB began development of a hypersonic high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft. Designated "Izdeliye 301" (also known as 3.01), the machine had an unusual design, combining a tailless layout with variable geometry wings. The two engines fueled by kerosene were located side by side above the rear fuselage, with the single vertical fin raising above them, not unlike the Tu-22 “Blinder” bomber of that time, but also reminiscent of the US-American SR-71 Mach 3 reconnaissance aircraft.

 

Only few and rather corny information leaked into the West, and the 301 was believed not only to act as a reconnaissance plane , it was also believed to have (nuclear) bombing capabilities. Despite wind tunnel testing with models, no hardware of the 301 was ever produced - aven though the aircraft could have become a basis for a long-range interceptor that would replace by time the PVO's Tupolew Tu-28P (ASCC code "Fiddler"), a large aircraft armed solely with missiles.

 

Despite limitations, the Tu-28P served well in its role, but the concept of a very fast interceptor aircraft, lingered on, since the Soviet Union had large areas to defend against aerial intruders, esp. from the North and the East. High speed, coupled with long range and the ability to intercept an incoming target at long distances independently from ground guidance had high priority for the Soviet Air Defence Forces. Even though no official requirement was issued, the concept of Izdeliye 301 from the Seventies was eventually developed further into the fixed-wing "Izdeliye 701" ultra-long-range high-altitude interceptor in the 1980ies.

 

The impulse for this new approach came when Oleg S. Samoylovich joined the Mikoyan OKB after having worked at Suchoi OKB on the T-60S missile carrier project. Similar in overall design to the former 301, the 701 was primarily intended as a kind of successor for the MiG-31 Foxhound for the 21st century, which just had completed flight tests and was about to enter PVO's front line units.

 

Being based on a long range cruise missile carrier, the 701 would have been a huge plane, featuring a length of 30-31m, a wing span of 19m (featuring a highly swept double delta wing) and having a maximum TOW of 70 tons! Target performance figures included a top speed of 2.500km/h, a cruising speed of 2.100km/h at 17.000m and an effective range of 7.000km in supersonic or 11.000km in subsonic mode. Eventually, the 701 program was mothballed, too, being too ambitious and expensive for a specialized development that could also have been a fighter version of the Tu-22 bomber!

 

Anyway, while the MiG-31 was successfully introduced in 1979 and had evolved in into a capable long-range interceptor with a top speed of more than Mach 3 (limited to Mach 2.8 in order to protect the aircraft's structural integrity), MiG OKB decided in 1984 to take further action and to develop a next-generation technology demonstrator, knowing that even the formidable "Foxhound" was only an interim solution on the way to a true "Four plus" of even a 6th generation fighter. Other new threats like low-flying cruise missiles, the USAF's "Project Pluto" or the assumed SR-71 Mach 5 successor “Aurora” kept Soviet military officials on the edge of their seats, too.

 

Main objective was to expand the Foxhound's state-of the-art performance, and coiple it with modern features like aerodynamic instability, supercruise, stealth features and further development potential.

 

The aircraft's core mission objectives comprised:

- Provide strategic air defense and surveillance in areas not covered by ground-based air defense systems (incl. guidance of other aircraft with less sophisticated avionics)

- Top speed of Mach 3.2 or more in a dash and cruise at Mach 3.0 for prolonged periods

- Long range/high speed interception of airspace intruders of any kind, including low flying cruise missiles, UAVs and helicopters

- Intercept cruise missiles and their launch aircraft from sea level up to 30.000m altitude by reaching missile launch range in the lowest possible time after departing the loiter area

 

Because funding was scarce and no official GOR had been issued, the project was taken on as a private venture. The new project was internally known as "Izdeliye 710" or "71.0". It was based on both 301 and 701 layout ideas and the wind tunnel experiences with their unusual layouts, as well as Oleg Samoylovich's experience with the Suchoi T-4 Mach 3 bomber project and the T-60S.

 

"Izdeliye 710" was from the start intended only as a proof-of-concept prototype, yet fully functional. It would also incorporate new technologies like heat-resistant ceramics against kinetic heating at prolonged high speeds (the airframe had to resist temperatures of 300°C/570°F and more for considerable periods), but with potential for future development into a full-fledged interceptor, penetrator and reconnaissance aircraft.

 

Overall, “Izdeliye 710" looked like a shrinked version of a mix of both former MiG OKB 301 and 701 designs, limited to the MiG-31's weight class of about 40 tons TOW. Compared with the former designs, the airframe received an aerodynamically more refined, partly blended, slender fuselage that also incorporated mild stealth features like a “clean” underside, softened contours and partly shielded air intakes. Structurally, the airframe's speed limit was set at Mach 3.8.

 

From the earlier 301 design,the plane retained the variable geometry wing. Despite the system's complexity and weight, this solution was deemed to be the best approach for a combination of a high continuous top speed, extended loiter time in the mission’s patrol areas and good performance on improvised airfields. Minimum sweep was a mere 10°, while, fully swept at 68°, the wings blended into the LERXes. Additional lift was created through the fuselage shape itself, so that aerodynamic surfaces and therefore drag could be reduced.

 

Pilot and radar operator sat in tandem under a common canopy with rather limited sight. The cockpit was equipped with a modern glass cockpit with LCD screens. The aircraft’s two engines were, again, placed in a large, mutual nacelle on the upper rear fuselage, fed by large air intakes with two-dimensional vertical ramps and a carefully modulated airflow over the aircraft’s dorsal area.

 

Initially, the 71.0 was to be powered by a pair of Soloviev D-30F6 afterburning turbofans with a dry thrust of 93 kN (20,900 lbf) each, and with 152 kN (34,172 lbf) with full afterburner. These were the same engines that powered the MiG-31, but there were high hopes for the Kolesov NK-101 engine: a variable bypass engine with a maximum thrust in the 200kN range, at the time of the 71.0's design undergoing bench tests and originally developed for the advanced Suchoj T-4MS strike aircraft.

With the D-30F6, the 71.0 was expected to reach Mach 3.2 (making the aircraft capable of effectively intercepting the SR-71), but the NK-101 would offer in pure jet mode a top speed in excess of Mach 3.5 and also improve range and especially loiter time when running as a subsonic turbofan engine.

 

A single fin with an all-moving top and an additional deep rudder at its base was placed on top of the engine nacelle. Additional maneuverability at lower speed was achieved by retractable, all-moving foreplanes, stowed in narrow slits under the cockpit. Longitudinal stability at high speed was improved through deflectable stabilizers: these were kept horizontal for take-off and added to the overall lift, but they could be folded down by up to 60° in flight, acting additionally as stabilizer strakes.

 

Due to the aircraft’s slender shape and unique proportions, the 71.0 quickly received the unofficial nickname "жура́вль" (‘Zhurávl' = Crane). The aircaft’s stalky impression was emphasized even more through its unusual landing gear arrangement: Due to the limited internal space for the main landing gear wells between the weapons bay, the wing folding mechanisms and the engine nacelle, MiG OKB decided to incorporate a bicycle landing gear, normally a trademark of Yakovlew OKB designs, but a conventional landing gear could simply not be mounted, or its construction would have become much too heavy and complex.

 

In order to facilitate operations from improvised airfields and on snow the landing gear featured twin front wheels on a conventional strut and a single four wheel bogie as main wheels. Smaller, single stabilizer wheels were mounted on outriggers that retracted into slender fairings at the wings’ fixed section trailing edge, reminiscent of early Tupolev designs.

 

All standard air-to-air weaponry, as well as fuel, was to be carried internally. Main armament would be the K-100 missile (in service eventually designated R-100), stored in a large weapons bay behind the cockpit on a rotary mount. The K-100 had been under development at that time at NPO Novator, internally coded ‘Izdeliye 172’. The K-100 missile was an impressive weapon, and specifically designed to attack vital and heavily defended aerial targets like NATO’s AWACS aircraft at BVR distance.

 

Being 15’ (4.57 m) long and weighing 1.370 lb (620 kg), this huge ultra-long-range weapon had a maximum range of 250 mi (400 km) in a cruise/glide profile and attained a speed of Mach 6 with its solid rocket engine. This range could be boosted even further with a pair of jettisonable ramjets in tubular pods on the missile’s flanks for another 60 mi (100 km). The missile could attack targets ranging in altitude between 15 – 25,000 meters.

 

The weapon would initially be allocated to a specified target through the launch aircraft’s on-board radar and sent via inertial guidance into the target’s direction. Closing in, the K-100’s Agat 9B-1388 active seeker would identify the target, lock on, and independently attack it, also in coordination with other K-100’s shot at the same target, so that the attack would be coordinated in time and approach directions in order to overload defense and ensure a hit.

 

The 71.0’s internal mount could hold four of these large missiles, or, alternatively, the same number of the MiG-31’s R-33 AAMs. The mount also had a slot for the storage of additional mid- and short-range missiles for self-defense, e .g. three R-60 or two R-73 AAMs. An internal gun was not considered to be necessary, since the 71.0 or potential derivatives would fight their targets at very long distances and rather rely on a "hit-and-run" tactic, sacrificing dogfight capabilities for long loitering time in stand-by mode, high approach speed and outstanding acceleration and altitude performance.

 

Anyway, provisions were made to carry a Gsh-301-250 gun pod on a retractable hardpoint in the weapons bay instead of a K-100. Alternatively, such pods could be carried externally on four optional wing root pylons, which were primarily intended for PTB-1500 or PTB-3000 drop tanks, or further missiles - theoretically, a maximum of ten K-100 missiles could be carried, plus a pair of short-range AAMs.

 

Additionally, a "buddy-to-buffy" IFR set with a retractable drogue (probably the same system as used on the Su-24) was tested (71.2 was outfitted with a retractable refuelling probe in front of the cockpit), as well as the carriage of simple iron bombs or nuclear stores, to be delivered from very high altitudes. Several pallets with cameras and sensors (e .g. a high resolution SLAR) were also envisioned, which could easily replace the missile mounts and the folding weapon bay covers for recce missions.

 

Since there had been little official support for the project, work on the 710 up to the hardware stage made only little progress, since the MiG-31 already filled the long-range interceptor role in a sufficient fashion and offered further development potential.

A wooden mockup of the cockpit section was presented to PVO and VVS officials in 1989, and airframe work (including tests with composite materials on structural parts, including ceramic tiles for leading edges) were undertaken throughout 1990 and 1991, including test rigs for the engine nacelle and the swing wing mechanism.

 

Eventually, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 suddenly stopped most of the project work, after two prototype airframes had been completed. Their internal designations were Izdeliye 71.1 and 71.2, respectively. It took a while until the political situation as well as the ex-Soviet Air Force’s status were settled, and work on Izdeliye 710 resumed at a slow pace.

 

After taking two years to be completed, 71.1 eventually made its roll-out and maiden flight in summer 1994, just when MiG-31 production had ended. MiG OKB still had high hopes in this aircraft, since the MiG-31 would have to be replaced in the next couple of years and "Izdeliye 710" was just in time for the potential procurement process. The first prototype wore a striking all-white livery, with dark grey ceramic tiles on the wings’ leading edges standing out prominently – in this guise and with its futuristic lines the slender aircraft reminded a lot of the American Space Shuttle.

 

71.1 was primarily intended for engine and flight tests (esp. for the eagerly awaited NK-101 engines), as well as for the development of the envisioned ramjet propulsion system for full-scale production and further development of Izdeliye 710 into a Mach 3+ interceptor. No mission avionics were initially fitted to this plane, but it carried a comprehensive test equipment suite and ballast.

 

Its sister ship 71.2 flew for the first time in late 1994, wearing a more unpretentious grey/bare metal livery. This plane was earmarked for avionics development and weapons integration, especially as a test bed for the K-100 missile, which shared Izdeliye 710’s fate of being a leftover Soviet project with an uncertain future and an even more corny funding outlook.

 

Anyway, aircraft 71.2 was from the start equipped with a complete RP-31 ('Zaslon-M') weapon control system, which had been under development at that time as an upgrade for the Russian MiG-31 fleet being part of the radar’s development program secured financial support from the government and allowed the flight tests to continue. The RP-31 possessed a maximum detection range of 400 km (250 mi) against airliner-sized targets at high altitude or 200 km against fighter-sized targets; the typical width of detection along the front was given as 225 km. The system could track 24 airborne targets at one time at a range of 120 km, 6 of which could be simultaneously attacked with missiles.

 

With these capabilities the RP-31 suite could, coupled with an appropriate carrier airframe, fulfil the originally intended airspace control function and would render a dedicated and highly vulnerable airspace control aircraft (like the Beriev A-50 derivative of the Il-76 transport) more or less obsolete. A group of four aircraft equipped with the 'Zaslon-M' suite would be able to permanently control an area of airspace across a total length of 800–900 km, while having ultra-long range weapons at hand to counter any intrusion into airspace with a quicker reaction time than any ground-based fighter on QRA duty. The 71.0, outfitted with the RP-31/K-100 system, would have posed a serious threat to any aggressor.

 

In March 1995 both prototypes were eventually transferred to the Kerchenskaya Guards Air Base at Savasleyka in the Oblast Vladimir, 300 km east of Mocsow, where they received tactical codes of '11 Blue' and '12 Blue'. Besides the basic test program and the RP-31/K-100 system tests, both machines were directly evaluated against the MiG-31 and Su-27 fighters by the Air Force's 4th TsBPi PLS, based at the same site.

 

Both aircraft exceeded expectations, but also fell short in certain aspects. The 71.0’s calculated top speed of Mach 3.2 was achieved during the tests with a top speed of 3,394 km/h (2.108 mph) at 21,000 m (69.000 ft). Top speed at sea level was confirmed at 1.200 km/h (745 mph) indicated airspeed.

Combat radius with full weapon load and internal fuel only was limited to 1,450 km (900 mi) at Mach 0.8 and at an altitude of 10,000 m (33,000 ft), though, and it sank to a mere 720 km (450 mi) at Mach 2.35 and at an altitude of 18,000 m (59,000 ft). Combat range with 4x K-100 internally and 2 drop tanks was settled at 3,000 km (1,860 mi), rising to 5,400 km (3,360 mi) with one in-flight refueling, tested with the 71.2. Endurance at altitude was only slightly above 3 hours, though. Service ceiling was 22,800 m (74,680 ft), 2.000 m higher than the MiG-31.

 

While these figures were impressive, Soviet officials were not truly convinced: they did not show a significant improvement over the simpler MiG-31. MiG OKB tried to persuade the government into more flight tests and begged for access to the NK-101, but the Soviet Union's collapse halted this project, too, so that both Izdeliye 710 had to keep the Soloviev D-30F6.

 

Little is known about the Izdeliye 710 project’s progress or further developments. The initial tests lasted until at least 1997, and obviously the updated MiG-31M received official favor instead of a completely new aircraft. The K-100 was also dropped, since the R-33 missile and later its R-37 derivative sufficiently performed in the long-range aerial strike role.

 

Development on the aircraft as such seemed to have stopped with the advent of modernized Su-27 derivatives and the PAK FA project, resulting in the Suchoi T-50 prototype. Unconfirmed reports suggest that one of the prototypes (probably 71.1) was used in the development of the N014 Pulse-Doppler radar with a passive electronically scanned array antenna in the wake of the MFI program. The N014 was designed with a range of 420 km, detection target of 250km to 1m and able to track 40 targets while able to shoot against 20.

 

Most interestingly, Izdeliye 710 was never officially presented to the public, but NATO became aware of its development through satellite pictures in the early Nineties and the aircraft consequently received the ASCC reporting codename "Fastback".

 

Until today, only the two prototypes have been known to exist, and it is assumed – had the type entered service – that the long-range fighter had received the official designation "MiG-41".

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 2 (Pilot, weapon system officer)

Length (incl. pitot): 93 ft 10 in (28.66 m)

Wingspan:

- minimum 10° sweep: 69 ft 4 in (21.16 m)

- maximum 68° sweep: 48 ft 9 in (14,88 m)

Height: 23 ft 1 1/2 in (7,06 m )

Wing area: 1008.9 ft² (90.8 m²)

Weight: 88.151 lbs (39.986 kg)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed:

- Mach 3.2 (2.050 mph (3.300 km/h) at height

- 995 mph (1.600 km/h) supercruise speed at 36,000 ft (11,000 m)

- 915 mph (1.470 km/h) at sea level

Range: 3.705 miles (5.955 km) with internal fuel

Service ceiling: 75.000 ft (22.500 m)

Rate of climb: 31.000 ft/min (155 m/s)

 

Engine:

2x Soloviev D-30F6 afterburning turbofans with a dry thrust of 93 kN (20,900 lbf) each

and with 152 kN (34,172 lbf) with full afterburner.

 

Armament:

Internal weapons bay, main armament comprises a flexible missile load; basic ordnance of 4x K-100 ultra long range AAMs plus 2x R-73 short-range AAMs: other types like the R-27, R-33, R-60 and R-77 have been carried and tested, too, as well as podded guns on internal and external mounts. Alternatively, the weapon bay can hold various sensor pallets.

Four hardpoints under the wing roots, the outer pair “wet” for drop tanks of up to 3.000 l capacity, ECM pods or a buddy-buddy refueling drogue system. Maximum payload mass is 9000 kg.

  

The kit and its assembly

The second entry for the 2017 “Soviet” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com – a true Frankenstein creation, based on the scarce information about the real (but never realized) MiG 301 and 701 projects, the Suchoj T-60S, as well as some vague design sketches you can find online and in literature.

This one had been on my project list for years and I already had donor kits stashed away – but the sheer size (where will I leave it once done…?) and potential complexity kept me from tackling it.

 

The whole thing was an ambitious project and just the unique layout with a massive engine nacelle on top of the slender fuselage instead of an all-in-one design makes these aircraft an interesting topic to build. The GB was a good motivator.

 

“My” fictional interpretation of the MiG concepts is mainly based on a Dragon B-1B in 1:144 scale (fuselage, wings), a PM Model Su-15 two seater (donating the nose section and the cockpit, as well as wing parts for the fin) and a Kangnam MiG-31 (for the engine pod and some small parts). Another major ingredient is a pair of horizontal stabilizers from a 1:72 Hasegawa A-5 Vigilante.

 

Fitting the cockpit section took some major surgery and even more putty to blend the parts smoothly together. Another major surgical area was the tail; the "engine box" came to be rather straightforward, using the complete rear fuselage section from the MiG-31 and adding the intakes form the same kit, but mounted horizontally with a vertical splitter.

 

Blending the thing to the cut-away tail section of the B-1 was quite a task, though, since I not only wanted to add the element to the fuselage, but rather make it look a bit 'organic'. More than putty was necessary, I also had to made some cuts and transplantations. And after six PSR rounds I stopped counting…

 

The landing gear was built from scratch – the front wheel comes mostly from the MiG-31 kit. The central bogie and its massive leg come from a VEB Plasticart 1:100 Tu-20/95 bomber, plus some additional struts. The outriggers are leftover landing gear struts from a Hobby Boss Fw 190, mated with wheels which I believe come from a 1:200 VEB Plasticart kit, an An-24. Not certain, though. The fairings are slender MiG-21 drop tanks blended into the wing training edge. For the whole landing gear, the covers were improvised with styrene sheet, parts from a plastic straw(!) or leftover bits from the B-1B.

 

The main landing gear well was well as the weapons’ bay themselves were cut into the B-1B underside and an interior scratched from sheet and various leftover materials – I tried to maximize their space while still leaving enough room for the B-1B kit’s internal VG mechanism.

The large missiles (two were visible fitted and the rotary launcher just visibly hinted at) are, in fact, AGM-78 ‘Standard’ ARMs in a fantasy guise. They look pretty Soviet, though, like big brothers of the already not small R-33 missiles from the MiG-31.

 

While not in the focus of attention, the cockpit interior is completely new, too – OOB, the Su-15 cockpit only has a floor and rather stubby seats, under a massive single piece canopy. On top of the front wheel well (from a Hasegawa F-4) I added a new floor and added side consoles, scratched from styrene sheet. F-4 dashboards improve the decoration, and I added a pair of Soviet election seats from the scrap box – IIRC left over from two KP MiG-19 kits.

The canopy was taken OOB, I just cut it into five parts for open display. The material’s thickness does not look too bad on this aircraft – after all, it would need a rather sturdy construction when flying at Mach 3+ and withstanding the respective pressures and temperatures.

  

Painting

As a pure whif, I was free to use a weirdo design - but I rejected this idea quickly. I did not want a garish splinter scheme or a bright “Greenbottle Fly” Su-27 finish.

With the strange layout of the aircraft, the prototype idea was soon settled – and Soviet prototypes tend to look very utilitarian and lusterless, might even be left in grey. Consequently, I adapted a kind of bare look for this one, inspired by the rather shaggy Soviet Tu-22 “Blinder” bombers which carried a mix of bare metal and white and grey panels. With additional black leading edges on the aerodynamic surfaces, this would create a special/provisional but still purposeful look.

 

For the painting, I used a mix of several metallizer tones from ModelMaster and Humbrol (including Steel, Magnesium, Titanium, as well as matt and polished aluminum, and some Gun Metal and Exhaust around the engine nozzles, partly mixed with a bit of blue) and opaque tones (Humbrol 147 and 127). The “scheme” evolved panel-wise and step by step. The black leading edges were an interim addition, coming as things evolved, and they were painted first with black acrylic paint as a rough foundation and later trimmed with generic black decal stripes (from TL Modellbau). A very convenient and clean solution!

 

The radomes on nose and tail and other di-electric panels became dark grey (Humbrol 125). The cockpit tub was painted with Soviet Cockpit Teal (from ModelMaster), while the cockpit opening and canopy frames were kept in a more modest medium grey (Revell 57). On the outside of the cabin windows, a fat, deep yellow sealant frame (Humbrol 93, actually “Sand”) was added.

 

The weapon bay was painted in a yellow-ish primer tone (seen on pics of Tu-160 bombers) while the landing gear wells received a mix of gold and sand; the struts were painted in a mixed color, too, made of Humbrol 56 (Aluminum) and 34 (Flat White). The green wheel discs (Humbrol 131), a typical Soviet detail, stand out well from the rather subdued but not boring aircraft, and they make a nice contrast to the red Stars and the blue tactical code – the only major markings, besides a pair of MiG OKB logos under the cockpit.

 

Decals were puzzled together from various sheets, and I also added a lot of stencils for a more technical look. In order to enhance the prototype look further I added some photo calibration markings on the nose and the tail, made from scratch.

  

A massive kitbashing project that I had pushed away for years - but I am happy that I finally tackled it, and the result looks spectacular. The "Firefox" similarity was not intended, but this beast really looks like a movie prop - and who knwos if the Firefox was not inspired by the same projects (the MiG 301 and 701) as my kitbash model?

The background info is a bit lengthy, but there's some good background info concerning the aforementioned projects, and this aircraft - as a weapon system - would have played a very special and complex role, so a lot of explanations are worthwhile - also in order to emphasize that I di not simply try to glue some model parts together, but rather try to spin real world ideas further.

 

Mighty bird!

"Operation Track Sweep," an intensive two-week, system-wide of the tracks at all of the system’s 469 stations gets underway at 14 St on Mon., September 12, 2016.

 

Photo: Marc A. Hermann / MTA New York City Transit

Rainy, damp weather was observed this afternoon. It had made driving hazardous. I love driving in the rain! I miss this weather... It feels like it's been forever since I've seen rain!

 

Weather scenario/details:

At last, rain was finally making a return to California after a very dry February! Certainly, we were in for a lot of it! Although we were still in a drought, all this rain equals hazardous conditions... It may be too much of a good thing...

 

Here's a weather rundown: Why the sudden rains? An atmospheric river event was in store for California for early March 2016... Despite a very dry and mild February, a major pattern change toward a much wetter weather pattern was imminent. The 1st strong system of the series had hit by the first weekend of the month, bringing heavy rain, gusty winds, and heavy mountain snow. Wind & flood advisories were also issued with the first system of the series. The 1st system's strong cold front had approached the Bay Area by Saturday afternoon. Strong southerly winds have developed as the front passed thru. While this rain was to help replenish depleted water reservoirs and put a dent in the long-standing drought, the large amount of rain in a short time frame would lead to flooding and mudslides. Despite its drawbacks, the rainfall was beneficial to the state's water supply. Impacts from the 1st strong system had brought heavy rain & wind to my area in San Jose, CA. The 2nd system was expected to arrive by Sunday night and into Monday. At the time, the 2nd system appeared a bit stronger, bringing in more heavy rain, according to forecasters. Looks like this was El Nino's last hurrah this winter! Is a 'Miracle-March' imminent? Drive safe & stay dry out there, guys.

 

(Footage filmed Saturday, March 5, 2016 from around San Jose, CA)

SPIDER’s first test used a standard bar pattern used to test optical instruments, result shown here (in millimeters). The team continues to increase the system’s resolution from these first, baseline images.

New Gillig bus of FAX in Fresno, California, with a special wrap celebrating the system's 50th anniversary.

Hike the solar system's largest canyon, Valles Marineris on Mars, where you can catch blue sunsets in the twilight, and see the two moons of Mars (Phobos and Deimos) in the night sky.

"Operation Track Sweep," an intensive two-week, system-wide of the tracks at all of the system’s 469 stations gets underway at 14 St on Mon., September 12, 2016.

 

Photo: Marc A. Hermann / MTA New York City Transit

With the lightweight aluminium front and rear axles from the BMW M3/M4 models, forged 19-inch aluminium wheels with mixed-size tyres, M Servotronic steering with two settings and suitably effective M compound brakes, the new BMW M2 Coupe has raised the bar once again in the compact high-performance sports car segment when it comes to driving dynamics. The electronically controlled Active M Differential, which optimises traction and directional stability, also plays a significant role here. And even greater driving pleasure is on the cards when the Dynamic Stability Control system’s M Dynamic Mode (MDM) is activated. MDM allows wheel slip and therefore moderate, controlled drifts on the track.

  

THE SMADE JOURNAL | WWW.THESMADE.COM |

  

STAY CONNECTED TO THE SMADE JOURNALS IMAGE TEAM WITH THE LATEST HIGH DEFINITION IMAGES AND VIDEO

 

- Twitter - @smadejournal |

- Facebook.com - /smadejournal |

- Google - +smadejournal |

- Tumblr - smademeda |

- Instagram - @smadejournal |

- YouTube - the smade channel |

- Web - thesmade.com | www.smadeimages.com

Need for a Strong Immune System:

A fully functional immune system is important for optimum health. There are many things that affect the immune system’s efficiency. We are surrounded by environmental pollutants, toxins, non nutrient dense diets and constant stress all of which affect our immune system causing it to weaken and be susceptible to disease. Yoga is an integral part of Vedic sciences propagates the entire cultural, spiritual and natural wisdom of cultivating our body and mind. Adding yoga into your life is an awesome way to build a strong defense system for your body.

   

Yoga for Immune System:

There are specific yoga postures that can help cleanse your body and release toxins, germs and infections. Our immune system consists of cells, tissues, and organs that work together to protect the body. These defensive cells are located in our white blood cells. They are transferred around the body by the lymphatic system. The lymph nodes move through the body by muscle contractions, unlike blood, which is pumped naturally by the heart. And Inversions do a great job in helping the heart pump blood more effectively.

 

Yoga provides holistic approaches for living life to its fullest. Yoga is all about harmonizing the body with the mind and breath through the means of various pranayama (breathing techniques), asanas (yoga postures) and dhyana (meditation) techniques.

 

Yoga includes physical, mental & spiritual practices or disciplines that aim to transform body and mind

  

Through Yoga, one aims to increase one’s awareness, self-centeredness and emotional intelligence, and bring about the blossoming of consciousness. Many people who practice Yoga do so to maintain their health and well-being, improve physical fitness, relieve stress, and enhance quality of life. In addition, they may be addressing specific health conditions, such as back pain, weak immune, neck pain, arthritis, and anxiety.

Few Yoga Practices to Improve your Immune System:

1. Pranmudra:

Pran Mudra

Pran Mudra

- Sit in padmasna or sukhasana.

- Your spine should be straight and eyes closed.

- Now join the tips of your thumb, ring finger and little finger. This is called pran mudra.

- Practice for minimum 5 minutes to 45 minutes. (anytime of day).

 

2. OM MANTRA:

Om Mantra Dyan

Om Mantra Dyan

- For practicing ‘OM MANTRA’ take position in Padmasana or Sukhasana.

- Close your eyes and bring both the hands in Gyan Mudra and touch the tip of thumb with the tip of index finger.

- Back and the neck should be straight. Keep all the muscles of the body relaxed. Body should be in a still position.

- Take deep breath and without pausing pronounce the word “OM“. Concentrate on pronouncing OM. Start with five minute duration and then slowly increase daily to 20 to 25 minutes.

 

Benefits:

- This cures high blood pressure, migraine, constipation, gas, indigestion, mental tension, heart ailments etc.

- By practicing OM Mantra, the problem of stammering is also cured.

- The chanting of OM Mantra improves the internal brightness. OM is the highest name of almighty God and by chanting it; we will remember Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh.

 

3. Vajrasana: (Thunderbolt pose)

Vajrasana

Vajrasana

- (Thunderbolt pose) Sit on the floor in kneeling position bring the big toes together and heels spread out lower the buttocks so that they rest comfortably on the seat made out by the feet.

- Keep your head, neck and shoulder straight. Keep the eyes closed. Hands on the knees palms facing down, Do it every day after your meal for minimum 5 minutes.

   

Benefits:

- This is the only asana in yoga which we can do after meals, preventing gastric problems.

- It is very good for high blood pressure, migraine, tension, heart diseases, and pain in the knees, legs and calves.

 

4. Dhanurasana (Bow pose):

Dhanurasana

Dhanurasana

- Lie flat on your stomach , with the legs and feet together and the arms and hands beside the body.

- Bend the knees and bring the heels close to the buttocks.

- Place the chin on the floor clasp your hands around the ankles.

- Take a deep breath and raise your head, trunk, and legs above the ground. In order to lift legs, pull hands and legs in opposite direction.

-Hold the position for as long as is comfortable and then slowly relaxing the leg muscles lower the legs, chest and head to the starting position. Do it minimum 3 times daily.

 

Benefits:

- This asana helps to improve digestion by stimulating gastric secretions.

- The liver, abdominal organ and muscles are massaged.

- This asana is recommended for the management of diabetes, menstrual disorders and neck pain. .

Caution: Patients of colitis, hernia and slipped disc should avoid this asana. Heart patients and hyper tension patients should do this asana under the guidance of yoga guru.

 

5. Nadi Shodana Pranayama:

Nadishodhana Pranayama

Nadishodhana Pranayama

- Sit in comfortable meditative posture. Keep the head and spine upright. Relax the whole body and close the eyes.

- Then with help of right hand thumb close the right nostril.

- Now breathe in through left nostril.

- Then close the left nostril with right hand (same hand) ring finger and release the pressure of the thumb on the right nostril while exhaling through the right nostril.

- Next inhale through the right nostril, close it with thumb and remove ring finger from the left nostril and exhale through left nostril.

This one round of Nadi Shodhana Pranayama. Do it minimum 20 rounds.

 

Benefits:

- This pranayama ensures that the whole body is nourished by an extra supply of oxygen, Carbon Dioxide is efficiently expelled and blood is purified of toxins.

- This pranayama increase vitality and lowers stress levels and anxiety by harmonizing the prana.

- Nadi means channel or flow of energy and shoudhana means purification. This pranayama is very good for stress and mental depression.

 

6. Shavasana: (Corpse pose)

Shavasana

Shavasana

- Lie down on your back. Keep the legs straight on the floor, with both the feet apart as shoulder width.

- Toes should be turned outward as far as possible. Let the fingers curl up slightly.

- The head and the spine should be in a straight line.

- Relax the whole body and stop all physical movement. Close your eyes gently.

- Now mentally, watch your breathing and allow it to become rhythmic and relaxed. Duration should be minimum 5 minutes.

 

Benefits:

- This asana relaxes the whole Psycho-physiological system.

- This asana is very good for stress management, reducing the body’s energy loss, lowering the respiration and pulse rule, and resting the whole system. This asana is also known as mritasana (mrit means corpse).

   

To know more about Suneel Singh- visit www.yogagurusuneelsingh.com

  

U.S. Air Force Fact Sheet

 

E-3 SENTRY (AWACS)

 

E-3 Sentry celebrates 30 years in Air Force's fleet

  

Mission

The E-3 Sentry is an airborne warning and control system, or AWACS, aircraft with an integrated command and control battle management, or C2BM, surveillance, target detection, and tracking platform. The aircraft provides an accurate, real-time picture of the battlespace to the Joint Air Operations Center. AWACS provides situational awareness of friendly, neutral and hostile activity, command and control of an area of responsibility, battle management of theater forces, all-altitude and all-weather surveillance of the battle space, and early warning of enemy actions during joint, allied, and coalition operations.

 

Features

The E-3 Sentry is a modified Boeing 707/320 commercial airframe with a rotating radar dome. The dome is 30 feet (9.1 meters) in diameter, six feet (1.8 meters) thick, and is held 11 feet (3.33 meters) above the fuselage by two struts. It contains a radar subsystem that permits surveillance from the Earth's surface up into the stratosphere, over land or water. The radar has a range of more than 250 miles (375.5 kilometers). The radar combined with an identification friend or foe, or IFF, subsystem can look down to detect, identify and track enemy and friendly low-flying aircraft by eliminating ground clutter returns that confuse other radar systems.

 

Major subsystems in the E-3 are avionics, navigation, communications, sensors (radar and passive detection) and identification tools (IFF/SIF). The mission suite includes consoles that display computer-processed data in graphic and tabular format on video screens. Mission crew members perform surveillance, identification, weapons control, battle management and communications functions.

 

The radar and computer subsystems on the E-3 Sentry can gather and present broad and detailed battlefield information. This includes position and tracking information on enemy aircraft and ships, and location and status of friendly aircraft and naval vessels. The information can be sent to major command and control centers in rear areas or aboard ships. In time of crisis, this data can also be forwarded to the president and secretary of defense.

 

In support of air-to-ground operations, the Sentry can provide direct information needed for interdiction, reconnaissance, airlift and close-air support for friendly ground forces. It can also provide information for commanders of air operations to gain and maintain control of the air battle.

 

As an air defense system, E-3s can detect, identify and track airborne enemy forces far from the boundaries of the United States or NATO countries. It can direct fighter-interceptor aircraft to these enemy targets. Experience has proven that the E-3 Sentry can respond quickly and effectively to a crisis and support worldwide military deployment operations.

 

AWACS may be employed alone or horizontally integrated in combination with other C2BM and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance elements of the Theater Air Control System. It supports decentralized execution of the air tasking order/air combat order. The system provides the ability to find, fix, track and target airborne or maritime threats and to detect, locate and ID emitters. It has the ability to detect threats and control assets below and beyond the coverage of ground-based command and control or C2, and can exchange data with other C2 systems and shooters via datalinks.

 

With its mobility as an airborne warning and control system, the Sentry has a greater chance of surviving in warfare than a fixed, ground-based radar system. Among other things, the Sentry's flight path can quickly be changed according to mission and survival requirements. The E-3 can fly a mission profile approximately 8 hours without refueling. Its range and on-station time can be increased through in-flight refueling and the use of an on-board crew rest area.

 

Background

Engineering, test and evaluation began on the first E-3 Sentry in October 1975. In March 1977 the 552nd Airborne Warning and Control Wing (now 552nd Air Control Wing, Tinker Air Force Base, Okla.), received the first E-3s.

 

There are 32 aircraft in the U.S. inventory. Air Combat Command has 27 E-3s at Tinker. Pacific Air Forces has four E-3 Sentries at Kadena AB, Japan and Elmendorf AFB, Alaska. There is also one test aircraft at the Boeing Aircraft Company in Seattle.

 

NATO has 17 E-3A's and support equipment. The first E-3 was delivered to NATO in January 1982. The United Kingdom has seven E-3s, France has four, and Saudi Arabia has five. Japan has four AWACS built on the Boeing 767 airframe.

 

As proven in operations Desert Storm, Allied Force, Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom, and Odyssey Dawn/Unified Protector the E-3 Sentry is the world's premier C2BM aircraft. AWACS aircraft and crews were instrumental to the successful completion of operations Northern and Southern Watch, and are still engaged in operations Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom. They provide radar surveillance and control in addition to providing senior leadership with time-critical information on the actions of enemy forces. The E-3 has also deployed to support humanitarian relief operations in the U.S. following Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, coordinating rescue efforts between military and civilian authorities.

 

The data collection capability of the E-3 radar and computer subsystems allowed an entire air war to be recorded for the first time in the history of aerial warfare.

 

In March 1996, the Air Force activated the 513th Air Control Group, an AWACS Reserve Associate Program unit which performs duties on active-duty aircraft.

 

During the spring of 1999, the first AWACS aircraft went through the Radar System Improvement Program. RSIP is a joint U.S./NATO development program that involved a major hardware and software intensive modification to the existing radar system. Installation of RSIP enhanced the operational capability of the E-3 radar electronic counter-measures and has improved the system's reliability, maintainability and availability.

 

The AWACS modernization program, Block 40/45, is currently underway. Bock 40/45 represents a revolutionary change for AWACS and worldwide Joint Command and Control, Battle Management, and Wide Area Surveillance. It is the most significant counter-air battle management improvement in Combat Air Forces tactical Command and Control history. The Block 40/45 Mission Computer and Display upgrade replaces current 1970 vintage mission computing and displays with a true open system and commercial off-the-shelf hardware and software, giving AWACS crews the modern computing tools needed to perform, and vastly improve mission capability. Estimated fleet upgrades completion in ~2020.

 

General Characteristics

Primary Function: Airborne battle management, command and control

Contractor: Boeing Aerospace Co.

Power Plant: Four Pratt and Whitney TF33-PW-100A turbofan engines

Thrust: 20,500 pounds each engine at sea level

Rotodome: 30 feet in diameter (9.1 meters), 6 feet thick (1.8 meters), mounted 11 feet (3.33 meters) above fuselage

Wingspan: 145 feet, 9 inches (44.4 meters)

Length: 152 feet, 11 inches (46.6 meters)

Height: 41 feet, 9 inches (13 meters)

Weight: 205,000 pounds (zero fuel) (92,986 kilograms)

Maximum Takeoff Weight: 325,000 pounds (147,418 kilograms)

Fuel Capacity: 21,000 gallons (79,494 liters)

Speed: optimum cruise 360 mph (Mach 0.48)

Range: more than 5,000 nautical miles (9,250 kilometers)

Ceiling: Above 29,000 feet (8,788 meters)

Crew: Flight crew of four plus mission crew of 13-19 specialists (mission crew size varies according to mission)

Unit Cost: $270 million (fiscal 98 constant dollars)

Initial operating capability: April 1978

Inventory: Active force, 32 (1 test); Reserve, 0; Guard, 0

  

Point of Contact

Air Combat Command, Public Affairs Office; 130 Andrews St., Suite 202; Langley AFB, VA 23665-1987; DSN 574-5007 or 757-764-5007; e-mail: accpa.operations@langley.af.mil

 

www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=98

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) will be transforming the 42 St Shuttle, which moves thousands of customers between the subway system’s two busiest stations,including replacing the Times Square Shuttle terminal with a larger and accessible station, reconfiguring platforms at Grand Central, and modernizing shuttle train operations. The project will result in a 42 St Shuttle that is fully accessible, has more capacity and is easier for customers to use.

 

The 42 St Shuttle currently operates on tracks and stations that were part of the city's first subway line that opened 115 years ago in 1904. That subway line ran from City Hall across 42nd Street to Harlem. The track segment along 42nd Street was later repurposed as the existing crosstown 42 St Shuttle. This photo from 1947 shows the Shuttle platform at Times Square.

 

Photo courtesy of the NY Transit Museum.

+++ 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 ZSU-37-6 (“ZSU” stands for Zenitnaya Samokhodnaya Ustanovka / Зенитная Самоходная Установка = "anti-aircraft self-propelled mount"), also known as Object 511 during its development phase and later also as “ZSU-37-6 / Лена”, was a prototype for a lightly armored Soviet self-propelled, radar guided anti-aircraft weapon system that was to replace the cannon-armed ZSU-23-4 “Shilka” SPAAG.

The development of the "Shilka" began in 1957 and the vehicle was brought into service in 1965. The ZSU-23-4 was intended for AA defense of military facilities, troops, and mechanized columns on the march. The ZSU-23-4 combined a proven radar system, the non-amphibious chassis based on the GM-575 tracked vehicle, and four 23 mm autocannons. This delivered a highly effective combination of mobility with heavy firepower and considerable accuracy, outclassing all NATO anti-aircraft guns at the time. The system was widely fielded throughout the Warsaw Pact and among other pro-Soviet states. Around 2,500 ZSU-23-4s, of the total 6,500 produced, were exported to 23 countries.

 

The development of a potential successor started in 1970. At the request of the Soviet Ministry of Defense, the KBP Instrument Design Bureau in Tula started work on a new mobile anti-aircraft system as a replacement for the 23mm ZSU-23-4. The project was undertaken to improve on the observed shortcomings of the ZSU-23-4 (short range and no early warning) and to counter new ground attack aircraft in development, such as the A-10 Thunderbolt II, which was designed to be highly resistant to 23 mm cannons.

 

KBP studies demonstrated that a cannon of at least 30 mm caliber was necessary to counter these threats, and that a bigger caliber weapon would offer some more benefits. Firstly, to destroy a given target, such a weapon would only require from a third to a half of the number of shells that the ZSU-23-4’s 23 mm cannon would need. Secondly, comparison tests revealed that firing with an identical mass of 30 mm projectiles instead of 23 mm ammunition at a MiG-17 (or similarly at NATO's Hawker Hunter or Fiat G.91…) flying at 300 m/s would result in a 1.5 times greater kill probability. An increase in the maximum engagement altitude from 2,000 to 4,000 m and higher effectiveness when engaging lightly armored ground targets were also cited as potential benefits.

 

The initial requirements set for the new mobile weapon system were to achieve twice the performance in terms of the ZSU-23-4’s range, altitude and combat effectiveness. Additionally, the system should have a reaction time, from target acquisition to firing, no greater than 10 seconds, so that enemy helicopters that “popped up” from behind covers and launched fire-and-forget weapons at tanks or similar targets could be engaged effectively.

From these specifications KBP developed two schools of thought that proposed different concepts and respective vehicle prototypes: One design team followed the idea of an anti-aircraft complex with mixed cannon and missile armament, which made it effective against both low and high-flying targets but sacrificed short-range firepower. The alternative proposed by another team was a weapon carrier armed only with a heavy gatling-type gun, tailored to counter targets flying at low altitudes, esp. helicopters, filling a similar niche as the ZSU-23-4 and leaving medium to high altitude targets to specialized anti-aircraft missiles. The latter became soon known as “Object 511”.

 

Object 511 was based on the tracked and only lightly armored GM-577 chassis, produced by Minsk Tractor Works (MTZ). It featured six road wheels on each side, a drive sprocket at the rear and three return rollers. The chassis was primarily chosen because it was already in use for other anti-aircraft systems like the 2K11 “Krug” complex and could be taken more or less “off the rack”. A new feature was a hydropneumatic suspension, which was chosen in order to stabilize the chassis as firing platform and also to cope with the considerably higher all-up weight of the vehicle (27 tons vs. the ZSU-23-4’s 19 tons). Other standard equipment of Object 511 included heating, ventilation, navigational equipment, night vision aids, a 1V116 intercom and an external communications system with an R-173 receiver.

 

The hull was - as the entire vehicle - protected from small arms fire (7,62mm) and shell splinters, but not heavily armored. An NBC protection system was integrated into the chassis, as well as an automatic fire suppression system and an automatic gear change. The main engine bay, initially with a 2V-06-2 water-cooled multi-fuel diesel engine with 450 hp (331 kW) was in the rear. It was later replaced by a more powerful variant of the same engine with 510 hp (380 kW).

The driver sat in the front on the left side, with a small gas turbine APU to his right to operate the radar and hydraulic systems independently from the main engine.

Between these hull segments, the chassis carried a horseshoe-shaped turret with full 360° rotation. It was relatively large and covered more than the half of the hull’s roof, because it held the SPAAGs main armament and ammunition supply, the search and tracking radar equipment as well as a crew of two: the commander with a cupola on the right side and the gunner/radar operator on the left side, with the cannon installation and its feeding system between them. In fact, it was so large that Object 511’s engine bay was only accessible when the turret was rotated 90° to the side – unacceptable for an in-service vehicle (which would probably have been based on a bigger chassis), but accepted for the prototype which was rather focused on the turret and its complex weapon and radar systems.

 

Object 511’s centerpiece was the newly-developed Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-6-37 cannon, a heavy and experimental six-barreled 37mm gatling gun. This air-cooled weapon with electrical ignition was an upscaled version of the naval AO-18 30mm gun, which was part of an automated air defense system for ships, the AK-630 CIWS complex. Unlike most modern American rotary cannons, the GSh-6-37 was gas-operated rather than hydraulically driven, allowing it to "spin up" to maximum rate of fire more quickly. This resulted in more rounds and therefore weight of fire to be placed on target in a short burst, reduced reaction time and allowed hits even in a very small enemy engagement window.

 

The GSh-6-37 itself weighed around 524 kg (1.154 lb), the whole system, including the feed system and a full magazine, weighed 7,493 pounds (3,401 kg). The weapon had a total length of 5.01 m (16’ 7“), its barrels were 2.81 m (9’ 2½”) long. In Object 511’s turret it had an elevation between +80° and -11°, moving at 60°/sec, and a full turret rotation only took 3 seconds. Rate of fire was 4,500 rounds per minute, even though up to 5.500 RPM were theoretically possible and could be cleared with an emergency setting. However, the weapon would typically only fire short bursts of roundabout 50 rounds each, or longer bursts of 1-2 (maximum) seconds to save ammunition and to avoid overheating and damage – initially only to the barrels, but later also to avoid collateral damage from weapon operation itself (see below). Against ground targets and for prolonged, safe fire, the rate of fire could alternatively be limited to 150 RPM.

The GSh-6-37 fired 1.09 kg shells (each 338mm long) at 1,070 m/s (3.500 ft/s), developing a muzzle energy of 624,000 joules. This resulted in an effective range of 6,000 m (19.650 ft) against aerial and 7,000 m (23.0000 ft) against ground targets. Maximum firing range was past 7,160 m (23,490 ft), with the projectiles self-destructing beyond that distance. In a 1 sec. burst, the weapon delivered an impressive weight of fire of almost 100 kg.

The GSh-6-37 was belt-fed, with a closed-circuit magazine to avoid spilling casings all around and hurting friendly troops in the SPAAG’s vicinity. Typical types of ammunition were OFZT (proximity-fused incendiary fragmentation) and BZT (armor-piercing tracer, able to penetrate more than 60 mm of 30° sloped steel armor at 1.000 m/3.275’ distance). Since there was only a single ammunition supply that could not be switched, these rounds were normally loaded in 3:1 ratio—three OFZT, then one BZT, every 10th BZT round marked with a tracer. Especially the fragmentation rounds dealt extensive collateral damage, as the sheer numbers of fragments from detonating shells was sufficient to damage aircraft flying within a 200-meter radius from the impact center. This, coupled with the high density of fire, created a very effective obstacle for aerial targets and ensured a high hit probability even upon a casual and hurried attack.

 

The gun was placed in the turret front’s center, held by a massive mount with hydraulic dampers. The internal ammunition supply in the back of the turret comprised a total of 1.600 rounds, but an additional 800 rounds could be added in an external reserve feed bin, attached to the back of the turret and connected to the internal belt magazine loop through a pair of ports in the turret’s rear, normally used to reload the GSh-6-37.

 

A rotating, electronically scanned E-band (10 kW power) target acquisition radar array was mounted on the rear top of the turret that, when combined with the turret front mounted J-band (150 kW power) mono-pulse tracking radar, its dish antenna hidden under a fiberglass fairing to the right of the main weapon, formed the 1RL144 (NATO: Hot Shot) pulse-Doppler 3D radar system. Alongside, the 1A26 digital computer, a laser rangefinder co-axial to the GSh-6-37, and the 1G30 angle measurement system formed the 1A27 targeting complex.

Object 511’s target acquisition offered a 360-degree field of view, a detection range of around 18 km and could detect targets flying as low as 15 m. The array could be folded down and stowed when in transit, lying flat on the turret’s roof. The tracking radar had a range of 16 km, and a C/D-band IFF system was also fitted. The radar system was highly protected against various types of interference and was able to work properly even if there were mountains on the horizon, regardless of the background. The system made it possible to fire the GSh-6-37 on the move, against targets with a maximum target speed of up to 500 m/s, and it had an impressive reaction time of only 6-8 seconds.

Thanks to its computerized fire control system, the 1A27 was highly automated and reduced the SPAAG’s crew to only three men, making a dedicated radar operator (as on the ZSU-23-4) superfluous and saving internal space in the large but still rather cramped turret.

 

Development of Object 511 and its systems were kicked-off in 1972 but immediately slowed down with the introduction of the 9K33 “Osa” missile system, which seemed to fill the same requirement but with greater missile performance. However, after some considerable debate it was felt that a purely missile-based system would not be as effective at dealing with very low flying attack helicopters attacking at short range with no warning, as had been proven so successful in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. Since the reaction time of a gun system was around 8–10 seconds, compared to approximately 30 seconds for a missile-based system, development of Object 511 was restarted in 1973.

 

A fully functional prototype, now officially dubbed “ZSU-37-6“ to reflect its role and armament and christened “Лена” (Lena, after the Russian river in Siberia), was completed in 1975 at the Ulyanovsk Mechanical Factory, but it took until 1976 that the capricious weapon and the 1A27 radar system had been successfully integrated and made work. System testing and trials were conducted between September 1977 and December 1978 on the Donguzskiy range, where the vehicle was detected by American spy satellites and erroneously identified as a self-propelled artillery system with a fully rotating turret (similar to the American M109), as a potential successor for the SAU-122/2S1 Gvozdika or SAU-152/2S3 Akatsiya SPGs that had been introduced ten years earlier, with a lighter weapon of 100-120mm caliber and an autoloader in the large turret.

 

The tests at Donguzskiy yielded mixed results. While the 1A27 surveillance and acquisition radar complex turned out to be quite effective, the GSh-6-37 remained a constant source of problems. The gun was highly unreliable and afforded a high level of maintenance. Furthermore, it had a massive recoil of 6.250 kp/61 kN when fired (the American 30 mm GAU-8 Avenger “only” had a recoil of 4.082 kp/40 kN). As a result, targets acquired by the 1A27 system were frequently lost after a single burst of fire, so that they had to be tracked anew before the next shot could be placed.

To make matters even words, the GSh-6-37 was noted for its high and often uncomfortable vibration and extreme noise, internally and externally. Pressure shock waves from the gun muzzles made the presence of unprotected personnel in the weapon’s proximity hazardous. The GSh-6-37’s massive vibrations shook the whole vehicle and led to numerous radio and radar system failures, tearing or jamming of maintenance doors and access hatches and the cracking of optical sensors. The effects were so severe that the gun’s impact led after six months to fatigue cracks in the gun mount, the welded turret hull, fuel tanks and other systems. One spectacular and fateful showcase of the gun’s detrimental powers was a transmission failure during a field test/maneuver in summer 1978 – which unfortunately included top military brass spectators and other VIPs, who were consequently not convinced of the ZSU-37-6 and its weapon.

 

The GSh-6-37’s persisting vibration and recoil problems, as well as its general unreliability if it was not immaculately serviced, could not be satisfactorily overcome during the 2 years of state acceptance trials. Furthermore, the large and heavy turret severely hampered Object 511’s off-road performance and handling, due to the high center of gravity and the relatively small chassis, so that the weapon system’s full field potential could not be explored. Had it found its way into a serial production vehicle, it would certainly have been based on a bigger and heavier chassis, e.g. from an MBT. Other novel features tested with Object 511, e.g. the hydropneumatic suspension and the automated 1A27 fire control system, proved to be more successful.

 

However, the troublesome GSh-6-37 temporarily attained new interest in 1979 through the Soviet Union’s engagement in Afghanistan, because it became quickly clear that conventional battle tanks, with long-barreled, large caliber guns and a very limited lift angle were not suited against small targets in mountainous regions and for combat in confined areas like narrow valleys or settlements. The GSh-6-37 appeared as a promising alternative weapon, and plans were made to mount it in a more strongly armored turret onto a T-72 chassis. A wooden mockup turret was built, but the project was not proceeded further with. Nevertheless, the concept of an armored support vehicle with high firepower and alternative armament would persist and lead, in the course of the following years, to a number of prototypes that eventually spawned the BMPT "Terminator" Tank Support Fighting Vehicle.

 

More tests and attempts to cope with the gun mount continued on a limited basis through 1979, but in late 1980 trials and development of Object 511 and the GSh-6-37 were stopped altogether: the 2K22 “Tunguska” SPAAG with mixed armament, developed in parallel, was preferred and officially accepted into service. In its original form, the 2K22 was armed with four 9M311 (NATO: SA-19 “Grison”) short-range missiles in the ready-to-fire position and two 2A38 30mm autocannons, using the same 1A27 radar system as Object 511. The Tunguska entered into limited service from 1984, when the first batteries, now armed with eight missiles, were delivered to the army, and gradually replaced the ZSU-23-4.

 

Having become obsolete, the sole Object 511 prototype was retired in 1981 and mothballed. It is today part of the Military Technical Museum collection at Ivanovskaya, near Moscow, even though not part of the public exhibition and in a rather derelict state, waiting for restoration and eventual display.

  

Specifications:

Crew: Three (commander, gunner, driver)

Weight: about 26,000 kg (57,300 lb)

Length: 7.78 m (25 ft 5 1/2 in) with gun facing forward

6.55 m (21 ft 5 1/2 in) hull only

Width: 3.25 m (10 ft 8 in)

Height: 3.88 m (12 ft 9 in) overall,

2.66 m (8 8 1/2 ft) with search radar stowed

Suspension: Hydropneumatic

Ground clearance: 17–57 cm

Fuel capacity: 760 l (200 US gal, 170 imp gal)

 

Armor:

Unknown, but probably not more than 15 mm (0.6”)

 

Performance:

Speed: 65 km/h (40 mph) maximum on the road

Climbing ability: 0.7 m (2.3')

Maximum climb gradient: 30°

Trench crossing ability: 2.5 m (8.2')

Fording depth: 1.0 m (3.3')

Operational range: 500 km (310 mi)

Power/weight: 24 hp/t

 

Engine:

1× 2V-06-2S water-cooled multi-fuel diesel engine with 510 hp (380 kW)

1× auxiliary DGChM-1 single-shaft gas turbine engine with 70 hp at 6,000 rpm,

connected with a direct-current generator

 

Transmission:

Hydromechanical

 

Armament:

1× GSh-6-37 six-barreled 37mm (1.5 in) Gatling gun with 1.600 rounds,

plus 800 more in an optional, external auxiliary magazine

  

The kit and its assembly:

This fictional SPAAG was intended as a submission to the “Prototypes” group build at whatifmodellers.com in August 2020. Inspiration came from a Trumpeter 1:72 2P25/SA-6 launch platform which I had recently acquired with a kit lot – primarily because of the chassis, which would lend itself for a conversion into “something else”.

 

The idea to build an anti-aircraft tank with a gatling gun came when I did research for my recent YA-14 build and its armament. When checking the American GAU-8 cannon from the A-10 I found that there had been plans to use this weapon for a short-range SPAAG (as a replacement for the US Army’s M163), and there had been plans for even heavier weapons in this role. For instance, there had been the T249 “Vigilante” prototype: This experimental system consisted of a 37 mm T250 six-barrel Gatling gun, mounted on a lengthened M113 armored personnel carrier platform, even though with a very limited ammunition supply, good only for 5 sec. of fire – it was just a conceptual test bed. But: why not create a Soviet counterpart? Even more so, since there is/was the real-world GSh-6-30 gatling gun as a potential weapon, which had, beyond use in the MiG-27, also been used in naval defense systems. Why not use/create an uprated/bigger version, too?

 

From this idea, things evolved in a straightforward fashion. The Trumpeter 2P25 chassis and hull were basically taken OOB, just the front was modified for a single driver position. However, the upper hull had to be changed in order to accept the new, large turret instead of the triple SA-6 launch array.

 

The new turret is a parts combination: The basis comes from a Revell 1:72 M109 howitzer kit, the 155 mm barrel was replaced with a QuickBoost 1:48 resin GSh-6-30 gun for a MiG-27, and a co-axial laser rangefinder (a piece of styrene) was added on a separate mount. Unfortunately, the Revell kit does not feature a movable gun barrel, so I decided to implant a functional joint, so that the model’s weapon could be displayed in raised and low position – primarily for the “action pictures”. The mechanism was scratched from styrene tubes and a piece of foamed plastic as a “brake” that holds the weapon in place and blocks the view into the turret from the front when the weapon is raised high up. The hinge was placed behind the OOB gun mantle, which was cut into two pieces and now works as in real life.

Further mods include the dish antenna for the tracking radar (a former tank wheel), placed on a disc-shaped pedestal onto the turret front’s right side, and the retractable rotating search radar antenna, scratched from various bits and pieces and mounted onto the rear of the turret – its roof had to be cleaned up to make suitable space next to the commander’s cupola.

 

Another challenge was the adaptation of the new turret to the hull, because the original SA-6 launch array has only a relatively small turret ring, and it is placed relatively far ahead on the hull. The new, massive turret had to be mounted further backwards, and the raised engine cowling on the back of the hull did not make things easier.

As a consequence, I had to move the SA-6 launcher ring bearing backwards, through a major surgical intervention in the hull roof (a square section was cut out, shortened, reversed and glued back again into the opening). In order to save the M109’s turret ring for later, I gave it a completely new turret floor and transplanted the small adapter ring from the SA-6 launch array to it. Another problem arose from the bulged engine cover: it had to be replaced with something flat, otherwise the turret would not have fitted. I was lucky to find a suitable donor in the spares box, from a Leopard 1 kit. More complex mods than expected, and thankfully most of the uglier changes are hidden under the huge turret. However, Object 511 looks pretty conclusive and menacing with everything in place, and the weapon is now movable in two axis’. The only flaw is a relatively wide gap between the turret and the hull, due to a step between the combat and engine section and the relatively narrow turret ring.

  

Painting and markings:

AFAIK, most Soviet tank prototypes in the Seventies/Eighties received a simple, uniform olive green livery, but ,while authentic, I found this to look rather boring. Since my “Object 511” would have taken part in military maneuvers, I decided to give it an Eighties Soviet Army three-tone camouflage, which was introduced during the late Eighties. It consisted of a relatively bright olive green, a light and cold bluish grey and black-grey, applied in large patches.

This scheme was also adapted by the late GDR’s Volksarmee (called “Verzerrungsanstrich” = “Distortion scheme”) and maybe – even though I am not certain – this special paint scheme might only have been used by Soviet troops based on GDR soil? However, it’s pretty unique and looks good, so I adapted it for the model.

 

Based upon visual guesstimates from real life pictures and some background info concerning NVA tank paint schemes, the basic colors became Humbrol 86 (Light Olive Green; RAL 6003), Revell 57 (Grey; RAL 7000) and Revell 06 (Tar Black; RAL 9021). Each vehicle had an individual paint scheme, in this case it was based on a real world NVA lorry.

 

On top of the basic colors, a washing with a mix of red brown and black acrylic paint was applied, and immediately dried with a soft cotton cloth so that it only remained in recesses and around edges, simulating dirt and dust. Some additional post-shading with lighter/brighter versions of the basic tones followed.

Decals came next – the Red Stars were a rather dramatic addition and came from the Trumpeter kit’s OOB sheet. The white “511” code on the flanks was created with white 3 mm letters from TL Modellbau.

 

The model received a light overall dry brushing treatment with light grey (Revell 75). As a finishing touch I added some branches as additional camouflage. These are bits of dried moss (collected on the local street), colorized with simple watercolors and attached with white glue. Finally, everything was sealed and stabilized with a coat of acrylic matt varnish and some pigments (a greyish-brown mix of various artist mineral pigments) were dusted into the running gear and onto the lower hull surfaces with a soft brush.

  

An effective kitbashing, and while mounting the different turret to the hull looks simple, the integration of unrelated hull and turret so that they actually fit and “work” was a rather fiddly task, and it’s effectively not obvious at all (which is good but “hides” the labour pains related to the mods). However, the result looks IMHO good, like a beefed-up ZSU-23-4 “Schilka”, just what this fictional tank model is supposed to depict.

The Memorial Hermann Memorial City Medical Center is a hospital in Memorial City, Houston, Texas. It is a part of the Memorial Hermann Healthcare System and houses the system's headquarters.

 

The hospital opened in 1971 as Memorial City General Hospital and took its current name in 1988. As of 2007 it had 527 beds and cares for over 25,000 patients per year.

In July 2006 the hospital system and MetroNational Corp. announced plans to build the Memorial Hermann Tower.

 

As of July 2010, the tenant space in the Memorial City comnplex had an occupancy rate of 65-70%. On July 9, 2010 the hospital system entered into a lease for over 800,000 square feet (74,000 m2) of office space with MetroNational Corp., involving the building formerly named the North Tower and the Medical Office Buildings 1-4 on the Memorial City campus. The hospital system continued to use Transwestern to handle the leasing and management. The new Memorial Hermann tower was scheduled to open on December 6, 2009.

 

In 2013 the hospital was ranked No. 7 in the NerdWallet list of the ten most affordable hospitals in the State of Texas.

 

The headquarters of the health care system are located in the Memorial Hermann Tower. The headquarters were scheduled to move there from a facility on U.S. Highway 59 (Southwest Freeway) in mid-2010. In 2006 developers stated that the Memorial Hermann Tower would be the tallest building in the I-10 corridor in western Houston. In 2006 Marshall Heins, the system's vice president of construction, real estate and support services, said that the Memorial City location was chosen as the system headquarters because "The Memorial City area happens to be the geographic hub of Houston as well as the Memorial Hermann Healthcare System. All our facilities are easy to get to on Beltway 8, so we wanted a location that was close to it.

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorial_Hermann_Memorial_City_Medi...

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_...

Univex pair of cameras with matching flash units and the system's own rangefinder fitted to the Mercury II.

 

Please go here to see more interesting cameras and photographic items from my personal collection -

 

www.flickr.com/photos/69559277@N04/sets/72157648539313227...

 

With the lightweight aluminium front and rear axles from the BMW M3/M4 models, forged 19-inch aluminium wheels with mixed-size tyres, M Servotronic steering with two settings and suitably effective M compound brakes, the new BMW M2 Coupe has raised the bar once again in the compact high-performance sports car segment when it comes to driving dynamics. The electronically controlled Active M Differential, which optimises traction and directional stability, also plays a significant role here. And even greater driving pleasure is on the cards when the Dynamic Stability Control system’s M Dynamic Mode (MDM) is activated. MDM allows wheel slip and therefore moderate, controlled drifts on the track.

  

THE SMADE JOURNAL | WWW.THESMADE.COM |

  

STAY CONNECTED TO THE SMADE JOURNALS IMAGE TEAM WITH THE LATEST HIGH DEFINITION IMAGES AND VIDEO

 

- Twitter - @smadejournal |

- Facebook.com - /smadejournal |

- Google - +smadejournal |

- Tumblr - smademeda |

- Instagram - @smadejournal |

- YouTube - the smade channel |

- Web - thesmade.com | www.smadeimages.com

TECO Line Streetcar System's barn

NASA Space Launch System's Chris Crumbly chats space with Raisbeck Aviation High School students.

1-12-13 Wyndham Street Races

 

TOP SPEED REVIEW:

 

Not long ago, the Japanese motorcycles were considered the uncontested leaders of sport motorcycles and nobody had the guts to challenge them. However, this situation has changed after BMW entered the battle. Its first super sport bike, the S 1000RR was not only a completely newcomer, but it was also so strong and technological advanced that it made any other bike look like defenseless scooter.

 

THE ABS

The Kawasaki Ninja® ZX™-10R ABS superbike combines anti-lock braking with the numerous technological benefits of the class leading ZX-10R. And it does it with rider-sensitive, race-bred attributes derived from competing and winning at the highest levels.

 

Kawasaki has developed a new electronic steering damper for the 2013 ZX-10R ABS sportbike, in joint cooperation with Öhlins. Controlled by a dedicated ECU located under the gas tank cover, this new damper reacts to the rate of acceleration or deceleration, as well as rear wheel speed, to help provide the ideal level of damping force across a wide range of riding scenarios. The variable damping provides optimum rider feedback by enabling the use of lower damping forces during normal operation, without sacrificing the firm damping needed for high-speed stability. The result is a light and nimble steering feel at low speed, as well as superior damping at higher speeds or during extreme acceleration/deceleration. The anodized damper unit incorporates Öhlins’ patented twin-tube design to help ensure stable damping performance and superior kickback absorption. It is mounted horizontally at the front of the fuel tank and requires very few additional components and ads almost no weight compared to last year’s steering damper.

 

At first, anti-lock braking might seem a touch out of place on a purebred sportbike. But this system was designed from the start to maximize performance. And when you consider the many benefits provided by the amazing electronic and hardware technology available today, it begins to make a lot of sense.

 

Think of it: You’re braking for a blind, decreasing-radius corner after a long day of sport riding. Shadows are long and you’re tired, so you don’t notice a patch of sand until it’s too late to correct. But instead of tucking as you continue braking through the sand, your front tire maintains most of its traction, as the anti-lock braking system intervenes until the surface improves – allowing you to arc gracefully into the corner, a little wiser and a lot more intact physically than you might have been riding a non-ABS motorcycle.

 

Kawasaki calls its anti-lock system KIBS – or Kawasaki Intelligent anti-lock Brake System. The use of “intelligent” is apropos, too, considering just how smart the KIBS is. It all starts with the smallest and lightest ABS unit ever built for a motorcycle, one designed by Bosch specifically with sport bikes in mind. It’s nearly 50 percent smaller than current motorcycle ABS units, and 800 grams lighter, adding only about 7 pounds of weight compared to the non-ABS machine, a pound of which is accounted for by the larger battery.

 

KIBS is a multi-sensing system, one that collects and monitors a wide range of information taken from wheel sensors (the same ones collecting data on the standard ZX-10R for its S-KTRC traction control system) and the bike’s ECU, including wheel speed, caliper pressure, engine rpm, throttle position, clutch actuation and gear position. The KIBS’s ECU actually communicates with the bike’s engine ECU and crunches the numbers, and when it notes a potential lock-up situation, it tells the Bosch ABS unit to temporarily reduce line pressure, allowing the wheel to once again regain traction.

 

Aside from this system’s ultra-fast response time, it offers a number of additional sport-riding benefits, including rear-end lift suppression during hard braking, minimal kickback during ABS intervention, and increased rear brake control during downshifts. The high-precision pressure control enables the system to maintain high brake performance, proper lever feel and help ensure the ABS pulses are minimized.

 

Needless to say that the Japanese manufacturers were highly intrigued and the first samurai who challenged the Germans to a duel was Kawasaki.

 

Kawasaki’s anti S 1000RR weapon is the Ninja ZX - 10R. Packing a lot of advanced features and modern technologies, the bike is fast enough to compete with success against the German oppressor.

 

Despite the fact that nothing changed for the 2013 model year, except for some color schemes, the Ninja continues to be ahead of the pack when it comes to sporty performances.

 

Build on a nimble, lightweight chassis, The Kawasaki Ninja ZX - 10R ABS is “blessed” with a powerful 998cc inline four engine which cranks out 197 hp at 11500 rpm.

 

Among the most important features offered by the Ninja ZX - 10R, you’ll find the advanced Sport-Kawasaki Traction Control (S-KTRC) and an intelligent ABS system which comes as an option ($1000).

 

ENGINE & PERFORMANCE:

The rest of the 2013 Ninja ZX-10R ABS is equally advanced. Complete with a powerful engine and lightweight chassis, it also boasts a highly advanced and customizable electronic system that allows riders to harness and experience the ZX-10R ABS’s amazing blend of power and razor-edge handling. The system is called Sport-Kawasaki Traction Control.

 

Motorcyclists have forever been challenged by traction-related issues, whether on dirt, street or track. And when talking about the absolute leading edge of open-class sport bike technology, where production street bikes are actually more capable than full-on race bikes from just a couple years ago, more consistent traction and enhanced confidence is a major plus.

 

The racing-derived S-KTRC system works by crunching numbers from a variety of parameters and sensors – wheel speed and slip, engine rpm, throttle position, acceleration, etc. There’s more data gathering and analysis going on here than on any other Kawasaki in history, and it’s all in the name of helping racers inch closer to the elusive “edge” of maximum traction than ever before. The S-KTRC system relies on complex software buried in the ZX-10R’s Electronic Control Unit (ECU); the only additional hardware is the lightweight speed sensors located on each wheel.

 

Unlike the KTRC system on Kawasaki’s Concours™ 14 ABS sport tourer, which primarily minimizes wheel slip on slick or broken surfaces as a safety feature, the S-KTRC system is designed to maximize performance by using complex analysis to predict when traction conditions are about to become unfavorable. By quickly but subtly reducing power just before the amount of slippage exceeds the optimal traction zone, the system – which processes every data point 200 times per second – maintains the optimum level of tire grip to maximize forward motion. The result is significantly better lap times and enhanced rider confidence – exactly what one needs when piloting a machine of this caliber.

 

The S-KTRC system offers three different modes of operation, which riders can select according to surface conditions, rider preference and skill level: Level 1 for max-grip track use, Level 2 for intermediate use, and Level 3 for slippery conditions. An LCD graph in the high-tech instrument cluster displays how much electronic intervention is occurring in real time and a thumb switch on the left handlebar pod allows simple, on-the-go mode changes.

 

The potent ZX-10R engine is a 16-valve, DOHC, liquid-cooled inline-four displacing 998cc via 76 x 55mm bore and stroke dimensions. This powerplant is tuned to optimize power delivery, center of gravity and actual engine placement within the chassis. Torque peaks at an rpm range that helps eliminate power peaks and valleys that make it difficult for racers and track-day riders to open the throttle with confidence.

 

A primary goal of Kawasaki engineers was linear power delivery and engine manageability throughout all elements of a corner: the entry, getting back to neutral throttle at mid-corner, and heady, controllable acceleration at the exit. Peak torque was moved to a higher rpm range, which eliminates the power peaks and valleys that make it difficult for racers and track-day riders to open the throttle with confidence.

 

Large intake valves complemented by wide, polished intake ports allow for controllable power delivery and engine braking, just the thing to smooth those racetrack corner entries and exits. Camshafts built from chromoly steel further contribute to optimized engine braking and more controllable power delivery. Lightweight pistons mount to light and strong connecting rods. Compression is a full 13.0:1.

 

A race-style cassette transmission allows simple trackside ratio changes. An adjustable back-torque limiting clutch assembly is fitted, which allows worry-free downshifts and corner-entry calmness.

 

Cramming all that fuel and air into this amazing engine is a ram air-assisted fuel injection system featuring large throttle bodies (47mm) and sub-throttle valves, a large capacity airbox (9 liters), secondary injectors that improve top-end power characteristics, and a large ram-air intake that’s positioned close to the front of the bike for efficient airbox filling and power.

 

The final piece of the ZX-10R’s power-production formula is a race-spec exhaust system featuring a titanium header assembly, hydroformed collectors, a large-volume pre-chamber containing two catalyzers and a highly compact silencer. Due to the header’s race-spec design, riders and racers looking for more closed-course performance need only replace the slip-on muffler assembly.

 

CHASSIS & SUSPENSION:

With the engine producing a massive quantity of usable and controllable power, engineers looked to the chassis to help refine handling and overall road/track competency. The aluminum twin-spar frame is an all-cast assemblage of just seven pieces that features optimized flex characteristics for ideal rider feedback, cornering performance and light weight. Like the frame, the alloy swingarm is an all-cast assembly, with rigidity matching that of the frame itself.

 

Chassis geometry offers excellent stability and handling quickness. The front end geometry – with rake at 25 degrees and trail at 107mm (4.21 in.) – allows light, quick handling and complements the engine’s controllable power and the frame and swingarm’s flex characteristics.

 

Highly advanced suspension at both ends helps as well. Up front is a 43mm open-class version of the Big Piston Fork (BPF). Featuring a piston design nearly twice the size of a conventional cartridge fork, the BPF offers smooth action, less stiction, light weight and enhanced damping performance on the compression and rebound circuits. This compliance results in more control and feedback for the rider – just what you need when carving through a rippled sweeper at your local track or negotiating a decreasing-radius corner on your favorite backroad.

 

Suspension duties on the ZX-10R are handled by a Horizontal Back-Link design that positions the shock and linkage above the swingarm. Benefits include mass centralization, good road holding, compliance and stability, smooth action in the mid-stroke and good overall feedback. The fully adjustable shock features a piggyback reservoir and dual-range (low- and high-speed) compression damping.

 

Lightweight gravity-cast three-spoke wheels complement the tire fitment. Up front, Tokico radial-mount calipers grasp 310mm petal discs and a 220mm disc is squeezed by a lightweight single-piston caliper in back. The result is powerful stops with plenty of rider feedback and the added confidence of the KIBS ABS system.

 

DESIGN & ERGONOMICS:

Finally, Kawasaki engineers wrapped all this technology in bodywork as advanced and stylish as anything on this side of a MotoGP grid. The curvy edges and contrasting colored and black parts create a sharp, aggressive image. Line-beam headlights grace the fairing while LED turn signals are integrated into the mirror assemblies. Convenient turn-signal couplers allow easy mirror removal for track-day use. The rear fender assembly holding the rear signal stalks and license plate frame is also easily removable for track days. High-visibility LED lamps are also used for the taillight and position marker.

 

The instrumentation is highlighted by an LED-backlit bar-graph tachometer set above a multi-featured LCD info screen with numerous sections and data panels. A wide range of information is presented, including vehicle speed, odometer, dual trip meters, fuel consumption, Power Mode and S-KTRC level, low fuel, water temperature and much more. For track use, the LCD display can be set to “race” mode which moves the gear display to the center of the screen.

 

The ZX-10R’s ergonomics are designed for optimum comfort and control. A 32-inch saddle, adjustable footpegs and clip-ons mean that this is a hard-core sport bike you can actually take on an extended sport ride – and still be reasonably comfortable doing so.

 

The old saying, “power is nothing without control” is certainly apt where open-class sport bikes are concerned. But when you factor in all the engine, chassis and ergonomic control designed into the 2013 Ninja ZX-10R, you begin to realize you’re looking at one very special motorcycle – one that can take you places you’ve never been before.

 

Genuine Kawasaki Accessories are available through authorized Kawasaki dealers.

 

SPECS:

Engine Four-Stroke, Liquid-Cooled, DOHC, Four Valves Per Cylinder, Inline-Four

Displacement 998cc

Bore X Stroke 76.0 X 55.0 mm

Compression Ratio13.0:1

Fuel System DFI® With Four 47mm Keihin Throttle Bodies With Oval Sub-Throttles, Two Injectors Per Cylinder

Ignition TCBI With Digital Advance And Sport-Kawasaki Traction Control (S-KTRC)

Transmission Six-Speed

Final Drive Chain

Rake/Trail 25 Deg / 4.2 In.

Front Tire Size 120/70 ZR17

Rear Tire Size 190/55 ZR17

Wheelbase 56.1 In.

Front Suspension / Wheel Travel 43 mm Inverted Big Piston Fork (BPF), Adjustable Rebound And Compression Damping, Spring Preload Adjustability/ 4.7 in.

Rear Suspension / Wheel Travel

Horizontal Back-Link With Gas-Charged Shock, Stepless, Dual-Range (Low-/High-Speed) Compression Damping, Stepless Rebound Damping, Fully Adjustable Spring Preload / 5.5 In.

Front Brakes Kawasaki Intelligent Anti-Lock Braking (KIBS), Dual Semi-Floating 310 mm Petal Discs With Dual Four-Piston Radial-Mount Calipers

Rear Brakes KIBS-Controlled, Single 220 mm Petal Disc With Aluminum Single-Piston Caliper

Fuel Capacity 4.5 Gal.

Seat Height 32.0 In.

Curb Weight 443.2 Lbs.

Overall Length 81.7 In.

Overall Width 28.1 In.

Overall Height 43.9 In.

Color Choices - Lime Green/Metallic Spark Black, Pearl Flat White/Metallic Spark Black

 

Source: www.topspeed.com/motorcycles/motorcycle-reviews/kawasaki/...

Objectif Zuiko auto zoom 3,5/35 mm - 4,5/70 mm. Baïonnette OM Système S. Mise au point de 0.75 m à l'infini ( 3 ft à infini). Ouvertures de 3,5 à 22

+++ 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 Grumman Mohawk began as a joint Army-Marine program through the then-Navy Bureau of Aeronautics (BuAer), for an observation/attack plane that would outperform the light and vulnerable Cessna L-19 Bird Dog. In June 1956, the Army issued Type Specification TS145, which called for the development and procurement of a two-seat, twin turboprop aircraft designed to operate from small, unimproved fields under all weather conditions. It would be faster, with greater firepower, and heavier armor than the Bird Dog, which had proved very vulnerable during the Korean War.

 

The Mohawk's mission would include observation, artillery spotting, air control, emergency resupply, naval target spotting, liaison, and radiological monitoring. The Navy specified that the aircraft had to be capable of operating from small "jeep" escort class carriers (CVEs). The DoD selected Grumman Aircraft Corporation's G-134 design as the winner of the competition in 1957. Marine requirements contributed an unusual feature to the design: since the Marines were authorized to operate fixed-wing aircraft in the close air support (CAS) role, the mockup featured underwing pylons for rockets, bombs, and other stores, and this caused a lot of discord. The Air Force did not like the armament capability of the Mohawk and tried to get it removed. On the other side, the Marines did not want the sophisticated sensors the Army wanted, so when their Navy sponsors opted to buy a fleet oil tanker, they eventually dropped from the program altogether. The Army continued with armed Mohawks (and the resulting competence controversy with the Air Force) and also developed cargo pods that could be dropped from underwing hard points to resupply troops in emergencies.

 

In mid-1961, the first Mohawks to serve with U.S. forces overseas were delivered to the 7th Army at Sandhofen Airfield near Mannheim, Germany. Before its formal acceptance, the camera-carrying AO-1AF was flown on a tour of 29 European airfields to display it to the U.S. Army field commanders and potential European customers. In addition to their Vietnam and European service, SLAR-equipped Mohawks began operational missions in 1963 patrolling the Korean Demilitarized Zone.

 

Germany and France showed early interest in the Mohawk, and two OV-1s were field-tested by both nations over the course of several months. No direct orders resulted, though, but the German Bundesheer (Army) was impressed by the type’s performance and its capability as an observation and reconnaissance platform. Grumman even signed a license production agreement with the French manufacturer Breguet Aviation in exchange for American rights to the Atlantic maritime patrol aircraft, but no production orders followed.

 

This could have been the end of the OV-1 in Europe, but in 1977 the German government, primarily the interior ministry and its intelligence agency, the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), showed interest in a light and agile SIGINT/ELINT platform that could fly surveillance missions along the inner-German border to the GDR and also to Czechoslovakia. Beyond visual reconnaissance with cameras and IR sensors, the aircraft was to be specifically able to identify and locate secret radio stations that were frequently operated by Eastern Block agents (esp. by the GDR) all across Western Germany, but primarily close to the inner-German border due to the clandestine stations’ low power. The Bundeswehr already operated a small ELINT/ECM fleet, consisting of converted HFB 320 ‘Hansa’ business jets, but these were not suited for stealthy and inconspicuous low flight level missions that were envisioned, and they also lacked the ability to fly slowly enough to locate potential “radio nests”.

 

The pan and the objective were clear, but the ELINT project caused a long and severe political debate concerning the operator of such an aerial platform. Initially, the Bundesheer, who had already tested the OV-1, claimed responsibility, but the interior ministry in the form of the German customs department as well as the German police’s Federal Border Guard, the Bundesgrenzschutz and the Luftwaffe (the proper operator for fixed-wing aircraft within the German armed forces), wrestled for this competence. Internally, the debate and the project ran under the handle “Schimmelreiter” (literally “The Rider on the White Horse”), after a northern German legendary figure, which eventually became the ELINT system’s semi-official name after it had been revealed to the public. After much tossing, in 1979 the decision was made to procure five refurbished U.S. Army OV-1As, tailored to the German needs and – after long internal debates – operate them by the Luftwaffe.

 

The former American aircraft were hybrids: they still had the OV-1A’s original short wings, but already the OV-1D’s stronger engines and its internal pallet system for interchangeable electronics. The machines received the designation OV-1G (for Germany) and were delivered in early 1980 via ship without any sensors or cameras. These were of Western German origin, developed and fitted locally, tailored to the special border surveillance needs.

 

The installation and testing of the “Schimmelreiter” ELINT suite lasted until 1982. It was based on a Raytheon TI Systems emitter locator system, but it was locally adapted by AEG-Telefunken to the airframe and the Bundeswehr’s special tasks and needs. The system’s hardware was stowed in the fuselage, its sensor arrays were mounted into a pair of underwing nacelles, which occupied the OV-1’s standard hardpoints, allowing a full 360° coverage. In order to cool the electronics suite and regulate the climate in the internal equipment bays, the OV-1G received a powerful heat exchanger, mounted under a wedge-shaped fairing on the spine in front of the tail – the most obvious difference of this type from its American brethren. The exact specifications of the “Schimmelreiter” ELINT suite remained classified, but special emphasis was placed upon COMINT (Communications Intelligence), a sub-category of signals intelligence that engages in dealing with messages or voice information derived from the interception of foreign communications. Even though the “Schimmelreiter” suite was the OV-1Gs’ primary reconnaissance tool, the whole system could be quickly de-installed for other sensor packs and reconnaissance tasks (even though this never happened), or augmented by single modules, what made upgrades and mission specialization easy. Beyond the ELINT suite, the OV-1G could be outfitted with cameras and other sensors on exchangeable pallets in the fuselage, too. This typically included a panoramic camera in a wedge-shaped ventral fairing, which would visually document the emitter sensors’ recordings.

 

A special feature of the German OV-1s was the integration of a brand new, NATO-compatible “Link-16” data link system via a MIDS-LVT (Multifunctional Information Distribution System). Even though this later became a standard for military systems, the OV-1G broke the ground for this innovative technology. The MIDS was an advanced command, control, communications, computing and intelligence (C4I) system incorporating high-capacity, jam-resistant, digital communication links for exchange of near real-time tactical information, including both data and voice, among air, ground, and sea elements. Outwardly, the MIDS was only recognizable through a shallow antenna blister behind the cockpit.

 

Even though the OV-1Gs initially retained their former American uniform olive drab livery upon delivery and outfitting in German service, they soon received a new wraparound camouflage for their dedicated low-level role in green and black (Luftwaffe Norm 83 standard), which was better suited for the European theatre of operations. In Luftwaffe service, the OV-1Gs received the tactical codes 18+01-05 and the small fleet was allocated to the Aufklärungsgeschwader (AG) 51 “Immelmann”, where the machines formed, beyond two squadrons with RF-4E Phantom IIs, an independent 3rd squadron. This small unit was from the start based as a detachment at Lechfeld, located in Bavaria/Southern Germany, instead of AG 51’s home airbase Bremgarten in South-Western Germany, because Lechfeld was closer to the type’s typical theatre of operations along Western Germany’s Eastern borders. Another factor in favor of this different airbase was the fact that Lechfeld was, beyond Tornado IDS fighter bombers, also the home of the Luftwaffe’s seven HFB 320M ECM aircraft, operated by the JaBoG32’s 3rd squadron, so that the local maintenance crews were familiar with complex electronics and aircraft systems, and the base’s security level was appropriate, too.

 

With the end of the Cold War in 1990, the OV-1Gs role and field of operation gradually shifted further eastwards. With the inner-German Iron Curtain gone, the machines were now frequently operated along the Polish and Czech Republic border, as well as in international airspace over the Baltic Sea, monitoring the radar activities along the coastlines and esp. the activities of Russian Navy ships that operated from Kaliningrad and Saint Petersburg. For these missions, the machines were frequently deployed to the “new” air bases Laage and Holzdorf in Eastern Germany.

 

In American service, the OV-1s were retired from Europe in 1992 and from operational U.S. Army service in 1996. In Germany, the OV-1 was kept in service for a considerably longer time – with little problems, since the OV-1 airframes had relatively few flying hours on their clocks. The Luftwaffe’s service level for the aircraft was high and spare parts remained easy to obtain from the USA, and there were still OV-1 parts in USAF storage in Western German bases.

 

The German HFB 320M fleet was retired between 1993 and 1994 and, in part, replaced by the Tornado ECR. At the same time AG 51 was dissolved and the OV-1Gs were nominally re-allocated to JaboG 32/3. With this unit the OV-1Gs remained operational until 2010, undergoing constant updates and equipment changes. For instance, the machines received in 1995 a powerful FLIR sensor in a small turret in the aircraft’s nose, which improved the aircraft’s all-weather reconnaissance capabilities and was intended to spot hidden radio posts even under all-weather/night conditions, once their signal was recognized and located. The aircrafts’ radio emitter locator system was updated several times, too, and, as a passive defensive measure against heat-guided air-to-air missiles/MANPADS, an IR jammer was added, extending the fuselage beyond the tail. These machines received the suffix “Phase II”, even though all five aircraft were updated the same way.

Reports that the OV-1Gs were furthermore retrofitted with the avionics to mount and launch AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs under the wing tips for self-defense remained unconfirmed, even more so because no aircraft was ever seen carrying arms – neither the AIM-9 nor anything else. Plans to make the OV-1Gs capable of carrying the Luftwaffe’s AGM-65 Maverick never went beyond the drawing board, either. However, BOZ chaff/flare dispenser pods and Cerberus ECM pods were occasionally seen on the ventral pylons from 1998 onwards.

 

No OV-1G was lost during the type’s career in Luftwaffe service, and after the end of the airframes’ service life, all five German OV-1Gs were scrapped in 2011. There was, due to worsening budget restraints, no direct successor, even though the maritime surveillance duties were taken over by Dornier Do 228/NGs operated by the German Marineflieger (naval air arm).

  

General characteristics:

Crew: Two: pilot, observer/systems operator

Length: 44 ft 4 in (13.53 m) overall with FLIR sensor and IR jammer

Wingspan: 42 ft 0 in (12.8 m)

Height: 12 ft 8 in (3.86 m)

Wing area: 330 sq. ft (30.65 m²)

Empty weight: 12,054 lb (5,467 kg)

Loaded weight: 15,544 lb (7,051 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 18,109 lb (8,214 kg)

 

Powerplant:

2× Lycoming T53-L-701 turboprops, 1,400 shp (1,044 kW) each

 

Performance:

Never exceed speed: 450 mph (390 knots, 724 km/h)

Maximum speed: 305 mph (265 knots, 491 km/h) at 10,000 ft (3,050 m)

Cruise speed: 207 mph (180 knots, 334 km/h) (econ cruise)

Stall speed: 84 mph (73 knots, 135 km/h)

Range: 944 mi (820 nmi, 1,520 km) (SLAR mission)

Service ceiling: 25,000 ft (7,620 m)

Rate of climb: 3,450 ft/min (17.5 m/s)

 

Armament:

A total of eight external hardpoints (two ventral, three under each outer wing)

for external loads; the wing hardpoints were typically occupied with ELINT sensor pods, while the

ventral hardpoints frequently carried 300 l drop tanks to extend loiter time and range;

Typically, no offensive armament was carried, even though bombs or gun/missile pods were possible.

  

The kit and its assembly:

This build became a submission to the “Reconnaissance” Group Build at whatifmodellers.com in July 2021, and it spins further real-world events. Germany actually tested two OV-1s in the Sixties (by the German Army/Bundesheer, not by the air force), but the type was not procured or operated. The test aircraft carried a glossy, olive drab livery (US standard, I think) with German national markings.

However, having a vintage Hasegawa OV-1A in the stash, I wondered what an operational German OV-1 might have looked like, especially if it had been operated into the Eighties and beyond, in the contemporary Norm 83 paint scheme? This led to this purely fictional OV-1G.

 

The kit was mostly built OOB, and the building experience was rather so-so – after all, it’s a pretty old mold/boxing (in my case the Hasegawa/Hales kit is from 1978, the mold is from 1968!). Just a few things were modified/added in order to tweak the standard, short-winged OV-1A into something more modern and sophisticated.

 

When searching for a solution to mount some ELINT sensor arrays, I did not want to copy the OV-1B’s characteristic offset, ventral SLAR fairing. I rather settled for the late RV-1D’s solution with sensor pods under the outer wings. Unfortunately, the OV-1A kit came with the type’s original short wings, so that the pods had to occupy the inner underwing pair of hardpoints. The pods were scratched from square styrene profiles and putty, so that they received a unique look. The Mohawk’s pair of ventral hardpoints were mounted, but – after considering some drop tanks or an ECM pod there - left empty, so that the field of view for the ventral panoramic camera would not be obscured.

 

Other small additions are some radar warning sensor bumps on the nose, some extra antennae, a shallow bulge for the MIDS antenna on the spine, the FLIR turret on the nose (with parts from an Italeri AH-1 and a Kangnam Yak-38!), and I added a tail stinger for a retrofitted (scratched) IR decoy device, inspired by the American AN/ALG-147. This once was a Matchbox SNEB unguided missile pod.

  

Painting and markings:

For the intended era, the German Norm 83 paint scheme, which is still in use today on several Luftwaffe types like the Transall, PAH-2 or CH-53, appeared like a natural choice. It’s a tri-color wraparound scheme, consisting of RAL 6003 (Olivgrün), FS 34097 (Forest Green) and RAL 7021 (Teerschwarz). The paints I used are Humbrol 86 (which is supposed to be a WWI version of RAL 6003, it lacks IMHO yellow but has good contrast to the other tones), Humbrol 116 and Revell 9. The pattern itself was adapted from the German Luftwaffe’s Dornier Do 28D “Skyservants” with Norm 83 camouflage, because of the type’s similar outlines.

 

A black ink washing was applied for light weathering, plus some post-shading of panels with lighter shades of the basic camouflage tones for a more plastic look. The cockpit interior was painted in light grey (Humbrol 167), while the landing gear and the interior of the air brakes became white. The scratched SLAR pods became light grey, with flat di-electric panels in medium grey (created with decal material).

The cockpit interior was painted in a rather light grey (Humbrol 167), the pilots received typical olive drab Luftwaffe overalls, one with a white “bone dome” and the other with a more modern light grey helmet.

 

The decals were improvised. National markings and tactical codes came from TL Modellbau sheets, the AG 51 emblems were taken from a Hasegawa RF-4E sheet. The black walkways were taken from the Mohak’s OOB sheet, the black de-icer leading edges on wings and tail were created with generic black decal material. Finally, the model was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish (Italeri).

  

An interesting result, and the hybrid paint scheme with the additional desert camouflage really makes the aircraft an unusual sight, adding to its credibility.

He released his debut album Jellylegs in 1996 on the Epic Records label. The album included the song "To You I Bestow", which was featured on the bestselling soundtrack to Baz Luhrmann's film adaptation Romeo + Juliet.In 2000, Mundy was dropped by Epic while working on his second album, The Moon is a Bullethole, which was about to be recorded. Although a four-track EP of that title was released, much of the material for the cancelled album was eventually incorporated into 24 Star Hotel, Mundy's 2002 album.24 Star Hotel was released on Camcor Records, a label Mundy himself set up, primarily funded by his royalties from the Romeo and Juliet soundtrack. Camcor Records is named for the River Camcor, a popular fishing spot, which runs through the town of Birr. The album contained the song "July", an ode to the joys of the Irish summer, which gained heavy airplay throughout the summer months, and is, for Irish audiences at least, Mundy's signature tune. Along with "July" the album contained "Mexico" and with both receiving extensive radio play and some huge Irish festival appearances, 24 Star Hotel has gone on to triple platinum status in Ireland. He afterwards guested with Lucinda Williams in Ireland.In 2003 Mundy also contributed to Afro Celt Sound System's album Seed, and to Even Better than the Real Thing Vol. 1 with a cover version of the Shakira song Whenever, Wherever, with the two words in the title switched around.In May 2004, Mundy released his third album, Raining Down Arrows, recorded with producer Mark Addison at The Aerie studio in Austin, Texas. It entered the Irish album chart at number 1. The album has since gone platinum in Ireland. He toured the UK with songwriting legend Jimmy Webb and continued to win over Irish audiences whilst making UK appearances with Richard Hawley and gaining Irish support slots with The White Stripes and Oasis.In 2006 Mundy recorded a live album and DVD called Live & Confusion at Vicar Street, Dublin. It contains all his best-known songs such as "Gin & Tonic Sky", "Mexico", "July", "To You I Bestow", "By Her Side" and "Love & Confusion". The album also contained an encore of "Galway Girl", a Steve Earle penned song that Sharon Shannon had recorded with the author years before. The live version became a download hit in Ireland, and eventually a studio version was released, after it was popularized in a television and radio advertising campaign for Bulmer's cider.[1] The studio version of the track reached number 1 in the Irish Singles Chart in April 2008 and stayed there for five weeks. It became the biggest single in Ireland two years in a row in 2007 and 2008.[2] Mundy also recorded an Irish language version of the track, entitled Cailín na Gaillimhe, for Ceol '08, an Irish language compilation album released in 2008 to raise money for several Irish charities. Two years before, Mundy recorded an Irish-language version of his song "Mexico", entitled "Meicsiceo" for Ceol '06.[3] Ceol '06 reached the Top 10 in the Irish Album Chart.In 2008 Mundy continually guested with Sharon Shannon's Big Band alongside Damien Dempsey and Shane MacGowan, turning up at The Glastonbury Festival as well as touring Ireland and the UK.In 2009 Mundy recorded his fourth studio album, Strawberry Blood, with Irish producer Joe Chester, and mixed a number of tracks with UK producer Andy Bradfield. The album featured contributions from Shane MacGowan and Gemma Hayes and was released worldwide on iTunes with a bonus download video. He guested with The Cardigans' Nina Persson's A Camp project at the Academy in Dublin, and 2009 saw him tour Ireland, Australia and the UK. The album went into the Irish charts at No.14.

I'm re-publishing old lego creations on flickr.

 

Lugnet post.

 

This is Eiretech's Heavy lifting ship, Bison. It carries special or unique cargo within a star system.

 

This particular unit is carrying a living habitat for a monk.

 

The monk has just had all of his religion's holy texts uploaded directly into his brain. For the next century he will do nothing but meditate and sift through the terabites of sacred data in his head. To do this he must live alone in solitude. He is being taken to live on a sleeping comet deep inside the star system's Oort cloud.

Jasmine Hopkins, NASA Communications, moderates a press conference with Bob Cabana, NASA associate administrator, Kennedy Space Center director Janet Petro, Kathy Lueders, associate administrator for NASA's Space Operations Mission Directorate, and NASA astronauts Mike Fincke, Barry "Butch" Wilmore, and Suni Williams, ahead of the launch of Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft aboard a United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket, Wednesday, May 18, 2022, at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Boeing’s Orbital Flight Test-2 will be Starliner’s second uncrewed flight test and will dock to the International Space Station as part of NASA's Commercial Crew Program. The mission, currently targeted for launch on 6:54 p.m. ET on May 19, will serve as an end-to-end test of the system's capabilities. Photo Credit: (NASA/Joel Kowsky)

Battle of Midway Painting Aboard USS New Jersey BB62 at Battleship New Jersey Museum and Memorial at Camden, NJ on August-14th-2021. The Imperial Japanese Navy Akagi( Red Castle) Was the Flagship of the Kido Buati from April 1941 to her sinking at the Battle of Midway on June-5th-1942.

IJN Akagi Was the lead ship of her Class of Imperial Japanese Navy Aircraft Battlecruiser/ Battleship Hybrid Carrier Conversions. Her Keel was laid down on December-6th-1920 at the Kure Naval Arsenal in Kure, Japan as the Second of the Amagi Class Class Battlecruisers.Work was underway on both Akagi and her Sister Amagi when Japan Signed the Washington Navy Treaty on February-6th-1922. This Treaty was signed by the Empire of Japan, the United Kingdom, The United States,the Kingdom of Italy and the French Third Republic. The treaty limited the construction of Battleships and Battlecruisers but allowed conversion of two battleship or battlecruiser hulls under construction into aircraft carriers of up to 33,000 long tons (34,000 t) displacement.After Japan launched her First Carrier Hōshō(Flying Phoenix) which was small given that she was the Very Aircraft Launched and Commissioned ,it was realized that a Larger class of Fleet Carriers were need. Amagi and Akagi was then Ordered to Be converted into Fleet Carriers. Construction resumed on the sisters under the 1924 Navy Budget. Akagi's Guns were turned over to the Imperial Japanese Army for use as coastal artillery; one of her main-gun turrets was installed on Iki Island in the Strait of Tsushima in 1932. The rest of her guns were placed in reserve and scrapped in 1943.

The Official Start of Construction of Akagi as an Aircraft Carrier began on November-19th-1943. Amagi was severely in the 1923 Great Kantō earthquake and was damaged beyond Economic Repair. Kaga( Increased Joy) a Toga Class Battleship was ordered to Be her replacement which I will cover Next. Akagi was Launched on April-22nd-1925.Fitting out Continued through late 1926. Sea trials begin in Winter 1927, and She was commissioned at Kure on March-25th-1927.

Since Akagi Was Originally Planned as a Battlecruiser, Japanese Ship Naming Conventions dictated her to be named after a Mountain in this Case Mount Akagi(Red Castle). Her name remained in contrast to Ships like Sōryū that since built Originally as Aircraft Carriers, which were named after Flying Creatures. She was the second ships of Her Name, the First was a Maya Class Gunboat.

Her completed length was 261.21 Meters

(857 ft) overall. She had a beam of 31 meters (101 ft 8 in) and, at deep load, a draft of 8.08 meters (26 ft 6 in). She displaced 26,900 long tons (27,300 t) at (standard) load, and 34,364 long tons (34,920 t) at full load, nearly 7,000 long tons (7,100 t) less than her designed displacement as a battlecruiser. Her complement totaled 1,600 crewmembers.

 

Akagi and her Converted Sister Kaga were the Only Carriers built with Superimposed Flight Decks.Athough the British Carriers Light Cruiser Conversions Glorious, Courageous, and Furious has two flight decks, There is No Evidence the Japanese Copied this Plan.

 

It is more likely that it was a case of convergent evolution to improve launch and recovery cycle flexibility by allowing simultaneous launch and recovery of aircraft. Akagi's main flight deck was 190.2 meters (624 ft 0 in) long and 30.5 meters (100 ft) wide, her middle flight deck (beginning right in front of the bridge) was only 15 meters (49 ft 3 in) long and her lower flight deck was 55.02 meters (180 ft 6 in) long. The utility of her middle flight deck was questionable as it was so short that only some lightly loaded aircraft could use it, even in an era when the aircraft were much lighter and smaller than during World War II.The upper flight deck sloped slightly from amidships toward the bow and toward the stern to assist landings and takeoffs for the underpowered aircraft of that time

 

As completed, the ship had two main hangar decks and a third auxiliary hangar, giving a total capacity of 60 aircraft. The third and lowest hangar deck was used only for storing disassembled aircraft. The two main hangars opened onto the middle and lower flight decks to allow aircraft to take off directly from the hangars while landing operations were in progress on the main flight deck above. The upper and middle hangar areas totaled about 80,375 square feet (7,467.1 m2), the lower hangar about 8,515 square feet (791.1 m2). No catapults were fitted. Her forward aircraft lift was offset to starboard and 11.8 by 13 meters (38 ft 9 in × 42 ft 8 in) in size. Her aft lift was on the centerline and 12.8 by 8.4 meters (42 ft 0 in × 27 ft 7 in). The aft elevator serviced the upper flight deck and all three hangar decks. Her arresting gear was an unsatisfactory British longitudinal system used on the carrier Furious that relied on friction between the arrester hook and the cables. The Japanese were well aware of this system's flaws, as it was already in use on their first carrier, Hōshō, but had no alternatives available when Akagi was completed. It was replaced during the ship's refit in 1931 with a Japanese-designed transverse cable system with six wires and that was replaced in turn before Akagi began her modernization in 1935 by the Kure Model 4 type (Kure shiki 4 gata). There was no island superstructure when the carrier was completed; the carrier was commanded from a space below the forward end of the upper flight deck.The ship carried approximately 150,000 US gallons (570,000 l) of aviation fuel for her embarked aircraft.

 

As originally completed, Akagi carried an air group of 28 Mitsubishi B1M3 torpedo bombers, 16 Nakajima A1N fighters and 16 Mitsubishi 2MR reconnaissance aircraft.

 

Akagi was armed with ten 50-caliber 20 cm 3rd Year Type No. 1 guns, six in casemates aft and the rest in two twin gun turrets, one on each side of the middle flight deck. They fired 110-kilogram (240 lb) projectiles at a rate of 3–6 rounds per minute with a muzzle velocity of 870 m/s (2,900 ft/s); at 25°, this provided a maximum range between 22,600 and 24,000 meters (24,700 and 26,200 yd). The turrets were nominally capable of 70° elevation to provide additional anti-aircraft fire, but in practice the maximum elevation was only 55°. The slow rate of fire and the fixed 5° loading angle minimized any real anti-aircraft capability.This heavy gun armament was provided in case she was surprised by enemy cruisers and forced to give battle, but her large and vulnerable flight deck, hangars, and superstructure made her more of a target in any surface action than a fighting warship. Carrier doctrine was still evolving at this time and the impracticality of carriers engaging in gun duels had not yet been realized.

 

The ship carried dedicated anti-aircraft armament of six twin 45-caliber 12 cm 10th Year Type gun mounts fitted on sponsons below the level of the funnels, where they could not fire across the flight deck, three mounts per side.These guns fired 20.3-kilogram (45 lb) projectiles at a muzzle velocity of 825–830 m/s (2,710–2,720 ft/s); at 45°, this provided a maximum range of 16,000 meters (17,000 yd), and they had a maximum ceiling of 10,000 meters (11,000 yd) at 75° elevation. Their effective rate of fire was 6–8 rounds per minute.

 

Akagi's waterline armored belt was reduced from 254 to 152 mm (10 to 6 in) and placed lower on the ship than originally designed. The upper part of her torpedo bulge was given 102 mm (4 in) of armor. Her deck armor was also reduced from 96 to 79 mm (3.8 to 3.1 in). The modifications improved the ship's stability by helping compensate for the increased topside weight of the double hangar deck.

 

In Akagi's predecessor, Hōshō, the hot exhaust gases vented by swivelling funnels posed a danger to the ship, and wind-tunnel testing had not suggested any solutions. Akagi and Kaga were given different solutions to evaluate in real-world conditions. Akagi was given two funnels on the starboard side. The larger, forward funnel was angled 30° below horizontal with its mouth facing the sea, and the smaller one exhausted vertically a little past the edge of the flight deck. The forward funnel was fitted with a water-cooling system to reduce the turbulence caused by hot exhaust gases and a cover that could be raised to allow the exhaust gases to escape if the ship developed a severe list and the mouth of the funnel touched the sea. Kaga adopted a version of this configuration when she was modernized during the mid-1930s.

 

Akagi was completed with four Gihon geared steam turbine sets, each driving one propeller shaft, that produced a total of 131,000 shaft horsepower (98,000 kW). Steam for these turbines was provided by nineteen Type B Kampon boilers with a working pressure of 20 kg/cm2 (1,961 kPa; 284 psi). Some boilers were oil-fired, and the others used a mix of fuel oil and coal. As a battlecruiser, she was expected to achieve 28.5 knots (52.8 km/h; 32.8 mph), but the reduction in displacement from 41,200 to 34,000 long tons (41,900 to 34,500 t) increased her maximum speed to 32.5 knots (60.2 km/h; 37.4 mph), which was reached during her sea trials on 17 June 1927. She carried 3,900 long tons (4,000 t) of fuel oil and 2,100 long tons (2,100 t) of coal that gave her a range of 8,000 nautical miles (15,000 km; 9,200 mi) at 14 knots (26 km/h; 16 mph).

 

Akagi joined the Combined Fleet in August 1927 and was assigned to the First Carrier Division upon its formation on 1 April 1928, serving as the division's flagship under Rear Admiral Sankichi Takahashi. The carrier's early career was uneventful, consisting of various training exercises. From 10 December 1928 to 1 November 1929, the ship was captained by Isoroku Yamamoto, future commander of the Combined Fleet.

 

Akagi was reduced to second-class reserve status on 1 December 1931 in preparation for a short refit in which her arresting gear was replaced and her radio and ventilation systems were overhauled and improved. After completion of the refit, Akagi became a first-class reserve ship in December 1932. On 25 April 1933, she resumed active service and joined the Second Carrier Division and participated in that year's Special Fleet Maneuvers.

 

At this time, the IJN's carrier doctrine was still in its early stages. Akagi and the IJN's other carriers were initially given roles as tactical force multipliers supporting the fleet's battleships in the IJN's "decisive battle" doctrine. In this role, Akagi's aircraft were to attack enemy battleships with bombs and torpedoes. Aerial strikes against enemy carriers were later (beginning around 1932–1933) deemed of equal importance, with the goal of establishing air superiority during the initial stages of battle. The essential component in this strategy was that the Japanese carrier aircraft must be able to strike first with a massed, preemptive aerial attack. In fleet training exercises, the carriers began to operate together in front of or with the main battle line. The new strategy emphasized maximum speed from both the carriers and the aircraft they carried as well as larger aircraft with greater range. Thus, longer flight decks on the carriers were required in order to handle the newer, heavier aircraft which were entering service. As a result, on 15 November 1935 Akagi was placed in third-class reserve to begin an extensive modernization at Sasebo Naval Arsenal.

 

Akagi's modernization involved far less work than that of Kaga, but took three times as long due to financial difficulties related to the Great Depression. The ship's three flight decks were judged too small to handle the larger and heavier aircraft then coming into service.As a result, the middle and lower flight decks were eliminated in favor of two enclosed hangar decks that extended almost the full length of the ship. The upper and middle hangar areas' total space increased to about 93,000 square feet (8,600 m2); the lower hangar remained the same size.The upper flight deck was extended to the bow, increasing its length to 249.17 meters (817 ft 6 in) and raising aircraft capacity to 86 (61 operational and 25 in storage). A third elevator midships, 11.8 by 13 meters (38 ft 9 in × 42 ft 8 in) in size, was added. Her arrester gear was replaced by a Japanese-designed, hydraulic Type 1 system with 9 wires.The modernization added an island superstructure on the port side of the ship, which was an unusual arrangement; the only other carrier to share this feature was a contemporary, the Hiryū. The port side was chosen as an experiment to see if that side was better for flight operations by moving the island away from the ship's exhaust outlets. The new flight deck inclined slightly fore and aft from a point about three-eighths of the way aft.

 

Akagi's speed was already satisfactory and the only changes to her machinery were the replacement of the mixed coal/oil-fired boilers with modern oil-fired units and the improvement of the ventilation arrangements. Although the engine horsepower increased from 131,200 to 133,000, her speed declined slightly from 32.5 to 31.2 knots (60.2 to 57.8 km/h; 37.4 to 35.9 mph) on trials because of the increase in her displacement to 41,300 long tons (42,000 t). Her bunkerage was increased to 7,500 long tons (7,600 t) of fuel oil which increased her endurance to 10,000 nautical miles (18,520 km; 11,510 mi) at 16 knots (30 km/h; 18 mph). The rear vertical funnel was changed to match the forward funnel and incorporated into the same casing.[30][32]

 

The two twin turrets on the middle flight deck were removed and fourteen twin 25 mm (1 in) Type 96 gun mounts were added on sponsons.[33] They fired .25-kilogram (0.55 lb) projectiles at a muzzle velocity of 900 m/s (3,000 ft/s); at 50°, this provided a maximum range of 7,500 m (8,200 yd), and an effective ceiling of 5,500 m (18,000 ft). The maximum effective rate of fire was only between 110–120 rounds per minute due to the frequent need to change the 15-round magazines. Six Type 95 directors were fitted to control the new 25 mm guns and two new Type 94 anti-aircraft directors replaced the outdated Type 91s. After the modernization, Akagi carried one Type 89 director for the 20 cm (7.9 in) guns; it is uncertain how many were carried before then. The ship's crew increased to 2,000 after the reconstruction.

  

Port-side anti-aircraft gun sponsons in Akagi, showing their low-mounted position on the hull, which greatly restricted their arc of fire.

The ship's anti-aircraft guns were grouped amidships and placed relatively low on the hull. Thus, the guns could not be brought to bear directly forward or aft. Also, the island blocked the forward arcs of the port battery. As a result, the ship was vulnerable to attack by dive bombers. The ship's 12 cm 10th Year Type guns were scheduled to be replaced by more modern 12.7 cm (5 in) Type 89 mounts in 1942. The anti-aircraft sponsons were to be raised one deck to allow them some measure of cross-deck fire as was done during Kaga's modernization. However, the ship was lost in combat before the upgrade could take place.

 

Several major weaknesses in Akagi's design were not rectified. Akagi's aviation fuel tanks were incorporated directly into the structure of the carrier, meaning that shocks to the ship, such as those caused by bomb or shell hits, would be transmitted directly to the tanks, resulting in cracks or leaks. Also, the fully enclosed structure of the new hangar decks made firefighting difficult, at least in part because fuel vapors could accumulate in the hangars. Adding to the danger was the requirement of the Japanese carrier doctrine that aircraft be serviced, fueled, and armed whenever possible on the hangar decks rather than on the flight deck. Furthermore, the carrier's hangar and flight decks carried little armor protection, and there was no redundancy in the ship's fire-extinguishing systems. These weaknesses would later be crucial factors in the loss of the ship.

 

Akagi's modernization was completed on 31 August 1938. She was reclassified as a first reserve ship on 15 November, but did not rejoin the First Carrier Division until the following month. In her new configuration, the carrier embarked 12 Mitsubishi A5M Type 96 "Claude" fighters with four disassembled spares, 19 Aichi D1A "Susie" dive bombers with five spares, and 35 Yokosuka B4Y "Jean" horizontal/torpedo bombers with 16 spares. She sailed for southern Chinese waters on 30 January 1939 and supported ground operations there, including attacks on Guilin and Liuzhou, until 19 February, when she returned to Japan. Akagi supported operations in central China between 27 March and 2 April 1940. She was reclassified as a special purpose ship (Tokubetse Ilomokan) on 15 November 1940, while she was being overhauled.

 

The Japanese experiences off China had helped further develop the IJN's carrier doctrine. One lesson learned in China was the importance of concentration and mass in projecting naval air power ashore. Therefore, in April 1941, the IJN formed the First Air Fleet, or Kido Butai, to combine all of its fleet carriers under a single command. On 10 April, Akagi and Kaga were assigned to the First Carrier Division as part of the new carrier fleet, which also included the Second (with carriers Hiryū and Sōryū), and Fifth (with Shōkaku and Zuikaku) carrier divisions. The IJN centered its doctrine on air strikes that combined the air groups of entire carrier divisions, rather than individual carriers. When multiple carrier divisions were operating together, the divisions' air groups were combined. This doctrine of combined, massed, carrier-based air attack groups was the most advanced of its kind in the world. The IJN, however, remained concerned that concentrating all of its carriers together would render them vulnerable to being wiped out all at once by a massive enemy air or surface strike. Thus, the IJN developed a compromise solution in which the fleet carriers would operate closely together within their carrier divisions but the divisions themselves would operate in loose rectangular formations, with approximately 7,000 meters (7,700 yd) separating each carrier.

 

The Japanese doctrine held that entire carrier air groups should not be launched in a single massed attack. Instead, each carrier would launch a "deckload strike" of all its aircraft that could be spotted at one time on each flight deck. Subsequent attack waves consisted of the next deckload of aircraft. Thus, First Air Fleet air attacks would often consist of at least two massed waves of aircraft. The First Air Fleet was not considered to be the IJN's primary strategic striking force. The IJN still considered the First Air Fleet an integral component in the Combined Fleet's Kantai Kessen or "decisive battle" task force centered on battleships.Akagi was designated as the flagship for the First Air Fleet, a role the ship retained until her sinking 14 months later.

 

Although the concentration of so many fleet carriers into a single unit was a new and revolutionary offensive strategic concept, the First Air Fleet suffered from several defensive deficiencies that gave it, in Mark Peattie's words, a "'glass jaw': it could throw a punch but couldn't take one." Japanese carrier anti-aircraft guns and associated fire-control systems had several design and configuration deficiencies that limited their effectiveness. Also, the IJN's fleet combat air patrol (CAP) consisted of too few fighter aircraft and was hampered by an inadequate early warning system, including lack of radar. In addition, poor radio communications with the fighter aircraft inhibited effective command and control of the CAP. Furthermore, the carriers' escorting warships were not trained or deployed to provide close anti-aircraft support. These deficiencies, combined with the shipboard weaknesses previously detailed, would eventually doom Akagi and other First Air Fleet carriers.

 

In the Fall of 1941, with tensions rising with the United States, The Kido Buati Consisting of the First Carrier Division(Dai Ichi Kōkū senta) Akagi Flagship) ,Kaga

Second Carrier Division (Dai Ni Kōkū sentai, Ni Kōsen) Sōryū (Blue Dragon) and

Hiryū (飛龍, "Flying Dragon") Flagship

and the Newly Created Five Carrier Division (Dai-Go Kōkū-Sentai)

Shōkaku ("Soaring Crane") Flagship and

Zuikaku (Auspicious Crane") became Preparations for an Attack on Pearl harbor.

 

The Six carriers trained in the fall with the Air Groups commencing mock Attacks on their own ships along with their escort vessels. Once preparations and training were completed, Akagi assembled with the rest of the First Air Fleet at Hitokappu Bay in the Kuril Islands on 22 November 1941. The ships departed on 26 November 1941 for Hawaii along Battleships Hiei and Kirishima of the 3rd Battleship Division and Ton and Chikuma of the 8th Cruiser Division.

  

A6M2 Zero fighters prepare to launch from Akagi as part of the second wave during the attack on Pearl Harbor

Commanded by Captain Kiichi Hasegawa, Akagi was Vice Admiral Chūichi Nagumo's flagship for the striking force for the attack on Pearl Harbor[that attempted to cripple the United States Pacific Fleet. Akagi and the other five carriers, from a position 230 nautical miles (430 km; 260 mi) north of Oahu, launched two waves of aircraft on the morning of 7 December 1941. In the first wave, 27 Nakajima B5N "Kate" torpedo bombers from Akagi torpedoed the battleships Oklahoma, West Virginia, and California while 9 of the ship's Mitsubishi A6M Zeros attacked the air base at Hickam Field. In the second wave, 18 Aichi D3A "Val" dive bombers from the carrier targeted the battleships Maryland and Pennsylvania, the light cruiser Raleigh, the destroyer Shaw, and the fleet oiler Neosho while nine "Zeros" attacked various American airfields. One of the carrier's Zeros was shot down by American anti-aircraft guns during the first wave attack, killing its pilot, In addition to the aircraft which participated in the raid, three of the carrier's fighters were assigned to the CAP. One of the carrier's Zero fighters attacked a Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress heavy bomber that had just arrived from the mainland, setting it on fire as it landed at Hickam, killing one of its crew.

 

In January 1942, together with the rest of the First and Fifth Carrier Divisions, Akagi supported the invasion of Rabaul in the Bismarck Archipelago, as the Japanese moved to secure their southern defensive perimeter against attacks from Australia. She provided 20 B5Ns and 9 Zeros for the initial airstrike on Rabaul on 20 January 1942. The First Carrier Division attacked Allied positions at nearby Kavieng the following day, of which Akagi contributed 9 A6M Zeros and 18 D3As. On the 22nd, Akagi's D3As and Zeros again attacked Rabaul before returning to Truk on 27 January. The Second Carrier Division, with Sōryū and Hiryū, had been detached to support the invasion of Wake Island on 23 December 1941 and did not reunite with the rest of the carrier mobile striking force until February 1942.

 

Akagi, along with Kaga and the carrier Zuikaku, sortied in search of American naval forces raiding the Marshall Islands on 1 February 1942, before being recalled. On 7 February Akagi and the carriers of the First and Second Carrier Divisions were ordered south to the Timor Sea where, on 19 February, from a point 100 nautical miles (190 km; 120 mi) southeast of the easternmost tip of Timor, they launched air strikes against Darwin, Australia, in an attempt to destroy its port and airfield facilities to prevent any interference with the invasion of Java. Akagi contributed 18 B5Ns, 18 D3As, and 9 Zeros to the attack, which caught the defenders by surprise. Eight ships were sunk, including the American destroyer Peary, and fourteen more were damaged. None of the carrier's aircraft were lost in the attack and the attack was effective in preventing Darwin from contributing to the Allied defense of Java. On 1 March, the American oiler Pecos was sunk by D3As from Sōryū and Akagi. Later that same day the American destroyer Edsall was attacked and sunk by D3As from Akagi and Sōryū, in combination with gunfire from two battleships and two heavy cruisers of the escort force. Akagi and her consorts covered the invasion of Java, although her main contribution appears to have been providing 18 B5Ns and 9 Zeros for the 5 March air strike on Tjilatjap. This group was very successful, sinking eight ships in the harbor there and none of Akagi's aircraft were lost. Most of the Allied forces in the Dutch East Indies surrendered to the Japanese later in March. The Kido Butai then sailed for Staring Bay on Celebes Island to refuel and recuperate.

 

On 26 March, Akagi set sail for the Indian Ocean raid with the rest of the Kido Butai. The Japanese intent was to defeat the British Eastern Fleet and destroy British airpower in the region in order to secure the flank of their operations in Burma. On 5 April 1942, Akagi launched 17 B5Ns and 9 Zeros in an air strike against Colombo, Ceylon, which damaged the port facilities. None of the aircraft were lost and the Zero pilots claimed to have shot down a dozen of the defending British fighters. Later that day, 17 D3As from Akagi helped to sink the British heavy cruisers Cornwall and Dorsetshire. On 9 April, she attacked Trincomalee with 18 B5Ns, escorted by 6 Zeros which claimed to have shot down 5 Hawker Hurricane fighters (only two of which can be confirmed from Allied records) without loss to themselves. Meanwhile, a floatplane from the battleship Haruna spotted the small aircraft carrier Hermes, escorted by the Australian destroyer Vampire, and every available D3A was launched to attack the ships. Akagi contributed 17 dive bombers and they helped to sink both ships; they also spotted the oil tanker RFA Athelstone, escorted by the corvette Hollyhock, as well and sank both without loss. During the day's actions, the carrier narrowly escaped damage when nine British Bristol Blenheim bombers from Ceylon penetrated the CAP and dropped their bombs from 11,000 feet (3,400 m), just missing the carrier and the heavy cruiser Tone. Four of the Blenheims were subsequently shot down by CAP fighters and one was shot down by aircraft from the carriers' returning air strike.After the raid, the carrier mobile striking force returned to Japan to refit and replenish.

 

On 19 April 1942, while near Taiwan during the transit to Japan, Akagi, Sōryū, and Hiryū were sent in pursuit of the American carriers Hornet and Enterprise, which had launched the Doolittle Raid. They found only empty ocean, however, for the American carriers had immediately departed the area to return to Hawaii. Akagi and the other carriers shortly abandoned the chase and dropped anchor at Hashirajima anchorage on 22 April. On 25 April, Captain Taijiro Aoki relieved Hasegawa as skipper of the carrier. Having been engaged in constant operations for four and a half months, the ship, along with the other three carriers of the First and Second Carrier Divisions, was hurriedly refitted and replenished in preparation for the Combined Fleet's next major operation, scheduled to begin one month hence. The Fifth Carrier Division, with Shōkaku and Zuikaku, had been detached in mid-April to support Operation Mo, resulting in the Battle of the Coral Sea. While at Hashirajima, Akagi's air group was based ashore in Kagoshima and conducted flight and weapons training with the other First Air Fleet carrier units.

 

Concerned by the US carrier strikes in the Marshall Islands, Lae-Salamaua, and the Doolittle raids, Yamamoto determined to force the US Navy into a showdown to eliminate the American carrier threat. He decided to invade and occupy Midway Island, which he was sure would draw out the American carrier forces to battle. The Japanese codenamed the Midway invasion Operation MI.

 

On 25 May 1942, Akagi set out with the Combined Fleet's carrier striking force in the company of carriers Kaga, Hiryū, and Sōryū, which constituted the First and Second Carrier Divisions, for the attack on Midway Island. Once again, Nagumo flew his flag on Akagi. Because of damage and losses suffered during the Battle of the Coral Sea, the Fifth Carrier Division with carriers Shōkaku and Zuikaku was absent from the operation. Akagi's aircraft complement consisted of 24 Zeros, 18 D3As, and 18 B5Ns.

 

With the fleet positioned 250 nautical miles (460 km; 290 mi) northwest of Midway Island at dawn (04:45 local time) on 4 June 1942, Akagi's portion of the 108-plane combined air raid was a strike on the airfield on Eastern Island with 18 dive bombers escorted by nine Zeros. The carrier's B5Ns were armed with torpedoes and kept ready in case enemy ships were discovered during the Midway operation. The only loss during the raid from Akagi's air group was one Zero shot down by AA fire and three damaged; four dive bombers were damaged, one of which could not be repaired.

 

Unbeknownst to the Japanese, the US Navy had discovered the Japanese MI plan by breaking the Japanese cipher and had prepared an ambush using its three available carriers, positioned northeast of Midway

  

One of Akagi's torpedo bombers was launched to augment the search for any American ships that might be in the area.The carrier contributed three Zeros to the total of 11 assigned to the initial combat air patrol over the four carriers. By 07:00, the carrier had 11 fighters with the CAP which helped to defend the Kido Butai from the first US attackers from Midway Island at 07:10.

 

At this time, Nagumo's carriers were attacked by six US Navy Grumman TBF Avengers from Torpedo Squadron 8 (VT-8) and four United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) B-26 Marauders, all carrying torpedoes. The Avengers went after Hiryū while the Marauders attacked Akagi. The 30 CAP Zeroes in the air at this time, including the 11 from Akagi, immediately attacked the American aircraft, shooting down five of the Avengers and two of the B-26s. One of Akagi's Zeroes, however, was shot down by defensive fire from the B-26s. Several of the Marauders dropped their torpedoes, but all either missed or failed to detonate. One B-26, piloted by Lieutenant James Muri, strafed Akagi after dropping its torpedo, killing two men. Another, after being seriously damaged by anti-aircraft fire, didn’t pull out of its run, and instead headed directly for Akagi's bridge. The aircraft, either attempting a suicide ramming, or out of control due to battle damage or a wounded or killed pilot, narrowly missed crashing into the carrier's bridge, which could have killed Nagumo and his command staff, before it cartwheeled into the sea. This experience may well have contributed to Nagumo's determination to launch another attack on Midway, in direct violation of Yamamoto's order to keep the reserve strike force armed for anti-ship operations.

 

At 07:15, Nagumo ordered the B5Ns on Kaga and Akagi rearmed with bombs for another attack on Midway itself. This process was limited by the number of ordnance carts (used to handle the bombs and torpedoes) and ordnance elevators, preventing torpedoes from being struck below until after all the bombs were moved up from their magazine, assembled, and mounted on the aircraft. This process normally took about an hour and a half; more time would be required to bring the aircraft up to the flight deck, warm up and launch the strike group. Around 07:40, Nagumo reversed his order when he received a message from one of his scout aircraft that American warships had been spotted. Three of Akagi's CAP Zeroes landed aboard the carrier at 07:36. At 07:40, her lone scout returned, having sighted nothing.

  

At 07:55, the next American strike from Midway arrived in the form of 16 Marine SBD-2 Dauntless dive bombers of VMSB-241 under Major Lofton R. Henderson.[Note 5] Akagi's three remaining CAP fighters were among the nine still aloft that attacked Henderson's planes, shooting down six of them as they executed a fruitless glide bombing attack on Hiryū. At roughly the same time, the Japanese carriers were attacked by 12 USAAF B-17 Flying Fortresses, bombing from 20,000 feet (6,100 m). The high altitude of the bombers gave the Japanese captains enough time to anticipate where the bombs would land and successfully maneuver their ships out of the impact area. Four B-17s attacked Akagi, but missed with all their bombs.[75]

 

Akagi reinforced the CAP with launches of three Zeros at 08:08 and four at 08:32.[These fresh Zeros helped defeat the next American air strike from Midway, 11 Vought SB2U Vindicators from VMSB-241, which attacked the battleship Haruna starting around 08:30. Three of the Vindicators were shot down, and Haruna escaped damage.Although all the American air strikes had thus far caused negligible damage, they kept the Japanese carrier forces off-balance as Nagumo endeavored to prepare a response to news, received at 08:20, of the sighting of American carrier forces to his northeast.

 

Akagi began recovering her Midway strike force at 08:37 and finished shortly after 09:00.The landed aircraft were quickly struck below, while the carriers' crews began preparations to spot aircraft for the strike against the American carrier forces. The preparations, however, were interrupted at 09:18 when the first American carrier aircraft to attack were sighted. These consisted of 15 Douglas TBD Devastator torpedo bombers of VT-8, led by John C. Waldron from the carrier Hornet. The six airborne Akagi CAP Zeroes joined the other 15 CAP fighters currently aloft in destroying Waldron's planes. All 15 of the American planes were shot down as they attempted a torpedo attack on Soryū, leaving one surviving aviator treading water.

 

Shortly afterwards 14 Devastators from VT-6 from the carrier Enterprise, led by Eugene E. Lindsey, attacked. Lindsey's aircraft tried to sandwich Kaga, but the CAP, reinforced by an additional eight Zeros launched by Akagi at 09:33 and 09:40, shot down all but four of the Devastators, and Kaga dodged the torpedoes. Defensive fire from the Devastators shot down one of Akagi's Zeros.[

 

Minutes after the torpedo plane attacks, American carrier-based dive bombers arrived over the Japanese carriers almost undetected and began their dives. It was at this time, around 10:20, that in the words of Jonathan Parshall and Anthony Tully, the "Japanese air defenses would finally and catastrophically fail.Twenty-eight dive bombers from Enterprise, led by C. Wade McClusky, began an attack on Kaga, hitting her with at least four bombs. At the last minute, one of McClusky's elements of three bombers from VB-6, led by squadron commander Richard Best who deduced Kaga to be fatally damaged, broke off and dove simultaneously on Akagi. At approximately 10:26, the three bombers hit her with one 1,000-pound (450 kg) bomb and just missed with two others. The first near-miss landed 5–10 m (16–33 ft) to port, near her island. The third bomb just missed the flight deck and plunged into the water next to the stern. The second bomb, likely dropped by Best, landed at the aft edge of the middle elevator and detonated in the upper hangar. This hit set off explosions among the fully armed and fueled B5N torpedo bombers that were being prepared for an air strike against the American carriers, resulting in an uncontrollable fire.

 

At 10:29, Aoki ordered the ship's magazines flooded. The forward magazines were promptly flooded, but the aft magazines were not due to valve damage, likely caused by the near miss aft. The ship's main water pump also appears to have been damaged, greatly hindering fire fighting efforts. On the upper hangar deck, at 10:32 damage control teams attempted to control the spreading fires by employing the one-shot CO2 fire-suppression system. Whether the system functioned or not is unclear, but the burning aviation fuel proved impossible to control, and serious fires began to advance deeper into the interior of the ship. At 10:40, additional damage caused by the near-miss aft made itself known when the ship's rudder jammed 30 degrees to starboard during an evasive maneuver.

 

Shortly thereafter, the fires broke through the flight deck and heat and smoke made the ship's bridge unusable. At 10:46, Nagumo transferred his flag to the light cruiser Nagara.Akagi stopped dead in the water at 13:50 and her crew, except for Aoki and damage-control personnel, was evacuated. She continued to burn as her crew fought a losing battle against the spreading fires. The damage-control teams and Aoki were evacuated from the still floating ship later that night.

 

At 04:50 on 5 June, Yamamoto ordered Akagi scuttled, saying to his staff, "I was once the captain of Akagi, and it is with heartfelt regret that I must now order that she be sunk. Destroyers Arashi, Hagikaze, Maikaze, and Nowaki each fired one torpedo into the carrier and she sank, bow first, at 05:20 at 30°30′N 178°40′WCoordinates: 30°30′N 178°40′W. Two hundred and sixty-seven men of the ship's crew were lost, the fewest of any of the Japanese fleet carriers lost in the battle. The loss of Akagi and the three other IJN carriers at Midway, comprising two thirds of Japan's total number of fleet carriers and the experienced core of the First Air Fleet, was a crucial strategic defeat for Japan and contributed significantly to Japan's ultimate defeat in the war.In an effort to conceal the defeat, Akagi was not immediately removed from the Navy's registry of ships, instead being listed as "unmanned" before finally being struck from the registry on 25 September 1942

 

Akagi's Wreck and Her sister's Kaga were discovered on October-29th and October-26th-2019 Respectively 77 years after the Battle.

   

Captured 2 Dec 2021, 22:58 hrs ET, Springfield, VA, USA. Bortle 7 skies, Stellarvue SV80/9D doublet achromat refractor at f/9.38 (eff. fl 750mm), Orion Atlas AZ/EQ-G Pro mount. Mallincam DS10C camera, bin 1, exposure 8 seconds, gain 20, live stack of 20 subframes, dark frames subtracted. Optolong LeNhance filter.

 

Clouds: partly cloudy

Seeing: good

Transparency: good

Moon phase: 4%

 

FOV: 78.4 x 58.8 arcmin before cropping.

Resolution: 1.27 arcsec/pixel.

Orientation: Up is West.

 

Appearance: Brilliant pale-orange star. Magnitude +0.08.

 

Splitting Capella: The primary pair (Capella Aa and Ab) appear very close together, separation 0.06 arsec, and were not resolved in this image. Splitting Capella A would require aperture on the order of 80 inches or more! The second pair (Capella H and L) are separated from A by 12 arcsec, well within the capability of this equipment (Dawes limit 1.45 arcsec, image scale 1.3 arcsec/px) if used with an occulting bar.

 

Notes on image artifacts: The eight spikes appearing to radiate from the center of the star are visually appealing, and appear in images of other very bright stars via this camera and my SCT. I do not have a reasonable explanation (in the absence of a vaned secondary mirror holder) for it. The halo around the star is slightly off-center from the star (likely collimation error or mild sensor tilt) -- try aligning star to exact center of FOV during capture.

 

From Wikipedia:

Capella, designated α Aurigae (Latinised to Alpha Aurigae, abbreviated Alpha Aur, α Aur), is the brightest star in the constellation of Auriga, the sixth-brightest star in the night sky, and the third-brightest in the northern celestial hemisphere after Arcturus and Vega. A prominent object in the northern winter sky, it is circumpolar to observers north of 44°N. Its name meaning "little goat" in Latin, Capella depicted the goat Amalthea that suckled Zeus in classical mythology. Capella is relatively close, at 42.9 light-years (13.2 pc) from the Sun. It is one of the brightest X-ray sources in the sky, thought to come primarily from the corona of Capella Aa.

 

Although it appears to be a single star to the naked eye, Capella is actually a quadruple star system organized in two binary pairs, made up of the stars Capella Aa, Capella Ab, Capella H and Capella L. The primary pair, Capella Aa and Capella Ab, are two bright-yellow giant stars, both of which are around 2.5 times as massive as the Sun. The secondary pair, Capella H and Capella L, are around 10,000 astronomical units (AU) from the first and are two faint, small and relatively cool red dwarfs. Capella Aa and Capella Ab have exhausted their core hydrogen, and cooled and expanded, moving off the main sequence. They are in a very tight circular orbit about 0.74 AU apart, and orbit each other every 104 days. Capella Aa is the cooler and more luminous of the two with spectral class K0III; it is 78.7 ± 4.2 times the Sun's luminosity and 11.98 ± 0.57 times its radius. An aging red clump star, it is fusing helium to carbon and oxygen in its core. Capella Ab is slightly smaller and hotter and of spectral class G1III; it is 72.7 ± 3.6 times as luminous as the Sun and 8.83 ± 0.33 times its radius. It is in the Hertzsprung gap, corresponding to a brief subgiant evolutionary phase as it expands and cools to become a red giant. Several other stars in the same visual field have been catalogued as companions but are physically unrelated.

 

α Aurigae (Latinised to Alpha Aurigae) is the star system's Bayer designation. It also has the Flamsteed designation 13 Aurigae. It is listed in several multiple star catalogues as ADS 3841, CCDM J05168+4559, and WDS J05167+4600. As a relatively nearby star system, Capella is listed in the Gliese-Jahreiss Catalogue with designations GJ 194 for the bright pair of giants and GJ 195 for the faint pair of red dwarfs.

 

The traditional name Capella is Latin for (small) female goat; the alternative name Capra was more commonly used in classical times. In 2016, the International Astronomical Union organized a Working Group on Star Names (WGSN) to catalogue and standardize proper names for stars. The WGSN's first bulletin of July 2016 included a table of the first two batches of names approved by the WGSN; which included Capella for this star. It is now so entered in the IAU Catalog of Star Names. The catalogue of star names lists Capella as applying to the star α Aurigae Aa.

 

Capella was the brightest star in the night sky from 210,000 years ago to 160,000 years ago, at about −1.8 in apparent magnitude. At −1.1, Aldebaran was brightest before this period; it and Capella were situated rather close to each other in the sky and approximated boreal pole stars at the time.

 

Capella is thought to be mentioned in an Akkadian inscription dating to the 20th century BC. Its goat-associated symbolism dates back to Mesopotamia as a constellation called "GAM", "Gamlum" or "MUL.GAM" in the 7th-century BC document MUL.APIN. GAM represented a scimitar or crook and may have represented the star alone or the constellation of Auriga as a whole. Later, Bedouin astronomers created constellations that were groups of animals, where each star represented one animal. The stars of Auriga comprised a herd of goats, an association also present in Greek mythology. It is sometimes called the Shepherd's Star in English literature. Capella was seen as a portent of rain in classical times.

 

Professor William Wallace Campbell of the Lick Observatory announced that Capella was binary in 1899, based on spectroscopic observations—he noted on photographic plates taken from August 1896 to February 1897 that a second spectrum appeared superimposed over the first, and that there was a doppler shift to violet in September and October and to red in November and February—showing that the components were moving toward and away from the Earth (and hence orbiting each other). Almost simultaneously, British astronomer Hugh Newall had observed its composite spectrum with a four prism spectroscope attached to a 25-inch (64 cm) telescope at Cambridge in July 1899, concluding that it was a binary star system.

 

Many observers tried to discern the component stars without success. Known as "The Interferometrist's Friend", it was first resolved interferometrically in 1919 by John Anderson and Francis Pease at Mount Wilson Observatory, who published an orbit in 1920 based on their observations. This was the first interferometric measurement of any object outside the Solar System. A high-precision orbit was published in 1994 based on observations by the Mark III Stellar Interferometer, again at Mount Wilson Observatory. Capella also became the first astronomical object to be imaged by a separate element optical interferometer when it was imaged by the Cambridge Optical Aperture Synthesis Telescope in September 1995.

 

In 1914, Finnish astronomer Ragnar Furuhjelm observed that the spectroscopic binary had a faint companion star, which, as its proper motion was similar to that of the spectroscopic binary, was probably physically bound to it. In February 1936, Carl L. Stearns observed that this companion appeared to be double itself; this was confirmed in September that year by Gerard Kuiper. This pair are designated Capella H and L.

 

Two Aerobee-Hi rocket flights on September 20, 1962, and March 15, 1963, detected and confirmed an X-ray source in Auriga at RA 05h 09m Dec +45°, identified as Capella. Stellar X-ray astronomy started on April 5, 1974, with the detection of X-rays from Capella. A rocket flight on that date briefly calibrated its attitude control system when a star sensor pointed the payload axis at Capella. During this period, X-rays in the range 0.2–1.6 keV were detected by an X-ray reflector system co-aligned with the star sensor. The X-ray luminosity (Lx) of ~1024 W (1031 erg s−1) is four orders of magnitude above the Sun's X-ray luminosity. Capella's X-rays are thought to be primarily from the corona of the most massive star. Capella is ROSAT X-ray source 1RXS J051642.2+460001. The high temperature of Capella's corona as obtained from the first coronal X-ray spectrum of Capella using HEAO 1 would require magnetic confinement, unless it is a free-flowing coronal wind.

 

With an average apparent magnitude of +0.08, Capella is the brightest object in the constellation Auriga, the sixth-brightest star in the night sky, the third-brightest in the northern celestial hemisphere (after Arcturus and Vega), and the fourth-brightest visible to the naked eye from the latitude 40°N. It appears to be a rich yellowish-white colour, although the yellow colour is more apparent during daylight observation with a telescope, due to the contrast against the blue sky.

 

Capella is closer to the north celestial pole than any other first-magnitude star. Its northern declination is such that it is actually invisible south of latitude 44°S—this includes southernmost New Zealand, Argentina and Chile as well as the Falkland Islands. Conversely it is circumpolar north of 44°N: for the whole of the United Kingdom and Canada (except for part of Southern Ontario), most of Europe, and the northernmost fringes of the contiguous United States, the star never sets. Capella and Vega are on opposite sides of the pole, at about the same distance from it, such that an imaginary line between the two stars will nearly pass through Polaris. Visible halfway between Orion's Belt and Polaris, Capella is at its highest in the night sky at midnight in early December and is regarded as a prominent star of the northern winter sky.

 

A few degrees to the southwest of Capella lie three stars, Epsilon Aurigae, Zeta Aurigae and Eta Aurigae, the latter two of which are known as "The Kids", or Haedi. The four form a familiar pattern, or asterism, in the sky.

 

Based on an annual parallax shift of 76.20 milliarcseconds (with a margin of error of 0.46 milliarcseconds) as measured by the Hipparcos satellite, this system is estimated to be 42.8 light-years (13.12 parsecs) from Earth, with a margin of error of 0.3 light-year (0.09 parsec). An alternative method to determine the distance is via the orbital parallax, which gives a distance of 42.92 light-years (13.159 parsecs) with a margin of error of only 0.1%. Capella is estimated to have been a little closer to the Solar System in the past, passing within 29 light-years distant around 237,000 years ago. At this range, it would have shone at apparent magnitude −0.82, comparable to Canopus today.

 

In a 1960 paper, American astronomer Olin J. Eggen concluded that Capella was a member of the Hyades moving group, a group of stars moving in the same direction as the Hyades cluster, after analysing its proper motion and parallax. Members of the group are of a similar age, and those that are around 2.5 times as massive as the Sun have moved off the main sequence after exhausting their core hydrogen reserves and are expanding and cooling into red giants.

 

There are several stars within a few arcminutes of Capella and some have been listed as companions in various multiple star catalogues. The Washington Double Star Catalog lists components A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, L, M, N, O, P, Q, and R, with A being the naked-eye star. Most are only line-of-sight companions, but the close pair of red dwarfs H and L are at the same distance as the bright component A and moving through space along with it. Capella A is itself a spectroscopic binary with components Aa and Ab, both giant stars. The pair of giants is separated from the pair of red dwarfs by 12'.

 

American astronomer Robert Burnham Jr. described a scale model of the system where Capella A was represented by spheres 13 and 7 inches across, separated by ten feet. The red dwarfs were then each 0.7 inch across and they were separated by 420 feet. At this scale, the two pairs are 21 miles apart.

 

Capella A consists of two yellow evolved stars that have been calculated to orbit each other every 104.02128 ± 0.00016 days, with a semimajor axis of 111.11 ± 0.10 million km (0.74272 ± 0.00069 AU), roughly the distance between Venus and the Sun. The pair is not an eclipsing binary—that is, as seen from Earth, neither star passes in front of the other. The orbit is known extremely accurately and can be used to derive an orbital parallax with far better precision than the one measured directly. The stars are not near enough to each other for the Roche lobe of either star to have been filled and any significant mass transfer to have taken place, even during the red giant stage of the primary star.

 

Modern convention designates the more luminous cooler star as component Aa and its spectral type has been usually measured between G2 and K0. The hotter secondary Ab has been given various spectral types of late (cooler) F or early (warmer) G. The MK spectral types of the two stars have been measured a number of times, and they are both consistently assigned a luminosity class of III indicating a giant star. The composite spectrum appears to be dominated by the primary star due to its sharper absorption lines; the lines from the secondary are broadened and blurred by its rapid rotation. The composite spectral class is given as approximately G3III, but with a specific mention of features due to a cooler component. The most recent specific published types are K0III and G1III, although older values are still widely quoted such as G5IIIe + G0III from the Bright Star Catalogue or G8III + G0III by Eggen. Where the context is clear, these two components have been referred to as A and B.

 

The individual apparent magnitudes of the two component stars cannot be directly measured, but their relative brightness has been measured at various wavelengths. They have very nearly equal brightness in the visible light spectrum, with the hotter secondary component generally being found to be a few tenths of a magnitude brighter. A 2016 measurement gives the magnitude difference between the two stars at a wavelength of 700 nm as 0.00 ± 0.1.

 

The physical properties of the two stars can be determined with high accuracy. The masses are derived directly from the orbital solution, with Aa being 2.5687 ± 0.0074 M☉ and Ab being 2.4828 ± 0.0067 M☉. Their angular radii have been directly measured; in combination with the very accurate distance, this gives 11.98 ± 0.57 R☉ and 8.83 ± 0.33 R☉ for Aa and Ab, respectively. Their surface temperatures can be calculated by comparison of observed and synthetic spectra, direct measurement of their angular diameters and brightnesses, calibration against their observed colour indices, and disentangling of high resolution spectra. Weighted averages of these four methods give 4,970 ± 50 K for Aa and 5,730 ± 60 for Ab. Their bolometric luminosities are most accurately derived from their apparent magnitudes and bolometric corrections, but are confirmed by calculation from the temperatures and radii of the stars. Aa is 78.7 ± 4.2 times as luminous as the Sun and Ab 72.7 ± 3.6 times as luminous, so the star defined as the primary component is the more luminous when all wavelengths are considered but very slightly less bright at visual wavelengths.

 

Estimated to be 590 to 650 million years old, the stars were probably at the hot end of spectral class A during their main-sequence lifetime, similar to Vega. They have now exhausted their core hydrogen and evolved off the main sequence, their outer layers expanding and cooling. Despite the giant luminosity class, the secondary component is very clearly within the Hertzsprung gap on the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram, still expanding and cooling towards the red giant branch, making it a subgiant in evolutionary terms. The more massive primary has already passed through this stage, when it reached a maximum radius of 36 to 38 times that of the Sun. It is now a red clump star which is fusing helium to carbon and oxygen in its core, a process that has not yet begun for the less massive star. Detailed analysis shows that it is nearing the end of this stage and starting to expand again which will lead it to the asymptotic giant branch. Isotope abundances and spin rates confirm this evolutionary difference between the two stars. Heavy element abundances are broadly comparable to those of the Sun and the overall metallicity is slightly less than the Sun's.

 

The rotational period of each star can be measured by observing periodic variations in the doppler shifts of their spectral lines. The absolute rotational velocities of the two stars are known from their inclinations, rotation periods, and sizes, but the projected equatorial rotational velocities measured using doppler broadening of spectral lines are a standard measure and these are generally quoted. Capella Aa has a projected rotational velocity of 4.1 ± 0.4 km per second, taking 104 ± 3 days to complete one rotation, while Capella Ab spins much more rapidly at 35.0 ± 0.5 km per second, completing a full rotation in only 8.5 ± 0.2 days. Rotational braking occurs in all stars when they expand into giants, and binary stars are also tidally braked. Capella Aa has slowed until it is rotationally locked to the orbital period, although theory predicts that it should still be rotating more quickly from a starting point of a rapidly-spinning main sequence A star.

 

Capella has long been suspected to be slightly variable. Its amplitude of about 0.1 magnitudes means that it may at times be brighter or fainter than Rigel, Betelgeuse and Vega, which are also variable. The system has been classified as an RS Canum Venaticorum variable, a class of binary stars with active chromospheres that cause huge starspots, but it is still only listed as a suspected variable in the General Catalogue of Variable Stars. Unusually for RS CVn systems, the hotter star, Capella Ab, has the more active atmosphere because it is located in the Hertzsprung gap—a stage where it is changing its angular momentum and deepening its convection zone.

 

The active atmospheres and closeness of these stars means that they are among the brightest X-ray sources in the sky. However the X-ray emission is due to stable coronal structures and not eruptive flaring activity. Coronal loops larger than the Sun and with temperatures of several million kelvin are likely to be responsible for the majority of the X-rays.

 

The seventh companion published for Capella, component H, is physically associated with the bright primary star. It is a red dwarf separated from the pair of G-type giants by a distance of around 10,000 AU. It has its own close companion, an even fainter red dwarf that was 1.8″ away when it was discovered in 1935. It is component L in double star catalogues. In 2015 the separation had increased to 3.5″, which was sufficient to allow tentative orbital parameters to be derived, 80 years after its discovery. The Gliese-Jahreiss Catalogue of nearby stars designates the binary system as GJ 195. The two components are then referred to individually as GJ 195 A and B.

 

The two stars are reported to have a 3.5-visual-magnitude difference (2.3 mag in the passband of the Gaia spacecraft) although the difference is much smaller at infrared wavelengths. This is unexpected and may indicate further unseen companions.

 

The mass of the stars can, in principle, be determined from the orbital motion, but uncertainties in the orbit have led to widely varying results. In 1975, an eccentric 388-year orbit gave masses of 0.65 M☉ and 0.13 M☉. A smaller near-circular orbit published in 2015 had a 300-year orbit, benefitting from mass constraints of 0.57 M☉ and 0.53 M☉, respectively, for GJ 195 A and B, based on their infrared magnitudes.

 

Six visual companions to Capella were discovered before Capella H and are generally known only as Capella B through G. None are thought to be physically associated with Capella, although all appear closer in the sky than the HL pair.

 

Component F is also known as TYC 3358-3142-1. It is listed with a spectral type of K although it is included in a catalogue of OB stars as a distant luminous star.

 

Component G is BD+45 1076, with a spectral type of F0, at a distance of 401 light-years (123 parsecs). It is identified as a variable member of the Guide Star Catalogue from Chandra observations although it is not known what type of variability. It is known to be an X-ray source with an active corona.

 

Several other stars have also been catalogued as companions to Capella. Components I, Q and R are 13th-magnitude stars at distances of 92″, 133″ and 134″. V538 Aurigae and its close companion HD 233153 are red dwarfs ten degrees away from Capella; they have very similar space motions but the small difference makes it possible that this is just a coincidence. Two faint stars have been discovered by speckle imaging in the Capella HL field, around 10″ distant from that pair. These have been catalogued as Capella O and P. It is not known whether they are physically associated with the red dwarf binary.

 

Capella traditionally marks the left shoulder of the constellation's eponymous charioteer, or, according to the 2nd-century astronomer Ptolemy's Almagest, the goat that the charioteer is carrying. In Bayer's 1603 work Uranometria, Capella marks the charioteer's back. The three Haedi had been identified as a separate constellation by Pliny the Elder and Manilius, and were called Capra, Caper, or Hircus, all of which relate to its status as the "goat star". Ptolemy merged the Charioteer and the Goats in the 2nd-century Almagest.

 

In Greek mythology, the star represented the goat Amalthea that suckled Zeus. It was this goat whose horn, after accidentally being broken off by Zeus, was transformed into the Cornucopia, or "horn of plenty", which would be filled with whatever its owner desired. Though most often associated with Amalthea, Capella has sometimes been associated with Amalthea's owner, a nymph. The myth of the nymph says that the goat's hideous appearance, resembling a Gorgon, was partially responsible for the Titans' defeat, after Zeus skinned the goat and wore it as his aegis.

 

In medieval accounts, it bore the uncommon name Alhajoth (also spelled Alhaior, Althaiot, Alhaiset, Alhatod, Alhojet, Alanac, Alanat, Alioc), which (especially the last) may be a corruption of its Arabic name, العيوق, al-cayyūq. cAyyūq has no clear significance in Arabic, but may be an Arabized form of the Greek αίξ aiks "goat"; cf. the modern Greek Αίγα Aiga, the feminine of goat. To the Bedouin of the Negev and Sinai, Capella al-'Ayyūq ath-Thurayyā "Capella of the Pleiades", from its role as pointing out the position of that asterism. Another name in Arabic was Al-Rākib "the driver", a translation of the Greek.

 

To the ancient Balts, Capella was known as Perkūno Ožka "Thunder's Goat", or Tikutis. Conversely in Slavic Macedonian folklore, Capella was Jastreb "the hawk", flying high above and ready to pounce on Mother Hen (the Pleiades) and the Rooster (Nath).

 

Astrologically, Capella portends civic and military honors and wealth. In the Middle Ages, it was considered a Behenian fixed star, with the stone sapphire and the plants horehound, mint, mugwort and mandrake as attributes. Cornelius Agrippa listed its kabbalistic sign Agrippa1531 Hircus.png with the name Hircus (Latin for goat).

 

In Hindu mythology, Capella was seen as the heart of Brahma, Brahma Hṛdaya. In traditional Chinese astronomy, Capella was part of the asterism 五車 (Wŭ chē; English: Five Chariots), which consisted of Capella together with Beta Aurigae, Theta Aurigae and Iota Aurigae, as well as Beta Tauri. Since it was the second star in this asterism, it has the Chinese name 五車二 (Wŭ chē èr; English: Second of the Five Chariots).

 

In Quechua it was known as Colça; the Incas held the star in high regard. The Hawaiians saw Capella as part of an asterism Ke ka o Makali'i ("The canoe bailer of Makali'i") that helped them navigate at sea. Called Hoku-lei "star wreath", it formed this asterism with Procyon, Sirius, Castor and Pollux. In Tahitian folklore, Capella was Tahi-ari'i, the wife of Fa'a-nui (Auriga) and mother of prince Ta'urua (Venus) who sails his canoe across the sky. In Inuit astronomy, Capella, along with Menkalinan (Beta Aurigae), Pollux (Beta Geminorum) and Castor (Alpha Geminorum), formed a constellation Quturjuuk, "collar-bones", the two pairs of stars denoting a bone each. Used for navigation and time-keeping at night, the constellation was recognised from Alaska to western Greenland. The Gwich'in saw Capella and Menkalinan has forming shreets'ą įį vidzee, the right ear of the large circumpolar constellation Yahdii, which covered much of the night sky, and whose orientation facilitated navigation and timekeeping.

 

In Australian Aboriginal mythology for the Boorong people of Victoria, Capella was Purra, the kangaroo, pursued and killed by the nearby Gemini twins, Yurree (Castor) and Wanjel (Pollux). The Wardaman people of northern Australia knew the star as Yagalal, a ceremonial fish scale, related to Guwamba the barramundi (Aldebaran).

Mammatus clouds above! Looks like the mammatus were under an anvil cloud as you can see with the clearly defined edge of the anvil on the bottom left. Skies looked like the Midwest! The first storm system in a series of Pacific storms had brought lots of rain and wind to the Bay Area this day. Pic taken from up at The Point Church in San Jose, CA. This 1st system's cold front was passing thru this time. Gusty, south southeasterly winds were present. Heavy rain and thunderstorms later proceeded in the evening, too!

 

***After weeks of dry and mild weather, rainy & stormy weather was finally in the forecast for California. A pair of storms was forecasted to bring several inches of rain to the parched state this week, a welcome news to a state that had just endured its driest year in recorded history. The first system had moved through California Wednesday with the second to follow for Friday. Periods of moderate to heavy rain was expected with this storm, especially late Wednesday into Wednesday night. In addition, gusty winds would blow from the south at times during this storm. The 2nd was stronger and wetter of the two systems, bringing a much-needed soaking to many communities by Friday. This storm was capable of triggering severe t-storms. This 2nd was a more potent system. This system was to bring rain even as far south as SoCal... While the rain was a welcome sight, it would still not be enough to reverse the persistent drought that has been plaguing much of the state...***

 

(Wednesday, February 26, 2014; 4:55 p.m.)

1-12-13 Wyndham Street Races

 

TOP SPEED REVIEW:

 

Not long ago, the Japanese motorcycles were considered the uncontested leaders of sport motorcycles and nobody had the guts to challenge them. However, this situation has changed after BMW entered the battle. Its first super sport bike, the S 1000RR was not only a completely newcomer, but it was also so strong and technological advanced that it made any other bike look like defenseless scooter.

 

THE ABS

The Kawasaki Ninja® ZX™-10R ABS superbike combines anti-lock braking with the numerous technological benefits of the class leading ZX-10R. And it does it with rider-sensitive, race-bred attributes derived from competing and winning at the highest levels.

 

Kawasaki has developed a new electronic steering damper for the 2013 ZX-10R ABS sportbike, in joint cooperation with Öhlins. Controlled by a dedicated ECU located under the gas tank cover, this new damper reacts to the rate of acceleration or deceleration, as well as rear wheel speed, to help provide the ideal level of damping force across a wide range of riding scenarios. The variable damping provides optimum rider feedback by enabling the use of lower damping forces during normal operation, without sacrificing the firm damping needed for high-speed stability. The result is a light and nimble steering feel at low speed, as well as superior damping at higher speeds or during extreme acceleration/deceleration. The anodized damper unit incorporates Öhlins’ patented twin-tube design to help ensure stable damping performance and superior kickback absorption. It is mounted horizontally at the front of the fuel tank and requires very few additional components and ads almost no weight compared to last year’s steering damper.

 

At first, anti-lock braking might seem a touch out of place on a purebred sportbike. But this system was designed from the start to maximize performance. And when you consider the many benefits provided by the amazing electronic and hardware technology available today, it begins to make a lot of sense.

 

Think of it: You’re braking for a blind, decreasing-radius corner after a long day of sport riding. Shadows are long and you’re tired, so you don’t notice a patch of sand until it’s too late to correct. But instead of tucking as you continue braking through the sand, your front tire maintains most of its traction, as the anti-lock braking system intervenes until the surface improves – allowing you to arc gracefully into the corner, a little wiser and a lot more intact physically than you might have been riding a non-ABS motorcycle.

 

Kawasaki calls its anti-lock system KIBS – or Kawasaki Intelligent anti-lock Brake System. The use of “intelligent” is apropos, too, considering just how smart the KIBS is. It all starts with the smallest and lightest ABS unit ever built for a motorcycle, one designed by Bosch specifically with sport bikes in mind. It’s nearly 50 percent smaller than current motorcycle ABS units, and 800 grams lighter, adding only about 7 pounds of weight compared to the non-ABS machine, a pound of which is accounted for by the larger battery.

 

KIBS is a multi-sensing system, one that collects and monitors a wide range of information taken from wheel sensors (the same ones collecting data on the standard ZX-10R for its S-KTRC traction control system) and the bike’s ECU, including wheel speed, caliper pressure, engine rpm, throttle position, clutch actuation and gear position. The KIBS’s ECU actually communicates with the bike’s engine ECU and crunches the numbers, and when it notes a potential lock-up situation, it tells the Bosch ABS unit to temporarily reduce line pressure, allowing the wheel to once again regain traction.

 

Aside from this system’s ultra-fast response time, it offers a number of additional sport-riding benefits, including rear-end lift suppression during hard braking, minimal kickback during ABS intervention, and increased rear brake control during downshifts. The high-precision pressure control enables the system to maintain high brake performance, proper lever feel and help ensure the ABS pulses are minimized.

 

Needless to say that the Japanese manufacturers were highly intrigued and the first samurai who challenged the Germans to a duel was Kawasaki.

 

Kawasaki’s anti S 1000RR weapon is the Ninja ZX - 10R. Packing a lot of advanced features and modern technologies, the bike is fast enough to compete with success against the German oppressor.

 

Despite the fact that nothing changed for the 2013 model year, except for some color schemes, the Ninja continues to be ahead of the pack when it comes to sporty performances.

 

Build on a nimble, lightweight chassis, The Kawasaki Ninja ZX - 10R ABS is “blessed” with a powerful 998cc inline four engine which cranks out 197 hp at 11500 rpm.

 

Among the most important features offered by the Ninja ZX - 10R, you’ll find the advanced Sport-Kawasaki Traction Control (S-KTRC) and an intelligent ABS system which comes as an option ($1000).

 

ENGINE & PERFORMANCE:

The rest of the 2013 Ninja ZX-10R ABS is equally advanced. Complete with a powerful engine and lightweight chassis, it also boasts a highly advanced and customizable electronic system that allows riders to harness and experience the ZX-10R ABS’s amazing blend of power and razor-edge handling. The system is called Sport-Kawasaki Traction Control.

 

Motorcyclists have forever been challenged by traction-related issues, whether on dirt, street or track. And when talking about the absolute leading edge of open-class sport bike technology, where production street bikes are actually more capable than full-on race bikes from just a couple years ago, more consistent traction and enhanced confidence is a major plus.

 

The racing-derived S-KTRC system works by crunching numbers from a variety of parameters and sensors – wheel speed and slip, engine rpm, throttle position, acceleration, etc. There’s more data gathering and analysis going on here than on any other Kawasaki in history, and it’s all in the name of helping racers inch closer to the elusive “edge” of maximum traction than ever before. The S-KTRC system relies on complex software buried in the ZX-10R’s Electronic Control Unit (ECU); the only additional hardware is the lightweight speed sensors located on each wheel.

 

Unlike the KTRC system on Kawasaki’s Concours™ 14 ABS sport tourer, which primarily minimizes wheel slip on slick or broken surfaces as a safety feature, the S-KTRC system is designed to maximize performance by using complex analysis to predict when traction conditions are about to become unfavorable. By quickly but subtly reducing power just before the amount of slippage exceeds the optimal traction zone, the system – which processes every data point 200 times per second – maintains the optimum level of tire grip to maximize forward motion. The result is significantly better lap times and enhanced rider confidence – exactly what one needs when piloting a machine of this caliber.

 

The S-KTRC system offers three different modes of operation, which riders can select according to surface conditions, rider preference and skill level: Level 1 for max-grip track use, Level 2 for intermediate use, and Level 3 for slippery conditions. An LCD graph in the high-tech instrument cluster displays how much electronic intervention is occurring in real time and a thumb switch on the left handlebar pod allows simple, on-the-go mode changes.

 

The potent ZX-10R engine is a 16-valve, DOHC, liquid-cooled inline-four displacing 998cc via 76 x 55mm bore and stroke dimensions. This powerplant is tuned to optimize power delivery, center of gravity and actual engine placement within the chassis. Torque peaks at an rpm range that helps eliminate power peaks and valleys that make it difficult for racers and track-day riders to open the throttle with confidence.

 

A primary goal of Kawasaki engineers was linear power delivery and engine manageability throughout all elements of a corner: the entry, getting back to neutral throttle at mid-corner, and heady, controllable acceleration at the exit. Peak torque was moved to a higher rpm range, which eliminates the power peaks and valleys that make it difficult for racers and track-day riders to open the throttle with confidence.

 

Large intake valves complemented by wide, polished intake ports allow for controllable power delivery and engine braking, just the thing to smooth those racetrack corner entries and exits. Camshafts built from chromoly steel further contribute to optimized engine braking and more controllable power delivery. Lightweight pistons mount to light and strong connecting rods. Compression is a full 13.0:1.

 

A race-style cassette transmission allows simple trackside ratio changes. An adjustable back-torque limiting clutch assembly is fitted, which allows worry-free downshifts and corner-entry calmness.

 

Cramming all that fuel and air into this amazing engine is a ram air-assisted fuel injection system featuring large throttle bodies (47mm) and sub-throttle valves, a large capacity airbox (9 liters), secondary injectors that improve top-end power characteristics, and a large ram-air intake that’s positioned close to the front of the bike for efficient airbox filling and power.

 

The final piece of the ZX-10R’s power-production formula is a race-spec exhaust system featuring a titanium header assembly, hydroformed collectors, a large-volume pre-chamber containing two catalyzers and a highly compact silencer. Due to the header’s race-spec design, riders and racers looking for more closed-course performance need only replace the slip-on muffler assembly.

 

CHASSIS & SUSPENSION:

With the engine producing a massive quantity of usable and controllable power, engineers looked to the chassis to help refine handling and overall road/track competency. The aluminum twin-spar frame is an all-cast assemblage of just seven pieces that features optimized flex characteristics for ideal rider feedback, cornering performance and light weight. Like the frame, the alloy swingarm is an all-cast assembly, with rigidity matching that of the frame itself.

 

Chassis geometry offers excellent stability and handling quickness. The front end geometry – with rake at 25 degrees and trail at 107mm (4.21 in.) – allows light, quick handling and complements the engine’s controllable power and the frame and swingarm’s flex characteristics.

 

Highly advanced suspension at both ends helps as well. Up front is a 43mm open-class version of the Big Piston Fork (BPF). Featuring a piston design nearly twice the size of a conventional cartridge fork, the BPF offers smooth action, less stiction, light weight and enhanced damping performance on the compression and rebound circuits. This compliance results in more control and feedback for the rider – just what you need when carving through a rippled sweeper at your local track or negotiating a decreasing-radius corner on your favorite backroad.

 

Suspension duties on the ZX-10R are handled by a Horizontal Back-Link design that positions the shock and linkage above the swingarm. Benefits include mass centralization, good road holding, compliance and stability, smooth action in the mid-stroke and good overall feedback. The fully adjustable shock features a piggyback reservoir and dual-range (low- and high-speed) compression damping.

 

Lightweight gravity-cast three-spoke wheels complement the tire fitment. Up front, Tokico radial-mount calipers grasp 310mm petal discs and a 220mm disc is squeezed by a lightweight single-piston caliper in back. The result is powerful stops with plenty of rider feedback and the added confidence of the KIBS ABS system.

 

DESIGN & ERGONOMICS:

Finally, Kawasaki engineers wrapped all this technology in bodywork as advanced and stylish as anything on this side of a MotoGP grid. The curvy edges and contrasting colored and black parts create a sharp, aggressive image. Line-beam headlights grace the fairing while LED turn signals are integrated into the mirror assemblies. Convenient turn-signal couplers allow easy mirror removal for track-day use. The rear fender assembly holding the rear signal stalks and license plate frame is also easily removable for track days. High-visibility LED lamps are also used for the taillight and position marker.

 

The instrumentation is highlighted by an LED-backlit bar-graph tachometer set above a multi-featured LCD info screen with numerous sections and data panels. A wide range of information is presented, including vehicle speed, odometer, dual trip meters, fuel consumption, Power Mode and S-KTRC level, low fuel, water temperature and much more. For track use, the LCD display can be set to “race” mode which moves the gear display to the center of the screen.

 

The ZX-10R’s ergonomics are designed for optimum comfort and control. A 32-inch saddle, adjustable footpegs and clip-ons mean that this is a hard-core sport bike you can actually take on an extended sport ride – and still be reasonably comfortable doing so.

 

The old saying, “power is nothing without control” is certainly apt where open-class sport bikes are concerned. But when you factor in all the engine, chassis and ergonomic control designed into the 2013 Ninja ZX-10R, you begin to realize you’re looking at one very special motorcycle – one that can take you places you’ve never been before.

 

Genuine Kawasaki Accessories are available through authorized Kawasaki dealers.

 

SPECS:

Engine Four-Stroke, Liquid-Cooled, DOHC, Four Valves Per Cylinder, Inline-Four

Displacement 998cc

Bore X Stroke 76.0 X 55.0 mm

Compression Ratio13.0:1

Fuel System DFI® With Four 47mm Keihin Throttle Bodies With Oval Sub-Throttles, Two Injectors Per Cylinder

Ignition TCBI With Digital Advance And Sport-Kawasaki Traction Control (S-KTRC)

Transmission Six-Speed

Final Drive Chain

Rake/Trail 25 Deg / 4.2 In.

Front Tire Size 120/70 ZR17

Rear Tire Size 190/55 ZR17

Wheelbase 56.1 In.

Front Suspension / Wheel Travel 43 mm Inverted Big Piston Fork (BPF), Adjustable Rebound And Compression Damping, Spring Preload Adjustability/ 4.7 in.

Rear Suspension / Wheel Travel

Horizontal Back-Link With Gas-Charged Shock, Stepless, Dual-Range (Low-/High-Speed) Compression Damping, Stepless Rebound Damping, Fully Adjustable Spring Preload / 5.5 In.

Front Brakes Kawasaki Intelligent Anti-Lock Braking (KIBS), Dual Semi-Floating 310 mm Petal Discs With Dual Four-Piston Radial-Mount Calipers

Rear Brakes KIBS-Controlled, Single 220 mm Petal Disc With Aluminum Single-Piston Caliper

Fuel Capacity 4.5 Gal.

Seat Height 32.0 In.

Curb Weight 443.2 Lbs.

Overall Length 81.7 In.

Overall Width 28.1 In.

Overall Height 43.9 In.

Color Choices - Lime Green/Metallic Spark Black, Pearl Flat White/Metallic Spark Black

 

Source: www.topspeed.com/motorcycles/motorcycle-reviews/kawasaki/...

U.S. Air Force Fact Sheet

 

E-3 SENTRY (AWACS)

 

E-3 Sentry celebrates 30 years in Air Force's fleet

  

Mission

The E-3 Sentry is an airborne warning and control system, or AWACS, aircraft with an integrated command and control battle management, or C2BM, surveillance, target detection, and tracking platform. The aircraft provides an accurate, real-time picture of the battlespace to the Joint Air Operations Center. AWACS provides situational awareness of friendly, neutral and hostile activity, command and control of an area of responsibility, battle management of theater forces, all-altitude and all-weather surveillance of the battle space, and early warning of enemy actions during joint, allied, and coalition operations.

 

Features

The E-3 Sentry is a modified Boeing 707/320 commercial airframe with a rotating radar dome. The dome is 30 feet (9.1 meters) in diameter, six feet (1.8 meters) thick, and is held 11 feet (3.33 meters) above the fuselage by two struts. It contains a radar subsystem that permits surveillance from the Earth's surface up into the stratosphere, over land or water. The radar has a range of more than 250 miles (375.5 kilometers). The radar combined with an identification friend or foe, or IFF, subsystem can look down to detect, identify and track enemy and friendly low-flying aircraft by eliminating ground clutter returns that confuse other radar systems.

 

Major subsystems in the E-3 are avionics, navigation, communications, sensors (radar and passive detection) and identification tools (IFF/SIF). The mission suite includes consoles that display computer-processed data in graphic and tabular format on video screens. Mission crew members perform surveillance, identification, weapons control, battle management and communications functions.

 

The radar and computer subsystems on the E-3 Sentry can gather and present broad and detailed battlefield information. This includes position and tracking information on enemy aircraft and ships, and location and status of friendly aircraft and naval vessels. The information can be sent to major command and control centers in rear areas or aboard ships. In time of crisis, this data can also be forwarded to the president and secretary of defense.

 

In support of air-to-ground operations, the Sentry can provide direct information needed for interdiction, reconnaissance, airlift and close-air support for friendly ground forces. It can also provide information for commanders of air operations to gain and maintain control of the air battle.

 

As an air defense system, E-3s can detect, identify and track airborne enemy forces far from the boundaries of the United States or NATO countries. It can direct fighter-interceptor aircraft to these enemy targets. Experience has proven that the E-3 Sentry can respond quickly and effectively to a crisis and support worldwide military deployment operations.

 

AWACS may be employed alone or horizontally integrated in combination with other C2BM and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance elements of the Theater Air Control System. It supports decentralized execution of the air tasking order/air combat order. The system provides the ability to find, fix, track and target airborne or maritime threats and to detect, locate and ID emitters. It has the ability to detect threats and control assets below and beyond the coverage of ground-based command and control or C2, and can exchange data with other C2 systems and shooters via datalinks.

 

With its mobility as an airborne warning and control system, the Sentry has a greater chance of surviving in warfare than a fixed, ground-based radar system. Among other things, the Sentry's flight path can quickly be changed according to mission and survival requirements. The E-3 can fly a mission profile approximately 8 hours without refueling. Its range and on-station time can be increased through in-flight refueling and the use of an on-board crew rest area.

 

Background

Engineering, test and evaluation began on the first E-3 Sentry in October 1975. In March 1977 the 552nd Airborne Warning and Control Wing (now 552nd Air Control Wing, Tinker Air Force Base, Okla.), received the first E-3s.

 

There are 32 aircraft in the U.S. inventory. Air Combat Command has 27 E-3s at Tinker. Pacific Air Forces has four E-3 Sentries at Kadena AB, Japan and Elmendorf AFB, Alaska. There is also one test aircraft at the Boeing Aircraft Company in Seattle.

 

NATO has 17 E-3A's and support equipment. The first E-3 was delivered to NATO in January 1982. The United Kingdom has seven E-3s, France has four, and Saudi Arabia has five. Japan has four AWACS built on the Boeing 767 airframe.

 

As proven in operations Desert Storm, Allied Force, Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom, and Odyssey Dawn/Unified Protector the E-3 Sentry is the world's premier C2BM aircraft. AWACS aircraft and crews were instrumental to the successful completion of operations Northern and Southern Watch, and are still engaged in operations Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom. They provide radar surveillance and control in addition to providing senior leadership with time-critical information on the actions of enemy forces. The E-3 has also deployed to support humanitarian relief operations in the U.S. following Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, coordinating rescue efforts between military and civilian authorities.

 

The data collection capability of the E-3 radar and computer subsystems allowed an entire air war to be recorded for the first time in the history of aerial warfare.

 

In March 1996, the Air Force activated the 513th Air Control Group, an AWACS Reserve Associate Program unit which performs duties on active-duty aircraft.

 

During the spring of 1999, the first AWACS aircraft went through the Radar System Improvement Program. RSIP is a joint U.S./NATO development program that involved a major hardware and software intensive modification to the existing radar system. Installation of RSIP enhanced the operational capability of the E-3 radar electronic counter-measures and has improved the system's reliability, maintainability and availability.

 

The AWACS modernization program, Block 40/45, is currently underway. Bock 40/45 represents a revolutionary change for AWACS and worldwide Joint Command and Control, Battle Management, and Wide Area Surveillance. It is the most significant counter-air battle management improvement in Combat Air Forces tactical Command and Control history. The Block 40/45 Mission Computer and Display upgrade replaces current 1970 vintage mission computing and displays with a true open system and commercial off-the-shelf hardware and software, giving AWACS crews the modern computing tools needed to perform, and vastly improve mission capability. Estimated fleet upgrades completion in ~2020.

 

General Characteristics

Primary Function: Airborne battle management, command and control

Contractor: Boeing Aerospace Co.

Power Plant: Four Pratt and Whitney TF33-PW-100A turbofan engines

Thrust: 20,500 pounds each engine at sea level

Rotodome: 30 feet in diameter (9.1 meters), 6 feet thick (1.8 meters), mounted 11 feet (3.33 meters) above fuselage

Wingspan: 145 feet, 9 inches (44.4 meters)

Length: 152 feet, 11 inches (46.6 meters)

Height: 41 feet, 9 inches (13 meters)

Weight: 205,000 pounds (zero fuel) (92,986 kilograms)

Maximum Takeoff Weight: 325,000 pounds (147,418 kilograms)

Fuel Capacity: 21,000 gallons (79,494 liters)

Speed: optimum cruise 360 mph (Mach 0.48)

Range: more than 5,000 nautical miles (9,250 kilometers)

Ceiling: Above 29,000 feet (8,788 meters)

Crew: Flight crew of four plus mission crew of 13-19 specialists (mission crew size varies according to mission)

Unit Cost: $270 million (fiscal 98 constant dollars)

Initial operating capability: April 1978

Inventory: Active force, 32 (1 test); Reserve, 0; Guard, 0

  

Point of Contact

Air Combat Command, Public Affairs Office; 130 Andrews St., Suite 202; Langley AFB, VA 23665-1987; DSN 574-5007 or 757-764-5007; e-mail: accpa.operations@langley.af.mil

 

www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=98

Newspaper 8-11-1965

County School officials and Kentucky State Police check the safety of the system’s 65 buses in anticipation of the new school year.

Left to Right

Trooper Raymond Hail, director of transportation Dewey Bolton, Trooper George Hall, driver Cecil Wiles and superintendent Raymond Combs.

Jim Slaughter Photography Collection

+++ 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:

In the aftermath of the Second World War, Sweden required a strong air defense, utilizing the newly developed jet propulsion technology. This led to a pair of proposals being issued by the Saab design team, led by Lars Brising. The first of these, codenamed R101, was a cigar-shaped aircraft, which bore a resemblance to the American Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star. The second design, which would later be picked as the winner, was a barrel-shaped design, codenamed R 1001, which proved to be both faster and more agile upon closer study.

 

The original R 1001 concept had been designed around a mostly straight wing, but after Swedish engineers had obtained German research data on swept-wing designs, the prototype was altered to incorporate a 25° sweep. In order to make the wing as thin as possible, Saab elected to locate the retractable undercarriage in the aircraft's fuselage rather than into the wings.

 

Extensive wind tunnel testing performed at the Swedish Royal University of Technology and by the National Aeronautical Research Institute had also influenced aspects of the aircraft's aerodynamics, such as stability and trim across the aircraft's speed range. In order to test the design of the swept wing further and avoid any surprises, it was decided to modify a single Saab Safir. It received the designation Saab 201 and a full-scale R 1001 wing for a series of flight tests. The first 'final' sketches of the aircraft, incorporating the new information, was drawn in January 1946.

 

The originally envisioned powerplant for the new fighter type was the de Havilland Goblin turbojet engine. However, in December 1945, information on the newer and more powerful de Havilland Ghost engine became available. The new engine was deemed to be ideal for Saab's in-development aircraft, as not only did the Ghost engine had provisions for the use of a central circular air intake, the overall diameter of the engine was favorable for the planned fuselage dimensions, too. Thus, following negotiations between de Havilland and Saab, the Ghost engine was selected to power the type instead and built in license as the RM 2.

 

By February 1946 the main outline of the proposed aircraft had been clearly defined. In Autumn 1946, following the resolution of all major questions of principal and the completion of the project specification, the Swedish Air Force formally ordered the completion of the design and that three prototype aircraft be produced, giving the proposed type the designation J 29.

On 1 September 1948, the first of the Saab 29 prototypes conducted its maiden flight, which lasted for half an hour. Because of the shape of its fuselage, the Saab J 29 quickly received the nickname "Flygande Tunnan" ("The Flying Barrel"), or "Tunnan" ("The Barrel") for short. While the demeaning nickname was not appreciated by Saab, its short form was eventually officially adopted.

 

A total of four prototypes were built for the aircraft's test program. The first two lacked armament, carrying heavy test equipment instead, while the third prototype was armed with four 20mm automatic guns. Various different aerodynamic arrangements were tested, such as air brakes being installed either upon the fuselage or on the wings aft of the rear spar, along with both combined and conventional aileron/flap arrangements.

The flight test program revealed that the J 29 prototypes were capable of reaching and exceeding the maximum permissible Mach number for which they had been designed, and the flight performance figures gathered were found to be typically in excess of the predicted values.

 

In 1948 production of the type commenced and in May 1951 the first deliveries of operational production aircraft were received by F 13 Norrköping. The J 29 proved to be very successful and several variants and updates of the Tunnan were produced, including a dedicated reconnaissance variant and a dedicated all-weather fighter with an on-board radar, the J 29D.

 

The J 29D variant originally started its career as a single prototype to test the Ghost RM 2A afterburner turbojet with 27.5 kN (2,800 kgp/6,175 lbf). The new engine dramatically improved the Tunnan’s performance, esp. concerning the start phase, acceleration and climb, and was eventually adopted for the whole J 29 fighter fleet in an update program, leading to the J 29F variant.

 

However, at the time of the RM 2A trials, Sweden was more and more in need for a suitable all-weather aerial defense for its vast, neutral airspace in the vicinity of the Soviet Union. Only a single flight of the Swedish Air Force, F1 in Hässlö, operated roundabout thirty radar-equipped fighters, and these were outdated De Havilland Mosquito night fighters (locally designated J 30).

 

The highly successful J 29 was soon considered as a potential air-intercept radar carrier, offering a much more up-tp-date performance and deterrent potential against would-be intruders. Consequently, Saab started the development of an indigenous all-weather fighter on the basis of the Tunnan (originally coded “J 29R”). The work started with aerodynamic trials of different radome designs and placements on a Tunnan’s nose, e .g. inside of the circular air intake opening or above it. No major drawbacks were identified, and in 1955 the decision was made to convert thirty J 29B daylight fighters for the all weather/night fighter role. These machines officially inherited the designation J 29D.

The J 29D’s compact radar, called the PS-43/T, was designed by CSF (Compagnie Generale de Telegrahpi Sans Fil) in France after the Swedish specification. It had a wavelength of 3 cm with an effect of 100 kW, and it was to have a spiral scan pattern. Range was 15-20 km, only a slight improved against the Mosquitos’ bulky SCR-720B radar set, which only had a range of 12-16km. But the system’s compact size and the ability to be operated by the pilot alone meant a serious step forward. 34 sets were delivered together with blueprints in 1956, and the PS-43 radar system was later modified and adapted to the Saab 32 Lansen, too.

 

The structural modifications for the radar-equipped Tunnan were carried out in the course of the ensuing J 29F update program, which had started in 1954. Beyond the afterburner engine and dogtooth wing updates for the day fighters, the J 29D also received a re-designed nose section which now featured a thimble radome for the PS-43/T, integrated into the upper air intake lip, reminiscent of the F-86D’s arrangement. The air intake itself kept the original circular diameter, but the opening was slightly wider, raked forward and featured a sharper lip, for an improved airflow under the radome. Overall performance of the J 29 did not suffer, and the conversion took place swiftly thanks to a simple replacement of the nose section in front of the windscreen and the installation of a shielded tracking monitor in the cockpit.

 

Experiments with a heavier cannon armament (consisting of four, long-barreled 30mm guns in the lower fuselage) for the J 29 in general were conducted in parallel, too. But, despite showing no negative effect on the J 29’s handling or performance, this upgrade was not introduced to any of the J 29 variants in service and so the J 29D kept its original four 20mm cannon as main armament, too. Additional ordnance consisted of optional racks with 75 mm/3 in air-to-air rockets under the inner wings against large aerial targets like bombers. A pair of drop tanks could be carried on the outer pylons, too, and they were frequently carried in order to extend range and loiter time. Other loads, including bombs or unguided air-to-ground missiles, were possible, but never carried except for in practice.

 

The last converted J 29D was delivered back to the Swedish Air Force in late 1956, just in time to replace the last active J 30 Mosquitos in service, which had been gradually phased out since 1953. In parallel, the radar-equipped J 33 Venom was introduced into service, too, since the small number of J 29Ds had in the meantime turned out to be far from sufficient to effectively cover the Swedish air space against large numbers of ever faster jet bombers and reconnaissance aircraft. The J 29D fulfilled its role and duty well, though, and was just as popular as the daylight fighter versions.

 

Initially, all J 29D were delivered in bare metal finish, but they were soon adorned with additional markings on fin and wing tips for easier recognition and formation flights. A few all-weather fighters of F1 Flygflottil experimentally received the blue/green camouflage which had been adopted for the S 29C reconnaissance aircraft, but this was found to be ineffective at the typical altitudes the interceptors would operate. As a consequence, the scheme was quickly changed into the much lighter livery of the former J 30 and J 33 fighters, although the bare metal undersides and the formation markings under the wing tips were retained – even though this practice was confined to F 1 and not consequently carried out among all of the fighter squadron's J 29Ds. Some J 29D furthermore carried various forms of black ID bands for quick identification in war games, but unlike the day fighters, these markings were limited to the undersides only.

 

From 1963 onwards all frontline J 29Fs were equipped with AIM-9 Sidewinder infrared-seeking air-to-air missiles, designated Rb 24 in Swedish service. This update was also carried out among the J 29D fleet, and the new, guided missiles considerably improved the aircraft’s capabilities.

 

Anyway, the J 29D’s small number remained a fundamental problem that prevented bigger success or even export sales, and due to the quick technical advances, the J 29D remained only a stopgap solution. The much more capable Saab 32 Lansen had been under development and its dedicated all-weather fighter variant, the J 32B, had already entered service in 1958, replacing the mixed and outdated lot of radar-equipped fighters in Swedish service.

Nevertheless, the J 29D soldiered on, together with the rest of the J 29F and S 29C fleet, until 1970, even though not in front line duties anymore.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 10.80 m (35 ft 4 1/2 in)

Wingspan: 11.0 m (36 ft 1 in)

Height: 3.75 m (12 ft 4 in)

Wing area: 24.15 m² (260.0 ft²)

Empty weight: 4,845 kg (10,680 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 8,375 kg (18,465 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1× Svenska Flygmotor RM2B afterburner turbojet, rated at 6,070 lbf (27 kN)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 1,060 km/h (660 mph)

Range: 1,100 km (685 mi)

Service ceiling: 15,500 m (50,850 ft)

Rate of climb: 32.1 m/s (6,320 ft/min)

 

Armament:

4x 20mm Hispano Mark V autocannon in the lower front fuselage

Typically, a pair of 400-liter (106 US gallon) or 500-liter (132 US gallon) drop tanks was carried on the outer “wet” pylons

Further air-to-air ordnance initially consisted of 75 mm (3 in) air-to-air rockets, from 1963 onwards the J 29D could also carry up to 4x Rb 24 (AIM-9B Sidewinder) IR-guided air-to-air missiles.

Optionally (but never carried in service), the J 29D could also deploy a wide range of bombs and unguided missiles, including 145 mm (5.8 in) anti-armor rockets, 150 mm (6 in) HE (high-explosive) rockets or 180 mm (7.2 in) HE anti-ship rockets

  

The kit and its assembly:

Sweden is a prolific whiffing territory, and the Saab 29 offers some interesting options. The all-weather Tunnan was a real Saab project, and things actually got as far as the aforementioned radome shape test stage. But eventually the project was fully dropped, since Saab had been busy with standard J 29 production and conversions, so that this aircraft never materialized, just as the projected side-by-side trainer Sk 29 of the same era.

 

However, I recently came across a nice Saab 29 book which also covers some projects – including drawings of the radar-equipped Tunnan that never was. My converted model with the thimble radome and the raked air intake is based on these drawings.

 

The basic kit is the Heller Saab 29, which I deem superior to the Matchbox Tunnan, with its mix of raised and engraved panel lines and overall rather soft detail (despite the surprisingly nice cockpit). Anyway,, the Heller kit has its flaws, too, e. g. a generally weak material thickness, lack of locator pins or other stabilizing aids and some sinkholes here and there.

 

The kit was built mostly OOB, with as much lead in the gun tray as possible - and it actually stands on its own three feet/wheels! The only major change is the modified nose section. It sounds simple to graft a radome onto the Tunnan's nose, but the rhinoplasty was challenging. The whole front end had to be renewed, based on the profile drawings and sketches at hand.

 

The thimble radome is actually a recycled drop tank front end from a Hasegawa F6F Hellcat. The raked, lower aitr intake lip comes from a Matchbox Mystère IVA - but it lost its splitter, was reshaped and had the OOB air intake duct glued into place from behind. Once the intake was glued into its place, a wedge opeing was cut into the area in front of the canopy and the drop tank radome adapted to the gap, a step-by-step approach, since I wanted to have the radome slightly protrude into the airtake, but also keep a staright line in front of the windscreen.

 

Additional details include new pitots on the wing tips and some additional antennae. The heat shield for the afterburner engine is OOB, as well as the streamlined drop tanks and their pylons. I just added an additional pair of pylons (from an Acedamy MiG-23) to the inner wing, holding a pair of AIM-9Bs.

  

Painting and markings:

Finding a suitable, yet “different” scheme for the J 29 night fighter was not easy; most J 29 were left in bare metal, some carried dark green upper surfaces and some S 29C wore a paint scheme in olive green and dark blue. I eventually settled for the RAF style paint scheme that had been adopted with the J 30 Mosquito and J 33 Venom night fighters – not spectacular, but different from the Swedish early Sixties norm, and it subtly underlines the J 29D’s role.

 

The scheme was lent from RAF Venom night fighters (which was used on the Swedish J 33, too), and of the upper surfaces I used RAF tones, too: Humbrol 163 (Dark Green) and 165 (Medium Sea Grey). However, I did not want to use the grey on the lower surfaces, since I found that scheme a bit too uniform and British, so I painted the lower surfaces in NMF, with a waterline at medium height - higher than the camouflaged S 29C’s and lower than the early, camouflaged J 29A fighters (with an experimental all-green upper surface).

 

The bare metal finish was created with acrylic Aluminum (Revell 99) and Polished and Matt Aluminum Metallizer (Humbrol) added on top, highlighting single panels. Around the engine bay and the exhaust, a base with Iron (Revell 91) was laid down, with Steel Metallizer (Modelmaster) on top.

Under the wing tips, green formation markings (again Humbrol 163) were added, as well as black ID stripes (cut from generic decal sheet material). Other, Swedish adornment, like the roundels, codes or squadron markings, was taken from the OOB sheet, a PrintScale sheet for the J 29 and leftover decals from a Heller J 21.

 

Interior details were painted according to Swedish standard, thankfully there are many good pictures available. The cockpit interior became grey-green (Revell 67 comes very close to the real thing) with light grey dashboard and side consoles. The landing gear wells medium (Revell 57) grey with some dry-brushed Aluminum, while the wheel discs became grey-green, too.

  

An interesting result, through relatively little effort: the dog nose changes the look of the tubby J 29 a lot, it looks much sleeker and somewhat German now – but somehow also more retro than the original aircraft? The different paint scheme looks unusual, too, despite being relatively down-to-earth. This will certainly not be my last modified J 29, a two-seat trainer would certainly be another cool and reality based Tunnan whif?

Audi R18 e-Tron Quattro (2014) Engine 4000cc V6 Turbo Diesel Hybrid

AUDI SET

www.flickr.com/photos/45676495@N05/sets/72157623635550501...

 

The Audi R18 is a Le Mans Prototype (LMP) endurance racing car designed bu Ulrich Baretzky as a successor to the Audi R15 TDi,. the R18 uses a TDI turbocharged diesel engine but with a reduced capacity of 3.7 litres and in a V6 configuration, and increased to 4 litre from the 2014 season on The R18 is also the first racing car from Audi to feature hybrid power.

The R18 numerical designation was introduced to the cars in 2011 and as season on season new cars were developed would ordinarily advanced in number, Renault hold the trademark for R19-35 so the R18 number was retained.

 

In 2012 Audi introduced an evolution of the original car called the R18 ultra and R18 e-tron quattro which won Le Mans. Both the Ultra and e-tron quattro R18 were run at the 2012 24 Hours of Le Mans. In addition to the changes required by the regulations (reduced air intake restrictor and 60 litre fuel tank) the car was completely reworked to reduce weight. These changes included Xtrac sequential electrically activated 6-speed racing gearbox . gearbox with gearbox housing made of new carbon-fiber composite with titanium inserts, carbon clutch, changes to the carbon-fiber composite aluminum honeycomb monocoque built by Dallara Single Garrett (Honeywell Turbo Technologies) turbocharger with boost pressure limited to 280 kPa absolute with Bosch engine management.

 

For 2013 the R18 e-Tron Quattro is a hybrid version of the R18 ultra, with a 500 kJ flywheel accumulator system designed by Williams Hybrid Power, two 101 PS (74 kW; 100 hp) Bosch Motor Generator Units driving the front wheels with water-cooled integrated power electronics, providing the car with four wheel drive (quattro), and a smaller 58-litre fuel tank. The quattro system, as per the regulations, is available only at speeds above 120 km/h The e-tron has six automatic modes that are driver selectable on the steering wheel. The modes manage engine mapping, short bursts accelerating from corners, quattro four wheel drive, wet weather, etc.

 

The 2014 car include the introduction of blue laser beam backlights with a yellow phosphor crystal lens complementing the LED headlights, a revised V6 TDI engine with an electric turbocharger, upgrades to the flywheel accumulator system and an exhaust heat recovery system. The system captures the thermal energy from the exhaust and can add power to either the turbocharger or the flywheel accumulator system The aerodynamics have been heavily revised in accordance with the new rules: the width is reduced by 10 cm, the height is increased by 20 mm and there is a new set of front wings. However, the exhaust-blown diffuser on the 2013 model has been banned and removed. The safety monocoque has been strengthened with additional fabric. Wheel tethers and extra crash structures are also added to the car.

 

For 2015 aerodynamics were significantly improved and the turbocharged 4.0L V6 diesel engine now produces more power while using less fuel. The flywheel accumulator system's capacity has been increased from 500KJ to 700KJ as the 2015 Audi's energy output per round has been increased from 2MJ to 4MJ. Changes also include a significant increase of the hybrid system's power output.

 

For 2016 The new R18 featured significantly altered aerodynamics, including a raised nose similar to pre-2014 Formula One nose designs, air scoops above the front fenders, integrated mirrors, and other body modifications. The KERS for the 2016 R18 has also been changed from a flywheel system to a lithium-ion battery, and has been upgraded to the 6MJ class from the 4MJ class to improve boosting. The engine remained with the same 4.0L turbodiesel V6. Audi dropped the e-tron quattro name badge for the 2016 season.

 

The 2015 season again saw a pair of R18 e-Tron Quattros race throughout the WEC season with three car entries at Spa and LeMans. Audi accumulated 264 point for the season, an improvement of 20 points over 2014 but still finished second in the manufacturers Championship. At LeMans were R18s had already won the 2011,2012, 2013 and 2014 races. The three car entry saw car number 7 driven by Andre Lotterer, Marcel Fassler, and Benoit Treluyler finish best of the Audi entrys in 3rd narrowly beaten by a pair of Porsche 919 Hybrids, car number 8 followed 7 home in fourth with car number 9 in seventh

 

Many thanks for a fantabulous

44,556,730 views (adjusted and readjusted during FLICKR re-engineeringreduced by around 650,000)

 

Shot 19:05:2015 in Frankfurt am Main, Germany - Ref 110-048

   

Price AU $159,000

Details Arguably one of, if not the best Salar 40, this vessel has recently undergone a major refit and presents in excellent condition inside and out. Recently back from a Whitsunday Cruise, she is truly a blue water ready cruising vessel that can handle the toughest conditions. Her wheelhouse with opening windows and sunroof provide great protection from sun or rain whilst her spacious lounge and 2 cabin, 2 head layout mean spending time aboard is easy and comfortable with plenty of space and stowage.

Region Queensland

Location Brisbane QLD

Usage Family, Leisure, Cruising

Reference MS1375

Year 1976

Rego Number IL292Q

Rego Expiry 1976

Designer Laurent Giles

Builder Levy Bros (VICTORIA) full fit out by Salthouse NZ.

Length 39' 0" - 11.89m

Beam 3.43m

Draft 1.6m

Displacement 12.36t

Keel / Ballast Full keel with forefoot cutaway with 3630kg of encapsulated lead.

Hull Material Fibreglass/GRP solid fiberglass

Deck Material Laid beach over fiberglass

Engine MD31A 85hp 4 cylinder diesel (installed NEW in 1992) 3 blade fixed prop

Engine Make Volvo Penta

Fuel Type Diesel

Fuel Consumption 3 litres per hour

Max Speed 8 knots

Cruise Speed 7 knots

Genset 2 x alternators

Fuel 800 litres

Water Approx 800 litres

Galley Marine Princess 2 burner stove w/grill

Refrigeration 1 x chest freezer / drinks fridge in the wheel house (under STBD seat), 1 x front opening large fridge by companionway in galley.

Hot Water System Yes

Accommodation Beautifully finished in teak with fantastic carpentry throughout. All port lights and hatches (NEW 2016) open giving great ventilation and light.

Cabins Starting FWD the focsile cabin has 2 x large single bunks with a large cupboard, chest of drawers and hanging locker. A large hatch above and 2 opening portlights.

Moving aft you'll find the head/shower room which is very generous in proportions. Here is an electric toilet which runs through to a NEW saniloo system. S/S sink with hot & cold water and a large vanity cupboard behind the mirror.

The main saloon has a large leather U shaped dinette to port that can convert to make a large single or double. Opposite the linear galley is sensibly fitted with S/S work surfaces, lots of stowage and work top space. A recessed S/S sink with hot & cold water, also a dual carbon filtered drinking water system. At the aft end are 2 x QTR berths.

Moving through the wheelhouse to the aft cabin - here you'll find a single berth to STBD and a double to PORT, there is a large chest of drawers with a fold out bureau / navstation & 2nd head.

Berths 9

Shower Hot & cold

Toilet Electric with Saniloo system (2017)

Entertainment TV DVD system with electric antenna and FUSION stereo with speakers in saloon and wheelhouse (all new 2017)

Covers Tropical covers front and aft (beige). Full boat covers (white) for all hatches, wheel house windows, windscreen etc.

Ground Tackle 1 x Excel anchor to 60m of chain then rode. Maxwell 2200 electric anchor windlass with foot controls. Deck wash on bow.

Safety Gear VESPER AIS transponder (send and receive) with wifi, 2 x liferings.

Bilge Pumps 2 x manual and 1 x auto

Life Raft Yes 4 man (not in current certification)

Epirb 406 EPIRB

Life Jackets Six

Flares Yes

Fire Protection Three

Electrics 4 x 200ah 12v batteries, 2 x NEW (alternators).

Electronics Electronic suite by Raymarine incl wind, clause haul wind, depth, speed and VHF. WAGNER HF radio. TMQ AP4 autopilot.

Sail Inventory Mainsail (2017) in cruise laminate, Genoa (2017) cruise laminate. 2 x spinnakers both in good condition

Mast / Rigging Alloy mast, boom, spinnaker pole and jockey pole. Mast has steps all the way to top. S/S rigging replaced 2007, removed and inspected in 2016.

Deck Gear S/S swim ladder, large teak rear seat on pushpit, solid S/S dorade vents, all exterior portlights re chromed 2016, all hatches replaced in 2016.2 x clear-view window wipers in wheelhouse.

Remarks A remarkable vessel that is both a good sailing and motoring boat with added benefit of the enclosed wheelhouse. A delight to spend time aboard and the best Salar 40 we have seen.

January 2018

The Croy Creek Trail System is a skills development area jointly managed by BLM and Blaine County located in south-central Idaho, west of Hailey. The trails were designed and constructed primarily for motorcycle riders and mountain bikers, but hikers and equestrians also frequent the system. The trails receive approximately 15,000 - 20,000 visits per season. The Croy Creek Trail System offers mountain bikers year round riding opportunities because of the system's low elevation. The ride experience at Croy Creek includes traditional single track and modernized mountain bike trail features including rollers, berms and table top jumps.

 

Photos by Leslie Kehmeier, Mapping Manager, International Mountain Bicycling Association.

Старт (=Старт = Start) (logo stamped as Italics) means Start

Manufactured by KMZ ( Krasnogorsky Mekhanichesky Zavod = Mechanical Factory of Krasnogorsk), near Moscov, USSR

Model: 1963 Type 4c, ( produced between 1962-64)

All Start produced between 1958-64. Quantity: 76.503 units. There are 10 types

as to Alexandr Komarov

35 mm film SLR camera

Lens: KMZ Helios-44 (ГЕЛИОС) 58mm f//2, special bayonet mount, interchangeable; Serial no.0139286

Aperture: f/2-f/16, automatic diaphragm, DOF preview is possible by rotating the shutter release plunger on the lens

Focus range: 0.7- 20m +inf.

Focusing: by Fresnel matte glass screen with split-image rangefinder, focus ring and scale on the lens, w/DOF scale

Shutter: focal-plane shutter, horizontally run double rubberized silk curtain,

speeds: 1 - 1/1000 +B

Shutter release: knob on the right front of the camera, w/cable release socket

**Shutter can be released by a plunger on the lens also

Cocking lever: also winds the film, short stroke, on the right of the top plate

Frame counter: additive type, manual reset, on the winding lever knob

Viewfinder: SLR pentaprism, matte glass with split-image rangefinder in the central focusing area, 100% frame coverage, finder and screen are interchangeable, there is a waist level finder

Viewfinder release: by a small knob on the back of the top plate

Mirror: note instant return

Re-wind knob: on the left of the top plate, also used for multiple exposures

Re-wind release: small knob near the winding lever

Memory dial: on the rewind knob

Self timer: activates by a small silver knob over the self timer lever

Flash PC sockets: two, for X and M, on the left front of the top plate, synch: 1/30s, separate on the speeds dial

Back cover: detachable with the bottom plate, with a film pressure plate made of black glass,

opens by two pop-up levers on the bottom plate

Film loading: removable take-up spool, there is also a special receiving cartridge

Film-cutting knife: handle on the left of the top plate

Strap lugs

Tripod socket: old type 3/8''

Serial no. 6300258 (first two digits of the serial number indicate the production year)

As with other Soviet-era rangefinders, the shutter speed selector rotates when the shutter is released, and should not be changed until after the shutter has been cocked. If you change the shutter speed without cocking the shutter first, the setting pin can be broken when you advance the film and cock the shutter.

The Start is a very well made and interesting system SLR camera, and entirely mechanical. It was aimed at the professional market. At its era there is no other system camera in the Soviet Union.

It was often referred to as the "Russian Exakta". At that time Start was the only competition to the Exakta available within the Soviet Union and the Soviet-dominated part of Europe. It was at least in principle, the only other system camera, providing not only interchangeable lenses, but also finders and viewing screens.

Helios-44 58 mm f/2 is similar to the Zeiss Biotar. But unfortunately this is the Start system's only manufactured lens. There is an adapter for M39 screw mount Zenith lenses, but this was not an attractive option, as such lenses did not have automatic aperture system.

more info:

Fotoua by Alexandr Komarov, SovietCams, Wrotniaknet by Andrzej Wrotniak, Communist Cameras by Nathan Dayton, Cameras by Alfred Klomp, Btinternet by Stephen Rotery

Photos by the camera

Dvoukomorový školní batoh CHI 188 s hravým designem kytiček pro nejmenší školačky v 1. až 3. třídě.

 

Rozměry/Dimensions: 39 x 28 x 21

Materiál/Material: 100% Polyester

Hmotnost/Weight: 1,2kg

Nosnost/Load: 7kg

 

Ergonomicky tvarovaný zádový systém s polstrováním a vyjímatelným hliníkovým rámem společně s nastavitelnými ramenními popruhy zajistí pohodlné a bezpečné používání batohu.

Zadní i prostřední komory jsou stejně velké, v přední komoře je organizér a kapsa ze síťoviny. Mezi těmito komorami je skrytá, zipem uzavíratelná kapsa na box na svačinu, nebo na jiné věci, které chcete oddělit od ostatních školních potřeb v batohu.

V přední části batohu jsou dvě podlouhlé kapsy na zip a karabina na klíče. Sem lze umístit penál CHI 191 ve stejném designu. Pro oživení vnitřního prostoru batohu je použito pestrobarevné podšívky. Na jedné straně batohu je elastická kapsa na 0,7l láhev s pitím. Druhá postranní kapsa obsahuje poutko s karabinou, na kterou je možné zavěsit pytlík na přezůvky.

Na popruzích jsou umístěny háčky pro zavěšení dlouhých konců popruhů a držák na PET lahev. Kromě úchytu s plastovou rukojetí je přidáno i poutko na zavěšení batohu na školní lavici. Batohy jsou doplněny o četné reflexní plochy. Dno batohu je chráněno pevným materiálem, plastovými nožkami a zpevněné jsou také spodní hrany.

Součástí batohu je pytlík na papuče (CHI 555) a pláštěnka na batoh (CHI 177).

ROSMAN, NC (May 16-17, 2015)—For fourteen years, Rosman High School students have voluntarily locked in with teachers and schoolmates for fun, food, and fellowship after the prom. It’s reasonable to ask why students, after spending the evening together and with many other options available, keep this tradition going.

 

Attending for three or four years straight suggests that these Tigers are convinced: getting locked in, not up, is more than a vote for safety. It offers unique opportunities that only come around one night a year. And at midnight after the Rosman High School prom on May 16, about 170 students once again packed the gym for fellowship and fun.

 

Senior Megan Lewandowski has attended three times. “I’ve always loved the lock-in, and I might probably just go home otherwise,” she said, “but now I’m at the age where people are starting to party, and I appreciate the effort made by our school to keep people out of trouble. Plus, you get to throw dodgeballs at teachers!”

 

All Rosman High students are invited, whether they attend prom or not. “I think the biggest advantage is getting to spend time with friends and teachers,” said RHS junior Anna Cobb, who has attended for three years. “We are able to go to school the next week and talk about the fun we had together, and laugh at our ‘tired’ personalities.”

 

Taking over Boshamer Gymnasium at Brevard College, as they do each year, provides abundant choices for attendees. From sports, such as dodgeball and 3-on-3 basketball, to leisure, in movie rooms or hallways lined with sleeping bags, students sprawl into suitable spaces and pass the night in safety.

 

Along with students who locked in within 30 minutes after the prom, 46 adults enlisted for some or all of the night. That number included 24 from Rosman High, seven from RMS, three from the TCS central office, several parents, and others from Brevard High, Blue Ridge College, the National Guard recruiter’s office, and the Sheriff’s Department.

 

School Resource Officer Greg Stroup has organized the event since it began, and fellow SRO’s Desirée Abram and Michael Hall were on hand as well. Sheriff David Mahoney enlisted as both target and marksman, right alongside teachers and administrators, for a grueling dodgeball match.

 

Students have plenty of options after the prom, such as sleepovers and bonfires, which they put aside to join the lock-in. Officer Stroup said that thinking of creative ways to help kids stay safe has always been the goal of the event, and thanks to community support it continues to work today.

 

“What a wonderful opportunity it has been to offer this activity for 14 years to our kids on such a special night,” said Stroup. “If it was not for the generosity of the community, this event would not be possible.”

 

Brevard College offers free use of the athletic building, and almost 70 donors provides prizes or cash donations. Transylvania Youth Association generously offered $1,000 to support the event, and even more goes each year to the T-shirts again provided by the Sheriff’s Office.

 

Every student enjoys pizza and soda or water throughout the night, and is assured of winning a door prize from gift certificates to swag offered by dozens of local businesses. Larger gifts reserved for a seniors-only drawing provide a bonus for locking in after the last prom of a student’s high-school career.

 

Among the seniors, Dillon Zachary won the flat-screen television, while Megan Lewandowski’s lucky number landed her a dorm fridge to take to college. Kimberly Holliday won a GoPro camera, and Jacey Voris got tickets to ‘Dancing with the Stars.’

 

One of the most coveted senior prizes each year, a kayak, went to Jon Miller who was also celebrating his 18th birthday. At classroom awards on the Monday after lock-in, senior Keen Jones took home a microwave oven.

 

The plentiful gifts seem to drive home what organizers hope to convey: “The message sent to us is that our school is a family, and that our teachers really care about the students,” said Anna Cobb. “It allows us to have fun together and see teachers when they’re a little more laid back.”

 

Continued high attendance among all the grades at RHS showed organizers that the effort is well worth it. Attendance is free, even for guests from other schools, which helps to stretch a family’s dollar after covering prom-related expenses.

 

To keep everyone fed and hydrated, this year’s lock-in required 35 Jet’s pizzas, 14 cases of drinks, 100 juice boxes, a pound of coffee, and 200 biscuits from Brevard’s new Bojangles restaurant.

 

Students know not to miss the party, where memorable moments are made every year. Organizer Julie Queen said, “I love seeing the students come in Monday morning with their T-shirts on, and laughing about having such a great time.”

 

With a long track record of success, she said that donors and former students have learned to set their spring clocks according to the all-nighter as well.

 

“It is a very rewarding feeling to have alumni tell you what fond memories they have of the lock-in,” said Queen. “I have even had some call and ask for ideas because they want to replicate it in other places.”

 

Board of Education member Betty Scruggs arrived Sunday morning to provide moral support during the home stretch and found what she expected after attending in 2014: with some students playing basketball, watching a movie, or playing electronic games, several had also given into sleeping.

 

“I am delighted with all the students and staff members who participate in the lock-in,” said Scruggs. “It builds community and great memories more than any other single event.”

 

“They create a well-planned evening of activities in a fun and safe environment, all because of their passion for RHS and commitment to service,” she added. “This lock-in could not happen without a vast number of hours and tremendous amount of phone calls Julie Queen and SRO Greg Stroup make throughout the school year. What a difference they make!”

 

These and many other pictures can be found on the school system's photo website at flickr.com/tcsnc/sets under "RHS After-Prom Lock-In 2015."

 

Rosman High School and the organizers wish to thank all their donors and the following sponsors who made the 14th Annual After-Prom Lock-In possible:

 

Appalachian Construction of Pisgah Forest, Blue Ridge Community College, Brevard College, CARE Coalition – Promoting a drug free community. Comporium, Dalton Insurance, Ecusta Credit Union, Farm Bureau Insurance, Fraternal Order of Police—NC Lodge #14, French Broad Trailer Park, Jiffy Lube, M&B Industries, NC National Guard, NC Farm Bureau, Petit’s Paint and Body, RHS Athletics, RHS students, parents, faculty, and staff, RHS Tiger Club, State Farm Insurance – Meredith Baldridge, Self-Help Credit Union, Sheriff David Mahoney, The Fitness Factory, Toxaway Grading, Transylvania Youth Association, United Way, and the Transylvania Co. Sheriff’s Office.

 

© 2015, Transylvania County Schools. All rights reserved.

Gusty southerly winds observed as early evening settles in. The rain was falling quite moderately earlier! I miss this weather... It feels like it's been forever since I've seen rain!

 

Weather scenario/details:

At last, rain was finally making a return to California after a very dry February! Certainly, we were in for a lot of it! Although we were still in a drought, all this rain equals hazardous conditions... It may be too much of a good thing...

 

Here's a weather rundown: Why the sudden rains? An atmospheric river event was in store for California for early March 2016... Despite a very dry and mild February, a major pattern change toward a much wetter weather pattern was imminent. The 1st strong system of the series had hit by the first weekend of the month, bringing heavy rain, gusty winds, and heavy mountain snow. Wind & flood advisories were also issued with the first system of the series. The 1st system's strong cold front had approached the Bay Area by Saturday afternoon. Strong southerly winds have developed as the front passed thru. While this rain was to help replenish depleted water reservoirs and put a dent in the long-standing drought, the large amount of rain in a short time frame would lead to flooding and mudslides. Despite its drawbacks, the rainfall was beneficial to the state's water supply. Impacts from the 1st strong system had brought heavy rain & wind to my area in San Jose, CA. The 2nd system was expected to arrive by Sunday night and into Monday. At the time, the 2nd system appeared a bit stronger, bringing in more heavy rain, according to forecasters. Looks like this was El Nino's last hurrah this winter! Is a 'Miracle-March' imminent? Drive safe & stay dry out there, guys.

 

(Footage filmed Saturday, March 5, 2016 from around San Jose, CA)

Hot sandwich.

 

Photographed with OLYMPUS OM-SYSTEM S ZUIKO AUTO-ZOOM 35~70mm 1:3.5-4.5 143233

This video shows a very stormy night in San Jose, CA. Very strong & gusty southerly winds & rain were observed as this strongly awaited atmospheric river/storm system’s main cold front made ‘landfall’ in the Bay Area. This was indeed the strongest storm so far this season for the region. Conditions outside looked like a tropical storm! Certainly, this was a stormy night for the region. The Sierras were also looking at feet of snowfall before all this is said & done. This evening was just the 1st part of the storm. More heavy rain & wind was in store for the state over the next day or two as this atmospheric river was forecast to inch back north towards the South Bay the very next day... Things would finally die down by Friday. Stay safe out there, everyone! (Footage taken during the overnight hours on January 26-27, 2021)

 

*Weather forecast/update: A strong Pacific storm, or atmospheric river, was expected to bring periods of moderate to heavy rain to the region. This system was forecast to arrive by Tuesday (Jan 26) & was to bring periods of heavy rain & high winds. This will likely result in an increased risk of mudslides over steep terrain, debris flow over wildfire burned areas, as well as localized ponding of water in low-lying areas. Up to 3 inches of rain was expected in urban areas & 3-7 inches possible over higher terrain. The entire area from Napa south thru Monterey & San Benito Counties would get a good soaking from this atmospheric river. Latest model guidance suggests the coastal slopes of the Santa Cruz Mountains & Big Sur look to be the primary target of the heaviest rain. On top of this, a high wind watch was also in effect during the period. South winds 20-30 mph with gusts up to 50-60 mph are possible. North Bay, San Francisco Bay Shoreline, East Bay, Santa Cruz Mountains, and the South Bay will all be affected. Timing of the strongest winds are forecast to happen Tuesday evening thru Wednesday morning as this strong system’s cold front sweeps thru. Damaging winds can blow down trees & power lines which may result in power outages… Stay tuned to the latest forecast for the most up-to-date weather info online…

“The United Nations does extraordinary good around the world -- feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, mending places that have been broken. But it also struggles to enforce its will, and to live up to the ideals of its founding. I believe that those imperfections are not a reason to walk away from this institution -- they are a calling to redouble our efforts. The United Nations can either be a place where we bicker about outdated grievances, or forge common ground; a place where we focus on what drives us apart, or what brings us together; a place where we indulge tyranny, or a source of moral authority. In short, the United Nations can be an institution that is disconnected from what matters in the lives of our citizens, or it can be an indispensable factor in advancing the interests of the people we serve.”

 

– President Barack Obama, September 23, 2009

 

The Obama Administration has built on a bipartisan tradition of championing reform at the United Nations (UN) and has achieved notable successes on behalf of U.S. taxpayers. Under President Obama, the United States has:

 

· Led efforts to achieve a 5% cut in the size of the 2012-13 UN regular budget, resulting in a savings to American taxpayers of as much as $100 million, and only the second budget reduction in the last 50 years;

 

· Contained the growth of the UN peacekeeping budget, which grew from $1.8 billion to $7.1 billion from 2001 to 2009, by closing peacekeeping missions, as appropriate, and showing increased discipline in establishing new missions;

 

· Fought for increased transparency throughout the United Nations system, including promoting public disclosure online of all internal audit reports starting in 2012; and

 

· Spearheaded establishment of a new UN agency called UN Women, combining four separate UN offices into one stronger, streamlined and more efficient entity working to support and empower women worldwide.

 

Why Reform Matters: The United States has led at the UN since its creation because a strong, effective UN is among the best tools we have to tackle the world’s most pressing challenges. The UN works to prevent conflict and keep peace, to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and to isolate terrorists, criminals and despots. The UN goes where nobody else will to provide desperately needed humanitarian and development assistance to the world’s neediest people; and promotes universal values that Americans cherish, including human rights, democracy, and equality. The UN shares the burdens of global security among all nations, rather than leaving the United States to manage them alone. This includes:

 

· Keeping a brutal dictator from killing innocents in Libya;

 

· Imposing biting sanctions on regimes like Iran and North Korea in response to illicit nuclear weapons programs;

 

· Supporting the birth of new nation in South Sudan after decades of war;

 

· Helping a duly elected president take office in Cote d'Ivoire;

 

· Rebuilding Haiti after disaster strikes, and

 

· Vaccinating children around the world against polio.

The Obama Administration is committed to achieving a reformed and renewed UN that saves lives, keeps the peace, seeds development, finds common solutions to the urgent problems of a new century, operates effectively —and lives within its means. This comprehensive UN reform agenda is based on four key pillars: economy, accountability, integrity, and excellence.

 

Economy: A Leaner UN. Every dollar sent to the UN represents the hard work of a taxpayer somewhere, and any dollar wasted at the UN is a wasted opportunity to build a better, freer, more prosperous world. The United Nations should face these tough economic times by tightening its belt and doing more with less. The United States is working to:

 

· Bring discipline and restraint to UN budgets: The UN’s Regular Budget has nearly doubled over the last decade. Some—but not all—of the increase has been due to expanded UN responsibilities (in, for example, Iraq and Afghanistan) and from other tasks that the United States has asked of the Organization. But growth must be rooted in real world needs and constrained by real world realities. The recently-approved 2012/13 budget – a five percent reduction, and one of only two UN budget reductions in 50 years – was a historic step. Over the next 18 months, UN budgets through 2015 will be adopted, and the United States will push to continue this trend toward sustained and structural fiscal discipline.

 

· Shrink the bureaucracy and right-size UN staff: The UN should implement measures widely used by member states (e.g., hiring freezes, reduction of positions through attrition) to right-size staffing levels by 2015. The UN should also reduce program redundancies and layers through initiatives that streamline or shed non-core functions and shrink outdated entities. In peacekeeping, the U.S. will continue to push the Global Field Support Strategy, a consolidation of operational and back-office support functions at global and regional service centers.

 

· Bring Private Sector Sensibility to the UN: There are few management challenges facing the UN that the global private sector and entrepreneurial governments and NGOs, North and South, have not grappled with. The UN should systematically introduce a culture of efficiency, productivity, and performance through measures such as seeking the expertise of international business leaders, greater use of outsourcing, professional recruitment for senior posts including from outside the system, and commissioning an independent study of compensation practices throughout the UN system.

 

· Deploy 21st Century Information Technology: The ongoing overhaul of the UN’s information management system could improve performance while saving more than $100 million annually. The United States and our partners will continue to push the UN to ensure that the overhaul is implemented swiftly and within approved budgets, that staffing issues that have troubled the project are corrected, and that it reaps quantifiable savings for the UN and its member states.

 

· Reform the Budget Process: The UN budget-making process is too complex and opaque. Paradoxically, there is both too much information but too little useful information: readers of UN budget documents can find, for example, the precise number of policy papers to be issued by a given department, but cannot find the cost of employee benefits or utilities for that department. We will promote a UNs budgeting system that is streamlined, transparent, gives managers more flexibility while demanding more accountability, and provides the information necessary for real financial analysis and management.

 

· Revitalize the ACABQ: The UN’s Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions was established to be a truly independent and expert review panel. Three reforms would help restore ACABQ to its original vision as a true budget watchdog: ACABQ‘s members should possess internationally-recognized qualifications and be vetted by an independent third party. New rules should discourage a “revolving door” – for the United States or others – between representing member states in the UN’s budget committee and service on the ACABQ. And the Secretariat should provide the ACABQ with the budget earlier in the process, to facilitate timely review.

 

Accountability: A Cleaner UN. Taxpayers around the world deserve to know exactly how the money they send to the UN is spent and to have confidence that every dollar, euro or yen is handled honestly and well. The UN has made important advances in recent years, but much more remains to be done to strengthen oversight mechanisms, ethics enforcement, whistleblower protection, and transparency. The United States is working to:

 

· Strengthen Internal Oversight: We will work to strengthen, empower, and firmly institutionalize the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS). With a respected new head of OIOS now onboard, the UN should ensure that the office is fully-staffed; independent (able to conduct its business autonomously from the offices it polices); supported by a vigorous financial crimes unit; and have an investigatory writ that extends to UN funds and programs outside the UN Secretariat.

· Increase Transparency throughout the UN system: Open and accessible information for the public is the best way to ensure accountability, and a pillar of ongoing U.S. “UNTAI II” reform efforts that aim to enhance transparency and accountability across the UN system. Though sustained intensive diplomacy in support of these efforts already has led to important reforms, it remains too difficult for the public, press and member states to access budget, financial and audit information, especially among the diverse UN funds and programs. Audits and reports by UN funds and programs should be online and available to the public; we applaud recent commitments toward this goal and will push for full implementation by the end of 2012. Meetings of the key budgetary and other committees should be webcast live. And there should be enhanced public financial disclosure by senior officials across the UN system.

 

· Encourage a Broader Global “UN Accountability Community”: The UN is a public enterprise whose agencies collectively spend more than $36 billion annually.[i] Yet there is little systematic coverage of UN management workings by independent media, and too little sustained or integrated analysis of UN programs, policies and budgets by NGOs. Although there is a vibrant NGO sector at the UN, its participation is almost always around policy issues (such as human rights, development, or peacekeeping) and rarely around management practices such as budgeting or procurement. The network of independent entities analyzing UN practices should be wider, deeper, and more vigorous, an international network that examines and elevates UN management issues in the public discourse.

 

· Improve UN Procurement Processes: We will push for an acceleration of efforts to standardize procurement best practices across the UN system. The bid protest system now being tested should be strengthened and made permanent, and the UN should put in place a system-wide vendor sanctions procedure so that a vendor engaging in corrupt and fraudulent practices with one UN agency is barred from doing business with any UN agency.

 

· Open the Doors on UN Websites: UN websites provide much information about what the UN does, but much less user-friendly information about how it does it. It is far too difficult to access usable information about budgets, personnel, pay, audits and the like. Meanwhile, governments and NGOs around the world are reaching for unprecedented levels of public openness on their websites. At sites such as www.opendoor.ky.gov (Kentucky), www.recovery.gov (U.S.), and www.dfid.gov.uk, ordinary citizens can easily find detailed data on how public money is spent, how much employees are paid, and what contracts have been awarded. As the world’s preeminent international organization, the UN system should lead these efforts.

 

· Lead by Example: The United States will lead by establishing a new standard of openness around U.S. funding of the UN. Currently, it is too difficult for taxpayers and policymakers to track total U.S. funds to the UN and all UN program results supported by the United States; we will post on the website of the U.S. Mission to the UN a feature that will consolidate existing but hard-to-find data on U.S. funds going to the UN, from which agencies, and to which programs.

 

Integrity: A Respected UN. As a founding member, host country, and largest contributor, the United States has a particular interest in seeing that the UN lives up to its founding principles and values and standing firm against actions by member states that discredit the UN and the important work it does. To this end, the United States is working to:

 

· Forge a New Coalition to Improve HRC Membership: The United States will work to forge a new coalition in New York, a kind of “credibility caucus” to promote truly competitive HRC elections, rigorous application of membership criteria, and other reforms aimed at keeping the worst human rights offenders off the HRC. It is time for those UN member states committed to human rights values to come together themselves to do what the General Assembly has not done in its review: hold Human Rights Council members to the same standard of truly “free and fair” elections that the UN promotes around the world, and insist on the highest standards of integrity for the Council and all its members.

 

· Require Criteria for Member States to Hold Leadership Positions: A related issue is the damage to the UN when a manifestly unsuited country assumes a leadership position, such as when North Korea assumed the rotating monthly chairmanship of the Conference on Disarmament. The United States will push a new common sense standard: any member state that is currently the subject of UN Security Council sanctions for proliferation or massive human rights violations should be ineligible to hold a leadership position in a UN body.

· End Peacekeeper Misconduct: UN Peacekeepers are sent into harm’s way to halt violence and protect civilians, and the vast majority perform admirably. But any incident of dereliction of duty or abuse of local populations is one too many. The UN must do more to implement its zero tolerance policy for sexual exploitation and abuse by UN peacekeepers and protection of the rights of women. Some reforms (including conduct and discipline teams for every unit) are underway, but the UN should deploy a truly system-wide database on misconduct to track abuses –with more consistent and transparent follow-up at the highest levels with member states -- to ensure that those who commit abuses are held accountable and never again serve under the UN flag.

 

· Stop Discrimination Against Israel: One country in the world – Israel – is consistently singled out for unfair criticism and exclusion by member states abusing the UN system. The U.S. will continue fighting to end this persistent disparate treatment of Israel as a matter of the UN’s fundamental institutional integrity. For example, we have secured Israel’s inclusion in key negotiating groups, but Israel remains unfairly excluded from two key regional fora: the “JUSCANZ” group in the UN’s Third Committee in New York, and the “WEOG” group in Geneva. The US will continue to pursue full participation for Israel in all parts of the UN system.

 

· Fight for Fairness in the Fifth Committee: A disproportionate influence on UN budgets is exerted by countries that themselves do not pay most of the bills. This must change, and the General Assembly must be held to its 1986 commitment that budgets will be adopted by consensus. A budget adopted by a technical majority but over the objections of major contributors clearly does not meet that commitment. Working with like-minded member states, the US is exploring a variety of proposals for establishing fairer practices in the Fifth Committee, and will stand firm for the principle that legitimate assessments on member states only proceed from truly consensual budgetary decisions.

 

Excellence: An Effective UN. Billions of people depend, many for their lives, on crucial UN services. They deserve a UN that delivers real results and that performs – from senior officials in New York to front-line implementers in African villages – to the highest standard of excellence. The United States is supporting initiatives to:

 

· Overhaul the Human Resources System to Reward Performance: The UN needs a more merit-based compensation system for its workforce. An opportunity for overhauling the personnel system will come up in 2012. The United States will push for an external review of UN human resources and practices, enforcement of new staff recruitment timelines, ending employee contracts for poor performance, and broader authority for managers to shift resources to where they are most needed.

 

· Deploy the Right People to the Right Place at the Right Time: Peacekeeping, barely imagined at the time of the UN’s founding, now comprises 15 missions and 120,000 personnel. An increasing number of humanitarian disasters every year strains the capacity of the UN’s response system. The need for electoral and constitutional assistance has surged after the “Arab Spring.” Yet deployment of expert staff to crises takes too long. Specific solutions have been proposed (e.g., the Civilian Capacity Review, an initiative similar to the Administration’s Civilian Response Corps, to ensure that relevant civilian experts can be deployed where needed on short notice) and the United States will press for key measures to be implemented.

 

· Unify Assistance and Program Delivery: A fragmented UN system creates confusion for the people it serves and overlap in the services it provides them: 16 separate UN agencies (and one peacekeeping mission), for example, currently operate in Liberia. And in many instances “integrated” operations are just a label on top of what remain disconnected activities. UN leadership should clarify divisions of labor among agencies, funds and programs in the field, and donors should ensure proper incentives to reduce redundant efforts and leverage comparative advantages without compromising humanitarian missions. The UN launched “Delivering as One” on a pilot basis in 8 countries to bring some cohesion to this patchwork; pilot results should be rigorously evaluated, with lessons learned implemented broadly across the UN system.

 

· Trim Outdated “Mandates”: One roadblock to sharpening UN performance is the mountain of “mandates” – charges to perform certain activities – that the organization operates under. The total number of mandates approaches 10,000, many of which are obsolete and redundant. We will pursue requiring sunset clauses on mandates going forward, and using program evaluation mechanisms to tackle the problem.

 

· Create a Culture of Evaluation for Effectiveness: While UN programs are subject to regular assessments and reviews, a confusing an ad hoc evaluation regime has undercut the kind of focused, sustained attention needed to improve performance. ACABQ has called for increasing the percentage of evaluations that are external rather than internal, and better linkage of evaluation results to program planning. The United States will work on agency boards to shift the system’s focus from outputs to outcomes and link resources received to evidence of effectiveness.

   

###

   

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

  

[i] A/65/187, “Budgetary and financial situation of the organizations of the United Nations system,” page 129

   

PRN: 2012/011 sent to vascopress@yahoo.com.br using GovDelivery, on behalf of: U.S. Department of State. 01/20/2012 11:32 AM EST

     

Leading for Reform at the United Nations

   

New York, NY

 

January 20, 2012

     

A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket with the company's Crew Dragon spacecraft onboard is seen after being into a vertical position on the launch pad at Launch Complex 39A as preparations continue for the Demo-1 mission, Feb. 28, 2019 at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The Demo-1 mission will be the first launch of a commercially built and operated American spacecraft and space system designed for humans as part of NASA's Commercial Crew Program. The mission, currently targeted for a 2:49am launch on March 2, will serve as an end-to-end test of the system's capabilities. Photo Credit: NASA/Joel Kowsky

NASA image use policy.

+++ 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:

In the aftermath of the Second World War, Sweden required a strong air defense, utilizing the newly developed jet propulsion technology. The original concept had been designed around a mostly straight wing, but after Swedish engineers had obtained German research data on swept-wing designs, the prototype was altered to incorporate a 25° sweep. In order to make the wing as thin as possible, Saab elected to locate the retractable undercarriage in the aircraft's fuselage rather than into the wings.

 

Extensive wind tunnel testing had also influenced aspects of the aircraft's aerodynamics, such as stability and trim across the aircraft's speed range. In order to test the design of the swept wing further and avoid any surprises, it was decided to modify a Saab Safir. It received the designation Saab 201 and a full-scale swept wing for a series of flight tests. The first 'final' sketches of the aircraft, incorporating the new information, were drawn in January 1946.

 

The originally envisioned powerplant for the new fighter type was the de Havilland Goblin turbojet engine. However, in December 1945, information on the newer and more powerful de Havilland Ghost engine became available. The new engine was deemed to be ideal for Saab's in-development aircraft, as not only did the Ghost engine had provisions for the use of a central circular air intake, the overall diameter of the engine was favorable for the planned fuselage dimensions, too. Thus, following negotiations between de Havilland and Saab, the Ghost engine was selected to power the type and built in license as the RM 2.

 

By February 1946 the main outline of the proposed aircraft had been clearly defined. In autumn 1946, following the resolution of all major questions of principal and the completion of the project specification, the Swedish Air Force formally ordered the completion of the design and that three prototype aircraft be produced, giving the proposed type the designation J 29. After a thorough test program, production of the type commenced in 1948 and, in May 1951, the first deliveries of operational production aircraft were received by F 13 Norrköping. The J 29 proved to be very successful and several variants and updates of the Tunnan were produced, including a dedicated reconnaissance variant, a two seat trainer and an all-weather fighter with an onboard radar

 

However, Sweden foresaw that there would soon be a need for a jet fighter that could intercept bombers at high altitude and also successfully engage fighters. During September 1949, the Swedish Air Force, via the Swedish Defence Material Administration, released a requirement for a cutting-edge interceptor aircraft that was envisioned to be capable of attacking hostile bomber aircraft in the transonic speed range. As released, this requirement specified a top speed of Mach speed 1.4 to 1.5. (1956, the specified speed was revised and raised to Mach 1.7-1.8, and eventually led to the Saab 35 Draken). With the barely supersonic Saab 32 Lansen just under development, and intended for different roles than being a nimble day fighter, the company searched for a way to either achieve supersonic flight through modifications of an existing type or at least gather sufficient data and develop and try the new technologies necessary to meet the 1949 requirements.

 

Since Sweden did not have a truly supersonic aircraft in its inventory (not even an experimental type), Saab decided to convert the Saab 29 into a supersonic testbed, with the outlook to develop an interim day fighter that could replace the various Tunnan fighter versions and support the new Lansen fleet until a fully capable Mach 1.5+ interceptor was ready for service. Even though the type was regarded as a pure experimental aircraft, the designation remained close to the J29 nomenclature in order to secure military funding for the project and to confuse eventual spies. Consequently, the P29 was initially presented as a new J29 version (hence the “G” suffix).

 

The P29G was based on a heavily modified production J29B airframe, which was built in two versions and only in two specimens. Work on the first airframe started in 1952, just when the first Saab 32 prototype made its maiden flight. The initial challenge consisted of integrating two relatively compact axial flow jet engines with afterburners into the fuselage, since the J29’s original RM2, even in its late afterburner variant, was not able to safely deliver the necessary thrust for the intended supersonic flight program. After long negotiations, Saab was able to procure a small number of Westinghouse J34-WE-42 turbojets from the USA, which delivered as a pair 40% more thrust than the original RM2B. The engines were only delivered under the restriction that they would exclusively be used in connection with the supersonic research program.

 

Through a thorough re-construction, the Saab team was able to mount the new engines into the lower rear fuselage, and, internally, the air intake duct had to be modified and forked behind the landing gear wells. Due to the significantly widened rear fuselage, the P29G became quickly nicknamed “Kurviga Tunnan” (= “Curvy Barrel”). Even though the widened rear fuselage increased the aircraft’s frontal cross section, the modified shape had the (unintended) effect of area ruling, a welcome side benefit which became apparent during the flight test and which largely promoted the P29G’s gain of top speed.

 

Another special and unique feature of the P29G was a special wing attachment system. It consisted of two strengthened, open box spars in the fuselage with additional attachment points along the wing roots, which allowed different wings to be switched with relatively little effort. However, due to this modification, the wing tanks (with a total capacity of 900l inside of the J29s standard wings) were lost and only 2.150l in the Saab 29’s standard fuselage tanks could be carried – but this was, for a research aircraft, not regarded as a major weakness, and compensated for the wing attachment system’s additional weight. The original wing-mounted pitots were replaced by a single, massive sensor boom attached to the aircraft’s nose above the air intake, slightly set-off to starboard in order to give the pilot an unobstructed view.

 

The first P29G's maiden flight, marked “Gul Urban” (Yellow U), took place in July 1955. The aircraft behaved normally, even though the center of gravity had markedly shifted backwards and the overall gain of weight made the aircraft slightly unstable along the longitudinal axis. During the initial, careful attempts to break the sound barrier, it soon became apparent that both the original wings as well as the original air intake shape limited the P29G's potential. In its original form, the P29G could only barely pass Mach 1 in level flight.

 

As a consequence, the second P29G, which had been under conversion from another J29B airframe since mid-1954, received more thorough modifications. The air intake was lengthened and widened, and in order to make it more effective at supersonic speed it received a sharp lip. Wind tunnel tests with the first machine led to a modified tail, too: the fin was now taller and further swept back, the stabilizer was moved to a higher position, resulting in a cruciform layout. The original single-piece stabilizer was furthermore replaced by a two-piece, all-moving construction with a 45° sweep and a thinner profile. This not only improved the aerodynamics at high speed, it also suppressed the longitudinal instability problem, even though this was never really cured.

 

Due to the even higher all-up weight of the new aircraft, the landing gear was reinforced and the 2nd P29G received an experimental suspension system on its main legs with higher spring travel, which was designed for operations on semi-prepared airfields. This system had actually been designed for the updated J29 fighters (esp. the A32B attack variant), but it was not introduced into series production or the Saab 29E/F conversion program. Despite these massive changes, the P29G designation was retained, and the second machine, carrying the tactical code “Röd Urban” (Red U), was quickly nicknamed “Karpen” (“Carp”), due to its characteristic new intake shape, the long fin and its stocky shape.

 

The second P29G was ready for flight tests in August 1956, just in time to support the Saab 35’s ongoing development – the aircraft, which was eventually built to meet (and exceed) the Swedish Air Force’s 1949 supersonic interceptor requirement. The modifications proved to be successful and the P29G was, fitted with a 60° sweep wing and in clean configuration, able to achieve a maximum speed of 1.367 km/h (849 mph) in level flight, a formidable achievement (vs. the 1,060 km/h (660 mph) of the late J29F and the 1200 km/h (745 mph) of the J32B interceptor) for the post WWII design.

Several wing shapes and profiles were tested, including sweep angles from 25° to 63° as well as different shapes and profiles. Even though the machines carried provisions for the J29’s standard armament, the 20 mm cannons were normally not mounted and replaced with sensors and recording equipment. However, both machines were temporarily fitted with one or two guns in order to analyze the effects of firing the weapons at supersonic speed. Underwing ordnance was also almost never carried. In some tests, though, light bombs or unguided missiles were carried and deployed, or podded cine cameras were carried.

 

While the second P29G was used for high speed trials, the first machine remained in its original guise and took over low speed handling tests. Thanks to the unique wing switch mechanism, the supersonic research program could be held within a very tight schedule and lasted until late 1959. Thereafter, the P29Gs’ potential was of little use anymore, and the engine use agreement with the USA put an end to further use of the two aircraft, so that both P29Gs were retired from service in 1960. The 1st machine, outfitted with standard J29F wings and stripped off of its engines, remained in use as an instructional air at Malmslätt air base 1969, while the second machine was mothballed. However, both airframes were eventually scrapped in 1970.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 11.66 m (38 ft 2 in) fuselage only,

13,97 m (45 ft 9 in) with pitot boom

Wingspan: varied*; 11.0 m (36 ft 1 in) with standard 25° sweep wings,

10.00 m (32 ft 9 ¾ in) with experimental 45° wings

Height: 4.54m (14 ft 10 ½ in)

Wing area: varied*; 24.15 m² (260.0 ft²) with standard 25° sweep wings

22.5 m² (242.2 ft²) with experimental 45° wings

Empty weight: 5,220 kg (11,500 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 8,510 kg (18,744 lb)

 

Powerplant:

2× Westinghouse J34-WE-42 turbojets, each rated at 3,400 lbf (15 kN) dry thrust

and 4,200 lbf (19 kN) with full afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 1.367 km/h (849 mph) were achieved*

Range: 790 km (490 mi)

Service ceiling: up to 17,250 m (56,500 ft)*

Rate of climb: up to 45 m/s (8,850 ft/min)*

 

*Varying figures due to different tested wing configurations

 

Armament:

None installed; provisions for 4x 20mm Hispano Mark V autocannon in the lower front fuselage.

Depending on the mounted wing type, various external loads could be carried, including a wide range of light bombs, 75 mm (3 in) air-to-air rockets, 145 mm (5.8 in) anti-armor rockets, 150 mm (6 in) HE (high-explosive) rockets or 180 mm (7.2 in) HE anti-ship rockets. Due to the lack of complex wiring or fuel plumbing, no guided weapons or drop tanks could be mounted, though.

  

The kit and its assembly:

Sweden is a prolific whiffing territory, and the Saab 29 offers some interesting options. This highly modified Tunnan, which is actually rather a kitbashing than a mere model kit modification, is/was a submission to the “More or less engines” group build at whatifmodelers.com in summer 2019.

I actually had the idea of a two-engine J29 in the back of my mind for a long time, spawned by a resin conversion set for the Hasegawa B-47 Stratojet kit that came with new intakes and exhaust sections for the four engine pods. The single engine pod parts had been spent a long time ago, but the twin engine parts were still waiting for a good use. Could the exhaust fit under/into a Tunnan…?

I even had a Matchbox J29 stashed away for this experiment long ago, as well as some donor parts like the wings, and the GB eventually offered the right motivation to put those things together that no one would expect to work.

 

So I pulled out all the stuff and started – a rather straightforward affair. Work started with the fuselage, which was, together with the (very nice) cockpit assembled OOB at first, the nose filled with as much lead as possible and with the lower rear section cut away, so the B-47 resin jet nozzles would end up at the same position as the original RM2B exhaust. Due to the pen nib fairing between them, though, the profile of the modified tail became (visually) more massive, and I had to fill some gaps under the tail boom (with styrene sheet and putty). The twin engines also turned out to be wider than expected – I had hoped for straight flanks, but the fuselage shape ended up with considerable bulges behind the landing gear wells. These were created with parts from drop tank halves and blended into the rest of the lower hill with PSR work. In the same wake the area under the fin was sculpted and re-created, too.

 

At that point it became clear that I had to do more on the fuselage, esp. the front end, in order to keep the aircraft visually balance. A convenient solution became an F-100 air intake, which I grafted onto the nose instead of the original circular and round-lipped orifice – with its sharp lip the Super Sabre piece was even a plausible change! The fuselage shapes and diameters differed considerably, though, more PSR became necessary.

 

Next came the wings: I had already set apart a pair of trapezoid wings with a 45° sweep angle – these were left over from a PM Model Ta 183 conversion some time ago. With their odd shape and size they were a perfect match for my project, even more so due to the fact that I could keep the original J29 wing attachment points, I just had to shorten and modify the trailing edge area on the fuselage. The result was very conclusive.

 

With the new nose and the wings in place, the overall proportions became clearer: still tail-heavy, but not unpleasant. At this time I was also certain that I had to modify the tail surfaces. The fin was too small and did not have enough sweep for the overall look, and the stabilizer, with its thick profile, rounded edges and the single, continuous rudder did not look supersonic at all. What followed was a long search in the donor banks for suitable replacements, and I eventually came up with a MiG-15 fin (Hobby Boss) which was later clipped at the top for a less recognizable profile. The stabilizers were more challenging, though. My solution eventually became a pair of modified stabilizers from a Matchbox Buccaneer(!), attached to the MiG-15 fin.

 

The design problems did not stop here, though: the landing gear caused some more headaches. I wanted to keep the OOB parts, but especially the main legs would leave the aircraft with a very goofy look through a short wheelbase and a rear axis position too much forward. In an attempt to save the situation I attached swing arms to the OOB struts, moving the axis maybe 5mm backwards and widening the track by 2mm at the same time. Not much in total, but it helped (a little, even though the aircraft is still very tail-heavy)

 

As a final addition – since the original, wing-mounted pitots of the J29 were gone now and would not go well with the wing-switching idea – I gave the P29G a large, nose-mounted pitot and sensor boom, placed on top of the nose. This part come, like the air intake, from an F-100.

  

Painting and markings:

I tend to be conservative when it comes to liveries for what-if models, and the P29G is no exception. At first, I thought that this build could become an operational supersonic daylight interceptor (the J29G), so that I could give the model full military markings and maybe a camouflage paint scheme. However, this idea would not work: the potential real life window for such an aircraft, based on the Saab 29, would be very narrow. And aircraft development in the late Fifties made quantum leaps within a very short period of time: While the J29A entered service, work on the Mach 2 Saab 35 was already underway – nobody would have accepted (or needed) a Mach 1 fighter, based on late Forties technology, at that time anymore, and there was the all-weather Saab J32B around, too. The update program with new wings and a more powerful afterburner engine was all that could be done to exploit the Tunnan’s potential, resulting in the (real world’s) J29E and F variants.

 

I eventually decided that the J29G would only be a prototype/research aircraft, consequently called P29G, and through this decision I became more or less settled upon a NMF finish with some colorful markings. Consequently, the model was painted with various shades of metal colors, primarily Polished Aluminum Metallizer from Humbrol, but also with Humbrol 191 and Matt Aluminum Metallizer as well as ModelMaster Steel Metallizer. Around the exhaust section, I also used Revell 91 (Iron) and ModelMaster Exhaust Metallizer. Some single panels and details were painted with Revell 99 (Aluminum), and I also used generic decal material in silver to simulate some smaller access panels. Grey decal sheet was used to simulate covers for the cannon nozzles.

 

The cockpit interior was painted, according to Saab 29 standard, in a dark greenish-grey (Revell 67), and bluish grey was used inside of the landing gear wells (Revell 57). The pitot boom received black and white stripes.

 

For markings I let myself get inspired from the real world Saab 29 and 32 prototypes, which were all marked with a colored “U” tactical code on the fin and also on the front fuselage, simply meaning “Utverding” (= “Test”). I found four red decals, and I also gave the aircraft a yellow cheatline, lent from an Airfix F-86D decal sheet. The Swedish roundels come from a generic aftermarket sheet, most stencils were taken from the Revell OOB sheet and a Printscale J29 sheet.

 

Before the model was sealed with semi-gloss acrylic varnish from Italeri, some grinded graphite was rubbed onto the rear fuselage, adding a metallic shine and simulating exhaust stains.

 

A thorough conversion – this has rather evolved into a kitbashing than just a kit conversion: not much from the original Matchbox J29 has been left over. But I like the outcome, even though things developed gradually from the simple idea of changing the number of engines on the Tunnan. One thing led to another. The resulting aircraft looks quite plausible, even though I am not totally happy with the landing gear, which appears to be rather far forward, despite surgical measures to mend the situation. The Ta 183 wings are a very good match, though, and I cannot help but recognize a certain French look, maybe due to the cruciform tail and the oval air intake? The P29G could also, with Argentinian marking, have become a revised version of the FMA Pulqui II?

For Gustav Holst and Claude Debussy, the beauty of Earth and its surrounding planets inspired them not to collect data, but to compose music. Now, 100 years after the first performance of Holst’s “The Planets,” audiences had a chance to hear their music and see depictions of our awe-inspiring solar system simultaneously.

 

On Jan 27 and 28, the National Philharmonic Orchestra, in collaboration with NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, presented Cosmic Designs at the Music Center at Strathmore in North Bethesda, MD. In this marriage of music and space imagery, the orchestra performed Claude Debussy’s “La Mer” and Gustav Holst’s “The Planets.” Video producers at Goddard worked to collect depictions of our solar system’s planets, as well as Earth’s oceans to accompany the music. Using both satellite pictures and animations, this presentation illustrated tones in the music, making the audible narrative in the music come alive visually.

 

Read more about NASA's contribution: www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/cosmic-designs-at-the-i...

 

Read more about the event here:

www.strathmore.org/events-and-tickets/np-cosmic-designs

 

Credit: Strathmore/Don Lassell

 

NASA image use policy.

 

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center enables NASA’s mission through four scientific endeavors: Earth Science, Heliophysics, Solar System Exploration, and Astrophysics. Goddard plays a leading role in NASA’s accomplishments by contributing compelling scientific knowledge to advance the Agency’s mission.

 

Follow us on Twitter

 

Like us on Facebook

 

Find us on Instagram

+++ 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:

Armored wheeled vehicles were developed early in Germany, since they were not subject to the restrictions of the Versailles Treaty. The Sd.Kfz. 234 (Sonderkraftfahrzeug 234, or Special Purpose Vehicle 234) belonged to the ARK series (the type designation of the chassis) and was the successor to the earlier, eight-wheeled Sd.Kfz. 231/232/233 family. The Sd.Kfz. 234 incorporated several innovative features, including a monocoque chassis with eight wheels, and an air-cooled Tatra 103 diesel engine for use in North Africa. The latter gave the vehicle an extraordinary range of more than 600 miles (1.000 km). The vehicle had eight-wheel steering and drive and was able to quickly change direction thanks to a second, rear-facing, driver's seat. Chassis were built by Büssing-NAG in Leipzig-Wahren, while armoured bodies were provided by Deutsche Edelstahlwerke of Krefeld and turrets by Daimler Benz in Berlin-Marienfelde and Schichau of Elbing, with engines from Ringhoffer-Tatra-Werke AG of Nesseldorf.

 

The first and possibly best known version to reach frontline service was the Sd.Kfz. 234/2 ‘Puma’. It had a horseshoe-shaped turret armed with a 5cm L/60 gun, which was originally intended for the VK 1602 Leopard light tank. Even though it was a reconnaissance vehicle, the armament made it possible to take on lighter armored vehicles, and it was produced from late 1943 to mid-1944. This variant was replaced in production by the second version, the Sd.Kfz. 234/1, which had a simpler open turret (Hängelafette 38) armed only with a light 2 cm KwK 38 gun; it was manufactured from mid-1944 to early 1945.

The SdKfz 234/3, produced simultaneously with the 234/1, served as a support for the reconnaissance vehicles with more firepower. It had an open-topped superstructure, in which a short-barreled 7.5cm K51 L/24 gun was installed. This gun was intended primarily for use against soft targets, but when using a hollow charge shell, the penetration power exceeded that of the 5cm L/60 gun. This variant was produced from mid-1944 to the end of 1944, before switching production to the 234/4 and other variants. The Sd.Kfz. 234/4 replaced the L/24 gun with the 7.5cm L/46 PaK 40. This was yet another attempt to increase the mobility of this anti-tank gun; however, with this weapon the 234 chassis had been stretched to its limits, and it only carried limited ammunition (twelve rounds) due to lack of storage space. This variant was manufactured from the end of 1944 on in limited numbers.

 

Another interesting use of the chassis was the Sd.Kfz 234/6. When, towards late 1945, the Einheitschassis for the German combat tanks (the ‘E’; series) reached the front lines, several heavily armed anti-aircraft turrets had been developed, including the 30mm Kugelblitz, based on the outdated Panzer IV, the ‘Coelian’ turret with a twin 37mm cannon (mounted on the Panzer V Panther hull), but also twin 55 and even 88mm cannons on the new E-50, E-75 and E-100 chassis'. With alle these new vehicles and weapons, firepower was considerably increased, but the tank crews still had to rely on traditional visual tracking and aiming of targets. One potential solution for this flaw, in which the German Heeresleitung was highly interested from the start, was the use of the Luftwaffe’s radar technology for early target identification and as an aiming aid in poor weather conditions or at night. The German Luftwaffe first introduced an airborne interception radar in 1942, but these systems were still bulky and relied upon large bipolar antenna arrays. Esp. the latter were not suitable for any use in a ground vehicle, lest to say in a tank that could also carry weapons and ammunition as an independent mobile weapon system.

 

A potential solution at least for the mobility issue appeared in late 1944 with the development of the FuG 240 ‘Berlin’, a new airborne interception radar. It was the first German radar to be based on the cavity magnetron, which eliminated the need for the large multiple dipole-based antenna arrays seen on earlier radars, thereby greatly increasing the performance of the night fighters which carried the system. The FuG 240 was introduced by Telefunken in April 1945, primarily in Junkers Ju 88G-6 night-fighters, behind a streamlined plywood radome in the aircrafts’ nose. This so greatly reduced drag compared to the late-model Lichtensteins and Neptun radars that the fighters regained their pre-radar speeds, making them much more effective esp. against heavy and high-flying Allied bombers. The FuG 240 was effective against bomber-sized targets at distances of up to 9 kilometers, or down to 0.5 kilometer, which, as a side benefit, eliminated the need for a second, short-range radar system.

 

Right before the FuG 240's roll-out with the Luftwaffe the Heer insisted on a ground-based derivative for its anti-aircraft units. The Luftwaffe reacted very reluctantly, but heavy political pressure from Berlin convinced the RLM to share the new technology. Consequently, Telefunken was ushered to adapt the radar system to armored ground vehicles in February 1945.

It soon became clear that the FuG 240 had several drawbacks and was not perfectly suited for this task. Ground clutter and the natural horizon greatly limited the system's range, even though its 9 km range made high-altitude surveillance possible. Furthermore, the whole system, together with its power supply and the dirigible dish antenna, took up a lot of space. Its integration into an autonomous, tank-based anti-aircraft vehicle was still out of reach. The solution eventually came as a technical and tactical compromise: armed anti-aircraft tanks were to be grouped together in so-called Panzer-Fla-Züge, with an additional radar surveillance and guidance unit, so that the radar could guide the tank crews towards incoming targets, which would still rely on individual visual targeting.

 

The first of these dedicated guidance vehicles became the ‘Funkmess-/Flak-Kommandowagen Sd.KfZ 234/6’, which retained its secondary reconnaissance role. Together with Telefunken, Daimler Benz developed a new turret with a maximum armor of 30mm and a commander's cupola that would hold most of the radar equipment. This was christened ’Medusa’, after the monster from Greek mythology with snake hair and a petrifying sight, and during the system’s development phase, the radar's name was adopted for the whole vehicle, even though it never was official.

The turret held a crew of two, while the Sd. Kfz 234 chassis remained basically unchanged. Despite the cramped turret and the extra equipment, the Sd.Kfz. 234/6 was not heavier than its earlier brethren, because it remained unarmed, just a manually-operated FlaMG on the turret roof was available for self-defense. A heavier armament was not deemed necessary since the vehicle would either stay close to the heavily armed tanks it typically accompanied, or it would undertake lone reconnaissance missions where it would rely on its high speed and mobility. The vehicle's crew consisted of four: a driver in the front seat, a commander and a radar operator in the turret and a radio operator/second driver in the hull behind the turret, facing rearwards.

 

The Medusa antenna array was installed at the turret's front. The dish antenna, hidden under a hard vinyl cover, had a diameter of 70cm (27 1/2 inches), and it was directly adapted from the airborne FuG 240. Power output was 15kW, with a search angle of +80/− 5° and a frequency range: 3,250–3,330MHz (~10 cm). Range was, like the airborne variant, 0.5–9.0 kilometer. Power came from a separate generator directly attached to the vehicle’s Tatra diesel engine, hidden under an armored fairing on the bonnet that partly obscured the rear driver's field of view.

Beyond the radar system, the vehicle was furthermore equipped with a visual coincidence range finder, installed right through the turret. The system worked as follows: Light from the target entered the range finder through two windows located at either end of the instrument. At either side, the incident beam was reflected to the center of the optical bar by a pentaprism, and this optical bar was ideally made from a material with a low coefficient of thermal expansion so that optical path lengths would not change significantly with temperature. The reflected beam first passed through an objective lens and was then merged with the beam of the opposing side with an ocular prism sub-assembly to form two images of the target which were viewed by the observer through the eyepiece. Since either beam entered the instrument at a slightly different angle the resulting image, if unaltered, would appear blurry. Therefore, in one arm of the instrument, a compensator was integrated which could be adjusted by the operator to tilt the beam until the two images matched. At this point, the images were said to be in coincidence. The degree of rotation of the compensator determined the range to the target by simple triangulation, allowing the calculation of the distance to the observed object.

 

The optical bar had a span of 230 cm (90.75 in) and went right through the turret, just above the radar device installation. For the most effective range it even protruded from the turret on both sides like pylons, an arrangement that quickly earned the vehicle several nicknames like ‘Hirsch’, ‘Zwoender’ (a young stag with just two antlers) or ‘Ameise’ (ant). Fixed target reading with the rangefinder was effective on targets from 2,700 to 14,500 yards. Aerial courses could be recorded at all levels of flight and at a slant range between 4,000 and 12,000 yards - enough for visual identification beyond the group's effective gun ranges and perfectly suitable for long range observation.

 

The first Sd.Kfz. 234/6s reached, together with the first new FlaK tanks, the front units in summer 1945. Operating independently, they were primarily allocated to the defense of important production sites and of the city of Berlin, and they supported tank divisions through visual reconnaissance and general early warning duties. In due course they were supported and partly replaced by the bigger and more capable ‘Basilisk’ system, which had, due to the sheer bulk of the equipment, to be mounted on a tank chassis (initially on the Panzer V ‘Panther’ as the Sd.Kfz. 282/1 and from early 1946 onwards on the basis of the new Einheitspanzer E-50 hull as the Sd.Kfz. 282)

 

Operationally, the Sd. Kfz 234/6 was surprisingly successful, even though the radar remained capricious, its performance very limited and the unarmored equipment at the turret’s front was easily damaged in combat, even by light firearms. But the Sd.Kfz 234/6 offered, when the vehicle was placed in a location with a relatively free field of view (e. g. on a wide forest clearance or in an open field), a sufficient early warning performance against incoming bombers at medium to high altitudes, esp. when the general direction of incoming aircraft was already known.

The radar system even allowed a quick alert against low-flying aircraft, esp. when operating from higher ground. The radar information reduced the anti-aircraft tank/gun crews' reaction time considerably and allowed them to be prepared for incoming targets at the right altitude, direction and time. Hit probability was appreciably improved since quick passes of aircraft could be pre-determined.

 

Until the end of hostilities, probably fifty Sd.Kfz 234/6 were built new or converted from existing 8x8 chassis. Beyond this, the relatively light ‘Medusa’ device was furthermore mounted on outdated tracked armored vehicles like the Panzer III and IV, of which another forty vehicles were produced as Funkmess-/Flak-Kommandowagen III and IV.

  

Specifications:

Crew: Four (commander, radar operator, driver, radio operator/2nd driver)

Weight: 11,500 kg (25,330 lb)

Length: 6.02 m (19 ft 9 in)

Width: 2.36 m (7 ft 9 in)

Height: 2.84 meters (9 ft 4 in) w/o AA machine gun

Suspension: Wheeled (Tires: 270–20, bulletproof), with leaf springs

Track width: 1.95 m (6 ft 4 1/2 in)

Wading depth: 1.2 m (3 ft 11 in)

Trench crossing capability: 2m (6 ft 6 1/2 in)

Ground clearance: 350 mm (13 3/4 in)

Climbing capability: 30°

Fuel capacity: 360 l

Fuel consumption: 40 l/100 km on roads, 60 l/100 km off-road

 

Armor:

9-30 mm (.35-1.18 in)

 

Performance:

Maximum road speed: 80 km/h (49 mph)

Operational range: 950 km (590 mi)

Power/weight: 19 PS/t

 

Engine:

Air-cooled 14,825 cc (905³ in) Tatra 103 V12 diesel engine,

with 157 kW (220 hp) output at 2.200 RPM

 

Transmission:

Büssing-NAG "GS" with 3 forward and reverse gears, eight-wheel drive

 

Armament:

1× anti aircraft 7.92 mm Maschinengewehr 42 with 2.800 rounds

  

The kit and its assembly:

This whiffy and almost Ma.K-looking vehicle was inspired by the late WWII anti-aircraft tanks that never made it into hardware. I wondered how the gap between the simple visual aiming and the next logical step to surveillance and tracking radars could have been achieved, and the German airborne radars were a suitable place to start.

 

The idea of a dedicated vehicle was a logical step, since it would take many more years to develop a system that would be compact enough to be carried together with effective armament in just a single vehicle. It would take until the Sixties that such stand-alone systems like the Soviet ZSU-23-4 (1965) or the AMX-13 DCA (1969) would be produced.

 

I chose the light Sd.Kfz. 234 as basis because I do not think that a full armored tank would be devoted to a limited radar operation role, and instead of relying on heavy armor I deemed a light but fast vehicle (just like many other later AA tanks) to be the more plausible solution.

 

Basically, this is an OOB Hasegawa Sd.Kfz. 234/3, the “Stummel” with the short 7.5cm gun and an open hull. The latter was closed with 1mm styrene sheet and a mount for a turret added.

The turret itself is based on an Italeri Matilda Mk. II turret, but with a highly modified front that holds a resin ‘Cyrano’ radar (actually for an 1:72 Mirage F.1C) on a movable axis, an added rear extension and the antler fairings for the visual coincidence range finder. As a side note, similar systems were to be integrated into German late WWII combat tanks (e. g. in the Schmalturm), too, so this is another plausible piece of technology.

 

A German tank commander figure (from a vintage ESCI kit) populates the open hatch of the commander's cupola, the AA machine gun with its mount is an addition from the scrap box.

On the hull, the only modification is the additional generator fairing above the engine, for a slightly modified silhouette.

  

Painting and markings:

The turret looks weird enough, so I wanted a simple, yet typically late-WWII-German camouflage. I settled upon a geometric variation of the Hinterhalt three-tone scheme, primarily with dark yellow and olive green fields and stripe and a few red brown additions - inspired by a real late war Panther tank.

 

The basic color is RAL 7028 (modern variant, though), applied from the rattle can on the semi-finished hull and turret as a primer. On top of that, the shapes were added with acrylic dark grey-green (RAL 7009, Revell 67) and red brown (Humbrol 180) with a brush. The less bright colors were chosen on purpose for a low contrast finish, and the edgy shapes add a slightly SF-ish look.

 

A black ink wash and some dry-brushing along the many edges were used to weather the model and emphasize details. After decals had been applied, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish and some artist pigments were added around the wheels and lower hull in order to simulate dust and dirt. On the lower chassis, some pigments were also cluttered onto small patches of the acrylic varnish, so that the stuff soaks it up, builds volume and becomes solid - the perfect simulation of dry mud crusts.

  

A whiffy tank kit with a long background story - but the concept offers a lot of material to create a detailed story and description. And while the vehicle is a fantasy creation, it bears a weird plausibility. Should be a nice scenic addition to a (whiffy, too) German E-75 Flak tank (to be built some day)?

 

U.S. Air Force Fact Sheet

 

E-3 SENTRY (AWACS)

 

E-3 Sentry celebrates 30 years in Air Force's fleet

  

Mission

The E-3 Sentry is an airborne warning and control system, or AWACS, aircraft with an integrated command and control battle management, or C2BM, surveillance, target detection, and tracking platform. The aircraft provides an accurate, real-time picture of the battlespace to the Joint Air Operations Center. AWACS provides situational awareness of friendly, neutral and hostile activity, command and control of an area of responsibility, battle management of theater forces, all-altitude and all-weather surveillance of the battle space, and early warning of enemy actions during joint, allied, and coalition operations.

 

Features

The E-3 Sentry is a modified Boeing 707/320 commercial airframe with a rotating radar dome. The dome is 30 feet (9.1 meters) in diameter, six feet (1.8 meters) thick, and is held 11 feet (3.33 meters) above the fuselage by two struts. It contains a radar subsystem that permits surveillance from the Earth's surface up into the stratosphere, over land or water. The radar has a range of more than 250 miles (375.5 kilometers). The radar combined with an identification friend or foe, or IFF, subsystem can look down to detect, identify and track enemy and friendly low-flying aircraft by eliminating ground clutter returns that confuse other radar systems.

 

Major subsystems in the E-3 are avionics, navigation, communications, sensors (radar and passive detection) and identification tools (IFF/SIF). The mission suite includes consoles that display computer-processed data in graphic and tabular format on video screens. Mission crew members perform surveillance, identification, weapons control, battle management and communications functions.

 

The radar and computer subsystems on the E-3 Sentry can gather and present broad and detailed battlefield information. This includes position and tracking information on enemy aircraft and ships, and location and status of friendly aircraft and naval vessels. The information can be sent to major command and control centers in rear areas or aboard ships. In time of crisis, this data can also be forwarded to the president and secretary of defense.

 

In support of air-to-ground operations, the Sentry can provide direct information needed for interdiction, reconnaissance, airlift and close-air support for friendly ground forces. It can also provide information for commanders of air operations to gain and maintain control of the air battle.

 

As an air defense system, E-3s can detect, identify and track airborne enemy forces far from the boundaries of the United States or NATO countries. It can direct fighter-interceptor aircraft to these enemy targets. Experience has proven that the E-3 Sentry can respond quickly and effectively to a crisis and support worldwide military deployment operations.

 

AWACS may be employed alone or horizontally integrated in combination with other C2BM and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance elements of the Theater Air Control System. It supports decentralized execution of the air tasking order/air combat order. The system provides the ability to find, fix, track and target airborne or maritime threats and to detect, locate and ID emitters. It has the ability to detect threats and control assets below and beyond the coverage of ground-based command and control or C2, and can exchange data with other C2 systems and shooters via datalinks.

 

With its mobility as an airborne warning and control system, the Sentry has a greater chance of surviving in warfare than a fixed, ground-based radar system. Among other things, the Sentry's flight path can quickly be changed according to mission and survival requirements. The E-3 can fly a mission profile approximately 8 hours without refueling. Its range and on-station time can be increased through in-flight refueling and the use of an on-board crew rest area.

 

Background

Engineering, test and evaluation began on the first E-3 Sentry in October 1975. In March 1977 the 552nd Airborne Warning and Control Wing (now 552nd Air Control Wing, Tinker Air Force Base, Okla.), received the first E-3s.

 

There are 32 aircraft in the U.S. inventory. Air Combat Command has 27 E-3s at Tinker. Pacific Air Forces has four E-3 Sentries at Kadena AB, Japan and Elmendorf AFB, Alaska. There is also one test aircraft at the Boeing Aircraft Company in Seattle.

 

NATO has 17 E-3A's and support equipment. The first E-3 was delivered to NATO in January 1982. The United Kingdom has seven E-3s, France has four, and Saudi Arabia has five. Japan has four AWACS built on the Boeing 767 airframe.

 

As proven in operations Desert Storm, Allied Force, Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom, and Odyssey Dawn/Unified Protector the E-3 Sentry is the world's premier C2BM aircraft. AWACS aircraft and crews were instrumental to the successful completion of operations Northern and Southern Watch, and are still engaged in operations Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom. They provide radar surveillance and control in addition to providing senior leadership with time-critical information on the actions of enemy forces. The E-3 has also deployed to support humanitarian relief operations in the U.S. following Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, coordinating rescue efforts between military and civilian authorities.

 

The data collection capability of the E-3 radar and computer subsystems allowed an entire air war to be recorded for the first time in the history of aerial warfare.

 

In March 1996, the Air Force activated the 513th Air Control Group, an AWACS Reserve Associate Program unit which performs duties on active-duty aircraft.

 

During the spring of 1999, the first AWACS aircraft went through the Radar System Improvement Program. RSIP is a joint U.S./NATO development program that involved a major hardware and software intensive modification to the existing radar system. Installation of RSIP enhanced the operational capability of the E-3 radar electronic counter-measures and has improved the system's reliability, maintainability and availability.

 

The AWACS modernization program, Block 40/45, is currently underway. Bock 40/45 represents a revolutionary change for AWACS and worldwide Joint Command and Control, Battle Management, and Wide Area Surveillance. It is the most significant counter-air battle management improvement in Combat Air Forces tactical Command and Control history. The Block 40/45 Mission Computer and Display upgrade replaces current 1970 vintage mission computing and displays with a true open system and commercial off-the-shelf hardware and software, giving AWACS crews the modern computing tools needed to perform, and vastly improve mission capability. Estimated fleet upgrades completion in ~2020.

 

General Characteristics

Primary Function: Airborne battle management, command and control

Contractor: Boeing Aerospace Co.

Power Plant: Four Pratt and Whitney TF33-PW-100A turbofan engines

Thrust: 20,500 pounds each engine at sea level

Rotodome: 30 feet in diameter (9.1 meters), 6 feet thick (1.8 meters), mounted 11 feet (3.33 meters) above fuselage

Wingspan: 145 feet, 9 inches (44.4 meters)

Length: 152 feet, 11 inches (46.6 meters)

Height: 41 feet, 9 inches (13 meters)

Weight: 205,000 pounds (zero fuel) (92,986 kilograms)

Maximum Takeoff Weight: 325,000 pounds (147,418 kilograms)

Fuel Capacity: 21,000 gallons (79,494 liters)

Speed: optimum cruise 360 mph (Mach 0.48)

Range: more than 5,000 nautical miles (9,250 kilometers)

Ceiling: Above 29,000 feet (8,788 meters)

Crew: Flight crew of four plus mission crew of 13-19 specialists (mission crew size varies according to mission)

Unit Cost: $270 million (fiscal 98 constant dollars)

Initial operating capability: April 1978

Inventory: Active force, 32 (1 test); Reserve, 0; Guard, 0

  

Point of Contact

Air Combat Command, Public Affairs Office; 130 Andrews St., Suite 202; Langley AFB, VA 23665-1987; DSN 574-5007 or 757-764-5007; e-mail: accpa.operations@langley.af.mil

 

www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=98

Carol Raymond, far right, speaks during a news briefing to discuss the Dawn spacecraft's year-long visit to the asteroid Vesta, Thursday, June 23, 2011, at NASA headquarters in Washington as from left, Jim Adams, Robert Mase and Christopher Russell look on. Dawn's visit to Vesta will be the first prolonged encounter with a main belt asteroid and the first trip to a protoplanet, a large body that almost became a planet. Observations will help us understand the earliest chapter of our solar system's history. The mission is expected to go into orbit around Vesta on July 16 and begin gathering science data in early August. Photo Credit: (NASA/Paul E. Alers)

Using original Lego set, modify it with system's bricks. Adding claws and tail to increase the "scary" feeling.

 

This is harder than I thought it would be.

U.S. Air Force Fact Sheet

 

E-3 SENTRY (AWACS)

 

E-3 Sentry celebrates 30 years in Air Force's fleet

  

Mission

The E-3 Sentry is an airborne warning and control system, or AWACS, aircraft with an integrated command and control battle management, or C2BM, surveillance, target detection, and tracking platform. The aircraft provides an accurate, real-time picture of the battlespace to the Joint Air Operations Center. AWACS provides situational awareness of friendly, neutral and hostile activity, command and control of an area of responsibility, battle management of theater forces, all-altitude and all-weather surveillance of the battle space, and early warning of enemy actions during joint, allied, and coalition operations.

 

Features

The E-3 Sentry is a modified Boeing 707/320 commercial airframe with a rotating radar dome. The dome is 30 feet (9.1 meters) in diameter, six feet (1.8 meters) thick, and is held 11 feet (3.33 meters) above the fuselage by two struts. It contains a radar subsystem that permits surveillance from the Earth's surface up into the stratosphere, over land or water. The radar has a range of more than 250 miles (375.5 kilometers). The radar combined with an identification friend or foe, or IFF, subsystem can look down to detect, identify and track enemy and friendly low-flying aircraft by eliminating ground clutter returns that confuse other radar systems.

 

Major subsystems in the E-3 are avionics, navigation, communications, sensors (radar and passive detection) and identification tools (IFF/SIF). The mission suite includes consoles that display computer-processed data in graphic and tabular format on video screens. Mission crew members perform surveillance, identification, weapons control, battle management and communications functions.

 

The radar and computer subsystems on the E-3 Sentry can gather and present broad and detailed battlefield information. This includes position and tracking information on enemy aircraft and ships, and location and status of friendly aircraft and naval vessels. The information can be sent to major command and control centers in rear areas or aboard ships. In time of crisis, this data can also be forwarded to the president and secretary of defense.

 

In support of air-to-ground operations, the Sentry can provide direct information needed for interdiction, reconnaissance, airlift and close-air support for friendly ground forces. It can also provide information for commanders of air operations to gain and maintain control of the air battle.

 

As an air defense system, E-3s can detect, identify and track airborne enemy forces far from the boundaries of the United States or NATO countries. It can direct fighter-interceptor aircraft to these enemy targets. Experience has proven that the E-3 Sentry can respond quickly and effectively to a crisis and support worldwide military deployment operations.

 

AWACS may be employed alone or horizontally integrated in combination with other C2BM and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance elements of the Theater Air Control System. It supports decentralized execution of the air tasking order/air combat order. The system provides the ability to find, fix, track and target airborne or maritime threats and to detect, locate and ID emitters. It has the ability to detect threats and control assets below and beyond the coverage of ground-based command and control or C2, and can exchange data with other C2 systems and shooters via datalinks.

 

With its mobility as an airborne warning and control system, the Sentry has a greater chance of surviving in warfare than a fixed, ground-based radar system. Among other things, the Sentry's flight path can quickly be changed according to mission and survival requirements. The E-3 can fly a mission profile approximately 8 hours without refueling. Its range and on-station time can be increased through in-flight refueling and the use of an on-board crew rest area.

 

Background

Engineering, test and evaluation began on the first E-3 Sentry in October 1975. In March 1977 the 552nd Airborne Warning and Control Wing (now 552nd Air Control Wing, Tinker Air Force Base, Okla.), received the first E-3s.

 

There are 32 aircraft in the U.S. inventory. Air Combat Command has 27 E-3s at Tinker. Pacific Air Forces has four E-3 Sentries at Kadena AB, Japan and Elmendorf AFB, Alaska. There is also one test aircraft at the Boeing Aircraft Company in Seattle.

 

NATO has 17 E-3A's and support equipment. The first E-3 was delivered to NATO in January 1982. The United Kingdom has seven E-3s, France has four, and Saudi Arabia has five. Japan has four AWACS built on the Boeing 767 airframe.

 

As proven in operations Desert Storm, Allied Force, Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom, and Odyssey Dawn/Unified Protector the E-3 Sentry is the world's premier C2BM aircraft. AWACS aircraft and crews were instrumental to the successful completion of operations Northern and Southern Watch, and are still engaged in operations Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom. They provide radar surveillance and control in addition to providing senior leadership with time-critical information on the actions of enemy forces. The E-3 has also deployed to support humanitarian relief operations in the U.S. following Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, coordinating rescue efforts between military and civilian authorities.

 

The data collection capability of the E-3 radar and computer subsystems allowed an entire air war to be recorded for the first time in the history of aerial warfare.

 

In March 1996, the Air Force activated the 513th Air Control Group, an AWACS Reserve Associate Program unit which performs duties on active-duty aircraft.

 

During the spring of 1999, the first AWACS aircraft went through the Radar System Improvement Program. RSIP is a joint U.S./NATO development program that involved a major hardware and software intensive modification to the existing radar system. Installation of RSIP enhanced the operational capability of the E-3 radar electronic counter-measures and has improved the system's reliability, maintainability and availability.

 

The AWACS modernization program, Block 40/45, is currently underway. Bock 40/45 represents a revolutionary change for AWACS and worldwide Joint Command and Control, Battle Management, and Wide Area Surveillance. It is the most significant counter-air battle management improvement in Combat Air Forces tactical Command and Control history. The Block 40/45 Mission Computer and Display upgrade replaces current 1970 vintage mission computing and displays with a true open system and commercial off-the-shelf hardware and software, giving AWACS crews the modern computing tools needed to perform, and vastly improve mission capability. Estimated fleet upgrades completion in ~2020.

 

General Characteristics

Primary Function: Airborne battle management, command and control

Contractor: Boeing Aerospace Co.

Power Plant: Four Pratt and Whitney TF33-PW-100A turbofan engines

Thrust: 20,500 pounds each engine at sea level

Rotodome: 30 feet in diameter (9.1 meters), 6 feet thick (1.8 meters), mounted 11 feet (3.33 meters) above fuselage

Wingspan: 145 feet, 9 inches (44.4 meters)

Length: 152 feet, 11 inches (46.6 meters)

Height: 41 feet, 9 inches (13 meters)

Weight: 205,000 pounds (zero fuel) (92,986 kilograms)

Maximum Takeoff Weight: 325,000 pounds (147,418 kilograms)

Fuel Capacity: 21,000 gallons (79,494 liters)

Speed: optimum cruise 360 mph (Mach 0.48)

Range: more than 5,000 nautical miles (9,250 kilometers)

Ceiling: Above 29,000 feet (8,788 meters)

Crew: Flight crew of four plus mission crew of 13-19 specialists (mission crew size varies according to mission)

Unit Cost: $270 million (fiscal 98 constant dollars)

Initial operating capability: April 1978

Inventory: Active force, 32 (1 test); Reserve, 0; Guard, 0

  

Point of Contact

Air Combat Command, Public Affairs Office; 130 Andrews St., Suite 202; Langley AFB, VA 23665-1987; DSN 574-5007 or 757-764-5007; e-mail: accpa.operations@langley.af.mil

 

www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=98