View allAll Photos Tagged System's
+++ 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)?
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.
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/...
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
+++ 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)?
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
Blow Out Preventer Control System (BOP)
Monitor System's BOP Blow Out Preventer Control System provides clients with a highly reliable interface to well control, comprising a unique slim-line panel design developed using the very latest in leading-edge technology for operating in hazardous areas. The panel unit provides easy front access for maintenance purposes and is specifically designed to enable straightforward integration into old or new pneumatic / hydraulic interfaces. The BOP Control System is custom designed to suit all individual requirements.
Case Study
Blow Out Preventer Control System (BOP)
Overview: The BOP Control System designed and installed for Transocean's 714 rig was developed to integrate with their existing onboard field equipment. The system included a Driller's BOP control panel, a Tool Pusher's mini control panel and an Interface Panel to the Koomy Unit. In addition, there were Control Stations fitted to the aft and forward lifeboat muster points. All control and alarm signals were also integrated to the rig's Data Management System.
By upgrading to Monitor's BOP Control System, the client incurred less cost as the integration utilised existing pneumatic control panels and most existing cabling. This critical piece of safety equipment also provides a high level of ongoing availability and essential reliability ensuring low levels of costly operational downtime. Customer: Transocean.
Further Reading
Overview: A blowout preventer control system (BOP) is a large, specialized valve used to seal, control and monitor oil and gas wells. Blowout preventer control systems (BOPs) were developed to cope with extreme erratic pressures and uncontrolled flow (formation kick) emanating from a well reservoir during drilling. Kicks can lead to a potentially catastrophic event known as a blowout. In addition to controlling the downhole (occurring in the drilled hole) pressure and the flow of oil and gas, blowout preventer control system (BOP) are intended to prevent tubing (e.g. drill pipe and well casing), tools and drilling fluid from being blown out of the wellbore (also known as bore hole, the hole leading to the reservoir) when a blowout threatens. Blowout preventer control systems (BOPs) are critical to the safety of crew, rig (the equipment system used to drill a wellbore) and environment, and to the monitoring and maintenance of well integrity; thus blowout preventer control systems (BOP's) are intended to be fail-safe devices.(Blow Out Preventer Control System BOP, oil and gas industry)
The term BOP (an initialism rather than a spoken acronym, i.e., pronounced B-O-P, not "bop") is used in oilfield vernacular to refer to blowout preventers.
The abbreviated term preventer, usually prefaced by a type (e.g. ram preventer), is used to refer to a single blowout preventer unit. A blowout preventer control systems (BOPs) may also simply be referred to by its type (e.g. ram).
The terms blowout preventer, blowout preventer stack and blowout preventer system are commonly used interchangeably and in a general manner to describe an assembly of several stacked blowout preventers of varying type and function, as well as auxiliary components. A typical subsea deepwater blowout preventer control systes (BOP) includes components such as electrical and hydraulic lines, control pods, hydraulic accumulators, test valve, kill and choke lines and valves, riser joint, hydraulic connectors, and a support frame. Two categories of blowout preventer are most prevalent: ram and annular. Blowout preventer control systems (BOPs) frequently utilize both types, typically with at least one annular BOP stacked above several ram BOPs.
(A related valve, called an inside blowout preventer, internal blowout preventer, or IBOP, is positioned within, and restricts flow up, the drillpipe. Blowout preventer control systems (BOPs) are used at land and offshore rigs, and subsea. Land and subsea BOPs are secured to the top of the wellbore, known as the wellhead. Blowout preventer control systems (BOPs) on offshore rigs are mounted below the rig deck. Subsea Blowout preventer control systems (BOPs) are connected to the offshore rig above by a drilling riser that provides a continuous pathway for the drill string and fluids emanating from the wellbore. In effect, a riser extends the wellbore to the rig. (Blow Out Preventer Control System BOP, oil and gas industry)
Use
The invention of Blowout preventer control systems (BOPs) was instrumental in reducing the incidence of oil gushers, blowouts, indicating that substantial improvement is needed. Blowout preventer control systems (BOPs) come in a variety of styles, sizes and pressure ratings. Several individual units serving various functions are combined to compose a blowout preventer stack. Multiple blowout preventers of the same type are frequently provided for redundancy, an important factor in the effectiveness of fail-safe devices.
The primary functions of a blowout preventer system are to:
Confine well fluid to the wellbore;
Provide means to add fluid to the wellbore;
Allow controlled volumes of fluid to be withdrawn from the wellbore.
Additionally, and in performing those primary functions, blowout preventer systems are used to:
Regulate and monitor wellbore pressure;
Center and hang off the drill string in the wellbore;
Shut in the well (e.g. seal the void, annulus, between drillpipe and casing);
“Kill” the well (prevent the flow of formation fluid, influx, from the reservoir into the wellbore) ;
Seal the wellhead (close off the wellbore);
Sever the casing or drill pipe (in case of emergencies).
In drilling a typical high-pressure well, drill strings are routed through a blowout preventer control system (BOP) stack toward the reservoir of oil and gas. As the well is drilled, drilling fluid, "mud", is fed through the drill string down to the drill bit, "blade", and returns up the wellbore in the ring-shaped void, annulus, between the outside of the drill pipe and the casing (piping that lines the wellbore). The column of drilling mud exerts downward hydrostatic pressure to counter opposing pressure from the formation being drilled, allowing drilling to proceed. When a kick (influx of formation fluid) occurs, rig operators or automatic systems close the blowout preventer control system (BOP) units, sealing the annulus to stop the flow of fluids out of the wellbore. Denser mud is then circulated into the wellbore down the drill string, up the annulus and out through the choke line at the base of the blowout preventer control system (BOP) stack through chokes (flow restrictors) until downhole pressure is overcome. Once “kill weight” mud extends from the bottom of the well to the top, the well has been “killed”. If the integrity of the well is intact drilling may be resumed. Alternatively, if circulation is not feasible it may be possible to kill the well by "bullheading", forcibly pumping, in the heavier mud from the top through the kill line connection at the base of the stack. This is less desirable because of the higher surface pressures likely needed and the fact that much of the mud originally in the annulus must be forced into receptive formations in the open hole section beneath the deepest casing shoe. (Blow Out Preventer Control System BOP, oil and gas industry)
If the blowout preventers and mud do not restrict the upward pressures of a kick, a blowout results, potentially shooting tubing, oil and gas up the wellbore, damaging the rig, and leaving well integrity in question. (Blow Out Preventer Control System BOP, oil and gas industry)
Since blowout preventer control systems (BOPs) are important for the safety of the crew and natural environment, as well as the drilling rig and the wellbore itself, authorities recommend, and regulations require, that blowout preventer control systems (BOPs) be regularly inspected, tested and refurbished. Tests vary from daily test of functions on critical wells to monthly or less frequent testing on wells with low likelihood of control problems. Exploitable reservoirs of oil and gas are increasingly rare and remote, leading to increased subsea deepwater well exploration and requiring BOPs to remain submerged for as long as a year in extreme conditions. As a result, blowout preventer control system (BOP) assemblies have grown larger and heavier (e.g. a single ram-type BOP unit can weigh in excess of 30,000 pounds), while the space allotted for blowout preventer control system (BOP) stacks on existing offshore rigs has not grown commensurately. Thus a key focus in the technological development of blowout preventer control systems (BOPs) over the last two decades has been limiting their footprint and weight while simultaneously increasing safe operating capacity. (Blow Out Preventer Control System BOP, oil and gas industry).
Types
Blowout preventer control systems (BOPs) come in two basic types, ram and annular. Both are often used together in drilling rig blowout preventer control system (BOP) stacks, typically with at least one annular BOP capping a stack of several ram BOPs.
Ram Blowout Preventer
The ram blowout preventer control system (BOP) was invented by James Smither Abercrombie and Harry S. Cameron in 1922, and was brought to market in 1924 by Cameron Iron Works. A ram-type BOP is similar in operation to a gate valve, but uses a pair of opposing steel plungers, rams. The rams extend toward the center of the wellbore to restrict flow or retract open in order to permit flow. The inner and top faces of the rams are fitted with packers (elastomeric seals) that press against each other, against the wellbore, and around tubing running through the wellbore. Outlets at the sides of the blowout preventer control system (BOP) housing (body) are used for connection to choke and kill lines or valves. Rams, or ram blocks, are of four common types: pipe, blind, shear, and blind shear. (Blow Out Preventer Control System BOP, oil and gas industry)
Pipe rams close around a drill pipe, restricting flow in the annulus (ring-shaped space between concentric objects) between the outside of the drill pipe and the wellbore, but do not obstruct flow within the drill pipe. Variable-bore pipe rams can accommodate tubing in a wider range of outside diameters than standard pipe rams, but typically with some loss of pressure capacity and longevity.
Blind rams (also known as sealing rams), which have no openings for tubing, can close off the well when the well does not contain a drill string or other tubing, and seal it.
Blind shear rams (also known as shear seal rams, or sealing shear rams) are intended to seal a wellbore, even when the bore is occupied by a drill string, by cutting through the drill string as the rams close off the well. The upper portion of the severed drill string is freed from the ram, while the lower portion may be crimped and the “fish tail” captured to hang the drill string off the blowout preventer control system (BOP).
In addition to the standard ram functions, variable-bore pipe rams are frequently used as test rams in a modified blowout preventer device known as a stack test valve. Stack test valves are positioned at the bottom of a BOP stack and resist downward pressure (unlike BOPs, which resist upward pressures). By closing the test ram and a blowout preventer control system (BOP) ram about the drillstring and pressurizing the annulus, the BOP is pressure-tested for proper function. (Blow Out Preventer Control System BOP, oil and gas industry)
The original ram blowout preventer control systems (BOPs) of the 1920s were simple and rugged manual devices with minimal parts. The BOP housing (body) had a vertical well bore and horizontal ram cavity (ram guide chamber). Opposing rams (plungers) in the ram cavity translated horizontally, actuated by threaded ram shafts (piston rods) in the manner of a screw jack. Torque from turning the ram shafts by wrench or hand wheel was converted to linear motion and the rams, coupled to the inner ends of the ram shafts, opened and closed the well bore. Such screw jack type operation provided enough mechanical advantage for rams to overcome downhole pressures and seal the wellbore annulus. (Blow Out Preventer Control System BOP, oil and gas industry)
Hydraulic rams blowout preventer control systems (BOPs) were in use by the 1940s. Hydraulically actuated blowout preventers had many potential advantages. The pressure could be equalized in the opposing hydraulic cylinders causing the rams to operate in unison. Relatively rapid actuation and remote control were facilitated, and hydraulic rams were well-suited to high pressure wells. Because blowout preventer control systems (BOPs) are fail-safe devices, efforts to minimize the complexity of the devices are still employed to ensure ram blowout preventer control system (BOP) reliability and longevity. As a result, despite the ever-increasing demands placed on them, state of the art ram BOPs are conceptually the same as the first effective models, and resemble those units in many ways.
Ram BOPs for use in deepwater applications universally employ hydraulic actuation. Threaded shafts are often still incorporated into hydraulic ram BOPs as lock rods that hold the ram in position after hydraulic actuation. By using a mechanical ram locking mechanism, constant hydraulic pressure need not be maintained. Lock rods may be coupled to ram shafts or not, depending on manufacturer. Other types of ram locks, such as wedge locks, are also used.
Typical ram actuator assemblies (operator systems) are secured to the blowout preventer control system (BOP) housing by removable bonnets. Unbolting the bonnets from the housing allows BOP maintenance and facilitates the substitution of rams. In that way, for example, a pipe ram blowout preventer control system (BOP) can be converted to a blind shear ram BOP. (Blow Out Preventer Control System BOP, oil and gas industry)
Shear-type ram BOPs require the greatest closing force in order to cut through tubing occupying the wellbore. Boosters (auxiliary hydraulic actuators) are frequently mounted to the outer ends of a blowout preventer control systems (BOPs) hydraulic actuators to provide additional shearing force for shear rams.
Ram BOPs are typically designed so that well pressure will help maintain the rams in their closed, sealing position. That is achieved by allowing fluid to pass to pass through a channel in the ram and exert pressure at the ram’s rear and toward the center of the wellbore. Providing a channel in the ram also limits the thrust required to overcome well bore pressure.
Single ram and double ram blowout preventer control systems (BOPs) are commonly available. The names refer to the quantity of ram cavities (equivalent to the effective quantity of valves) contained in the unit. A double ram BOP is more compact and lighter than a stack of two single ram blowout preventer control systems (BOPs) while providing the same functionality, and is thus desirable in many applications. Triple ram BOPs are also manufactured, but not as common. (Blow Out Preventer Control System BOP, oil and gas industry)
Technological development of ram BOPs has been directed towards deeper and higher pressure wells, greater reliability, reduced maintenance, facilitated replacement of components, facilitated ROV intervention, reduced hydraulic fluid consumption, and improved connectors, packers, seals, locks and rams. In addition, limiting BOP weight and footprint are significant concerns to account for the limitations of existing rigs.
The highest-capacity large-bore ram blowout preventer on the market, as of July 2010, Cameron’s EVO 20K blowout preventer control system (BOP), has a hold-pressure rating of 20,000 psi, ram force in excess of 1,000,000 pounds, and a well bore diameter of 18.75 inches. (Blow Out Preventer Control System BOP, oil and gas industry)
The "Vortex" ground support turret merges the baseline "Viper" turret with the Vanguard air defence system's 35mm Oerlikon revolver cannon. Secondary armament is a M226 Sentry .50 cal RWS.
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
The solar system’s four largest planets are compared with the Earth in this photo montage. Prepared for NASA by Stephen Paul Meszaros.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Sondergerät SG104 "Münchhausen" was a German airborne recoillless 355.6 mm (14-inch) caliber gun, intended to engage even the roughest enemy battleships, primarily those of the Royal Navy. The design of this unusual and massive weapon began in 1939. The rationale behind it was that a battleship’s most vulnerable part was the deck – a flat surface, with relatively thin armor (as typical hits were expected on the flanks) and ideally with vital targets underneath, so that a single, good hit would cripple of even destroy a ship. The purpose of such a high angle of attack was likely to allow the projectile to penetrate the target ship's deck, where the ship's armor, if there was any, would have been much thinner than the armor on its sidesHowever, hitting the deck properly with another ship’s main gun was not easy, since it could only be affected through indirect hits and the typical angle of the attack from aballistic shot would not necessarily be ideal for deep penetration, esp. at long range.
The solution to this problem: ensure that the heavy projectile would hit its target directly from above, ideally at a very steep angle. To achieve this, the gun with battleship caliber was “relocated” from a carrier ship or a coastal battery onto an aircraft – specifically to a type that was capable of dive-bombing, a feature that almost any German bomber model of the time offered.
Firing such a heavy weapon caused a lot fo problems, which were severe even if the gun was mounted on a ship or on land. To compensate for such a large-caliber gun’s recoil and to make firing a 14 in shell (which alone weighed around almost 700 kg/1.550 lb, plus the charge) from a relatively light airframe feasible, the respective gun had to be as light as possible and avoid any recoil, which would easily tear an aircraft – even a bomber – apart upon firing. Therefore, the Gerät 104 was designed as a recoilless cannon. Its firing system involved venting the same amount of the weapon's propellant gas for its round to the rear of the launch tube (which was open at both ends), in the same fashion as a rocket launcher. This created a forward directed momentum which was nearly equal to the rearward momentum (recoil) imparted to the system by accelerating the projectile itself. The balance thus created did not leave much net momentum to be imparted to the weapon's mounting or the carrying airframe in the form of felt recoil. A further share of the recoil induced by the moving round itself could be compensated by a muzzle brake which re-directed a part of the firing gases backwards. Since recoil had been mostly negated, a heavy and complex recoil damping mechanism was not necessary – even though the weapon itself was huge and heavy.
Work on the "Münchhausen" device (a secret project handle after a fictional German nobleman created by the German writer Rudolf Erich Raspe in the late 18th century who reputedly had ridden on a cannonball between enemy frontlines), was done by Rheinmetall-Borsig and lasted until 1941. The first test of a prototype weapon was conducted on 9th of September 1940 in Unterlüss with a satisfactory result, even though the weapon was only mounted onto an open rack and not integrated into an airframe yet. At that time, potential carriers were the Ju 88, the Dornier Do 217 and the new Junkers Ju 288. Even though the system’s efficacy was doubted, the prospect of delivering a single, fatal blow to an important , armored arget superseded any doubts at the RLM, and the project was greenlit in early 1942 for the next stage: the integration of the Sondergerät 104 into an existing airframe. The Ju 88 and its successor, the Ju 188, turned out to be too light and lacked carrying capacity for the complete, loaded weapon, and the favored Ju 288 was never produced, so that only the Dornier Do 217 or the bigger He 177 remained as a suitable carriers. The Do 217 was eventually chosen because it had the biggest payload and the airframe was proven and readily available.
After calculations had verified that the designed 14 in rifle would have effectively no recoil, preliminary tests with dumm airframes were carried out. After ground trials with a Do 217 E day bomber to check recoil and blast effects on the airframe, the development and production of a limited Nullserie (pre-production series) of the dedicated Do 217 F variant for field tests and eventual operational use against British sea and land targets was ordered in April 1942.
The resulting Do 217 F-0 was based on the late “E” bomber variant and powered by a pair of BMW 801 radial engines. It was, however, heavily modified for its unique weapon and the highly specialized mission profile: upon arriving at the zone of operation at high altitude, the aircraft would initiate a dive with an angle of attack between 50° and 80° from the horizontal, firing the SG 104 at an altitude between 6,000 and 2,000 meters. The flight time of the projectile could range from 16.0 seconds for a shot from an altitude of 6,000 meters at a 50° angle to just 4.4 seconds for a shot from 2.000 meters at an almost vertical 80° angle. Muzzle velocity of the SG 104 was only 300 m/s, but, prior to impact, the effective velocity of the projectile was projected to range between 449 and 468 m/s (1,616 to 1,674 km/h). Together with the round's weight of roughly 700 kg (1.550 lb) and a hardened tip, this would still ensure a high penetration potential.
The operational Sondergerät 104 had an empty mass of 2.780 kg (6,123 lb) and its complete 14 inch double cartridge weighed around 1.600 kg (3,525 lb). The loaded mass of the weapon was 4,237 kg, stretching the limits of the Do 217’s load capacity to the maximum, so that some armor and less vital pieces of equipment were deleted. Crew and defensive armament were reduced to a minimum.
Even though there had been plans to integrate the wepaon into the airframe (on the Ju 288), the Gerät 104 was on the Do 217 F-0 mounted externally and occupied the whole space under the aircraft, precluding any use of the bomb bay. The latter was occupied by the Gerät 104’s complex mount, which extended to the outside under a streamlined fairing and held the weapon at a distance from the airframe. Between the mount’s struts inside of the fuselage, an additional fuel tank for balance reasons was added, too.
The gun’s center, where the heavy round was carried, was positioned under the aircraft’s center of gravity, so that the gun barrel markedly protruded from under the aircraft’s nose. To make enough space, the Do 217 Es bomb aimer’s ventral gondola and his rearward-facing defensive position under the cockpit were omitted and faired over. The nose section was also totally different: the original extensive glazing (the so-called “Kampfkopf”) was replaced by a smaller, conventional canopy, similar to the later Do 217 J and N night fighter versions, together with a solid nose - the original glass panels would have easily shattered upon firing the gun, esp. in a steep high-speed dive. A "Lotfernrohr" bomb aiming device was still installed in a streamlined and protected fairing, though, so that the navigator could guide the pilot during the approach to the target and during the attack run.
To stabilize the heavy aircraft during its attack and to time- and safely pull out of the dive, a massive mechanical dive brake was mounted at the extended tail tip, which unfolded with four "petals". A charecteristic stabilizing dorsal strake was added between the twin fins, too.
The ventral area behind the gun’s rear-facing muzzle received additional metal plating and blast guiding vanes, after trials in late 1940 had revealed that firing the SG 104 could easily damage the Do 217’s tail structure, esp. all of the tail surfaces’ rudders and the fins’ lower ends in particular. Due to all this extra weight, the Do 217 F-0’s defensive armament consisted only of a single 13 mm MG 131 machine gun in a manually operated dorsal position behind the cockpit cabin, which offered space for a crew of three. A fixed 15 mm MG 151 autocannon was mounted in the nose, too, a weapon with a long barrel for extended range and accuracy. It was not an offensive weapon, though, rather intended as an aiming aid for the SG 104 because it was loaded with tracer bullets: during the final phase of the attack dive, the pilot kept firing the MG 151, and the bullet trail showed if he was on target to fire the SG 104 when the right altitude/range had been reached.
The first Do 217 F-0 was flown and tested in late 1943, and after some detail changes the type was cleared for a limited production run of ten aircraft in January 1944. The first operational machine was delivered to a dedicated testing commando, the Erprobungskommando 104 “Münchhausen”, also known as “Sonderkommando Münchhausen” or simply “E-Staffel 104”. The unit was based at Bordeaux/Merignac and directly attached to the KG 40's as a staff flight. At that time, KG 40 operated Do 217 and He 177 bombers and frequently flew reconnaissance and anti-shipping missions over the Atlantic west of France, up to the British west and southern coast, equipped with experimental Henschel Hs 293 glide bombs.
Initial flights confirmed that the Do 217 airframe was burdened with the SG 104 to its limits, the already rather sluggish aircraft (the Do 217 had generally a high wing loading and was not easy to fly) lost anything that was left of what could be called agility. It needed an experienced pilot to handle it safely, esp. during start and landing. It is no wonder that two Do 217 F-0s suffered ground accidents during the first two weeks of operations, but the machines could be repaired, resume the test program and carry out attack missions.
However, during one of the first test shots with the weapon, one Do 217 F-0 lost its complete tail section though the gun blast, and the aircraft crashed into the Bay of Biscay, killing the complete crew.
On 4th or April 1944 the first "hot" attack against an enemy ship was executed in the Celtic Sea off of Brest, against a convoy of 20 ships homeward bound from Gibraltar. The attack was not successful, though, the shot missing its target, and the German bomber was attacked and heavily damaged by British Bristol Beaufighters that had been deployed to protect the ships. The Do 217F-0 eventually crashed and sank into the Atlantic before it could reach land again.
A couple of days later, on 10th of April, the first attempt to attack and destroy a land target was undertaken: two Do 217 F-0s took off to attack Bouldnor Battery, an armored British artillery position located on the Isle of Wight. One machine had to abort the attack due to oil leakages, the second Do 217 F-0 eventually reached its target and made a shallow attack run, but heavy fog obscured the location and the otherwise successful shot missed the fortification. Upon return to its home base the aircraft was intercepted by RAF fighters over the Channel and heavily damaged, even though German fighters deployed from France came to the rescue, fought the British attackers off and escorted the limping Do 217 F-0 back to its home base.
These events revealed that the overall SG 104 concept was generally feasible, but also showed that the Do 217 F-0 was very vulnerable without air superiority or a suitable escort, so that new tactics had to be developed. One consequence was that further Do 217 F-0 deployments were now supported by V/KG 40, the Luftwaffe's only long range maritime fighter unit. These escorts consisted of Junkers Ju 88C-6s, which were capable of keeping up with the Do 217 F-0 and fend of intercepting RAF Coastal Command’s Beaufighters and later also Mosquitos.
In the meantime, tests with the SG 104 progressed and several modifications were tested on different EKdo 104's Do 217 F-0s. One major upgrade was a further strengthening of the tail section, which added another 200 kg (440 lb) to the aircraft's dry weight. Furthermore, at least three aircraft were outfitted with additional dive brakes under the outer wings, so that the dive could be better controlled and intercepted. these aircraft, however, lost their plumbed underwing hardpoints, but these were only ever used for drop tanks during transfer flights - a loaded SG 104 precluded any other ordnance. On two other aircraft the SG 104 was modified to test different muzzle brakes and deflectors for the rear-facing opening, so that the gun blast was more effectively guided away from the airframe to prevent instability and structural damage. For instance, one machine was equipped with a bifurcated blast deflector that directed the rearward gasses partly sideways, away from the fuselage.
These tests did not last long, though. During the Allied Normandy landings in June 1944 E-Staffel 104 was hastily thrown into action and made several poorly-prepared attack runs against Allied support ships. The biggest success was a full hit and the resulting sinking of the Norwegian destroyer HNoMS Svenner (G03) by "1A+BA" at dawn on 6th of June, off Sword, one of the Allied landing zones. Other targets were engaged, too, but only with little effect. This involvement, however, led to the loss of three Do 217 F-0s within just two days and four more heavily damaged aircraft – leaving only two of EKdo 104's Do 217 F-0s operational.
With the Allied invasion of France and a worsening war condition, the SG 104 program was stopped in August 1944 and the idea of an airborne anti-ship gun axed in favor of more flexible guided weapons like the Hs 293 missile and the Fritz-X glide bomb. Plans for a further developed weapon with a three-round drum magazine were immediately stopped, also because there was no carrier aircraft in sight that could carry and deploy this complex 6.5 tons weapon. However, work on the SG 104 and the experience gained from EKdo 104's field tests were not in vain. The knowledge gathered from the Münchhausen program was directly used for the design of a wide range of other, smaller recoilless aircraft weapons, including the magnetically-triggered SG 113 "Förstersonde" anti-tank weapon or the lightweight SG 118 "Rohrblock" unguided air-to-air missile battery for the Heinkel He 162 "Volksjäger".
General characteristics:
Crew: 3 (pilot, navigator, radio operator/gunner)
Length: 20,73 m (67 ft 11 in) overall
18,93 m (62 ft 3/4 in) hull only
Wingspan: 19 m (62 ft 4 in)
Height: 4.97 m (16 ft 4 in)
Wing area: 57 m² (610 sq ft)
Empty weight: 9,065 kg (19,985 lb)
Empty equipped weight:10,950 kg (24,140 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 16,700 kg (36,817 lb)
Fuel capacity: 2,960 l (780 US gal; 650 imp gal) in fuselage tank and four wing tanks
Powerplant:
2× BMW 801D-2 14-cylinder air-cooled radial piston engines, delivering
1,300 kW (1,700 hp) each for take-off and 1,070 kW (1,440 hp) at 5,700 m (18,700 ft),
driving 3-bladed VDM constant-speed propellers
Performance:
Maximum speed: 475 km/h (295 mph, 256 kn) at sea level
560 km/h (350 mph; 300 kn) at 5,700 m (18,700 ft)
Cruise speed: 400 km/h (250 mph, 220 kn) with loaded Gerät 104 at optimum altitude
Range: 2,180 km (1,350 mi, 1,180 nmi) with maximum internal fuel
Ferry range: 2,500 km (1,600 mi, 1,300 nmi); unarmed, with auxiliary fuel tanks
Service ceiling: 7,370 m (24,180 ft) with loaded Gerät 104,
9,500 m (31,200 ft) after firing
Rate of climb: 3.5 m/s (690 ft/min)
Time to altitude: 1,000 m (3,300 ft) in 4 minutes 10 seconds
2,000 m (6,600 ft) in 8 minutes 20 seconds
6,100 m (20,000 ft) in 24 minutes 40 seconds
Armament:
1x 355.6 mm (14-inch) Sondergerät 104 recoilless gun with a single round in ventral position
1x 15 mm (0.787 in) MG 151 machine cannon with 200 rounds, fixed in the nose
1x 13 mm (0.512 in) MG 131 machine gun with 500 rounds, movable in dorsal position
Two underwing hardpoints for a 900 l drop tank each, but only used during unarmed ferry flights
The kit and its assembly:
This was another submission to the "Gunships" group build at whatifmodellers.com in late 2021, and inspiration struck when I realized that I had two Italeri Do 217 in The Stash - a bomber and a night fighter - that could be combined into a suitable (fictional) carrier for a Sondergerät 104. This mighty weapon actually existed and even reached the hardware/test stage - but it was never integrated into an airframe and tested in flight. But that's what this model is supposed to depict.
On the Do 217, the Sg 104 would have been carried externally under the fuselage, even though there had been plans to integrate this recoilless rifle into airframes, esp. into the Ju 288. Since the latter never made it into production, the Do 217 would have been the most logical alternative, also because it had the highest payload of all German bombers during WWII and probably the only aircraft capable of carrying and deploying the Münchhausen device, as the SG 104 was also known.
The fictional Do 217 F-0 is a kitbashing, using a Do 217 N fuselage, combined with the wings from a Do 217 K bomber, plus some modifications. What initially sounded like a simple plan soon turned into a improvisation mess: it took some time to realize that I had already donated the Do 217 K's BMW 801 engines to another project, an upgraded He 115... I did not want to use the nightfighter's more powerful DB 603s, and I was lucky to have an Italeri Ju 188 kit at hand which comes with optional BMW 801s and Jumo 211s. Transplanting these engines onto the Do 217's wings took some tailoring of the adapter plates, but was feasible. However, the BMW 801s from the Ju 188 kit have a flaw: they lack the engine's characteristic cooling fans... Another lucky find: I found two such parts in the scrap box, even though from different kits - one left over from another Italeri Do 217 K, the other one from what I assume is/was an Italeri 1:72 Fw 190 A/F. To make matters worse, one propeller from the Ju 188 kit was missing, so that I had to find a(nother) replacement. :-/
I eventually used something that looked like an 1:72 F6F Hellcat propeller, but I an not certain about this because I have never built this model...? With some trimming on the blades' trailing edges and other mods, the donor's overall look could be adapted to the Ju 188 benchmark. Both propellers were mounted on metal axis' so that they could also carry the cooling fans. Lots of work, but the result looks quite good.
The Do 217 N's hull lost the lower rear gunner position and its ventral gondola, which was faired over with a piece of styrene sheet. The pilot was taken OOB, the gunner in the rear position was replaced by a more blob-like crew member from the scrap box. The plan to add a navigator in the seat to the lower right of the pilot did not work out due to space shortage, but this figure would probably have been invisble, anyway.
All gun openings in the nose were filled and PSRed away, and a fairing for a bomb aiming device and a single gun (the barrel is a hollow steel needle) were added.
The SG 104 was scratched. Starting point was a white metal replacement barrel for an 1:35 ISU-152 SPG with a brass muzzle brake. However, after dry-fitting the barrel under the hull the barrel turned out to be much too wide, so that only the muzzal brake survived and the rest of the weapon was created from a buddy refueling pod (from an Italeri 1:72 Luftwaffe Tornado, because of its two conical ends) and protective plastic caps from medical canulas. To attach this creation to the hull I abused a conformal belly tank from a Matchbox Gloster Meteor night fighter and tailored it into a streamlined fairing. While this quite a Frankenstein creation, the overall dimensions match the real SG 104 prototype and its look well.
Other cosmetic modifications include a pair of underwing dive brakes, translanted from an Italeri 1:72 Ju 88 A-4 kit, an extended (scratched) tail "stinger" which resembles the real dive brake arrangement that was installed on some Do 217 E bombers, and I added blast deflector vanes and a dorsal stabilizer fin.
In order to provide the aircraft with enough ground clearance, the tail wheel was slightly extended. Thanks to the long tail stinger, this is not blatantly obvious.
Painting and markings:
This was not an easy choice, but as a kind of prototype I decided that the paint scheme should be rather conservative. However, German aircraft operating over the Atlantic tended to carry rather pale schemes, so that the standard pattern of RLM 70/71/65 (Dunkelgrün, Schwarzgrün and Hellblau) with a low waterline - typical for experimental types - would hardly be appropriate.
I eventually found a compromise on a He 177 bomber (coded 6N+BN) from 1944 that was operated by KG 100: this particular aircraft had a lightened upper camouflage - still a standard splinter scheme but consisting of RLM 71 and 02 (Dunkelgrün and Grau; I used Modelmaster 2081 and Humbrol 240), a combination that had been used on German fighters during the Battle of Britain when the standard colors turned out to be too dark for operations over the Channel. The aircraft also carried standard RLM 65 (or maybe the new RLM76) underneath (Humbrol 65) and on the fin, but with a very high and slightly wavy waterline. As a rather unusual feature, no typical camouflage mottles were carried on the flanks or the fin, giving the aircraft a very bleak and simple look.
Despite my fears that this might look rather boring I adapted this scheme for the Do 217 F-0, and once basic painting was completed I was rather pleased by the aircraft's look! As an aircraft operated at the Western front, no additional markings like fuselage bands were carried.
To set the SG 104 apart from the airframe, I painted the weapon's visible parts in RLM 66 (Schwarzgrau, Humbrol 67), because this tone was frequently used for machinery (including the interior surfaces of aircraft towards 1945).
RLM 02 was also used for the interior surfaces and the landing gear, even though I used a slightly different, lighter shade in form of Revell 45 (Helloliv).
A light black ink washing was applied and post-shading to emphasize panel lines. Most markings/decals came from a Begemot 1:72 He 11 sheet, including the unusual green tactical code - it belongs to a staff unit, a suitable marking for such an experimental aircraft. The green (Humbrol 2) was carried over to the tips of the propeller spinners. The unit's code "1A" is fictional, AFAIK this combination had never been used by the Luftwaffe.
The small unit badge was alucky find: it actually depicts the fictional Baron von Münchhausen riding on a cannonball, and it comes from an Academy 1:72 Me 163 kit and its respective sheet. The mission markings underneath, depicting two anti-ship missions plus a successful sinking, came from a TL Modellbau 1:72 scale sheet with generic German WWII victory markings.
After some soot stains around the engine exhaust and weapon muzzles had been added with graphite, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish and final details like position lights and wire antennae (from heated black plastic sprue material) were added.
Well, what started as a combination of two kits of the same kind with a simple huge pipe underneath turned out to be more demanding than expected. The (incomplete) replacement engines were quite a challenge, and body work on the hull (tail stinger, fairing for the SG 104 as well as the weapon itself) turned out to be more complex and extensive than initially thought of. The result looks quite convincing, also supported by the rather simple paint scheme which IMHO just "looks right" and very convincing. And the whole thing is probably the most direct representation of the inspiring "Gunship" theme!
Sandia’s high-performance computing facility received a DOE Sustainability Award and LEED Gold certification for its efforts to support green and sustainable building and construction. The certification puts Sandia in the top 20 for most efficient data centers in the world.
Some of the computers housed within the data center do not use water cooling exclusively. To handle this, the building was designed with the Airside Economizer, an outdoor air-cooling system. When the air temperature nears 100 degrees, the Airside Economizer system’s giant exhaust fans vent hot air from the facility and pull in fresh air.
Learn more at bit.ly/3g3hqr9
Photo by Bret Latter
On August 9, 2022, Veterans Affairs Deputy Secretary Donald M. Remy traveled to Little Rock, Arkansas, starting his visit at the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States (EANGUS) 51st National Conference before going to the Central Arkansas Veteran Healthcare System’s Eugene J. Towbin VA Medical Center in North Little Rock, VA’s Law Enforcement Training Center and Little Rock National Cemetery.
Photo: Remy met with Veterans and staff of Little Rock VAMC. (VA photo/Jeff Bowen)
Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner’s parachute systems are successfully tested at the U.S. Army’s White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico on June 24, 2019. Boeing conducted the test using a full-scale Starliner test article, known as a boiler plate, designed to simulate the actual spacecraft. The test involved intentionally disabling one of the parachute system’s two drogue parachutes and one of the three main parachutes to evaluate how the remaining parachutes handled the additional loads during deployment and descent. This was one of a series of important parachute tests to validate the system is safe to carry astronauts to and from the International Space Station as part of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. Boeing is targeting an uncrewed Orbital Flight Test to the space station this summer, followed by its Crew Flight Test. Starliner will launch atop a United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket from Space Launch Complex 41 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. Photo credit: Boeing
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Sondergerät SG104 "Münchhausen" was a German airborne recoillless 355.6 mm (14-inch) caliber gun, intended to engage even the roughest enemy battleships, primarily those of the Royal Navy. The design of this unusual and massive weapon began in 1939. The rationale behind it was that a battleship’s most vulnerable part was the deck – a flat surface, with relatively thin armor (as typical hits were expected on the flanks) and ideally with vital targets underneath, so that a single, good hit would cripple of even destroy a ship. The purpose of such a high angle of attack was likely to allow the projectile to penetrate the target ship's deck, where the ship's armor, if there was any, would have been much thinner than the armor on its sidesHowever, hitting the deck properly with another ship’s main gun was not easy, since it could only be affected through indirect hits and the typical angle of the attack from aballistic shot would not necessarily be ideal for deep penetration, esp. at long range.
The solution to this problem: ensure that the heavy projectile would hit its target directly from above, ideally at a very steep angle. To achieve this, the gun with battleship caliber was “relocated” from a carrier ship or a coastal battery onto an aircraft – specifically to a type that was capable of dive-bombing, a feature that almost any German bomber model of the time offered.
Firing such a heavy weapon caused a lot fo problems, which were severe even if the gun was mounted on a ship or on land. To compensate for such a large-caliber gun’s recoil and to make firing a 14 in shell (which alone weighed around almost 700 kg/1.550 lb, plus the charge) from a relatively light airframe feasible, the respective gun had to be as light as possible and avoid any recoil, which would easily tear an aircraft – even a bomber – apart upon firing. Therefore, the Gerät 104 was designed as a recoilless cannon. Its firing system involved venting the same amount of the weapon's propellant gas for its round to the rear of the launch tube (which was open at both ends), in the same fashion as a rocket launcher. This created a forward directed momentum which was nearly equal to the rearward momentum (recoil) imparted to the system by accelerating the projectile itself. The balance thus created did not leave much net momentum to be imparted to the weapon's mounting or the carrying airframe in the form of felt recoil. A further share of the recoil induced by the moving round itself could be compensated by a muzzle brake which re-directed a part of the firing gases backwards. Since recoil had been mostly negated, a heavy and complex recoil damping mechanism was not necessary – even though the weapon itself was huge and heavy.
Work on the "Münchhausen" device (a secret project handle after a fictional German nobleman created by the German writer Rudolf Erich Raspe in the late 18th century who reputedly had ridden on a cannonball between enemy frontlines), was done by Rheinmetall-Borsig and lasted until 1941. The first test of a prototype weapon was conducted on 9th of September 1940 in Unterlüss with a satisfactory result, even though the weapon was only mounted onto an open rack and not integrated into an airframe yet. At that time, potential carriers were the Ju 88, the Dornier Do 217 and the new Junkers Ju 288. Even though the system’s efficacy was doubted, the prospect of delivering a single, fatal blow to an important , armored arget superseded any doubts at the RLM, and the project was greenlit in early 1942 for the next stage: the integration of the Sondergerät 104 into an existing airframe. The Ju 88 and its successor, the Ju 188, turned out to be too light and lacked carrying capacity for the complete, loaded weapon, and the favored Ju 288 was never produced, so that only the Dornier Do 217 or the bigger He 177 remained as a suitable carriers. The Do 217 was eventually chosen because it had the biggest payload and the airframe was proven and readily available.
After calculations had verified that the designed 14 in rifle would have effectively no recoil, preliminary tests with dumm airframes were carried out. After ground trials with a Do 217 E day bomber to check recoil and blast effects on the airframe, the development and production of a limited Nullserie (pre-production series) of the dedicated Do 217 F variant for field tests and eventual operational use against British sea and land targets was ordered in April 1942.
The resulting Do 217 F-0 was based on the late “E” bomber variant and powered by a pair of BMW 801 radial engines. It was, however, heavily modified for its unique weapon and the highly specialized mission profile: upon arriving at the zone of operation at high altitude, the aircraft would initiate a dive with an angle of attack between 50° and 80° from the horizontal, firing the SG 104 at an altitude between 6,000 and 2,000 meters. The flight time of the projectile could range from 16.0 seconds for a shot from an altitude of 6,000 meters at a 50° angle to just 4.4 seconds for a shot from 2.000 meters at an almost vertical 80° angle. Muzzle velocity of the SG 104 was only 300 m/s, but, prior to impact, the effective velocity of the projectile was projected to range between 449 and 468 m/s (1,616 to 1,674 km/h). Together with the round's weight of roughly 700 kg (1.550 lb) and a hardened tip, this would still ensure a high penetration potential.
The operational Sondergerät 104 had an empty mass of 2.780 kg (6,123 lb) and its complete 14 inch double cartridge weighed around 1.600 kg (3,525 lb). The loaded mass of the weapon was 4,237 kg, stretching the limits of the Do 217’s load capacity to the maximum, so that some armor and less vital pieces of equipment were deleted. Crew and defensive armament were reduced to a minimum.
Even though there had been plans to integrate the wepaon into the airframe (on the Ju 288), the Gerät 104 was on the Do 217 F-0 mounted externally and occupied the whole space under the aircraft, precluding any use of the bomb bay. The latter was occupied by the Gerät 104’s complex mount, which extended to the outside under a streamlined fairing and held the weapon at a distance from the airframe. Between the mount’s struts inside of the fuselage, an additional fuel tank for balance reasons was added, too.
The gun’s center, where the heavy round was carried, was positioned under the aircraft’s center of gravity, so that the gun barrel markedly protruded from under the aircraft’s nose. To make enough space, the Do 217 Es bomb aimer’s ventral gondola and his rearward-facing defensive position under the cockpit were omitted and faired over. The nose section was also totally different: the original extensive glazing (the so-called “Kampfkopf”) was replaced by a smaller, conventional canopy, similar to the later Do 217 J and N night fighter versions, together with a solid nose - the original glass panels would have easily shattered upon firing the gun, esp. in a steep high-speed dive. A "Lotfernrohr" bomb aiming device was still installed in a streamlined and protected fairing, though, so that the navigator could guide the pilot during the approach to the target and during the attack run.
To stabilize the heavy aircraft during its attack and to time- and safely pull out of the dive, a massive mechanical dive brake was mounted at the extended tail tip, which unfolded with four "petals". A charecteristic stabilizing dorsal strake was added between the twin fins, too.
The ventral area behind the gun’s rear-facing muzzle received additional metal plating and blast guiding vanes, after trials in late 1940 had revealed that firing the SG 104 could easily damage the Do 217’s tail structure, esp. all of the tail surfaces’ rudders and the fins’ lower ends in particular. Due to all this extra weight, the Do 217 F-0’s defensive armament consisted only of a single 13 mm MG 131 machine gun in a manually operated dorsal position behind the cockpit cabin, which offered space for a crew of three. A fixed 15 mm MG 151 autocannon was mounted in the nose, too, a weapon with a long barrel for extended range and accuracy. It was not an offensive weapon, though, rather intended as an aiming aid for the SG 104 because it was loaded with tracer bullets: during the final phase of the attack dive, the pilot kept firing the MG 151, and the bullet trail showed if he was on target to fire the SG 104 when the right altitude/range had been reached.
The first Do 217 F-0 was flown and tested in late 1943, and after some detail changes the type was cleared for a limited production run of ten aircraft in January 1944. The first operational machine was delivered to a dedicated testing commando, the Erprobungskommando 104 “Münchhausen”, also known as “Sonderkommando Münchhausen” or simply “E-Staffel 104”. The unit was based at Bordeaux/Merignac and directly attached to the KG 40's as a staff flight. At that time, KG 40 operated Do 217 and He 177 bombers and frequently flew reconnaissance and anti-shipping missions over the Atlantic west of France, up to the British west and southern coast, equipped with experimental Henschel Hs 293 glide bombs.
Initial flights confirmed that the Do 217 airframe was burdened with the SG 104 to its limits, the already rather sluggish aircraft (the Do 217 had generally a high wing loading and was not easy to fly) lost anything that was left of what could be called agility. It needed an experienced pilot to handle it safely, esp. during start and landing. It is no wonder that two Do 217 F-0s suffered ground accidents during the first two weeks of operations, but the machines could be repaired, resume the test program and carry out attack missions.
However, during one of the first test shots with the weapon, one Do 217 F-0 lost its complete tail section though the gun blast, and the aircraft crashed into the Bay of Biscay, killing the complete crew.
On 4th or April 1944 the first "hot" attack against an enemy ship was executed in the Celtic Sea off of Brest, against a convoy of 20 ships homeward bound from Gibraltar. The attack was not successful, though, the shot missing its target, and the German bomber was attacked and heavily damaged by British Bristol Beaufighters that had been deployed to protect the ships. The Do 217F-0 eventually crashed and sank into the Atlantic before it could reach land again.
A couple of days later, on 10th of April, the first attempt to attack and destroy a land target was undertaken: two Do 217 F-0s took off to attack Bouldnor Battery, an armored British artillery position located on the Isle of Wight. One machine had to abort the attack due to oil leakages, the second Do 217 F-0 eventually reached its target and made a shallow attack run, but heavy fog obscured the location and the otherwise successful shot missed the fortification. Upon return to its home base the aircraft was intercepted by RAF fighters over the Channel and heavily damaged, even though German fighters deployed from France came to the rescue, fought the British attackers off and escorted the limping Do 217 F-0 back to its home base.
These events revealed that the overall SG 104 concept was generally feasible, but also showed that the Do 217 F-0 was very vulnerable without air superiority or a suitable escort, so that new tactics had to be developed. One consequence was that further Do 217 F-0 deployments were now supported by V/KG 40, the Luftwaffe's only long range maritime fighter unit. These escorts consisted of Junkers Ju 88C-6s, which were capable of keeping up with the Do 217 F-0 and fend of intercepting RAF Coastal Command’s Beaufighters and later also Mosquitos.
In the meantime, tests with the SG 104 progressed and several modifications were tested on different EKdo 104's Do 217 F-0s. One major upgrade was a further strengthening of the tail section, which added another 200 kg (440 lb) to the aircraft's dry weight. Furthermore, at least three aircraft were outfitted with additional dive brakes under the outer wings, so that the dive could be better controlled and intercepted. these aircraft, however, lost their plumbed underwing hardpoints, but these were only ever used for drop tanks during transfer flights - a loaded SG 104 precluded any other ordnance. On two other aircraft the SG 104 was modified to test different muzzle brakes and deflectors for the rear-facing opening, so that the gun blast was more effectively guided away from the airframe to prevent instability and structural damage. For instance, one machine was equipped with a bifurcated blast deflector that directed the rearward gasses partly sideways, away from the fuselage.
These tests did not last long, though. During the Allied Normandy landings in June 1944 E-Staffel 104 was hastily thrown into action and made several poorly-prepared attack runs against Allied support ships. The biggest success was a full hit and the resulting sinking of the Norwegian destroyer HNoMS Svenner (G03) by "1A+BA" at dawn on 6th of June, off Sword, one of the Allied landing zones. Other targets were engaged, too, but only with little effect. This involvement, however, led to the loss of three Do 217 F-0s within just two days and four more heavily damaged aircraft – leaving only two of EKdo 104's Do 217 F-0s operational.
With the Allied invasion of France and a worsening war condition, the SG 104 program was stopped in August 1944 and the idea of an airborne anti-ship gun axed in favor of more flexible guided weapons like the Hs 293 missile and the Fritz-X glide bomb. Plans for a further developed weapon with a three-round drum magazine were immediately stopped, also because there was no carrier aircraft in sight that could carry and deploy this complex 6.5 tons weapon. However, work on the SG 104 and the experience gained from EKdo 104's field tests were not in vain. The knowledge gathered from the Münchhausen program was directly used for the design of a wide range of other, smaller recoilless aircraft weapons, including the magnetically-triggered SG 113 "Förstersonde" anti-tank weapon or the lightweight SG 118 "Rohrblock" unguided air-to-air missile battery for the Heinkel He 162 "Volksjäger".
General characteristics:
Crew: 3 (pilot, navigator, radio operator/gunner)
Length: 20,73 m (67 ft 11 in) overall
18,93 m (62 ft 3/4 in) hull only
Wingspan: 19 m (62 ft 4 in)
Height: 4.97 m (16 ft 4 in)
Wing area: 57 m² (610 sq ft)
Empty weight: 9,065 kg (19,985 lb)
Empty equipped weight:10,950 kg (24,140 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 16,700 kg (36,817 lb)
Fuel capacity: 2,960 l (780 US gal; 650 imp gal) in fuselage tank and four wing tanks
Powerplant:
2× BMW 801D-2 14-cylinder air-cooled radial piston engines, delivering
1,300 kW (1,700 hp) each for take-off and 1,070 kW (1,440 hp) at 5,700 m (18,700 ft),
driving 3-bladed VDM constant-speed propellers
Performance:
Maximum speed: 475 km/h (295 mph, 256 kn) at sea level
560 km/h (350 mph; 300 kn) at 5,700 m (18,700 ft)
Cruise speed: 400 km/h (250 mph, 220 kn) with loaded Gerät 104 at optimum altitude
Range: 2,180 km (1,350 mi, 1,180 nmi) with maximum internal fuel
Ferry range: 2,500 km (1,600 mi, 1,300 nmi); unarmed, with auxiliary fuel tanks
Service ceiling: 7,370 m (24,180 ft) with loaded Gerät 104,
9,500 m (31,200 ft) after firing
Rate of climb: 3.5 m/s (690 ft/min)
Time to altitude: 1,000 m (3,300 ft) in 4 minutes 10 seconds
2,000 m (6,600 ft) in 8 minutes 20 seconds
6,100 m (20,000 ft) in 24 minutes 40 seconds
Armament:
1x 355.6 mm (14-inch) Sondergerät 104 recoilless gun with a single round in ventral position
1x 15 mm (0.787 in) MG 151 machine cannon with 200 rounds, fixed in the nose
1x 13 mm (0.512 in) MG 131 machine gun with 500 rounds, movable in dorsal position
Two underwing hardpoints for a 900 l drop tank each, but only used during unarmed ferry flights
The kit and its assembly:
This was another submission to the "Gunships" group build at whatifmodellers.com in late 2021, and inspiration struck when I realized that I had two Italeri Do 217 in The Stash - a bomber and a night fighter - that could be combined into a suitable (fictional) carrier for a Sondergerät 104. This mighty weapon actually existed and even reached the hardware/test stage - but it was never integrated into an airframe and tested in flight. But that's what this model is supposed to depict.
On the Do 217, the Sg 104 would have been carried externally under the fuselage, even though there had been plans to integrate this recoilless rifle into airframes, esp. into the Ju 288. Since the latter never made it into production, the Do 217 would have been the most logical alternative, also because it had the highest payload of all German bombers during WWII and probably the only aircraft capable of carrying and deploying the Münchhausen device, as the SG 104 was also known.
The fictional Do 217 F-0 is a kitbashing, using a Do 217 N fuselage, combined with the wings from a Do 217 K bomber, plus some modifications. What initially sounded like a simple plan soon turned into a improvisation mess: it took some time to realize that I had already donated the Do 217 K's BMW 801 engines to another project, an upgraded He 115... I did not want to use the nightfighter's more powerful DB 603s, and I was lucky to have an Italeri Ju 188 kit at hand which comes with optional BMW 801s and Jumo 211s. Transplanting these engines onto the Do 217's wings took some tailoring of the adapter plates, but was feasible. However, the BMW 801s from the Ju 188 kit have a flaw: they lack the engine's characteristic cooling fans... Another lucky find: I found two such parts in the scrap box, even though from different kits - one left over from another Italeri Do 217 K, the other one from what I assume is/was an Italeri 1:72 Fw 190 A/F. To make matters worse, one propeller from the Ju 188 kit was missing, so that I had to find a(nother) replacement. :-/
I eventually used something that looked like an 1:72 F6F Hellcat propeller, but I an not certain about this because I have never built this model...? With some trimming on the blades' trailing edges and other mods, the donor's overall look could be adapted to the Ju 188 benchmark. Both propellers were mounted on metal axis' so that they could also carry the cooling fans. Lots of work, but the result looks quite good.
The Do 217 N's hull lost the lower rear gunner position and its ventral gondola, which was faired over with a piece of styrene sheet. The pilot was taken OOB, the gunner in the rear position was replaced by a more blob-like crew member from the scrap box. The plan to add a navigator in the seat to the lower right of the pilot did not work out due to space shortage, but this figure would probably have been invisble, anyway.
All gun openings in the nose were filled and PSRed away, and a fairing for a bomb aiming device and a single gun (the barrel is a hollow steel needle) were added.
The SG 104 was scratched. Starting point was a white metal replacement barrel for an 1:35 ISU-152 SPG with a brass muzzle brake. However, after dry-fitting the barrel under the hull the barrel turned out to be much too wide, so that only the muzzal brake survived and the rest of the weapon was created from a buddy refueling pod (from an Italeri 1:72 Luftwaffe Tornado, because of its two conical ends) and protective plastic caps from medical canulas. To attach this creation to the hull I abused a conformal belly tank from a Matchbox Gloster Meteor night fighter and tailored it into a streamlined fairing. While this quite a Frankenstein creation, the overall dimensions match the real SG 104 prototype and its look well.
Other cosmetic modifications include a pair of underwing dive brakes, translanted from an Italeri 1:72 Ju 88 A-4 kit, an extended (scratched) tail "stinger" which resembles the real dive brake arrangement that was installed on some Do 217 E bombers, and I added blast deflector vanes and a dorsal stabilizer fin.
In order to provide the aircraft with enough ground clearance, the tail wheel was slightly extended. Thanks to the long tail stinger, this is not blatantly obvious.
Painting and markings:
This was not an easy choice, but as a kind of prototype I decided that the paint scheme should be rather conservative. However, German aircraft operating over the Atlantic tended to carry rather pale schemes, so that the standard pattern of RLM 70/71/65 (Dunkelgrün, Schwarzgrün and Hellblau) with a low waterline - typical for experimental types - would hardly be appropriate.
I eventually found a compromise on a He 177 bomber (coded 6N+BN) from 1944 that was operated by KG 100: this particular aircraft had a lightened upper camouflage - still a standard splinter scheme but consisting of RLM 71 and 02 (Dunkelgrün and Grau; I used Modelmaster 2081 and Humbrol 240), a combination that had been used on German fighters during the Battle of Britain when the standard colors turned out to be too dark for operations over the Channel. The aircraft also carried standard RLM 65 (or maybe the new RLM76) underneath (Humbrol 65) and on the fin, but with a very high and slightly wavy waterline. As a rather unusual feature, no typical camouflage mottles were carried on the flanks or the fin, giving the aircraft a very bleak and simple look.
Despite my fears that this might look rather boring I adapted this scheme for the Do 217 F-0, and once basic painting was completed I was rather pleased by the aircraft's look! As an aircraft operated at the Western front, no additional markings like fuselage bands were carried.
To set the SG 104 apart from the airframe, I painted the weapon's visible parts in RLM 66 (Schwarzgrau, Humbrol 67), because this tone was frequently used for machinery (including the interior surfaces of aircraft towards 1945).
RLM 02 was also used for the interior surfaces and the landing gear, even though I used a slightly different, lighter shade in form of Revell 45 (Helloliv).
A light black ink washing was applied and post-shading to emphasize panel lines. Most markings/decals came from a Begemot 1:72 He 11 sheet, including the unusual green tactical code - it belongs to a staff unit, a suitable marking for such an experimental aircraft. The green (Humbrol 2) was carried over to the tips of the propeller spinners. The unit's code "1A" is fictional, AFAIK this combination had never been used by the Luftwaffe.
The small unit badge was alucky find: it actually depicts the fictional Baron von Münchhausen riding on a cannonball, and it comes from an Academy 1:72 Me 163 kit and its respective sheet. The mission markings underneath, depicting two anti-ship missions plus a successful sinking, came from a TL Modellbau 1:72 scale sheet with generic German WWII victory markings.
After some soot stains around the engine exhaust and weapon muzzles had been added with graphite, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish and final details like position lights and wire antennae (from heated black plastic sprue material) were added.
Well, what started as a combination of two kits of the same kind with a simple huge pipe underneath turned out to be more demanding than expected. The (incomplete) replacement engines were quite a challenge, and body work on the hull (tail stinger, fairing for the SG 104 as well as the weapon itself) turned out to be more complex and extensive than initially thought of. The result looks quite convincing, also supported by the rather simple paint scheme which IMHO just "looks right" and very convincing. And the whole thing is probably the most direct representation of the inspiring "Gunship" theme!
Once more, new pics from a old kit (from ~2009), from which I originally had only taken three shots.
This is another, fictional major conversion of an Aoshima (ex Gunze Sangyo) stock PA-36 kit. This one has no OAV paradigm (much like the former "Guntos" conversion), it is rather the interpretation of an idea on the basis of a Dorvack Powered Armor.
This time, the idea or theme was “Russian battle tank”, with both modern and historic elements. Another, separate idea was to apply a brown color scheme to a PA – and finally, both came together in this model.
The inspiration for a Russian version came originally when I saw MiG Production’s KV-X2 resin kit (anyone remember?) of a fictional 4-legged tank which carries a modified KV-2 tank turret on top. This thing looked steampunk, but blunt and IMHO totally unbalanced, and until today I wonder where a driver would be located? "Ground pressure” or “ballistic windows” obviously had also not been anything the designer(s) had ever heard of. But… what if a Dorvack PA would accompany it?
Additionally, I was reading a very interesting book about modern battle tanks, 'Kampfpanzer - heute und morgen', written by Rolf Hilmes in 2007, highly recommended if you are into tank technology. It offered lots of state-of-the art picture material and also technical information, as well as insights into design philosophies of modern military combat vehicles around the world.
The final inspirational spark lured finally in my bathroom! One morning, while pondering about these ideas, I used my deo, and... saw the lines and forms of the can’s spray head! *BINGO*! This form would be a perfect addition to a basic PA-36 kit, changing its helmet lines into a much bulkier design. Consequently, the 'PA-36S' (the 'S' suffix was inspired by the famous Russian WWII shtormovik ground attack planes) project was born. And its name would also fit: “Nove горбун”, or “gorbach”, which means “hunchback” in Russian language – also a reminiscence, to the Ilyushin Il-20 ground attack aircraft prototype.
Work started quickly. The spray head from the can was surprisingly easy to transplant, even though major putty work was necessary to make the lines flush. The spray head's plastic was also a bit waxy (I suppose it is PVC), but with super glue and the help of Tamiya putty, everything held together. Surprisingly, the parts fitted well, and the result looks really COOL and pretty different from the round standard PA design – but still consistent.
From there, I incorporated many Russian tank design elements. Since Russian battle tanks are primarily designed for assault/charge attacks, I decided that the front would need extra protection. The new bulky head already suggests this, but as an additional measure I applied reactive armour plating on the upper body and the front areas, wherever possible/plausible and where it would not hamper mobility – keeping the look in line with the Russian KONTAKT system.
The necessary explosive plates were cut from 1mm polystyrol plates, glued onto the hull, sanded with a brass brush on a mini drill in order to achieve a softer and irregular look, and finally the bolts were manually added with small tips of casein glue.
Further modifications include custom knee caps/protectors. These are parts from a plundered Gundam Endless Waltz “Serpent Custom” kit in 1:144 scale, adapted to their new position and embedded with putty. From the same kit also come the shoulder shields – also modified, dented and put on extenders on the upper arms, so that there is room between them and the arm. The idea behind them is to offer additional protection from hollow explosive charges for the hull, esp. the shoulder and air intake area. These new shields actually had to be added, because the original horizontal shoulder shields in front of the jet pack’s air intakes could not be fitted anymore – the air intakes were replaced by scrap parts from an Airfix Kamov Ka-25 helicopter in 1:72. This helicopter kit also donated two searchlights, which were added on the PA’s front hull.
Furthermore, many small details were changed or added. First of all, a new visor unit with 3 lenses was implanted in the front with a protective frame. These parts come from a PAM-74AM’s hand weapon, and they give the PA-36S quite a grunty retro look. On the PA’s top, the typical hump on the left side was replaced by a bigger/longer piece (a 1:48 scale WWII bomb half). On the back, a heat exchanger (for those cold Russian nights…) was placed and surrounded by reactive armour plates. If I remember correctly, this part comes from the horrible 1:72 'Aliens' Dropship kit from Halcyon and was modified. The PA-36's typical pipelines on the right shoulder were replaced with more rustic, self-made pieces. These hoses are actually made from Christmas tree decoration: fine metal coils, which were fitted onto a steel thread and then cut and bent into shape.
The feet also received some tuning, making them broader in order to improve the PA’s weight distribution in the field and offer improved hold. These parts come from an ESCI 1:72 Jagdpanzer IV kit (track and side skirt parts).
For active defensive measures, I added an IR decoy device on a pole on the PA's back. This thing looks similar to the current Russian ARENA radar defence system's sensor boom. Additionally, on the PA’s helmet sides and on the back, small laser detectors were added, inspired by the similar real Russian SCHTORA (russ. Штора, “curtain”) system. In case of enemy detection and laser designation, the system will trigger IR smoke dischargers (on the PA, four smoke mortars are placed on the left shoulder – parts from an Arii 1:100 Super Valkyrie) for emergency defence.
For armament, I settled for the standard R6 gun which comes with the stock kit, but also modified it for a beefier look. While the basis was kept, a short barrel extension was added and a nozzle brake (from a PAM-74C “Dunc” kit) put in the front. The idea was to create a gun with a smaller calibre, which would not only fire “slow” HE ammunition (which I suppose the R6 cannon uses – it looks like a mortar or howitzer), but faster AP shells. The impressive nozzle break is supposed to catch the stronger recoil of this different weapon concept, and it looks good ;)
On the blank (an ugly!) back of the gun, some technical parts were added which “simulate” recoil and gas pressure compensators. The huge, basically empty box on top of the gun (A visor unit? A camera? A bread basket?) received 3 lenses which double the PA’s new 3-lobed visor unit. Finally, a set of flexible, fabric-covered cables connects the gun with an adapter box on the PA’s breast (the original PA-36 has a small flap under its visor for this purpose). This gun then received my personal designation R6M, “M” for modified , an authentic Russian suffix.
From the beginning, this PA conversion was to be painted in a single colour. Since all-green PA’s frequently appear in the TV series (see e. g. episode 14 & 16) and will definitively show up in my collection, I settled on brown. Another factor was the background picture (see above), which had much influence on the kit's finish. And finally, since I have seen several pictures of all-brown/dark sand Russian WWII tanks, the single brown colour seemed to be plausible. Mmm… brown. Or better: коричневый цвет!
The basic overall tone is Tamiya’s XF-64 “Red Brown”, everywhere. Some details like the inside of the visor unit were painted with Testor’s 2002 “Burnt Umber” from the figure colour series for extra contrast. The joints received a mix of Gold (Testors 1144), a bit gun metal (Humbrol 53) and Burnt Umber.
After a first turn of dry painting with Humbrol 186 and 118, decals were applied. Numbers and unit markings come from a 1:35 scale WWII Russian tank sheet from German decal specialist Peddinghaus. The many light grey Russian labels come from the vast decal sheet of Italieri/Testor’s MiG-37 “Ferret B” kit in 1:72 scale, and typical Dorvack markings come from the original PA-36 and a spare PAM-74 decal sheet. Sadly, most of them disappeared under the final coat of snow...
“Nose art” on the HD-R6M gun consists of a hand-written “плохая новость”, which simply means “Bad news”. What else to expect from this tank on legs? But this, too, unfortunately disappeared under the snow.
After a matte varnish coat the kit received a thorough black ink wash in order to point out the reactive armour plating. Then, several turns with dry paint, including hemp, gulf war sand, light grey, sand and chocolate (Humbrol 168, 187, 64, 63 and 98, respectively) were applied to point out the many surface details. Some dents and blank edges were added with dry-brushed silver, but sparsely. Also, some smoke was simulated with black and dark grey paint (Humbrol 33 and 32), and as a final step some rust and oil was simulated with water-based acrylic paint in burnt umbra and sienna.
In order to enhance the heavy duty impression (and remind of harsh conditions this piece might encounter), the PA finally received a mud treatment around its legs. Plaster, mixed with grass filament, fine sand and water-based mixing colour, was prepared in a shallow bowl and the kit’s feet simply stumped into this artificial sludge – leaving the mud and splashes wherever they might end up.
From above, the kit then received a coat or light snow, made from coloured joint mortar (white, plaster is too grayish!), rinsed through a fine mesh onto the kit which was sprayed with water.
Finally, I must say that this kit was an interesting experience. On one side, it surely was plain fun to convert such a kit into something very different, seeing a vague idea taking shape. But on the other side, this project also has the more or less serious claim to incorporate realistic defence technology – and while building the kit, I became aware how tricky it actually is to construct and protect something like a tank from various battlefield dangers, and how naïve mecha can come along.
+++ 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?
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
The solar system’s two largest planets are compared with the Earth in this photo montage. Prepared for NASA by Stephen Paul Meszaros.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The APS-4 was a light-weight, pod-mounted airborne search Radar which was suitable for either Airborne Interception (AI) or Air-to-Surface-Vessel (ASV) applications. It was a member of a series of early air-borne radar equipment and was initially designated as AS-H (“Air-to Surface, version H”). This very advanced equipment for its time was first used by the US Navy on board of carrier-borne night fighter aircraft like respective F6F Hellcat and F4U-2 Corsair variants. The Royal Air Force was impressed enough with the system's performance that it was adopted in 1943 for domestic airframes, too, as an alternative to the British AI radars used on board of early Mosquito, Beaufighter and Defiant night fighters.
One very successful carrier of the APS-4, in RAF service known as the AI Mk XV, was the De Havilland Mosquito in its NF Mk.XIX and NF Mk.30 night fighter incarnations. Aware of the performance and effectiveness of the American single engine aircraft, though, the RAF decided to test similar domestic airframes towards the end of WWII as well. The shorter range of a single engine night fighter would, compared with the bigger but also more sluggish two engine types, be compensated by higher speed, agility and rate of climb. These lighter aircraft were intended as a second defense for homeland defense, esp. around large cities or industrial sites.
One of these projects concerned the Supermarine Spitfire, more specifically the new types powered by a Rolly Royce Griffon engine. The Griffon provided a substantial performance increase over the Merlin-powered Spitfire Mk IX, but initially suffered from poor high altitude performance due to having only a single stage supercharged engine. By 1943, Rolls-Royce engineers had developed a new Griffon engine, the 61 series, with a two-stage supercharger, leading to a slightly modified engine, the 65 series, which was eventually mounted in the Spitfire Mk XIV.
With this performance surplus, a night fighter, despite carrying the AI Mk XV equipment plus a second crew member, was still expected to offer a superior performance over German two-engine bombers that intruded British airspace and the heavy night fighters that lurked over the Channel and attacked grouping RAF night bomber formations before they entered Continental airspace.
From this idea, the Spitfire NF.XX was born, as an alternative to a Hawker Typhoon night fighter with a British radar and only a single crew member. In summer 1944 an initial prototype was built, converted from an early series production Mk. XIV airframe. Since the AI Mk XV came with a rather complicated and voluminous display, a second crew member was deemed necessary for effective operations, esp. at night and under poor visibility conditions. The radio operator would check the radar readings and verbally guide the pilot towards the target, who could concentrate on the flying job and keep the eyes on the surroundings.
In order to fit the equipment and the second crew member into the tight Spitfire airframe, and a separate compartment behind the pilot's cockpit and the real bulkhead was added. This second seat received a separate sliding canopy, resulting in a distinctive camel hump silhouette, which earned the Spitfire NF.XX quickly the nickname 'Camelback'. Supermarine had proposed a new service name for this aircraft, 'Nightfire', but it was not officially accepted, since the machine did not differ enough from the basic Spitfire day fighter to justify a completely new designation.
The AI Mk XV equipment and its antenna were carried in a bullet-shaped pod under the port wing, similar to the US Navy night fighters’ arrangement. The radar dish was designed to scan from side to side for AI applications, but it could also be commanded to look up and down by a few degrees. This enabled the aircraft to attack targets from above, and it could also search for surface vessels below, so that the aircraft could also act in ASV or pathfinder duties in a secondary role (much like the Mosquito night fighters, which frequently guided bomber formations to their targets).
In order to mount the pod to the outer wing and compensate for the gain of weight, the standard 0.303" Browning machine guns normally located there were deleted. Instead, the NF.XX was initially armed with two 20 mm Hispano cannon plus a pair of 0.5" machine guns, mounted in a fashion similar to the Spitfire's standard E wing.
The NF.XX was powered, like the Spitfire Mk. XIV, by the two-stage supercharged Griffon 65, producing 2,050 hp (1,528 kW). A five bladed Rotol propeller of 10 ft 5 in (3.18 m) in diameter was used, and for the night fighter role the standard single exhaust stubs gave way to a collector fairing on each side, which dampened flames and improved the crew's view in the darkness.
To help balance the heavy Griffon engine, the radio equipment was moved further back in the rear fuselage. Improved VHF radio equipment allowed for the aerial mast to be removed and replaced by a "whip" aerial further aft on the fuselage spine. Because of the longer nose and the increased slipstream of the big five-bladed propeller, a new tail unit, with a taller, broader fin and a rudder of increased area was introduced.
One problem that hampered all early Griffon-powered Spitfire variants also plagued the NF.XX, though: short legs. The NF.XX carried a total of 109.5 gal of fuel, consisting of 84 gal in two main tanks and a 12.5 imp gal fuel tank in each leading edge wing tank. With this internal capacity, the fighter's maximum range was just a little over 460 miles (740 km) since the new Griffon engine consumed much more fuel per hour than the Merlin engine of earlier variants, and the extra drag and weight through the radar equipment did not make things better.
As a simple remedy, a conformal, fixed belly tank between the radiators was devised. This carried an extra 90 gal, of fuel, extending the fighter's range to about 850 miles (1,370 km) – still not much for aerial patrol and extended loiter time for interceptions, but enough for short-notice home defense duties. Alternatively, a more conventional but jettisonable 100 gal. drop tank could be carried, but it produced considerably more drag and affected overall performance so dramatically that it was never used in service.
The first tests of the new aircraft were conducted in January 1945 and three pre-production machines (all converted Mk. XIV airframes) were allocated to night fighter units for field trials and direct comparison with two engine types. Despite its innate aerodynamic and weight penalties the Spitfire NF.XX still attained an impressive top speed of 400 mph (350 kn; 640 km/h) at 29,500 ft (9.000 m), even though in clean condition only. But it was still more than enough to take on much heavier German bombers and night fighters. The second crewman was another winning factor, since the pilot alone would be overloaded in the face of heavily armed enemy aircraft in the European theatre of operations and the local weather conditions.
Further initial experience with the type resulted in several ad hoc modifications: the wing span was increased in order to improve handling and climb performance, using standard wing tip extensions from Spitfire high altitude variants. Furthermore, a deeper rudder was added to the fin because the second cockpit created significant directional instability.
Armament was changed, too - more firepower and a longer range was deemed necessary to attack the German heavy night fighters, which themselves frequently carried defensive armament in the form of heavy machine guns. Consequently, the initial pair of 0.5" machine guns was deleted and replaced by an additional pair of 20 mm Hispano cannon, and all four guns received extended barrels for a higher weapon range.
In this form, the Spitfire NF.XX quickly entered RAF service in March 1945, but, in the meantime, the German night fighter threat had declined, so that only 50 machines were completed and delivered to RAF units in the UK until the end of hostilities.
The operational use of the machines was hampered by localized skin wrinkling on the wings and fuselage at load attachment points, a problem the type shared with the Mk. XIV day fighter. Even though Supermarine advised that the machines had not been seriously weakened, nor were they on the point of failure, the RAF nevertheless issued instructions in early 1945 that all F and FR Mk XIVs were to be retrospectively fitted with clipped wings to counter the threat. The NF.XX kept their elongated wing tips, however, and were simply limited to a top speed of 370 mph (600 km/h) and not allowed to dive anymore.
General characteristics:
Crew: 2 (pilot, radar operator)
Length: 32 ft 8 in (9.96 m)
Wingspan: 40 ft 2 in (12.2 m)
Height: 10 ft 0 in (3.05 m)
Wing area: 249.7 sq.ft (23.2 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 2213 (root), NACA 2209.4 (tip)
Empty weight: 8,680 lb (3,937 kg)
Gross weight: 10,700 lb (4,853 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 12,530 lb (5,683 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Rolls-Royce Griffon 65 supercharged V12, 2,050 hp (1,530 kW) at 8,000 ft (2,438 m),
driving a 5-bladed Jablo-Rotol propeller
Performance:
Maximum speed: 400 mph (640 km/h; 353 kn) in FS supercharger gear at 29,500 ft.
Combat range: 460 mi (741 km/400 nmi) with internal fuel only
850 mi (1,370 km/757 nmi)
Ferry range: 1,093 mi (1,759 km/950 nmi)
Service ceiling: 43,500 ft (13,259 m)
Rate of climb: 4,300 ft/min (21.8 m/s) in MS supercharger gear at 2,100 ft.
3,100 ft/min (15.8 m/s) in FS supercharger gear at 22,100 ft.
Time to altitude: 8 mins to 22,000 ft (at max weight)
Wing loading: 32.72 lb/sq ft (159.8 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.24
Armament:
4× 20 mm (0.787-in) Hispano Mk II cannon with 120 RPG in the wings
Provision for an auxiliary underfuselage tank, either a fixed conformal 90 gal tank or a
100 gal drop tank.
The kit and its assembly:
Well, Spitfire fans might call it crude to create a whiffy variant that incorporates so many ugly details. But this fever creation came into being through the simple thought: "What would a dedicated Spitfire night fighter with a radar look like?" From this initial creative spark I tried to build this fictional NF.XX variant with available late WWII technology from a Griffon-powered Spitfire.
The basis is the Airfix Spitfire PR.XIX kit, a nice and clean offering, even though the use of this photo recce variant meant some additional work. The radar pod comes wholesale from an F4U night fighter (Fujimi), since the wing installation appeared to me to be the only plausible (and proven) option.
The second cockpit and the "double bubble" canopy come from an RS Models Spitfire Mk.IX UTI trainer, which is/was a domestic conversion made in the Soviet Union. The kit comes with an extra two seater fuselage, so that, despite body donors, almost a complete Spitfire remains (just the cockpit missing, but this can be taken from the Airfix kit).
I also considered the Spitfire TR.IX arrangement, with a stepped bubble canopy, but found that the risen rear cockpit for the instructor would not make sense in a night fighter, so the UTI arrangement with separate canopies on the same level appeared to me to be the most suitable solution for this aircraft and its task.
Surgery was not easy, though: The whole cockpit area was dissected from the RS Models trainer and – together with the internal parts like the bulkheads, dashboards and seats – transplanted into an appropriate gap, cut into the Airfix kit fuselage. The windscreen position on both airframes was used as orientation benchmark.
Basically a simple idea, but, even though you have two Spitfire kits at hand, both models differ slightly from each other in many ways. Material thickness is different, as well as panel lines, which are all there on both models but simply do not fall in line. Internal width and available space is also different, esp. the rear bulkhead was not easy to integrate into the Airfix fuselage. It worked, somehow, but it consequently took some PSR effort and rescribing (at least, both donor kits have engraved details) in order to create this Griffon-powered two-seater.
The extended wings were created through the simple implantation of high altitude wing tips from an AZ Model Spitfire I/II/V/VI kit. They match very well with the Airfix PR.XIX wings, which were simply clipped at the correct position outside of the ailerons. Since the recce Spitfire comes without any weapons I added four brass barrels (Pavla) to the wings, plus respective bulges for the magazines (scratched from sprue) and casing ejector fairings under the wings.
I also changed the vertical rudder. Instead of the separate OOB part from the Spitfire PR.XIX I used a deeper and higher rudder from a late Seafire mark (left over from a Special Hobby kit, IIRC). The part lost its hook and the notch for its deployment mechanism, replaced by a piece of styrene that was PSRed into the rest of the rudder. It’s not an obvious change, but the bigger fin area is a good counterpart to the enlarged wings and the bulkier rear fuselage.
The conformal belly tank was scratched from the upper half of a Matchbox A-10 inner wing. There are aftermarket solutions available, but I simply did not want to spend as much money on a single resin part that no one will clearly see and that’s just as expensive as the whole Airfix basis kit. Some things are just ridiculous.
Painting and markings:
Very simple: classic late war RAF night fighter colors, with Medium Sea Grey and Dark Green (Humbrol 165 and 163, respectively) on the uppers surfaces, plus Night (I used Revell Acrylics 06, Tar Black, which is actually a very dark grey tone) underneath, with a high waterline and a black fin. Looks weird on a Spitfire, but also somewhat cool!? The model received a light black ink wash and some panel post-shading, using a blue-ish hue for the Night undersurfaces.
The interior is classic RAF Cockpit Green (Humbrol 78), the only catchy marking is the red propeller spinner – originally I just wanted to keep the spinner black, too, but found that to be too dull overall.
The markings come from different sources; the codes were created with single Dull Red letters from Xtradecal, roundels and other markings come from various other sheets. The added “G” to the serial number is, BTW, an indication that the aircraft had to be guarded all the time. A nice and appropriate detail for this high tech aircraft of its time. The roundels/fin flashes were taken from another Xtradecal sheet, IIRC they belong to an FAA SB2C Helldiver.
Finally, some wear marks were added with dry-brushed light grey and silver. Exhaust stains were added with dry-brushed dark and light grey, as well as some grinded graphite. A coat of matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) sealed the kit.
I feel a bit guilty of creating the probably ugliest Spitfire possible, with all the add-ons and the weird proportions through the second cockpit and the belly tank. Very massive, at least for this sleek aircraft. The night fighter paint scheme suits the Spitfire surprisingly well, though. Anyway, it’s whifworld, after all, and I tried to go through with the night fighter idea as good and consequential as possible – the fictional NF.XX is just my personal interpretation of the theme.
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
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
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Sondergerät SG104 "Münchhausen" was a German airborne recoillless 355.6 mm (14-inch) caliber gun, intended to engage even the roughest enemy battleships, primarily those of the Royal Navy. The design of this unusual and massive weapon began in 1939. The rationale behind it was that a battleship’s most vulnerable part was the deck – a flat surface, with relatively thin armor (as typical hits were expected on the flanks) and ideally with vital targets underneath, so that a single, good hit would cripple of even destroy a ship. The purpose of such a high angle of attack was likely to allow the projectile to penetrate the target ship's deck, where the ship's armor, if there was any, would have been much thinner than the armor on its sidesHowever, hitting the deck properly with another ship’s main gun was not easy, since it could only be affected through indirect hits and the typical angle of the attack from aballistic shot would not necessarily be ideal for deep penetration, esp. at long range.
The solution to this problem: ensure that the heavy projectile would hit its target directly from above, ideally at a very steep angle. To achieve this, the gun with battleship caliber was “relocated” from a carrier ship or a coastal battery onto an aircraft – specifically to a type that was capable of dive-bombing, a feature that almost any German bomber model of the time offered.
Firing such a heavy weapon caused a lot fo problems, which were severe even if the gun was mounted on a ship or on land. To compensate for such a large-caliber gun’s recoil and to make firing a 14 in shell (which alone weighed around almost 700 kg/1.550 lb, plus the charge) from a relatively light airframe feasible, the respective gun had to be as light as possible and avoid any recoil, which would easily tear an aircraft – even a bomber – apart upon firing. Therefore, the Gerät 104 was designed as a recoilless cannon. Its firing system involved venting the same amount of the weapon's propellant gas for its round to the rear of the launch tube (which was open at both ends), in the same fashion as a rocket launcher. This created a forward directed momentum which was nearly equal to the rearward momentum (recoil) imparted to the system by accelerating the projectile itself. The balance thus created did not leave much net momentum to be imparted to the weapon's mounting or the carrying airframe in the form of felt recoil. A further share of the recoil induced by the moving round itself could be compensated by a muzzle brake which re-directed a part of the firing gases backwards. Since recoil had been mostly negated, a heavy and complex recoil damping mechanism was not necessary – even though the weapon itself was huge and heavy.
Work on the "Münchhausen" device (a secret project handle after a fictional German nobleman created by the German writer Rudolf Erich Raspe in the late 18th century who reputedly had ridden on a cannonball between enemy frontlines), was done by Rheinmetall-Borsig and lasted until 1941. The first test of a prototype weapon was conducted on 9th of September 1940 in Unterlüss with a satisfactory result, even though the weapon was only mounted onto an open rack and not integrated into an airframe yet. At that time, potential carriers were the Ju 88, the Dornier Do 217 and the new Junkers Ju 288. Even though the system’s efficacy was doubted, the prospect of delivering a single, fatal blow to an important , armored arget superseded any doubts at the RLM, and the project was greenlit in early 1942 for the next stage: the integration of the Sondergerät 104 into an existing airframe. The Ju 88 and its successor, the Ju 188, turned out to be too light and lacked carrying capacity for the complete, loaded weapon, and the favored Ju 288 was never produced, so that only the Dornier Do 217 or the bigger He 177 remained as a suitable carriers. The Do 217 was eventually chosen because it had the biggest payload and the airframe was proven and readily available.
After calculations had verified that the designed 14 in rifle would have effectively no recoil, preliminary tests with dumm airframes were carried out. After ground trials with a Do 217 E day bomber to check recoil and blast effects on the airframe, the development and production of a limited Nullserie (pre-production series) of the dedicated Do 217 F variant for field tests and eventual operational use against British sea and land targets was ordered in April 1942.
The resulting Do 217 F-0 was based on the late “E” bomber variant and powered by a pair of BMW 801 radial engines. It was, however, heavily modified for its unique weapon and the highly specialized mission profile: upon arriving at the zone of operation at high altitude, the aircraft would initiate a dive with an angle of attack between 50° and 80° from the horizontal, firing the SG 104 at an altitude between 6,000 and 2,000 meters. The flight time of the projectile could range from 16.0 seconds for a shot from an altitude of 6,000 meters at a 50° angle to just 4.4 seconds for a shot from 2.000 meters at an almost vertical 80° angle. Muzzle velocity of the SG 104 was only 300 m/s, but, prior to impact, the effective velocity of the projectile was projected to range between 449 and 468 m/s (1,616 to 1,674 km/h). Together with the round's weight of roughly 700 kg (1.550 lb) and a hardened tip, this would still ensure a high penetration potential.
The operational Sondergerät 104 had an empty mass of 2.780 kg (6,123 lb) and its complete 14 inch double cartridge weighed around 1.600 kg (3,525 lb). The loaded mass of the weapon was 4,237 kg, stretching the limits of the Do 217’s load capacity to the maximum, so that some armor and less vital pieces of equipment were deleted. Crew and defensive armament were reduced to a minimum.
Even though there had been plans to integrate the wepaon into the airframe (on the Ju 288), the Gerät 104 was on the Do 217 F-0 mounted externally and occupied the whole space under the aircraft, precluding any use of the bomb bay. The latter was occupied by the Gerät 104’s complex mount, which extended to the outside under a streamlined fairing and held the weapon at a distance from the airframe. Between the mount’s struts inside of the fuselage, an additional fuel tank for balance reasons was added, too.
The gun’s center, where the heavy round was carried, was positioned under the aircraft’s center of gravity, so that the gun barrel markedly protruded from under the aircraft’s nose. To make enough space, the Do 217 Es bomb aimer’s ventral gondola and his rearward-facing defensive position under the cockpit were omitted and faired over. The nose section was also totally different: the original extensive glazing (the so-called “Kampfkopf”) was replaced by a smaller, conventional canopy, similar to the later Do 217 J and N night fighter versions, together with a solid nose - the original glass panels would have easily shattered upon firing the gun, esp. in a steep high-speed dive. A "Lotfernrohr" bomb aiming device was still installed in a streamlined and protected fairing, though, so that the navigator could guide the pilot during the approach to the target and during the attack run.
To stabilize the heavy aircraft during its attack and to time- and safely pull out of the dive, a massive mechanical dive brake was mounted at the extended tail tip, which unfolded with four "petals". A charecteristic stabilizing dorsal strake was added between the twin fins, too.
The ventral area behind the gun’s rear-facing muzzle received additional metal plating and blast guiding vanes, after trials in late 1940 had revealed that firing the SG 104 could easily damage the Do 217’s tail structure, esp. all of the tail surfaces’ rudders and the fins’ lower ends in particular. Due to all this extra weight, the Do 217 F-0’s defensive armament consisted only of a single 13 mm MG 131 machine gun in a manually operated dorsal position behind the cockpit cabin, which offered space for a crew of three. A fixed 15 mm MG 151 autocannon was mounted in the nose, too, a weapon with a long barrel for extended range and accuracy. It was not an offensive weapon, though, rather intended as an aiming aid for the SG 104 because it was loaded with tracer bullets: during the final phase of the attack dive, the pilot kept firing the MG 151, and the bullet trail showed if he was on target to fire the SG 104 when the right altitude/range had been reached.
The first Do 217 F-0 was flown and tested in late 1943, and after some detail changes the type was cleared for a limited production run of ten aircraft in January 1944. The first operational machine was delivered to a dedicated testing commando, the Erprobungskommando 104 “Münchhausen”, also known as “Sonderkommando Münchhausen” or simply “E-Staffel 104”. The unit was based at Bordeaux/Merignac and directly attached to the KG 40's as a staff flight. At that time, KG 40 operated Do 217 and He 177 bombers and frequently flew reconnaissance and anti-shipping missions over the Atlantic west of France, up to the British west and southern coast, equipped with experimental Henschel Hs 293 glide bombs.
Initial flights confirmed that the Do 217 airframe was burdened with the SG 104 to its limits, the already rather sluggish aircraft (the Do 217 had generally a high wing loading and was not easy to fly) lost anything that was left of what could be called agility. It needed an experienced pilot to handle it safely, esp. during start and landing. It is no wonder that two Do 217 F-0s suffered ground accidents during the first two weeks of operations, but the machines could be repaired, resume the test program and carry out attack missions.
However, during one of the first test shots with the weapon, one Do 217 F-0 lost its complete tail section though the gun blast, and the aircraft crashed into the Bay of Biscay, killing the complete crew.
On 4th or April 1944 the first "hot" attack against an enemy ship was executed in the Celtic Sea off of Brest, against a convoy of 20 ships homeward bound from Gibraltar. The attack was not successful, though, the shot missing its target, and the German bomber was attacked and heavily damaged by British Bristol Beaufighters that had been deployed to protect the ships. The Do 217F-0 eventually crashed and sank into the Atlantic before it could reach land again.
A couple of days later, on 10th of April, the first attempt to attack and destroy a land target was undertaken: two Do 217 F-0s took off to attack Bouldnor Battery, an armored British artillery position located on the Isle of Wight. One machine had to abort the attack due to oil leakages, the second Do 217 F-0 eventually reached its target and made a shallow attack run, but heavy fog obscured the location and the otherwise successful shot missed the fortification. Upon return to its home base the aircraft was intercepted by RAF fighters over the Channel and heavily damaged, even though German fighters deployed from France came to the rescue, fought the British attackers off and escorted the limping Do 217 F-0 back to its home base.
These events revealed that the overall SG 104 concept was generally feasible, but also showed that the Do 217 F-0 was very vulnerable without air superiority or a suitable escort, so that new tactics had to be developed. One consequence was that further Do 217 F-0 deployments were now supported by V/KG 40, the Luftwaffe's only long range maritime fighter unit. These escorts consisted of Junkers Ju 88C-6s, which were capable of keeping up with the Do 217 F-0 and fend of intercepting RAF Coastal Command’s Beaufighters and later also Mosquitos.
In the meantime, tests with the SG 104 progressed and several modifications were tested on different EKdo 104's Do 217 F-0s. One major upgrade was a further strengthening of the tail section, which added another 200 kg (440 lb) to the aircraft's dry weight. Furthermore, at least three aircraft were outfitted with additional dive brakes under the outer wings, so that the dive could be better controlled and intercepted. these aircraft, however, lost their plumbed underwing hardpoints, but these were only ever used for drop tanks during transfer flights - a loaded SG 104 precluded any other ordnance. On two other aircraft the SG 104 was modified to test different muzzle brakes and deflectors for the rear-facing opening, so that the gun blast was more effectively guided away from the airframe to prevent instability and structural damage. For instance, one machine was equipped with a bifurcated blast deflector that directed the rearward gasses partly sideways, away from the fuselage.
These tests did not last long, though. During the Allied Normandy landings in June 1944 E-Staffel 104 was hastily thrown into action and made several poorly-prepared attack runs against Allied support ships. The biggest success was a full hit and the resulting sinking of the Norwegian destroyer HNoMS Svenner (G03) by "1A+BA" at dawn on 6th of June, off Sword, one of the Allied landing zones. Other targets were engaged, too, but only with little effect. This involvement, however, led to the loss of three Do 217 F-0s within just two days and four more heavily damaged aircraft – leaving only two of EKdo 104's Do 217 F-0s operational.
With the Allied invasion of France and a worsening war condition, the SG 104 program was stopped in August 1944 and the idea of an airborne anti-ship gun axed in favor of more flexible guided weapons like the Hs 293 missile and the Fritz-X glide bomb. Plans for a further developed weapon with a three-round drum magazine were immediately stopped, also because there was no carrier aircraft in sight that could carry and deploy this complex 6.5 tons weapon. However, work on the SG 104 and the experience gained from EKdo 104's field tests were not in vain. The knowledge gathered from the Münchhausen program was directly used for the design of a wide range of other, smaller recoilless aircraft weapons, including the magnetically-triggered SG 113 "Förstersonde" anti-tank weapon or the lightweight SG 118 "Rohrblock" unguided air-to-air missile battery for the Heinkel He 162 "Volksjäger".
General characteristics:
Crew: 3 (pilot, navigator, radio operator/gunner)
Length: 20,73 m (67 ft 11 in) overall
18,93 m (62 ft 3/4 in) hull only
Wingspan: 19 m (62 ft 4 in)
Height: 4.97 m (16 ft 4 in)
Wing area: 57 m² (610 sq ft)
Empty weight: 9,065 kg (19,985 lb)
Empty equipped weight:10,950 kg (24,140 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 16,700 kg (36,817 lb)
Fuel capacity: 2,960 l (780 US gal; 650 imp gal) in fuselage tank and four wing tanks
Powerplant:
2× BMW 801D-2 14-cylinder air-cooled radial piston engines, delivering
1,300 kW (1,700 hp) each for take-off and 1,070 kW (1,440 hp) at 5,700 m (18,700 ft),
driving 3-bladed VDM constant-speed propellers
Performance:
Maximum speed: 475 km/h (295 mph, 256 kn) at sea level
560 km/h (350 mph; 300 kn) at 5,700 m (18,700 ft)
Cruise speed: 400 km/h (250 mph, 220 kn) with loaded Gerät 104 at optimum altitude
Range: 2,180 km (1,350 mi, 1,180 nmi) with maximum internal fuel
Ferry range: 2,500 km (1,600 mi, 1,300 nmi); unarmed, with auxiliary fuel tanks
Service ceiling: 7,370 m (24,180 ft) with loaded Gerät 104,
9,500 m (31,200 ft) after firing
Rate of climb: 3.5 m/s (690 ft/min)
Time to altitude: 1,000 m (3,300 ft) in 4 minutes 10 seconds
2,000 m (6,600 ft) in 8 minutes 20 seconds
6,100 m (20,000 ft) in 24 minutes 40 seconds
Armament:
1x 355.6 mm (14-inch) Sondergerät 104 recoilless gun with a single round in ventral position
1x 15 mm (0.787 in) MG 151 machine cannon with 200 rounds, fixed in the nose
1x 13 mm (0.512 in) MG 131 machine gun with 500 rounds, movable in dorsal position
Two underwing hardpoints for a 900 l drop tank each, but only used during unarmed ferry flights
The kit and its assembly:
This was another submission to the "Gunships" group build at whatifmodellers.com in late 2021, and inspiration struck when I realized that I had two Italeri Do 217 in The Stash - a bomber and a night fighter - that could be combined into a suitable (fictional) carrier for a Sondergerät 104. This mighty weapon actually existed and even reached the hardware/test stage - but it was never integrated into an airframe and tested in flight. But that's what this model is supposed to depict.
On the Do 217, the Sg 104 would have been carried externally under the fuselage, even though there had been plans to integrate this recoilless rifle into airframes, esp. into the Ju 288. Since the latter never made it into production, the Do 217 would have been the most logical alternative, also because it had the highest payload of all German bombers during WWII and probably the only aircraft capable of carrying and deploying the Münchhausen device, as the SG 104 was also known.
The fictional Do 217 F-0 is a kitbashing, using a Do 217 N fuselage, combined with the wings from a Do 217 K bomber, plus some modifications. What initially sounded like a simple plan soon turned into a improvisation mess: it took some time to realize that I had already donated the Do 217 K's BMW 801 engines to another project, an upgraded He 115... I did not want to use the nightfighter's more powerful DB 603s, and I was lucky to have an Italeri Ju 188 kit at hand which comes with optional BMW 801s and Jumo 211s. Transplanting these engines onto the Do 217's wings took some tailoring of the adapter plates, but was feasible. However, the BMW 801s from the Ju 188 kit have a flaw: they lack the engine's characteristic cooling fans... Another lucky find: I found two such parts in the scrap box, even though from different kits - one left over from another Italeri Do 217 K, the other one from what I assume is/was an Italeri 1:72 Fw 190 A/F. To make matters worse, one propeller from the Ju 188 kit was missing, so that I had to find a(nother) replacement. :-/
I eventually used something that looked like an 1:72 F6F Hellcat propeller, but I an not certain about this because I have never built this model...? With some trimming on the blades' trailing edges and other mods, the donor's overall look could be adapted to the Ju 188 benchmark. Both propellers were mounted on metal axis' so that they could also carry the cooling fans. Lots of work, but the result looks quite good.
The Do 217 N's hull lost the lower rear gunner position and its ventral gondola, which was faired over with a piece of styrene sheet. The pilot was taken OOB, the gunner in the rear position was replaced by a more blob-like crew member from the scrap box. The plan to add a navigator in the seat to the lower right of the pilot did not work out due to space shortage, but this figure would probably have been invisble, anyway.
All gun openings in the nose were filled and PSRed away, and a fairing for a bomb aiming device and a single gun (the barrel is a hollow steel needle) were added.
The SG 104 was scratched. Starting point was a white metal replacement barrel for an 1:35 ISU-152 SPG with a brass muzzle brake. However, after dry-fitting the barrel under the hull the barrel turned out to be much too wide, so that only the muzzal brake survived and the rest of the weapon was created from a buddy refueling pod (from an Italeri 1:72 Luftwaffe Tornado, because of its two conical ends) and protective plastic caps from medical canulas. To attach this creation to the hull I abused a conformal belly tank from a Matchbox Gloster Meteor night fighter and tailored it into a streamlined fairing. While this quite a Frankenstein creation, the overall dimensions match the real SG 104 prototype and its look well.
Other cosmetic modifications include a pair of underwing dive brakes, translanted from an Italeri 1:72 Ju 88 A-4 kit, an extended (scratched) tail "stinger" which resembles the real dive brake arrangement that was installed on some Do 217 E bombers, and I added blast deflector vanes and a dorsal stabilizer fin.
In order to provide the aircraft with enough ground clearance, the tail wheel was slightly extended. Thanks to the long tail stinger, this is not blatantly obvious.
Painting and markings:
This was not an easy choice, but as a kind of prototype I decided that the paint scheme should be rather conservative. However, German aircraft operating over the Atlantic tended to carry rather pale schemes, so that the standard pattern of RLM 70/71/65 (Dunkelgrün, Schwarzgrün and Hellblau) with a low waterline - typical for experimental types - would hardly be appropriate.
I eventually found a compromise on a He 177 bomber (coded 6N+BN) from 1944 that was operated by KG 100: this particular aircraft had a lightened upper camouflage - still a standard splinter scheme but consisting of RLM 71 and 02 (Dunkelgrün and Grau; I used Modelmaster 2081 and Humbrol 240), a combination that had been used on German fighters during the Battle of Britain when the standard colors turned out to be too dark for operations over the Channel. The aircraft also carried standard RLM 65 (or maybe the new RLM76) underneath (Humbrol 65) and on the fin, but with a very high and slightly wavy waterline. As a rather unusual feature, no typical camouflage mottles were carried on the flanks or the fin, giving the aircraft a very bleak and simple look.
Despite my fears that this might look rather boring I adapted this scheme for the Do 217 F-0, and once basic painting was completed I was rather pleased by the aircraft's look! As an aircraft operated at the Western front, no additional markings like fuselage bands were carried.
To set the SG 104 apart from the airframe, I painted the weapon's visible parts in RLM 66 (Schwarzgrau, Humbrol 67), because this tone was frequently used for machinery (including the interior surfaces of aircraft towards 1945).
RLM 02 was also used for the interior surfaces and the landing gear, even though I used a slightly different, lighter shade in form of Revell 45 (Helloliv).
A light black ink washing was applied and post-shading to emphasize panel lines. Most markings/decals came from a Begemot 1:72 He 11 sheet, including the unusual green tactical code - it belongs to a staff unit, a suitable marking for such an experimental aircraft. The green (Humbrol 2) was carried over to the tips of the propeller spinners. The unit's code "1A" is fictional, AFAIK this combination had never been used by the Luftwaffe.
The small unit badge was alucky find: it actually depicts the fictional Baron von Münchhausen riding on a cannonball, and it comes from an Academy 1:72 Me 163 kit and its respective sheet. The mission markings underneath, depicting two anti-ship missions plus a successful sinking, came from a TL Modellbau 1:72 scale sheet with generic German WWII victory markings.
After some soot stains around the engine exhaust and weapon muzzles had been added with graphite, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish and final details like position lights and wire antennae (from heated black plastic sprue material) were added.
Well, what started as a combination of two kits of the same kind with a simple huge pipe underneath turned out to be more demanding than expected. The (incomplete) replacement engines were quite a challenge, and body work on the hull (tail stinger, fairing for the SG 104 as well as the weapon itself) turned out to be more complex and extensive than initially thought of. The result looks quite convincing, also supported by the rather simple paint scheme which IMHO just "looks right" and very convincing. And the whole thing is probably the most direct representation of the inspiring "Gunship" theme!
All-new 2015 Jeep® Renegade: Most Capable Small SUV Expands the Brand's Global Portfolio
- All-new 2015 Jeep® Renegade marks the brand's first entry in the small SUV segment
- Renegade Trailhawk model delivers best-in-class 4x4 Trail Rated capability with class-exclusive Jeep Active Drive Low, which includes 20:1 crawl ratio and Jeep Selec-Terrain system
- Designed to expand the Jeep brand globally, the all-new 2015 Renegade combines the brand's heritage with fresh new styling to appeal to youthful and adventurous customers
- Nothing else like it: Renegade displays a powerful stance with aggressive wheel-to- body proportions, plus the freedom of two My Sky open-air roof systems
- Renegade's all-new interior exudes an energetic appearance with rugged and functional details, crafted in high-quality materials and inspired colors
- All-new "small-wide 4x4 architecture" combines best-in-class off-road capability with world-class on-road driving dynamics
- Designed for global markets – with 16 fuel-efficient powertrain combinations for different markets around the world – including the world's first nine-speed automatic transmission in a small SUV
- Renegade will offer a best-in-class combination of fuel efficiency and off-road capability
- Technology once limited to premium SUVs: award-winning Uconnect Access, Uconnect touchscreen radios and the segment's largest full-color instrument cluster
- Loaded with up to 70 available advanced safety and security features
- Designed in America, crafted in Italy, the 2015 Renegade highlights the Jeep brand's global resources and dedication to meeting customer needs in more than 100 countries
The all-new 2015 Jeep® Renegade expands the brand's global vehicle lineup, entering the growing small SUV segment, while staying true to the adventurous lifestyle Jeep is known for. Renegade delivers a unique combination of best-in-class off-road capability, open-air freedom and convenience, a segment-first nine-speed automatic transmission that contributes to outstanding on- road and off-road driving dynamics, fuel-efficient engines, world-class refinement, and a host of innovative safety and advanced technology offerings. The result is an efficient vehicle created to attract youthful and adventurous customers around the world to the Jeep brand.
The all-new 2015 Jeep Renegade expands the brand's product portfolio and targets the rapidly expanding small SUV segment around the globe with benchmark levels of efficiency and driving dynamics, while at the same time delivering best-in-class 4x4 capability that customers expect from Jeep,‖ said Mike Manley, President and CEO - Jeep Brand, Chrysler Group LLC. ―Renegade symbolizes the brand's renowned American design, ingenuity and innovation, marking the Jeep brand's first entry into the small SUV segment in more than 100 markets around the globe.
Best-in-class off-road capability thanks to two all-new 4x4 systems
Leveraging 4x4 technology from the all-new Jeep Cherokee, the all-new 2015 Jeep Renegade offers two of the most advanced and intelligent 4x4 systems in its class, all to deliver best-in-class off-road capability. Both systems can provide up to 100 percent of the engine's available torque to the ground, through any wheel, for optimal grip.
- Jeep Active Drive – full-time 4x4 system
- Jeep Active Drive Low – class-exclusive full-time 4x4 system with 20:1 crawl ratio
Innovation is also at the forefront of any new Jeep vehicle, and the Renegade is the first small SUV to feature a disconnecting rear axle and power take-off unit (PTU) – all to provide Jeep Renegade 4x4 models with enhanced fuel economy. The system instantly engages when 4x4 traction is needed.
Both Jeep Active Drive and Active Drive Low 4x4 systems include the Jeep Selec-Terrain system, providing up to five modes (Auto, Snow, Sand and Mud modes, plus exclusive Rock mode on the Trailhawk model) for the best four-wheel-drive performance on- or off-road and in any weather condition.
Trail Rated: Renegade Trailhawk 4x4 model
For customers who demand the most off-road capability from their Jeep vehicles, the Renegade Trailhawk model delivers best-in-class Trail Rated 4x4 capability with:
- Standard Jeep Active Drive Low (20:1 crawl ratio)
- Selec-Terrain system with exclusive Rock mode
- Increased ride height 20 mm (0.8 inches)
- Skid plates, and red front and rear tow hooks
- Unique fascias deliver 30.5 degree approach, 25.7 degree breakover and 34.3 degree departure angles
- 17-inch all-terrain tires
- Up to 205 mm (8.1 inches) of wheel articulation
- Hill-descent Control
- Up to 480 mm (19 inches) of water fording
- Up to 1,500 kg (3,300-lb.) towing capability with MultiJet II diesel engine and 907 kg (2,000- lb.) towing capability with 2.4-liter Tigershark engine, with available tow package
A global Jeep design for a rapidly growing global brand
From the start, Jeep designers knew the Renegade would need to deliver best-in-class off-road capability with city-sized proportions that exuded the brand's rugged style while at the same time enhancing versatility, maneuverability and style. Additionally designers were tasked to create an all- new SUV that would symbolize the brand's renowned American design and ingenuity, as it would mark the Jeep brand's first entry into the small SUV segment in more than 100 markets around the globe. Last, Renegade had to offer the open-air freedom that dates back to its 1941 roots with the Willys MB Jeep.
The result is the all-new 2015 Renegade, a vehicle that builds on the Jeep Wrangler's powerful stance, and features fresh new styling with rugged body forms and aggressive proportions that enable best-in-class approach and departure angles purposely designed to deliver best-in-class off- road capability. And for segment-exclusive panoramic views, two available My Sky open-air roof panel systems conveniently stow to provide passengers open-air freedom with ease.
All-new interior exudes a rugged and energetic appearance
The all-new Jeep Renegade interior features a rugged and energetic appearance that builds upon Jeep's legendary brand heritage. Its precisely crafted detail, innovative and high-quality color and material appointments, state-of-the-art technology, and clever storage features draw inspiration from contemporary extreme sports gear and lifestyles.
The interior of the all-new 2015 Jeep Renegade has a distinctive form language which Jeep designers have titled ―Tek-Tonic.‖ This new design theme is defined by the intersections of soft and tactile forms with rugged and functional details. Major surfaces such as the sculpted soft-touch instrument panel are intersected with bold functional elements like the passenger grab handle – indispensable for off-road adventures and borrowed from its big brother, the legendary Jeep Wrangler. Unique ―protective clamp fasteners,‖ anodized design accents and inspired colors are derived from extreme sports equipment, while the newly familiar ―X‖ shapes inspired by its roof and tail lamps add to Renegade's Tek-Tonic interior look. And to make sure all of the needed passenger gear fits, the Renegade is designed with an efficient and flexible interior package that includes a removable, reversible and height-adjustable cargo floor panel and fold-forward front-passenger seat.
My Sky: continuing Jeep open-air freedom since 1941
Keeping the tradition of the legendary 1941 Willys MB Jeep, the all-new 2015 Renegade offers open-air freedom with two available My Sky open-air roof systems. With a manual removable, or removable with premium power tilt/slide feature, the segment-exclusive My Sky roof-panel systems quickly bring the outdoors inside. Designed for convenience, the honeycomb fiberglass polyurethane roof panels are lightweight and stow neatly in the rear cargo area. For added design detail, both My Sky roof systems feature a debossed ―X‖ stamped into the roof that exude strength and play on the brand's utilitarian history.
Best-in-class off-road capability with world-class on-road driving dynamics
Designed and engineered to first and foremost deliver legendary Jeep 4x4 capability, the all-new 2015 Renegade is the first small SUV from Chrysler Group to use the all-new ―small-wide 4x4 architecture.‖
With its fully independent suspension capable of up to 205 mm (8.1 inches) of wheel articulation and 220 mm (8.7 inches) of ground clearance (Trailhawk), Renegade raises the bar in the small SUV segment with best-in-class off-road capability. Extensive use of advanced steels, composites and advanced computer-impact simulations enable the all-new 2015 Renegade's architecture to deliver world-class torsional stiffness and Jeep brand's durability required for Trail Rated adventures.
The all-new Renegade is the first Jeep to integrate Koni's frequency selective damping (FSD) front and rear strut system. This damping system enables the Jeep Renegade to deliver world-class road-holding and handling characteristics.
Designed for global markets: 16 powertrain combinations
True to the Jeep brand, the all-new Renegade will offer customers in global markets maximum off- road capability and fuel efficiency. The Renegade will offer up to 16 strategic powertrain combinations – the most ever in a Jeep vehicle – customized to markets around the world to meet a range of performance and efficiency needs. Powertrain options include:
- Four MultiAir gasoline engine offerings
- Two MultiJet II diesel engine offerings
- Efficient and flex-fuel capable E.torQ engine
- Emissions and fuel-saving Stop&Start technology
- Segment-first nine-speed automatic transmission
- Two manual and one dual-dry clutch transmission (DDCT) offerings
World's first small SUV with nine-speed automatic transmission
Like the new Jeep Cherokee, the all-new 2015 Jeep Renegade has raised the bar - this time in the small SUV class - with the first available nine-speed automatic transmission. When paired with either the 2.0-liter MultiJet II diesel engine, or 2.4-liter MultiAir2 gas engine, the nine-speed transmission delivers numerous benefits customers will appreciate, including aggressive launches, smooth power delivery at highway speeds and improved fuel efficiency versus a six-speed automatic transmission.
Segment-exclusive technologies once found only on higher classed SUVs
The all-new 2015 Jeep Renegade offers technology features once found only in upper-segment vehicles, and makes them attainable to customers in the growing small SUV segment – including award-winning Uconnect Access, Uconnect touchscreens and the segment's largest full-color instrument cluster.
- Uconnect Access: Utilizes embedded cellular technology to allow Jeep Renegade occupants to get directly in contact with local emergency-service dispatchers – all with the push of the 9-1-1 Assist button on the rearview mirror. Uconnect Access applies the same logic to roadside assistance. One push of the ―ASSIST‖ button summons help directly from Chrysler Group's roadside assistance provider, or the Vehicle Customer Care Center. Further peace of mind comes from the system's ability to receive text messages, announce receipt of texts, identify senders and then ―read‖ the messages aloud with Bluetooth-equipped cell phones. AOL Autos named Uconnect Access its ―Technology of the Year for 2013.‖ (Uconnect services may vary in different markets)
- Uconnect touchscreen radio systems: Award-winning in-vehicle handsfree communication, entertainment and available navigation. Key features available on the Uconnect 5.0 and 6.5AN systems include a 5.0-inch or 6.5-inch touchscreen display, Bluetooth connectivity, single or dual-turner, radio data system capability (RDS), digital audio broadcast (DAB), HD Radio, digital media broadcasting (DMB), SiriusXM Radio, SiriusXM Travel Link, SiriusXM Travel Link, USB port and auxiliary audio jack input. (Uconnect services may vary in different markets)
- Segment's largest full-color instrument cluster display: Filling the Jeep Renegade's gauge cluster in front of the driver is an available 7-inch, full-color, premium multiview display, featuring a reconfigurable function that enables drivers to personalize information inside the instrument cluster. The information display is designed to visually communicate information, using graphics and text, quickly and easily.
Renegade features up to 70 advanced safety and security features
Safety and security were at the forefront in the development of the all-new 2015 Jeep Renegade, setting the stage for up to 70 available safety and security features – including the availability of Forward Collision Warning-Plus and LaneSense Departure Warning-Plus.
In addition, engineers added both active and passive safety and security features, including Blind- spot Monitoring; Rear Cross Path detection; ParkView rear backup camera with dynamic grid lines; electronic stability control (ESC) with electronic roll mitigation and seven standard air bags.
Jeep brand's global resources
Designed in America and crafted in Italy, the 2015 Renegade continues the Jeep brand's dedication to the global marketplace and demonstrates the depths of its available resources. The final assembly location for the Renegade will be at the Melfi Assembly Plant. The Renegade's global portfolio of powertrain production includes the United States, Italy and Brazil.
The 135-metre, 33-storey twin towers of the National Bank of Egypt (NBE), completer in 1986.
The National Bank of Egypt is the oldest and largest commercial bank in Egypt. In 2007, NBE accounted for 23% of the banking system’s total assets, 25% of total deposits and 25% of total loans and advances. NBE also financed about 24% of Egypt’s foreign trade during the year. NBE also accounts for 74% of the credit card market and 40% of the debit cards in Egypt.
NBE has subsidiaries in London, New York and Shanghai.
The National Bank of Egypt was established in 1898 by English capitalists amidst growing economic colonisation. Eventually, the bank came to represent Anglo-Egyptian imperial economic interests in Egypt and Sudan (as of 1901). The bank soon established the Agricultural Bank of Egypt in 1902 and the Bank of Abyssinia in Ethiopia in 1906. In the 1920s, NBE developed strategic partnerships with Lloyds Bank in London, Bank of British West Africa and US-based Citibank.
The bank's ownership and administration was gradually Egyptianised in the 1940s until its nationalisation under President Nasser in 1960 and the subjugation of the bank to the regulatory authority of the Central Bank of Egypt.
Friday, 29 August 2008
[Rob Ferguson was found frozen to death in February 2009. According to a street pastor who provided an update on this situation, Rob's body remains unclaimed at the city morgue. More on this scene can be read on this Flickr photo.]
New Gillig bus of FAX in Fresno, California, with a special wrap celebrating the system's 50th anniversary.
Charlie Blackwell-Thompson, Artemis II launch director at NASA's Kennedy Space Center, right, and Matt Czech, NASA’s Exploration Ground System’s Senior Vehicle Operations Manager, are seen in Firing Room One of the Rocco A. Petrone Launch Control Center as NASA’s Artemis II Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and Orion spacecraft, secured to the mobile launcher, roll out of High Bay 3 of the Vehicle Assembly Building to Launch Complex 39B, Saturday, Jan. 17, 2026, at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. NASA’s Artemis II test flight will take Commander Reid Wiseman, Pilot Victor Glover, and Mission Specialist Christina Koch from NASA, and Mission Specialist Jeremy Hansen from the CSA (Canadian Space Agency), around the Moon and back to Earth no later than April 2026. Photo Credit: (NASA/Aubrey Gemignani)
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
www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/covid-19-treatments-have...
COVID-19 treatments have evolved a lot. Here's what's available now
Since March 2020, the medical world has made some pretty amazing advances in treatments for COVID-19. The right one for you will usually depend on the severity of your symptoms and how long it's been since you tested positive. But the dynamics of the pandemic also matter — especially the emergence of new coronavirus variants.
"We are in such a better position now than we were at the beginning of the pandemic, both because we have better prevention — primarily vaccines and boosters — but also because we have better treatments," Dr. Megan Ranney, emergency medicine physician and associate dean for strategy and innovation at the Brown School of Public Health, told TODAY.
The main options we have right now fall into two camps: antiviral medications and antibody treatments, Dr. Taison Bell, assistant professor of medicine in the divisions of infectious diseases and international health and pulmonary and critical care medicine at the University of Virginia, told TODAY. Antivirals help keep the virus from replicating inside your body while antibody therapies supplement your immune system's natural defenses against the virus.
For many people, especially those who are fully vaccinated, a bout of COVID-19 does not require extensive treatment or a trip to the hospital. But if you have risk factors for severe symptoms, you're likely eligible to receive some of these treatments that can help prevent you from needing to be hospitalized — including some options you can take at home.
Home COVID-19 treatments and remedies
At-home antiviral medications
There are two options for antiviral pills you can take at home: There's a combination of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir (Paxlovid) there's molnupiravir (Lagevrio), both of which received authorization from the Food and Drug Administration in December 2021. To be eligible for a prescription for these medications, you need to have a positive COVID-19 test and at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19.
Compared to IV medications, the pills are generally "less complicated from an administrative standpoint," Bell said.
The catch is that they need to be taken within three to five days of being diagnosed with COVID-19, Ranney said.
That's why quick access to COVID-19 testing and a provider who can prescribe the medication within the proper timeframe are so essential. The government's Test to Treat program was designed to help address this issue. Check the website to find locations near you where you can get both a COVID-19 test and, if the test is positive, a prescription for Paxlovid.
The other issue with these medications, though, is potential drug interactions. "There are some big categories of people that can't take Paxlovid," Ranney explained. That's because "there are some medications that can go into either dangerously high levels or dangerously low levels because of the way Paxlovid works."
That can be especially dangerous for solid organ transplant patients, Dr. Robin Avery, an infectious diseases physician at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, told TODAY. The ritonavir part of Paxlovid can elevate the level of drugs like tacrolimus — a "mainstay of immunosuppression" — in the body, she said, to the point where patients can experience tremors, kidney failure and even strokes.
On the other hand, people who are pregnant or breastfeeding should not take molnupiravir, Ranney added. So, if possible, they should take Paxlovid instead.
Bell recommended that patients and their providers who are concerned about potential interactions check the University of Liverpool's COVID-19 drug interactions checker. Avery also recommended perusing the interaction information in the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 treatment guidelines and those from the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
What is the Paxlovid "rebound"?
There have been reports of people taking Paxlovid, feeling better and testing negative for a few days before symptoms return and sometimes testing positive again, usually two to eight days after initial recovery. This phenomenon, nicknamed a Paxlovid rebound, seems to be "uncommon, but ... I wouldn't call it rare," Bell said.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently warned that Paxlovid rebound is a possibility.
"First of all, it does look like this subvariant does tend to cause some rebound in and of itself," Bell explained. So, as the CDC noted, some people who have COVID-19 caused by the omicron subvariants circulating now may experience a rebound of their symptoms with or without taking Paxlovid.
Another theory, Bell explained, is that a relatively short course of treatment with Paxlovid isn't enough for your body to successfully mount its own defenses. "What you're doing is buying time with this; you're keeping the virus at bay (while your body builds up its immune response)," he said. But, for some people, one course of Paxlovid might not give their body enough time to do that.
The CDC recommends that people experiencing Paxlovid rebound start their isolation over, as it's unclear how likely they are to spread the virus.
Other home remedies for COVID-19
If you have a relatively mild bout of COVID-19, there are things you can do at home to feel better, depending on your symptoms.
■ Use over-the-counter medications like acetaminophen and ibuprofen to reduce body aches and fevers, according to the CDC.
■ Stay hydrated and be sure to get plenty of rest, the Mayo Clinic advised.
■ For a cough or sore throat, try soothing remedies you might use for a seasonal cold or flu, like cough drops or tea with honey.
■ Recognize when you need medical attention. If you're having trouble breathing, notice a persistent pressure in your throat or chest, are finding it hard to stay awake at all or show any of the CDC's other major warning signs, get help immediately.
Other treatments you can take as an outpatient
Monoclonal antibodies
“The first-line treatment for someone who gets diagnosed with COVID and has a relatively high risk is to prescribe them (Paxlovid) pills,” Ranney said. But if someone can't get the pills, or they’re outside of the window where the pills might be effective, "the next treatment is monoclonal antibodies, which are an infusion." You receive it in a designated medical facility and can leave afterward.
Among immunocompromised patients, this type of therapy "has made the most difference in early treatment," Avery said. It's kept people from developing severe symptoms and needing to come to the hospital, she added.
But the effectiveness of monoclonal antibody treatments depends on the coronavirus variants that are circulating at any given time. Experts now understand that these antibody therapies, like the antibodies your body makes naturally in response to an infection, work by binding to a small part of the coronavirus' spike protein. If the spike protein is different from variant to variant, these treatments may not work as well.
That's why some treatments, like bamlanivimab, that were used early on are now no longer effective. Instead, the NIH recommended using sotrovimab during the winter omicron wave and now recommends using bebtelovimab against BA.2.
IV antiviral treatments
Remdesivir (Veklury), is an antiviral treatment that you can receive at certain medical centers and health care locations.
It's given through an IV and requires three consecutive days of treatment, the NIH explained. So although there's evidence remdesivir can be effective at keeping people out of the hospital, "it's logistically tricky," Avery said. "A lot of centers don't necessarily have an area where they can do these outpatient fusions three days in a row."
One major benefit of remdesivir? Its helpfulness isn't likely to be affected by changes in dominant variants. "It works on the level of the RNA polymerase, not the spike protein," Avery explained. "So mutations in the spike protein wouldn't be expected to affect its efficacy."
Treatments you might receive in the hospital
Patients in the hospital will also receive a standard set of supportive treatments, like those that help fight and prevent blood clots, Ranney said. But there aren't many options to treat COVID-19 specifically.
“If you’re sick enough to get hospitalized, we have many fewer choices,” Ranney said. “By that point, COVID has already started to cause damage to a large extent.” Here's what you might get:
Dexamethasone
Alongside remdesivir, patients who are hospitalized and require oxygen may receive the corticosteroid dexamethasone. Medications like this can be used to halt the "upswing of the inflammatory phase, which causes the respiratory failure so forth in inpatients," Avery said.
Bell reiterated that this is not something that people should take outside of a doctor's supervision. "There's a risk-benefit to steroids because in addition to calming down inflammation, which could be a benefit, it also suppresses your immune system," he explained. "So you're always walking that line."
If dexamethasone isn't available, the NIH recommended looking into other corticosteroids, such as prednisone.
Baricitinib and tocilizumab
These are both drugs that are normally used to treat rheumatoid arthritis. For hospitalized COVID-19 patients, either one may be given along with dexamethasone or another corticosteroid, the NIH said.
Convalescent plasma
Plasma from donors who've recovered from COVID-19 can be given to hospitalized patients to help them heal. In the early days of the pandemic, it seemed like convalescent plasma could be helpful. But today, the NIH recommends against using any plasma collected before the emergence of omicron and recommends only using it in people who are immunocompromised.
But this is one therapy option where "the pendulum may swing back," Avery said, pointing to the work of her colleague Dr. Arturo Casadevall. In a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, a team of researchers including Casadevall found there could be benefits to using convalescent plasma among unvaccinated people within nine days of symptom onset.
"We've actually used a lot of convalescent plasma throughout the pandemic in our immunocompromised patients because we feel that they often don't mount enough antibody response (to the vaccine or infection)," she explained.
What experts want you to know:
As much progress as we've made in developing COVID-19 treatments, there is still work to do — especially when it comes to making those options actually accessible.
“We have a situation now where these (treatments) are widely available physically,” Bell said. “But, functionally, there are still barriers to getting them.” Not everyone has a primary care provider who can easily prescribe them Paxlovid, for instance.
Ranney agreed: "Unfortunately, there are groups across the country that continue to be unaware of the ability to get these treatments or simply don't have access to them," she said, noting recent research showing that Black, Asian and Hispanic people were less likely than white people to be prescribed monoclonal antibody treatment.
Also, it pays to know what risk factors you have for severe COVID-19 and, maybe, to have a conversation about that with your doctor before you get infected, Avery said. Those risk factors can include having a high BMI, being over 60 years old, being a former smoker, and having diabetes or heart disease.
"If people have one or more of these risk factors, they should consult with their providers and actually make a plan in advance," Avery said. "At the very least, that person and their provider should have a discussion" about whether they're eligible for therapies like Paxlovid and whether there are potential drug interactions to be aware of.
And the experts also underscored that treatment is not a replacement for prevention measures. "The therapeutics are always the second line," Bell said. Getting vaccinated, getting boosted and wearing a high-quality mask are still the best way to prevent getting COVID-19.
Quoting from the X-35B STOVL Propulsion System museum caption:
Lockheed Martin conceived a unique propulsion system to achieve short-takeoff and verticcal landing (STOVL) flight for the X-35B Joint Strike Fighter. At the system's center is the Pratt & Whitney JSF 119-PW-611 turbofan engine that powered both conventional and STOVL versions of the X-35. Rolls-Royce developed the STOVL components. A vertical shaft-driven lift fan and a three-bearing swivel-duct nozzle created downward thrust, while roll control ducts provided stability at low speeds.
This integrated system enabled the X-35B to make the world's first short takeoff, level supersonic dash, and vertical landing in a single flight on July 20, 2001. The partners in its development, which also included Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems, and the Joint Strike Fighter Program Office, received the prestigious Collier Trophy for 2001 from the National Aeronautics Association.
Transferred from the Department of Defense Joint Strike Fighter Program Office
Major support for the display of the X-35B STOVL Propulsion System provided by Pratt & Whitney
• • • • •
Quoting Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum | Lockheed Martin X-35B STOVL:
This aircraft is the first X-35 ever built. It was originally the X-35A and was modified to include the lift-fan engine for testing of the STOVL concept. Among its many test records, this aircraft was the first in history to achieve a short takeoff, level supersonic dash, and vertical landing in a single flight. It is also the first aircraft to fly using a shaft-driven lift-fan propulsion system. The X-35B flight test program was one of the shortest, most effective in history, lasting from June 23, 2001 to August 6, 2001.
The lift-fan propulsion system is now displayed next to the X-35B at the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center near Dulles Airport.
On July 7, 2006, the production model F-35 was officially named F-35 Lightning II by T. Michael Moseley, Chief of Staff USAF.
Transferred from the United States Air Force.
Date:
2001
Dimensions:
Wing span: 10.05 m (33 ft 0 in)
Length: 15.47 m (50 ft 9 in)
Height: approximately 5 m (15 ft 0 in)
Weight: approximately 35,000 lb.
Materials:
Composite material aircraft skin, alternating steel and titanium spars. Single-engine, single-seat configuration includes lift-fan and steering bars for vertical flight.
Physical Description:
Short takeoff/vertical landing variant to be used by U.S. Air Force, U.S. Marines and the United Kingdom, equipped with a shaft-driven lift fan propulsion system which enables the aircraft to take off from a short runway or small aircraft carrier and to land vertically.
Engine: Pratt & Whitney JSF 119-PW-611 turbofan deflects thrust downward for short takeoff/vertical landing capability. The Air Force and Navy versions use a thrust-vectoring exhaust nozzle. The Marine Corps and Royal Air Force/Navy version has a swivel-duct nozzle; an engine-driven fan behind the cockpit and air-reaction control valves in the wings to provide stability at low speeds.
Other major subcontractors are Rolls Royce and BAE.
Charlie Blackwell-Thompson, Artemis II launch director at NASA's Kennedy Space Center, left, and Matt Czech, NASA’s Exploration Ground System’s Senior Vehicle Operations Manager are seen in Firing Room One of the Rocco A. Petrone Launch Control Center as NASA’s Artemis II Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and Orion spacecraft, secured to the mobile launcher, roll out of High Bay 3 of the Vehicle Assembly Building to Launch Complex 39B, Saturday, Jan. 17, 2026, at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. NASA’s Artemis II test flight will take Commander Reid Wiseman, Pilot Victor Glover, and Mission Specialist Christina Koch from NASA, and Mission Specialist Jeremy Hansen from the CSA (Canadian Space Agency), around the Moon and back to Earth no later than April 2026. Photo Credit: (NASA/Aubrey Gemignani)
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
Van Damme State Park consists of beach and upland on the Mendocino Coast. Of all the park system's units along the Mendocino coast, Van Damme is perhaps the richest in terms of historical resources connected with the redwood lumber industry. Its story is a prime example of the struggles and eventual failures of a small, independent lumber operation.
Location/Directions
The park is located three miles south of the town of Mendocino on Highway 1. The highway runs through the park separating the campground and the Fern Canyon trail head to the east and the beach and parking lot to the west.
Seasons/Climate - Recommended clothing
The weather can be changeable; layered clothing is recommended.
Facilities - Activities
The park features the lush Fern Canyon scenic trail system; the Pygmy Forest where mature, cone-bearing cypress and pine trees stand six inches to eight feet tall; and the bog, or Cabbage Patch, where skunk cabbage grows in abundance. The park’s ten miles of trail go along the fern-carpeted canyon of Little River. A paved road is used by joggers and bicyclists. The beach is popular with abalone divers.
Kayak Tours
Visitors can get a unique perspective of the coast line by taking the kayak tours, available through a concession agreement, at the Van Damme beach parking lot.
About the Park
Van Damme State Park was named for Charles Van Damme who was born at Little River in 1881, son of John and Louise Van Damme, early settlers of the region. John Van Damme and his wife were a Flemish couple. The patriarch of the family was born in Ostend, Belgium on May 22, 1832. "Following the sea" for some years, Van Damme, upon his arrival in Mendocino County, later worked in the lumber mill at Little River. In this settlement all of his children were born, including Charles, whose love for the area prompted his acquiring, after some years as a successful operator of the Richmond-San Rafael ferry line, a plot of ground along the redwood coast. Upon his demise this area became a part of the State Park System in 1934.
In those early days lumbering was a major economic factor in the development of the northern coastline. Little River was built as a mill town in 1864 by Ruel Stickney, Silas Coombs and Tapping Reeves after the property, formally called Kents Cove, was purchased from W. H. Kent in 1862. Before long it had attained fame, not only as a lumber port, but as a shipyard as well. Alas, a stand of timber, if logged, does not last forever and by the end of the century, even though logging was periodically moved back into the headwaters of Little River, the mill was forced to close in 1893.
What was left of Little River soon deteriorated; the shipyard, the wharf, the town, several chutes for loading lumber and the lumber mill itself. Activity at the port, which once hummed with activity, declined. Little River's school, once attended by nearly 100 students, closed; its weekly steamship service ended, and a shipyard where, in 1874, Captain Thomas Peterson turned out full-size lumber schooners for the coast wide trade, phased out. Only the schooner Little River returned, to be wrecked on the very beach from which it originally departed.
Plagued by a lack of sufficient timber reserves, fires, substantial loss of business and trade, deterioration of the port's chutes and wharf, the end of coast wide shipping and the attendant decline in population, Little River reverted to a natural state. Its acquisition by the State Park System in 1934, and the subsequent addition of peripheral lands has preserved some of California's most interesting natural resources.
Related Pages
Van Damme State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA)
Telephone
Mendocino District
Office: 707 937-5804
Van Damme SP
Kiosk: 707 937-0851 (seasonal)
Visitor center: 707 937-4016 (seasonal)
Operating Hours
Daily 8:00 AM to 9:00 PM
News Release
Mendocino District Interpreters
150th Year Celebration for California State Parks 150th Year Celebration for California State Parks June 10th – August 31st, 2014
Don’t Move Firewood Icon
Don't Move Firewood Information
Image Gallery
Littleriver, CA
50° F
Cloudy
View Forecast »
Available Activities and Facilities at Van Damme State Park
OVERNIGHT FACILITIES
En route Campsites
Environmental Campsites
Family Campsites
Group Campsites
Hike or Bike Campsites
RV Dump Station
RV Access
Geocaching
TRAIL USE
Bike Trails
Hiking Trails
Nature Trails
DAY-USE ACTIVITIES & FACILITIES
Picnic Areas
Env. Learning/Visitor Center
Exhibits and Programs
Fishing
Guided Tours
Scuba Diving/Snorkeling
Swimming
OTHER FACILITIES & VISITOR INFORMATION
Parking
Restrooms / Showers
Restrooms
In view are three vehicle support posts installed on the deck of the mobile launcher at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida. A total of eight support posts will be installed to support the load of the Space Launch System's (SLS) solid rocket boosters, with four posts for each of the boosters. The support posts are about five feet tall and each weigh about 10,000 pounds. The posts will structurally support the SLS rocket through T-0 and liftoff, and will drop down before vehicle liftoff to avoid contact with the flight hardware. The Ground Systems Development and Operations Program is overseeing installation of the support posts to prepare for the launch of the Orion spacecraft atop the SLS rocket. Photo credit: NASA/Leif Heimbold
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
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
Los Angeles Railway Car #665 represents the Los Angeles Railway's largest class of streetcars, the Type B or "Huntington Standard".
Designed by the L.A. Railway in 1902, this class of wood-bodied city cars bore the name of the system's owner, Henry E. Huntington (of Huntington Library, Beach and Drive fame).
This was the type of car that Los Angeles grew up with; at one time there were 747 of them roaming the streets of L.A. - Built in 1911 and retired in 1948. (Information from the OERM Web Site)
A special thanks to Steve Crise for his time, expertise and the use of his equipment, without which this image would have looked very different.
This is the photo that was being staged in this shot on Flickr.
Orange Empire Railroad Museum, Perris California.
(April 20, 2013)
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
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
BODYBUILDINGS GREATEST LOSS…so many would say when he stopped competing after the 1980 Mr. Olympia. But Mike, Mr. Heavy Duty, went on to dazzle the weightlifting masses with his controversial training plans. Fit for Life is loosely based on Mentzer's HEAVY DUTY™ System. Less is more. 45 minutes a day in the gym, 4X a week. Not three hours a day, six days a week, like Arnold and the 'boys'. Later on, Mike trained Englishman Dorian Yates who went on to become Mr Olympia for 6 years running.
Mike was born and raised in Pennsylvania, by mom and dad, who were Mennonite descendants! And Mike, himself, was ex-USAF!
I met Mike and talked to him almost 31 years ago which was captured in the picture on the left at Vic Tanny's SUPERFITNESS in Rexdale, Ontario.
Toronto.
I wasn't putting on much size or weight, was somewhat at a standstill…until I met Mike here and purchased the first draft of his training programme. A little over a year later, I was thirty pounds heavier, and had problems sleeping because my arms were too big! Mike's intense, highly disciplined system didn't work for everybody—but it worked for me!
Ten years ago today June 10, 2001 Mike finished filming his new DVD, Mike Mentzer's HIT (High Intensity Training) Exercise Video (with Markus Reinhardt). Mr HEAVY DUTY™ was dead a few hours later! Mike, an avid fitness and philosophical writer, was found slumped over his typewriter by his bodybuilding brother, Ray.
Sadly, Ray also died two days later from complications of Berger's Disease!
The Mentzer's took the bodybuilding world by storm when they arrived, and yet again when they died suddenly in 2001. RIP Mentzer brothers—
UPDATE: Accidentally DELETED my original post which WAS uploaded on June 10, 2011.
New MENTZER photo generous courtesy of famed bodybuilding photographer, Garry Bartlett. Garry took the RIGHT SHOT , which I think was one of the best Mentzer photos ever —when Mike competed in an IFBB event in Montreal in 1979.
(left photo taken, by me, with a horrendous Agfa 110!)
On Saturday, October 7, more than 1,700 of Rochester Regional Health’s friends and employees gathered at the Joseph A. Floreano Rochester Riverside Convention Center for the system’s signature celebration.
The "Occupy Wall Street" protest began on 17 September 2011 at Zuccotti Park in Lower Manhattan, near Wall Street, which the protesters renamed as "Liberty Square."
Many people throughout the US and beyond have been upset by an economic system that benefits the powers that be, especially in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the massive taxpayer-funded bank bailouts, and continued difficulties for everyday people.
The Tea Party had been the initial populist uprising, upset with the Obama Administration's "attacks on the US Constitution," but as it became clearer that the Tea Party was more of an Astroturf organization funded by the big bankers themselves to further weaken common sense rules and further consolidate wealth into the few, it built up a very negative image after the initial upswell.
Occupy Wall Street and its sister protests come generally from the other side of the political spectrum. Participants may be mainstream center-left to anarchists to far-leftists. Although they don't always have common goals, I support their right to voice their frustrations and ask for solutions that benefit the people and the economy as a whole, rather than the most powerful.
Occupy Wall Street had been inspired by the peaceful people-led overthrows of Middle Eastern dictatorships. Their right to protest is largely based on the First Amendment to the United States Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech, assembly, and grievances. The large media outlets at first ignored the protests, then various entities (including New York City's mayor and police department) tried to crack down on the Occupy protests, but each crackdown has only added more legitimacy to the protests. Now the key is not to merely squat in public areas, but to proactively push for concrete changes, through voting and discussions, so that jobs can be created and the American workers can go back to work.
This man's sign alludes to the US healthcare system's focus on profits rather than coverage. It is too easy to be turned away for a bogus "pre-existing condition," to lose coverage for catastrophic illness, and/or to see steep hikes in insurance premiums. At least 15% of the US population lacks health insurance for one reason or another, and even more people have inadequate insurance. The Affordable Care Act, passed by the Obama Administration, addresses the worst of the abuses and gives a path for almost all Americans to obtain health insurance, but the far left is still upset that it did not include a public option (the insurance will still be provided by the private insurers), while the far right calls it a government takeover of healthcare, to be repealed at any cost, referring to the Act by the pejorative nickname ObamaCare.
Van Damme State Park consists of beach and upland on the Mendocino Coast. Of all the park system's units along the Mendocino coast, Van Damme is perhaps the richest in terms of historical resources connected with the redwood lumber industry. Its story is a prime example of the struggles and eventual failures of a small, independent lumber operation.
Location/Directions
The park is located three miles south of the town of Mendocino on Highway 1. The highway runs through the park separating the campground and the Fern Canyon trail head to the east and the beach and parking lot to the west.
Seasons/Climate - Recommended clothing
The weather can be changeable; layered clothing is recommended.
Facilities - Activities
The park features the lush Fern Canyon scenic trail system; the Pygmy Forest where mature, cone-bearing cypress and pine trees stand six inches to eight feet tall; and the bog, or Cabbage Patch, where skunk cabbage grows in abundance. The park’s ten miles of trail go along the fern-carpeted canyon of Little River. A paved road is used by joggers and bicyclists. The beach is popular with abalone divers.
Kayak Tours
Visitors can get a unique perspective of the coast line by taking the kayak tours, available through a concession agreement, at the Van Damme beach parking lot.
About the Park
Van Damme State Park was named for Charles Van Damme who was born at Little River in 1881, son of John and Louise Van Damme, early settlers of the region. John Van Damme and his wife were a Flemish couple. The patriarch of the family was born in Ostend, Belgium on May 22, 1832. "Following the sea" for some years, Van Damme, upon his arrival in Mendocino County, later worked in the lumber mill at Little River. In this settlement all of his children were born, including Charles, whose love for the area prompted his acquiring, after some years as a successful operator of the Richmond-San Rafael ferry line, a plot of ground along the redwood coast. Upon his demise this area became a part of the State Park System in 1934.
In those early days lumbering was a major economic factor in the development of the northern coastline. Little River was built as a mill town in 1864 by Ruel Stickney, Silas Coombs and Tapping Reeves after the property, formally called Kents Cove, was purchased from W. H. Kent in 1862. Before long it had attained fame, not only as a lumber port, but as a shipyard as well. Alas, a stand of timber, if logged, does not last forever and by the end of the century, even though logging was periodically moved back into the headwaters of Little River, the mill was forced to close in 1893.
What was left of Little River soon deteriorated; the shipyard, the wharf, the town, several chutes for loading lumber and the lumber mill itself. Activity at the port, which once hummed with activity, declined. Little River's school, once attended by nearly 100 students, closed; its weekly steamship service ended, and a shipyard where, in 1874, Captain Thomas Peterson turned out full-size lumber schooners for the coast wide trade, phased out. Only the schooner Little River returned, to be wrecked on the very beach from which it originally departed.
Plagued by a lack of sufficient timber reserves, fires, substantial loss of business and trade, deterioration of the port's chutes and wharf, the end of coast wide shipping and the attendant decline in population, Little River reverted to a natural state. Its acquisition by the State Park System in 1934, and the subsequent addition of peripheral lands has preserved some of California's most interesting natural resources.
Related Pages
Van Damme State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA)
Telephone
Mendocino District
Office: 707 937-5804
Van Damme SP
Kiosk: 707 937-0851 (seasonal)
Visitor center: 707 937-4016 (seasonal)
Operating Hours
Daily 8:00 AM to 9:00 PM
News Release
Mendocino District Interpreters
150th Year Celebration for California State Parks 150th Year Celebration for California State Parks June 10th – August 31st, 2014
Don’t Move Firewood Icon
Don't Move Firewood Information
Image Gallery
Littleriver, CA
50° F
Cloudy
View Forecast »
Available Activities and Facilities at Van Damme State Park
OVERNIGHT FACILITIES
En route Campsites
Environmental Campsites
Family Campsites
Group Campsites
Hike or Bike Campsites
RV Dump Station
RV Access
Geocaching
TRAIL USE
Bike Trails
Hiking Trails
Nature Trails
DAY-USE ACTIVITIES & FACILITIES
Picnic Areas
Env. Learning/Visitor Center
Exhibits and Programs
Fishing
Guided Tours
Scuba Diving/Snorkeling
Swimming
OTHER FACILITIES & VISITOR INFORMATION
Parking
Restrooms / Showers
Restrooms
The Gainesville Regional Transit System's main terminal is the Rosa Parks Station located at the southern end of downtown.
SE 3rd Street at Depot Avenue, Gainesville.
The Space Shuttle orbiter is the spaceplane component of the Space Shuttle, a partially reusable orbital spacecraft system that was part of the discontinued Space Shuttle program. Operated from 1977 to 2011 by NASA, the U.S. space agency, this vehicle could carry astronauts and payloads into low Earth orbit, perform in-space operations, then re-enter the atmosphere and land as a glider, returning its crew and any on-board payload to the Earth.
Six orbiters were built for flight: Enterprise, Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavour. All were built in Palmdale, California, by the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-based Rockwell International company. The first orbiter, Enterprise, made its maiden flight in 1977. An unpowered glider, it was carried by a modified Boeing 747 airliner called the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft and released for a series of atmospheric test flights and landings. Enterprise was partially disassembled and retired after completion of critical testing. The remaining orbiters were fully operational spacecraft, and were launched vertically as part of the Space Shuttle stack.
Columbia was the first space-worthy orbiter; it made its inaugural flight in 1981. Challenger, Discovery, and Atlantis followed in 1983, 1984, and 1985 respectively. In 1986, Challenger was destroyed in an accident shortly after its 10th launch. Endeavour was built as Challenger's successor, and was first launched in 1992. In 2003, Columbia was destroyed during re-entry, leaving just three remaining orbiters. Discovery completed its final flight on March 9, 2011, and Endeavour completed its final flight on June 1, 2011. Atlantis completed the final Shuttle flight, STS-135, on July 21, 2011.
In addition to their crews and payloads, the reusable orbiter carried most of the Space Shuttle System's liquid-propellant rocket system, but both the liquid hydrogen fuel and the liquid oxygen oxidizer for its three main rocket engines were fed from an external cryogenic propellant tank. Additionally, two reusable solid rocket boosters (SRBs) provided additional thrust for approximately the first two minutes of launch. The orbiters themselves did carry hypergolic propellants for their Reaction Control System (RCS) thrusters and Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS) engines.
Wikipedia: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_orbiter" rel="noreferrer nofollow">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_orbiter</a>
At the bottom of the vast metal chasm, Soundwave's system's reboot once more. He sat up, holding his head in one hand and looked around. The body of Steelwing came into view. The derelict sat on a metallic mound and was looking directly at the Decepticon.
Steelwing: You're awake. Well, I suppose that's something.
Soundwave looked around. The light of the surface barely penetrated the darkness of the depth of the chasm but still he could manage to see. Not that there was much to see beyond purplish cliff-faces and scattered debris on the ground.
Steelwing: There's nothing to see down here Soundwave. And you'll be able to move freely. I scraped off that vile webbing and converted it to usable energon. I managed to get a quarter of a cube.
Soundwave: Did you say ‘pube’?
Steelwing: Cube.
Soundwave: Oh.
Soundwave confirmed Steelwing's claim after looking at his feet as he sat up and noted the quarter filled energon cube at his side. How exactly Steelwing managed to convert the energon from the netting to the cube was beyond Soundwave's comprehension. He visually checked his rockets on his feet.
Steelwing: They're offline. A corrosive quality to the webbing. Dastardly little bugger it was. But no, no need to thank me or anything.
Steelwing waited for acknowledgement of a circumstantially forced gratitude, but he got none. Instead, Soundwave stood to his full height and ran an internal diagnostic. Besides his rockets and some discomfort in his ankle joint, he was fine. Steelwing waved Soundwave off irritably.
Steelwing: Oh sure, check yourself out. I'm ok though, thanks for askin'. Only lost me pride... and home... and everything else I acquired in this life.
Soundwave looked down at the diminutive derelict.
Soundwave: You are operational. You have enough.
Steelwing waved Soundwave off once more.
Steelwing: Easy for you to say.
Soundwave chose to change the subject.
Soundwave: Do you know where we are?
Steelwing: At the bottom of a chasm. I've not been down here. Why would I have ever come down here?
Soundwave's optics followed the metal walls into the distance and then looked up. They were very far down.
Soundwave: Who was it that saved us?
Steelwing shrugged.
Steelwing: You call this 'saving'?
+++ 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:
When, towards late 1945, the Einheits-Chassis for the German combat tanks (the "E" series of medium and heavy tanks) 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 various armament options for the Panzer V Panther hull, and there were twin 55 mm as well as single and even 88mm cannon systems for the new E-50, E-75 and E-100 chassis'.
With these new weapons for medium- and high-altitude targets, Firepower was considerably increased, but the tank crews still had to rely on traditional visual tracking and aiming of targets. One potential solution in which the German Heeresleitung was highly interested from the start was the use of the Luftwaffe’s new radar technology for early target identification and as an aiming aid in poor weather conditions or even at night. The German Luftwaffe first introduced an airborne interception radar in 1942, but these systems were bulky and relied upon large bipolar antenna arrays. These were not suitable for any use in a ground vehicle, lest to say in a tank that would also carry weapons and ammunition.
A potential solution appeared in late 1944 with the development of the FuG 240 "Berlin". It was an airborne interception radar, too, but 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. The FuG 240 with a rotating dish antenna was introduced by Telefunken in April 1945, primarily in Junkers Ju 88G-6 night-fighters, behind a plywood radome which considerably improved aerodynamics. This so greatly reduced drag compared to the late-model Lichtenstein and Neptun systems that the fighters regained their pre-radar speeds and made them competitive again. The FuG 240 was effective against bomber-sized targets at distances of up to 9 kilometers (5.5 mi), or down to 0.5 kilometer, which 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. Political pressure from Berlin convinced the RLM to share the new technology, and Telefunken was ushered to adapt the radar system to an armored ground vehicle in February 1945.
It soon became clear that the FuG 240 had several drawbacks for this task. On one side, ground clutter and the natural horizon limited the system's range and low-level effectiveness, but its 9 km range in free space made high altitude surveillance possible – just enough for the effective interception of Allied bombers that attacked important point targets. Furthermore, the whole system, together with its power supply and a dirigible dish antenna, took up a lot of space, so that its integration into a tank-based anti-aircraft vehicle like an SPAAG as an autonomous, stand-alone solution was ruled out.
A workable solution eventually came as a technical and tactical compromise: the army’s anti-aircraft tanks were to be grouped together in so-called Panzer-Fla-Züge, which consisted of several (typically four) SPAAGs and an additional, dedicated radar surveillance and command unit, so that the radar could guide the tank crews towards incoming targets – even though the gun crews still had to rely on visual targeting.
Two respective guidance vehicles developed, a light and a heavy one. The light one, intended against low-flying targets like the Ilyushin Il-2 on the Eastern front, became the 8x8 Funkmess-/Flak-Kommandowagen Sd.Kfz. 234/6. The heavy variant, with a bigger antenna and a more powerful emitter, became the Mittlerer Funkmess-/Flak-Kommandopanzer Sd.Kfz. 282. In contrast to the light and compact Sd.Kfz. 234/6, the Sd.Kfz. 282’s complete radar and observation system was installed in a new turret, so that it could be simply mounted onto the new E-50 Einheitspanzer battle tank hull.
This new, box-shaped turret had been developed by Rheinmetall, together with Telefunken, and was based on the turret design for the new 55 mm twin anti-aircraft cannon. It had a maximum armor of 60mm at the front and held all of the radar equipment, christened "Basilisk", after the monster from medieval mythology with a petrifying sight. The turret held a crew of three: a commander, a radar operator, and an observer for the optical rangefinder. The rest of the crew, the driver and a radio operator, sat in the hull. No armament was fitted, even though a light machine gun could be mounted on the roof for self-defense, even though it could not be operated from the inside. A heavier armament was not deemed necessary since the vehicle would stay close to the heavily armed tanks/SPAAGs it would typically accompany.
The Basilisk radar’s rotating dish antenna had a diameter of 90 cm (35 ½ inches) and was installed at the turret's front under a hard vinyl cover. Power of the modified FuG 240 was 25kW, with a search angle of +80/− 5° and a frequency range: 3,250–3,330MHz (~10 cm). Range was, due the bigger antenna and a higher emitter output, increased to 0.5–11.0 kilometer, even though only under ideal conditions. Power came from a dedicated generator that was connected to the E-50’s V-12 Maybach HL 234 gasoline engine.
Beyond the radar system, the vehicle was furthermore equipped with a powerful visual coincidence range finder in the turret, combined with an analogue computer, the Kommandogerät (KDO) 40 Telemeter. This system had been introduced in 1941 as a guidance tool for stationary anti-aircraft units equipped with the 88 mm and the 105 mm Flak, but it had so far – due to its size and bulk – only been deployed on an unarmored trailer
The KDO 40 and similar sights 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.
Fixed target reading with the device mounted in the Sd.Kfz. 282 turret was possible on targets from 3,000 to 20,000 m. Aerial courses could be recorded at all levels of flight and at a slant range between 4,000 and 18,000 m - enough for visual identification beyond an anti-aircraft group's effective gun ranges and perfectly suitable for long range observation, so that the Sd.Kfz. 282 also had excellent reconnaissance and observation capabilities. The rangefinder’s optical bar had a massive span of 400 cm (157.5 in) and went right through the turret, just above the radar device installation. The whole device, together with its armored fairing, was 4,60 m (15 ft 1 in) wide, so that it protruded from the turret on both sides over the lower hull. The odd and unwieldy installation quickly earned the vehicle nicknames like "Hirsch (stag)", "Zwo-Ender" (a young stag with just two antlers) or “Ameise” (ant). None of these were official, though. In order to protect the Telemeter on the way, the turret was normally turned by 90° and hidden under a tarpaulin, in order not to give away any details of the highly classified equipment.
However, development of the Einheitspanzer family lagged behind schedule, and in early 1945 no E-50 chassis was available for the highly specialized Sd.Kfz. 282 – battle tanks and SPGs were in higher demand. As an alternative, the turret was quickly adapted for different tank hulls, namely the Sd.Kfz. 171, the Panzer V ‘Panther’ medium tank and the heavy Sd.Kfz. 181 ‘Tiger I’. Tests with both hulls in spring 1945 were successful, but only the lighter ‘Panther’ hull was chosen because it was lighter overall, more mobile and available in sufficient numbers for a quick roll-out. In this configuration, the system received the designation Sd.Kfz. 282/1, while the original Sd.Kfz. 282 designation was reserved for the originally planned E-50 chassis variant.
The first vehicles reached, together with the new FlaK tanks, the front units in September 1945. Operating independently, they were primarily allocated to the defense of important production sites and the city of Berlin, and they supported tank divisions through early warning duties and visual long-range reconnaissance. Operationally, the Sd.Kfz. 282’s sensor setup with its combined visual and radar input turned out to be surprisingly successful. The combination of the Basilisk radar with the KDO 40 rangefinder allowed a time from initial target acquisition to the first AA shot of less than 20 seconds, which was impressive for the time – typically, simple visual target acquisition took 30 seconds or more. First shot hit probability was appreciably improved, too, and even quick passes of aircraft at low altitudes could be precalculated, if the radar was not obstructed.
However, the radar remained capricious, its performance rather limited and the unarmored antenna fairing at the turret’s front was easily damaged in combat, even by heavy machinegun fire. But the Sd.Kfz. 282 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, and it also appreciably mobilized the bulky but valuable KDO 40 device. It now could easily be moved around and keep up with the pace of motorized battle groups that the Panzer-Fla-Züge units were supposed to protect.
Until the end of hostilities, probably thirty Sd.Kfz. 282/1s were completed from newly built (Ausf. F, recognizable through the simpler all-metal wheels) or from refurbished earlier Panzer V chassis of various types before production switched in early 1946 to the E-50 chassis which had eventually become available in sufficient numbers.
Specifications:
Crew: Five (commander, radar operator, observer, driver, radio-operator/hull machine gunner)
Weight: 41.2 tonnes (40.4 long tons; 45.3 short tons)
Length (hull only): 6.87 m (22 ft 6 in)
Width: 3.42 m (11 ft 3 in) hull only
4,60 m (15 ft 1 in) overall
Height: 2.95 m (9 ft 8 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: 48 km/h (30 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:
1× 7.92 mm MG 34 machine gun in the front glacis plate with 2.500 rounds
Optional MG 34 or 42 machine gun with 1.500 rounds on the turret
The kit and its assembly:
Another submission to the “Recce & Surveillance” group build at whatifmodellers.com in July 2021, and actually a good occasion to tackle a project that I had on my list for some years. A long while ago I bought a resin conversion set with a (purely fictional) Heer ‘46 anti-aircraft surveillance radar system, based on an E-50 chassis. Unfortunately, I cannot identify the manufacturer, but this 1:72 conversion set was/is nicely molded, with delicate details, no bubbles or flash and it even came with a commander figure for an optional open hatch on top as well as a pair of delicate brass antennae.
Even though I could have mounted this replacement turret onto a Trumpeter or Modelcollect E-50/75 chassis, I rather decided to create an earlier (1945 time frame) interim vehicle on a late Panzer V ‘Panther’ basis, mostly because it would be more compact and I doubt that brand new E-50/75s would have been “wasted” on second line/support vehicles like this mobile surveillance/commando post for anti-aircraft units?
The Panther chassis is the old Hasegawa kit for an Ausf. G tank from 1973, chosen because of its good fit, simplicity and the vinyl tracks, which I prefer. However, the kit clearly shows its age and some weak/soft details (e. g. the gratings on the engine deck), but it was enough for my plans and easy to handle.
Both turret and hull were built separately and basically OOB, combined with an adjusted turret ring. The Kdo 40’s “antlers” are to be glued directly to the turret’s flanks, but I reinforced the connections with wire. I also replaced the set’s brass antennae with heated sprue material and used a surplus PE detail set from a Modelcollect E-50/75 to hide the crude engine openings and change the overall look of the Panther a little. Some storage boxes as well as spare track links were added to the flanks, stuff collected from the scrap box.
To emphasize the refurbished character of the vehicle I left away the Panther’s side skirts – these were easily lost in battle, anyway, and probably have rather been allocated to battle tanks than to 2nd line support vehicles, despite leaving the Panther’s lower hull under the mudguards vulnerable.
Painting and markings:
Even though the paint scheme on this model is based on German standard colors, it is a little special. Late in real-world WWII some Panzer Vs received a unique, uniform RAL 6003 (Olivgrün) factory finish instead of the usual all-over RAL 7028 (Dunkelgelb) or the bare oxide red primer finish, onto which the frontline units would add individual camouflage, depending on the theatre of operations and whatever paint or application tool was at hand. This special green livery was adopted for the model, including the new turret. The individual camouflage consists of diagonal stripes in Dunkelgelb and Rotbraun (RAL 8017), added on top of the green basis with rather sharp and straight edges and only to the vertical surfaces. The practice to leave out the horizontal surfaces was called “Sparanstrich” (literally “economy paintwork”), an attempt to save the more and more scarce paint.
This rather odd style was actually applied to several late war Panther tanks – even though I am personally not certain about this pattern’s effectiveness? Maybe a kind of dazzle effect was sought for?
The basic green became a modern-day RAL 6003 from the rattle can (which is very close to FS 34102, just a tad lighter), applied in a rather cloudy fashion on top of an initial coat of Oxide Red primer (RAL 3009) overall, also from the rattle can. On top of that the stripes were painted with a brush, partly masked but mostly free-handedly. For some variation I used this time Tamiya XF-60 (a rather pale interpretation of Dunkelgelb which IMHO lacks a greenish hue and rather looks like a desert sand tone) and XF-64 (a rich whole milk chocolate tone) to create the additional camouflage, not fully opaque so that the impression of thinly/hastily applied paint was reinforced.
Once dry, the whole surface received a very dark brown washing with thinned acrylic paint and surface details were emphasized through dry-brushing with earth brown and beige.
For a different look (and to break up the tank’s bulky outlines) I applied camouflage nets to the model, realized with gauze bandages drenched in Tamyia XF-62 (Olive Drab) and mounted into place around the turret and at the front of the hull while still slightly wet.
Decals were puzzled together from various German tank sheets. The kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish, what also fixed the cammo nets in place. The originally shiny black vinyl tracks were also painted/weathered, with a wet-in-wet mix of grey, iron, black 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.
Not a spectacular build, but I am happy that I eventually had the opportunity and motivation to tackle this project that had been lingering for years in the The Stash™. The result looks really good – the anonymous resin set is/was excellent, and combined with the Panther hull, the whole thing looks very credible. I am only a bit sad that the odd, almost artistic camouflage got a little lost under the cammo nets and the equipment on the hull, and the dust/dirt on the lower areas blurs the three basic colors even more. Well, you cannot have everything at once, and I might re-use this scheme on a “cleaner” future build.
Seems like a slow news day, so let me share the fascinating highlights of my most recent read: Meteorites and Their Parent Planets. I typed up my favorite parts to help me remember them, as the 1999 book appears to be out of print.
“We have a curious need to understand our origin and our cosmic surroundings, and meteorites provide otherwise unobtainable information to help us in this quest.” (280)
“The Earth sweeps up 78 million kg of extraterrestrial material, most of which consists of micrometeorites, each year as it orbits about the sun.” (11)
“Twice as many fireballs are reported in the hours after midnight. This bias in time occurs because more meteoroids are encountered in the direction in which the Earth moves in its orbit, and the morning side faces the direction of the planet’s motion.” (15)
“Meteorites striking the ground may excavate small cavities, but typically they penetrate to depths nearly equal to their diameters. In fact, many meteorites are found practically sitting on the surface. This is, of course, due to the appreciable deceleration produced by atmospheric friction.” (19)
“Typical relative velocities for asteroids encountering other asteroids are of the order of 5km/s.” (233)
“Such accidental collisions liberate meteoroids from their parent bodies. As much as 10% of the original energy in cratering events is transmuted into energy of motion for the resulting debris.” (234)
“Many meteorite parent bodies are reaccreted piles of rubble produced during large impacts.” (234)
“The difference in destructibility may explain why meter-sized fragments of irons can persist in space for as long as a billion years, but only recently broken small pieces of stones complete the trip to Earth.” (247)
Near Earth Objects (NEO): “Many meteorites are undoubtedly derived from NEOs. However, NEOs are efficiently removed from the solar system by collisions or gravitational interactions with the planets on time scales of 10-100 million years, only a tiny fraction of the age of meteorites. We thus infer that today’s temporary NEO population must be continually resupplied from other sources. These sources are the parent bodies of the meteorites.” (33)
“The parent isotopes decay at fixed rates, allowing the age of any sample to be determined from analysis of the amount of parent isotope that has decayed or the new radiogenic isotope that has formed. Unfortunately, these radioactive clocks can be reset by any geologic events that cause heating.” (41) like volcanism
•Chondrites – pristine time capsules from our Solar System’s formation
“Chondrites are actually a kind of cosmic sediment, composed of diverse materials with varying origins. The clumping together of these dissimilar materials is called accretion, and it is a very important process about which we know very little. Tiny grains probably stuck together initially because of electrical charges on their surfaces, but the sticking agent for larger entities like chondrules is unknown. Each of the accreted components of chondrites contains a fossil record of some early solar system processes, but none are completely understood.” (51)
“Chondrites are the most thoroughly and accurately analyzed natural materials, and the list of precisely analyzed elements encompasses the entire Periodic table. Chondrites can be considered a sort of solar sludge, with compositions equivalent to the non-volatile portion of the Sun.” (47)
“Lithium and boron are utilized in fusion reactions that power the Sun. Their solar abundances have been reduced over the past 4.56 billion years, so in this way, the chondrites actually record the chemistry of the ancient Sun (hence the primeval solar system) even better than the present day Sun.” (48)
“There may have been a continuum of chondrite compositions in the early solar system, with different temperatures of formation and the resulting depletion patterns of volatile elements controlled by distance from the Sun. In this view, enstatite formed closest to the Sun, ordinary chondrites formed at intermediate distances, and carbonaceous chondrites formed farthest away.” (50)
“All of the asteroids taken together have only a fraction of the mass of the Moon.” (81)
‘The swarm of asteroids could never have accreted into a planet size body because of the perturbing effects of the planet Jupiter. The massive gravitational field of this giant neighbor would have ripped apart any larger planet within its sphere of influence as quickly as it formed.” (82)
“By preventing asteroids from assembling into a larger planet capable of geologic processes, Jupiter may have preserved chondrites in their present, relatively pristine states. However, the irregular shapes and the highly cratered surfaces of the few asteroids that have been examined at close range indicate that such bodies have been shaped and modified by repeated collisions.” (91)
“The organic compounds in chondrites are typically complexly branched hydrocarbons, probably crafted in asteroids from the deuterium-enriched materials originally made in molecular clouds.” (262)
Their amino acids have “a slight preference for left-handed molecules. Organic molecules formed in interstellar space might result from exposure to circularly polarized light emitted from neutron stars. If this is correct, these organic compounds were inherited directly from molecular clouds, without processing in meteorite parent bodies. These molecules would thus qualify as intact interstellar matter.” (265)
“Carbonaceous chondrites contain as much as 20% water, so a late-accreting veneer of such material might account for some fraction of our planet’s oceans” (274)
“The H chondrite parent asteroid appears to have been destroyed by a massive impact and then gravitationally reassembled from the resulting fragments. This conclusion comes from a study of a cooling rate speedometer based on metal grains.” (107)
“The thermal model predicts an asteroid diameter of 175km, which is in good agreement with the 185km size of 6 Hebe, a possible H-chondrite parent body.” (103) 6 Hebe is also close to a secular resonance with Jupiter, that its ejecta could become Earth crossing.
“The L-chondrite parent body was apparently also catastrophically disrupted by impact, but unlike the H-chondrite asteroid, it probably did not reaccrete. All heavily shocked L-chondrites have gas retention ages of approximately 340 million years, marking the time of this event. Asteroid 3628 Boznemkova, which has a spectral signature similar to that of L6 chondrites, may be a relatively small fragment surviving from this collision.” (109)
“The H and LL chondrites show ranges of isotope ages, implying a series of smaller, less disruptive impacts extending to recent times. These events may have liberated chondritic samples from their asteroidal sources.” (235)
• Achondrites (sourced from planets and planetoids)
“Meteorites that form by crystallization of magma are called achondrites and those that are residues from partial melting are termed primitive achondrites.” (118)
“Achondrites elicit wonder (at least in those who know what they are), because they also are the geologic products of other worlds.” (149)
“Rocks consist of mixtures of minerals that melt over a range of temperatures, generally a few hundred degrees. Partial melting produces most magmas, and complete melting is rarely achieved. Magmas form by melting only a modest fraction (commonly less than 25%) of the mantle source materials. Only a small fraction of magmas actually erupt; most stall within the crust and solidify as plutons.” (121)
• Bang your HED, from asteroid Vesta
“Eucrites, like the other members of the HED clan, contain no water, whereas terrestrial basalts contain minor amounts of hydrated minerals or dissolved water in glass. Eucrites have basaltic compositions, indicating they were once liquids and thus could have erupted onto the surface of their parent body. These are fine-grained rocks, sometimes with small, interlocking crystals that resemble those in terrestrial volcanic flows.” (128)
“In contrast, diogenites consist of larger, interlocking crystals, as appropriate to plutonic rocks.” (129)
“Achondrite regolith breccias containing both eucrite and diogenite clasts are called howardites.” (129)
• MARS
+ Earlier post on my collection of Martian rocks
Basaltic shergottites “are relatively fine grained and apparently formed as volcanic flows or shallow intrusions on their parent body. Their elongated pyroxene crystals commonly have preferred orientations, probably aligned by magma flow.” (131)
“Shergottite magmas contain at least a small amount of water.” (131)
“Lherzolitic shergottites are related to the basaltic shergottites, but their coarse grain sizes mark them as plutonic rocks.” (131)
“The SNC parent body must be a geologically complex body, characterized by multiple periods of igneous activity. Isotopic data indicate it was differentiated 4.5 billion years ago, and the mantle thus formed had a nonchondritic composition. This source region was remelted approximately 1.3 billion years ago and again more recently to produce shergottite magmas.” (136)
Mg/Si and Al/Si “element ratios illustrate that the peculiar compositions of SNC meteorites are also seen in rocks and soils analyzed by the Viking landers and the Mars Pathfinder rover.” (178)
“Trapped gasses in the EET79001 Antarctic shergottite link the SNC meteorites to Mars. Pockets and veins of shock melt in this meteorite formed by impact, which also implanted atmospheric gasses in the liquid before it solidified as glass. The abundance of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and various nonradiogenic isotopes of gaseous argon, neon, krypton, and xenon in the glass are identical to those measured in the Martian atmosphere by Viking spacecraft.” (179)
“The ancient highlands of Mars were once scoured by torrents of running water, producing branching networks of valleys and huge outflow channels like that onto which the Mars Pathfinder spacecraft landed. Today, however, liquid water is not stable anywhere on the Martian surface.
Models of the bulk composition of Mars based on the SNC meteorites curiously indicate a planet with a low water abundance but high concentrations of other volatile elements. This might be explained by reaction of water and metallic iron in accreted materials, stripping the oxygen from water to form iron oxide with the resultant loss of hydrogen from the planet. The interior of Mars would thus be dry and highly oxidized. Partial melting of the Martian mantle produced the magmas that crystallized to form SNC meteorites. These magmas were rich in oxidized iron but poor in water. Consequently, the amount of water outgassed from the Martian interior over time has probably been modest. Expressed as a global ocean of uniform depth, the outgassed water on Mars may amount to no more than a few hundred meters, compared to 2.7 km for the Earth.” (274)
“Rocks launched from Mars take significantly longer to reach the Earth than do lunar rocks, simply because their orbits do not initially cross that of our planet. These objects, like those in the asteroid belt, are subject to resonances related to other planets, and over a few millions of years, their orbits are perturbed so as to become Earth crossing. Most that fall to Earth will do so within 10 million years or so, with much of the remainder eventually being driven into the sun.” (244)
• Moon
+ Earlier post on my moon rocks
“Calculations suggest that more than a billion grams of impact ejecta might be lost from the Moon each year and possibly a hundredth of that should be swept up by the Earth.” (137)
“Iron-rich anorthosites form a crustal layer that is of the order of 50km thick on the near side and as much as 86km thick on the far side. This crust formed when the Moon was extensively melted to form a magma ocean in its earliest history. This global magma body experienced fractional crystallization as less dense plagioclase crystals floated to the top and solidified to form the feldspar-rich highlands. The difference in thickness of the anorthosite crust on the near and far sides may be related to the gravitational pull of the Earth acting continuously on one face. The magma ocean stage of lunar history had ended by approximately 4.4 billion years ago. Soon thereafter, another suite of plutons invaded the anorthosite crust. Samples of these rocks, called the magnesian suite, vary in age from 4.4 to 4.2 billion years. They too are cumulate rocks, but they contain appreciable quantities of olivine or pyroxene, producing rocks called troctolite and norite, respectively.” (156)
“It is rare to find well-preserved pieces of the ancient lunar crust in the rock collections brought back from the Moon, because meteorite bombardment has broken most of them into tiny fragments.” (157)
“The lunar surface area bounded by all of the Apollo and Luna landing sites is only a small fraction, less than 9%, of the total lunar surface. Odds are high that the lunar achondrites sampled regions outside this limited area and they probably were derived from the far side. “ (161)
“The highlands sampled by Apollo are atypical of the entire moon’s crust. The average Iron composition of the lunar highlands meteorites provides a closer match to the crustal composition than does the average of the Apollo samples” (161)
“From approximately 4.0 to 3.2 billion years ago, and perhaps even later, the gigantic basins were filled with vast outpourings of basaltic magma that crystallized to form the maria. These mare basalts contain no water and were formed under highly reducing conditions. Mare basalt magmas are thought to have formed by partial melting of the olivine and pyroxene-rich cumulate that settled from the magma ocean as a complement to the anorthosite crust. The evidence for this assertion comes from the measured rare-earth-element patterns for these rocks.” (158)
“Low-titanium mare basalts formed by melting at deeper levels than their high-titanium relatives.” (160)
“The Apollo samples are strongly biased toward high-titanium basalts, whereas most orbital measurements and the few known lunar basaltic achondrites are low-titanium varieties.” (162)
“The absence of mare basalts on the lunar far side probably reflects the greater thickness of the anorthosite crust that had to be traversed.” (160)
“Rocks from the moon and Mars are ejected as small objects that make the journey to Earth in relatively short periods. Lunar meteorites generally have ages of less than a million years (often far less), and Martian meteorites fall into groups with cosmic-ray exposure ages of approximately 3 million and 12 million years, with a few older stones.” (247)
• Aubrites – huge white crystals of ejected magma
“The aubrites are achondrites composed primarily of iron-free magnesium pyroxene (enstatite), in contrast to the pyroxene compositions in other igneous meteorites. They also contain a variety of exotic minerals formed under extremely reducing conditions. These minerals decompose rapidly by reacting with oxygen in water or even air. Most aubrites are marred by brownish spots that result from oxidation of sulfides during their residence on our planet.” (141)
“Clasts within the breccias are commonly composed of enormous enstatite crystals, some as long as 10cm” (141)
“Basaltic magmas may have erupted explosively as sprays of droplets accelerated by expanding volatiles. If the volatile content was high enough, most of the erupted droplets would have escaped the gravitational hold of the aubrite parent body and have been lost to space.” (141) … and arriving here as meteorites.
Cosmic-ray exposure ages of “aubrites are old as compared to chondrites and other achondrite classes. Derivation from a long-lived source body, perhaps the near-Earth asteroid 3103 that is spectrally similar to aubrites, can explain their longevity. The orbit of this particular asteroid has high inclination, so it may experience less-frequent collisions with other bodies that lie mostly within the elliptic plane. Impact-derived fragments from this asteroid would presumably inherit the same highly inclined orbit and thus last longer in space.” (247)
• Ureilites — a banger from bizarro world
“The ureilites are arguably the most bizarre and perplexing of all meteorites. Filling the spaces between the larger silicate grains is a matrix of graphite or diamond. The coarse-grained size of the ureilites suggest they formed in the deep interior of their parent body. These crystals typically meet in triple junctions and have curved boundaries. They also show preferred orientations” (145)
“One of the most interesting characteristics of ureilites is that they have experienced variable but typically intense shock metamorphism… 4.0 billion years ago.” (147)
• Angrites — ancients enriched in calcium
“The textures of angrites are variable, but all indicate crystallization from basaltic magmas. They have very ancient ages, approximately 4.56 billion years.” (148)
• Messy Mesosiderites
“Mesosiderites can be viewed as mixtures of core and crustal materials , but without samples of the intervening mantle that would have separated these components in any plausible parent body.” (211)
“An obvious way to accomplish mixing is by a collision between two already differentiated asteroids, allowing the still liquid core of one body to mix with the solidified crust of the other.” (212)
“The mixing of metal with silicates seems almost accidental in mesosiderites and likely occurred when iron meteorite collided with a Vesta-like surface.” (225)
“The cooling rates for mesosiderites measured from nickel profiles in taenite are exceptionally slow, less than a half degree per million years. No satisfactory explanation for how these meteorites could have cooled so slowly has been offered, unless they formed within a very large asteroid.” (212)
• BIG IRONS — the exposed molten core of busted asteroids
“The cooling-rate data suggest that iron meteorites must have formed as cores in relatively small bodies or near the surfaces of relatively large bodies.” (217)
“Powdered regolith is an effective insulator, holding in the heat. It may cool as much as 10 times slower than a body without a regolith.” (217)
“Most irons and pallasites formed within bodies that had diameters of less than 100km.” (218)
“Each iron group represents a distinct chemical system, presumably the core of a different asteroid.” (218) There are 13 groups. “Anomalous irons that are unique or have only a few recognized members expand the number of possible parent bodies to sixty.” (221)
“M-type asteroids, such as 16 Psyche, are characterized by sloping spectra that resemble those of iron meteorites.” (224)
Canyon Diablo: “Meteorite specimens found on the crater rim contain small diamonds, whereas those collected farther from the crater do not. The diamonds were produced from graphite by shock in fragments that may have been spalled off the rear of the impacting projectile.” (28)
• Ataxites
“The finest octahedrites are graded into meteorites with no obvious structure. These irons, which have the highest nickel contents, are called ataxites. Such meteorites consist almost entirely of taenite.” (196)
• Pallasites – the prettiest of them all
“Similarities in metal composition suggest that the IIIAB iron core was rimmed by main group pallasites.” (219)
“The tendency for metal and silicate to separate is demonstrated by the fact that most differentiated meteorites contain either less than 1% or greater than 99% metal by weight. Pallasites are unstable mixtures frozen in place.” (220)
“Potential parent bodies for pallasites have been identified as A-type asteroids, like 246 Asporina” (225)