View allAll Photos Tagged Testbed
N805X operated by Northrup Grumman Systems Corp Bombardier CRJ700-701ER Flying testbed, seen landing at Baltimore MD 16th Dec 2021
"#harrymorrowphoto1
flickr.com/harrymorrowphotography
harrymorrowphotography.com
globalairpower.net"
Austrian's 'New York' taxiing at Zurich. OS were operating a daily Washington-Dulles flight from ZRH in cooperation with Swissair at that time. The airlines' partnership, however, was already strained and OS would leave, in a smart move, one year later the doomed Qualiflyer-group and join Star Alliance instead...
First flight: October 21, 1988...(c/n 489)
16/12/1988 Austrian Airlines OE-LAA
01/03/2000 Air Plus Comet EC-HLA
01/07/2000 Hapag-Lloyd EC-HLA
05/10/2000 Air Plus Comet EC-HLA returned 04/2003
23/12/2005 EADS-CASA EC-HLA, used as testbed aircraft for the MRTT boom air refuelling system...
+++ 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 Northrop Grumman-IAI F-24 is the latest reincarnation of the USAF "Lightweight Fighter Program" which dates back to the 1950ies and started with the development of Northrop's F-5 "Freedom Fighter".
The 1st generation F-5 became very successful in the export market and saw a long line of development, including the much more powerful F-5E "Tiger II" and the F-20 Tigershark (initially called F-5G). Northrop had high hopes for the F-20 in the international market; however, policy changes following Ronald Reagan's election meant the F-20 had to compete for sales against aircraft like the F-16, the USAF's latest fighter design (which was politically favored). The F-20 development program was eventually abandoned in 1986 after three prototypes had been built and a fourth partially completed.
But this was not the end for Northrop’s Lightweight Fighter. In the early 1980s, two X-29As experimental aircraft were built by Grumman from two existing Northrop F-5A Freedom Fighter airframes. The Grumman X-29 was a testbed for forward-swept wings, canard control surfaces, and other novel aircraft technologies. The aerodynamic instability of this arrangement increased agility but required the use of computerized fly-by-wire control. Composite materials were used to control the aeroelastic divergent twisting experienced by forward-swept wings, also reducing the weight. The NASA test program continued from 1984 to 1991 and the X-29s flew 242 times, gathering valuable data and breaking ground for new aerodynamic technologies of 4th and 5th generation fighters.
Even though no service aircraft directly evolved from the X-29, its innovative FBW system as well as the new material technologies also opened the door for an updated F-20 far beyond the 1990ies. It became clear that ever expensive and complex aircraft could not be the answer to modern, asymmetrical warfare in remote corners of the world, with exploding development costs and just a limited number of aircraft in service that could not generate true economies of scale, esp. when their state-of-the-art design would not permit any export.
Anyway, a global market for simpler fighter aircraft was there, as 1st generation F-16s as well as the worldwide, aging F-5E fleet and types of Soviet/Russian origin like the MiG-29 provided the need for a modern, yet light and economical jet fighter. Contemporary types like the Indian HAL Tejas, the Swedish Saab Gripen, the French Dassault Rafale and the Pakistani/Chinese FC-1/JF-17 ”Thunder” proved this trend among 4th - 4.5th generation fighter aircraft.
Northrop Grumman (Northrop bought Grumman in 1994) initiated studies and basic design work on a respective New Lightweight Fighter (NLF) as a private venture in 1995. Work on the NLF started at a slow pace, as the company was busy with re-structuring.
The idea of an updated lightweight fighter was fueled by another source, too: Israel. In 1998 IAI started looking in the USA for a development partner for a new, light fighter that would replace its obsolete Kfir fleet and partly relieve its F-16 and F-15 fleet from interception tasks. The domestic project for that role, the IAI Lavi, had been stillborn, but lots of its avionics and research were still at hand and waited for an airframe for completion.
The new aircraft for the IAF was to be superior to the MiG-29, at least on par with the F-16C/D, but easier to maintain, smaller and overall cheaper. Since the performance profiles appeared to be similar to what Northrop Grumman was developing under the NLF label, the US company eventually teamed up with IAI in 2000 and both started the mutual project "Namer" (=נמר, “Tiger” in Hebrew), which eventually lead to the F-24 I for the IAF which kept its project name for service and to the USAF’s F-24A “Tigershark”.
The F-24, as the NLF, was based on the F-20 airframe, but outwardly showed only little family heritage, onle the forward fuselage around the cockpit reminds of the original F-5 design . Many aerodynamic details, e. g. the air intakes and air ducts, were taken over from the X-29, though, as the experimental aircraft and its components had been developed for extreme maneuvers and extra high agility. Nevertheless, the X-29's forward-swept wing was considered to be too exotic and fragile for a true service aircraft, but the F-24 was to feature an Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) system.
AAW Technology integrates wing aerodynamics, controls, and structure to harness and control wing aeroelastic twist at high speeds and dynamic pressures. By using multiple leading and trailing edge controls like "aerodynamic tabs", subtle amounts of aeroelastic twist can be controlled to provide large amounts of wing control power, while minimizing maneuver air loads at high wing strain conditions or aerodynamic drag at low wing strain conditions. This system was initially tested on the X-29 and later on the X-53 research aircraft, a modified F-18, until 2006.
Both USAF and IAF versions feature this state-of-the-art aerodynamic technology, but it is uncertain if other customers will receive it. While details concerning the F-24's system have not been published yet, it is assumed that its AAW is so effective that canard foreplanes could be omitted without sacrificing lift and maneuverability, and that drag is effectively minimized as the wing profile can be adjusted according to the aircraft’s speed, altitude, payload and mission – much like a VG wing, but without its clumsy and heavy swiveling mechanism which has to bear high g forces. As a result, the F-24 is, compared to the F-20, which could carry an external payload of about 3.5 tons, rumored to be able to carry up to 5 tons of ordnance.
The delta wing shape proved to be a perfect choice for the required surface and flap actuators inside of the wings, and it would also offer a very good compromise between lift and drag for a wide range of performance. Anyway, there was one price to pay: in order to keep the wing profile thin and simple, the F-24’s landing gear retracts into the lower fuselage, leaving the aircraft with a relatively narrow track.
Another major design factor for the outstanding performance of this rather small aircraft was weight reduction and structural integrity – combined with simplicity, ruggedness and a modular construction which would allow later upgrades. Instead of “going big” and expensive, the new F-24 was to create its performance through dedicated loss of weight, which was in some part also a compensation for the AAW system in the wings and its periphery.
Weight was saved wherever possible, e .g. a newly developed, lightweight M199A1 gatling gun. This 20mm cannon is a three-barreled, heavily modified version of the already “stripped” M61A2 gun in the USAF’s current F-18E and F-22. One of the novel features is a pneumatic drive instead of the traditional electric mechanism, what not only saves weight but also improves trigger response. The new gun weighs only a mere 65kg (the six-barreled M61A2 weighs 92kg, the original M61A1 112 kg), but still reaches a burst rate of fire of 1.800 RPM (about 800 RPM under cyclic fire, standard practice is to fire the cannon in 30 to 50-round bursts, though) and a muzzle velocity of 1.050 metres per second (3,450 ft/s) with a PGU-28/B round.
While the F-16 was and is still made from 80% aluminum alloys and only from 3% composites, the F-24 makes major use of carbon fiber and other lightweight materials, which make up about 40% of the aircraft’s structure, plus an increased share of Titanium and Magnesium alloys. As a consequence and through many other weight-saving measures like keeping stealth capabilities to a minimum (even though RAM was deliberately used and many details designed to have a natural low radar signature, resulting in modest radar cross-section (RCS) reductions), a single, relatively small engine, a fuel-efficient F404-GE-402 turbofan, is enough to make the F-24 a fast and very agile aircraft, coupled with a good range. The F-24’s thrust/weight ratio is considerably higher than 1, and later versions with a vectored thrust nozzle (see below) will take this level of agility even further – with the pilot becoming the limiting factor for the aircraft’s performance.
USAF and IAF F-24s are outfitted with Northrop Grumman's AN/APG-80 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, also used in the F-16 Block 60 aircraft. Other customers might only receive the AN/APG-68, making the F-24 comparable to the F-16C/D.
The first prototype, the YF-24, flew on 8th of March 2008, followed by two more aircraft plus a static airframe until summer 2010. In early 2011 the USAF placed an initial order of 101 aircraft (probably also to stir export sales – the earlier lightweight fighters from Northrop suffered from the fact that the manufacturer’s country would not use the aircraft in its own forces). These initial aircraft will replace older F-16 in the interceptor role, or free them for fighter bomber tasks. The USN and USMC also showed interest in the aircraft for their aggressor squadrons, for dissimilar air combat training. A two-seater, called the F-24B, is supposed to follow soon, too, and a later version for 2020 onwards, tentatively designated F-24C, is to feature an even stronger F404 engine and a 3D vectoring nozzle.
Israel is going to produce its own version domestically from late 2014 on, which will exclusively be used by the IAF. These aircraft will be outfitted with different avionics, built by Elta in Israel, and cater to national requirements which focus more on multi-purpose service, while the USAF focusses with its F-24A on aerial combat and interception tasks.
International interest for the F-24A is already there: in late 2013 Grumman stated that initial talks have been made with various countries, and potential export candidates from 2015 on are Taiwan, Singapore, Thailand, Finland, Norway, Australia and Japan.
General F-24A characteristics:
Crew: 1 pilot
Length: 47 ft 4 in (14.4 m)
Wingspan: 27 ft 11.9 in / 8.53 m; with wingtip missiles (26 ft 8 in/ 8.13 m; without wingtip missiles)
Height: 13 ft 10 in (4.20 m)
Wing area: 36.55 m² (392 ft²)
Empty weight: 13.150 lb (5.090 kg)
Loaded weight: 15.480 lb (6.830 kg)
Max. take-off weight: 27.530 lb (12.500 kg)
Powerplant
1× General Electric F404-GE-402 turbofan with a dry thrust of 11,000 lbf (48.9 kN) and 17,750 lbf (79.2 kN) with afterburner
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 2+
Combat radius: 300 nmi (345 mi, 556 km); for hi-lo-hi mission with 2 × 330 US gal (1,250 L) drop tanks
Ferry range: 1,490 nmi (1715 mi, 2759 km); with 3 × 330 US gal (1,250 L) drop tanks
Service ceiling: 55,000 ft (16,800 m)
Rate of climb: 52,800 ft/min (255 m/s)
Wing loading: 70.0 lb/ft² (342 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 1.09 (1.35 with loaded weight & 50% fuel)
Armament
1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M199A1 3-barreled Gatling cannon in the lower fuselage with 400 RPG
Eleven external hardpoints (two wingtip tails, six underwing hardpoints, three underfuselage hardpoints) and a total capacity of 11.000 lb (4.994 kg) of missiles (incl. AIM 9 Sidewinder and AIM 120 AMRAAM), bombs, rockets, ECM pods and drop tanks for extended range.
The kit and its assembly:
A spontaneous project. This major kitbash was inspired by fellow user nighthunter at whatifmodelers.com, who came up with a profile of a mashed-up US fighter, created “out of boredom”. The original idea was called F-21C, and it was to be a domestic successor to the IAI Kfirs which had been used by the US as aggressor aircraft in USN and USMC service for a few years.
As a weird(?) coincidence I had many of the necessary ingredients for this fictional aircraft in store, even though some parts and details were later changed. This model here is an interpretation of the original design. The idea was spun further, and the available parts that finally went into the model also had some influence on design and background.
I thank nighthunter for sharing the early ideas, inviting me to take the design to the hardware stage (sort of…) and adapting my feedback into new design sketches, too, which, in return, inspired the model building process.
Well, what went into this thing? To cook up a F-24 à la Dizzyfugu you just need (all in 1:72):
● Fuselage from a Hasegawa X-29, including the cockpit and the landing gear
● Fin and nose cone from an Italeri F-16A
● Inner wings from a (vintage) Hasegawa MiG-21F
● Outer wings from a F-4 (probably a J, Hasegawa or Fujimi)
The wing construction deviates from nighthunter’s original idea. The favorite ingredients would have been F-16XL or simple Mirage III wings, but I found the composite wing to be more attractive and “different”. The big F-16XL wings, despite their benefit of a unique shape, might also have created scale/size problems with a F-20 style fuselage? So I built hybrid wings: The MiG-21 landing gear wells were filled with putty and the F-4 outer wings simply glued onto the MiG inner wing sections, which were simply cut down in span. It sounds like an unlikely combo, but these parts fit together almost perfectly! In order to hide the F-4 origins I modified them to carry wingtip launch rails, though, which were also part of nighthunter’s original design.
The AAW technology detail mentioned in the background came in handy as it explains the complicated wing shape and the fact that the landing gear retracts into the fuselage, not into the wings, which would have been more plausible… Anyway, there’s still room for a simpler export version, with Mirage III or Kfir C.2/7 wings, and maybe canards?
Using the X-29 as basis also made fitting the new wings onto the area-ruled fuselage pretty easy, as I could use the wing root parts from the X-29 to bridge the gap. The original, forward-swept wings were just cut away, and the remains used as consoles for the new hybrid delta wings. Took some SERIOUS putty work, but the result is IMHO fine.
The bigger/square X-29 air intakes were taken over, and they change the look of the aircraft, making it look less F-5-ish than a true F-20 fuselage. For the same reason I kept the large fairing at the fin base, combining it with a bigger F-16 tail, though, as a counter-balance to the new, bigger wings. Again, the F-16 fin was/is part of nighthunter’s idea, so the model stays true to the original concept.
For the same reason I omitted the original X-29 nose, which is rather pointy, sports vanes and a large sensor boom. The F-16 nose was a plausible choice, as the AN/APG-80 is also carried by late Fighting Falcons, and its shape fits well, too.
All around the hull, some small details like radar warning sensors, pitots and air scoops were added. Not really necessary, but such thing add IMHO to the overall impression of such a fictional aircraft beyond the prototype stage.
Cockpit and landing gear were taken OOB, I just added a pilot figure and slightly modified the seat.
The ordnance was puzzled together from the scrap box, the AIM-9Ls come from the same F-4 kit which donated its outer wings, the AIM-120s come from an Italeri NATO weapons kit. The drop tanks belong to an F-16.
Painting and markings:
At first I considered an F-24I in IAF markings, or even a Japanese aircraft, but then reverted to one of nighthunter’s initial, simple ideas: an USAF aircraft in the “Hill II” paint scheme (F-16 style), made up from three shades of gray (FS 36118, 36270 and 36375) with low-viz markings and stencils. Dutch/Turkish NF-5A/Bs in the “Hill II” scheme were used as design benchmarks, too. It’s a simple livery, but on this delta wing aircraft it looks pretty interesting. I used enamels, what I had at hand: Humbrol 127 and 126, and Modelmaster's 1723.
A light black ink wash was applied, in order to em,phasize the engraved panel lines, in contrast to that, panels were manually highlighted through dry-brushed, lighter shades of gray (Humbrol 27, 166 and 167).
“Hill II” also adds to a generic, realistic touch for this whif. Doing an exotic air force thing is rather easy, but creating a convincing whif for a huge military machinery like the USAF’s takes more subtlety, I think.
The cockpit was painted in medium Gray (Dark Gull Grey, FS 36231, Humbrol 140), as well as the radome. The landing gear and the air intakes were painted white. The radome was painted with Revell 47 and dry-brushed with Humbrol 140.
Decals were puzzled together from various USAF aircraft, including sheets from an Airfix F-117, an Italeri F-15E and even an Academy OV-10D.
Tadah: a hardware tribute to an idea, born from boredom - and the aircraft does not look even bad at all? What I wanted to achieve was to make the F-24 neither look like a F-20, nor a Saab Gripen clone, as the latter comes close in overall shape, size and design.
A pair of CITX SD40-2s are looking like new as testbed SD90MAC-H awaits some work at Mid-America Car.
Locomotives: CITX 3079, CITX 3110, EMDX 91
2-17-13
Kansas City, MO
Naval Air Test Center Airborne Early Warning Grumman E-2B Hawkeye 'test-bed' BuAerNo. 152476 preserved in the Patuxent River Naval Air Museum, Maryland in 2002
Grumman designed the E-2 to replace their earlier E-1 Tracer for AEW aka 'Eyes of the Fleet'. Turbo-prop driven and much more capable than it's predecessor, the E-2 family have morphed through the 'A' model now to the 'D' variation with eight balded props and a full suite of internal upgrades, data links and other gizmo's to keep them at the top of their game.
Other users are Egypt, France, Japan, Mexico and Taiwan.
They also used the E-2 as the basis of their COD variant - the
C-2 Greyhound using the same wings, tail, undercarriage and engines but with a more bulky fuselage and no radar dish.
Scanned Kodak 35mm Transparency
Airbus Industrie Airbus A350-941 F-WWYB is departing from Frankfurt for the first time in its history. The aircraft is climbing out of runway 18 as flight AIB103 to Toulouse (TLS).
MSN 005 has had its first flight on 20.06.14. It is powered by 2x Rolls-Royce Trent XWB turbofans and is currently used as a testbed.
Please join my Facebook fan page:
www.facebook.com/pages/Thomas-Becker-Aviation-Photography...
...and there is a Plane Spotting group on Facebook you should visit:
www.facebook.com/groups/planespotting/
Flickr has done some major design changes (which I deeply regret). Are you missing collections in Flickr? Me, too!
But they are not lost, just hidden - you can go there by using one of the following links:
Special Aviation Photos
www.flickr.com/photos/thomasbecker/collections/7215762339...
Airlines of the World
www.flickr.com/photos/thomasbecker/collections/7215760571...
Aviation by Date
www.flickr.com/photos/thomasbecker/collections/7215760307...
Airline Alliances of the World
www.flickr.com/photos/thomasbecker/collections/7215762573...
Harrier 'testbed' effectively, XP831 took to the skies under tethered hover during October 1960. She has been under museum conditions since around 1972, first at the RAF Museum, Hendon and the here at the Science Museum, London since mid 1992.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Folland 150 was directly inspired by the (modest) successes experienced by the Saro SR./A.1, a jet-powered flying boat fighter that went through trials in the late 1940ies.
The project had been kicked-off in the end phase of the 2nd World War, when the Imperial Japanese Navy with seaplane fighters such as the Nakajima A6M2-N (an adaptation of the Mitsubishi Zero) and the Kawanishi N1K demonstrated the effectiveness of a fighter seaplane.
In theory, seaplanes were ideally suited to conditions in the Pacific theatre, and could turn any relatively calm area of coast into an airbase. Their main disadvantage came from the way in which the bulk of their floatation gear penalized their performance compared to other fighters.
The new jet engines offered more power and aerodynamically cleaner designs, and the Saro SR./A.1 proved the soundness of the concept. But while the Saro SR./A.1 proved to have good performance and handling, the need for such aircraft had completely evaporated with the end of the war. Furthermore, the success of the aircraft carrier in the Pacific had demonstrated a far more effective way to project airpower over the oceans. The project was suspended and the prototype put into storage in 1950, but it was briefly resurrected in November 1950 owing to the outbreak of the Korean War, before realization of its obsolescence compared with land-based fighters, the prototype last flying in June 1951.
Anyway, this was not the end of the jet-powered flying boat fighter. After the Korean War, Saunders-Roe came up with a design called the "Saunders Roe Hydroski" (reminiscent of the Convair F2Y Sea Dart) to improve the performance closer to land-based aircraft but "received no official support". Other ship-based fighter concepts were developed and proposed, too. In the early Fifties, Folland made several proposals based on its newly developed light fighter, which would evolve into the Gnat.
The Gnat was the creation of WEW "Teddy" Petter, a British aircraft designer formerly of Westland Aircraft and English Electric. It was designed to meet the 1952 Operational Requirement OR.303 calling for a lightweight fighter. Petter believed that a small, simple fighter would offer the advantages of low purchase and operational costs. New lightweight turbojet engines that were being developed enabled the concept to take shape.
In 1951, using company funds, he began work on his lightweight fighter concept, which was designated the "Fo-141 Gnat". The Gnat was to be powered by a Bristol BE-22 Saturn turbojet with 3,800 lbf (16.9 kN 1,724 kgp) thrust. However, the Saturn was cancelled, and so Petter's unarmed proof-of-concept demonstrator for the Gnat was powered by the less powerful Armstrong Siddeley Viper 101 with 1,640 lbf (7.3 kN / 744 kgp) thrust. The demonstrator was designated Fo-139 "Midge".
From this land-based basis, several navalized variants for the use on board of smaller ships were deducted and taken to the hardware stage. The Gnat's selling point was its very small size and low weight, so that it would be easy to handle, operate and stow, even if it was no dedicated carrier.
One development direction focused on rocket-assisted ZELL (Zero-Length-Launch) and conventional landing on land-based airstrips, while another direction reverted to the idea of a light jet-powered flying boat conversion for reconnaissance and (daylight) interception and attack duties.
Both were taken to the hardware stage as private ventures (even though supported by the MoD since both concepts were regarded as fundamental research), and the flying boat project took shape under the handle Folland Fo-150, internally referred to “Project Volans”.
The Fo-150 had only rudimentary similarity with the land-based aircraft, though. Beyond the addition of a hydrodynamic, lower hull, the fuselage was stretched between the cockpit and the wings, for a better CoG distribution. The wing area was increased considerably in order to compensate for the higher all-up weight, improve handling and lower landing speed. The horizontal stabilizers were moved away from the original low position, higher onto a new cruciform tail, in order to keep these surfaces away from spray. The fin itself was slightly enlarged, too.
Power came from a modified Bristol Siddeley Viper turbojet, rated at 3,100 lbf (14 kN). In order to protect the engine from water ingestion the air intakes were extended forward under the cockpit canopy and featured spray dams. Balance in the water was achieved through semi-retractable stabilizer floats. These could be folded backwards under the wings, behind bullet-shaped fairings at about half the wing span that also contained a pair of 30mm Aden cannons. Hardpoints above and under the wings allowed the carriage of light external weapons like unguided rocket pods, or, alternatively, test equipment and camera pods.
The first airframe for Project Volans was built in Folland's facility on the western side of the Hamble peninsula and later taken to the Solent in May 1955. On 14 June 1955, the aircraft inadvertently made its first short flight during a fast taxi run – the enlarged wing created a massive ground effect that easily lifted the light aircraft up into a glide when the nose raised through wakes to a certain degree. The Fo-150’s official maiden flight was on 9 July 1955.
The underpowered engine made the fighter sluggish, and the strong uplift close to the ground made handling complicated and created violent vibration during takeoff and landing. Work on the wings leading edge profile improved this situation somewhat, but they could not cure the sluggish performance.
Otherwise, handling turned out to be good, but the Fo-150 could never show its full potential due to the weak engine. A second airframe was finished until late 1955 and joined the flight tests from early 1956 on, while a third airframe was reserved for static tests.
Anyway, even before that, the Navy had been losing interest (problems with supersonic fighters on carrier decks having been overcome, and ship-based missiles filled the aerial defense role much more efficiently than aircraft). This relegated the Fo-150 and the whole Volans program to pure experimental status. As a consequence, the two airworthy airframes were de-militarized and the aircraft kept in service as testbeds for hydrodynamics, especially for the development of planing bottoms, hydrofoils and hull shapes for high speed ships.
In 1960, WS685 was also used for the development and tests of hydroskis, while its sister ship was retired and used for spares. This program lasted until 1963, and after that, the worn-out airframe was scrapped, too.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 10.44 m (34 ft 5 in)
Wingspan: 8,71 m (28 ft 6 in)
Heigh (keel to fin tip)t: 3.74 m (12 ft 3 in)
Wing area: 19.00 m² (204.5 ft²)
Empty weight: 2,560 kg (5,644 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 4,235 kg (9,336 lb)
Powerplant:
1× Bristol Siddeley Viper turbojet, rated at 3,100 lbf (14 kN)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 695 km/h (375 knots, 432 mph) at sea level
Cruise speed: 324 km/h (175 knots, 201 mph)
Stall speed: 145 km/h (92 knots, 106 mph) with flaps down
Endurance: 1 hour 45 min
Service ceiling: 30,000 ft (9,150 m)
Armament:
2× 30mm ADEN cannon with 80 RPG in underwing pods
Two overwing hardpoints for 500lb (227kg) each,
e.g. for SNEB rocket pods containing seven 68 mm rockets
or pods with 7.62 mm machine guns
Two underwing hardpoints for 500lb (227kg) each,
for bombs or a pair of 50-Imp Gal (226 litre) drop tanks
The kit and its assembly:
Another submission to the 2016 “In the Navy” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com, and actually the consequence of a spontaneous post/comment on another modeler’s project just called “Royal Navy Gnat”, when the means and degree of navalization were still shrouded in mystery. I suggested a flying boat, inspired by the real Saro SR./A.1 and the Gnat’s high-mounted wings, which make the aircraft – or at least a model of it – suitable for a conversion.
Well, since the other Gnat turned out to become a ZELL aircraft, and I had a Matchbox Gnat in the stash, I decided to take my weird alternative idea to the (model) hardware stage.
Even though it is not obvious, pretty much of the Matchbox Gnat was used for this build, but it is masked under lots of putty and donation parts. These include:
- The lower half of a Smer SC-1 Seahawk float – a bit wide, but perfect in length
- The SC-1 also donated its stabilizer floats
- Leftover parts from a vintage (35+ years!) Matchbox F-14’s stabilizers, used as wing extensions
- Air intakes from a Matchbox F-5A, mounted upside down
- Stabilizers from a Hobby Boss MiG-15
The build went pretty straightforward: after the fuselage was done the SC-1 float was trimmed down and glued under it. Putty conceals the seams, and I am actually surprised how good these parts that were surely never meant to be united went together.
The cockpit features only the front seat, the rear position was omitted. The clear canopy was cut into three pieces, and the rear part glued onto the fuselage and blended into the overall shape with putty.
I felt that the deeper fuselage necessitated bigger wings, and instead of mounting complete donation parts I decided to keep the OOB parts and their shape, but extend them slightly with plugs – these are leftover parts from F-14 stabilizers from former projects, their width, length and also the sweep angle were perfect. In order to keep the relative wing tip position, the wing roots had to be moved forward, so that they ended up close to the cockpit and the air intakes. Again, putty conceals the intersections and was used to blend everything into each other – and with the enlarged wings this converted Gnat reminds a bit of the Me 163 Komet rocket fighter? At least, as long as the stabilizers were not mounted yet.
These come from a MiG-15 – bigger than the OOB parts, which appeared just too small for the bigger wing surface and their new position: in order to keep them clear from spray and the waterline I moved them upwards, together with a bullet fairing into the fin, which was simply divided above the rudder. The resulting fin extension was an appreciated extra, and the new cruciform tail looks very retro.
Placing the original air intakes onto the fuselage I found them to be too susceptible to water ingestion, so I wanted to extend them forward. But instead of using the OOB parts and bridging gaps with styrene pieces and putty, I found an old pair of F-5A air intakes with relative long ducts in the spares box. They were of good shape and size for the conversion, I just mounted them upside down, so that the longer leading edge is now on the intakes’ lower end, looking like a spray protector. A pair of spray dams was added to the nose, too.
How to balance the aircraft while afloat caused some headaches. The initial plan had been to place the SC-1 stabilizer floats with their slender pylons close to the wing tips, but I found this to be a very draggy solution for a jet aircraft.
The solution came while wondering where to place some armament: I used the Gnat’s (shortened) OOB slipper tanks as integral gun pods and modified their rear end into fairings for a semi-retracting float installation. The respective struts were scratched from wire and styrene.
The beaching trolley was highjacked from a vintage Revell F-16 kit (the rather clumsy one that represents the prototypes and which comes with a separate jet engine, its dolly and a small tractor). It was slightly modified and lowered, paper tissue cushions hold the model in place.
Painting and markings:
Since the flying boat version of the tiny Gnat (even if is based on the bigger trainer version!) is already exotic enough I decided to keep the livery true to the post WWII Royal Navy style, with Extra Dark Sea Grey upper surface, Sky undersides and a high waterline. In this case, Humbrol 123 and 95 are the basic tones, later treated with a black ink wash, panel lines drawn with a pencil and some panel shading with Humbrol 79 and 23, respectively. The planning surfaces were in the first place painted/primed with acrylic aluminum, so that later the enamel paint cover could be chipped away, for a lightly worn look.
The cockpit interior was painted in very dark grey (Humbrol 32). Thankfully, no landing gear had to be built and painted, but instead the custom beaching trolley became trainer yellow.
The RN markings come from various sources, and finally the kit was sealed under a coat of semi-matt acrylic varnish.
A funny project, and despite the weird idea and combination of parts the result does not look bad at all – in fact, one could think that it is a design or prop from a 1960’s James Bond movie or a Gerry Anderson creation?
ex KP220 RAF, G-ANAF BKS Air Transport 1953, Air Atlantique 1977, Air Luton 1985, to N170GP 1987/88, back to G-ANAF Air Atlantique, by 2007 to Thales fitted with a underbelly radar bulge used for radar testbed for the Nimrod MR-4 programme, returned to Air Atlantique 2011. currently in RAF D-Day markings.
F-WWAI Airbus Industrie Airbus A320-111
F-WWAI Airbus A320-111 Airbus Industrie 22 Feb 1987 Testbed 2x CFMI CFM56-5B4
F-WWFT Airbus A320-111 Airbus Industrie May 1991 Testbed 2x CFMI CFM56-5B4
rr
F-WWBA Airbus A320-111 Airbus Industrie 7 Jan 2001 Testbed 2x CFMI CFM56-5B4 38005A
rr
Aircraft is used to develop enhancements for the A32S aircraft. It has been recently used for a variety of winglet testing.
wfu 29-07-2016
F-WWAI Airbus A320-111 Airbus Industrie Oct 2017 Testbed 2x CFMI CFM56-5B4
rr
Original test-registration reapplied and repainted into original 1987 Airbus livery for preservation at Aeroscopia Museum, Toulouse
Dassault Mirage IIIA
Savigny-les-Beaune
Pre-production prototype used throughout the late 1950s and 1960 as a testbed and research platform by by Dassault Aviation and French state flight test center (Centre d'Essais en Vol) to trial aerodynamics, engine configurations, and early radar systems.
Updated pictures. Not much has changed on it that I can remember, but I wanted nicer shots.
This was essentially a testbed for joints for my slightly larger frame, and while it works on the whole, I don't care for the joint solutions in some places, and likely won't make use of them in the future. Specifically, the lateral axis joint on the upper arm is not a great solution, as well as some foot connections.
The machine is exposed at Museum-Diorama of Relief of Leningrad Blockade. Leningrad Oblast. Kirovsk District.
The BT tanks (Russian: Быстроходный танк (БТ), Bystrokhodny tank, lit. "fast tank" or "high-speed tank") were a series of Soviet cavalry tanks produced in large numbers between 1932 and 1941. They were lightly armoured, but reasonably well-armed for their time, and had the best mobility of all contemporary tanks of the world. The BT tanks were known by the nickname Betka from the acronym, or its diminutive Betushka.
The direct successor of the BT tanks would be the famous T-34 medium tank, introduced in 1940, which would replace all of the Soviet fast tanks, infantry tanks, and medium tanks in service.
Design
The BT tanks were "convertible tanks". This was a feature designed by J. Walter Christie to reduce wear of the unreliable tank tracks of the 1930s. In about thirty minutes the crew could remove the tracks and engage a chain drive to the rearmost road wheel on each side, allowing the tank to travel at very high speeds on roads. In wheeled mode the tank was steered by pivoting the front road wheels. However, Soviet tank forces soon found the convertible option of little practical use in a country with few paved roads, and it consumed space and added needless complexity and weight. The feature was dropped from later Soviet designs.
Christie, a race car mechanic[citation needed] from New Jersey, had tried unsuccessfully to convince the U.S. Army Ordnance Bureau to adopt his Christie tank design. In 1930, Soviet agents at Amtorg, ostensibly a Soviet trade organization, used their New York political contacts to persuade U.S. military and civilian officials to provide plans and specifications of the Christie tank to the Soviet Union. At least two of Christie's M1931 tanks (without turrets) were later purchased in the United States and sent to the Soviet Union under false documentation in which they were described as "agricultural tractors."[citation needed] Both tanks were successfully delivered to the Kharkov Komintern Locomotive Plant (KhPZ). The original Christie tanks were designated fast tanks by the Soviets, abbreviated BT (later referred to as BT-1). Based both on them and on previously obtained plans, three unarmed BT-2 prototypes were completed in October 1931 and mass production began in 1932. Most BT-2s were equipped with a 37 mm gun and a machine gun, but shortages of 37 mm guns led to some early examples being fitted with three machine guns.
The sloping front hull (glacis plate) armor design of the Christie M1931 prototype was retained in later Soviet tank hull designs, later adopted for side armor as well.
The BT-5 and later models were equipped with a 45 mm gun.
BT-1: Christie prototype with no turret.
BT-2 Model 1932: M-5-400 engine (copy of U.S. Liberty engine), three modifications of turret produced: with single 37 mm gun; 37 mm gun and one DT machine gun; twin DP machine guns mount and a single machine gun. In late 1932 modified to BT-3 but produced under same designation.
BT-3: same as BT-2, produced according to metric system (instead of Imperial system as used for BT-2). In official documentation referred to as BT-2.
BT-4: was a design with welded hull and minor changes in the suspension. 3 prototypes produced (with partially riveted hull)
BT-5: larger cylindrical turret, 45 mm gun, coaxial DT machine gun. BT-5 Model 1933: new turret with twin hatches and larger bustle.
BT-5PKh: snorkelling variant (prototypes only).
BT-5A: artillery support version with 76.2 mm howitzer (few made).
BT-5 flamethrower tank: (prototypes only).
PT-1A: amphibious variant with new hull (few made).
BT-7 Model 1935: welded hull, redesigned hull front, new Mikulin M-17T engine (licensed copy of a BMW engine), enclosed muffler. BT-7 Model 1937: new turret with sloping armour.
BT-7TU: command version, with whip antenna instead of earlier frame antenna.
BT-7A: artillery support version with 76.2 mm howitzer.
OP-7: flame-thrower version with external fuel panniers (prototype only).
BT-7M[3] (1938, prototypes designated A-8; sometimes referred to as BT-8): new V-2 diesel engine replacing earlier gasoline engines, three DT machine guns: coaxial, in P-40 AA mount on roof and in a ball-mount on turret rear.
BT-42: Finnish assault gun; captured BT-7s were equipped with British 114 mm howitzers.
BT-43: Finnish armoured personnel carrier; captured BT-7s equipped with troop accommodation.
BT-IS: Prototype/proof-of-concept platform with heavily sloped armor; forerunner of the armor design on the T-34.
BT-SW-2 Cherepakha ("turtle"): Another prototype, which took the armour sloping to an extreme.
A-20: Prototype for a new BT tank, with 20 mm armour, 45mm gun, model V-2 diesel engine, and 8×6-wheel convertible drive. Lost out in trials to the A-32, which was further improved and produced as the T-34 medium tank.
TTBT-5, TTBT-7: teletanks, remote-controlled tanks.
Combat history
BT tanks saw service in the Spanish Civil War, Battle of Khalkhin Gol (Nomonhan), the Winter War in Finland, the Polish campaign, and in the entire World War II.
They first saw action in the Spanish Civil War. A battalion of BT-5s fought on the Republican side, and their 45 mm guns could easily knock out the opposing German and Italian light tanks
Battle of Khalkhin Gol (Nomonhan)
See also: Soviet–Japanese Border Wars
During the Battles of Khalkhin Gol (also known as the Nomonhan Incident), which lasted from May to September in 1939, BT tanks were easily attacked by Japanese "close quarter" teams (tank killer squads) which were armed with petrol bottles (later called "Molotov Cocktails"). The Soviet BT-5 and BT-7 light tanks, which had been operating in temperatures greater than 100F on the Mongolian plains, easily caught fire when a molotov cocktail ignited their gasoline engines.General Georgy Zhukov made it one of his "points" when briefing Joseph Stalin, that his "...BT tanks were a bit fireprone...." Conversely, many Japanese tankers held the Soviet 45mm anti-tank/tank guns in high esteem, noting, "...no sooner did they see the flash from a Russian gun, than they'd notice a hole in their tank, adding that the Soviet gunners were accurate too!"
After the Khalkhin Gol War in 1939, the Soviet military had broken into two camps; one side was represented by Spanish Civil War veterans General P. V. Rychagov of the Soviet Air Force, Soviet armour expert General Dimitry Pavlov, and Stalin's favorite, Marshal Grigory Kulik, Chief of Artillery Administration.[16] The other side consisted of the Khalkhin Gol veterans led by Generals Zhukov and G.P. Kravchenko of the Soviet Air Force.[17] Under this cloud of division, the lessons of Russia's "first real war on a massive scale using tanks, artillery, and airplanes" at Nomonhan (Khalkhin Gol) went unheeded. Consequently, during the Finland War (Winter War) the BT-2 and BT-5 tanks were less successful, and it took the Soviet Union three and a half months, and over a million men to do what Zhukov did in just ten days at Nomonhan.
After the German war broke out, the Spanish Civil War faction fell in disfavor, with Marshal Kulik in particular being court-martialed and demoted. Gen. Zhukov and the majority of his surviving Nomonhan veterans were appointed to commands throughout European Russia, in time to engage the German armies.
World War II
During the Second World War, BT-5 and BT-7 tanks were used in the 1939 Soviet invasion of Poland, and in large numbers in the battles of 1941 - during which thousands were abandoned or destroyed. A few remained in use in 1942, but were rare after that time. The Red Army planned to replace the BT tank series with the T-34, and had just begun doing so when the German invasion (Operation Barbarossa) took place.
During the final weeks of World War II, a significant number of BT-7 tanks took part in the invasion of Japanese-occupied Manchuria, in August 1945. This was the last combat action of BT tanks.
Technical legacy
The BT tank series was numerous, forming the cavalry tank arm of the Red Army in the 1930s, and had much better mobility than other contemporary tank designs. For these reasons, there were many experiments and derivatives of the design, mostly conducted at the KhPZ factory in Kharkov.
The most important legacy of the BT tank was the T-34 medium tank, arguably the most important tank of the entire World War II. In 1937, a new design team was formed at the KhPZ to create the next generation of BT tanks. Initially, the chief designer was Mikhail Koshkin and, after his death, Morozov. The team built two prototypes. The light one was called the A-20. The more heavily armed and armoured BT derivative, the A-32, was a "universal tank" to replace all the T-26 infantry tank, BT cavalry tanks, and the T-28 medium tanks. Such plan was controversial, but concerns about tank performance under the threat of German blitzkrieg led to the approval for production of a still more heavily-armoured version, the T-34 medium tank.
Along the way, an important technical development was the BT-IS and BT-SW-2 testbed vehicles, concentrating on sloped armour. This proof-of-concept led directly to the armour layout of the T-34.
BT tank chassis were also used as the basis for engineering support vehicles and mobility testbeds. A bridgelayer variant had a T-38 turret and launched a bridge across small gaps. Standard tanks were fitted as fascine carriers. The RBT-5 hosted a pair of large artillery rocket launchers, one on each side of the turret. Several designs for extremely wide tracks, including, oddly, wooden 'snowshoes' were tried on BT tanks.
The KBT-7 was a thoroughly modern armoured command vehicle that was in the prototype stage when World War II broke out. The design was not pursued during the war.
In the Kiev maneuvers of 1936, foreign military observers were shown hundreds of BT tanks roll by a reviewing stand. In the audience were British Army representatives, who returned home to advocate for use of Christie suspension on British cruiser tanks which they incorporated from the Cruiser Mk III onwards. Interestingly, the pointed shape of the hull front armor on the BT tank also influenced the design of the British Matilda tank.
Consolidated PBY Catalina and Boeing B-17 Fortress at the New England Air Museum, 1989. Both aircraft show the damage of the Oct. 3rd, 1981 tornado that hit the bradley Air Museum.
Scan from a 35mm slide.
The B-17G was manufactured by Lockheed-Vega and delivered to the Army Air Force as 44-85734. Esperado Mining Company of Altus, Oklahoma bought it as scrap on June 25, 1947 and sold it to Pratt and Whitney Engines of Hartford, Connecticut for $2,700 on November 19, 1947. It was registered as N5111N and modified to carry a turbo-prop engine on its nose. Pratt and Whitney T34 and T64 engines were tested on this airplane. It was donated to the Bradley Air Museum of Windsor Locks, Connecticut on June 16, 1967. A tornado struck the museum on October 3, 1979 and inflicted major damage on the five-engined testbed. Tom Reilly Vintage Aircraft of Kissimee, Florida acquired the wreckage in 1987, but it remained stored at Windsor Locks until 1992. The Randsburg Corp of Portland, Oregon registered it as N817BR on July 13, 1999. Don Brooks and the Liberty Foundation of Atlanta, Georgia acquired it in 2003, registered it as N390TH, and restored it to airworthy condition. It made its first flight after restoration on December 8, 2004. It flew as 42-97849, Liberty Belle. On June 14, 2011, Liberty Belle experienced an in-flight fire that resulted in a forced landing in a farmer's field. Although the B-17 was only slightly damaged, it was consumed by the fire before any fire trucks could reach the scene.
The Catalina is PBY-5A/BuNo. 33966, delivered to the USCG in 1943. Registered N3936A it was withdrawn from use in 1955. Remained at the Bradley, then New England Air Museum up to 1989, then it was sold to the Fantasy of Flight Museum, Polk City, Fla.
In 1972 Volvo Presented its rolling safety laboratory, the VESC. It was meant to work as both an experimental vehicle and as a testbed for future safety features, such as anti-lock brakes, airbags and telescopic action bumpers. The front end of the car remained almost unchanged into the 240/260 models of 1974. Technical features based on the 140 series.
Volvo Museum
Arendals Skans
405 08 Göteborg
Sweden
July 2012
The batch of Atlanteans 401-410, well, bar 406, were quite unusual in appearance featuring the two different types on glazing on each deck, which 657 was the testbed vehicle for in 1978.
409 is pictured between trips on South Parade. This location now is the Old Market Square tram stop heading towards The Forest.
Just to correct myself, it was actually built for Distillers- BAe Systems bought it back in 1986.
G-BWWW is a 1983-built British Aerospace Jetstream 3102 (c/n 614) used primarily as a flying testbed by BAe (later BAE Systems) since 1986, based at Warton. It has been instrumental in testing unmanned aircraft technologies, achieving over 800 miles of unmanned flight in 2008, and testing automatic weather avoidance systems as part of the ASTRAEA program.
Key Historical Details
Built: 1983, Type: Jetstream 31/32.
Operator: BAE Systems (previously British Aerospace).
Role: Primarily a research and development aircraft, testing avionics, autonomous systems, and advanced technology.
Milestone: Conducted autonomous, unmanned flights without human intervention in 2008.
Status: Active. Often noted as a high-tech test platform in the 2000s and 2010s, often appearing at airshows like RIAT for exhibition of its research capabilities.
Aircraft Data
Registration: G-BWWW
Type: BAe Jetstream 3102
Constructor Number (c/n): 614
Engine: Garrett TPE331 turboprops
File:BAe Jetstream 3102 G-BWWW (9523694717).jpg
Feb 13, 2026 — Summary. ... Built in 1983, this Jetstream has been used by BAe (now BAE SYSTEMS) since 1986 as a flying testbed. It has been used...
Wikimedia Commons
G-BWWW - BAe Jetstream 31 [614] - Flightradar24
Flight history for aircraft - G-BWWW * AIRCRAFT BAe Jetstream 31. * AIRLINE BAe Systems. * OPERATOR -
Flightradar24
G-BWWW - Wings on Film Wiki - Fandom
History. Built in 1983. Used as a flying test bed for the ASTRAEA (Autonomous Systems Technology Related Airborne Evaluation & Ass...
Fandom
History ✈ G-BWWW
FlightAware
Airbus A380-861
MSN 004 [Engine Alliance testbed]
F-WWDD 'VNO' ['#A380' 'iflyA380.com' decals]
Airbus S.A.S.
Copyright © 2016 A380spotter. All rights reserved.
Jetaway was another US based Travel Club briefly active between 1976 and 1978, operating this single CV-880-
N45058 (CV-880-22M-3 c/n 22-00-43M) was delivered in June 1961 and used by Convair as testbed as N94284. Intended for Capital Airlines, it wa snevere delivered and then leased to Swissair as HB-ICL in August 1961. In June 1962 the plane returned to Convair as N94284. In October 1964 it was sold to Cathay Pacific as VR-HFT. retired, in April 1975 it was sold to International Air Leases as N48058. In November 1975 it was leased to Air Travel that in December 1975 became Travel-A-Go-Go. In October 1976 it was leased to Jetaway wher it remained until February 1978 when it was leased tp Jet Charter. In December 1978 the aircraft moved to Onyx Aviation to be stored at CVG. In January 1986 it was sold to Internatinal Airlines Support Group (IASG) to be broken up in May 1986 at CVG.
The slide shows teh plane still in its basic Cathay Pacific color scheme.
The early "yellow" J-20 airframes, most notably the pre-production prototypes starting with aircraft number 2001 in 2014 through the early low-rate initial production (LRIP) batch, served as the critical flight-test bridge between the original dark-coloured demonstrators (2001 and 2002) and today’s operational stealth fleet. These aircraft flew in a bright yellow, zinc-chromate anti-corrosion primer to protect their aluminum-lithium alloys and composite structures during rigorous development, saving immense time and cost by delaying the delicate, expensive radar-absorbing material (RAM) final coats until mechanical tweaks were complete.
Crucially, this flight-test phase was heavily focused on engine integration and airframe evaluation; while early demonstrators flew on imported Russian Saturn AL-31F turbofans, these yellow testbeds systematically trialled interim domestic engines like the WS-10 series with stealth-modified serrated exhaust nozzles to replace Russian powerplants.
Beyond engine testing, the early yellow airframes underwent a multi-year testing regime at the Flight Test Evaluation Regiment and Chengdu facilities to validate aerodynamic refinements (such as reshaped DSI air intakes and modified tail booms), integrate active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars and electro-optical targeting systems (EOTS), and evaluate weapons bay door dynamics with live missile separation tests. In this image, an early production aircraft awaits flight testing. Note its lack of final RAM coating.
+++ 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 Northrop Grumman-IAI F-24 is the latest reincarnation of the USAF "Lightweight Fighter Program" which dates back to the 1950ies and started with the development of Northrop's F-5 "Freedom Fighter".
The 1st generation F-5 became very successful in the export market and saw a long line of development, including the much more powerful F-5E "Tiger II" and the F-20 Tigershark (initially called F-5G). Northrop had high hopes for the F-20 in the international market; however, policy changes following Ronald Reagan's election meant the F-20 had to compete for sales against aircraft like the F-16, the USAF's latest fighter design (which was politically favored). The F-20 development program was eventually abandoned in 1986 after three prototypes had been built and a fourth partially completed.
But this was not the end for Northrop’s Lightweight Fighter. In the early 1980s, two X-29As experimental aircraft were built by Grumman from two existing Northrop F-5A Freedom Fighter airframes. The Grumman X-29 was a testbed for forward-swept wings, canard control surfaces, and other novel aircraft technologies. The aerodynamic instability of this arrangement increased agility but required the use of computerized fly-by-wire control. Composite materials were used to control the aeroelastic divergent twisting experienced by forward-swept wings, also reducing the weight. The NASA test program continued from 1984 to 1991 and the X-29s flew 242 times, gathering valuable data and breaking ground for new aerodynamic technologies of 4th and 5th generation fighters.
Even though no service aircraft directly evolved from the X-29, its innovative FBW system as well as the new material technologies also opened the door for an updated F-20 far beyond the 1990ies. It became clear that ever expensive and complex aircraft could not be the answer to modern, asymmetrical warfare in remote corners of the world, with exploding development costs and just a limited number of aircraft in service that could not generate true economies of scale, esp. when their state-of-the-art design would not permit any export.
Anyway, a global market for simpler fighter aircraft was there, as 1st generation F-16s as well as the worldwide, aging F-5E fleet and types of Soviet/Russian origin like the MiG-29 provided the need for a modern, yet light and economical jet fighter. Contemporary types like the Indian HAL Tejas, the Swedish Saab Gripen, the French Dassault Rafale and the Pakistani/Chinese FC-1/JF-17 ”Thunder” proved this trend among 4th - 4.5th generation fighter aircraft.
Northrop Grumman (Northrop bought Grumman in 1994) initiated studies and basic design work on a respective New Lightweight Fighter (NLF) as a private venture in 1995. Work on the NLF started at a slow pace, as the company was busy with re-structuring.
The idea of an updated lightweight fighter was fueled by another source, too: Israel. In 1998 IAI started looking in the USA for a development partner for a new, light fighter that would replace its obsolete Kfir fleet and partly relieve its F-16 and F-15 fleet from interception tasks. The domestic project for that role, the IAI Lavi, had been stillborn, but lots of its avionics and research were still at hand and waited for an airframe for completion.
The new aircraft for the IAF was to be superior to the MiG-29, at least on par with the F-16C/D, but easier to maintain, smaller and overall cheaper. Since the performance profiles appeared to be similar to what Northrop Grumman was developing under the NLF label, the US company eventually teamed up with IAI in 2000 and both started the mutual project "Namer" (=נמר, “Tiger” in Hebrew), which eventually lead to the F-24 I for the IAF which kept its project name for service and to the USAF’s F-24A “Tigershark”.
The F-24, as the NLF, was based on the F-20 airframe, but outwardly showed only little family heritage, onle the forward fuselage around the cockpit reminds of the original F-5 design . Many aerodynamic details, e. g. the air intakes and air ducts, were taken over from the X-29, though, as the experimental aircraft and its components had been developed for extreme maneuvers and extra high agility. Nevertheless, the X-29's forward-swept wing was considered to be too exotic and fragile for a true service aircraft, but the F-24 was to feature an Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) system.
AAW Technology integrates wing aerodynamics, controls, and structure to harness and control wing aeroelastic twist at high speeds and dynamic pressures. By using multiple leading and trailing edge controls like "aerodynamic tabs", subtle amounts of aeroelastic twist can be controlled to provide large amounts of wing control power, while minimizing maneuver air loads at high wing strain conditions or aerodynamic drag at low wing strain conditions. This system was initially tested on the X-29 and later on the X-53 research aircraft, a modified F-18, until 2006.
Both USAF and IAF versions feature this state-of-the-art aerodynamic technology, but it is uncertain if other customers will receive it. While details concerning the F-24's system have not been published yet, it is assumed that its AAW is so effective that canard foreplanes could be omitted without sacrificing lift and maneuverability, and that drag is effectively minimized as the wing profile can be adjusted according to the aircraft’s speed, altitude, payload and mission – much like a VG wing, but without its clumsy and heavy swiveling mechanism which has to bear high g forces. As a result, the F-24 is, compared to the F-20, which could carry an external payload of about 3.5 tons, rumored to be able to carry up to 5 tons of ordnance.
The delta wing shape proved to be a perfect choice for the required surface and flap actuators inside of the wings, and it would also offer a very good compromise between lift and drag for a wide range of performance. Anyway, there was one price to pay: in order to keep the wing profile thin and simple, the F-24’s landing gear retracts into the lower fuselage, leaving the aircraft with a relatively narrow track.
Another major design factor for the outstanding performance of this rather small aircraft was weight reduction and structural integrity – combined with simplicity, ruggedness and a modular construction which would allow later upgrades. Instead of “going big” and expensive, the new F-24 was to create its performance through dedicated loss of weight, which was in some part also a compensation for the AAW system in the wings and its periphery.
Weight was saved wherever possible, e .g. a newly developed, lightweight M199A1 gatling gun. This 20mm cannon is a three-barreled, heavily modified version of the already “stripped” M61A2 gun in the USAF’s current F-18E and F-22. One of the novel features is a pneumatic drive instead of the traditional electric mechanism, what not only saves weight but also improves trigger response. The new gun weighs only a mere 65kg (the six-barreled M61A2 weighs 92kg, the original M61A1 112 kg), but still reaches a burst rate of fire of 1.800 RPM (about 800 RPM under cyclic fire, standard practice is to fire the cannon in 30 to 50-round bursts, though) and a muzzle velocity of 1.050 metres per second (3,450 ft/s) with a PGU-28/B round.
While the F-16 was and is still made from 80% aluminum alloys and only from 3% composites, the F-24 makes major use of carbon fiber and other lightweight materials, which make up about 40% of the aircraft’s structure, plus an increased share of Titanium and Magnesium alloys. As a consequence and through many other weight-saving measures like keeping stealth capabilities to a minimum (even though RAM was deliberately used and many details designed to have a natural low radar signature, resulting in modest radar cross-section (RCS) reductions), a single, relatively small engine, a fuel-efficient F404-GE-402 turbofan, is enough to make the F-24 a fast and very agile aircraft, coupled with a good range. The F-24’s thrust/weight ratio is considerably higher than 1, and later versions with a vectored thrust nozzle (see below) will take this level of agility even further – with the pilot becoming the limiting factor for the aircraft’s performance.
USAF and IAF F-24s are outfitted with Northrop Grumman's AN/APG-80 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, also used in the F-16 Block 60 aircraft. Other customers might only receive the AN/APG-68, making the F-24 comparable to the F-16C/D.
The first prototype, the YF-24, flew on 8th of March 2008, followed by two more aircraft plus a static airframe until summer 2010. In early 2011 the USAF placed an initial order of 101 aircraft (probably also to stir export sales – the earlier lightweight fighters from Northrop suffered from the fact that the manufacturer’s country would not use the aircraft in its own forces). These initial aircraft will replace older F-16 in the interceptor role, or free them for fighter bomber tasks. The USN and USMC also showed interest in the aircraft for their aggressor squadrons, for dissimilar air combat training. A two-seater, called the F-24B, is supposed to follow soon, too, and a later version for 2020 onwards, tentatively designated F-24C, is to feature an even stronger F404 engine and a 3D vectoring nozzle.
Israel is going to produce its own version domestically from late 2014 on, which will exclusively be used by the IAF. These aircraft will be outfitted with different avionics, built by Elta in Israel, and cater to national requirements which focus more on multi-purpose service, while the USAF focusses with its F-24A on aerial combat and interception tasks.
International interest for the F-24A is already there: in late 2013 Grumman stated that initial talks have been made with various countries, and potential export candidates from 2015 on are Taiwan, Singapore, Thailand, Finland, Norway, Australia and Japan.
General F-24A characteristics:
Crew: 1 pilot
Length: 47 ft 4 in (14.4 m)
Wingspan: 27 ft 11.9 in / 8.53 m; with wingtip missiles (26 ft 8 in/ 8.13 m; without wingtip missiles)
Height: 13 ft 10 in (4.20 m)
Wing area: 36.55 m² (392 ft²)
Empty weight: 13.150 lb (5.090 kg)
Loaded weight: 15.480 lb (6.830 kg)
Max. take-off weight: 27.530 lb (12.500 kg)
Powerplant
1× General Electric F404-GE-402 turbofan with a dry thrust of 11,000 lbf (48.9 kN) and 17,750 lbf (79.2 kN) with afterburner
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 2+
Combat radius: 300 nmi (345 mi, 556 km); for hi-lo-hi mission with 2 × 330 US gal (1,250 L) drop tanks
Ferry range: 1,490 nmi (1715 mi, 2759 km); with 3 × 330 US gal (1,250 L) drop tanks
Service ceiling: 55,000 ft (16,800 m)
Rate of climb: 52,800 ft/min (255 m/s)
Wing loading: 70.0 lb/ft² (342 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 1.09 (1.35 with loaded weight & 50% fuel)
Armament
1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M199A1 3-barreled Gatling cannon in the lower fuselage with 400 RPG
Eleven external hardpoints (two wingtip tails, six underwing hardpoints, three underfuselage hardpoints) and a total capacity of 11.000 lb (4.994 kg) of missiles (incl. AIM 9 Sidewinder and AIM 120 AMRAAM), bombs, rockets, ECM pods and drop tanks for extended range.
The kit and its assembly:
A spontaneous project. This major kitbash was inspired by fellow user nighthunter at whatifmodelers.com, who came up with a profile of a mashed-up US fighter, created “out of boredom”. The original idea was called F-21C, and it was to be a domestic successor to the IAI Kfirs which had been used by the US as aggressor aircraft in USN and USMC service for a few years.
As a weird(?) coincidence I had many of the necessary ingredients for this fictional aircraft in store, even though some parts and details were later changed. This model here is an interpretation of the original design. The idea was spun further, and the available parts that finally went into the model also had some influence on design and background.
I thank nighthunter for sharing the early ideas, inviting me to take the design to the hardware stage (sort of…) and adapting my feedback into new design sketches, too, which, in return, inspired the model building process.
Well, what went into this thing? To cook up a F-24 à la Dizzyfugu you just need (all in 1:72):
● Fuselage from a Hasegawa X-29, including the cockpit and the landing gear
● Fin and nose cone from an Italeri F-16A
● Inner wings from a (vintage) Hasegawa MiG-21F
● Outer wings from a F-4 (probably a J, Hasegawa or Fujimi)
The wing construction deviates from nighthunter’s original idea. The favorite ingredients would have been F-16XL or simple Mirage III wings, but I found the composite wing to be more attractive and “different”. The big F-16XL wings, despite their benefit of a unique shape, might also have created scale/size problems with a F-20 style fuselage? So I built hybrid wings: The MiG-21 landing gear wells were filled with putty and the F-4 outer wings simply glued onto the MiG inner wing sections, which were simply cut down in span. It sounds like an unlikely combo, but these parts fit together almost perfectly! In order to hide the F-4 origins I modified them to carry wingtip launch rails, though, which were also part of nighthunter’s original design.
The AAW technology detail mentioned in the background came in handy as it explains the complicated wing shape and the fact that the landing gear retracts into the fuselage, not into the wings, which would have been more plausible… Anyway, there’s still room for a simpler export version, with Mirage III or Kfir C.2/7 wings, and maybe canards?
Using the X-29 as basis also made fitting the new wings onto the area-ruled fuselage pretty easy, as I could use the wing root parts from the X-29 to bridge the gap. The original, forward-swept wings were just cut away, and the remains used as consoles for the new hybrid delta wings. Took some SERIOUS putty work, but the result is IMHO fine.
The bigger/square X-29 air intakes were taken over, and they change the look of the aircraft, making it look less F-5-ish than a true F-20 fuselage. For the same reason I kept the large fairing at the fin base, combining it with a bigger F-16 tail, though, as a counter-balance to the new, bigger wings. Again, the F-16 fin was/is part of nighthunter’s idea, so the model stays true to the original concept.
For the same reason I omitted the original X-29 nose, which is rather pointy, sports vanes and a large sensor boom. The F-16 nose was a plausible choice, as the AN/APG-80 is also carried by late Fighting Falcons, and its shape fits well, too.
All around the hull, some small details like radar warning sensors, pitots and air scoops were added. Not really necessary, but such thing add IMHO to the overall impression of such a fictional aircraft beyond the prototype stage.
Cockpit and landing gear were taken OOB, I just added a pilot figure and slightly modified the seat.
The ordnance was puzzled together from the scrap box, the AIM-9Ls come from the same F-4 kit which donated its outer wings, the AIM-120s come from an Italeri NATO weapons kit. The drop tanks belong to an F-16.
Painting and markings:
At first I considered an F-24I in IAF markings, or even a Japanese aircraft, but then reverted to one of nighthunter’s initial, simple ideas: an USAF aircraft in the “Hill II” paint scheme (F-16 style), made up from three shades of gray (FS 36118, 36270 and 36375) with low-viz markings and stencils. Dutch/Turkish NF-5A/Bs in the “Hill II” scheme were used as design benchmarks, too. It’s a simple livery, but on this delta wing aircraft it looks pretty interesting. I used enamels, what I had at hand: Humbrol 127 and 126, and Modelmaster's 1723.
A light black ink wash was applied, in order to em,phasize the engraved panel lines, in contrast to that, panels were manually highlighted through dry-brushed, lighter shades of gray (Humbrol 27, 166 and 167).
“Hill II” also adds to a generic, realistic touch for this whif. Doing an exotic air force thing is rather easy, but creating a convincing whif for a huge military machinery like the USAF’s takes more subtlety, I think.
The cockpit was painted in medium Gray (Dark Gull Grey, FS 36231, Humbrol 140), as well as the radome. The landing gear and the air intakes were painted white. The radome was painted with Revell 47 and dry-brushed with Humbrol 140.
Decals were puzzled together from various USAF aircraft, including sheets from an Airfix F-117, an Italeri F-15E and even an Academy OV-10D.
Tadah: a hardware tribute to an idea, born from boredom - and the aircraft does not look even bad at all? What I wanted to achieve was to make the F-24 neither look like a F-20, nor a Saab Gripen clone, as the latter comes close in overall shape, size and design.
Martin-Baker's wonderful Gloster Meteor T.7(Mod) Test-bed pair resplendent in the static display at Yeovilton's 2017 Air Day
First flown in WWII, the Meteor was our first jet fighter and this pair of half a century old vintage 'Meatboxes' are based at Chalgrove in Oxfordshire.
Used for live-firing development work by MB on their range of Military Ejector Seats, 'Dayglo' encrusted WL419, aka G-JSMA and black with a gold stripe WA638, aka G-JWMA, have their rear cockpits modified to carry the 'test cell' with the black and white photographic calibration marks painted below
For more, see:
www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2017-06-20/vintag...
IMG_1931
In use at Papplewick Pumping Station on steaming days to convey visitors to an underground reservoir, is this Optare Alero. It is one of the original prototypes built in 1999 and registered X230 LWU, but donated by Optare to the Papplewick trust in 2006 and no longer used on the highway.
It gave me my first and probably last ride in an Alero and I have to say it was an interesting experience.
A surprise visit for Gulfstream's new G400 testbed aircraft. This visit to YVR from home base in Savannah, Georgia was for the Canadian Business Aviation Association's 2025 conference. It is also the first time the G400 has been on public display, let alone left the USA.
Replacing an earlier scanned photo with a better version 21-Jan-20.
Named: "Rolf Viking".
This aircraft was delivered to SAS Scandinavian Airlines as OY-KGF in Mar-69. It was wet-leased to Itavia (Italy) between Jul/Oct-80. It was sold to a lessor in Feb-98 and leased back to SAS. The aircraft was returned to the lessor in Nov-00, after almost 32 years in service, and sold the same day to Thomson Detxis as F-WTVH for use as an electronics/avionics testbed based at Bordeaux, France. It was re-registered F-WGRV in Mar-03. Thomson Detxis was renamed Thales Systems Aeroportes SA in Apr-03 and the aircraft was re-registered F-GVTH. It was permanently retired at Bordeaux in early 2010 and the registration was cancelled in Sep-10.
CWO 516K is a battery electric bus built in 1971 by Crompton Morrison on an adapted Leyland 900FG chassis and bodied by Willowbrook. Initially used as a testbed and demonstrator, it was acquired by SYPTE in 1975 and used intermittently on the Inner Circle in Doncaster. Withdrawn in 1979, it lingered in the training centre for several years until passing to a Barnsley dealer.
Boeing 737-505
cn: 24651 / ln: 1842
ff: 06-04-1990
19-04-1990 LN-BRD Braathens SAFE, config Y125, ans the 2nd 735. Delivered in "Sommerflyet" colours with the first flower decoration earlier shown in 1988 with N197JQ.
10-1990 LN-BRD repainted to stadard BU colours and named "Harald Gille"
23-03-1998 LN-BRD Braathens ASA tfd
1999 LN-BRD repainted into the new blue BU colours, still config Y125, "Harald Gille"
winter 2002/2003 repainted into the final BU colours, "Harald Gille"
01-04-2005 LN-BRD SAS Braathens tfd, "Harald Gille" reconfig CY120, operated in full ex BU colours
01-06-2007 LN-BRD SAS Norge tfd still "Harald Gille"
24-07-2007 VP-BRP Aeroflot-Nord, config CY110
(Leased from Aerco)
01-12-2009 VP-BRP Nordavia tfd, config Y110, /leased from (AerCo)
2016 reconfig Y132
12-03-2019 wfu
20-03-2019 VP-BRP Smartavia tfd, config Y135, (leased from AerCo)
19-10-2020 wfu
02-12-2020 stored at Staunton Shenandoah Valley Regional, USA (KSHD / SHD)
07-12-2020 N735T Dynamic Aivation, testbed
30-06-2023 stored at Wichita McConnell Air Forece Base (KIAB / IAB)
03-04-2024 entered service as testbed again
Seen parking at gate 10 in September 1990, with a B737-205 at gate 12 and a B737-405 at gate 16 seen behind.
Scanned from original slide
Airbus A220-300
[Bombardier Aerospace 'CSeries' CS300 (BD-500-1A11)]
MSN 55002
C-FFDO [Airbus S.A.S. livery]
C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership (CSALP)
Copyright © 2018 A380spotter. All rights reserved.
Ships passing through the narrow Portsmouth Harbour entrance.
Outgoing is XV Patrick Blackett (X01) an experimental ship used by the Royal Navy as a testbed for new technologies, including unmanned underwater vehicles and unmanned surface vehicles.
Her namesake is Patrick Blackett, a Royal Navy veteran and Nobel Prize-winning British physicist.
Incoming is ABP Pilot Boat MV MAYFLOWER
On the far left of the image, the War Memorial at Southsea is prominent
1967 Daimler Sovereign 4.2
Lot 1 (Kempton Park Racecourse, 18th October 2006)
Sold for £5,738
(including buyers premium)
Lot details
Registration No: PGV102E
Chassis No: 1A32348DN
Mot Expiry: April 2007
Introduced in 1966, the Daimler Sovereign was a more luxurious version of the contemporaneous Jaguar 420. Differentiated from its badge-engineered sibling by means of a different grille and better standard equipment, it otherwise shared the same four-door monocoque bodyshell equipped with all-round independent coil-sprung suspension, disc brakes and a detuned version (245bhp vs. 265bhp) of the Jaguar MKX's 4235cc DOHC straight-six engine. In many ways a testbed for the forthcoming Jaguar XJ6's styling and mechanical layout, the Daimler Sovereign remained in production until 1969 by which time some 5,829 are thought to have been made. Among the rarest of the Browns Lane designed Daimlers, the Sovereign is a highly underrated motorcar.
Finished in British Racing Green with suede green leather upholstery, this particular example is described by the vendor as being in "very good" overall condition. Reportedly "a very rare manual (overdrive) matching numbers original colour car with Jaguar Daimler Heritage Trust Certificate", 'PGV 102E' is further understood to have been begun life in the Channel Islands where it was used for "diplomatic service until returning to the UK during 1976". Apparently treated to refurbished front / rear subframes (new mountings, suspension bushes, bearings, universal joints, wheel bearings etc), an overhauled steering box, rebuilt differential, reconditioned callipers and new brake discs by its previous keeper, the Daimler has also benefited from replacement carpets / headlining and dashboard relacquering. Indeed, the car is thought to have had "some £4,000 recently spent on it". Though, we are informed that "no receipts are available as the owner purchased parts at Jaguar Spares Days and carried out the work himself". Boasting "new wire wheel hubs / spinners, tyres that have done less than 2,000 miles, power steering and a period Motorola radio (in working order)", 'PGV 102E' is said to "drive well with good oil pressure". Believed but not warranted to have covered 59,000 miles from new, this pampered Daimler is offered for sale with MOT certificate valid until April 2007 and historic class (free) road tax until March 2007.
www.handh.co.uk/auction/lot/1-1967-daimler-sovereign-42/?...