"At least two Crossfield-class starships served as testbeds for experiments to end the Federation-Klingon War of 2256-2257, the USS Discovery and the USS Glenn. They were equipped with an experimental propulsion technology, the displacement-activated spore hub drive."

More information about the MOC on Rebrickable: Crossfield Class

1981 Sabreliner is apparently a testbed with BAE Systems using the call sign "Flight Systems 01," though it's more subtle than most - I see a couple extra antennas, and what might be a stores pylon under the fuselage centerline, and that's about it.

Raytheon experimental 727-200 N289MT on final for Runway 33L at BWI

+++ 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.

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?

The core structure of the GPS III Non-Flight Satellite Testbed (GNST) stands vertical in Lockheed Martin’s GPS III Processing Facility. Learn more at www.lockheedmartin.com/gps

EADS, Airbus A310-324, msn 489, reg EC-HLA, MRTT Flyint testbed.

Alive and well at Tucson International airport in Tucson, AZ.

Information given at MAKS 2013:

SU-27LL Flying Test-Bed / In-flight Simulator with variable-in-flight dynamics

Applications:

•Future aircraft characteristics assessment and FCS research

•In-flight simulation and assessment of aircraft

•Development of flight safety enhancing systems

•Elaboration of adaptive flight control laws for perspective flying vehicles

Experimental equipment:

•Experimental digital FBW

•Autothrottle

•Experimental hand controllers

•Reprogrammable-in-flight HDD/HUD

•SNS

•Telemetry system

(photo 233-1)

+++ 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".

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.

This Lincoln MKZ is an open connected and automated vehicle research platform, or open CAV, at the University of Michigan. It is an open testbed for academic and industry researchers to rapidly test self-driving and connected vehicle technologies at Mcity, a world-class proving ground for advanced mobility vehicles operated by U-M's Mobility Transformation Center. The Lincoln will be joined by two Kia Souls equipped as open CAVs in coming months.

Photo: Joseph Xu/Michigan Engineering Multimedia Content Producer, University of Michigan

Hughes testbed NA-3A Skywarrior BuNo 135411 fitted with a F-111B nose and AWG-9 radar, 1966. R.L. Lawson.

The GP40X was EMD's testbed for the future GP50 and introduced the unpopular HT-B truck. The 'elephant ears' version shown here was an experiment in normalizing the tunnel motor concept. The ears eventually were removed and the HT-B trucks were never reproduced. I needed a powered SP unit to haul around some heavy trains so all those unique qualities fit the bill just right. Originally I wanted to build the UP version, but the SP is more iconic with those elephant ears. The UP version will follow someday.

A real GP40X.

Seen undergoing repairs following the discovery of leaking boiler tubes is preserved LMS Princess Royal Class 4-6-2 6201 "Princess Elizabeth". The last time I encountered this locomotive was November 2011, during its final stint on the Cumbrian Mountain Express prior to undergoing major overhaul. It's condition after 6 years appears to have improved immensely since then.

The Princess Royal class were a set of 13 4-6-2 Pacific locomotives designed by William Stanier and built at Crewe Works between 1933 and 1935 to be the prime motive power on the West Coast Mainline between London Euston, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow, including the famous Royal Scot premier express service. At first, two prototypical locomotives were built in 1933, followed by 11 production locomotives in 1935. These were later complimented by a fleet of 38 Coronation Pacific locomotives built between 1937 and 1948, which later went on to be arguably the most power steam locomotives ever built for the British Railway network.

One of the original prototypes however was retained for use as a testbed for a new Turbine Locomotive project to help improve the efficiency of the engines, later being unofficially dubbed 'Turbomotive'. The engine was fitted with turbines instead of cylinders, with the forward turbine containing 18 rows of blading, resulting in an output of 2,400hp, corresponding to running at 62 mph (100 km/h). The turbine was designed to operate into a maximum back-pressure of 2 psi, allowing a conventional double blast-pipe to provide the boiler draught, and eliminating draught fans, which always seemed to give a disproportionate amount of trouble.

The reverse turbine had 4 rows of blades. It was engaged by a dog clutch, activated when the reverser lever being set to "0". This was originally steam-operated by a small piston and cylinder. This locomotive was later rebuilt as a conventional classmate in 1952, using new mainframes and a spare set of cylinders from one of the Coronation Pacifics, and was numbered 46202, later to be named 'Princess Anne'.

6201, LMS lot number 99, was built at Crewe for the sum of £11,675 (£685,000 today) and named Princess Elizabeth, after the then Duke of York’s eldest daughter, currently our Queen Elizabeth II, leaving the works on 3rd November 1933.

Throughout the years the Princess Royal's continued to ply their trade on the West Coast services, but the years of World War II took their toll on the fleet. The beautiful Crimson Lake was replaced by Wartime Black, and the prestige manner that these locomotives had been accustomed to was stripped away as the railways were rationalised as part of the war effort. Work hours increased, and maintenance turns reduced, meaning these engines were being forced to the very limit of their design to keep Britain moving.

With the end of the war in 1945 the workload began to decrease, but the railways had paid the price. The beauty and lavish luxury of the pre-war companies had been stripped and would never return, with all of Britain's main railway companies now almost bankrupt and working a fleet of very tired engines on a poorly maintained railway network. In 1948 the Labour Government nationalised these companies to create British Railways, hoping to modernise the network and rebuild the overworked system.

The Princess Royals and their more powerful sisters the Coronation Pacifics continued to work hard as the implementation of diesels gathered pace. Early diesels however were underpowered and suffered heavily from reliability issues, meaning on many occasions the steam locomotives that they intended to replace actually came to their rescue!

It was not all plain sailing though for the Princess Royals in the 1950's, as this decade was littered with many fatal accidents. On 21 September 1951, locomotive No.46207 Princess Arthur of Connaught was hauling an express passenger train that was derailed at Weedon, Northamptonshire due to a defective front bogie on the locomotive, resulting in the deaths of 15 people and the injury of 35.

This was followed a year later by what would turn out to be the worst rail accident in the whole of British history. On 8 October 1952, an express passenger train hauled by Coronation Class, 46242 'City of Glasgow' overran signals on a train from Perth to London Euston, striking the rear of a stopped Tring to Euston commuter train at Harrow and Wealdstone station in North London. The ensuing wreckage was then struck by a northbound Liverpool express, hauled by Jubilee Class 45637 'Windward Islands', and recently rebuilt ex-Turbomotive Princess Royal 46202 'Princess Anne', which had only entered service two months earlier. In the chaos that followed, a total of 112 people were killed and 340 were injured, with 46202 obliterated in the accident, the first and only member of the class to be lost in an accident.

The late 50's however began to see the end of these engines as good, reliable diesels began to be introduced to replace them, followed closely by electric traction on the West Coast Mainline out of Euston. In 1961 the first members of the class were withdrawn from service, including 6201, which was placed in store in March 1961, but returned to service in May of that year due to poor diesel reliability.

As more diesels were delivered, in October of the same year 6201 was again placed into storage at Carlisle Kingmoor. However, again in January 1962 6201 was returned to traffic to cover for diesel failures and continued to work until September 1962 where it was once again placed into storage. It was subsequently withdrawn by BR in October 1962 and purchased by Roger Bell. The last of the locomotives to be withdrawn was class premier and original prototype number 62000 'The Princess Royal', which was withdrawn in November 1962 and subsequently scrapped. In all, only two locomotives were preserved, number 6203 'Princess Margaret Rose' and 6201 'Princess Elizabeth'.

cn 0073474208, ln 56-02

Mfd in 1987

Sold to the Chinese Air Force as a flying testbed aircraft

KLAX (Los Angeles International Airport) - 19 DEC 2020

"SkyWest 3043" from Denver International Airport (KDEN) on short final to RWY 25L.

Production Site: Montreal (YMX)

Rollout: 13 AUG 1999

First Flight: 19 SEP 1999

Test Registration: C-FBKA

To Bombardier Aerospace: 13 AUG 1999 as C-FBKA

Hex Code: C003A9

Configuration: Testbed

Engines: 2x General Electric CF34-8C5B1

To SkyWest Airlines: 29 APR 2005 as N707SK

Operated for United Express

Hex Code: A97029

Fleet Number: 707

Configuration: C6Y60

Engines: 2x General Electric CF34-8C5B1

Re-configured "C6Y64" in 2013

Withdrawn from use on 06 DEC 2016

Operated for American Eagle: 08 JAN 2017 as N707SK

Hex Code: A97029

Fleet Number: 707

Configuration: C9W12Y44

Engines: 2x General Electric CF34-8C5B1

Boeing 757 N757HW made his first flight on 04-02-1983 and was delivered to Eastern Air Lines on 28-02-1993. Since 04-10-2005, this 757 is a testbed for Honeywell (LN 5).

Having flown in commercial services between 2000-2007 under several different British Airways subsidiaries as G-BZAY, is now registered as G-ETPL, with the Empire Test Pilots Scholl / QinetiQ, and on display at RIAT 2024, at RAF Fairford complete with a Eurofighter Typhoons nose cone now mated to the fuselage to test advanced radar systems.

InSight Launch, May 4 2018, Tower Rollback, Vandenberg SLC3, California, USA

+++ 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".

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.

+++ 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".

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.

+++ 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.

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?

+++ 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.

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?

Frank Whittle had managed to get his first jet engine working by 1938, but could not find any British aircraft company willing to design an aircraft around it: though there was a massive prewar expansion of British aviation going on at the time, Whittle's engine was simply too radical. Finally, in 1939, Whittle had a conversation with George Carter, the Gloster Aircraft Company's chief designer. Carter was enthusiastic about designing a jet aircraft, and Whittle had finally found a company willing to work with him. On 15 May 1941, the first Whittle jet-powered aircraft, the Gloster E.28, flew for the first time.

By that time, World War II was well underway, and Great Britain was fighting for its life against Nazi Germany--and the Germans were far ahead on jet aircraft development. Though the E.28 was only a research aircraft, the Air Ministry rapidly approved a Gloster proposal for a two-engined jet fighter with heavy cannon armament and tricycle landing gear. Initially, the new aircraft was to be named Thunderbolt, but it was switched to Meteor to prevent confusion with the American P-47. Delays in engine manufacturing delayed the first flight of the Meteor until March 1943. Control problems were found on the first flight, but these were cured with a larger rudder.

The first Meteors to enter service were Meteor F.1s, and were used successfully to destroy V-1 flying bombs--the first kill was made by tipping the V-1 over using the Meteor's wing, as the 20mm cannons had jammed. The Meteor F.3 quickly superseded the F.1 (the F.2 was cancelled due to engine issues), and these would see limited service during World War II--the British were worried that one would crashland in German territory. It was a great disappointment to Meteor pilots, who wanted to show what their mount was capable of against the Messerschmitt Me 262. Postwar tests proved that the 262 was the superior aircraft, thanks to the Germans' use of swept wings, while the Meteor was a straight-winged aircraft. Pilots liked the Meteor and, while it was not easy to fly, it was responsive. It was also impressive to look at, and was found to be superior to all of the RAF's piston-engined fighters in speed and maneuverability.

Postwar, continual improvements were made to the Meteor to increase its stability and speed--the engine nacelles were lengthened, as was the fuselage, and the tail was redesigned. The Meteor F.8 was about as far as the design could go, given the limitations of straight wings, but the aircraft was adapted into radar-equipped night fighter and reconnaissance versions. The Meteor's accident rates were high--not surprising with an entirely new aircraft--and for the first part of its career, it was something of a pilot killer due to difficulty bailing out of it. Once a reliable ejection seat was developed by Martin-Baker, pilot losses declined considerably. It was an export success as well, with at least 16 air forces flying Meteors at one point.

Meteors would see combat over Korea, where it proved to be an excellent ground attack platform, but at a severe disadvantage against the swept-wing MiG-15. Meteors were used by both sides during the Arab-Israeli Wars, with the better-trained Israelis getting the best of air combat. By the mid-1950s, however, the Meteor was obsolete, and it was gradually withdrawn in favor of the Hawker Hunter and the Gloster Javelin in British service. Testbed Meteors remained in service, and Martin-Baker still uses two aircraft for ejection seat testing as of this writing. 3947 Meteors were built, and as many as a hundred survive in museums, though only five are currently flyable.

Though restored as a Meteor NF.II nightfighter, WF877 was actually a Meteor T.7 trainer. During its time in the RAF, it was used as both a trainer and testbed, being used to develop ejection seat systems for the Folland Gnat. In 1966, it was retired and transferred to Flight Refueling Ltd., which continued to use WF877 as a testbed until 1974, when it was grounded and donated to the Torbay Aircraft Museum. When Torbay closed in 1988, it was acquired by a British warbird company that intended to restore WF877 back to flyable status. This never happened, and in 2003, it was donated to the RAF Museum at Duxford. The aircraft was dismantled and stored in the open, and it steadily deteriorated until 2016, when an American warbird collector acquired WF877. Shipped to the US around 2016, it was acquired by the Pima Air and Space Museum in 2020.

Though I had gotten a picture of WF877 last year in May 2021, inside Pima's restoration hangar, the museum had finished restoration and put it on display in early 2022. I really wanted to see how it had turned out, especially since the museum restored it in Israeli Air Force colors. As expected, the restoration was superb: WF877 is painted in 1950s-era IDF/AF camouflage, with black undersides for night operations, as an aircraft of 119 Squadron, based at Ramat David. (Ironically, 119 Squadron, though it did see service in the Suez War, only scored one kill--an Ilyushin Il-14 transport--and spent most of its time training crews rather than flying combat.) As my dad had planned on building an Israeli Meteor shortly before he passed away, seeing one--even if it never actually served with the Heyl Ha'avir--was quite something.

To see WF877 when it was still being worked on, go here: www.flickr.com/photos/31469080@N07/51192880431/in/photoli...

+++ 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".

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.

This Lincoln MKZ is an open connected and automated vehicle research platform, or open CAV, at the University of Michigan. It is an open testbed for academic and industry researchers to rapidly test self-driving and connected vehicle technologies at Mcity, a world-class proving ground for advanced mobility vehicles operated by U-M's Mobility Transformation Center. The Lincoln will be joined by two Kia Souls equipped as open CAVs in coming months.

Photo: Joseph Xu/Michigan Engineering Multimedia Content Producer, University of Michigan

The C111 was a series of experimental automobiles produced by Mercedes-Benz in the 1960s and 1970s. The company was experimenting with new engine technologies, including Wankel engines, Diesel engines, and turbochargers, and used the basic C111 platform as a testbed. Other experimental features included gullwing doors and a luxurious interior with leather trim and air conditioning.

(Wikipedia)

Israel Air Force, Boeing 720-023B, cn 18013/120, used as flying test bed for IAI Lavi radar nose, now rests at Hatzerim IAF Museum.Other info shows the aircraft is Boeing 707-328 cn 17617 /116. Any info about real?

. . . flight to Bangkok

________________________

The Airbus A340 is a long-range, four-engine, wide-body commercial passenger jet airliner developed and produced by the European aerospace company Airbus. The A340 was assembled at Toulouse, France. It seats up to 375 passengers in the standard variants and 440 in the stretched -600 series. Depending on the model, it has a range of between 6,700 to 9,000 nautical miles (12,400 to 16,700 km; 7,700 to 10,400 mi). Its distinguishing features are four high-bypass turbofan engines and three-bogie main landing gears.

The A340 was manufactured in four fuselage lengths. The initial variant, A340-300, which entered service in 1993, measured 63.69. The shorter -200 was developed next, and the A340-600 was a 15.96 metres stretch of the -200. The -600 was developed alongside the shorter A340-500, which would become the longest-range commercial airliner until the arrival of the Boeing 777-200LR. The -200 and -300 models were powered by the 151 kilonewtons (34,000 lbf) CFM56-5C, while the 267-kilonewton (60,000 lbf) Rolls-Royce Trent 500 was the exclusive powerplant for the extended-range -500 and -600 models. The initial A340-200 and -300 variants share the fuselage and wing of the twin-engine Airbus A330 with which it was concurrently designed. The heavier A340-500 and -600 are longer and have larger wings.

Launch customers Lufthansa and Air France placed the A340 into service in March 1993. In September 2011, 379 orders had been placed (not including private operators), of which 375 were delivered. The most common type were the A340-300 model, with 218 aircraft delivered. Lufthansa is the biggest operator of the A340, having acquired 59 aircraft. The A340 is used on long-haul, trans-oceanic routes due to its immunity from ETOPS restrictions; however, with reliability and fuel efficiency in engines improving, airlines have gradually phased out the type in favour of the more economical Boeing 777 twinjet, while Airbus has positioned the larger variants of the Airbus A350 as a successor. Airbus announced on 10 November 2011 that A340 production had been concluded.

DEVELOPMENT

BACKGROND

When Airbus designed the Airbus A300 during the 1970s, it envisioned a broad family of airliners to compete against Boeing and Douglas, two established US aerospace manufacturers. From the moment of formation, Airbus had begun studies into derivatives of the Airbus A300B in support of this long-term goal. Prior to the service introduction of the first Airbus airliners, Airbus had identified nine possible variations of the A300 known as A300B1 to B9. A 10th variation, conceived in 1973, later the first to be constructed, was designated the A300B10. It was a smaller aircraft that would be developed into the long-range Airbus A310. Airbus then focused its efforts on the single-aisle market, which resulted in the Airbus A320 family, which was the first digital fly-by-wire commercial aircraft. The decision to work on the A320, instead of a four-engine aircraft proposed by the Germans, created divisions within Airbus. As the SA or "single aisle" studies (which later became the successful Airbus A320) underwent development to challenge the successful Boeing 737 and Douglas DC-9 in the single-aisle, narrow-body airliner market, Airbus turned its focus back to the wide-body aircraft market.

The A300B11, a derivative of the A310, was designed upon the availability of "ten ton" engines. It would seat between 180 and 200 passengers, and have a range of 6,000 nautical miles (11,000 km). It was deemed the replacement for the less-efficient Boeing 707s and Douglas DC-8s still in service. The A300B11 was joined by another design, the A300B9, which was a larger derivative of the A300. The B9 was developed by Airbus from the early 1970s at a slow pace until the early 1980s. It was essentially a stretched A300 with the same wing, coupled with the most powerful turbofan engine at the time. It was targeted at the growing demand for high-capacity, medium-range, transcontinental trunk routes. The B9 would offer the same range and payload as the McDonnell Douglas DC-10, but would use between 25% to 38% less fuel. The B9 was therefore considered the replacement for the DC-10 and the Lockheed L-1011 Tristar.

To differentiate the programme from the SA studies, the B9 and B11 were redesignated the TA9 and TA11 (TA standing for "twin aisle"), respectively. In an effort to save development costs, it was decided that the two would share the same wing and airframe; the projected savings were estimated at US$500 million (about £490 million or €495 million). The adoption of a common wing structure also had one technical advantage: the TA11's outboard engines could counteract the weight of the longer-range model by providing bending relief. Another factor was the split preference of those within Airbus and, more importantly, prospective airliner customers. Airbus vice president for strategic planning, Adam Brown, recalled,

North American operators were clearly in favour of a twin[jet], while Asians wanted a quad[jet]. In Europe, opinion was split between the two. The majority of potential customers were in favour of a quad despite the fact, in certain conditions, it is more costly to operate than a twin. They liked that it could be ferried with one engine out, and could fly 'anywhere' - ETOPS (extend-range twin-engine operations) hadn't begun then.

DESIGN EFFORT

The first specifications of the TA9 and TA11 were released in 1982. While the TA9 had a range of 3,300 nautical miles (6,100 km), the TA11 range was up to 6,830 nautical miles (12,650 km). At the same time, Airbus also sketched the TA12, a twin-engine derivative of the TA11, which was optimised for flights of a 2,000 nautical miles (3,700 km) lesser range. By the time of the Paris Air Show in June 1985, more refinements had been made to the TA9 and TA11, including the adoption of the A320 flight deck, fly-by-wire (FBW) flight control system and side-stick control. Adopting a common cockpit across the new Airbus series allowed operators to make significant cost savings; flight crews would be able to transition from one to another after one week of training. The TA11 and TA12 would use the front and rear fuselage sections of the A310. Components were modular and also interchangeable with other Airbus aircraft where possible to reduce production, maintenance and operating costs.Airbus briefly considered a variable camber wing; the concept was that the wing could change its profile to produce the optimum shape for a given phase of flight. Studies were carried out by British Aerospace (BAe) at Hatfield and Bristol. Airbus estimated this would yield a 2% improvement in aerodynamic efficiency. However, the plan was later abandoned on grounds of cost and difficulty of development.

Airbus had held discussions with McDonnell Douglas to jointly produce the aircraft, which would have been designated as the AM 300. This aeroplane would have combined the wing of the A330 with the fuselage of the McDonnell Douglas MD-11. However, talks were terminated as McDonnell Douglas insisted on the continuation of its trijet heritage. Although from the start it was intended for the A340 would be powered by four CFM56-5 turbofan engines, each capable of 25,000 pounds-force (110 kN), Airbus had also considered developing the aircraft as a trijet due to the limited power of engines available at the time, namely the Rolls-Royce RB211-535 and Pratt & Whitney JT10D-232.

On 27 January 1986, the Airbus Industrie Supervisory Board held a meeting in Munich, West Germany, after which board-chairman Franz Josef Strauß released a statement, "Airbus Industrie is now in a position to finalise the detailed technical definition of the TA9, which is now officially designated the A330, and the TA11, now called the A340, with potential launch customer airlines, and to discuss with them the terms and conditions for launch commitments". The designations were originally reversed because the airlines believed it illogical for a two-engine jet airliner to have a "4" in its name, whilst a quad-jet would not. On 12 May 1986, Airbus dispatched fresh sale proposals to five prospective airlines including Lufthansa and Swissair.

PRODUCTION AND TESTING

In preparations for production of the A330/A340, Airbus's partners invested heavily in new facilities. Filton was the site of BAE's £7 million investment in a three-storey technical centre with an extra 15,000 square metres of floor area. BAe also spent £5 million expanding the Chester wing production plant by 14,000 m2 to accommodate a new production line. However, France saw the biggest changes with Aérospatiale starting construction of a new Fr.2.5 billion ($411 million) assembly plant, adjacent to Toulouse-Blagnac Airport, in Colomiers. By November 1988, the first 21 m pillars were erected for the new Clément Ader assembly hall. The assembly process, meanwhile, would feature increased automation with holes for the wing-fuselage mating process drilled by eight robots. The use of automation for this particular process saved Airbus 20% on labour costs and 5% on time.

British Aerospace accepted £450 million funding from the UK government, short of the £750 million originally requested. Funds from the French and German governments followed thereafter. Airbus also issued subcontracts to companies in Austria, Australia, Canada, China, Greece, Italy, India, Japan, South Korea, Portugal, the United States of America, and the former Yugoslavia. The A330 and A340 programmes were jointly launched on 5 June 1987, just prior to the Paris Air Show. The order book then stood at 130 aircraft from 10 customers, apart from the above-mentioned Lufthansa and International Lease Finance Corporation (ILFC). Eighty-nine of the total orders were A340 models. Over at McDonnell Douglas, ongoing tests of the MD-11 revealed a significant shortfall in the aircraft's performance. An important carrier, Singapore Airlines (SIA), required a fully laden aircraft that could fly from Singapore to Paris, against strong headwinds during mid-winter in the northern hemisphere. The MD-11, according to test results, would experience fuel starvation over the Balkans. Due to the less-than-expected performance figures, SIA cancelled its 20-aircraft MD-11 order on 2 August 1991, and ordered 20 A340-300s instead. The MD-11 failed commercially and unsuccessfully competed with the A340.

The first flight of the A340 occurred on 21 October 1991, marking the start of a 2,000-hour test flight programme involving six aircraft. From the start, engineers noticed that the wings were not strong enough to carry the outboard engines at cruising speed without warping and fluttering. To alleviate this, an underwing bulge called a plastron was developed to correct airflow problems around the engine pylons and to add stiffness. European JAA certification was obtained on 22 December 1992; FAA followed on 27 May 1993.

ENTRY INTO SERVICE AND DEMONSTRATION

Airbus delivered the first A340, a -200, to Lufthansa on 2 February 1993. The 228-seat A340-200, named Nürnberg, entered service on 15 March. The A340s were intended to replace aging DC-10s on the airline's Frankfurt–New York services. Meanwhile, Air France took its first A340-300 on 26 February, the first of nine it planned to operate by the end of the year. The A340 replaced the Boeing 747s on Paris–Washington D.C., flying four times weekly. Coincidentally, the first Air France A340 was the 1000th Airbus aircraft to leave the Toulouse facility since the consortium's beginning.

During the Paris Air Show, on 16 June 1993 an A340-200 named The World Ranger took off for a round-the-world demonstration and publicity-stunt flight. The aircraft, carrying 22 persons, had been modified for the flight, including the addition of five center tanks. Taking off at 11:58 local time, The World Ranger made only one stop en route – in Auckland, New Zealand – and arrived back in Paris 48 hours and 22 minutes later, at 12:20. The flight broke six world records at the time. Among the six was the longest non-stop flight by an airliner, when the aircraft flew 19,277 kilometres (10,409 nmi) from Paris, arriving in Auckland in record time. The A340 would hold this record for a total of 12 years; in 2005, a Boeing 777-200LR flew from Hong Kong eastward toward London, successfully completing a 21,602 kilometres (11,664 nmi) journey.

FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS AND END OF PRODUCTION

During the 1990s, the A340-300 was challenged by the more fuel-efficient Boeing 777-200ER twinjet. In addition, airlines were looking for replacement aircraft for their 1970s-era Boeing 747-100s and -200s, so Airbus investigated a stretched airframe in the form of the A340-400X. This proved unpopular, as the CFM56 engines were at the limits of their growth capability and the range would have decreased to around 10,000 km (5,400 nmi). A new plan to develop an A340 variant with a larger wing and engine combination was decided upon. Pratt & Whitney, Rolls-Royce and General Electric competed to be selected as the supplier of the new engine to power the type; talks between General Electric and Airbus over an exclusive engine arrangement collapsed in 1997 following disagreement over cost and risk-sharing. Airbus ultimately decided to adopt a variant of the Rolls-Royce Trent engine series, which was viewed as cost-effective as it did not involve developing an independent power plant. In April 1996, Airbus announced that it would offer a stretched variant of the aircraft, designated as the A340-600. The A340-500/600 would be developed as ultra-long range (ULR) aircraft.

During the 2000s, sales slowed despite the introduction of the A340-500 and A340-600 and their high gross weight variants, the A340-500IGW and A340-600HGW, respectively as the Boeing 777-200LR and -300ER began to dominate the long-range, 300-400 seating sector. Airbus confirmed in January 2006 that it had conducted studies into developing an A340-600E (Enhanced). Airbus projected that it would be more fuel-efficient than earlier A340s, closing the 8–9% disparity with the Boeing 777 via the use of the new Trent 1500 engine as well as technologies derived from the A350 programme. In 2007, Airbus predicted that another 127 A340 aircraft would likely be produced through 2016, the projected end of production.

On 10 November 2011, Airbus announced the end of the A340 program. At that time, the company indicated that all firm orders had been delivered. The decision to terminate the program came as A340-500/600 orders came to a halt, with analyst Nick Cunningham pointing out that the A340 "was too heavy and there was a big fuel burn gap between the A340 and Boeing’s 777". Bertrand Grabowski, managing director of aircraft financier DVB Bank SE, noted "in an environment where the fuel price is high, the A340 has had no chance to compete against similar twin engines, and the current lease rates and values of this aircraft reflect the deep resistance of any airlines to continue operating it”. Airbus has positioned the larger versions of the A350, specifically the A350-900 and A350-1000, as the successors to the A340-500 and A340-600.

As a sales incentive amid low customer demand during the Great Recession, Airbus had offered buy-back guarantees to airlines that chose to procure the A340. By 2013, the resale value of an A340 declined by 30% over ten years, and both Airbus and Rolls-Royce were incurring related charges amounting to hundreds of millions of euros. Some analysts have expected the price of a flight-worthy, CFM56-powered A340 to drop below $10 million by 2023. As an effort to support the A340's resale value, Airbus has proposed reconfiguring the aircraft's interior for a single class of 475 seats. As the Trent 500 engines are half the maintenance cost of the A340, Rolls-Royce proposed a cost-reducing maintenance plan similar to the company's existing program that reduced the cost of maintaining the RB211 engine powering Iberia's Boeing 757 freighters. Key to these programs is the salvaging, repair and reuse of serviceable parts from retired older engines. Airbus could offer used A340s to airlines wishing to retire older aircraft such as the Boeing 747-400, claiming that the cost of purchasing and maintaining a second-hand A340 with increased seating and improved engine performance reportedly compared favourably to the procurement costs of a new Boeing 777.

DESIGN

The Airbus A340 is a widebody twin-aisle passenger airliner which, along with its sibling the A330, has the distinction of being the first truly long-range aircraft to be produced by Airbus. It is powered by four FADEC turbofan jet engines, optimized to perform long distance routes. The A340 had built upon developments made in the production of earlier Airbus aircraft and as such shares many features with those aircraft, such as a common cockpit design with the Airbus A320 and A330; as the aircraft was developed at the same time as the A330 the two aircraft employ many similar components and sections, such as identical fly-by-wire control systems and similar wings. Both before and after the A340 entered revenue service, the features and improvements that were developed for the type were usually shared with the A330, a significant beneficial factor in performing such programs.

The A340 is a low-wing cantilever monoplane, the wing itself is virtually identical to that of the A330. The wings were designed and manufactured by BAe, which developed a long slender wing with a very high aspect ratio to provide high aerodynamic efficiency.[Nb 1] The wing is swept back at 30 degrees and, along with other design features, allows a maximum operating Mach number of 0.86. The wing has a very high thickness-to-chord ratio of 12.8 per cent, which means that a long span and high aspect ratio can be attained without a severe weight penalty. For comparison, the rival MD-11 has a thickness-to-chord ratio of 8–9 per cent. Each wing also has a 2.74 m tall winglet instead of the wingtip fences found on earlier Airbus aircraft. The failure of International Aero Engines' radical ultra-high-bypass V2500 "SuperFan", which had promised around 15 per cent fuel burn reduction for the A340, led to multiple enhancements including wing upgrades to compensate. Originally designed with a 56 m span, the wing was later extended to 58.6 m and finally to 60.3 m. At 60.3 m, the wingspan is similar to that of the larger Boeing 747-200, but with 35 percent less wing area.

The flight deck of the A340 is a glass cockpit, based upon the control systems first used on the smaller A320. Instead of a conventional control yoke, the flight deck features side-stick controls. The main instrument panel is dominated by a total of six cathode ray tube monitors which display information to the flight crew; on later aircraft these monitors have been replaced by liquid crystal displays. Flight information is directed via the Electronic Flight Instrument System (EFIS) and systems information through the Electronic Centralised Aircraft Monitor (ECAM). The aircraft monitoring system is connected to various sensors throughout the aircraft and automatically alerts the crew to any parameters detected outside of their normal range; pilots can also manually inspect systems of their choosing at any time. The information display system is designed to be easily interpreted and give a clear picture of the aircraft's operational status. Instead of paper manuals, electronic CD-ROM-based manuals are used; Airbus offers web-based updates to electronic documentation as an option.

Many measures were taken from the start of the A340's design process to reduce the difficulty and cost of maintenance, which was reportedly half of that of the earlier Airbus A310 despite the increase in size. The aircraft's four engines featured improved controls and monitoring systems that enabled engine parameters to be more readily checked and avoid unnecessary early removals; the four-engine approach also avoided the stringent ETOPS requirements such as more frequent inspections. The A340 also has a centralised maintenance computer which provides comprehensive easily understandable systems information, which can be transmitted in real-time to ground facilities via the onboard satellite-based ACARS datalink. Some aspects of the maintenance, such as structural changes, remained unchanged, while increased sophistication of technology in the passenger cabin, like the in-flight entertainment systems, were increased over preceding airliners.

OPERATIONAL HISTORY

The first variant of the A340 to be introduced, the A340-200, entered service with the launch customer, Lufthansa, in 1993. It was followed shortly thereafter by the A340-300 with its operator, Air France. Lufthansa's first A340, which had been dubbed Nürnberg (D-AIBA), began revenue service on 15 March 1993. Air Lanka (later renamed Sri Lankan Airlines) became the Asian launch customer of the Airbus A340; the airline received its first A340-300, registered (4R-ADA), in September 1994. British airline Virgin Atlantic was an early adopter of the A340; in addition to operating several A340-300 aircraft, Virgin Atlantic announced in August 1997 that it was to be the worldwide launch customer for the new A340-600. The first commercial flight of the A340-600 was performed by Virgin in July 2002.

Singapore Airlines ordered 17 A340-300s and operated them until October 2013. The A340-300s were purchased by Boeing as part of an order for Boeing 777s in 1999.[75] The airline then purchased five long-range A340-500s, which joined the fleet in December 2003. In February 2004, the airline's A340-500 performed the longest non-stop commercial air service in the world, conducting a non-stop flight between Singapore and Los Angeles In 2007, Singapore Airlines launched an even longer non-stop route using the A340-500 between Newark and Singapore, SQ 21, a 15,344 kilometres (8,285 nmi) journey that was the longest scheduled non-stop commercial flight in the world. The airline continued to operate this route regularly until the airline decided to retire the type in favour of new A380 and A350 aircraft; its last A340 flight was performed in late 2013.

The A340 was typically used by airlines as a medium-sized long-haul aircraft, and was often a replacement for older Boeing 747s as it was more likely profitable. Airbus produced a number of A340s as large private jets for VIP customers, often to replace aging Boeing 747s in this same role. In 2008, Airbus launched a dedicated corporate jetliner version of the A340-200: one key selling point of this aircraft was a range of up to 8,000 nautical miles (15,000 km). Airbus had built up to nine different customized versions of the A340 to private customer's specific demands prior to 2008.

The A340 has frequently been operated as a dedicated transport for heads of state. A pair of A340-300s were acquired from Lufthansa by the Flugbereitschaft of the German Air Force; they serve as VIP transports for the German Chancellor and other key members of the German government. The A340 is also operated by the air transport division of the French Air Force, where it is used as a strategic transport for troop deployments and supply missions, as well as to transport government officials. A one-of-a-kind aircraft, the A340-8000, was originally built for Prince Jefri Bolkiah, brother of the Sultan of Brunei Hassanal Bolkiah. The aircraft was unused and stored in Hamburg until it was procured by Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal of the House of Saud, and later sold to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, then-President of Libya; the aircraft was operated by Afriqiyah Airways and was often referred to as Afriqiyah One.

In 2008, jet fuel prices doubled compared to the year before; consequently, the A340's fuel consumption led airlines to reduce flight stages exceeding 15 hours. Thai Airways International cancelled its 17-hour, nonstop Bangkok–New York/JFK route on 1 July 2008, and placed its four A340-500s for sale. While short flights stress aircraft more than long flights and result in more frequent fuel-thirsty take-offs and landings, ultra-long flights require completely full fuel tanks. The higher weights in turn require a greater proportion of an aircraft's fuel fraction just to take off and to stay airborne. In 2008, Air France-KLM SA's chief executive Pierre-Henri Gourgeon disparagingly referred to the A340 as a "flying tanker with a few people on board". While Thai Airways consistently filled 80% of the seats on its New York City–Bangkok flights, it estimated that, at 2008 fuel prices, it would need an impossible 120% of seats filled just to break even. Other airlines also re-examined long-haul flights. In August 2008 Cathay Pacific stated that rising fuel costs were hurting its trans-Pacific long-haul routes disproportionately, and that it would cut the number of such flights and redeploy its aircraft to shorter routes such as between Hong Kong and Australia. "We will ... reshap[e] our network where necessary to ensure we fly aircraft to where we can cover our costs and also make some money." Aviation Week noted that rapid performance increases of twin-engine aircraft has led to the detriment of four-engine types of comparable capacity such as the A340 and 747.

By 2014, Singapore Airlines had phased out the type, while Emirates Airlines decided to accelerate the retirement of its A340 fleet. International Airlines Group, the parent of Iberia Airlines (which is also the operator of the last production A340 built), is overhauling its A340-600s for continued service for the foreseeable future, while it is retiring its A340-300s. The IAG overhaul featured improved conditions and furnishings in the business and economy classes; the business-class capacity was raised slightly while not changing the type's overall operating cost. Lufthansa, which operates both Airbus A340-300s and -600s, concluded that, while it is not possible to make the A340 more fuel efficient, it can respond to increased interest in business-class services by replacing first-class seats with more business-class seats to increase revenue.

In 2013, Snecma announced that they planned to use the A340 as a flying testbed for the development of a new open rotor engine. This test aircraft is forecast to conduct its first flight in 2019. Open rotor engines are typically more fuel-efficient but noisier than conventional turbofan engines; introducing such an engine commercially has been reported as requiring significant legislative changes within engine approval authorities due to its differences from contemporary jet engines. The engine, partly based on the Snecma M88 turbofan engine used on the Dassault Rafale, is being developed under the European Clean Sky research initiative.

VARIANTS

There are four variants of the A340. The A340-200 and A340-300 were launched in 1987 with introduction into service in March 1993 for the -200. The A340-500 and A340-600 were launched in 1997 with introduction into service in 2002. All variants were available in a corporate version.

A340-200

The -200 is one of two initial versions of the A340; it has seating for 261 passengers in a three-class cabin layout with a range of 13,800 kilometres (7,500 nmi) or seating for 240 passengers also in a three-class cabin layout for a range of 15,000 kilometres (8,100 nmi). This is the shortest version of the family and the only version with a wingspan measuring greater than its fuselage length. It is powered by four CFMI CFM56-5C4 engines and uses the Honeywell 331–350[A] auxiliary power unit (APU). It initially entered service with Air France in May 1993. Due to its large wingspan, four engines, low capacity and improvements to the larger A340-300, the -200 proved heavy and unpopular with mainstream airlines. Only 28 A340-200s were produced. The closest Boeing competitor is the Boeing 767-400ER.

One version of this type (referred to by Airbus as the A340-8000) was ordered by the prince Jefri Bolkiah requesting a non-stop range of 15,000 kilometres (8,100 nmi). This A340-8000, in the Royal Brunei Airlines livery had an increased fuel capacity, an MTOW of 275 tonnes (606,000 lb), similar to the A340-300, and minor reinforcements to the undercarriage. It is powered by the 150 kilonewtons (34,000 lbf) thrust CFM56-5C4s similar to the -300E. Only one A340-8000 was produced. Besides the -8000, some A340-200s are used for VIP or military use; users include Royal Brunei Airlines, Qatar Amiri Flight, Arab Republic of Egypt Government, Royal Saudi Air Force, Jordan and the French Air Force. Following the -8000, other A340-200s were later given performance improvement packages (PIPs) that helped them achieve similar gains in capability as to the A340-8000. Those aircraft are labeled A340-213X. The range for this version is 15,000 kilometres (8,100 nmi).

As of April 2016, there are 11 Airbus A340-200s in service, of which 6 are used in government fleets.

A340-300

The A340-300 flies 295 passengers in a typical three-class cabin layout over 6,700 nautical miles (12,400 km). This is the initial version, having flown on 25 October 1991, and entered service with Lufthansa and Air France in March 1993. It is powered by four CFMI CFM56-5C engines and uses the Honeywell 331–350[A] APU, similar to the -200. Its closest competitor is the Boeing 777-200ER. The A340-300 will be superseded by the A350-900. 218 -300s were delivered in total.

The A340-300E, often mislabelled as A340-300X, has an increased MTOW of up to 275 tonnes (606,000 lb) and is powered by the more powerful 34,000 lbf (150 kN) thrust CFMI CFM56-5C4 engines. Typical range with 295 passengers is between 7,200 to 7,400 nautical miles (13,300 to 13,700 km). The largest operator of this type is Lufthansa, who has operated a fleet of 30 aircraft. The A340-300 Enhanced is the latest version of this model and was first delivered to South African Airways in 2003, with Air Mauritius receiving the A340-300 Enhanced into its fleet in 2006. It received newer CFM56-5C4/P engines and improved avionics and fly-by-wire systems developed for the A340-500 and -600.

As of April 2016, there were 135 Airbus A340-300s in service.

A340-500

The A340-500 was introduced as the world's longest-range commercial airliner. It first flew on 11 February 2002, and was certified on 3 December 2002. Air Canada was supposed to be the launch customer, but filed for bankruptcy in January 2003, delaying delivery to March. This allowed early deliveries to the new launch customer, Emirates, allowing the carrier to launch nonstop service from Dubai to New York—its first route in the Americas. The A340-500 can fly 313 passengers in a three-class cabin layout over 16020 km (8650 nm). Compared with the A340-300, the -500 features a 4.3-metre fuselage stretch, an enlarged wing, significant increase in fuel capacity (around 50% over the -300), slightly higher cruising speed, a larger horizontal stabilizer and a larger vertical tailplane. The centerline main landing gear was changed to a four-wheel bogie to support additional weight. The A340-500 is powered by four 240 kN (54,000 lbf) thrust Rolls-Royce Trent 553 turbofans and uses the Honeywell 331–600[A] APU. It was the world's longest-range commercial airliner until the introduction of its direct rival, Boeing 777-200LR, in February 2006.

Due to its range, the -500 is capable of travelling non-stop from London to Perth, Western Australia, though a return flight requires a fuel stop due to headwinds. Singapore Airlines used this model (initially in a two-class, 181-passenger layout, later in a 100-passenger business-only layout) for its Newark–Singapore nonstop route, SQ 21: an 18-hour, 45-minute "westbound" (really northbound to 130 km (70 nm) abeam the North Pole; then south from there across Russia, Mongolia and People's Republic of China), 18-hour, 30-minute eastbound, 15,344 kilometres (8,285 nmi) journey that was the longest scheduled non-stop commercial flight in the world, this flight route ceased operation in 2013. The Singapore Airlines -500 is the first aircraft to include a corpse cupboard, used for storing the body of a passenger who dies during a flight.

The A340-500IGW (Increased Gross Weight) version has a range of 17,000 km (9,200 nmi) and a MTOW of 380 t (840,000 lb) and first flew on 13 October 2006. It uses the strengthened structure and enlarged fuel capacity of the A340-600. The certification aircraft, a de-rated A340-541 model, became the first delivery, to Thai Airways International, on 11 April 2007. Nigerian airline Arik Air received a pair of A340-542s in November 2008, using the type to immediately launch two new routes, Lagos–London Heathrow and Lagos–Johannesburg; a non-stop Lagos–New York route began in January 2010. The A340-500IGW is powered by four 250 kN (56,000 lbf) thrust Rolls-Royce Trent 556 turbofans.

In April 2016, there were 8 A340-500s in service.

A340-600

Designed to replace early-generation Boeing 747 airliners, the A340-600 is capable of carrying 379 passengers in a three-class cabin layout 13,900 km (7,500 nmi). It provides similar passenger capacity to a 747 but with 25 percent more cargo volume, and at lower trip and seat costs. First flight of the A340-600 was made on 23 April

2001. Virgin Atlantic began commercial services in August 2002. The variant's main competitor is the 777-300ER. The A340-600 will eventually be replaced by the A350-1000.

The A340-600 is 12 m longer than a -300, more than 4 m longer than the Boeing 747-400 and 2.3 m longer than the A380. It held the record as the world's longest commercial aircraft until February 2010 with the first flight of the Boeing 747-8. The A340-600 is powered by four 250 kN (56,000 lbf) thrust Rolls-Royce Trent 556 turbofans and uses the Honeywell 331–600[A] APU. As with the -500, it has a four-wheel undercarriage bogie on the fuselage centre-line to cope with the increased MTOW along with the enlarged wing and rear empennage. Upper deck main cabin space can be optionally increased by locating facilities such as crew rest areas, galleys, and lavatories upon the aircraft's lower deck. In early 2007, Airbus reportedly advised carriers to reduce cargo in the forward section by 5.0 t to compensate for overweight first and business class sections; the additional weight caused the aircraft's centre of gravity to move forward thus reducing cruise efficiency. Affected airlines considered filing compensation claims with Airbus.

The A340-600HGW (High Gross Weight) version first flew on 18 November 2005 and was certified on 14 April 2006. It has an MTOW of 380 t and a range of up to 14,630 km (7,900 nmi), made possible by strengthened structure, increased fuel capacity, more powerful engines and new manufacturing techniques like laser beam welding. The A340-600HGW is powered by four 61,900 lbf (275 kN) thrust Rolls-Royce Trent 560 turbofans. Emirates became the launch customer for the -600HGW when it ordered 18 at the 2003 Paris Air Show; but postponed its order indefinitely and later cancelled. Rival Qatar Airways, which placed its order at the same airshow, took delivery of only four aircraft with the first aircraft on 11 September 2006. The airline has since let its purchase options expire in favour of orders for the Boeing 777-300ER.

In July 2015, seven airlines worldwide operated A340-600s. In April 2016, there were 77 A340-600s in service

OPERATORS

A total of 227 aircraft (all A340 variants) were in airline service in July 2015 with operators Lufthansa (41), Iberia (24), South African Airways (17), Swiss International Air Lines (15), Air France (13), Virgin Atlantic (11), Etihad Airways (11), Cathay Pacific (8), Scandinavian Airlines (8), and other airlines with fewer aircraft of the type.

ACCIDENTS AND INCIDENTS

As of September 2015, the A340 has never been involved in a fatal incident, although there have been five hull losses:

20 January 1994 – an Air France A340-200 registered F-GNIA was burnt out after a fire started during servicing at Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport.

24 July 2001 – an A340-300 of SriLankan Airlines was destroyed on the ground at Bandaranaike International Airport; being one of 26 aircraft which were damaged or destroyed during a major attack upon the airport by Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam militants.

2 August 2005 – Air France Flight 358, a crash and fire after A340-300 F-GLZQ overran runway 24L at Toronto Pearson International Airport while landing in a thunderstorm. The aircraft slid into Etobicoke Creek and caught fire. All 297 passengers and 12 crew survived; 43 people were injured, 12 serious.

9 November 2007 – an Iberia Airlines A340-600 was badly damaged after sliding off the runway at Ecuador's Mariscal Sucre International Airport. The landing gear collapsed and two engines broke off. All 333 passengers and crew were evacuated via inflatable slides, and there were no serious injuries. The aircraft was scrapped.

15 November 2007 – an A340-600 was damaged beyond repair during ground testing at Airbus' facilities at Toulouse Blagnac International Airport. During a pre-delivery engine test, multiple safety checks had been disabled, leading to the non-chocked aircraft accelerating to 57 km/h and colliding with a concrete blast deflection wall. The right wing, tail, and left engines made contact with the ground or wall, leaving the forward section elevated several meters and the cockpit broken off; nine people on board were injured, four of them seriously. The aircraft was written off and was later used at Virgin Atlantic's cabin crew training facility in Crawley. It was due to be delivered to Etihad Airways.

20 March 2009 – Emirates Flight 407 was an Emirates flight flying from Melbourne to Dubai-International using an A340-500. The flight failed to take off properly from Melbourne Airport, hitting several structures at the end of the runway before eventually climbing enough to return to the airport for a safe landing. The occurrence was severe enough to be classified an accident by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.

WIKIPEDIA

Honeywell International, Boeing 757-225, msn 22194 L/n 5, reg N757HW. The 5th 757 ever built is used by Honeywell as a flying testbed for electronics, engines (hung on a pylon at the right nose fuselage, etc. Seen static and flying display at Egyptian Airshow held a El Alamein International airport (DBB / HEAL)

Airbus A380-841

MSN 001

F-WWOW '001 GD' [Prototype/Rolls-Royce Trent testbed]

Airbus S.A.S.

Copyright © 2014 A380spotter. All rights reserved.

The age and vulnerability of the RF-101C Voodoo was apparent by the Vietnam War. As losses rose among the Voodoo community, the USAF sought a faster and newer replacement. The solution turned out to be yet another variant of the eminently adaptable F-4C Phantom II. The basic airframe was retained with a new nose, with three cameras placed inside. As the RF-4C was meant to be unarmed, it was not necessary to retain the multimode interception radar of the F-4C, and the RF-4C used the smaller AN/APQ-99 navigation radar. Lighter and more aerodynamic than the F-4C, the RF-4C proved to be the perfect replacement for the RF-101 and remaining RF-84F Thunderstreaks in USAF service. It entered service in 1965.

The RF-4C would be the last dedicated manned tactical reconnaissance aircraft in USAF service. They were used extensively over Vietnam, and in active-duty USAF squadrons until the late 1980s, when they were relegated to Air National Guard units. The last two squadrons of ANG RF-4Cs saw service during the First Gulf War, after which they were retired completely. A number were supplied to foreign air forces afterwards, but the RF-4E (built off of the early F-4E variant) remains the primary foreign RF-4 version.

66-0384 is one of two RF-4Cs on display at the Veterans Freedom Memorial Park in Quartzsite, Arizona. It joined the USAF around 1967, initially with the 363rd Tactical Reconnaissance Wing at Shaw AFB, South Carolina. In 1978, it became a "white tail" NRF-4C testbed, with the Air Force Flight Test Center and later the 412th Test Wing, both at Edwards AFB, California. It was retired in 1992 and donated to the town of Quartzsite.

Of the two RF-4s, 66-0384 is the better looking of the two, with its markings in marginally better shape--enough to tell which unit it was out of and its serial number. The forward canopy is slightly open, which has allowed the canopies to get fogged. Quartzsite is a strange place to find a pair of Phantoms, but it's worth a stop.

+++ 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".

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.

2024_11_08_IMG_0143

Photographed the Convair YF2Y-1 Sea Dart that's on static display at the Florida Air Museum part of the Sun and Fun Complex located at the Lakeland Linder Regional Airport in Lakeland Florida U.S.A.

General characteristics

Crew: one

Length: 52 ft 7 in (16 m)

Wingspan: 33 ft 8 in (10.3 m)

Height: 16 ft 2 in (4.9 m)

Wing area: 568 ft² (53 m²)

Empty weight: 12,625 lb (5,730 kg)

Loaded weight: 16,500 lb (7,480 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 21,500 lb (9,750 kg)

Powerplant: 2 × Westinghouse J46-WE-2 {testbed: J43-WE-32 w/ 3,400 lbf each. turbojets, 6,100. lbf (27 kN) each

Performance (estimated)

Maximum speed: 825 mph (1,325 km/h)

Range: 513 mi (446 nm, 826 km)

Service ceiling: 54,800 ft (16,700 m)

Take-off run: 5,500 ft (1,676 m)

Landing run: 1,500 ft (305 m)

Rate of climb: 17,100 ft/min (86.7 m/s)

Wing loading: 29.0 lb/ft² (142 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight: .56 (max loaded).96 (empty)

Armament

Guns: 4 × 20 mm (0.79 in) cannon

Rockets: Unguided rockets

Missiles: 2 × air-to-air missiles

©Copyright Notice

This photograph and all those within my photostream are protected by copyright. They may not be reproduced, copied, transmitted or manipulated without my written permission.

The Focke-Wulf Fw 190 Würger (Shrike) was a German single-seat, single radial engine fighter aircraft designed by Kurt Tank in the late 1930s. It was used by the Luftwaffe during the Second World War in a variety of roles. Like the Messerschmitt Bf 109, the Fw 190 was employed as a "workhorse", and proved suitable for a wide variety of roles, including day fighter, fighter-bomber, ground-attack aircraft, and also operated to a lesser degree as a night fighter.

When the Fw 190 started flying operationally over France in August 1941 it was quickly proven to be superior in all but turn radius to the Royal Air Force's main front line fighter, the Spitfire Mk. V. The 190 wrestled air superiority away from the RAF until the introduction of the vastly improved Spitfire Mk. IX in July 1942 restored qualitative parity. The Fw 190 made its air combat debut on the Eastern Front in November/December 1942. Soviet pilots regarded the Bf 109 as the greatest threat in combat on the Eastern Front; nevertheless, the Fw 190 made a significant impact. The fighter and its pilots proved just as capable as the Bf 109 in aerial combat, and in the opinion of German pilots that flew both German fighters, the Fw 190 presented increased firepower and manoeuvrability at low to medium altitude.

The Fw 190 became the backbone of Jagdwaffe (Fighter Force) along with the Bf 109. On the Eastern Front the Fw 190 was versatile enough to be used in Schlachtgeschwader (Battle Wings or Strike Wings), specialised ground attack units which achieved much success against Soviet ground forces. As an interceptor, the Fw 190 underwent improvements to make it effective at high altitude allowing the 190 to maintain relative parity against its Allied opponents. The Fw 190A series' performance decreased at high altitudes (usually 6,000 m (20,000 ft) and above) which reduced its effectiveness as a high-altitude interceptor, but this problem was mostly rectified in later models, particularly in the Junkers Jumo 213 inline-engine powered Focke-Wulf Fw 190D series, which was introduced in September 1944. In spite of its successes, it never entirely replaced the Bf 109.

The Fw 190 was well-liked by its pilots. Some of the Luftwaffe's most successful fighter aces flew the Fw 190, including Otto Kittel with 267 victories, Walter Nowotny with 258 victories and Erich Rudorffer with 222 claimed kills. A great many of their kills were claimed while flying the Fw 190.

The Focke-Wulf was not only faster but its superior handling and faster roll rate gave it an edge in the hands of even less experienced pilots. Such sparkling performance combined with the 190's superior armament presented Allied pilots with a real challenge until German pilot training began to drop in quality. The standard Fw 190A was quickly modified to perform a number of roles, particularly that of fighter-bomber in the F and G versions. These deleted the outer 20 mm cannon in favor of various combinations of bomb racks or cannon pods for the MK 103 30 mm cannon. Later versions of the FW 190A featured up to six 20 mm cannon (FW 190A6R1); the A-6/R-6 had two 210 mm (8.27 in) unguided rockets with which to attack US heavy bombers. The wide track landing gear assured ease of handling on takeoff and landing, unlike the twitchy Messerschmitt 109. The 190 was also one of the first fighters to feature a clear rear canopy, allowing pilots to keep an excellent lookout for enemy fighters.

The Fw 190 F-8 differed from the A-8 model with a slightly modified injector on the compressor that allowed for increased performance for several minutes at lower altitudes. The F-8 was also outfitted with the improved FuG 16 ZS radio unit which provided much better communication with ground combat units. Armament on the Fw 190 F-8 was two 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon in the wing roots and two 13 mm (.51 in) MG 131 machine guns above the engine. According to RLM acceptance reports, at least 3,400 F-8s were built, and probably several hundred more were built in December 1944 and from February to May 1945. (Data for these months is missing and probably lost.)[citation needed] Dozens of F-8s served as various testbeds for anti-tank armament, including the WGr.28 280 mm air-to-ground missile, likely based on the projectiles from the Nbw 41 heavy ground barrage rocket system, and the 88 mm (3.46 in) Panzerschreck 2 rockets, Panzerblitz 1 and R4M rockets.

There were also several Umrüst-Bausätze kits developed for the F-8, which included the Fw 190 F-8/U1 long range JaBo, outfitted with underwing V.Mtt-Schloß shackles to hold two 300 L (80 US gal) fuel tanks. ETC 503 bomb racks were also fitted, allowing the Fw 190 F-8/U1 to carry one SC 250 bomb under each wing and one SC 250 bomb on the centerline.

Specifications (Fw 190 A-8)

General characteristics

Crew:......................................... 1

Length: .................................... 9.00 m (29 ft 5 in)

Wingspan:.............................. 10.51 m (34 ft 5 in)

Height:...................................... 3.95 m (12 ft 12 in)

Wing area:............................. 18,30 m² (196.99 ft²)

Empty weight:.......................... 3,200 kg (7,060 lb)

Loaded weight:....................... 4,417 kg (9,735 lb)

Max takeoff weight:................ 4,900 kg (10,800 lb)

Powerplant:.................... 1× BMW 801 D-2 radial engine, 1,250 kW

(1,700 PS) , 1,471 kW (2,000 PS) with boost

Performance

Maximum speed:............... 656 km/h (408 mph) at 19,420 ft (5,920 m),

425 mph (657 km/h) with boost

Range:........................................... 800 km (500 mi)

Service ceiling:.................... 11,410 m (37,430 ft)

Rate of climb:....................... 13 m/s (2,560 ft/min)

Wing loading:........................ 241 kg/m² (49.4 lb/ft²)

Power/mass:.................... 0.29-0.33 kW/kg (0.18-0.21 hp/lb)

Armament

Guns:....................... * 2 × 13 mm (.51 in) MG 131 machine guns with approximately 900 rpm (depending upon the projectile mass of the ammunition being used)

4 × 20 mm MG 151/20 E cannons with 740 rpm in the wing root and 675 rpm outboard.

The inspiration for this artwork was the picture found here - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FW_190_F.jpg

Hope you enjoy.

Arriva London Ltd.:

DW411 was retrofitted with a new driveline, as a testbed for what would become the Wrightbus StreetDeck. The original 6-cyl Cummins ISBe engine was replaced with the Mercedes-Benz (Daimler) OM934. The vehicle caught fire shortly after arrival to the London fleet in 2011, so instead of being written off, she was given a new lease of life, and a slightly different identity!

VDLbus DB300 (Daimler) /

Wrightbus Gemini 2DL (10.5m)

H41/24D - 2011

Rockwood Road, Stamford Hill

Saturday 1st August 2015

Stood on display at Swanwick Junction is preserved LMS Princess Royal Class 4-6-2 46203 "Princess Margaret Rose", one of only two of these locomotives to be preserved, and both of which were sat in the same shed.

The Princess Royal class were a set of 13 4-6-2 Pacific locomotives designed by William Stanier and built at Crewe Works between 1933 and 1935 to be the prime motive power on the West Coast Mainline between London Euston, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow, including the famous Royal Scot premier express service. At first, two prototypical locomotives were built in 1933, followed by 11 production locomotives in 1935. These were later complimented by a fleet of 38 Coronation Pacific locomotives built between 1937 and 1948, which later went on to be arguably the most power steam locomotives ever built for the British Railway network.

One of the original prototypes however was retained for use as a testbed for a new Turbine Locomotive project to help improve the efficiency of the engines, later being unofficially dubbed 'Turbomotive'. The engine was fitted with turbines instead of cylinders, with the forward turbine containing 18 rows of blading, resulting in an output of 2,400hp, corresponding to running at 62 mph (100 km/h). The turbine was designed to operate into a maximum back-pressure of 2 psi, allowing a conventional double blast-pipe to provide the boiler draught, and eliminating draught fans, which always seemed to give a disproportionate amount of trouble.

The reverse turbine had 4 rows of blades. It was engaged by a dog clutch, activated when the reverser lever being set to "0". This was originally steam-operated by a small piston and cylinder. This locomotive was later rebuilt as a conventional classmate in 1952, using new mainframes and a spare set of cylinders from one of the Coronation Pacifics, and was numbered 46202, later to be named 'Princess Anne'.

6201, LMS lot number 99, was built at Crewe for the sum of £11,675 (£685,000 today) and named Princess Elizabeth, after the then Duke of York’s eldest daughter, currently our Queen Elizabeth II, leaving the works on 3rd November 1933.

Throughout the years the Princess Royal's continued to ply their trade on the West Coast services, but the years of World War II took their toll on the fleet. The beautiful Crimson Lake was replaced by Wartime Black, and the prestige manner that these locomotives had been accustomed to was stripped away as the railways were rationalised as part of the war effort. Work hours increased, and maintenance turns reduced, meaning these engines were being forced to the very limit of their design to keep Britain moving.

With the end of the war in 1945 the workload began to decrease, but the railways had paid the price. The beauty and lavish luxury of the pre-war companies had been stripped and would never return, with all of Britain's main railway companies now almost bankrupt and working a fleet of very tired engines on a poorly maintained railway network. In 1948 the Labour Government nationalised these companies to create British Railways, hoping to modernise the network and rebuild the overworked system.

The Princess Royals and their more powerful sisters the Coronation Pacifics continued to work hard as the implementation of diesels gathered pace. Early diesels however were underpowered and suffered heavily from reliability issues, meaning on many occasions the steam locomotives that they intended to replace actually came to their rescue!

It was not all plain sailing though for the Princess Royals in the 1950's, as this decade was littered with many fatal accidents. On 21 September 1951, locomotive No.46207 Princess Arthur of Connaught was hauling an express passenger train that was derailed at Weedon, Northamptonshire due to a defective front bogie on the locomotive, resulting in the deaths of 15 people and the injury of 35.

This was followed a year later by what would turn out to be the worst rail accident in the whole of British history. On 8 October 1952, an express passenger train hauled by Coronation Class, 46242 'City of Glasgow' overran signals on a train from Perth to London Euston, striking the rear of a stopped Tring to Euston commuter train at Harrow and Wealdstone station in North London. The ensuing wreckage was then struck by a northbound Liverpool express, hauled by Jubilee Class 45637 'Windward Islands', and recently rebuilt ex-Turbomotive Princess Royal 46202 'Princess Anne', which had only entered service two months earlier. In the chaos that followed, a total of 112 people were killed and 340 were injured, with 46202 obliterated in the accident, the first and only member of the class to be lost in an accident.

The late 50's however began to see the end of these engines as good, reliable diesels began to be introduced to replace them, followed closely by electric traction on the West Coast Mainline out of Euston. In 1961 the first members of the class were withdrawn from service, including 6201, which was placed in store in March 1961, but returned to service in May of that year due to poor diesel reliability.

As more diesels were delivered, in October of the same year 6201 was again placed into storage at Carlisle Kingmoor. However, again in January 1962 6201 was returned to traffic to cover for diesel failures and continued to work until September 1962 where it was once again placed into storage. It was subsequently withdrawn by BR in October 1962 and purchased by Roger Bell. The last of the locomotives to be withdrawn was class premier and original prototype number 62000 'The Princess Royal', which was withdrawn in November 1962 and subsequently scrapped. In all, only two locomotives were preserved, number 6203 'Princess Margaret Rose' and 6201 'Princess Elizabeth'.

BOE204 to Keflavik : Arrived on the 2nd for display at Glasgow airport ,in connection with the opening of Boeings new Metallic,s Research Centre at Renfrew

In Lockheed Martin’s GPS Processing Facility (GPF) near Denver, engineers work on the GPS III Non-Flight Satellite Testbed (GNST), a full-sized prototype of a GPS III satellite used to identify and solve development issues prior to integration and test of the first space vehicle. The approach significantly reduces risk, improves production predictability, increases mission assurance and lowers overall program costs. www.lockheedmartin.com/gps

AIB09AB Airbus A321 NEOXLR testbed departing Dublin for Miami painted in "QR Code" special colours after a customer visit

N35LX - Boeing 737-300 - Lockheed - CATBIRD

Sally B is a Boeing B-17G Flying Fortress originally delivered to the United States Army Air Forces in 1945. After the war she was first converted to a TB-17G training aircraft before being converted again to a EB-17G testbed aircraft for experimental engine tests. 1954 she was sold off to Institut Géographique National. 1975 she moved back to England for restoration back to a Second World War B-17G.

In 1981 she was in the TV series We'll Meet Again. In 1983/1984 Sally-B was painted in an olive drag & grey colour scheme to protect her from the elements better. in 1990 she was used in the film Memphis Belle, which she still retains the nose art on her other side. Since 1985 Elly Sallingboe's B-17 Preservation Ltd has operated and maintained her.

Boeing 767-432ER

29705/773 [-400ER protoype/demonstrator]

N827MH 'Ship 1803'

DELTA Air Lines

DAL DL

Copyright © 2016 A380spotter. All rights reserved.

your.heathrow.com/takingbritainfurther/

www.heathrowhub.com/

www.backheathrow.org/

Airfix Lancaster B.II built as Metrovick F.2 testbed LL735

© Kris Klop

NS testbed 1000. This unit is used to test overhauled engines that have been shipped to Juniata without the rest of the locomotive.