View allAll Photos Tagged capable
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The North American FJ-4 Fury was a swept-wing carrier-capable fighter-bomber for the United States Navy and Marine Corps. The final development in a lineage that included the Air Force's F-86 Sabre, the FJ-4 shared its general layout and engine with the earlier FJ-3, but, compared to that of the FJ-3, the FJ-4's new wing was much thinner, with a six percent thickness-to-chord ratio, and featured skin panels milled from solid alloy plates. It also had an increased area and tapered more sharply towards the tips. Slight camber behind the leading edge improved low speed characteristics. The main landing gear design had to be considerably modified to fold wheel and strut within the contours of the new wing. The track of the main wheels was increased, and because they were closer to the center of gravity, there was less weight on the nosewheel. Wing folding was limited to the outer wing panels.
The FJ-4 was intended as an all-weather interceptor, a role that required considerable range on internal fuel. The FJ-4 had 50% more fuel capacity than the FJ-3 and was lightened by omitting armor and reducing ammunition capacity. The new wing was "wet"; that is, it provided for integral fuel tankage. The fuselage was deepened to add more fuel and had a distinctive "razorback" rear deck. A modified cockpit made the pilot more comfortable during the longer missions. The tail surfaces were also extensively modified, had a thinner profile and featured an extended, taller fin. The overall changes resulted in an aircraft that had little in common with the earlier models, although a family resemblance was still present.
The FJ-4 was developed into a family of aircraft. Of the original order for 221 FJ-4 day fighters, the last 71 were modified into the FJ-4B fighter-bomber version. This had a stronger wing with six instead of four underwing stations and stronger landing gear. Additional aerodynamic brakes under the aft fuselage made landing safer by allowing pilots to use higher thrust settings and were also useful for dive attacks. External load was doubled. The most important characteristic of the FJ-4B was, since the Navy was eager to maintain a nuclear role in its rivalry with the Air Force, that it was capable of carrying a nuclear weapon on the inboard port station. For the delivery of nuclear weapons, the FJ-4B was equipped with the Low-Altitude Bombing System (LABS), and with this capability it replaced the carrier-based A-3 Skywarrior bombers, which were not suited well for the new low-level approach tactics.
In April 1956, the Navy ordered 151 more FJ-4Bs, 10 US Navy squadrons became equipped with the FJ-4B, and the type was also flown by three Marine squadrons. At the same time, the Navy requested a carrier-borne fighter with all-weather capability, radar-guided missiles and a higher performance. This new type was to replace several 1st generation US Navy jets, including the ponderous and heavy Douglas F3D Skyknight, the lackluster Vought F7U as well as the Grumman F9F-8 Cougar. This requirement led to the Douglas F4D Skyray and North American’s FJ-5, another thorough modification of the Fury’s basic design and its eventual final evolution stage.
North American’s FJ-5 was designed with compact dimensions in mind, so that the type could be operated on older Essex Class carriers, which offered rather limited storage and lift space. At the time of the FJ-5’s conception, several of these carriers were still in service – and this argument led to an order for the FJ-5 in addition to the F4D.
For the FJ-5, the FJ-4’s aerodynamic surfaces were retained, but the fuselage had to be modified considerably in order to accept an APQ-50A radar with a parabolic 24 inches diameter antenna in the nose. The radome was placed above the air intake, similar to the F-86D, and coupled with an Aero 13F fire-control system, which together provided full all-weather capability and information on automatic firing of rockets.
A deeper rear fuselage became necessary, too, because the FJ-5 was powered by a reheated J65-W-18 engine (a development of the Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire turbojet, optimized for a naval environment), which delivered up to 10,500 lbf (47 kN) at full power instead of the FJ-4’s original 7,700 lbf (34 kN). This upgrade had, limited by the airframe’s aerodynamics, only marginal impact on the aircraft’s top speed, but the extra power almost doubled its initial rate of climb, slightly raised the service ceiling and markedly improved acceleration and carrier operations handling through a better response to throttle input and a higher margin of power reserves.
Internal armament still consisted of four 20mm cannon. These had to be placed lower in the nose now, flanking the air intake underneath the radome. The FJ-4B’s six underwing hardpoints were retained and could carry AIM-9 Sidewinders (both the IR-guided AIM-9B as well as the Semi-Active Radar Homing (SARH) AIM-9C) as well as the new radar-guided medium-range AIM-7C Sparrow, even though the latter only on the outer pylons, limiting their number to four. Up to six pods with nineteen unguided 70 mm/2.75” unguided Mk 4/Mk 40 Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket (Mighty Mouse FFARs) were another armament option.
Beyond these air-to-air weapons, a wide range of other ordnance could be carried. This included the AGM-12 “Bullpup” guided missile (which necessitated a guidance pod on the right inner wing hardpoint), bombs or napalm tanks of up to 1.000 lb caliber, missile pods, drop tanks and ECM pods. The FJ-4B’s strike capabilities were mostly retained, even though the dedicated fighter lost the ability to carry and deliver nuclear weapons in order to save weight and internal space for the radar equipment.
The first FJ-5, a converted early FJ-4, made its maiden flight in April 1958. After a short and successful test phase, the type was quickly put into production and introduced to service with US Navy and US Marine Corps units. The new fighter was quickly nicknamed “Fury Dog” by its crews, a reminiscence of the USAF’s F-86D “Sabre Dog” and its characteristic nose section, even though the FJ-5 was officially still just called “Fury”, like its many quite different predecessors.
With the new unified designation system adopted in 1962, the FJ-4 became the F-1E, the FJ-4B the AF-1E and the FJ-5 the F-1F. From the prolific Fury family, only the FJ-5/F-1F became involved in a hot conflict: in late 1966, the USMC deployed F-1Fs to Vietnam, where they primarily flew escort and top cover missions for fighter bombers (esp. A-4 Skyhawks) from Da Nang AB, South Vietnam, plus occasional close air support missions (CAS) on their own. The Marines’ F-1Fs remained in Vietnam until 1970, with a single air-to-air victory (a North-Vietnamese MiG-17 was shot down with a Sidewinder missile), no losses and only one aircraft seriously damaged by anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) fire.
After this frontline experience, a radar upgrade with an AN/APQ-124 was briefly considered but never carried out, since the F-1F showed the age of the original Fifties design – the type already lacked overall performance for an all-weather fighter that could effectively engage supersonic bomber targets or low flying attack aircraft. However, the aircraft was still popular because of its ruggedness, good handling characteristics and compact dimensions.
Other upgrades that would improve the F-1F’s strike capability, e. g. additional avionics to deploy the AGM-62 Walleye glide bomb or the new AGM-65 Maverick, esp. the USMC’s laser-guided AGM-65E variant, were also rejected, because more capable types for both interceptor and attack roles, namely the Mach 2 Douglas F-4 Phantom II and the LTV A-7 Corsair II, had been introduced in the meantime.
Another factor that denied any updates were military budget cuts. Furthermore, the contemporary F-8 Crusader offered a better performance and was therefore selected in favor of the F-1F to be updated to the H-L variants. In the wake of this decision, all F-1Fs still in Navy service were, together with the decommission of the last Essex Class carriers, in 1975 handed over to the USMC in order to purge the Navy’s inventory and simplify maintenance and logistics.
FJ-4 and FJ-4B Fury fighter bombers served with United States Naval Reserve units until the late 1960s, while the F-1F soldiered on with the USMC until the early Eighties, even though only in reserve units. A considerable number had the heavy radar equipment removed and replaced by ballast in the late Seventies, and they were used as fighter-bombers, for dissimilar air combat training (simulating Soviet fighter types like the MiG-17 and -19), as high-speed target tugs or as in-flight refueling tankers, since the FJ-5 inherited this capability from the FJ-4, with up to two buddy packs under the wings. A few machines survived long enough to receive a new low-visibility livery.
However, even in the USMC reserve units, the FJ-5 was soon replaced by A-4 Skyhawks, due to the age of the airframes and further fleet reduction measures. The last F-1F was retired in 1982, ending the long career of North American’s F-86 design in US service.
A total of 1,196 Furies of all variants were received by the Navy and Marine Corps over the course of its production life, including 152 FJ-4s, 222 FJ-4Bs and 102 FJ-5s.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 40 ft 3 in (12.27 m)
Wingspan: 39 ft 1 in (11.9 m)
Height: 13 ft 11 in (4.2 m)
Wing area: 338.66 ft² (31.46 m²)
Empty weight: 13,518 lb (6,132 kg)
Gross weight: 19,975 lb (9,060 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 25,880 lb (11,750 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Wright J65-W-18 turbojet with 7,400 lbf (32.9 kN) dry thrust
and 10,500 lbf (46.7 kN) with afterburner
Performance:
Maximum speed: 708 mph (1,139 km/h, 615 kn) at sea level,
737 mph (1,188 km/h/Mach 0.96) at height
Range: 2,020 mi (3,250 km) with 2× 200 gal (760 l) drop tanks and 2× AIM-9 missiles
Service ceiling: 49,750 ft (15,163 m)
Rate of climb: 12,150 ft/min (61.7 m/s)
Wing loading: 69.9 lb/ft² (341.7 kg/m²)
Armament:
4× 20 mm (0.787 in) Colt Mk 12 cannon (144 RPG, 578 rounds in total)
6× underwing hardpoints for 3,000 lb (1,400 kg) of ordnance, including AIM-9 and AIM-7 missiles
The kit and its assembly:
A project I had on the agenda for a long time. But, due to the major surgeries involved, I have been pushing it away – until the “In the navy” group build at whatifmolders.com came along in early 2020. So I collected my courage, dusted off the donor kits that had already been stashed away for years, and eventually started work.
The original inspiration was the F-8 Crusader’s career: I really like the look of the late RF-8s, which were kept long enough in service to receive the Eighties’ Low-Viz USN “Compass Ghost” livery. This looks cool, but also a little wrong. And what if the FJ-4B had been kept in service long enough to receive a similar treatment…?
In order to justify a career extension, I made up an all-weather development of the FJ-4B with a radar and a more powerful engine, a kind of light alternative to the Vought A-7. A plausible solution was a mix of FJ-4B and F-86D parts – this sounds easy, but both aircraft and their respective model kits actually have only VERY little in common.
At its core, the FJ-5 model is a kitbashing of parts from an Emhar FJ-4B (Revell re-boxing) and an Airfix F-86D. The FJ-4B provided the raised cockpit section with the canopy, spine and fin in the form of a complete transplant, which furthermore had to be extended by about 1cm/0.5” because the F-86D is longer than the Fury. The FJ-4B also provided its wings, stabilizers and the landing gear. The Fury’s ventral arrester hook section, a separate part, was also transferred into the F-86D’s lower rear fuselage, under the openings for the air brakes.
For a more lively look, the (thick!) Fury canopy was sawed into two pieces for open display and the flaps were lowered, too.
The cockpit was taken from the Airfix kit, since it would fit well into the lower fuselage and it looked much better than their respective counterparts from the relatively basic Emhar kit, which just comes with a narrow board with a strange, bulky seat-thing. As an extra, the cockpit received side consoles, a scratched gunsight and a different ejection seat that raised the pilot’s position into the Fury’s higher canopy.
Since the F-1F was supposed to be a fighter, still equipped with the radar set, I retained the OOB pylons from the Fury with its four launch rails. For an aircraft late in the career, I gave it a reduced ordnance, though, just a pair of drop tanks (left over from a Matchbox F3D Skyknight; I wanted something more slender than the stubby OOB drop tanks from the Emhar Fury kit), plus a better Sidewinder training round (hence its blue body) and a single red ACMI data pod on the outer pylons, as an aerial combat training outfit and nice color highlights on the otherwise dull/grey aircraft.
Painting and markings:
As mentioned above, the idea for livery was a vintage aircraft in modern, subdued markings. So I adapted the early USN Compass Ghost scheme, and the F-1F received a two-tone livery in FS 36320 and 36375 (Dark and Light Compass Ghost Grey, Humbrol 128 and 127, respectively) with a high, wavy waterline and a light fin. In front of the cockpit, a slightly darker anti-glare panel in Humbrol 145 (FS 35237) was added, inspired by early USN F-14s in Compass Ghost camouflage.
The radome was painted with Humbrol 156, for a slightly darker/different shade of grey than the aircraft’s upper surfaces – I considered a black or a beige (unpainted glass fiber) radome first, but that would have been a very harsh contrast to the rest.
The landing gear as well as the air intake duct were painted glossy white (Humbrol 22), the cockpit became medium grey (Humbrol 140, Dark Gull Gray). The inside of the air brakes as well es the edges of the flaps, normally concealed when they are retracted, were painted in bright red (Humbrol 174). The same tone was also used to highlight the edges of the land gear covers.
The grey leading edges on the wings the stabilizers were created with decal sheet strips (generic material from TL Modellbau), the gun blast plates were made with silver decal material.
In order to give the model a worn look, I applied a black ink wash, an overall, light treatment with graphite and some post shading. Some extra graphite was applied around the exhaust and the gun nozzles.
The markings were taken for an USMC A-4E/F from a Revell kit (which turned out to be a bit bluish). I wanted a consequent dull/toned-down look, typical for early Compass Ghost aircraft. Later, colored highlights, roundels and squadron markings crept back onto the aircraft, but in the early Eighties many USN/USMC machines were consequently finished in a grey-in-grey livery.
Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and the ordnance added.
Well, the end result looks simple, but creating this kitbashed Fury all-weather fighter was pretty demanding. Even though both the Fury and the F-86D are based on the same aircraft, they are completely different, and the same is also true for the model kits. It took major surgeries and body sculpting to weld the parts together. But I am quite happy with the outcome, the fictional F-1F looks pretty conclusive and natural, also in the (for this aircraft) unusual low-viz livery.
FUGRO BUCENTAUR
The Bucentaur is one of Fugro’s most experienced purposebuilt,
DP2 geotechnical and scientific drilling vessels. It was built in 1983,and since then, it has been extensively upgraded
The Bucentaur provides a large, stable
platform capable of operating independently
in remote regions around the world. During
a single survey program, the Bucentaur can
deploy the full suite of Fugro specialist
in-situ sampling and testing systems up to
2000 m water depth.
The Bucentaur has an exemplary safety
record and a long history of successfully
completed offshore investigations
Example projects for geotechnical
investigation include:
■■ Jack-up drilling locations, piled,
anchored and gravity based platforms,
subsea templates, power cables and
pipeline routes.
■■ Offshore wind farm developments.
■■ Scientific expeditions such as gas
hydrate research projects.
■■ Civil works, such as harbour
extensions, tunnel and bridge
■■ crossings.
■■ Shallow gas detection by pilot hole
drilling and monitoring.
General
Builder/year Drammen slip og verksted/ 1983
Port of registry Nassau, Bahamas
Speed Max. 12 knots
Notation dk(+), AUTR (99,99,94)
Class DnV + 1A1, Dynpos, AUTR, Heldk, E0, ICE C
Endurance Max. 45 days
Operational Water Depth 15 m to 3000 m (seabed operations)
Dimensions
Length overall 78.1 m
Beam (mid) 16.0 m
Freeboard 8.4 m
Draft 5.6 m
Displacement 4,499 tons
NRT 830 tons
GRT 2,768 tons
Dead weight tons 2,200 tons
Derrick height above keel 39.0 m
Moonpool 4.1m x 4.1m
Machinery
Propulsion 2x 2,000 HP Liaaen azimuth thrusters with CP
propeller in nozzle
Bow thrusters 2x KaMeWa tunnel thrusters with CP propellers
Emergency generator Volvo Penta eng. + Stamford gen. 215 kVA; 60 Hz;
180 Rpm
Power generation 4x Wärtsilä Vasa 8R22HE diesels driving 4x van
Kaick 600V/60 Hz AC generators
Deck Machinery
Deck crane 1x electric-hydraulic 5 tons deck crane
1x 3 tons combined deck / transponder crane
1x 1 tons provision/
A-Frame Maximum SWL: In air 15.5T and subsea 23T
Helideck Suitable for Bell 214, Super Puma, Sikorsky lS.61.N
in emergency
Anchors 2x 4 tons Flipper Delta
Navigation, Survey systems and Dynamic Positioning
S-band/X-band radar 2x Furuno FR2127 (X-band)
Gyrocompass 2 x Sperry Navigat X MK 1, 1x Seatex Seapath 200
Speed log Ben Marine Blind Anthea electromagnetic log
GPS 2 x Furuno GP150
ECDIS 2x Transas NS40000
VDR Netwave ND-4010 SVDR
Helipad related
Radio Beacon Aviation 2x ICOM IC-A110 EURO
Portable air-band radios 3x ICOM IC-A6E
Helideck monitoring system Kongsberg HMS-100
Survey systems
Echo sounder 1x 38/200 kHz Simrad EA400 with hull
mounted transducers
UPS 2 x Smart UPS 1500
Dynamic positioning
Type 1x Kongsberg Simrad, DP2 SDP-21
Reference systems 2x Fugro Starpack DGNSS receivers (GPS and
GLONASS) with G2, XP, HP and L1 corrections
Transponder 2x MPT 319/DTR, 3x SPT 313, 1x SPT314, 5x915H
Hydroacoustic 1x Kongsberg Simrad HiPap 500, 1x Kongsberg
Simrad HPR410, Kongsberg APOS
Vertical reference system 1x Kongsberg MRU-2, 1x Kongsberg MRU-5
Gyrocompass 2x Sperrymarine NavigatX MK1, 1x Seapath
UPS Kongsberg for 30min
Communication
Satellite 1x Furuno STD-C Felcom 18, 1x Nera F77
AIS Furuno UAIS FA150
Fixed VHF 2x Furuno FM-8500, 1x Sailor 6210
Portable VHF 2x Entel 10ATEX2066X, 2x Jotron TR20,
1x Sailor SP3520, 7x portable ASCOM VHF
transceivers
Navtex Furuno NX700
V-sat
Dual stabilized 1.5m KU-band antenna setup with
regional coverages and dedicated bandwidth, an
Admin LAN for business purposes, a Client LAN and
a dedicated Crew LAN for Internet access.
Geotechnical Laboratory
Floor space 40 m2
Workbench 3.2 m2
Hydraulic sample extruder
Laboratory drying ovens
¹Miniature laboratory miniature
vane, torvanes, pocket penetrometer
Motorized ¹UU triaxial system
machine
WYKEHAM FARANCE 5t
¹Point load tester
Sample Storage
Volume Stored in boxes, limited by deck space
available after mobilization
Free deck area 400 m2 Max. available
Drilling System
Power Swivel Wirth B3-5, 30,000 Nm
Drill winch Maaskant/Hägglunds: WLL 13.5 tons
Hard-tie Winch Maaskant/Hägglunds with CT function
Heavy load winch Riddrinkhof WLL 2 x 19 tons
Electric-hydraulic power pack Centralised 420 hp Rexroth
Heave compensator Fugro-Hydraudyne, rated capacity 80 tons
Line tensioner Fugro-Hydraudyne, rated capacity 60 tons
Drill string length Max. 1,600 m approx.
Pipe storage capacity 2x 1,600 m drill string (steel and/or aluminium drill
pipe on request)
Pipe feeder ScanTech crane WLL 3,15t x 16.54 m
¹Piggy-back coring NQ and PQ size
Drilling mud products Fresh water, bentonite, CMG, Soda Ash, Barite.
Bulk tanks for dry mud 324 m3
Tanks for liquid mud 105 tons
Mud pump 2x 4” line 200 rev. 680l/min.
1x 3” line 200 rev. 400l/min.
Gas detectors 12x spread throughout vessel, 2x portable gas
detectors, 1x ¹torus annual packer for mounting on
top of power swivel, 1x¹Baker wire line check valve
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) T-45 Goshawk was a highly modified version of the BAe Hawk land-based training jet aircraft. Manufactured by McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) and British Aerospace (now BAe Systems), the T-45 was used by the United States Navy and the United States Marine Corps (USMC) as an aircraft carrier-capable trainer.
The Goshawk's origins began in the mid-1970s, when the US Navy began looking for a single aircraft replacement for both its T-2 and TA-4 jet trainers. The US Navy started the VTXTS advanced trainer program in 1978. Several companies made submissions, e. g. North American or Northrop/Vought. Due to the size of the potential contract, European companies made submissions, too, including a navalized Alpha Jet from Dassault/Dornier and a fully carrier-capable version of the BAe Hawk Mk.60, mutually proposed by British Aerospace (BAe) and McDonnell Douglas (MDC). The latter eventually won the competition and BAe and MDC were awarded the T-45 contract in 1981.
The Hawk had not been designed for carrier operations and numerous modifications were required to make it suitable for use on carriers. These included improvements to the low-speed handling characteristics and a reduction in the approach speed. It was found that the aircraft was apt to stall at the low approach speed required. Modifications were designed by BAe in England; most notably a simple slat system was devised, operated by an actuator and linkage mechanism to fit into the small space available. Strakes were also added on the fuselage to improve airflow. Other changes were a strengthened airframe, a more robust and wider landing gear with a two-wheel nose landing gear, a catapult tow bar attachment and an arresting hook. The modified aircraft was christened “Goshawk”, flew in 1988 for the first time and became operational in 1991.
Beyond being a naval trainer the T-45 was also adapted for first-line duty with strike capabilities, in the form of the OA-45 for the USMC. The role of this aircraft dated back to the Vietnam War when twenty-three A-4 two-seaters were converted into OA-4Ms for “FastFAC” (Fast Forward Air Controller) missions, in order to control interdiction sorties dedicated to shaping the battlefield for future operations. Basically, the OA-4M was a TA-4F equipped with A-4M electronics. The most visible and characteristic change was the fitting of the A-4M’s dorsal electronics hump, neatly faired into the rear of the two-seat canopy. The nose sensor group of the OA-4M was basically the same as that of the A-4M, but the Angle/Rate Bombing system was not installed as it would not be needed.
When the T-45 was introduced in the early Nineties, the USMCs OA-4Ms had reached the end of their service life and the USMC started looking for a replacement, wanting a comparable, light and fast fixed-wing aircraft. The USMC did not accept the LTV A-7 as an A-4 replacement (even though a two-seater version was available), because it was already dated, too, and not part of the USMC inventory. The USMC's A-4Ms were supposed to be replaced by the VTOL AV-8 by the mid-nineties, but the AV-8, even as a two-seater, was deemed unsuitable for FFAC duties. The new T-45 looked like a good and economical alternative with future potential, since the airframe was brand new and the type's infrastructure was fully established, so that a small number of specialized aircraft could easily be supported without much extra cost.
With fresh experience from the 1st Gulf War in 1990-91 the decision was made to buy 25 extra T-45A airframes and convert them to OA-45A standard. Most important change were modified wings, using structures and systems from the BAe Hawk 100 series. While the T-45 only had two underwing and a single ventral hardpoint, the OA-45A featured a total of seven: four underwing and one ventral hardpoints, plus wingtip stations for defensive air-to-air missiles. Upgraded avionics allowed the deployment of a wide range of external stores, including air-to-ground missiles and rocket launchers, a reconnaissance pod, retarded and free-fall bombs of up to 1,000 pounds (450 kg) caliber, runway cratering, anti-personnel and light armor bombs, cluster bombs, practice bombs as well as external fuel tanks and ECM pods. This was a vital asset, since Desert Storm had proved that FFAC aircraft had to have an offensive capability to handle targets of opportunity on their own, when no air assets to control were available. A total ordnance load of up to 6,800 lb (3,085 kg) was possible, even though the aircraft was not supposed to play an offensive role and rather act from a distance, relying on its small size and agility.
Communication modifications for the FastFAC role included a KY-28 secure voice system, an ARC-159 radio and an ARC-114 VHF radio. Similar to the Skyhawk, a hump behind the cockpit had to be added to make room for the additional electronic equipment and a heat exchanger. Other additions were a continuous-wave Doppler navigation radar under a shallow ventral radome underneath the cockpit, a ground control bombing system, an APN-194 altimeter, an ALR-45 radar warning suite, a retrofitted, fixed midair refueling probe and cockpit armor plating that included Kevlar linings on the floor and the lower side walls as well as externally mounted armor plates for the upper areas.
VMA-131 of Marine Aircraft Group 49 (the Diamondbacks) retired its last four OA-4Ms on 22 June 1994, and the new OA-45A arrived just in time to replace the venerable Skyhawk two-seaters in the FastFAC role. Trainer versions of the Skyhawk remained in Navy service, however, finding a new lease on life with the advent of "adversary training". OA-45A deliveries were finished in 1996 and the 25 aircraft were distributed among the newly established Marine Aviation Logistics Squadron (MALS, formerly Headquarters & Maintenance Squadron/H&MS) 12 & 13. The USMC crews soon nicknamed their new mounts "GosHog", to underlöine ist offensive capabilities and to set themselves apart from the USN's "tame" trainers. Even though thos name was never officially approved it caught on quickly.
After initial experience with the new aircraft and in the wake of technological advances, the USMC decided to upgrade the OA-45As in 2000 to improve its effectiveness and interaction capabilities with ground troops. This primarily resulted in the addition of a forward-looking infrared camera laser in the aircraft’s nose section, which enabled the aircraft to execute all-weather/night reconnaissance and to illuminate targets for laser-guided infantry shells or ordnance launched by the OA-45 itself or by other aircraft. Through this measure the OA-45 became capable of carrying and independently deploying light laser-guided smart weapons like the GBU-12 and -16 “Paveway II” glide bombs or the laser-guided AGM-65E “Maverick” variant. The update was gradually executed during regular overhauls in the course of 2001 and 2002 (no new airframes were built/converted), the modified machines received the new designation OA-45B.
After this update phase, the OA-45Bs were deployed in several global conflicts and saw frequent use in the following years. For instance, MALS 13 used its OA-45Bs operationally for the first time in October 2002 when the squadron was tasked with providing support to six AV-8B Harrier aircraft in combat operations in Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom. This mission lasted until October 2003, four aircraft were allocated and one OA-45B was lost during a landing accident.
On 15 January 2003, MALS 13 embarked 205 Marines and equipment aboard the USS Bonhomme Richard in support of combat operations in Southwest Asia during Operation Southern Watch. Four OA-45Bs successfully supported these troops from land bases, marking targets and flying reconnaissance missions.
Furthermore, six MALS 13 OA-45Bs took actively part in Operation Iraqi Freedom from Al Jaber Air Base, Kuwait, and An Numiniyah Expeditionary Air Field, Iraq, where the aircraft worked closely together with the advancing ground troops of the USMC’s 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit. They successfully illuminated targets for US Navy fighter bombers, which were launched from USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) in the Persian Gulf, and effectively guided these aircraft to their targets. Two OA-45Bs were lost during this conflict, one through enemy MANPADS, the other through friendly AA fire. In late May 2003 the surviving machines and their crews returned to MCAS Yuma.
On 16 March 2007, the 200th T-45 airframe was delivered to the US Navy. From this final batch, six airframes were set aside and modified into OA-45Bs in order to fill the losses over the past years.
Later T-45 production aircraft were built with enhanced avionics systems for a heads-up display (HUD) and glass cockpit standard, while all extant T-45A aircraft were eventually converted to a T-45C configuration under the T-45 Required Avionics Modernization Program (T-45 RAMP), bringing all aircraft to same HUD plus glass cockpit standard. These updates, esp. concerning the cockpit, were introduced to the OA-45Bs, too, and they were re-designated again, now becoming OA-45Cs, to reflect the commonality with the Navy’s Goshawk trainers. Again, these modifications were gradually introduced in the course of the OA-45s’ normal maintenance program.
In 2007, an engine update of the whole T-45 fleet, including the OA-45s, with the Adour F405-RR-402 was considered. This new engine was based on the British Adour Mk 951, designed for the latest versions of the BAe Hawk and powering the BAe Taranis and Dassault nEUROn UCAV technology demonstrators. The Adour Mk 951 offered 6,500 lbf (29 kN) thrust and up to twice the service life of the F405-RR-401. It featured an all-new fan and combustor, revised HP and LP turbines, and introduced Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC). The Mk 951 was certified in 2005, the F405-RR-402 derived from it was certified in 2008, but it did not enter service due to funding issues, so that this upgrade was not carried out.
The final delivery of the 246th T-45 airframe took place in November 2009, and both T-45 and the OA-45 "GosHog" are supposed to remain in service until 2035.
General characteristics:
Crew: 2 (pilot, observer)
Length: 39 ft 4 in (11.99 m)
Wingspan: 30 ft 10 in (9.39 m)
Height: 13 ft 5 in (4.08 m)
Wing area: 190.1 ft² (17.7 m²)
Empty weight: 10,403 lb (4,460 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 14,081 lb (6,387 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Rolls-Royce Turbomeca F405-RR-401 (Adour) non-afterburning turbofan with 5,527 lbf (26 kN)
Performance:
Maximum speed: Mach 2 (2,204 km/h (1,190 kn; 1,370 mph) at high altitude
Combat radius: 800 km (497 mi, 432 nmi)
Ferry range: 3,200 km (1,983 mi) with drop tanks
Service ceiling: 15,240 m (50,000 ft)
Wing loading: 283 kg/m² (58 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 0.97
Maximum g-load: +9 g
Armament:
No internal gun; seven external hardpoints (three on each wing and one under fuselage)
for a wide range of ordnance of up to 6,800 lb (3,085 kg), including up to six AIM-9 Sidewinder for
self-defense, pods with unguided rockets for target marking or ECM pods, but also offensive weapons
of up to 1.000 lb (454 kg) weight, including iron/cluster bombs and guided AGM-65, GBU-12 and -16.
The kit and its assembly:
This fictional T-45 variant is actually the result of a long idea evolution, and simply rooted in the idea of a dedicated OA-4M replacement for the USMC; in real life, the FFAC role has been transferred to F-18 two-seaters, though, but the T-45 appeared like a sound alternative to me.
There's only one T-45 kit available, a dubious T-45A from Italeri with poor wings and stabilizers. Wolfpack also offers a T-45, but it’s just a re-boxing of the Italeri kit with some PE parts and a price tag twice as big – but it does not mend the original kit’s issues… After reading the A-4 Skyhawk book from the French "Planes & Pilots" series, I was reminded of the USMC's special OA-4M FAC two-seaters (and the fact that it is available in kit form from Italeri and Hasegawa), and, cross-checking the real-world timeline of the T-45, I found that it could have been a suitable successor. The ide of the USMC’s OA-45 was born! :D
Building-wise the Italeri T-45 remained close to OOB, even though I transplanted several parts from an Italeri BAe Hawk Mk. 100 to create a different look. I modified the nose with the Mk. 100’s laser fairing and added some radar warning sensor bumps. This transplantation was not as easy as it might seem because the T-45’s nose is, due to the different and more massive front landing gear quite different from the Hawk’s. Took some major PSR to integrate the laser nose.
An ALR-45 “hot dog” fairing from a late A-4M (Italeri kit) was added to the fin, together with a small styrene wedge extending the fin’s leading edge. This small detail markedly changes the aircraft’s look. I furthermore added a refueling probe, scratched from coated wire and some white glue, as well as a low “camel back” fairing behind the cockpit, created from a streamlined bomb half with air outlets for an integrated heat exchanger. Blade antennae were relocated and added. A shallow bump for the Doppler radar was added under the fuselage behind the landing gear well – left over from an Airfix A-4B (from an Argentinian A-4P, to be correct, actually a dorsal fairing).
On the wings, a tailored pair of pylons and wing tip launch rails from the Italeri BAe Hawk Mk. 100 kit were added, too, as well as the donor kit’s pair of Sidewinders. The rest of the ordnance consists of drop tanks and LAU-19 pods for target marking missiles. The tanks were taken from the Hawk Mk. 100 kit, too, the rocket launchers came from an Italeri NATO aircraft weapons set. The centerline position carries an ALQ-131 ECM pod from a Hasegawa US aircraft weapons set on a pylon from the scrap box.
Painting and markings:
The low-viz idea prevailed, since I had some leftover OA-4M decals from Italeri kits in store, as well as some other suitable low-viz decals from a Revell A-4F kit. However, an all-grey livery was IMHO not enough, and when I came across a picture of a USN low-viz A-7E with an improvised desert camouflage in sand and reddish brown applied over the grey (even partly extending over its markings) from Operation Iraqi Freedom, I had that extra twist that would set the OA-45 apart. MALS-13 was chosen as operator because I had matching codes, and, as another benefit, the unit had actually been deployed overseas during the 2003 Iraq War, so that the whif’’s time frame was easily settled, adding to its credibility.
The livery was built up just like on the real aircraft: on top of a basic scheme in FS 36320 and 36375 (Humbrol 128 and 127) with a slightly darker anti-glare panel in front of the cockpit (FS 35237, I used Revell 57 as a slightly paler alternative) I applied the low-viz marking decals, which were protected with a coat of acrylic varnish. Next, additional desert camouflage was added with dry-brushed sand and millitary brown (supposedly FS 33711 and 30400 in real life, I used, after consulting pictures of aircraft from both Gulf Wars, Humbrol 103 (Cream) and 234 (Dark Flesh). They were applied with a kind of a dry-brushing technique, for a streaky and worn look, leaving out the codes and other markings. The pattern itself was inspired by an USMC OV-10 Bronco in desert camouflage from the 1st Gulf War.
On top of that a black ink washing was applied. Once things had thoroughly dried over night, I wet-sanded the additional desert camouflage away, carefully from front to back, so that the edges became blurred and the underlying grey became visible again.
The cockpit interior was painted in standard Dark Gull Grey (Humbrol 140), while the air intakes and the landing gear became white, the latter with red trim on the covers’ edges – just standard. Finally, the model was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish (Italeri).
The upgraded T-45 is an interesting result. The add-ons suit the aircraft, which already looks sturdier than its land-based ancestor, well. The improvised desert paint scheme with the additional two-tone camouflage over the pale grey base really makes the aircraft an unusual sight, adding to its credibility.
Hardware-wise I am really happy how the added dorsal hump blends into the overall lines – in a profile view it extends the canopy’s curve and blends into the fin, much like the A-4F/M’s arrangement. And the modified fin yields a very different look, even though not much was changed. The T-45 looks much beefier now, and from certain angles really reminds of the OA-4M and sometimes even of a diminutive Su-25?
Une photo n'est pas toujours capable de montrer aussi précisément les détails que ce que nos yeux voient, encore moins de faire vivre les sensations percues dans un endroit ou á un moment donné, comme la chaleur, l'ambiance, la lumière, les odeurs etc. Les émotions ressenties rendent magiques ces instants, il est probable que personne ne puisse les apprécier á notre manière. Les photos qui nous font vibrer suite á ce vécu ne recoivent parfois pas l'attention que l'on croirait, ce n'est pas grave, elle font partie de notre jardin secret...
No siempre puede una foto mostrar precisamente los detalles que nuestros ojos ven, aún menos hacer vivir las sensaciones percibidas en un lugar o en un momento dado, como el calor, el ambiente, la luz, las fragancias, etc. Las emociones experimentadas hacen que estén mágicos estos instantes, es probable que nadie pueda apreciarlas a nuestra manera. A veces las fotos que nos hacen vibrar por lo vivido no reciben la atención que se pensaría, no esta grave, hacen parte de nuestro jardín secreto...
Lioness on a tree. Botswana.
Lions are capable of climbing trees. It is speculated they climb trees as a way of protecting themselves against the flies and bug bites, to escape from muggy temperatures on the ground level or to stalk prey from greater distances; nonetheless, the reason why they climb up into the tree branches remains unknown. In case you ever find yourself being chased by a lion, choosing to climb up into the trees as a way to escape from it will actually not help much…
This image is not available for use on websites, blogs or other media without my explicit written permission.
©Mara de la Hoz, All Rights Reserved.
Leona en un árbol. Botsuana
Los leones son capaces de subirse a los árboles. Se especula que trepan para protegerse de las moscas y de las picaduras de insectos, para escapar de las temperaturas sofocantes del suelo o para acechar presas desde grandes distancias; sin embargo, la razón por la que suben a las ramas de los árboles sigue siendo desconocida. En el caso de que alguna vez te veas perseguido por un león, la elección de subir a un árbol para escapar de él en realidad no ayudará mucho…
Esta imagen no está disponible para su uso en páginas web, blogs o cualquier otro soporte sin mi autorización por escrito.
©Mara de la Hoz, Todos los derechos reservados.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the model, the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Douglas A-4 Skyhawk is a single-seat subsonic carrier-capable light attack aircraft developed for the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps in the early 1950s. The delta-winged, single turbojet-engine Skyhawk was designed and produced by Douglas Aircraft Company, and later by McDonnell Douglas. The Skyhawk was a relatively light aircraft, with a maximum takeoff weight of 24,500 pounds (11,100 kg) and had a top speed of 670 miles per hour (1,080 km/h). The aircraft's five hardpoints supported a variety of missiles, bombs, and other munitions, including nuclear bombs, with a bomb load equivalent to that of a World War II–era Boeing B-17 bomber.
Since its introduction, the Skyhawk had been adopted by countries beyond the United States and saw a very long career, with many baseline variants and local adaptations. Israel was, starting in 1966, the largest export customer for Skyhawks, and a total of 217 A-4s were eventually procured, plus another 46 that were transferred from U.S. units in Operation Nickel Grass to compensate for large losses during the Yom Kippur War.
The Skyhawk was the first U.S. warplane to be offered to the Israeli Air Force, marking the point where the U.S. took over from France as Israel's chief military supplier. A special version of the A-4 was developed for the IAF, the A-4H. This was an A-4E with improved avionics and an uprated J52-P-8A engine with more thrust from the A-4F that had replaced the Wright J65 in earlier Skyhawk variants. Armament consisted of twin DEFA 30 mm cannon in place of the rather unreliable Colt Mk.12 20 mm cannons. Later modifications included the avionics hump and an extended tailpipe, implemented in Israel by IAI to provide greater protection against heat-seeking surface-to-air missiles.
Deliveries began after the Six-Day War, and A-4s soon formed the backbone of the IAF's ground-attack force. In Heyl Ha'avir (Israels Air Force/IAF) service, the A-4 Skyhawk was named as the Ayit (Hebrew: עיט, for Eagle). A total of 90 A-4Hs were delivered and became the IAF’s primary attack plane in the War of Attrition between 1968 and 1970. They cost only a quarter of a Phantom II and carried half of its payload, making them highly efficient attack aircraft, even though losses were high and a number of A-4Es were imported to fill the gaps.
In early 1973, the improved A-4N Skyhawk for Israel entered service, based on the A-4M models used by the U.S. Marine Corps, and it gradually replaced the simpler and less capable A-4Hs, which were still operated in 2nd line duties. Many of the A-4Hs and A-4Es were subsequently stored in reserve in flying condition, for modernization or for sale, and two countries made purchases from this overstock: Indonesia and Uruguay.
Due to the declining relationship between Indonesia and the Soviet Union, there was a lack of spare parts for military hardware supplied by the Communist Bloc. Soon, most of them were scrapped. The Indonesian Air Force (TNI-AU) acquired ex-Israeli A-4Es to replace its Il-28 Beagles and Tu-16 Badgers in a covert operation with Israel, since both countries did not maintain diplomatic relationships. A total of thirty-two A-4s served the Indonesian Air Force from 1982 until 2003.
Uruguay was the other IDF customer, even though a smaller one. The Uruguayan Air Force was originally created as part of the National Army of Uruguay but was established as a separate branch on December 4, 1953, becoming the youngest, and also the smallest branch of the Armed Forces of Uruguay.
Since the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s, the Air Force was involved in the fight against the guerrilla activity that was present in the country, focusing against the MLN-T (Movimiento de Liberación Nacional – Tupamaros or Tupamaros – National Liberation Movement), that later triggered a participation in the country's politics.
On February 8, 1973, President Juan María Bordaberry tried to assert his authority over the Armed Forces by returning them to their normal duties and appointing a retired Army general, Antonio Francese, as the new Minister of National Defense. Initially, the Navy of Uruguay supported the appointment, but the National Army and Uruguayan Air Force commanders rejected it outright. On February 9 and 10, the Army and Air Force issued public proclamations and demanded his dismissal and changes in the country's political and economic system. Bordaberry then gave up to the pressure, and on February 12, at the Cap. Juan Manuel Boiso Lanza Air Base, Headquarters of the General Command of the Air Force, the National Security Council (Consejo de Seguridad Nacional) was created. The Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force was one of its permanent members, and the Armed Forces of Uruguay from now on were effectively in control of the country, with Bordaberry just participating in a self-coup.
During this period of time, the Air Force took control of the country's airdromes, some aircraft that were seized from the subversion, appointed some of its general officers to led the flag carrier PLUNA, reinforced the combat fleet with Cessna A-37B Dragonfly and FMA IA-58A Pucará attack aircraft in 1976 and 1981, modernized the transport aircraft with the purchase of five Embraer C-95 Bandeirante in 1975 and five CASA C-212 Aviocar and one Gates Learjet 35A in 1981, introduced to service two brand new Bell 212 helicopters, and achieved another milestone, with the first landing of a Uruguayan aircraft in Antarctica, on January 28, 1984, with a Fairchild-Hiller FH-227D.
Since the end of the military government, the Air Force returned to its normal tasks, and always acting under the command of the President and in agreement with the Minister of National Defense, without having entered the country's politics again, whose participation, in addition, has been forbidden in almost all activities for the Armed Forces. Towards the late Eighties, the Uruguayan Air Force underwent a fundamental modernization program: Between 1989 and 1999 a total number of 48 aircraft were acquired, including twelve Skyhawks (ten single seaters and two trainers), followed by three Lockheed C-130B Hercules in 1992, to carry out long-range strategic missions, six Pilatus PC-7U Turbo Trainers, also acquired in 1992 for advanced training (replacing the aging fleet of Beechcraft T-34 Mentors in Santa Bernardina, Durazno, that had been in service with the Air Force since 1977), two Beechcraft Baron 58 and ten Cessna U-206H Stationair in 1998 (with Uruguay becoming the first operator of this variant, used for transport, training and surveillance). Two Eurocopter AS365N2 Dauphin for search and rescue and transport followed, also in 1998, and 13 Aermacchi SF-260 in 1999, to fully replace the aging fleet of T-34 training aircraft and become the new basic trainer of the Uruguayan Air Force within the Military School of Aeronautics (Escuela Militar de Aeronáutica) in Pando, Canelones. Furthermore, on April 27, 1994, through Decree No. 177/994 of the Executive Power, a new Air Force Organization was approved, and the Tactical Regiments and Aviation Groups disappeared to become Air Squadrons, leading to the current structure of the Uruguayan Air Force.
The Skyhawks were procured as more capable complement and partial replacement for the FAU’s Cessna A-37B Dragonfly and FMA IA-58A Pucará attack aircraft fleet. Being fast jets, however, they would also be tasked with limited airspace defense duties and supposed to escort and provide aerial cover for the other attack types in the FAU’s inventory. The Skyhawks were all former IDF A-4H/TA-4Hs. They retained their characteristic tail pipe extensions against IR-guided missiles (primarily MANPADS) as well as the retrofitted avionics hump, but there were many less visible changes, too.
After several years in storage, a full refurbishment had taken place at Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI). The single seaters’ original Stewart-Warner AN/APG-53A navigation and fire control radar was retained, but some critical avionics were removed before export, e. g. the ability to carry and deploy AGM-45 Shrike anti-radar-missiles or the rather unreliable AGM-12 Bullpup, as well as the Skyhawk’s LABS (toss-bombing capability) that made it a potential nuclear bomber. On the other side avionics and wirings to carry AIM-9B Sidewinder AAMs on the outer pair of underwing pylons were added, so that the FAU Skyhawks could engage into aerial combat with more than just their onboard guns.
The A-4Hs’ 30 mm DEFA cannons were removed before delivery, too, even though their characteristic gondola fairings were retained. In Uruguay they were replaced with 20 mm Hispano-Suiza HS.804 autocannons, to create communality with the FAU’s Pucará COIN/attack aircraft and simplify logistics. MER and TER units (Multiple/Triple Ejector Racks), leased from Argentina, boosted the Skyhawks’ ordnance delivery capabilities. A Marconi ARL18223 360° radar warning receiver and a Litton LTN-211 GPS navigation system were introduced, too. Despite these many modifications the FAU’s A-4Hs retained their designation and, unofficially, the former Israeli “Eagles” were aptly nicknamed “Águila” by their new crews and later by the public, too.
Upon introduction into service the machines received a disruptive NATO-style grey/green camouflage with off-white undersides, which they should retain for the rest of their lives – except for a single machine (648), which was painted in an experimental all-grey scheme. However, like the FAU Pucarás, which received grim looking but distinctive nose art during their career, the Skyhawks soon received similar decorations, representing the local ‘Jabalí’ (wild boars).
During the Nineties, the Uruguayan Skyhawks were frequently deployed together with Pucarás along the Brazilian border: Brazilian nationals were detected removing cattle from Uruguayan territory! Dissuasive missions were flown by the Pucarás departing from Rivera to Chuy in eastern Uruguay, covering a span of more than 200 nm (368 km) along the Uruguay/Brazil border, relaying the location of the offending persons to Uruguay’s Army armored units on the ground to take dissuading action. The Skyhawks flew high altitude escorts and prevented intrusion of the Uruguayan airspace from Brazil, and they were frequently called in to identify and repel intruders with low-level flypasts.
The Skyhawks furthermore frequently showed up around the Uruguayan city Masoller as a visible show of force in a longstanding border and territory dispute with Brazil, although this had not harmed close diplomatic and economic relations between the two countries. The disputed area is called Rincón de Artigas (Portuguese: Rincão de Artigas), and the dispute arose from the fact that the treaty that delimited the Brazil-Uruguay border in 1861 determined that the border in that area would be a creek called Arroyo de la Invernada (Portuguese: Arroio da Invernada), but the two countries disagree on which actual stream is the so-named one. Another disputed territory is a Brazilian island at the confluence of the Quaraí River and the Uruguay River. None of these involvements led to armed conflict, though.
The Uruguayan Skyhawk fired in anger only over their homeland during drugbusting raids and for interception of low performance, drug trafficking aircraft which were increasingly operating in the region. However, the slower IA 58 Pucará turned out to be the better-suited platform for this task, even though the Skyhawks more than once scared suspicious aircraft away or forced them to land, sometimes with the use of gunfire. At least one such drug transport aircraft was reputedly shot down over Uruguayan territory as its pilot did not reply or react and tried to escape over the border into safe airspace.
These duties lasted well into the Nineties, but Uruguay’s small Skyhawk fleet was relatively expensive to operate so that maintenance and their operations, too, were dramatically cut back after 2000. The airframes’ age also showed with dramatic effect: two A-4Hs were lost independently in 2001 and 2002 due to structural fatigue. Active duties were more and more cut back and relegated back to the A-37s and IA 58s. In October 2008, it was decided that the Uruguayan A-4 Skyhawk fleet would be withdrawn and replaced by more modern aircraft, able to perform equally well in the training role and, if required, close support and interdiction missions on the battlefield. The last flight of an FAU A-4 took place in September 2009.
This replacement program did not yield any fruits, though. In May 2013 eighteen refurbished Sukhoi Su-30 MKI multirole air superiority fighters were offered by the Russian Federation and Sukhoi in remarkably favorable condition that included credit facilities and an agreement branch for maintenance. These conditions were also offered for the Yak-130 Mitten. By December 2013 Uruguayan personnel had test flown this plane in Russia. In the meantime, a number of A-37B Dragonfly were purchased from the Ecuadorian Air Force in January 2014 to fill the FAU’s operational gaps. Also, the Uruguayan and Swiss governments discussed a possible agreement for the purchase of ten Swiss Air Force Northrop F-5Es plus engines, spare parts and training, but no actual progress was made. The Uruguayan Air Force also used to show interest on the IA-58D Pucará Delta modernization program offered by Fábrica Argentina de Aviones, but more recently, among some of the possible aircraft that the Air Force was considering, there were the Hongdu JL-10 or the Alenia Aermacchi M-346 Master. But despite of how necessary a new attack aircraft is for the FAU, no procurements have been achieved yet.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 40 ft 1.5 in (12.230 m)
Wingspan: 27 ft 6 in (8.38 m)
Height: 15 ft 2 in (4.62 m)
Wing area: 260 sq ft (24 m²)
Airfoil: root: NACA 0008-1.1-25; tip: NACA 0005-.825-50
Empty weight: 9,853 lb (4,469 kg)
Gross weight: 16,216 lb (7,355 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 24,500 lb (11,113 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Pratt & Whitney J52-P-8A turbojet engine, 9,300 lbf (41 kN) thrust
Performance:
Maximum speed: 585 kn (673 mph, 1,083 km/h) at sea level
Range: 1,008 nmi (1,160 mi, 1,867 km)
Ferry range: 2,194 nmi (2,525 mi, 4,063 km)
g limits: +8/-3
Rate of climb: 5,750 ft/min (29.2 m/s)
Wing loading: 62.4 lb/sq ft (305 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.526
Armament:
2× 20 mm (0.79 in) Hispano-Suiza HS.804 autocannon with 100 RPG
5× hardpoints with a total capacity of 8,500 lb (3,900 kg)
The kit and its assembly:
The third build in my recent “Uruguayan What-if Trip”, and a rather spontaneous idea. When I searched for decals for my Uruguayan Sherman tank, I came across a decal sheet from an Airfix IA 58 Pucará (2008 re-boxing), which included, beyond Argentinian markings, a Uruguayan machine, too. This made me wonder about a jet-powered successor, and the omnipresent Skyhawk appeared like a natural choice for a light attack aircraft – even though I also considered an IAI Kfir but found its Mach 2 capability a bit overdone.
Checking history I found a suitable time frame during the Nineties for a potential introduction of the A-4 into Uruguayan service, and this was also the time when Indonesia indirectly bought 2nd hand A-4E/Hs from Israel. This was a good match and defined both the background story as well as the model and its details.
The model kit is an Italeri A-4E/F (Revell re-boxing), built mostly OOB with a short/early fin tip (the kit comes with an optional part for it, but it is too short and I used the alternative A-4M fin tip from the kit and re-shaped its leading edge) and the bent refueling probe because of the radar in the nose (the original straight boom interfered with it). I just implanted an extended resin tailpipe (from Aires, see below), used the OOB optional brake parachute fairing and scratched fairings for the A-4H’s former DEFA guns (which were placed, due to their size, in a lower position than the original 20 mm guns and had an odd shape) from styrene rods.
I also modified the ordnance: the OOB ventral drop tank was taken over but the kit’s original LAU-19 pods molded onto the inner wing pylons were cut off and moved to the outer stations. The inner pylons then received MERs with five Mk. 82 500 lb iron bombs each (left over from a Hasegawa Skyhawk kit) – typically for the Skyhawk, the inner front stations on the MERs (and on TERs, too) were left empty, because anything bigger than a 250 lb Mk. 81 bomb interfered with the landing gear covers.
Building posed no real problems; some PSR was necessary on many seams, though, but that’s standard for the Italeri Skyhawk kit. Just the extended tailpipe caused unexpected trouble: the very nice and detailed Aires resin insert turned out to be a whole 2mm(!) wider than the Skyhawk’s tail section, even though its height and shape was fine. I solved this pragmatically and, after several trials, glued the extended pipe between the fuselage halves, closed them with some force and filled the resulting wedge-shaped ventral gap that extended forward almost up to the wings’ trailing edge with putty. Under the paint this stunt is not obvious, and I suspect that the Italeri Skyhawk’s tail is simply too narrow?
Different/additional blade antennae were added under the front fuselage and behind the canopy as well as a tiny pitot in front of the windscreen (piece of thin wire) and fairings for the radar warning receivers were integrated into the fin’s leading edge and above the extended tail pipe, scratched from styrene sheet material. And, finally, a thin rod (made from heated styrene) was added for the Skyhawk’s steerable front wheel mechanism.
A good thing about the Italeri Skyhawk is that its clear part encompasses the whole canopy, including its frame. It comes as a single piece, though, but can be easily cut in two parts to allow an open cockpit display. The alternative Hasegawa A-4E/F has the flaw that the clear part is molded without the canopy frame, which has a rather complex shape, so that modding it into open position is a very complicated task.
Painting and markings:
Basically very simple: I relied upon FAU Pucarás as benchmark, which carry a rather unremarkable NATO-style livery in dark grey and dark green over very light grey, almost white undersides. This does not sound interesting, but it’s not a color combo typically seen on a Skyhawk, so that this already offers a subtle whiffy touch – and it suits the Skyhawk IMHO well.
To make the simple scheme more interesting, though, I decided to apply the camouflage in a more disruptive, higher resolution pattern, using the Kuwaiti A-4KU pattern as benchmark, just with replaced colors. On real-life pictures, the Uruguayan Pucarás as well as some early A-37s show a good contrast between the green and the grey, so that I chose Tamiya XF-62 (U.S. WWII Olive Drab) and Humbrol 156 (RAF Dark Camouflage Grey) as basic tones; the undersides were painted in Humbrol 147 (FS 36495), leaving a brightness margin for post-shading with an even lighter tone.
The landing gear as well as the air intakes’ interior were painted in white, the landing gear covers’ edges received a thin red edge. The cockpit interior became standard Dark Gull Grey.
For good contrast with the light undersides, the rocket launchers became light grey (Humbrol 127) drab. The MERs became classic white and the ten 250 lb bombs were painted in olive drab.
As usual, the kit received an overall light black ink washing and some post-panel shading, which also acts as a weathering measure. Esp. the Pucarás’ grey appears very bleached on many photos.
Roundels, fin flash and FAU taglines came from the aforementioned Airfix Pucará sheet, even though they turned out to be rather thick and not printed sharply. Most stencils were taken from an Airfix A-4Q Skyhawk, one of the new mold kits, which also came with Argentinian markings and stencils in Spanish. The respective sheet also provided a decal for the black anti-glare panel, even though it had to be cut in two halves to fit in front of the wider A-4E windshield, and the resulting gap was painted out with black. The tactical codes once belonged to a Kawasaki T-4 (Hasegawa). The soot-hiding squares above the gun muzzles are generic black decals. The only decal that was taken over from the Skyhawk’s OOB decal sheet were the rings around the arrester hook.
Overall, the FAU Skyhawk still looked rather dry. To add some excitement, I gave the aircraft a wild boar “face”, similar to the FAU Pucarás. The decoration originally belongs to an USAF A-10 and came from a HiDecal sheet. Unfortunately, this boar face was carried by a rather special A-10 with an experimental desert paint scheme consisting of Brown (FS 20140), Tan Special (FS 20400) and Sand (FS 20266) that was applied before deployment to Saudi Arabia in November 1990. This scheme did not catch on, though, and most A-10s retained their murky Europe One/Lizard scheme. Therefore, the artwork consists primarily of black and sand – white would have been better, stylistically. But I took what I could get and, as a kind of compensation, the sand color does not make the boar snout stand out too much. To my surprise, the four decals that create the wraparound hog face fitted quite well in size and around the Skyhawk’s rather pointed nose. I just left the nostrils away because they’d look odd together with the small black radome and a small ventral gap between the mouth halves had to be bridged with black paint and another piece of decal sheet that simulates a di-electric cover.
Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish and ordnance as well as landing gear were mounted.
The third and for now the last build in my recent ‘Uruguayan whif’ model series. I like the grey-green Skyhawk a lot – it’s not spectacular and looks very down-to-earth (except for the nose art, maybe), but it’s very believable. The NATO style livery is rather unusual for the A-4, it was AFAIK not carried by any real in-service Skyhawk, but it suits the aircraft well.
This cathedral-size cistern is an underground chamber approximately 138 metres (453 ft) by 64.6 metres (212 ft)[2] – about 9,800 square metres (105,000 sq ft) in area – capable of holding 80,000 cubic metres (2,800,000 cu ft) of water. The ceiling is supported by a forest of 336 marble columns, each 9 metres (30 ft) high, arranged in 12 rows of 28 columns each spaced 4.9 metres (16 ft) apart. The capitals of the columns are mainly Ionic and Corinthian styles, with the exception of a few Doric style with no engravings. One of the columns is engraved with raised pictures of a Hen's Eye, slanted braches, and tears. This column resembles the columns of the Triumphal Arch of Theodosius I from the 4th century (AD 379–395), erected in the 'Forum Tauri' Square. Ancient texts suggest that the tears on the column pay tribute to the hundreds of slaves who died during the construction of the Basilica Cistern.[citation needed] The majority of the columns in the cistern appear to have been recycled from the ruins of older buildings (a process called 'spoliation'), likely brought to Constantinople from various parts of the empire, together with those that were used in the construction of Hagia Sophia. They are carved and engraved out of various types of marble and granite.[1]
Fifty-two stone steps descend into the entrance of the cistern. The cistern is surrounded by a firebrick wall with a thickness of 4 metres (13 ft) and coated with a waterproofing mortar. The Basilica Cistern's water came from the Eğrikapı Water Distribution Center in the Belgrade Forest, which lie 19 kilometres (12 mi) north of the city. It traveled through the 971-metre-long (3,186 ft) Valens (Bozdoğan) Aqueduct, and the 115.45-metre-long (378.8 ft) Mağlova Aqueduct, which was built by the Emperor Justinian.[1]
The cistern has the capacity to store 100,000 tons of water, despite being virtually empty today with only a few feet of water lining the bottom.
The weight of the cistern lies on the columns by means of the cross-shaped vaults and round arches of its roof.
The Basilica Cistern has undergone several restorations since its foundation. The first of the repairs were carried out twice during the Ottoman State in the 18th century during the reign of Ahmed III in 1723 by the architect Muhammad Agha of Kayseri. The second major repair was completed during the 19th century during the reign of Sultan Abdulhamid II (1876–1909). Cracks to masonry and damaged columns were repaired in 1968, with additional restoration in 1985 by the Istanbul Metropolitan Museum. During the 1985 restoration, 50,000 tons of mud were removed from the cisterns, and platforms built throughout to replace the boats once used to tour the cistern. The cistern was opened to the public in its current condition on 9 September 1987. In May 1994, the cistern underwent additional cleaning.
"Air Force special operations forces used the Sikorsky MH-53M to covertly enter enemy territory. Capable of operating at day or night or in bad weather, these helicopters conducted long-range, low-level missions to insert, extract, and resupply special operations forces.
The MH-53 helicopters were originally HH-53 "Super Jolly Green Giants" used by the U.S. Air Force in the Southeast Asia War. Over the years, however, they received many upgrades and improvements. After the 1960s, they were completely re-skinned and had their engines and rotors replaced. Along with these improvements came a new designation, MH-53 ("M" for Multi-mission and "H" for helicopter).
The most significant enhancement to the Super Jollies was the Pave Low program, which modified them for operating at night or during bad weather. Equipped with forward-looking infrared (FLIR) sensors, inertial global positioning systems (GPS), Doppler radar navigation systems, and terrain-following and terrain-avoidance radar, the MH-53 could fly clandestine, low-level missions in any weather, day or night.
The MH-53M Pave Low IV has a system that greatly increased the aircraft's capabilities. This system gave the aircrew instant access to the total battlefield situation on a color, digital map screen that was compatible with night vision goggles. Using feeds from satellite links, the system displayed nearly real-time information about potential hazards along the flight route such as power lines or enemy electronic threats.
This aircraft, S/N 68-10369, was originally manufactured as an HH-53C by Sikorsky Aircraft in Bridgeport, Connecticutt, and gained by the Air Force on March 23, 1971. It was first assigned to the Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Center, Military Air Transport Service, at Eglin AFB, Florida. In May 1971 is was transfered to the 1550th Aircrew Training & Test Wing, Military Airlift Command, at Hill AFB. It moved to the 6594th Test Group, AF Systems Command, at Hickam AFB, Hawaii, in June 1974.
In July 1986 the aircraft was moved back to the 1550th ATTW, then at Kirtland AFB, New Mexico. In June 1989 the aircraft went to the 1st Special Operations Wing at Hurlburt Field, Florida, where it was converted to MH-53J configuration. It was assigned to the 16th Special Operations Wing, AF Special Operation Command, at Hurlburt Field in 1994. While there it was upgraded as an MH-53M Pave Low IV. It's last flight was to Hill AFB on September 18, 2008." - www.hill.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/3971...
A soldier of B Company of 2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment prepares for a jump onto Wiley Sike in Cumbria from a Royal Air Force C-130J Hercules.
The paratroopers were taking part in Exercise Capable Eagle, dropping from a Hercules C130J of 47 Sqn, over Wiley Sike, part of the RAF Spadeadam training area.
-------------------------------------------------------
© Crown Copyright 2013
Photographer: Fg Off Tony Durrant
Image 45156298.jpg from www.defenceimages.mod.uk
Use of this image is subject to the terms and conditions of the MoD News Licence at www.defenceimagery.mod.uk/fotoweb/20121001_Crown_copyrigh...
For latest news visit www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-defence
Follow us:
An elf (plural: elves) is a type of human-shaped supernatural being in Germanic mythology and folklore. In medieval Germanic-speaking cultures, elves seem generally to have been thought of as beings with magical powers and supernatural beauty, ambivalent towards everyday people and capable of either helping or hindering them.[1] However, the details of these beliefs have varied considerably over time and space, and have flourished in both pre-Christian and Christian cultures.
The word elf is found throughout the Germanic languages and seems originally to have meant 'white being'.
Reconstructing the early concept of an elf depends largely on texts, written by Christians, in Old and Middle English, medieval German, and Old Norse. These associate elves variously with the gods of Norse mythology, with causing illness, with magic, and with beauty and seduction.
After the medieval period, the word elf tended to become less common throughout the Germanic languages, losing out to alternative native terms like zwerc ("dwarf") in German and huldra ("hidden being") in Scandinavian languages, and to loan-words like fairy (borrowed from French into all the Germanic languages).
Still, beliefs in elves persisted in the early modern period, particularly in Scotland and Scandinavia, where elves were thought of as magically powerful people living, usually invisibly, alongside everyday human communities. They continued to be associated with causing illness and with sexual threats. For example, a number of early modern ballads in the British Isles and Scandinavia, originating in the medieval period, describe elves attempting to seduce or abduct human characters.
With urbanisation and industrialisation in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, beliefs in elves declined rapidly (though Iceland has some claim to continued popular belief in elves). However, from the early modern period onwards, elves started to be prominent in the literature and art of educated elites. These literary elves were imagined as small, impish beings, with Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream being a key development of this idea. In the eighteenth century, German Romanticist writers were influenced by this notion of the elf, and reimported the English word elf into the German language.
From this Romanticist elite culture came the elves of popular culture that emerged in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The "Christmas elves" of contemporary popular culture are a relatively recent tradition, popularized during the late nineteenth-century in the United States. Elves entered the twentieth-century high fantasy genre in the wake of works published by authors such as J. R. R. Tolkien; these re-popularised the idea of elves as human-sized and human-like beings. Elves remain a prominent feature of fantasy books and games and thereby continue to have a role in shaping people's understandings of their own real-life identities.
Relationship to Christian cosmologies
Title page of Daemonologie by James VI and I, which tried to explain traditional Scottish beliefs in terms of Christian scholarship.Recent scholars have emphasised, in the words of Ármann Jakobsson, that:the time has come to resist reviewing information about álfar en masse and trying to impose generalizations on a tradition of a thousand years. Legends of álfar may have been constantly changing and were perhaps always heterogeneous so it might be argued that any particular source will only reflect the state of affairs at one given time.
Thus elves have had a place both within and outside Germanic-speaking Christian cultures. There is no doubt that beliefs about elves have their origins before the conversion to Christianity and associated Christianization of north-west Europe. For this reason, belief in elves has, from the Middle Ages through into recent scholarship, often been labelled "pagan" and a "superstition". However, almost all surviving textual sources about elves were produced by Christians (whether Anglo-Saxon monks, medieval Icelandic poets, early modern ballad-singers, nineteenth-century folklore collectors, or even twentieth-century fantasy authors). Attested beliefs about elves therefore need to be understood as part of Germanic-speakers' Christian culture and not merely relic of their pre-Christian religion. Accordingly, investigating the relationship between beliefs in elves and Christian cosmology has been a preoccupation of scholarship about elves both in early times and in modern research.
Historically, people have taken three main approaches to integrating elves into Christian cosmology, all of which are found widely across time and space:Identifying elves with the demons of Judaeo-Christian-Mediterranean tradition. For example:In English-language material: in the Royal Prayer Book from c. 900, elf appears as a gloss for "Satan".In the late-fourteenth-century Wife of Bath’s Tale, Geoffrey Chaucer equates male elves with incubi (demons which rape sleeping women). In the early modern Scottish witchcraft trials, witnesses' descriptions of encounters with elves were often interpreted by prosecutors as encounters with the Devil.
In medieval Scandinavia, Snorri Sturluson wrote in his Prose Edda of ljósálfar and døkkálfar ('light-elves and dark-elves'), the ljósálfar living in the heavens and the døkkálfar under the earth. The consensus of modern scholarship is that Snorri's elves are based on angels and demons of Christian cosmology.
Elves appear as demonic forces widely in medieval and early modern English, German, and Scandinavian prayers.
Viewing elves as being more or less like people, and more or less outside Christian cosmology. The Icelanders who copied the Poetic Edda did not explicitly try to integrate elves into Christian thought. Likewise, the early modern Scottish people confessed to encountering elves seem not to have thought of themselves as having dealings with the Devil. Nineteenth-century Icelandic folklore about elves mostly presents them as a human agricultural community parallel to the visible human community, that may or may not be Christian. It is possible that stories were sometimes told from this perspective as a political act, to subvert the dominance of the Church.
Integrating elves into Christian cosmology without identifying them as demons.[13] The most striking examples are serious theological treatises: the Icelandic Tíðfordrif (1644) by Jón Guðmundsson lærði or, in Scotland, Robert Kirk's Secret Commonwealth of Elves, Fauns and Fairies (1691). This approach also appears in the Old English poem Beowulf, which lists elves among the races springing from Cain's murder of Abel. The late thirteenth-century South English Legendary and some Icelandic folktales explain elves as angels that sided neither with Lucifer nor with God, and were banished by God to earth rather than hell. One famous Icelandic folktale explains elves as the lost children of Eve.
Etymology
A chart showing how the sounds of the word elf have changed in the history of English.
The English word elf is from the Old English word most often attested as ælf (whose plural would have been *ælfe). Although this word took a variety of forms in different Old English dialects, these converged on the form elf during the Middle English period.[18] During the Old English period, separate forms were used for female elves (such as ælfen, putatively from common Germanic *ɑlβ(i)innjō), but during the Middle English period the word elf came routinely to include female beings.
The main medieval Germanic cognates (words of a common origin) of elf are Old Norse alfr, plural alfar, and Old High German alp, plural alpî, elpî (alongside the feminine elbe).These words must come from Common Germanic, the ancestor-language of English, German, and the Scandinavian languages: the Common Germanic forms must have been *ɑlβi-z and ɑlβɑ-z.
Germanic *ɑlβi-z~*ɑlβɑ-z is generally agreed to be cognate with the Latin albus ('(matt) white'), Old Irish ailbhín ('flock'); Albanian elb ('barley'); and Germanic words for 'swan' such as Modern Icelandic álpt. These all come from an Indo-European base *albh-, and seem to be connected by the idea of whiteness. The Germanic word presumably originally meant "white person", perhaps as a euphemism. Jakob Grimm thought that whiteness implied positive moral connotations, and, noting Snorri Sturluson's ljósálfar, suggested that elves were divinities of light. This is not necessarily the case, however. For example, because the cognates suggest matt white rather than shining white, and because in medieval Scandinavian texts whiteness is associated with beauty, Alaric Hall has suggested that elves may have been called "the white people" because they were regarded as beautiful.
A completely different etymology, making elf cognate with the Rbhus, semi-divine craftsmen in Indian mythology, was also suggested by Kuhn, in 1855. In this case, *ɑlβi-z connotes the meaning, "skillful, inventive, clever", and is cognate with Latin labor, in the sense of "creative work". While often mentioned, this etymology is not widely accepted.
Elves in proper names
Throughout the medieval Germanic languages, elf was one of the nouns that was used in personal names, almost invariably as a first element. These names may have been influenced by Celtic names beginning in Albio- such as Albiorix.
Alden Valley, Lancashire, possibly a place once associated with elves
Personal names provide the only evidence for elf in Gothic, which must have had the word *albs (plural *albeis). The most famous name of this kind is Alboin. Old English names in elf- include the cognate of Alboin Ælfwine (literally "elf-friend", m.), Ælfric ("elf-powerful", m.), Ælfweard ("elf-guardian", m.), and Ælfwaru ("elf-care", f.). A widespread survivor of these in modern English is Alfred (Old English Ælfrēd, "elf-advice"). Also surviving are the English surname Elgar (Ælfgar, "elf-spear") and the name of St Alphege (Ælfhēah, "elf-high").German examples are Alberich, Alphart and Alphere (father of Walter of Aquitaine) and Icelandic examples include Álfhildur. These names suggest that elves were positively regarded in early Germanic culture. Of the many words for supernatural beings in Germanic languages, the only ones used in personal names are elf and words denoting pagan gods, suggesting that elves were considered similar to gods.
In later Old Icelandic, alfr ("elf") and the personal name which in Common Germanic had been *Aþa(l)wulfaz both coincidentally became álfr~Álfr.
Elves appear in some place-names, though it is hard to be sure how many as a variety of other words, including personal names, can appear similar to elf. The clearest English example is Elveden ("elves' hill", Suffolk); other examples may be Eldon Hill ("Elves' hill", Derbyshire); and Alden Valley ("elves' valley", Lancashire). These seem to associate elves fairly consistently with woods and valleys.
Elves as causes of illness
The earliest surviving manuscripts mentioning elves in any Germanic language are from Anglo-Saxon England. Medieval English evidence has, therefore, attracted quite extensive research and debate.In Old English, elves are most often mentioned in medical texts which attest to the belief that elves might afflict humans and livestock with illnesses: apparently mostly sharp, internal pains and mental disorders. The most famous of the medical texts is the metrical charm Wið færstice ("against a stabbing pain"), from the tenth-century compilation Lacnunga, but most of the attestations are in the tenth-century Bald's Leechbook and Leechbook III. This tradition continues into later English-language traditions too: elves continue to appear in Middle English medical texts.
Beliefs in elves causing illness remained prominent in early modern Scotland, where elves were viewed as being supernaturally powerful people who lived invisibly alongside everyday rural people. Thus elves were often mentioned in the early modern Scottish witchcraft trials: many witnesses in the trials believed themselves to have been given healing powers or to know of people or animals made sick by elves.Throughout these sources, elves are sometimes associated with the succuba-like supernatural being called the mare.
While they may have been thought to cause disease with magical weapons, elves are more clearly associated in Old English with a kind of magic denoted by Old English sīden and sīdsa, cognate with Old Norse seiðr, and also paralleled in the Old Irish Serglige Con Culainn. By the fourteenth century they were also associated with the arcane practice of alchemy.
"Elf-shot"
In one or two Old English medical texts, elves might be envisaged as inflicting illness with projectiles. In the twentieth century, scholars often labelled the illnesses elves caused as "elf-shot", but work from the 1990s onwards showed that the medieval evidence for elves being thought to cause illness in this way is slender;[43] debate about its significance is ongoing.
The noun elf-shot is actually first attested in a Scots poem, "Rowlis Cursing", from around 1500, where "elf schot" is listed among a range of curses to be inflicted on some chicken-thieves.The term may not always have denoted an actual projectile: shot could mean "a sharp pain" as well as "projectile". But in early modern Scotland elf-schot and other terms like elf-arrowhead are sometimes used of neolithic arrow-heads, apparently thought to have been made by elves. In a few witchcraft trials people attest that these arrrow-heads were used in healing rituals, and occasionally alleged that witches (and perhaps elves) used them to injure people and cattle.[46] Compare with the following excerpt from a 1749–50 ode by William Collins:
There every herd, by sad experience, knows
How, winged with fate, their elf-shot arrows fly,
When the sick ewe her summer food forgoes,
Or, stretched on earth, the heart-smit heifers lie.
Size, appearance, and sexuality
Because of elves' association with illness, in the twentieth century, most scholars imagined that elves in the Anglo-Saxon tradition were small, invisible, demonic beings, causing illness with arrows. This was encouraged by the idea that "elf-shot" is depicted in the Eadwine Psalter, in an image which became well known in this connection.[48] However, this is now thought to be a misunderstanding: the image proves to be a conventional illustration of God's arrows and of Christian demons. Rather, recent scholarship suggests Anglo-Saxon elves, like elves in Scandinavia or the Irish Aos Sí, were regarded as people.
Like words for gods and men, the word elf is used in personal names where words for monsters and demons are not. Just as álfar are associated with Æsir in Old Norse, the Old English Wið færstice associates elves with ēse; whatever this word meant by the tenth century, etymologically it denoted pagan gods. In Old English, the plural ylfe (attested in Beowulf) is grammatically an ethnonym (a word for an ethnic group), suggesting that elves were seen as a people.As well as appearing in medical texts, the Old English word ælf and its feminine derivative ælbinne were used in glosses to translate Latin words for nymphs. This fits well with the word ælfscȳne, which meant "elf-beautiful" and is attested describing the seductively beautiful Biblical heroines Sarah and Judith.
Likewise, in Middle English and early modern Scottish evidence, while still appearing as causes of harm and danger, elves appear clearly as human-like beings.They became associated with medieval chivalric romance traditions of fairies and particularly with the idea of a Fairy Queen. A propensity to seduce or rape people becomes increasingly prominent in the source material. Around the fifteenth century, evidence starts to appear for the belief that elves might steal human babies and replace them with changelings.
Decline in the use of the word elf
By the end of the medieval period, elf was increasingly being supplanted by the French loan-word fairy.[57] An example is Geoffrey Chaucer's satirical tale Sir Thopas, where the title character sets out in quest of the "elf-queen", who dwells in the "countree of the Faerie"
One possible semantic field diagram of words for sentient beings in Old Norse, showing a Venn diagram their relationships .
Evidence for elf-beliefs in medieval Scandinavia outside Iceland is very sparse, but the Icelandic evidence is uniquely rich. For a long time, views about elves in Old Norse mythology were defined by Snorri Sturluson's Prose Edda, which talks about svartálfar, dökkálfar and ljósálfar ("black elves", "dark elves", and "light elves"). However, these words are only attested in the Prose Edda and texts based on it, and it is now agreed that they reflect traditions of dwarves, demons, and angels, partly showing Snorri's "paganisation" of a Christian cosmology learned from the Elucidarius, a popular digest of Christian thought.
Scholars of Old Norse mythology now focus on references to elves in Old Norse poetry, particularly the Elder Edda. The only character explicitly identified as an elf in classical Eddaic poetry, if any, is Völundr, the protagonist of Völundarkviða.However, elves are frequently mentioned in the alliterating phrase Æsir ok Álfar ('Æsir and elves') and its variants. This was clearly a well established poetic formula, indicating a strong tradition of associating elves with the group of gods known as the Æsir, or even suggesting that the elves and Æsir were one and the same.[60][61] The pairing is paralleled in the Old English poem Wið færstice and in the Germanic personal name system; moreover, in Skaldic verse the word elf is used in the same way as words for gods.Sigvatr Þórðarson’s skaldic travelogue Austrfaravísur, composed around 1020, mentions an álfablót (‘elves' sacrifice’) in Edskogen in what is now southern Sweden.There does not seem to have been any clear-cut distinction between humans and gods; like the Æsir, then, elves were presumably thought of as being human(-like) and existing in opposition to the giants. Many commentators have also (or instead) argued for conceptual overlap between elves and dwarves in Old Norse mythology, which may fit with trends in the medieval German evidence.
There are hints that the god Freyr was associated with elves. In particular, Álfheimr (literally "elf-world") is mentioned as being given to Freyr in Grímnismál. Snorri Sturluson identified Freyr as one of the Vanir. However, the term Vanir is rare in Eddaic verse, very rare in Skaldic verse, and is not generally thought to appear in other Germanic languages. Given the link between Freyr and the elves, it has therefore long been suspected that álfar and Vanir are, more or less, different words for the same group of beings.[67] However, this is not uniformly accepted.[68]
A kenning (poetic metaphor) for the sun, álfröðull (literally "elf disc"), is of uncertain meaning but is to some suggestive of a close link between elves and the sun.
Although the relevant words are of slightly uncertain meaning, it seems fairly clear that Völundr is described as one of the elves in Völundarkviða. As his most prominent deed in the poem is to rape Böðvildr, the poem associates elves with being a sexual threat to maidens. The same idea is present in two post-classical Eddaic poems, which are also influenced by chivalric romance or Breton lais, Kötludraumur and Gullkársljóð. The idea also occurs in later traditions in Scandinavia and beyond, so may be an early attestation of a prominent tradition.[71] Elves also appear in a couple of verse spells, including the Bergen rune-charm from among the Bryggen inscriptions.
The appearance of elves in sagas is closely defined by genre. The Sagas of Icelanders, Bishops' Sagas, and Contemporary sagas, whose portrayal of the supernatural is generally restrained, rarely mention álfar, and then only in passing.[73] But although limited, these texts provide some of the best evidence for the presence of elves in everyday beliefs in medieval Scandinavia. They include a fleeting mention of elves seen out riding in 1168 (in Sturlunga saga); mention of an álfablót ("elves' sacrifice") in Kormáks saga; and the existence of the euphemism ganga álfrek ('go to drive away the elves') for "going to the toilet" in Eyrbyggja saga.
The Kings' sagas include a rather elliptical but widely studied account of an early Swedish king being worshipped after his death and being called Ólafr Geirstaðaálfr ('Ólafr the elf of Geirstaðir'), and a demonic elf at the beginning of Norna-Gests þáttr.
The legendary sagas tend to focus on elves as legendary ancestors or on heroes' sexual relations with elf-women. Mention of the land of Álfheimr is found in Heimskringla while Þorsteins saga Víkingssonar recounts a line of local kings who ruled over Álfheim, who since they had elven blood were said to be more beautiful than most men.According to Hrólfs saga kraka, Hrolfr Kraki's half-sister Skuld was the half-elven child of King Helgi and an elf-woman (álfkona). Skuld was skilled in witchcraft (seiðr). Accounts of Skuld in earlier sources, however, do not include this material. The Þiðreks saga version of the Nibelungen (Niflungar) describes Högni as the son of a human queen and an elf, but no such lineage is reported in the Eddas, Völsunga saga, or the Nibelungenlied.[78] The relatively few mentions of elves in the Chivalric sagas tend even to be whimsical.
Both Continental Scandinavia and Iceland have a scattering of mentions of elves in medical texts, where elves are viewed as a possible cause of illness. Most of them have Low German connections.
Medieval and early modern German texts
The Old High German word alp is attested only in a small number of glosses. It is defined by the Althochdeutsches Wörterbuch as a "nature-god or nature-demon, equated with the Fauns of Classical mythology ... regarded as eerie, ferocious beings ... As the mare he messes around with women".Accordingly, the German word Alpdruck (literally "elf-oppression") means "nightmare". There is also evidence associating elves with illness, specifically epilepsy.
In a similar vein, elves are in Middle German most often associated with deceiving or bewildering people "in a phrase that occurs so often it would appear to be proverbial: die elben/der alp trieget mich ("the elves/elf are/is deceiving me").[83] The same pattern holds in Early Modern German. This deception sometimes shows the seductive side apparent in English and Scandinavian material:[most famously, the early thirteenth-century Heinrich von Morungen's fifth Minnesang begins "Von den elben virt entsehen vil manic man / Sô bin ich von grôzer lieber entsên" ("full many a man is bewitched by elves / thus I too am bewitched by great love"). Elbe was also used in this period to translate words for nymphs.
In later medieval prayers, Elves appear as a threatening, even demonic, force. For example, there are prayers which invoke God's help against noctural attacks by Alpe.Correspondingly, in the early modern period, elves are described in north Germany doing the evil bidding of witches; Martin Luther believed his mother to have been afflicted in this way.
As in Old Norse, however, there are few characters identified as elves. It seems likely that in the German-speaking world, elves were to a significant extent conflated with dwarves (Middle High German: getwerc).[90] Thus some dwarves that appear in German heroic poetry have been seen as relating to elves. In particular, nineteenth-century scholars tended to think that the dwarf Alberich, whose name etymologically means "elf-powerful", was influenced by early traditions of elves.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Waffenträger (Weapon Carrier) VTS3 “Diana” was a prototype for a wheeled tank destroyer. It was developed by Thyssen-Henschel (later Rheinmetall) in Kassel, Germany, in the late Seventies, in response to a German Army requirement for a highly mobile tank destroyer with the firepower of the Leopard 1 main battle tank then in service and about to be replaced with the more capable Leopard 2 MBT, but less complex and costly. The main mission of the Diana was light to medium territorial defense, protection of infantry units and other, lighter, elements of the cavalry as well as tactical reconnaissance. Instead of heavy armor it would rather use its good power-to-weight ratio, excellent range and cross-country ability (despite the wheeled design) for defense and a computerized fire control system to accomplish this mission.
In order to save development cost and time, the vehicle was heavily based on the Spähpanzer Luchs (Lynx), a new German 8x8 amphibious reconnaissance armored fighting vehicle that had just entered Bundeswehr service in 1975. The all-wheel drive Luchs made was well armored against light weapons, had a full NBC protection system and was characterized by its extremely low-noise running. The eight large low-pressure tires had run-flat properties, and, at speeds up to about 50 km/h, all four axles could be steered, giving the relatively large vehicle a surprising agility and very good off-road performance. As a special feature, the vehicle was equipped with a rear-facing driver with his own driving position (normally the radio operator), so that the vehicle could be driven at full speed into both directions – a heritage from German WWII designs, and a tactical advantage when the vehicle had to quickly retreat from tactical position after having been detected. The original Luchs weighed less than 20 tons, was fully amphibious and could surmount water obstacles quickly and independently using propellers at the rear and the fold back trim vane at the front. Its armament was relatively light, though, a 20 mm Rheinmetall MK 20 Rh 202 gun in the turret that was effective against both ground and air targets.
The Waffenträger “Diana” used the Luchs’ hull and dynamic components as basis, and Thyssen-Henschel solved the challenge to mount a large and heavy 105 mm L7 gun with its mount on the light chassis through a minimalistic, unmanned mount and an autoloader. Avoiding a traditional manned and heavy, armored turret, a lot of weight and internal volume that had to be protected could be saved, and crew safety was indirectly improved, too. This concept had concurrently been tested in the form of the VTS1 (“Versuchsträger Scheitellafette #1) experimental tank in 1976 for the Kampfpanzer 3 development, which eventually led to the Leopard 2 MBT (which retained a traditional turret, though).
For the “Diana” test vehicle, Thyssen-Henschel developed a new low-profile turret with a very small frontal area. Two crew members, the commander (on the right side) and the gunner (to the left), were seated in/under the gun mount, completely inside of the vehicle’s hull. The turret was a very innovative construction for its time, fully stabilized and mounted the proven 105mm L7 rifled cannon with a smoke discharger. Its autoloader contained 8 rounds in a carousel magazine. 16 more rounds could be carried in the hull, but they had to be manually re-loaded into the magazine, which was only externally accessible. A light, co-axial 7,62mm machine gun against soft targets was available, too, as well as eight defensive smoke grenade mortars.
The automated L7 had a rate of fire of ten rounds per minute and could fire four types of ammunition: a kinetic energy penetrator to destroy armored vehicles; a high explosive anti-tank round to destroy thin-skinned vehicles and provide anti-personnel fragmentation; a high explosive plastic round to destroy bunkers, machine gun and sniper positions, and create openings in walls for infantry to access; and a canister shot for use against dismounted infantry in the open or for smoke charges. The rounds to be fired could be pre-selected, so that the gun was able to automatically fire a certain ammunition sequence, but manual round selection was possible at any time, too.
In order to take the new turret, the Luchs hull had to be modified. Early calculations had revealed that a simple replacement of the Luchs’ turret with the new L7 mount would have unfavorably shifted the vehicle’s center of gravity up- and forward, making it very nose-heavy and hard to handle in rough terrain or at high speed, and the long barrel would have markedly overhung the front end, impairing handling further. It was also clear that the additional weight and the rise of the CoG made amphibious operations impossible - a fate that met the upgraded Luchs recce tanks in the Eighties, too, after several accidents with overturned vehicles during wading and drowned crews. With this insight the decision was made to omit the vehicle’s amphibious capability, save weight and complexity, and to modify the vehicle’s layout considerably to optimize the weight distribution.
Taking advantage of the fact that the Luchs already had two complete driver stations at both ends, a pair of late-production hulls were set aside in 1977 and their internal layout reversed. The engine bay was now in the vehicle’s front, the secured ammunition storage was placed next to it, behind the separate driver compartment, and the combat section with the turret mechanism was located behind it. Since the VTS3s were only prototypes, only minimal adaptations were made. This meant that the driver was now located on the right side of the vehicle, while and the now-rear-facing secondary driver/radio operator station ended up on the left side – much like a RHD vehicle – but this was easily accepted in the light of cost and time savings. As a result, the gun and its long, heavy barrel were now located above the vehicle’s hull, so that the overall weight distribution was almost neutral and overall dimensions remained compact.
Both test vehicles were completed in early 1978 and field trials immediately started. While the overall mobility was on par with the Luchs and the Diana’s high speed and low noise profile was highly appreciated, the armament was and remained a source of constant concern. Shooting in motion from the Diana turned out to be very problematic, and even firing from a standstill was troublesome. The gun mount and the vehicle’s complex suspension were able to "hold" the recoil of the full-fledged 105-mm tank gun, which had always been famous for its rather large muzzle energy. But when fired, even in the longitudinal plane, the vehicle body fell heavily towards the stern, so that the target was frequently lost and aiming had to be resumed – effectively negating the benefit from the autoloader’s high rate of fire and exposing the vehicle to potential target retaliation. Firing to the side was even worse. Several attempts were made to mend this flaw, but neither the addition of a muzzle brake, stronger shock absorbers and even hydro-pneumatic suspension elements did not solve the problem. In addition, the high muzzle flames and the resulting significant shockwave required the infantry to stay away from the vehicle intended to support them. The Bundeswehr also criticized the too small ammunition load, as well as the fact that the autoloader magazine could not be re-filled under armor protection, so that the vehicle had to retreat to safe areas to re-arm and/or to adapt to a new mission profile. This inherent flaw not only put the crew under the hazards of enemy fire, it also negated the vehicle’s NBC protection – a serious issue and likely Cold War scenario. Another weak point was the Diana’s weight: even though the net gain of weight compared with the Luchs was less than 3 tons after the conversion, this became another serious problem that led to the Diana’s demise: during trials the Bundeswehr considered the possibility to airlift the Diana, but its weight (even that of the Luchs, BTW) was too much for the Luftwaffe’s biggest own transport aircraft, the C-160 Transall. Even aircraft from other NATO members, e.g. the common C-130 Hercules, could hardly carry the vehicle. In theory, equipment had to be removed, including the cannon and parts of its mount.
Since the tactical value of the vehicle was doubtful and other light anti-tank weapons in the form of the HOT anti-tank missile had reached operational status, so that very light vehicles and even small infantry groups could now effectively fight against full-fledged enemy battle tanks from a safe distance, the Diana’s development was stopped in 1988. Both VTS3 prototypes were mothballed, stored at the Bundeswehr Munster Training Area camp and are still waiting to be revamped as historic exhibits alongside other prototypes like the Kampfpanzer 70 in the German Tank Museum located there, too.
Specifications:
Crew: 4 (commander, driver, gunner, radio operator/second driver)
Weight: 22.6 t
Length: 7.74 m (25 ft 4 ¼ in)
Width: 2.98 m ( 9 ft 9 in)
Height: XXX
Ground clearance: 440 mm (1 ft 4 in)
Suspension: hydraulic all-wheel drive and steering
Armor:
Unknown, but sufficient to withstand 14.5 mm AP rounds
Performance:
Speed: 90 km/h (56 mph) on roads
Operational range: 720 km (445 mi)
Power/weight: 13,3 hp/ton with petrol, 17,3 hp/ton with diesel
Engine:
1× Daimler Benz OM 403A turbocharged 10-cylinder 4-stroke multi-fuel engine,
delivering 300 hp with petrol, 390 hp with diesel
Armament:
1× 105 mm L7 rifled gun with autoloader (8 rounds ready, plus 16 in reserve)
1× co-axial 7.92 mm M3 machine gun with 2.000 rounds
Two groups of four Wegmann 76 mm smoke mortars
The kit and its assembly:
I have been a big Luchs fan since I witnessed one in action during a public Bundeswehr demo day when I was around 10 years old: a huge, boxy and futuristic vehicle with strange proportions, gigantic wheels, water propellers, a mind-boggling mobility and all of this utterly silent. Today you’d assume that this vehicle had an electric engine – spooky! So I always had a soft spot for it, and now it was time and a neat occasion to build a what-if model around it.
This fictional wheeled tank prototype model was spawned by a leftover Revell 1:72 Luchs kit, which I had bought some time ago primarily for the turret, used in a fictional post-WWII SdKfz. 234 “Puma” conversion. With just the chassis left I wondered what other use or equipment it might take, and, after several weeks with the idea in the back of my mind, I stumbled at Silesian Models over an M1128 resin conversion set for the Trumpeter M1126 “Stryker” 8x8 APC model. From this set as potential donor for a conversion the prototype idea with an unmanned turret was born.
Originally I just planned to mount the new turret onto the OOB hull, but when playing with the parts I found the look with an overhanging gun barrel and the bigger turret placed well forward on the hull goofy and unbalanced. I was about to shelf the idea again, until I recognized that the Luchs’ hull is almost symmetrical – the upper hull half could be easily reversed on the chassis tub (at least on the kit…), and this would allow much better proportions. From this conceptual change the build went straightforward, reversing the upper hull only took some minor PSR. The resin turret was taken mostly OOB, it only needed a scratched adapter to fit into the respective hull opening. I just added a co-axial machine gun fairing, antenna bases (from the Luchs kit, since they could, due to the long gun barrel, not be attached to the hull anymore) and smoke grenade mortars (also taken from the Luchs).
An unnerving challenge became the Luchs kit’s suspension and drive train – it took two days to assemble the vehicle’s underside alone! While this area is very accurate and delicate, the fact that almost EVERY lever and stabilizer is a separate piece on four(!) axles made the assembly a very slow process. Just for reference: the kit comes with three and a half sprues. A full one for the wheels (each consists of three parts, and more than another one for suspension and drivetrain!
Furthermore, the many hull surface details like tools or handles – these are more than a dozen bits and pieces – are separate, very fragile and small (tiny!), too. Cutting all these wee parts out and cleaning them was a tedious affair, too, plus painting them separately.
Otherwise the model went together well, but it’s certainly not good for quick builders and those with big fingers and/or poor sight.
Painting and markings:
The paint scheme was a conservative choice; it is a faithful adaptation of the Bundeswehr’s NATO standard camouflage for the European theatre of operations that was introduced in the Eighties. It was adopted by many armies to confuse potential aggressors from the East, so that observers could not easily identify a vehicle and its nationality. It consists of a green base with red-brown and black blotches, in Germany it was executed with RAL tones, namely 6031 (Bronze Green), 8027 (Leather Brown) and 9021 (Tar Black). The pattern was standardized for each vehicle type and I stuck to the official Luchs pattern, trying to adapt it to the new/bigger turret. I used Revell acrylic paints, since the authentic RAL tones are readily available in this product range (namely the tones 06, 65 and 84). The big tires were painted with Revell 09 (Anthracite).
Next the model was treated with a highly thinned washing with black and red-brown acrylic paint, before decals were applied, taken from the OOB sheet and without unit markings, since the Diana would represent a test vehicle. After sealing them with a thin coat of clear varnish the model was furthermore treated with lightly dry-brushed Revell 45 and 75 to emphasize edges and surface details, and the separately painted hull equipment was mounted. The following step was a cloudy treatment with watercolors (from a typical school paintbox, it’s great stuff for weathering!), simulating dust residue all over the hull. After a final protective coat with matt acrylic varnish I finally added some mineral artist pigments to the lower hull areas and created mud crusts on the wheels through light wet varnish traces into which pigments were “dusted”.
Basically a simple project, but the complex Luchs kit with its zillion of wee bits and pieces took time and cost some nerves. However, the result looks pretty good, and the Stryker turret blends well into the overall package. Not certain how realistic the swap of the Luchs’ internal layout would have been, but I think that the turret moved to the rear makes more sense than the original forward position? After all, the model is supposed to be a prototype, so there’s certainly room for creative freedom. And in classic Bundeswehr colors, the whole thing even looks pretty convincing.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Sd.Kfz. 141/4 Panzerkampfwagen III, commonly known as the Panzer III, was a medium tank developed in the 1930s by Germany and was used extensively in World War II. It was intended to fight other armored fighting vehicles and serve alongside and support the similar Panzer IV which was originally designed for infantry support. However, as the Germans faced the formidable T-34, more powerful anti-tank guns were needed, and since the Panzer IV had more development potential with a larger turret ring, the latter was redesigned to mount the long-barrelled 7.5 cm KwK 40 gun and the Panzer III effectively swapped roles with the Panzer IV. Later, the Panzer V “Panther” took over the role of the standard MBT. Production of the Panzer III as battle tank ceased in 1943. Nevertheless, the Panzer III's capable chassis was used for a range of specialized vehicles.
The Panzer III was by far the most widely used of all Axis chassis. Besides the StuG, or Sturmgeschütz III, family (9500 built), suspensions, tracks and engine were used in almost a dozen specially modified vehicles. These included the Tauchpanzer III, an improvised “submarine version” designed for “Operation Seelöwe”, the invasion of Great Britain in August 1940, the Sturm-Infanteriegeschütz 33B (or sIG-33B), a 1941-42 conversion of regular Panzer IIIs into a self-propelled chassis for the massive 150 mm (5.9 in) field gun, or the Sturmhaubitze 42 (StuH 42), of which 1024 were built. Other conversions included the Flammpanzer III Ausf.M(Fl), an Ausf.M-based flamethrower version, the Panzerbefehlswagen III command tanks and the Artillerie-Panzerbeobachtungswagen III, which was an advanced artillery observation model of which 262 were produced, appearing on the Russian front in 1943. The Bergepanzer III recovery tank was a late (1944) version affected to the Eastern Front, mostly to Tiger units.
Another late Panzer III development was the SdKfz. 141/4, officially called Panzerspähwagen III but better known as Spähpanzer III. It was, like the Panzerbefehlswagen III, not a newly produced vehicle but rather converted from recovered late Panzer III chassis. It was developed and introduced as an alternative to the SdKfz. 234 8x8 heavy scout cars, primarily for areas where better armor and off-road capabilities were called for, and where range was not a vital asset. In fact, the Panzerspähwagen III was more or less a direct alternative to the stillborn VK 1602 ‘Leopard’ light tank, very similar to it in many aspects.
As a dedicated scout vehicle, the Panzerspähwagen III was not designed to fight tanks. Its primary mission was rather to guide heavier battle tanks to potential targets in both offensive and defensive situations, and it would also act as an artillery scout. The crew was expected to race in front of the main Panzer Division or lie in wait ahead of defensive strongholds and search out the enemy. Once they had found them, they were to use speed to get out of range or a powerful radio set to report what they had seen, so that the main attack could be prepared.
Tailored to this task, the Spähpanzer III was simplified and lightened. It had a reduced crew of only four, with only the commander and a loader in a new turret - basically the same horseshoe-shaped turret that had originally been developed for the unrealized VK 1602, and which had also found its way on the highly successful SdKfz. 234/2, too. However, in order to provide the commander with a better all-round field of view under closed hatch conditions, a standard cupola was added. Another new piece of equipment was a stereoscopic rangefinder, useful for both reconnaissance and gun aiming. A stowage box was frequently mounted to the turret’s rear, too.
While the hull armor of up to 50 mm was retained, the turret’s armor was relatively light: the front was protected by 30 mm (1.2 in) armor at an angle of 20° from the vertical, the sides and rear had 10 mm armor set at 25°, and the top plate was 10 mm (0.39 in) armor, too. The gun mantlet was rounded and was effectively 40 to 100 mm (1.6 to 3.9 in) thick. Due to its small size and low weight, the turret only had a manual traverse (saving more weight and resources) and -10° to +20° depression/elevation.
The main gun was a 50 mm (1.97 in) KwK 39/1 L/60, which was sufficient to engage lightly armored enemies. It could, however, when firing armor piercing rounds from a favorable angle, penetrate at short range (100m) up to 130mm of armor at a 30° angle, enough to overcome a T-34’s armor – but this was not the vehicle’s task and rather a desperate measure. To support the vehicle’s escape, defensive smoke dischargers were often mounted, too. A 7.92 mm (0.31 in) Mauser MG 42 machine gun was fixed coaxially to the main gun, another machine gun of the same type was carried in a ball mount in a modified glacis plate. The latter was an attempt to improve the tank’s frontal protection through the clever use of angle instead of trying to add ever more armor and, consequently, weight. On the new glacis plate, the 50 mm armor was effectively extended to 115mm, and the shallow angle also deflected incoming rounds more easily. However, the rest of the armor remained almost vertical, so that this gain in protection was only marginal.
For even better ballistic protection both hull crew members (driver and radio operator) had only periscopes, similar to the late Panzer V “Panther” versions. Open vision ports at the front were deleted and therefore weak points in the front armor, even though the side ports were retained. Thanks to the smaller and lighter turret, both driver and radio operator in the hull also received individual hatches in the hull roof, which were greatly appreciated by the crews. They not only offered a better field of view when not under fire, they also provided them with a much improved escape route: former Panzer IIIs with turrets lacked these hatches and the only escape options from the hull were either via the turret or through small emergency hatches in the lower flanks, right through the running gear. The raised glacis plate furthermore offered more internal space in the tank’s front end, so that a new, semi-automatic gearbox could be installed, which made handling easier.
As a command vehicle, the Panzerspähwagen III carried two radio sets: a FuG 2 command channel set with a FuG 122 aerial, and a FuG 5 radio with an intercom system. This arrangement allowed tank commanders to listen on one frequency while transmitting and receiving on the FuG 5. This meant that the commander could listen to the regimental command net while talking to other tanks at the same time. This radio receiver could listen into a total of 125 channels, at 50 kHz channel steps in the 27.0 to 33.3 MHz range. The system had a usable range of around 4 km to 6 km, depending on the atmospheric conditions and the surrounding landscape.
Due to material shortages, esp. the lack of natural and synthetic rubber, most Panzerspähwagen III conversions received simplified, lightweight all-metal road wheels, which made the ride less comfortable but helped to reduce the vehicle’s overall weight. Protective side-skirts against hollow charges could be mounted, but these were normally left away since they added weight and got easily lost in action, so that their benefit was only marginal – and the Panzerspähwagen III was expected to avoid direct confrontations, anyway. Altogether, the Panzerspähwagen III weighed about 19 tons, five tons less than the final Panzer III battle tank versions with 75mm guns and uprated armor, and this markedly improved the vehicle’s performance and agility. The light turret, which markedly lowered the vehicle’s center of gravity, improved the handling, too.
A few Panzerspähwagen IIIs were ready to fight in Normandy in 1944, but their movements were constrained because of Allied air supremacy. However, a good use of the bocage proved that the Panzer III was still a match for most Allied tanks and that the Spähpanzer concept worked well. Only a limited number of this SdKfz. 141 type was produced, though, since resources were concentrated on the development and production of heavy battle tanks. Production numbers are uncertain, but less than 50 Panzerspähwagen IIIs seem to have been re-built until early 1945.
By the end of 1944 the regular Panzer IIIs were no longer the bulk of the German armored forces, and they were relegated to second line duties, e .g in composite small defensive units. And as the production had stopped earlier, their numbers decreased even more, and by fall of 1944, there were perhaps 80 still operational on the Eastern Front. By then, new generations of US, British and Soviet tanks had nailed their coffin. The type had reached its limits as a battle tank, its former advanced features were now commonly used, and no further up-gunning was possible.
The last Panzer IIIs fought in the Netherlands, Northern Italy (Gothic line), and in eastern Prussia. Perhaps a handful still operational were spread between desperately weakened companies in March-April 1945, like the Steiner Brigade.
Specifications:
Crew: Four (commander/gunner, loader, driver, radio-operator/hull machine gunner)
Weight: 19.2 tonnes
Length: 5.56 m (18 ft 3 in), hull only
6,04 m (19 ft 10 in) overall
Width: 2.90 m (9 ft 6 in)
Height: 2.41 m (7 ft 11 in) w/o antenna mast
Suspension: Torsion bar
Fuel capacity: 320 liter
Armor:
15 – 50 mm (0.6 – 1.97 in)
Performance:
Maximum road speed: 44 km/h (27 mph)
Off-road speed: 28 km/h (18 mph)
Operational range: 165 km (103 mi) with internal fuel
Power/weight: 15.63 PS (11.24 kW)/tonne
Engine:
Maybach HL120 TRM water-cooled 12-cylinder gasoline engine with 300 PS (296 hp, 220 kW),
combined with a Maybach OG 55 11 77 semi-automatic transmission
Armament:
1× 50 mm (1.97 in) KwK 39/1 L/60 with sixty rounds
2× 7.92 mm MG 42 machine guns (coaxial with main gun and in the front hull) with 2.400 rounds
The kit and its assembly:
This converted Panzer III was spawned by the idea that, by 1944, this 1936 design could have been re-built for a different use than a battle tank – a task for which this medium tank had become much too light, with an utter lack of development potential. A dedicated recce variant appeared plausible. This idea was further promoted by the fact that I had a surplus VK 1602 turret in the donor bank, left over from a Hasegawa SdKfz. 234/2 “Puma”.
The chassis was taken from a Revell “Panzer III Ostwind” kit and modified in two ways. Firstly, I changed the glacis plate, replacing the old-school vertical front with a sloped alternative, crafted from styrene sheet pieces. A new ball mount for the hull machine gun was added, as well as periscopes for the crew on new hatches, which became possible through the smaller turret.
The turret opening in the hull had not to be adapted to the smaller Puma turret – the latter was only a little bit smaller than the opening, so that some spacers were enough to make it fit snuggly, and a thin “distance ring” between hull and turret was added, too, so that it would not directly sit on the body. Fairings for a stereoscopic rangefinder were added to the turret flanks, scratched from styrene profile material, and I also added a typical Panzer III stowage box to the turret’s rear. It had to be customized to the smaller “Puma” turret, but I think that this visual enlargement of the turret is a good balance to the rest of the hull, and the box changes the vehicle’s silhouette, too. The commando cupola from the Revell kit (which comes, beyond the open “Ostwind” AA turret, with a full, early standard Panzer III turret) was left open, using the hatch from the VK 1602 turret, and I put a figure into the opening – this German commanding officer is actually 1:76, but that’s not obvious. The figure comes IIRC from a Matchbox “Wespe” SPG that I built more than 30 years ago. Since the figure had somehow lost a leg in the meantime, the Panzerspähwagen III became a suitable new workplace for the handicapped, after having been stripped off of an old enamel paint layer and outfitted with a multi-colored new uniform. Other small changes include the scratched antenna mast for the vehicle’s uprated radio equipment (from heated sprue material) and some re-arranged external equipment.
As another, subtle gimmick, I replaced the original main wheels, for a different and somewhat confusing look. A simplified running gear, without rubber on the main wheels, appeared quite plausible for 1944 onwards. The new road wheels came from a Zvezda IS-2 tank. I had a dozen of these left over from another conversion project, just in the right number and their diameter is virtually identical to the Panzer III’s original wheels! Just the spare wheels had to be taken over from the Revell kit. The fiddly OOB segmented plastic tracks were replaced with soft vinyl tracks from a Panzer III/IV CMK aftermarket set. Personally, I find them easier to handle and to paint – due to their anthracite black color and the material’s smoothness. Nice stuff!
Painting and markings:
As a late WWII vehicle I decided to apply a non-standard/fictional paint scheme, something different from the popular “Hinterhalt” scheme, and I settled upon a pattern similar to an E-100 tank I had built a while ago. The scheme consists of an overall coat of grey-green (RLM02, a universal and omnipresent tone) with disrupting, large spots of dark grey (RAL 7021, Schwarzgrau), which were strategically placed over corners and edges of the hull, so that the outlines break up. I adapted the concept onto my modified Panzer III, but somehow this looked goofy – probably due to the much smaller size and classic tank silhouette of the vehicle: the whole affair was way too reminiscent of the Allied late-war “Mickey Mouse” scheme in olive drab and black!
In order to provide a more outstanding look and lighten everything up a little, I added small grey-green mottles to the dark grey areas. After that, however, the still uniform grey-green areas stood out, so that I eventually applied mottles in RAL 7028 (Dunkelgelb) to these areas, too. The contrast is rather low, but I think that the overall look is in the end more balanced with them, and the mottles overall help to break up the outlines even further – and the paint scheme looks more “different” now. The wheels and the running gear sections of the hull were – as a standard order of the time – left without the mottles, because the swirling patterns would be rather obvious when the vehicle was moving.
The basic tones are Revell 45, Humbrol 67 and ModelMaster 1584, later treated with a dark, red-brown overall washing with acrylic paint, dry-painting with a greyish beige all over (Revell 89, nice weathering tone for fresh, clayish mud) and some watercolor in ochre and umbra for dust and mud residues. Tactical markings are minimal and come from the Revell Ostwind kit and a Hasegawa Panther. Finally, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish and some mineral pigments were dusted onto the model’s lower areas.
An interesting result, and the fictional Panzerkampfwagen III looks IMHO disturbingly plausible, as it combines well-known elements and comes with subtle updates/modifications. And somehow the vehicle (unintentionally) reminds me a lot of the comparable M24 Chaffee. And isn’t there a certain look of a mini KV-1, due to the turret’s shape and proportions?
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
In the late 1970s the Mikoyan OKB began development of a hypersonic high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft. Designated "Izdeliye 301" (also known as 3.01), the machine had an unusual design, combining a tailless layout with variable geometry wings. The two engines fueled by kerosene were located side by side above the rear fuselage, with the single vertical fin raising above them, not unlike the Tu-22 “Blinder” bomber of that time, but also reminiscent of the US-American SR-71 Mach 3 reconnaissance aircraft.
Only few and rather corny information leaked into the West, and the 301 was believed not only to act as a reconnaissance plane , it was also believed to have (nuclear) bombing capabilities. Despite wind tunnel testing with models, no hardware of the 301 was ever produced - aven though the aircraft could have become a basis for a long-range interceptor that would replace by time the PVO's Tupolew Tu-28P (ASCC code "Fiddler"), a large aircraft armed solely with missiles.
Despite limitations, the Tu-28P served well in its role, but the concept of a very fast interceptor aircraft, lingered on, since the Soviet Union had large areas to defend against aerial intruders, esp. from the North and the East. High speed, coupled with long range and the ability to intercept an incoming target at long distances independently from ground guidance had high priority for the Soviet Air Defence Forces. Even though no official requirement was issued, the concept of Izdeliye 301 from the Seventies was eventually developed further into the fixed-wing "Izdeliye 701" ultra-long-range high-altitude interceptor in the 1980ies.
The impulse for this new approach came when Oleg S. Samoylovich joined the Mikoyan OKB after having worked at Suchoi OKB on the T-60S missile carrier project. Similar in overall design to the former 301, the 701 was primarily intended as a kind of successor for the MiG-31 Foxhound for the 21st century, which just had completed flight tests and was about to enter PVO's front line units.
Being based on a long range cruise missile carrier, the 701 would have been a huge plane, featuring a length of 30-31m, a wing span of 19m (featuring a highly swept double delta wing) and having a maximum TOW of 70 tons! Target performance figures included a top speed of 2.500km/h, a cruising speed of 2.100km/h at 17.000m and an effective range of 7.000km in supersonic or 11.000km in subsonic mode. Eventually, the 701 program was mothballed, too, being too ambitious and expensive for a specialized development that could also have been a fighter version of the Tu-22 bomber!
Anyway, while the MiG-31 was successfully introduced in 1979 and had evolved in into a capable long-range interceptor with a top speed of more than Mach 3 (limited to Mach 2.8 in order to protect the aircraft's structural integrity), MiG OKB decided in 1984 to take further action and to develop a next-generation technology demonstrator, knowing that even the formidable "Foxhound" was only an interim solution on the way to a true "Four plus" of even a 6th generation fighter. Other new threats like low-flying cruise missiles, the USAF's "Project Pluto" or the assumed SR-71 Mach 5 successor “Aurora” kept Soviet military officials on the edge of their seats, too.
Main objective was to expand the Foxhound's state-of the-art performance, and coiple it with modern features like aerodynamic instability, supercruise, stealth features and further development potential.
The aircraft's core mission objectives comprised:
- Provide strategic air defense and surveillance in areas not covered by ground-based air defense systems (incl. guidance of other aircraft with less sophisticated avionics)
- Top speed of Mach 3.2 or more in a dash and cruise at Mach 3.0 for prolonged periods
- Long range/high speed interception of airspace intruders of any kind, including low flying cruise missiles, UAVs and helicopters
- Intercept cruise missiles and their launch aircraft from sea level up to 30.000m altitude by reaching missile launch range in the lowest possible time after departing the loiter area
Because funding was scarce and no official GOR had been issued, the project was taken on as a private venture. The new project was internally known as "Izdeliye 710" or "71.0". It was based on both 301 and 701 layout ideas and the wind tunnel experiences with their unusual layouts, as well as Oleg Samoylovich's experience with the Suchoi T-4 Mach 3 bomber project and the T-60S.
"Izdeliye 710" was from the start intended only as a proof-of-concept prototype, yet fully functional. It would also incorporate new technologies like heat-resistant ceramics against kinetic heating at prolonged high speeds (the airframe had to resist temperatures of 300°C/570°F and more for considerable periods), but with potential for future development into a full-fledged interceptor, penetrator and reconnaissance aircraft.
Overall, “Izdeliye 710" looked like a shrinked version of a mix of both former MiG OKB 301 and 701 designs, limited to the MiG-31's weight class of about 40 tons TOW. Compared with the former designs, the airframe received an aerodynamically more refined, partly blended, slender fuselage that also incorporated mild stealth features like a “clean” underside, softened contours and partly shielded air intakes. Structurally, the airframe's speed limit was set at Mach 3.8.
From the earlier 301 design,the plane retained the variable geometry wing. Despite the system's complexity and weight, this solution was deemed to be the best approach for a combination of a high continuous top speed, extended loiter time in the mission’s patrol areas and good performance on improvised airfields. Minimum sweep was a mere 10°, while, fully swept at 68°, the wings blended into the LERXes. Additional lift was created through the fuselage shape itself, so that aerodynamic surfaces and therefore drag could be reduced.
Pilot and radar operator sat in tandem under a common canopy with rather limited sight. The cockpit was equipped with a modern glass cockpit with LCD screens. The aircraft’s two engines were, again, placed in a large, mutual nacelle on the upper rear fuselage, fed by large air intakes with two-dimensional vertical ramps and a carefully modulated airflow over the aircraft’s dorsal area.
Initially, the 71.0 was to be powered by a pair of Soloviev D-30F6 afterburning turbofans with a dry thrust of 93 kN (20,900 lbf) each, and with 152 kN (34,172 lbf) with full afterburner. These were the same engines that powered the MiG-31, but there were high hopes for the Kolesov NK-101 engine: a variable bypass engine with a maximum thrust in the 200kN range, at the time of the 71.0's design undergoing bench tests and originally developed for the advanced Suchoj T-4MS strike aircraft.
With the D-30F6, the 71.0 was expected to reach Mach 3.2 (making the aircraft capable of effectively intercepting the SR-71), but the NK-101 would offer in pure jet mode a top speed in excess of Mach 3.5 and also improve range and especially loiter time when running as a subsonic turbofan engine.
A single fin with an all-moving top and an additional deep rudder at its base was placed on top of the engine nacelle. Additional maneuverability at lower speed was achieved by retractable, all-moving foreplanes, stowed in narrow slits under the cockpit. Longitudinal stability at high speed was improved through deflectable stabilizers: these were kept horizontal for take-off and added to the overall lift, but they could be folded down by up to 60° in flight, acting additionally as stabilizer strakes.
Due to the aircraft’s slender shape and unique proportions, the 71.0 quickly received the unofficial nickname "жура́вль" (‘Zhurávl' = Crane). The aircaft’s stalky impression was emphasized even more through its unusual landing gear arrangement: Due to the limited internal space for the main landing gear wells between the weapons bay, the wing folding mechanisms and the engine nacelle, MiG OKB decided to incorporate a bicycle landing gear, normally a trademark of Yakovlew OKB designs, but a conventional landing gear could simply not be mounted, or its construction would have become much too heavy and complex.
In order to facilitate operations from improvised airfields and on snow the landing gear featured twin front wheels on a conventional strut and a single four wheel bogie as main wheels. Smaller, single stabilizer wheels were mounted on outriggers that retracted into slender fairings at the wings’ fixed section trailing edge, reminiscent of early Tupolev designs.
All standard air-to-air weaponry, as well as fuel, was to be carried internally. Main armament would be the K-100 missile (in service eventually designated R-100), stored in a large weapons bay behind the cockpit on a rotary mount. The K-100 had been under development at that time at NPO Novator, internally coded ‘Izdeliye 172’. The K-100 missile was an impressive weapon, and specifically designed to attack vital and heavily defended aerial targets like NATO’s AWACS aircraft at BVR distance.
Being 15’ (4.57 m) long and weighing 1.370 lb (620 kg), this huge ultra-long-range weapon had a maximum range of 250 mi (400 km) in a cruise/glide profile and attained a speed of Mach 6 with its solid rocket engine. This range could be boosted even further with a pair of jettisonable ramjets in tubular pods on the missile’s flanks for another 60 mi (100 km). The missile could attack targets ranging in altitude between 15 – 25,000 meters.
The weapon would initially be allocated to a specified target through the launch aircraft’s on-board radar and sent via inertial guidance into the target’s direction. Closing in, the K-100’s Agat 9B-1388 active seeker would identify the target, lock on, and independently attack it, also in coordination with other K-100’s shot at the same target, so that the attack would be coordinated in time and approach directions in order to overload defense and ensure a hit.
The 71.0’s internal mount could hold four of these large missiles, or, alternatively, the same number of the MiG-31’s R-33 AAMs. The mount also had a slot for the storage of additional mid- and short-range missiles for self-defense, e .g. three R-60 or two R-73 AAMs. An internal gun was not considered to be necessary, since the 71.0 or potential derivatives would fight their targets at very long distances and rather rely on a "hit-and-run" tactic, sacrificing dogfight capabilities for long loitering time in stand-by mode, high approach speed and outstanding acceleration and altitude performance.
Anyway, provisions were made to carry a Gsh-301-250 gun pod on a retractable hardpoint in the weapons bay instead of a K-100. Alternatively, such pods could be carried externally on four optional wing root pylons, which were primarily intended for PTB-1500 or PTB-3000 drop tanks, or further missiles - theoretically, a maximum of ten K-100 missiles could be carried, plus a pair of short-range AAMs.
Additionally, a "buddy-to-buffy" IFR set with a retractable drogue (probably the same system as used on the Su-24) was tested (71.2 was outfitted with a retractable refuelling probe in front of the cockpit), as well as the carriage of simple iron bombs or nuclear stores, to be delivered from very high altitudes. Several pallets with cameras and sensors (e .g. a high resolution SLAR) were also envisioned, which could easily replace the missile mounts and the folding weapon bay covers for recce missions.
Since there had been little official support for the project, work on the 710 up to the hardware stage made only little progress, since the MiG-31 already filled the long-range interceptor role in a sufficient fashion and offered further development potential.
A wooden mockup of the cockpit section was presented to PVO and VVS officials in 1989, and airframe work (including tests with composite materials on structural parts, including ceramic tiles for leading edges) were undertaken throughout 1990 and 1991, including test rigs for the engine nacelle and the swing wing mechanism.
Eventually, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 suddenly stopped most of the project work, after two prototype airframes had been completed. Their internal designations were Izdeliye 71.1 and 71.2, respectively. It took a while until the political situation as well as the ex-Soviet Air Force’s status were settled, and work on Izdeliye 710 resumed at a slow pace.
After taking two years to be completed, 71.1 eventually made its roll-out and maiden flight in summer 1994, just when MiG-31 production had ended. MiG OKB still had high hopes in this aircraft, since the MiG-31 would have to be replaced in the next couple of years and "Izdeliye 710" was just in time for the potential procurement process. The first prototype wore a striking all-white livery, with dark grey ceramic tiles on the wings’ leading edges standing out prominently – in this guise and with its futuristic lines the slender aircraft reminded a lot of the American Space Shuttle.
71.1 was primarily intended for engine and flight tests (esp. for the eagerly awaited NK-101 engines), as well as for the development of the envisioned ramjet propulsion system for full-scale production and further development of Izdeliye 710 into a Mach 3+ interceptor. No mission avionics were initially fitted to this plane, but it carried a comprehensive test equipment suite and ballast.
Its sister ship 71.2 flew for the first time in late 1994, wearing a more unpretentious grey/bare metal livery. This plane was earmarked for avionics development and weapons integration, especially as a test bed for the K-100 missile, which shared Izdeliye 710’s fate of being a leftover Soviet project with an uncertain future and an even more corny funding outlook.
Anyway, aircraft 71.2 was from the start equipped with a complete RP-31 ('Zaslon-M') weapon control system, which had been under development at that time as an upgrade for the Russian MiG-31 fleet being part of the radar’s development program secured financial support from the government and allowed the flight tests to continue. The RP-31 possessed a maximum detection range of 400 km (250 mi) against airliner-sized targets at high altitude or 200 km against fighter-sized targets; the typical width of detection along the front was given as 225 km. The system could track 24 airborne targets at one time at a range of 120 km, 6 of which could be simultaneously attacked with missiles.
With these capabilities the RP-31 suite could, coupled with an appropriate carrier airframe, fulfil the originally intended airspace control function and would render a dedicated and highly vulnerable airspace control aircraft (like the Beriev A-50 derivative of the Il-76 transport) more or less obsolete. A group of four aircraft equipped with the 'Zaslon-M' suite would be able to permanently control an area of airspace across a total length of 800–900 km, while having ultra-long range weapons at hand to counter any intrusion into airspace with a quicker reaction time than any ground-based fighter on QRA duty. The 71.0, outfitted with the RP-31/K-100 system, would have posed a serious threat to any aggressor.
In March 1995 both prototypes were eventually transferred to the Kerchenskaya Guards Air Base at Savasleyka in the Oblast Vladimir, 300 km east of Mocsow, where they received tactical codes of '11 Blue' and '12 Blue'. Besides the basic test program and the RP-31/K-100 system tests, both machines were directly evaluated against the MiG-31 and Su-27 fighters by the Air Force's 4th TsBPi PLS, based at the same site.
Both aircraft exceeded expectations, but also fell short in certain aspects. The 71.0’s calculated top speed of Mach 3.2 was achieved during the tests with a top speed of 3,394 km/h (2.108 mph) at 21,000 m (69.000 ft). Top speed at sea level was confirmed at 1.200 km/h (745 mph) indicated airspeed.
Combat radius with full weapon load and internal fuel only was limited to 1,450 km (900 mi) at Mach 0.8 and at an altitude of 10,000 m (33,000 ft), though, and it sank to a mere 720 km (450 mi) at Mach 2.35 and at an altitude of 18,000 m (59,000 ft). Combat range with 4x K-100 internally and 2 drop tanks was settled at 3,000 km (1,860 mi), rising to 5,400 km (3,360 mi) with one in-flight refueling, tested with the 71.2. Endurance at altitude was only slightly above 3 hours, though. Service ceiling was 22,800 m (74,680 ft), 2.000 m higher than the MiG-31.
While these figures were impressive, Soviet officials were not truly convinced: they did not show a significant improvement over the simpler MiG-31. MiG OKB tried to persuade the government into more flight tests and begged for access to the NK-101, but the Soviet Union's collapse halted this project, too, so that both Izdeliye 710 had to keep the Soloviev D-30F6.
Little is known about the Izdeliye 710 project’s progress or further developments. The initial tests lasted until at least 1997, and obviously the updated MiG-31M received official favor instead of a completely new aircraft. The K-100 was also dropped, since the R-33 missile and later its R-37 derivative sufficiently performed in the long-range aerial strike role.
Development on the aircraft as such seemed to have stopped with the advent of modernized Su-27 derivatives and the PAK FA project, resulting in the Suchoi T-50 prototype. Unconfirmed reports suggest that one of the prototypes (probably 71.1) was used in the development of the N014 Pulse-Doppler radar with a passive electronically scanned array antenna in the wake of the MFI program. The N014 was designed with a range of 420 km, detection target of 250km to 1m and able to track 40 targets while able to shoot against 20.
Most interestingly, Izdeliye 710 was never officially presented to the public, but NATO became aware of its development through satellite pictures in the early Nineties and the aircraft consequently received the ASCC reporting codename "Fastback".
Until today, only the two prototypes have been known to exist, and it is assumed – had the type entered service – that the long-range fighter had received the official designation "MiG-41".
General characteristics:
Crew: 2 (Pilot, weapon system officer)
Length (incl. pitot): 93 ft 10 in (28.66 m)
Wingspan:
- minimum 10° sweep: 69 ft 4 in (21.16 m)
- maximum 68° sweep: 48 ft 9 in (14,88 m)
Height: 23 ft 1 1/2 in (7,06 m )
Wing area: 1008.9 ft² (90.8 m²)
Weight: 88.151 lbs (39.986 kg)
Performance:
Maximum speed:
- Mach 3.2 (2.050 mph (3.300 km/h) at height
- 995 mph (1.600 km/h) supercruise speed at 36,000 ft (11,000 m)
- 915 mph (1.470 km/h) at sea level
Range: 3.705 miles (5.955 km) with internal fuel
Service ceiling: 75.000 ft (22.500 m)
Rate of climb: 31.000 ft/min (155 m/s)
Engine:
2x Soloviev D-30F6 afterburning turbofans with a dry thrust of 93 kN (20,900 lbf) each
and with 152 kN (34,172 lbf) with full afterburner.
Armament:
Internal weapons bay, main armament comprises a flexible missile load; basic ordnance of 4x K-100 ultra long range AAMs plus 2x R-73 short-range AAMs: other types like the R-27, R-33, R-60 and R-77 have been carried and tested, too, as well as podded guns on internal and external mounts. Alternatively, the weapon bay can hold various sensor pallets.
Four hardpoints under the wing roots, the outer pair “wet” for drop tanks of up to 3.000 l capacity, ECM pods or a buddy-buddy refueling drogue system. Maximum payload mass is 9000 kg.
The kit and its assembly
The second entry for the 2017 “Soviet” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com – a true Frankenstein creation, based on the scarce information about the real (but never realized) MiG 301 and 701 projects, the Suchoj T-60S, as well as some vague design sketches you can find online and in literature.
This one had been on my project list for years and I already had donor kits stashed away – but the sheer size (where will I leave it once done…?) and potential complexity kept me from tackling it.
The whole thing was an ambitious project and just the unique layout with a massive engine nacelle on top of the slender fuselage instead of an all-in-one design makes these aircraft an interesting topic to build. The GB was a good motivator.
“My” fictional interpretation of the MiG concepts is mainly based on a Dragon B-1B in 1:144 scale (fuselage, wings), a PM Model Su-15 two seater (donating the nose section and the cockpit, as well as wing parts for the fin) and a Kangnam MiG-31 (for the engine pod and some small parts). Another major ingredient is a pair of horizontal stabilizers from a 1:72 Hasegawa A-5 Vigilante.
Fitting the cockpit section took some major surgery and even more putty to blend the parts smoothly together. Another major surgical area was the tail; the "engine box" came to be rather straightforward, using the complete rear fuselage section from the MiG-31 and adding the intakes form the same kit, but mounted horizontally with a vertical splitter.
Blending the thing to the cut-away tail section of the B-1 was quite a task, though, since I not only wanted to add the element to the fuselage, but rather make it look a bit 'organic'. More than putty was necessary, I also had to made some cuts and transplantations. And after six PSR rounds I stopped counting…
The landing gear was built from scratch – the front wheel comes mostly from the MiG-31 kit. The central bogie and its massive leg come from a VEB Plasticart 1:100 Tu-20/95 bomber, plus some additional struts. The outriggers are leftover landing gear struts from a Hobby Boss Fw 190, mated with wheels which I believe come from a 1:200 VEB Plasticart kit, an An-24. Not certain, though. The fairings are slender MiG-21 drop tanks blended into the wing training edge. For the whole landing gear, the covers were improvised with styrene sheet, parts from a plastic straw(!) or leftover bits from the B-1B.
The main landing gear well was well as the weapons’ bay themselves were cut into the B-1B underside and an interior scratched from sheet and various leftover materials – I tried to maximize their space while still leaving enough room for the B-1B kit’s internal VG mechanism.
The large missiles (two were visible fitted and the rotary launcher just visibly hinted at) are, in fact, AGM-78 ‘Standard’ ARMs in a fantasy guise. They look pretty Soviet, though, like big brothers of the already not small R-33 missiles from the MiG-31.
While not in the focus of attention, the cockpit interior is completely new, too – OOB, the Su-15 cockpit only has a floor and rather stubby seats, under a massive single piece canopy. On top of the front wheel well (from a Hasegawa F-4) I added a new floor and added side consoles, scratched from styrene sheet. F-4 dashboards improve the decoration, and I added a pair of Soviet election seats from the scrap box – IIRC left over from two KP MiG-19 kits.
The canopy was taken OOB, I just cut it into five parts for open display. The material’s thickness does not look too bad on this aircraft – after all, it would need a rather sturdy construction when flying at Mach 3+ and withstanding the respective pressures and temperatures.
Painting
As a pure whif, I was free to use a weirdo design - but I rejected this idea quickly. I did not want a garish splinter scheme or a bright “Greenbottle Fly” Su-27 finish.
With the strange layout of the aircraft, the prototype idea was soon settled – and Soviet prototypes tend to look very utilitarian and lusterless, might even be left in grey. Consequently, I adapted a kind of bare look for this one, inspired by the rather shaggy Soviet Tu-22 “Blinder” bombers which carried a mix of bare metal and white and grey panels. With additional black leading edges on the aerodynamic surfaces, this would create a special/provisional but still purposeful look.
For the painting, I used a mix of several metallizer tones from ModelMaster and Humbrol (including Steel, Magnesium, Titanium, as well as matt and polished aluminum, and some Gun Metal and Exhaust around the engine nozzles, partly mixed with a bit of blue) and opaque tones (Humbrol 147 and 127). The “scheme” evolved panel-wise and step by step. The black leading edges were an interim addition, coming as things evolved, and they were painted first with black acrylic paint as a rough foundation and later trimmed with generic black decal stripes (from TL Modellbau). A very convenient and clean solution!
The radomes on nose and tail and other di-electric panels became dark grey (Humbrol 125). The cockpit tub was painted with Soviet Cockpit Teal (from ModelMaster), while the cockpit opening and canopy frames were kept in a more modest medium grey (Revell 57). On the outside of the cabin windows, a fat, deep yellow sealant frame (Humbrol 93, actually “Sand”) was added.
The weapon bay was painted in a yellow-ish primer tone (seen on pics of Tu-160 bombers) while the landing gear wells received a mix of gold and sand; the struts were painted in a mixed color, too, made of Humbrol 56 (Aluminum) and 34 (Flat White). The green wheel discs (Humbrol 131), a typical Soviet detail, stand out well from the rather subdued but not boring aircraft, and they make a nice contrast to the red Stars and the blue tactical code – the only major markings, besides a pair of MiG OKB logos under the cockpit.
Decals were puzzled together from various sheets, and I also added a lot of stencils for a more technical look. In order to enhance the prototype look further I added some photo calibration markings on the nose and the tail, made from scratch.
A massive kitbashing project that I had pushed away for years - but I am happy that I finally tackled it, and the result looks spectacular. The "Firefox" similarity was not intended, but this beast really looks like a movie prop - and who knwos if the Firefox was not inspired by the same projects (the MiG 301 and 701) as my kitbash model?
The background info is a bit lengthy, but there's some good background info concerning the aforementioned projects, and this aircraft - as a weapon system - would have played a very special and complex role, so a lot of explanations are worthwhile - also in order to emphasize that I di not simply try to glue some model parts together, but rather try to spin real world ideas further.
Mighty bird!
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz debated with MEPs during the 'This is Europe' series, calling for a united Europe capable of changing to secure its place in the world of tomorrow.
Chancellor Scholz stressed that Europe has a global responsibility beyond its borders “because the well-being of Europe cannot be separated from the well-being of the rest of the world.” The world of the 21st century, he said, “will be multipolar, it already is”. Chancellor Scholz identified three lessons for the EU: “First, Europe's future is in our hands. Secondly, the more united Europe is, the easier it will be to secure a good future for ourselves. And thirdly, not less but more openness and more cooperation are the order of the day.”
Read more in this press release: www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20230505IPR8500...
____
This photo is free to use under Creative Commons license CC-BY-4.0 and must be credited: "CC-BY-4.0: © European Union 2023– Source: EP". (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) No model release form if applicable. For bigger HR files please contact: webcom-flickr(AT)europarl.europa.eu
This shot ... taken Wednesday night in South Haven, MI (at the end of the night ... in almost not existent light) marks the end of an era:
For my first 3 years here I have used a free Flickr account. Today, I finally broke down and bought a Pro account. With an 18MP, video capable, Canon 7D as my primary photographic tool, the 100MB per month limit is finally starting to become a bother.
You'll see some major reorganization on my Flickr page in the coming month, as I upload many older images, and organize my sets by theme.
BTW ... I've heavily processed this photo ... including the application of a dry brush effect. I like the "moodiness" of the shot, but I accidentally underexposed it by a bunch, and at ISO 2000 the image quality was horrendous.
Dieselisation of Australia’s major railway systems got off to a slow start because of a lack of local builders capable of manufacturing this type of locomotive. As a result, initial orders were placed overseas, and it wasn’t until 1951, when the Clyde Engineering Co., of Granville, NSW, gained the licence to build General Motors EMD locomotives for the Australian market. Thereafter dieselisation proceeded at a rapid rate, checked only by the funds available. Other diesel builders emerged but Clyde retained the largest share of the market.
Clyde had built steam locomotives since 1907 and was fortunate in being one of the few steam locomotive builders to successfully make the transition from steam to diesel production. The eleven GM-class locomotives ordered by the Commonwealth Railways (Australian National’s Predecessor) were the first diesel-electrics to leave the Granville plant and the forerunners of almost 1300 units built to date.
Based on General Motors-EMD’s F-7 model, the design for the local product required considerable modification to conform to Australian loading gauges and axle load restrictions. This job fell to Fred Shea who produced a machine with a car body both lower and longer than its US counterpart. The resulting A-7 (ML1) model was highly successful. Also, whereas the North American units were carried on four-wheel bogies, the GMs required six-wheel bogies to distribute the weight for the lighter track then in use, the traction motors being mounted on the outer axles. They were given road numbers 1 to 11.
GM1 underwent its road trials over New South Wales Railways’ tracks on 24th August 1951 and on its delivery run ran as far as Albury. At Bandiana it was transferred to broad-gauge bogies and hauled the rest of the way to Port Pirie where it was once more lifted onto its own bogies. It was placed in service on 20th September. GM2, the museum’s engine, entered traffic almost a month later on 17th November. All 11 were working by 8th July 1952.
Forty-seven GMs were built, though 12-47 were more powerful locomotives rated at 1750 h.p. and equipped with six traction motors. To identify each type, Nos. 1-11 became the GM1-class and Nos. 12-47 the GM12-class. The CR also identified them as F-class (four motor) and S-class (six motor) in their Working Timetables.
Originally they were restricted to the ‘Transcontinental’ route between Port Pirie and Kalgoorlie but, as the standard-gauge network expanded, they ranged farther afield. Eventually they were to work in all mainland states except Queensland.
The success of Fred Shea’s modifications to the original design can be gauged from the fact that variations of it were ordered by the Victorian Railways, New South Wales Railways and the North-Western Railway of Pakistan. All the GMs passed to the control of Australian National on 1st March 1978, and the first were not condemned until 1988. Most have had a lifespan well in excess of 30 years and only now are they being displaced by the more powerful DL and EL classes.
GM2 was set aside for the Museum and was placed there on 2.8.1991
www.nrm.org.au/collections/31-search-our-collections/142-...
Massive Supercarrier capable of carrying hundreds of starfighters, shuttles, dropships, and bombers.
Length (hull): 1800m
Length (w/ antennas): 2015m
Width: 620m
This is the end result of the other 2/3 of the medium Triplet that wasn't used for the Dreadnought. Same method, I copied the remaining 2/3 of the ship and fused it together, then modified it by adding turrets, missile turrets, missile pods, a main hangar underneath the ship, and side hangar bays. The result is an offset bridge tower that I have quickly become a huge fan of.
The scale I used for these ships is 1 stud = 31 meters
LDD Download: www.dropbox.com/s/z8eo5nqylw7fib5/Supercarrier.lxf?dl=0
Coachwork by Carrozzeria Figoni
Chassis n° 55221
24 Hrs du Mans 1932
n° 15
Team : Guy Bouriat
Result : Not finished
Engine : 2.262 cc
Guy Bouriat (F)
Louis Chiron (MC)
Les Grandes Marques du Monde au Grand Palais 2020
Bonhams
Parijs - Paris
Frankrijk - France
February 2020
Estimated : € 4.000.000 - 7.000.000
Sold for € 4.600.000
Here, Bonhams proudly offers the renowned 'Geoffrey St John', 56-years in his ownership, 1932 Bugatti Type 55 Supersport with its unique, 1933-fitted, Figoni coachwork. This magnificent high-performance, Post-Vintage Thoroughbred two-seater began life as a works-backed Bugatti entry in the 1932 Le Mans 24-Hour race. It was co-driven there by two of France's most capable and charismatic drivers, the aristocratic Sarthois (from Le Mans) Count Guy Bouriat Quintart and the renowned Monegasque future French Champion, Louis Chiron.
While this 2.3-litre supercharged straight-8 Bugatti originated with a spartan lightweight racing body tailored to that year's Le Mans 24-Hour regulations, following its post-race sale to Parisian magazine publisher Jacques Dupuy it was speedily rebodied in Boulogne sur-Seine on the outskirts of Paris by the now legendary Italian-born stylist/coachbuilder Giuseppe Figoni.
Following an awards-rich early history in France, this mouth-watering sports Bugatti survived World War 2 and, as long ago as August, 1963 – some 56 years ago – it was acquired by its long standing owner, leading British Bugattiste, Geoffrey St John.
This magnificent car became the apple of his eye, and he was devastated in June 1994 when it was involved in a road accident in France, assailed by a speeding car driven by a youth who was both uninsured, and drunk. Frontal damage to the car was beautifully repaired in a subsequent, utterly painstaking 5,000-hour restoration, from which his Bugatti Type 55 – chassis '55221' – re-emerged, the vast majority of its original St John-ownership fabric having been successfully preserved and repaired...A photographic record of the restoration has been documented by Independent Bugatti Consultant Mark Morris.
In fact, Bugatti Type 55 chassis '55221' was ordered by Guy Bouriat as early as January 1, 1932. The order form specifies: "2.3 litre Supersport car, Type 55, supercharged, 4-seat torpedo body, complying with Le Mans regulations. With 6 Bugatti wheels and all necessary accessories for a 24 hours race. Automatic fuel cap." The address on the form is Bouriat's family home in Paris, 44 Rue Fabert, near the Champ de Mars. No trace has been found in the factory archives of any related invoice or payment – perhaps indicative of it having been treated as a works entry for Bouriat as an established (and well connected) racing driver.
To meet this formal order, chassis No. '55221'/(initial) engine '14' was assembled at the works in April 1932, concurrent with sister chassis using engines '15' and '16'. It was factory-bodied as a torpedo, the Molsheim bodyshop register recording it as being the first of the bodies built in June 1932: "Carr 24h . 55/14 -55221. juin 32". The car was then delivered to Paris by road on June 11th, 1932 – ready for the following weekend's important race at Le Mans.
Le Mans 24-Hours - June 18-19, 1932.
Guy Bouriat and Louis Chiron in '55221' starred under race number '15' amongst the 27 entries for this late-Depression-era 24-Hour Grand Prix d'Endurance.
Charles Faroux of the journal 'L'Auto' reported: "There are four Bugattis entered of which two, above all, deserve attention by the speed they achieved during testing days: one is at the hands of Chiron and Bouriat, while the other has Count Czaykowski and the brave Friderich as pilots... I would not be at all surprised to see these two pairs fight hard with the Alfa Romeos, as did the Bentleys and Mercedes."
While '55221' was fitted with a 130-litre fuel tank, the sister Type 55 for Count Czaykowski/Friderich had only a 115-litre tank. In the opening race period, four Alfa Romeo 8C-2300s led, with this Bouriat/Chiron Bugatti keeping pace in fifth place. But, as Faroux then reported: "At the beginning of the third hour, we are told to the astonishment of everyone, that Bouriat, then fifth, (has) run out of gas... Bouriat was helped to the pit. Of course he is declared out of the race since his forced stop happened on the 22nd lap when he had two more laps to run before refuelling" – having thus infringed the organising ACO club's unpitying minimum refuelling distance rule.
The 'L'Auto' issue of June 20, 1932, then described how: "Wisely, Bouriat and Chiron had lined their tank with a thick piece of felt and duckboard providing good protection against flying stones. This protection could not extend to a small part above the rear axle trumpet; it is in this small gap that a stone stuck, bending the metal sheet which resisted, but whose crimping parted and let 50 litres of gas leak through it. Bouriat, then in his twentieth lap, who knew he could run forty more laps on his fuel, thought there was a breakdown of his fuel supply and finds his carburettor empty and the floats, lacking damping, detached. Unavoidable withdrawal. Having abandoned, he is given 5 litres of fuel to go back to the pit. It is while refuelling to return to the pit that he sees the leak in the tank and realizes the cause of it. What a terrible tragedy...".
This Bugatti '55221' had in fact represented the French industry's best hope of a home win at Le Mans that year, but its split fuel tank helped leave the course clear for Raymond Sommer/Luigi Chinetti to win – for Alfa Romeo and Italy...
Post-race, '55221' was sold to Jacques Dupuy, motoring-enthusiast son of Paul Dupuy, proprietor of the newspaper 'Le Petit Parisien', and founder of the magazines 'Mirroir des Sports' and 'Sciences et Vie'. In a 1992 letter to Pierre-Yves Laugier, Jacques Dupuy recalled: "I bought the Bugatti from Guy Bouriat. It was a black 2+2 torpedo with light aluminium body. The car could reach 200 km/h...I kept it with its bucket seats for a few months before taking it to Figoni's. It was bodied there according to my drawings. The steel body was black and white. The dashboard was in black leather...I sold the car about three or four years later, after the 1936 Paris-Nice rally, to Monsieur Gandon, a wine and spirits merchant at 152 Boulevard Hausmann."
Between 1928 and 1933, the Figoni bodyshop at "14 rue Lemoine, Boulogne, Seine", bodied some 77 Bugattis.
Jean Dupuy's order for this Bugatti Type 55 appears in the Figoni register in February 1933, while the August issue that year of 'L'Équipement Automobile' carries a profile drawing of the car and cites its Nitrolac enamel paintwork as being "iris black and Leda white".
M. Dupuy also recalled how: "During my custody, I had to go twice to the factory one of them was for repairing the compressor (factory note dated March 21st 1933). I won the Paris-Nice rally in 1933 beating the Alfa Romeos in the Sport category. At La Turbie, I reached 83km/h standing start. This car is the 2300cc single shaft...which was maintained for me by Mr Rocatti, a Bugatti specialist in Paris who had a garage at Buttes-Chaumont".
XIIth Critérium International de Tourisme Paris-Nice, 1933
The journal 'L'Auto' for March 30th 1933 described how the Paris-Nice Rally was to be run in three stages: Paris-Vichy, Vichy-Marseille and Marseille-Nice. Jacques Dupuy's Type 55 would run as number '52' in up-to-3-litre Class D. In the 1km Michelet stage – with standing start and flying finish - Dupuy set the fastest time, of 34 seconds, averaging 105,882km/h (66.09mph). Upon arrival in Nice on April 3rd, an idling and acceleration test took place on the Quai des États-Unis in which Dupuy's Bugatti set times of 49.6 secs and 18 secs respectively.
Next day, in a 500 metres trial before thousands of spectators on the Promenade des Anglais Dupuy again bettered the rival Alfa Romeos of Gunzburg and Weinberg, at 142,860 km/h (88mph). In the final stage on the famous 6.3km (3.9-mile) La Turbie hill-climb, Dupuy finally won the Paris-Nice event overall, with a climb time of 4mins 25.6secs, 85.391km/h (53mph). The 'L'Auto' report described how: "Victory goes to Jacques Dupuy. This young pilot had a 2.3 litre double camshaft Bugatti at his disposal. No need to be a pre-eminent driver and Jacques Dupuy never had such pretentiousness. But you had to own a car complying with the regulations. The 2.3 litre Bugatti fully satisfied. In congratulating Dupuy, one must not forget the maker of Molsheim...".
The Bois de Boulogne Concours d'Elégance - June 24, 1933
Two months after his Paris-Nice victory Jacques Dupuy entered his freshly Figoni-bodied Bugatti '55221' in the annual Parisian Grand Concours d'Elégance. The Countess de Rivals-Mazères had been invited "to enhance his convertible" and after the car had won the 'L'Auto'-sponsored first class judged, for over 10hp open cars, the Countess helped show it in two further categories backed by the journals 'Fémina' and 'L'Intransigeant' In the third category (cars over 15 HP presented by ladies and driven by a chauffeur in livery), Mme de Rivals-Mazères – accompanied by two Scottie dogs - "sur Bugatti 17C cabriolet transformable Figoni" won a Spark gramophone...
Owner Dupuy recovered his laurelled thoroughbred and would use it for three more years before selling it, as he recalled, to Marcel Gandon.
The new owner was the 38-year-old son of wine merchant Alphonse Gandon, of 152 Boulevard Hausmann, Paris, but he kept '55221' only briefly – from early-1936 to April 1937 – when he bought a brand-new Type 57S Atalante. On November 28, 1936, the unique Figoni-bodied Type 55 was sold via Bugatti to Garage Bayard, 22 Rue Bayard, Paris, the sale document stating: "Sold to garage Bayard one car Type 55 N° 55221, engine 14 (ex Gandon) 2 seat roadster bodywork (convertible by Figoni) in good working order, second hand sold as is for a net price of 25 000 francs".
Paris-Saint-Raphaël Rallye Féminin 1937
The Garage Bayard was run by Charles de Lavoreille, Jacques de Valence and a M. Richer-Delavau and the latter's wife ran '55221' in the March 17-22, 1937 'IXe Paris-Saint-Raphaël Féminin' – entry number '48', facing a 1,039 km route to be completed in five days, staging through Nevers, Clermont-Ferrand, Orange and Toulon. In initial 500 metres standing start, and 1km flying-start tests at Nevers Mme Richer-Delavau placed 6th in each, and in the Saint-Sébastien hill-climb at Saint Raphaël, she maintained her position with a time of 47.8secs, behind Mmes Lamberjack and Lucy O'Reilly Schell in their Delahaye Sport. Overall in the Rally she would finish sixth and fifth in class.
M. Laugier's Bugatti records show that on December 27, 1937, an un-named Parisian enthusiast bought '55221' from Garage Bayard. This might have been Roger Teillac, a Bugatti specialist based in the Avenue de Suffren, as his archives contain three pictures of the car, but wearing a 1938 Nancy licence plate. Teillac possibly maintained the car for another owner 1938-39 or had taken back the car in the post-war summer of 1946 when his establishment repaired its oil sump, split by frost.
Certainly, Louis Stephanazzi had acquired the car on May 7, 1938, and registered it '5658 KU 5' to his home address of 49bis Avenue Anatole France, Nancy. Family memory recalls that the car was hidden dismantled during the war in the garage that Stephanazzi ran in town. The Germans requisitioned his garage where they would repair their vehicles. At the back were a Bugatti Type 57 convertible, bought in Paris in August 1938, and the 55 roadster, which both survived the conflict.
On September 16, 1946, the Type 55 was sold in Paris under licence plate '4239 RP 4' and one month later, it passed to André Couston, a dealer from Nice, resident at 4bis Avenue Mont Alban. On October 18, 1946 he re-registered the car '3286 BA 8'. At the time André Couston also owned the first Type 55 roadster, chassis '55201'.
On July 30th 1948, '55221' returned to Paris, registered '7220 RQ 4'. Its owner was possibly Jacques Devinot who told M. Laugier in June 1993: "I owned three Bugattis...(including)...the Type 55 convertible...bought around 1948 from a garage near Porte de Champerret. It was then sold to Mr Bierlein from Paris in 1950 who sold it to a Canadian man. I found it back later at Docime's, dismantled. The registration papers were never changed and the Canadian man came to see me to get a sale certificate which I refused to do, having already done one for Mr Bierlein. When I bought the car, the chassis had been bent and I had to dismantle the car and correct it. As I see it, every bit was original on the car which was in a cream and black livery". He also had a luggage rack installed by Figoni»
The Police register confirms M. Devinot's dates, while a letter from him states that in August 1950 the Bugatti was owned by Gaston Bierlein, of Hôtel Pylone 1, Megève, Haute-Savoie. He kept the car for five years before selling it on March 24, 1955, to Canadian journalist Douglas Lachance, of 59 Avenue Hoche, Paris. The car – with its engine dismantled or removed - was then consigned to leading Bugatti specialist Gaston Docime, in the Rue de la Saussaie, Neuilly-sur-Seine. It remained in there until August 28, 1962 when British Type 55 enthusiast Anthony Austin Morse, a dentist of 4 Westfield Road, Rugby, imported it into England, less engine, with a £20 deposit on the import duty pending valuation.
A. A. Morse then owned three Type 55s - '55220', '55221' and '55223' – but he quickly sold the unique Figoni-bodied example to Henry H. Thomas of White Cottage, Belmond Park Road, Maidenhead, proprietor of the Fernley Service Station, who on July 25, 1963, re-sold it to Geoffrey St John, of Woodland Cottage, Greenwich Lane, Leafield, Oxon for £750
In a letter to Geoffrey St John, dated August 12, 1963, the eminent British Bugatti Registrar Hugh Conway wrote: "I did point out the engineless car to Morse, at Docime's, which he bought for £100 and sold to Thomas..." In another letter, Conway remarked that the engine of '55221' could have been sold by Docime in the USA.
Geoffrey St John restored the car to running order with engine 26 ex 55223 installed. It became a stable-mate for his Type 35B and Type 51 Grand Prix cars and it has remained in this single family ownership to this day. Geoffrey St John was a talented technician working for Smiths Industries, and eventually became the company's Chief Engineer, while dedicating most of his spare time to Bugatti restoration, tuning and racing. He was a most talented driver and became the sporting Bugatti marque's foremost British exponent over many years. He was exceptionally highly regarded as a twin-cam 2.3 Bugatti specialists, and always took particular delight in driving '55221' widely throughout the UK, and in Continental Europe, particularly – of course in France.
It was on a French road – near Auxerre in June 1994 – that he had the misfortune to be hit by a drunken driver, as described. The damage sustained took some two years of work to put right, Geoffrey St John being determined (at considerable extra expense) to save absolutely all of the car's original fabric that had escaped total destruction. Chassis straightening, keeping all the original parts, was carried out by renowned British specialist Gino Hoskins (Images on file).
A November 2019 inspection report on the car has been compiled by leading French Bugatti authority Pierre-Yves Laugier. He sums up its present condition thus: "The car keeps its original chassis, repaired in 1994. It (the original element of the chassis) is 90% complete with a few additional strengthening plates added according to Christian Huet, Parisian expert in charge of the accident file. The exterior of the car after restoration was completely in accordance with the original after more than 5,000 hours work.
"It (then) took part in its first event in the summer of 1996 (and so) the only Figoni roadster on a Supersport Type 55 Bugatti chassis is ready to join the world of rallies and concours d'élégance. It remains one of the most beautiful expressions of a Sports car by a coachbuilder, multi-purpose and powerful, one of the most important witnesses of the golden era of coachbuilding and know-how of the Bugatti brand..."
In detail M. Laugier observed: "The frame bore number 22, but the fixing hole of the spare wheel shows only one of the '2s' (the other having been drilled through). The front axle is of the right type, with no number and is probably new". In fact Geoffrey St John always maintained that the current front axle is an original, Bugatti-manufactured, hollow front axle of correct Type 55 specification...
M. Laugier continued: "The engine (comprising a matched pair of upper and lower crankcase castings – the left-rear mounting leg of which carries) assembly number '48' from roadster '55223'/engine '26'. One observes important welding traces under the rear-left mounting piece. Front-left mounting piece (the integrally cast engine leg), which was completely destroyed in the accident, was melted down and re-cast from a pattern amongst Geoffrey St John's spare parts collection. The re-cast leg was then welded back into place.
The clutch casing carries on both parts number '14'. Both gearbox and rear-axle sumps were rewelded after the accident. Traces are still visible on the original parts.
"The car was equipped with an overdrive. Compressor No '33' is ancient and of the right kind, but is not the one on the car in 1933, because a note of the repair workshop for compressors dated March 21st, 1933. states: 'Compressor 55 N° 45, Mr Rocatti, Paris, client Mr Dupuy, milling of notches in the chambers' The body of the gearbox is engraved (stamped) '39'. It is probably the factory replacement box, following the 38 (other such gearboxes that were) produced from 1931 to 1933.
"It could have been fitted to the car after one of the races in which it took part between 1933 and 1937. The original gearbox of the car, No '14', is today on a Type 55 chassis '55235' with a British history and which in 1962 was equipped with a Cotal gearbox. The original rear axle numbered '14' is the original one (installed in) the car and has race type ratio of 14 x 54 instead of the usual 13 x 54 of the first Type 55."
Mark Morris adds: "The front axle is of the right type, with no number" .
Pierre-Yves Laugier's report continues: "The fixed parts of the body are made of steel, while the opening parts are made of aluminium. After the accident in 1994, the wooden dashboard was rebuilt as the original wood board was split in two. The aluminium part of the bonnet had also to be completely replaced as well as the left front wing and the right door. Most of the wooden structure was kept. The work was carried out at Terry Hall's workshop. Drums and left front brake shoe were rewelded and two brake shoes were replaced. The wheel rim of several wheels was redone by welding - particularly visible on the spare wheel."
M. Laugier further observes: "The chassis plate of the vehicle is ancient. It wears number '55221', apparently over-stamped. It is of the Type 57 'Bas-Rhin' type and the number '57282' can be detected underneath (which) tallies with a Type 57 chassis number delivered in the Nord department in April 1935".
Since completion of restoration work in 1996 until Mr St John's recent passing, '55221' was regularly exercised by him. In similar style to the modern-day Bugatti Veyron, Chiron and EB110 models – which are both a schoolboy pin-up and a modern car collector's dream - so in its heyday the Bugatti Type 55 was a hugely coveted automotive jewel.
It is in essence a Grand Prix car with sports bodywork for use on the open road, powered by a 2.3-litre supercharged twin-cam 8-cylinder engine –as developed for the multiple Grand Prix-winning Bugatti Type 51 and only moderately detuned. Even in 1932 this power unit's blistering power and torque endowed the Type 55 with 0-60mph acceleration in 13 seconds and the hitherto unheard-of top speed – for a road car - of 115mph.
Even in the backwash from The Great Depression, the most style-conscious of high-society glitterati all aspired to the Type 55 – and, with its technical specification and haute couture body styling, it was squarely aimed at the most wealthy...and the most dashing...clientele such as the Duc de la Tremoille, Victor Rothschild and Nicholas Embiricos. With its contemporary price tag of some $7,500, Bugatti produced only 38 Type 55s, 27 of which are now known to survive.
And amongst them, this Figoni-bodied example – with its waistline-level doors offering proper cockpit wprotection in contrast to the doorless, cut-down cockpit sides of the more common Jean Bugatti roadster style – is unique. It is offered here in running order, accompanied by not only the immensely fine-detailed Pierre-Yves Laugier and Mark Morris inspection and history reports, but also by a substantial array of relevant spare parts. After 56 years in one ownership this is – when judged by the highest standards - a unique example of perhaps the most mouth-watering of all Bugatti models, and a definitive connoisseur's car to be truly, truly, coveted...
Lest we forget what we are capable of.
Manzanar National Historic Site, block 34 mess hall garden, outside of Lone Pine, CA. This must have been a beautiful little water garden. The curves in the pond and the placement of the rocks was awesome. Guide says it is one of the most elaborate in the relocation center. But, it can't hide how desolate this must have seemed for people forced to live here.
Brighter foreground version of this shot (original is previous in this set). This one looks better on most monitors. The other was a bit too dark.
Added to the Cream of the Crop pool as personal favorite
The iconic hack capable, Seiko 6105-8110 which I seldomly wear.
I'm surprised to discover that near mint examples of this vintage diver's watch now easily fetches at least US$700 on eBay. Not bad, considering that I snagged it for less than US$260 back in 2007! 😁
The 6105-8000/8110 series divers have been prominently featured in popular culture during the late Vietnam War era, e.g. Martin Sheen wore one on the movie Apocalypse Now! (1979) while Kiefer Sutherland strapped a 6105 for his role in A Soldier's Sweetheart (1998).
1. Treading water...
This is a deep contemplation on who is the one to decide just how amazing or beautiful or smart or capable you are anyway? Sometimes we just tread water and make it through the day or even swim against the tide when it comes to our own growth and development. Sometimes we wait for the priest to tell us, or a teacher or therapist or spouse or any outside consultant to bring us to the next level. As kids we fall down so often, learning to walk, riding a bike, skating or skiing...we just got up and hold on to the vision that we could do it. That we just might be as amazing as we sometimes allow ourselves to think we are when it comes to what is in our heart.
2. Reviving Energy...
Yes it takes some effort to get the mechanism going again if it has been shut off for a while. Take the time and focus to find it again...it will change everything. Breathing, meditating, doodling, playing an instrument, hugging a tree, taking a photo of something that makes your insides bubble with enthusiasm.
3. Sustaining Trust in Wings...
It's often easier to see other people's gifts and talents than our own. No one is so special as not to have at least one. If we are honest, we sometimes don't spend the necessary time to develop it and LET IT LEAD US into knowing ourselves better. We've come here to play in the way that we did as children. Immersed in deep imagination and seeing the next adventure long before we even enter the scene...trust in those jumps and leaps into fulfillment.
4. Free to Be
Who can tell you who you are? Who can measure your success? Who can judge your character? Who looks back at you when you look in the mirror? Arise, see the winged version of your soul and energize it again. Time waits for no one but generously pours itself through every breath.
Dare yourself to not be ordinary today.
"You've got to have a dream, if you don't have a dream, how you gonna have a dream come true???" " Happy Talk" (Song from the 1958 musical, "South Pacific")
Mons Meg est une bombarde médiévale (XVe siècle) de la collection des Royal Armouries prêtée à Historic Scotland. Elle symbolise le passé militaire glorieux de l'Écosse. Cet impressionnant canon de siège de 6 tonnes, de calibre 20 pouces (510 mm) est capable de tirer des boulets de pierre pesant 330 livres (150 kgs) jusqu'à 2 miles de distance (3,2 kms). A l’origine le canon était peint avec du plomb rouge pour l’empêcher de rouiller. Il fallait cent hommes pour le transporter. Avec l'énorme "canon des Dardanelles" en bronze coulé de 17 tonnes fabriquée en 1464 pour le sultan turc Mohamet II (exposé à présent dans la cour de la Tour de Londres), ces bombardes sont parmi les plus gros canons jamais construits. L'auteur anglais Dudley Pope cite le Mons Meg mais également le Dulle Griet de Gand comme exemples des plus gros canons construits au Moyen Age, et dit des deux qu'ils "ont probablement été fabriqués en "Flandre" (région qui deviendra plus tard la Belgique et que les Français appelaient "Pays-Bas"). Le "Dulle Griet mesurait plus de 5 m de long pesait 12.5 tonnes avec un calibre à la bouche d'environ 90 cm. Il était peint en rouge sang lui valant le surnom de « grand démon rouge ». Le nom flamand Griet et le nom anglais Meg sont tous deux des diminutifs du nom de Margaret (ou Margriet), équivalents du français Marguerite. Mons Meg a été construit par Jehan Cambier, fabricant d'artillerie du duc de Bourgogne Philippe le Bonet il a été testé avec succès à Mons dans le comté de Hainaut dans l'actuelle Belgique, en juin 1449. Le duc n'en prendra livraison qu'en 1453. Le duc a offert la bombarde au roi d'Écosse James II en 1457 dont il avait aidé à négocier le mariage en signe de son soutien.
Le canon est fabriqué selon la méthode qui consistait à forger ensemble des barres de fer droites autour d'un mandrin, et de les consolider ensuite avec des cercles de fer, dilatés par chauffe et brusquement refroidis à l'eau pour provoquer un rétrécissement, à la manière des barriques. La manière dont ces canons sont fabriqués ainsi que les variations de qualité de la poudre noire dont les ingrédients étaient souvent transportés séparément et mélangés sur place, en faisait des armes très peu fiables. Les explosions n'étaient pas rares, et on peut dire que ces bombardes étaient plus dangereuses pour leurs servants que pour ceux sur qui on tirait. L'effet psychologique de la flamme et du tonnerre au départ du coup étaient plus impressionnant que le gros boulet de pierre. Il faut également imaginer la somme d'efforts et d'énergie nécessaires au déplacement de ces énormes pièces, ainsi que la difficulté de leur mise en batterie. Une fois en place, ces bombardes ne pouvaient plus être déplacées, et tout réglage de visée était exclu. Elles ne pouvaient tirer qu'une dizaine de coups par jour au maximum en raison de l’énorme chaleur générée par la charge de poudre, et si leurs gros boulets de pierre parvenaient à ouvrir des brèches dans des murailles pas trop épaisses, ils étaient pratiquement sans effet contre l'infanterie et la cavalerie, qui pouvait les voir arriver de loin et les éviter assez aisément.
La bombarde a été employée dans les sièges jusqu'au milieu du XVIe siècle. Probablement pour la première fois en 1460 au château de Roxburgh près de la frontière avec l'Angleterre. Au cours de cette bataille, le roi Jacques II d'Écosse a été mortellement blessé lorsqu'un autre canon de siège géant a explosé. En 1489, elle a été emmenée à 80 km (50 miles) à l'ouest du château de Dumbarton (puis le château de Norham), pour aider à maîtriser le comte de Lennox. Le poids énorme de Mons Meg la rendait très difficile à déplacer. Sa vitesse moyenne n'était que de 14 kms (9 miles) par jour. Elle termina ses jours de combat dans la marine du roi Jacques V, prenant sa retraite vers 1540. Elle ne fut tiré ensuite que lors d'occasions cérémonielles : en 1558 pour célébrer le mariage de Mary Queen of Scots avec le dauphin français, puis de nouveau en 1681, en guise de salut d'anniversaire pour le futur roi Jacques VII. Malheureusement le baril éclata rendant le Mons Meg inutilisable (les cerceaux fracturés sont encore visibles). En 1754, Mons Meg fut emmenée à la Tour de Londres, où il y resta 75 ans. Il est ramené au château en 1829. La cavalerie et l’infanterie l’escortent de Leith Docks à Castle Rock. Mons Meg a depuis été restauré et est maintenant exposé dans le château. Il reste très populaire aujourd’hui auprès des touristes, qui ne résistent pas à mettre la tête dans l'énorme canon…
Mons Meg is a medieval (15th century) bombard from the collection of the Royal Armories on loan to Historic Scotland. It symbolizes Scotland's glorious military past. This impressive 6-ton, 20-inch (510 mm) caliber siege gun is capable of firing stone balls weighing 330 pounds (150 kg) up to 2 miles away (3.2 km). Originally the barrel was painted with red lead to prevent it from rusting. It took a hundred men to transport it. Together with the massive 17-tonne cast bronze 'Dardanelle Cannon' made in 1464 for the Turkish Sultan Mohammet II (now on display in the courtyard of the Tower of London), these bombards are among the largest cannons ever built. The English author Dudley Pope cites the Mons Meg but also the Dulle Griet of Ghent as examples of the largest guns built in the Middle Ages, and says of both that they "were probably made in 'Flanders' (a region which later became Belgium and which the French called "Pays-Bas"). The "Dulle Griet was more than 5 m long, weighed 12.5 tons with a caliber at the muzzle of about 90 cm. He was painted blood red, earning him the nickname "great red demon". The Flemish name Griet and the English name Meg are both diminutives of the name Margaret (or Margriet), equivalents of the French Marguerite. Mons Meg was built by Jehan Cambier, artillery maker for the Duke of Burgundy Philippe le Bonet it was successfully tested in Mons in the county of Hainaut in present-day Belgium, in June 1449. The duke never took delivery of it than in 1453. The Duke gifted the bombard to King James II of Scotland in 1457 whose marriage he had helped negotiate as a sign of his support.
The barrel is made by the method of forging straight iron bars together around a mandrel, and then consolidating them with iron hoops, expanded by heating and suddenly cooled with water to cause shrinkage, to the way of the barrels. The way in which these guns are made as well as the variations in quality of black powder whose ingredients were often transported separately and mixed on site, made them very unreliable weapons. Explosions were not uncommon, and it can be said that these bombards were more dangerous for their servants than for those who were fired at. The psychological effect of the flame and the thunder at the start of the blow were more impressive than the large stone ball. One must also imagine the amount of effort and energy required to move these huge pieces, as well as the difficulty of putting them in battery. Once in place, these bombards could no longer be moved, and any aiming adjustment was excluded. They could only fire about ten shots a day at the most because of the enormous heat generated by the powder charge, and if their big stone balls managed to open breaches in walls not too thick, they were practically without effect against infantry and cavalry, which could see them coming from afar and avoid them quite easily.
The bombard was used in sieges until the middle of the 16th century. Probably first seen in 1460 at Roxburgh Castle near the border with England. During this battle, King James II of Scotland was mortally wounded when another giant siege cannon exploded. In 1489, she was taken 80 km (50 miles) west of Dumbarton Castle (then Norham Castle), to help subdue the Earl of Lennox. Mons Meg's enormous weight made her very difficult to move. Its average speed was only 14 kms (9 miles) per day. She ended her days of combat in the navy of King James V, retiring around 1540. She was only fired afterwards on ceremonial occasions: in 1558 to celebrate the marriage of Mary Queen of Scots to the French Dauphin, then to again in 1681, as a birthday greeting for the future King James VII. Unfortunately the barrel burst rendering the Mons Meg unusable (the fractured hoops are still visible). In 1754, Mons Meg was taken to the Tower of London, where he remained for 75 years. He was brought back to the castle in 1829. Cavalry and infantry escorted him from Leith Docks to Castle Rock. Mons Meg has since been restored and is now on display in the castle. It remains very popular today with tourists, who can't resist putting their heads in the huge cannon...
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
Seeking a domestic aircraft manufacturer, the Brazilian government made several investments in this area during the 1940s and '50s, but it was not until 1969 that Empresa Brasileira de Aeronáutica (EMBRAER) was created as a government-owned corporation. Born from a Brazilian government plan and having been state-run from the beginning, EMBRAER began a privatization process alongside many other state-controlled companies during the government of Fernando Henrique Cardoso. This privatization effort saw EMBRAER sold on December 7, 1994, and helped it avoid a looming bankruptcy.
The company's first product was a turboprop transport, the EMBRAER EMB 110 Bandeirante. In the course of years, both civil and military aircraft were developed, the focus shifted more and more to airliners, but the military work was never abandoned. The company continued to win government contracts, which included the EMB 314/T-27 Tucano trainer or the EMB 324/A-29 ground attack aircraft.
The EMB 320 was a bigger aircraft, though, and conceived in the early 2000s, when, with renewed economic stability, the Brazilian Air Force (Força Aérea Brasileira, FAB) underwent an extensive renewal of its inventory through several acquisition programs. The most ambitious of which was the acquisition of 36 new front-line interceptor aircraft to replace its aging Mirage III, known as the “F-X Project”.
In parallel, a supplement to the relatively new AMX fighter bomber (designated A-1 in Brazil) was needed, too, and this program ran under the handle “A-X Project”. While the F-X program was postponed several times until 2005, the A-X program made, thanks to its smaller budget needs, quick progress and resulted in the EMB 320 'Libélula' (Hornet), a dedicated ground attack, COIN and observation/FAC aircraft which would fill the gap between the AMX jets and various helicopters, e. g. the Mi-35M4 attack helicopter.
The EMB 320 was a straightforward design: a mid-wing two-turboprop-engined all-metal monoplane with retractable landing gear. Conceptually it was very similar to the Argentinian FMA IA-58 Pucara, but more sophisticated and with more compact dimensions. The aircraft was designed to operate from forward bases, in high temperature and humidity conditions in extremely rugged terrain. Repairs could be made with ordinary tools, and no ground equipment was required to start the engines.
The EMB 320 had a tandem cockpit arrangement; the crew of two were seated under an extensively glazed canopy on Martin-Baker Mk 6AP6A zero/zero ejection seats and were provided with dual controls. The pilot sat in front, while the rear seat would, if the mission called for it, be occupied by an observer, WSO or a flight teacher for training purposes. Armor plating was fitted to protect the crew and engines from hostile ground fire.
The retractable tricycle landing gear, with a double nose wheel and twin main wheels retracting into the engine nacelles, was fitted with low pressure tires to suit operations on rough ground and unprepared air strips, while the undercarriage legs were tall to give good clearance for underslung weapon loads. The undercarriage, flaps and brakes are operated hydraulically, with no pneumatic systems.
Through powerful high lift devices the EMB 320 could perform short takeoffs and landings, even on aircraft carriers and large deck amphibious assault ships without using catapults or arresting wires. Additionally, three JATO rockets could be fitted under the fuselage to allow extra-short take-off.
The aircraft was powered by a pair of Garrett T76-G turboprops, 1,040 hp (775.5 kW) each, driving sets of contra-rotating, three-bladed Hamilton-Standard propellers which were also capable of being used as air brakes. The engines were modified for operating on soy-derived bio-jet fuel. Alternatively the engines would operate on high-octane automobile fuel with only a slight loss of power, too.
Fuel was fed from two fuselage tanks of combined capacity of 800 l (180 imp gal; 210 US gal) and two self-sealing tanks of 460 l (100 imp gal; 120 US gal) in the wings.
The “Libélula”, quickly christened this way due to its slender fuselage, straight wings and the large cockpit glazing, was highly maneuverable at low altitude, had a low heat signature and incorporated 4th generation avionics and weapons system to deliver precision guided munitions at all weather conditions, day and night.
Armament consisted of two fixed 30 mm (1.181 in) Bernardini Mk-164 cannons in the wing roots and a total of nine external weapon hardpoints; these included a pair of launch rails at the wingtips for AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs (or ECM pods), four underwing pylons outside of the propeller radius and three underfuselage hardpoints. Chaff/flare dispensers in the tail section provided passive safety. The EMB 320 could carry more than 3.5 tons of external munitions, and loiter for three or more hours.
Avionics included:
● MIL-STD-1553 standards
● NVG ANVIS-9 (Night Vision)
● CCIP / CCRP / CCIL / DTOS / LCOS / SSLC (Computerized Attack Modes)
● R&S{RT} M3AR VHF/UHF airborne transceiver (two-way encrypted Data Link provision)
● HUD / HOTAS
● HMD with UFCP(Up Front Control Panel)
● Laser INS with GPS Navigational System
● CMFD (Colored Multi-Function Display) liquid crystal active matrix
● Integrated Radio Communication and Navigation
● Video Camera/Recorder
● Automatic Pilot with embedded mission planning capability
● Stormscope WX-1000E (Airborne weather mapping system)
● Laser Range Finder
● WiPak Support – (Wi-Fi integration for Paveway bombs)
● Training and Operation Support System (TOSS)
The prototype made its maiden flight on 2nd of April 2000. In August 2001, the Brazilian Air Force awarded EMBRAER a contract for 52 A-27 Libélula aircraft with options for a further 23, acquired from a contract estimated to be worth around $320 USD millions. The first aircraft was delivered in December 2003. By September 2007, 50 aircraft had entered service. The 75th, and last, aircraft was delivered to the FAB in June 2012.
While the Libélula has not been used in foreign conflicts the aircraft already fired in anger: One of the main missions of the aircraft was and is border patrol under the SIVAM program, and this resulted in several incidents in which weapons were fired.
On 3 June 2009, two BAF A-27A Libélulas, guided by an EMBRAER E-99, intercepted a Cessna U206G engaged in drug trafficking activities. Inbound from Bolivia, the Cessna was intercepted in the region of Alta Floresta d'Oeste and, after exhausting all procedures, one of the Moscarsos fired a warning shot from its 30mm cannons, after which the aircraft followed the Libélulas to Cacoal airport.
This incident was the first use of powers granted under the Shoot-Down Act, which was enacted in October 2004 in order to legislate for the downing of illegal flights. A total of 176 kg of pure cocaine base paste, enough to produce almost a ton of cocaine, was discovered on board the Cessna; the aircraft's two occupants attempted a ground escape before being arrested by Federal Police in Pimenta Bueno.
On 5 August 2011, Brazil started “Operation Ágata”, part of a major "Frontiers Strategic Plan" launched by President Dilma Rousseff in June, with almost 30 continuous days of rigorous military activity in the region of Brazil’s border with Colombia. It mobilized 35 aircraft and more than 3,000 military personnel of the Brazilian Army, Brazilian Navy and Brazilian Air Force surveillance against drug trafficking, illegal mining and logging, and trafficking of wild animals.
A-29s of 1°/3º Aviation Group (GAv), Squadron Scorpion, as well as six A-27A’s from 4°/3° GAv launched a strike upon an illicit airstrip, deploying eight 230 kg (500 lb) computer-guided Mk 82 bombs to render the airstrip unusable.
Multiple EMB 320 were assigned for night operations, locating remote jungle airstrips used by drug smuggling gangs along the border, and were typically guarded by several E-99 aircraft. The Libélulas also located targets for the A-29 Super Tucanos, allowing them to bomb the airstrips with an extremely high level of accuracy, making use of night-vision systems and computer systems calculating the impact points of munitions.
General characteristics
Crew: 2
Length (w/o pitot): 41 ft 10 in (12.76 m)
Wingspan: 40 ft 9 1/2 in (12.45 m)
Height: 13 ft 6 2/3 in (4.14 m)
Wing area: 203.4 ft² (18.9 m²)
Empty weight: 8.920 lb (4.050 kg)
Max. take-off weight: 16.630 lb (7.550 kg)
Powerplant:
2× Garrett T76-G410/411 turboprops, 1,040 hp (775.5 kW) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 307 mph (267 kn, 495 km/h)
Range: 1.860 mi (1.620 nmi, 3.000 km)
Service ceiling: 30.160 ft (9.150 m)
Rate of climb: 2.966 ft/min (15 m/s)
Armament:
2× fixed 30 mm (1.181 in) Bernardini Mk-164 cannons in the wing roots with 200 RPG
9× external hardpoints for an ordnance load of 8.000 lb (3.630 kg), including smart weapons (e. g. Paveway GBUs, AGM-65B,C or D Maverick, AGM-114 Hellfire), iron bombs, cluster bombs, napalm tanks, unguided rocket pods and AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs as well as drop tanks.
The kit and its assembly:
This whif model is a remake of an idea I had/did many years ago from the remains of an Airfix OV-10D Bronco: converting it into a "normal" aircraft. While one could argue that this is not really exciting, I found this project pretty challenging as I wanted to make the result as plausible as possible, not just glue some leftover parts together (what I did years ago). And doing so turned a simple idea into major surgery and sculpting – or, how flickr fellow user Franclab called it, “it makes the Bronco look like the whif and the Libélula the real aircraft”.
The basis was a NiB OV-10A Bronco from Academy, a very good kit with a nice cockpit and lots or ordnance. Great value for the money. Design benchmark for what I had in mind was the FMA IA-58 Pucara, as it was designed for the exact same job as my EMB 320 - but details would differ.
The rear of the Bronco's central cabin was cut off and mated with the rear fuselage of a Matchbox Bf 110, which has a similar diameter - but the intersection between the square front of the Bronco and the oval Bf 110 fuselage was tricky (= requiring lots of putty work).
When these basic elements were fitted together, I finally decided to raise the spine. The mated fuselage parts would have had worked, but since the original high wings were missing, the EMB 320 would have had a distinctive and pointless hunchback - actually, with a rotor added, it could have become a helicopter, too!
Well, I went for the big solution, also in order to make the fuselage seam less obvious, and the whole upper rear fuselage was sculpted from 2C and NC putty. In the same process the tail was integrated into the fuselage. As a drawback, this shifted the kit's CG so far back that the lead load in the nose could not keep the front wheel down. Well, it's the price to pay for a better overall look.
The twin fins come from a 1:100 A-10, leftover from a Revell SnapFit kit, while the horizontal stabilizers were taken from the OV-10A, but had to be re-engraved in order to make the flap geometry plausible.
The wings were taken OOB and, relative to the Bronco, placed in a lower position, their original attachment point on top of the fuselage was faired over. The original plan had been to place them completely low, right where the OV-10's wing stubs would be located. But due to the engine nacelles under the wings I finally set them at mid height - otherwise, ground clearance and/or landing gear length had become a big issue - and the thing still looks stalky!
Moving the nacelles into a different (higher) wing position would have been an option, too, but that was IMHO too complicated. Since the EMD 320 would not have storage space behind the cockpit, a wing spar right through the fuselage would not be implausible. As a side effect I had to close the complete belly gap under the Bronco fuselage, again with 2C putty.
The Bronco’s tail booms were cut off and pointed end covers added, so that classic engine nacelles which also carry the main landing gear were created. The engine exhausts were relocated towards the nacelle’s end, and the propeller attachment modified, so that the propeller could turn freely on a metal axis and the overall look would be changed.
The cockpit tub was taken OOB, but armored seats from an Italeri AH-1 were used (with added headrests), as well as two crew figures, which come IIRC from a Hasegawa RA-5C Vigilante.
A new nose section with a sensor turret was built from scratch. It consists of parts from an AH-64 attack helicopter, mated with some styrene sheets for appropriate length. The shape was sculpted from massive material, and the result looks mean and menacing. The pitots were made from scratch, as well as the radar warning sensors on the hull.
The landing gear was improvised. The front strut actually belongs to a 1:200 Concorde(!) from Revell, the respective front wheels belong to an ESCI Ka-34 helicopter. For the main landing gear I used the struts from the Bronco kit, but the twin wheels are donations from the scrap box: these come from two Italeri Hawker Hawk kits.
The ordnance was puzzled together from the scrap box, too, as well as from Hasegawa Weapon sets. As the aircraft was supposed to have taken part in the real world “Operation Ágata”, I decided to add four light Paveway gliding bombs. Two Sidewinders and a pair of M260 rocket launchers (for seven 2.75"/70mm target marking missiles with phosphorous warheads) complete the full load.
The wing pylons come from two Italeri Tornados, those under the fuselage belong to a Matchbox Viggen and an Italeri Kfir.
As a final note: originally I wanted to call the aircraft “Moscardo” (= Hornet), but when it took shape its overall lines and potential agility made the dragonfly (Libélula in Portuguese) a much more appropriate namesake. So it goes... ^^
Painting and markings:
The reason why this turned out to be a Brazilian aircraft is the fact that I have been wanting to use the current FAB paint scheme for some time - it's basically made up from only two colors, FS 34092 (Dark Green) and FS 36176 (“F-15 Gray”, used on USAF F-15Es), paired with low-viz markings. Looks strange at first glance, like a poor man's Europe One/Lizard scheme, but over a typical rain forest scenery, low altitude and with hazy clouds around it is VERY effective, check the beauty pics which are based on BAF press releases. And it simply looks cool.
The pattern is based on current BAF F-5E fighters, the markings come from an FCM decal sheet and actually belong to a BAF Mirage 2000. 4º/3º GAv of the Brazilian Air Force is fictional, though, and some warning stencils were taken from the Academy kit.
The cockpit interior was painted in Dark Gull Gray (Humbrol 140), the landing gear wells in a yellow zinc chromate primer (Humbrol 225, Mid Stone) while the landing gear struts remained blank Aluminum, The outer wheel disks are white, while the inside is red - a detail I incorporated from some USN aircraft.
Painting was not spectacular - since the cockpit has a lot of glass to offer, I painted the windscreen with translucent light blue, and the observer on the rear seat received a similar sun blocker in deep blue. Translucent paint (yellow and black) was also used on the optical sensors at the nose turret as well as for position lights, all on a silver base.
The model was only slightly weathered thorough a black ink wash and some dry-brushing with Humbrol 140 and Testors 2076 (RLM 62) in order to emphasize panels - some panel lines were also painted onto the fuselage with thinned black ink, as the "new" rear body is devoid of any detail and difficult to engrave.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer Luxembourgeois (Luxembourg National Railway Company, abbreviated CFL) is the national railway company of Luxembourg. The Luxembourg rail system comprises (only) 275 route-kilometres (170 miles), of which 140 kilometres (87 mi) is double track and 135 kilometres (84 mi) single track. Of the total track length of 617 kilometres (383 mi), 576 kilometres (358 mi) are electrified at 25 kV, 50 Hz AC.
Luxembourg borders Belgium, France and Germany. Correspondingly, there are cross-border services into these countries. Some are wholly run by CFL, whereas others are run by SNCF, NMBS/SNCB and DB. CFL passenger trains cover most of the network and are operated by EMUs and electric locomotives, typically with push-pull stock. Despite a high degree of electrification, the CFL also had a fleet of diesel locomotives for hauling freight trains and for general shunting purposes. CFL.
The CFLs first electric locomotive, introduced in 1958, was the Class 3600, the so-called “fer à repasser” (= “electric iron”), a group of twenty electric locomotives that were built to the design of the French BB 12000 class. These were primarily intended for freight trains but also capable of pulling light passenger trains with up to 120 km/h (75 mph). The Class 3600 was originally designed to be capable of pulling 750 ton trains along a grade of 10 ‰, but in service it proved more than capable, frequently pulling 1100 tons and then even 1400 ton trains without problems.
However, for fast and heavier passenger trains, especially those that crossed the borders to Northern France with the same 25 kV, 50 Hz alternating current system as Luxembourg as well as to Germany with its 15 kV, 16.7 Hz electrification, the CFL ordered twelve additional dual system locomotive. They were more powerful and faster than the Class 3600 and became the new Class 3800 – roughly comparable with the German E 310/BR 181 dual system locomotives that were operated in the same region. The Class 3800 machines were designed and built between 1959 and 1961 in the Netherlands by Werkspoor in Utrecht, with technical support from the German Siemens-Schuckert-Werke (SSW) for the electric systems. They were heavily influenced by the contemporary Co′Co′ multipurpose Series 1200 electric locomotives for the Netherlands Spoorwegen (NS), originally designed by Baldwin and sporting typical American styling with a brawny silhouette, stepped “Cab unit” style nose sections and doors at the locomotives’ front ends to allow direct access to a coupled wagon from the driver cabins.
Even though they were based on the NS Series 1200, the CFL Class 3800 units used a shortened main frame and newly developed bogies with a Bo′Bo’ arrangement. All in all, the Class 3800 was more than 20 tons lighter than its Dutch six-axle sibling and only shared a superficial similarity – under the hood, the locomotive was technically totally different from the NS’ Series 1200 (which was designed for the Dutch 1.5 kV DC system).
The locomotives drew their energy from the 15 kV / 16 2/3 Hz or 25 kV / 50 Hz catenary via two diamond pantographs with contact strips of different lengths for the different areas of application. The 3-core transformers were oil-cooled, to which the control unit with its 28 running steps was connected. The acceleration was designed to function in delayed mode, where the engineer chose the running step, and the control unit would initiate the chosen setting independently. For emergency operation manual control by hand crank was possible, too. The voltage reached the main transformer via an air-operated main switch. On the secondary side, the traction motors were controlled via thyristors using stepless phase angle control, a modern technology at the time, as were the comparatively light mixed current motors. Mechanical switching mechanisms were therefore no longer required, and the vehicle control technology also worked with modern electronics. To ensure a good frictional connection between rail and wheel, the power converters always regulated a slightly lower tractive force on the preceding wheel sets of each bogie. If, however, one or more wheelsets slipped, the drive control reduced the tractive effort for a short time.
The CFL Class 3800’s four traction motors collective output was 3,700 kW (5,000 hp). This gave the Class 3800 a tractive effort of 275 kN (62,000 lbf) and a theoretical top speed of 150 km/h (93 mph), even though this was in practice limited to 140 km/h (87 mph). A time-division multiplex push-pull and double-traction control system was installed, too, so that two of these locomotives could together handle heavier freight trains and exploit the locomotives’ good traction. All locomotives featured an indirect air brake, with automatically stronger braking action at high speeds; for shunting/switching service an additional direct brake was present, too. All units featured a separately excited rheostatic/regenerative brake, which was coupled to the air brake. The heat generated by the electric brakes was dissipated via roof exhausts, supported by a pair of cooling fans.
The safety equipment in the driver's cab featured a mechanical or electronic deadman's device, punctiform automatic train controls, and train radio equipment with GSM-R communication. For operations in Germany the units received a third front light and separate red taillights, as well as an “Indusi” inductive system for data transfer between the track and locomotive by magnets mounted beside the rails and on the locomotive. Later in their career, automatic door locking at 0 km/h was retrofitted, which had become a compulsory requirement for all locomotives in passenger service.
After a thorough test phase of the pre-production locomotives 3801 and 3802 in 1960, the first Class 3800 serial units went into service in 1961 and were, due to the characteristic design of their driver’s cabins and their bulky shape, quickly nicknamed “Bouledogue” (Bulldog). The initial two locomotives were delivered in a pale blue-grey livery, but they were soon repainted in the CFL’s standard burgundy/yellow corporate paint scheme, and all following Class 3800 locomotives from 3803 on were directly delivered in this guise.
Initially, the service spectrum of the Bouledogues comprised primarily fast passenger trains on the CFL’s domestic main routes to the North and to the East, with additional border-crossing express trains, including prestigious TEE connections, to Germany (e. g. to Trier and Cologne) and France (Paris via Reims). The 3800s supplemented the CFL’s fast Series 1600 diesel locomotives on these important international destinations once they had been fully electrified. Occasionally, they were also used for freight trains in the industrial Esch-sur-Alzette region and for fast freight trains on the electrified main routes, as well as for regional passenger traffic on push-pull trains. Heavier freight trains remained the working field of the CFL Class 3600, even though occasional ore trains were handled by Class 3800 locomotives in double traction, too.
Even though Werkspoor hoped for more CFL orders for this dual-system type, the twelve Series 3800 locomotives remained the sole specimen. Potential buyers like Belgium or the Netherlands also did not show much interest – even though the SNCB ordered several multi-system locomotives, including eight indigenous Class 16 locomotives, equipped to run in France, Netherlands and Germany, or the six Class 18 four-system machines derived from the French SNCF CC 40100 express passenger locomotives.
During the Nineties the CFL started to use more and more EMUs on the domestic passenger routes, so that the Class 3800s gradually took over more and more freight train duties, relieving the older Series 3600s and replacing diesel-powered locomotives (esp. the Class 1800) on electrified routes. Border-crossing passenger train services were furthermore limited to trains to Germany since long-distance passenger train services in France switched to the TGV train system with its separate high-speed lines. Freight trains to France were still frequent Class 3800 duties, though, and occasionally coal trains were pulled directly to the industrial Ruhr Area region in Western Germany.
After the Millennium the Class 3800s gradually lost their duties to the new CFL Class 4000 multi-system locomotives, a variant of the Bombardier TRAXX locos found working across Europe. On 31 December 2006 the last Class 3800 (3809) was retired. Their versatility, robustness and performance have, however, allowed some of these locomotives to exceed 45 years of service. Bouledogue “3803” reached more than 9,2 million kilometers (5.7 million miles), a remarkable performance.
Only two 3800s had to be written off during the type’s career: 3804 suffered a major transformer damage and was destroyed by the ensuing fire near Troisvierges in Northern Luxembourg and 3810 was involved in a freight train derailment south of Differdange, where it was damaged beyond repair and had to be broken up on site. A single Class 3800 locomotive (3811) survived the retirement and has been kept as a static exhibition piece at the CFL Dépot at Luxembourg, the rest was scrapped.
General characteristics:
Gauge: 1,435 mm (4 ft 8½ in) standard gauge
UIC axle arrangement: Bo´Bo´
Overall length: 16.49 m (54 ft 1 in)
Pivot distance: 7,9 m (25 ft 10 in)
Bogie distance: 3,4 m (11 ft 1½ in)
Wheel diameter (when new): 1.250 mm (4 ft 1½ in)
Service weight: 83 t
Engine:
Four traction motors with a collective output of 3,700 kW (5,000 hp)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 150 km/h (93 mph), limited to 140 km/h (87 mph) in service
Torque: 275 kN starting tractive effort
164 kN continuous traction effort
The model and its assembly:
My second attempt to create a functional H0 scale what-if locomotive – and after I “only” did a color variant with some cosmetic changes on the basis of a Märklin V160/BR 216 diesel locomotive, I wanted something more special and challenging. However, kitbashing model locomotives with a metal chassis that includes a functional motor, respective drivetrain/gearing and electronics is not as easy as gluing some plastic parts together. And finding “matching” donor parts for such a stunt is also not as easy as it may seem. But what would life be without attempts to widen its boundaries?
This time I wanted an electric locomotive. Inspiration (and occasion) somewhat struck when I stumbled upon a running/functional chassis of a Märklin E 10/BR 110 (#3039), just without light and naturally missing the whole upper hull. Due to its incompleteness, I got it for a reasonable price, though. With this basis I started to watch out for eventual (and affordable) donor parts for a new superstructure, and remembered the collectible, non-powered all-plastic locomotive models from Atlas/IXO.
The good thing about the Märklin 3039 chassis was that it was just a solid and flat piece of metal without integrated outer hull elements, headstock or side skirts, so that a new hull could (theoretically) be simply tailored to fit over this motorized platform. Finding something with the exact length would be impossible, so I settled upon an Atlas H0 scale Nederlands Spoorwegen Series 1200 locomotive model, which is markedly longer than the German BR 110, due to its six axles vs. the E 10/BR 110’s four. Another selling point: the NS 1200’s body is virtually blank in its middle section, ideal for shortening it to match the different chassis. Detail of the Atlas plastic models is also quite good, so there was the potential for something quite convincing.
Work started with the disassembly of the static Atlas NS Class 1200 model. It's all-styrene, just with a metal plate as a chassis. Against my expectations the model's hull was only held on the chassis by two tiny screws under the "noses", so that I did not have to use force to separate it. The body's walls were also relatively thin, good for the upcoming modifications. The model also featured two nice driver's stations, which could be removed easily, too. Unfortunately; they had to go to make enough room for the electronics of the Märklin 3039 all-metal chassis.
Dry-fitting the chassis under the Class 1200 hull revealed that the stunt would basically work - the chassis turned out to be only marginally too wide. I just had to grind a little of the chassis' front edges away to reduce pressure on the styrene body, and I had to bend the end sections of the chassis’ stabilizing side walls.
To make the Class 1200 hull fit over the shorter BR 110 chassis a section of about 3 cm had to be taken out of the body’s middle section. The Class 1200 lent itself to this measure because the body is rather bare and uniform along its mid-section, so that re-combining two shortened halves should not pose too many problems.
To make the hull sit properly on the chassis I added styrene profiles inside of it - easy to glue them into place, thanks to the material. At this time, the original fixed pantographs and some wiring on the roof had gone, brake hoses on the nose were removed to make space for the BR 110 couplers, and the clear windows were removed after a little fight (they were glued into their places, but thankfully each side has three separate parts instead of just one that would easily break). PSR on the seam between the hull halves followed, plus some grey primer to check the surface quality.
Even though the new body now had a proper position on the metal chassis, a solution had to be found to securely hold it in place. My solution: an adapter for a screw in the chassis’ underside, scratched. I found a small area next to the central direction switch where I could place a screw and a respective receiver that could attached to the body’s roof. A 3 mm hole was drilled into the chassis’ floor and a long Spax screw with a small diameter was mated with a hollow square styrene profile, roughly trimmed down in length to almost reach the roof internally. Then a big lump of 2C putty was put into the hull, and the styrene adapter pressed into it, so that it would held well in place. Fiddly, but it worked!
Unfortunately, the pantographs of the Atlas/IXO model were static and not flexible at all. One was displayed raised while the other one was retracted. Due to the raised pantograph’s stiffness the model might lose contact to or even damage the model railroad catenary, even when not pulling power through it – not a satisfactory condition. Since the chassis could be powered either from below or through the pantographs (the Märklin 3039 chassis offers an analogue switch underneath to change between power sources) I decided to pimp my build further and improve looks and functionality. I organized a pair of aftermarket diamond pantographs, made from metal, fully functional and held in place on the model’s roof with (very short and) small screws from the inside.
I was not certain if the screws were conductive, and I had to somehow connect them with the switch in the chassis. I eventually soldered thin wire to the pantographs’ bases, led them through additional small holes in the roof inside and soldered them to the switch input, with an insulating screw joint in-between to allow a later detachment/disassembly without damage to the body. There might have been more elegant solutions, but my limited resources and skills did not allow more. It works, though, and I am happy with it, since the cables won’t be visible from the outside. This layout allows to draw power through them, I just had to create a flexible and detachable connection internally. Some plugs, wire and soldering created a solution – rough (electronics is not my strength!), but it worked! Another investment of money, time and effort into this project, but I think that the new pantographs significantly improve the overall look and the functionality of this model.
Internally, the missing light bulbs were retrofitted with OEM parts. A late external addition were PE brass ladders for the shunting platforms and under the doors for the driver’s cabins. They were rather delicate, but the model would not see much handling or railroading action, anyway, and the improve the overall impression IMHO a lot. On the roof, some details like cooling fans and tailored conduits (from the Atlas Series 1200) were added, they partly obscure the seam all around the body.
Unfortunately, due to the necessary space for the chassis, its motor and the electronics, the driver stations’ interiors could not be re-mounted – but this is not too obvious, despite the clear windows.
Painting and markings:
Finding a suitable operator took some time – I wanted a European company, and the livery had to be rather simple and easy to create with my limited means at hand, so that a presentable finish could be achieved. Belgium was one candidate, but I eventually settled on the small country of Luxembourg after I saw the CFL’s Class 3600s in their all-over wine-red livery with discreet yellow cheatlines.
The overall basic red was, after a coat with grey primer, applied with a rattle can, and I guesstimated the tone with RAL 3005 (Weinrot), based on various pictures of CFL locomotives in different states of maintenance and weathering. Apparently, the fresh paint was pretty bright, while old paint gained a rather brownish/maroon hue. For some contrast, the roof was painted in dark grey (Humbrol 67; RAL 7024), based on the CFL’s Class 3600 design, and the pantographs’ bases were painted and dry-brushed with this tone, too, for a coherent look. The chassis with its bogies and wheels remained basically black, but it was turned matt, and the originally bare metal wheel discs were painted, too. The visible lower areas were thoroughly treated with dry-brushed red-brown and dark grey, simulating rust and dust while emphasizing many delicate details on the bogies at the same time.
The hull was slightly treated with dry-brushed/cloudy wine red, so that the red would look a bit weathered and not so uniform. The grey roof was treated similarly.
The yellow cheatlines were created with yellow (RAL 1003) decal stripes from TL Modellbau in 5 and 2mm width. Generic H0 scale sheets from the same company provided the yellow CFL logos and the serial numbers on the flanks, so that the colors matched well. Stencils and some other small markings were procured from Andreas Nothaft (Modellbahndecals.de).
After securing the decals with some acrylic varnish the model was weathered with watercolors and some dry-brushing, simulating brownish-grey dust and dirt from the overhead contact line that frequently collects on the roof and is then washed down by rain. Finally, the whole body was sealed with matt acrylic varnish from the rattle can – even though it turned out to be rather glossy. But it does not look wrong, so I stuck with this flaw.
Among the last steps was the re-mounting of the clear windows (which had OOB thin silver trim, which was retained) and head- and taillights were created with ClearFix and white and red clear window color.
+++ 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 Wasp was a transonic British jet-powered fighter aircraft that was developed by Folland for the Royal Air Force (RAF) during the late 1940s and early 1950s. The Wasp’s origins could be traced back to a privately funded 1952 concept for a bigger and more capable day fighter aircraft than Folland’s very light Midget/Gnat. The Wasp’s development had been continued until the Gnat’s service introduction, and by then it had evolved under the handle “Fo-145” into a supersonic aircraft that took advantage of the new Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire turbojet engine, swept wings and area rule. The aircraft was built with the minimum airframe size to take the reheated Saphire and a radar system that would allow it to deploy the new de Havilland Blue Jay (later Firestreak) guided air-to-air missile. In this form the aircraft was expected to surpass the Royal Air Force’s contemporary day fighter, the only gun-armed Hawker Hunter, which had been in service since 1954, while using basically the same engine as its F.2 variant, in both performance and armament aspects. The missile-armed Wasp was also expected to replace the disappointing Supermarine Swift and the Fairey Fireflash AAMs that had been developed for it.
The Wasp strongly resembled the smaller Gnat, with a similar but much thinner shoulder mounted wing, with a sweep of 35° at quarter chord, but the new aircraft featured some innovations. Beyond the area-ruled fuselage, the aircraft had full-span leading edge slats and trailing edge flaps with roll control achieved using spoilers rather than traditional ailerons. Anticipating supersonic performance, the tailplane was all-moving. The cockpit had been raised and offered the pilot a much better all-round field of view.
The Wasp was armed with four 30 mm (1.18 in) ADEN cannon, located under the air intakes. Each gun had a provision of 125 rounds, from form a mutual ventral ammunition bay that could be quickly replaced. Four underwing hardpoints could carry an ordnance load of up to 4.000 lb, and the Wasp’s main armament consisted of up to four IR-guided “Firestreak” AAMs. To effectively deploy them, however, a radar system was necessary. For launch, the missile seeker was slaved to the Wasp’s AI.Mk.20 X-band radar until lock was achieved and the weapon was launched, leaving the interceptor free to acquire another target. The AI.Mk.20 had been developed by EKCO since 1953 under the development label “Green Willow” for the upcoming EE Lightning interceptor, should the latter’s more complex and powerful Ferranti AIRPASS system fail. A major advantage of the AI.Mk.20 was that it had been designed as a single unit so it could be fit into the nose of smaller single-seat fighters, despite its total weight of roughly 400 lb (200 kg). For the Firestreak AAM, EKCO had developed a spiral-scan radar with a compact 18 in (460 mm) antenna that offered an effective range of about 10 miles (16 km), although only against targets very close to the centerline of the radar. The radar’s maximum detection range was 25 mi (40 km) and the system also acted as a ranging radar, providing range input to the gyro gunsight for air-to-air gunnery.
Beyond Firestreaks, the Wasp could also carry drop tanks (which were area-ruled and coulc only be carried on the inner pair of pylons), SNEB Pods with eighteen 68 mm (2.68 in) unguided rocket projectiles against air and ground targets, or iron bombs of up to 1.000 lb caliber. Other equipment included a nose-mounted, and a forward-facing gun camera.
The Royal Air Force was sufficiently impressed to order two prototypes. Since the afterburning version of the Sapphire was not ready yet, the first prototype flew on 30 July 1954 with a non-afterburning engine, an Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire Sa.6 with 8,000 lbf (35.59 kN). In spite of this lack of power the aircraft nevertheless nearly reached Mach 1 in its maiden flight. The second prototype, equipped with the intended Sapphire Sa.7 afterburning engine with 11,000 lbf (48.9 kN) thrust engine, showed the aircraft’s full potential. The Wasp turned out to have very good handling, and the RAF officially ordered sixty Folland Fo-145 day-fighters under the designation “Wasp F.Mk.1”. The only changes from the prototypes were small leading-edge extensions at the wing roots, improving low speed handling, esp. during landings and at high angles of incidence in flight.
Most Wasps were delivered to RAF Germany frontline units, including No. 20 and 92 Squadrons based in Northern Germany. However, the Wasp’s active service did not last long, because technological advancements quickly rendered the aircraft obsolete in its original interceptor role. The Wasp’s performance had not turned out as significantly superior to the Hunter as expected. Range was rather limited, and the aircraft turned out to be underpowered, since the reheated Sapphire Sa6 did not develop as much power as expected. The AI.Mk.20 radar was rather weak and capricious, too, and the Firestreak was an operational nightmare. The missile was, due to its solid Magpie rocket motor and the ammonia coolant for the IR seeker head, highly toxic and RAF armorers had to wear some form of CRBN protection to safely mount the missile onto an aircraft. Furthermore, unlike modern missiles, Firestreak’s effectiveness was very limited since it could only be fired outside cloud - and over Europe or in winter, skies were rarely clear.
Plans for a second production run of the Folland Wasp with a more powerful Sapphire Sa7R engine with a raised thrust of 12,300 lbf (54.7 kN) and updated avionics were not carried out. During the 1960s, following the successful introduction of the supersonic English Electric Lightning in the interceptor role, the Wasp, as well as the older but more prosperous and versatile Hunter, transitioned to being operated as a fighter-bomber, advanced trainer and for tactical photo reconnaissance missions.
This led to a limited MLU program for the F.Mk.1s and conversions of the remaining airframes into two new variants: the new main version was the GR.Mk.2, a dedicated CAS/ground attack variant, which had its radar removed and replaced with ballast, outwardly recognizable through a solid metal nose which replaced the original fiberglass radome. Many of these machines also had two of the 30mm guns removed to save weight. Furthermore, a handful Wasps were converted into PR.Mk.3s. These had as set of five cameras in a new nose section with various windows, and all the guns and the ammunition bay were replaced with an additional fuel tank, operating as pure, unarmed reconnaissance aircraft. When Folland was integrated into the Hawker Siddeley Group in 1963 the aircraft’s official name was changed accordingly, even though the Folland name heritage persisted.
Most of these aircraft remained allocated to RAF Germany units and retired towards the late Sixties, but four GR.Mk.2s were operated by RAF No. 57 (Reserve) Squadron and based at No. 3 Flying Training School at Cranwell, where they were flown as adversaries in dissimilar aerial combat training. The last of the type was withdrawn from service in 1969, but one aircraft remained flying with the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment at Boscombe Down until 24 January 1975.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 45 ft 10.5 in (13.983 m)
Wingspan: 31 ft 7.5 in (9.639 m)
Height: 13 ft 2.75 in (4.0323 m)
Wing area: 250 sq ft (23 m2)
Empty weight: 13,810 lb (6,264 kg)
Gross weight: 21,035 lb (9,541 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 23,459 lb (10,641 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire Sa.6, producing 7,450 lbf (33.1 kN) thrust at 8,300 rpm,
military power dry, and 11,000 lbf (48.9 kN) with afterburner
Performance:
Maximum speed: 631 kn (726 mph, 1,169 km/h) / M1.1 at 35,000 ft (10,668 m)
654 kn (753 mph; 1,211 km/h) at sea level
Cruise speed: 501 kn (577 mph, 928 km/h)
Range: 1,110 nmi (1,280 mi, 2,060 km)
Service ceiling: 49,000 ft (15,000 m)
Rate of climb: 16,300 ft/min (83 m/s)
Wing loading: 84 lb/sq ft (410 kg/m2)
Thrust/weight: 0.5
Armament:
4× 30 mm (1.18 in) ADEN cannon, 125 rounds per gun
4× underwing hardpoints for a total external ordnance of 4.000 lb, including Firestreak AAMs,
SNEB pods, bombs of up to 1.000 lb caliber or two 125 imp gal (570 l) drop tanks
The kit and its assembly
This kit travesty is a remake of a simple but brilliant idea of fellow modeler chrisonord at whatifmodellers’com (www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php?topic=48434.msg899420#m...), who posted his own build in late 2020: a Grumman Tiger in standard contemporary RAF colors as Folland Wasp GR.Mk.2. The result looked like a highly credible “big brother” or maybe successor of Folland’s diminutive Midge/Gnat fighter, something in the Hawker Hunter’s class. I really like the idea a lot and decided that it was, one and a half years later, to build my personal interpretation of the subject – also because I had a Hasegawa F11F kit in The Stash™ without a proper plan.
The Tiger was built basically OOB – a simple and straightforward affair that goes together well, just the fine, raised panel lines show the mould’s age. The only changes I made: the arrester hook disappeared under PSR, small stabilizer fins (from an Italeri BAe Hawk) were added under the tail section, and I replaced the Tiger’s rugged twin wheel front landing gear with a single wheel alternative, left over from a Matchbox T-2 Buckeye. On the main landing gear, the rearward-facing stabilizing struts were deleted (for a lighter look of a land-based aircraft) and their wells filled with putty. A late modification were additional swing arms for the main landing gear, though: once the kit could sit on its own three feet, the stance was odd and low, esp. under the tail – probably due to the new front wheel. As a remedy I glued additional swing arm elements, made from 1mm steel wire, under the original struts, what moved the main wheel a little backwards and raised the main landing gear my 1mm. Does not sound like much, but it was enough to lift the tail and give the aircraft a more convincing stance and ground clearance.
The area-ruled drop tanks and their respective pylons were taken from the Hasegawa kit. For a special “British” touch – because the Tiger had a radome (into which no radar was ever fitted, though) – I added a pair of Firestreak AAMs on the outer underwing stations, procured from a Gomix Gloster Javelin (which comes with four of these, plus pylons).
Painting and markings:
Since the RAF theme was more or less settled, paintwork revolved around more or less authentical colors and markings. The Wasp received a standard RAF day fighter scheme from the late Fifties, with upper camouflage in RAF Dark Green/Dark Sea Grey and Light Aircraft Grey undersides with a low waterline. I used Humbrol 163, 106 and 166, respectively – Ocean Grey was used because I did not have the proper 164 at hand, but 106 also offered the benefit of a slightly better contrast to the murky Dark Green. A black ink washing was applied plus some panel post-shading. The silver leading edges on wings, stabilizers and fin were created with decal sheet material, avoiding the inconvenience of masking.
The cockpit interior was painted in a very dark grey (Revell 09, Anthracite) while the landing gear, wheels and wells received a greyish-metallic finish (Humbrol 56, Aluminum Dope). The air intakes’ interior became bright aluminum (Revell 99), the area around the jet nozzle was painted with Revell 91 (Iron metallic) and later treated with graphite for a dark metallic shine. The drop tanks were camouflaged, the Firestreaks became white so that they would stand out well and add to a certain vintage look.
The decals were a mix from various sources. The No. 20 Squadron badges and the Type D high-viz roundels on the wings were left over from an Airfix Hawker Hunter. The fuselage roundels came from an Italeri BAe Hawk sheet, IIRC. The bent fin flash, all the stencils as well as the serial code (which was puzzled together from two real serials and was AFAIK not allocated to any real RAF aircraft) came from an Xtradecal Supermarine Swift sheet. The individual red “B” letter came from a Matchbox A.W. Meteor night fighter.
Finally, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish – I considered a glossy finish, since this was typical for RAF aircraft in the Fifties, but eventually just gave the radome a light shine.
Basically a simple project, and quickly done in just a couple of days. However, chrisonord’s great eye for similarities makes this “Tiger in disguise” a great fictional aircraft model with only little effort, it’s IMHO very convincing. And the RAF colors and markings suit the F11F very well.
Capable of speeds over 90 MPH, this hardsuit contains the user from any water, and has a MG on the shoulder for destruction.
Some background:
The VF-1 was developed by Stonewell/Bellcom/Shinnakasu for the U.N. Spacy by using alien Overtechnology obtained from the SDF-1 Macross alien spaceship. Its production was preceded by an aerodynamic proving version of its airframe, the VF-X. Unlike all later VF vehicles, the VF-X was strictly a jet aircraft, built to demonstrate that a jet fighter with the features necessary to convert to Battroid mode was aerodynamically feasible. After the VF-X's testing was finished, an advanced concept atmospheric-only prototype, the VF-0 Phoenix, was flight-tested from 2005 to 2007 and briefly served as an active-duty fighter from 2007 to the VF-1's rollout in late 2008, while the bugs were being worked out of the full-up VF-1 prototype (VF-X-1).
The space-capable VF-1's combat debut was on February 7, 2009, during the Battle of South Ataria Island - the first battle of Space War I - and remained the mainstay fighter of the U.N. Spacy for the entire conflict. Introduced in 2008, the VF-1 would be out of frontline service just five years later, though.
The VF-1 proved to be an extremely capable craft, successfully combating a variety of Zentraedi mecha even in most sorties which saw UN Spacy forces significantly outnumbered. The versatility of the Valkyrie design enabled the variable fighter to act as both large-scale infantry and as air/space superiority fighter. The signature skills of U.N. Spacy ace pilot Maximilian Jenius exemplified the effectiveness of the variable systems as he near-constantly transformed the Valkyrie in battle to seize advantages of each mode as combat conditions changed from moment to moment.
The basic VF-1 was deployed in four sub-variants (designated A, D, J, and S) and its success was increased by continued development of various enhancements including the GBP-1S "Armored" Valkyrie, FAST Pack "Super" Valkyrie and the additional RÖ-X2 heavy cannon pack weapon system for the VF-1S for additional firepower. The FAST Pack system was designed to enhance the VF-1 Valkyrie variable fighter, and the initial V1.0 came in the form of conformal pallets that could be attached to the fighter’s leg flanks for additional fuel – primarily for Long Range Interdiction tasks in atmospheric environment. Later FAST Packs were designed for space operations.
After the end of Space War I, the VF-1 continued to be manufactured both in the Sol system and throughout the UNG space colonies. Although the VF-1 would be replaced in 2020 as the primary Variable Fighter of the U.N. Spacy by the more capable, but also much bigger, VF-4 Lightning III, a long service record and continued production after the war proved the lasting worth of the design.
The versatile aircraft underwent constant upgrade programs. For instance, about a third of all VF-1 Valkyries were upgraded with Infrared Search and Track (IRST) systems from 2016 onwards, placed in a streamlined fairing in front of the cockpit. This system allowed for long-range search and track modes, freeing the pilot from the need to give away his position with active radar emissions, and it could also be used for target illumination and guiding precision weapons.
Many Valkyries also received improved radar warning systems, with sensor arrays, depending on the systems, mounted on the wing-tips, on the fins and/or on the LERXs. Improved ECR measures were also added to some machines, typically in conformal fairings on the flanks of the legs/engine pods.
The U.N.S. Marine Corps, which evolved from the United States Marine Corps after the national service was transferred to the global U.N. Spacy command in 2008, was a late adopter of the VF-1, because the Valkyries’ as well as the Destroids’ potential for landing operations was underestimated. But especially the VF-1’s versatility and VTOL capabilities made it a perfect candidate as a replacement for the service’s AV-8B Harrier II and AH-1 Cobra fleet in the close air support (CAS) and interdiction role. The first VF-1s were taken into service in January 2010 by SVMF-49 “Vikings” at Miramar Air Base in California/USA, and other units followed soon, immediately joining the battle against the Zentraedi forces.
The UNSMC’s VF-1s were almost identical to the standard Valkyries, but they had from the start additional hardpoints for light loads like sensor pods added to their upper legs, on the lower corners of the air intake ducts. These were intended to carry FLIR, laser target designators (for respective guided smart weapons) or ECM pods, while freeing the swiveling underwing hardpoints to offensive ordnance.
Insisting on their independent heritage, the UNSMC’s Valkyries were never repainted in the U.N. Spacy’s standard tan and white livery. They either received a unique two tone low visibility gray paint scheme (the fighter units) or retained paint schemes that were typical for their former units, including some all-field green machines or VF-1s in a disruptive wraparound livery in grey, green and black.
Beyond A and J single-seaters (the UNSMC did not receive the premium S variant), a handful of VF-1D two-seaters were upgraded to the UNSMC’s specification and very effectively operated in the FAC (Forward Air Control) role, guiding both long-range artillery as well as attack aircraft against enemy positions.
The UNSMC’s VF-1s suffered heavy losses, though – for instance, SVMF-49 was completely wiped out during the so-called “Zentraedi Rain of Death” in April 2011, when the Zentraedi Imperial Grand Fleet, consisting of nearly five million warships, appeared in orbit around the Earth. Commanded by Dolza, Supreme Commander of the Zentraedi, they were ordered to incinerate the planet's surface, which they did. 70% of the Earth was utterly destroyed, according to the staff at Alaska Base. Dolza initially believed this to be total victory, until a massive energy pulse began to form on the Earth's surface. This was the Grand Cannon, a weapon of incredible destructive power that the Zentraedi were unaware of, and it disintegrated a good deal of the armada that was hanging over the Northern Hemisphere. While the Zentraedi were successful in rendering the weapon inoperable before it could fire a second time, the SDF-1 began a counterattack of its own alongside the renegade Imperial-Class Fleet and Seventh Mechanized Space Division, which destroyed the Imperial Grand Fleet. After this event, though, the UNSMC as well as other still independent services like the U.N. Navy were dissolved and the respective units integrated into the all-encompassing U.N. Spacy.
The VF-1 was without doubt the most recognizable variable fighter of Space War I and was seen as a vibrant symbol of the U.N. Spacy even into the first year of the New Era 0001 in 2013. At the end of 2015 the final rollout of the VF-1 was celebrated at a special ceremony, commemorating this most famous of variable fighters. The VF-1 Valkryie was built from 2006 to 2013 with a total production of 5,459 VF-1 variable fighters with several variants (VF-1A = 5,093, VF-1D = 85, VF-1J = 49, VF-1S = 30, VF-1G = 12, VE-1 = 122, VT-1 = 68)
However, the fighter remained active in many second line units and continued to show its worthiness years later, e. g. through Milia Jenius who would use her old VF-1 fighter in defense of the colonization fleet - 35 years after the type's service introduction!
General characteristics:
All-environment variable fighter and tactical combat Battroid,
used by U.N. Spacy, U.N. Navy, U.N. Space Air Force and U.N.S. Marine Corps
Accommodation:
Pilot only in Marty & Beck Mk-7 zero/zero ejection seat
Dimensions:
Fighter Mode:
Length 14.23 meters
Wingspan 14.78 meters (at 20° minimum sweep)
Height 3.84 meters
Battroid Mode:
Height 12.68 meters
Width 7.3 meters
Length 4.0 meters
Empty weight: 13.25 metric tons;
Standard T-O mass: 18.5 metric tons;
MTOW: 37.0 metric tons
Power Plant:
2x Shinnakasu Heavy Industry/P&W/Roice FF-2001 thermonuclear reaction turbine engines, output 650 MW each, rated at 11,500 kg in standard or 225.63 kN in overboost
4x Shinnakasu Heavy Industry NBS-1 high-thrust vernier thrusters (1 x counter reverse vernier thruster nozzle mounted on the side of each leg nacelle/air intake, 1 x wing thruster roll control system on each wingtip)
18x P&W LHP04 low-thrust vernier thrusters beneath multipurpose hook/handles
Performance:
Battroid Mode: maximum walking speed 160 km/h
Fighter Mode: at 10,000 m Mach 2.71; at 30,000+ m Mach 3.87
g limit: in space +7
Thrust-to-weight ratio: empty 3.47; standard T-O 2.49; maximum T-O 1.24
Design Features:
3-mode variable transformation; variable geometry wing; vertical take-off and landing; control-configurable vehicle; single-axis thrust vectoring; three "magic hand" manipulators for maintenance use; retractable canopy shield for Battroid mode and atmospheric reentry; option of GBP-1S system, atmospheric-escape booster, or FAST Pack system
Transformation:
Standard time from Fighter to Battroid (automated): under 5 sec.
Min. time from Fighter to Battroid (manual): 0.9 sec.
Armament:
2x Mauler RÖV-20 anti-aircraft laser cannon, firing 6,000 pulses per minute
1x Howard GU-11 55 mm three-barrel Gatling gun pod with 200 RPG, fired at 1,200 rds/min
4x underwing hard points for a wide variety of ordnance, including…
12x AMM-1 hybrid guided multipurpose missiles (3/point), or
12x MK-82 LDGB conventional bombs (3/point), or
6x RMS-1 large anti-ship reaction missiles (2/outboard point, 1/inboard point), or
4x UUM-7 micro-missile pods (1/point) each carrying 15 x Bifors HMM-01 micro-missiles,
or a combination of above load-outs
2x auxiliary hardpoints on the legs for light loads like a FLIR sensor, laser rangefinder/
target designator or ECM pod (typically not used for offensive ordnance)
The kit and its assembly:
This fictional VF-1 was born from spontaneous inspiration and the question if the USMC could have adopted the Valkyrie within the Macross time frame and applied its rather special grey/green/black paint scheme from the Nineties that was carried by AH-1s, CH-46s and also some OV-10s.
The model is a simple, vintage ARII VF-1 in Fighter mode, in this case a VF-1D two-seater that received the cockpit section and the head unit from a VF-1J Gerwalk model to create a single seater. While the parts are interchangeable, the Gerwalk and the Fighter kit have different molds for the cockpit sections and the canopies, too. This is mostly evident through the lack of a front landing gear well under the Gerwalk's cockpit - I had to "carve" a suitable opening into the bottom of the nose, but that was not a problem.
The kit was otherwiese built OOB, with the landing gear down and (finally, after the scenic flight pictures) with an open canopy for final display among the rest of my VF-1 fleet. However, I added some non-canonical small details like small hardpoints on the upper legs and the FLIR and targeting pods on them, scratched from styrene bits.
The ordnance was changed from twelve AMM-1 missiles under the wings to something better suited for attack missions. Finding suitable material became quite a challenge, though. I eventually settled on a pair of large laser-guided smart bombs and two pairs of small air-to-ground missile clusters. The LGBs are streamlined 1:72 2.000 lb general purpose bombs, IIRC from a Hobby Boss F-5E kit, and the launch tubes were scratched from a pair of Bazooka starters from an Academy 1:72 P-51 kit. The ventral standard GU-11 pod was retained and modified to hold a scratched wire display for in-flight pictures at its rear end.
Some blade antennae were added around the hull as a standard measure to improve the simple kit’s look. The cockpit was taken OOB, I just added a pilot figure for the scenic shots and the thick canopy was later mounted on a small lift arm in open position.
Painting and markings:
Adapting the characteristic USMC three-tone paint scheme for the VF-1 was not easy; I used the symmetric pattern from the AH-1s as starting point for the fuselage and gradually evolved it onto the wings into an asymmetric free-form pattern, making sure that the areas where low-viz roundels and some vital stencils would sit on grey for good contrast and readability. The tones became authentic: USMC Field Green (FS 34095, Humbrol 105), USN Medium Grey (FS 35237, Humbrol 145) and black (using Revell 06 Tar Black, which is a very dark grey and not pure black). For some contrast the wings' leading edges were painted with a sand brown/yellow (Humbrol 94).
The landing gear became standard white (Revell 301), the cockpit interior medium grey (Revell 47) with a black ejection seat with brown cushions, and the air intakes as well as the interior of the VG wings dark grey (Revell 77). To set the camouflaged nose radome apart I gave it a slightly different shade of green. The GU-11 pod became bare metal (Revell 91). The LGBs were painted olive drab overall while the AGMs became light grey.
Roundels as well as the UNSMC and unit tags were printed at home in black on clear decal sheet. The unit markings came from an Academy OV-10. The modex came from an 1:72 Revell F8F sheet. Stencils becvame eitrher black or white to keep the low-viz look, just a few tiny color highlights bereak the camouflage up. Some of the characteristic vernier thrusters around the hull are also self-made decals.
Finally, after some typical details and position lights were added with clear paint over a silver base, the small VF-1 was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish.
A spontaneous interim project - and the UMSC's three-tone paint scheme suits the VF-1 well, which might have been a very suitable aircraft for this service and its mission profiles. I am still a bit uncertain about the camouflage's effectiveness, though - yes, it's disruptive, but the color contrasts are so high that a hiding effect seems very poor, even though I find that the scheme works well over urban terrain? It's fictional, though, and even though there are canonical U.N.S. Marines VF-1s to be found in literature, none I came across so far carried this type of livery.
Comissioned by the Federation, the Sirius Cyberdine CSP883 was a powerful low-altitude speeder used extensively as a ground support runner and sometimes as a police pursuit vehicle. Featuring prominent and groundbreaking (in its day) twin hydrogen ionization engines powering the magnetrons, this rather large bike was capable of incredible speeds up to 1500 km/hr on an open straightaway. Another unique feature was the side "jockey" shifter with pistol grip, a notable design reference to ancient wheel-and-tire bikes such as those made by Indian and Triumph. Decommisioned models were immediately snapped up by racers all across the galaxy, and to this day the CSP883 still holds several class surface-speed records. With Syrius Cyberdine holding exclusive patent on the engines in perpetuity, it became exceedingly difficult and finally impossible to acquire replacement parts, such that all surviving examples are now museum displays only and no functional models are known to exist.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Lockheed XFV (sometimes erroneously referred to as the "Salmon", even though this was actually the name of one of its test pilots and not an official designation) was an American experimental tailsitter prototype aircraft built by Lockheed in the early 1950s to demonstrate the operation of a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) fighter for protecting convoys.
The Lockheed XFV originated as a result of a proposal issued by the U.S. Navy in 1948 for an aircraft capable of vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aboard platforms mounted on the afterdecks of conventional ships. Both Convair and Lockheed competed for the contract, but in 1950 the requirement was revised with a call for a research aircraft capable of eventually evolving into a VTOL ship-based convoy escort fighter. On 19 April 1951, two prototypes were ordered from Lockheed under the designation XFO-1 (company designation was Model 081-40-01). Soon after the contract was awarded, the project designation changed to XFV-1 when the Navy's code for Lockheed was changed from O to V.
The XFV was powered by a 5,332 hp (3,976 kW) Allison YT40-A-6 turboprop engine, composed of two Allison T38 power sections driving three-bladed contra-rotating propellers via a common gearbox. The aircraft had no landing gear, just small castoring wheels at the tips of the tail surfaces which were a reflected cruciform v-tail (forming an x) that extended above and below the fuselage. The wings were diamond-shaped and relatively thin, with straight and sharp leading edges – somewhat foretelling the design of Lockheed’s Mach-2-capable F-104 Starfighter.
To begin flight testing, a temporary non-retractable undercarriage with long braced V-legs was attached to the fuselage, and fixed tail wheels attached to the lower pair of fins. In this form, the aircraft was trucked to Edwards AFB in November 1953 for ground testing and taxiing trials. During one of these tests, at a time when the aft section of the large spinner had not yet been fitted, Lockheed chief test pilot Herman "Fish" Salmon managed to taxi the aircraft past the liftoff speed, and the aircraft made a brief hop on 22 December 1953. The official first flight took place on 16 June 1954.
Full VTOL testing at Edwards AFB was delayed pending the availability of the 7,100 shp Allison T54, which was earmarked to replace the T40 and power eventual serial production aircraft. But the T54 faced severe development delays, esp. its gearbox. Another problem that arose with the new engine was that the propeller blade tips would reach supersonic speed and therefore compressibility problems.
After the brief unintentional hop, the prototype aircraft made a total of 32 flights. The XFV-1 was able to make a few transitions in flight from the conventional to the vertical flight mode and back, and had briefly held in hover at altitude, but the T40 output was simply not enough to ensure proper and secure VTOL operations. Performance remained limited by the confines of the flight test regime. Another issue that arose through the advancements of jet engine designs was the realization that the XFV's top speed would be eclipsed by contemporary fighters. Additionally, the purely manual handling of the aircraft esp. during landing was very demanding - the XFV could only be controlled by highly experienced pilots.
Both Navy and the Marines Corps were still interested in the concept, though, so that, in early 1955, the decision was made to build a limited pre-production series of the aircraft, the FV-2, for operational field tests and evaluation. The FV-2 was the proposed production version (Model 181-43-02), primarily conceived and optimized as a night/all-weather interceptor for point defense, and officially baptized “Solstice”. The FV-2 was powered by the T54-A-16 turboprop, which had eventually overcome its teething troubles and offered a combined power output equivalent of 7,500 shp (5,600 kW) from the propellers and the twin-engines’ residual thrust. Outwardly the different engine was recognizable through two separate circular exhausts which were introduced instead of the XFV’s single shallow ventral opening. The gearbox had been beefed up, too, with additional oil coolers in small ventral fairings behind the contraprops and the propeller blades were aerodynamically improved to better cope with the higher power output and rotation speed. Additionally, an automatic pitch control system was introduced to alleviate the pilot from the delicate control burdens during hover and flight mode transition.
Compared with the XFV, the FV-2 incorporated 150 lb (68 kg) of cockpit armor, along with a 1.5 in (38 mm) bullet-proof windscreen. A Sperry Corporation AN/APS-19 type radar was added in the fixed forward part of the nose spinner under an opaque perspex radome. The AN/APS-19 was primarily a target detection radar with only a limited tracking capability, and it had been introduced with the McDonnell F2H-2N. The radar had a theoretical maximum detection range of 60 km, but in real life air targets could only be detected at much shorter distances. At long ranges the radar was mainly used for navigation and to detect land masses or large ships.
Like the older AN/APS-6, the AN/APS-19 operated in a "Spiral Scan" search pattern. In a spiral scan the radar dish spins rapidly, scanning the area in front of the aircraft following a spiral path. As a result, however targets were not updated on every pass as the radar was pointing at a different angle on each pass. This also made the radar prone to ground clutter effects, which created "pulses" on the radar display. The AN/APS-19 was able to lock onto and track targets within a narrow cone, out to a maximum range of about 1 mile (1.5 km), but to do so the radar had to cease scanning.
The FV-2’s standard armament consisted of four Mk. 11 20 mm cannon fitted in pairs in the two detachable wingtip pods, with 250 rounds each, which fired outside of the wide propeller disc. Alternatively, forty-eight 2¾ in (70 mm) folding-fin rockets could be fitted in similar pods, which could be fired in salvoes against both air and ground targets. Instead of offensive armament, 200 US gal. (165 imp. gal./750 l) auxiliary tanks for ferry flights could be mounted onto the wing tips.
Until June 1956 a total of eleven FV-2s were built and delivered. With US Navy Air Development Squadron 8 (also known as VX-8) at NAS Atlantic City, a dedicated evaluation and maintenance unit for the FV-2 and the operations of VTOL aircraft in general was formed. VX-2 operated closely with its sister unit VX-3 (located at the same base) and operated the FV-2s alongside contemporary types like the Grumman F9F-8 Cougar, which at that time went through carrier-qualification aboard the USS Midway. The Cougars were soon joined by the new, supersonic F-8U-1 Crusaders, which arrived in December 1956. The advent of this supersonic navy jet type rendered the FV-2’s archaic technology and its performance more and more questionable, even though the VTOL concept’s potential and the institutions’ interest in it kept the test unit alive.
The FV-2s were in the following years put through a series of thorough field tests and frequently deployed to land bases all across the USA and abroad. Additionally, operational tests were also conducted on board of various ship types, ranging from carriers with wide flight decks to modified merchant ships with improvised landing platforms. The FV-2s also took part in US Navy and USMC maneuvers, and when not deployed elsewhere the training with new pilots at NAS Atlantic City continued.
During these tests, the demanding handling characteristics of the tailsitter concept in general and the FV-2 in specific were frequently confirmed. Once in flight, however, the FV-2 handled well and was a serious and agile dogfighter – but jet aircraft could easily avoid and outrun it.
Other operational problems soon became apparent, too: while the idea of a VTOL aircraft that was independent from runways or flight bases was highly attractive, the FV-2’s tailsitter concept required a complex and bulky maintenance infrastructure, with many ladders, working platforms and cranes. On the ground, the FV-2 could not move on its own and had to be pushed or towed. However, due to the aircraft’s high center of gravity it had to be handled with great care – two FV-2s were seriously damaged after they toppled over, one at NAS Atlantic City on the ground (it could be repaired and brought back into service), the other aboard a ship at heavy sea, where the aircraft totally got out of control on deck and fell into the sea as a total loss.
To make matters even worse, fundamental operational tasks like refueling, re-arming the aircraft between sorties or even just boarding it were a complicated and slow task, so that the aircraft’s theoretical conceptual benefits were countered by its cumbersome handling.
FV-2 operations furthermore revealed, despite the considerably increased power output of the T54 twin engine that more than compensated for the aircraft’s raised weight, only a marginal improvement of the aircraft’s performance; the FV-2 had simply reached the limits of propeller-driven aircraft. Just the rate of climb was markedly improved, and the extra power made the FV-2’s handling safer than the XFV’s, even though this advancement was only relative because the aircraft’s hazardous handling during transition and landing as well as other conceptual problems prevailed and could not be overcome. The FV-2’s range was also very limited, esp. when it did not carry the fuel tanks on the wing tips, so that the aircraft’s potential service spectrum remained very limited.
Six of the eleven FV-2s that were produced were lost in various accidents within only three years, five pilots were killed. The T54 engine remained unreliable, and the propeller control system which used 25 vacuum tubes was far from reliable, too. Due to the many problems, the FV-2s were grounded in 1959, and when VX-8 was disestablished on 1 March 1960, the whole project was cancelled and all remaining aircraft except for one airframe were scrapped. As of today, Bu.No. 53-3537 resides disassembled in storage at the National Museum of the United States Navy in the former Breech Mechanism Shop of the old Naval Gun Factory on the grounds of the Washington Navy Yard in Washington, D.C., United States, where it waits for restoration and eventual public presentation.
As a historic side note, the FV-2’s detachable wing tip gun pods had a longer and more successful service life: they were the basis for the Mk.4 HIPEG (High Performance External Gun) gun pods. This weapon system’s main purpose became strafing ground targets, and it received a different attachment system for underwing hardpoints and a bigger ammunition supply (750 RPG instead of just 250 on the FV-2). Approximately 1.200 Mk. 4 twin gun pods were manufactured by Hughes Tool Company, later Hughes Helicopter, in Culver City, California. While the system was tested and certified for use on the A-4, the A-6, the A-7, the F-4, and the OV-10, it only saw extended use on the A-4, the F-4, and the OV-10, esp. in Vietnam where the Mk. 4 pod was used extensively for close air support missions.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length/Height: 36 ft 10.25 in (11.23 m)
Wingspan: 30 ft 10.1 in (9.4 m)
Wing area: 246 sq ft (22.85 m²)
Empty weight: 12,388 lb (5,624 kg)
Gross weight: 17,533 lb (7,960 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 18,159 lb (8,244 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Allison T54-A-16 turboprop with 7,500 shp (5,600 kW) output equivalent,
driving a 6 blade contra-rotating propeller
Performance:
Maximum speed: 585 mph (941 km/h, 509 kn
Cruise speed: 410 mph (660 km/h, 360 kn)
Range: 500 mi (800 km, 430 nmi) with internal fuel
800 mi (1,300 km, 700 nmi) with ferry wing tip tanks
Service ceiling: 46,800 ft (14,300 m)
Rate of climb: 12,750 ft/min (75.0 m/s)
Wing loading: 73.7 lb/sq ft (360 kg/m²)
Armament:
4× 20 mm (.79 in) Mk. 11 machine cannon with a total of 1.000 rounds, or
48× 2.75 in (70 mm) rockets in wingtip pods, or
a pair of 200 US gal. (165 imp. gal./750 l) auxiliary tanks on the wing tips
The kit and its assembly:
Another submission to the “Fifties” group build at whatifmodellers-com, and a really nice what-if aircraft that perfectly fits into the time frame. I had this Pegasus kit in The Stash™ for quite a while and the plan to build an operational USN or USMC aircraft from it in the typical all-dark-blue livery from the early Fifties, and the group build was a good occasion to realize it.
The Pegasus kit was released in 1992, the only other option to build the XFV in 1:72 is a Valom kit which, as a bonus, features the aircraft’s fixed landing gear that was used during flight trials. The Pegasus offering is technically simple and robust, but it is nothing for those who are faint at heart. The warning that the kit requires an experienced builder is not to be underestimated, because the IP kit from the UK comes with white metal parts and no visual instructions, just a verbal description of the building steps. The IP parts (including the canopy, which is one piece, quite thick but also clear) and the decals look good, though.
The IP parts feature flash and uneven seam lines, sprue attachment points are quite thick. The grey IP material had on my specimen different grades of hard-/brittleness, the white metal parts (some of the propeller blades) were bent and had to be re-aligned. No IP parts would fit well (there are no locator pins or other physical aids), the cockpit tub was a mess to assemble and fit into the fuselage. PSR on any seam all around the hull. But even though this sound horrible, the kit goes together relatively easy – thanks to its simplicity.
I made some mods and upgrades, though. One of them was an internal axis construction made from styrene tubes that allow the two propeller discs to move separately (OOB, you just stack and glue the discs onto each other into a rigid nose cone), while the propeller tip with its radome remained fixed – just as in real life. However, due to the parts’ size and resistance against each other, the props could not move as freely as originally intended.
Separate parts for the air intakes as well as the wings and tail surfaces could be mounted with less problems than expected, even though - again – PSR was necessary to hide the seams.
Painting and markings:
As already mentioned, the livery would be rather conservative, because I wanted the aircraft to carry the uniform USN scheme in all-over FS 35042 with white markings, which was dropped in 1955, though. The XFV or a potential serial production derivative would just fit into this time frame, and might have carried the classic all-blue livery for a couple of years more, especially when operated by an evaluation unit. Its unit, VX-8, is totally fictional, though.
The cockpit interior was painted in Humbrol 80 (simulating bright zinc chromate primer), and to have some contrasts I added small red highlights on the fin pod tips and the gun pods' anti-flutter winglets. For some more variety the radome became earth brown with some good weathering, simulating an opaque perspex hood, and I added white (actually a very light gray) checkerboard markings on the "propeller rings", a bit inspired by the spinner markings on German WWII fighters. Subtle, but it looks good and breaks the otherwise very simple livery.
Some post-panel-shading with a lighter blue was done all over the hull, the exhaust area and the gun ports were painted with iron (Revell 91) and treated with graphite for a more metallic shine.
Silver decal stripe material was used to create the CoroGuard leading edges and the fine lines at the flaps on wings and fins - much easier than trying to solve this with paint and brush...
The decals were puzzled together from various dark blue USN aircraft, including a F8F, F9F and F4U sheet. The "XH" code was created with single 1cm hwite letters, the different font is not obvious, thanks to the letter combination.
Finally, the model was sealed with semi-gloss acrylic varnish (still shiny, but not too bright), the radome and the exhaust area were painted with matt varnsh, though.
A cool result, despite the rather dubious kit base. The Pegasus kit is seriously something for experienced builders, but the result looks convincing. The blue USN livery suits the XFV/FV-2 very well, it looks much more elegant than in the original NMF - even though it would, in real life, probably have received the new Gull Gray/White scheme (introduced in late 1955, IIRC, my FV-2 might have been one of the last aircraft to be painted blue). However, the blue scheme IMHO points out the aircraft's highly aerodynamic teardrop shape, esp. the flight pics make the aircraft almost look elegant!
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Lockheed XFV (sometimes erroneously referred to as the "Salmon", even though this was actually the name of one of its test pilots and not an official designation) was an American experimental tailsitter prototype aircraft built by Lockheed in the early 1950s to demonstrate the operation of a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) fighter for protecting convoys.
The Lockheed XFV originated as a result of a proposal issued by the U.S. Navy in 1948 for an aircraft capable of vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aboard platforms mounted on the afterdecks of conventional ships. Both Convair and Lockheed competed for the contract, but in 1950 the requirement was revised with a call for a research aircraft capable of eventually evolving into a VTOL ship-based convoy escort fighter. On 19 April 1951, two prototypes were ordered from Lockheed under the designation XFO-1 (company designation was Model 081-40-01). Soon after the contract was awarded, the project designation changed to XFV-1 when the Navy's code for Lockheed was changed from O to V.
The XFV was powered by a 5,332 hp (3,976 kW) Allison YT40-A-6 turboprop engine, composed of two Allison T38 power sections driving three-bladed contra-rotating propellers via a common gearbox. The aircraft had no landing gear, just small castoring wheels at the tips of the tail surfaces which were a reflected cruciform v-tail (forming an x) that extended above and below the fuselage. The wings were diamond-shaped and relatively thin, with straight and sharp leading edges – somewhat foretelling the design of Lockheed’s Mach-2-capable F-104 Starfighter.
To begin flight testing, a temporary non-retractable undercarriage with long braced V-legs was attached to the fuselage, and fixed tail wheels attached to the lower pair of fins. In this form, the aircraft was trucked to Edwards AFB in November 1953 for ground testing and taxiing trials. During one of these tests, at a time when the aft section of the large spinner had not yet been fitted, Lockheed chief test pilot Herman "Fish" Salmon managed to taxi the aircraft past the liftoff speed, and the aircraft made a brief hop on 22 December 1953. The official first flight took place on 16 June 1954.
Full VTOL testing at Edwards AFB was delayed pending the availability of the 7,100 shp Allison T54, which was earmarked to replace the T40 and power eventual serial production aircraft. But the T54 faced severe development delays, esp. its gearbox. Another problem that arose with the new engine was that the propeller blade tips would reach supersonic speed and therefore compressibility problems.
After the brief unintentional hop, the prototype aircraft made a total of 32 flights. The XFV-1 was able to make a few transitions in flight from the conventional to the vertical flight mode and back, and had briefly held in hover at altitude, but the T40 output was simply not enough to ensure proper and secure VTOL operations. Performance remained limited by the confines of the flight test regime. Another issue that arose through the advancements of jet engine designs was the realization that the XFV's top speed would be eclipsed by contemporary fighters. Additionally, the purely manual handling of the aircraft esp. during landing was very demanding - the XFV could only be controlled by highly experienced pilots.
Both Navy and the Marines Corps were still interested in the concept, though, so that, in early 1955, the decision was made to build a limited pre-production series of the aircraft, the FV-2, for operational field tests and evaluation. The FV-2 was the proposed production version (Model 181-43-02), primarily conceived and optimized as a night/all-weather interceptor for point defense, and officially baptized “Solstice”. The FV-2 was powered by the T54-A-16 turboprop, which had eventually overcome its teething troubles and offered a combined power output equivalent of 7,500 shp (5,600 kW) from the propellers and the twin-engines’ residual thrust. Outwardly the different engine was recognizable through two separate circular exhausts which were introduced instead of the XFV’s single shallow ventral opening. The gearbox had been beefed up, too, with additional oil coolers in small ventral fairings behind the contraprops and the propeller blades were aerodynamically improved to better cope with the higher power output and rotation speed. Additionally, an automatic pitch control system was introduced to alleviate the pilot from the delicate control burdens during hover and flight mode transition.
Compared with the XFV, the FV-2 incorporated 150 lb (68 kg) of cockpit armor, along with a 1.5 in (38 mm) bullet-proof windscreen. A Sperry Corporation AN/APS-19 type radar was added in the fixed forward part of the nose spinner under an opaque perspex radome. The AN/APS-19 was primarily a target detection radar with only a limited tracking capability, and it had been introduced with the McDonnell F2H-2N. The radar had a theoretical maximum detection range of 60 km, but in real life air targets could only be detected at much shorter distances. At long ranges the radar was mainly used for navigation and to detect land masses or large ships.
Like the older AN/APS-6, the AN/APS-19 operated in a "Spiral Scan" search pattern. In a spiral scan the radar dish spins rapidly, scanning the area in front of the aircraft following a spiral path. As a result, however targets were not updated on every pass as the radar was pointing at a different angle on each pass. This also made the radar prone to ground clutter effects, which created "pulses" on the radar display. The AN/APS-19 was able to lock onto and track targets within a narrow cone, out to a maximum range of about 1 mile (1.5 km), but to do so the radar had to cease scanning.
The FV-2’s standard armament consisted of four Mk. 11 20 mm cannon fitted in pairs in the two detachable wingtip pods, with 250 rounds each, which fired outside of the wide propeller disc. Alternatively, forty-eight 2¾ in (70 mm) folding-fin rockets could be fitted in similar pods, which could be fired in salvoes against both air and ground targets. Instead of offensive armament, 200 US gal. (165 imp. gal./750 l) auxiliary tanks for ferry flights could be mounted onto the wing tips.
Until June 1956 a total of eleven FV-2s were built and delivered. With US Navy Air Development Squadron 8 (also known as VX-8) at NAS Atlantic City, a dedicated evaluation and maintenance unit for the FV-2 and the operations of VTOL aircraft in general was formed. VX-2 operated closely with its sister unit VX-3 (located at the same base) and operated the FV-2s alongside contemporary types like the Grumman F9F-8 Cougar, which at that time went through carrier-qualification aboard the USS Midway. The Cougars were soon joined by the new, supersonic F-8U-1 Crusaders, which arrived in December 1956. The advent of this supersonic navy jet type rendered the FV-2’s archaic technology and its performance more and more questionable, even though the VTOL concept’s potential and the institutions’ interest in it kept the test unit alive.
The FV-2s were in the following years put through a series of thorough field tests and frequently deployed to land bases all across the USA and abroad. Additionally, operational tests were also conducted on board of various ship types, ranging from carriers with wide flight decks to modified merchant ships with improvised landing platforms. The FV-2s also took part in US Navy and USMC maneuvers, and when not deployed elsewhere the training with new pilots at NAS Atlantic City continued.
During these tests, the demanding handling characteristics of the tailsitter concept in general and the FV-2 in specific were frequently confirmed. Once in flight, however, the FV-2 handled well and was a serious and agile dogfighter – but jet aircraft could easily avoid and outrun it.
Other operational problems soon became apparent, too: while the idea of a VTOL aircraft that was independent from runways or flight bases was highly attractive, the FV-2’s tailsitter concept required a complex and bulky maintenance infrastructure, with many ladders, working platforms and cranes. On the ground, the FV-2 could not move on its own and had to be pushed or towed. However, due to the aircraft’s high center of gravity it had to be handled with great care – two FV-2s were seriously damaged after they toppled over, one at NAS Atlantic City on the ground (it could be repaired and brought back into service), the other aboard a ship at heavy sea, where the aircraft totally got out of control on deck and fell into the sea as a total loss.
To make matters even worse, fundamental operational tasks like refueling, re-arming the aircraft between sorties or even just boarding it were a complicated and slow task, so that the aircraft’s theoretical conceptual benefits were countered by its cumbersome handling.
FV-2 operations furthermore revealed, despite the considerably increased power output of the T54 twin engine that more than compensated for the aircraft’s raised weight, only a marginal improvement of the aircraft’s performance; the FV-2 had simply reached the limits of propeller-driven aircraft. Just the rate of climb was markedly improved, and the extra power made the FV-2’s handling safer than the XFV’s, even though this advancement was only relative because the aircraft’s hazardous handling during transition and landing as well as other conceptual problems prevailed and could not be overcome. The FV-2’s range was also very limited, esp. when it did not carry the fuel tanks on the wing tips, so that the aircraft’s potential service spectrum remained very limited.
Six of the eleven FV-2s that were produced were lost in various accidents within only three years, five pilots were killed. The T54 engine remained unreliable, and the propeller control system which used 25 vacuum tubes was far from reliable, too. Due to the many problems, the FV-2s were grounded in 1959, and when VX-8 was disestablished on 1 March 1960, the whole project was cancelled and all remaining aircraft except for one airframe were scrapped. As of today, Bu.No. 53-3537 resides disassembled in storage at the National Museum of the United States Navy in the former Breech Mechanism Shop of the old Naval Gun Factory on the grounds of the Washington Navy Yard in Washington, D.C., United States, where it waits for restoration and eventual public presentation.
As a historic side note, the FV-2’s detachable wing tip gun pods had a longer and more successful service life: they were the basis for the Mk.4 HIPEG (High Performance External Gun) gun pods. This weapon system’s main purpose became strafing ground targets, and it received a different attachment system for underwing hardpoints and a bigger ammunition supply (750 RPG instead of just 250 on the FV-2). Approximately 1.200 Mk. 4 twin gun pods were manufactured by Hughes Tool Company, later Hughes Helicopter, in Culver City, California. While the system was tested and certified for use on the A-4, the A-6, the A-7, the F-4, and the OV-10, it only saw extended use on the A-4, the F-4, and the OV-10, esp. in Vietnam where the Mk. 4 pod was used extensively for close air support missions.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length/Height: 36 ft 10.25 in (11.23 m)
Wingspan: 30 ft 10.1 in (9.4 m)
Wing area: 246 sq ft (22.85 m²)
Empty weight: 12,388 lb (5,624 kg)
Gross weight: 17,533 lb (7,960 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 18,159 lb (8,244 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Allison T54-A-16 turboprop with 7,500 shp (5,600 kW) output equivalent,
driving a 6 blade contra-rotating propeller
Performance:
Maximum speed: 585 mph (941 km/h, 509 kn
Cruise speed: 410 mph (660 km/h, 360 kn)
Range: 500 mi (800 km, 430 nmi) with internal fuel
800 mi (1,300 km, 700 nmi) with ferry wing tip tanks
Service ceiling: 46,800 ft (14,300 m)
Rate of climb: 12,750 ft/min (75.0 m/s)
Wing loading: 73.7 lb/sq ft (360 kg/m²)
Armament:
4× 20 mm (.79 in) Mk. 11 machine cannon with a total of 1.000 rounds, or
48× 2.75 in (70 mm) rockets in wingtip pods, or
a pair of 200 US gal. (165 imp. gal./750 l) auxiliary tanks on the wing tips
The kit and its assembly:
Another submission to the “Fifties” group build at whatifmodellers-com, and a really nice what-if aircraft that perfectly fits into the time frame. I had this Pegasus kit in The Stash™ for quite a while and the plan to build an operational USN or USMC aircraft from it in the typical all-dark-blue livery from the early Fifties, and the group build was a good occasion to realize it.
The Pegasus kit was released in 1992, the only other option to build the XFV in 1:72 is a Valom kit which, as a bonus, features the aircraft’s fixed landing gear that was used during flight trials. The Pegasus offering is technically simple and robust, but it is nothing for those who are faint at heart. The warning that the kit requires an experienced builder is not to be underestimated, because the IP kit from the UK comes with white metal parts and no visual instructions, just a verbal description of the building steps. The IP parts (including the canopy, which is one piece, quite thick but also clear) and the decals look good, though.
The IP parts feature flash and uneven seam lines, sprue attachment points are quite thick. The grey IP material had on my specimen different grades of hard-/brittleness, the white metal parts (some of the propeller blades) were bent and had to be re-aligned. No IP parts would fit well (there are no locator pins or other physical aids), the cockpit tub was a mess to assemble and fit into the fuselage. PSR on any seam all around the hull. But even though this sound horrible, the kit goes together relatively easy – thanks to its simplicity.
I made some mods and upgrades, though. One of them was an internal axis construction made from styrene tubes that allow the two propeller discs to move separately (OOB, you just stack and glue the discs onto each other into a rigid nose cone), while the propeller tip with its radome remained fixed – just as in real life. However, due to the parts’ size and resistance against each other, the props could not move as freely as originally intended.
Separate parts for the air intakes as well as the wings and tail surfaces could be mounted with less problems than expected, even though - again – PSR was necessary to hide the seams.
Painting and markings:
As already mentioned, the livery would be rather conservative, because I wanted the aircraft to carry the uniform USN scheme in all-over FS 35042 with white markings, which was dropped in 1955, though. The XFV or a potential serial production derivative would just fit into this time frame, and might have carried the classic all-blue livery for a couple of years more, especially when operated by an evaluation unit. Its unit, VX-8, is totally fictional, though.
The cockpit interior was painted in Humbrol 80 (simulating bright zinc chromate primer), and to have some contrasts I added small red highlights on the fin pod tips and the gun pods' anti-flutter winglets. For some more variety the radome became earth brown with some good weathering, simulating an opaque perspex hood, and I added white (actually a very light gray) checkerboard markings on the "propeller rings", a bit inspired by the spinner markings on German WWII fighters. Subtle, but it looks good and breaks the otherwise very simple livery.
Some post-panel-shading with a lighter blue was done all over the hull, the exhaust area and the gun ports were painted with iron (Revell 91) and treated with graphite for a more metallic shine.
Silver decal stripe material was used to create the CoroGuard leading edges and the fine lines at the flaps on wings and fins - much easier than trying to solve this with paint and brush...
The decals were puzzled together from various dark blue USN aircraft, including a F8F, F9F and F4U sheet. The "XH" code was created with single 1cm hwite letters, the different font is not obvious, thanks to the letter combination.
Finally, the model was sealed with semi-gloss acrylic varnish (still shiny, but not too bright), the radome and the exhaust area were painted with matt varnsh, though.
A cool result, despite the rather dubious kit base. The Pegasus kit is seriously something for experienced builders, but the result looks convincing. The blue USN livery suits the XFV/FV-2 very well, it looks much more elegant than in the original NMF - even though it would, in real life, probably have received the new Gull Gray/White scheme (introduced in late 1955, IIRC, my FV-2 might have been one of the last aircraft to be painted blue). However, the blue scheme IMHO points out the aircraft's highly aerodynamic teardrop shape, esp. the flight pics make the aircraft almost look elegant!
Bonhams : the Zoute Sale
Estimated : € 150.000 - 200.000
Sold for € 161.000
Zoute Grand Prix 2019
Knokke - Zoute
België - Belgium
October 2019
Few sports cars have proved as versatile as Porsche's perennial 911, a model that, for the past 50 years, has proved equally capable as a Grand Tourer, circuit racer or rally car. A 'modern classic' if ever there was one, the 911 first appeared at the 1963 Frankfurt Motor Show as the '901', but shortly after production proper commenced in 1964 had become the '911' following Peugeot's complaints about the use of '0' model numbers. The preceding Type 356's rear-engined layout was retained but the 911 switched to unitary construction for the bodyshell and dropped the 356's VW-based suspension in favour of a more modern McPherson strut and trailing arm arrangement. In its first incarnation, Porsche's single-overhead-camshaft, air-cooled flat six engine displaced 1,991cc and produced 130bhp; progressively enlarged and developed, it would eventually grow to more than 3.0 litres and, in turbo-charged form, put out well over 300 horsepower.
This desirable 1st Series (pre-A Programme) Porsche 911 was delivered new on 14th October 1965 to P.C. Southwest in San Antonio, USA as confirmed by its accompanying Porsche Certificate of Authenticity. Chassis number '302577' is one of the early, short-wheelbase cars of the type much favoured by the historic rallying fraternity, a situation that has led to unmodified examples such as this one becoming a great rarity and consequently much in demand.
In 2006 the car was brought back to Germany and in 2015 was bought by the current vendor, a Porsche collector, who commissioned a full restoration with no corners cut. Undertaken by Dutch specialists, the rebuild took two years to complete and was photographically documented (see history file). This restoration included a full engine and gearbox rebuild, a six-coat re-spray in the original Aga Blue livery, re-chroming of the brightwork, a new interior in Pepita, and an overhaul of the instruments. The body restoration was carried out by Garage Houwers of Winterswijk, while the matching engine and gearbox were rebuilt by Koban Tuning of Lichtenvoorde, Holland. Closest attention to detail was taken to bring everything back to original specification, even down to the tinted windows and the original Blaupunkt radio. In total, some €140,000 were spent to return the car to the almost 'as new' condition it is presented in today, with many invoices available. Only some 100 kilometres have been covered since the restoration's completion and this beautiful Porsche 911 is presented in commensurately excellent condition. Indeed, in 2019 at Techno Classica, Essen this car's fine quality was recognised by a concours award from the organisers, SIHA (trophy included in sale). The car is offered with its Porsche Certificate of Authenticity confirming 'matching numbers', German registration papers and the aforementioned restoration records.
In 2006 the car was brought back to Germany and in 2015 was bought by the current vendor, a Porsche collector, who commissioned a full restoration with no corners cut. Undertaken by Dutch specialists, the rebuild took two years to complete and was photographically documented (see history file). This restoration included a full engine and gearbox rebuild, a six-coat re-spray in the original Aga Blue livery, re-chroming of the brightwork, a new interior in Pepita, and an overhaul of the instruments. The body restoration was carried out by Garage Houwers of Winterswijk, while the matching engine and gearbox were rebuilt by Koban Tuning of Lichtenvoorde, Holland. Closest attention to detail was taken to bring everything back to original specification, even down to the tinted windows and the original Blaupunkt radio. In total, some €140,000 were spent to return the car to the almost 'as new' condition it is presented in today, with many invoices available. Only some 100 kilometres have been covered since the restoration's completion and this beautiful Porsche 911 is presented in commensurately excellent condition. Indeed, in 2019 at Techno Classica, Essen this car's fine quality was recognised by a concours award from the organisers, SIHA (trophy included in sale). The car is offered with its Porsche Certificate of Authenticity confirming 'matching numbers', German registration papers and the aforementioned restoration records.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some Background:
During the 1950s, Hindustan Aircraft Limited (HAL) had developed and produced several types of trainer aircraft, such as the HAL HT-2. However, elements within the firm were eager to expand into the then-new realm of supersonic fighter aircraft. Around the same time, the Indian government was in the process of formulating a new Air Staff Requirement for a Mach 2-capable combat aircraft to equip the Indian Air Force (IAF). However, as HAL lacked the necessary experience in both developing and manufacturing frontline combat fighters, it was clear that external guidance would be invaluable; this assistance was embodied by Kurt Tank.
In 1956, HAL formally began design work on the supersonic fighter project. The Indian government, led by Jawaharlal Nehru, authorized the development of the aircraft, stating that it would aid in the development of a modern aircraft industry in India. The first phase of the project sought to develop an airframe suitable for travelling at supersonic speeds, and able to effectively perform combat missions as a fighter aircraft, while the second phase sought to domestically design and produce an engine capable of propelling the aircraft. Early on, there was an explicit adherence to satisfying the IAF's requirements for a capable fighter bomber; attributes such as a twin-engine configuration and a speed of Mach 1.4 to 1.5 were quickly emphasized, and this led to the HF-24 Marut.
On 24 June 1961, the first prototype Marut conducted its maiden flight. It was powered by the same Bristol Siddeley Orpheus 703 turbojets that had powered the Folland Gnat, also being manufactured by HAL at that time. On 1 April 1967, the first production Marut was delivered to the IAF. While originally intended only as an interim measure during testing, HAL decided to power production Maruts with a pair of unreheated Orpheus 703s, meaning the aircraft could not attain supersonic speed. Although originally conceived to operate around Mach 2 the Marut in fact was barely capable of reaching Mach 1 due to the lack of suitably powerful engines.
The IAF were reluctant to procure a fighter aircraft only marginally superior to its existing fleet of British-built Hawker Hunters. However, in 1961, the Indian Government decided to procure the Marut, nevertheless, but only 147 aircraft, including 18 two-seat trainers, were completed out of a planned 214. Just after the decision to build the lukewarm Marut, the development of a more advanced aircraft with the desired supersonic performance was initiated.
This enterprise started star-crossed, though: after the Indian Government conducted its first nuclear tests at Pokhran, international pressure prevented the import of better engines of Western origin, or at times, even spares for the Orpheus engines, so that the Marut never realized its full potential due to insufficient power, and it was relatively obsolescent by the time it reached production.
Due to these restrictions India looked for other sources for supersonic aircraft and eventually settled upon the MiG-21 F-13 from the Soviet Union, which entered service in 1964. While fast and agile, the Fishbed was only a short-range daylight interceptor. It lacked proper range for escort missions and air space patrols, and it had no radar that enabled it to conduct all-weather interceptions. To fill this operational gap, the new indigenous HF-26 project was launched around the same time.
For the nascent Indian aircraft industry, HF-26 had a demanding requirements specification: the aircraft was to achieve Mach 2 top speed at high altitude and carry a radar with a guided missile armament that allowed interceptions in any weather, day and night. The powerplant question was left open, but it was clear from the start that a Soviet engine would be needed, since an indigenous development of a suitable powerplant would take much too long and block vital resources, and western alternatives were out of reach. The mission profile and the performance requirements quickly defined the planned aircraft’s layout: To fit a radar, the air intakes with movable ramps to feed the engines were placed on the fuselage flanks. To make sure the aircraft would fulfill its high-performance demands, it was right from the outset powered by two engines, and it was decided to give it delta wings, a popular design among high-speed aircraft of the time – exemplified by the highly successful Dassault Mirage III (which was to be delivered to Pakistan in 1967). With two engines, the HF-26 would be a heavier aircraft than the Mirage III, though, and it was planned to operate the aircraft from semi-prepared airfields, so that it would receive a robust landing gear with low-pressure tires and a brake parachute.
In 1962 India was able to negotiate the delivery of Tumansky RD-9 turbojet engines from the Soviet Union, even though no afterburner was part of the deal – this had to be indigenously developed by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). However, this meant that the afterburner could be tailored to the HF-26, and this task would provide HAL with valuable engineering experience, too.
Now knowing the powerplant, HAL created a single-seater airframe around it, a rather robust design that superficially reminded of the French Mirage III, but there were fundamental differences. The HF-26 had boxy air intakes with movable ramps to control the airflow to the two engines and a relatively wide fuselage to hold them and most of the fuel in tanks between the air ducts behind the cockpit. The aircraft had a single swept fin and a rather small mid-positioned delta-wing with a 60° sweep. The pilot sat under a tight canopy that offered - similar to the Mirage III - only limited all-round vision.
The HF-26's conical nose radome covered an antenna for a ‘Garud’ interception radar – which was in fact a downgraded Soviet ‘Oryol' (Eagle; NATO reporting name 'Skip Spin') system that guided the HF-26’s main armament, a pair of semi-active radar homing (SARH) ‚Saanp’ missiles.
The Saanp missile was developed specifically for the HF-26 in India but used many components of Soviet origin, too, so that they were compatible with the radar. In performance, the Saanp was comparable with the French Matra R.530 air-to-air missile, even though the aerodynamic layout was reversed, with steering fins at the front end, right behind the SARH seaker head - overall the missile reminded of an enlarged AIM-4 Falcon. The missile weighed 180 kg and had a length of 3.5 m. Power came from a two-stage solid rocket that offered a maximum thrust of 80 kN for 2.7 s during the launch phase plus 6.5 s cruise. Maximum speed was Mach 2.7 and operational range was 1.5 to 20 km (0.9 to 12.5 miles). Two of these missiles could be carried on the main wing hardpoints in front of the landing gear wells. Alternatively, infrared-guided R-3 (AA-2 ‘Atoll’) short-range AAMs could be carried by the HF-26, too, and typically two of these were carried on the outer underwing hardpoints, which were plumbed to accept drop tanks (typically supersonic PTB-490s that were carried by the IAF's MiG-21s, too) . Initially, no internal gun was envisioned, as the HF-26 was supposed to be a pure high-speed/high-altitude interceptor that would not engage in dogfights. Two more hardpoints under the fuselage were plumbed, too, for a total of six external stations.
Due to its wing planform, the HF-26 was soon aptly called “Teer” (= Arrow), and with Soviet help the first prototype was rolled out in early 1964 and presented to the public. The first flight, however, would take place almost a year later in January 1965, due to many technical problems, and these were soon complemented by aerodynamic problems. The original delta-winged HF-26 had poor take-off and landing characteristics, and directional stability was weak, too. While a second prototype was under construction in April 1965 the first aircraft was lost after it had entered a spin from which the pilot could not escape – the aircraft crashed and its pilot was killed during the attempt to eject.
After this loss HAL investigated an enlarged fin and a modified wing design with deeper wingtips with lower sweep, which increased wing area and improved low speed handling, too. Furthermore, the fuselage shape had to be modified, too, to reduce supersonic drag, and a more pronounced area ruling was introduced. The indigenous afterburner for the RD-9 engines was unstable and troublesome, too.
It took until 1968 and three more flying prototypes (plus two static airframes) to refine the Teer for serial production service introduction. In this highly modified form, the aircraft was re-designated HF-26M and the first machines were delivered to IAF No. 3 Squadron in late 1969. However, it would take several months until a fully operational status could be achieved. By that time, it was already clear that the Teer, much like the HF-24 Marut before, could not live up to its expectations and was at the brink of becoming obsolete as it entered service. The RD-9 was not a modern engine anymore, and despite its indigenous afterburner – which turned out not only to be chronically unreliable but also to be very thirsty when engaged – the Teer had a disappointing performance: The fighter only achieved a top speed of Mach 1.6 at full power, and with full external load it hardly broke the wall of sound in level flight. Its main armament, the Saanp AAM, also turned out to be unreliable even under ideal conditions.
However, the HF-26M came just in time to take part in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and was, despite its weaknesses, extensively used – even though not necessarily in its intended role. High-flying slow bombers were not fielded during the conflict, and the Teer remained, despite its on-board radar, heavily dependent on ground control interception (GCI) to vector its pilot onto targets coming in at medium and even low altitude. The HF-26M had no capability against low-flying aircraft either, so that pilots had to engage incoming, low-flying enemy aircraft after visual identification – a task the IAF’s nimble MiG-21s were much better suited for. Escorts and air cover missions for fighter-bombers were flown, too, but the HF-26M’s limited range only made it a suitable companion for the equally short-legged Su-7s. The IAF Canberras were frequently deployed on longer range missions, but the HF-26Ms simply could not follow them all the time; for a sufficient range the Teer had to carry four drop tanks, what increased drag and only left the outer pair of underwing hardpoints (which were not plumbed) free for a pair of AA-2 missiles. With the imminent danger of aerial close range combat, though, During the conflict with Pakistan, most HF-26M's were retrofitted with rear-view mirrors in their canopies to improve the pilot's field of view, and a passive IR sensor was added in a small fairing under the nose to improve the aircraft's all-weather capabilities and avoid active radar emissions that would warn potential prey too early.
The lack of an internal gun turned out to be another great weakness of the Teer, and this was only lightly mended through the use of external gun pods. Two of these cigar-shaped pods that resembled the Soviet UPK-23 pod could be carried on the two ventral pylons, and each contained a 23 mm Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-23L autocannon of Soviet origin with 200 rounds. Technically these pods were very similar to the conformal GP-9 pods carried by the IAF MiG-21FLs. While the gun pods considerably improved the HF-26M’s firepower and versatility, the pods were draggy, blocked valuable hardpoints (from extra fuel) and their recoil tended to damage the pylons as well as the underlying aircraft structure, so that they were only commissioned to be used in an emergency.
However, beyond air-to-air weapons, the HF-26M could also carry ordnance of up to 1.000 kg (2.207 lb) on the ventral and inner wing hardpoints and up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) on the other pair of wing hardpoints, including iron bombs and/or unguided missile pods. However, the limited field of view from the cockpit over the radome as well as the relatively high wing loading did not recommend the aircraft for ground attack missions – even though these frequently happened during the conflict with Pakistan. For these tactical missions, many HF-26Ms lost their original overall natural metal finish and instead received camouflage paint schemes on squadron level, resulting in individual and sometimes even spectacular liveries. Most notable examples were the Teer fighters of No. 1 Squadron (The Tigers), which sported various camouflage adaptations of the unit’s eponym.
Despite its many deficiencies, the HF-26M became heavily involved in the Indo-Pakistan conflict. As the Indian Army tightened its grip in East Pakistan, the Indian Air Force continued with its attacks against Pakistan as the campaign developed into a series of daylight anti-airfield, anti-radar, and close-support attacks by fighter jets, with night attacks against airfields and strategic targets by Canberras and An-12s, while Pakistan responded with similar night attacks with its B-57s and C-130s.
The PAF deployed its F-6s mainly on defensive combat air patrol missions over their own bases, leaving the PAF unable to conduct effective offensive operations. Sporadic raids by the IAF continued against PAF forward air bases in Pakistan until the end of the war, and interdiction and close-support operations were maintained. One of the most successful air raids by India into West Pakistan happened on 8 December 1971, when Indian Hunter aircraft from the Pathankot-based 20 Squadron, attacked the Pakistani base in Murid and destroyed 5 F-86 aircraft on the ground.
The PAF played a more limited role in the operations, even though they were reinforced by Mirages from an unidentified Middle Eastern ally (whose identity remains unknown). The IAF was able to conduct a wide range of missions – troop support; air combat; deep penetration strikes; para-dropping behind enemy lines; feints to draw enemy fighters away from the actual target; bombing and reconnaissance. India flew 1,978 sorties in the East and about 4,000 in Pakistan, while the PAF flew about 30 and 2,840 at the respective fronts. More than 80 percent of IAF sorties were close-support and interdiction and about 45 IAF aircraft were lost, including three HF-26Ms. Pakistan lost 60 to 75 aircraft, not including any F-86s, Mirage IIIs, or the six Jordanian F-104s which failed to return to their donors. The imbalance in air losses was explained by the IAF's considerably higher sortie rate and its emphasis on ground-attack missions. The PAF, which was solely focused on air combat, was reluctant to oppose these massive attacks and rather took refuge at Iranian air bases or in concrete bunkers, refusing to offer fights and respective losses.
After the war, the HF-26M was officially regarded as outdated, and as license production of the improved MiG-21FL (designated HAL Type 77 and nicknamed “Trishul” = Trident) and later of the MiG-21M (HAL Type 88) was organized in India, the aircraft were quickly retired from frontline units. They kept on serving into the Eighties, though, but now restricted to their original interceptor role. Beyond the upgrades from the Indo-Pakistani War, only a few upgrades were made. For instance, the new R-60 AAM was introduced to the HF-26M and around 1978 small (but fixed) canards were retrofitted to the air intakes behind the cockpit that improved the Teer’s poor slow speed control and high landing speed as well as the aircraft’s overall maneuverability.
A radar upgrade, together with the introduction of better air-to-ai missiles with a higher range and look down/shoot down capability was considered but never carried out. Furthermore, the idea of a true HF-26 2nd generation variant, powered by a pair of Tumansky R-11F-300 afterburner jet engines (from the license-built MiG-21FLs), was dropped, too – even though this powerplant eventually promised to fulfill the Teer’s design promise of Mach 2 top speed. A total of only 82 HF-26s (including thirteen two-seat trainers with a lengthened fuselage and reduced fuel capacity, plus eight prototypes) were built. The last aircraft were retired from IAF service in 1988 and replaced with Mirage 2000 fighters procured from France that were armed with the Matra Super 530 AAM.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 14.97 m (49 ft ½ in)
Wingspan: 9.43 m (30 ft 11 in)
Height: 4.03 m (13 ft 2½ in)
Wing area: 30.6 m² (285 sq ft)
Empty weight: 7,000 kg (15,432 lb)
Gross weight: 10,954 kg (24,149 lb) with full internal fuel
Max takeoff weight: 15,700 kg (34,613 lb) with external stores
Powerplant:
2× Tumansky RD-9 afterburning turbojet engines; 29 kN (6,600 lbf) dry thrust each
and 36.78 kN (8,270 lbf) with afterburner
Performance:
Maximum speed: 1,700 km/h (1,056 mph; 917 kn; Mach 1.6) at 11,000 m (36,000 ft)
1,350 km/h (840 mph, 730 kn; Mach 1.1) at sea level
Combat range: 725 km (450 mi, 391 nmi) with internal fuel only
Ferry range: 1,700 km (1,100 mi, 920 nmi) with four drop tanks
Service ceiling: 18,100 m (59,400 ft)
g limits: +6.5
Time to altitude: 9,145 m (30,003 ft) in 1 minute 30 seconds
Wing loading: 555 kg/m² (114 lb/sq ft)
Armament
6× hardpoints (four underwing and two under the fuselage) for a total of 2.500 kg (5.500 lb);
Typical interceptor payload:
- two IR-guided R-3 or R-60 air-to-air-missiles or
two PTB-490 drop tanks on the outer underwing stations
- two semi-active radar-guided ‚Saanp’ air-to-air missiles or two more R-3 or R-60 AAMs
on inner underwing stations
- two 500 l drop tanks or two gun pods with a 23 mm GSh-23L autocannon and 200 RPG
each under the fuselage
The kit and its assembly:
This whiffy delta-wing fighter was inspired when I recently sliced up a PM Model Su-15 kit for my side-by-side-engine BAC Lightning build. At an early stage of the conversion, I held the Su-15 fuselage with its molded delta wings in my hand and wondered if a shortened tail section (as well as a shorter overall fuselage to keep proportions balanced) could make a delta-wing jet fighter from the Flagon base? Only a hardware experiment could yield an answer, and since the Su-15’s overall outlines look a bit retro I settled at an early stage on India as potential designer and operator, as “the thing the HF-24 Marut never was”.
True to the initial idea, work started on the tail, and I chopped off the fuselage behind the wings’ trailing edge. Some PSR was necessary to blend the separate exhaust section into the fuselage, which had to be reduced in depth through wedges that I cut out under the wings trailing edge, plus some good amount of glue and sheer force the bend the section a bit upwards. The PM Model's jet exhausts were drilled open, and I added afterburner dummies inside - anything would look better than the bleak vertical walls inside after only 2-3 mm! The original fin was omitted, because it was a bit too large for the new, smaller aircraft and its shape reminded a lot of the Suchoj heavy fighter family. It was replaced with a Mirage III/V fin, left over from a (crappy!) Pioneer 2 IAI Nesher kit.
Once the rear section was complete, I had to adjust the front end - and here the kitbashing started. First, I chopped off the cockpit section in front of the molded air intake - the Su-15’s long radome and the cockpit on top of the fuselage did not work anymore. As a remedy I remembered another Su-15 conversion I did a (long) while ago: I created a model of a planned ground attack derivative, the T-58Sh, and, as a part of the extensive body work, I transplanted the slanted nose from an academy MiG-27 between the air intakes – a stunt that was relatively easy and which appreciably lowered the cockpit position. For the HF-26M I did something similar, I just transplanted a cockpit from a Hasegawa/Academy MiG-23 with its ogival radome that size-wise better matched with the rest of the leftover Su-15 airframe.
The MiG-23 cockpit matched perfectly with the Su-15's front end, just the spinal area behind the cockpit had to be raised/re-sculpted to blend the parts smoothly together. For a different look from the Su-15 ancestry I also transplanted the front sections of the MiG-23 air intakes with their shorter ramps. Some mods had to be made to the Su-15 intake stubs, but the MiG-23 intakes were an almost perfect fit in size and shape and easy to integrate into the modified front hill. The result looks very natural!
However, when the fuselage was complete, I found that the nose appeared to be a bit too long, leaving the whole new hull with the wings somewhat off balance. As a remedy I decided at a rather late stage to shorten the nose and took out a 6 mm section in front of the cockpit - a stunt I had not planned, but sometimes you can judge things only after certain work stages. Some serious PSR was necessary to re-adjust the conical nose shape, which now looked more Mirage III-ish than planned!
The cockpit was taken mostly OOB, I just replaced the ejection seat and gave it a trigger handle made from thin wire. With the basic airframe complete it was time for details. The PM Model Su-15s massive and rather crude main landing gear was replaced with something more delicate from the scrap box, even though I retained the main wheels. The front landing gear was taken wholesale from the MiG-23, but had to be shortened for a proper stance.
A display holder adapter was integrated into the belly for the flight scenes, hidden well between the ventral ordnance.
The hardpoints, including missile launch rails, came from the MiG-23; the pylons had to be adjusted to match the Su-15's wing profile shape, the Anab missiles lost their tail sections to create the fictional Indian 'Saanp' AAMs. The R-3s on the outer stations were left over from a MP MiG-21. The ventral pylons belong to Academy MiG-23/27s, one came from the donor kit, the other was found in the spares box. The PTB-490 drop tanks also came from a KP MiG-21 (or one of its many reincarnations, not certain).
Painting and markings:
The paint scheme for this fictional aircraft was largely inspired by a picture of a whiffy and very attractive Saab 37 Viggen (an 1:72 Airfix kit) in IAF colors, apparently a model from a contest. BTW, India actually considered buying the Viggen for its Air Force!
IAF aircraft were and are known for their exotic and sometimes gawdy paint schemes, and with IAF MiG-21 “C 992” there’s even a very popular (yet obscure) aircraft that sported literal tiger stripes. The IAF Viggen model was surely inspired by this real aircraft, and I adopted something similar for my HF-26M.
IAF 1 Squadron was therefore settled, and for the paint scheme I opted for a "stripish" scheme, but not as "tigeresque" as "C 992". I found a suitable benchmark in a recent Libyian MiG-21, which carried a very disruptive two-tone grey scheme. I adapted this pattern to the HA-26M airframe and replaced its colors, similar to the IAF Viggen model, which became a greenish sand tone (a mix of Humbrol 121 with some 159; I later found out that I could have used Humbrol 83 from the beginning, though...) and a very dark olive drab (Humbrol 66, which looks like a dull dark brown in contrast with the sand tone), with bluish grey (Humbrol 247) undersides. With the large delta wings, this turned out to look very good and even effective!
For that special "Indian touch" I gave the aircraft a high-contrast fin in a design that I had seen on a real camouflaged IAF MiG-21bis: an overall dark green base with a broad, red vertical stripe which was also the shield for the fin flash and the aircraft's tactical code (on the original bare metal). The fin was first painted in green (Humbrol 2), the red stripe was created with orange-red decal sheet material. Similar material was also used to create the bare metal field for the tactical code, the yellow bars on the splitter plates and for the thin white canopy sealing.
After basic painting was done the model received an overall black ink washing, post-panel shading and extensive dry-brushing with aluminum and iron for a rather worn look.
The missiles became classic white, while the drop tanks, as a contrast to the camouflaged belly, were left in bare metal.
Decals/markings came primarily from a Begemot MiG-25 kit, the tactical codes on the fin and under the wings originally belong to an RAF post-WWII Spitfire, just the first serial letter was omitted. Stencils are few and they came from various sources. A compromise is the unit badge on the fin: I needed a tiger motif, and the only suitable option I found was the tiger head emblem on a white disc from RAF No. 74 Squadron, from the Matchbox BAC Lightning F.6&F.2A kit. It fits stylistically well, though. ;-)
Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (except for the black radome, which became a bit glossy) and finally assembled.
A spontaneous build, and the last one that I completed in 2022. However, despite a vague design plan the model evolved as it grew. Bashing the primitive PM Model Su-15 with the Academy MiG-23 parts was easier than expected, though, and the resulting fictional aircraft looks sturdy but quite believable - even though it appears to me like the unexpected child of a Mirage III/F-4 Phantom II intercourse, or like a juvenile CF-105 Arrow, just with mid-wings? Nevertheless, the disruptive paint scheme suits the delta wing fighter well, and the green/red fin is a striking contrast - it's a colorful model, but not garish.
The Adox Adoxette camera was a medium format camera capable of taking sixteen 3 x 4mm exposures on number 127 roll film. It is an offspring of Wirgin Gewirette. It is incredibly small for an 127 film camera, even smaller than the already tiny Lomo LC-A camera for 35mm film.
I tried out the Adoxette today, and have mixed feelings. On one hand, it is incredibly small and cute, and the Trioplan lens is quite good around f/8-f/11. On the other hand, it is a bit too fiddly for everyday use.
In order to make it so small, the top loading mechanism is a bit tricky. And it seems the pressure plate is not keeping the film flat enough. The lens focus right, but I have no way to test/calibrate it since I have no way to put in a ground glass and see it.
My first roll yielded decent results, and there is a bit of halo on the highlights which reminds me of the old school look.
For everyday use, I would probably prefer Baby Rollei or Sawyer IV TLR. They are just more practical. And they can use 120 down-sliced film, since they don't rely on the number on the backing paper.
U.S. Army Master Sergeant Cumberland, acting as the OPFOR (Opposing Force) walks down a road before setting up an ambush on passing convoys during CSTX 78-19-02 at Fort Dix, NJ, June 12, 2019. CSTX 78-19-02 is a Combat Support Training Exercise that ensures Army Reserve unit are trained and ready to deploy on short-notice and bring capable, combat-ready, and lethal firepower in support of the Army and our joint partners anywhere in the world. (U.S. Army photo by SSG Benjamin Applebaum) www.dvidshub.net
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Lockheed XFV (sometimes erroneously referred to as the "Salmon", even though this was actually the name of one of its test pilots and not an official designation) was an American experimental tailsitter prototype aircraft built by Lockheed in the early 1950s to demonstrate the operation of a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) fighter for protecting convoys.
The Lockheed XFV originated as a result of a proposal issued by the U.S. Navy in 1948 for an aircraft capable of vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aboard platforms mounted on the afterdecks of conventional ships. Both Convair and Lockheed competed for the contract, but in 1950 the requirement was revised with a call for a research aircraft capable of eventually evolving into a VTOL ship-based convoy escort fighter. On 19 April 1951, two prototypes were ordered from Lockheed under the designation XFO-1 (company designation was Model 081-40-01). Soon after the contract was awarded, the project designation changed to XFV-1 when the Navy's code for Lockheed was changed from O to V.
The XFV was powered by a 5,332 hp (3,976 kW) Allison YT40-A-6 turboprop engine, composed of two Allison T38 power sections driving three-bladed contra-rotating propellers via a common gearbox. The aircraft had no landing gear, just small castoring wheels at the tips of the tail surfaces which were a reflected cruciform v-tail (forming an x) that extended above and below the fuselage. The wings were diamond-shaped and relatively thin, with straight and sharp leading edges – somewhat foretelling the design of Lockheed’s Mach-2-capable F-104 Starfighter.
To begin flight testing, a temporary non-retractable undercarriage with long braced V-legs was attached to the fuselage, and fixed tail wheels attached to the lower pair of fins. In this form, the aircraft was trucked to Edwards AFB in November 1953 for ground testing and taxiing trials. During one of these tests, at a time when the aft section of the large spinner had not yet been fitted, Lockheed chief test pilot Herman "Fish" Salmon managed to taxi the aircraft past the liftoff speed, and the aircraft made a brief hop on 22 December 1953. The official first flight took place on 16 June 1954.
Full VTOL testing at Edwards AFB was delayed pending the availability of the 7,100 shp Allison T54, which was earmarked to replace the T40 and power eventual serial production aircraft. But the T54 faced severe development delays, esp. its gearbox. Another problem that arose with the new engine was that the propeller blade tips would reach supersonic speed and therefore compressibility problems.
After the brief unintentional hop, the prototype aircraft made a total of 32 flights. The XFV-1 was able to make a few transitions in flight from the conventional to the vertical flight mode and back, and had briefly held in hover at altitude, but the T40 output was simply not enough to ensure proper and secure VTOL operations. Performance remained limited by the confines of the flight test regime. Another issue that arose through the advancements of jet engine designs was the realization that the XFV's top speed would be eclipsed by contemporary fighters. Additionally, the purely manual handling of the aircraft esp. during landing was very demanding - the XFV could only be controlled by highly experienced pilots.
Both Navy and the Marines Corps were still interested in the concept, though, so that, in early 1955, the decision was made to build a limited pre-production series of the aircraft, the FV-2, for operational field tests and evaluation. The FV-2 was the proposed production version (Model 181-43-02), primarily conceived and optimized as a night/all-weather interceptor for point defense, and officially baptized “Solstice”. The FV-2 was powered by the T54-A-16 turboprop, which had eventually overcome its teething troubles and offered a combined power output equivalent of 7,500 shp (5,600 kW) from the propellers and the twin-engines’ residual thrust. Outwardly the different engine was recognizable through two separate circular exhausts which were introduced instead of the XFV’s single shallow ventral opening. The gearbox had been beefed up, too, with additional oil coolers in small ventral fairings behind the contraprops and the propeller blades were aerodynamically improved to better cope with the higher power output and rotation speed. Additionally, an automatic pitch control system was introduced to alleviate the pilot from the delicate control burdens during hover and flight mode transition.
Compared with the XFV, the FV-2 incorporated 150 lb (68 kg) of cockpit armor, along with a 1.5 in (38 mm) bullet-proof windscreen. A Sperry Corporation AN/APS-19 type radar was added in the fixed forward part of the nose spinner under an opaque perspex radome. The AN/APS-19 was primarily a target detection radar with only a limited tracking capability, and it had been introduced with the McDonnell F2H-2N. The radar had a theoretical maximum detection range of 60 km, but in real life air targets could only be detected at much shorter distances. At long ranges the radar was mainly used for navigation and to detect land masses or large ships.
Like the older AN/APS-6, the AN/APS-19 operated in a "Spiral Scan" search pattern. In a spiral scan the radar dish spins rapidly, scanning the area in front of the aircraft following a spiral path. As a result, however targets were not updated on every pass as the radar was pointing at a different angle on each pass. This also made the radar prone to ground clutter effects, which created "pulses" on the radar display. The AN/APS-19 was able to lock onto and track targets within a narrow cone, out to a maximum range of about 1 mile (1.5 km), but to do so the radar had to cease scanning.
The FV-2’s standard armament consisted of four Mk. 11 20 mm cannon fitted in pairs in the two detachable wingtip pods, with 250 rounds each, which fired outside of the wide propeller disc. Alternatively, forty-eight 2¾ in (70 mm) folding-fin rockets could be fitted in similar pods, which could be fired in salvoes against both air and ground targets. Instead of offensive armament, 200 US gal. (165 imp. gal./750 l) auxiliary tanks for ferry flights could be mounted onto the wing tips.
Until June 1956 a total of eleven FV-2s were built and delivered. With US Navy Air Development Squadron 8 (also known as VX-8) at NAS Atlantic City, a dedicated evaluation and maintenance unit for the FV-2 and the operations of VTOL aircraft in general was formed. VX-2 operated closely with its sister unit VX-3 (located at the same base) and operated the FV-2s alongside contemporary types like the Grumman F9F-8 Cougar, which at that time went through carrier-qualification aboard the USS Midway. The Cougars were soon joined by the new, supersonic F-8U-1 Crusaders, which arrived in December 1956. The advent of this supersonic navy jet type rendered the FV-2’s archaic technology and its performance more and more questionable, even though the VTOL concept’s potential and the institutions’ interest in it kept the test unit alive.
The FV-2s were in the following years put through a series of thorough field tests and frequently deployed to land bases all across the USA and abroad. Additionally, operational tests were also conducted on board of various ship types, ranging from carriers with wide flight decks to modified merchant ships with improvised landing platforms. The FV-2s also took part in US Navy and USMC maneuvers, and when not deployed elsewhere the training with new pilots at NAS Atlantic City continued.
During these tests, the demanding handling characteristics of the tailsitter concept in general and the FV-2 in specific were frequently confirmed. Once in flight, however, the FV-2 handled well and was a serious and agile dogfighter – but jet aircraft could easily avoid and outrun it.
Other operational problems soon became apparent, too: while the idea of a VTOL aircraft that was independent from runways or flight bases was highly attractive, the FV-2’s tailsitter concept required a complex and bulky maintenance infrastructure, with many ladders, working platforms and cranes. On the ground, the FV-2 could not move on its own and had to be pushed or towed. However, due to the aircraft’s high center of gravity it had to be handled with great care – two FV-2s were seriously damaged after they toppled over, one at NAS Atlantic City on the ground (it could be repaired and brought back into service), the other aboard a ship at heavy sea, where the aircraft totally got out of control on deck and fell into the sea as a total loss.
To make matters even worse, fundamental operational tasks like refueling, re-arming the aircraft between sorties or even just boarding it were a complicated and slow task, so that the aircraft’s theoretical conceptual benefits were countered by its cumbersome handling.
FV-2 operations furthermore revealed, despite the considerably increased power output of the T54 twin engine that more than compensated for the aircraft’s raised weight, only a marginal improvement of the aircraft’s performance; the FV-2 had simply reached the limits of propeller-driven aircraft. Just the rate of climb was markedly improved, and the extra power made the FV-2’s handling safer than the XFV’s, even though this advancement was only relative because the aircraft’s hazardous handling during transition and landing as well as other conceptual problems prevailed and could not be overcome. The FV-2’s range was also very limited, esp. when it did not carry the fuel tanks on the wing tips, so that the aircraft’s potential service spectrum remained very limited.
Six of the eleven FV-2s that were produced were lost in various accidents within only three years, five pilots were killed. The T54 engine remained unreliable, and the propeller control system which used 25 vacuum tubes was far from reliable, too. Due to the many problems, the FV-2s were grounded in 1959, and when VX-8 was disestablished on 1 March 1960, the whole project was cancelled and all remaining aircraft except for one airframe were scrapped. As of today, Bu.No. 53-3537 resides disassembled in storage at the National Museum of the United States Navy in the former Breech Mechanism Shop of the old Naval Gun Factory on the grounds of the Washington Navy Yard in Washington, D.C., United States, where it waits for restoration and eventual public presentation.
As a historic side note, the FV-2’s detachable wing tip gun pods had a longer and more successful service life: they were the basis for the Mk.4 HIPEG (High Performance External Gun) gun pods. This weapon system’s main purpose became strafing ground targets, and it received a different attachment system for underwing hardpoints and a bigger ammunition supply (750 RPG instead of just 250 on the FV-2). Approximately 1.200 Mk. 4 twin gun pods were manufactured by Hughes Tool Company, later Hughes Helicopter, in Culver City, California. While the system was tested and certified for use on the A-4, the A-6, the A-7, the F-4, and the OV-10, it only saw extended use on the A-4, the F-4, and the OV-10, esp. in Vietnam where the Mk. 4 pod was used extensively for close air support missions.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length/Height: 36 ft 10.25 in (11.23 m)
Wingspan: 30 ft 10.1 in (9.4 m)
Wing area: 246 sq ft (22.85 m²)
Empty weight: 12,388 lb (5,624 kg)
Gross weight: 17,533 lb (7,960 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 18,159 lb (8,244 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Allison T54-A-16 turboprop with 7,500 shp (5,600 kW) output equivalent,
driving a 6 blade contra-rotating propeller
Performance:
Maximum speed: 585 mph (941 km/h, 509 kn
Cruise speed: 410 mph (660 km/h, 360 kn)
Range: 500 mi (800 km, 430 nmi) with internal fuel
800 mi (1,300 km, 700 nmi) with ferry wing tip tanks
Service ceiling: 46,800 ft (14,300 m)
Rate of climb: 12,750 ft/min (75.0 m/s)
Wing loading: 73.7 lb/sq ft (360 kg/m²)
Armament:
4× 20 mm (.79 in) Mk. 11 machine cannon with a total of 1.000 rounds, or
48× 2.75 in (70 mm) rockets in wingtip pods, or
a pair of 200 US gal. (165 imp. gal./750 l) auxiliary tanks on the wing tips
The kit and its assembly:
Another submission to the “Fifties” group build at whatifmodellers-com, and a really nice what-if aircraft that perfectly fits into the time frame. I had this Pegasus kit in The Stash™ for quite a while and the plan to build an operational USN or USMC aircraft from it in the typical all-dark-blue livery from the early Fifties, and the group build was a good occasion to realize it.
The Pegasus kit was released in 1992, the only other option to build the XFV in 1:72 is a Valom kit which, as a bonus, features the aircraft’s fixed landing gear that was used during flight trials. The Pegasus offering is technically simple and robust, but it is nothing for those who are faint at heart. The warning that the kit requires an experienced builder is not to be underestimated, because the IP kit from the UK comes with white metal parts and no visual instructions, just a verbal description of the building steps. The IP parts (including the canopy, which is one piece, quite thick but also clear) and the decals look good, though.
The IP parts feature flash and uneven seam lines, sprue attachment points are quite thick. The grey IP material had on my specimen different grades of hard-/brittleness, the white metal parts (some of the propeller blades) were bent and had to be re-aligned. No IP parts would fit well (there are no locator pins or other physical aids), the cockpit tub was a mess to assemble and fit into the fuselage. PSR on any seam all around the hull. But even though this sound horrible, the kit goes together relatively easy – thanks to its simplicity.
I made some mods and upgrades, though. One of them was an internal axis construction made from styrene tubes that allow the two propeller discs to move separately (OOB, you just stack and glue the discs onto each other into a rigid nose cone), while the propeller tip with its radome remained fixed – just as in real life. However, due to the parts’ size and resistance against each other, the props could not move as freely as originally intended.
Separate parts for the air intakes as well as the wings and tail surfaces could be mounted with less problems than expected, even though - again – PSR was necessary to hide the seams.
Painting and markings:
As already mentioned, the livery would be rather conservative, because I wanted the aircraft to carry the uniform USN scheme in all-over FS 35042 with white markings, which was dropped in 1955, though. The XFV or a potential serial production derivative would just fit into this time frame, and might have carried the classic all-blue livery for a couple of years more, especially when operated by an evaluation unit. Its unit, VX-8, is totally fictional, though.
The cockpit interior was painted in Humbrol 80 (simulating bright zinc chromate primer), and to have some contrasts I added small red highlights on the fin pod tips and the gun pods' anti-flutter winglets. For some more variety the radome became earth brown with some good weathering, simulating an opaque perspex hood, and I added white (actually a very light gray) checkerboard markings on the "propeller rings", a bit inspired by the spinner markings on German WWII fighters. Subtle, but it looks good and breaks the otherwise very simple livery.
Some post-panel-shading with a lighter blue was done all over the hull, the exhaust area and the gun ports were painted with iron (Revell 91) and treated with graphite for a more metallic shine.
Silver decal stripe material was used to create the CoroGuard leading edges and the fine lines at the flaps on wings and fins - much easier than trying to solve this with paint and brush...
The decals were puzzled together from various dark blue USN aircraft, including a F8F, F9F and F4U sheet. The "XH" code was created with single 1cm hwite letters, the different font is not obvious, thanks to the letter combination.
Finally, the model was sealed with semi-gloss acrylic varnish (still shiny, but not too bright), the radome and the exhaust area were painted with matt varnsh, though.
A cool result, despite the rather dubious kit base. The Pegasus kit is seriously something for experienced builders, but the result looks convincing. The blue USN livery suits the XFV/FV-2 very well, it looks much more elegant than in the original NMF - even though it would, in real life, probably have received the new Gull Gray/White scheme (introduced in late 1955, IIRC, my FV-2 might have been one of the last aircraft to be painted blue). However, the blue scheme IMHO points out the aircraft's highly aerodynamic teardrop shape, esp. the flight pics make the aircraft almost look elegant!
The original Peppercorn A1 series was ordered by the LNER, but the 49 locomotives were built at Doncaster and Darlington for British Railways (BR) in 1948/1949, after the nationalisation of the railways in the United Kingdom. Following the modernisation and dieselisation plans of the 1950s, the A1 Peppercorn class was eventually scrapped at a comparatively very young age of just 14 years.
Other famous East Coast Mainline steam locomotives have been preserved, for example several Gresley LNER Class A4 and one LNER Class A3 4472 Flying Scotsman but all 49 of the LNER Peppercorn Class A1 steam locomotives were scrapped. The last remaining example was 60145 St Mungo, which survived until September 1966. Therefore, building of Tornado fills a major gap in the preservation scene for former East Coast main line steam locomotives.
The A1s were designed to cope with the heaviest regular East Coast trains of the post-war period. These frequently loaded to 15 coaches or 550 tons. The locomotives were capable of maintaining 60-70 miles per hour (95-110 km/h) on level track with such trains. Thus, Tornado will be able to haul lighter (10-11 coach trains) at higher speeds, to fit in with modern-day faster main line traffic patterns.
[edit] Project milestones
Tornado side view
Tornado nameplate1990 - A1 Steam Locomotive Trust formally launched, 11 November[3]
1994 - Tornado's first and last components ceremonially presented (a bogie swivel pin and a regulator nut)[1]
1994 - Construction starts (frame plates rolled at Scunthorpe), 22 April[4]
1995 - RAF officers present the Tornado nameplates at Tyseley[1] at the frame laying ceremony, January[4]
1995 - First wheel cast[4]
1996 - Tornado's 3 cylinder castings unveiled at Tysley, 25 May[4][1]
1997 - Tornado frame displayed at the Great Hall at the National Railway Museum, March[4].
1997 - Tornado unveiled at Hopetown.
1999 - Smokebox door complete, Tornado's symbolic 'face'
2000 - Tornado over 50% complete (Summer)[5]
2000 - Wheelset added[4] (Autumn)[5]
2004 - The book value of Tornado components reaches 1 million pounds[6].
2004 - first synchronous smooth wheel motion, 25 August[6]
2007 - boiler/firebox assembly fitted to frame, June[7][8]
2008 - First static steaming, January[9][8]
2008 - Tender completed, February[10]
2008 - Moves under own steam for first time, July[11]
2008 - Moved to the Great Central Railway for 60mph test running
[edit] Design
[edit] L.D. Porta
Right hand valve gearOn hearing of the project, in October 1991 the prominent Argentinian locomotive engineer, the late L.D.Porta, contacted the trust[2], hailing the project as the start of a "renaissance of steam technology"[2]. In 1992 he submitted a proposal to the trust, A proposal for the Tornado project[12]. In it he proposed to the trust several design improvements that could be made to Tornado that, while preserving the outer form, would make Tornado a second-generation steam locomotive.
Since the trust was not creating a replica A1, but the next A1, the proposals were duly considered. However, the trust decided it could only adopt some of the proposals, and improved Tornado remains strictly a first-generation locomotive. The trust felt there were too many risks in adopting all of the untried proposals, and in Porta's own words, it would have taken 20,000 test miles to iron out his improvements, something the Trust probably could not finance[13]. The expense of testing the heavily modified preserved Duke of Gloucester was also cited as a factor.
As such, despite not realising Porta's dream of producing an efficient viable 'second-generation' locomotive, capable of challenging the 'oil-dependent' modern-day economy, the Tornado eventually proved its detractors wrong by proving that a main line steam locomotive could still be built in Britain.
Ironically, in 2003 it had been decided to make Tornado oil-fired, for cost and operational reasons[14], following earlier dual-fueled coal/oil-fired proposals in 1998 when boiler design commenced[15]. This was later abandoned in favour of the original design of coal firing, due to the cost increase by the massive increase in global fuel prices, and to save the certification costs of this design difference[6].
[edit] Draughting
Tender body, 2007Rough engineering dimensions for Tornado were obtained from measuring Blue Peter at the NRM[2]. Due to there being no general arrangement drawing of an A1, one from an A2 was used[2].
Many of the drawings originally used at Doncaster Works for the A1 Peppercorn class had been preserved at the National Railway Museum[2], and a team of volunteers spent 3 days collating these in the Autumn of 1991[2]. The original linen copies had to be scanned into CAD, as the microfilm NRM copies were not suitable for manufacturing purposes, and direct dyeline copies could not be made[1]. About 95 per cent of the original drawings were found, with 1,100 scanned by 1993, and a further 140 in 2001[1]. A few poor quality originals required re-drawing[1].
Updated specifications were required to be drawn up to account for out of date material specifications, and drawing notes whose original meaing could not be determined[1]. Other design details were also obtained through interviews with Arthur Peppercorn's former assistant, J.F. Harrison[1].
[edit] Changes from original
The design was modified where necessary to better suit modern manufacturing techniques[3], and to fit in with the modern high speed railway[3], while retaining the greater part of the original design[3].
Cab electricsThe following design changes were made for cost or operational reasons:
All welded boiler[1] (i.e. not rivetted[14])
Steel firebox[1] (not copper[14])
One piece frames[1]
Roller bearings
Improved front bogie[1]
Improved steam circuit[1]
Altered tender coal/water balance (more water)[1]
Overall weight reduction[1]
Additionally, to meet with current safety and operation standards, Tornado includes:
Up-rated electrical supplies
Primary air (not steam) brakes[1]
Vacuum brakes[1] (for heritage railway stock)
1 inch reduction in overall height[14] (for OLE regulations[14])
Automatic Warning System (AWS),
Train Protection & Warning System (TPWS).
data recorder and radio
With advances in manufacturing, as opposed to the original A1, which had two piece frames riveted together, Tornado's 48 foot 6 inch long steel plates were electronically cut from one piece of steel[4]. As such, these are probably the most accurate steam locomotive frames ever produced[4].
Cartazzi axleDespite their higher costs, roller bearings were used[1] owing to the reliability they had demonstrated after a trial of some of the original A1's. This caused an unforeseen problem in 2003 since the modifications made to the tender in the original fitting of roller bearings as an experiment to some A1s had not been properly drawn for the Cartazzi axle of the trailing wheels[14].
The tender was redesigned internally, removing the water scoop, increasing the water capacity from 5,000 to 6,000 gallons, and reducing coal capacity from 9 to 7.5 tons[8].
A 1 inch reduction in height from the original 13 foot 1 inch height was required by the Network Rail Overhead Line Equipment (OLE) regulations, and was achieved by a redesign of the dome and safety valve mountings on the boiler[14], and by reprofiling of the cab roof and chimney.
[edit] Tender
In 1991, a preference for a 'Doncaster pattern' riveted tender was expressed[2], as per the Doncaster built A1s[14]. The redundant tender of the Flying Scotsman was acquired, although later returned unused, allowing Tornado to remain a completely originally manufactured locomotive.
By 2002 it was agreed a flush sided (all welded) boiler and tender was appropriate for a Darlington built A1[14], and making construction and maintenance easier[14]. In 2003 the need for a second tender for Tornado was discounted[14]. The tender features spoked wheels as per at least three historical LNER Peppercorn A1s.
[edit] Boiler
Dampflokwerk Meiningen locomotive works, 2005Consideration of the boiler began in late 1998[15]. No standard gauge boiler had been built in Britain since the 1960s[14], at least not for such a large engine. It was required to be based on the original LNER Diagram 118 design, but meet modern safety standards[14]. The trust was unable to locate a British supplier with design competency as well as manufacturing capacity[14]. This was required by the trust due to the number of design changes to the boiler[14]. This included the cost-saving measures of a welded rather than a rivetted firebox and boiler tube[14], and use of steel rather than copper for the firebox[14], and the height reduction for OLE regulations.
In early 2002, the Deutsche Bahn ex-Deutsche Reichsbahn owned Meiningen locomotive works in the former East Germany was identified as a supplier[14], Dampflokwerk Meiningen (Steam Locomotive Works Meiningen)[14]. They possessed the required knowledge as mainline steam operation had continued in East Germany until the mid-1980s[6], and 70% of its work still involved steam, and they still possessed the powerful plate roller machines. Due to funding, the trust was not in a position to place the order until January 2005[6].
On 16 July 2006 the boiler arrived by sea, unloaded at Darlington with a 200 ton crane, having taken just nine months to build[8].
[edit] Manufacture
In contrast to the original LNER Doncaster and Darlington works which were ultimately self-sufficient, with no comparable remaining locomotive workshops in the UK, the building ofTornado has required the use of a large number of sub-contractors in varying locations[10], requiring multiple suppliers to build components such as the cylinders[4].
In Spring 1992 it was announced the trust intended to build Tornado in Britain, and not as had been suggested, overseas, possibly in Poland, although it would be possible that some parts would need to be built overseas[2].
Tornado in the siding outside Hopetown Carriage WorksThe majority of assembly of Tornado has taken place at the A1 Trust's Darlington Locomotive Works[4], in the Hopetown Carriage Works, Darlington, which is a stone's throw from Darlington Works[4].
An initial agreement with Doncaster council for a construction site broke down, so it was decided to begin construction at Tyseley Locomotive Works, with the frames ceremonially laid there on 5 January 1995[4].
The motion components cost £150,000, £50,000 to forge (taking three years to complete[15]) and £100,000 to machine[15]. The first mainline steam locomotive wheelset manufacture in Britain since 1960 took 5 years, involved 9 suppliers and cost £100,000 even with generous sponsorship[5].
[edit] 1995 - 2000
Actual manufacture and construction had started in 1994, before the Hopetown works opened, with casting of the cylinders (late 1994[4]) and wheels, cutting of the frames and construction of the cab. The locomotive frames were assembled at Tyseley Locomotive Works, Birmingham[1] completed by October 1996[1].
In March 1997, Tornado, as a now completed frame and inside cylinder, was displayed at the Great Hall at the NRM for several weeks, transported from Tyseley by an EWS freight wagon[4]. It returned to Tyseley to await completion of the Hopetown works[4].
The elements of Tornado were brought together with the opening of Hopetown in 1997, and the opening ceremony saw the unveiled locomotive now consisted of the frame with its 3 cylinders and cab attached[15].
Spring 1998 saw the smokebox construction started[15] and the tyres fitted[15], and by 1999 forging of the motion components started[15], with the first delivery of components commencing in January 2000[16].
[edit] 2000 - 2005
Tornado in 2002, awaiting a boilerBy September 1999 the last wheel had been pressed onto the wheelset[15] which was delivered to Hopetown by July 2000[5]. By January 2000 the front bogie had been assembled[16]. With the fitment of these parts, the mounting of the frame onto the wheelset[4][5] and fitting of the smokebox[5], by the end of 2000, the most visible missing parts of Tornado were the boiler and tender.
Post millennium, assembly and setting of the motion proceeded, and attention turned to the design of the boiler, and a £250,000 appeal was launched for this major component[15].
Tornado became a rolling chassis by October 2002[14], and achieving the first synchronous motion of the motion and all wheels in August 2004[6].
[edit] 2005-present
2005 also saw construction of the boiler in Germany, with construction begun on 16 Oct [17], and completed in time for delivery on 16 July 2006[8]. By June 2007 Tornado's internal construction was sufficiently complete to allow fitting of the boiler to the frame, using a 100 ton crane[8]. The most complex casting, the superheater header, was started in 2007, and after defeating two foundries the complex shape was cast by a third supplier[8][15].
Due to space constraints at Hopewell, the Tornado tender frames and body were built off site, with the body being significantly built locally in Darlington[17]. The tender wheelsets were assembled by an East Lancs Railway based company[8]. The tender frame and wheel set were united by December 2007[8], and the tank attached to it by February 2008[10].
[edit] Certification
"No. 2195 Darlington 2008"As a new build locomotive, certification is more complex than for a restoration[7], and requires liaison with Railtrack, HMRI and a Vehicle Acceptance Body (VAB)[7], with the origin of all construction materials needing to be documented[7] and every aspect of the manufacture recorded[8]. Following manufacture, a technical file and Notified Body certificate will be obtained on completion of a manufacturing and maintenance procedures review[8].
Tornado is required to pass the 2006 European Railway Interoperability and Safety Directive[8], achieved through compliance with the National Notified Technical Rules (formerly the Railway Group Standards[8]. As such, certification of Tornado is being managed by the trust's notified body, Delta Rail[8]. Tornado is exempted from portions of the regulations, as with many main line steam locomotives, such as from the need for a yellow warning panel, or crumple zones[8].
In liaison with Network Rail, a route acceptance strategy will be agreed[8]. Approval for Tornado to enter service will be granted by the ORR[8]. This will be in two stages, approval under the 'Railway and Other Transport Systems regulations, for use on the GCR and other preserved lines, and then as an 'interoperable' locomotive for use on the British main line network[8].
[edit] Commissioning
Tornado running on the test siding at Hopetown, 8 August 2008A computer simulation was used to assist in the setting up of the valves and motion[6]. The safety valves were tested on LNER Class A4 Union of South Africa at the Severn Valley Railway before their delivery to Meiningen for fitting to the boiler.
On 10 July 2006 the boiler passed a hydraulic test at the manufacturer at 1.5 times working pressure[8] and duly passed safe[8]. On 11 January 2008 the boiler passed its steam test first time, up to 260psi[8], and was noted by the inspector to be a very rapid boiler, boding well for use on the main line[10].
Slow speed trials of Tornado as a steaming locomotive first occurred in a specially laid siding at Hopetown[10]. This happened on 30 July 2008, and official movement took place on the 2 August and 3 August 2008.
From Hopetown, Tornado has been moved by road to the 60 miles per hour (97 km/h) Great Central Railway for several months of commissioning, high speed testing and passenger work for winter 2008[10]. Tornado will then be weighed at Derby, and then will be trialled and certified for running on the main line based out of the NRM at York[10]. It is also due to go to York NRM for painting.
Tornado will be then moved to the Great Central Railway again.
Testing will occur with a lipped chimney, although on receipt of the first full livery, Tornado will be fitted with an authentic rimless chimney[10].
[edit] Launch
On August 1st, 2008, Tornado moved under steam for the very first time. Met by eager crowds and news media, Tornado moved back and forth along the track at Darlington Locomotive Works with Dorothy Mather, (widow of the original designer of the A1 class Arthur Peppercorn) on the footplate, thus officially starting the A1's steam trials.
[edit] Operation
Tornado in steam at Hopetown, 8 August 2005Main line service is expected to begin by the end of 2008[10]. In 2004 approval was sought for 90mph running[6], which would make Tornado the fastest present day (2008) steam locomotive in Britain[6]. This approach is required to run at speeds comparable to contemporary rail traffic[8] involving full certification of Tornado[8].
After leaving the GCR, it is intended that Tornado will not be transported by road, therefore it will only see service on the main line, or on heritage lines with a main line connection[9][10]. An exception will be transport back to Darlington for major overhaul, after 5 years service[10].
[edit] Liveries
Tornado will be tested in a grey undercoat until final testing is complete, as a precaution against the need to remove the boiler cladding[10]. The first full livery will be LNER-style express passenger apple green, with 'BRITISH RAILWAYS' mark on the tender[10]. Over the life of its first ten year boiler certificate, it is expected that Tornado will also wear BR Blue, BR Brunswick Green (pre-1957) and Brunswick Green post-1957[10].
[edit] Funding
[edit] Fundraising
A project volunteer prepares Tornado for operationThe trust has used Deeds of Covenant since the start of the project in 1990[3], marketed under the slogan 'build a main line loco for the price of a pint of beer a week!'[2]. Covenantors can wear a special A1 Trust tie[2]. Covenantors pay a fixed amount monthly by standing order, and for this they receive honour roll recognition, event and viewing priority, regular trust publications and the right to attend the annual conventions[10].
In September 1996 the concept of dedicated covenants was launched[4]. Now renamed dedicated donations, these were one off payments of £25 to £25,000 to sponsor a particular part[4]. As with regular covenantors, dedicated donors receive recognition, and an engineering drawing of the component they sponsored[10].
In October 1999 a £250,000 appeal was launched to fund the boiler, whose absence was now noticeable with Tornado now comprising a wheeled frame with completed cab and smokebox[15]. As Tornado began to look like a locomotive with the mating of the frame with the wheelset in the Autumn of 2000, fundraising progress increased breaking previous records recruiting 100 new covenantors in 2 months[5]. By 2005, the trust had raised over £1.5m[8].
Completion of the boiler was achieved through a half million pound bond issue[17]. Following securing the boiler funding, the last major part, the tender, was achieved with a £200,000 single sponsor donation[17].
As of May 2008, £2.5m had been raised and spent, and the gap to the required £3m had been raised to complete Tornado[10], however, due to the Chinese economic boom causing raw material cost increases, and increased certification costs, a further £50,000 appeal was required to be launched if the main line running was to be achieved by September[10].
[edit] Sponsorship
A1 Trust headboard. "51 A" was the code for Darlington Locomotive shedIn 1994 the A1 trust gained its first major sponsor, a major steel company[1]. In 1997, GNER the then operator on the East Coast mainline, became a sponsor, and decorated Darlington station for the event, as well as offering free travel for trust workers[15]. The trust gained Rolls-Royce as a sponsor in Spring 1998[15]. The trust's principal sponsor is a metal casting company, which initially cast the driving wheels on "very advantageous terms"[4], and later assisted with all the wheels and almost all other steel castings[4].
William Cook cast products sponsored the tender.
Significant savings were made through industrial sponsorship; by 1998 this was keeping costs at 40% of normal[15]. Some components, such as the smokebox door, were even obtained free of charge[5].
[edit] Other
Cost savings of third of the original were possible in some manufacturing cases where the building of one locomotive allowed for cheaper construction methods such as using one-off polystyrene cast patterns[4]. Several other events and fund-raising drives have assisted in funding the project, including a Land's End to John O'Groats bike ride.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNER_Peppercorn_Class_A1_60163_Tornado
HMS Warrior (1860)
HMS Warrior is a 40-gun steam-powered armoured frigate built for the Royal Navy in 1859–1861. She was the name ship of the Warrior-class ironclads. Warrior and her sister ship HMS Black Prince were the first armour-plated, iron-hulled warships, and were built in response to France's launching in 1859 of the first ocean-going ironclad warship, the wooden-hulled Gloire. Warrior conducted a publicity tour of Great Britain in 1863 and spent her active career with the Channel Squadron. Obsolescent following the 1871 launching of the mastless and more capable HMS Devastation, she was placed in reserve in 1875, and was "paid off" – decommissioned – in 1883.
She subsequently served as a storeship and depot ship, and in 1904 was assigned to the Royal Navy's torpedo training school. The ship was converted into an oil jetty in 1927 and remained in that role until 1979, at which point she was donated by the Navy to the Maritime Trust for restoration. The restoration process took eight years, during which many of her features and fittings were either restored or recreated. When this was finished she returned to Portsmouth as a museum ship. Listed as part of the National Historic Fleet, Warrior has been based in Portsmouth since 1987.
The launching of the steam-powered ship of the line Napoléon by France in 1850 began an arms race between France and Britain that lasted for a decade. The destruction of a wooden Ottoman fleet by a Russian fleet firing explosive shells in the Battle of Sinop, early in the Crimean War, followed by the destruction of Russian coastal fortifications during the Battle of Kinburn in the Crimean War by French armoured floating batteries, and tests against armour plates, showed the superiority of ironclads over unarmoured ships. France's launching in 1859 of the first ocean-going ironclad warship, the wooden-hulled Gloire, upset the balance of power by neutralising the British investment in wooden ships of the line and started an invasion scare in Britain, as the Royal Navy lacked any ships that could counter Gloire and her two sisters. The situation was perceived to be so serious that Queen Victoria asked the Admiralty if the navy was adequate for the tasks that it would have to perform in wartime. Warrior and her sister were ordered in response.
The Admiralty initially specified that the ship should be capable of 15 knots (28 km/h; 17 mph), and have a full set of sails for worldwide cruising range. Iron construction was chosen as it gave the best trade-off between speed and protection; an iron hull was lighter than a wooden one of the same size and shape, giving more capacity for guns, armour and engines.
Chief Constructor of the Navy Isaac Watts and Chief Engineer Thomas Lloyd designed the ship. To minimise risk they copied the hull design of the large wooden frigate HMS Mersey, modifying it for iron construction and to accommodate an armoured box, or citadel, amidships along the single gun deck, which protected most of the ship's guns. Ships with this configuration of guns and armour are classified as broadside ironclads.
The Warrior-class design used many well-proven technologies that had been used in ocean-going ships for years, including her iron hull, steam engine, and screw propeller; only her wrought-iron armour was a major technological advance. Naval architect and historian David K. Brown wrote, "What made [Warrior] truly novel was the way in which these individual aspects were blended together, making her the biggest and most powerful warship in the world." Being faster, better armoured and harder to hit than her rivals, she was superior to any existing naval ship. The Admiralty immediately stopped the construction of all wooden ships of the line, and ordered another eleven ironclads over the next few years. Jacky Fisher, who was the ship's gunnery lieutenant in 1863–64, later wrote that in spite of this, most people did not realise at the time what a significant change it would bring about: "It certainly was not appreciated that this, our first armourclad ship of war, would cause a fundamental change in what had been in vogue for something like a thousand years."
Although built in response to Gloire, the Warriors had a very different operational concept from the French ship, which was meant to replace wooden ships of the line. The Warriors were designed by Watts as 40-gun armoured frigates and were not intended to stand in the line of battle, as the Admiralty was uncertain about their ability to withstand concentrated fire from wooden two- and three-deck ships of the line. Unlike Gloire, they were planned to be fast enough to force battle on a fleeing enemy and to control the range at which a battle was fought to their own advantage. In contrast to Gloire's square profile, Warrior has a clipper bow, but she is twice as long as a typical clipper ship.
HMS Warrior is 380 feet 2 inches (115.9 m) long between perpendiculars and 420 feet (128.0 m) long overall. She has a beam of 58 feet 4 inches (17.8 m) and a draught of 26 feet 9 inches (8.2 m). The ship displaces 9,137 long tons (9,284 t) and has a tonnage of 6,109 tons burthen. The ship's length made her relatively unmanoeuvrable, making it harder for her to use her strengthened stem for ramming, an ancient tactic that was coming back into use at the time. The ends of the hull are subdivided by watertight transverse bulkheads and decks into 92 compartments, and the hull has a double bottom underneath the engine and boiler rooms.
Restoring Warrior was discussed in the early 1960s, but did not develop into a serious project. In 1967, the Greater London Council proposed to restore the ship as an attraction in London, but Warrior was still required in Pembroke by the Royal Navy and the scheme went no further. In 1968 the Duke of Edinburgh chaired a meeting that discussed preserving and restoring Warrior and other historic vessels, and a year later The Maritime Trust was established to save the decrepit ironclad and other historic ships. The Maritime Trust and a major supporter, the Manifold Trust led by the Conservative MP John Smith, maintained an interest in Warrior. In 1976 the Royal Navy announced that the Llanion Oil Depot would close in 1978, and the Manifold Trust began to seek funds to restore her. With the promise of financial support for restoration, the Royal Navy donated the ship to the trust in 1979. The Ship's Preservation Trust acquired ownership of the ship in 1983; it became the Warrior Preservation Trust in 1985.
In August 1979 Warrior began her 800-mile (1,300 km) journey to her temporary home in the Coal Dock at Hartlepool for restoration as a museum ship. She arrived on 2 September 1979 and began the £9 million restoration project, largely funded by the Manifold Trust. The Maritime Trust decided to restore Warrior to her 1862 condition with the aim that no further major work would be necessary for the next 20 years. The first two years of the restoration were generally devoted to safely removing material added after her first commission, like the poop deck and the 200 long tons (200 t) of concrete decking. Intensive research was done to find detailed descriptions of the ship and her equipment as of 1862 to make the restoration as accurate as economically feasible. Sources included surviving official records, and the papers of those who had served on the ship during her active service. Bolt-holes and ridges in the paint gave clues to the location of some fittings and fixtures, and the sketch plans of Midshipman Henry Murray, found in Captain Cochrane's Letter Book, showed the locations of the armament, moveable fittings and stores.
Work on carving a replacement for Warrior's figurehead, which was destroyed in the 1960s, began in 1981 using photographs of the original as a guide. The 12-foot (3.7 m) work-in-progress was displayed at the 1982 London International Boat Show with the carvers still at work; it dominated coverage of the show. Before it was finished in mid-1983, the figurehead appeared on the BBC children's television programme Blue Peter. For much of 1984 it was displayed at the Main Gate of the Portsmouth Royal Dockyard. It was mounted on the ship on 6 February 1985.
Replacement of the ship's 86-foot-3-inch (26.3 m)-tall, 42-inch (1.1 m)-wide lower masts in wood was not feasible, so they were made of steel tube cut and welded to shape, with a ladder inside each mast to allow access to the platforms on the masts. The three masts and the bowsprit were stepped in place between September 1984 and February 1985. Warrior's engines, boilers and auxiliary machinery were considered too expensive to rebuild, so replicas were built from sheet steel with a few components made from cast iron to duplicate the look of the real equipment. The replica engines can rotate slowly, using electrical power, to allow visitors to imagine how they might have looked in operation.
The Woolwich Rotunda Artillery Museum and the States of Jersey lent examples of Warrior's original primary guns, the muzzle-loading 68-pounder and the breech-loading 110-pounder, which were used as moulds for fibreglass replicas. The Armstrong guns were built with working breeches; they, and the muzzles of all the guns, had to be sealed to prevent people leaving rubbish in them. Little information was available on the wooden gun carriages despite extensive research, and a prototype had to be developed and tested before they could be built.
In 1985 a new berth beside Portsmouth Harbour railway station was dredged, and a new jetty constructed in preparation for Warrior's arrival in Portsmouth. The ship left Hartlepool on 12 June 1987 under the command of Captain Collin Allen and was towed 390 miles (630 km) to the Solent in four days. When she entered Portsmouth Harbour she was welcomed by thousands of people lining the town walls and shore, and by over 90 boats and ships. She opened as a museum on 27 July. The restored ironclad was renamed HMS Warrior (1860) to avoid confusion with the Northwood Headquarters, commissioned as HMS Warrior in 1963, which was at the time the operational headquarters of the Royal Navy.
Warrior is part of the National Historic Fleet, and is berthed in the Portsmouth Historic Dockyard complex, which is also the home of Nelson's flagship HMS Victory and the Tudor warship Mary Rose. In 1995 she received over 280,000 visitors, and the whole dockyard receives between 400,000 and 500,000 visitors annually. Warrior continued to be managed by the Warrior Preservation Trust until 2017. In April of that year, the trust was taken over by the National Museum of the Royal Navy and Warrior became part of the museum's fleet. The ship continues to be used as a venue for weddings and functions to generate funds for her maintenance. The trust also maintained a collection of material related to the ship and an archive, although it is not yet open to the public.
(Wikipedia)
Die HMS Warrior aus dem Jahr 1860 war das erste ozeantaugliche Panzerschiff mit eisernem Rumpf. Sie wurde von der britischen Royal Navy als Gegenmaßnahme zum französischen Panzerschiff La Gloire gebaut. Sie gab der gleichnamigen Schiffsklasse ihren Namen und war das Schwesterschiff der HMS Black Prince. Sie liegt heute als Museumsschiff in Portsmouth.
Als sie vom Stapel lief, war sie durch ihren 4,5 Zoll (11,43 cm) dicken geschmiedeten Eisengürtel praktisch unverwundbar für die Geschosse der zur Zeit ihres Baus gebräuchlichen Schiffsartillerie. Um die Sinksicherheit noch weiter zu verbessern, war der Rumpf in 92 wasserdichte Abteilungen unterteilt und hatte unterhalb von Maschinenanlage und Munitionsräumen einen Doppelboden. Die einzige bedeutende Verwundbarkeit war die fehlende Panzerung um die Rudermaschine herum, so dass ein unglücklicher Treffer sie manövrierunfähig hätte machen können.
Der Hauptantrieb des Schiffes bestand aus einer liegenden zweizylindrigen Dampfmaschine von Penn, die von zehn Kesseln mit Dampf versorgt wurde. Allerdings war der Kohleverbrauch extrem hoch und die 850 t Kohle an Bord reichten nur für knapp 2.100 sm Fahrtstrecke unter optimalen Bedingungen. Daher führte die Warrior weiterhin eine vollständige Takelage als Vollschiff von 4.500 m² Segelfläche. Fuhr sie unter Segeln, dann konnten beide Schornsteine eingezogen werden, um die Handhabung der Segel nicht zu behindern. Die Schraube konnte bei Fahrt unter Segeln in den Rumpf eingezogen werden, um den Wasserwiderstand zu reduzieren. In der Praxis wurde sie jedoch mit langsamer Fahrt weiterbetrieben, da das An- und Abkuppeln der Welle an die Schraube recht mühsam war.
Als sie am 29. Dezember 1860 bei den Themse-Eisenwerken bei London vom Stapel laufen sollte, fror sie auf der Slipanlage fest. Dies war im kältesten Winter seit 50 Jahren. Die Warrior wurde am 24. Oktober 1861 fertiggestellt. Die Gesamtkosten betrugen 357.291 Pfund.
Die HMS Warrior war ein Batterieschiff – die Kanonen waren in seitlichen Batterien angeordnet und konnten nur zur Seite schießen. Es war geplant das Schiff mit 36 Kanonen zu bestücken. Bei Indienststellung wurde sie jedoch mit 26 68-Pfündern Vorderladern, 10 110-Pfündern Armstrong-Kanonen und 4 40-Pfündern Armstrong-Kanonen bewaffnet. 1863 wurden die 40-Pfünder durch verbesserte Kanonen gleichen Kalibers ersetzt. Vom 22. November 1864 bis zum 25. Juli 1867 wurde das Schiff überholt. Hierbei wurde sie mit 4 8-inch-Kanonen, 24 7-inch-Kanonen und 4 20-Pfündern (Salutkanonen) versehen. Der rasante Fortschritt der Marinetechnologie ließ sie und ihr Schwesterschiff Black Prince innerhalb von 10 Jahren veralten. Am 1. April 1875 wurde sie der ersten Reserveflotte zugeordnet und am 31. Mai 1883 vom Seedienst abgezogen. Ab 17. Januar 1884 wurden ihre Kanonen und die oberen Masten in Portsmouth entfernt.
Ihr Rumpf wurde als Lager verwendet, und von 1902 bis 1904 diente sie einer Kreuzerflottille als Depot. Ihr Name wurde 1904, als sie zur Torpedoausbildungsschule Vernon gebracht wurde, in Vernon III geändert. Sie versorgte die dort liegenden Rümpfe mit Dampf und Elektrizität. Im Oktober 1923 erhielt sie ihren alten Namen Warrior wieder.
Ein Abschwung in der Nachfrage nach Schrott bewirkte, dass sie sich am 25. April 1925 nicht wie geplant zur Verschrottung verkaufen ließ. Seit 1929 lag sie in der Marinewerft Pembroke Dock in Wales als schwimmernder Ölanleger. Dort blieb sie die folgenden 50 Jahre. Am 27. August 1942 wurde sie nochmals in Oil Fuel Hulk C77 umbenannt, da der Name Warrior mittlerweile für den in Bau befindlichen leichten Flugzeugträger HMS Warrior (R31) der Colossus-Klasse vorgesehen war.
Die Restaurierung zum Museumsschiff begann am 3. September 1979 in Hartlepool und wurde 1984 abgeschlossen. Dann wurde sie zu ihrem gegenwärtigen Liegeplatz in Portsmouth geschleppt. Sie wurde in Warrior (1860) umbenannt, um Verwechslungen mit dem gleichnamigen Hauptquartier der Royal Navy in Northwood zu vermeiden.
(Wikipedia)
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Lockheed XFV (sometimes erroneously referred to as the "Salmon", even though this was actually the name of one of its test pilots and not an official designation) was an American experimental tailsitter prototype aircraft built by Lockheed in the early 1950s to demonstrate the operation of a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) fighter for protecting convoys.
The Lockheed XFV originated as a result of a proposal issued by the U.S. Navy in 1948 for an aircraft capable of vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aboard platforms mounted on the afterdecks of conventional ships. Both Convair and Lockheed competed for the contract, but in 1950 the requirement was revised with a call for a research aircraft capable of eventually evolving into a VTOL ship-based convoy escort fighter. On 19 April 1951, two prototypes were ordered from Lockheed under the designation XFO-1 (company designation was Model 081-40-01). Soon after the contract was awarded, the project designation changed to XFV-1 when the Navy's code for Lockheed was changed from O to V.
The XFV was powered by a 5,332 hp (3,976 kW) Allison YT40-A-6 turboprop engine, composed of two Allison T38 power sections driving three-bladed contra-rotating propellers via a common gearbox. The aircraft had no landing gear, just small castoring wheels at the tips of the tail surfaces which were a reflected cruciform v-tail (forming an x) that extended above and below the fuselage. The wings were diamond-shaped and relatively thin, with straight and sharp leading edges – somewhat foretelling the design of Lockheed’s Mach-2-capable F-104 Starfighter.
To begin flight testing, a temporary non-retractable undercarriage with long braced V-legs was attached to the fuselage, and fixed tail wheels attached to the lower pair of fins. In this form, the aircraft was trucked to Edwards AFB in November 1953 for ground testing and taxiing trials. During one of these tests, at a time when the aft section of the large spinner had not yet been fitted, Lockheed chief test pilot Herman "Fish" Salmon managed to taxi the aircraft past the liftoff speed, and the aircraft made a brief hop on 22 December 1953. The official first flight took place on 16 June 1954.
Full VTOL testing at Edwards AFB was delayed pending the availability of the 7,100 shp Allison T54, which was earmarked to replace the T40 and power eventual serial production aircraft. But the T54 faced severe development delays, esp. its gearbox. Another problem that arose with the new engine was that the propeller blade tips would reach supersonic speed and therefore compressibility problems.
After the brief unintentional hop, the prototype aircraft made a total of 32 flights. The XFV-1 was able to make a few transitions in flight from the conventional to the vertical flight mode and back, and had briefly held in hover at altitude, but the T40 output was simply not enough to ensure proper and secure VTOL operations. Performance remained limited by the confines of the flight test regime. Another issue that arose through the advancements of jet engine designs was the realization that the XFV's top speed would be eclipsed by contemporary fighters. Additionally, the purely manual handling of the aircraft esp. during landing was very demanding - the XFV could only be controlled by highly experienced pilots.
Both Navy and the Marines Corps were still interested in the concept, though, so that, in early 1955, the decision was made to build a limited pre-production series of the aircraft, the FV-2, for operational field tests and evaluation. The FV-2 was the proposed production version (Model 181-43-02), primarily conceived and optimized as a night/all-weather interceptor for point defense, and officially baptized “Solstice”. The FV-2 was powered by the T54-A-16 turboprop, which had eventually overcome its teething troubles and offered a combined power output equivalent of 7,500 shp (5,600 kW) from the propellers and the twin-engines’ residual thrust. Outwardly the different engine was recognizable through two separate circular exhausts which were introduced instead of the XFV’s single shallow ventral opening. The gearbox had been beefed up, too, with additional oil coolers in small ventral fairings behind the contraprops and the propeller blades were aerodynamically improved to better cope with the higher power output and rotation speed. Additionally, an automatic pitch control system was introduced to alleviate the pilot from the delicate control burdens during hover and flight mode transition.
Compared with the XFV, the FV-2 incorporated 150 lb (68 kg) of cockpit armor, along with a 1.5 in (38 mm) bullet-proof windscreen. A Sperry Corporation AN/APS-19 type radar was added in the fixed forward part of the nose spinner under an opaque perspex radome. The AN/APS-19 was primarily a target detection radar with only a limited tracking capability, and it had been introduced with the McDonnell F2H-2N. The radar had a theoretical maximum detection range of 60 km, but in real life air targets could only be detected at much shorter distances. At long ranges the radar was mainly used for navigation and to detect land masses or large ships.
Like the older AN/APS-6, the AN/APS-19 operated in a "Spiral Scan" search pattern. In a spiral scan the radar dish spins rapidly, scanning the area in front of the aircraft following a spiral path. As a result, however targets were not updated on every pass as the radar was pointing at a different angle on each pass. This also made the radar prone to ground clutter effects, which created "pulses" on the radar display. The AN/APS-19 was able to lock onto and track targets within a narrow cone, out to a maximum range of about 1 mile (1.5 km), but to do so the radar had to cease scanning.
The FV-2’s standard armament consisted of four Mk. 11 20 mm cannon fitted in pairs in the two detachable wingtip pods, with 250 rounds each, which fired outside of the wide propeller disc. Alternatively, forty-eight 2¾ in (70 mm) folding-fin rockets could be fitted in similar pods, which could be fired in salvoes against both air and ground targets. Instead of offensive armament, 200 US gal. (165 imp. gal./750 l) auxiliary tanks for ferry flights could be mounted onto the wing tips.
Until June 1956 a total of eleven FV-2s were built and delivered. With US Navy Air Development Squadron 8 (also known as VX-8) at NAS Atlantic City, a dedicated evaluation and maintenance unit for the FV-2 and the operations of VTOL aircraft in general was formed. VX-2 operated closely with its sister unit VX-3 (located at the same base) and operated the FV-2s alongside contemporary types like the Grumman F9F-8 Cougar, which at that time went through carrier-qualification aboard the USS Midway. The Cougars were soon joined by the new, supersonic F-8U-1 Crusaders, which arrived in December 1956. The advent of this supersonic navy jet type rendered the FV-2’s archaic technology and its performance more and more questionable, even though the VTOL concept’s potential and the institutions’ interest in it kept the test unit alive.
The FV-2s were in the following years put through a series of thorough field tests and frequently deployed to land bases all across the USA and abroad. Additionally, operational tests were also conducted on board of various ship types, ranging from carriers with wide flight decks to modified merchant ships with improvised landing platforms. The FV-2s also took part in US Navy and USMC maneuvers, and when not deployed elsewhere the training with new pilots at NAS Atlantic City continued.
During these tests, the demanding handling characteristics of the tailsitter concept in general and the FV-2 in specific were frequently confirmed. Once in flight, however, the FV-2 handled well and was a serious and agile dogfighter – but jet aircraft could easily avoid and outrun it.
Other operational problems soon became apparent, too: while the idea of a VTOL aircraft that was independent from runways or flight bases was highly attractive, the FV-2’s tailsitter concept required a complex and bulky maintenance infrastructure, with many ladders, working platforms and cranes. On the ground, the FV-2 could not move on its own and had to be pushed or towed. However, due to the aircraft’s high center of gravity it had to be handled with great care – two FV-2s were seriously damaged after they toppled over, one at NAS Atlantic City on the ground (it could be repaired and brought back into service), the other aboard a ship at heavy sea, where the aircraft totally got out of control on deck and fell into the sea as a total loss.
To make matters even worse, fundamental operational tasks like refueling, re-arming the aircraft between sorties or even just boarding it were a complicated and slow task, so that the aircraft’s theoretical conceptual benefits were countered by its cumbersome handling.
FV-2 operations furthermore revealed, despite the considerably increased power output of the T54 twin engine that more than compensated for the aircraft’s raised weight, only a marginal improvement of the aircraft’s performance; the FV-2 had simply reached the limits of propeller-driven aircraft. Just the rate of climb was markedly improved, and the extra power made the FV-2’s handling safer than the XFV’s, even though this advancement was only relative because the aircraft’s hazardous handling during transition and landing as well as other conceptual problems prevailed and could not be overcome. The FV-2’s range was also very limited, esp. when it did not carry the fuel tanks on the wing tips, so that the aircraft’s potential service spectrum remained very limited.
Six of the eleven FV-2s that were produced were lost in various accidents within only three years, five pilots were killed. The T54 engine remained unreliable, and the propeller control system which used 25 vacuum tubes was far from reliable, too. Due to the many problems, the FV-2s were grounded in 1959, and when VX-8 was disestablished on 1 March 1960, the whole project was cancelled and all remaining aircraft except for one airframe were scrapped. As of today, Bu.No. 53-3537 resides disassembled in storage at the National Museum of the United States Navy in the former Breech Mechanism Shop of the old Naval Gun Factory on the grounds of the Washington Navy Yard in Washington, D.C., United States, where it waits for restoration and eventual public presentation.
As a historic side note, the FV-2’s detachable wing tip gun pods had a longer and more successful service life: they were the basis for the Mk.4 HIPEG (High Performance External Gun) gun pods. This weapon system’s main purpose became strafing ground targets, and it received a different attachment system for underwing hardpoints and a bigger ammunition supply (750 RPG instead of just 250 on the FV-2). Approximately 1.200 Mk. 4 twin gun pods were manufactured by Hughes Tool Company, later Hughes Helicopter, in Culver City, California. While the system was tested and certified for use on the A-4, the A-6, the A-7, the F-4, and the OV-10, it only saw extended use on the A-4, the F-4, and the OV-10, esp. in Vietnam where the Mk. 4 pod was used extensively for close air support missions.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length/Height: 36 ft 10.25 in (11.23 m)
Wingspan: 30 ft 10.1 in (9.4 m)
Wing area: 246 sq ft (22.85 m²)
Empty weight: 12,388 lb (5,624 kg)
Gross weight: 17,533 lb (7,960 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 18,159 lb (8,244 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Allison T54-A-16 turboprop with 7,500 shp (5,600 kW) output equivalent,
driving a 6 blade contra-rotating propeller
Performance:
Maximum speed: 585 mph (941 km/h, 509 kn
Cruise speed: 410 mph (660 km/h, 360 kn)
Range: 500 mi (800 km, 430 nmi) with internal fuel
800 mi (1,300 km, 700 nmi) with ferry wing tip tanks
Service ceiling: 46,800 ft (14,300 m)
Rate of climb: 12,750 ft/min (75.0 m/s)
Wing loading: 73.7 lb/sq ft (360 kg/m²)
Armament:
4× 20 mm (.79 in) Mk. 11 machine cannon with a total of 1.000 rounds, or
48× 2.75 in (70 mm) rockets in wingtip pods, or
a pair of 200 US gal. (165 imp. gal./750 l) auxiliary tanks on the wing tips
The kit and its assembly:
Another submission to the “Fifties” group build at whatifmodellers-com, and a really nice what-if aircraft that perfectly fits into the time frame. I had this Pegasus kit in The Stash™ for quite a while and the plan to build an operational USN or USMC aircraft from it in the typical all-dark-blue livery from the early Fifties, and the group build was a good occasion to realize it.
The Pegasus kit was released in 1992, the only other option to build the XFV in 1:72 is a Valom kit which, as a bonus, features the aircraft’s fixed landing gear that was used during flight trials. The Pegasus offering is technically simple and robust, but it is nothing for those who are faint at heart. The warning that the kit requires an experienced builder is not to be underestimated, because the IP kit from the UK comes with white metal parts and no visual instructions, just a verbal description of the building steps. The IP parts (including the canopy, which is one piece, quite thick but also clear) and the decals look good, though.
The IP parts feature flash and uneven seam lines, sprue attachment points are quite thick. The grey IP material had on my specimen different grades of hard-/brittleness, the white metal parts (some of the propeller blades) were bent and had to be re-aligned. No IP parts would fit well (there are no locator pins or other physical aids), the cockpit tub was a mess to assemble and fit into the fuselage. PSR on any seam all around the hull. But even though this sound horrible, the kit goes together relatively easy – thanks to its simplicity.
I made some mods and upgrades, though. One of them was an internal axis construction made from styrene tubes that allow the two propeller discs to move separately (OOB, you just stack and glue the discs onto each other into a rigid nose cone), while the propeller tip with its radome remained fixed – just as in real life. However, due to the parts’ size and resistance against each other, the props could not move as freely as originally intended.
Separate parts for the air intakes as well as the wings and tail surfaces could be mounted with less problems than expected, even though - again – PSR was necessary to hide the seams.
Painting and markings:
As already mentioned, the livery would be rather conservative, because I wanted the aircraft to carry the uniform USN scheme in all-over FS 35042 with white markings, which was dropped in 1955, though. The XFV or a potential serial production derivative would just fit into this time frame, and might have carried the classic all-blue livery for a couple of years more, especially when operated by an evaluation unit. Its unit, VX-8, is totally fictional, though.
The cockpit interior was painted in Humbrol 80 (simulating bright zinc chromate primer), and to have some contrasts I added small red highlights on the fin pod tips and the gun pods' anti-flutter winglets. For some more variety the radome became earth brown with some good weathering, simulating an opaque perspex hood, and I added white (actually a very light gray) checkerboard markings on the "propeller rings", a bit inspired by the spinner markings on German WWII fighters. Subtle, but it looks good and breaks the otherwise very simple livery.
Some post-panel-shading with a lighter blue was done all over the hull, the exhaust area and the gun ports were painted with iron (Revell 91) and treated with graphite for a more metallic shine.
Silver decal stripe material was used to create the CoroGuard leading edges and the fine lines at the flaps on wings and fins - much easier than trying to solve this with paint and brush...
The decals were puzzled together from various dark blue USN aircraft, including a F8F, F9F and F4U sheet. The "XH" code was created with single 1cm hwite letters, the different font is not obvious, thanks to the letter combination.
Finally, the model was sealed with semi-gloss acrylic varnish (still shiny, but not too bright), the radome and the exhaust area were painted with matt varnsh, though.
A cool result, despite the rather dubious kit base. The Pegasus kit is seriously something for experienced builders, but the result looks convincing. The blue USN livery suits the XFV/FV-2 very well, it looks much more elegant than in the original NMF - even though it would, in real life, probably have received the new Gull Gray/White scheme (introduced in late 1955, IIRC, my FV-2 might have been one of the last aircraft to be painted blue). However, the blue scheme IMHO points out the aircraft's highly aerodynamic teardrop shape, esp. the flight pics make the aircraft almost look elegant!
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the model, the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The J, K and N class was a class of destroyers of the Royal Navy, launched in 1938 in three flotillas or groups and with names beginning with "J", "K" and "N", respectively. Their design was intended as a smaller follow-on from the preceding Tribal class and incorporated one radical new idea that was a departure from all previous Royal Navy destroyer designs: the adoption of a two-boiler room layout. This reduced hull length and allowed for a single funnel, both reducing the profile and increasing the arcs of fire of the light anti-aircraft (AA) weapons. However, this also increased vulnerability, as there were now two adjacent large compartments with the resultant risk of a single well-placed hit flooding both and resulting in a total loss of boiler power. This illustrates somewhat the Admiralty's attitude to the expendable nature of destroyers, but destroyers were lightly armored and fast vessels, anyway, meant to survive by avoiding being hit at all. From this perspective, the odds of a single hit striking just the right spot to disable both boiler rooms simultaneously were considered remote enough to be worth risking in exchange for the benefits given by a two-room layout.
A significant advancement in construction techniques was developed by naval architect Albert Percy Cole. Instead of going for transverse frame sections which were unnecessarily strong, but held together by weak longitudinals, Cole opted for extra strong longitudinals and weaker transverse frames. Another advancement was changes to the bow design, which was modified from that of the preceding Tribal-class design: the clipper bow was replaced by a straight stem with increased sheer. This change was not a success and these ships were very wet forwards. This shortcoming was rectified from the later S class onward by returning to the earlier form.
Despite the vulnerability of the boiler layout, the design was to prove compact, strong and very successful, forming the basis of all Royal Navy destroyer construction from the O class up to the last of the C class of 1943–1945.
The armament was based on that of the Tribals but replaced one twin QF 4.7 in (120 mm) Mark XII (L/45) gun on mounting CP Mk. XIX with an additional bank of torpedo tubes. These mountings were capable of 40° elevation and 340° of training. Curiously, 'X' mounting was positioned such that the blind 20° arc was across the stern, rather than the more logical forward position where fire was obscured by the bridge and masts anyway. This meant that they were unable to fire dead astern. With the tubes now 'pentad', a heavy load of ten Mk. IX torpedoes could be carried. AA armament consisted of a quadruple QF 2 pdr gun Mark VIII on a Mk. VII mounting and a pair of quadruple 0.5 in Vickers machine guns, which were later replaced with more effective 20 mm Oerlikons.
These ships, when completed, had a comparatively heavy close-range AA armament. Fire control arrangements also differed from the Tribals, and the dedicated high-angle (H/A) rangefinder director was not fitted. Instead only a 12 ft (3.7 m) rangefinder was carried behind the nominally dual-purpose Director Control Tower (DCT). In the event, the rangefinder was heavily modified to allow it to control the main armament for AA fire and was known as the "3 man modified rangefinder". These ships used the Fuze Keeping Clock HA Fire Control Computer.
In 1940 and 1941, to improve the anti-aircraft capabilities, the ships had their aft torpedo tubes removed and replaced with a single 4” gun QF Mark V on a HA Mark III mounting. The relatively ineffective multiple 0.5-inch (12.7 mm) machine guns were replaced with single 20 mm Oerlikons, with a further pair added abreast the searchlight platform amidships. The high-speed destroyer mine sweeps were replaced with a rack and two throwers for 45 depth charges, and a Type 286 Radar air warning was added at the masthead alongside Type 285 fire control on the H/A rangefinder-director.
H.M.S. Jubilant was the last J-class destroyer to be ordered in March 1937, and she was the last one to be built, by Harland & Wolff at Belfast, Northern Ireland. Her keel was laid down on 30 May 1937. She was launched on 15 October 1939, and commissioned 13 November 1939.
Initially, Jubilant was allocated to the Home Fleet and arrived at Portsmouth on 11 January 1940 and carried a uniform light grey livery. On 3 February she left for the River Clyde en route to Rosyth, arrived on 7 February and operated with the 2nd Cruiser Squadron on convoy escort duties.
In April and May 1940, she took part in the Norwegian Campaign. On 11 April Jubilant ran aground off Fleinvær while hunting German merchant ships entering the Vestfjord. Her boiler room was flooded, and she was holed forward. Overall damage was limited, though, and she was successfully towed to Skjelfjord where an advanced base had been improvised. Despite air attacks, temporary repairs were made, and she was towed home a month later. She arrived at Greenock in Scotland on 16 May 1940 where additional temporary repairs were carried out, before proceeding on 19 August to the Tyne for permanent repairs and major modifications.
These modifications centered around the experimental outfit of the destroyer with heaver 6 in guns. The idea behind the bigger guns was to give the ship not only higher firepower in direct confrontation, but even more a bigger range for ballistic shots, so that the ship could support major battleships in land target shelling missions. Being lighter than cruisers with the same type of weapon that were typically tasked with this kind of mission and benefiting from less draught, the light destroyer could operate closer to enemy shores, and its higher speed and agility would offer sufficient protection from counter fire. The Admiralty was interested enough in the concept to allow a ship to be converted as a pilot for field tests, and Jubilant was chosen for the conversion.
This resulted in a thoroughly revised main armament, which now experimentally consisted of four single QF Mk. III 6-inch 40 caliber naval guns in fully enclosed turrets, which replaced the J-class’s former three QF 4.7-inch twin gun mounts. The QF Mk. III 6-inch guns were leftover stock material from wrecked WWI cruisers, and they had an effective range of up to 15,000 yards (14,000 m) at 28° elevation versus 12,000 yards (11,000 m) at 24° of the former 4.7 in guns. They were the heaviest type of gun that a British destroyer had carried so far, and the concept was later further explored with the L- and M-class ships, even though these would be outfitted with more modern weapons.
For the new configuration, “A” and “B” turrets were simply replaced, but for the rear-facing “X” and “Y” stations, the rear deck and superstructure had to be modified. The AA ordnance was re-arranged and modernized, too, including the replacement of the rear torpedo launcher unit with a single QF 4-inch Mark V (102 mm) AA gun with a circular splinter protection wall, which was part of the contemporary standard upgrade program for the J- and K-class ships. 20mm Oerlikon guns (in single and twin mounts) replaced the former 0.5 in machine guns, and two depth charge launchers were added amidships.
Other changes comprised a closed bridge for better crew protection and a new coincidence rangefinder, optimized for ballistic gunnery. A Type 279M radar was fitted, too, a naval early-warning radar developed during the war from the Type 79 metric early-warning set. It initially had separate transmitting and receiving antennas that were later combined into single-antenna operation. This set also had a secondary surface-search mode with surface and aerial gunnery capability and used a Precision Ranging Panel, which passed accurate radar ranges directly to the HACS table, an analog computer.
After repairs and trials were completed in August 1941, Jubilant reappeared as 'a new ship from the water line down', carrying a disruptive light Admiralty scheme in greys and blue, and she returned to Scapa Flow on 17 August 1941. On 9 September she left Greenock, escorting the battleship Duke of York to Rosyth. Later that month she was employed in patrolling the Iceland–Faroes passage to intercept enemy surface ships.
On 6 October 1941 Jubilant left Hvalfjord, Iceland, together with the battleships Penelope and King George V, escorting the aircraft carrier Victorious for the successful Operation E. J., an air attack on German shipping between Glom Fjord and the head of West Fjord, Norway. The force returned to Scapa Flow on 10 October 1941.
Jubilant was then assigned to Force K based at Malta and departed Scapa on 12 October 1941, arriving in Malta on 21 October, where she received a distinctive camouflage in then-popular Mountbatten Pink that – in a rather uncommon fashion – retained some remnants of her former livery. On 8 November, she sailed together with two cruisers and other escorting destroyers from Malta to intercept an Italian convoy of six destroyers and seven merchant ships sailing for Libya. During the ensuing Battle of the Duisburg Convoy on 9 November off Cape Spartivento, the British sank one enemy destroyer (Fulmine) and all of the merchant ships.
On 23 November, Force K sailed again to intercept another enemy convoy and sank two more merchant ships west of Crete the next day. On 1 December 1941, Force K sank the Italian merchant vessel Adriatico, the destroyer Alvise da Mosto, and the tanker Iridio Mantovani.
On 19 December, while operating off Tripoli, Jubilant struck a mine but was not seriously damaged, although the cruiser Neptune and the destroyer H.M.S. Kandahar were sunk by mines in the same action. Jubilant was sent into the dockyard for repairs and returned to service at the beginning of January 1942, still wearing her distinctive pink-blue livery. On 5 January, she left Malta with Force K, escorting the Special Service Vessel Glengyle to Alexandria (Operation ME9), returning on 27 January, escorting the supply ship Breconshire. She left Malta, again with Breconshire on 13 February 1942 and an eastbound convoy aided by five other destroyers, Operation MG5, returning to Malta on 15 February, with the destroyers Lance and Legion. On 23 March, she left Malta with Legion for Operation MG1, a further convoy to Malta. Breconshire was hit and taken in tow by Jubilant and was later safely secured to a buoy in Marsaxlokk harbor.
Jubilant was holed both forward and aft by near-misses during air attacks on Malta on 26 March. While in the island, she was docked and repaired at the Malta Dry Docks. Day after day she was attacked by German aircraft and the crew worked to fix a myriad of shrapnel holes, so many that she was nicknamed H.M.S. Colander, and when these had been plugged with long pieces of wood, H.M.S. Urchin. In this guise she sailed for Gibraltar on 8 April and on the next day was repeatedly attacked from the air. She arrived in Gibraltar on 10 April, with further damage from near-misses. The damage was extensive and would have required several months at home after temporary repairs in Gibraltar. Eventually, Jubilant's repairs had been reconsidered, and it was then decided to send her to the United States for a major overhaul. She accordingly left Gibraltar on 10 May 1942, for the Navy Yard at New York via Bermuda, arriving on 19 May. She was under repair until September and arrived in Norfolk, Virginia on 15 September, proceeding, again via Bermuda, to Portsmouth, England, which she reached on 1 October 1942.
Jubilant arrived back at Scapa Flow on 2 December, now carrying a dark disruptive Admiralty scheme consisting of green and grey tones and remained in home waters until the middle of January 1943. Then she left the Clyde on 17 January for Gibraltar, where she arrived on 22 January. She had been allocated to the 12th Cruiser Squadron, in which she operated with the Western Mediterranean Fleet under the flag of Admiral Sir Andrew Cunningham during the follow-up of Operation Operation Torch, the landings in North Africa. In the new theatre of operation, Jubilant received once more a new camouflage, this time a high contrast scheme consisting of very light grey and black.
On 1 June 1943, Jubilant could finally be deployed on a mission that she had been re-designed for. Together with the destroyers Paladin and Petard she shelled the Italian island of Pantelleria, during which her 6 in QF guns proved to be very effective. The force received enemy gunfire in return and Jubilant was hit once but suffered only little damage. On 8 June 1943, with the cruiser Newfoundland and other ships, she took part in a further heavy bombardment of the island. A demand for its surrender was refused. The same force left Malta on 10 June, to cover the assault (Operation Corkscrew), which resulted in the surrender of the island on 11 June 1943. On 11 and 12 June Jubilant also took part in the attack on Lampedusa, which fell to the British forces on 12 June 1943.
On 10 July 1943, with Aurora and two other destroyers, Jubilant carried out a diversionary bombardment of Catania as part of Operation Husky, the Allied invasion of Sicily. The flotilla then moved to Taormina where the railway station was shelled. On 11 July, Jubilant left Malta with the 12th Cruiser Squadron as part of Force H to provide cover for the northern flank of the assault on Sicily. During the remainder of July and August, she took part in various other naval gunfire support and sweeps during the campaign for Sicily.
On 9 September 1943, Jubilant was part of Force Q for Operation Avalanche, the allied landings at Salerno, Italy, during which she augmented the bombardment force. Jubilant left the Salerno area on 26 September at the beginning of October was transferred to the Levant in view of a possible attack on the island of Kos in the Dodecanese. On 7 October, with the cruiser Sirius and other ships, she sank six enemy landing craft, one ammunition ship and an armed trawler off Stampalia. While the ships were retiring through the Scarpanto Straits south of Rhodes, they were attacked by Ju 87 "Stuka" dive-bombers, but, although damaged by a bomb, Jubilant was able to return to Alexandria at 22 kn (25 mph; 41 km/h) and avoid further hits.
On 19 November 1943 the ship moved to Haifa in connection with possible developments in the Lebanon situation. Towards the end of 1943, she was ordered to Gibraltar for Operation Stonewall, anti-blockade-runner duties, in the Atlantic. On 27 December, the forces in this operation destroyed the German blockade-runner Alsterufer, which was sunk by aircraft co-operating with Royal Navy ships. Jubilant returned to Gibraltar on 30 December and took part in Operation Shingle, the amphibious assault on Anzio, Italy, providing gunfire support as part of Force X with USS Brooklyn on 22 January 1944. She also assisted in the bombardments in the Formia area during the later operations.
On 18 February 1944, Jubilant was leaving Naples to return to the Anzio area when she was torpedoed by the German submarine U-410. A torpedo struck her in the engine room and was followed sixteen minutes later by another torpedo that hit in the boiler room, causing her immediate sinking; 97 of the crew, including the captain, went down with the ship and 86 survived.
General characteristics:
Displacement: 1,690 long tons (1,720 t) (standard)
2,330 long tons (2,370 t) (deep load)
Length: 356 ft 6 in (108.7 m) overall
Beam: 35 ft 9 in (10.9 m)
Draught: 12 ft 6 in (3.8 m) (deep)
Draft: 17.5 ft (5.3 m)
Complement: 178
Propulsion:
2× Admiralty 3-drum boilers with geared steam turbines, developing 44,000 shp (33,000 kW)
Performance:
Top speed: 36 knots (67 km/h; 41 mph)
Range: 5,500 nmi (10,200 km; 6,300 mi) at 15 knots (28 km/h; 17 mph)
Armament:
4× QF 6-inch Mark III (150 mm) 40 caliber guns
1× QF 4-inch Mark V (102 mm) AA gun
1× twin 20 mm Oerlikon anti-aircraft machine cannon
2× single 20 mm Oerlikon anti-aircraft machine cannon
1× quintuple 21-inch (533 mm) torpedo tube
2× throwers and 1× rack astern with 30 depth charges
The kit and its assembly:
Again, this is a modified H.M.S. Kelly from Matchbox, this time even an original boxing. The main motivation was a livery in/with Mountbatten Pink, though. As a side note, “H.M.S. Jubilant” was not built, but it was the name of the last J-class cruiser. It had been ordered in 1937, but the ship was cancelled in December 1937.
Even though I wanted to keep things simple, I found some spare parts that justified modifications. For instance, I had four turrets from my recent USS Fletcher conversion left and decided to integrate them into the British destroyer, posing as single but bigger caliber guns. For a staggered position of the two rear gun stations, I used the short rear cabin that the Matchbox kit offers as optional part and added a console on the rear deck for the Y turret. The X turret was placed on top of the cabin, just like the original gun mount.
The AA ordnance was modified, too. The 4 in GF gun instead of the rear torpedo mount is OOB and an optional part. The original quad (and pretty clumsy) 4x 0.5” AA machine gun amidships was replaced with a twin gun s from an Aoshima 1:700 ship weapon set. This is originally intended for Japanese ships, but it’s whifworld, after all, and many weapon stations look quite similar to their British counterparts.
For a slightly different silhouette I gave the bridge a roof, cut from 1.5 and 0.5 mm styrene sheet, and re-arranged the directors and searchlight station on top of it. I also added a radar antenna array to the upper mast.
As an extra I added some rigging to the mast, made from heated plastic sprue material – simple, but it improves the model’s look considerably.
Painting and markings:
The more exotic part, at least visually. Mountbatten Pink, also called Plymouth Pink, was a naval camouflage color resembling greyish mauve – it was not a bright pinkish tone, rather a pragmatic mix of light grey (whatever was at hand) with red lead underwater primer, which had a yellow-ish touch, much like brick red. The paint was first used by Lord Mountbatten of the British Royal Navy during World War II, hence its name. After noticing a Union-Castle Line ship with a similar camouflage color disappearing from sight, he applied the color to his own ships, believing the paint would render them difficult to see esp. during dawn and dusk, daytimes when ships were highly vulnerable. However, the pink shade was more popular than effective. While the color was met with anecdotal success, it was judged by experts to be just equivalent to neutral greys at best and would make ships with the color more obvious under certain conditions at worst. However, for some time and esp. in the MTO, the color was very popular and widely applied to all kinds of ships.
Most of the time, RN ships were painted overall with this tone. Later, the application became more refined and the superstructures above deck received a lighter shade than the lower hull, lowering the contrast above the horizon. Sometimes, Mountbatten pink was integrated into Admiralty multi-color schemes. One of these rather rare cases was H.M.S. Anchusa. This was a Flower class corvette, which carried a medium blue grey (rumored to be B20) panel amidships, with the rest being uniform medium pink. As a side note: there’s a 1:350 model of this ship available, and it’s funny to see how different modelers interpret the pink shade, ranging from a pale grey with only a slight pinkish hue to a deep, purplish brick red! However, Anchusa became the conceptual basis for my Jubilant livery. Another inspiration was H.M.S. Kenya, a Crown Colony-class cruiser, which carried a more complex/disruptive scheme in two shades of Mountbatton Pink, using two shades of the pink tone on the hull and superstructures for a shortening effect with lighter areas at bow and stern. This livery had earned the ship around 1942 the nickname "The Pink Lady".
The combination of both inspirations became a four-tone scheme with low contrast, with two shades of pink and two of bluish grey. The pink tones were both mixed with Humbrol 70 and 129, with slightly different ratios for the lighter and darker shades. I generally went for lighter tones, due to the model’s small size and the fact that there apparently was no clear definition of the Mountbatten pink tones. The bluish tones were supposed to be contemporary B5 and B6, guesstimated with Humbrol 128 (which appears quite greenish in the surrounding pink context!) and a mix of Humbrol 47 and 96. The latter turned out to look brighter/less grayish than expected, but I left it that way because the mix blended well with the other colors. The scheme looks quite exotic, but could have worked well due to the little contrast between the different colors and the overall dull impression.
The deck was painted with Revell 47, simulating a painted wooden deck with 507b. Horizontal metal surfaces on the upper decks as well as the tops of the turrets were painted with the same color. Lifeboats and rafts became light grey, as if taken over from a former camouflage and for some contrast to the rest of the ship.
The model was painted in separate elements and slightly weathered with a highly thinned black ink wash and some Sienna Brown water color for rust stains here and there. The many, well-visible portholes along the hull and on the superstructures were added with a thin felt tip pen. A similar pen was used to create the boot topping and the muzzles on the guns and torpedo launchers. Finally, the kit segments were sealed with a coat of acrylic matt varnish before final assembly and rigging.
With the experience from the recent build of the same kit, work on this one was surprisingly easy and quick, and I was happy that I had spare parts at hand to change the look of the ship at least a little. The camouflage looks interesting - one can assume that it was manned by unicorns and that glitter steams in clouds out of the funnel. But in the end I find the pink/blue scheme to be quite effective, esp. in low light and also in front of land background. It's not a confusion approach, even though the blue divider seems to separate the ship into two parts, when seen in front of a proper environment, but as a concealment measure the paint mix works IMHO surprisingly well.
C-130 Hercules military transport plane heading east over my house and turning south to approach the Davis-Monthan AFB runway from the southeast to the northwest.
______________________________
Lockheed C-130 Hercules
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-130_Hercules
C-130 Hercules
Straight-wing, four-engine turboprop-driven aircraft overflying water
USAF C-130E
Role: Military transport aircraft
National origin: United States
ManufacturerLockheed
Lockheed Martin
First flight23 August 1954
Status: In service
Primary users:
United States Air Force
United States Marine Corps
Royal Air Force
Royal Canadian Air Force
Produced: 1954–present
Number built: Over 2,500 as of 2015[1]
Unit cost
C-130E $11.9 million[2]
C-130H $30.1 million[3]
Variants:
AC-130 Spectre/Spooky
Lockheed DC-130
Lockheed EC-130
Lockheed HC-130
Lockheed Martin KC-130
Lockheed LC-130
Lockheed MC-130
Lockheed WC-130
Lockheed L-100 Hercules
Developed into: Lockheed Martin C-130J Super Hercules
The Lockheed C-130 Hercules is a four-engine turboprop military transport aircraft designed and built originally by Lockheed, now Lockheed Martin.
Capable of using unprepared runways for takeoffs and landings, the C-130 was originally designed as a troop, medivac, and cargo transport aircraft. The versatile airframe has found uses in a variety of other roles, including as a gunship (AC-130),for
airborne assault,
search and rescue,
scientific research support,
weather reconnaissance,
aerial refueling,
maritime patrol, and
aerial firefighting.
It is now the main tactical airlifter for many military forces worldwide. Over forty models and variants of the Hercules, including a civilian one marketed as Lockheed L-100, operate in more than sixty nations.
The C-130 entered service with the U.S. in the 1950s, followed by Australia and others. During its years of service, the Hercules family has participated in numerous military, civilian and humanitarian aid operations. In 2007, the C-130 became the fifth aircraft—after the English Electric Canberra, B-52 Stratofortress, Tu-95, and KC-135 Stratotanker—to mark 50 years of continuous service with its original primary customer, in this case, the United States Air Force. The C-130 Hercules is the longest continuously produced military aircraft at over 60 years, with the updated C-130J Super Hercules being produced today.[4]
Contents [hide]
1Design and development
1.1Background and requirements
1.2Design phase
1.3Improved versions
1.4More improvements
1.5Later models
1.6Next generation
1.7Upgrades and changes
1.8Replacement
2Operational history
2.1Military
2.2Civilian
3Variants
4Operators
5Accidents
6Aircraft on display
6.1Australia
6.2Canada
6.3Colombia
6.4Indonesia
6.5Norway
6.6Saudi Arabia
6.7United Kingdom
6.8United States
7Specifications (C-130H)
8See also
9References
10External links
Design and development[edit]
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2014)
Background and requirements[edit]
The Korean War, which began in June 1950, showed that World War II-era piston-engine transports—Fairchild C-119 Flying Boxcars, Douglas C-47 Skytrains and Curtiss C-46 Commandos—were inadequate for modern warfare. Thus, on 2 February 1951, the United States Air Force issued a General Operating Requirement (GOR) for a new transport to Boeing, Douglas, Fairchild, Lockheed, Martin, Chase Aircraft, North American, Northrop, and Airlifts Inc. The new transport would have a capacity of 92 passengers, 72 combat troops or 64 paratroopers in a cargo compartment that was approximately 41 feet (12 m) long, 9 feet (2.7 m) high, and 10 feet (3.0 m) wide. Unlike transports derived from passenger airliners, it was to be designed from the ground-up as a combat transport with loading from a hinged loading ramp at the rear of the fuselage.
A key feature was the introduction of the Allison T56 turboprop powerplant, first developed specifically for the C-130. At the time, the turboprop was a new application of turbine engines that used exhaust gases to turn a propeller, which offered greater range at propeller-driven speeds compared to pure turbojets, which were faster but consumed more fuel. As was the case on helicopters of that era, such as the UH-1 Huey, turboshafts produced much more power for their weight than piston engines. Lockheed would subsequently use the same engines and technology in the Lockheed L-188 Electra. That aircraft failed financially in its civilian configuration but was successfully adapted into the Lockheed P-3 Orion maritime patrol and submarine attack aircraft where the efficiency and endurance of turboprops excelled.
Design phase[edit]
The Hercules resembled a larger four-engine brother to the C-123 Provider with a similar wing and cargo ramp layout that evolved from the Chase XCG-20 Avitruc, which in turn, was first designed and flown as a cargo glider in 1947.[5] The Boeing C-97 Stratofreighter also had a rear ramp, which made it possible to drive vehicles onto the plane (also possible with forward ramp on a C-124). The ramp on the Hercules was also used to airdrop cargo, which included low-altitude extraction for Sheridan tanks and even dropping large improvised "daisy cutter" bombs.
The new Lockheed cargo plane design possessed a range of 1,100 nmi (1,270 mi; 2,040 km), takeoff capability from short and unprepared strips, and the ability to fly with one engine shut down. Fairchild, North American, Martin, and Northrop declined to participate. The remaining five companies tendered a total of ten designs: Lockheed two, Boeing one, Chase three, Douglas three, and Airlifts Inc. one. The contest was a close affair between the lighter of the two Lockheed (preliminary project designation L-206) proposals and a four-turboprop Douglas design.
The Lockheed design team was led by Willis Hawkins, starting with a 130-page proposal for the Lockheed L-206.[6] Hall Hibbard, Lockheed vice president and chief engineer, saw the proposal and directed it to Kelly Johnson, who did not care for the low-speed, unarmed aircraft, and remarked, "If you sign that letter, you will destroy the Lockheed Company."[6] Both Hibbard and Johnson signed the proposal and the company won the contract for the now-designated Model 82 on 2 July 1951.[7]
The first flight of the YC-130 prototype was made on 23 August 1954 from the Lockheed plant in Burbank, California. The aircraft, serial number 53-3397, was the second prototype, but the first of the two to fly. The YC-130 was piloted by Stanley Beltz and Roy Wimmer on its 61-minute flight to Edwards Air Force Base; Jack Real and Dick Stanton served as flight engineers. Kelly Johnson flew chase in a Lockheed P2V Neptune.[8]
After the two prototypes were completed, production began in Marietta, Georgia, where over 2,300 C-130s have been built through 2009.[9]
The initial production model, the C-130A, was powered by Allison T56-A-9 turboprops with three-blade propellers and originally equipped with the blunt nose of the prototypes. Deliveries began in December 1956, continuing until the introduction of the C-130B model in 1959. Some A-models were equipped with skis and re-designated C-130D.
As the C-130A became operational with Tactical Air Command (TAC), the C-130's lack of range became apparent and additional fuel capacity was added in the form of external pylon-mounted tanks at the end of the wings.
Improved versions[edit]
A Michigan Air National Guard C-130E dispatches its flares during a low-level training mission
The C-130B model was developed to complement the A-models that had previously been delivered, and incorporated new features, particularly increased fuel capacity in the form of auxiliary tanks built into the center wing section and an AC electrical system. Four-bladed Hamilton Standard propellers replaced the Aeroproducts three-blade propellers that distinguished the earlier A-models. The C-130B had ailerons with increased boost—3,000 psi (21 MPa) versus 2,050 psi (14 MPa)—as well as uprated engines and four-blade propellers that were standard until the J-model's introduction.
An electronic reconnaissance variant of the C-130B was designated C-130B-II. A total of 13 aircraft were converted. The C-130B-II was distinguished by its false external wing fuel tanks, which were disguised signals intelligence (SIGINT) receiver antennas. These pods were slightly larger than the standard wing tanks found on other C-130Bs. Most aircraft featured a swept blade antenna on the upper fuselage, as well as extra wire antennas between the vertical fin and upper fuselage not found on other C-130s. Radio call numbers on the tail of these aircraft were regularly changed so as to confuse observers and disguise their true mission.
The extended-range C-130E model entered service in 1962 after it was developed as an interim long-range transport for the Military Air Transport Service. Essentially a B-model, the new designation was the result of the installation of 1,360 US gal (5,150 L) Sargent Fletcher external fuel tanks under each wing's midsection and more powerful Allison T56-A-7A turboprops. The hydraulic boost pressure to the ailerons was reduced back to 2050 psi as a consequence of the external tanks' weight in the middle of the wingspan. The E model also featured structural improvements, avionics upgrades and a higher gross weight. Australia took delivery of 12 C130E Hercules during 1966–67 to supplement the 12 C-130A models already in service with the RAAF. Sweden and Spain fly the TP-84T version of the C-130E fitted for aerial refueling capability.
The KC-130 tankers, originally C-130F procured for the US Marine Corps (USMC) in 1958 (under the designation GV-1) are equipped with a removable 3,600 US gal (13,626 L) stainless steel fuel tank carried inside the cargo compartment. The two wing-mounted hose and drogue aerial refueling pods each transfer up to 300 US gal per minute (19 L per second) to two aircraft simultaneously, allowing for rapid cycle times of multiple-receiver aircraft formations, (a typical tanker formation of four aircraft in less than 30 minutes). The US Navy's C-130G has increased structural strength allowing higher gross weight operation.
More improvements[edit]
Royal Australian Air Force C-130H, 2007
The C-130H model has updated Allison T56-A-15 turboprops, a redesigned outer wing, updated avionics and other minor improvements. Later H models had a new, fatigue-life-improved, center wing that was retrofitted to many earlier H-models. For structural reasons, some models are required to land with certain amounts of fuel when carrying heavy cargo, reducing usable range.[10] The H model remains in widespread use with the United States Air Force (USAF) and many foreign air forces. Initial deliveries began in 1964 (to the RNZAF), remaining in production until 1996. An improved C-130H was introduced in 1974, with Australia purchasing 12 of type in 1978 to replace the original 12 C-130A models, which had first entered RAAF Service in 1958.
The United States Coast Guard employs the HC-130H for long-range search and rescue, drug interdiction, illegal migrant patrols, homeland security, and logistics.
C-130H models produced from 1992 to 1996 were designated as C-130H3 by the USAF. The "3" denoting the third variation in design for the H series. Improvements included ring laser gyros for the INUs, GPS receivers, a partial glass cockpit (ADI and HSI instruments), a more capable APN-241 color radar, night vision device compatible instrument lighting, and an integrated radar and missile warning system. The electrical system upgrade included Generator Control Units (GCU) and Bus Switching units (BSU)to provide stable power to the more sensitive upgraded components.[citation needed]
Royal Air Force C-130K (C.3)
The equivalent model for export to the UK is the C-130K, known by the Royal Air Force (RAF) as the Hercules C.1. The C-130H-30 (Hercules C.3 in RAF service) is a stretched version of the original Hercules, achieved by inserting a 100 in (2.54 m) plug aft of the cockpit and an 80 in (2.03 m) plug at the rear of the fuselage. A single C-130K was purchased by the Met Office for use by its Meteorological Research Flight, where it was classified as the Hercules W.2. This aircraft was heavily modified (with its most prominent feature being the long red and white striped atmospheric probe on the nose and the move of the weather radar into a pod above the forward fuselage). This aircraft, named Snoopy, was withdrawn in 2001 and was then modified by Marshall of Cambridge Aerospace as flight-testbed for the A400M turbine engine, the TP400. The C-130K is used by the RAF Falcons for parachute drops. Three C-130K (Hercules C Mk.1P) were upgraded and sold to the Austrian Air Force in 2002.[11]
Later models[edit]
The MC-130E Combat Talon was developed for the USAF during the Vietnam War to support special operations missions in Southeast Asia, and led to both the MC-130H Combat Talon II as well as a family of other special missions aircraft. 37 of the earliest models currently operating with the Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) are scheduled to be replaced by new-production MC-130J versions. The EC-130 Commando Solo is another special missions variant within AFSOC, albeit operated solely by an AFSOC-gained wing in the Pennsylvania Air National Guard, and is a psychological operations/information operations (PSYOP/IO) platform equipped as an aerial radio station and television stations able to transmit messaging over commercial frequencies. Other versions of the EC-130, most notably the EC-130H Compass Call, are also special variants, but are assigned to the Air Combat Command (ACC). The AC-130 gunship was first developed during the Vietnam War to provide close air support and other ground-attack duties.
USAF HC-130P refuels a HH-60G Pavehawk helicopter
The HC-130 is a family of long-range search and rescue variants used by the USAF and the U.S. Coast Guard. Equipped for deep deployment of Pararescuemen (PJs), survival equipment, and (in the case of USAF versions) aerial refueling of combat rescue helicopters, HC-130s are usually the on-scene command aircraft for combat SAR missions (USAF only) and non-combat SAR (USAF and USCG). Early USAF versions were also equipped with the Fulton surface-to-air recovery system, designed to pull a person off the ground using a wire strung from a helium balloon. The John Wayne movie The Green Berets features its use. The Fulton system was later removed when aerial refueling of helicopters proved safer and more versatile. The movie The Perfect Storm depicts a real life SAR mission involving aerial refueling of a New York Air National Guard HH-60G by a New York Air National Guard HC-130P.
The C-130R and C-130T are U.S. Navy and USMC models, both equipped with underwing external fuel tanks. The USN C-130T is similar, but has additional avionics improvements. In both models, aircraft are equipped with Allison T56-A-16 engines. The USMC versions are designated KC-130R or KC-130T when equipped with underwing refueling pods and pylons and are fully night vision system compatible.
The RC-130 is a reconnaissance version. A single example is used by the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force, the aircraft having originally been sold to the former Imperial Iranian Air Force.
The Lockheed L-100 (L-382) is a civilian variant, equivalent to a C-130E model without military equipment. The L-100 also has two stretched versions.
Next generation[edit]
Main article: Lockheed Martin C-130J Super Hercules
In the 1970s, Lockheed proposed a C-130 variant with turbofan engines rather than turboprops, but the U.S. Air Force preferred the takeoff performance of the existing aircraft. In the 1980s, the C-130 was intended to be replaced by the Advanced Medium STOL Transport project. The project was canceled and the C-130 has remained in production.
Building on lessons learned, Lockheed Martin modified a commercial variant of the C-130 into a High Technology Test Bed (HTTB). This test aircraft set numerous short takeoff and landing performance records and significantly expanded the database for future derivatives of the C-130.[12] Modifications made to the HTTB included extended chord ailerons, a long chord rudder, fast-acting double-slotted trailing edge flaps, a high-camber wing leading edge extension, a larger dorsal fin and dorsal fins, the addition of three spoiler panels to each wing upper surface, a long-stroke main and nose landing gear system, and changes to the flight controls and a change from direct mechanical linkages assisted by hydraulic boost, to fully powered controls, in which the mechanical linkages from the flight station controls operated only the hydraulic control valves of the appropriate boost unit.[13] The HTTB first flew on 19 June 1984, with civil registration of N130X. After demonstrating many new technologies, some of which were applied to the C-130J, the HTTB was lost in a fatal accident on 3 February 1993, at Dobbins Air Reserve Base, in Marietta, Georgia.[14] The crash was attributed to disengagement of the rudder fly-by-wire flight control system, resulting in a total loss of rudder control capability while conducting ground minimum control speed tests (Vmcg). The disengagement was a result of the inadequate design of the rudder's integrated actuator package by its manufacturer; the operator's insufficient system safety review failed to consider the consequences of the inadequate design to all operating regimes. A factor which contributed to the accident was the flight crew's lack of engineering flight test training.[15]
In the 1990s, the improved C-130J Super Hercules was developed by Lockheed (later Lockheed Martin). This model is the newest version and the only model in production. Externally similar to the classic Hercules in general appearance, the J model has new turboprop engines, six-bladed propellers, digital avionics, and other new systems.[16]
Upgrades and changes[edit]
In 2000, Boeing was awarded a US$1.4 billion contract to develop an Avionics Modernization Program kit for the C-130. The program was beset with delays and cost overruns until project restructuring in 2007.[17] On 2 September 2009, Bloomberg news reported that the planned Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) upgrade to the older C-130s would be dropped to provide more funds for the F-35, CV-22 and airborne tanker replacement programs.[18] However, in June 2010, Department of Defense approved funding for the initial production of the AMP upgrade kits.[19][20] Under the terms of this agreement, the USAF has cleared Boeing to begin low-rate initial production (LRIP) for the C-130 AMP. A total of 198 aircraft are expected to feature the AMP upgrade. The current cost per aircraft is US$14 million although Boeing expects that this price will drop to US$7 million for the 69th aircraft.[17]
An engine enhancement program saving fuel and providing lower temperatures in the T56 engine has been approved, and the US Air Force expects to save $2 billion and extend the fleet life.[21]
Replacement[edit]
In October 2010, the Air Force released a capabilities request for information (CRFI) for the development of a new airlifter to replace the C-130. The new aircraft is to carry a 190 percent greater payload and assume the mission of mounted vertical maneuver (MVM). The greater payload and mission would enable it to carry medium-weight armored vehicles and drop them off at locations without long runways. Various options are being considered, including new or upgraded fixed-wing designs, rotorcraft, tiltrotors, or even an airship. Development could start in 2014, and become operational by 2024. The C-130 fleet of around 450 planes would be replaced by only 250 aircraft.[22] The Air Force had attempted to replace the C-130 in the 1970s through the Advanced Medium STOL Transport project, which resulted in the C-17 Globemaster III that instead replaced the C-141 Starlifter.[23] The Air Force Research Laboratory funded Lockheed and Boeing demonstrators for the Speed Agile concept, which had the goal of making a STOL aircraft that can take off and land at speeds as low as 70 kn (130 km/h; 81 mph) on airfields less than 2,000 ft (610 m) long and cruise at Mach 0.8-plus. Boeing's design used upper-surface blowing from embedded engines on the inboard wing and blown flaps for circulation control on the outboard wing. Lockheed's design also used blown flaps outboard, but inboard used patented reversing ejector nozzles. Boeing's design completed over 2,000 hours of windtunnel tests in late 2009. It was a 5 percent-scale model of a narrowbody design with a 55,000 lb (25,000 kg) payload. When the AFRL increased the payload requirement to 65,000 lb (29,000 kg), they tested a 5% scale model of a widebody design with a 303,000 lb (137,000 kg) take-off gross weight and an "A400M-size" 158 in (4.0 m) wide cargo box. It would be powered by four IAE V2533 turbofans.[24] In August 2011, the AFRL released pictures of the Lockheed Speed Agile concept demonstrator. A 23% scale model went through wind tunnel tests to demonstrate its hybrid powered lift, which combines a low drag airframe with simple mechanical assembly to reduce weight and better aerodynamics. The model had four engines, including two Williams FJ44 turbofans.[23][25] On 26 March 2013, Boeing was granted a patent for its swept-wing powered lift aircraft.[26]
As of January 2014, Air Mobility Command, Air Force Materiel Command and the Air Force Research Lab are in the early stages of defining requirements for the C-X next generation airlifter program to replace both the C-130 and C-17. An aircraft would be produced from the early 2030s to the 2040s. If requirements are decided for operating in contested airspace, Air Force procurement of C-130s would end by the end of the decade to not have them serviceable by the 2030s and operated when they can't perform in that environment. Development of the airlifter depends heavily on the Army's "tactical and operational maneuver" plans. Two different cargo planes could still be created to separately perform tactical and strategic missions, but which course to pursue is to be decided before C-17s need to be retired.[27]
Operational history[edit]
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2014)
Military[edit]
USMC KC-130F Hercules performing takeoffs and landings aboard the aircraft carrier Forrestal in 1963. The aircraft is now displayed at the National Museum of Naval Aviation.
The first production aircraft, C-130As were first delivered beginning in 1956 to the 463d Troop Carrier Wing at Ardmore AFB, Oklahoma and the 314th Troop Carrier Wing at Sewart AFB, Tennessee. Six additional squadrons were assigned to the 322d Air Division in Europe and the 315th Air Division in the Far East. Additional aircraft were modified for electronics intelligence work and assigned to Rhein-Main Air Base, Germany while modified RC-130As were assigned to the Military Air Transport Service (MATS) photo-mapping division.
In 1958, a U.S. reconnaissance C-130A-II of the 7406th Support Squadron was shot down over Armenia by MiG-17s.[28]
Australia became the first non-American force to operate the C-130A Hercules with 12 examples being delivered from late 1958. These aircraft were fitted with AeroProducts three-blade, 15-foot diameter propellers. The Royal Canadian Air Force became another early user with the delivery of four B-models (Canadian designation C-130 Mk I) in October / November 1960.[29]
In 1963, a Hercules achieved and still holds the record for the largest and heaviest aircraft to land on an aircraft carrier.[30] During October and November that year, a USMC KC-130F (BuNo 149798), loaned to the U.S. Naval Air Test Center, made 29 touch-and-go landings, 21 unarrested full-stop landings and 21 unassisted take-offs on Forrestal at a number of different weights.[31] The pilot, LT (later RADM) James H. Flatley III, USN, was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for his role in this test series. The tests were highly successful, but the idea was considered too risky for routine "Carrier Onboard Delivery" (COD) operations. Instead, the Grumman C-2 Greyhound was developed as a dedicated COD aircraft. The Hercules used in the test, most recently in service with Marine Aerial Refueler Squadron 352 (VMGR-352) until 2005, is now part of the collection of the National Museum of Naval Aviation at NAS Pensacola, Florida.
In 1964, C-130 crews from the 6315th Operations Group at Naha Air Base, Okinawa commenced forward air control (FAC; "Flare") missions over the Ho Chi Minh Trail in Laos supporting USAF strike aircraft. In April 1965 the mission was expanded to North Vietnam where C-130 crews led formations of B-57 bombers on night reconnaissance/strike missions against communist supply routes leading to South Vietnam. In early 1966 Project Blind Bat/Lamplighter was established at Ubon RTAFB, Thailand. After the move to Ubon the mission became a four-engine FAC mission with the C-130 crew searching for targets then calling in strike aircraft. Another little-known C-130 mission flown by Naha-based crews was Operation Commando Scarf, which involved the delivery of chemicals onto sections of the Ho Chi Minh Trail in Laos that were designed to produce mud and landslides in hopes of making the truck routes impassable.[citation needed]
In November 1964, on the other side of the globe, C-130Es from the 464th Troop Carrier Wing but loaned to 322d Air Division in France, flew one of the most dramatic missions in history in the former Belgian Congo. After communist Simba rebels took white residents of the city of Stanleyville hostage, the U.S. and Belgium developed a joint rescue mission that used the C-130s to airlift and then drop and air-land a force of Belgian paratroopers to rescue the hostages. Two missions were flown, one over Stanleyville and another over Paulis during Thanksgiving weeks.[32] The headline-making mission resulted in the first award of the prestigious MacKay Trophy to C-130 crews.
In the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, as a desperate measure the transport No. 6 Squadron of the Pakistan Air Force modified its entire small fleet of C-130Bs for use as heavy bombers, capable of carrying up to 20,000 lb (9,072 kg) of bombs on pallets. These improvised bombers were used to hit Indian targets such as bridges, heavy artillery positions, tank formations and troop concentrations.[33][34] Some C-130s even flew with anti-aircraft guns fitted on their ramp, apparently shooting down some 17 aircraft and damaging 16 others.[35]
The C-130 Hercules were used in the Battle of Kham Duc in 1968, when the North Vietnamese Army forced U.S.-led forces to abandon the Kham Duc Special Forces Camp.
In October 1968, a C-130Bs from the 463rd Tactical Airlift Wing dropped a pair of M-121 10,000 pound bombs that had been developed for the massive B-36 bomber but had never been used. The U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force resurrected the huge weapons as a means of clearing landing zones for helicopters and in early 1969 the 463rd commenced Commando Vault missions. Although the stated purpose of COMMANDO VAULT was to clear LZs, they were also used on enemy base camps and other targets.[citation needed]
During the late 1960s, the U.S. was eager to get information on Chinese nuclear capabilities. After the failure of the Black Cat Squadron to plant operating sensor pods near the Lop Nur Nuclear Weapons Test Base using a Lockheed U-2, the CIA developed a plan, named Heavy Tea, to deploy two battery-powered sensor pallets near the base. To deploy the pallets, a Black Bat Squadron crew was trained in the U.S. to fly the C-130 Hercules. The crew of 12, led by Col Sun Pei Zhen, took off from Takhli Royal Thai Air Force Base in an unmarked U.S. Air Force C-130E on 17 May 1969. Flying for six and a half hours at low altitude in the dark, they arrived over the target and the sensor pallets were dropped by parachute near Anxi in Gansu province. After another six and a half hours of low altitude flight, they arrived back at Takhli. The sensors worked and uploaded data to a U.S. intelligence satellite for six months, before their batteries wore out. The Chinese conducted two nuclear tests, on 22 September 1969 and 29 September 1969, during the operating life of the sensor pallets. Another mission to the area was planned as Operation Golden Whip, but was called off in 1970.[36] It is most likely that the aircraft used on this mission was either C-130E serial number 64-0506 or 64-0507 (cn 382-3990 and 382-3991). These two aircraft were delivered to Air America in 1964.[37] After being returned to the U.S. Air Force sometime between 1966 and 1970, they were assigned the serial numbers of C-130s that had been destroyed in accidents. 64-0506 is now flying as 62-1843, a C-130E that crashed in Vietnam on 20 December 1965 and 64-0507 is now flying as 63-7785, a C-130E that had crashed in Vietnam on 17 June 1966.[38]
The A-model continued in service through the Vietnam War, where the aircraft assigned to the four squadrons at Naha AB, Okinawa and one at Tachikawa Air Base, Japan performed yeoman's service, including operating highly classified special operations missions such as the BLIND BAT FAC/Flare mission and FACT SHEET leaflet mission over Laos and North Vietnam. The A-model was also provided to the South Vietnamese Air Force as part of the Vietnamization program at the end of the war, and equipped three squadrons based at Tan Son Nhut AFB. The last operator in the world is the Honduran Air Force, which is still flying one of five A model Hercules (FAH 558, c/n 3042) as of October 2009.[39] As the Vietnam War wound down, the 463rd Troop Carrier/Tactical Airlift Wing B-models and A-models of the 374th Tactical Airlift Wing were transferred back to the United States where most were assigned to Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard units.
U.S. Marines disembark from C-130 transports at the Da Nang Airbase on 8 March 1965
Another prominent role for the B model was with the United States Marine Corps, where Hercules initially designated as GV-1s replaced C-119s. After Air Force C-130Ds proved the type's usefulness in Antarctica, the U.S. Navy purchased a number of B-models equipped with skis that were designated as LC-130s. C-130B-II electronic reconnaissance aircraft were operated under the SUN VALLEY program name primarily from Yokota Air Base, Japan. All reverted to standard C-130B cargo aircraft after their replacement in the reconnaissance role by other aircraft.
The C-130 was also used in the 1976 Entebbe raid in which Israeli commando forces carried a surprise assault to rescue 103 passengers of an airliner hijacked by Palestinian and German terrorists at Entebbe Airport, Uganda. The rescue force — 200 soldiers, jeeps, and a black Mercedes-Benz (intended to resemble Ugandan Dictator Idi Amin's vehicle of state) — was flown over 2,200 nmi (4,074 km; 2,532 mi) almost entirely at an altitude of less than 100 ft (30 m) from Israel to Entebbe by four Israeli Air Force (IAF) Hercules aircraft without mid-air refueling (on the way back, the planes refueled in Nairobi, Kenya).
During the Falklands War (Spanish: Guerra de las Malvinas) of 1982, Argentine Air Force C-130s undertook highly dangerous, daily re-supply night flights as blockade runners to the Argentine garrison on the Falkland Islands. They also performed daylight maritime survey flights. One was lost during the war. Argentina also operated two KC-130 tankers during the war, and these refueled both the Douglas A-4 Skyhawks and Navy Dassault-Breguet Super Étendards; some C-130s were modified to operate as bombers with bomb-racks under their wings. The British also used RAF C-130s to support their logistical operations.
USMC C-130T Fat Albert performing a rocket-assisted takeoff (RATO)
During the Gulf War of 1991 (Operation Desert Storm), the C-130 Hercules was used operationally by the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps, along with the air forces of Australia, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and the UK. The MC-130 Combat Talon variant also made the first attacks using the largest conventional bombs in the world, the BLU-82 "Daisy Cutter" and GBU-43/B "Massive Ordnance Air Blast" bomb, (MOAB). Daisy Cutters were used to clear landing zones and to eliminate mine fields. The weight and size of the weapons make it impossible or impractical to load them on conventional bombers. The GBU-43/B MOAB is a successor to the BLU-82 and can perform the same function, as well as perform strike functions against hardened targets in a low air threat environment.
Since 1992, two successive C-130 aircraft named Fat Albert have served as the support aircraft for the U.S. Navy Blue Angels flight demonstration team. Fat Albert I was a TC-130G (151891),[40] while Fat Albert II is a C-130T (164763).[41] Although Fat Albert supports a Navy squadron, it is operated by the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) and its crew consists solely of USMC personnel. At some air shows featuring the team, Fat Albert takes part, performing flyovers. Until 2009, it also demonstrated its rocket-assisted takeoff (RATO) capabilities; these ended due to dwindling supplies of rockets.[42]
The AC-130 also holds the record for the longest sustained flight by a C-130. From 22 to 24 October 1997, two AC-130U gunships flew 36 hours nonstop from Hurlburt Field Florida to Taegu (Daegu), South Korea while being refueled seven times by KC-135 tanker aircraft. This record flight shattered the previous record longest flight by over 10 hours while the two gunships took on 410,000 lb (190,000 kg) of fuel. The gunship has been used in every major U.S. combat operation since Vietnam, except for Operation El Dorado Canyon, the 1986 attack on Libya.[43]
C-130 Hercules performs a tactical landing on a dirt strip
During the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and the ongoing support of the International Security Assistance Force (Operation Enduring Freedom), the C-130 Hercules has been used operationally by Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, South Korea, Spain, the UK and the United States.
During the 2003 invasion of Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom), the C-130 Hercules was used operationally by Australia, the UK and the United States. After the initial invasion, C-130 operators as part of the Multinational force in Iraq used their C-130s to support their forces in Iraq.
Since 2004, the Pakistan Air Force has employed C-130s in the War in North-West Pakistan. Some variants had forward looking infrared (FLIR Systems Star Safire III EO/IR) sensor balls, to enable close tracking of Islamist militants.[44]
Civilian[edit]
A C-130E fitted with a MAFFS-1 dropping fire retardant
The U.S. Forest Service developed the Modular Airborne FireFighting System for the C-130 in the 1970s, which allows regular aircraft to be temporarily converted to an airtanker for fighting wildfires.[45] In the late 1980s, 22 retired USAF C-130As were removed from storage at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base and transferred to the U.S. Forest Service who then sold them to six private companies to be converted into air tankers (see U.S. Forest Service airtanker scandal). After one of these aircraft crashed due to wing separation in flight as a result of fatigue stress cracking, the entire fleet of C-130A air tankers was permanently grounded in 2004 (see 2002 airtanker crashes). C-130s have been used to spread chemical dispersants onto the massive oil slick in the Gulf Coast in 2010.[46]
A recent development of a C-130–based airtanker is the Retardant Aerial Delivery System developed by Coulson Aviation USA . The system consists of a C-130H/Q retrofitted with an in-floor discharge system, combined with a removable 3,500- or 4,000-gallon water tank. The combined system is FAA certified.[47]
Variants[edit]
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2014)
C-130H Hercules flight deck
A U.S. JC-130 aircraft retrieving a reconnaissance satellite film capsule under parachute.
C-130s from the: U.S., Canada, Australia and Israel (foreground to background)
RAAF C-130J-30 at Point Cook, 2006
Brazilian Air Force C-130 (L-382)
For civilian versions, see Lockheed L-100 Hercules.
Significant military variants of the C-130 include:
C-130A/B/E/F/G/H/K/T
Tactical airlifter basic models
C-130A-II Dreamboat
Early version Electronic Intelligence/Signals Intelligence (ELINT/SIGINT) aircraft[48]
C-130J Super Hercules
Tactical airlifter, with new engines, avionics, and updated systems
C-130K
Designation for RAF Hercules C1/W2/C3 aircraft (C-130Js in RAF service are the Hercules C.4 and Hercules C.5)
AC-130A/E/H/J/U/W
Gunship variants
C-130D/D-6
Ski-equipped version for snow and ice operations United States Air Force / Air National Guard
CC-130E/H/J Hercules
Designation for Canadian Armed Forces / Royal Canadian Air Force Hercules aircraft. U.S. Air Force used the CC-130J designation to differentiate standard C-130Js from "stretched" C-130Js (Company designation C-130J-30s).
DC-130A/E/H
USAF and USN Drone control
EC-130
EC-130E/J Commando Solo – USAF / Air National Guard psychological operations version
EC-130E – Airborne Battlefield Command and Control Center (ABCCC)
EC-130E Rivet Rider – Airborne psychological warfare aircraft
EC-130H Compass Call – Electronic warfare and electronic attack.[49]
EC-130V – Airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) variant used by USCG for counter-narcotics missions[50]
GC-130
Permanently Grounded "Static Display"
HC-130
HC-130B/E/H – Early model combat search and rescue
HC-130P/N Combat King – USAF aerial refueling tanker and combat search and rescue
HC-130J Combat King II – Next generation combat search and rescue tanker
HC-130H/J – USCG long-range surveillance and search and rescue
JC-130
Temporary conversion for flight test operations
KC-130F/R/T/J
United States Marine Corps aerial refueling tanker and tactical airlifter
LC-130F/H/R
USAF / Air National Guard – Ski-equipped version for Arctic and Antarctic support operations; LC-130F previously operated by USN
MC-130
MC-130E/H Combat Talon I/II – Special operations infiltration/extraction variant
MC-130W Combat Spear/Dragon Spear – Special operations tanker/gunship[51]
MC-130P Combat Shadow – Special operations tanker
MC-130J Commando II (formerly Combat Shadow II) – Special operations tanker Air Force Special Operations Command[52]
YMC-130H – Modified aircraft under Operation Credible Sport for second Iran hostage crisis rescue attempt
NC-130
Permanent conversion for flight test operations
PC-130/C-130-MP
Maritime patrol
RC-130A/S
Surveillance aircraft for reconnaissance
SC-130J Sea Herc
Proposed maritime patrol version of the C-130J, designed for coastal surveillance and anti-submarine warfare.[53][54]
TC-130
Aircrew training
VC-130H
VIP transport
WC-130A/B/E/H/J
Weather reconnaissance ("Hurricane Hunter") version for USAF / Air Force Reserve Command's 53d Weather Reconnaissance Squadron in support of the National Weather Service's National Hurricane Center
_________________________________
IMG_5183
The Tornado was capable of carrying the majority of air-launched weapons in the NATO inventory, including various unguided and laser-guided bombs, anti-ship and anti-radiation missiles, as well as specialized weapons such as antipersonnel mines and anti-runway munitions. To improve survivability in combat, the Tornado is equipped with onboard countermeasures, running from flare and chaff dispensers to electronic countermeasure pods (BOZ and TSPJ) that can be mounted under the wings. The ADV variant carried the Skyflash semi-active radar homing missiles and AIM-9 Sidewinder infrared missiles, later upgrading to the ASRAAM and AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles. The Tornado can carry the ALARM anti-radiation missile and the AGM-88 HARM in its SEAD role. The Tornado was also fitted with a 27 mm Mauser BK-27 revolver cannon with 180 rounds of ammunition.
In this image, a Tornado IDS (serial number: 0PS-16) from the Wehrtechnische Dienstelle 61 (WTD 61) testing centre empties the Mehrzweckwaffe 1 (MW-1) munitions dispenser on a test flight. Founded in 1957, the new testing centre evaluated aerial military equipment selected for possible procurement by the German Armed Forces. In 1967, the centre was moved to Manching Air Base, where testing equipment is still being continued to this day. The MW-1 dispenser was designed to be carried by the Tornado and was intended to deploy several hundred submissions designed to attack runways. The MW-1 contained 112 tubes for parachute-dropped munitions to destroy runway surfaces, as well as anti-personnel mines designed to hinder repairs and reconstruction.
and so it begins...reclamation (lower right)
triffids – tall plants capable of aggressive and seemingly intelligent behaviour. They are able to move about by "walking" on their roots, appear to communicate with each other, and possess a deadly whip-like poisonous sting that enables them to kill their victims and feed on their rotting carcasses.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_of_the_Triffids.
The Day of the Triffids is a 1951 post-apocalyptic novel about a plague of blindness which befalls the entire world, allowing the rise of an aggressive species of plant.
One of the first novels I ever borrowed from a library as a kid. I was enraptured. The genesis of my love of science fiction. The literary depiction of the triffids slowly overtaking buildings and civilization has stayed with me. Probably why I respect and admire our natural world so much and strive to protect and nourish it. My love of plantlife is well documented here.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Waffenträger (Weapon Carrier) VTS3 “Diana” was a prototype for a wheeled tank destroyer. It was developed by Thyssen-Henschel (later Rheinmetall) in Kassel, Germany, in the late Seventies, in response to a German Army requirement for a highly mobile tank destroyer with the firepower of the Leopard 1 main battle tank then in service and about to be replaced with the more capable Leopard 2 MBT, but less complex and costly. The main mission of the Diana was light to medium territorial defense, protection of infantry units and other, lighter, elements of the cavalry as well as tactical reconnaissance. Instead of heavy armor it would rather use its good power-to-weight ratio, excellent range and cross-country ability (despite the wheeled design) for defense and a computerized fire control system to accomplish this mission.
In order to save development cost and time, the vehicle was heavily based on the Spähpanzer Luchs (Lynx), a new German 8x8 amphibious reconnaissance armored fighting vehicle that had just entered Bundeswehr service in 1975. The all-wheel drive Luchs made was well armored against light weapons, had a full NBC protection system and was characterized by its extremely low-noise running. The eight large low-pressure tires had run-flat properties, and, at speeds up to about 50 km/h, all four axles could be steered, giving the relatively large vehicle a surprising agility and very good off-road performance. As a special feature, the vehicle was equipped with a rear-facing driver with his own driving position (normally the radio operator), so that the vehicle could be driven at full speed into both directions – a heritage from German WWII designs, and a tactical advantage when the vehicle had to quickly retreat from tactical position after having been detected. The original Luchs weighed less than 20 tons, was fully amphibious and could surmount water obstacles quickly and independently using propellers at the rear and the fold back trim vane at the front. Its armament was relatively light, though, a 20 mm Rheinmetall MK 20 Rh 202 gun in the turret that was effective against both ground and air targets.
The Waffenträger “Diana” used the Luchs’ hull and dynamic components as basis, and Thyssen-Henschel solved the challenge to mount a large and heavy 105 mm L7 gun with its mount on the light chassis through a minimalistic, unmanned mount and an autoloader. Avoiding a traditional manned and heavy, armored turret, a lot of weight and internal volume that had to be protected could be saved, and crew safety was indirectly improved, too. This concept had concurrently been tested in the form of the VTS1 (“Versuchsträger Scheitellafette #1) experimental tank in 1976 for the Kampfpanzer 3 development, which eventually led to the Leopard 2 MBT (which retained a traditional turret, though).
For the “Diana” test vehicle, Thyssen-Henschel developed a new low-profile turret with a very small frontal area. Two crew members, the commander (on the right side) and the gunner (to the left), were seated in/under the gun mount, completely inside of the vehicle’s hull. The turret was a very innovative construction for its time, fully stabilized and mounted the proven 105mm L7 rifled cannon with a smoke discharger. Its autoloader contained 8 rounds in a carousel magazine. 16 more rounds could be carried in the hull, but they had to be manually re-loaded into the magazine, which was only externally accessible. A light, co-axial 7,62mm machine gun against soft targets was available, too, as well as eight defensive smoke grenade mortars.
The automated L7 had a rate of fire of ten rounds per minute and could fire four types of ammunition: a kinetic energy penetrator to destroy armored vehicles; a high explosive anti-tank round to destroy thin-skinned vehicles and provide anti-personnel fragmentation; a high explosive plastic round to destroy bunkers, machine gun and sniper positions, and create openings in walls for infantry to access; and a canister shot for use against dismounted infantry in the open or for smoke charges. The rounds to be fired could be pre-selected, so that the gun was able to automatically fire a certain ammunition sequence, but manual round selection was possible at any time, too.
In order to take the new turret, the Luchs hull had to be modified. Early calculations had revealed that a simple replacement of the Luchs’ turret with the new L7 mount would have unfavorably shifted the vehicle’s center of gravity up- and forward, making it very nose-heavy and hard to handle in rough terrain or at high speed, and the long barrel would have markedly overhung the front end, impairing handling further. It was also clear that the additional weight and the rise of the CoG made amphibious operations impossible - a fate that met the upgraded Luchs recce tanks in the Eighties, too, after several accidents with overturned vehicles during wading and drowned crews. With this insight the decision was made to omit the vehicle’s amphibious capability, save weight and complexity, and to modify the vehicle’s layout considerably to optimize the weight distribution.
Taking advantage of the fact that the Luchs already had two complete driver stations at both ends, a pair of late-production hulls were set aside in 1977 and their internal layout reversed. The engine bay was now in the vehicle’s front, the secured ammunition storage was placed next to it, behind the separate driver compartment, and the combat section with the turret mechanism was located behind it. Since the VTS3s were only prototypes, only minimal adaptations were made. This meant that the driver was now located on the right side of the vehicle, while and the now-rear-facing secondary driver/radio operator station ended up on the left side – much like a RHD vehicle – but this was easily accepted in the light of cost and time savings. As a result, the gun and its long, heavy barrel were now located above the vehicle’s hull, so that the overall weight distribution was almost neutral and overall dimensions remained compact.
Both test vehicles were completed in early 1978 and field trials immediately started. While the overall mobility was on par with the Luchs and the Diana’s high speed and low noise profile was highly appreciated, the armament was and remained a source of constant concern. Shooting in motion from the Diana turned out to be very problematic, and even firing from a standstill was troublesome. The gun mount and the vehicle’s complex suspension were able to "hold" the recoil of the full-fledged 105-mm tank gun, which had always been famous for its rather large muzzle energy. But when fired, even in the longitudinal plane, the vehicle body fell heavily towards the stern, so that the target was frequently lost and aiming had to be resumed – effectively negating the benefit from the autoloader’s high rate of fire and exposing the vehicle to potential target retaliation. Firing to the side was even worse. Several attempts were made to mend this flaw, but neither the addition of a muzzle brake, stronger shock absorbers and even hydro-pneumatic suspension elements did not solve the problem. In addition, the high muzzle flames and the resulting significant shockwave required the infantry to stay away from the vehicle intended to support them. The Bundeswehr also criticized the too small ammunition load, as well as the fact that the autoloader magazine could not be re-filled under armor protection, so that the vehicle had to retreat to safe areas to re-arm and/or to adapt to a new mission profile. This inherent flaw not only put the crew under the hazards of enemy fire, it also negated the vehicle’s NBC protection – a serious issue and likely Cold War scenario. Another weak point was the Diana’s weight: even though the net gain of weight compared with the Luchs was less than 3 tons after the conversion, this became another serious problem that led to the Diana’s demise: during trials the Bundeswehr considered the possibility to airlift the Diana, but its weight (even that of the Luchs, BTW) was too much for the Luftwaffe’s biggest own transport aircraft, the C-160 Transall. Even aircraft from other NATO members, e.g. the common C-130 Hercules, could hardly carry the vehicle. In theory, equipment had to be removed, including the cannon and parts of its mount.
Since the tactical value of the vehicle was doubtful and other light anti-tank weapons in the form of the HOT anti-tank missile had reached operational status, so that very light vehicles and even small infantry groups could now effectively fight against full-fledged enemy battle tanks from a safe distance, the Diana’s development was stopped in 1988. Both VTS3 prototypes were mothballed, stored at the Bundeswehr Munster Training Area camp and are still waiting to be revamped as historic exhibits alongside other prototypes like the Kampfpanzer 70 in the German Tank Museum located there, too.
Specifications:
Crew: 4 (commander, driver, gunner, radio operator/second driver)
Weight: 22.6 t
Length: 7.74 m (25 ft 4 ¼ in)
Width: 2.98 m ( 9 ft 9 in)
Height: XXX
Ground clearance: 440 mm (1 ft 4 in)
Suspension: hydraulic all-wheel drive and steering
Armor:
Unknown, but sufficient to withstand 14.5 mm AP rounds
Performance:
Speed: 90 km/h (56 mph) on roads
Operational range: 720 km (445 mi)
Power/weight: 13,3 hp/ton with petrol, 17,3 hp/ton with diesel
Engine:
1× Daimler Benz OM 403A turbocharged 10-cylinder 4-stroke multi-fuel engine,
delivering 300 hp with petrol, 390 hp with diesel
Armament:
1× 105 mm L7 rifled gun with autoloader (8 rounds ready, plus 16 in reserve)
1× co-axial 7.92 mm M3 machine gun with 2.000 rounds
Two groups of four Wegmann 76 mm smoke mortars
The kit and its assembly:
I have been a big Luchs fan since I witnessed one in action during a public Bundeswehr demo day when I was around 10 years old: a huge, boxy and futuristic vehicle with strange proportions, gigantic wheels, water propellers, a mind-boggling mobility and all of this utterly silent. Today you’d assume that this vehicle had an electric engine – spooky! So I always had a soft spot for it, and now it was time and a neat occasion to build a what-if model around it.
This fictional wheeled tank prototype model was spawned by a leftover Revell 1:72 Luchs kit, which I had bought some time ago primarily for the turret, used in a fictional post-WWII SdKfz. 234 “Puma” conversion. With just the chassis left I wondered what other use or equipment it might take, and, after several weeks with the idea in the back of my mind, I stumbled at Silesian Models over an M1128 resin conversion set for the Trumpeter M1126 “Stryker” 8x8 APC model. From this set as potential donor for a conversion the prototype idea with an unmanned turret was born.
Originally I just planned to mount the new turret onto the OOB hull, but when playing with the parts I found the look with an overhanging gun barrel and the bigger turret placed well forward on the hull goofy and unbalanced. I was about to shelf the idea again, until I recognized that the Luchs’ hull is almost symmetrical – the upper hull half could be easily reversed on the chassis tub (at least on the kit…), and this would allow much better proportions. From this conceptual change the build went straightforward, reversing the upper hull only took some minor PSR. The resin turret was taken mostly OOB, it only needed a scratched adapter to fit into the respective hull opening. I just added a co-axial machine gun fairing, antenna bases (from the Luchs kit, since they could, due to the long gun barrel, not be attached to the hull anymore) and smoke grenade mortars (also taken from the Luchs).
An unnerving challenge became the Luchs kit’s suspension and drive train – it took two days to assemble the vehicle’s underside alone! While this area is very accurate and delicate, the fact that almost EVERY lever and stabilizer is a separate piece on four(!) axles made the assembly a very slow process. Just for reference: the kit comes with three and a half sprues. A full one for the wheels (each consists of three parts, and more than another one for suspension and drivetrain!
Furthermore, the many hull surface details like tools or handles – these are more than a dozen bits and pieces – are separate, very fragile and small (tiny!), too. Cutting all these wee parts out and cleaning them was a tedious affair, too, plus painting them separately.
Otherwise the model went together well, but it’s certainly not good for quick builders and those with big fingers and/or poor sight.
Painting and markings:
The paint scheme was a conservative choice; it is a faithful adaptation of the Bundeswehr’s NATO standard camouflage for the European theatre of operations that was introduced in the Eighties. It was adopted by many armies to confuse potential aggressors from the East, so that observers could not easily identify a vehicle and its nationality. It consists of a green base with red-brown and black blotches, in Germany it was executed with RAL tones, namely 6031 (Bronze Green), 8027 (Leather Brown) and 9021 (Tar Black). The pattern was standardized for each vehicle type and I stuck to the official Luchs pattern, trying to adapt it to the new/bigger turret. I used Revell acrylic paints, since the authentic RAL tones are readily available in this product range (namely the tones 06, 65 and 84). The big tires were painted with Revell 09 (Anthracite).
Next the model was treated with a highly thinned washing with black and red-brown acrylic paint, before decals were applied, taken from the OOB sheet and without unit markings, since the Diana would represent a test vehicle. After sealing them with a thin coat of clear varnish the model was furthermore treated with lightly dry-brushed Revell 45 and 75 to emphasize edges and surface details, and the separately painted hull equipment was mounted. The following step was a cloudy treatment with watercolors (from a typical school paintbox, it’s great stuff for weathering!), simulating dust residue all over the hull. After a final protective coat with matt acrylic varnish I finally added some mineral artist pigments to the lower hull areas and created mud crusts on the wheels through light wet varnish traces into which pigments were “dusted”.
Basically a simple project, but the complex Luchs kit with its zillion of wee bits and pieces took time and cost some nerves. However, the result looks pretty good, and the Stryker turret blends well into the overall package. Not certain how realistic the swap of the Luchs’ internal layout would have been, but I think that the turret moved to the rear makes more sense than the original forward position? After all, the model is supposed to be a prototype, so there’s certainly room for creative freedom. And in classic Bundeswehr colors, the whole thing even looks pretty convincing.
Coachwork by Carrozzeria Figoni
Chassis n° 55221
Les Grandes Marques du Monde au Grand Palais 2020
Bonhams
Parijs - Paris
Frankrijk - France
February 2020
Estimated : € 4.000.000 - 7.000.000
Sold for € 4.600.000
Here, Bonhams proudly offers the renowned 'Geoffrey St John', 56-years in his ownership, 1932 Bugatti Type 55 Supersport with its unique, 1933-fitted, Figoni coachwork. This magnificent high-performance, Post-Vintage Thoroughbred two-seater began life as a works-backed Bugatti entry in the 1932 Le Mans 24-Hour race. It was co-driven there by two of France's most capable and charismatic drivers, the aristocratic Sarthois (from Le Mans) Count Guy Bouriat Quintart and the renowned Monegasque future French Champion, Louis Chiron.
While this 2.3-litre supercharged straight-8 Bugatti originated with a spartan lightweight racing body tailored to that year's Le Mans 24-Hour regulations, following its post-race sale to Parisian magazine publisher Jacques Dupuy it was speedily rebodied in Boulogne sur-Seine on the outskirts of Paris by the now legendary Italian-born stylist/coachbuilder Giuseppe Figoni.
Following an awards-rich early history in France, this mouth-watering sports Bugatti survived World War 2 and, as long ago as August, 1963 – some 56 years ago – it was acquired by its long standing owner, leading British Bugattiste, Geoffrey St John.
This magnificent car became the apple of his eye, and he was devastated in June 1994 when it was involved in a road accident in France, assailed by a speeding car driven by a youth who was both uninsured, and drunk. Frontal damage to the car was beautifully repaired in a subsequent, utterly painstaking 5,000-hour restoration, from which his Bugatti Type 55 – chassis '55221' – re-emerged, the vast majority of its original St John-ownership fabric having been successfully preserved and repaired...A photographic record of the restoration has been documented by Independent Bugatti Consultant Mark Morris.
In fact, Bugatti Type 55 chassis '55221' was ordered by Guy Bouriat as early as January 1, 1932. The order form specifies: "2.3 litre Supersport car, Type 55, supercharged, 4-seat torpedo body, complying with Le Mans regulations. With 6 Bugatti wheels and all necessary accessories for a 24 hours race. Automatic fuel cap." The address on the form is Bouriat's family home in Paris, 44 Rue Fabert, near the Champ de Mars. No trace has been found in the factory archives of any related invoice or payment – perhaps indicative of it having been treated as a works entry for Bouriat as an established (and well connected) racing driver.
To meet this formal order, chassis No. '55221'/(initial) engine '14' was assembled at the works in April 1932, concurrent with sister chassis using engines '15' and '16'. It was factory-bodied as a torpedo, the Molsheim bodyshop register recording it as being the first of the bodies built in June 1932: "Carr 24h . 55/14 -55221. juin 32". The car was then delivered to Paris by road on June 11th, 1932 – ready for the following weekend's important race at Le Mans.
Le Mans 24-Hours - June 18-19, 1932.
Guy Bouriat and Louis Chiron in '55221' starred under race number '15' amongst the 27 entries for this late-Depression-era 24-Hour Grand Prix d'Endurance.
Charles Faroux of the journal 'L'Auto' reported: "There are four Bugattis entered of which two, above all, deserve attention by the speed they achieved during testing days: one is at the hands of Chiron and Bouriat, while the other has Count Czaykowski and the brave Friderich as pilots... I would not be at all surprised to see these two pairs fight hard with the Alfa Romeos, as did the Bentleys and Mercedes."
While '55221' was fitted with a 130-litre fuel tank, the sister Type 55 for Count Czaykowski/Friderich had only a 115-litre tank. In the opening race period, four Alfa Romeo 8C-2300s led, with this Bouriat/Chiron Bugatti keeping pace in fifth place. But, as Faroux then reported: "At the beginning of the third hour, we are told to the astonishment of everyone, that Bouriat, then fifth, (has) run out of gas... Bouriat was helped to the pit. Of course he is declared out of the race since his forced stop happened on the 22nd lap when he had two more laps to run before refuelling" – having thus infringed the organising ACO club's unpitying minimum refuelling distance rule.
The 'L'Auto' issue of June 20, 1932, then described how: "Wisely, Bouriat and Chiron had lined their tank with a thick piece of felt and duckboard providing good protection against flying stones. This protection could not extend to a small part above the rear axle trumpet; it is in this small gap that a stone stuck, bending the metal sheet which resisted, but whose crimping parted and let 50 litres of gas leak through it. Bouriat, then in his twentieth lap, who knew he could run forty more laps on his fuel, thought there was a breakdown of his fuel supply and finds his carburettor empty and the floats, lacking damping, detached. Unavoidable withdrawal. Having abandoned, he is given 5 litres of fuel to go back to the pit. It is while refuelling to return to the pit that he sees the leak in the tank and realizes the cause of it. What a terrible tragedy...".
This Bugatti '55221' had in fact represented the French industry's best hope of a home win at Le Mans that year, but its split fuel tank helped leave the course clear for Raymond Sommer/Luigi Chinetti to win – for Alfa Romeo and Italy...
Post-race, '55221' was sold to Jacques Dupuy, motoring-enthusiast son of Paul Dupuy, proprietor of the newspaper 'Le Petit Parisien', and founder of the magazines 'Mirroir des Sports' and 'Sciences et Vie'. In a 1992 letter to Pierre-Yves Laugier, Jacques Dupuy recalled: "I bought the Bugatti from Guy Bouriat. It was a black 2+2 torpedo with light aluminium body. The car could reach 200 km/h...I kept it with its bucket seats for a few months before taking it to Figoni's. It was bodied there according to my drawings. The steel body was black and white. The dashboard was in black leather...I sold the car about three or four years later, after the 1936 Paris-Nice rally, to Monsieur Gandon, a wine and spirits merchant at 152 Boulevard Hausmann."
Between 1928 and 1933, the Figoni bodyshop at "14 rue Lemoine, Boulogne, Seine", bodied some 77 Bugattis.
Jean Dupuy's order for this Bugatti Type 55 appears in the Figoni register in February 1933, while the August issue that year of 'L'Équipement Automobile' carries a profile drawing of the car and cites its Nitrolac enamel paintwork as being "iris black and Leda white".
M. Dupuy also recalled how: "During my custody, I had to go twice to the factory one of them was for repairing the compressor (factory note dated March 21st 1933). I won the Paris-Nice rally in 1933 beating the Alfa Romeos in the Sport category. At La Turbie, I reached 83km/h standing start. This car is the 2300cc single shaft...which was maintained for me by Mr Rocatti, a Bugatti specialist in Paris who had a garage at Buttes-Chaumont".
XIIth Critérium International de Tourisme Paris-Nice, 1933
The journal 'L'Auto' for March 30th 1933 described how the Paris-Nice Rally was to be run in three stages: Paris-Vichy, Vichy-Marseille and Marseille-Nice. Jacques Dupuy's Type 55 would run as number '52' in up-to-3-litre Class D. In the 1km Michelet stage – with standing start and flying finish - Dupuy set the fastest time, of 34 seconds, averaging 105,882km/h (66.09mph). Upon arrival in Nice on April 3rd, an idling and acceleration test took place on the Quai des États-Unis in which Dupuy's Bugatti set times of 49.6 secs and 18 secs respectively.
Next day, in a 500 metres trial before thousands of spectators on the Promenade des Anglais Dupuy again bettered the rival Alfa Romeos of Gunzburg and Weinberg, at 142,860 km/h (88mph). In the final stage on the famous 6.3km (3.9-mile) La Turbie hill-climb, Dupuy finally won the Paris-Nice event overall, with a climb time of 4mins 25.6secs, 85.391km/h (53mph). The 'L'Auto' report described how: "Victory goes to Jacques Dupuy. This young pilot had a 2.3 litre double camshaft Bugatti at his disposal. No need to be a pre-eminent driver and Jacques Dupuy never had such pretentiousness. But you had to own a car complying with the regulations. The 2.3 litre Bugatti fully satisfied. In congratulating Dupuy, one must not forget the maker of Molsheim...".
The Bois de Boulogne Concours d'Elégance - June 24, 1933
Two months after his Paris-Nice victory Jacques Dupuy entered his freshly Figoni-bodied Bugatti '55221' in the annual Parisian Grand Concours d'Elégance. The Countess de Rivals-Mazères had been invited "to enhance his convertible" and after the car had won the 'L'Auto'-sponsored first class judged, for over 10hp open cars, the Countess helped show it in two further categories backed by the journals 'Fémina' and 'L'Intransigeant' In the third category (cars over 15 HP presented by ladies and driven by a chauffeur in livery), Mme de Rivals-Mazères – accompanied by two Scottie dogs - "sur Bugatti 17C cabriolet transformable Figoni" won a Spark gramophone...
Owner Dupuy recovered his laurelled thoroughbred and would use it for three more years before selling it, as he recalled, to Marcel Gandon.
The new owner was the 38-year-old son of wine merchant Alphonse Gandon, of 152 Boulevard Hausmann, Paris, but he kept '55221' only briefly – from early-1936 to April 1937 – when he bought a brand-new Type 57S Atalante. On November 28, 1936, the unique Figoni-bodied Type 55 was sold via Bugatti to Garage Bayard, 22 Rue Bayard, Paris, the sale document stating: "Sold to garage Bayard one car Type 55 N° 55221, engine 14 (ex Gandon) 2 seat roadster bodywork (convertible by Figoni) in good working order, second hand sold as is for a net price of 25 000 francs".
Paris-Saint-Raphaël Rallye Féminin 1937
The Garage Bayard was run by Charles de Lavoreille, Jacques de Valence and a M. Richer-Delavau and the latter's wife ran '55221' in the March 17-22, 1937 'IXe Paris-Saint-Raphaël Féminin' – entry number '48', facing a 1,039 km route to be completed in five days, staging through Nevers, Clermont-Ferrand, Orange and Toulon. In initial 500 metres standing start, and 1km flying-start tests at Nevers Mme Richer-Delavau placed 6th in each, and in the Saint-Sébastien hill-climb at Saint Raphaël, she maintained her position with a time of 47.8secs, behind Mmes Lamberjack and Lucy O'Reilly Schell in their Delahaye Sport. Overall in the Rally she would finish sixth and fifth in class.
M. Laugier's Bugatti records show that on December 27, 1937, an un-named Parisian enthusiast bought '55221' from Garage Bayard. This might have been Roger Teillac, a Bugatti specialist based in the Avenue de Suffren, as his archives contain three pictures of the car, but wearing a 1938 Nancy licence plate. Teillac possibly maintained the car for another owner 1938-39 or had taken back the car in the post-war summer of 1946 when his establishment repaired its oil sump, split by frost.
Certainly, Louis Stephanazzi had acquired the car on May 7, 1938, and registered it '5658 KU 5' to his home address of 49bis Avenue Anatole France, Nancy. Family memory recalls that the car was hidden dismantled during the war in the garage that Stephanazzi ran in town. The Germans requisitioned his garage where they would repair their vehicles. At the back were a Bugatti Type 57 convertible, bought in Paris in August 1938, and the 55 roadster, which both survived the conflict.
On September 16, 1946, the Type 55 was sold in Paris under licence plate '4239 RP 4' and one month later, it passed to André Couston, a dealer from Nice, resident at 4bis Avenue Mont Alban. On October 18, 1946 he re-registered the car '3286 BA 8'. At the time André Couston also owned the first Type 55 roadster, chassis '55201'.
On July 30th 1948, '55221' returned to Paris, registered '7220 RQ 4'. Its owner was possibly Jacques Devinot who told M. Laugier in June 1993: "I owned three Bugattis...(including)...the Type 55 convertible...bought around 1948 from a garage near Porte de Champerret. It was then sold to Mr Bierlein from Paris in 1950 who sold it to a Canadian man. I found it back later at Docime's, dismantled. The registration papers were never changed and the Canadian man came to see me to get a sale certificate which I refused to do, having already done one for Mr Bierlein. When I bought the car, the chassis had been bent and I had to dismantle the car and correct it. As I see it, every bit was original on the car which was in a cream and black livery". He also had a luggage rack installed by Figoni»
The Police register confirms M. Devinot's dates, while a letter from him states that in August 1950 the Bugatti was owned by Gaston Bierlein, of Hôtel Pylone 1, Megève, Haute-Savoie. He kept the car for five years before selling it on March 24, 1955, to Canadian journalist Douglas Lachance, of 59 Avenue Hoche, Paris. The car – with its engine dismantled or removed - was then consigned to leading Bugatti specialist Gaston Docime, in the Rue de la Saussaie, Neuilly-sur-Seine. It remained in there until August 28, 1962 when British Type 55 enthusiast Anthony Austin Morse, a dentist of 4 Westfield Road, Rugby, imported it into England, less engine, with a £20 deposit on the import duty pending valuation.
A. A. Morse then owned three Type 55s - '55220', '55221' and '55223' – but he quickly sold the unique Figoni-bodied example to Henry H. Thomas of White Cottage, Belmond Park Road, Maidenhead, proprietor of the Fernley Service Station, who on July 25, 1963, re-sold it to Geoffrey St John, of Woodland Cottage, Greenwich Lane, Leafield, Oxon for £750
In a letter to Geoffrey St John, dated August 12, 1963, the eminent British Bugatti Registrar Hugh Conway wrote: "I did point out the engineless car to Morse, at Docime's, which he bought for £100 and sold to Thomas..." In another letter, Conway remarked that the engine of '55221' could have been sold by Docime in the USA.
Geoffrey St John restored the car to running order with engine 26 ex 55223 installed. It became a stable-mate for his Type 35B and Type 51 Grand Prix cars and it has remained in this single family ownership to this day. Geoffrey St John was a talented technician working for Smiths Industries, and eventually became the company's Chief Engineer, while dedicating most of his spare time to Bugatti restoration, tuning and racing. He was a most talented driver and became the sporting Bugatti marque's foremost British exponent over many years. He was exceptionally highly regarded as a twin-cam 2.3 Bugatti specialists, and always took particular delight in driving '55221' widely throughout the UK, and in Continental Europe, particularly – of course in France.
It was on a French road – near Auxerre in June 1994 – that he had the misfortune to be hit by a drunken driver, as described. The damage sustained took some two years of work to put right, Geoffrey St John being determined (at considerable extra expense) to save absolutely all of the car's original fabric that had escaped total destruction. Chassis straightening, keeping all the original parts, was carried out by renowned British specialist Gino Hoskins (Images on file).
A November 2019 inspection report on the car has been compiled by leading French Bugatti authority Pierre-Yves Laugier. He sums up its present condition thus: "The car keeps its original chassis, repaired in 1994. It (the original element of the chassis) is 90% complete with a few additional strengthening plates added according to Christian Huet, Parisian expert in charge of the accident file. The exterior of the car after restoration was completely in accordance with the original after more than 5,000 hours work.
"It (then) took part in its first event in the summer of 1996 (and so) the only Figoni roadster on a Supersport Type 55 Bugatti chassis is ready to join the world of rallies and concours d'élégance. It remains one of the most beautiful expressions of a Sports car by a coachbuilder, multi-purpose and powerful, one of the most important witnesses of the golden era of coachbuilding and know-how of the Bugatti brand..."
In detail M. Laugier observed: "The frame bore number 22, but the fixing hole of the spare wheel shows only one of the '2s' (the other having been drilled through). The front axle is of the right type, with no number and is probably new". In fact Geoffrey St John always maintained that the current front axle is an original, Bugatti-manufactured, hollow front axle of correct Type 55 specification...
M. Laugier continued: "The engine (comprising a matched pair of upper and lower crankcase castings – the left-rear mounting leg of which carries) assembly number '48' from roadster '55223'/engine '26'. One observes important welding traces under the rear-left mounting piece. Front-left mounting piece (the integrally cast engine leg), which was completely destroyed in the accident, was melted down and re-cast from a pattern amongst Geoffrey St John's spare parts collection. The re-cast leg was then welded back into place.
The clutch casing carries on both parts number '14'. Both gearbox and rear-axle sumps were rewelded after the accident. Traces are still visible on the original parts.
"The car was equipped with an overdrive. Compressor No '33' is ancient and of the right kind, but is not the one on the car in 1933, because a note of the repair workshop for compressors dated March 21st, 1933. states: 'Compressor 55 N° 45, Mr Rocatti, Paris, client Mr Dupuy, milling of notches in the chambers' The body of the gearbox is engraved (stamped) '39'. It is probably the factory replacement box, following the 38 (other such gearboxes that were) produced from 1931 to 1933.
"It could have been fitted to the car after one of the races in which it took part between 1933 and 1937. The original gearbox of the car, No '14', is today on a Type 55 chassis '55235' with a British history and which in 1962 was equipped with a Cotal gearbox. The original rear axle numbered '14' is the original one (installed in) the car and has race type ratio of 14 x 54 instead of the usual 13 x 54 of the first Type 55."
Mark Morris adds: "The front axle is of the right type, with no number" .
Pierre-Yves Laugier's report continues: "The fixed parts of the body are made of steel, while the opening parts are made of aluminium. After the accident in 1994, the wooden dashboard was rebuilt as the original wood board was split in two. The aluminium part of the bonnet had also to be completely replaced as well as the left front wing and the right door. Most of the wooden structure was kept. The work was carried out at Terry Hall's workshop. Drums and left front brake shoe were rewelded and two brake shoes were replaced. The wheel rim of several wheels was redone by welding - particularly visible on the spare wheel."
M. Laugier further observes: "The chassis plate of the vehicle is ancient. It wears number '55221', apparently over-stamped. It is of the Type 57 'Bas-Rhin' type and the number '57282' can be detected underneath (which) tallies with a Type 57 chassis number delivered in the Nord department in April 1935".
Since completion of restoration work in 1996 until Mr St John's recent passing, '55221' was regularly exercised by him. In similar style to the modern-day Bugatti Veyron, Chiron and EB110 models – which are both a schoolboy pin-up and a modern car collector's dream - so in its heyday the Bugatti Type 55 was a hugely coveted automotive jewel.
It is in essence a Grand Prix car with sports bodywork for use on the open road, powered by a 2.3-litre supercharged twin-cam 8-cylinder engine –as developed for the multiple Grand Prix-winning Bugatti Type 51 and only moderately detuned. Even in 1932 this power unit's blistering power and torque endowed the Type 55 with 0-60mph acceleration in 13 seconds and the hitherto unheard-of top speed – for a road car - of 115mph.
Even in the backwash from The Great Depression, the most style-conscious of high-society glitterati all aspired to the Type 55 – and, with its technical specification and haute couture body styling, it was squarely aimed at the most wealthy...and the most dashing...clientele such as the Duc de la Tremoille, Victor Rothschild and Nicholas Embiricos. With its contemporary price tag of some $7,500, Bugatti produced only 38 Type 55s, 27 of which are now known to survive.
And amongst them, this Figoni-bodied example – with its waistline-level doors offering proper cockpit wprotection in contrast to the doorless, cut-down cockpit sides of the more common Jean Bugatti roadster style – is unique. It is offered here in running order, accompanied by not only the immensely fine-detailed Pierre-Yves Laugier and Mark Morris inspection and history reports, but also by a substantial array of relevant spare parts. After 56 years in one ownership this is – when judged by the highest standards - a unique example of perhaps the most mouth-watering of all Bugatti models, and a definitive connoisseur's car to be truly, truly, coveted...
WELL ---- WELL ---- WELL
.
“Ability is what you're capable of doing. Motivation determines what you do. Attitude determines how well you do it.” by Lou Holtz
“This life is yours. Take the power to choose what you want to do and do it well. Take the power to love what you want in life and love it honestly. Take the power to walk in the forest and be a part of nature. Take the power to control your own life. No one else can do it for you. Take the power to make your life happy.” by Susan Polis Schutz
.
VS
.
“To wish to be well is a part of becoming well.” by Seneca
“Wish well, be well.” by Turkish Proverb
.
VS
.
"A kind heart is a fountain of gladness, making everything in its vicinity freshen into smiles." by unknown
Italian: "Un cuore gentile è una fontana di felicità, che rinfresca nei sorrisi ogni cosa vicina."
"Water, the Hub of Life. Water is its mater and matrix, mother and medium.
Water is the most extraordinary substance! Practically all its properties are anomolous, which enabled life to use it as building material for its machinery. Life is water dancing to the tune of solids." by Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"Children of a culture born in a water-rich environment, we have never really learned how important water is to us. We understand it, but we do not respect it." by William Ashworth, Nor Any Drop to Drink, 1982
The iPhone 7 Plus has a very capable camera system when it comes to certain types of macro and closeup photography. The small size and placement of the dual lenses close to one corner make it possible to get photographs from a perspective that would be almost impossible from any other camera.
For the past week or so, I have supplemented the native camera system with the Kamerar / Ztylus lens systems. These lenses slide up over the dual native lenses, giving me additional tele-photo, fisheye and macro options. Suffice would be that I have enjoyed making photographs with my iPhone more in this past week than I have for a very long time. The quality is good, and the lenses are very easy to use.
For this image, I added a x10 macro lens to the x2 native lens. This brought the subject very close to the iPhone, and produced a very shallow depth of field. I set the focus on the front portion of the antennae. This left the remainder of the moth with a soft look that I found to be calming and satisfying.
----------
Links for background information ...
kamerar.com/products/kamerar-zoom-lens-kit-for-iphone-7-plus
ztylus.com/products/kamerar-zoom-lens-kit-for-iphone-7-plus
----------
[ Location - Barton, Australian Capital Territory, Australia ]
----------
Photography notes ...
The photograph was taken using the following hardware ...
- iPhone 7 Plus.
- 56mm* (x2) lens [* 35mm equivalent value of the actual focal length of 3.99mm].
- Gizmon TLR Bluetooth Remote Shutter.
- Gray Card made by ProCamera.
I acquired the photograph (4032 x 3024 pixels) with an ISO of 20, exposure time of 1/950 seconds, and an aperture of f/1.8. The iPhone flash was used. A x10 Kamerar/Ztylus macro lens was used in combination with the x2 native lens.
Post-processing ...
- I downloaded the photographs from my iPhone 7 Plus to the MacBook Air 11" using a lightning/USB cable and the iExplorer app (Macroplant).
- Sometimes I do this over WiFi using PhotoSync (touchbyte GmbH). Notably, I have found that iExplorer does not handle properly the images that have been edited using the native Apple iPhone "Photos" app (i.e., it will only transfer the original image, not the edited image).
- I viewed and sorted the photographs that were taken using XnViewMP (Pierre-e-Gougelet) and Lightroom (Adobe Systems Incorporated). Saved the images that had some chance of being posted online.
Lightroom - Applied minor basic lighting and color adjustments.
PhotoSync - Copied the JPEG file to my iPad Mini for final processing, review, enjoyment, and posting to social media.
@MomentsForZen #MomentsForZen #MFZ #iPhone7Plus #iPhone #iExplorer #Lightroom #XnViewMP #PhotoSync #Kamerar #Ztylus #Macro #Closeup #Moth #Antennae
Mons Meg est une bombarde médiévale (XVe siècle) de la collection des Royal Armouries prêtée à Historic Scotland. Elle symbolise le passé militaire glorieux de l'Écosse. Cet impressionnant canon de siège de 6 tonnes, de calibre 20 pouces (510 mm) est capable de tirer des boulets de pierre pesant 330 livres (150 kgs) jusqu'à 2 miles de distance (3,2 kms). A l’origine le canon était peint avec du plomb rouge pour l’empêcher de rouiller. Il fallait cent hommes pour le transporter. Avec l'énorme "canon des Dardanelles" en bronze coulé de 17 tonnes fabriquée en 1464 pour le sultan turc Mohamet II (exposé à présent dans la cour de la Tour de Londres), ces bombardes sont parmi les plus gros canons jamais construits. L'auteur anglais Dudley Pope cite le Mons Meg mais également le Dulle Griet de Gand comme exemples des plus gros canons construits au Moyen Age, et dit des deux qu'ils "ont probablement été fabriqués en "Flandre" (région qui deviendra plus tard la Belgique et que les Français appelaient "Pays-Bas"). Le "Dulle Griet mesurait plus de 5 m de long pesait 12.5 tonnes avec un calibre à la bouche d'environ 90 cm. Il était peint en rouge sang lui valant le surnom de « grand démon rouge ». Le nom flamand Griet et le nom anglais Meg sont tous deux des diminutifs du nom de Margaret (ou Margriet), équivalents du français Marguerite. Mons Meg a été construit par Jehan Cambier, fabricant d'artillerie du duc de Bourgogne Philippe le Bonet il a été testé avec succès à Mons dans le comté de Hainaut dans l'actuelle Belgique, en juin 1449. Le duc n'en prendra livraison qu'en 1453. Le duc a offert la bombarde au roi d'Écosse James II en 1457 dont il avait aidé à négocier le mariage en signe de son soutien.
Le canon est fabriqué selon la méthode qui consistait à forger ensemble des barres de fer droites autour d'un mandrin, et de les consolider ensuite avec des cercles de fer, dilatés par chauffe et brusquement refroidis à l'eau pour provoquer un rétrécissement, à la manière des barriques. La manière dont ces canons sont fabriqués ainsi que les variations de qualité de la poudre noire dont les ingrédients étaient souvent transportés séparément et mélangés sur place, en faisait des armes très peu fiables. Les explosions n'étaient pas rares, et on peut dire que ces bombardes étaient plus dangereuses pour leurs servants que pour ceux sur qui on tirait. L'effet psychologique de la flamme et du tonnerre au départ du coup étaient plus impressionnant que le gros boulet de pierre. Il faut également imaginer la somme d'efforts et d'énergie nécessaires au déplacement de ces énormes pièces, ainsi que la difficulté de leur mise en batterie. Une fois en place, ces bombardes ne pouvaient plus être déplacées, et tout réglage de visée était exclu. Elles ne pouvaient tirer qu'une dizaine de coups par jour au maximum en raison de l’énorme chaleur générée par la charge de poudre, et si leurs gros boulets de pierre parvenaient à ouvrir des brèches dans des murailles pas trop épaisses, ils étaient pratiquement sans effet contre l'infanterie et la cavalerie, qui pouvait les voir arriver de loin et les éviter assez aisément.
La bombarde a été employée dans les sièges jusqu'au milieu du XVIe siècle. Probablement pour la première fois en 1460 au château de Roxburgh près de la frontière avec l'Angleterre. Au cours de cette bataille, le roi Jacques II d'Écosse a été mortellement blessé lorsqu'un autre canon de siège géant a explosé. En 1489, elle a été emmenée à 80 km (50 miles) à l'ouest du château de Dumbarton (puis le château de Norham), pour aider à maîtriser le comte de Lennox. Le poids énorme de Mons Meg la rendait très difficile à déplacer. Sa vitesse moyenne n'était que de 14 kms (9 miles) par jour. Elle termina ses jours de combat dans la marine du roi Jacques V, prenant sa retraite vers 1540. Elle ne fut tiré ensuite que lors d'occasions cérémonielles : en 1558 pour célébrer le mariage de Mary Queen of Scots avec le dauphin français, puis de nouveau en 1681, en guise de salut d'anniversaire pour le futur roi Jacques VII. Malheureusement le baril éclata rendant le Mons Meg inutilisable (les cerceaux fracturés sont encore visibles). En 1754, Mons Meg fut emmenée à la Tour de Londres, où il y resta 75 ans. Il est ramené au château en 1829. La cavalerie et l’infanterie l’escortent de Leith Docks à Castle Rock. Mons Meg a depuis été restauré et est maintenant exposé dans le château. Il reste très populaire aujourd’hui auprès des touristes, qui ne résistent pas à mettre la tête dans l'énorme canon…
Mons Meg is a medieval (15th century) bombard from the collection of the Royal Armories on loan to Historic Scotland. It symbolizes Scotland's glorious military past. This impressive 6-ton, 20-inch (510 mm) caliber siege gun is capable of firing stone balls weighing 330 pounds (150 kg) up to 2 miles away (3.2 km). Originally the barrel was painted with red lead to prevent it from rusting. It took a hundred men to transport it. Together with the massive 17-tonne cast bronze 'Dardanelle Cannon' made in 1464 for the Turkish Sultan Mohammet II (now on display in the courtyard of the Tower of London), these bombards are among the largest cannons ever built. The English author Dudley Pope cites the Mons Meg but also the Dulle Griet of Ghent as examples of the largest guns built in the Middle Ages, and says of both that they "were probably made in 'Flanders' (a region which later became Belgium and which the French called "Pays-Bas"). The "Dulle Griet was more than 5 m long, weighed 12.5 tons with a caliber at the muzzle of about 90 cm. He was painted blood red, earning him the nickname "great red demon". The Flemish name Griet and the English name Meg are both diminutives of the name Margaret (or Margriet), equivalents of the French Marguerite. Mons Meg was built by Jehan Cambier, artillery maker for the Duke of Burgundy Philippe le Bonet it was successfully tested in Mons in the county of Hainaut in present-day Belgium, in June 1449. The duke never took delivery of it than in 1453. The Duke gifted the bombard to King James II of Scotland in 1457 whose marriage he had helped negotiate as a sign of his support.
The barrel is made by the method of forging straight iron bars together around a mandrel, and then consolidating them with iron hoops, expanded by heating and suddenly cooled with water to cause shrinkage, to the way of the barrels. The way in which these guns are made as well as the variations in quality of black powder whose ingredients were often transported separately and mixed on site, made them very unreliable weapons. Explosions were not uncommon, and it can be said that these bombards were more dangerous for their servants than for those who were fired at. The psychological effect of the flame and the thunder at the start of the blow were more impressive than the large stone ball. One must also imagine the amount of effort and energy required to move these huge pieces, as well as the difficulty of putting them in battery. Once in place, these bombards could no longer be moved, and any aiming adjustment was excluded. They could only fire about ten shots a day at the most because of the enormous heat generated by the powder charge, and if their big stone balls managed to open breaches in walls not too thick, they were practically without effect against infantry and cavalry, which could see them coming from afar and avoid them quite easily.
The bombard was used in sieges until the middle of the 16th century. Probably first seen in 1460 at Roxburgh Castle near the border with England. During this battle, King James II of Scotland was mortally wounded when another giant siege cannon exploded. In 1489, she was taken 80 km (50 miles) west of Dumbarton Castle (then Norham Castle), to help subdue the Earl of Lennox. Mons Meg's enormous weight made her very difficult to move. Its average speed was only 14 kms (9 miles) per day. She ended her days of combat in the navy of King James V, retiring around 1540. She was only fired afterwards on ceremonial occasions: in 1558 to celebrate the marriage of Mary Queen of Scots to the French Dauphin, then to again in 1681, as a birthday greeting for the future King James VII. Unfortunately the barrel burst rendering the Mons Meg unusable (the fractured hoops are still visible). In 1754, Mons Meg was taken to the Tower of London, where he remained for 75 years. He was brought back to the castle in 1829. Cavalry and infantry escorted him from Leith Docks to Castle Rock. Mons Meg has since been restored and is now on display in the castle. It remains very popular today with tourists, who can't resist putting their heads in the huge cannon...