My new "work" laptop arrived today..."Work" in quotes because we'll see how capable (or incapable) the Core M in this is. This will be primarily used for doing demos and as my presentation machine.

 

This is a CTO machine with the 1.3ghz 5Y71 proc in space gray - ordered on June 5 and delivered on June 26.

Royal Navy warship HMS Montrose flexes her warfighting muscle with the successful firing of a Harpoon missile - capable of destroying a target up to 80 miles away.

 

The anti-ship missile was fired at more than 800 mph into a specially-designed target barge in the Scottish exercise areas, obliterating it within minutes, and demonstrating the type of lethal power the warship wields.

 

The Royal Navy continually tests its personnel on exercises and training serials which are designed to build a world-class Service, and putting the weapons through their paces is part of ensuring their powerful capability.

 

Principal Warfare Officer Lieutenant Ben Evans said: “The intensity and stress of conducting complex warfare training increases tenfold when you know that there is almost a quarter of a tonne of warhead on the end of the live missile you are about to fire – but so is the satisfaction increased when you successfully achieve your goal.”

 

HMS Montrose, which is based at Devonport Naval Base, fired the Harpoon missile during a specialist training week following her participation in Exercise Joint Warrior – a huge multi-national exercise off the coast of Scotland.

 

Pictured by- PO(AET) Danny Swain

214 FLT, 815 NAS

HMS Montrose

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

© Crown Copyright 2013

Photographer: PO(Phot) Wheelie A'barrow

Image 45155410.jpg from www.defenceimages.mod.uk

   

This image is available for high resolution download at www.defenceimagery.mod.uk subject to the terms and conditions of the Open Government License at www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/. Search for image number 45155410.jpg

 

For latest news visit www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-defence

Follow us:

www.facebook.com/defenceimages

www.twitter.com/defenceimages

 

A Stanley 735B at the Osnabrück unter Dampf festival.

 

Steam locomotives, steam engines capable of propelling themselves along either road or rails, developed around one hundred years earlier than internal combustion engine cars although their weight restricted them to agricultural and heavy haulage work on roads. The light car developed contemporaneously with both steam and internal combustion engines, as both engineering and road building matured. As the steam car could use the vast experience of steam engines already developed with the steam railway locomotive, it initially had the advantage. In 1900 the steam car was broadly superior and even managed to hold absolute land speed records. By 1920 the internal combustion engine had progressed to such a point that the steam car was an anachronism.

 

Few steam cars have been built since the 1920s, although the technology is not implausible and projects intermittently occur to recreate a "modern" steam car with modern levels of convenience, performance and efficiency.

 

The greatest technical challenges to the steam car have focused on its boiler. This represents much of the total mass of the drivetrain, making the car heavier (an internal-combustion-engined car requires no boiler), and requires careful attention from the driver - although even the cars of 1900 had considerable automation to manage this. The single largest restriction is the need to supply feedwater to the boiler. This must either be carried and frequently replenished, or the car must also be fitted with a condenser, a further weight and inconvenience.

 

The steam car does have advantages, although most of these are now less important than in its heyday. The engine (excluding the boiler) is smaller and lighter than an internal combustion engine. It is also better suited to the speed and torque characteristics of the axle, thus avoiding the need for the heavy and complex transmission required for an internal combustion engine. The car is also quieter, even without a silencer.

 

Steam cars dropped-off in popularity following the adoption of the electric starter, which eliminated the need for risky hand cranking to start gasoline-powered cars. The introduction of assembly-line mass production by Henry Ford, which hugely reduced the cost of owning a conventional automobile, was also a strong factor in the steam car's demise as the Model T was both cheap and reliable. Additionally during the 'heyday' of steam cars the internal combustion engine made steady gains in efficiency, matching and then surpassing the efficiency of a steam engine when the weight of a boiler is factored in.

+++ 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 Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-19 (NATO reporting name: "Farmer") was a Soviet second-generation, single-seat, twin jet-engine fighter aircraft. It was the first Soviet production aircraft capable of supersonic speeds in level flight. A comparable U.S. "Century Series" fighter was the North American F-100 Super Sabre, although the MiG-19 would primarily oppose the more modern McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II and Republic F-105 Thunderchief over North Vietnam. Furthermore, the North American YF-100 Super Sabre prototype appeared approximately one year after the MiG-19, making the MiG-19 the first operational supersonic jet in the world.

 

On 20 April 1951, OKB-155 was given the order to develop the MiG-17 into a new fighter called "I-340", also known as "SM-1". It was to be powered by two Mikulin AM-5 non-afterburning jet engines, a scaled-down version of the Mikulin AM-3, with 19.6 kN (4,410 lbf) of thrust. The I-340 was supposed to attain 1,160 km/h (725 mph, Mach 0.97) at 2,000 m (6,562 ft), 1,080 km/h (675 mph, Mach 1.0) at 10,000 m (32,808 ft), climb to 10,000 m (32,808 ft) in 2.9 minutes, and have a service ceiling of no less than 17,500 m (57,415 ft).

After several prototypes with many detail improvements, the ministers of the Soviet Union issued the order #286-133 to start serial production on February 17, 1954, at the factories in Gorkiy and Novosibirsk. Factory trials were completed on September 12 the same year, and government trials started on September 30.

 

Initial enthusiasm for the aircraft was dampened by several problems. The most alarming of these was the danger of a midair explosion due to overheating of the fuselage fuel tanks located between the engines. Deployment of airbrakes at high speeds caused a high-g pitch-up. Elevators lacked authority at supersonic speeds. The high landing speed of 230 km/h (145 mph), compared to 160 km/h (100 mph) for the MiG-15, combined with the lack of a two-seat trainer version, slowed pilot transition to the type. Handling problems were addressed with the second prototype, "SM-9/2", which added a third ventral airbrake and introduced all-moving tailplanes with a damper to prevent pilot-induced oscillations at subsonic speeds. It flew on 16 September 1954, and entered production as the MiG-19S.

 

Approximately 5,500 MiG-19's were produced, first in the USSR and in Czechoslovakia as the Avia S-105, but mainly in the People's Republic of China as the Shenyang J-6. The aircraft saw service with a number of other national air forces, including those of Cuba, North Vietnam, Egypt, Pakistan, and North Korea. The aircraft saw combat during the Vietnam War, the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1971 Bangladesh War.

 

However, jet fighter development made huge leaps in the 1960s, and OKB MiG was constantly trying to improve the MiG-19's performance, esp. against fast and high-flying enemies, primarily bombers but also spy planes like the U-2.

 

As the MiG-19S was brought into service with the Soviet air forces in mid-1956, the OKB MiG was continuing the refinement of the SM-1/I-340 fighter. One of these evolutionary paths was the SM-12 (literally, “SM-1, second generation”) family of prototypes, the ultimate extrapolation of the basic MiG-19 design, which eventually led to the MiG-19bis interceptor that filled the gap between the MiG-19S and the following, highly successful MiG-21.

 

The SM-12 first saw life as an exercise in drag reduction by means of new air intake configurations, since the MiG-19’s original intake with rounded lips became inefficient at supersonic speed (its Western rival, the North American F-100, featured a sharp-lipped nose air intake from the start). The first of three prototypes, the SM-12/1, was essentially a MiG-19S with an extended and straight-tapered nose with sharp-lipped orifice and a pointed, two-position shock cone on the intake splitter. The simple arrangement proved to be successful and was further refined.

 

The next evolutionary step, the SM-12/3, differed from its predecessors primarily in two new R3-26 turbojets developed from the earlier power plant by V. N. Sorokin. These each offered an afterburning thrust of 3,600kg, enabling the SM-12/3 to attain speeds ranging between 1,430km/h at sea level, or Mach=1.16, and 1,930km/h at 12,000m, or Mach=1.8, and an altitude of between 17,500 and 18,000m during its test program. This outstanding performance prompted further development with a view to production as a point defense interceptor.

 

Similarly powered by R3-26 engines, and embodying major nose redesign with a larger orifice permitting introduction of a substantial two-position conical centerbody for a TsD-30 radar, a further prototype was completed as the SM-12PM. Discarding the wing root NR-30 cannon of preceding prototypes, the SM-12PM was armed with only two K-5M (RS-2U) beam-riding missiles and entered flight test in 1957. This configuration would become the basis for the MiG-19bis interceptor that eventually was ordered into limited production (see below).

 

However, the SM-12 development line did not stop at this point. At the end of 1958, yet another prototype, the SM-12PMU, joined the experimental fighter family. This had R3M-26 turbojets uprated to 3.800kg with afterburning, but these were further augmented by a U-19D accelerator, which took the form of a permanent ventral pack containing an RU-013 rocket motor and its propellant tanks. Developed by D. D. Sevruk, the RU-013 delivered 3,000kg of additional thrust, and with the aid of this rocket motor, the SM-12PMU attained an altitude of 24,000m and a speed of Mach=1.69. But this effort was to no avail: the decision had been taken meanwhile to manufacture the Ye-7 in series as the MiG-21, and further development of the SM-12 series was therefore discontinued.

 

Nevertheless, since full operational status of the new MiG-21 was expected to remain pending for some time, production of a modified SM-12PM was ordered as a gap filler. Not only would this fighter bridge the performance gap to the Mach 2-capable MiG-21, it also had the benefit of being based on proven technologies and would not require a new basic pilot training.

 

The new aircraft received the official designation MiG-19bis. Compared with the SM-12PM prototype, the MiG-19bis differed in some details and improvements. The SM-12PM’s most significant shortfall was its short range – at full power, it had only a range of 750 km! This could be mended through an additional fuel tank in an enlarged dorsal fairing behind the cockpit. With this internal extra fuel, range could be extended by a further 200 - 250km range, but drop tanks had typically to be carried, too, in order to extend the fighter’ combat radius with two AAMs to 500 km. Specifically for the MiG-19bis, new, supersonic drop tanks (PTB-490) were designed, and these were later adapted for the MiG-21, too.

 

The air intake shock cone was re-contoured and the shifting mechanism improved: Instead of a simple, conical shape, the shock cone now had a more complex curvature with two steps and the intake orifice area was widened to allow a higher airflow rate. The air intake’s efficiency was further optimized through gradual positions of the shock cone.

As a positive side effect, the revised shock cone offered space for an enlarged radar dish, what improved detection range and resolution. The TsD-30 radar for the fighter’s missile-only armament was retained, even though the K-5’s effective range of only 2–6 km (1¼ – 3¾ mi) made it only suitable against slow and large targets like bombers. All guns were deleted in order to save weight or make room for the electronic equipment. The tail section was also changed because the R3M-26 engines and their afterburners were considerably longer than the MiG-19's original RM-5 engines. The exhausts now markedly protruded from the tail section, and the original, characteristic pen nib fairing between the two engines had been modified accordingly.

 

Production started in 1960, but only a total of roundabout 180 MiG-19bis, which received the NATO code "Farmer F", were built and the Soviet Union remained the only operator of the type. The first aircraft entered Soviet Anti-Air Defense in early 1961, and the machines were concentrated in PVO interceptor units around major sites like Moscow, Sewastopol at the Black Sea and Vladivostok in the Far East.

 

With the advent of the MiG-21, though, their career did not last long. Even though many machines were updated to carry the K-13 (the IR-guided AA-2 "Atoll") as well as the improved K-55 AAMs, with no change of the type’s designation, most MiG-19bis were already phased out towards the late 1960s and quickly replaced by 2nd generation MiG-21s as well as heavier and more capable Suchoj interceptors like the Su-9, -11 and -15. By 1972, all MiG-19bis had been retired.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 13.54 m (44 ft 4 in), fuselage only with shock cone in forward position

15.48 m (50 8 ½ in) including pitot

Wingspan: 9 m (29 ft 6 in)

Height: 3.8885 m (12 ft 9 in)

Wing area: 25 m² (269 ft²)

Empty weight: 5,210 kg (11,475 lb)

Loaded weight: 7,890 kg (17,380 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 9,050 kg (19,935 lb)

Fuel capacity: 2,450 l (556 imp gal; 647 US gal) internal;

plus 760 l (170 imp gal; 200 US gal) with 2 drop tanks

 

Powerplant:

2× Sorokin R3M-26 turbojets, rated at 37.2 kN (8,370 lbf) thrust each with afterburning

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 1,380km/h at sea level (Mach=1.16)

1,850km/h at 12,000m (Mach=1.8)

Range: 1,250 km (775 mi; 750 nmi) at 14,000 m (45,000 ft) with 2 × 490 l drop tanks

Combat range: 500 km (312 mi; 270 nmi)

Ferry range: 2,000 km (1,242 mi; 690 nmi)

Service ceiling: 19,750 m (64,690 ft)

Rate of climb: 180 m/s (35,000 ft/min)

Wing loading: 353.3 kg/m² (72.4 lb/ft²)

Thrust/weight: 0.86

 

Armament:

No internal guns.

4× underwing pylons; typically, a pair of PTB-490 drop tanks were carried on the outer pylon pair,

plus a pair of air-to air missiles on the inner pair: initially two radar-guided Kaliningrad K-5M (RS-2US)

AAMs, later two radar-guided K-55 or IR-guided Vympel K-13 (AA-2 'Atoll') AAMs

  

The kit and its assembly:

Another submission for the 2018 Cold War Group Build at whatifmodelers.com, and again the opportunity to build a whiffy model from the project list. But it’s as fictional as one might think, since the SM-12 line of experimental “hybrid” fighters between the MiG-19 and the MiG-21 was real. But none of these aircraft ever made it into serial production, and in real life the MiG-21 showed so much potential that the attempts to improve the MiG-19 were stopped and no operational fighter entered production or service.

 

However, the SM-12, with its elongated nose and the central shock cone, makes a nice model subject, and I imagined what a service aircraft might have looked like? It would IMHO have been close, if not identical, to the SM-12PM, since this was the most refined pure jet fighter in the development family.

 

The basis for the build was a (dead cheap) Mastercraft MiG-19, which is a re-edition of the venerable Kovozávody Prostějov (KP) kit – as a tribute to modern tastes, it comes with (crudely) engraved panel, but it has a horrible fit all over. For instance, there was a 1mm gap between the fuselage and the right wing, the wing halves’ outlines did not match at all and it is questionable if the canopy actually belongs to the kit at all? PSR everywhere. I also had a Plastyk version of this kit on the table some time ago, but it was of a much better quality! O.K., the Mastercraft kit comes cheap, but it’s, to be honest, not a real bargain.

 

Even though the result would not be crisp I did some mods and changes. Internally, a cockpit tub was implanted (OOB there’s just a wacky seat hanging in mid air) plus some serious lead weight in the nose section for a proper stance.

On the outside, the new air intake is the most obvious change. I found a Su-17 intake (from a Mastercraft kit, too) and used a piece from a Matchbox B-17G’s dorsal turret to elongate the nose – it had an almost perfect diameter and a mildly conical shape. Some massive PSR work was necessary to blend the parts together, though.

The tail received new jet nozzles, scratched from steel needle protection covers, and the tail fairing was adjusted according to the real SM-12’s shape.

 

Ordnance was adapted, too: the drop tanks come from a Mastercraft MiG-21, and these supersonic PTB-490 tanks were indeed carried by the real SM-12 prototypes because the uprated engines were very thirsty and the original, teardrop-shaped MiG-19 tanks simply too draggy for the much faster SM-12. As a side note, the real SM-12’s short range was one of the serious factors that prevented the promising type’s production in real life. In order to overcome the poor range weakness I added an enlarged spine (half of a drop tank), inspired by the MiG-21 SMT, that would house an additional internal fuel tank.

 

The R2-SU/K-5 AAMs come from a vintage Mastercraft Soviet aircraft weapon set, which carries a pair of these 1st generation AAMs. While the molds seem to be a bit soft, the missiles look pretty convincing. Their pylons were taken from the kit (OOB they carry unguided AAM pods and are placed behind the main landing gear wells), just reversed and placed on the wings’ leading edges – similar to the real SM-12’s arrangement.

  

Painting and markings:

No surprises. In the Sixties, any PVO aircraft was left in bare metal, so there was hardly an alternative to a NMF finish.

 

Painting started with an all-over coat with acrylic Revell 99 (Aluminum), just the spine tank became light grey (Revell 371) for some contrast, and I painted some di-electric covers in a deep green (Revell 48).

The cockpit interior was painted with a bright mix of Revell 55 and some 48, while the landing gear wells and the back section of the cockpit were painted in a bluish grey (Revell 57).

The landing gear was painted in Steel (unpolished Modelmaster metallizer) and received classic, bright green wheel discs (Humbrol 2). As a small, unusual highlight the pitot boom under the chin received red and white stripes – seen on occasional MiG-19S fighters in Soviet service, and the anti-flutter booms on the stabilizers became bright red, too.

 

After the basic painting was done the kit received a black ink wash. Once this had dried and wiped off with a soft cotton cloth, post shading with various metallizer tones was added in order to liven up the uniform aircraft (including Humbrol’s matt and polished aluminum, and the exhaust section was treated with steel). Some panel lines were emphasized with a thin pencil.

 

Decals were puzzled together from various sources, a Guards badge and a few Russian stencils were added, too. Finally, the kit was sealed with a coat of sheen acrylic varnish (a 2:1 mix of Italeri matt and semi-gloss varnish).

 

The K-5 missiles, last but not least, were painted in aluminum, too, but their end caps (both front and tail section) became off-white.

  

The Mastercraft kit on which this conversion was based is crude, so I did not have high expectations concerning the outcome. But the new nose blends nicely into the MiG-19 fuselage, and the wide spine is a subtle detail that makes the aircraft look more “beefy” and less MiG-19-ish. The different drop tanks – even though they are authentic – visually add further speed. And despite many flaws, I am quite happy with the result of roundabout a week’s work.

A Malaysian marine provides security on Pyramid Rock Beach during an amphibious landing demonstration as part of Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise at Marine Corps Base Hawaii July 29, 2018. RIMPAC provides high-value training for task-organized, highly capable Marine Air-Ground Task Force and enhances the critical crisis response capability of U.S. Marines in the Pacific. Twenty-five nations, 46 ships, five submarines, about 200 aircraft and 25,000 personnel are participating in RIMPAC from June 27 to Aug. 2 in and around the Hawaiian Islands and Southern California. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Adam Montera)

 

www.dvidshub.net/

Cleveland is home to one of the most productive integrated steelmaking facilities in the world. ArcelorMittal Cleveland is capable of producing one ton of steel for slightly more than one worker hour. The industry average in the United States is 1.9 worker hours per ton, which is more than double ArcelorMittal Cleveland’s productivity figure.

 

The facility is strategically located on the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, Ohio with good access to the Port of Cleveland and Great Lakes shipping, as well as excellent highway and railroad transport. The plant operates two blast furnaces which feed two steelmaking facilities. It consists of the former LTV and Republic Steel plants and has stood on this site since 1913 on the East Side (Corrigan McKinney Steel) and 1914 on the West Side (Otis Steel) of the river.

 

The Cleveland plant covers more than 950 acres. The plant’s buildings total seven million square feet.

 

Products made at this location are hot-rolled, cold-rolled and hot-dipped galvanized sheet and semi-finished (slabs). Markets this plant serves include automotive, converters and tubular applications. ~ usa.arcelormittal.com/our-operations/steelmaking/cleveland

 

Canon EOS-1DS

Tokina AF 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5

ƒ/5.6 32.0 mm 1/2000 400

 

FaceBook | Blogger | Twitter | Tumblr | Pinterest | Getty | Instagram | Lens Wide-Open

The F-105 Thunderchief, which would become a legend in the history of the Vietnam War, started out very modestly as a proposal for a large, supersonic replacement for the RF-84F Thunderflash tactical reconnaissance fighter in 1951. Later this was expanded by Republic’s famous chief designer, Alexander Kartveli, to a nuclear-capable, high-speed, low-altitude penetration tactical fighter-bomber which could also replace the F-84 Thunderstreak.

 

The USAF liked the idea, as the F-84 had shown itself to be at a disadvantage against Chinese and Soviet-flown MiG-15s over Korea, and ordered 200 of the new design before it was even finalized. This order was reduced to only 37 aircraft with the end of the Korean War, but nonetheless the first YF-105A Thunderchief flew in October 1955. Although it was equipped with an interim J57 engine and had drag problems, it still achieved supersonic speed. When the design was further refined as the YF-105B, with the J75 engine and area ruling, it went over Mach 2. This was in spite of the fact that the design had mushroomed in size from Kartveli’s initial idea to one of the largest and heaviest fighter ever to serve with the USAF: fully loaded, the F-105 was heavier than a B-17 bomber. The USAF ordered 1800 F-105s, though this would be reduced to 830 examples.

 

Almost immediately, the F-105 began to be plagued with problems. Some of the trouble could be traced to the normal teething problems of any new aircraft, but for awhile it seemed the Thunderchief was too hot to handle, with a catastrophically high accident rate. This led to the aircraft getting the nickname of “Thud,” supposedly for the sound it made when hitting the ground, along with other not-so-affectionate monikers such as “Ultra Hog” and “Squat Bomber.” Despite its immense size and bad reputation, however, the F-105 was superb at high speeds, especially at low level, was difficult to stall, and its cockpit was commended for its ergonomic layout. Earlier “narrow-nose” F-105Bs were replaced by wider-nosed, radar-equipped F-105Ds, the mainline version of the Thunderchief, while two-seat F-105Fs were built as conversion trainers.

 

Had it not been for the Vietnam War, however, the F-105 might have gone down in history as simply another mildly successful 1950s era design. Deployed to Vietnam at the beginning of the American involvement there in 1964, the Thunderchief was soon heading to North Vietnam to attack targets there in the opening rounds of Operation Rolling Thunder; this was in spite of the fact that the F-105 was designed primarily as a low-level (and, as its pilots insisted, one-way) tactical nuclear bomber. Instead, F-105s were heading north festooned with conventional bombs.

 

As Rolling Thunder gradually expanded to all of North Vietnam, now-camouflaged Thuds “going Downtown” became iconic, fighting their way through the densest concentration of antiaircraft fire in history, along with SAMs and MiG fighters. The F-105 now gained a reputation for something else: toughness, a Republic hallmark. Nor were they defenseless: unlike the USAF’s primary fighter, the F-4 Phantom II, the F-105 retained an internal 20mm gatling cannon, and MiG-17s which engaged F-105s was far from a foregone conclusion, as 27 MiGs were shot down by F-105s for the loss of about 20. If nothing else, Thud pilots no longer burdened with bombs could simply elect to head home at Mach 2 and two thousand feet, outdistancing any MiG defenders.

 

If the Thud had any weakness, it was its hydraulic system, which was found to be extremely vulnerable to damage. However, it was likely more due to poor tactics and the restrictive Rules of Engagement, which sent F-105s into battle on predictable routes, unable to return fire on SAM sites until missiles were launched at them, and their F-4 escorts hamstrung by being forced to wait until MiGs were on attack runs before the MiGs could be engaged. The tropical climate also took a toll on man and machine, with the end result that 382 F-105s were lost over Vietnam, nearly half of all Thuds ever produced and the highest loss rate of any USAF aircraft.

The combination of a high loss rate and the fact that the F-105 really was not designed to be used in the fashion it was over Vietnam led to the type’s gradual withdrawal after 1968 in favor of more F-4s and a USAF version of the USN’s A-7 Corsair II. An improved all-weather bombing system, Thunderstick II, was given to a few of the F-105D survivors, but this was not used operationally.

 

The Thud soldiered on another decade in Air National Guard and Reserve units until February 1984, when the type was finally retired in favor of the F-16, and its spiritual successor, the A-10 Thunderbolt II.

 

The wartime history of this F-105D, 62-4301, is somewhat murky. It is known to have been assigned to the 8th Tactical Fighter Wing at Itazuke, Japan, but in 1965, was assigned to the temporary 6441st TFW at Takhli RTAFB, Thailand as the USAF began Operation Rolling Thunder. As the 6441st was inactivated in 1966, it remained at Takhli with the 355th TFW or was sent to the 388th at Korat. 62-4301 was a lucky aircraft, given the horrendous losses suffered by the 355th during this time period, and at some point during this time period, was credited with a ground strafing kill of a VPAF Il-28 Beagle.

 

In 1972, with the Thuds being replaced by the A-7D Corsair II, 62-4301 finally came home and was assigned to the 507th TFW (Reserve) at Tinker AFB, Oklahoma. In 1980, it was sent to what would be the last USAF F-105 unit, the 419th TFG (Reserve) at Hill AFB, Utah. There, it was one of the few (if only) Thuds to be painted in Europe One wraparound tactical camouflage, and was named "My Karma." As such, it became one of the more photographed F-105s in the twilight of the Thud's career. Luckily, when 62-4301 was retired in 1983, it was saved from the boneyard and went on display at McClellan AFB, California--now the California Aerospace Museum.

 

This picture of 62-4301 was taken while it served with the 507th, and may have been taken by my dad while he was at Dobbins AFB, Georgia--I'm not sure what the background shows. He did visit Tinker once, so it may be there as well. At this point in its career, 62-4301 still wears SEA camouflage, with a small AFRES marking on the rear fuselage.

 

(Disclaimer: I found this picture among other photos in my dad’s slides. I’m not sure who took them; some of them may be his. If any of these pictures are yours or you know who took them, let me know and I will remove them from Flickr, unless I have permission to let them remain. These photos are historical artifacts, in many cases of aircraft long since gone to the scrapyard, so I feel they deserve to be shared to the public at large—to honor the men and women who flew and maintained them.)

+++ 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:

After the first German experiences with the newer Soviet tanks like the T-34 or the Kliment Voroshilov tank during Operation Barbarossa, the need for a Panzerjäger capable of destroying these more heavily armoured tanks became clear.

 

In early 1942, several German companies designed tank destroyers using existing chassis or components, primarily of both the Panzer III and Panzer IV tank, and integrating the powerful 8,8 cm Panzerjägerkanone 43/1 L/71 (or shortly Pak 43/1), a long-barreled anti-tank gun. Alkett, for instance, came up with the SdKfz. 164 “Hornisse” SPG (later renamed “Nashorn”), and Vomag AG proposed the SdKfz. 163, a derivative of the recently developed SdKfz. 162, the Jagdpanzer IV, which was armed with a Pak 39 L/48 at that time in a low, casemate-style hull.

 

However, mounting the bulky, heavy and powerful Pak 43/1 into the Panzer III hull was impossible, and even the Panzer IV was not really suited for this weapon – compromises had to be made. In consequence, the “Nashorn” was only a lightly armoured vehicle with an open crew compartment, and the Jagdpanzer IV was much too low and did not offer sufficient internal space for the large cannon.

 

Vomag’s design for the SdKfz. 163 eventually envisioned a completely new upper hull for the standard Panzer IV chassis, again a casemate style structure. However, the new vehicle was much taller than the Jagdpanzer IV – in fact, the Pak 43/1 and its massive mount necessitated the superstructure to be more than 2’ higher than the Jagdpanzer IV. This also resulted in a considerably higher weight: while a standard Panzer IV weighed less than 23 tons, the SdKfz. 163 weighed more than 28 tons!

 

The driver was located forward, slightly in front of the casemate, and was given the Fahrersehklappe 80 sight from the Tiger I. The rest of the crew occupied the cramped combat section behind him. Ventilation of the casemate’s fumes and heat was originally provided by natural convection, exiting through armored covers at the back of the roof.

The gun/crew compartment’s casemate was well-protected with sloped sides and thick armor plates. Its thickness was 80 mm (3.93 in) at a 40° angle on the front, 40 mm/12° (1.57 in) for the front hull, 50 mm/25° (1.97 in) for the side superstructure, 30 mm (1.18 in) for the side of the lower hull, 30 mm/0° (1.18 in) for the rear of the casemate and 20 mm/10° (0.79 in) for the back of the hull. The top and bottom were protected by 10 mm (0.39 in) of armor at 90°. This was enough to withstand direct frontal hits from the Soviet 76,2 mm (3”) gun which the T-34 and the KV-1 carried.

 

The SdKfz. 163’s main weapon, the Pak 43/1, was a formidable gun: Accurate at over 3,000 m (3,280 yards) and with a muzzle velocity of over 1,000 m/s (3,280 ft/s), the 88 mm (3.5 inch) gun has more than earned its reputation as one of the best anti-tank guns of the war. Even the early versions, with a relatively short L56 barrel, were already able to penetrate 100mm of steel armour at 30°/1000m, and late versions with the long L71 barrel even achieved 192mm.

The main gun had an elevation of +15°/-5° and could traverse with an arc of fire of 12° to the left and 17° to the right, due to the weapon’s off-center position and limited through the side walls and the “survival space” for the crew when the Pak 43/1 was fired. The recoil cylinder was located under and the recuperator above the gun. There were also two counterbalance cylinders (one on each side), and the gun featured a muzzle brake, so that the already stressed Panzer IV chassis could better cope with the weapon’s recoil.

The Pak 43/1 was able to fire different shells, ranging from the armor piercing PzGr. 39/43 and PzGr. 40/43 to the high explosive Gr. 39/3 HL. The main gun sight was a telescopic Selbstfahrlafetten-Zielfernrohr la, with Carl Zeiss scopes, calibrated from 0 to 1,500 m (0-5,000 ft) for the Pz.Gr.39 and 0 to 2,000 m (6,500 ft) for the Pz.Gr.40. There was a 5x magnification 8° field of view.

 

46 8.8 cm rounds could be stored inside of the SdKfz. 163’s hull. In addition, a MP 40 sub-machine gun, intended to be fired through the two firing ports on each side of the superstructure, was carried as a hand weapon, and a single MG 34 machine gun was located in the front bow in a ball mount for self-defense, at the radio operator’s place. Another MG 34 could be fastened to the open commander’s hatch, and 1.250 rounds for the light weapons were carried.

 

The SdKfz. 163 was, together with the SdKfz. 164, accepted by the Oberkommando des Heeres (OKH) in late 1942, and immediately ordered into production. Curiously, it never received an official name, unlike the SdKfz. 164. In practice, however, the tank hunter was, in official circles, frequently referred to as “Jagdpanzer IV/ 43” in order to distinguish it from the standard “Jagdpanzer IV”, the SdKfz. 162, with its 7,5cm armament. However, the SdKfz. 163 also received unofficial nicknames from the crews (see below).

 

Production was split between two factories: Alkett from Berlin and Stahlindustrie from Duisburg. Alkett, where most of the Panzer IVs were manufactured, was charged with series production of 10 vehicles in January and February 1943, 20 in March and then at a rate of 20 vehicles per month until March 1944. Stahlindustrie was tasked with a smaller production series of 5 in May, 10 in June, 15 in July and then 10 per month (also until March 1944), for a planned initial total of 365 vehicles.

 

Initially, all SdKfz. 163s were directly sent to the Eastern Front where they had to cope with the heavy and well-armoured Soviet tanks. Soon it became apparent that these early vehicles were too heavy for the original Panzer IV chassis, leading to frequent breakdowns of the suspension and the transmission.

 

Efforts were made to ameliorate this during the running production, and other Panzer IV improvements were also gradually introduced to the SdKfz. 163s, too. For instance, the springs were stiffened and new all-metal road wheels were introduced – initially, only one or two front pairs of the road wheels were upgraded/replaced in field workshops, but later SdKfz. 163s had their complete running gear modified with the new wheels directly at the factories. These late production vehicles were recognizable through only three return rollers per side, in order to save material and production costs.

 

Furthermore, an electric ventilator was added (recognizable by a shallow, cylindrical fairing above the radio operator’s position) and the loopholes in the side walls for observation and self-defense turned out to be more detrimental to the strength of the armor than expected. In later models, these holes were completely omitted during production and in the field they were frequently welded over, being filled with plugs or 15 mm (0.59 in) thick steel plates. Another important modification was the replacement of the Pak 43/1’s original monobloc barrel with a dual piece barrel, due to the rapid wear of the high-velocity gun. Although this did not reduce wear, it did make replacement easier and was, over time, retrofitted to many earlier SdKfz. 163s.

 

Despite these improvements, the SdKfz. 163 remained troublesome. Its high silhouette made it hard to conceal and the heavy casemate armour, together with the heavy gun, moved the center of gravity forward and high that off-road handling was complicated – with an overstressed and easily damaged suspension as well as the long gun barrel that protruded 8’ to the front, especially early SdKfz. 163s were prone to stoop down and bury the long Pak 43/1 barrel into the ground. Even the vehicles with the upgraded suspension kept this nasty behavior and showed poor off-road handling. This, together with the tank’s bulbous shape, soon earned the SdKfz. 163 the rather deprecative nickname “Ringeltaube” (Culver), which was quickly forbidden. Another unofficial nickname was “Sau” (Sow), due to the tank’s front-heavy handling, and this was soon forbidden, too.

 

Despite the suspension improvements, the tank’s relatively high weight remained a constant source of trouble. Technical reliability was poor and the cramped interior did not add much to the vehicle’s popularity either, despite the SdKfz. 163 immense firepower even at long range. When the bigger SdKfz. 171, the Jagdpanther, as well as the Jagdpanzer IV/L70 with an uprated 7.5 cm cannon became available in mid-1944, SdKfz. 163 production was prematurely stopped, with only a total of 223 vehicles having been produced. The Eastern Front survivors were concentrated and re-allocated to newly founded Panzerjäger units at the Western front, where the Allied invasion was expected and less demanding terrain and enemies were a better match for the overweight and clumsy vehicles. Roundabout 100 vehicles became involved in the defense against the Allied invasion, and only a few survived until 1945.

  

Specifications:

Crew: Five (commander, gunner, loader, driver, radio operator)

Weight: 28.2 tons (62,170 lbs)

Length: 5.92 m (19 ft 5 in) hull only

8.53 m (28 ft) overall

Width: 2.88 m (9 ft 5 in)

Height: 2.52 m (8 ft 3 in)

Suspension: Leaf spring

Fuel capacity: 470 l (120 US gal)

 

Armour:

10 – 50 mm (0.39 – 1.96 in)

 

Performance:

Maximum road speed: 38 km/h (23.6 mph)

Sustained road speed: 34 km/h (21.1 mph)

Off-road speed: 24 km/h (15 mph)

Operational range: 210 km (125 mi)

Power/weight: 10,64 PS/t

 

Engine:

Maybach HL 120 TRM V12 petrol engine with 300 PS (296 hp, 221 kW)

 

Transmission:

ZF Synchromesh SSG 77 gear with 6 forward and 1 reverse ratios

 

Armament:

1× 8.8 cm Panzerabwehrkanone PaK 43/1 L71 with 46 rounds

1× 7.92 mm Maschinengewehr 34 with 1,250 rounds in bow mount;

an optional MG 34 could be mounted to the commander cupola,

and an MP 40 sub-machine gun was carried for self-defense

  

The kit and its assembly:

This fictional tank is, once more, a personal interpretation of a what-if idea: what if an 8.8 cm Pak 43/1 could have been mounted (effectively) onto the Panzer IV chassis? In real life, this did not happen, even though Krupp apparently built one prototype of a proposed Jagdpanzer IV with a 8.8 cm Pak 43 L/71 on the basis of the SdKfz. 165 (the “Brummbär” assault SPG) – a fact I found when I was already working on my model. Apparently, my idea seems to be not too far-fetched, even though I have no idea what that prototype looked like.

 

However, the PaK 43/1 was a huge weapon, and mating it with the rather compact Panzer IV would not be an easy endeavor. Taking the Jagdpanther as a benchmark, only a casemate layout would make sense, and it would be tall and voluminous. The “Brummbär” appeared to be a suitable basis, and I already had a Trumpeter model of a late SdKfz. 165 in the stash.

 

Just changing the barrel appeared too simple to me, so I decided to make major cosmetic changes. The first thing I wanted to change were the almost vertical side walls, giving them more slope. Easier said than done – I cut away the side panels as well as wedges from the casemate’s front and rear wall, cleaned the sidewalls and glued them back into place. Sound simple, but the commander’s hatch had to be considered, the late SdKfz. 165’s machine gun mount had to go (it was literally cut out and filled with a piece of styrene sheet + PSR; the front bow machine gun was relocated to the right side of the glacis plate) and, due to the bigger angle, the side walls had to be extended downwards by roughly 1.5mm, so that the original mudguard sideline was retained.

 

The gun barrel caused some headaches, too. I had an aftermarket metal barrel for a PaK 43/1 from a Tiger I in the stash, and in order to keep things simple I decided to keep the SdKfz. 165’s large ball mount. I needed some kind of mantlet as an adapter, though, and eventually found one from a Schmalturm in the stash – it’s quite narrow, but a good match. It had to be drilled open considerably in order to accept the metal barrel, but the whole construction looks very plausible.

 

Another cosmetic trick to change the SdKfz. 165’s look and esp. its profile was the addition of protective side shields for the entry hatch area at the rear (frequently seen on Jagdpanzer IVs) – these were created from 0.5 mm styrene sheet material and visually extend the casemate almost the up to hull’s rear end.

  

Painting and markings:

Inspiration for the paint scheme came from a picture of a Jagdpanther that took part in the 1944 Ardennenoffensive (Battle at the Bulge): It was painted in the contemporary standard tones Dunkelgelb (RAL 7028), Olivgrün (RAL 6003) and Rotbraun (RAL 8012), but I found the pattern interesting, which consisted primarily of yellow and green stripes, but edged with thin, brown stripes in order to enhance the contrast between them – not only decorative, but I expected this to be very effective in a forest or heath environment, too.

 

The picture offered only a limited frontal view, so that much of the pattern had to be guessed/improvised. Painting was done with brushes and enamels, I used Humbrol 103 (Cream), 86 (Light Olive) and 160 (German Red Brown) in this case. The green tone is supposed to be authentic, even though I find Humbrol’s 86 to be quite dull, the real RAL 6003 is brighter, almost like FS 34102. The brown tone I used, RAL 8012, is wrong, because it was only introduced in Oct. 1944 and actually is the overall factory primer onto which the other colors were added. It should rather be RAL 8017 (Schokoladenbraun), a darker and less reddish color that was introduced in early 1944, but I assume that frontline workshops, where the camouflage was applied in situ, just used what they had at hand. Dunkelgelb is actually very close to Humbrol 83 (ochre), but I decided to use a lighter tone for more contrast, and the following weathering washing would tone everything down.

 

I also extended the camouflage into the running gear – not a typical practice, but I found that it helps breaking up the tank’s outlines even more and it justifies wheels in different colors, too. The all-metal road wheels were painted with a mix of medium grey and iron. The black vinyl track was treated with a cloudy mix of grey, red brown and iron acrylic paint.

 

The kit received a washing with highly thinned dark brown acrylic paint as well as an overall dry-brushing treatment with light grey. Around the lower front of the hull I also did some dry-brushing with red brown and iron, simulating chipped paint. After the decals had been applied, the model was sealed with acrylic matt varnish and finally I dusted the lower areas and esp. the running gear with a grey-brown mix of mineral artist pigments, partly into a base of wet acrylic varnish that creates a kind of mud crust.

 

From Mad Max Fury Road: One of Immortan Joe's five "wives".

Comikaze Expo, Saturday, October 31, 2015

“Destiny is no matter of chance. It is a matter of choice. It is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved. “

 

William Jennings Bryan (1860 - 1925)

  

RALPH WALDO EMERSON’S SECRET

  

“DO YOU KNOW THE SECRET OF THE TRUE SCHOLAR? IN EVERY MAN THERE IS SOMETHING WHEREIN THAT I LEARN FROM HIM; AND IN THAT I AM HIS PUPIL.”

RALPH WALDO EMERSON

1803-1882

  

Alice was reading Psychology Today that had pictures and conversations she liked so much in a book that looked (how queer it seemed that it is so very remarkably) like a magazine, when she felt so sleepy she again followed the same White Rabbit who appeared not so long ago (or so she thought the very thing absurd, indeed.) The queer Rabbit with pink eyes, a watch in his waistcoat-pocket, and then too - a fan and a pair of white kid gloves - both of which were again missing, alas this not so pleasant creature, I should think got her down the same Rabbit Hole where she fell back into the same routine that really began with the question:” Who in the world am I?"

 

With respect to the genius in Lewis Carroll and with his kindest indulgence and my humblest gratitude for the liberty I took to quote him, sometimes verbatim even, I begin then to imagine with you the same young Alice in the heart of a middle-aged woman who apparently has nothing better to do than to retrace her roots in the Rabbit Hole.

 

The king and the Queen of Hearts were having a consultation with two Bachelors, one of Science and the other of Arts. Among the great crowd assembled were the same birds and beasts and a whole pack of cards and alas, an executioner waiting for the Queen to decide which bachelor should have his head off. No you goose, they were not on trial for the case of stolen tarts (well, I fancied the kind of thing too) however it was a verdict waiting to be considered on whether or not Science and Art mix and so putting both Bachelor heads in precarious balance.

 

“I should think very lightly of it,” Alice had begun to think: “very few things were really impossible. Indeed, like: "Do cats eat bats and sometimes, do bats eat cats?" Alice thought the whole thing absurd.

 

"I beg your pardon, your majesty, a formula I think it was." said Einstein

 

"Perhaps I should hear it Overture in B minor BWV 1067." said Bach

 

"Law of gravity, I think it so very much." said Newton

 

"Theory of Evolution" thought Darwin

 

"Synthetic Philosophy, I believe it is." added Spencer

 

"Feathery strokes of the beginning of a scarlet disc of the sun, I see it so." said Monet

 

“We feel Poetry in motion, a curious feeling it is for want of the return of ‘Golden Age’." chorused the ancient bards, the great Euripides and Homer among them.

 

The mock turtle interrupted in a great hurry: "Sounds uncommon nonsense. By far the most confusing things I heard!"

 

"You're a very poor speaker." said the King.

 

"Collar that Turtle," the Queen shrieked out. "Behead that Turtle! Turn that Turtle out of court! Suppress him! Pinch him! Off with his shell!"

 

As soon as the jury had a little recovered from the shock of another of the Queen’s fit and more from the shock of queer grand words that were really so much nicer heard than understood,

Plato whose main contributions were in Philosophy, Math and Science and his “Dialectics” became one of the greatest writers of the world, with great deal of thought said:

"..that the reality which scientific thought is seeking must be expressible in mathematical terms, mathematics being the most precise and definite kind of thinking which we are capable."

 

Goethe who was the greatest writer, poet, dramatist in German tradition had significant contributions as a scientist. In his “Faust”, he brought attention to philosophical literature in “transcendent knowledge denied to the human mind.”

 

Aristotle who may have been the first to teach wide range of systematic disciplines including: logic, physics, astronomy, meteorology, zoology, metaphysics, theology, psychology, politics, economics, ethics, rhetorics, poetics began to develop philosophy similar to that of Plato so he said in his "On Kinship" "...not merely necessary for a king to be a philosopher. Rather a king should take the advice of true philosophers then he would fill his reign of good deeds not with good words."

 

"To be a philosopher is not merely to have subtle thoughts nor even to found schools but to so love wisdom as to live according to its dictates: a life of simplicity, independence, magnanimity and trust" said Thoreau

 

“Science is analytical description, Philosophy is synthetic description. Science wishes to solve the whole into parts, the organisms into organs, the obscure into the known. The scientist is as impartial as nature. He is as interested in the leg of a flea as in the creative throes of a genius. But the philosopher is not content to describe the fact; he wishes to ascertain, to experience in general and thereby to get to its meaning and its worth, he combines things in interpretive synthesis…

Science tells us how to heal and how to kill. It reduces death rate in retail and then kills us in wholesale in war; but only wisdom- desire coordinated in the light of all experience can tell us when to heal and when to kill." said Professor Will Durant

 

Alice, quite forgetting in the flurry of the moment how large she has grown with knowledge that left the fundamentally rhetoric question unanswered stood before the court of justice.

“What do you know about this business?" The king said to Alice

"Nothing." said Alice

"Nothing whatever?" persisted the King

"Perhaps I should have plenty of time to begin to think that curious feeling ..." said Alice

 

The White Rabbit with his spectacles on read a curious verse of Lewis Carroll:

 

"They told me you had been to her

And mentioned me to him;

She gave me a good character,

But said I could not swim.

 

He sent them word I had not gone

(We know it to be true):

If she should push the matter on,

What would become of you?

 

I gave her one, they gave him two,

You gave us three or more;

They all returned from him to you,

Though they were mine before.

 

If I or she should chance to be

Involved in this affair,

He trusts to you to set them free,

Exactly as we were.

 

My notion was that you have been

(Before she had this fit)

An obstacle that came between

Him, and ourselves, and it.

 

Don't let him know she liked them best

For this must ever be

A secret, kept from all the rest,

Between yourself and me."

 

"That's the most important evidence we've heard yet," said the King, rubbing his hands, “so now let the jury - "

 

"I don't believe there's an atom of meaning in it." said Alice

 

"If there's no meaning in it," said the King “that saves a world of trouble, you know, as we needn't try to find any. And yet I don't know." he went on, spreading out the verse on his knee, and looking at them with one eye; "I seem to see some meaning in them after all. " “you can't swim can you?” He added turning to the Knave.

The Knave shook his head sadly. "Do I look it?" he said (Which he certainly did not, being made entirely of cardboard.)

 

"All right so far" said the King, and he went on muttering the verses to himself: We know it to be true - that's the jury, of course

"I gave her one, they gave him three" “why, that must be what God gave Life her relevance and the puerile lives yielded three: Knowledge, Wisdom and Humanity."

 

"Let the jury consider their verdict." said the King for about the twentieth time that day.

 

"No, no!" said the Queen. "Sentence first - verdict afterwards”.

 

"Stuff and nonsense!" said Alice loudly. "The idea of having the sentence first!"

 

"Hold your tongue!" said the Queen turning purple.

 

"I won't!" said Alice.

 

"Off with her head!" the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved but the two bachelors in the beginning of our story, the one of Science and the other of Arts.

 

"Wake up Alice dear!" said the pages from the curious magazine "Why what a long sleep you had!"

 

"Oh, I've had such a curious dream: psychology today bordering around metaphysics." said Alice "I shall not insult you by talking nonsense."

 

"It was a curious dream, dear, certainly: but now run in to your tea." said the curioser magazine.

 

So Alice got up and ran off, thinking while she ran, as well as she might, it still is: "Ignotum Perignotius” after all.

T H E E N D

  

“Please to fancy” to find your good selves humoring

Alice in Wonderland who shares nine lives with her pet cat “Dinah." Until we all crosspaths again...

Alicia for aliceinthepoetsheartland

  

“SEEK YE FIRST THE GOOD THINGS OF THE MIND, AND THE REST WILL EITHER BE SUPPLIED OR ITS LOSS WILL NOT BE FELT."

 

FRANCIS BACON, Viscount St Albans

1561-1626

ENGLISH PHILOSOPHER AND STATESMAN KNOWN FOR HIS INDUCTIVE REASONING METHODS THAT GAVE IMPETUS TO SUBSEQUENT SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION.

   

Whilst 67023 and 67027 were away on RHTT duties the once a month visit to Sheffield Midland on the 1Q50 1340 Derby RTC - Doncaster Wood Yard was covered by 37521 which had lead into Midland and 37116 which will lead out after a reversal..

 

15 11 18

Speeding north through Lichfield Trent Valley with the 1Z53 Willesden Railnet to Shieldmuir Mail Terminal is Royal Mail Class 325, 325009.

 

The Class 325's are yet another one of those Greek tragedies of the British railway scene. These specially built, 100mph units were very capable machines, but sadly the powers that be quickly pulled the rug out from under them, and what would have been the primary motive power for mail traffic across the UK's electric railway network is now only just starting to make a comeback.

 

The origins of the Class 325 go back to the early 1990's. At the time British Rail's parcels and mail arm, Rail Express Systems, was in the process of phasing out the traditional Travelling Post Office as computer sorting removed the need for sorting by-hand aboard the trains. At the same time RES desired a fleet of units that would be much more flexible, efficient and cost effective than the ageing fleet of Class 86 electrics, Class 47 diesels and MkI based coaching stock of the 1960's that it was using presently.

 

Previously, Royal Mail had trialed reusing former London commuter EMU's and re-purposing them as parcels units. Initially, Class 307's built in the 1950's were used on services out of London Liverpool Street, these being designated Class 300. However, these units weren't particularly reliable, and their age meant that they were only a few years away from being life-expired. In 1994, Rail Express Systems placed an order for a set of 100mph electric multiple units to be built on the underpinnings of the Class 319 dual-voltage Thameslink units used in London. Originally, this class was designated Class 350, but was eventually changed to Class 325.

 

Construction of these units was done by ABB at their Derby works between 1995 and 1996, with 16 of these trains eventually built. The construction of the Class 325's coincided with a major refurbishment of the mail-on-rail system, with new distribution centres and sorting offices constructed at major railway locations, this project being dubbed Railnet. For the Class 325's, these included Railnet terminals at Shieldmuir near Glasgow (to serve the lowlands of Scotland), Warrington (to serve North West England), Low Fell near Newcastle, and Willesden in North London. Additional Railnet terminals off the Class 325's network included Tonbridge, Bristol Parkway, Doncaster and Stafford. Willesden Railnet terminal is by far the largest, a 7 platform station under a huge barrel roof which is essentially another London terminus just with no passengers, built at a cost of £30m.

 

The Class 325's eventually began operations after a short period of trials in 1995. The units are fitted with large round oleo buffers, and have no gangways between carriages. Each set is made up of four cars, with roller doors in place of sliding ones and no windows. Each car has two roller shutter sliding doors on each side and is designed to hold up to 12 tonnes. They have a pantograph to pick up power from the 25 kV AC overhead lines, and also a shoe to pick up power off the 750 V DC third rail. They cannot work in multiple with any other multiple unit stock, but are fitted with drop-head buck-eye coupling and can therefore be hauled by locomotives. The units were built in such a way that they could easily be converted for passenger use if no longer required for mail services, and cab fronts designed to look similar to the then recently built Networker Class 165/166 and 365/465 commuter units.

 

Based at Crewe International Electric Maintenance Depot, the Class 325's effects on the mail services up the West and East Coast Mainlines were profound, with turnaround times and flexibility when it came to shunting being among its many advantages. They were also much more reliable than Class 86's or 47's, and could easily be put to work on the 3rd Rail Southern Region without the need for diesels or locomotive changes.

 

However, their tenure on mail services was seriously short lived, as in 2003, Royal Mail decided to cease the Mail Train contract with freight operator EWS after 166 years of operation. The last mail services under the original Victorian contract ended on January 9th, 2004, and the Class 325's, along with the hundreds of carriages of stock and locomotives, entered storage at various locations across the network, while the millions of pounds of infrastructure and the Railnet buildings fell silent after less than 10 years of operation.

 

The Class 325's were thankfully not out of action for long though, as at Christmas 2004, in light of heavy demand and congestion on the roads in bad weather, Royal Mail reluctantly awarded GBRf the contract to run a limited number of Class 325's on services between London and Glasgow over the winter period. GBRf however were not cleared to use the Class 325's on their own, and thus instead chose to drag the units using Class 86's and 87's. After a traction reshuffle the Class 325s resumed service with their power cars and without locomotive haulage.

 

Eventually, GBRf lost the contract in 2010 to EWS's successor, DB Schenker, who now operate both Royal Mail services but the continued maintenance of the Class 325 stock. On an average weekday there are 15 diagrammed services out of Willesden Railnet, 5 to and from Warrington, 3 to Shieldmuir and 3 to Low Fell. Today, 15 out of the original 16 units remain in service, 325010 being scrapped in 2012 after years of neglect in storage.

 

Sadly, like many pieces of the Mail Train puzzle, so many were wasted after less than 10 years of operation, infrastructure built to last for 100 years demolished after no time at all. At least the Class 325's have found their way back into work, doing a job that makes eminent sense over the road haulage alternative Royal Mail hoped would be the better option over the mail train. Instead the Class 325's are proof as to why mail-by-rail is the superior option, no traffic jams, no slippery roads, no 60mph speed limiter on the lorries, just 100mph haulage of your valuables and parcels up and down the country all the way!

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 minor 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 also 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 on the upper side of the nose, just 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 receivers, depending on the systems, mounted on the wing-tips, on the fins and/or on the LERXs. Improved ECR measures were also mounted on some machines, typically in conformal fairings on the flanks of the legs/engine pods.

 

After joining the global U.N. Spacy union, Germany adopted the VF-1 in late 2008, it replaced the Eurofighter Typhoon interceptors as well as Tornado IDS and ECR fighter bombers. An initial delivery of 120 aircraft was completed until 2011, partially delayed by the outbreak of Space War One in 2009. This initial batch included 85 VF-1A single seaters, fourteen VF-1J fighters for commanders and staff leaders, and twenty VF-1D two-seaters for conversion training over Germany (even though initial Valkyrie training took place at Ataria Island). These machines were erratically registered under the tactical codes 26+01 to 26+99. Additionally, there was a single VF-1S (27+00) as a personal mount for the General der Luftwaffe.

 

The German single-seaters were delivered as multi-role fighters that could operate as interceptors/air superiority fighters as well as attack aircraft. Beyond the standard equipment they also carried a passive IRST sensor in front of the cockpit that allowed target acquisition without emitting radar impulses, a LRMTS (Laser Rangefinder and Marked Target Sensor) under the nose, a Weapon Delivery and Navigation System (WDNS) and an extended suite of radar warning sensors and ECM jammers.

After Space War I, attritions were replaced with a second batch of VF-1 single seaters in 2015, called VF-1L (for “Luftwaffe”). These machines had updated avionics and, among modifications, a laser target designator in a small external pod under the cockpit. About forty VF-1 survivors from the first batch were upgraded to this standard, too, and the VF-1Ls were registered under the codes 27+01 – 90.

 

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

 

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 in overboost (225.63 kN x 2)

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 internal 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

  

The kit and its assembly:

This fictional VF-1 is more or less “only” a camouflage experiment, spawned by a recent discussion about the German Luftwaffe’s so-called “Norm ‘81” paint scheme that was carried by the F-4Fs during the Eighties and the early Nineties. It is one of the most complex standardized paint scheme I am aware of, consisting of no less than six basic shades of grey and applied in two different patterns (early variant with angled/splinter camouflage, later this was changed into more organic shapes).

 

I have built a fictional post-GDR MiG-21 with the Norm ’81 scheme some years ago, but had always been curious how a Macross VF-1 would look with it, or how it could be adapted to the F-14esque airframe?

 

Concerning the model, it’s another vintage ARII VF-1, in this case a VF-1J, built OOB and with the landing gear down and an open canopy. However, I added some small details like the sensors in front of the cockpit, RHAWS sensors and bulges for ECM equipment on the lower legs (all canonical). The ordnance was subtly changed, with just two AMM-1 missiles on each outer pylon plus small ECM pods on the lo hardpoint (procured from an 1:144 Tornado). The inner stations were modified to hold quadruple starters for (fictional) air-to-ground missiles, left over from a Zvezda 1:72 Ka-58 helicopter and probably depicting Soviet/Russian 9M119 “Svir” laser-guided anti-tank missiles, or at least something similar. At the model’s 1:100 scale they are large enough to represent domestic alternatives to AGM-65 Maverick missiles – suitable against Zentraedi pods and other large ground targets. The ventral GU-11 pod was modified to hold a scratched wire display for in-flight pictures. Some blade antennae were added 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:

This was quite a challenge: adapting the Norm’ 81 scheme to the swing-wing Valkyrie, with its folded legs and the twin tail as well as lacking the Phantom’s spine and bulged air intakes, was not easy, and I went for the most straightforward solution and simplified things on the VF-1’s short spine.

 

The Norm ‘81’s “official” colors are all RAL tones, and I decided to use these for an authentic lokk, namely:

RAL 7009 Grüngrau: Revell 67 (acrylic)

RAL 7012 Basaltgrau: Revell 77 (acrylic)

RAL 7039 Quarzgrau: Xtracolor X259 (enamel)

RAL 7037 Staubgrau: Xtracolor X258 (enamel)

RAL 7030 Steingrau: Revell 75 (enamel)

RAL 7035 Lichtgrau: Humbrol 196 (enamel)

 

This basically plan worked and left me with a very murky aircraft: Norm ’81 turned out to be a kind of all-propose camouflage that works well against both sky and ground, at least in the typical German climate, and especially good at medium to low altitude. RAL 7030, 7037 and 7039 appear like gradually darker shades of the basically same brownish grey hue, framed with darker contrast areas that appear either greenish or bluish.

 

However, the Xtracolor enamels turned out to be total sh!t: they lacked pigments in the glossy and translucent base and therefore ANY opacity, esp. on any edge, at least when you use a brush like me. Not certain if using an airbrush improves this? The result were uneven and rather thick areas of paint, not what I had hoped for. And the Revell 75 just did what I hate about the company's enamels: drying up prematurely with a gooey consistency, leaving visible streaks.

 

After a black ink wash, very light post-shading was added. I should have from the start tried to stick to the acrylics and also mix the Xtracolor tones from Revell acrylics, a stunt that turned during the weathering process (trying to hide the many blemishes) out to be quite feasible. RAL 7037 was mixed from Revell 47 plus 89 in a ~1:1 ratio, and RAL 7039 from Revell 47, 77 and 87 with a touch of 09. Nevertheless, the paint finish turned out sub-optimal, but some shading and weathering saved most of the mess – even I am not satisfied with the outcome, the model looks more weathered than intended (even though most operational German F-4Fs with this paint scheme looked quite shaggy and worn, making the different shades of grey almost undiscernible).

 

After some consideration I gave this German VF-1 full-color (yet small) "Kite" roundels, together with a German tactical code. German flags and a vintage JaboG 32 squadron badge decorate the fin - a plausible move, because there are British Valkyries in source books that carry RAF fin flashes. Stencils and other markings came from VF-1 OOB sheets.

Finally, after some typical highlights with clear paint over a silver base were added, and the small VF-1 was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish.

  

A spontaneous interim project, with interesting results. The adapted Norm ’81 scheme works well on the VF-1, and it even is a contemporary design from the era when the original TV series was conceived and aired. With the authentic tones I’d call it quite ugly – even though I was amazed during the photo session how well the different shades of grey (four from above!) blend into each other and break up the aircraft’s outlines. If there were no red-and-white roundels or the orange pilot in the cockpit (chosen intentionally for some color contrast), the camouflage would be very effective! Not perfect, but another special member in my growing VF-1 model fleet. ^^

 

Capable of firing between a thirty- and seventy-degree angle, this gun typically found itself in an indirect fire role but could be direct-fired at a shallow angle if direly necessary. Unlike the Anti-Armor Field Gun, it fires a large projectile at relatively low velocity and is better suited against infantry, light vehicles, and fortifications than armored targets.

 

(wheel adjusts mortar elevation when spun)

 

The English Electric Lightning is a British fighter aircraft that served as an interceptor during the 1960s, the 1970s and into the late 1980s. It was capable of a top speed of above Mach 2. The Lightning was designed, developed, and manufactured by English Electric.

 

The specification for the aircraft followed the cancellation of the Air Ministry's 1942 specification E.24/43 supersonic research aircraft which had resulted in the Miles M.52 programme. Teddy Petter, formerly chief designer at Westland Aircraft, who had been taken on by English Electric in 1944 to head an office to develop aircraft rather than just make other manufacturers' designs, was a keen early proponent of Britain's need to develop a supersonic fighter aircraft. In 1947, Petter approached the Ministry of Supply (MoS) with his proposal, and in response Specification ER.103 was issued for a single research aircraft, which was to be capable of flight at Mach 1.5 (1,593 km/h; 990 mph) and 50,000 ft (15,000 m).

 

Petter initiated a design proposal with Frederick Page leading the design and Ray Creasey responsible for the aerodynamics. By July 1948 their proposal incorporated the stacked engine configuration and a high-mounted tailplane. As it was designed for Mach 1.5, the wing leading edge was swept back 40° to keep it clear of the Mach cone. This proposal was submitted in November 1948 and in January 1949 the project was designated P.1 by English Electric. On 29 March 1949 the MoS granted approval to start the detailed design, develop wind tunnel models and build a full-size mockup.

 

The design that had developed during 1948 evolved further during 1949 to further improve performance, taking many design cues from the CAC CA-23. To achieve Mach 2 the wing sweep was increased to 60° with the ailerons moved to the wingtips. In late 1949, low-speed wind tunnel tests showed that a vortex was generated by the wing which caused a large downwash on the tailplane; this issue was solved by lowering the tail below the wing. Following the resignation of Petter from English Electric, Page took over as design team leader for the P.1 and the running of EE design office. In 1949, the Ministry of Supply had issued Specification F23/49, which expanded upon the scope of ER103 to include fighter-level manoeuvring. On 1 April 1950, English Electric received a contract for two flying airframes, as well as one static airframe, designated P.1.

 

The Royal Aircraft Establishment disagreed with Petter's choice of sweep angle (60 degrees) and tailplane position (low) considering it to be dangerous. To assess the effects of wing sweep and tailplane position on the stability and control of Petter's design Short Brothers were issued a contract by the Ministry of Supply to produce the Short SB.5 in mid-1950. This was a low-speed research aircraft that could test sweep angles from 50 to 69 degrees and high or low tailplane positions. Testing with the wings and tail set to the P.1 configuration started in January 1954 and confirmed this combination as the correct one.

 

From 1953 onward, the first three prototype aircraft were hand-built at Samlesbury Aerodrome, where all Lightnings were built. These aircraft were given the aircraft serials WG760, WG763, and WG765 (the structural test airframe). The prototypes were powered by un-reheated Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire turbojets, as the selected Rolls-Royce Avon engines had fallen behind schedule due to their own development problems. Since there was no space in the fuselage for fuel the thin wings were the fuel tanks and since they also provided space for the stowed main undercarriage the fuel capacity was relatively small, giving the prototypes an extremely limited endurance, and the narrow tyres housed in the thin wings rapidly wore out if there was any crosswind component during take-off or landing. Outwardly, the prototypes looked very much like the production series, but they were distinguished by the rounded-triangular air intake with no centre-body at the nose, short fin, and lack of operational equipment.

 

On 9 June 1952, it was decided that there would be a second phase of prototypes built to develop the aircraft toward achieving Mach 2.0 (2,450 km/h; 1,522 mph); these were designated P.1B while the initial three prototypes were retroactively reclassified as P.1A. P.1B was a significant improvement on P.1A. While it was similar in aerodynamics, structure and control systems, it incorporated extensive alterations to the forward fuselage, reheated Rolls-Royce Avon R24R engines, a conical centre body inlet cone, variable nozzle reheat and provision for weapons systems integrated with the ADC and AI.23 radar. Three P.1B prototypes were built, assigned serials XA847, XA853 and XA856.

 

In May 1954, WG760 and its support equipment were moved to RAF Boscombe Down for pre-flight ground taxi trials; on the morning of 4 August 1954, WG760, piloted by Roland Beamont, flew for the first time from Boscombe Down. One week later, WG760 officially achieved supersonic flight for the first time, having exceeded the speed of sound during its third flight. During its first flight, WG760 had unknowingly exceeded Mach 1 (1,225 km/h; 761 mph), but due to position error the Mach meter only showed a maximum of Mach 0.95 (1,164 km/h; 723 mph). The occurrence was noticed during flight data analysis a few days later. While WG760 had proven the P.1 design to be viable, it was limited to Mach 1.51 (1,850 km/h; 1,149 mph) due to directional stability limits. In May 1956, the P.1 received the "Lightning" name, which was said to have been partially selected to reflect the aircraft's supersonic capabilities.

Speeding south through Lichfield Trent Valley with the 1Z56 Warrington Railnet to Willesden Railnet is Royal Mail Class 325, 325009.

 

The Class 325's are yet another one of those Greek tragedies of the British railway scene. These specially built, 100mph units were very capable machines, but sadly the powers that be quickly pulled the rug out from under them, and what would have been the primary motive power for mail traffic across the UK's electric railway network is now only just starting to make a comeback.

 

The origins of the Class 325 go back to the early 1990's. At the time British Rail's parcels and mail arm, Rail Express Systems, was in the process of phasing out the traditional Travelling Post Office as computer sorting removed the need for sorting by-hand aboard the trains. At the same time RES desired a fleet of units that would be much more flexible, efficient and cost effective than the ageing fleet of Class 86 electrics, Class 47 diesels and MkI based coaching stock of the 1960's that it was using presently.

 

Previously, Royal Mail had trialed reusing former London commuter EMU's and re-purposing them as parcels units. Initially, Class 307's built in the 1950's were used on services out of London Liverpool Street, these being designated Class 300. However, these units weren't particularly reliable, and their age meant that they were only a few years away from being life-expired. In 1994, Rail Express Systems placed an order for a set of 100mph electric multiple units to be built on the underpinnings of the Class 319 dual-voltage Thameslink units used in London. Originally, this class was designated Class 350, but was eventually changed to Class 325.

 

Construction of these units was done by ABB at their Derby works between 1995 and 1996, with 16 of these trains eventually built. The construction of the Class 325's coincided with a major refurbishment of the mail-on-rail system, with new distribution centres and sorting offices constructed at major railway locations, this project being dubbed Railnet. For the Class 325's, these included Railnet terminals at Shieldmuir near Glasgow (to serve the lowlands of Scotland), Warrington (to serve North West England), Low Fell near Newcastle, and Willesden in North London. Additional Railnet terminals off the Class 325's network included Tonbridge, Bristol Parkway, Doncaster and Stafford. Willesden Railnet terminal is by far the largest, a 7 platform station under a huge barrel roof which is essentially another London terminus just with no passengers, built at a cost of £30m.

 

The Class 325's eventually began operations after a short period of trials in 1995. The units are fitted with large round oleo buffers, and have no gangways between carriages. Each set is made up of four cars, with roller doors in place of sliding ones and no windows. Each car has two roller shutter sliding doors on each side and is designed to hold up to 12 tonnes. They have a pantograph to pick up power from the 25 kV AC overhead lines, and also a shoe to pick up power off the 750 V DC third rail. They cannot work in multiple with any other multiple unit stock, but are fitted with drop-head buck-eye coupling and can therefore be hauled by locomotives. The units were built in such a way that they could easily be converted for passenger use if no longer required for mail services, and cab fronts designed to look similar to the then recently built Networker Class 165/166 and 365/465 commuter units.

 

Based at Crewe International Electric Maintenance Depot, the Class 325's effects on the mail services up the West and East Coast Mainlines were profound, with turnaround times and flexibility when it came to shunting being among its many advantages. They were also much more reliable than Class 86's or 47's, and could easily be put to work on the 3rd Rail Southern Region without the need for diesels or locomotive changes.

 

However, their tenure on mail services was seriously short lived, as in 2003, Royal Mail decided to cease the Mail Train contract with freight operator EWS after 166 years of operation. The last mail services under the original Victorian contract ended on January 9th, 2004, and the Class 325's, along with the hundreds of carriages of stock and locomotives, entered storage at various locations across the network, while the millions of pounds of infrastructure and the Railnet buildings fell silent after less than 10 years of operation.

 

The Class 325's were thankfully not out of action for long though, as at Christmas 2004, in light of heavy demand and congestion on the roads in bad weather, Royal Mail reluctantly awarded GBRf the contract to run a limited number of Class 325's on services between London and Glasgow over the winter period. GBRf however were not cleared to use the Class 325's on their own, and thus instead chose to drag the units using Class 86's and 87's. After a traction reshuffle the Class 325s resumed service with their power cars and without locomotive haulage.

 

Eventually, GBRf lost the contract in 2010 to EWS's successor, DB Schenker, who now operate both Royal Mail services but the continued maintenance of the Class 325 stock. On an average weekday there are 15 diagrammed services out of Willesden Railnet, 5 to and from Warrington, 3 to Shieldmuir and 3 to Low Fell. Today, 15 out of the original 16 units remain in service, 325010 being scrapped in 2012 after years of neglect in storage.

 

Sadly, like many pieces of the Mail Train puzzle, so many were wasted after less than 10 years of operation, infrastructure built to last for 100 years demolished after no time at all. At least the Class 325's have found their way back into work, doing a job that makes eminent sense over the road haulage alternative Royal Mail hoped would be the better option over the mail train. Instead the Class 325's are proof as to why mail-by-rail is the superior option, no traffic jams, no slippery roads, no 60mph speed limiter on the lorries, just 100mph haulage of your valuables and parcels up and down the country all the way!

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

 

The English Electric Lightning was a supersonic jet fighter aircraft of the Cold War era, noted for its great speed. It was the only all-British Mach 2 fighter aircraft and the first aircraft in the world capable of supercruise. The Lightning was renowned for its capabilities as an interceptor; pilots commonly described it as "being saddled to a skyrocket". Following English Electric's integration into the unified British Aircraft Corporation, the aircraft was marketed as the BAC Lightning.

 

The Lightning was prominently used by the Royal Air Force, but also by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Singapore. The first aircraft to enter service with the RAF, three pre-production P.1Bs, arrived at RAF Coltishall in Norfolk on 23 December 1959, and from there the aircraft was permanently developed further.

 

The F.6 was the ultimate Lightning version to see British service. Originally, it was nearly identical to the former F.3A (which introduced a large ventral tank and new cambered wings), with the exception that it had provisions to carry 260 gal (1,180 l) ferry tanks on pylons over the wings. These tanks were jettisonable in an emergency, and gave the F.6 a substantially improved deployment capability. The Ferranti A.I.23B radar supported autonomous search, automatic target tracking, and ranging for all weapons, while the pilot attack sight provided gyroscopically derived lead angle and backup stadiametric ranging for gun firing. The radar and gunsight were collectively designated the AIRPASS: Airborne Interception Radar and Pilot Attack Sight System. Combined with the Red Top missile, the system offered a limited forward hemisphere attack capability.

 

There remained one glaring shortcoming of the late Lightning versions, though: the lack of cannon. This was finally rectified in the form of a modified ventral tank with two ADEN cannon mounted in the front. The addition of the cannon and their ammunition decreased the tank's fuel capacity from 610 gal to 535 gal (2,430 l), but the cannon made the F.6 a 'real fighter' again.

 

Singapore's Lightnings came as a bargain, as they had been taken over directly from RAF stocks. In 1967 No. 74 'Tiger' Squadron was moved to RAF Tengah in Singapore to take over the air defense role from the Gloster Javelin equipped 64 Squadron. When 74 Squadron was disbanded in September 1971, following the withdrawal of British forces from Singapore (in the course of the "East of Suez" campaign, which already started in 1968), Tengah Air Base and many other RAF sites like Seletar, Sembawang and Changi as well as the RAF air defense radar station and Bloodhound II surface-to-air missiles were handed over to the SADC, Singapore’s Air Defense Command, which was suddenly entrusted with a huge responsibility and resources.

 

Anyway, in order to fulfill its aerial defense role, Singapore's air force lacked a potent interceptor, and so it was agreed with the RAF that 74 Squadron would leave fourteen Lightnings (twelve F.6 fighters and two T.5 trainers behind, while the rest was transferred to Akrotiri, Cyprus, where the RAF aircraft were integrated into 56 Squadron.

 

The ex-RAF Lightnings, however, immediately formed the small country's quick alert interceptor backbone and were grouped into the newly established 139th Squadron, “Swifts”. The small squadron kept its base at Tengah, as a sister unit to 140th Squadron which operated the Hawker Hunter FGA.74 in the fighter role since 1971.

 

Singapore's Lightnings differed slightly from the RAF F.6: In order to minimize the maintenance costs of this specialized aircraft, the SADC decided to drop the Red Top missile armament. The Red Top gave all-weather capability, but operating this standalone system for just a dozen of aircraft was deemed cost-inefficient. Keeping the high-performance Lightnings airworthy was already costly and demanding enough.

 

As a cost-effective measure, all SADC Lightnings were modified to carry four AIM-9B and later E Sidewinder AAMs on special, Y-shaped pylons, not unlike those used on the US Navy's F-8 Crusader. In order to enhance all-weather capability, an AAS-15 IRST sensor was added, located in a fairing in front of the wind shield. Its electronics used the space of the omitted, fuselage-mounted cannons of the F.6 variant.

 

Long range and loitering time were only of secondary relevance, so that the Singaporean Lightnings typically carried two 30 mm ADEN cannons with 120 RPG in the lower fuselage, which reduced the internal fuel capacity slightly but made the Lightning a true close combat fighter with high agility, speed and rate of climb. Since the RSAF interceptors would only engage in combat after direct visual contact and target identification, the Sidewinders' short range was no operational problem - and because that missile type was also in use with RSAF's Hawker Hunters, this solution was very cost-efficient.

 

The F.6's ability to carry the overwing ferry tanks (the so-called 'Overburgers') was retained, though, as well as the refueling probe and, and with its modified/updated avionics the RSAF Lightnings received the local designations of F.6S and T.5S. They were exclusively used in the interceptor role and retained their natural metal finish all though their service career.

 

In 1975, the SADC was eventually renamed into ‘Republic of Singapore Air Force’ (RSAF), and the aircraft received appropriate markings.

 

The RSAF Lightnings saw an uneventful career. One aircraft was lost due to hydraulic failure in August 1979 (the pilot ejected safely), and when in 1983 RSAF's F-5S fighters took over the duties of airborne interception from the Royal Australian Air Force's Mirage IIIOs detachment stationed at Tengah, all remaining RSAF Lightnings were retired and phased out of service in March 1984 and scrapped. The type's global career did not last much longer: the last RAF Lightnings were retired in 1988 and replaced by the Panavia Tornado ADV.

  

BAE Lightning F.6S general characteristics

Crew: 1

Length: 55 ft 3 in (16.8 m)

Wingspan: 34 ft 10 in (10.6 m)

Height: 19 ft 7 in (5.97 m)

Wing area: 474.5 ft² (44.08 m²)

Empty weight: 31,068 lb (14.092 kg)

Max. take-off weight: 45,750 lb (20.752 kg)

 

Powerplant:

2× Rolls-Royce Avon 301R afterburning turbojets with 12,530 lbf (55.74 kN) dry thrust each and 16,000 lbf (71.17 kN) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: Mach 2.0 (1.300 mph/2.100 km/h) at 36.000 ft.

Range: 850 mi (1.370 km) Supersonic intercept radius: 155 mi (250 km)

Ferry range: 920 mi (800 NM/ 1.660 km) 1,270 mi (1.100 NM/ 2.040 km) with ferry tanks

Service ceiling: 54.000 ft (16.000 m); zoom ceiling >70.000 ft

Rate of climb: 20.000 ft/min (100 m/s)

Wing loading: 76 lb/ft² (370 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight: 0.78

 

Armament:

2× under-fuselage hardpoints for mounting air-to-air missiles (2 or 4 AIM-9 Sidewinder)

Optional, but typically fitted: 2× 30 mm (1.18 in) ADEN cannons with 120 RPG in the lower fuselage, reducing the ventral tank's fuel capacity from 610 gal to 535 gal (2,430 l)

2× overwing pylon stations for 260 gal ferry tanks

    

The kit and its assembly

The inspiration to this whiffy Lightning came through fellow user Nick at whatifmodelers.com (credits go to him), who brought up the idea of EE/BAC Lightnings in Singapore use: such a small country would be the ideal user of this fast interceptor with its limited range. I found the idea very convincing and plausible, and since I like the Lightning and its unique design very much, I (too) had to make one for the 2013 group build "Asiarama" - even if a respective model would potentially be built twice. But it's always fun to see how the same theme is interpreted by different modelers, I am looking forward to my creation's sister ship.

 

The kit is the Matchbox Lightning F.2A/F.6 (PK-114) from 1976, and only little was changed. Fit is O.K., building the model poses no real problems. But the kit needs some putty work at the fuselage seams, and the many raised panel lines (esp. at the belly tank) and other relatively fine and many details for a Matchbox kit make sanding rather hazardous. Nevertheless, it's a solid kit. A bit toy-like, yes, but good value for the relatively little money. What's saved might be well invested into an extra decal sheet (see below).

 

Internal mods include some added details inside of the cockpit and the landing gear wells, but these were just enhancements to the original parts. The Avons' afterburners were simulated with implanted sprocket wheels from a 1:72 Panzer IV - not intended to be realistic at all, but IMO better than the kit's original, plain end caps!

 

Externally…

· the flaps were lowered

· some antennae and a finer pitot added

· about a dozen small air intakes/outlets were added (cut from styrene) or drilled open

· the IRST sensor fairing added, sculpted from a simple piece of sprue

· a pair of 30mm barrels mounted in the lower fuselage (hollow steel needles)

· the scratch-built quadruple Sidewinder rails are worth mentioning

 

The AIM-9E missiles come from the scrap heap, I was lucky to find a matching set of four. The optional overwing fuel tanks were not fitted, as this was supposed to become a "standard RSAF aircraft". I also did not opt for (popular) weapons mounted above the wings, since this would have called for modifications of the F.6 which did not appear worthwhile to me in context with the envisaged RSAF use. Switching to four Sidewinders on the fuselage hardpoints was IMHO enough.

  

Painting and markings

More effort went into this project part. The end of RAF's 74 Squadron at Tengah and the return of the Lightnings to Europe opened a nice historical window for my whif. Since the Tiger Squadron's aircraft sported a natural metal finish, partly with black fins (accidentally, the Matchbox kit offers just the correct decal/painting option), I decided that the RSAF would keep their aircraft this way: without camouflage, just RSAF markings, with some bold and highly visible colors added.

A SEA scheme (as on the RSAF Hunters, Strikemasters of Skyhawks) would have been another serious option and certainly look weird on a Lightning, as well as a three-tone gray wraparound low-viz scheme as used on the F-5E/S fighters, plausible in the 80ies onwards.

 

Testors Aluminum Metallizer was used as basic color, but several other shades including Steel and Titanium Metallizer, Testors normal Aluminum enamel paint, Humbrol 11 and 56 as well as Revell Aqua Color Aluminum were used for selected surface portions or panels all around the hull.

 

The spine including the cockpit frame was painted black. Using RSAF's 140 Squadron's colors as a benchmark, the fin received a checkered decoration in black and red, reminiscent of RAF 56 Squadron Lightnings. This was created through a black, painted base, onto which decals - every red field was cut from a red surface sheet from TL Modellbau - were transferred. Sounds horrible, but it was easier and more exact than expected. A very convenient solution with sharp edges and good contrast. A red trim line, 1mm wide, was added as a decal along the spine in a similar fashion.

 

The squadron emblem on the Lightning's nose was created through the same scratch method: from colored 1.5mm wide stripes, 3mm pieces were cut and applied one by one to form the checkered bar. The swift emblem comes from a 1:48 sheet for French WWI aircraft, made by Peddinghaus Decals from Germany. The overall look was supposed to be similar to the (real) 140 Squadron badge.

 

As a consequence, this created a logical problem: where to put the national roundel? Lightnings usually wore them on the nose, but unlike RAF style (where a bar was added around the roundel), I used RSAF Hunters as benchmark.

The RSAF roundels were a challenge. In order not to cramp the nose section too much I decided to place the roundels behind the wings. Not the must prominent position, but plausible. I originally wanted to use decals from the current 1:72 Airfix BAC Strikemaster kit, but they turned out to be too small.

After long search I was happy to find a 1:48 aftermarket decal sheet from Morgan Decals for an A-4S, with full color yin-yang roundels - in Canada! It took three weeks to wait for these parts, though, even though work had to wait for this final but vital detail !

 

As a side not, AFAIK any RSAF aircraft only carried and carries these roundels on the fuselage sides, not on the wings' upper or lower surfaces? It leaves the model a bit naked, so I decided to add 'RSAF' letters and the tactical code '237' to the wings' upper and lower sides. But the fin is surely bold enough to compensate ;)

 

The cockpit interior was painted in Medium Sea Gray (Humbrol 27), the landing gear and the wells in a mix of Humbrol 56 and 34, for a light gray with a metallic shimmer.

 

Other details include the white area behind the cockpit, which contained an AVPIN/isopropyl nitrate tank for the Lightning's start engine. Hazardous stuff - the light color was to prevent excessive heating in the sun, a common detail for Lightnings used in Cyprus. Another piece that took some effort was the shaggy nose cone, which was painted in a mix of Humbrol 56 and 86 and received some serious dry painting in light gray and ochre.

 

Stencils etc. were taken from an extensive aftermarket sheet for Lightnings from Xtradecal (X72096). The Matchbox decal sheet of PK-114 just offers the ejection seat warning triangles - that's all! The later T.55 kit is much better in this regard, but still far from being complete.

 

After decal application and to enhance the metallic look, the kit received a careful rubbing with finely grinded graphite, which, as a side effect, also emphasized the raised panel lines. A little dry painting was done around some exhaust openings, but nothing to make the aircraft look really old. This is supposed to be a bright and well-maintained interceptor!

 

Finally, the kit received a thin coat with glossy acrylic varnish, the spine and fin received a semi-matt coat and the black glare shield in front of the cockpit became matt.

   

A pretty straightforward build for the Asiarama group build, and with best regards and credits to Nick who came up with the original idea. Most work went into the decals and the NMF finish. I like the bold colors, and despite being flamboyant, they do not make the Lightning look too far out of place?

 

As a final note: XR773 never ended up in Singapore service, just like any BAC Lightning. In real life, the aircraft (first flight was in February 1966 with Roly Beamont at the controls) was transferred from 74 Squadron at RAF Tengah to Akrotiri in late 1971 and had a pretty long life, further serving with 56, 5 and 11 Squadrons as well as the Lightning Training Flight. And even then it’s life was far from over: XR773 is one of the Lightning survivors; in South Africa it flew in private hands as ZU-BEW until 2010, when it was grounded and the airframe put up to sale.

Robert has always struck me as someone skilled, who was knowledgeable, capable, and understanding. His is a maturity that far outstretches his age. His filters adjust for his company, his views remain logical even when opinionated. He could converse with the friends or parents of any friend he made and hold that relationship long after the fickleness of younger ones. Being able to adapt to any situation even if it isn’t your suit is an incredible trait.

 

I remember the night of this photo, the birthday of my now ex-girlfriend, at Caprice Night club. I was never comfortable in that scene growing up. I thought the idea of a club beneath me, the pretentious, anime watching moron who only listened to hard rock music (AND DUBSTEP, DUH). I enjoyed being near friends, but at parties and the like I’d always find a set away area to go and sit by myself. Robert came to join me and for a little while that night. It was nice having company. I envied that he was able to go out in the fray of it all, though curios that he would come to sit down and enjoy being separated as much as I did. It’s something I’ve worked to exemplify in my self. On that note, catch me photographing MIA nightclub on the 18th and 19th. I’ve grown up a bit. Now I listen to Rock, Dubstep, and Yung Lean too.

 

Kodak Disposable - December, 2012

+++ 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.

+++ 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 North American FJ-4 Fury was a swept-wing carrier-capable fighter-bomber, originally developed for the United States Navy and Marine Corps. It was 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 featured an entirely new wing design. And it was, as a kind of final embodiment with the FJ-4B, a very different aircraft from the F-86 .

 

The first FJ-4 flew on 28 October 1954 and delivery began in February 1955. Of the original order for 221 FJ-4 fighters, the last 71 were modified into the FJ-4B fighter-bomber version, of which the Netherlands received 16 aircraft under the designation FJ-4B from the USA in the course of NATO support. Even though the main roles of the MLD were maritime patrol, anti-submarine warfare and search and rescue, the FJ-4B was a dedicated fighter-bomber, and these aircraft were to be used with the Dutch Navy’s Colossus-Class carrier HNLMS Karel Doorman (R81).

 

Compared to the lighter FJ-4 interceptor, the FJ-4B had a stronger wing with six instead of four underwing stations, a stronger landing gear and additional aerodynamic brakes under the aft fuselage. The latter made landing safer by allowing pilots to use higher thrust settings, and were also useful for dive attacks. Compared to the FJ-4, external load was doubled, and the US FJ-4Bs were capable of carrying a nuclear weapon on the inboard port station, a feature the MLD Furies lacked. The MLD aircraft were still equipped with the corresponding LABS or Low-Altitude Bombing System for accurate delivery of ordnance.

The Dutch Furies were primarily intended for anti-ship missions (toting up to five of the newly developed ASM-N-7 missiles - renamed in AGM-12B Bullpup after 1962 - plus a guidance pod) and CAS duties against coastal targets, as well as for precision strikes. In a secondary role, the FJ-4B could carry Sidewinder AAMs for interception purposes.

 

The MLD's FJ-4B became operational in 1956, just in time to enhance the firepower of the Karel Doorman, which just had its 24 WW-II era propeller driven Fairey Firefly strike fighters and Hawker Sea Fury fighter/anti-ship aircraft backed up with 14 TBF Avenger ASW/torpedo bombers and 10 Hawker Sea Hawk fighters (the MLD owned 22 of these) for an ASW/Strike profile. The Furies joined the carrier in late 1957 and replaced the piston-engined attack aircraft.

 

In 1960, during the Dutch decolonization and planned independence of Western New Guinea, a territory which was also claimed by Indonesia, the Karel Doorman set sail along with two destroyers and a modified oil tanker to 'show the flag'. In order to avoid possible problems with Indonesia's ally Egypt at the Suez Canal, the carrier instead sailed around the horn of Africa. She arrived in Fremantle, Australia, where the local seamen's union struck in sympathy with Indonesia; the crew used the propeller thrust of aircraft chained down on deck to nudge the carrier into dock without tugs! In addition to her air wing, she was ferrying twelve Hawker Hunter fighters to bolster the local Dutch defense forces, which the Karel Doorman delivered when she arrived at Hollandia, New Guinea.

 

During the 1960 crisis, Indonesia prepared for a military action named Operation Trikora (in the Indonesian language, "Tri Komando Rakyat" means "The Three Commands of the People"). In addition to planning for an invasion, the TNI-AU (Indonesian Air Forces) hoped to sink the Karel Doorman with Soviet-supplied Tupolev Tu-16KS-1 Badger naval bombers using AS-1 Kennel/KS-1 Kometa anti-ship missiles. This bomber-launched missile strike mission was cancelled on short notice, though, because of the implementation of the cease-fire between Indonesia and the Netherlands. This led to a Dutch withdrawal and temporary UN peacekeeping administration, followed by occupation and annexation through Indonesia. While the Dutch aircraft served actively during this conflict, flying patrols and demonstrating presence, visibly armed and in alert condition, no 'hot' sortie or casualty occured, even though one aircraft, 10-18, was lost in a start accident. The pilot ejected safely.

 

The MLD FJ-4Bs only served on the carrier until its overhaul in 1964, after which the carrier-borne attack role was eliminated and all aircraft were transferred to land bases (Valkenburg) or in reserve storage. The Seahawks were retired from service by the end of the 1960s after the sale of the Karel Doorman to Argentina, and the FJ-4Bs were returned to the United States, where they were re-integrated into the USMC until the end of the 1960ies, when all FJ-4 aircraft were phased out.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 36 ft 4 in (11.1 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: 13,210 lb (6,000 kg)

Loaded weight: 20,130 lb (9,200 kg)

Max. take-off weight: 23,700 lb (10,750 kg)

Powerplant: 1 × Wright J65-W-16A turbojet, 7,700 lbf (34 kN)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 680 mph (1,090 km/h) at 35,000 ft (10,670 m)

Range: 2,020 mi (3,250 km) with 2× 200 gal (760 l) drop tanks and 2× AIM-9 missiles

Service ceiling: 46,800 ft (14,300 m)

Rate of climb: 7,660 ft/min (38.9 m/s)

Wing loading: 69.9 lb/ft² (341.7 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight: .325

 

Armament:

4× 20 mm (0.787 in) cannon

6× pylons under the wings for 3,000 lb (1,400 kg) external ordnance, including up to 6× AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs, bombs and guided/unguided ASM, e .g. ASM-N-7 (AGM-12B Bullpup) missiles.

  

The kit and its assembly

Originally, this model project was inspired by a (whiffy) Dutch F3H Demon profile, designed by fellow user Darth Panda at whatifmodelers.com. I found the idea of a foreign/NATO user of one of these early carrier-borne jet fighters very inspiring – not only because of the strange design of many of these aircraft, but also since the USN and USMC had been the only real world users of many of these types.

 

Initially, I planned to convert a F3H accordingly. But with limited storage/display space at home I decided to apply the MLD idea to another smaller, but maybe even more exotic, type: the North American FJ-4B Fury, which was in 1962 recoded into AF-1E.

I like the beefy Sabre cousin very much. It’s one of those aircraft that received little attention, even from model kit manufacturers. In fact, in 1:72 scale there are only vintage vacu kits or the very basic Emhar kit available. Th Emhar kit, which I used here and which is a kind donation of a fellow modeler (Thanks a lot, André!), a rather rough thing with raised panel lines and much room for improvements. As a side note, there's also a FJ-4B from Revell, but it's just a 1996 re-issue with no improvements, whatsoever.

 

Another facet of the model: When I did legwork concerning a possible background story, I was surprised to find out that the Netherlands actually operated aircraft carriers in the 1950s, including carrier-borne, fixed-wing aircraft, even jets in the form of Hawker Sea Hawks. The real life FJ-4Bs service introduction, the naissance of NATO and the Indonesian conflict as well as the corresponding intervention of the Karel Doorman carrier all fell into a very plausible time frame – and so there’s a very good and plausible story why the MLD could actually have used the Fury fighter bomber!

 

The Emhar kit was not modified structurally, but saw some changes in detail. These include a scratch-built cockpit with side walls, side consoles and a new ejection seat, plus a Matchbox pilot figure, a new front wheel (from a Kangnam Yak-38, I believe), plus a lot of added blade aerials and a finer pitot.

The flaps were lowered, for a more lively look- Another new feature is the opened air intake, which features a central splitter - in fact a vertically placed piece of a Vicker Wellesley bomb container from Matchbox. At the rear end, the exhaust pipe was opened and lengthened internally.

 

The six weapon hardpoints were taken from the original kit, but I did not use the four Sidewinder AAMs and the rather bulky drop tanks. So, all ordnance is new: the Bullpups come from the Hasegawa air-to-ground missile set, the drop tanks are leftover pieces from a Hobby Boss F-86. They are much more 'delicate', and make the Fury look less stout and cumbersome. The guidance pod for the Bullpups (a typical FJ-4B feature with these weapons) is a WWII drop tank, shaped with the help of benchmark pictures. Certainly not perfect, but, hey - it's just a MODEL!

  

Painting and markings

I used mid-1950ies MLD Sea Furys and Sea Hawks as a design benchmark, but this Fury is placed just into the time frame around 1960 when the MLD introduced a new 3-digit code system. Before that, a code "6-XX" with the XX somewhere in the 70 region would have been appropriate, and I actually painted the fuselage sides a bit darker so as if the old code had recently been painted over.

 

Dutch MLD aircraft tended to keep their former users’ liveries, but in the FJ-4B’s case I thought that a light grey and white aircraft (USN style) with Dutch roundels would look a bit odd. So I settled for early NATO style with Extra Dark Sea Grey upper sides (Humbrol 123) and Sky from below (Testors 2049 from their Authentic Line).

 

I also went for an early design style with a low waterline - early Hawker Sea Furies were painted this way, and a high waterline would probably be more typical. But in the face of potential seriosu action, who knows...? Things tend to be toned down quickly, just remember the RN Harriers during the Falkland conflict. I'll admit that the aircraft looks a bit simple and dull now, but this IMHO just adds to the plausible look of this whif. I prefer such subtleties to garish designs.

 

The surfaces were weathered with dry-brushed lighter shades of the basic tones (mostly Humbrol 79, but also some 140 and 67, and Humbrol 90 and 166 below), including overpainted old codes in a slightly darker tone of EDSG, done with Revell 77. A light wash with black ink emphasizes edges and some details - the machine was not to look worn.

 

The interior was painted in medium grey (Humbrol 140), the landing gear is white (Humbrol 130), and some details like the air intake rim, the edges of the landing gear covers, the flaps or the tips of the wing fences were painted in bright red (Humbrol 174), for some contrast to the overall grey upper sides.

 

The MLD markings were puzzled together. The roundels come from an Xtradecal sheet for various Hawker Sea Furies, the '202' code comes, among others, from a Grumman Bearcat aftermarket sheet. The 'KON. MARINE' line is hand-made, letter by letter, from a TL Modellbau aftremarket sheet.

Most stencils and warning sign decals come from the original decal sheet, as well as from a FJ-4 Xtradecal aftermarket sheet, from F-86 kits and the scrap box. I wanted these details to provide the color to the aircraft, so that it would not look too uniform, but still without flashy decorations and like a rather utilarian military item.

 

finally, the model received a coat of semi-matt varnish (Tamiya Acryllic), since MLD aircraft had a pretty glossy finish. No dirt or soot stains were added - the Dutch kept their (few) shipborne aircraft very clean and tidy!

  

So, all in all, a simple looking aircraft, but this Dutch Fury has IMHO a certain, subtle charm - probably also because it is a rather rare and unpopular aircraft, which in itself has a certain whiffy aura.

REFLECTING vs BLURRY

 

.

At the time it is all a confusion; in retrospectall a blur. by Schlesinger, Arthur M(eier),Jr

.

“Sometimes in our confusion, we see not the world as it is, but the world though eyes blurred by the mind.” by unknown

.

“Love is like a mirror. When you love another you become his mirror and he becomes yours...And reflecting each other's love you see infinity.” by unknown

.

“A moral being is one who is capable of reflecting on his past actions and their motives - of approving of some and disapproving of others” by Charles Darwin

 

. bacio to a friend...and good night...

  

Still a capable camera today. Don't underestimate the old black crow. Yes it's limited if you know what those limits are. Expect to sharpen PP a little.

The colors are true.

It has been said it has that transparency film like IQ about it.

The 300 ED IF manual is a beast to keep steady in hand with it's shallow depth of field. This image was cropped at 100%.

So it's a bit gritty when zoomed in, it's still impressive for 4.2mp.

I paid $38.00 for this body it has the early D2h Err hiccup at first start up.

After a two or three shots it's fine not worth sending off to get fixed as you can buy another working one for way less Nikon charges for repair.

Bats are mammals of the order Chiroptera (/kaɪˈrɒptərə/; from the Greek χείρ - cheir, "hand" and πτερόν - pteron, "wing") whose forelimbs form webbed wings, making them the only mammals naturally capable of true and sustained flight. By contrast, other mammals said to fly, such as flying squirrels, gliding possums, and colugos, can only glide for short distances. Bats do not flap their entire forelimbs, as birds do, but instead flap their spread-out digits, which are very long and covered with a thin membrane or patagium.

 

Bats are the second largest order of mammals (after the rodents), representing about 20% of all classified mammal species worldwide, with about 1,240 bat species divided into two suborders: the less specialized and largely fruit-eating megabats, or flying foxes, and the highly specialized and echolocating microbats. About 70% of bat species are insectivores. Most of the rest are frugivores, or fruit eaters. A few species, such as the fish-eating bat, feed from animals other than insects, with the vampire bats being hematophagous, or feeding on blood.

 

Bats are present throughout most of the world, with the exception of extremely cold regions. They perform vital ecological roles of pollinating flowers and dispersing fruit seeds; many tropical plant species depend entirely on bats for the distribution of their seeds. Bats are economically important, as they consume insect pests, reducing the need for pesticides. The smallest bat is the Kitti's hog-nosed bat, measuring 29–34 mm in length, 15 cm across the wings and 2–2.6 g in mass. It is also arguably the smallest extant species of mammal, with the Etruscan shrew being the other contender. The largest species of bat are a few species of Pteropus (fruit bats or flying foxes) and the giant golden-crowned flying fox with a weight up to 1.6 kg and wingspan up to 1.7 m.

 

CLASSIFICATION AND EVOLUTION

Bats are mammals. In many languages, the word for "bat" is cognate with the word for "mouse": for example, chauve-souris ("bald-mouse") in French, murciélago ("blind mouse") in Spanish, saguzahar ("old mouse") in Basque, летучая мышь ("flying mouse") in Russian, slijepi miš ("blind mouse") in Bosnian, nahkhiir ("leather mouse") in Estonian, vlermuis (winged mouse) in Afrikaans, from the Dutch word vleermuis (from Middle Dutch "winged mouse"). An older English name for bats is flittermouse, which matches their name in other Germanic languages (for example German Fledermaus and Swedish fladdermus). Bats were formerly thought to have been most closely related to the flying lemurs, treeshrews, and primates, but recent molecular cladistics research indicates that they actually belong to Laurasiatheria, a diverse group also containing Carnivora and Artiodactyla.

 

The two traditionally recognized suborders of bats are:

 

- Megachiroptera (megabats)

- Microchiroptera (microbats/echolocating bats)

 

Not all megabats are larger than microbats. The major distinctions between the two suborders are:

 

- Microbats use echolocation; with the exception of the Rousettus genus, megabats do not.

- Microbats lack the claw at the second finger of the forelimb.

- The ears of microbats do not close to form a ring; the edges are separated from each other at the base of the ear.

- Microbats lack underfur; they are either naked or have guard hairs.

 

Megabats eat fruit, nectar, or pollen. Most microbats eat insects; others may feed on fruit, nectar, pollen, fish, frogs, small mammals, or the blood of animals. Megabats have well-developed visual cortices and show good visual acuity, while microbats rely on echolocation for navigation and finding prey.

 

The phylogenetic relationships of the different groups of bats have been the subject of much debate. The traditional subdivision between Megachiroptera and Microchiroptera reflects the view that these groups of bats have evolved independently of each other for a long time, from a common ancestor already capable of flight. This hypothesis recognized differences between microbats and megabats and acknowledged that flight has only evolved once in mammals. Most molecular biological evidence supports the view that bats form a single or monophyletic group.

 

Researchers have proposed alternative views of chiropteran phylogeny and classification, but more research is needed.

 

In the 1980s, a hypothesis based on morphological evidence was offered that stated the Megachiroptera evolved flight separately from the Microchiroptera. The so-called flying primates theory proposes that, when adaptations to flight are removed, the Megachiroptera are allied to primates by anatomical features not shared with Microchiroptera. One example is that the brains of megabats show a number of advanced characteristics that link them to primates. Although recent genetic studies strongly support the monophyly of bats, debate continues as to the meaning of available genetic and morphological evidence.

 

Genetic evidence indicates that megabats originated during the early Eocene and should be placed within the four major lines of microbats.

 

Consequently, two new suborders based on molecular data have been proposed. The new suborder of Yinpterochiroptera includes the Pteropodidae, or megabat family, as well as the Rhinolophidae, Hipposideridae, Craseonycteridae, Megadermatidae, and Rhinopomatidae families The other new suborder, Yangochiroptera, includes all of the remaining families of bats (all of which use laryngeal echolocation). These two new suborders are strongly supported by statistical tests. Teeling (2005) found 100% bootstrap support in all maximum likelihood analyses for the division of Chiroptera into these two modified suborders. This conclusion is further supported by a 15-base-pair deletion in BRCA1 and a seven-base-pair deletion in PLCB4 present in all Yangochiroptera and absent in all Yinpterochiroptera. Perhaps most convincingly, a phylogenomic study by Tsagkogeorga et al (2013) showed that the two new proposed suborders were supported by analyses of thousands of genes.

 

The chiropteran phylogeny based on molecular evidence is controversial because microbat paraphyly implies that one of two seemingly unlikely hypotheses occurred. The first suggests that laryngeal echolocation evolved twice in Chiroptera, once in Yangochiroptera and once in the rhinolophoids. The second proposes that laryngeal echolocation had a single origin in Chiroptera, was subsequently lost in the family Pteropodidae (all megabats), and later evolved as a system of tongue-clicking in the genus Rousettus.

 

Analyses of the sequence of the "vocalization" gene, FoxP2, were inconclusive as to whether laryngeal echolocation was secondarily lost in the pteropodids or independently gained in the echolocating lineages. However, analyses of the "hearing" gene, Prestin seemed to favor the independent gain in echolocating species rather than a secondary loss in the pteropodids.

 

In addition to Yinpterochiroptera and Yangochiroptera, the names Pteropodiformes and Vespertilioniformes have also been proposed for these suborders. Under this new proposed nomenclature, the suborder Pteropodiformes includes all extant bat families more closely related to the genus Pteropus than the genus Vespertilio, while the suborder Vespertilioniformes includes all extant bat families more closely related to the genus Vespertilio than to the genus Pteropus.

 

Little fossil evidence is available to help map the evolution of bats, since their small, delicate skeletons do not fossilize very well. However, a Late Cretaceous tooth from South America resembles that of an early microchiropteran bat. Most of the oldest known, definitely identified bat fossils were already very similar to modern microbats. These fossils, Icaronycteris, Archaeonycteris, Palaeochiropteryx and Hassianycteris, are from the early Eocene period, 52.5 million years ago. Archaeopteropus, formerly classified as the earliest known megachiropteran, is now classified as a microchiropteran.

 

Bats were formerly grouped in the superorder Archonta, along with the treeshrews (Scandentia), colugos (Dermoptera), and the primates, because of the apparent similarities between Megachiroptera and such mammals. Genetic studies have now placed bats in the superorder Laurasiatheria, along with carnivorans, pangolins, odd-toed ungulates, even-toed ungulates, and cetaceans. A recent study by Zhang et al. places Chiroptera as a sister taxon to the clade Perissodactyla (which includes horses and other odd-toed ungulates). However, the first phylogenomic analysis of bats shows that they are not sisters to Perissodactyla, instead they are sisters to a larger group that includes ungulates and carnivores.

 

Megabats primarily eat fruit or nectar. In New Guinea, they are likely to have evolved for some time in the absence of microbats, which has resulted in some smaller megabats of the genus Nyctimene becoming (partly) insectivorous to fill the vacant microbat ecological niche. Furthermore, some evidence indicates that the fruit bat genus Pteralopex from the Solomon Islands, and its close relative Mirimiri from Fiji, have evolved to fill some niches that were open because there are no nonvolant or nonflying mammals on those islands.

 

FOSSIL BATS

Fossilized remains of bats are few, as they are terrestrial and light-boned. Only an estimated 12% of the bat fossil record is complete at the genus level. Fossil remains of an Eocene bat, Icaronycteris, were found in 1960. Another Eocene bat, Onychonycteris finneyi, was found in the 52-million-year-old Green River Formation in Wyoming, United States, in 2003. This intermediate fossil has helped to resolve a long-standing disagreement regarding whether flight or echolocation developed first in bats. The shape of the rib cage, faceted infraspious fossa of the scapula, manus morphology, robust clavicle, and keeled sternum all indicated Onychonycteris was capable of powered flight. However, the well-preserved skeleton showed that the small cochlea of the inner ear did not have the morphology necessary to echolocate. O. finneyi lacked an enlarged orbical apophysis on the malleus, and a stylohyal element with an expanded paddle-like cranial tip - both of which are characteristics linked to echolocation in other prehistoric and extant bat species. Because of these absences, and the presence of characteristics necessary for flight, Onychonycteris provides strong support for the “flight first” hypothesis in the evolution of flight and echolocation in bats.

 

The appearance and flight movement of bats 52.5 million years ago were different from those of bats today. Onychonycteris had claws on all five of its fingers, whereas modern bats have at most two claws appearing on two digits of each hand. It also had longer hind legs and shorter forearms, similar to climbing mammals that hang under branches such as sloths and gibbons. This palm-sized bat had short, broad wings, suggesting it could not fly as fast or as far as later bat species. Instead of flapping its wings continuously while flying, Onychonycteris likely alternated between flaps and glides while in the air. Such physical characteristics suggest that this bat did not fly as much as modern bats do, rather flying from tree to tree and spending most of its waking day climbing or hanging on the branches of trees. The distinctive features noted on the Onychonycteris fossil also support the claim that mammalian flight most likely evolved in arboreal gliders, rather than terrestrial runners. This model of flight development, commonly known as the "trees-down" theory, implies that bats attained powered flight by taking advantage of height and gravity, rather than relying on running speeds fast enough for a ground-level take off.

 

The mid-Eocene genus Necromantis is one of the earliest examples of bats specialised to hunt vertebrate prey, as well as one of the largest bats of its epoch.

 

HABITATS

Flight has enabled bats to become one of the most widely distributed groups of mammals. Apart from the Arctic, the Antarctic and a few isolated oceanic islands, bats exist all over the world. Bats are found in almost every habitat available on Earth. Different species select different habitats during different seasons, ranging from seasides to mountains and even deserts, but bat habitats have two basic requirements: roosts, where they spend the day or hibernate, and places for foraging. Most temperate species additionally need a relatively warm hibernation shelter. Bat roosts can be found in hollows, crevices, foliage, and even human-made structures, and include "tents" the bats construct by biting leaves.

 

The United States is home to an estimated 45 to 48 species of bats. The three most common species are Myotis lucifugus (little brown bat), Eptesicus fuscus (big brown bat), and Tadarida brasiliensis (Mexican free-tailed bat). The little and the big brown bats are common throughout the northern two-thirds of the country, while the Mexican free-tailed bat is the most common species in the southwest, sometimes even appearing in portions of the Southeast.

 

ANATOMY

WINGS

The finger bones of bats are much more flexible than those of other mammals, owing to their flattened cross-section and to low levels of minerals, such as calcium, near their tips. In 2006, Sears et al. published a study that traces the elongation of manual bat digits, a key feature required for wing development, to the upregulation of bone morphogenetic proteins (Bmps). During embryonic development, the gene controlling Bmp signaling, Bmp2, is subjected to increased expression in bat forelimbs - resulting in the extension of the offspring's manual digits. This crucial genetic alteration helps create the specialized limbs required for volant locomotion. Sears et al. (2006) also studied the relative proportion of bat forelimb digits from several extant species and compared these with a fossil of Lcaronycteris index, an early extinct species from approximately 50 million years ago. The study found no significant differences in relative digit proportion, suggesting that bat wing morphology has been conserved for over 50 million years.The wings of bats are much thinner and consist of more bones than the wings of birds, allowing bats to maneuver more accurately than the latter, and fly with more lift and less drag. By folding the wings in toward their bodies on the upstroke, they save 35 percent energy during flight. The membranes are also delicate, ripping easily; however, the tissue of the bat's membrane is able to regrow, such that small tears can heal quickly. The surface of their wings is equipped with touch-sensitive receptors on small bumps called Merkel cells, also found on human fingertips. These sensitive areas are different in bats, as each bump has a tiny hair in the center, making it even more sensitive and allowing the bat to detect and collect information about the air flowing over its wings, and to fly more efficiently by changing the shape of its wings in response. An additional kind of receptor cell is found in the wing membrane of species that use their wings to catch prey. This receptor cell is sensitive to the stretching of the membrane. The cells are concentrated in areas of the membrane where insects hit the wings when the bats capture them.

 

OTHER

The teeth of microbats resemble insectivorans. They are very sharp to bite through the hardened armor of insects or the skin of fruit.

 

Mammals have one-way valves in their veins to prevent the blood from flowing backwards, but bats also have one-way valves in their arteries.

 

The tube-lipped nectar bat (Anoura fistulata) has the longest tongue of any mammal relative to its body size. This is beneficial to them in terms of pollination and feeding. Their long, narrow tongues can reach deep into the long cup shape of some flowers. When the tongue retracts, it coils up inside its rib cage.

 

Bats possess highly adapted lung systems to cope with the pressures of powered-flight. Flight is an energetically taxing aerobic activity and requires large amounts of oxygen to be sustained. In bats, the relative alveolar surface area and pulmonary capillary blood volume are significantly larger than most other small quadrupedal mammals.

 

ECHOLOCATION

Bat echolocation is a perceptual system where ultrasonic sounds are emitted specifically to produce echoes. By comparing the outgoing pulse with the returning echoes, the brain and auditory nervous system can produce detailed images of the bat's surroundings. This allows bats to detect, localize, and even classify their prey in complete darkness. At 130 decibels in intensity, bat calls are some of the most intense, airborne animal sounds.

 

To clearly distinguish returning information, bats must be able to separate their calls from the echoes that they receive. Microbats use two distinct approaches.

 

Low duty cycle echolocation: Bats can separate their calls and returning echoes by time. Bats that use this approach time their short calls to finish before echoes return. This is important because these bats contract their middle ear muscles when emitting a call, so they can avoid deafening themselves. The time interval between the call and echo allows them to relax these muscles, so they can clearly hear the returning echo. The delay of the returning echoes provides the bat with the ability to estimate the range to their prey.

 

High duty cycle echolocation: Bats emit a continuous call and separate pulse and echo in frequency. The ears of these bats are sharply tuned to a specific frequency range. They emit calls outside of this range to avoid self-deafening. They then receive echoes back at the finely tuned frequency range by taking advantage of the Doppler shift of their motion in flight. The Doppler shift of the returning echoes yields information relating to the motion and location of the bat's prey. These bats must deal with changes in the Doppler shift due to changes in their flight speed. They have adapted to change their pulse emission frequency in relation to their flight speed so echoes still return in the optimal hearing range.

 

The new Yinpterochiroptera and Yangochiroptera classification of bats, supported by molecular evidence, suggests two possibilities for the evolution of echolocation. It may have been gained once in a common ancestor of all bats and was then subsequently lost in the Old World fruit bats, only to be regained in the horseshoe bats, or echolocation evolved independently in both the Yinpterochiroptera and Yangochiroptera lineages.

 

Two groups of moths exploit a bat sense to echolocate: tiger moths produce ultrasonic signals to warn the bats that they (the moths) are chemically protected or aposematic, other moth species produce signals to jam bat echolocation. Many moth species have a hearing organ called a tympanum, which responds to an incoming bat signal by causing the moth's flight muscles to twitch erratically, sending the moth into random evasive maneuvers.

 

In addition to echolocating prey, bat ears are sensitive to the fluttering of moth wings, the sounds produced by tymbalate insects, and the movement of ground-dwelling prey, such as centipedes, earwigs, etc. The complex geometry of ridges on the inner surface of bat ears helps to sharply focus not only echolocation signals, but also to passively listen for any other sound produced by the prey. These ridges can be regarded as the acoustic equivalent of a Fresnel lens, and may be seen in a large variety of unrelated animals, such as the aye-aye, lesser galago, bat-eared fox, mouse lemur, and others.

 

By repeated scanning, bats can mentally construct an accurate image of the environment in which they are moving and of their prey item.

 

OTHER SENSES

Although the eyes of most microbat species are small and poorly developed, leading to poor visual acuity, no species is blind. Microbats use vision to navigate, especially for long distances when beyond the range of echolocation, and species that are gleaners - that is, ones that attempt to swoop down from above to ambush tasty insects like crickets on the ground or moths up a tree - often have eyesight about as good as a rat's. Some species have been shown to be able to detect ultraviolet light, and most cave dwelling species have developed the ability to utilize very dim light. They also have high-quality senses of smell and hearing. Bats hunt at night, reducing competition with birds, minimizing contact with certain predators, and travel large distances (up to 800 km) in their search for food. Megabat species often have excellent eyesight as good as, if not better than, human vision; they need this for the warm climates they live in and the very social world they occupy, where relations and friends need to be distinguished from other bats in the colony. This eyesight is, unlike its microbat relations, adapted to both night and daylight vision and enables the bat to have some colour vision whereas the microbat sees in blurred shades of grey.

 

BEHAVIOUR

Most microbats are nocturnal and are active at twilight. A large portion of bats migrate hundreds of kilometres to winter hibernation dens, while some pass into torpor in cold weather, rousing and feeding when warm weather allows for insects to be active. Others retreat to caves for winter and hibernate for six months. Bats rarely fly in rain, as the rain interferes with their echolocation, and they are unable to locate their food.

 

The social structure of bats varies, with some leading solitary lives and others living in caves colonized by more than a million bats. The fission-fusion social structure is seen among several species of bats. The term "fusion" refers to a large numbers of bats that congregate in one roosting area, and "fission" refers to breaking up and the mixing of subgroups, with individual bats switching roosts with others and often ending up in different trees and with different roostmates.

 

Studies also show that bats make all kinds of sounds to communicate with others. Scientists in the field have listened to bats and have been able to associate certain sounds with certain behaviours that bats make after the sounds are made.

 

Insectivores make up 70% of bat species and locate their prey by means of echolocation. Of the remainder, most feed on fruits. Only three species sustain themselves with blood.

 

Some species even prey on vertebrates. The leaf-nosed bats (Phyllostomidae) of Central America and South America, and the two bulldog bat (Noctilionidae) species feed on fish. At least two species of bat are known to feed on other bats: the spectral bat, also known as the American false vampire bat, and the ghost bat of Australia. One species, the greater noctule bat, catches and eats small birds in the air.

 

Predators of bats include bat hawks, bat falcons and even spiders.

 

REPRODUCTION

Most bats have a breeding season, which is in the spring for species living in a temperate climate. Bats may have one to three litters in a season, depending on the species and on environmental conditions, such as the availability of food and roost sites. Females generally have one offspring at a time, which could be a result of the mother's need to fly to feed while pregnant. Female bats nurse their young until they are nearly adult size, because a young bat cannot forage on its own until its wings are fully developed.

 

Female bats use a variety of strategies to control the timing of pregnancy and the birth of young, to make delivery coincide with maximum food ability and other ecological factors. Females of some species have delayed fertilization, in which sperm is stored in the reproductive tract for several months after mating. In many such cases, mating occurs in the fall, and fertilization does not occur until the following spring. Other species exhibit delayed implantation, in which the egg is fertilized after mating, but remains free in the reproductive tract until external conditions become favorable for giving birth and caring for the offspring.

 

In yet another strategy, fertilization and implantation both occur, but development of the fetus is delayed until favorable conditions prevail, during the delayed development the mother still gives the fertilized egg nutrients, and oxygenated blood to keep it alive. However, this process can go for a long period of time, because of the advanced gas exchange system. All of these adaptations result in the pup being born during a time of high local production of fruit or insects.

 

At birth, the wings are too small to be used for flight. Young microbats become independent at the age of six to eight weeks, while megabats do not until they are four months old.

 

LIFE EXPECTANCY

A single bat can live over 20 years, but bat population growth is limited by the slow birth rate.

 

HUNTING, FEEDING AND DRINKING

Newborn bats rely on the milk from their mothers. When they are a few weeks old, bats are expected to fly and hunt on their own. It is up to them to find and catch their prey, along with satisfying their thirst.

 

HUNTING

Most bats are nocturnal creatures. Their daylight hours are spent grooming and sleeping; they hunt during the night. The means by which bats navigate while finding and catching their prey in the dark was unknown until the 1790s, when Lazzaro Spallanzani conducted a series of experiments on a group of blind bats. These bats were placed in a room in total darkness, with silk threads strung across the room. Even then, the bats were able to navigate their way through the room. Spallanzani concluded the bats were not using their eyes to fly through complete darkness, but something else.

 

Spallanzani decided the bats were able to catch and find their prey through the use of their ears. To prove this theory, Spallanzani plugged the ears of the bats in his experiment. To his pleasure, he found that the bats with plugged ears were not able to fly with the same amount of skill and precision as they were able to without their ears plugged. Unfortunately for Spallanzani, the twin concepts of sound waves and acoustics would not be understood for another century and he could not explain why specifically the bats were crashing into walls and the threads that he'd strung up around the room, and because of the methodology Spallanzani used, many of his test subjects died.

 

It was thus well known through the nineteenth century that the chiropteran ability to navigate had something to do with hearing, but how they accomplish this was not proven conclusively until the 1930s, by Donald R. Griffin, a biology student at Harvard University. Using a locally native species, the little brown bat, he discovered that bats use echolocation to locate and catch their prey. When bats fly, they produce a constant stream of high-pitched sounds. When the sound waves produced by these sounds hit an insect or other animal, the echoes bounce back to the bat, and guide them to the source.

 

FEEDING AND DIET

The majority of food consumed by bats includes insects, fruits and flower nectar, vertebrates and blood. Almost three-fourths of the world's bats are insect eaters. Bats consume both aerial and ground-dwelling insects. Each bat is typically able to consume one-third of its body weight in insects each night, and several hundred insects in a few hours. This means that a group of a thousand bats could eat four tons of insects each year. If bats were to become extinct, it has been calculated that the insect population would reach an alarmingly high number.

 

VITAMIN C

In a test of 34 bat species from six major families of bats, including major insect- and fruit-eating bat families, all were found to have lost the ability to synthesize vitamin C, and this loss may derive from a common bat ancestor, as a single mutation. However, recent results show that there are at least two species of bat, the frugivorous bat (Rousettus leschenaultii) and insectivorous bat (Hipposideros armiger), that have retained their ability to produce vitamin C. In fact, the whole Chiroptera are in the process of losing the ability to synthesize Vc which most of them have already lost.

 

AERIAL INSECTIVORES

Watching a bat catch and eat an insect is difficult. The action is so fast that all one sees is a bat rapidly change directions, and continue on its way. Scientist Frederick A. Webster discovered how bats catch their prey. In 1960, Webster developed a high-speed camera that was able to take one thousand pictures per second. These photos revealed the fast and precise way in which bats catch insects. Occasionally, a bat will catch an insect in mid-air with its mouth, and eat it in the air. However, more often than not, a bat will use its tail membrane or wings to scoop up the insect and trap it in a sort of "bug net". Then, the bat will take the insect back to its roost. There, the bat will proceed to eat said insect, often using its tail membrane as a kind of napkin, to prevent its meal from falling to the ground. One common insect prey is Helicoverpa zea, a moth that causes major agricultural damage.

 

FORAGE GLEANERS

These bats typically fly down and grasp their prey off the ground with their teeth, and take it to a nearby perch to eat it. Generally, these bats do not use echolocation to locate their prey. Instead, they rely on the sounds produced by the insects. Some make unique sounds, and almost all make some noise while moving through the environment.

 

FRUITS AND FLOWER NECTAR

Fruit eating, or frugivory, is a specific habit found in two families of bats. Megachiropterans and microchiropterans both include species of bat that feed on fruits. These bats feed on the juices of sweet fruits, and fulfill the needs of some seeds to be dispersed. The fruits preferred by most fruit-eating bats are fleshy and sweet, but not particularly strong smelling or colorful. To get the juice of these fruits, bats pull the fruit off the trees with their teeth, and fly back to their roosts with the fruit in their mouths. There, the bats will consume the fruit in a specific way. To do this, the bats crush open the fruit and eat the parts that satisfy their hunger. The remainder of the fruit, the seeds and pulp, are spat onto the ground. These seeds take root and begin to grow into new fruit trees. Over 150 types of plants depend on bats in order to reproduce.Some bats prefer the nectar of flowers to insects or other animals. These bats have evolved specifically for this purpose. For example, these bats possess long muzzles and long, extensible tongues covered in fine bristles that aid them in feeding on particular flowers and plants.[68] When they sip the nectar from these flowers, pollen gets stuck to their fur, and is dusted off when the bats take flight, thus pollinating the plants below them. The rainforest is said to be the most benefitted of all the biomes where bats live, because of the large variety of appealing plants. Because of their specific eating habits, nectar-feeding bats are more prone to extinction than any other type of bat. However, bats benefit from eating fruits and nectar just as much as from eating insects.

 

VERTEBRATES

A small group of carnivorous bats feed on other vertebrates and are considered the top carnivores of the bat world. These bats typically eat a variety of animals, but normally consume frogs, lizards, birds, and sometimes other bats. For example, one vertebrate predator, Trachops cirrhosus, is particularly skilled at catching frogs. These bats locate large groups of frogs by distinguishing their mating calls from other sounds around them. They follow the sounds to the source and pluck them from the surface of the water with their sharp canine teeth. Another example is the greater noctule bat, which is believed to catch birds on the wing.

 

Also, several species of bat feed on fish. These types of bats are found on almost all continents. They use echolocation to detect tiny ripples in the water's surface to locate fish. From there, the bats swoop down low, inches from the water, and use specially enlarged claws on their hind feet to grab the fish out of the water. The bats then take the fish to a feeding roost and consume the animal.

 

BLOOD

A few species of bats exclusively consume blood as their diet. This type of diet is referred to as hematophagy, and three species of bats exhibit this behavior. These species are the common, the white-winged, and the hairy-legged vampire bats. The common vampire bat typically consumes the blood of mammals, while the hairy-legged and white-winged vampires feed on the blood of birds. These species live only in Mexico, Central, and South America, with a presence also on the Island of Trinidad.

 

DEFECATION

Bat dung, or guano, is so rich in nutrients that it is mined from caves, bagged, and used by farmers to fertilize their crops. During the U.S. Civil War, guano was used to make gunpowder.

 

To survive hibernation months, some species build up large reserves of body fat, both as fuel and as insulation.

 

DRINKING

In 1960, Frederic A. Webster discovered bats' method of drinking water using a high-speed camera and flashgun that could take 1,000 photos per second. Webster's camera captured a bat skimming the surface of a body of water, and lowering its jaw to get just one drop of water. It then skimmed again to get a second drop of water, and so on, until it has had its fill. A bat's precision and control during flight is very fine, and it almost never misses. Other bats, such as the flying fox or fruit bat, gently skim the water's surface, then land nearby to lick water from chest fur.

 

WIKIPEDIA

The Tie/hnt Hornet is a tie fighter model manufactured by Sienar-Jaemus Fleet System and was used by the First Order. It is an advanced model capable of ground attack, and space combat. It is well equipped with a hyperdrive capabilities , and was armed with heavy heat seeking missiles, and 2 Ion Cannons. The Elite Special Forces used those Tie Hornets.

I am capable of posting something other than Norway...

 

This is the Philadelphia instantiation of The Thinker. On a related note, the art scene in Philadelphia is fantastic. If you've never been, there is much to see, including the wonderful Art Museum(s).

 

More Norway coming up.... ;)

 

Thanks for looking!

 

_________________________________________________

Comments and constructive criticism always appreciated.

Stream on Black....Follow on Facebook....My Profile (to get to webpage)

+++ 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 CAC Sabre, sometimes known as the Avon Sabre or CA-27, was an Australian variant of the North American Aviation F-86F Sabre fighter aircraft. In 1951, Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation obtained a license agreement to build the F-86F Sabre. In a major departure from the North American blueprint, it was decided that the CA-27 would be powered by a license-built version of the Rolls-Royce Avon R.A.7, rather than the General Electric J47. In theory, the Avon was capable of more than double the maximum thrust and double the thrust-to-weight ratio of the US engine. This necessitated a re-design of the fuselage, as the Avon was shorter, wider and lighter than the J47.

 

To accommodate the Avon, over 60 percent of the fuselage was altered and there was a 25 percent increase in the size of the air intake. Another major revision was in replacing the F-86F's six machine guns with two 30mm ADEN cannon, while other changes were also made to the cockpit and to provide an increased fuel capacity.

 

The prototype aircraft first flew on 3 August 1953. The production aircrafts' first deliveries to the Royal Australian Air Force began in 1954. The first batch of aircraft were powered by the Avon 20 engine and were designated the Sabre Mk 30. Between 1957 and 1958 this batch had the wing slats removed and were re-designated Sabre Mk 31. These Sabres were supplemented by 20 new-built aircraft. The last batch of aircraft were designated Sabre Mk 32 and used the Avon 26 engine, of which 69 were built up to 1961.

 

Beyond these land-based versions, an indigenous version for carrier operations had been developed and built in small numbers, too, the Sea Sabre Mk 40 and 41. The roots of this aircraft, which was rather a prestigious idea than a sensible project, could be traced back to the immediate post WWII era. A review by the Australian Government's Defence Committee recommended that the post-war forces of the RAN be structured around a Task Force incorporating multiple aircraft carriers. Initial plans were for three carriers, with two active and a third in reserve, although funding cuts led to the purchase of only two carriers in June 1947: Majestic and sister ship HMS Terrible, for the combined cost of AU£2.75 million, plus stores, fuel, and ammunition. As Terrible was the closer of the two ships to completion, she was finished without modification, and was commissioned into the RAN on 16 December 1948 as HMAS Sydney. Work progressed on Majestic at a slower rate, as she was upgraded with the latest technology and equipment. To cover Majestic's absence, the Colossus-class carrier HMS Vengeance was loaned to the RAN from 13 November 1952 until 12 August 1955.

 

Labour difficulties, late delivery of equipment, additional requirements for Australian operations, and the prioritization of merchant ships over naval construction delayed the completion of Majestic. Incorporation of new systems and enhancements caused the cost of the RAN carrier acquisition program to increase to AU£8.3 million. Construction and fitting out did not finish until October 1955. As the carrier neared completion, a commissioning crew was formed in Australia and first used to return Vengeance to the United Kingdom.

The completed carrier was commissioned into the RAN as HMAS Majestic on 26 October 1955, but only two days later, the ship was renamed Melbourne and recommissioned.

 

In the meantime, the rather political decision had been made to equip Melbourne with an indigenous jet-powered aircraft, replacing the piston-driven Hawker Fury that had been successfully operated from HMAS Sydney and HMAS Vengeance, so that the "new jet age" was even more recognizable. The choice fell on the CAC Sabre, certainly inspired by North American's successful contemporary development of the navalized FJ-2 Fury from the land-based F-86 Sabre. The CAC 27 was already a proven design, and with its more powerful Avon engine it even offered a better suitability for carrier operations than the FJ-2 with its rather weak J47 engine.

 

Work on this project, which was initially simply designated Sabre Mk 40, started in 1954, just when the first CAC 27's were delivered to operative RAAF units. While the navalized Avon Sabre differed outwardly only little from its land-based brethren, many details were changed and locally developed. Therefore, there was also, beyond the general outlines, little in common with the North American FJ-2 an -3 Fury.

Externally, a completely new wing with a folding mechanism was fitted. It was based on the F-86's so-called "6-3" wing, with a leading edge that was extended 6 inches at the root and 3 inches at the tip. This modification enhanced maneuverability at the expense of a small increase in landing speed due to deletion of the leading edge slats, a detail that was later introduced on the Sabre Mk 31, too. As a side benefit, the new wing leading edges without the slat mechanisms held extra fuel. However, the Mk 40's wing was different as camber was applied to the underside of the leading edge to improve low-speed handling for carrier operations. The wings were provided with four stations outboard of the landing gear wells for up to 1000 lb external loads on the inboard stations and 500 lb on the outboard stations.

 

Slightly larger stabilizers were fitted and the landing gear was strengthened, including a longer front wheel strut. The latter necessitated an enlarged front wheel well, so that the front leg’s attachment point had to be moved forward. A ventral launch cable hook was added under the wing roots and an external massive arrester hook under the rear fuselage.

Internally, systems were protected against salt and humidity and a Rolls-Royce Avon 211 turbojet was fitted, a downrated variant of the already navalized Avon 208 from the British DH Sea Vixen, but adapted to the different CAC 27 airframe and delivering 8.000 lbf (35.5 kN) thrust – slightly more than the engines of the land-based CAC Sabres, but also without an afterburner.

 

A single Mk 40 prototype was built from a new CAC 27 airframe taken directly from the production line in early 1955 and made its maiden flight on August 20th of the same year. In order to reflect its naval nature and its ancestry, this new CAC 27 variant was officially christened “Sea Sabre”.

Even though the modified machine handled well, and the new, cambered wing proved to be effective, many minor technical flaws were discovered and delayed the aircraft's development until 1957. These included the wing folding mechanism and the respective fuel plumbing connections, the landing gear, which had to be beefed up even more for hard carrier landings and the airframe’s structural strength for catapult launches, esp. around the ventral launch hook.

 

In the meantime, work on the land-based CAC 27 progressed in parallel, too, and innovations that led to the Mk 31 and 32 were also incorporated into the naval Mk 40, leading to the Sea Sabre Mk 41, which became the effective production aircraft. These updates included, among others, a detachable (but fixed) refueling probe under the starboard wing, two more pylons for light loads located under the wing roots and the capability to carry and deploy IR-guided AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, what significantly increased the Mk 41's efficiency as day fighter. With all these constant changes it took until April 1958 that the Sabre Mk 41, after a second prototype had been directly built to the new standard, was finally approved and cleared for production. Upon delivery, the RAN Sea Sabres carried a standard NATO paint scheme with Extra Dark Sea Grey upper surfaces and Sky undersides.

 

In the meantime, the political enthusiasm concerning the Australian carrier fleet had waned, so that only twenty-two aircraft were ordered. The reason behind this decision was that Australia’s carrier fleet and its capacity had become severely reduced: Following the first decommissioning of HMAS Sydney in 1958, Melbourne became the only aircraft carrier in Australian service, and she was unavailable to provide air cover for the RAN for up to four months in every year; this time was required for refits, refueling, personnel leave, and non-carrier duties, such as the transportation of troops or aircraft. Although one of the largest ships to serve in the RAN, Melbourne was one of the smallest carriers to operate in the post-World War II period, so that its contribution to military actions was rather limited. To make matters worse, a decision was made in 1959 to restrict Melbourne's role to helicopter operations only, rendering any carrier-based aircraft in Australian service obsolete. However, this decision was reversed shortly before its planned 1963 implementation, but Australia’s fleet of carrier-borne fixed-wing aircraft would not grow to proportions envisioned 10 years ago.

 

Nevertheless, on 10 November 1964, an AU£212 million increase in defense spending included the purchase of new aircraft for Melbourne. The RAN planned to acquire 14 Grumman S-2E Tracker anti-submarine aircraft and to modernize Melbourne to operate these. The acquisition of 18 new fighter-bombers was suggested (either Sea Sabre Mk 41s or the American Douglas A-4 Skyhawk), too, but these were dropped from the initial plan. A separate proposal to order 10 A-4G Skyhawks, a variant of the Skyhawk designed specifically for the RAN and optimized for air defense, was approved in 1965, but the new aircraft did not fly from Melbourne until the conclusion of her refit in 1969. This move, however, precluded the production of any new and further Sea Sabre.

 

At that time, the RAN Sea Sabres received a new livery in US Navy style, with upper surfaces in Light Gull Gray with white undersides. The CAC Sea Sabres remained the main day fighter and attack aircraft for the RAN, after the vintage Sea Furies had been retired in 1962. The other contemporary RAN fighter type in service, the Sea Venom FAW.53 all-weather fighter that had replaced the Furies, already showed its obsolescence.

In 1969, the RAN purchased another ten A-4G Skyhawks, primarily in order to replace the Sea Venoms on the carriers, instead of the proposed seventh and eighth Oberon-class submarines. These were operated together with the Sea Sabres in mixed units on board of Melbourne and from land bases, e.g. from NAS Nowra in New South Wales, where a number of Sea Sabres were also allocated to 724 Squadron for operational training.

 

Around 1970, Melbourne operated a standard air group of four jet aircraft, six Trackers, and ten Wessex helicopters until 1972, when the Wessexes were replaced with ten Westland Sea King anti-submarine warfare helicopters and the number of jet fighters doubled. Even though the A-4G’s more and more took over the operational duties on board of Melbourne, the Sea Sabres were still frequently deployed on the carrier, too, until the early Eighties, when both the Skyhawks and the Sea Sabres received once more a new camouflage, this time a wraparound scheme in two shades of grey, reflecting their primary airspace defense mission.

 

The CAC 27 Mk 41s’ last carrier operations took place in 1981 in the course of Melbourne’s involvements in two major exercises, Sea Hawk and Kangaroo 81, the ship’s final missions at sea. After Melbourne was decommissioned in 1984, the Fleet Air Arm ceased fixed-wing combat aircraft operation. This was the operational end of the Sabre Mk 41, which had reached the end of their airframe lifetime, and the Sea Sabre fleet had, during its career, severely suffered from accidents and losses: upon retirement, only eight of the original twenty-two aircraft still existed in flightworthy condition, so that the aircraft were all scrapped. The younger RAN A-4Gs were eventually sold to New Zealand, where they were kept in service until 2002.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 37 ft 6 in (11.43 m)

Wingspan: 37 ft 1 in (11.3 m)

Height: 14 ft 5 in (4.39 m)

Wing area: 302.3 sq ft (28.1 m²)

Empty weight: 12,000 lb (5,443 kg)

Loaded weight: 16,000 lb (7,256 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 21,210 lb (9,621 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Rolls-Royce Avon 208A turbojet engine with 8,200 lbf (36.44 kN)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 700 mph (1,100 km/h) (605 knots)

Range: 1,153 mi, (1,000 NM, 1,850 km)

Service ceiling: 52,000 ft (15,850 m)

Rate of climb: 12,000 ft/min at sea level (61 m/s)

 

Armament:

2× 30 mm ADEN cannons with 150 rounds per gun

5,300 lb (2,400 kg) of payload on six external hardpoints;

Bombs were usually mounted on outer two pylons as the mid pair were wet-plumbed pylons for

2× 200 gallons drop tanks, while the inner pair was usually occupied by a pair of AIM-9 Sidewinder

AAMs

A wide variety of bombs could be carried with maximum standard loadout being 2x 1,000 lb bombs

or 2x Matra pods with unguided SURA missiles plus 2 drop tanks for ground attacks, or 2x AIM-9 plus

two drop tanks as day fighter

  

The kit and its assembly:

This project was initially inspired by a set of decals from an ESCI A-4G which I had bought in a lot – I wondered if I could use it for a submission to the “In the navy” group build at whatifmodelers.com in early 2020. I considered an FJ-3M in Australian colors on this basis and had stashed away a Sword kit of that aircraft for this purpose. However, I had already built an FJ variant for the GB (a kitbashed mix of an F-86D and an FJ-4B in USMC colors), and was reluctant to add another Fury.

 

This spontaneously changed after (thanks to Corona virus quarantine…) I cleaned up one of my kit hoards and found a conversion set for a 1:72 CAC 27 from JAYS Model Kits which I had bought eons ago without a concrete plan. That was the eventual trigger to spin the RAN Fury idea further – why not a navalized version of the Avon Sabre for HMAS Melbourne?

 

The result is either another kitbash or a highly modified FJ-3M from Sword. The JAYS Model Kits set comes with a THICK sprue that carries two fuselage halves and an air intake, and it also offers a vacu canopy as a thin fallback option because the set is actually intended to be used together with a Hobby Craft F-86F.

 

While the parts, molded in a somewhat waxy and brittle styrene, look crude on the massive sprue, the fuselage halves come with very fine recessed engravings. And once you have cleaned the parts (NOTHING for people faint at heart, a mini drill with a saw blade is highly recommended), their fit is surprisingly good. The air intake was so exact that no putty was needed to blend it with the rest of the fuselage.

 

The rest came from the Sword kit and integrating the parts into the CAC 27 fuselage went more smoothly than expected. For instance, the FJ-3M comes with a nice cockpit tub that also holds a full air intake duct. Thanks to the slightly wider fuselage of the CAC 27, it could be mounted into the new fuselage halves without problems and the intake duct almost perfectly matches the intake frame from the conversion set. The tailpipe could be easily integrated without any mods, too. The fins had to be glued directly to the fuselage – but this is the way how the Sword kit is actually constructed! Even the FJ-3M’s wings match the different fuselage perfectly. The only modifications I had to make is a slight enlargement of the ventral wing opening at the front and at the read in order to take the deeper wing element from the Sword kit, but that was an easy task. Once in place, the parts blend almost perfectly into each other, just minor PSR was necessary to hide the seams!

 

Other mods include an extended front wheel well for the longer leg from the FJ-3M and a scratched arrester hook installation, made from wire, which is on purpose different from the Y-shaped hook of the Furies.

 

For the canopy I relied on the vacu piece that came with the JAYS set. Fitting it was not easy, though, it took some PSR to blend the windscreen into the rest of the fuselage. Not perfect, but O.K. for such a solution from a conversion set.

 

The underwing pylons were taken from the Sword kit, including the early Sidewinders. I just replaced the drop tanks – the OOB tanks are very wide, and even though they might be authentic for the FJ-3, I was skeptical if they fit at all under the wings with the landing gear extended? In order to avoid trouble and for a more modern look, I replaced them outright with more slender tanks, which were to mimic A-4 tanks (USN FJ-4s frequently carried Skyhawk tanks). They actually come from a Revell F-16 kit, with modified fins. The refueling probe comes from the Sword kit.

 

A last word about the Sword kit: much light, but also much shadow. While I appreciate the fine surface engravings, the recognizably cambered wings, a detailed cockpit with a two-piece resin seat and a pretty landing gear as well as the long air intake, I wonder why the creators totally failed to provide ANY detail of the arrester hook (there is literally nothing, as if this was a land-based Sabre variant!?) or went for doubtful solutions like a front landing gear that consists of five(!) single, tiny parts? Sadism? The resin seat was also broken (despite being packed in a seperate bag), and it did not fit into the cockpit tub at all. Meh!

  

Painting and markings:

From the start I planned to give the model the late RAN A-4Gs’ unique air superiority paint scheme, which was AFAIK introduced in the late Seventies: a two-tone wraparound scheme consisting of “Light Admiralty Grey” (BS381C 697) and “Aircraft Grey” (BS 381C 693). Quite simple, but finding suitable paints was not an easy task, and I based my choice on pictures of the real aircraft (esp. from "buzz" number 880 at the Fleet Air Arm Museum, you find pics of it with very good light condition) rather than rely on (pretty doubtful if not contradictive) recommendations in various painting instructions from models or decal sets.

 

I wanted to keep things simple and settled upon Dark Gull Grey (FS 36231) and Light Blue (FS 35414), both enamel colors from Modelmaster, since both are rather dull interpretations of these tones. Esp. the Light Blue comes quite close to Light Admiralty Grey, even though it should be lighter for more contrast to the darker grey tone. But it has that subtle greenish touch of the original BS tone, and I did not want to mix the colors.

 

The pattern was adapted from the late A-4Gs’ scheme, and the colors were dulled down even more through a light black ink wash. Some post-shading with lighter tones emphasized the contrast between the two colors again. And while it is not an exact representation of the unique RAN air superiority scheme, I think that the overall impression is there.

 

The cockpit interior was painted in very dark grey, while the landing gear, its wells and the inside of the air intake became white. A red rim was painted around the front opening, and the landing gear covers received a red outline, too. The white drop tanks are a detail I took from real world RAN A-4Gs - in the early days of the air superiority scheme, the tanks were frequently still finished in the old USN style livery, hence the white body but fins and tail section already in the updated colors.

 

The decals became a fight, though. As mentioned above, the came from an ESCI kit – and, as expected, the were brittle. All decals with a clear carrier film disintegrated while soaking in water, only those with a fully printed carrier film were more or less usable. One roundel broke and had to be repaired, and the checkered fin flash was a very delicate affair that broke several times, even though I tried to save and repair it with paint. But you can unfortunately see the damage.

 

Most stencils and some replacements (e. g. the “Navy” tag) come from the Sword FJ-3. While these decals are crisply printed, their carrier film is utterly thin, so thin that applying esp. the larger decals turned out to be hazardous and complicated. Another point that did not really convince me about the Sword kit.

 

Finally, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and some soot stains were added around the exhaust and the gun ports with graphite.

  

In the end, this build looks, despite the troubles and the rather exotic ingredients like a relatively simple Sabre with Australian markings, just with a different Navy livery. You neither immediately recognize the FJ-3 behind it, nor the Avon Sabre’s bigger fuselage, unless you take a close and probably educated look. Very subtle, though.

The RAN air superiority scheme from the late Skyhawks suits the Sabre/Fury-thing well – I like the fact that it is a modern fighter scheme, but, thanks to the tones and the colorful other markings, not as dull and boring like many others, e. g. the contemporary USN "Ghost" scheme. Made me wonder about an early RAAF F-18 in this livery - should look very pretty, too?

Phalacrocorax auritus (Lesson, 1831) - double-crested cormorant in Florida, USA. (March 2014)

 

Birds are small to large, warm-blooded, egg-laying, feathered, bipedal vertebrates capable of powered flight (although some are secondarily flightless). Many scientists characterize birds as dinosaurs, but this is consequence of the physical structure of evolutionary diagrams. Birds aren’t dinosaurs. They’re birds. The logic & rationale that some use to justify statements such as “birds are dinosaurs” is the same logic & rationale that results in saying “vertebrates are echinoderms”. Well, no one says the latter. No one should say the former, either.

 

However, birds are evolutionarily derived from theropod dinosaurs. Birds first appeared in the Triassic or Jurassic, depending on which avian paleontologist you ask. They inhabit a wide variety of terrestrial and surface marine environments, and exhibit considerable variation in behaviors and diets.

 

Classification: Animalia, Chordata, Vertebrata, Aves, Suliformes, Phalacrocoracidae

 

Locality: Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge, Sanibel Island, southwestern Florida, USA

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

See info. at:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-crested_cormorant

 

+++ 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?

Capable of tolerating severe weather conditions, this hardy eucalypt is commonly found in subalpine areas across the eastern regions of Australia.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire_

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yorkshire_Air_Museum#Collection

 

Supermarine Spitfire variants powered by early model Rolls-Royce Merlin engines mostly utilised single-speed, single-stage superchargers. The British Supermarine Spitfire was the only Allied fighter aircraft of the Second World War to fight in front line service from the beginnings of the conflict, in September 1939, through to the end in August 1945. Post-war, the Spitfire's service career continued into the 1950s. The basic airframe proved to be extremely adaptable, capable of taking far more powerful engines and far greater loads than its original role as a short-range interceptor had called for. This would lead to 19 marks of Spitfire and 52 sub-variants being produced throughout the Second World War, and beyond. The many changes were made in order to fulfil Royal Air Force requirements and to successfully engage in combat with ever-improving enemy aircraft. With the death of the original designer, Reginald J. Mitchell, in June 1937, all variants of the Spitfire were designed by his successor, Joseph Smith, and a team of engineers and draftsmen.

 

In 1936, before the first flight of the prototype, the Air Ministry placed an order for 310 Spitfires. However, in spite of the promises made by the Chairman of Vickers-Armstrongs (the parent company of Supermarine) that the company would be able to deliver Spitfire at a rate of five a week, it soon became clear that this would not happen. In 1936 the Supermarine company employed 500 people and was already engaged in fulfilling orders for 48 Walrus amphibian reconnaissance aircraft and 17 Stranraer patrol flying boats. In addition the small design staff, which would have to draft the blueprints for the production aircraft, was already working at full stretch. Although it was obvious that most of the work would have to be sub-contracted to outside sources, the Vickers-Armstrongs board was reluctant to allow this to happen. When other companies were able to start building Spitfire components there were continual delays because either parts provided to them would not fit, or the blueprints were inadequate; the sub-contractors themselves faced numerous problems building components which in many cases were more advanced and complicated than anything they had faced before.

 

As a consequence of the delays, the RAF received the first two Spitfires off the production line in July 1938, while the first Spitfire to enter squadron service was received by 19 Squadron in early August. For a time the future of the Spitfire was in serious doubt, with the Air Ministry suggesting that the programme be abandoned and that Supermarine change over to building the Bristol Beaufighter under licence. The managements of Supermarine and Vickers were eventually able to convince the Air Ministry that production would be sorted out and, in 1938, an order was placed with Morris Motors Limited for an additional 1,000 Spitfires to be built at huge new factory which was to be built at Castle Bromwich. This was followed in 1939 by an order for another 200 from Woolston and, only a few months later, another 450. This brought the total to 2,160, making it one of the largest orders in RAF history. Over the next three years a large number of modifications were made, most as a result of wartime experience.

 

Early in the Spitfire's operational life a major problem became apparent; at altitudes above about 15,000 ft (4,572 m), any condensation could freeze in the guns. Because of this the system of gun heating first fitted to K5054 was introduced on the 61st production Mk I. At the outset of World War II, the flash-hiders on the gun muzzles were removed and the practice of sealing the gun ports with fabric patches was instituted. The patches kept the gun barrels free of dirt and debris and allowed the hot air to heat the guns more efficiently. Early production aircraft were fitted with a ring and bead gunsight, although provision had been made for a reflector sight to be fitted once one had been selected. In July 1938, the Barr and Stroud GM 2 was selected as the standard RAF reflector gunsight and was fitted to the Spitfire from late 1938. These first production Mk Is were able to reach a maximum speed of 362 mph (583 km/h) at 18,500 ft (5,600 m), with a maximum rate of climb of 2,490 ft/min at 10,000 ft (3,000 m). The service ceiling (where the climb rate drops to 100 ft/min) was 31,900 ft (9,700 m).

 

All Merlin I to III series engines relied on external electric power to start; a well known sight on RAF fighter airfields was the "trolley acc" (trolley accumulator) which was a set of powerful batteries which could be wheeled up to aircraft. The lead from the "Trolley Acc" was plugged into a small recess on the starboard side cowling of the Spitfire. On Supermarine-built aircraft a small brass instruction plate was secured to the side cowling, just beneath the starboard exhausts.

 

The early Mk Is were powered by the 1,030 hp (768 kW) Merlin Mk II engine driving an Aero-Products "Watts" 10 ft 8 in (3.3 m) diameter two-blade wooden fixed-pitch propeller, weighing 83 lb (38 kg). From the 78th production airframe, the Aero Products propeller was replaced by a 350 lb (183 kg) de Havilland 9 ft 8 in (2.97 m) diameter, three-bladed, two-position, metal propeller, which greatly improved take-off performance, maximum speed and the service ceiling. From the 175th production aircraft, the Merlin Mk III, with a "universal" propeller shaft able to take a de Havilland or Rotol propeller, was fitted. Following complaints from pilots a new form of "blown" canopy was manufactured and started replacing the original "flat" version in early 1939. This canopy improved headroom and enabled better vision laterally, and to the rear. At the same time the manual hand-pump for operating the undercarriage was replaced by a hydraulic system driven by a pump mounted in the engine bay. Spitfire Is incorporating these modifications were able to achieve a maximum speed of 367 mph (591 km/h) at 18,600 ft (5,700 m), with a maximum rate of climb of 2,150 ft/min at 10,000 ft (3,000 m). The service ceiling was 34,400 ft (10,500 m).

 

A voltage regulator under a black, cylindrical cover was mounted low on the back of frame 11, directly behind the pilot's seat:[nb 3]starting in the N30xx series this was repositioned higher, appearing low in the rear transparency. From N32xx the regulator was mounted directly behind the pilot's headrest on frame 11. Other changes were made later in 1939 when a simplified design of pitot tube was introduced and the "rod" aerial mast was replaced by a streamlined, tapered design. To improve protection for the pilot and fuel tanks a thick laminated glass bulletproof plate was fitted to the curved, one piece windscreen and a 3 mm thick cover of light alloy, capable of deflecting small calibre rounds, was fitted over the top of the two fuel tanks. From about mid-1940, 73 pounds (33 kg) of armoured steel plating was provided in the form of head and back protection on the seat bulkhead and covering the forward face of the glycol header tank. In addition, the lower petrol tank was fitted with a fire-resistant covering called "Linatex", which was later replaced with a layer of self-sealing rubber.

 

In June 1940 de Havilland began manufacturing a kit to convert their two pitch propeller unit to a constant speed propeller. Although this propeller was a great deal heavier than the earlier types (500 lb (227 kg) compared with 350 lb (183 kg)) it provided another substantial improvement in take-off distance and climb rate. Starting on 24 June de Havilland engineers began fitting all Spitfires with these units and by 16 August every Spitfire and Hurricane had been modified. "Two step" rudder pedals were fitted to all frontline Spitfires; these allowed the pilot to lift his feet and legs higher during combat, improving his "blackout" threshold and allowing him to pull tighter sustained turns. Another modification was the small rear view mirror which was added to the top of the windscreen: an early "shrouded" style was later replaced by a simplified, rectangular, adjustable type.

 

Starting in September 1940, IFF equipment was installed. This weighed about 40 lb (18 kg) and could be identified by wire aerials strung between the tailplane tips and rear fuselage. Although the added weight and the aerials reduced maximum speed by about two mph (three km/h), it allowed the aircraft to be identified as "friendly" on radar: lack of such equipment was a factor leading to the Battle of Barking Creek. At about the same time new VHF T/R Type 1133 radios started replacing the HF TR9 sets. These had first been fitted to Spitfires of 54 and 66 Squadrons in May 1940, but ensuing production delays meant the bulk of Spitfires and Hurricanes were not fitted for another five months. The pilots enjoyed a much clearer reception which was a big advantage with the adoption of Wing formations throughout the RAF in 1941. The new installation meant that the wire running between the aerial mast and rudder could be removed, as could the triangular "prong" on the mast.

 

Weight increases and aerodynamic changes led to later Spitfire Is having a lower maximum speed than the early production versions. This was more than offset by the improvements in take-off distance and rate of climb brought about by the constant speed propeller units. During the Battle of Britain Spitfire Is equipped with constant-speed propellers had a maximum speed of 353 mph (568 km/h) at 20,000 ft (6,100 m), with a maximum rate of climb of 2,895 ft/min at 10,000 ft (3,000 m).

 

Although the Merlin III engine of Spitfire Is had a power rating of 1,030 hp (768 kW), supplies of 100 octane fuel from the United States started reaching Britain in early 1940. This meant that an "emergency boost" of +12 pounds per square inch was available for five minutes, with pilots able to call on 1,310 hp (977 kW) at 3,000 rpm at 9,000 feet (2,743 m). This boosted the maximum speed by 25 mph (40 km/h) at sea level and 34 mph (55 km/h) at 10,000 ft (3,000 m) and improved the climbing performance between sea level and full throttle height. The extra boost wasn't damaging as long as the limitations set forth in the pilot's notes were followed. As a precaution if the pilot had resorted to emergency boost, he had to report this on landing and it had to be noted in the engine log book. There was a wire 'gate' fitted, which the pilot had to break to set the engine to emergency power, this acted as an indicator that emergency power had been used and would be replaced by mechanics on the ground. The extra boost was also available for the Merlin XII fitted to the Spitfire II.

 

Late in 1940, a Martin-Baker designed quick-release canopy mechanism began to be retroactively fitted to all Spitfires. The system employed unlocking pins, actuated by cables operated by the pilot pulling a small, red rubber ball mounted on the canopy arch. When freed, the canopy was taken away by the slipstream. One of the most important modifications to the Spitfire was to replace the machine gun armament with wing mounted Hispano 20 mm cannon. In December 1938, Joseph Smith was instructed to prepare a scheme to equip a Spitfire with a single Hispano mounted under each wing. Smith objected to the idea and designed an installation in which the cannon were mounted on their sides within the wing, with only small external blisters on the upper and lower wing surfaces covering the 60 round drum magazine. The first Spitfire armed with a single Hispano in each wing was L1007 which was posted to Drem in January 1940 for squadron trials. On 13 January, this aircraft, piloted by Plt Off Proudman of 602 Squadron took part in an engagement when a Heinkel He 111 was shot down. Soon after this Supermarine was contracted to convert 30 Spitfires to take the cannon armed wing; 19 Squadron received the first of these in June 1940 and by 16 August 24 cannon armed Spitfires had been delivered. These were known as the Mk Ib: Mk Is armed with eight Brownings were retrospectively called the Mk Ia. With the early cannon installation, jamming was a serious problem. In one engagement, only two of the 12 aircraft had been able to fire off all of their ammunition. Further cannon-armed Spitfires, with improvements to the cannon mounts, were later issued to 92 Squadron, but due to the limited magazine capacity it was eventually decided the best armament mix was two cannon and four machine guns (most of these were later converted to the first Mk Vbs).

 

Sergeant Jennings in September 1940. The absence of a triangular prong on the rear of the mast indicates that VHF radio was fitted. The voltage regulator can be seen under the rear transparency. This photo makes a good comparison with K9795.

From November 1940, a decision was taken that Supermarine would start producing light-alloy covered ailerons which would replace the original fabric covered versions. However, seven months after the decision was taken to install them on all marks, Spitfires were still being delivered with the original fabric covered ailerons. From May 1941 metal ailerons were fitted to all Spitfires coming off the production lines.

 

The Yorkshire Air Museum & Allied Air Forces Memorial is an aviation museum in Elvington, York on the site of the former RAF Elvington airfield, a Second World War RAF Bomber Command station. The museum was founded, and first opened to the public, in the mid 1980s.

 

The museum is one of the largest independent air museums in Britain. It is also the only Allied Air Forces Memorial in Europe. The museum is an accredited museum under Arts Council accreditation scheme. It is a Member of Friends of the Few (Battle of Britain Memorial), the Royal Aeronautical Society, the Museums Association and the Association of Independent Museums.

 

The Museum is a registered charity (No. 516766) dedicated to the history of aviation and was also set up as a Memorial to all allied air forces personnel, particularly those who served in the Royal Air Force during the Second World War.

 

Site

Further information: RAF Elvington

The 20-acre (81,000 m2) parkland site includes buildings and hangars, some of which are listed. It incorporates a 7-acre (28,000 m2) managed environment area and a DEFRA and Environment Agency supported self sustainability project called "Nature of Flight". The museum is situated next to a 10,000 ft runway, which is privately owned.

 

History

Whilst the Royal Air Force carried on using the runway for aircraft landing and take off training until 1992, the buildings and hangars had long been abandoned. In 1980 Rachel Semlyen approached the owners of "what was then an abandoned and derelict wartime site, with the idea of restoring the buildings and creating a museum". In 1983, a group started clearing the undergrowth and the site was ready to be unveiled as the Yorkshire Air Museum in 1986.

 

Events

The Museum undertakes several annual events each year within the general attraction / entertainment area as well as educational / academic events for specific audiences, plus several corporate events in association with companies such as Bentley, Porsche, banking, government agencies etc. The unique annual Allied Air Forces Memorial Day takes place in September.

 

Exhibits

The Museum has over 50 aircraft spanning the development of aviation from 1853 up to the latest GR4 Tornado. Several aircraft including Victor, Nimrod, Buccaneer, Sea Devon, SE5a, Eastchurch Kitten, DC3 Dakota are kept live and operated on special "Thunder Days" during the year. Over 20 historic vehicles and a Registered Archive containing over 500,000 historic artefacts and documents are also preserved at the Museum, which is also the Official Archive for the National Aircrew Association and National Air Gunners Association. It is nationally registered and accredited through DCMS/Arts Council England and is a registered charity.

 

A permanent exhibition on RAF Bomber Command was opened at the museum by life member, Sir David Jason. In 2010 a new exhibition called "Pioneers of Aviation", and funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund, was opened featuring the lives and achievements of Sir George Cayley, Sir Barnes Wallis, Robert Blackburn, Nevil Shute and Amy Johnson.

 

Principal on-site businesses include: Restaurant, Retail Shop, Events, Aircraft Operation Engineering Workshops, Archives and Corporate Business Suite. The museum is also a location for TV and film companies.

 

Building 1 – Airborne Forces Display & No. 609 Squadron RAF Room

Building 2 – Uniform Display

Building 3 – Air Gunners' Exhibition

Building 4 – Archives & Reference Library

Building 5 – Museum Shop

Building 7 – Memorial Garden

Building 8 – Museum HQ, Main Entrance

Building 9 – Against the Odds

Building 10 – Elvington Corporate Room

Building 11 – Museum NAAFI Restaurant

Building 12 – Control Tower

Building 13 – French Officers' Mess

Building 14 – Airmens Billet and Station MT Display

Building 15 – Royal Observer Corp

Building 16 – Signal Square

Building 17 – Hangar T2 Main Aircraft exhibition

Building 18 – Archive & Collections Building

Building 19 – Handley Page Aircraft Workshop

Building 20 – Pioneer of Aviation Exhibition

 

Collection

Aircraft on display

Pre-World War II

Avro 504K – Replica

Blackburn Mercury – Replica

Cayley Glider – Replica

Mignet HM.14 Pou-du-Ciel

Port Victoria P.V.8 Eastchurch Kitten Replica

Royal Aircraft Factory BE.2c – Replica

Royal Aircraft Factory SE.5a – Replica

Wright Flyer – Replica

 

World War II

Avro Anson T.21 VV901

Douglas Dakota IV KN353

Fairchild Argus II FK338

Gloster Meteor F.8 WL168

Gloster Meteor NF.14 WS788

Handley Page Halifax III LV907

Hawker Hurricane I – Replica

Messerschmitt Bf 109 G-6 – Replica

Slingsby T.7 Kirby Cadet RA854

Supermarine Spitfire I – Replica

Waco Hadrian 237123

 

Post World War II

Air Command Commander Elite

Beagle Terrier 2 TJ704

Canadair CT-133 Silver Star 133417

de Havilland Devon C.2 VP967

de Havilland Vampire T.11 XH278

Europa Prototype 001

Mainair Demon

Saunders-Roe Skeeter AOP.12 XM553

Westland Dragonfly HR.5 WH991

 

Cold War

BAC Jet Provost T.4 XP640

Blackburn Buccaneer S.2 XN974

Blackburn Buccaneer S.2B XX901

British Aerospace Harrier GR.3 XV748

British Aerospace Nimrod MR.2 XV250

Dassault Mirage IIIE 538

Dassault Mirage IVA 45/BR

English Electric Canberra T.4 WH846

English Electric Lightning F.6 XS903 which arrived during June 1988.

Fairey Gannet AEW.3 XL502

Gloster Javelin FAW.9 XH767

Handley Page Victor K.2 XL231

Hawker Hunter FGA.78 QA10

Hawker Hunter T.7 XL572

Panavia Tornado GR.1 ZA354

Panavia Tornado GR.4 XZ631

 

Ground vehicles

Second World War

Thompson Brothers Aircraft Refueller

1938 Ford Model E

1940 "Tilly" Standard 12 hp Mkl RAF Utility Vehicle

1941 Chevrolet 4x4 CMP

1942 Austin K2 NAAFI Wagon

1942 Thornycroft ‘Amazon’ Coles Crane

 

Cold War

1947 Commer one and a half deck airport coach

1949 Citroen 11BL

1948 David Brown VIG.2 Aircraft Tractor

1949 David Brown VIG.3 Aircraft Tractor

1951 David Brown GP Airfield Tractor

1953 Alvis Saracen 12ton APC

1953 Austin Champ Cargo 4x4 General Purpose Vehicle

1956 Green Goddess Self Propelled Pump

1958 Commer Q4 Bikini Fire Pump Unit

1958 Lansing Aircraft Carrier Type Tug

1959 Daimler Ferret ASC MK.2/3/7

1966 Chieftain Main Battle Tank

1970 Douglas P3 nuclear aircraft 25 tonne tug

1971 Pathfinder Fire Engine 35ton (ex. Manchester Airport)

1972 TACR2 Range Rover - 6 wheeled fast response fire unit

1974 GMC 6 wheeled fast response airfield fire truck

1976 Dennis Mercury 17.5 tonne aircraft tug

Pathfinder Fire Engine

+++ 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 CAC Sabre, sometimes known as the Avon Sabre or CA-27, was an Australian variant of the North American Aviation F-86F Sabre fighter aircraft. In 1951, Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation obtained a license agreement to build the F-86F Sabre. In a major departure from the North American blueprint, it was decided that the CA-27 would be powered by a license-built version of the Rolls-Royce Avon R.A.7, rather than the General Electric J47. In theory, the Avon was capable of more than double the maximum thrust and double the thrust-to-weight ratio of the US engine. This necessitated a re-design of the fuselage, as the Avon was shorter, wider and lighter than the J47.

 

To accommodate the Avon, over 60 percent of the fuselage was altered and there was a 25 percent increase in the size of the air intake. Another major revision was in replacing the F-86F's six machine guns with two 30mm ADEN cannon, while other changes were also made to the cockpit and to provide an increased fuel capacity.

 

The prototype aircraft first flew on 3 August 1953. The production aircrafts' first deliveries to the Royal Australian Air Force began in 1954. The first batch of aircraft were powered by the Avon 20 engine and were designated the Sabre Mk 30. Between 1957 and 1958 this batch had the wing slats removed and were re-designated Sabre Mk 31. These Sabres were supplemented by 20 new-built aircraft. The last batch of aircraft were designated Sabre Mk 32 and used the Avon 26 engine, of which 69 were built up to 1961.

 

Beyond these land-based versions, an indigenous version for carrier operations had been developed and built in small numbers, too, the Sea Sabre Mk 40 and 41. The roots of this aircraft, which was rather a prestigious idea than a sensible project, could be traced back to the immediate post WWII era. A review by the Australian Government's Defence Committee recommended that the post-war forces of the RAN be structured around a Task Force incorporating multiple aircraft carriers. Initial plans were for three carriers, with two active and a third in reserve, although funding cuts led to the purchase of only two carriers in June 1947: Majestic and sister ship HMS Terrible, for the combined cost of AU£2.75 million, plus stores, fuel, and ammunition. As Terrible was the closer of the two ships to completion, she was finished without modification, and was commissioned into the RAN on 16 December 1948 as HMAS Sydney. Work progressed on Majestic at a slower rate, as she was upgraded with the latest technology and equipment. To cover Majestic's absence, the Colossus-class carrier HMS Vengeance was loaned to the RAN from 13 November 1952 until 12 August 1955.

 

Labour difficulties, late delivery of equipment, additional requirements for Australian operations, and the prioritization of merchant ships over naval construction delayed the completion of Majestic. Incorporation of new systems and enhancements caused the cost of the RAN carrier acquisition program to increase to AU£8.3 million. Construction and fitting out did not finish until October 1955. As the carrier neared completion, a commissioning crew was formed in Australia and first used to return Vengeance to the United Kingdom.

The completed carrier was commissioned into the RAN as HMAS Majestic on 26 October 1955, but only two days later, the ship was renamed Melbourne and recommissioned.

 

In the meantime, the rather political decision had been made to equip Melbourne with an indigenous jet-powered aircraft, replacing the piston-driven Hawker Fury that had been successfully operated from HMAS Sydney and HMAS Vengeance, so that the "new jet age" was even more recognizable. The choice fell on the CAC Sabre, certainly inspired by North American's successful contemporary development of the navalized FJ-2 Fury from the land-based F-86 Sabre. The CAC 27 was already a proven design, and with its more powerful Avon engine it even offered a better suitability for carrier operations than the FJ-2 with its rather weak J47 engine.

 

Work on this project, which was initially simply designated Sabre Mk 40, started in 1954, just when the first CAC 27's were delivered to operative RAAF units. While the navalized Avon Sabre differed outwardly only little from its land-based brethren, many details were changed and locally developed. Therefore, there was also, beyond the general outlines, little in common with the North American FJ-2 an -3 Fury.

Externally, a completely new wing with a folding mechanism was fitted. It was based on the F-86's so-called "6-3" wing, with a leading edge that was extended 6 inches at the root and 3 inches at the tip. This modification enhanced maneuverability at the expense of a small increase in landing speed due to deletion of the leading edge slats, a detail that was later introduced on the Sabre Mk 31, too. As a side benefit, the new wing leading edges without the slat mechanisms held extra fuel. However, the Mk 40's wing was different as camber was applied to the underside of the leading edge to improve low-speed handling for carrier operations. The wings were provided with four stations outboard of the landing gear wells for up to 1000 lb external loads on the inboard stations and 500 lb on the outboard stations.

 

Slightly larger stabilizers were fitted and the landing gear was strengthened, including a longer front wheel strut. The latter necessitated an enlarged front wheel well, so that the front leg’s attachment point had to be moved forward. A ventral launch cable hook was added under the wing roots and an external massive arrester hook under the rear fuselage.

Internally, systems were protected against salt and humidity and a Rolls-Royce Avon 211 turbojet was fitted, a downrated variant of the already navalized Avon 208 from the British DH Sea Vixen, but adapted to the different CAC 27 airframe and delivering 8.000 lbf (35.5 kN) thrust – slightly more than the engines of the land-based CAC Sabres, but also without an afterburner.

 

A single Mk 40 prototype was built from a new CAC 27 airframe taken directly from the production line in early 1955 and made its maiden flight on August 20th of the same year. In order to reflect its naval nature and its ancestry, this new CAC 27 variant was officially christened “Sea Sabre”.

Even though the modified machine handled well, and the new, cambered wing proved to be effective, many minor technical flaws were discovered and delayed the aircraft's development until 1957. These included the wing folding mechanism and the respective fuel plumbing connections, the landing gear, which had to be beefed up even more for hard carrier landings and the airframe’s structural strength for catapult launches, esp. around the ventral launch hook.

 

In the meantime, work on the land-based CAC 27 progressed in parallel, too, and innovations that led to the Mk 31 and 32 were also incorporated into the naval Mk 40, leading to the Sea Sabre Mk 41, which became the effective production aircraft. These updates included, among others, a detachable (but fixed) refueling probe under the starboard wing, two more pylons for light loads located under the wing roots and the capability to carry and deploy IR-guided AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, what significantly increased the Mk 41's efficiency as day fighter. With all these constant changes it took until April 1958 that the Sabre Mk 41, after a second prototype had been directly built to the new standard, was finally approved and cleared for production. Upon delivery, the RAN Sea Sabres carried a standard NATO paint scheme with Extra Dark Sea Grey upper surfaces and Sky undersides.

 

In the meantime, the political enthusiasm concerning the Australian carrier fleet had waned, so that only twenty-two aircraft were ordered. The reason behind this decision was that Australia’s carrier fleet and its capacity had become severely reduced: Following the first decommissioning of HMAS Sydney in 1958, Melbourne became the only aircraft carrier in Australian service, and she was unavailable to provide air cover for the RAN for up to four months in every year; this time was required for refits, refueling, personnel leave, and non-carrier duties, such as the transportation of troops or aircraft. Although one of the largest ships to serve in the RAN, Melbourne was one of the smallest carriers to operate in the post-World War II period, so that its contribution to military actions was rather limited. To make matters worse, a decision was made in 1959 to restrict Melbourne's role to helicopter operations only, rendering any carrier-based aircraft in Australian service obsolete. However, this decision was reversed shortly before its planned 1963 implementation, but Australia’s fleet of carrier-borne fixed-wing aircraft would not grow to proportions envisioned 10 years ago.

 

Nevertheless, on 10 November 1964, an AU£212 million increase in defense spending included the purchase of new aircraft for Melbourne. The RAN planned to acquire 14 Grumman S-2E Tracker anti-submarine aircraft and to modernize Melbourne to operate these. The acquisition of 18 new fighter-bombers was suggested (either Sea Sabre Mk 41s or the American Douglas A-4 Skyhawk), too, but these were dropped from the initial plan. A separate proposal to order 10 A-4G Skyhawks, a variant of the Skyhawk designed specifically for the RAN and optimized for air defense, was approved in 1965, but the new aircraft did not fly from Melbourne until the conclusion of her refit in 1969. This move, however, precluded the production of any new and further Sea Sabre.

 

At that time, the RAN Sea Sabres received a new livery in US Navy style, with upper surfaces in Light Gull Gray with white undersides. The CAC Sea Sabres remained the main day fighter and attack aircraft for the RAN, after the vintage Sea Furies had been retired in 1962. The other contemporary RAN fighter type in service, the Sea Venom FAW.53 all-weather fighter that had replaced the Furies, already showed its obsolescence.

In 1969, the RAN purchased another ten A-4G Skyhawks, primarily in order to replace the Sea Venoms on the carriers, instead of the proposed seventh and eighth Oberon-class submarines. These were operated together with the Sea Sabres in mixed units on board of Melbourne and from land bases, e.g. from NAS Nowra in New South Wales, where a number of Sea Sabres were also allocated to 724 Squadron for operational training.

 

Around 1970, Melbourne operated a standard air group of four jet aircraft, six Trackers, and ten Wessex helicopters until 1972, when the Wessexes were replaced with ten Westland Sea King anti-submarine warfare helicopters and the number of jet fighters doubled. Even though the A-4G’s more and more took over the operational duties on board of Melbourne, the Sea Sabres were still frequently deployed on the carrier, too, until the early Eighties, when both the Skyhawks and the Sea Sabres received once more a new camouflage, this time a wraparound scheme in two shades of grey, reflecting their primary airspace defense mission.

 

The CAC 27 Mk 41s’ last carrier operations took place in 1981 in the course of Melbourne’s involvements in two major exercises, Sea Hawk and Kangaroo 81, the ship’s final missions at sea. After Melbourne was decommissioned in 1984, the Fleet Air Arm ceased fixed-wing combat aircraft operation. This was the operational end of the Sabre Mk 41, which had reached the end of their airframe lifetime, and the Sea Sabre fleet had, during its career, severely suffered from accidents and losses: upon retirement, only eight of the original twenty-two aircraft still existed in flightworthy condition, so that the aircraft were all scrapped. The younger RAN A-4Gs were eventually sold to New Zealand, where they were kept in service until 2002.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 37 ft 6 in (11.43 m)

Wingspan: 37 ft 1 in (11.3 m)

Height: 14 ft 5 in (4.39 m)

Wing area: 302.3 sq ft (28.1 m²)

Empty weight: 12,000 lb (5,443 kg)

Loaded weight: 16,000 lb (7,256 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 21,210 lb (9,621 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Rolls-Royce Avon 208A turbojet engine with 8,200 lbf (36.44 kN)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 700 mph (1,100 km/h) (605 knots)

Range: 1,153 mi, (1,000 NM, 1,850 km)

Service ceiling: 52,000 ft (15,850 m)

Rate of climb: 12,000 ft/min at sea level (61 m/s)

 

Armament:

2× 30 mm ADEN cannons with 150 rounds per gun

5,300 lb (2,400 kg) of payload on six external hardpoints;

Bombs were usually mounted on outer two pylons as the mid pair were wet-plumbed pylons for

2× 200 gallons drop tanks, while the inner pair was usually occupied by a pair of AIM-9 Sidewinder

AAMs

A wide variety of bombs could be carried with maximum standard loadout being 2x 1,000 lb bombs

or 2x Matra pods with unguided SURA missiles plus 2 drop tanks for ground attacks, or 2x AIM-9 plus

two drop tanks as day fighter

  

The kit and its assembly:

This project was initially inspired by a set of decals from an ESCI A-4G which I had bought in a lot – I wondered if I could use it for a submission to the “In the navy” group build at whatifmodelers.com in early 2020. I considered an FJ-3M in Australian colors on this basis and had stashed away a Sword kit of that aircraft for this purpose. However, I had already built an FJ variant for the GB (a kitbashed mix of an F-86D and an FJ-4B in USMC colors), and was reluctant to add another Fury.

 

This spontaneously changed after (thanks to Corona virus quarantine…) I cleaned up one of my kit hoards and found a conversion set for a 1:72 CAC 27 from JAYS Model Kits which I had bought eons ago without a concrete plan. That was the eventual trigger to spin the RAN Fury idea further – why not a navalized version of the Avon Sabre for HMAS Melbourne?

 

The result is either another kitbash or a highly modified FJ-3M from Sword. The JAYS Model Kits set comes with a THICK sprue that carries two fuselage halves and an air intake, and it also offers a vacu canopy as a thin fallback option because the set is actually intended to be used together with a Hobby Craft F-86F.

 

While the parts, molded in a somewhat waxy and brittle styrene, look crude on the massive sprue, the fuselage halves come with very fine recessed engravings. And once you have cleaned the parts (NOTHING for people faint at heart, a mini drill with a saw blade is highly recommended), their fit is surprisingly good. The air intake was so exact that no putty was needed to blend it with the rest of the fuselage.

 

The rest came from the Sword kit and integrating the parts into the CAC 27 fuselage went more smoothly than expected. For instance, the FJ-3M comes with a nice cockpit tub that also holds a full air intake duct. Thanks to the slightly wider fuselage of the CAC 27, it could be mounted into the new fuselage halves without problems and the intake duct almost perfectly matches the intake frame from the conversion set. The tailpipe could be easily integrated without any mods, too. The fins had to be glued directly to the fuselage – but this is the way how the Sword kit is actually constructed! Even the FJ-3M’s wings match the different fuselage perfectly. The only modifications I had to make is a slight enlargement of the ventral wing opening at the front and at the read in order to take the deeper wing element from the Sword kit, but that was an easy task. Once in place, the parts blend almost perfectly into each other, just minor PSR was necessary to hide the seams!

 

Other mods include an extended front wheel well for the longer leg from the FJ-3M and a scratched arrester hook installation, made from wire, which is on purpose different from the Y-shaped hook of the Furies.

 

For the canopy I relied on the vacu piece that came with the JAYS set. Fitting it was not easy, though, it took some PSR to blend the windscreen into the rest of the fuselage. Not perfect, but O.K. for such a solution from a conversion set.

 

The underwing pylons were taken from the Sword kit, including the early Sidewinders. I just replaced the drop tanks – the OOB tanks are very wide, and even though they might be authentic for the FJ-3, I was skeptical if they fit at all under the wings with the landing gear extended? In order to avoid trouble and for a more modern look, I replaced them outright with more slender tanks, which were to mimic A-4 tanks (USN FJ-4s frequently carried Skyhawk tanks). They actually come from a Revell F-16 kit, with modified fins. The refueling probe comes from the Sword kit.

 

A last word about the Sword kit: much light, but also much shadow. While I appreciate the fine surface engravings, the recognizably cambered wings, a detailed cockpit with a two-piece resin seat and a pretty landing gear as well as the long air intake, I wonder why the creators totally failed to provide ANY detail of the arrester hook (there is literally nothing, as if this was a land-based Sabre variant!?) or went for doubtful solutions like a front landing gear that consists of five(!) single, tiny parts? Sadism? The resin seat was also broken (despite being packed in a seperate bag), and it did not fit into the cockpit tub at all. Meh!

  

Painting and markings:

From the start I planned to give the model the late RAN A-4Gs’ unique air superiority paint scheme, which was AFAIK introduced in the late Seventies: a two-tone wraparound scheme consisting of “Light Admiralty Grey” (BS381C 697) and “Aircraft Grey” (BS 381C 693). Quite simple, but finding suitable paints was not an easy task, and I based my choice on pictures of the real aircraft (esp. from "buzz" number 880 at the Fleet Air Arm Museum, you find pics of it with very good light condition) rather than rely on (pretty doubtful if not contradictive) recommendations in various painting instructions from models or decal sets.

 

I wanted to keep things simple and settled upon Dark Gull Grey (FS 36231) and Light Blue (FS 35414), both enamel colors from Modelmaster, since both are rather dull interpretations of these tones. Esp. the Light Blue comes quite close to Light Admiralty Grey, even though it should be lighter for more contrast to the darker grey tone. But it has that subtle greenish touch of the original BS tone, and I did not want to mix the colors.

 

The pattern was adapted from the late A-4Gs’ scheme, and the colors were dulled down even more through a light black ink wash. Some post-shading with lighter tones emphasized the contrast between the two colors again. And while it is not an exact representation of the unique RAN air superiority scheme, I think that the overall impression is there.

 

The cockpit interior was painted in very dark grey, while the landing gear, its wells and the inside of the air intake became white. A red rim was painted around the front opening, and the landing gear covers received a red outline, too. The white drop tanks are a detail I took from real world RAN A-4Gs - in the early days of the air superiority scheme, the tanks were frequently still finished in the old USN style livery, hence the white body but fins and tail section already in the updated colors.

 

The decals became a fight, though. As mentioned above, the came from an ESCI kit – and, as expected, the were brittle. All decals with a clear carrier film disintegrated while soaking in water, only those with a fully printed carrier film were more or less usable. One roundel broke and had to be repaired, and the checkered fin flash was a very delicate affair that broke several times, even though I tried to save and repair it with paint. But you can unfortunately see the damage.

 

Most stencils and some replacements (e. g. the “Navy” tag) come from the Sword FJ-3. While these decals are crisply printed, their carrier film is utterly thin, so thin that applying esp. the larger decals turned out to be hazardous and complicated. Another point that did not really convince me about the Sword kit.

 

Finally, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and some soot stains were added around the exhaust and the gun ports with graphite.

  

In the end, this build looks, despite the troubles and the rather exotic ingredients like a relatively simple Sabre with Australian markings, just with a different Navy livery. You neither immediately recognize the FJ-3 behind it, nor the Avon Sabre’s bigger fuselage, unless you take a close and probably educated look. Very subtle, though.

The RAN air superiority scheme from the late Skyhawks suits the Sabre/Fury-thing well – I like the fact that it is a modern fighter scheme, but, thanks to the tones and the colorful other markings, not as dull and boring like many others, e. g. the contemporary USN "Ghost" scheme. Made me wonder about an early RAAF F-18 in this livery - should look very pretty, too?

Incense is aromatic biotic material which releases fragrant smoke when burned. The term refers to the material itself, rather than to the aroma that it produces. Incense is used for a variety of purposes, including the ceremonies of religion, to overcome bad smells, repel insects, spirituality, aromatherapy, meditation, and for simple pleasure.

 

Incense is composed of aromatic plant materials, often combined with essential oils. The forms taken by incense differ with the underlying culture, and have changed with advances in technology and increasing diversity in the reasons for burning it. Incense can generally be separated into two main types: "indirect-burning" and "direct-burning". Indirect-burning incense (or "non-combustible incense") is not capable of burning on its own, and requires a separate heat source. Direct-burning incense (or "combustible incense") is lit directly by a flame and then fanned or blown out, leaving a glowing ember that smoulders and releases fragrance. Direct-burning incense is either a paste formed around a bamboo stick, or a paste that is extruded into a stick or cone shape.

 

HISTORY

The word incense comes from Latin for incendere meaning "to burn".

 

Combustible bouquets were used by the ancient Egyptians, who employed incense within both pragmatic and mystical capacities. Incense was burnt to counteract or obscure malodorous products of human habitation, but was widely perceived to also deter malevolent demons and appease the gods with its pleasant aroma. Resin balls were found in many prehistoric Egyptian tombs in El Mahasna, furnishing tangible archaeological substantiation to the prominence of incense and related compounds within Egyptian antiquity. One of the oldest extant incense burners originates from the 5th dynasty. The Temple of Deir-el-Bahari in Egypt contains a series of carvings that depict an expedition for incense.

 

The Babylonians used incense while offering prayers to divining oracles. Incense spread from there to Greece and Rome.

 

Incense burners have been found in the Indus Civilization (3300 BCE- 1300 BCE). Evidence suggests oils were used mainly for their aroma. India also adopted techniques from East Asia, adapting the inherited formulation to encompass aromatic roots and other indigenous flora. This comprised the initial usage of subterranean plant parts within the fabrication of incense. New herbs like Sarsaparilla seeds, frankincense, and cypress were used by Indians for incense.

 

At around 2000 BCE, Ancient China began the use of incense in the religious sense, namely for worship. Incense was used by Chinese cultures from Neolithic times and became more widespread in the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties. The earliest documented instance of incense utilization comes from the ancient Chinese, who employed incense composed of herbs and plant products (such as cassia, cinnamon, styrax, sandalwood, amongst others) as a component of numerous formalized ceremonial rites. Incense usage reached its peak during the Song Dynasty with numerous buildings erected specifically for incense ceremonies.

 

Brought to Japan in the 6th century by Korean Buddhist monks, who used the mystical aromas in their purification rites, the delicate scents of Koh (high-quality Japanese incense) became a source of amusement and entertainment with nobles in the Imperial Court during the Heian Era 200 years later. During the 14th century Shogunate, a samurai warrior might perfume his helmet and armor with incense to achieve an aura of invincibility (as well as to make a noble gesture to whomever might take his head in battle). It wasn't until the Muromachi Era during the 15th and 16th century that incense appreciation (Kōdō) spread to the upper and middle classes of Japanese society.

 

COMPOSITION

A variety of materials have been used in making incense. Historically there has been a preference for using locally available ingredients. For example, sage and cedar were used by the indigenous peoples of North America. Trading in incense materials comprised a major part of commerce along the Silk Road and other trade routes, one notably called the Incense Route.

 

The same could be said for the techniques used to make incense. Local knowledge and tools were extremely influential on the style, but methods were also influenced by migrations of foreigners, among them clergy and physicians who were both familiar with incense arts.

 

COMBUSTIBLE BASE

The combustible base of a direct burning incense mixture not only binds the fragrant material together but also allows the produced incense to burn with a self-sustained ember, which propagates slowly and evenly through an entire piece of incense with such regularity that it can be used to mark time. The base is chosen such that it does not produce a perceptible smell. Commercially, two types of incense base predominate:

- Fuel and oxidizer mixtures: Charcoal or wood powder forms the fuel for the combustion. Gums such as Gum Arabic or Gum Tragacanth are used to bind the mixture together while an oxidizer such as sodium nitrate or potassium nitrate sustains the burning of the incense. Fragrant materials are combined into the base prior to formation as in the case of powdered incense materials or after formation as in the case of essential oils. The formula for the charcoal-based incense is superficially similar to black powder, though it lacks the sulfur.

- Natural plant-based binders: Mucilaginous material, which can be derived from many botanical sources, is mixed with fragrant materials and water. The mucilage from the wet binding powder holds the fragrant material together while the cellulose in the powder combusts to form a stable ember when lit. The dry binding powder usually comprises about 10% of the dry weight in the finished incense. This includes:

- Makko (incense powder): made from the bark of various trees from the Persea such as Persea thunbergii)

- Xiangnan pi (made from the bark of Phoebe genus trees such as Phoebe nanmu, Persea zuihoensis.

- Jigit: a resin based binder used in India

- Laha or Dar: bark based powders used in Nepal, Tibet, and other East Asian countries.

 

TYPES

Incense materials are available in various forms and degrees of processing. They can generally be separated into "direct-burning" and "indirect-burning" types depending on use. Preference for one form or another varies with culture, tradition, and personal taste. Although the production of direct- and indirect-burning incense are both blended to produce a pleasant smell when burned, the two differ in their composition due to the former's requirement for even, stale, and sustained burning.

 

INDIRECT BURNING

Indirect-burning incense, also called "non-combustible incense", is a combination of aromatic ingredients that are not prepared in any particular way or encouraged into any particular form, leaving it mostly unsuitable for direct combustion. The use of this class of incense requires a separate heat source since it does not generally kindle a fire capable of burning itself and may not ignite at all under normal conditions. This incense can vary in the duration of its burning with the texture of the material. Finer ingredients tend to burn more rapidly, while coarsely ground or whole chunks may be consumed very gradually as they have less total surface area. The heat is traditionally provided by charcoal or glowing embers.

 

In the West, the best known incense materials of this type are frankincense and myrrh, likely due to their numerous mentions in the Christian Bible. In fact, the word for "frankincense" in many European languages also alludes to any form of incense.

 

- Whole: The incense material is burned directly in its raw unprocessed form on top of coal embers.

- Powdered or granulated: The incense material is broken down into finer bits. This incense burns quickly and provides a short period of intense smells.

- Paste: The powdered or granulated incense material is mixed with a sticky and incombustible binder, such as dried fruit, honey, or a soft resin and then formed to balls or small pastilles. These may then be allowed to mature in a controlled environment where the fragrances can commingle and unite. Much Arabian incense, also called "Bukhoor" or "Bakhoor", is of this type (Bakhoor actually refers to frankincense in Arabic) and Japan has a history of kneaded incense, called nerikō or awasekō, using this method.[17] Within the Eastern Orthodox Christian tradition, raw frankincense is ground into a fine powder and then mixed with various sweet-smelling essential oils.

 

DIRECT BURNING

Direct-burning incense also called "combustible incense", is lit directly by a flame. The glowing ember on the incense will continue to smoulder and burn away the rest of the incense without continued application of heat or flame from an outside source. Direct-burning incense is either extruded, pressed into forms, or coated onto a supporting material. This class of incense is made from a moldable substrate of fragrant finely ground (or liquid) incense materials and odourless binder. The composition must be adjusted to provide fragrance in the proper concentration and to ensure even burning. The following types of direct-burning incense are commonly encountered, though the material itself can take virtually any form, according to expediency or whimsy:

 

- Coil: Extruded and shaped into a coil without a core. This type of incense is able to burn for an extended period, from hours to days, and is commonly produced and used by Chinese culture

- Cone: Incense in this form burns relatively fast. Incense cones were invented in Japan in the 1800s.

- Cored stick: This form of stick incense has a supporting core of bamboo. Higher quality varieties of this form have fragrant sandalwood cores. The core is coated by a thick layer of incense material that burns away with the core. This type of incense is commonly produced in India and China. When used for worship in Chinese folk religion, cored incensed sticks are sometimes known as "joss sticks".

- Solid stick: This stick incense has no supporting core and is completely made of incense material. Easily broken into pieces, it allows one to determine the specific amount of incense they wish to burn. This is the most commonly produced form of incense in Japan and Tibet.

- Powder: The loose incense powder used for making indirect burning incense is sometimes burned without further processing. They are typically packed into long trails on top of wood ash using a stencil and burned in special censers or incense clocks.

- Paper: Paper infused with incense, folded accordion style, lit and blown out. Examples are Carta d'Armenia and Papier d'Arménie.

- Rope: The incense powder is rolled into paper sheets, which are then rolled into ropes, twisted tightly, then doubled over and twisted again, yielding a two-strand rope. The larger end is the bight, and may be stood vertically, in a shallow dish of sand or pebbles. The smaller (pointed) end is lit. This type of incense is highly transportable and stays fresh for extremely long periods. It has been used for centuries in Tibet and Nepal.

 

The disks of powdered mugwort called 'moxa' sold in Chinese shops and herbalists are used in Traditional Chinese medicine for moxibustion treatment. Moxa tablets are not incenses; the treatment relies on heat rather than fragrance.

  

REED DIFFUSING

A reed diffuser is a form of incense that uses no heat. It comes in three parts: a bottle/container, scented essential incense oil, and bamboo reeds. The incense oil is placed into the container and bamboo reeds are then put into the same container. This is done to absorb some of the incense oil, as well as to help carry its scent and essence out of the container and into the surrounding air. Reeds typically have tiny tube openings that run the entire length of the stick. Oil is absorbed by the reed sticks and carried along the entire reed. These are do-it-yourself incense sticks that do not burn and look almost identical to typical incense sticks

 

PRODUCTION

INDIRECT BURNING

The raw materials are powdered and then mixed together with a binder to form a paste, which, for direct burning incense, are then cut and dried into pellets. Incense of the Athonite Orthodox Christian tradition are made by powdering frankincense or fir resin, mixing it with essential oils. Floral fragrances are the most common, but citrus such as lemon is not uncommon. The incense mixture is then rolled out into a slab approximately 1 cm thick and left until the slab has firmed. It is then cut into small cubes, coated with clay powder to prevent adhesion, and allowed to fully harden and dry. In Greece this rolled incense resin is called 'Moskolibano', and generally comes in either a pink or green colour denoting the fragrance, with pink being rose and green being jasmine.

 

DIRECT BURNING

In order to obtain desired combustion qualities, attention has to be paid to certain proportions in direct burning incense mixtures:

 

- Oil content: Resinous materials such as myrrh and frankincense must not exceed the amount of dry materials in the mixture to such a degree that the incense will not smolder and burn.[citation needed] The higher the oil content relative to the dry mass, the less likely the mixture is to burn effectively.[citation needed] Typically the resinous or oily substances are balanced with "dry" materials such as wood, bark and leaf powders.

- Oxidizer quantity: The amount of chemical oxidizer in gum-bound incense must be carefully proportioned. If too little, the incense will not ignite, and if too much, the incense will burn too quickly and not produce fragrant smoke.

- Mixture density: Incense mixtures made with natural binders must not be combined with too much water in mixing, or over-compressed while being formed, which would result in either uneven air distribution or undesirable density in the mixture, causing the incense to burn unevenly, too slowly, or too quickly.

- Particulate size: The incense mixture has to be well pulverized with similarly sized particulates. Uneven and large particulates result in uneven burning and inconsistent aroma production when burned.

- Binder: Water-soluble binders such as "makko" have to be used in the right proportion to ensure that the incense mixture does not crumble when dry but also that the binder does not take up too much of the mixture.

 

Some kinds of direct-burning incense are created from "incense blanks" made of unscented combustible dust immersed into any suitable kind of essential or fragrance oil. These are often sold in America by flea-market and sidewalk vendors who have developed their own styles. Such items are often known as "dipped" or "hand-dipped" incense. This form of incense requires the least skill and equipment to manufacture, since the blanks are pre-formed in China or South East Asia, then simply scented with essential oils.

 

Incense mixtures can be extruded or pressed into shapes. Small quantities of water are combined with the fragrance and incense base mixture and kneaded into a hard dough. The incense dough is then pressed into shaped forms to create cone and smaller coiled incense, or forced through a hydraulic press for solid stick incense. The formed incense is then trimmed and slowly dried. Incense produced in this fashion has a tendency to warp or become misshapen when improperly dried, and as such must be placed in climate-controlled rooms and rotated several times through the drying process.

 

Traditionally, the bamboo cores of cored stick incense is prepared by hand from Phyllostachys heterocycla cv. pubescens since this species produces thick wood and easily burns to ashes in the incense stick. Through this process, known as "splitting the foot of the incense stick", the bamboo is trimmed to length, soaked, peeled, and then continuously split in halves until thin sticks of bamboo with square cross sections of less than 3mm This process has been largely been replaced by machines in modern incense production.

 

In the case of cored incensed sticks, several methods are employed to coat the sticks cores with incense mixture:

 

- Paste rolling: A wet, malleable paste of incense mixture is first rolled into a long, thin coil, using a paddle. Then, a thin stick is put next to the coil and the stick and paste are rolled together until the stick is centered in the mixture and the desired thickness is achieved. The stick is then cut to the desired length and dried.

- Powder-coating: Powder-coating is used mainly to produce cored incense of either larger coil (up to 1 meter in diameter) or cored stick forms. A bundle of the supporting material (typically thin bamboo or sandalwood slivers) is soaked in water or a thin water/glue mixture for a short time. The thin sticks are then evenly separated, then dipped into a tray of incense powder, consisting of fragrance materials and occasionally a plant-based binder. The dry incense powder is then tossed and piled over the stick while they are spread apart. The sticks are then gently rolled and packed to maintain roundness while more incense powder is repeatedly tossed onto the sticks. Three to four layers of powder are coated onto the sticks, forming a 2 mm thick layer of incense material on the stick. The coated incense is then allowed to dry in open air. Additional coatings of incense mixture can be applied after each period of successive drying. Incense sticks that are burned in temples of Chinese folk religion produced in this fashion can have a thickness between 2 and 4 millimeters.

- Compression: A damp powder is mechanically formed around a cored stick by compression, similar to the way uncored sticks are formed. This form is becoming more commonly found due to the higher labor cost of producing powder-coated or paste-rolled sticks.

 

JOSS STICKS

Joss sticks are the name given to incense sticks used for a variety of purposes associated with ritual and religious devotion in China and India. They are used in Chinese influenced East Asian and Southeast Asian countries, traditionally burned before the threshold of a home or business, before an image of a Chinese popular religion divinity or spirit of place, or in small and humble or large and elaborate shrine found at the main entrance to each and every village. Here the earth god is propitiated in the hope of bringing wealth and health to the village. They can also be burned in front of a door, or open window as an offering to heaven, or devas. The word "joss" is derived from the Latin deus (god) via the Portuguese deos through the Javanese dejos, through Chinese pidgin English.

 

Joss-stick burning is an everyday practice in traditional Chinese religion. There are many different types of joss sticks used for different purposes or on different festive days. Many of them are long and thin and are mostly colored yellow, red, and more rarely, black. Thick joss sticks are used for special ceremonies, such as funerals. Spiral joss sticks are also used on a regular basis, which are found hanging above temple ceilings, with burn times that are exceedingly long. In some states, such as Taiwan, Singapore, or Malaysia, where they celebrate the Ghost Festival, large, pillar-like dragon joss sticks are sometimes used. These generate such a massive amount of smoke and heat that they are only ever burned outside.

 

Chinese incense sticks for use in popular religion are generally without aroma or only the slightest trace of jasmine or rose, since it is the smoke, not the scent, which is important in conveying the prayers of the faithful to heaven. They are composed of the dried powdered bark of a non-scented species of cinnamon native to Cambodia, Cinnamomum cambodianum.[citation needed] Inexpensive packs of 300 are often found for sale in Chinese supermarkets. Despite the fact that they contain no sandalwood at all, they often include the Chinese character for sandalwood on the label, as a generic term for incense.

 

Highly scented Chinese incense sticks are only used by some Buddhists. These are often quite expensive due to the use of large amounts of sandalwood, aloeswood, or floral scents used. The Sandalwood used in Chinese incenses does not come from India, its native home, but rather from groves planted within Chinese territory. Sites belonging to Tzu Chi, Chung Tai Shan, Dharma Drum Mountain, Xingtian Temple, Buddhism in Sri Lanka, Buddhism in Burma and Korean Buddhism do not use incense.

 

BURNING INCENSE

For indirect-burning incense, pieces of the incense are burned by placing them directly on top of a heat source or on a hot metal plate in a censer or thurible.

 

In Japan a similar censer called a egōro (柄香炉?) is used by several Buddhist sects. The egōro is usually made of brass with a long handle and no chain. Instead of charcoal, makkō powder is poured into a depression made in a bed of ash. The makkō is lit and the incense mixture is burned on top. This method is known as Sonae-kō (Religious Burning).

 

For direct-burning incense, the tip or end of the incense is ignited with a flame or other heat source until the incense begins to turn into ash at the burning end. Flames on the incense are then fanned or blown out, with the incense continuing to burn without a flame on its own.

 

CULTURAL VARIATIONS

CHINESE INCENSE

For over two thousand years, the Chinese have used incense in religious ceremonies, ancestor veneration, Traditional Chinese medicine, and daily life.

 

Agarwood (chénxiāng) and sandalwood (tánxiāng) are the two most important ingredients in Chinese incense.

 

Along with the introduction of Buddhism in China came calibrated incense sticks and incense clocks. The poet Yu Jianwu (487-551) first recorded them: "By burning incense we know the o'clock of the night, With graduated candles we confirm the tally of the watches." The use of these incense timekeeping devices spread from Buddhist monasteries into Chinese secular society.

 

It is incorrect to assume that the Chinese only burn incense in the home before the family shrine. In Taoist traditions, incense is inextricably associated with the 'yin' energies of the dead, temples, shrines, and ghosts. Therefore, Taoist Chinese believe burning undedicated incense in the home attracts the dreaded hungry ghosts, who consume the smoke and ruin the fortunes of the family.

 

However, since Neolithic times, the Chinese have evolved using incense not only for religious ceremonies, but also for personal and environmental aromatherapy.

 

INDIAN INCENSE

Incense stick, also known as agarbathi (or agarbatti) and joss sticks, in which an incense paste is rolled or moulded around a bamboo stick, is one of the main forms of incense in India. The bamboo method originated in India, and is distinct from the Nepal/Tibet and Japanese methods of stick making which don't use a bamboo core. Though the method is also used in the west, particularly in America, it is strongly associated with India.

 

The basic ingredients are the bamboo stick, the paste (generally made of charcoal dust and joss/jiggit/gum/tabu powder - an adhesive made from the bark of litsea glutinosa and other trees), and the perfume ingredients - which would be a masala (spice mix) powder of ground ingredients into which the stick would be rolled, or a perfume liquid sometimes consisting of synthetic ingredients into which the stick would be dipped. Perfume is sometimes sprayed on the coated sticks. Stick machines are sometimes used, which coat the stick with paste and perfume, though the bulk of production is done by hand rolling at home. There are about 5,000 incense companies in India which take raw unperfumed sticks hand-rolled by approx 200,000 women working part-time at home, and then apply their own brand of perfume, and package the sticks for sale.[38] An experienced home-worker can produce 4,000 raw sticks a day. There are about 50 main companies who together account for up to 30% of the market, and around 500 of the companies, including a significant number of the main ones, including Moksh Agarbatti and Cycle Pure, are based in Bangalore.

 

In the Middle East, incense burning has been along tradition. The word bukhur means incense in Arabic. The well known choice for incense is the famous agarwood which is very popular in Africa, the Gulf and amongst some south Asians, but there are many many more choices. Incense come in a variety of forms such as blocks, pieces, pellets, granules or powdered, which is placed in the oil burner called mabkharah for several minutes to heat either with coal in the traditional way or via power in the modern way, allowing it to release its rich smell. However this takes awhile and the quick alternative is to use incense sticks called Oud in Middle East and Africa, and agarbatti in south Asia - again referring to the agar wood + batti meaning some sort of agar-stick. Occasionally some get confused between bukhur and oud, bukhur is the insence ie agarwood, sandlewood etc and oud being the incense sticks (and not the otherway round sometimes wires get twisted)

 

JERUSALEM TEMPLE INCENSE

Ketoret was the incense offered in the Temple in Jerusalem and is stated in the Book of Exodus as a mixture of stacte, onycha, galbanum and frankincense.

 

TIBETAN INCENSE

Tibetan incense refers to a common style of incense found in Tibet, Nepal, and Bhutan. These incenses have a characteristic "earthy" scent to them. Ingredients vary from cinnamon, clove, and juniper, to kusum flower, ashvagandha, or sahi jeera.

 

Many Tibetan incenses are thought to have medicinal properties. Their recipes come from ancient Vedic texts that are based on even older Ayurvedic medical texts. The recipes have remained unchanged for centuries.

 

JAPANESE INCENSE

In Japan incense appreciation folklore includes art, culture, history, and ceremony. It can be compared to and has some of the same qualities as music, art, or literature. Incense burning may occasionally take place within the tea ceremony, just like Calligraphy, Ikebana, and Scroll Arrangement. However the art of incense appreciation or Koh-do, is generally practiced as a separate art form from the tea ceremony, however usually practiced within a tea room of traditional Zen design.

 

Agarwood (沈香　Jinkō) and sandalwood (白檀　Byakudan) are the two most important ingredients in Japanese incense. Agarwood is known as "Jinkō" in Japan, which translates as "incense that sinks in water", due to the weight of the resin in the wood. Sandalwood is one of the most calming incense ingredients and lends itself well to meditation.[citation needed] It is also used in the Japanese tea ceremony. The most valued Sandalwood comes from Mysore in the state of Karnataka in India.

 

Another important ingredient in Japanese incense is kyara (伽羅). Kyara is one kind of agarwood (Japanese incense companies divide agarwood into 6 categories depending on the region obtained and properties of the agarwood). Kyara is currently worth more than its weight in gold.

 

Some terms used in Japanese incense culture include:

 

- Incense Arts: [香道, Kodo]

- Agarwood: [ 沈香 ] – from heartwood from Aquilaria trees, unique, the incense wood most used in incense ceremony, other names are: lignum aloes or aloeswood, gaharu, jinko, or oud.

- Censer/Incense burner: [香爐] – usually small and used for heating incense not burning, or larger and used for burning

- Charcoal: [木炭] – only the odorless kind is used.

- Incense woods: [ 香木 ] – a naturally fragrant resinous wood.

 

USAGE

Incense is used for a variety of purposes, including the ceremonies of all the main religions, to overcome bad smells, repel insects, purify or improve the atmosphere, aromatherapy, meditation, and for simple pleasure.

 

PRACTICAL

Incense fragrances can be of such great strength that they obscure other, less desirable odours. This utility led to the use of incense in funerary ceremonies because the incense could smother the scent of decay. Another example of this use, as well as of religious use, is the giant Botafumeiro thurible which swings from the ceiling of the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela. It is used in part to mask the scent of the many tired, unwashed pilgrims huddled together in the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela.

 

A similar utilitarian use of incense can be found in the post-Reformation Church of England. Although the ceremonial use of incense was abandoned until the Oxford Movement, it was common to have incense (typically frankincense) burned before grand occasions, when the church would be crowded. The frankincense was carried about by a member of the vestry before the service in a vessel called a 'perfuming pan'. In iconography of the day, this vessel is shown to be elongated and flat, with a single, long handle on one side. It is important to note that the perfuming pan was used instead of the thurible, as the latter would have likely offended the Protestant sensibilities of the 17th and 18th centuries.

 

The regular burning of direct combustion incense has been used for chronological measurement in incense clocks. These devices can range from a simple trail of incense material calibrated to burn in a specific time period, to elaborate and ornate instruments with bells or gongs, designed to involve and captivate several of the senses.

 

Incense made from materials such as citronella can repel mosquitoes and other aggravating, distracting or pestilential insects. This use has been deployed in concert with religious uses by Zen Buddhists who claim that the incense that is part of their meditative practice is designed to keep bothersome insects from distracting the practitioner. Currently, more effective pyrethroid-based mosquito repellent incense is widely available in Asia.

 

Papier d'Arménie was originally sold as a disinfectant as well as for the fragrance.

 

Incense is also used often by people who smoke indoors, and do not want the scent to linger.

 

AestheticMany people burn incense to appreciate its smell, without assigning any other specific significance to it, in the same way that the foregoing items can be produced or consumed solely for the contemplation or enjoyment of the refined sensory experience. This use is perhaps best exemplified in the kōdō (香道?), where (frequently costly) raw incense materials such as agarwood are appreciated in a formal setting.ReligiousUse of incense in religion is prevalent in many cultures and may have their roots in the practical and aesthetic uses considering that many religions with not much else in common all use incense. One common motif is incense as a form of sacrificial offering to a deity. Such use was common in Judaic worship and remains in use for example in the Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican churches, Taoist and Buddhist Chinese jingxiang (敬香 "offer incense [to ancestors/gods]), etc.

 

HEALTH

Incense smoke contains various contaminants including gaseous pollutants, such as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and absorbed toxic pollutants (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and toxic metals). The solid particles range between ~10 and 500 nm. The emission rate decreases in the row Indian sandalwood > Japanese aloeswood > Taiwanese aloeswood > smokeless sandalwood.

 

Research carried out in Taiwan in 2001 linked the burning of incense sticks to the slow accumulation of potential carcinogens in a poorly ventilated environment by measuring the levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (including benzopyrene) within Buddhist temples. The study found gaseous aliphatic aldehydes, which are carcinogenic and mutagenic, in incense smoke.

 

A survey of risk factors for lung cancer, also conducted in Taiwan, noted an inverse association between incense burning and adenocarcinoma of the lung, though the finding was not deemed significant.

 

In contrast, a study by several Asian Cancer Research Centers showed: "No association was found between exposure to incense burning and respiratory symptoms like chronic cough, chronic sputum, chronic bronchitis, runny nose, wheezing, asthma, allergic rhinitis, or pneumonia among the three populations studied: i.e. primary school children, their non-smoking mothers, or a group of older non-smoking female controls. Incense burning did not affect lung cancer risk among non-smokers, but it significantly reduced risk among smokers, even after adjusting for lifetime smoking amount." However, the researchers qualified the findings by noting that incense burning in the studied population was associated with certain low-cancer-risk dietary habits, and concluded that "diet can be a significant confounder of epidemiological studies on air pollution and respiratory health."

 

Although several studies have not shown a link between incense and cancer of the lung, many other types of cancer have been directly linked to burning incense. A study published in 2008 in the medical journal Cancer found that incense use is associated with a statistically significant higher risk of cancers of the upper respiratory tract, with the exception of nasopharyngeal cancer. Those who used incense heavily also had higher rates of a type of cancer called squamous-cell carcinoma, which refers to tumors that arise in the cells lining the internal and external surfaces of the body. The link between incense use and increased cancer risk held when the researchers weighed other factors, including cigarette smoking, diet and drinking habits. The research team noted that "This association is consistent with a large number of studies identifying carcinogens in incense smoke, and given the widespread and sometimes involuntary exposure to smoke from burning incense, these findings carry significant public health implications."

 

In 2015, the South China University of Technology found toxicity of incense to Chinese hamsters ovary cells to be even higher than cigarettes.

 

Frankincense has been shown to cause antidepressive behavior in mice. It activated the poorly understood ion channels in the brain to alleviate anxiety and depression.

 

WIKIPEDIA

Robber Flies are quite capable of handling large prey, and they will even take on large, dangerous prey like bees and wasps. However, unlike bees and wasps, Robber Flies do not sting. Although they do not sting, Robber Flies do bite and their saliva contains neurotoxins to quickly immobilize prey and proteolytic enzymes to dissolve its internal organs so that they can later be easily sucked out. The proboscis of a Robber Fly is specialized for stabbing and sucking, and after one of these flies captures something, it will return to a perch in its territory to suck out its liquefied meal.

  

+++ 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?

The iPhone is now capable of shooting RAW using iOS 10 and Adobe Lightroom mobile.

 

The results are astounding. This is an edited RAW file from the iPhone and you can see the detail that can be brought out of the highlights.

 

Watch the tutorial on my YouTube channel - www.firstmanphotography.com/tutorials/shoot-raw-files-on-...

The opening of the Connaught Bridge Generating Station, on the Klang River in Selangor, in March 1953 was a real milestone int he history of what was then Malaya - now Malaysia. The power station, capable of being either coal or oil fired, was at 80,000kw by far the largest generating station at the time in the country and, as importantly, the project included elements of a new proposed Malayan 'National Grid' that linked existing stations such as the hydro-electric plant at Chenderoh with stations and locations along the East Coast centred on the Bungsar station in Kuala Lumpur that hitherto had supplied the bulk of the capital's power requirements. As the booklet notes it meant an end to the long post-war years of restriction of supply to both industrial and domestic consumers.

 

The station was originally planned in 1944 by the Malayan Planning Unit in London in anticipation of the return to Malaya after the end of the Japanses occupation. A provisional order for the equipment was placed in 1945, with additional equipment following in 1947. Meanwhile the site at Connaught Bridge alongside the Klang River was selected in 1946 with the contract to start construction given by the Federation's Government in 1949. The first phase of the station, plant and the double circuit 66kv interconnecting lines running the 23 miles to Kuala Lumpur, was ready for opening in March 1953. Full commissioning came in 1955. Initailly the output was linked to the Bangsar (KL) station and that of Ulu Langat hydro-electric station. Construction of the former had started in 1926 and was opened in 1927 by the Government electricity department and in 1933 they purchased the Ulu Langat station from the Sungei Besi Mines Ltd. KL's earlier supplies, from 1905, had been provided from a small hydro-electric plant on the Gombak River, 12 miles from the town, what had two 400kw Pelton wheel-alternators. This had been augmented in 1919 by a mixed steam and diesel engine plant at Gombak Lane in the centre of KL.

 

Elsewhere, Penang's Municipal Department was the first to supply electriicty within Malaya when it started in 1904 - the station on the mainland at Prai came into use in 1926. By this date electricity was available in Ipoh, Johore Bahru (and Singapore), Seremban and Malacca/Melaka. That at Johore Bahru under the Johore adminsitraion grew to include Muar, Batu Pahat, Kluang, Kota Tinggi and Segamat. In Perak supplies were largely in the hands of the Perak River Hydro-Electric Power Company who operated stations at Malim Nawar (1928) and Chenderoh (1929). In North Perak the Government supplied Taiping and in Province Wellesley Messrs. Huttenbach's bought bulk supply from Penang and supplied power to various towns, supplemented by diesel generating stations in Kedah, Perak and Negri Sembilan. Power came to Kota Bharu (Kelantan), Ruab, Bentong, Kuala Lipis and Kuantan between 1928 and 1931, and in 1938 and 1939 to Mentakab, Fraser's Hill and Kuala Kubu.

 

In 1946 the Malayan Union Government acquired most electricity undertakings except those of private companies and Penang Corporation whilst it also fully acquired the undertkaing operated by the Malacca Electric Light Company in 1948 that it has previously run on a rental basis. On the 1 September 1949 the new Central Electricity Board of the Federation fo Malaya came into existance and took over all functions of the old Electricity Department.

 

The booklet is marvellously detailed and illustrated describing the site, the power station, ancilliary equipment and other works, such as staff accomodaton and housing, with photographs and plans. The latter include a map of the proposed Malayan Grid and the plans show the works designed by both the staff of the Central Electricity Board and the consulting engineers, Preece, Cardew and Rider, and civil engineers Coode and Partners. The station took cooling water from the Klang River and could be powered by either fuel oil (via a pipeline from Port Swettenham) and coal via connections with the Malayan Railways and the colliery at Batu Arang.

 

Needless to say much of the equipment was supplied from the UK - Parsons generators and transformers and switchgear from various manufacturers including British Thomson Houston.

 

The photos are great as they show named members of the operating staff at work which is unusual but that now provided a real social history to the economic history of electricity supply in Malaysia.

Back in the last decade, Dymchurch was one of the first churches I tried to visit. It sits on a road junction, looking heavily Victorianised, but with plenty of ancient details.

 

But it was never open.

 

Even on the first heritage days when I went, it was locked, so I forgot about it.

 

Then, a few weeks ago when we went to Lydd, and drove back along the coast road I saw the door ajar, I should have stopped then, as it was a fine day and the church would have been well lit.

 

Instead I waited, waited for a dreadfully dull and dreary day, and inside I could find no lights, so had to make do with natural light, which speaks volumes of the cameras that I got anything.

 

Obvious feature is the enlarged Nave twice the width of the chancel and the fine Norman Chancel arch.

 

Need to go back on a sunny day.

 

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

 

It is difficult to think of Dymchurch without recalling Dr Syn - the smuggling clergyman invented by Russell Thorndike. Yet when one visits this church, standing just off the main coast road within earshot of amusement arcades and holiday chalets, it suddenly hits you that Dr Syn was no more than a storybook hero and that here is real history, unchanged by developments around it. The church is of Norman date, structurally altered in the nineteenth century when the widened nave and little west tower were built. There are some decorated style windows and one thirteenth-century lancet. The east window - which contains good glass of 1927 - has a very slightly pointed arch indicating that this is late Norman work. However, the best original Norman stonework is the chancel arch, which is a tall and wide structure with simple shafting and zigzag moulding. Either side of the arch are recesses for side altars, and in the south wall another recess, showing the remains of thirteenth-century painting, may have served another altar.

 

www.kentchurches.info/church.asp?p=Dymchurch

 

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

 

DIMCHURCH.

THE next adjoining parish southward upon the sea thore, is Dimchurch, (written in antient records, Demecberche) lying in the same level of Romney Marsh, and within the liberty and jurisdiction of the justices of it.

 

THIS PARISH is situated wholly in the level of Romney Marsh, adjoining southward to the sea, from which it is desended by an artificial wall of great strength, being the sole barrier which prevents the sea from overflowing the whole extent of the Marsh. This wall is usually known by the name of Dimchurch wall, and is about three miles in length, extending from Brockman's barn, eastward of this place, as far westward as Wallend, about a mile and an half from New Romney. As it is for the common safety, so it is supported by scots levied over the whole marsh, and the yearly expence of it is very great indeed, to the amount of 4000l. as the sea has lately increased with unusual force against it, insomuch as to call for every exertion for its preservation. It is more than twenty feet in height, and as much in width at the top, the high road from Hythe by Dimchurch to New Romney being along the summit for the greatest part of the length of it, and at the base it may be said to extend upwards of three hundred feet, being defended outward, down the sloping bank of it towards the sea, by a continued raddle work of overlaths and faggots, fastened to rows of piles in ranges of three feet width, parallel with the wall, one above the other, for a considerable way; and across contrariwise by numbers of iettees, knocks, and groins, from the wall towards sea, at proper distances, along the whole of it, to weaken the force of the waves, and at the same time stop the beach and shingle stones, which are continually thrown up, and to lodge them among the works, on the sides of the wall, as an additional covering and strength to it. Through the wall are three grand sluices, at proper parts of it, for the general sewing of the Marsh.

 

At a very small distance below the wall, lies the straggling village of Dimchurch, containing about forty houses, with the church and parsonage; a small distance from which is a house called NEWHALL, built in the beginning of queen Elizabeth's reign, in which the courts, called the Lath, are held by the lords of the Marsh, and likewise by the corporation of it, who meet here and hold a general lath once a year, on Whit Thursday, to regulate all differences, and to take care that the Marsh laws are duty observed and executed, and make new ones for that purpose, and to see to the management and repair of the walls, sewers, and drainage of the Marsh, and to levy scots for the expence of them; a full account of which, as well as of the history, charters, and constitution of the Marsh, will be given hereafter, at the close of the description of the parishes within it.

 

The high road to Burmarsh, and likewise to Buttersbridge, and so on to West Hythe hill and the upland country, goes through this village, and is, as well as most of the roads hereabout, tolerably good, owing to the convenience of their being mended with the beach and shingle-stones. The inhabitants of it are of the lower sort, and, like others dwelling in the rest of the Marsh, are mostly such as are employed in the occupations and management of the level, or a kind of seafaring men, who follow an illicit trade, as well by land as water. The country here looks very open, for there is scarcely a tree within the bounds of it, and for some miles further. The lands are chiefly grass, and towards the east there are great quantities of beach and shingle stones lying bare, with a very uneven surface, interspersed among the pastures, and continue so for a considerable breadth, as far as the town of Hythe, plainly shewing that the whole of it, as far as the foot of West Hythe-hill, was once covered by the sea, and in course of time, and by degrees, deserted by it.

 

The MANOR OF EASTBRIDGE claims over greatpart of this parish, and the manor of Burmarsh over some of it, but the principal one in it is

 

The MANOR OF NEWINGTON-FEE, alias DimChurch, which extends likewise beyond the bounds of it into several others, and seems to have been so called from its having been accounted a limb of the manor of Newington Belhouse, near Hythe, as such it most probably had always the same owners; however that be, it appears, in the reign of king Henry VIII. to have been part of the possessions of Thomas, lord Cromwell and earl of Essex, before whole attainder, which happened in the 32d year of that reign, it came by purchase from him into the king's hands, together with the manor of Newington Belhouse, to which this of Newington-fee, as well as Brenset, seem then to have been accounted appendages, (fn. 1) and it continued in the crown with them, till the 1st year of queen Mary, when it was granted to Edward, lord Clinton and Saye, to hold in capite, who the next year passed it away to Mr. Henry Herdson, alderman of London, whose grandson Mr. Francis Herdson alienated it, in king James I.'s reign, to Mr. Henry Brockman, of Newington, in whose descendants it continued down to James Brockman, esq. of Beechborough, who dying in 1767, without male issue, bequeathed it by his will to the Rev. Mr. Ralph Drake, who afterwards took the name of Brockman, and his eldest son James Drake Brockman, esq. now of Beechborough, is the present owner of it. A court leet and court baron is held for this manor.

 

Charities,

CAPTAIN TIMOTHY BEDINGFIELD, by will in 1693, gave all his lands in St. Maries, Woodchurch, and Liminge, towards the education of such poor male children, of such poor parents as did not receive alms of this parish, or out of any parish-stock, and whose parents were of the church of England; and that such children be kept to learning, and sent to one of the universities if capable, or put out to trade; to be taken out of the parishes of Dimchurch, Liminge, and Smeeth; and 5s. a piece to two poor women of those parishes, on the 25th day of December yearly, after they had received the sacrament. Which lands are vested in trustees, three of whom are, the minister and churchwardens of Dimchurch for the time being.

 

JOHN FINCH, gent. of Limne, by will in 1707, among other charitable legacies, devised his sixth part of 160 acres of marshland in Eastbridge, to the ministers, &c. of Limne and Eastbridge, and their successors, in trust, that they of Limne should dispose of two third parts of the rents of the same, as is thereinmentioned, and that the minister, &c. of Eastbridge, should difpose of the other third part to three of the poorest and eldest people of Eastbridge, which have been good, honest and industrious labouring people, who have never received alms or relief of that or any other parish, in case there should be so many poor found there; if not, to so many of the poor of Dimchurch, so qualified, which should make up the constant number of three half-yearly for ever.

 

The poor constantly relieved by this and Blackmanstone consolidated, as to this purpose, are about twelve, casually twenty.

 

DIMCHURSH is within the ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDICTION of the diocese of Canterbury, and deanry of Limne.

 

The church, which is dedicated to St. Peter and St. Paul, consists of one isle and one chancel, having a low pointed steeple at the west end, in which hang five bells. At the bottom of the tower of the steeple is an antient circular arch, ornamented. The isle is cieled, the chancel not. In the latter, within the rails, is a memorial for John Raisback, A. B. obt. 1787. Without the rails a memorial for John Fowle, gent. of Dimchurch, obt. 1753. In the isle, against the south wall, is a monument for Capt. Timothy Bedingfield, and Mary his wife, who lie buried near it. He died in 1693, arms, Ermine, an eagle, gules, impaling argent, a lion rampant guardant, crowned, sable.

 

This church, which is a rectory, was part of the possessions of the monastery of St. Augustine, and continued so till the dissolution of it in the 30th year of king Henry VIII. where it has remained ever since, the king being the present patron of it.

 

It is valued in the king's books at 7l. 2s. 8½d. and the yearly tenths at 14s. 3¼d. There is a parsonage house and three acres of glebe. In 1588 it was valued at sixty pounds, communicants seventy-three. In 1640, the like. It is now of the value of about eighty pounds per annum.

 

¶In the petition of the clergy, beneficed in Romney Marsh, in 1635, for the setting aside the custom of two-pence an acre, in lieu of tithe-wool and pasturage, a full account of the proceedings in which has been already given before under Burmarsh, upon which it was then agreed on all sides, that wool in the Marsh had never been known to have been paid in specie, the other tithes being paid or compounded for; and as to this parish in particular, that the custom of two-pence an acre, as before-mentioned, for pasture and wool, which is sometimes called the tithe of dry cattle, had been proved by an indenture made between Richard Hudson, parson of Dimchurch, and Thomas Honywood, in the 43d year of queen Elizabeth.

 

There is a modus of one shilling an acre on all grass land in this parish.

 

www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-kent/vol8/pp264-270

Capable of long jumps and sufficient sand walking capabilities, this melee orientated hardsuit is a tough friend or foe in desert battlegrounds

Inspired by this song mainly ( www.youtube.com/watch?v=yX8sdiVSkpc ) and partially the Touch of Malice from Destiny.

---

"A key without a lock and a lock without a key."

 

The Overshadow is a product not of this dimension, forged and wielded by mysterious warriors known as the Wardescendants. Each shot is a shroud over reality that bends it to a different shape each second. Each weapon is a key that leads to no lock and a lock in which there is no key for. Each shot fired is a secret, one that holds many terrible truths.

 

Research has led to very scarce amounts of information. The gun is made up of a metal that shapes and bends itself to whatever design is tasked for it to create into, not found anywhere in our solar system. Conflicting energies of the dark converge inside the weapon, battling and canceling each other out, only to be made again by the parasitic core, a being of unknown origin and nature.

 

The weapon is powered by the laser core - a technological parasite that craves destruction, brought upon by each victim wound up on the wrong side of the Overshadow. The weapon is fed by a 50 round magazine; when the trigger is pulled, an unknown force calls out to the weapon, telling it to ensure chaos or face defeat. The projectile, a solidified mass of star matter and strange arcana, receives innumerable amounts of energy, which is applied to the projectile itself. The matter itself is teleported just ahead of the barrel, past the laser core, to ensure it leaves the barrel - the projectile travels at a staggering velocity, rivaling that of light itself, and leaves behind a devastating wound upon impact, capable of tearing through even the most durable of materials.

 

There has to be an explanation as to why this weapon craves destruction, what mechanism forces them to act as such, and when the time will arise when this weapon will finally be at peace, no longer desiring chaos, but none has been found. Few speculate the weapon may be autonomous, able to function and think independently on its own, like an AI, desiring what it wants and relaying whatever commands it's tasked to follow. Few speculate the weapon is simply another horrific design, built to simply destroy in the quickest and most brutal way possible, leaving no traces of life in its wake.

Medical Staff practise casualty treatment during Exercise Capable Eagle at RAF Leeming.

 

Royal Air Force medics have been responding after a simulated air attack on a North Yorkshire airfield.

 

RAF Leeming was playing the part of a foreign airbase being used by UK and French forces, as part of Exercise Capable Eagle, a test of the two countries’ ability to mount a combined air operation.

 

The exercise saw personnel planning, preparing for and flying missions, while facing a series of challenges.

 

One of those was an ‘attack’ by aircraft from 100 Squadron – itself normally based at RAF Leeming. 100 Squadron’s main role is to support training for all three services, including acting as an enemy when required. The simulated attack left a number of simulated casualties, giving the RAF’s healthcare experts a chance to test their skills.

 

While their colleagues are operating in Afghanistan daily, there is still a need for military medics to prepare for other possible operations. And Exercise Capable Eagle has given them the opportunity to do that.

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

© Crown Copyright 2013

Photographer: Cpl Andy Holmes

Image 45156306.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:

www.facebook.com/defenceimages

www.twitter.com/defenceimages

Man is capable of such amazing pieces of engineering. It boggles the mind that since 1937 with thousands of heavy machinery driving by it every day, earthquakes, strong winds and the fog, this beauty is still going strong. Ventured early morning with a friend (pictured) to find this spot.

+++ 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 Ling-Temco-Vought A-7 Corsair II was a carrier-capable subsonic light attack aircraft introduced to replace the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk. The A-7 airframe design was based on the successful supersonic Vought F-8 Crusader, although it was somewhat smaller and rounded off. The Corsair II initially entered service with the United States Navy during the Vietnam War. It was later adopted by the United States Air Force, including the Air National Guard, to replace the Douglas A-1 Skyraider and North American F-100 Super Sabre. The aircraft was also exported to several foreign countries, including Greece, Portugal, Thailand and New Zealand.

 

For the latter operator, the Corsair II was part of a major modernization campaign in the early 1970s. For instance, in 1970 14 McDonnell Douglas A-4 Skyhawks were purchased to replace the Vampire FB5's, which had been the primary light attack aircraft for the RNZAF for years, but the type was hopelessly outdated.

Furthermore New Zealand was also looking for a replacement of its similarly ageing Canberra fleet. These 31 aircraft were also phased out of service in mid 1970, and the A-7 chosen as the RNZAFs new fighter bomber because of its proven all-weather strike capability and advances avionics.

 

The RNZAF bought and operated 22 LTV A-7 Corsair II aircraft primarily in the coastal defense/anti-ship and sea patrol roles, air interdiction and air defense roles being secondary duties. The RNZAF Corsair II was very similar to the US Navy’s A-7E, even though the machines would only be operated form land bases. Designated A-7N, the machines featured an AN/APN-190 navigational radar with a Doppler groundspeed and drift detector plus an AN/APQ-128 terrain following radar. For the deployment of smart weapons, the machines were outfitted with a Pave Penny laser target acquisition system under the air intake lip, similar to the USAF’s A-7D, and could carry a wide range of weaponry and sensors, including AN/AAR-45 FLIR pods for an improved all-weather performance. Against enemy ships and large ground targets, visually guided smart bombs (AGM-62 and the more modern GBU-8 HOBOS) were bought, as well as AGM-65 Maverick against smaller, high priority targets.

 

Active service lasted between 1975 and 1999, and the A-7Ns were originally allocated between RNZAF 2 and 75 Squadron at Ohakea, where they were operated together with A-4K and TA-4K. The latter were also emplyed for A-7N pilot conversion training, since the RNZAF did not operate any Corsair II two seaters.

Several times the Squadron deployed to Clark Air Base in the Philippines and to Hawaii with both of the Corsair IIs and Skyhawks to exercise with the United States Air Force. Furthermore, the annual deployments as part of the Five Power Defence Agreement (called Exercise Vanguard) had the Squadron visit Australia, Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand to practice with those countries. Two RNZAF A-7s of 75 Squadron even made visits to Great Britain.

 

In the early Nineties the Corsair IIs started to suffer from numerous maintenance and logistic problems due to the lack of spare parts and general financial problems. This also prevented a major avionics update and the procurement of AGM-84 Harpoon missiles for the A-7Ns and the RNZAF P-3 Orion maritime patrol aircraft. The maintenance situation became so dire that several aircraft were cannibalized for spare parts to service other fighters. In 1992 only sixteen A-7Ns remained operational. This resulted in the available fighters no longer being assigned and dedicated to one specific squadron, but shared and assigned to one of the RNZAF combat squadrons (2, 14 and 75 Squadron, respectively), as needed.

 

During its 24 years of duty in the RNZAF, the A-7 fleet suffered 8 severe accidents with aircraft losses (and two pilots being killed). Nevertheless, the introduction of the A-7 was seen as a success due to the evolution that it allowed the Air Force in aircraft maintenance, with focus in modern computer and electronic systems, and in the steady qualification of pilots and technicians.

 

In 1999, the National Government selected an order of 28 F-16A/B Fighting Falcon aircraft to replace the complete fleet of A-4 Skyhawks and A-7 Corsair IIs, but this procurement plan was cancelled in 2001 following election by the incoming Labour Government under Helen Clark. This was followed by the disbanding of several fixed wing aircraft squadrons, with the consequence of removing the RNZAF's air combat capability. The last A-7 flight in RNZAF service took place on 1st of October 2001. Subsequently, most of the RNZAF's fighter pilots left New Zealand to serve in the Royal Australian Air Force and the Royal Air Force.

 

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 46 ft 2 in (14.06 m)

Wingspan: 38 ft 9 in (11.8 m), 23 ft 9 in (7.24 m) wings folded

Height: 16 ft 1 in (4.9 m)

Wing area: 374.9 sq ft (34.83 m²)

Airfoil: NACA 65A007 root and tip

Empty weight: 19,127 lb (8,676 kg)

Max takeoff weight: 41,998 lb (19,050 kg) overload condition.

Fuel capacity: 1,338 US gal (5,060 l; 1,114 imp gal) (10,200 lb (4,600 kg)) internal

 

Powerplant:

1 × Allison TF41-A-2 non-afterburning turbofan engine, 15,000 lbf (66.7 kN) thrust

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 600 kn (690 mph; 1,111 km/h) at Sea level

Range: 1,070 nmi; 1,231 mi (1,981 km) maximum internal fuel

Ferry range: 1,342 nmi; 1,544 mi (2,485 km) with maximum internal and external fuel

Service ceiling: 42,000 ft (13,000 m)

Wing loading: 77.4 lb/sq ft (378 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight: 0.50

Take-off run: 1,705 ft (519.7 m) at 42,000 lb (19,000 kg)

 

Armament:

1× M61A1 Vulcan 20 mm (0.787 in) rotary cannon with 1,030 rounds

6× under-wing and 2× fuselage pylon stations (for mounting AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs only)

with a total ordnance capacity of 15,000 lb (6,803.9 kg)

  

The kit and its assembly:

An idea that had been lingering on my project list for some years, and a recent build of an RNZAF A-7 by fellow modeler KiwiZac at whatifmodelers.com eventually triggered this build, a rather simple alternative livery whif. I had this idea on the agenda for some time, though, already written up a background story (which was accidently deleted early last year and sent the project into hiatus - until now) and had the kit as well as decals collected and stashed away.

 

The basis is the Hobby Boss A-7, which is available in a wide range of variant in 1:72 scale. Not cheap, but IMHO the best Corsair II kit at the moment, because it is full of ample surface details, goes together nicely and features a complete air intake, a good cockpit tub and even some maintenance covers that can be displayed in open position, in case you want to integrate the kit in a diorama. In my case it’s the A-7E kit, because I wanted a late variant and the US Navy’s refueling probe instead of the A-7D’s dorsal adapter for the USAF refueling boom system.

 

For the fictional RNZAF A-7N no fundamental changes were made. I just deliberately used OOB parts like the A-7D’s Pave Penny laser targeting pod under the air intake. As a personal addition I lowered the flaps slightly for a more lively look. Around the hull, some blade antennae were changed or added, and I installed the pair of pitots in front of the windscreen (made from thin wire).

 

The FLIR pod came with the kit, as well as the drop tank under the inner starboards wing pylon and the AIM-9Bs. Only the GBU-8s were externally sourced, from one of the Hasegawa USAF ordnance sets.

 

For the finalized kit on display I mounted the maintenance covers in open position, but for the beauty pics they were provisionally placed in closed position onto the kit’s flanks. The covers had to be modified for this stunt, but since their fit is very good and tight they easily stayed in place, even for the flight scenes!

 

Painting and markings:

This was the more interesting part – I wanted „something special“ for the fictional RNZAF Corsair II. Upon delivery, the USAF SEA scheme would certainly have been the most appropriate camouflage – the A-4K’s were painted this way and the aforementioned inspiring build by KiwiZac was finished this way.

 

Anyway, my plan had been from the start a machine in late service with low-viz markings similar to the A-4Ks, which received an attractive three-tone wrap-around scheme (in FS 34102, 34079 and 36081) or a simple all-around coat of FS 34079.

 

Both of these schemes could have been a sensible choice for this project, but… no! Too obvious, too simple for my taste. I rather wanted something that makes you wonder and yet make the aircraft look authentic and RNZAF-esque.

 

While digging for options and alternatives I stumbled upon the RNZAF’s C-130 Hercules transporters, which, like Canadian machines, carry a wrap-around scheme in two tones of grey (a light blue grey and a darker tone with a reddish hue) and a deep olive green tone that comes close to Dark Slate Grey, together with low-viz markings. A pretty unique scheme! Not as murky as the late A-4Ks and IMHO also well suited for the naval/coastal environment that the machine would patrol.

 

I was not able to positively identify the original tones on the CAF and RNZAF Hercs, so I interpreted various aircraft pictures. I settled upon Humbrol 163 (RAF Dark Green) 125 (FS 36118, Gunship Grey) and Revell 57 (RAL 7000, similar to FS 35237, but lighter and “colder”). For the wraparound scheme I used the C-130s as benchmark.

 

The cockpit became Dark Gull Grey (Humbrol 140) while the landing gear and the air intake duct became – behind 5mm of grey around the intake lip - white. The maintenance hatches’ interior was painted with a mix of Humbrol 81 and 38, for a striking zinc chromate primer look.

 

After a light black ink wash the kit received some panel post-shading for more contrast esp. between the dark colors and a slightly worn and sun-bleached look, since the aircraft would be depicted towards the end of its active service life.

 

Decals were the most challenging task, though: finding suitable RNZAF roundels is not easy, and I was happy when Xtradecal released an appropriate sheet that offers kiwi roundels for all positions (since motifs for port and starboard have to be mirrored). The Kiwi squadron emblem actually belongs to an RNZAF A-4K (from an Old Models sheet). The serial codes were puzzled together from single letter (TL Modellbau), most stencils come from the Hobby Boss OOB sheet.

  

A simple build, yet a very interesting topic and in the end also an IMHO very cool-looking aircraft in its fictional livery. Building the Hobby Boss A-7 was easy, despite some inherent flaws of the kit (e .g. totally blank dashboard and side consoles, and even no decals included!). The paint scheme lent from the RNZAF Hercs suits the SLUF well, though.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

The KAI T-50 Golden Eagle (골든이글) is a family of South Korean supersonic advanced trainers and light combat aircraft, developed by Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) with Lockheed Martin. The T-50 is South Korea's first indigenous supersonic aircraft and one of the world's few supersonic trainers.

 

The T-50 program started in the late Nineties and was originally intended to develop an indigenous trainer aircraft capable of supersonic flight, to train and prepare pilots for the KF-16 and F-15K, replacing trainers such as T-38 and A-37 that were then in service with the ROKAF. Prior South Korean aircraft programs include the turboprop KT-1 basic trainer produced by Daewoo Aerospace (now part of KAI), and license-manufactured KF-16.

 

The mother program, code-named KTX-2, began in 1992, but the Ministry of Finance and Economy suspended the original project in 1995 due to financial constraints. The basic design of the aircraft was set by 1999, and eventually the development of the aircraft was funded 70% by the South Korean government, 17% by KAI, and 13% by Lockheed Martin.

 

In general, the T-50 series of aircraft closely resembles the KF-16 in configuration, but it actually is a completely new design: the T-50 is 11% smaller and 23% lighter than an F-16, and in order to create enough space for the two-seat cockpit, the air intake was bifurcated and placed under the wing gloves, resembling the F/A-18's layout.

 

The aircraft was formally designated as the T-50 'Golden Eagle' in February 2000, the T-50A designation had been reserved by the U.S. military to prevent it from being inadvertently assigned to another aircraft model. Final assembly of the first T-50 took place between 15 January and 14 September 2001. The first flight of the T-50 took place in August 2002, and initial operational assessment from 28 July to 14 August 2003.

 

The trainer has a cockpit for two pilots in a tandem arrangement, both crew members sitting in "normal" election seats, not in the F-16's reclined position. The high-mounted canopy is applied with stretched acrylic, providing the pilots with good visibility, and has been tested to offer the canopy with ballistic protection against 4-lb objects impacting at 400 knots.

 

The ROKAF, as original development driver, placed an initial production contract for 25 T-50s in December 2003, with aircraft scheduled to be delivered between 2005 and 2009. Original T-50 aircraft were equipped with the AN/APG-67(v)4 radar from Lockheed Martin. The T-50 trainer is powered by a GE F404 engine built under license by Samsung Techwin. Under the terms of the T-50/F404-102 co-production agreement, GE provides engine kits directly to Samsung Techwin who produces designated parts as well as performing final engine assembly and testing.

 

The T-50 program quickly expanded beyond a pure trainer concept to include the TA-50 armed trainer aircraft, as well as the FA-50 light attack aircraft, which has already similar capabilities as the multirole KF-16. Reconnaissance and electronic warfare variants were also being developed, designated as RA-50 and EA-50.

 

The TA-50 variant is a more heavily armed version of the T-50 trainer, intended for lead-in fighter training and light attack roles. It is equipped with an Elta EL/M-2032 fire control radar and designed to operate as a full-fledged combat platform. This variant mounts a lightweight three-barrel cannon version of the M61 Vulcan internally behind the cockpit, which fires linkless 20 mm ammunition. Wingtip rails can accommodate the AIM-9 Sidewinder missile, a variety of additional weapons can be mounted to underwing hardpoints, including precision-guided weapons, air-to-air missiles, and air-to-ground missiles. The TA-50 can also mount additional utility pods for reconnaissance, targeting assistance, and electronic warfare. Compatible air-to-surface weapons include the AGM-65 Maverick missile, Hydra 70 and LOGIR rocket launchers, CBU-58 and Mk-20 cluster bombs, and Mk-82, -83, and -84 general purpose bombs.

 

Among the operators of the TA-50 are the Philippines, Thailand and the ROKAF, and the type has attracted a global interest, also in Europe. The young Republic of Scotland Air Corps (locally known as Poblachd na h-Alba Adhair an Airm) chose, soon after the country's independence from the United Kingdom, after its departure from the European Union in 2017, the TA-50 as a complement to its initial procurements and add more flexibility to its small and young air arm.

 

According to a White Paper published by the Scottish National Party (SNP) in 2013, an independent Scotland would have an air force equipped with up to 16 air defense aircraft, six tactical transports, utility rotorcraft and maritime patrol aircraft, and be capable of “contributing excellent conventional capabilities” to NATO. Outlining its ambition to establish an air force with an eventual 2,000 uniformed personnel and 300 reservists, the SNP stated the organization would initially be equipped with “a minimum of 12 interceptors in the Eurofighter/Typhoon class, based at Lossiemouth, a tactical air transport squadron, including around six [Lockheed Martin] C-130J Hercules, and a helicopter squadron”.

 

According to the document, “Key elements of air forces in place at independence, equipped initially from a negotiated share of current UK assets, will secure core tasks, principally the ability to police Scotland’s airspace, within NATO.” An in-country air command and control capability would be established within five years of a decision in favor of independence, it continues, with staff also to be “embedded within NATO structures”.

This plan was immediately set into action after the country's independence in late 2017 with the purchase of twelve refurbished Saab JAS 39A Gripen interceptors for Quick Reaction Alert duties and upgraded, former Swedish Air Force Sk 90 trainers for the RoScAC. But these second hand machines were just the initial step in the mid-term procurement plan.

 

The twelve KAI TA-50 aircraft procured as a second step were to fulfill the complex requirement for a light and cost-effective multi-purpose aircraft that could be used in a wide variety of tasks: primarily as an advanced trainer for supersonic flight and as a trainer for the fighter role (since all Scottish Gripens were single seaters and dedicated to the interceptor/air defense role), but also as a light attack and point defense aircraft.

 

Scotland was offered refurbished F-16C and Ds, but this was declined as the type was deemed to be too costly and complex. Beyond the KAI T-50, the Alenia Aermacchi M-346 Master and the BAe Hawk were considered, too, but, eventually, a modified TA-50 that was tailored to the RoScAC’s procurement plans was chosen by the Scottish government.

 

In order to fulfill the complex duty profile, the Scottish TA-50s were upgraded with elements from the FA-50 attack aircraft. They possess more internal fuel capacity, enhanced avionics, a longer radome and a tactical datalink. Its EL/M-2032 pulse-Doppler radar has been modified so that it offers now a range two-thirds greater than the TA-50's standard radar. It enables the aircraft to operate in any weather, detect surface targets and deploy AIM-120 AAMs for BVR interceptions. The machines can also be externally fitted with Rafael's Sky Shield or LIG Nex1's ALQ-200K ECM pods, Sniper or LITENING targeting pods, and Condor 2 reconnaissance pods to further improve the machine’s electronic warfare, reconnaissance, and targeting capabilities.

 

Another unique feature of the Scottish Golden Eagle is its powerplant: even though the machines are originally powered by a single General Electric F404 afterburning turbofan and designed around this engine, the RoScAC TF-50s are powered by a Volvo RM12 low-bypass afterburning turbofan. These are procured and serviced through Saab in Sweden, as a part of the long-term collaboration contract for the RoScAC’s Saab Gripen fleet. This decision was taken in order to decrease overall fleet costs through a unified engine.

 

The RM12 is a derivative of the General Electric F404-400. Changes from the standard F404 includes greater reliability for single-engine operations (including more stringent birdstrike protection) and slightly increased thrust. Several subsystems and components were also re-designed to reduce maintenance demands, and the F404's analogue Engine Control Unit was replaced with the Digital Engine Control – jointly developed by Volvo and GE – which communicates with the cockpit through the digital data buses and, as redundancy, mechanical calculators controlled by a single wire will regulate the fuel-flow into the engine.

 

Another modification of the RoScAC’s TA-50 is the exchange of the original General Dynamics A-50 3-barrel rotary cannon for a single barrel Mauser BK-27 27mm revolver cannon. Being slightly heavier and having a lower cadence, the BK-27 featured a much higher kinetic energy, accuracy and range. Furthermore, the BK-27 is the standard weapon of the other, Sweden-built aircraft in RoScAC service, so that further synergies and cost reductions were expected.

 

The Scottish Department of National Defense announced the selection of the TA-50 in August 2018, after having procured refurbished Saab Sk 90 and JAS 39 Gripen from Sweden as initial outfit of the country's small air arm with No. 1 Squadron based at Lossiemouth AB.

 

Funding for the twelve aircraft was approved by Congress on September 2018 and worth € 420 mio., making the Golden Eagle the young country’s first brand new military aircraft. Deliveries of the Golden Hawk TF.1, how the type was officially designated in Scottish service, began in November 2019, lasting until December 2020.

The first four Scottish Golden Hawk TF.1 aircraft were allocated to the newly established RoScAC No. 2 Squadron, based at Leuchars, where the RoScAC took control from the British Army. The latter had just taken over the former air base from the RAF in 2015, losing its “RAF air base” status and was consequentially re-designated “Leuchars Station”, primarily catering to the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards who have, in the meantime, become part of Scotland’s Army Corps. The brand new machines were publically displayed on the shared army and air corps facility in the RoScAC’s new paint scheme on 1st of December 2019 for the first time, and immediately took up service.

 

General characteristics:

Crew: 2

Length: 13.14 m (43.1 ft)

Wingspan (with wingtip missiles): 9.45 m (31 ft)

Height: 4.94 m (16.2 ft)

Wing area: 23.69 m² (255 ft²)

Empty weight: 6,470 kg (14,285 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 12,300 kg (27,300 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1× Volvo RM12 afterburning turbofan, rated at 54 kN (12,100 lbf) dry thrust

and 80.5 kN (18,100 lbf) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: Mach 1.5 (1,640 km/h, 1,020 mph at 9,144 m or 30,000 ft)

Range: 1,851 km (1,150 mi)

Service ceiling: 14,630 m (48,000 ft)

Rate of climb: 198 m/s (39,000 ft/min)

Thrust/weight: 0.96

Max g limit: -3 g / +8 g

 

Armament:

1× 27mm Mauser BK-27 revolver cannon with 120 rounds

A total of 7 hardpoints (4 underwing, 2 wingtip and one under fuselage)

for up to 3,740 kg (8,250 lb) of payload

  

The kit and its assembly:

A rare thing concerning my builds: an alternative reality whif. A fictional air force of an independent Scotland crept into my mind after the hysterical “Brexit” events in 2016 and the former (failed) public vote concerning the independence of Scotland from the UK. What would happen to the military, if the independence would take place, nevertheless, and British forces left the country?

 

The aforementioned Scottish National Party (SNP) paper from 2013 is real, and I took it as a benchmark. Primary focus would certainly be set on air space defense, and the Gripen appears as a good and not too expensive choice. The Sk 90 is a personal invention, but would fulfill a good complementary role.

Nevertheless, another multi-role aircraft would make sense as an addition, and both M-346 and T-50 caught my eye (Russian options were ruled out due to the tense political relations), and I gave the TA-50 the “Go” because of its engine and its proximity to the Gripen.

 

The T-50 really looks like the juvenile offspring from a date between an F-16 and an F-18. There’s even a kit available, from Academy – but it’s a Snap-Fit offering without a landing gear but, as an alternative, a clear display that can be attached to the engine nozzle. It also comes with stickers instead of waterslide decals. This sounds crappy and toy-like, but, after taking a close look at kit reviews, I gave it a try.

 

And I am positively surprised. While the kit consists of only few parts, moulded in the colors of a ROCAF trainer as expected, the surfaces have minute, engraved detail. Fit is very good, too, and there’s even a decent cockpit that’s actually better than the offering of some “normal” model kits. The interior comes with multi-part seats, side consoles and dashboards that feature correctly shaped instrument details (no decals). The air intakes are great, too: seamless, with relatively thin walls, nice!

 

So far, so good. But not enough. I could have built the kit OOB with the landing gear tucked up, but I went for the more complicated route and trans-/implanted the complete landing gear from an Intech F-16, which is available for less than EUR 5,- (and not much worth, to be honest). AFAIK, there’s white metal landing gear for the T-50 available from Scale Aircraft Conversions, but it’s 1:48 and for this set’s price I could have bought three Intech F-16s…

 

But back to the conversion. This landing gear transplantation stunt sounds more complicated as it actually turned out to be. For the front wheel well I simply cut a long opening into the fuselage and added inside a styrene sheet as a well roof, attached under the cockpit floor.

For the main landing gear I just opened the flush covers on the T-50 fuselage, cut out the interior from the Intech F-16, tailored it a little and glued it into its new place.

 

This was made easy by the fact that the T-50 is a bit smaller than the F-16, so that the transplants are by tendency a little too large and offer enough “flesh” for adaptations. Once in place, the F-16 struts were mounted (also slightly tailored to fit well) and covers added. The front wheel cover was created with 0.5 mm styrene sheet, for the main covers I used the parts from the Intech F-16 kit because they were thinner than the leftover T-50 fuselage parts and feature some surface detail on the inside. They had to be adapted in size, though. But the operation worked like a charm, highly recommended!

 

Around the hull, some small details like missing air scoops, some pitots and antennae were added. In a bout of boredom (while waiting for ordered parts…) I also added static dischargers on the aerodynamic surfaces’ trailing edges – the kit comes with obvious attachment points, and they are a small detail that improves the modern look of the T-50 even more.

 

Since the Academy kit comes clean with only a ventral drop tank as ordnance, underwing pylons from a SEPECAT Jaguar (resin aftermarket parts from Pavla) and a pair of AGM-65 from the Italeri NATO Weapons set plus launch rails were added, plus a pair of Sidewinders (from a Hasegawa AAM set, painted as blue training rounds) on the wing tip launch rails.

Since the T-50 trainer comes unarmed, a gun nozzle had to be added – its position is very similar to the gun on board of the F-16, on the upper side of the port side LERX. Another addition are conformal chaff/flare dispensers at the fin’s base, adding some beef to the sleek aircraft.

  

Painting and markings:

I did not want a grey-in-grey livery, yet something “different” and rather typical or familiar for the British isles. My approach is actually a compromise, with classic RAF colors and design features inspired by camouflage experiments of the German Luftwaffe on F-4F Phantoms and Alpha Jets in the early Eighties.

 

For the upper sides I went for a classic British scheme, in Dark Green and Dark Sea Grey (Humbrol 163 and 164), colors I deem very appropriate for the Scottish landscape and for potential naval operations. These were combined with elements from late RAF interceptors: Barley Grey (Humbrol 167) for the flanks including the pylons, plus Light Aircraft Grey (Humbrol 166) for the undersides, with a relatively high waterline and a grey fin, so that a side or lower view would rather blend with the sky than the ground below.

 

Another creative field were the national markings: how could fictional Scottish roundels look like, and how to create them so that they are easy to make and replicate (for a full set for this kit, as well as for potential future builds…)? Designing and printing marking decals myself was an option, but I eventually settled for a composite solution which somewhat influenced the roundels’ design, too.

My Scottish roundel interpretationconsists of a blue disk with a white cross – it’s simple, different from any other contemporary national marking, esp. the UK roundel, and easy to create from single decal parts. In fact, the blue roundels were die-punched from blue decal sheet, and the cross consists of two thin white decal strips, cut into the correct length with the same stencil, using generic sheet material from TL Modellbau.

 

Another issue was the potential tactical code, and a small fleet only needs a simple system. Going back to a WWII system with letter codes for squadrons and individual aircraft was one option, but, IMHO, too complicated. I adopted the British single letter aircraft code, though, since this system is very traditional, but since the RoScAC would certainly not operate too many squadrons, I rather adapted a system similar to the Swedish or Spanish format with a single number representing the squadron. The result is a simple 2-digit code, and I adapted the German system of placing the tactical code on the fuselage, separated by the roundel. Keeping British traditions up I repeated the individual aircraft code letter on the fin, where a Scottish flag, a small, self-printed Fife coat-or-arms and a serial number were added, too.

 

The kit saw only light weathering and shading, and the kit was finally sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri).

  

Creating this whif, based on an alternative historic timeline with a near future perspective, was fun – and it might spawn more models that circle around the story. A Scottish Sk 90 and a Gripen are certain options (and for both I have kits in the stash…), but there might also be an entry level trainer, some helicopters for the army and SAR duties, as well as a transport aircraft. The foundation has been laid out, now it’s time to fill Scotland’s history to come with detail and proof. ;-)

 

Besides, despite being a snap-fit kit, Academy’s T-50 is a nice basis, reminding me of some Hobby Boss kits but with less flaws (e .g. most of the interiors), except for the complete lack of a landing gear. But with the F-16 and Jaguar transplants the simple kit developed into something more 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:

In 1948, a swept wing version of the F-84 was created with the hope of bringing performance to the level of the F-86. The last production F-84E was fitted with a swept tail, a new wing with 38.5 degrees of leading-edge sweep and 3.5 degrees of anhedral, and a J35-A-25 engine producing 5,300 pound-force (23.58 kN) of thrust. The aircraft was designated XF-96A and flew on 3 June 1950. Although the airplane was capable of 602 knots (693 mph, 1,115 km/h), the performance gain over the F-84E was considered minor. Nonetheless, it was ordered into production in July 1950 as the F-84F Thunderstreak. The F-84 designation was eventually retained because the fighter was expected to be a low-cost improvement of the straight-wing Thunderjet with over 55 percent commonality in tooling.

 

In the meantime, the USAF, hoping for improved high-altitude performance from a more powerful engine, arranged for the British Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire turbojet engine to be built in the United States as the Wright J65. To accommodate the larger engine, YF-84Fs with a British-built Sapphire as well as production F-84Fs with the J65 had a vertically stretched fuselage, with the air intake attaining an oval cross-section. Production quickly ran into problems, though. Although tooling commonality with the Thunderjet was supposed to be 55 %, but just 15 % of the tools could actually be re-used. To make matters worse, the F-84F utilized press-forged wing spars and ribs. At the time, only three presses in the United States could manufacture these, and priority was given to the Boeing B-47 Stratojet bomber over the F-84. The YJ65-W-1 engine was considered obsolete, too, and the improved J65-W-3 did not become available until 1954. When the first production F-84F flew on 22 November 1952, it was considered not ready for operational deployment due to control and stability problems. The first 275 aircraft, equipped with conventional stabilizer-elevator tailplanes, suffered from accelerated stall pitch-up and poor turning ability at combat speeds. Beginning with Block 25, the problem was improved upon by the introduction of a hydraulically powered one-piece stabilator. A number of aircraft were also retrofitted with spoilers for improved high-speed control. As a result, the F-84F was not declared operational until 12 May 1954.

 

The second YF-84F prototype was completed with wing-root air intakes. These were not adopted for the fighter due to loss of thrust, but this arrangement kept the nose section free and permitted placement of cameras, and the different design was adopted for the RF-84F Thunderflash reconnaissance version. Being largely identical to the F-84F, the Thunderflash suffered from the same production delays and engine problems, though, delaying operational service until March 1954.

 

During the F-84F’s development the Air Defense Command was looking for a replacement for the outdated F-94 ‘Starfire’ interceptor, a hasty development from the T-33 trainer airframe with an afterburner engine and an on-board radar. However, the F-94 was only armed with machine guns in its early versions or unguided missiles in its later incarnations, which were inadequate. An aircraft with better performance, ideally with supersonic speed, a better radar, and the ability to carry guided missiles (in the form if the AIR-1 and 2 ‘Falcon’ AAMs) as well as the AIR-2 ‘Genie’ missile was now requested.

 

The Douglas AIR-2 Genie followed a unique but effective concept that represented the technological state-of-the-art: it was an unguided air-to-air rocket with a 1.5 kt W25 nuclear warhead. The interception of Soviet strategic bombers was a major military preoccupation of the late 1940s and 1950s. The World War II-age fighter armament of machine guns and cannon were inadequate to stop attacks by massed bomber formations, which were expected to come in at high altitude and at high subsonic speed. Firing large volleys of unguided rockets into bomber formations was not much better, and true air-to-air missiles were in their infancy. In 1954 Douglas Aircraft began a program to investigate the possibility of a nuclear-armed air-to-air weapon. To ensure simplicity and reliability, the weapon would be unguided, since the large blast radius made precise accuracy unnecessary. Full-scale development began in 1955, with test firing of inert warhead rockets commencing in early 1956. The final design carried a 1.5-kiloton W25 nuclear warhead and was powered by a Thiokol SR49-TC-1 solid-fuel rocket engine of 162 kN (36,000 lbf) thrust, sufficient to accelerate the rocket to Mach 3.3 during its two-second burn. Total flight time was about 12 seconds, during which time the rocket covered 10 km (6.2 mi). Targeting, arming, and firing of the weapon were coordinated by the launch aircraft's fire-control system. Detonation was by time-delay fuze, although the fuzing mechanism would not arm the warhead until engine burn-out, to give the launch aircraft sufficient time to turn and escape. However, there was no mechanism for disarming the warhead after launch. Lethal radius of the blast was estimated to be about 300 meters (980 ft). Once fired, the Genie's short flight-time and large blast radius made it virtually impossible for a bomber to avoid destruction. The rocket entered service with the designation MB-1 Genie in 1957.

 

During the development phase the first carrier aircraft earmarked to carry the AIR-2 was the Northrop F-89 Scorpion, which had already been introduced in the early Fifties. While being an all-weather interceptor with on-board radar, it was a slow and large aircraft, and outdated like the F-94. Trying to keep the F-84 production lines busy, however, Republic saw the chance to design an all-weather interceptor aircraft that would surpass the F-89’s mediocre performance and meet the AIR-2 carrier requirements on the basis of the swept-wing (R)F-84F. To emphasize its dedicated interceptor role and set it apart from its fighter-bomber ancestors, the heavily modified aircraft was designated F-96B (even though it had little to do with the XF-96A that became the F-84F) and called ‘Thunderguard’.

 

The F-96B was largely based on the RF-84F’s airframe with its wing-root air intakes, what offered ample space in the aircraft’s nose for a radar system and other equipment. The radar was coupled with a state-of-the-art Hughes MC-10 fire control system. To relieve the pilot from operating the radar system one of the fuel cells behind the cockpit was deleted and a second crew member was placed behind him under an extended, strutless hood that opened to starboard. To compensate for the loss of fuel and maintain the F-84F’s range, a new tank was mounted under the cockpit floor in the aircraft’s center of gravity.

To improve performance and cope with the raised take-off weight, the F-96B was powered by an uprated Wright J65-W-18 turbojet, which generated 0.4 kN more dry thrust than the F-84F’s original J65-W-3 (7,700 lbf/34 kN). This was not too much, though, so that the J65 was additionally outfitted with an afterburner. With this upgrade the powerplant provided a maximum thrust of 10,500 lbf (47 kN), what resulted in a markedly improved rate of climb and the ability to break the sound barrier in level flight. The additional reheat section necessitated a wider and longer rear fuselage, which had to be redesigned. As an unintended side benefit, this new tail section reduced overall drag due to a slightly area-ruled coke-bottle shape behind the wings’ trailing edge, which was even emphasized through the ventral brake parachute fairing.

Armament consisted only of missiles, which were all carried externally on wing stations, all guns of the former F-84 versions were deleted to save weight. The F-96B’s weapons range included GAR-1/2/3/4 (Later re-designated as AIM-4) radar- and IR-guided Falcon air-to-air missiles and a pair of MB-1 Genie missiles. Up to four pods with nineteen unguided 2.75 in (70 mm) "Mighty Mouse" Mk 4/Mk 40 Folding-Fin Aerial Rockets each were an alternative, too, and a pair of drop tanks were typically carried under the inner wings to provide the aircraft with sufficient range, since the new afterburner significantly increased fuel consumption.

 

Even though it was only a derivative design, the F-96B introduced a lot of innovations. One of these was the use of a diverertless supersonic inlet (DSI), a novel type of jet engine air intake to control air flow into their engines. Initial research into the DSI was done by Antonio Ferri in the 1950s. It consisted of a "bump" and a forward-swept inlet cowl, which worked together to divert boundary layer airflow away from the aircraft's engine. In the case of the F-96B this was realized as an inward-turning inlet with a variable contraction ratio. However, even though they had not been deemed necessary to guarantee a clean airflow, the F-96B’s air intakes were further modified with splitter plates to adapt them to the expected higher flight speeds and direct the air flow. The initial flight tests had also revealed a directional instability at high speed, due to the longer nose, so that the tail surfaces (both fin and stabilizers) were enlarged for the serial aircraft to compensate.

 

Another novel feature was an IRST sensor in front of the windscreen which augmented the on-board radar. This sensor, developed by Hughes International and designated ‘X-1’, was still very experimental, though, highly unreliable, and difficult to handle, because it relied on pressurized coolant to keep the sensor cold enough to operate properly, and dosing it at a consistent level proved to be difficult (if not impossible). On the other side the IRST allowed to track targets even in a massively radar-jammed environment. The 7” diameter silicone sensor was, together with the on-board radar, slaved to the fire control system so that its input could be used to lock guided missiles onto targets, primarily the GAR-1 and GAR-2 AAMs. The X-1 had a field of view of 70×140°, with an angular resolution of 1°, and operated in 2.5 micron wavelength range. When it worked properly the sensor was able to detect a B-47-sized aircraft’s tails aspect from 25 nm (29 ml/46 km) and a target of similar size from directly ahead from 10 nm (12 ml/19 km). Later, better developed versions of Hughes IRST, like the X-3 that was retrofitted to the F-101B in the early Sixties, had a better range and were more reliable.

 

During the Thunderguard’s development another competitor entered the stage, the F-101B Voodoo. In the late 1940s, the Air Force had already started a research project into the future interceptor aircraft that eventually settled on an advanced specification known as the 1954 interceptor. Contracts for this specification eventually resulted in the selection of the F-102 Delta Dagger, but by 1952 it was becoming clear that none of the parts of the specification other than the airframe would be ready by 1954; the engines, weapons, and fire control systems were all going to take too long to get into service. An effort was then started to quickly produce an interim supersonic design to replace the various subsonic interceptors then in service, and the F-101 airframe was selected as a starting point. Although McDonnell proposed the designation F-109 for the new aircraft (which was to be a substantial departure from the basic Voodoo fighter bomber), the USAF assigned the designation F-101B. Its development was protracted, so that the F-96B – even though it offered less performance – was ordered into production to fill the USAF’s urgent interceptor gap.

 

F-96B production started after a brief test phase in late 1957, and the first aircraft were delivered to the 60th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron in 1958. However, when it became clear that the F-101B would finally enter service in 1959, F-96B production was quickly cut down and the initial order of 300 aircraft reduced to only 150, which were produced until early 1960 in three batches. Only sixty were directly delivered to ADC units, because these were preferably equipped with the supersonic F-102A and the new F-101B, which could also carry the nuclear Genie missile. The rest was directly handed over to Air National Guard units – and even there they were quickly joined and replaced by the early ADC aircraft.

 

Operationally, almost all F-96Bs functioned under the US–Canadian North American Air Defense Command (NORAD), which protected North American airspace from Soviet intruders, particularly the threat posed by nuclear-armed bombers. In service, the F-96Bs were soon upgraded with a data link to the Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) system, allowing ground controllers to steer the aircraft towards its targets by making adjustments through the plane's autopilot. Furthermore, the F-96B was upgraded to allow the carrying of two GAR-11/AIM-26 Nuclear Falcon missiles instead of the Genies when they became available in 1961.

A handful F-96Bs were camouflaged during the late Sixties with the USAF’s new SEA scheme, but most aircraft retained their original bare metal finish with more or less colorful unit markings. Due to its limited capabilities and the introduction of the Mach 2 McDonnell F-4 Phantom, the last F-96B was retired from ANG service in 1971.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 2

Length: 54t 11 1/2 in (16,77 m) incl. pitot

Wingspan: 33 ft 7.25 in (10,25 m)

Height: 16 ft 9 in (5,11 m)

Wing area: 350 sq ft (37,55 m²)

Empty weight: 13,810 lb (6.264 kg)

Gross weight: 21,035 lb (9.541 kg)

Max takeoff weight: 28,000 lb (12.701 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Wright J65-W-18 turbojet with 8,600 lbf (34 kN) dry thrust and 10,500 lbf (47 kN) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 695 mph (1,119 km/h, 604 kn, Mach 1.1) at 35,000 ft (10,668 m)

Cruise speed: 577 mph (928 km/h, 501 kn)

Range: 810 mi (1,304 km, 704 nmi) combat radius with two droptanks

Service ceiling: 49,000 ft (15,000 m)

Rate of climb: 16,300 ft/min (83 m/s)

Wing loading: 86 lb/sq ft (423 kg/m²)

 

Armament:

No internal guns;

6× underwing hardpoints for a total ordnance load of up to 6,000lb (2,727 kg), including

a pair of 191.5 US gal (727 l) or 375 US gal (1.429 l) drop tanks on the inner stations

and a mix of AIM-4 Falcon (up to six), MB-1 Genie (up to two) and/or pods with

nineteen 2.75”/70 mm FFAR unguided missiles each (up to four) on the outer stations

  

The kit and its assembly:

This fictional missing link between the RF-84F and the F-105 was conceived for the Fifties Group Build at whatifmodellers.com, an era when the USAF used a wide variety of interceptor aircraft types and technical advancements were quick and significant – in just a decade the interceptor evolved from a subsonic machine gun-toting aircraft to a guided weapons carrier platform, capable of Mach 2.

 

The F-96B (I re-used Republic’s dropped designation for the swept-wing F-84F) was to display one of the many “in between” designs, and the (R)F-84F was just a suitable basis for a conversion similar to the T-33-derived F-94, just more capable and big enough to carry the nuclear Genie missile.

The basis became Italeri’s vintage RF-84F kit, a rather simple affair with raised panel lines and a mediocre fit, plus some sinkholes. This was, however, heavily modified!

 

Work started with the implantation of a new tandem cockpit, taken wholesale from a Heller T-33. Fitting the cockpit tub into the wider Thunderflash hull was a bit tricky, putty blobs held the implant in place. The canopy was taken from the T-33, too, just the RF-84F’s original rear side windows were cut away to offer sufficient length for the longer clear part and the cockpit side walls had to be raised to an even level with the smaller windscreen with the help of styrene strips. With these adapters the T-33 canopy fitted surprisingly well over the opening and blended well into the spine.

 

The camera nose section lost its tip, which was replaced with the tail cone from a Matchbox H.S. Buccaneer (actually its air brake), and the camera windows as well as the slant surfaces that held them were PSRed away for a conical shape that extended the new pointed radome. Lots of weight in the nose and under the cockpit floor ensured a safe stance on the OOB landing gear.

The rear section behind the air brakes became all-new; for an afterburner I extended and widened the tail section and implanted the rear part from a B-66 (Italeri kit, too) engine nacelle, which received a wider nozzle (left over from a Nakotne MiG-29, a featureless thing) and an interior.

To balance the longer nose I also decided to enlarge the tail surfaces and replaced the OOB fin and stabilizers with leftover parts from a Trumpeter Il-28 bomber – the fin was shortened and the stabilizers reduced in span to match the rest of the aircraft. Despite the exotic source the parts blend well into the F-84’s overall design!

 

To add supersonic credibility and to connect the design further with the later F-105 I modified the air intakes and cut them into a raked shape – quite easy to realize. Once the wings were in place, I also added small splitter plates, left over from an Airfix BAC Strikemaster.

 

As an interceptor the armament had to be adapted accordingly, and I procured the quartet of IR-guided Falcons as well as the Genie duo from an Academy F-89. The large drop tanks were taken OOB from the Italeri kit. The Genies were mounted onto their massive Scorpion pylons under the outer wings of the F-96B, while the Falcons, due to relatively little space left under the wings, required a scratched solution. I eventually settled for dual launchers on small pylons, mounted in front of the landing gear wells. The pylons originally belong to an ESCI Ka-34 “Hokum” helicopter kit (they were just short enough!), the launch rails are a halved pair of F-4 Sidewinder rails from a Hasegawa air-to-air weapons set. With everything on place the F-96B looks quite crowded.

  

Painting and markings:

The machine would represent a late Fifties USAF type, so that the paint options were rather limited if I wanted to be authentic. ADC Grey was introduced in the early Sixties, SEA camouflage even later, so that bare metal became a natural choice – but this can be quite attractive! The model received an overall coat with acrylic “White Aluminum” from the rattle can, plus some darked panels all over the hull (Humbrol 56 for good contrast) and an afterburner section in Revell 91 (Iron Metallic) and Humbrol’s Steel Metallizer. The radome became deep black, the anti-glare panel in front of the windscreen olive drab (Revell 46). Light grey (Revell 75) was used for some small di-electric fairings.

Interior surfaces (cockpit and landing gear wells) were painted with Zinc Chromate primer (I used Humbrol 80), while the landing gear struts became silver-grey (Humbrol 56) and the inside of the covers as well as the air brakes were painted in bright red (Humbrol 19).

Once basic painting was done the model received a black ink washing and was rubbed with grinded graphite to emphasize the raised panel lines, and the material adds a nice dark metallic shine to the silver base coat.

 

Another challenge was to find suitable unit markings for the Fifties era in the decal vault, which would also fit onto the model. After a long search I eventually settled for rather simple markings from a 325th FIS F-102 from an Xtradecal sheet, which only features a rather timid fin decoration.

Finding other suitable standard markings remained demanding, though. Stars-And-Bars as well as the USAF taglines were taken from the Academy F-89 that also provided the ordnance, most stencils were taken from the OOB Italeri sheet and complemented by small markings from the scrap box. The biggest problem was the creation of a matching serial number. The “FF” code was originally used for P/F-51D Mustangs during the Korea War, but after the type had been phased out it might have been re-used? The letters as well as the serial number digits were created from various markings for USAF F-100s, also from an Xtradecal sheet.

 

Once the decals had been applied the model was sealed with semi-gloss acrylic varnish, except for the radome, the anti-glare panel as well as the walking areas on the wings as well as parts of the afterburner section, which were coated with matt varnish.

  

A rather straightforward conversion, even though finishing the project took longer than expected. But the result looks surprisingly natural and plausible. Lots of PSR was needed to modify the fuselage, though, especially the tail section was not easy to integrate into the Thunderflash’s hull. Sticking to the simple NMF livery paid IMHO out, too: the livery looks very natural and believable on the fictional aircraft, and it suits the F-84’s bulbous shape well.

+++ 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 Focke Wulf Ta 338 originated as a response of request by the RLM in mid 1943 for an aircraft capable of vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL), optimized for the interceptor and point defense role and without a hazardous liquid rocket engine as means of propulsion. In the course of the year, several German manufacturers responded with a multitude of highly innovative if not unusual design, including Heinkel with the ducted fan project "Lerche", Rheinmetall-Borsig with a jet-powered tailsitter, and Focke Wulf. This company’s engineering teams submitted two designs: the revolutionary "Triebflügel" concept and the more conservative, yet still futuristic "P.03.10338" tail sitter proposal, conceived by Focke Wulf’s leading engineer Kurt Tank and Walter Kappus from BMW, responsible for the engine development.

 

The P.03.10338 was based on the proven Fw 190 fighter, but the similarities were only superficial. Only the wings and a part of the fuselage structure around the cockpit would be used, but Tank assumed that using existing parts and tools would appreciably reduce development and production time.

A great part of the fuselage structure had to be re-designed to accommodate a powerful BMW 803 engine and its integral gearbox for an eight-bladed contraprop.

 

The BMW 803 was BMW's attempt to build a high-output aircraft engine, primarily for heavy bombers, by basically "coupling" two BMW 801 engines back-to-back into a single and very compact power unit. The result was a 28-cylinder, four-row radial engine, each comprising a multiple-bank in-line engine with two cylinders in each bank, which, due to cooling concerns, were liquid cooled.

 

This arrangement was from the start intended to drive independent contra-rotating propellers, in order to avoid stiffness problems with the whole engine driving just a single crankshaft and also to simply convert the raw power of this unit into propulsion. The front half of the engine drove the front propeller directly, while the rear engine drove a number of smaller shafts that passed between the cylinders of the front engine before being geared back together to drive the rear prop. This complex layout resulted in a rather large and heavy gearbox on the front of the engine, and the front engine needing an extended shaft to "clear" that gearbox. The four-row 803 engine weighed 2,950 kg (6,490 lb) dry and 4,130 kg (9,086 lb) fully loaded, and initial versions delivered 3,900 PS (3,847 hp; 2,868 kW).

 

While the engine was heavy and there were alternatives with a better weight/output ratio (e. g. the Jumo 222), the BMW 803 was favored for this project because it was the most powerful engine available, and it was relatively compact so that it could be fitted into a fighter's airframe. On the P.03.10338 it drove an all-metal, eight-blade contraprop with a diameter of 4,25 m (13 ft 11 in).

 

In order to accept this massive engine, the P.03.10338’s structure had to be stiffened and the load-bearing structures re-arranged. The aircraft kept the Fw 190's wing structure and surface, but the attachment points at the fuselage had to be moved for the new engine mount, so that they ended up in mid position. The original space for the Fw 190's landing gear was used for a pair of radiator baths in the wings' inner leading edge, the port radiator catering to the front engine half while the radiator on starboard was connected with the rear half. An additional annular oil and sodium cooler for the gearbox and the valve train, respectively, was mounted in the fuselage nose.

 

The tail section was completely re-designed. Instead of the Fw 190's standard tail with fin and stabilizers the P.03.10338’s tail surfaces were a reflected cruciform v-tail (forming an x) that extended above and below the fuselage. On the four fin tips, aerodynamic bodies carried landing pads while the fuselage end contained an extendable landing damper. The pilot sat in a standard Fw 190 cockpit, and the aircraft was supposed to start and land vertically from a mobile launch pad. In the case of an emergency landing, the lower stabilizers could be jettisoned. Nor internal armament was carried, instead any weaponry was to be mounted under the outer wings or the fuselage, in the form of various “Rüstsätze” packages.

 

Among the many exotic proposals to the VTOL fighter request, Kurt Tank's design appeared as one of the most simple options, and the type received the official RLM designation Ta 338. In a rush of urgency (and maybe blinded by clever Wunderwaffen marketing from Focke Wulf’s side), a series of pre-production aircraft was ordered instead of a dedicated prototype, which was to equip an Erprobungskommando (test unit, abbreviated “EK”) that would evaluate the type and develop tactics and procedures for the new fighter.

 

Fueled by a growing number of bomber raids over Germany, the “EK338” was formed as a part of JG300 in August 1944 in Schönwalde near Berlin, but it took until November 1944 that the first Ta 338 A-0 machines were delivered and made operational. These initial eight machines immediately revealed several flaws and operational problems, even though the VTOL concept basically worked and the aircraft flew well – once it was in the air and cruising at speeds exceeding 300 km/h (186 mph).

 

Beyond the many difficulties concerning the aircraft’s handling (esp. the landing was hazardous), the lack of a landing gear hampered ground mobility and servicing. Output of the BMW 803 was sufficient, even though the aircraft had clear limits concerning the take-off weight, so that ordnance was limited to only 500 kg (1.100 lb). Furthermore, the noise and the dust kicked up by starting or landing aircraft was immense, and servicing the engine or the weapons was more complicated than expected through the high position of many vital and frequently tended parts.

 

After three Ta 338 A-0 were lost in accidents until December 1944, a modified version was ordered for a second group of the EK 338. This led to the Ta 338 A-1, which now had shorter but more sharply swept tail fins that carried single wheels and an improved suspension under enlarged aerodynamic bodies.

This machine was now driven by an improved BMW 803 A-2 that delivered more power and was, with an MW-50 injection system, able to produce a temporary emergency output of 4.500 hp (3.308 kW).

 

Vertical start was further assisted by optional RATO units, mounted in racks at the rear fuselage flanks: either four Schmidding SG 34 solid fuel booster rockets, 4.9 kN (1,100 lbf) thrust each, or two larger 9.8 kN (2,203 lbf) solid fuel booster rockets, could be used. These improvements now allowed a wider range of weapons and equipment to be mounted, including underwing pods with unguided rockets against bomber pulks and also a conformal pod with two cameras for tactical reconnaissance.

 

The hazardous handling and the complicated maintenance remained the Ta 338’s Achilles heel, and the tactical benefit of VTOL operations could not outbalance these flaws. Furthermore, the Ta 338’s range remained very limited, as well as the potential firepower. Four 20mm or two 30mm cannons were deemed unsatisfactory for an interceptor of this class and power. And while bundles of unguided missiles proved to be very effective against large groups of bombers, it was more efficient to bring these weapons with simple and cheap vehicles like the Bachem Ba 349 Natter VTOL rocket fighter into target range, since these were effectively “one-shot” weapons. Once the Ta 338 fired its weapons it had to retreat unarmed.

 

In mid 1945, in the advent of defeat, further tests of the Ta 338 were stopped. I./EK338 was disbanded in March 1945 and all machines retreated from the Eastern front, while II./EK338 kept defending the Ruhrgebiet industrial complex until the Allied invasion in April 1945. Being circled by Allied forces, it was not possible to evacuate or destroy all remaining Ta 338s, so that at least two more or less intact airframes were captured by the U.S. Army and later brought to the United States for further studies.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length/height on the ground: 10.40 m (34 ft 2 in)

Wingspan: 10.50 m (34 ft 5 in)

Fin span: 4:07 m (13 ft 4 in)

Wing area: 18.30 m² (196.99 ft²)

Empty weight: 11,599 lb (5,261 kg)

Loaded weight: 16,221 lb (7,358 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 16,221 lb (7,358 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× BMW 803 A-2 28-cylinder, liquid-cooled four-row radial engine,

rated at 4.100 hp (2.950 kW) and at 4.500 hp (3.308 kW) with emergency boost.

4x Schmidding SG 34 solid fuel booster rockets, 4.9 kN (1,100 lbf) thrust each, or

2x 9.8 kN (2,203 lbf) solid fuel booster rockets

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 860 km/h (534 mph)

Cruise speed: 650 km/h (403 mph)

Range: 750 km (465 ml)

Service ceiling: 43,300 ft (13,100 m)

Rate of climb: 10,820 ft/min (3,300 m/min)

Wing loading: 65.9 lb/ft² (322 kg/m²)

 

Armament:

No internal armament, any weapons were to be mounted on three hardpoints (one under the fuselage for up to 1.000 kg (2.200 lb) and two under the outer wings, 500 kg (1.100 lb) each. Total ordnance was limited to 1.000 kg (2.200 lb).

 

Various armament and equipment sets (Rüstsätze) were tested:

R1 with 4× 20 mm (.79 in) MG 151/20 cannons

R2 with 2x 30 mm (1.18 in) MK 213C cannons

R3 with 48x 73 mm (2.874 in) Henschel Hs 297 Föhn rocket shells

R4 with 66x 55 mm (2.165 in) R4M rocket shells

R5 with a single 1.000 kg (2.200 lb) bomb under the fuselage

R6 with an underfuselage pod with one Rb 20/20 and one Rb 75/30 topographic camera

  

The kit and its assembly:

This purely fictional kitbashing is a hardware tribute to a highly inspiring line drawing of a Fw 190 VTOL tailsitter – actually an idea for an operational RC model! I found the idea, that reminded a lot of the Lockheed XFV-1 ‘Salmon’ prototype, just with Fw 190 components and some adaptations, very sexy, and so I decided on short notice to follow the urge and build a 1:72 version of the so far unnamed concept.

 

What looks simple (“Heh, it’s just a Fw 190 with a different tail, isn’t it?”) turned out to become a major kitbashing. The basis was a simple Hobby Boss Fw 190 D-9, chose because of the longer tail section, and the engine would be changed, anyway. Lots of work followed, though.

 

The wings were sliced off and moved upwards on the flanks. The original tail was cut off, and the cruciform fins are two pairs of MiG-21F stabilizers (from an Academy and Hasegawa kit), outfitted with reversed Mk. 84 bombs as aerodynamic fairings that carry four small wheels (from an 1:144 T-22M bomber) on scratched struts (made from wire).

 

The cockpit was taken OOB, only a pilot figure was cramped into the seat in order to conceal the poor interior detail. The engine is a bash from a Ju 188’s BMW 801 cowling and the original Fw 190 D-9’s annular radiator as well as a part of its Jumo 213 cowling. BMW 801 exhaust stubs were inserted, too, and the propeller comes from a 1:100 VEB Plasticart Tu-20/95 bomber.

 

Since the BMW 803 had liquid cooling, radiators had to go somewhere. The annular radiator would certainly not have been enough, so I used the space in the wings that became available through the deleted Fw 190 landing gear (the wells were closed) for additional radiators in the wings’ leading edges. Again, these were scratched with styrene profiles, putty and some very fine styrene mesh.

 

As ordnance I settled for a pair of gun pods – in this case these are slipper tanks from a Hobby Boss MiG-15, blended into the wings and outfitted with hollow steel needles as barrels.

  

Painting and markings:

Several design options were possible: all NMF with some colorful markings or an overall RLM76 finish with added camouflage. But I definitively went for a semi-finished look, inspired by late WWII Fw 190 fighters.

 

For instance, the wings’ undersides were partly left in bare metal, but the rudders painted in RLM76 while the leading edges became RLM75. This color was also taken on the wings’ upper sides, with RLM82 thinly painted over. The fuselage is standard RLM76, with RLM82 and 83 on the upper side and speckles on the flanks. The engine cowling became NMF, but with a flashy ‘Hartmann Tulpe’ decoration.

 

Further highlights are the red fuselage band (from JG300 in early 1945) and the propeller spinner, which received a red tip and segments in black and white on both moving propeller parts. Large red “X”s were used as individual aircraft code – an unusual Luftwaffe practice but taken over from some Me 262s.

 

After a light black ink wash some panel shading and light weathering (e.g. exhaust soot, leaked oil, leading edges) was done, and the kit sealed under matt acrylic varnish.

  

Building this “thing” on the basis of a line drawing was real fun, even though challenging and more work than expected. I tried to stay close to the drawing, the biggest difference is the tail – the MiG-21 stabilizers were the best option (and what I had at hand as donation parts), maybe four fins from a Hawker Harrier or an LTV A-7 had been “better”, but now the aircraft looks even faster. ;)

Besides, the Ta 338 is so utterly Luft ’46 – I am curious how many people might take this for real or as a Hydra prop from a contemporary Captain America movie…

The TerraMax 5 Phase 1 Terraformer is a capable machine. With the ability to complete all Phase 1 (establish a landing facility) Terraforming tasks, including terrain manipulation, landing pad construction, and site security, the TerraMax 5 is a fantastic choice for your next terraforming project. With a crew of 14, 2 security platforms, 2 Bulldozers, a Driller, a Roller, and a scout, work is completed safely and efficiently. Some of the features of the TerraMax 5 include the SuperLift grapple/crane articulating arm, the MegaBlade terrain manipulator, a large dumping/storage bucket, an onboard crushing and proment/cement plant and distributer, a spacious internal hangar, a capable communication, weather, and rader surveillance array, and living quarters for 15. The TerraMax 5 can establish your presence on a new world, and provide a mobile command and construction center until facilities are completed.

As sharp looking and capable as this truck is, it doesn't float.

 

SMPD Harbor Officers are highly trained:

 

USLA

(United States Lifeguard Association) Members

SCUBA - Rescue Diver Certified

EMT (Emergency Medical Technician)

Rescue Boat Operator

Marine Firefighter (POST*)

PC 832 (POST* Arrest and Firearms Course)

 

*POST- California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training

 

1:64 Greenlight Collectibles

Hot Pursuit Series 22

2015 Chevrolet Silverado LT Hybrid

Santa Monica

Police Department

Harbor Unit

Santa Monica, California

 

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II

Olympus M.14-42mm F3.5-5.6 II R

 

For more info about the dioramas, check out the FAQ: 1stPix FAQ

Les Grandes Marques du Monde au Grand Palais 2020

Bonhams

Parijs - Paris

Frankrijk - France

February 2020

 

Estimated : € 140.000 - 160.000

Sold for € 138.000

 

"Here we have one of the quietest and most flexible cars on the market, capable of whispering along in top gear at 10mph or leaping into its 150mph stride on the brief depression of a pedal. A practical touring car, this, with its wide doors and capacious luggage space, yet it has a sheer beauty of line which easily beats the Italians at their own particular game." - John Bolster, Autosport.

 

Introduced in 3.8-litre form in 1961, the E-Type caused a sensation when it appeared, with instantly classic lines and 150mph top speed. The newcomer's design owed much to that of the racing D-Type: a monocoque tub forming the main structure while a tubular spaceframe supported the engine. The latter was the same 3.8-litre, triple-carburettor 'S' unit first offered as an option on the preceding XK150. An optimistic 265bhp was claimed, but whatever the installed horsepower the E-Type's performance did not disappoint: firstly, because it weighed around 500lb (227kg) less than the XK150 and secondly because aerodynamicist Malcolm Sayer used experience gained with the D-Type to create one of the most elegant and efficient shapes ever to grace a motor car. Taller drivers though, could find the interior somewhat lacking in space, a criticism addressed by the introduction of foot wells (and other, more minor, modifications) early in 1962. But of all the versions of Jaguar's long-lived and much-loved sports car, it is the very early 'flat floor' 3.8-litre cars built prior to February 1962 which, for many enthusiasts, remain the most desirable.

 

Completed on 29th December 1961, chassis number '876469' was despatched in January 1962 to Jaguar of Eastern Canada in Montreal. Its accompanying JDHT Certificate records the original colour scheme as Opalescent Dark Blue with red interior trim and a black convertible hood.

 

Between 2016 and 2018 this E-Type was subjected to an extensive mechanical restoration, the work being entrusted to Ed Watson & Co Classic Motor Engineers of Atherstone in the UK. Works carried out included replacement of rear shock absorbers, springs and caps; instalment of new electrical generator; overhaul of the braking system front and rear; refurbishment of hood frame and new hood fitted; new fuel tank; alternator conversion kit; carburettors stripped, soda-blasted and re-assembled; new radiator fitted; crankshaft re-ground; new pistons, bearings and timing chains, etc; and the engine balanced. Invoices for all these works may be found in the history file (perusal recommended) and the car also comes with a UK V5C registration document as well as yje aforementioned JDHT certificate.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

In 1948, a swept wing version of the F-84 was created with the hope of bringing performance to the level of the F-86. The last production F-84E was fitted with a swept tail, a new wing with 38.5 degrees of leading-edge sweep and 3.5 degrees of anhedral, and a J35-A-25 engine producing 5,300 pound-force (23.58 kN) of thrust. The aircraft was designated XF-96A and flew on 3 June 1950. Although the airplane was capable of 602 knots (693 mph, 1,115 km/h), the performance gain over the F-84E was considered minor. Nonetheless, it was ordered into production in July 1950 as the F-84F Thunderstreak. The F-84 designation was eventually retained because the fighter was expected to be a low-cost improvement of the straight-wing Thunderjet with over 55 percent commonality in tooling.

 

In the meantime, the USAF, hoping for improved high-altitude performance from a more powerful engine, arranged for the British Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire turbojet engine to be built in the United States as the Wright J65. To accommodate the larger engine, YF-84Fs with a British-built Sapphire as well as production F-84Fs with the J65 had a vertically stretched fuselage, with the air intake attaining an oval cross-section. Production quickly ran into problems, though. Although tooling commonality with the Thunderjet was supposed to be 55 %, but just 15 % of the tools could actually be re-used. To make matters worse, the F-84F utilized press-forged wing spars and ribs. At the time, only three presses in the United States could manufacture these, and priority was given to the Boeing B-47 Stratojet bomber over the F-84. The YJ65-W-1 engine was considered obsolete, too, and the improved J65-W-3 did not become available until 1954. When the first production F-84F flew on 22 November 1952, it was considered not ready for operational deployment due to control and stability problems. The first 275 aircraft, equipped with conventional stabilizer-elevator tailplanes, suffered from accelerated stall pitch-up and poor turning ability at combat speeds. Beginning with Block 25, the problem was improved upon by the introduction of a hydraulically powered one-piece stabilator. A number of aircraft were also retrofitted with spoilers for improved high-speed control. As a result, the F-84F was not declared operational until 12 May 1954.

 

The second YF-84F prototype was completed with wing-root air intakes. These were not adopted for the fighter due to loss of thrust, but this arrangement kept the nose section free and permitted placement of cameras, and the different design was adopted for the RF-84F Thunderflash reconnaissance version. Being largely identical to the F-84F, the Thunderflash suffered from the same production delays and engine problems, though, delaying operational service until March 1954.

 

During the F-84F’s development the Air Defense Command was looking for a replacement for the outdated F-94 ‘Starfire’ interceptor, a hasty development from the T-33 trainer airframe with an afterburner engine and an on-board radar. However, the F-94 was only armed with machine guns in its early versions or unguided missiles in its later incarnations, which were inadequate. An aircraft with better performance, ideally with supersonic speed, a better radar, and the ability to carry guided missiles (in the form if the AIR-1 and 2 ‘Falcon’ AAMs) as well as the AIR-2 ‘Genie’ missile was now requested.

 

The Douglas AIR-2 Genie followed a unique but effective concept that represented the technological state-of-the-art: it was an unguided air-to-air rocket with a 1.5 kt W25 nuclear warhead. The interception of Soviet strategic bombers was a major military preoccupation of the late 1940s and 1950s. The World War II-age fighter armament of machine guns and cannon were inadequate to stop attacks by massed bomber formations, which were expected to come in at high altitude and at high subsonic speed. Firing large volleys of unguided rockets into bomber formations was not much better, and true air-to-air missiles were in their infancy. In 1954 Douglas Aircraft began a program to investigate the possibility of a nuclear-armed air-to-air weapon. To ensure simplicity and reliability, the weapon would be unguided, since the large blast radius made precise accuracy unnecessary. Full-scale development began in 1955, with test firing of inert warhead rockets commencing in early 1956. The final design carried a 1.5-kiloton W25 nuclear warhead and was powered by a Thiokol SR49-TC-1 solid-fuel rocket engine of 162 kN (36,000 lbf) thrust, sufficient to accelerate the rocket to Mach 3.3 during its two-second burn. Total flight time was about 12 seconds, during which time the rocket covered 10 km (6.2 mi). Targeting, arming, and firing of the weapon were coordinated by the launch aircraft's fire-control system. Detonation was by time-delay fuze, although the fuzing mechanism would not arm the warhead until engine burn-out, to give the launch aircraft sufficient time to turn and escape. However, there was no mechanism for disarming the warhead after launch. Lethal radius of the blast was estimated to be about 300 meters (980 ft). Once fired, the Genie's short flight-time and large blast radius made it virtually impossible for a bomber to avoid destruction. The rocket entered service with the designation MB-1 Genie in 1957.

 

During the development phase the first carrier aircraft earmarked to carry the AIR-2 was the Northrop F-89 Scorpion, which had already been introduced in the early Fifties. While being an all-weather interceptor with on-board radar, it was a slow and large aircraft, and outdated like the F-94. Trying to keep the F-84 production lines busy, however, Republic saw the chance to design an all-weather interceptor aircraft that would surpass the F-89’s mediocre performance and meet the AIR-2 carrier requirements on the basis of the swept-wing (R)F-84F. To emphasize its dedicated interceptor role and set it apart from its fighter-bomber ancestors, the heavily modified aircraft was designated F-96B (even though it had little to do with the XF-96A that became the F-84F) and called ‘Thunderguard’.

 

The F-96B was largely based on the RF-84F’s airframe with its wing-root air intakes, what offered ample space in the aircraft’s nose for a radar system and other equipment. The radar was coupled with a state-of-the-art Hughes MC-10 fire control system. To relieve the pilot from operating the radar system one of the fuel cells behind the cockpit was deleted and a second crew member was placed behind him under an extended, strutless hood that opened to starboard. To compensate for the loss of fuel and maintain the F-84F’s range, a new tank was mounted under the cockpit floor in the aircraft’s center of gravity.

To improve performance and cope with the raised take-off weight, the F-96B was powered by an uprated Wright J65-W-18 turbojet, which generated 0.4 kN more dry thrust than the F-84F’s original J65-W-3 (7,700 lbf/34 kN). This was not too much, though, so that the J65 was additionally outfitted with an afterburner. With this upgrade the powerplant provided a maximum thrust of 10,500 lbf (47 kN), what resulted in a markedly improved rate of climb and the ability to break the sound barrier in level flight. The additional reheat section necessitated a wider and longer rear fuselage, which had to be redesigned. As an unintended side benefit, this new tail section reduced overall drag due to a slightly area-ruled coke-bottle shape behind the wings’ trailing edge, which was even emphasized through the ventral brake parachute fairing.

Armament consisted only of missiles, which were all carried externally on wing stations, all guns of the former F-84 versions were deleted to save weight. The F-96B’s weapons range included GAR-1/2/3/4 (Later re-designated as AIM-4) radar- and IR-guided Falcon air-to-air missiles and a pair of MB-1 Genie missiles. Up to four pods with nineteen unguided 2.75 in (70 mm) "Mighty Mouse" Mk 4/Mk 40 Folding-Fin Aerial Rockets each were an alternative, too, and a pair of drop tanks were typically carried under the inner wings to provide the aircraft with sufficient range, since the new afterburner significantly increased fuel consumption.

 

Even though it was only a derivative design, the F-96B introduced a lot of innovations. One of these was the use of a diverertless supersonic inlet (DSI), a novel type of jet engine air intake to control air flow into their engines. Initial research into the DSI was done by Antonio Ferri in the 1950s. It consisted of a "bump" and a forward-swept inlet cowl, which worked together to divert boundary layer airflow away from the aircraft's engine. In the case of the F-96B this was realized as an inward-turning inlet with a variable contraction ratio. However, even though they had not been deemed necessary to guarantee a clean airflow, the F-96B’s air intakes were further modified with splitter plates to adapt them to the expected higher flight speeds and direct the air flow. The initial flight tests had also revealed a directional instability at high speed, due to the longer nose, so that the tail surfaces (both fin and stabilizers) were enlarged for the serial aircraft to compensate.

 

Another novel feature was an IRST sensor in front of the windscreen which augmented the on-board radar. This sensor, developed by Hughes International and designated ‘X-1’, was still very experimental, though, highly unreliable, and difficult to handle, because it relied on pressurized coolant to keep the sensor cold enough to operate properly, and dosing it at a consistent level proved to be difficult (if not impossible). On the other side the IRST allowed to track targets even in a massively radar-jammed environment. The 7” diameter silicone sensor was, together with the on-board radar, slaved to the fire control system so that its input could be used to lock guided missiles onto targets, primarily the GAR-1 and GAR-2 AAMs. The X-1 had a field of view of 70×140°, with an angular resolution of 1°, and operated in 2.5 micron wavelength range. When it worked properly the sensor was able to detect a B-47-sized aircraft’s tails aspect from 25 nm (29 ml/46 km) and a target of similar size from directly ahead from 10 nm (12 ml/19 km). Later, better developed versions of Hughes IRST, like the X-3 that was retrofitted to the F-101B in the early Sixties, had a better range and were more reliable.

 

During the Thunderguard’s development another competitor entered the stage, the F-101B Voodoo. In the late 1940s, the Air Force had already started a research project into the future interceptor aircraft that eventually settled on an advanced specification known as the 1954 interceptor. Contracts for this specification eventually resulted in the selection of the F-102 Delta Dagger, but by 1952 it was becoming clear that none of the parts of the specification other than the airframe would be ready by 1954; the engines, weapons, and fire control systems were all going to take too long to get into service. An effort was then started to quickly produce an interim supersonic design to replace the various subsonic interceptors then in service, and the F-101 airframe was selected as a starting point. Although McDonnell proposed the designation F-109 for the new aircraft (which was to be a substantial departure from the basic Voodoo fighter bomber), the USAF assigned the designation F-101B. Its development was protracted, so that the F-96B – even though it offered less performance – was ordered into production to fill the USAF’s urgent interceptor gap.

 

F-96B production started after a brief test phase in late 1957, and the first aircraft were delivered to the 60th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron in 1958. However, when it became clear that the F-101B would finally enter service in 1959, F-96B production was quickly cut down and the initial order of 300 aircraft reduced to only 150, which were produced until early 1960 in three batches. Only sixty were directly delivered to ADC units, because these were preferably equipped with the supersonic F-102A and the new F-101B, which could also carry the nuclear Genie missile. The rest was directly handed over to Air National Guard units – and even there they were quickly joined and replaced by the early ADC aircraft.

 

Operationally, almost all F-96Bs functioned under the US–Canadian North American Air Defense Command (NORAD), which protected North American airspace from Soviet intruders, particularly the threat posed by nuclear-armed bombers. In service, the F-96Bs were soon upgraded with a data link to the Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) system, allowing ground controllers to steer the aircraft towards its targets by making adjustments through the plane's autopilot. Furthermore, the F-96B was upgraded to allow the carrying of two GAR-11/AIM-26 Nuclear Falcon missiles instead of the Genies when they became available in 1961.

A handful F-96Bs were camouflaged during the late Sixties with the USAF’s new SEA scheme, but most aircraft retained their original bare metal finish with more or less colorful unit markings. Due to its limited capabilities and the introduction of the Mach 2 McDonnell F-4 Phantom, the last F-96B was retired from ANG service in 1971.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 2

Length: 54t 11 1/2 in (16,77 m) incl. pitot

Wingspan: 33 ft 7.25 in (10,25 m)

Height: 16 ft 9 in (5,11 m)

Wing area: 350 sq ft (37,55 m²)

Empty weight: 13,810 lb (6.264 kg)

Gross weight: 21,035 lb (9.541 kg)

Max takeoff weight: 28,000 lb (12.701 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Wright J65-W-18 turbojet with 8,600 lbf (34 kN) dry thrust and 10,500 lbf (47 kN) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 695 mph (1,119 km/h, 604 kn, Mach 1.1) at 35,000 ft (10,668 m)

Cruise speed: 577 mph (928 km/h, 501 kn)

Range: 810 mi (1,304 km, 704 nmi) combat radius with two droptanks

Service ceiling: 49,000 ft (15,000 m)

Rate of climb: 16,300 ft/min (83 m/s)

Wing loading: 86 lb/sq ft (423 kg/m²)

 

Armament:

No internal guns;

6× underwing hardpoints for a total ordnance load of up to 6,000lb (2,727 kg), including

a pair of 191.5 US gal (727 l) or 375 US gal (1.429 l) drop tanks on the inner stations

and a mix of AIM-4 Falcon (up to six), MB-1 Genie (up to two) and/or pods with

nineteen 2.75”/70 mm FFAR unguided missiles each (up to four) on the outer stations

  

The kit and its assembly:

This fictional missing link between the RF-84F and the F-105 was conceived for the Fifties Group Build at whatifmodellers.com, an era when the USAF used a wide variety of interceptor aircraft types and technical advancements were quick and significant – in just a decade the interceptor evolved from a subsonic machine gun-toting aircraft to a guided weapons carrier platform, capable of Mach 2.

 

The F-96B (I re-used Republic’s dropped designation for the swept-wing F-84F) was to display one of the many “in between” designs, and the (R)F-84F was just a suitable basis for a conversion similar to the T-33-derived F-94, just more capable and big enough to carry the nuclear Genie missile.

The basis became Italeri’s vintage RF-84F kit, a rather simple affair with raised panel lines and a mediocre fit, plus some sinkholes. This was, however, heavily modified!

 

Work started with the implantation of a new tandem cockpit, taken wholesale from a Heller T-33. Fitting the cockpit tub into the wider Thunderflash hull was a bit tricky, putty blobs held the implant in place. The canopy was taken from the T-33, too, just the RF-84F’s original rear side windows were cut away to offer sufficient length for the longer clear part and the cockpit side walls had to be raised to an even level with the smaller windscreen with the help of styrene strips. With these adapters the T-33 canopy fitted surprisingly well over the opening and blended well into the spine.

 

The camera nose section lost its tip, which was replaced with the tail cone from a Matchbox H.S. Buccaneer (actually its air brake), and the camera windows as well as the slant surfaces that held them were PSRed away for a conical shape that extended the new pointed radome. Lots of weight in the nose and under the cockpit floor ensured a safe stance on the OOB landing gear.

The rear section behind the air brakes became all-new; for an afterburner I extended and widened the tail section and implanted the rear part from a B-66 (Italeri kit, too) engine nacelle, which received a wider nozzle (left over from a Nakotne MiG-29, a featureless thing) and an interior.

To balance the longer nose I also decided to enlarge the tail surfaces and replaced the OOB fin and stabilizers with leftover parts from a Trumpeter Il-28 bomber – the fin was shortened and the stabilizers reduced in span to match the rest of the aircraft. Despite the exotic source the parts blend well into the F-84’s overall design!

 

To add supersonic credibility and to connect the design further with the later F-105 I modified the air intakes and cut them into a raked shape – quite easy to realize. Once the wings were in place, I also added small splitter plates, left over from an Airfix BAC Strikemaster.

 

As an interceptor the armament had to be adapted accordingly, and I procured the quartet of IR-guided Falcons as well as the Genie duo from an Academy F-89. The large drop tanks were taken OOB from the Italeri kit. The Genies were mounted onto their massive Scorpion pylons under the outer wings of the F-96B, while the Falcons, due to relatively little space left under the wings, required a scratched solution. I eventually settled for dual launchers on small pylons, mounted in front of the landing gear wells. The pylons originally belong to an ESCI Ka-34 “Hokum” helicopter kit (they were just short enough!), the launch rails are a halved pair of F-4 Sidewinder rails from a Hasegawa air-to-air weapons set. With everything on place the F-96B looks quite crowded.

  

Painting and markings:

The machine would represent a late Fifties USAF type, so that the paint options were rather limited if I wanted to be authentic. ADC Grey was introduced in the early Sixties, SEA camouflage even later, so that bare metal became a natural choice – but this can be quite attractive! The model received an overall coat with acrylic “White Aluminum” from the rattle can, plus some darked panels all over the hull (Humbrol 56 for good contrast) and an afterburner section in Revell 91 (Iron Metallic) and Humbrol’s Steel Metallizer. The radome became deep black, the anti-glare panel in front of the windscreen olive drab (Revell 46). Light grey (Revell 75) was used for some small di-electric fairings.

Interior surfaces (cockpit and landing gear wells) were painted with Zinc Chromate primer (I used Humbrol 80), while the landing gear struts became silver-grey (Humbrol 56) and the inside of the covers as well as the air brakes were painted in bright red (Humbrol 19).

Once basic painting was done the model received a black ink washing and was rubbed with grinded graphite to emphasize the raised panel lines, and the material adds a nice dark metallic shine to the silver base coat.

 

Another challenge was to find suitable unit markings for the Fifties era in the decal vault, which would also fit onto the model. After a long search I eventually settled for rather simple markings from a 325th FIS F-102 from an Xtradecal sheet, which only features a rather timid fin decoration.

Finding other suitable standard markings remained demanding, though. Stars-And-Bars as well as the USAF taglines were taken from the Academy F-89 that also provided the ordnance, most stencils were taken from the OOB Italeri sheet and complemented by small markings from the scrap box. The biggest problem was the creation of a matching serial number. The “FF” code was originally used for P/F-51D Mustangs during the Korea War, but after the type had been phased out it might have been re-used? The letters as well as the serial number digits were created from various markings for USAF F-100s, also from an Xtradecal sheet.

 

Once the decals had been applied the model was sealed with semi-gloss acrylic varnish, except for the radome, the anti-glare panel as well as the walking areas on the wings as well as parts of the afterburner section, which were coated with matt varnish.

  

A rather straightforward conversion, even though finishing the project took longer than expected. But the result looks surprisingly natural and plausible. Lots of PSR was needed to modify the fuselage, though, especially the tail section was not easy to integrate into the Thunderflash’s hull. Sticking to the simple NMF livery paid IMHO out, too: the livery looks very natural and believable on the fictional aircraft, and it suits the F-84’s bulbous shape well.