+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some Background:

During the 1950s, Hindustan Aircraft Limited (HAL) had developed and produced several types of trainer aircraft, such as the HAL HT-2. However, elements within the firm were eager to expand into the then-new realm of supersonic fighter aircraft. Around the same time, the Indian government was in the process of formulating a new Air Staff Requirement for a Mach 2-capable combat aircraft to equip the Indian Air Force (IAF). However, as HAL lacked the necessary experience in both developing and manufacturing frontline combat fighters, it was clear that external guidance would be invaluable; this assistance was embodied by Kurt Tank.

 

In 1956, HAL formally began design work on the supersonic fighter project. The Indian government, led by Jawaharlal Nehru, authorized the development of the aircraft, stating that it would aid in the development of a modern aircraft industry in India. The first phase of the project sought to develop an airframe suitable for travelling at supersonic speeds, and able to effectively perform combat missions as a fighter aircraft, while the second phase sought to domestically design and produce an engine capable of propelling the aircraft. Early on, there was an explicit adherence to satisfying the IAF's requirements for a capable fighter bomber; attributes such as a twin-engine configuration and a speed of Mach 1.4 to 1.5 were quickly emphasized, and this led to the HF-24 Marut.

 

On 24 June 1961, the first prototype Marut conducted its maiden flight. It was powered by the same Bristol Siddeley Orpheus 703 turbojets that had powered the Folland Gnat, also being manufactured by HAL at that time. On 1 April 1967, the first production Marut was delivered to the IAF. While originally intended only as an interim measure during testing, HAL decided to power production Maruts with a pair of unreheated Orpheus 703s, meaning the aircraft could not attain supersonic speed. Although originally conceived to operate around Mach 2 the Marut in fact was barely capable of reaching Mach 1 due to the lack of suitably powerful engines.

 

The IAF were reluctant to procure a fighter aircraft only marginally superior to its existing fleet of British-built Hawker Hunters. However, in 1961, the Indian Government decided to procure the Marut, nevertheless, but only 147 aircraft, including 18 two-seat trainers, were completed out of a planned 214. Just after the decision to build the lukewarm Marut, the development of a more advanced aircraft with the desired supersonic performance was initiated.

 

This enterprise started star-crossed, though: after the Indian Government conducted its first nuclear tests at Pokhran, international pressure prevented the import of better engines of Western origin, or at times, even spares for the Orpheus engines, so that the Marut never realized its full potential due to insufficient power, and it was relatively obsolescent by the time it reached production.

Due to these restrictions India looked for other sources for supersonic aircraft and eventually settled upon the MiG-21 F-13 from the Soviet Union, which entered service in 1964. While fast and agile, the Fishbed was only a short-range daylight interceptor. It lacked proper range for escort missions and air space patrols, and it had no radar that enabled it to conduct all-weather interceptions. To fill this operational gap, the new indigenous HF-26 project was launched around the same time.

 

For the nascent Indian aircraft industry, HF-26 had a demanding requirements specification: the aircraft was to achieve Mach 2 top speed at high altitude and carry a radar with a guided missile armament that allowed interceptions in any weather, day and night. The powerplant question was left open, but it was clear from the start that a Soviet engine would be needed, since an indigenous development of a suitable powerplant would take much too long and block vital resources, and western alternatives were out of reach. The mission profile and the performance requirements quickly defined the planned aircraft’s layout: To fit a radar, the air intakes with movable ramps to feed the engines were placed on the fuselage flanks. To make sure the aircraft would fulfill its high-performance demands, it was right from the outset powered by two engines, and it was decided to give it delta wings, a popular design among high-speed aircraft of the time – exemplified by the highly successful Dassault Mirage III (which was to be delivered to Pakistan in 1967). With two engines, the HF-26 would be a heavier aircraft than the Mirage III, though, and it was planned to operate the aircraft from semi-prepared airfields, so that it would receive a robust landing gear with low-pressure tires and a brake parachute.

 

In 1962 India was able to negotiate the delivery of Tumansky RD-9 turbojet engines from the Soviet Union, even though no afterburner was part of the deal – this had to be indigenously developed by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). However, this meant that the afterburner could be tailored to the HF-26, and this task would provide HAL with valuable engineering experience, too.

Now knowing the powerplant, HAL created a single-seater airframe around it, a rather robust design that superficially reminded of the French Mirage III, but there were fundamental differences. The HF-26 had boxy air intakes with movable ramps to control the airflow to the two engines and a relatively wide fuselage to hold them and most of the fuel in tanks between the air ducts behind the cockpit. The aircraft had a single swept fin and a rather small mid-positioned delta-wing with a 60° sweep. The pilot sat under a tight canopy that offered - similar to the Mirage III - only limited all-round vision.

The HF-26's conical nose radome covered an antenna for a ‘Garud’ interception radar – which was in fact a downgraded Soviet ‘Oryol' (Eagle; NATO reporting name 'Skip Spin') system that guided the HF-26’s main armament, a pair of semi-active radar homing (SARH) ‚Saanp’ missiles.

 

The Saanp missile was developed specifically for the HF-26 in India but used many components of Soviet origin, too, so that they were compatible with the radar. In performance, the Saanp was comparable with the French Matra R.530 air-to-air missile, even though the aerodynamic layout was reversed, with steering fins at the front end, right behind the SARH seaker head - overall the missile reminded of an enlarged AIM-4 Falcon. The missile weighed 180 kg and had a length of 3.5 m. Power came from a two-stage solid rocket that offered a maximum thrust of 80 kN for 2.7 s during the launch phase plus 6.5 s cruise. Maximum speed was Mach 2.7 and operational range was 1.5 to 20 km (0.9 to 12.5 miles). Two of these missiles could be carried on the main wing hardpoints in front of the landing gear wells. Alternatively, infrared-guided R-3 (AA-2 ‘Atoll’) short-range AAMs could be carried by the HF-26, too, and typically two of these were carried on the outer underwing hardpoints, which were plumbed to accept drop tanks (typically supersonic PTB-490s that were carried by the IAF's MiG-21s, too) . Initially, no internal gun was envisioned, as the HF-26 was supposed to be a pure high-speed/high-altitude interceptor that would not engage in dogfights. Two more hardpoints under the fuselage were plumbed, too, for a total of six external stations.

 

Due to its wing planform, the HF-26 was soon aptly called “Teer” (= Arrow), and with Soviet help the first prototype was rolled out in early 1964 and presented to the public. The first flight, however, would take place almost a year later in January 1965, due to many technical problems, and these were soon complemented by aerodynamic problems. The original delta-winged HF-26 had poor take-off and landing characteristics, and directional stability was weak, too. While a second prototype was under construction in April 1965 the first aircraft was lost after it had entered a spin from which the pilot could not escape – the aircraft crashed and its pilot was killed during the attempt to eject.

 

After this loss HAL investigated an enlarged fin and a modified wing design with deeper wingtips with lower sweep, which increased wing area and improved low speed handling, too. Furthermore, the fuselage shape had to be modified, too, to reduce supersonic drag, and a more pronounced area ruling was introduced. The indigenous afterburner for the RD-9 engines was unstable and troublesome, too.

It took until 1968 and three more flying prototypes (plus two static airframes) to refine the Teer for serial production service introduction. In this highly modified form, the aircraft was re-designated HF-26M and the first machines were delivered to IAF No. 3 Squadron in late 1969. However, it would take several months until a fully operational status could be achieved. By that time, it was already clear that the Teer, much like the HF-24 Marut before, could not live up to its expectations and was at the brink of becoming obsolete as it entered service. The RD-9 was not a modern engine anymore, and despite its indigenous afterburner – which turned out not only to be chronically unreliable but also to be very thirsty when engaged – the Teer had a disappointing performance: The fighter only achieved a top speed of Mach 1.6 at full power, and with full external load it hardly broke the wall of sound in level flight. Its main armament, the Saanp AAM, also turned out to be unreliable even under ideal conditions.

 

However, the HF-26M came just in time to take part in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and was, despite its weaknesses, extensively used – even though not necessarily in its intended role. High-flying slow bombers were not fielded during the conflict, and the Teer remained, despite its on-board radar, heavily dependent on ground control interception (GCI) to vector its pilot onto targets coming in at medium and even low altitude. The HF-26M had no capability against low-flying aircraft either, so that pilots had to engage incoming, low-flying enemy aircraft after visual identification – a task the IAF’s nimble MiG-21s were much better suited for. Escorts and air cover missions for fighter-bombers were flown, too, but the HF-26M’s limited range only made it a suitable companion for the equally short-legged Su-7s. The IAF Canberras were frequently deployed on longer range missions, but the HF-26Ms simply could not follow them all the time; for a sufficient range the Teer had to carry four drop tanks, what increased drag and only left the outer pair of underwing hardpoints (which were not plumbed) free for a pair of AA-2 missiles. With the imminent danger of aerial close range combat, though, During the conflict with Pakistan, most HF-26M's were retrofitted with rear-view mirrors in their canopies to improve the pilot's field of view, and a passive IR sensor was added in a small fairing under the nose to improve the aircraft's all-weather capabilities and avoid active radar emissions that would warn potential prey too early.

 

The lack of an internal gun turned out to be another great weakness of the Teer, and this was only lightly mended through the use of external gun pods. Two of these cigar-shaped pods that resembled the Soviet UPK-23 pod could be carried on the two ventral pylons, and each contained a 23 mm Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-23L autocannon of Soviet origin with 200 rounds. Technically these pods were very similar to the conformal GP-9 pods carried by the IAF MiG-21FLs. While the gun pods considerably improved the HF-26M’s firepower and versatility, the pods were draggy, blocked valuable hardpoints (from extra fuel) and their recoil tended to damage the pylons as well as the underlying aircraft structure, so that they were only commissioned to be used in an emergency.

 

However, beyond air-to-air weapons, the HF-26M could also carry ordnance of up to 1.000 kg (2.207 lb) on the ventral and inner wing hardpoints and up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) on the other pair of wing hardpoints, including iron bombs and/or unguided missile pods. However, the limited field of view from the cockpit over the radome as well as the relatively high wing loading did not recommend the aircraft for ground attack missions – even though these frequently happened during the conflict with Pakistan. For these tactical missions, many HF-26Ms lost their original overall natural metal finish and instead received camouflage paint schemes on squadron level, resulting in individual and sometimes even spectacular liveries. Most notable examples were the Teer fighters of No. 1 Squadron (The Tigers), which sported various camouflage adaptations of the unit’s eponym.

 

Despite its many deficiencies, the HF-26M became heavily involved in the Indo-Pakistan conflict. As the Indian Army tightened its grip in East Pakistan, the Indian Air Force continued with its attacks against Pakistan as the campaign developed into a series of daylight anti-airfield, anti-radar, and close-support attacks by fighter jets, with night attacks against airfields and strategic targets by Canberras and An-12s, while Pakistan responded with similar night attacks with its B-57s and C-130s.

The PAF deployed its F-6s mainly on defensive combat air patrol missions over their own bases, leaving the PAF unable to conduct effective offensive operations.  Sporadic raids by the IAF continued against PAF forward air bases in Pakistan until the end of the war, and interdiction and close-support operations were maintained. One of the most successful air raids by India into West Pakistan happened on 8 December 1971, when Indian Hunter aircraft from the Pathankot-based 20 Squadron, attacked the Pakistani base in Murid and destroyed 5 F-86 aircraft on the ground.

The PAF played a more limited role in the operations, even though they were reinforced by Mirages from an unidentified Middle Eastern ally (whose identity remains unknown). The IAF was able to conduct a wide range of missions – troop support; air combat; deep penetration strikes; para-dropping behind enemy lines; feints to draw enemy fighters away from the actual target; bombing and reconnaissance. India flew 1,978 sorties in the East and about 4,000 in Pakistan, while the PAF flew about 30 and 2,840 at the respective fronts.  More than 80 percent of IAF sorties were close-support and interdiction and about 45 IAF aircraft were lost, including three HF-26Ms. Pakistan lost 60 to 75 aircraft, not including any F-86s, Mirage IIIs, or the six Jordanian F-104s which failed to return to their donors. The imbalance in air losses was explained by the IAF's considerably higher sortie rate and its emphasis on ground-attack missions. The PAF, which was solely focused on air combat, was reluctant to oppose these massive attacks and rather took refuge at Iranian air bases or in concrete bunkers, refusing to offer fights and respective losses.

 

After the war, the HF-26M was officially regarded as outdated, and as license production of the improved MiG-21FL (designated HAL Type 77 and nicknamed “Trishul” = Trident) and later of the MiG-21M (HAL Type 88) was organized in India, the aircraft were quickly retired from frontline units. They kept on serving into the Eighties, though, but now restricted to their original interceptor role. Beyond the upgrades from the Indo-Pakistani War, only a few upgrades were made. For instance, the new R-60 AAM was introduced to the HF-26M and around 1978 small (but fixed) canards were retrofitted to the air intakes behind the cockpit that improved the Teer’s poor slow speed control and high landing speed as well as the aircraft’s overall maneuverability.

A radar upgrade, together with the introduction of better air-to-ai missiles with a higher range and look down/shoot down capability was considered but never carried out. Furthermore, the idea of a true HF-26 2nd generation variant, powered by a pair of Tumansky R-11F-300 afterburner jet engines (from the license-built MiG-21FLs), was dropped, too – even though this powerplant eventually promised to fulfill the Teer’s design promise of Mach 2 top speed. A total of only 82 HF-26s (including thirteen two-seat trainers with a lengthened fuselage and reduced fuel capacity, plus eight prototypes) were built. The last aircraft were retired from IAF service in 1988 and replaced with Mirage 2000 fighters procured from France that were armed with the Matra Super 530 AAM.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 14.97 m (49 ft ½ in)

Wingspan: 9.43 m (30 ft 11 in)

Height: 4.03 m (13 ft 2½ in)

Wing area: 30.6 m² (285 sq ft)

Empty weight: 7,000 kg (15,432 lb)

Gross weight: 10,954 kg (24,149 lb) with full internal fuel

Max takeoff weight: 15,700 kg (34,613 lb) with external stores

 

Powerplant:

2× Tumansky RD-9 afterburning turbojet engines; 29 kN (6,600 lbf) dry thrust each

and 36.78 kN (8,270 lbf) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 1,700 km/h (1,056 mph; 917 kn; Mach 1.6) at 11,000 m (36,000 ft)

1,350 km/h (840 mph, 730 kn; Mach 1.1) at sea level

Combat range: 725 km (450 mi, 391 nmi) with internal fuel only

Ferry range: 1,700 km (1,100 mi, 920 nmi) with four drop tanks

Service ceiling: 18,100 m (59,400 ft)

g limits: +6.5

Time to altitude: 9,145 m (30,003 ft) in 1 minute 30 seconds

Wing loading: 555 kg/m² (114 lb/sq ft)

 

Armament

6× hardpoints (four underwing and two under the fuselage) for a total of 2.500 kg (5.500 lb);

Typical interceptor payload:

- two IR-guided R-3 or R-60 air-to-air-missiles or

two PTB-490 drop tanks on the outer underwing stations

- two semi-active radar-guided ‚Saanp’ air-to-air missiles or two more R-3 or R-60 AAMs

on inner underwing stations

- two 500 l drop tanks or two gun pods with a 23 mm GSh-23L autocannon and 200 RPG

each under the fuselage

  

The kit and its assembly:

This whiffy delta-wing fighter was inspired when I recently sliced up a PM Model Su-15 kit for my side-by-side-engine BAC Lightning build. At an early stage of the conversion, I held the Su-15 fuselage with its molded delta wings in my hand and wondered if a shortened tail section (as well as a shorter overall fuselage to keep proportions balanced) could make a delta-wing jet fighter from the Flagon base? Only a hardware experiment could yield an answer, and since the Su-15’s overall outlines look a bit retro I settled at an early stage on India as potential designer and operator, as “the thing the HF-24 Marut never was”.

 

True to the initial idea, work started on the tail, and I chopped off the fuselage behind the wings’ trailing edge. Some PSR was necessary to blend the separate exhaust section into the fuselage, which had to be reduced in depth through wedges that I cut out under the wings trailing edge, plus some good amount of glue and sheer force the bend the section a bit upwards. The PM Model's jet exhausts were drilled open, and I added afterburner dummies inside - anything would look better than the bleak vertical walls inside after only 2-3 mm! The original fin was omitted, because it was a bit too large for the new, smaller aircraft and its shape reminded a lot of the Suchoj heavy fighter family. It was replaced with a Mirage III/V fin, left over from a (crappy!) Pioneer 2 IAI Nesher kit.

 

Once the rear section was complete, I had to adjust the front end - and here the kitbashing started. First, I chopped off the cockpit section in front of the molded air intake - the Su-15’s long radome and the cockpit on top of the fuselage did not work anymore. As a remedy I remembered another Su-15 conversion I did a (long) while ago: I created a model of a planned ground attack derivative, the T-58Sh, and, as a part of the extensive body work, I transplanted the slanted nose from an academy MiG-27 between the air intakes – a stunt that was relatively easy and which appreciably lowered the cockpit position. For the HF-26M I did something similar, I just transplanted a cockpit from a Hasegawa/Academy MiG-23 with its ogival radome that size-wise better matched with the rest of the leftover Su-15 airframe.

 

The MiG-23 cockpit matched perfectly with the Su-15's front end, just the spinal area behind the cockpit had to be raised/re-sculpted to blend the parts smoothly together. For a different look from the Su-15 ancestry I also transplanted the front sections of the MiG-23 air intakes with their shorter ramps. Some mods had to be made to the Su-15 intake stubs, but the MiG-23 intakes were an almost perfect fit in size and shape and easy to integrate into the modified front hill. The result looks very natural!

However, when the fuselage was complete, I found that the nose appeared to be a bit too long, leaving the whole new hull with the wings somewhat off balance. As a remedy I decided at a rather late stage to shorten the nose and took out a 6 mm section in front of the cockpit - a stunt I had not planned, but sometimes you can judge things only after certain work stages. Some serious PSR was necessary to re-adjust the conical nose shape, which now looked more Mirage III-ish than planned!

 

The cockpit was taken mostly OOB, I just replaced the ejection seat and gave it a trigger handle made from thin wire. With the basic airframe complete it was time for details. The PM Model Su-15s massive and rather crude main landing gear was replaced with something more delicate from the scrap box, even though I retained the main wheels. The front landing gear was taken wholesale from the MiG-23, but had to be shortened for a proper stance.

A display holder adapter was integrated into the belly for the flight scenes, hidden well between the ventral ordnance.

 

The hardpoints, including missile launch rails, came from the MiG-23; the pylons had to be adjusted to match the Su-15's wing profile shape, the Anab missiles lost their tail sections to create the fictional Indian 'Saanp' AAMs. The R-3s on the outer stations were left over from a MP MiG-21. The ventral pylons belong to Academy MiG-23/27s, one came from the donor kit, the other was found in the spares box. The PTB-490 drop tanks also came from a KP MiG-21 (or one of its many reincarnations, not certain).

  

Painting and markings:

The paint scheme for this fictional aircraft was largely inspired by a picture of a whiffy and very attractive Saab 37 Viggen (an 1:72 Airfix kit) in IAF colors, apparently a model from a contest. BTW, India actually considered buying the Viggen for its Air Force!

IAF aircraft were and are known for their exotic and sometimes gawdy paint schemes, and with IAF MiG-21 “C 992” there’s even a very popular (yet obscure) aircraft that sported literal tiger stripes. The IAF Viggen model was surely inspired by this real aircraft, and I adopted something similar for my HF-26M.

 

IAF 1 Squadron was therefore settled, and for the paint scheme I opted for a "stripish" scheme, but not as "tigeresque" as "C 992". I found a suitable benchmark in a recent Libyian MiG-21, which carried a very disruptive two-tone grey scheme. I adapted this pattern to the HA-26M airframe and replaced its colors, similar to the IAF Viggen model, which became a greenish sand tone (a mix of Humbrol 121 with some 159; I later found out that I could have used Humbrol 83 from the beginning, though...) and a very dark olive drab (Humbrol 66, which looks like a dull dark brown in contrast with the sand tone), with bluish grey (Humbrol 247) undersides. With the large delta wings, this turned out to look very good and even effective!

 

For that special "Indian touch" I gave the aircraft a high-contrast fin in a design that I had seen on a real camouflaged IAF MiG-21bis: an overall dark green base with a broad, red vertical stripe which was also the shield for the fin flash and the aircraft's tactical code (on the original bare metal). The fin was first painted in green (Humbrol 2), the red stripe was created with orange-red decal sheet material. Similar material was also used to create the bare metal field for the tactical code, the yellow bars on the splitter plates and for the thin white canopy sealing.

 

After basic painting was done the model received an overall black ink washing, post-panel shading and extensive dry-brushing with aluminum and iron for a rather worn look.

The missiles became classic white, while the drop tanks, as a contrast to the camouflaged belly, were left in bare metal.

 

Decals/markings came primarily from a Begemot MiG-25 kit, the tactical codes on the fin and under the wings originally belong to an RAF post-WWII Spitfire, just the first serial letter was omitted. Stencils are few and they came from various sources. A compromise is the unit badge on the fin: I needed a tiger motif, and the only suitable option I found was the tiger head emblem on a white disc from RAF No. 74 Squadron, from the Matchbox BAC Lightning F.6&F.2A kit. It fits stylistically well, though. ;-)

 

Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (except for the black radome, which became a bit glossy) and finally assembled.

  

A spontaneous build, and the last one that I completed in 2022. However, despite a vague design plan the model evolved as it grew. Bashing the primitive PM Model Su-15 with the Academy MiG-23 parts was easier than expected, though, and the resulting fictional aircraft looks sturdy but quite believable - even though it appears to me like the unexpected child of a Mirage III/F-4 Phantom II intercourse, or like a juvenile CF-105 Arrow, just with mid-wings? Nevertheless, the disruptive paint scheme suits the delta wing fighter well, and the green/red fin is a striking contrast - it's a colorful model, but not garish.

The MOL Northern Juvenile, capable of carrying 8,800 twenty-foot equivalent units, set a record today as the largest container ship to ever call on Jacksonville. The ship, which transited the Suez Canal from Asia before reaching the U.S. east coast, loaded and offloaded cargo at JAXPORT’s TraPac Container Terminal at Dames Point.

More than 1 million containers move through Jacksonville's public and private marine terminals annually. Jacksonville boasts the widest shipping channel in the Southeast U.S., wide enough for two ships to pass at the same time and offers worldwide cargo service from more than 40 ocean carriers, including direct service with Europe, Africa, South America, the Caribbean and other key markets.

Florida is now the nation’s third most populous state – and more than 60 million U.S. consumers live within a one-day truck drive of Jacksonville’s port. JAXPORT terminals are serviced by three U.S. interstates (I-10, I-95 and I-75), and the city has 36 daily train departures via three railroads: CSX, Norfolk Southern, and Florida East Coast. The port’s equal balance of imports and exports provides backhaul opportunities, saving money and maximizing transportation costs.

JAXPORT has invested $600 million in recent infrastructure investments in everything from cranes to docks to rail and a newly authorized project to deepen the federal shipping channel.

 

+++ 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…

+++ 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.

 

+++ 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 Lockheed L300 was originally conceived as a military strategic airlifter that served under the designation C-141 Starlifter with the Military Air Transport Service (MATS), its successor organization the Military Airlift Command (MAC), and finally the Air Mobility Command (AMC) of the United States Air Force (USAF).

 

In the early 1960s, the United States Air Force's Military Air Transport Service (MATS) relied on a substantial number of propeller-driven aircraft for strategic airlift, such as the C-124 Globemaster II and C-133 Cargomaster. As these aircraft were mostly obsolescent designs and the Air Force needed the benefits of jet power, the USAF ordered 48 Boeing C-135 Stratolifters as an interim step. The C-135 was a useful stop-gap, but only had side-loading doors and much of the bulky and oversize equipment employed by the U.S. Army would not fit.

 

In the spring of 1960, the Air Force released Specific Operational Requirement 182, calling for a new aircraft that would be capable of performing both strategic and tactical airlift missions. The strategic role demanded that the aircraft be capable of missions with a radius of at least 3,500 nautical miles (6,500 km) with a 60,000 pounds (27,000 kg) load. The tactical role required it to be able to perform low-altitude air drops of supplies, as well as carry and drop combat paratroops. Several companies responded to SOR 182, including Boeing, Lockheed, and General Dynamics.

 

Lockheed responded to the requirement with a unique design: the Lockheed Model 300, the first large jet designed from the start to carry freight. The Model 300 had a swept high-mounted wing with four 21,000 pounds-force (93 kN) thrust TF33 turbofan engines pod-mounted below the wings. An important aspect was the cabin's floor height of only 50 inches (130 cm) above the ground, allowing easy access to the cabin through the rear doors. The two rear side doors were designed to allow the aircraft to drop paratroops (in August 1965 the aircraft performed the first paratroop drop from a jet-powered aircraft). The rear cargo doors could be opened in flight for airborne cargo drops. The high-mounted wings gave internal clearance in the cargo compartment of 10 feet (3.0 m) wide, 9 ft (2.7 m) high and 70 ft (21 m) long. The size enabled the Starlifter to carry, for example, a complete LGM-30 Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missile in its container. The aircraft was capable of carrying a maximum of 70,847 pounds (32,136 kg) over short distances, and up to 92,000 pounds (42,000 kg) in the version configured to carry the Minuteman, which lacked other equipment. The aircraft could also carry up to 154 troops, 123 paratroops or 80 litter patients.

 

President John F. Kennedy's first official act after his inauguration was to order the development of the Lockheed 300 on 13 March 1961, with a contract for five aircraft for test and evaluation to be designated the C-141. One unusual aspect of the aircraft was that it was designed to meet both military and civil airworthiness standards, since Lockheed hoped to sell the aircraft, much like the C-130 Hercules, to airlines, too. The prototype C-141A (s/n 61-2775) was manufactured and assembled in record time. The prototype was rolled out of the Lockheed factory at Marietta, Georgia on 22 August 1963 and first flew on 17 December, the 60th anniversary of the Wright brothers' first flight. The company and the Air Force then started an operational testing program and the delivery of 284 C-141 aircraft.

 

The effort to sell the aircraft on the civilian market included some detail changes like a different yoke and cockpit equipment. Two versions were offered: the original aircraft (designated L300-100 StarLifter), based on the C-141’s hull, and a strongly stretched version, 37 feet (11 m) longer than the L300-100, and marketed as the L300-200 SuperstarLifter. Specialized versions like an aerial firefighting water bomber were proposed, too, and an initial L300-100 prototype made a global sales tour (which was later donated to NASA).

Response from the civil market was rather lukewarm, though, and resulted only in orders from Flying Tiger Line and Slick Airways for four aircraft each. Nevertheless, production of the civil StarLifter was launched in 1966, since the differences to the military aircraft were only minimal and Lockheed considered the financial risks to be acceptable. However, only twelve aircraft were initially ordered when production was greenlighted, but there was the expectation to attract more sales once the aircraft proved itself in daily business.

 

Despite a very good service record, this did not happen. To make matters worse, unexpected legal problems seriously threatened the newly introduced transport aircraft: In the early 1970s, strict noise limits for civil aircraft threatened operations, esp. in the USA. Several American L300 operators approached Lockheed for suitable noise reduction modifications, but the company did not react. However, third parties that had developed aftermarket hush kits for other airliners like the Boeing 707 or the Douglas DC-8 chimed in and saw their opportunity, and in 1975 General Electric began discussions with the major L300 operators with a view to fitting the new and considerably quieter Franco-American CFM56 engine to the transport aircraft. Lockheed still remained reluctant, but eventually came on board in the late 1970s and supported the conversion kit with new nacelles and pylons. This engine kit was unofficially baptized the “StarSilencer” program, which was offered as a retrofit kit and as an option for newly built aircraft, which were designated L300-1100 and -1200, respectively.

 

The kit was well received and all operational private L300s were upgraded with the fuel-efficient 22,000 lb (98.5 kN) CFM56-2 high-bypass turbofans until 1984, preventing a premature legal end of operations in wide parts of the world. The benefits of the upgrade were remarkable: The new engines were markedly quieter than the original Pratt & Whitney TF33-P-7 turbofans, and fuel efficiency was improved by 20%, resulting in a higher range. The CFM56s also offered 10% more thrust than the TF33-P-7s’ 20,250 lbf (90.1 kN each) output, and this extra thrust improved the aircraft’s take-off performance, too.

The USAF did not adopt the “StarSilencer” upgrade and rather focused on the fuselage extension program that converted all existing C-141As into C-141Bs from 1979 onwards, so that the aircraft’s payload potential could be better exploited. However, the new CFM56 engines made the L300 more attractive to civil operators, and, beyond the upgrade program for existing airframes, a second wave of orders was placed for both the L300-1100 and -1200: until 1981, when civil L300 production was stopped, eighteen more aircraft had been ordered, primarily for operators in North America and Canada, bringing total production to 40 machines, plus the initial demonstrator prototype.

 

One of these late buyers outside of the American continent was Air Greenland. Founded in 1960 as Grønlandsfly, the airline started its first services with Catalina water planes and within the decade expanded to include DHC-3 Otters as well as Sikorsky S-61 helicopters, some of which remain in active service. Grønlandsfly also picked up a Danish government contract to fly reconnaissance missions regarding the sea ice around Greenland.

During the 1970s, Grønlandsfly upgraded its airliner fleet, and mining in the Uummannaq Fjord opened new business opportunities beyond passenger services. To enter the bulk cargo business for mining companies with routes to Canada, North America and Europe as well as civil freight flights for the U.S. Army in Greenland (e. g. for the USAF’s Sondrestrom and Thule Air Bases), the purchase of a dedicated transport aircraft was considered. This eventually led to the procurement of a single, new L300-1100 StarLifter with CFM56-2 engines in 1980 – at the time, the biggest aircraft operated by Grønlandsfly. Domestic as well as international passenger service flourished, too: By the end of 1979, the number of Grønlandsfly passengers served annually exceeded 60,000 – this was more than the population of Greenland itself! However, the airline’s first true jet airliner, a Boeing 757-200, began operation in May 1998. Before, only propeller-driven aircraft like vintage Douglas DC-4 and DC-6 or the DHC Twin Otter and Dash 7 turboprop aircraft had been the main passenger types. In 1999, the airline already served 282,000 passengers, nearly triple the number at the end of the previous decade.

In 2002 the company rebranded itself, anglicizing its name to Air Greenland and adopting a new logo and livery. The L300-1100 was kept in service and remained, until the introduction of a single Airbus A330 in 2003 (purchased after SAS abandoned its Greenland service and Air Greenland took these over), Air Greenland’s biggest aircraft, with frequent cargo flights for the Maarmorilik zinc and iron mines.

 

StarLifters remained in military duty for over 40 years until the USAF withdrew the last C-141s from service in 2006, after replacing the airlifter with the C-17 Globemaster III. In civil service, however, the L300, despite its small production number, outlasted the C-141. After the military aircraft’s retirement, more than twenty StarLifters were still in private service, most of them operating under harsh climatic conditions and in remote parts of the world.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 4 - 6 (2 pilots, 2 flight engineers, 1 navigator, 1 loadmaster)

Length: 145 ft (44.27 m)

Wingspan: 160 ft 0 in (48.8 m)

Height: 39 ft 3 in (12 m)

Wing area: 3,228 ft² (300 m²)

Empty weight: 136,900 lbs (62,153 kg)

Loaded weight: 323,100 lbs (146,688 kg)

Max Payload, 2.25g: 94,508 lb (42.906 kg)

Max Takeoff Weight, 2.25g: 343,000 lb (155,722 kg)

 

Powerplant:

4× CFM International CFM56-2 high-bypass turbofans, delivering 22,000 lb (98.5 kN) each

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 567 mph (493 kn, 912 km/h)

Cruise speed: 495 mph (430 kn, 800 km/h)

Range: 4,320 mi (2,350 nmi, 6,955 km)

Ferry range: 7,245 mi (6,305 nmi, 11,660 km)

Service ceiling: 41,000 ft (12,500 m)

Rate of climb: 2,600 ft/min (13.2 m/s)

Wing loading: 100.1 lb/ft2 (490 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight: 0.25

  

The kit and its assembly:

This is another project I had on my agenda for a long time, it was inspired by a picture of the civilian L300 demonstrator and the question what a StarLifter in civil service could look like? Such a type (like the C-130) would only make sense for bulk cargo transport business, and probably only for rather remote locations, so I went up North with my thoughts and initially considered Air Canada or Buffalo Airways as an operator, but then remembered Air Greenland – a very good fit, and the current livery would make the L300 a colorful bird, too.

 

The basis is Roden’s C-141B kit, AFAIK the only affordable IP kit of this aircraft when I had the idea for this build a while ago; A&A Models released in the meantime a C-141A in June 2021, but it is prohibitively expensive, and Anigrand does a C-141A resin kit. The Roden kit is a sound offering. The parts fit well, even though the seams along the long fuselage and the wing roots need attention and PSR, and at the small 1:144 scale the (engraved) surface details are just fine. It’s not a stellar model, but a sturdy representation with surprisingly massive parts, esp. the fuselage: its walls are almost 3mm thick!

 

However, I did not want to build the stretched USAF version. The original civil L300 had the same fuselage as the C-141A, and I found this option to be more plausible for the haul of singular heavy equipment than the stretched version, and the decision to shorten the C-141B also had logistic reasons, because I’d have to store the model somewhere once finished… And, finally, I think that the original, short C-141 is just looking good. ;-)

 

So, I simply “de-plugged” the fuselage. In real life, the C-141B had two extensions: a 160” plug in front and another 120” insert behind its wings. This translated into 2.8 and 2.1 cm long sections on the model that were simply sawed off from the completed fuselage. Thanks to the massive fuselage walls, gluing the parts back together was an easy task, resulting in a very stable connection. The seams were hidden under some PSR, as well as two windows. The C-141B’s fairing for the refueling receptive was also sanded away. The front plug was easily hidden, but the rear plug called for some body sculpting, because the fuselage has a subtle bulge around the cargo door and its ramp – the shapes in front and behind it don’t differ much, though.

 

Another change for a more fictional civil variant: the engines. This was a lucky coincidence, because I had a complete set of four CFM56 turbofan nacelles left over from my shortened Minicraft DC-8 build a while ago, and the StarLifter lent itself to take these different/more modern engines, esp. for the civilian market. The swap was not as easy as expected, though, because the C-141’s nacelles are much different, have longer pylons and their attachment points in the wings were OOB not compatible at all with the CFM56 pods. I eventually filled the attachment slots in the wings and glued the complete CFM56 nacelles with their short DC-8 pylons directly under the wings, blending these areas with PRS. The engines’ position is now markedly different (higher/closer to the wings and further forward), but the engines’ bigger diameter IMHO justifies this change – and it turned out well.

 

The rest of the Roden model was left OOB, I just added a ventral display adapter for the flight scenes.

  

Painting and markings:

As mentioned above, I was looking for a “bush pilot” operator of suitable size in the Northern hemisphere, and Greenland Air was chosen because of its exoticism and the airline’s distinctive and simple livery. Does anyone know this rather small airline at all? Potential freight for the US Army as well as for private mining companies with lots of heavy equipment made the StarLifter’s operation plausible.

 

To make the plan work I was lucky that Draw Decal does an 1:144 sheet for the airline‘s (sole) Boeing 757, and its simple post-2002 all-red paint scheme was easily adapted to the StarLifter. The fuselage and the nacelles were painted with brushes in Humbrol 19 (Gloss Red, it comes IMHO close to the rich real-world tone), while the wings and the engine pylons became Humbrol 40 (Glossy Light Gull Grey). For some variety I added a medium grey (Humbrol 126, FS 36270) Corroguard panel to the wings’ upper surface, later framed with OOB decals. The white door markings came from a generic PAS decals sheet. All decals were very thin, esp. the Draw Decals sheet, which had to be handled with much care, but they also dried up perfectly and the white print inks turned out to have very good opacity. Adapting the Boeing 757 decals to the very different C-141 hull was also easier than expected, even though the "Air Greenland" tag on the nose ended up quite far forward and the emblem on the fin lots its uppermost white circle.

 

The cockpit, which comes with no interior, was painted in black, while the landing gear wells and struts were painted in a very light grey (Humbrol 196, RAL 7035) with white rims.

 

Panel lines were emphasized with a little black ink, and the cockpit glazing turned out to be a bit foggy - which became only apparent after I added the red around it. In order to hide this flaw I just laid out the window panels with Tamiya "Smoke".

 

Finally the model finally received an overall coat of gloss acrylic varnish from a rattle can.

  

A colorful result, even though the bright red C-141 looks unusual, if not odd. The different engines work well; with the shorter fuselage, the new, wider nacelles change the StarLifter’s look considerably. It looks more modern (at least to me), like a juiced-up Bae 146 or a C-17 on a diet?

 

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The Sondergerät SG104 "Münchhausen" was a German airborne recoillless 355.6 mm (14-inch) caliber gun, intended to engage even the roughest enemy battleships, primarily those of the Royal Navy. The design of this unusual and massive weapon began in 1939. The rationale behind it was that a battleship’s most vulnerable part was the deck – a flat surface, with relatively thin armor (as typical hits were expected on the flanks) and ideally with vital targets underneath, so that a single, good hit would cripple of even destroy a ship. The purpose of such a high angle of attack was likely to allow the projectile to penetrate the target ship's deck, where the ship's armor, if there was any, would have been much thinner than the armor on its sidesHowever, hitting the deck properly with another ship’s main gun was not easy, since it could only be affected through indirect hits and the typical angle of the attack from aballistic shot would not necessarily be ideal for deep penetration, esp. at long range.

The solution to this problem: ensure that the heavy projectile would hit its target directly from above, ideally at a very steep angle. To achieve this, the gun with battleship caliber was “relocated” from a carrier ship or a coastal battery onto an aircraft – specifically to a type that was capable of dive-bombing, a feature that almost any German bomber model of the time offered.

 

Firing such a heavy weapon caused a lot fo problems, which were severe even if the gun was mounted on a ship or on land. To compensate for such a large-caliber gun’s recoil and to make firing a 14 in shell (which alone weighed around almost 700 kg/1.550 lb, plus the charge) from a relatively light airframe feasible, the respective gun had to be as light as possible and avoid any recoil, which would easily tear an aircraft – even a bomber – apart upon firing. Therefore, the Gerät 104 was designed as a recoilless cannon. Its firing system involved venting the same amount of the weapon's propellant gas for its round to the rear of the launch tube (which was open at both ends), in the same fashion as a rocket launcher. This created a forward directed momentum which was nearly equal to the rearward momentum (recoil) imparted to the system by accelerating the projectile itself. The balance thus created did not leave much net momentum to be imparted to the weapon's mounting or the carrying airframe in the form of felt recoil. A further share of the recoil induced by the moving round itself could be compensated by a muzzle brake which re-directed a part of the firing gases backwards. Since recoil had been mostly negated, a heavy and complex recoil damping mechanism was not necessary – even though the weapon itself was huge and heavy.

 

Work on the "Münchhausen" device (a secret project handle after a fictional German nobleman created by the German writer Rudolf Erich Raspe in the late 18th century who reputedly had ridden on a cannonball between enemy frontlines), was done by Rheinmetall-Borsig and lasted until 1941. The first test of a prototype weapon was conducted on 9th of September 1940 in Unterlüss with a satisfactory result, even though the weapon was only mounted onto an open rack and not integrated into an airframe yet. At that time, potential carriers were the Ju 88, the Dornier Do 217 and the new Junkers Ju 288. Even though the system’s efficacy was doubted, the prospect of delivering a single, fatal blow to an important , armored arget superseded any doubts at the RLM, and the project was greenlit in early 1942 for the next stage: the integration of the Sondergerät 104 into an existing airframe. The Ju 88 and its successor, the Ju 188, turned out to be too light and lacked carrying capacity for the complete, loaded weapon, and the favored Ju 288 was never produced, so that only the Dornier Do 217 or the bigger He 177 remained as a suitable carriers. The Do 217 was eventually chosen because it had the biggest payload and the airframe was proven and readily available.

 

After calculations had verified that the designed 14 in rifle would have effectively no recoil, preliminary tests with dumm airframes were carried out. After ground trials with a Do 217 E day bomber to check recoil and blast effects on the airframe, the development and production of a limited Nullserie (pre-production series) of the dedicated Do 217 F variant for field tests and eventual operational use against British sea and land targets was ordered in April 1942.

 

The resulting Do 217 F-0 was based on the late “E” bomber variant and powered by a pair of BMW 801 radial engines. It was, however, heavily modified for its unique weapon and the highly specialized mission profile: upon arriving at the zone of operation at high altitude, the aircraft would initiate a dive with an angle of attack between 50° and 80° from the horizontal, firing the SG 104 at an altitude between 6,000 and 2,000 meters. The flight time of the projectile could range from 16.0 seconds for a shot from an altitude of 6,000 meters at a 50° angle to just 4.4 seconds for a shot from 2.000 meters at an almost vertical 80° angle. Muzzle velocity of the SG 104 was only 300 m/s, but, prior to impact, the effective velocity of the projectile was projected to range between 449 and 468 m/s (1,616 to 1,674 km/h). Together with the round's weight of roughly 700 kg (1.550 lb) and a hardened tip, this would still ensure a high penetration potential.

 

The operational Sondergerät 104 had an empty mass of 2.780 kg (6,123 lb) and its complete 14 inch double cartridge weighed around 1.600 kg (3,525 lb). The loaded mass of the weapon was 4,237 kg, stretching the limits of the Do 217’s load capacity to the maximum, so that some armor and less vital pieces of equipment were deleted. Crew and defensive armament were reduced to a minimum.

Even though there had been plans to integrate the wepaon into the airframe (on the Ju 288), the Gerät 104 was on the Do 217 F-0 mounted externally and occupied the whole space under the aircraft, precluding any use of the bomb bay. The latter was occupied by the Gerät 104’s complex mount, which extended to the outside under a streamlined fairing and held the weapon at a distance from the airframe. Between the mount’s struts inside of the fuselage, an additional fuel tank for balance reasons was added, too.

The gun’s center, where the heavy round was carried, was positioned under the aircraft’s center of gravity, so that the gun barrel markedly protruded from under the aircraft’s nose. To make enough space, the Do 217 Es bomb aimer’s ventral gondola and his rearward-facing defensive position under the cockpit were omitted and faired over. The nose section was also totally different: the original extensive glazing (the so-called “Kampfkopf”) was replaced by a smaller, conventional canopy, similar to the later Do 217 J and N night fighter versions, together with a solid nose - the original glass panels would have easily shattered upon firing the gun, esp. in a steep high-speed dive. A "Lotfernrohr" bomb aiming device was still installed in a streamlined and protected fairing, though, so that the navigator could guide the pilot during the approach to the target and during the attack run.

To stabilize the heavy aircraft during its attack and to time- and safely pull out of the dive, a massive mechanical dive brake was mounted at the extended tail tip, which unfolded with four "petals". A charecteristic stabilizing dorsal strake was added between the twin fins, too.

 

The ventral area behind the gun’s rear-facing muzzle received additional metal plating and blast guiding vanes, after trials in late 1940 had revealed that firing the SG 104 could easily damage the Do 217’s tail structure, esp. all of the tail surfaces’ rudders and the fins’ lower ends in particular. Due to all this extra weight, the Do 217 F-0’s defensive armament consisted only of a single 13 mm MG 131 machine gun in a manually operated dorsal position behind the cockpit cabin, which offered space for a crew of three. A fixed 15 mm MG 151 autocannon was mounted in the nose, too, a weapon with a long barrel for extended range and accuracy. It was not an offensive weapon, though, rather intended as an aiming aid for the SG 104 because it was loaded with tracer bullets: during the final phase of the attack dive, the pilot kept firing the MG 151, and the bullet trail showed if he was on target to fire the SG 104 when the right altitude/range had been reached.

 

The first Do 217 F-0 was flown and tested in late 1943, and after some detail changes the type was cleared for a limited production run of ten aircraft in January 1944. The first operational machine was delivered to a dedicated testing commando, the Erprobungskommando 104 “Münchhausen”, also known as “Sonderkommando Münchhausen” or simply “E-Staffel 104”. The unit was based at Bordeaux/Merignac and directly attached to the KG 40's as a staff flight. At that time, KG 40 operated Do 217 and He 177 bombers and frequently flew reconnaissance and anti-shipping missions over the Atlantic west of France, up to the British west and southern coast, equipped with experimental Henschel Hs 293 glide bombs.

 

Initial flights confirmed that the Do 217 airframe was burdened with the SG 104 to its limits, the already rather sluggish aircraft (the Do 217 had generally a high wing loading and was not easy to fly) lost anything that was left of what could be called agility. It needed an experienced pilot to handle it safely, esp. during start and landing. It is no wonder that two Do 217 F-0s suffered ground accidents during the first two weeks of operations, but the machines could be repaired, resume the test program and carry out attack missions.

However, during one of the first test shots with the weapon, one Do 217 F-0 lost its complete tail section though the gun blast, and the aircraft crashed into the Bay of Biscay, killing the complete crew.

 

On 4th or April 1944 the first "hot" attack against an enemy ship was executed in the Celtic Sea off of Brest, against a convoy of 20 ships homeward bound from Gibraltar. The attack was not successful, though, the shot missing its target, and the German bomber was attacked and heavily damaged by British Bristol Beaufighters that had been deployed to protect the ships. The Do 217F-0 eventually crashed and sank into the Atlantic before it could reach land again.

 

A couple of days later, on 10th of April, the first attempt to attack and destroy a land target was undertaken: two Do 217 F-0s took off to attack Bouldnor Battery, an armored British artillery position located on the Isle of Wight. One machine had to abort the attack due to oil leakages, the second Do 217 F-0 eventually reached its target and made a shallow attack run, but heavy fog obscured the location and the otherwise successful shot missed the fortification. Upon return to its home base the aircraft was intercepted by RAF fighters over the Channel and heavily damaged, even though German fighters deployed from France came to the rescue, fought the British attackers off and escorted the limping Do 217 F-0 back to its home base.

 

These events revealed that the overall SG 104 concept was generally feasible, but also showed that the Do 217 F-0 was very vulnerable without air superiority or a suitable escort, so that new tactics had to be developed. One consequence was that further Do 217 F-0 deployments were now supported by V/KG 40, the Luftwaffe's only long range maritime fighter unit. These escorts consisted of Junkers Ju 88C-6s, which were capable of keeping up with the Do 217 F-0 and fend of intercepting RAF Coastal Command’s Beaufighters and later also Mosquitos.

 

In the meantime, tests with the SG 104 progressed and several modifications were tested on different EKdo 104's Do 217 F-0s. One major upgrade was a further strengthening of the tail section, which added another 200 kg (440 lb) to the aircraft's dry weight. Furthermore, at least three aircraft were outfitted with additional dive brakes under the outer wings, so that the dive could be better controlled and intercepted. these aircraft, however, lost their plumbed underwing hardpoints, but these were only ever used for drop tanks during transfer flights - a loaded SG 104 precluded any other ordnance. On two other aircraft the SG 104 was modified to test different muzzle brakes and deflectors for the rear-facing opening, so that the gun blast was more effectively guided away from the airframe to prevent instability and structural damage. For instance, one machine was equipped with a bifurcated blast deflector that directed the rearward gasses partly sideways, away from the fuselage.

 

These tests did not last long, though. During the Allied Normandy landings in June 1944 E-Staffel 104 was hastily thrown into action and made several poorly-prepared attack runs against Allied support ships. The biggest success was a full hit and the resulting sinking of the Norwegian destroyer HNoMS Svenner (G03) by "1A+BA" at dawn on 6th of June, off Sword, one of the Allied landing zones. Other targets were engaged, too, but only with little effect. This involvement, however, led to the loss of three Do 217 F-0s within just two days and four more heavily damaged aircraft – leaving only two of EKdo 104's Do 217 F-0s operational.

 

With the Allied invasion of France and a worsening war condition, the SG 104 program was stopped in August 1944 and the idea of an airborne anti-ship gun axed in favor of more flexible guided weapons like the Hs 293 missile and the Fritz-X glide bomb. Plans for a further developed weapon with a three-round drum magazine were immediately stopped, also because there was no carrier aircraft in sight that could carry and deploy this complex 6.5 tons weapon. However, work on the SG 104 and the experience gained from EKdo 104's field tests were not in vain. The knowledge gathered from the Münchhausen program was directly used for the design of a wide range of other, smaller recoilless aircraft weapons, including the magnetically-triggered SG 113 "Förstersonde" anti-tank weapon or the lightweight SG 118 "Rohrblock" unguided air-to-air missile battery for the Heinkel He 162 "Volksjäger".

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 3 (pilot, navigator, radio operator/gunner)

Length: 20,73 m (67 ft 11 in) overall

18,93 m (62 ft 3/4 in) hull only

Wingspan: 19 m (62 ft 4 in)

Height: 4.97 m (16 ft 4 in)

Wing area: 57 m² (610 sq ft)

Empty weight: 9,065 kg (19,985 lb)

Empty equipped weight:10,950 kg (24,140 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 16,700 kg (36,817 lb)

Fuel capacity: 2,960 l (780 US gal; 650 imp gal) in fuselage tank and four wing tanks

 

Powerplant:

2× BMW 801D-2 14-cylinder air-cooled radial piston engines, delivering

1,300 kW (1,700 hp) each for take-off and 1,070 kW (1,440 hp) at 5,700 m (18,700 ft),

driving 3-bladed VDM constant-speed propellers

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 475 km/h (295 mph, 256 kn) at sea level

560 km/h (350 mph; 300 kn) at 5,700 m (18,700 ft)

Cruise speed: 400 km/h (250 mph, 220 kn) with loaded Gerät 104 at optimum altitude

Range: 2,180 km (1,350 mi, 1,180 nmi) with maximum internal fuel

Ferry range: 2,500 km (1,600 mi, 1,300 nmi); unarmed, with auxiliary fuel tanks

Service ceiling: 7,370 m (24,180 ft) with loaded Gerät 104,

9,500 m (31,200 ft) after firing

Rate of climb: 3.5 m/s (690 ft/min)

Time to altitude: 1,000 m (3,300 ft) in 4 minutes 10 seconds

2,000 m (6,600 ft) in 8 minutes 20 seconds

6,100 m (20,000 ft) in 24 minutes 40 seconds

 

Armament:

1x 355.6 mm (14-inch) Sondergerät 104 recoilless gun with a single round in ventral position

1x 15 mm (0.787 in) MG 151 machine cannon with 200 rounds, fixed in the nose

1x 13 mm (0.512 in) MG 131 machine gun with 500 rounds, movable in dorsal position

Two underwing hardpoints for a 900 l drop tank each, but only used during unarmed ferry flights

  

The kit and its assembly:

This was another submission to the "Gunships" group build at whatifmodellers.com in late 2021, and inspiration struck when I realized that I had two Italeri Do 217 in The Stash - a bomber and a night fighter - that could be combined into a suitable (fictional) carrier for a Sondergerät 104. This mighty weapon actually existed and even reached the hardware/test stage - but it was never integrated into an airframe and tested in flight. But that's what this model is supposed to depict.

 

On the Do 217, the Sg 104 would have been carried externally under the fuselage, even though there had been plans to integrate this recoilless rifle into airframes, esp. into the Ju 288. Since the latter never made it into production, the Do 217 would have been the most logical alternative, also because it had the highest payload of all German bombers during WWII and probably the only aircraft capable of carrying and deploying the Münchhausen device, as the SG 104 was also known.

 

The fictional Do 217 F-0 is a kitbashing, using a Do 217 N fuselage, combined with the wings from a Do 217 K bomber, plus some modifications. What initially sounded like a simple plan soon turned into a improvisation mess: it took some time to realize that I had already donated the Do 217 K's BMW 801 engines to another project, an upgraded He 115... I did not want to use the nightfighter's more powerful DB 603s, and I was lucky to have an Italeri Ju 188 kit at hand which comes with optional BMW 801s and Jumo 211s. Transplanting these engines onto the Do 217's wings took some tailoring of the adapter plates, but was feasible. However, the BMW 801s from the Ju 188 kit have a flaw: they lack the engine's characteristic cooling fans... Another lucky find: I found two such parts in the scrap box, even though from different kits - one left over from another Italeri Do 217 K, the other one from what I assume is/was an Italeri 1:72 Fw 190 A/F. To make matters worse, one propeller from the Ju 188 kit was missing, so that I had to find a(nother) replacement. :-/

I eventually used something that looked like an 1:72 F6F Hellcat propeller, but I an not certain about this because I have never built this model...? With some trimming on the blades' trailing edges and other mods, the donor's overall look could be adapted to the Ju 188 benchmark. Both propellers were mounted on metal axis' so that they could also carry the cooling fans. Lots of work, but the result looks quite good.

 

The Do 217 N's hull lost the lower rear gunner position and its ventral gondola, which was faired over with a piece of styrene sheet. The pilot was taken OOB, the gunner in the rear position was replaced by a more blob-like crew member from the scrap box. The plan to add a navigator in the seat to the lower right of the pilot did not work out due to space shortage, but this figure would probably have been invisble, anyway.

All gun openings in the nose were filled and PSRed away, and a fairing for a bomb aiming device and a single gun (the barrel is a hollow steel needle) were added.

 

The SG 104 was scratched. Starting point was a white metal replacement barrel for an 1:35 ISU-152 SPG with a brass muzzle brake. However, after dry-fitting the barrel under the hull the barrel turned out to be much too wide, so that only the muzzal brake survived and the rest of the weapon was created from a buddy refueling pod (from an Italeri 1:72 Luftwaffe Tornado, because of its two conical ends) and protective plastic caps from medical canulas. To attach this creation to the hull I abused a conformal belly tank from a Matchbox Gloster Meteor night fighter and tailored it into a streamlined fairing. While this quite a Frankenstein creation, the overall dimensions match the real SG 104 prototype and its look well.

 

Other cosmetic modifications include a pair of underwing dive brakes, translanted from an Italeri 1:72 Ju 88 A-4 kit, an extended (scratched) tail "stinger" which resembles the real dive brake arrangement that was installed on some Do 217 E bombers, and I added blast deflector vanes and a dorsal stabilizer fin.

In order to provide the aircraft with enough ground clearance, the tail wheel was slightly extended. Thanks to the long tail stinger, this is not blatantly obvious.

  

Painting and markings:

This was not an easy choice, but as a kind of prototype I decided that the paint scheme should be rather conservative. However, German aircraft operating over the Atlantic tended to carry rather pale schemes, so that the standard pattern of RLM 70/71/65 (Dunkelgrün, Schwarzgrün and Hellblau) with a low waterline - typical for experimental types - would hardly be appropriate.

I eventually found a compromise on a He 177 bomber (coded 6N+BN) from 1944 that was operated by KG 100: this particular aircraft had a lightened upper camouflage - still a standard splinter scheme but consisting of RLM 71 and 02 (Dunkelgrün and Grau; I used Modelmaster 2081 and Humbrol 240), a combination that had been used on German fighters during the Battle of Britain when the standard colors turned out to be too dark for operations over the Channel. The aircraft also carried standard RLM 65 (or maybe the new RLM76) underneath (Humbrol 65) and on the fin, but with a very high and slightly wavy waterline. As a rather unusual feature, no typical camouflage mottles were carried on the flanks or the fin, giving the aircraft a very bleak and simple look.

 

Despite my fears that this might look rather boring I adapted this scheme for the Do 217 F-0, and once basic painting was completed I was rather pleased by the aircraft's look! As an aircraft operated at the Western front, no additional markings like fuselage bands were carried.

To set the SG 104 apart from the airframe, I painted the weapon's visible parts in RLM 66 (Schwarzgrau, Humbrol 67), because this tone was frequently used for machinery (including the interior surfaces of aircraft towards 1945).

RLM 02 was also used for the interior surfaces and the landing gear, even though I used a slightly different, lighter shade in form of Revell 45 (Helloliv).

 

A light black ink washing was applied and post-shading to emphasize panel lines. Most markings/decals came from a Begemot 1:72 He 11 sheet, including the unusual green tactical code - it belongs to a staff unit, a suitable marking for such an experimental aircraft. The green (Humbrol 2) was carried over to the tips of the propeller spinners. The unit's code "1A" is fictional, AFAIK this combination had never been used by the Luftwaffe.

The small unit badge was alucky find: it actually depicts the fictional Baron von Münchhausen riding on a cannonball, and it comes from an Academy 1:72 Me 163 kit and its respective sheet. The mission markings underneath, depicting two anti-ship missions plus a successful sinking, came from a TL Modellbau 1:72 scale sheet with generic German WWII victory markings.

 

After some soot stains around the engine exhaust and weapon muzzles had been added with graphite, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish and final details like position lights and wire antennae (from heated black plastic sprue material) were added.

  

Well, what started as a combination of two kits of the same kind with a simple huge pipe underneath turned out to be more demanding than expected. The (incomplete) replacement engines were quite a challenge, and body work on the hull (tail stinger, fairing for the SG 104 as well as the weapon itself) turned out to be more complex and extensive than initially thought of. The result looks quite convincing, also supported by the rather simple paint scheme which IMHO just "looks right" and very convincing. And the whole thing is probably the most direct representation of the inspiring "Gunship" theme!

 

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some Background:

During the 1950s, Hindustan Aircraft Limited (HAL) had developed and produced several types of trainer aircraft, such as the HAL HT-2. However, elements within the firm were eager to expand into the then-new realm of supersonic fighter aircraft. Around the same time, the Indian government was in the process of formulating a new Air Staff Requirement for a Mach 2-capable combat aircraft to equip the Indian Air Force (IAF). However, as HAL lacked the necessary experience in both developing and manufacturing frontline combat fighters, it was clear that external guidance would be invaluable; this assistance was embodied by Kurt Tank.

 

In 1956, HAL formally began design work on the supersonic fighter project. The Indian government, led by Jawaharlal Nehru, authorized the development of the aircraft, stating that it would aid in the development of a modern aircraft industry in India. The first phase of the project sought to develop an airframe suitable for travelling at supersonic speeds, and able to effectively perform combat missions as a fighter aircraft, while the second phase sought to domestically design and produce an engine capable of propelling the aircraft. Early on, there was an explicit adherence to satisfying the IAF's requirements for a capable fighter bomber; attributes such as a twin-engine configuration and a speed of Mach 1.4 to 1.5 were quickly emphasized, and this led to the HF-24 Marut.

 

On 24 June 1961, the first prototype Marut conducted its maiden flight. It was powered by the same Bristol Siddeley Orpheus 703 turbojets that had powered the Folland Gnat, also being manufactured by HAL at that time. On 1 April 1967, the first production Marut was delivered to the IAF. While originally intended only as an interim measure during testing, HAL decided to power production Maruts with a pair of unreheated Orpheus 703s, meaning the aircraft could not attain supersonic speed. Although originally conceived to operate around Mach 2 the Marut in fact was barely capable of reaching Mach 1 due to the lack of suitably powerful engines.

 

The IAF were reluctant to procure a fighter aircraft only marginally superior to its existing fleet of British-built Hawker Hunters. However, in 1961, the Indian Government decided to procure the Marut, nevertheless, but only 147 aircraft, including 18 two-seat trainers, were completed out of a planned 214. Just after the decision to build the lukewarm Marut, the development of a more advanced aircraft with the desired supersonic performance was initiated.

 

This enterprise started star-crossed, though: after the Indian Government conducted its first nuclear tests at Pokhran, international pressure prevented the import of better engines of Western origin, or at times, even spares for the Orpheus engines, so that the Marut never realized its full potential due to insufficient power, and it was relatively obsolescent by the time it reached production.

Due to these restrictions India looked for other sources for supersonic aircraft and eventually settled upon the MiG-21 F-13 from the Soviet Union, which entered service in 1964. While fast and agile, the Fishbed was only a short-range daylight interceptor. It lacked proper range for escort missions and air space patrols, and it had no radar that enabled it to conduct all-weather interceptions. To fill this operational gap, the new indigenous HF-26 project was launched around the same time.

 

For the nascent Indian aircraft industry, HF-26 had a demanding requirements specification: the aircraft was to achieve Mach 2 top speed at high altitude and carry a radar with a guided missile armament that allowed interceptions in any weather, day and night. The powerplant question was left open, but it was clear from the start that a Soviet engine would be needed, since an indigenous development of a suitable powerplant would take much too long and block vital resources, and western alternatives were out of reach. The mission profile and the performance requirements quickly defined the planned aircraft’s layout: To fit a radar, the air intakes with movable ramps to feed the engines were placed on the fuselage flanks. To make sure the aircraft would fulfill its high-performance demands, it was right from the outset powered by two engines, and it was decided to give it delta wings, a popular design among high-speed aircraft of the time – exemplified by the highly successful Dassault Mirage III (which was to be delivered to Pakistan in 1967). With two engines, the HF-26 would be a heavier aircraft than the Mirage III, though, and it was planned to operate the aircraft from semi-prepared airfields, so that it would receive a robust landing gear with low-pressure tires and a brake parachute.

 

In 1962 India was able to negotiate the delivery of Tumansky RD-9 turbojet engines from the Soviet Union, even though no afterburner was part of the deal – this had to be indigenously developed by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). However, this meant that the afterburner could be tailored to the HF-26, and this task would provide HAL with valuable engineering experience, too.

Now knowing the powerplant, HAL created a single-seater airframe around it, a rather robust design that superficially reminded of the French Mirage III, but there were fundamental differences. The HF-26 had boxy air intakes with movable ramps to control the airflow to the two engines and a relatively wide fuselage to hold them and most of the fuel in tanks between the air ducts behind the cockpit. The aircraft had a single swept fin and a rather small mid-positioned delta-wing with a 60° sweep. The pilot sat under a tight canopy that offered - similar to the Mirage III - only limited all-round vision.

The HF-26's conical nose radome covered an antenna for a ‘Garud’ interception radar – which was in fact a downgraded Soviet ‘Oryol' (Eagle; NATO reporting name 'Skip Spin') system that guided the HF-26’s main armament, a pair of semi-active radar homing (SARH) ‚Saanp’ missiles.

 

The Saanp missile was developed specifically for the HF-26 in India but used many components of Soviet origin, too, so that they were compatible with the radar. In performance, the Saanp was comparable with the French Matra R.530 air-to-air missile, even though the aerodynamic layout was reversed, with steering fins at the front end, right behind the SARH seaker head - overall the missile reminded of an enlarged AIM-4 Falcon. The missile weighed 180 kg and had a length of 3.5 m. Power came from a two-stage solid rocket that offered a maximum thrust of 80 kN for 2.7 s during the launch phase plus 6.5 s cruise. Maximum speed was Mach 2.7 and operational range was 1.5 to 20 km (0.9 to 12.5 miles). Two of these missiles could be carried on the main wing hardpoints in front of the landing gear wells. Alternatively, infrared-guided R-3 (AA-2 ‘Atoll’) short-range AAMs could be carried by the HF-26, too, and typically two of these were carried on the outer underwing hardpoints, which were plumbed to accept drop tanks (typically supersonic PTB-490s that were carried by the IAF's MiG-21s, too) . Initially, no internal gun was envisioned, as the HF-26 was supposed to be a pure high-speed/high-altitude interceptor that would not engage in dogfights. Two more hardpoints under the fuselage were plumbed, too, for a total of six external stations.

 

Due to its wing planform, the HF-26 was soon aptly called “Teer” (= Arrow), and with Soviet help the first prototype was rolled out in early 1964 and presented to the public. The first flight, however, would take place almost a year later in January 1965, due to many technical problems, and these were soon complemented by aerodynamic problems. The original delta-winged HF-26 had poor take-off and landing characteristics, and directional stability was weak, too. While a second prototype was under construction in April 1965 the first aircraft was lost after it had entered a spin from which the pilot could not escape – the aircraft crashed and its pilot was killed during the attempt to eject.

 

After this loss HAL investigated an enlarged fin and a modified wing design with deeper wingtips with lower sweep, which increased wing area and improved low speed handling, too. Furthermore, the fuselage shape had to be modified, too, to reduce supersonic drag, and a more pronounced area ruling was introduced. The indigenous afterburner for the RD-9 engines was unstable and troublesome, too.

It took until 1968 and three more flying prototypes (plus two static airframes) to refine the Teer for serial production service introduction. In this highly modified form, the aircraft was re-designated HF-26M and the first machines were delivered to IAF No. 3 Squadron in late 1969. However, it would take several months until a fully operational status could be achieved. By that time, it was already clear that the Teer, much like the HF-24 Marut before, could not live up to its expectations and was at the brink of becoming obsolete as it entered service. The RD-9 was not a modern engine anymore, and despite its indigenous afterburner – which turned out not only to be chronically unreliable but also to be very thirsty when engaged – the Teer had a disappointing performance: The fighter only achieved a top speed of Mach 1.6 at full power, and with full external load it hardly broke the wall of sound in level flight. Its main armament, the Saanp AAM, also turned out to be unreliable even under ideal conditions.

 

However, the HF-26M came just in time to take part in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and was, despite its weaknesses, extensively used – even though not necessarily in its intended role. High-flying slow bombers were not fielded during the conflict, and the Teer remained, despite its on-board radar, heavily dependent on ground control interception (GCI) to vector its pilot onto targets coming in at medium and even low altitude. The HF-26M had no capability against low-flying aircraft either, so that pilots had to engage incoming, low-flying enemy aircraft after visual identification – a task the IAF’s nimble MiG-21s were much better suited for. Escorts and air cover missions for fighter-bombers were flown, too, but the HF-26M’s limited range only made it a suitable companion for the equally short-legged Su-7s. The IAF Canberras were frequently deployed on longer range missions, but the HF-26Ms simply could not follow them all the time; for a sufficient range the Teer had to carry four drop tanks, what increased drag and only left the outer pair of underwing hardpoints (which were not plumbed) free for a pair of AA-2 missiles. With the imminent danger of aerial close range combat, though, During the conflict with Pakistan, most HF-26M's were retrofitted with rear-view mirrors in their canopies to improve the pilot's field of view, and a passive IR sensor was added in a small fairing under the nose to improve the aircraft's all-weather capabilities and avoid active radar emissions that would warn potential prey too early.

 

The lack of an internal gun turned out to be another great weakness of the Teer, and this was only lightly mended through the use of external gun pods. Two of these cigar-shaped pods that resembled the Soviet UPK-23 pod could be carried on the two ventral pylons, and each contained a 23 mm Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-23L autocannon of Soviet origin with 200 rounds. Technically these pods were very similar to the conformal GP-9 pods carried by the IAF MiG-21FLs. While the gun pods considerably improved the HF-26M’s firepower and versatility, the pods were draggy, blocked valuable hardpoints (from extra fuel) and their recoil tended to damage the pylons as well as the underlying aircraft structure, so that they were only commissioned to be used in an emergency.

 

However, beyond air-to-air weapons, the HF-26M could also carry ordnance of up to 1.000 kg (2.207 lb) on the ventral and inner wing hardpoints and up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) on the other pair of wing hardpoints, including iron bombs and/or unguided missile pods. However, the limited field of view from the cockpit over the radome as well as the relatively high wing loading did not recommend the aircraft for ground attack missions – even though these frequently happened during the conflict with Pakistan. For these tactical missions, many HF-26Ms lost their original overall natural metal finish and instead received camouflage paint schemes on squadron level, resulting in individual and sometimes even spectacular liveries. Most notable examples were the Teer fighters of No. 1 Squadron (The Tigers), which sported various camouflage adaptations of the unit’s eponym.

 

Despite its many deficiencies, the HF-26M became heavily involved in the Indo-Pakistan conflict. As the Indian Army tightened its grip in East Pakistan, the Indian Air Force continued with its attacks against Pakistan as the campaign developed into a series of daylight anti-airfield, anti-radar, and close-support attacks by fighter jets, with night attacks against airfields and strategic targets by Canberras and An-12s, while Pakistan responded with similar night attacks with its B-57s and C-130s.

The PAF deployed its F-6s mainly on defensive combat air patrol missions over their own bases, leaving the PAF unable to conduct effective offensive operations.  Sporadic raids by the IAF continued against PAF forward air bases in Pakistan until the end of the war, and interdiction and close-support operations were maintained. One of the most successful air raids by India into West Pakistan happened on 8 December 1971, when Indian Hunter aircraft from the Pathankot-based 20 Squadron, attacked the Pakistani base in Murid and destroyed 5 F-86 aircraft on the ground.

The PAF played a more limited role in the operations, even though they were reinforced by Mirages from an unidentified Middle Eastern ally (whose identity remains unknown). The IAF was able to conduct a wide range of missions – troop support; air combat; deep penetration strikes; para-dropping behind enemy lines; feints to draw enemy fighters away from the actual target; bombing and reconnaissance. India flew 1,978 sorties in the East and about 4,000 in Pakistan, while the PAF flew about 30 and 2,840 at the respective fronts.  More than 80 percent of IAF sorties were close-support and interdiction and about 45 IAF aircraft were lost, including three HF-26Ms. Pakistan lost 60 to 75 aircraft, not including any F-86s, Mirage IIIs, or the six Jordanian F-104s which failed to return to their donors. The imbalance in air losses was explained by the IAF's considerably higher sortie rate and its emphasis on ground-attack missions. The PAF, which was solely focused on air combat, was reluctant to oppose these massive attacks and rather took refuge at Iranian air bases or in concrete bunkers, refusing to offer fights and respective losses.

 

After the war, the HF-26M was officially regarded as outdated, and as license production of the improved MiG-21FL (designated HAL Type 77 and nicknamed “Trishul” = Trident) and later of the MiG-21M (HAL Type 88) was organized in India, the aircraft were quickly retired from frontline units. They kept on serving into the Eighties, though, but now restricted to their original interceptor role. Beyond the upgrades from the Indo-Pakistani War, only a few upgrades were made. For instance, the new R-60 AAM was introduced to the HF-26M and around 1978 small (but fixed) canards were retrofitted to the air intakes behind the cockpit that improved the Teer’s poor slow speed control and high landing speed as well as the aircraft’s overall maneuverability.

A radar upgrade, together with the introduction of better air-to-ai missiles with a higher range and look down/shoot down capability was considered but never carried out. Furthermore, the idea of a true HF-26 2nd generation variant, powered by a pair of Tumansky R-11F-300 afterburner jet engines (from the license-built MiG-21FLs), was dropped, too – even though this powerplant eventually promised to fulfill the Teer’s design promise of Mach 2 top speed. A total of only 82 HF-26s (including thirteen two-seat trainers with a lengthened fuselage and reduced fuel capacity, plus eight prototypes) were built. The last aircraft were retired from IAF service in 1988 and replaced with Mirage 2000 fighters procured from France that were armed with the Matra Super 530 AAM.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 14.97 m (49 ft ½ in)

Wingspan: 9.43 m (30 ft 11 in)

Height: 4.03 m (13 ft 2½ in)

Wing area: 30.6 m² (285 sq ft)

Empty weight: 7,000 kg (15,432 lb)

Gross weight: 10,954 kg (24,149 lb) with full internal fuel

Max takeoff weight: 15,700 kg (34,613 lb) with external stores

 

Powerplant:

2× Tumansky RD-9 afterburning turbojet engines; 29 kN (6,600 lbf) dry thrust each

and 36.78 kN (8,270 lbf) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 1,700 km/h (1,056 mph; 917 kn; Mach 1.6) at 11,000 m (36,000 ft)

1,350 km/h (840 mph, 730 kn; Mach 1.1) at sea level

Combat range: 725 km (450 mi, 391 nmi) with internal fuel only

Ferry range: 1,700 km (1,100 mi, 920 nmi) with four drop tanks

Service ceiling: 18,100 m (59,400 ft)

g limits: +6.5

Time to altitude: 9,145 m (30,003 ft) in 1 minute 30 seconds

Wing loading: 555 kg/m² (114 lb/sq ft)

 

Armament

6× hardpoints (four underwing and two under the fuselage) for a total of 2.500 kg (5.500 lb);

Typical interceptor payload:

- two IR-guided R-3 or R-60 air-to-air-missiles or

two PTB-490 drop tanks on the outer underwing stations

- two semi-active radar-guided ‚Saanp’ air-to-air missiles or two more R-3 or R-60 AAMs

on inner underwing stations

- two 500 l drop tanks or two gun pods with a 23 mm GSh-23L autocannon and 200 RPG

each under the fuselage

  

The kit and its assembly:

This whiffy delta-wing fighter was inspired when I recently sliced up a PM Model Su-15 kit for my side-by-side-engine BAC Lightning build. At an early stage of the conversion, I held the Su-15 fuselage with its molded delta wings in my hand and wondered if a shortened tail section (as well as a shorter overall fuselage to keep proportions balanced) could make a delta-wing jet fighter from the Flagon base? Only a hardware experiment could yield an answer, and since the Su-15’s overall outlines look a bit retro I settled at an early stage on India as potential designer and operator, as “the thing the HF-24 Marut never was”.

 

True to the initial idea, work started on the tail, and I chopped off the fuselage behind the wings’ trailing edge. Some PSR was necessary to blend the separate exhaust section into the fuselage, which had to be reduced in depth through wedges that I cut out under the wings trailing edge, plus some good amount of glue and sheer force the bend the section a bit upwards. The PM Model's jet exhausts were drilled open, and I added afterburner dummies inside - anything would look better than the bleak vertical walls inside after only 2-3 mm! The original fin was omitted, because it was a bit too large for the new, smaller aircraft and its shape reminded a lot of the Suchoj heavy fighter family. It was replaced with a Mirage III/V fin, left over from a (crappy!) Pioneer 2 IAI Nesher kit.

 

Once the rear section was complete, I had to adjust the front end - and here the kitbashing started. First, I chopped off the cockpit section in front of the molded air intake - the Su-15’s long radome and the cockpit on top of the fuselage did not work anymore. As a remedy I remembered another Su-15 conversion I did a (long) while ago: I created a model of a planned ground attack derivative, the T-58Sh, and, as a part of the extensive body work, I transplanted the slanted nose from an academy MiG-27 between the air intakes – a stunt that was relatively easy and which appreciably lowered the cockpit position. For the HF-26M I did something similar, I just transplanted a cockpit from a Hasegawa/Academy MiG-23 with its ogival radome that size-wise better matched with the rest of the leftover Su-15 airframe.

 

The MiG-23 cockpit matched perfectly with the Su-15's front end, just the spinal area behind the cockpit had to be raised/re-sculpted to blend the parts smoothly together. For a different look from the Su-15 ancestry I also transplanted the front sections of the MiG-23 air intakes with their shorter ramps. Some mods had to be made to the Su-15 intake stubs, but the MiG-23 intakes were an almost perfect fit in size and shape and easy to integrate into the modified front hill. The result looks very natural!

However, when the fuselage was complete, I found that the nose appeared to be a bit too long, leaving the whole new hull with the wings somewhat off balance. As a remedy I decided at a rather late stage to shorten the nose and took out a 6 mm section in front of the cockpit - a stunt I had not planned, but sometimes you can judge things only after certain work stages. Some serious PSR was necessary to re-adjust the conical nose shape, which now looked more Mirage III-ish than planned!

 

The cockpit was taken mostly OOB, I just replaced the ejection seat and gave it a trigger handle made from thin wire. With the basic airframe complete it was time for details. The PM Model Su-15s massive and rather crude main landing gear was replaced with something more delicate from the scrap box, even though I retained the main wheels. The front landing gear was taken wholesale from the MiG-23, but had to be shortened for a proper stance.

A display holder adapter was integrated into the belly for the flight scenes, hidden well between the ventral ordnance.

 

The hardpoints, including missile launch rails, came from the MiG-23; the pylons had to be adjusted to match the Su-15's wing profile shape, the Anab missiles lost their tail sections to create the fictional Indian 'Saanp' AAMs. The R-3s on the outer stations were left over from a MP MiG-21. The ventral pylons belong to Academy MiG-23/27s, one came from the donor kit, the other was found in the spares box. The PTB-490 drop tanks also came from a KP MiG-21 (or one of its many reincarnations, not certain).

  

Painting and markings:

The paint scheme for this fictional aircraft was largely inspired by a picture of a whiffy and very attractive Saab 37 Viggen (an 1:72 Airfix kit) in IAF colors, apparently a model from a contest. BTW, India actually considered buying the Viggen for its Air Force!

IAF aircraft were and are known for their exotic and sometimes gawdy paint schemes, and with IAF MiG-21 “C 992” there’s even a very popular (yet obscure) aircraft that sported literal tiger stripes. The IAF Viggen model was surely inspired by this real aircraft, and I adopted something similar for my HF-26M.

 

IAF 1 Squadron was therefore settled, and for the paint scheme I opted for a "stripish" scheme, but not as "tigeresque" as "C 992". I found a suitable benchmark in a recent Libyian MiG-21, which carried a very disruptive two-tone grey scheme. I adapted this pattern to the HA-26M airframe and replaced its colors, similar to the IAF Viggen model, which became a greenish sand tone (a mix of Humbrol 121 with some 159; I later found out that I could have used Humbrol 83 from the beginning, though...) and a very dark olive drab (Humbrol 66, which looks like a dull dark brown in contrast with the sand tone), with bluish grey (Humbrol 247) undersides. With the large delta wings, this turned out to look very good and even effective!

 

For that special "Indian touch" I gave the aircraft a high-contrast fin in a design that I had seen on a real camouflaged IAF MiG-21bis: an overall dark green base with a broad, red vertical stripe which was also the shield for the fin flash and the aircraft's tactical code (on the original bare metal). The fin was first painted in green (Humbrol 2), the red stripe was created with orange-red decal sheet material. Similar material was also used to create the bare metal field for the tactical code, the yellow bars on the splitter plates and for the thin white canopy sealing.

 

After basic painting was done the model received an overall black ink washing, post-panel shading and extensive dry-brushing with aluminum and iron for a rather worn look.

The missiles became classic white, while the drop tanks, as a contrast to the camouflaged belly, were left in bare metal.

 

Decals/markings came primarily from a Begemot MiG-25 kit, the tactical codes on the fin and under the wings originally belong to an RAF post-WWII Spitfire, just the first serial letter was omitted. Stencils are few and they came from various sources. A compromise is the unit badge on the fin: I needed a tiger motif, and the only suitable option I found was the tiger head emblem on a white disc from RAF No. 74 Squadron, from the Matchbox BAC Lightning F.6&F.2A kit. It fits stylistically well, though. ;-)

 

Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (except for the black radome, which became a bit glossy) and finally assembled.

  

A spontaneous build, and the last one that I completed in 2022. However, despite a vague design plan the model evolved as it grew. Bashing the primitive PM Model Su-15 with the Academy MiG-23 parts was easier than expected, though, and the resulting fictional aircraft looks sturdy but quite believable - even though it appears to me like the unexpected child of a Mirage III/F-4 Phantom II intercourse, or like a juvenile CF-105 Arrow, just with mid-wings? Nevertheless, the disruptive paint scheme suits the delta wing fighter well, and the green/red fin is a striking contrast - it's a colorful model, but not garish.

Trucks are capable of selling just about any food item you can imagine in Japan. This is a crepe truck where a person sits in the back and cooks the crepe for you fresh. They're very fond of crepes in Japan having savory and sweet varieties so you can have one for lunch and one for desert.

SOL Austin: Net-Zero Capable

www.solaustin.com

 

Beck-Reit and Sons Ltd., an Austin General Contractor, has been working on sustainable construction methods since they day we started building houses. Our desire to build a better house led us to the development of the SOL (Solutions Oriented Living) subdivision in East Austin. We partnered with local architect KRDB to design, develop, and build a net-zero capable sub-division centered around a community of 40 modern homes. Thru passive design, efficient building envelope and solar power these homes can produce more energy than they consume. SOL has received national attention and has been featured in the New York Times, Metro-Homes, DIY Network’s: This New House, Builder Magazine, and Green Builder Magazine.

www.beckreit.com

twitter.com/#!/BeckReit

 

Photos by DeLea Becker @ Beck-Reit and Sons, Ltd.

Like many of the fans who endured the cold, drizzly conditions inside Reliant Stadium to start the game, the Texans took a few minutes to warm up Sunday afternoon in the regular season finale against the Chicago Bears.

 

After a wake-up call courtesy of a momentum-changing sack by defensive end Mario Williams and a stern message from coach Gary Kubiak, the fans were treated to a spectacular offensive display led by Pro Bowler Andre Johnson and rookie running back Steve Slaton .

 

The 31-24 win gave Houston its second-consecutive 8-8 record to end the season, and it shut out the Bears from postseason contention.

Texans owner Bob McNair admired the team's strong finish to the season.

 

"I'd rather be 16-0," McNair said. "But I think starting out the way we did, 0-4, coming back, understand that only nine other teams have ever done that (start 0-4 and finish .500 or better) in this history of the NFL. So I think it was an accomplishment for our team."

 

Early on, the Texans appeared to suffer from the same malaise they showed at Oakland a week earlier. But the team erased a 10-0 deficit in the first quarter with 21 unanswered points to take a 21-10 lead early in the third quarter.

 

In that stretch, Johnson scored back-to-back touchdowns to bring the franchise-record crowd of 70,838 to its feet. The Pro Bowler finished with 10 catches for 148 yards (14.8 avg.) to end the season with the NFL lead in receptions (115) and receiving yards (1,575).

 

Meanwhile, Slaton rebounded from a first half in which he totaled only 19 rushing yards and lost a fumble to put the offense on his back in the final quarter of play. By gaining 128 total yards from scrimmage and scoring a touchdown in the game, Slaton may have sealed NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year honors.

 

Slaton’s five-yard gain with 1:24 remaining in the contest gave Houston a first down and allowed the team to run out the remainder of the clock.

 

"I really like the way we came back and played after we played pretty poorly on both sides of the ball throughout the first quarter," Kubiak said.

 

Chicago scored its first touchdown with 5:57 remaining in the first quarter when wide receiver Brandon Lloyd stretched out for a four-yard touchdown grab near the front left pylon. A 15-yard reception by wide receiver Devin Hester and a 15-yard penalty on defensive end Tim Bulman for roughing the passer set up the score.

 

Wide receiver André Davis ' 39-yard kickoff return down the Bears' sideline gave the Texans solid field position at their 42-yard line to begin their second possession. But Slaton fumbled on the first play from scrimmage after being tackled by cornerback Charles Tillman. Defensive end Alex Brown recovered the fumble and returned it 17 yards to the Houston 38.

 

Three plays later, Robbie Gould's 37-yard field goal made the score 10-0.

 

The next drive started promising when quarterback Matt Schaub threw a tight spiral to Davis for a 33-yard gain up the middle of the field. But tight end Owen Daniels was penalized 15 yards for unnecessary roughness on the next play, and Schaub was flagged 10 yards for intentional grounding one play later to derail the drive and force a punt.

 

Upon returning to the sideline, the offense received an earful from Kubiak.

 

"I just didn't think we were going about our business the way we were capable of playing," Kubiak said. "That's not us. We're usually a pretty poised group as a football team and right there is losing poise and getting a shot in on a guy and all of a sudden it took a lot of momentum away from us."

 

With 11:26 left in the first half, Chicago took over at the Houston 49 following a three-and-out series by the Texans. But Williams saved the defense with his 12th sack of the season by tackling quarterback Kyle Orton at the Chicago 45 for a 10-yard loss on third down.

 

From there, Johnson caught three passes for 72 yards, including a 43-yard touchdown where he dragged two defenders with him over the goal line. Kris Brown's extra point cut the Bears' lead to 10-7 with 5:50 remaining before halftime.

 

Running back Ryan Moats forced a fumble on the ensuing kickoff when he tackled Devin Hester. Brown dove on the ball at the Chicago 38 for the Texans' first takeaway.

 

On third-and-goal at the three-yard line, Schaub threw a fade route to Johnson in the back right corner of the end zone, and Johnson ripped away the ball from Tillman for the score.

 

Safety Danieal Manning returned the opening kickoff of the second half 40 yards to the Chicago 45. But on third-and-six, rookie safety Dominique Barber blitzed off the right side to sack Orton for a nine-yard loss.

 

Picking up where he left off in the first half, Johnson gained 21 yards to the Houston 48 on his first reception of the third quarter. Later, Slaton's 17-yard catch and wide receiver Kevin Walter's 23-yard grab helped give the Texans a first down at the Chicago 17.

 

Moats scored his first touchdown with the team on a two-yard rush off the left guard to cap the nine-play drive. Brown's extra point extended the Texans' lead to 21-10 with 8:30 left in the third quarter.

 

The Bears refused to lie down and responded with a seven-play, 77-yard drive over 3:00. A 37-yard catch by Hester to the Texans' one-yard line set up Orton's touchdown pass to tight end Greg Olsen.

 

Late in the third quarter, the Texans moved into scoring range thanks to a 33-yard catch by Daniels to the Chicago 15. On third-and-10 at the 15-yard line, wide receiver David Anderson made a diving nine-yard reception, and Schaub dove forward on fourth down to keep the drive alive.

 

Following two short rushes by Slaton, Schaub's pass intended for Anderson on third-and-goal from the four-yard line fell incomplete, setting up Brown's 22-yard field goal.

 

Following a Chicago punt to the Houston 11 midway through the fourth quarter, Schaub drove the offense 89 yards in 11 plays. On the first play of the series, he avoided a safety on first down by tossing a pass in the flats to Slaton, who outran a defensive lineman for an 11-yard gain. Two plays later, Slaton rushed for 47 yards before Manning tackled him at the Chicago 29.

 

A 14-yard reception by Johnson set up Slaton's 15-yard touchdown run, but a holding call on right guard Mike Brisiel negated the score. On the next run by Slaton, he was tackled and fumbled after a one-yard run, but Kubiak challenged the call. Replays showed Slaton's elbow was down before the ball came loose, and officials overturned the call.

 

On third-and-14, Bears linebacker Nick Roach was penalized for holding, giving the Texans an automatic first down at the 14-yard line. Slaton capped the team’s second-consecutive 11-play series with a two-yard touchdown run to make the score 31-17 after Brown's extra point.

 

The Bears made things interesting by picking apart the Texans' prevent defense on an 11-play, 72-yard drive over 1:55. On fourth-and-one at the Houston 11, Orton dove forward for a first down at the two-minute warning. He moved the Bears to the one-yard line by finding running back Adrian Peterson open on a nine-yard screen pass.

 

Safety Eugene Wilson was injured on the play, resulting in a burned timeout for Houston. Once play was restored, Orton pushed his way over the goal line for a touchdown that made the score 31-23 with 1:29 left in the game.

 

But Gould’s onside kick was recovered by Walter at the Chicago 44, and Slaton preserved the win on his final carry of the game for five yards and a first down.

Almost ALL the sample photos of this camera do not capture what it is capable of. I took these photos on program mode. Sharpness for the majority of the images is bumped up one notch, but with a sensor this size, it does a nice job of in camera sharpening. This was with the kit lens. Saturation and contrast were both left at default. There may be one or two where I bumped up contrast on the humming bird feeder, but the rest are regular photos strait from program mode. I am convinced that the majority of photos of this camera posted to flickr have HDR set to ON which is the camera default. So it is set to OFF on all the photos which may account for why there is more observed contrast.

 

This camera is fast. Ive owned the the Epm2, the canon t1i, the GF6 and this is by far my favorite camera. My camera search has after all these years officially ended. This is it.

 

I will say that when I first looked at the pictures, I looked at them on a dell laptop with a poor Intel graphics card. Even with a nice monitor viewed in windows viewer I was not all moved by the photos. Then I hooked that same external monitor (a dell s2340mc set on movie mode default) on a laptop with a good graphics card.... It looks fantastic. And Im positive its not just the monitor making the pictures look nice. Ive compared the pictures against other cameras. The sensor on this camera is outstanding. Ive compared the Nikon 3200, and several other DSLRs and still prefer this. it keeps good contrast and the black/contrast ratio in my opinion is one of the larger factors in bringing photos to life.

 

And THANK YOU Sony for NOT programming auto focus to fix on the nearest subject like canon does. I once used a Canon T1i, and that thing focused on everything CLOSE to the subject. It also overexposed everything. In fact that was one of the reasons I looked at this camera. The whole rebel series...even the upper rebels over all these years tend to overexpose everything on almost every mode with the ones Ive used. This one has a very very good metering system. Just overall very impressed. Fast speed. fast autofocus, good contrast ratio (OFF HDR MODE unlike the majority of uploads of this camera to flickr), defiantly a great camera. AND as an added bonus, there are hundreds of INEXPENSIVE lenses, including all the non-MD Minoltas

+++ 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 US Marine Corps' lessons learned from the Korean war included the need for a ground attack aircraft with a better performance than the AU-1 Corsair, as well as a higher effectiveness than the jet fighters of the 50ies era.

 

The AU-1 (re-designated from F4U-6) had been a dedicated U.S. Marines attack variant of the Vought F4U fighter with extra armor to protect the pilot and fuel tank, and the oil coolers relocated inboard to reduce vulnerability to ground fire. The fighter's supercharger had been simplified as the design was intended for low-altitude operation. Extra weapon racks were also fitted.

 

Ready for combat the AU-1 weighed 20% more than a fully loaded F4U-4 and was capable of carrying 8,200 lb of bombs, missiles or drop tanks. The AU-1 had a maximum speed of 238 miles per hour at 9,500 ft, when loaded with 4,600 lb of bombs and a 150-gallon drop-tank. When loaded with eight rockets and two 150-gallon drop-tanks, maximum speed was 298 mph at 19,700 ft. When not carrying external loads, maximum speed was 389 mph at 14,000 ft.

 

First produced in 1952, the AU-1 had been a useful addition. But it had become clear, by the end of the Korean War, that the age of the piston engine fighter plane was more or less over. Based on this insight and several studies based on the experience since WWII, Vought offered the USMC an improved ground attack aircraft on a private venture basis under the internal project handle V-381.

The machine was the result of initial attack aircraft studies and roughly based on the F4U's outlines, and a more conservative alternative to the A2U, a proposed attack derivative of the F7U Cutlass, which never came to fruition.

 

The V-381 study incorporated proven elements like the characteristic inverted gull wing, which allowed a short and sturdy landing gear, but it differed considerably in many other details and its internal structure, due to a different engine. The aircraft was to be powered by a T-56 turboprop engine and would fit into a heavier class than the F4U, rather comparable to the US Navy's AD Skyraider but almost as fast as a jet fighter of its time – yet more reliable and rugged for low level operations in direct range of small caliber weapons.

 

The USMC was immediately interested, while the USN declined the proposal (even though much of the V-381’s insights were re-used in the V-406). Compared with the AU-1, the XA3U featured many detail improvements. One of these distinctive modifications was a new cockpit with a bubble canopy. Thanks to the different internal layout of the aircraft the cockpit could be moved forward by about 3', eliminating the abysmal field of view from the F4U's cockpit on the ground and during deck landings. Another significant change was a cruciform tail. This new arrangement had become necessary in order to avoid damage and turbulences from the hot turboprop efflux - the latter's exhaust was bifurcated and placed in the fuselage flanks, slightly deflected downwards and right at the wings' trailing edge, where the residual thrust from the engine helped during liftoff. The characteristic tail arrangement also became the source of the aircraft's official name, the 'Sea Scorpion'.

 

Armament consisted of four 0.79 in (20 mm) M2 cannon with 250 RPG in the wings, plus a total of fifteen hardpoints under fuselage and wings for a wide range of ordnance and a total weight of 8,000 lb (3,600 kg). The landing gear retracted backwards into the wings, rotating 90°, and the tail wheel with an attached arrester hook was fully retractable, too. The T-56 turboprop with 4.050 hp (2.977 kW) replaced the R-2800 radial and its complex compressor installment, driving a four-blade Hamilton propeller on the XA2U.

 

In June 1954 the first XA3U prototype made its maiden flight. Initial flights tests showed a very good performance at low and medium altitude, but directional stability was rather poor and the fin area had to be enlarged, resulting in the X3AU-1. Another new feature became a reversible six blade propeller of smaller diameter, which would improve reaction time to throttle input. In this guise, the A3U-1 entered series production and USMC service in early 1956, just in time to take the place of the AU-1 which was phased out in 1957.

But, by that time, the technical development had already rendered the A3U at least questionable, if not obsolete, so only a single batch of 45 aircraft was ordered and eventually built. Types like the North American FJ-4 Fury or the Douglas A4D Skyhawk offered a better performance as well as a nuclear strike capability that the A3U lacked, even though the turboprop aircraft was popular because of its ruggedness and good low altitude handling.

With its sophisticated design the A3U served well in its intended shipborne CAS role. In 1958 the machines were upgraded to carry AGM-12 Bullpup missiles, becoming subsequently designated A3U-2. Up to four missiles could be carried under the wings, plus a guidance pod that was carried on one of the outermost wing hardpoints.

 

The A3Us were deployed during several occasions, including Cuba from 1959 to 1960 to protect Americans during the Cuban Revolution, Thailand in May-July 1962 to support the government's struggles against Communists as well as Operation Power Pack in 1965 in Haiti to prevent a second Communist nation on America's doorstep.

 

Anyway, no A3U actually fired in anger, their main task had rather been sabre-rattling and representing the USMC with dramatic weapon loads at low altitude. Since ever more potent aircraft entered the USMC, like the F-4 Phantom II, the Sea Scorpion's career ended already in 1968 – and despite its usefulness in the theatre of operations, the A2U was not deployed to Vietnam.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1 pilot

Length: 33 ft 8 in (10.2 m)

Wingspan: 41 ft 0 in (12.5 m)

Wingspan, folded: 17 ft 0.5 in (5.2 m)

Height: 14 ft 9 in (4.50 m)

Empty weight: 11,968 lb (5,429 kg)

Loaded weight: 18,106 lb (8,213 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 25,000 lb (11,340 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Allison T-56-A-6 turboprop engine, rated at 4.050 hp (2.977 kW)

plus approximately 750 lbs of thrust from the exhaust

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 446 mph (717 km/h) at 26.200 ft (using emergency power)

Stall speed: 89 mph (143 km/h) clean

Range: 1,316 mi (1,144 nmi, 2,115 km) on internal fuel

Service ceiling: 41,500ft (12,649 m)

Rate of climb: 3,870ft/min (19.7 m/s) at sea-level

 

Armament:

4 × 0.79 in (20 mm) M2 cannon with 250 RPG in the wings

15 hardpoints for a total of up to 8,000 lb (3,600 kg) of ordnance, including bombs,

torpedoes, mine dispensers, unguided rockets, and gun pods

  

The kit and its assembly:

Well, this Frankenstein creation was actually spawned by the rather simple idea of a turboprop-powered F4U, following a discussion at whatifmodelers.com concerning my “Turbo Fury” conversion and the potential of T-56 engine nacelles from a C-130 on other aircraft. After three Turbo Furies I still had a final T-56 resin nacelle left in the stash (from OzMods), and eventually tackled this project with the idea of an AU-1 replacement for the USMC in the mid Fifties.

 

Anyway, with such a modernized version in mind, new ideas popped up – e.g. square wing tips. When I found a pair of leftover outer wings from a Matchbox A3D Skyknight (and they matched up well in shape and size, even the wing profile!) things unfolded into something … different.

 

The basis for this project was an Italeri F4U-5 from 1994 (a very nice kit!), even though in the later Revell re-boxing. The Skyknight wings replaced the F4U’s outer wings and added about 1” total wingspan to the kit. In order to compensate for this, I thought about moving the tail fin further back, but eventually implanted a completely new and slightly longer tail section from an A.W. Meteor night fighter (also Matchbox), because it perfectly extends the F4U’s fuselage lines! Consequently, the original tail wheel well had to be closed and moved backwards.

 

Another idea was to move the cockpit forward and lower the rear fuselage, for a more up-to-date bubble canopy. The OOB cockpit from the F4U was kept but placed under a new opening – more or less located where the F4U’s main fuselage tank would have been. The ejection seat is new, too, and the canopy comes from a vintage NOVO Supermarine Attacker. The whole spine was cut away and re-sculpted with putty, as well as the fuselage section around the canopy.

 

For the new resin T-56, the front end of the fuselage was cut away and lots of putty and sculpting created a new transition between the narrower Herc engine with its oval diameter and the round F4U fuselage.

The spinner comes from the OzMod engine set, but the propeller blades were scratched: these once belonged to a vintage Airfix D.H. Mosquito kit. The rather massive, single blades were cut off, their originally round tips squared and then glued onto the resin spinner. A metal axis and a styrene adapter inside of the resin engine were added as adapters, allowing a free spin.

 

Once the fuselage and the wings were mated, the horizontal stabilizers had to be added. The F4U parts could not be used because of their round tips, and they had become just too small for the bigger airframe. Implants had to be used once more, and in this case the stabilizers are the outer wing sections from a heavily rivet-infected 1:100 Breguet Alize from Heller. Odd, but they had just the right shape and chord length for the new position.

 

After these had been fitted, the fin turned out to be too small for the new and overall bigger aircraft. Finding a solution was not easy, and I eventually added a new fin tip, a part from a Revell (FROG) P-39 stabilizer, maybe 30 years old!

 

In order to make the intended CAS role believable a LOT of hardpoints were added, all taken from an old Airfix/Heller A-1E Skyraider. The ordnance is an iron bomb mix, IIRC these come from a Monogram A-10 and a Matchbox A-7D.

 

Anyway, building this monstrosity was massive kitbashing work, and the whole thing evolved rather gradually: What started as a simple engine swap and maybe some cosmetic surgery ended up in multiple body transplants and a bigger aircraft than originally envisaged, kind of a ‘Skyraider 2.0’.

  

Painting and markings:

Nothing truly fancy, rather the standard USN high-viz livery with Light Gull Grey (FS 36440, Modelmaster enamel) upper surfaces and white undersides and rudders. Compared to the USN, the USMC machines would be rather timid and less flamboyant concerning marking colors, so I only added a little red trim to the fin and around the cockpit. The landing gear and the respective wells were kept in white, like the undersides, with bright red trim around the edges, and the cockpit is Zinc Chromate Green.

 

The decals were puzzled together from the scrap box. Since almost and surface details was lost due to the massive bodywork on fuselage and wings, I painted some panel lines with a pencil and emphasized them with lighter, dry-brushed panel shadings. The effect, at least from some distance, turned out much better than expected! Additionally, some wear and dirt was simulated through a light black in wash. Soot stains, esp. around the jet exhausts, were created with grinded graphite, and some dry painting with silver was done on the leading edges. Finally, everything was sealed under a coat of matt acrylic varnish.

  

Well, what was to simply become a turboprop-powered F4U turned into something …different. The A3U looks exotic, but not bad or implausible – the thing reminds me of the offspring between a Ju 87 dive bomber and a Westland Whirlwind fighter, and there’s some Fairey Firefly an Il-2 single-seater lineage to it, too? As a positive aspect, this kitbash model reminds IMHO at first glance only remotely of the F4U that it once was, so I think the whiffing work is quite effective. :D

+++ 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…

Some background:

The Rolls-Royce Griffon engine was designed in answer to Royal Navy specifications for an engine capable of generating good power at low altitudes. Concepts for adapting the Spitfire to take the new engine had begun as far back as October 1939; Joseph Smith felt that "The good big 'un will eventually beat the good little 'un." and Ernest Hives of Rolls-Royce thought that the Griffon would be "a second power string for the Spitfire". The first of the Griffon-engined Spitfires flew on 27 November 1941. Although the Griffon-powered Spitfires were never produced in the large numbers of the Merlin-engined variants they were an important part of the Spitfire family, and in their later versions kept the Spitfire at the forefront of piston-engined fighter development. The first Griffon-powered Spitfires suffered from poor high- altitude performance due to having only a single stage supercharged engine. By 1943, Rolls-Royce engineers had developed a new Griffon engine, the 61 series, with a two-stage supercharger. In the end it was a slightly modified engine, the 65 series, which was used in the Mk. XIV, the first Spitfire mark with a Griffon engine to enter service. The resulting aircraft provided a substantial performance increase over the Mk IX. Although initially based on the Mk VIII airframe, common improvements made in aircraft produced later included the cut-back fuselage and tear-drop canopies, and the E-Type wing with improved armament.

 

The Mk. XIV differed from its direct predecessor, the Mk XII, in that the longer, two-stage supercharged Griffon 65, producing 2,050 hp (1,528 kW), was mounted 10 inches (25.4 cm) further forward. The top section of the engine bulkhead was angled forward, creating a distinctive change of angle to the upper cowling's rear edge. A new five-bladed Rotol propeller of 10 ft 5 in (3.18 m) in diameter was used. The "fishtail" design of ejector exhaust stub gave way to ones of circular section. The increased cooling requirements of the Griffon engine meant that all radiators were much bigger, and the underwing housings were deeper than previous versions. The cowling fasteners were new, flush fitting "Amal" type and there were more of them. The oil tank (which had been moved from the lower cowling location of the Merlin engine variants to forward of the fuselage fuel tanks) was increased in capacity from 6 to 10 gal.

To help balance the new engine, the radio equipment was moved further back in the rear fuselage and the access hatch was moved from the left fuselage side to the right. Better VHF radio equipment allowed for the aerial mast to be removed and replaced by a "whip" aerial further aft on the fuselage spine. Because the longer nose and the increased slipstream of the big five-bladed propeller a new tail unit with a taller, broader fin and a rudder of increased area was adopted.

 

When the new fighter entered service with 610 Squadron in December 1943 it was a leap forward in the evolution of the Spitfire. The Mk. XIV could climb to 20,000 ft (6,100 m) in just over five minutes and its top speed, which was achieved at 25,400 ft (7,700 m), was 446 mph (718 km/h). In operational service many pilots initially found that the new fighter could be difficult to handle, particularly if they were used to earlier Spitfire marks. But in spite of the difficulties, pilots appreciated the performance increases.

 

F Mk. XIVs had a total of 109.5 gal of fuel consisting of 84 gal in two main tanks and a 12.5 imp gal fuel tank in each leading-edge wing tank; other 30, 45, 50 or 90 gal drop tanks could be carried. The fighter's maximum range was just a little over 460 miles (740 km) on internal fuel, since the new Griffon engine consumed much more fuel per hour than the original Merlin engine of earlier variants. By late 1944, Spitfire XIVs were fitted with an extra 33 gal in a rear fuselage fuel tank, extending the fighter's range to about 850 miles (1,370 km) on internal fuel and a 90 gal drop tank. Mk. XIVs with "tear-drop" canopies had 64 gal. As a result, F and FR Mk. XIVs had a range that was increased to over 610 miles (980 km), or 960 miles (1,540 km) with a 90 gal drop tank. The armament initially consisted of two 20 mm Hispano cannon and four light 0.303” machine guns (in a standard “C” wing configuration), but later builds had the latter replaced with a pair of heavier 0.5” machine guns that had better range and weight of fire (“E” wing configuration).

 

The first test of the aircraft was in intercepting V1 flying bombs and the Mk. XIV was the most successful of all Spitfire marks in this role. When 150 octane fuel was introduced in mid-1944 the "boost" of the Griffon engine was able to be increased to +25 lbs (80.7"), allowing the top speed to be increased by about 30 mph (26 kn; 48 km/h) to 400 mph (350 kn; 640 km/h) at 2,000 ft (610 m).

The Mk. XIV was used by the 2nd Tactical Air Force as their main high-altitude air superiority fighter in northern Europe with six squadrons operational by December 1944.

 

One problem which did arise in service was localized skin wrinkling on the wings and fuselage at load attachment points; although Supermarine advised that the Mk. XIVs had not been seriously weakened, nor were they on the point of failure, the RAF issued instructions in early 1945 that all F and FR Mk. XIVs were to be refitted with clipped wings. Spitfire XIVs began to arrive in the South-East Asian Theatre in June 1945, too late to operate against the Japanese. In total, 957 Mk. XIVs were built, over 430 of which were FR Mk. XIVs.

 

After the war, secondhand Mk. XIVs still in good shape were exported to a number of foreign air forces; 132 went to the Royal Belgian Air Force, 70 went to the Royal Indian Air Force and 30 of the reconnaissance version went to the Royal Thai Air Force. The Royal Iraqi Air Force (RIrAF) was another operator, even though only a small one.

In late 1946, five years after the Anglo-Iraqi War had left the RIrAF shattered, the Iraqis reached an agreement with the British under which they would return their surviving Avro Ansons in exchange for the authorization to order more modern and potent fighter aircraft from the UK, namely Supermarine Spitfires and Hawker Furies. The next year, three de Havilland Doves and three Bristol Freighters were ordered, too, and they arrived in early 1947 with a batch of ten refurbished ex-RAF Spitfire F Mk. XIVcs, some of them WWII survivors. All these machines received the original wing tips to better cope with the expected higher ambient temperatures in the Middle Eastern theatre of operations, reinforced aluminum skinning along the wing roots, and they were retrofitted with hardpoints under the wings and the fuselage to carry unguided missiles, bombs and drop tanks, what gave them an additional ground attack capability. The radio equipment was modernized, too, including a DF loop antenna as navigational aid. Despite these standardizations, though, the Spitfires were delivered with a mix of the different canopies.

 

The RIrAF was still recovering and re-structuring its assets when it joined in the war against the newly created state of Israel in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The RIrAF only played a small role in the first war against Israel, though. A few Spitfire F Mk. XIVs as well as Avro Anson training bombers operated from Transjordan airfields from where they flew several attacks against the Israelis. After a series of indiscriminate attacks on Arab capitals, flown by three Boeing B-17s that had been pressed into service by the Israeli Air Force, the governments of Transjordan and Syria demanded that the Iraqis take more offensive action and replace their Ansons with Hawker Furies. However, only six Furies were sent to Damascus to join the Spitfires in the region, and they never encountered any Israeli aircraft during their deployment.

Despite some effective attacks on ground targets by the Spitfires, limited amount of cannon ammunition, RPGs and suitable bombs heavily limited the Iraqi operations. The fighters were mostly used for armed reconnaissance, and three Spitfires were upgraded to FR Mk. XIV standard for this purpose. In 1949 a second batch of eight more Spitfire F Mk. XIVs was delivered from Britain, and in 1951 the RIrAF purchased 20 more Fury F.Mk.1s, for a total of 50 F.Mk.1s single-seaters and 2 two-seaters. They soon replaced the Spitfires in frontline units, even though the machines were still kept in service.

 

In the early Fifties, thanks to increased income from oil and agricultural exports, the RIrAF was thoroughly re-equipped. In 1951, 15 each of de Havilland Canada DHC-1 Chipmunks, Percival Provosts and North American T-6s were bought to replace obsolete de Havilland Tiger Moth trainers. With these new aircraft the RIrAF Flying School was expanded into the Air Force College. The training curriculum was improved, and the number of students graduating each year was increased. This allowed to form a solid basis for the RIrAF's long-term growth. Also in 1951, the RIrAF bought its first helicopters: three Westland Dragonflies. The RIrAF's first jet fighter was the de Havilland Vampire: 12 FB.Mk.52 fighters and 10 T.Mk.55 trainers were delivered from 1953 to 1955, and they fully replaced the Spitfires. The Vampires were quickly supplemented by 20 de Havilland Venoms, delivered between 1954 and 1956.

Following the formation of the Baghdad Pact, the United States donated at least six Stinson L-5 Sentinels and seven Cessna O-1 Bird Dogs to the RIrAF. The RAF also vacated Shaibah Air Base, and the RIrAF took over it as Wahda Air Base. In 1957, six Hawker Hunter F.Mk.6s were delivered. The next year, the United States agreed to provide 36 F-86F Sabres free of charge.

 

However, following the 14 July Revolution of 1958, which resulted in the end of monarchy in Iraq, the influence of the Iraqi Communist Party grew significantly. The first commander of the Iraqi Air Force (the "Royal" prefix was dropped after the revolution), Jalal Jaffar al-Awqati, was an outspoken communist, and encouraged prime minister Abd al-Karim Qasim to improve relations between Iraq and the USSR. The Soviets reacted quickly, and in the autumn of 1958 a series of arms contracts was passed between Iraq and the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia. These stipulated the delivery of MiG-15UTI trainers, MiG-17F fighters, Ilyushin Il-28 bombers, and Antonov An-2 and An-12 transports. The first aircraft arrived in Iraq in January 1959; during the late Sixties and the early Seventies additional MiG-17s may have been purchased and then forwarded to either Syria or Egypt.

 

General characteristics

Crew: 1

Length: 32 ft 8 in (9.96 m)

Wingspan: 36 ft 10 in (11.23 m) with full span elliptical tips

Height: 10 ft 0 in (3.05 m)

Wing area: 242.1 sq ft (22.49 m²)

Airfoil: NACA 2213 (root), NACA 2209.4 (tip)

Empty weight: 6,578 lb (2,984 kg)

Gross weight: 7,923 lb (3,594 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 8,400[53] lb (3,810 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Rolls-Royce Griffon 65 supercharged V12, 2,050 hp (1,530 kW) at 8,000 ft (2,438 m),

driving a 5-bladed Jablo-Rotol propeller

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 441 mph (710 km/h, 383 kn) in FS supercharger gear at 29,500 ft.

391 mph in MS supercharger gear at 5,500 ft.

Combat range: 460 mi (740 km, 400 nmi)

Ferry range: 1,090 mi (1,760 km, 950 nmi)

Service ceiling: 43,500 ft (13,300 m)

Rate of climb: 5,040 ft/min (25.6 m/s) in MS supercharger gear at 2,100 ft.

3,550 ft/min in FS supercharger gear at 22,100 ft.

Time to altitude: 7 mins to 22,000 ft (at max weight)

Wing loading: 32.72 lb/sq ft (159.8 kg/m²)

Power/mass: 0.24

 

Armament:

2× 20 mm (0.787-in) Hispano Mk II cannon, 120 rpg

4× 0.303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns, 350 rpg,

Underwing hard points for 8× 60 lb (27 kg) rockets, 2 x 250 lb (113 kg) bombs or slipper tanks,

1× ventral hardpoint for a 500 lb (227 kg) bomb or a drop tank

  

The kit and its assembly:

This was a rather spontaneous interim build. The Academy Spitfire was left over from a D-Day combo that contained a Hawker Typhoon, too, and I lacked an idea for the Spitfire for a long time) since I am not a big fan of the aircraft, at least what-if-inspiration-wise). However, when pondering about a potential operator from the very early pos-war period I remembered the Royal Iraqi Air Force and its later Hawker Hunters which retained their NATO-style camouflage (RAF green/grey) despite being primarily operated in a desert environment. This, on a Spitfire…?

 

From this idea the Academy Spitfire was built almost OOB. Because the kit offers them as an option and for the cool look, I gave the Spitfire four RPGs under each outer wing. The ventral drop tank was taken from a Special Hobby late Spitfire kit. The only other additions are the antenna mast and the non-standard DF loop antenna behind the cockpit, created from thin wire and mounted on a small, streamlined socket.

  

Painting and markings:

The upper surfaces were painted in standard RAF WWII colors, Dark Green and Ocean Grey, using a mix of Humbrol 163 and 30 for a slightly more bluish WWII-style green and a mix of 106 and 145 for a lightened grey tone, respectively. As an individual contrast and paint scheme variation the undersides and the spinner were painted in RAF Azure Blue (Humbrol 157, lightened up with 47), more appropriate than the standard WWII Medium Sea Grey from the European theatre of operations. The cockpit interior became RAF cockpit green (Humbro,78) while the inside surfaces of the landing gear were painted in Medium Sea Grey (Humbrol 165), reflecting the original undersides’ tone in former RAF service.

 

Other markings were minimal. The Iraqi triangles were taken from a Balkan Models Su-25 sheet, because their green was rather pale, for more contrast to the surrounding camouflage. RIrAF fin flash was taken from a PM Model Hawker Fury two-seater (a.k.a. “Bagdad Fury”). The tactical code came from an Airfix Hawker Hunter (from an optional Kuwaiti machine). This looked O.K. but somewhat bleak, so I added more markings. I could not find any evidence for special ID markings on Iraqi aircraft during the Arab-Israel war, but to add an eye-catcher I gave the aircraft white ID bands on the wings and on the fuselage – inspired by markings carried by Egyptian aircraft (e. g. Spitfires) during the conflict, but somewhat simplified, without black trim. They were created from generic white decal sheet material.

 

After some soot stains around the gun ports and the exhausts, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.

  

A relatively simple project and just a fictional livery - but the Iraqi Spitfire looks pretty cool, especially the ID stripes add a special touch. The European RAF scheme looks a bit off on an aircraft that would be delivered to the Middel East, but the Iraqi Air Force operated British types like the Hunter in this guise, and later Su-22 fighter bombers carried a similarly murky camouflage in very dark green and earth brown.

CommScope has introduced new 3.5 GHz-capable antennas for macro and small cell densification to help increase network capacity and migration to 5G. Customers deploying newly licensed spectrum bands will be able to increase capacity in existing LTE networks and prepare for future 5G networks with CommScope’s 3.5 GHz-capable base station antennas.

Like many of the fans who endured the cold, drizzly conditions inside Reliant Stadium to start the game, the Texans took a few minutes to warm up Sunday afternoon in the regular season finale against the Chicago Bears.

 

After a wake-up call courtesy of a momentum-changing sack by defensive end Mario Williams and a stern message from coach Gary Kubiak, the fans were treated to a spectacular offensive display led by Pro Bowler Andre Johnson and rookie running back Steve Slaton .

 

The 31-24 win gave Houston its second-consecutive 8-8 record to end the season, and it shut out the Bears from postseason contention.

Texans owner Bob McNair admired the team's strong finish to the season.

 

"I'd rather be 16-0," McNair said. "But I think starting out the way we did, 0-4, coming back, understand that only nine other teams have ever done that (start 0-4 and finish .500 or better) in this history of the NFL. So I think it was an accomplishment for our team."

 

Early on, the Texans appeared to suffer from the same malaise they showed at Oakland a week earlier. But the team erased a 10-0 deficit in the first quarter with 21 unanswered points to take a 21-10 lead early in the third quarter.

 

In that stretch, Johnson scored back-to-back touchdowns to bring the franchise-record crowd of 70,838 to its feet. The Pro Bowler finished with 10 catches for 148 yards (14.8 avg.) to end the season with the NFL lead in receptions (115) and receiving yards (1,575).

 

Meanwhile, Slaton rebounded from a first half in which he totaled only 19 rushing yards and lost a fumble to put the offense on his back in the final quarter of play. By gaining 128 total yards from scrimmage and scoring a touchdown in the game, Slaton may have sealed NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year honors.

 

Slaton’s five-yard gain with 1:24 remaining in the contest gave Houston a first down and allowed the team to run out the remainder of the clock.

 

"I really like the way we came back and played after we played pretty poorly on both sides of the ball throughout the first quarter," Kubiak said.

 

Chicago scored its first touchdown with 5:57 remaining in the first quarter when wide receiver Brandon Lloyd stretched out for a four-yard touchdown grab near the front left pylon. A 15-yard reception by wide receiver Devin Hester and a 15-yard penalty on defensive end Tim Bulman for roughing the passer set up the score.

 

Wide receiver André Davis ' 39-yard kickoff return down the Bears' sideline gave the Texans solid field position at their 42-yard line to begin their second possession. But Slaton fumbled on the first play from scrimmage after being tackled by cornerback Charles Tillman. Defensive end Alex Brown recovered the fumble and returned it 17 yards to the Houston 38.

 

Three plays later, Robbie Gould's 37-yard field goal made the score 10-0.

 

The next drive started promising when quarterback Matt Schaub threw a tight spiral to Davis for a 33-yard gain up the middle of the field. But tight end Owen Daniels was penalized 15 yards for unnecessary roughness on the next play, and Schaub was flagged 10 yards for intentional grounding one play later to derail the drive and force a punt.

 

Upon returning to the sideline, the offense received an earful from Kubiak.

 

"I just didn't think we were going about our business the way we were capable of playing," Kubiak said. "That's not us. We're usually a pretty poised group as a football team and right there is losing poise and getting a shot in on a guy and all of a sudden it took a lot of momentum away from us."

 

With 11:26 left in the first half, Chicago took over at the Houston 49 following a three-and-out series by the Texans. But Williams saved the defense with his 12th sack of the season by tackling quarterback Kyle Orton at the Chicago 45 for a 10-yard loss on third down.

 

From there, Johnson caught three passes for 72 yards, including a 43-yard touchdown where he dragged two defenders with him over the goal line. Kris Brown's extra point cut the Bears' lead to 10-7 with 5:50 remaining before halftime.

 

Running back Ryan Moats forced a fumble on the ensuing kickoff when he tackled Devin Hester. Brown dove on the ball at the Chicago 38 for the Texans' first takeaway.

 

On third-and-goal at the three-yard line, Schaub threw a fade route to Johnson in the back right corner of the end zone, and Johnson ripped away the ball from Tillman for the score.

 

Safety Danieal Manning returned the opening kickoff of the second half 40 yards to the Chicago 45. But on third-and-six, rookie safety Dominique Barber blitzed off the right side to sack Orton for a nine-yard loss.

 

Picking up where he left off in the first half, Johnson gained 21 yards to the Houston 48 on his first reception of the third quarter. Later, Slaton's 17-yard catch and wide receiver Kevin Walter's 23-yard grab helped give the Texans a first down at the Chicago 17.

 

Moats scored his first touchdown with the team on a two-yard rush off the left guard to cap the nine-play drive. Brown's extra point extended the Texans' lead to 21-10 with 8:30 left in the third quarter.

 

The Bears refused to lie down and responded with a seven-play, 77-yard drive over 3:00. A 37-yard catch by Hester to the Texans' one-yard line set up Orton's touchdown pass to tight end Greg Olsen.

 

Late in the third quarter, the Texans moved into scoring range thanks to a 33-yard catch by Daniels to the Chicago 15. On third-and-10 at the 15-yard line, wide receiver David Anderson made a diving nine-yard reception, and Schaub dove forward on fourth down to keep the drive alive.

 

Following two short rushes by Slaton, Schaub's pass intended for Anderson on third-and-goal from the four-yard line fell incomplete, setting up Brown's 22-yard field goal.

 

Following a Chicago punt to the Houston 11 midway through the fourth quarter, Schaub drove the offense 89 yards in 11 plays. On the first play of the series, he avoided a safety on first down by tossing a pass in the flats to Slaton, who outran a defensive lineman for an 11-yard gain. Two plays later, Slaton rushed for 47 yards before Manning tackled him at the Chicago 29.

 

A 14-yard reception by Johnson set up Slaton's 15-yard touchdown run, but a holding call on right guard Mike Brisiel negated the score. On the next run by Slaton, he was tackled and fumbled after a one-yard run, but Kubiak challenged the call. Replays showed Slaton's elbow was down before the ball came loose, and officials overturned the call.

 

On third-and-14, Bears linebacker Nick Roach was penalized for holding, giving the Texans an automatic first down at the 14-yard line. Slaton capped the team’s second-consecutive 11-play series with a two-yard touchdown run to make the score 31-17 after Brown's extra point.

 

The Bears made things interesting by picking apart the Texans' prevent defense on an 11-play, 72-yard drive over 1:55. On fourth-and-one at the Houston 11, Orton dove forward for a first down at the two-minute warning. He moved the Bears to the one-yard line by finding running back Adrian Peterson open on a nine-yard screen pass.

 

Safety Eugene Wilson was injured on the play, resulting in a burned timeout for Houston. Once play was restored, Orton pushed his way over the goal line for a touchdown that made the score 31-23 with 1:29 left in the game.

 

But Gould’s onside kick was recovered by Walter at the Chicago 44, and Slaton preserved the win on his final carry of the game for five yards and a first down.

The display reads:

 

ADA in Vietnam – M42 Duster

 

Combat experience in the Korea War quickly showed that while the M19 40mm Gun Motor Carriage was a capable platform, it needed improvement. By 1952, a new anti-aircraft tank was in development, designated the T141. The new vehicle used the same turret and gun mount from the M19, but mated it with the larger, more powerful M41 Walker Bulldog light tank hull. The resulting vehicle was standardized as the M42 40mm Gun Motor Carriage by 1952 and entered full production that year.

 

However, with the service entry of the Nike Ajax system in 1953, the Army was focused on missile systems and with the introduction of the Hawk missile in the late 1950s, the M42 was quickly passed to National Guard units and all but removed from the active inventory by 1963.

 

Just two years later, US forces entered combat in South Vietnam. Two Hawk missile battalions were deployed to provide air defense around Saigon and along the DMZ, but an additional system was needed to cover potential low-altitude threats. In addition to the air defense requirement, the Army also needed a vehicle that could provide heavy firepower for both convoy escort and firebase defense. The M42 was back in demand and by the beginning of 1966, three battalions were formed for service in Vietnam.

 

Those three units, 1st Battalion, 44th Artillery; 4th Battalion, 60th Artillery; and 5th Battalion, 2nd Artillery arrived in-theater by mid-year and immediately had a significant impact on operations in their respective areas of operation. Each “Duster” battalion had a quad .50 battery and searchlight battery attached, forming an air defense task force that could respond to both air and ground threats, day or night.

 

On 20 June 1968, Air Defense and Field Artillery split the Artillery branch and the Duster, Quad, Searchlight and Hawk units were then designated ADA rather than “Artillery,” with the parenthetical Automatic Weapons, Searchlight or Guided Missile designation.

 

The story of Army Air Defense in Vietnam provides a fascinating contrast to the operations and equipment of the rest of the branch during the 1960s and early 1970s. While Army Air Defense of the day was focused on the strategic threat of a Soviet nuclear strike and were using the latest technology to deter that threat, the three ADA Duster battalions effectively used weapon systems from the “last war” to provide low altitude air defense and on-call direct fire support to infantry and artillery units across the entirety of South Vietnam from 1966 through 1972.

 

M42 Duster Specifications:

 

Weight: 50,000 lbs fully loaded

Height: 9 feet 4 inches

Length: 19 feet

Width: 10 feet 7 inches

Crew: Commander, driver, two loaders, two gunners

Armament: Two M2A1 40mm automatic anti-aircraft guns with 240 rounds per gun; 1-2 7.62 M60 Machine Guns with 1,750 rounds

Main Armament Rate of Fire: 120 rounds per minute, per gun

Engine: Continental AOS-895-3 6-cylinder opposed gasoline engine

Range: 100 miles

Speed 45 mph

 

The museum’s Duster served with the 1-44th Artillery in 1968.

 

The Duster occasionally towed the M332 ammunition trailer, which doubled the Duster’s ammunition capacity. However, it would be a liability in combat and would normally be removed before the Duster would be used in the convoy escort role.

 

Most Dusters in Vietnam carried some form of artwork. Usually the crew would name both the front hatch and the gun shield above the main armament.

 

Sergeant Mitchell W. Stout was born in Lenoir City, Tennessee on 24 February, 1950. He enlisted in the Army on 15 August 1967 and served his first tour in Vietnam as a rifleman with the 2nd Battalion, 47th Infantry Regiment in the Mekong Delta from August 1968 to August 1969. After completing his first tour, SGT Stout rotated back to the US, but returned to South Vietnam just five months later as a M42 Duster crewman.

 

Three months into his second tour, SGT Stout was commanding an M42 Duster at the Khe Gio bridge along Route 9, a strategic east-west route that was the supply lifeline to friendly outposts in western I Corps.

 

SGT Mitchell Stout

C/1-44th Artillery (Automatic Weapons), Khe Gio Bridge

 

The U.S. Army outpost at Khe Gio Bridge on Highway 9 near the DMZ was overrun by North Vietnamese troops on 12 March 1970. Fourteen Americans held the outpost along with a platoon of ARVN Infantry. Two M42 Dusters from C Battery 1-44th Artillery gave the small force a significant amount of firepower to protect the bridge, while an M151A1 searchlight jeep from G Battery, 29th Artillery provided nighttime battlefield illumination. Of those fourteen Americans, two were killed in action, five wounded and one was captured. Yet they fought valiantly and protected the bridge on Route 9, sparing it from destruction. Sergeant Mitchell Stout’s actions during the battle would earn him a posthumous Medal of Honor:

 

Citation:

 

Sgt. Stout distinguished himself during an attack by a North Vietnamese Army Sapper company on his unit's firing position at Khe Gio Bridge. Sgt. Stout was in a bunker with members of a searchlight crew when the position came under heavy enemy mortar fire and ground attack. When the intensity of the mortar attack subsided, an enemy grenade was thrown into the bunker. Displaying great courage, Sgt. Stout ran to the grenade, picked it up, and started out of the bunker. As he reached the door, the grenade exploded. By holding the grenade close to his body and shielding its blast, he protected his fellow soldiers in the bunker from further injury or death. Sgt. Stout's conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action, at the cost of his own life, are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon him, his unit and the U.S. Army.

 

Taken December 13th, 2013.

Co. H, 38th OH. Infantry

Pages 1089-1091 from volume III, part 2 of Kansas: a cyclopedia of state history, embracing events, institutions, industries, counties, cities, towns, prominent persons, etc. ... / with a supplementary volume devoted to selected personal history and reminiscence. Standard Pub. Co. Chicago : 1912. 3 v. in 4. : front., ill., ports.; 28 cm. Vols. I-II edited by Frank W. Blackmar. Transcribed December 2002 by Carolyn Ward. This volume is identified at the Kansas State Historical Society as microfilm LM195. It is a two-part volume 3.

 

George D. Stinebaugh.—As a valiant soldier in the Civil war, and as a capable business man of Ottawa, where he has resided since March 24, 1866, Mr. Stinebaugh is well known to the people of eastern Kansas. He was born near Galion, Ohio, Aug. 13, 1840, and traces his ancestry back to Württemberg, Germany, his ancestors being represented among the pioneers of Pennsylvania. There is no phase of an ancestor's life so dear and so treasured by a descendant as that portion in which he served as one of his country's defenders, and few indeed are the descendants who fail to point with pride to the military record of an ancestor, hence no omission should be made of any incident that indicates his military prowess, and a veteran's military record should be made as complete as official records and memory will permit. His grandfather, John, son of Adam Stinebaugh, a Revolutionary soldier, was born in Pennsylvania and served in the war of 1812. When his son, Jacob (who was born in Hagerstown, Md., in 1806), was a child of two years, John Stinebaugh moved to Horseshoe Bottoms on Cheat river near Beverly, W. Va., and there carried on a blacksmith's shop and engaged in the cattle business. He died during a visit to Maryland when his son was a young man of twenty-four. Jacob soon afterward removed to Crawford county, Ohio, married and engaged in farming. He resided there until 1854, when he removed to Williams county, Ohio, and there made his home until 1866, when the entire family settled in Kansas. He purchased a farm in Franklin county, near the now extinct town of Ohio City, and engaged in agricultural pursuits there until his death, which occurred in 1869, at sixty-three years of age. He was a man of considerable ability; reared under the judicious oversight of his father, who was a man of prominence, he was fitted for life's responsibilities, and during his long career he proved himself to be a man of integrity and intelligence. He learned the blacksmith's trade, but devoted himself principally to farming. He was a member of the Lutheran church. Jacob Stinebaugh married Helena Hershner, a native of York county, Pennsylvania, of German descent, who accompanied her father to Ohio about 1822 and was there married. To them were born ten children, all of whom attained maturity except one. This father and mother gave an unusual quota to the defense of the Union, for five of their sons saw service during the Civil war. John was a member of Company C, One Hundredth Ohio infantry, and afterwards lived in St. Joseph, Mo., where he died. Henry was a sergeant in the Thirty-eighth Ohio infantry, and died in Ohio from the effects of his army service. Andrew was a member of the Tenth Kansas militia and lived and died in California. Jacob enlisted in the Thirty-eighth Ohio infantry, was wounded in front of Atlanta, and now makes his home in Ottawa. George D. was the sixth in order of birth and his war record is given below; Elizabeth is the wife of H. Towney and lives in Princeton, Franklin county. Mary died in childhood. Mrs. Ellen Goodrich died in Ottawa. Lydia lives in Princeton, Franklin county, and Mrs. Anna Campbell resides in California.

George D. Stinebaugh at the age of fourteen years accompanied his family from Galion to Williams county, Ohio. At the first call for volunteers for the Civil war he enlisted on April 19, 1861, in Company C, Fourteenth Ohio infantry, and was mustered in at Cleveland, Ohio, for three months. Among his first engagements were those at Philippi, Laurel Hill or Beelington, Carrick's Ford, on Cheat river (which was almost on the same ground where his father was reared). He was mustered out at Toledo, Ohio, Aug. 13, 1861. In company with his brother Henry he enlisted in Company H, Thirty-eighth Ohio infantry, and in 1864 they were joined by a third brother, Jacob. Among the engagements of his second term of service were Mill Springs Stone's River, Perryville, Chickamauga, Missionary Ridge, Chattanooga, Resaca, Kenesaw Mountain, Snake Creek Gap, and all the battles of the Atlanta siege. In the battles of Jonesboro, at the first volley, every man within ten feet of him was struck. In the second volley two shots passed through his left leg, another grazed the ankle of his right leg, while a shell grazed the top of his head. About sundown he was carried to the rear and at midnight his leg was amputated on the field. He was sent to a field hospital, where he remained three days, was then transferred to the hospital at Atlanta, then to Chattanooga, afterwards to Nashville, Tenn., thence to New Albany, Ind., later to Jeffersonville, Ind., where he was discharged. As soon as he was able to get around he was given the head clerkship at the hospital and continued in that capacity until July 14, 1865, when he was honorably discharged at Louisville, Ky. Returning home Mr. Stinebaugh took a course in Bryant & Stratton's Business College at Toledo, Ohio, where he graduated in 1866. He then came to Kansas where he was employed as deputy recorder of deeds of Franklin county. In the session of 1866-67 he served as enrolling clerk of the house of representatives. In the fall of 1867 he was elected county clerk on the Republican ticket, and by reëlection each two years, held the office from 1868 to 1880. While acting as county clerk he became interested in the real estate business, and in this he has since engaged. In 1890 he was admitted to practice in the interior department and has since been a pension attorney. He has represented six of the old-line fire insurance companies. For two years he was a member of the city council and served on the school board at the time of the building of Central school. For some time he served as city clerk. He is a member of the Baptist church and affiliates fraternally with George H. Thomas Post No. 18, Grand Army of the Republic.

On Sept. 13, 1868, he was united in marriage with Mary Ann Reese, daughter of James and Nancy (Anderson) Reese, who was of Welsh descent and a native of Lafayette, Ind., but came to Kansas in 1867. Her people were likewise patriotic, all three of her brothers having served in the Civil war and two of them in the war with Mexico. The death of Mrs. Stinebaugh occurred on Jan. 9, 1907, and later he contracted a second marriage when he was united with Mrs. Ida C. Adamson, the daughter of Joseph D. Powers, who served as provost-marshal of eastern Kentucky during the Rebellion. The husband, father and eight uncles of Mrs. Stinebaugh were valiant soldiers in the Civil war. Joseph D. Powers lived in Lawrence county, Ohio, but later removed to Missouri, where he died March 10, 1888. He was an excellent public speaker and took a very prominent part in the affairs of his day. He gave the Republican party his allegiance. Throughout Mr. Stinebaugh's residence in Ottawa, he has ever been a patriotic, public spirited citizen with energies directed toward the development and business prosperity, as well as the general welfare of the people.

 

William Cutler wrote the following about this gentleman:

GEO. D. STINEBAUGH, of Stinebaugh & Barnett, real estate, was born in Crawford County, Ohio, August 13, 1840, and reared on a farm. In April, 1861, he enlisted in Company K, Fourteenth Ohio Infantry; served three months and re-enlisted September 1, in Company H, Thirty-eighth Ohio Infantry; was mustered out in August, 1865. At the battle of Jonesboro, Ga., on September 1, 1864, he lost his left leg by two gunshot wounds. After the war he attended college at Toledo, Ohio, for a short time, and came to Franklin County, Kan., in March, 1866; followed farming for a year; he then removed to Ottawa. Was elected County Clerk in 1867, and re-elected five consecutive times, serving in all twelve years. In the Spring of 1880 he engaged in real estate business in company with A. G. Barnett. They do a large business, and are land agents for the K. C. L. & S. K. R. R. Co., and the M. P. R. R. Co. In 1867 Mr. Stinebaugh held the office of Enrolling Clerk of the House of State Representatives.

     

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

In the period immediately after the Second World War the world found itself with hundreds of thousands of surplus aircraft and just as many surplus aviators. Most aircraft would meet the salvage blade and the smelter’s fiery furnace. Most pilots would return to civilian life, the bulk of them never to fly again.

 

With the plethora of military aircraft languishing in desert lots awaiting a certain fate, some of those disenfranchised aviators and aircraft designers would look to new growing markets for salvation. One of these emerging markets was the new-found requirement for fast and capable business transport aircraft for executives looking to link business interests across the vast distances of the nation. With few purpose-built business aircraft available for executives, medium bombers became the drug of choice for high flying big shots—fast, powerful and, with the right interior appointments, a visual statement of their success and power.

 

In early variants like the Executive, On Mark simply removed military equipment and replaced them with fairings and civil avionics, sealed the bomb bay doors, soundproofed the cabin, and added additional cabin windows. Later models had special wing spars designed to give more interior room, pressurization and equipment from bigger surplus aircraft such as DC-6 brakes and flat glass cockpit windows. It was an elegant mashing together of equipment, but it was not a true business aircraft.

 

In the Sixties, Jet Craft Ltd. of Las Vegas, Nevada, went for a different interpretation of the same topic: The company had purchased a number of former Royal Australian Air Force Vampire trainers and RCAF single-seaters, which were to be converted to a new design for a business aircraft called 'Mystery Jet', offering 4-8-seats.

 

Jet Craft worked with stellar British conversion experts Aviation Traders to do the structural design work. Aviation Traders Limited (ATL) was a war-surplus aircraft and spares trader formed in 1947. In 1949, it began maintaining aircraft used by some of Britain’s contemporary independent airlines on the Berlin Airlift. In the early 1950s, it branched out into aircraft conversions and manufacturing.

 

Aviation Traders worked on the drawings and the structural mock-ups. A full-scale mock-up of the Mystery Jet languished at Southend airport for a decade, trying to lure owners and operators into buying it. And this actually happened: about twenty former Vampire airframes were converted into Mystery Jet business aircraft, tailored to the customers' needs and desires.

 

The Mystery Jet was just what it looked like: a former De Havilland Vampire with a new, roomy nose section grafted onto it. The cabin was pressurized, and was available in two different lengths (130 and 160 inches long, with two or three rows of seats and reflected in the aircraft's title) and several window and door options - the most exotic option being the "Landaulet" cabin which featured a panoramic roof/window installation over the rear pair of seats (or, alternatively, a two-seat bench).

 

The original Goblin engine was retained, CG was retained due to the fact that the new cabin was, despite being considerably longer than the Vampire's nose, the biggest version being more than 8 feet longer. The new front section was much lighter, though, e. g. through the loss of the heavy cannons and their armament, as well as some more military avionics. The loss of fuel capacity through the enlarged cabin was compensated through fixed wing tip tanks, so that range was on par with the former military jet, just top speed and ceiling were slightly inferior.

 

Anyway, prices were steep and from the United States more modern and economical offerings ruled the market. Maintaining a former military jet was also a costly business, so, consequently, after a slight buzz (more of a hum, actually) in the early Seventies, the Mystery Jet and Jet Craft of Las Vegas, also fuelled by some dubious business practices by the company's owner, disappeared. Even further developments of the original concept, e .g. with a wide body for up to 14 passengers and two engines, would not save the Mystery Jet from failure.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1 pilot plus 5-7 passengers

Length (Mystery Jet 160): 38 ft 5 in (11.73 m)

Wingspan incl. tip tanks: 39 ft 7 1/2 in (12.09 m)

Height: 8 ft 10 in (2.69 m)

Wing area: 262 ft² (24.34 m²)

Empty weight: 7,283 lb (3,304 kg)

Max. take-off weight: 12,390 lb (5,620 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× de Havilland Goblin 3 centrifugal turbojet, rated at 3,350 lbf (14.90 kN)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 516 mph (832 km/h)

Cruising speed: 400 mph (644 km/h)

Range: 1,220 mi (1,960 km)

Service ceiling: 37,700 ft (11,500 m)

 

Armament:

None

  

The kit and its assembly:

The first finished work in 2017 is a different kind of whif, one of the few civilian models in my collection. This conversion looks sick, but ,as weird as it may seem, the Business-Jet-From-Vintage-Vampires idea was real. For more information, and the source from where some of the backgound story was gathered, please check:

 

www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNews/Stories/tabid/116/article...

 

Anyway, my build is just a personal interpretation of the original concept, not a true model of the Mystery Jet. In fact, this was limited through the donor parts for this kitbash.

 

The rear end was the smaller problem: Airfix offers a very good Vampire T.11 trainer with excellent detail and fit - the passenger cabin was the bigger challenge. Finding "something" that would fit in shape and especialsl size was not easy - my first choice was a nose section from a vintage 1:100 Antonow An-24 from VEB Plasticart (still much too wide, though), and the best solution came as an accidental find in a local model kit shop where I found a heavily discounted MPM Focke Wulf Fw 189 B-0 trainer.

 

The reason: the kit was complete, but the bag holding the sprues must have been heated immensely during the packaging process: the main sprues were horrible warped - except for some single parts including the canopies and the sprue with the cabin! Height wind width were perfect, only the boxy shape caused some headaches. But I guess I would not find anything better...

 

That said, the transplantation mess started. I never built any of the two donor kits before, so I carefully tried to find the best place where to cut the Vampire's nose - I ended up with a staggered solution right in front of the wing root air intakes.

The Fw 189's cabin was bit more tricky, because I had to get rid of the original wing roots and wanted to use as much space as possible, up to the rear bulkhead and together with the rear cabin window. The idea was to blend the Fw 189's roof line into the Vampire's engine section, while keeping the original air intake ducts, so that the overall arrangement would look plausible.

 

The result became a pretty long nose section - and at that time the tail booms were not fited yet, so I was not certain concerning overall proportions. The cabin's underside had to be improvised, and blending the boxy front end with a flat underside into the tubby, round Vampire fuselage caused some headaches. I also had to re-create the lower flank section with styrene sheet, because I had originally hoped that I could "push" the new cabin between the wing roots - but that space was occupied by the Goblin's inlet ducts.

 

Inside of the cabin, the original floor, bulkheads and dashboard were used, plus five bucket seats that come with the MPM kit. In order to hide the body work from the inside, side panels from 0.5mm styrene sheet were added in the cabin - with the benefit of additional stability, but also costing some space... Since the machine was built with closed cabin, a pilot was added - actually a bash of a WWII Matchbox pilot and a German officer from an ESCI tank kit. Looks pretty good and "professional". ;-)

 

Once the cabin was in place, lots of PSR followed and the tail booms could be fitted. To my relief, the longer nose did not look too unbalanced (and actually, design sketches for the original Mystery Jet suggest just this layout!) - but I decided to add wing tip tanks which would beef up wingspan and shift the visual mass slightly forward. They come from an 1:100 Tamiya Il-28, or better the "R" recce variant.

 

The only other big change concerned the nose wheel. While the OOB wheel and strut were used, the well is now located in front of the wheel and it would retract forwards, giving the nose a more balanced look - and the cabin arrangement made this change more plausible, too.

 

Another addition were three small porthole windows in the solid parts of the cabin flanks - one of them ending up in the middle of the cabin door on starboard, where a solid part of the canopy roof lent itself for a good place just behind the pilots' seats.

  

Painting and markings:

I cannot help it, but the thing looks like a design from a vintage Tintin or Yoko Tsuno comic! This was not planned or expected - and actually the paint scheme evolved step by step. I had no plan or clue what to apply - the real Mystery Jet mock-up in silver with blue trim looked sharp, but somehow I did not want blue. So I started with the interior (out of a necessity, as the fuselage had to be closed before any further work progress at some point) and settled for plushy, British colors: Cream (walls and roof) and Claret-Red (carpet and seats).

 

I tried to find something for the outside that would complement this choice of colors, and eventually settled on Ivory and White (upper and lower fuselage halves, respectively) with some deep red trim, plus pale grey wing surfaces. I even considered some thin golden trim lines, but I think this would have been too much?

 

The trim was created with decals tripes from generic sheet material, the black anti-glare panel was painted, though. As a color contrast I painted some of the upper canopy panels in translucent, light blue, and this looks very good.

 

The wings received a lightb treatment with thinned black ink, in order to emphasize the engravings. No post-shading was done, though, for a rather clean look.

 

Most markings were puzzled together; the registration G-AZRE actually belonged to a Vickers Vanguard (from the 1:144 Airfix kit), the large letters above and under the wings were created with single 45° letters (USAF style). Most stencils come from a Vampire trainer aftermarket sheet from Xtradecal, from the OOB sheet only the "No step" warnings on the wings were used.

 

Finally, the kit was sealed with a semi-matt coat of varnish, except for the anti-glare panel, which recived a matt coat. The three small windows received artificial panes made from Clearfix, after their rims had been painted black.

  

A messy project, and you better do not take a close look. But the overall elegance of this creation surprises me - the real Mystery Jet already looked sleek, and this model, despite a more blunt nose, confirms this impression. The colors work together well, too - and the thing has a dedicated retro feel about it. Tintin might be on board, as well as Elton John, both sharing a cigar on the rear seats... ;)

All-new 2015 Jeep® Renegade: Most Capable Small SUV Expands the Brand's Global Portfolio

 

- All-new 2015 Jeep® Renegade marks the brand's first entry in the small SUV segment

 

- Renegade Trailhawk model delivers best-in-class 4x4 Trail Rated capability with class-exclusive Jeep Active Drive Low, which includes 20:1 crawl ratio and Jeep Selec-Terrain system

 

- Designed to expand the Jeep brand globally, the all-new 2015 Renegade combines the brand's heritage with fresh new styling to appeal to youthful and adventurous customers

 

- Nothing else like it: Renegade displays a powerful stance with aggressive wheel-to- body proportions, plus the freedom of two My Sky open-air roof systems

 

- Renegade's all-new interior exudes an energetic appearance with rugged and functional details, crafted in high-quality materials and inspired colors

 

- All-new "small-wide 4x4 architecture" combines best-in-class off-road capability with world-class on-road driving dynamics

 

- Designed for global markets – with 16 fuel-efficient powertrain combinations for different markets around the world – including the world's first nine-speed automatic transmission in a small SUV

 

- Renegade will offer a best-in-class combination of fuel efficiency and off-road capability

 

- Technology once limited to premium SUVs: award-winning Uconnect Access, Uconnect touchscreen radios and the segment's largest full-color instrument cluster

 

- Loaded with up to 70 available advanced safety and security features

 

- Designed in America, crafted in Italy, the 2015 Renegade highlights the Jeep brand's global resources and dedication to meeting customer needs in more than 100 countries

 

The all-new 2015 Jeep® Renegade expands the brand's global vehicle lineup, entering the growing small SUV segment, while staying true to the adventurous lifestyle Jeep is known for. Renegade delivers a unique combination of best-in-class off-road capability, open-air freedom and convenience, a segment-first nine-speed automatic transmission that contributes to outstanding on- road and off-road driving dynamics, fuel-efficient engines, world-class refinement, and a host of innovative safety and advanced technology offerings. The result is an efficient vehicle created to attract youthful and adventurous customers around the world to the Jeep brand.

 

The all-new 2015 Jeep Renegade expands the brand's product portfolio and targets the rapidly expanding small SUV segment around the globe with benchmark levels of efficiency and driving dynamics, while at the same time delivering best-in-class 4x4 capability that customers expect from Jeep,‖ said Mike Manley, President and CEO - Jeep Brand, Chrysler Group LLC. ―Renegade symbolizes the brand's renowned American design, ingenuity and innovation, marking the Jeep brand's first entry into the small SUV segment in more than 100 markets around the globe.

 

Best-in-class off-road capability thanks to two all-new 4x4 systems

 

Leveraging 4x4 technology from the all-new Jeep Cherokee, the all-new 2015 Jeep Renegade offers two of the most advanced and intelligent 4x4 systems in its class, all to deliver best-in-class off-road capability. Both systems can provide up to 100 percent of the engine's available torque to the ground, through any wheel, for optimal grip.

 

- Jeep Active Drive – full-time 4x4 system

- Jeep Active Drive Low – class-exclusive full-time 4x4 system with 20:1 crawl ratio

 

Innovation is also at the forefront of any new Jeep vehicle, and the Renegade is the first small SUV to feature a disconnecting rear axle and power take-off unit (PTU) – all to provide Jeep Renegade 4x4 models with enhanced fuel economy. The system instantly engages when 4x4 traction is needed.

 

Both Jeep Active Drive and Active Drive Low 4x4 systems include the Jeep Selec-Terrain system, providing up to five modes (Auto, Snow, Sand and Mud modes, plus exclusive Rock mode on the Trailhawk model) for the best four-wheel-drive performance on- or off-road and in any weather condition.

 

Trail Rated: Renegade Trailhawk 4x4 model

 

For customers who demand the most off-road capability from their Jeep vehicles, the Renegade Trailhawk model delivers best-in-class Trail Rated 4x4 capability with:

 

- Standard Jeep Active Drive Low (20:1 crawl ratio)

- Selec-Terrain system with exclusive Rock mode

- Increased ride height 20 mm (0.8 inches)

- Skid plates, and red front and rear tow hooks

- Unique fascias deliver 30.5 degree approach, 25.7 degree breakover and 34.3 degree departure angles

- 17-inch all-terrain tires

- Up to 205 mm (8.1 inches) of wheel articulation

- Hill-descent Control

- Up to 480 mm (19 inches) of water fording

- Up to 1,500 kg (3,300-lb.) towing capability with MultiJet II diesel engine and 907 kg (2,000- lb.) towing capability with 2.4-liter Tigershark engine, with available tow package

 

A global Jeep design for a rapidly growing global brand

 

From the start, Jeep designers knew the Renegade would need to deliver best-in-class off-road capability with city-sized proportions that exuded the brand's rugged style while at the same time enhancing versatility, maneuverability and style. Additionally designers were tasked to create an all- new SUV that would symbolize the brand's renowned American design and ingenuity, as it would mark the Jeep brand's first entry into the small SUV segment in more than 100 markets around the globe. Last, Renegade had to offer the open-air freedom that dates back to its 1941 roots with the Willys MB Jeep.

 

The result is the all-new 2015 Renegade, a vehicle that builds on the Jeep Wrangler's powerful stance, and features fresh new styling with rugged body forms and aggressive proportions that enable best-in-class approach and departure angles purposely designed to deliver best-in-class off- road capability. And for segment-exclusive panoramic views, two available My Sky open-air roof panel systems conveniently stow to provide passengers open-air freedom with ease.

 

All-new interior exudes a rugged and energetic appearance

 

The all-new Jeep Renegade interior features a rugged and energetic appearance that builds upon Jeep's legendary brand heritage. Its precisely crafted detail, innovative and high-quality color and material appointments, state-of-the-art technology, and clever storage features draw inspiration from contemporary extreme sports gear and lifestyles.

 

The interior of the all-new 2015 Jeep Renegade has a distinctive form language which Jeep designers have titled ―Tek-Tonic.‖ This new design theme is defined by the intersections of soft and tactile forms with rugged and functional details. Major surfaces such as the sculpted soft-touch instrument panel are intersected with bold functional elements like the passenger grab handle – indispensable for off-road adventures and borrowed from its big brother, the legendary Jeep Wrangler. Unique ―protective clamp fasteners,‖ anodized design accents and inspired colors are derived from extreme sports equipment, while the newly familiar ―X‖ shapes inspired by its roof and tail lamps add to Renegade's Tek-Tonic interior look. And to make sure all of the needed passenger gear fits, the Renegade is designed with an efficient and flexible interior package that includes a removable, reversible and height-adjustable cargo floor panel and fold-forward front-passenger seat.

 

My Sky: continuing Jeep open-air freedom since 1941

 

Keeping the tradition of the legendary 1941 Willys MB Jeep, the all-new 2015 Renegade offers open-air freedom with two available My Sky open-air roof systems. With a manual removable, or removable with premium power tilt/slide feature, the segment-exclusive My Sky roof-panel systems quickly bring the outdoors inside. Designed for convenience, the honeycomb fiberglass polyurethane roof panels are lightweight and stow neatly in the rear cargo area. For added design detail, both My Sky roof systems feature a debossed ―X‖ stamped into the roof that exude strength and play on the brand's utilitarian history.

 

Best-in-class off-road capability with world-class on-road driving dynamics

 

Designed and engineered to first and foremost deliver legendary Jeep 4x4 capability, the all-new 2015 Renegade is the first small SUV from Chrysler Group to use the all-new ―small-wide 4x4 architecture.‖

 

With its fully independent suspension capable of up to 205 mm (8.1 inches) of wheel articulation and 220 mm (8.7 inches) of ground clearance (Trailhawk), Renegade raises the bar in the small SUV segment with best-in-class off-road capability. Extensive use of advanced steels, composites and advanced computer-impact simulations enable the all-new 2015 Renegade's architecture to deliver world-class torsional stiffness and Jeep brand's durability required for Trail Rated adventures.

 

The all-new Renegade is the first Jeep to integrate Koni's frequency selective damping (FSD) front and rear strut system. This damping system enables the Jeep Renegade to deliver world-class road-holding and handling characteristics.

 

Designed for global markets: 16 powertrain combinations

 

True to the Jeep brand, the all-new Renegade will offer customers in global markets maximum off- road capability and fuel efficiency. The Renegade will offer up to 16 strategic powertrain combinations – the most ever in a Jeep vehicle – customized to markets around the world to meet a range of performance and efficiency needs. Powertrain options include:

 

- Four MultiAir gasoline engine offerings

- Two MultiJet II diesel engine offerings

- Efficient and flex-fuel capable E.torQ engine

- Emissions and fuel-saving Stop&Start technology

- Segment-first nine-speed automatic transmission

- Two manual and one dual-dry clutch transmission (DDCT) offerings

 

World's first small SUV with nine-speed automatic transmission

 

Like the new Jeep Cherokee, the all-new 2015 Jeep Renegade has raised the bar - this time in the small SUV class - with the first available nine-speed automatic transmission. When paired with either the 2.0-liter MultiJet II diesel engine, or 2.4-liter MultiAir2 gas engine, the nine-speed transmission delivers numerous benefits customers will appreciate, including aggressive launches, smooth power delivery at highway speeds and improved fuel efficiency versus a six-speed automatic transmission.

 

Segment-exclusive technologies once found only on higher classed SUVs

 

The all-new 2015 Jeep Renegade offers technology features once found only in upper-segment vehicles, and makes them attainable to customers in the growing small SUV segment – including award-winning Uconnect Access, Uconnect touchscreens and the segment's largest full-color instrument cluster.

 

- Uconnect Access: Utilizes embedded cellular technology to allow Jeep Renegade occupants to get directly in contact with local emergency-service dispatchers – all with the push of the 9-1-1 Assist button on the rearview mirror. Uconnect Access applies the same logic to roadside assistance. One push of the ―ASSIST‖ button summons help directly from Chrysler Group's roadside assistance provider, or the Vehicle Customer Care Center. Further peace of mind comes from the system's ability to receive text messages, announce receipt of texts, identify senders and then ―read‖ the messages aloud with Bluetooth-equipped cell phones. AOL Autos named Uconnect Access its ―Technology of the Year for 2013.‖ (Uconnect services may vary in different markets)

 

- Uconnect touchscreen radio systems: Award-winning in-vehicle handsfree communication, entertainment and available navigation. Key features available on the Uconnect 5.0 and 6.5AN systems include a 5.0-inch or 6.5-inch touchscreen display, Bluetooth connectivity, single or dual-turner, radio data system capability (RDS), digital audio broadcast (DAB), HD Radio, digital media broadcasting (DMB), SiriusXM Radio, SiriusXM Travel Link, SiriusXM Travel Link, USB port and auxiliary audio jack input. (Uconnect services may vary in different markets)

 

- Segment's largest full-color instrument cluster display: Filling the Jeep Renegade's gauge cluster in front of the driver is an available 7-inch, full-color, premium multiview display, featuring a reconfigurable function that enables drivers to personalize information inside the instrument cluster. The information display is designed to visually communicate information, using graphics and text, quickly and easily.

 

Renegade features up to 70 advanced safety and security features

 

Safety and security were at the forefront in the development of the all-new 2015 Jeep Renegade, setting the stage for up to 70 available safety and security features – including the availability of Forward Collision Warning-Plus and LaneSense Departure Warning-Plus.

 

In addition, engineers added both active and passive safety and security features, including Blind- spot Monitoring; Rear Cross Path detection; ParkView rear backup camera with dynamic grid lines; electronic stability control (ESC) with electronic roll mitigation and seven standard air bags.

 

Jeep brand's global resources

 

Designed in America and crafted in Italy, the 2015 Renegade continues the Jeep brand's dedication to the global marketplace and demonstrates the depths of its available resources. The final assembly location for the Renegade will be at the Melfi Assembly Plant. The Renegade's global portfolio of powertrain production includes the United States, Italy and Brazil.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some Background:

During the 1950s, Hindustan Aircraft Limited (HAL) had developed and produced several types of trainer aircraft, such as the HAL HT-2. However, elements within the firm were eager to expand into the then-new realm of supersonic fighter aircraft. Around the same time, the Indian government was in the process of formulating a new Air Staff Requirement for a Mach 2-capable combat aircraft to equip the Indian Air Force (IAF). However, as HAL lacked the necessary experience in both developing and manufacturing frontline combat fighters, it was clear that external guidance would be invaluable; this assistance was embodied by Kurt Tank.

 

In 1956, HAL formally began design work on the supersonic fighter project. The Indian government, led by Jawaharlal Nehru, authorized the development of the aircraft, stating that it would aid in the development of a modern aircraft industry in India. The first phase of the project sought to develop an airframe suitable for travelling at supersonic speeds, and able to effectively perform combat missions as a fighter aircraft, while the second phase sought to domestically design and produce an engine capable of propelling the aircraft. Early on, there was an explicit adherence to satisfying the IAF's requirements for a capable fighter bomber; attributes such as a twin-engine configuration and a speed of Mach 1.4 to 1.5 were quickly emphasized, and this led to the HF-24 Marut.

 

On 24 June 1961, the first prototype Marut conducted its maiden flight. It was powered by the same Bristol Siddeley Orpheus 703 turbojets that had powered the Folland Gnat, also being manufactured by HAL at that time. On 1 April 1967, the first production Marut was delivered to the IAF. While originally intended only as an interim measure during testing, HAL decided to power production Maruts with a pair of unreheated Orpheus 703s, meaning the aircraft could not attain supersonic speed. Although originally conceived to operate around Mach 2 the Marut in fact was barely capable of reaching Mach 1 due to the lack of suitably powerful engines.

 

The IAF were reluctant to procure a fighter aircraft only marginally superior to its existing fleet of British-built Hawker Hunters. However, in 1961, the Indian Government decided to procure the Marut, nevertheless, but only 147 aircraft, including 18 two-seat trainers, were completed out of a planned 214. Just after the decision to build the lukewarm Marut, the development of a more advanced aircraft with the desired supersonic performance was initiated.

 

This enterprise started star-crossed, though: after the Indian Government conducted its first nuclear tests at Pokhran, international pressure prevented the import of better engines of Western origin, or at times, even spares for the Orpheus engines, so that the Marut never realized its full potential due to insufficient power, and it was relatively obsolescent by the time it reached production.

Due to these restrictions India looked for other sources for supersonic aircraft and eventually settled upon the MiG-21 F-13 from the Soviet Union, which entered service in 1964. While fast and agile, the Fishbed was only a short-range daylight interceptor. It lacked proper range for escort missions and air space patrols, and it had no radar that enabled it to conduct all-weather interceptions. To fill this operational gap, the new indigenous HF-26 project was launched around the same time.

 

For the nascent Indian aircraft industry, HF-26 had a demanding requirements specification: the aircraft was to achieve Mach 2 top speed at high altitude and carry a radar with a guided missile armament that allowed interceptions in any weather, day and night. The powerplant question was left open, but it was clear from the start that a Soviet engine would be needed, since an indigenous development of a suitable powerplant would take much too long and block vital resources, and western alternatives were out of reach. The mission profile and the performance requirements quickly defined the planned aircraft’s layout: To fit a radar, the air intakes with movable ramps to feed the engines were placed on the fuselage flanks. To make sure the aircraft would fulfill its high-performance demands, it was right from the outset powered by two engines, and it was decided to give it delta wings, a popular design among high-speed aircraft of the time – exemplified by the highly successful Dassault Mirage III (which was to be delivered to Pakistan in 1967). With two engines, the HF-26 would be a heavier aircraft than the Mirage III, though, and it was planned to operate the aircraft from semi-prepared airfields, so that it would receive a robust landing gear with low-pressure tires and a brake parachute.

 

In 1962 India was able to negotiate the delivery of Tumansky RD-9 turbojet engines from the Soviet Union, even though no afterburner was part of the deal – this had to be indigenously developed by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). However, this meant that the afterburner could be tailored to the HF-26, and this task would provide HAL with valuable engineering experience, too.

Now knowing the powerplant, HAL created a single-seater airframe around it, a rather robust design that superficially reminded of the French Mirage III, but there were fundamental differences. The HF-26 had boxy air intakes with movable ramps to control the airflow to the two engines and a relatively wide fuselage to hold them and most of the fuel in tanks between the air ducts behind the cockpit. The aircraft had a single swept fin and a rather small mid-positioned delta-wing with a 60° sweep. The pilot sat under a tight canopy that offered - similar to the Mirage III - only limited all-round vision.

The HF-26's conical nose radome covered an antenna for a ‘Garud’ interception radar – which was in fact a downgraded Soviet ‘Oryol' (Eagle; NATO reporting name 'Skip Spin') system that guided the HF-26’s main armament, a pair of semi-active radar homing (SARH) ‚Saanp’ missiles.

 

The Saanp missile was developed specifically for the HF-26 in India but used many components of Soviet origin, too, so that they were compatible with the radar. In performance, the Saanp was comparable with the French Matra R.530 air-to-air missile, even though the aerodynamic layout was reversed, with steering fins at the front end, right behind the SARH seaker head - overall the missile reminded of an enlarged AIM-4 Falcon. The missile weighed 180 kg and had a length of 3.5 m. Power came from a two-stage solid rocket that offered a maximum thrust of 80 kN for 2.7 s during the launch phase plus 6.5 s cruise. Maximum speed was Mach 2.7 and operational range was 1.5 to 20 km (0.9 to 12.5 miles). Two of these missiles could be carried on the main wing hardpoints in front of the landing gear wells. Alternatively, infrared-guided R-3 (AA-2 ‘Atoll’) short-range AAMs could be carried by the HF-26, too, and typically two of these were carried on the outer underwing hardpoints, which were plumbed to accept drop tanks (typically supersonic PTB-490s that were carried by the IAF's MiG-21s, too) . Initially, no internal gun was envisioned, as the HF-26 was supposed to be a pure high-speed/high-altitude interceptor that would not engage in dogfights. Two more hardpoints under the fuselage were plumbed, too, for a total of six external stations.

 

Due to its wing planform, the HF-26 was soon aptly called “Teer” (= Arrow), and with Soviet help the first prototype was rolled out in early 1964 and presented to the public. The first flight, however, would take place almost a year later in January 1965, due to many technical problems, and these were soon complemented by aerodynamic problems. The original delta-winged HF-26 had poor take-off and landing characteristics, and directional stability was weak, too. While a second prototype was under construction in April 1965 the first aircraft was lost after it had entered a spin from which the pilot could not escape – the aircraft crashed and its pilot was killed during the attempt to eject.

 

After this loss HAL investigated an enlarged fin and a modified wing design with deeper wingtips with lower sweep, which increased wing area and improved low speed handling, too. Furthermore, the fuselage shape had to be modified, too, to reduce supersonic drag, and a more pronounced area ruling was introduced. The indigenous afterburner for the RD-9 engines was unstable and troublesome, too.

It took until 1968 and three more flying prototypes (plus two static airframes) to refine the Teer for serial production service introduction. In this highly modified form, the aircraft was re-designated HF-26M and the first machines were delivered to IAF No. 3 Squadron in late 1969. However, it would take several months until a fully operational status could be achieved. By that time, it was already clear that the Teer, much like the HF-24 Marut before, could not live up to its expectations and was at the brink of becoming obsolete as it entered service. The RD-9 was not a modern engine anymore, and despite its indigenous afterburner – which turned out not only to be chronically unreliable but also to be very thirsty when engaged – the Teer had a disappointing performance: The fighter only achieved a top speed of Mach 1.6 at full power, and with full external load it hardly broke the wall of sound in level flight. Its main armament, the Saanp AAM, also turned out to be unreliable even under ideal conditions.

 

However, the HF-26M came just in time to take part in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and was, despite its weaknesses, extensively used – even though not necessarily in its intended role. High-flying slow bombers were not fielded during the conflict, and the Teer remained, despite its on-board radar, heavily dependent on ground control interception (GCI) to vector its pilot onto targets coming in at medium and even low altitude. The HF-26M had no capability against low-flying aircraft either, so that pilots had to engage incoming, low-flying enemy aircraft after visual identification – a task the IAF’s nimble MiG-21s were much better suited for. Escorts and air cover missions for fighter-bombers were flown, too, but the HF-26M’s limited range only made it a suitable companion for the equally short-legged Su-7s. The IAF Canberras were frequently deployed on longer range missions, but the HF-26Ms simply could not follow them all the time; for a sufficient range the Teer had to carry four drop tanks, what increased drag and only left the outer pair of underwing hardpoints (which were not plumbed) free for a pair of AA-2 missiles. With the imminent danger of aerial close range combat, though, During the conflict with Pakistan, most HF-26M's were retrofitted with rear-view mirrors in their canopies to improve the pilot's field of view, and a passive IR sensor was added in a small fairing under the nose to improve the aircraft's all-weather capabilities and avoid active radar emissions that would warn potential prey too early.

 

The lack of an internal gun turned out to be another great weakness of the Teer, and this was only lightly mended through the use of external gun pods. Two of these cigar-shaped pods that resembled the Soviet UPK-23 pod could be carried on the two ventral pylons, and each contained a 23 mm Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-23L autocannon of Soviet origin with 200 rounds. Technically these pods were very similar to the conformal GP-9 pods carried by the IAF MiG-21FLs. While the gun pods considerably improved the HF-26M’s firepower and versatility, the pods were draggy, blocked valuable hardpoints (from extra fuel) and their recoil tended to damage the pylons as well as the underlying aircraft structure, so that they were only commissioned to be used in an emergency.

 

However, beyond air-to-air weapons, the HF-26M could also carry ordnance of up to 1.000 kg (2.207 lb) on the ventral and inner wing hardpoints and up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) on the other pair of wing hardpoints, including iron bombs and/or unguided missile pods. However, the limited field of view from the cockpit over the radome as well as the relatively high wing loading did not recommend the aircraft for ground attack missions – even though these frequently happened during the conflict with Pakistan. For these tactical missions, many HF-26Ms lost their original overall natural metal finish and instead received camouflage paint schemes on squadron level, resulting in individual and sometimes even spectacular liveries. Most notable examples were the Teer fighters of No. 1 Squadron (The Tigers), which sported various camouflage adaptations of the unit’s eponym.

 

Despite its many deficiencies, the HF-26M became heavily involved in the Indo-Pakistan conflict. As the Indian Army tightened its grip in East Pakistan, the Indian Air Force continued with its attacks against Pakistan as the campaign developed into a series of daylight anti-airfield, anti-radar, and close-support attacks by fighter jets, with night attacks against airfields and strategic targets by Canberras and An-12s, while Pakistan responded with similar night attacks with its B-57s and C-130s.

The PAF deployed its F-6s mainly on defensive combat air patrol missions over their own bases, leaving the PAF unable to conduct effective offensive operations.  Sporadic raids by the IAF continued against PAF forward air bases in Pakistan until the end of the war, and interdiction and close-support operations were maintained. One of the most successful air raids by India into West Pakistan happened on 8 December 1971, when Indian Hunter aircraft from the Pathankot-based 20 Squadron, attacked the Pakistani base in Murid and destroyed 5 F-86 aircraft on the ground.

The PAF played a more limited role in the operations, even though they were reinforced by Mirages from an unidentified Middle Eastern ally (whose identity remains unknown). The IAF was able to conduct a wide range of missions – troop support; air combat; deep penetration strikes; para-dropping behind enemy lines; feints to draw enemy fighters away from the actual target; bombing and reconnaissance. India flew 1,978 sorties in the East and about 4,000 in Pakistan, while the PAF flew about 30 and 2,840 at the respective fronts.  More than 80 percent of IAF sorties were close-support and interdiction and about 45 IAF aircraft were lost, including three HF-26Ms. Pakistan lost 60 to 75 aircraft, not including any F-86s, Mirage IIIs, or the six Jordanian F-104s which failed to return to their donors. The imbalance in air losses was explained by the IAF's considerably higher sortie rate and its emphasis on ground-attack missions. The PAF, which was solely focused on air combat, was reluctant to oppose these massive attacks and rather took refuge at Iranian air bases or in concrete bunkers, refusing to offer fights and respective losses.

 

After the war, the HF-26M was officially regarded as outdated, and as license production of the improved MiG-21FL (designated HAL Type 77 and nicknamed “Trishul” = Trident) and later of the MiG-21M (HAL Type 88) was organized in India, the aircraft were quickly retired from frontline units. They kept on serving into the Eighties, though, but now restricted to their original interceptor role. Beyond the upgrades from the Indo-Pakistani War, only a few upgrades were made. For instance, the new R-60 AAM was introduced to the HF-26M and around 1978 small (but fixed) canards were retrofitted to the air intakes behind the cockpit that improved the Teer’s poor slow speed control and high landing speed as well as the aircraft’s overall maneuverability.

A radar upgrade, together with the introduction of better air-to-ai missiles with a higher range and look down/shoot down capability was considered but never carried out. Furthermore, the idea of a true HF-26 2nd generation variant, powered by a pair of Tumansky R-11F-300 afterburner jet engines (from the license-built MiG-21FLs), was dropped, too – even though this powerplant eventually promised to fulfill the Teer’s design promise of Mach 2 top speed. A total of only 82 HF-26s (including thirteen two-seat trainers with a lengthened fuselage and reduced fuel capacity, plus eight prototypes) were built. The last aircraft were retired from IAF service in 1988 and replaced with Mirage 2000 fighters procured from France that were armed with the Matra Super 530 AAM.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 14.97 m (49 ft ½ in)

Wingspan: 9.43 m (30 ft 11 in)

Height: 4.03 m (13 ft 2½ in)

Wing area: 30.6 m² (285 sq ft)

Empty weight: 7,000 kg (15,432 lb)

Gross weight: 10,954 kg (24,149 lb) with full internal fuel

Max takeoff weight: 15,700 kg (34,613 lb) with external stores

 

Powerplant:

2× Tumansky RD-9 afterburning turbojet engines; 29 kN (6,600 lbf) dry thrust each

and 36.78 kN (8,270 lbf) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 1,700 km/h (1,056 mph; 917 kn; Mach 1.6) at 11,000 m (36,000 ft)

1,350 km/h (840 mph, 730 kn; Mach 1.1) at sea level

Combat range: 725 km (450 mi, 391 nmi) with internal fuel only

Ferry range: 1,700 km (1,100 mi, 920 nmi) with four drop tanks

Service ceiling: 18,100 m (59,400 ft)

g limits: +6.5

Time to altitude: 9,145 m (30,003 ft) in 1 minute 30 seconds

Wing loading: 555 kg/m² (114 lb/sq ft)

 

Armament

6× hardpoints (four underwing and two under the fuselage) for a total of 2.500 kg (5.500 lb);

Typical interceptor payload:

- two IR-guided R-3 or R-60 air-to-air-missiles or

two PTB-490 drop tanks on the outer underwing stations

- two semi-active radar-guided ‚Saanp’ air-to-air missiles or two more R-3 or R-60 AAMs

on inner underwing stations

- two 500 l drop tanks or two gun pods with a 23 mm GSh-23L autocannon and 200 RPG

each under the fuselage

  

The kit and its assembly:

This whiffy delta-wing fighter was inspired when I recently sliced up a PM Model Su-15 kit for my side-by-side-engine BAC Lightning build. At an early stage of the conversion, I held the Su-15 fuselage with its molded delta wings in my hand and wondered if a shortened tail section (as well as a shorter overall fuselage to keep proportions balanced) could make a delta-wing jet fighter from the Flagon base? Only a hardware experiment could yield an answer, and since the Su-15’s overall outlines look a bit retro I settled at an early stage on India as potential designer and operator, as “the thing the HF-24 Marut never was”.

 

True to the initial idea, work started on the tail, and I chopped off the fuselage behind the wings’ trailing edge. Some PSR was necessary to blend the separate exhaust section into the fuselage, which had to be reduced in depth through wedges that I cut out under the wings trailing edge, plus some good amount of glue and sheer force the bend the section a bit upwards. The PM Model's jet exhausts were drilled open, and I added afterburner dummies inside - anything would look better than the bleak vertical walls inside after only 2-3 mm! The original fin was omitted, because it was a bit too large for the new, smaller aircraft and its shape reminded a lot of the Suchoj heavy fighter family. It was replaced with a Mirage III/V fin, left over from a (crappy!) Pioneer 2 IAI Nesher kit.

 

Once the rear section was complete, I had to adjust the front end - and here the kitbashing started. First, I chopped off the cockpit section in front of the molded air intake - the Su-15’s long radome and the cockpit on top of the fuselage did not work anymore. As a remedy I remembered another Su-15 conversion I did a (long) while ago: I created a model of a planned ground attack derivative, the T-58Sh, and, as a part of the extensive body work, I transplanted the slanted nose from an academy MiG-27 between the air intakes – a stunt that was relatively easy and which appreciably lowered the cockpit position. For the HF-26M I did something similar, I just transplanted a cockpit from a Hasegawa/Academy MiG-23 with its ogival radome that size-wise better matched with the rest of the leftover Su-15 airframe.

 

The MiG-23 cockpit matched perfectly with the Su-15's front end, just the spinal area behind the cockpit had to be raised/re-sculpted to blend the parts smoothly together. For a different look from the Su-15 ancestry I also transplanted the front sections of the MiG-23 air intakes with their shorter ramps. Some mods had to be made to the Su-15 intake stubs, but the MiG-23 intakes were an almost perfect fit in size and shape and easy to integrate into the modified front hill. The result looks very natural!

However, when the fuselage was complete, I found that the nose appeared to be a bit too long, leaving the whole new hull with the wings somewhat off balance. As a remedy I decided at a rather late stage to shorten the nose and took out a 6 mm section in front of the cockpit - a stunt I had not planned, but sometimes you can judge things only after certain work stages. Some serious PSR was necessary to re-adjust the conical nose shape, which now looked more Mirage III-ish than planned!

 

The cockpit was taken mostly OOB, I just replaced the ejection seat and gave it a trigger handle made from thin wire. With the basic airframe complete it was time for details. The PM Model Su-15s massive and rather crude main landing gear was replaced with something more delicate from the scrap box, even though I retained the main wheels. The front landing gear was taken wholesale from the MiG-23, but had to be shortened for a proper stance.

A display holder adapter was integrated into the belly for the flight scenes, hidden well between the ventral ordnance.

 

The hardpoints, including missile launch rails, came from the MiG-23; the pylons had to be adjusted to match the Su-15's wing profile shape, the Anab missiles lost their tail sections to create the fictional Indian 'Saanp' AAMs. The R-3s on the outer stations were left over from a MP MiG-21. The ventral pylons belong to Academy MiG-23/27s, one came from the donor kit, the other was found in the spares box. The PTB-490 drop tanks also came from a KP MiG-21 (or one of its many reincarnations, not certain).

  

Painting and markings:

The paint scheme for this fictional aircraft was largely inspired by a picture of a whiffy and very attractive Saab 37 Viggen (an 1:72 Airfix kit) in IAF colors, apparently a model from a contest. BTW, India actually considered buying the Viggen for its Air Force!

IAF aircraft were and are known for their exotic and sometimes gawdy paint schemes, and with IAF MiG-21 “C 992” there’s even a very popular (yet obscure) aircraft that sported literal tiger stripes. The IAF Viggen model was surely inspired by this real aircraft, and I adopted something similar for my HF-26M.

 

IAF 1 Squadron was therefore settled, and for the paint scheme I opted for a "stripish" scheme, but not as "tigeresque" as "C 992". I found a suitable benchmark in a recent Libyian MiG-21, which carried a very disruptive two-tone grey scheme. I adapted this pattern to the HA-26M airframe and replaced its colors, similar to the IAF Viggen model, which became a greenish sand tone (a mix of Humbrol 121 with some 159; I later found out that I could have used Humbrol 83 from the beginning, though...) and a very dark olive drab (Humbrol 66, which looks like a dull dark brown in contrast with the sand tone), with bluish grey (Humbrol 247) undersides. With the large delta wings, this turned out to look very good and even effective!

 

For that special "Indian touch" I gave the aircraft a high-contrast fin in a design that I had seen on a real camouflaged IAF MiG-21bis: an overall dark green base with a broad, red vertical stripe which was also the shield for the fin flash and the aircraft's tactical code (on the original bare metal). The fin was first painted in green (Humbrol 2), the red stripe was created with orange-red decal sheet material. Similar material was also used to create the bare metal field for the tactical code, the yellow bars on the splitter plates and for the thin white canopy sealing.

 

After basic painting was done the model received an overall black ink washing, post-panel shading and extensive dry-brushing with aluminum and iron for a rather worn look.

The missiles became classic white, while the drop tanks, as a contrast to the camouflaged belly, were left in bare metal.

 

Decals/markings came primarily from a Begemot MiG-25 kit, the tactical codes on the fin and under the wings originally belong to an RAF post-WWII Spitfire, just the first serial letter was omitted. Stencils are few and they came from various sources. A compromise is the unit badge on the fin: I needed a tiger motif, and the only suitable option I found was the tiger head emblem on a white disc from RAF No. 74 Squadron, from the Matchbox BAC Lightning F.6&F.2A kit. It fits stylistically well, though. ;-)

 

Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (except for the black radome, which became a bit glossy) and finally assembled.

  

A spontaneous build, and the last one that I completed in 2022. However, despite a vague design plan the model evolved as it grew. Bashing the primitive PM Model Su-15 with the Academy MiG-23 parts was easier than expected, though, and the resulting fictional aircraft looks sturdy but quite believable - even though it appears to me like the unexpected child of a Mirage III/F-4 Phantom II intercourse, or like a juvenile CF-105 Arrow, just with mid-wings? Nevertheless, the disruptive paint scheme suits the delta wing fighter well, and the green/red fin is a striking contrast - it's a colorful model, but not garish.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some Background:

During the 1950s, Hindustan Aircraft Limited (HAL) had developed and produced several types of trainer aircraft, such as the HAL HT-2. However, elements within the firm were eager to expand into the then-new realm of supersonic fighter aircraft. Around the same time, the Indian government was in the process of formulating a new Air Staff Requirement for a Mach 2-capable combat aircraft to equip the Indian Air Force (IAF). However, as HAL lacked the necessary experience in both developing and manufacturing frontline combat fighters, it was clear that external guidance would be invaluable; this assistance was embodied by Kurt Tank.

 

In 1956, HAL formally began design work on the supersonic fighter project. The Indian government, led by Jawaharlal Nehru, authorized the development of the aircraft, stating that it would aid in the development of a modern aircraft industry in India. The first phase of the project sought to develop an airframe suitable for travelling at supersonic speeds, and able to effectively perform combat missions as a fighter aircraft, while the second phase sought to domestically design and produce an engine capable of propelling the aircraft. Early on, there was an explicit adherence to satisfying the IAF's requirements for a capable fighter bomber; attributes such as a twin-engine configuration and a speed of Mach 1.4 to 1.5 were quickly emphasized, and this led to the HF-24 Marut.

 

On 24 June 1961, the first prototype Marut conducted its maiden flight. It was powered by the same Bristol Siddeley Orpheus 703 turbojets that had powered the Folland Gnat, also being manufactured by HAL at that time. On 1 April 1967, the first production Marut was delivered to the IAF. While originally intended only as an interim measure during testing, HAL decided to power production Maruts with a pair of unreheated Orpheus 703s, meaning the aircraft could not attain supersonic speed. Although originally conceived to operate around Mach 2 the Marut in fact was barely capable of reaching Mach 1 due to the lack of suitably powerful engines.

 

The IAF were reluctant to procure a fighter aircraft only marginally superior to its existing fleet of British-built Hawker Hunters. However, in 1961, the Indian Government decided to procure the Marut, nevertheless, but only 147 aircraft, including 18 two-seat trainers, were completed out of a planned 214. Just after the decision to build the lukewarm Marut, the development of a more advanced aircraft with the desired supersonic performance was initiated.

 

This enterprise started star-crossed, though: after the Indian Government conducted its first nuclear tests at Pokhran, international pressure prevented the import of better engines of Western origin, or at times, even spares for the Orpheus engines, so that the Marut never realized its full potential due to insufficient power, and it was relatively obsolescent by the time it reached production.

Due to these restrictions India looked for other sources for supersonic aircraft and eventually settled upon the MiG-21 F-13 from the Soviet Union, which entered service in 1964. While fast and agile, the Fishbed was only a short-range daylight interceptor. It lacked proper range for escort missions and air space patrols, and it had no radar that enabled it to conduct all-weather interceptions. To fill this operational gap, the new indigenous HF-26 project was launched around the same time.

 

For the nascent Indian aircraft industry, HF-26 had a demanding requirements specification: the aircraft was to achieve Mach 2 top speed at high altitude and carry a radar with a guided missile armament that allowed interceptions in any weather, day and night. The powerplant question was left open, but it was clear from the start that a Soviet engine would be needed, since an indigenous development of a suitable powerplant would take much too long and block vital resources, and western alternatives were out of reach. The mission profile and the performance requirements quickly defined the planned aircraft’s layout: To fit a radar, the air intakes with movable ramps to feed the engines were placed on the fuselage flanks. To make sure the aircraft would fulfill its high-performance demands, it was right from the outset powered by two engines, and it was decided to give it delta wings, a popular design among high-speed aircraft of the time – exemplified by the highly successful Dassault Mirage III (which was to be delivered to Pakistan in 1967). With two engines, the HF-26 would be a heavier aircraft than the Mirage III, though, and it was planned to operate the aircraft from semi-prepared airfields, so that it would receive a robust landing gear with low-pressure tires and a brake parachute.

 

In 1962 India was able to negotiate the delivery of Tumansky RD-9 turbojet engines from the Soviet Union, even though no afterburner was part of the deal – this had to be indigenously developed by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). However, this meant that the afterburner could be tailored to the HF-26, and this task would provide HAL with valuable engineering experience, too.

Now knowing the powerplant, HAL created a single-seater airframe around it, a rather robust design that superficially reminded of the French Mirage III, but there were fundamental differences. The HF-26 had boxy air intakes with movable ramps to control the airflow to the two engines and a relatively wide fuselage to hold them and most of the fuel in tanks between the air ducts behind the cockpit. The aircraft had a single swept fin and a rather small mid-positioned delta-wing with a 60° sweep. The pilot sat under a tight canopy that offered - similar to the Mirage III - only limited all-round vision.

The HF-26's conical nose radome covered an antenna for a ‘Garud’ interception radar – which was in fact a downgraded Soviet ‘Oryol' (Eagle; NATO reporting name 'Skip Spin') system that guided the HF-26’s main armament, a pair of semi-active radar homing (SARH) ‚Saanp’ missiles.

 

The Saanp missile was developed specifically for the HF-26 in India but used many components of Soviet origin, too, so that they were compatible with the radar. In performance, the Saanp was comparable with the French Matra R.530 air-to-air missile, even though the aerodynamic layout was reversed, with steering fins at the front end, right behind the SARH seaker head - overall the missile reminded of an enlarged AIM-4 Falcon. The missile weighed 180 kg and had a length of 3.5 m. Power came from a two-stage solid rocket that offered a maximum thrust of 80 kN for 2.7 s during the launch phase plus 6.5 s cruise. Maximum speed was Mach 2.7 and operational range was 1.5 to 20 km (0.9 to 12.5 miles). Two of these missiles could be carried on the main wing hardpoints in front of the landing gear wells. Alternatively, infrared-guided R-3 (AA-2 ‘Atoll’) short-range AAMs could be carried by the HF-26, too, and typically two of these were carried on the outer underwing hardpoints, which were plumbed to accept drop tanks (typically supersonic PTB-490s that were carried by the IAF's MiG-21s, too) . Initially, no internal gun was envisioned, as the HF-26 was supposed to be a pure high-speed/high-altitude interceptor that would not engage in dogfights. Two more hardpoints under the fuselage were plumbed, too, for a total of six external stations.

 

Due to its wing planform, the HF-26 was soon aptly called “Teer” (= Arrow), and with Soviet help the first prototype was rolled out in early 1964 and presented to the public. The first flight, however, would take place almost a year later in January 1965, due to many technical problems, and these were soon complemented by aerodynamic problems. The original delta-winged HF-26 had poor take-off and landing characteristics, and directional stability was weak, too. While a second prototype was under construction in April 1965 the first aircraft was lost after it had entered a spin from which the pilot could not escape – the aircraft crashed and its pilot was killed during the attempt to eject.

 

After this loss HAL investigated an enlarged fin and a modified wing design with deeper wingtips with lower sweep, which increased wing area and improved low speed handling, too. Furthermore, the fuselage shape had to be modified, too, to reduce supersonic drag, and a more pronounced area ruling was introduced. The indigenous afterburner for the RD-9 engines was unstable and troublesome, too.

It took until 1968 and three more flying prototypes (plus two static airframes) to refine the Teer for serial production service introduction. In this highly modified form, the aircraft was re-designated HF-26M and the first machines were delivered to IAF No. 3 Squadron in late 1969. However, it would take several months until a fully operational status could be achieved. By that time, it was already clear that the Teer, much like the HF-24 Marut before, could not live up to its expectations and was at the brink of becoming obsolete as it entered service. The RD-9 was not a modern engine anymore, and despite its indigenous afterburner – which turned out not only to be chronically unreliable but also to be very thirsty when engaged – the Teer had a disappointing performance: The fighter only achieved a top speed of Mach 1.6 at full power, and with full external load it hardly broke the wall of sound in level flight. Its main armament, the Saanp AAM, also turned out to be unreliable even under ideal conditions.

 

However, the HF-26M came just in time to take part in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and was, despite its weaknesses, extensively used – even though not necessarily in its intended role. High-flying slow bombers were not fielded during the conflict, and the Teer remained, despite its on-board radar, heavily dependent on ground control interception (GCI) to vector its pilot onto targets coming in at medium and even low altitude. The HF-26M had no capability against low-flying aircraft either, so that pilots had to engage incoming, low-flying enemy aircraft after visual identification – a task the IAF’s nimble MiG-21s were much better suited for. Escorts and air cover missions for fighter-bombers were flown, too, but the HF-26M’s limited range only made it a suitable companion for the equally short-legged Su-7s. The IAF Canberras were frequently deployed on longer range missions, but the HF-26Ms simply could not follow them all the time; for a sufficient range the Teer had to carry four drop tanks, what increased drag and only left the outer pair of underwing hardpoints (which were not plumbed) free for a pair of AA-2 missiles. With the imminent danger of aerial close range combat, though, During the conflict with Pakistan, most HF-26M's were retrofitted with rear-view mirrors in their canopies to improve the pilot's field of view, and a passive IR sensor was added in a small fairing under the nose to improve the aircraft's all-weather capabilities and avoid active radar emissions that would warn potential prey too early.

 

The lack of an internal gun turned out to be another great weakness of the Teer, and this was only lightly mended through the use of external gun pods. Two of these cigar-shaped pods that resembled the Soviet UPK-23 pod could be carried on the two ventral pylons, and each contained a 23 mm Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-23L autocannon of Soviet origin with 200 rounds. Technically these pods were very similar to the conformal GP-9 pods carried by the IAF MiG-21FLs. While the gun pods considerably improved the HF-26M’s firepower and versatility, the pods were draggy, blocked valuable hardpoints (from extra fuel) and their recoil tended to damage the pylons as well as the underlying aircraft structure, so that they were only commissioned to be used in an emergency.

 

However, beyond air-to-air weapons, the HF-26M could also carry ordnance of up to 1.000 kg (2.207 lb) on the ventral and inner wing hardpoints and up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) on the other pair of wing hardpoints, including iron bombs and/or unguided missile pods. However, the limited field of view from the cockpit over the radome as well as the relatively high wing loading did not recommend the aircraft for ground attack missions – even though these frequently happened during the conflict with Pakistan. For these tactical missions, many HF-26Ms lost their original overall natural metal finish and instead received camouflage paint schemes on squadron level, resulting in individual and sometimes even spectacular liveries. Most notable examples were the Teer fighters of No. 1 Squadron (The Tigers), which sported various camouflage adaptations of the unit’s eponym.

 

Despite its many deficiencies, the HF-26M became heavily involved in the Indo-Pakistan conflict. As the Indian Army tightened its grip in East Pakistan, the Indian Air Force continued with its attacks against Pakistan as the campaign developed into a series of daylight anti-airfield, anti-radar, and close-support attacks by fighter jets, with night attacks against airfields and strategic targets by Canberras and An-12s, while Pakistan responded with similar night attacks with its B-57s and C-130s.

The PAF deployed its F-6s mainly on defensive combat air patrol missions over their own bases, leaving the PAF unable to conduct effective offensive operations.  Sporadic raids by the IAF continued against PAF forward air bases in Pakistan until the end of the war, and interdiction and close-support operations were maintained. One of the most successful air raids by India into West Pakistan happened on 8 December 1971, when Indian Hunter aircraft from the Pathankot-based 20 Squadron, attacked the Pakistani base in Murid and destroyed 5 F-86 aircraft on the ground.

The PAF played a more limited role in the operations, even though they were reinforced by Mirages from an unidentified Middle Eastern ally (whose identity remains unknown). The IAF was able to conduct a wide range of missions – troop support; air combat; deep penetration strikes; para-dropping behind enemy lines; feints to draw enemy fighters away from the actual target; bombing and reconnaissance. India flew 1,978 sorties in the East and about 4,000 in Pakistan, while the PAF flew about 30 and 2,840 at the respective fronts.  More than 80 percent of IAF sorties were close-support and interdiction and about 45 IAF aircraft were lost, including three HF-26Ms. Pakistan lost 60 to 75 aircraft, not including any F-86s, Mirage IIIs, or the six Jordanian F-104s which failed to return to their donors. The imbalance in air losses was explained by the IAF's considerably higher sortie rate and its emphasis on ground-attack missions. The PAF, which was solely focused on air combat, was reluctant to oppose these massive attacks and rather took refuge at Iranian air bases or in concrete bunkers, refusing to offer fights and respective losses.

 

After the war, the HF-26M was officially regarded as outdated, and as license production of the improved MiG-21FL (designated HAL Type 77 and nicknamed “Trishul” = Trident) and later of the MiG-21M (HAL Type 88) was organized in India, the aircraft were quickly retired from frontline units. They kept on serving into the Eighties, though, but now restricted to their original interceptor role. Beyond the upgrades from the Indo-Pakistani War, only a few upgrades were made. For instance, the new R-60 AAM was introduced to the HF-26M and around 1978 small (but fixed) canards were retrofitted to the air intakes behind the cockpit that improved the Teer’s poor slow speed control and high landing speed as well as the aircraft’s overall maneuverability.

A radar upgrade, together with the introduction of better air-to-ai missiles with a higher range and look down/shoot down capability was considered but never carried out. Furthermore, the idea of a true HF-26 2nd generation variant, powered by a pair of Tumansky R-11F-300 afterburner jet engines (from the license-built MiG-21FLs), was dropped, too – even though this powerplant eventually promised to fulfill the Teer’s design promise of Mach 2 top speed. A total of only 82 HF-26s (including thirteen two-seat trainers with a lengthened fuselage and reduced fuel capacity, plus eight prototypes) were built. The last aircraft were retired from IAF service in 1988 and replaced with Mirage 2000 fighters procured from France that were armed with the Matra Super 530 AAM.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 14.97 m (49 ft ½ in)

Wingspan: 9.43 m (30 ft 11 in)

Height: 4.03 m (13 ft 2½ in)

Wing area: 30.6 m² (285 sq ft)

Empty weight: 7,000 kg (15,432 lb)

Gross weight: 10,954 kg (24,149 lb) with full internal fuel

Max takeoff weight: 15,700 kg (34,613 lb) with external stores

 

Powerplant:

2× Tumansky RD-9 afterburning turbojet engines; 29 kN (6,600 lbf) dry thrust each

and 36.78 kN (8,270 lbf) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 1,700 km/h (1,056 mph; 917 kn; Mach 1.6) at 11,000 m (36,000 ft)

1,350 km/h (840 mph, 730 kn; Mach 1.1) at sea level

Combat range: 725 km (450 mi, 391 nmi) with internal fuel only

Ferry range: 1,700 km (1,100 mi, 920 nmi) with four drop tanks

Service ceiling: 18,100 m (59,400 ft)

g limits: +6.5

Time to altitude: 9,145 m (30,003 ft) in 1 minute 30 seconds

Wing loading: 555 kg/m² (114 lb/sq ft)

 

Armament

6× hardpoints (four underwing and two under the fuselage) for a total of 2.500 kg (5.500 lb);

Typical interceptor payload:

- two IR-guided R-3 or R-60 air-to-air-missiles or

two PTB-490 drop tanks on the outer underwing stations

- two semi-active radar-guided ‚Saanp’ air-to-air missiles or two more R-3 or R-60 AAMs

on inner underwing stations

- two 500 l drop tanks or two gun pods with a 23 mm GSh-23L autocannon and 200 RPG

each under the fuselage

  

The kit and its assembly:

This whiffy delta-wing fighter was inspired when I recently sliced up a PM Model Su-15 kit for my side-by-side-engine BAC Lightning build. At an early stage of the conversion, I held the Su-15 fuselage with its molded delta wings in my hand and wondered if a shortened tail section (as well as a shorter overall fuselage to keep proportions balanced) could make a delta-wing jet fighter from the Flagon base? Only a hardware experiment could yield an answer, and since the Su-15’s overall outlines look a bit retro I settled at an early stage on India as potential designer and operator, as “the thing the HF-24 Marut never was”.

 

True to the initial idea, work started on the tail, and I chopped off the fuselage behind the wings’ trailing edge. Some PSR was necessary to blend the separate exhaust section into the fuselage, which had to be reduced in depth through wedges that I cut out under the wings trailing edge, plus some good amount of glue and sheer force the bend the section a bit upwards. The PM Model's jet exhausts were drilled open, and I added afterburner dummies inside - anything would look better than the bleak vertical walls inside after only 2-3 mm! The original fin was omitted, because it was a bit too large for the new, smaller aircraft and its shape reminded a lot of the Suchoj heavy fighter family. It was replaced with a Mirage III/V fin, left over from a (crappy!) Pioneer 2 IAI Nesher kit.

 

Once the rear section was complete, I had to adjust the front end - and here the kitbashing started. First, I chopped off the cockpit section in front of the molded air intake - the Su-15’s long radome and the cockpit on top of the fuselage did not work anymore. As a remedy I remembered another Su-15 conversion I did a (long) while ago: I created a model of a planned ground attack derivative, the T-58Sh, and, as a part of the extensive body work, I transplanted the slanted nose from an academy MiG-27 between the air intakes – a stunt that was relatively easy and which appreciably lowered the cockpit position. For the HF-26M I did something similar, I just transplanted a cockpit from a Hasegawa/Academy MiG-23 with its ogival radome that size-wise better matched with the rest of the leftover Su-15 airframe.

 

The MiG-23 cockpit matched perfectly with the Su-15's front end, just the spinal area behind the cockpit had to be raised/re-sculpted to blend the parts smoothly together. For a different look from the Su-15 ancestry I also transplanted the front sections of the MiG-23 air intakes with their shorter ramps. Some mods had to be made to the Su-15 intake stubs, but the MiG-23 intakes were an almost perfect fit in size and shape and easy to integrate into the modified front hill. The result looks very natural!

However, when the fuselage was complete, I found that the nose appeared to be a bit too long, leaving the whole new hull with the wings somewhat off balance. As a remedy I decided at a rather late stage to shorten the nose and took out a 6 mm section in front of the cockpit - a stunt I had not planned, but sometimes you can judge things only after certain work stages. Some serious PSR was necessary to re-adjust the conical nose shape, which now looked more Mirage III-ish than planned!

 

The cockpit was taken mostly OOB, I just replaced the ejection seat and gave it a trigger handle made from thin wire. With the basic airframe complete it was time for details. The PM Model Su-15s massive and rather crude main landing gear was replaced with something more delicate from the scrap box, even though I retained the main wheels. The front landing gear was taken wholesale from the MiG-23, but had to be shortened for a proper stance.

A display holder adapter was integrated into the belly for the flight scenes, hidden well between the ventral ordnance.

 

The hardpoints, including missile launch rails, came from the MiG-23; the pylons had to be adjusted to match the Su-15's wing profile shape, the Anab missiles lost their tail sections to create the fictional Indian 'Saanp' AAMs. The R-3s on the outer stations were left over from a MP MiG-21. The ventral pylons belong to Academy MiG-23/27s, one came from the donor kit, the other was found in the spares box. The PTB-490 drop tanks also came from a KP MiG-21 (or one of its many reincarnations, not certain).

  

Painting and markings:

The paint scheme for this fictional aircraft was largely inspired by a picture of a whiffy and very attractive Saab 37 Viggen (an 1:72 Airfix kit) in IAF colors, apparently a model from a contest. BTW, India actually considered buying the Viggen for its Air Force!

IAF aircraft were and are known for their exotic and sometimes gawdy paint schemes, and with IAF MiG-21 “C 992” there’s even a very popular (yet obscure) aircraft that sported literal tiger stripes. The IAF Viggen model was surely inspired by this real aircraft, and I adopted something similar for my HF-26M.

 

IAF 1 Squadron was therefore settled, and for the paint scheme I opted for a "stripish" scheme, but not as "tigeresque" as "C 992". I found a suitable benchmark in a recent Libyian MiG-21, which carried a very disruptive two-tone grey scheme. I adapted this pattern to the HA-26M airframe and replaced its colors, similar to the IAF Viggen model, which became a greenish sand tone (a mix of Humbrol 121 with some 159; I later found out that I could have used Humbrol 83 from the beginning, though...) and a very dark olive drab (Humbrol 66, which looks like a dull dark brown in contrast with the sand tone), with bluish grey (Humbrol 247) undersides. With the large delta wings, this turned out to look very good and even effective!

 

For that special "Indian touch" I gave the aircraft a high-contrast fin in a design that I had seen on a real camouflaged IAF MiG-21bis: an overall dark green base with a broad, red vertical stripe which was also the shield for the fin flash and the aircraft's tactical code (on the original bare metal). The fin was first painted in green (Humbrol 2), the red stripe was created with orange-red decal sheet material. Similar material was also used to create the bare metal field for the tactical code, the yellow bars on the splitter plates and for the thin white canopy sealing.

 

After basic painting was done the model received an overall black ink washing, post-panel shading and extensive dry-brushing with aluminum and iron for a rather worn look.

The missiles became classic white, while the drop tanks, as a contrast to the camouflaged belly, were left in bare metal.

 

Decals/markings came primarily from a Begemot MiG-25 kit, the tactical codes on the fin and under the wings originally belong to an RAF post-WWII Spitfire, just the first serial letter was omitted. Stencils are few and they came from various sources. A compromise is the unit badge on the fin: I needed a tiger motif, and the only suitable option I found was the tiger head emblem on a white disc from RAF No. 74 Squadron, from the Matchbox BAC Lightning F.6&F.2A kit. It fits stylistically well, though. ;-)

 

Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (except for the black radome, which became a bit glossy) and finally assembled.

  

A spontaneous build, and the last one that I completed in 2022. However, despite a vague design plan the model evolved as it grew. Bashing the primitive PM Model Su-15 with the Academy MiG-23 parts was easier than expected, though, and the resulting fictional aircraft looks sturdy but quite believable - even though it appears to me like the unexpected child of a Mirage III/F-4 Phantom II intercourse, or like a juvenile CF-105 Arrow, just with mid-wings? Nevertheless, the disruptive paint scheme suits the delta wing fighter well, and the green/red fin is a striking contrast - it's a colorful model, but not garish.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some Background:

During the 1950s, Hindustan Aircraft Limited (HAL) had developed and produced several types of trainer aircraft, such as the HAL HT-2. However, elements within the firm were eager to expand into the then-new realm of supersonic fighter aircraft. Around the same time, the Indian government was in the process of formulating a new Air Staff Requirement for a Mach 2-capable combat aircraft to equip the Indian Air Force (IAF). However, as HAL lacked the necessary experience in both developing and manufacturing frontline combat fighters, it was clear that external guidance would be invaluable; this assistance was embodied by Kurt Tank.

 

In 1956, HAL formally began design work on the supersonic fighter project. The Indian government, led by Jawaharlal Nehru, authorized the development of the aircraft, stating that it would aid in the development of a modern aircraft industry in India. The first phase of the project sought to develop an airframe suitable for travelling at supersonic speeds, and able to effectively perform combat missions as a fighter aircraft, while the second phase sought to domestically design and produce an engine capable of propelling the aircraft. Early on, there was an explicit adherence to satisfying the IAF's requirements for a capable fighter bomber; attributes such as a twin-engine configuration and a speed of Mach 1.4 to 1.5 were quickly emphasized, and this led to the HF-24 Marut.

 

On 24 June 1961, the first prototype Marut conducted its maiden flight. It was powered by the same Bristol Siddeley Orpheus 703 turbojets that had powered the Folland Gnat, also being manufactured by HAL at that time. On 1 April 1967, the first production Marut was delivered to the IAF. While originally intended only as an interim measure during testing, HAL decided to power production Maruts with a pair of unreheated Orpheus 703s, meaning the aircraft could not attain supersonic speed. Although originally conceived to operate around Mach 2 the Marut in fact was barely capable of reaching Mach 1 due to the lack of suitably powerful engines.

 

The IAF were reluctant to procure a fighter aircraft only marginally superior to its existing fleet of British-built Hawker Hunters. However, in 1961, the Indian Government decided to procure the Marut, nevertheless, but only 147 aircraft, including 18 two-seat trainers, were completed out of a planned 214. Just after the decision to build the lukewarm Marut, the development of a more advanced aircraft with the desired supersonic performance was initiated.

 

This enterprise started star-crossed, though: after the Indian Government conducted its first nuclear tests at Pokhran, international pressure prevented the import of better engines of Western origin, or at times, even spares for the Orpheus engines, so that the Marut never realized its full potential due to insufficient power, and it was relatively obsolescent by the time it reached production.

Due to these restrictions India looked for other sources for supersonic aircraft and eventually settled upon the MiG-21 F-13 from the Soviet Union, which entered service in 1964. While fast and agile, the Fishbed was only a short-range daylight interceptor. It lacked proper range for escort missions and air space patrols, and it had no radar that enabled it to conduct all-weather interceptions. To fill this operational gap, the new indigenous HF-26 project was launched around the same time.

 

For the nascent Indian aircraft industry, HF-26 had a demanding requirements specification: the aircraft was to achieve Mach 2 top speed at high altitude and carry a radar with a guided missile armament that allowed interceptions in any weather, day and night. The powerplant question was left open, but it was clear from the start that a Soviet engine would be needed, since an indigenous development of a suitable powerplant would take much too long and block vital resources, and western alternatives were out of reach. The mission profile and the performance requirements quickly defined the planned aircraft’s layout: To fit a radar, the air intakes with movable ramps to feed the engines were placed on the fuselage flanks. To make sure the aircraft would fulfill its high-performance demands, it was right from the outset powered by two engines, and it was decided to give it delta wings, a popular design among high-speed aircraft of the time – exemplified by the highly successful Dassault Mirage III (which was to be delivered to Pakistan in 1967). With two engines, the HF-26 would be a heavier aircraft than the Mirage III, though, and it was planned to operate the aircraft from semi-prepared airfields, so that it would receive a robust landing gear with low-pressure tires and a brake parachute.

 

In 1962 India was able to negotiate the delivery of Tumansky RD-9 turbojet engines from the Soviet Union, even though no afterburner was part of the deal – this had to be indigenously developed by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). However, this meant that the afterburner could be tailored to the HF-26, and this task would provide HAL with valuable engineering experience, too.

Now knowing the powerplant, HAL created a single-seater airframe around it, a rather robust design that superficially reminded of the French Mirage III, but there were fundamental differences. The HF-26 had boxy air intakes with movable ramps to control the airflow to the two engines and a relatively wide fuselage to hold them and most of the fuel in tanks between the air ducts behind the cockpit. The aircraft had a single swept fin and a rather small mid-positioned delta-wing with a 60° sweep. The pilot sat under a tight canopy that offered - similar to the Mirage III - only limited all-round vision.

The HF-26's conical nose radome covered an antenna for a ‘Garud’ interception radar – which was in fact a downgraded Soviet ‘Oryol' (Eagle; NATO reporting name 'Skip Spin') system that guided the HF-26’s main armament, a pair of semi-active radar homing (SARH) ‚Saanp’ missiles.

 

The Saanp missile was developed specifically for the HF-26 in India but used many components of Soviet origin, too, so that they were compatible with the radar. In performance, the Saanp was comparable with the French Matra R.530 air-to-air missile, even though the aerodynamic layout was reversed, with steering fins at the front end, right behind the SARH seaker head - overall the missile reminded of an enlarged AIM-4 Falcon. The missile weighed 180 kg and had a length of 3.5 m. Power came from a two-stage solid rocket that offered a maximum thrust of 80 kN for 2.7 s during the launch phase plus 6.5 s cruise. Maximum speed was Mach 2.7 and operational range was 1.5 to 20 km (0.9 to 12.5 miles). Two of these missiles could be carried on the main wing hardpoints in front of the landing gear wells. Alternatively, infrared-guided R-3 (AA-2 ‘Atoll’) short-range AAMs could be carried by the HF-26, too, and typically two of these were carried on the outer underwing hardpoints, which were plumbed to accept drop tanks (typically supersonic PTB-490s that were carried by the IAF's MiG-21s, too) . Initially, no internal gun was envisioned, as the HF-26 was supposed to be a pure high-speed/high-altitude interceptor that would not engage in dogfights. Two more hardpoints under the fuselage were plumbed, too, for a total of six external stations.

 

Due to its wing planform, the HF-26 was soon aptly called “Teer” (= Arrow), and with Soviet help the first prototype was rolled out in early 1964 and presented to the public. The first flight, however, would take place almost a year later in January 1965, due to many technical problems, and these were soon complemented by aerodynamic problems. The original delta-winged HF-26 had poor take-off and landing characteristics, and directional stability was weak, too. While a second prototype was under construction in April 1965 the first aircraft was lost after it had entered a spin from which the pilot could not escape – the aircraft crashed and its pilot was killed during the attempt to eject.

 

After this loss HAL investigated an enlarged fin and a modified wing design with deeper wingtips with lower sweep, which increased wing area and improved low speed handling, too. Furthermore, the fuselage shape had to be modified, too, to reduce supersonic drag, and a more pronounced area ruling was introduced. The indigenous afterburner for the RD-9 engines was unstable and troublesome, too.

It took until 1968 and three more flying prototypes (plus two static airframes) to refine the Teer for serial production service introduction. In this highly modified form, the aircraft was re-designated HF-26M and the first machines were delivered to IAF No. 3 Squadron in late 1969. However, it would take several months until a fully operational status could be achieved. By that time, it was already clear that the Teer, much like the HF-24 Marut before, could not live up to its expectations and was at the brink of becoming obsolete as it entered service. The RD-9 was not a modern engine anymore, and despite its indigenous afterburner – which turned out not only to be chronically unreliable but also to be very thirsty when engaged – the Teer had a disappointing performance: The fighter only achieved a top speed of Mach 1.6 at full power, and with full external load it hardly broke the wall of sound in level flight. Its main armament, the Saanp AAM, also turned out to be unreliable even under ideal conditions.

 

However, the HF-26M came just in time to take part in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and was, despite its weaknesses, extensively used – even though not necessarily in its intended role. High-flying slow bombers were not fielded during the conflict, and the Teer remained, despite its on-board radar, heavily dependent on ground control interception (GCI) to vector its pilot onto targets coming in at medium and even low altitude. The HF-26M had no capability against low-flying aircraft either, so that pilots had to engage incoming, low-flying enemy aircraft after visual identification – a task the IAF’s nimble MiG-21s were much better suited for. Escorts and air cover missions for fighter-bombers were flown, too, but the HF-26M’s limited range only made it a suitable companion for the equally short-legged Su-7s. The IAF Canberras were frequently deployed on longer range missions, but the HF-26Ms simply could not follow them all the time; for a sufficient range the Teer had to carry four drop tanks, what increased drag and only left the outer pair of underwing hardpoints (which were not plumbed) free for a pair of AA-2 missiles. With the imminent danger of aerial close range combat, though, During the conflict with Pakistan, most HF-26M's were retrofitted with rear-view mirrors in their canopies to improve the pilot's field of view, and a passive IR sensor was added in a small fairing under the nose to improve the aircraft's all-weather capabilities and avoid active radar emissions that would warn potential prey too early.

 

The lack of an internal gun turned out to be another great weakness of the Teer, and this was only lightly mended through the use of external gun pods. Two of these cigar-shaped pods that resembled the Soviet UPK-23 pod could be carried on the two ventral pylons, and each contained a 23 mm Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-23L autocannon of Soviet origin with 200 rounds. Technically these pods were very similar to the conformal GP-9 pods carried by the IAF MiG-21FLs. While the gun pods considerably improved the HF-26M’s firepower and versatility, the pods were draggy, blocked valuable hardpoints (from extra fuel) and their recoil tended to damage the pylons as well as the underlying aircraft structure, so that they were only commissioned to be used in an emergency.

 

However, beyond air-to-air weapons, the HF-26M could also carry ordnance of up to 1.000 kg (2.207 lb) on the ventral and inner wing hardpoints and up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) on the other pair of wing hardpoints, including iron bombs and/or unguided missile pods. However, the limited field of view from the cockpit over the radome as well as the relatively high wing loading did not recommend the aircraft for ground attack missions – even though these frequently happened during the conflict with Pakistan. For these tactical missions, many HF-26Ms lost their original overall natural metal finish and instead received camouflage paint schemes on squadron level, resulting in individual and sometimes even spectacular liveries. Most notable examples were the Teer fighters of No. 1 Squadron (The Tigers), which sported various camouflage adaptations of the unit’s eponym.

 

Despite its many deficiencies, the HF-26M became heavily involved in the Indo-Pakistan conflict. As the Indian Army tightened its grip in East Pakistan, the Indian Air Force continued with its attacks against Pakistan as the campaign developed into a series of daylight anti-airfield, anti-radar, and close-support attacks by fighter jets, with night attacks against airfields and strategic targets by Canberras and An-12s, while Pakistan responded with similar night attacks with its B-57s and C-130s.

The PAF deployed its F-6s mainly on defensive combat air patrol missions over their own bases, leaving the PAF unable to conduct effective offensive operations.  Sporadic raids by the IAF continued against PAF forward air bases in Pakistan until the end of the war, and interdiction and close-support operations were maintained. One of the most successful air raids by India into West Pakistan happened on 8 December 1971, when Indian Hunter aircraft from the Pathankot-based 20 Squadron, attacked the Pakistani base in Murid and destroyed 5 F-86 aircraft on the ground.

The PAF played a more limited role in the operations, even though they were reinforced by Mirages from an unidentified Middle Eastern ally (whose identity remains unknown). The IAF was able to conduct a wide range of missions – troop support; air combat; deep penetration strikes; para-dropping behind enemy lines; feints to draw enemy fighters away from the actual target; bombing and reconnaissance. India flew 1,978 sorties in the East and about 4,000 in Pakistan, while the PAF flew about 30 and 2,840 at the respective fronts.  More than 80 percent of IAF sorties were close-support and interdiction and about 45 IAF aircraft were lost, including three HF-26Ms. Pakistan lost 60 to 75 aircraft, not including any F-86s, Mirage IIIs, or the six Jordanian F-104s which failed to return to their donors. The imbalance in air losses was explained by the IAF's considerably higher sortie rate and its emphasis on ground-attack missions. The PAF, which was solely focused on air combat, was reluctant to oppose these massive attacks and rather took refuge at Iranian air bases or in concrete bunkers, refusing to offer fights and respective losses.

 

After the war, the HF-26M was officially regarded as outdated, and as license production of the improved MiG-21FL (designated HAL Type 77 and nicknamed “Trishul” = Trident) and later of the MiG-21M (HAL Type 88) was organized in India, the aircraft were quickly retired from frontline units. They kept on serving into the Eighties, though, but now restricted to their original interceptor role. Beyond the upgrades from the Indo-Pakistani War, only a few upgrades were made. For instance, the new R-60 AAM was introduced to the HF-26M and around 1978 small (but fixed) canards were retrofitted to the air intakes behind the cockpit that improved the Teer’s poor slow speed control and high landing speed as well as the aircraft’s overall maneuverability.

A radar upgrade, together with the introduction of better air-to-ai missiles with a higher range and look down/shoot down capability was considered but never carried out. Furthermore, the idea of a true HF-26 2nd generation variant, powered by a pair of Tumansky R-11F-300 afterburner jet engines (from the license-built MiG-21FLs), was dropped, too – even though this powerplant eventually promised to fulfill the Teer’s design promise of Mach 2 top speed. A total of only 82 HF-26s (including thirteen two-seat trainers with a lengthened fuselage and reduced fuel capacity, plus eight prototypes) were built. The last aircraft were retired from IAF service in 1988 and replaced with Mirage 2000 fighters procured from France that were armed with the Matra Super 530 AAM.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 14.97 m (49 ft ½ in)

Wingspan: 9.43 m (30 ft 11 in)

Height: 4.03 m (13 ft 2½ in)

Wing area: 30.6 m² (285 sq ft)

Empty weight: 7,000 kg (15,432 lb)

Gross weight: 10,954 kg (24,149 lb) with full internal fuel

Max takeoff weight: 15,700 kg (34,613 lb) with external stores

 

Powerplant:

2× Tumansky RD-9 afterburning turbojet engines; 29 kN (6,600 lbf) dry thrust each

and 36.78 kN (8,270 lbf) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 1,700 km/h (1,056 mph; 917 kn; Mach 1.6) at 11,000 m (36,000 ft)

1,350 km/h (840 mph, 730 kn; Mach 1.1) at sea level

Combat range: 725 km (450 mi, 391 nmi) with internal fuel only

Ferry range: 1,700 km (1,100 mi, 920 nmi) with four drop tanks

Service ceiling: 18,100 m (59,400 ft)

g limits: +6.5

Time to altitude: 9,145 m (30,003 ft) in 1 minute 30 seconds

Wing loading: 555 kg/m² (114 lb/sq ft)

 

Armament

6× hardpoints (four underwing and two under the fuselage) for a total of 2.500 kg (5.500 lb);

Typical interceptor payload:

- two IR-guided R-3 or R-60 air-to-air-missiles or

two PTB-490 drop tanks on the outer underwing stations

- two semi-active radar-guided ‚Saanp’ air-to-air missiles or two more R-3 or R-60 AAMs

on inner underwing stations

- two 500 l drop tanks or two gun pods with a 23 mm GSh-23L autocannon and 200 RPG

each under the fuselage

  

The kit and its assembly:

This whiffy delta-wing fighter was inspired when I recently sliced up a PM Model Su-15 kit for my side-by-side-engine BAC Lightning build. At an early stage of the conversion, I held the Su-15 fuselage with its molded delta wings in my hand and wondered if a shortened tail section (as well as a shorter overall fuselage to keep proportions balanced) could make a delta-wing jet fighter from the Flagon base? Only a hardware experiment could yield an answer, and since the Su-15’s overall outlines look a bit retro I settled at an early stage on India as potential designer and operator, as “the thing the HF-24 Marut never was”.

 

True to the initial idea, work started on the tail, and I chopped off the fuselage behind the wings’ trailing edge. Some PSR was necessary to blend the separate exhaust section into the fuselage, which had to be reduced in depth through wedges that I cut out under the wings trailing edge, plus some good amount of glue and sheer force the bend the section a bit upwards. The PM Model's jet exhausts were drilled open, and I added afterburner dummies inside - anything would look better than the bleak vertical walls inside after only 2-3 mm! The original fin was omitted, because it was a bit too large for the new, smaller aircraft and its shape reminded a lot of the Suchoj heavy fighter family. It was replaced with a Mirage III/V fin, left over from a (crappy!) Pioneer 2 IAI Nesher kit.

 

Once the rear section was complete, I had to adjust the front end - and here the kitbashing started. First, I chopped off the cockpit section in front of the molded air intake - the Su-15’s long radome and the cockpit on top of the fuselage did not work anymore. As a remedy I remembered another Su-15 conversion I did a (long) while ago: I created a model of a planned ground attack derivative, the T-58Sh, and, as a part of the extensive body work, I transplanted the slanted nose from an academy MiG-27 between the air intakes – a stunt that was relatively easy and which appreciably lowered the cockpit position. For the HF-26M I did something similar, I just transplanted a cockpit from a Hasegawa/Academy MiG-23 with its ogival radome that size-wise better matched with the rest of the leftover Su-15 airframe.

 

The MiG-23 cockpit matched perfectly with the Su-15's front end, just the spinal area behind the cockpit had to be raised/re-sculpted to blend the parts smoothly together. For a different look from the Su-15 ancestry I also transplanted the front sections of the MiG-23 air intakes with their shorter ramps. Some mods had to be made to the Su-15 intake stubs, but the MiG-23 intakes were an almost perfect fit in size and shape and easy to integrate into the modified front hill. The result looks very natural!

However, when the fuselage was complete, I found that the nose appeared to be a bit too long, leaving the whole new hull with the wings somewhat off balance. As a remedy I decided at a rather late stage to shorten the nose and took out a 6 mm section in front of the cockpit - a stunt I had not planned, but sometimes you can judge things only after certain work stages. Some serious PSR was necessary to re-adjust the conical nose shape, which now looked more Mirage III-ish than planned!

 

The cockpit was taken mostly OOB, I just replaced the ejection seat and gave it a trigger handle made from thin wire. With the basic airframe complete it was time for details. The PM Model Su-15s massive and rather crude main landing gear was replaced with something more delicate from the scrap box, even though I retained the main wheels. The front landing gear was taken wholesale from the MiG-23, but had to be shortened for a proper stance.

A display holder adapter was integrated into the belly for the flight scenes, hidden well between the ventral ordnance.

 

The hardpoints, including missile launch rails, came from the MiG-23; the pylons had to be adjusted to match the Su-15's wing profile shape, the Anab missiles lost their tail sections to create the fictional Indian 'Saanp' AAMs. The R-3s on the outer stations were left over from a MP MiG-21. The ventral pylons belong to Academy MiG-23/27s, one came from the donor kit, the other was found in the spares box. The PTB-490 drop tanks also came from a KP MiG-21 (or one of its many reincarnations, not certain).

  

Painting and markings:

The paint scheme for this fictional aircraft was largely inspired by a picture of a whiffy and very attractive Saab 37 Viggen (an 1:72 Airfix kit) in IAF colors, apparently a model from a contest. BTW, India actually considered buying the Viggen for its Air Force!

IAF aircraft were and are known for their exotic and sometimes gawdy paint schemes, and with IAF MiG-21 “C 992” there’s even a very popular (yet obscure) aircraft that sported literal tiger stripes. The IAF Viggen model was surely inspired by this real aircraft, and I adopted something similar for my HF-26M.

 

IAF 1 Squadron was therefore settled, and for the paint scheme I opted for a "stripish" scheme, but not as "tigeresque" as "C 992". I found a suitable benchmark in a recent Libyian MiG-21, which carried a very disruptive two-tone grey scheme. I adapted this pattern to the HA-26M airframe and replaced its colors, similar to the IAF Viggen model, which became a greenish sand tone (a mix of Humbrol 121 with some 159; I later found out that I could have used Humbrol 83 from the beginning, though...) and a very dark olive drab (Humbrol 66, which looks like a dull dark brown in contrast with the sand tone), with bluish grey (Humbrol 247) undersides. With the large delta wings, this turned out to look very good and even effective!

 

For that special "Indian touch" I gave the aircraft a high-contrast fin in a design that I had seen on a real camouflaged IAF MiG-21bis: an overall dark green base with a broad, red vertical stripe which was also the shield for the fin flash and the aircraft's tactical code (on the original bare metal). The fin was first painted in green (Humbrol 2), the red stripe was created with orange-red decal sheet material. Similar material was also used to create the bare metal field for the tactical code, the yellow bars on the splitter plates and for the thin white canopy sealing.

 

After basic painting was done the model received an overall black ink washing, post-panel shading and extensive dry-brushing with aluminum and iron for a rather worn look.

The missiles became classic white, while the drop tanks, as a contrast to the camouflaged belly, were left in bare metal.

 

Decals/markings came primarily from a Begemot MiG-25 kit, the tactical codes on the fin and under the wings originally belong to an RAF post-WWII Spitfire, just the first serial letter was omitted. Stencils are few and they came from various sources. A compromise is the unit badge on the fin: I needed a tiger motif, and the only suitable option I found was the tiger head emblem on a white disc from RAF No. 74 Squadron, from the Matchbox BAC Lightning F.6&F.2A kit. It fits stylistically well, though. ;-)

 

Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (except for the black radome, which became a bit glossy) and finally assembled.

  

A spontaneous build, and the last one that I completed in 2022. However, despite a vague design plan the model evolved as it grew. Bashing the primitive PM Model Su-15 with the Academy MiG-23 parts was easier than expected, though, and the resulting fictional aircraft looks sturdy but quite believable - even though it appears to me like the unexpected child of a Mirage III/F-4 Phantom II intercourse, or like a juvenile CF-105 Arrow, just with mid-wings? Nevertheless, the disruptive paint scheme suits the delta wing fighter well, and the green/red fin is a striking contrast - it's a colorful model, but not garish.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some Background:

During the 1950s, Hindustan Aircraft Limited (HAL) had developed and produced several types of trainer aircraft, such as the HAL HT-2. However, elements within the firm were eager to expand into the then-new realm of supersonic fighter aircraft. Around the same time, the Indian government was in the process of formulating a new Air Staff Requirement for a Mach 2-capable combat aircraft to equip the Indian Air Force (IAF). However, as HAL lacked the necessary experience in both developing and manufacturing frontline combat fighters, it was clear that external guidance would be invaluable; this assistance was embodied by Kurt Tank.

 

In 1956, HAL formally began design work on the supersonic fighter project. The Indian government, led by Jawaharlal Nehru, authorized the development of the aircraft, stating that it would aid in the development of a modern aircraft industry in India. The first phase of the project sought to develop an airframe suitable for travelling at supersonic speeds, and able to effectively perform combat missions as a fighter aircraft, while the second phase sought to domestically design and produce an engine capable of propelling the aircraft. Early on, there was an explicit adherence to satisfying the IAF's requirements for a capable fighter bomber; attributes such as a twin-engine configuration and a speed of Mach 1.4 to 1.5 were quickly emphasized, and this led to the HF-24 Marut.

 

On 24 June 1961, the first prototype Marut conducted its maiden flight. It was powered by the same Bristol Siddeley Orpheus 703 turbojets that had powered the Folland Gnat, also being manufactured by HAL at that time. On 1 April 1967, the first production Marut was delivered to the IAF. While originally intended only as an interim measure during testing, HAL decided to power production Maruts with a pair of unreheated Orpheus 703s, meaning the aircraft could not attain supersonic speed. Although originally conceived to operate around Mach 2 the Marut in fact was barely capable of reaching Mach 1 due to the lack of suitably powerful engines.

 

The IAF were reluctant to procure a fighter aircraft only marginally superior to its existing fleet of British-built Hawker Hunters. However, in 1961, the Indian Government decided to procure the Marut, nevertheless, but only 147 aircraft, including 18 two-seat trainers, were completed out of a planned 214. Just after the decision to build the lukewarm Marut, the development of a more advanced aircraft with the desired supersonic performance was initiated.

 

This enterprise started star-crossed, though: after the Indian Government conducted its first nuclear tests at Pokhran, international pressure prevented the import of better engines of Western origin, or at times, even spares for the Orpheus engines, so that the Marut never realized its full potential due to insufficient power, and it was relatively obsolescent by the time it reached production.

Due to these restrictions India looked for other sources for supersonic aircraft and eventually settled upon the MiG-21 F-13 from the Soviet Union, which entered service in 1964. While fast and agile, the Fishbed was only a short-range daylight interceptor. It lacked proper range for escort missions and air space patrols, and it had no radar that enabled it to conduct all-weather interceptions. To fill this operational gap, the new indigenous HF-26 project was launched around the same time.

 

For the nascent Indian aircraft industry, HF-26 had a demanding requirements specification: the aircraft was to achieve Mach 2 top speed at high altitude and carry a radar with a guided missile armament that allowed interceptions in any weather, day and night. The powerplant question was left open, but it was clear from the start that a Soviet engine would be needed, since an indigenous development of a suitable powerplant would take much too long and block vital resources, and western alternatives were out of reach. The mission profile and the performance requirements quickly defined the planned aircraft’s layout: To fit a radar, the air intakes with movable ramps to feed the engines were placed on the fuselage flanks. To make sure the aircraft would fulfill its high-performance demands, it was right from the outset powered by two engines, and it was decided to give it delta wings, a popular design among high-speed aircraft of the time – exemplified by the highly successful Dassault Mirage III (which was to be delivered to Pakistan in 1967). With two engines, the HF-26 would be a heavier aircraft than the Mirage III, though, and it was planned to operate the aircraft from semi-prepared airfields, so that it would receive a robust landing gear with low-pressure tires and a brake parachute.

 

In 1962 India was able to negotiate the delivery of Tumansky RD-9 turbojet engines from the Soviet Union, even though no afterburner was part of the deal – this had to be indigenously developed by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). However, this meant that the afterburner could be tailored to the HF-26, and this task would provide HAL with valuable engineering experience, too.

Now knowing the powerplant, HAL created a single-seater airframe around it, a rather robust design that superficially reminded of the French Mirage III, but there were fundamental differences. The HF-26 had boxy air intakes with movable ramps to control the airflow to the two engines and a relatively wide fuselage to hold them and most of the fuel in tanks between the air ducts behind the cockpit. The aircraft had a single swept fin and a rather small mid-positioned delta-wing with a 60° sweep. The pilot sat under a tight canopy that offered - similar to the Mirage III - only limited all-round vision.

The HF-26's conical nose radome covered an antenna for a ‘Garud’ interception radar – which was in fact a downgraded Soviet ‘Oryol' (Eagle; NATO reporting name 'Skip Spin') system that guided the HF-26’s main armament, a pair of semi-active radar homing (SARH) ‚Saanp’ missiles.

 

The Saanp missile was developed specifically for the HF-26 in India but used many components of Soviet origin, too, so that they were compatible with the radar. In performance, the Saanp was comparable with the French Matra R.530 air-to-air missile, even though the aerodynamic layout was reversed, with steering fins at the front end, right behind the SARH seaker head - overall the missile reminded of an enlarged AIM-4 Falcon. The missile weighed 180 kg and had a length of 3.5 m. Power came from a two-stage solid rocket that offered a maximum thrust of 80 kN for 2.7 s during the launch phase plus 6.5 s cruise. Maximum speed was Mach 2.7 and operational range was 1.5 to 20 km (0.9 to 12.5 miles). Two of these missiles could be carried on the main wing hardpoints in front of the landing gear wells. Alternatively, infrared-guided R-3 (AA-2 ‘Atoll’) short-range AAMs could be carried by the HF-26, too, and typically two of these were carried on the outer underwing hardpoints, which were plumbed to accept drop tanks (typically supersonic PTB-490s that were carried by the IAF's MiG-21s, too) . Initially, no internal gun was envisioned, as the HF-26 was supposed to be a pure high-speed/high-altitude interceptor that would not engage in dogfights. Two more hardpoints under the fuselage were plumbed, too, for a total of six external stations.

 

Due to its wing planform, the HF-26 was soon aptly called “Teer” (= Arrow), and with Soviet help the first prototype was rolled out in early 1964 and presented to the public. The first flight, however, would take place almost a year later in January 1965, due to many technical problems, and these were soon complemented by aerodynamic problems. The original delta-winged HF-26 had poor take-off and landing characteristics, and directional stability was weak, too. While a second prototype was under construction in April 1965 the first aircraft was lost after it had entered a spin from which the pilot could not escape – the aircraft crashed and its pilot was killed during the attempt to eject.

 

After this loss HAL investigated an enlarged fin and a modified wing design with deeper wingtips with lower sweep, which increased wing area and improved low speed handling, too. Furthermore, the fuselage shape had to be modified, too, to reduce supersonic drag, and a more pronounced area ruling was introduced. The indigenous afterburner for the RD-9 engines was unstable and troublesome, too.

It took until 1968 and three more flying prototypes (plus two static airframes) to refine the Teer for serial production service introduction. In this highly modified form, the aircraft was re-designated HF-26M and the first machines were delivered to IAF No. 3 Squadron in late 1969. However, it would take several months until a fully operational status could be achieved. By that time, it was already clear that the Teer, much like the HF-24 Marut before, could not live up to its expectations and was at the brink of becoming obsolete as it entered service. The RD-9 was not a modern engine anymore, and despite its indigenous afterburner – which turned out not only to be chronically unreliable but also to be very thirsty when engaged – the Teer had a disappointing performance: The fighter only achieved a top speed of Mach 1.6 at full power, and with full external load it hardly broke the wall of sound in level flight. Its main armament, the Saanp AAM, also turned out to be unreliable even under ideal conditions.

 

However, the HF-26M came just in time to take part in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and was, despite its weaknesses, extensively used – even though not necessarily in its intended role. High-flying slow bombers were not fielded during the conflict, and the Teer remained, despite its on-board radar, heavily dependent on ground control interception (GCI) to vector its pilot onto targets coming in at medium and even low altitude. The HF-26M had no capability against low-flying aircraft either, so that pilots had to engage incoming, low-flying enemy aircraft after visual identification – a task the IAF’s nimble MiG-21s were much better suited for. Escorts and air cover missions for fighter-bombers were flown, too, but the HF-26M’s limited range only made it a suitable companion for the equally short-legged Su-7s. The IAF Canberras were frequently deployed on longer range missions, but the HF-26Ms simply could not follow them all the time; for a sufficient range the Teer had to carry four drop tanks, what increased drag and only left the outer pair of underwing hardpoints (which were not plumbed) free for a pair of AA-2 missiles. With the imminent danger of aerial close range combat, though, During the conflict with Pakistan, most HF-26M's were retrofitted with rear-view mirrors in their canopies to improve the pilot's field of view, and a passive IR sensor was added in a small fairing under the nose to improve the aircraft's all-weather capabilities and avoid active radar emissions that would warn potential prey too early.

 

The lack of an internal gun turned out to be another great weakness of the Teer, and this was only lightly mended through the use of external gun pods. Two of these cigar-shaped pods that resembled the Soviet UPK-23 pod could be carried on the two ventral pylons, and each contained a 23 mm Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-23L autocannon of Soviet origin with 200 rounds. Technically these pods were very similar to the conformal GP-9 pods carried by the IAF MiG-21FLs. While the gun pods considerably improved the HF-26M’s firepower and versatility, the pods were draggy, blocked valuable hardpoints (from extra fuel) and their recoil tended to damage the pylons as well as the underlying aircraft structure, so that they were only commissioned to be used in an emergency.

 

However, beyond air-to-air weapons, the HF-26M could also carry ordnance of up to 1.000 kg (2.207 lb) on the ventral and inner wing hardpoints and up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) on the other pair of wing hardpoints, including iron bombs and/or unguided missile pods. However, the limited field of view from the cockpit over the radome as well as the relatively high wing loading did not recommend the aircraft for ground attack missions – even though these frequently happened during the conflict with Pakistan. For these tactical missions, many HF-26Ms lost their original overall natural metal finish and instead received camouflage paint schemes on squadron level, resulting in individual and sometimes even spectacular liveries. Most notable examples were the Teer fighters of No. 1 Squadron (The Tigers), which sported various camouflage adaptations of the unit’s eponym.

 

Despite its many deficiencies, the HF-26M became heavily involved in the Indo-Pakistan conflict. As the Indian Army tightened its grip in East Pakistan, the Indian Air Force continued with its attacks against Pakistan as the campaign developed into a series of daylight anti-airfield, anti-radar, and close-support attacks by fighter jets, with night attacks against airfields and strategic targets by Canberras and An-12s, while Pakistan responded with similar night attacks with its B-57s and C-130s.

The PAF deployed its F-6s mainly on defensive combat air patrol missions over their own bases, leaving the PAF unable to conduct effective offensive operations.  Sporadic raids by the IAF continued against PAF forward air bases in Pakistan until the end of the war, and interdiction and close-support operations were maintained. One of the most successful air raids by India into West Pakistan happened on 8 December 1971, when Indian Hunter aircraft from the Pathankot-based 20 Squadron, attacked the Pakistani base in Murid and destroyed 5 F-86 aircraft on the ground.

The PAF played a more limited role in the operations, even though they were reinforced by Mirages from an unidentified Middle Eastern ally (whose identity remains unknown). The IAF was able to conduct a wide range of missions – troop support; air combat; deep penetration strikes; para-dropping behind enemy lines; feints to draw enemy fighters away from the actual target; bombing and reconnaissance. India flew 1,978 sorties in the East and about 4,000 in Pakistan, while the PAF flew about 30 and 2,840 at the respective fronts.  More than 80 percent of IAF sorties were close-support and interdiction and about 45 IAF aircraft were lost, including three HF-26Ms. Pakistan lost 60 to 75 aircraft, not including any F-86s, Mirage IIIs, or the six Jordanian F-104s which failed to return to their donors. The imbalance in air losses was explained by the IAF's considerably higher sortie rate and its emphasis on ground-attack missions. The PAF, which was solely focused on air combat, was reluctant to oppose these massive attacks and rather took refuge at Iranian air bases or in concrete bunkers, refusing to offer fights and respective losses.

 

After the war, the HF-26M was officially regarded as outdated, and as license production of the improved MiG-21FL (designated HAL Type 77 and nicknamed “Trishul” = Trident) and later of the MiG-21M (HAL Type 88) was organized in India, the aircraft were quickly retired from frontline units. They kept on serving into the Eighties, though, but now restricted to their original interceptor role. Beyond the upgrades from the Indo-Pakistani War, only a few upgrades were made. For instance, the new R-60 AAM was introduced to the HF-26M and around 1978 small (but fixed) canards were retrofitted to the air intakes behind the cockpit that improved the Teer’s poor slow speed control and high landing speed as well as the aircraft’s overall maneuverability.

A radar upgrade, together with the introduction of better air-to-ai missiles with a higher range and look down/shoot down capability was considered but never carried out. Furthermore, the idea of a true HF-26 2nd generation variant, powered by a pair of Tumansky R-11F-300 afterburner jet engines (from the license-built MiG-21FLs), was dropped, too – even though this powerplant eventually promised to fulfill the Teer’s design promise of Mach 2 top speed. A total of only 82 HF-26s (including thirteen two-seat trainers with a lengthened fuselage and reduced fuel capacity, plus eight prototypes) were built. The last aircraft were retired from IAF service in 1988 and replaced with Mirage 2000 fighters procured from France that were armed with the Matra Super 530 AAM.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 14.97 m (49 ft ½ in)

Wingspan: 9.43 m (30 ft 11 in)

Height: 4.03 m (13 ft 2½ in)

Wing area: 30.6 m² (285 sq ft)

Empty weight: 7,000 kg (15,432 lb)

Gross weight: 10,954 kg (24,149 lb) with full internal fuel

Max takeoff weight: 15,700 kg (34,613 lb) with external stores

 

Powerplant:

2× Tumansky RD-9 afterburning turbojet engines; 29 kN (6,600 lbf) dry thrust each

and 36.78 kN (8,270 lbf) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 1,700 km/h (1,056 mph; 917 kn; Mach 1.6) at 11,000 m (36,000 ft)

1,350 km/h (840 mph, 730 kn; Mach 1.1) at sea level

Combat range: 725 km (450 mi, 391 nmi) with internal fuel only

Ferry range: 1,700 km (1,100 mi, 920 nmi) with four drop tanks

Service ceiling: 18,100 m (59,400 ft)

g limits: +6.5

Time to altitude: 9,145 m (30,003 ft) in 1 minute 30 seconds

Wing loading: 555 kg/m² (114 lb/sq ft)

 

Armament

6× hardpoints (four underwing and two under the fuselage) for a total of 2.500 kg (5.500 lb);

Typical interceptor payload:

- two IR-guided R-3 or R-60 air-to-air-missiles or

two PTB-490 drop tanks on the outer underwing stations

- two semi-active radar-guided ‚Saanp’ air-to-air missiles or two more R-3 or R-60 AAMs

on inner underwing stations

- two 500 l drop tanks or two gun pods with a 23 mm GSh-23L autocannon and 200 RPG

each under the fuselage

  

The kit and its assembly:

This whiffy delta-wing fighter was inspired when I recently sliced up a PM Model Su-15 kit for my side-by-side-engine BAC Lightning build. At an early stage of the conversion, I held the Su-15 fuselage with its molded delta wings in my hand and wondered if a shortened tail section (as well as a shorter overall fuselage to keep proportions balanced) could make a delta-wing jet fighter from the Flagon base? Only a hardware experiment could yield an answer, and since the Su-15’s overall outlines look a bit retro I settled at an early stage on India as potential designer and operator, as “the thing the HF-24 Marut never was”.

 

True to the initial idea, work started on the tail, and I chopped off the fuselage behind the wings’ trailing edge. Some PSR was necessary to blend the separate exhaust section into the fuselage, which had to be reduced in depth through wedges that I cut out under the wings trailing edge, plus some good amount of glue and sheer force the bend the section a bit upwards. The PM Model's jet exhausts were drilled open, and I added afterburner dummies inside - anything would look better than the bleak vertical walls inside after only 2-3 mm! The original fin was omitted, because it was a bit too large for the new, smaller aircraft and its shape reminded a lot of the Suchoj heavy fighter family. It was replaced with a Mirage III/V fin, left over from a (crappy!) Pioneer 2 IAI Nesher kit.

 

Once the rear section was complete, I had to adjust the front end - and here the kitbashing started. First, I chopped off the cockpit section in front of the molded air intake - the Su-15’s long radome and the cockpit on top of the fuselage did not work anymore. As a remedy I remembered another Su-15 conversion I did a (long) while ago: I created a model of a planned ground attack derivative, the T-58Sh, and, as a part of the extensive body work, I transplanted the slanted nose from an academy MiG-27 between the air intakes – a stunt that was relatively easy and which appreciably lowered the cockpit position. For the HF-26M I did something similar, I just transplanted a cockpit from a Hasegawa/Academy MiG-23 with its ogival radome that size-wise better matched with the rest of the leftover Su-15 airframe.

 

The MiG-23 cockpit matched perfectly with the Su-15's front end, just the spinal area behind the cockpit had to be raised/re-sculpted to blend the parts smoothly together. For a different look from the Su-15 ancestry I also transplanted the front sections of the MiG-23 air intakes with their shorter ramps. Some mods had to be made to the Su-15 intake stubs, but the MiG-23 intakes were an almost perfect fit in size and shape and easy to integrate into the modified front hill. The result looks very natural!

However, when the fuselage was complete, I found that the nose appeared to be a bit too long, leaving the whole new hull with the wings somewhat off balance. As a remedy I decided at a rather late stage to shorten the nose and took out a 6 mm section in front of the cockpit - a stunt I had not planned, but sometimes you can judge things only after certain work stages. Some serious PSR was necessary to re-adjust the conical nose shape, which now looked more Mirage III-ish than planned!

 

The cockpit was taken mostly OOB, I just replaced the ejection seat and gave it a trigger handle made from thin wire. With the basic airframe complete it was time for details. The PM Model Su-15s massive and rather crude main landing gear was replaced with something more delicate from the scrap box, even though I retained the main wheels. The front landing gear was taken wholesale from the MiG-23, but had to be shortened for a proper stance.

A display holder adapter was integrated into the belly for the flight scenes, hidden well between the ventral ordnance.

 

The hardpoints, including missile launch rails, came from the MiG-23; the pylons had to be adjusted to match the Su-15's wing profile shape, the Anab missiles lost their tail sections to create the fictional Indian 'Saanp' AAMs. The R-3s on the outer stations were left over from a MP MiG-21. The ventral pylons belong to Academy MiG-23/27s, one came from the donor kit, the other was found in the spares box. The PTB-490 drop tanks also came from a KP MiG-21 (or one of its many reincarnations, not certain).

  

Painting and markings:

The paint scheme for this fictional aircraft was largely inspired by a picture of a whiffy and very attractive Saab 37 Viggen (an 1:72 Airfix kit) in IAF colors, apparently a model from a contest. BTW, India actually considered buying the Viggen for its Air Force!

IAF aircraft were and are known for their exotic and sometimes gawdy paint schemes, and with IAF MiG-21 “C 992” there’s even a very popular (yet obscure) aircraft that sported literal tiger stripes. The IAF Viggen model was surely inspired by this real aircraft, and I adopted something similar for my HF-26M.

 

IAF 1 Squadron was therefore settled, and for the paint scheme I opted for a "stripish" scheme, but not as "tigeresque" as "C 992". I found a suitable benchmark in a recent Libyian MiG-21, which carried a very disruptive two-tone grey scheme. I adapted this pattern to the HA-26M airframe and replaced its colors, similar to the IAF Viggen model, which became a greenish sand tone (a mix of Humbrol 121 with some 159; I later found out that I could have used Humbrol 83 from the beginning, though...) and a very dark olive drab (Humbrol 66, which looks like a dull dark brown in contrast with the sand tone), with bluish grey (Humbrol 247) undersides. With the large delta wings, this turned out to look very good and even effective!

 

For that special "Indian touch" I gave the aircraft a high-contrast fin in a design that I had seen on a real camouflaged IAF MiG-21bis: an overall dark green base with a broad, red vertical stripe which was also the shield for the fin flash and the aircraft's tactical code (on the original bare metal). The fin was first painted in green (Humbrol 2), the red stripe was created with orange-red decal sheet material. Similar material was also used to create the bare metal field for the tactical code, the yellow bars on the splitter plates and for the thin white canopy sealing.

 

After basic painting was done the model received an overall black ink washing, post-panel shading and extensive dry-brushing with aluminum and iron for a rather worn look.

The missiles became classic white, while the drop tanks, as a contrast to the camouflaged belly, were left in bare metal.

 

Decals/markings came primarily from a Begemot MiG-25 kit, the tactical codes on the fin and under the wings originally belong to an RAF post-WWII Spitfire, just the first serial letter was omitted. Stencils are few and they came from various sources. A compromise is the unit badge on the fin: I needed a tiger motif, and the only suitable option I found was the tiger head emblem on a white disc from RAF No. 74 Squadron, from the Matchbox BAC Lightning F.6&F.2A kit. It fits stylistically well, though. ;-)

 

Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (except for the black radome, which became a bit glossy) and finally assembled.

  

A spontaneous build, and the last one that I completed in 2022. However, despite a vague design plan the model evolved as it grew. Bashing the primitive PM Model Su-15 with the Academy MiG-23 parts was easier than expected, though, and the resulting fictional aircraft looks sturdy but quite believable - even though it appears to me like the unexpected child of a Mirage III/F-4 Phantom II intercourse, or like a juvenile CF-105 Arrow, just with mid-wings? Nevertheless, the disruptive paint scheme suits the delta wing fighter well, and the green/red fin is a striking contrast - it's a colorful model, but not garish.

Metal art deco incense burner.

 

Incense is aromatic biotic material that releases fragrant smoke when burned. The term refers to the material itself, rather than to the aroma that it produces. Incense is used for aesthetic reasons, and in therapy, meditation, and ceremony. It may also be used as a simple deodorant or insectifuge.

 

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 number of uses.

 

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 a smoky 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 incendere meaning "to burn".

 

Combustible bouquets were used by the ancient Egyptians, who employed incense in 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, giving evidence for the prominence of incense and related compounds in 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 (3300–1300 BCE). Evidence suggests oils were used mainly for their aroma. India also adopted techniques from East Asia, adapting the formulation to encompass aromatic roots and other indigenous flora. This was the first usage of subterranean plant parts in incense. New herbs like Sarsaparilla seeds, frankincense, and cypress were used by Indians.

 

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 use of incense comes from the ancient Chinese, who employed incense composed of herbs and plant products (such as cassia, cinnamon, styrax, and sandalwood) 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 Ashikaga 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 whoever might take his head in battle). It wasn't until the Muromachi period 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.

 

Local knowledge and tools were extremely influential on the style, but methods were also influenced by migrations of foreigners, such as clergy and physicians.

 

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 provides the fuel for combustion while an oxidizer such as sodium nitrate or potassium nitrate sustains the burning of the incense. Fragrant materials are added to the base prior to shaping, as in the case of powdered incense materials, or after, as in the case of essential oils. The formula for charcoal-based incense is superficially similar to black powder, though it lacks the sulfur.

 

Natural plant-based binders: Gums such as Gum Arabic or Gum Tragacanth are used to bind the mixture together. 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. These include:

 

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

Xiangnan pi (made from the bark of trees of genus Phoebe such as Phoebe nanmu or 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.

 

Typical compositions burn at a temperature between 220 °C and 260 °C.

 

TYPES:

 

Incense is available in various forms and degrees of processing. They can generally be separated into "direct-burning" and "indirect-burning" types. Preference for one form or another varies with culture, tradition, and personal taste. The two differ in their composition due to the former's requirement for even, stable, and sustained burning.

 

INDIRECT-BURNING:

 

Indirect-burning incense, also called "non-combustible incense", is an aromatic material or combination of materials, such as resins, that does not contain combustible material and so requires a separate heat source. Finer forms tend to burn more rapidly, while coarsely ground or whole chunks may be consumed very gradually, having less surface area. Heat is traditionally provided by charcoal or glowing embers. In the West, the best known incense materials of this type are the resins frankincense and myrrh, likely due to their numerous mentions in the Bible. Frankincense means "pure incense", though in common usage refers specifically to the resin of the boswellia tree.

 

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

Powdered or granulated: Incense broken into smaller pieces burns quickly and provides brief but intense odor.

 

Paste: Powdered or granulated incense material is mixed with a sticky 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, and Japan has a history of kneaded incense, called nerikō or awasekō, made using this method. 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 the rest of the incense without further application of external heat or flame. 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 are commonly encountered, though direct-burning incense can take nearly any form, whether for expedience or whimsy.

 

Coil: Extruded and shaped into a coil without a core, coil incense can burn for an extended period, from hours to days, and is commonly produced and used in Chinese cultures.

 

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

 

Cored stick: A supporting core of bamboo is coated with a thick layer of incense material that burns away with the core. Higher-quality variations have fragrant sandalwood cores. This type of incense is commonly produced in India and China. When used in Chinese folk religion, these are sometimes known as "joss sticks".

 

Dhoop or solid stick: With no bamboo core, dhoop incense is easily broken for portion control. 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. Powder incense is 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, is lit and blown out. Examples include 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 easily transported and stays fresh for extremely long periods. It has been used for centuries in Tibet and Nepal.

 

Moxa tablets, which are disks of powdered mugwort used in Traditional Chinese medicine for moxibustion, are not incenses; the treatment is by heat rather than fragrance.

 

Incense sticks may be termed joss sticks, especially in parts of East Asia, South Asia and Southeast Asia. Among ethnic Chinese and Chinese-influenced communities these are traditionally burned at temples, before the threshold of a home or business, before an image of a religious divinity or local spirit, or in shrines, large and small, found at the main entrance of 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 the devas. The word "joss" is derived from the Latin deus (god) via the Portuguese deos through the Javanese dejos, through Chinese pidgin English.

 

PRODUCTION:

 

The raw materials are powdered and then mixed together with a binder to form a paste, which, for direct burning incense, is then cut and dried into pellets. Incense of the Athonite Orthodox Christian tradition is 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.

 

Certain proportions are necessary for direct-burning incense:

 

Oil content: an excess of oils may prevent incense from smoldering effectively. Resinous materials such as myrrh and frankincense are typically balanced with "dry" materials such as wood, bark and leaf powders.

Oxidizer quantity: Too little oxidizer in gum-bound incense may prevent the incense from igniting, while too much will cause the incense to burn too quickly, without producing fragrant smoke.

Binder: Water-soluble binders such as "makko" ensure that the incense mixture does not crumble when dry, dilute the mixture.

 

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.

 

"Dipped" or "hand-dipped" direct-burning incense is created by dipping "incense blanks" made of unscented combustible dust into any suitable kind of essential or fragrance oil. These are often sold in the United States by flea-market and sidewalk vendors who have developed their own styles. This form of incense requires the least skill and equipment to manufacture, since the blanks are pre-formed in China or South East Asia.

 

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 core 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. In a process known as "splitting the foot of the incense stick", the bamboo is trimmed to length, soaked, peeled, and split in halves until the thin sticks of bamboo have square cross sections of less than 3mm. This process has been largely 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 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 sticks 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 produced in this fashion and burned in temples of Chinese folk religion 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 common due to the higher labor cost of producing powder-coated or paste-rolled sticks.

 

BURNING INCENSE:

 

Indirect-burning incense burned 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. The flame is then fanned or blown out, leaving the incense to smolder.

 

CULTURAL VARIATIONS:

 

ARABIAN:

 

In most Arab countries, incense is burned in the form of scented chips or blocks called bakhoor (Arabic: بخور‎ [bɑˈxuːɾ, bʊ-]. Incense is used on special occasions like weddings or on Fridays or generally to perfume the house. The bakhoor is usually burned in a mabkhara, a traditional incense burner (censer) similar to the Somali Dabqaad. It is customary in many Arab countries to pass bakhoor among the guests in the majlis ('congregation'). This is done as a gesture of hospitality.

 

CHINESE:

 

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 first known record is by poet Yu Jianwu (487-551): "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.

Incense-stick burning is an everyday practice in traditional Chinese religion. There are many different types of stick used for different purposes or on different festive days. Many of them are long and thin. Sticks are mostly coloured yellow, red, or more rarely, black. Thick sticks are used for special ceremonies, such as funerals. Spiral incense, with exceedingly long burn times, is often hung from temple ceilings. In some states, such as Taiwan,

 

Singapore, or Malaysia, where they celebrate the Ghost Festival, large, pillar-like dragon incense sticks are sometimes used. These generate so much smoke and heat that they are only burned outside.

 

Chinese incense sticks for use in popular religion are generally odorless or only use 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. Inexpensive packs of 300 are often found for sale in Chinese supermarkets. Though they contain no sandalwood, they often include the Chinese character for sandalwood on the label, as a generic term for incense.

 

Highly scented Chinese incense sticks are used by some Buddhists. These are often quite expensive due to the use of large amounts of sandalwood, agarwood, 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, or City of Ten Thousand Buddhas do not use incense.

 

INDIAN:

 

Incense sticks, also known as agarbathi (or agarbatti) and joss sticks, in which an incense paste is rolled or moulded around a bamboo stick, are the main forms of incense in India. The bamboo method originated in India, and is distinct from the Nepali/Tibetan and Japanese methods of stick making without bamboo cores. Though the method is also used in the west, 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 that take raw unperfumed sticks hand-rolled by approximately 200,000 women working part-time at home, and then apply their own brand of perfume, and package the sticks for sale. An experienced home-worker can produce 4,000 raw sticks a day. There are about 50 large companies that 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 Mysore.

 

JEWISH TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM:

 

KETORET:

 

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

 

TIBETAN:

 

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, and 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:

 

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. The art of incense appreciation, or koh-do, is generally practiced as a separate art form from the tea ceremony, and usually 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. 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:

 

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. An example, as well as of religious use, is the giant Botafumeiro thurible that 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. 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-burning 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 multiple senses.

 

Incense made from materials such as citronella can repel mosquitoes and other irritating, 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 smell to linger.

 

AESTHETIC:

 

Many 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 aroma. An example is the kōdō (香道), where (frequently costly) raw incense materials such as agarwood are appreciated in a formal setting.

 

RELIGIOUS:

 

Religious use of incense is prevalent in many cultures and may have roots in the practical and aesthetic uses, considering that many of these religions have little else in common. 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), etc.

 

Aphrodisiac Incense has been used as an aphrodisiac in some cultures. Both ancient Greek and ancient Egyptian mythology suggest the usage of incense by goddesses and nymphs. Incense is thought to heighten sexual desires and sexual attraction.

 

Time-keeper Incense clocks are used to time social, medical and religious practices in parts of eastern Asia. They are primarily used in Buddhism as a timer of mediation and prayer. Different types of incense burn at different rates; therefore, different incense are used for different practices. The duration of burning ranges from minutes to months.

 

Healing stone cleanser Incense is claimed to cleanse and restore energy in healing stones. The technique used is called “smudging” and is done by holding a healing stone over the smoke of burning incense for 20 to 30 seconds. Some people believe that this process not only restores energy but eliminates negative energy.

 

HEALTH RISK FROM INCENSE SMOKE:

 

Incense smoke contains various contaminants including gaseous pollutants, such as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and adsorbed toxic pollutants (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and toxic metals). The solid particles range between ~10 and 500 nm. In a comparison, Indian sandalwood was found to have the highest emission rate, followed by Japanese aloeswood, then Taiwanese aloeswood, while Chinese smokeless sandalwood had the least.

 

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, epidemiologists at the Hong Kong Anti-Cancer Society, Aichi Cancer Center in Nagoya, and several other centers found: "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 their 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 lung cancer, 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 were 80% more likely to develop squamous-cell carcinomas. 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' ovarian cells to be even higher than cigarettes.

 

Incensole acetate, a component of Frankincense, has been shown to have anxiolytic-like and antidepressive-like effects in mice, mediated by activation of poorly-understood TRPV3 ion channels in the brain.

+++ 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!

  

Some background:

The Douglas A-4 Skyhawk was a single seat subsonic carrier-capable attack aircraft developed for the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps in the early 1950s. The delta winged, single turbojet engined Skyhawk was designed and produced by Douglas Aircraft Company, and later by McDonnell Douglas. It was originally designated A4D under the U.S. Navy's pre-1962 designation system.

 

The Skyhawk was a relatively lightweight aircraft with a maximum takeoff weight of 24,500 pounds (11,100 kg) in its late versions and had a top speed of more than 670 miles per hour (1,080 km/h). The aircrafts supported a variety of missiles, bombs and other munitions, and late versions were capable of carrying a bomb load equivalent to that of a World War II-era Boeing B-17 bomber.

 

The type saw an intensive career with the US Navy and the US Marine Corps, and is still in frontline use in several countries, e. g. Brazil and Argentina.

Another potential user was France. The story began with two different design requirements in the early 1950s for land-based, light fighters, one for the French Air Force and the other for NATO air forces. French manufacturer Dassault responded and used the same basic design for both these specifications, designated as the Étendard II and Étendard VI respectively, neither of which received any orders, though. The company also developed a larger and more powerful variant, which was called the Mystère XXIV, simultaneously as a private venture.

 

The French Navy, the Aéronavale, showed interest in the more powerful aircraft, and this interest in a lulti-purpose fighter for carrier operations led to a public competition which was opened to foreign submissions, too. Dassault constructed a prototype navalized version of the Mystère XXIV, now designated Étendard IVM, and the first prototype conducted its first flight on 24 July 1956. As contenders, Douglas offered a modified A4D-2 Skyhawk and from Great Britain the Supermarine Scimitar was proposed, but immediately rejected as being much too large and complex for the Aéronavale's needs.

 

In order to compare the potential contenders, the Étendard IVM was to be pitted against the Skyhawk, and so a total of six so-called A4D-2Fs, modified to French specifications, took part in an extensive field test over the course of the next 15 months against a total of seven Étendard prototypes (the last being a prototype for the Étendard IVP photo reconnaissance variant), which differed by engines and equipment details.

 

The French Skyhawk variant had, compared with the standard A4D-2 of the US Navy, improved navigation and flight control systems. The A4D-2F also featured a strengthened airframe and had air-to-air refueling capabilities. Specific to these machines were a TACAN receiver and a braking parachute under the tail for land operations.

 

Internal armament was, upon the potential customer’s request, changed from the original pair of American 20 mm (0.79 in) Colt Mk 12 cannon with 200 RPG in the wing roots to a pair of 30mm DEFA cannon with 150 RPG. As a marketing measure, the A4D-2F was equipped with guidance avionics for the American AGM-12 Bullpup missile, in hope that France would procure this weapon together with the aircraft as a package and open the door for further weapon exports. Other ordnance included rocket pods, bombs, and drop tanks, carried on five external pylons (two more under the outer wings than the standard A4D-2).

 

Not being convinced of the AGM-12 and political preference of domestic equipment, French officials insisted on additional avionics for indigenous guided weapons like the Nord AA-20 air-to-air or the AS-20 air-to-ground missiles, as well as for the bigger, newly developed AS-30. Since the internal space of the AD4 airframe was limited, these additional components had to be housed in a long, spinal fairing that extended from the fin root forward, almost up to the cockpit. Another consequence of the scarce internal space was the need to provide radio-guidance for the French missiles through an external antenna pod, which was to be carried under the outer starboard pylon, together with two missiles on the inner pylons and an SNEB unguided missile pod (frequently empty) under the port outer pylon as aerodynamic counterbalance.

 

Trials between the contenders started in summer 1957, at first from land bases (primarily Landviseau in Brittany), but later, after its reconstruction with a four degree angled flight deck and a mirror landing sight, also aboard of the revamped French carrier ‘Arromanches’ (R 95, former HMS Colossus). The A4D-2F turned out to be the more effective fighter bomber, especially concerning the almost twice as high weapon load as the Étendard’s. On the other side, the Étendard benefitted from its Aida radar (the A4D-2F only had an AN/APN-141 radar altimeter and a state-of-the-art AN/ASN-19A navigation computer) and from strong supporters from both military and political deciders. Dassault kept lobbying for the indigenous aircraft, too, and, despite many shortcomings and limitations, the Étendard was chosen as the winning design. Even a proposed radar upgrade (just introduced with the A4D-3/A-4C for the US Navy) was during the late evaluation stages in 1958 would not change the French officials’ minds.

 

“Sufficiently satisfied” with its performance, the French Navy would procure for 69 Étendard IVM fighters and 21 Étendard IVP reconnaissance versions. The sextet of test Skyhawks was returned in late 1961 to the United States, where the airframes were at first stored and later underwent modifications at Lockheed Service Co. to become A-4Ps for the Argentine Air Force, delivered in 1966.

 

From 1962, the winning Étendard IVM was being deployed aboard the service's newly built Clemenceau-class aircraft carriers, the Clemenceau and Foch. Later, in 1972, the Skyhawk (in the form of a modified A-4M) made a return to France as an alternative to the stillborn Jaguar M, a navalized variant of the Anglo-French SEPECAT Jaguar, which was intended to become the Étendard's replacement. But this effort was once more derailed by political lobbying by Dassault, who favored their own proposed upgraded version of the aircraft, which would later enter service as the Super Étendard.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: one

Length: 39' 4" (12 m)

Wingspan: 26 ft 6 in (8.38 m)

Height: 15 ft (4.57 m)

Wing area: 259 ft² (24.15 m²)

Airfoil: NACA 0008-1.1-25 root, NACA 0005-0.825-50 tip

Empty weight: 9,146 lb (4,152 kg)

Loaded weight: 18,300 lb (8,318 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 24,500 lb (11,136 kg)

 

Powerplant:

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

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 575 kn (661 mph, 1,064 km/h)

Range: 1,700 nmi (2,000 mi, 3,220 km)

Combat radius: 625 nmi, 1,158 km

Service ceiling: 42,250 ft (12,880 m)

Rate of climb: 8,440 ft/min (43 m/s)

Wing loading: 70.7 lb/ft² (344.4 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight: 0.51

g-limit: +8/-3 g

 

Armament:

2× 30 mm (1.18 in) DEFA cannon, 150 RPG, in the wing roots

Total effective payload of up to 5,000 lbs (2,268 kg) on five hardpoints

- 1× Centerline: 3,500 lbs capability

- 2× Inboard wing: 2,200 lbs capability each

- 2× Outboard wing: 1,000 lbs capability each

   

The kit and its assembly:

This is another contribution to the “In the Navy” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com. The idea of a French Navy Skyhawk is not new and has been tackled before (in the form of CG renditions and model hardware alike), and I had been wanting to build one, too, for a long time – and the current GB was a good occasion to tackle a build.

 

The Skyhawk was actually tested by the Aéronavale, but, as described in the background, not until the early 1970s and together with the LTV A-7, when the Jaguar M came to nothing, not in the late 1950ies where this fictional model is rooted.

Anyway, I liked the Fifties idea much and spun a story around the Étendard’s introduction and a fictional competition for the Aéronavale’s next carrier-borne fighter bomber. The idea was further fueled by the relatively new Airfix model of the early A-4B, which would fit well into the project’s time frame. And I already had a respective kit stashed away for this project...

 

The Airfix kit is very nice, fit and detail (including, for instance a complete air intake section with a jet fan dummy, and it features a very good pilot figure, too) are excellent, even though some things like very thick sprue attachment points here and there and the waxy, rather soft styrene are a bit dubious. But it’s a good kit, nevertheless, and cleverly constructed: many seams disappear between natural panel lines, it’s a pleasant build.

 

Since this model was to be a kind of pre-production machine based on a relatively new standard aircraft, not much was changed. Most visible additions are the dorsal spine (a simple piece of sprue, blended onto the back and into the fin fillet) and the ordnance.

But there are minor changes, too: The cannon installation was also modified, from the original wing root position into slightly lower, bulged fairings for the more voluminous DEFA cannon. The fairings were carved from styrene profiles and outfitted with the OOB barrels. IDF Skyhawks/Ahit with 30mm cannons were the design benchmark, blending the fairings into the curved wing roots and hiding the original gun openings was actually the most challenging part of the build.

 

Some pitots and blade antennae were replaced or changed, too. Lead was cramped into the space between the cockpit and the air intake installation for a proper stance. The Airfix kit is in so far nice as this compartment is easily accessible from below, as long as the wings have not been mounted yet.

The cockpit, together with the pilot figure, were taken OOB, just the pilot’s head was modified to look sideways and an ejection trigger handle was added to the seat.

 

The pair of AS-30 once were AS-30Ls from an Italeri Mirage 2000 kit, slightly modified with a simple, conical tip and booster rocket nozzles on the tail. The corresponding underwing radar pod is a drop tank from a vintage Airfix Kaman Seasprite, while the other outer pylon carries a scratched camera pod, IIRC it once was a belly tank from a 1:144 F-16.

  

Painting and markings:

On purpose, relatively simple. The early French Étendard IVM was the benchmark with its blue-gray/white livery. Biggest challenges were actually to find an appropriate tone for the upper gray, which appears, much like the British Extra Dark Sea Gray, between anything from dark blue to medium gray, depending on light and surroundings, esp. with a glossy finish.

I could not find any definitive or convincing paint suggestions, what I found ranges between FS 36270 (Medium Gray, much too light) and FS 36118 (Gunship Gray, much too violet) and Humbrol 77 (Navy Blue, much too green) to a mix of Humbrol 57 and 33 (Sky Blue + Black!). Really weird… And to make matters worse, some Étendards were furthermore painted in a lighter blue-gray for operations over the Mediterranean Sea!

 

Since I wanted a unique tone, I settled upon Revell 79 (RAL 7031, Blaugrau) for the upper surfaces, a dark, petrol blue gray. The undersides were painted in an off-white tone (a grayish Volkswagen color from the Seventies!) with acrylic paint from the rattle can – with the benefit that the whole landing gear could be primed in the same turn, even though it was later painted over with pure white (Humbrol 130), which was also used on/in the air intakes. The cockpit interior was painted in bluish gray (FS 35237), the interior of the air brakes, slats and edges of the landing gear covers became bright red (Humbrol 60). The red markings around the air intakes were created with paint and decals. Another eye-catcher are the bright orange AS-30 test rounds.

 

A thin, black ink wash was applied to the kit in order to emphasize the engraved panel lines. Only light shading was added to the panels through dry-brushing, more for presentation drama than true weathering.

 

Most Aéronavale-specific markings come from an Academy Super Étendard decal sheet, most stencils come from the OOB Skyhawk sheet. As a kind of prototype and part of Douglas’ fictional marketing effort for the machine, I placed the French roundels in six positions and also added French flags ( the Étendard prototypes were similarly decorated, by the way). Finally, everything was sealed under a coat of matt varnish with a slight, sheen finish.

  

A relatively simple whif project, and a nice distraction from the many recent kitbashes and major conversions. The Aéronavale livery suits the Scooter well, and what I personally like a lot about this one is that it “tells the story” behind it – it’s more than a generic Skyhawk in French colors.

 

And, as a final twist of history, nowadays the Skyhawk actually IS in use on board of a French carrier: in the form of the Brazilian Naval Aviation’s AF-1, former Kuwaiti A-4KU airframes, from CV Sao Paulo, former French Navy carrier Foch! :D

 

+++ 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.

 

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The English Electric Skyspark was a British fighter aircraft that served as an interceptor during the 1960s, the 1970s and into the late 1980s. It remains the only UK-designed-and-built fighter capable of Mach 2. The Skyspark was designed, developed, and manufactured by English Electric, which was later merged into the newly-formed British Aircraft Corporation. Later the type was marketed as the BAC Skyspark.

 

The specification for the aircraft followed the cancellation of the Air Ministry's 1942 E.24/43 supersonic research aircraft specification which had resulted in the Miles M.52 program. W.E.W. "Teddy" Petter, formerly chief designer at Westland Aircraft, 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) and 50,000 ft (15,000 m).

 

Petter initiated a design proposal with F W "Freddie" Page leading the design and Ray Creasey responsible for the aerodynamics. As it was designed for Mach 1.5, it had a 40° swept wing to keep the leading edge clear of the Mach cone. To mount enough power into the airframe, two engines were installed, in an unusual, stacked layout and with a high tailplane This proposal was submitted in November 1948, and in January 1949 the project was designated P.1 by English Electric. On 29 March 1949 MoS granted approval to start the detailed design, develop wind tunnel models and build a full-size mock-up.

 

The design that had developed during 1948 evolved further during 1949 to further improve performance. 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 initial high tailplane; this issue was solved by lowering the tail below the wing. Following the resignation of Petter, Page took over as design team leader for the P.1. 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 the stacked engine layout, as well as the low tailplane position, was considered to be dangerous, too. 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 tailplane positions high or low. Testing with the wings and tail set to the P.1 configuration started in January 1954 and confirmed this combination as the correct one. The proposed 60-degree wing sweep was retained, but the stacked engines had to give way to a more conventional configuration with two engines placed side-by-side in the tail, but still breathing through a mutual nose air intake.

 

From 1953 onward, the first three prototype aircraft were hand-built at Samlesbury. These aircraft had been assigned 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 not much space in the fuselage for fuel, the thin wings became the primary 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. The narrow tires 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 center-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); 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 center 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 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. While WG760 had proven the P.1 design to be viable, it was plagued by directional stability problems and a dismal performance: Transonic drag was much higher than expected, and the aircraft was limited to Mach 0.98 (i.e. subsonic), with a ceiling of just 48,000 ft (14,630 m), far below the requirements.

 

To solve the problem and save the P.1, Petter embarked on a major redesign, incorporating the recently discovered area rule, while at the same time simplifying production and maintenance. The redesign entailed a new, narrower canopy, a revised air intake, a pair of stabilizing fins under the rear fuselage, and a shallow ventral fairing at the wings’ trailing edge that not only reduced the drag coefficient along the wing/fuselage intersection, it also provided space for additional fuel.

On 4 April 1957 the modified P.1B (XA847) made the first flight, immediately exceeding Mach 1. During the early flight trials of the P.1B, speeds in excess of 1,000 mph were achieved daily.

In late October 1958, the plane was officially presented. The event was celebrated in traditional style in a hangar at Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) Farnborough, with the prototype XA847 having the name ‘Skyspark’ freshly painted on the nose in front of the RAF Roundel, which almost covered it. A bottle of champagne was put beside the nose on a special rig which allowed the bottle to safely be smashed against the side of the aircraft.

On 25 November 1958 the P.1B XA847 reached Mach 2 for the first time. This made it the second Western European aircraft to reach Mach 2, the first one being the French Dassault Mirage III just over a month earlier on 24 October 1958

 

The first operational Skyspark, designated Skyspark F.1, was designed as a pure interceptor to defend the V Force airfields in conjunction with the "last ditch" Bristol Bloodhound missiles located either at the bomber airfield, e.g. at RAF Marham, or at dedicated missile sites near to the airfield, e.g. at RAF Woodhall Spa near the Vulcan station RAF Coningsby. The bomber airfields, along with the dispersal airfields, would be the highest priority targets in the UK for enemy nuclear weapons. To best perform this intercept mission, emphasis was placed on rate-of-climb, acceleration, and speed, rather than range – originally a radius of operation of only 150 miles (240 km) from the V bomber airfields was specified – and endurance. Armament consisted of a pair of 30 mm ADEN cannon in front of the cockpit, and two pylons for IR-guided de Havilland Firestreak air-to-air missiles were added to the lower fuselage flanks. These hardpoints could, alternatively, carry pods with unguided 55 mm air-to-air rockets. The Ferranti AI.23 onboard radar provided missile guidance and ranging, as well as search and track functions.

 

The next two Skyspark variants, the Skyspark F.1A and F.2, incorporated relatively minor design changes, but for the next variant, the Skyspark F.3, they were more extensive: The F.3 had higher thrust Rolls-Royce Avon 301R engines, a larger squared-off fin that improved directional stability at high speed further and a strengthened inlet cone allowing a service clearance to Mach 2.0 (2,450 km/h; the F.1, F.1A and F.2 were all limited to Mach 1.7 (2,083 km/h). An upgraded A.I.23B radar and new, radar-guided Red Top missiles offered a forward hemisphere attack capability, even though additional electronics meant that the ADEN guns had to be deleted – but they were not popular in their position in front of the windscreen, because the muzzle flash blinded the pilot upon firing. The new engines and fin made the F.3 the highest performance Skyspark yet, but this came at a steep price: higher fuel consumption, resulting in even shorter range. From this basis, a conversion trainer with a side-by-side cockpit, the T.4, was created.

 

The next interceptor variant was already in development, but there was a need for an interim solution to partially address the F.3's shortcomings, the F.3A. The F.3A introduced two major improvements: a larger, non-jettisonable, 610-imperial-gallon (2,800 L) ventral fuel tank, resulting in a much deeper and longer belly fairing, and a new, kinked, conically cambered wing leading edge. The conically cambered wing improved manoeuvrability, especially at higher altitudes, and it offered space for a slightly larger leading edge fuel tank, raising the total usable internal fuel by 716 imperial gallons (3,260 L). The enlarged ventral tank not only nearly doubled available fuel, it also provided space at its front end for a re-instated pair of 30 mm ADEN cannon with 120 RPG. Alternatively, a retractable pack with unguided 55 mm air-to-air rockets could be installed, or a set of cameras for reconnaissance missions. The F.3A also introduced an improved A.I.23B radar and the new IR-guided Red Top missile, which was much faster and had greater range and manoeuvrability than the Firestreak. Its improved infrared seeker enabled a wider range of engagement angles and offered a forward hemisphere attack capability that would allow the Skyspark to attack even faster bombers (like the new, supersonic Tupolev T-22 Blinder) through a collision-course approach.

Wings and the new belly tank were also immediately incorporated in a second trainer variant, the T.5.

 

The ultimate variant, the Skyspark F.6, was nearly identical to the F.3A, with the exception that it could carry two additional 260-imperial-gallon (1,200 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, even though their supersonic drag was so high that the extra fuel would only marginally raise the aircraft’s range when flying beyond the sound barrier for extended periods.

 

Finally, there was the Skyspark F.2A; it was an early production F.2 upgraded with the new cambered wing, the squared fin, and the 610 imperial gallons (2,800 L) ventral tank. However, the F.2A retained the old AI.23 radar, the IR-guided Firestreak missile and the earlier Avon 211R engines. Although the F.2A lacked the thrust of the later Skysparks, it had the longest tactical range of all variants, and was used for low-altitude interception over West Germany.

 

The first Skysparks to enter service with the RAF, three pre-production P.1Bs, arrived at RAF Coltishall in Norfolk on 23 December 1959, joining the Air Fighting Development Squadron (AFDS) of the Central Fighter Establishment, where they were used to clear the Skyspark for entry into service. The production Skyspark F.1 entered service with the AFDS in May 1960, allowing the unit to take part in the air defence exercise "Yeoman" later that month. The Skyspark F.1 entered frontline squadron service with 74 Squadron at Coltishall from 11 July 1960. This made the Skyspark the second Western European-built combat aircraft with true supersonic capability to enter service and the second fully supersonic aircraft to be deployed in Western Europe (the first one in both categories being the Swedish Saab 35 Draken on 8 March 1960 four months earlier).

 

The aircraft's radar and missiles proved to be effective, and pilots reported that the Skyspark was easy to fly. However, in the first few months of operation the aircraft's serviceability was extremely poor. This was due to the complexity of the aircraft systems and shortages of spares and ground support equipment. Even when the Skyspark was not grounded by technical faults, the RAF initially struggled to get more than 20 flying hours per aircraft per month compared with the 40 flying hours that English Electric believed could be achieved with proper support. In spite of these concerns, within six months of the Skyspark entering service, 74 Squadron was able to achieve 100 flying hours per aircraft.

 

Deliveries of the slightly improved Skyspark F.1A, with revised avionics and provision for an air-to-air refueling probe, allowed two more squadrons, 56 and 111 Squadron, both based at RAF Wattisham, to convert to the Skyspark in 1960–1961. The Skyspark F.1 was only ordered in limited numbers and served only for a short time; nonetheless, it was viewed as a significant step forward in Britain's air defence capabilities. Following their replacement from frontline duties by the introduction of successively improved Skyspark variants, the remaining F.1 aircraft were employed by the Skyspark Conversion Squadron.

The improved F.2 entered service with 19 Squadron at the end of 1962 and 92 Squadron in early 1963. Conversion of these two squadrons was aided by the of the two-seat T.4 and T.5 trainers (based on the F.3 and F.3A/F.6 fighters), which entered service with the Skyspark Conversion Squadron (later renamed 226 Operational Conversion Unit) in June 1962. While the OCU was the major user of the two-seater, small numbers were also allocated to the front-line fighter squadrons. More F.2s were produced than there were available squadron slots, so later production aircraft were stored for years before being used operationally; some of these Skyspark F.2s were converted to F.2As.

 

The F.3, with more powerful engines and the new Red Top missile was expected to be the definitive Skyspark, and at one time it was planned to equip ten squadrons, with the remaining two squadrons retaining the F.2. However, the F.3 also had only a short operational life and was withdrawn from service early due to defence cutbacks and the introduction of the even more capable and longer-range F.6, some of which were converted F.3s.

 

The introduction of the F.3 and F.6 allowed the RAF to progressively reequip squadrons operating aircraft such as the subsonic Gloster Javelin and retire these types during the mid-1960s. During the 1960s, as strategic awareness increased and a multitude of alternative fighter designs were developed by Warsaw Pact and NATO members, the Skyspark's range and firepower shortcomings became increasingly apparent. The transfer of McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom IIs from Royal Navy service enabled these much longer-ranged aircraft to be added to the RAF's interceptor force, alongside those withdrawn from Germany as they were replaced by SEPECAT Jaguars in the ground attack role.

The Skyspark's direct replacement was the Tornado F.3, an interceptor variant of the Panavia Tornado. The Tornado featured several advantages over the Skyspark, including far larger weapons load and considerably more advanced avionics. Skysparks were slowly phased out of service between 1974 and 1988, even though they lasted longer than expected because the definitive Tornado F.3 went through serious teething troubles and its service introduction was delayed several times. In their final years, the Skysparks’ airframes required considerable maintenance to keep them airworthy due to the sheer number of accumulated flight hours.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 51 ft 2 in (15,62 m) fuselage only

57 ft 3½ in (17,50 m) including pitot

Wingspan: 34 ft 10 in (10.62 m)

Height: 17 ft 6¾ in (5.36 m)

Wing area: 474.5 sq ft (44.08 m²)

Empty weight: 31,068 lb (14,092 kg) with armament and no fuel

Gross weight: 41,076 lb (18,632 kg) with two Red Tops, ammunition, and internal fuel

Max. takeoff weight: 45,750 lb (20,752 kg)

 

Powerplant:

2× Rolls-Royce Avon 301R afterburning turbojet engines,

12,690 lbf (56.4 kN) thrust each dry, 16,360 lbf (72.8 kN) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: Mach 2.27 (1,500 mph+ at 40,000 ft)

Range: 738 nmi (849 mi, 1,367 km)

Combat range: 135 nmi (155 mi, 250 km) supersonic intercept radius

Range: 800 nmi (920 mi, 1,500 km) with internal fuel

1,100 nmi (1,300 mi; 2,000 km) with external overwing tanks

Service ceiling: 60,000 ft (18,000 m)

Zoom ceiling: 70,000 ft (21,000 m)

Rate of climb: 20,000 ft/min (100 m/s) sustained to 30,000 ft (9,100 m)

Zoom climb: 50,000 ft/min

Time to altitude: 2.8 min to 36,000 ft (11,000 m)

Wing loading: 76 lb/sq ft (370 kg/m²) with two AIM-9 and 1/2 fuel

Thrust/weight: 0.78 (1.03 empty)

 

Armament:

2× 30 mm (1.181 in) ADEN cannon with 120 RPG in the lower fuselage

2× forward fuselage hardpoints for a single Firestreak or Red Top AAM each

2× overwing pylon stations for 2.000 lb (907 kg each)

for 260 imp gal (310 US gal; 1,200 l) ferry tanks

  

The kit and its assembly:

This build was a submission to the “Hunter, Lightning, Canberra” group build at whatifmodellers.com, and one of my personal ultimate challenges – a project that you think about very often, but the you put the thought back into its box when you realize that turning this idea into hardware will be a VERY tedious, complex and work-intensive task. But the thematic group build was the perfect occasion to eventually tackle the idea of a model of a “side-by-side engine BAC Lightning”, a.k.a. “Flatning”, as a rather conservative alternative to the real aircraft’s unique and unusual design with stacked engines in the fuselage, which brought a multitude of other design consequences that led to a really unique aircraft.

 

And it sound so simple: take a Lightning, just change the tail section. But it’s not that simple, because the whole fuselage shape would be different, resulting in less depth, the wings have to be attached somewhere and somehow, the landing gear might have to be adjusted/shortened, and how the fuselage diameter shape changes along the hull, so that you get a more or less smooth shape, was also totally uncertain!

 

Initially I considered a MiG Ye-152 as a body donor, but that was rejected due to the sheer price of the only available kit (ModelSvit). A Chinese Shenyang J-8I would also have been ideal – but there’s not 1:72 kit of this aircraft around, just of its successor with side intakes, a 1:72 J-8II from trumpeter.

I eventually decided to keep costs low, and I settled for the shaggy PM Model Su-15 (marketed as Su-21) “Flagon” as main body donor: it’s cheap, the engines have a good size for Avons and the pen nib fairing has a certain retro touch that goes well with the Lightning’s Fifties design.

The rest of this "Flatning" came from a Hasegawa 1:72 BAC Lightning F.6 (Revell re-boxing).

 

Massive modifications were necessary and lots of PSR. In an initial step the Flagon lost its lower wing halves, which are an integral part of the lower fuselage half. The cockpit section was cut away where the intake ducts begin. The Lightning had its belly tank removed (set aside for a potential later re-installation), and dry-fitting and crude measures suggested that only the cockpit section from the Lightning, its spine and the separate fin would make it onto the new fuselage.

 

Integrating the parts was tough, though! The problem that caused the biggest headaches: how to create a "smooth" fuselage from the Lightning's rounded front end with a single nose intake that originally develops into a narrow, vertical hull, combined with the boxy and rather wide Flagon fuselage with large Phantom-esque intakes? My solution: taking out deep wedges from all (rather massive) hull parts along the intake ducts, bend the leftover side walls inwards and glue them into place, so that the width becomes equal with the Lightning's cockpit section. VERY crude and massive body work!

 

However, the Lightning's cockpit section for the following hull with stacked engines is much deeper than the Flagon's side-by-side layout. My initial idea was to place the cockpit section higher, but I would have had to transplant a part of the Lightning's upper fuselage (with the spine on top, too!) onto the "flat" Flagon’s back. But this would have looked VERY weird, and I'd have had to bridge the round ventral shape of the Lightning into the boxy Flagon underside, too. This was no viable option, so that the cockpit section had to be further modified; I cut away the whole ventral cockpit section, at the height of the lower intake lip. Similar to my former Austrian Hasegawa Lightning, I also cut away the vertical bulkhead directly behind the intake opening - even though I did not improve the cockpit with a better tub with side consoles. At the back end, the Flagon's jet exhausts were opened and received afterburner dummies inside as a cosmetic upgrade.

 

Massive PSR work followed all around the hull. The now-open area under the cockpit was filled with lead beads to keep the front wheel down, and I implanted a landing gear well (IIRC, it's from an Xtrakit Swift). With the fuselage literally taking shape, the wings were glued together and the locator holes for the overwing tanks filled, because they would not be mounted.

 

To mount the wings to the new hull, crude measurements suggested that wedges had to be cut away from the Lightning's wing roots to match the weird fuselage shape. They were then glued to the shoulders, right behind the cockpit due to the reduced fuselage depth. At this stage, the Lightning’s stabilizer attachment points were transplanted, so that they end up in a similar low position on the rounded Su-15 tail. Again, lots of PSR…

 

At this stage I contemplated the next essential step: belly tank or not? The “Flatning” would have worked without it, but its profile would look rather un-Lightning-ish and rather “flat”. On the other side, a conformal tank would probably look quite strange on the new wide and flat ventral fuselage...? Only experiments could yield an answer, so I glued together the leftover belly bulge parts from the Hasegawa kit and played around with it. I considered a new, wider belly tank, but I guess that this would have looked too ugly. I eventually settled upon the narrow F.6 tank and also used the section behind it with the arrestor hook. I just reduced its depth by ~2 mm, with a slight slope towards the rear because I felt (righteously) that the higher wing position would lower the model’s stance. More massive PSR followed….

 

Due to the expected poor ground clearance, the Lightning’s stabilizing ventral fins were mounted directly under the fuselage edges rather than on the belly tank. Missile pylons for Red Tops were mounted to the lower front fuselage, similar to the real arrangement, and cable fairings, scratched from styrene profiles, were added to the lower flanks, stretching the hull optically and giving more structure to the hull.

 

To my surprise, I did not have to shorten the landing gear’s main legs! The wings ended up a little higher on the fuselage than on the original Lightning, and the front wheel sits a bit further back and deeper inside of its donor well, too, so that the fuselage comes probably 2 mm closer to the ground than an OOB Lightning model. Just like on the real aircraft, ground clearance is marginal, but when the main wheels were finally in place, the model turned out to have a low but proper stance, a little F8U-ish.

  

Painting and markings:

I was uncertain about the livery for a long time – I just had already settled upon an RAF aircraft. But the model would not receive a late low-viz scheme (the Levin, my mono-engine Lightning build already had one), and no NMF, either. I was torn between an RAF Germany all-green over NMF undersides livery, but eventually went for a pretty standard RAF livery in Dark Sea Grey/Dark Green over NMF undersides, with toned-down post-war roundels.

A factor that spoke in favor of this route was a complete set of markings for an RAF 11 Squadron Lightning F.6 in such a guise on an Xtradecal set, which also featured dayglo orange makings on fin, wings and stabilizers – quite unusual, and a nice contrast detail on the otherwise very conservative livery. All stencils were taken from the OOB Revell sheet for the Lightning. Just the tactical code “F” on the tail was procured elsewhere, it comes from a Matchbox BAC Lightning’s sheet.

 

After basic painting the model received the usual black ink washing, some post-panel-shading and also a light treatment with graphite to create soot strains around the jet exhausts and the gun ports, and to emphasize the raised panel lines on the Hasegawa parts.

 

Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish and final bits and pieces like the landing gear and the Red Tops (taken OOB) were mounted.

  

A major effort, and I have seriously depleted my putty stocks for this build! However, the result looks less spectacular than it actually is: changing a Lightning from its literally original stacked engine layout into a more conservative side-by-side arrangement turned out to be possible, even though the outcome is not really pretty. But it works and is feasible!

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some Background:

During the 1950s, Hindustan Aircraft Limited (HAL) had developed and produced several types of trainer aircraft, such as the HAL HT-2. However, elements within the firm were eager to expand into the then-new realm of supersonic fighter aircraft. Around the same time, the Indian government was in the process of formulating a new Air Staff Requirement for a Mach 2-capable combat aircraft to equip the Indian Air Force (IAF). However, as HAL lacked the necessary experience in both developing and manufacturing frontline combat fighters, it was clear that external guidance would be invaluable; this assistance was embodied by Kurt Tank.

 

In 1956, HAL formally began design work on the supersonic fighter project. The Indian government, led by Jawaharlal Nehru, authorized the development of the aircraft, stating that it would aid in the development of a modern aircraft industry in India. The first phase of the project sought to develop an airframe suitable for travelling at supersonic speeds, and able to effectively perform combat missions as a fighter aircraft, while the second phase sought to domestically design and produce an engine capable of propelling the aircraft. Early on, there was an explicit adherence to satisfying the IAF's requirements for a capable fighter bomber; attributes such as a twin-engine configuration and a speed of Mach 1.4 to 1.5 were quickly emphasized, and this led to the HF-24 Marut.

 

On 24 June 1961, the first prototype Marut conducted its maiden flight. It was powered by the same Bristol Siddeley Orpheus 703 turbojets that had powered the Folland Gnat, also being manufactured by HAL at that time. On 1 April 1967, the first production Marut was delivered to the IAF. While originally intended only as an interim measure during testing, HAL decided to power production Maruts with a pair of unreheated Orpheus 703s, meaning the aircraft could not attain supersonic speed. Although originally conceived to operate around Mach 2 the Marut in fact was barely capable of reaching Mach 1 due to the lack of suitably powerful engines.

 

The IAF were reluctant to procure a fighter aircraft only marginally superior to its existing fleet of British-built Hawker Hunters. However, in 1961, the Indian Government decided to procure the Marut, nevertheless, but only 147 aircraft, including 18 two-seat trainers, were completed out of a planned 214. Just after the decision to build the lukewarm Marut, the development of a more advanced aircraft with the desired supersonic performance was initiated.

 

This enterprise started star-crossed, though: after the Indian Government conducted its first nuclear tests at Pokhran, international pressure prevented the import of better engines of Western origin, or at times, even spares for the Orpheus engines, so that the Marut never realized its full potential due to insufficient power, and it was relatively obsolescent by the time it reached production.

Due to these restrictions India looked for other sources for supersonic aircraft and eventually settled upon the MiG-21 F-13 from the Soviet Union, which entered service in 1964. While fast and agile, the Fishbed was only a short-range daylight interceptor. It lacked proper range for escort missions and air space patrols, and it had no radar that enabled it to conduct all-weather interceptions. To fill this operational gap, the new indigenous HF-26 project was launched around the same time.

 

For the nascent Indian aircraft industry, HF-26 had a demanding requirements specification: the aircraft was to achieve Mach 2 top speed at high altitude and carry a radar with a guided missile armament that allowed interceptions in any weather, day and night. The powerplant question was left open, but it was clear from the start that a Soviet engine would be needed, since an indigenous development of a suitable powerplant would take much too long and block vital resources, and western alternatives were out of reach. The mission profile and the performance requirements quickly defined the planned aircraft’s layout: To fit a radar, the air intakes with movable ramps to feed the engines were placed on the fuselage flanks. To make sure the aircraft would fulfill its high-performance demands, it was right from the outset powered by two engines, and it was decided to give it delta wings, a popular design among high-speed aircraft of the time – exemplified by the highly successful Dassault Mirage III (which was to be delivered to Pakistan in 1967). With two engines, the HF-26 would be a heavier aircraft than the Mirage III, though, and it was planned to operate the aircraft from semi-prepared airfields, so that it would receive a robust landing gear with low-pressure tires and a brake parachute.

 

In 1962 India was able to negotiate the delivery of Tumansky RD-9 turbojet engines from the Soviet Union, even though no afterburner was part of the deal – this had to be indigenously developed by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). However, this meant that the afterburner could be tailored to the HF-26, and this task would provide HAL with valuable engineering experience, too.

Now knowing the powerplant, HAL created a single-seater airframe around it, a rather robust design that superficially reminded of the French Mirage III, but there were fundamental differences. The HF-26 had boxy air intakes with movable ramps to control the airflow to the two engines and a relatively wide fuselage to hold them and most of the fuel in tanks between the air ducts behind the cockpit. The aircraft had a single swept fin and a rather small mid-positioned delta-wing with a 60° sweep. The pilot sat under a tight canopy that offered - similar to the Mirage III - only limited all-round vision.

The HF-26's conical nose radome covered an antenna for a ‘Garud’ interception radar – which was in fact a downgraded Soviet ‘Oryol' (Eagle; NATO reporting name 'Skip Spin') system that guided the HF-26’s main armament, a pair of semi-active radar homing (SARH) ‚Saanp’ missiles.

 

The Saanp missile was developed specifically for the HF-26 in India but used many components of Soviet origin, too, so that they were compatible with the radar. In performance, the Saanp was comparable with the French Matra R.530 air-to-air missile, even though the aerodynamic layout was reversed, with steering fins at the front end, right behind the SARH seaker head - overall the missile reminded of an enlarged AIM-4 Falcon. The missile weighed 180 kg and had a length of 3.5 m. Power came from a two-stage solid rocket that offered a maximum thrust of 80 kN for 2.7 s during the launch phase plus 6.5 s cruise. Maximum speed was Mach 2.7 and operational range was 1.5 to 20 km (0.9 to 12.5 miles). Two of these missiles could be carried on the main wing hardpoints in front of the landing gear wells. Alternatively, infrared-guided R-3 (AA-2 ‘Atoll’) short-range AAMs could be carried by the HF-26, too, and typically two of these were carried on the outer underwing hardpoints, which were plumbed to accept drop tanks (typically supersonic PTB-490s that were carried by the IAF's MiG-21s, too) . Initially, no internal gun was envisioned, as the HF-26 was supposed to be a pure high-speed/high-altitude interceptor that would not engage in dogfights. Two more hardpoints under the fuselage were plumbed, too, for a total of six external stations.

 

Due to its wing planform, the HF-26 was soon aptly called “Teer” (= Arrow), and with Soviet help the first prototype was rolled out in early 1964 and presented to the public. The first flight, however, would take place almost a year later in January 1965, due to many technical problems, and these were soon complemented by aerodynamic problems. The original delta-winged HF-26 had poor take-off and landing characteristics, and directional stability was weak, too. While a second prototype was under construction in April 1965 the first aircraft was lost after it had entered a spin from which the pilot could not escape – the aircraft crashed and its pilot was killed during the attempt to eject.

 

After this loss HAL investigated an enlarged fin and a modified wing design with deeper wingtips with lower sweep, which increased wing area and improved low speed handling, too. Furthermore, the fuselage shape had to be modified, too, to reduce supersonic drag, and a more pronounced area ruling was introduced. The indigenous afterburner for the RD-9 engines was unstable and troublesome, too.

It took until 1968 and three more flying prototypes (plus two static airframes) to refine the Teer for serial production service introduction. In this highly modified form, the aircraft was re-designated HF-26M and the first machines were delivered to IAF No. 3 Squadron in late 1969. However, it would take several months until a fully operational status could be achieved. By that time, it was already clear that the Teer, much like the HF-24 Marut before, could not live up to its expectations and was at the brink of becoming obsolete as it entered service. The RD-9 was not a modern engine anymore, and despite its indigenous afterburner – which turned out not only to be chronically unreliable but also to be very thirsty when engaged – the Teer had a disappointing performance: The fighter only achieved a top speed of Mach 1.6 at full power, and with full external load it hardly broke the wall of sound in level flight. Its main armament, the Saanp AAM, also turned out to be unreliable even under ideal conditions.

 

However, the HF-26M came just in time to take part in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and was, despite its weaknesses, extensively used – even though not necessarily in its intended role. High-flying slow bombers were not fielded during the conflict, and the Teer remained, despite its on-board radar, heavily dependent on ground control interception (GCI) to vector its pilot onto targets coming in at medium and even low altitude. The HF-26M had no capability against low-flying aircraft either, so that pilots had to engage incoming, low-flying enemy aircraft after visual identification – a task the IAF’s nimble MiG-21s were much better suited for. Escorts and air cover missions for fighter-bombers were flown, too, but the HF-26M’s limited range only made it a suitable companion for the equally short-legged Su-7s. The IAF Canberras were frequently deployed on longer range missions, but the HF-26Ms simply could not follow them all the time; for a sufficient range the Teer had to carry four drop tanks, what increased drag and only left the outer pair of underwing hardpoints (which were not plumbed) free for a pair of AA-2 missiles. With the imminent danger of aerial close range combat, though, During the conflict with Pakistan, most HF-26M's were retrofitted with rear-view mirrors in their canopies to improve the pilot's field of view, and a passive IR sensor was added in a small fairing under the nose to improve the aircraft's all-weather capabilities and avoid active radar emissions that would warn potential prey too early.

 

The lack of an internal gun turned out to be another great weakness of the Teer, and this was only lightly mended through the use of external gun pods. Two of these cigar-shaped pods that resembled the Soviet UPK-23 pod could be carried on the two ventral pylons, and each contained a 23 mm Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-23L autocannon of Soviet origin with 200 rounds. Technically these pods were very similar to the conformal GP-9 pods carried by the IAF MiG-21FLs. While the gun pods considerably improved the HF-26M’s firepower and versatility, the pods were draggy, blocked valuable hardpoints (from extra fuel) and their recoil tended to damage the pylons as well as the underlying aircraft structure, so that they were only commissioned to be used in an emergency.

 

However, beyond air-to-air weapons, the HF-26M could also carry ordnance of up to 1.000 kg (2.207 lb) on the ventral and inner wing hardpoints and up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) on the other pair of wing hardpoints, including iron bombs and/or unguided missile pods. However, the limited field of view from the cockpit over the radome as well as the relatively high wing loading did not recommend the aircraft for ground attack missions – even though these frequently happened during the conflict with Pakistan. For these tactical missions, many HF-26Ms lost their original overall natural metal finish and instead received camouflage paint schemes on squadron level, resulting in individual and sometimes even spectacular liveries. Most notable examples were the Teer fighters of No. 1 Squadron (The Tigers), which sported various camouflage adaptations of the unit’s eponym.

 

Despite its many deficiencies, the HF-26M became heavily involved in the Indo-Pakistan conflict. As the Indian Army tightened its grip in East Pakistan, the Indian Air Force continued with its attacks against Pakistan as the campaign developed into a series of daylight anti-airfield, anti-radar, and close-support attacks by fighter jets, with night attacks against airfields and strategic targets by Canberras and An-12s, while Pakistan responded with similar night attacks with its B-57s and C-130s.

The PAF deployed its F-6s mainly on defensive combat air patrol missions over their own bases, leaving the PAF unable to conduct effective offensive operations.  Sporadic raids by the IAF continued against PAF forward air bases in Pakistan until the end of the war, and interdiction and close-support operations were maintained. One of the most successful air raids by India into West Pakistan happened on 8 December 1971, when Indian Hunter aircraft from the Pathankot-based 20 Squadron, attacked the Pakistani base in Murid and destroyed 5 F-86 aircraft on the ground.

The PAF played a more limited role in the operations, even though they were reinforced by Mirages from an unidentified Middle Eastern ally (whose identity remains unknown). The IAF was able to conduct a wide range of missions – troop support; air combat; deep penetration strikes; para-dropping behind enemy lines; feints to draw enemy fighters away from the actual target; bombing and reconnaissance. India flew 1,978 sorties in the East and about 4,000 in Pakistan, while the PAF flew about 30 and 2,840 at the respective fronts.  More than 80 percent of IAF sorties were close-support and interdiction and about 45 IAF aircraft were lost, including three HF-26Ms. Pakistan lost 60 to 75 aircraft, not including any F-86s, Mirage IIIs, or the six Jordanian F-104s which failed to return to their donors. The imbalance in air losses was explained by the IAF's considerably higher sortie rate and its emphasis on ground-attack missions. The PAF, which was solely focused on air combat, was reluctant to oppose these massive attacks and rather took refuge at Iranian air bases or in concrete bunkers, refusing to offer fights and respective losses.

 

After the war, the HF-26M was officially regarded as outdated, and as license production of the improved MiG-21FL (designated HAL Type 77 and nicknamed “Trishul” = Trident) and later of the MiG-21M (HAL Type 88) was organized in India, the aircraft were quickly retired from frontline units. They kept on serving into the Eighties, though, but now restricted to their original interceptor role. Beyond the upgrades from the Indo-Pakistani War, only a few upgrades were made. For instance, the new R-60 AAM was introduced to the HF-26M and around 1978 small (but fixed) canards were retrofitted to the air intakes behind the cockpit that improved the Teer’s poor slow speed control and high landing speed as well as the aircraft’s overall maneuverability.

A radar upgrade, together with the introduction of better air-to-ai missiles with a higher range and look down/shoot down capability was considered but never carried out. Furthermore, the idea of a true HF-26 2nd generation variant, powered by a pair of Tumansky R-11F-300 afterburner jet engines (from the license-built MiG-21FLs), was dropped, too – even though this powerplant eventually promised to fulfill the Teer’s design promise of Mach 2 top speed. A total of only 82 HF-26s (including thirteen two-seat trainers with a lengthened fuselage and reduced fuel capacity, plus eight prototypes) were built. The last aircraft were retired from IAF service in 1988 and replaced with Mirage 2000 fighters procured from France that were armed with the Matra Super 530 AAM.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 14.97 m (49 ft ½ in)

Wingspan: 9.43 m (30 ft 11 in)

Height: 4.03 m (13 ft 2½ in)

Wing area: 30.6 m² (285 sq ft)

Empty weight: 7,000 kg (15,432 lb)

Gross weight: 10,954 kg (24,149 lb) with full internal fuel

Max takeoff weight: 15,700 kg (34,613 lb) with external stores

 

Powerplant:

2× Tumansky RD-9 afterburning turbojet engines; 29 kN (6,600 lbf) dry thrust each

and 36.78 kN (8,270 lbf) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 1,700 km/h (1,056 mph; 917 kn; Mach 1.6) at 11,000 m (36,000 ft)

1,350 km/h (840 mph, 730 kn; Mach 1.1) at sea level

Combat range: 725 km (450 mi, 391 nmi) with internal fuel only

Ferry range: 1,700 km (1,100 mi, 920 nmi) with four drop tanks

Service ceiling: 18,100 m (59,400 ft)

g limits: +6.5

Time to altitude: 9,145 m (30,003 ft) in 1 minute 30 seconds

Wing loading: 555 kg/m² (114 lb/sq ft)

 

Armament

6× hardpoints (four underwing and two under the fuselage) for a total of 2.500 kg (5.500 lb);

Typical interceptor payload:

- two IR-guided R-3 or R-60 air-to-air-missiles or

two PTB-490 drop tanks on the outer underwing stations

- two semi-active radar-guided ‚Saanp’ air-to-air missiles or two more R-3 or R-60 AAMs

on inner underwing stations

- two 500 l drop tanks or two gun pods with a 23 mm GSh-23L autocannon and 200 RPG

each under the fuselage

  

The kit and its assembly:

This whiffy delta-wing fighter was inspired when I recently sliced up a PM Model Su-15 kit for my side-by-side-engine BAC Lightning build. At an early stage of the conversion, I held the Su-15 fuselage with its molded delta wings in my hand and wondered if a shortened tail section (as well as a shorter overall fuselage to keep proportions balanced) could make a delta-wing jet fighter from the Flagon base? Only a hardware experiment could yield an answer, and since the Su-15’s overall outlines look a bit retro I settled at an early stage on India as potential designer and operator, as “the thing the HF-24 Marut never was”.

 

True to the initial idea, work started on the tail, and I chopped off the fuselage behind the wings’ trailing edge. Some PSR was necessary to blend the separate exhaust section into the fuselage, which had to be reduced in depth through wedges that I cut out under the wings trailing edge, plus some good amount of glue and sheer force the bend the section a bit upwards. The PM Model's jet exhausts were drilled open, and I added afterburner dummies inside - anything would look better than the bleak vertical walls inside after only 2-3 mm! The original fin was omitted, because it was a bit too large for the new, smaller aircraft and its shape reminded a lot of the Suchoj heavy fighter family. It was replaced with a Mirage III/V fin, left over from a (crappy!) Pioneer 2 IAI Nesher kit.

 

Once the rear section was complete, I had to adjust the front end - and here the kitbashing started. First, I chopped off the cockpit section in front of the molded air intake - the Su-15’s long radome and the cockpit on top of the fuselage did not work anymore. As a remedy I remembered another Su-15 conversion I did a (long) while ago: I created a model of a planned ground attack derivative, the T-58Sh, and, as a part of the extensive body work, I transplanted the slanted nose from an academy MiG-27 between the air intakes – a stunt that was relatively easy and which appreciably lowered the cockpit position. For the HF-26M I did something similar, I just transplanted a cockpit from a Hasegawa/Academy MiG-23 with its ogival radome that size-wise better matched with the rest of the leftover Su-15 airframe.

 

The MiG-23 cockpit matched perfectly with the Su-15's front end, just the spinal area behind the cockpit had to be raised/re-sculpted to blend the parts smoothly together. For a different look from the Su-15 ancestry I also transplanted the front sections of the MiG-23 air intakes with their shorter ramps. Some mods had to be made to the Su-15 intake stubs, but the MiG-23 intakes were an almost perfect fit in size and shape and easy to integrate into the modified front hill. The result looks very natural!

However, when the fuselage was complete, I found that the nose appeared to be a bit too long, leaving the whole new hull with the wings somewhat off balance. As a remedy I decided at a rather late stage to shorten the nose and took out a 6 mm section in front of the cockpit - a stunt I had not planned, but sometimes you can judge things only after certain work stages. Some serious PSR was necessary to re-adjust the conical nose shape, which now looked more Mirage III-ish than planned!

 

The cockpit was taken mostly OOB, I just replaced the ejection seat and gave it a trigger handle made from thin wire. With the basic airframe complete it was time for details. The PM Model Su-15s massive and rather crude main landing gear was replaced with something more delicate from the scrap box, even though I retained the main wheels. The front landing gear was taken wholesale from the MiG-23, but had to be shortened for a proper stance.

A display holder adapter was integrated into the belly for the flight scenes, hidden well between the ventral ordnance.

 

The hardpoints, including missile launch rails, came from the MiG-23; the pylons had to be adjusted to match the Su-15's wing profile shape, the Anab missiles lost their tail sections to create the fictional Indian 'Saanp' AAMs. The R-3s on the outer stations were left over from a MP MiG-21. The ventral pylons belong to Academy MiG-23/27s, one came from the donor kit, the other was found in the spares box. The PTB-490 drop tanks also came from a KP MiG-21 (or one of its many reincarnations, not certain).

  

Painting and markings:

The paint scheme for this fictional aircraft was largely inspired by a picture of a whiffy and very attractive Saab 37 Viggen (an 1:72 Airfix kit) in IAF colors, apparently a model from a contest. BTW, India actually considered buying the Viggen for its Air Force!

IAF aircraft were and are known for their exotic and sometimes gawdy paint schemes, and with IAF MiG-21 “C 992” there’s even a very popular (yet obscure) aircraft that sported literal tiger stripes. The IAF Viggen model was surely inspired by this real aircraft, and I adopted something similar for my HF-26M.

 

IAF 1 Squadron was therefore settled, and for the paint scheme I opted for a "stripish" scheme, but not as "tigeresque" as "C 992". I found a suitable benchmark in a recent Libyian MiG-21, which carried a very disruptive two-tone grey scheme. I adapted this pattern to the HA-26M airframe and replaced its colors, similar to the IAF Viggen model, which became a greenish sand tone (a mix of Humbrol 121 with some 159; I later found out that I could have used Humbrol 83 from the beginning, though...) and a very dark olive drab (Humbrol 66, which looks like a dull dark brown in contrast with the sand tone), with bluish grey (Humbrol 247) undersides. With the large delta wings, this turned out to look very good and even effective!

 

For that special "Indian touch" I gave the aircraft a high-contrast fin in a design that I had seen on a real camouflaged IAF MiG-21bis: an overall dark green base with a broad, red vertical stripe which was also the shield for the fin flash and the aircraft's tactical code (on the original bare metal). The fin was first painted in green (Humbrol 2), the red stripe was created with orange-red decal sheet material. Similar material was also used to create the bare metal field for the tactical code, the yellow bars on the splitter plates and for the thin white canopy sealing.

 

After basic painting was done the model received an overall black ink washing, post-panel shading and extensive dry-brushing with aluminum and iron for a rather worn look.

The missiles became classic white, while the drop tanks, as a contrast to the camouflaged belly, were left in bare metal.

 

Decals/markings came primarily from a Begemot MiG-25 kit, the tactical codes on the fin and under the wings originally belong to an RAF post-WWII Spitfire, just the first serial letter was omitted. Stencils are few and they came from various sources. A compromise is the unit badge on the fin: I needed a tiger motif, and the only suitable option I found was the tiger head emblem on a white disc from RAF No. 74 Squadron, from the Matchbox BAC Lightning F.6&F.2A kit. It fits stylistically well, though. ;-)

 

Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (except for the black radome, which became a bit glossy) and finally assembled.

  

A spontaneous build, and the last one that I completed in 2022. However, despite a vague design plan the model evolved as it grew. Bashing the primitive PM Model Su-15 with the Academy MiG-23 parts was easier than expected, though, and the resulting fictional aircraft looks sturdy but quite believable - even though it appears to me like the unexpected child of a Mirage III/F-4 Phantom II intercourse, or like a juvenile CF-105 Arrow, just with mid-wings? Nevertheless, the disruptive paint scheme suits the delta wing fighter well, and the green/red fin is a striking contrast - it's a colorful model, but not garish.

Metal art nouveau incense burner. I might have identified it as art deco, but I am untrained.

 

Incense is aromatic biotic material that releases fragrant smoke when burned. The term refers to the material itself, rather than to the aroma that it produces. Incense is used for aesthetic reasons, and in therapy, meditation, and ceremony. It may also be used as a simple deodorant or insectifuge.

 

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 number of uses.

 

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 a smoky 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 incendere meaning "to burn".

 

Combustible bouquets were used by the ancient Egyptians, who employed incense in 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, giving evidence for the prominence of incense and related compounds in 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 (3300–1300 BCE). Evidence suggests oils were used mainly for their aroma. India also adopted techniques from East Asia, adapting the formulation to encompass aromatic roots and other indigenous flora. This was the first usage of subterranean plant parts in incense. New herbs like Sarsaparilla seeds, frankincense, and cypress were used by Indians.

 

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 use of incense comes from the ancient Chinese, who employed incense composed of herbs and plant products (such as cassia, cinnamon, styrax, and sandalwood) 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 Ashikaga 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 whoever might take his head in battle). It wasn't until the Muromachi period 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.

 

Local knowledge and tools were extremely influential on the style, but methods were also influenced by migrations of foreigners, such as clergy and physicians.

 

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 provides the fuel for combustion while an oxidizer such as sodium nitrate or potassium nitrate sustains the burning of the incense. Fragrant materials are added to the base prior to shaping, as in the case of powdered incense materials, or after, as in the case of essential oils. The formula for charcoal-based incense is superficially similar to black powder, though it lacks the sulfur.

 

Natural plant-based binders: Gums such as Gum Arabic or Gum Tragacanth are used to bind the mixture together. 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. These include:

 

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

Xiangnan pi (made from the bark of trees of genus Phoebe such as Phoebe nanmu or 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.

 

Typical compositions burn at a temperature between 220 °C and 260 °C.

 

TYPES:

 

Incense is available in various forms and degrees of processing. They can generally be separated into "direct-burning" and "indirect-burning" types. Preference for one form or another varies with culture, tradition, and personal taste. The two differ in their composition due to the former's requirement for even, stable, and sustained burning.

 

INDIRECT-BURNING:

 

Indirect-burning incense, also called "non-combustible incense", is an aromatic material or combination of materials, such as resins, that does not contain combustible material and so requires a separate heat source. Finer forms tend to burn more rapidly, while coarsely ground or whole chunks may be consumed very gradually, having less surface area. Heat is traditionally provided by charcoal or glowing embers. In the West, the best known incense materials of this type are the resins frankincense and myrrh, likely due to their numerous mentions in the Bible. Frankincense means "pure incense", though in common usage refers specifically to the resin of the boswellia tree.

 

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

Powdered or granulated: Incense broken into smaller pieces burns quickly and provides brief but intense odor.

 

Paste: Powdered or granulated incense material is mixed with a sticky 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, and Japan has a history of kneaded incense, called nerikō or awasekō, made using this method. 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 the rest of the incense without further application of external heat or flame. 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 are commonly encountered, though direct-burning incense can take nearly any form, whether for expedience or whimsy.

 

Coil: Extruded and shaped into a coil without a core, coil incense can burn for an extended period, from hours to days, and is commonly produced and used in Chinese cultures.

 

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

 

Cored stick: A supporting core of bamboo is coated with a thick layer of incense material that burns away with the core. Higher-quality variations have fragrant sandalwood cores. This type of incense is commonly produced in India and China. When used in Chinese folk religion, these are sometimes known as "joss sticks".

 

Dhoop or solid stick: With no bamboo core, dhoop incense is easily broken for portion control. 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. Powder incense is 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, is lit and blown out. Examples include 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 easily transported and stays fresh for extremely long periods. It has been used for centuries in Tibet and Nepal.

 

Moxa tablets, which are disks of powdered mugwort used in Traditional Chinese medicine for moxibustion, are not incenses; the treatment is by heat rather than fragrance.

 

Incense sticks may be termed joss sticks, especially in parts of East Asia, South Asia and Southeast Asia. Among ethnic Chinese and Chinese-influenced communities these are traditionally burned at temples, before the threshold of a home or business, before an image of a religious divinity or local spirit, or in shrines, large and small, found at the main entrance of 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 the devas. The word "joss" is derived from the Latin deus (god) via the Portuguese deos through the Javanese dejos, through Chinese pidgin English.

 

PRODUCTION:

 

The raw materials are powdered and then mixed together with a binder to form a paste, which, for direct burning incense, is then cut and dried into pellets. Incense of the Athonite Orthodox Christian tradition is 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.

 

Certain proportions are necessary for direct-burning incense:

 

Oil content: an excess of oils may prevent incense from smoldering effectively. Resinous materials such as myrrh and frankincense are typically balanced with "dry" materials such as wood, bark and leaf powders.

 

Oxidizer quantity: Too little oxidizer in gum-bound incense may prevent the incense from igniting, while too much will cause the incense to burn too quickly, without producing fragrant smoke.

Binder: Water-soluble binders such as "makko" ensure that the incense mixture does not crumble when dry, dilute the mixture.

 

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.

 

"Dipped" or "hand-dipped" direct-burning incense is created by dipping "incense blanks" made of unscented combustible dust into any suitable kind of essential or fragrance oil. These are often sold in the United States by flea-market and sidewalk vendors who have developed their own styles. This form of incense requires the least skill and equipment to manufacture, since the blanks are pre-formed in China or South East Asia.

 

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 core 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. In a process known as "splitting the foot of the incense stick", the bamboo is trimmed to length, soaked, peeled, and split in halves until the thin sticks of bamboo have square cross sections of less than 3mm. This process has been largely 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 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 sticks 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 produced in this fashion and burned in temples of Chinese folk religion 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 common due to the higher labor cost of producing powder-coated or paste-rolled sticks.

 

BURNING INCENSE:

 

Indirect-burning incense burned 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. The flame is then fanned or blown out, leaving the incense to smolder.

 

CULTURAL VARIATIONS:

 

ARABIAN:

 

In most Arab countries, incense is burned in the form of scented chips or blocks called bakhoor (Arabic: بخور‎ [bɑˈxuːɾ, bʊ-]. Incense is used on special occasions like weddings or on Fridays or generally to perfume the house. The bakhoor is usually burned in a mabkhara, a traditional incense burner (censer) similar to the Somali Dabqaad. It is customary in many Arab countries to pass bakhoor among the guests in the majlis ('congregation'). This is done as a gesture of hospitality.

 

CHINESE:

 

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 first known record is by poet Yu Jianwu (487-551): "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.

Incense-stick burning is an everyday practice in traditional Chinese religion. There are many different types of stick used for different purposes or on different festive days. Many of them are long and thin. Sticks are mostly coloured yellow, red, or more rarely, black. Thick sticks are used for special ceremonies, such as funerals. Spiral incense, with exceedingly long burn times, is often hung from temple ceilings. In some states, such as Taiwan,

 

Singapore, or Malaysia, where they celebrate the Ghost Festival, large, pillar-like dragon incense sticks are sometimes used. These generate so much smoke and heat that they are only burned outside.

 

Chinese incense sticks for use in popular religion are generally odorless or only use 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. Inexpensive packs of 300 are often found for sale in Chinese supermarkets. Though they contain no sandalwood, they often include the Chinese character for sandalwood on the label, as a generic term for incense.

 

Highly scented Chinese incense sticks are used by some Buddhists. These are often quite expensive due to the use of large amounts of sandalwood, agarwood, 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, or City of Ten Thousand Buddhas do not use incense.

 

INDIAN:

 

Incense sticks, also known as agarbathi (or agarbatti) and joss sticks, in which an incense paste is rolled or moulded around a bamboo stick, are the main forms of incense in India. The bamboo method originated in India, and is distinct from the Nepali/Tibetan and Japanese methods of stick making without bamboo cores. Though the method is also used in the west, 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 that take raw unperfumed sticks hand-rolled by approximately 200,000 women working part-time at home, and then apply their own brand of perfume, and package the sticks for sale. An experienced home-worker can produce 4,000 raw sticks a day. There are about 50 large companies that 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 Mysore.

 

JEWISH TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM

KETORET:

 

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

 

TIBETAN:

 

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, and 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:

 

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. The art of incense appreciation, or koh-do, is generally practiced as a separate art form from the tea ceremony, and usually 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. 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:

 

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. An example, as well as of religious use, is the giant Botafumeiro thurible that 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. 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-burning 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 multiple senses.

 

Incense made from materials such as citronella can repel mosquitoes and other irritating, 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 smell to linger.

 

AESTHETIC:

 

Many 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 aroma. An example is the kōdō (香道), where (frequently costly) raw incense materials such as agarwood are appreciated in a formal setting.

 

RELIGIOUS:

 

Religious use of incense is prevalent in many cultures and may have roots in the practical and aesthetic uses, considering that many of these religions have little else in common. 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), etc.

 

Aphrodisiac Incense has been used as an aphrodisiac in some cultures. Both ancient Greek and ancient Egyptian mythology suggest the usage of incense by goddesses and nymphs. Incense is thought to heighten sexual desires and sexual attraction.

 

Time-keeper Incense clocks are used to time social, medical and religious practices in parts of eastern Asia. They are primarily used in Buddhism as a timer of mediation and prayer. Different types of incense burn at different rates; therefore, different incense are used for different practices. The duration of burning ranges from minutes to months.

 

Healing stone cleanser Incense is claimed to cleanse and restore energy in healing stones. The technique used is called “smudging” and is done by holding a healing stone over the smoke of burning incense for 20 to 30 seconds. Some people believe that this process not only restores energy but eliminates negative energy.

 

HEALTH RISK FROM INCENSE SMOKE:

 

Incense smoke contains various contaminants including gaseous pollutants, such as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and adsorbed toxic pollutants (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and toxic metals). The solid particles range between ~10 and 500 nm. In a comparison, Indian sandalwood was found to have the highest emission rate, followed by Japanese aloeswood, then Taiwanese aloeswood, while Chinese smokeless sandalwood had the least.

 

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, epidemiologists at the Hong Kong Anti-Cancer Society, Aichi Cancer Center in Nagoya, and several other centers found: "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 their 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 lung cancer, 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 were 80% more likely to develop squamous-cell carcinomas. 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' ovarian cells to be even higher than cigarettes.

 

Incensole acetate, a component of Frankincense, has been shown to have anxiolytic-like and antidepressive-like effects in mice, mediated by activation of poorly-understood TRPV3 ion channels in the brain.

ADULT SEA OTTERS: MONTEREY BAY

 

The southern, or California, sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis) has been listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act since 1977. It belongs to the order Carnivora and the family Mustelidae. Two other otter subspecies are also recognized – E. lutris kenyoni, which is found from Oregon to Alaska, and E. lutris lutris, which inhabits parts of Russia and northern Japan. Sea otters are highly specialized marine mammals capable of living their entire lives without ever having to leave the ocean, have the densest fur of any mammal and are one of the few marine species to use tools. Sea otters are an apex predator of the near shore ecosystem. The species is considered a keystone species because of their critical importance to the health and stability of the near shore marine ecosystem. They are also considered a sentinel species because their health reflects that of California’s coastal oceans. The southern sea otter population has exhibited high levels of mortality in recent years. Scientists attribute up to 40 percent of southern sea otter mortality to infectious diseases alone, many of which are known to have anthropogenic causes and land-sea linkages. The single greatest threat to the sea otter is an oil spill. One large oil spill in central California could be catastrophic, with the potential of driving the entire southern sea otter population into extinction.

 

Description

The sea otter is one of the smallest marine mammals, but one of the largest members of the family Mustelidae, a group that includes skunks and weasels among others. Adult males reach an average length of 4.5 feet (1.4 m) with a typical weight between 50 and 100 lbs. (23 to 45 kg), while adult females reach an average length of 4 feet (1.2 m) and typically weigh 45 lbs. (20 kg). It has a highly buoyant, elongated body, blunt snout and small, wide head. Sea otters have an acute sense of smell and taste and have good vision both above and below the water surface. They also rely heavily on their sense of touch.

 

Sea otters exhibit numerous adaptations, which help them survive in their challenging marine environment. Long whiskers help them to detect vibrations in murky waters and sensitive forepaws, with retractable claws, help them to groom, locate and capture prey underwater, and use tools. When underwater, they can close their nostrils and small ears. The sea otter’s hind feet are webbed and flipper-like, and are used in conjunction with its lower body to propel the animal through the water. It has a long, flattened tail, which they use as a rudder and for added propulsion. Hearing is one sense that is not yet fully understood, although studies suggest they are particularly sensitive to high-frequency sounds. Their teeth are unique for a mammal in that they are blunt and designed for crushing, rather than being sharp for tearing like most marine mammals are equipped with.

With the exception of its nose and pads of its paws, the sea otter’s body is covered in dense fur. The fur consists of two layers. The short, brown under fur can be as dense as 1 million hairs per square inch, making its fur the densest of any mammal. By comparison, we only have about 100,000 hairs in total on our heads. A top layer of long, waterproof guard hairs helps to keep the under fur layer dry by keeping cold water away from the skin. The pelage is typically deep brown in color with silver-gray highlights, with the coloration of the head and neck being lighter than the body. Unlike other marine mammals, such as seals and sea lions, sea otters do not have any blubber, so they depend on this exceptionally thick, water-resistant fur to stay warm in the cold, coastal Pacific.

 

Range & Habitat

Historically, southern sea otters were present in coastal marine habitats from northern California to Baja California in Mexico. This range decreased significantly during the fur trade during the 18th and 19th centuries, with excessive hunting nearly driving the species into extinction by the early 1900s. The current range extends along the California coast from Half Moon Bay in the north to Santa Barbara in the south, though individuals are occasionally seen outside these limits. A small population of sea otters lives at San Nicolas Island as a result of translocation efforts initiated in 1987.

 

Sea otters are found in a variety of coastal marine habitats, including rocky shores and sea-bottoms, sandy sea-bottoms, as well as coastal wetlands. Sea otters naturally inhabit offshore areas with an abundance of food and kelp canopy. They tend to live in ocean depths shallower than 130 feet (40 m) with water temperatures ranging between 35°F and 60°F.

 

Behavior

Most of a sea otter’s life is spent at sea, though they do occasionally haul out on land, where they appear clumsy and walk with a rather awkward gait. They eat, sleep, mate and give birth in the water. Sea otters spend most of their time floating on their backs at the surface grooming, eating, resting, and diving for food on the seafloor. Sea otters are relatively slow swimmers, generally traveling at 3-5 mph (5-8 km/h). They typically swim belly-up on their backs, propelling themselves through the water using their webbed hind feet. If a faster speed is required, for instance when a male is patrolling it’s territory for competing males or when in hot pursuit of a sexually receptive female, it turns over onto its stomach and in addition to using its webbed hind feet, it undulates its entire body for greater propulsion and acceleration.

 

Sea otters groom themselves almost continuously while at the surface, a practice critical for maintaining the insulating and water repellant properties of their fur. Its pliable skeleton and loosely fitted skin allow the animal the flexibility to reach any part of its body. During a grooming bout, which generally occurs directly after a foraging bout (a period of time in which diving and eating takes place) or resting bout, the animal can be seen somersaulting, twisting and turning, and meticulously rubbing its fur at the water surface. This behavior not only cleans the fur, but also traps air bubbles against the skin within the millions of hairs of its pelage. This layer of entrapped air creates an insulating barrier (similar to that of a double-paned window), which prevents water from reaching the skin. Constant grooming is absolutely critical for their survival. If cold ocean water reaches their skin, it will immediately begin to draw heat out of the animal, which disrupts the animal’s ability to thermo regulate and will ultimately lead to hypothermia and death.

Sea otters often rest together in single-sex groups called rafts. They are known to wrap themselves up in kelp to keep from drifting out to sea. While resting at the surface, a sea otter will often times hold its forepaws above the water surface and fold its hind feet up onto to its torso to help conserve heat.

 

With the exception of territorial males, who have the privilege of living among females, males and females tend to live in separate groups. The center of the sea otter range is predominately occupied by females (of all ages) and territorial males, as well as some dependent pups and recently weaned juvenile males. The northern and southern edges of the range are largely male dominated areas; consisting of juvenile, sub adult and adult males. Numbers in these male areas tend to increase in winter and spring because there are fewer mating opportunities with sexually receptive females during this time of the year.

 

Females generally have small home territories while many adult males hold larger aquatic territories consisting of several adult females. Bachelor males (animals who are either to young or too old to defend their own territories) reside in the large male-only groups at either end of the range. Males travel much greater distances throughout the range than females, typically making seasonal treks of up to 200 miles between the months of June and November when the highest proportion of females are in estrous. On any given day though, males tend to remain in the same general location, moving only a mile or two along the coastline. Females, on the other hand, are sedentary by nature, generally staying within 10 – 20 miles of their home ranges. Their home ranges are smaller because they have higher metabolic costs while pregnant and raising their pup.

 

Sea otters are equally active both night and day. A foraging bout occurs for several hours in the morning, typically starting just before sunrise. A second foraging bout begins in the afternoon, usually lasting for several hours until sunset. A grooming bout occurs before and after each foraging bout and resting bout follows at midday, followed again by another grooming and resting bout. A third foraging bout may also occur around midnight.

 

Although difficult to hear from shore, sea otters exhibit a variety of vocal behaviors. Pups are the most vocal. A pup can be heard squealing when its mother leaves it to dive for food and often times when a male approaches. Their cry is similar to that of a gull. Other vocalizations include: coos and grunts, which occur when an animal is eating or when content, as in the case of a pair-bonded couple during courtship; whines occur when an animal is frustrated, as in the case of an older pup wanting to suckle or an adult male attempting to mate with an uninterested female; growls, snarls, whistles and hisses can be heard when an animal is frightened or distressed, as in the case of a captured otter.

  

Food & Foraging

An otter must consume approximately 25% of its bodyweight in prey each day just to stay alive! A 75-pound otter can eat up to 1,500 sea urchins a day, or about 25 pounds of seafood (for a 75 pound kid, that would amount to eating 75 quarter pound hamburgers every day!). To meet its high energetic and thermoregulation demands, a sea otter’s metabolic rate is 2 to 3 times that of comparatively sized mammals. Sea otters consume a wide variety of benthic invertebrates. Prey items include sea urchins, abalone, crabs, mussels, clams, marine snails, marine worms, sea stars, and squid. In total, otters eat at least 50 species of benthic (bottom-dwelling) invertebrates, although individuals tend to specialize on only a few main prey types. Prey specialization and feeding preferences are passed on from mother to pup.

 

The strong forelegs paws are used to locate and capture prey. Pockets of loose skin under each foreleg are used to store prey it has gathered on the seafloor for the ascent to the surface. Rocks are often used as tools to dislodge prey on the sea floor and to break open the hard outer shells of some prey items upon returning to the surface. Floating belly-up in the water, they place rocks on their chests and repeatedly pound hard-shelled prey against them to gain access the meat inside. While eating, an otter will roll repeatedly in the water to wash away food scraps from its chest. Unlike most other marine mammals, sea otters commonly drink seawater. Although most of the animal’s water needs are met through the consumption of prey, its large kidneys allow it to extract fresh water from seawater.

 

Sea otters generally forage close to shore in depths shallower than 60 feet (18 m) but are capable of diving to depths of 300 feet (90 m) or more. With a relatively large lung capacity for it’s size, an otter can hold its breath for 5 minutes, but most dives are two minutes or less in duration. Source: www.seaotters.com

 

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

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.

 

+++ 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.

 

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

In Autumn 1946, the Saab company began internal studies aimed at developing a replacement aircraft for the Saab B 18/S 18 as Sweden's standard attack aircraft. In 1948, Saab was formally approached by the Swedish Government with a request to investigate the development of a turbojet-powered strike aircraft to replace a series of 1940s vintage attack, reconnaissance, and night-fighter aircraft then in the Flygvapnet’s inventory. On 20 December 1948, a phase one contract for the design and mock-up of the proposed aircraft was issued. The requirements laid out by the Swedish Air Force were demanding: the aircraft had to be able to attack anywhere along Sweden's 2,000 km (1,245 miles) of coastline within one hour of launch from a central location, and it had to be capable of being launched in any weather conditions, at day or night.

 

In response, Saab elected to develop a twin-seat aircraft with a low-mounted swept wing and equipped with advanced electronics. On 3 November 1952, the first prototype, under the handle “Fpl 32” (flygplan = aircraft) conducted its first flight. A small batch of prototypes completed design and evaluation trials with series production of the newly designated Saab 32 Lansen beginning in 1953. The first production A 32A Lansen attack aircraft were delivered to the Swedish Air Force and proceeded through to mid-1958, at which point manufacturing activity switched to the Lansen’s other two major scheduled variants, the J 32B all-weather fighter and the photo reconnaissance S 32C, optimized for maritime operations.

 

The idea behind the J 32 originated from the late 1940s: Even before the SAAB 29 Tunnan had taken to the air, discussions began between SAAB and the Swedish Aviation Administration regarding a future night fighter aircraft with a jet engine. Since the end of the war, the Swedish Air Force had wanted a night fighter aircraft but was forced to put these on the shelf due to cost reasons. In the end, they managed to obtain sixty de Haviland Mosquito night fighter aircraft (then designated J 30) from Great Britain as a low-budget solution, but the J 30 was far from modern at the end of the 1940s and talks with SAAB regarding a domestic alternative continued.

At the beginning of the 1950s, the Fpl 32 project was in full swing and the aircraft was selected as the basis for an indigenous all-weather jet night fighter with a sighting radar and various heavier weapons to be able to shoot down bombers – at the time of the J 32B’s design, the main bomber threat was expected to enter Swedish airspace at subsonic speed and at high altitude. The original idea was that this aircraft would replace the J 30 Mosquito from 1955 onwards, but this proved to be impossible as the J 30 fleet needed to be replaced long before this and the A 32A as initial/main varia of the Fpl 32 had priority. Because of this operational gap, in January 1951 the Swedish Air Force ordered the British de Haviland Venom (then designated J 33) as an interim all-weather fighter and plans for the J 32B were postponed until later with the idea that the Lansen’s fighter variant would replace the J 33 at the end of the 1950s and benefit from technological progress until then.

 

On 7 January 1957, the first J 32B conducted its maiden flight, and it was a considerable step forward from the A 32A attack aircraft – in fact, excepts for the hull, it had only little in common with the attack variant! The new fighter version was powered by a Rolls-Royce Avon Mk 47A (locally designated RM6A) which gave as much thrust without an afterburner as the SAAB A 32A's original RM5A2 did with an afterburner, greatly improving the aircraft’s rate of climb and acceleration, even though the J 32B remained only transonic.

The armament consisted of four heavier fixed 30 mm ADEN m/55 automatic cannon in a slightly re-contoured nose, plus Rb 24/AIM-9B Sidewinder IR-guided AAMs and various unguided rockets against air and ground targets. Instead of the A 32A’s Ericsson mapping and navigation radar, which was compatible with the indigenous Rb 04C anti-ship missile, one of the earliest cruise missiles in western service, the J 32B carried a PS-42/A. This was a search/tracking X-band radar with a gyro-stabilized antenna with a swivel range of 60° to each side and +60°/−30° up/down. The radar featured the option of a 3D display for both WSO and pilot and its data could be directly displayed in the pilot’s Sikte 6A HUD, a very modern solution at the time.

 

A total of 118 aircraft (S/N 32501-32620) were produced between 1958 and 1960, serving in four fighter units. However, the J 32B only served for just under 12 years as a fighter aircraft in the Swedish Air Force: aviation technology progressed very quickly during the 1960s and already in 1966, the J 32B began to be replaced by the J 35F, which itself was already an advanced all-weather interceptor version of the supersonic Draken. In 1969 only the Jämtland's Air Flotilla (F4) still had the J 32B left in service and the type began to be completely retired from frontline service. In 1970 the plane flew in service for the last time and in 1973 the J 32B was officially phased out of the air force, and scrapping began in 1974.

 

However, the J 32Bs’ career was not over yet: At the beginning of the 1970s, Målflygdivisionen (MFD for short, the “Target Air Division”) was still using old J 29Fs as target tugs and for other training purposes, and they needed to be replaced. The choice fell on the much more capable, robust and readily available J 32B. Twenty-four machines were transferred to the MFD in 1971 to be used for training purposes, losing their radar and cannon armament. Six of these six J 32Bs were in 1972 modified into dedicated target tugs under the designation J 32D, six more J 32Bs were left unmodified and allocated to various second-line tasks such as radio testing and ground training.

The other twelve J 32Bs (s/n 32507, -510, -512, -515, -529, -541, -543, -569, -571, -592, -607 and -612) became jamming aircraft through the implementation of ECR equipment under the designation J 32E. This electronics package included internally:

- An INGEBORG signal reconnaissance receiver with antennae in the radome,

covering S, C and L radar frequency bands

- A G24 jamming transmitter, also with its antenna in the radome, covering alternatively

S, C and L frequency bands. This device co-operated with the external ADRIAN jamming pod

- Apparatus 91B; a broadband jammer, later integrated with INGEBORG

- MORE, a jammer and search station for the VHF and UHF bands

- FB-6 tape player/recorder; used, among other things, to send false messages/interference

Additional, external equipment included:

- PETRUS: jamming pod, X-band, also radar warning, intended for jamming aircraft

and active missile radars

- ADRIAN: jamming pod, active on S- and C-band, intended for jamming land-based and

shipboard radars

- BOZ-1, -3, -9 and -100 chaff dispenser pods

 

Outwardly, the J 32E differed from its brethren only through some blade antennae around the hull, and they initially retained the fighters’ blue-green paint scheme and their tactical markings so that they were hard to distinguish from the original fighters. Over time, orange day-glow markings were added to improve visibility during training sessions. However, during the mid-Nineties, three machines received during scheduled overhauls a new all-grey low-visibility camouflage with toned-down markings, and they received the “16M” unit identifier – the only MFD aircraft to carry these openly.

 

When a J 32E crashed in 1975, three of the remaining six training J 32Bs were modified into J 32Es in 1979 to fill the ranks. The MFD kept operating the small J 32Ds and Es fleet well into the Nineties and the special unit survived two flotilla and four defense engagements. At that time, the Målflygdivisionen was part of the Swedish Air Force’s Upplands Flygflottilj (F16), but it was based at Malmen air base near Linköpping (where the Swedish Air Force’s Försökscentralen was located, too) as a detachment unit and therefore the machines received the unit identifier “F16M”, even though the “M” suffix did normally not appear on the aircraft. However, through a defense ministry decision in 1996 the Target Air Division and its associated companies as well as the aircraft workshop at Malmen were to be decommissioned, what meant the end of the whole unit. On June 26, 1997, a ceremony was held over the disbandment of the division, where, among other things, twelve J 32Es made a formation flight over Östergötland.

After the decommissioning of the division, however, the Lansens were still not ‘dead’ yet: the J 32D target tugs were kept operational by a private operator and received civil registrations, and eight flightworthy J 32Es were passed over to FMV:Prov (Provningsavdelningen vid Försvarets materielverk, the material testing department of the Swedish Air Force’s Försökscentralen) to serve on, while other airframes without any more future potential were handed over to museums as exhibition pieces, or eventually scrapped. The surviving J 32Es served on in the electronic aggressor/trainer role until 1999 when they were finally replaced by ten modified Sk 37E Viggen two-seaters, after their development and conversion had taken longer than expected.

 

However, this was still not the end of the Saab 32, which turned out to be even more long-lived: By 2010, at least two Lansens were still operational, having the sole task of taking high altitude air samples for research purposes in collaboration with the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority, and by 2012 a total of three Lansens reportedly remained in active service in Sweden.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 2

Length: 14.94 m (49 ft 0 in)

Wingspan: 13 m (42 ft 8 in)

Height: 4.65 m (15 ft 3 in)

Wing area: 37.4 m² (403 sq ft)

Airfoil: NACA 64A010

Empty weight: 7,500 kg (16,535 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 13,500 kg (29,762 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1× Svenska Flygmotor RM6A afterburning turbojet

(a Rolls Royce Avon Mk.47A outfitted with an indigenous afterburner),

delivering 4,88 kp dry and 6,500 kp with reheat

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 1,200 km/h (750 mph, 650 kn)

Range: 2,000 km (1,200 mi, 1,100 nmi) with internal fuel only

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

Rate of climb: 100 m/s (20,000 ft/min)

 

Armament:

No internal weapons.

13× external hardpoints (five major pylons and eight more for light weapons)

for a wide variety of up to 3.000 kg of ordnance, typically only used

for ECM and chaff/flare dispenser pods and/or a conformal ventral auxiliary tank

  

The kit and its assembly:

This is a what-if project that I had on my idea list for a long time, but never got the nerve to do it because it is just a mild modification – the model depicts a real aircraft type, just with a fictional livery for it (see below).

The plan to create a J 32E from Heller’s A 32 kit from 1982 predated any OOB option, though. Tarangus has been offering a dedicated J 32B/E kit since 2016, but I stuck to my original plan to convert a Heller fighter bomber which I had in The Stash™, anyway)- also because I find the Tarangus kit prohibitively expensive (for what you get), even though it might have saved some work.

 

The Heller A 32A kit was basically built OOB, even though changing it into a J 32B (and even further into an “E”) called for some major modifications. These could have been scratched, but out of convenience I invested into a dedicated Maestro Models conversion set that offers resin replacements for a modified gun bay (which has more pronounced “cheek fairings” than the attack aircraft, the lower section is similar to the S 32C camera nose), a new jet exhaust and also the Lansen’s unique conformal belly tank – for the cost of a NIB Heller Saab 32 kit alone, though… :-/

Implanting the Maestro Models parts was straightforward and relatively easy. The J 32B gun bay replaces the OOB parts from the Heller kit, fits well and does not require more PSR than the original part. Since the model depicts a gun-less J 32E, I faired the gun ports over.

 

The RM6A exhaust was a bit more challenging – it is a bit longer and wider than the A 32A’s RM5. It’s not much, maybe 1mm in each dimension, so that the tail opening had to be widened and slightly re-contoured to accept the new one-piece resin pipe. The belly tank matched the kit’s ventral contours well. As an extra, the Maestro Models set also offers the J 32B’s different tail skid, which is placed further back on the fighter than on the attack and recce aircraft.

 

The J 32E’s characteristic collection of sizable blade antennae all around the hull was scratched from 0.5 mm styrene sheet. Furthermore, the flaps were lowered, an emergency fuel outlet was added under the tail, the canopy (very clear, but quite thick!) cut into two parts for optional open display, and the air intake walls were extended inside of the fuselage with styrene sheet.

 

Under the wings, four pylons (the Heller kit unfortunately comes totally devoid of any ordnance or even hardpoints!) from the spares box were added that carry scratched BOZ-1 chaff dispensers and a pair of ADRIAN/PETRUS ECM pod dummies – all made from drop tanks, incidentally from Swedish aircraft (Mistercraft Saab 35 and Matchbox Saab 29). Sure, there are short-run aftermarket sets for this special equipment that might come closer to the real thing(s), but I do not think that the (quite considerable) investments in all these exotic aftermarket items are worthwhile when most of them are pretty easy to scratch.

  

Painting and markings:

The paint scheme was the actual reason to build a J 32E: the fundamental plan was to build a Lansen in the Swedish air superiority low-viz two-tone paint scheme from the Nineties, and the IMHO only sensible option beyond pure fantasy was the real J 32E as “canvas”. I used JAS 39 Gripens as reference: their upper tone is called Pansargrå 5431-17M (“Tank Grey”, which is, according to trustworthy sources, very close to FS 36173, U.S. Neutral Grey), while the undersides are painted in Duvagrå 5431-14M (“Dove Grey”; approximately FS 36373, a tone called “High Low Visibility Light Grey”). Surprisingly, other Swedish types in low-viz livery used different shades; the JA 37s and late J 35Js were painted in tones called mörkgrå 033M and grå 032M, even though AJSF 37s and AFAIK a single SK 37 were painted with the Gripen colors, too.

 

After checking a lot of Gripen pictures I selected different tones, though, because the greys appear much lighter in real life, esp. on the lower surfaces. I ended up with FS 36231 (Dark Gull Grey, Humbrol 140, a bit lighter than the Neutral Grey) and RLM 63 (Lichtgrau, Testors 2077, a very pale and cold tone). The aircraft received a low waterline with a blurry edge, and the light grey was raised at the nose up to the radome, as seen on JA 37s and JAS 39s. To make the low-viz Lansen look a little less uniform I painted the lower rear section of the fuselage in Revell 91 and 99, simulating bare metal – a measure that had been done with many Lansens because leaking fuel and oil from the engine bay would wash off any paint in this area, leaving a rather tatty look. Di-electric fairings like the nose radome and the fin tip were painted with a brownish light grey (Revell 75) instead of black, reducing contrast and simulating bare and worn fiber glass. Small details like the white tips of the small wing fences and the underwing pylons were adapted from real-world Lansens.

 

After a light black ink wash, I emphasized single panels with Humbrol 125 and 165 on the upper surfaces and 147 and 196 underneath. Additionally, grinded graphite was used for weathering and a grimy look – an effective method, thanks to the kit’s fine raised panel lines. The silver wing leading edges were created with decal sheet material and not painted, a clean and convenient solution that avoids masking mess.

 

The ECM and chaff dispenser pods were painted in a slightly different shade of grey (FS 36440, Humbrol 40). As a subtle contrast the conformal belly tank was painted with Humbrol 247 (RLM 76), a tone that comes close to the Lansens’ standard camouflage from the Sixties’ green/blue livery, with a darker front end (Humbrol 145) and a bare metal tail section.

 

The cockpit interior was, according to pictures of real aircraft, painted in a greenish grey; I used Revell 67 (RAL 7009, Grüngrau) for most surfaces and slightly darker Humbrol 163 for dashboards and instrument panels. The landing gear wells as well as the flaps’ interior became Aluminum Bronze (Humbrol 56), while the landing gear struts were painted in a bluish dark green (Humbrol 195) with olive drab (Revell 46) wheel hubs - a detail seen on some real-life Saab 32s and a nice contrast to the light grey all around.

 

All markings/decals came from RBD Studio/Moose Republic aftermarket sheets for Saab 32 and 37. From the latter the low-viz national markings and the day-glo orange tactical codes were taken, while most stencils came from the Lansen sheet. Unfortunately, the Heller kit’s OOB sheet is pretty minimalistic – but the real A/S 32s did not carry many markings, anyway. Finally, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish. As a confusing detail I gave the aircraft an explicit “16M” unit identifier, created with single black 4 mm letters/numbers. As a stark contrast and a modern peace-time element I also gave the Lansen the typical huge day-glo orange tactical codes on the upper wings that were carried by the Swedish interceptors of the time.

  

A relatively simple build, thanks to the resin conversion set – otherwise, creating a more or less believable J 32E from Heller’s A 32 kit is a tough challenge. Though expensive, the parts fit and work well, and I’d recommend the set, because the shape of the J 32B’s lower nose is quite complex and scratching the bigger jet pipe needs a proper basis. The modern low-viz livery suits the vintage yet elegant Lansen well, even though it reveals the aircraft’s bulk and size; in all-grey, the Lansen has something shark- or even whale-ish to it? The aircraft/livery combo looks pretty exotic, but not uncredible - like a proven war horse.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some Background:

During the 1950s, Hindustan Aircraft Limited (HAL) had developed and produced several types of trainer aircraft, such as the HAL HT-2. However, elements within the firm were eager to expand into the then-new realm of supersonic fighter aircraft. Around the same time, the Indian government was in the process of formulating a new Air Staff Requirement for a Mach 2-capable combat aircraft to equip the Indian Air Force (IAF). However, as HAL lacked the necessary experience in both developing and manufacturing frontline combat fighters, it was clear that external guidance would be invaluable; this assistance was embodied by Kurt Tank.

 

In 1956, HAL formally began design work on the supersonic fighter project. The Indian government, led by Jawaharlal Nehru, authorized the development of the aircraft, stating that it would aid in the development of a modern aircraft industry in India. The first phase of the project sought to develop an airframe suitable for travelling at supersonic speeds, and able to effectively perform combat missions as a fighter aircraft, while the second phase sought to domestically design and produce an engine capable of propelling the aircraft. Early on, there was an explicit adherence to satisfying the IAF's requirements for a capable fighter bomber; attributes such as a twin-engine configuration and a speed of Mach 1.4 to 1.5 were quickly emphasized, and this led to the HF-24 Marut.

 

On 24 June 1961, the first prototype Marut conducted its maiden flight. It was powered by the same Bristol Siddeley Orpheus 703 turbojets that had powered the Folland Gnat, also being manufactured by HAL at that time. On 1 April 1967, the first production Marut was delivered to the IAF. While originally intended only as an interim measure during testing, HAL decided to power production Maruts with a pair of unreheated Orpheus 703s, meaning the aircraft could not attain supersonic speed. Although originally conceived to operate around Mach 2 the Marut in fact was barely capable of reaching Mach 1 due to the lack of suitably powerful engines.

 

The IAF were reluctant to procure a fighter aircraft only marginally superior to its existing fleet of British-built Hawker Hunters. However, in 1961, the Indian Government decided to procure the Marut, nevertheless, but only 147 aircraft, including 18 two-seat trainers, were completed out of a planned 214. Just after the decision to build the lukewarm Marut, the development of a more advanced aircraft with the desired supersonic performance was initiated.

 

This enterprise started star-crossed, though: after the Indian Government conducted its first nuclear tests at Pokhran, international pressure prevented the import of better engines of Western origin, or at times, even spares for the Orpheus engines, so that the Marut never realized its full potential due to insufficient power, and it was relatively obsolescent by the time it reached production.

Due to these restrictions India looked for other sources for supersonic aircraft and eventually settled upon the MiG-21 F-13 from the Soviet Union, which entered service in 1964. While fast and agile, the Fishbed was only a short-range daylight interceptor. It lacked proper range for escort missions and air space patrols, and it had no radar that enabled it to conduct all-weather interceptions. To fill this operational gap, the new indigenous HF-26 project was launched around the same time.

 

For the nascent Indian aircraft industry, HF-26 had a demanding requirements specification: the aircraft was to achieve Mach 2 top speed at high altitude and carry a radar with a guided missile armament that allowed interceptions in any weather, day and night. The powerplant question was left open, but it was clear from the start that a Soviet engine would be needed, since an indigenous development of a suitable powerplant would take much too long and block vital resources, and western alternatives were out of reach. The mission profile and the performance requirements quickly defined the planned aircraft’s layout: To fit a radar, the air intakes with movable ramps to feed the engines were placed on the fuselage flanks. To make sure the aircraft would fulfill its high-performance demands, it was right from the outset powered by two engines, and it was decided to give it delta wings, a popular design among high-speed aircraft of the time – exemplified by the highly successful Dassault Mirage III (which was to be delivered to Pakistan in 1967). With two engines, the HF-26 would be a heavier aircraft than the Mirage III, though, and it was planned to operate the aircraft from semi-prepared airfields, so that it would receive a robust landing gear with low-pressure tires and a brake parachute.

 

In 1962 India was able to negotiate the delivery of Tumansky RD-9 turbojet engines from the Soviet Union, even though no afterburner was part of the deal – this had to be indigenously developed by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). However, this meant that the afterburner could be tailored to the HF-26, and this task would provide HAL with valuable engineering experience, too.

Now knowing the powerplant, HAL created a single-seater airframe around it, a rather robust design that superficially reminded of the French Mirage III, but there were fundamental differences. The HF-26 had boxy air intakes with movable ramps to control the airflow to the two engines and a relatively wide fuselage to hold them and most of the fuel in tanks between the air ducts behind the cockpit. The aircraft had a single swept fin and a rather small mid-positioned delta-wing with a 60° sweep. The pilot sat under a tight canopy that offered - similar to the Mirage III - only limited all-round vision.

The HF-26's conical nose radome covered an antenna for a ‘Garud’ interception radar – which was in fact a downgraded Soviet ‘Oryol' (Eagle; NATO reporting name 'Skip Spin') system that guided the HF-26’s main armament, a pair of semi-active radar homing (SARH) ‚Saanp’ missiles.

 

The Saanp missile was developed specifically for the HF-26 in India but used many components of Soviet origin, too, so that they were compatible with the radar. In performance, the Saanp was comparable with the French Matra R.530 air-to-air missile, even though the aerodynamic layout was reversed, with steering fins at the front end, right behind the SARH seaker head - overall the missile reminded of an enlarged AIM-4 Falcon. The missile weighed 180 kg and had a length of 3.5 m. Power came from a two-stage solid rocket that offered a maximum thrust of 80 kN for 2.7 s during the launch phase plus 6.5 s cruise. Maximum speed was Mach 2.7 and operational range was 1.5 to 20 km (0.9 to 12.5 miles). Two of these missiles could be carried on the main wing hardpoints in front of the landing gear wells. Alternatively, infrared-guided R-3 (AA-2 ‘Atoll’) short-range AAMs could be carried by the HF-26, too, and typically two of these were carried on the outer underwing hardpoints, which were plumbed to accept drop tanks (typically supersonic PTB-490s that were carried by the IAF's MiG-21s, too) . Initially, no internal gun was envisioned, as the HF-26 was supposed to be a pure high-speed/high-altitude interceptor that would not engage in dogfights. Two more hardpoints under the fuselage were plumbed, too, for a total of six external stations.

 

Due to its wing planform, the HF-26 was soon aptly called “Teer” (= Arrow), and with Soviet help the first prototype was rolled out in early 1964 and presented to the public. The first flight, however, would take place almost a year later in January 1965, due to many technical problems, and these were soon complemented by aerodynamic problems. The original delta-winged HF-26 had poor take-off and landing characteristics, and directional stability was weak, too. While a second prototype was under construction in April 1965 the first aircraft was lost after it had entered a spin from which the pilot could not escape – the aircraft crashed and its pilot was killed during the attempt to eject.

 

After this loss HAL investigated an enlarged fin and a modified wing design with deeper wingtips with lower sweep, which increased wing area and improved low speed handling, too. Furthermore, the fuselage shape had to be modified, too, to reduce supersonic drag, and a more pronounced area ruling was introduced. The indigenous afterburner for the RD-9 engines was unstable and troublesome, too.

It took until 1968 and three more flying prototypes (plus two static airframes) to refine the Teer for serial production service introduction. In this highly modified form, the aircraft was re-designated HF-26M and the first machines were delivered to IAF No. 3 Squadron in late 1969. However, it would take several months until a fully operational status could be achieved. By that time, it was already clear that the Teer, much like the HF-24 Marut before, could not live up to its expectations and was at the brink of becoming obsolete as it entered service. The RD-9 was not a modern engine anymore, and despite its indigenous afterburner – which turned out not only to be chronically unreliable but also to be very thirsty when engaged – the Teer had a disappointing performance: The fighter only achieved a top speed of Mach 1.6 at full power, and with full external load it hardly broke the wall of sound in level flight. Its main armament, the Saanp AAM, also turned out to be unreliable even under ideal conditions.

 

However, the HF-26M came just in time to take part in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and was, despite its weaknesses, extensively used – even though not necessarily in its intended role. High-flying slow bombers were not fielded during the conflict, and the Teer remained, despite its on-board radar, heavily dependent on ground control interception (GCI) to vector its pilot onto targets coming in at medium and even low altitude. The HF-26M had no capability against low-flying aircraft either, so that pilots had to engage incoming, low-flying enemy aircraft after visual identification – a task the IAF’s nimble MiG-21s were much better suited for. Escorts and air cover missions for fighter-bombers were flown, too, but the HF-26M’s limited range only made it a suitable companion for the equally short-legged Su-7s. The IAF Canberras were frequently deployed on longer range missions, but the HF-26Ms simply could not follow them all the time; for a sufficient range the Teer had to carry four drop tanks, what increased drag and only left the outer pair of underwing hardpoints (which were not plumbed) free for a pair of AA-2 missiles. With the imminent danger of aerial close range combat, though, During the conflict with Pakistan, most HF-26M's were retrofitted with rear-view mirrors in their canopies to improve the pilot's field of view, and a passive IR sensor was added in a small fairing under the nose to improve the aircraft's all-weather capabilities and avoid active radar emissions that would warn potential prey too early.

 

The lack of an internal gun turned out to be another great weakness of the Teer, and this was only lightly mended through the use of external gun pods. Two of these cigar-shaped pods that resembled the Soviet UPK-23 pod could be carried on the two ventral pylons, and each contained a 23 mm Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-23L autocannon of Soviet origin with 200 rounds. Technically these pods were very similar to the conformal GP-9 pods carried by the IAF MiG-21FLs. While the gun pods considerably improved the HF-26M’s firepower and versatility, the pods were draggy, blocked valuable hardpoints (from extra fuel) and their recoil tended to damage the pylons as well as the underlying aircraft structure, so that they were only commissioned to be used in an emergency.

 

However, beyond air-to-air weapons, the HF-26M could also carry ordnance of up to 1.000 kg (2.207 lb) on the ventral and inner wing hardpoints and up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) on the other pair of wing hardpoints, including iron bombs and/or unguided missile pods. However, the limited field of view from the cockpit over the radome as well as the relatively high wing loading did not recommend the aircraft for ground attack missions – even though these frequently happened during the conflict with Pakistan. For these tactical missions, many HF-26Ms lost their original overall natural metal finish and instead received camouflage paint schemes on squadron level, resulting in individual and sometimes even spectacular liveries. Most notable examples were the Teer fighters of No. 1 Squadron (The Tigers), which sported various camouflage adaptations of the unit’s eponym.

 

Despite its many deficiencies, the HF-26M became heavily involved in the Indo-Pakistan conflict. As the Indian Army tightened its grip in East Pakistan, the Indian Air Force continued with its attacks against Pakistan as the campaign developed into a series of daylight anti-airfield, anti-radar, and close-support attacks by fighter jets, with night attacks against airfields and strategic targets by Canberras and An-12s, while Pakistan responded with similar night attacks with its B-57s and C-130s.

The PAF deployed its F-6s mainly on defensive combat air patrol missions over their own bases, leaving the PAF unable to conduct effective offensive operations.  Sporadic raids by the IAF continued against PAF forward air bases in Pakistan until the end of the war, and interdiction and close-support operations were maintained. One of the most successful air raids by India into West Pakistan happened on 8 December 1971, when Indian Hunter aircraft from the Pathankot-based 20 Squadron, attacked the Pakistani base in Murid and destroyed 5 F-86 aircraft on the ground.

The PAF played a more limited role in the operations, even though they were reinforced by Mirages from an unidentified Middle Eastern ally (whose identity remains unknown). The IAF was able to conduct a wide range of missions – troop support; air combat; deep penetration strikes; para-dropping behind enemy lines; feints to draw enemy fighters away from the actual target; bombing and reconnaissance. India flew 1,978 sorties in the East and about 4,000 in Pakistan, while the PAF flew about 30 and 2,840 at the respective fronts.  More than 80 percent of IAF sorties were close-support and interdiction and about 45 IAF aircraft were lost, including three HF-26Ms. Pakistan lost 60 to 75 aircraft, not including any F-86s, Mirage IIIs, or the six Jordanian F-104s which failed to return to their donors. The imbalance in air losses was explained by the IAF's considerably higher sortie rate and its emphasis on ground-attack missions. The PAF, which was solely focused on air combat, was reluctant to oppose these massive attacks and rather took refuge at Iranian air bases or in concrete bunkers, refusing to offer fights and respective losses.

 

After the war, the HF-26M was officially regarded as outdated, and as license production of the improved MiG-21FL (designated HAL Type 77 and nicknamed “Trishul” = Trident) and later of the MiG-21M (HAL Type 88) was organized in India, the aircraft were quickly retired from frontline units. They kept on serving into the Eighties, though, but now restricted to their original interceptor role. Beyond the upgrades from the Indo-Pakistani War, only a few upgrades were made. For instance, the new R-60 AAM was introduced to the HF-26M and around 1978 small (but fixed) canards were retrofitted to the air intakes behind the cockpit that improved the Teer’s poor slow speed control and high landing speed as well as the aircraft’s overall maneuverability.

A radar upgrade, together with the introduction of better air-to-ai missiles with a higher range and look down/shoot down capability was considered but never carried out. Furthermore, the idea of a true HF-26 2nd generation variant, powered by a pair of Tumansky R-11F-300 afterburner jet engines (from the license-built MiG-21FLs), was dropped, too – even though this powerplant eventually promised to fulfill the Teer’s design promise of Mach 2 top speed. A total of only 82 HF-26s (including thirteen two-seat trainers with a lengthened fuselage and reduced fuel capacity, plus eight prototypes) were built. The last aircraft were retired from IAF service in 1988 and replaced with Mirage 2000 fighters procured from France that were armed with the Matra Super 530 AAM.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 14.97 m (49 ft ½ in)

Wingspan: 9.43 m (30 ft 11 in)

Height: 4.03 m (13 ft 2½ in)

Wing area: 30.6 m² (285 sq ft)

Empty weight: 7,000 kg (15,432 lb)

Gross weight: 10,954 kg (24,149 lb) with full internal fuel

Max takeoff weight: 15,700 kg (34,613 lb) with external stores

 

Powerplant:

2× Tumansky RD-9 afterburning turbojet engines; 29 kN (6,600 lbf) dry thrust each

and 36.78 kN (8,270 lbf) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 1,700 km/h (1,056 mph; 917 kn; Mach 1.6) at 11,000 m (36,000 ft)

1,350 km/h (840 mph, 730 kn; Mach 1.1) at sea level

Combat range: 725 km (450 mi, 391 nmi) with internal fuel only

Ferry range: 1,700 km (1,100 mi, 920 nmi) with four drop tanks

Service ceiling: 18,100 m (59,400 ft)

g limits: +6.5

Time to altitude: 9,145 m (30,003 ft) in 1 minute 30 seconds

Wing loading: 555 kg/m² (114 lb/sq ft)

 

Armament

6× hardpoints (four underwing and two under the fuselage) for a total of 2.500 kg (5.500 lb);

Typical interceptor payload:

- two IR-guided R-3 or R-60 air-to-air-missiles or

two PTB-490 drop tanks on the outer underwing stations

- two semi-active radar-guided ‚Saanp’ air-to-air missiles or two more R-3 or R-60 AAMs

on inner underwing stations

- two 500 l drop tanks or two gun pods with a 23 mm GSh-23L autocannon and 200 RPG

each under the fuselage

  

The kit and its assembly:

This whiffy delta-wing fighter was inspired when I recently sliced up a PM Model Su-15 kit for my side-by-side-engine BAC Lightning build. At an early stage of the conversion, I held the Su-15 fuselage with its molded delta wings in my hand and wondered if a shortened tail section (as well as a shorter overall fuselage to keep proportions balanced) could make a delta-wing jet fighter from the Flagon base? Only a hardware experiment could yield an answer, and since the Su-15’s overall outlines look a bit retro I settled at an early stage on India as potential designer and operator, as “the thing the HF-24 Marut never was”.

 

True to the initial idea, work started on the tail, and I chopped off the fuselage behind the wings’ trailing edge. Some PSR was necessary to blend the separate exhaust section into the fuselage, which had to be reduced in depth through wedges that I cut out under the wings trailing edge, plus some good amount of glue and sheer force the bend the section a bit upwards. The PM Model's jet exhausts were drilled open, and I added afterburner dummies inside - anything would look better than the bleak vertical walls inside after only 2-3 mm! The original fin was omitted, because it was a bit too large for the new, smaller aircraft and its shape reminded a lot of the Suchoj heavy fighter family. It was replaced with a Mirage III/V fin, left over from a (crappy!) Pioneer 2 IAI Nesher kit.

 

Once the rear section was complete, I had to adjust the front end - and here the kitbashing started. First, I chopped off the cockpit section in front of the molded air intake - the Su-15’s long radome and the cockpit on top of the fuselage did not work anymore. As a remedy I remembered another Su-15 conversion I did a (long) while ago: I created a model of a planned ground attack derivative, the T-58Sh, and, as a part of the extensive body work, I transplanted the slanted nose from an academy MiG-27 between the air intakes – a stunt that was relatively easy and which appreciably lowered the cockpit position. For the HF-26M I did something similar, I just transplanted a cockpit from a Hasegawa/Academy MiG-23 with its ogival radome that size-wise better matched with the rest of the leftover Su-15 airframe.

 

The MiG-23 cockpit matched perfectly with the Su-15's front end, just the spinal area behind the cockpit had to be raised/re-sculpted to blend the parts smoothly together. For a different look from the Su-15 ancestry I also transplanted the front sections of the MiG-23 air intakes with their shorter ramps. Some mods had to be made to the Su-15 intake stubs, but the MiG-23 intakes were an almost perfect fit in size and shape and easy to integrate into the modified front hill. The result looks very natural!

However, when the fuselage was complete, I found that the nose appeared to be a bit too long, leaving the whole new hull with the wings somewhat off balance. As a remedy I decided at a rather late stage to shorten the nose and took out a 6 mm section in front of the cockpit - a stunt I had not planned, but sometimes you can judge things only after certain work stages. Some serious PSR was necessary to re-adjust the conical nose shape, which now looked more Mirage III-ish than planned!

 

The cockpit was taken mostly OOB, I just replaced the ejection seat and gave it a trigger handle made from thin wire. With the basic airframe complete it was time for details. The PM Model Su-15s massive and rather crude main landing gear was replaced with something more delicate from the scrap box, even though I retained the main wheels. The front landing gear was taken wholesale from the MiG-23, but had to be shortened for a proper stance.

A display holder adapter was integrated into the belly for the flight scenes, hidden well between the ventral ordnance.

 

The hardpoints, including missile launch rails, came from the MiG-23; the pylons had to be adjusted to match the Su-15's wing profile shape, the Anab missiles lost their tail sections to create the fictional Indian 'Saanp' AAMs. The R-3s on the outer stations were left over from a MP MiG-21. The ventral pylons belong to Academy MiG-23/27s, one came from the donor kit, the other was found in the spares box. The PTB-490 drop tanks also came from a KP MiG-21 (or one of its many reincarnations, not certain).

  

Painting and markings:

The paint scheme for this fictional aircraft was largely inspired by a picture of a whiffy and very attractive Saab 37 Viggen (an 1:72 Airfix kit) in IAF colors, apparently a model from a contest. BTW, India actually considered buying the Viggen for its Air Force!

IAF aircraft were and are known for their exotic and sometimes gawdy paint schemes, and with IAF MiG-21 “C 992” there’s even a very popular (yet obscure) aircraft that sported literal tiger stripes. The IAF Viggen model was surely inspired by this real aircraft, and I adopted something similar for my HF-26M.

 

IAF 1 Squadron was therefore settled, and for the paint scheme I opted for a "stripish" scheme, but not as "tigeresque" as "C 992". I found a suitable benchmark in a recent Libyian MiG-21, which carried a very disruptive two-tone grey scheme. I adapted this pattern to the HA-26M airframe and replaced its colors, similar to the IAF Viggen model, which became a greenish sand tone (a mix of Humbrol 121 with some 159; I later found out that I could have used Humbrol 83 from the beginning, though...) and a very dark olive drab (Humbrol 66, which looks like a dull dark brown in contrast with the sand tone), with bluish grey (Humbrol 247) undersides. With the large delta wings, this turned out to look very good and even effective!

 

For that special "Indian touch" I gave the aircraft a high-contrast fin in a design that I had seen on a real camouflaged IAF MiG-21bis: an overall dark green base with a broad, red vertical stripe which was also the shield for the fin flash and the aircraft's tactical code (on the original bare metal). The fin was first painted in green (Humbrol 2), the red stripe was created with orange-red decal sheet material. Similar material was also used to create the bare metal field for the tactical code, the yellow bars on the splitter plates and for the thin white canopy sealing.

 

After basic painting was done the model received an overall black ink washing, post-panel shading and extensive dry-brushing with aluminum and iron for a rather worn look.

The missiles became classic white, while the drop tanks, as a contrast to the camouflaged belly, were left in bare metal.

 

Decals/markings came primarily from a Begemot MiG-25 kit, the tactical codes on the fin and under the wings originally belong to an RAF post-WWII Spitfire, just the first serial letter was omitted. Stencils are few and they came from various sources. A compromise is the unit badge on the fin: I needed a tiger motif, and the only suitable option I found was the tiger head emblem on a white disc from RAF No. 74 Squadron, from the Matchbox BAC Lightning F.6&F.2A kit. It fits stylistically well, though. ;-)

 

Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (except for the black radome, which became a bit glossy) and finally assembled.

  

A spontaneous build, and the last one that I completed in 2022. However, despite a vague design plan the model evolved as it grew. Bashing the primitive PM Model Su-15 with the Academy MiG-23 parts was easier than expected, though, and the resulting fictional aircraft looks sturdy but quite believable - even though it appears to me like the unexpected child of a Mirage III/F-4 Phantom II intercourse, or like a juvenile CF-105 Arrow, just with mid-wings? Nevertheless, the disruptive paint scheme suits the delta wing fighter well, and the green/red fin is a striking contrast - it's a colorful model, but not garish.

MiG-19 is a Soviet second-generation, single-seat, twin jet-engined fighter aircraft. It was the first Soviet production aircraft capable of supersonic speeds in level flight.

 

DSC_9331 GYA Sept 15

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, leading to improved versions like the VF-1N and P. 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 ECM measures were also mounted on some machines, typically in conformal fairings on the flanks of the legs/engine pods.

 

A limited number of machines was also, when the type was replaced in the fighter units by the VF-4, handed over to U.N.S.A.F. units and modified into fighter bombers for the exclusive use within Earth's atmosphere, intended as a supplement to the dedicated VFA-1 ground attack Valkyrie variant. The machine’s prime task would be to attack and neutralize potential invaders’ landing vehicles, plus general close air support for ground troops and battlefield interdiction missions.

This conversion included structural reinforcements and additional weapon hardpoints under the air intakes, improved avionics as well as active and passive sensor systems from the VF-1P in a modified head unit with two laser cannon. These revamped aircraft received an "a" suffix (Alpha for attack, the Greek letter was chosen in order to avoid confusion with the widespread standard VF-1A variant and VF-1JA updates) to their original designation. Roundabout 120 VF-1s, mostly VF-1As, -Ns and a few -Js were converted to the a-standard between 2017 and 2019 and served at air bases in Africa, Northern America and Australia until 2032.

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 in several variants.

 

However, the fighter remained active in many second line units and continued to show its worthiness years later, e. g. through Milia Jenius who would use her old VF-1 fighter in defense of the colonization fleet - 35 years after the type's service introduction!

  

General characteristics:

All-environment variable fighter and tactical combat Battroid,

used by U.N. Spacy, U.N. Navy, U.N. Space Air Force and U.N.Spacy Marines

 

Accommodation:

Single pilot 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 (1x counter reverse vernier thruster nozzle mounted on the side of each leg nacelle/air intake, 1x 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 and 2x underfuselage 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:

Another build of one of these vintage ARII kits, primarily for the (fictional) livery. This one was inspired by a profile found in a source book (the "VF-1 Master File" from Softbank Publishing), where I found a profile of a late VF-1P from 2024 in a pale, three-tone desert paint scheme, similar to an IDF aircraft, with some white trim on the wings and a white radome. While this machine basically looked attractive, I was a little confused by its supposed operation theatre: Australia. There, over a typical outback landscape, the paint scheme would IMHO hardly work, the tones being much too light and just "wrong". From this, the idea was born to create a "Valkyroo"!

 

Since the model would rather center around the paint scheme, the VF-1, an “S” variant kit, remained basically OOB. Nevertheless, it received some standard mods and some extras. The basic updates include some additional blade antennae (leaving out the dorsal antennae for a Block 13/14 aircraft), a pilot figure and a modified dashboard. This time the VF-1 would have its landing gear extended, but the ventral gun pod was nevertheless modified to accept one of my home-made VF-1 standard display stands for in-flight beauty pics over the Australian desert.

 

Since the machine would, in its wraparound paint scheme, rather look like a low-level fighter bomber and mud mover, the ordnance was changed from a dozen AMM-1 air-to-air missiles to something grittier. I gave the kit a pair of GBUs on the inner wing stations, which are Paveway bombs from an 1:72 Hasegawa ordnance set, but modified into optically-guided weapons since the original laser sensor with its ring-shaped stabilizer would be quite large at 1:100.

On the outer pylons the VF-1 received four streamlined pods with unguided missiles, left over from KP MiG-21s which are pretty small and slender for their 1:72 scale. Under the 1:100 VF-1 they work well.

I furthermore gave it another pair of hardpoints under the air intakes, holding an ECM and a FLIR pod (both from a Dragon 1:144 RAF Tornado GR.1, the FLIR is a reversed chaff dispenser w/o fins). That’s not canonical, but this one here is fictional, anyway.

 

On the legs, small chaff/flare dispensers made from styrene strips were added, and small radar warning fairings adorn the nose and the tail. Thin styrene profile strips were added on the legs and the fins, for a little more external structure, and a small laser range finder fairing was mounted under the VF-1’s nose (also from the 1:144 Tonka).

In order to emphasize this Valkyrie's updated and modified status, I modified the horribly misshaped “S” head unit, lowering and narrowing the cranium’s rear part and reducing the number of lasers from four to just two. For the in-flight pictures a pilot figure was added to the cockpit, which also had the dashboard extended downwards to the console between the pilot’s feet.

  

Painting and markings:

The goal was to apply an effective (and potentially) attractive paint scheme that would be appropriate for the Australian desert/outback landscape, with its distinct red sand, low, pale shrubs and occasional dark rocks and trees. I checked both RAAF schemes as well as landscape pictures, and eventually created a four-tone wraparound scheme, somewhat inspired by unique RAAF DHC-4s and Pilatus Porter transporter liveries, as well as the SAC bomber scheme that was/is used on RAAF C-130. The US Army MERCD scheme also has some influence. However, the result is not a copy of an existing scheme, the scheme rather evolved gradually – even though, once it was done, it somewhat reminds of the famous Swedish “Fields & Meadows” pattern, just with lighter colors, even though this was not intended!

 

Due to the model’s small size and the potentially bright Australian theatre of operation, I did not want the disruptive scheme to become too dark. Consequently, the wraparound scheme consists of four tones: splotches of Brown Yellow (Humbrol 94) and IJN Grey Green (Tamiya XF-76), two tones with similar brightness, are the basis. Next came a medium red brown (Leather, Humbrol 62) and finally some Bronze Green (Humbrol 75), the latter intended to break up the aircraft's silhouette through a strong color contrast.

For a subtle counter-shading effect against the sky, relatively more of the Sand and IJN Grey Green was used on the undersides and the dark green was not applied underneath at all. The radome, in order to set it slightly apart from the rest of the airframe, as well as some other dielectric fairings, were painted with Hemp (Humbrol 168).

 

The cockpit became standard medium grey (Humbrol 140) with a brown seat. The landing gear was painted in classic white, while the air intakes and some other openings were painted in dark grey (Revell 77).

 

In an attempt to further subdue the aircraft's overall visual profile, I avoided any flashy trim and rather went for monochrome markings in black. The low-viz U.N. Spacy “kite” roundels were created and printed at home. The eagle emblems on the fins belong, in real life, to an F-15E prototype (Italeri kit), the tactical codes were puzzled together from A-10 and T-4 decal sheets. Most characteristic VF-1 stencils come from the OOB sheet, some lines were created with generic decal material.

Due to the model’s small size, only some light, overall dry-brushing with hemp and light grey was done, and then the kit was finally sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri).

 

A camouflaged VF-1 surely looks odd, esp. in desert colors, but there actually are several canonical aircraft painted in such a fashion, to be found in various official Macross publications - in fact, this model is the attempt to create a more plausible livery than one that I found in such a sourcebook. IMHO, the home-brew disruptive four-tone scheme for this "Valkyroo" VF-1 looks quite attractive, and thanks to the selected tones it also makes the subtle Australia connection. Those small Valkyrie kits never get boring, at least to me! :D

+++ 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.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some Background:

During the 1950s, Hindustan Aircraft Limited (HAL) had developed and produced several types of trainer aircraft, such as the HAL HT-2. However, elements within the firm were eager to expand into the then-new realm of supersonic fighter aircraft. Around the same time, the Indian government was in the process of formulating a new Air Staff Requirement for a Mach 2-capable combat aircraft to equip the Indian Air Force (IAF). However, as HAL lacked the necessary experience in both developing and manufacturing frontline combat fighters, it was clear that external guidance would be invaluable; this assistance was embodied by Kurt Tank.

 

In 1956, HAL formally began design work on the supersonic fighter project. The Indian government, led by Jawaharlal Nehru, authorized the development of the aircraft, stating that it would aid in the development of a modern aircraft industry in India. The first phase of the project sought to develop an airframe suitable for travelling at supersonic speeds, and able to effectively perform combat missions as a fighter aircraft, while the second phase sought to domestically design and produce an engine capable of propelling the aircraft. Early on, there was an explicit adherence to satisfying the IAF's requirements for a capable fighter bomber; attributes such as a twin-engine configuration and a speed of Mach 1.4 to 1.5 were quickly emphasized, and this led to the HF-24 Marut.

 

On 24 June 1961, the first prototype Marut conducted its maiden flight. It was powered by the same Bristol Siddeley Orpheus 703 turbojets that had powered the Folland Gnat, also being manufactured by HAL at that time. On 1 April 1967, the first production Marut was delivered to the IAF. While originally intended only as an interim measure during testing, HAL decided to power production Maruts with a pair of unreheated Orpheus 703s, meaning the aircraft could not attain supersonic speed. Although originally conceived to operate around Mach 2 the Marut in fact was barely capable of reaching Mach 1 due to the lack of suitably powerful engines.

 

The IAF were reluctant to procure a fighter aircraft only marginally superior to its existing fleet of British-built Hawker Hunters. However, in 1961, the Indian Government decided to procure the Marut, nevertheless, but only 147 aircraft, including 18 two-seat trainers, were completed out of a planned 214. Just after the decision to build the lukewarm Marut, the development of a more advanced aircraft with the desired supersonic performance was initiated.

 

This enterprise started star-crossed, though: after the Indian Government conducted its first nuclear tests at Pokhran, international pressure prevented the import of better engines of Western origin, or at times, even spares for the Orpheus engines, so that the Marut never realized its full potential due to insufficient power, and it was relatively obsolescent by the time it reached production.

Due to these restrictions India looked for other sources for supersonic aircraft and eventually settled upon the MiG-21 F-13 from the Soviet Union, which entered service in 1964. While fast and agile, the Fishbed was only a short-range daylight interceptor. It lacked proper range for escort missions and air space patrols, and it had no radar that enabled it to conduct all-weather interceptions. To fill this operational gap, the new indigenous HF-26 project was launched around the same time.

 

For the nascent Indian aircraft industry, HF-26 had a demanding requirements specification: the aircraft was to achieve Mach 2 top speed at high altitude and carry a radar with a guided missile armament that allowed interceptions in any weather, day and night. The powerplant question was left open, but it was clear from the start that a Soviet engine would be needed, since an indigenous development of a suitable powerplant would take much too long and block vital resources, and western alternatives were out of reach. The mission profile and the performance requirements quickly defined the planned aircraft’s layout: To fit a radar, the air intakes with movable ramps to feed the engines were placed on the fuselage flanks. To make sure the aircraft would fulfill its high-performance demands, it was right from the outset powered by two engines, and it was decided to give it delta wings, a popular design among high-speed aircraft of the time – exemplified by the highly successful Dassault Mirage III (which was to be delivered to Pakistan in 1967). With two engines, the HF-26 would be a heavier aircraft than the Mirage III, though, and it was planned to operate the aircraft from semi-prepared airfields, so that it would receive a robust landing gear with low-pressure tires and a brake parachute.

 

In 1962 India was able to negotiate the delivery of Tumansky RD-9 turbojet engines from the Soviet Union, even though no afterburner was part of the deal – this had to be indigenously developed by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). However, this meant that the afterburner could be tailored to the HF-26, and this task would provide HAL with valuable engineering experience, too.

Now knowing the powerplant, HAL created a single-seater airframe around it, a rather robust design that superficially reminded of the French Mirage III, but there were fundamental differences. The HF-26 had boxy air intakes with movable ramps to control the airflow to the two engines and a relatively wide fuselage to hold them and most of the fuel in tanks between the air ducts behind the cockpit. The aircraft had a single swept fin and a rather small mid-positioned delta-wing with a 60° sweep. The pilot sat under a tight canopy that offered - similar to the Mirage III - only limited all-round vision.

The HF-26's conical nose radome covered an antenna for a ‘Garud’ interception radar – which was in fact a downgraded Soviet ‘Oryol' (Eagle; NATO reporting name 'Skip Spin') system that guided the HF-26’s main armament, a pair of semi-active radar homing (SARH) ‚Saanp’ missiles.

 

The Saanp missile was developed specifically for the HF-26 in India but used many components of Soviet origin, too, so that they were compatible with the radar. In performance, the Saanp was comparable with the French Matra R.530 air-to-air missile, even though the aerodynamic layout was reversed, with steering fins at the front end, right behind the SARH seaker head - overall the missile reminded of an enlarged AIM-4 Falcon. The missile weighed 180 kg and had a length of 3.5 m. Power came from a two-stage solid rocket that offered a maximum thrust of 80 kN for 2.7 s during the launch phase plus 6.5 s cruise. Maximum speed was Mach 2.7 and operational range was 1.5 to 20 km (0.9 to 12.5 miles). Two of these missiles could be carried on the main wing hardpoints in front of the landing gear wells. Alternatively, infrared-guided R-3 (AA-2 ‘Atoll’) short-range AAMs could be carried by the HF-26, too, and typically two of these were carried on the outer underwing hardpoints, which were plumbed to accept drop tanks (typically supersonic PTB-490s that were carried by the IAF's MiG-21s, too) . Initially, no internal gun was envisioned, as the HF-26 was supposed to be a pure high-speed/high-altitude interceptor that would not engage in dogfights. Two more hardpoints under the fuselage were plumbed, too, for a total of six external stations.

 

Due to its wing planform, the HF-26 was soon aptly called “Teer” (= Arrow), and with Soviet help the first prototype was rolled out in early 1964 and presented to the public. The first flight, however, would take place almost a year later in January 1965, due to many technical problems, and these were soon complemented by aerodynamic problems. The original delta-winged HF-26 had poor take-off and landing characteristics, and directional stability was weak, too. While a second prototype was under construction in April 1965 the first aircraft was lost after it had entered a spin from which the pilot could not escape – the aircraft crashed and its pilot was killed during the attempt to eject.

 

After this loss HAL investigated an enlarged fin and a modified wing design with deeper wingtips with lower sweep, which increased wing area and improved low speed handling, too. Furthermore, the fuselage shape had to be modified, too, to reduce supersonic drag, and a more pronounced area ruling was introduced. The indigenous afterburner for the RD-9 engines was unstable and troublesome, too.

It took until 1968 and three more flying prototypes (plus two static airframes) to refine the Teer for serial production service introduction. In this highly modified form, the aircraft was re-designated HF-26M and the first machines were delivered to IAF No. 3 Squadron in late 1969. However, it would take several months until a fully operational status could be achieved. By that time, it was already clear that the Teer, much like the HF-24 Marut before, could not live up to its expectations and was at the brink of becoming obsolete as it entered service. The RD-9 was not a modern engine anymore, and despite its indigenous afterburner – which turned out not only to be chronically unreliable but also to be very thirsty when engaged – the Teer had a disappointing performance: The fighter only achieved a top speed of Mach 1.6 at full power, and with full external load it hardly broke the wall of sound in level flight. Its main armament, the Saanp AAM, also turned out to be unreliable even under ideal conditions.

 

However, the HF-26M came just in time to take part in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and was, despite its weaknesses, extensively used – even though not necessarily in its intended role. High-flying slow bombers were not fielded during the conflict, and the Teer remained, despite its on-board radar, heavily dependent on ground control interception (GCI) to vector its pilot onto targets coming in at medium and even low altitude. The HF-26M had no capability against low-flying aircraft either, so that pilots had to engage incoming, low-flying enemy aircraft after visual identification – a task the IAF’s nimble MiG-21s were much better suited for. Escorts and air cover missions for fighter-bombers were flown, too, but the HF-26M’s limited range only made it a suitable companion for the equally short-legged Su-7s. The IAF Canberras were frequently deployed on longer range missions, but the HF-26Ms simply could not follow them all the time; for a sufficient range the Teer had to carry four drop tanks, what increased drag and only left the outer pair of underwing hardpoints (which were not plumbed) free for a pair of AA-2 missiles. With the imminent danger of aerial close range combat, though, During the conflict with Pakistan, most HF-26M's were retrofitted with rear-view mirrors in their canopies to improve the pilot's field of view, and a passive IR sensor was added in a small fairing under the nose to improve the aircraft's all-weather capabilities and avoid active radar emissions that would warn potential prey too early.

 

The lack of an internal gun turned out to be another great weakness of the Teer, and this was only lightly mended through the use of external gun pods. Two of these cigar-shaped pods that resembled the Soviet UPK-23 pod could be carried on the two ventral pylons, and each contained a 23 mm Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-23L autocannon of Soviet origin with 200 rounds. Technically these pods were very similar to the conformal GP-9 pods carried by the IAF MiG-21FLs. While the gun pods considerably improved the HF-26M’s firepower and versatility, the pods were draggy, blocked valuable hardpoints (from extra fuel) and their recoil tended to damage the pylons as well as the underlying aircraft structure, so that they were only commissioned to be used in an emergency.

 

However, beyond air-to-air weapons, the HF-26M could also carry ordnance of up to 1.000 kg (2.207 lb) on the ventral and inner wing hardpoints and up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) on the other pair of wing hardpoints, including iron bombs and/or unguided missile pods. However, the limited field of view from the cockpit over the radome as well as the relatively high wing loading did not recommend the aircraft for ground attack missions – even though these frequently happened during the conflict with Pakistan. For these tactical missions, many HF-26Ms lost their original overall natural metal finish and instead received camouflage paint schemes on squadron level, resulting in individual and sometimes even spectacular liveries. Most notable examples were the Teer fighters of No. 1 Squadron (The Tigers), which sported various camouflage adaptations of the unit’s eponym.

 

Despite its many deficiencies, the HF-26M became heavily involved in the Indo-Pakistan conflict. As the Indian Army tightened its grip in East Pakistan, the Indian Air Force continued with its attacks against Pakistan as the campaign developed into a series of daylight anti-airfield, anti-radar, and close-support attacks by fighter jets, with night attacks against airfields and strategic targets by Canberras and An-12s, while Pakistan responded with similar night attacks with its B-57s and C-130s.

The PAF deployed its F-6s mainly on defensive combat air patrol missions over their own bases, leaving the PAF unable to conduct effective offensive operations.  Sporadic raids by the IAF continued against PAF forward air bases in Pakistan until the end of the war, and interdiction and close-support operations were maintained. One of the most successful air raids by India into West Pakistan happened on 8 December 1971, when Indian Hunter aircraft from the Pathankot-based 20 Squadron, attacked the Pakistani base in Murid and destroyed 5 F-86 aircraft on the ground.

The PAF played a more limited role in the operations, even though they were reinforced by Mirages from an unidentified Middle Eastern ally (whose identity remains unknown). The IAF was able to conduct a wide range of missions – troop support; air combat; deep penetration strikes; para-dropping behind enemy lines; feints to draw enemy fighters away from the actual target; bombing and reconnaissance. India flew 1,978 sorties in the East and about 4,000 in Pakistan, while the PAF flew about 30 and 2,840 at the respective fronts.  More than 80 percent of IAF sorties were close-support and interdiction and about 45 IAF aircraft were lost, including three HF-26Ms. Pakistan lost 60 to 75 aircraft, not including any F-86s, Mirage IIIs, or the six Jordanian F-104s which failed to return to their donors. The imbalance in air losses was explained by the IAF's considerably higher sortie rate and its emphasis on ground-attack missions. The PAF, which was solely focused on air combat, was reluctant to oppose these massive attacks and rather took refuge at Iranian air bases or in concrete bunkers, refusing to offer fights and respective losses.

 

After the war, the HF-26M was officially regarded as outdated, and as license production of the improved MiG-21FL (designated HAL Type 77 and nicknamed “Trishul” = Trident) and later of the MiG-21M (HAL Type 88) was organized in India, the aircraft were quickly retired from frontline units. They kept on serving into the Eighties, though, but now restricted to their original interceptor role. Beyond the upgrades from the Indo-Pakistani War, only a few upgrades were made. For instance, the new R-60 AAM was introduced to the HF-26M and around 1978 small (but fixed) canards were retrofitted to the air intakes behind the cockpit that improved the Teer’s poor slow speed control and high landing speed as well as the aircraft’s overall maneuverability.

A radar upgrade, together with the introduction of better air-to-ai missiles with a higher range and look down/shoot down capability was considered but never carried out. Furthermore, the idea of a true HF-26 2nd generation variant, powered by a pair of Tumansky R-11F-300 afterburner jet engines (from the license-built MiG-21FLs), was dropped, too – even though this powerplant eventually promised to fulfill the Teer’s design promise of Mach 2 top speed. A total of only 82 HF-26s (including thirteen two-seat trainers with a lengthened fuselage and reduced fuel capacity, plus eight prototypes) were built. The last aircraft were retired from IAF service in 1988 and replaced with Mirage 2000 fighters procured from France that were armed with the Matra Super 530 AAM.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 14.97 m (49 ft ½ in)

Wingspan: 9.43 m (30 ft 11 in)

Height: 4.03 m (13 ft 2½ in)

Wing area: 30.6 m² (285 sq ft)

Empty weight: 7,000 kg (15,432 lb)

Gross weight: 10,954 kg (24,149 lb) with full internal fuel

Max takeoff weight: 15,700 kg (34,613 lb) with external stores

 

Powerplant:

2× Tumansky RD-9 afterburning turbojet engines; 29 kN (6,600 lbf) dry thrust each

and 36.78 kN (8,270 lbf) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 1,700 km/h (1,056 mph; 917 kn; Mach 1.6) at 11,000 m (36,000 ft)

1,350 km/h (840 mph, 730 kn; Mach 1.1) at sea level

Combat range: 725 km (450 mi, 391 nmi) with internal fuel only

Ferry range: 1,700 km (1,100 mi, 920 nmi) with four drop tanks

Service ceiling: 18,100 m (59,400 ft)

g limits: +6.5

Time to altitude: 9,145 m (30,003 ft) in 1 minute 30 seconds

Wing loading: 555 kg/m² (114 lb/sq ft)

 

Armament

6× hardpoints (four underwing and two under the fuselage) for a total of 2.500 kg (5.500 lb);

Typical interceptor payload:

- two IR-guided R-3 or R-60 air-to-air-missiles or

two PTB-490 drop tanks on the outer underwing stations

- two semi-active radar-guided ‚Saanp’ air-to-air missiles or two more R-3 or R-60 AAMs

on inner underwing stations

- two 500 l drop tanks or two gun pods with a 23 mm GSh-23L autocannon and 200 RPG

each under the fuselage

  

The kit and its assembly:

This whiffy delta-wing fighter was inspired when I recently sliced up a PM Model Su-15 kit for my side-by-side-engine BAC Lightning build. At an early stage of the conversion, I held the Su-15 fuselage with its molded delta wings in my hand and wondered if a shortened tail section (as well as a shorter overall fuselage to keep proportions balanced) could make a delta-wing jet fighter from the Flagon base? Only a hardware experiment could yield an answer, and since the Su-15’s overall outlines look a bit retro I settled at an early stage on India as potential designer and operator, as “the thing the HF-24 Marut never was”.

 

True to the initial idea, work started on the tail, and I chopped off the fuselage behind the wings’ trailing edge. Some PSR was necessary to blend the separate exhaust section into the fuselage, which had to be reduced in depth through wedges that I cut out under the wings trailing edge, plus some good amount of glue and sheer force the bend the section a bit upwards. The PM Model's jet exhausts were drilled open, and I added afterburner dummies inside - anything would look better than the bleak vertical walls inside after only 2-3 mm! The original fin was omitted, because it was a bit too large for the new, smaller aircraft and its shape reminded a lot of the Suchoj heavy fighter family. It was replaced with a Mirage III/V fin, left over from a (crappy!) Pioneer 2 IAI Nesher kit.

 

Once the rear section was complete, I had to adjust the front end - and here the kitbashing started. First, I chopped off the cockpit section in front of the molded air intake - the Su-15’s long radome and the cockpit on top of the fuselage did not work anymore. As a remedy I remembered another Su-15 conversion I did a (long) while ago: I created a model of a planned ground attack derivative, the T-58Sh, and, as a part of the extensive body work, I transplanted the slanted nose from an academy MiG-27 between the air intakes – a stunt that was relatively easy and which appreciably lowered the cockpit position. For the HF-26M I did something similar, I just transplanted a cockpit from a Hasegawa/Academy MiG-23 with its ogival radome that size-wise better matched with the rest of the leftover Su-15 airframe.

 

The MiG-23 cockpit matched perfectly with the Su-15's front end, just the spinal area behind the cockpit had to be raised/re-sculpted to blend the parts smoothly together. For a different look from the Su-15 ancestry I also transplanted the front sections of the MiG-23 air intakes with their shorter ramps. Some mods had to be made to the Su-15 intake stubs, but the MiG-23 intakes were an almost perfect fit in size and shape and easy to integrate into the modified front hill. The result looks very natural!

However, when the fuselage was complete, I found that the nose appeared to be a bit too long, leaving the whole new hull with the wings somewhat off balance. As a remedy I decided at a rather late stage to shorten the nose and took out a 6 mm section in front of the cockpit - a stunt I had not planned, but sometimes you can judge things only after certain work stages. Some serious PSR was necessary to re-adjust the conical nose shape, which now looked more Mirage III-ish than planned!

 

The cockpit was taken mostly OOB, I just replaced the ejection seat and gave it a trigger handle made from thin wire. With the basic airframe complete it was time for details. The PM Model Su-15s massive and rather crude main landing gear was replaced with something more delicate from the scrap box, even though I retained the main wheels. The front landing gear was taken wholesale from the MiG-23, but had to be shortened for a proper stance.

A display holder adapter was integrated into the belly for the flight scenes, hidden well between the ventral ordnance.

 

The hardpoints, including missile launch rails, came from the MiG-23; the pylons had to be adjusted to match the Su-15's wing profile shape, the Anab missiles lost their tail sections to create the fictional Indian 'Saanp' AAMs. The R-3s on the outer stations were left over from a MP MiG-21. The ventral pylons belong to Academy MiG-23/27s, one came from the donor kit, the other was found in the spares box. The PTB-490 drop tanks also came from a KP MiG-21 (or one of its many reincarnations, not certain).

  

Painting and markings:

The paint scheme for this fictional aircraft was largely inspired by a picture of a whiffy and very attractive Saab 37 Viggen (an 1:72 Airfix kit) in IAF colors, apparently a model from a contest. BTW, India actually considered buying the Viggen for its Air Force!

IAF aircraft were and are known for their exotic and sometimes gawdy paint schemes, and with IAF MiG-21 “C 992” there’s even a very popular (yet obscure) aircraft that sported literal tiger stripes. The IAF Viggen model was surely inspired by this real aircraft, and I adopted something similar for my HF-26M.

 

IAF 1 Squadron was therefore settled, and for the paint scheme I opted for a "stripish" scheme, but not as "tigeresque" as "C 992". I found a suitable benchmark in a recent Libyian MiG-21, which carried a very disruptive two-tone grey scheme. I adapted this pattern to the HA-26M airframe and replaced its colors, similar to the IAF Viggen model, which became a greenish sand tone (a mix of Humbrol 121 with some 159; I later found out that I could have used Humbrol 83 from the beginning, though...) and a very dark olive drab (Humbrol 66, which looks like a dull dark brown in contrast with the sand tone), with bluish grey (Humbrol 247) undersides. With the large delta wings, this turned out to look very good and even effective!

 

For that special "Indian touch" I gave the aircraft a high-contrast fin in a design that I had seen on a real camouflaged IAF MiG-21bis: an overall dark green base with a broad, red vertical stripe which was also the shield for the fin flash and the aircraft's tactical code (on the original bare metal). The fin was first painted in green (Humbrol 2), the red stripe was created with orange-red decal sheet material. Similar material was also used to create the bare metal field for the tactical code, the yellow bars on the splitter plates and for the thin white canopy sealing.

 

After basic painting was done the model received an overall black ink washing, post-panel shading and extensive dry-brushing with aluminum and iron for a rather worn look.

The missiles became classic white, while the drop tanks, as a contrast to the camouflaged belly, were left in bare metal.

 

Decals/markings came primarily from a Begemot MiG-25 kit, the tactical codes on the fin and under the wings originally belong to an RAF post-WWII Spitfire, just the first serial letter was omitted. Stencils are few and they came from various sources. A compromise is the unit badge on the fin: I needed a tiger motif, and the only suitable option I found was the tiger head emblem on a white disc from RAF No. 74 Squadron, from the Matchbox BAC Lightning F.6&F.2A kit. It fits stylistically well, though. ;-)

 

Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (except for the black radome, which became a bit glossy) and finally assembled.

  

A spontaneous build, and the last one that I completed in 2022. However, despite a vague design plan the model evolved as it grew. Bashing the primitive PM Model Su-15 with the Academy MiG-23 parts was easier than expected, though, and the resulting fictional aircraft looks sturdy but quite believable - even though it appears to me like the unexpected child of a Mirage III/F-4 Phantom II intercourse, or like a juvenile CF-105 Arrow, just with mid-wings? Nevertheless, the disruptive paint scheme suits the delta wing fighter well, and the green/red fin is a striking contrast - it's a colorful model, but not garish.

The Grey-headed flying fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) is a megabat native to Australia. The species shares mainland Australia with three other members of the genus Pteropus: the Little red flying fox (P. scapulatus), the Spectacled flying fox (P. conspicillatus), and the Black flying fox (P. alecto). Flying-foxes are the only mammals capable of sustained flight.

 

DESCRIPTION

The Grey-headed flying fox, the largest bat in Australia, has a dark-grey body with a light-grey head and a reddish-brown neck collar of fur. Their belly fur grey has flecks of white or ginger, and their back fur can have a silver or frosted appearance which might be related to age, moult or subpopulation. It is unique among bats of the genus Pteropus in that fur on the legs extends all the way to the ankle. Adults have an average wingspan up to 1 m and can weigh up to 1 kg. The head and body length is between 23 and 28.9 cm. It is tailless, with claws on its first and second digits. Since it does not echolocate, it lacks tragus or leaf ornamentation found in most microbats species. It relies on sight to locate its food (nectar, pollen and native fruits) and thus has relatively large eyes for a bat.

 

HABITAT AND MOVEMENTS

The Grey-headed flying fox is endemic to the south-eastern forested areas of Australia, principally east of the Great Dividing Range. Grey-headed flying foxes live in a variety of habitats, including rainforests, woodlands, and swamps. During the day, individuals reside in large roosts (colonies or camps) of up to 200,000 individuals. Colonies are formed in seemingly arbitrary locations, but commonly in gullies and close to water. Roost vegetation includes rainforest patches, stands of melaleuca, mangroves, and riparian vegetation, but roosts also occupy highly modified vegetation in urban areas.

 

Movements of grey-headed flying foxes are influenced by the availability of food. Their population is very fluid, as they move in response to the irregular blossoming of certain plant species. The grey-headed flying fox is a partial migrant that uses winds to facilitate long-distance movement. It does not migrate in a specific direction, but rather in the direction that will be the most beneficial at the time.

 

DIET AND FORAGING

Around dusk, grey-headed flying foxes leave the roost and travel 20 to 50 km a night to feed on pollen, nectar and fruit of around 187 plant species (preferably Eucalyptus blossom) and fruits from a wide range of rainforest trees (preferably figs). These bats are considered sequential specialists, since they feed on a variety of foods. Grey-headed flying foxes, along with the other Australian flying fox species, fulfill a very important ecological role by dispersing the pollen and seeds of a wide range of native Australian plants. The Grey-headed flying fox is the only mammalian nectarivore and frugivore to occupy substantial areas of subtropical rainforests, so is of key importance to those forests.

 

Most vegetation communities on which this species forages produce nectar and pollen seasonally and are abundant unpredictably, so the flying fox's migration traits cope with this. The time when flying foxes leave their roosts to feed depends on foraging light and predation risk by eagles, goannas, snakes, and crocodiles. Flying foxes have more time and light when foraging if they leave their roosts early in the day. The entire colony may leave later if a predatory bird is present, while lactating females leave earlier. With males, the bachelors leave earlier than harem-holding males, which guard their wait until all their females have left. The flying foxes that leave the roost earlier are more vulnerable to predation, and some other flying foxes will wait for others to leave, a phenomenon labelled the "after you" effect.

 

SOCIAL ORGANISATION

Grey-headed flying foxes form two different roosting camps: summer camps (considered the "main camps") and winter camps (referred to as transit camps). In summer camps, which are used from September to April or June, they establish territories, mate, and reproduce. In winter camps, which are used from April to September, the sexes are separated and most behaviour is characterised by mutual grooming.

 

In their summer camps, male grey-headed flying foxes set up mating territories. Mating territories are generally 3.5 body lengths along branches. The males' neck glands enlarge in the mating season, and are used to mark the territories. The males fight to maintain their territories, and this is associated with a steep drop in the males' body condition during this time. Around the beginning of the mating season, adult females move from the periphery towards the central male territories where they become part of short-term ‘harems’ that consist of a male and an unstable group of up to 5 females. Centrally located males are polygamous, while males on the periphery are monogamous or single. The mating system of the grey-headed flying fox is best described as a lek, because males do not provide any essential resources to females and are chosen on the basis of their physical location within the roost, which correlates with male quality.

 

MATING

Matings are generally observed between March and May, but the most likely time of conception is April. Most mating takes place in the territories and during the day. Females have control over the copulation process, and males may have to keep mating with the same females. Females usually give birth to 1 young each year. Gestation lasts around 27 weeks, and pregnant females give birth between late September and November. Late births into January are sometimes observed. The altricial newborns rely on their mothers for warmth. For their first 3 weeks, young cling to their mothers when they go foraging. After this, the young remain in the roosts. By January, young are capable of sustained flight, and by February, March or April are fully weaned.

 

THREATS AND CONSERVATION

The grey-headed flying fox is now a prominent federal conservation problem in Australia. Early in the last century, the species was considered abundant, with numbers estimated in the many millions. In recent years, though, direct evidence has been accumulating that the species is in serious decline. Current estimates for the species are about 610,000, and the national population may have declined by over 30% between 1989 and 1999 alone.

 

Grey-headed flying foxes are exposed to several threats, including (1) loss of foraging and roosting habitat, (2) competition with the black flying fox, (3) from power line electrocution and entanglement in barbed wire fences or backyard fruit tree netting, (4) disturbance of roosting sites, and (5) mass die-offs caused by extreme temperature events. Recent research has shown, since 1994, more than 24,500 grey-headed flying foxes have died from extreme heat events alone.

 

When present in urban environments, grey-headed flying foxes are sometimes perceived as a nuisance and shot. Cultivated orchard fruits are also taken, but apparently only at times when other food items are scarce. Because their roosting and foraging habits bring the species into conflict with humans, they suffer from direct killing of animals in orchards and harassment and destruction of roosts. Negative public perception of the species has intensified with the discovery of 3 recently emerged zoonotic viruses that are potentially fatal to humans, however, only 2 isolated cases are known to be directly transmissible from bats to humans.

 

To answer some of the growing threats, roost sites have been legally protected since 1986 in New South Wales and since 1994 in Queensland. In 1999, the species was classified as “Vulnerable to extinction” in The Action Plan for Australian Bats, and has since been protected across its range under Australian federal law. As of 2008 the species is listed as “Vulnerable” on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.

Source: Wikipedia, wildlife.org.au

 

The Verona Arena (Arena di Verona) is a Roman amphitheatre in Piazza Bra in Verona, Italy, which is internationally famous for the large-scale opera performances given there. It is one of the best preserved ancient structures of its kind. Amphitheatre

The building itself was built in AD 30 on a site which was then beyond the city walls. The ludi (shows and games) staged there were so famous that spectators came from many other places, often far away, to witness them. The amphitheatre could host more than 30,000 spectators in ancient times.

 

The round façade of the building was originally composed of white and pink limestone from Valpolicella, but after a major earthquake in 1117, which almost completely destroyed the structure's outer ring, except for the so-called "ala", the stone was quarried for re-use in other buildings. Nevertheless it impressed medieval visitors to the city, one of whom considered it to have been a labyrinth, without ingress or egress. Ciriaco d'Ancona was filled with admiration for the way it had been built and Giovanni Antonio Panteo's civic panegyric De laudibus veronae, 1483, remarked that it struck the viewer as a construction that was more than human. Musical theatre

The first interventions to recover the arena's function as a theatre began during the Renaissance. Some operatic performances were later mounted in the building during the 1850s, owing to its outstanding acoustics.

 

And in 1913, operatic performances in the arena commenced in earnest due to the zeal and initiative of the Italian opera tenor Giovanni Zenatello and the impresario Ottone Rovato. The first 20th-century operatic production at the arena, a staging of Giuseppe Verdi's Aida, took place on 10 August of that year, to mark the birth of Verdi 100 years before in 1813. Musical luminaries such as Puccini and Mascagni were in attendance. Since then, summer seasons of opera have been mounted continually at the arena, except in 1915â18 and 1940â45, when Europe was convulsed in war.

 

Nowadays, at least four productions (sometimes up to six) are mounted each year between June and August. During the winter months, the local opera and ballet companies perform at the L'Accademia Filarmonica.

 

Modern-day travellers are advised that admission tickets to sit on the arena's stone steps are much cheaper to buy than tickets giving access to the padded chairs available on lower levels. Candles are distributed to the audience and lit after sunset around the arena.

 

Every year over 500,000 people see productions of the popular operas in this arena.[3] Once capable of housing 20,000 patrons per performance (now limited to 15,000 because of safety reasons), the arena has featured many of world's most notable opera singers. In the post-World War II era, they have included Giuseppe Di Stefano, Maria Callas, Tito Gobbi and Renata Tebaldi among other names. A number of conductors have appeared there, too. The official arena shop has historical recordings made by some of them available for sale.

 

The opera productions in the Verona Arena had not used any microphones or loudspeakers until an electronic sound reinforcement system was installed in 2011.

 

In recent times, the arena has also hosted several concerts of international rock and pop bands, among which Laura Pausini, Pink Floyd, Alicia Keys, One Direction, Simple Minds, Duran Duran, Deep Purple, The Who, Dire Straits, Mike Oldfield, Rod Stewart, Sting, Pearl Jam, Radiohead, Peter Gabriel, Björk, Muse, Paul McCartney, Jamiroquai, and Whitney Houston.

 

In 1981, 1984 and 2010 it hosted the podium and presentation of the Giro d'Italia with thousands packing the arena to watch the prizes being handed out.

 

The 2011 Bollywood film Rockstar directed by Imtiaz Ali starring Ranbir Kapoor with music composed by Academy Award winner A.R.Rahman opens and closes with musical concerts shot here.

 

On 26 March 2013, Paul McCartney confirmed a show at the venue as part of his 2013 Tour. The show is scheduled to take place on Tuesday, 25 June 2013.

British-Irish boy band One Direction performed on 19 May 2013 as part of their Take Me Home Tour

Piazza Bra , or simply the Bra (a name derived from a corruption of the term "Braida", which in turn derives from the Lombard breit , or "off"), is the largest square in Verona , located in its center historian .

 

The square of Piazza Bra began to turn into only the first half of the sixteenth century , when the architect Michele San Micheli concluded the palace of Honorij : this building was to delimit the western side of the square of the future, as well as to establish a correct outlook on the ' Arena . The first attempt to transform the clearing dirt road instead of walking, however, was the mayor Alvise Mocenigo, who wanted to create a meeting place for the rising bourgeoisie Verona: he was able to inaugurate the first part of the Liston , a paved sidewalk that lines connecting the Bra Corso Porta Nuova in Via Mazzini , in 1770. La Gran Guardia , begun by the Venetians in the seventeenth century and completed by the Austrians in the ' Nineteenth Century , went to delimit the southern side of the square, while in 1836 the architect Giuseppe Barbieri designed the eastern edge, where a hospital were demolished, some houses and a church, which was built in place of the Gran Guardia Nuova , better known as Palazzo Barbieri. This, initially used as a barracks by the Austrians, became, as a result of ' annexation of Veneto to the Kingdom of Italy , the seat of the municipality of the City of Verona.

 

History

Origins

In Roman times , the place where you would then open the Bra was outside the city and yet away from the main roads. It is only since the first century AD, when it was built the ' amphitheater in the Roman Empire, better known as the Arena of Verona , who came to define the northern edge of what centuries later would become one of the main squares of Verona. In 305 the Emperor Galerius , during a short stay in the city, he opened a door along the walls which was built in 265 by the Emperor Gallienus , which surrounded the Arena went thus creating a first connection between the city and the place where later would be born Bra.

 

The square, however, began to abbozzarsi only in the Middle Ages: the walls of the city was enlarged at that point between 1130 and 1153, going to close so that piece of land that later would become, coming to have the size of a square. Those areas between the walls and the Roman city walls were called braide, from the Lombard breit ; the braida that could match the current Bra in the twelfth century was far more extensive than at the edge of the square today.

 

A door that the Braida along the city walls is already mentioned in a document dated 1257, but later his place was taken by the gates of the Bra , probably due to the Visconti and to the Venetians : the first arch is dated to the late fourteenth century and the second to the second half of the fifteenth century. The clock that is located between the two arches of the gates of the Bra was a gift of Count Antonio Nogarola made ââin 1871: it was installed with the dials is visible from one side on the other walls. The clock was inaugurated on June 2, 1872 and refurbished in 1879 because of its vagueness.

 

Development

Piazza Bra after the arrangement of the central gardens

Piazza Bra in the mid-twentieth century.

The Bra began to be defined as a square only in the first decade of the seventeenth century, when they started on the south side of the factories Gran Guardia and the seat of the ' Accademia Filarmonica of Verona . In conjunction with the factory della Gran Guardia became the leveling the square as possible, and also create some gradients to regulate the flow of stormwater, operation up to that time never practiced because the space was used by stonemasons, that here, as well as work, abandoning the resulting material, and because the clearing was used for the discharge of material from construction in progress in the area.

 

For others, one hundred and fifty years the space was in clay, in fact, only in 1770 the foundations were laid of Liston will of the mayor Alvise Mocenigo. On March 13, 1782 Francis Menegatti presented a project to the final lastricamento of Liston that the City Council approved and, after this surgery, the bra became the favorite place for afternoon walks in place of Piazza dei Signori . Goethe , in his essay Journey to Italy , describes enjoyed the arrival carriage with ladies and gentlemen, and said that the sunset loitered along the rim of the amphitheater enjoying the most beautiful views of the city. I insole and down on the pavement off the Bra 'walked a multitude of people .

 

The square was smoothed more times: in 1808 he was entrusted with the task of remaking the Liston architect Luigi Trezza and in 1820 excavations were carried out along the Arena, in order to bring to light the basis of the same, as it was buried about two feet because of the sediments that were deposited after the numerous floods that had undergone the city. He also opted for a lowering of the average level of Bra about 70 centimeters along a line slightly inclined from the Gran Guardia At Arena, lowering the share of Liston.

 

Plan of Bra in a drawing by Giuseppe Barbieri

As for the lighting, until the eighteenth century the bra at night was totally immersed in the dark; only in the nineteenth century were installed lights in oil and gas lighting in 1845, so that the Liston also became a place for evening strolls. Then important for the conformation of the square today, is the accommodation in the central part of the garden Bra occurred in 1873: the central gardens were created with three circles forming a triangle with a central fountain.

Between 1884 and 1951 the square was affected by the rails of the tramway town .

 

Events

It is interesting to read the description of Liston of an astonished reporter of the magazine Esperia in an article of 1837:

 

" ... the audience is walking the plank of 'Veronesi, extended space, which is located in a few cities: here business people are dining and comforting conversation, idleness is recreated, and the beautiful flock there to get tributes of glances and sighs of their worshipers ... and many cafes offer brilliant and sufficient acceptance to the numerous meetings that there agree. Street musicians and improvisers, unpleasant indeed, but the liveliness of the inhabitants always well received, breaking the monotony of chatter; and the music of the military garrison increase much fun. Very pleasing to the eye is in the summer thousands of people of both sexes, and before sitting under the porch; and a more active crowd by constantly prowling the paths formed by the rows of seats, and now dispense with a bow, and now dwell near some nice, vibrate envious compliments and words of hope and voting ... while the beautiful turn cautious gaze looking at the confused teeming with ill-concealed impatience, greeting or stop most expensive among the happy meeting ... "

In the past, however, the Bra was used for uses other than those described well by this reporter: in particular, after the twelfth century it was included in the city walls it was used for the wood, hay, straw and cattle, so that in ancient documents is called the Bra cattle market. More often is cited as the parade ground, as was the case here the review of the troops from the beginning of the Venetian rule, which is why this was one of the points of conflict between the French and Venetian soldiers during the Veronese Easters in 1797 . Starting from 1633, after the approval of the Venetian Senate for the creation of an exhibition of goods in the city, there were held two annual fairs fifteen days each, which continued to be held until one of them was destroyed by fire October 28, 1712, and then restored in another place, it was established only in 1822, a new exhibition, which would last in Piazza Bra for twenty years.

 

Fair in very old custom is instead to Saint Lucia : it takes place every year from 11 to 13 December, but do not know its origins. Legend has it that, probably in the communal, an epidemic broke out in the city that struck my eyes, it was so that the Veronese decided to make a pilgrimage to the church of Saint Lucia (no longer exists): the children, who did not want to participate , were persuaded to return with the promise that they would find the shoes filled with gifts. The miracle occurred, and since then the fair is held to coincide with the feast of Saint Lucia.

 

The comet of Verona during a night snowfall

During the Christmas season takes place within the Arena arches dell ' Arena, the International Festival of the Nativity , an event born in 1984 from the mind of Alfredo Troisi , along with the comet symbol of the event, from the reservoir from the Arena, go to dive in Bra. Over the years the star has taken on meanings and values ââare independent of the review of the nativity, as to be appreciated by itself. This architecture-sculpture was designed by architect and designer Rinaldo Olivieri : his intuition came to looking at a map of the city, characterized by two large voids, one of the auditorium and that of the square in front of the Arena. It was from this impression that he was born an ideal line, a huge arch that connects the Arena with the urban space, an arc of light and steel from the Temple of the music goes to fall and explode among citizens.

A fungus (pl.: fungi or funguses) is any member of the group of eukaryotic organisms that includes microorganisms such as yeasts and molds, as well as the more familiar mushrooms. These organisms are classified as one of the traditional eukaryotic kingdoms, along with Animalia, Plantae and either Protista or Protozoa and Chromista.

 

A characteristic that places fungi in a different kingdom from plants, bacteria, and some protists is chitin in their cell walls. Fungi, like animals, are heterotrophs; they acquire their food by absorbing dissolved molecules, typically by secreting digestive enzymes into their environment. Fungi do not photosynthesize. Growth is their means of mobility, except for spores (a few of which are flagellated), which may travel through the air or water. Fungi are the principal decomposers in ecological systems. These and other differences place fungi in a single group of related organisms, named the Eumycota (true fungi or Eumycetes), that share a common ancestor (i.e. they form a monophyletic group), an interpretation that is also strongly supported by molecular phylogenetics. This fungal group is distinct from the structurally similar myxomycetes (slime molds) and oomycetes (water molds). The discipline of biology devoted to the study of fungi is known as mycology (from the Greek μύκης mykes, mushroom). In the past mycology was regarded as a branch of botany, although it is now known that fungi are genetically more closely related to animals than to plants.

 

Abundant worldwide, most fungi are inconspicuous because of the small size of their structures, and their cryptic lifestyles in soil or on dead matter. Fungi include symbionts of plants, animals, or other fungi and also parasites. They may become noticeable when fruiting, either as mushrooms or as molds. Fungi perform an essential role in the decomposition of organic matter and have fundamental roles in nutrient cycling and exchange in the environment. They have long been used as a direct source of human food, in the form of mushrooms and truffles; as a leavening agent for bread; and in the fermentation of various food products, such as wine, beer, and soy sauce. Since the 1940s, fungi have been used for the production of antibiotics, and, more recently, various enzymes produced by fungi are used industrially and in detergents. Fungi are also used as biological pesticides to control weeds, plant diseases, and insect pests. Many species produce bioactive compounds called mycotoxins, such as alkaloids and polyketides, that are toxic to animals, including humans. The fruiting structures of a few species contain psychotropic compounds and are consumed recreationally or in traditional spiritual ceremonies. Fungi can break down manufactured materials and buildings, and become significant pathogens of humans and other animals. Losses of crops due to fungal diseases (e.g., rice blast disease) or food spoilage can have a large impact on human food supplies and local economies.

 

The fungus kingdom encompasses an enormous diversity of taxa with varied ecologies, life cycle strategies, and morphologies ranging from unicellular aquatic chytrids to large mushrooms. However, little is known of the true biodiversity of the fungus kingdom, which has been estimated at 2.2 million to 3.8 million species. Of these, only about 148,000 have been described, with over 8,000 species known to be detrimental to plants and at least 300 that can be pathogenic to humans. Ever since the pioneering 18th and 19th century taxonomical works of Carl Linnaeus, Christiaan Hendrik Persoon, and Elias Magnus Fries, fungi have been classified according to their morphology (e.g., characteristics such as spore color or microscopic features) or physiology. Advances in molecular genetics have opened the way for DNA analysis to be incorporated into taxonomy, which has sometimes challenged the historical groupings based on morphology and other traits. Phylogenetic studies published in the first decade of the 21st century have helped reshape the classification within the fungi kingdom, which is divided into one subkingdom, seven phyla, and ten subphyla.

 

Etymology

The English word fungus is directly adopted from the Latin fungus (mushroom), used in the writings of Horace and Pliny. This in turn is derived from the Greek word sphongos (σφόγγος 'sponge'), which refers to the macroscopic structures and morphology of mushrooms and molds; the root is also used in other languages, such as the German Schwamm ('sponge') and Schimmel ('mold').

 

The word mycology is derived from the Greek mykes (μύκης 'mushroom') and logos (λόγος 'discourse'). It denotes the scientific study of fungi. The Latin adjectival form of "mycology" (mycologicæ) appeared as early as 1796 in a book on the subject by Christiaan Hendrik Persoon. The word appeared in English as early as 1824 in a book by Robert Kaye Greville. In 1836 the English naturalist Miles Joseph Berkeley's publication The English Flora of Sir James Edward Smith, Vol. 5. also refers to mycology as the study of fungi.

 

A group of all the fungi present in a particular region is known as mycobiota (plural noun, no singular). The term mycota is often used for this purpose, but many authors use it as a synonym of Fungi. The word funga has been proposed as a less ambiguous term morphologically similar to fauna and flora. The Species Survival Commission (SSC) of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in August 2021 asked that the phrase fauna and flora be replaced by fauna, flora, and funga.

 

Characteristics

 

Fungal hyphae cells

Hyphal wall

Septum

Mitochondrion

Vacuole

Ergosterol crystal

Ribosome

Nucleus

Endoplasmic reticulum

Lipid body

Plasma membrane

Spitzenkörper

Golgi apparatus

 

Fungal cell cycle showing Dikaryons typical of Higher Fungi

Before the introduction of molecular methods for phylogenetic analysis, taxonomists considered fungi to be members of the plant kingdom because of similarities in lifestyle: both fungi and plants are mainly immobile, and have similarities in general morphology and growth habitat. Although inaccurate, the common misconception that fungi are plants persists among the general public due to their historical classification, as well as several similarities. Like plants, fungi often grow in soil and, in the case of mushrooms, form conspicuous fruit bodies, which sometimes resemble plants such as mosses. The fungi are now considered a separate kingdom, distinct from both plants and animals, from which they appear to have diverged around one billion years ago (around the start of the Neoproterozoic Era). Some morphological, biochemical, and genetic features are shared with other organisms, while others are unique to the fungi, clearly separating them from the other kingdoms:

 

With other eukaryotes: Fungal cells contain membrane-bound nuclei with chromosomes that contain DNA with noncoding regions called introns and coding regions called exons. Fungi have membrane-bound cytoplasmic organelles such as mitochondria, sterol-containing membranes, and ribosomes of the 80S type. They have a characteristic range of soluble carbohydrates and storage compounds, including sugar alcohols (e.g., mannitol), disaccharides, (e.g., trehalose), and polysaccharides (e.g., glycogen, which is also found in animals).

With animals: Fungi lack chloroplasts and are heterotrophic organisms and so require preformed organic compounds as energy sources.

With plants: Fungi have a cell wall and vacuoles. They reproduce by both sexual and asexual means, and like basal plant groups (such as ferns and mosses) produce spores. Similar to mosses and algae, fungi typically have haploid nuclei.

With euglenoids and bacteria: Higher fungi, euglenoids, and some bacteria produce the amino acid L-lysine in specific biosynthesis steps, called the α-aminoadipate pathway.

The cells of most fungi grow as tubular, elongated, and thread-like (filamentous) structures called hyphae, which may contain multiple nuclei and extend by growing at their tips. Each tip contains a set of aggregated vesicles—cellular structures consisting of proteins, lipids, and other organic molecules—called the Spitzenkörper. Both fungi and oomycetes grow as filamentous hyphal cells. In contrast, similar-looking organisms, such as filamentous green algae, grow by repeated cell division within a chain of cells. There are also single-celled fungi (yeasts) that do not form hyphae, and some fungi have both hyphal and yeast forms.

In common with some plant and animal species, more than one hundred fungal species display bioluminescence.

Unique features:

 

Some species grow as unicellular yeasts that reproduce by budding or fission. Dimorphic fungi can switch between a yeast phase and a hyphal phase in response to environmental conditions.

The fungal cell wall is made of a chitin-glucan complex; while glucans are also found in plants and chitin in the exoskeleton of arthropods, fungi are the only organisms that combine these two structural molecules in their cell wall. Unlike those of plants and oomycetes, fungal cell walls do not contain cellulose.

A whitish fan or funnel-shaped mushroom growing at the base of a tree.

Omphalotus nidiformis, a bioluminescent mushroom

Most fungi lack an efficient system for the long-distance transport of water and nutrients, such as the xylem and phloem in many plants. To overcome this limitation, some fungi, such as Armillaria, form rhizomorphs, which resemble and perform functions similar to the roots of plants. As eukaryotes, fungi possess a biosynthetic pathway for producing terpenes that uses mevalonic acid and pyrophosphate as chemical building blocks. Plants and some other organisms have an additional terpene biosynthesis pathway in their chloroplasts, a structure that fungi and animals do not have. Fungi produce several secondary metabolites that are similar or identical in structure to those made by plants. Many of the plant and fungal enzymes that make these compounds differ from each other in sequence and other characteristics, which indicates separate origins and convergent evolution of these enzymes in the fungi and plants.

 

Diversity

Fungi have a worldwide distribution, and grow in a wide range of habitats, including extreme environments such as deserts or areas with high salt concentrations or ionizing radiation, as well as in deep sea sediments. Some can survive the intense UV and cosmic radiation encountered during space travel. Most grow in terrestrial environments, though several species live partly or solely in aquatic habitats, such as the chytrid fungi Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis and B. salamandrivorans, parasites that have been responsible for a worldwide decline in amphibian populations. These organisms spend part of their life cycle as a motile zoospore, enabling them to propel itself through water and enter their amphibian host. Other examples of aquatic fungi include those living in hydrothermal areas of the ocean.

 

As of 2020, around 148,000 species of fungi have been described by taxonomists, but the global biodiversity of the fungus kingdom is not fully understood. A 2017 estimate suggests there may be between 2.2 and 3.8 million species The number of new fungi species discovered yearly has increased from 1,000 to 1,500 per year about 10 years ago, to about 2000 with a peak of more than 2,500 species in 2016. In the year 2019, 1882 new species of fungi were described, and it was estimated that more than 90% of fungi remain unknown The following year, 2905 new species were described—the highest annual record of new fungus names. In mycology, species have historically been distinguished by a variety of methods and concepts. Classification based on morphological characteristics, such as the size and shape of spores or fruiting structures, has traditionally dominated fungal taxonomy. Species may also be distinguished by their biochemical and physiological characteristics, such as their ability to metabolize certain biochemicals, or their reaction to chemical tests. The biological species concept discriminates species based on their ability to mate. The application of molecular tools, such as DNA sequencing and phylogenetic analysis, to study diversity has greatly enhanced the resolution and added robustness to estimates of genetic diversity within various taxonomic groups.

 

Mycology

Mycology is the branch of biology concerned with the systematic study of fungi, including their genetic and biochemical properties, their taxonomy, and their use to humans as a source of medicine, food, and psychotropic substances consumed for religious purposes, as well as their dangers, such as poisoning or infection. The field of phytopathology, the study of plant diseases, is closely related because many plant pathogens are fungi.

 

The use of fungi by humans dates back to prehistory; Ötzi the Iceman, a well-preserved mummy of a 5,300-year-old Neolithic man found frozen in the Austrian Alps, carried two species of polypore mushrooms that may have been used as tinder (Fomes fomentarius), or for medicinal purposes (Piptoporus betulinus). Ancient peoples have used fungi as food sources—often unknowingly—for millennia, in the preparation of leavened bread and fermented juices. Some of the oldest written records contain references to the destruction of crops that were probably caused by pathogenic fungi.

 

History

Mycology became a systematic science after the development of the microscope in the 17th century. Although fungal spores were first observed by Giambattista della Porta in 1588, the seminal work in the development of mycology is considered to be the publication of Pier Antonio Micheli's 1729 work Nova plantarum genera. Micheli not only observed spores but also showed that, under the proper conditions, they could be induced into growing into the same species of fungi from which they originated. Extending the use of the binomial system of nomenclature introduced by Carl Linnaeus in his Species plantarum (1753), the Dutch Christiaan Hendrik Persoon (1761–1836) established the first classification of mushrooms with such skill as to be considered a founder of modern mycology. Later, Elias Magnus Fries (1794–1878) further elaborated the classification of fungi, using spore color and microscopic characteristics, methods still used by taxonomists today. Other notable early contributors to mycology in the 17th–19th and early 20th centuries include Miles Joseph Berkeley, August Carl Joseph Corda, Anton de Bary, the brothers Louis René and Charles Tulasne, Arthur H. R. Buller, Curtis G. Lloyd, and Pier Andrea Saccardo. In the 20th and 21st centuries, advances in biochemistry, genetics, molecular biology, biotechnology, DNA sequencing and phylogenetic analysis has provided new insights into fungal relationships and biodiversity, and has challenged traditional morphology-based groupings in fungal taxonomy.

 

Morphology

Microscopic structures

Monochrome micrograph showing Penicillium hyphae as long, transparent, tube-like structures a few micrometres across. Conidiophores branch out laterally from the hyphae, terminating in bundles of phialides on which spherical condidiophores are arranged like beads on a string. Septa are faintly visible as dark lines crossing the hyphae.

An environmental isolate of Penicillium

Hypha

Conidiophore

Phialide

Conidia

Septa

Most fungi grow as hyphae, which are cylindrical, thread-like structures 2–10 µm in diameter and up to several centimeters in length. Hyphae grow at their tips (apices); new hyphae are typically formed by emergence of new tips along existing hyphae by a process called branching, or occasionally growing hyphal tips fork, giving rise to two parallel-growing hyphae. Hyphae also sometimes fuse when they come into contact, a process called hyphal fusion (or anastomosis). These growth processes lead to the development of a mycelium, an interconnected network of hyphae. Hyphae can be either septate or coenocytic. Septate hyphae are divided into compartments separated by cross walls (internal cell walls, called septa, that are formed at right angles to the cell wall giving the hypha its shape), with each compartment containing one or more nuclei; coenocytic hyphae are not compartmentalized. Septa have pores that allow cytoplasm, organelles, and sometimes nuclei to pass through; an example is the dolipore septum in fungi of the phylum Basidiomycota. Coenocytic hyphae are in essence multinucleate supercells.

 

Many species have developed specialized hyphal structures for nutrient uptake from living hosts; examples include haustoria in plant-parasitic species of most fungal phyla,[63] and arbuscules of several mycorrhizal fungi, which penetrate into the host cells to consume nutrients.

 

Although fungi are opisthokonts—a grouping of evolutionarily related organisms broadly characterized by a single posterior flagellum—all phyla except for the chytrids have lost their posterior flagella. Fungi are unusual among the eukaryotes in having a cell wall that, in addition to glucans (e.g., β-1,3-glucan) and other typical components, also contains the biopolymer chitin.

 

Macroscopic structures

Fungal mycelia can become visible to the naked eye, for example, on various surfaces and substrates, such as damp walls and spoiled food, where they are commonly called molds. Mycelia grown on solid agar media in laboratory petri dishes are usually referred to as colonies. These colonies can exhibit growth shapes and colors (due to spores or pigmentation) that can be used as diagnostic features in the identification of species or groups. Some individual fungal colonies can reach extraordinary dimensions and ages as in the case of a clonal colony of Armillaria solidipes, which extends over an area of more than 900 ha (3.5 square miles), with an estimated age of nearly 9,000 years.

 

The apothecium—a specialized structure important in sexual reproduction in the ascomycetes—is a cup-shaped fruit body that is often macroscopic and holds the hymenium, a layer of tissue containing the spore-bearing cells. The fruit bodies of the basidiomycetes (basidiocarps) and some ascomycetes can sometimes grow very large, and many are well known as mushrooms.

 

Growth and physiology

Time-lapse photography sequence of a peach becoming progressively discolored and disfigured

Mold growth covering a decaying peach. The frames were taken approximately 12 hours apart over a period of six days.

The growth of fungi as hyphae on or in solid substrates or as single cells in aquatic environments is adapted for the efficient extraction of nutrients, because these growth forms have high surface area to volume ratios. Hyphae are specifically adapted for growth on solid surfaces, and to invade substrates and tissues. They can exert large penetrative mechanical forces; for example, many plant pathogens, including Magnaporthe grisea, form a structure called an appressorium that evolved to puncture plant tissues.[71] The pressure generated by the appressorium, directed against the plant epidermis, can exceed 8 megapascals (1,200 psi).[71] The filamentous fungus Paecilomyces lilacinus uses a similar structure to penetrate the eggs of nematodes.

 

The mechanical pressure exerted by the appressorium is generated from physiological processes that increase intracellular turgor by producing osmolytes such as glycerol. Adaptations such as these are complemented by hydrolytic enzymes secreted into the environment to digest large organic molecules—such as polysaccharides, proteins, and lipids—into smaller molecules that may then be absorbed as nutrients. The vast majority of filamentous fungi grow in a polar fashion (extending in one direction) by elongation at the tip (apex) of the hypha. Other forms of fungal growth include intercalary extension (longitudinal expansion of hyphal compartments that are below the apex) as in the case of some endophytic fungi, or growth by volume expansion during the development of mushroom stipes and other large organs. Growth of fungi as multicellular structures consisting of somatic and reproductive cells—a feature independently evolved in animals and plants—has several functions, including the development of fruit bodies for dissemination of sexual spores (see above) and biofilms for substrate colonization and intercellular communication.

 

Fungi are traditionally considered heterotrophs, organisms that rely solely on carbon fixed by other organisms for metabolism. Fungi have evolved a high degree of metabolic versatility that allows them to use a diverse range of organic substrates for growth, including simple compounds such as nitrate, ammonia, acetate, or ethanol. In some species the pigment melanin may play a role in extracting energy from ionizing radiation, such as gamma radiation. This form of "radiotrophic" growth has been described for only a few species, the effects on growth rates are small, and the underlying biophysical and biochemical processes are not well known. This process might bear similarity to CO2 fixation via visible light, but instead uses ionizing radiation as a source of energy.

 

Reproduction

Two thickly stemmed brownish mushrooms with scales on the upper surface, growing out of a tree trunk

Polyporus squamosus

Fungal reproduction is complex, reflecting the differences in lifestyles and genetic makeup within this diverse kingdom of organisms. It is estimated that a third of all fungi reproduce using more than one method of propagation; for example, reproduction may occur in two well-differentiated stages within the life cycle of a species, the teleomorph (sexual reproduction) and the anamorph (asexual reproduction). Environmental conditions trigger genetically determined developmental states that lead to the creation of specialized structures for sexual or asexual reproduction. These structures aid reproduction by efficiently dispersing spores or spore-containing propagules.

 

Asexual reproduction

Asexual reproduction occurs via vegetative spores (conidia) or through mycelial fragmentation. Mycelial fragmentation occurs when a fungal mycelium separates into pieces, and each component grows into a separate mycelium. Mycelial fragmentation and vegetative spores maintain clonal populations adapted to a specific niche, and allow more rapid dispersal than sexual reproduction. The "Fungi imperfecti" (fungi lacking the perfect or sexual stage) or Deuteromycota comprise all the species that lack an observable sexual cycle. Deuteromycota (alternatively known as Deuteromycetes, conidial fungi, or mitosporic fungi) is not an accepted taxonomic clade and is now taken to mean simply fungi that lack a known sexual stage.

 

Sexual reproduction

See also: Mating in fungi and Sexual selection in fungi

Sexual reproduction with meiosis has been directly observed in all fungal phyla except Glomeromycota (genetic analysis suggests meiosis in Glomeromycota as well). It differs in many aspects from sexual reproduction in animals or plants. Differences also exist between fungal groups and can be used to discriminate species by morphological differences in sexual structures and reproductive strategies. Mating experiments between fungal isolates may identify species on the basis of biological species concepts. The major fungal groupings have initially been delineated based on the morphology of their sexual structures and spores; for example, the spore-containing structures, asci and basidia, can be used in the identification of ascomycetes and basidiomycetes, respectively. Fungi employ two mating systems: heterothallic species allow mating only between individuals of the opposite mating type, whereas homothallic species can mate, and sexually reproduce, with any other individual or itself.

 

Most fungi have both a haploid and a diploid stage in their life cycles. In sexually reproducing fungi, compatible individuals may combine by fusing their hyphae together into an interconnected network; this process, anastomosis, is required for the initiation of the sexual cycle. Many ascomycetes and basidiomycetes go through a dikaryotic stage, in which the nuclei inherited from the two parents do not combine immediately after cell fusion, but remain separate in the hyphal cells (see heterokaryosis).

 

In ascomycetes, dikaryotic hyphae of the hymenium (the spore-bearing tissue layer) form a characteristic hook (crozier) at the hyphal septum. During cell division, the formation of the hook ensures proper distribution of the newly divided nuclei into the apical and basal hyphal compartments. An ascus (plural asci) is then formed, in which karyogamy (nuclear fusion) occurs. Asci are embedded in an ascocarp, or fruiting body. Karyogamy in the asci is followed immediately by meiosis and the production of ascospores. After dispersal, the ascospores may germinate and form a new haploid mycelium.

 

Sexual reproduction in basidiomycetes is similar to that of the ascomycetes. Compatible haploid hyphae fuse to produce a dikaryotic mycelium. However, the dikaryotic phase is more extensive in the basidiomycetes, often also present in the vegetatively growing mycelium. A specialized anatomical structure, called a clamp connection, is formed at each hyphal septum. As with the structurally similar hook in the ascomycetes, the clamp connection in the basidiomycetes is required for controlled transfer of nuclei during cell division, to maintain the dikaryotic stage with two genetically different nuclei in each hyphal compartment. A basidiocarp is formed in which club-like structures known as basidia generate haploid basidiospores after karyogamy and meiosis. The most commonly known basidiocarps are mushrooms, but they may also take other forms (see Morphology section).

 

In fungi formerly classified as Zygomycota, haploid hyphae of two individuals fuse, forming a gametangium, a specialized cell structure that becomes a fertile gamete-producing cell. The gametangium develops into a zygospore, a thick-walled spore formed by the union of gametes. When the zygospore germinates, it undergoes meiosis, generating new haploid hyphae, which may then form asexual sporangiospores. These sporangiospores allow the fungus to rapidly disperse and germinate into new genetically identical haploid fungal mycelia.

 

Spore dispersal

The spores of most of the researched species of fungi are transported by wind. Such species often produce dry or hydrophobic spores that do not absorb water and are readily scattered by raindrops, for example. In other species, both asexual and sexual spores or sporangiospores are often actively dispersed by forcible ejection from their reproductive structures. This ejection ensures exit of the spores from the reproductive structures as well as traveling through the air over long distances.

 

Specialized mechanical and physiological mechanisms, as well as spore surface structures (such as hydrophobins), enable efficient spore ejection. For example, the structure of the spore-bearing cells in some ascomycete species is such that the buildup of substances affecting cell volume and fluid balance enables the explosive discharge of spores into the air. The forcible discharge of single spores termed ballistospores involves formation of a small drop of water (Buller's drop), which upon contact with the spore leads to its projectile release with an initial acceleration of more than 10,000 g; the net result is that the spore is ejected 0.01–0.02 cm, sufficient distance for it to fall through the gills or pores into the air below. Other fungi, like the puffballs, rely on alternative mechanisms for spore release, such as external mechanical forces. The hydnoid fungi (tooth fungi) produce spores on pendant, tooth-like or spine-like projections. The bird's nest fungi use the force of falling water drops to liberate the spores from cup-shaped fruiting bodies. Another strategy is seen in the stinkhorns, a group of fungi with lively colors and putrid odor that attract insects to disperse their spores.

 

Homothallism

In homothallic sexual reproduction, two haploid nuclei derived from the same individual fuse to form a zygote that can then undergo meiosis. Homothallic fungi include species with an Aspergillus-like asexual stage (anamorphs) occurring in numerous different genera, several species of the ascomycete genus Cochliobolus, and the ascomycete Pneumocystis jirovecii. The earliest mode of sexual reproduction among eukaryotes was likely homothallism, that is, self-fertile unisexual reproduction.

 

Other sexual processes

Besides regular sexual reproduction with meiosis, certain fungi, such as those in the genera Penicillium and Aspergillus, may exchange genetic material via parasexual processes, initiated by anastomosis between hyphae and plasmogamy of fungal cells. The frequency and relative importance of parasexual events is unclear and may be lower than other sexual processes. It is known to play a role in intraspecific hybridization and is likely required for hybridization between species, which has been associated with major events in fungal evolution.

 

Evolution

In contrast to plants and animals, the early fossil record of the fungi is meager. Factors that likely contribute to the under-representation of fungal species among fossils include the nature of fungal fruiting bodies, which are soft, fleshy, and easily degradable tissues and the microscopic dimensions of most fungal structures, which therefore are not readily evident. Fungal fossils are difficult to distinguish from those of other microbes, and are most easily identified when they resemble extant fungi. Often recovered from a permineralized plant or animal host, these samples are typically studied by making thin-section preparations that can be examined with light microscopy or transmission electron microscopy. Researchers study compression fossils by dissolving the surrounding matrix with acid and then using light or scanning electron microscopy to examine surface details.

 

The earliest fossils possessing features typical of fungi date to the Paleoproterozoic era, some 2,400 million years ago (Ma); these multicellular benthic organisms had filamentous structures capable of anastomosis. Other studies (2009) estimate the arrival of fungal organisms at about 760–1060 Ma on the basis of comparisons of the rate of evolution in closely related groups. The oldest fossilizied mycelium to be identified from its molecular composition is between 715 and 810 million years old. For much of the Paleozoic Era (542–251 Ma), the fungi appear to have been aquatic and consisted of organisms similar to the extant chytrids in having flagellum-bearing spores. The evolutionary adaptation from an aquatic to a terrestrial lifestyle necessitated a diversification of ecological strategies for obtaining nutrients, including parasitism, saprobism, and the development of mutualistic relationships such as mycorrhiza and lichenization. Studies suggest that the ancestral ecological state of the Ascomycota was saprobism, and that independent lichenization events have occurred multiple times.

 

In May 2019, scientists reported the discovery of a fossilized fungus, named Ourasphaira giraldae, in the Canadian Arctic, that may have grown on land a billion years ago, well before plants were living on land. Pyritized fungus-like microfossils preserved in the basal Ediacaran Doushantuo Formation (~635 Ma) have been reported in South China. Earlier, it had been presumed that the fungi colonized the land during the Cambrian (542–488.3 Ma), also long before land plants. Fossilized hyphae and spores recovered from the Ordovician of Wisconsin (460 Ma) resemble modern-day Glomerales, and existed at a time when the land flora likely consisted of only non-vascular bryophyte-like plants. Prototaxites, which was probably a fungus or lichen, would have been the tallest organism of the late Silurian and early Devonian. Fungal fossils do not become common and uncontroversial until the early Devonian (416–359.2 Ma), when they occur abundantly in the Rhynie chert, mostly as Zygomycota and Chytridiomycota. At about this same time, approximately 400 Ma, the Ascomycota and Basidiomycota diverged, and all modern classes of fungi were present by the Late Carboniferous (Pennsylvanian, 318.1–299 Ma).

 

Lichens formed a component of the early terrestrial ecosystems, and the estimated age of the oldest terrestrial lichen fossil is 415 Ma; this date roughly corresponds to the age of the oldest known sporocarp fossil, a Paleopyrenomycites species found in the Rhynie Chert. The oldest fossil with microscopic features resembling modern-day basidiomycetes is Palaeoancistrus, found permineralized with a fern from the Pennsylvanian. Rare in the fossil record are the Homobasidiomycetes (a taxon roughly equivalent to the mushroom-producing species of the Agaricomycetes). Two amber-preserved specimens provide evidence that the earliest known mushroom-forming fungi (the extinct species Archaeomarasmius leggetti) appeared during the late Cretaceous, 90 Ma.

 

Some time after the Permian–Triassic extinction event (251.4 Ma), a fungal spike (originally thought to be an extraordinary abundance of fungal spores in sediments) formed, suggesting that fungi were the dominant life form at this time, representing nearly 100% of the available fossil record for this period. However, the relative proportion of fungal spores relative to spores formed by algal species is difficult to assess, the spike did not appear worldwide, and in many places it did not fall on the Permian–Triassic boundary.

 

Sixty-five million years ago, immediately after the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event that famously killed off most dinosaurs, there was a dramatic increase in evidence of fungi; apparently the death of most plant and animal species led to a huge fungal bloom like "a massive compost heap".

 

Taxonomy

Although commonly included in botany curricula and textbooks, fungi are more closely related to animals than to plants and are placed with the animals in the monophyletic group of opisthokonts. Analyses using molecular phylogenetics support a monophyletic origin of fungi. The taxonomy of fungi is in a state of constant flux, especially due to research based on DNA comparisons. These current phylogenetic analyses often overturn classifications based on older and sometimes less discriminative methods based on morphological features and biological species concepts obtained from experimental matings.

 

There is no unique generally accepted system at the higher taxonomic levels and there are frequent name changes at every level, from species upwards. Efforts among researchers are now underway to establish and encourage usage of a unified and more consistent nomenclature. Until relatively recent (2012) changes to the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants, fungal species could also have multiple scientific names depending on their life cycle and mode (sexual or asexual) of reproduction. Web sites such as Index Fungorum and MycoBank are officially recognized nomenclatural repositories and list current names of fungal species (with cross-references to older synonyms).

 

The 2007 classification of Kingdom Fungi is the result of a large-scale collaborative research effort involving dozens of mycologists and other scientists working on fungal taxonomy. It recognizes seven phyla, two of which—the Ascomycota and the Basidiomycota—are contained within a branch representing subkingdom Dikarya, the most species rich and familiar group, including all the mushrooms, most food-spoilage molds, most plant pathogenic fungi, and the beer, wine, and bread yeasts. The accompanying cladogram depicts the major fungal taxa and their relationship to opisthokont and unikont organisms, based on the work of Philippe Silar, "The Mycota: A Comprehensive Treatise on Fungi as Experimental Systems for Basic and Applied Research" and Tedersoo et al. 2018. The lengths of the branches are not proportional to evolutionary distances.

 

The major phyla (sometimes called divisions) of fungi have been classified mainly on the basis of characteristics of their sexual reproductive structures. As of 2019, nine major lineages have been identified: Opisthosporidia, Chytridiomycota, Neocallimastigomycota, Blastocladiomycota, Zoopagomycotina, Mucoromycota, Glomeromycota, Ascomycota and Basidiomycota.

 

Phylogenetic analysis has demonstrated that the Microsporidia, unicellular parasites of animals and protists, are fairly recent and highly derived endobiotic fungi (living within the tissue of another species). Previously considered to be "primitive" protozoa, they are now thought to be either a basal branch of the Fungi, or a sister group–each other's closest evolutionary relative.

 

The Chytridiomycota are commonly known as chytrids. These fungi are distributed worldwide. Chytrids and their close relatives Neocallimastigomycota and Blastocladiomycota (below) are the only fungi with active motility, producing zoospores that are capable of active movement through aqueous phases with a single flagellum, leading early taxonomists to classify them as protists. Molecular phylogenies, inferred from rRNA sequences in ribosomes, suggest that the Chytrids are a basal group divergent from the other fungal phyla, consisting of four major clades with suggestive evidence for paraphyly or possibly polyphyly.

 

The Blastocladiomycota were previously considered a taxonomic clade within the Chytridiomycota. Molecular data and ultrastructural characteristics, however, place the Blastocladiomycota as a sister clade to the Zygomycota, Glomeromycota, and Dikarya (Ascomycota and Basidiomycota). The blastocladiomycetes are saprotrophs, feeding on decomposing organic matter, and they are parasites of all eukaryotic groups. Unlike their close relatives, the chytrids, most of which exhibit zygotic meiosis, the blastocladiomycetes undergo sporic meiosis.

 

The Neocallimastigomycota were earlier placed in the phylum Chytridiomycota. Members of this small phylum are anaerobic organisms, living in the digestive system of larger herbivorous mammals and in other terrestrial and aquatic environments enriched in cellulose (e.g., domestic waste landfill sites). They lack mitochondria but contain hydrogenosomes of mitochondrial origin. As in the related chrytrids, neocallimastigomycetes form zoospores that are posteriorly uniflagellate or polyflagellate.

 

Microscopic view of a layer of translucent grayish cells, some containing small dark-color spheres

Arbuscular mycorrhiza seen under microscope. Flax root cortical cells containing paired arbuscules.

Cross-section of a cup-shaped structure showing locations of developing meiotic asci (upper edge of cup, left side, arrows pointing to two gray cells containing four and two small circles), sterile hyphae (upper edge of cup, right side, arrows pointing to white cells with a single small circle in them), and mature asci (upper edge of cup, pointing to two gray cells with eight small circles in them)

Diagram of an apothecium (the typical cup-like reproductive structure of Ascomycetes) showing sterile tissues as well as developing and mature asci.

Members of the Glomeromycota form arbuscular mycorrhizae, a form of mutualist symbiosis wherein fungal hyphae invade plant root cells and both species benefit from the resulting increased supply of nutrients. All known Glomeromycota species reproduce asexually. The symbiotic association between the Glomeromycota and plants is ancient, with evidence dating to 400 million years ago. Formerly part of the Zygomycota (commonly known as 'sugar' and 'pin' molds), the Glomeromycota were elevated to phylum status in 2001 and now replace the older phylum Zygomycota. Fungi that were placed in the Zygomycota are now being reassigned to the Glomeromycota, or the subphyla incertae sedis Mucoromycotina, Kickxellomycotina, the Zoopagomycotina and the Entomophthoromycotina. Some well-known examples of fungi formerly in the Zygomycota include black bread mold (Rhizopus stolonifer), and Pilobolus species, capable of ejecting spores several meters through the air. Medically relevant genera include Mucor, Rhizomucor, and Rhizopus.

 

The Ascomycota, commonly known as sac fungi or ascomycetes, constitute the largest taxonomic group within the Eumycota. These fungi form meiotic spores called ascospores, which are enclosed in a special sac-like structure called an ascus. This phylum includes morels, a few mushrooms and truffles, unicellular yeasts (e.g., of the genera Saccharomyces, Kluyveromyces, Pichia, and Candida), and many filamentous fungi living as saprotrophs, parasites, and mutualistic symbionts (e.g. lichens). Prominent and important genera of filamentous ascomycetes include Aspergillus, Penicillium, Fusarium, and Claviceps. Many ascomycete species have only been observed undergoing asexual reproduction (called anamorphic species), but analysis of molecular data has often been able to identify their closest teleomorphs in the Ascomycota. Because the products of meiosis are retained within the sac-like ascus, ascomycetes have been used for elucidating principles of genetics and heredity (e.g., Neurospora crassa).

 

Members of the Basidiomycota, commonly known as the club fungi or basidiomycetes, produce meiospores called basidiospores on club-like stalks called basidia. Most common mushrooms belong to this group, as well as rust and smut fungi, which are major pathogens of grains. Other important basidiomycetes include the maize pathogen Ustilago maydis, human commensal species of the genus Malassezia, and the opportunistic human pathogen, Cryptococcus neoformans.

 

Fungus-like organisms

Because of similarities in morphology and lifestyle, the slime molds (mycetozoans, plasmodiophorids, acrasids, Fonticula and labyrinthulids, now in Amoebozoa, Rhizaria, Excavata, Opisthokonta and Stramenopiles, respectively), water molds (oomycetes) and hyphochytrids (both Stramenopiles) were formerly classified in the kingdom Fungi, in groups like Mastigomycotina, Gymnomycota and Phycomycetes. The slime molds were studied also as protozoans, leading to an ambiregnal, duplicated taxonomy.

 

Unlike true fungi, the cell walls of oomycetes contain cellulose and lack chitin. Hyphochytrids have both chitin and cellulose. Slime molds lack a cell wall during the assimilative phase (except labyrinthulids, which have a wall of scales), and take in nutrients by ingestion (phagocytosis, except labyrinthulids) rather than absorption (osmotrophy, as fungi, labyrinthulids, oomycetes and hyphochytrids). Neither water molds nor slime molds are closely related to the true fungi, and, therefore, taxonomists no longer group them in the kingdom Fungi. Nonetheless, studies of the oomycetes and myxomycetes are still often included in mycology textbooks and primary research literature.

 

The Eccrinales and Amoebidiales are opisthokont protists, previously thought to be zygomycete fungi. Other groups now in Opisthokonta (e.g., Corallochytrium, Ichthyosporea) were also at given time classified as fungi. The genus Blastocystis, now in Stramenopiles, was originally classified as a yeast. Ellobiopsis, now in Alveolata, was considered a chytrid. The bacteria were also included in fungi in some classifications, as the group Schizomycetes.

 

The Rozellida clade, including the "ex-chytrid" Rozella, is a genetically disparate group known mostly from environmental DNA sequences that is a sister group to fungi. Members of the group that have been isolated lack the chitinous cell wall that is characteristic of fungi. Alternatively, Rozella can be classified as a basal fungal group.

 

The nucleariids may be the next sister group to the eumycete clade, and as such could be included in an expanded fungal kingdom. Many Actinomycetales (Actinomycetota), a group with many filamentous bacteria, were also long believed to be fungi.

 

Ecology

Although often inconspicuous, fungi occur in every environment on Earth and play very important roles in most ecosystems. Along with bacteria, fungi are the major decomposers in most terrestrial (and some aquatic) ecosystems, and therefore play a critical role in biogeochemical cycles and in many food webs. As decomposers, they play an essential role in nutrient cycling, especially as saprotrophs and symbionts, degrading organic matter to inorganic molecules, which can then re-enter anabolic metabolic pathways in plants or other organisms.

 

Symbiosis

Many fungi have important symbiotic relationships with organisms from most if not all kingdoms. These interactions can be mutualistic or antagonistic in nature, or in the case of commensal fungi are of no apparent benefit or detriment to the host.

 

With plants

Mycorrhizal symbiosis between plants and fungi is one of the most well-known plant–fungus associations and is of significant importance for plant growth and persistence in many ecosystems; over 90% of all plant species engage in mycorrhizal relationships with fungi and are dependent upon this relationship for survival.

 

A microscopic view of blue-stained cells, some with dark wavy lines in them

The dark filaments are hyphae of the endophytic fungus Epichloë coenophiala in the intercellular spaces of tall fescue leaf sheath tissue

The mycorrhizal symbiosis is ancient, dating back to at least 400 million years. It often increases the plant's uptake of inorganic compounds, such as nitrate and phosphate from soils having low concentrations of these key plant nutrients. The fungal partners may also mediate plant-to-plant transfer of carbohydrates and other nutrients. Such mycorrhizal communities are called "common mycorrhizal networks". A special case of mycorrhiza is myco-heterotrophy, whereby the plant parasitizes the fungus, obtaining all of its nutrients from its fungal symbiont. Some fungal species inhabit the tissues inside roots, stems, and leaves, in which case they are called endophytes. Similar to mycorrhiza, endophytic colonization by fungi may benefit both symbionts; for example, endophytes of grasses impart to their host increased resistance to herbivores and other environmental stresses and receive food and shelter from the plant in return.

 

With algae and cyanobacteria

A green, leaf-like structure attached to a tree, with a pattern of ridges and depression on the bottom surface

The lichen Lobaria pulmonaria, a symbiosis of fungal, algal, and cyanobacterial species

Lichens are a symbiotic relationship between fungi and photosynthetic algae or cyanobacteria. The photosynthetic partner in the relationship is referred to in lichen terminology as a "photobiont". The fungal part of the relationship is composed mostly of various species of ascomycetes and a few basidiomycetes. Lichens occur in every ecosystem on all continents, play a key role in soil formation and the initiation of biological succession, and are prominent in some extreme environments, including polar, alpine, and semiarid desert regions. They are able to grow on inhospitable surfaces, including bare soil, rocks, tree bark, wood, shells, barnacles and leaves. As in mycorrhizas, the photobiont provides sugars and other carbohydrates via photosynthesis to the fungus, while the fungus provides minerals and water to the photobiont. The functions of both symbiotic organisms are so closely intertwined that they function almost as a single organism; in most cases the resulting organism differs greatly from the individual components. Lichenization is a common mode of nutrition for fungi; around 27% of known fungi—more than 19,400 species—are lichenized. Characteristics common to most lichens include obtaining organic carbon by photosynthesis, slow growth, small size, long life, long-lasting (seasonal) vegetative reproductive structures, mineral nutrition obtained largely from airborne sources, and greater tolerance of desiccation than most other photosynthetic organisms in the same habitat.

 

With insects

Many insects also engage in mutualistic relationships with fungi. Several groups of ants cultivate fungi in the order Chaetothyriales for several purposes: as a food source, as a structural component of their nests, and as a part of an ant/plant symbiosis in the domatia (tiny chambers in plants that house arthropods). Ambrosia beetles cultivate various species of fungi in the bark of trees that they infest. Likewise, females of several wood wasp species (genus Sirex) inject their eggs together with spores of the wood-rotting fungus Amylostereum areolatum into the sapwood of pine trees; the growth of the fungus provides ideal nutritional conditions for the development of the wasp larvae. At least one species of stingless bee has a relationship with a fungus in the genus Monascus, where the larvae consume and depend on fungus transferred from old to new nests. Termites on the African savannah are also known to cultivate fungi, and yeasts of the genera Candida and Lachancea inhabit the gut of a wide range of insects, including neuropterans, beetles, and cockroaches; it is not known whether these fungi benefit their hosts. Fungi growing in dead wood are essential for xylophagous insects (e.g. woodboring beetles). They deliver nutrients needed by xylophages to nutritionally scarce dead wood. Thanks to this nutritional enrichment the larvae of the woodboring insect is able to grow and develop to adulthood. The larvae of many families of fungicolous flies, particularly those within the superfamily Sciaroidea such as the Mycetophilidae and some Keroplatidae feed on fungal fruiting bodies and sterile mycorrhizae.

 

A thin brown stick positioned horizontally with roughly two dozen clustered orange-red leaves originating from a single point in the middle of the stick. These orange leaves are three to four times larger than the few other green leaves growing out of the stick, and are covered on the lower leaf surface with hundreds of tiny bumps. The background shows the green leaves and branches of neighboring shrubs.

The plant pathogen Puccinia magellanicum (calafate rust) causes the defect known as witch's broom, seen here on a barberry shrub in Chile.

 

Gram stain of Candida albicans from a vaginal swab from a woman with candidiasis, showing hyphae, and chlamydospores, which are 2–4 µm in diameter.

Many fungi are parasites on plants, animals (including humans), and other fungi. Serious pathogens of many cultivated plants causing extensive damage and losses to agriculture and forestry include the rice blast fungus Magnaporthe oryzae, tree pathogens such as Ophiostoma ulmi and Ophiostoma novo-ulmi causing Dutch elm disease, Cryphonectria parasitica responsible for chestnut blight, and Phymatotrichopsis omnivora causing Texas Root Rot, and plant pathogens in the genera Fusarium, Ustilago, Alternaria, and Cochliobolus. Some carnivorous fungi, like Paecilomyces lilacinus, are predators of nematodes, which they capture using an array of specialized structures such as constricting rings or adhesive nets. Many fungi that are plant pathogens, such as Magnaporthe oryzae, can switch from being biotrophic (parasitic on living plants) to being necrotrophic (feeding on the dead tissues of plants they have killed). This same principle is applied to fungi-feeding parasites, including Asterotremella albida, which feeds on the fruit bodies of other fungi both while they are living and after they are dead.

 

Some fungi can cause serious diseases in humans, several of which may be fatal if untreated. These include aspergillosis, candidiasis, coccidioidomycosis, cryptococcosis, histoplasmosis, mycetomas, and paracoccidioidomycosis. Furthermore, persons with immuno-deficiencies are particularly susceptible to disease by genera such as Aspergillus, Candida, Cryptoccocus, Histoplasma, and Pneumocystis. Other fungi can attack eyes, nails, hair, and especially skin, the so-called dermatophytic and keratinophilic fungi, and cause local infections such as ringworm and athlete's foot. Fungal spores are also a cause of allergies, and fungi from different taxonomic groups can evoke allergic reactions.

 

As targets of mycoparasites

Organisms that parasitize fungi are known as mycoparasitic organisms. About 300 species of fungi and fungus-like organisms, belonging to 13 classes and 113 genera, are used as biocontrol agents against plant fungal diseases. Fungi can also act as mycoparasites or antagonists of other fungi, such as Hypomyces chrysospermus, which grows on bolete mushrooms. Fungi can also become the target of infection by mycoviruses.

 

Communication

Main article: Mycorrhizal networks

There appears to be electrical communication between fungi in word-like components according to spiking characteristics.

 

Possible impact on climate

According to a study published in the academic journal Current Biology, fungi can soak from the atmosphere around 36% of global fossil fuel greenhouse gas emissions.

 

Mycotoxins

(6aR,9R)-N-((2R,5S,10aS,10bS)-5-benzyl-10b-hydroxy-2-methyl-3,6-dioxooctahydro-2H-oxazolo[3,2-a] pyrrolo[2,1-c]pyrazin-2-yl)-7-methyl-4,6,6a,7,8,9-hexahydroindolo[4,3-fg] quinoline-9-carboxamide

Ergotamine, a major mycotoxin produced by Claviceps species, which if ingested can cause gangrene, convulsions, and hallucinations

Many fungi produce biologically active compounds, several of which are toxic to animals or plants and are therefore called mycotoxins. Of particular relevance to humans are mycotoxins produced by molds causing food spoilage, and poisonous mushrooms (see above). Particularly infamous are the lethal amatoxins in some Amanita mushrooms, and ergot alkaloids, which have a long history of causing serious epidemics of ergotism (St Anthony's Fire) in people consuming rye or related cereals contaminated with sclerotia of the ergot fungus, Claviceps purpurea. Other notable mycotoxins include the aflatoxins, which are insidious liver toxins and highly carcinogenic metabolites produced by certain Aspergillus species often growing in or on grains and nuts consumed by humans, ochratoxins, patulin, and trichothecenes (e.g., T-2 mycotoxin) and fumonisins, which have significant impact on human food supplies or animal livestock.

 

Mycotoxins are secondary metabolites (or natural products), and research has established the existence of biochemical pathways solely for the purpose of producing mycotoxins and other natural products in fungi. Mycotoxins may provide fitness benefits in terms of physiological adaptation, competition with other microbes and fungi, and protection from consumption (fungivory). Many fungal secondary metabolites (or derivatives) are used medically, as described under Human use below.

 

Pathogenic mechanisms

Ustilago maydis is a pathogenic plant fungus that causes smut disease in maize and teosinte. Plants have evolved efficient defense systems against pathogenic microbes such as U. maydis. A rapid defense reaction after pathogen attack is the oxidative burst where the plant produces reactive oxygen species at the site of the attempted invasion. U. maydis can respond to the oxidative burst with an oxidative stress response, regulated by the gene YAP1. The response protects U. maydis from the host defense, and is necessary for the pathogen's virulence. Furthermore, U. maydis has a well-established recombinational DNA repair system which acts during mitosis and meiosis. The system may assist the pathogen in surviving DNA damage arising from the host plant's oxidative defensive response to infection.

 

Cryptococcus neoformans is an encapsulated yeast that can live in both plants and animals. C. neoformans usually infects the lungs, where it is phagocytosed by alveolar macrophages. Some C. neoformans can survive inside macrophages, which appears to be the basis for latency, disseminated disease, and resistance to antifungal agents. One mechanism by which C. neoformans survives the hostile macrophage environment is by up-regulating the expression of genes involved in the oxidative stress response. Another mechanism involves meiosis. The majority of C. neoformans are mating "type a". Filaments of mating "type a" ordinarily have haploid nuclei, but they can become diploid (perhaps by endoduplication or by stimulated nuclear fusion) to form blastospores. The diploid nuclei of blastospores can undergo meiosis, including recombination, to form haploid basidiospores that can be dispersed. This process is referred to as monokaryotic fruiting. This process requires a gene called DMC1, which is a conserved homologue of genes recA in bacteria and RAD51 in eukaryotes, that mediates homologous chromosome pairing during meiosis and repair of DNA double-strand breaks. Thus, C. neoformans can undergo a meiosis, monokaryotic fruiting, that promotes recombinational repair in the oxidative, DNA damaging environment of the host macrophage, and the repair capability may contribute to its virulence.

 

Human use

See also: Human interactions with fungi

Microscopic view of five spherical structures; one of the spheres is considerably smaller than the rest and attached to one of the larger spheres

Saccharomyces cerevisiae cells shown with DIC microscopy

The human use of fungi for food preparation or preservation and other purposes is extensive and has a long history. Mushroom farming and mushroom gathering are large industries in many countries. The study of the historical uses and sociological impact of fungi is known as ethnomycology. Because of the capacity of this group to produce an enormous range of natural products with antimicrobial or other biological activities, many species have long been used or are being developed for industrial production of antibiotics, vitamins, and anti-cancer and cholesterol-lowering drugs. Methods have been developed for genetic engineering of fungi, enabling metabolic engineering of fungal species. For example, genetic modification of yeast species—which are easy to grow at fast rates in large fermentation vessels—has opened up ways of pharmaceutical production that are potentially more efficient than production by the original source organisms. Fungi-based industries are sometimes considered to be a major part of a growing bioeconomy, with applications under research and development including use for textiles, meat substitution and general fungal biotechnology.

 

Therapeutic uses

Modern chemotherapeutics

Many species produce metabolites that are major sources of pharmacologically active drugs.

 

Antibiotics

Particularly important are the antibiotics, including the penicillins, a structurally related group of β-lactam antibiotics that are synthesized from small peptides. Although naturally occurring penicillins such as penicillin G (produced by Penicillium chrysogenum) have a relatively narrow spectrum of biological activity, a wide range of other penicillins can be produced by chemical modification of the natural penicillins. Modern penicillins are semisynthetic compounds, obtained initially from fermentation cultures, but then structurally altered for specific desirable properties. Other antibiotics produced by fungi include: ciclosporin, commonly used as an immunosuppressant during transplant surgery; and fusidic acid, used to help control infection from methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteria. Widespread use of antibiotics for the treatment of bacterial diseases, such as tuberculosis, syphilis, leprosy, and others began in the early 20th century and continues to date. In nature, antibiotics of fungal or bacterial origin appear to play a dual role: at high concentrations they act as chemical defense against competition with other microorganisms in species-rich environments, such as the rhizosphere, and at low concentrations as quorum-sensing molecules for intra- or interspecies signaling.

 

Other

Other drugs produced by fungi include griseofulvin isolated from Penicillium griseofulvum, used to treat fungal infections, and statins (HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors), used to inhibit cholesterol synthesis. Examples of statins found in fungi include mevastatin from Penicillium citrinum and lovastatin from Aspergillus terreus and the oyster mushroom. Psilocybin from fungi is investigated for therapeutic use and appears to cause global increases in brain network integration. Fungi produce compounds that inhibit viruses and cancer cells. Specific metabolites, such as polysaccharide-K, ergotamine, and β-lactam antibiotics, are routinely used in clinical medicine. The shiitake mushroom is a source of lentinan, a clinical drug approved for use in cancer treatments in several countries, including Japan. In Europe and Japan, polysaccharide-K (brand name Krestin), a chemical derived from Trametes versicolor, is an approved adjuvant for cancer therapy.

 

Traditional medicine

Upper surface view of a kidney-shaped fungus, brownish-red with a lighter yellow-brown margin, and a somewhat varnished or shiny appearance

Two dried yellow-orange caterpillars, one with a curly grayish fungus growing out of one of its ends. The grayish fungus is roughly equal to or slightly greater in length than the caterpillar, and tapers in thickness to a narrow end.

The fungi Ganoderma lucidum (left) and Ophiocordyceps sinensis (right) are used in traditional medicine practices

Certain mushrooms are used as supposed therapeutics in folk medicine practices, such as traditional Chinese medicine. Mushrooms with a history of such use include Agaricus subrufescens, Ganoderma lucidum, and Ophiocordyceps sinensis.

 

Cultured foods

Baker's yeast or Saccharomyces cerevisiae, a unicellular fungus, is used to make bread and other wheat-based products, such as pizza dough and dumplings. Yeast species of the genus Saccharomyces are also used to produce alcoholic beverages through fermentation. Shoyu koji mold (Aspergillus oryzae) is an essential ingredient in brewing Shoyu (soy sauce) and sake, and the preparation of miso while Rhizopus species are used for making tempeh. Several of these fungi are domesticated species that were bred or selected according to their capacity to ferment food without producing harmful mycotoxins (see below), which are produced by very closely related Aspergilli. Quorn, a meat substitute, is made from Fusarium venenatum.

Like many of the fans who endured the cold, drizzly conditions inside Reliant Stadium to start the game, the Texans took a few minutes to warm up Sunday afternoon in the regular season finale against the Chicago Bears.

 

After a wake-up call courtesy of a momentum-changing sack by defensive end Mario Williams and a stern message from coach Gary Kubiak, the fans were treated to a spectacular offensive display led by Pro Bowler Andre Johnson and rookie running back Steve Slaton .

 

The 31-24 win gave Houston its second-consecutive 8-8 record to end the season, and it shut out the Bears from postseason contention.

Texans owner Bob McNair admired the team's strong finish to the season.

 

"I'd rather be 16-0," McNair said. "But I think starting out the way we did, 0-4, coming back, understand that only nine other teams have ever done that (start 0-4 and finish .500 or better) in this history of the NFL. So I think it was an accomplishment for our team."

 

Early on, the Texans appeared to suffer from the same malaise they showed at Oakland a week earlier. But the team erased a 10-0 deficit in the first quarter with 21 unanswered points to take a 21-10 lead early in the third quarter.

 

In that stretch, Johnson scored back-to-back touchdowns to bring the franchise-record crowd of 70,838 to its feet. The Pro Bowler finished with 10 catches for 148 yards (14.8 avg.) to end the season with the NFL lead in receptions (115) and receiving yards (1,575).

 

Meanwhile, Slaton rebounded from a first half in which he totaled only 19 rushing yards and lost a fumble to put the offense on his back in the final quarter of play. By gaining 128 total yards from scrimmage and scoring a touchdown in the game, Slaton may have sealed NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year honors.

 

Slaton’s five-yard gain with 1:24 remaining in the contest gave Houston a first down and allowed the team to run out the remainder of the clock.

 

"I really like the way we came back and played after we played pretty poorly on both sides of the ball throughout the first quarter," Kubiak said.

 

Chicago scored its first touchdown with 5:57 remaining in the first quarter when wide receiver Brandon Lloyd stretched out for a four-yard touchdown grab near the front left pylon. A 15-yard reception by wide receiver Devin Hester and a 15-yard penalty on defensive end Tim Bulman for roughing the passer set up the score.

 

Wide receiver André Davis ' 39-yard kickoff return down the Bears' sideline gave the Texans solid field position at their 42-yard line to begin their second possession. But Slaton fumbled on the first play from scrimmage after being tackled by cornerback Charles Tillman. Defensive end Alex Brown recovered the fumble and returned it 17 yards to the Houston 38.

 

Three plays later, Robbie Gould's 37-yard field goal made the score 10-0.

 

The next drive started promising when quarterback Matt Schaub threw a tight spiral to Davis for a 33-yard gain up the middle of the field. But tight end Owen Daniels was penalized 15 yards for unnecessary roughness on the next play, and Schaub was flagged 10 yards for intentional grounding one play later to derail the drive and force a punt.

 

Upon returning to the sideline, the offense received an earful from Kubiak.

 

"I just didn't think we were going about our business the way we were capable of playing," Kubiak said. "That's not us. We're usually a pretty poised group as a football team and right there is losing poise and getting a shot in on a guy and all of a sudden it took a lot of momentum away from us."

 

With 11:26 left in the first half, Chicago took over at the Houston 49 following a three-and-out series by the Texans. But Williams saved the defense with his 12th sack of the season by tackling quarterback Kyle Orton at the Chicago 45 for a 10-yard loss on third down.

 

From there, Johnson caught three passes for 72 yards, including a 43-yard touchdown where he dragged two defenders with him over the goal line. Kris Brown's extra point cut the Bears' lead to 10-7 with 5:50 remaining before halftime.

 

Running back Ryan Moats forced a fumble on the ensuing kickoff when he tackled Devin Hester. Brown dove on the ball at the Chicago 38 for the Texans' first takeaway.

 

On third-and-goal at the three-yard line, Schaub threw a fade route to Johnson in the back right corner of the end zone, and Johnson ripped away the ball from Tillman for the score.

 

Safety Danieal Manning returned the opening kickoff of the second half 40 yards to the Chicago 45. But on third-and-six, rookie safety Dominique Barber blitzed off the right side to sack Orton for a nine-yard loss.

 

Picking up where he left off in the first half, Johnson gained 21 yards to the Houston 48 on his first reception of the third quarter. Later, Slaton's 17-yard catch and wide receiver Kevin Walter's 23-yard grab helped give the Texans a first down at the Chicago 17.

 

Moats scored his first touchdown with the team on a two-yard rush off the left guard to cap the nine-play drive. Brown's extra point extended the Texans' lead to 21-10 with 8:30 left in the third quarter.

 

The Bears refused to lie down and responded with a seven-play, 77-yard drive over 3:00. A 37-yard catch by Hester to the Texans' one-yard line set up Orton's touchdown pass to tight end Greg Olsen.

 

Late in the third quarter, the Texans moved into scoring range thanks to a 33-yard catch by Daniels to the Chicago 15. On third-and-10 at the 15-yard line, wide receiver David Anderson made a diving nine-yard reception, and Schaub dove forward on fourth down to keep the drive alive.

 

Following two short rushes by Slaton, Schaub's pass intended for Anderson on third-and-goal from the four-yard line fell incomplete, setting up Brown's 22-yard field goal.

 

Following a Chicago punt to the Houston 11 midway through the fourth quarter, Schaub drove the offense 89 yards in 11 plays. On the first play of the series, he avoided a safety on first down by tossing a pass in the flats to Slaton, who outran a defensive lineman for an 11-yard gain. Two plays later, Slaton rushed for 47 yards before Manning tackled him at the Chicago 29.

 

A 14-yard reception by Johnson set up Slaton's 15-yard touchdown run, but a holding call on right guard Mike Brisiel negated the score. On the next run by Slaton, he was tackled and fumbled after a one-yard run, but Kubiak challenged the call. Replays showed Slaton's elbow was down before the ball came loose, and officials overturned the call.

 

On third-and-14, Bears linebacker Nick Roach was penalized for holding, giving the Texans an automatic first down at the 14-yard line. Slaton capped the team’s second-consecutive 11-play series with a two-yard touchdown run to make the score 31-17 after Brown's extra point.

 

The Bears made things interesting by picking apart the Texans' prevent defense on an 11-play, 72-yard drive over 1:55. On fourth-and-one at the Houston 11, Orton dove forward for a first down at the two-minute warning. He moved the Bears to the one-yard line by finding running back Adrian Peterson open on a nine-yard screen pass.

 

Safety Eugene Wilson was injured on the play, resulting in a burned timeout for Houston. Once play was restored, Orton pushed his way over the goal line for a touchdown that made the score 31-23 with 1:29 left in the game.

 

But Gould’s onside kick was recovered by Walter at the Chicago 44, and Slaton preserved the win on his final carry of the game for five yards and a first down.

Like many of the fans who endured the cold, drizzly conditions inside Reliant Stadium to start the game, the Texans took a few minutes to warm up Sunday afternoon in the regular season finale against the Chicago Bears.

 

After a wake-up call courtesy of a momentum-changing sack by defensive end Mario Williams and a stern message from coach Gary Kubiak, the fans were treated to a spectacular offensive display led by Pro Bowler Andre Johnson and rookie running back Steve Slaton .

 

The 31-24 win gave Houston its second-consecutive 8-8 record to end the season, and it shut out the Bears from postseason contention.

Texans owner Bob McNair admired the team's strong finish to the season.

 

"I'd rather be 16-0," McNair said. "But I think starting out the way we did, 0-4, coming back, understand that only nine other teams have ever done that (start 0-4 and finish .500 or better) in this history of the NFL. So I think it was an accomplishment for our team."

 

Early on, the Texans appeared to suffer from the same malaise they showed at Oakland a week earlier. But the team erased a 10-0 deficit in the first quarter with 21 unanswered points to take a 21-10 lead early in the third quarter.

 

In that stretch, Johnson scored back-to-back touchdowns to bring the franchise-record crowd of 70,838 to its feet. The Pro Bowler finished with 10 catches for 148 yards (14.8 avg.) to end the season with the NFL lead in receptions (115) and receiving yards (1,575).

 

Meanwhile, Slaton rebounded from a first half in which he totaled only 19 rushing yards and lost a fumble to put the offense on his back in the final quarter of play. By gaining 128 total yards from scrimmage and scoring a touchdown in the game, Slaton may have sealed NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year honors.

 

Slaton’s five-yard gain with 1:24 remaining in the contest gave Houston a first down and allowed the team to run out the remainder of the clock.

 

"I really like the way we came back and played after we played pretty poorly on both sides of the ball throughout the first quarter," Kubiak said.

 

Chicago scored its first touchdown with 5:57 remaining in the first quarter when wide receiver Brandon Lloyd stretched out for a four-yard touchdown grab near the front left pylon. A 15-yard reception by wide receiver Devin Hester and a 15-yard penalty on defensive end Tim Bulman for roughing the passer set up the score.

 

Wide receiver André Davis ' 39-yard kickoff return down the Bears' sideline gave the Texans solid field position at their 42-yard line to begin their second possession. But Slaton fumbled on the first play from scrimmage after being tackled by cornerback Charles Tillman. Defensive end Alex Brown recovered the fumble and returned it 17 yards to the Houston 38.

 

Three plays later, Robbie Gould's 37-yard field goal made the score 10-0.

 

The next drive started promising when quarterback Matt Schaub threw a tight spiral to Davis for a 33-yard gain up the middle of the field. But tight end Owen Daniels was penalized 15 yards for unnecessary roughness on the next play, and Schaub was flagged 10 yards for intentional grounding one play later to derail the drive and force a punt.

 

Upon returning to the sideline, the offense received an earful from Kubiak.

 

"I just didn't think we were going about our business the way we were capable of playing," Kubiak said. "That's not us. We're usually a pretty poised group as a football team and right there is losing poise and getting a shot in on a guy and all of a sudden it took a lot of momentum away from us."

 

With 11:26 left in the first half, Chicago took over at the Houston 49 following a three-and-out series by the Texans. But Williams saved the defense with his 12th sack of the season by tackling quarterback Kyle Orton at the Chicago 45 for a 10-yard loss on third down.

 

From there, Johnson caught three passes for 72 yards, including a 43-yard touchdown where he dragged two defenders with him over the goal line. Kris Brown's extra point cut the Bears' lead to 10-7 with 5:50 remaining before halftime.

 

Running back Ryan Moats forced a fumble on the ensuing kickoff when he tackled Devin Hester. Brown dove on the ball at the Chicago 38 for the Texans' first takeaway.

 

On third-and-goal at the three-yard line, Schaub threw a fade route to Johnson in the back right corner of the end zone, and Johnson ripped away the ball from Tillman for the score.

 

Safety Danieal Manning returned the opening kickoff of the second half 40 yards to the Chicago 45. But on third-and-six, rookie safety Dominique Barber blitzed off the right side to sack Orton for a nine-yard loss.

 

Picking up where he left off in the first half, Johnson gained 21 yards to the Houston 48 on his first reception of the third quarter. Later, Slaton's 17-yard catch and wide receiver Kevin Walter's 23-yard grab helped give the Texans a first down at the Chicago 17.

 

Moats scored his first touchdown with the team on a two-yard rush off the left guard to cap the nine-play drive. Brown's extra point extended the Texans' lead to 21-10 with 8:30 left in the third quarter.

 

The Bears refused to lie down and responded with a seven-play, 77-yard drive over 3:00. A 37-yard catch by Hester to the Texans' one-yard line set up Orton's touchdown pass to tight end Greg Olsen.

 

Late in the third quarter, the Texans moved into scoring range thanks to a 33-yard catch by Daniels to the Chicago 15. On third-and-10 at the 15-yard line, wide receiver David Anderson made a diving nine-yard reception, and Schaub dove forward on fourth down to keep the drive alive.

 

Following two short rushes by Slaton, Schaub's pass intended for Anderson on third-and-goal from the four-yard line fell incomplete, setting up Brown's 22-yard field goal.

 

Following a Chicago punt to the Houston 11 midway through the fourth quarter, Schaub drove the offense 89 yards in 11 plays. On the first play of the series, he avoided a safety on first down by tossing a pass in the flats to Slaton, who outran a defensive lineman for an 11-yard gain. Two plays later, Slaton rushed for 47 yards before Manning tackled him at the Chicago 29.

 

A 14-yard reception by Johnson set up Slaton's 15-yard touchdown run, but a holding call on right guard Mike Brisiel negated the score. On the next run by Slaton, he was tackled and fumbled after a one-yard run, but Kubiak challenged the call. Replays showed Slaton's elbow was down before the ball came loose, and officials overturned the call.

 

On third-and-14, Bears linebacker Nick Roach was penalized for holding, giving the Texans an automatic first down at the 14-yard line. Slaton capped the team’s second-consecutive 11-play series with a two-yard touchdown run to make the score 31-17 after Brown's extra point.

 

The Bears made things interesting by picking apart the Texans' prevent defense on an 11-play, 72-yard drive over 1:55. On fourth-and-one at the Houston 11, Orton dove forward for a first down at the two-minute warning. He moved the Bears to the one-yard line by finding running back Adrian Peterson open on a nine-yard screen pass.

 

Safety Eugene Wilson was injured on the play, resulting in a burned timeout for Houston. Once play was restored, Orton pushed his way over the goal line for a touchdown that made the score 31-23 with 1:29 left in the game.

 

But Gould’s onside kick was recovered by Walter at the Chicago 44, and Slaton preserved the win on his final carry of the game for five yards and a first down.

The MOL Northern Juvenile, capable of carrying 8,800 twenty-foot equivalent units, set a record today as the largest container ship to ever call on Jacksonville. The ship, which transited the Suez Canal from Asia before reaching the U.S. east coast, loaded and offloaded cargo at JAXPORT’s TraPac Container Terminal at Dames Point.

More than 1 million containers move through Jacksonville's public and private marine terminals annually. Jacksonville boasts the widest shipping channel in the Southeast U.S., wide enough for two ships to pass at the same time and offers worldwide cargo service from more than 40 ocean carriers, including direct service with Europe, Africa, South America, the Caribbean and other key markets.

Florida is now the nation’s third most populous state – and more than 60 million U.S. consumers live within a one-day truck drive of Jacksonville’s port. JAXPORT terminals are serviced by three U.S. interstates (I-10, I-95 and I-75), and the city has 36 daily train departures via three railroads: CSX, Norfolk Southern, and Florida East Coast. The port’s equal balance of imports and exports provides backhaul opportunities, saving money and maximizing transportation costs.

JAXPORT has invested $600 million in recent infrastructure investments in everything from cranes to docks to rail and a newly authorized project to deepen the federal shipping channel.

 

The MOL Northern Juvenile, capable of carrying 8,800 twenty-foot equivalent units, set a record today as the largest container ship to ever call on Jacksonville. The ship, which transited the Suez Canal from Asia before reaching the U.S. east coast, loaded and offloaded cargo at JAXPORT’s TraPac Container Terminal at Dames Point.

More than 1 million containers move through Jacksonville's public and private marine terminals annually. Jacksonville boasts the widest shipping channel in the Southeast U.S., wide enough for two ships to pass at the same time and offers worldwide cargo service from more than 40 ocean carriers, including direct service with Europe, Africa, South America, the Caribbean and other key markets.

Florida is now the nation’s third most populous state – and more than 60 million U.S. consumers live within a one-day truck drive of Jacksonville’s port. JAXPORT terminals are serviced by three U.S. interstates (I-10, I-95 and I-75), and the city has 36 daily train departures via three railroads: CSX, Norfolk Southern, and Florida East Coast. The port’s equal balance of imports and exports provides backhaul opportunities, saving money and maximizing transportation costs.

JAXPORT has invested $600 million in recent infrastructure investments in everything from cranes to docks to rail and a newly authorized project to deepen the federal shipping channel.

 

The largeness the small is capable of.

 

edited by Crag Hill.

 

Moscow (USA), Score, [late 2oo1?].

 

8-3/8 x 11, 18 sheets white bond folded to 72 p & stapled twice into green mayfair card wrappers, all except inside covers & endsheet printed black laser.

 

11o contributors:

Luther Allen, Miekal And, Antler, Marcia Arrieta, Dick Bakken, Valory Banister, Dennis Barone, Gary Barwin, Mike Basinski, John M.Bennett, Jake Berry. Jonathan Bracker, John Brandi, Jonathan Brannen, David Bromige, Julie Brown, Lee Ann Brown, Scott Brown, Michael H.Brownstein, Avery E.D.Burns, Janine Canan, Gaius Valerius Catullus, Joel Chace, G.O.Clark, Jeff Conant, Edmund Conti, Geoffrey Cook, Ellen Cooney, jwcurry, Tony D'Arpino, Ann Erickson, Pat Everitt, Paula Farkas, Venantius Fortunatus, Peter Ganick, David Gewanter, Taylor Graham, Robert Grenier, John Grey, John Gribble, Bob Grumman, Terrence Hale, Crag Hill, Wharton Hood, Albert Huffstickler, Maureen Hurley, Geof Huth, Jim Hydock, Scott James, Barry Jeffers, Dale Jensen, Gretchen Johnson, Karl Kempton, Joseph Keppler, M.Kettner, Michael Koenig, Phyllis Koestenbaum, Richard Kostelanetz, Steve Kowit, Peggy Landsman, Michael Leddy, Joel Lewis, Jeanne Lohmann, Mark Magiera, Marcus Valerius Martolis, John Martone, Whitman McGowan, Rochelle Hope Mehr, Charlie Mehrhoff, Alan Miller, Jack Moscovitz, C.Mulrooney, Sheila E.Murphy, Edward Mycue, F.A.Nettelbeck, Melanie Noel, Joyce O'Keefe, Gloria Olchowy, Sanjay Parvo, Marti Paul, Noel Peattie, John Perlman, Stuart Pid, Harry Polkinhorn, Stephen Ratcliffe, Judith Roche, James Rossignol, Andrew Russell, Steve Sanfield, Aram Saroyan, Thom Schramm, Hal Sirowitz, G.P.Skratz, Stacy Sollfrey, Pete Spence, William Talcott, Thomas Lowe Taylor, Steve Tills, Joseph Torra, Luke Trent, Craig Van Riper, Nico Vassilakis, Karen Verba, John Vieira, Liz Was, Anthony Russell White, Bill White, Jesse Winter, Gary Young, Harriet Zinnes.

 

curry contributes (poetry):

i) Reflecting on the war (p.16)

ii) "snow", with Gary Barwin (p.16)

iii) the great ASTEROIDS conflict (p.16)

iv) "I distinctly remember the incident." (p.16)

v) qaani lore # 8: first breath (p.16)

vi) "two glaciers heading", with Gary Barwin (p.16)

vii) ON WAKING THIS MORNING & LOOKING UNSUSPECTINGLY OUT THE MIDDLE FRONT WINDOW (p.17)

viii) "black treeless land", as by "Wharton Hood" (p.24)

ix) "an almost frightening", as by "Wharton Hood" (p.24)

x) "excavation", as by "Wharton Hood" (p.25)

The rise of the Sforza Castle

Originally from Romagna, Francesco Sforza was an immensely capable military leader as well as an astute politician. Having previously been hired to defend the city by Filippo Maria Visconti, he successfully laid siege to Milan and was welcomed by the populace as a liberator. On the 25th March 1450, Sforza and his wife Bianca Maria Visconti were hailed as the rulers of Milan.

Once in power, Francesco Sforza immediately set to work building additions to the Visconti Castle. Knowing the hatred the Milanese had for the building, he justified its reconstruction on the basis of a desire to beautify the city while defending it from outside enemies.

Coherently with this line of reasoning, in 1452, he set a civil engineer, the Florentine Antonio Averulino, known as il Filarete, to work alongside the military engineers, Giovanni da Milano, Jacopo da Cortona and Marcoleone da Nogolarolo. Averulino was tasked with designing the façade on the side of the city and the high central tower that rose above the castle gate. The Tuscan architect, however, was soon dismissed and the project was headed by Bartolomeo Gadio, a military architect who had the trust of the Sforzas and who had taken up the post of fortress commissioner for the duchy in the same year. The original plans for the façade were modified by Gadio to include two massive round corner towers covered in diamond shaped Serizzo stone that was more resistant to the artillery of the time. On the other side of the castle he also fortified and extended the “Ghirlanda”, a pre-existing Visconti era wall, which together with its two corner towers and a covered road, constituted the northern defences.

The efforts to complete and embellish the castle were intensified under the rule of Francesco Sforza's successor. In 1468 Galeazzo Maria, the first in line to the title, moved into the castle together with his court and spouse, Bona di Savoia, the sister-in-law of King Louis XI of France. In a matter of just a few years the Rocchetta Keep and the Ducal Courtyard were completed, the castle rooms frescoed and the Ducal Chapel decorated.

At this time the Castle was composed of the buildings that surrounded the capacious Courtyard of Arms on the side of the city, and the Ducal Apartments and fortified Rocchetta Keep towards the park.

 

www.milanocastello.it/en/storia-voci/10/140

Towards the end of 1914, early in World War I, disturbing rumours began to circulate that the newest German submarines were capable of a much higher surface speed than British boats, one report giving their speed at about 22 knots. The rumours were sufficiently strong to force serious consideration of the matter by the Admiralty, and at the same time consideration was given to the idea that submarines should have a high enough surface speed to be able to work with the fleet. The reports concerning the speed of the German submarines proved to be spurious, but the idea of a British submarine with a high surface speed gained ground. The immediate result of this concern was the development of the J Class, which were unique with their three shafts. Originally eight boats were planned but this was reduced to six and then increased to seven. As a result of these changes the boats originally intended to be J7 and J8 were renumbered in April 1915 as J3 and J4 respectively.

 

J7's submerged displacement of 1,760 tons was 60 tons less than that of her sister boats. Her conning tower was located further aft and the gun was mounted in a lower position.

 

HMS J7 commissioned in the Royal Navy on 15 September 1917 under the command of Lieutenant Commander F.H.D. Byron RN and was allocated to a flotilla based at Blyth, Northumberland.

 

On 5 November 1917 J7 departed Blyth for her first patrol. Whilst on patrol in the North Sea on 6 March 1918 an enemy submarine was sighted, but J7 was unable to attack and the enemy passed from sight.

 

The submarine was under refit during April and May 1918 at Walker Naval Yard on the River Tyne. She sailed for patrol on 25 May and evaded a U-boat attack the same day.

 

On 10 July an enemy submarine was sighted and both vessels dived. Shortly after a sighting was made of an enemy submarine on the surface, going away, J7 surfaced, challenged and opened fire. The enemy dived. An enemy submarine was sighted on 23 July, but J7 was unable to attack and the enemy disappeared.

 

On 5 October 1918 J7 dived to intercept a reported submarine, but broke off the search without contact.

 

The boat was at sea when the Armistice was signed on 11 November 1918. She returned to Blyth on 15 November. On 19 February 1919 she proceeded to Jarrow.

 

Following the conclusion of hostilities in World War I, the Admiralty in 1918 presented the six remaining boats of the J Class to the Australian Government - J6 had been sunk in error in 1918 by a British ship. All the submarines commissioned into the Royal Australian Navy at Portsmouth on 25 March 1919, as tenders to the submarine depot ship HMAS Platypus, J7 being the senior boat, under the command of Lieutenant Commander Oswald E. Hallifax DSO RN.

 

The beam tubes were removed from all six J Class submarines before they sailed for Australia. The tubes were despatched separately to Garden Island. The reasons given for the removal were that the beam tubes were not a success and that increased accommodation was required.

  

HMS Submarine J7 off the River Tyne prior to sailing for Australia in February, 1919.

On 9 April 1919 Platypus and the submarines, escorted by the light cruiser HMAS Sydney, sailed from Portsmouth for Australia, their first two ports of call being Gibraltar and Valetta.

 

On the night of 28 April, the night before the vessels arrived at Port Said, J3's starboard main engine shaft snapped. Thus handicapped she could not keep up with the others and consequently on departure for Aden on 30 April, J3 was in tow of Sydney.

 

The vessels arrived at Aden on 5 May. On the same day the light cruiser HMAS Brisbane, which had left Portsmouth on 17 April, also arrived. On 7 May all the vessels sailed for Colombo. Brisbane took over the tow of J3 while Sydney took J5 in tow as that boat had also developed engine trouble. Three days after arrival at Colombo on 15 May, Brisbane sailed with J5 in tow, taking her all the way to Sydney, where they arrived on 27 June.

 

J3 was taken in hand at Colombo for repairs. On 31 May Sydney, J1, J2, J4 and J7 sailed for Singapore, followed on 2 June by Platypus and J3. The vessels were reunited at Singapore from where all except Sydney sailed on 18 June. Sydney sailed for Australia a few days later but did not rejoin the other vessels. On 29 June Platypus and the five submarines arrived at Thursday Island, although J7 was three hours late because of trouble with her engine lubricating system. The last call before Sydney was Brisbane, Sydney being reached on 15 July.

 

Having arrived in poor condition, the submarines were taken in hand at Garden Island Dockyard for refitting. After her refit was completed J7 sailed for the submarine base at Geelong, Victoria.

 

After uneventful service, little of which was spent at sea, J7 and her five sisters paid off into Reserve at Westernport on 12 July 1922. The boats had become victims of the worsening economic conditions of the time, coupled with their high cost of maintenance.

 

On 1 November 1929 J7 was sold to Morris and Watt Pty Ltd of South Melbourne. She was towed from Flinders Naval Depot, Crib Point, where she had served as a reserve source of electric power, on 4 December 1929. She was dismantled and the hull sunk in 1930 as a breakwater at the Sandringham Yacht Club, Sandringham, Port Phillip Bay, where it remain