View allAll Photos Tagged control_systems
Update Oct. 7, 2019 - A wide-field image of this area, shot simultaneously with the above and also showing the gravitationally interacting nearby "Hockey Stick' galaxy, can be found at the link attached here - www.flickr.com/photos/homcavobservatory/48859476636/
Object Details: Lying approximately 30 million light-years from Earth, 'The Whale Galaxy' (NGC 4631) is an edge-on barred spiral whose wedge-like shape gives rise to it's nickname. It is gavitationally interacting with the nearby dwarf elliptical galaxy NGC 4627 (visible directly below the Whale in this image) and contains a central starburst (i.e. a region of extremely intense star formation).
Similar in size to our own Milky Way galaxy, visually it spans about 15 x 3 arcminutes in our sky (i.e. lengthwise, approximately have the diameter of the full moon). Glowing at magnitude 9.8 in the constellation Canes Venatici, it is detectable in small scopes as a thin sliver of light and it makes for a spectacular object in larger instruments.
Image Details: The attached was taken by Jay Edwards at the HomCav Observatory on the evening of April 6, 2019 using an 8-inch, f/7 Criterion newtonian reflector and a Canon 700D DSLR tracked on a Losmandy G-11 mount running a Gemini 2 control system. This in turn was guided using PHD2 to control a ZWO ASI290MC planetary camera / auto-guider in an 80mm f/6 Celestron 'short-tube' refractor.
This is my first attempt at imaging this object, and as such is a test consisting of a (relatively speaking) very short stack totaling only 45 minutes of exposure (not including darks, flats & bias frames). Although I was fairly pleased with the result, it contains more noise in the outer regions than I would prefer and I will therefore look forward to re-imaging this object in the future using a longer total exposure.
Stacked in DeepSkyStacker and processed using PixInsight and PaintShopPro, as presented here it has been resized down to HD resolution and the bit depth has been lowered to 8 bits per channel.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
USS Farragut (DD-348)
History
United States
Namesake: David Glasgow Farragut
Builder: Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation-Fore River Shipyard, Quincy, Massachusetts
Laid down: 20 September 1932
Launched: 15 March 1934
Commissioned: 18 June 1934
Decommissioned: 23 October 1945
Struck: 28 January 1947
Fate: Sold for scrap, 14 August 1947
General characteristics
Class & type: Farragut-class destroyer
Displacement: 1,365 tons
Length: 341 ft 3 in (104.01 m)
Beam: 34 ft 3 in (10.44 m)
Draught: 16 ft 2 in (4.93 m)
Speed: 37 knots (69 km/h)
Complement: 160 officers and enlisted
Armament:
As Built:
5 × 5" (127mm)/38cal DP (5x1),
8 × 21" (533 mm) T Tubes (2x4)
4 × .50cal (12.7mm) MG AA (4x1)
c1943:
1 × Mk 33 Gun Fire Control System
4 × 5" (127mm)/38cal DP (4x1)
8 × 21" (533 mm) T Tubes (2x4)
5 × Oerlikon 20 mm AA (5x1)
2 × Mk 51 Gun Directors
4 × Bofors 40 mm AA (2x2)
2 × Depth Charge stern racks
The third USS Farragut (DD-348) was named for Admiral David Glasgow Farragut (1801–1870). She was the lead ship of her class of destroyers in the United States Navy.
History
Farragut was laid down by Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation's Fore River Shipyard in Quincy, Massachusetts, on 20 September 1932, launched on 15 March 1934 by Mrs. James Roosevelt, daughter-in-law of the President, and commissioned on 18 June 1934, with Commander Elliott Buckmaster in command.
Farragut underway in September 1939.
Because it was nearly 14 years since a new destroyer had been commissioned in the U.S. Navy, Farragut devoted much of her early service to developmental operations, cruising out of her homeport of Norfolk, Virginia, to the Caribbean and along the east coast. On 26 March 1935, she embarked with President Franklin D. Roosevelt at Jacksonville, Florida, and the next day carried him to a rendezvous with a private yacht. Farragut escorted the President's yacht on a cruise to the Bahamas; on 7 April he embarked on her for passage to Jacksonville, where he left the ship on 8 April 1935.
Farragut sailed for San Diego, California, arriving there on 19 April 1935 to join Destroyer Squadron 20 as flagship. Fleet maneuvers on the west coast, training operations in the Hawaiian Islands, and cruises during the summer to train men of the Naval Reserve in Alaskan waters continued until 3 January 1939. Farragut then sailed for fleet maneuvers in the Caribbean, returning to San Diego on 12 April. From 2 October she was based at Pearl Harbor, and made two voyages to the west coast to screen carriers to Pearl Harbor. From 1 August 1941, Farragut was pretty much at sea for exercises with carrier task forces.
World War II
Farragut was berthed in a nest of destroyers in East Loch, Pearl Harbor, at the time of the Japanese attack on 7 December 1941. Ensign James Armen Benham, her engineering officer and senior on board at the time, got her underway, and as she sailed down the channel, she kept up a steady fire. For his action, Ensign Benham was awarded the Bronze Star.[1] Through March 1942, Farragut operated in Hawaiian waters, and from Oahu to San Francisco, California, on antisubmarine patrols and escort duty.
On 15 April 1942, Farragut sortied from Pearl Harbor with the Lexington (CV-2) task force, bound for the Coral Sea and a rendezvous with the Yorktown (CV-5) task force. Together these forces engaged Japanese forces in the Battle of the Coral Sea from 4 to 8 May 1942. For the first 2 days of the battle, Farragut sailed with the Attack Force, while the aircraft carriers in another group launched air strikes on Tulagi. On 6 May, all ships were united as TF 17, and sailed to the northwestward to make contact with the Japanese Port Moresby Invasion Group. Next day, Farragut was detached in the Support Group assigned to continue the search for the Japanese invasion forces. Farragut's group came under heavy air attack that afternoon, but downed at least five aircraft, and receiving no damage to any ship.
Farragut arrived at Cid Harbor, Australia, 11 May 1942, and until returning to Pearl Harbor 29 June, called at Brisbane, Noumea, Suva, Tongatapu, and Auckland while on escort duty. She next sortied from Pearl Harbor 7 July 1942, in the Saratoga (CV-3) task force, bound for action in the Solomon Islands. She served as screening ship and plane guard during the air operations covering the assault on Guadalcanal 7 August, and then patrolled the eastern Solomons to protect sea lanes to Guadalcanal. On 24 and 25 August, the carrier she guarded engaged Japanese forces in the air Battle of the Eastern Solomons.
Farragut in December 1943.
The destroyer remained in the southwest Pacific, patrolling off Guadalcanal to guard unloading transports, and escorting convoys from Australia to Espiritu Santo, Noumea, and the Fiji Islands. She returned to Pearl Harbor 27 January 1943, and after a west coast overhaul and training, arrived at Adak 16 April. She patrolled Alaskan waters until 11 May, when she screened transports landing troops on Adak from submarine attack. Next day she made several depth charge attacks on an enemy submarine and she continued antisubmarine patrol off the Aleutian Islands through June. Farragut patrolled and blockaded off Kiska from 5 July, joining in the bombardment of the island many times in the days before the landings of 15 August. She continued to protect the troops ashore at Kiska until 4 September, when she left Adak in convoy for San Francisco and a brief overhaul.
Farragut put to sea, from San Diego 19 October 1943, bound for training in the Hawaiian Islands and at Espiritu Santo. Again guarding carriers, she took part in the air operations covering the landings on Tarawa 20 November, and screened the carriers until the task force shaped course for Pearl Harbor 8 December. The destroyer continued on to the west coast for a brief repair period and training, sailing from San Diego 13 January 1944 for action in the Marshall Islands. During the assaults on Kwajalein and Eniwetok, she screened carriers, patrolled, and conducted antisubmarine searches, then sailed for air strikes on Woleai and Wakde. Late in April, she was off New Guinea as the carriers supported the landings in the Hollandia (currently known as Jayapura) area, and through May joined in training operations out of Majuro.
From her arrival off Saipan 11 June 1944, Farragut guarded the carriers covering the landings of 15 June, bombarded the shores of Saipan and Guam, and served as radar picket through the Battle of the Philippine Sea on 19 and 20 June. Farragut sailed to replenish at Eniwetok 28 June to 14 July. On 17 and 18 July, she closed the beach at Agat, Guam, to provide covering fire for underwater demolition teams preparing for the assault on the island. After screening a cruiser to Saipan she returned to Guam 21 July to patrol seaward of the Fire Support Group covering the assault landings. On 25 July, she joined in the bombardment of Rota, and 5 days later cleared for overhaul at Puget Sound Navy Yard.
Farragut in dazzle pattern camouflage, September 1944.
Farragut arrived at Ulithi 21 November 1944, and sailed 4 days later to screen a group of oilers serving the fast carrier task force as it sent strikes against Taiwan and Luzon in preparation for the assault on Lingayen. Based on Ulithi, she served with this group as it supported the carriers in their operations of the Iwo Jima and Okinawa invasions, then from 25 to 28 April 1945 served on carrier screening duty for air operations on islands of the Ryukyus not yet invaded. From 11 May to 6 August, she escorted convoys between Ulithi and Okinawa, and during the last 2 weeks of May, served on radar picket duty at Okinawa.
Fate
The destroyer was homeward bound from Saipan 21 August 1945, arriving at the Brooklyn Navy Yard 25 September. Farragut was decommissioned on 23 October 1945, stricken from the Naval Vessel Register on 28 January 1947 and sold for scrap on 14 August 1947.
Farragut received 14 battle stars for World War II service.
Object Details: The planet Jupiter as it appeared on May 25, 2018 at 22:45 EDT. With an equatorial diameter of approximately 143,000 km (89,000 miles) Jupiter is over 11 times the diameter of Earth. At the time of this image it was 663.6 million km (412.3 million miles) from Earth and spanned 44.4 arc-seconds in our sky (by comparison the moon appears approximately 30 arc-minutes in diameter (i.e. over 40 times larger)). Residing in the constellation of Libra, it shined at magnitude -2.5, and being about 2 weeks past it's opposition on May 9th, was 99.9% illuminated.
Image Details: Taken by Jay Edwards at the HomCav Observatory using a (circa. 1970) 8-inch, f/7 Criterion newtonian reflector and a 3X Televue barlow connected to a ZWO ASI290MC planetary camera / auto-guider. This optical setup was tracked on a Losmandy G-11 mount running a Gemini 2 control system. The attached is a stack of selected frames from a relatively short video clip. Given the limited number of frames used and the fact that Jupiter was less than 30 degrees above the horizon at the time this was shot, I was fairly pleased with the result. Having just purchased the camera the previous month, I'm looking forward to trying it once again on Jupiter next year as I learn to better utilize it's capabilities.
23-Apr-2024 15:30
Ilford FP4+ rated @ EI 64
Ebony 45SU
Schneider 120mm f/5.6 Makro-Symmar HM
XTOL 1+1 for 10 mins (N) @ 20C
Stearman Press SP645 Tank
Pre-Wash 5 mins
Inversions first 30 sec then two every 60 sec
Two water Stop Baths - 1 min each
John Finch Alkali Fixer (1+4)
Clearing time 90 sec. Total fix time 3 minutes
Initial wash to remove fixer : 1 min
Washing : 10 mins with frequent water changes
Ilfotol : 1 ml in 500ml for 2 minutes
Front swing : Right 7 deg
Mid tone LV = 11
Highlight = 15
Shadow = 10
Filters : None
Bellows : 150mm (120mm lens) is 1.5 times more exposure required. 1/4 sec goes to 0.6 sec
Final LV=10
1 sec @ f22
AKSM-32100D is a trolleybus with a transistorized control system based on IGBT modules and an AC induction motor, equipped with accumulators based on lithium-iron-phosphate batteries with a reserve of autonomous travel up to 30 kilometers. Unlike base model AKSM-32100, it is equipped with a 150 kW traction motor. The first three ones were delivered to Ulyanovsk, Russia at the end of 2015. In 2016-2019 St. Petersburg received 35 ones, others were delivered to Belarus cities (5 to Grodno, 4 to Gomel, 4 to Vitebsk). In 2021, they were delivered to Belarus capital Minsk (25 ones) and Vratsa (9). In December 2021, three more restyled trolleybuses came to Grodno to operate the new route 24.
АКСМ-32100D trolleybuses are produced by the Belarus company Belkommunmash (BKM; Производственное Объединение «Белкоммунмаш», БКМ). BKM was organized in 1973 on the basis of the streetcar and trolleybus repair shop under the Ministry of Municipal Economy of the Belarusian Soviet Socialist Republic. During the first two decades the plant was repairing trolleybuses and streetcars of Minsk. After USSR breakage the independent Belarus got a strong incentive to develop its own vehicles production. Therefore a few articulated trolleybuses YMZ T1 (ЮМЗ Т1) were assembled at the plant in 1993 from engineering sets of Yuzhny Machine Building Plant of Ukraine. The enterprise also modernized trolleybuses of the ZIU models 100 - 101 produced by the Engels Electric Transportation Plant (later CJSC "TrolZa") in Engels, Saratov region of Russia. Later the company started to develop its own trolleybus models, the first model AKSM 201 (АКСМ 201) appeared in 1996, followed by models 213, 221, 321 (as in foto) and 333. Since 2000 the production of streetcars started: AKSM-1M, AKSM-60102. In 2016, the production of electric buses has been organized. Today the BKM Holding (ОАО «Управляющая компания холдинга «Белкоммунмаш» - ОАО «УКХ «БКМ) is the leading industrial enterprise in Belarus in the field of production and overhaul of rolling stock of urban electric transport.
Professionally matted & framed McDonnell Douglas artist’s concept of the Skylab cluster in earth orbit. Signed by the first manned crew, composed of Charles “Pete” Conrad, Joseph Kerwin & Paul Weitz, along with Robert Crippen, Skylab support crew member.
Please find attached the last of the four quick images I took last Tuesday evening while re-aligning our scopes.
Object Details: Moving south down the terminator (to the southern limb) from the previous three images linked here:
Plato & The Alpine Valley: www.flickr.com/photos/homcavobservatory/48070020973/
and here:
Eratosthenes & The Apennine Mountians - www.flickr.com/photos/homcavobservatory/48073693577/ )
and here:
Ptolemaeus, Alphonsus, Arzacnel & The Straight Wall - www.flickr.com/photos/homcavobservatory/48082951766/ )
we find the two prominent craters, Tycho (above left of center) & Clavius (left of center).
Both are Located in the region known as the southern lunar highlands with Tycho being ~ 85 km (~ 53 mi) in diameter with a depth of ~ 4,800 meters (~ 15,700 ft.) and is a one of the brightest craters on the moon. When the moon is near it's full phase, it's It extensive ray system appears to cross the entire visible lunar surface
(an example of which can be found in the image linked here - www.flickr.com/photos/homcavobservatory/25370759009/in/al... .
Tycho is a relatively young crater, being estimated to be 'only' approximately 108 million years old.
By contrast, Clavius, the second largest crater on the visible side of the moon, is approximately ~ 225 km (~ 140 mi) in diameter, ~ 3500 meters (~ 11,500 ft) deep and is thought to have been formed about 4 billion years ago. It's floor is marked with a distinctive chain of smaller craters starting in the south and curving northward in a counterclockwise direction in ever diminishing sizes. Given it's substantial size Clavius is actually visible to the eye without the use of optical aid, while the entire region is a fascinating sight in binoculars or any telescope.
In addition to these prominent craters, the image shows a wide pattern of streaks (eject blanket material ?) extending in a widening pattern from left to right, most evident in the upper right quarter of the frame.
Image Details: The attached was taken by Jay Edwards at the HomCav Observatory in Main, NY on the evening of June 11, 2019 using a (vintage 1970) 8-inch, f/7 Criterion newtonian reflector connected in prime focus mode to a ZWO ASI290MC planetary camera / auto-guider. This scope was tracked on a Losmandy G-11 mount running a Gemini 2 control system. The image is the result of a stack of the best 60 percent of the frames from a short video clip.
A NATO E-3A Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft sits on the tarmac in Konya, Turkey.
Since October 2016, NATO aircraft have flown over 1,000 mission hours in support of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS. These AWACS aircraft fly from a base in Konya, Turkey, and help manage the busy airspace in Iraq and Syria. Allies decided to provide AWACS support to the Global Coalition in July 2016.
The US Navy had begun planning a replacement for the F-4 Phantom II in the fleet air defense role almost as soon as the latter entered service, but found itself ordered by then-Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara to join the TFX program. The subsequent F-111B was a failure in every fashion except for its AWG-9 fire control system, paired with the AIM-54 Phoenix very-long range missile. It was subsequently cancelled and the competition reopened for a new fighter, but Grumman had anticipated the cancellation and responded with a new design.
The subsequent F-14A Tomcat, last of the famous Grumman “Cat” series of US Navy fighters, first flew in December 1970 and was placed in production. It used the same variable-sweep wing concept of the F-111B and its AWG-9 system, but the Tomcat was much sleeker and lighter. The F-14 was provided with a plethora of weapons, including the Phoenix, long-range AIM-7 Sparrow, short-range AIM-9 Sidewinder, and an internal M61A1 Vulcan 20mm gatling cannon. This was due to the Vietnam experience, in which Navy F-4s found themselves badly in need of internal armament. Despite its large size, it also proved itself an excellent dogfighter.
The only real drawback to the Tomcat proved to be its powerplant, which it also shared with the F-111B: the Pratt and Whitney TF30. The TF30 was found to be prone to compressor stalls and explosions; more F-14s would be lost to engine problems than any other cause during its career, including combat. The Tomcat was also fitted with the TARPS camera pod beginning in 1981, allowing the RA-5C Vigilante and RF-8G Crusader dedicated recon aircraft to be retired. In addition to the aircraft produced for the US Navy, 79 of an order of 100 aircraft were delivered to Iran before the Islamic Revolution of 1979.
The Tomcat entered service in September 1974 and first saw action covering the evacuation of Saigon in 1975, though it was not involved in combat. The Tomcat’s first combat is conjectural: it is known that Iranian F-14s saw extensive service in the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War, and that Iranian Tomcats achieved a number of kills; the only F-14 ace was Iranian. The first American combat with the F-14 came in September 1981, when two F-14As shot down a pair of Libyan Su-22 Fitters over the Gulf of Sidra. The Tomcat would add another two kills to its record in 1987, two Libyan MiG-23s once more over the Gulf of Sidra.
The high losses due to problems with the TF30 (fully 84 Tomcats would be lost to this problem over the course of its career) led to the Navy ordering the F-14A+ variant during the war. The A+, redesignated F-14B in 1991, incorporated all wartime refits and most importantly, General Electric F110 turbofans. Among the refits was the replacement of the early A’s simple undernose IR sensor with a TISEO long-range camera system, allowing the F-14’s pilot to identify targets visually beyond the range of unaided human eyesight.
The majority of F-14As were upgraded to B standard, along with 67 new-build aircraft. A mix of F-14As and Bs would see action during the First Gulf War, though only a single kill was scored by Tomcats.. Subsequent to this conflict, the Navy ordered the F-14D variant, with completely updated avionics and electronics, a combination IRST/TISEO sensor, replacement of the AWG-9 with the APG-71 radar, and a “glass” cockpit. Though the Navy had intended to upgrade the entire fleet to D standard, less than 50 F-14Ds ever entered service (including 37 new-builds), due to the increasing age of the design.
Ironically, the US Navy’s Tomcat swan song came not as a fighter, but a bomber. To cover the retirement of the A-6 Intruder and A-7 Corsair II from the fleet, the F-14’s latent bomb capability was finally used, allowing the “Bombcat” to carry precision guided weapons, and, after 2001, the GPS-guided JDAM series. By the time of the Afghanistan and Second Gulf Wars, the F-14 was already slated for replacement by the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, and the Tomcat would be used mainly in the strike role, though TARPS reconnaissance sorties were also flown. The much-loved F-14 Tomcat was finally retired from US Navy service in September 2006, ending 36 years of operations. The aircraft remains in service with the Iranian Revolutionary Air Force.
Some aircraft do not have extensive histories, and F-14A Bureau Number 158623 is one of them. One of the early A models, it was delivered in 1973 to VF-124 ("Gunfighters"), the Navy's F-14 Fleet Replacement Squadron at NAS Miramar, California. It remained there, training new Tomcat crews and participating in the Top Gun program, until 1993, when 158623 was sent up the coast to NAS Point Mugu. There, it was used as a testbed for F-14B and F-14D systems, until it was retired around 2006. 158623 was slated for preservation and made a gate guard at the Point Mugu Missile Park, anchoring one end of the park with a F-4S on the other end.
158623 recently got a repaint, and looks exquisite in the colors of VX-30, Point Mugu's resident squadron. It is displayed with dummy AIM-7 Sparrows and ACMI instrumentation pods, and was certainly worth the trip down to Point Mugu!
I have been lost in Photoshop. I was having ideas in Lightroom and they led to edits and on to Photoshop CS and from there they are stretching out towards some notion of motion pictures. I have not used this Film Temperature Control System. I have been calling a film cooker. It looks superb and it comes with a three pin U.K. Plug fitted ready for accurate simmering film into tender toner and sharpish shadows and might fine highlights.
I have used two fonts to give °CineStill a look as it has in the packaging.
I forget to mention the soundtrack. Two tracks from those provided by my editing service with no composers and players listed. I have edited tracks individually and together. All errors on me and all praise to unknown originators of music. I wish that I had some names to praise.
© PHH Sykes 2023
phhsykes@gmail.com
CineStill TCS-1000 - Temperature Control System - UK Plug
analoguewonderland.co.uk/products/cinestill-tcs-1000-temp...
°CS "TEMPERATURE CONTROL SYSTEM", TCS-1000 IMMERSION CIRCULATOR THERMOSTAT FOR MIXING CHEMISTRY AND PRECISION FILM PROCESSING, 120V ONLY
cinestillfilm.com/products/tcs-temperature-control-system...
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Douglas F3D Skyknight (later designated F-10 Skyknight) was a United States twin-engined, mid-wing jet fighter aircraft manufactured by the Douglas Aircraft Company in El Segundo, California. The F3D was designed as a carrier-based all-weather night fighter and saw service with the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps. The mission of the F3D-2 was to search out and destroy enemy aircraft at night.
The F3D was not intended to be a typical sleek and nimble dogfighter, but as a standoff night fighter, packing a powerful radar system and a second crew member. It originated in 1945 with a US Navy requirement for a jet-powered, radar-equipped, carrier-based night fighter. The Douglas team led by Ed Heinemann designed around the bulky air intercept radar systems of the time, with side-by-side seating for the pilot and radar operator. The result was an aircraft with a wide, deep, and roomy fuselage. Instead of ejection seats, an escape tunnel was used.
As a night fighter that was not expected to be as fast as smaller daylight fighters, the expectation was to have a stable platform for its radar system and the four 20 mm cannon mounted in the lower fuselage. The F3D was, however, able to outturn a MiG-15 in an inside circle. The fire control system in the F3D-1 was the Westinghouse AN/APQ-35.
The AN/APQ-35 was advanced for the time, a combination of three different radars, each performing separate functions: an AN/APS-21 search radar, an AN/APG-26 tracking radar, both located in the nose, and an AN/APS-28 tail warning radar. The complexity of this vacuum tube-based radar system, which was produced before the advent of semiconductor electronics, required intensive maintenance to keep it operating properly.
The F3D Skyknight was never produced in great numbers but it did achieve many firsts in its role as a night fighter over Korea. While it never achieved the fame of the North American F-86 Sabre, it did down several Soviet-built MiG-15s as a night fighter over Korea with only one air-to-air loss of its own against a Chinese MiG-15 on the night of 29 May 1953.
In the years after the Korean War, the F3D was gradually replaced by more powerful aircraft with better radar systems. The F3D's career was not over though; its stability and spacious fuselage made it easily adaptable to other roles. The Skyknight played an important role in the development of the radar-guided AIM-7 Sparrow missile in the 1950s which led to further guided air-to-air missile developments.
In 1954, the F3D-2M was the first U.S. Navy jet aircraft to be fitted with an operational air-to-air missile: the Sparrow I,an all weather day/night BVR missile that used beam riding guidance for the aircrew to control the flight of the missile. Only 38 aircraft (12 F3D-1Ms, and 16 F3D-2Ms) were modified to use the missiles, though.
One of the F3D's main flaws, which it shared with many early jet aircraft, was its lack of power and performance. Douglas tried to mend this through a radical redesign: The resulting F3D-3 was the designation assigned to a swept-winged version (36° sweep at quarter chord) of the Skyknight. It was originally to be powered by the J46 turbojet, rated at 4.080 lbf for takeoff, which was under development but suffered serious trouble.
This led to the cancellation of the J46, and calculated performance of the F3D-3 with the substitute J34 was deemed insufficient. As an alternative the aircraft had to be modified to carry two larger and longer J47-GE-2 engines, which also powered the USN's FJ-2 "Fury" fighter.
This engine's thrust of 6.000 pounds-force (27 kN) at 7,950 rpm appeared sufficient for the heavy, swept-wing aircraft, and in 1954 an order for 287 production F3D-3s was issued, right time to upgrade the new type with the Sparrow I.
While the F3D-3's outline resembled that of its straight wing predecessors, a lot of structural changes had to be made to accommodate the shifted main wing spar, and the heavy radar equipment also took its toll: the gross weight climbed by more than 3 tons, and as a result much of the gained performance through the stronger engines and the swept wings was eaten away.
Maximum internal fuel load was 1.350 US gallons, plus a further 300 in underwing drop tanks. Overall wing surface remained the same, but the swept wing surfaces reduced the wing span.
In the end, thrust-to-weight ratio was only marginally improved and in fact, the F3D-3 had a lower rate of climb than the F3D-2, its top speed at height was only marginally higher, and stall speed climbed by more than 30 mph, making carrier landings more complicated.
It's equipment was also the same - the AN/APQ-35 was still fitted, but mainly because the large radar dish offered the largest detection range of any carrier-borne type of that time, and better radars that could match this performance were still under construction. Anyway, the F3D-3 was able to carry Sparrow I from the start, and this would soon be upgraded to Sparrow III (which became the AIM-7), and it showed much better flight characteristics at medium altitude.
Despite the ,many shortcomings the "new" aircraft represented an overall improvement over the F3D-2 and was accepted for service. Production of the F3D-3 started in 1955, but technology advanced quickly and a serious competitor with supersonic capability appeared with the McDonnell F3H Demon and the F4D Skyray - much more potent aircraft that the USN immediately preferred to the slow F3Ds. As a consequence, the production contract was cut down to only 102 aircraft.
But it came even worse: production of the swept wing Skyknight already ceased after 18 months and 71 completed airframes. Ironically, the F3D-3's successor, the F3H and its J40 engine, turned out to be more capricious than expected, which delayed the Demon's service introduction and seriously hampered its performance, so that the F3D-3 kept its all weather/night fighter role until 1960, and was eventually taken out of service in 1964 when the first F-4 Phantom II fighters appeared in USN service.
In 1962 all F3D versions were re-designated into F-10, the swept wing F3D-3 became the F-10C. The straight wing versions were used as trainers and also served as an electronic warfare platform into the Vietnam War as a precursor to the EA-6A Intruder and EA-6B Prowler, while the swept-wing fighters were completely retired as their performance and mission equipment had been outdated. The last F-10C flew in 1965.
General characteristics
Crew: two
Length: 49 ft (14.96 m)
Wingspan: 42 feet 5 inches (12.95 m)
Height: 16 ft 1 in (4.90 m)
Wing area: 400 ft² (37.16 m²)
Empty weight: 19.800 lb (8.989 kg)
Loaded weight: 28,843 lb (13.095 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 34.000 lb (15.436 kg)
Powerplant:
2× General Electric J47-GE-2 turbojets, each rated at 6.000 lbf (26,7 kN) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 630 mph (1.014 km/h) at sea level, 515 mph (829 km/h) t (6,095 m)
Cruise speed: 515 mph (829 km/h) at 40,000 feet
Stall speed: 128 mph (206 km/h)
Range: 890 mi (1.433 km) with internal fuel; 1,374 mi, 2,212 km with 2× 300 gal (1.136 l) tanks
Service ceiling: 43.000 ft (13.025 m)
Rate of climb: 2,640 ft/min (13,3 m/s)
Wing loading: 53.4 lb/ft² (383 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.353
Armament
4× 20 mm Hispano-Suiza M2 cannon, 200 rpg, in the lower nose
Four underwing hardpoints inboard of the wing folding points for up to 4.000 lb (1.816 kg)
ordnance, including AIM-7 Sparrow air-to-air missiles, 11.75 in (29.8cm) Tiny Tim rockets, two
150 or 300 US gal drop tanks or bombs of up to 2.000 lb (900 kg) caliber, plus four hardpoints
under each outer wing for a total of eight 5" HVARs or eight pods with six 2 3/4" FFARs each
The kit and its assembly:
Another project which had been on the list for some years now but finally entered the hardware stage. The F3D itself is already a more or less forgotten aircraft, and there are only a few kits available - there has been a vacu kit, the Matchbox offering and lately kits in 1:72 and 1:48 by Sword.
The swept wing F3D-3 remained on the drawing board, but would have been a very attractive evolution of the tubby Skyknight. In fact, the swept surfaces resemble those of the A3D/B-66 a Iot, and this was the spark that started the attempt to build this aircraft as a model through a kitbash.
This model is basically the Matchbox F3D coupled with wings from an Italeri B-66, even though, being much bigger, these had to be modified.
The whole new tail is based on B-66 material. The fin's chord was shortened, though, and a new leading edge (with its beautiful curvature) had to be sculpted from 2C putty. The vertical stabilizers also come from the B-66, its span was adjusted to the Skyknight's and a new root intersection was created from styrene and putty, so that a cross-shaped tail could be realized.
The tail radar dish was retained, even though sketches show the F3D-3 without it.
The wings were take 1:1 from the B-66 and match well. They just had to be shortened, I set the cut at maybe 5mm outwards of the engine pods' attachment points. They needed some re-engraving for the inner flaps, as these would touch the F3D-3's engines when lowered, but shape, depth and size are very good for the conversion.
On the fuselage, the wings' original "attachment bays" had to be filled, and the new wings needed a new position much further forward, directly behind the cockpit, in order to keep the CoG.
One big issue would be the main landing gear. On the straight wing aircraft it retracts outwards, and I kept this arrangement. No detail of the exact landing gear well position was available to me, so I used the Matchbox parts as stencils and placed the new wells as much aft as possible, cutting out new openings from the B-66 wings.
The OOB landing gear was retained, but I added some structure to the landing gear wells with plastic blister material - not to be realistic, just for the effect. A lot of lead was added in the kit's nose section, making sure it actually stands on the front wheel.
The Matchbox Skyknight basically offers no real problems, even though the air intake design leaves, by tendency some ugly seams and even gaps. I slightly pimped the cockpit with headrests, additional gauges and a gunsight, as well as two (half) pilot figures. I did not plan to present the opened cockpit and the bulbous windows do not allow a clear view onto the inside anyway, so this job was only basically done. In fact, the pilots don't have a lower body at all...
Ordnance comprises of four Sparrow III - the Sparrow I with its pointed nose could have been an option, too, but I think at the time of 1960 the early version was already phased out?
Painting and markings:
This was supposed to become a typical USN service aircraft of the 60ies, so a grey/white livery was predetermined. I had built an EF-10B many years ago from the Matchbox kit, and the grey/white guise suits the Whale well - and here it would look even better, with the new, elegant wings.
For easy painting I used semi matt white from the rattle can on the lower sides (painting the landing gear at the same time!), and then added FS 36440 (Light Gull Grey, Humbrol 129) with a brush to the upper sides. The radar nose became semi matt black (with some weathering), while the RHAWS dish was kept in tan (Humbrol 71).
In order to emphasize the landing gear and the respective wells I added a red rim to the covers.
The cockpit interior was painted in dark grey - another factor which made adding too many details there futile, too...
The aircraft's individual marking were to be authentic, and not flamboyant. In the mid 50ies the USN machines were not as colorful as in the Vietnam War era, that just started towards the 60ies.
The markings I used come primarily from an Emhar F3H Demon, which features no less than four(!) markings, all with different colors. I settled for a machine of VF-61 "Jolly Rogers", which operated from the USS Saratoga primarily in the Mediterranean from 1958 on - and shortly thereafter the unit was disbanded.
I took some of the Demon markings and modified them with very similar but somewhat more discrete markings from VMF-323, which flew FJ-4 at the time - both squadrons marked their aircraft with yellow diamonds on black background, and I had some leftover decals from a respective Xtradecal sheet in the stash.
IMHO a good result with the B-66 donation parts, even though I am not totally happy with the fin - it could have been more slender at the top, and with a longer, more elegant spine fillet, but for that the B-66 fin was just too thick. Anyway, I am not certain if anyone has ever built this aircraft? I would not call the F3D-3 elegant or beautiful, but the swept wings underline the fuselage's almost perfect teardrop shape, and the thing reminds a lot of the later Grumman A-6 Intruder?
ex-GN 2313
Snow Train 1982
Great Northern 2313, later Montana Western 31, is the oldest surviving Electro-Motive Co. (EMC) gas-electric rail motorcar, which reduced operating costs by 50 percent over the steam-locomotive trains it replaced. This 32-ton car features a Winton gasoline engine and General Electric generator and traction motors and the first major use of Hermann Lemp's control system (developed when he was at General Electric), which controlled the electrical and mechanical parts of the power train with a single lever and kept them in balance.
From 1925 to 1939, this motorcar operated on the Great Northern between Marcus, Washington, and South Nelson, British Columbia. After it was sold to the Montana Western Railway, it ran between Valier and Conrad, Montana. In 1966, the car was donated to the Mid-Continent Railway Museum.
Designated as ASME Historical Landmark No. 229 in 2003.
The US Navy had begun planning a replacement for the F-4 Phantom II in the fleet air defense role almost as soon as the latter entered service, but found itself ordered by then-Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara to join the TFX program. The subsequent F-111B was a failure in every fashion except for its AWG-9 fire control system, paired with the AIM-54 Phoenix very-long range missile. It was subsequently cancelled and the competition reopened for a new fighter, but Grumman had anticipated the cancellation and responded with a new design.
The subsequent F-14A Tomcat, last of the famous Grumman “Cat” series of US Navy fighters, first flew in December 1970 and was placed in production. It used the same variable-sweep wing concept of the F-111B and its AWG-9 system, but the Tomcat was much sleeker and lighter. The F-14 was provided with a plethora of weapons, including the Phoenix, long-range AIM-7 Sparrow, short-range AIM-9 Sidewinder, and an internal M61A1 Vulcan 20mm gatling cannon. This was due to the Vietnam experience, in which Navy F-4s found themselves badly in need of internal armament. Despite its large size, it also proved itself an excellent dogfighter.
The only real drawback to the Tomcat proved to be its powerplant, which it also shared with the F-111B: the Pratt and Whitney TF30. The TF30 was found to be prone to compressor stalls and explosions; more F-14s would be lost to engine problems than any other cause during its career, including combat. The Tomcat was also fitted with the TARPS camera pod beginning in 1981, allowing the RA-5C Vigilante and RF-8G Crusader dedicated recon aircraft to be retired. In addition to the aircraft produced for the US Navy, 79 of an order of 100 aircraft were delivered to Iran before the Islamic Revolution of 1979.
The Tomcat entered service in September 1974 and first saw action covering the evacuation of Saigon in 1975, though it was not involved in combat. The Tomcat’s first combat is conjectural: it is known that Iranian F-14s saw extensive service in the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War, and that Iranian Tomcats achieved a number of kills; the only F-14 ace was Iranian. The first American combat with the F-14 came in September 1981, when two F-14As shot down a pair of Libyan Su-22 Fitters over the Gulf of Sidra. The Tomcat would add another two kills to its record in 1987, two Libyan MiG-23s once more over the Gulf of Sidra.
The high losses due to problems with the TF30 (fully 84 Tomcats would be lost to this problem over the course of its career) led to the Navy ordering the F-14A+ variant during the war. The A+, redesignated F-14B in 1991, incorporated all wartime refits and most importantly, General Electric F110 turbofans. Among the refits was the replacement of the early A’s simple undernose IR sensor with a TISEO long-range camera system, allowing the F-14’s pilot to identify targets visually beyond the range of unaided human eyesight.
The majority of F-14As were upgraded to B standard, along with 67 new-build aircraft. A mix of F-14As and Bs would see action during the First Gulf War, though only a single kill was scored by Tomcats.. Subsequent to this conflict, the Navy ordered the F-14D variant, with completely updated avionics and electronics, a combination IRST/TISEO sensor, replacement of the AWG-9 with the APG-71 radar, and a “glass” cockpit. Though the Navy had intended to upgrade the entire fleet to D standard, less than 50 F-14Ds ever entered service (including 37 new-builds), due to the increasing age of the design.
Ironically, the US Navy’s Tomcat swan song came not as a fighter, but a bomber. To cover the retirement of the A-6 Intruder and A-7 Corsair II from the fleet, the F-14’s latent bomb capability was finally used, allowing the “Bombcat” to carry precision guided weapons, and, after 2001, the GPS-guided JDAM series. By the time of the Afghanistan and Second Gulf Wars, the F-14 was already slated for replacement by the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, and the Tomcat would be used mainly in the strike role, though TARPS reconnaissance sorties were also flown. The much-loved F-14 Tomcat was finally retired from US Navy service in September 2006, ending 36 years of operations. The aircraft remains in service with the Iranian Revolutionary Air Force.
BuNo 164601 is one of the last Tomcats ever built, fourth from last on the production line. It was initially assigned to the F-14 Fleet Replacement Squadron (FRS), VF-124 ("Gunfighters") at NAS Miramar, California, from 1992 to 2002. With the need for Tomcats in the front lines in the Second Gulf War (Operation Iraqi Freedom), 164601 was transferred to VF-31, the appropriately named "Tomcatters," aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72). She was painted in full colors as the CAG's "boss" aircraft, and flew at least 19 combat missions during the American drive on Baghdad, coming under fire several times, including evading a SAM. After its Iraq service, 164601 was sent back to FRS duties, this time with VF-101 ("Grim Reapers") at NAS Oceana, Virginia. With the drawdown of Tomcat operations, 164601 was retired in 2010 and made her final flight to the Castle Air Museum.
For a museum on a former USAF base, Castle has a large number of Navy aircraft, and it was quite a surprise to find a F-14D on display there. 164601 still wears her full-color VF-101 markings, and looks fast just standing still. The fact that she served aboard the Lincoln was an interesting factoid--I had just seen the Lincoln only a few days before in San Diego.
Object Details: The attached image is centered on the prominent crater Tycho. A 'relatively young' 108 million years old, it is 85 km (53 mi) in diameter. Being about 4,800 m (15,700 ft or ~ 3 mi.) in depth, it's central peaks rise 1,600 m (5,200 ft or nearly a mile) above the crater floor.
Shown here in a pseudo 'mineral moon' manner (i.e. with the saturation greatly increased), in certain circumstances the colors can be representative of the minerals present. In the case of the moon, often the blue hues indicating those areas rich in titanium-bearing minerals, pinks in aluminum-rich feldspars, while orange & purples show iron and titanium poor regions. A wider field example using this type of technique can be found at the link attached here: - www.flickr.com/photos/homcavobservatory/44002665955/
When showing Tycho telescopically to family and friends who are not very versed in astronomy, they frequently inquire as to the nature of the rays. I often use the metaphor of throwing a rock into a mud puddle, adding an audible 'SPLAT !' ;) .
Image Details: Taken by Jay Edwards at the HomCav Observatory on the evening of March 8, 2020, it was imaged using a vintage 1970 8-inch, f/7 Criterion newtonian reflector connected to a ZWO ASI290MC planetary camera / auto-guider at prime focus. Since the seeing ranged from bad to poor (1 to 2 out of 5) it is a short stack of the best 20 percent of the frames extracted from a 90 second video clip. This setup was mounted on a Losmandy G-11 running a Gemini 2 control system and had an ED80T CF (i.e. an 80MM, f/6 carbon-fiber triplet apochromatic refractor) mounted piggyback. The latter instrument being used for 'full disk' lunar images, like the one of the full moon from the following night (referenced below) and found at the attached link:
www.flickr.com/photos/homcavobservatory/49659990916/
Processed using a combination of AS3, Registax, PI & PSP, as presented here it has been cropped to HD resolution and the bit depth has been lowered to 8 bits per channel.
Being the largest of the year, I was hoping to get the opportunity to image the moon when it was full on the following evening, March 9th. However with the weather forecast seemingly questionable, just in case, I thought I should take advantage of the clear skies on the 8th. In retrospect, as shown at the link above, although I was able to catch it briefly with the 80MM apo. when full, I did not get the chance that night to also image it with the 8-inch.
As such, I am glad I took the time to do so on the 8th (when it was 'only' 99.3 % full); and after shooting the attached image of Tycho, also managed to capture a few clips of other nearby areas. Currently processing the other images, I am hoping to create a mosaic showing the 0.7 Percent 'terminator' visible on March 8th (assuming, of course, I could even tell which 0.7 % of the limb was not basking in the sun at the time ;) ) !
Happy Equinox To All !
The defensive armament was changed to two 20-mm cannon in the tail. The A-5 fire control system that had taken so long to develop was finally fitted. The A-5 fire control system (FCS) was much better than the discarded B-4 system of earlier versions and could automatically detect and track pursuing aircraft and aim and fire the 20-mm cannon. The earlier B-4 system could, at best, spray machine gun fire in the general direction of an attacking plane with little prospect of scoring a hit.
In this image, two B-47Es (B-47E-100-BW, Serial Number: 52-560 and B-47E-100-BW, Serial Number: 52-568) of the 1st Bombardment Squadron of the 9th Bombardment Wing stationed at Mountain Home AFB, Idaho, fly a long-range training mission. By 1956, the USAF had 28 wings of B-47 bombers and five wings of RB-47 reconnaissance aircraft. The Stratojet was the first line of the US strategic nuclear deterrent, often operating from forward bases in the UK, Morocco, Spain, Alaska, Greenland, and Guam. The B-47s were often set up on “one-third” alert, with a third operational aircraft available sitting on hardstands or an alert ramp adjacent to the runway, loaded with fuel and nuclear weapons, crews on standby, ready to attack the USSR at short notice. Crews were trained to perform Minimum Interval Take Offs (MITO), one bomber following another into the air at intervals of as little as 15 seconds to launch as fast as possible. MITO could be hazardous, as the bombers left wingtip vortices and general turbulence behind them. The first-generation turbojet engines, fitted with water-injection systems, also created the Stratojet’s characteristic dense black smoke trail.
The highlight of the late summer bank holiday weekend was that of 1952 Roberts-built Coronation tramcar 304 making a much-anticipated return to the Blackpool Promenade, the result of a years' work by Brian Lyndop to jump through all the necessary hoops such as electricial safety, engineering assesments and training due to the different control system inside this tram, as well as type training for the drivers (of which several drivers gave up their own free time to train up to drive this tram). 304 starred on TV in Channel 4's 'Salvage Squad' program where it underwent a full restoration back to original condition, and was originally one of 25 from this class of graceful tram built by Charles Roberts & Co between 1952-1954 (this being built in 1952) for use along the promenade. What makes this tram special is that it still retains its original VAMBAC control system (Variable Automatic Multinotch Braking and Acceleration Control) which was a British development of an American design which had been used in trams such as, I believe, the PCC cars in San Francisco - and worthy of note is that the equipment from 304 went on show for the Festival of Britain in 1951... whilst I am not sure how the system actually works, the concept was to provide smoother acceleration and braking all through just a single control lever. The problem though was that the system required lots of ventilation, and open vents to electrical systems beside a west-facing seafront isn't a particularly good combination - sand and water would enter the mechanism and would short circuit on the acceleration side, whilst at other times there were issues with the brakes not working (though this might have been caused more by something else, read on...). The Coronation trams (or 'Spivs' as the platform staff called them) had four motors instead of the usual two seen on other trams - these were not just to haul around the exceptionally heavy tramcar around (each tram weighed in at a staggering 20 Tons), but also to provide enough power for good acceleration and a good top speed - the problem though was that this could never really be utilised because the trams got caught behind the previous service (the original idea had been to replace Balloons with these on a higher frequency service - sounds familiar to modern day bus route planning)... the other problem with the four motors was how thirsy they were on the electricity; many time they would draw so much current they would trip the breakers in the substations, rendering a whole section of the tramway (and therefore any trams on it) dead and immobile. The heavy body led to several axles fracturing in addition to wheelsets breaking (these being rubber-sandwiched sets and so needed specialist attention and more frequent maintenance), whilst the roofs were prone to leaking - 304 was the very first Coronation delivered, and it was even said at the time that the roof was leaking even whilst it was being taken off the low-loader on delivery.
To cut down on their weight, the steel panels of the trams (which, it should be noted, were built by a company more familiar with railway wagons) were replaced by aluminium ones, and I believe there may have been upward-facing skylights which were panelled over too, whilst the heavyweight batteries providing backup power to the VAMBAC system were removed entirely to save further weight... the problem with this idea was that the batteries kept the system ticking over when the tram was on a neutral section of unpowered track (a neutral section being the divide between the overhead power coming from different substations), and by removing them the VAMBAC system reset everytime the tram went through a neutral section; what this meant was that if the tram went through the section whilst braking, the system reset and the brakes came off regardless of the position of the control lever - to get the brakes to work again, the control lever had to put back to position 0 and then put back ninto the braking positions: in some cases there simply wasn't enough time to do this, and on other occasions the driver was unaware of this and so the tram was reported as having a full brake failure. All of these problems led to most trams losing their VAMBAC controls in about 1963-65 in favour of more traditional Z-type controllers salvaged from English Electric Railcoaches, the converted Coronations being referred to as "Z Cars". In 1968 the class were renumbered, and 304 became 641 (the series was 641-664) but by this time were already being withdrawn and some of them scrapped; by 1971 only 660, 641 and 663 remained (the latter two having gone off to museums whilst 660 had been preserved by Blackpool Transport). 313 had been the first to be scrapped, in 1965 and so never saw itself renumbered. The last Coronation ran in normal service in 1975.
The Coronations were by far the most luxurious trams on the Blackpool system, but were also by far the most expensive. due to problems with the control system and specialised equipment, repair bills went through the roof; meanwhile the debt to buy these trams in the first place was still not even paid off when the entire class had been withdrawn from service! And all the problems associated with these trams brought the system to its knees and almost saw it off. However, the class had still remained popular with passengers and so forward-thinking preservation groups managed to save representatives from the group so future generations could enjoy their good looks and smooth ride.
304 was stored at Blackpool until 1975 when it was moved to the National Tramway Museum store at Clay Cross. Later it moved to Burtonwood after being acquired by the Merseyside Tramcar Preservation Society for use on a possible heritage tramway in Bewsey, Warrington. No progress was made and in 1984 the MTPS decided to concentrate resources on their preserved Liverpool trams and No. 304 passed to the Lancastrian Transport Group.
It was moved to the St.Helens Transport Museum in 1986 and restoration work started in 1993. This involved underframe overhaul, new flooring and a complete rewiring, partly funded by the Fylde Tramway Society. Work stalled following access restrictions at the St. Helens site but in 2002 the tram was selected as a project to feature in Channel 4's "Salvage Squad" series.
No. 304 returned to Blackpool Transport's depot in June 2002 for an intensive period of restoration work that culminated in the tram returning to the Promenade rails on 6th January 2003 for the finale of the Salvage Squad filming. The programme was broadcast on 17th February 2003 and was watched by over 2.5 million viewers.
In this photo, 304 is posed on the passing loop at the Fleetwood ferry terminal, back on the tramway for the very first time in several years in revenue-earning service on Heritage special services; alongside is English Electric Balloon 701 which has gained its Routemaster livery which it worse for the 1991 and 1992 seasons after it received a refubishment - both are running the final daytime Heritage service to close down the 2014 season, this being the late afternoon trip to Fleetwood and back.
+++ 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 F3D Skyknight (later designated F-10 Skyknight) was a United States twin-engined, mid-wing jet fighter aircraft manufactured by the Douglas Aircraft Company in El Segundo, California. The F3D was designed as a carrier-based all-weather night fighter and saw service with the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps. The mission of the F3D-2 was to search out and destroy enemy aircraft at night.
The F3D was not intended to be a typical sleek and nimble dogfighter, but as a standoff night fighter, packing a powerful radar system and a second crew member. It originated in 1945 with a US Navy requirement for a jet-powered, radar-equipped, carrier-based night fighter. The Douglas team led by Ed Heinemann designed around the bulky air intercept radar systems of the time, with side-by-side seating for the pilot and radar operator. The result was an aircraft with a wide, deep, and roomy fuselage. Instead of ejection seats, an escape tunnel was used.
As a night fighter that was not expected to be as fast as smaller daylight fighters, the expectation was to have a stable platform for its radar system and the four 20 mm cannon mounted in the lower fuselage. The F3D was, however, able to outturn a MiG-15 in an inside circle. The fire control system in the F3D-1 was the Westinghouse AN/APQ-35.
The AN/APQ-35 was advanced for the time, a combination of three different radars, each performing separate functions: an AN/APS-21 search radar, an AN/APG-26 tracking radar, both located in the nose, and an AN/APS-28 tail warning radar. The complexity of this vacuum tube-based radar system, which was produced before the advent of semiconductor electronics, required intensive maintenance to keep it operating properly.
The F3D Skyknight was never produced in great numbers but it did achieve many firsts in its role as a night fighter over Korea. While it never achieved the fame of the North American F-86 Sabre, it did down several Soviet-built MiG-15s as a night fighter over Korea with only one air-to-air loss of its own against a Chinese MiG-15 on the night of 29 May 1953.
In the years after the Korean War, the F3D was gradually replaced by more powerful aircraft with better radar systems. The F3D's career was not over though; its stability and spacious fuselage made it easily adaptable to other roles. The Skyknight played an important role in the development of the radar-guided AIM-7 Sparrow missile in the 1950s which led to further guided air-to-air missile developments.
In 1954, the F3D-2M was the first U.S. Navy jet aircraft to be fitted with an operational air-to-air missile: the Sparrow I,an all weather day/night BVR missile that used beam riding guidance for the aircrew to control the flight of the missile. Only 38 aircraft (12 F3D-1Ms, and 16 F3D-2Ms) were modified to use the missiles, though.
One of the F3D's main flaws, which it shared with many early jet aircraft, was its lack of power and performance. Douglas tried to mend this through a radical redesign: The resulting F3D-3 was the designation assigned to a swept-winged version (36° sweep at quarter chord) of the Skyknight. It was originally to be powered by the J46 turbojet, rated at 4.080 lbf for takeoff, which was under development but suffered serious trouble.
This led to the cancellation of the J46, and calculated performance of the F3D-3 with the substitute J34 was deemed insufficient. As an alternative the aircraft had to be modified to carry two larger and longer J47-GE-2 engines, which also powered the USN's FJ-2 "Fury" fighter.
This engine's thrust of 6.000 pounds-force (27 kN) at 7,950 rpm appeared sufficient for the heavy, swept-wing aircraft, and in 1954 an order for 287 production F3D-3s was issued, right time to upgrade the new type with the Sparrow I.
While the F3D-3's outline resembled that of its straight wing predecessors, a lot of structural changes had to be made to accommodate the shifted main wing spar, and the heavy radar equipment also took its toll: the gross weight climbed by more than 3 tons, and as a result much of the gained performance through the stronger engines and the swept wings was eaten away.
Maximum internal fuel load was 1.350 US gallons, plus a further 300 in underwing drop tanks. Overall wing surface remained the same, but the swept wing surfaces reduced the wing span.
In the end, thrust-to-weight ratio was only marginally improved and in fact, the F3D-3 had a lower rate of climb than the F3D-2, its top speed at height was only marginally higher, and stall speed climbed by more than 30 mph, making carrier landings more complicated.
It's equipment was also the same - the AN/APQ-35 was still fitted, but mainly because the large radar dish offered the largest detection range of any carrier-borne type of that time, and better radars that could match this performance were still under construction. Anyway, the F3D-3 was able to carry Sparrow I from the start, and this would soon be upgraded to Sparrow III (which became the AIM-7), and it showed much better flight characteristics at medium altitude.
Despite the ,many shortcomings the "new" aircraft represented an overall improvement over the F3D-2 and was accepted for service. Production of the F3D-3 started in 1955, but technology advanced quickly and a serious competitor with supersonic capability appeared with the McDonnell F3H Demon and the F4D Skyray - much more potent aircraft that the USN immediately preferred to the slow F3Ds. As a consequence, the production contract was cut down to only 102 aircraft.
But it came even worse: production of the swept wing Skyknight already ceased after 18 months and 71 completed airframes. Ironically, the F3D-3's successor, the F3H and its J40 engine, turned out to be more capricious than expected, which delayed the Demon's service introduction and seriously hampered its performance, so that the F3D-3 kept its all weather/night fighter role until 1960, and was eventually taken out of service in 1964 when the first F-4 Phantom II fighters appeared in USN service.
In 1962 all F3D versions were re-designated into F-10, the swept wing F3D-3 became the F-10C. The straight wing versions were used as trainers and also served as an electronic warfare platform into the Vietnam War as a precursor to the EA-6A Intruder and EA-6B Prowler, while the swept-wing fighters were completely retired as their performance and mission equipment had been outdated. The last F-10C flew in 1965.
General characteristics
Crew: two
Length: 49 ft (14.96 m)
Wingspan: 42 feet 5 inches (12.95 m)
Height: 16 ft 1 in (4.90 m)
Wing area: 400 ft² (37.16 m²)
Empty weight: 19.800 lb (8.989 kg)
Loaded weight: 28,843 lb (13.095 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 34.000 lb (15.436 kg)
Powerplant:
2× General Electric J47-GE-2 turbojets, each rated at 6.000 lbf (26,7 kN) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 630 mph (1.014 km/h) at sea level, 515 mph (829 km/h) t (6,095 m)
Cruise speed: 515 mph (829 km/h) at 40,000 feet
Stall speed: 128 mph (206 km/h)
Range: 890 mi (1.433 km) with internal fuel; 1,374 mi, 2,212 km with 2× 300 gal (1.136 l) tanks
Service ceiling: 43.000 ft (13.025 m)
Rate of climb: 2,640 ft/min (13,3 m/s)
Wing loading: 53.4 lb/ft² (383 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.353
Armament
4× 20 mm Hispano-Suiza M2 cannon, 200 rpg, in the lower nose
Four underwing hardpoints inboard of the wing folding points for up to 4.000 lb (1.816 kg)
ordnance, including AIM-7 Sparrow air-to-air missiles, 11.75 in (29.8cm) Tiny Tim rockets, two
150 or 300 US gal drop tanks or bombs of up to 2.000 lb (900 kg) caliber, plus four hardpoints
under each outer wing for a total of eight 5" HVARs or eight pods with six 2 3/4" FFARs each
The kit and its assembly:
Another project which had been on the list for some years now but finally entered the hardware stage. The F3D itself is already a more or less forgotten aircraft, and there are only a few kits available - there has been a vacu kit, the Matchbox offering and lately kits in 1:72 and 1:48 by Sword.
The swept wing F3D-3 remained on the drawing board, but would have been a very attractive evolution of the tubby Skyknight. In fact, the swept surfaces resemble those of the A3D/B-66 a Iot, and this was the spark that started the attempt to build this aircraft as a model through a kitbash.
This model is basically the Matchbox F3D coupled with wings from an Italeri B-66, even though, being much bigger, these had to be modified.
The whole new tail is based on B-66 material. The fin's chord was shortened, though, and a new leading edge (with its beautiful curvature) had to be sculpted from 2C putty. The vertical stabilizers also come from the B-66, its span was adjusted to the Skyknight's and a new root intersection was created from styrene and putty, so that a cross-shaped tail could be realized.
The tail radar dish was retained, even though sketches show the F3D-3 without it.
The wings were take 1:1 from the B-66 and match well. They just had to be shortened, I set the cut at maybe 5mm outwards of the engine pods' attachment points. They needed some re-engraving for the inner flaps, as these would touch the F3D-3's engines when lowered, but shape, depth and size are very good for the conversion.
On the fuselage, the wings' original "attachment bays" had to be filled, and the new wings needed a new position much further forward, directly behind the cockpit, in order to keep the CoG.
One big issue would be the main landing gear. On the straight wing aircraft it retracts outwards, and I kept this arrangement. No detail of the exact landing gear well position was available to me, so I used the Matchbox parts as stencils and placed the new wells as much aft as possible, cutting out new openings from the B-66 wings.
The OOB landing gear was retained, but I added some structure to the landing gear wells with plastic blister material - not to be realistic, just for the effect. A lot of lead was added in the kit's nose section, making sure it actually stands on the front wheel.
The Matchbox Skyknight basically offers no real problems, even though the air intake design leaves, by tendency some ugly seams and even gaps. I slightly pimped the cockpit with headrests, additional gauges and a gunsight, as well as two (half) pilot figures. I did not plan to present the opened cockpit and the bulbous windows do not allow a clear view onto the inside anyway, so this job was only basically done. In fact, the pilots don't have a lower body at all...
Ordnance comprises of four Sparrow III - the Sparrow I with its pointed nose could have been an option, too, but I think at the time of 1960 the early version was already phased out?
Painting and markings:
This was supposed to become a typical USN service aircraft of the 60ies, so a grey/white livery was predetermined. I had built an EF-10B many years ago from the Matchbox kit, and the grey/white guise suits the Whale well - and here it would look even better, with the new, elegant wings.
For easy painting I used semi matt white from the rattle can on the lower sides (painting the landing gear at the same time!), and then added FS 36440 (Light Gull Grey, Humbrol 129) with a brush to the upper sides. The radar nose became semi matt black (with some weathering), while the RHAWS dish was kept in tan (Humbrol 71).
In order to emphasize the landing gear and the respective wells I added a red rim to the covers.
The cockpit interior was painted in dark grey - another factor which made adding too many details there futile, too...
The aircraft's individual marking were to be authentic, and not flamboyant. In the mid 50ies the USN machines were not as colorful as in the Vietnam War era, that just started towards the 60ies.
The markings I used come primarily from an Emhar F3H Demon, which features no less than four(!) markings, all with different colors. I settled for a machine of VF-61 "Jolly Rogers", which operated from the USS Saratoga primarily in the Mediterranean from 1958 on - and shortly thereafter the unit was disbanded.
I took some of the Demon markings and modified them with very similar but somewhat more discrete markings from VMF-323, which flew FJ-4 at the time - both squadrons marked their aircraft with yellow diamonds on black background, and I had some leftover decals from a respective Xtradecal sheet in the stash.
IMHO a good result with the B-66 donation parts, even though I am not totally happy with the fin - it could have been more slender at the top, and with a longer, more elegant spine fillet, but for that the B-66 fin was just too thick. Anyway, I am not certain if anyone has ever built this aircraft? I would not call the F3D-3 elegant or beautiful, but the swept wings underline the fuselage's almost perfect teardrop shape, and the thing reminds a lot of the later Grumman A-6 Intruder?
Fangruida: human landing on Mars 10 cutting-edge technology
[Fangruida- human landing on Mars 10 innovative and sophisticated technologies]
Aerospace Science and space science and technology major innovation of the most critical of sophisticated technology R & D project
-------------------------------------------------- -------------
Aerospace Science Space Science and Technology on behalf of the world's most cutting-edge leader in high technology, materials, mechatronics, information and communication, energy, biomedical, marine, aviation aerospace, microelectronics, computer, automation, intelligent biochips, use of nuclear energy, light mechanical and electrical integration, astrophysics, celestial chemistry, astrophysics and so a series of geological science and technology. Especially after the moon landing, the further development of mankind to Mars and other planets into the powerful offensive, the world's major powers eager to Daxian hand of God, increase investment, vigorously develop new sophisticated technology projects for space to space. Satellite, space station, the new spacecraft, the new space suits, the new radiation protection materials, intelligent materials, new manufacturing technology, communications technology, computer technology, detector technology, rover, rover technology, biomedical technology, and so one after another, is expected to greater breakthroughs and leaps. For example, rocket technology, spacecraft design, large power spacecraft, spacesuits design improvements, radiation multifunctional composite materials, life health care technology and space medicine, prevention against microgravity microgravity applicable drugs, tracking control technology, landing and return technology. Mars lander and returned safely to Earth as a top priority. Secondly, Mars, the Moon base and the use of transforming Mars, the Moon and other development will follow. Whether the former or the latter, are the modern aerospace science, space science basic research, applied basic research and applied research in the major cutting-edge technology. These major cutting-edge technology research and innovation, not only for human landing on Mars and the safe return of great significance, but for the entire space science, impact immeasurable universe sciences, earth sciences and human life. Here the most critical of the most important research projects of several sophisticated technology research and development as well as its core technology brief. Limit non-scientific techniques include non-technical limits of technology, the key lies in technology research and development of technology maturity, advanced technology, innovative, practical, reliable, practical application, business value and investment costs, and not simply like the idea mature technology achievements, difficult to put into things. This is the high-tech research and development, testing, prototype, test application testing, until the outcome of industrialization. Especially in aerospace technology, advanced, novelty, practicality, reliability, economy, maturity, commercial value and so on. For technical and research purely science fiction and the like may be irrelevant depth, but not as aerospace engineering and technology practice. Otherwise, Mars will become a dream fantasy, and even into settling crashed out of danger.
Regardless of the moon or Mars, many technical difficulties, especially a human landing on Mars and return safely to Earth, technical difficulties mainly in the following aspects. (Transformation of Mars and the Moon and other planets and detect other livable technology more complex and difficult, at this stage it is difficult to achieve and therefore not discussed in detail in this study). In fact, Mars will be the safe return of a full set of technology, space science, aerospace crucial scientific research development, its significance is not confined to Mars simply a return to scientific value, great commercial value, can not be measure.
1. Powered rocket, the spacecraft overall structural design not be too complex large, otherwise, the safety factor to reduce the risk of failure accidents. Fusion rocket engine main problem to be solved is the high-temperature materials and fuel ignition chamber (reaction chamber temperatures of up to tens of millions of supreme billion degrees), fissile class rocket engine whose essence is the miniaturization of nuclear reactors, and placed on the rocket. Nuclear rocket engine fuel as an energy source, with liquid hydrogen, liquid helium, liquid ammonia working fluid. Nuclear rocket engine mounted in the thrust chamber of the reactor, cooling nozzle, the working fluid delivery and control systems and other components. This engine due to nuclear radiation protection, exhaust pollution, reactor control and efficient heat exchanger design and other issues unresolved. Electrothermal rocket engine utilizing heat energy (resistance heating or electric arc heating) working medium (hydrogen, amines, hydrazine ), vaporized; nozzle expansion accelerated after discharged from the spout to generate thrust. Static rocket engine working fluid (mercury, cesium, hydrogen, etc.) from the tank enter the ionization chamber is formed thrust ionized into a plasma jet. Electric rocket engines with a high specific impulse (700-2500 sec), extremely long life (can be repeated thousands of times a starter, a total of up to thousands of hours of work). But the thrust of less than 100N. This engine is only available for spacecraft attitude control, station-keeping and the like. One nuclear - power rocket design is as follows: Firstly, the reactor heats water to make it into steam, and then the high-speed steam ejected, push the rocket. Nuclear rocket using hydrogen as working substance may be a better solution, it is one of the most commonly used liquid hydrogen rocket fuel rocket carrying liquid hydrogen virtually no technical difficulties. Heating hydrogen nuclear reactor, as long as it eventually reaches or exceeds current jet velocity hydrogen rocket engine jet speed, the same weight of the rocket will be able to work longer, it can accelerate the Rockets faster. Here there are only two problems: First, the final weight includes the weight of the rocket in nuclear reactors, so it must be as light as possible. Ultra-small nuclear reactor has been able to achieve. Furthermore, if used in outer space, we can not consider the problem of radioactive residues, simply to just one proton hydrogen nuclei are less likely to produce induced radioactivity, thus shielding layer can be made thinner, injected hydrogen gas can flow directly through the reactor core, it is not easy to solve, and that is how to get back at high speed heated gas is ejected.
Rocket engine with a nuclear fission reactor, based on the heating liquid hydrogen propellant, rather than igniting flammable propellant
High-speed heavy rocket is a major cutting-edge technology. After all, space flight and aircraft carriers, submarines, nuclear reactors differ greatly from the one hand, the use of traditional fuels, on the one hand can be nuclear reactor technology. From the control, for security reasons, the use of nuclear power rocket technology, safe and reliable overriding indicators. Nuclear atomic energy in line with the norms and rules of outer space. For the immature fetal abdominal hatchery technology, and resolutely reject use. This is the most significant development of nuclear-powered rocket principle.
Nuclear-powered spaceship for Use of nuclear power are three kinds:
The first method: no water or air space such media can not be used propeller must use jet approach. Reactor nuclear fission or fusion to produce a lot of heat, we will propellant (such as liquid hydrogen) injection, the rapid expansion of the propellant will be heated and then discharged from the engine speed tail thrust. This method is most readily available.
The second method: nuclear reactor will have a lot of fast-moving ions, these energetic particles moving very fast, so you can use a magnetic field to control their ejection direction. This principle ion rocket similar to the tail of the rocket ejected from the high-speed mobile ions, so that the recoil movement of a rocket. The advantage of this approach is to promote the unusually large ratio, without carrying any medium, continued strong. Ion engine, which is commonly referred to as "electric rocket", the principle is not complicated, the propellant is ionized particles,
Plasma Engine
Electromagnetic acceleration, high-speed spray. From the development trend, the US research scope covers almost all types of electric thrusters, but mainly to the development of ion engines, NASA in which to play the most active intake technology and preparedness plans. "
The third method: the use of nuclear explosions. It is a bold and crazy way, no longer is the use of a controlled nuclear reaction, but to use nuclear explosions to drive the ship, this is not an engine, and it is called a nuclear pulse rocket. This spacecraft will carry a lot of low-yield atomic bombs out one behind, and then detonated, followed by a spacecraft propulsion installation disk, absorbing the blast pushing the spacecraft forward. This was in 1955 to Orion (Project Orion) name of the project, originally planned to bring two thousand atomic bombs, Orion later fetal nuclear thermal rocket. Its principle is mounted on a small rocket reactor, the reactor utilizing thermal energy generated by the propellant is heated to a high temperature, high pressure and high temperature of the propellant from the high-speed spray nozzle, a tremendous impetus.
Common nuclear fission technologies, including nuclear pulse rocket engines, nuclear rockets, nuclear thermal rocket and nuclear stamping rockets to nuclear thermal rocket, for example, the size of its land-based nuclear power plant reactor structure than the much smaller, more uranium-235 purity requirements high, reaching more than 90%, at the request of the high specific impulse engine core temperature will reach about 3000K, require excellent high temperature properties of materials.
Research and test new IT technologies and new products and new technology and new materials, new equipment, things are difficult, design is the most important part, especially in the overall design, technical solutions, technical route, technical process, technical and economic particularly significant. The overall design is defective, technology there are loopholes in the program, will be a major technical route deviation, but also directly related to the success of research trials. so, any time, under any circumstances, a good grasp of the overall control of design, technical design, is essential. otherwise, a done deal, it is difficult save. aerospace technology research and product development is true.
3, high-performance nuclear rocket
Nuclear rocket nuclear fission and fusion energy can rocket rocket two categories. Nuclear fission and fusion produce heat, radiation and shock waves and other large amounts of energy, but here they are contemplated for use as a thermal energy rocket.
Uranium and other heavy elements, under certain conditions, will split their nuclei, called nuclear fission reaction. The atomic bomb is the result of nuclear fission reactions. Nuclear fission reaction to release energy, is a million times more chemical rocket propellant combustion energy. Therefore, nuclear fission energy is a high-performance rocket rockets. Since it requires much less propellant than chemical rockets can, so to its own weight is much lighter than chemical rockets energy. For the same quality of the rocket, the rocket payload of nuclear fission energy is much greater than the chemical energy of the rocket. Just nuclear fission energy rocket is still in the works.
Use of nuclear fission energy as the energy of the rocket, called the atomic rockets. It is to make hydrogen or other inert gas working fluid through the reactor, the hydrogen after the heating temperature quickly rose to 2000 ℃, and then into the nozzle, high-speed spray to produce thrust.
A vision plan is to use liquid hydrogen working fluid, in operation, the liquid hydrogen tank in the liquid hydrogen pump is withdrawn through the catheter and the engine cooling jacket and liquid hydrogen into hydrogen gas, hydrogen gas turbine-driven, locally expansion. Then by nuclear fission reactors, nuclear fission reactions absorb heat released, a sharp rise in temperature, and finally into the nozzle, the rapid expansion of high-speed spray. Calculations show that the amount of atomic payload rockets, rocket high chemical energy than 5-8 times.
Hydrogen and other light elements, under certain conditions, their nuclei convergent synthesis of new heavy nuclei, and release a lot of energy, called nuclear fusion reaction, also called thermonuclear reaction.
Using energy generated by the fusion reaction for energy rocket, called fusion energy rocket or nuclear thermal rockets. But it is also not only take advantage of controlled nuclear fusion reaction to manufacture hydrogen bombs, rockets and controlled nuclear fusion reaction needs still studying it.
Of course there are various research and development of rocket technology and technical solutions to try.
It is envisaged that the rocket deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen with deuterium nuclear fusion reaction of helium nuclei, protons and neutrons, and release huge amounts of energy, just polymerized ionized helium to temperatures up to 100 million degrees the plasma, and then nozzle expansion, high-speed ejection, the exhaust speed of up to 15,000 km / sec, atomic energy is 1800 times the rocket, the rocket is the chemical energy of 3700 times.
Nuclear rocket engine fuel as an energy source, with liquid hydrogen, liquid helium, liquid ammonia working fluid. Nuclear rocket engine mounted in the thrust chamber of the reactor, cooling nozzle, the working fluid delivery and control systems and other components. In a nuclear reactor, nuclear energy into heat to heat the working fluid, the working fluid is heated after expansion nozzle to accelerate to the speed of 6500 ~ 11,000 m / sec from the discharge orifice to produce thrust. Nuclear rocket engine specific impulse (250 to 1000 seconds) long life, but the technology is complex, apply only to long-term spacecraft. This engine due to nuclear radiation protection, exhaust pollution, reactor control and efficient heat exchanger design and other issues not resolved, is still in the midst of trials. Nuclear rocket technology is cutting-edge aerospace science technology, centralized many professional and technical sciences and aerospace, nuclear physics, nuclear chemistry, materials science, the long term future ___-- wide width. The United States, Russia and Europe, China, India, Japan, Britain, Brazil and other countries in this regard have studies, in particular the United States and Russia led the way, impressive. Of course, at this stage of nuclear rocket technology, technology development there are still many difficulties. Fully formed, still to be. But humanity marching to the universe, nuclear reactor applications is essential.
Outer Space Treaty (International Convention on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space) ****
Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space Principle 15
General Assembly,
Having considered the report of its thirty-fifth session of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space and the Commission of 16 nuclear
It can be attached in principle on the use of nuclear power sources in outer space of the text of its report, 17
Recognize that nuclear power sources due to small size, long life and other characteristics, especially suitable for use even necessary
For some missions in outer space,
Recognizing also that the use of nuclear power sources in outer space should focus on the possible use of nuclear power sources
Those uses,
Recognizing also that the use of nuclear power sources should include or probabilistic risk analysis is complete security in outer space
Full evaluation is based, in particular, the public should focus on reducing accidental exposure to harmful radiation or radioactive material risk
risk,
Recognizing the need to a set of principles containing goals and guidelines in this regard to ensure the safety of outer space makes
With nuclear power sources,
Affirming that this set principles apply exclusively on space objects for non-power generation, which is generally characteristic
Mission systems and implementation of nuclear power sources in outer space on similar principles and used by,
Recognizing this need to refer to a new set of principles for future nuclear power applications and internationally for radiological protection
The new proposal will be revised
By the following principles on the use of nuclear power sources in outer space.
Principle 1. Applicability of international law
Involving the use of nuclear power sources in outer space activities should be carried out in accordance with international law, especially the "UN
Principles of the Charter "and" States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies Activities
Treaty "3
.
2. The principle terms
1. For the purpose of these principles, "launching State" and "launching State ......" two words mean, in related
Principles related to a time of nuclear power sources in space objects exercises jurisdiction and control of the country.
2. For the purpose of principle 9, wherein the definition of the term "launching State" as contained in that principle.
3. For the purposes of principle 3, the terms "foreseeable" and "all possible" two words are used to describe the actual hair
The overall likelihood of students that it is considered for safety analysis is credible possibilities for a class of things
Member or circumstances. "General concept of defense in depth" when the term applies to nuclear power sources in outer space refers to various settings
Count form and space operations replace or supplement the operation of the system in order to prevent system failures or mitigate thereafter
"Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-seventh Session, Supplement No. 20" 16 (A / 47/20).
17 Ibid., Annex.
38
fruit. To achieve this purpose is not necessarily required for each individual member has redundant safety systems. Given space
Use and special requirements of various space missions, impossible to any particular set of systems or features can be specified as
Necessary to achieve this purpose. For the purpose of Principle 3 (d) of paragraph 2, "made critical" does not include
Including such as zero-power testing which are fundamental to ensuring system safety required.
Principle 3. Guidelines and criteria for safe use
To minimize the risk of radioactive material in space and the number involved, nuclear power sources in outer space
Use should be limited to non-nuclear power sources in space missions can not reasonably be performed
1. General goals for radiation protection and nuclear safety
(A) States launching space objects with nuclear power sources on board shall endeavor to protect individuals, populations and the biosphere
From radiation hazards. The design and use of space objects with nuclear power sources on board shall ensure that risk with confidence
Harm in the foreseeable operational or accidental circumstances, paragraph 1 (b) and (c) to define acceptable water
level.
Such design and use shall also ensure that radioactive material does not reliably significant contamination of outer space.
(B) the normal operation of nuclear power sources in space objects, including from paragraph 2 (b) as defined in foot
High enough to return to the track, shall be subject to appropriate anti-radiation recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection of the public
Protection goals. During such normal operation there shall be no significant radiation exposure;
(C) To limit exposure in accidents, the design and construction of nuclear power source systems shall take into account the international
Relevant and generally accepted radiological protection guidelines.
In addition to the probability of accidents with potentially serious radiological consequences is extremely low, the nuclear power source
Design systems shall be safely irradiated limited limited geographical area, for the individual radiation dose should be
Limited to no more than a year 1mSv primary dose limits. Allows the use of irradiation year for some years 5mSv deputy agent
Quantity limit, but the average over a lifetime effective dose equivalent annual dose not exceed the principal limit 1mSv
degree.
Should make these conditions occur with potentially serious radiological consequences of the probability of the system design is very
small.
Criteria mentioned in this paragraph Future modifications should be applied as soon as possible;
(D) general concept of defense in depth should be based on the design, construction and operation of systems important for safety. root
According to this concept, foreseeable safety-related failures or malfunctions must be capable of automatic action may be
Or procedures to correct or offset.
It should ensure that essential safety system reliability, inter alia, to make way for these systems
Component redundancy, physical separation, functional isolation and adequate independence.
It should also take other measures to increase the level of safety.
2. The nuclear reactor
(A) nuclear reactor can be used to:
39
(I) On interplanetary missions;
(Ii) the second high enough orbit paragraph (b) as defined;
(Iii) low-Earth orbit, with the proviso that after their mission is complete enough to be kept in a nuclear reactor
High on the track;
(B) sufficiently high orbit the orbital lifetime is long enough to make the decay of fission products to approximately actinides
Element active track. The sufficiently high orbit must be such that existing and future outer space missions of crisis
Risk and danger of collision with other space objects to a minimum. In determining the height of the sufficiently high orbit when
It should also take into account the destroyed reactor components before re-entering the Earth's atmosphere have to go through the required decay time
between.
(C) only 235 nuclear reactors with highly enriched uranium fuel. The design shall take into account the fission and
Activation of radioactive decay products.
(D) nuclear reactors have reached their operating orbit or interplanetary trajectory can not be made critical state
state.
(E) nuclear reactor design and construction shall ensure that, before reaching the operating orbit during all possible events
Can not become critical state, including rocket explosion, re-entry, impact on ground or water, submersion
In water or water intruding into the core.
(F) a significant reduction in satellites with nuclear reactors to operate on a lifetime less than in the sufficiently high orbit orbit
For the period (including during operation into the sufficiently high orbit) the possibility of failure, there should be a very
Reliable operating system, in order to ensure an effective and controlled disposal of the reactor.
3. Radioisotope generators
(A) interplanetary missions and other spacecraft out of Earth's gravitational field tasks using radioactive isotopes
Su generator. As they are stored after completion of their mission in high orbit, the Earth can also be used
track. We are required to make the final treatment under any circumstances.
(B) Radioisotope generators shall be protected closed systems, design and construction of the system should
Ensure that in the foreseeable conditions of the track to withstand the heat and aerodynamic forces of re-entry in the upper atmosphere, orbit
Conditions including highly elliptical or hyperbolic orbits when relevant. Upon impact, the containment system and the occurrence of parity
Physical morpheme shall ensure that no radioactive material is scattered into the environment so you can complete a recovery operation
Clear all radioactive impact area.
Principle 4. Safety Assessment
1. When launching State emission consistent with the principles defined in paragraphs 1, prior to the launch in applicable under the
Designed, constructed or manufactured the nuclear power sources, or will operate the space object person, or from whose territory or facility
Transmits the object will be to ensure a thorough and comprehensive safety assessment. This assessment shall cover
All relevant stages of space mission and shall deal with all systems involved, including the means of launching, the space level
Taiwan, nuclear power source and its equipment and the means of control and communication between ground and space.
2. This assessment shall respect the principle of 3 contained in the guidelines and criteria for safe use.
40
3. The principle of States in the Exploration and Use, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies Outer Space Activities Article
Results of about 11, this safety assessment should be published prior to each transmit simultaneously to the extent feasible
Note by the approximate intended time of launch, and shall notify the Secretary-General of the United Nations, how to be issued
This safety assessment before the shot to get the results as soon as possible.
Principle 5. Notification of re-entry
1. Any State launching a space object with nuclear power sources in space objects that failed to produce discharge
When radioactive substances dangerous to return to the earth, it shall promptly notify the country concerned. Notice shall be in the following format:
(A) System parameters:
(I) Name of launching State, including which may be contacted in the event of an accident to Request
Information or assistance to obtain the relevant authorities address;
(Ii) International title;
(Iii) Date and territory or location of launch;
(Iv) the information needed to make the best prediction of orbit lifetime, trajectory and impact region;
(V) General function of spacecraft;
(B) information on the radiological risk of nuclear power source:
(I) the type of power source: radioisotopes / reactor;
(Ii) the fuel could fall into the ground and may be affected by the physical state of contaminated and / or activated components, the number of
The amount and general radiological characteristics. The term "fuel" refers to as a source of heat or power of nuclear material.
This information shall also be sent to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
2. Once you know the failure, the launching State shall provide information on the compliance with the above format. Information should as far as possible
To be updated frequently, and in the dense layers of the Earth's atmosphere is expected to return to a time when close to the best increase
Frequency of new data, so that the international community understand the situation and will have sufficient time to plan for any deemed necessary
National contingency measures.
3. It should also be at the same frequency of the latest information available to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Principle 6. consultation
5 According to the national principles provide information shall, as far as reasonably practicable, other countries
Requirements to obtain further information or consultations promptly reply.
Principle 7. Assistance to States
1. Upon receipt of expected with nuclear power sources on space objects and their components will return through the Earth's atmosphere
After know that all countries possessing space monitoring and tracking facilities, in the spirit of international cooperation, as soon as possible to
The Secretary-General of the United Nations and the countries they may have made space objects carrying nuclear power sources
A fault related information, so that the States may be affected to assess the situation and take any
It is considered to be the necessary precautions.
41
2. In carrying space objects with nuclear power sources back to the Earth's atmosphere after its components:
(A) launching State shall be requested by the affected countries to quickly provide the necessary assistance to eliminate actual
And possible effects, including nuclear power sources to assist in identifying locations hit the Earth's surface, to detect the re substance
Quality and recovery or cleanup activities.
(B) All countries with relevant technical capabilities other than the launching State, and with such technical capabilities
International organizations shall, where possible, in accordance with the requirements of the affected countries to provide the necessary co
help.
When according to the above (a) and subparagraph (b) to provide assistance, should take into account the special needs of developing countries.
Principle 8. Responsibility
In accordance with the States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies activities, including the principles of Article
About Article, States shall bear international responsibility for their use of nuclear power sources in outer space relates to the activities
Whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or non-governmental entities, and shall bear international responsibility to ensure that this
Such activities undertaken by the country in line with the principles of the Treaty and the recommendations contained therein. If it involves the use of nuclear power sources
Activities in outer space by an international organization, should be done by the international organizations and States to participate in the organization
Undertakes to comply with the principles of the Treaty and the recommendations contained in these responsibilities.
Principle 9. Liability and Compensation
1. In accordance with the principle of States in the Exploration and Use, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies Outer Space Activities Article
And the Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects covenant of Article 7
Provisions, which launches or on behalf of the State
Each State launching a space object and each State from which territory or facility a space object is launched
Kinds of space object or damage caused by components shall bear international liability. This fully applies to this
Kind of space object carrying a nuclear power source case. Two or more States jointly launch a space object,
Each launching State shall in accordance with the above Article of the Convention for any damages jointly and severally liable.
2. Such countries under the aforesaid Convention shall bear the damages shall be in accordance with international law and fair and reasonable
The principles set out in order to provide for damages to make a claim on behalf of its natural or juridical persons, national or
International organizations to restore to the state before the occurrence of the damage.
3. For the purposes of this principle, compensation should be made to include reimbursement of the duly substantiated expenses for search, recovery and clean
Cost management work, including the cost of providing assistance to third parties.
10. The principle of dispute settlement
Since the implementation of these principles will lead to any dispute in accordance with the provisions of the UN Charter, by negotiation or
Other established procedures to resolve the peaceful settlement of disputes.
Here quoted the important provisions of the United Nations concerning the use of outer space for peaceful nuclear research and international conventions, the main emphasis on the Peaceful Uses of provisions related constraints .2 the use of nuclear rockets in outer space nuclear studies, etc., can cause greater attention in nuclear power nuclear rocket ship nuclear research, manufacture, use and other aspects of the mandatory hard indicators. this scientists, engineering and technical experts are also important constraints and requirements. as IAEA supervision and management as very important.
2. radiation. Space radiation is one of the greatest threats to the safety of the astronauts, including X-rays, γ-rays, cosmic rays and high-speed solar particles. Better than aluminum protective effect of high polymer composite materials.
3. Air. Perhaps the oxygen needed to rely on oxidation-reduction reaction of hydrogen and ilmenite production of water, followed by water electrolysis to generate oxygen. Mars oxygen necessary for survival but also from the decomposition of water, electrolytically separating water molecules of oxygen and hydrogen, this oxygen equipment has been successfully used in the International Space Station. Oxygen is released into the air to sustain life, the hydrogen system into the water system.
4. The issue of food waste recycling. At present, the International Space Station on the use of dehumidifiers, sucked moisture in the air to be purified, and then changed back to drinkable water. The astronauts' urine and sweat recycling. 5. water. The spacecraft and the space station on purification system also makes urine and other liquids can be purified utilization. 6. microgravity. In microgravity or weightlessness long-term space travel, if protective measures shall not be treated, the astronauts will be muscle atrophy, bone softening health. 7. contact. 8. Insulation, 9 energy. Any space exploration are inseparable from the energy battery is a new super hybrid energy storage device, the asymmetric lead-acid batteries and supercapacitors in the same compound within the system - and the so-called inside, no additional separate electronic control unit, this is an optimal combination. The traditional lead-acid battery PbO2 monomer is a positive electrode plate and a negative electrode plate spongy Pb composition, not a super cell. : Silicon solar cells, multi-compound thin film solar cells, multi-layer polymer-modified electrode solar cells, nano-crystalline solar cells, batteries and super class. For example, the solar aircraft .10. To protect the health and life safety and security systems. Lysophosphatidic acid LPA is a growth factor-like lipid mediators, the researchers found that this substance can on apoptosis after radiation injury and animal cells was inhibited. Stable lysophosphatidic acid analogs having the hematopoietic system and gastrointestinal tract caused by acute radiation sickness protection, knockout experiments show that lysophosphatidic acid receptors is an important foundation for the protection of radiation injury. In addition to work under high pressure, the astronauts face a number of health threats, including motion sickness, bacterial infections, blindness space, as well as psychological problems, including toxic dust. In the weightless environment of space, the astronaut's body will be like in preadolescents, as the emergence of various changes.
Plantar molt
After the environment to adapt to zero gravity, the astronaut's body will be some strange changes. Weightlessness cause fluid flow around the main flow torso and head, causing the astronauts facial swelling and inflammation, such as nasal congestion. During long-term stay in space
Bone and muscle loss
Most people weightlessness caused by the impact may be known bone and muscle degeneration. In addition, the calcium bones become very fragile and prone to fracture, which is why some of the astronauts after landing need on a stretcher.
Space Blindness
Space Blindness refers astronaut decreased vision.
Solar storms and radiation is one of the biggest challenges facing the long-term space flight. Since losing the protection of Earth's magnetic field, astronauts suffer far more than normal levels of radiation. The cumulative amount of radiation exposure in low earth orbit them exceeded by workers close to nuclear reactors, thereby increasing the risk of cancer.
Prolonged space flight can cause a series of psychological problems, including depression or mood swings, vulnerability, anxiety and fear, as well as other sequelae. We are familiar with the biology of the Earth, the Earth biochemistry, biophysics, after all, the Earth is very different astrophysics, celestial chemistry, biophysics and astrophysics, biochemistry and other celestial bodies. Therefore, you must be familiar with and adapt to these differences and changes.
Osteoporosis and its complications ranked first in the space of disease risk.
Long-term health risks associated with flying Topics
The degree of influence long-term biological effects of radiation in human flight can withstand the radiation and the maximum limit of accumulated radiation on physiology, pathology and genetics.
Physiological effects of weightlessness including: long-term bone loss and a return flight after the maximum extent and severity of the continued deterioration of other pathological problems induced by the; maximum flexibility and severity of possible long-term Flight Center in vascular function.
Long-term risk of disease due to the high risk of flight stress, microbial variation, decreased immune function, leading to infections
Radiation hazards and protection
1) radiation medicine, biology and pathway effects Features
Radiation protection for interplanetary flight, since the lack of protective effect of Earth's magnetic field, and by the irradiation time is longer, the possibility of increased radiation hazard.
Analysis of space flight medical problems that may occur, loss of appetite topped the list, sleep disorders, fatigue and insomnia, in addition, space sickness, musculoskeletal system problems, eye problems, infections problems, skin problems and cardiovascular problems
---------------------------------------------------------
Development of diagnostic techniques in orbit, the development of the volume of power consumption, features a wide range of diagnostic techniques, such as applied research of ultrasound diagnostic techniques in the abdominal thoracic trauma, bone, ligament damage, dental / sinus infections and other complications and integrated;
Actively explore in orbit disposal of medical technology, weightlessness surgical methods, development of special surgical instruments, the role of narcotic drugs and the like.
——————————————————————————————-
However, space technology itself is integrated with the use of the most advanced technology, its challenging technical reserves and periodic demanding
With the continuous development of science and technology, space agencies plan a manned landing on the moon and Mars, space exploration emergency medicine current concern.
Space sickness
In the weightless environment of space, in the weightless environment of space, surgery may be extremely difficult and risky.
Robot surgeons
Space disease in three days after entering the space started to ease, although individual astronauts might subsequently relapse. January 2015 NASA declared working on a fast, anti-nausea and nasal sprays. In addition, due to the zero-gravity environment, and anti-nausea drugs can only be administered by injection or transdermal patches manner.
Manned spaceflight in the 21st century is the era of interplanetary flight, aerospace medicine is closely watched era is the era of China's manned space flourish. Only the central issue, and grasp the opportunity to open up a new world of human survival and development.
Various emergency contingency measures in special circumstances. Invisible accident risk prevention. Enhancing drugs and other screening methods immunity aerospace medicine and tissue engineering a microgravity environment. Drug mixture of APS, ginseng polysaccharides, Ganoderma lucidum polysaccharides, polysaccharides and Lentinan, from other compounds. Drug development space syndrome drug, chemical structure modification will be an important part.
These issues are very sensitive, cutting-edge technology is a major difficulty landing on Mars. Countries in the world, especially the world's major space powers in the country strategies and technical research, the results of all kinds continue to emerge. United States, Russia, China, Europe, India, Japan and other countries is different. United States, Russia extraordinary strength. Many patented technology and health, and most belong to the top-secret technology. Especially in aerospace engineering and technological achievements is different from the general scientific literature, practical, commercial, industrial great, especially the performance of patents, know-how, technical drawings, engineering design and other aspects. Present Mars and return safely to Earth, the first manned, significance, everything is hard in the beginning, especially the first person to land on Mars This Mars for Human Sciences Research Mars, the moon, the earth, the solar system and the universe, life and other significant. Its far greater than the value of direct investments and business interests.
In addition, it is the development of new materials, suitable for deep space operations universe, life, and other detection, wider field.
Many aerospace materials, continuous research and development of materials are key areas of aerospace development, including material rocket, the spacecraft materials, the suit materials, radiation materials, materials and equipment, instruments, materials and so on biochemistry.
Temperature metal-based compound with a metal matrix composite body with a more primordial higher temperature strength, creep resistance, impact resistance, thermal fatigue and other excellent high temperature performance.
In B, C, SiC fiber reinforced Ti3Al, TiAl, Ni3Al intermetallic matrix composites, etc.
W Fiber Reinforced with nickel-based, iron-based alloys as well as SiC, TiB2, Si3N4 and BN particle reinforced metal matrix composites
High temperature service conditions require the development of ceramic and carbon-based composite materials, etc., not in this eleven Cheung said.
Fuel storage
In order to survive in space, people need many things: food, oxygen, shelter, and, perhaps most importantly, fuel. The initial quality Mars mission somewhere around 80 percent of the space launch humans will be propellant. The fuel amount of storage space is very difficult.
This difference in low Earth orbit cause liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen - rocket fuel - vaporization.
Hydrogen is particularly likely to leak out, resulting in a loss of about 4% per month.
When you want to get people to Mars speed to minimize exposure to weightlessness and space radiation hazards
Mars
Landings on the Martian surface, they realized that they reached the limit. The rapid expansion of the thin Martian atmosphere can not be very large parachute, such as those that will need to be large enough to slow down, carry human spacecraft.
Therefore, the parachute strong mass ratio, high temperature resistance, Bing shot performance and other aspects of textile materials used have special requirements, in order to make a parachute can be used in rockets, missiles, Yu arrows spacecraft and other spacecraft recovery, it is necessary to improve the canopy heat resistance, a high melting point polymeric fiber fabric used, the metal fabric, ceramic fiber fabrics, and other devices.
Super rigid parachute to help slow the landing vehicle.
Spacecraft entered the Martian atmosphere at 24,000 km / h. Even after slowing parachute or inflatable, it will be very
Once we have the protection of the Earth magnetic field, the solar radiation will accumulate in the body, a huge explosion threw the spacecraft may potentially lethal doses of radiation astronauts.
In addition to radiation, the biggest challenge is manned trip to Mars microgravity, as previously described.
The moon is sterile. Mars is another case entirely.
With dust treatment measures.
Arid Martian environment to create a super-tiny dust particles flying around the Earth for billions of years.
Apollo moon dust encountered. Ultra-sharp and abrasive lunar dust was named something that can clog the basic functions of mechanical damage. High chloride salt, which can cause thyroid problems in people.
*** Mars geological structure and geological structure of the moon, water on Mars geology, geology of the Moon is very important, because he, like the Earth's geology is related to many important issues. Water, the first element of life, air, temperature, and complex geological formations are geological structure. Cosmic geology research methods, mainly through a variety of detection equipment equipped with a space probe, celestial observations of atmospheric composition, composition and distribution of temperature, pressure, wind speed, vertical structure, composition of the solar wind, the water, the surface topography and Zoning, topsoil the composition and characteristics of the component surface of the rock, type and distribution, stratigraphic sequence, structural system and the internal shell structure.
Mars internal situation only rely on its surface condition of large amounts of data and related information inferred. It is generally believed that the core radius of 1700 km of high-density material composition; outsourcing a layer of lava, it is denser than the Earth's mantle some; outermost layer is a thin crust. Compared to other terrestrial planets, the lower the density of Mars, which indicates that the Martian core of iron (magnesium and iron sulfide) with may contain more sulfur. Like Mercury and the Moon, Mars and lack active plate movement; there is no indication that the crust of Mars occurred can cause translational events like the Earth like so many of folded mountains. Since there is no lateral movement in the earth's crust under the giant hot zone relative to the ground in a stationary state. Slight stress coupled with the ground, resulting in Tharis bumps and huge volcano. For the geological structure of Mars is very important, which is why repeated explorations and studies of Martian geological reasons.
Earth's surface
Each detector component landing site soil analysis:
Element weight percent
Viking 1
Oxygen 40-45
Si 18-25
Iron 12-15
K 8
Calcium 3-5
Magnesium 3-6
S 2-5
Aluminum 2-5
Cesium 0.1-0.5
Core
Mars is about half the radius of the core radius, in addition to the primary iron further comprises 15 to 17% of the sulfur content of lighter elements is also twice the Earth, so the low melting point, so that the core portion of a liquid, such as outside the Earth nuclear.
Mantle
Nuclear outer coating silicate mantle.
Crust
The outermost layer of the crust.
Crustal thickness obtained, the original thickness of the low north 40 km south plateau 70 kilometers thick, an average of 50 kilometers, at least 80 km Tharsis plateau and the Antarctic Plateau, and in the impact basin is thin, as only about 10 kilometers Greece plains.
Canyon of Mars there are two categories: outflow channels (outflow channel) and tree valley (valley network). The former is very large, it can be 100 km wide, over 2000 km long, streamlined, mainly in the younger Northern Hemisphere, such as the plain around Tyre Chris Canyon and Canyon jam.
In addition, the volcanic activity sometimes lava formation lava channels (lava channel); crustal stress generated by fissures, faults, forming numerous parallel extending grooves (fossa), such as around the huge Tharsis volcanic plateau radially distributed numerous grooves, which can again lead to volcanic activity.
Presumably, Mars has an iron as the main component of the nucleus, and contains sulfur, magnesium and other light elements, the nuclear share of Mars, the Earth should be relatively small. The outer core is covered with a thick layer of magnesium-rich silicate mantle, the surface of rocky crust. The density of Earth-like planets Mars is the lowest, only 3.93g / cc.
Hierarchy
The crust
Lunar core
The average density of the Moon is 3.3464 g / cc, the solar system satellites second highest (after Aiou). However, there are few clues mean lunar core is small, only about 350 km radius or less [2]. The core of the moon is only about 20% the size of the moon, the moon's interior has a solid, iron-rich core diameter of about 240 kilometers (150 miles); in addition there is a liquid core, mainly composed of iron outer core, about 330 km in diameter (205 miles), and for the first time compared with the core of the Earth, considered as the earth's outer core, like sulfur and oxygen may have lighter elements [4].
Chemical elements on the lunar surface constituted in accordance with its abundance as follows: oxygen (O), silicon (Si), iron (Fe), magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), aluminum (Al), manganese (Mn), titanium ( Ti). The most abundant is oxygen, silicon and iron. The oxygen content is estimated to be 42% (by weight). Carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) only traces seem to exist only in trace amounts deposited in the solar wind brings.
Lunar Prospector from the measured neutron spectra, the hydrogen (H) mainly in the lunar poles [2].
Element content (%)
Oxygen 42%
Silicon 21%
Iron 13%
Calcium 8%
Aluminum 7%
Magnesium 6%
Other 3%
Lunar surface relative content of each element (% by weight)
Moon geological history is an important event in recent global magma ocean crystallization. The specific depth is not clear, but some studies have shown that at least a depth of about 500 kilometers or more.
Lunar landscape
Lunar landscape can be described as impact craters and ejecta, some volcanoes, hills, lava-filled depressions.
Regolith
TABLE bear the asteroid and comets billions of years of bombardment. Over time, the impact of these processes have already broken into fine-grained surface rock debris, called regolith. Young mare area, regolith thickness of about 2 meters, while the oldest dated land, regolith thickness of up to 20 meters. Through the analysis of lunar soil components, in particular the isotopic composition changes can determine the period of solar activity. Solar wind gases possible future lunar base is useful because oxygen, hydrogen (water), carbon and nitrogen is not only essential to life, but also may be useful for fuel production. Lunar soil constituents may also be as a future source of energy.
Here, repeatedly stressed that the geological structure and geological structure of celestial bodies, the Earth, Moon, Mars, or that this human existence and development of biological life forms is very important, especially in a series of data Martian geological structure geological structure is directly related to human landing Mars and the successful transformation of Mars or not. for example, water, liquid water, water, oxygen, synthesis, must not be taken lightly.
____________________________________________________________----
Mars landing 10 Technology
Aerospace Science and space science and technology major innovation of the most critical of sophisticated technology R & D project
[
"1" rocket propulsion technology ion fusion nuclear pulse propulsion rocket powered high-speed heavy rocket technology, space nuclear reactors spacecraft] brought big problems reflected in the nuclear reaction, nuclear radiation on spacecraft launch, control, brakes and other impact.
In particular, for the future of nuclear power spacecraft, the need to solve the nuclear reactor design, manufacture, control, cooling, radiation shielding, exhaust pollution, high thermoelectric conversion efficiency and a series of technical problems.
In particular, nuclear reactors produce radiation on astronauts' health will pose a great threat, which requires the spacecraft to be nuclear radiation shielding to ensure astronaut and ship the goods from radiation and heat from the reactor influence, but this will greatly increase the weight of the detector.
Space nuclear process applications, nuclear reaction decay is not a problem, but in a vacuum, ultra-low temperature environment, the nuclear reaction materials, energy transport materials have very high demands.
Space facing the reality of a nuclear reactor cooling cooling problems. To prevent problems with the reactor, "Washington" aircraft carrier to take four heavy protective measures for the radiation enclosed in the warship. These four measures are: the fuel itself, fuel storage pressure vessel, reactor shell and the hull. US Navy fuel all metal fuel, designed to take the impact resistance of the war, does not release fission product can withstand more than 50 times the gravity of the impact load; product of nuclear fission reactor fuel will never enter loop cooling water. The third layer of protection is specially designed and manufactured the reactor shell. The fourth layer is a very strong anti-impact combat ship, the reactor is arranged in the center of the ship, very safe. Engage in a reactor can only be loaded up to the aircraft, so as to drive the motor, and then drive the propeller. That is the core advantage of the heat generated by the heated gas flow, high temperature high pressure gas discharge backward, thereby generating thrust.
.
After installation AMPS1000 type nuclear power plant, a nuclear fuel assembly: He is a core member of the nuclear fuel chain reaction. Usually made into uranium dioxide, of which only a few percent uranium-235, and most of it is not directly involved in the nuclear fission of uranium 238. The uranium dioxide sintered into cylindrical pieces, into a stainless steel or a zirconium alloy do metal tubes called fuel rods or the original, then the number of fuel rods loaded metal cylinder in an orderly composition of the fuel assembly, and finally put a lot of vertical distribution of fuel assemblies in the reactor.
Nuclear reactor pressure vessel is a housing for containing nuclear fuel and reactor internals, for producing high-quality high-strength steel is made to withstand the pressure of dozens MPa. Import and export of the coolant in the pressure vessel.
The top of the pressure vessel closure, and can be used to accommodate the fixed control rod drive mechanism, pressure vessel head has a semi-circular, flat-topped.
Roof bolt: used to connect the locking pressure vessel head, so that the cylinder to form a completely sealed container.
Neutron Source: Plug in nuclear reactors can provide sufficient neutron, nuclear fuel ignition, to start to enhance the role of nuclear reactors and nuclear power. Neutron source generally composed of radium, polonium, beryllium, antimony production. Neutron source and neutron fission reactors are fast neutron, can not cause fission of uranium 235, in order to slow down, we need to moderator ---- full of pure water in a nuclear reactor. Aircraft carriers, submarines use nuclear reactor control has proven more successful.
Rod: has a strong ability to absorb neutrons, driven by the control rod drive mechanism, can move up and down in a nuclear reactor control rods within the nuclear fuel used to start, shut down the nuclear reactor, and maintain, regulate reactor power. Hafnium control rods in general, silver, indium, cadmium and other metals production.
Control rod drive mechanism: He is the executive body of nuclear reactors operating system and security protection systems, in strict accordance with requirements of the system or its operator control rod drives do move up and down in a nuclear reactor, nuclear reactor for power control. In a crisis situation, you also can quickly control rods fully inserted into the reactor in order to achieve the purpose of the emergency shutdown
Upper and lower support plate: used to secure the fuel assembly. High temperature and pressure inside the reactor is filled with pure water (so called pressurized water reactors), on the one hand he was passing through a nuclear reactor core, cooling the nuclear fuel, to act as a coolant, on the other hand it accumulates in the pressure vessel in play moderated neutrons role, acting as moderator.
Water quality monitoring sampling system:
Adding chemical system: under normal circumstances, for adding hydrazine, hydrogen, pH control agents to the primary coolant system, the main purpose is to remove and reduce coolant oxygen, high oxygen water suppression equipment wall corrosion (usually at a high temperature oxygen with hydrogen, especially at low temperatures during startup of a nuclear reactor with added hydrazine oxygen); when the nuclear reactor control rods stuck for some reason can not shutdown time by the the system can inject the nuclear reactor neutron absorber (such as boric acid solution), emergency shutdown, in order to ensure the safety of nuclear submarines.
Water system: a loop inside the water will be reduced at work, such as water sampling and analysis, equipment leaks, because the shutdown process cooling water and reduction of thermal expansion and contraction.
Equipment cooling water system:
Pressure safety systems: pressure reactor primary coolant system may change rapidly for some reason, the need for effective control. And in severe burn nuclear fuel rods, resulting in a core melt accident, it is necessary to promptly increase the pressure. Turn the regulator measures the electric, heating and cooling water. If necessary, also temporary startup booster pump.
Residual Heat Removal System: reactor scram may be due to an accident, such as when the primary coolant system of the steam generator heat exchanger tube is damaged, it must be urgently closed reactors.
Safety Injection System: The main components of this system is the high-pressure injection pump.
Radioactive waste treatment systems:
Decontamination Systems: for the removal of radioactive deposits equipment, valves, pipes and accessories, and other surfaces.
Europe, the United States and Russia and other countries related to aircraft carriers, submarines, icebreakers, nuclear-powered research aircraft, there are lots of achievements use of nuclear energy, it is worth analysis. However, nuclear reactor technology, rocket ships and the former are very different, therefore, requires special attention and innovative research. Must adopt a new new design techniques, otherwise, fall into the stereotype, it will avail, nothing even cause harm Aerospace.
[ "2" spacecraft structure]
[ "3"] radiation technology is the use of deep-sea sedimentation fabric fabrics deepwater technology development precipitated silver metal fibers or fiber lint and other materials and micronaire value between 4.1 to 4.3 fibers made from blends. For radiation protection field, it greatly enhances the effects of radiation and service life of clothing. Radiation resistant fiber) radiation resistant fiber - fiber polyimide polyimide fibers
60 years the United States has successfully developed polyimide fibers, it has highlighted the high temperature, radiation-resistant, fire-retardant properties.
[ "4" cosmic radiation resistant clothing design multifunctional anti-aging, wear underwear] ① comfort layer: astronauts can not wash clothes in a long flight, a lot of sebum, perspiration, etc. will contaminate underwear, so use soft, absorbent and breathable cotton knitwear making.
② warm layer: at ambient temperature range is not the case, warm layer to maintain a comfortable temperature environment. Choose warm and good thermal resistance large, soft, lightweight material, such as synthetic fibers, flakes, wool and silk and so on.
③ ventilation and cooling clothes clothes
Spacesuit
In astronaut body heat is too high, water-cooled ventilation clothing and clothing to a different way of heat. If the body heat production more than 350 kcal / h (ventilated clothes can not meet the cooling requirements, then that is cooled by a water-cooled suit. Ventilating clothing and water-cooled multi-use compression clothing, durable, flexible plastic tubing, such as polyvinyl chloride pipe or nylon film.
④ airtight limiting layer:
⑤ insulation: astronaut during extravehicular activities, from hot or cold insulation protection. It multilayer aluminized polyester film or a polyimide film and sandwiched between layers of nonwoven fabric to be made.
⑥ protective cover layer: the outermost layer of the suit is to require fire, heat and anti-space radiation on various factors (micrometeorites, cosmic rays, etc.) on the human body. Most of this layer with aluminized fabric.
New space suits using a special radiation shielding material, double design.
And also supporting spacesuit helmet, gloves, boots and so on.
[ "5" space - Aerospace biomedical technology, space, special use of rescue medication Space mental health care systems in space without damage restful sleep positions - drugs, simple space emergency medical system
]
[ "6" landing control technology, alternate control technology, high-performance multi-purpose landing deceleration device (parachute)]
[ "7" Mars truck, unitary Mars spacecraft solar energy battery super multi-legged (rounds) intelligent robot] multifunction remote sensing instruments on Mars, Mars and more intelligent giant telescope
[8 <> Mars warehouse activities, automatic Mars lander - Automatic start off cabin
]
[ "9" Mars - spacecraft docking control system, return to the system design]
Space flight secondary emergency life - support system
Spacecraft automatic, manual, semi-automatic operation control, remote control switch system
Automatic return spacecraft systems, backup design, the spacecraft automatic control operating system modular blocks of]
[10 lunar tracking control system
Martian dust storms, pollution prevention, anti-corrosion and other special conditions thereof
Electric light aircraft, Mars lander, Mars, living spaces, living spaces Mars, Mars entry capsule, compatible utilization technology, plant cultivation techniques, nutrition space - space soil]
Aerospace technology, space technology a lot, a lot of cutting-edge technology. Human landing on Mars technology bear the brunt. The main merge the human landing on Mars 10 cutting-edge technology, in fact, these 10 cutting-edge technology, covering a wide range, focused, and is the key to key technologies. They actually shows overall trends and technology Aerospace Science and Technology space technology. Human triumph Mars and safe return of 10 cutting-edge technology is bound to innovation. Moreover, in order to explore the human Venus, Jupiter satellites and the solar system, the Milky Way and other future development of science and laid the foundation guarantee. But also for the transformation of human to Mars, the Moon and other planets livable provides strong technical support. Aerospace Science and Technology which is a major support system.
Preparation of oxygen, water, synthesis, temperature, radiation, critical force confrontation. Regardless of the moon or Mars, survive three elements bear the brunt.
Chemical formula: H₂O
Formula: H-O-H (OH bond between two angle 104.5 °).
Molecular Weight: 18.016
Chemical Experiment: water electrolysis. Formula: 2H₂O = energized = 2H₂ ↑ + O₂ ↑ (decomposition)
Molecules: a hydrogen atom, an oxygen atom.
Ionization of water: the presence of pure water ionization equilibrium following: H₂O == == H⁺ + OH⁻ reversible or irreversible H₂O + H₂O = = H₃O⁺ + OH⁻.
NOTE: "H₃O⁺" hydronium ions, for simplicity, often abbreviated as H⁺, more accurate to say the H9O4⁺, the amount of hydrogen ion concentration in pure water material is 10⁻⁷mol / L.
Electrolysis of water:
Water at DC, decomposition to produce hydrogen and oxygen, this method is industrially prepared pure hydrogen and oxygen 2H₂O = 2H₂ ↑ + O₂ ↑.
. Hydration Reaction:
Water with an alkaline active metal oxides, as well as some of the most acidic oxide hydration reaction of unsaturated hydrocarbons.
Na₂O + H₂O = 2NaOH
CaO + H₂O = Ca (OH) ₂
SO₃ + H₂O = H₂SO₄
P₂O₅ + 3H₂O = 2H₃PO₄ molecular structure
CH₂ = CH₂ + H₂O ← → C₂H₅OH
6. The diameter of the order of magnitude of 10 water molecules negative power of ten, the water is generally believed that a diameter of 2 to 3 this organization. water
7. Water ionization:
In the water, almost no water molecules ionized to generate ions.
H₂O ← → H⁺ + OH⁻
Heating potassium chlorate or potassium permanganate preparation of oxygen
Pressurized at low temperatures, the air into a liquid, and then evaporated, since the boiling point of liquid nitrogen is -196 deg.] C, lower than the boiling point of liquid oxygen (-183 ℃), so the liquid nitrogen evaporated from the first air, remaining the main liquid oxygen.
Of course, the development of research in space there is a great difference, even more special preparation harsh environments on Earth and synthetic water and oxygen, over the need for more technological breakthroughs.
The main component of air oxygen and nitrogen. The use of oxygen and nitrogen with
Object Details: Please find attached the third of four lunar images I took early last week when the moon was in it's 1st quarter phase. Continuing to move south along the terminator from the previous two images linked here:
Plato & The Alpine Valley: www.flickr.com/photos/homcavobservatory/48070020973/
and here:
Eratosthenes & The Apennine Mountians - www.flickr.com/photos/homcavobservatory/48073693577/ )
can be found three craters that appear to somewhat overlap. They are (from top to bottom (& larger to smaller): Ptolemaeus (154 km (~ 96 mi) in dia), Alphonsus (119 km ( ~ 74 mi.) in dia.) & Arzanchel ( (96 km ( ~ 60 mi) in dia.) .
In addition to the lower left of Arzanchel can be seen 'The Straight Wall'. Alsop know as Rupes Recta it is a liner fault 110 km ( ~ 68 mi) in length, whose width varies from 2 to 3 km (~ 1.2 to ~ 1.8 mi) & height from 240 to 300 meters (~ 650 to ~ 980 ft) . Although it appears as a cliff, it is actually a slope and makes a wonderful sight when the moon is near this phase,
Image Details: The attached was taken by Jay Edwards at the HomCav Observatory in Main, NY on the evening of June 11, 2019 using a (vintage 1970) 8-inch, f/7 Criterion newtonian reflector connected in prime focus mode to a ZWO ASI290MC planetary camera / auto-guider. This scope was tracked on a Losmandy G-11 mount running a Gemini 2 control system. The image is the result of a stack of the best 60 percent of the frames from a short video clip.
Having purchased an IDAS dual narrowband Oxygen III / Sulfur II filter to complement my IDAS Hydrogen / OIII filter, I thought I would extract the H-alpha, OIII & SII data from the raw images and render my first image using this data in a combination of narrowband palettes.
Object Details: The Eagle Nebula (Messier 16 / NGC 6611) is a diffuse emission nebula in the constellation of Serpens. A star forming region located about 7000 light-years from Earth, it spans approximately 70 light-years in diameter along it's longest dimension. Visible in binoculars and a spectacular sight in larger telescopes. Although the extensive nebulosity is obvious in images, visually the embedded star cluster is dominate and the nebula can be greatly enhanced via the use of a proper filter. The center of the nebula contains huge columns of interstellar hydrogen gas and dust which were made famous in the Hubble 'Pillars of Creation' image (visible near the center of the attached image). Recent evidence indicates these pillars may actually have been destroyed by a supernova 8 to 9 thousand years ago, however the light confirming the event (i.e. the supernova's shock-wave destroying the columns) is not scheduled to reach Earth for another 1000 years (keep watching ;) ).
Image Details: Taken by Jay Edwards from the scope field of Cherry Springs State Park in PA during both CSSP's 2023 summer star party in June & the Black Forest Star Party held there in September. The image utilized an Orion ED80T CF (i.e. an 80mm, f/6 carbon-fiber, triplet apochromatic refractor) connected to a Televue 0.8x field flattener / focal reducer with both a dual band IDAS Hydrogen-alpha / Oxygen III and a Oxygen III / Sulfur II filters and an ASI2600MC Pro camera running at -10 degrees centigrade and controlled by an ASIair running on an IPad Air. Guided by an ASI290MC autoguider / planetary camera in an Orion 60mm, f/4 guide scope; they ride on a Losmandy G-11 mount running a Gemini 2 control system.
Having been also imaging other objects using this setup during these star parties, given the time available, the attached is a rendering in a combination of narrowband pallets and consists of 3 hours of Hydrogen-alpha, 4 hours of Oxygen-III and 1 hour of Sulfur-II data. Processed in a combination of PixInisght and PaintShopPro and show here the bit depth lowered to 8 bits per channel.
Given that this was my first attempt to combine data from both dual band filters I was fairly pleased with the result and am looking forward to processing the data from the other objects I imaged using this same equipment during these star parties.
An image of this object using only the H-alpha & OIII data and rendered in somewhat of a more traditional palette can be found at the link attached here:
www.flickr.com/photos/homcavobservatory/53317140708/
Wishing a Merry Christmas to all & to all a clear night ! ;)
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry watches a NATO Airborne Warning and Control Systems aircraft do a flyover of the National Stadium in Warsaw, Poland, on July 8, 2016, after joining President Obama at the NATO Summit. [State Department Photo/Public Domain]
+++ 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 HAL Ajeet II (Sanskrit: अजित, for Invincible or Unconquerable) was a development of the British Folland Gnat fighter that was built under license in India by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited.
The Indian Air Force (IAF) operated the Folland Gnat light jet fighter from 1958, with over 200 aircraft being license built by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). The aircraft proved successful in combat in both the 1965 and the 1971 War with Pakistan, both in the low-level air superiority role and for short range ground attack missions, while being cheap to build and operate. It had unreliable systems, though, particularly the control system, and was difficult to maintain.
The Indian Air Force therefore issued a requirement for an improved Gnat in 1972. Although the original requirement called for an interceptor, it was later modified to include a secondary ground-attack role.
The aircraft was given the name "Ajeet" and the changes from the original Gnat were considerable.
They included:
- Improvements to the hydraulics and control systems (these had been a source of difficulties in the Gnat).
- Fitting of improved Martin-Baker GF4 ejection seats.
- Upgraded avionics.
- The addition of slab tail control surfaces.
- Improvements to the landing gear.
- Additional internal fuel capacity with "wet wings" to free the original pair of underwing pylons for weapons.
- Installation of two more underwing hardpoints.
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited modified the final two Gnats on the production line as prototypes for the Ajeet, with the first one flying on 6 March 1975, with the second following on 5 November. Testing proved successful of the Ajeet, and it became the first production aircraft flew on 30 September 1976. Visually, the Ajeet appeared similar to the Gnat, with the presence of two extra hardpoints being the only obvious distinguishing features from the older aircraft.
The Ajeet entered service with the IAF in 1977, but this was not the end of the Gnat/Ajeet's development potential. A HAL project for a trainer based on the Ajeet was begun, leading to the initial flight of a prototype in 1982. Unfortunately this aircraft was lost in a crash later that year. A second prototype flew the following year, followed by a third. But a lack of government interest and the imminent phase-out of the aircraft meant no more examples were produced.
Another, more radical Gnat derivate was more successful, the supersonic Ajeet II. The development of this aircraft started in 1978, and while the Ajeet II outwardly looked very much like its 1st generation kin, it was an almost completely different aircraft.
Basic idea had been to get the Ajeet up to the performance of the Northrop F-5A Freedom Fighter - with major focus on speed and overall better performance. It was soon clear that the original, the single HAL/Bristol Siddeley Orpheus 701-01 turbojet with 20.0 kN (4,500 lbf) of thrust would not suffice. Consequently, HAL engineers worked on the internal structure of the Gnat/Ajeet to cramp two smaller Rolls Royce Viper engines with indigenous afterburners into the fuselage.
At full power the small aircraft was now powered with almost twice as much power, but modifications were considerable, including new air intakes with shock cones and new ducts, which necessitated a lower location of the Aden cannons under the intakes instead of their flanks.
The rear fuselage had to be widened and lengthened accordingly, and the wings were also completely new, with a thinner profile, less depth and a higher sweep at quarter chord. The wing area was ~30% bigger than before and also offered an increased internal space for fuel.
The elongated forward fuselage was used for an additional fuel tank as well as more sophisticated avionics - including a RP-21 radar that was also installed in the license-built Indian MiG-21. The new systems allowed the use of R-3S 'Atoll') AAMs (of Soviet or Chinese origin) or French Matra Magic AAMs, four of which could be carried under the wings.
The development of the engines was protracted, though, especially the afterburner went through a lot of teething troubles, so that development aircraft had to get by without th extra performance punch. The first Ajeet II prototype flew in 1984 and the type was ready for service in 1986 and adopted by two fighter squadrons which started to retire the 1st generation Gnats and also some Hunters. Anyway, upon commissioning it was already clear that the Ajeet II would not have a bright future, as the classic gun fighter had become more and more obsolete.
Nevertheless, the Ajeet II was built in 36 specimen (plus two prototypes and two static airframes) and proved to be a formidable air combat opponent at low to medium altitude. It could easily outmaneuver more powerful aircraft like the MiG-21, and the afterburner improved acceleration as well as rate of climb considerably. Its guided missile armament also meant that it could engage at longer ranges and did not have to rely on its cannons alone. The Ajeet II's ground attack capabilities were improved through a higher ordnance payload (3.000 lb vs. 2.000 lb of the Ajeet I)
But the light fighter concept was soon outdated. The Ajeet I was retired in 1991 and, unlike the IAF Gnats, never saw combat. The Ajeet II was kept in service only a little longer, and its retirement started in 1994. The remaining machines were concentrated in one single squadron, but this, too, was disbanded soon and switched to the MiG-29. The last Ajeet II flew in late 1997.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 10,54 m (34 ft 6 2/3 in)
Wingspan: 8,57 m (28 ft 1 in)
Height: 2.80 m (9 ft 3 in)
Wing area: 16.4 m² (177 ft²)
Aspect ratio: 3.56
Empty weight: 3,100 kg (6,830 lb)
Loaded weight: 5,440 kg (11,990 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 5,500 kg (12,100 lb)
Powerplant:
2× Rolls-Royce Viper 601-22 turbojets, rated at 3,750 lbf (16.7 kN) dry
and 4,500 lbf (20.0 kN) with afterburner
Performance:
Maximum speed: 1,152 km/h (622 knots, 716 mph) at sea level
Range: 1,150 km (621 nmi, 715 mi)
Service ceiling: 45,000 ft (13,720 m)
Wing loading: 331 kg/m² (67.8 lb/ft²)
Rate of clim: 12,150 ft/min (61.7 m/s)
Armament:
2× 30 mm ADEN cannons with 90 rounds each
Up to 3.000 lb (1.360 kg) of external stores on four underwing hardpoints
The kit and its assembly:
Well, this whiffy Gnat/Ajeet was actually born through an incomplete Matchbox kit that I bought in a lot a while ago. It lacked decals, but also the canopy... Vacu replacements are available, but I rather put the kit on the conversion list, potentially into a single seater.
Since I'd have to improvise and modify the fuselage anyway, I decided to take the idea further ans create a "supersonic Gnat". Folland actually had such designs on the drawing board, but I do not think that the company considered a twin jet layout? That idea struck me when I held a PM Model F-5A in my hands and looked at the small J85 engine nozzles. Could that...?
From there things evolved, a bit like what Fiat did with the G.91 that was turned into the G.91Y. I wanted the Gnat to become bigger, also in order to justify the two engines and the wider tail. Therefore I cut the fuselage in front of the air intakes and behind the wings and inserted plugs, each ~6mm. Not much, but it helps. I also found new wings and stabilizers in the scrap box: from a Revell Fiat G.91. More slender, more sweep, and a slightly bigger span so that the overall proportions were kept. A good addition to the sleek Gnat/Ajeet. The fin was left OOB.
Another personal addition is the radar nose - I found the Gnat trainer's nose to be rather pointed and long, and the radome (IIRC from an F-4E!) was more Ajeet-style, even though of different shape and suggesting a radar dish underneath.
The new canopy is a donation from a Mastercraft (ex KP/Kopro) LWS Iskra trainer. Even though the Ajeet II is a single seater I used the Iskra’s two-seater option in order to fill the gap above the Gnat's second seat. I just cut the Iskra canopy in two parts and used the rear half as a fuselage/spine plug – fit was pretty good.
The fuselage extension and the new tail section necessitated massive putty work, but the result is surprisingly organic and retains the Ajeet's profile - the whif factor is rather subtle. ^^
The landing gear was taken OOB, the cockpit interior was improvised after the fuselage was more or less finished with parts from the original kit, plus an extra dashboard.
Painting and markings:
Surely this was to become an Indian Air Force aircraft, and for the paint scheme I took inspiration from the manifold IAF MiG-21s and the garish combat training markings of Indian aircraft.
The scheme is inspired by MiG-21MF "C2776" of IAF 26 Sqn "Warriors“ and “C2283” of 3 Sqn “Cobras”: a basically all-grey aircraft, with added camouflage on the upper side, plus bright fin colors.
The camouflage consists of Humbrol 127 (FS 36375) for the lower surfaces and in some areas where it would show through the added paint: a basic coat of Humbrol 108 (a murky, dark olive drab) with large mottles in a mix of Humbrol 62 and a bit of 80 (Sand and Grass Green). Rather odd, but when you look at the pics (esp. in flight) this seems to be very effective!
The fin decoration actually comes from an ESCI Harrier GR.3 (RAF 4 Sqn flash), roundels and other markings were puzzled together, among others, from the Iskra donation kit.
The cockpit interior was kept in a very dark grey while the landing gear and the air intakes are Aluminum.
A small project, literally, and a subtle one. While this aircraft looks a lot like a simple IAF Ajeet, there's actually hardly anything left from the original aircraft! And the paint scheme is spectacular - India has a lot to offer! :)
+++ 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 HAL Ajeet II (Sanskrit: अजित, for Invincible or Unconquerable) was a development of the British Folland Gnat fighter that was built under license in India by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited.
The Indian Air Force (IAF) operated the Folland Gnat light jet fighter from 1958, with over 200 aircraft being license built by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). The aircraft proved successful in combat in both the 1965 and the 1971 War with Pakistan, both in the low-level air superiority role and for short range ground attack missions, while being cheap to build and operate. It had unreliable systems, though, particularly the control system, and was difficult to maintain.
The Indian Air Force therefore issued a requirement for an improved Gnat in 1972. Although the original requirement called for an interceptor, it was later modified to include a secondary ground-attack role.
The aircraft was given the name "Ajeet" and the changes from the original Gnat were considerable.
They included:
- Improvements to the hydraulics and control systems (these had been a source of difficulties in the Gnat).
- Fitting of improved Martin-Baker GF4 ejection seats.
- Upgraded avionics.
- The addition of slab tail control surfaces.
- Improvements to the landing gear.
- Additional internal fuel capacity with "wet wings" to free the original pair of underwing pylons for weapons.
- Installation of two more underwing hardpoints.
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited modified the final two Gnats on the production line as prototypes for the Ajeet, with the first one flying on 6 March 1975, with the second following on 5 November. Testing proved successful of the Ajeet, and it became the first production aircraft flew on 30 September 1976. Visually, the Ajeet appeared similar to the Gnat, with the presence of two extra hardpoints being the only obvious distinguishing features from the older aircraft.
The Ajeet entered service with the IAF in 1977, but this was not the end of the Gnat/Ajeet's development potential. A HAL project for a trainer based on the Ajeet was begun, leading to the initial flight of a prototype in 1982. Unfortunately this aircraft was lost in a crash later that year. A second prototype flew the following year, followed by a third. But a lack of government interest and the imminent phase-out of the aircraft meant no more examples were produced.
Another, more radical Gnat derivate was more successful, the supersonic Ajeet II. The development of this aircraft started in 1978, and while the Ajeet II outwardly looked very much like its 1st generation kin, it was an almost completely different aircraft.
Basic idea had been to get the Ajeet up to the performance of the Northrop F-5A Freedom Fighter - with major focus on speed and overall better performance. It was soon clear that the original, the single HAL/Bristol Siddeley Orpheus 701-01 turbojet with 20.0 kN (4,500 lbf) of thrust would not suffice. Consequently, HAL engineers worked on the internal structure of the Gnat/Ajeet to cramp two smaller Rolls Royce Viper engines with indigenous afterburners into the fuselage.
At full power the small aircraft was now powered with almost twice as much power, but modifications were considerable, including new air intakes with shock cones and new ducts, which necessitated a lower location of the Aden cannons under the intakes instead of their flanks.
The rear fuselage had to be widened and lengthened accordingly, and the wings were also completely new, with a thinner profile, less depth and a higher sweep at quarter chord. The wing area was ~30% bigger than before and also offered an increased internal space for fuel.
The elongated forward fuselage was used for an additional fuel tank as well as more sophisticated avionics - including a RP-21 radar that was also installed in the license-built Indian MiG-21. The new systems allowed the use of R-3S 'Atoll') AAMs (of Soviet or Chinese origin) or French Matra Magic AAMs, four of which could be carried under the wings.
The development of the engines was protracted, though, especially the afterburner went through a lot of teething troubles, so that development aircraft had to get by without th extra performance punch. The first Ajeet II prototype flew in 1984 and the type was ready for service in 1986 and adopted by two fighter squadrons which started to retire the 1st generation Gnats and also some Hunters. Anyway, upon commissioning it was already clear that the Ajeet II would not have a bright future, as the classic gun fighter had become more and more obsolete.
Nevertheless, the Ajeet II was built in 36 specimen (plus two prototypes and two static airframes) and proved to be a formidable air combat opponent at low to medium altitude. It could easily outmaneuver more powerful aircraft like the MiG-21, and the afterburner improved acceleration as well as rate of climb considerably. Its guided missile armament also meant that it could engage at longer ranges and did not have to rely on its cannons alone. The Ajeet II's ground attack capabilities were improved through a higher ordnance payload (3.000 lb vs. 2.000 lb of the Ajeet I)
But the light fighter concept was soon outdated. The Ajeet I was retired in 1991 and, unlike the IAF Gnats, never saw combat. The Ajeet II was kept in service only a little longer, and its retirement started in 1994. The remaining machines were concentrated in one single squadron, but this, too, was disbanded soon and switched to the MiG-29. The last Ajeet II flew in late 1997.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 10,54 m (34 ft 6 2/3 in)
Wingspan: 8,57 m (28 ft 1 in)
Height: 2.80 m (9 ft 3 in)
Wing area: 16.4 m² (177 ft²)
Aspect ratio: 3.56
Empty weight: 3,100 kg (6,830 lb)
Loaded weight: 5,440 kg (11,990 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 5,500 kg (12,100 lb)
Powerplant:
2× Rolls-Royce Viper 601-22 turbojets, rated at 3,750 lbf (16.7 kN) dry
and 4,500 lbf (20.0 kN) with afterburner
Performance:
Maximum speed: 1,152 km/h (622 knots, 716 mph) at sea level
Range: 1,150 km (621 nmi, 715 mi)
Service ceiling: 45,000 ft (13,720 m)
Wing loading: 331 kg/m² (67.8 lb/ft²)
Rate of clim: 12,150 ft/min (61.7 m/s)
Armament:
2× 30 mm ADEN cannons with 90 rounds each
Up to 3.000 lb (1.360 kg) of external stores on four underwing hardpoints
The kit and its assembly:
Well, this whiffy Gnat/Ajeet was actually born through an incomplete Matchbox kit that I bought in a lot a while ago. It lacked decals, but also the canopy... Vacu replacements are available, but I rather put the kit on the conversion list, potentially into a single seater.
Since I'd have to improvise and modify the fuselage anyway, I decided to take the idea further ans create a "supersonic Gnat". Folland actually had such designs on the drawing board, but I do not think that the company considered a twin jet layout? That idea struck me when I held a PM Model F-5A in my hands and looked at the small J85 engine nozzles. Could that...?
From there things evolved, a bit like what Fiat did with the G.91 that was turned into the G.91Y. I wanted the Gnat to become bigger, also in order to justify the two engines and the wider tail. Therefore I cut the fuselage in front of the air intakes and behind the wings and inserted plugs, each ~6mm. Not much, but it helps. I also found new wings and stabilizers in the scrap box: from a Revell Fiat G.91. More slender, more sweep, and a slightly bigger span so that the overall proportions were kept. A good addition to the sleek Gnat/Ajeet. The fin was left OOB.
Another personal addition is the radar nose - I found the Gnat trainer's nose to be rather pointed and long, and the radome (IIRC from an F-4E!) was more Ajeet-style, even though of different shape and suggesting a radar dish underneath.
The new canopy is a donation from a Mastercraft (ex KP/Kopro) LWS Iskra trainer. Even though the Ajeet II is a single seater I used the Iskra’s two-seater option in order to fill the gap above the Gnat's second seat. I just cut the Iskra canopy in two parts and used the rear half as a fuselage/spine plug – fit was pretty good.
The fuselage extension and the new tail section necessitated massive putty work, but the result is surprisingly organic and retains the Ajeet's profile - the whif factor is rather subtle. ^^
The landing gear was taken OOB, the cockpit interior was improvised after the fuselage was more or less finished with parts from the original kit, plus an extra dashboard.
Painting and markings:
Surely this was to become an Indian Air Force aircraft, and for the paint scheme I took inspiration from the manifold IAF MiG-21s and the garish combat training markings of Indian aircraft.
The scheme is inspired by MiG-21MF "C2776" of IAF 26 Sqn "Warriors“ and “C2283” of 3 Sqn “Cobras”: a basically all-grey aircraft, with added camouflage on the upper side, plus bright fin colors.
The camouflage consists of Humbrol 127 (FS 36375) for the lower surfaces and in some areas where it would show through the added paint: a basic coat of Humbrol 108 (a murky, dark olive drab) with large mottles in a mix of Humbrol 62 and a bit of 80 (Sand and Grass Green). Rather odd, but when you look at the pics (esp. in flight) this seems to be very effective!
The fin decoration actually comes from an ESCI Harrier GR.3 (RAF 4 Sqn flash), roundels and other markings were puzzled together, among others, from the Iskra donation kit.
The cockpit interior was kept in a very dark grey while the landing gear and the air intakes are Aluminum.
A small project, literally, and a subtle one. While this aircraft looks a lot like a simple IAF Ajeet, there's actually hardly anything left from the original aircraft! And the paint scheme is spectacular - India has a lot to offer! :)
190605-N-SS350-0007 GULF OF OMAN (June 5, 2019) Gunner’s Mate Seaman James Crouse, from Gloversville, N.Y., performs a maintenance check on the Mark 38 25mm gun control system aboard the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Bainbridge (DDG 96). Bainbridge is deployed to the U.S. 5th Fleet areas of operations in support of naval operations to ensure maritime stability and security in the Central Region, connecting the Mediterranean and Pacific through the Western Indian Ocean and three strategic choke points. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Jason Waite/Released)
Zinnia plants from the Veggie ground control system are being harvested in the Flight Equipment Development Laboratory in the Space Station Processing Facility at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Some of the zinnia flowers will be pressed in books. A similar zinnia harvest will be conducted by astronaut Scott Kelly on the International Space Station. Photo credit: NASA/Bill White
When I image I often choose a primary target for the evening and have a secondary target in mind just in case I have a bit of time left over after imaging the primary. This was the case for the attached. After shooting various objects this fall (e.g. The Heart Nebula which I have yet to complete and process, or The Veil Nebula, a link to a composite of which is attached here:
www.flickr.com/photos/homcavobservatory/51551231638/ ) and finding I had a bit more time left some of those evenings, I used the Cave Nebula as my secondary target.
Object Details: The attached composite shows a variety of nebulae that reside along the border between the constellations of Cassiopeia and Cepheus. Most are relatively faint and are included in the catalog of 313 H II regions (i.e. emission nebulae) compiled by Stewart Sharpless and thus carry the designation Sh2-XXX.
In the case of those shown here, three also carry 'common' names reflective of their appearance. At center of this wide-field image is 'The Cave Nebula' (Sh2-155), at center left 'The Bubble Nebula' (Sh2-162) and at lower left can be seen 'The Lobster Claw Nebula' (Sh2-157). As noted in the annotated text, a few other Sh2 objects are also visible in this field-of-view (e.g. Sh2-161, 158, 159 & 154).
Being regions of ionized hydrogen, they glow in the red portion of the visible spectrum and are best represented in 'true color' by the upper left image (HOO) which utilizes the Hydrogen-alpha filter for the red channel, and the Oxygen III filter as both green and blue channels (since the H-alpha wavelength lies in the red, while the O III wavelength lies between green and blue wavelengths in the visible spectrum). At lower right is a version using the famous SHO (Sulfur II, Hydrogen-alpha, Oxygen III) 'Hubble palette'. The field-of-view of the attached frames span approximately 6 1/2 degrees horizonally by x 4 1/2 degrees vertically in our sky (as a comparison your fist held at arm's length spans approximately 10 degrees horizontally).
The Cave Nebula itself spans about 1 degree by 1/2 degree in our sky, and lying about 2400 light-years from Earth, is actually about 35 light-years in diameter. The Lobster Claw Nebula is about 400 light-years across and is just over 11,000 light-years distant while The Bubble Nebula is also just over 11,000 light-years away, with the spherical bubble itself being about 7 light-years in diameter (a couple images of The Bubble Nebula I took back in 2013 can be found at the link attached here -
www.flickr.com/photos/homcavobservatory/10619807955/in/al... ).
Image Details: Being probably the longest total integration time I have yet to shoot for a single FOV, the attached is a stack of eighty-eight five-minute exposures totaling 7 hours & 20 minutes (excluding the dark & flat calibration times of course).
As stated in the annotations on the composite, they were taken using a very old 55mm focal length SLR (i.e. film-based) camera lens stopped down to f/4 and attached to a monochrome Starlight Xpress MX-716 CCD utilizing H-alpha, OII and SII narrowband filters.
The optics were tracked on a Losmandy G-11 running a Gemini 2 control system and guided by PHD2 using a ZWO ASI290MC auto-guider / planetary camera in an 80MM, f/5 Celestron 'short-tube' refractor. Processed using a combination of PixInsight, Maxim/DL & PaintShopPro, as shown here the color images have been resized down to 75 percent of their original size. The monochrome (H-alpha) image at center was processed using PixInsight & PaintShopPro and since humans tend to see detail in an image via the brightness and contrast (as opposed to the color), I have left it at it's full (albeit limited) resolution. After compositing and annotation, the entire composite's bit depth has been reduced to 8 bits per channel and is presented here in an HD format.
As is often the case these days, I was also shooting the attached simultaneously using twin unmodded Canon 700D DSLRs on an 80mm, f/6 apo. and an 8-inch, f/7 Criterion newt. with the apo & the camera lens / CCD both piggybacked on the 8-inch.
Given the optics & camera used for the attached, and the inherent under-sampling from such a combination, I was fairly pleased with the results. Although shot with uncooled cameras I'm looking forward to seeing how The Cave Nebula images taken with the DSLRs through the 80MM apo. & 8-inch newt. turn out.
Wishing clear, dark & calm skies to all !
Object Details: The movement of the 'false nucleus' of Comet 46P/Wirtanen against the background stars as it appeared over a period of eight minutes of elapsed time on the evening of December 4, 2018.
Image Details: An mp4 file containing a short time-lapse sequence of ten thirty-second exposures taken by Jay Edwards at the HomCav Observatory in Maine, NY using an 8-inch, f/7 Criterion newtonian reflector and an unmodded Canon 700D DSLR. This scope was tracked using a Losmandy G-11 mount running a Gemini 2 control system, which in turn was autoguided using PHD2 with a ZWO ASI290MC planetary camera / autoguider in an 80mm f/6 Celestron 'short-tube' piggybacked on the 8-inch. Since the size of the comet's coma was too large for the focal length of this scope (i.e. the FOV was too small to contain the entire coma's apparent size - which was larger than that of the full moon at the time); that evening I was mainly focused on imaging the comet using a wide-field scope (a link to which is attached below). However, since the 80mm apo. used for the wide-field shot was piggybacked on the 8-inch, and I had an second identical camera attached to the 8-inch, the images for the attached time-lapse took little additional effort to obtain. If weather permits I hope to take a longer time-lapsed sequence of this object in the future and process the images in a more aesthetically pleasing manner. The link to wide-field image referenced above is attached here - www.flickr.com/photos/homcavobservatory/45487295394/
Note: A second animated sequence taken (thru high clouds) during the comet's perihelion on Dec. 12th can be found at the link attached here: www.flickr.com/photos/homcavobservatory/46293890592/
A contemporary -- and operational -- ATCS display sits atop a vintage US&S CTC machine at the North Carolina Transportation Museum, Spencer, NC. 2017-08-20
“PREPARING FOR REENTRY--Following separation of the command module from the service module, the reaction control system engines are ignited to turn the command module with the thickest part of the aft heat shield forward. The command module speed builds up to almost 25,000 miles an hour as it enters the earth’s atmosphere at an altitude of about 400,000 feet (76 miles). Apollo spacecraft command service modules are produced by North American’s Space Division, Downey, Calif., for NASA’s Manned Spacecraft Center.”
Note the 'vertical' orientation of the negative pitch thrusters (shown firing) in the far left attitude depiction of the capsule, this being the Block I design of the Command Module.
In color, at the wonderful "HACK THE MOON" website, albeit with an incorrect description...unless it was indeed resurrected for Apollo 8:
wehackthemoon.com/sites/default/files/styles/hero_extra_l...
A Boeing E-3 Sentry flying at the Thunder Over the Heartland Air Show at Topeka Regional Airport (aka Forbes Field)
This E-3 is equipped with that Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS). This E-3 is stationed at 552nd Air Control Wing at Tinker AFB, Oklahoma.
Aircraft Registration: 75-0557
Topeka, Kansas
Sunday afternoon 27 June 2021
Object Details: The attached shows galaxy M106 (aka NGC 4258), a spiral located approximately 20 to 25 million light-years from Earth, as well as the smaller NGC 4248 which can be seen to it's lower left.
M106 contains about 400 billion stars and has a diameter of 135,000 light-years. It is one of the closest examples of a Seyfert galaxy - i.e. a galaxy (nearly always a spiral) where huge amounts of dust and gas are feeding an extremely active supermassive black hole at the center. Spanning nearly 19 arc-minutes in length, over half the apparent diameter of the full moon, it glows at magnitude 9.1 & can be found in the constellation of Canes Venatici.
Image Details: Image Details: The attached was taken by Jay Edwards at the HomCav Observatory on the evening of March 26, 2019 using an 8-inch, f/7 Criterion newtonian reflector and a Canon 700D DSLR tracked on a Losmandy G-11 mount running a Gemini 2 control system. This in turn was guided using PHD2 to control a ZWO ASI290MC planetary camera / auto-guider in an 80mm f/6 Celestron 'short-tube' refractor.
Although it is a stack totaling only 45 minutes of exposure (not including darks, flats & bias frames) and therefore contains much more noise than desired, I was fairly pleased with the result and am looking forward to trying a longer exposure in the future.
Processed using Deep Sky Stacker, PixInsight and PaintShopPro, as presented here it has been cropped slightly, resized down to HD resolution and the bit depth has been lowered to 8 bits per channel.
As an aerospace engineer, I am on a team that is developing algorithms for the flight control system on the Space Launch System (SLS), NASA's new heavy-lift launch vehicle that will allow future explorers to travel farther into our solar system than ever before. That system is the "brain" of the vehicle, designed to steer it along the path to its destination in orbit. Our team has spent months working with engineers at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center to turn their F-18 fighter jet into a working test bed for those algorithms.
We have 18 test cases for the F-18 test series, each simulating some off-nominal conditions, like higher thrust than anticipated or the presence of wind gusts, to see if the flight control algorithm responds as we designed it to do. The tests might reveal something we hadn't thought about in our algorithm, which we can go back and modify as necessary.
I've always had in interest in NASA, and working on a fast-paced project like this that will actually fly and that will benefit SLS in the future is really cool. I'm really lucky to be a part of it and to work with some of the most talented engineers in the NASA community.
My advice to students is to find an activity outside of your classes that allows you to apply what you’re learning to real things -- be it research, a club or a hobby. The practical knowledge will enable you to learn more effectively in lectures, will help you decide whether you’re going into the right field and will prepare you for the work you’ll be doing after you graduate.
Image credit: NASA/MSFC
Original image:
www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/i-am-building-sls-gi...
More "I Am Building SLS" profiles:
www.flickr.com/photos/nasamarshall/sets/72157644513255476/
More about SLS:
www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/index.html
Space Launch System Flickr photoset:
www.flickr.com/photos/28634332@N05/sets/72157627559536895/
_______________________________
These official NASA photographs are being made available for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photographs. The photographs may not be used in materials, advertisements, products, or promotions that in any way suggest approval or endorsement by NASA. All Images used must be credited. For information on usage rights please visit: www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/features/MP_Photo_Guidelin...
U.S. Air Force Fact Sheet
E-3 SENTRY (AWACS)
E-3 Sentry celebrates 30 years in Air Force's fleet
Mission
The E-3 Sentry is an airborne warning and control system, or AWACS, aircraft with an integrated command and control battle management, or C2BM, surveillance, target detection, and tracking platform. The aircraft provides an accurate, real-time picture of the battlespace to the Joint Air Operations Center. AWACS provides situational awareness of friendly, neutral and hostile activity, command and control of an area of responsibility, battle management of theater forces, all-altitude and all-weather surveillance of the battle space, and early warning of enemy actions during joint, allied, and coalition operations.
Features
The E-3 Sentry is a modified Boeing 707/320 commercial airframe with a rotating radar dome. The dome is 30 feet (9.1 meters) in diameter, six feet (1.8 meters) thick, and is held 11 feet (3.33 meters) above the fuselage by two struts. It contains a radar subsystem that permits surveillance from the Earth's surface up into the stratosphere, over land or water. The radar has a range of more than 250 miles (375.5 kilometers). The radar combined with an identification friend or foe, or IFF, subsystem can look down to detect, identify and track enemy and friendly low-flying aircraft by eliminating ground clutter returns that confuse other radar systems.
Major subsystems in the E-3 are avionics, navigation, communications, sensors (radar and passive detection) and identification tools (IFF/SIF). The mission suite includes consoles that display computer-processed data in graphic and tabular format on video screens. Mission crew members perform surveillance, identification, weapons control, battle management and communications functions.
The radar and computer subsystems on the E-3 Sentry can gather and present broad and detailed battlefield information. This includes position and tracking information on enemy aircraft and ships, and location and status of friendly aircraft and naval vessels. The information can be sent to major command and control centers in rear areas or aboard ships. In time of crisis, this data can also be forwarded to the president and secretary of defense.
In support of air-to-ground operations, the Sentry can provide direct information needed for interdiction, reconnaissance, airlift and close-air support for friendly ground forces. It can also provide information for commanders of air operations to gain and maintain control of the air battle.
As an air defense system, E-3s can detect, identify and track airborne enemy forces far from the boundaries of the United States or NATO countries. It can direct fighter-interceptor aircraft to these enemy targets. Experience has proven that the E-3 Sentry can respond quickly and effectively to a crisis and support worldwide military deployment operations.
AWACS may be employed alone or horizontally integrated in combination with other C2BM and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance elements of the Theater Air Control System. It supports decentralized execution of the air tasking order/air combat order. The system provides the ability to find, fix, track and target airborne or maritime threats and to detect, locate and ID emitters. It has the ability to detect threats and control assets below and beyond the coverage of ground-based command and control or C2, and can exchange data with other C2 systems and shooters via datalinks.
With its mobility as an airborne warning and control system, the Sentry has a greater chance of surviving in warfare than a fixed, ground-based radar system. Among other things, the Sentry's flight path can quickly be changed according to mission and survival requirements. The E-3 can fly a mission profile approximately 8 hours without refueling. Its range and on-station time can be increased through in-flight refueling and the use of an on-board crew rest area.
Background
Engineering, test and evaluation began on the first E-3 Sentry in October 1975. In March 1977 the 552nd Airborne Warning and Control Wing (now 552nd Air Control Wing, Tinker Air Force Base, Okla.), received the first E-3s.
There are 32 aircraft in the U.S. inventory. Air Combat Command has 27 E-3s at Tinker. Pacific Air Forces has four E-3 Sentries at Kadena AB, Japan and Elmendorf AFB, Alaska. There is also one test aircraft at the Boeing Aircraft Company in Seattle.
NATO has 17 E-3A's and support equipment. The first E-3 was delivered to NATO in January 1982. The United Kingdom has seven E-3s, France has four, and Saudi Arabia has five. Japan has four AWACS built on the Boeing 767 airframe.
As proven in operations Desert Storm, Allied Force, Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom, and Odyssey Dawn/Unified Protector the E-3 Sentry is the world's premier C2BM aircraft. AWACS aircraft and crews were instrumental to the successful completion of operations Northern and Southern Watch, and are still engaged in operations Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom. They provide radar surveillance and control in addition to providing senior leadership with time-critical information on the actions of enemy forces. The E-3 has also deployed to support humanitarian relief operations in the U.S. following Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, coordinating rescue efforts between military and civilian authorities.
The data collection capability of the E-3 radar and computer subsystems allowed an entire air war to be recorded for the first time in the history of aerial warfare.
In March 1996, the Air Force activated the 513th Air Control Group, an AWACS Reserve Associate Program unit which performs duties on active-duty aircraft.
During the spring of 1999, the first AWACS aircraft went through the Radar System Improvement Program. RSIP is a joint U.S./NATO development program that involved a major hardware and software intensive modification to the existing radar system. Installation of RSIP enhanced the operational capability of the E-3 radar electronic counter-measures and has improved the system's reliability, maintainability and availability.
The AWACS modernization program, Block 40/45, is currently underway. Bock 40/45 represents a revolutionary change for AWACS and worldwide Joint Command and Control, Battle Management, and Wide Area Surveillance. It is the most significant counter-air battle management improvement in Combat Air Forces tactical Command and Control history. The Block 40/45 Mission Computer and Display upgrade replaces current 1970 vintage mission computing and displays with a true open system and commercial off-the-shelf hardware and software, giving AWACS crews the modern computing tools needed to perform, and vastly improve mission capability. Estimated fleet upgrades completion in ~2020.
General Characteristics
Primary Function: Airborne battle management, command and control
Contractor: Boeing Aerospace Co.
Power Plant: Four Pratt and Whitney TF33-PW-100A turbofan engines
Thrust: 20,500 pounds each engine at sea level
Rotodome: 30 feet in diameter (9.1 meters), 6 feet thick (1.8 meters), mounted 11 feet (3.33 meters) above fuselage
Wingspan: 145 feet, 9 inches (44.4 meters)
Length: 152 feet, 11 inches (46.6 meters)
Height: 41 feet, 9 inches (13 meters)
Weight: 205,000 pounds (zero fuel) (92,986 kilograms)
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 325,000 pounds (147,418 kilograms)
Fuel Capacity: 21,000 gallons (79,494 liters)
Speed: optimum cruise 360 mph (Mach 0.48)
Range: more than 5,000 nautical miles (9,250 kilometers)
Ceiling: Above 29,000 feet (8,788 meters)
Crew: Flight crew of four plus mission crew of 13-19 specialists (mission crew size varies according to mission)
Unit Cost: $270 million (fiscal 98 constant dollars)
Initial operating capability: April 1978
Inventory: Active force, 32 (1 test); Reserve, 0; Guard, 0
Point of Contact
Air Combat Command, Public Affairs Office; 130 Andrews St., Suite 202; Langley AFB, VA 23665-1987; DSN 574-5007 or 757-764-5007; e-mail: accpa.operations@langley.af.mil
Object Details: Mother Nature seems to be bringing us a new sunspot group. The attached is a quick composite showing the departure of sunspot group AR3004 at right and a yet to be numbered region that is just rotating on today at left.
In spite of the fact that the winds were troublesome today and the seeing was 'less-than-desirable' to say the least (the effect of which was making the Sun's limb appear to ripple, as can be seen along portions of these single-frame shots), I'm looking forward to seeing what I can pull out of the data once it is stacked & processed,
Given the attached are just single-frames with very low signal-to-noise ratios and it may be easier to determine once the data are stack & processed; the relatively high amount of faculae (brighter & hotter regions) surrounding the the new sunspot group that the images hint at may indicate this region could be fairly active in the days and weeks to come.
Stay tuned !
Image Details: The images making up this composite were taken by Jay Edwards on the afternoon of May 8, 2022 from the RoR observatory I built at my home here in upstate, NY using a vintage 1970, 8-inch, f/7 Criterion newtonian reflector with a home-made Baader (visual grade material) off-axis solar filter and a ZWO ASI290MC planetary camera / auto-guider.
As mentioned above the are single-frames captured from videos consisting of several thousand frames that I have yet to stack or process.
The ASI290MC was placed at prime focus and was controlled by SharpCap Pro and the scope was tracked using a Losmandy G-11 goto mount running a Gemini 2 control system.
I also took shots of the new group using a UV filter, and AR3004 using a UV, IR & Methane filters (all in addition to the over-the-aperture Baader filter of course) as well as a Orion ED80T CF (i.e. an 80MM, f/6 carbon-fiber apochromatic refractor) with a 0.8X Televue field-flattener / focal reducer and a Canon 700D (t5i) DSLR controlled by APT, but have yet to examine any of that data.
As shown here the entire composite has been resized down to HD (half of it's original resolution).
I'm hoping the new group brings us some wonderful geomagnetic activity as it traverses the Sun's Earth-facing side.
Happy Mother's Day To All !!!
Similar composites or various solar system objects, many using additional wavelengths, can be found at the links attached below:
Solar:
www.flickr.com/photos/homcavobservatory/52056574582/
www.flickr.com/photos/homcavobservatory/52034939249/
www.flickr.com/photos/homcavobservatory/51992208177/
www.flickr.com/photos/homcavobservatory/51948806640/
www.flickr.com/photos/homcavobservatory/51747214403/
www.flickr.com/photos/homcavobservatory/50815383151/
www.flickr.com/photos/homcavobservatory/50657578913/
www.flickr.com/photos/homcavobservatory/51027134346/
www.flickr.com/photos/homcavobservatory/51295865404/
Saturn:
www.flickr.com/photos/homcavobservatory/51489515877/
www.flickr.com/photos/homcavobservatory/51345118465/
www.flickr.com/photos/homcavobservatory/51007634042/
www.flickr.com/photos/homcavobservatory/51316298333/
www.flickr.com/photos/homcavobservatory/50347485511/
www.flickr.com/photos/homcavobservatory/50088602376/
Jupiter:
www.flickr.com/photos/homcavobservatory/51405393195/
www.flickr.com/photos/homcavobservatory/51679394534/
www.flickr.com/photos/homcavobservatory/51307264271/
www.flickr.com/photos/homcavobservatory/50303645602/
www.flickr.com/photos/homcavobservatory/50052655691/
www.flickr.com/photos/homcavobservatory/50123276377/
www.flickr.com/photos/homcavobservatory/50185470067/
www.flickr.com/photos/homcavobservatory/50993968018/
www.flickr.com/photos/homcavobservatory/51090643939/
Mars:
www.flickr.com/photos/homcavobservatory/50425593297/
www.flickr.com/photos/homcavobservatory/50594729106/
Seeking F22 Raptors, we only found F15's and plenty of them.
The F-15 Eagle is an all-weather, extremely maneuverable, tactical fighter designed to permit the Air Force to gain and maintain air supremacy over the battlefield.
Features
The Eagle's air superiority is achieved through a mixture of unprecedented maneuverability and acceleration, range, weapons and avionics. It can penetrate enemy defense and outperform and outfight any current enemy aircraft. The F-15 has electronic systems and weaponry to detect, acquire, track and attack enemy aircraft while operating in friendly or enemy-controlled airspace. The weapons and flight control systems are designed so one person can safely and effectively perform air-to-air combat.
The F-15's superior maneuverability and acceleration are achieved through high engine thrust-to-weight ratio and low wing loading. Low wing-loading (the ratio of aircraft weight to its wing area) is a vital factor in maneuverability and, combined with the high thrust-to-weight ratio, enables the aircraft to turn tightly without losing airspeed.
A multimission avionics system sets the F-15 apart from other fighter aircraft. It includes a head-up display, advanced radar, inertial navigation system, flight instruments, ultrahigh frequency communications, tactical navigation system and instrument landing system. It also has an internally mounted, tactical electronic-warfare system, "identification friend or foe" system, electronic countermeasures set and a central digital computer.
The pilot's head-up display projects on the windscreen all essential flight information gathered by the integrated avionics system. This display, visible in any light condition, provides information necessary to track and destroy an enemy aircraft without having to look down at cockpit instruments.
The F-15's versatile pulse-Doppler radar system can look up at high-flying targets and down at low-flying targets without being confused by ground clutter. It can detect and track aircraft and small high-speed targets at distances beyond visual range down to close range, and at altitudes down to treetop level. The radar feeds target information into the central computer for effective weapons delivery. For close-in dogfights, the radar automatically acquires enemy aircraft, and this information is projected on the head-up display. The F-15's electronic warfare system provides both threat warning and automatic countermeasures against selected threats.
A variety of air-to-air weaponry can be carried by the F-15. An automated weapon system enables the pilot to perform aerial combat safely and effectively, using the head-up display and the avionics and weapons controls located on the engine throttles or control stick. When the pilot changes from one weapon system to another, visual guidance for the required weapon automatically appears on the head-up display.
The Eagle can be armed with combinations of different air-to-air weapons: AIM-120 advanced medium range air-to-air missiles on its lower fuselage corners, AIM-9L/M Sidewinder or AIM-120 missiles on two pylons under the wings, and an internal 20mm Gatling gun in the right wing root.
The F-15E is a two-seat, dual-role, totally integrated fighter for all-weather, air-to-air and deep interdiction missions. The rear cockpit is upgraded to include four multi-purpose CRT displays for aircraft systems and weapons management. The digital, triple-redundant Lear Siegler flight control system permits coupled automatic terrain following, enhanced by a ring-laser gyro inertial navigation system.
For low-altitude, high-speed penetration and precision attack on tactical targets at night or in adverse weather, the F-15E carries a high-resolution APG-70 radar and low-altitude navigation and targeting infrared for night pods
Background
The first F-15A flight was made in July 1972, and the first flight of the two-seat F-15B (formerly TF-15A) trainer was made in July 1973. The first Eagle (F-15B) was delivered in November 1974. In January 1976, the first Eagle destined for a combat squadron was delivered.
The single-seat F-15C and two-seat F-15D models entered the Air Force inventory beginning in 1979. These new models have Production Eagle Package (PEP 2000) improvements, including 2,000 pounds (900 kilograms) of additional internal fuel, provision for carrying exterior conformal fuel tanks and increased maximum takeoff weight of up to 68,000 pounds (30,600 kilograms).
The F-15 Multistage Improvement Program was initiated in February 1983, with the first production MSIP F-15C produced in 1985. Improvements included an upgraded central computer; a Programmable Armament Control Set, allowing for advanced versions of the AIM-7, AIM-9, and AIM-120A missiles; and an expanded Tactical Electronic Warfare System that provides improvements to the ALR-56C radar warning receiver and ALQ-135 countermeasure set. The final 43 included a Hughes APG-70 radar.
F-15C, D and E models were deployed to the Persian Gulf in 1991 in support of Operation Desert Storm where they proved their superior combat capability. F-15C fighters accounted for 34 of the 37 Air Force air-to-air victories. F-15E's were operated mainly at night, hunting SCUD missile launchers and artillery sites using the LANTIRN system.
They have since been deployed for air expeditionary force deployments and operations Southern Watch (no-fly zone in Southern Iraq), Provide Comfort in Turkey, Allied Force in Bosnia, Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Iraqi Freedom in Iraq.
General Characteristics
Primary function: Tactical fighter
Contractor: McDonnell Douglas Corp.
Power plant: Two Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-100, 220 or 229 turbofan engines with afterburners
Thrust: (C/D models) 23,450 pounds each engine
Wingspan: 42.8 feet (13 meters)
Length: 63.8 feet (19.44 meters)
Height: 18.5 feet (5.6 meters)
Weight: 31,700 pounds
Maximum takeoff weight: (C/D models) 68,000 pounds (30,844 kilograms)
Fuel Capacity: 36,200 pounds (three external plus conformal fuel tanks)
Payload: depends on mission
Speed: 1,875 mph (Mach 2 class)
Ceiling: 65,000 feet (19,812 meters)
Range: 3,450 miles (3,000 nautical miles) ferry range with conformal fuel tanks and three external fuel tanks
Crew: F-15A/C: one. F-15B/D/E: two
Armament: One internally mounted M-61A1 20mm 20-mm, six-barrel cannon with 940 rounds of ammunition; four AIM-9 Sidewinder and four AIM-120 AMRAAMs or eight AIM-120 AMRAAMs, carried externally.
Unit Cost: A/B models - $27.9 million (fiscal 98 constant dollars);C/D models - $29.9 million (fiscal 98 constant dollars)
Initial operating capability: September 1975
Inventory: Total force, 249
SLR Class :- S9
Introduction year :- 2000
No of Sets :- 15
Power car Nos :- 849 to 863
Builder :- Sifang Loco. & Rolling Stock Works
State :- China
Prime Mover :- MTU - V12 396 TC 14
Mode of Power transmission : - Diesel Electric (AC to DC Power Transmission)
Power :- 1400 H.P.
rpm :- 1500
Weight :- 67 ton
Length :- 65’
Wheel arrangement :- Bo-Bo
Brake system :- Air and Dynamic
Max speed :- 100 Km/h
Gauge :- 1676 mm
Type :- Diesel Multiple Unit
Set Formation :- One power car,Four 3rd Class Compartment and 3rd Class dummy car
Purpose :- Suburban and Commuter service.
S9 855,856,857,858 and 863 Installed new control system by CSR Qingdao Sifang Co. Ltd in 2017
S9 851 and 852 Installed new control system by Medha Servo Drives Pvt Ltd in 2022
Information as at 13.05.2024
"A view of the Apollo 15 Command and Service Modules (CSM) in lunar orbit as photographed from the Lunar Module (LM) just after rendezvous. The lunar area below is the northeastern side of the Sea of Fertility. While astronauts David R. Scott, Commander, and James B. Irwin, Lunar Module Pilot, descended in the LM to explore the Hadley-Apennine area of the moon, astronaut Alfred M. Worden, Command Module Pilot, remained with the CSM in lunar orbit."
spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo15/html/...
+++ 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 РТАК-30 attack vintoplan (also known as vintokryl) owed its existence to the Mil Mi-30 plane/helicopter project that originated in 1972. The Mil Mi-30 was conceived as a transport aircraft that could hold up to 19 passengers or two tons of cargo, and its purpose was to replace the Mi-8 and Mi-17 Helicopters in both civil and military roles. With vertical takeoff through a pair of tiltrotor engine pods on the wing tips (similar in layout to the later V-22 Osprey) and the ability to fly like a normal plane, the Mil Mi-30 had a clear advantage over the older models.
Since the vintoplan concept was a completely new field of research and engineering, a dedicated design bureau was installed in the mid-Seventies at the Rostov-na-Donu helicopter factory, where most helicopters from the Mil design bureau were produced, under the title Ростов Тилт Ротор Авиационная Компания (Rostov Tilt Rotor Aircraft Company), or РТАК (RTRA), for short.
The vintoplan project lingered for some time, with basic research being conducted concerning aerodynamics, rotor design and flight control systems. Many findings later found their way into conventional planes and helicopters. At the beginning of the 1980s, the project had progressed far enough that the vintoplan received official backing so that РТАК scientists and Mil helicopter engineers assembled and tested several layouts and components for this complicated aircraft type.
At that time the Mil Mi-30 vintoplan was expected to use a single TV3-117 Turbo Shaft Engine with a four-bladed propeller rotors on each of its two pairs of stub wings of almost equal span. The engine was still installed in the fuselage and the proprotors driven by long shafts.
However, while being a very clean design, this original layout revealed several problems concerning aeroelasticity, dynamics of construction, characteristics for the converter apparatuses, aerodynamics and flight dynamics. In the course of further development stages and attempts to rectify the technical issues, the vintoplan layout went through several revisions. The layout shifted consequently from having 4 smaller engines in rotating pods on two pairs of stub wings through three engines with rotating nacelles on the front wings and a fixed, horizontal rotor over the tail and finally back to only 2 engines (much like the initial concept), but this time mounted in rotating nacelles on the wing tips and a canard stabilizer layout.
In August 1981 the Commission of the Presidium of the USSR Council of Ministers on weapons eventually issued a decree on the development of a flyworthy Mil Mi-30 vintoplan prototype. Shortly afterwards the military approved of the vintoplan, too, but desired bigger, more powerful engines in order to improve performance and weight capacity. In the course of the ensuing project refinement, the weight capacity was raised to 3-5 tons and the passenger limit to 32. In parallel, the modified type was also foreseen for civil operations as a short range feederliner, potentially replacing Yak-40 and An-24 airliners in Aeroflot service.
In 1982, РТАК took the interest from the military and proposed a dedicated attack vintoplan, based on former research and existing components of the original transport variant. This project was accepted by MAP and received the separate designation РТАК-30. However, despite having some close technical relations to the Mi-30 transport (primarily the engine nacelles, their rotation mechanism and the flight control systems), the РТАК-30 was a completely different aircraft. The timing was good, though, and the proposal was met with much interest, since the innovative vintoplan concept was to compete against traditional helicopters: the design work on the dedicated Mi-28 and Ka-50 attack helicopters had just started at that time, too, so that РТАК received green lights for the construction of five prototypes: four flyworthy machines plus one more for static ground tests.
The РТАК-30 was based on one of the early Mi-30 layouts and it combined two pairs of mid-set wings with different wing spans with a tall tail fin that ensured directional stability. Each wing carried a rotating engine nacelle with a so-called proprotor on its tip, each with three high aspect ratio blades. The proprotors were handed (i.e. revolved in opposite directions) in order to minimize torque effects and improve handling, esp. in the hover. The front and back pair of engines were cross-linked among each other on a common driveshaft, eliminating engine-out asymmetric thrust problems during V/STOL operations. In the event of the failure of one engine, it would automatically disconnect through torque spring clutches and both propellers on a pair of wings would be driven by the remaining engine.
Four engines were chosen because, despite the weight and complexity penalty, this extra power was expected to be required in order to achieve a performance that was markedly superior to a conventional helicopter like the Mi-24, the primary Soviet attack helicopter of that era the РТАК-30 was supposed to replace. It was also expected that the rotating nacelles could also be used to improve agility in level flight through a mild form of vectored thrust.
The РТАК-30’s streamlined fuselage provided ample space for avionics, fuel, a fully retractable tricycle landing gear and a two man crew in an armored side-by-side cockpit with ejection seats. The windshield was able to withstand 12.7–14.5 mm caliber bullets, the titanium cockpit tub could take hits from 20 mm cannon. An autonomous power unit (APU) was housed in the fuselage, too, making operations of the aircraft independent from ground support.
While the РТАК-30 was not intended for use as a transport, the fuselage was spacious enough to have a small compartment between the front wings spars, capable of carrying up to three people. The purpose of this was the rescue of downed helicopter crews, as a cargo hold esp. for transfer flights and as additional space for future mission equipment or extra fuel.
In vertical flight, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotor system used controls very similar to a twin or tandem-rotor helicopter. Yaw was controlled by tilting its rotors in opposite directions. Roll was provided through differential power or thrust, supported by ailerons on the rear wings. Pitch was provided through rotor cyclic or nacelle tilt and further aerodynamic surfaces on both pairs of wings. Vertical motion was controlled with conventional rotor blade pitch and a control similar to a fixed-wing engine control called a thrust control lever (TCL). The rotor heads had elastomeric bearings and the proprotor blades were made from composite materials, which could sustain 30 mm shells.
The РТАК-30 featured a helmet-mounted display for the pilot, a very modern development at its time. The pilot designated targets for the navigator/weapons officer, who proceeded to fire the weapons required to fulfill that particular task. The integrated surveillance and fire control system had two optical channels providing wide and narrow fields of view, a narrow-field-of-view optical television channel, and a laser rangefinder. The system could move within 110 degrees in azimuth and from +13 to −40 degrees in elevation and was placed in a spherical dome on top of the fuselage, just behind the cockpit.
The aircraft carried one automatic 2A42 30 mm internal gun, mounted semi-rigidly fixed near the center of the fuselage, movable only slightly in elevation and azimuth. The arrangement was also regarded as being more practical than a classic free-turning turret mount for the aircraft’s considerably higher flight speed than a normal helicopter. As a side effect, the semi-rigid mounting improved the cannon's accuracy, giving the 30 mm a longer practical range and better hit ratio at medium ranges. Ammunition supply was 460 rounds, with separate compartments for high-fragmentation, explosive incendiary, or armor-piercing rounds. The type of ammunition could be selected by the pilot during flight.
The gunner can select one of two rates of full automatic fire, low at 200 to 300 rds/min and high at 550 to 800 rds/min. The effective range when engaging ground targets such as light armored vehicles is 1,500 m, while soft-skinned targets can be engaged out to 4,000 m. Air targets can be engaged flying at low altitudes of up to 2,000 m and up to a slant range of 2,500 m.
A substantial range of weapons could be carried on four hardpoints under the front wings, plus three more under the fuselage, for a total ordnance of up to 2,500 kg (with reduced internal fuel). The РТАК-30‘s main armament comprised up to 24 laser-guided Vikhr missiles with a maximum range of some 8 km. These tube-launched missiles could be used against ground and aerial targets. A search and tracking radar was housed in a thimble radome on the РТАК-30’s nose and their laser guidance system (mounted in a separate turret under the radome) was reported to be virtually jam-proof. The system furthermore featured automatic guidance to the target, enabling evasive action immediately after missile launch. Alternatively, the system was also compatible with Ataka laser-guided anti-tank missiles.
Other weapon options included laser- or TV-guided Kh-25 missiles as well as iron bombs and napalm tanks of up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) caliber and several rocket pods, including the S-13 and S-8 rockets. The "dumb" rocket pods could be upgraded to laser guidance with the proposed Ugroza system. Against helicopters and aircraft the РТАК-30 could carry up to four R-60 and/or R-73 IR-guided AAMs. Drop tanks and gun pods could be carried, too.
When the РТАК-30's proprotors were perpendicular to the motion in the high-speed portions of the flight regime, the aircraft demonstrated a relatively high maximum speed: over 300 knots/560 km/h top speed were achieved during state acceptance trials in 1987, as well as sustained cruise speeds of 250 knots/460 km/h, which was almost twice as fast as a conventional helicopter. Furthermore, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotors and stub wings provided the aircraft with a substantially greater cruise altitude capability than conventional helicopters: during the prototypes’ tests the machines easily reached 6,000 m / 20,000 ft or more, whereas helicopters typically do not exceed 3,000 m / 10,000 ft altitude.
Flight tests in general and flight control system refinement in specific lasted until late 1988, and while the vintoplan concept proved to be sound, the technical and practical problems persisted. The aircraft was complex and heavy, and pilots found the machine to be hazardous to land, due to its low ground clearance. Due to structural limits the machine could also never be brought to its expected agility limits
During that time the Soviet Union’s internal tensions rose and more and more hampered the РТАК-30’s development. During this time, two of the prototypes were lost (the 1st and 4th machine) in accidents, and in 1989 only two machines were left in flightworthy condition (the 5th airframe had been set aside for structural ground tests). Nevertheless, the РТАК-30 made its public debut at the Paris Air Show in June 1989 (the 3rd prototype, coded “33 Yellow”), together with the Mi-28A, but was only shown in static display and did not take part in any flight show. After that, the aircraft received the NATO ASCC code "Hemlock" and caused serious concern in Western military headquarters, since the РТАК-30 had the potential to dominate the European battlefield.
And this was just about to happen: Despite the РТАК-30’s development problems, the innovative attack vintoplan was included in the Soviet Union’s 5-year plan for 1989-1995, and the vehicle was eventually expected to enter service in 1996. However, due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dwindling economics, neither the РТАК-30 nor its civil Mil Mi-30 sister did soar out in the new age of technology. In 1990 the whole program was stopped and both surviving РТАК-30 prototypes were mothballed – one (the 3rd prototype) was disassembled and its components brought to the Rostov-na-Donu Mil plant, while the other, prototype No. 1, is rumored to be stored at the Central Russian Air Force Museum in Monino, to be restored to a public exhibition piece some day.
General characteristics:
Crew: Two (pilot, copilot/WSO) plus space for up to three passengers or cargo
Length: 45 ft 7 1/2 in (13,93 m)
Rotor diameter: 20 ft 9 in (6,33 m)
Wingspan incl. engine nacelles: 42 ft 8 1/4 in (13,03 m)
Total width with rotors: 58 ft 8 1/2 in (17,93 m)
Height: 17 ft (5,18 m) at top of tailfin
Disc area: 4x 297 ft² (27,65 m²)
Wing area: 342.2 ft² (36,72 m²)
Empty weight: 8,500 kg (18,740 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 12,000 kg (26,500 lb)
Powerplant:
4× Klimov VK-2500PS-03 turboshaft turbines, 2,400 hp (1.765 kW) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 275 knots (509 km/h, 316 mph) at sea level
305 kn (565 km/h; 351 mph) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)
Cruise speed: 241 kn (277 mph, 446 km/h) at sea level
Stall speed: 110 kn (126 mph, 204 km/h) in airplane mode
Range: 879 nmi (1,011 mi, 1,627 km)
Combat radius: 390 nmi (426 mi, 722 km)
Ferry range: 1,940 nmi (2,230 mi, 3,590 km) with auxiliary external fuel tanks
Service ceiling: 25,000 ft (7,620 m)
Rate of climb: 2,320–4,000 ft/min (11.8 m/s)
Glide ratio: 4.5:1
Disc loading: 20.9 lb/ft² at 47,500 lb GW (102.23 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.259 hp/lb (427 W/kg)
Armament:
1× 30 mm (1.18 in) 2A42 multi-purpose autocannon with 450 rounds
7 external hardpoints for a maximum ordnance of 2.500 kg (5.500 lb)
The kit and its assembly:
This exotic, fictional aircraft-thing is a contribution to the “The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com in early 2019. While the propulsion system itself is not that unconventional, I deemed the quadrocopter concept (which had already been on my agenda for a while) to be suitable for a worthy submission.
The Mil Mi-30 tiltrotor aircraft, mentioned in the background above, was a real project – but my alternative combat vintoplan design is purely speculative.
I had already stashed away some donor parts, primarily two sets of tiltrotor backpacks for 1:144 Gundam mecha from Bandai, which had been released recently. While these looked a little toy-like, these parts had the charm of coming with handed propellers and stub wings that would allow the engine nacelles to swivel.
The search for a suitable fuselage turned out to be a more complex safari than expected. My initial choice was the spoofy Italeri Mi-28 kit (I initially wanted a staggered tandem cockpit), but it turned out to be much too big for what I wanted to achieve. Then I tested a “real” Mi-28 (Dragon) and a Ka-50 (Italeri), but both failed for different reasons – the Mi-28 was too slender, while the Ka-50 had the right size – but converting it for my build would have been VERY complicated, because the engine nacelles would have to go and the fuselage shape between the cockpit and the fuselage section around the original engines and stub wings would be hard to adapt. I eventually bought an Italeri Ka-52 two-seater as fuselage donor.
In order to mount the four engines to the fuselage I’d need two pairs of wings of appropriate span – and I found a pair of 1:100 A-10 wings as well as the wings from an 1:72 PZL Iskra (not perfect, but the most suitable donor parts I could find in the junkyard). On the tips of these wings, the swiveling joints for the engine nacelles from the Bandai set were glued. While mounting the rear wings was not too difficult (just the Ka-52’s OOB stabilizers had to go), the front pair of wings was more complex. The reason: the Ka-52’s engines had to go and their attachment points, which are actually shallow recesses on the kit, had to be faired over first. Instead of filling everything with putty I decided to cover the areas with 0.5mm styrene sheet first, and then do cosmetic PSR work. This worked quite well and also included a cover for the Ka-52’s original rotor mast mount. Onto these new flanks the pair of front wings was attached, in a mid position – a conceptual mistake…
The cockpit was taken OOB and the aircraft’s nose received an additional thimble radome, reminiscent of the Mi-28’s arrangement. The radome itself was created from a German 500 kg WWII bomb.
At this stage, the mid-wing mistake reared its ugly head – it had two painful consequences which I had not fully thought through. Problem #1: the engine nacelles turned out to be too long. When rotated into a vertical position, they’d potentially hit the ground! Furthermore, the ground clearance was very low – and I decided to skip the Ka-52’s OOB landing gear in favor of a heavier and esp. longer alternative, a full landing gear set from an Italeri MiG-37 “Ferret E” stealth fighter, which itself resembles a MiG-23/27 landing gear. Due to the expected higher speeds of the vintoplan I gave the landing gear full covers (partly scratched, plus some donor parts from an Academy MiG-27). It took some trials to get the new landing gear into the right position and a suitable stance – but it worked. With this benchmark I was also able to modify the engine nacelles, shortening their rear ends. They were still very (too!) close to the ground, but at least the model would not sit on them!
However, the more complete the model became, the more design flaws turned up. Another mistake is that the front and rear rotors slightly overlap when in vertical position – something that would be unthinkable in real life…
With all major components in place, however, detail work could proceed. This included the completion of the cockpit and the sensor turrets, the Ka-52 cannon and finally the ordnance. Due to the large rotors, any armament had to be concentrated around the fuselage, outside of the propeller discs. For this reason (and in order to prevent the rear engines to ingest exhaust gases from the front engines in level flight), I gave the front wings a slightly larger span, so that four underwing pylons could be fitted, plus a pair of underfuselage hardpoints.
The ordnance was puzzled together from the Italeri Ka-52 and from an ESCI Ka-34 (the fake Ka-50) kit.
Painting and markings:
With such an exotic aircraft, I rather wanted a conservative livery and opted for a typical Soviet tactical four-tone scheme from the Eighties – the idea was to build a prototype aircraft from the state acceptance trials period, not a flashy demonstrator. The scheme and the (guesstimated) colors were transferred from a Soviet air force MiG-21bis of that era, and it consists of a reddish light brown (Humbrol 119, Light Earth), a light, yellowish green (Humbrol 159, Khaki Drab), a bluish dark green (Humbrol 195, Dark Satin Green, a.k.a. RAL 6020 Chromdioxidgrün) and a dark brown (Humbrol 170, Brown Bess). For the undersides’ typical bluish grey I chose Humbrol 145 (FS 35237, Gray Blue), which is slightly lighter and less greenish than the typical Soviet tones. A light black ink wash was applied and some light post-shading was done in order to create panels that are structurally not there, augmented by some pencil lines.
The cockpit became light blue (Humbrol 89), with medium gray dashboard and consoles. The ejection seats received bright yellow seatbelts and bright blue pads – a detail seen on a Mi-28 cockpit picture.
Some dielectric fairings like the fin tip were painted in bright medium green (Humbrol 101), while some other antenna fairings were painted in pale yellow (Humbrol 71).
The landing gear struts and the interior of the wells became Aluminum Metalic (Humbrol 56), the wheels dark green discs (Humbrol 30).
The decals were puzzled together from various sources, including some Begemot sheets. Most of the stencils came from the Ka-52 OOB sheet, and generic decal sheet material was used to mark the walkways or the rotor tips and leading edges.
Only some light weathering was done to the leading edges of the wings, and then the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.
A complex kitbashing project, and it revealed some pitfalls in the course of making. However, the result looks menacing and still convincing, esp. in flight – even though the picture editing, with four artificially rotating proprotors, was probably more tedious than building the model itself!
ODC Feb. 21, 2022; WARM, WARMTH. My trusty CineStill Temperature Control System to warm photo chemistry. A sous vide cooker for film chemistry.
Shot a roll through the XD-11. I like my Nikon bodies and lenses much better but I do like how much smaller the XD-11 is, makes it easy to take on bike trips in a small camera bag.
Minolta XD-11
Minolta Rokkor 50mm f/1.7 MD
Fomapan 100
Developed with HC-110 dilution B
+++ 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 РТАК-30 attack vintoplan (also known as vintokryl) owed its existence to the Mil Mi-30 plane/helicopter project that originated in 1972. The Mil Mi-30 was conceived as a transport aircraft that could hold up to 19 passengers or two tons of cargo, and its purpose was to replace the Mi-8 and Mi-17 Helicopters in both civil and military roles. With vertical takeoff through a pair of tiltrotor engine pods on the wing tips (similar in layout to the later V-22 Osprey) and the ability to fly like a normal plane, the Mil Mi-30 had a clear advantage over the older models.
Since the vintoplan concept was a completely new field of research and engineering, a dedicated design bureau was installed in the mid-Seventies at the Rostov-na-Donu helicopter factory, where most helicopters from the Mil design bureau were produced, under the title Ростов Тилт Ротор Авиационная Компания (Rostov Tilt Rotor Aircraft Company), or РТАК (RTRA), for short.
The vintoplan project lingered for some time, with basic research being conducted concerning aerodynamics, rotor design and flight control systems. Many findings later found their way into conventional planes and helicopters. At the beginning of the 1980s, the project had progressed far enough that the vintoplan received official backing so that РТАК scientists and Mil helicopter engineers assembled and tested several layouts and components for this complicated aircraft type.
At that time the Mil Mi-30 vintoplan was expected to use a single TV3-117 Turbo Shaft Engine with a four-bladed propeller rotors on each of its two pairs of stub wings of almost equal span. The engine was still installed in the fuselage and the proprotors driven by long shafts.
However, while being a very clean design, this original layout revealed several problems concerning aeroelasticity, dynamics of construction, characteristics for the converter apparatuses, aerodynamics and flight dynamics. In the course of further development stages and attempts to rectify the technical issues, the vintoplan layout went through several revisions. The layout shifted consequently from having 4 smaller engines in rotating pods on two pairs of stub wings through three engines with rotating nacelles on the front wings and a fixed, horizontal rotor over the tail and finally back to only 2 engines (much like the initial concept), but this time mounted in rotating nacelles on the wing tips and a canard stabilizer layout.
In August 1981 the Commission of the Presidium of the USSR Council of Ministers on weapons eventually issued a decree on the development of a flyworthy Mil Mi-30 vintoplan prototype. Shortly afterwards the military approved of the vintoplan, too, but desired bigger, more powerful engines in order to improve performance and weight capacity. In the course of the ensuing project refinement, the weight capacity was raised to 3-5 tons and the passenger limit to 32. In parallel, the modified type was also foreseen for civil operations as a short range feederliner, potentially replacing Yak-40 and An-24 airliners in Aeroflot service.
In 1982, РТАК took the interest from the military and proposed a dedicated attack vintoplan, based on former research and existing components of the original transport variant. This project was accepted by MAP and received the separate designation РТАК-30. However, despite having some close technical relations to the Mi-30 transport (primarily the engine nacelles, their rotation mechanism and the flight control systems), the РТАК-30 was a completely different aircraft. The timing was good, though, and the proposal was met with much interest, since the innovative vintoplan concept was to compete against traditional helicopters: the design work on the dedicated Mi-28 and Ka-50 attack helicopters had just started at that time, too, so that РТАК received green lights for the construction of five prototypes: four flyworthy machines plus one more for static ground tests.
The РТАК-30 was based on one of the early Mi-30 layouts and it combined two pairs of mid-set wings with different wing spans with a tall tail fin that ensured directional stability. Each wing carried a rotating engine nacelle with a so-called proprotor on its tip, each with three high aspect ratio blades. The proprotors were handed (i.e. revolved in opposite directions) in order to minimize torque effects and improve handling, esp. in the hover. The front and back pair of engines were cross-linked among each other on a common driveshaft, eliminating engine-out asymmetric thrust problems during V/STOL operations. In the event of the failure of one engine, it would automatically disconnect through torque spring clutches and both propellers on a pair of wings would be driven by the remaining engine.
Four engines were chosen because, despite the weight and complexity penalty, this extra power was expected to be required in order to achieve a performance that was markedly superior to a conventional helicopter like the Mi-24, the primary Soviet attack helicopter of that era the РТАК-30 was supposed to replace. It was also expected that the rotating nacelles could also be used to improve agility in level flight through a mild form of vectored thrust.
The РТАК-30’s streamlined fuselage provided ample space for avionics, fuel, a fully retractable tricycle landing gear and a two man crew in an armored side-by-side cockpit with ejection seats. The windshield was able to withstand 12.7–14.5 mm caliber bullets, the titanium cockpit tub could take hits from 20 mm cannon. An autonomous power unit (APU) was housed in the fuselage, too, making operations of the aircraft independent from ground support.
While the РТАК-30 was not intended for use as a transport, the fuselage was spacious enough to have a small compartment between the front wings spars, capable of carrying up to three people. The purpose of this was the rescue of downed helicopter crews, as a cargo hold esp. for transfer flights and as additional space for future mission equipment or extra fuel.
In vertical flight, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotor system used controls very similar to a twin or tandem-rotor helicopter. Yaw was controlled by tilting its rotors in opposite directions. Roll was provided through differential power or thrust, supported by ailerons on the rear wings. Pitch was provided through rotor cyclic or nacelle tilt and further aerodynamic surfaces on both pairs of wings. Vertical motion was controlled with conventional rotor blade pitch and a control similar to a fixed-wing engine control called a thrust control lever (TCL). The rotor heads had elastomeric bearings and the proprotor blades were made from composite materials, which could sustain 30 mm shells.
The РТАК-30 featured a helmet-mounted display for the pilot, a very modern development at its time. The pilot designated targets for the navigator/weapons officer, who proceeded to fire the weapons required to fulfill that particular task. The integrated surveillance and fire control system had two optical channels providing wide and narrow fields of view, a narrow-field-of-view optical television channel, and a laser rangefinder. The system could move within 110 degrees in azimuth and from +13 to −40 degrees in elevation and was placed in a spherical dome on top of the fuselage, just behind the cockpit.
The aircraft carried one automatic 2A42 30 mm internal gun, mounted semi-rigidly fixed near the center of the fuselage, movable only slightly in elevation and azimuth. The arrangement was also regarded as being more practical than a classic free-turning turret mount for the aircraft’s considerably higher flight speed than a normal helicopter. As a side effect, the semi-rigid mounting improved the cannon's accuracy, giving the 30 mm a longer practical range and better hit ratio at medium ranges. Ammunition supply was 460 rounds, with separate compartments for high-fragmentation, explosive incendiary, or armor-piercing rounds. The type of ammunition could be selected by the pilot during flight.
The gunner can select one of two rates of full automatic fire, low at 200 to 300 rds/min and high at 550 to 800 rds/min. The effective range when engaging ground targets such as light armored vehicles is 1,500 m, while soft-skinned targets can be engaged out to 4,000 m. Air targets can be engaged flying at low altitudes of up to 2,000 m and up to a slant range of 2,500 m.
A substantial range of weapons could be carried on four hardpoints under the front wings, plus three more under the fuselage, for a total ordnance of up to 2,500 kg (with reduced internal fuel). The РТАК-30‘s main armament comprised up to 24 laser-guided Vikhr missiles with a maximum range of some 8 km. These tube-launched missiles could be used against ground and aerial targets. A search and tracking radar was housed in a thimble radome on the РТАК-30’s nose and their laser guidance system (mounted in a separate turret under the radome) was reported to be virtually jam-proof. The system furthermore featured automatic guidance to the target, enabling evasive action immediately after missile launch. Alternatively, the system was also compatible with Ataka laser-guided anti-tank missiles.
Other weapon options included laser- or TV-guided Kh-25 missiles as well as iron bombs and napalm tanks of up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) caliber and several rocket pods, including the S-13 and S-8 rockets. The "dumb" rocket pods could be upgraded to laser guidance with the proposed Ugroza system. Against helicopters and aircraft the РТАК-30 could carry up to four R-60 and/or R-73 IR-guided AAMs. Drop tanks and gun pods could be carried, too.
When the РТАК-30's proprotors were perpendicular to the motion in the high-speed portions of the flight regime, the aircraft demonstrated a relatively high maximum speed: over 300 knots/560 km/h top speed were achieved during state acceptance trials in 1987, as well as sustained cruise speeds of 250 knots/460 km/h, which was almost twice as fast as a conventional helicopter. Furthermore, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotors and stub wings provided the aircraft with a substantially greater cruise altitude capability than conventional helicopters: during the prototypes’ tests the machines easily reached 6,000 m / 20,000 ft or more, whereas helicopters typically do not exceed 3,000 m / 10,000 ft altitude.
Flight tests in general and flight control system refinement in specific lasted until late 1988, and while the vintoplan concept proved to be sound, the technical and practical problems persisted. The aircraft was complex and heavy, and pilots found the machine to be hazardous to land, due to its low ground clearance. Due to structural limits the machine could also never be brought to its expected agility limits
During that time the Soviet Union’s internal tensions rose and more and more hampered the РТАК-30’s development. During this time, two of the prototypes were lost (the 1st and 4th machine) in accidents, and in 1989 only two machines were left in flightworthy condition (the 5th airframe had been set aside for structural ground tests). Nevertheless, the РТАК-30 made its public debut at the Paris Air Show in June 1989 (the 3rd prototype, coded “33 Yellow”), together with the Mi-28A, but was only shown in static display and did not take part in any flight show. After that, the aircraft received the NATO ASCC code "Hemlock" and caused serious concern in Western military headquarters, since the РТАК-30 had the potential to dominate the European battlefield.
And this was just about to happen: Despite the РТАК-30’s development problems, the innovative attack vintoplan was included in the Soviet Union’s 5-year plan for 1989-1995, and the vehicle was eventually expected to enter service in 1996. However, due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dwindling economics, neither the РТАК-30 nor its civil Mil Mi-30 sister did soar out in the new age of technology. In 1990 the whole program was stopped and both surviving РТАК-30 prototypes were mothballed – one (the 3rd prototype) was disassembled and its components brought to the Rostov-na-Donu Mil plant, while the other, prototype No. 1, is rumored to be stored at the Central Russian Air Force Museum in Monino, to be restored to a public exhibition piece some day.
General characteristics:
Crew: Two (pilot, copilot/WSO) plus space for up to three passengers or cargo
Length: 45 ft 7 1/2 in (13,93 m)
Rotor diameter: 20 ft 9 in (6,33 m)
Wingspan incl. engine nacelles: 42 ft 8 1/4 in (13,03 m)
Total width with rotors: 58 ft 8 1/2 in (17,93 m)
Height: 17 ft (5,18 m) at top of tailfin
Disc area: 4x 297 ft² (27,65 m²)
Wing area: 342.2 ft² (36,72 m²)
Empty weight: 8,500 kg (18,740 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 12,000 kg (26,500 lb)
Powerplant:
4× Klimov VK-2500PS-03 turboshaft turbines, 2,400 hp (1.765 kW) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 275 knots (509 km/h, 316 mph) at sea level
305 kn (565 km/h; 351 mph) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)
Cruise speed: 241 kn (277 mph, 446 km/h) at sea level
Stall speed: 110 kn (126 mph, 204 km/h) in airplane mode
Range: 879 nmi (1,011 mi, 1,627 km)
Combat radius: 390 nmi (426 mi, 722 km)
Ferry range: 1,940 nmi (2,230 mi, 3,590 km) with auxiliary external fuel tanks
Service ceiling: 25,000 ft (7,620 m)
Rate of climb: 2,320–4,000 ft/min (11.8 m/s)
Glide ratio: 4.5:1
Disc loading: 20.9 lb/ft² at 47,500 lb GW (102.23 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.259 hp/lb (427 W/kg)
Armament:
1× 30 mm (1.18 in) 2A42 multi-purpose autocannon with 450 rounds
7 external hardpoints for a maximum ordnance of 2.500 kg (5.500 lb)
The kit and its assembly:
This exotic, fictional aircraft-thing is a contribution to the “The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com in early 2019. While the propulsion system itself is not that unconventional, I deemed the quadrocopter concept (which had already been on my agenda for a while) to be suitable for a worthy submission.
The Mil Mi-30 tiltrotor aircraft, mentioned in the background above, was a real project – but my alternative combat vintoplan design is purely speculative.
I had already stashed away some donor parts, primarily two sets of tiltrotor backpacks for 1:144 Gundam mecha from Bandai, which had been released recently. While these looked a little toy-like, these parts had the charm of coming with handed propellers and stub wings that would allow the engine nacelles to swivel.
The search for a suitable fuselage turned out to be a more complex safari than expected. My initial choice was the spoofy Italeri Mi-28 kit (I initially wanted a staggered tandem cockpit), but it turned out to be much too big for what I wanted to achieve. Then I tested a “real” Mi-28 (Dragon) and a Ka-50 (Italeri), but both failed for different reasons – the Mi-28 was too slender, while the Ka-50 had the right size – but converting it for my build would have been VERY complicated, because the engine nacelles would have to go and the fuselage shape between the cockpit and the fuselage section around the original engines and stub wings would be hard to adapt. I eventually bought an Italeri Ka-52 two-seater as fuselage donor.
In order to mount the four engines to the fuselage I’d need two pairs of wings of appropriate span – and I found a pair of 1:100 A-10 wings as well as the wings from an 1:72 PZL Iskra (not perfect, but the most suitable donor parts I could find in the junkyard). On the tips of these wings, the swiveling joints for the engine nacelles from the Bandai set were glued. While mounting the rear wings was not too difficult (just the Ka-52’s OOB stabilizers had to go), the front pair of wings was more complex. The reason: the Ka-52’s engines had to go and their attachment points, which are actually shallow recesses on the kit, had to be faired over first. Instead of filling everything with putty I decided to cover the areas with 0.5mm styrene sheet first, and then do cosmetic PSR work. This worked quite well and also included a cover for the Ka-52’s original rotor mast mount. Onto these new flanks the pair of front wings was attached, in a mid position – a conceptual mistake…
The cockpit was taken OOB and the aircraft’s nose received an additional thimble radome, reminiscent of the Mi-28’s arrangement. The radome itself was created from a German 500 kg WWII bomb.
At this stage, the mid-wing mistake reared its ugly head – it had two painful consequences which I had not fully thought through. Problem #1: the engine nacelles turned out to be too long. When rotated into a vertical position, they’d potentially hit the ground! Furthermore, the ground clearance was very low – and I decided to skip the Ka-52’s OOB landing gear in favor of a heavier and esp. longer alternative, a full landing gear set from an Italeri MiG-37 “Ferret E” stealth fighter, which itself resembles a MiG-23/27 landing gear. Due to the expected higher speeds of the vintoplan I gave the landing gear full covers (partly scratched, plus some donor parts from an Academy MiG-27). It took some trials to get the new landing gear into the right position and a suitable stance – but it worked. With this benchmark I was also able to modify the engine nacelles, shortening their rear ends. They were still very (too!) close to the ground, but at least the model would not sit on them!
However, the more complete the model became, the more design flaws turned up. Another mistake is that the front and rear rotors slightly overlap when in vertical position – something that would be unthinkable in real life…
With all major components in place, however, detail work could proceed. This included the completion of the cockpit and the sensor turrets, the Ka-52 cannon and finally the ordnance. Due to the large rotors, any armament had to be concentrated around the fuselage, outside of the propeller discs. For this reason (and in order to prevent the rear engines to ingest exhaust gases from the front engines in level flight), I gave the front wings a slightly larger span, so that four underwing pylons could be fitted, plus a pair of underfuselage hardpoints.
The ordnance was puzzled together from the Italeri Ka-52 and from an ESCI Ka-34 (the fake Ka-50) kit.
Painting and markings:
With such an exotic aircraft, I rather wanted a conservative livery and opted for a typical Soviet tactical four-tone scheme from the Eighties – the idea was to build a prototype aircraft from the state acceptance trials period, not a flashy demonstrator. The scheme and the (guesstimated) colors were transferred from a Soviet air force MiG-21bis of that era, and it consists of a reddish light brown (Humbrol 119, Light Earth), a light, yellowish green (Humbrol 159, Khaki Drab), a bluish dark green (Humbrol 195, Dark Satin Green, a.k.a. RAL 6020 Chromdioxidgrün) and a dark brown (Humbrol 170, Brown Bess). For the undersides’ typical bluish grey I chose Humbrol 145 (FS 35237, Gray Blue), which is slightly lighter and less greenish than the typical Soviet tones. A light black ink wash was applied and some light post-shading was done in order to create panels that are structurally not there, augmented by some pencil lines.
The cockpit became light blue (Humbrol 89), with medium gray dashboard and consoles. The ejection seats received bright yellow seatbelts and bright blue pads – a detail seen on a Mi-28 cockpit picture.
Some dielectric fairings like the fin tip were painted in bright medium green (Humbrol 101), while some other antenna fairings were painted in pale yellow (Humbrol 71).
The landing gear struts and the interior of the wells became Aluminum Metalic (Humbrol 56), the wheels dark green discs (Humbrol 30).
The decals were puzzled together from various sources, including some Begemot sheets. Most of the stencils came from the Ka-52 OOB sheet, and generic decal sheet material was used to mark the walkways or the rotor tips and leading edges.
Only some light weathering was done to the leading edges of the wings, and then the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.
A complex kitbashing project, and it revealed some pitfalls in the course of making. However, the result looks menacing and still convincing, esp. in flight – even though the picture editing, with four artificially rotating proprotors, was probably more tedious than building the model itself!
Readying itself to be the content material control system of the destiny as lots as today, WordPress has now made it possible to submit and examine virtual truth content thru its platform. Which means many of your favored blogs and guides — Virtual Trends covered — can now show VR and 360 dip...
networkposting.com/no-plugins-required-wordpress-now-abso...
+++ 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 РТАК-30 attack vintoplan (also known as vintokryl) owed its existence to the Mil Mi-30 plane/helicopter project that originated in 1972. The Mil Mi-30 was conceived as a transport aircraft that could hold up to 19 passengers or two tons of cargo, and its purpose was to replace the Mi-8 and Mi-17 Helicopters in both civil and military roles. With vertical takeoff through a pair of tiltrotor engine pods on the wing tips (similar in layout to the later V-22 Osprey) and the ability to fly like a normal plane, the Mil Mi-30 had a clear advantage over the older models.
Since the vintoplan concept was a completely new field of research and engineering, a dedicated design bureau was installed in the mid-Seventies at the Rostov-na-Donu helicopter factory, where most helicopters from the Mil design bureau were produced, under the title Ростов Тилт Ротор Авиационная Компания (Rostov Tilt Rotor Aircraft Company), or РТАК (RTRA), for short.
The vintoplan project lingered for some time, with basic research being conducted concerning aerodynamics, rotor design and flight control systems. Many findings later found their way into conventional planes and helicopters. At the beginning of the 1980s, the project had progressed far enough that the vintoplan received official backing so that РТАК scientists and Mil helicopter engineers assembled and tested several layouts and components for this complicated aircraft type.
At that time the Mil Mi-30 vintoplan was expected to use a single TV3-117 Turbo Shaft Engine with a four-bladed propeller rotors on each of its two pairs of stub wings of almost equal span. The engine was still installed in the fuselage and the proprotors driven by long shafts.
However, while being a very clean design, this original layout revealed several problems concerning aeroelasticity, dynamics of construction, characteristics for the converter apparatuses, aerodynamics and flight dynamics. In the course of further development stages and attempts to rectify the technical issues, the vintoplan layout went through several revisions. The layout shifted consequently from having 4 smaller engines in rotating pods on two pairs of stub wings through three engines with rotating nacelles on the front wings and a fixed, horizontal rotor over the tail and finally back to only 2 engines (much like the initial concept), but this time mounted in rotating nacelles on the wing tips and a canard stabilizer layout.
In August 1981 the Commission of the Presidium of the USSR Council of Ministers on weapons eventually issued a decree on the development of a flyworthy Mil Mi-30 vintoplan prototype. Shortly afterwards the military approved of the vintoplan, too, but desired bigger, more powerful engines in order to improve performance and weight capacity. In the course of the ensuing project refinement, the weight capacity was raised to 3-5 tons and the passenger limit to 32. In parallel, the modified type was also foreseen for civil operations as a short range feederliner, potentially replacing Yak-40 and An-24 airliners in Aeroflot service.
In 1982, РТАК took the interest from the military and proposed a dedicated attack vintoplan, based on former research and existing components of the original transport variant. This project was accepted by MAP and received the separate designation РТАК-30. However, despite having some close technical relations to the Mi-30 transport (primarily the engine nacelles, their rotation mechanism and the flight control systems), the РТАК-30 was a completely different aircraft. The timing was good, though, and the proposal was met with much interest, since the innovative vintoplan concept was to compete against traditional helicopters: the design work on the dedicated Mi-28 and Ka-50 attack helicopters had just started at that time, too, so that РТАК received green lights for the construction of five prototypes: four flyworthy machines plus one more for static ground tests.
The РТАК-30 was based on one of the early Mi-30 layouts and it combined two pairs of mid-set wings with different wing spans with a tall tail fin that ensured directional stability. Each wing carried a rotating engine nacelle with a so-called proprotor on its tip, each with three high aspect ratio blades. The proprotors were handed (i.e. revolved in opposite directions) in order to minimize torque effects and improve handling, esp. in the hover. The front and back pair of engines were cross-linked among each other on a common driveshaft, eliminating engine-out asymmetric thrust problems during V/STOL operations. In the event of the failure of one engine, it would automatically disconnect through torque spring clutches and both propellers on a pair of wings would be driven by the remaining engine.
Four engines were chosen because, despite the weight and complexity penalty, this extra power was expected to be required in order to achieve a performance that was markedly superior to a conventional helicopter like the Mi-24, the primary Soviet attack helicopter of that era the РТАК-30 was supposed to replace. It was also expected that the rotating nacelles could also be used to improve agility in level flight through a mild form of vectored thrust.
The РТАК-30’s streamlined fuselage provided ample space for avionics, fuel, a fully retractable tricycle landing gear and a two man crew in an armored side-by-side cockpit with ejection seats. The windshield was able to withstand 12.7–14.5 mm caliber bullets, the titanium cockpit tub could take hits from 20 mm cannon. An autonomous power unit (APU) was housed in the fuselage, too, making operations of the aircraft independent from ground support.
While the РТАК-30 was not intended for use as a transport, the fuselage was spacious enough to have a small compartment between the front wings spars, capable of carrying up to three people. The purpose of this was the rescue of downed helicopter crews, as a cargo hold esp. for transfer flights and as additional space for future mission equipment or extra fuel.
In vertical flight, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotor system used controls very similar to a twin or tandem-rotor helicopter. Yaw was controlled by tilting its rotors in opposite directions. Roll was provided through differential power or thrust, supported by ailerons on the rear wings. Pitch was provided through rotor cyclic or nacelle tilt and further aerodynamic surfaces on both pairs of wings. Vertical motion was controlled with conventional rotor blade pitch and a control similar to a fixed-wing engine control called a thrust control lever (TCL). The rotor heads had elastomeric bearings and the proprotor blades were made from composite materials, which could sustain 30 mm shells.
The РТАК-30 featured a helmet-mounted display for the pilot, a very modern development at its time. The pilot designated targets for the navigator/weapons officer, who proceeded to fire the weapons required to fulfill that particular task. The integrated surveillance and fire control system had two optical channels providing wide and narrow fields of view, a narrow-field-of-view optical television channel, and a laser rangefinder. The system could move within 110 degrees in azimuth and from +13 to −40 degrees in elevation and was placed in a spherical dome on top of the fuselage, just behind the cockpit.
The aircraft carried one automatic 2A42 30 mm internal gun, mounted semi-rigidly fixed near the center of the fuselage, movable only slightly in elevation and azimuth. The arrangement was also regarded as being more practical than a classic free-turning turret mount for the aircraft’s considerably higher flight speed than a normal helicopter. As a side effect, the semi-rigid mounting improved the cannon's accuracy, giving the 30 mm a longer practical range and better hit ratio at medium ranges. Ammunition supply was 460 rounds, with separate compartments for high-fragmentation, explosive incendiary, or armor-piercing rounds. The type of ammunition could be selected by the pilot during flight.
The gunner can select one of two rates of full automatic fire, low at 200 to 300 rds/min and high at 550 to 800 rds/min. The effective range when engaging ground targets such as light armored vehicles is 1,500 m, while soft-skinned targets can be engaged out to 4,000 m. Air targets can be engaged flying at low altitudes of up to 2,000 m and up to a slant range of 2,500 m.
A substantial range of weapons could be carried on four hardpoints under the front wings, plus three more under the fuselage, for a total ordnance of up to 2,500 kg (with reduced internal fuel). The РТАК-30‘s main armament comprised up to 24 laser-guided Vikhr missiles with a maximum range of some 8 km. These tube-launched missiles could be used against ground and aerial targets. A search and tracking radar was housed in a thimble radome on the РТАК-30’s nose and their laser guidance system (mounted in a separate turret under the radome) was reported to be virtually jam-proof. The system furthermore featured automatic guidance to the target, enabling evasive action immediately after missile launch. Alternatively, the system was also compatible with Ataka laser-guided anti-tank missiles.
Other weapon options included laser- or TV-guided Kh-25 missiles as well as iron bombs and napalm tanks of up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) caliber and several rocket pods, including the S-13 and S-8 rockets. The "dumb" rocket pods could be upgraded to laser guidance with the proposed Ugroza system. Against helicopters and aircraft the РТАК-30 could carry up to four R-60 and/or R-73 IR-guided AAMs. Drop tanks and gun pods could be carried, too.
When the РТАК-30's proprotors were perpendicular to the motion in the high-speed portions of the flight regime, the aircraft demonstrated a relatively high maximum speed: over 300 knots/560 km/h top speed were achieved during state acceptance trials in 1987, as well as sustained cruise speeds of 250 knots/460 km/h, which was almost twice as fast as a conventional helicopter. Furthermore, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotors and stub wings provided the aircraft with a substantially greater cruise altitude capability than conventional helicopters: during the prototypes’ tests the machines easily reached 6,000 m / 20,000 ft or more, whereas helicopters typically do not exceed 3,000 m / 10,000 ft altitude.
Flight tests in general and flight control system refinement in specific lasted until late 1988, and while the vintoplan concept proved to be sound, the technical and practical problems persisted. The aircraft was complex and heavy, and pilots found the machine to be hazardous to land, due to its low ground clearance. Due to structural limits the machine could also never be brought to its expected agility limits
During that time the Soviet Union’s internal tensions rose and more and more hampered the РТАК-30’s development. During this time, two of the prototypes were lost (the 1st and 4th machine) in accidents, and in 1989 only two machines were left in flightworthy condition (the 5th airframe had been set aside for structural ground tests). Nevertheless, the РТАК-30 made its public debut at the Paris Air Show in June 1989 (the 3rd prototype, coded “33 Yellow”), together with the Mi-28A, but was only shown in static display and did not take part in any flight show. After that, the aircraft received the NATO ASCC code "Hemlock" and caused serious concern in Western military headquarters, since the РТАК-30 had the potential to dominate the European battlefield.
And this was just about to happen: Despite the РТАК-30’s development problems, the innovative attack vintoplan was included in the Soviet Union’s 5-year plan for 1989-1995, and the vehicle was eventually expected to enter service in 1996. However, due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dwindling economics, neither the РТАК-30 nor its civil Mil Mi-30 sister did soar out in the new age of technology. In 1990 the whole program was stopped and both surviving РТАК-30 prototypes were mothballed – one (the 3rd prototype) was disassembled and its components brought to the Rostov-na-Donu Mil plant, while the other, prototype No. 1, is rumored to be stored at the Central Russian Air Force Museum in Monino, to be restored to a public exhibition piece some day.
General characteristics:
Crew: Two (pilot, copilot/WSO) plus space for up to three passengers or cargo
Length: 45 ft 7 1/2 in (13,93 m)
Rotor diameter: 20 ft 9 in (6,33 m)
Wingspan incl. engine nacelles: 42 ft 8 1/4 in (13,03 m)
Total width with rotors: 58 ft 8 1/2 in (17,93 m)
Height: 17 ft (5,18 m) at top of tailfin
Disc area: 4x 297 ft² (27,65 m²)
Wing area: 342.2 ft² (36,72 m²)
Empty weight: 8,500 kg (18,740 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 12,000 kg (26,500 lb)
Powerplant:
4× Klimov VK-2500PS-03 turboshaft turbines, 2,400 hp (1.765 kW) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 275 knots (509 km/h, 316 mph) at sea level
305 kn (565 km/h; 351 mph) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)
Cruise speed: 241 kn (277 mph, 446 km/h) at sea level
Stall speed: 110 kn (126 mph, 204 km/h) in airplane mode
Range: 879 nmi (1,011 mi, 1,627 km)
Combat radius: 390 nmi (426 mi, 722 km)
Ferry range: 1,940 nmi (2,230 mi, 3,590 km) with auxiliary external fuel tanks
Service ceiling: 25,000 ft (7,620 m)
Rate of climb: 2,320–4,000 ft/min (11.8 m/s)
Glide ratio: 4.5:1
Disc loading: 20.9 lb/ft² at 47,500 lb GW (102.23 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.259 hp/lb (427 W/kg)
Armament:
1× 30 mm (1.18 in) 2A42 multi-purpose autocannon with 450 rounds
7 external hardpoints for a maximum ordnance of 2.500 kg (5.500 lb)
The kit and its assembly:
This exotic, fictional aircraft-thing is a contribution to the “The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com in early 2019. While the propulsion system itself is not that unconventional, I deemed the quadrocopter concept (which had already been on my agenda for a while) to be suitable for a worthy submission.
The Mil Mi-30 tiltrotor aircraft, mentioned in the background above, was a real project – but my alternative combat vintoplan design is purely speculative.
I had already stashed away some donor parts, primarily two sets of tiltrotor backpacks for 1:144 Gundam mecha from Bandai, which had been released recently. While these looked a little toy-like, these parts had the charm of coming with handed propellers and stub wings that would allow the engine nacelles to swivel.
The search for a suitable fuselage turned out to be a more complex safari than expected. My initial choice was the spoofy Italeri Mi-28 kit (I initially wanted a staggered tandem cockpit), but it turned out to be much too big for what I wanted to achieve. Then I tested a “real” Mi-28 (Dragon) and a Ka-50 (Italeri), but both failed for different reasons – the Mi-28 was too slender, while the Ka-50 had the right size – but converting it for my build would have been VERY complicated, because the engine nacelles would have to go and the fuselage shape between the cockpit and the fuselage section around the original engines and stub wings would be hard to adapt. I eventually bought an Italeri Ka-52 two-seater as fuselage donor.
In order to mount the four engines to the fuselage I’d need two pairs of wings of appropriate span – and I found a pair of 1:100 A-10 wings as well as the wings from an 1:72 PZL Iskra (not perfect, but the most suitable donor parts I could find in the junkyard). On the tips of these wings, the swiveling joints for the engine nacelles from the Bandai set were glued. While mounting the rear wings was not too difficult (just the Ka-52’s OOB stabilizers had to go), the front pair of wings was more complex. The reason: the Ka-52’s engines had to go and their attachment points, which are actually shallow recesses on the kit, had to be faired over first. Instead of filling everything with putty I decided to cover the areas with 0.5mm styrene sheet first, and then do cosmetic PSR work. This worked quite well and also included a cover for the Ka-52’s original rotor mast mount. Onto these new flanks the pair of front wings was attached, in a mid position – a conceptual mistake…
The cockpit was taken OOB and the aircraft’s nose received an additional thimble radome, reminiscent of the Mi-28’s arrangement. The radome itself was created from a German 500 kg WWII bomb.
At this stage, the mid-wing mistake reared its ugly head – it had two painful consequences which I had not fully thought through. Problem #1: the engine nacelles turned out to be too long. When rotated into a vertical position, they’d potentially hit the ground! Furthermore, the ground clearance was very low – and I decided to skip the Ka-52’s OOB landing gear in favor of a heavier and esp. longer alternative, a full landing gear set from an Italeri MiG-37 “Ferret E” stealth fighter, which itself resembles a MiG-23/27 landing gear. Due to the expected higher speeds of the vintoplan I gave the landing gear full covers (partly scratched, plus some donor parts from an Academy MiG-27). It took some trials to get the new landing gear into the right position and a suitable stance – but it worked. With this benchmark I was also able to modify the engine nacelles, shortening their rear ends. They were still very (too!) close to the ground, but at least the model would not sit on them!
However, the more complete the model became, the more design flaws turned up. Another mistake is that the front and rear rotors slightly overlap when in vertical position – something that would be unthinkable in real life…
With all major components in place, however, detail work could proceed. This included the completion of the cockpit and the sensor turrets, the Ka-52 cannon and finally the ordnance. Due to the large rotors, any armament had to be concentrated around the fuselage, outside of the propeller discs. For this reason (and in order to prevent the rear engines to ingest exhaust gases from the front engines in level flight), I gave the front wings a slightly larger span, so that four underwing pylons could be fitted, plus a pair of underfuselage hardpoints.
The ordnance was puzzled together from the Italeri Ka-52 and from an ESCI Ka-34 (the fake Ka-50) kit.
Painting and markings:
With such an exotic aircraft, I rather wanted a conservative livery and opted for a typical Soviet tactical four-tone scheme from the Eighties – the idea was to build a prototype aircraft from the state acceptance trials period, not a flashy demonstrator. The scheme and the (guesstimated) colors were transferred from a Soviet air force MiG-21bis of that era, and it consists of a reddish light brown (Humbrol 119, Light Earth), a light, yellowish green (Humbrol 159, Khaki Drab), a bluish dark green (Humbrol 195, Dark Satin Green, a.k.a. RAL 6020 Chromdioxidgrün) and a dark brown (Humbrol 170, Brown Bess). For the undersides’ typical bluish grey I chose Humbrol 145 (FS 35237, Gray Blue), which is slightly lighter and less greenish than the typical Soviet tones. A light black ink wash was applied and some light post-shading was done in order to create panels that are structurally not there, augmented by some pencil lines.
The cockpit became light blue (Humbrol 89), with medium gray dashboard and consoles. The ejection seats received bright yellow seatbelts and bright blue pads – a detail seen on a Mi-28 cockpit picture.
Some dielectric fairings like the fin tip were painted in bright medium green (Humbrol 101), while some other antenna fairings were painted in pale yellow (Humbrol 71).
The landing gear struts and the interior of the wells became Aluminum Metalic (Humbrol 56), the wheels dark green discs (Humbrol 30).
The decals were puzzled together from various sources, including some Begemot sheets. Most of the stencils came from the Ka-52 OOB sheet, and generic decal sheet material was used to mark the walkways or the rotor tips and leading edges.
Only some light weathering was done to the leading edges of the wings, and then the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.
A complex kitbashing project, and it revealed some pitfalls in the course of making. However, the result looks menacing and still convincing, esp. in flight – even though the picture editing, with four artificially rotating proprotors, was probably more tedious than building the model itself!
+++ 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 authentic facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The РТАК-30 attack vintoplan (also known as vintokryl) owed its existence to the Mil Mi-30 plane/helicopter project that originated in 1972. The Mil Mi-30 was conceived as a transport aircraft that could hold up to 19 passengers or two tons of cargo, and its purpose was to replace the Mi-8 and Mi-17 Helicopters in both civil and military roles. With vertical takeoff through a pair of tiltrotor engine pods on the wing tips (similar in layout to the later V-22 Osprey) and the ability to fly like a normal plane, the Mil Mi-30 had a clear advantage over the older models.
Since the vintoplan concept was a completely new field of research and engineering, a dedicated design bureau was installed in the mid-Seventies at the Rostov-na-Donu helicopter factory, where most helicopters from the Mil design bureau were produced, under the title Ростов Тилт Ротор Авиационная Компания (Rostov Tilt Rotor Aircraft Company), or РТАК (RTRA), for short.
The vintoplan project lingered for some time, with basic research being conducted concerning aerodynamics, rotor design and flight control systems. Many findings later found their way into conventional planes and helicopters. At the beginning of the 1980s, the project had progressed far enough that the vintoplan received official backing so that РТАК scientists and Mil helicopter engineers assembled and tested several layouts and components for this complicated aircraft type.
At that time the Mil Mi-30 vintoplan was expected to use a single TV3-117 Turbo Shaft Engine with a four-bladed propeller rotors on each of its two pairs of stub wings of almost equal span. The engine was still installed in the fuselage and the proprotors driven by long shafts.
However, while being a very clean design, this original layout revealed several problems concerning aeroelasticity, dynamics of construction, characteristics for the converter apparatuses, aerodynamics and flight dynamics. In the course of further development stages and attempts to rectify the technical issues, the vintoplan layout went through several revisions. The layout shifted consequently from having 4 smaller engines in rotating pods on two pairs of stub wings through three engines with rotating nacelles on the front wings and a fixed, horizontal rotor over the tail and finally back to only 2 engines (much like the initial concept), but this time mounted in rotating nacelles on the wing tips and a canard stabilizer layout.
In August 1981 the Commission of the Presidium of the USSR Council of Ministers on weapons eventually issued a decree on the development of a flyworthy Mil Mi-30 vintoplan prototype. Shortly afterwards the military approved of the vintoplan, too, but desired bigger, more powerful engines in order to improve performance and weight capacity. In the course of the ensuing project refinement, the weight capacity was raised to 3-5 tons and the passenger limit to 32. In parallel, the modified type was also foreseen for civil operations as a short range feederliner, potentially replacing Yak-40 and An-24 airliners in Aeroflot service.
In 1982, РТАК took the interest from the military and proposed a dedicated attack vintoplan, based on former research and existing components of the original transport variant. This project was accepted by MAP and received the separate designation РТАК-30. However, despite having some close technical relations to the Mi-30 transport (primarily the engine nacelles, their rotation mechanism and the flight control systems), the РТАК-30 was a completely different aircraft. The timing was good, though, and the proposal was met with much interest, since the innovative vintoplan concept was to compete against traditional helicopters: the design work on the dedicated Mi-28 and Ka-50 attack helicopters had just started at that time, too, so that РТАК received green lights for the construction of five prototypes: four flyworthy machines plus one more for static ground tests.
The РТАК-30 was based on one of the early Mi-30 layouts and it combined two pairs of mid-set wings with different wing spans with a tall tail fin that ensured directional stability. Each wing carried a rotating engine nacelle with a so-called proprotor on its tip, each with three high aspect ratio blades. The proprotors were handed (i.e. revolved in opposite directions) in order to minimize torque effects and improve handling, esp. in the hover. The front and back pair of engines were cross-linked among each other on a common driveshaft, eliminating engine-out asymmetric thrust problems during V/STOL operations. In the event of the failure of one engine, it would automatically disconnect through torque spring clutches and both propellers on a pair of wings would be driven by the remaining engine.
Four engines were chosen because, despite the weight and complexity penalty, this extra power was expected to be required in order to achieve a performance that was markedly superior to a conventional helicopter like the Mi-24, the primary Soviet attack helicopter of that era the РТАК-30 was supposed to replace. It was also expected that the rotating nacelles could also be used to improve agility in level flight through a mild form of vectored thrust.
The РТАК-30’s streamlined fuselage provided ample space for avionics, fuel, a fully retractable tricycle landing gear and a two man crew in an armored side-by-side cockpit with ejection seats. The windshield was able to withstand 12.7–14.5 mm caliber bullets, the titanium cockpit tub could take hits from 20 mm cannon. An autonomous power unit (APU) was housed in the fuselage, too, making operations of the aircraft independent from ground support.
While the РТАК-30 was not intended for use as a transport, the fuselage was spacious enough to have a small compartment between the front wings spars, capable of carrying up to three people. The purpose of this was the rescue of downed helicopter crews, as a cargo hold esp. for transfer flights and as additional space for future mission equipment or extra fuel.
In vertical flight, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotor system used controls very similar to a twin or tandem-rotor helicopter. Yaw was controlled by tilting its rotors in opposite directions. Roll was provided through differential power or thrust, supported by ailerons on the rear wings. Pitch was provided through rotor cyclic or nacelle tilt and further aerodynamic surfaces on both pairs of wings. Vertical motion was controlled with conventional rotor blade pitch and a control similar to a fixed-wing engine control called a thrust control lever (TCL). The rotor heads had elastomeric bearings and the proprotor blades were made from composite materials, which could sustain 30 mm shells.
The РТАК-30 featured a helmet-mounted display for the pilot, a very modern development at its time. The pilot designated targets for the navigator/weapons officer, who proceeded to fire the weapons required to fulfill that particular task. The integrated surveillance and fire control system had two optical channels providing wide and narrow fields of view, a narrow-field-of-view optical television channel, and a laser rangefinder. The system could move within 110 degrees in azimuth and from +13 to −40 degrees in elevation and was placed in a spherical dome on top of the fuselage, just behind the cockpit.
The aircraft carried one automatic 2A42 30 mm internal gun, mounted semi-rigidly fixed near the center of the fuselage, movable only slightly in elevation and azimuth. The arrangement was also regarded as being more practical than a classic free-turning turret mount for the aircraft’s considerably higher flight speed than a normal helicopter. As a side effect, the semi-rigid mounting improved the cannon's accuracy, giving the 30 mm a longer practical range and better hit ratio at medium ranges. Ammunition supply was 460 rounds, with separate compartments for high-fragmentation, explosive incendiary, or armor-piercing rounds. The type of ammunition could be selected by the pilot during flight.
The gunner can select one of two rates of full automatic fire, low at 200 to 300 rds/min and high at 550 to 800 rds/min. The effective range when engaging ground targets such as light armored vehicles is 1,500 m, while soft-skinned targets can be engaged out to 4,000 m. Air targets can be engaged flying at low altitudes of up to 2,000 m and up to a slant range of 2,500 m.
A substantial range of weapons could be carried on four hardpoints under the front wings, plus three more under the fuselage, for a total ordnance of up to 2,500 kg (with reduced internal fuel). The РТАК-30‘s main armament comprised up to 24 laser-guided Vikhr missiles with a maximum range of some 8 km. These tube-launched missiles could be used against ground and aerial targets. A search and tracking radar was housed in a thimble radome on the РТАК-30’s nose and their laser guidance system (mounted in a separate turret under the radome) was reported to be virtually jam-proof. The system furthermore featured automatic guidance to the target, enabling evasive action immediately after missile launch. Alternatively, the system was also compatible with Ataka laser-guided anti-tank missiles.
Other weapon options included laser- or TV-guided Kh-25 missiles as well as iron bombs and napalm tanks of up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) caliber and several rocket pods, including the S-13 and S-8 rockets. The "dumb" rocket pods could be upgraded to laser guidance with the proposed Ugroza system. Against helicopters and aircraft the РТАК-30 could carry up to four R-60 and/or R-73 IR-guided AAMs. Drop tanks and gun pods could be carried, too.
When the РТАК-30's proprotors were perpendicular to the motion in the high-speed portions of the flight regime, the aircraft demonstrated a relatively high maximum speed: over 300 knots/560 km/h top speed were achieved during state acceptance trials in 1987, as well as sustained cruise speeds of 250 knots/460 km/h, which was almost twice as fast as a conventional helicopter. Furthermore, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotors and stub wings provided the aircraft with a substantially greater cruise altitude capability than conventional helicopters: during the prototypes’ tests the machines easily reached 6,000 m / 20,000 ft or more, whereas helicopters typically do not exceed 3,000 m / 10,000 ft altitude.
Flight tests in general and flight control system refinement in specific lasted until late 1988, and while the vintoplan concept proved to be sound, the technical and practical problems persisted. The aircraft was complex and heavy, and pilots found the machine to be hazardous to land, due to its low ground clearance. Due to structural limits the machine could also never be brought to its expected agility limits
During that time the Soviet Union’s internal tensions rose and more and more hampered the РТАК-30’s development. During this time, two of the prototypes were lost (the 1st and 4th machine) in accidents, and in 1989 only two machines were left in flightworthy condition (the 5th airframe had been set aside for structural ground tests). Nevertheless, the РТАК-30 made its public debut at the Paris Air Show in June 1989 (the 3rd prototype, coded “33 Yellow”), together with the Mi-28A, but was only shown in static display and did not take part in any flight show. After that, the aircraft received the NATO ASCC code "Hemlock" and caused serious concern in Western military headquarters, since the РТАК-30 had the potential to dominate the European battlefield.
And this was just about to happen: Despite the РТАК-30’s development problems, the innovative attack vintoplan was included in the Soviet Union’s 5-year plan for 1989-1995, and the vehicle was eventually expected to enter service in 1996. However, due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dwindling economics, neither the РТАК-30 nor its civil Mil Mi-30 sister did soar out in the new age of technology. In 1990 the whole program was stopped and both surviving РТАК-30 prototypes were mothballed – one (the 3rd prototype) was disassembled and its components brought to the Rostov-na-Donu Mil plant, while the other, prototype No. 1, is rumored to be stored at the Central Russian Air Force Museum in Monino, to be restored to a public exhibition piece some day.
General characteristics:
Crew: Two (pilot, copilot/WSO) plus space for up to three passengers or cargo
Length: 45 ft 7 1/2 in (13,93 m)
Rotor diameter: 20 ft 9 in (6,33 m)
Wingspan incl. engine nacelles: 42 ft 8 1/4 in (13,03 m)
Total width with rotors: 58 ft 8 1/2 in (17,93 m)
Height: 17 ft (5,18 m) at top of tailfin
Disc area: 4x 297 ft² (27,65 m²)
Wing area: 342.2 ft² (36,72 m²)
Empty weight: 8,500 kg (18,740 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 12,000 kg (26,500 lb)
Powerplant:
4× Klimov VK-2500PS-03 turboshaft turbines, 2,400 hp (1.765 kW) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 275 knots (509 km/h, 316 mph) at sea level
305 kn (565 km/h; 351 mph) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)
Cruise speed: 241 kn (277 mph, 446 km/h) at sea level
Stall speed: 110 kn (126 mph, 204 km/h) in airplane mode
Range: 879 nmi (1,011 mi, 1,627 km)
Combat radius: 390 nmi (426 mi, 722 km)
Ferry range: 1,940 nmi (2,230 mi, 3,590 km) with auxiliary external fuel tanks
Service ceiling: 25,000 ft (7,620 m)
Rate of climb: 2,320–4,000 ft/min (11.8 m/s)
Glide ratio: 4.5:1
Disc loading: 20.9 lb/ft² at 47,500 lb GW (102.23 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.259 hp/lb (427 W/kg)
Armament:
1× 30 mm (1.18 in) 2A42 multi-purpose autocannon with 450 rounds
7 external hardpoints for a maximum ordnance of 2.500 kg (5.500 lb)
The kit and its assembly:
This exotic, fictional aircraft-thing is a contribution to the “The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com in early 2019. While the propulsion system itself is not that unconventional, I deemed the quadrocopter concept (which had already been on my agenda for a while) to be suitable for a worthy submission.
The Mil Mi-30 tiltrotor aircraft, mentioned in the background above, was a real project – but my alternative combat vintoplan design is purely speculative.
I had already stashed away some donor parts, primarily two sets of tiltrotor backpacks for 1:144 Gundam mecha from Bandai, which had been released recently. While these looked a little toy-like, these parts had the charm of coming with handed propellers and stub wings that would allow the engine nacelles to swivel.
The search for a suitable fuselage turned out to be a more complex safari than expected. My initial choice was the spoofy Italeri Mi-28 kit (I initially wanted a staggered tandem cockpit), but it turned out to be much too big for what I wanted to achieve. Then I tested a “real” Mi-28 (Dragon) and a Ka-50 (Italeri), but both failed for different reasons – the Mi-28 was too slender, while the Ka-50 had the right size – but converting it for my build would have been VERY complicated, because the engine nacelles would have to go and the fuselage shape between the cockpit and the fuselage section around the original engines and stub wings would be hard to adapt. I eventually bought an Italeri Ka-52 two-seater as fuselage donor.
In order to mount the four engines to the fuselage I’d need two pairs of wings of appropriate span – and I found a pair of 1:100 A-10 wings as well as the wings from an 1:72 PZL Iskra (not perfect, but the most suitable donor parts I could find in the junkyard). On the tips of these wings, the swiveling joints for the engine nacelles from the Bandai set were glued. While mounting the rear wings was not too difficult (just the Ka-52’s OOB stabilizers had to go), the front pair of wings was more complex. The reason: the Ka-52’s engines had to go and their attachment points, which are actually shallow recesses on the kit, had to be faired over first. Instead of filling everything with putty I decided to cover the areas with 0.5mm styrene sheet first, and then do cosmetic PSR work. This worked quite well and also included a cover for the Ka-52’s original rotor mast mount. Onto these new flanks the pair of front wings was attached, in a mid position – a conceptual mistake…
The cockpit was taken OOB and the aircraft’s nose received an additional thimble radome, reminiscent of the Mi-28’s arrangement. The radome itself was created from a German 500 kg WWII bomb.
At this stage, the mid-wing mistake reared its ugly head – it had two painful consequences which I had not fully thought through. Problem #1: the engine nacelles turned out to be too long. When rotated into a vertical position, they’d potentially hit the ground! Furthermore, the ground clearance was very low – and I decided to skip the Ka-52’s OOB landing gear in favor of a heavier and esp. longer alternative, a full landing gear set from an Italeri MiG-37 “Ferret E” stealth fighter, which itself resembles a MiG-23/27 landing gear. Due to the expected higher speeds of the vintoplan I gave the landing gear full covers (partly scratched, plus some donor parts from an Academy MiG-27). It took some trials to get the new landing gear into the right position and a suitable stance – but it worked. With this benchmark I was also able to modify the engine nacelles, shortening their rear ends. They were still very (too!) close to the ground, but at least the model would not sit on them!
However, the more complete the model became, the more design flaws turned up. Another mistake is that the front and rear rotors slightly overlap when in vertical position – something that would be unthinkable in real life…
With all major components in place, however, detail work could proceed. This included the completion of the cockpit and the sensor turrets, the Ka-52 cannon and finally the ordnance. Due to the large rotors, any armament had to be concentrated around the fuselage, outside of the propeller discs. For this reason (and in order to prevent the rear engines to ingest exhaust gases from the front engines in level flight), I gave the front wings a slightly larger span, so that four underwing pylons could be fitted, plus a pair of underfuselage hardpoints.
The ordnance was puzzled together from the Italeri Ka-52 and from an ESCI Ka-34 (the fake Ka-50) kit.
Painting and markings:
With such an exotic aircraft, I rather wanted a conservative livery and opted for a typical Soviet tactical four-tone scheme from the Eighties – the idea was to build a prototype aircraft from the state acceptance trials period, not a flashy demonstrator. The scheme and the (guesstimated) colors were transferred from a Soviet air force MiG-21bis of that era, and it consists of a reddish light brown (Humbrol 119, Light Earth), a light, yellowish green (Humbrol 159, Khaki Drab), a bluish dark green (Humbrol 195, Dark Satin Green, a.k.a. RAL 6020 Chromdioxidgrün) and a dark brown (Humbrol 170, Brown Bess). For the undersides’ typical bluish grey I chose Humbrol 145 (FS 35237, Gray Blue), which is slightly lighter and less greenish than the typical Soviet tones. A light black ink wash was applied and some light post-shading was done in order to create panels that are structurally not there, augmented by some pencil lines.
The cockpit became light blue (Humbrol 89), with medium gray dashboard and consoles. The ejection seats received bright yellow seatbelts and bright blue pads – a detail seen on a Mi-28 cockpit picture.
Some dielectric fairings like the fin tip were painted in bright medium green (Humbrol 101), while some other antenna fairings were painted in pale yellow (Humbrol 71).
The landing gear struts and the interior of the wells became Aluminum Metalic (Humbrol 56), the wheels dark green discs (Humbrol 30).
The decals were puzzled together from various sources, including some Begemot sheets. Most of the stencils came from the Ka-52 OOB sheet, and generic decal sheet material was used to mark the walkways or the rotor tips and leading edges.
Only some light weathering was done to the leading edges of the wings, and then the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.
A complex kitbashing project, and it revealed some pitfalls in the course of making. However, the result looks menacing and still convincing, esp. in flight – even though the picture editing, with four artificially rotating proprotors, was probably more tedious than building the model itself!
A NATO E-3A Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft sits on the tarmac in Konya, Turkey. Since October 2016, NATO aircraft have flown over 1,000 mission hours in support of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS. These AWACS aircraft fly from a base in Konya, Turkey, and help manage the busy airspace in Iraq and Syria. Allies decided to provide AWACS support to the Global Coalition in July 2016.
British Columbians can expect shorter closures and delays on Highway 1, now that the Province has completed the avalanche-control system west of Revelstoke by installing five new remote avalanche-control stations.
Learn more: news.gov.bc.ca/16041