View allAll Photos Tagged developing
Developed in collaboration with Sweetwater, and magpul. To replace the ACR in 2016, developed for any eviroment. The IMR-68, or Infanty Modular Rifle -sixty eight, is capable of being fired underwater at a depth of 900 feet, due to Magpuls' recoil system, that takes the bullets initial firing shock and turns it into lateral motion propelling the bolt backwards. Fire modes: semi, two round burst with a rate of fire of 800 rounds per minute. The weapon fires 6.8SPC from a 22 inch barrel, using either sweetwaters' 30 round 'Garde' mag or standard STANAG mags.
This weapon is the standard model two DMR for the US Special forces. Nicknamed the 'Condor' by the operators who use it.
This weapon features my completed 'Garde' 20 round mag.
Credit to: Wes, and KevinTK
Comment, fav, suggestions, are very much appreciated
Singapore (Listeni/ˈsɪŋɡəpɔːr/), officially the Republic of Singapore, and often referred to as the Lion City, the Garden City, and the Red Dot, is a global city and sovereign state in Southeast Asia and the world's only island city-state. It lies one degree (137 km) north of the equator, at the southernmost tip of continental Asia and peninsular Malaysia, with Indonesia's Riau Islands to the south. Singapore's territory consists of the diamond-shaped main island and 62 islets. Since independence, extensive land reclamation has increased its total size by 23% (130 km2), and its greening policy has covered the densely populated island with tropical flora, parks and gardens.
The islands were settled from the second century AD by a series of local empires. In 1819, Sir Stamford Raffles founded modern Singapore as a trading post of the East India Company; after the company collapsed, the islands were ceded to Britain and became part of its Straits Settlements in 1826. During World War II, Singapore was occupied by Japan. It gained independence from Britain in 1963, by uniting with other former British territories to form Malaysia, but was expelled two years later over ideological differences. After early years of turbulence, and despite lacking natural resources and a hinterland, the nation developed rapidly as an Asian Tiger economy, based on external trade and its human capital.
Singapore is a global commerce, finance and transport hub. Its standings include: "easiest place to do business" (World Bank) for ten consecutive years, most "technology-ready" nation (WEF), top International-meetings city (UIA), city with "best investment potential" (BERI), 2nd-most competitive country (WEF), 3rd-largest foreign exchange centre, 3rd-largest financial centre, 3rd-largest oil refining and trading centre and one of the top two busiest container ports since the 1990s. Singapore's best known global brands include Singapore Airlines and Changi Airport, both amongst the most-awarded in their industry; SIA is also rated by Fortune surveys as Asia's "most admired company". For the past decade, it has been the only Asian country with the top AAA sovereign rating from all major credit rating agencies, including S&P, Moody's and Fitch.
Singapore ranks high on its national social policies, leading Asia and 11th globally, on the Human Development Index (UN), notably on key measures of education, healthcare, life expectancy, quality of life, personal safety, housing. Although income inequality is high, 90% of citizens own their homes, and the country has one of the highest per capita incomes, with low taxes. The cosmopolitan nation is home to 5.5 million residents, 38% of whom are permanent residents and other foreign nationals. Singaporeans are mostly bilingual in a mother-tongue language and English as their common language. Its cultural diversity is reflected in its extensive ethnic "hawker" cuisine and major festivals - Chinese, Malay, Indian, Western - which are all national holidays. In 2015, Lonely Planet and The New York Times listed Singapore as their top and 6th best world destination to visit respectively.
The nation's core principles are meritocracy, multiculturalism and secularism. It is noted for its effective, pragmatic and incorrupt governance and civil service, which together with its rapid development policies, is widely cited as the "Singapore model". Gallup polls shows 84% of its residents expressed confidence in the national government, and 85% in its judicial systems - one of the highest ratings recorded. Singapore has significant influence on global affairs relative to its size, leading some analysts to classify it as a middle power. It is ranked as Asia's most influential city and 4th in the world by Forbes.
Singapore is a unitary, multiparty, parliamentary republic, with a Westminster system of unicameral parliamentary government. The People's Action Party has won every election since self-government in 1959. One of the five founding members of the ASEAN, Singapore is also the host of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Secretariat, and a member of the East Asia Summit, Non-Aligned Movement, and the Commonwealth of Nations.
ETYMOLOGY
The English name of Singapore is derived from the Malay word, Singapura, which was in turn derived from Sanskrit (Singa is "lion", Pura "city"; Sanskrit: सिंहपुर, IAST: Siṃhápura), hence the customary reference to the nation as the Lion City, and its inclusion in many of the nation's symbols (e.g., its coat of arms, Merlion emblem). However, it is unlikely that lions ever lived on the island; Sang Nila Utama, who founded and named the island Singapura, most likely saw a Malayan tiger. It is also known as Pulau Ujong, as far back as the 3rd century, literally 'island at the end' (of the Malay Peninsula) in Malay.
Since the 1970s, Singapore has also been widely known as the Garden City, owing to its extensive greening policy covering the whole island, a priority of its first prime minister Lee Kuan Yew, dubbed the nation's "Chief Gardener". The nation's conservation and greening efforts contributed to Singapore Botanic Gardens being the only tropical garden to be inscribed by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site. The nickname, Red Dot, is a reference to its size on the map, contrasting with its achievements. In 2015, Singapore's Golden Jubilee year, the celebratory "SG50" branding is depicted inside a red dot.
HISTORY
Temasek ('Sea Town' in the Malay language), an outpost of the Sumatran Srivijaya empire, is the earliest written record relating to the area now called Singapore. In the 13th century, the Kingdom of Singapura was established on the island and it became a trading port city. However, there were two major foreign invasions before it was destroyed by the Majapahit in 1398. In 1613, Portuguese raiders burned down the settlement, which by then was nominally part of the Johor Sultanate and the island sank into obscurity for the next two centuries, while the wider maritime region and much trade was under Dutch control.
BRITISH COLONISATION 1819-1942
In 1819, Thomas Stamford Raffles arrived and signed a treaty with Sultan Hussein Shah of Johor, on behalf of the British East India Company, to develop the southern part of Singapore as a British trading post. In 1824, the entire island, as well as the Temenggong, became a British possession after a further treaty with the Sultan. In 1826, Singapore became part of the Straits Settlements, under the jurisdiction of British India, becoming the regional capital in 1836.
Prior to Raffles' arrival, there were only about a thousand people living on the island, mostly indigenous Malays along with a handful of Chinese. By 1860, the population had swelled to more than 80,000 and more than half were Chinese. Many immigrants came to work at rubber plantations and, after the 1870s, the island became a global centre for rubber exports.
After the First World War, the British built the large Singapore Naval Base. Lieutenant General Sir William George Shedden Dobbie was appointed General Officer Commanding of the Malaya Command on 8 November 1935, holding the post until 1939;
WORLD WAR II AND JAPANESE OCCUPATION 1942-45
in May 1938, the General Officer Commanding of the Malaya Command warned how Singapore could be conquered by the Japanese via an attack from northern Malaya, but his warnings went unheeded. The Imperial Japanese Army invaded British Malaya, culminating in the Battle of Singapore. When the British surrendered on 15 February 1942, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill called the defeat "the worst disaster and largest capitulation in British history". Between 5,000 and 25,000 ethnic Chinese people were killed in the subsequent Sook Ching massacre.
From November 1944 to May 1945, the Allies conducted an intensive bombing of Singapore.
RETURN OF BRITISH 1945-59
After the surrender of Japan was announced in the Jewel Voice Broadcast by the Japanese Emperor on 15 August 1945 there was a breakdown of order and looting and revenge-killing were widespread. The formal Japanese Occupation of Singapore was only ended by Operation Tiderace and the formal surrender on 12 September 1945 at Singapore City Hall when Lord Louis Mountbatten, Supreme Allied Commander of Southeast Asia Command, accepted the capitulation of Japanese forces in Southeast Asia from General Itagaki Seishiro.
A British Military Administration was then formed to govern the island. On 1 April 1946, the Straits Settlements were dissolved and Singapore became a separate Crown Colony with a civil administration headed by a Governor. Much of the infrastructure had been destroyed during the war, including the harbour, electricity, telephone and water supply systems. There was also a shortage of food leading to malnutrition, disease, and rampant crime and violence. High food prices, unemployment, and workers' discontent culminated into a series of strikes in 1947 causing massive stoppages in public transport and other services. In July 1947, separate Executive and Legislative Councils were established and the election of six members of the Legislative Council was scheduled for the following year. By late 1947, the economy began to recover, facilitated by a growing demand for tin and rubber around the world, but it would take several more years before the economy returned to pre-war levels.
The failure of Britain to defend Singapore had destroyed its credibility as an infallible ruler in the eyes of Singaporeans. The decades after the war saw a political awakening amongst the local populace and the rise of anti-colonial and nationalist sentiments, epitomized by the slogan Merdeka, or "independence" in the Malay language.
During the 1950s, Chinese Communists with strong ties to the trade unions and Chinese schools carried out armed uprising against the government, leading to the Malayan Emergency and later, the Communist Insurgency War. The 1954 National Service Riots, Chinese middle schools riots, and Hock Lee bus riots in Singapore were all linked to these events.
David Marshall, pro-independence leader of the Labour Front, won Singapore's first general election in 1955. He led a delegation to London, but Britain rejected his demand for complete self-rule. He resigned and was replaced by Lim Yew Hock, whose policies convinced Britain to grant Singapore full internal self-government for all matters except defence and foreign affairs.
SELF-GOVERNMENT 1959-1963
During the May 1959 elections, the People's Action Party won a landslide victory. Singapore became an internally self-governing state within the Commonwealth, with Lee Kuan Yew as its first Prime Minister. Governor Sir William Allmond Codrington Goode served as the first Yang di-Pertuan Negara (Head of State), and was succeeded by Yusof bin Ishak, who became the first President of Singapore in 1965.
MERGER WITH MALAYSIA 1963-65
As a result of the 1962 Merger Referendum, on 31 August 1963 Singapore joined with the Federation of Malaya, the Crown Colony of Sarawak and the Crown Colony of North Borneo to form the new federation of Malaysia under the terms of the Malaysia Agreement. Singaporean leaders chose to join Malaysia primarily due to concerns over its limited land size, scarcity of water, markets and natural resources. Some Singaporean and Malaysian politicians were also concerned that the communists might form the government on the island, a possibility perceived as an external threat to the Federation of Malaya.However, shortly after the merger, the Singapore state government and the Malaysian central government disagreed on many political and economic issues, and communal strife culminated in the 1964 race riots in Singapore. After many heated ideological conflicts between the two governments, on 9 August 1965, the Malaysian Parliament voted 126 to 0 to expel Singapore from Malaysia with Singaporean delegates not present.
INDEPENDENCE 1965 TO PRESENT
Singapore gained independence as the Republic of Singapore (remaining within the Commonwealth of Nations) on 9 August 1965. Race riots broke out once more in 1969. In 1967, the country co-founded ASEAN, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, and in 1970 it joined the Non-Aligned Movement. Lee Kuan Yew became Prime Minister, leading its Third World economy to First World affluence in a single generation. His emphasis on rapid economic growth, support for business entrepreneurship, limitations on internal democracy, and close relationships with China set the new nation's policies for the next half-century.
In 1990, Goh Chok Tong succeeded Lee as Prime Minister, while the latter continued serving in the Cabinet as Senior Minister until 2004, and then Minister Mentor until May 2011. During Goh's tenure, the country faced the 1997 Asian financial crisis, the 2003 SARS outbreak and terrorist threats posed by Jemaah Islamiyah.
In 2004, Lee Hsien Loong, the eldest son of Lee Kuan Yew, became the country's third Prime Minister. Goh Chok Tong remained in Cabinet as the Senior Minister until May 2011, when he was named Emeritus Senior Minister despite his retirement. He steered the nation through the 2008 global financial crisis, resolved the disputed 79-year old Malayan railways land, and introduced integrated resorts. Despite the economy's exceptional growth, PAP suffered its worst election results in 2011, winning 60% of votes, amidst hot-button issues of high influx of foreign workers and cost of living. Lee initiated a major re-structuring of the economy to raise productivity, improved universal healthcare and grants, especially for the pioneer generation of citizens, amongst many new inclusive measures.
On 23 March 2015, its founding prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew, who had 'personified Singapore to the world' for nearly half a century died. In a week of national mourning, 1.7 million residents and guests paid tribute to him at his lying-in-state at Parliament House and at community sites around the island.
Singapore celebrated its Golden jubilee in 2015 – its 50th year of independence, with a year-long series of events branded SG50. The PAP maintained its dominance in Parliament at the September general elections, receiving 69.9% of the popular vote, its second-highest polling result behind the 2001 tally of 75.3%.
GEOGRAPHY
Singapore consists of 63 islands, including the main island, Pulau Ujong. There are two man-made connections to Johor, Malaysia: the Johor–Singapore Causeway in the north and the Tuas Second Link in the west. Jurong Island, Pulau Tekong, Pulau Ubin and Sentosa are the largest of Singapore's smaller islands. The highest natural point is Bukit Timah Hill at 163.63 m. April and May are the hottest months, with the wetter monsoon season from November to January.
From July to October, there is often haze caused by bush fires in neighbouring Indonesia, usually from the island of Sumatra. Although Singapore does not observe daylight saving time (DST), it follows the GMT+8 time zone, one hour ahead of the typical zone for its geographical location.
GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS
Singapore is a parliamentary republic with a Westminster system of unicameral parliamentary government representing constituencies. The country's constitution establishes a representative democracy as the political system. Executive power rests with the Cabinet of Singapore, led by the Prime Minister and, to a much lesser extent, the President. The President is elected through a popular vote, and has veto powers over a specific set of executive decisions, such as the use of the national reserves and the appointment of judges, but otherwise occupies a largely ceremonial post.
The Parliament serves as the legislative branch of the government. Members of Parliament (MPs) consist of elected, non-constituency and nominated members. Elected MPs are voted into the Parliament on a "first-past-the-post" (plurality) basis and represent either single-member or group representation constituencies. The People's Action Party has won control of Parliament with large majorities in every election since self-governance was secured in 1959.
Although the elections are clean, there is no independent electoral authority and the government has strong influence on the media. Freedom House ranks Singapore as "partly free" in its Freedom in the World report, and The Economist ranks Singapore as a "flawed democracy", the second best rank of four, in its "Democracy Index". Despite this, in the 2011 Parliamentary elections, the opposition, led by the Workers' Party, increased its representation to seven elected MPs. In the 2015 elections, PAP scored a landslide victory, winning 83 of 89 seats contested, with 70% of popular votes. Gallup polls reported 84% of residents in Singapore expressed confidence in the government, and 85% in its judicial systems and courts – one of the highest ratings in the world.
Singapore's governance model eschews populist politics, focusing on the nation's long-term interest, and is known to be clean, effective and pragmatic. As a small nation highly dependent on external trade, it is vulnerable to geo-politics and global economics. It places great emphasis on security and stability of the region in its foreign policies, and applies global best practices to ensure the nation's attractiveness as an investment destination and business hub.
The legal system of Singapore is based on English common law, but with substantial local differences. Trial by jury was abolished in 1970 so that judicial decisions would rest entirely in the hands of appointed judges. Singapore has penalties that include judicial corporal punishment in the form of caning, which may be imposed for such offences as rape, rioting, vandalism, and certain immigration offences.There is a mandatory death penalty for murder, as well as for certain aggravated drug-trafficking and firearms offences.
Amnesty International has said that some legal provisions of the Singapore system conflict with the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that Singapore has "... possibly the highest execution rate in the world relative to its population". The government has disputed Amnesty's claims. In a 2008 survey of international business executives, Singapore received the top ranking with regard to judicial system quality in Asia. Singapore has been consistently rated among the least corrupt countries in the world by Transparency International.
In 2011, the World Justice Project's Rule of Law Index ranked Singapore among the top countries surveyed with regard to "order and security", "absence of corruption", and "effective criminal justice". However, the country received a much lower ranking for "freedom of speech" and "freedom of assembly". All public gatherings of five or more people require police permits, and protests may legally be held only at the Speakers' Corner.
EDUCATION
Education for primary, secondary, and tertiary levels is mostly supported by the state. All institutions, private and public, must be registered with the Ministry of Education. English is the language of instruction in all public schools, and all subjects are taught and examined in English except for the "mother tongue" language paper. While the term "mother tongue" in general refers to the first language internationally, in Singapore's education system, it is used to refer to the second language, as English is the first language. Students who have been abroad for a while, or who struggle with their "Mother Tongue" language, are allowed to take a simpler syllabus or drop the subject.
Education takes place in three stages: primary, secondary, and pre-university education. Only the primary level is compulsory. Students begin with six years of primary school, which is made up of a four-year foundation course and a two-year orientation stage. The curriculum is focused on the development of English, the mother tongue, mathematics, and science. Secondary school lasts from four to five years, and is divided between Special, Express, Normal (Academic), and Normal (Technical) streams in each school, depending on a student's ability level. The basic coursework breakdown is the same as in the primary level, although classes are much more specialised. Pre-university education takes place over two to three years at senior schools, mostly called Junior Colleges.
Some schools have a degree of freedom in their curriculum and are known as autonomous schools. These exist from the secondary education level and up.
National examinations are standardised across all schools, with a test taken after each stage. After the first six years of education, students take the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE), which determines their placement at secondary school. At the end of the secondary stage, GCE "O"-Level exams are taken; at the end of the following pre-university stage, the GCE "A"-Level exams are taken. Of all non-student Singaporeans aged 15 and above, 18% have no education qualifications at all while 45% have the PSLE as their highest qualification; 15% have the GCE 'O' Level as their highest qualification and 14% have a degree.
Singaporean students consistently rank at or near the top of international education assessments:
- In 2015, Singapore topped the OECD's global school performance rankings, based on 15-year-old students' average scores in mathematics and science across 76 countries.
- Singaporean students were ranked first in the 2011 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study conducted by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, and have been ranked in the top three every year since 1995.
- Singapore fared best in the 2015 International Baccalaureate exams, taken in 107 countries, with more than half of the world's 81 perfect scorers and 98% passing rate.
The country's two main public universities - the National University of Singapore and Nanyang Technological University - are ranked among the top 13 in the world.
HEALTH
Singapore has a generally efficient healthcare system, even though their health expenditures are relatively low for developed countries. The World Health Organisation ranks Singapore's healthcare system as 6th overall in the world in its World Health Report. In general, Singapore has had the lowest infant mortality rate in the world for the past two decades.
Life expectancy in Singapore is 80 for males and 85 for females, placing the country 4th in the world for life expectancy. Almost the whole population has access to improved water and sanitation facilities. There are fewer than 10 annual deaths from HIV per 100,000 people. There is a high level of immunisation. Adult obesity is below 10%
The government's healthcare system is based upon the "3M" framework. This has three components: Medifund, which provides a safety net for those not able to otherwise afford healthcare, Medisave, a compulsory health savings scheme covering about 85% of the population, and Medishield, a government-funded health insurance program. Public hospitals in Singapore have autonomy in their management decisions, and compete for patients. A subsidy scheme exists for those on low income. In 2008, 32% of healthcare was funded by the government. It accounts for approximately 3.5% of Singapore's GDP.
RELIGION
Buddhism is the most widely practised religion in Singapore, with 33% of the resident population declaring themselves adherents at the most recent census. The next-most practised religion is Christianity, followed by Islam, Taoism, and Hinduism. 17% of the population did not have a religious affiliation. The proportion of Christians, Taoists, and non-religious people increased between 2000 and 2010 by about 3% each, whilst the proportion of Buddhists decreased. Other faiths remained largely stable in their share of the population. An analysis by the Pew Research Center found Singapore to be the world's most religiously diverse nation.
There are monasteries and Dharma centres from all three major traditions of Buddhism in Singapore: Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana. Most Buddhists in Singapore are Chinese and are of the Mahayana tradition, with missionaries having come into the country from Taiwan and China for several decades. However, Thailand's Theravada Buddhism has seen growing popularity among the populace (not only the Chinese) during the past decade. Soka Gakkai International, a Japanese Buddhist organisation, is practised by many people in Singapore, but mostly by those of Chinese descent. Tibetan Buddhism has also made slow inroads into the country in recent years.
CULTURE
Singapore has one of the lowest rates of drug use in the world. Culturally, the use of illicit drugs is viewed as highly undesirable by Singaporeans, unlike many European societies. Singaporeans' disapproval towards drug use has resulted in laws that impose the mandatory death sentence for certain serious drug trafficking offences. Singapore also has a low rate of alcohol consumption per capita and low levels of violent crime, and one of the lowest intentional homicide rate globally. The average alcohol consumption rate is only 2 litres annually per adult, one of the lowest in the world.
Foreigners make up 42% of the population, and have a strong influence on Singaporean culture. The Economist Intelligence Unit, in its 2013 "Where-to-be-born Index", ranks Singapore as having the best quality of life in Asia and sixth overall in the world.
LANGUAGES; RELIGIONS AND CULTURES
Singapore is a very diverse and young country. It has many languages, religions, and cultures for a country its size.
When Singapore became independent from the United Kingdom in 1963, most of the newly minted Singaporean citizens were uneducated labourers from Malaysia, China and India. Many of them were transient labourers who were seeking to make some money in Singapore and they had no intention of staying permanently. A sizeable minority of middle-class, local-born people, known as the Peranakans, also existed. With the exception of the Peranakans (descendants of late 15th and 16th-century Chinese immigrants) who pledged their loyalties to Singapore, most of the labourers' loyalties lay with their respective homelands of Malaysia, China and India. After independence, the process of crafting a Singaporean identity and culture began.
Former Prime Ministers of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong, have stated that Singapore does not fit the traditional description of a nation, calling it a society-in-transition, pointing out the fact that Singaporeans do not all speak the same language, share the same religion, or have the same customs. Even though English is the first language of the nation, according to the government's 2010 census 20% of Singaporeans, or one in five, are illiterate in English. This is a marked improvement from 1990 where 40% of Singaporeans were illiterate in English.
Languages, religions and cultures among Singaporeans are not delineated according to skin colour or ancestry, unlike many other countries. Among Chinese Singaporeans, one in five is Christian, another one in five is atheist, and the rest are mostly Buddhists or Taoists. One-third speak English as their home language, while half speak Mandarin Chinese. The rest speak other Chinese varieties at home. Most Malays in Singapore speak Malay as their home language with some speaking English. Singaporean Indians are much more religious. Only 1% of them are atheists. Six in ten are Hindu, two in ten Muslim, and the rest mostly Christian. Four in ten speak English as their home language, three in ten Tamil, one in ten Malay, and the rest other Indian languages as their home language.
Each Singaporean's behaviours and attitudes would therefore be influenced by, among many other things, his or her home language and his religion. Singaporeans who speak English as their native language tend to lean toward Western culture, while those who speak Chinese as their native language tend to lean toward Chinese culture and Confucianism. Malay speaking Singaporeans tend to lean toward the Malay culture, which itself is closely linked to the Islamic culture.
ATTITUDES AND BELIEFS
At the national level in Singapore, meritocracy, where one is judged based on one's ability, is heavily emphasised.
Racial and religious harmony is regarded by Singaporeans as a crucial part of Singapore's success, and played a part in building a Singaporean identity. Singapore has a reputation as a nanny state. The national flower of Singapore is the hybrid orchid, Vanda 'Miss Joaquim', named in memory of a Singapore-born Armenian woman, who crossbred the flower in her garden at Tanjong Pagar in 1893. Many national symbols such as the Coat of arms of Singapore and the Lion head symbol of Singapore make use of the lion, as Singapore is known as the Lion City. Other monikers by which Singapore is widely known is the Garden City and the Red Dot. Public holidays in Singapore cover major Chinese, Western, Malay and Indian festivals.
Singaporean employees work an average of around 45 hours weekly, relatively long compared to many other nations. Three in four Singaporean employees surveyed stated that they take pride in doing their work well, and that doing so helps their self-confidence.
CUISINE
Dining, along with shopping, is said to be the country's national pastime. The focus on food has led countries like Australia to attract Singaporean tourists with food-based itineraries. The diversity of food is touted as a reason to visit the country, and the variety of food representing different ethnicities is seen by the government as a symbol of its multiculturalism. The "national fruit" of Singapore is the durian.
In popular culture, food items belong to a particular ethnicity, with Chinese, Malay, and Indian food clearly defined. However, the diversity of cuisine has been increased further by the "hybridisation" of different styles (e.g., the Peranakan cuisine, a mix of Chinese and Malay cuisine).
WIKIPEDIA
One of the main workshop buildings on the grounds of the former East Broad Top Railroad in Orbisonia, Pennsylvania.
Technical details:
Toko 4x5 wooden large format field camera.
150mm F6.8 Rodenstock Geronar lens in Copal BT shutter. Yellow/green filter on lens.
Arista EDU Ultra 200 B&W film (Re-branded Fomapan), shot at ISO 160.
1/8th second at F32.
Developed in Pyrocat HD at 1:1:100 dilution for 8 minutes @ 20 degrees Celsius in Jobo Multitank 5 with 2509N sheet film reels with drum placed on Unicolor Uniroller 352 auto-reversing rotary base.
4x5" negative scanned with Epson V600 in two passes and merged.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Hawker Hunter was a transonic British jet-powered fighter aircraft that was developed by Hawker Aircraft for the Royal Air Force (RAF) during the late 1940s and early 1950s. It was designed to take advantage of the newly developed Rolls-Royce Avon turbojet engine and the swept wing and was the first jet-powered aircraft produced by Hawker to be procured by the RAF. On 7 September 1953, the modified first prototype broke the world air speed record for aircraft, achieving a speed of 727.63 mph (1,171.01 km/h; 632.29 kn).
The single-seat Hunter was introduced to service in 1954 as a maneuverable day interceptor aircraft, quickly succeeding first-generation jet fighters in RAF service such as the Gloster Meteor and the de Havilland Venom. The all-weather/night fighter role was filled by the Gloster Javelin. Successively improved variants of the type were produced, adopting increasingly more capable engine models, and expanding its fuel capacity amongst other modifications being implemented.
The Hunter was exported to many countries all over the world, and one of the first foreign customers was Sweden. In the early 1950s, the Swedish Air Force saw the need for an interceptor that could reach enemy bombers at a higher altitude than the J 29 Tunnan that formed the backbone of the fighter force. A contract for 120 Hawker Hunter Mk 50s (an export version, equivalent to the RAF’s contemporary Mk. 4) was therefore signed on 29 June 1954 and the first aircraft was delivered on 26 August 1955. The model was locally designated J 34 and was assigned to two fighter wings F 8 (Barkaby) and F 18 (Tullinge) near Stockholm to defend the country’s capital as an interim solution before a more modern interceptor in the form of the indigenous Saab J 35 Draken was ready for service.
The J 34 was not fitted with a search radar, it only had a simple ranging radar for the guns and was consequently a pure day fighter aircraft. Its flying characteristics were excellent, though. It was a fast aircraft, with a maximum speed of 1.150 km/h, in spite of the fact that the Rolls-Royce Avon 23 (locally designated RM 5B) engine with a thrust of 4.080 kp lacked an afterburner. The Swedish Hunters’ mission was primarily to intercept enemy bombers, which were expected to attack from high altitudes, and they complemented the Swedish Air Force’s fleet of Saab J 32B, a radar-equipped all-weather/night fighter version of the Saab 32 Lansen fighter-bomber..
The J 34 was initially only armed with four 30 mm (1.18 in) cannon but soon retrofitted with launch rails for two AIM-9 Sidewinders (Swedish designation Rb 24) under the outer wings that markedly improved the interceptor’s effectiveness. A project to improve the performance of the J 34 further resulted in one Hunter being fitted with a Swedish-designed afterburner in 1958. While this significantly increased the engine's thrust, there was little improvement in overall performance, so that the project was shelved.
The Hunters’ career as an interceptor in Swedish service did not last long, though: During the 1960s, the J 34s were gradually replaced by supersonic J 35 Draken and reassigned to less prominent air wings, F 9 in Gothenburg and F 10 in Ängelholm.
At that time the Swedish Air Force was in a critical transitory phase concerning tactical photo reconnaissance. The current standard type for this mission was the Saab S 29C from the late Forties, complemented by the bigger Saab S 32C, which was a photo reconnaissance version developed from the A 32A attack aircraft. 45 of the latter aircraft had been built between 1958 and 1959 and the machines were equipped with a PS-432/A radar with extended range and with six cameras. Additionally, a photo reconnaissance version of the state-of-the-art supersonic Saab 35 Draken was under development, but when its first prototype flew in 1963, it was uncertain when it would become fully operational - the Draken’s interceptor variants had priority, and technology was advancing so fast at that time that upgrades were already in the making while the first production J 35s were delivered. In the meantime, the S 29C had become outdated and the more modern S 32C was rather optimized for maritime patrol. The relatively young surplus of J 34s fighters offered the opportunity to convert several airframes into tactical photo reconnaissance aircraft for low-level use over land, primarily as a replacement for the S 29Cs and as a stopgap until the S 35E would arrive at frontline reconnaissance units.
This led to the S 34B (the J 34s were consequently re-designated J 34A for better differentiation) conversion program. Sixteen airframes with relatively few flying hours were set aside and modified by Saab at Linköping in 1963. The airframe remained at the Hunter Mk. 50/Mk.4s’ standard and retained the type’s original non-afterburner engine and unmodified wings (in the meantime, a dog-toothed wing had been introduced with the Mk.6 that improved handling). The nose section was thoroughly modified to carry a broad array of cameras, and lengthened by about 4'. To compensate for the center of gravity shift through the extra equipment in the nose and create enough space for it, the Hunter’s fuselage-mounted 30 mm guns were completely deleted. The area under the cockpit was widened into a shallow tub with a flat floor, together with an extended, pointed tip which improved low-level flight stability with the now nose but still lacked any radar.
The re-contoured nose/cockpit section contained climatized compartments and windows for a total of six cameras, optimized for low-level reconnaissance and mountable in different angles:
- a long focal-length forward-looking SKA 16b (Vinten F.95) camera in the nose tip
- a sideways-looking wide angle SKA 42-44 camera (facing either to portside or starboard)
- a left oblique/forward infrared camera (various types were used, e.g. an SKA 16a/150 or an SKA 10/92
- a right oblique/forward SKA 16/10
- a vertical SKA 15/15 (F.49 Eagle IX Mk. 2)
- a vertical SKA 16a/150 infrared camera
The Hunter’s four underwing hardpoints were retained, though. All were plumbed to accept drop tanks for long-range missions and the capability to carry a pair of Sidewinders on the outer stations for self-defense was retained, too – even though this option was later in service almost never used. Later during their career, the S 34Bs could alternatively carry defensive equipment like chaff dispensers (e.g. the Motmedelskapsel KB a.k.a. BOZ-100) and early ECM devices like the Petrus/Adrian jamming pods from the Saab 32. However, most of the time the S 34Bs were operated in clean configuration to maximize low-level speed and handling, or just with a pair of drop tanks for long-range patrols along the Swedish borders.
An initial S 34B prototype was built in 1964 and flown late during the same year. Thorough operational tests with the camera installations lasted until mid-1965 at the Swedish Air Force’s Försökscentralen in Linköping. The full conversion program started in June 1964 and the first S 34B conversions were delivered to the Södermanland Wing (F11) in August 1965, where they were exclusively operated and replaced all S 29Cs of the unit’s first squadron, while the second squadron stuck to the S 29C but received four Sk 35C Draken trainers, a measure to prepare the unit for the eventual complete conversion to the S 35D. A total of seventeen Hawker Hunter Mk.50s were modified until 1966, including the prototype, which was brought to the operational S 34B status, too, and integrated into the active fleet. Unlike the J 34A fighters, the recce Hunters received a disruptive and unique three-tone camouflage in dark blue and two shades of dark green on the upper surfaces, reflecting their low-altitude mission profile. Another odd feature of F11’s J 34Bs were their individual tactical codes in the form of colored (red) numeric characters instead of letters, sharing this practice with F11’s contemporary S 32C Lansens.
Overall, the Hunter’s service with the Swedish Air Force was not long, though. The J 34A day fighters were already retired from service in 1969 and partly sold, while the S 34Bs were kept active until 1974, when operations at F11’s home base were expanded: the Swedish Air Force Intelligence School (FV UndS) was relocated to Nyköping and Saab 35 Draken fully replaced the last S 29Cs and the recce Hunters (which both lacked trainer versions). But already a year later, when the Palme government presented its bill 1975:75, a dismantling of two flotilla administrations, Södermanland's air fleet (F 11) and Kalmar air fleet (F 12), was proposed. The background was that the Swedish Defense Forces' peace organization investigation (FFU) in January 1971, tasked with investigating how the air force's peace organization from the mid-1980s could be adapted to the development of the war organization. That the flotilla would be dismantled was a matter of course, as the FFU considered that the reconnaissance divisions should be redistributed to other flotillas, primarily for operational and readiness reasons. Furthermore, the aircraft that the flotilla was armed with, the S 32C Lansen and the S 35D Draken, were to be replaced in the 1980s with the new SH/SF 37 Viggen. This also meant that aerial reconnaissance could then be solved in three aviation divisions, instead of the five reconnaissance aviation divisions that then existed within the Air Force.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 49 ft 0.5 in (14.98 m)
Wingspan: 33 ft 8 in (10.26 m)
Height: 13 ft 2 in (4.01 m)
Wing area: 349 sq ft (32.4 m²)
Airfoil: Hawker 8.5% symmetrical
Empty weight: 14,122 lb (6,406 kg)
Gross weight: 17,750 lb (8,051 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 24,600 lb (11,158 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Rolls-Royce RM5B1 (Avon 23) turbojet engine, 9,000 lbf (40.8 kN) thrust
Performance:
Maximum speed: 623 mph (1,003 km/h, 541 kn, Mach 0.94) at 36,000 ft (11,000 m)
715 mph (621 kn; 1,151 km/h) at sea level
Range: 385 mi (620 km, 335 nmi) with internal fuel only,
1,900 mi (3,100 km, 1,700 nmi) ferry range with maximum external fuel
Service ceiling: 50,000 ft (15,000 m)
Rate of climb: 17,200 ft/min (87 m/s)
Wing loading: 51.6 lb/sq ft (252 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.56
Armament:
No internal guns;
4× underwing hardpoints with a total capacity of 7,400 lb (3,400 kg)
The kit and its assembly:
This fictional converted Hawker Hunter is a submission to the 2022 “Lightning, Canberra & Hunter” group build at whatifmodellers.com. The idea for a recce Hunter came when I wondered why there had not been a more dedicated variant than the FR.10, and when the GB came up I decided to build one from a Revell 1:72 kit. Sweden appeared as a good potential and attractive operator, as the Hunter would fit well between the Tunnan and Draken era – and I also had some donor parts from Swedish aircraft that would find their way into the rhinoplasty.
The kit is Revell’s 1:72 Hawker Hunter F.6 – initially I wanted to use an FGA.9 variant of this kit, but upon close inspection I found out that the Swedish Hunters were of a much earlier standard that made the FGA.9 an unsuitable starting point. While the Mk.4/50’s dog-teeth-less wings would be realized with a conversion set from Wolfpack, the early variants’ non-afterburner jet exhaust would have had to be scratched. It was eventually easier to procure a suitable variant of the Revell kit that offered this nozzle OOB, #04350, the first boxing from 2007 which was subsequently re-issued several times with slightly modified parts/sprues that depict later Hunter variants.
When I started building the kit, however, I found out that the kit was missing two parts – very untypical for Revell?! Apparently, the missing parts had broken off of the sprues during the packaging process, since both box and bag inside were still sealed when I received the kit. One missing piece was one of the separate dog-tooth slat sections for the wings, which could be easily replaced with the parts from the very crisp Wolfpack Hunter F.1/2/4/5 resin conversion set (which also includes a longer metal pitot) that was actually designed for the Revell kit, the other was a main landing gear cover. The latter was replaced by Revell of Germany for free within a couple of days after I had placed a request for a spare part at their service touchpoint. Great service!
The Revell Hunter is nice and probably the best contemporary kit of this aircraft in 1:72, even though it needs some PSR, esp. around the wing attachment seams on the fuselage. Beyond the wing modifications to create a Swedish F.4/Mk. 50 export variant I decided to thoroughly change the nose section, more than the FR.10’s small camera nose tip (which is available as a clear resin piece from Quickboost). I used the Saab 29 as a design benchmark and decided to replace the Hunter’s gun bays with camera compartments, using a leftover optional tray from a Heller S 29C to re-shape the area under the cockpit sides. I wanted to retain the original front landing gear well, though, so that only the “edges” from the Tunnan’s camera ports were transplanted under the Hunter’s front fuselage, creating pronounced “cheeks” and a more or less flat bottom.
To take the photo recce conversion even further I replaced the Hunter’s stub nose with a pointed alternative, a spare SF 37 nose with a forward-facing camera window from a Heller kit that I had received from a good friend a while ago. The Viggen nose was trimmed down to the same diameter as the Hunter’s, and its pitot was removed since the Hunter would retain the original wing-mounted sensor.
This recontoured nose section was blended into the Hunter’s fuselage with several layers/turns of PSR. My initial hope to retain the clear parts’ transparency for the finished S 34B soon evaporated, though, because the body work became so thorough that everything disappeared under layers of putty. At least the parts’ shape was retained, and they thoroughly changed the Hunter’s profile! At times I thought that the modified aircraft had a Soviet touch, and when I installed the landing gear it struck me that the pointed nose gave the Hunter a very F-105-ish look, like a missing link between the Thunderchief and the earlier RF-84G Thunderflash? Well, an idea for a potential future what-if project…
Anything else was taken OOB from the Revell kit, including the cockpit and the short drop tanks on the inner wing pylons.
Painting and markings:
This was a challenge. I did not want to give the fictional recce Hunter the J 34’s simple camouflage with dark green upper surfaces (Olive Green 328M) and grey undersides. The contemporary dark blue/olive green paint scheme was an alternative, but I found it to be quite boring and I also already had some Swedish whiffs with this scheme in my collection.
A suitable alternative eventually came from literature, where I found pictures of privately operated J 32E Lansen target tugs (SE-DCM and -DCN) which carried in the early Nineties a three-tone camouflage on their upper sides, consisting of mörk olivgrön (328M), mörkgrön (326M) and mörkblå (438M). I was not able to find pictures that provided detail information about the aircrafts’ concrete camouflage pattern, though, esp. from above, so that I adapted a pattern from an USN aggressor A-4E Skyhawk with adjusted colors to the Hunter airframe. The blue/green pattern on the contemporary J 32 and J 35 could not simply be expanded to a third shade, since the dark blue forms a kind of net pattern over the green background. The lighter green would always have looked like an enforced foreign matter, so that I rather went for an SEA-ish application in which all three colors appear pari passu. The aggressor pattern yet ensured that the dark blue would still form a kind of “river delta” within a murky green landscape.
The paints I used were Humbrol 77, 163 and 224 – lighter than the original tones, but for better contrast, scale effect and some weathering it turned out O.K. The undersides were painted in standard Swedish grey (058M), and I used Humbrol 165 (RAF Medium Sea Grey) as a proxy. The drop tanks were painted in standard J 34 colors, as a small contrast, in Humbrol 116 (FS 34079) and 165.
The cockpit interior was painted in anthracite, the ejection seat received bright green cushions (seen on a Swedish Hunter on museum display); the landing gear and the respective wells’ interior became aluminum bronze (Humbrol 56), while the interior of the air intakes became shiny aluminum (Revell 99) except for the splitter plates, which received the external camouflage colors. Copying the real J 34s’ look, the area around the jet efflux was painted in Aluminum (Revell 99) and separated from the rest of the hull with a thin 0.5 mm black line (generic decal material). The camera windows were created with black decal material, which had some light reflexes manually added and received a coat with glossy varnish.
The kit received the usual light black ink washing and some post-panel-shading for dramatic effect, and with markedly lightened tones from above to simulate bleached paint.
The decals/marking came mostly from RBD Studio (today Moose Republic, very good stuff!) sheets for Saab 32 Lansen in Swedish service. The unusual tactical code in the form of a number in the squadron’s color (instead of a colored letter or a white or yellow two-digit numeral that came next) was taken over from a real-world F11 S 32C from around 1963 – an exotic option, but it falls into the S 34B’s time frame and was a suitable option for this whiffy model, too. To reflect the 1st squadron’s code color even more and add a small color highlight, I painted the front wheel well cover in red and placed a white “2” on it.
Finally, the model was sealed overall with matt acrylic varnish. The Swedish Hunters’ rather glossy finish was only carried during the aircrafts’ early career years, when the machines still carried the factory finish with British colors under a clear protective coat. When the machines were later re-painted with Swedish paints during overhauls, they received a matt finish.
This modified photo reconnaissance Hunter looks simple, but the nose modifications were more severe and demanding than expected. The result looks pretty strange, esp. the pointed nose takes away the Hunter’s Fifties look. The Swedish markings and the three-tone camouflage suit the Hunter well, though, the S 34B looks quite convincing.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some Background:
During the 1950s, Hindustan Aircraft Limited (HAL) had developed and produced several types of trainer aircraft, such as the HAL HT-2. However, elements within the firm were eager to expand into the then-new realm of supersonic fighter aircraft. Around the same time, the Indian government was in the process of formulating a new Air Staff Requirement for a Mach 2-capable combat aircraft to equip the Indian Air Force (IAF). However, as HAL lacked the necessary experience in both developing and manufacturing frontline combat fighters, it was clear that external guidance would be invaluable; this assistance was embodied by Kurt Tank.
In 1956, HAL formally began design work on the supersonic fighter project. The Indian government, led by Jawaharlal Nehru, authorized the development of the aircraft, stating that it would aid in the development of a modern aircraft industry in India. The first phase of the project sought to develop an airframe suitable for travelling at supersonic speeds, and able to effectively perform combat missions as a fighter aircraft, while the second phase sought to domestically design and produce an engine capable of propelling the aircraft. Early on, there was an explicit adherence to satisfying the IAF's requirements for a capable fighter bomber; attributes such as a twin-engine configuration and a speed of Mach 1.4 to 1.5 were quickly emphasized, and this led to the HF-24 Marut.
On 24 June 1961, the first prototype Marut conducted its maiden flight. It was powered by the same Bristol Siddeley Orpheus 703 turbojets that had powered the Folland Gnat, also being manufactured by HAL at that time. On 1 April 1967, the first production Marut was delivered to the IAF. While originally intended only as an interim measure during testing, HAL decided to power production Maruts with a pair of unreheated Orpheus 703s, meaning the aircraft could not attain supersonic speed. Although originally conceived to operate around Mach 2 the Marut in fact was barely capable of reaching Mach 1 due to the lack of suitably powerful engines.
The IAF were reluctant to procure a fighter aircraft only marginally superior to its existing fleet of British-built Hawker Hunters. However, in 1961, the Indian Government decided to procure the Marut, nevertheless, but only 147 aircraft, including 18 two-seat trainers, were completed out of a planned 214. Just after the decision to build the lukewarm Marut, the development of a more advanced aircraft with the desired supersonic performance was initiated.
This enterprise started star-crossed, though: after the Indian Government conducted its first nuclear tests at Pokhran, international pressure prevented the import of better engines of Western origin, or at times, even spares for the Orpheus engines, so that the Marut never realized its full potential due to insufficient power, and it was relatively obsolescent by the time it reached production.
Due to these restrictions India looked for other sources for supersonic aircraft and eventually settled upon the MiG-21 F-13 from the Soviet Union, which entered service in 1964. While fast and agile, the Fishbed was only a short-range daylight interceptor. It lacked proper range for escort missions and air space patrols, and it had no radar that enabled it to conduct all-weather interceptions. To fill this operational gap, the new indigenous HF-26 project was launched around the same time.
For the nascent Indian aircraft industry, HF-26 had a demanding requirements specification: the aircraft was to achieve Mach 2 top speed at high altitude and carry a radar with a guided missile armament that allowed interceptions in any weather, day and night. The powerplant question was left open, but it was clear from the start that a Soviet engine would be needed, since an indigenous development of a suitable powerplant would take much too long and block vital resources, and western alternatives were out of reach. The mission profile and the performance requirements quickly defined the planned aircraft’s layout: To fit a radar, the air intakes with movable ramps to feed the engines were placed on the fuselage flanks. To make sure the aircraft would fulfill its high-performance demands, it was right from the outset powered by two engines, and it was decided to give it delta wings, a popular design among high-speed aircraft of the time – exemplified by the highly successful Dassault Mirage III (which was to be delivered to Pakistan in 1967). With two engines, the HF-26 would be a heavier aircraft than the Mirage III, though, and it was planned to operate the aircraft from semi-prepared airfields, so that it would receive a robust landing gear with low-pressure tires and a brake parachute.
In 1962 India was able to negotiate the delivery of Tumansky RD-9 turbojet engines from the Soviet Union, even though no afterburner was part of the deal – this had to be indigenously developed by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). However, this meant that the afterburner could be tailored to the HF-26, and this task would provide HAL with valuable engineering experience, too.
Now knowing the powerplant, HAL created a single-seater airframe around it, a rather robust design that superficially reminded of the French Mirage III, but there were fundamental differences. The HF-26 had boxy air intakes with movable ramps to control the airflow to the two engines and a relatively wide fuselage to hold them and most of the fuel in tanks between the air ducts behind the cockpit. The aircraft had a single swept fin and a rather small mid-positioned delta-wing with a 60° sweep. The pilot sat under a tight canopy that offered - similar to the Mirage III - only limited all-round vision.
The HF-26's conical nose radome covered an antenna for a ‘Garud’ interception radar – which was in fact a downgraded Soviet ‘Oryol' (Eagle; NATO reporting name 'Skip Spin') system that guided the HF-26’s main armament, a pair of semi-active radar homing (SARH) ‚Saanp’ missiles.
The Saanp missile was developed specifically for the HF-26 in India but used many components of Soviet origin, too, so that they were compatible with the radar. In performance, the Saanp was comparable with the French Matra R.530 air-to-air missile, even though the aerodynamic layout was reversed, with steering fins at the front end, right behind the SARH seaker head - overall the missile reminded of an enlarged AIM-4 Falcon. The missile weighed 180 kg and had a length of 3.5 m. Power came from a two-stage solid rocket that offered a maximum thrust of 80 kN for 2.7 s during the launch phase plus 6.5 s cruise. Maximum speed was Mach 2.7 and operational range was 1.5 to 20 km (0.9 to 12.5 miles). Two of these missiles could be carried on the main wing hardpoints in front of the landing gear wells. Alternatively, infrared-guided R-3 (AA-2 ‘Atoll’) short-range AAMs could be carried by the HF-26, too, and typically two of these were carried on the outer underwing hardpoints, which were plumbed to accept drop tanks (typically supersonic PTB-490s that were carried by the IAF's MiG-21s, too) . Initially, no internal gun was envisioned, as the HF-26 was supposed to be a pure high-speed/high-altitude interceptor that would not engage in dogfights. Two more hardpoints under the fuselage were plumbed, too, for a total of six external stations.
Due to its wing planform, the HF-26 was soon aptly called “Teer” (= Arrow), and with Soviet help the first prototype was rolled out in early 1964 and presented to the public. The first flight, however, would take place almost a year later in January 1965, due to many technical problems, and these were soon complemented by aerodynamic problems. The original delta-winged HF-26 had poor take-off and landing characteristics, and directional stability was weak, too. While a second prototype was under construction in April 1965 the first aircraft was lost after it had entered a spin from which the pilot could not escape – the aircraft crashed and its pilot was killed during the attempt to eject.
After this loss HAL investigated an enlarged fin and a modified wing design with deeper wingtips with lower sweep, which increased wing area and improved low speed handling, too. Furthermore, the fuselage shape had to be modified, too, to reduce supersonic drag, and a more pronounced area ruling was introduced. The indigenous afterburner for the RD-9 engines was unstable and troublesome, too.
It took until 1968 and three more flying prototypes (plus two static airframes) to refine the Teer for serial production service introduction. In this highly modified form, the aircraft was re-designated HF-26M and the first machines were delivered to IAF No. 3 Squadron in late 1969. However, it would take several months until a fully operational status could be achieved. By that time, it was already clear that the Teer, much like the HF-24 Marut before, could not live up to its expectations and was at the brink of becoming obsolete as it entered service. The RD-9 was not a modern engine anymore, and despite its indigenous afterburner – which turned out not only to be chronically unreliable but also to be very thirsty when engaged – the Teer had a disappointing performance: The fighter only achieved a top speed of Mach 1.6 at full power, and with full external load it hardly broke the wall of sound in level flight. Its main armament, the Saanp AAM, also turned out to be unreliable even under ideal conditions.
However, the HF-26M came just in time to take part in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and was, despite its weaknesses, extensively used – even though not necessarily in its intended role. High-flying slow bombers were not fielded during the conflict, and the Teer remained, despite its on-board radar, heavily dependent on ground control interception (GCI) to vector its pilot onto targets coming in at medium and even low altitude. The HF-26M had no capability against low-flying aircraft either, so that pilots had to engage incoming, low-flying enemy aircraft after visual identification – a task the IAF’s nimble MiG-21s were much better suited for. Escorts and air cover missions for fighter-bombers were flown, too, but the HF-26M’s limited range only made it a suitable companion for the equally short-legged Su-7s. The IAF Canberras were frequently deployed on longer range missions, but the HF-26Ms simply could not follow them all the time; for a sufficient range the Teer had to carry four drop tanks, what increased drag and only left the outer pair of underwing hardpoints (which were not plumbed) free for a pair of AA-2 missiles. With the imminent danger of aerial close range combat, though, During the conflict with Pakistan, most HF-26M's were retrofitted with rear-view mirrors in their canopies to improve the pilot's field of view, and a passive IR sensor was added in a small fairing under the nose to improve the aircraft's all-weather capabilities and avoid active radar emissions that would warn potential prey too early.
The lack of an internal gun turned out to be another great weakness of the Teer, and this was only lightly mended through the use of external gun pods. Two of these cigar-shaped pods that resembled the Soviet UPK-23 pod could be carried on the two ventral pylons, and each contained a 23 mm Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-23L autocannon of Soviet origin with 200 rounds. Technically these pods were very similar to the conformal GP-9 pods carried by the IAF MiG-21FLs. While the gun pods considerably improved the HF-26M’s firepower and versatility, the pods were draggy, blocked valuable hardpoints (from extra fuel) and their recoil tended to damage the pylons as well as the underlying aircraft structure, so that they were only commissioned to be used in an emergency.
However, beyond air-to-air weapons, the HF-26M could also carry ordnance of up to 1.000 kg (2.207 lb) on the ventral and inner wing hardpoints and up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) on the other pair of wing hardpoints, including iron bombs and/or unguided missile pods. However, the limited field of view from the cockpit over the radome as well as the relatively high wing loading did not recommend the aircraft for ground attack missions – even though these frequently happened during the conflict with Pakistan. For these tactical missions, many HF-26Ms lost their original overall natural metal finish and instead received camouflage paint schemes on squadron level, resulting in individual and sometimes even spectacular liveries. Most notable examples were the Teer fighters of No. 1 Squadron (The Tigers), which sported various camouflage adaptations of the unit’s eponym.
Despite its many deficiencies, the HF-26M became heavily involved in the Indo-Pakistan conflict. As the Indian Army tightened its grip in East Pakistan, the Indian Air Force continued with its attacks against Pakistan as the campaign developed into a series of daylight anti-airfield, anti-radar, and close-support attacks by fighter jets, with night attacks against airfields and strategic targets by Canberras and An-12s, while Pakistan responded with similar night attacks with its B-57s and C-130s.
The PAF deployed its F-6s mainly on defensive combat air patrol missions over their own bases, leaving the PAF unable to conduct effective offensive operations. Sporadic raids by the IAF continued against PAF forward air bases in Pakistan until the end of the war, and interdiction and close-support operations were maintained. One of the most successful air raids by India into West Pakistan happened on 8 December 1971, when Indian Hunter aircraft from the Pathankot-based 20 Squadron, attacked the Pakistani base in Murid and destroyed 5 F-86 aircraft on the ground.
The PAF played a more limited role in the operations, even though they were reinforced by Mirages from an unidentified Middle Eastern ally (whose identity remains unknown). The IAF was able to conduct a wide range of missions – troop support; air combat; deep penetration strikes; para-dropping behind enemy lines; feints to draw enemy fighters away from the actual target; bombing and reconnaissance. India flew 1,978 sorties in the East and about 4,000 in Pakistan, while the PAF flew about 30 and 2,840 at the respective fronts. More than 80 percent of IAF sorties were close-support and interdiction and about 45 IAF aircraft were lost, including three HF-26Ms. Pakistan lost 60 to 75 aircraft, not including any F-86s, Mirage IIIs, or the six Jordanian F-104s which failed to return to their donors. The imbalance in air losses was explained by the IAF's considerably higher sortie rate and its emphasis on ground-attack missions. The PAF, which was solely focused on air combat, was reluctant to oppose these massive attacks and rather took refuge at Iranian air bases or in concrete bunkers, refusing to offer fights and respective losses.
After the war, the HF-26M was officially regarded as outdated, and as license production of the improved MiG-21FL (designated HAL Type 77 and nicknamed “Trishul” = Trident) and later of the MiG-21M (HAL Type 88) was organized in India, the aircraft were quickly retired from frontline units. They kept on serving into the Eighties, though, but now restricted to their original interceptor role. Beyond the upgrades from the Indo-Pakistani War, only a few upgrades were made. For instance, the new R-60 AAM was introduced to the HF-26M and around 1978 small (but fixed) canards were retrofitted to the air intakes behind the cockpit that improved the Teer’s poor slow speed control and high landing speed as well as the aircraft’s overall maneuverability.
A radar upgrade, together with the introduction of better air-to-ai missiles with a higher range and look down/shoot down capability was considered but never carried out. Furthermore, the idea of a true HF-26 2nd generation variant, powered by a pair of Tumansky R-11F-300 afterburner jet engines (from the license-built MiG-21FLs), was dropped, too – even though this powerplant eventually promised to fulfill the Teer’s design promise of Mach 2 top speed. A total of only 82 HF-26s (including thirteen two-seat trainers with a lengthened fuselage and reduced fuel capacity, plus eight prototypes) were built. The last aircraft were retired from IAF service in 1988 and replaced with Mirage 2000 fighters procured from France that were armed with the Matra Super 530 AAM.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 14.97 m (49 ft ½ in)
Wingspan: 9.43 m (30 ft 11 in)
Height: 4.03 m (13 ft 2½ in)
Wing area: 30.6 m² (285 sq ft)
Empty weight: 7,000 kg (15,432 lb)
Gross weight: 10,954 kg (24,149 lb) with full internal fuel
Max takeoff weight: 15,700 kg (34,613 lb) with external stores
Powerplant:
2× Tumansky RD-9 afterburning turbojet engines; 29 kN (6,600 lbf) dry thrust each
and 36.78 kN (8,270 lbf) with afterburner
Performance:
Maximum speed: 1,700 km/h (1,056 mph; 917 kn; Mach 1.6) at 11,000 m (36,000 ft)
1,350 km/h (840 mph, 730 kn; Mach 1.1) at sea level
Combat range: 725 km (450 mi, 391 nmi) with internal fuel only
Ferry range: 1,700 km (1,100 mi, 920 nmi) with four drop tanks
Service ceiling: 18,100 m (59,400 ft)
g limits: +6.5
Time to altitude: 9,145 m (30,003 ft) in 1 minute 30 seconds
Wing loading: 555 kg/m² (114 lb/sq ft)
Armament
6× hardpoints (four underwing and two under the fuselage) for a total of 2.500 kg (5.500 lb);
Typical interceptor payload:
- two IR-guided R-3 or R-60 air-to-air-missiles or
two PTB-490 drop tanks on the outer underwing stations
- two semi-active radar-guided ‚Saanp’ air-to-air missiles or two more R-3 or R-60 AAMs
on inner underwing stations
- two 500 l drop tanks or two gun pods with a 23 mm GSh-23L autocannon and 200 RPG
each under the fuselage
The kit and its assembly:
This whiffy delta-wing fighter was inspired when I recently sliced up a PM Model Su-15 kit for my side-by-side-engine BAC Lightning build. At an early stage of the conversion, I held the Su-15 fuselage with its molded delta wings in my hand and wondered if a shortened tail section (as well as a shorter overall fuselage to keep proportions balanced) could make a delta-wing jet fighter from the Flagon base? Only a hardware experiment could yield an answer, and since the Su-15’s overall outlines look a bit retro I settled at an early stage on India as potential designer and operator, as “the thing the HF-24 Marut never was”.
True to the initial idea, work started on the tail, and I chopped off the fuselage behind the wings’ trailing edge. Some PSR was necessary to blend the separate exhaust section into the fuselage, which had to be reduced in depth through wedges that I cut out under the wings trailing edge, plus some good amount of glue and sheer force the bend the section a bit upwards. The PM Model's jet exhausts were drilled open, and I added afterburner dummies inside - anything would look better than the bleak vertical walls inside after only 2-3 mm! The original fin was omitted, because it was a bit too large for the new, smaller aircraft and its shape reminded a lot of the Suchoj heavy fighter family. It was replaced with a Mirage III/V fin, left over from a (crappy!) Pioneer 2 IAI Nesher kit.
Once the rear section was complete, I had to adjust the front end - and here the kitbashing started. First, I chopped off the cockpit section in front of the molded air intake - the Su-15’s long radome and the cockpit on top of the fuselage did not work anymore. As a remedy I remembered another Su-15 conversion I did a (long) while ago: I created a model of a planned ground attack derivative, the T-58Sh, and, as a part of the extensive body work, I transplanted the slanted nose from an academy MiG-27 between the air intakes – a stunt that was relatively easy and which appreciably lowered the cockpit position. For the HF-26M I did something similar, I just transplanted a cockpit from a Hasegawa/Academy MiG-23 with its ogival radome that size-wise better matched with the rest of the leftover Su-15 airframe.
The MiG-23 cockpit matched perfectly with the Su-15's front end, just the spinal area behind the cockpit had to be raised/re-sculpted to blend the parts smoothly together. For a different look from the Su-15 ancestry I also transplanted the front sections of the MiG-23 air intakes with their shorter ramps. Some mods had to be made to the Su-15 intake stubs, but the MiG-23 intakes were an almost perfect fit in size and shape and easy to integrate into the modified front hill. The result looks very natural!
However, when the fuselage was complete, I found that the nose appeared to be a bit too long, leaving the whole new hull with the wings somewhat off balance. As a remedy I decided at a rather late stage to shorten the nose and took out a 6 mm section in front of the cockpit - a stunt I had not planned, but sometimes you can judge things only after certain work stages. Some serious PSR was necessary to re-adjust the conical nose shape, which now looked more Mirage III-ish than planned!
The cockpit was taken mostly OOB, I just replaced the ejection seat and gave it a trigger handle made from thin wire. With the basic airframe complete it was time for details. The PM Model Su-15s massive and rather crude main landing gear was replaced with something more delicate from the scrap box, even though I retained the main wheels. The front landing gear was taken wholesale from the MiG-23, but had to be shortened for a proper stance.
A display holder adapter was integrated into the belly for the flight scenes, hidden well between the ventral ordnance.
The hardpoints, including missile launch rails, came from the MiG-23; the pylons had to be adjusted to match the Su-15's wing profile shape, the Anab missiles lost their tail sections to create the fictional Indian 'Saanp' AAMs. The R-3s on the outer stations were left over from a MP MiG-21. The ventral pylons belong to Academy MiG-23/27s, one came from the donor kit, the other was found in the spares box. The PTB-490 drop tanks also came from a KP MiG-21 (or one of its many reincarnations, not certain).
Painting and markings:
The paint scheme for this fictional aircraft was largely inspired by a picture of a whiffy and very attractive Saab 37 Viggen (an 1:72 Airfix kit) in IAF colors, apparently a model from a contest. BTW, India actually considered buying the Viggen for its Air Force!
IAF aircraft were and are known for their exotic and sometimes gawdy paint schemes, and with IAF MiG-21 “C 992” there’s even a very popular (yet obscure) aircraft that sported literal tiger stripes. The IAF Viggen model was surely inspired by this real aircraft, and I adopted something similar for my HF-26M.
IAF 1 Squadron was therefore settled, and for the paint scheme I opted for a "stripish" scheme, but not as "tigeresque" as "C 992". I found a suitable benchmark in a recent Libyian MiG-21, which carried a very disruptive two-tone grey scheme. I adapted this pattern to the HA-26M airframe and replaced its colors, similar to the IAF Viggen model, which became a greenish sand tone (a mix of Humbrol 121 with some 159; I later found out that I could have used Humbrol 83 from the beginning, though...) and a very dark olive drab (Humbrol 66, which looks like a dull dark brown in contrast with the sand tone), with bluish grey (Humbrol 247) undersides. With the large delta wings, this turned out to look very good and even effective!
For that special "Indian touch" I gave the aircraft a high-contrast fin in a design that I had seen on a real camouflaged IAF MiG-21bis: an overall dark green base with a broad, red vertical stripe which was also the shield for the fin flash and the aircraft's tactical code (on the original bare metal). The fin was first painted in green (Humbrol 2), the red stripe was created with orange-red decal sheet material. Similar material was also used to create the bare metal field for the tactical code, the yellow bars on the splitter plates and for the thin white canopy sealing.
After basic painting was done the model received an overall black ink washing, post-panel shading and extensive dry-brushing with aluminum and iron for a rather worn look.
The missiles became classic white, while the drop tanks, as a contrast to the camouflaged belly, were left in bare metal.
Decals/markings came primarily from a Begemot MiG-25 kit, the tactical codes on the fin and under the wings originally belong to an RAF post-WWII Spitfire, just the first serial letter was omitted. Stencils are few and they came from various sources. A compromise is the unit badge on the fin: I needed a tiger motif, and the only suitable option I found was the tiger head emblem on a white disc from RAF No. 74 Squadron, from the Matchbox BAC Lightning F.6&F.2A kit. It fits stylistically well, though. ;-)
Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (except for the black radome, which became a bit glossy) and finally assembled.
A spontaneous build, and the last one that I completed in 2022. However, despite a vague design plan the model evolved as it grew. Bashing the primitive PM Model Su-15 with the Academy MiG-23 parts was easier than expected, though, and the resulting fictional aircraft looks sturdy but quite believable - even though it appears to me like the unexpected child of a Mirage III/F-4 Phantom II intercourse, or like a juvenile CF-105 Arrow, just with mid-wings? Nevertheless, the disruptive paint scheme suits the delta wing fighter well, and the green/red fin is a striking contrast - it's a colorful model, but not garish.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some Background:
During the 1950s, Hindustan Aircraft Limited (HAL) had developed and produced several types of trainer aircraft, such as the HAL HT-2. However, elements within the firm were eager to expand into the then-new realm of supersonic fighter aircraft. Around the same time, the Indian government was in the process of formulating a new Air Staff Requirement for a Mach 2-capable combat aircraft to equip the Indian Air Force (IAF). However, as HAL lacked the necessary experience in both developing and manufacturing frontline combat fighters, it was clear that external guidance would be invaluable; this assistance was embodied by Kurt Tank.
In 1956, HAL formally began design work on the supersonic fighter project. The Indian government, led by Jawaharlal Nehru, authorized the development of the aircraft, stating that it would aid in the development of a modern aircraft industry in India. The first phase of the project sought to develop an airframe suitable for travelling at supersonic speeds, and able to effectively perform combat missions as a fighter aircraft, while the second phase sought to domestically design and produce an engine capable of propelling the aircraft. Early on, there was an explicit adherence to satisfying the IAF's requirements for a capable fighter bomber; attributes such as a twin-engine configuration and a speed of Mach 1.4 to 1.5 were quickly emphasized, and this led to the HF-24 Marut.
On 24 June 1961, the first prototype Marut conducted its maiden flight. It was powered by the same Bristol Siddeley Orpheus 703 turbojets that had powered the Folland Gnat, also being manufactured by HAL at that time. On 1 April 1967, the first production Marut was delivered to the IAF. While originally intended only as an interim measure during testing, HAL decided to power production Maruts with a pair of unreheated Orpheus 703s, meaning the aircraft could not attain supersonic speed. Although originally conceived to operate around Mach 2 the Marut in fact was barely capable of reaching Mach 1 due to the lack of suitably powerful engines.
The IAF were reluctant to procure a fighter aircraft only marginally superior to its existing fleet of British-built Hawker Hunters. However, in 1961, the Indian Government decided to procure the Marut, nevertheless, but only 147 aircraft, including 18 two-seat trainers, were completed out of a planned 214. Just after the decision to build the lukewarm Marut, the development of a more advanced aircraft with the desired supersonic performance was initiated.
This enterprise started star-crossed, though: after the Indian Government conducted its first nuclear tests at Pokhran, international pressure prevented the import of better engines of Western origin, or at times, even spares for the Orpheus engines, so that the Marut never realized its full potential due to insufficient power, and it was relatively obsolescent by the time it reached production.
Due to these restrictions India looked for other sources for supersonic aircraft and eventually settled upon the MiG-21 F-13 from the Soviet Union, which entered service in 1964. While fast and agile, the Fishbed was only a short-range daylight interceptor. It lacked proper range for escort missions and air space patrols, and it had no radar that enabled it to conduct all-weather interceptions. To fill this operational gap, the new indigenous HF-26 project was launched around the same time.
For the nascent Indian aircraft industry, HF-26 had a demanding requirements specification: the aircraft was to achieve Mach 2 top speed at high altitude and carry a radar with a guided missile armament that allowed interceptions in any weather, day and night. The powerplant question was left open, but it was clear from the start that a Soviet engine would be needed, since an indigenous development of a suitable powerplant would take much too long and block vital resources, and western alternatives were out of reach. The mission profile and the performance requirements quickly defined the planned aircraft’s layout: To fit a radar, the air intakes with movable ramps to feed the engines were placed on the fuselage flanks. To make sure the aircraft would fulfill its high-performance demands, it was right from the outset powered by two engines, and it was decided to give it delta wings, a popular design among high-speed aircraft of the time – exemplified by the highly successful Dassault Mirage III (which was to be delivered to Pakistan in 1967). With two engines, the HF-26 would be a heavier aircraft than the Mirage III, though, and it was planned to operate the aircraft from semi-prepared airfields, so that it would receive a robust landing gear with low-pressure tires and a brake parachute.
In 1962 India was able to negotiate the delivery of Tumansky RD-9 turbojet engines from the Soviet Union, even though no afterburner was part of the deal – this had to be indigenously developed by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). However, this meant that the afterburner could be tailored to the HF-26, and this task would provide HAL with valuable engineering experience, too.
Now knowing the powerplant, HAL created a single-seater airframe around it, a rather robust design that superficially reminded of the French Mirage III, but there were fundamental differences. The HF-26 had boxy air intakes with movable ramps to control the airflow to the two engines and a relatively wide fuselage to hold them and most of the fuel in tanks between the air ducts behind the cockpit. The aircraft had a single swept fin and a rather small mid-positioned delta-wing with a 60° sweep. The pilot sat under a tight canopy that offered - similar to the Mirage III - only limited all-round vision.
The HF-26's conical nose radome covered an antenna for a ‘Garud’ interception radar – which was in fact a downgraded Soviet ‘Oryol' (Eagle; NATO reporting name 'Skip Spin') system that guided the HF-26’s main armament, a pair of semi-active radar homing (SARH) ‚Saanp’ missiles.
The Saanp missile was developed specifically for the HF-26 in India but used many components of Soviet origin, too, so that they were compatible with the radar. In performance, the Saanp was comparable with the French Matra R.530 air-to-air missile, even though the aerodynamic layout was reversed, with steering fins at the front end, right behind the SARH seaker head - overall the missile reminded of an enlarged AIM-4 Falcon. The missile weighed 180 kg and had a length of 3.5 m. Power came from a two-stage solid rocket that offered a maximum thrust of 80 kN for 2.7 s during the launch phase plus 6.5 s cruise. Maximum speed was Mach 2.7 and operational range was 1.5 to 20 km (0.9 to 12.5 miles). Two of these missiles could be carried on the main wing hardpoints in front of the landing gear wells. Alternatively, infrared-guided R-3 (AA-2 ‘Atoll’) short-range AAMs could be carried by the HF-26, too, and typically two of these were carried on the outer underwing hardpoints, which were plumbed to accept drop tanks (typically supersonic PTB-490s that were carried by the IAF's MiG-21s, too) . Initially, no internal gun was envisioned, as the HF-26 was supposed to be a pure high-speed/high-altitude interceptor that would not engage in dogfights. Two more hardpoints under the fuselage were plumbed, too, for a total of six external stations.
Due to its wing planform, the HF-26 was soon aptly called “Teer” (= Arrow), and with Soviet help the first prototype was rolled out in early 1964 and presented to the public. The first flight, however, would take place almost a year later in January 1965, due to many technical problems, and these were soon complemented by aerodynamic problems. The original delta-winged HF-26 had poor take-off and landing characteristics, and directional stability was weak, too. While a second prototype was under construction in April 1965 the first aircraft was lost after it had entered a spin from which the pilot could not escape – the aircraft crashed and its pilot was killed during the attempt to eject.
After this loss HAL investigated an enlarged fin and a modified wing design with deeper wingtips with lower sweep, which increased wing area and improved low speed handling, too. Furthermore, the fuselage shape had to be modified, too, to reduce supersonic drag, and a more pronounced area ruling was introduced. The indigenous afterburner for the RD-9 engines was unstable and troublesome, too.
It took until 1968 and three more flying prototypes (plus two static airframes) to refine the Teer for serial production service introduction. In this highly modified form, the aircraft was re-designated HF-26M and the first machines were delivered to IAF No. 3 Squadron in late 1969. However, it would take several months until a fully operational status could be achieved. By that time, it was already clear that the Teer, much like the HF-24 Marut before, could not live up to its expectations and was at the brink of becoming obsolete as it entered service. The RD-9 was not a modern engine anymore, and despite its indigenous afterburner – which turned out not only to be chronically unreliable but also to be very thirsty when engaged – the Teer had a disappointing performance: The fighter only achieved a top speed of Mach 1.6 at full power, and with full external load it hardly broke the wall of sound in level flight. Its main armament, the Saanp AAM, also turned out to be unreliable even under ideal conditions.
However, the HF-26M came just in time to take part in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and was, despite its weaknesses, extensively used – even though not necessarily in its intended role. High-flying slow bombers were not fielded during the conflict, and the Teer remained, despite its on-board radar, heavily dependent on ground control interception (GCI) to vector its pilot onto targets coming in at medium and even low altitude. The HF-26M had no capability against low-flying aircraft either, so that pilots had to engage incoming, low-flying enemy aircraft after visual identification – a task the IAF’s nimble MiG-21s were much better suited for. Escorts and air cover missions for fighter-bombers were flown, too, but the HF-26M’s limited range only made it a suitable companion for the equally short-legged Su-7s. The IAF Canberras were frequently deployed on longer range missions, but the HF-26Ms simply could not follow them all the time; for a sufficient range the Teer had to carry four drop tanks, what increased drag and only left the outer pair of underwing hardpoints (which were not plumbed) free for a pair of AA-2 missiles. With the imminent danger of aerial close range combat, though, During the conflict with Pakistan, most HF-26M's were retrofitted with rear-view mirrors in their canopies to improve the pilot's field of view, and a passive IR sensor was added in a small fairing under the nose to improve the aircraft's all-weather capabilities and avoid active radar emissions that would warn potential prey too early.
The lack of an internal gun turned out to be another great weakness of the Teer, and this was only lightly mended through the use of external gun pods. Two of these cigar-shaped pods that resembled the Soviet UPK-23 pod could be carried on the two ventral pylons, and each contained a 23 mm Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-23L autocannon of Soviet origin with 200 rounds. Technically these pods were very similar to the conformal GP-9 pods carried by the IAF MiG-21FLs. While the gun pods considerably improved the HF-26M’s firepower and versatility, the pods were draggy, blocked valuable hardpoints (from extra fuel) and their recoil tended to damage the pylons as well as the underlying aircraft structure, so that they were only commissioned to be used in an emergency.
However, beyond air-to-air weapons, the HF-26M could also carry ordnance of up to 1.000 kg (2.207 lb) on the ventral and inner wing hardpoints and up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) on the other pair of wing hardpoints, including iron bombs and/or unguided missile pods. However, the limited field of view from the cockpit over the radome as well as the relatively high wing loading did not recommend the aircraft for ground attack missions – even though these frequently happened during the conflict with Pakistan. For these tactical missions, many HF-26Ms lost their original overall natural metal finish and instead received camouflage paint schemes on squadron level, resulting in individual and sometimes even spectacular liveries. Most notable examples were the Teer fighters of No. 1 Squadron (The Tigers), which sported various camouflage adaptations of the unit’s eponym.
Despite its many deficiencies, the HF-26M became heavily involved in the Indo-Pakistan conflict. As the Indian Army tightened its grip in East Pakistan, the Indian Air Force continued with its attacks against Pakistan as the campaign developed into a series of daylight anti-airfield, anti-radar, and close-support attacks by fighter jets, with night attacks against airfields and strategic targets by Canberras and An-12s, while Pakistan responded with similar night attacks with its B-57s and C-130s.
The PAF deployed its F-6s mainly on defensive combat air patrol missions over their own bases, leaving the PAF unable to conduct effective offensive operations. Sporadic raids by the IAF continued against PAF forward air bases in Pakistan until the end of the war, and interdiction and close-support operations were maintained. One of the most successful air raids by India into West Pakistan happened on 8 December 1971, when Indian Hunter aircraft from the Pathankot-based 20 Squadron, attacked the Pakistani base in Murid and destroyed 5 F-86 aircraft on the ground.
The PAF played a more limited role in the operations, even though they were reinforced by Mirages from an unidentified Middle Eastern ally (whose identity remains unknown). The IAF was able to conduct a wide range of missions – troop support; air combat; deep penetration strikes; para-dropping behind enemy lines; feints to draw enemy fighters away from the actual target; bombing and reconnaissance. India flew 1,978 sorties in the East and about 4,000 in Pakistan, while the PAF flew about 30 and 2,840 at the respective fronts. More than 80 percent of IAF sorties were close-support and interdiction and about 45 IAF aircraft were lost, including three HF-26Ms. Pakistan lost 60 to 75 aircraft, not including any F-86s, Mirage IIIs, or the six Jordanian F-104s which failed to return to their donors. The imbalance in air losses was explained by the IAF's considerably higher sortie rate and its emphasis on ground-attack missions. The PAF, which was solely focused on air combat, was reluctant to oppose these massive attacks and rather took refuge at Iranian air bases or in concrete bunkers, refusing to offer fights and respective losses.
After the war, the HF-26M was officially regarded as outdated, and as license production of the improved MiG-21FL (designated HAL Type 77 and nicknamed “Trishul” = Trident) and later of the MiG-21M (HAL Type 88) was organized in India, the aircraft were quickly retired from frontline units. They kept on serving into the Eighties, though, but now restricted to their original interceptor role. Beyond the upgrades from the Indo-Pakistani War, only a few upgrades were made. For instance, the new R-60 AAM was introduced to the HF-26M and around 1978 small (but fixed) canards were retrofitted to the air intakes behind the cockpit that improved the Teer’s poor slow speed control and high landing speed as well as the aircraft’s overall maneuverability.
A radar upgrade, together with the introduction of better air-to-ai missiles with a higher range and look down/shoot down capability was considered but never carried out. Furthermore, the idea of a true HF-26 2nd generation variant, powered by a pair of Tumansky R-11F-300 afterburner jet engines (from the license-built MiG-21FLs), was dropped, too – even though this powerplant eventually promised to fulfill the Teer’s design promise of Mach 2 top speed. A total of only 82 HF-26s (including thirteen two-seat trainers with a lengthened fuselage and reduced fuel capacity, plus eight prototypes) were built. The last aircraft were retired from IAF service in 1988 and replaced with Mirage 2000 fighters procured from France that were armed with the Matra Super 530 AAM.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 14.97 m (49 ft ½ in)
Wingspan: 9.43 m (30 ft 11 in)
Height: 4.03 m (13 ft 2½ in)
Wing area: 30.6 m² (285 sq ft)
Empty weight: 7,000 kg (15,432 lb)
Gross weight: 10,954 kg (24,149 lb) with full internal fuel
Max takeoff weight: 15,700 kg (34,613 lb) with external stores
Powerplant:
2× Tumansky RD-9 afterburning turbojet engines; 29 kN (6,600 lbf) dry thrust each
and 36.78 kN (8,270 lbf) with afterburner
Performance:
Maximum speed: 1,700 km/h (1,056 mph; 917 kn; Mach 1.6) at 11,000 m (36,000 ft)
1,350 km/h (840 mph, 730 kn; Mach 1.1) at sea level
Combat range: 725 km (450 mi, 391 nmi) with internal fuel only
Ferry range: 1,700 km (1,100 mi, 920 nmi) with four drop tanks
Service ceiling: 18,100 m (59,400 ft)
g limits: +6.5
Time to altitude: 9,145 m (30,003 ft) in 1 minute 30 seconds
Wing loading: 555 kg/m² (114 lb/sq ft)
Armament
6× hardpoints (four underwing and two under the fuselage) for a total of 2.500 kg (5.500 lb);
Typical interceptor payload:
- two IR-guided R-3 or R-60 air-to-air-missiles or
two PTB-490 drop tanks on the outer underwing stations
- two semi-active radar-guided ‚Saanp’ air-to-air missiles or two more R-3 or R-60 AAMs
on inner underwing stations
- two 500 l drop tanks or two gun pods with a 23 mm GSh-23L autocannon and 200 RPG
each under the fuselage
The kit and its assembly:
This whiffy delta-wing fighter was inspired when I recently sliced up a PM Model Su-15 kit for my side-by-side-engine BAC Lightning build. At an early stage of the conversion, I held the Su-15 fuselage with its molded delta wings in my hand and wondered if a shortened tail section (as well as a shorter overall fuselage to keep proportions balanced) could make a delta-wing jet fighter from the Flagon base? Only a hardware experiment could yield an answer, and since the Su-15’s overall outlines look a bit retro I settled at an early stage on India as potential designer and operator, as “the thing the HF-24 Marut never was”.
True to the initial idea, work started on the tail, and I chopped off the fuselage behind the wings’ trailing edge. Some PSR was necessary to blend the separate exhaust section into the fuselage, which had to be reduced in depth through wedges that I cut out under the wings trailing edge, plus some good amount of glue and sheer force the bend the section a bit upwards. The PM Model's jet exhausts were drilled open, and I added afterburner dummies inside - anything would look better than the bleak vertical walls inside after only 2-3 mm! The original fin was omitted, because it was a bit too large for the new, smaller aircraft and its shape reminded a lot of the Suchoj heavy fighter family. It was replaced with a Mirage III/V fin, left over from a (crappy!) Pioneer 2 IAI Nesher kit.
Once the rear section was complete, I had to adjust the front end - and here the kitbashing started. First, I chopped off the cockpit section in front of the molded air intake - the Su-15’s long radome and the cockpit on top of the fuselage did not work anymore. As a remedy I remembered another Su-15 conversion I did a (long) while ago: I created a model of a planned ground attack derivative, the T-58Sh, and, as a part of the extensive body work, I transplanted the slanted nose from an academy MiG-27 between the air intakes – a stunt that was relatively easy and which appreciably lowered the cockpit position. For the HF-26M I did something similar, I just transplanted a cockpit from a Hasegawa/Academy MiG-23 with its ogival radome that size-wise better matched with the rest of the leftover Su-15 airframe.
The MiG-23 cockpit matched perfectly with the Su-15's front end, just the spinal area behind the cockpit had to be raised/re-sculpted to blend the parts smoothly together. For a different look from the Su-15 ancestry I also transplanted the front sections of the MiG-23 air intakes with their shorter ramps. Some mods had to be made to the Su-15 intake stubs, but the MiG-23 intakes were an almost perfect fit in size and shape and easy to integrate into the modified front hill. The result looks very natural!
However, when the fuselage was complete, I found that the nose appeared to be a bit too long, leaving the whole new hull with the wings somewhat off balance. As a remedy I decided at a rather late stage to shorten the nose and took out a 6 mm section in front of the cockpit - a stunt I had not planned, but sometimes you can judge things only after certain work stages. Some serious PSR was necessary to re-adjust the conical nose shape, which now looked more Mirage III-ish than planned!
The cockpit was taken mostly OOB, I just replaced the ejection seat and gave it a trigger handle made from thin wire. With the basic airframe complete it was time for details. The PM Model Su-15s massive and rather crude main landing gear was replaced with something more delicate from the scrap box, even though I retained the main wheels. The front landing gear was taken wholesale from the MiG-23, but had to be shortened for a proper stance.
A display holder adapter was integrated into the belly for the flight scenes, hidden well between the ventral ordnance.
The hardpoints, including missile launch rails, came from the MiG-23; the pylons had to be adjusted to match the Su-15's wing profile shape, the Anab missiles lost their tail sections to create the fictional Indian 'Saanp' AAMs. The R-3s on the outer stations were left over from a MP MiG-21. The ventral pylons belong to Academy MiG-23/27s, one came from the donor kit, the other was found in the spares box. The PTB-490 drop tanks also came from a KP MiG-21 (or one of its many reincarnations, not certain).
Painting and markings:
The paint scheme for this fictional aircraft was largely inspired by a picture of a whiffy and very attractive Saab 37 Viggen (an 1:72 Airfix kit) in IAF colors, apparently a model from a contest. BTW, India actually considered buying the Viggen for its Air Force!
IAF aircraft were and are known for their exotic and sometimes gawdy paint schemes, and with IAF MiG-21 “C 992” there’s even a very popular (yet obscure) aircraft that sported literal tiger stripes. The IAF Viggen model was surely inspired by this real aircraft, and I adopted something similar for my HF-26M.
IAF 1 Squadron was therefore settled, and for the paint scheme I opted for a "stripish" scheme, but not as "tigeresque" as "C 992". I found a suitable benchmark in a recent Libyian MiG-21, which carried a very disruptive two-tone grey scheme. I adapted this pattern to the HA-26M airframe and replaced its colors, similar to the IAF Viggen model, which became a greenish sand tone (a mix of Humbrol 121 with some 159; I later found out that I could have used Humbrol 83 from the beginning, though...) and a very dark olive drab (Humbrol 66, which looks like a dull dark brown in contrast with the sand tone), with bluish grey (Humbrol 247) undersides. With the large delta wings, this turned out to look very good and even effective!
For that special "Indian touch" I gave the aircraft a high-contrast fin in a design that I had seen on a real camouflaged IAF MiG-21bis: an overall dark green base with a broad, red vertical stripe which was also the shield for the fin flash and the aircraft's tactical code (on the original bare metal). The fin was first painted in green (Humbrol 2), the red stripe was created with orange-red decal sheet material. Similar material was also used to create the bare metal field for the tactical code, the yellow bars on the splitter plates and for the thin white canopy sealing.
After basic painting was done the model received an overall black ink washing, post-panel shading and extensive dry-brushing with aluminum and iron for a rather worn look.
The missiles became classic white, while the drop tanks, as a contrast to the camouflaged belly, were left in bare metal.
Decals/markings came primarily from a Begemot MiG-25 kit, the tactical codes on the fin and under the wings originally belong to an RAF post-WWII Spitfire, just the first serial letter was omitted. Stencils are few and they came from various sources. A compromise is the unit badge on the fin: I needed a tiger motif, and the only suitable option I found was the tiger head emblem on a white disc from RAF No. 74 Squadron, from the Matchbox BAC Lightning F.6&F.2A kit. It fits stylistically well, though. ;-)
Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (except for the black radome, which became a bit glossy) and finally assembled.
A spontaneous build, and the last one that I completed in 2022. However, despite a vague design plan the model evolved as it grew. Bashing the primitive PM Model Su-15 with the Academy MiG-23 parts was easier than expected, though, and the resulting fictional aircraft looks sturdy but quite believable - even though it appears to me like the unexpected child of a Mirage III/F-4 Phantom II intercourse, or like a juvenile CF-105 Arrow, just with mid-wings? Nevertheless, the disruptive paint scheme suits the delta wing fighter well, and the green/red fin is a striking contrast - it's a colorful model, but not garish.
HPD pupils are developing concept models as part of their Developing Design Proposals Unit. As usual lighting remains a popular choice. Pupils are also developing proposals on themes as diverse as seating, kitchen utensils and sportswear equipment.
Good to see evidencs of great strides being made in quich modeling techniques using materials like plasticine, copper wire, plywood and foam. The glue gun gets a lot of use at the moment as does the bandsaw and fretsaw.
Fortunately, Cathy, our cleaner has been very understanding. The mess at times you would not believe!
Good work everybody. Have a great Christmas break, get some rest. You'll need all your energy for the new year!
Canonet QL17 40/1.7
Kodak ImageLink Technical film
Exposed like ISO32
Developing R09 1:100, 20C, 40min.
New/more pics from an older (and dusty...) model
Some background:
The VF-1 was developed by Stonewell/Bellcom/Shinnakasu for the U.N. Spacy by using alien Overtechnology obtained from the SDF-1 Macross alien spaceship. Its production was preceded by an aerodynamic proving version of its airframe, the VF-X. Unlike all later VF vehicles, the VF-X was strictly a jet aircraft, built to demonstrate that a jet fighter with the features necessary to convert to Battroid mode was aerodynamically feasible. After the VF-X's testing was finished, an advanced concept atmospheric-only prototype, the VF-0 Phoenix, was flight-tested from 2005 to 2007 and briefly served as an active-duty fighter from 2007 to the VF-1's rollout in late 2008, while the bugs were being worked out of the full-up VF-1 prototype (VF-X-1).
The space-capable VF-1's combat debut was on February 7, 2009, during the Battle of South Ataria Island - the first battle of Space War I - and remained the mainstay fighter of the U.N. Spacy for the entire conflict. Introduced in 2008, the VF-1 would be out of frontline service just five years later, though.
The VF-1 proved to be an extremely capable craft, successfully combating a variety of Zentraedi mecha even in most sorties which saw UN Spacy forces significantly outnumbered. The versatility of the Valkyrie design enabled the variable fighter to act as both large-scale infantry and as air/space superiority fighter. The signature skills of U.N. Spacy ace pilot Maximilian Jenius exemplified the effectiveness of the variable systems as he near-constantly transformed the Valkyrie in battle to seize advantages of each mode as combat conditions changed from moment to moment.
The basic VF-1 was deployed in four minor variants (designated A, D, J, and S) and its success was increased by continued development of various enhancements including the GBP-1S "Armored" Valkyrie, FAST Pack "Super" Valkyrie and the additional RÖ-X2 heavy cannon pack weapon system for the VF-1S for additional firepower.
The FAST Pack system was designed to enhance the VF-1 Valkyrie variable fighter, and the initial V1.0 came in the form of conformal pallets that could be attached to the fighter’s leg flanks for additional fuel – primarily for Long Range Interdiction tasks in atmospheric environment. Later FAST Packs were designed for space operations.
The following FAST Pack 2.0 system featured two 120.000 kg class P&W+EF-2001 booster thrusters (mounted on the dorsal section of the VF-1) and two CTB-04 conformal propellant/coolant tanks (mounted on the leg/engines), since the VF-1's internal tanks could not carry enough propellant to achieve a stable orbit from Earth bases and needed the help of a booster pack to reach Low Earth Orbit. Anyway, the FAST Pack 2.0 wasn't adapted for atmospheric use, due to its impact on a Valkyrie's aerodynamics and its weight; as such, it needed to be discarded before atmospheric entry.
Included in the FAST Pack boosters and conformal tanks were six high-maneuverability vernier thrusters and two low-thrust vernier thrusters beneath multipurpose hook/handles in two dorsal-mounted NP-BP-01, as well as ten more high-maneuverability vernier thrusters and two low-thrust vernier thrusters beneath multipurpose hook/handles in the two leg/engine-mounted NP-FB-01 systems.
Granting the VF-1 a significantly increased weapons payload as well as greater fuel and thrust, Shinnakasu Heavy Industry's FAST Pack system 2.0 was in every way a major success in space combat. The first VF-1 equipped with FAST Packs was deployed in January 2010 for an interception mission.
Following first operational deployment and its effectiveness, the FAST Pack system was embraced enthusiastically by the U.N. Spacy and found wide use. By February 2010, there were already over 300+ so-called "Super Valkyries" stationed onboard the SDF-1 Macross alone.
After the end of Space War I, the VF-1 continued to be manufactured both in the Sol system and throughout the UNG space colonies. Although the VF-1 would eventually be replaced as the primary Variable Fighter of the U.N. Spacy by the more capable, but also much bigger, VF-4 Lightning III in 2020, a long service record and continued production after the war proved the lasting worth of the design.
The VF-1 was without doubt the most recognizable variable fighter of Space War I and was seen as a vibrant symbol of the U.N. Spacy even into the first year of the New Era 0001 in 2013. At the end of 2015 the final rollout of the VF-1 was celebrated at a special ceremony, commemorating this most famous of variable fighters. The VF-1 Valkryie was built from 2006 to 2013 with a total production of 5,459 VF-1 variable fighters with several variants (VF-1A = 5,093, VF-1D = 85, VF-1J = 49, VF-1S = 30, VF-1G = 12, VE-1 = 122, VT-1 = 68)
However, the fighter remained active in many second line units and continued to show its worthiness years later, e. g. through Milia Jenius who would use her old VF-1 fighter in defense of the colonization fleet - 35 years after the type's service introduction.
General characteristics:
All-environment variable fighter and tactical combat Battroid,
used by U.N. Spacy, U.N. Navy, U.N. Space Air Force
Accommodation:
Pilot only in Marty & Beck Mk-7 zero/zero ejection seat
Dimensions:
Fighter Mode:
Length 14.23 meters
Wingspan 14.78 meters (at 20° minimum sweep)
Height 3.84 meters
Battroid Mode:
Height 12.68 meters
Width 7.3 meters
Length 4.0 meters
Empty weight: 13.25 metric tons;
Standard T-O mass: 18.5 metric tons;
MTOW: 37.0 metric tons
Power Plant:
2x Shinnakasu Heavy Industry/P&W/Roice FF-2001 thermonuclear reaction turbine engines, output 650 MW each, rated at 11,500 kg in standard or in overboost (225.63 kN x 2)
4 x Shinnakasu Heavy Industry NBS-1 high-thrust vernier thrusters (1 x counter reverse vernier thruster nozzle mounted on the side of each leg nacelle/air intake, 1 x wing thruster roll control system on each wingtip);
18 x P&W LHP04 low-thrust vernier thrusters beneath multipurpose hook/handles
The S-FAST Pack added 4x P&W+EF-2001 booster thrusters with 120.000 kg each, plus a total of 28x P&W LHP04 low-thrust vernier thrusters
Performance:
Battroid Mode: maximum walking speed 160 km/h
Fighter Mode: at 10,000 m Mach 2.71; at 30,000+ m Mach 3.87
g limit: in space +7
Thrust-to-weight ratio: empty 3.47; standard T-O 2.49; maximum T-O 1.24
Design Features:
3-mode variable transformation; variable geometry wing; vertical take-off and landing; control-configurable vehicle; single-axis thrust vectoring; three "magic hand" manipulators for maintenance use; retractable canopy shield for Battroid mode and atmospheric reentry; option of GBP-1S system, atmospheric-escape booster, or FAST Pack system
Transformation:
Standard time from Fighter to Battroid (automated): under 5 sec.
Min. time from Fighter to Battroid (manual): 0.9 sec.
Armament:
2x internal Mauler RÖV-20 anti-aircraft laser cannon, firing 6,000 pulses per minute
1x Howard GU-11 55 mm three-barrel Gatling gun pod with 200 RPG, fired at 1,200 rds/min
4x underwing hard points for a wide variety of ordnance, including
12x AMM-1 hybrid guided multipurpose missiles (3/point), or
12x MK-82 LDGB conventional bombs (3/point), or
6x RMS-1 large anti-ship reaction missiles (2/outboard point, 1/inboard point), or
4x UUM-7 micro-missile pods (1/point) each carrying 15 x Bifors HMM-01 micro-missiles,
or a combination of above load-outs
The optional Shinnakasu Heavy Industry S-FAST Pack 2.1 augmentative space weapon system added:
6x micro-missiles in two NP-AR-01 micro-missile launcher pods (mounted rearward under center ventral section in Fighter mode or on lower arm sections in GERWALK/Battroid mode)
4x12 micro missiles in four HMMP-02 micro-missile launchers, one inside each booster pod
The model and its assembly:
This is a major kit conversion, or better a kitbashing with major scratch work involved. By the time I built this model, there were no convincing 1:100 kits of the so-called "Super / Strike Valkyries" around. These VF-1s carry rocket boosters for non-atmospherical use, so-called FAST packages ("Fuel And Sensor Trays"). However, parts for these space operation packages are included in some ARII Battroid kits.
This is the second of such conversions I did on the basis of a 1:100 Bandai (ex Arii) Gerwalk Valkyrie model, with additional leftover pieces from Super Valkyrie kits in Battroid mode and even from vintage Imai transformable kits.
The legs in retracted position were completely built through kitbashing, since the FAST packages would hardly fit under the body. The folded arms between the legs were improvised and heavily tailored to fit into the narrow space between the legs as good as possible. Real arm parts would not fit at all!
The "UUM-7" rocket launchers with 5 x 3 HMM-01missiles each were built from scratch. other added details include a pilot figure and better cockpit interior parts, plus some other details like antennae that the simple, original kits lack.
Painting and markings:
The color scheme is based on the standard VF-1A livery, even though I used a lighter tan (RAF "Hemp", B.S. 4800/10B21, e .g. used on Nimrod sea patrol aircrafts or VC-10 tankers - Humbrol 168) instead of brown. The lighter contrast areas were painted in ivory (Humbrol 41) instead of pure white, the FAST packs received a grey finish (FS 36081, Humbrol 32).
What's a bit special about the colored details of this semi-fictional Valkyrie is that the squadron insignia is original Japanese: The panda with the red lightning is the emblem of the 203rd hikotai, a real world JASDF fighter squadron that used to fly F-86 Sabre and F-104 Starfighters – with some fantasy, you can read the "203" in the lightning's outline! The kit's idea was to show what a machine from such a "real" squadron might look like if it was (still) existent in the Macross universe?
Adventuring in my neighborhood for a walk in Lyon, Cuire, France, in places next to my home where I never been since 30 years of living here ...
As companion, I took my beloved Japanese Olympus OM-1 MD SLR (year 1976) and its normal lens G.Zuiko Auto-S 1:1.4 f=50 mm. I loaded a 36-exposure film super-panchromatic Rollei Superpan 200 (extended sensibility to the near IR at 780 nm, AKA Agfa Aviphot 200).
The film was exposed normally for 200 ISO using a Minolta Autometer III light-meter fitted with a 10° finder or the camera readings privileging the shadow areas . No red filter was used aside the regular protective 49mm filter of the lens '-(Skylight). The film was then developed using the Adox Adonal (same as Agfa Rodinal) at the dilution of 1+25 for 8 min at 20°C giving very nice high-contrast negative views.
Smartphone pictures of photographic notes, November 14, 2022
69300 Caluire-et-Cuire
France
After process the film was digitalized using a Sony A7 body and a Minolta Slide Duplicator with a Minolta Auto Bellows III with a lens Minolta Bellow Macro Rokkor 50mm f/3.5.
All views of the film, including the the film initialization, are presented in the dedicated album either in printed framed versions and unframed full size jpeg.
-----------------
About the camera :
My Olympus OM-1 D was found from my local photography shop in Lyon, France, May 31, 2022.
Olympus OM-1 MD was commercially available from 1974 to 1978 and represented the fully mechanical SLR of a new class ("miniature SLR's") , smaller and lighter than anything ever made before. It prefigured the size of most of the SLR's in the 80's.
The kit included the normal lens G.Zuiko Auto-S 1:1.4 f=50 mm, a Zuiko Auto-Zoom 1/4 f=75-150 mm with Olympus original rigid case, a Sigma Tele-Macro x2 converter, a small flash Olympus PE200 (GN 14 at 100 ISO) with case, A Crystal Titanium x 0.48 wide-angle converter (still never tested), and several 49 mm filters.
This specific camera was constructed in Jan. 1976 according to the printed reference "ス ("su ") 615" on the back of the film plate.
Roscosmos plans to develop touristic programs to Russian spaceports including Baikonur and Vostochny.
According to Roscosmos representative there is a special program to be elaborated to improve this field. The Agency itself is not going to work with the tourists directly but will definitely make all infrastructural changes necessary. Read the full story here➡️ russianspacenews.com/roscosmos-to-develop-touristic-trips... (Our special project to announce our space news) #вежительтур #roscosmos #NASA #ESA #baikonur #rocket #liftoff #space #spacetours #ISS #Байконур #космодром #космос #МКС #авиакосмическийтуризм #Союз #СоюзТМА #soyuztma18m #spaceport #spacelove #spacetours #spaceshuttle #spaceship #spacecraft #followme #instadaily #picoftheday #вежитель
20 Likes on Instagram
The Oregon Trail was a lot like an interstate highway with exits to various destinations. Take a step back in time and see the Oregon Trail wagon tracks left by thousands of pioneers traveling the BLM Ruts Access site.
Many travelled the trail in the 1800s, starting from the “jumping off” point at Independence, Missouri. Some branched off onto other notable routes, including the Santa Fe, the Mormon, or the California trails in search of a better future. They settled in present-day Nevada, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, California, and, of course, Oregon!
The site is located 4 miles east of Baker City, Oregon on Highway 86. Please do your part to protect the ruts by staying on developed trails.
Learn more about our National Historic Oregon Trail Interpretive Center: www.blm.gov/learn/interpretive-centers/national-historic-....
Photographer credit: Larisa Bogardus, BLM
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
In the aftermath of the Second World War, Britain identified a threat posed by the jet-powered strategic bomber and atomic weaponry and thus placed a great emphasis on developing aerial supremacy through continuing to advance its fighter technology, even following the end of conflict. Blackburn Aircraft responded to a 1947 Air Ministry requirement for a high-performance night fighter under Air Ministry specification F.44/46. The specification called for a two-seat night fighter that would intercept enemy aircraft at heights of up to at least 40,000 feet. It would also have to reach a maximum speed of no less than 525 kn at this height, be able to perform rapid ascents and attain an altitude of 45,000 feet within ten minutes of engine ignition.
Additional criteria given in the requirement included a minimum flight endurance of two hours, a takeoff distance of 1,500 yards, structural strength to support up to 4g manoeuvers at high speed and for the aircraft to incorporate airborne interception radar, multi-channel VHF radio and various navigational aids. The aircraft would also be required to be economical to produce, at a rate of ten per month for an estimated total of 150 aircraft.
Blackburn produced several design proposals in the hope of satisfying the requirement. B.47, drawn up in 1946, was essentially a two-seat Meteor with slightly swept wings. A similar design was also offered to the Royal Navy as the B.49. The later-issued B.76 and B.77 of early 1947 had adopted many of the features that would be distinctive of the later Barghest, including the large, swept wings and the engine nacelles moved to the wing roots, integrated into the fuselage. The two projects differed primarily in role: P.76 was a single-seat day fighter with a V-tail, while P.77 was a two-seat night fighter with a radar and a mid-mounted tail plane.
The RAF requirements were subject to some changes, mainly in regards to radar equipment and armaments. Blackburn also initiated some changes, as further research was conducted into the aerodynamic properties of the new swept wings and tail surfaces. For propulsion, the new Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire turbojet engine was chosen and the airframe adapted accordingly.
On 13 April 1949 the Ministry of Supply issued instructions to three aircraft manufacturers, Blackburn, Gloster and de Havilland, to each construct four airworthy prototypes of their competing designs to meet the requirement, as well as one airframe each for structural testing. These prototype aircraft were the Gloster GA.5, designed by Richard Walker, the de Havilland DH.110, which held the advantage of also being under consideration for the Royal Navy (and became the Sea Vixen), and the Blackburn B.87, which was a refined B.77 with a slimmed-down fuselage and a swept T-tail.
The development of all of these designs was considerably delayed through political cost-cutting measures, the number of prototypes being trimmed down to an unworkable level of two each before the decision was entirely reversed! The B.87 was soon christened Barghest and first prototype was structurally completed in 1951. Following a month of ground testing the first prototype conducted its first flight on 26 November 1951 and the second prototype followed in February 1952 (and was in 1953 used for aerodynamic tests that led to the improved Mk. 3, see below). The third prototype, and the first to be fitted with operational equipment including radar and weapons, first flew on 7 March 1953. The fourth airframe was passed to the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment (A&AEE) in August 1953 for trials.
The original Barghest all-weather fighter was equipped with a British AI.17 radar and powered by two Sapphire Sa.5 engines without afterburner, delivering 6,500 lbf (28.91 kN) thrust each. The aircraft did not have built-in weapons, but could carry various weapon packages in a spacious, ventral weapon bay. Options included a tray with four 30 mm ADEN cannon, three retractable pods with a total of 70 unguided Microcell 2 in (51mm) missiles, or a recoilless 4.5 in gun with 7 rounds in a drum magazine, even though this huge weapon, intended against incoming bomber formations at high altitude, never made it beyond the prototype stage and ground tests. Furthermore, four underwing hardpoints could carry drop tanks (on the inner pair of pylons only), bombs or unguided SNEB rocket pods for a total load of 4.000 lb (1.814 kg).
The official production order for the Barghest was issued in mid-1953, together with the Gloster GA.5, which became the Javelin – an unusual decision, but the need for an operational all-weather fighter was so dire that two types were procured at the same time in order to fill the defense gaps as quickly as possible and to have a fall back option at hand immediately. While some delays were incurred, the Barghest's status as a "super priority" for production helped to minimize the time involved in producing each aircraft. Production was assisted by a large order placed by the United States Air Force, purchasing aircraft for the RAF as part of the Mutual Defense Aid Program.
On 22 July 1954 the first production aircraft took flight at Leeds, and the Barghest F(AW).1 entered service with the RAF in 1956 with 46 Squadron based at RAF Odiham, England. The Barghests were immediately put to use in an intensive flying program, to rapidly familiarize crews with the type. In order to assist conversion training, twelve machines from the initial production batch were converted into dual control trainers. They lacked the radar equipment and were designated T.2.
The introduction of the Barghest allowed the RAF to expand its night-fighter activity considerably. During RAF trials, the type proved readily capable of intercepting jet bombers such as the English Electric Canberra and modern jet fighters, over a hundred miles out to sea, and the Barghest turned out to be quite an agile aircraft with good flying characteristics, despite its size. By the end of July 1959, all remaining Meteor squadrons had been converted to the Barghest and the Javelin.
After an initial production batch of 48 F(AW).1 fighters and a dozen T.2 trainers, the upgraded F(AW).3 was introduced in October 1956, which featured several changes and improvements. The biggest external change was the introduction of a modified wing with a dog tooth (tested on the 2nd prototype from 1953 onwards), which enhanced airflow and handling at high speed. Furthermore, the tailplane was modified so that either the rudders could be operated at slow speed or, alternatively, the whole stabilizer at high speed. A bulbous aerodynamic fairing on the fin’s top held the more complicated mechanism.
The Barghest F(AW).3 was furthermore equipped with a more capable AI.22 radar (actually a U.S.-made Westinghouse AN/APQ-43 radar) and it was able to carry up to four IR-guided Firestreak AAMs on pylons under the wings, what significantly improved the aircraft's interceptor capabilities. The aircraft now featured a total of six hardpoints, even though the new, outermost pylons could only carry a single Firestreak missile each. The ventral weapon bay was retained, but, typically, only the pack of four Aden cannon was carried.
In order to cope with a higher all-up weight and improve overall performance, the F(AW).3 was powered by Sapphire Sa.6 engines, which delivered 23% more thrust and were recognizable by enlarged air intakes of oval shape instead of the original, circular orifices. Stronger engines with afterburners could not be mounted, though – their addition would have required a severe structural change to the aircraft’s rear fuselage, and this lack of development potential eventually favored the Barghest’s rival, the Gloster Javelin.
Beyond newly produced F(AW).3 airframes, most F(AW).1s were eventually upgraded to this standard, and a further twelve F(AW).1s were modified into trainers. All T.2 aircraft received the wing and tail upgrade, but retained the weaker Sapphire Sa.5s, and their designation was eventually changed into T.4.
Due to its higher development potential, the Gloster Javelin overshadowed the Barghest during its relatively short career. The last Barghest fighter was already withdrawn from service in 1966, with a total of 125 airframes having been produced, while the Javelin, produced in more than 420 units, kept on serving until 1968. Both types were replaced by the Mach 2-capable BAC Lightning interceptor.
However, the experience gathered from the Barghest's early development was successfully used by Blackburn during the Buccaneer development process for the Royal Navy in the mid-Fifties.
General characteristics:
Crew: two
Length: 54 ft in (16,49 m)
Wingspan: 40 ft 7 in (12.38 m)
Wing area: 514.7 ft² (47.82 m²)
Height: 14 ft 9 in (4,50 m)
Empty weight: 19,295 lb (8,760 kg)
Gross weight: 29,017 lb (13,174 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 34,257 lb (15,553 kg)
Powerplant:
2× Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire Sa.6 engines with 8,000 lbf (35.6 kN) thrust each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 606 kn (697 mph; 1,122 km/h) at sea level
Range: 954 mi (1,530 km)
Service ceiling: 52,800 ft (15,865 m)
Rate of climb: 7,000 ft/min (35.6 m/s)
Wing loading: 66 lb/ft² (325 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.56
Armament:
Ventral weapon bay, typically carrying 4× 30 mm (0.79 in) ADEN revolver cannon with 180 RPG;
alternatively, three retractable packs with a total of 70 unguided Microcell 2 in (51mm) missiles
could be carried;
Six underwing hardpoints (The outer pair of pylons could only carry Firestreak AAMs) for a total
ordnance of 4.000 lb (1.814 kg), including up to 4× Firestreak IR-guided AAMs, drop tanks on the
inner pair of pylons, or unguided bombs and SNEB missile pods.
The kit and its assembly:
This kitbash model originally started as an early Fifties all-weather fighter for the Royal Navy, and the idea was a Gloster Meteor night fighter fuselage mated with the engines and swept wings from a Blackburn Buccaneer. However, things change and evolve as ideas turn into hardware (for another submission to the 2018 “RAF Centenary” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com), and so this project gradually transformed into an all-weather fighter for the Royal Air Force, as a rival to the Gloster Javelin, and some other fundamental changes to the original plan as things evolved on the work bench.
Work started with a Matchbox Gloster Meteor, from which the fuselage (incl. the NF.14 cockpit with its bubble canopy) and tail cone (w/o fin, though) were taken OOB. Then a Matchbox Buccaneer donated its nose cone and the engine pods, together with the inner wing sections. An initial attempt to use the Buccaneer’s fin and stabilizer was made, but it did not work at all (looked horrible and totally unbalanced!). Instead, I used a leftover fin from a Revell 1:200 Concorde because of its retro shape and depth, and waited for the stabilizers until the wings were mounted, so that size, position and proportions would become clearer.
The nose cone had to be squashed, because its OOB oval diameter would not go onto the circular Meteor front end without problems and major PSR. With some force from a vice and internal stabilization through 2C putty the shape could be successfully modified, though, and blended into the fuselage contours. Looks pretty good and fast!
Once the engine nacelles were in place, I initially tried the Buccaneer’s OOB outer wings, but I was not really happy with the look. Their shape did not look “right”, they were a bit too large and just very Buccaneer-esque. After a donor bank safari I found a leftover sprue with wings and stabilizers from a Matchbox Hawker Hunter, and after some measurements and trials I found that they could be quite easily adapted to the Buccaneer’s inner wing stubs, even though this called for more serious surgery and PSR work. The latter was also necessary in order to blend the engine nacelles into the slender Meteor fuselage – messy, but feasible.
Alas, one challenge leads to the next one: Once in place, the massive engines created a ventral gap, due to the Meteor’s slender tail section. This was eventually filled with the Matchbox Buccaneer’s extra fuel bomb bay door, simply cut away from the kit, trimmed down and transplanted between the engine nacelles. As a side benefit, its bulged shape would now simulate a fairing for a ventral gun pack, somewhat similar to the CF-100’s arrangement. More PSR ensued, though, and between and around the jet exhausts the fuselage had to be fully re-sculpted.
The stabilizers also caused some headaches. With the new Hunter swept wings tips, I also needed new, matching stabilizers. I eventually used the Hunter stabilizers from the surplus Matchbox kit sprue. At first I tried to mate them with a shortened central fairing from the Buccaneer, but this did work even less than the whole Bucc tail, and so I scratched a more slender central fairing for the T-tail on top of the Concorde fin from a piece of sprue. Even though the Hunter stabilizers turned out to look a bit diminutive, I stuck with them since they complement the wing shape so well.
The benefit of the Buccaneer engine nacelles is that they come with proper landing gear wells, so that only the landing gear had to be improvises and adapted to the new aircraft and its proportions. I wanted to use the Meteor landing gear, but this turned out to be much too short! So I replaced the front wheel with a respective part from a Matchbox Buccaneer. The main wheels from the Meteor kit were retained, but they had to be extended - with a 5mm styrene tube “plug”, which is, thankfully, well hidden behind the covers.
Others small changes/additions are ejection seats in the cockpit instead of the Meteor bucket seats, the jet exhausts were drilled open and an interior was added, and some antennae were placed on the aircraft’s hull.
The ordnance was to reflect a typical late Fifties RAF fighter, and so the Barghest received a pair of drop tanks (from a Heller SEPECAT Jaguar, with simplified fins) and a pair of Firestreak AAMs (from a Matchbox BAC Lightning) on a pair of launch rails from an Academy MiG-23.
Colors and markings:
As per usual, I rather keep complicated whiffs visually simple, so I used the standard RAF scheme of Dark Green/Dark Sea Grey/Light Aircraft Grey on the Barghest, with the Buccaneer’s typical pattern as benchmark. Humbrol enamels (163, 164 and 166) were used for basic painting.
The cockpit interior became Tar Black (Revell 06), while the landing gear and its respective wells were painted in Aluminum (Humbrol 56). The kit received a light black ink washing and mild post-shading – more for a dramatic than a weathering effect, since RAF machines in the Fifties looked very tidy and clean.
The drop tanks received camouflage and the Firestreaks became white, while their clear seeker cones were painted with a mix of silver and translucent blue. The IR sensors were created with thin decal stripes.
The decals come primarily from an Xtradecal BAC Lightning sheet (roundels and 19 Sq. markings – the squadron badges are unfortunately quite large, since they belong to a NMF aircraft), most stencils and the tactical code come from an Airfix Venom trainer and an Italeri Tornado.
Finally, the kit was sealed with a matt acrylic varnish, a mix of matt and little semi-gloss Italeri varnish, for a sheen finish.
A true kitbashing, made from many well-known RAF ingredients and a disturbing look between odd and familiar! A Buccaneer? No, it’s too scrawny. A Javelin? No, it does not have delta wings, and it’s got a tail sting. A de-navalized Sea Vixen? Well, no twin tail, and anything else does not match either... Despite the puzzling details (or because of them?), the Barghest looks disturbingly British and Fifties, as if it had been created from a profound RAF DNA pool – and it actually is! And with lots of putty. ;-)
Decided the other day to work on other things, but I have this one hanging around....
Crease pattern available.
Photo Courtesy of the "Peace Plus One - World Sustainability Project"
and McMaster Institute for Sustainable Development in Commerce
SUBJECT:
北京能源网络 Beijing Energy Network
in partnership with the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
presents
北耳 Beijing Energy & Environment Roundtable (BEER)
featuring
» Chivas Lam, Venture Partner, Qiming Venture Partners
» Mark Levine, Group Leader, China Energy Group, Lawrence Berkeley National Labs
» Sebastian Meyer, Director of Research & Advisory, Azure International
» Edward Steinfeld, Professor of Political Economy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
发展未来能源技术：中美合作是答案吗？Developing Energy Technologies for the Future: Are U.S.-China Partnerships the Answer?
5:00pm - 6:15pm: Cocktail Session
6:15pm - 7:30pm: Panel Discussion
** About the Talk (报告内容) **
In the 20th century, we understood energy technology development to be something that took place within the confines of single national economies. The development phases were long, the capital requirements intense, and the levels of uncertainty and risk extremely high. When energy technologies found their way across borders, if they did at all, they did so as mature systems, ones that could be "transferred" from one place to another. Today, an entirely new pattern seems to be afoot. Overseas innovators are teaming with Chinese partners to co-develop energy technologies. Upstream innovations -- often pioneered in Europe, the U.S., and Japan -- are being translated into commercially-viable systems on Chinese soil and in conjunction with Chinese corporate partners and Chinese financing. Yet, as this process surges forward -- both because of the demand for such technologies in China, and the availability of Chinese financing -- significant questions remain. At the commercial level, which technologies are most suited for cross-border development, and which are not? Once financing is secured and cross-border partnerships are established, what is required to make joint technology development actually work? How should the process be organized, and by whom? At the policy level, to what extent can governments be relied upon over the long run to support co-development efforts? What are the risks of protectionist backlash? Under what circumstances might public financing be withdrawn? How do political risks differ across various types of energy technology? This panel will take an "inside-out" look at cross-border technology co-development, starting from the perspective of the commercial players themselves -- the most active drivers of the process -- and then drawing the broader ramifications for public policy and national interest.
** About the Speakers (报告人简历) **
Chivas Lam is a Venture Partner of Qiming Ventures focusing on the Cleantech Sector. Chivas brings over 25 years of operational experience in the General Industrial Manufacturing and Energy Sector. Prior to joining Qiming, Chivas was the President Asia Pacific of the Morgan Crucible Company. He successfully led reengineering and integration of multiple business units and was instrumental to operational enhancement and profit growth. Prior to Morgan Crucible, Chivas held various Senior Positions with GEC Alstom in Project Management and Business Development in China and Australia. Chivas started his career with Hong Kong Electric Company Limited.
Mark Levine is the Group Leader of the China Energy Group at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL). Previously, he was director of the LBNL's Environmental Division, which is a leader in research on buildings energy efficiency, indoor air quality, and various clean energy technologies. His major passion in the past two decades has involved analyzing and promoting energy efficiency in China. Dr. Levine is a board member of five leading non-profits in the United States (American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Center for Clean Air Policy, Center for Resource Solutions, the US-China Green Energy Council, and California Clean Energy Fund, an innovative green venture capital fund) and one in Asia. He has also founded or co-founded two successful non-profits, including the acclaimed Beijing Energy Efficiency Center. Dr. Levine graduated summa cum laude from Princeton University, earned a PhD from the University of California.
Sebastian Meyer has covered the wind industry in China since 2004, and has built up a successful research and advisory practice focused on the alternative energy space. Sebastian came to China from London, where he specialized in due diligence supporting project finance and M&A transactions related to alternative energy. He also worked in the transition economies of Europe through the 90’s heading the Warsaw equity research team and covering industrial manufacturers and privatization programs for Creditanstalt Investmentbank - the leading western investment bank focused on the region at the time. Sebastian’s career spans debt and equity financing, project finance, equity research and valuation, mergers & acquisitions, and management consulting within the context of alternative energy and transition economies.
Edward Steinfeld is a professor of political economy in the MIT Department of Political Science and co-director of the China Energy Group in the MIT Industrial Performance Center. Steinfeld received his BA, MA, and PhD in political science from Harvard University. In addition to a variety of academic articles, Steinfeld is the author of Playing Our Game: Why China's Rise Doesn't Threaten the West and Forging Reform in China: The Fate of State-Owned Industry. Steinfeld is the author of numerous articles in both academic and non-academic journals, including Comparative Politics, Political Studies, World Development, The Far Eastern Economic Review, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and The South China Morning Post. Steinfeld is a member of the board of directors of the National Committee on US-China Relations, as well as a member of the academic committee of the Center for Industrial Development and Environmental Governance at Tsinghua University.
** About BEN & BEER (北京能源网路和北耳简介) **
The Beijing Energy Network (BEN) is a grassroots organization with a mission of promoting knowledge sharing, networking, and collaboration in understanding and tackling China’s energy and environmental challenges among individuals and organizations from diverse sectors such as government, finance, industry, media, advocacy, think tanks and academia. Our membership currently stands at over 1,900 strong.
The flagship activity of BEN is the Beijing Energy & Environmental Roundtable (BEER), an approximately twice-monthly happy hour/speaker series. BEER events are free and open to all with no RSVP necessary. We hope you will come early, stay late, listen and ask questions, catch up with old friends and make new ones.
Please note, we ask that our speaker's remarks remain off the record unless they otherwise grant permission. A listing of our past events can be found here.
If you would like to learn more, receive email updates from BEN, have a suggestion for an event, or are interested in possibly being a speaker yourself, please sign up to our Google Group, or if you can't access that link from China, send an email to beijing-energy-network+owner@googlegroups.com.
Camera: FED 3B with Skink Pinhole Pancake, 24mm, f110. Film: Kodak Ultramax 400, home-developed with the Rollei DIGIBASE C41 Film Kit.
Barnard Castle is a well-documented example of a ringwork which developed into a shell keep. It is one of the largest castles in the north of England and its importance lies not only in the good state of preservation of its standing remains but also in the wide range of ancillary features which survive as buried features within its four wards. Equally important are its associations with the Balliols and the Earls of Warwick, the former being one of the most important families in Scottish medieval history and the latter in later medieval English history.
The monument is situated on a cliff above the River Tees and includes an early 12th century ringwork, a 12th to 14th century shell keep castle with four wards or enclosures, a chapel and a dovecote. Formerly, an outer ditch enclosed the east side of the castle between the curtain wall and the Horse Market. Although the remains of this ditch will survive beneath later urban development, it is not included in the scheduling as the extent of the remains is not sufficiently understood. A series of partial excavations carried out within the later castle walls between 1974 and 1982 has shown that the earliest fortification dates to between c.1109 and 1125. It was constructed overlooking the river where the cliff turned eastwards into the mouth of a gully. A ditch was quarried in an arc from the north cliff to the west cliff, enclosing a roughly circular area with a diameter of c.50m. The upcast from the ditch was used to create a rampart along the inside of the ditch and this, together with the cliff edge, was surmounted by a timber palisade. Within this ringwork the remains of wooden outbuildings and a large timber hall have been found beneath the floors of later stone buildings. Access to the interior was via a bridge across the ditch which led through a timber gatehouse located at the junction of the ditch with the west cliff. This gatehouse was soon afterwards rebuilt in stone and was the earliest stone building of the castle. The main period of reconstruction came in two phases between c.1125 and 1170. During the first phase, 1125-1140, the ringwork was strengthened by the excavation of the Great Ditch, a substantial rock-cut feature along the line of the earlier ditch, and the palisade was replaced by a multi-angular curtain wall with a wall walk and an interval tower along the east side. The original entrance was blocked and a new entrance was built alongside it at the head of a wooden bridge across the Great Ditch. The stone gatehouse became incorporated into the larger Headlam Tower and a small rectangular keep was built at the north east angle of the enclosure. In addition, the rampart was widened to create a site for timber buildings along the inside of the east and south curtain. The resultant shell keep, occupying the site of the original ringwork, formed the Inner Ward of the castle. To the south and east were three more wards which originated at the same time as the ringwork though they were not fortified in stone until the second phase of rebuilding between 1140 and 1170. The smallest of these was the Middle Ward, situated south of the Inner Ward with the Great Ditch forming its north side and walls enclosing it on the south, west and east sides. The walls here have been heavily robbed but it is clear that this enclosure acted as a barbican or fortified entry for the Inner Ward. It controlled access to the Inner Ward by means of a gate beneath the Constable Tower, a three storey gate-tower on the south side of the Middle Ward. Little of the Constable Tower remains standing, but its foundations and those of other buildings, located by excavation in the south east corner of the ward, survive as buried remains. The approach to the gate was from the Outer Ward which lay to the south and was the largest of the four wards with an area of c.1.5ha. It was enclosed by a curtain wall on the south, west and east sides, and also by the outer ditch which lay outside the east curtain. On the north side another ditch ran from west to east, below the cross-curtain wall that separated the Outer Ward from the Middle and Town Wards and effectively divided the castle in two. The main route into the castle ran parallel with this ditch before turning north to pass beneath the Constable Tower. The Outer Ward has not been excavated but documentary evidence indicates that a chapel dedicated to St Margaret had been built on the east side by the mid-12th century and bestowed on St Mary's Abbey, York. The remains of this chapel survive incorporated into a later stable. Further remains which survive as buried features beneath the buildings, paddocks, yards and gardens that now occupy the Outer Ward, are the farm buildings belonging to the castle and the gate-tower in the east curtain which controlled the approach from the town. The fourth ward was the Town Ward, located in the north east quarter of the castle and enclosed on the north side by the outer curtain. On the east side it was bounded by the curtain and the outer ditch, on the south side by a cross-curtain wall and, on the west side, by the Great Ditch. Excavations inside the Town Ward have uncovered a number of buildings set against the curtain wall round at least one cobbled courtyard containing a pond and a well. Other buildings and yards occupied the open interior and also the wide bank extending round the inside of the walls. Incorporated into the curtain wall were at least three towers and also a postern or pedestrian gate, located in the east curtain. The east curtain does not survive well round the Town Ward, having in places been replaced by a modern wall. Towards the north angle, however, it survives sufficiently well to illustrate a typical defensive feature of the castle: arrow loops set inside recessed arches. In addition, it includes the remains of Brackenbury Tower, a large rectangular structure of two storeys which projects slightly beyond the wall. The upper storey contained a fireplace, two garderobes or privies, and a window with seats converted from one of three recessed arrow loops. Beneath was a barrel-vaulted basement which also contained a fireplace, a garderobe and cupboards. The arrangements on both floors indicate that the tower had a domestic or administrative function. The curtain wall round the north side of the Town Ward is unusual in that it is too narrow to have carried the usual wall walk. It also contains many nesting boxes for pigeons or doves. Included within it is the north gate, a two storey tower with a chamber above the gate passage and rooms flanking it. Though both ground floor rooms contain fireplaces, that to the right is less elaborate and would have been the guardroom while that to the left opened onto the ward and probably also had an administrative function. The third tower of the Town Ward is a small square structure in the north curtain, adjacent to the Great Ditch. It is known as the Dovecote Tower because the interior, from top to bottom, consists of tiers of nesting boxes. In construction the tower dates, like the rest of the ward, to the later 12th century but, before it was a dovecote, it may have had another function connected with a doorway which now opens into mid-air. The doorway led into another building set against the curtain wall, but nothing of this structure survives above ground. As yet, its buried remains have not been excavated, and so its function and relationship to the Dovecote Tower cannot yet be determined. Between 1170 and 1185, following the second building phase, there was a third period of reconstruction carried out only in the Inner Ward. The timber hall was rebuilt in stone and was connected to the gate-tower by a wall behind which lay kitchens and other ancillary buildings. The keep in the north east angle was replaced by the three-storey Round Tower which had both a military and a domestic function, and, between the tower and the new hall was built the Great Chamber: a three-storey residence for the lords of Barnard Castle. The wall round the Inner Ward was strengthened by the addition of the Postern Tower and the Prison Tower, the latter replacing the earlier projecting tower. A bakehouse was also constructed against the curtain. Following this, there were no further alterations until the 14th century when the hall and service buildings were rebuilt and enlarged by the addition of the Mortham Tower, and the access into the Inner Ward was changed to make it more secure. This was achieved by relocating the bridge over the Great Ditch, so that it now ran alongside the west curtain, and by building a demi-bastion, or semicircular tower, which extended from the original Headlam Tower to the edge of the ditch. The route from the bridge was then walled off so that the way into the Inner Ward was completely covered by the new defences even before it reached the gate under the demi-bastion. Also at this time, a portcullis was inserted into the curtain wall at the bottom of the Great Ditch so that the bridge over the Tees could be protected from the castle. During this period the Outer Ward went out of use and at least one building in the Town Ward was demolished. A wet moat was dug alongside the east wall of the Middle Ward and a tower was built to overlook the moat and protect the drawbridge across it. In this way, the castle was made smaller and more defensible, cheaper to run and also more comfortable for its residents. For the next hundred years no further changes were made, and then modifications were only of a minor and domestic kind, including the insertion of an oriel window into the Great Chamber and the addition of a turret onto the Mortham Tower. The first castle was built by Guy de Balliol to be the caput or chief centre of his estates in the north of England. At that time the site was defended not only by the cliffs alongside the Tees but by a steep gully to the north. This gully has since been infilled but, in the 12th century, it still carried the old Roman road between Bowes and Binchester, and the castle commanded the point where this road forded the river. Guy was succeeded by his nephew Barnard de Balliol who, together with his second son, also called Barnard, was responsible for the reconstruction of the castle and the creation of the borough which bears their name. Throughout the next hundred years, the Balliols grew in power and importance until, in 1290, John Balliol defeated the claim of Robert de Brus and became King of Scotland. In his bid for the Scottish throne, however, he had been dependent on the support of Edward I and, in the war which followed his subsequent refusal to do homage to the English king, he rapidly lost power, was taken prisoner by the English, and lost all his estates save the family lands in Picardy. Meanwhile, Barnard Castle was seized by Anthony Bek, Bishop of Durham, in response to a long-standing claim that the bishops had rights over the estates which included the castle. Edward I tolerated this for a time but, in 1306, confiscated the lordship of Barnard Castle and granted it in 1307 to Guy de Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. From being a home and a stronghold, the castle became merely a source of revenue, and, though it was kept on a war-footing due to the ever-present threat from Scotland, the Beauchamps rarely visited it despite the domestic improvement carried out during their period of lordship. In 1445 the Nevilles succeeded to the Earldom of Warwick and, with the death of Richard Neville at the Battle of Barnet in 1471, the castle passed to Richard, Duke of Gloucester who in 1481 became King Richard III. Richard planned to found an ecclesiastical college within the castle, but these plans had not been realised by the time of his death in 1485.
Throughout the 15th and 16th centuries the castle gradually fell into disrepair, as illustrated by surveys done at the time. In 1569 it enjoyed a brief period of importance during the so-called Rising of the North when the Earls of Westmorland and Northumberland, together with the Scropes and Dacres, moved to release Mary, Queen of Scots from Castle Bolton, place her on the throne of England and restore the country to Catholicism. Their rebellion failed, in part due to the time bought by Sir George Bowes, a loyal supporter of Elizabeth I, who moved to Barnard Castle and managed to withstand a ten-day siege before surrendering the castle, thus giving the Earl of Sussex time to muster an army in support of the queen. Following this, the castle and its estate were rented out by the Crown to various tenants, including the Bowes family, until 1603 when James I granted it to Robert Carr, together with the lordship of Raby. By 1630, both Barnard Castle and Raby were in the possession of Sir Henry Vane who proceeded to dismantle the former to provide building material for his improvements to the latter. Since 1952, by a number of Deeds of Gift, the Inner, Middle and Town Wards have been brought into State care. The ruins are also a Grade I Listed Building. (Scheduling Report)
Home developed in Unicolor C-41
Film: Fuji Superia 400 @ 200
Camera: Nikon F90X
Scanner: Epson v550
Bowens Gemini 750 Pro Monolight in a softbox camera right. Triggered via Bowens Pulsar
Graflex Speed Graphic 4x5
Kodak Ektar 127mm f4.7
Foma Retropan 320 Self_developed FX-15_Dev
EPSON GT-X980
I developed some expired kodak 400tx (2010) in Rodinal 1:50 at 20c. I agitated once 3 mins for the first 20 mins and let it stand for further 30 mins. So 50 mins in total. From the negative I can see the exposure and develop time is about right.
HOWEVER, there's a layer of frost on the emulsion side. The scanned images appear all have such brain like pattern which makes me sick.
Anyway, is there any reason why it happened? is it caused by the film or my developing or both?
Such a shame, I liked a few pictures from this batch.
It is a matter of huge pride that the #SAD led Government of Punjab has played a pivotal role in setting up of Indian School of Business (ISB) campus in Mohali. With Punjabi youth aiming for the world, we will surely bring more such world-class education institutions in Punjab in times to come.
#ShiromaniAkaliDal #ProudtobeAkali #SADDelivered #SADCommittted #SADforPunjab #SukhbirSinghBadal #ISBMohali
Developed from the ground up as a fully-electric truck on GM’s advanced Ultium EV Platform, the Silverado EV offers a combination of capability, performance and versatility, along with advanced technologies that can evolve the vehicle over time. In spring 2023, the Silverado EV will debut a WT model offering a large range battery with an expected GM-estimated range of over 400 miles on a full charge. In the fall of 2023, a fully loaded RST First Edition model, also including a 400-mile range, will debut with an MSRP of $105,000 + DFC. After production ramps up, Chevrolet will unleash the full Silverado EV portfolio including WT with a starting at MSRP of $39,900 + DFC, RST, Trail Boss and more with the ability to content the truck across various price ranges, with MSRPs around $50,000, $60,000, $70,000, $80,000 and more. This will allow customers to choose the truck that meets their capability and pricing needs.
Developing natterjack toadlets . Note characteristic yellow stripe down back beginning to show.
© Natural England/Peter Roworth 2013
American artist, designer and inventor L. R. Emerson II may be considered the Thomas Edison of art yet is equally considered among the world’s most unusual artists. L. R. Emerson II may also be one of the most prolific artists the world has ever witnessed. Since 1983, has been personally compelled to develop and express through multi-directional art.
L. R. Emerson II is best known as the leading artist of the Upside-Down Art Movement or Masg Art movement.
Emerson never intended to become a household name in artmaking and the evidence of his effort to avoid selling out is firstly, his diligent efforts to make art that was intentionally against the common trends and secondly to keep his style secret from the world at large for two decades.
Recently, however after Emerson decidedly released some of his work after keeping it suppressed since the 1980’s renowned artist Georg Baselitz called L. R. Emerson's art"...inspiring." Baselitz’ own art has sold for in excess of $4.2 million dollars at recent auction.
In tribute, paying homage to neo-expressionist painter Georg Baselitz, Emerson recently exhibited at Saatchi an work Upside-Down Artwork or also known as Masg art called "Ode to Baselitz". Featured at Saatchionine.com Emerson has presented a work which has garnered the attention of Charles Saatchi himself who personally flagged L. R. Emerson ‘s work as “Liked”. "Ode to Baselitz" is part of L. R. Emerson II's "Heavy Ink" series.
The medium of “Ode to Baselitz” is called Digigraph or Digiography (both phrases termed and documented in 2009 in The Purple Tree; Art in a Boundless Age) is a combination of both traditional and tech media. The Digigraph featured at Saatchi is part of L. R. Emerson’s 50+ documented, pioneering inventions for making art - each calling for combinations of traditional and digital technology mediums.
“Ode to Baselitz” is a culmination of pen and ink, and computer aided design. Emerson’s goal with “Ode to Baselitz” is not only to bring attention to the already known upside-down work of Baselitz but moreover for the fact that like Emerson, Baselitz has ridden the critical seas of the public’s reaction to upside down work.
Baselitz, according to Emerson has paved a way for artists, even ones who are not working neo-expressively to express themselves through multi-directional composition – though Baselitz does not intend his upside-down works be hung in two or more directions as Emerson intentionally does.
As Emerson puts it “Baselitz broke the water and I am simply delivering the baby” speaking metaphorically to the aspect of L. A. times featured article from 1984 showing Baselitz’ then Upside-Down painting. By comparison, Emerson’s 1984 series was removed from exhibition during the same time period (’85) as Emerson feared critical rejection and stylistic copying. Thus L. R. Emerson II’s art was selectively hidden from the world for the next two decades.
In 2005 Emerson II exhibited nearly 800 works sharing several signed prints with major museums and galleries in 11 countries, yet he determined it necessary to continue to hold other selections from the public eye. What is seen today in exhibition by Emerson are mere artistic fragments of what he actually creates. With his current work never shown and by only releasing work that is about two years old, Emerson keeps ahead of those who would choose to mimic his style.
With over 100 awards to date and currently working in his third decade, L. R. Emerson II has proven himself worthy of critical appraisal. Nicholas Forrest, contributing writer to Art & Antiques Magazine wrote about L. R. Emerson II stating "An amazing artist, Amazing art!" 2006. L. R. has been actively researching, developing, and inventing methods of making art and specifically Upside-Down art known as Masg Art, from Gaelic meaning to mix; or infuse for 30 years.
To date, Emerson has delivered on his 1983 promises to make “Upside-Down Art” a household name in the very near future. In the aftermath we find now major artists effecting and or following the Upside-Down Art movement which is crossing international lines with artists such as Germany's Georg Baselitz and British Sculptor Anish Kapoor, giving significantly strong visual support.
Emerson's own efforts in leading the Upside-Down Art Movement has thus far have encompassed the following:
•Created Upside-Down Art for nearly thirty years having begun in 1983 and has made more upside-down, multi-directional, ambigram, Masg styled art than any person in history.
•Exhibited at age 18, and worked as a commissioned artist beginning at age of 19 with work appearing in newspaper and magazines by age 19 and for major celebrities by age 23
•First artist ever to offer their art for free; up to $1 million dollars of L. R. Emerson II’s artwork was literally offered for free to anyone in the world. The offer was advertised to the general public in numerous places and stood from 2005 until 2009
•Created in excess of 100,000 works within over 1,000 series
•Engaged 30 years of innovative, experimentation and invention driven research on Upside-Down Art or Multidirectional Art Composition, process and art methodology
•Created Upside-Down, multi-directional Masg Art in the following mediums: airbrush, collography, clayography, etching, lino-cut, oil on linen and canvas, acrylic on canvas, acrylic on board, emulsion transfer, mixed media, photography, digiography, emulsion transfer on metal, pen & ink with watercolor, pencil and ink on paper, oil pastel, collage, digital imaging, vector-based CGI, acetone transfer
•Has been awarded for being considered one of America’s Leading Art Educators, frequently serving as a Lead Art Educator on a variety of curriculum writing and Art Education textbook adoption committees or chairperson capacities. Emerson’s curriculum writing experiences have included practicum, research and committee collaboration to develop Art Education practices and standards for Art Foundation teaching and Cornerstone Assessments which serve as standards or benchmarks to assess a practicing artist’s skills and ability(2008 to 2012)
•Secured exhibition opportunities for student artists - having exhibited several academic thousand works.
•Invented in excess of 50 documented new methods for making Upside-Down Art or Masg Art
•Established a world record in the “Most Digital Works Created in One Hour” with the record set at 86 in 2007 and succeeded to a new record of 87 in 2008, both held by Emerson
•Published The Purple Tree; Art in a Boundless Age, 2009
•2012 Charles Saatchi personally flags Emerson’s online Saatchi Gallery as a “Liked User”
•Among the world’s most accomplished airbrush artists, having been placed in magazines the age of 19 and still today advancing the power of airbrush through invention and exhibition.
•Serving among the world’s most influential 21st Century Artists and Designers
•Created work for numerous patron including Grammy Winning musician/songwriter Leon Russell – who wrote “Superstar” the number one hit song for the late Karen Carpenter , March 2, 1950 – February 4, 1983 (also a Grammy Winner) and living legend Barbara Streisand, born April 24, 1942.
•Donated by Deed the printing, publishing and rights to sale of over $1 million dollars in art.
•Created the first Upside-Down Art/Masg art Portraiture featuring a living person
•Established new art movement named “Pop Not” – genuine Pop Art styled social criticism with Pop styled, collages and punchy graphics but far removed from the kitschy, pseudo Pop Art existing today. L. R. Emerson II documented in the Purple Tree; Art in A Boundless Age the mission of Pop Not artists and the socially critical work they produce.
•Produced 14 Art Education videos highlighting the earmarks of Upside-Down Art
•Achieved in excess of 100 awards including awards for advertising design and photography
•Received critical acclaim from Nicholas Forrest, contributing writer to Art and Antiques Magazine. Forrest wrote about L. R. Emerson II’s Upside-Down Art or Masg Art stating “Amazing art by an amazing artist!” 2006
•Written and published Art History and or Criticism articles about Upside-Down Art
•Exhibited Upside-Down Art or Masg Art at prominent museums such The Museum of Contemporary Art
•Works held in both private estate and public art collections
•Developed, termed and published research about the "Digigraph" art process and art medium - a unique new art medium using traditional art media and technology
•2005, Established e4 Fine Art and an accompanying website e4fineart.com to serve as the exclusive representative for L.R.’s work and the web site to host functional space to not only electronically exhibit my work but moreover to share understanding about the art history related to Upside-Down Art.
•To date www.e4fineart.com.com and its’ counterpart gallery, www.upside-down-art.com has had over 600.000 visitors from across the planet and exists as “The World’s Largest Solo Artist Site” TM
•First artist to call for a change in the current Art Education texts and practices as L. R. Emerson II’s 30 years of pioneering research has proved the merits and validity of Upside-Down Art, or Masg Art as being a worthy alternative to the three common forms of compositional balance.
Because of the work of L. R. Emerson II and other supporting Upside-Down artists the old texts and teaching foundations known as The Principles of Art/Design are outdated and need revision. Museums, Art Critics, Educators, conservators and Historians can no longer ignore the relevance and merit of multi-directional composition or Upside-Down Art.
•In 2005, after having been kept secret for over two decades, Masg or Upside-Down Art was introduced to more than 500 galleries and in excess of 50 renowned museums worldwide including:
National Gallery
Tate Museum, London
Smithsonian American Art Museum
Musée du Louvre, Paris
The Museum of Modern Art, NYC
Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation
San Francisco Museum of Modern Art
The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles
Additionally, several videos were produced in the past three years and subsequently presented to the global community including the following:
Art is Art is Art by L R Emerson II
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftwMV0kxeuo
L R Emerson II Art
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyekoiK5N4c
Art is Upside-Down by L R Emerson II
www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7R5nuZ-2So
Art 21 L. R. Emerson II: Masg A New Art Movement
www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIYCTL-cnPs
Art History by L. R. Emerson II
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjlw6iFfnvQ
Math and Art - Music and Art
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ks1RKmUodbA
The Purple Tree: Art in a Boundless Age
www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjZwNnWZNLA
“Currently as I continue my research and documentation I look toward an Upside-Down Art group exhibition including myself, Georg Baselitz, and Anish Kapoor. London’s Tate Museum, NYC Guggenheim, MOMA and the Los Angeles County Museum of Art are fine venues for this warranted proposal. The considerably unusual exhibition will likely be presented as the world’s most unusual art of the 20th and 21st Century.
We have come a long way but still have an engaging journey ahead. I am pleased however at our progress so far and know we have truly shattered the proverbial “glass ceiling” or stronghold of art conservators, critics and museums as they too now have accepted our methods of composition and see that we have forever changed the manner in which art is composed.
The more I’ve advocated for Upside-Down Art, the greater the number of artists we (representatives and assistants) find are mimicking my style, however this is rewarding to me. Neither am I displeased to be named ‘Jack the Flipper’ (linguistically spinning Pollack’s ‘… dripper’ nomenclature).” Excerpt: L. R. Emerson II, 2012
Please see the revolutionary art of L. R. Emerson II at www.upside-down-art.com , “The World’s Largest Solo Artist Site” TM, and consider the merit of L. R. Emerson II’s work for inclusion in your presentation, writing, evaluation and discussion of 21st Century Art.
Part of the less beautiful Stockholm. "Bypass Stockholm" developd. A gigantic show of building and engineering knowledge. A total of 21 km from Kungens Kurva to Häggvik, of which 18 km through tunnel. Expected to be completed in 2026.
En del av det mindre vackra Stockholm. Förbifart Stockholm växer fram. En gigantisk uppvisning av byggnations och ingenjörskonst. Totalt 21 km från Kungens Kurva till Häggvik varav 18 km genom tunnel. Beräknas vara klar år 2026.
Developed specifically to meet the needs of small and midsize businesses, the Avaya 5400 Series Digital Telephones incorporate sleek design, improved ergonomics, flexibility, and enterprise-class voice quality. These two-wire digital phones come in three models, all of which feature paperless button labels, local call log, and speed-dial directories.
Visit Avaya.com for more information about the Avaya 5400 Series Telephones.
Originally Hartjesdag (Day of Hearts) was a festival celebrated on the third Monday in August in the Dutch areas of Haarlem and Bloemendaal and in various parts of Amsterdam, particularly around the Haarlemmerplein, in the Jordaan, and in the Dapperbuurt. On Hartjesdag fires were kindled and children collected money. Later it developed itself into a type of cross-dressing carnival, where men dressed as women, and women dressed as men. A typical scene was captured in the oil painting entitled Hartjesdag, by the artist Johan Braakensiek in 1926. More on wiki.
Amsterdam (pronounced /ˈæmstərdæm/; Dutch [ɑmstərˈdɑm]) is the capital and largest city of the Netherlands, located in the province of North Holland in the west of the country. The city, which had a population (including suburbs) of 1.36 million on 1 January 2008, comprises the northern part of the Randstad, the sixth-largest metropolitan area in Europe, with a population of around 6.7 million. From: wikipedia.
Some background:
The MBR-04 series were the first combat-ready Destroids and the most successful land-combat weapon Destroids that were built with OverTechnology of Macross. The abbreviation MBR (Main Battle Robot) indicates the model was developed as a walking humanoid weapon emphasizing the heavy armor firepower of an artillery combat vehicle, designed to replace mainline battle tanks. The Type 04 series was developed jointly by Viggers and Chrauler. Unlike the variable fighters, which had to be designed to accommodate transformation mechanisms, the MBR series featured a structure with a large capacity that allowed plenty of room for machinery and armor.
The initial development line, the "Tomahawk" multipurpose battle robot and comparable in its intended role with former main battle tanks, had inferior anti-aircraft abilities, even though it boasted firepower like no other biped vehicle from the Destroid series. Originally, the Tomahawk was just called "MBR Mk. I", but once its systems and structural elements became the basis for other models, its designation changed into the "Type 04" Destroid. The main frame from the waist down, a module which consolidated the thermonuclear reactor and ambulatory OverTechnology system of the Destroids, was common to all of the Type 04 series of biped battle robots. Production line integration using this module was a key goal of Destroid development, and the quick development of further variants.
The ADR-04-Mk. X Defender Destroid was one of these family members, a walking weapon developed using OverTechnology for deployment by the United Nations Military. During development of the MBR-04-Mk I, a version of the Destroid ambulatory system with the anti-aircraft Contraves system (for use during the early stages of battle) was simultaneously being developed in a joint effort by Viggers-Chrauler under direction from the United Nations. This initial support Destroid, tentatively designated ADR-04-Mk. II, which still shared many components and even hull sections with the Tomahawk, did not progress beyond prototype stage - primarily because of a focus on the Tomahawk as UN's primary ground weapon. It nevertheless provided vital input for the ADR-04-Mk. X Defender, which became an important defensive asset to protect ground troops and vital locations, as well as for operations in space on board of the SDF-1.
Designed for the purpose of super-long-range firing in atmosphere and space, the Defender was rolled out in March 2009 and immediately put into action against the Zentraedi military. Unfortunately, the cost of the unit was high and posed significant difficulties for manufacturing, especially installing the high-definition targeting system, which lead to a bottleneck during mass production.
The ADR-04-Mk. X Defender's only weapons were two stub arms, each featuring a pair of large-caliber, specialized interception capability guns instead of manipulators, similar to the eventual mass-produced MBR-04-Mk. VI Tomahawk. The anti-aircraft engagement model (anti-tank class) wide-bore guns each fired 500 rounds per minute and all four barrels firing in combination were able to unleash continuous 2,000 rounds per minute, even though only short bursts of four rounds or just single shots were typically fired to save ammunition. The 78 mm rounds were aimed via an Erlikon Contraves fire control system and fired at an impressive muzzle velocity of 3,300 meters per second. A wide range of ammunition types could be fired, including HE, AP, APDS high speed, massive kinetic impact rounds, EMP grenades and rounds with chaff/flare/thermal mist charges. The internal belt magazines made it was possible to load up to three different types per twin gun and deliberately switch between them. The overall supply was, however, rather limited.
The rotating mechanism structure of the upper body allowed the unit to respond quickly to enemies approaching even from the rear, for a full 360° coverage of the whole hemisphere above the Destroid. Due to the independent arms, the Defender could even engage two targets separately and split its firepower among them. Additionally, the targeting system was capable of long-range firing in space and could perform extremely precise shooting at long distances in a vacuum/zero-G environment. Hence, the Defender Destroid was more a next generation anti-aircraft tank and in service frequently moonlighted as a movable defensive turret. However, despite featuring a common Destroid ambulatory system, the Defender's mobility was rather limited in direct comparison with a variable fighter Battroid, and it lacked any significant close-combat capability, so that it remained a dedicated support vehicle for other combat units.
180 ADR-04-Mk. X Defenders were ordered, built and operated by UN ground and space forces, about half of them were deployed on board of SDF-1. During the First Space War, around sixty more Defenders were converted from revamped MBR-04 series chassis, mostly from battle-damaged Tomahawks, but some later Phalanx' units were modified, too.
During its career the Defender was gradually upgraded with better sensors and radar systems, and its armament was augmented, too. A common upgrade were enlarged ammunition bays on the shoulders that could hold 50 more rounds per gun, even though this stressed the ambulatory system since the Defender's center of gravity was raised. Therefore, this modification was almost exclusively executed among stationary "gun turret" units. Another late upgrade was the addition of launch rails for AMM-1 anti-aircraft missiles on the gun pods and/or the torso. Again, this was almost exclusively implemented on stationary Defenders.
A short-range sub-variant, under the project handle "Cheyenne", was developed in 2010, too, but it was only produced in small number for evaluation purposes. It was based on the Defender's structure, but it carried a different armament, consisting of a pair of 37 mm six-barrel gatling guns plus AMM-1 missiles, and a more clutter-resistant radar system against fast and low-flying targets. The Cheyenne was intended as a complementary aerial defense unit, but the results from field tests were not convincing, so that the project was mothballed. However, in 2012 the concept was developed further into the ADR-04-Mk.XI "Manticore", which was fully tailored to the short-range defense role.
General characteristics:
Equipment Type: aerial defense robot, series 04
Government: U.N. Spacy
Manufacturer: Viggers/Chrauler
Introduction: March 2009
Accommodation: 1 pilot
Dimensions:
Height 11.37 meters (overall)
10.73 meters (w/o surveillance radar antenna)
Length 4.48 meters (hull only)
7.85 meters (guns forward)
Width 8.6 meters
Mass: 27.1 metric tons
Power Plant:
Kranss-Maffai MT828 thermonuclear reactor, output rated at 2800 shp;
plus an auxiliary GE EM10T fuel power generator, output rated at 510 kW
Propulsion:
2x thrust nozzles mounted in the lower back region, allowing the capability to perform jumps,
plus several vernier nozzles around the hull for Zero-G manoeuvers
Performance:
Max. walking speed: 72 kph when fully loaded
Design features:
- Detachable weapons bay (attaches to the main body via two main locks);
- Type 966 PFG Contraves radar and fire control set (a.k.a. Contraves II)
with respective heat exchanger on the upper back
- Rotating surveillance antenna for full 360° air space coverage
- Optical sensor unit equipped with four camera eyes, moving along a vertical slit,
protected by a polarized light shield;
- Capable of performing Zero-G manoeuvers via 16 x thrust nozzles (mounted around the hull);
- Reactor radiator with exhaust ports in the rear;
- Cockpit can be separated from the body in an emergency (only the cockpit block is recovered);
- Option pack featuring missiles or enlarged ammunition bays;
Armament:
2x Erlikon 78mm liquid-cooled high-speed 2-barrel automatic cannon with 200 rounds each,
mounted as arms
The kit and its assembly:
A kind of nostalgia trip, because my first ever mecha kit I bought and built in the Eighties was this 1:100 Destroid Defender! It still exists, even though only as a re-built model, and I thought that it was about time to build another, “better” one, to complete my collection of canonical Macross Destroids.
With this objective, the vintage kit was built basically OOB, just with some detail enhancements. The biggest structural change is a new hip joint arrangement, made from steel wire. It allows a more or less flexible 3D posture of the legs, for a more dynamic “walking” pose, and the resulting gaps were filled with paper tissue drenched in white glue and acrylic paint.
A more cosmetic change concerns the Defender’s optical sensor array on its “head”. OOB it just consists of a wide “slit” with a square window – very basic, but that’s how the defender is depicted in the TV series. However, I have a Macross artbook with original design sketches from Studio Nue, which reveal more details of this arrangement, and these include a kind of louvre that covers the mobile sensor array’s guide rails, and the sensor array itself consists of several smaller optical units – the relatively new 1:72 Defender from WAVE features these details, too, but the old 1:72 Defender from Arii (and later Bandai) also only has a red box, even though under a clear cover, which is IMHO dubious, though. The louvres were created from hemispherical styrene profile bits, the sensor array was scratched with a front wheel from an 1:100 VF-1 and more styrene bits.
The guns/arms were taken OOB, but I reduced the opening at the shoulder (and with it the angle the arms can be swiveled) with styrene profile material, which also hides the foo fit of the shoulder halves that hold the guns and a reinforcement styrene plate inside of them.
While I could have enlarged the ammunition boxes on the Defender’s shoulders (they are extended backwards), I left them in the original and OOB configuration. Another hull mod I eventually did not carry out were clear replacements for the molded searchlights. Having some visible depth and true clear covers would have been nice, but then I doubted the benefits vs. the mess their integration into the body would mean, so that I went for a simple paint solution (see below).
A final cosmetic modification tried to improve the look of the shanks – but it did not help much. On the Defender, there are two continuous ridges that run across the lower legs. This is a molding simplification and wrong because the Defender (and all other 04-Series chassis’) only features the ends of the ridges.
I tried to sand the inner sections away, but upon gluing the parts finally together I realized that the fit of these parts is abysmal, and PSRing on the resulting concave surface between the leftover humps was a nightmare. Did not work well, and it looks poor.
With this in mind, a general word about the Arii 1:100 Destroids with the Series 04 chassis: there are three kits (Defender, Tomahawk and Phalanx), and you’d expect that these used the same lower body just with different torsos. But that’s not the case – they are all different, and the Defender is certainly the worst version, with its odd “toe” construction, the continuous ridges and the horrible fit of the lower leg halves as well as the shoulders that hold the stub arms. The Tomahawk is better, but also challenging, and IMHO, when you are only looking for the lower body section, the Phalanx is the best kit or the trio.
Painting and markings:
This Defender was supposed to remain canonical and close to the OOB finish, so this became a simple affair.
All Macross Destroids tend to carry a uniform livery, and esp. the Tomahawk/Defender/Phalanx family is kept in murky/dull tones of green, brown and ochre: unpretentious "mud movers".
The Defender appears to carry an overall olive drab livery, and I settled on RAL 7008 (Khakigrau), which is - according to the RAL color list - supposed to be a shade of grey, but it comes out as a dull, yellowish green-brown.
This tone was applied overall from a rattle can, and the few contrast sections like the ammunition boxes or the dust guards of the knee joints were painted with NATO olive green (RAL 6014, Gelboliv, Revell 46). The hull was later treated with Modelmaster Olive Drab (FS 34087), which adds a more greenish hue to the basic paint.
The kit received a thorough black ink washing, then some dry-brushing with Humbrol 72 (Khaki Drill) was applied. The decals came next, taken from the OOB sheet, plus four decals for those vernier thrusters that had not been molded into the kit’s surface. The only change is a different piece of “nose art” on the left leg, replacing the original, rather small decal. It actually belongs to a Czech AF MiG-21MF (one of the two famous Fishbeds from Pardubice in 1989, aircraft “1114”) and filled the bumpy area over the lower leg’s seam (see above) well – a kind of visual distraction from the PSR mess underneath...
Finally, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish, its major sub-assemblies put together. The optical sensors received lenses with clear paint over a silver base. The large searchlights were painted, too, with a silver base plus white and clear blue reflections on top, covered with a generous coat of Humbrol’s Clearfix to mimic a clear, glossy cover.
After final assembly, some mineral pigments were dusted onto the model’s lower areas with a soft, big brush.
I knew that the Defender was trouble, but esp. the legs turned out to be horrible to build. However, the small cosmetic changes really improve the model’s look, and I am quite happy with the result.
The Metropolitan Cathedral of Saints Vitus, Wenceslaus and Adalbert (Czech: metropolitní katedrála svatého Víta, Václava a Vojtěcha) is a Roman Catholic metropolitan cathedral in Prague, the seat of the Archbishop of Prague. Until 1997, the cathedral was dedicated only to Saint Vitus, and is still commonly named only as St. Vitus Cathedral.
This cathedral is a prominent example of Gothic architecture and is the largest and most important church in the country. Located within Prague Castle and containing the tombs of many Bohemian kings and Holy Roman Emperors, the cathedral is under the ownership of the Czech government as part of the Prague Castle complex.[1] Cathedral dimensions are 124 by 60 metres (407 ft × 197 ft), the main tower is 96.5 metres (317 ft) high, front towers 82 metres (269 ft), arch height 33.2 metres (109 ft).[2]
Origins
The current cathedral is the third of a series of religious buildings at the site, all dedicated to St. Vitus. The first church was an early Romanesque rotunda founded by Wenceslaus I, Duke of Bohemia in 930. This patron saint was chosen because Wenceslaus had acquired a holy relic – the arm of St. Vitus – from Emperor Henry I. It is also possible that Wenceslaus, wanting to convert his subjects to Christianity more easily, chose a saint whose name (Svatý Vít in Czech) sounds very much like the name of Slavic solar deity Svantevit. Two religious populations, the increasing Christian and decreasing pagan community, lived simultaneously in Prague castle at least until the 11th century.
In the year 1060, as the bishopric of Prague was founded, prince Spytihněv II embarked on building a more spacious church, as it became clear the existing rotunda was too small to accommodate the faithful. A much larger and more representative Romanesque basilica was built in its spot. Though still not completely reconstructed, most experts agree it was a triple-aisled basilica with two choirs and a pair of towers connected to the western transept. The design of the cathedral nods to Romanesque architecture of the Holy Roman Empire, most notably to the abbey church in Hildesheim and the Speyer Cathedral. The southern apse of the rotunda was incorporated into the eastern transept of the new church because it housed the tomb of St. Wenceslaus, who had by now become the patron saint of the Czech princes. A bishop's mansion was also built south of the new church, and was considerably enlarged and extended in the mid 12th-century.
The Gothic Cathedral
Construction of the present-day Gothic Cathedral began on 21 November 1344, when the see of Prague was elevated to an archbishopric. King John of Bohemia laid the foundation stone for the new building.[3] The patrons were the chapter of cathedral (led by a Dean), the Archbishop Arnost of Pardubice, and, above all, Charles IV, King of Bohemia and a soon-to-be Holy Roman Emperor, who intended the new cathedral to be a coronation church, family crypt, treasury for the most precious relics of the kingdom, and the last resting place cum pilgrimage site of patron saint Wenceslaus. The first master builder was a Frenchman Matthias of Arras, summoned from the Papal Palace in Avignon. Matthias designed the overall layout of the building as, basically, an import of French Gothic: a triple-naved basilica with flying buttresses, short transept, five-bayed choir and decagon apse with ambulatory and radiating chapels. However, he lived to build only the easternmost parts of the choir: the arcades and the ambulatory. The slender verticality of Late French Gothic and clear, almost rigid respect of proportions distinguish his work today.
After Matthias' death in 1352, 23-year-old Peter Parler assumed control of the cathedral workshop as master builder. He was son of the architect of the Heilig-Kreuz-Münster in Schwäbisch Gmünd. Initially, Parler only worked on plans left by his predecessor, building the sacristy on the north side of the choir and the chapel on the south. Once he finished all that Matthias left unfinished, he continued according to his own ideas. Parler's bold and innovative design brought in a unique new synthesis of Gothic elements in architecture. This is best exemplified in the vaults he designed for the choir. The so-called Parler's vaults or net-vaults have double (not single, as in classic High Gothic groin vaults) diagonal ribs that span the width of the choir-bay. The crossing pairs of ribs create a net-like construction (hence the name), which considerably strengthens the vault. They also give a lively ornamentation to the ceiling, as the interlocking vaulted bays create a dynamic zigzag pattern the length of the cathedral.
While Matthias of Arras was schooled as a geometer, thus putting an emphasis on rigid systems of proportions and clear, mathematical compositions in his design, Parler was trained as a sculptor and woodcarver. He treated architecture as a sculpture, almost as if playing with structural forms in stone. Aside from his bold vaults, the peculiarities of his work can also be seen in the design of pillars (with classic, bell-shaped columns which were almost forgotten by High Gothic), the ingenious dome vault of new St Wenceslaus chapel, the undulating clerestory walls, the original window tracery (no two of his windows are the same, the ornamentation is always different) and the blind tracery panels of the buttresses. Architectural sculpture was given a considerable role while Parler was in charge of construction, as can be seen in the corbels, the passageway lintels, and, particularly, in the busts on the triforium, which depict faces of the royal family, saints, Prague bishops, and the two master builders, including Parler himself.
Work on the cathedral, however, proceeded slowly, because the Emperor commissioned Parler with many other projects, such as the construction of the new Charles Bridge in Prague and many churches throughout the Czech realm. By 1397, when Peter Parler died, only the choir and parts of the transept were finished.
After Peter Parler's death in 1399 his sons, Wenzel Parler and particularly Johannes Parler, continued his work; they in turn were succeeded by a certain Master Petrilk, who by all accounts was also a member of Parler's workshop. Under these three masters, the transept and the great tower on its south side were finished. So was the gable which connects the tower with the south transept. Nicknamed 'Golden Gate' (likely because of the golden mosaic of Last Judgment depicted on it), it is through this portal that the kings entered the cathedral for coronation ceremonies.
The entire building process came to a halt with the beginning of Hussite War in the first half of 15th century. The war brought an end to the workshop that operated steadily over for almost a century, and the furnishings of cathedral, dozens of pictures and sculptures, suffered heavily from the ravages of Hussite iconoclasm. As if this was not enough, a great fire in 1541 heavily damaged the cathedral.
St. Wenceslas Chapel
Perhaps the most outstanding place in the cathedral is the Chapel of St. Wenceslas, which houses relics of the saint. Peter Parler constructed the room between 1344 and 1364 with a ribbed vault. The lower portions of the walls are decorated with over 1300 semi-precious stones and paintings depicting the Passion of Jesus dating from the original decoration of the chapel in 1372–1373. The upper area of the walls have paintings depicting the life of St. Wenceslas, by the Master of the Litoměřice Altarpiece between 1506 and 1509. Above the altar, is a Gothic statue of St. Wenceslas created by Jindrich Parler (Peter's nephew) in 1373. The Chapel is not open to the public, but it can be viewed from the doorways.
A small door with seven locks, in the southwest corner of the chapel, leads to the Crown Chamber containing the Czech Crown Jewels, which are displayed to the public only once every (circa) eight years.
Renaissance and Baroque
Through most of the following centuries, the cathedral stood only half-finished. It was built to the great tower and a transept, which was closed by a provisional wall. In the place of a three-aisled nave-to-be-built, a timber-roofed construction stood, and services were held separately there from the interior of the choir. Several attempts to continue the work on cathedral were mostly unsuccessful. In the latter half of 15th century, king Vladislav Jagiellon commissioned the great Renaissance-Gothic architect Benedict Ried to continue the work on the cathedral, but almost as soon as the work began, it was cut short because of lack of funds. Later attempts to finish the cathedral only brought some Renaissance and Baroque elements into the Gothic building, most notably the obviously different Baroque spire of the south tower and the great organ in the northern wing of transept.
Completion in 19th and 20th century
In 1844, Václav Pešina, an energetic St. Vitus canon, together with Neo-Gothic architect Josef Kranner presented a program for renovation and completion of the great cathedral at the gathering of German architects in Prague. The same year a society under the full name "Union for Completion of the Cathedral of St. Vitus in Prague" was formed, whose aim was to repair, complete and rid the structure of everything mutilated and stylistically inimical. Josef Kranner headed the work from 1861 to 1866 which consisted mostly of repairs, removing Baroque decorations deemed unnecessary and restoring the interior. In 1870 workers finally laid the foundations of the new nave, and in 1873, after Kramer's death, architect Josef Mocker assumed control of the reconstruction. He designed the west façade in a typical classic Gothic manner with two towers, and the same design was adopted, after his death, by the third and final architect of restoration, Kamil Hilbert.
In the 1920s the sculptor Vojtěch Sucharda worked on the façade, and the famous Czech Art Nouveau painter Alfons Mucha decorated the new windows in the north part of nave. Frantisek Kysela designed the Rose Window 1925-7 which depicts scenes from the Biblical story of creation. By the time of St. Wenceslas jubilee in 1929, the St. Vitus cathedral was finally finished, nearly 600 years after it was begun. Despite the fact that entire western half of Cathedral is a Neo-Gothic addition, much of the design and elements developed by Peter Parler were used in the restoration, giving the Cathedral as a whole a harmonious, unified look.
Influence
The Cathedral of St. Vitus had a tremendous influence on the development of Late Gothic style characteristic for Central Europe. Members of Parler workshop, and indeed, the Parler family (both of which were established at the building site of St. Vitus) designed numerous churches and buildings across Central Europe. More notable examples include Stephansdom cathedral in Vienna, Strasbourg Cathedral, Church of St. Marko in Zagreb and the Church of St. Barbara in Kutna Hora, also in Czech Republic. Regional Gothic styles of Slovenia, northern Croatia, Austria, Czech Republic, and southern Germany were all heavily influenced by Parler design.
Of particular interest are Parler's net vaults. The Late Gothic of Central Europe is characterised by ornate and extraordinary vaulting, a practice which was started by Parler's development of his own vaulting system for the choir of St. Vitus cathedral. Another regional Gothic style also displays amazing ingenuity and ornamentation in the design of vaults, the Perpendicular Style of English Gothic. A question remains of what was influenced by what. Some British art and architecture historians suspected that Peter Parler might have travelled to England at some point in his life, studying the great English Gothic cathedrals, which then inspired his work on St Vitus. However, taking into account that the Perpendicular style and the use of truly extravagant vaults in English Gothic began at the very end of 14th century, it is also quite possible that it was St Vitus Cathedral of Prague that influenced the development of English Gothic.[4]
Recent history
In 1997, on 1000th anniversary of the death of Saint Voitechus, the patrocinium (dedication) of the church was re-dedicated to Saint Wenceslaus and Saint Adalbert. The previous Romanesque basilica had this triple patrocinium to the main Bohemian patrons since 1038 when relics of Saint Adalbert were placed here.
In 1954, a government decree entrusted the whole Prague Castle into ownership of "all Czechoslovak people" and into administration of the President's Office. Beginning in 1992, after the Velvet Revolution the church filed several petitions requesting a determination on the true owner of the structure. After 14 years, in June 2006, the City Court in Prague decided that the 1954 decree did not change the ownership of the cathedral and the owner is the Metropolitan Chapter at Saint Vitus. In September 2006, the President's Office ceded the administration to the Metropolitan Chapter. However, in February 2007, the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic reversed the decision of the City Court and returned the case to the common court. In September 2007, the District Court of Praha 7 decided that the cathedral is owned by the Czech Republic, this decision was confirmed by the City Court in Prague and the Constitutional Court rejected the appeal of the Metropolitan Chapter, however noted that the chapter unquestionably owns the interior furnishings of the cathedral. The Metropolitan Chapter considered continuing the case in the European Court for Human Rights however in May 2010, the new Prague Archbishop Dominik Duka and the state president Václav Klaus together declared that they did not wish to continue with court conflicts. They constituted that the seven persons who are traditionally holders of the keys of the Saint Wenceslaus Chamber with the Bohemian Crown Jewels become also a board to coordinate and organize administration and use of the cathedral. However, controversy about ownership of some related canonry houses continues.
In July 2012, the Chamber of Deputies passed a bill to compensate the churches for property seized by the Communist government.[5] The Senate approved the bill in November 2012 and the government implemented it the following June after clearing legal challenges.[6]
Services
Regular religious services in the Cathedral are:
•Sunday 08:30 Mass, 10:00 Mass (celebrated in Latin every last Sunday of the month) and 17:00 Vespers (not during July to September)
•Monday 07:00 Mass
•Tuesday 07:00 Mass
•Wednesday 07:00 Mass
•Thursday 07:00 Mass
•Friday 07:00 Mass, 18:00 Mass
•Saturday 07:00 Mass
Confessions: (Czech and English)
•Sunday 09:30 – 10:00
•Friday 17:30 – 17:50
Further reading
•Fučíková, Eliška, Martin Halata, Klára Halmanová, Pvel Scheufler. "Prague Castle in Photographs /1956-1900". Prague: Správa Pražského hradu a Nakladatelství KANT, 2005. ISBN 80-86217-94-9
•K. Benešovská, P. Chotebor, T. Durdík, M. Placek, D. Prix, V. Razim. "Architecture of the Gothic", vol. 2 of "Ten centuries of architecture" series, Prague Castle Administration & DaDa, a.s., Prague 2001, ISBN 80-86161-41-2 (English version)