The present pyramidal, concrete lighthouse on the east pier at Cobourg was built in 1924. In 2013, Unlimited Painting of Brighton was hired to paint the lighthouse at a cost of roughly $56,500. Over a three-week period, loose and flaking paint was removed and a white elastomeric Carboline coating that can expand and contract with temperature changes was applied to the tower.

This is a Wine and Coffee Bar specializing in freshly roasted coffees, both brewed daily and available in bulk. Their wines "by the glass" are well known as the best around featuring wines from small case production vineyards not available at the large package stores. In addition, their retail store offers gourmet foods designed for easy entertaining, as well as accessories and gifts. This place is well known for their fabulous gift baskets which can include wine, foods and gifts.

 

Credit for the data above is given to the following websites:

www.bing.com/search?q=venice+wine+and+coffee+venice+fl&am...

www.sc-pa.com/propertysearch/parcel/details/0408040042

 

© All Rights Reserved - you may not use this image in any form without my prior permission.

By ABC7 Staff

Updated: May. 30, 2019 at 7:57 AM EDT

 

VENICE (WWSB) - Venice City Hall is set to get an upgrade! The architect for the redesign unveiled three scenarios in front of the Venice city council on Tuesday.

 

All three include a 4,800-square-foot, one-story addition to city hall that would connect it to a new two-story replacement for Fire Station 1, as well as the addition of angled street parking along Venice Avenue and Harbor Drive.

 

The city says these upgrades will help keep up with the area’s growth. The design process will take about a year, and construction is expected to start in the spring of 2020.

 

Credit for the data above is given to the following websites:

www.mysuncoast.com/2019/05/30/venice-city-hall-upgrades-l...

www.citydirectory.us/city-venice-florida.html#cityhall

www.sc-pa.com/propertysearch/parcel/details/0176080001

 

© All Rights Reserved - you may not use this image in any form without my prior permission.

  

By ABC7 Staff

Updated: May. 30, 2019 at 7:57 AM EDT

 

VENICE (WWSB) - Venice City Hall is set to get an upgrade! The architect for the redesign unveiled three scenarios in front of the Venice city council on Tuesday.

 

All three include a 4,800-square-foot, one-story addition to city hall that would connect it to a new two-story replacement for Fire Station 1, as well as the addition of angled street parking along Venice Avenue and Harbor Drive.

 

The city says these upgrades will help keep up with the area’s growth. The design process will take about a year, and construction is expected to start in the spring of 2020.

 

Credit for the data above is given to the following websites:

www.mysuncoast.com/2019/05/30/venice-city-hall-upgrades-l...

www.citydirectory.us/city-venice-florida.html#cityhall

www.sc-pa.com/propertysearch/parcel/details/0176080001

 

© All Rights Reserved - you may not use this image in any form without my prior permission.

  

Truck recorded at the ATHS Convention and Truck Show at the State fairgrounds in Springfield, Illinois - June, 2022. Background - well let’s just say this was among my archived assets and let it go at that.

 

_________________________________________________

 

Best as I can determine the pictured tractor is a 1966-67 B-model. Surprisingly there was no placard or sign posted on or near this truck showing make, model or year. Also surprisingly (to me) I found very little information about Hendrickson trucks when doing my research on the internet. Actually Hendrickson seems to be noted more for its innovative truck suspension systems.

  

About

 

Hendrickson was founded by Magnus Hendrickson, a Swedish engineer who originally worked for Lauth-Juergens, in Ohio in 1913. Also in 1913, production was moved to Chicago, where Hendrickson manufactured trucks and truck parts. In 1926 Magnus' son, Robert Theodore Hendrickson I, developed the first truck tandem walking beam suspension, and from 1936, exclusively supplied this innovative type of suspension to International Harvester.

 

Hendrickson relocated to Lyons, Illinois in 1948, and expanded internationally by acquiring suspension companies in Europe, Canada, and South America. By the late 1970s, the company maintained more than nineteen points of presence worldwide.

 

Hendrickson was acquired in 1978 by The Boler Company, now its parent holding company. In 1985, the company sold the truck manufacturing portion of its business to concentrate on producing suspensions. As of 2022, it "presently has sales and distribution facilities and/or state-of-the-art manufacturing and research and development centers in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Colombia, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Austria, Romania, Poland, Turkey, India, China, Japan, Thailand, Australia and New Zealand.

 

Hendrickson Holdings, L.L.C. is a privately held American holding company located in Woodridge, Illinois which, through its subsidiaries, designs and manufactures medium- and heavy-duty mechanical, elastomeric and air suspensions; integrated and non-integrated axle and brakes systems; tire pressure control systems; auxiliary lift axle systems; parabolic and multi-leaf springs; stabilizers; bumpers; and components to the global commercial transportation industry.[1]

  

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrickson_Holdings

  

Hope ya’all enjoy………….

 

Btw- No "AI" here folks. In fact no " I " what-so-ever........

By ABC7 Staff

Updated: May. 30, 2019 at 7:57 AM EDT

 

VENICE (WWSB) - Venice City Hall is set to get an upgrade! The architect for the redesign unveiled three scenarios in front of the Venice city council on Tuesday.

 

All three include a 4,800-square-foot, one-story addition to city hall that would connect it to a new two-story replacement for Fire Station 1, as well as the addition of angled street parking along Venice Avenue and Harbor Drive.

 

The city says these upgrades will help keep up with the area’s growth. The design process will take about a year, and construction is expected to start in the spring of 2020.

 

Credit for the data above is given to the following websites:

www.mysuncoast.com/2019/05/30/venice-city-hall-upgrades-l...

www.citydirectory.us/city-venice-florida.html#cityhall

www.sc-pa.com/propertysearch/parcel/details/0176080001

 

© All Rights Reserved - you may not use this image in any form without my prior permission.

  

Painting elastomeric coating on the roof of the wedding chapel

bullhead city / mohave county / arizona

By ABC7 Staff

Updated: May. 30, 2019 at 7:57 AM EDT

 

VENICE (WWSB) - Venice City Hall is set to get an upgrade! The architect for the redesign unveiled three scenarios in front of the Venice city council on Tuesday.

 

All three include a 4,800-square-foot, one-story addition to city hall that would connect it to a new two-story replacement for Fire Station 1, as well as the addition of angled street parking along Venice Avenue and Harbor Drive.

 

The city says these upgrades will help keep up with the area’s growth. The design process will take about a year, and construction is expected to start in the spring of 2020.

 

Credit for the data above is given to the following websites:

www.mysuncoast.com/2019/05/30/venice-city-hall-upgrades-l...

www.citydirectory.us/city-venice-florida.html#cityhall

www.sc-pa.com/propertysearch/parcel/details/0176080001

 

© All Rights Reserved - you may not use this image in any form without my prior permission.

  

Vacationing in San Pedro, California, of all places. Go figure.

 

I am taking a brief respite from sticker-making and drawing on otherwise ordinary polaroid's in the meantime.

 

More goofy / awesome doodles to come . . . ? - O.P.

The wearing of face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic has received varying recommendations from different public health agencies and governments. The topic has been a subject of debate,[1] with various public health agencies and governments disagreeing on a protocol for wearing face masks. As of early May, 88% of the world's population lives in countries that recommend or mandate the usage of masks in public and 75+ countries have mandated the use of masks.[2] Debates have emerged regarding whether masks should be worn even when social distancing at six feet (2 meters),[3][4][5] whether they should be worn during exercise,[6] worn in the home to reduce viral load,[7][8] and whether there are mitigating factors.[9][7] Additionally, public health agencies of different countries and territories have often changed their recommendations regarding face masks over time.[10] Face masks have been a subject of shortages, and also been made compulsory in some countries.

 

Types of face masks, from least to most protective, include cloth face masks, medical (non-surgical) masks,[11][12] surgical masks, and filtering facepiece respirators such as N95 masks and FFP masks. Face shields and medical goggles are other types of protective equipment often used together with face masks.

  

Contents

1Types of masks

1.1Face shields

1.2Cloth masks

1.2.1Sterilizing and re-use

1.3Surgical masks

1.4Disposable filtering respirators

1.4.1Sterilizing and re-use

1.5Elastomeric respirators

1.6Powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs)

1.7Novel face masks (research and development)

2Recommendations

2.1World Health Organization recommendations

2.2US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

2.3China and Asia

3Rationale for wearing masks

4Shortages of face masks

4.1Early epidemic in China

4.2National stocks and shortages

4.3N95 and FFP masks

5The mask industry

5.1Manufacturing

5.2Distribution

6Culture

6.1Attitudes

6.2Fashion

7Mask use and policies by country and territory

8References

Types of masks[edit]

 

Small particles zigzag due to Brownian motion, and are easily captured. Large particles get strained out, or have too much inertia to turn, and hit a fiber. Mid-size particles follow flowlines and are more likely to get through the filter; the hardest size to filter is 0.3 microns diameter.[13]

Certified medical masks are disposable (except some faceshields). They are made of non-woven material. They are mostly multi-layer. Filter material may be made of microfibers with an electrostatic charge; that is, the fibers are electrets. An electret filter increases the chances that smaller particles will veer and hit a fiber, rather than going straight through (electrostatic capture).[13][14][15][better source needed][medical citation needed] Typically, efficiency of the filtering materials decreases when washed or used multiple times.[16]

 

Many medical masks are respirators; they are designed to protect the wearer. Surgical masks, on the other hand, are meant to protect others against infection transmission from the wearer (so called "source control").[17] Some respirators and masks have valves,[18] which let exhaled air out unfiltered. This makes them bad for source control.[19] It may, however, reduce inwards leakage, thus improving wearer protection.[18]

 

Face shields[edit]

Person wearing a face shield over a green surgical mask. A simple 3D-printed face shield: curved visor, drawstring lanyard, sheet of transparent plastic curved from side to side.

Person wearing a face shield and a surgical mask.

Main article: Face shield

It is not yet known whether face shields are effective at preventing disease transmission. They protect against splash and splatter. Cough simulation experiments show that they protect[18] the wearer[20] against large drops immediately after the cough, but do not keep out smaller aerosols. The longer it was after the simulated cough, the more particles found their way around. Because there is no evidence they prevent the wearer from getting ill, face shields are used with nose-mouth masks, and to protect nose-mouth masks, but use of face shields alone is not recommended.[18]

 

Cloth masks[edit]

 

Homemade cloth face mask

 

Sneezing. There is limited evidence that cloth masks can significantly reduce aerosol droplet dispersal.[18]

Main article: Cloth face mask

A cloth face mask is a mask made of a common textile, usually cotton, worn over the mouth and nose. Although they are less effective than medical-grade masks, many health authorities recommend that the general public use them because medical-grade masks are in short supply.[21][22]

 

They were routinely used by healthcare workers starting from the late 19th century until the mid 20th century. In the 1960s they fell out of use in the developed world in favor of modern surgical masks, but their use has persisted in developing countries.[23][24][25]

 

There were calls for research into the effectiveness of improvised masks even before the emergence of COVID-19, motivated also by past epidemics and modelling of likely mask shortages. However, little research has been done. There are no studies of the use of cloth masks by the general public, one study on the use of cloth masks in hospitals (by healthcare workers, not patients), and many controlled-setting/lab studies of cloth masks' effects on aerosols as of May 2020.[18]

 

Cloth masks are low-cost and reusable. They vary widely in effectiveness depending on material, fit/seal, and number of layers, among other factors. Unlike disposable masks, there are no legal standards for cloth masks. Fit is important (as with disposable masks). Measures to improve fit, such as an outer layer made from sheer nylon stockings or sheer tights around the head, reduce leakage.[18]

 

Improvised cloth masks seem to be worse than standard commercial disposable masks, but better than nothing. There is, however, little good evidence on them. A single study gives evidence that an improvised mask was better than nothing, but not as good as soft electret-filter surgical mask, for protecting health care workers simulating treating a simulated infected patient, regardless of whether "patient" or carers wore the mask.[18] Another study had volunteers wear masks they made themselves, to a pattern like that of a standard surgical mask, but with ties rather than earloops,[26] from cotton T-shirts, and found that the number of microscopic particles that leaked inside the homemade masks was twice the number that leaked into the commercial masks, and that the homemade mask let three times as many microorganisms expelled by the wearer escape (median averages). There is limited evidence that cloth masks can significantly reduce droplet dispersal.[18]

 

Cloth masks are commonly made with one layer, two layers, or two layers with a pocket for a removable-filter interlayer [18] (disposable surgical mask also have three layers, with the filter layer midmost[citation needed]). The CDC recommends more than one layer.[27] There is no research on the usefulness of a filter interlayer, as of May 2020. There were until recently no non-disposable materials designed for making masks (see end of paragraph). Common household fabrics which could be utilized (turned to a new use) as mask materials have been tested.[28][29][30][31] Cloth materials vary widely in filtration efficiency. Some cotton and polyester household fabrics have been found to compare with disposable surgical masks for dry particle filtering. Cotton T-shirt material, pillowcase material, and 70% cotton/30% polyester sweatshirt material are among the common materials that performed well in lab tests, with T-shirts preferred to pillowcases because it was thought that it would probably fit better. Teatowels and vacuum-cleaner bags were effective at filtering, but had a very high air resistance, so were not recommended. Scarves filtered poorly. Surgical sterilisation wrap, a polypropylene non-woven fabric made for wrapping sterilized things to keep them sterile, is designed to filter germs from the air. Using surgical sterilisation wrap to make masks, or as a filter interlayer in cloth masks, has been suggested. There are, however, no tests on using surgical sterilisation wrap for masks, as of May 2020.[18] Other suggested materials for filter interlayers include air filter materials used in ventilation, heating, and air conditioning, some of which are similar to rigid electret masks in the size ranges of particles they filter. Electrostatic cotton and non-woven, meltblown fabric are the conventional materials used in disposible masks, but are not readily available during the COVID-19 epidemic. A new type of filter, a washable electrostatic cotton filter, has been reported since the start of the pandemic; it is said to withstand repeated washing and folding.[18] It is made of electrospun nanofibers; flanking insulating blocks lay these into quasi-aligned nonwoven sheets, which are layered criss-cross to make a meshlike multilayer mask.[32][33] There is a need for research comparing how well these materials work.[18][34]

 

Sterilizing and re-use[edit]

There is no research on sterilizing and reusing cloth masks, as of May 2020.[18] The CDC recommends doffing the mask by handling only the ear loops or ties, placing it directly in a washing machine, and immediately washing your hands in soap and water for at least 20 seconds. They also recommend handwashing before donning the mask and again immediately after any time you touch it.[35]

 

There is no information on reusing a interlayer filter, and disposing of it after a single use may be desirable.[18]

 

Surgical masks[edit]

Main article: Surgical mask

 

A surgical mask

A surgical mask is a loose-fitting, disposable device that creates a physical barrier between the mouth and nose of the wearer and potential contaminants in the immediate environment. If worn properly, a surgical mask is meant to help block large-particle droplets, splashes, sprays, or splatter that may contain viruses and bacteria, keeping it from reaching the wearer's mouth and nose. Surgical masks may also help reduce exposure of the wearer's saliva and respiratory secretions to others.[36] A surgical mask, by design, does not filter or block very small particles in the air that may be transmitted by coughs, sneezes, or certain medical procedures. Surgical masks also do not provide complete protection from germs and other contaminants because of the loose fit between the surface of the face mask and the face.[36] However, in practice, with respect to some infections like influenza surgical masks appear as effective as respirators (such as N95 or FFP masks).[37] Surgical masks may be labeled as surgical, isolation, dental, or medical procedure masks.[36] Surgical masks are made of a nonwoven fabric created using a melt blowing process.[38][39]

 

Surgical masks made to different standards in different parts of the world have different ranges of particles which they filter. Similar-looking single-use masks are one-layer and only filter larger particles (e.g. Chinese standard YY/T0969 masks).[40][medical citation needed]

 

Disposable filtering respirators[edit]

 

An N95 mask

Main article: Mechanical filter respirator

An N95 mask is a particulate-filtering facepiece respirator that meets the N95 air filtration rating of the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, meaning that it filters at least 95 percent of airborne particles, while not resistant to oil like the P95. It is the most common particulate-filtering facepiece respirator.[41] It is an example of a mechanical filter respirator, which provides protection against particulates, but not gases or vapors.[42] Like the middle layer of[citation needed] surgical masks, the N95 mask is made of four layers[18] of melt-blown nonwoven polypropylene fabric.[43][44][unreliable medical source?] The corresponding face mask used in the European Union is the FFP2 respirator.[45][46]

 

Hard electret-filter masks like N95 and FFP masks must fit the face to provide full protection. Untrained users often get a reasonable fit, but fewer than one in four gets a perfect fit. Fit testing is thus standard. A line of vaseline on the edge of the mask[47] has been shown to reduce edge leakage[18] in lab tests using manikins that simulate breathing.[47]

 

Sterilizing and re-use[edit]

Hard electret-filter masks are designed to be disposable, for 8 hours of continuous or intermittent use. One laboratory found that there was a decrease in fit quality after five consecutive donnings.[18]

 

Hard electret-filter masks are often reused,[citation needed] especially during pandemics when there are shortages. Infectious particles could survive on the masks for up to 24 hours after the end of use, according to studies using models of SARS-CoV-2;[18] In the COVID-19 epidemic, the US CDC recommended that if masks run short, each health care worker should be issued with five masks, one to be used per day, such that each mask spends at least five days stored in a paper bag between each use. If there are not enough masks to do this, they recommend sterilizing the masks between uses.[48] Some hospitals have been stockpiling used masks as a precaution.[49] The US CDC issued guidelines on stretching N95 supplies, recommending extended use over re-use. They highlighted the risk of infection from touching the contaminated outer surface of the mask, which even professionals frequently unintentionally do, and recommended washing hands every time before touching the mask. To reduce mask surface contamination, they recommended face shields, and asking patients to wear masks too ("source masking").[50]

 

Apart from time, other methods of disinfection have been tested. Physical damage to the masks has been observed when microwaving them, microwaving them in a steam bag, letting them sit in moist heat, and hitting them with excessively high doses of ultraviolet germicidal irradiation (UVGI). Chlorine-based methods, such as chlorine bleach, may cause residual smell, offgassing of chlorine when the mask becomes moist, and in one study, physical breakdown of the nosepads, causing increased leakage.[18] Fit and comfort do not seem to be harmed by UVGI, moist heat incubation, and microwave-generated steam.[18]

 

Some methods may not visibly damage the mask, but they ruin the mask's ability to filter. This has been seen in attempts to sterilize by soaking in soap and water, heating dry to 160°C, and treating with 70% isopropyl alcohol, and hydrogen peroxide gas plasma[18] (made under a vacuum with radio waves[51]). The static electrical charge on the microfibers (which attracts or repels particles passing through the mask, making them more likely to move sideways and hit and stick to a fiber[citation needed]) is destroyed by some cleaning methods. UVGI (ultraviolet light), boiling water vapour, and dry oven heating do not seem to reduce the filter efficiency, and these methods successfully decontaminate masks.[18]

 

UVGI (an ultraviolet method), ethylene oxide, dry oven heating and (highly toxic[citation needed]) vaporized hydrogen peroxide are currently the most-favoured methods in use in hospitals, but none have been properly tested.[18] Where enough masks are available, cycling them and reusing a mask only after letting it sit unused for 5 days is preferred.[48]

 

Elastomeric respirators[edit]

Main article: Mechanical filter respirator

 

Elastomeric full-face masks

Elastomeric respirators are reusable devices with exchangeable cartridge filters that offer comparable protection to N95 masks.[52] They were used as a substitute for N95 masks among shortages during the COVID-19 pandemic.[19]

 

The filters which must be replaced when soiled, contaminated, or clogged. These components may be hard to find amidst shortages; the filters may thus be sterilized, in a way that does not harm the filter, and re-used. In medical use, they must be cleaned and disinfected, as some germs can survive on them for weeks.[19]

 

Full-face versions of elastomeric respirators seal better and protect the eyes. If they have exhalation valves, then they are counterrecommended in settings where the unfiltered exhaled air might infect others (for instance, surgery). Fitting and inspection is essential to effectiveness.[19]

 

Powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs)[edit]

 

A PAPR in a level-3 biosafety lab. Note waist pack and hose to blow air into headpiece.

Main article: Powered air-purifying respirator

PAPRs are expensive masks with a battery-powered blower that blows air through a filter to the wearer. Because they create positive pressure, they need not be tightly-fitted.[53] PAPRs typically do not filter exhaust from the wearer.[54] They are not generally designed for healthcare use, as of 2017.[17]

 

Novel face masks (research and development)[edit]

On 15 April 2020 scientists claimed to have developed a biodegradable material for face masks which is effective at removing particles smaller than 100 nanometres including viruses and has a high breathability.[55][56] Two Israeli companies reportedly have developed antiviral face masks – one of which is infused with antiviral copper oxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles, the other is made out of cotton embedded with accelerated copper oxide particles and a nanofiber textile.[57][58][59] Other Israeli researchers have developed a 3D-printed nanoscale fiber sticker coated with antiseptics which can be attached to a traditional mask for extra protection.[59] Other reseachers report that laser-induced graphene may be used to add self-cleaning and photothermal properties to face masks.[59] In March 2020 Jiaxing Huang became the first scientist to receive a $200,000 grant by the United States' National Science Foundation to develop a chemical which can be safely built into common face masks to make them protect against SARS-CoV-2 and self-sanitize passing droplets.[59][60]

 

Recommendations[edit]

Health organizations have recommended that people cover their mouth and nose with a bent elbow or a tissue when coughing or sneezing, and dispose of any tissue immediately.[61][62] Surgical masks are recommended for those who may be infected,[63][64][65] as wearing a mask can limit the volume and travel distance of expiratory droplets dispersed when talking, sneezing, and coughing.[66]

 

Masks have also been recommended for use by those who are taking care of someone who may have the disease.[65] The WHO has recommended the wearing of masks by healthy people only if they are at high risk, such as those who are caring for a person with COVID-19, though they also acknowledge that wearing masks may help people avoid touching their face.[65] Several countries have started to encourage the use of face masks by members of the public.[67]

 

As of May 2020, 88% of the world's population lived in countries where their government and leading disease experts recommended the use of masks in public places to limit the spread of COVID-19.[2]

 

World Health Organization recommendations[edit]

World Health Organization advice to the public in the context of COVID-19 endorsed the use of masks only under the following conditions:[68]

 

If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with suspected 2019-nCoV infection.

Wear a mask if you are coughing or sneezing.

Masks are effective only when used in combination with frequent hand-cleaning with alcohol-based hand sanitizer or soap and water.

If you wear a mask, then you must know how to use it and dispose of it properly.

— World Health Organization

US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention[edit]

 

Guidance from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on using and making cloth masks during the COVID-19 pandemic[69]

The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended in April 2020 that the general public wear cloth face coverings in public settings where other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain, such as grocery stores and pharmacies, especially in areas of significant community-based transmission, due to the significance of asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic disease transmission.[69][70]

 

In March 2020, the CDC recommended that if neither respirators nor surgical masks are available, as a last resort, it may be necessary for healthcare workers to use masks that have never been evaluated or approved by NIOSH or homemade masks, though caution should be exercised when considering this option.[71]

 

In March and April 2020, the CDC faced backlash over their earlier statements advising that most healthy people did not need to wear a mask. The earlier recommendations had been made to try to conserve supplies for medical professionals,[dubious – discuss][medical citation needed] but damaged the agency's credibility.[72][73][74]

 

In January 2020, there was no evidence on whether masks were useful for people who were not sick in a community setting.[75][dubious – discuss]

 

China and Asia[edit]

China has specifically recommended the use of disposable non-surgical medical masks by healthy members of the public,[11][76] particularly when coming into close contact (1 metre (3 ft) or less) with other people.[77] Hong Kong recommends wearing a surgical mask when taking public transport or in crowded places.[78][79] Thailand's health officials are encouraging people to make cloth face masks at home and wash them daily.[80] The Taiwanese, South Korean, and Japanese governments have also recommended the use of face masks in public.

 

When asked about the mistakes that other countries were making in the pandemic in March, the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention director-general George Fu Gao said:

 

"The big mistake in the U.S. and Europe, in my opinion, is that people aren't wearing masks. This virus is transmitted by droplets and close contact. Droplets play a very important role − you've got to wear a mask, because when you speak, there are always droplets coming out of your mouth. Many people have asymptomatic or presymptomatic infections. If they are wearing face masks, it can prevent droplets that carry the virus from escaping and infecting others."[81]

 

Rationale for wearing masks[edit]

 

Queue to buy face masks in Hong Kong, 30 January 2020. Everyone in the line is already wearing a disposable medical mask.

File:Qualitative-Real-Time-Schlieren-and-Shadowgraph-Imaging-of-Human-Exhaled-Airflows-An-Aid-to-Aerosol-pone.0021392.s002.ogv

 

Shadowgraphs. Left, videos of the outer airflow during a sneeze, comparing different methods of covering one's mouth and nose (and none).[82] Right, conversation. Convection also shown.

Among the reasons cited by Chinese health officials for the wearing of masks, even by healthy individuals, are the following:

 

Asymptomatic transmission. Many people can be infected without symptoms or only with mild symptoms.[83]

Impossibility of appropriate social distancing in many public places at all times.[83]

Cost-benefit mismatch. If only the infected individuals wear a mask, they would possibly have a negative incentive to do so. An infected individual might get nothing positive, but only bear the costs such as inconvenience, purchasing expenses, and even prejudice.[83]

There is no shortage of masks in China, which has been producing 100 million masks per day since early March.[83]

Leading microbiologist Yuen Kwok-yung from the University of Hong Kong cites a large viral load in sputum and saliva of an infected person and asymptomatic cases as the reasons why even healthy individuals should wear a mask.[84][85]

 

According to Stephen Griffin, a virologist at the University of Leeds, "Wearing a mask can reduce the propensity [of] people to touch their faces, which is a major source of infection without proper hand hygiene."[86] The precautionary principle has also been cited by the British Medical Journal as a reason some may encourage universal face mask wearing.[87]

 

Asian health officials and experts have been promoting universal masking. For instance, Linfa Wang (a leading infectious disease expert who heads a joint Duke University and National University of Singapore research team) stated that masking is about "preventing the spread of disease rather than preventing getting the disease", remarking that the point is to cover the faces of people who are infected but do not know it, so it is imperative for everyone to wear one in public.[88]

 

Recent studies have suggested that the required six feet of social distancing is insufficient and based on debunked studies from the 1930s or error.[89][90][1]

 

Shortages of face masks[edit]

See also: Shortages related to the COVID-19 pandemic

Early epidemic in China[edit]

 

People in Wuhan lining up in front of a drug store to buy surgical masks.

 

A notice at a supermarket in Beijing, which says each person can only buy one pack of surgical masks and one bottle of 84 disinfectant liquid a day.

 

Chinese electronics manufacturers, such as BYD Electronic, began to produce surgical masks after the outbreak.

As the epidemic accelerated, the mainland market in China saw a shortage of face masks due to increased public demand.[91] In Shanghai, customers had to queue for nearly an hour to buy a pack of face masks; stocks were sold out in another in half an hour.[92] Hoarding and price gouging drove up prices, so the market regulator said it would crack down on such acts.[93][94] In January 2020, price controls were imposed on all face masks on Taobao and Tmall.[95] Other Chinese e-commerce platforms – JD.com,[96] Suning.com,[97] Pinduoduo[98] – did likewise; third-party vendors would be subject to price caps, with violators subject to sanctions.

 

By March China had quadrupled its production capacity (100 million masks per day).[83]

 

National stocks and shortages[edit]

In 2006, 156 million masks were added to the US Strategic National Stockpile in anticipation of a flu pandemic.[99] After they were used against the 2009 flu pandemic, neither the Obama administration nor the Trump administration renewed the stocks.[99] By 1 April, the US's Strategic National Stockpile was nearly emptied.[100][clarification needed]

 

In France, 2009 H1N1-related spending rose to €382 million, mainly on supplies and vaccines, which was later criticised.[101][102] It was decided in 2011 to not replenish its stocks and rely more on supply from China and just-in-time logistics.[101] In 2010, its stock included 1 billion surgical masks and 600 million FFP2 masks; in early 2020 it was 150 millions and zero, respectively.[101] While stocks were progressively reduced, a 2013 rationale stated the aim to reduce costs of acquisition and storage, now distributing this effort to all private enterprises as an optional best practice to ensure their workers' protection.[101] This was especially relevant to FFP2 masks, more costly to acquire and store.[101][103] As the COVID-19 pandemic in France took an increasing toll on medical supplies, masks and PPE supplies ran low, causing national outrage. France needs 40 millions masks per week, according to French president Emmanuel Macron.[104] France instructed its few remaining mask-producing factories to work 24/7 shifts, and to ramp up national production to 40 million masks per month.[104] French lawmakers opened an inquiry on the past management of these strategic stocks.[105] The mask shortage has been called a "scandal d'État" (State scandal).[106]

 

In late-March/early-April 2020, as Western countries were in turn dependent on China for supplies of masks and other equipment, China was seen as making soft-power play to influence world opinion.[107][12] However, a batch of masks purchased by the Netherlands was reportedly rejected as being sub-standard. The Dutch health ministry issued a recall of 600,000 face masks from a Chinese supplier on 21 March which did not fit properly and whose filters did not work as intended despite them having a quality certificate.[107][12] The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs responded that the customer should "double-check the instructions to make sure that you ordered, paid for and distributed the right ones. Do not use non-surgical masks for surgical purposes".[12] Eight million of 11 million masks delivered to Canada in May also failed to meet standards.[108][109]

 

N95 and FFP masks[edit]

 

A woman in Ukraine wearing an FFP mask after masking in public places was made mandatory.

N95 and FFP masks were in short supply and high demand during the COVID-19 pandemic.[110][101] Production of N95 masks was limited due to constraints on the supply of nonwoven polypropylene fabric (which is used as the primary filter), as well as the cessation of exports from China.[43][111] China controls 50 percent of global production of masks, and facing its own coronavirus epidemic, dedicated all its production for domestic use, only allowing exports through government-allocated humanitarian assistance.[43]

 

In March 2020, US President Donald Trump applied the Defense Production Act against the American company 3M, which allows the Federal Emergency Management Agency to obtain N95 respirators from 3M.[112][113] White House trade adviser Peter Navarro stated that there were concerns that 3M products were not making their way to the US.[112] 3M replied that it has not changed the prices it charges, and was unable to control the prices its dealers or retailers charge.[112]

 

In early April 2020, Berlin politician Andreas Geisel alleged that a shipment of 200,000 N95 masks that it had ordered from American producer 3M's China facility were intercepted in Bangkok and diverted to the United States. Berlin police president Barbara Slowik stated that she believed "this is related to the US government's export ban."[114] 3M said they had no knowledge of the shipment, stating "We know nothing of an order from the Berlin police for 3M masks that come from China," and the US government denied that any confiscation had taken place and said that they use appropriate channels for all their purchases.[114][115] Berlin police later confirmed that the shipment was not seized by US authorities, but was said to have simply been bought at a better price, widely believed to be from a German dealer or China. This revelation outraged the Berlin opposition, whose CDU parliamentary group leader Burkard Dregger accused Geisel of "deliberately misleading Berliners" in order "to cover up its own inability to obtain protective equipment". FDP interior expert Marcel Luthe said "Big names in international politics like Berlin's senator Geisel are blaming others and telling US piracy to serve anti-American clichés."[116] Politico Europe reported that "the Berliners are taking a page straight out of the Trump playbook and not letting facts get in the way of a good story."[117] The Guardian also reported that "There is no solid proof Trump [nor any other American official] approved the [German] heist".[118]

 

Jared Moskowitz, head of the Florida Division of Emergency Management, accused 3M of selling N95 masks directly to foreign countries for cash, instead of the US. Moskowitz stated that 3M agreed to authorized distributors and brokers to represent they were selling the masks to Florida, but instead his team for the last several weeks "get to warehouses that are completely empty." He then said the 3M-authorized US distributors later told him the masks Florida contracted for never showed up because the company instead prioritized orders that came in later, for higher prices, from foreign countries (including Germany, Russia, and France). As a result, Moskowitz highlighted the issue on Twitter, saying he decided to “troll” 3M.[119][120][121] Forbes reported that "roughly 280 million masks from warehouses around the US had been purchased by foreign buyers [on March 30, 2020] and were earmarked to leave the country, according to the broker — and that was in one day", causing massive critical shortages of masks in the US.[122][123]

 

As more and more countries restricted the export of N95 masks, Novo Textiles in British Columbia had plans to become the number-one manufacturer in Canada.[124] AMD Medicom in Quebec also plans to become the second Canadian manufacturer of N95 masks, with a contract to supply the Government of Canada.[125]

 

The mask industry[edit]

Manufacturing[edit]

 

The government of Taiwan instituted a mask rationing system. With population of 24 million, Taiwan has been producing more than 10 million masks per day since March.

 

The U.S. National Guard sews facemasks

[icon]

This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (May 2020)

As of 2019, mainland China manufactured half the world output of masks.[126] As Covid-19 spread, enterprises in several countries quickly started or increased the production of face masks.[127] Cottage industries and volunteer groups also emerged, manufacturing cloth masks for localised use. They used various patterns, including some with a bend-to-fit nosepiece inserts. Individual hospitals developed and requested a library of specific patterns.[128][129][130][131]

 

Distribution[edit]

[icon]

This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (May 2020)

Some clinical stockpiles have proved inadequate in scale, and markets have expanded as non-medical consumers started obeying mandated mask-wearing or determined that masks might help or encourage them. Worldwide demand for face masks has resulted in masks shipping around the globe as a result of commercial transactions or of donations.[132]

 

Culture[edit]

 

A sign language interpreter (on the right) is wearing a transparent mask to allow lip reading.

Attitudes[edit]

In East Asian societies, a primary reason for mask-wearing is to protect others from oneself.[133][134] It is seen as a collective responsibility to reduce the transmission of the virus.[135] The broad assumption behind the act is that anyone, including seemingly healthy people, can be a carrier of the coronavirus.[134] A face mask is thus seen as a symbol of solidarity.[135] Elsewhere, the need for mask-wearing is often seen in an individual's perspective where masks only serve to protect oneself.[133]

 

Cultural norms and social pressure may also impede mask-wearing in public.[136] According to the Hong Kong doctor and infectious disease expert Joseph Tsang, the promotion of universal masking may resolve perceptions against mask-wearing, because mask-wearing is intimidating if few people wear masks due to cultural barriers, but if all people wear masks it shows a message that people are in this together.[88]

 

In the western world, the public usage of masks still often carries a large stigma,[133][135][137] as it is seen as a sign of sickness.[137] This stigmatization is a large obstacle to overcome, because people may feel too ashamed to wear a mask in public and therefore opt to not wear one.[138] Secondly, it is heavily racialized as an Asian phenomenon.[135] This has been reinforced in a lot of media discourses, where unrelated stories about the pandemic are often accompanied by imagery of Asian people in masks.[139] The focus on race has brought hostility towards Asians who are confronted with the choice to mask as precaution while they face discrimination for it.[140] However, there is also a divide within the western world, as seen in the Czech Republic and Slovakia where mass mobilization has occurred to reinforce the solidarity in mask-wearing since March 2020.[133]

 

On social media, there has been an effort with the #masks4all campaign to encourage people to use masks.[141] Mask-wearing has been called a prosocial behavior in which one protects others within their community.[142][143]

 

In the US, mask-wearing was politicized and is seen as a political statement by some people. Democrats were more likely than Republicans to say that they are wearing a mask when leaving home, 76% to 59% according to one poll.[144]

 

Fashion[edit]

Face masks have had an impact on fashion, with the masks themselves becoming a fashion statements, haute couture brands having pivoted to address both public health and aesthetic needs.[145][146][147][148]

 

Mask use and policies by country and territory[edit]

See also: COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory and National responses to the COVID-19 pandemic

 

Beijing Subway advises passengers to wear masks when taking trains

Argentina Argentina: After appearance of three asymptomatic cases, the capital Buenos Aires introduced compulsory masking since 14 April. Wearing a mask was made obligatory for everyone on public transit and everyone who contacts with the public in their position. Violators can face a fine. Authorities also prohibited the sale of N95 face masks to non-medical workers, suggesting the general public to use home-made masks instead.[149]

Austria Austria: Everyone entering a supermarket, a grocery store, or a drug store or using public transportation must wear a face mask, mandatory since 14 April.[150][151][152]

The Bahamas Bahamas: On 19 April, the prime minister announced that wearing a mask or covering one's face with clothing is mandatory in public. Employers must provide their employees who are serving the general public with masks.[153]

Bahrain Bahrain: The Kingdom made wearing face masks in public areas compulsory for citizens and residents as well as shop workers.[154]

Benin Benin: From 8 April, Benin's authorities began enforcing the mandatory wearing of face masks to halt the coronavirus.[155]

Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosnia and Herzegovina: Wearing a face mask is compulsory.[156][157]

Bulgaria Bulgaria: Bulgaria's government passed an order imposing an obligation to wear face masks on 30 March. The order was cancelled the next day and changed into a recommendation, due to legal complaints.[158]

Cambodia Cambodia: Many Cambodians started wearing face masks soon after the outbreak began in Wuhan. Businesses started to require customers to wear masks.[159]

Cameroon Cameroon: On 6 April, mayor of Douala announced that wearing a mask will be mandatory to slow the spread of coronavirus.[160]

Canada Canada: Since 6 April, health officials recommend wearing non-medical masks in situations where physical distancing from others is difficult (like buying groceries, or public transit).[161]

Chile Chile: From 8 April, Chilean Health Minister announced wearing a mask is mandatory in public transit.[162]

China China: Healthy individuals are advised to wear disposable medical masks in public places.[11][77] Some local governments require wearing masks when going outside. Shanghai makes wearing masks mandatory in public places.[163]

Colombia Colombia: In response to the most recent recommendations of the WHO, Colombia changed its policy on the use of masks and made it mandatory throughout the country for the use of public transport during the coronavirus emergency.[164]

Cuba Cuba: On 11 March, the government urged citizens to make their own masks, while the textile industry was drafted to fabricate them. People were advised to carry several cloth masks with them, depending on how many hours they plan to spend in public areas.[165] Later, wearing a mask was made mandatory.[166]

Czech Republic Czech Republic: Forbidden to go out in public without wearing a mask, or covering one's nose and mouth.[167]

Dominican Republic: Since 16 April, the use of face mask is mandatory in all public spaces and in the workplace.[168]

Democratic Republic of the Congo DR Congo: Since 20 April, wearing masks in the capital of Kinshasa is mandatory.[169]

Ecuador Ecuador: On 8 April, the Emergency Operations Committee (COE) decided to make face masks obligatory in public spaces.[170]

Ethiopia Ethiopia: The Council of Ministers approved a regulation that outlaws handshakes, and obligates the use of face masks in public places.[171]

France France: On 3 March, the government issued a degree announcing requisition of stocks of FFP2 and anti-splash masks until 31 May 2020.[172]

Gabon Gabon: On 10 April, the Gabonese government announced individuals in all parts of the country are required to wear masks in public to limit the spread of COVID-19.[173]

Germany Germany: On 31 March, city-county Jena, Thuringia, was the first large German city to introduce an obligation to wear masks, or makeshift masks including scarves, in supermarkets, public transport, and buildings with public traffic, from 6 April, very successfully. On 2 April, the Robert Koch Institute, the federal epidemic authority, changed its previous recommendation that only people with symptoms should wear masks to also include people without symptoms.[174][175] County Nordhausen, Thuringia, followed the example of Jena, since 13 April, several other cities later. German chancellor Merkel and state governors first gave "strong advice" to wear face masks in public from 20 April, Saxony made it mandatory from that day, Saxony-Anhalt followed from 23 April and (the rest of) Thurinigia from 24 April, finally the governors agreed to make it mandatory, so most other states followed from 27 April, except Schleswig-Holstein, from 29 April, and Berlin, where shops were excluded first, they were included from 29 April.[176]

Guinea Guinea: Guinean President Alpha Conde decided to make wearing masks compulsory.[177]

Honduras Honduras: From 7 April, Honduras President announced all citizens will now be required to cover their mouths when they are outside.[178]

Hong Kong Hong Kong: Members of the public are recommended to wear a surgical mask when taking public transport or staying in crowded places.[78]

India India: From 9 April, masking is compulsory in the state of Odisha. When leaving their home, people must cover their mouth and nose with masks or multilayered cloth (like handkerchief, dupatta, towel, etc.).[179]

Indonesia Indonesia: Citizens were ordered to wear face masks when they leave the house.[180]

Republic of Ireland Ireland: Starting monday 18th of May, the use of cloth face covering is recommend in enclosed public spaces where it's difficult to maintain social distance.[181][182]

Israel Israel: All residents are asked to wear face masks when in public.[183]

Italy Italy: Regions of Lombardy and Tuscany made wearing a face mask compulsory before going out in early April.[184]

Ivory Coast Ivory Coast: From April, 26 masks have become compulsory to enter shopping malls or supermarkets in the Southern suburb of Abidjan, Marcory.[185]

Japan Japan: Masks have been widely used by healthy individuals despite absence of official advice to do so.[186] On 1 March, prime minister Shinzo Abe enacted a policy in Hokkaido instructing manufacturers to sell face masks directly to the government, which would then deliver them to residents.[187]

Kenya Kenya: Wearing a face mask is compulsory since April 4. The government has Kenyans to strictly observe social distancing, which has been proved to one of the most efficient ways of preventing infection risks.[188]

Liberia Liberia: From 21 April, it is now compulsory to wear a face mask or covering in public.[189]

Lithuania Lithuania: Wearing a face mask or any other means of covering one's nose and mouth in public places is compulsory since 10 April 2020.

Luxembourg Luxembourg: From 20 April, wearing a mask is mandatory in places where it is not possible to keep enough distance to others such as supermarkets or on public transport.[190]

Malaysia Malaysia: Masks have been widely used by healthy individuals despite absence of official advice to do so.[191] On 17 March, Malaysia banned exports of medical and surgical masks, to meet local demand.[192] In April, the government was set to distribute 24.62 million masks, four for each household, while advising people to only use them if they have symptoms.[180]

Mexico Mexico: From 17 April, all Mexico City Metro passengers must wear masks while inside stations and on trains, Mayor Claudia Sheinbaum announced on 15 April.[193]

Mongolia Mongolia: Wearing a mask is now mandatory while riding public transportation in Ulaanbaatar. Public officials and news broadcasters had even adopted to wearing masks through press conferences and news broadcasts.[194]

Morocco Morocco: Wearing a face mask is compulsory.[195]

Mozambique Mozambique: The Mozambican government announced on 8 April that wearing face masks is now compulsory on all forms of passenger transport, and wherever groups of people are gathered.[196]

North Macedonia North Macedonia: As of 22 April, citizens of Kumanovo, Tetovo, and Prilep must wear protective masks and gloves outside their homes, at public places, outdoor and indoor areas, markets, and shops announced the government.[197]

Pakistan Pakistan: The Balochistan government on 18 April told citizens to wear face masks when going outside. According to provincial government spokesperson Liaquat Shahwani, citizens have been urged to wear masks or to cover their faces with any cloth in the wake of the COVID-19 outbreak.[198]

Panama Panama: Panama has made it obligatory to wear a face mask whenever going outside, while also recommending the manufacture of a homemade cloth face mask to those who cannot purchase face masks.[199]

Peru Peru: From 7 April, the Peruvian government started distributing free masks after decreeing their mandatory use in the streets to chase away the new coronavirus, said President Martin Vizcarra.[200]

Philippines Philippines: From 2 April, the government required all those living in areas under enhanced community quarantine to wear face masks.[201]

Poland Poland: Since 16 April, covering lips and nose is compulsory before leaving one's house (e.g., by a disposable mask, cloth mask, or scarf).[202]

Russia Russia: Khabarovsk has made the wearing of face masks obligatory to fight the spike in respiratory diseases and prevent the spread of the coronavirus.[203]

Rwanda Rwanda: On 20 April, Cabinet Minister of Health Daniel Ngamije said the latest guidelines require everyone to wear a mask in public, and at home during the lockdown and thereafter.[169]

Scotland Scotland: On 28 April, the First Minister for Scotland Nicola Sturgeon advised the voluntary use of cloth face masks in enclosed spaces such as shops and public transport (but not generally in public), while noting their limitation.[204]

Singapore Singapore: Masks have been widely used by healthy individuals despite initial absence of official advice to do so.[205] General mask-wearing was no longer discouraged from 3 April,[206] and made mandatory outside of one's residence from 14 April.[207]

Spain Spain: Wearing masks has been required since 4 May while on public transportation, which includes taxis, trains and buses. The government is providing masks to the majority of people riding public transportation, regardless of if they have a mask on.[208][209]

Slovakia Slovakia: Forbidden to go out in public without wearing a mask or covering one's nose and mouth.[167][156]

Slovenia Slovenia: From 29 March, wearing a face mask, even one made at home, or equivalents such as scarves that cover the mouth and nose is mandatory along with protective gloves; the decree stipulates that masks and gloves need to be worn in indoor public spaces.[210]

South Africa South Africa: On 10 April, Minister of Health recommended that the general public use cloth face masks when going out in public (in addition to hand-washing and social distancing).[211] After 1 May, covering one's nose and mouth will be mandatory in public (with a cloth mask, scarf, T-shirt, etc.).[212]

South Korea South Korea: Masks have been widely used by healthy individuals despite absence of official advice to do so.[213] The government implemented a policy of centralized procurement and rationing of face masks, purchasing 80 percent of national production since early March.[214]

Sweden Sweden: Sweden's Public Health Agency doubts the effectiveness of face masks, and the agency does not recommend public use of face masks.[215] The government has also warned that wearing them might create a false sense of security.[216]

Taiwan Taiwan: On 21 January, the government announced a temporary ban on the export of face masks.[217] On 6 February, the government instituted a mask rationing system.[218] Taiwan has been producing ten million masks per day since mid-March.[219] On 1 April, passengers on trains and intercity buses were required to wear face masks,[220] unmasked riders facing a fine.[221]

Turkey Turkey: Residents will be required to wear masks at markets, as Turkish president announced.[222]

Ukraine Ukraine: Since 6 April, wearing a face mask is required by the government in public places. In Kyiv, public places were clarified to include parks and streets.[223]

United States United States: On 6 April, the CDC recommended the wearing of non-medical cloth face coverings when in public places.[224][225] Since 17 April, residents of New York, must wear masks in public; New Jersey and Maryland issued similar requirements for their residents.[226]

Uzbekistan Uzbekistan: Officials made protective masks mandatory in all major cities in order to prevent the spread of coronavirus. Officials on 22 March said citizens not wearing masks in public in major cities would be fined $22 for the first offense and $67 for repeat offenses.[227]

Venezuela Venezuela: The government ordered the country’s citizens to wear face masks in public in response to the arrival of the novel coronavirus.[228]

Vietnam Vietnam: Since 16 March, everyone must wear a face mask when going to public places (such as grocery stores, transportation hubs, and public transport).[229]

Zambia Zambia: The government made it mandatory to wear face masks to minimise the spread in the country.[230]

  

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_masks_during_the_COVID-19_pand...

Seen here, Pune WDG-4 with CONCOR | Katni WDG-4D with BCNA waiting for their Clearance !!!

 

About CONCOR :- Container Corporation of India Ltd. (CONCOR),is a Navratna Public sector undertaking under the Indian Ministry of Railways. Incorporated in March 1988 under the Companies Act, CONCOR commenced operations in November 1989 taking over an existing network of seven inland container depots (ICDs) from Indian Railways. It now has a network of 63 ICDs/CFSs (Container Freight Stations) throughout India.

Indian Railway's strategic initiative to containerise cargo transport put India on the intermodal freight transport map for the first time in 1966. Given India's size (almost 3,000 kilometres (1,900 mi) from North to South and East to West), rail transport is often a cheaper option for all cargo over medium and long distances, especially if the cost of inter-modal transfers can be reduced. Seeing that containerised multi-modal door-to-door transport provided a solution to this problem, in 1966 Indian Railways entered the market for moving door-to-door domestic cargo in special DSO containers.

 

Although the first ISO container in India had been handled in Kochi as early as 1973, it was not until 1981 that the first ISO container was moved inland by Indian Railways to the country's first ICD at Bangalore, also managed by the Indian Railways.

 

Expansion of the network to seven ICDs by 1988 saw an increase in container handling capacity, while along the way a strong view emerged that there was a need to set up a separate pro-active organisation to promote and manage the growth of containerisation in India.

 

CONCOR operates three core businesses: cargo carrier; terminal operator, and warehouse operator.

  

About BCNA- The BCNA wagon, also known as 'BCN/A', is a variant of the BCN design was developed to be less long but increased height to keep the capacity the same. It has welded construction compared to the original BCN which was riveted. BCNA wagons are covered bogie wagons (capable of being made water-tight for delicate commodities) with cartridge tapered roller bearings, cast steel bogie, air brakes. Two doors on each side. Uses BCN design's 2-tonne overload capacity. Also very common, there are more than 42,000 of these in use [2006]. Used for foodstuffs, cement, etc. (but see the BCCN wagon below, especially for cement transport, and BCX, which are also used for bulk food transport).

AAR 'E' high-tensile coupler with high-capacity draft gear. CASNUB 22 NLB cast steel bogies. Snubbers and nested coil springs under bolster, elastomeric pads, etc., with secondary suspension system. Air brakes and parking brakes. Rated for 80km/h.

 

---------__----------

Follow Me :- www.flickr.com/anubhav_ir

. . . but hate is always there.

 

From the archives: taken March 31, 2011, in San Pedro, California.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, face masks, such as surgical masks and cloth masks, have been employed as a public and personal health control measure against the spread of SARS-CoV-2. In both community and healthcare settings, their use is intended as source control to limit transmission of the virus and personal protection to prevent infection. Their function for source control is emphasized in community settings.

The use of face masks (or coverings in some cases) has been recommended by American immunologist and NIAID director Anthony Fauci to reduce the risk of contagion. In the COVID-19 pandemic, governments recommend the use of face masks with a main purpose for the general population: to avoid the contagion from infected people to others. Masks with exhalation valves are not recommended, because they expel the breath of the wearer outwards, and an infected wearer would transmit the viruses through the valve. A second purpose of the face masks is to protect to each wearer from environments that can be infected, which can be achieved by many models of masks..Between the different types of face masks that have been recommended throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, with higher or lower effectivity, it is possible to include: cloth face masks surgical masks (medical masks) uncertified face-covering dust masks certified face-covering masks, considered respirators, with certifications such as N95 and N99, and FFP filtering respirators with certifications such as N95 and N99, and FFP other respirators, including elastomeric respirators, some of which may also be considered filtering masks There are some other types of personal protective equipment (PPE), as face shields and medical goggles, that are sometimes used in conjunction with face masks but are not recommended as a replacement. Other kinds of PPE include gloves, aprons, gowns, shoe covers and hair covers. A cloth face mask is worn over the mouth and nose and made of commonly available textiles. Masks vary widely in effectiveness, depending on material, fit and seal, number of layers, and other factors. Although they are usually less effective than medical-grade masks,[citation needed] some health authorities recommend their use by the general public when medical-grade masks are in short supply, as a low-cost and reusable option. Unlike disposable masks, there are no required standards for cloth masks. One study gives evidence that an improvised mask was better than nothing, but not as good as soft electret-filter surgical mask, for protecting healthcare workers while simulating treatment of an artificially infected patient. Research on commonly available fabrics used in cloth masks found that cloth masks can provide significant protection against the transmission of particles in the aerosol size range, with enhanced performance across the nano- and micronscale when masks utilize both mechanical and electrostatic-based filtration, but that leakage due to improper fit can degrade performance.[10] A review of available research published in January 2021 concludes that cloth masks are not considered adequate to protect healthcare practitioners in a clinical setting. Another study had volunteers wear masks they made themselves, from cotton T-shirts and following the pattern of a standard tie behind the head surgical mask, and found the number of microscopic particles that leaked to the inside of the homemade masks were twice that of commercial masks. Wearing homemade masks also leaked a median average of three times as many microorganisms as commercial masks. But another study found that masks made of at least two layers T-shirt fabric could be as protective against virus droplets as medical masks, and as breathable. A woman sews a multi-layered woven cloth face mask on a sewing machine. Many people made cloth face masks at home during the pandemic. World Health Organization infographic on how to wear a non-medical fabric mask safely. A peer-reviewed summary of published literature on the filtration properties of cloth and cloth masks suggested two to four layers of plain-weave cotton or flannel, of at least 100 threads per inch. There is a necessary trade-off: increasing the number of layers increases the filtration of the material but decreases breathability. Decreased breathability makes it harder to wear a mask and also increases the amount of leak around the edge of the mask. A plain-language summary of this work,[16] along with a hand-sewn design, suggestions on materials and layering, and how to put on, take off, and clean cloth masks are available. As of May 2020, there was no research on decontaminating and reusing cloth masks. The CDC recommends removing a mask by handling only the ear loops or ties, placing it directly in a washing machine, and immediately washing hands in soap and water for at least twenty seconds. Cold water is considered as effective as warm water for decontamination. The CDC also recommends washing hands before putting on the mask, and again immediately after touching it. There is no information on reusing an interlayer filter. Disposing of filters after a single use may be desirable. A narrative review of the literature on filtration properties of cloth and other household materials did not find support for the idea of using a filter. A layer of cloth, if tolerated, was suggested instead, or a PM2.5 filter, as a third layer. A surgical mask is a loose-fitting, disposable mask that creates a physical barrier separating the mouth and nose of the wearer from potential contaminants in the immediate environment. If worn properly, a surgical mask is meant to help block large-particle droplets, splashes, sprays, or splatter that may contain viruses and bacteria, keeping them from reaching the wearer's mouth and nose. Surgical masks may also help reduce exposure of others to the wearer's saliva and respiratory secretions. Certified medical masks are made of non-woven material and they are mostly multi-layer. Filters may be made of microfibers with an electrostatic charge; that is, the fibers are electrets. An electret filter increases the chances that smaller particles will veer and hit a fiber, rather than going straight through (electrostatic capture). While there is some development work on making electret filtering materials that can be washed and reused, current commercially produced electret filters are ruined by many forms of disinfection, including washing with soap and water or alcohol, which destroys the electric charge.[30] During the COVID-19 pandemic, public health authorities issued guidelines on how to save, disinfect and reuse electret-filter masks without damaging the filtration efficiency. Standard disposable surgical masks are not designed to be washed. Surgical masks may be labeled as surgical, isolation, dental, or medical procedure masks. The material surgical masks are made from is much poorer at filtering very small particles (in range a tenth of a micrometre to a micrometre across) than that of filtering respirators (for example N95, FFP2) and the fit is much poorer. Surgical masks are made of a non-woven fabric created using a melt blowing process. Random control studies of respiratory infections like influenza find little difference in protection between surgical masks and respirators (such as N95 or FFP masks). However, the filtering performance of correctly worn N95/FFP2 type filtering respirators is clearly superior to surgical and to cloth masks and for influenza, work by the UK Health and Safety executive found that live virus penetrated all surgical masks tested but properly fitted respirators reduced the viral dose by a factor of at least a hundred. Tsai Ing-wen, President of Taiwan, wearing a surgical mask Surgical masks made to different standards in different parts of the world have different ranges of particles which they filter. For example, the People's Republic of China regulates two types of such masks: single-use medical masks (Chinese standard YY/T 0969) and surgical masks (YY 0469). The latter ones are required to filter bacteria-sized particles (BFE ≥ 95%) and some virus-sized particles (PFE ≥ 30%), while the former ones are required to only filter bacteria-sized particles. The effectiveness of surgical masks in limiting particle transmission is a function of material and fit. Since the start of the pandemic, scientists have evaluated various modifications to ear loop surgical masks aimed at improving mask efficacy by reducing or eliminating gaps between the mask and face. The CDC evaluated and recommends two such modifications to ear loop masks to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Under normal use, the CDC found that a surgical mask worn by a coughing individual blocked 41.3% of simulated cough aerosols (0.1–7.0 μm particle size) from reaching a second individual six feet away. However, by applying a knot and tuck technique,[a] 62.9% of particles were blocked. When the surgical mask was covered with a larger cloth mask, 82% of particles were blocked. When both the source and recipient wore masks, 84% of particles were blocked. The number increased to more than 95% when both parties either wore double masks (surgical mask with larger cloth mask) or used the knot and tuck technique. Il Another type of modifications was aimed to improve the comfort of the wearers. Early on in the pandemic, healthcare workers were required to continue wearing surgical masks for 12 or more hours a day. This caused the ear loops of the masks to chafe the back of their ears. Ear savers, plastic straps and hooks that go around wearer's heads, were invented to move the ear loops away from the wearer's ears. They could be made on demand by using 3D printing process. An N95 mask is a particulate-filtering facepiece respirator that meets the N95 air filtration rating of the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, meaning it filters at least 95 percent of airborne particles, while not resistant to oil like the P95. It is the most common particulate-filtering facepiece respirator. It is an example of a mechanical filter respirator, which provides protection against particulates, but not gases or vapors. Like the middle layer of surgical masks, the N95 mask is made of four layers[ of melt-blown nonwoven polypropylene fabric. The corresponding face mask used in the European Union is the FFP2 respirator. Hard electret-filter masks like N95 and FFP masks must fit the face to provide full protection. Untrained users often get a reasonable fit, but fewer than one in four gets a perfect fit. Fit testing is thus standard. A line of petroleum jelly on the edge of the mask. has been shown to reduce edge leakage in lab tests using mannequins that simulate breathing. Some N95 series respirators, especially those intended for industrial use, have an exhalation valve to improve comfort, making exhalation easier and reducing leakage on exhalation and steaming-up of glasses. But those respirators are not reliable for the control of infected people (source control) in respiratory diseases such as COVID-19, because infected users (asymptomatic or not) would transmit the virus to others through the valve. During the COVID-19 pandemic, there were shortages of filtering facepiece respirators, and they had to be used for extended periods, and/or disinfected and reused. At the time, public health authorities issued guidelines on how to save, disinfect and reuse masks, as some disinfection methods damaged their filtration efficiency. Some hospitals stockpiled used masks as a precaution, and some had to sanitize and reuse masks. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) does not recommend the use of face shields as a substitute for masks to help slow the spread of COVID-19.[54] In a study by Lindsley et al. (7 January 2021) funded by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, part of the CDC, face shields were found to block very few cough aerosols in contrast to face coverings – such as cloth masks, procedure masks, and N95 respirators – indicating that face shields are not effective as source control devices for small respiratory aerosols and that face coverings are more effective than face shields as source control devices to reduce the community transmission of SARS-CoV-2. In a scoping review, Godoy et al. (5 May 2020) said face shields are used for barrier protection against splash and splatter contamination, but should not be used as primary protection against respiratory disease transmission due to the lack of a peripheral seal rather than as an adjunct to other facial protection. They remarked that face shields have been used like this alongside medical-grade masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. They cited a cough simulation study by Lindsley et al. (2014) in which face shields were shown to reduce the risk of inhalation exposure up to 95% immediately following aerosol production, but the protection was decreased with smaller aerosol particles and persistent airborne particles around the sides. A systematic review of observational studies on the transmission of coronaviruses, funded by the World Health Organization found that eye protection including face shields was associated with less infection (adjusted odds ratio 0.22; 95% confidence interval 0·12 to 0·39), but the evidence was rated as low certainty. Elastomeric respirators are reusable personal protective equipment comprising a tight-fitting half-facepiece or full-facepiece respirator with exchangeable filters such as cartridge filters. They provide an alternative respiratory protection option to filtering facepiece respirators such as N95 masks for healthcare workers during times of short supply caused by the pandemic, as they can be reused over an extended period in healthcare settings. However, elastomeric respirators have a vent to exhalate the air outwards and unfiltered, so the wearer must be attentive that he or she is not infected with SARS-CoV-2, to prevent a possible transmission of the virus to others through the vent. For the COVID-19 response when supplies are short, the US CDC says contingency and crisis strategies should be followed: Each elastomeric respirator is issued for the exclusive use of an individual healthcare provider, but must be cleaned and disinfected as often as necessary to remain unsoiled and sanitary. If there is no other option than to share a respirator between healthcare providers, the respirator must be cleaned and disinfected before it is worn by a different individual. Filters (except for unprotected disc types) may be used for an extended period, but the filter housing of cartridge types must be disinfected after each patient interaction. A powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) is a personal protective equipment in which a device with a filter and fan creates a highly filtered airflow towards the headpiece and a positive outflow of air from the headpiece. There is an increased risk for healthcare workers to become exposed to SARS-CoV-2 when they conduct aerosol-generating procedures on COVID-19 patients, which is why it is argued that such situations may require enhanced personal protective equipment (i.e., higher than N95) such as PAPRs for healthcare workers. In a systematic review, Licina, Silvers, and Stuart (8 August 2020) said field studies indicate that there was equivalent rates of infection between healthcare workers, who performed airway procedures on critical COVID-19 patients, utilizing PAPRs or other appropriate respiratory equipment (such as N95 or FFP2), but remarked that there is a need to further collect field data about optimal respiratory protection during highly virulent pandemics. Some masks include an exhalation valve to expel the breath outwards, but that current of air is not filtered. Certification (as N95 or FFP2) is about the mask itself and does not warrant any safety about the air that is exhaled. Putting tape over the exhalation valve can make a mask or respirator as effective as one without a valve. Scientists have visualized droplet dispersal for masks with exhalation valves and face shields, and concluded that they can be ineffective against COVID-19 spread (e.g., after a cough) and recommended alternatives. The use of face masks or coverings by the general public has been recommended by health officials to minimize the risk of transmissions, with authorities either requiring their use in certain settings, such as on public transport and in shops, or universally in public. Health officials have advised that medical-grade face masks, such as respirators, should be prioritized for use by healthcare workers in view of critical shortages, so they generally first and foremost recommend cloth masks for the general public. The recommendations have changed as the body of scientific knowledge evolved. According to #Masks4All, about 95% of the world population lives in countries where the government and leading disease experts recommend or require the use of masks in public places to limit the spread of COVID-19. Early in 2020, the WHO had only recommended medical masks for people with suspected infection and respiratory symptoms, their caregivers and those sharing living space, and healthcare workers.[71][72][73] In April 2020, the WHO acknowledged that wearing a medical mask can limit the spread of certain respiratory viral diseases including COVID-19, but claimed that medical masks would create a false sense of security and neglect of other necessary measures, such as hand hygiene. The early WHO advice on limited mask usage was scrutinized for several reasons. First, experts and researchers pointed out the asymptomatic transmission of the virus. Second, according to Marteau et al. (27 July 2020), available evidence does not support the notion that masking adversely affects hand hygiene: Dame Theresa Marteau, one of the researchers, remarked that "The concept of risk compensation, rather than risk compensation itself, seems the greater threat to public health through delaying potentially effective interventions that can help prevent the spread of disease." The WHO revised its mask guidance in June 2020, with its officials acknowledging that studies indicated asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic spread.[81] The updated advice recommended that the general public should wear non-medical fabric masks where there is known or suspected widespread transmission and where physical distancing is not possible, and that vulnerable people (60 and over, or with underlying health risks) and people with any symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 as well as caregivers and healthcare workers should wear surgical or procedure masks.[68] They stated that the purpose of mask usage is to prevent the wearer transmitting the virus to others (source control) and to offer protection to healthy wearers against infection (prevention). The WHO advises that non-medical fabric masks should comprise a minimum of three layers, suggesting an inner layer made of absorbent material (such as cotton), a middle layer made of non-woven material (such as polypropylene) which may enhance filtration or retain droplets, and an outer layer made of non-absorbent material (such as polyester or its blends) which may limit external contamination from penetration. On 21 August 2020, the WHO and UNICEF released an annex guidance for children.[83] For children five and younger, they advise that masks should not be required in consideration to a child's developmental milestones, compliance challenges, and autonomy required to use a mask properly, but recognized that the evidence supporting their cut-off age is limited and countries may hold a different and lower age of cut-off. For children 6–11, they advise that mask usage should be decided in consideration of several factors including the intensity of local viral transmission, (the latest evidence about) the risk of infection for the age group, the social and cultural environment (which influences social interactions in communities and populations), the capacity to comply with appropriate mask usage, the availability of appropriate adult supervision, and the potential impact on learning and psychosocial development, as well as additional factors involving specific settings or circumstances (such as disabilities, underlying diseases, elderly people, sport activities, and schools). For children 12 and older, they advise that masks should be worn under the same conditions for adults in accordance to WHO guidance or national guidelines. Regarding the use of non-medical fabric masks in the general population, the WHO has stated that high-quality evidence for its widespread use is limited, but advises governments to encourage its use as physical distancing may not be possible in some settings, there is some evidence for asymptomatic transmission, and masks could be helpful to provide a barrier to limit the spread of potentially infectious droplets.

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_masks_during_the_COVID-19_pand...

The Plymouth Barracuda is a two-door car that was manufactured by the Plymouth division of the Chrysler Corporation from the 1964 to 1974 model years.

 

The first-generation Barracuda, a fastback A-body coupe based on the Plymouth Valiant, had distinctive wraparound back glass and was available from 1964 to 1966.

 

The second-generation 1967 to 1969 Barracuda, though still Valiant-based, was heavily redesigned. Second-generation A-body cars were available in fastback, notchback, and convertible versions.

 

The 1970 to 1974 E-body Barracuda, no longer Valiant-based, was available as a coupe and a convertible, both of which were very different from the previous models. The final model year for the Barracuda was 1974.

 

1970–71

 

The redesign for the 1970 Barracuda removed all its previous commonality with the Valiant. The original fastback design was deleted from the line and the Barracuda now consisted of coupe and convertible models. The all-new model, styled by John E. Herlitz, was built on a shorter, wider version of Chrysler's existing B platform, called the E-body. Sharing this platform was the newly launched Dodge Challenger; however no sheet metal interchanged between the two cars, and the Challenger, at 110 inches (2,800 mm), had a wheelbase that was 2 inches (51 mm) longer than the Barracuda.

 

The E-body Barracuda was now "able to shake the stigma of 'economy car'." Three versions were offered for 1970 and 1971: the base Barracuda (BH), the luxury oriented Gran Coupe (BP), and the sport model 'Cuda (BS).For one year (1971), there also was the Barracuda Coupe, a low-end model which (like other Coupe series Chrysler Corp. offered that year) had a fixed rear passenger window and minor B pillar instead of roll-down rear passenger windows. The high-performance models were marketed as 'Cuda deriving from the 1969 option. The E-body's engine bay was larger than that of the previous A-body, facilitating the release of Chrysler's 426 cu in (7.0 L) Hemi for the regular retail market.

 

1970 Plymouth Hemi 'Cuda, raced by the Chrysler France works team in 1970-1973

For 1970 and 1971, the Barracuda and Barracuda Gran Coupe had two six-cylinder engines available — a new 198 cu in (3.2 L) version of the slant-6, and the 225 — as well as three different V8s: the 318ci, the 383ci with two-barrel carburetor and single exhaust, and the 383ci with four-barrel carburetor and dual exhaust 330 hp (250 kW) SAE gross. The Cuda had the 383ci 335 hp (250 kW) SAE gross (same as Dodge's 383 Magnum) as the standard engine. It also had the 440ci four-barrel Super Commando, the 440ci six-barrel Super Commando Six Pak, and the 426ci Hemi. The 440- and Hemi-equipped cars received upgraded suspension components and structural reinforcements to help transfer the power to the road.

 

In 1970 the big-block power options offered to the customer were:

 

approximately 335 hp (250 kW) SAE net in the high performance 383-4V,

approximately 375 hp (280 kW) SAE net in the 440-4V,

approximately 390 hp (290 kW) SAE net in the 440-6V, and

approximately 425 hp (317 kW) SAE net in the 426-8V.

 

Other Barracuda options included decal sets, hood modifications, and some unusual "high impact" colors such as "Lime Light", "Bahama Yellow", "Tor Red", "Lemon Twist", "Curious Yellow", "Vitamin C", "In-Violet", "Sassy Grass" and "Moulin Rouge".

 

Swede Savage and Dan Gurney raced identical factory-sponsored AAR (All American Racers) 'Cudas in the 1970 Trans-Am Series. The cars qualified for three pole positions but did not win any Trans-Am races; the highest finish was second at Road America. A street version of the AAR 'Cuda was produced, powered by the 340 cu in (5.6 L) "Six Pack" (three two-barrel carburetors) engine. Four 1970 Hemi 'Cudas were also successfully raced by Chrysler France, from 1970 until 1973.[15] The works team director Henrí Chemin piloted the first car, and then sold it on to friend and privateer J. F. Mas who went on to race it for another two years. This Hemi 'Cuda won four French Group 1 class championships, three on track and one in hill-climbing.

 

1971 Plymouth Hemi 'Cuda

The Barracuda was changed slightly for 1971, with a new grille and taillights, seat, and trim differences. This would be the only year that the Barracuda would have four headlights, and also the only year of the fender "gills" on the 'Cuda model.

 

The 1971 Barracuda engine options would remain the same as that of the 1970 model, except the four-barrel carbureted 440 V8 engine was no longer on the option list, but could be had via a special order and perhaps a dozen cars were built with it installed; otherwise the 440-powered Barracudas had a six-barrel carburetor setup instead.

 

In 1971 the big-block power options offered to the customer were:

 

275 hp (205 kW) SAE net in the 383-2V

300 hp (220 kW) SAE net in the 383-4V

385 hp (287 kW) SAE net in the 440-6V

425 hp (317 kW) SAE net in the 426-8V

 

In 1970 and 1971 only, the shaker hood (option code N96), elastomeric (rubber) colored bumpers, and the Spicer-built Dana 60 rear axle were available. The shaker hood was available with 340, 383, 440 four-barrel, 440 six-barrel, and 426 Hemi engines. The elastomeric (rubber) colored bumpers were available as a front-only option, code A21, or as a front and rear combination, option code A22. The heavy-duty (and heavy) Dana 60, with a 9.75 in (248 mm) ring gear, was standard equipment with manual transmissions and 440 six-barrel and 426 Hemi engines, and was optional on those with the automatic transmission.

 

[Text from Wikipedia]

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plymouth_Barracuda

 

This miniland-scale Lego Plymouth 1971 HEMI 'Cuda Hardtop has been created for Flickr LUGNuts' 91st Build Challenge, - "Anger Management", - all about cars with some link to being angry.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The РТАК-30 attack vintoplan (also known as vintokryl) owed its existence to the Mil Mi-30 plane/helicopter project that originated in 1972. The Mil Mi-30 was conceived as a transport aircraft that could hold up to 19 passengers or two tons of cargo, and its purpose was to replace the Mi-8 and Mi-17 Helicopters in both civil and military roles. With vertical takeoff through a pair of tiltrotor engine pods on the wing tips (similar in layout to the later V-22 Osprey) and the ability to fly like a normal plane, the Mil Mi-30 had a clear advantage over the older models.

 

Since the vintoplan concept was a completely new field of research and engineering, a dedicated design bureau was installed in the mid-Seventies at the Rostov-na-Donu helicopter factory, where most helicopters from the Mil design bureau were produced, under the title Ростов Тилт Ротор Авиационная Компания (Rostov Tilt Rotor Aircraft Company), or РТАК (RTRA), for short.

 

The vintoplan project lingered for some time, with basic research being conducted concerning aerodynamics, rotor design and flight control systems. Many findings later found their way into conventional planes and helicopters. At the beginning of the 1980s, the project had progressed far enough that the vintoplan received official backing so that РТАК scientists and Mil helicopter engineers assembled and tested several layouts and components for this complicated aircraft type.

At that time the Mil Mi-30 vintoplan was expected to use a single TV3-117 Turbo Shaft Engine with a four-bladed propeller rotors on each of its two pairs of stub wings of almost equal span. The engine was still installed in the fuselage and the proprotors driven by long shafts.

 

However, while being a very clean design, this original layout revealed several problems concerning aeroelasticity, dynamics of construction, characteristics for the converter apparatuses, aerodynamics and flight dynamics. In the course of further development stages and attempts to rectify the technical issues, the vintoplan layout went through several revisions. The layout shifted consequently from having 4 smaller engines in rotating pods on two pairs of stub wings through three engines with rotating nacelles on the front wings and a fixed, horizontal rotor over the tail and finally back to only 2 engines (much like the initial concept), but this time mounted in rotating nacelles on the wing tips and a canard stabilizer layout.

 

In August 1981 the Commission of the Presidium of the USSR Council of Ministers on weapons eventually issued a decree on the development of a flyworthy Mil Mi-30 vintoplan prototype. Shortly afterwards the military approved of the vintoplan, too, but desired bigger, more powerful engines in order to improve performance and weight capacity. In the course of the ensuing project refinement, the weight capacity was raised to 3-5 tons and the passenger limit to 32. In parallel, the modified type was also foreseen for civil operations as a short range feederliner, potentially replacing Yak-40 and An-24 airliners in Aeroflot service.

In 1982, РТАК took the interest from the military and proposed a dedicated attack vintoplan, based on former research and existing components of the original transport variant. This project was accepted by MAP and received the separate designation РТАК-30. However, despite having some close technical relations to the Mi-30 transport (primarily the engine nacelles, their rotation mechanism and the flight control systems), the РТАК-30 was a completely different aircraft. The timing was good, though, and the proposal was met with much interest, since the innovative vintoplan concept was to compete against traditional helicopters: the design work on the dedicated Mi-28 and Ka-50 attack helicopters had just started at that time, too, so that РТАК received green lights for the construction of five prototypes: four flyworthy machines plus one more for static ground tests.

 

The РТАК-30 was based on one of the early Mi-30 layouts and it combined two pairs of mid-set wings with different wing spans with a tall tail fin that ensured directional stability. Each wing carried a rotating engine nacelle with a so-called proprotor on its tip, each with three high aspect ratio blades. The proprotors were handed (i.e. revolved in opposite directions) in order to minimize torque effects and improve handling, esp. in the hover. The front and back pair of engines were cross-linked among each other on a common driveshaft, eliminating engine-out asymmetric thrust problems during V/STOL operations. In the event of the failure of one engine, it would automatically disconnect through torque spring clutches and both propellers on a pair of wings would be driven by the remaining engine.

Four engines were chosen because, despite the weight and complexity penalty, this extra power was expected to be required in order to achieve a performance that was markedly superior to a conventional helicopter like the Mi-24, the primary Soviet attack helicopter of that era the РТАК-30 was supposed to replace. It was also expected that the rotating nacelles could also be used to improve agility in level flight through a mild form of vectored thrust.

 

The РТАК-30’s streamlined fuselage provided ample space for avionics, fuel, a fully retractable tricycle landing gear and a two man crew in an armored side-by-side cockpit with ejection seats. The windshield was able to withstand 12.7–14.5 mm caliber bullets, the titanium cockpit tub could take hits from 20 mm cannon. An autonomous power unit (APU) was housed in the fuselage, too, making operations of the aircraft independent from ground support.

While the РТАК-30 was not intended for use as a transport, the fuselage was spacious enough to have a small compartment between the front wings spars, capable of carrying up to three people. The purpose of this was the rescue of downed helicopter crews, as a cargo hold esp. for transfer flights and as additional space for future mission equipment or extra fuel.

In vertical flight, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotor system used controls very similar to a twin or tandem-rotor helicopter. Yaw was controlled by tilting its rotors in opposite directions. Roll was provided through differential power or thrust, supported by ailerons on the rear wings. Pitch was provided through rotor cyclic or nacelle tilt and further aerodynamic surfaces on both pairs of wings. Vertical motion was controlled with conventional rotor blade pitch and a control similar to a fixed-wing engine control called a thrust control lever (TCL). The rotor heads had elastomeric bearings and the proprotor blades were made from composite materials, which could sustain 30 mm shells.

 

The РТАК-30 featured a helmet-mounted display for the pilot, a very modern development at its time. The pilot designated targets for the navigator/weapons officer, who proceeded to fire the weapons required to fulfill that particular task. The integrated surveillance and fire control system had two optical channels providing wide and narrow fields of view, a narrow-field-of-view optical television channel, and a laser rangefinder. The system could move within 110 degrees in azimuth and from +13 to −40 degrees in elevation and was placed in a spherical dome on top of the fuselage, just behind the cockpit.

 

The aircraft carried one automatic 2A42 30 mm internal gun, mounted semi-rigidly fixed near the center of the fuselage, movable only slightly in elevation and azimuth. The arrangement was also regarded as being more practical than a classic free-turning turret mount for the aircraft’s considerably higher flight speed than a normal helicopter. As a side effect, the semi-rigid mounting improved the cannon's accuracy, giving the 30 mm a longer practical range and better hit ratio at medium ranges. Ammunition supply was 460 rounds, with separate compartments for high-fragmentation, explosive incendiary, or armor-piercing rounds. The type of ammunition could be selected by the pilot during flight.

The gunner can select one of two rates of full automatic fire, low at 200 to 300 rds/min and high at 550 to 800 rds/min. The effective range when engaging ground targets such as light armored vehicles is 1,500 m, while soft-skinned targets can be engaged out to 4,000 m. Air targets can be engaged flying at low altitudes of up to 2,000 m and up to a slant range of 2,500 m.

 

A substantial range of weapons could be carried on four hardpoints under the front wings, plus three more under the fuselage, for a total ordnance of up to 2,500 kg (with reduced internal fuel). The РТАК-30‘s main armament comprised up to 24 laser-guided Vikhr missiles with a maximum range of some 8 km. These tube-launched missiles could be used against ground and aerial targets. A search and tracking radar was housed in a thimble radome on the РТАК-30’s nose and their laser guidance system (mounted in a separate turret under the radome) was reported to be virtually jam-proof. The system furthermore featured automatic guidance to the target, enabling evasive action immediately after missile launch. Alternatively, the system was also compatible with Ataka laser-guided anti-tank missiles.

Other weapon options included laser- or TV-guided Kh-25 missiles as well as iron bombs and napalm tanks of up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) caliber and several rocket pods, including the S-13 and S-8 rockets. The "dumb" rocket pods could be upgraded to laser guidance with the proposed Ugroza system. Against helicopters and aircraft the РТАК-30 could carry up to four R-60 and/or R-73 IR-guided AAMs. Drop tanks and gun pods could be carried, too.

 

When the РТАК-30's proprotors were perpendicular to the motion in the high-speed portions of the flight regime, the aircraft demonstrated a relatively high maximum speed: over 300 knots/560 km/h top speed were achieved during state acceptance trials in 1987, as well as sustained cruise speeds of 250 knots/460 km/h, which was almost twice as fast as a conventional helicopter. Furthermore, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotors and stub wings provided the aircraft with a substantially greater cruise altitude capability than conventional helicopters: during the prototypes’ tests the machines easily reached 6,000 m / 20,000 ft or more, whereas helicopters typically do not exceed 3,000 m / 10,000 ft altitude.

 

Flight tests in general and flight control system refinement in specific lasted until late 1988, and while the vintoplan concept proved to be sound, the technical and practical problems persisted. The aircraft was complex and heavy, and pilots found the machine to be hazardous to land, due to its low ground clearance. Due to structural limits the machine could also never be brought to its expected agility limits

During that time the Soviet Union’s internal tensions rose and more and more hampered the РТАК-30’s development. During this time, two of the prototypes were lost (the 1st and 4th machine) in accidents, and in 1989 only two machines were left in flightworthy condition (the 5th airframe had been set aside for structural ground tests). Nevertheless, the РТАК-30 made its public debut at the Paris Air Show in June 1989 (the 3rd prototype, coded “33 Yellow”), together with the Mi-28A, but was only shown in static display and did not take part in any flight show. After that, the aircraft received the NATO ASCC code "Hemlock" and caused serious concern in Western military headquarters, since the РТАК-30 had the potential to dominate the European battlefield.

 

And this was just about to happen: Despite the РТАК-30’s development problems, the innovative attack vintoplan was included in the Soviet Union’s 5-year plan for 1989-1995, and the vehicle was eventually expected to enter service in 1996. However, due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dwindling economics, neither the РТАК-30 nor its civil Mil Mi-30 sister did soar out in the new age of technology. In 1990 the whole program was stopped and both surviving РТАК-30 prototypes were mothballed – one (the 3rd prototype) was disassembled and its components brought to the Rostov-na-Donu Mil plant, while the other, prototype No. 1, is rumored to be stored at the Central Russian Air Force Museum in Monino, to be restored to a public exhibition piece some day.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: Two (pilot, copilot/WSO) plus space for up to three passengers or cargo

Length: 45 ft 7 1/2 in (13,93 m)

Rotor diameter: 20 ft 9 in (6,33 m)

Wingspan incl. engine nacelles: 42 ft 8 1/4 in (13,03 m)

Total width with rotors: 58 ft 8 1/2 in (17,93 m)

Height: 17 ft (5,18 m) at top of tailfin

Disc area: 4x 297 ft² (27,65 m²)

Wing area: 342.2 ft² (36,72 m²)

Empty weight: 8,500 kg (18,740 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 12,000 kg (26,500 lb)

 

Powerplant:

4× Klimov VK-2500PS-03 turboshaft turbines, 2,400 hp (1.765 kW) each

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 275 knots (509 km/h, 316 mph) at sea level

305 kn (565 km/h; 351 mph) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)

Cruise speed: 241 kn (277 mph, 446 km/h) at sea level

Stall speed: 110 kn (126 mph, 204 km/h) in airplane mode

Range: 879 nmi (1,011 mi, 1,627 km)

Combat radius: 390 nmi (426 mi, 722 km)

Ferry range: 1,940 nmi (2,230 mi, 3,590 km) with auxiliary external fuel tanks

Service ceiling: 25,000 ft (7,620 m)

Rate of climb: 2,320–4,000 ft/min (11.8 m/s)

Glide ratio: 4.5:1

Disc loading: 20.9 lb/ft² at 47,500 lb GW (102.23 kg/m²)

Power/mass: 0.259 hp/lb (427 W/kg)

 

Armament:

1× 30 mm (1.18 in) 2A42 multi-purpose autocannon with 450 rounds

7 external hardpoints for a maximum ordnance of 2.500 kg (5.500 lb)

  

The kit and its assembly:

This exotic, fictional aircraft-thing is a contribution to the “The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com in early 2019. While the propulsion system itself is not that unconventional, I deemed the quadrocopter concept (which had already been on my agenda for a while) to be suitable for a worthy submission.

The Mil Mi-30 tiltrotor aircraft, mentioned in the background above, was a real project – but my alternative combat vintoplan design is purely speculative.

 

I had already stashed away some donor parts, primarily two sets of tiltrotor backpacks for 1:144 Gundam mecha from Bandai, which had been released recently. While these looked a little toy-like, these parts had the charm of coming with handed propellers and stub wings that would allow the engine nacelles to swivel.

The search for a suitable fuselage turned out to be a more complex safari than expected. My initial choice was the spoofy Italeri Mi-28 kit (I initially wanted a staggered tandem cockpit), but it turned out to be much too big for what I wanted to achieve. Then I tested a “real” Mi-28 (Dragon) and a Ka-50 (Italeri), but both failed for different reasons – the Mi-28 was too slender, while the Ka-50 had the right size – but converting it for my build would have been VERY complicated, because the engine nacelles would have to go and the fuselage shape between the cockpit and the fuselage section around the original engines and stub wings would be hard to adapt. I eventually bought an Italeri Ka-52 two-seater as fuselage donor.

 

In order to mount the four engines to the fuselage I’d need two pairs of wings of appropriate span – and I found a pair of 1:100 A-10 wings as well as the wings from an 1:72 PZL Iskra (not perfect, but the most suitable donor parts I could find in the junkyard). On the tips of these wings, the swiveling joints for the engine nacelles from the Bandai set were glued. While mounting the rear wings was not too difficult (just the Ka-52’s OOB stabilizers had to go), the front pair of wings was more complex. The reason: the Ka-52’s engines had to go and their attachment points, which are actually shallow recesses on the kit, had to be faired over first. Instead of filling everything with putty I decided to cover the areas with 0.5mm styrene sheet first, and then do cosmetic PSR work. This worked quite well and also included a cover for the Ka-52’s original rotor mast mount. Onto these new flanks the pair of front wings was attached, in a mid position – a conceptual mistake…

 

The cockpit was taken OOB and the aircraft’s nose received an additional thimble radome, reminiscent of the Mi-28’s arrangement. The radome itself was created from a German 500 kg WWII bomb.

 

At this stage, the mid-wing mistake reared its ugly head – it had two painful consequences which I had not fully thought through. Problem #1: the engine nacelles turned out to be too long. When rotated into a vertical position, they’d potentially hit the ground! Furthermore, the ground clearance was very low – and I decided to skip the Ka-52’s OOB landing gear in favor of a heavier and esp. longer alternative, a full landing gear set from an Italeri MiG-37 “Ferret E” stealth fighter, which itself resembles a MiG-23/27 landing gear. Due to the expected higher speeds of the vintoplan I gave the landing gear full covers (partly scratched, plus some donor parts from an Academy MiG-27). It took some trials to get the new landing gear into the right position and a suitable stance – but it worked. With this benchmark I was also able to modify the engine nacelles, shortening their rear ends. They were still very (too!) close to the ground, but at least the model would not sit on them!

However, the more complete the model became, the more design flaws turned up. Another mistake is that the front and rear rotors slightly overlap when in vertical position – something that would be unthinkable in real life…

 

With all major components in place, however, detail work could proceed. This included the completion of the cockpit and the sensor turrets, the Ka-52 cannon and finally the ordnance. Due to the large rotors, any armament had to be concentrated around the fuselage, outside of the propeller discs. For this reason (and in order to prevent the rear engines to ingest exhaust gases from the front engines in level flight), I gave the front wings a slightly larger span, so that four underwing pylons could be fitted, plus a pair of underfuselage hardpoints.

The ordnance was puzzled together from the Italeri Ka-52 and from an ESCI Ka-34 (the fake Ka-50) kit.

  

Painting and markings:

With such an exotic aircraft, I rather wanted a conservative livery and opted for a typical Soviet tactical four-tone scheme from the Eighties – the idea was to build a prototype aircraft from the state acceptance trials period, not a flashy demonstrator. The scheme and the (guesstimated) colors were transferred from a Soviet air force MiG-21bis of that era, and it consists of a reddish light brown (Humbrol 119, Light Earth), a light, yellowish green (Humbrol 159, Khaki Drab), a bluish dark green (Humbrol 195, Dark Satin Green, a.k.a. RAL 6020 Chromdioxidgrün) and a dark brown (Humbrol 170, Brown Bess). For the undersides’ typical bluish grey I chose Humbrol 145 (FS 35237, Gray Blue), which is slightly lighter and less greenish than the typical Soviet tones. A light black ink wash was applied and some light post-shading was done in order to create panels that are structurally not there, augmented by some pencil lines.

 

The cockpit became light blue (Humbrol 89), with medium gray dashboard and consoles. The ejection seats received bright yellow seatbelts and bright blue pads – a detail seen on a Mi-28 cockpit picture.

Some dielectric fairings like the fin tip were painted in bright medium green (Humbrol 101), while some other antenna fairings were painted in pale yellow (Humbrol 71).

The landing gear struts and the interior of the wells became Aluminum Metalic (Humbrol 56), the wheels dark green discs (Humbrol 30).

 

The decals were puzzled together from various sources, including some Begemot sheets. Most of the stencils came from the Ka-52 OOB sheet, and generic decal sheet material was used to mark the walkways or the rotor tips and leading edges.

 

Only some light weathering was done to the leading edges of the wings, and then the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.

  

A complex kitbashing project, and it revealed some pitfalls in the course of making. However, the result looks menacing and still convincing, esp. in flight – even though the picture editing, with four artificially rotating proprotors, was probably more tedious than building the model itself!

The Woodlands is a master-planned community and a Census-designated place (CDP) in the U.S. state of Texas within the Houston metropolitan area.

 

Anadarko Tower - The tower was designed by the architect firm Gensler, and was developed by Patrinely Group. Construction was harsh because Marek Brothers Systems were given an aggressive 12-month deadline. The tower consist of 240 miles (390 km) of structural metals, 3 million board feet of various drywall components, is sprayed with 5,000 gallons of textured elastomeric sealants and is wrapped in 60,000 square feet (5,600 m2) of specialty fabrics. The 807,000 sq ft (75,000 m2). tower now serves as World Headquarters for Anadarko Petroleum Corp.[1] and is currently owned by Anadarko Realty Company.

   

Camera Nikon D7000

Exposure 30

Aperture f/11.0

Focal Length 11 mm

ISO Speed 200

 

Please press "L"

The picture didn't turn out - it was too dark outside.

 

I didn't want to toss it, since Polaroid film isn't cheap, so I got creative.

 

I wanna be a dirty punk! Oi! Oi! Oi! - O.P.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The РТАК-30 attack vintoplan (also known as vintokryl) owed its existence to the Mil Mi-30 plane/helicopter project that originated in 1972. The Mil Mi-30 was conceived as a transport aircraft that could hold up to 19 passengers or two tons of cargo, and its purpose was to replace the Mi-8 and Mi-17 Helicopters in both civil and military roles. With vertical takeoff through a pair of tiltrotor engine pods on the wing tips (similar in layout to the later V-22 Osprey) and the ability to fly like a normal plane, the Mil Mi-30 had a clear advantage over the older models.

 

Since the vintoplan concept was a completely new field of research and engineering, a dedicated design bureau was installed in the mid-Seventies at the Rostov-na-Donu helicopter factory, where most helicopters from the Mil design bureau were produced, under the title Ростов Тилт Ротор Авиационная Компания (Rostov Tilt Rotor Aircraft Company), or РТАК (RTRA), for short.

 

The vintoplan project lingered for some time, with basic research being conducted concerning aerodynamics, rotor design and flight control systems. Many findings later found their way into conventional planes and helicopters. At the beginning of the 1980s, the project had progressed far enough that the vintoplan received official backing so that РТАК scientists and Mil helicopter engineers assembled and tested several layouts and components for this complicated aircraft type.

At that time the Mil Mi-30 vintoplan was expected to use a single TV3-117 Turbo Shaft Engine with a four-bladed propeller rotors on each of its two pairs of stub wings of almost equal span. The engine was still installed in the fuselage and the proprotors driven by long shafts.

 

However, while being a very clean design, this original layout revealed several problems concerning aeroelasticity, dynamics of construction, characteristics for the converter apparatuses, aerodynamics and flight dynamics. In the course of further development stages and attempts to rectify the technical issues, the vintoplan layout went through several revisions. The layout shifted consequently from having 4 smaller engines in rotating pods on two pairs of stub wings through three engines with rotating nacelles on the front wings and a fixed, horizontal rotor over the tail and finally back to only 2 engines (much like the initial concept), but this time mounted in rotating nacelles on the wing tips and a canard stabilizer layout.

 

In August 1981 the Commission of the Presidium of the USSR Council of Ministers on weapons eventually issued a decree on the development of a flyworthy Mil Mi-30 vintoplan prototype. Shortly afterwards the military approved of the vintoplan, too, but desired bigger, more powerful engines in order to improve performance and weight capacity. In the course of the ensuing project refinement, the weight capacity was raised to 3-5 tons and the passenger limit to 32. In parallel, the modified type was also foreseen for civil operations as a short range feederliner, potentially replacing Yak-40 and An-24 airliners in Aeroflot service.

In 1982, РТАК took the interest from the military and proposed a dedicated attack vintoplan, based on former research and existing components of the original transport variant. This project was accepted by MAP and received the separate designation РТАК-30. However, despite having some close technical relations to the Mi-30 transport (primarily the engine nacelles, their rotation mechanism and the flight control systems), the РТАК-30 was a completely different aircraft. The timing was good, though, and the proposal was met with much interest, since the innovative vintoplan concept was to compete against traditional helicopters: the design work on the dedicated Mi-28 and Ka-50 attack helicopters had just started at that time, too, so that РТАК received green lights for the construction of five prototypes: four flyworthy machines plus one more for static ground tests.

 

The РТАК-30 was based on one of the early Mi-30 layouts and it combined two pairs of mid-set wings with different wing spans with a tall tail fin that ensured directional stability. Each wing carried a rotating engine nacelle with a so-called proprotor on its tip, each with three high aspect ratio blades. The proprotors were handed (i.e. revolved in opposite directions) in order to minimize torque effects and improve handling, esp. in the hover. The front and back pair of engines were cross-linked among each other on a common driveshaft, eliminating engine-out asymmetric thrust problems during V/STOL operations. In the event of the failure of one engine, it would automatically disconnect through torque spring clutches and both propellers on a pair of wings would be driven by the remaining engine.

Four engines were chosen because, despite the weight and complexity penalty, this extra power was expected to be required in order to achieve a performance that was markedly superior to a conventional helicopter like the Mi-24, the primary Soviet attack helicopter of that era the РТАК-30 was supposed to replace. It was also expected that the rotating nacelles could also be used to improve agility in level flight through a mild form of vectored thrust.

 

The РТАК-30’s streamlined fuselage provided ample space for avionics, fuel, a fully retractable tricycle landing gear and a two man crew in an armored side-by-side cockpit with ejection seats. The windshield was able to withstand 12.7–14.5 mm caliber bullets, the titanium cockpit tub could take hits from 20 mm cannon. An autonomous power unit (APU) was housed in the fuselage, too, making operations of the aircraft independent from ground support.

While the РТАК-30 was not intended for use as a transport, the fuselage was spacious enough to have a small compartment between the front wings spars, capable of carrying up to three people. The purpose of this was the rescue of downed helicopter crews, as a cargo hold esp. for transfer flights and as additional space for future mission equipment or extra fuel.

In vertical flight, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotor system used controls very similar to a twin or tandem-rotor helicopter. Yaw was controlled by tilting its rotors in opposite directions. Roll was provided through differential power or thrust, supported by ailerons on the rear wings. Pitch was provided through rotor cyclic or nacelle tilt and further aerodynamic surfaces on both pairs of wings. Vertical motion was controlled with conventional rotor blade pitch and a control similar to a fixed-wing engine control called a thrust control lever (TCL). The rotor heads had elastomeric bearings and the proprotor blades were made from composite materials, which could sustain 30 mm shells.

 

The РТАК-30 featured a helmet-mounted display for the pilot, a very modern development at its time. The pilot designated targets for the navigator/weapons officer, who proceeded to fire the weapons required to fulfill that particular task. The integrated surveillance and fire control system had two optical channels providing wide and narrow fields of view, a narrow-field-of-view optical television channel, and a laser rangefinder. The system could move within 110 degrees in azimuth and from +13 to −40 degrees in elevation and was placed in a spherical dome on top of the fuselage, just behind the cockpit.

 

The aircraft carried one automatic 2A42 30 mm internal gun, mounted semi-rigidly fixed near the center of the fuselage, movable only slightly in elevation and azimuth. The arrangement was also regarded as being more practical than a classic free-turning turret mount for the aircraft’s considerably higher flight speed than a normal helicopter. As a side effect, the semi-rigid mounting improved the cannon's accuracy, giving the 30 mm a longer practical range and better hit ratio at medium ranges. Ammunition supply was 460 rounds, with separate compartments for high-fragmentation, explosive incendiary, or armor-piercing rounds. The type of ammunition could be selected by the pilot during flight.

The gunner can select one of two rates of full automatic fire, low at 200 to 300 rds/min and high at 550 to 800 rds/min. The effective range when engaging ground targets such as light armored vehicles is 1,500 m, while soft-skinned targets can be engaged out to 4,000 m. Air targets can be engaged flying at low altitudes of up to 2,000 m and up to a slant range of 2,500 m.

 

A substantial range of weapons could be carried on four hardpoints under the front wings, plus three more under the fuselage, for a total ordnance of up to 2,500 kg (with reduced internal fuel). The РТАК-30‘s main armament comprised up to 24 laser-guided Vikhr missiles with a maximum range of some 8 km. These tube-launched missiles could be used against ground and aerial targets. A search and tracking radar was housed in a thimble radome on the РТАК-30’s nose and their laser guidance system (mounted in a separate turret under the radome) was reported to be virtually jam-proof. The system furthermore featured automatic guidance to the target, enabling evasive action immediately after missile launch. Alternatively, the system was also compatible with Ataka laser-guided anti-tank missiles.

Other weapon options included laser- or TV-guided Kh-25 missiles as well as iron bombs and napalm tanks of up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) caliber and several rocket pods, including the S-13 and S-8 rockets. The "dumb" rocket pods could be upgraded to laser guidance with the proposed Ugroza system. Against helicopters and aircraft the РТАК-30 could carry up to four R-60 and/or R-73 IR-guided AAMs. Drop tanks and gun pods could be carried, too.

 

When the РТАК-30's proprotors were perpendicular to the motion in the high-speed portions of the flight regime, the aircraft demonstrated a relatively high maximum speed: over 300 knots/560 km/h top speed were achieved during state acceptance trials in 1987, as well as sustained cruise speeds of 250 knots/460 km/h, which was almost twice as fast as a conventional helicopter. Furthermore, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotors and stub wings provided the aircraft with a substantially greater cruise altitude capability than conventional helicopters: during the prototypes’ tests the machines easily reached 6,000 m / 20,000 ft or more, whereas helicopters typically do not exceed 3,000 m / 10,000 ft altitude.

 

Flight tests in general and flight control system refinement in specific lasted until late 1988, and while the vintoplan concept proved to be sound, the technical and practical problems persisted. The aircraft was complex and heavy, and pilots found the machine to be hazardous to land, due to its low ground clearance. Due to structural limits the machine could also never be brought to its expected agility limits

During that time the Soviet Union’s internal tensions rose and more and more hampered the РТАК-30’s development. During this time, two of the prototypes were lost (the 1st and 4th machine) in accidents, and in 1989 only two machines were left in flightworthy condition (the 5th airframe had been set aside for structural ground tests). Nevertheless, the РТАК-30 made its public debut at the Paris Air Show in June 1989 (the 3rd prototype, coded “33 Yellow”), together with the Mi-28A, but was only shown in static display and did not take part in any flight show. After that, the aircraft received the NATO ASCC code "Hemlock" and caused serious concern in Western military headquarters, since the РТАК-30 had the potential to dominate the European battlefield.

 

And this was just about to happen: Despite the РТАК-30’s development problems, the innovative attack vintoplan was included in the Soviet Union’s 5-year plan for 1989-1995, and the vehicle was eventually expected to enter service in 1996. However, due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dwindling economics, neither the РТАК-30 nor its civil Mil Mi-30 sister did soar out in the new age of technology. In 1990 the whole program was stopped and both surviving РТАК-30 prototypes were mothballed – one (the 3rd prototype) was disassembled and its components brought to the Rostov-na-Donu Mil plant, while the other, prototype No. 1, is rumored to be stored at the Central Russian Air Force Museum in Monino, to be restored to a public exhibition piece some day.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: Two (pilot, copilot/WSO) plus space for up to three passengers or cargo

Length: 45 ft 7 1/2 in (13,93 m)

Rotor diameter: 20 ft 9 in (6,33 m)

Wingspan incl. engine nacelles: 42 ft 8 1/4 in (13,03 m)

Total width with rotors: 58 ft 8 1/2 in (17,93 m)

Height: 17 ft (5,18 m) at top of tailfin

Disc area: 4x 297 ft² (27,65 m²)

Wing area: 342.2 ft² (36,72 m²)

Empty weight: 8,500 kg (18,740 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 12,000 kg (26,500 lb)

 

Powerplant:

4× Klimov VK-2500PS-03 turboshaft turbines, 2,400 hp (1.765 kW) each

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 275 knots (509 km/h, 316 mph) at sea level

305 kn (565 km/h; 351 mph) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)

Cruise speed: 241 kn (277 mph, 446 km/h) at sea level

Stall speed: 110 kn (126 mph, 204 km/h) in airplane mode

Range: 879 nmi (1,011 mi, 1,627 km)

Combat radius: 390 nmi (426 mi, 722 km)

Ferry range: 1,940 nmi (2,230 mi, 3,590 km) with auxiliary external fuel tanks

Service ceiling: 25,000 ft (7,620 m)

Rate of climb: 2,320–4,000 ft/min (11.8 m/s)

Glide ratio: 4.5:1

Disc loading: 20.9 lb/ft² at 47,500 lb GW (102.23 kg/m²)

Power/mass: 0.259 hp/lb (427 W/kg)

 

Armament:

1× 30 mm (1.18 in) 2A42 multi-purpose autocannon with 450 rounds

7 external hardpoints for a maximum ordnance of 2.500 kg (5.500 lb)

  

The kit and its assembly:

This exotic, fictional aircraft-thing is a contribution to the “The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com in early 2019. While the propulsion system itself is not that unconventional, I deemed the quadrocopter concept (which had already been on my agenda for a while) to be suitable for a worthy submission.

The Mil Mi-30 tiltrotor aircraft, mentioned in the background above, was a real project – but my alternative combat vintoplan design is purely speculative.

 

I had already stashed away some donor parts, primarily two sets of tiltrotor backpacks for 1:144 Gundam mecha from Bandai, which had been released recently. While these looked a little toy-like, these parts had the charm of coming with handed propellers and stub wings that would allow the engine nacelles to swivel.

The search for a suitable fuselage turned out to be a more complex safari than expected. My initial choice was the spoofy Italeri Mi-28 kit (I initially wanted a staggered tandem cockpit), but it turned out to be much too big for what I wanted to achieve. Then I tested a “real” Mi-28 (Dragon) and a Ka-50 (Italeri), but both failed for different reasons – the Mi-28 was too slender, while the Ka-50 had the right size – but converting it for my build would have been VERY complicated, because the engine nacelles would have to go and the fuselage shape between the cockpit and the fuselage section around the original engines and stub wings would be hard to adapt. I eventually bought an Italeri Ka-52 two-seater as fuselage donor.

 

In order to mount the four engines to the fuselage I’d need two pairs of wings of appropriate span – and I found a pair of 1:100 A-10 wings as well as the wings from an 1:72 PZL Iskra (not perfect, but the most suitable donor parts I could find in the junkyard). On the tips of these wings, the swiveling joints for the engine nacelles from the Bandai set were glued. While mounting the rear wings was not too difficult (just the Ka-52’s OOB stabilizers had to go), the front pair of wings was more complex. The reason: the Ka-52’s engines had to go and their attachment points, which are actually shallow recesses on the kit, had to be faired over first. Instead of filling everything with putty I decided to cover the areas with 0.5mm styrene sheet first, and then do cosmetic PSR work. This worked quite well and also included a cover for the Ka-52’s original rotor mast mount. Onto these new flanks the pair of front wings was attached, in a mid position – a conceptual mistake…

 

The cockpit was taken OOB and the aircraft’s nose received an additional thimble radome, reminiscent of the Mi-28’s arrangement. The radome itself was created from a German 500 kg WWII bomb.

 

At this stage, the mid-wing mistake reared its ugly head – it had two painful consequences which I had not fully thought through. Problem #1: the engine nacelles turned out to be too long. When rotated into a vertical position, they’d potentially hit the ground! Furthermore, the ground clearance was very low – and I decided to skip the Ka-52’s OOB landing gear in favor of a heavier and esp. longer alternative, a full landing gear set from an Italeri MiG-37 “Ferret E” stealth fighter, which itself resembles a MiG-23/27 landing gear. Due to the expected higher speeds of the vintoplan I gave the landing gear full covers (partly scratched, plus some donor parts from an Academy MiG-27). It took some trials to get the new landing gear into the right position and a suitable stance – but it worked. With this benchmark I was also able to modify the engine nacelles, shortening their rear ends. They were still very (too!) close to the ground, but at least the model would not sit on them!

However, the more complete the model became, the more design flaws turned up. Another mistake is that the front and rear rotors slightly overlap when in vertical position – something that would be unthinkable in real life…

 

With all major components in place, however, detail work could proceed. This included the completion of the cockpit and the sensor turrets, the Ka-52 cannon and finally the ordnance. Due to the large rotors, any armament had to be concentrated around the fuselage, outside of the propeller discs. For this reason (and in order to prevent the rear engines to ingest exhaust gases from the front engines in level flight), I gave the front wings a slightly larger span, so that four underwing pylons could be fitted, plus a pair of underfuselage hardpoints.

The ordnance was puzzled together from the Italeri Ka-52 and from an ESCI Ka-34 (the fake Ka-50) kit.

  

Painting and markings:

With such an exotic aircraft, I rather wanted a conservative livery and opted for a typical Soviet tactical four-tone scheme from the Eighties – the idea was to build a prototype aircraft from the state acceptance trials period, not a flashy demonstrator. The scheme and the (guesstimated) colors were transferred from a Soviet air force MiG-21bis of that era, and it consists of a reddish light brown (Humbrol 119, Light Earth), a light, yellowish green (Humbrol 159, Khaki Drab), a bluish dark green (Humbrol 195, Dark Satin Green, a.k.a. RAL 6020 Chromdioxidgrün) and a dark brown (Humbrol 170, Brown Bess). For the undersides’ typical bluish grey I chose Humbrol 145 (FS 35237, Gray Blue), which is slightly lighter and less greenish than the typical Soviet tones. A light black ink wash was applied and some light post-shading was done in order to create panels that are structurally not there, augmented by some pencil lines.

 

The cockpit became light blue (Humbrol 89), with medium gray dashboard and consoles. The ejection seats received bright yellow seatbelts and bright blue pads – a detail seen on a Mi-28 cockpit picture.

Some dielectric fairings like the fin tip were painted in bright medium green (Humbrol 101), while some other antenna fairings were painted in pale yellow (Humbrol 71).

The landing gear struts and the interior of the wells became Aluminum Metalic (Humbrol 56), the wheels dark green discs (Humbrol 30).

 

The decals were puzzled together from various sources, including some Begemot sheets. Most of the stencils came from the Ka-52 OOB sheet, and generic decal sheet material was used to mark the walkways or the rotor tips and leading edges.

 

Only some light weathering was done to the leading edges of the wings, and then the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.

  

A complex kitbashing project, and it revealed some pitfalls in the course of making. However, the result looks menacing and still convincing, esp. in flight – even though the picture editing, with four artificially rotating proprotors, was probably more tedious than building the model itself!

Mr. Oinkers: "You should write a song called 'Fuck Bacon.'"

 

Nixon: "That would needlessly alienate a large portion of my potential audience, Mr. Oinkers."

 

Mr. Oinkers: "What was that, Nixon? I couldn't hear you over the sound of selling out."

 

Nixon: "DAMNIT, MR. OINKERS! WE'RE NOT IN HIGH SCHOOL ANYMORE! ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES!"

 

;)

 

- O.P.

 

(For more livestock high-jinks, visit: prichardnixon.bandcamp.com/.)

Good morning, everyone!

 

The first Friday of the month is upon us, and you know what that means: another new song from the Prichard Nixon playbook! I am pleased to announce that “Hot Goat Yoga”, the much-anticipated follow-up single to “King Kong”, has officially been released online via Bandcamp and Copyright Records! Give it a spin and pass it along at: prichardnixon.bandcamp.com/track/hot-goat-yoga.

 

Today is Bandcamp Friday, which means 100% of proceeds from album sales go directly to the artist. If you like what you hear and are feeling generous, please feel encouraged to make a purchase in the monetary amount of your choice. 100% of all proceeds go directly to the Prichard Nixon Peperoni Pizza Fund (or P.N.P.P.F., pronounced "pin-piff-ah", for short.) 😊

 

What originally began life as a 25-second snippet of luscious four-part harmonies has evolved into a fully-fledged song, complete with singalong-ready choruses, a humorously thoughtful verse, and a legitimate bridge and breakdown. “Hot Goat Yoga” is additionally unique for two reasons: it is the first Prichard Nixon song completely written on an outside instrument (acoustic guitar), and it is the longest Prichard Nixon song to date (clocking in at 1:53.) Do not fret, however: the intricate vocal interplay inherent in all of my releases remains fully intact.

 

I would also like to thank everyone who took time to listen to and comment on the previous single “King Kong” (prichardnixon.bandcamp.com/track/king-kong.) It was never considered for release as a single until Karina’s mock-up album cover caught my attention, and I was very leery about releasing it due to its lyrical content. It turns out I had nothing to fear - I received more unsolicited comments on that song than on any other Prichard Nixon song so far, and the critical response was overwhelmingly positive. As for the lyrical content, it appears I was the only one squeamish about my potty mouth. Maybe I should take that as a sign and stop being such a prude! Y.O.L.O.!

 

As for the rest of the year: there are two more first-Fridays remaining. The song for November remains undecided as of this writing. Animals: Volume I, the first installment of the Prichard Nixon Animals series, is scheduled for release on Friday, December 3 (as long as every song meets or exceeds my grueling quality control standards.) Brace yourselves for pandemonium.

 

As always, if you like what you hear, please take a moment to pass the masterworks of Prichard Nixon along to family and friends. Every new play helps the cause and I appreciate your support more than words can describe.

 

You can always drop me a line at prichardnixon@yahoo.com as well. Constructive feedback, questions, comments and requests are all welcome and appreciated.

 

Thank you for your continued interest in this sonic experiment of mine. Until next time, the politics of Prichard Nixon bids you farewell. Enjoy the music and I will catch you on the next one.

 

Sincerely,

 

Prichard Nixon

Desert Hot Springs, CA

October 1, 2021

Website: prichardnixon.bandcamp.com/

Animals, the second album by my musically-inclined alter ego Prichard Nixon, is slated for release next Tuesday, February 1st.

 

Just in time for my birthday.

 

Electronic press kits have been successfully disseminated to all radio stations, newspaper, magazine and media outlets in the Greater Coachella Valley.

 

The last few months were filled with soul-scraping depression and existential decay . . . but here I am. It feels good to look to the heavens and say, "Kiss my ass, Universe. You can't keep me down."

 

There will be more to come. I know I have some catching up to do. I appreciate your patience in hanging in there with me.

 

In the meantime, I have uploaded several remastered tracks from the forthcoming Animals album to the official Prichard Nixon website. Give 'em a spin at prichardnixon.bandcamp.com/.

 

That's all I have for now. Thank you again, everyone. Much love and until next time, take care of one another.

 

Sincerely,

 

- O . . . Phuck!™

 

Post Script: This wicked portrait was drawn by my good friend Alex Silber. Buy the man a beer!

A Genuine Example of One of the Eleven 1971 Hemi ‘Cuda Convertibles

 

500+hp, 425hp rated, 426 cu. in. vee eight-cylinder engine, dual four-barrel carburetors, four-speed manual transmission, Hurst pistol grip shifter, independent front suspension with torsion bars, live axle rear suspension with semi-elliptical leaf springs, front disc, rear drum power assisted hydraulic brakes. Wheelbase: 108"

 

Three times Chrysler Corporation has relied upon the Hemi to transform its products and image from dull to sparkling, and three times the Hemi has delivered. In an American car market that has been characterized by glitz, fins and bulk, the technical sophistication of Chrysler’s hemispherical combustion chamber V8 engine has been a refreshing demonstration of the appeal of elegant, thoughtful engineering.

 

In the late 60’s and early 70’s it also acquired a bad boy image of politically incorrect power and performance, establishing a mythical presence that has made the Hemi a legend.

 

Hemi History

 

During development work on World War II aircraft engines, Chrysler’s engineers had seen firsthand the potential for hemispherical combustion chamber engines. In addition to the thermal efficiency of the hemi chamber’s low surface area and its low-restriction cross-flow porting, the angle between the valves ideally disposed the ports for efficient breathing in a

vee-layout engine.

 

Chrysler was the ideal company to pursue the hemispherical combustion chamber V8. It had a longstanding tradition of investigating, developing and perfecting advanced engineering ideas. Unlike its major competitors, Chrysler had neither overhead valve nor vee-configuration engine history, and thus no preconceived notions of how it should be done. Its engine designers could – and did – explore every conceivable engine idea. Their research showed that the hemispherical combustion chamber not only gave better performance than a comparable wedge-chamber head but also tolerated appreciably higher compression ratios.

 

The hemispherical head V8 was introduced in the Chrysler line in 1951. With 331 cubic inches displacement in a short stroke oversquare design, Chrysler’s FirePower V8 delivered 180 horsepower at 4,000 rpm and 312 lb-ft torque at 2,000 rpm. The performance potential of the Hemi was quickly recognized, most famously with the Chrysler C300 and its successors, which set the pace both on the highway and on NASCAR’s speedways. By 1958, however, manufacturing economics swung the pendulum in favor of the wedge-chamber V8s. The Hemi was phased out in 1959 … but not for long.

 

In the early 60s the 413 and 426 Wedge engines were dominant in drag racing but lacked the continuous high rpm performance needed on NASCAR’s speedways. Dodge and Plymouth were being trounced, a situation that couldn’t be allowed to stand. Faced with a need to develop a high performance, free-breathing engine quickly, Chrysler’s engineers turned to the solution they already knew worked, the Hemi. They stuck with the overall dimensions of the Raised Block 426 Wedge so existing fixturing and machining setups could be employed and maintained the original Hemi’s dual rocker shafts and 58° valve included angle. To adapt the Hemi head to the Raised Block engine, the ingenious Chrysler engineers rotated the combustion chamber toward the engine’s centerline about 8 1/2°.

 

Completed and delivered to the track just days before the 1964 Daytona 500’s green flag, the 426 Hemis proved to be invincible, sweeping the top three places in NASCAR’s most important race.

 

Production of the second generation Hemi ended after the 1971 model year as emission restrictions and insurance surcharges gave horsepower, which had never been entirely socially acceptable, a distinctly antisocial taint. Chrysler would twice more resurrect the Hemi, however, first as a crate engine program for hot rodders and later as a third generation production engine that brought DaimlerChrysler back to the forefront of performance at the beginning of the 21st century. Like some other forms of antisocial behavior, horsepower has proven to be addictive.

 

The Hemi ‘Cuda

 

Of all the Street Hemis built, the most famous, attractive and desirable are the 1970-1971 E-body Plymouth ‘Cudas, combining the visceral delight of the Hemi’s power and torque with the ‘Cuda’s lightweight, streamlined and refined 2+2 platform.

 

The first Barracuda was introduced in 1964 and in the late 60’s Chrysler engineering and Hurst performance shoehorned Race Hemi engines into the Barracuda’s engine compartment for NHRA drag racing. Seventy-five were built, sold and successfully campaigned around the country. When the Barracuda was redesigned for the 1970 model year the engine compartment was made large enough for the legendary 425 horsepower 426 cubic inch Street Hemi.

 

The Plymouth Barracuda was the cleanest, most refined and elegant of all the pony car designs. Distinguished by its wide grille, long, flat hood, short rear deck and ominously raised rear fenders – deliberately shaped like the haunches of an animal crouching before a leap – the appearance of the ‘Cuda left no doubt that this was a serious performance car.

 

Hemi-powered ‘Cudas are surpassingly rare. Built for only two years, 1970 and 1971, their low production numbers reflect the undeniable fact that the combination of the ‘Cuda platform and the Street Hemi engine was irrationally fast. It also was expensive: $871.45 in 1970 and $883.90 in 1971, a prohibitive 70% more than the 390 horsepower 440 Six Barrel.

 

A Hemi ‘Cuda was not for the faint of heart nor for the cautious of pocketbook. Buying one took serious commitment, backed up by an ample budget. In 1971 there were only 119 souls brave and prosperous enough to make the commitment to check off E74, the Street Hemi’s order code, on the ‘Cuda order form.

 

• 108 of them ordered hardtops

• Only eleven stepped up for the top-of-the-line ‘Cuda convertible powered by the 426 cubic inch, 425 horsepower dual quad Street Hemi.

• Only three of those were confident enough of their driving skills to opt for the Hurst pistol grip shifted four-speed manual transmission.

• Only two of those were delivered in the U.S.

• Both U.S.-delivered ’71 Hemi ‘Cuda convertibles were B5 Blue with

matching interiors.

 

That’s only three, in all the world, that combined the Street Hemi engine with the ‘Cuda convertible body and 4-speed transmission in 1971. One of them is the car offered here, BS27R1B269588, the only one with white soft top and elastomeric front bumper cover.

 

The “Mountain Mopar” Hemi ‘Cuda Convertible

 

Built in February of 1971, this Plymouth Hemi ‘Cuda convertible’s first owner, Ronald Ambach, lived in St. Louis, Missouri. He owned it only until the fall, accumulating the car’s only street miles, before selling it to its next owner, Nick Masciarelli, in Ohio. He decided to take the Hemi ‘Cuda Stock Eliminator drag racing and turned to renowned Detroit-area engine builder Tom Tignanelli for a hot Hemi V8. The new owner was in a hurry, and the quickest way to meet his request was to swap the original engine for a fresh race-prepared Tignanelli Hemi.

 

In May of 1973, the Hemi ‘Cuda convertible was sold to John Book and partner John Oliverio in West Virginia who raced it in East Coast and Mid-Atlantic events during 1973 and 1974. Its dramatic appearance, complete with gold-leaf “Mountain Mopar” identification, is documented in several period photos in the car’s documentation file.

 

Fortunately for today’s collectors, the “Mountain Mopar” Hemi ‘Cuda convertible was retired after 1974 and stored in a climate-controlled building in West Virginia. In 1989 it was sold to the Painter brothers. Two years later it was acquired by Milt Robson in Atlanta, Georgia, still in its as-raced condition. Robson commenced a comprehensive restoration using original or new-old-stock parts to its original, as-delivered condition in his shops, which was completed in the early 90’s. Stored inside for virtually its entire life, 269588 was never subjected to the vicissitudes of the elements which afflicted most of its siblings; its original sheet metal and interior are carefully restored and retained. The engine was rebuilt around a correct 1/19/1970 date-coded Chrysler NOS block.

 

In addition to the 426/425 horsepower dual quad Street Hemi and pistol grip Hurst shifted four-speed manual transmission, this unique 1971 Hemi ‘Cuda convertible is equipped with power steering, power brakes, Dana Super Track Pack and AM-FM radio. Importantly, it is the only ’71 Hemi ‘Cuda convertible known to have been delivered with the body-colored Elastomeric front bumper cover. Its original configuration is verified by two separate original build sheets; the ownership history is documented with a continuous sequence of titles. It has been personally viewed by Galen Govier and authenticated by him as one of the seven US-delivered ’71 Hemi ‘Cuda convertibles which have been included in the Chrysler Registry.

 

Finished in B5 Blue inside and out with a white vinyl top, it has been restored to better than showroom condition. Particular attention has been paid to the accuracy of its components and finishes and to the preservation of as much as possible of its almost unbelievable originality, including the carefully preserved original interior.

 

It has been shown only in local shows around Atlanta in the mid 90s, was featured a decade ago in a May 1995 Car Collector magazine article by Dennis Adler and has appeared in several books, copies of which come with the car.

 

Putting a free-breathing, high-rpm engine like the 426 Hemi in a lithe, frisky chassis like the ‘Cuda was exactly what the forces of political correctness inveighed against in the early 70s. In 1972 the Hemi was gone for the second time, its visceral appeal buried in a cascade of social responsibility, “net” horsepower and Highway Fuel Economy ratings. There is nothing politically correct, nothing socially responsible about a Hemi ‘Cuda. The 1971 Plymouth Hemi ‘Cuda convertible is wretched excess in a nearly unimaginably limited production package.

 

This is absolutely the most desirable, rare and handsome of all the American Muscle and Pony Cars. Combining the brute power and torque of the legendary dual quad Street Hemi engine with the sleek, aggressive lines of the ‘Cuda convertible, it is the ultimate combination of personal car style and Muscle Car performance, a singular example and the quintessential muscle car of all time.

 

[Text from RM Auctions]

 

www.rmauctions.com/lots/lot.cfm?lot_id=132126

 

This Lego miniland-scale Plymouth HEMI ' Cuda Convertible (1971), has been created for Flickr LUGNuts' 89th Build Challenge, - "Over a Million, Under a Thousand", - a challenge to build vehicles valued over one million (US) dollars, or under one thousand (US) dollars.

 

This particular vehicle was auctioned by the RM Auction house for US$2,420,000)

Courtesy of Karina Natalie Hahn, the Weepbot Humanoid Queen.

 

October is not an easy month for me, and neither is the first week of November. I've kept myself busy, what with hiding out, shaving my head, screening my calls and covering my tracks.

 

Now it's time to move on and finish this year strong. Prioritize, execute and keep moving forward. Regret can wait.

 

I'm playing catch-up for last month's absence. New music and doodles and photography are pending. This is just me checking in.

 

Bear with me (or don't, I'll understand) and I will catch you all on the next one. Stay fierce. - O.P.

I just listened to the completed master of "Hot Goat Yoga." Everything sounds ace.

 

The album cover and liner notes are all ready for release this coming Friday, October 1.

 

Now I just need to find me some venture capitalists . . .

 

Nixon: "I am interested in opening a Hot Goat Yoga studio on the island of Fiji."

 

*The board members pontificate for several minutes*

 

Chairman: "We're interested. What do you need from us, son?"

 

Nixon: "I need some baby goats and a hot, hot room. Leave the rest to me."

 

(For more livestock high-jinks, visit: prichardnixon.bandcamp.com/.)

She goes by many names (Olive, Kil'r Beez, Charlotte, Thunder Mug, Short Shit, Chompers, White Lightening, Moonshine, Chutzpah, Putz, Fluffy, etc.) but Rambo is the name she has earned, and our family is all the better because of her.

 

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The РТАК-30 attack vintoplan (also known as vintokryl) owed its existence to the Mil Mi-30 plane/helicopter project that originated in 1972. The Mil Mi-30 was conceived as a transport aircraft that could hold up to 19 passengers or two tons of cargo, and its purpose was to replace the Mi-8 and Mi-17 Helicopters in both civil and military roles. With vertical takeoff through a pair of tiltrotor engine pods on the wing tips (similar in layout to the later V-22 Osprey) and the ability to fly like a normal plane, the Mil Mi-30 had a clear advantage over the older models.

 

Since the vintoplan concept was a completely new field of research and engineering, a dedicated design bureau was installed in the mid-Seventies at the Rostov-na-Donu helicopter factory, where most helicopters from the Mil design bureau were produced, under the title Ростов Тилт Ротор Авиационная Компания (Rostov Tilt Rotor Aircraft Company), or РТАК (RTRA), for short.

 

The vintoplan project lingered for some time, with basic research being conducted concerning aerodynamics, rotor design and flight control systems. Many findings later found their way into conventional planes and helicopters. At the beginning of the 1980s, the project had progressed far enough that the vintoplan received official backing so that РТАК scientists and Mil helicopter engineers assembled and tested several layouts and components for this complicated aircraft type.

At that time the Mil Mi-30 vintoplan was expected to use a single TV3-117 Turbo Shaft Engine with a four-bladed propeller rotors on each of its two pairs of stub wings of almost equal span. The engine was still installed in the fuselage and the proprotors driven by long shafts.

 

However, while being a very clean design, this original layout revealed several problems concerning aeroelasticity, dynamics of construction, characteristics for the converter apparatuses, aerodynamics and flight dynamics. In the course of further development stages and attempts to rectify the technical issues, the vintoplan layout went through several revisions. The layout shifted consequently from having 4 smaller engines in rotating pods on two pairs of stub wings through three engines with rotating nacelles on the front wings and a fixed, horizontal rotor over the tail and finally back to only 2 engines (much like the initial concept), but this time mounted in rotating nacelles on the wing tips and a canard stabilizer layout.

 

In August 1981 the Commission of the Presidium of the USSR Council of Ministers on weapons eventually issued a decree on the development of a flyworthy Mil Mi-30 vintoplan prototype. Shortly afterwards the military approved of the vintoplan, too, but desired bigger, more powerful engines in order to improve performance and weight capacity. In the course of the ensuing project refinement, the weight capacity was raised to 3-5 tons and the passenger limit to 32. In parallel, the modified type was also foreseen for civil operations as a short range feederliner, potentially replacing Yak-40 and An-24 airliners in Aeroflot service.

In 1982, РТАК took the interest from the military and proposed a dedicated attack vintoplan, based on former research and existing components of the original transport variant. This project was accepted by MAP and received the separate designation РТАК-30. However, despite having some close technical relations to the Mi-30 transport (primarily the engine nacelles, their rotation mechanism and the flight control systems), the РТАК-30 was a completely different aircraft. The timing was good, though, and the proposal was met with much interest, since the innovative vintoplan concept was to compete against traditional helicopters: the design work on the dedicated Mi-28 and Ka-50 attack helicopters had just started at that time, too, so that РТАК received green lights for the construction of five prototypes: four flyworthy machines plus one more for static ground tests.

 

The РТАК-30 was based on one of the early Mi-30 layouts and it combined two pairs of mid-set wings with different wing spans with a tall tail fin that ensured directional stability. Each wing carried a rotating engine nacelle with a so-called proprotor on its tip, each with three high aspect ratio blades. The proprotors were handed (i.e. revolved in opposite directions) in order to minimize torque effects and improve handling, esp. in the hover. The front and back pair of engines were cross-linked among each other on a common driveshaft, eliminating engine-out asymmetric thrust problems during V/STOL operations. In the event of the failure of one engine, it would automatically disconnect through torque spring clutches and both propellers on a pair of wings would be driven by the remaining engine.

Four engines were chosen because, despite the weight and complexity penalty, this extra power was expected to be required in order to achieve a performance that was markedly superior to a conventional helicopter like the Mi-24, the primary Soviet attack helicopter of that era the РТАК-30 was supposed to replace. It was also expected that the rotating nacelles could also be used to improve agility in level flight through a mild form of vectored thrust.

 

The РТАК-30’s streamlined fuselage provided ample space for avionics, fuel, a fully retractable tricycle landing gear and a two man crew in an armored side-by-side cockpit with ejection seats. The windshield was able to withstand 12.7–14.5 mm caliber bullets, the titanium cockpit tub could take hits from 20 mm cannon. An autonomous power unit (APU) was housed in the fuselage, too, making operations of the aircraft independent from ground support.

While the РТАК-30 was not intended for use as a transport, the fuselage was spacious enough to have a small compartment between the front wings spars, capable of carrying up to three people. The purpose of this was the rescue of downed helicopter crews, as a cargo hold esp. for transfer flights and as additional space for future mission equipment or extra fuel.

In vertical flight, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotor system used controls very similar to a twin or tandem-rotor helicopter. Yaw was controlled by tilting its rotors in opposite directions. Roll was provided through differential power or thrust, supported by ailerons on the rear wings. Pitch was provided through rotor cyclic or nacelle tilt and further aerodynamic surfaces on both pairs of wings. Vertical motion was controlled with conventional rotor blade pitch and a control similar to a fixed-wing engine control called a thrust control lever (TCL). The rotor heads had elastomeric bearings and the proprotor blades were made from composite materials, which could sustain 30 mm shells.

 

The РТАК-30 featured a helmet-mounted display for the pilot, a very modern development at its time. The pilot designated targets for the navigator/weapons officer, who proceeded to fire the weapons required to fulfill that particular task. The integrated surveillance and fire control system had two optical channels providing wide and narrow fields of view, a narrow-field-of-view optical television channel, and a laser rangefinder. The system could move within 110 degrees in azimuth and from +13 to −40 degrees in elevation and was placed in a spherical dome on top of the fuselage, just behind the cockpit.

 

The aircraft carried one automatic 2A42 30 mm internal gun, mounted semi-rigidly fixed near the center of the fuselage, movable only slightly in elevation and azimuth. The arrangement was also regarded as being more practical than a classic free-turning turret mount for the aircraft’s considerably higher flight speed than a normal helicopter. As a side effect, the semi-rigid mounting improved the cannon's accuracy, giving the 30 mm a longer practical range and better hit ratio at medium ranges. Ammunition supply was 460 rounds, with separate compartments for high-fragmentation, explosive incendiary, or armor-piercing rounds. The type of ammunition could be selected by the pilot during flight.

The gunner can select one of two rates of full automatic fire, low at 200 to 300 rds/min and high at 550 to 800 rds/min. The effective range when engaging ground targets such as light armored vehicles is 1,500 m, while soft-skinned targets can be engaged out to 4,000 m. Air targets can be engaged flying at low altitudes of up to 2,000 m and up to a slant range of 2,500 m.

 

A substantial range of weapons could be carried on four hardpoints under the front wings, plus three more under the fuselage, for a total ordnance of up to 2,500 kg (with reduced internal fuel). The РТАК-30‘s main armament comprised up to 24 laser-guided Vikhr missiles with a maximum range of some 8 km. These tube-launched missiles could be used against ground and aerial targets. A search and tracking radar was housed in a thimble radome on the РТАК-30’s nose and their laser guidance system (mounted in a separate turret under the radome) was reported to be virtually jam-proof. The system furthermore featured automatic guidance to the target, enabling evasive action immediately after missile launch. Alternatively, the system was also compatible with Ataka laser-guided anti-tank missiles.

Other weapon options included laser- or TV-guided Kh-25 missiles as well as iron bombs and napalm tanks of up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) caliber and several rocket pods, including the S-13 and S-8 rockets. The "dumb" rocket pods could be upgraded to laser guidance with the proposed Ugroza system. Against helicopters and aircraft the РТАК-30 could carry up to four R-60 and/or R-73 IR-guided AAMs. Drop tanks and gun pods could be carried, too.

 

When the РТАК-30's proprotors were perpendicular to the motion in the high-speed portions of the flight regime, the aircraft demonstrated a relatively high maximum speed: over 300 knots/560 km/h top speed were achieved during state acceptance trials in 1987, as well as sustained cruise speeds of 250 knots/460 km/h, which was almost twice as fast as a conventional helicopter. Furthermore, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotors and stub wings provided the aircraft with a substantially greater cruise altitude capability than conventional helicopters: during the prototypes’ tests the machines easily reached 6,000 m / 20,000 ft or more, whereas helicopters typically do not exceed 3,000 m / 10,000 ft altitude.

 

Flight tests in general and flight control system refinement in specific lasted until late 1988, and while the vintoplan concept proved to be sound, the technical and practical problems persisted. The aircraft was complex and heavy, and pilots found the machine to be hazardous to land, due to its low ground clearance. Due to structural limits the machine could also never be brought to its expected agility limits

During that time the Soviet Union’s internal tensions rose and more and more hampered the РТАК-30’s development. During this time, two of the prototypes were lost (the 1st and 4th machine) in accidents, and in 1989 only two machines were left in flightworthy condition (the 5th airframe had been set aside for structural ground tests). Nevertheless, the РТАК-30 made its public debut at the Paris Air Show in June 1989 (the 3rd prototype, coded “33 Yellow”), together with the Mi-28A, but was only shown in static display and did not take part in any flight show. After that, the aircraft received the NATO ASCC code "Hemlock" and caused serious concern in Western military headquarters, since the РТАК-30 had the potential to dominate the European battlefield.

 

And this was just about to happen: Despite the РТАК-30’s development problems, the innovative attack vintoplan was included in the Soviet Union’s 5-year plan for 1989-1995, and the vehicle was eventually expected to enter service in 1996. However, due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dwindling economics, neither the РТАК-30 nor its civil Mil Mi-30 sister did soar out in the new age of technology. In 1990 the whole program was stopped and both surviving РТАК-30 prototypes were mothballed – one (the 3rd prototype) was disassembled and its components brought to the Rostov-na-Donu Mil plant, while the other, prototype No. 1, is rumored to be stored at the Central Russian Air Force Museum in Monino, to be restored to a public exhibition piece some day.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: Two (pilot, copilot/WSO) plus space for up to three passengers or cargo

Length: 45 ft 7 1/2 in (13,93 m)

Rotor diameter: 20 ft 9 in (6,33 m)

Wingspan incl. engine nacelles: 42 ft 8 1/4 in (13,03 m)

Total width with rotors: 58 ft 8 1/2 in (17,93 m)

Height: 17 ft (5,18 m) at top of tailfin

Disc area: 4x 297 ft² (27,65 m²)

Wing area: 342.2 ft² (36,72 m²)

Empty weight: 8,500 kg (18,740 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 12,000 kg (26,500 lb)

 

Powerplant:

4× Klimov VK-2500PS-03 turboshaft turbines, 2,400 hp (1.765 kW) each

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 275 knots (509 km/h, 316 mph) at sea level

305 kn (565 km/h; 351 mph) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)

Cruise speed: 241 kn (277 mph, 446 km/h) at sea level

Stall speed: 110 kn (126 mph, 204 km/h) in airplane mode

Range: 879 nmi (1,011 mi, 1,627 km)

Combat radius: 390 nmi (426 mi, 722 km)

Ferry range: 1,940 nmi (2,230 mi, 3,590 km) with auxiliary external fuel tanks

Service ceiling: 25,000 ft (7,620 m)

Rate of climb: 2,320–4,000 ft/min (11.8 m/s)

Glide ratio: 4.5:1

Disc loading: 20.9 lb/ft² at 47,500 lb GW (102.23 kg/m²)

Power/mass: 0.259 hp/lb (427 W/kg)

 

Armament:

1× 30 mm (1.18 in) 2A42 multi-purpose autocannon with 450 rounds

7 external hardpoints for a maximum ordnance of 2.500 kg (5.500 lb)

  

The kit and its assembly:

This exotic, fictional aircraft-thing is a contribution to the “The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com in early 2019. While the propulsion system itself is not that unconventional, I deemed the quadrocopter concept (which had already been on my agenda for a while) to be suitable for a worthy submission.

The Mil Mi-30 tiltrotor aircraft, mentioned in the background above, was a real project – but my alternative combat vintoplan design is purely speculative.

 

I had already stashed away some donor parts, primarily two sets of tiltrotor backpacks for 1:144 Gundam mecha from Bandai, which had been released recently. While these looked a little toy-like, these parts had the charm of coming with handed propellers and stub wings that would allow the engine nacelles to swivel.

The search for a suitable fuselage turned out to be a more complex safari than expected. My initial choice was the spoofy Italeri Mi-28 kit (I initially wanted a staggered tandem cockpit), but it turned out to be much too big for what I wanted to achieve. Then I tested a “real” Mi-28 (Dragon) and a Ka-50 (Italeri), but both failed for different reasons – the Mi-28 was too slender, while the Ka-50 had the right size – but converting it for my build would have been VERY complicated, because the engine nacelles would have to go and the fuselage shape between the cockpit and the fuselage section around the original engines and stub wings would be hard to adapt. I eventually bought an Italeri Ka-52 two-seater as fuselage donor.

 

In order to mount the four engines to the fuselage I’d need two pairs of wings of appropriate span – and I found a pair of 1:100 A-10 wings as well as the wings from an 1:72 PZL Iskra (not perfect, but the most suitable donor parts I could find in the junkyard). On the tips of these wings, the swiveling joints for the engine nacelles from the Bandai set were glued. While mounting the rear wings was not too difficult (just the Ka-52’s OOB stabilizers had to go), the front pair of wings was more complex. The reason: the Ka-52’s engines had to go and their attachment points, which are actually shallow recesses on the kit, had to be faired over first. Instead of filling everything with putty I decided to cover the areas with 0.5mm styrene sheet first, and then do cosmetic PSR work. This worked quite well and also included a cover for the Ka-52’s original rotor mast mount. Onto these new flanks the pair of front wings was attached, in a mid position – a conceptual mistake…

 

The cockpit was taken OOB and the aircraft’s nose received an additional thimble radome, reminiscent of the Mi-28’s arrangement. The radome itself was created from a German 500 kg WWII bomb.

 

At this stage, the mid-wing mistake reared its ugly head – it had two painful consequences which I had not fully thought through. Problem #1: the engine nacelles turned out to be too long. When rotated into a vertical position, they’d potentially hit the ground! Furthermore, the ground clearance was very low – and I decided to skip the Ka-52’s OOB landing gear in favor of a heavier and esp. longer alternative, a full landing gear set from an Italeri MiG-37 “Ferret E” stealth fighter, which itself resembles a MiG-23/27 landing gear. Due to the expected higher speeds of the vintoplan I gave the landing gear full covers (partly scratched, plus some donor parts from an Academy MiG-27). It took some trials to get the new landing gear into the right position and a suitable stance – but it worked. With this benchmark I was also able to modify the engine nacelles, shortening their rear ends. They were still very (too!) close to the ground, but at least the model would not sit on them!

However, the more complete the model became, the more design flaws turned up. Another mistake is that the front and rear rotors slightly overlap when in vertical position – something that would be unthinkable in real life…

 

With all major components in place, however, detail work could proceed. This included the completion of the cockpit and the sensor turrets, the Ka-52 cannon and finally the ordnance. Due to the large rotors, any armament had to be concentrated around the fuselage, outside of the propeller discs. For this reason (and in order to prevent the rear engines to ingest exhaust gases from the front engines in level flight), I gave the front wings a slightly larger span, so that four underwing pylons could be fitted, plus a pair of underfuselage hardpoints.

The ordnance was puzzled together from the Italeri Ka-52 and from an ESCI Ka-34 (the fake Ka-50) kit.

  

Painting and markings:

With such an exotic aircraft, I rather wanted a conservative livery and opted for a typical Soviet tactical four-tone scheme from the Eighties – the idea was to build a prototype aircraft from the state acceptance trials period, not a flashy demonstrator. The scheme and the (guesstimated) colors were transferred from a Soviet air force MiG-21bis of that era, and it consists of a reddish light brown (Humbrol 119, Light Earth), a light, yellowish green (Humbrol 159, Khaki Drab), a bluish dark green (Humbrol 195, Dark Satin Green, a.k.a. RAL 6020 Chromdioxidgrün) and a dark brown (Humbrol 170, Brown Bess). For the undersides’ typical bluish grey I chose Humbrol 145 (FS 35237, Gray Blue), which is slightly lighter and less greenish than the typical Soviet tones. A light black ink wash was applied and some light post-shading was done in order to create panels that are structurally not there, augmented by some pencil lines.

 

The cockpit became light blue (Humbrol 89), with medium gray dashboard and consoles. The ejection seats received bright yellow seatbelts and bright blue pads – a detail seen on a Mi-28 cockpit picture.

Some dielectric fairings like the fin tip were painted in bright medium green (Humbrol 101), while some other antenna fairings were painted in pale yellow (Humbrol 71).

The landing gear struts and the interior of the wells became Aluminum Metalic (Humbrol 56), the wheels dark green discs (Humbrol 30).

 

The decals were puzzled together from various sources, including some Begemot sheets. Most of the stencils came from the Ka-52 OOB sheet, and generic decal sheet material was used to mark the walkways or the rotor tips and leading edges.

 

Only some light weathering was done to the leading edges of the wings, and then the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.

  

A complex kitbashing project, and it revealed some pitfalls in the course of making. However, the result looks menacing and still convincing, esp. in flight – even though the picture editing, with four artificially rotating proprotors, was probably more tedious than building the model itself!

A Genuine Example of One of the Eleven 1971 Hemi ‘Cuda Convertibles

 

500+hp, 425hp rated, 426 cu. in. vee eight-cylinder engine, dual four-barrel carburetors, four-speed manual transmission, Hurst pistol grip shifter, independent front suspension with torsion bars, live axle rear suspension with semi-elliptical leaf springs, front disc, rear drum power assisted hydraulic brakes. Wheelbase: 108"

 

Three times Chrysler Corporation has relied upon the Hemi to transform its products and image from dull to sparkling, and three times the Hemi has delivered. In an American car market that has been characterized by glitz, fins and bulk, the technical sophistication of Chrysler’s hemispherical combustion chamber V8 engine has been a refreshing demonstration of the appeal of elegant, thoughtful engineering.

 

In the late 60’s and early 70’s it also acquired a bad boy image of politically incorrect power and performance, establishing a mythical presence that has made the Hemi a legend.

 

Hemi History

 

During development work on World War II aircraft engines, Chrysler’s engineers had seen firsthand the potential for hemispherical combustion chamber engines. In addition to the thermal efficiency of the hemi chamber’s low surface area and its low-restriction cross-flow porting, the angle between the valves ideally disposed the ports for efficient breathing in a

vee-layout engine.

 

Chrysler was the ideal company to pursue the hemispherical combustion chamber V8. It had a longstanding tradition of investigating, developing and perfecting advanced engineering ideas. Unlike its major competitors, Chrysler had neither overhead valve nor vee-configuration engine history, and thus no preconceived notions of how it should be done. Its engine designers could – and did – explore every conceivable engine idea. Their research showed that the hemispherical combustion chamber not only gave better performance than a comparable wedge-chamber head but also tolerated appreciably higher compression ratios.

 

The hemispherical head V8 was introduced in the Chrysler line in 1951. With 331 cubic inches displacement in a short stroke oversquare design, Chrysler’s FirePower V8 delivered 180 horsepower at 4,000 rpm and 312 lb-ft torque at 2,000 rpm. The performance potential of the Hemi was quickly recognized, most famously with the Chrysler C300 and its successors, which set the pace both on the highway and on NASCAR’s speedways. By 1958, however, manufacturing economics swung the pendulum in favor of the wedge-chamber V8s. The Hemi was phased out in 1959 … but not for long.

 

In the early 60s the 413 and 426 Wedge engines were dominant in drag racing but lacked the continuous high rpm performance needed on NASCAR’s speedways. Dodge and Plymouth were being trounced, a situation that couldn’t be allowed to stand. Faced with a need to develop a high performance, free-breathing engine quickly, Chrysler’s engineers turned to the solution they already knew worked, the Hemi. They stuck with the overall dimensions of the Raised Block 426 Wedge so existing fixturing and machining setups could be employed and maintained the original Hemi’s dual rocker shafts and 58° valve included angle. To adapt the Hemi head to the Raised Block engine, the ingenious Chrysler engineers rotated the combustion chamber toward the engine’s centerline about 8 1/2°.

 

Completed and delivered to the track just days before the 1964 Daytona 500’s green flag, the 426 Hemis proved to be invincible, sweeping the top three places in NASCAR’s most important race.

 

Production of the second generation Hemi ended after the 1971 model year as emission restrictions and insurance surcharges gave horsepower, which had never been entirely socially acceptable, a distinctly antisocial taint. Chrysler would twice more resurrect the Hemi, however, first as a crate engine program for hot rodders and later as a third generation production engine that brought DaimlerChrysler back to the forefront of performance at the beginning of the 21st century. Like some other forms of antisocial behavior, horsepower has proven to be addictive.

 

The Hemi ‘Cuda

 

Of all the Street Hemis built, the most famous, attractive and desirable are the 1970-1971 E-body Plymouth ‘Cudas, combining the visceral delight of the Hemi’s power and torque with the ‘Cuda’s lightweight, streamlined and refined 2+2 platform.

 

The first Barracuda was introduced in 1964 and in the late 60’s Chrysler engineering and Hurst performance shoehorned Race Hemi engines into the Barracuda’s engine compartment for NHRA drag racing. Seventy-five were built, sold and successfully campaigned around the country. When the Barracuda was redesigned for the 1970 model year the engine compartment was made large enough for the legendary 425 horsepower 426 cubic inch Street Hemi.

 

The Plymouth Barracuda was the cleanest, most refined and elegant of all the pony car designs. Distinguished by its wide grille, long, flat hood, short rear deck and ominously raised rear fenders – deliberately shaped like the haunches of an animal crouching before a leap – the appearance of the ‘Cuda left no doubt that this was a serious performance car.

 

Hemi-powered ‘Cudas are surpassingly rare. Built for only two years, 1970 and 1971, their low production numbers reflect the undeniable fact that the combination of the ‘Cuda platform and the Street Hemi engine was irrationally fast. It also was expensive: $871.45 in 1970 and $883.90 in 1971, a prohibitive 70% more than the 390 horsepower 440 Six Barrel.

 

A Hemi ‘Cuda was not for the faint of heart nor for the cautious of pocketbook. Buying one took serious commitment, backed up by an ample budget. In 1971 there were only 119 souls brave and prosperous enough to make the commitment to check off E74, the Street Hemi’s order code, on the ‘Cuda order form.

 

• 108 of them ordered hardtops

• Only eleven stepped up for the top-of-the-line ‘Cuda convertible powered by the 426 cubic inch, 425 horsepower dual quad Street Hemi.

• Only three of those were confident enough of their driving skills to opt for the Hurst pistol grip shifted four-speed manual transmission.

• Only two of those were delivered in the U.S.

• Both U.S.-delivered ’71 Hemi ‘Cuda convertibles were B5 Blue with

matching interiors.

 

That’s only three, in all the world, that combined the Street Hemi engine with the ‘Cuda convertible body and 4-speed transmission in 1971. One of them is the car offered here, BS27R1B269588, the only one with white soft top and elastomeric front bumper cover.

 

The “Mountain Mopar” Hemi ‘Cuda Convertible

 

Built in February of 1971, this Plymouth Hemi ‘Cuda convertible’s first owner, Ronald Ambach, lived in St. Louis, Missouri. He owned it only until the fall, accumulating the car’s only street miles, before selling it to its next owner, Nick Masciarelli, in Ohio. He decided to take the Hemi ‘Cuda Stock Eliminator drag racing and turned to renowned Detroit-area engine builder Tom Tignanelli for a hot Hemi V8. The new owner was in a hurry, and the quickest way to meet his request was to swap the original engine for a fresh race-prepared Tignanelli Hemi.

 

In May of 1973, the Hemi ‘Cuda convertible was sold to John Book and partner John Oliverio in West Virginia who raced it in East Coast and Mid-Atlantic events during 1973 and 1974. Its dramatic appearance, complete with gold-leaf “Mountain Mopar” identification, is documented in several period photos in the car’s documentation file.

 

Fortunately for today’s collectors, the “Mountain Mopar” Hemi ‘Cuda convertible was retired after 1974 and stored in a climate-controlled building in West Virginia. In 1989 it was sold to the Painter brothers. Two years later it was acquired by Milt Robson in Atlanta, Georgia, still in its as-raced condition. Robson commenced a comprehensive restoration using original or new-old-stock parts to its original, as-delivered condition in his shops, which was completed in the early 90’s. Stored inside for virtually its entire life, 269588 was never subjected to the vicissitudes of the elements which afflicted most of its siblings; its original sheet metal and interior are carefully restored and retained. The engine was rebuilt around a correct 1/19/1970 date-coded Chrysler NOS block.

 

In addition to the 426/425 horsepower dual quad Street Hemi and pistol grip Hurst shifted four-speed manual transmission, this unique 1971 Hemi ‘Cuda convertible is equipped with power steering, power brakes, Dana Super Track Pack and AM-FM radio. Importantly, it is the only ’71 Hemi ‘Cuda convertible known to have been delivered with the body-colored Elastomeric front bumper cover. Its original configuration is verified by two separate original build sheets; the ownership history is documented with a continuous sequence of titles. It has been personally viewed by Galen Govier and authenticated by him as one of the seven US-delivered ’71 Hemi ‘Cuda convertibles which have been included in the Chrysler Registry.

 

Finished in B5 Blue inside and out with a white vinyl top, it has been restored to better than showroom condition. Particular attention has been paid to the accuracy of its components and finishes and to the preservation of as much as possible of its almost unbelievable originality, including the carefully preserved original interior.

 

It has been shown only in local shows around Atlanta in the mid 90s, was featured a decade ago in a May 1995 Car Collector magazine article by Dennis Adler and has appeared in several books, copies of which come with the car.

 

Putting a free-breathing, high-rpm engine like the 426 Hemi in a lithe, frisky chassis like the ‘Cuda was exactly what the forces of political correctness inveighed against in the early 70s. In 1972 the Hemi was gone for the second time, its visceral appeal buried in a cascade of social responsibility, “net” horsepower and Highway Fuel Economy ratings. There is nothing politically correct, nothing socially responsible about a Hemi ‘Cuda. The 1971 Plymouth Hemi ‘Cuda convertible is wretched excess in a nearly unimaginably limited production package.

 

This is absolutely the most desirable, rare and handsome of all the American Muscle and Pony Cars. Combining the brute power and torque of the legendary dual quad Street Hemi engine with the sleek, aggressive lines of the ‘Cuda convertible, it is the ultimate combination of personal car style and Muscle Car performance, a singular example and the quintessential muscle car of all time.

 

[Text from RM Auctions]

 

www.rmauctions.com/lots/lot.cfm?lot_id=132126

 

This Lego miniland-scale Plymouth HEMI ' Cuda Convertible (1971), has been created for Flickr LUGNuts' 89th Build Challenge, - "Over a Million, Under a Thousand", - a challenge to build vehicles valued over one million (US) dollars, or under one thousand (US) dollars.

 

This particular vehicle was auctioned by the RM Auction house for US$2,420,000)

I finished tracking "King Kong", the follow-up to "I Got Flies", yesterday afternoon at my beloved Spare Bedroom Studios.

 

The album cover was drawn by the supremely talented Karina Natalie Hahn, also known as "The Weepbot Humanoid Queen."

 

I have been waiting a long time to write a song worthy of this album cover, and I am more than pleased with the finished product. Good things come to those who wait (and work and work and work . . . )

 

I am considering releasing "King Kong" as a follow-up single via Copyright Records and Bandcamp.com, possibly during the first week of September.

 

Find out more about Prichard Nixon - my musically-inclined alter ego - at prichardnixon.bandcamp.com/.

 

More to come, both musically and artistically. Stay out of trouble. I'll catch y'all on the next one. (Look whose posted two new pictures in the same week!) - O.P.

I have always liked the color of these United States Postal Service (USPS) stickers, and it turns out that the adhesive portion of the sticker is the perfect size for drawing snails! Who says you can't have it all? :)

 

I have been drawing snails since the earliest days of my sticker making adventures - I still have the very first snail I ever drew. I was working behind the counter at Walgreens in Torrance, California, and drew it for a sad little girl who came in with her father while he purchased a pack of cigarettes. I never got an opportunity to give it to her before she and her father left the store, and I never saw her or her father again. I still have it, all these years later.

 

I sometimes wonder about that little girl. I hope life got better for her and her family.

 

I drew another snail shortly thereafter, while having dinner with my mother at Acapulco restaurant in San Pedro, CA. I doodled it on the back of a restaurant napkin - in the drawing the snail is leaving behind rainy storm clouds, pushing onward towards a boombox and sunny skies.

 

To lend some perspective, the date on the front of the napkin reads "110908" - November 9th, 2008. For the last several years it has been prominently displayed on my refrigerator door, courtesy of some pushpin magnets.

 

Growing up, I was always that kid that couldn't wait to get outside. On weekends, Papa and I would go digging for bugs in my grandparents backyard, all while hunting for dinosaurs, feeding our pet turtle and harvesting fresh tomatoes and vegetables from the backyard garden. Nana would wash us up when we were done and the three of us would take a seat in the back patio and eat some chocolate and pistachios as a toast to a life well lived.

 

So yeah, I've always had a soft spot for bugs. They remind me of happy times with loved ones who have since departed this earth. That is what this snail reminds me of, every time I draw it.

 

Keep moving forward. Until next time, I love you. Enjoy this piece of me. - O.P.

Good evening, everyone.

 

I received an e-mail this morning from Pat Kearns, host of Z107.7 FM’s Local Music Showcase, informing me that the Prichard Nixon single “Hot Goat Yoga” (prichardnixon.bandcamp.com/track/hot-goat-yoga) is currently receiving airplay on the station’s Local Music Showcase radio show. He further informed me that “Hot Goat Yoga” made its radio debut on the Sunday, March 20th episode of the Local Music Showcase.

 

Let that sink in for a moment.

 

In December of 2020 I released the first Prichard Nixon single – “Goodman Conjuring” – with nothing more than a spare bedroom, two broken hands, a laptop computer and a microphone. Fifteen months later I’m bum-rushing radio with a song about baby goats, hot rooms and unsuspecting yogis.

 

I always knew God had a sense of humor.

 

This is a notable accomplishment, one that closely follows the success of making the pages of the Coachella Valley Independent (cvindependent.com/2022/02/anonymous-expression-desert-hot....) What’s the next step once you’ve exceeded all expectations for yourself? I’m looking forward to finding out.

 

Learn more about Pat Kearns and Z107.7 FM at: joshuatreevoice.com/the-only-local-music-showcase-on-radi... (an excellent article written by the Joshua Tree Voice about Pat and his on-air radio show) and the official Z107.7 FM website: z1077fm.com/on-air/special-programs/#localmusic.

 

Until next time, stay fierce and I’ll catch y’all on the next one. These are strange times indeed, but I am humbled and gracious for every opportunity.

 

Sincerely,

 

Prichard Nixon

Desert Hot Springs, CA

March 29, 2022

Website: prichardnixon.bandcamp.com/.

E-mail: prichardnixon@yahoo.com.

 

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The РТАК-30 attack vintoplan (also known as vintokryl) owed its existence to the Mil Mi-30 plane/helicopter project that originated in 1972. The Mil Mi-30 was conceived as a transport aircraft that could hold up to 19 passengers or two tons of cargo, and its purpose was to replace the Mi-8 and Mi-17 Helicopters in both civil and military roles. With vertical takeoff through a pair of tiltrotor engine pods on the wing tips (similar in layout to the later V-22 Osprey) and the ability to fly like a normal plane, the Mil Mi-30 had a clear advantage over the older models.

 

Since the vintoplan concept was a completely new field of research and engineering, a dedicated design bureau was installed in the mid-Seventies at the Rostov-na-Donu helicopter factory, where most helicopters from the Mil design bureau were produced, under the title Ростов Тилт Ротор Авиационная Компания (Rostov Tilt Rotor Aircraft Company), or РТАК (RTRA), for short.

 

The vintoplan project lingered for some time, with basic research being conducted concerning aerodynamics, rotor design and flight control systems. Many findings later found their way into conventional planes and helicopters. At the beginning of the 1980s, the project had progressed far enough that the vintoplan received official backing so that РТАК scientists and Mil helicopter engineers assembled and tested several layouts and components for this complicated aircraft type.

At that time the Mil Mi-30 vintoplan was expected to use a single TV3-117 Turbo Shaft Engine with a four-bladed propeller rotors on each of its two pairs of stub wings of almost equal span. The engine was still installed in the fuselage and the proprotors driven by long shafts.

 

However, while being a very clean design, this original layout revealed several problems concerning aeroelasticity, dynamics of construction, characteristics for the converter apparatuses, aerodynamics and flight dynamics. In the course of further development stages and attempts to rectify the technical issues, the vintoplan layout went through several revisions. The layout shifted consequently from having 4 smaller engines in rotating pods on two pairs of stub wings through three engines with rotating nacelles on the front wings and a fixed, horizontal rotor over the tail and finally back to only 2 engines (much like the initial concept), but this time mounted in rotating nacelles on the wing tips and a canard stabilizer layout.

 

In August 1981 the Commission of the Presidium of the USSR Council of Ministers on weapons eventually issued a decree on the development of a flyworthy Mil Mi-30 vintoplan prototype. Shortly afterwards the military approved of the vintoplan, too, but desired bigger, more powerful engines in order to improve performance and weight capacity. In the course of the ensuing project refinement, the weight capacity was raised to 3-5 tons and the passenger limit to 32. In parallel, the modified type was also foreseen for civil operations as a short range feederliner, potentially replacing Yak-40 and An-24 airliners in Aeroflot service.

In 1982, РТАК took the interest from the military and proposed a dedicated attack vintoplan, based on former research and existing components of the original transport variant. This project was accepted by MAP and received the separate designation РТАК-30. However, despite having some close technical relations to the Mi-30 transport (primarily the engine nacelles, their rotation mechanism and the flight control systems), the РТАК-30 was a completely different aircraft. The timing was good, though, and the proposal was met with much interest, since the innovative vintoplan concept was to compete against traditional helicopters: the design work on the dedicated Mi-28 and Ka-50 attack helicopters had just started at that time, too, so that РТАК received green lights for the construction of five prototypes: four flyworthy machines plus one more for static ground tests.

 

The РТАК-30 was based on one of the early Mi-30 layouts and it combined two pairs of mid-set wings with different wing spans with a tall tail fin that ensured directional stability. Each wing carried a rotating engine nacelle with a so-called proprotor on its tip, each with three high aspect ratio blades. The proprotors were handed (i.e. revolved in opposite directions) in order to minimize torque effects and improve handling, esp. in the hover. The front and back pair of engines were cross-linked among each other on a common driveshaft, eliminating engine-out asymmetric thrust problems during V/STOL operations. In the event of the failure of one engine, it would automatically disconnect through torque spring clutches and both propellers on a pair of wings would be driven by the remaining engine.

Four engines were chosen because, despite the weight and complexity penalty, this extra power was expected to be required in order to achieve a performance that was markedly superior to a conventional helicopter like the Mi-24, the primary Soviet attack helicopter of that era the РТАК-30 was supposed to replace. It was also expected that the rotating nacelles could also be used to improve agility in level flight through a mild form of vectored thrust.

 

The РТАК-30’s streamlined fuselage provided ample space for avionics, fuel, a fully retractable tricycle landing gear and a two man crew in an armored side-by-side cockpit with ejection seats. The windshield was able to withstand 12.7–14.5 mm caliber bullets, the titanium cockpit tub could take hits from 20 mm cannon. An autonomous power unit (APU) was housed in the fuselage, too, making operations of the aircraft independent from ground support.

While the РТАК-30 was not intended for use as a transport, the fuselage was spacious enough to have a small compartment between the front wings spars, capable of carrying up to three people. The purpose of this was the rescue of downed helicopter crews, as a cargo hold esp. for transfer flights and as additional space for future mission equipment or extra fuel.

In vertical flight, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotor system used controls very similar to a twin or tandem-rotor helicopter. Yaw was controlled by tilting its rotors in opposite directions. Roll was provided through differential power or thrust, supported by ailerons on the rear wings. Pitch was provided through rotor cyclic or nacelle tilt and further aerodynamic surfaces on both pairs of wings. Vertical motion was controlled with conventional rotor blade pitch and a control similar to a fixed-wing engine control called a thrust control lever (TCL). The rotor heads had elastomeric bearings and the proprotor blades were made from composite materials, which could sustain 30 mm shells.

 

The РТАК-30 featured a helmet-mounted display for the pilot, a very modern development at its time. The pilot designated targets for the navigator/weapons officer, who proceeded to fire the weapons required to fulfill that particular task. The integrated surveillance and fire control system had two optical channels providing wide and narrow fields of view, a narrow-field-of-view optical television channel, and a laser rangefinder. The system could move within 110 degrees in azimuth and from +13 to −40 degrees in elevation and was placed in a spherical dome on top of the fuselage, just behind the cockpit.

 

The aircraft carried one automatic 2A42 30 mm internal gun, mounted semi-rigidly fixed near the center of the fuselage, movable only slightly in elevation and azimuth. The arrangement was also regarded as being more practical than a classic free-turning turret mount for the aircraft’s considerably higher flight speed than a normal helicopter. As a side effect, the semi-rigid mounting improved the cannon's accuracy, giving the 30 mm a longer practical range and better hit ratio at medium ranges. Ammunition supply was 460 rounds, with separate compartments for high-fragmentation, explosive incendiary, or armor-piercing rounds. The type of ammunition could be selected by the pilot during flight.

The gunner can select one of two rates of full automatic fire, low at 200 to 300 rds/min and high at 550 to 800 rds/min. The effective range when engaging ground targets such as light armored vehicles is 1,500 m, while soft-skinned targets can be engaged out to 4,000 m. Air targets can be engaged flying at low altitudes of up to 2,000 m and up to a slant range of 2,500 m.

 

A substantial range of weapons could be carried on four hardpoints under the front wings, plus three more under the fuselage, for a total ordnance of up to 2,500 kg (with reduced internal fuel). The РТАК-30‘s main armament comprised up to 24 laser-guided Vikhr missiles with a maximum range of some 8 km. These tube-launched missiles could be used against ground and aerial targets. A search and tracking radar was housed in a thimble radome on the РТАК-30’s nose and their laser guidance system (mounted in a separate turret under the radome) was reported to be virtually jam-proof. The system furthermore featured automatic guidance to the target, enabling evasive action immediately after missile launch. Alternatively, the system was also compatible with Ataka laser-guided anti-tank missiles.

Other weapon options included laser- or TV-guided Kh-25 missiles as well as iron bombs and napalm tanks of up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) caliber and several rocket pods, including the S-13 and S-8 rockets. The "dumb" rocket pods could be upgraded to laser guidance with the proposed Ugroza system. Against helicopters and aircraft the РТАК-30 could carry up to four R-60 and/or R-73 IR-guided AAMs. Drop tanks and gun pods could be carried, too.

 

When the РТАК-30's proprotors were perpendicular to the motion in the high-speed portions of the flight regime, the aircraft demonstrated a relatively high maximum speed: over 300 knots/560 km/h top speed were achieved during state acceptance trials in 1987, as well as sustained cruise speeds of 250 knots/460 km/h, which was almost twice as fast as a conventional helicopter. Furthermore, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotors and stub wings provided the aircraft with a substantially greater cruise altitude capability than conventional helicopters: during the prototypes’ tests the machines easily reached 6,000 m / 20,000 ft or more, whereas helicopters typically do not exceed 3,000 m / 10,000 ft altitude.

 

Flight tests in general and flight control system refinement in specific lasted until late 1988, and while the vintoplan concept proved to be sound, the technical and practical problems persisted. The aircraft was complex and heavy, and pilots found the machine to be hazardous to land, due to its low ground clearance. Due to structural limits the machine could also never be brought to its expected agility limits

During that time the Soviet Union’s internal tensions rose and more and more hampered the РТАК-30’s development. During this time, two of the prototypes were lost (the 1st and 4th machine) in accidents, and in 1989 only two machines were left in flightworthy condition (the 5th airframe had been set aside for structural ground tests). Nevertheless, the РТАК-30 made its public debut at the Paris Air Show in June 1989 (the 3rd prototype, coded “33 Yellow”), together with the Mi-28A, but was only shown in static display and did not take part in any flight show. After that, the aircraft received the NATO ASCC code "Hemlock" and caused serious concern in Western military headquarters, since the РТАК-30 had the potential to dominate the European battlefield.

 

And this was just about to happen: Despite the РТАК-30’s development problems, the innovative attack vintoplan was included in the Soviet Union’s 5-year plan for 1989-1995, and the vehicle was eventually expected to enter service in 1996. However, due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dwindling economics, neither the РТАК-30 nor its civil Mil Mi-30 sister did soar out in the new age of technology. In 1990 the whole program was stopped and both surviving РТАК-30 prototypes were mothballed – one (the 3rd prototype) was disassembled and its components brought to the Rostov-na-Donu Mil plant, while the other, prototype No. 1, is rumored to be stored at the Central Russian Air Force Museum in Monino, to be restored to a public exhibition piece some day.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: Two (pilot, copilot/WSO) plus space for up to three passengers or cargo

Length: 45 ft 7 1/2 in (13,93 m)

Rotor diameter: 20 ft 9 in (6,33 m)

Wingspan incl. engine nacelles: 42 ft 8 1/4 in (13,03 m)

Total width with rotors: 58 ft 8 1/2 in (17,93 m)

Height: 17 ft (5,18 m) at top of tailfin

Disc area: 4x 297 ft² (27,65 m²)

Wing area: 342.2 ft² (36,72 m²)

Empty weight: 8,500 kg (18,740 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 12,000 kg (26,500 lb)

 

Powerplant:

4× Klimov VK-2500PS-03 turboshaft turbines, 2,400 hp (1.765 kW) each

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 275 knots (509 km/h, 316 mph) at sea level

305 kn (565 km/h; 351 mph) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)

Cruise speed: 241 kn (277 mph, 446 km/h) at sea level

Stall speed: 110 kn (126 mph, 204 km/h) in airplane mode

Range: 879 nmi (1,011 mi, 1,627 km)

Combat radius: 390 nmi (426 mi, 722 km)

Ferry range: 1,940 nmi (2,230 mi, 3,590 km) with auxiliary external fuel tanks

Service ceiling: 25,000 ft (7,620 m)

Rate of climb: 2,320–4,000 ft/min (11.8 m/s)

Glide ratio: 4.5:1

Disc loading: 20.9 lb/ft² at 47,500 lb GW (102.23 kg/m²)

Power/mass: 0.259 hp/lb (427 W/kg)

 

Armament:

1× 30 mm (1.18 in) 2A42 multi-purpose autocannon with 450 rounds

7 external hardpoints for a maximum ordnance of 2.500 kg (5.500 lb)

  

The kit and its assembly:

This exotic, fictional aircraft-thing is a contribution to the “The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com in early 2019. While the propulsion system itself is not that unconventional, I deemed the quadrocopter concept (which had already been on my agenda for a while) to be suitable for a worthy submission.

The Mil Mi-30 tiltrotor aircraft, mentioned in the background above, was a real project – but my alternative combat vintoplan design is purely speculative.

 

I had already stashed away some donor parts, primarily two sets of tiltrotor backpacks for 1:144 Gundam mecha from Bandai, which had been released recently. While these looked a little toy-like, these parts had the charm of coming with handed propellers and stub wings that would allow the engine nacelles to swivel.

The search for a suitable fuselage turned out to be a more complex safari than expected. My initial choice was the spoofy Italeri Mi-28 kit (I initially wanted a staggered tandem cockpit), but it turned out to be much too big for what I wanted to achieve. Then I tested a “real” Mi-28 (Dragon) and a Ka-50 (Italeri), but both failed for different reasons – the Mi-28 was too slender, while the Ka-50 had the right size – but converting it for my build would have been VERY complicated, because the engine nacelles would have to go and the fuselage shape between the cockpit and the fuselage section around the original engines and stub wings would be hard to adapt. I eventually bought an Italeri Ka-52 two-seater as fuselage donor.

 

In order to mount the four engines to the fuselage I’d need two pairs of wings of appropriate span – and I found a pair of 1:100 A-10 wings as well as the wings from an 1:72 PZL Iskra (not perfect, but the most suitable donor parts I could find in the junkyard). On the tips of these wings, the swiveling joints for the engine nacelles from the Bandai set were glued. While mounting the rear wings was not too difficult (just the Ka-52’s OOB stabilizers had to go), the front pair of wings was more complex. The reason: the Ka-52’s engines had to go and their attachment points, which are actually shallow recesses on the kit, had to be faired over first. Instead of filling everything with putty I decided to cover the areas with 0.5mm styrene sheet first, and then do cosmetic PSR work. This worked quite well and also included a cover for the Ka-52’s original rotor mast mount. Onto these new flanks the pair of front wings was attached, in a mid position – a conceptual mistake…

 

The cockpit was taken OOB and the aircraft’s nose received an additional thimble radome, reminiscent of the Mi-28’s arrangement. The radome itself was created from a German 500 kg WWII bomb.

 

At this stage, the mid-wing mistake reared its ugly head – it had two painful consequences which I had not fully thought through. Problem #1: the engine nacelles turned out to be too long. When rotated into a vertical position, they’d potentially hit the ground! Furthermore, the ground clearance was very low – and I decided to skip the Ka-52’s OOB landing gear in favor of a heavier and esp. longer alternative, a full landing gear set from an Italeri MiG-37 “Ferret E” stealth fighter, which itself resembles a MiG-23/27 landing gear. Due to the expected higher speeds of the vintoplan I gave the landing gear full covers (partly scratched, plus some donor parts from an Academy MiG-27). It took some trials to get the new landing gear into the right position and a suitable stance – but it worked. With this benchmark I was also able to modify the engine nacelles, shortening their rear ends. They were still very (too!) close to the ground, but at least the model would not sit on them!

However, the more complete the model became, the more design flaws turned up. Another mistake is that the front and rear rotors slightly overlap when in vertical position – something that would be unthinkable in real life…

 

With all major components in place, however, detail work could proceed. This included the completion of the cockpit and the sensor turrets, the Ka-52 cannon and finally the ordnance. Due to the large rotors, any armament had to be concentrated around the fuselage, outside of the propeller discs. For this reason (and in order to prevent the rear engines to ingest exhaust gases from the front engines in level flight), I gave the front wings a slightly larger span, so that four underwing pylons could be fitted, plus a pair of underfuselage hardpoints.

The ordnance was puzzled together from the Italeri Ka-52 and from an ESCI Ka-34 (the fake Ka-50) kit.

  

Painting and markings:

With such an exotic aircraft, I rather wanted a conservative livery and opted for a typical Soviet tactical four-tone scheme from the Eighties – the idea was to build a prototype aircraft from the state acceptance trials period, not a flashy demonstrator. The scheme and the (guesstimated) colors were transferred from a Soviet air force MiG-21bis of that era, and it consists of a reddish light brown (Humbrol 119, Light Earth), a light, yellowish green (Humbrol 159, Khaki Drab), a bluish dark green (Humbrol 195, Dark Satin Green, a.k.a. RAL 6020 Chromdioxidgrün) and a dark brown (Humbrol 170, Brown Bess). For the undersides’ typical bluish grey I chose Humbrol 145 (FS 35237, Gray Blue), which is slightly lighter and less greenish than the typical Soviet tones. A light black ink wash was applied and some light post-shading was done in order to create panels that are structurally not there, augmented by some pencil lines.

 

The cockpit became light blue (Humbrol 89), with medium gray dashboard and consoles. The ejection seats received bright yellow seatbelts and bright blue pads – a detail seen on a Mi-28 cockpit picture.

Some dielectric fairings like the fin tip were painted in bright medium green (Humbrol 101), while some other antenna fairings were painted in pale yellow (Humbrol 71).

The landing gear struts and the interior of the wells became Aluminum Metalic (Humbrol 56), the wheels dark green discs (Humbrol 30).

 

The decals were puzzled together from various sources, including some Begemot sheets. Most of the stencils came from the Ka-52 OOB sheet, and generic decal sheet material was used to mark the walkways or the rotor tips and leading edges.

 

Only some light weathering was done to the leading edges of the wings, and then the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.

  

A complex kitbashing project, and it revealed some pitfalls in the course of making. However, the result looks menacing and still convincing, esp. in flight – even though the picture editing, with four artificially rotating proprotors, was probably more tedious than building the model itself!

Look at that: I made the hard copy.

 

Making the digital edition was an accomplishment in its own right.

 

Now this.

 

I appreciate digital but hard copy gives me something to pass down to the grandkids many years from now: “Believe it or not, once upon a time, your grandpa made the papers.”

 

You can peep the full article on the Coachella Valley Independent website at: cvindependent.com/2022/02/anonymous-expression-desert-hot....

 

Many thanks to Jimmy Boegle, editor in-chief, and Matt King, writer at-large, at the Coachella Valley Independent for taking a chance on me and doing the story of Prichard Nixon justice.

 

Next stop: the White House. :)

 

There is plenty more to come: new music, stickers, physical releases, merchandise, live shows, books - I want it all. Until next time, keep your collective heads up and I will catch you all on the flipside.

 

Always grateful,

 

- O . . . Phuck!™

(A.K.A. Prichard Nixon)

Website: prichardnixon.bandcamp.com/.

E-mail: prichardnixon@yahoo.com.

I caught this little guy loitering outside of my apartment complex.

Part two in a series of polaroid's awaiting upload . . . maybe.

Be sure and dust off your tinfoil hats in the meantime. - O.P.

Greetings, everybody!

 

It has been a busy six months for the Prichard Nixon administration. In addition to drafting and executing a successful public relations campaign – from January 25 to April 1 – I succeeded in accomplishing the following:

 

- Oversaw the successful release of Animals, my second full-length album, on February 1.

 

- Secured an interview with Matt King and the prestigious Coachella Valley Independent newspaper, whose profile on Prichard Nixon hit newsstands on March 1.

 

- Made my radio debut with “Hot Goat Yoga” on Z107-7 FM in Joshua Tree on March 20, courtesy of deejay Pat Kearns.

 

It has been refreshing to have the opportunity to step away from the Interwebs for a time and catch my breath. However, I haven’t stopped working in the meantime.

 

In addition to music, one of my long-time passions has been writing, and on this year’s “to-do” list was the goal of publishing a piece of my literary work. For the last several months I have been quietly working on achieving this goal and am happy to announce that those efforts have bore fruit: in late June the Desert Writer’s Guild, a collective of writers and publishers representing artists across the High-Desert and Greater Coachella Valley, reached out to inform me that one of my short stories (“Isabella”) had been selected by the collective for inclusion in their upcoming 2022 literary anthology.

 

This development is significant for Prichard Nixon in several ways: in addition to accomplishing a long-time personal goal of mine, this will allow me to branch out and explore avenues of artistic creativity and expression outside of music, expanding my fan base as I go.

 

In music news, I am pleased to report that the remastered version of Adventures in A Cappella was completed and released this morning, July 8, a full day ahead of schedule. This re-release includes all-new artwork and extensive liner notes discussing the background of each song.

 

I used to think that remix/remaster/re-release albums were super-cheesy record label cash grabs, but now I realize that I was mistaken. When done correctly, re-releases provide the listener with an expanded understanding of the artist's motivations and mindset (and, ideally, cool new album artwork and liner notes to boot!)

 

Give it a spin, pass it along and let me know what you think at prichardnixon.bandcamp.com/album/adventures-in-a-cappella....

 

Putting together this re-release was an absolute blast: in terms of quality, the remastered tracks are on par with those that appeared on Animals. Technically, they are the same songs, but they sound so different. Expanding upon the original album artwork and liner notes was great fun as well, and I found myself laughing out loud at several points while writing them. I am extremely happy with the finished result and am pleased to see these songs released in a more polished and professional form.

 

As for the remainder of the year, I want to have two or three new singles released by years end. I intend on remaining focused on my expansion into the local literary scene. Later this month I will engage in talks regarding potentially securing a practice space and recording studio. And I am in tentative conversations with a local gallery regarding the display of Prichard Nixon photography and artwork. Everything is on the table, and it is all worth reaching for.

 

Thank you as always for your continued support in these artistic undertakings of mine. Until next time, the politics of Prichard Nixon bids you farewell. Stay tuned, there will be more to come.

 

Sincerely,

  

Prichard Nixon

Desert Hot Springs, CA

July 8, 2022

Website: prichardnixon.bandcamp.com/.

A Genuine Example of One of the Eleven 1971 Hemi ‘Cuda Convertibles

 

500+hp, 425hp rated, 426 cu. in. vee eight-cylinder engine, dual four-barrel carburetors, four-speed manual transmission, Hurst pistol grip shifter, independent front suspension with torsion bars, live axle rear suspension with semi-elliptical leaf springs, front disc, rear drum power assisted hydraulic brakes. Wheelbase: 108"

 

Three times Chrysler Corporation has relied upon the Hemi to transform its products and image from dull to sparkling, and three times the Hemi has delivered. In an American car market that has been characterized by glitz, fins and bulk, the technical sophistication of Chrysler’s hemispherical combustion chamber V8 engine has been a refreshing demonstration of the appeal of elegant, thoughtful engineering.

 

In the late 60’s and early 70’s it also acquired a bad boy image of politically incorrect power and performance, establishing a mythical presence that has made the Hemi a legend.

 

Hemi History

 

During development work on World War II aircraft engines, Chrysler’s engineers had seen firsthand the potential for hemispherical combustion chamber engines. In addition to the thermal efficiency of the hemi chamber’s low surface area and its low-restriction cross-flow porting, the angle between the valves ideally disposed the ports for efficient breathing in a

vee-layout engine.

 

Chrysler was the ideal company to pursue the hemispherical combustion chamber V8. It had a longstanding tradition of investigating, developing and perfecting advanced engineering ideas. Unlike its major competitors, Chrysler had neither overhead valve nor vee-configuration engine history, and thus no preconceived notions of how it should be done. Its engine designers could – and did – explore every conceivable engine idea. Their research showed that the hemispherical combustion chamber not only gave better performance than a comparable wedge-chamber head but also tolerated appreciably higher compression ratios.

 

The hemispherical head V8 was introduced in the Chrysler line in 1951. With 331 cubic inches displacement in a short stroke oversquare design, Chrysler’s FirePower V8 delivered 180 horsepower at 4,000 rpm and 312 lb-ft torque at 2,000 rpm. The performance potential of the Hemi was quickly recognized, most famously with the Chrysler C300 and its successors, which set the pace both on the highway and on NASCAR’s speedways. By 1958, however, manufacturing economics swung the pendulum in favor of the wedge-chamber V8s. The Hemi was phased out in 1959 … but not for long.

 

In the early 60s the 413 and 426 Wedge engines were dominant in drag racing but lacked the continuous high rpm performance needed on NASCAR’s speedways. Dodge and Plymouth were being trounced, a situation that couldn’t be allowed to stand. Faced with a need to develop a high performance, free-breathing engine quickly, Chrysler’s engineers turned to the solution they already knew worked, the Hemi. They stuck with the overall dimensions of the Raised Block 426 Wedge so existing fixturing and machining setups could be employed and maintained the original Hemi’s dual rocker shafts and 58° valve included angle. To adapt the Hemi head to the Raised Block engine, the ingenious Chrysler engineers rotated the combustion chamber toward the engine’s centerline about 8 1/2°.

 

Completed and delivered to the track just days before the 1964 Daytona 500’s green flag, the 426 Hemis proved to be invincible, sweeping the top three places in NASCAR’s most important race.

 

Production of the second generation Hemi ended after the 1971 model year as emission restrictions and insurance surcharges gave horsepower, which had never been entirely socially acceptable, a distinctly antisocial taint. Chrysler would twice more resurrect the Hemi, however, first as a crate engine program for hot rodders and later as a third generation production engine that brought DaimlerChrysler back to the forefront of performance at the beginning of the 21st century. Like some other forms of antisocial behavior, horsepower has proven to be addictive.

 

The Hemi ‘Cuda

 

Of all the Street Hemis built, the most famous, attractive and desirable are the 1970-1971 E-body Plymouth ‘Cudas, combining the visceral delight of the Hemi’s power and torque with the ‘Cuda’s lightweight, streamlined and refined 2+2 platform.

 

The first Barracuda was introduced in 1964 and in the late 60’s Chrysler engineering and Hurst performance shoehorned Race Hemi engines into the Barracuda’s engine compartment for NHRA drag racing. Seventy-five were built, sold and successfully campaigned around the country. When the Barracuda was redesigned for the 1970 model year the engine compartment was made large enough for the legendary 425 horsepower 426 cubic inch Street Hemi.

 

The Plymouth Barracuda was the cleanest, most refined and elegant of all the pony car designs. Distinguished by its wide grille, long, flat hood, short rear deck and ominously raised rear fenders – deliberately shaped like the haunches of an animal crouching before a leap – the appearance of the ‘Cuda left no doubt that this was a serious performance car.

 

Hemi-powered ‘Cudas are surpassingly rare. Built for only two years, 1970 and 1971, their low production numbers reflect the undeniable fact that the combination of the ‘Cuda platform and the Street Hemi engine was irrationally fast. It also was expensive: $871.45 in 1970 and $883.90 in 1971, a prohibitive 70% more than the 390 horsepower 440 Six Barrel.

 

A Hemi ‘Cuda was not for the faint of heart nor for the cautious of pocketbook. Buying one took serious commitment, backed up by an ample budget. In 1971 there were only 119 souls brave and prosperous enough to make the commitment to check off E74, the Street Hemi’s order code, on the ‘Cuda order form.

 

• 108 of them ordered hardtops

• Only eleven stepped up for the top-of-the-line ‘Cuda convertible powered by the 426 cubic inch, 425 horsepower dual quad Street Hemi.

• Only three of those were confident enough of their driving skills to opt for the Hurst pistol grip shifted four-speed manual transmission.

• Only two of those were delivered in the U.S.

• Both U.S.-delivered ’71 Hemi ‘Cuda convertibles were B5 Blue with

matching interiors.

 

That’s only three, in all the world, that combined the Street Hemi engine with the ‘Cuda convertible body and 4-speed transmission in 1971. One of them is the car offered here, BS27R1B269588, the only one with white soft top and elastomeric front bumper cover.

 

The “Mountain Mopar” Hemi ‘Cuda Convertible

 

Built in February of 1971, this Plymouth Hemi ‘Cuda convertible’s first owner, Ronald Ambach, lived in St. Louis, Missouri. He owned it only until the fall, accumulating the car’s only street miles, before selling it to its next owner, Nick Masciarelli, in Ohio. He decided to take the Hemi ‘Cuda Stock Eliminator drag racing and turned to renowned Detroit-area engine builder Tom Tignanelli for a hot Hemi V8. The new owner was in a hurry, and the quickest way to meet his request was to swap the original engine for a fresh race-prepared Tignanelli Hemi.

 

In May of 1973, the Hemi ‘Cuda convertible was sold to John Book and partner John Oliverio in West Virginia who raced it in East Coast and Mid-Atlantic events during 1973 and 1974. Its dramatic appearance, complete with gold-leaf “Mountain Mopar” identification, is documented in several period photos in the car’s documentation file.

 

Fortunately for today’s collectors, the “Mountain Mopar” Hemi ‘Cuda convertible was retired after 1974 and stored in a climate-controlled building in West Virginia. In 1989 it was sold to the Painter brothers. Two years later it was acquired by Milt Robson in Atlanta, Georgia, still in its as-raced condition. Robson commenced a comprehensive restoration using original or new-old-stock parts to its original, as-delivered condition in his shops, which was completed in the early 90’s. Stored inside for virtually its entire life, 269588 was never subjected to the vicissitudes of the elements which afflicted most of its siblings; its original sheet metal and interior are carefully restored and retained. The engine was rebuilt around a correct 1/19/1970 date-coded Chrysler NOS block.

 

In addition to the 426/425 horsepower dual quad Street Hemi and pistol grip Hurst shifted four-speed manual transmission, this unique 1971 Hemi ‘Cuda convertible is equipped with power steering, power brakes, Dana Super Track Pack and AM-FM radio. Importantly, it is the only ’71 Hemi ‘Cuda convertible known to have been delivered with the body-colored Elastomeric front bumper cover. Its original configuration is verified by two separate original build sheets; the ownership history is documented with a continuous sequence of titles. It has been personally viewed by Galen Govier and authenticated by him as one of the seven US-delivered ’71 Hemi ‘Cuda convertibles which have been included in the Chrysler Registry.

 

Finished in B5 Blue inside and out with a white vinyl top, it has been restored to better than showroom condition. Particular attention has been paid to the accuracy of its components and finishes and to the preservation of as much as possible of its almost unbelievable originality, including the carefully preserved original interior.

 

It has been shown only in local shows around Atlanta in the mid 90s, was featured a decade ago in a May 1995 Car Collector magazine article by Dennis Adler and has appeared in several books, copies of which come with the car.

 

Putting a free-breathing, high-rpm engine like the 426 Hemi in a lithe, frisky chassis like the ‘Cuda was exactly what the forces of political correctness inveighed against in the early 70s. In 1972 the Hemi was gone for the second time, its visceral appeal buried in a cascade of social responsibility, “net” horsepower and Highway Fuel Economy ratings. There is nothing politically correct, nothing socially responsible about a Hemi ‘Cuda. The 1971 Plymouth Hemi ‘Cuda convertible is wretched excess in a nearly unimaginably limited production package.

 

This is absolutely the most desirable, rare and handsome of all the American Muscle and Pony Cars. Combining the brute power and torque of the legendary dual quad Street Hemi engine with the sleek, aggressive lines of the ‘Cuda convertible, it is the ultimate combination of personal car style and Muscle Car performance, a singular example and the quintessential muscle car of all time.

 

[Text from RM Auctions]

 

www.rmauctions.com/lots/lot.cfm?lot_id=132126

 

This Lego miniland-scale Plymouth HEMI ' Cuda Convertible (1971), has been created for Flickr LUGNuts' 89th Build Challenge, - "Over a Million, Under a Thousand", - a challenge to build vehicles valued over one million (US) dollars, or under one thousand (US) dollars.

 

This particular vehicle was auctioned by the RM Auction house for US$2,420,000)

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The РТАК-30 attack vintoplan (also known as vintokryl) owed its existence to the Mil Mi-30 plane/helicopter project that originated in 1972. The Mil Mi-30 was conceived as a transport aircraft that could hold up to 19 passengers or two tons of cargo, and its purpose was to replace the Mi-8 and Mi-17 Helicopters in both civil and military roles. With vertical takeoff through a pair of tiltrotor engine pods on the wing tips (similar in layout to the later V-22 Osprey) and the ability to fly like a normal plane, the Mil Mi-30 had a clear advantage over the older models.

 

Since the vintoplan concept was a completely new field of research and engineering, a dedicated design bureau was installed in the mid-Seventies at the Rostov-na-Donu helicopter factory, where most helicopters from the Mil design bureau were produced, under the title Ростов Тилт Ротор Авиационная Компания (Rostov Tilt Rotor Aircraft Company), or РТАК (RTRA), for short.

 

The vintoplan project lingered for some time, with basic research being conducted concerning aerodynamics, rotor design and flight control systems. Many findings later found their way into conventional planes and helicopters. At the beginning of the 1980s, the project had progressed far enough that the vintoplan received official backing so that РТАК scientists and Mil helicopter engineers assembled and tested several layouts and components for this complicated aircraft type.

At that time the Mil Mi-30 vintoplan was expected to use a single TV3-117 Turbo Shaft Engine with a four-bladed propeller rotors on each of its two pairs of stub wings of almost equal span. The engine was still installed in the fuselage and the proprotors driven by long shafts.

 

However, while being a very clean design, this original layout revealed several problems concerning aeroelasticity, dynamics of construction, characteristics for the converter apparatuses, aerodynamics and flight dynamics. In the course of further development stages and attempts to rectify the technical issues, the vintoplan layout went through several revisions. The layout shifted consequently from having 4 smaller engines in rotating pods on two pairs of stub wings through three engines with rotating nacelles on the front wings and a fixed, horizontal rotor over the tail and finally back to only 2 engines (much like the initial concept), but this time mounted in rotating nacelles on the wing tips and a canard stabilizer layout.

 

In August 1981 the Commission of the Presidium of the USSR Council of Ministers on weapons eventually issued a decree on the development of a flyworthy Mil Mi-30 vintoplan prototype. Shortly afterwards the military approved of the vintoplan, too, but desired bigger, more powerful engines in order to improve performance and weight capacity. In the course of the ensuing project refinement, the weight capacity was raised to 3-5 tons and the passenger limit to 32. In parallel, the modified type was also foreseen for civil operations as a short range feederliner, potentially replacing Yak-40 and An-24 airliners in Aeroflot service.

In 1982, РТАК took the interest from the military and proposed a dedicated attack vintoplan, based on former research and existing components of the original transport variant. This project was accepted by MAP and received the separate designation РТАК-30. However, despite having some close technical relations to the Mi-30 transport (primarily the engine nacelles, their rotation mechanism and the flight control systems), the РТАК-30 was a completely different aircraft. The timing was good, though, and the proposal was met with much interest, since the innovative vintoplan concept was to compete against traditional helicopters: the design work on the dedicated Mi-28 and Ka-50 attack helicopters had just started at that time, too, so that РТАК received green lights for the construction of five prototypes: four flyworthy machines plus one more for static ground tests.

 

The РТАК-30 was based on one of the early Mi-30 layouts and it combined two pairs of mid-set wings with different wing spans with a tall tail fin that ensured directional stability. Each wing carried a rotating engine nacelle with a so-called proprotor on its tip, each with three high aspect ratio blades. The proprotors were handed (i.e. revolved in opposite directions) in order to minimize torque effects and improve handling, esp. in the hover. The front and back pair of engines were cross-linked among each other on a common driveshaft, eliminating engine-out asymmetric thrust problems during V/STOL operations. In the event of the failure of one engine, it would automatically disconnect through torque spring clutches and both propellers on a pair of wings would be driven by the remaining engine.

Four engines were chosen because, despite the weight and complexity penalty, this extra power was expected to be required in order to achieve a performance that was markedly superior to a conventional helicopter like the Mi-24, the primary Soviet attack helicopter of that era the РТАК-30 was supposed to replace. It was also expected that the rotating nacelles could also be used to improve agility in level flight through a mild form of vectored thrust.

 

The РТАК-30’s streamlined fuselage provided ample space for avionics, fuel, a fully retractable tricycle landing gear and a two man crew in an armored side-by-side cockpit with ejection seats. The windshield was able to withstand 12.7–14.5 mm caliber bullets, the titanium cockpit tub could take hits from 20 mm cannon. An autonomous power unit (APU) was housed in the fuselage, too, making operations of the aircraft independent from ground support.

While the РТАК-30 was not intended for use as a transport, the fuselage was spacious enough to have a small compartment between the front wings spars, capable of carrying up to three people. The purpose of this was the rescue of downed helicopter crews, as a cargo hold esp. for transfer flights and as additional space for future mission equipment or extra fuel.

In vertical flight, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotor system used controls very similar to a twin or tandem-rotor helicopter. Yaw was controlled by tilting its rotors in opposite directions. Roll was provided through differential power or thrust, supported by ailerons on the rear wings. Pitch was provided through rotor cyclic or nacelle tilt and further aerodynamic surfaces on both pairs of wings. Vertical motion was controlled with conventional rotor blade pitch and a control similar to a fixed-wing engine control called a thrust control lever (TCL). The rotor heads had elastomeric bearings and the proprotor blades were made from composite materials, which could sustain 30 mm shells.

 

The РТАК-30 featured a helmet-mounted display for the pilot, a very modern development at its time. The pilot designated targets for the navigator/weapons officer, who proceeded to fire the weapons required to fulfill that particular task. The integrated surveillance and fire control system had two optical channels providing wide and narrow fields of view, a narrow-field-of-view optical television channel, and a laser rangefinder. The system could move within 110 degrees in azimuth and from +13 to −40 degrees in elevation and was placed in a spherical dome on top of the fuselage, just behind the cockpit.

 

The aircraft carried one automatic 2A42 30 mm internal gun, mounted semi-rigidly fixed near the center of the fuselage, movable only slightly in elevation and azimuth. The arrangement was also regarded as being more practical than a classic free-turning turret mount for the aircraft’s considerably higher flight speed than a normal helicopter. As a side effect, the semi-rigid mounting improved the cannon's accuracy, giving the 30 mm a longer practical range and better hit ratio at medium ranges. Ammunition supply was 460 rounds, with separate compartments for high-fragmentation, explosive incendiary, or armor-piercing rounds. The type of ammunition could be selected by the pilot during flight.

The gunner can select one of two rates of full automatic fire, low at 200 to 300 rds/min and high at 550 to 800 rds/min. The effective range when engaging ground targets such as light armored vehicles is 1,500 m, while soft-skinned targets can be engaged out to 4,000 m. Air targets can be engaged flying at low altitudes of up to 2,000 m and up to a slant range of 2,500 m.

 

A substantial range of weapons could be carried on four hardpoints under the front wings, plus three more under the fuselage, for a total ordnance of up to 2,500 kg (with reduced internal fuel). The РТАК-30‘s main armament comprised up to 24 laser-guided Vikhr missiles with a maximum range of some 8 km. These tube-launched missiles could be used against ground and aerial targets. A search and tracking radar was housed in a thimble radome on the РТАК-30’s nose and their laser guidance system (mounted in a separate turret under the radome) was reported to be virtually jam-proof. The system furthermore featured automatic guidance to the target, enabling evasive action immediately after missile launch. Alternatively, the system was also compatible with Ataka laser-guided anti-tank missiles.

Other weapon options included laser- or TV-guided Kh-25 missiles as well as iron bombs and napalm tanks of up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) caliber and several rocket pods, including the S-13 and S-8 rockets. The "dumb" rocket pods could be upgraded to laser guidance with the proposed Ugroza system. Against helicopters and aircraft the РТАК-30 could carry up to four R-60 and/or R-73 IR-guided AAMs. Drop tanks and gun pods could be carried, too.

 

When the РТАК-30's proprotors were perpendicular to the motion in the high-speed portions of the flight regime, the aircraft demonstrated a relatively high maximum speed: over 300 knots/560 km/h top speed were achieved during state acceptance trials in 1987, as well as sustained cruise speeds of 250 knots/460 km/h, which was almost twice as fast as a conventional helicopter. Furthermore, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotors and stub wings provided the aircraft with a substantially greater cruise altitude capability than conventional helicopters: during the prototypes’ tests the machines easily reached 6,000 m / 20,000 ft or more, whereas helicopters typically do not exceed 3,000 m / 10,000 ft altitude.

 

Flight tests in general and flight control system refinement in specific lasted until late 1988, and while the vintoplan concept proved to be sound, the technical and practical problems persisted. The aircraft was complex and heavy, and pilots found the machine to be hazardous to land, due to its low ground clearance. Due to structural limits the machine could also never be brought to its expected agility limits

During that time the Soviet Union’s internal tensions rose and more and more hampered the РТАК-30’s development. During this time, two of the prototypes were lost (the 1st and 4th machine) in accidents, and in 1989 only two machines were left in flightworthy condition (the 5th airframe had been set aside for structural ground tests). Nevertheless, the РТАК-30 made its public debut at the Paris Air Show in June 1989 (the 3rd prototype, coded “33 Yellow”), together with the Mi-28A, but was only shown in static display and did not take part in any flight show. After that, the aircraft received the NATO ASCC code "Hemlock" and caused serious concern in Western military headquarters, since the РТАК-30 had the potential to dominate the European battlefield.

 

And this was just about to happen: Despite the РТАК-30’s development problems, the innovative attack vintoplan was included in the Soviet Union’s 5-year plan for 1989-1995, and the vehicle was eventually expected to enter service in 1996. However, due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dwindling economics, neither the РТАК-30 nor its civil Mil Mi-30 sister did soar out in the new age of technology. In 1990 the whole program was stopped and both surviving РТАК-30 prototypes were mothballed – one (the 3rd prototype) was disassembled and its components brought to the Rostov-na-Donu Mil plant, while the other, prototype No. 1, is rumored to be stored at the Central Russian Air Force Museum in Monino, to be restored to a public exhibition piece some day.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: Two (pilot, copilot/WSO) plus space for up to three passengers or cargo

Length: 45 ft 7 1/2 in (13,93 m)

Rotor diameter: 20 ft 9 in (6,33 m)

Wingspan incl. engine nacelles: 42 ft 8 1/4 in (13,03 m)

Total width with rotors: 58 ft 8 1/2 in (17,93 m)

Height: 17 ft (5,18 m) at top of tailfin

Disc area: 4x 297 ft² (27,65 m²)

Wing area: 342.2 ft² (36,72 m²)

Empty weight: 8,500 kg (18,740 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 12,000 kg (26,500 lb)

 

Powerplant:

4× Klimov VK-2500PS-03 turboshaft turbines, 2,400 hp (1.765 kW) each

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 275 knots (509 km/h, 316 mph) at sea level

305 kn (565 km/h; 351 mph) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)

Cruise speed: 241 kn (277 mph, 446 km/h) at sea level

Stall speed: 110 kn (126 mph, 204 km/h) in airplane mode

Range: 879 nmi (1,011 mi, 1,627 km)

Combat radius: 390 nmi (426 mi, 722 km)

Ferry range: 1,940 nmi (2,230 mi, 3,590 km) with auxiliary external fuel tanks

Service ceiling: 25,000 ft (7,620 m)

Rate of climb: 2,320–4,000 ft/min (11.8 m/s)

Glide ratio: 4.5:1

Disc loading: 20.9 lb/ft² at 47,500 lb GW (102.23 kg/m²)

Power/mass: 0.259 hp/lb (427 W/kg)

 

Armament:

1× 30 mm (1.18 in) 2A42 multi-purpose autocannon with 450 rounds

7 external hardpoints for a maximum ordnance of 2.500 kg (5.500 lb)

  

The kit and its assembly:

This exotic, fictional aircraft-thing is a contribution to the “The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com in early 2019. While the propulsion system itself is not that unconventional, I deemed the quadrocopter concept (which had already been on my agenda for a while) to be suitable for a worthy submission.

The Mil Mi-30 tiltrotor aircraft, mentioned in the background above, was a real project – but my alternative combat vintoplan design is purely speculative.

 

I had already stashed away some donor parts, primarily two sets of tiltrotor backpacks for 1:144 Gundam mecha from Bandai, which had been released recently. While these looked a little toy-like, these parts had the charm of coming with handed propellers and stub wings that would allow the engine nacelles to swivel.

The search for a suitable fuselage turned out to be a more complex safari than expected. My initial choice was the spoofy Italeri Mi-28 kit (I initially wanted a staggered tandem cockpit), but it turned out to be much too big for what I wanted to achieve. Then I tested a “real” Mi-28 (Dragon) and a Ka-50 (Italeri), but both failed for different reasons – the Mi-28 was too slender, while the Ka-50 had the right size – but converting it for my build would have been VERY complicated, because the engine nacelles would have to go and the fuselage shape between the cockpit and the fuselage section around the original engines and stub wings would be hard to adapt. I eventually bought an Italeri Ka-52 two-seater as fuselage donor.

 

In order to mount the four engines to the fuselage I’d need two pairs of wings of appropriate span – and I found a pair of 1:100 A-10 wings as well as the wings from an 1:72 PZL Iskra (not perfect, but the most suitable donor parts I could find in the junkyard). On the tips of these wings, the swiveling joints for the engine nacelles from the Bandai set were glued. While mounting the rear wings was not too difficult (just the Ka-52’s OOB stabilizers had to go), the front pair of wings was more complex. The reason: the Ka-52’s engines had to go and their attachment points, which are actually shallow recesses on the kit, had to be faired over first. Instead of filling everything with putty I decided to cover the areas with 0.5mm styrene sheet first, and then do cosmetic PSR work. This worked quite well and also included a cover for the Ka-52’s original rotor mast mount. Onto these new flanks the pair of front wings was attached, in a mid position – a conceptual mistake…

 

The cockpit was taken OOB and the aircraft’s nose received an additional thimble radome, reminiscent of the Mi-28’s arrangement. The radome itself was created from a German 500 kg WWII bomb.

 

At this stage, the mid-wing mistake reared its ugly head – it had two painful consequences which I had not fully thought through. Problem #1: the engine nacelles turned out to be too long. When rotated into a vertical position, they’d potentially hit the ground! Furthermore, the ground clearance was very low – and I decided to skip the Ka-52’s OOB landing gear in favor of a heavier and esp. longer alternative, a full landing gear set from an Italeri MiG-37 “Ferret E” stealth fighter, which itself resembles a MiG-23/27 landing gear. Due to the expected higher speeds of the vintoplan I gave the landing gear full covers (partly scratched, plus some donor parts from an Academy MiG-27). It took some trials to get the new landing gear into the right position and a suitable stance – but it worked. With this benchmark I was also able to modify the engine nacelles, shortening their rear ends. They were still very (too!) close to the ground, but at least the model would not sit on them!

However, the more complete the model became, the more design flaws turned up. Another mistake is that the front and rear rotors slightly overlap when in vertical position – something that would be unthinkable in real life…

 

With all major components in place, however, detail work could proceed. This included the completion of the cockpit and the sensor turrets, the Ka-52 cannon and finally the ordnance. Due to the large rotors, any armament had to be concentrated around the fuselage, outside of the propeller discs. For this reason (and in order to prevent the rear engines to ingest exhaust gases from the front engines in level flight), I gave the front wings a slightly larger span, so that four underwing pylons could be fitted, plus a pair of underfuselage hardpoints.

The ordnance was puzzled together from the Italeri Ka-52 and from an ESCI Ka-34 (the fake Ka-50) kit.

  

Painting and markings:

With such an exotic aircraft, I rather wanted a conservative livery and opted for a typical Soviet tactical four-tone scheme from the Eighties – the idea was to build a prototype aircraft from the state acceptance trials period, not a flashy demonstrator. The scheme and the (guesstimated) colors were transferred from a Soviet air force MiG-21bis of that era, and it consists of a reddish light brown (Humbrol 119, Light Earth), a light, yellowish green (Humbrol 159, Khaki Drab), a bluish dark green (Humbrol 195, Dark Satin Green, a.k.a. RAL 6020 Chromdioxidgrün) and a dark brown (Humbrol 170, Brown Bess). For the undersides’ typical bluish grey I chose Humbrol 145 (FS 35237, Gray Blue), which is slightly lighter and less greenish than the typical Soviet tones. A light black ink wash was applied and some light post-shading was done in order to create panels that are structurally not there, augmented by some pencil lines.

 

The cockpit became light blue (Humbrol 89), with medium gray dashboard and consoles. The ejection seats received bright yellow seatbelts and bright blue pads – a detail seen on a Mi-28 cockpit picture.

Some dielectric fairings like the fin tip were painted in bright medium green (Humbrol 101), while some other antenna fairings were painted in pale yellow (Humbrol 71).

The landing gear struts and the interior of the wells became Aluminum Metalic (Humbrol 56), the wheels dark green discs (Humbrol 30).

 

The decals were puzzled together from various sources, including some Begemot sheets. Most of the stencils came from the Ka-52 OOB sheet, and generic decal sheet material was used to mark the walkways or the rotor tips and leading edges.

 

Only some light weathering was done to the leading edges of the wings, and then the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.

  

A complex kitbashing project, and it revealed some pitfalls in the course of making. However, the result looks menacing and still convincing, esp. in flight – even though the picture editing, with four artificially rotating proprotors, was probably more tedious than building the model itself!

A nice looking 1971 Plymouth Barracuda ('cuda) that appeared at the 2019 MOPAR Days at the Olathe Kansas Bass Pro Shop.

 

The Plymouth Barracuda is a two-door automobile manufactured by Plymouth from 1964 to 1974.

 

The first-generation Barracuda, a hardtop fastback, was based on the A-body platform (shared with the Valiant). The first generation car featured distinctive wraparound back glass and was marketed from 1964 to 1966.

 

The second-generation Barracuda, built from 1967 to 1969, though still Valiant-based, was heavily redesigned. Body designs were now available in fastback, hardtop coupé, and convertible versions.

 

The third generation, offered from 1970 to 1974, was no longer based on the A-body, but on the Chrysler E-body. The completely new design was similar to the Dodge Challenger and available in hardtop and convertible body styles. The Barracuda was discontinued after the 1974 model year.

 

The Barracuda was changed slightly for 1971, with a new grille and taillights, seat, and trim differences. This would be the only year that the Barracuda would have four headlights (which the Challenger had for all five years of their concurrent run), and also the only year of the fender "gills" on the 'Cuda model.

 

In 1970 and 1971 only, the shaker hood (option code N96), elastomeric (rubber) colored bumpers, and the Spicer-built Dana 60 rear axle were available. The shaker hood was available with 340, 383, 440 four-barrel, 440 six-barrel, and 426 Hemi engines. The elastomeric (rubber) colored bumpers were available either as a front-only option, option code A21, or as a front and rear combination, option code A22. The heavy-duty (and heavy) Dana 60, with a 9.75 in (248 mm) ring gear, was standard equipment with manual transmissions and 440 six-barrel and 426 Hemi engines, and was optional on those with the automatic transmission.

 

Source: Wikipedia

c/n 020

Built 1986 and test flown as G-17-22.

Used by Westlands as a development and demonstrator aircraft for a military variant of the WG.30.

None were ordered and G-HAUL joined the museum in April 1991

The Helicopter Museum

Weston-super-Mare, North Somerset, UK

2nd October 2020

 

The following information is from The Helicopter Museum website:-

 

“The Series 300 version of the WG-30 was developed from the original Series 100 for the battlefield transport role. Development was launched in 1982 with £41 million government aid, initially with an interim Series 200 aircraft and then this prototype registered as G-HAUL.

Series 300 introduced more powerful Rolls Royce Turbomeca RTM 322 engines, an uprated gearbox, new bolted titanium five-bladed main and tail rotor hubs with new profile blades, a crashworthy undercarriage and fuel system, an all-plastic tail plane unit and other changes to considerably increase payload, performance and safety.

The engines and main gearbox were mounted on a vibration-absorbing raft with elastomeric suspension units for reduced noise, and its maximum takeoff was increased with composite BERP rotor blades. A glass cockpit was proposed as an option.

This example (G-HAUL) was the only Series 300 built, proposed to meet a Royal Air Force requirement to succeed the Wessex and Puma, and shown at the 1986 Farnborough Air Show. It continued to be used to test the new main gearbox and for demonstration flights until March 1987, when development was abandoned after the RAF chose the larger EH101 instead, and no other interest was forthcoming.”

For the sake of clarity and to lend some perspective, this photo serves as an addendum to this previously-posted snapshot: www.flickr.com/photos/echodyne_harmonic/51026073293/in/da....

 

I get a real sense of melancholy when looking at this photo, maybe because all these years later I can still clearly recall the mindset I was inhabiting when I took it: loneliness, isolation, depression, inadequacy . . .

 

"I'm wasting my life, slow and steady loser, forever towing the line."

 

I like to think of this picture as the album cover to a song that doesn't yet exist. I should get to work on that. The future remains unwritten, and in that fact there is hope to be found.

 

Take care of one another, until next time. Much love. - O.P.

New Prichard Nixon stickers are hitting the streets, and the future is looking bright.

 

"Hey, has anyone seen my will to live? Anyone? Anywhere? Nothing?"

 

"You probably left it next to the time clock. Don't worry, it'll be there when you clock out for the evening."

 

Hit me up if you'd like a handful free of charge. I'll be sending out sticker packs all week long.

 

I am making in-roads with radio programmers, music producers, newspaper editors and literary publishers; we'll see what pops next.

 

In the meantime, hang tight and I'll catch you all on the next one. Thank you as always for your interest and support.

 

Sincerely,

 

- O . . . Phuck!™

A.K.A. Prichard Nixon

 

Website: prichardnixon.bandcamp.com/.

E-mail: prichardnixon@yahoo.com.

The Plymouth Barracuda is a two-door car that was manufactured by the Plymouth division of the Chrysler Corporation from the 1964 to 1974 model years.

 

The first-generation Barracuda, a fastback A-body coupe based on the Plymouth Valiant, had distinctive wraparound back glass and was available from 1964 to 1966.

 

The second-generation 1967 to 1969 Barracuda, though still Valiant-based, was heavily redesigned. Second-generation A-body cars were available in fastback, notchback, and convertible versions.

 

The 1970 to 1974 E-body Barracuda, no longer Valiant-based, was available as a coupe and a convertible, both of which were very different from the previous models. The final model year for the Barracuda was 1974.

 

1970–71

 

The redesign for the 1970 Barracuda removed all its previous commonality with the Valiant. The original fastback design was deleted from the line and the Barracuda now consisted of coupe and convertible models. The all-new model, styled by John E. Herlitz, was built on a shorter, wider version of Chrysler's existing B platform, called the E-body. Sharing this platform was the newly launched Dodge Challenger; however no sheet metal interchanged between the two cars, and the Challenger, at 110 inches (2,800 mm), had a wheelbase that was 2 inches (51 mm) longer than the Barracuda.

 

The E-body Barracuda was now "able to shake the stigma of 'economy car'." Three versions were offered for 1970 and 1971: the base Barracuda (BH), the luxury oriented Gran Coupe (BP), and the sport model 'Cuda (BS).For one year (1971), there also was the Barracuda Coupe, a low-end model which (like other Coupe series Chrysler Corp. offered that year) had a fixed rear passenger window and minor B pillar instead of roll-down rear passenger windows. The high-performance models were marketed as 'Cuda deriving from the 1969 option. The E-body's engine bay was larger than that of the previous A-body, facilitating the release of Chrysler's 426 cu in (7.0 L) Hemi for the regular retail market.

 

1970 Plymouth Hemi 'Cuda, raced by the Chrysler France works team in 1970-1973

For 1970 and 1971, the Barracuda and Barracuda Gran Coupe had two six-cylinder engines available — a new 198 cu in (3.2 L) version of the slant-6, and the 225 — as well as three different V8s: the 318ci, the 383ci with two-barrel carburetor and single exhaust, and the 383ci with four-barrel carburetor and dual exhaust 330 hp (250 kW) SAE gross. The Cuda had the 383ci 335 hp (250 kW) SAE gross (same as Dodge's 383 Magnum) as the standard engine. It also had the 440ci four-barrel Super Commando, the 440ci six-barrel Super Commando Six Pak, and the 426ci Hemi. The 440- and Hemi-equipped cars received upgraded suspension components and structural reinforcements to help transfer the power to the road.

 

In 1970 the big-block power options offered to the customer were:

 

approximately 335 hp (250 kW) SAE net in the high performance 383-4V,

approximately 375 hp (280 kW) SAE net in the 440-4V,

approximately 390 hp (290 kW) SAE net in the 440-6V, and

approximately 425 hp (317 kW) SAE net in the 426-8V.

 

Other Barracuda options included decal sets, hood modifications, and some unusual "high impact" colors such as "Lime Light", "Bahama Yellow", "Tor Red", "Lemon Twist", "Curious Yellow", "Vitamin C", "In-Violet", "Sassy Grass" and "Moulin Rouge".

 

Swede Savage and Dan Gurney raced identical factory-sponsored AAR (All American Racers) 'Cudas in the 1970 Trans-Am Series. The cars qualified for three pole positions but did not win any Trans-Am races; the highest finish was second at Road America. A street version of the AAR 'Cuda was produced, powered by the 340 cu in (5.6 L) "Six Pack" (three two-barrel carburetors) engine. Four 1970 Hemi 'Cudas were also successfully raced by Chrysler France, from 1970 until 1973.[15] The works team director Henrí Chemin piloted the first car, and then sold it on to friend and privateer J. F. Mas who went on to race it for another two years. This Hemi 'Cuda won four French Group 1 class championships, three on track and one in hill-climbing.

 

1971 Plymouth Hemi 'Cuda

The Barracuda was changed slightly for 1971, with a new grille and taillights, seat, and trim differences. This would be the only year that the Barracuda would have four headlights, and also the only year of the fender "gills" on the 'Cuda model.

 

The 1971 Barracuda engine options would remain the same as that of the 1970 model, except the four-barrel carbureted 440 V8 engine was no longer on the option list, but could be had via a special order and perhaps a dozen cars were built with it installed; otherwise the 440-powered Barracudas had a six-barrel carburetor setup instead.

 

In 1971 the big-block power options offered to the customer were:

 

275 hp (205 kW) SAE net in the 383-2V

300 hp (220 kW) SAE net in the 383-4V

385 hp (287 kW) SAE net in the 440-6V

425 hp (317 kW) SAE net in the 426-8V

 

In 1970 and 1971 only, the shaker hood (option code N96), elastomeric (rubber) colored bumpers, and the Spicer-built Dana 60 rear axle were available. The shaker hood was available with 340, 383, 440 four-barrel, 440 six-barrel, and 426 Hemi engines. The elastomeric (rubber) colored bumpers were available as a front-only option, code A21, or as a front and rear combination, option code A22. The heavy-duty (and heavy) Dana 60, with a 9.75 in (248 mm) ring gear, was standard equipment with manual transmissions and 440 six-barrel and 426 Hemi engines, and was optional on those with the automatic transmission.

 

[Text from Wikipedia]

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plymouth_Barracuda

 

This miniland-scale Lego Plymouth 1971 HEMI 'Cuda Hardtop has been created for Flickr LUGNuts' 91st Build Challenge, - "Anger Management", - all about cars with some link to being angry.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The РТАК-30 attack vintoplan (also known as vintokryl) owed its existence to the Mil Mi-30 plane/helicopter project that originated in 1972. The Mil Mi-30 was conceived as a transport aircraft that could hold up to 19 passengers or two tons of cargo, and its purpose was to replace the Mi-8 and Mi-17 Helicopters in both civil and military roles. With vertical takeoff through a pair of tiltrotor engine pods on the wing tips (similar in layout to the later V-22 Osprey) and the ability to fly like a normal plane, the Mil Mi-30 had a clear advantage over the older models.

 

Since the vintoplan concept was a completely new field of research and engineering, a dedicated design bureau was installed in the mid-Seventies at the Rostov-na-Donu helicopter factory, where most helicopters from the Mil design bureau were produced, under the title Ростов Тилт Ротор Авиационная Компания (Rostov Tilt Rotor Aircraft Company), or РТАК (RTRA), for short.

 

The vintoplan project lingered for some time, with basic research being conducted concerning aerodynamics, rotor design and flight control systems. Many findings later found their way into conventional planes and helicopters. At the beginning of the 1980s, the project had progressed far enough that the vintoplan received official backing so that РТАК scientists and Mil helicopter engineers assembled and tested several layouts and components for this complicated aircraft type.

At that time the Mil Mi-30 vintoplan was expected to use a single TV3-117 Turbo Shaft Engine with a four-bladed propeller rotors on each of its two pairs of stub wings of almost equal span. The engine was still installed in the fuselage and the proprotors driven by long shafts.

 

However, while being a very clean design, this original layout revealed several problems concerning aeroelasticity, dynamics of construction, characteristics for the converter apparatuses, aerodynamics and flight dynamics. In the course of further development stages and attempts to rectify the technical issues, the vintoplan layout went through several revisions. The layout shifted consequently from having 4 smaller engines in rotating pods on two pairs of stub wings through three engines with rotating nacelles on the front wings and a fixed, horizontal rotor over the tail and finally back to only 2 engines (much like the initial concept), but this time mounted in rotating nacelles on the wing tips and a canard stabilizer layout.

 

In August 1981 the Commission of the Presidium of the USSR Council of Ministers on weapons eventually issued a decree on the development of a flyworthy Mil Mi-30 vintoplan prototype. Shortly afterwards the military approved of the vintoplan, too, but desired bigger, more powerful engines in order to improve performance and weight capacity. In the course of the ensuing project refinement, the weight capacity was raised to 3-5 tons and the passenger limit to 32. In parallel, the modified type was also foreseen for civil operations as a short range feederliner, potentially replacing Yak-40 and An-24 airliners in Aeroflot service.

In 1982, РТАК took the interest from the military and proposed a dedicated attack vintoplan, based on former research and existing components of the original transport variant. This project was accepted by MAP and received the separate designation РТАК-30. However, despite having some close technical relations to the Mi-30 transport (primarily the engine nacelles, their rotation mechanism and the flight control systems), the РТАК-30 was a completely different aircraft. The timing was good, though, and the proposal was met with much interest, since the innovative vintoplan concept was to compete against traditional helicopters: the design work on the dedicated Mi-28 and Ka-50 attack helicopters had just started at that time, too, so that РТАК received green lights for the construction of five prototypes: four flyworthy machines plus one more for static ground tests.

 

The РТАК-30 was based on one of the early Mi-30 layouts and it combined two pairs of mid-set wings with different wing spans with a tall tail fin that ensured directional stability. Each wing carried a rotating engine nacelle with a so-called proprotor on its tip, each with three high aspect ratio blades. The proprotors were handed (i.e. revolved in opposite directions) in order to minimize torque effects and improve handling, esp. in the hover. The front and back pair of engines were cross-linked among each other on a common driveshaft, eliminating engine-out asymmetric thrust problems during V/STOL operations. In the event of the failure of one engine, it would automatically disconnect through torque spring clutches and both propellers on a pair of wings would be driven by the remaining engine.

Four engines were chosen because, despite the weight and complexity penalty, this extra power was expected to be required in order to achieve a performance that was markedly superior to a conventional helicopter like the Mi-24, the primary Soviet attack helicopter of that era the РТАК-30 was supposed to replace. It was also expected that the rotating nacelles could also be used to improve agility in level flight through a mild form of vectored thrust.

 

The РТАК-30’s streamlined fuselage provided ample space for avionics, fuel, a fully retractable tricycle landing gear and a two man crew in an armored side-by-side cockpit with ejection seats. The windshield was able to withstand 12.7–14.5 mm caliber bullets, the titanium cockpit tub could take hits from 20 mm cannon. An autonomous power unit (APU) was housed in the fuselage, too, making operations of the aircraft independent from ground support.

While the РТАК-30 was not intended for use as a transport, the fuselage was spacious enough to have a small compartment between the front wings spars, capable of carrying up to three people. The purpose of this was the rescue of downed helicopter crews, as a cargo hold esp. for transfer flights and as additional space for future mission equipment or extra fuel.

In vertical flight, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotor system used controls very similar to a twin or tandem-rotor helicopter. Yaw was controlled by tilting its rotors in opposite directions. Roll was provided through differential power or thrust, supported by ailerons on the rear wings. Pitch was provided through rotor cyclic or nacelle tilt and further aerodynamic surfaces on both pairs of wings. Vertical motion was controlled with conventional rotor blade pitch and a control similar to a fixed-wing engine control called a thrust control lever (TCL). The rotor heads had elastomeric bearings and the proprotor blades were made from composite materials, which could sustain 30 mm shells.

 

The РТАК-30 featured a helmet-mounted display for the pilot, a very modern development at its time. The pilot designated targets for the navigator/weapons officer, who proceeded to fire the weapons required to fulfill that particular task. The integrated surveillance and fire control system had two optical channels providing wide and narrow fields of view, a narrow-field-of-view optical television channel, and a laser rangefinder. The system could move within 110 degrees in azimuth and from +13 to −40 degrees in elevation and was placed in a spherical dome on top of the fuselage, just behind the cockpit.

 

The aircraft carried one automatic 2A42 30 mm internal gun, mounted semi-rigidly fixed near the center of the fuselage, movable only slightly in elevation and azimuth. The arrangement was also regarded as being more practical than a classic free-turning turret mount for the aircraft’s considerably higher flight speed than a normal helicopter. As a side effect, the semi-rigid mounting improved the cannon's accuracy, giving the 30 mm a longer practical range and better hit ratio at medium ranges. Ammunition supply was 460 rounds, with separate compartments for high-fragmentation, explosive incendiary, or armor-piercing rounds. The type of ammunition could be selected by the pilot during flight.

The gunner can select one of two rates of full automatic fire, low at 200 to 300 rds/min and high at 550 to 800 rds/min. The effective range when engaging ground targets such as light armored vehicles is 1,500 m, while soft-skinned targets can be engaged out to 4,000 m. Air targets can be engaged flying at low altitudes of up to 2,000 m and up to a slant range of 2,500 m.

 

A substantial range of weapons could be carried on four hardpoints under the front wings, plus three more under the fuselage, for a total ordnance of up to 2,500 kg (with reduced internal fuel). The РТАК-30‘s main armament comprised up to 24 laser-guided Vikhr missiles with a maximum range of some 8 km. These tube-launched missiles could be used against ground and aerial targets. A search and tracking radar was housed in a thimble radome on the РТАК-30’s nose and their laser guidance system (mounted in a separate turret under the radome) was reported to be virtually jam-proof. The system furthermore featured automatic guidance to the target, enabling evasive action immediately after missile launch. Alternatively, the system was also compatible with Ataka laser-guided anti-tank missiles.

Other weapon options included laser- or TV-guided Kh-25 missiles as well as iron bombs and napalm tanks of up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) caliber and several rocket pods, including the S-13 and S-8 rockets. The "dumb" rocket pods could be upgraded to laser guidance with the proposed Ugroza system. Against helicopters and aircraft the РТАК-30 could carry up to four R-60 and/or R-73 IR-guided AAMs. Drop tanks and gun pods could be carried, too.

 

When the РТАК-30's proprotors were perpendicular to the motion in the high-speed portions of the flight regime, the aircraft demonstrated a relatively high maximum speed: over 300 knots/560 km/h top speed were achieved during state acceptance trials in 1987, as well as sustained cruise speeds of 250 knots/460 km/h, which was almost twice as fast as a conventional helicopter. Furthermore, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotors and stub wings provided the aircraft with a substantially greater cruise altitude capability than conventional helicopters: during the prototypes’ tests the machines easily reached 6,000 m / 20,000 ft or more, whereas helicopters typically do not exceed 3,000 m / 10,000 ft altitude.

 

Flight tests in general and flight control system refinement in specific lasted until late 1988, and while the vintoplan concept proved to be sound, the technical and practical problems persisted. The aircraft was complex and heavy, and pilots found the machine to be hazardous to land, due to its low ground clearance. Due to structural limits the machine could also never be brought to its expected agility limits

During that time the Soviet Union’s internal tensions rose and more and more hampered the РТАК-30’s development. During this time, two of the prototypes were lost (the 1st and 4th machine) in accidents, and in 1989 only two machines were left in flightworthy condition (the 5th airframe had been set aside for structural ground tests). Nevertheless, the РТАК-30 made its public debut at the Paris Air Show in June 1989 (the 3rd prototype, coded “33 Yellow”), together with the Mi-28A, but was only shown in static display and did not take part in any flight show. After that, the aircraft received the NATO ASCC code "Hemlock" and caused serious concern in Western military headquarters, since the РТАК-30 had the potential to dominate the European battlefield.

 

And this was just about to happen: Despite the РТАК-30’s development problems, the innovative attack vintoplan was included in the Soviet Union’s 5-year plan for 1989-1995, and the vehicle was eventually expected to enter service in 1996. However, due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dwindling economics, neither the РТАК-30 nor its civil Mil Mi-30 sister did soar out in the new age of technology. In 1990 the whole program was stopped and both surviving РТАК-30 prototypes were mothballed – one (the 3rd prototype) was disassembled and its components brought to the Rostov-na-Donu Mil plant, while the other, prototype No. 1, is rumored to be stored at the Central Russian Air Force Museum in Monino, to be restored to a public exhibition piece some day.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: Two (pilot, copilot/WSO) plus space for up to three passengers or cargo

Length: 45 ft 7 1/2 in (13,93 m)

Rotor diameter: 20 ft 9 in (6,33 m)

Wingspan incl. engine nacelles: 42 ft 8 1/4 in (13,03 m)

Total width with rotors: 58 ft 8 1/2 in (17,93 m)

Height: 17 ft (5,18 m) at top of tailfin

Disc area: 4x 297 ft² (27,65 m²)

Wing area: 342.2 ft² (36,72 m²)

Empty weight: 8,500 kg (18,740 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 12,000 kg (26,500 lb)

 

Powerplant:

4× Klimov VK-2500PS-03 turboshaft turbines, 2,400 hp (1.765 kW) each

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 275 knots (509 km/h, 316 mph) at sea level

305 kn (565 km/h; 351 mph) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)

Cruise speed: 241 kn (277 mph, 446 km/h) at sea level

Stall speed: 110 kn (126 mph, 204 km/h) in airplane mode

Range: 879 nmi (1,011 mi, 1,627 km)

Combat radius: 390 nmi (426 mi, 722 km)

Ferry range: 1,940 nmi (2,230 mi, 3,590 km) with auxiliary external fuel tanks

Service ceiling: 25,000 ft (7,620 m)

Rate of climb: 2,320–4,000 ft/min (11.8 m/s)

Glide ratio: 4.5:1

Disc loading: 20.9 lb/ft² at 47,500 lb GW (102.23 kg/m²)

Power/mass: 0.259 hp/lb (427 W/kg)

 

Armament:

1× 30 mm (1.18 in) 2A42 multi-purpose autocannon with 450 rounds

7 external hardpoints for a maximum ordnance of 2.500 kg (5.500 lb)

  

The kit and its assembly:

This exotic, fictional aircraft-thing is a contribution to the “The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com in early 2019. While the propulsion system itself is not that unconventional, I deemed the quadrocopter concept (which had already been on my agenda for a while) to be suitable for a worthy submission.

The Mil Mi-30 tiltrotor aircraft, mentioned in the background above, was a real project – but my alternative combat vintoplan design is purely speculative.

 

I had already stashed away some donor parts, primarily two sets of tiltrotor backpacks for 1:144 Gundam mecha from Bandai, which had been released recently. While these looked a little toy-like, these parts had the charm of coming with handed propellers and stub wings that would allow the engine nacelles to swivel.

The search for a suitable fuselage turned out to be a more complex safari than expected. My initial choice was the spoofy Italeri Mi-28 kit (I initially wanted a staggered tandem cockpit), but it turned out to be much too big for what I wanted to achieve. Then I tested a “real” Mi-28 (Dragon) and a Ka-50 (Italeri), but both failed for different reasons – the Mi-28 was too slender, while the Ka-50 had the right size – but converting it for my build would have been VERY complicated, because the engine nacelles would have to go and the fuselage shape between the cockpit and the fuselage section around the original engines and stub wings would be hard to adapt. I eventually bought an Italeri Ka-52 two-seater as fuselage donor.

 

In order to mount the four engines to the fuselage I’d need two pairs of wings of appropriate span – and I found a pair of 1:100 A-10 wings as well as the wings from an 1:72 PZL Iskra (not perfect, but the most suitable donor parts I could find in the junkyard). On the tips of these wings, the swiveling joints for the engine nacelles from the Bandai set were glued. While mounting the rear wings was not too difficult (just the Ka-52’s OOB stabilizers had to go), the front pair of wings was more complex. The reason: the Ka-52’s engines had to go and their attachment points, which are actually shallow recesses on the kit, had to be faired over first. Instead of filling everything with putty I decided to cover the areas with 0.5mm styrene sheet first, and then do cosmetic PSR work. This worked quite well and also included a cover for the Ka-52’s original rotor mast mount. Onto these new flanks the pair of front wings was attached, in a mid position – a conceptual mistake…

 

The cockpit was taken OOB and the aircraft’s nose received an additional thimble radome, reminiscent of the Mi-28’s arrangement. The radome itself was created from a German 500 kg WWII bomb.

 

At this stage, the mid-wing mistake reared its ugly head – it had two painful consequences which I had not fully thought through. Problem #1: the engine nacelles turned out to be too long. When rotated into a vertical position, they’d potentially hit the ground! Furthermore, the ground clearance was very low – and I decided to skip the Ka-52’s OOB landing gear in favor of a heavier and esp. longer alternative, a full landing gear set from an Italeri MiG-37 “Ferret E” stealth fighter, which itself resembles a MiG-23/27 landing gear. Due to the expected higher speeds of the vintoplan I gave the landing gear full covers (partly scratched, plus some donor parts from an Academy MiG-27). It took some trials to get the new landing gear into the right position and a suitable stance – but it worked. With this benchmark I was also able to modify the engine nacelles, shortening their rear ends. They were still very (too!) close to the ground, but at least the model would not sit on them!

However, the more complete the model became, the more design flaws turned up. Another mistake is that the front and rear rotors slightly overlap when in vertical position – something that would be unthinkable in real life…

 

With all major components in place, however, detail work could proceed. This included the completion of the cockpit and the sensor turrets, the Ka-52 cannon and finally the ordnance. Due to the large rotors, any armament had to be concentrated around the fuselage, outside of the propeller discs. For this reason (and in order to prevent the rear engines to ingest exhaust gases from the front engines in level flight), I gave the front wings a slightly larger span, so that four underwing pylons could be fitted, plus a pair of underfuselage hardpoints.

The ordnance was puzzled together from the Italeri Ka-52 and from an ESCI Ka-34 (the fake Ka-50) kit.

  

Painting and markings:

With such an exotic aircraft, I rather wanted a conservative livery and opted for a typical Soviet tactical four-tone scheme from the Eighties – the idea was to build a prototype aircraft from the state acceptance trials period, not a flashy demonstrator. The scheme and the (guesstimated) colors were transferred from a Soviet air force MiG-21bis of that era, and it consists of a reddish light brown (Humbrol 119, Light Earth), a light, yellowish green (Humbrol 159, Khaki Drab), a bluish dark green (Humbrol 195, Dark Satin Green, a.k.a. RAL 6020 Chromdioxidgrün) and a dark brown (Humbrol 170, Brown Bess). For the undersides’ typical bluish grey I chose Humbrol 145 (FS 35237, Gray Blue), which is slightly lighter and less greenish than the typical Soviet tones. A light black ink wash was applied and some light post-shading was done in order to create panels that are structurally not there, augmented by some pencil lines.

 

The cockpit became light blue (Humbrol 89), with medium gray dashboard and consoles. The ejection seats received bright yellow seatbelts and bright blue pads – a detail seen on a Mi-28 cockpit picture.

Some dielectric fairings like the fin tip were painted in bright medium green (Humbrol 101), while some other antenna fairings were painted in pale yellow (Humbrol 71).

The landing gear struts and the interior of the wells became Aluminum Metalic (Humbrol 56), the wheels dark green discs (Humbrol 30).

 

The decals were puzzled together from various sources, including some Begemot sheets. Most of the stencils came from the Ka-52 OOB sheet, and generic decal sheet material was used to mark the walkways or the rotor tips and leading edges.

 

Only some light weathering was done to the leading edges of the wings, and then the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.

  

A complex kitbashing project, and it revealed some pitfalls in the course of making. However, the result looks menacing and still convincing, esp. in flight – even though the picture editing, with four artificially rotating proprotors, was probably more tedious than building the model itself!

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The РТАК-30 attack vintoplan (also known as vintokryl) owed its existence to the Mil Mi-30 plane/helicopter project that originated in 1972. The Mil Mi-30 was conceived as a transport aircraft that could hold up to 19 passengers or two tons of cargo, and its purpose was to replace the Mi-8 and Mi-17 Helicopters in both civil and military roles. With vertical takeoff through a pair of tiltrotor engine pods on the wing tips (similar in layout to the later V-22 Osprey) and the ability to fly like a normal plane, the Mil Mi-30 had a clear advantage over the older models.

 

Since the vintoplan concept was a completely new field of research and engineering, a dedicated design bureau was installed in the mid-Seventies at the Rostov-na-Donu helicopter factory, where most helicopters from the Mil design bureau were produced, under the title Ростов Тилт Ротор Авиационная Компания (Rostov Tilt Rotor Aircraft Company), or РТАК (RTRA), for short.

 

The vintoplan project lingered for some time, with basic research being conducted concerning aerodynamics, rotor design and flight control systems. Many findings later found their way into conventional planes and helicopters. At the beginning of the 1980s, the project had progressed far enough that the vintoplan received official backing so that РТАК scientists and Mil helicopter engineers assembled and tested several layouts and components for this complicated aircraft type.

At that time the Mil Mi-30 vintoplan was expected to use a single TV3-117 Turbo Shaft Engine with a four-bladed propeller rotors on each of its two pairs of stub wings of almost equal span. The engine was still installed in the fuselage and the proprotors driven by long shafts.

 

However, while being a very clean design, this original layout revealed several problems concerning aeroelasticity, dynamics of construction, characteristics for the converter apparatuses, aerodynamics and flight dynamics. In the course of further development stages and attempts to rectify the technical issues, the vintoplan layout went through several revisions. The layout shifted consequently from having 4 smaller engines in rotating pods on two pairs of stub wings through three engines with rotating nacelles on the front wings and a fixed, horizontal rotor over the tail and finally back to only 2 engines (much like the initial concept), but this time mounted in rotating nacelles on the wing tips and a canard stabilizer layout.

 

In August 1981 the Commission of the Presidium of the USSR Council of Ministers on weapons eventually issued a decree on the development of a flyworthy Mil Mi-30 vintoplan prototype. Shortly afterwards the military approved of the vintoplan, too, but desired bigger, more powerful engines in order to improve performance and weight capacity. In the course of the ensuing project refinement, the weight capacity was raised to 3-5 tons and the passenger limit to 32. In parallel, the modified type was also foreseen for civil operations as a short range feederliner, potentially replacing Yak-40 and An-24 airliners in Aeroflot service.

In 1982, РТАК took the interest from the military and proposed a dedicated attack vintoplan, based on former research and existing components of the original transport variant. This project was accepted by MAP and received the separate designation РТАК-30. However, despite having some close technical relations to the Mi-30 transport (primarily the engine nacelles, their rotation mechanism and the flight control systems), the РТАК-30 was a completely different aircraft. The timing was good, though, and the proposal was met with much interest, since the innovative vintoplan concept was to compete against traditional helicopters: the design work on the dedicated Mi-28 and Ka-50 attack helicopters had just started at that time, too, so that РТАК received green lights for the construction of five prototypes: four flyworthy machines plus one more for static ground tests.

 

The РТАК-30 was based on one of the early Mi-30 layouts and it combined two pairs of mid-set wings with different wing spans with a tall tail fin that ensured directional stability. Each wing carried a rotating engine nacelle with a so-called proprotor on its tip, each with three high aspect ratio blades. The proprotors were handed (i.e. revolved in opposite directions) in order to minimize torque effects and improve handling, esp. in the hover. The front and back pair of engines were cross-linked among each other on a common driveshaft, eliminating engine-out asymmetric thrust problems during V/STOL operations. In the event of the failure of one engine, it would automatically disconnect through torque spring clutches and both propellers on a pair of wings would be driven by the remaining engine.

Four engines were chosen because, despite the weight and complexity penalty, this extra power was expected to be required in order to achieve a performance that was markedly superior to a conventional helicopter like the Mi-24, the primary Soviet attack helicopter of that era the РТАК-30 was supposed to replace. It was also expected that the rotating nacelles could also be used to improve agility in level flight through a mild form of vectored thrust.

 

The РТАК-30’s streamlined fuselage provided ample space for avionics, fuel, a fully retractable tricycle landing gear and a two man crew in an armored side-by-side cockpit with ejection seats. The windshield was able to withstand 12.7–14.5 mm caliber bullets, the titanium cockpit tub could take hits from 20 mm cannon. An autonomous power unit (APU) was housed in the fuselage, too, making operations of the aircraft independent from ground support.

While the РТАК-30 was not intended for use as a transport, the fuselage was spacious enough to have a small compartment between the front wings spars, capable of carrying up to three people. The purpose of this was the rescue of downed helicopter crews, as a cargo hold esp. for transfer flights and as additional space for future mission equipment or extra fuel.

In vertical flight, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotor system used controls very similar to a twin or tandem-rotor helicopter. Yaw was controlled by tilting its rotors in opposite directions. Roll was provided through differential power or thrust, supported by ailerons on the rear wings. Pitch was provided through rotor cyclic or nacelle tilt and further aerodynamic surfaces on both pairs of wings. Vertical motion was controlled with conventional rotor blade pitch and a control similar to a fixed-wing engine control called a thrust control lever (TCL). The rotor heads had elastomeric bearings and the proprotor blades were made from composite materials, which could sustain 30 mm shells.

 

The РТАК-30 featured a helmet-mounted display for the pilot, a very modern development at its time. The pilot designated targets for the navigator/weapons officer, who proceeded to fire the weapons required to fulfill that particular task. The integrated surveillance and fire control system had two optical channels providing wide and narrow fields of view, a narrow-field-of-view optical television channel, and a laser rangefinder. The system could move within 110 degrees in azimuth and from +13 to −40 degrees in elevation and was placed in a spherical dome on top of the fuselage, just behind the cockpit.

 

The aircraft carried one automatic 2A42 30 mm internal gun, mounted semi-rigidly fixed near the center of the fuselage, movable only slightly in elevation and azimuth. The arrangement was also regarded as being more practical than a classic free-turning turret mount for the aircraft’s considerably higher flight speed than a normal helicopter. As a side effect, the semi-rigid mounting improved the cannon's accuracy, giving the 30 mm a longer practical range and better hit ratio at medium ranges. Ammunition supply was 460 rounds, with separate compartments for high-fragmentation, explosive incendiary, or armor-piercing rounds. The type of ammunition could be selected by the pilot during flight.

The gunner can select one of two rates of full automatic fire, low at 200 to 300 rds/min and high at 550 to 800 rds/min. The effective range when engaging ground targets such as light armored vehicles is 1,500 m, while soft-skinned targets can be engaged out to 4,000 m. Air targets can be engaged flying at low altitudes of up to 2,000 m and up to a slant range of 2,500 m.

 

A substantial range of weapons could be carried on four hardpoints under the front wings, plus three more under the fuselage, for a total ordnance of up to 2,500 kg (with reduced internal fuel). The РТАК-30‘s main armament comprised up to 24 laser-guided Vikhr missiles with a maximum range of some 8 km. These tube-launched missiles could be used against ground and aerial targets. A search and tracking radar was housed in a thimble radome on the РТАК-30’s nose and their laser guidance system (mounted in a separate turret under the radome) was reported to be virtually jam-proof. The system furthermore featured automatic guidance to the target, enabling evasive action immediately after missile launch. Alternatively, the system was also compatible with Ataka laser-guided anti-tank missiles.

Other weapon options included laser- or TV-guided Kh-25 missiles as well as iron bombs and napalm tanks of up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) caliber and several rocket pods, including the S-13 and S-8 rockets. The "dumb" rocket pods could be upgraded to laser guidance with the proposed Ugroza system. Against helicopters and aircraft the РТАК-30 could carry up to four R-60 and/or R-73 IR-guided AAMs. Drop tanks and gun pods could be carried, too.

 

When the РТАК-30's proprotors were perpendicular to the motion in the high-speed portions of the flight regime, the aircraft demonstrated a relatively high maximum speed: over 300 knots/560 km/h top speed were achieved during state acceptance trials in 1987, as well as sustained cruise speeds of 250 knots/460 km/h, which was almost twice as fast as a conventional helicopter. Furthermore, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotors and stub wings provided the aircraft with a substantially greater cruise altitude capability than conventional helicopters: during the prototypes’ tests the machines easily reached 6,000 m / 20,000 ft or more, whereas helicopters typically do not exceed 3,000 m / 10,000 ft altitude.

 

Flight tests in general and flight control system refinement in specific lasted until late 1988, and while the vintoplan concept proved to be sound, the technical and practical problems persisted. The aircraft was complex and heavy, and pilots found the machine to be hazardous to land, due to its low ground clearance. Due to structural limits the machine could also never be brought to its expected agility limits

During that time the Soviet Union’s internal tensions rose and more and more hampered the РТАК-30’s development. During this time, two of the prototypes were lost (the 1st and 4th machine) in accidents, and in 1989 only two machines were left in flightworthy condition (the 5th airframe had been set aside for structural ground tests). Nevertheless, the РТАК-30 made its public debut at the Paris Air Show in June 1989 (the 3rd prototype, coded “33 Yellow”), together with the Mi-28A, but was only shown in static display and did not take part in any flight show. After that, the aircraft received the NATO ASCC code "Hemlock" and caused serious concern in Western military headquarters, since the РТАК-30 had the potential to dominate the European battlefield.

 

And this was just about to happen: Despite the РТАК-30’s development problems, the innovative attack vintoplan was included in the Soviet Union’s 5-year plan for 1989-1995, and the vehicle was eventually expected to enter service in 1996. However, due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dwindling economics, neither the РТАК-30 nor its civil Mil Mi-30 sister did soar out in the new age of technology. In 1990 the whole program was stopped and both surviving РТАК-30 prototypes were mothballed – one (the 3rd prototype) was disassembled and its components brought to the Rostov-na-Donu Mil plant, while the other, prototype No. 1, is rumored to be stored at the Central Russian Air Force Museum in Monino, to be restored to a public exhibition piece some day.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: Two (pilot, copilot/WSO) plus space for up to three passengers or cargo

Length: 45 ft 7 1/2 in (13,93 m)

Rotor diameter: 20 ft 9 in (6,33 m)

Wingspan incl. engine nacelles: 42 ft 8 1/4 in (13,03 m)

Total width with rotors: 58 ft 8 1/2 in (17,93 m)

Height: 17 ft (5,18 m) at top of tailfin

Disc area: 4x 297 ft² (27,65 m²)

Wing area: 342.2 ft² (36,72 m²)

Empty weight: 8,500 kg (18,740 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 12,000 kg (26,500 lb)

 

Powerplant:

4× Klimov VK-2500PS-03 turboshaft turbines, 2,400 hp (1.765 kW) each

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 275 knots (509 km/h, 316 mph) at sea level

305 kn (565 km/h; 351 mph) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)

Cruise speed: 241 kn (277 mph, 446 km/h) at sea level

Stall speed: 110 kn (126 mph, 204 km/h) in airplane mode

Range: 879 nmi (1,011 mi, 1,627 km)

Combat radius: 390 nmi (426 mi, 722 km)

Ferry range: 1,940 nmi (2,230 mi, 3,590 km) with auxiliary external fuel tanks

Service ceiling: 25,000 ft (7,620 m)

Rate of climb: 2,320–4,000 ft/min (11.8 m/s)

Glide ratio: 4.5:1

Disc loading: 20.9 lb/ft² at 47,500 lb GW (102.23 kg/m²)

Power/mass: 0.259 hp/lb (427 W/kg)

 

Armament:

1× 30 mm (1.18 in) 2A42 multi-purpose autocannon with 450 rounds

7 external hardpoints for a maximum ordnance of 2.500 kg (5.500 lb)

  

The kit and its assembly:

This exotic, fictional aircraft-thing is a contribution to the “The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com in early 2019. While the propulsion system itself is not that unconventional, I deemed the quadrocopter concept (which had already been on my agenda for a while) to be suitable for a worthy submission.

The Mil Mi-30 tiltrotor aircraft, mentioned in the background above, was a real project – but my alternative combat vintoplan design is purely speculative.

 

I had already stashed away some donor parts, primarily two sets of tiltrotor backpacks for 1:144 Gundam mecha from Bandai, which had been released recently. While these looked a little toy-like, these parts had the charm of coming with handed propellers and stub wings that would allow the engine nacelles to swivel.

The search for a suitable fuselage turned out to be a more complex safari than expected. My initial choice was the spoofy Italeri Mi-28 kit (I initially wanted a staggered tandem cockpit), but it turned out to be much too big for what I wanted to achieve. Then I tested a “real” Mi-28 (Dragon) and a Ka-50 (Italeri), but both failed for different reasons – the Mi-28 was too slender, while the Ka-50 had the right size – but converting it for my build would have been VERY complicated, because the engine nacelles would have to go and the fuselage shape between the cockpit and the fuselage section around the original engines and stub wings would be hard to adapt. I eventually bought an Italeri Ka-52 two-seater as fuselage donor.

 

In order to mount the four engines to the fuselage I’d need two pairs of wings of appropriate span – and I found a pair of 1:100 A-10 wings as well as the wings from an 1:72 PZL Iskra (not perfect, but the most suitable donor parts I could find in the junkyard). On the tips of these wings, the swiveling joints for the engine nacelles from the Bandai set were glued. While mounting the rear wings was not too difficult (just the Ka-52’s OOB stabilizers had to go), the front pair of wings was more complex. The reason: the Ka-52’s engines had to go and their attachment points, which are actually shallow recesses on the kit, had to be faired over first. Instead of filling everything with putty I decided to cover the areas with 0.5mm styrene sheet first, and then do cosmetic PSR work. This worked quite well and also included a cover for the Ka-52’s original rotor mast mount. Onto these new flanks the pair of front wings was attached, in a mid position – a conceptual mistake…

 

The cockpit was taken OOB and the aircraft’s nose received an additional thimble radome, reminiscent of the Mi-28’s arrangement. The radome itself was created from a German 500 kg WWII bomb.

 

At this stage, the mid-wing mistake reared its ugly head – it had two painful consequences which I had not fully thought through. Problem #1: the engine nacelles turned out to be too long. When rotated into a vertical position, they’d potentially hit the ground! Furthermore, the ground clearance was very low – and I decided to skip the Ka-52’s OOB landing gear in favor of a heavier and esp. longer alternative, a full landing gear set from an Italeri MiG-37 “Ferret E” stealth fighter, which itself resembles a MiG-23/27 landing gear. Due to the expected higher speeds of the vintoplan I gave the landing gear full covers (partly scratched, plus some donor parts from an Academy MiG-27). It took some trials to get the new landing gear into the right position and a suitable stance – but it worked. With this benchmark I was also able to modify the engine nacelles, shortening their rear ends. They were still very (too!) close to the ground, but at least the model would not sit on them!

However, the more complete the model became, the more design flaws turned up. Another mistake is that the front and rear rotors slightly overlap when in vertical position – something that would be unthinkable in real life…

 

With all major components in place, however, detail work could proceed. This included the completion of the cockpit and the sensor turrets, the Ka-52 cannon and finally the ordnance. Due to the large rotors, any armament had to be concentrated around the fuselage, outside of the propeller discs. For this reason (and in order to prevent the rear engines to ingest exhaust gases from the front engines in level flight), I gave the front wings a slightly larger span, so that four underwing pylons could be fitted, plus a pair of underfuselage hardpoints.

The ordnance was puzzled together from the Italeri Ka-52 and from an ESCI Ka-34 (the fake Ka-50) kit.

  

Painting and markings:

With such an exotic aircraft, I rather wanted a conservative livery and opted for a typical Soviet tactical four-tone scheme from the Eighties – the idea was to build a prototype aircraft from the state acceptance trials period, not a flashy demonstrator. The scheme and the (guesstimated) colors were transferred from a Soviet air force MiG-21bis of that era, and it consists of a reddish light brown (Humbrol 119, Light Earth), a light, yellowish green (Humbrol 159, Khaki Drab), a bluish dark green (Humbrol 195, Dark Satin Green, a.k.a. RAL 6020 Chromdioxidgrün) and a dark brown (Humbrol 170, Brown Bess). For the undersides’ typical bluish grey I chose Humbrol 145 (FS 35237, Gray Blue), which is slightly lighter and less greenish than the typical Soviet tones. A light black ink wash was applied and some light post-shading was done in order to create panels that are structurally not there, augmented by some pencil lines.

 

The cockpit became light blue (Humbrol 89), with medium gray dashboard and consoles. The ejection seats received bright yellow seatbelts and bright blue pads – a detail seen on a Mi-28 cockpit picture.

Some dielectric fairings like the fin tip were painted in bright medium green (Humbrol 101), while some other antenna fairings were painted in pale yellow (Humbrol 71).

The landing gear struts and the interior of the wells became Aluminum Metalic (Humbrol 56), the wheels dark green discs (Humbrol 30).

 

The decals were puzzled together from various sources, including some Begemot sheets. Most of the stencils came from the Ka-52 OOB sheet, and generic decal sheet material was used to mark the walkways or the rotor tips and leading edges.

 

Only some light weathering was done to the leading edges of the wings, and then the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.

  

A complex kitbashing project, and it revealed some pitfalls in the course of making. However, the result looks menacing and still convincing, esp. in flight – even though the picture editing, with four artificially rotating proprotors, was probably more tedious than building the model itself!

Suffice to say it was a long damn week, what with having to wade through merciless crowds of stupid covidiots and all.

 

In all seriousness it took every ounce of strength and discipline I had this week not to break my foot off in their collective asses.

 

At one point I weathered a brief moment of clarity: the sooner the anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers die off the sooner the world as a whole will move past this pandemic and on to better things.

 

A hunter-gatherer community facing 15-months worth of economic and financial hardship and health insecurity would face a serious threat to its survival, and its retribution against the people who caused that hardship would be immediate and very violent.

 

If we were in the jungle, they would be in the pot and I'd be stirring, that's for fucking sure.

 

As we all know, drawing stickers helps to soothe the savage beast, as does writing and recording new music.

 

I am pleased to announce that the follow-up to my debut single "Goodman Conjuring" has been completed and released via Bandcamp.com. Entitled "Stupid Covidiots," it is the musical companion to this sticker, which also serves as an introduction to the character I have lovingly named Covie Bryant.

 

Give it a listen and give me shit at: prichardnixon.bandcamp.com/album/stupid-covidiots.

 

"Wash this from your life." - Henry Rollins

 

Having excised the negativity that accumulated inside me over the past week has lightened the mental load. Redirecting negativity into sticker-making and songwriting is much more rewarding than sitting in jail for throwing a punch at a stupid covidiot anyway. Score one for tortured artistry and score one for sweet, sweet revenge! I feel better already!

 

Until next time, keep holding the line and keep moving forward. Hope is a weapon and I love you all. - O.P.

A Genuine Example of One of the Eleven 1971 Hemi ‘Cuda Convertibles

 

500+hp, 425hp rated, 426 cu. in. vee eight-cylinder engine, dual four-barrel carburetors, four-speed manual transmission, Hurst pistol grip shifter, independent front suspension with torsion bars, live axle rear suspension with semi-elliptical leaf springs, front disc, rear drum power assisted hydraulic brakes. Wheelbase: 108"

 

Three times Chrysler Corporation has relied upon the Hemi to transform its products and image from dull to sparkling, and three times the Hemi has delivered. In an American car market that has been characterized by glitz, fins and bulk, the technical sophistication of Chrysler’s hemispherical combustion chamber V8 engine has been a refreshing demonstration of the appeal of elegant, thoughtful engineering.

 

In the late 60’s and early 70’s it also acquired a bad boy image of politically incorrect power and performance, establishing a mythical presence that has made the Hemi a legend.

 

Hemi History

 

During development work on World War II aircraft engines, Chrysler’s engineers had seen firsthand the potential for hemispherical combustion chamber engines. In addition to the thermal efficiency of the hemi chamber’s low surface area and its low-restriction cross-flow porting, the angle between the valves ideally disposed the ports for efficient breathing in a

vee-layout engine.

 

Chrysler was the ideal company to pursue the hemispherical combustion chamber V8. It had a longstanding tradition of investigating, developing and perfecting advanced engineering ideas. Unlike its major competitors, Chrysler had neither overhead valve nor vee-configuration engine history, and thus no preconceived notions of how it should be done. Its engine designers could – and did – explore every conceivable engine idea. Their research showed that the hemispherical combustion chamber not only gave better performance than a comparable wedge-chamber head but also tolerated appreciably higher compression ratios.

 

The hemispherical head V8 was introduced in the Chrysler line in 1951. With 331 cubic inches displacement in a short stroke oversquare design, Chrysler’s FirePower V8 delivered 180 horsepower at 4,000 rpm and 312 lb-ft torque at 2,000 rpm. The performance potential of the Hemi was quickly recognized, most famously with the Chrysler C300 and its successors, which set the pace both on the highway and on NASCAR’s speedways. By 1958, however, manufacturing economics swung the pendulum in favor of the wedge-chamber V8s. The Hemi was phased out in 1959 … but not for long.

 

In the early 60s the 413 and 426 Wedge engines were dominant in drag racing but lacked the continuous high rpm performance needed on NASCAR’s speedways. Dodge and Plymouth were being trounced, a situation that couldn’t be allowed to stand. Faced with a need to develop a high performance, free-breathing engine quickly, Chrysler’s engineers turned to the solution they already knew worked, the Hemi. They stuck with the overall dimensions of the Raised Block 426 Wedge so existing fixturing and machining setups could be employed and maintained the original Hemi’s dual rocker shafts and 58° valve included angle. To adapt the Hemi head to the Raised Block engine, the ingenious Chrysler engineers rotated the combustion chamber toward the engine’s centerline about 8 1/2°.

 

Completed and delivered to the track just days before the 1964 Daytona 500’s green flag, the 426 Hemis proved to be invincible, sweeping the top three places in NASCAR’s most important race.

 

Production of the second generation Hemi ended after the 1971 model year as emission restrictions and insurance surcharges gave horsepower, which had never been entirely socially acceptable, a distinctly antisocial taint. Chrysler would twice more resurrect the Hemi, however, first as a crate engine program for hot rodders and later as a third generation production engine that brought DaimlerChrysler back to the forefront of performance at the beginning of the 21st century. Like some other forms of antisocial behavior, horsepower has proven to be addictive.

 

The Hemi ‘Cuda

 

Of all the Street Hemis built, the most famous, attractive and desirable are the 1970-1971 E-body Plymouth ‘Cudas, combining the visceral delight of the Hemi’s power and torque with the ‘Cuda’s lightweight, streamlined and refined 2+2 platform.

 

The first Barracuda was introduced in 1964 and in the late 60’s Chrysler engineering and Hurst performance shoehorned Race Hemi engines into the Barracuda’s engine compartment for NHRA drag racing. Seventy-five were built, sold and successfully campaigned around the country. When the Barracuda was redesigned for the 1970 model year the engine compartment was made large enough for the legendary 425 horsepower 426 cubic inch Street Hemi.

 

The Plymouth Barracuda was the cleanest, most refined and elegant of all the pony car designs. Distinguished by its wide grille, long, flat hood, short rear deck and ominously raised rear fenders – deliberately shaped like the haunches of an animal crouching before a leap – the appearance of the ‘Cuda left no doubt that this was a serious performance car.

 

Hemi-powered ‘Cudas are surpassingly rare. Built for only two years, 1970 and 1971, their low production numbers reflect the undeniable fact that the combination of the ‘Cuda platform and the Street Hemi engine was irrationally fast. It also was expensive: $871.45 in 1970 and $883.90 in 1971, a prohibitive 70% more than the 390 horsepower 440 Six Barrel.

 

A Hemi ‘Cuda was not for the faint of heart nor for the cautious of pocketbook. Buying one took serious commitment, backed up by an ample budget. In 1971 there were only 119 souls brave and prosperous enough to make the commitment to check off E74, the Street Hemi’s order code, on the ‘Cuda order form.

 

• 108 of them ordered hardtops

• Only eleven stepped up for the top-of-the-line ‘Cuda convertible powered by the 426 cubic inch, 425 horsepower dual quad Street Hemi.

• Only three of those were confident enough of their driving skills to opt for the Hurst pistol grip shifted four-speed manual transmission.

• Only two of those were delivered in the U.S.

• Both U.S.-delivered ’71 Hemi ‘Cuda convertibles were B5 Blue with

matching interiors.

 

That’s only three, in all the world, that combined the Street Hemi engine with the ‘Cuda convertible body and 4-speed transmission in 1971. One of them is the car offered here, BS27R1B269588, the only one with white soft top and elastomeric front bumper cover.

 

The “Mountain Mopar” Hemi ‘Cuda Convertible

 

Built in February of 1971, this Plymouth Hemi ‘Cuda convertible’s first owner, Ronald Ambach, lived in St. Louis, Missouri. He owned it only until the fall, accumulating the car’s only street miles, before selling it to its next owner, Nick Masciarelli, in Ohio. He decided to take the Hemi ‘Cuda Stock Eliminator drag racing and turned to renowned Detroit-area engine builder Tom Tignanelli for a hot Hemi V8. The new owner was in a hurry, and the quickest way to meet his request was to swap the original engine for a fresh race-prepared Tignanelli Hemi.

 

In May of 1973, the Hemi ‘Cuda convertible was sold to John Book and partner John Oliverio in West Virginia who raced it in East Coast and Mid-Atlantic events during 1973 and 1974. Its dramatic appearance, complete with gold-leaf “Mountain Mopar” identification, is documented in several period photos in the car’s documentation file.

 

Fortunately for today’s collectors, the “Mountain Mopar” Hemi ‘Cuda convertible was retired after 1974 and stored in a climate-controlled building in West Virginia. In 1989 it was sold to the Painter brothers. Two years later it was acquired by Milt Robson in Atlanta, Georgia, still in its as-raced condition. Robson commenced a comprehensive restoration using original or new-old-stock parts to its original, as-delivered condition in his shops, which was completed in the early 90’s. Stored inside for virtually its entire life, 269588 was never subjected to the vicissitudes of the elements which afflicted most of its siblings; its original sheet metal and interior are carefully restored and retained. The engine was rebuilt around a correct 1/19/1970 date-coded Chrysler NOS block.

 

In addition to the 426/425 horsepower dual quad Street Hemi and pistol grip Hurst shifted four-speed manual transmission, this unique 1971 Hemi ‘Cuda convertible is equipped with power steering, power brakes, Dana Super Track Pack and AM-FM radio. Importantly, it is the only ’71 Hemi ‘Cuda convertible known to have been delivered with the body-colored Elastomeric front bumper cover. Its original configuration is verified by two separate original build sheets; the ownership history is documented with a continuous sequence of titles. It has been personally viewed by Galen Govier and authenticated by him as one of the seven US-delivered ’71 Hemi ‘Cuda convertibles which have been included in the Chrysler Registry.

 

Finished in B5 Blue inside and out with a white vinyl top, it has been restored to better than showroom condition. Particular attention has been paid to the accuracy of its components and finishes and to the preservation of as much as possible of its almost unbelievable originality, including the carefully preserved original interior.

 

It has been shown only in local shows around Atlanta in the mid 90s, was featured a decade ago in a May 1995 Car Collector magazine article by Dennis Adler and has appeared in several books, copies of which come with the car.

 

Putting a free-breathing, high-rpm engine like the 426 Hemi in a lithe, frisky chassis like the ‘Cuda was exactly what the forces of political correctness inveighed against in the early 70s. In 1972 the Hemi was gone for the second time, its visceral appeal buried in a cascade of social responsibility, “net” horsepower and Highway Fuel Economy ratings. There is nothing politically correct, nothing socially responsible about a Hemi ‘Cuda. The 1971 Plymouth Hemi ‘Cuda convertible is wretched excess in a nearly unimaginably limited production package.

 

This is absolutely the most desirable, rare and handsome of all the American Muscle and Pony Cars. Combining the brute power and torque of the legendary dual quad Street Hemi engine with the sleek, aggressive lines of the ‘Cuda convertible, it is the ultimate combination of personal car style and Muscle Car performance, a singular example and the quintessential muscle car of all time.

 

[Text from RM Auctions]

 

www.rmauctions.com/lots/lot.cfm?lot_id=132126

 

This Lego miniland-scale Plymouth HEMI ' Cuda Convertible (1971), has been created for Flickr LUGNuts' 89th Build Challenge, - "Over a Million, Under a Thousand", - a challenge to build vehicles valued over one million (US) dollars, or under one thousand (US) dollars.

 

This particular vehicle was auctioned by the RM Auction house for US$2,420,000)

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The РТАК-30 attack vintoplan (also known as vintokryl) owed its existence to the Mil Mi-30 plane/helicopter project that originated in 1972. The Mil Mi-30 was conceived as a transport aircraft that could hold up to 19 passengers or two tons of cargo, and its purpose was to replace the Mi-8 and Mi-17 Helicopters in both civil and military roles. With vertical takeoff through a pair of tiltrotor engine pods on the wing tips (similar in layout to the later V-22 Osprey) and the ability to fly like a normal plane, the Mil Mi-30 had a clear advantage over the older models.

 

Since the vintoplan concept was a completely new field of research and engineering, a dedicated design bureau was installed in the mid-Seventies at the Rostov-na-Donu helicopter factory, where most helicopters from the Mil design bureau were produced, under the title Ростов Тилт Ротор Авиационная Компания (Rostov Tilt Rotor Aircraft Company), or РТАК (RTRA), for short.

 

The vintoplan project lingered for some time, with basic research being conducted concerning aerodynamics, rotor design and flight control systems. Many findings later found their way into conventional planes and helicopters. At the beginning of the 1980s, the project had progressed far enough that the vintoplan received official backing so that РТАК scientists and Mil helicopter engineers assembled and tested several layouts and components for this complicated aircraft type.

At that time the Mil Mi-30 vintoplan was expected to use a single TV3-117 Turbo Shaft Engine with a four-bladed propeller rotors on each of its two pairs of stub wings of almost equal span. The engine was still installed in the fuselage and the proprotors driven by long shafts.

 

However, while being a very clean design, this original layout revealed several problems concerning aeroelasticity, dynamics of construction, characteristics for the converter apparatuses, aerodynamics and flight dynamics. In the course of further development stages and attempts to rectify the technical issues, the vintoplan layout went through several revisions. The layout shifted consequently from having 4 smaller engines in rotating pods on two pairs of stub wings through three engines with rotating nacelles on the front wings and a fixed, horizontal rotor over the tail and finally back to only 2 engines (much like the initial concept), but this time mounted in rotating nacelles on the wing tips and a canard stabilizer layout.

 

In August 1981 the Commission of the Presidium of the USSR Council of Ministers on weapons eventually issued a decree on the development of a flyworthy Mil Mi-30 vintoplan prototype. Shortly afterwards the military approved of the vintoplan, too, but desired bigger, more powerful engines in order to improve performance and weight capacity. In the course of the ensuing project refinement, the weight capacity was raised to 3-5 tons and the passenger limit to 32. In parallel, the modified type was also foreseen for civil operations as a short range feederliner, potentially replacing Yak-40 and An-24 airliners in Aeroflot service.

In 1982, РТАК took the interest from the military and proposed a dedicated attack vintoplan, based on former research and existing components of the original transport variant. This project was accepted by MAP and received the separate designation РТАК-30. However, despite having some close technical relations to the Mi-30 transport (primarily the engine nacelles, their rotation mechanism and the flight control systems), the РТАК-30 was a completely different aircraft. The timing was good, though, and the proposal was met with much interest, since the innovative vintoplan concept was to compete against traditional helicopters: the design work on the dedicated Mi-28 and Ka-50 attack helicopters had just started at that time, too, so that РТАК received green lights for the construction of five prototypes: four flyworthy machines plus one more for static ground tests.

 

The РТАК-30 was based on one of the early Mi-30 layouts and it combined two pairs of mid-set wings with different wing spans with a tall tail fin that ensured directional stability. Each wing carried a rotating engine nacelle with a so-called proprotor on its tip, each with three high aspect ratio blades. The proprotors were handed (i.e. revolved in opposite directions) in order to minimize torque effects and improve handling, esp. in the hover. The front and back pair of engines were cross-linked among each other on a common driveshaft, eliminating engine-out asymmetric thrust problems during V/STOL operations. In the event of the failure of one engine, it would automatically disconnect through torque spring clutches and both propellers on a pair of wings would be driven by the remaining engine.

Four engines were chosen because, despite the weight and complexity penalty, this extra power was expected to be required in order to achieve a performance that was markedly superior to a conventional helicopter like the Mi-24, the primary Soviet attack helicopter of that era the РТАК-30 was supposed to replace. It was also expected that the rotating nacelles could also be used to improve agility in level flight through a mild form of vectored thrust.

 

The РТАК-30’s streamlined fuselage provided ample space for avionics, fuel, a fully retractable tricycle landing gear and a two man crew in an armored side-by-side cockpit with ejection seats. The windshield was able to withstand 12.7–14.5 mm caliber bullets, the titanium cockpit tub could take hits from 20 mm cannon. An autonomous power unit (APU) was housed in the fuselage, too, making operations of the aircraft independent from ground support.

While the РТАК-30 was not intended for use as a transport, the fuselage was spacious enough to have a small compartment between the front wings spars, capable of carrying up to three people. The purpose of this was the rescue of downed helicopter crews, as a cargo hold esp. for transfer flights and as additional space for future mission equipment or extra fuel.

In vertical flight, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotor system used controls very similar to a twin or tandem-rotor helicopter. Yaw was controlled by tilting its rotors in opposite directions. Roll was provided through differential power or thrust, supported by ailerons on the rear wings. Pitch was provided through rotor cyclic or nacelle tilt and further aerodynamic surfaces on both pairs of wings. Vertical motion was controlled with conventional rotor blade pitch and a control similar to a fixed-wing engine control called a thrust control lever (TCL). The rotor heads had elastomeric bearings and the proprotor blades were made from composite materials, which could sustain 30 mm shells.

 

The РТАК-30 featured a helmet-mounted display for the pilot, a very modern development at its time. The pilot designated targets for the navigator/weapons officer, who proceeded to fire the weapons required to fulfill that particular task. The integrated surveillance and fire control system had two optical channels providing wide and narrow fields of view, a narrow-field-of-view optical television channel, and a laser rangefinder. The system could move within 110 degrees in azimuth and from +13 to −40 degrees in elevation and was placed in a spherical dome on top of the fuselage, just behind the cockpit.

 

The aircraft carried one automatic 2A42 30 mm internal gun, mounted semi-rigidly fixed near the center of the fuselage, movable only slightly in elevation and azimuth. The arrangement was also regarded as being more practical than a classic free-turning turret mount for the aircraft’s considerably higher flight speed than a normal helicopter. As a side effect, the semi-rigid mounting improved the cannon's accuracy, giving the 30 mm a longer practical range and better hit ratio at medium ranges. Ammunition supply was 460 rounds, with separate compartments for high-fragmentation, explosive incendiary, or armor-piercing rounds. The type of ammunition could be selected by the pilot during flight.

The gunner can select one of two rates of full automatic fire, low at 200 to 300 rds/min and high at 550 to 800 rds/min. The effective range when engaging ground targets such as light armored vehicles is 1,500 m, while soft-skinned targets can be engaged out to 4,000 m. Air targets can be engaged flying at low altitudes of up to 2,000 m and up to a slant range of 2,500 m.

 

A substantial range of weapons could be carried on four hardpoints under the front wings, plus three more under the fuselage, for a total ordnance of up to 2,500 kg (with reduced internal fuel). The РТАК-30‘s main armament comprised up to 24 laser-guided Vikhr missiles with a maximum range of some 8 km. These tube-launched missiles could be used against ground and aerial targets. A search and tracking radar was housed in a thimble radome on the РТАК-30’s nose and their laser guidance system (mounted in a separate turret under the radome) was reported to be virtually jam-proof. The system furthermore featured automatic guidance to the target, enabling evasive action immediately after missile launch. Alternatively, the system was also compatible with Ataka laser-guided anti-tank missiles.

Other weapon options included laser- or TV-guided Kh-25 missiles as well as iron bombs and napalm tanks of up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) caliber and several rocket pods, including the S-13 and S-8 rockets. The "dumb" rocket pods could be upgraded to laser guidance with the proposed Ugroza system. Against helicopters and aircraft the РТАК-30 could carry up to four R-60 and/or R-73 IR-guided AAMs. Drop tanks and gun pods could be carried, too.

 

When the РТАК-30's proprotors were perpendicular to the motion in the high-speed portions of the flight regime, the aircraft demonstrated a relatively high maximum speed: over 300 knots/560 km/h top speed were achieved during state acceptance trials in 1987, as well as sustained cruise speeds of 250 knots/460 km/h, which was almost twice as fast as a conventional helicopter. Furthermore, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotors and stub wings provided the aircraft with a substantially greater cruise altitude capability than conventional helicopters: during the prototypes’ tests the machines easily reached 6,000 m / 20,000 ft or more, whereas helicopters typically do not exceed 3,000 m / 10,000 ft altitude.

 

Flight tests in general and flight control system refinement in specific lasted until late 1988, and while the vintoplan concept proved to be sound, the technical and practical problems persisted. The aircraft was complex and heavy, and pilots found the machine to be hazardous to land, due to its low ground clearance. Due to structural limits the machine could also never be brought to its expected agility limits

During that time the Soviet Union’s internal tensions rose and more and more hampered the РТАК-30’s development. During this time, two of the prototypes were lost (the 1st and 4th machine) in accidents, and in 1989 only two machines were left in flightworthy condition (the 5th airframe had been set aside for structural ground tests). Nevertheless, the РТАК-30 made its public debut at the Paris Air Show in June 1989 (the 3rd prototype, coded “33 Yellow”), together with the Mi-28A, but was only shown in static display and did not take part in any flight show. After that, the aircraft received the NATO ASCC code "Hemlock" and caused serious concern in Western military headquarters, since the РТАК-30 had the potential to dominate the European battlefield.

 

And this was just about to happen: Despite the РТАК-30’s development problems, the innovative attack vintoplan was included in the Soviet Union’s 5-year plan for 1989-1995, and the vehicle was eventually expected to enter service in 1996. However, due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dwindling economics, neither the РТАК-30 nor its civil Mil Mi-30 sister did soar out in the new age of technology. In 1990 the whole program was stopped and both surviving РТАК-30 prototypes were mothballed – one (the 3rd prototype) was disassembled and its components brought to the Rostov-na-Donu Mil plant, while the other, prototype No. 1, is rumored to be stored at the Central Russian Air Force Museum in Monino, to be restored to a public exhibition piece some day.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: Two (pilot, copilot/WSO) plus space for up to three passengers or cargo

Length: 45 ft 7 1/2 in (13,93 m)

Rotor diameter: 20 ft 9 in (6,33 m)

Wingspan incl. engine nacelles: 42 ft 8 1/4 in (13,03 m)

Total width with rotors: 58 ft 8 1/2 in (17,93 m)

Height: 17 ft (5,18 m) at top of tailfin

Disc area: 4x 297 ft² (27,65 m²)

Wing area: 342.2 ft² (36,72 m²)

Empty weight: 8,500 kg (18,740 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 12,000 kg (26,500 lb)

 

Powerplant:

4× Klimov VK-2500PS-03 turboshaft turbines, 2,400 hp (1.765 kW) each

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 275 knots (509 km/h, 316 mph) at sea level

305 kn (565 km/h; 351 mph) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)

Cruise speed: 241 kn (277 mph, 446 km/h) at sea level

Stall speed: 110 kn (126 mph, 204 km/h) in airplane mode

Range: 879 nmi (1,011 mi, 1,627 km)

Combat radius: 390 nmi (426 mi, 722 km)

Ferry range: 1,940 nmi (2,230 mi, 3,590 km) with auxiliary external fuel tanks

Service ceiling: 25,000 ft (7,620 m)

Rate of climb: 2,320–4,000 ft/min (11.8 m/s)

Glide ratio: 4.5:1

Disc loading: 20.9 lb/ft² at 47,500 lb GW (102.23 kg/m²)

Power/mass: 0.259 hp/lb (427 W/kg)

 

Armament:

1× 30 mm (1.18 in) 2A42 multi-purpose autocannon with 450 rounds

7 external hardpoints for a maximum ordnance of 2.500 kg (5.500 lb)

  

The kit and its assembly:

This exotic, fictional aircraft-thing is a contribution to the “The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com in early 2019. While the propulsion system itself is not that unconventional, I deemed the quadrocopter concept (which had already been on my agenda for a while) to be suitable for a worthy submission.

The Mil Mi-30 tiltrotor aircraft, mentioned in the background above, was a real project – but my alternative combat vintoplan design is purely speculative.

 

I had already stashed away some donor parts, primarily two sets of tiltrotor backpacks for 1:144 Gundam mecha from Bandai, which had been released recently. While these looked a little toy-like, these parts had the charm of coming with handed propellers and stub wings that would allow the engine nacelles to swivel.

The search for a suitable fuselage turned out to be a more complex safari than expected. My initial choice was the spoofy Italeri Mi-28 kit (I initially wanted a staggered tandem cockpit), but it turned out to be much too big for what I wanted to achieve. Then I tested a “real” Mi-28 (Dragon) and a Ka-50 (Italeri), but both failed for different reasons – the Mi-28 was too slender, while the Ka-50 had the right size – but converting it for my build would have been VERY complicated, because the engine nacelles would have to go and the fuselage shape between the cockpit and the fuselage section around the original engines and stub wings would be hard to adapt. I eventually bought an Italeri Ka-52 two-seater as fuselage donor.

 

In order to mount the four engines to the fuselage I’d need two pairs of wings of appropriate span – and I found a pair of 1:100 A-10 wings as well as the wings from an 1:72 PZL Iskra (not perfect, but the most suitable donor parts I could find in the junkyard). On the tips of these wings, the swiveling joints for the engine nacelles from the Bandai set were glued. While mounting the rear wings was not too difficult (just the Ka-52’s OOB stabilizers had to go), the front pair of wings was more complex. The reason: the Ka-52’s engines had to go and their attachment points, which are actually shallow recesses on the kit, had to be faired over first. Instead of filling everything with putty I decided to cover the areas with 0.5mm styrene sheet first, and then do cosmetic PSR work. This worked quite well and also included a cover for the Ka-52’s original rotor mast mount. Onto these new flanks the pair of front wings was attached, in a mid position – a conceptual mistake…

 

The cockpit was taken OOB and the aircraft’s nose received an additional thimble radome, reminiscent of the Mi-28’s arrangement. The radome itself was created from a German 500 kg WWII bomb.

 

At this stage, the mid-wing mistake reared its ugly head – it had two painful consequences which I had not fully thought through. Problem #1: the engine nacelles turned out to be too long. When rotated into a vertical position, they’d potentially hit the ground! Furthermore, the ground clearance was very low – and I decided to skip the Ka-52’s OOB landing gear in favor of a heavier and esp. longer alternative, a full landing gear set from an Italeri MiG-37 “Ferret E” stealth fighter, which itself resembles a MiG-23/27 landing gear. Due to the expected higher speeds of the vintoplan I gave the landing gear full covers (partly scratched, plus some donor parts from an Academy MiG-27). It took some trials to get the new landing gear into the right position and a suitable stance – but it worked. With this benchmark I was also able to modify the engine nacelles, shortening their rear ends. They were still very (too!) close to the ground, but at least the model would not sit on them!

However, the more complete the model became, the more design flaws turned up. Another mistake is that the front and rear rotors slightly overlap when in vertical position – something that would be unthinkable in real life…

 

With all major components in place, however, detail work could proceed. This included the completion of the cockpit and the sensor turrets, the Ka-52 cannon and finally the ordnance. Due to the large rotors, any armament had to be concentrated around the fuselage, outside of the propeller discs. For this reason (and in order to prevent the rear engines to ingest exhaust gases from the front engines in level flight), I gave the front wings a slightly larger span, so that four underwing pylons could be fitted, plus a pair of underfuselage hardpoints.

The ordnance was puzzled together from the Italeri Ka-52 and from an ESCI Ka-34 (the fake Ka-50) kit.

  

Painting and markings:

With such an exotic aircraft, I rather wanted a conservative livery and opted for a typical Soviet tactical four-tone scheme from the Eighties – the idea was to build a prototype aircraft from the state acceptance trials period, not a flashy demonstrator. The scheme and the (guesstimated) colors were transferred from a Soviet air force MiG-21bis of that era, and it consists of a reddish light brown (Humbrol 119, Light Earth), a light, yellowish green (Humbrol 159, Khaki Drab), a bluish dark green (Humbrol 195, Dark Satin Green, a.k.a. RAL 6020 Chromdioxidgrün) and a dark brown (Humbrol 170, Brown Bess). For the undersides’ typical bluish grey I chose Humbrol 145 (FS 35237, Gray Blue), which is slightly lighter and less greenish than the typical Soviet tones. A light black ink wash was applied and some light post-shading was done in order to create panels that are structurally not there, augmented by some pencil lines.

 

The cockpit became light blue (Humbrol 89), with medium gray dashboard and consoles. The ejection seats received bright yellow seatbelts and bright blue pads – a detail seen on a Mi-28 cockpit picture.

Some dielectric fairings like the fin tip were painted in bright medium green (Humbrol 101), while some other antenna fairings were painted in pale yellow (Humbrol 71).

The landing gear struts and the interior of the wells became Aluminum Metalic (Humbrol 56), the wheels dark green discs (Humbrol 30).

 

The decals were puzzled together from various sources, including some Begemot sheets. Most of the stencils came from the Ka-52 OOB sheet, and generic decal sheet material was used to mark the walkways or the rotor tips and leading edges.

 

Only some light weathering was done to the leading edges of the wings, and then the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.

  

A complex kitbashing project, and it revealed some pitfalls in the course of making. However, the result looks menacing and still convincing, esp. in flight – even though the picture editing, with four artificially rotating proprotors, was probably more tedious than building the model itself!

Good evening,

 

I am pleased to announce that Adventures in A Cappella, the debut album by Prichard Nixon (my musically-inclined alter ego), has been released via Bandcamp (cue triumphant background music.)

 

This album is the result of weeks of endless effort inside the studio, and unremitting coalition-building outside of it. Seeing this album from conception to completion has been a gratifying experience, and I am pleased that these songs are finally seeing the light of day.

 

(That, and it's Bandcamp Friday, which means 100% of revenue from sales goes directly to yours truly. #ShamelessPlug)

 

Give the album a spin at prichardnixon.bandcamp.com/ and let me know what you think.

 

These stickers come courtesy of Ryan Porter from Sticker Guy! in Sparks, Nevada. I have been including them in electronic press kits sent to radio stations all over the Greater Coachella Valley, as well as slipping them into care packages heading out to Texas, a state which has been making recent headlines for all the wrong reasons.

 

If you are interested in getting your hands on some, drop me a line and I will include your name on the short-list of outgoing packages.

 

Thank you and much love. Stickers + music = living the good life.

- O.P.

Greetings, everyone.

 

Animals, the follow-up to my debut album Adventures in A Cappella, has officially been released via Bandcamp and Copyright Records. Give it a spin and pass it along at: prichardnixon.bandcamp.com/album/animals.

 

There is a lot I could say about this album. Instead, I will keep it simple: there were times when I thought this album would never see the light of day. Yet here I am, and here it is.

 

It feels good to tell the universe to kiss my ass.

 

If you like what you hear, please consider purchasing a digital copy of Animals for a monetary amount of your choosing. Additionally, feel encouraged to pass the album along if you like what you hear. Additional support is always appreciated, and your efforts on my behalf do not go unnoticed or unappreciated.

 

For anyone who hurts: this victory is as much yours as it is mine. Relish it.

 

There will be more victories to come. Until next time, thank you for listening. Keep taking care of one another. I will catch you all again on the flipside.

 

Sincerely,

 

Prichard Nixon

Desert Hot Springs, CA

February 1, 2022

Website: prichardnixon.bandcamp.com/.

3000 elastomeric cables.... make your own space... clear your way. Photo: Peter Legris