extrapolated photos on Flickr

Polikarpov I-16. И-16 Поликарпова. by Andrey Korchagin

3

Moscow. Poklonnaya Gora WWII Museum

General characteristics

Crew: One

Length: 6.13 m (20 ft 1 in)

Wingspan: 9 m (29 ft 6 in)

Height: 3.25 m (10 ft 8 in)

Wing area: 14.5 m² (156.1 ft²)

Empty weight: 1,490 kg (3,285 lb)

Loaded weight: 1,941 kg (4,279 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 2,095 kg (4,619 lb)

Powerplant: 1× Shvetsov M-63 supercharged air-cooled radial engine, 820 kW (1,100 hp) driving a two-blade propeller

Performance

Maximum speed: 525 km/h (283 kn, 326 mph) at 3,000 m (9,845 ft)

Range: 700 km (378 nmi, 435 mi (with drop tanks))

Service ceiling: 9,700 m (31,825 ft)

Rate of climb: 14.7 m/s (2,900 ft/min)

Wing loading: 134 kg/m² (27 lb/ft²)

Power/mass: 346 W/kg (0.21 hp/lb)

Time to altitude: 5.8 minutes to 5,000 m (16,405 ft)

Armament

2 × fixed forward-firing 7.62 mm (0.30 in) ShKAS machine guns in upper cowling

2 × fixed forward-firing 20 mm (0.79 in) ShVAK cannons in the wings

6 × unguided RS-82 rockets or up to 500 kg (1,102 lb) of bombs

The Polikarpov I-16 was a Soviet fighter aircraft of revolutionary design; it was the world's first cantilever-winged monoplane fighter with retractable landing gear. The I-16 was introduced in the mid-1930s and formed the backbone of the Soviet Air Force at the beginning of World War II. The diminutive fighter, nicknamed "Ishak" by Soviet pilots, prominently featured in the Second Sino-Japanese War,[1] the Battle of Khalkhin Gol and the Spanish Civil War—where it was called the Rata ("rat") by the Nationalists or Mosca ("fly") by the Republicans. The Finnish nickname for I-16 was Siipiorava ("Flying Squirrel").

Design and development

While working on the Polikarpov I-15 biplane, Nikolai Nikolaevich Polikarpov began designing an advanced monoplane fighter. It featured cutting-edge innovations such as retractable landing gear and a fully enclosed cockpit, and was optimized for speed with a short stubby fuselage (similar to Gee Bee R-1) and a Wright Cyclone radial engine in a NACA cowling. The aircraft was small, light and simple to build.

Full scale work on the TsKB-12 prototype began in June 1933 and the aircraft was accepted into production on 22 November 1933, a month before it took to the air. The TsKB-12 was of mixed construction using a wooden monocoque fuselage and wings based around a KhMA chrome-molybdenum steel alloy wing spar, dural ribs and D1 aluminum alloy skinning on the center and leading edges, with the remaining portions of the wings fabric covered. Another modern feature were the ailerons which ran almost the entire trailing edge of the wing and also operated as flaps (in the manner of more modern flaperons) by drooping 15°. The cockpit was covered by a 40 cm (16 in) wide canopy which featured an Aldis tubular gun sight which could slide back and forth on runners fitted with bungee cords of rubber. A 225 l (59.4 US gal) fuel tank was fitted directly in front of the cockpit. The main gear was fully retractable by a hand-crank. The armament consisted of a pair of 7.62 mm (0.30 in) ShKAS machine guns in the wings, mounted on the outboard side of the main gear and carried 900 rounds of ammo.

These features were proposed at first by Andrei N. Tupolev, however the NII VVS was more concerned about the stresses a typical combat aircraft was subjected to in combat, and initially considered the risk too great. However TsAGI, with the help of the 3rd Design Brigade under the leadership of Pavel O. Sukhoi and Aleksandr P. Putylov eventually convinced NII VVS that what was being proposed was not only feasible, but would enhance the aircraft's performance.

The TsKB-12 was designed around the Wright Cyclone SR-1820-F-3 nine cylinder radial engine (rated at 529 kW/710 hp); a license to build this engine was being negotiated. As the license was not yet approved, Polikarpov was asked to settle for the less powerful M-22 (Soviet-built version of the Gnome-Rhone Jupiter 9ASB which itself was a licensed version of the Bristol Jupiter VI ) with 358 kW (480 hp). This was deemed acceptable because the projected top speed still exceeded 300 km/h (185 mph).

The M-22 powered TsKB-12 first took to the air on 30 December 1933 with the famous Soviet test pilot Valery Chkalov at the controls. The second TsKB-12 with a Cyclone engine and three-bladed propeller flew in January of the following year. Initial government trials in February 1934 revealed very good maneuverability but the aircraft did not tolerate abrupt control inputs. Thus the TsKB-12 was deemed dangerous to fly and all aerobatics were forbidden. The M-22 version was preferred due to vibration of the Cyclone-powered aircraft. Pilots commented early on about difficulty in climbing into the cockpit, a trait that persisted through I-16's service life. Before continuing test flights the designers had to answer the question of spin behavior. Wind tunnel testing suggested that TsKB-12 with its short tail would enter an unrecoverable flat spin, but real-life trials were necessary to confirm this. Since Cyclone engines were rare it was decided to risk the M-22 prototype for this purpose. On 1 March and 2 March 1934, Chkalov performed 75 spins and discovered that the aircraft had very benign stall behavior (dipping a wing and recovering without input from the pilot when airspeed increased) and intentional spins could be easily terminated by placing controls in the neutral position. The stories of vicious spin behavior of the I-16 perpetuated in modern literature is unfounded (perhaps extrapolated from Gee Bee experience). In fact, the I-16's stablemate, the biplane Polikarpov I-153, exhibited much worse spin characteristics.

Service trials of the new fighter, designated I-16, began on 22 March 1934. The M-22 prototype reached 359 km/h (223 mph). The manually-retracted landing gear was prone to jamming and required considerable strength from the pilot. Most of the test flights were performed with the gear extended. On 1 May 1934, the M-22 prototype participated in the flyover of the Red Square. Approximately 30 I-16 Type 1 aircraft were delivered, but were not assigned to any V-VS fighter squadron. Most pilots who flew the I-16 Type 1 for evaluation purposes did not find the aircraft to have many redeeming characteristics. Regardless of pilot opinion, much attention was focused on the Cyclone powered aircraft and the M-25 (the license built Cyclone). On 14 April 1934, the Cyclone prototype was damaged when one of the landing gear legs collapsed while it was taxiing.

The third prototype with a Cyclone engine incorporated a series of aerodynamic improvements and was delivered for government trials on 7 September 1934. The top speed of 437 km/h (270 mph) no longer satisfied the Air Force, who now wanted the experimental Nazarov M-58 engine and 470 km/h (290 mph). Subsequently, the M-22 powered version entered production at Factory 21 in Nizhny Novgorod and Factory 39 in Moscow. Because it was the fourth aircraft produced by these factories, it received the designation I-16 Type 4. Aircraft fitted with these new engines required a slightly changed airframe, including armor plating for the pilot and changes to the landing gear doors to allow for complete closure.

The M-25 fitted I-16, the I-16 Type 5, featured a new engine cowling which was slightly smaller in diameter and featured nine forward facing shuttered openings to control cooling airflow, a redesigned exhaust with eight individual outlet stubs, and other changes. The M-25 was rated at 474 kW (635 hp) at sea level and 522 kW (700 hp) at 2,300 m (7,546 ft). Due to the poor quality of the canopy glazing, the I-16 Type 5 pilots typically left the canopy open or removed the rear portion completely. By the time the Type 5 arrived, it was the world's lightest production fighter (1,460 kg/3,219 lb), as well as the worlds fastest, able to reach speeds of 454 km/h (282 mph) at altitude and 395 km/h (245 mph) at sea level. While the Type 5 could not perform the high-g maneuvers of other fighters, it possessed superior speed and climb rates, and had extremely responsive aileron control which gave the Type 5 a very good roll rate which lead to precision maneuvers in loops and split-Ss.

A total of 7,005 single-seat and 1,639 two-seat trainer variants were produced.

Operational history

Initial service experience revealed that the ShKAS machine guns had a tendency to jam. This was the result of the guns being installed in the wings upside-down to facilitate the fit. The problem was addressed in later modifications. Evaluations from pilots confirmed the experience with prototypes. Controls were light and very sensitive, abrupt maneuvers resulted in spins, and spin behavior was excellent. A barrel roll could be performed in under 1.5 seconds (roll rate over 240 degrees/second). The machine guns were fired via a cable and the required effort, coupled with sensitive controls, made precision aiming difficult. The rear weight bias made I-16 easy to handle on unprepared airfields because the aircraft was rather unlikely to flip over the nose even if the front wheels dug in.

The pilots had poor visibility and the canopy tended to become fouled with engine oil and the moving portion was prone to slamming shut during hard maneuvers which caused many pilots to fix it in the open position. The I-16 was a difficult fighter to fly. The front section of the fuselage, with the engine, was too close to the centre of gravity, and the pilot's cockpit too far to the rear. The Polikarpov had insufficient longitudinal stability and it was impossible to fly the aircraft "hand off".

Spanish Civil WarAt the start of Spanish Civil War in 1936, Republican forces pleaded for fighter aircraft. After receiving payment in gold, Joseph Stalin dispatched around 475[6] I-16 Type 5s and Type 6s. The first I-16s appeared in Spanish skies in November 1936.[7] The Polikarpov monoplanes had their baptism of fire on the 13 November 1936, when 12 I-16s intercepted a Nationalist bombing raid on Madrid. Soviet pilots claimed four air victories. Two Germans Heinkel He 51 pilots were indeed killed. But the Soviets suffered losses too; the group commander collided with an enemy aircraft and another I-16 pilot crash landed.[8] The Polikarpovs immediately began dominating the enemy He 51s, Arado Ar 68 and Fiat CR.32 biplanes, and remained unchallenged until the introduction of the Messerschmitt Bf 109. The arrival of the newest Bf 109Bs and the Nationalist overwhelming quantitative superiority of fighters were the primary cause of the heavy combat losses suffered by I-15s and I-16s throughout 1937.[9] A number of aviation publications called the new Soviet fighter a "Boeing" due to the incorrect assumption that it was based on the Boeing P-26's design. The Nationalists nicknamed the stubby fighter Rata (Rat), while the Republicans affectionately called it Mosca (Fly).

Combat experience showed that the I-16 had deficiencies; several aircraft were lost after structural failure of the wings which was quickly remedied by reinforced structures. Heavy machine gun bullets could sometimes penetrate the armored backrest and fuel tanks occasionally caught fire in spite of being protected. The hot Spanish climate required the addition of oil radiators, and dust adversely affected the life of the engines. Although some aircraft accumulated up to 400 hours of flying time, the average life of an I-16 was 87 days, of which one sixth was spent on maintenance. The biggest complaint in service was the light armament of only two 7.62 mm (0.30 in) machine guns. This was urgently addressed with Type 6 which added a third ShKAS in the bottom of the fuselage. The four-gun Type 10 was nicknamed "Super Mosca" or simply "Super". The total number of I-16s delivered to Spain in 1936-1938 amounted to 276. When the war ended, on 1 April 1939, 187 Ratas had been lost in Spain: 112 lost in combat, one shot down by anti-aircraft fire, 11 destroyed on the ground, one force-landed and 62 lost in accidents.

The Far East

Another 250 I-16 Type 10 were supplied to China. This model added a second set of 7.62 mm (0.30 in) ShKAS machine guns, armor behind the pilot, and had a slightly upgraded 560 kW (750 hp) M-25 engine. In 1939, these aircraft fought against the Japanese, fighting the fixed-landing gear equipped Nakajima Ki-27 Nate of the IJAAF and IJNAF's Mitsubishi A5M Claude. Further large scale action took place in fighting between the Soviet Union and Japan in the Battle of Khalkhin Gol in 1939. The next year, the Imperial Japanese Navy introduced the A6M Zero which was more than a match for the I-16.

Further attempts were made to upgrade the firepower of the aircraft using 20 mm (0.79 in) ShVAK cannons, making the I-16 one of the most heavily armed fighters of that moment,[11] able to fire 28 pounds of ammunition in three seconds. Pilots loved the results, but the cannons were in short supply and only a small number of I-16 Type 12, 17, 27, and 28 were built. The cannons adversely affected performance with the 360° circle time increasing from 15 seconds in Type 5 to 18 seconds. Type 24 replaced the skid with a tailwheel and featured the much more powerful 670 kW (900 hp) Shvetsov M-63 engine. Type 29 replaced two of the ShKAS guns with a single 12.7 mm (.50 in) UBS. Types 18, 24, 27, 28, and 29 could be equipped to carry RS-82 unguided rockets.

A 1939 government study found that I-16 had exhausted its performance potential. Addition of armor, radio, battery, and flaps during the aircraft's evolution exacerbated the rear weight distribution to the point where the aircraft required considerable forward pressure on the stick to maintain level flight and at the same time developed a tendency to enter uncontrolled dives. Extension and retraction of the landing flaps caused a dramatic change in the aircraft attitude. Accurate gunfire was difficult.

Russia

The pilots nicknamed the aircraft Ishak (Russian: Ишак, Donkey/Hinny) because it was similar to the Russian pronunciation of "I-16". When the Great Patriotic War erupted on 22 June 1941, 1,635 of 4,226 VVS aircraft were I-16s of all variants, fielded by 57 fighter regiments in frontier areas.[12] Then main assault delivered by Luftwaffe's Luftflotte 2 (in support of Wehrmacht Army Group Centre) was directed against the Soviet Western Special Mililtary district, that deployed 361 (424, according to other sources) I-16s. [13] During the early phase of the campaign the I-16 bases were main targets for the German aircraft and after 48 hours of combat, of the 1,635 Polikarpov monoplanes in service on 21 June 1941, only 937 were left.[14] By 30 June the number of I-16s of western frontline units had dropped to 873, including 99 that required repairs.[15] To stem the Luftwaffe aerial assault several I-16 pilots adopted the Taran tactic and sacrified their lives, ramming German aircraft.[15]

Its main opponent in the sky of 1941 was the German Messerschmitt Bf 109.[16] The I-16 was slightly more maneuverable than the early Bf 109s and could fight the Messerschmitt Bf 109 '"Emil" on equal terms in turns. Soviet skilled pilots took advantage of Polikarpov's superior horizontal maneuverability and liked it enough to resist the switch to more modern fighters. The German aircraft, however, outclassed its Russian opponent in service ceiling, rate of climb, acceleration and, crucially, in horizontal and diving speed, due to better aerodynamics and a more powerful engine. The main versions of the I-16 had a maximum speed of 450–470 km/h (279-291 mph), while the Bf 109E had a maximum speed of 560–570 km/h (347-353 mph), and the Bf109F, of 600 km/h (372 mph). Superior speed was the decisive factor in a dogfight so German pilots held the initiative and could decide if chasing their opponents, attacking them from above and behind and then gaining altitude for an eventual new attack. Meanwhile Polikarpovs could only defend each other by forming a defensive circle or via horizontal maneuverability.[16] Moreover, in terms of armament, Messerschmitts had a slight edge on the I-16. The "Emile" carried two wing-mounted 20 mm MG FF cannon and two synchronyzed 7.92 mm MG-17 with a weight of a one-second salvo of 2.37 Kg, while the most common version of the I-16 - armed with just two synchronized and two wing-mounted 7.62 ShKAS - could deliver 1.43 kg of bullets each second.[17] Finallly, the ammunition storage on a Messerschmitt exceeded that of the I-16, carrying 1,000 bullets for each machine guns (plus 60 rounds for each cannon), while the Polikarpov carried just 450 rounds for each ShKAS.[18]

The I-16 and had a more durable engine than the liquid-cooled engine of the Bf 109. Around half of all produced I-16s were still in service in 1943, when they were finally replaced.

Specially modified I-16s were used in the Zveno parasite aircraft experiments using the Tupolev TB-3 mothership.

The Luftwaffe was known to have captured some I-16s and UTI-4s two-place trainers (two of which were marked with the Stammkennzeichen codes DM+HC and DM+HD) and flown from Rechlin by Kampfgeschwader 200 (KG 200).[19] The Luftwaffe was not the only air force able to test its fighters against the I-16; the Japanese captured a few I-16s as well.[1] and the Romanian Air Force also got one when a Soviet pilot defected.[20] The Finnish Air Force (FAF) captured along with several other Soviet types, some I-16s. During the Winter War and the Continuation War, the Finns captured six I-16s and one I-16UTI. Two of the captured I-16s and I-16UTIs were put back into flying condition and flight tested.

From Wikipedia

Fossil oyster by Truth in science

2

Oyster

Lower Jurassic.

What many people don't realise is that - most bivalve fossils are found (like this one) tightly closed.

Bivalves open when they die, that is why you will find many open bivalves or half shells on the beach. If you find any closed ones they are likely to still be alive.

A closed fossil bivalve indicates that it was rapidly buried whilst still alive, in a sufficient weight of sediment to prevent the bivalve opening.

The fact that the majority of fossil bivalves are found tightly closed, indicates that most were buried rapidly. This goes against the popular idea that fossils are formed by gradual burial in a slow build up of sediment.

Rapid formation of strata, recent evidence:

www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Fossil museum: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/

There is no credible mechanism for progressive evolution.

Darwin believed that there was unlimited variability in the gene pool of all creatures and plants.

However, the changes possible through selective breeding were known by breeders to be strictly limited.

This is because the changes seen in selective breeding are due to the shuffling, deletion and emphasis of genetic information already existing in the gene pool (micro-evolution). There is no viable mechanism for creating new, beneficial, genetic information required to create entirely new structures and features (macro-evolution).

Darwin ignored the limits which were well known to breeders (even though he selectively bred pigeons himself, and should have known better). He simply extrapolated the limited, minor changes observed in selective breeding to major, unlimited, progressive changes able to create new structures, organs etc. through natural selection, over millions of years.

Of course, the length of time involved made no difference, the existing, genetic information could not increase of its own accord, no matter how long the timescale.

That was a gigantic flaw in Darwinism, and opponents of Darwin's ideas tried to argue that changes were limited, as selective breeding had demonstrated. But because Darwinism had acquired a status more akin to an ideology than purely, objective science, belief in the Darwinian idea outweighed the verdict of observational and experimental science, and classical Darwinism became firmly established as scientific orthodoxy for nearly a century.

Opponents continued to argue all this time, that Darwinism was unscientific nonsense, but they were ostracised and dismissed as cranks, weirdoes or religious fanatics.

Finally however, it was discovered that the opponents of Darwin were perfectly correct - and that constructive, genetic changes (progressive, macro-evolution) require new, additional, genetic information.

This looked like the ignominious end of Darwinism, as there was no credible, natural mechanism able to create new, constructive, genetic information. And Darwinism should have been heading for the dustbin of history,

However, rather than ditch the whole idea, the vested interests in Darwinism had become so great, with numerous, lifelong careers and an ideological agenda which had become dependant on the Darwinian belief system, a desperate attempt was made to rescue it from its justified demise.

A mechanism had to be invented to explain the origin of new, constructive information.

That invented mechanism was 'mutations'. Mutations are ... genetic, copying MISTAKES.

The general public had already been convinced that classical Darwinism was a scientific fact, and that anyone who questioned it was a crank, so all that had to be done, as far as the public was concerned, was to give the impression that the theory had simply been refined and updated in the light of modern science.

The fact that classical Darwinism had been wrong all along, and was fatally flawed from the outset was kept quiet. This meant that the opponents of Darwinism, who had been right all along, and were the real champions of science, continued to be vilified as cranks and scorned by the mass media and establishment.

The new developments were simply portrayed as the evolution and development of the theory. The impression was given that there was nothing wrong with the idea of progressive (macro) evolution, it had simply 'evolved' and 'improved' in the light of greater knowledge.

A sort of progressive evolution of the idea of evolution.

This new, 'improved' Darwinism became known as Neo-Darwinism.

So what is Neo-Darwinism? And did it really solve the fatal flaws of the Darwinian idea?

Neo Darwinism is progressive, macro evolution - as Darwin had proposed, but based on the ludicrous idea that random mutations (accidental, genetic, copying mistakes) selected by natural selection, can provide the constructive, genetic information capable of creating entirely new features, structures, organs, and biological systems. In other words, it is macro evolution based on a belief in a total progression from microbes to man through billions of random, genetic, copying MISTAKES, over millions of years.

However, there is no evidence for it whatsoever, and it is should be classified as unscientific nonsense which defies logic, the laws of probability and Information Theory.

People are sometimes confused, because they know that 'micro'-evolution is an observable fact, which everyone accepts. However, evolutionists often cynically exploit that confusion by citing obvious examples of micro-evolution such as: the Peppered Moth, Darwin's finches, so-called superbugs etc., as evidence of macro-evolution.

Of course such examples are not evidence of macro-evolution at all. The public is simply being hoodwinked, and it is a disgrace to science. There are no observable examples or evidence of macro-evolution and no examples of a mutation, or a series of mutations capable of creating new structures, organs etc. and that is a fact. It is no wonder that W R Thompson stated in the preface to the 1959 centenary edition of Darwin's Origin of the Species, that ... the success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity.

Micro-evolution is simply the small changes which take place, through natural selection or selective breeding, but only within the strict limits of the built-in variability of the existing gene pool. Any constructive changes outside the extent of the existing gene pool requires a credible mechanism for the creation of new, beneficial, genetic information, that is essential for macro evolution.

Micro evolution does not involve or require the creation of any new, genetic information. So micro evolution and macro evolution are entirely different. There is no connection between them at all, whatever evolutionists may claim.

Once people fully understand that the differences they see in various dogs breeds, for example, are merely an example of limited micro-evolution (selection of existing genetic information) and nothing to do with progressive macro-evolution, they begin to realise that they have been fed an incredible story.

To explain further.... Neo-Darwinian, macro evolution is the ridiculous idea that everything in the genome of humans and every living thing past and present (apart from the original genetic information in the very first living cell) is the result of millions of genetic copying mistakes..... mutations ... of mutations .... of mutations.... of mutations .... and so on - and on - and on.

In other words, Neo-Darwinism proposes that the complete genome (every scrap of genetic information in the DNA) of every living thing that has ever lived was created by a series ... of mistakes ... of mistakes .... of mistakes .... of mistakes etc. etc.

If we look at the whole picture we soon realise that what is actually being proposed by evolutionists is that, apart from the original information in the first living cell (and evolutionists have yet to explain where that original information came from?) - every additional scrap of genetic information for all - features, structures, systems and processes that exist, or have ever existed in living things, such as:

skin, bones, bone joints, shells, flowers, leaves, wings, scales, muscles, fur, hair, teeth, claws, toe and finger nails, horns, beaks, nervous systems, blood, blood vessels, brains, lungs, hearts, digestive systems, vascular systems, liver, kidneys, pancreas, bowels, immune systems, senses, eyes, ears, sex organs, sexual reproduction, sperm, eggs, pollen, the process of metamorphosis, marsupial pouches, marsupial embryo migration, mammary glands, hormone production, melanin etc. .... have been created from scratch, by an incredibly long series of small, accumulated mistakes ... mistake - upon mistake - upon mistake - upon mistake - over and over again, millions of times. That is ... every part, system and process of all living things are the result of literally billions of genetic MISTAKES of MISTAKES, accumulated over many millions of years.

So what we are asked to believe is that something like a vascular system, or reproductive organs, developed in small, random, incremental steps, with every step being the result of a copying mistake, and with each step being able to provide a significant survival or reproductive advantage in order to be preserved and become dominant in the gene pool. Incredible!

If you believe that ... you will believe anything.

Even worse, evolutionists have yet to cite a single example of a positive, beneficial, mutation which adds constructive information to the genome of any creature. Yet they expect us to believe that we have been converted from an original, single living cell into humans by an accumulation of billions of beneficial mutations (mistakes).

Conclusion:

Progressive, microbes-to-man evolution is impossible - there is no credible mechanism to produce all the new, genetic information which is essential for that to take place.

The evolution story is an obvious fairy tale presented as scientific fact.

However, nothing has changed - those who dare to question Neo-Darwinism are still portrayed as idiots, retards, cranks, weirdoes, anti-scientific ignoramuses or religious fanatics.

Want to join the club?

What about the fossil record?

The formation of fossils.

Books explaining how fossils are formed frequently give the impression that it takes many years of build up of layers of sediment to bury organic remains, which then become fossilised.

Therefore many people don't realise that this impression is erroneous, because it is a fact that all good, intact fossils require rapid burial in sufficient sediment to prevent decay or predatory destruction.

So it is evident that rock containing good, undamaged fossils was laid down rapidly, sometimes in catastrophic conditions.

The very existence of intact fossils is a testament to rapid burial and sedimentation.

You don't get fossils from slow burial. Organic remains don't just sit around on the sea bed, or elsewhere, waiting for sediment to cover them a millimetre at a time, over a long period.

Unless they are buried rapidly, they would soon be damaged or destroyed by predation and/or decay.

The fact that so many sedimentary rocks contain fossils, indicates that the sediment that created them was normally laid down within a short time.

Another important factor is that many large fossils (tree trunks, large fish, dinosaurs etc.) intersect several or many strata (sometimes called layers) which clearly indicates that multiple strata were formed simultaneously in a single event by grading/segregation of sedimentary particles into distinct layers, and not stratum by stratum over long periods of time or different geological eras, which is the evolutionist's, uniformitarian interpretation of the geological column.

In view of the fact that many large fossils required a substantial amount of sediment to bury them, and the fact that they intersect multiple strata (polystrate fossils), how can any sensible person claim that strata or, for that matter, any fossil bearing rock, could have taken millions of years to form?

You don't even need to be a qualified sedimentologist or geologist to come to that conclusion, it is common sense.

Rapid formation of strata - latest evidence:

www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

All creatures and plants alive today, which are found as fossils, are the same in their fossil form as the living examples, in spite of the fact that the fossils are claimed to be millions of years old. So all living things today could be called 'living fossils' inasmuch as there is no evidence of any evolutionary changes in the alleged multi-million year timescale. The fossil record shows either extinct species or unchanged species, that is all.

The Cambrian Explosion.

Trilobites and other many creatures appeared suddenly in some of the earliest rocks of the fossil record, with no intermediate ancestors. This sudden appearance of a great variety of advanced, fully developed creatures is called the Cambrian Explosion. Trilobites are especially interesting because they have complex eyes, which would need a lot of progressive evolution to develop such advanced features However, there is no evidence of any evolution leading up to the Cambrian Explosion, and that is a serious dilemma for evolutionists.

Trilobites are now thought to be extinct, although it is possible that similar creatures could still exist in unexplored parts of deep oceans.

See fossil of a crab unchanged after many millions of years:

www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/12702046604/in/set-72...

Fossil museum: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/

What about all the claimed scientific evidence that evolutionists have found for evolution?

The evolutionist 'scientific' method has resulted in a serious decline in scientific integrity, and has given us such scientific abominations as:

Piltdown Man (a fake),

Nebraska Man (a pig),

South West Colorado Man (a horse),

Orce man (a donkey),

Embryonic Recapitulation (a fraud),

Archaeoraptor (a fake),

Java Man (a giant gibbon),

Peking Man (a monkey),

Montana Man (an extinct dog-like creature)

Nutcracker Man (an extinct type of ape - Australopithecus)

The Horse Series (unrelated species cobbled together),

Peppered Moth (faked photographs)

The Orgueil meteorite (faked evidence)

Etc. etc.

Anyone can call anything 'science' ... it doesn't make it so.

All these examples were trumpeted by evolutionists as scientific evidence for evolution.

Do we want to trust evolutionists claims about scientific evidence, when they have such an appalling record?

Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?

www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full

www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...

Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man were even used in the famous, Scopes Trial as positive evidence for evolution.

Piltdown Man reigned for over 40 years, as a supreme example of human evolution, before it was exposed as a crudely, fashioned fake.

Is that 'science'?

The ludicrous Hopeful Monster Theory and so-called Punctuated Equilibrium (evolution in big jumps) were invented by evolutionists as a desperate attempt to explain away the lack of fossil evidence for evolution. They are proposed methods of evolution which, it is claimed, need no fossil evidence. They are actually an admission that the required fossil evidence does not exist.

Piltdown Man... it survived as alleged proof of evolution for over 40 years in evolution textbooks and was taught in schools and universities, it survived peer reviews etc. and was used as supposed irrefutable evidence for evolution at the famous Scopes Trial..

Nebraska Man, this was a single tooth of a peccary. it was trumpeted as evidence for the evolution of humans, and artists impressions of an ape-like man appeared in newspapers magazines etc. It was also used as 'scientific' evidence for evolution in the Scopes Trial. Such 'scientific' evidence is enough to make any genuine, respectable scientist weep.

South West Colorado Man, another tooth .... of a horse this time... It was presented as evidence for human evolution.

Orce man, a fragment of skullcap, which was most likely from a donkey, but even if it was human. such a tiny fragment is certainly not any proof of human evolution as it was made out to be.

Embryonic Recapitulation, the evolutionist zealot Ernst Haeckel (who was a hero of Hitler) published fraudulent drawings of embryos and his theory was readily accepted by evolutionists as proof of evolution. Even after he was exposed as a fraudster, evolutionists still continued to use his fraudulent evidence in books and publications on evolution, including school textbooks, until very recently.

Archaeoraptor, A so-called feathered dinosaur from the Chinese fossil faking industry. It managed to fool credulous evolutionists, because it was exactly what they were looking for. The evidence fitted the wishful thinking.

Java Man, Dubois, the man who discovered Java Man and declared it a human ancestor ..... admitted much later that it was actually a giant gibbon, however, that spoilt the evolution story which had been built up around it, so evolutionists were reluctant to get rid of it, and still maintained it was a human ancestor. Dubois had also 'forgotten' to mention that he found the bones of modern humans at the same site.

Peking Man, made up from monkey skulls which were found in an ancient limestone burning industrial site where there were crushed monkey skulls and modern human bones. Drawings were made of Peking Man, but the original skull conveniently disappeared. So that allowed evolutionists to continue to use it as evidence without fear of it ever being debunked.

The Horse Series, unrelated species cobbled together, They were from different continents and were in no way a proper series of intermediates, They had different numbers of ribs etc. and the very first in the line, is similar to a creature alive today - the Hyrax.

Peppered Moth, moths were glued to trees to fake photographs for the peppered moth evidence. They don't normally rest on trees in daytime. In any case, the selection of a trait which is part of the variability of the existing gene pool, is not progressive evolution. It is just normal, natural selection within limits, which no-one disputes.

So much for the credibility of evolution, but what about atheism?

If there is no credible mechanism for progressive evolution, that has very serious implications for atheist beliefs, which depend heavily on microbes-to-man evolution being a fact. You don't have to be an atheist to accept evolution, but it is very difficult to be an atheist if you don't accept evolution as true. So the exposure of evolution as an unscientific, fairy story seriously undermines atheism. However, even if progressive evolution could be shown to be credible, atheism cannot.

Because.....

If people would only think for themselves - there would be no atheists.

Atheism is anti-logic and anti-science ......

Atheism is the rejection of one of the only 2 origins options.

The only two options are:

1. An uncaused, supernatural first cause.

2. An uncaused, natural first cause.

Atheists categorically reject option one, therefore they believe in option two - by default.

Option two (an uncaused, natural first cause) is impossible according to logic, natural laws and the scientific method.

Every natural event/effect/entity has to have an adequate cause.

All material/natural entities/events are contingent, they rely on preceding causes.

A natural first cause, cannot be a very FIRST cause because something (which didn't need a cause) must have caused it.

A natural first cause also cannot be the very first cause of the universe because it is woefully inadequate for the effect. An effect cannot be greater than its cause.

So atheism is a set of beliefs which violate the scientific method, ignore logic and defy natural laws.

Atheism is akin to a religion because it credits matter/energy with similar creative powers and attributes as those applied to a creator God, which is really just a more sophisticated version of pagan naturalism, which imbued natural entities such as Mother Nature, The Sun or Moon god etc. with creative and magical powers.

To explain further ....

If there are only 2 options and one is ruled out as 'impossible' by logic, natural law and the scientific method, then it is safe, indeed sensible, to deduce that the other option is the only possible, and likely one.

Anyone who believes in science should know - that the basis of the scientific method is looking for adequate causes for every natural event/effect.

An 'uncaused' natural event is an anathema to science, it cannot even contemplate such a prospect.

If someone was to propose a natural first cause of everything, science would have to ask - what caused it? You cannot claim it was uncaused - that defies the scientific method.

However, if it was caused - if it had a preceding cause, ... then it cannot be the FIRST cause. Because FIRST means FIRST, not second or third.

So the very first cause of everything must be UNCAUSED ... which means, according to science, it CANNOT be a NATURAL cause.

In other words ... it cannot be a contingent entity, it can only be an eternally self-existent, self-reliant, autonomous, infinite, omnipotent entity which is entirely independent of causes, and the limitations that causes impose.

Furthermore, the first cause also has to be completely adequate for the effect, the effect cannot be greater than the cause ... so the first cause has to have adequate powers, properties and potentiality to create the entirety of the universe, i.e. nothing in the universe can be superior in any respect to the first cause.

That means the first cause must embody, or be able to create, every property and quality that exists, which includes: natural laws, information, life, intelligence, consciousness, self-awareness, design, skill, moral values, sense of beauty, justice etc.

All proposed, natural first causes - Big Bang's, Singularities, quantum mechanics etc. are not only ruled out because, as contingent events, they cannot be uncaused, they are also grossly inferior to the effect, which definitively rules them all out as credible first causes.

To put it more simply ... all effects/events/entities are the result of a combination of numerous, preceding causes, but the very first cause is unique, inasmuch as it is a lone cause of everything.

Everything can be traced back to that single cause, it is responsible for every other cause, entity and effect that follows it. Unlike other lesser or subsequent causes it has to account for the totality of everything that exists. So it cannot be inferior in any respect to any particular property, entity, event, effect, or to the totality of them all.

If we have intelligence then, that which caused us cannot be non-intelligent.

Atheists assume that we are greater in that respect than that which caused us .... that is ridiculous and it defies logic and natural law.

What about infinite time?

Time is simply a chronology of natural events. Time began with the origin of the material realm. No natural events ...means - no time. All natural entities, events/effects are contingent, they cannot be self-existent, they rely on causes and the limitations that causes impose. they are not autonomous entities, to propose that is anti-science.

Atheists often say: you can’t fill gaps in knowledge with a supernatural first cause.

But we are not talking about filling gaps, we are talking about a fundamental issue ... the origin of everything in the material realm.

The first cause is not a gap, it is the beginning - and many of the greatest scientists in the history of science had no problem whatsoever with the logic that - a natural, first cause was impossible, and the only possible option was a supernatural creator.

Why do atheists have such a problem with it?

Atheists seem to think that to explain the origin of the universe without a God, simply involves explaining what triggered it, as though its formation from that point on, just happens automatically.

This has been compared by some as similar to lighting the blue touch paper of a firework. They think that if they can propose such a naturalistic trigger, then God is made redundant.

That may sound plausible to some members of the public, who take such pronouncements at face value, and are somewhat in awe of anything that is claimed to be 'scientific'.

But it is obvious to anyone who thinks seriously about it, that a mere trigger is not necessarily an adequate cause.

A trigger presupposes that there is some sort of a mechanism/blueprint/plan already existing which is ready to spring into action if it is provided with an appropriate trigger. So a trigger is not a sole cause, or a first cause, it is merely one contributing cause.

Natural things do only what they are programmed to do, i.e. they obey natural laws and the demands of their own pre-ordered composition and structure. Lighting blue touch paper would do absolutely nothing, unless there is a carefully designed and manufactured firework already attached to it.

Atheists invent all sorts of bizarre myths to explain the origin of the universe and matter/energy.

Such as it arising from nothing of its own volition, for no reason.

Or even the utterly, ludicrous notion of the universe creating itself from nothing. Obviously for something to create itself, it would need to pre-exist its own creation, in order to do the creating!

Incredible!

“When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”

― G.K. Chesterton ..... SO TRUE!

www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existen...

Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?

www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full

www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...

"Una Prospettiva Italiana". Gabriele Basilico, Vincenzo Castella, Massimo Vitali – Feb 2011 - Galleria Studio La Città, Verona, IT by MARCO CAMPANINI - ARTPROOF TOP NOTCH PHOTOGRAPHIC PRODUCTIONS

3

"Una Prospettiva Italiana". Gabriele Basilico, Vincenzo Castella, Massimo Vitali – Feb 2011 - Galleria Studio La Città, Verona, IT

-----

CastorScan's philosophy is completely oriented to provide the highest scan and postproduction

quality on the globe.

We work with artists, photographers, agencies, laboratories etc. who demand a state-of-the-art quality at reasonable prices.

Our workflow is fully manual and extremely meticulous in any stage.

We developed exclusive workflows and profilation systems to obtain unparallel results from our scanners not achievable through semi-automatic and usual workflows.

-----

CastorScan uses the best scanners in circulation, Dainippon Screen SG-8060P Mark II, the best and most advanced scanner ever made, Kodak-Creo IQSmart 3, a high-end flatbed scanner, and Imacon 848.

The image quality offered by our Dainippon Screen 8060 scanner is much higher than that achievable with the best flatbed scanners or filmscanners dedicated and superior to that of scanners so-called "virtual drum" (Imacon – Hasselblad,) and, of course, vastly superior to that amateur or prosumer obtained with scanners such as Epson V750 etc .

Dainippon Screen SG-8060P Mark II exceeds in quality any other scanner, including Aztek Premier and ICG 380 (in the results, not just in the technical specifications).

8060's main features: 12000 dpi, Hi-Q Xenon lamp, 25 apertures, 2 micron

Aztek Premier's main features: 8000 dpi, halogen lamp, 18 apertures, 3 micron

ICG 380's main features: 12000 dpi, halogen lamp, 9 apertures, 4 micron

Some of the features that make the quality of our drum scanners better than any other existing scan system include:

The scans performed on a drum scanner are famous for their detail, depth and realism.

Scans are much cleaner and show fewer imperfections than scans obtained from CCD scanners, and thus save many hours of cleaning and spotting in postproduction.

Image acquisition by the drum scanner is optically similar to using a microscopic lens that scans the image point by point with extreme precision and without deformation or distortion of any kind, while other scanners use enlarger lenses (such as the Rodenstock-Linos Magnagon 75mm f8 used in the Hasselblad-Imacon scanners) and have transmission systems with rubber bands: this involves mild but effective micro-strain and micro-geometric image distortions and quality is not uniform between the center and edges.

Drum scanners are exempt from problems of flatness of the originals, since the same are mounted on a perfectly balanced transparent acrylic drum; on the contrary, the dedicated film scanners that scan slides or negatives in their plastic frames are subject to quite significant inaccuracies, as well as the Imacon-Hasselblad scanners, which have their own rubber and plastic holders: they do not guarantee the perfect flatness of the original and therefore a uniform definition between center and edge, especially with medium and large size originals, which instead are guaranteed by drum scanners.

Again, drum scanners allow scanning at high resolution over the entire surface of the cylinder, while for example the Hasselblad Imacon scans are limited to 3200 dpi in 120 format and 2000 dpi in 4x5" format (the resolution of nearly every CCD scanner in the market drops as the size of the original scanned is increased).

Drum scanners allow complete scanning of the whole negative, including the black-orange mask, perforations etc, while using many other scanners a certain percentage of the image is lost because it is covered by frames or holders.

Drum scanners use photomultiplier tubes to record the light signal, which are much more sensitive than CCDs and can record many more nuances and variations in contrast with a lower digital noise.

If you look at a monitor at 100% the detail in shadows and darker areas of a scan made with a CCD scanner, you will notice that the details are not recorded in a clear and clean way, and the colors are more opaque and less differentiated. Additionally the overall tones are much less rich and differentiated.

We would like to say a few words about an unscrupulous and deceitful use of technical specifications reported by many manufacturers of consumer and prosumer scanners; very often we read of scanners that promise cheap or relatively cheap “drum scanner” resolutions, 16 bits of color depth, extremely high DMAX: we would like to say that these “nominal” resolutions do not correspond to an actual optical resolution, so that even in low-resolution scanning you can see an enormous gap between drum scanners and these scanners in terms of detail, as well as in terms of DMAX, color range, realism, “quality” of grain. So very often when using these consumer-prosumer scanners at high resolutions, it is normal to get a disproportionate increase of file size in MB but not an increase of detail and quality.

To give a concrete example: a drum scan of a 24x36mm color negative film at 3500 dpi is much more defined than a scan made with mostly CCD scanner at 8000 dpi and a drum scan at 2500 dpi is dramatically clearer than a scan at 2500 dpi provided by a CCD scanner. So be aware and careful with incorrect advertisement.

Scans can be performed either dry or liquid-mounted. The wet mounting further improves cleanliness (helps to hide dirt, scratches and blemishes) and plasticity of the image without compromising the original, and in addition by mounting with liquid the film grain is greatly reduced and it looks much softer and more pleasant than the usual "harsh" grain resulting from dry scans.

We use Kami SMF 2001 liquid to mount the transparencies and Kami RC 2001 for cleaning the same. Kami SMF 2001 evaporates without leaving traces, unlike the traditional oil scans, ensuring maximum protection for your film. Out of ignorance some people prefer to avoid liquid scanning because they fear that their films will be dirty or damaged: this argument may be plausible only in reference to scans made using mineral oils, which have nothing to do with the specific professional products we use.

We strongly reiterate that your original is in no way compromised by our scanning liquid and will return as you have shipped it, if not cleaner.

With respect to scanning from slides:

Our scanners are carefully calibrated with the finest IT8 calibration targets in circulation and with special customized targets in order to ensure that each scan faithfully reproduces the original color richness even in the most subtle nuances, opening and maintaining detail in shadows and highlights. These color profiles allow our scanners to realize their full potential, so we guarantee our customers that even from a chromatic point of view our scans are noticeably better than similar scans made by mostly other scan services in the market.

In addition, we remind you that our 8060 drum scanner is able to read the deepest shadows of slides without digital noise and with much more detail than CCD scanners; also, the color range and color realism are far better.

With respect to scanning from color and bw negatives: we want to emphasize the superiority of our drum scans not only in scanning slides, but also in color and bw negative scanning (because of the orange mask and of very low contrast is extremely difficult for any ccd scanner to read the very slight tonal and contrast nuances in the color negative, while a perfectly profiled 8060 drum scanner – also through the analog gain/white calibration - can give back much more realistic images and true colors, sharper and more three-dimensional).

In spite of what many claim, a meticulous color profiling is essential not only for scanning slides, but also, and even more, for color negatives. Without it the scan of a color negative will produce chromatic errors rather significant, thus affecting the tonal balance and then the naturalness-pleasantness of the images.

More unique than rare, we do not use standardized profiles provided by the software to invert each specific negative film, because they do not take into account parameters and variables such as the type of development, the level of exposure, the type of light etc.,; at the same time we also avoid systems of "artificial intelligence" or other functions provided by semi-automatic scanning softwares, but instead we carry out the inversion in a full manual workflow for each individual picture.

In addition, scanning with Imacon-Hasselblad scanners we do not use their proprietary software - Flexcolor – to make color management and color inversion because we strongly believe that our alternative workflow provides much better results, and we are able to prove it with absolute clarity.

At each stage of the process we take care of meticulously adjusting the scanning parameters to the characteristics of the originals, to extrapolate the whole range of information possible from any image without "burning" or reductions in the tonal range, and strictly according to our customer's need and taste.

By default, we do not apply unsharp mask (USM) in our scans, except on request.

To scan reflective originals we follow the same guidelines and guarantee the same quality standard.

We guarantee the utmost thoroughness and expertise in the work of scanning and handling of the originals and we provide scans up to 12,000 dpi of resolution, at 16-bit, in RGB, GRAYSCALE, LAB or CMYK color mode; unless otherwise indicated, files are saved with Adobe RGB 1998 or ProPhoto RGB color profile.

WWW.CASTORSCAN.COM

1:72 Gloster Glaive Mk. I, “Δ 183” of the Hellenic Air Force’s 22 Mira Dioxeos, Ioannina (Epirus region), March 1941 (Whif/Kitbashing) by Dizzyfugu

2

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

Some background:

The Gloster Glaive was basically a modernized and re-engined variant of the successful, British-built Gloster Gladiator (or Gloster SS.37), the RAF’s final biplane fighter to enter service. The Gladiator was not only widely used by the RAF at the dawn of WWII and in almost every theatre of operations, but also by many other nations. Operators included Norway, Belgium, Sweden, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania or Nationalist China, and while the RAF already opted for more modern monoplanes, Gloster saw the opportunity to sell an updated Gladiator to countries which were not as progressive.

Originally designated Gladiator Mk. IV, the machine received many aerodynamic refinements and the motor was changed from a draggy radial to a liquid-cooled inline engine. The latter was the new Rolls Royce Peregrine, a development of the Kestrel. It was, in its original form, a 21-litre (1,300 cu in) liquid-cooled V-12 aero engine ), delivering 885-horsepower (660 kW). The engine was housed under a streamlined cowling, driving a three blade metal propeller, and was coupled with a ventral radiator bath, reminiscent of the Hawker Fury biplane’s arrangement.

Structural improvements included an all-metal monocoque fuselage and stabilizers, as well as new wings and streamlined struts with reduced bracing. The upper wing was enlarged and of all-metal construction, too, while the lower wings were reduced in span and area, almost resulting in a sesquiplane layout. The total wing area was only marginally reduced, though.
The fixed landing gear was retained, but the main wheels were now covered with spats. The pilot still sat in a fully enclosed cockpit, the armament consisted of four machine guns, similar to the Gladiator. But for the Glaive, all Browning machine guns were synchronized and mounted in the fuselage: one pair was placed on top of the cowling, in front of the cockpit. Another pair, much like the Gladiator’s arrangement was placed in the fuselage flanks, below the exhaust outlets.

Compared with the Gladiator, the design changes were so fundamental that Gloster eventually decided to allocate a separate designation – also with a view to the type’s foreign marketing, since a new aircraft appeared more attractive than another mark of a pre-war design. For the type’s virgin flight in late 1938 the name “Glaive” was unveiled to the public, and several smaller European air forces immediately showed interest, including Greece, Croatia, Turkey, Portugal and Egypt.

Greece was one of the initial customers, and the first of a total of 24 aircraft for the Hellenic Air Force was delivered in early 1939, with 24 more on order (which were never delivered, though). The initial batch arrived just in time, since tension had been building between Greece and Italy since 7 April 1939, when Italian troops occupied Albania. On 28 October 1940, Italy issued an ultimatum to Greece, which was promptly rejected. A few hours later, Italian troops launched an invasion of Greece, initiating the Greco-Italian War.

The Hellenic Gloster Glaives were split among three Mirae Dioxeos (Fighter Squadrons): the 21st at Trikala, 22nd at Thessaloniki and 23rd at Larissa. When Italy attacked in October 1940, the British fighter was, together with the PZL 24, the Greeks' only modern type in adequate numbers. However, by late 1940, the Gloster Glaive was already no longer a front-runner despite a powerful powerplant and satisfactory armament. It had no speed advantage over the Fiat Cr.42 nor could it outfly the nimble Italian biplane, and it was much slower than the Macchi MC.200 and the Fiat G.50 it was pitted against. Its agility was the only real advantage against the Italian fighters, whose reliance on the slow firing Breda-SAFAT 12.7mm machine guns proved detrimental.

Anyway, on 5 April 1941, German forces invaded Greece and quickly established air superiority. As the Allied troops retreated, British and Hellenic forces covered them, before flying to Crete during the last week of April. There, the refugee aircraft recorded a few claims over twin-engine aircraft before being evacuated to Egypt during the Battle of Crete.

Overall, the Glaives performed gallantly during the early period of the conflict, holding their own against impossible numerical odds and despite the fact that their main target were enemy bombers which forced them to fight at a disadvantage against enemy fighters. Italian claims of easy superiority over the Albanian front were vastly over-rated and their kill claims even exceeded the total number of operational fighters on the Greek side. Total Greek fighter losses in combat came to 24 a/c with the Greek fighter pilots claiming 64 confirmed kills and 24 probables (about two third bombers).

By April 1941, however, lack of spares and attrition had forced the Hellenic Air Force to merge the surviving seven Glaives with five leftover PZL.24s into one understrength squadron supported by five Gloster Gladiators Mk I & II and the two surviving MB.151s. These fought hopelessly against the Luftwaffe onslaught, and most aircraft were eventually lost on the ground. None of the Hellenic Gloster Glaives survived the conflict.

General characteristics:

Crew: two

Length: 8.92m (29 ft 3 in)

Wingspan: 34 ft 0 in (10.36 m)

Height: 11 ft 9 in (3.58 m)

Wing area: 317 ft² (29.4 m²)

Empty weight: 1,295 kg (2,855 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 1,700 kg (3,748 lb)

Powerplant:

1× Rolls Royce Peregrine II liquid-cooled V12 inline engine, rated at 940 hp (700 kw)

Performance:

Maximum speed: 405 km/h (252 mph; 219 kn) at 4,400 m (14,436 ft)

Cruise speed: 345 km/h (214 mph; 186 kn)

Stall speed: 60 mph (52 knots, 96 km/h)

Range: 373 mi (600 km; 324 nmi)

Endurance: 2 hours

Service ceiling: 10,600 m (34,800 ft)

Rate of climb: 2,982 ft/min (15.15 m/s)

Time to altitude: 10.000 ft (3.050 m) in 3 minutes 20 seconds

Armament:

4× 0.303 calibre (7.7 mm) M1919 Browning machine guns in the fuselage

Provisions for 6× 10 kg (22 lb) or 4x 20 kg (44 lb) bombs under the lower wings

The kit and its assembly:

The fictional Gloster Glaive started quite simple with the idea of replacing the Gladiator’s radial with an inline engine. But this soon did not appear enough for an update – the Peregrine hardly delivered much more power than the former Mercury, so I considered some structural updates, too. Most of them comprised the replacement of former fabric-covered structures, and this led conceptually to a kitbash with only some Gladiator fuselage and tail parts left.

The basis is (once more) the very nice Matchbox Gloster Gladiator, but it was heavily modified. As an initial step, fuselage, fin and stabilizers (all OOB parts) lost their rib-and-fabric structure, simply sanded away. A minor detail, but it changes the overall look of the aircraft a lot, making it appear much more modern.

The fuselage was left without the OOB radial, and instead a leftover Merlin front end from an Airfix Hurricane (ca. 1cm long, left over from one of my first whif builds ever, a Hurricane with a radial engine!) was added. The lines match pretty well: the side profile looks sleek, if not elegant, but the Gladiator fuselage turned out to be wider than expected. Some major body work/PSR was necessary to integrate the new nose, but the result looks very good.

The liquid-cooled engine necessitated a radiator somewhere on the airframe…! Since I wanted the nose to remain slim and streamlined I eventually placed the radiator bath under the fuselage, much like the arrangement of the Hawker Fury biplane. The radiator itself comes from a late Spitfire (FROG kit).

The exhaust was taken from the Hurricane kit, too, and matching slits dug into the putty nose to take them. The three blade propeller is a mash-up, too: the spinner belongs, IIRC, to an early Spitfire (left over from an AZ Models kit) while the blades came from a damaged Matchbox Brewster Buffalo.

The Gladiator’s fuselage flank machine guns were kept and their “bullet channels” extrapolated along the new cowling, running under the new exhaust pipes. Another pair of machine guns were placed on top of the engine – for these, openings were carved into the upper hull and small fairings (similar to the Browning guns in the flanks) added. This arrangement appeared plausible to me, since the Gladiator’s oil cooler was not necessary anymore and the new lower wings (see below) were not big enough anymore to take the Gladiator’s underwing guns. Four MGs in the fuselage appears massive – but there were other types with such an arrangement, e.g. the Avia B-534 with four guns in the flanks and an inline engine.

The wings are complete replacements: the upper wing comes from a Heller Curtiss SBC4, while the lower wings as well as the spats (on shortened OOB Gladiator struts) come from an ICM Polikarpov I-153. All struts were scratched. Once the lower wings were in place and the relative position of the upper wing clear, the outer struts were carved from 1mm styrene sheet, using the I-153 design as benchmark. These were glued to the lower wing first, and, once totally dry after 24h, the upper wing was simply glued onto the top and the wing position adjusted. This was left to dry another 24h, and as a final step the four struts above the cowling (using the OOB struts, but as single parts and trimmed for proper fit) were placed. This way, a stable connection is guaranteed – and the result is surprisingly sturdy.

Rigging was done with heated sprue material – my personal favorite for this delicate task, and executed before painting the kit started so that the glue could cure and bond well.

Painting and markings:

The reason why this aircraft ended in Greek service is a color photograph of a crashed Hellenic Bloch M.B. 152 (coded ‘D 177’, to be specific). I guess that the picture was post-colored, though, because the aircraft of French origin sports rather weird colors: the picture shows a two-tone scheme in a deep, rather reddish chestnut brown and a light green that almost looks like teal. Unique, to say the least... Underside colors couldn’t be identified with certainty in the picture, but appeared like a pale but not too light blue grey.

Anyway, I assume that these colors are pure fiction and exaggerated Photoshop work, since the few M.B. 152s delivered to Greece carried AFAIK standard French camouflage (in French Khaki, Chestnut Brown and Blue-Grey on the upper surfaces, and a very light blue-grey from below). I’d assume that the contrast between the grey and green tones was not very obvious in the original photograph, so that the artist, not familiar with WWII paint schemes, replaced both colors with the strange teal tone and massively overmodulated the brown.

As weird as it looked, I liked this design and used it as an inspirational benchmark for my Hellenic Glaive build. After all, it’s a fictional aircraft… Upper basic colors are Humbrol 31 (RAF Slate Grey) and 160 (German Camouflage Red Brown), while the undersides became French Dark Blue Grey (ModelMaster Authentics 2105). The result looks rather odd…

Representing a combat-worn aircraft, I applied a thorough black ink wash and did heavier panel shading and dry-brushing on the leading edges, along with some visible touches of aluminum.

The Hellenic roundels come from a TL Modellbau aftermarket sheet. The tactical code was puzzled together from single letters, and the Greek “D” was created from single decal strips. For better contrast I used white decals – most Hellenic aircraft of the time had black codes, but the contrast is much better, and I found evidence that some machines actually carried white codes. The small fin flash is another free interpretation. Not every Hellenic aircraft carried these markings, and instead of painting the whole rudder in Greek colors I just applied a small fin flash. This was created with white and blue decal strips, closely matching the roundels’ colors.

Finally, after some soot stains around the guns and the exhausts, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.

Modified beyond recognition, perhaps…? The fictional Gloster Glaive looks IMHO good and very modern, just like one of those final biplane designs that were about to be outrun by monoplanes at the brink of WWII.

CHRISTIANITY V ATHEISM by Truth in science

1 8

Atheism = NOTHING created EVERYTHING, for NO REASON.

Makes perfect sense .... NOT!