View allAll Photos Tagged fallback
+++ 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 Westland Whirlwind was a British heavy fighter developed by Westland Aircraft. It was the Royal Air Force's first single-seat, twin-engine, cannon-armed fighter, and a contemporary of the Supermarine Spitfire and Hawker Hurricane.
A problem for designers in the 1930s was that most agile combat aircraft were generally small. These aircraft had limited fuel storage and only enough flying range for defensive operations, and their armament was relatively light, too. A multi-engine fighter appeared to be the best solution to the problem of range, but a fighter large enough to carry an increased fuel load might be too unwieldy to engage successfully in close combat. Germany and the United States pressed ahead with their design programs, resulting in the Messerschmitt Bf 110 and the Lockheed P-38 Lightning.
The Westland Whirlwind was one of the British answers to more range and firepower, and the first Whirlwind prototype (L6844) flew on 11 October 1938. Construction had been delayed chiefly due to some new features and also to the late delivery of the original Peregrine engines. The Whirlwind was of all-metal construction, with flush riveting, and featuring magnesium skinning on the rear fuselage. The control surface arrangement was conventional, with large one-piece Fowler flaps inboard and an aileron outboard on each wing, with the rear end of the engine nacelles hinging with the flaps; elevators; and a two-piece rudder, split to permit movement above and below the tail plane. Slats had been fitted on the outer wings at the outset as a stall protection measure, but they were soon locked down, having been implicated in an accident.
Service trials were carried out at Martlesham Heath, where the new type exhibited excellent handling and was very easy to fly at all speeds. It was one of the fastest aircraft in service when it flew in the late 1930s, and was much more heavily armed than any other fighter, toting four 20mm cannons.
However, protracted development problems with its Rolls-Royce Peregrine engines delayed the entire project. The combat radius also turned out to be rather short (only 300 miles), and the landing speed was relatively high, which hampered the type's utility. The major role for the Whirlwinds, however, became low-level attack, flying cross-channel "Rhubarb" sweeps against ground targets and "Roadstead" attacks against shipping.
Time went by and worked against the Whirlwind, though: By 1940, the Supermarine Spitfire was mounting 20 mm cannons as well, so the "cannon-armed" requirement was already met by lighter and simpler aircraft. Furthermore, the role of an escort fighter was becoming less important by this time, as RAF Bomber Command turned to night bomber missions.
The main qualities the RAF was looking for now in a twin-engine fighter were range and carrying capacity, e .g. to allow the large radar apparatus of the time to be carried as a night fighter. Concerning these requirements, the bigger Bristol Beaufighter and the fast De Havilland Mosquito could perform just as well as or even better than the Whirlwind.
Anyway, the Whirlwind's potential had not been fully exploited yet, and it was decided to adapt it to new roles and specialized duties, which would exploit its good low altitude handling. Such an opportunity arose when Allied Forces prepared for Operation Torch (initially called Operation Gymnast) in 1942, the British-United States invasion of French North Africa: the somewhat outdated aircraft was retrofitted for a new task as a dedicated tank hunter.
Background was the experience with the Hawker Hurricane Mk. IID, which had become operational at that time. The Mk IIDs were dedicated to ground support, where it was quickly learned that destroying German tanks was difficult; the Hurricanes’ standard 20mm cannons (the same the Whirlwind fighter originally carried) did not have the performance to punch through Gerrnan tanks’ armor, and bombing small tank target successfully was almost impossible.
The solution was to equip aircraft with 2 pounder (40 mm) cannon in a pod under each wing, reducing the other armament to a single Browning in each wing loaded with tracers for aiming purposes.
This equipment was originally tested on a converted Mk IIB in late 1941, and proved to be successful. A new-build Hurricane version of what was known as the Mk IID started in 1942, which, beyond the modified armament, also included additional armor for the pilot, radiator and engine. The aircraft were initially supplied with a pair of Rolls-Royce 'BF' ('Belt-Fed') guns and carried 12 rounds, but this was soon changed to the 40 mm (1.57 in) Vickers S gun with 15 rounds. The weight of the guns and armor protection had a detrimental effect on the aircraft's performance, though, and for the African environment it was feared that the liquid-cooled Merlin engine was too complicated and would hardly cope with the higher ambient temperatures.
A fallback option was needed, and the Whirlwind appeared to be a sound basis – even though the troublesome Peregrine engines were rejected. In a hurry, a Whirlwind Mk. I (P7102) was modified to carry a pair of 40 mm guns, but this time in the lower nose. Compared with the Hurricane’s wing-mounted pods the Whirlwind could carry a slightly bigger load of ammunition (20 RPG). For aiming purposes and against soft targets, a pair of 0.303" (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns with tracer ammunition was mounted above them.
In order to make the aircraft more resilient to the North-African temperatures and against damage, the Whirlwind's touchy Peregrines were replaced by a pair of Bristol Taurus radial engines under relatively narrow cowlings. The engine nacelles had to be widened accordingly, and the Peregrines’ former radiator intakes and installations in the wing roots were removed and simply faired over. Similar to the Hurricane Mk. IID, additional armor plating was added around the cockpit and the engines, raising overall weight.
Flight and weapon tests were conducted in early 1942. While the radial-powered Whirlwind was not as nimble and fast as the original, Peregrine-powered fighter anymore, the aircraft proved to be a stable weapon platform and fully suitable for the ground attack role. Due to its characteristic new nose with the two protruding gun barrels and their separate fairings, the machine was quickly nicknamed “Walrus” and “Buck teeth Whirlwind”.
For operation Torch and as a field test, a total of eleven Whirlwind Mk. Is were converted to Mk. Ic standard. The machines received new serials and were allocated to RAF No. 73 Squadron, which was preparing for deployment to Northern Africa and the Middle East after having been engaged in the Battle of Britain.
The squadron's Whirlwinds and Hurricanes (including some cannon-armed Mk. IIDs, too) were shipped to Takoradi on the Gold Coast onboard HMS Furious, and were then flown in stages across Africa to Egypt.
No. 73 Squadron took part in the series of campaigns in the Western Desert and Tunisia, helping cover the supply routes to Tobruk and taking part in various ground-attack operations.
Both types undertook an anti-tank role in limited numbers during the North African campaign where, provided enemy flak and fighters were absent, they proved accurate and highly effective, not only against armored vehicles but all kinds of motorized transport.
The converted Whirlwinds proved, thanks to their robust engines, to be very reliable and had a better operational status than the Hurricanes. The second engine boosted the pilots' confidence. In direct comparison, the cannon-armed Whirlwind proved to be a better weapon platform than the Hurricane – mainly because the heavy guns were mounted closer to the aircraft’s longitudinal axis. Both aiming and accuracy were better than the Hurricanes’ wing-mounted weapons.
Nevertheless, there were several drawbacks: the Whirlwind’s two engines meant that more service hours had to be spent on them for maintenance, binding ground crew capacities. This was very inconvenient during the highly mobile Northern Africa campaign. Additionally, the Whirlwind's higher fuel consumption and the limited fuel provisions in the Northern African theatre of operations with dispersed and improvised airfields eventually meant that, despite positive results, no further machines were converted. The high landing speed also persisted, so that operations were hazardous.
Eventually the Hurricane Mk IID was adopted for the tank hunter role, with ensuing series production, since it was regarded as the more versatile and also more common type.
The radial-powered Whirlwind Mk. Ic remained operational with No. 73 Squadron until June 1943, when the squadron converted to the Spitfire and moved from Northern Africa to Italy in October. Until then, only six Whirlwinds had remained airworthy.
General characteristics:
Crew: One pilot
Length: 31 ft 7 1/4 in (9,65 m)
Wingspan: 45 ft 0 in (13.72 m)
Height: 11 ft 0 in (3.35 m)
Wing area: 250 ft² (23.2 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 23017-08
Empty weight: 9,400 lb (4,267 kg)
Loaded weight: 12,158 lb (5,520 kg)
Max. take-off weight: 13,120 lb (5,946 kg)
Powerplant:
2× Bristol Taurus II 14-Cylinder sleeve valve radial engines, 1,015 hp (760 kW) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 400 mph (644 km/h) at 15.000 ft (4.570 m)
Stall speed: 95 mph (83 knots, 153 km/h) with flaps down
Range: 800 mi (696 nmi, 1.288 km)
Service ceiling: 33.500 ft (10.970 m)
Armament:
2x belt-fed two pounder (1.57 in/40 mm) Vickers S cannon, 20 RPG each
2x 0.303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns, 500 RPG (typically armed with tracer rounds)
Option for 2x 250 lbs (115 kg) or 500 lbs (230 kg) bombs under the outer wings
The kit and its assembly
My third whiffed Westland Whirlwind - I must say that this rather obscure aircraft type has some serious potential for mods and fictional uses. The inspiration for this radial-powered variant originally came from a profile drawing of fellow modeler and illustrator FrancLab at flickr.com, who had drawn more than twenty(!) fictional Whirlwinds (check this: www.flickr.com/photos/franclab/16724098644/in/faves-14802...), including one with radial engines and in RAF Tropical Scheme colors.
The kit is, again, the vintage Airfix offering. Modifications center around the engines and the nose section, the rest remained basically OOB.
I already had to learn with my first Whirlwind conversion that mounting bigger engines on this compact aircraft is not easy, and radials, with their bigger diameter and consequentially more voluminous nacelles, would be a challenge from the design perspective.
Figuring out a solution that would be feasible and not make the sleek Whirlwind look like Popeye was not easy. I considered the transplantation of complete engine nacelles from a Matchbox Bristol Beaufighter, but eventually refrained from this idea because everything would be at least one size too big... a mistake I had done before, with very mixed results.
After several trials, I settled on a compromise, because I could not find a satisfactory 'British' solution, at least in my spares vault: the implantation of "foreign" material in the form of cowlings and nacelles from an Airfix Mitsubishi Ki-46.
The transplantation started with the removal of the original Peregrine engine nacelles from the lower wing section and gluing these to the upper half, which remained intact. Then the Ki-46’s lower nacelle half, cut away from the model’s wing in a similar fashion, was grafted onto the Whirlwind’s lower wing, ensuring that the landing gear attachment points would match with the new openings. This stunt worked very well!
As a final step, the upper Ki-46 engine nacelle half was placed on top of the Whirlwind wings’ upper side, and the radial engines were used as a ruler for the overall fit. In the end, the modified nacelles sit perfectly in place, and the original distance between the propellers as well as the landing gear’s track width could be maintained, so that the change is rather subtle.
Propellers and spinners were taken from the Airfix Whirlwind, and in order to mount them into the deep and "hollow" Ki-46 cowlings I inserted a styrene tube as a simple adapter, which would also hold the added metal axis' behind the propellers. The parts fit snuggly together.
Details like the exhaust pipes and the carburetor intakes were scratched from sprue material. The landing gear is OOB, but I had to re-create the covers from sheet material since I could only find a single pair of doors from the Ki-46 kit. On the other side, this had the benefit that the material is much thinner.
The original radiator intake slits were closed with putty and blended into the wing’s leading edge.The respective outlets on the trailing edge were sanded away.
For the guns in the nose I added two long, shallow fairings (actually drop tank halves from an Airfix G.91) and re-located the original oils cooler and gun camera fairings under the wing roots.
The original gun mounts were covered with putty, and new openings for the modified armament drilled into the re-sculpted nose section. The 2-pounders' and machine gun barrels are hollow steel needles of different diameters.
Painting and markings:
Staying somewhat true to FrancLab's profile and the North Africa theatre of operations, the paint scheme was more or less pre-defined. The Tropical scheme is a rather unusual look on this sleek aircraft, but works very well!
The standard RAF camouflage pattern for the Whirlwind was retained, but the European colors replaced with Dark Earth (Humbrol 29) and Middle Stone (ModelMaster 2052, the best representation of the tone I could find so far). The undersides were painted with ModelMaster 2055 (US Navy Blue Grey) as an alternative to RAF Azure and Mediterranean Blue.
Interior surfaces were painted with Cockpit Green (Humbrol 78) and slightly dry-brushed with light grey.
The red spinners are typical Desert Force markings, and I added yellow ID markings to the outer wings’ leading edges (created from generic decal sheet). Not certain how authentic this is for Northern Africa, since the Hurricanes did not carry these markings – but the Spitfires did, as well as the few leftover Whirlwinds over Continental Europe? At least, it’s a colorful detail.
Even though many Hurricanes of 73 Squadron in Northern Africa carried the squadron’s colorful pre-war marking on the flanks instead of a two-letter code, I eventually rejected this option. IMHO it might have been simply too much for this whiffy aircraft?
Roundels and markings were puzzled together from the scrap box, the code letters are single digits from Xtradecal aftermarket sheets. I mixed medium sea grey and dull red letters – a practice frequently seen on Northern Africa aircraft (which also frequently did not carry squadron codes at all) in order to improve readability. The serial was puzzled together, too, using a free serial slot according to ukserials.com.
As another individual touch I added a small nose art motif under the cockpit: a Bugs Bunny cartoon toting a shotgun (actually from a P-51 from the late war Pacific TO), as an interpretation of the “Buck teeth” nickname for the aircraft.
Finally, the model was weathered, esp. on the upper surfaces in order to mimic sun bleaching, and some soot stains were added around the guns and the exhaust outlets. The cooling flaps were emphasized through a treatment with Tamiya “Smoke”, which is perfect for oil stains. Finally, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish and finishing touches like the wire antenna and position lights applied.
Another subtle whif, the desert paint scheme is probably distracting enough that, at a casual glance, the radials and the modified nose are not obvious at all. Actually, the Japanese engines look pretty British after some cosmetics, and they are small enough to keep overall proportions in reasonable limits – the sleek Whirlwind quickly turns head-heavy and unbalanced with bigger engines grafted to the airframe! Actually, the converted aircraft looks now, when looked at it head-on, almost like a baby Beaufighter!
the days get shorter, and light more intense. i love the graphic shapes against this tweedy, heathered background.
A case where the centre-weighted metering threw off the whole exposure thanks to the very heavy back-lighting. So the usual fallback of converting to black & white, upping the contrast, and adding some grain.
Pentacon 3.5/30.
(from Black's Law Dictionary, 8th edition)
. . .
It is upon this that i focus my Contitutional argument against voting machines, (of any kind), which record the vote in a manner invisible/intactile to the voter, for counting in a manner invisible to the public .
{
This would also include lever-machines, though i feel that the danger of wide-spread fraud had been far lower with these than with computerized systems ; as i believe that each mechanical machine would have had to have been rigged individually, by hand, and that such rigging would likely be visible to an inspector's eye . The acute danger, (in my opinion), of computerized voting systems is that insiders, (or any sufficiently malicious, equipped and skillfull people who gained private access to the equipment), could, (invisibly), rig such machines en masse by inserting malicious code and/or vulnerabilities into their distributed software packages and/or updates ; and/or, they could target the code of specific classes of machines further up the heirarachy, such as polling-place accumulators and central tabulators .
}
. . . .
Looking first at the leading phrase :
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,"
I quote from Black's Law Dictionary, (eighth edition), the definition of republic, (noun) ; and republican, (adjective) :
It seems obvious to me that this guarantee cannot be made firm if the vote is recorded in a manner invisible to the sighted voter, (and intactile to the blind one), for counting in a manner invisible to the public . Is there not a Constitutional imperative, therefore, upon (and within) the United States to be certain that conditions are such that fraud in the recording, counting and reporting of the vote cannot widely exist ?
I look now at that dictionary's definition of the word-pair, sovereign power, as this appears in its definition of the words republic and republican :
"The power to make and enforce laws."
It seems to me that the elected "representatives who exercise" the people's "sovereign power" would be Contitutionally prohibited from doing, (or agreeing to), anything which might undermine, (or place in jeapardy), the people's sovereign power at the ballot box --- where such power is Constitutionally intended to be applied --- and to which all organs and holders of governmental power within the republic are Constitutionally intended to be answerable .
Certainly, in my opinion, elected representatives who grant legal monopolies within their state's or county's polling places to corporations providing computer systems running trade-secret software on trade-secret hardware, which propose to record the vote in a manner both invisible and intangible to the voter for counting in a manner invisible to the public, have transgressed against such a Constitutional prohibition ; and against Madisonian common sense . There exists, (in my opinion), the possibility that the corporations involved --- or others able to privately access the computers and/or their code distributions, (and having the necessary skills and tools) --- might cheat ; intelligently, invisibly, repeatedly, broadly and successfully . And by such cheating diminish or defy the sovereign power of the people .
. . . .
Looking at the second phrase of Article IV Section 4 :
"and shall protect each of them against Invasion;"
Regarding the word invasion as defined in Black's Law Dictionary . I note, first, definition 1 :
"A hostile or forcible incursion on the rights of another."
Here it might be useful to look at the Dictionary's definition of State, which is spread over several columns on more than one page ; [i have modified their format slightly] :
. . . 1b. [A quotation on this matter by J. L. Brierly ; included beneath definition 1] .
I note that the emphasis is not on the geographical boundaries of the States, (though in the second sense of the word invasion, this would be the principal matter) . The Dictionary's emphasis is, first, upon the State's political system ; second, upon its self-government as part of a larger whole ; and third, upon its people .
In light of the above definitions,
I ask : In the Republican Form of government as intended to be guaranteed by Article IV Section 4 --- where the people hold sovereign power, and by their/our voting majorities and/or pluralities determine the political officers and character, (within Constitutional limits), of each State of our Union --- would not broad incursions on the right of the people of a State to participate in self-government constitute an invasion of that State ? And if so, would it not be unconstitutional for the elected and/or appointed office-holders of a State to allow a situation to develop wherein such incursions are more and/or unnecessarily likely to take place ?
Which leads to the question : Does not the right to cast a vote, (as a citizen of a republic), also and inseparably imply the right to the honest recording of that vote ? And would not the most effective means of achieving this be for the voter, (nondelegably except in case of personal disability), to record their/our ballot directly, in permanent ink, upon a fixed, persistent medium, (such as acid-free, embossed, counterfeit-resistant paper) ; a medium which is simultaneously visible to the sighted voter and tangible to the blind one ? Further, to protect against an invisible encroachment upon this presumed right, (the right to vote is also the right to have that vote honestly recorded), such as might occur within a computerized voting machine or system, would not the most effective measure to be to disallow the use of such machines ?
Pursuing this i ask now : Does not the above also and inseparably imply the right to an honest counting of the vote ? And would not the most effective means of achieving this be for the vote to be counted : by hand, by jury, on camera and in public ?
{
I feel that wherever and however people count votes --- either by hand or by computerized program --- there will exist the risk of partisan cheating and intimidation . This can, i hope, be minimized by convening the counting-juries from the same ward and district as the votes to be counted ; and by mandating that their racial and declared party-affiliation composition be within 10% of that of the ward and district whose vote is to be counted . It also seems useful to consider an interpretation of a ballot upon which a 2/3 majority of the jury agrees to be legally sufficient, while allowing any juror to flag a ballot for further consideration without removing it from the count .
}
To solidify this i ask also : Do not the above presumed rights also and inseparably imply the right to an honest keeping of the vote ?
{
I feel it best for the jury to count the vote as quickly as possible following the close of the election . While waiting for the count, i feel the ballot box should be sealed with multiple, high-quality locks, (of the choosing of those parties who each keep an individual lock's key or keys) ; whose keys are, (individually), kept by the two major parties and that third party which polls the highest . And while awaiting the count, the ballot box should be watched at all times by a guard including members of the military and of both major parties, along with that third party which polls highest ; and at no time be off-camera, (which would live-feed to the internet) .
}
Let me now address the matter of States' Rights, a claim based upon Amendment X to the Constitution .
I note that the last phrase of this Amendment, "or to the people", was not to my knowledge intended to be the least in all circumstances . Had the framers of the Constitution so intended, they could have included language to explicitly make a State's claim to a right superior to those of its people . And of couse, a degree of superior State claim to rights is a necessary and understandable part of instituting a State government ; but the exercise of caution is essential here, as claims to States' Rights could, potentially, be used as tools to undermine the establishment, and the persistence, of a Republican Form of Government ... which would have set this Amendment in opposition to Article IV Section 4, as well as to the rest of the Bill of Rights . Such caution seems underscored by adding the last phrase, "or to the people" . No legitimate interpretation of this amendment, (in my opinion), would allow the office-holders of a State, (whom are, both by the democratic process and by human mortality, only conditionally and temporarily in possession of the powers they wield), to claim the right to trespass upon the sovereign power of the people at the ballot box ; or to allow a situation where others would be well positioned to do so in a broad, invisible and persistent manner .
I see very little room within the Constitution, as i understand it, for intermediaries within the voting process : the votes' casting, safe-keeping, and counting . As the vote is where popular sovereignty is expressed, its recording, safe-keeping and counting should be regarded as a secular sacred . Only in regard to specific instances of voter disability, (such as a quadriplegic voter being assisted by a polling place worker), is the, (voter supervised), presence and action of a polling-place intermediary between the voter and the recording of his or her ballot acceptable ; from my point of view . And i see no acceptable intermediaries between the public and the counting of the ballot --- save those necessary to preserve order ; and to remove from the counting-juries those whom photographic records show, (upon the summoning of attention to them by the public witnesses to the count), to be repeatedly or persistently lying .
Returning to the definition of the word invasion, and looking deeper into the law, i regard the word hostile as defined in Black's Law Dictionary . I note definition 1 :
I now regard the word adverse as defined in Black's Law Dictionary ; noting definitions 2 and 3 :
2: Having an opposing or contrary interest, concern or position.
3: Contrary (to) or in opposition (to).
Would there not be sufficient concern within our republic --- where the people hold sovereign power, and thus the power to remove government officers and to, (indirectly), regulate corporations --- that government officers who grant a corporation legal monopoly to serve as an intermediary in the process of recording and counting the vote have allowed an entity potentially having an opposing or contrary interest, concern or position into the process, and have thus acted unconstitutionally ? Would this not also suggest that either the government officers are also of opposing or contrary interest, or that they have been careless in their discharge of duty ? Does the Constitution not imply that in the process of voting itself, all office holders and all corporations are, (at least potentially), contrary to or in opposition to the will of the people, whom assemble to decide whether they will remain in office, and whether, (through their choice of office holders), corporate regulation needs to be made more strict ? Would not Madisonian logic require that one does not, Constitutionally, wait for evidence of wrongdoing to appear, (and be tried in court and upheld), before excluding those, unnecessary to the safe and orderly conduct of the process, whom might hold an actionable interest hostile to the will of the electorate ? Should the participation of corporations providing vote recording, accumulating and counting equipment not, thus, be disallowed ; the more so when such equipment is computerized and thus, (in my opinion), more potentially dangerous to the will of the electorate ?
. . .
. . .
What follows is what i consider to be a fallback argument against the trade-secrecy protection of computerized voting systems' software and hardware . Given computers' many potential points of vulnerability, (in my opinion), and the invisibility, (again in my opinion), with which insiders or those with comparable access, skills, tools and knowledge of the systems could, (in my opinion), commit broad, deep, and persistent election fraud, i feel that the revelation of the system's software(s) and hardware(s) would not be sufficient to protect representative democracy without constant and intrusive verification that the systems provided held only the declared software, (provided that the declared software was good), and that they harbored no vulnerabilities . It would be far simpler and more reliable, (in my opinion), to banish these devices in favor of an all-human conduct of the election process as described above .
This argument's basic approach is that each candidate's, (and public question response's), total should be considered as a separate trust within the overall trust of the assembled ballots . As it is the expression of the relative strengths of these trusts that determines office-holders and the answers to public questions going forward, (and thus the character of the State), they should be considered an integral part of that State . Thus in my opinion, to protect each and every State from Invasion, (under Article IV Section 4), would also be to protect each and every individual ballot trust from invasion by the trustees --- the person or persons, (natural or corporate), charged with the recording, assembling, counting and reporting of other people's votes .
It is my opinion that the insiders of voting machine companies offering computerized systems running trade-secret software on trade-secret hardware for the expressed purpose of conducting elections are in an unconstitutionally advantageous position with respect to their abilities to invade such trusts, (whether they do so or not) . It is also my opinion that this advantage cannot, (over the long term), be reduced to be within Constitutionally allowable, (and Madisonially prudent), levels .
Regarding the word invasion as defined in Black's Law Dictionary . I note, now, definition 3 :
Regarding trusts, above, i note definition 2 :
and definition 3 :
The property so held ; Corpus (1)
Looking now at Black's definition for Corpus, i cite definition 1 :
"The property for which a trustee is responsible ; the trust principal."
I think it is worth looking at the election process as beginning with an incorporeal property, (please see definition 2 : "A legal right in property having no physical existance."), which is held by many people individually . The incorporeal property in this example would be our personal share as a citizen of the popular sovereignty of our nation . The ballot is then created by the voter as a legal instrument, backed by his or her share of the popular sovereignty, for the conveyance of a measure of authorization to wield power, on the citizen's behalf, to the trusts of those candidates and ballot options the voter selects . To these candidates and ballot options, the voter's ballot becomes a form of indispensible instrument in determining which candidate or ballot option will have a majority, (or, where applicable, plurality), of the vote and thus receive the full authorization of the sovereign public for the term or option stated .
I quote Black's definition of an indispensible instrument
{
"The formal written evidence of an interest in intangibles, so necessary to represent the intangible that the enjoyment, transfer or enforcement of the intangible depends on possession of the instrument."
}
I note here that, (as the ballot itself is or should be a public record), "possession" of the instrument can be considered as possessing the vote, the expressed intent, of the voter casting the ballot . Here i note also that an electronically recorded ballot is neither as formal, as tangible nor as immutable as i feel one should be, though it is independently readable with the necessary equipment ; (and that the ballot records of mechanical lever machines were also, in my view, insufficiently formal and immutable) .
As i see the ballot is an instrument of the popular sovereignty, not as an embodiment of the sovereignty itself, i feel that voters retain an interest and standing with regard to our cast ballots . Thus i feel that, as trustees within an election process --- where corporations and their equipment are involved in the recording, counting and/or reporting of votes --- such companies are, at most, only authorized to facilitate the creation of the ballot, (a legal instrument), by the voter ; and subsequently, to effect the transfer of the ballots from the individual voters to the collective trusts of candidate and issue-response totals . Any ability which may exist for trustees, (within this process), to invade or otherwise manipulate the individual candidates' and issues' trusts, (or the assembled overall trust), either during the creation of the ballots or afterward, to the advantage of one trust or the disadvanage of another, is unwarranted by their role ; and, in my opinion, would be unconstitutional under Article IV Section 4 .
When the information system fails, only paper remains. If the screens are still able to do this, they will show: „Please refer to the yellow timetable“. These timetables are updated every year for almost 800 SBB train stations and stops. And everyone is different, to be noted. Days before the timetable change, they are hung up. So that no misunderstandings occur, the expiring ones are temporary hung over the new ones with adhesive strips. On day X, the old schedules can be easily removed by the first staff present and everything is new. It is planned to replace these paper timetables with digital pillars. Whether this is a good idea I dare to doubt. Switzerland, May 13, 2021.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
In the first years of the war, the Wehrmacht had only little interest in developing self-propelled anti-aircraft guns, but as the Allies developed air superiority and dedicated attack aircraft threatened the ground troops from above, the need for more mobile and better-armed self-propelled anti-aircraft guns increased. As a stopgap solution the Wehrmacht initially adapted a variety of wheeled, half-track and tracked vehicles to serve as mobile forward air defense positions. Their tasks were to protect armor and infantry units in the field, as well as to protect temporary forward area positions such as mobile headquarters and logistic points.
These vehicles were only lightly armored, if at all, and rather mobilized the anti-aircraft weapons. As Allied fighter bombers and other ground attack aircraft moved from machine gun armament and bombing to air-to-ground rockets and large-caliber cannons, the air defense positions were even more vulnerable. The answer was to adapt a tank chassis with a specialized turret that would protect the gun crews while they fired upon approaching Allied aircraft. Furthermore, the vehicle would have the same mobility as the battle tanks it protected.
Initial German AA-tank designs were the ‘Möbelwagen’ and the ‘Wirbelwind’, both conversions of refurbished Panzer IV combat tank chassis with open platforms or turrets with four 20mm cannon. Alternatively, a single 37mm AA gun was mounted, too – but all these vehicles were just a compromise and suffered from light armor, a high silhouette and lack of crew protection.
Further developments of more sophisticated anti-aircraft tank designs started in late 1943 and led into different directions. One development line was the ‘Kugelblitz’, another Panzer IV variant, but this time the ball-shaped turret, armed with very effective 30 mm MK 103 cannon, was fully integrated into the hull, resulting in a low silhouette and a protected crew. However, the ‘Kugelblitz’ only featured two of these guns and the tilting turret was very cramped and complicated. Venting and ammunition feed problems led to serious delays and a prolonged development stage.
The ‘Coelian’ family of bigger turrets with various weapon options for the Panzer V (the ‘Panther’) was another direction, especially as a response against the armored Il-2 attack aircraft at the Eastern front and against flying targets at medium altitude. Targets at high altitude, esp. Allied bombers, were to be countered with the very effective 8.8 cm Flak, and there were also several attempts to mount this weapon onto a fully armored hull.
The primary weapon for a new low/medium altitude anti-aircraft tank was to become the heavy automatic 55 mm MK 214. Like the 30 mm MK 103 it was a former aircraft weapon, belt-fed and adapted to continuous ground use. However, in early 1944, teething troubles with the ‘Kugelblitz’ suggested that a completely enclosed turret with one or (even better) two of these new weapons, mounted on a ‘Panther’ or the new E-50/75 tank chassis, would need considerable development time. Operational vehicles were not expected to enter service before mid-1945. In order to fill this operational gap, a more effective solution than the Panzer IV AA conversions, with more range and firepower than anything else currently in service, was direly needed.
This situation led to yet another hasty stopgap solution, the so-called ‘Ostwind II’ weapon system, which consisted primarily of a new turret, mated with a standard medium battle tank chassis. It was developed in a hurry in the course of 1944 and already introduced towards the end of the same year. The ‘Ostwind II’ was a compromise in the worst sense: even though it used two 37 mm FlaK 43 guns in a new twin mount and offered better firepower than any former German AA tank, it also retained many weaknesses from its predecessors: an open turret with only light armor and a high silhouette. But due to the lack of time and resources, the ‘Ostwind II’ was the best thing that could be realized on short notice, and with the perspective of more effective solutions within one year’s time it was rushed into production.
The ‘Ostwind II’ system was an open, roughly diamond-shaped, octagonal turret, very similar in design to the Panzer IV-based ‘Wirbelwind’ and ‘Ostwind’ (which was re-designated ‘Ostwind I’). As a novelty, in order to relieve the crew from work overload, traverse and elevation of the turret was hydraulic, allowing a full elevation (-4° to +90° was possible) in just over four seconds and a full 360° traverse in 15 seconds. This had become necessary because the new turret was bigger and heaver, both the weapons and their crews required more space, so that the Ostwind II complex could not be mounted onto the Panzer IV chassis anymore and movement by hand was just a fallback option.
In order to provide the ‘Ostwind II’ with a sufficiently large chassis, it was based on the SdKfz. 171 Panzer V medium battle tank, the ‘Panther’, exploiting its bigger turret ring, armor level and performance. The Panther chassis had, by late 1944, become available for conversions in considerable numbers through damaged and/or recovered combat tanks, and updated details like new turrets or simplified road wheels were gradually introduced into production and during refurbishments. Mounting the ‘Ostwind II’ turret on the Panzer VI (Tiger) battle tank chassis had been theoretically possible, too, but it never happened, because the Tiger lacked agility and its protection level and fuel consumption were considered impractical for an SPAAG that would typically protect battle tank groups.
The ‘Ostwind II’ turret was built around a motorized mount for the automatic 3.7 cm FlaK 43 twin guns. These proven weapons were very effective against aircraft flying at altitudes up to 4,200 m, but they also had devastating effect against ground targets. The FlaK 43’s armor penetration was considerable when using dedicated ammunition: at 100 m distance it could penetrate 36 mm of a 60°-sloped armor, and at 800 m distance correspondingly 24 mm. The FlaK 43’s theoretical maximum rate of fire was 250 shots/minute, but it was practically kept at ~120 rpm in order to save ammunition and prevent wear of the barrels. The resulting weight of fire was 76.8 kg (169 lb) per minute, but this was only theoretical, too, because the FlaK 43 could only be fed manually by 6-round clips – effectively, only single shots or short bursts could be fired, but a trained crew could maintain fire through using alternating gun use. A more practical belt feed was at the time of the Ostwind II's creation not available yet, even though such a mechanism was already under development for the fully enclosed Coelian turret, which could also take the FlaK 43 twin guns, but the armament was separated from the turret crew.
The new vehicle received the official designation ‘Sd.Kfz. 171/2 Flakpanzer V’, even though ‘Ostwind II’ was more common. When production actually began and how many were built is unclear. The conversion of Panther hulls could have started in late-1944 or early-1945, with sources disagreeing. The exact number of produced vehicles is difficult to determine, either. Beside the prototype, the number of produced vehicles goes from as little as 6 to over 40. The first completed Ostwind II SPAAGs were exclusively delivered to Eastern front units and reached them in spring 1945, where they were immediately thrown into action.
All Flakpanzer vehicles at that time were allocated to special anti-aircraft tank platoons (so-called Panzer Flak Züge). These were used primarily to equip Panzer Divisions, and in some cases given to special units. By the end of March 1945, there were plans to create mixed platoons equipped with the Ostwinds and other Flakpanzers. Depending on the source, they were either to be used in combination with six Kugelblitz, six Ostwinds and four Wirbelwinds or with eight Ostwinds and three Sd.Kfz. 7/1 half-tracks. Due to the war late stage and the low number of anti-aircraft tanks of all types built, this reorganization was never truly implemented, so that most vehicles were simply directly attached to combat units, primarily to the commanding staff.
The Ostwind II armament proved to be very effective, but the open turret (nicknamed ‘Keksdose’ = cookie tin) left the crews vulnerable. The crew conditions esp. during wintertime were abominable, and since aiming had to rely on vision the system's efficacy was limited, esp. against low-flying targets. The situation was slightly improved when the new mobile ‘Medusa’ and ‘Basilisk’ surveillance and target acquisition systems were introduced. These combined radar and powerful visual systems and guided the FlaK crews towards incoming potential targets, what markedly improved the FlaKs' first shot hit probability. However, the radar systems rarely functioned properly, the coordination of multiple SPAAGs in the heat of a low-level air attack was a challenging task, and - to make matters worse - the new mobile radar systems were even more rare than the new SPAAGs themselves.
All Ostwind II tanks were built from recovered ‘Panther’ battle tanks of various versions. The new Panther-based SPAAGs gradually replaced most of the outdated Panzer IV AA variants as well as the Ostwind I. Their production immediately stopped in the course of 1945 when the more sophisticated 'Coelian' family of anti-aircraft tanks with fully enclosed turrets became available. This system was based on Panzer V hulls, too, and it was soon followed by the first E-50 SPAAGs with the new, powerful twin-55 mm gun.
Specifications:
Crew: Six (commander, gunner, 2× loader, driver, radio-operator/hull machine gunner)
Weight: 43.8 tonnes (43.1 long tons; 48.3 short tons)
Length (hull only): 6.87 m (22 ft 6 in)
Width: 3.42 m (11 ft 3 in)
Height: 3.53 m (11 ft 6 3/4 in)
Suspension: Double torsion bar, interleaved road wheels
Fuel capacity: 720 litres (160 imp gal; 190 US gal)
Armor:
15–80 mm (0.6 – 3.15 in)
Performance:
Maximum road speed: 46 km/h (29 mph)
Operational range: 250 km (160 mi)
Power/weight: 15.39 PS (11.5 kW)/tonne (13.77 hp/ton)
Engine:
Maybach HL230 P30 V-12 petrol engine with 700 PS (690 hp, 515 kW)
ZF AK 7-200 gear; 7 forward 1 reverse
Armament:
2× 37 mm (1.46 in) FlaK 43 cannon in twin mount with 1.200 rounds
1× 7.92 mm MG 34 machine gun in the front glacis plate with 2.500 rounds
The kit and its assembly:
This was a spontaneous build, more or less the recycling of leftover parts from a 1:72 Revell Ostwind tank on a Panzer III chassis that I had actually bought primarily for the chassis (it became a fictional Aufklärungspanzer III). When I looked at the leftover turret, I wondered about a beefed-up/bigger version with two 37 mm guns. Such an 'Ostwind II' was actually on the German drawing boards, but never realized - but what-if modelling can certainly change that. However, such a heavy weapon would have to be mounted on a bigger/heavier chassis, so the natural choice became the Panzer V, the Panther medium battle tank. This way, my ‘Ostwind II’ interpretation was born.
The hull for this fictional AA tank is a Hasegawa ‘Panther Ausf. G’ kit, which stems from 1973 and clearly shows its age, at least from today’s point of view. While everything fits well, the details are rather simple, if not crude (e. g. the gratings on the engine deck or the cupola on the turret). However, only the lower hull and the original wheels were used since I wanted to portray a revamped former standard battle tank.
The turret was a more complicated affair. It had to be completely re-constructed, to accept the enlarged twin gun and to fit onto the Panther hull. The first step was the assembly of the twin gun mount, using parts from the original Ostwind kit and additional parts from a second one. In order to save space and not to make thing uber-complicated I added the second weapon to the right side of the original gun and changed some accessories.
This, together with the distance between the barrels, gave the benchmark for the turret's reconstruction. Since the weapon had not become longer, I decided to keep things as simple as possible and just widen the open turret - I simply took the OOB Ostwind hexagonal turret (which consists of an upper and lower half), cut it up vertically and glued them onto the Panther turret's OOB base, shifting the sides just as far to the outside that the twin gun barrels would fit between them - a distance of ~0.4 inch (1 cm). At the rear the gap was simply closed with styrene sheet, while the front used shield parts from the Revell Ostwind kit that come from a ground mount for the FlaK 43. Two parts from this shield were glued together and inserted into the front gap. While this is certainly not as elegant as e. g. the Wirbelwind turret, I think that this solution was easier to integrate.
Massive PSR was necessary to blend the turret walls with the Panther turret base, and as a late modification the opening for the sight had to be moved, too. To the left of the weapons, I also added a raised protective shield for the commander.
Inside of the turret, details from the Ostwind kit(s), e. g. crew seats and ammunition clips, were recycled, too.
Painting and markings:
Since the Ostwind II would be based on a repaired/modified former Panzer V medium battle tank, I settled upon a relatively simple livery. The kit received a uniform finish in Dunkelgelb (RAL 7028), with a network of greenish-grey thin stripes added on top, to break up the tank's outlines and reminiscent of the British ‘Malta’ scheme, but less elaborate. The model and its parts were initially primed with matt sand brown from the rattle can (more reddish than RAL 7028) and then received an overall treatment with thinned RAL 7028 from Modelmaster, for an uneven, dirty and worn look. The stripes were created with thinned Tamiya XF-65 (Field Grey).
Once dry, the whole surface received a dark brown wash, details were emphasized with dry-brushing in light grey and beige. Decals were puzzled together from various German tank sheets, and the kit finally sealed with matt acrylic varnish.
The black vinyl tracks were also painted/weathered, with a wet-in-wet mix of black, grey, iron and red brown (all acrylics). Once mounted into place, mud and dust were simulated around the running gear and the lower hull with a greyish-brown mix of artist mineral pigments.
A bit of recycling and less exotic than one would expect, but it’s still a whiffy tank model that fits well into the historic gap between the realized Panzer IV AA tanks and the unrealized E-50/75 projects. Quite subtle! Creating the enlarged turret was the biggest challenge, even, even more so because it was/is an open structure and the interior can be readily seen. But the new/bigger gun fits well into it, and it even remained movable!
A fallback shot, of the field in Chaldon which I always go back to if stuck for ideas. And again it came up trumps in early evening! Halfway or thereabouts in the October Photo a Day - this was a natural sunset on Sunday evening - the day that followed had the slightly odder red-brown sky in the middle of the day which I just couldn't capture!
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
In the first years of the war, the Wehrmacht had only little interest in developing self-propelled anti-aircraft guns, but as the Allies developed air superiority and dedicated attack aircraft threatened the ground troops from above, the need for more mobile and better-armed self-propelled anti-aircraft guns increased. As a stopgap solution the Wehrmacht initially adapted a variety of wheeled, half-track and tracked vehicles to serve as mobile forward air defense positions. Their tasks were to protect armor and infantry units in the field, as well as to protect temporary forward area positions such as mobile headquarters and logistic points.
These vehicles were only lightly armored, if at all, and rather mobilized the anti-aircraft weapons. As Allied fighter bombers and other ground attack aircraft moved from machine gun armament and bombing to air-to-ground rockets and large-caliber cannons, the air defense positions were even more vulnerable. The answer was to adapt a tank chassis with a specialized turret that would protect the gun crews while they fired upon approaching Allied aircraft. Furthermore, the vehicle would have the same mobility as the battle tanks it protected.
Initial German AA-tank designs were the ‘Möbelwagen’ and the ‘Wirbelwind’, both conversions of refurbished Panzer IV combat tank chassis with open platforms or turrets with four 20mm cannon. Alternatively, a single 37mm AA gun was mounted, too – but all these vehicles were just a compromise and suffered from light armor, a high silhouette and lack of crew protection.
Further developments of more sophisticated anti-aircraft tank designs started in late 1943 and led into different directions. One development line was the ‘Kugelblitz’, another Panzer IV variant, but this time the ball-shaped turret, armed with very effective 30 mm MK 103 cannon, was fully integrated into the hull, resulting in a low silhouette and a protected crew. However, the ‘Kugelblitz’ only featured two of these guns and the tilting turret was very cramped and complicated. Venting and ammunition feed problems led to serious delays and a prolonged development stage.
The ‘Coelian’ family of bigger turrets with various weapon options for the Panzer V (the ‘Panther’) was another direction, especially as a response against the armored Il-2 attack aircraft at the Eastern front and against flying targets at medium altitude. Targets at high altitude, esp. Allied bombers, were to be countered with the very effective 8.8 cm Flak, and there were also several attempts to mount this weapon onto a fully armored hull.
The primary weapon for a new low/medium altitude anti-aircraft tank was to become the heavy automatic 55 mm MK 214. Like the 30 mm MK 103 it was a former aircraft weapon, belt-fed and adapted to continuous ground use. However, in early 1944, teething troubles with the ‘Kugelblitz’ suggested that a completely enclosed turret with one or (even better) two of these new weapons, mounted on a ‘Panther’ or the new E-50/75 tank chassis, would need considerable development time. Operational vehicles were not expected to enter service before mid-1945. In order to fill this operational gap, a more effective solution than the Panzer IV AA conversions, with more range and firepower than anything else currently in service, was direly needed.
This situation led to yet another hasty stopgap solution, the so-called ‘Ostwind II’ weapon system, which consisted primarily of a new turret, mated with a standard medium battle tank chassis. It was developed in a hurry in the course of 1944 and already introduced towards the end of the same year. The ‘Ostwind II’ was a compromise in the worst sense: even though it used two 37 mm FlaK 43 guns in a new twin mount and offered better firepower than any former German AA tank, it also retained many weaknesses from its predecessors: an open turret with only light armor and a high silhouette. But due to the lack of time and resources, the ‘Ostwind II’ was the best thing that could be realized on short notice, and with the perspective of more effective solutions within one year’s time it was rushed into production.
The ‘Ostwind II’ system was an open, roughly diamond-shaped, octagonal turret, very similar in design to the Panzer IV-based ‘Wirbelwind’ and ‘Ostwind’ (which was re-designated ‘Ostwind I’). As a novelty, in order to relieve the crew from work overload, traverse and elevation of the turret was hydraulic, allowing a full elevation (-4° to +90° was possible) in just over four seconds and a full 360° traverse in 15 seconds. This had become necessary because the new turret was bigger and heaver, both the weapons and their crews required more space, so that the Ostwind II complex could not be mounted onto the Panzer IV chassis anymore and movement by hand was just a fallback option.
In order to provide the ‘Ostwind II’ with a sufficiently large chassis, it was based on the SdKfz. 171 Panzer V medium battle tank, the ‘Panther’, exploiting its bigger turret ring, armor level and performance. The Panther chassis had, by late 1944, become available for conversions in considerable numbers through damaged and/or recovered combat tanks, and updated details like new turrets or simplified road wheels were gradually introduced into production and during refurbishments. Mounting the ‘Ostwind II’ turret on the Panzer VI (Tiger) battle tank chassis had been theoretically possible, too, but it never happened, because the Tiger lacked agility and its protection level and fuel consumption were considered impractical for an SPAAG that would typically protect battle tank groups.
The ‘Ostwind II’ turret was built around a motorized mount for the automatic 3.7 cm FlaK 43 twin guns. These proven weapons were very effective against aircraft flying at altitudes up to 4,200 m, but they also had devastating effect against ground targets. The FlaK 43’s armor penetration was considerable when using dedicated ammunition: at 100 m distance it could penetrate 36 mm of a 60°-sloped armor, and at 800 m distance correspondingly 24 mm. The FlaK 43’s theoretical maximum rate of fire was 250 shots/minute, but it was practically kept at ~120 rpm in order to save ammunition and prevent wear of the barrels. The resulting weight of fire was 76.8 kg (169 lb) per minute, but this was only theoretical, too, because the FlaK 43 could only be fed manually by 6-round clips – effectively, only single shots or short bursts could be fired, but a trained crew could maintain fire through using alternating gun use. A more practical belt feed was at the time of the Ostwind II's creation not available yet, even though such a mechanism was already under development for the fully enclosed Coelian turret, which could also take the FlaK 43 twin guns, but the armament was separated from the turret crew.
The new vehicle received the official designation ‘Sd.Kfz. 171/2 Flakpanzer V’, even though ‘Ostwind II’ was more common. When production actually began and how many were built is unclear. The conversion of Panther hulls could have started in late-1944 or early-1945, with sources disagreeing. The exact number of produced vehicles is difficult to determine, either. Beside the prototype, the number of produced vehicles goes from as little as 6 to over 40. The first completed Ostwind II SPAAGs were exclusively delivered to Eastern front units and reached them in spring 1945, where they were immediately thrown into action.
All Flakpanzer vehicles at that time were allocated to special anti-aircraft tank platoons (so-called Panzer Flak Züge). These were used primarily to equip Panzer Divisions, and in some cases given to special units. By the end of March 1945, there were plans to create mixed platoons equipped with the Ostwinds and other Flakpanzers. Depending on the source, they were either to be used in combination with six Kugelblitz, six Ostwinds and four Wirbelwinds or with eight Ostwinds and three Sd.Kfz. 7/1 half-tracks. Due to the war late stage and the low number of anti-aircraft tanks of all types built, this reorganization was never truly implemented, so that most vehicles were simply directly attached to combat units, primarily to the commanding staff.
The Ostwind II armament proved to be very effective, but the open turret (nicknamed ‘Keksdose’ = cookie tin) left the crews vulnerable. The crew conditions esp. during wintertime were abominable, and since aiming had to rely on vision the system's efficacy was limited, esp. against low-flying targets. The situation was slightly improved when the new mobile ‘Medusa’ and ‘Basilisk’ surveillance and target acquisition systems were introduced. These combined radar and powerful visual systems and guided the FlaK crews towards incoming potential targets, what markedly improved the FlaKs' first shot hit probability. However, the radar systems rarely functioned properly, the coordination of multiple SPAAGs in the heat of a low-level air attack was a challenging task, and - to make matters worse - the new mobile radar systems were even more rare than the new SPAAGs themselves.
All Ostwind II tanks were built from recovered ‘Panther’ battle tanks of various versions. The new Panther-based SPAAGs gradually replaced most of the outdated Panzer IV AA variants as well as the Ostwind I. Their production immediately stopped in the course of 1945 when the more sophisticated 'Coelian' family of anti-aircraft tanks with fully enclosed turrets became available. This system was based on Panzer V hulls, too, and it was soon followed by the first E-50 SPAAGs with the new, powerful twin-55 mm gun.
Specifications:
Crew: Six (commander, gunner, 2× loader, driver, radio-operator/hull machine gunner)
Weight: 43.8 tonnes (43.1 long tons; 48.3 short tons)
Length (hull only): 6.87 m (22 ft 6 in)
Width: 3.42 m (11 ft 3 in)
Height: 3.53 m (11 ft 6 3/4 in)
Suspension: Double torsion bar, interleaved road wheels
Fuel capacity: 720 litres (160 imp gal; 190 US gal)
Armor:
15–80 mm (0.6 – 3.15 in)
Performance:
Maximum road speed: 46 km/h (29 mph)
Operational range: 250 km (160 mi)
Power/weight: 15.39 PS (11.5 kW)/tonne (13.77 hp/ton)
Engine:
Maybach HL230 P30 V-12 petrol engine with 700 PS (690 hp, 515 kW)
ZF AK 7-200 gear; 7 forward 1 reverse
Armament:
2× 37 mm (1.46 in) FlaK 43 cannon in twin mount with 1.200 rounds
1× 7.92 mm MG 34 machine gun in the front glacis plate with 2.500 rounds
The kit and its assembly:
This was a spontaneous build, more or less the recycling of leftover parts from a 1:72 Revell Ostwind tank on a Panzer III chassis that I had actually bought primarily for the chassis (it became a fictional Aufklärungspanzer III). When I looked at the leftover turret, I wondered about a beefed-up/bigger version with two 37 mm guns. Such an 'Ostwind II' was actually on the German drawing boards, but never realized - but what-if modelling can certainly change that. However, such a heavy weapon would have to be mounted on a bigger/heavier chassis, so the natural choice became the Panzer V, the Panther medium battle tank. This way, my ‘Ostwind II’ interpretation was born.
The hull for this fictional AA tank is a Hasegawa ‘Panther Ausf. G’ kit, which stems from 1973 and clearly shows its age, at least from today’s point of view. While everything fits well, the details are rather simple, if not crude (e. g. the gratings on the engine deck or the cupola on the turret). However, only the lower hull and the original wheels were used since I wanted to portray a revamped former standard battle tank.
The turret was a more complicated affair. It had to be completely re-constructed, to accept the enlarged twin gun and to fit onto the Panther hull. The first step was the assembly of the twin gun mount, using parts from the original Ostwind kit and additional parts from a second one. In order to save space and not to make thing uber-complicated I added the second weapon to the right side of the original gun and changed some accessories.
This, together with the distance between the barrels, gave the benchmark for the turret's reconstruction. Since the weapon had not become longer, I decided to keep things as simple as possible and just widen the open turret - I simply took the OOB Ostwind hexagonal turret (which consists of an upper and lower half), cut it up vertically and glued them onto the Panther turret's OOB base, shifting the sides just as far to the outside that the twin gun barrels would fit between them - a distance of ~0.4 inch (1 cm). At the rear the gap was simply closed with styrene sheet, while the front used shield parts from the Revell Ostwind kit that come from a ground mount for the FlaK 43. Two parts from this shield were glued together and inserted into the front gap. While this is certainly not as elegant as e. g. the Wirbelwind turret, I think that this solution was easier to integrate.
Massive PSR was necessary to blend the turret walls with the Panther turret base, and as a late modification the opening for the sight had to be moved, too. To the left of the weapons, I also added a raised protective shield for the commander.
Inside of the turret, details from the Ostwind kit(s), e. g. crew seats and ammunition clips, were recycled, too.
Painting and markings:
Since the Ostwind II would be based on a repaired/modified former Panzer V medium battle tank, I settled upon a relatively simple livery. The kit received a uniform finish in Dunkelgelb (RAL 7028), with a network of greenish-grey thin stripes added on top, to break up the tank's outlines and reminiscent of the British ‘Malta’ scheme, but less elaborate. The model and its parts were initially primed with matt sand brown from the rattle can (more reddish than RAL 7028) and then received an overall treatment with thinned RAL 7028 from Modelmaster, for an uneven, dirty and worn look. The stripes were created with thinned Tamiya XF-65 (Field Grey).
Once dry, the whole surface received a dark brown wash, details were emphasized with dry-brushing in light grey and beige. Decals were puzzled together from various German tank sheets, and the kit finally sealed with matt acrylic varnish.
The black vinyl tracks were also painted/weathered, with a wet-in-wet mix of black, grey, iron and red brown (all acrylics). Once mounted into place, mud and dust were simulated around the running gear and the lower hull with a greyish-brown mix of artist mineral pigments.
A bit of recycling and less exotic than one would expect, but it’s still a whiffy tank model that fits well into the historic gap between the realized Panzer IV AA tanks and the unrealized E-50/75 projects. Quite subtle! Creating the enlarged turret was the biggest challenge, even, even more so because it was/is an open structure and the interior can be readily seen. But the new/bigger gun fits well into it, and it even remained movable!
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
In the first years of the war, the Wehrmacht had only little interest in developing self-propelled anti-aircraft guns, but as the Allies developed air superiority and dedicated attack aircraft threatened the ground troops from above, the need for more mobile and better-armed self-propelled anti-aircraft guns increased. As a stopgap solution the Wehrmacht initially adapted a variety of wheeled, half-track and tracked vehicles to serve as mobile forward air defense positions. Their tasks were to protect armor and infantry units in the field, as well as to protect temporary forward area positions such as mobile headquarters and logistic points.
These vehicles were only lightly armored, if at all, and rather mobilized the anti-aircraft weapons. As Allied fighter bombers and other ground attack aircraft moved from machine gun armament and bombing to air-to-ground rockets and large-caliber cannons, the air defense positions were even more vulnerable. The answer was to adapt a tank chassis with a specialized turret that would protect the gun crews while they fired upon approaching Allied aircraft. Furthermore, the vehicle would have the same mobility as the battle tanks it protected.
Initial German AA-tank designs were the ‘Möbelwagen’ and the ‘Wirbelwind’, both conversions of refurbished Panzer IV combat tank chassis with open platforms or turrets with four 20mm cannon. Alternatively, a single 37mm AA gun was mounted, too – but all these vehicles were just a compromise and suffered from light armor, a high silhouette and lack of crew protection.
Further developments of more sophisticated anti-aircraft tank designs started in late 1943 and led into different directions. One development line was the ‘Kugelblitz’, another Panzer IV variant, but this time the ball-shaped turret, armed with very effective 30 mm MK 103 cannon, was fully integrated into the hull, resulting in a low silhouette and a protected crew. However, the ‘Kugelblitz’ only featured two of these guns and the tilting turret was very cramped and complicated. Venting and ammunition feed problems led to serious delays and a prolonged development stage.
The ‘Coelian’ family of bigger turrets with various weapon options for the Panzer V (the ‘Panther’) was another direction, especially as a response against the armored Il-2 attack aircraft at the Eastern front and against flying targets at medium altitude. Targets at high altitude, esp. Allied bombers, were to be countered with the very effective 8.8 cm Flak, and there were also several attempts to mount this weapon onto a fully armored hull.
The primary weapon for a new low/medium altitude anti-aircraft tank was to become the heavy automatic 55 mm MK 214. Like the 30 mm MK 103 it was a former aircraft weapon, belt-fed and adapted to continuous ground use. However, in early 1944, teething troubles with the ‘Kugelblitz’ suggested that a completely enclosed turret with one or (even better) two of these new weapons, mounted on a ‘Panther’ or the new E-50/75 tank chassis, would need considerable development time. Operational vehicles were not expected to enter service before mid-1945. In order to fill this operational gap, a more effective solution than the Panzer IV AA conversions, with more range and firepower than anything else currently in service, was direly needed.
This situation led to yet another hasty stopgap solution, the so-called ‘Ostwind II’ weapon system, which consisted primarily of a new turret, mated with a standard medium battle tank chassis. It was developed in a hurry in the course of 1944 and already introduced towards the end of the same year. The ‘Ostwind II’ was a compromise in the worst sense: even though it used two 37 mm FlaK 43 guns in a new twin mount and offered better firepower than any former German AA tank, it also retained many weaknesses from its predecessors: an open turret with only light armor and a high silhouette. But due to the lack of time and resources, the ‘Ostwind II’ was the best thing that could be realized on short notice, and with the perspective of more effective solutions within one year’s time it was rushed into production.
The ‘Ostwind II’ system was an open, roughly diamond-shaped, octagonal turret, very similar in design to the Panzer IV-based ‘Wirbelwind’ and ‘Ostwind’ (which was re-designated ‘Ostwind I’). As a novelty, in order to relieve the crew from work overload, traverse and elevation of the turret was hydraulic, allowing a full elevation (-4° to +90° was possible) in just over four seconds and a full 360° traverse in 15 seconds. This had become necessary because the new turret was bigger and heaver, both the weapons and their crews required more space, so that the Ostwind II complex could not be mounted onto the Panzer IV chassis anymore and movement by hand was just a fallback option.
In order to provide the ‘Ostwind II’ with a sufficiently large chassis, it was based on the SdKfz. 171 Panzer V medium battle tank, the ‘Panther’, exploiting its bigger turret ring, armor level and performance. The Panther chassis had, by late 1944, become available for conversions in considerable numbers through damaged and/or recovered combat tanks, and updated details like new turrets or simplified road wheels were gradually introduced into production and during refurbishments. Mounting the ‘Ostwind II’ turret on the Panzer VI (Tiger) battle tank chassis had been theoretically possible, too, but it never happened, because the Tiger lacked agility and its protection level and fuel consumption were considered impractical for an SPAAG that would typically protect battle tank groups.
The ‘Ostwind II’ turret was built around a motorized mount for the automatic 3.7 cm FlaK 43 twin guns. These proven weapons were very effective against aircraft flying at altitudes up to 4,200 m, but they also had devastating effect against ground targets. The FlaK 43’s armor penetration was considerable when using dedicated ammunition: at 100 m distance it could penetrate 36 mm of a 60°-sloped armor, and at 800 m distance correspondingly 24 mm. The FlaK 43’s theoretical maximum rate of fire was 250 shots/minute, but it was practically kept at ~120 rpm in order to save ammunition and prevent wear of the barrels. The resulting weight of fire was 76.8 kg (169 lb) per minute, but this was only theoretical, too, because the FlaK 43 could only be fed manually by 6-round clips – effectively, only single shots or short bursts could be fired, but a trained crew could maintain fire through using alternating gun use. A more practical belt feed was at the time of the Ostwind II's creation not available yet, even though such a mechanism was already under development for the fully enclosed Coelian turret, which could also take the FlaK 43 twin guns, but the armament was separated from the turret crew.
The new vehicle received the official designation ‘Sd.Kfz. 171/2 Flakpanzer V’, even though ‘Ostwind II’ was more common. When production actually began and how many were built is unclear. The conversion of Panther hulls could have started in late-1944 or early-1945, with sources disagreeing. The exact number of produced vehicles is difficult to determine, either. Beside the prototype, the number of produced vehicles goes from as little as 6 to over 40. The first completed Ostwind II SPAAGs were exclusively delivered to Eastern front units and reached them in spring 1945, where they were immediately thrown into action.
All Flakpanzer vehicles at that time were allocated to special anti-aircraft tank platoons (so-called Panzer Flak Züge). These were used primarily to equip Panzer Divisions, and in some cases given to special units. By the end of March 1945, there were plans to create mixed platoons equipped with the Ostwinds and other Flakpanzers. Depending on the source, they were either to be used in combination with six Kugelblitz, six Ostwinds and four Wirbelwinds or with eight Ostwinds and three Sd.Kfz. 7/1 half-tracks. Due to the war late stage and the low number of anti-aircraft tanks of all types built, this reorganization was never truly implemented, so that most vehicles were simply directly attached to combat units, primarily to the commanding staff.
The Ostwind II armament proved to be very effective, but the open turret (nicknamed ‘Keksdose’ = cookie tin) left the crews vulnerable. The crew conditions esp. during wintertime were abominable, and since aiming had to rely on vision the system's efficacy was limited, esp. against low-flying targets. The situation was slightly improved when the new mobile ‘Medusa’ and ‘Basilisk’ surveillance and target acquisition systems were introduced. These combined radar and powerful visual systems and guided the FlaK crews towards incoming potential targets, what markedly improved the FlaKs' first shot hit probability. However, the radar systems rarely functioned properly, the coordination of multiple SPAAGs in the heat of a low-level air attack was a challenging task, and - to make matters worse - the new mobile radar systems were even more rare than the new SPAAGs themselves.
All Ostwind II tanks were built from recovered ‘Panther’ battle tanks of various versions. The new Panther-based SPAAGs gradually replaced most of the outdated Panzer IV AA variants as well as the Ostwind I. Their production immediately stopped in the course of 1945 when the more sophisticated 'Coelian' family of anti-aircraft tanks with fully enclosed turrets became available. This system was based on Panzer V hulls, too, and it was soon followed by the first E-50 SPAAGs with the new, powerful twin-55 mm gun.
Specifications:
Crew: Six (commander, gunner, 2× loader, driver, radio-operator/hull machine gunner)
Weight: 43.8 tonnes (43.1 long tons; 48.3 short tons)
Length (hull only): 6.87 m (22 ft 6 in)
Width: 3.42 m (11 ft 3 in)
Height: 3.53 m (11 ft 6 3/4 in)
Suspension: Double torsion bar, interleaved road wheels
Fuel capacity: 720 litres (160 imp gal; 190 US gal)
Armor:
15–80 mm (0.6 – 3.15 in)
Performance:
Maximum road speed: 46 km/h (29 mph)
Operational range: 250 km (160 mi)
Power/weight: 15.39 PS (11.5 kW)/tonne (13.77 hp/ton)
Engine:
Maybach HL230 P30 V-12 petrol engine with 700 PS (690 hp, 515 kW)
ZF AK 7-200 gear; 7 forward 1 reverse
Armament:
2× 37 mm (1.46 in) FlaK 43 cannon in twin mount with 1.200 rounds
1× 7.92 mm MG 34 machine gun in the front glacis plate with 2.500 rounds
The kit and its assembly:
This was a spontaneous build, more or less the recycling of leftover parts from a 1:72 Revell Ostwind tank on a Panzer III chassis that I had actually bought primarily for the chassis (it became a fictional Aufklärungspanzer III). When I looked at the leftover turret, I wondered about a beefed-up/bigger version with two 37 mm guns. Such an 'Ostwind II' was actually on the German drawing boards, but never realized - but what-if modelling can certainly change that. However, such a heavy weapon would have to be mounted on a bigger/heavier chassis, so the natural choice became the Panzer V, the Panther medium battle tank. This way, my ‘Ostwind II’ interpretation was born.
The hull for this fictional AA tank is a Hasegawa ‘Panther Ausf. G’ kit, which stems from 1973 and clearly shows its age, at least from today’s point of view. While everything fits well, the details are rather simple, if not crude (e. g. the gratings on the engine deck or the cupola on the turret). However, only the lower hull and the original wheels were used since I wanted to portray a revamped former standard battle tank.
The turret was a more complicated affair. It had to be completely re-constructed, to accept the enlarged twin gun and to fit onto the Panther hull. The first step was the assembly of the twin gun mount, using parts from the original Ostwind kit and additional parts from a second one. In order to save space and not to make thing uber-complicated I added the second weapon to the right side of the original gun and changed some accessories.
This, together with the distance between the barrels, gave the benchmark for the turret's reconstruction. Since the weapon had not become longer, I decided to keep things as simple as possible and just widen the open turret - I simply took the OOB Ostwind hexagonal turret (which consists of an upper and lower half), cut it up vertically and glued them onto the Panther turret's OOB base, shifting the sides just as far to the outside that the twin gun barrels would fit between them - a distance of ~0.4 inch (1 cm). At the rear the gap was simply closed with styrene sheet, while the front used shield parts from the Revell Ostwind kit that come from a ground mount for the FlaK 43. Two parts from this shield were glued together and inserted into the front gap. While this is certainly not as elegant as e. g. the Wirbelwind turret, I think that this solution was easier to integrate.
Massive PSR was necessary to blend the turret walls with the Panther turret base, and as a late modification the opening for the sight had to be moved, too. To the left of the weapons, I also added a raised protective shield for the commander.
Inside of the turret, details from the Ostwind kit(s), e. g. crew seats and ammunition clips, were recycled, too.
Painting and markings:
Since the Ostwind II would be based on a repaired/modified former Panzer V medium battle tank, I settled upon a relatively simple livery. The kit received a uniform finish in Dunkelgelb (RAL 7028), with a network of greenish-grey thin stripes added on top, to break up the tank's outlines and reminiscent of the British ‘Malta’ scheme, but less elaborate. The model and its parts were initially primed with matt sand brown from the rattle can (more reddish than RAL 7028) and then received an overall treatment with thinned RAL 7028 from Modelmaster, for an uneven, dirty and worn look. The stripes were created with thinned Tamiya XF-65 (Field Grey).
Once dry, the whole surface received a dark brown wash, details were emphasized with dry-brushing in light grey and beige. Decals were puzzled together from various German tank sheets, and the kit finally sealed with matt acrylic varnish.
The black vinyl tracks were also painted/weathered, with a wet-in-wet mix of black, grey, iron and red brown (all acrylics). Once mounted into place, mud and dust were simulated around the running gear and the lower hull with a greyish-brown mix of artist mineral pigments.
A bit of recycling and less exotic than one would expect, but it’s still a whiffy tank model that fits well into the historic gap between the realized Panzer IV AA tanks and the unrealized E-50/75 projects. Quite subtle! Creating the enlarged turret was the biggest challenge, even, even more so because it was/is an open structure and the interior can be readily seen. But the new/bigger gun fits well into it, and it even remained movable!
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
In the first years of the war, the Wehrmacht had only little interest in developing self-propelled anti-aircraft guns, but as the Allies developed air superiority and dedicated attack aircraft threatened the ground troops from above, the need for more mobile and better-armed self-propelled anti-aircraft guns increased. As a stopgap solution the Wehrmacht initially adapted a variety of wheeled, half-track and tracked vehicles to serve as mobile forward air defense positions. Their tasks were to protect armor and infantry units in the field, as well as to protect temporary forward area positions such as mobile headquarters and logistic points.
These vehicles were only lightly armored, if at all, and rather mobilized the anti-aircraft weapons. As Allied fighter bombers and other ground attack aircraft moved from machine gun armament and bombing to air-to-ground rockets and large-caliber cannons, the air defense positions were even more vulnerable. The answer was to adapt a tank chassis with a specialized turret that would protect the gun crews while they fired upon approaching Allied aircraft. Furthermore, the vehicle would have the same mobility as the battle tanks it protected.
Initial German AA-tank designs were the ‘Möbelwagen’ and the ‘Wirbelwind’, both conversions of refurbished Panzer IV combat tank chassis with open platforms or turrets with four 20mm cannon. Alternatively, a single 37mm AA gun was mounted, too – but all these vehicles were just a compromise and suffered from light armor, a high silhouette and lack of crew protection.
Further developments of more sophisticated anti-aircraft tank designs started in late 1943 and led into different directions. One development line was the ‘Kugelblitz’, another Panzer IV variant, but this time the ball-shaped turret, armed with very effective 30 mm MK 103 cannon, was fully integrated into the hull, resulting in a low silhouette and a protected crew. However, the ‘Kugelblitz’ only featured two of these guns and the tilting turret was very cramped and complicated. Venting and ammunition feed problems led to serious delays and a prolonged development stage.
The ‘Coelian’ family of bigger turrets with various weapon options for the Panzer V (the ‘Panther’) was another direction, especially as a response against the armored Il-2 attack aircraft at the Eastern front and against flying targets at medium altitude. Targets at high altitude, esp. Allied bombers, were to be countered with the very effective 8.8 cm Flak, and there were also several attempts to mount this weapon onto a fully armored hull.
The primary weapon for a new low/medium altitude anti-aircraft tank was to become the heavy automatic 55 mm MK 214. Like the 30 mm MK 103 it was a former aircraft weapon, belt-fed and adapted to continuous ground use. However, in early 1944, teething troubles with the ‘Kugelblitz’ suggested that a completely enclosed turret with one or (even better) two of these new weapons, mounted on a ‘Panther’ or the new E-50/75 tank chassis, would need considerable development time. Operational vehicles were not expected to enter service before mid-1945. In order to fill this operational gap, a more effective solution than the Panzer IV AA conversions, with more range and firepower than anything else currently in service, was direly needed.
This situation led to yet another hasty stopgap solution, the so-called ‘Ostwind II’ weapon system, which consisted primarily of a new turret, mated with a standard medium battle tank chassis. It was developed in a hurry in the course of 1944 and already introduced towards the end of the same year. The ‘Ostwind II’ was a compromise in the worst sense: even though it used two 37 mm FlaK 43 guns in a new twin mount and offered better firepower than any former German AA tank, it also retained many weaknesses from its predecessors: an open turret with only light armor and a high silhouette. But due to the lack of time and resources, the ‘Ostwind II’ was the best thing that could be realized on short notice, and with the perspective of more effective solutions within one year’s time it was rushed into production.
The ‘Ostwind II’ system was an open, roughly diamond-shaped, octagonal turret, very similar in design to the Panzer IV-based ‘Wirbelwind’ and ‘Ostwind’ (which was re-designated ‘Ostwind I’). As a novelty, in order to relieve the crew from work overload, traverse and elevation of the turret was hydraulic, allowing a full elevation (-4° to +90° was possible) in just over four seconds and a full 360° traverse in 15 seconds. This had become necessary because the new turret was bigger and heaver, both the weapons and their crews required more space, so that the Ostwind II complex could not be mounted onto the Panzer IV chassis anymore and movement by hand was just a fallback option.
In order to provide the ‘Ostwind II’ with a sufficiently large chassis, it was based on the SdKfz. 171 Panzer V medium battle tank, the ‘Panther’, exploiting its bigger turret ring, armor level and performance. The Panther chassis had, by late 1944, become available for conversions in considerable numbers through damaged and/or recovered combat tanks, and updated details like new turrets or simplified road wheels were gradually introduced into production and during refurbishments. Mounting the ‘Ostwind II’ turret on the Panzer VI (Tiger) battle tank chassis had been theoretically possible, too, but it never happened, because the Tiger lacked agility and its protection level and fuel consumption were considered impractical for an SPAAG that would typically protect battle tank groups.
The ‘Ostwind II’ turret was built around a motorized mount for the automatic 3.7 cm FlaK 43 twin guns. These proven weapons were very effective against aircraft flying at altitudes up to 4,200 m, but they also had devastating effect against ground targets. The FlaK 43’s armor penetration was considerable when using dedicated ammunition: at 100 m distance it could penetrate 36 mm of a 60°-sloped armor, and at 800 m distance correspondingly 24 mm. The FlaK 43’s theoretical maximum rate of fire was 250 shots/minute, but it was practically kept at ~120 rpm in order to save ammunition and prevent wear of the barrels. The resulting weight of fire was 76.8 kg (169 lb) per minute, but this was only theoretical, too, because the FlaK 43 could only be fed manually by 6-round clips – effectively, only single shots or short bursts could be fired, but a trained crew could maintain fire through using alternating gun use. A more practical belt feed was at the time of the Ostwind II's creation not available yet, even though such a mechanism was already under development for the fully enclosed Coelian turret, which could also take the FlaK 43 twin guns, but the armament was separated from the turret crew.
The new vehicle received the official designation ‘Sd.Kfz. 171/2 Flakpanzer V’, even though ‘Ostwind II’ was more common. When production actually began and how many were built is unclear. The conversion of Panther hulls could have started in late-1944 or early-1945, with sources disagreeing. The exact number of produced vehicles is difficult to determine, either. Beside the prototype, the number of produced vehicles goes from as little as 6 to over 40. The first completed Ostwind II SPAAGs were exclusively delivered to Eastern front units and reached them in spring 1945, where they were immediately thrown into action.
All Flakpanzer vehicles at that time were allocated to special anti-aircraft tank platoons (so-called Panzer Flak Züge). These were used primarily to equip Panzer Divisions, and in some cases given to special units. By the end of March 1945, there were plans to create mixed platoons equipped with the Ostwinds and other Flakpanzers. Depending on the source, they were either to be used in combination with six Kugelblitz, six Ostwinds and four Wirbelwinds or with eight Ostwinds and three Sd.Kfz. 7/1 half-tracks. Due to the war late stage and the low number of anti-aircraft tanks of all types built, this reorganization was never truly implemented, so that most vehicles were simply directly attached to combat units, primarily to the commanding staff.
The Ostwind II armament proved to be very effective, but the open turret (nicknamed ‘Keksdose’ = cookie tin) left the crews vulnerable. The crew conditions esp. during wintertime were abominable, and since aiming had to rely on vision the system's efficacy was limited, esp. against low-flying targets. The situation was slightly improved when the new mobile ‘Medusa’ and ‘Basilisk’ surveillance and target acquisition systems were introduced. These combined radar and powerful visual systems and guided the FlaK crews towards incoming potential targets, what markedly improved the FlaKs' first shot hit probability. However, the radar systems rarely functioned properly, the coordination of multiple SPAAGs in the heat of a low-level air attack was a challenging task, and - to make matters worse - the new mobile radar systems were even more rare than the new SPAAGs themselves.
All Ostwind II tanks were built from recovered ‘Panther’ battle tanks of various versions. The new Panther-based SPAAGs gradually replaced most of the outdated Panzer IV AA variants as well as the Ostwind I. Their production immediately stopped in the course of 1945 when the more sophisticated 'Coelian' family of anti-aircraft tanks with fully enclosed turrets became available. This system was based on Panzer V hulls, too, and it was soon followed by the first E-50 SPAAGs with the new, powerful twin-55 mm gun.
Specifications:
Crew: Six (commander, gunner, 2× loader, driver, radio-operator/hull machine gunner)
Weight: 43.8 tonnes (43.1 long tons; 48.3 short tons)
Length (hull only): 6.87 m (22 ft 6 in)
Width: 3.42 m (11 ft 3 in)
Height: 3.53 m (11 ft 6 3/4 in)
Suspension: Double torsion bar, interleaved road wheels
Fuel capacity: 720 litres (160 imp gal; 190 US gal)
Armor:
15–80 mm (0.6 – 3.15 in)
Performance:
Maximum road speed: 46 km/h (29 mph)
Operational range: 250 km (160 mi)
Power/weight: 15.39 PS (11.5 kW)/tonne (13.77 hp/ton)
Engine:
Maybach HL230 P30 V-12 petrol engine with 700 PS (690 hp, 515 kW)
ZF AK 7-200 gear; 7 forward 1 reverse
Armament:
2× 37 mm (1.46 in) FlaK 43 cannon in twin mount with 1.200 rounds
1× 7.92 mm MG 34 machine gun in the front glacis plate with 2.500 rounds
The kit and its assembly:
This was a spontaneous build, more or less the recycling of leftover parts from a 1:72 Revell Ostwind tank on a Panzer III chassis that I had actually bought primarily for the chassis (it became a fictional Aufklärungspanzer III). When I looked at the leftover turret, I wondered about a beefed-up/bigger version with two 37 mm guns. Such an 'Ostwind II' was actually on the German drawing boards, but never realized - but what-if modelling can certainly change that. However, such a heavy weapon would have to be mounted on a bigger/heavier chassis, so the natural choice became the Panzer V, the Panther medium battle tank. This way, my ‘Ostwind II’ interpretation was born.
The hull for this fictional AA tank is a Hasegawa ‘Panther Ausf. G’ kit, which stems from 1973 and clearly shows its age, at least from today’s point of view. While everything fits well, the details are rather simple, if not crude (e. g. the gratings on the engine deck or the cupola on the turret). However, only the lower hull and the original wheels were used since I wanted to portray a revamped former standard battle tank.
The turret was a more complicated affair. It had to be completely re-constructed, to accept the enlarged twin gun and to fit onto the Panther hull. The first step was the assembly of the twin gun mount, using parts from the original Ostwind kit and additional parts from a second one. In order to save space and not to make thing uber-complicated I added the second weapon to the right side of the original gun and changed some accessories.
This, together with the distance between the barrels, gave the benchmark for the turret's reconstruction. Since the weapon had not become longer, I decided to keep things as simple as possible and just widen the open turret - I simply took the OOB Ostwind hexagonal turret (which consists of an upper and lower half), cut it up vertically and glued them onto the Panther turret's OOB base, shifting the sides just as far to the outside that the twin gun barrels would fit between them - a distance of ~0.4 inch (1 cm). At the rear the gap was simply closed with styrene sheet, while the front used shield parts from the Revell Ostwind kit that come from a ground mount for the FlaK 43. Two parts from this shield were glued together and inserted into the front gap. While this is certainly not as elegant as e. g. the Wirbelwind turret, I think that this solution was easier to integrate.
Massive PSR was necessary to blend the turret walls with the Panther turret base, and as a late modification the opening for the sight had to be moved, too. To the left of the weapons, I also added a raised protective shield for the commander.
Inside of the turret, details from the Ostwind kit(s), e. g. crew seats and ammunition clips, were recycled, too.
Painting and markings:
Since the Ostwind II would be based on a repaired/modified former Panzer V medium battle tank, I settled upon a relatively simple livery. The kit received a uniform finish in Dunkelgelb (RAL 7028), with a network of greenish-grey thin stripes added on top, to break up the tank's outlines and reminiscent of the British ‘Malta’ scheme, but less elaborate. The model and its parts were initially primed with matt sand brown from the rattle can (more reddish than RAL 7028) and then received an overall treatment with thinned RAL 7028 from Modelmaster, for an uneven, dirty and worn look. The stripes were created with thinned Tamiya XF-65 (Field Grey).
Once dry, the whole surface received a dark brown wash, details were emphasized with dry-brushing in light grey and beige. Decals were puzzled together from various German tank sheets, and the kit finally sealed with matt acrylic varnish.
The black vinyl tracks were also painted/weathered, with a wet-in-wet mix of black, grey, iron and red brown (all acrylics). Once mounted into place, mud and dust were simulated around the running gear and the lower hull with a greyish-brown mix of artist mineral pigments.
A bit of recycling and less exotic than one would expect, but it’s still a whiffy tank model that fits well into the historic gap between the realized Panzer IV AA tanks and the unrealized E-50/75 projects. Quite subtle! Creating the enlarged turret was the biggest challenge, even, even more so because it was/is an open structure and the interior can be readily seen. But the new/bigger gun fits well into it, and it even remained movable!
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
As the Luftwaffe (German Air Force) lost control over the skies over Germany in the second half of the Second World War, it could no longer provide sufficient protection against Allied aircraft. Panzer divisions were especially affected by the lack of cover from fighter aircraft because they were always at the center of the most intense fighting.
The Germans already had copious amounts of half-tracked Self-Propelled Anti-Aircraft Guns (SPAAG) of different calibers and weights (Sd.Kfz.10/4, Sd.Kfz.6/2, Sd.Kfz.7/1, etc.). As these vehicles had very limited or no armor, they were vulnerable to enemy fire either from ground or air. The crew needed better protection from small arms fire and artillery/mortar high explosive fragmentation shell shrapnel. A tank-based anti-aircraft vehicle (Flakpanzer) could solve this problem, as it would have sufficient armor to resist most ground attacks with the exception of larger caliber guns. They would also provide some protection against air attacks, but even tanks could be destroyed by air ground-attack fire.
Many designs based on different Panzer chassis and weapons were tested and built during the war. The most successful early ones were based on the Panzer IV chassis (Möbelwagen, Wirbelwind and Ostwind), but one of the major shortcomings of all German Flakpanzers was the lack of a fully enclosed fighting compartment. As all were open-topped (because of easier construction, easier exhaust of gun fumes and the need to produce them as fast as possible), the gun crews were exposed to air attacks and the weather.
As the war progressed, German engineers tried to solve this problem by designing and building new Flakpanzers with fully enclosed turrets, based on later and bigger tank chassis’. One of these was the Flakpanzer based on the Panther tank, best known today as the ‘Coelian’, which was a new turret that could take various gun armaments.
The path to the Coelian SPAAG was not straight. In May 1943, Oberleutnant Dipl. Ing von Glatter-Götz, responding to the orders of Inspectorate 6, initiated the development of a new series of Flakpanzers based on already existing chassis. The Panzer I and II were outdated or used for other purposes. The Panzer III tank chassis was earmarked for the production of the StuG III and thus not available. The Panzer IV and the Panzer V Panther were considered next. The Panzer IV tank chassis was already in use for several German modifications, so it was decided to use it for the Flakpanzer program, eventually leading to the light “Kugelblitz” SPAAG. The Panzer V Panther was considered in case even the Panzer IV chassis proved to be inadequate for the task. Furthermore, the development of a whole new tank generation, the “Einheitspanzer” or “E-Serie”, had just been initiated.
The Germans formed a commission for the analysis of the effectiveness of enemy ground attack planes. The report (dated 31st June 1943) stated that, in the case of dive-bombing, the lowest point that the enemy plane reached was 1.200 to 1.500 m at an angle of 45-80°. Planes using larger caliber machine guns or cannons attacked at an altitude of around 150 to 300 m. The committee suggested that the best way to bring down enemy planes was using direct fire autocannons. To effectively fight the enemy planes, the future Flakpanzer would have to have a fully rotating turret with a high angle of fire and the caliber used should not be lower than 2 cm, with the more powerful 3.7 cm being preferred.
To give the crew the best protection possible and to meet any future Allied developments, the Panther-based Flakpanzer had to have a fully enclosed turret that could be armed with several different proposed weapon configurations. These included the 2 cm Flakvierling, 3.7 cm Flak either in twin or triple configuration, a newly developed 5.5 cm Gerät 58 Flakzwilling and even the powerful 88 mm caliber heavy anti-aircraft gun. The new turret design was to be ready for frontline service by the middle of 1944.
The first proposed design drawings were completed by Rheinmetall under the internal project number H-SkA 82827 in late May 1943 with the title “Turm Panther II mit Vierling MG 151/20”. This turret was heavily based on the Panther’s standard turret that it would simply replace. The new turret had to fulfill several set criteria like armor thickness and having an effective traversing mechanism. The armor protection of the turret was impressive, with 80 mm frontal armor and 40 mm on the sides. The turret was to be moved by using a hydraulic drive which was powered by the tank’s own engine. The maximum traverse speed was around 36° per second. Hydraulic power was used to raise the weapons, too, but a manual drive option was included as a fallback option.
The H-SkA 82827’s armament consisted of four 20 mm MG 151/20, mounted in staggered pairs, the same armament carried by the contemporary Panver IV-based “Möbelwagen” and “Wirbelwind” SPAAGs, too, but now under full armor protection. The elevation of the four guns was -5° to +75° and they had a combined practical rate of fire of 800 RPM, even though a maximum ROF of 1680 to 1920 RPM was theoretically possible. The weapons had a muzzle velocity of 900 m/s, a range of 4.800 m (15,720 ft) and an effective ceiling of 3.700 m (12,120 ft). They were belt-fed and separated from the turret crew, the gunner and the commander, which were seated in the left of the turret, weapons and ammunition were placed on the right side. The commander sat behind the gunner in an elevated position under a cupola, adapted from the Panther battle tank, for a good all-round view. Thanks to the belt-fed guns, no dedicated loader was necessary anymore, saving internal weight and space. The rest of the crew, driver and radio/machine gun operator, were seated in the Panzer V hull’s front in their standard positions.
After a wooden mock-up had been built, inspected and approved by the Heeresinspektorat 6, the go-ahead for the construction of five prototype turrets was given in September 1943, to be mounted and tested on refurbished Panther hulls. The new vehicle received the official designation Sd.Kfz. 171/1 “Flakpanzer V/20 mm”. On the 21st of December 1943, however, a Panzerkommision was formed to examine the further development of a Flakpanzer based on the Panther tank chassis. It was decided that the main armament should consist of at least two 3.7 cm caliber anti-aircraft guns, for more range and firepower, and this requirement was later revised to two even heavier 5.5 cm Gerät 58 guns. The Luftwaffe’s 30 mm MK 103 machine cannon was considered, too, since it had outstanding range, accuracy and penetration.
The problem was now that the Sd.Kfz. 171/1’s turret did not offer enough space or development potential to accommodate these heavier and bigger weapons, so that a completely new turret had to be designed from scratch around them. Daimler-Benz was chosen for this follow-up project, which was internally called “Flakpanzer 341” – after the SPAAG’s planned main armament with an experimental 3.7 cm (L/77) Flak 341 twin gun, also known as “Gerät 341”. In mid-1944 it would evolve into the Panther-based Coelian SPAAG family, but even this more sophisticated design with several armament variants became just a stopgap solution, bridging the delay of the anti-aircraft tanks based on the new Einheitspanzer chassis family.
Serial production of the Sd.Kfz. 171/1 was consequently dropped, only three fully operational prototypes were completed by March 1944, plus two armed turrets for static test. One of these turrets was later mounted onto another Panther hull, for a fourth operational vehicle. Rheinmetall kept on working with these vehicles and components until late 1945, and the four SPAAGs were also employed by the company’s Werksverteidigung unit (manned by the Rheinmetall staff, not by Wehrmacht soldiers) at the Apolda factory in central Thuringia.
The Sd.Kfz. 171/1s and the separate turrets were also used in the development programs for Rheinmetall’s so-called “Einheits-Flakturm” for the upcoming E-50/75 SPAAGs, primarily for targeting and rangefinding systems, weapon mounts and simplified turret movement mechanisms. One of these developments was the Kommandogerät 44, a much more compact analogue rangefinder, effectively an analogue fire control calculator that translated target and ambient data into electronic signals that could control weapon drives and trigger a weapon at an ideal moment. This innovative device eventually became part of the later E-50/75 SPAAGs that entered service in 1946.
The fate of these four unique vehicles after the factory’s invasion through Soviet troops is uncertain, though. They were probably destroyed by retreating German troops to prevent their experimental technologies from falling into enemy hands.
Specifications:
Crew: Four (commander, gunner, driver, radio-operator/hull machine gunner)
Weight: 40.5 tonnes (39.9 long tons; 44.7 short tons)
Length (hull only): 6.87 m (22 ft 6 in)
Width: 3.42 m (11 ft 3 in)
Height: 3.06 m (10 ft 2/3 in)
Suspension: Double torsion bar, interleaved road wheels
Fuel capacity: 720 litres (160 imp gal; 190 US gal)
Armor:
15–80 mm (0.6 – 3.15 in)
Performance:
Maximum road speed: 55 km/h (34 mph)
Operational range: 250 km (160 mi)
Power/weight: 15.39 PS (11.5 kW)/tonne (13.77 hp/ton)
Engine:
Maybach HL230 P30 V-12 petrol engine with 700 PS (690 hp, 515 kW)
ZF AK 7-200 gear; 7 forward 1 reverse
Armament:
4× 20 mm (0.787 in) MG 151/29 machine cannon in two twin mounts with a total of 3.200 rounds
1× 7.92 mm MG 34 machine gun in the front glacis plate with 2.500 rounds
The kit and its assembly:
This is an OOB what-if model, the prototype of the “Panther 20mm Flakvierling MG 151/20” from Dragon. The kit is actually mislabeled as “Flakpanzer 341”, but this designation had been allocated to the later prototype of the “Coelian” turret for the Panther chassis, just as described in the background. AFAIK, the “Panther 20mm Flakvierling MG 151/20” was not produced at all, there was just a wooden mock-up. And the whole project was quickly cancelled because it did not offer sufficient firepower and development potential. The only “official” designation I could find is the title of a project paper that describes the turret’s layout and construction, and it was called “H-SkA 82827.
But what if a small batch of these vehicles had been manufactured/completed and used by factory defense units like the Luftwaffe’s Werkschutzstaffeln?
That’s the basic idea/story behind this build, and it was kept OOB. The Dragon Panther is a simple affair and goes together well, but the instructions are weak, if not confusing. Good thing, though, is that the kit contains an extra sprue from a Jagdpanther kit that contains many optional parts for early and late Panther variants, as well as hull equipment, so that you get a good number of surplus parts for the spares box. The only downer is the fact that the soft vinyl tracks were molded in a bright sand tone, so that these delicate parts had to be completely painted.
Painting and markings:
The Panther 20mm Flakvierling is – even though it never “existed” – frequently depicted in a weird two-color scheme, probably consisting of Dunkelgelb (RAL 7028) over a red primer coat. But the depicted colors frequently appear much too garish and strong, like bright sunflower yellow over wine red! WTF? However, I liked the concept and adopted it for the model, just with more realistic tones and some personal twists.
The hull received an overall coat with RAL 3009 (Oxidrot), while the turret was painted with a paler shade of red (Humbrol 70, Brick red). On top of that, thinned Tamiya XF-57 (Buff) was used to add a fragmented meander pattern to break up the tank’s outlines. The result is quite attractive, and it might have worked well in an urban/factory environment – hence the idea of allocating the vehicle to a Werksschutz unit – several aircraft companies, e. g. Heinkel or Focke Wulf, also used prototypes for local defense, organized outside of Luftwaffe units.
To emphasize the prototype nature of this vehicle, the wheels and the armor skirts were, for some variety, painted in standard Hinterhalt camouflage colors, in Dunkelgelb (Tamiya XF-60), Olivgrün (RAL 6003, Humbrol 86) and Rotbraun (RAL 8017, Humbrol 160). The latter was also used for the engine bay cover, which I simply forgot to paint on Oxidrot in the first place. But the slightly darker Rotbraun blends well into the rest of the hull. The wheels were painted uniformly, and I added a wheel in Brick Red on each side as an un-camouflaged replacement. The armor skirts’ camouflage pattern consists of dark circles over a Dunkelgelb background, created with a stamp (self-made from fine sponge rubber) and mimicking the original “factory design” of the Hinterhalt paint scheme.
As mentioned above, the tracks had to be painted, and this time I tried a base with acrylic black paint from the rattle can, plus some grey and re brown wet-in-wet acrylic paint on top of that. Worked quite well and might become a new standard for this field of work.
The tactical markings became minimal, as the vehicle would be factory-operated and also a test article – hence it just received small Balkenkreuz insignia (on the hull ,mostly obscured by tools), and a large black “3”, edged in white for more contrast, on the turret sides, with smaller numbers at front and back of the turret for quick identification from every side.
The model received an overall washing with thinned dark brown acrylic paint and dry-brushing with light grey and beige, before it was sealed with matt acrylic varnish. Once the vinyl tracks had been mounted, the model’s lower areas and the running gear were dusted with grey-brown mineral pigments.
Well, another simple build, thanks to an OOB kit of this exotic SPAAG prototype. The result looks quite good and was completed in just two days, another member in my growing collection of real, semi-fictional and whiffy German SPAAG vehicles – turning this mock-up into an of an operational prototype of a Werksverteidigung unit certainly works and could actually have been, even though the Panther 20mm Flakvierling MG 151/20 just remained a stillborn proposal.
I'm a watch whore. These are the four that get the most use. Have not used the Luminox in a while...it did not fallback during daylight savings.
Viewed from the A4 at the base of Box hill on the side of the road; taking my life in my hand as being passed by lorries and tractors: there is no pathway, and the half hour wait was horrible. But hope it was worth it for this shot.
The hill surrounding the tunnel had been extensively quarried, extracting Bath stone. During the 1930s a significant portion of the quarries were developed by Royal Engineers for the storage of munitions. This became known as the Central Ammunition Depot and served the ammunition requirements of much of the South of England. A Royal Air Force station was also established using one area of the tunnels, RAF Box, and during the war a fallback aircraft engine factory was established to the North of Box Tunnel.
To service the Central Ammunition Depot a spur line was opened, breaking off from the main line at the eastern end of the tunnel, entering alongside the main portal. This spur leads to two platforms within the quarries, used for the delivery and removal of munitions.
Following World War II portions of the Ammunition Depot were variously redeveloped to house the Central Government War Headquarters, RAF No1 Signal Unit, Controller Defence communication Network and the Corsham Computer Centre. Much of this has now been decommissioned with only Corsham Computer Centre remaining in the quarries.
My first photo on Flickr for a Wardrobe Remix contribution!
I feel like a I've got a bit of 'little boy' vibe out there today.
It's probably my eternal desire to dress all the male species in 3 piece suits and braces with hot shoes..
If my boy was wearing an outfit pretty much like this (replace the heels with appropriate shoes + no 'man bag' of course.. and probably bling-less!) I would be in constant swoon-mode. I think boys have it easy, and I'm always thinking of fabulous boy outfits. Usually reminiscent of leading characters of old black + white movies, man did they have S-T-Y-L-E back in the day!! And they could dance too.. pretty damn suave.
I also love that all the items I'm wearing are a bunch of my great 'fallback' pieces (ie: always winners when you're stuck) = black skinnys, black vest, comfy AA singlets, black cardigan, gold chains, black peeptoe pumps + of course the fave vintage bag. These are all popular rotation pieces of mine + I always feel comfy + cute in them. Yay for things like these!
Happy Friday!!
Jeans: Bardot
Singlet: American Apparel
Vest + Cardigan: Sportsgirl
Heels: Tony Bianco
Bag + Jewellery: Vintage
"08 Red" takes off from Shindand Air Base in Afghanistan for another FAC sortie, guiding Su-25 and Mi-24 to their targets in the mountaineous northern reaches of the country.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
In early 1968, the Soviet Ministry of Defense decided to develop a specialized shturmovik armored assault aircraft in order to provide close air support for the Soviet Ground Forces. The idea of creating a ground-support aircraft came about after analyzing the experience of shturmovaya (ground attack) aviation during World War II, and in local wars during the 1950s and 1960s. The Soviet fighter-bombers in service or under development at this time (Su-7, Su-17, MiG-21 and MiG-23) did not meet the requirements for close air support of the army. They lacked essential armor plating to protect the pilot and vital equipment from ground fire and missile hits, and their high flight speeds made it difficult for the pilot to maintain visual contact with a target. Ordnance load and loiter time were also insufficient.
In March 1969, a competition was announced by the Soviet Air Force that called for designs for a new battlefield close-support aircraft. Participants in the competition were the Design Bureaus of Sukhoi, Yakovlev, Ilyushin and Mikoyan.
Mikoyan OKB proposed two directions: First option were designs which were based upon proven technology of the MiG-21 and -23, with an eye on short development time – e. g. the LSSh and 27Sh concepts. The other approach was a more experimental type, designed from scratch, but this concept focused more radically on survivability and excellent low altitude agility, at the expense of speed and a short development time.
All MiG OKB designs were eventually rejected by the MoD, and effectively only Ilyushin’s Il-42 (later renamed into Il-102) and Sukhoi’s T-8 (the later Su-25) remained in the official competition. But Mikoyan’s second design showed potential and was considered as a basis for an advanced jet trainer. This aircraft was approved to be developed further, but not with high priority and outside of the official shturmovik competition. Anyway, it was a fallback option, should both main contenders fail.
The project received the internal development code ‘Izdeliye 1.43’, but the forthcoming aircraft was better known under its project handle MiG-SPB (Samolet Polya Boya – ‘armored combat aircraft’) or its nickname, ла́сточка (Lastochka = Swallow). Some sources claim that the type was also designated MiG-43, but it never received an official code, despite its front line test service (see below).
The MiG-SPB’s main design objective was superior maneuverability at low speeds and altitude. It offered the pilot excellent view and a high resilience to frontline combat situations. The aircraft’s most prominent trademark was its engine location: in overall layout, the MiG-SPB resembled Sukhoi’s T-8, with straight wings and two jet engines placed in nacelles at the fuselage flanks. But in order to protect the engines from gunfire and shield the hot exhaust gases from view (e .g. from IR seeker heads, esp. from MANPADS), the nacelles were placed above the mid-set wings, with the air intakes at wing leading edge level.
Despite carrying armor around the cockpit and the central fuselage, the aircraft was surprisingly slender and elegant – so slim that the rigid landing gear, which would allow operation from field air strips, retracted into fairings which also housed the internal gun on starboard and avionics on port. As a side benefit of this complex layout, the CoG was kept very centralized, so that agility was further improved. The tail was conventional, even though the vertical stabilizer was rather high and slender.
For its low altitude duties, a large wing area, high wing aspect ratio, and large ailerons were incorporated. The high aspect ratio wing also allowed for short takeoffs and landings, permitting operations from primitive forward airfields near front lines. It was planned that the type would typically fly at a relatively slow speed of 300 knots (350 mph; 560 km/h), loiter for extended periods and operate under 1.000 ft (300 m) ceiling with 1.5 mi (2.4 km) visibility. This would have made it a much better platform for the ground-attack role than contemporary fast fighter-bombers, which often gave difficulty targeting small and slow-moving targets, or finding them again for a second attack.
Originally, the MiG-SPB was powered by two Ivchenko AI-25 turbofan with 14.7 kN (3,300 lbf) each, basically the same engine that drove the Yak-40 regional jet airliner. In early 1981 these were replaced by two much more powerful Klimov RD-33M turbofans: non-afterburning versions of the engines that powered the Mikoyan MiG-29 fighter (under development at MiG OKB at that time) and which were also introduced in the production Su-25.
Armament comprised a fixed gun in the starboard fairing and 3.500kg (7.700 lb.) of external ordnance, carried on eight wing hardpoints plus a centerline pylon under the fuselage.
Originally, a two-barreled Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-23L 23 mm cannon with 350 rounds was fitted, but that soon gave way to a more powerful 30mm GSh-30-1 cannon which could fire armor-piercing shells at 1.800 rpm. The gun's maximum effective range was 1.200 to 1.800 m (3.900 to 5.900 ft.) and, in combination with the Klen-PS laser rangefinder/targeting system in the aircraft’s nose, it was extremely accurate as well as powerful, capable of destroying a target with as few as three to five rounds.
At least one pre-production aircraft was even fitted with a single-barreled 45mm cannon.
Further avionics included a DISS-7 Doppler navigation radar, coupled with a navigation system that permitted flight in day and night conditions, both in VMC and IMC (even though the aircraft did not feature an all-weather/attack capability), and providing flight data for the weapons-control system and flight instruments. Radios for air-to-ground and air-to-air communications were fitted, as well as a weapons-control system and a full self-defense suite, incorporating infra-red, flare and chaff dispensers capable of launching about 250 flares and dipole chaff. An SRO radar warning receiver that would alert the pilot of incoming attacks on the aircraft, as well as an SPO-15 radar homing & warning system (RHAWS) and an SO-69 identification-friend-or-foe (IFF) transponder were incorporated.
With no official support the MiG-SPB’s development went on slowly, but due to several delays and specification changes in the official shturmovik competition it kept up pace and was more or less ready just in time for direct comparison. The MiG-SPB prototype first flew on 14 February 1978 and began State acceptance trials on 12 October 1979. Since the secondary use as a trainer was still on the agenda, all prototypes and pre-production machines were two-seaters, even though the plane was still primarily intended for the ground attack role and accordingly equipped.
An order for a first batch of twenty pre-production machines was placed in November 1979, and five of these had been completed by the spring of 1980 and were undergoing pre-flight tests when the Soviet MoD decided to try the type under real conditions. Together with an initial batch of Su-25s a total of five MiG-SPBs with support crews and maintenance equipment were sent to Afghanistan.
On 19 July 1981 and with the new RD-33M engines already fitted, these aircraft arrived at Shindand Airbase in western Afghanistan and were assigned to the 201st Independent Shturmovaya Air Squadron, flying together with the first Su-25 unit deployed to that country. Their main task was to conduct air strikes against mountain military positions and structures controlled by the Afghan rebels. The MiG-SPB proved to be easy to handle, esp. under “hot and high” conditions.
Flight characteristics were closely comparable to the Su-25 and the aircraft gained a good reputation among the flight crews. But field maintenance was more complicated and the electronic systems proved not to be as reliable and sturdy as the Su-25’s, though. Another drawback was the lower ordnance load of 3.500kg (the Su-25 could theoretically carry 4.500kg), which suffered further in the thin air of the Afghan summer. Usually, only 1.000 kg were carried, unguided missiles or iron bombs being the most frequent weapons.
The MiG-SPB found its niche, though: the second seat made the MiG-SPB a formidable reconnaissance and observation aircraft. The MiG-SPBs were frequently used as forward air control aircraft which would locate and mark targets, guide other fighter bombers to them and later control/assess the attack success (BDA missions).
In the late months of employment, the rear seat was also taken up by a weapon officer who would steer guided weapons, when several smart bombs and missiles as well as their respective sensor and guidance packages were tried out under field conditions.
Over the course of the Soviet war in Afghanistan, five more MiG-SPB were transferred to Afghanistan in order to keep a minimum of four machines active at all times. The aircraft performed a total of roundabout 2.500 combat sorties, ~250 per aircraft (less than the Su-25, which clocked 340 and more). Between the first deployment in 1981 and the end of the tests in April 1983, one aircraft was lost in combat operations, another one crashed in a landing accident. When NATO became aware of the type in late 1982, the MiG-SPB received the code name ‘Flintstone’.
In the end, the MiG-SPB had no future. After a long development process for the new shturmovik, the Su-25 surpassed its main competitor in the Soviet Air Force competition, the Ilyushin Il-102, as well as the MiG-SPB, and series production of Sukhoi’s type was announced by the Ministry of Defense. Since the trainer option did not show any future potential (meanwhile, the smaller and much less costly L-39 Albatros had been chosen as jet trainer), further development of the MiG-SPB was stopped – even though the experience with the type would later be incorporated into the MiG-AT trainer aircraft.
General characteristics (as flown)
Crew: Two (one pilot, one observer/WO)
Length: 15.19 m (50 ft 5½ in) incl. pitot
Wingspan: 14.79 m (49 ft 1½ in)
Height: 4.26 m (14 ft 2 in)
Wing area: 37.19 m² (400.3 ft²)
Empty weight: 9.890 kg (21.784 lb)
Loaded weight: 14.150 kg (31.186 lb)
Max. take-off weight: 17.200 kg (37.885 lb)
Powerplant:
2 × Klimov RD-33M turbofans, 44.18 kN (9,480 lbf) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 890 km/h (553 mph)
Combat radius: 400 km (250 mi)
Ferry range: 2,500 km (1,553 mi)
Service ceiling: 7,500 m (25,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 58 m/s (11,400 ft/min)
Wing loading: 490 kg/m² (100 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 0.52
Armament:
1× GSh-30-1 30mm cannon with 300 rounds
9 hardpoints for up to 3.500 kg (7.700 lb) of disposable external ordnance, including rails for 2 × R-60 (AA-8 'Aphid') or other air-to-air missiles for self-defense and a wide variety of general-purpose bombs, cluster bombs, gun pods, rocket pods, laser- or TV-guided bombs, and air-to-surface missiles.
The centerline pylon was usually only used for sensor or reconnaissance pods.
The four inner wing hardpoints were ‘wet’ for 800l drop tanks.
The kit and its assembly:
I think it’s the first time that I convert a helicopter into an aircraft. But ESCI’s fictional Ka-34 ‘Hokum’ (probably only based on satellite pictures from above and vague sketches of the real thing, the Ka-50) is so sleek and aircraft-like – why not give it a try?
My idea behind this purely fictional whif was to build a contender to the Su-25 and its real introduction story, with the long development phase since the late 60ies, the competition with the Il-102 and the Afghanistan trials. Even the submissions of Mikoyan OKB are real (yet rejected…), but my SPB was an additional design outside of the “proven technology” sandbox.
So, the Ka-34 fuselage and the ground attack role were clear and defined further design elements.
Looking for suitable straight wings I came at first across Revell’s 1:100 SnapFit A-10 as a donation kit for the wings, but these turned out to be too small. When I rummaged for alternative parts I finally found an ancient (25 years? Its white polystyrene was thoroughly yellowed…), half-built Airfix A-1 – a horrible kit which now found its final and good use! So, effectively, my MiG-SPB is a kit-bashing of two kits with some extra donations.
The Ka-34’s fuselage was more modified than initially intended: the main rotor mount was faired over and the tail fin cut away, because it looked too small/slender/modern for the massive and straight A-1 wings.
I kept the Ka-34’s original nose, but flattened its top for a better field of view and added a window in the nose for a laser range finder with fixed glazing (much like the Su-25). Some antennae, an OoA sensor and pitots were added, too. Cockpit and landing gear were taken OOB, but I added new seats and pilot figures as well as bigger wheels (from an A-7).
Other external changes include bigger engine nacelles, from a Hobby Boss Me 262. They are mounted backwards, though, and their interior outfitted with new parts from the scrap box. I left them in their helicopter-like high position above the wings, but had to raise their position due to thick A-1 wings.
Ultimately, all tail stabilizers come from the A-1 kit, since they’d fit well in size and shape. The wings were modified in so far that I filled the A-1’s landing gear wells (covers were gone, used 2C putty) and tried to hide the folding wing lines. Weapon hardpoints come from A-7 and F-16 kits, the ordnance of two B-13L and two B-8M rocket pods comes from an ICM Soviet air-to-ground weapon sets – the choice reflects the FAC duty of the type in the hot-and-high Afghanistan environment, so only unguided rockets for target marking and against small, soft targets are carried, plus two R-60 for self-defense.
Painting and markings:
Normally I keep whifs rather subtle, but this time I gave the MiG-SPB a rather weird camouflage scheme. The MiG-SPB’s stylish three-tone clover pattern has actually been applied to Soviet Mi-24 helicopters, and a similar wrap-around scheme (in olive green, though) can be found on some Ukrainian Su-25. I found this scheme very attractive, and since it looks IMHO very Russian the MiG-SPB was a nice occasion to try it out – the colors even matching the dusty/mountainous Afghanistan theatre where the model would have been used, according to its fictional story.
Basic upper colors are Humbrol 168 and ‘clover leafs’ in 84 and 98 (Hemp, Mid-Stone and Chocolate, in these “levels” above each other), later ‘tamed down’ trough dry painting with shades of light beige and grey, for a worn and bleached look.
This pattern is utterly effective in order to break up contours: Even when the thing just sat on the work bench it was hard to tell where its front or rear end would be, or how the fuselage and wing intersection would look like in detail. And it even looks flashy…
Lower side was painted in Humbrol 65 – pretty bright, but such tones are typical for Soviet/Russian aircraft.
Additionally, the whole thing received a light wash with black ink in order to emphasize panel line and details and the leading edges were lightly dry-brushed with silver.
Most markings come from the scrap box, insignia, tactical code and some emblems like the MiG OKB badge come from an Authentic Decals 1:72 MiG-29 aftermarket sheet, most stencils from the vast X-20M missile decal sheet from ICM.
All in all a nice project which was based on a spontaneous idea. But it came out better than expected, concerning both the aircraft itself but also the weird cammo scheme, which will certainly pop up under other circumstances (mecha?)!
Well, today was one of those 366 days when you have a clear idea in your head as to what you are going to do for your shot, you wait until its dark (as I had to for said idea), set up and press the shutter. Look at the LCD.... disappointment. No worries, different settings and it will be fine. Click.
FAIL!
So that was that. Its wasnt going to work, I had no other ideas that werent going to take ages to faff with and its now 10.30pm. What to do?
A bit of fallback bokeh was the answer! 50mm on, manual de-focus on some fairy lights, CWB. Click..... Look at the LCD....hmmm, retro.
I quite like it and as a bit of a panic shot Im quite pleased with it.
see notes for more details on this body, and i'll have a review up on ph.brhfl.com soon a little review is now ready for reading right here. all in all, this is a pretty impressive camera. it's large by my standards, but small by those of many. for as much functionality is crammed in, i guess it earns its size. fully electronic, no mechanical fallback whatsoever. full range of p,a,s,m exposure modes, buttons for shutter speed selection. no program shift. shutter range from 15" to 1/2000" (plus bulb). decent, though not necessarily complete, readout in finder. shutter fires at 1/1000" until frame one, meaning you probably lose frame zero, odd quirk. feel is pretty solid, but nothing like, say, an mx. shutter sound is rather heavenly. all in all, a pretty sweet camera. the meter switch is really pretty bad on mine, which is a shame.
Exposed with Rolleicord. Kodak EPP 6005 (Ektachrome 100 Plus). Expired. Normal developed. Research material for next exhibition.
Exclusively at Planet29!
◆ Unrigged
◆ Resize in HUD
◆ 18 Textures for Beads&Moon Charms, 6 For Chain
◆ PBR&Fallback
◆ Left and Right Versions
◆ Copy/Modify/No Transfer
Find it at the Planet29 Event
July 29-August 19
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The CAC Sabre, sometimes known as the Avon Sabre or CA-27, was an Australian variant of the North American Aviation F-86F Sabre fighter aircraft. In 1951, Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation obtained a license agreement to build the F-86F Sabre. In a major departure from the North American blueprint, it was decided that the CA-27 would be powered by a license-built version of the Rolls-Royce Avon R.A.7, rather than the General Electric J47. In theory, the Avon was capable of more than double the maximum thrust and double the thrust-to-weight ratio of the US engine. This necessitated a re-design of the fuselage, as the Avon was shorter, wider and lighter than the J47.
To accommodate the Avon, over 60 percent of the fuselage was altered and there was a 25 percent increase in the size of the air intake. Another major revision was in replacing the F-86F's six machine guns with two 30mm ADEN cannon, while other changes were also made to the cockpit and to provide an increased fuel capacity.
The prototype aircraft first flew on 3 August 1953. The production aircrafts' first deliveries to the Royal Australian Air Force began in 1954. The first batch of aircraft were powered by the Avon 20 engine and were designated the Sabre Mk 30. Between 1957 and 1958 this batch had the wing slats removed and were re-designated Sabre Mk 31. These Sabres were supplemented by 20 new-built aircraft. The last batch of aircraft were designated Sabre Mk 32 and used the Avon 26 engine, of which 69 were built up to 1961.
Beyond these land-based versions, an indigenous version for carrier operations had been developed and built in small numbers, too, the Sea Sabre Mk 40 and 41. The roots of this aircraft, which was rather a prestigious idea than a sensible project, could be traced back to the immediate post WWII era. A review by the Australian Government's Defence Committee recommended that the post-war forces of the RAN be structured around a Task Force incorporating multiple aircraft carriers. Initial plans were for three carriers, with two active and a third in reserve, although funding cuts led to the purchase of only two carriers in June 1947: Majestic and sister ship HMS Terrible, for the combined cost of AU£2.75 million, plus stores, fuel, and ammunition. As Terrible was the closer of the two ships to completion, she was finished without modification, and was commissioned into the RAN on 16 December 1948 as HMAS Sydney. Work progressed on Majestic at a slower rate, as she was upgraded with the latest technology and equipment. To cover Majestic's absence, the Colossus-class carrier HMS Vengeance was loaned to the RAN from 13 November 1952 until 12 August 1955.
Labour difficulties, late delivery of equipment, additional requirements for Australian operations, and the prioritization of merchant ships over naval construction delayed the completion of Majestic. Incorporation of new systems and enhancements caused the cost of the RAN carrier acquisition program to increase to AU£8.3 million. Construction and fitting out did not finish until October 1955. As the carrier neared completion, a commissioning crew was formed in Australia and first used to return Vengeance to the United Kingdom.
The completed carrier was commissioned into the RAN as HMAS Majestic on 26 October 1955, but only two days later, the ship was renamed Melbourne and recommissioned.
In the meantime, the rather political decision had been made to equip Melbourne with an indigenous jet-powered aircraft, replacing the piston-driven Hawker Fury that had been successfully operated from HMAS Sydney and HMAS Vengeance, so that the "new jet age" was even more recognizable. The choice fell on the CAC Sabre, certainly inspired by North American's successful contemporary development of the navalized FJ-2 Fury from the land-based F-86 Sabre. The CAC 27 was already a proven design, and with its more powerful Avon engine it even offered a better suitability for carrier operations than the FJ-2 with its rather weak J47 engine.
Work on this project, which was initially simply designated Sabre Mk 40, started in 1954, just when the first CAC 27's were delivered to operative RAAF units. While the navalized Avon Sabre differed outwardly only little from its land-based brethren, many details were changed and locally developed. Therefore, there was also, beyond the general outlines, little in common with the North American FJ-2 an -3 Fury.
Externally, a completely new wing with a folding mechanism was fitted. It was based on the F-86's so-called "6-3" wing, with a leading edge that was extended 6 inches at the root and 3 inches at the tip. This modification enhanced maneuverability at the expense of a small increase in landing speed due to deletion of the leading edge slats, a detail that was later introduced on the Sabre Mk 31, too. As a side benefit, the new wing leading edges without the slat mechanisms held extra fuel. However, the Mk 40's wing was different as camber was applied to the underside of the leading edge to improve low-speed handling for carrier operations. The wings were provided with four stations outboard of the landing gear wells for up to 1000 lb external loads on the inboard stations and 500 lb on the outboard stations.
Slightly larger stabilizers were fitted and the landing gear was strengthened, including a longer front wheel strut. The latter necessitated an enlarged front wheel well, so that the front leg’s attachment point had to be moved forward. A ventral launch cable hook was added under the wing roots and an external massive arrester hook under the rear fuselage.
Internally, systems were protected against salt and humidity and a Rolls-Royce Avon 211 turbojet was fitted, a downrated variant of the already navalized Avon 208 from the British DH Sea Vixen, but adapted to the different CAC 27 airframe and delivering 8.000 lbf (35.5 kN) thrust – slightly more than the engines of the land-based CAC Sabres, but also without an afterburner.
A single Mk 40 prototype was built from a new CAC 27 airframe taken directly from the production line in early 1955 and made its maiden flight on August 20th of the same year. In order to reflect its naval nature and its ancestry, this new CAC 27 variant was officially christened “Sea Sabre”.
Even though the modified machine handled well, and the new, cambered wing proved to be effective, many minor technical flaws were discovered and delayed the aircraft's development until 1957. These included the wing folding mechanism and the respective fuel plumbing connections, the landing gear, which had to be beefed up even more for hard carrier landings and the airframe’s structural strength for catapult launches, esp. around the ventral launch hook.
In the meantime, work on the land-based CAC 27 progressed in parallel, too, and innovations that led to the Mk 31 and 32 were also incorporated into the naval Mk 40, leading to the Sea Sabre Mk 41, which became the effective production aircraft. These updates included, among others, a detachable (but fixed) refueling probe under the starboard wing, two more pylons for light loads located under the wing roots and the capability to carry and deploy IR-guided AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, what significantly increased the Mk 41's efficiency as day fighter. With all these constant changes it took until April 1958 that the Sabre Mk 41, after a second prototype had been directly built to the new standard, was finally approved and cleared for production. Upon delivery, the RAN Sea Sabres carried a standard NATO paint scheme with Extra Dark Sea Grey upper surfaces and Sky undersides.
In the meantime, the political enthusiasm concerning the Australian carrier fleet had waned, so that only twenty-two aircraft were ordered. The reason behind this decision was that Australia’s carrier fleet and its capacity had become severely reduced: Following the first decommissioning of HMAS Sydney in 1958, Melbourne became the only aircraft carrier in Australian service, and she was unavailable to provide air cover for the RAN for up to four months in every year; this time was required for refits, refueling, personnel leave, and non-carrier duties, such as the transportation of troops or aircraft. Although one of the largest ships to serve in the RAN, Melbourne was one of the smallest carriers to operate in the post-World War II period, so that its contribution to military actions was rather limited. To make matters worse, a decision was made in 1959 to restrict Melbourne's role to helicopter operations only, rendering any carrier-based aircraft in Australian service obsolete. However, this decision was reversed shortly before its planned 1963 implementation, but Australia’s fleet of carrier-borne fixed-wing aircraft would not grow to proportions envisioned 10 years ago.
Nevertheless, on 10 November 1964, an AU£212 million increase in defense spending included the purchase of new aircraft for Melbourne. The RAN planned to acquire 14 Grumman S-2E Tracker anti-submarine aircraft and to modernize Melbourne to operate these. The acquisition of 18 new fighter-bombers was suggested (either Sea Sabre Mk 41s or the American Douglas A-4 Skyhawk), too, but these were dropped from the initial plan. A separate proposal to order 10 A-4G Skyhawks, a variant of the Skyhawk designed specifically for the RAN and optimized for air defense, was approved in 1965, but the new aircraft did not fly from Melbourne until the conclusion of her refit in 1969. This move, however, precluded the production of any new and further Sea Sabre.
At that time, the RAN Sea Sabres received a new livery in US Navy style, with upper surfaces in Light Gull Gray with white undersides. The CAC Sea Sabres remained the main day fighter and attack aircraft for the RAN, after the vintage Sea Furies had been retired in 1962. The other contemporary RAN fighter type in service, the Sea Venom FAW.53 all-weather fighter that had replaced the Furies, already showed its obsolescence.
In 1969, the RAN purchased another ten A-4G Skyhawks, primarily in order to replace the Sea Venoms on the carriers, instead of the proposed seventh and eighth Oberon-class submarines. These were operated together with the Sea Sabres in mixed units on board of Melbourne and from land bases, e.g. from NAS Nowra in New South Wales, where a number of Sea Sabres were also allocated to 724 Squadron for operational training.
Around 1970, Melbourne operated a standard air group of four jet aircraft, six Trackers, and ten Wessex helicopters until 1972, when the Wessexes were replaced with ten Westland Sea King anti-submarine warfare helicopters and the number of jet fighters doubled. Even though the A-4G’s more and more took over the operational duties on board of Melbourne, the Sea Sabres were still frequently deployed on the carrier, too, until the early Eighties, when both the Skyhawks and the Sea Sabres received once more a new camouflage, this time a wraparound scheme in two shades of grey, reflecting their primary airspace defense mission.
The CAC 27 Mk 41s’ last carrier operations took place in 1981 in the course of Melbourne’s involvements in two major exercises, Sea Hawk and Kangaroo 81, the ship’s final missions at sea. After Melbourne was decommissioned in 1984, the Fleet Air Arm ceased fixed-wing combat aircraft operation. This was the operational end of the Sabre Mk 41, which had reached the end of their airframe lifetime, and the Sea Sabre fleet had, during its career, severely suffered from accidents and losses: upon retirement, only eight of the original twenty-two aircraft still existed in flightworthy condition, so that the aircraft were all scrapped. The younger RAN A-4Gs were eventually sold to New Zealand, where they were kept in service until 2002.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 37 ft 6 in (11.43 m)
Wingspan: 37 ft 1 in (11.3 m)
Height: 14 ft 5 in (4.39 m)
Wing area: 302.3 sq ft (28.1 m²)
Empty weight: 12,000 lb (5,443 kg)
Loaded weight: 16,000 lb (7,256 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 21,210 lb (9,621 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Rolls-Royce Avon 208A turbojet engine with 8,200 lbf (36.44 kN)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 700 mph (1,100 km/h) (605 knots)
Range: 1,153 mi, (1,000 NM, 1,850 km)
Service ceiling: 52,000 ft (15,850 m)
Rate of climb: 12,000 ft/min at sea level (61 m/s)
Armament:
2× 30 mm ADEN cannons with 150 rounds per gun
5,300 lb (2,400 kg) of payload on six external hardpoints;
Bombs were usually mounted on outer two pylons as the mid pair were wet-plumbed pylons for
2× 200 gallons drop tanks, while the inner pair was usually occupied by a pair of AIM-9 Sidewinder
AAMs
A wide variety of bombs could be carried with maximum standard loadout being 2x 1,000 lb bombs
or 2x Matra pods with unguided SURA missiles plus 2 drop tanks for ground attacks, or 2x AIM-9 plus
two drop tanks as day fighter
The kit and its assembly:
This project was initially inspired by a set of decals from an ESCI A-4G which I had bought in a lot – I wondered if I could use it for a submission to the “In the navy” group build at whatifmodelers.com in early 2020. I considered an FJ-3M in Australian colors on this basis and had stashed away a Sword kit of that aircraft for this purpose. However, I had already built an FJ variant for the GB (a kitbashed mix of an F-86D and an FJ-4B in USMC colors), and was reluctant to add another Fury.
This spontaneously changed after (thanks to Corona virus quarantine…) I cleaned up one of my kit hoards and found a conversion set for a 1:72 CAC 27 from JAYS Model Kits which I had bought eons ago without a concrete plan. That was the eventual trigger to spin the RAN Fury idea further – why not a navalized version of the Avon Sabre for HMAS Melbourne?
The result is either another kitbash or a highly modified FJ-3M from Sword. The JAYS Model Kits set comes with a THICK sprue that carries two fuselage halves and an air intake, and it also offers a vacu canopy as a thin fallback option because the set is actually intended to be used together with a Hobby Craft F-86F.
While the parts, molded in a somewhat waxy and brittle styrene, look crude on the massive sprue, the fuselage halves come with very fine recessed engravings. And once you have cleaned the parts (NOTHING for people faint at heart, a mini drill with a saw blade is highly recommended), their fit is surprisingly good. The air intake was so exact that no putty was needed to blend it with the rest of the fuselage.
The rest came from the Sword kit and integrating the parts into the CAC 27 fuselage went more smoothly than expected. For instance, the FJ-3M comes with a nice cockpit tub that also holds a full air intake duct. Thanks to the slightly wider fuselage of the CAC 27, it could be mounted into the new fuselage halves without problems and the intake duct almost perfectly matches the intake frame from the conversion set. The tailpipe could be easily integrated without any mods, too. The fins had to be glued directly to the fuselage – but this is the way how the Sword kit is actually constructed! Even the FJ-3M’s wings match the different fuselage perfectly. The only modifications I had to make is a slight enlargement of the ventral wing opening at the front and at the read in order to take the deeper wing element from the Sword kit, but that was an easy task. Once in place, the parts blend almost perfectly into each other, just minor PSR was necessary to hide the seams!
Other mods include an extended front wheel well for the longer leg from the FJ-3M and a scratched arrester hook installation, made from wire, which is on purpose different from the Y-shaped hook of the Furies.
For the canopy I relied on the vacu piece that came with the JAYS set. Fitting it was not easy, though, it took some PSR to blend the windscreen into the rest of the fuselage. Not perfect, but O.K. for such a solution from a conversion set.
The underwing pylons were taken from the Sword kit, including the early Sidewinders. I just replaced the drop tanks – the OOB tanks are very wide, and even though they might be authentic for the FJ-3, I was skeptical if they fit at all under the wings with the landing gear extended? In order to avoid trouble and for a more modern look, I replaced them outright with more slender tanks, which were to mimic A-4 tanks (USN FJ-4s frequently carried Skyhawk tanks). They actually come from a Revell F-16 kit, with modified fins. The refueling probe comes from the Sword kit.
A last word about the Sword kit: much light, but also much shadow. While I appreciate the fine surface engravings, the recognizably cambered wings, a detailed cockpit with a two-piece resin seat and a pretty landing gear as well as the long air intake, I wonder why the creators totally failed to provide ANY detail of the arrester hook (there is literally nothing, as if this was a land-based Sabre variant!?) or went for doubtful solutions like a front landing gear that consists of five(!) single, tiny parts? Sadism? The resin seat was also broken (despite being packed in a seperate bag), and it did not fit into the cockpit tub at all. Meh!
Painting and markings:
From the start I planned to give the model the late RAN A-4Gs’ unique air superiority paint scheme, which was AFAIK introduced in the late Seventies: a two-tone wraparound scheme consisting of “Light Admiralty Grey” (BS381C 697) and “Aircraft Grey” (BS 381C 693). Quite simple, but finding suitable paints was not an easy task, and I based my choice on pictures of the real aircraft (esp. from "buzz" number 880 at the Fleet Air Arm Museum, you find pics of it with very good light condition) rather than rely on (pretty doubtful if not contradictive) recommendations in various painting instructions from models or decal sets.
I wanted to keep things simple and settled upon Dark Gull Grey (FS 36231) and Light Blue (FS 35414), both enamel colors from Modelmaster, since both are rather dull interpretations of these tones. Esp. the Light Blue comes quite close to Light Admiralty Grey, even though it should be lighter for more contrast to the darker grey tone. But it has that subtle greenish touch of the original BS tone, and I did not want to mix the colors.
The pattern was adapted from the late A-4Gs’ scheme, and the colors were dulled down even more through a light black ink wash. Some post-shading with lighter tones emphasized the contrast between the two colors again. And while it is not an exact representation of the unique RAN air superiority scheme, I think that the overall impression is there.
The cockpit interior was painted in very dark grey, while the landing gear, its wells and the inside of the air intake became white. A red rim was painted around the front opening, and the landing gear covers received a red outline, too. The white drop tanks are a detail I took from real world RAN A-4Gs - in the early days of the air superiority scheme, the tanks were frequently still finished in the old USN style livery, hence the white body but fins and tail section already in the updated colors.
The decals became a fight, though. As mentioned above, the came from an ESCI kit – and, as expected, the were brittle. All decals with a clear carrier film disintegrated while soaking in water, only those with a fully printed carrier film were more or less usable. One roundel broke and had to be repaired, and the checkered fin flash was a very delicate affair that broke several times, even though I tried to save and repair it with paint. But you can unfortunately see the damage.
Most stencils and some replacements (e. g. the “Navy” tag) come from the Sword FJ-3. While these decals are crisply printed, their carrier film is utterly thin, so thin that applying esp. the larger decals turned out to be hazardous and complicated. Another point that did not really convince me about the Sword kit.
Finally, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and some soot stains were added around the exhaust and the gun ports with graphite.
In the end, this build looks, despite the troubles and the rather exotic ingredients like a relatively simple Sabre with Australian markings, just with a different Navy livery. You neither immediately recognize the FJ-3 behind it, nor the Avon Sabre’s bigger fuselage, unless you take a close and probably educated look. Very subtle, though.
The RAN air superiority scheme from the late Skyhawks suits the Sabre/Fury-thing well – I like the fact that it is a modern fighter scheme, but, thanks to the tones and the colorful other markings, not as dull and boring like many others, e. g. the contemporary USN "Ghost" scheme. Made me wonder about an early RAAF F-18 in this livery - should look very pretty, too?
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The CAC Sabre, sometimes known as the Avon Sabre or CA-27, was an Australian variant of the North American Aviation F-86F Sabre fighter aircraft. In 1951, Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation obtained a license agreement to build the F-86F Sabre. In a major departure from the North American blueprint, it was decided that the CA-27 would be powered by a license-built version of the Rolls-Royce Avon R.A.7, rather than the General Electric J47. In theory, the Avon was capable of more than double the maximum thrust and double the thrust-to-weight ratio of the US engine. This necessitated a re-design of the fuselage, as the Avon was shorter, wider and lighter than the J47.
To accommodate the Avon, over 60 percent of the fuselage was altered and there was a 25 percent increase in the size of the air intake. Another major revision was in replacing the F-86F's six machine guns with two 30mm ADEN cannon, while other changes were also made to the cockpit and to provide an increased fuel capacity.
The prototype aircraft first flew on 3 August 1953. The production aircrafts' first deliveries to the Royal Australian Air Force began in 1954. The first batch of aircraft were powered by the Avon 20 engine and were designated the Sabre Mk 30. Between 1957 and 1958 this batch had the wing slats removed and were re-designated Sabre Mk 31. These Sabres were supplemented by 20 new-built aircraft. The last batch of aircraft were designated Sabre Mk 32 and used the Avon 26 engine, of which 69 were built up to 1961.
Beyond these land-based versions, an indigenous version for carrier operations had been developed and built in small numbers, too, the Sea Sabre Mk 40 and 41. The roots of this aircraft, which was rather a prestigious idea than a sensible project, could be traced back to the immediate post WWII era. A review by the Australian Government's Defence Committee recommended that the post-war forces of the RAN be structured around a Task Force incorporating multiple aircraft carriers. Initial plans were for three carriers, with two active and a third in reserve, although funding cuts led to the purchase of only two carriers in June 1947: Majestic and sister ship HMS Terrible, for the combined cost of AU£2.75 million, plus stores, fuel, and ammunition. As Terrible was the closer of the two ships to completion, she was finished without modification, and was commissioned into the RAN on 16 December 1948 as HMAS Sydney. Work progressed on Majestic at a slower rate, as she was upgraded with the latest technology and equipment. To cover Majestic's absence, the Colossus-class carrier HMS Vengeance was loaned to the RAN from 13 November 1952 until 12 August 1955.
Labour difficulties, late delivery of equipment, additional requirements for Australian operations, and the prioritization of merchant ships over naval construction delayed the completion of Majestic. Incorporation of new systems and enhancements caused the cost of the RAN carrier acquisition program to increase to AU£8.3 million. Construction and fitting out did not finish until October 1955. As the carrier neared completion, a commissioning crew was formed in Australia and first used to return Vengeance to the United Kingdom.
The completed carrier was commissioned into the RAN as HMAS Majestic on 26 October 1955, but only two days later, the ship was renamed Melbourne and recommissioned.
In the meantime, the rather political decision had been made to equip Melbourne with an indigenous jet-powered aircraft, replacing the piston-driven Hawker Fury that had been successfully operated from HMAS Sydney and HMAS Vengeance, so that the "new jet age" was even more recognizable. The choice fell on the CAC Sabre, certainly inspired by North American's successful contemporary development of the navalized FJ-2 Fury from the land-based F-86 Sabre. The CAC 27 was already a proven design, and with its more powerful Avon engine it even offered a better suitability for carrier operations than the FJ-2 with its rather weak J47 engine.
Work on this project, which was initially simply designated Sabre Mk 40, started in 1954, just when the first CAC 27's were delivered to operative RAAF units. While the navalized Avon Sabre differed outwardly only little from its land-based brethren, many details were changed and locally developed. Therefore, there was also, beyond the general outlines, little in common with the North American FJ-2 an -3 Fury.
Externally, a completely new wing with a folding mechanism was fitted. It was based on the F-86's so-called "6-3" wing, with a leading edge that was extended 6 inches at the root and 3 inches at the tip. This modification enhanced maneuverability at the expense of a small increase in landing speed due to deletion of the leading edge slats, a detail that was later introduced on the Sabre Mk 31, too. As a side benefit, the new wing leading edges without the slat mechanisms held extra fuel. However, the Mk 40's wing was different as camber was applied to the underside of the leading edge to improve low-speed handling for carrier operations. The wings were provided with four stations outboard of the landing gear wells for up to 1000 lb external loads on the inboard stations and 500 lb on the outboard stations.
Slightly larger stabilizers were fitted and the landing gear was strengthened, including a longer front wheel strut. The latter necessitated an enlarged front wheel well, so that the front leg’s attachment point had to be moved forward. A ventral launch cable hook was added under the wing roots and an external massive arrester hook under the rear fuselage.
Internally, systems were protected against salt and humidity and a Rolls-Royce Avon 211 turbojet was fitted, a downrated variant of the already navalized Avon 208 from the British DH Sea Vixen, but adapted to the different CAC 27 airframe and delivering 8.000 lbf (35.5 kN) thrust – slightly more than the engines of the land-based CAC Sabres, but also without an afterburner.
A single Mk 40 prototype was built from a new CAC 27 airframe taken directly from the production line in early 1955 and made its maiden flight on August 20th of the same year. In order to reflect its naval nature and its ancestry, this new CAC 27 variant was officially christened “Sea Sabre”.
Even though the modified machine handled well, and the new, cambered wing proved to be effective, many minor technical flaws were discovered and delayed the aircraft's development until 1957. These included the wing folding mechanism and the respective fuel plumbing connections, the landing gear, which had to be beefed up even more for hard carrier landings and the airframe’s structural strength for catapult launches, esp. around the ventral launch hook.
In the meantime, work on the land-based CAC 27 progressed in parallel, too, and innovations that led to the Mk 31 and 32 were also incorporated into the naval Mk 40, leading to the Sea Sabre Mk 41, which became the effective production aircraft. These updates included, among others, a detachable (but fixed) refueling probe under the starboard wing, two more pylons for light loads located under the wing roots and the capability to carry and deploy IR-guided AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, what significantly increased the Mk 41's efficiency as day fighter. With all these constant changes it took until April 1958 that the Sabre Mk 41, after a second prototype had been directly built to the new standard, was finally approved and cleared for production. Upon delivery, the RAN Sea Sabres carried a standard NATO paint scheme with Extra Dark Sea Grey upper surfaces and Sky undersides.
In the meantime, the political enthusiasm concerning the Australian carrier fleet had waned, so that only twenty-two aircraft were ordered. The reason behind this decision was that Australia’s carrier fleet and its capacity had become severely reduced: Following the first decommissioning of HMAS Sydney in 1958, Melbourne became the only aircraft carrier in Australian service, and she was unavailable to provide air cover for the RAN for up to four months in every year; this time was required for refits, refueling, personnel leave, and non-carrier duties, such as the transportation of troops or aircraft. Although one of the largest ships to serve in the RAN, Melbourne was one of the smallest carriers to operate in the post-World War II period, so that its contribution to military actions was rather limited. To make matters worse, a decision was made in 1959 to restrict Melbourne's role to helicopter operations only, rendering any carrier-based aircraft in Australian service obsolete. However, this decision was reversed shortly before its planned 1963 implementation, but Australia’s fleet of carrier-borne fixed-wing aircraft would not grow to proportions envisioned 10 years ago.
Nevertheless, on 10 November 1964, an AU£212 million increase in defense spending included the purchase of new aircraft for Melbourne. The RAN planned to acquire 14 Grumman S-2E Tracker anti-submarine aircraft and to modernize Melbourne to operate these. The acquisition of 18 new fighter-bombers was suggested (either Sea Sabre Mk 41s or the American Douglas A-4 Skyhawk), too, but these were dropped from the initial plan. A separate proposal to order 10 A-4G Skyhawks, a variant of the Skyhawk designed specifically for the RAN and optimized for air defense, was approved in 1965, but the new aircraft did not fly from Melbourne until the conclusion of her refit in 1969. This move, however, precluded the production of any new and further Sea Sabre.
At that time, the RAN Sea Sabres received a new livery in US Navy style, with upper surfaces in Light Gull Gray with white undersides. The CAC Sea Sabres remained the main day fighter and attack aircraft for the RAN, after the vintage Sea Furies had been retired in 1962. The other contemporary RAN fighter type in service, the Sea Venom FAW.53 all-weather fighter that had replaced the Furies, already showed its obsolescence.
In 1969, the RAN purchased another ten A-4G Skyhawks, primarily in order to replace the Sea Venoms on the carriers, instead of the proposed seventh and eighth Oberon-class submarines. These were operated together with the Sea Sabres in mixed units on board of Melbourne and from land bases, e.g. from NAS Nowra in New South Wales, where a number of Sea Sabres were also allocated to 724 Squadron for operational training.
Around 1970, Melbourne operated a standard air group of four jet aircraft, six Trackers, and ten Wessex helicopters until 1972, when the Wessexes were replaced with ten Westland Sea King anti-submarine warfare helicopters and the number of jet fighters doubled. Even though the A-4G’s more and more took over the operational duties on board of Melbourne, the Sea Sabres were still frequently deployed on the carrier, too, until the early Eighties, when both the Skyhawks and the Sea Sabres received once more a new camouflage, this time a wraparound scheme in two shades of grey, reflecting their primary airspace defense mission.
The CAC 27 Mk 41s’ last carrier operations took place in 1981 in the course of Melbourne’s involvements in two major exercises, Sea Hawk and Kangaroo 81, the ship’s final missions at sea. After Melbourne was decommissioned in 1984, the Fleet Air Arm ceased fixed-wing combat aircraft operation. This was the operational end of the Sabre Mk 41, which had reached the end of their airframe lifetime, and the Sea Sabre fleet had, during its career, severely suffered from accidents and losses: upon retirement, only eight of the original twenty-two aircraft still existed in flightworthy condition, so that the aircraft were all scrapped. The younger RAN A-4Gs were eventually sold to New Zealand, where they were kept in service until 2002.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 37 ft 6 in (11.43 m)
Wingspan: 37 ft 1 in (11.3 m)
Height: 14 ft 5 in (4.39 m)
Wing area: 302.3 sq ft (28.1 m²)
Empty weight: 12,000 lb (5,443 kg)
Loaded weight: 16,000 lb (7,256 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 21,210 lb (9,621 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Rolls-Royce Avon 208A turbojet engine with 8,200 lbf (36.44 kN)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 700 mph (1,100 km/h) (605 knots)
Range: 1,153 mi, (1,000 NM, 1,850 km)
Service ceiling: 52,000 ft (15,850 m)
Rate of climb: 12,000 ft/min at sea level (61 m/s)
Armament:
2× 30 mm ADEN cannons with 150 rounds per gun
5,300 lb (2,400 kg) of payload on six external hardpoints;
Bombs were usually mounted on outer two pylons as the mid pair were wet-plumbed pylons for
2× 200 gallons drop tanks, while the inner pair was usually occupied by a pair of AIM-9 Sidewinder
AAMs
A wide variety of bombs could be carried with maximum standard loadout being 2x 1,000 lb bombs
or 2x Matra pods with unguided SURA missiles plus 2 drop tanks for ground attacks, or 2x AIM-9 plus
two drop tanks as day fighter
The kit and its assembly:
This project was initially inspired by a set of decals from an ESCI A-4G which I had bought in a lot – I wondered if I could use it for a submission to the “In the navy” group build at whatifmodelers.com in early 2020. I considered an FJ-3M in Australian colors on this basis and had stashed away a Sword kit of that aircraft for this purpose. However, I had already built an FJ variant for the GB (a kitbashed mix of an F-86D and an FJ-4B in USMC colors), and was reluctant to add another Fury.
This spontaneously changed after (thanks to Corona virus quarantine…) I cleaned up one of my kit hoards and found a conversion set for a 1:72 CAC 27 from JAYS Model Kits which I had bought eons ago without a concrete plan. That was the eventual trigger to spin the RAN Fury idea further – why not a navalized version of the Avon Sabre for HMAS Melbourne?
The result is either another kitbash or a highly modified FJ-3M from Sword. The JAYS Model Kits set comes with a THICK sprue that carries two fuselage halves and an air intake, and it also offers a vacu canopy as a thin fallback option because the set is actually intended to be used together with a Hobby Craft F-86F.
While the parts, molded in a somewhat waxy and brittle styrene, look crude on the massive sprue, the fuselage halves come with very fine recessed engravings. And once you have cleaned the parts (NOTHING for people faint at heart, a mini drill with a saw blade is highly recommended), their fit is surprisingly good. The air intake was so exact that no putty was needed to blend it with the rest of the fuselage.
The rest came from the Sword kit and integrating the parts into the CAC 27 fuselage went more smoothly than expected. For instance, the FJ-3M comes with a nice cockpit tub that also holds a full air intake duct. Thanks to the slightly wider fuselage of the CAC 27, it could be mounted into the new fuselage halves without problems and the intake duct almost perfectly matches the intake frame from the conversion set. The tailpipe could be easily integrated without any mods, too. The fins had to be glued directly to the fuselage – but this is the way how the Sword kit is actually constructed! Even the FJ-3M’s wings match the different fuselage perfectly. The only modifications I had to make is a slight enlargement of the ventral wing opening at the front and at the read in order to take the deeper wing element from the Sword kit, but that was an easy task. Once in place, the parts blend almost perfectly into each other, just minor PSR was necessary to hide the seams!
Other mods include an extended front wheel well for the longer leg from the FJ-3M and a scratched arrester hook installation, made from wire, which is on purpose different from the Y-shaped hook of the Furies.
For the canopy I relied on the vacu piece that came with the JAYS set. Fitting it was not easy, though, it took some PSR to blend the windscreen into the rest of the fuselage. Not perfect, but O.K. for such a solution from a conversion set.
The underwing pylons were taken from the Sword kit, including the early Sidewinders. I just replaced the drop tanks – the OOB tanks are very wide, and even though they might be authentic for the FJ-3, I was skeptical if they fit at all under the wings with the landing gear extended? In order to avoid trouble and for a more modern look, I replaced them outright with more slender tanks, which were to mimic A-4 tanks (USN FJ-4s frequently carried Skyhawk tanks). They actually come from a Revell F-16 kit, with modified fins. The refueling probe comes from the Sword kit.
A last word about the Sword kit: much light, but also much shadow. While I appreciate the fine surface engravings, the recognizably cambered wings, a detailed cockpit with a two-piece resin seat and a pretty landing gear as well as the long air intake, I wonder why the creators totally failed to provide ANY detail of the arrester hook (there is literally nothing, as if this was a land-based Sabre variant!?) or went for doubtful solutions like a front landing gear that consists of five(!) single, tiny parts? Sadism? The resin seat was also broken (despite being packed in a seperate bag), and it did not fit into the cockpit tub at all. Meh!
Painting and markings:
From the start I planned to give the model the late RAN A-4Gs’ unique air superiority paint scheme, which was AFAIK introduced in the late Seventies: a two-tone wraparound scheme consisting of “Light Admiralty Grey” (BS381C 697) and “Aircraft Grey” (BS 381C 693). Quite simple, but finding suitable paints was not an easy task, and I based my choice on pictures of the real aircraft (esp. from "buzz" number 880 at the Fleet Air Arm Museum, you find pics of it with very good light condition) rather than rely on (pretty doubtful if not contradictive) recommendations in various painting instructions from models or decal sets.
I wanted to keep things simple and settled upon Dark Gull Grey (FS 36231) and Light Blue (FS 35414), both enamel colors from Modelmaster, since both are rather dull interpretations of these tones. Esp. the Light Blue comes quite close to Light Admiralty Grey, even though it should be lighter for more contrast to the darker grey tone. But it has that subtle greenish touch of the original BS tone, and I did not want to mix the colors.
The pattern was adapted from the late A-4Gs’ scheme, and the colors were dulled down even more through a light black ink wash. Some post-shading with lighter tones emphasized the contrast between the two colors again. And while it is not an exact representation of the unique RAN air superiority scheme, I think that the overall impression is there.
The cockpit interior was painted in very dark grey, while the landing gear, its wells and the inside of the air intake became white. A red rim was painted around the front opening, and the landing gear covers received a red outline, too. The white drop tanks are a detail I took from real world RAN A-4Gs - in the early days of the air superiority scheme, the tanks were frequently still finished in the old USN style livery, hence the white body but fins and tail section already in the updated colors.
The decals became a fight, though. As mentioned above, the came from an ESCI kit – and, as expected, the were brittle. All decals with a clear carrier film disintegrated while soaking in water, only those with a fully printed carrier film were more or less usable. One roundel broke and had to be repaired, and the checkered fin flash was a very delicate affair that broke several times, even though I tried to save and repair it with paint. But you can unfortunately see the damage.
Most stencils and some replacements (e. g. the “Navy” tag) come from the Sword FJ-3. While these decals are crisply printed, their carrier film is utterly thin, so thin that applying esp. the larger decals turned out to be hazardous and complicated. Another point that did not really convince me about the Sword kit.
Finally, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and some soot stains were added around the exhaust and the gun ports with graphite.
In the end, this build looks, despite the troubles and the rather exotic ingredients like a relatively simple Sabre with Australian markings, just with a different Navy livery. You neither immediately recognize the FJ-3 behind it, nor the Avon Sabre’s bigger fuselage, unless you take a close and probably educated look. Very subtle, though.
The RAN air superiority scheme from the late Skyhawks suits the Sabre/Fury-thing well – I like the fact that it is a modern fighter scheme, but, thanks to the tones and the colorful other markings, not as dull and boring like many others, e. g. the contemporary USN "Ghost" scheme. Made me wonder about an early RAAF F-18 in this livery - should look very pretty, too?
On a warm afternoon in the heart of Brooklyn, distress calls flood the airwaves of a madman in full body armor terrorizing the streets. As NYPD clears the area of civilians, strategically placed bombs bring local government buildings crumbling to the ground. The NYPD special task force has arrived on the scene to find the assailant has placed a bio-weapon in one of the devastated buildings. Realizing the situation is beyond their ability – the commander decides to fallback and contacts the Commissioner…
…after receiving the SITREP by Task Force Commander Higgins; and appropriately grilling his team for their incompetence, the Commissioner calls in a personal favor to one of his poker buddies — a 3-Star general over at the Pentagon.
In less than an hour, COBALT Team arrives on the scene with their orders in-hand:DISARM AND DETAIN.
The following narration is a first-person perspective of that mission...cont' at bit.ly/1iwBymq
Perchè sì il significato autentico della fotografia sta nel cogliere l'attimo in cui l'essenza ontologica della realtà stessa sta racchiusa in un'immagine, congelata in quel frammento di tempo definito dallo scatto dell'otturatore.
Ma a volte si cazzeggia e basta.
One of these days, I’m actually going to attempt to shoot something where I’m only trying to manage one set of variables. Maybe actually work through the Strobist assignments or something.
Got home with no shot again, but it’s Monday, which means I shoot a musical instrument as a fallback (I’m just about out of instruments I haven't shot at least once, though.) Pulled out the acoustic guitar today, and, rather than just shoot the guitar, I figured I’d try to shoot it being played, which meant another attempt to wrangle instrument, camera, flashes, and so on. Like I said, too many variables–every time I wanted to tweak the flash settings, I’d lose the composition and have to find it again. At least I was shooting tethered. Took me a while to get this, and I'm still not completely thrilled. Never got the light on my hand quite the way I wanted it. But, it’s late, so I’m calling this one the shot for today. I understand better every time I do something like this why some of my friends who do this for a living occasionally put out calls for models and assistants.
Nikon D7000 w/Nikkor 18-200mm @ 44mm, 1/250s @ ƒ/4.8, ISO100. One SB-700 on light stand camera right and level with my hand, firing through 1/4" speed grid, 105mm zoom, aimed ar my hand, 1/64 power. Second SB-700 on floor, aimed at the ceiling above the scene, red gel, 50mm zoom, 1/16 power. Cropped a bit in Aperture, tonemapped in Photomatix just to bring out a bit more texture on my hand.
marketplace.secondlife.com/p/Glitter-Girl-Ocean-Heart-Bel...
✨Born of tide, made to glitter—Ocean heart is a sea‑inspired belly piercing shaped as a graceful turtle, featuring a turquoise‑like gemstone shell and a sparkling diamond accent. This unique design blends ocean magic with timeless jewelry styling, perfect for avatars who love to shine with elemental beauty.
Oceanheart is more than an accessory—it’s a totem of sea spirit and mermaid charm. With versatile customization and glittering detail, it’s designed to flow with your avatar’s style, from casual beach looks to ceremonial glamour.
What’s Included
✔️ Choose PBR w/ fallback or Classic Blinn Textures from one simple hud
✔️ Classic HUD includes Bright & Glow options for Classic textures
❤ Body Compatibility
✔️ Lara & LaraX
✔️ Legacy & Bombshell
✔️ Reborn & Juicy Rolls
Customization Options
✅ 16 Metals
✅ 20 Diamond Colors
✅ 20 Gemstones
+++ 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 Westland Whirlwind was a British heavy fighter developed by Westland Aircraft. It was the Royal Air Force's first single-seat, twin-engine, cannon-armed fighter, and a contemporary of the Supermarine Spitfire and Hawker Hurricane.
A problem for designers in the 1930s was that most agile combat aircraft were generally small. These aircraft had limited fuel storage and only enough flying range for defensive operations, and their armament was relatively light, too. A multi-engine fighter appeared to be the best solution to the problem of range, but a fighter large enough to carry an increased fuel load might be too unwieldy to engage successfully in close combat. Germany and the United States pressed ahead with their design programs, resulting in the Messerschmitt Bf 110 and the Lockheed P-38 Lightning.
The Westland Whirlwind was one of the British answers to more range and firepower, and the first Whirlwind prototype (L6844) flew on 11 October 1938. Construction had been delayed chiefly due to some new features and also to the late delivery of the original Peregrine engines. The Whirlwind was of all-metal construction, with flush riveting, and featuring magnesium skinning on the rear fuselage. The control surface arrangement was conventional, with large one-piece Fowler flaps inboard and an aileron outboard on each wing, with the rear end of the engine nacelles hinging with the flaps; elevators; and a two-piece rudder, split to permit movement above and below the tail plane. Slats had been fitted on the outer wings at the outset as a stall protection measure, but they were soon locked down, having been implicated in an accident.
Service trials were carried out at Martlesham Heath, where the new type exhibited excellent handling and was very easy to fly at all speeds. It was one of the fastest aircraft in service when it flew in the late 1930s, and was much more heavily armed than any other fighter, toting four 20mm cannons.
However, protracted development problems with its Rolls-Royce Peregrine engines delayed the entire project. The combat radius also turned out to be rather short (only 300 miles), and the landing speed was relatively high, which hampered the type's utility. The major role for the Whirlwinds, however, became low-level attack, flying cross-channel "Rhubarb" sweeps against ground targets and "Roadstead" attacks against shipping.
Time went by and worked against the Whirlwind, though: By 1940, the Supermarine Spitfire was mounting 20 mm cannons as well, so the "cannon-armed" requirement was already met by lighter and simpler aircraft. Furthermore, the role of an escort fighter was becoming less important by this time, as RAF Bomber Command turned to night bomber missions.
The main qualities the RAF was looking for now in a twin-engine fighter were range and carrying capacity, e .g. to allow the large radar apparatus of the time to be carried as a night fighter. Concerning these requirements, the bigger Bristol Beaufighter and the fast De Havilland Mosquito could perform just as well as or even better than the Whirlwind.
Anyway, the Whirlwind's potential had not been fully exploited yet, and it was decided to adapt it to new roles and specialized duties, which would exploit its good low altitude handling. Such an opportunity arose when Allied Forces prepared for Operation Torch (initially called Operation Gymnast) in 1942, the British-United States invasion of French North Africa: the somewhat outdated aircraft was retrofitted for a new task as a dedicated tank hunter.
Background was the experience with the Hawker Hurricane Mk. IID, which had become operational at that time. The Mk IIDs were dedicated to ground support, where it was quickly learned that destroying German tanks was difficult; the Hurricanes’ standard 20mm cannons (the same the Whirlwind fighter originally carried) did not have the performance to punch through Gerrnan tanks’ armor, and bombing small tank target successfully was almost impossible.
The solution was to equip aircraft with 2 pounder (40 mm) cannon in a pod under each wing, reducing the other armament to a single Browning in each wing loaded with tracers for aiming purposes.
This equipment was originally tested on a converted Mk IIB in late 1941, and proved to be successful. A new-build Hurricane version of what was known as the Mk IID started in 1942, which, beyond the modified armament, also included additional armor for the pilot, radiator and engine. The aircraft were initially supplied with a pair of Rolls-Royce 'BF' ('Belt-Fed') guns and carried 12 rounds, but this was soon changed to the 40 mm (1.57 in) Vickers S gun with 15 rounds. The weight of the guns and armor protection had a detrimental effect on the aircraft's performance, though, and for the African environment it was feared that the liquid-cooled Merlin engine was too complicated and would hardly cope with the higher ambient temperatures.
A fallback option was needed, and the Whirlwind appeared to be a sound basis – even though the troublesome Peregrine engines were rejected. In a hurry, a Whirlwind Mk. I (P7102) was modified to carry a pair of 40 mm guns, but this time in the lower nose. Compared with the Hurricane’s wing-mounted pods the Whirlwind could carry a slightly bigger load of ammunition (20 RPG). For aiming purposes and against soft targets, a pair of 0.303" (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns with tracer ammunition was mounted above them.
In order to make the aircraft more resilient to the North-African temperatures and against damage, the Whirlwind's touchy Peregrines were replaced by a pair of Bristol Taurus radial engines under relatively narrow cowlings. The engine nacelles had to be widened accordingly, and the Peregrines’ former radiator intakes and installations in the wing roots were removed and simply faired over. Similar to the Hurricane Mk. IID, additional armor plating was added around the cockpit and the engines, raising overall weight.
Flight and weapon tests were conducted in early 1942. While the radial-powered Whirlwind was not as nimble and fast as the original, Peregrine-powered fighter anymore, the aircraft proved to be a stable weapon platform and fully suitable for the ground attack role. Due to its characteristic new nose with the two protruding gun barrels and their separate fairings, the machine was quickly nicknamed “Walrus” and “Buck teeth Whirlwind”.
For operation Torch and as a field test, a total of eleven Whirlwind Mk. Is were converted to Mk. Ic standard. The machines received new serials and were allocated to RAF No. 73 Squadron, which was preparing for deployment to Northern Africa and the Middle East after having been engaged in the Battle of Britain.
The squadron's Whirlwinds and Hurricanes (including some cannon-armed Mk. IIDs, too) were shipped to Takoradi on the Gold Coast onboard HMS Furious, and were then flown in stages across Africa to Egypt.
No. 73 Squadron took part in the series of campaigns in the Western Desert and Tunisia, helping cover the supply routes to Tobruk and taking part in various ground-attack operations.
Both types undertook an anti-tank role in limited numbers during the North African campaign where, provided enemy flak and fighters were absent, they proved accurate and highly effective, not only against armored vehicles but all kinds of motorized transport.
The converted Whirlwinds proved, thanks to their robust engines, to be very reliable and had a better operational status than the Hurricanes. The second engine boosted the pilots' confidence. In direct comparison, the cannon-armed Whirlwind proved to be a better weapon platform than the Hurricane – mainly because the heavy guns were mounted closer to the aircraft’s longitudinal axis. Both aiming and accuracy were better than the Hurricanes’ wing-mounted weapons.
Nevertheless, there were several drawbacks: the Whirlwind’s two engines meant that more service hours had to be spent on them for maintenance, binding ground crew capacities. This was very inconvenient during the highly mobile Northern Africa campaign. Additionally, the Whirlwind's higher fuel consumption and the limited fuel provisions in the Northern African theatre of operations with dispersed and improvised airfields eventually meant that, despite positive results, no further machines were converted. The high landing speed also persisted, so that operations were hazardous.
Eventually the Hurricane Mk IID was adopted for the tank hunter role, with ensuing series production, since it was regarded as the more versatile and also more common type.
The radial-powered Whirlwind Mk. Ic remained operational with No. 73 Squadron until June 1943, when the squadron converted to the Spitfire and moved from Northern Africa to Italy in October. Until then, only six Whirlwinds had remained airworthy.
General characteristics:
Crew: One pilot
Length: 31 ft 7 1/4 in (9,65 m)
Wingspan: 45 ft 0 in (13.72 m)
Height: 11 ft 0 in (3.35 m)
Wing area: 250 ft² (23.2 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 23017-08
Empty weight: 9,400 lb (4,267 kg)
Loaded weight: 12,158 lb (5,520 kg)
Max. take-off weight: 13,120 lb (5,946 kg)
Powerplant:
2× Bristol Taurus II 14-Cylinder sleeve valve radial engines, 1,015 hp (760 kW) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 400 mph (644 km/h) at 15.000 ft (4.570 m)
Stall speed: 95 mph (83 knots, 153 km/h) with flaps down
Range: 800 mi (696 nmi, 1.288 km)
Service ceiling: 33.500 ft (10.970 m)
Armament:
2x belt-fed two pounder (1.57 in/40 mm) Vickers S cannon, 20 RPG each
2x 0.303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns, 500 RPG (typically armed with tracer rounds)
Option for 2x 250 lbs (115 kg) or 500 lbs (230 kg) bombs under the outer wings
The kit and its assembly
My third whiffed Westland Whirlwind - I must say that this rather obscure aircraft type has some serious potential for mods and fictional uses. The inspiration for this radial-powered variant originally came from a profile drawing of fellow modeler and illustrator FrancLab at flickr.com, who had drawn more than twenty(!) fictional Whirlwinds (check this: www.flickr.com/photos/franclab/16724098644/in/faves-14802...), including one with radial engines and in RAF Tropical Scheme colors.
The kit is, again, the vintage Airfix offering. Modifications center around the engines and the nose section, the rest remained basically OOB.
I already had to learn with my first Whirlwind conversion that mounting bigger engines on this compact aircraft is not easy, and radials, with their bigger diameter and consequentially more voluminous nacelles, would be a challenge from the design perspective.
Figuring out a solution that would be feasible and not make the sleek Whirlwind look like Popeye was not easy. I considered the transplantation of complete engine nacelles from a Matchbox Bristol Beaufighter, but eventually refrained from this idea because everything would be at least one size too big... a mistake I had done before, with very mixed results.
After several trials, I settled on a compromise, because I could not find a satisfactory 'British' solution, at least in my spares vault: the implantation of "foreign" material in the form of cowlings and nacelles from an Airfix Mitsubishi Ki-46.
The transplantation started with the removal of the original Peregrine engine nacelles from the lower wing section and gluing these to the upper half, which remained intact. Then the Ki-46’s lower nacelle half, cut away from the model’s wing in a similar fashion, was grafted onto the Whirlwind’s lower wing, ensuring that the landing gear attachment points would match with the new openings. This stunt worked very well!
As a final step, the upper Ki-46 engine nacelle half was placed on top of the Whirlwind wings’ upper side, and the radial engines were used as a ruler for the overall fit. In the end, the modified nacelles sit perfectly in place, and the original distance between the propellers as well as the landing gear’s track width could be maintained, so that the change is rather subtle.
Propellers and spinners were taken from the Airfix Whirlwind, and in order to mount them into the deep and "hollow" Ki-46 cowlings I inserted a styrene tube as a simple adapter, which would also hold the added metal axis' behind the propellers. The parts fit snuggly together.
Details like the exhaust pipes and the carburetor intakes were scratched from sprue material. The landing gear is OOB, but I had to re-create the covers from sheet material since I could only find a single pair of doors from the Ki-46 kit. On the other side, this had the benefit that the material is much thinner.
The original radiator intake slits were closed with putty and blended into the wing’s leading edge.The respective outlets on the trailing edge were sanded away.
For the guns in the nose I added two long, shallow fairings (actually drop tank halves from an Airfix G.91) and re-located the original oils cooler and gun camera fairings under the wing roots.
The original gun mounts were covered with putty, and new openings for the modified armament drilled into the re-sculpted nose section. The 2-pounders' and machine gun barrels are hollow steel needles of different diameters.
Painting and markings:
Staying somewhat true to FrancLab's profile and the North Africa theatre of operations, the paint scheme was more or less pre-defined. The Tropical scheme is a rather unusual look on this sleek aircraft, but works very well!
The standard RAF camouflage pattern for the Whirlwind was retained, but the European colors replaced with Dark Earth (Humbrol 29) and Middle Stone (ModelMaster 2052, the best representation of the tone I could find so far). The undersides were painted with ModelMaster 2055 (US Navy Blue Grey) as an alternative to RAF Azure and Mediterranean Blue.
Interior surfaces were painted with Cockpit Green (Humbrol 78) and slightly dry-brushed with light grey.
The red spinners are typical Desert Force markings, and I added yellow ID markings to the outer wings’ leading edges (created from generic decal sheet). Not certain how authentic this is for Northern Africa, since the Hurricanes did not carry these markings – but the Spitfires did, as well as the few leftover Whirlwinds over Continental Europe? At least, it’s a colorful detail.
Even though many Hurricanes of 73 Squadron in Northern Africa carried the squadron’s colorful pre-war marking on the flanks instead of a two-letter code, I eventually rejected this option. IMHO it might have been simply too much for this whiffy aircraft?
Roundels and markings were puzzled together from the scrap box, the code letters are single digits from Xtradecal aftermarket sheets. I mixed medium sea grey and dull red letters – a practice frequently seen on Northern Africa aircraft (which also frequently did not carry squadron codes at all) in order to improve readability. The serial was puzzled together, too, using a free serial slot according to ukserials.com.
As another individual touch I added a small nose art motif under the cockpit: a Bugs Bunny cartoon toting a shotgun (actually from a P-51 from the late war Pacific TO), as an interpretation of the “Buck teeth” nickname for the aircraft.
Finally, the model was weathered, esp. on the upper surfaces in order to mimic sun bleaching, and some soot stains were added around the guns and the exhaust outlets. The cooling flaps were emphasized through a treatment with Tamiya “Smoke”, which is perfect for oil stains. Finally, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish and finishing touches like the wire antenna and position lights applied.
Another subtle whif, the desert paint scheme is probably distracting enough that, at a casual glance, the radials and the modified nose are not obvious at all. Actually, the Japanese engines look pretty British after some cosmetics, and they are small enough to keep overall proportions in reasonable limits – the sleek Whirlwind quickly turns head-heavy and unbalanced with bigger engines grafted to the airframe! Actually, the converted aircraft looks now, when looked at it head-on, almost like a baby Beaufighter!
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The CAC Sabre, sometimes known as the Avon Sabre or CA-27, was an Australian variant of the North American Aviation F-86F Sabre fighter aircraft. In 1951, Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation obtained a license agreement to build the F-86F Sabre. In a major departure from the North American blueprint, it was decided that the CA-27 would be powered by a license-built version of the Rolls-Royce Avon R.A.7, rather than the General Electric J47. In theory, the Avon was capable of more than double the maximum thrust and double the thrust-to-weight ratio of the US engine. This necessitated a re-design of the fuselage, as the Avon was shorter, wider and lighter than the J47.
To accommodate the Avon, over 60 percent of the fuselage was altered and there was a 25 percent increase in the size of the air intake. Another major revision was in replacing the F-86F's six machine guns with two 30mm ADEN cannon, while other changes were also made to the cockpit and to provide an increased fuel capacity.
The prototype aircraft first flew on 3 August 1953. The production aircrafts' first deliveries to the Royal Australian Air Force began in 1954. The first batch of aircraft were powered by the Avon 20 engine and were designated the Sabre Mk 30. Between 1957 and 1958 this batch had the wing slats removed and were re-designated Sabre Mk 31. These Sabres were supplemented by 20 new-built aircraft. The last batch of aircraft were designated Sabre Mk 32 and used the Avon 26 engine, of which 69 were built up to 1961.
Beyond these land-based versions, an indigenous version for carrier operations had been developed and built in small numbers, too, the Sea Sabre Mk 40 and 41. The roots of this aircraft, which was rather a prestigious idea than a sensible project, could be traced back to the immediate post WWII era. A review by the Australian Government's Defence Committee recommended that the post-war forces of the RAN be structured around a Task Force incorporating multiple aircraft carriers. Initial plans were for three carriers, with two active and a third in reserve, although funding cuts led to the purchase of only two carriers in June 1947: Majestic and sister ship HMS Terrible, for the combined cost of AU£2.75 million, plus stores, fuel, and ammunition. As Terrible was the closer of the two ships to completion, she was finished without modification, and was commissioned into the RAN on 16 December 1948 as HMAS Sydney. Work progressed on Majestic at a slower rate, as she was upgraded with the latest technology and equipment. To cover Majestic's absence, the Colossus-class carrier HMS Vengeance was loaned to the RAN from 13 November 1952 until 12 August 1955.
Labour difficulties, late delivery of equipment, additional requirements for Australian operations, and the prioritization of merchant ships over naval construction delayed the completion of Majestic. Incorporation of new systems and enhancements caused the cost of the RAN carrier acquisition program to increase to AU£8.3 million. Construction and fitting out did not finish until October 1955. As the carrier neared completion, a commissioning crew was formed in Australia and first used to return Vengeance to the United Kingdom.
The completed carrier was commissioned into the RAN as HMAS Majestic on 26 October 1955, but only two days later, the ship was renamed Melbourne and recommissioned.
In the meantime, the rather political decision had been made to equip Melbourne with an indigenous jet-powered aircraft, replacing the piston-driven Hawker Fury that had been successfully operated from HMAS Sydney and HMAS Vengeance, so that the "new jet age" was even more recognizable. The choice fell on the CAC Sabre, certainly inspired by North American's successful contemporary development of the navalized FJ-2 Fury from the land-based F-86 Sabre. The CAC 27 was already a proven design, and with its more powerful Avon engine it even offered a better suitability for carrier operations than the FJ-2 with its rather weak J47 engine.
Work on this project, which was initially simply designated Sabre Mk 40, started in 1954, just when the first CAC 27's were delivered to operative RAAF units. While the navalized Avon Sabre differed outwardly only little from its land-based brethren, many details were changed and locally developed. Therefore, there was also, beyond the general outlines, little in common with the North American FJ-2 an -3 Fury.
Externally, a completely new wing with a folding mechanism was fitted. It was based on the F-86's so-called "6-3" wing, with a leading edge that was extended 6 inches at the root and 3 inches at the tip. This modification enhanced maneuverability at the expense of a small increase in landing speed due to deletion of the leading edge slats, a detail that was later introduced on the Sabre Mk 31, too. As a side benefit, the new wing leading edges without the slat mechanisms held extra fuel. However, the Mk 40's wing was different as camber was applied to the underside of the leading edge to improve low-speed handling for carrier operations. The wings were provided with four stations outboard of the landing gear wells for up to 1000 lb external loads on the inboard stations and 500 lb on the outboard stations.
Slightly larger stabilizers were fitted and the landing gear was strengthened, including a longer front wheel strut. The latter necessitated an enlarged front wheel well, so that the front leg’s attachment point had to be moved forward. A ventral launch cable hook was added under the wing roots and an external massive arrester hook under the rear fuselage.
Internally, systems were protected against salt and humidity and a Rolls-Royce Avon 211 turbojet was fitted, a downrated variant of the already navalized Avon 208 from the British DH Sea Vixen, but adapted to the different CAC 27 airframe and delivering 8.000 lbf (35.5 kN) thrust – slightly more than the engines of the land-based CAC Sabres, but also without an afterburner.
A single Mk 40 prototype was built from a new CAC 27 airframe taken directly from the production line in early 1955 and made its maiden flight on August 20th of the same year. In order to reflect its naval nature and its ancestry, this new CAC 27 variant was officially christened “Sea Sabre”.
Even though the modified machine handled well, and the new, cambered wing proved to be effective, many minor technical flaws were discovered and delayed the aircraft's development until 1957. These included the wing folding mechanism and the respective fuel plumbing connections, the landing gear, which had to be beefed up even more for hard carrier landings and the airframe’s structural strength for catapult launches, esp. around the ventral launch hook.
In the meantime, work on the land-based CAC 27 progressed in parallel, too, and innovations that led to the Mk 31 and 32 were also incorporated into the naval Mk 40, leading to the Sea Sabre Mk 41, which became the effective production aircraft. These updates included, among others, a detachable (but fixed) refueling probe under the starboard wing, two more pylons for light loads located under the wing roots and the capability to carry and deploy IR-guided AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, what significantly increased the Mk 41's efficiency as day fighter. With all these constant changes it took until April 1958 that the Sabre Mk 41, after a second prototype had been directly built to the new standard, was finally approved and cleared for production. Upon delivery, the RAN Sea Sabres carried a standard NATO paint scheme with Extra Dark Sea Grey upper surfaces and Sky undersides.
In the meantime, the political enthusiasm concerning the Australian carrier fleet had waned, so that only twenty-two aircraft were ordered. The reason behind this decision was that Australia’s carrier fleet and its capacity had become severely reduced: Following the first decommissioning of HMAS Sydney in 1958, Melbourne became the only aircraft carrier in Australian service, and she was unavailable to provide air cover for the RAN for up to four months in every year; this time was required for refits, refueling, personnel leave, and non-carrier duties, such as the transportation of troops or aircraft. Although one of the largest ships to serve in the RAN, Melbourne was one of the smallest carriers to operate in the post-World War II period, so that its contribution to military actions was rather limited. To make matters worse, a decision was made in 1959 to restrict Melbourne's role to helicopter operations only, rendering any carrier-based aircraft in Australian service obsolete. However, this decision was reversed shortly before its planned 1963 implementation, but Australia’s fleet of carrier-borne fixed-wing aircraft would not grow to proportions envisioned 10 years ago.
Nevertheless, on 10 November 1964, an AU£212 million increase in defense spending included the purchase of new aircraft for Melbourne. The RAN planned to acquire 14 Grumman S-2E Tracker anti-submarine aircraft and to modernize Melbourne to operate these. The acquisition of 18 new fighter-bombers was suggested (either Sea Sabre Mk 41s or the American Douglas A-4 Skyhawk), too, but these were dropped from the initial plan. A separate proposal to order 10 A-4G Skyhawks, a variant of the Skyhawk designed specifically for the RAN and optimized for air defense, was approved in 1965, but the new aircraft did not fly from Melbourne until the conclusion of her refit in 1969. This move, however, precluded the production of any new and further Sea Sabre.
At that time, the RAN Sea Sabres received a new livery in US Navy style, with upper surfaces in Light Gull Gray with white undersides. The CAC Sea Sabres remained the main day fighter and attack aircraft for the RAN, after the vintage Sea Furies had been retired in 1962. The other contemporary RAN fighter type in service, the Sea Venom FAW.53 all-weather fighter that had replaced the Furies, already showed its obsolescence.
In 1969, the RAN purchased another ten A-4G Skyhawks, primarily in order to replace the Sea Venoms on the carriers, instead of the proposed seventh and eighth Oberon-class submarines. These were operated together with the Sea Sabres in mixed units on board of Melbourne and from land bases, e.g. from NAS Nowra in New South Wales, where a number of Sea Sabres were also allocated to 724 Squadron for operational training.
Around 1970, Melbourne operated a standard air group of four jet aircraft, six Trackers, and ten Wessex helicopters until 1972, when the Wessexes were replaced with ten Westland Sea King anti-submarine warfare helicopters and the number of jet fighters doubled. Even though the A-4G’s more and more took over the operational duties on board of Melbourne, the Sea Sabres were still frequently deployed on the carrier, too, until the early Eighties, when both the Skyhawks and the Sea Sabres received once more a new camouflage, this time a wraparound scheme in two shades of grey, reflecting their primary airspace defense mission.
The CAC 27 Mk 41s’ last carrier operations took place in 1981 in the course of Melbourne’s involvements in two major exercises, Sea Hawk and Kangaroo 81, the ship’s final missions at sea. After Melbourne was decommissioned in 1984, the Fleet Air Arm ceased fixed-wing combat aircraft operation. This was the operational end of the Sabre Mk 41, which had reached the end of their airframe lifetime, and the Sea Sabre fleet had, during its career, severely suffered from accidents and losses: upon retirement, only eight of the original twenty-two aircraft still existed in flightworthy condition, so that the aircraft were all scrapped. The younger RAN A-4Gs were eventually sold to New Zealand, where they were kept in service until 2002.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 37 ft 6 in (11.43 m)
Wingspan: 37 ft 1 in (11.3 m)
Height: 14 ft 5 in (4.39 m)
Wing area: 302.3 sq ft (28.1 m²)
Empty weight: 12,000 lb (5,443 kg)
Loaded weight: 16,000 lb (7,256 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 21,210 lb (9,621 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Rolls-Royce Avon 208A turbojet engine with 8,200 lbf (36.44 kN)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 700 mph (1,100 km/h) (605 knots)
Range: 1,153 mi, (1,000 NM, 1,850 km)
Service ceiling: 52,000 ft (15,850 m)
Rate of climb: 12,000 ft/min at sea level (61 m/s)
Armament:
2× 30 mm ADEN cannons with 150 rounds per gun
5,300 lb (2,400 kg) of payload on six external hardpoints;
Bombs were usually mounted on outer two pylons as the mid pair were wet-plumbed pylons for
2× 200 gallons drop tanks, while the inner pair was usually occupied by a pair of AIM-9 Sidewinder
AAMs
A wide variety of bombs could be carried with maximum standard loadout being 2x 1,000 lb bombs
or 2x Matra pods with unguided SURA missiles plus 2 drop tanks for ground attacks, or 2x AIM-9 plus
two drop tanks as day fighter
The kit and its assembly:
This project was initially inspired by a set of decals from an ESCI A-4G which I had bought in a lot – I wondered if I could use it for a submission to the “In the navy” group build at whatifmodelers.com in early 2020. I considered an FJ-3M in Australian colors on this basis and had stashed away a Sword kit of that aircraft for this purpose. However, I had already built an FJ variant for the GB (a kitbashed mix of an F-86D and an FJ-4B in USMC colors), and was reluctant to add another Fury.
This spontaneously changed after (thanks to Corona virus quarantine…) I cleaned up one of my kit hoards and found a conversion set for a 1:72 CAC 27 from JAYS Model Kits which I had bought eons ago without a concrete plan. That was the eventual trigger to spin the RAN Fury idea further – why not a navalized version of the Avon Sabre for HMAS Melbourne?
The result is either another kitbash or a highly modified FJ-3M from Sword. The JAYS Model Kits set comes with a THICK sprue that carries two fuselage halves and an air intake, and it also offers a vacu canopy as a thin fallback option because the set is actually intended to be used together with a Hobby Craft F-86F.
While the parts, molded in a somewhat waxy and brittle styrene, look crude on the massive sprue, the fuselage halves come with very fine recessed engravings. And once you have cleaned the parts (NOTHING for people faint at heart, a mini drill with a saw blade is highly recommended), their fit is surprisingly good. The air intake was so exact that no putty was needed to blend it with the rest of the fuselage.
The rest came from the Sword kit and integrating the parts into the CAC 27 fuselage went more smoothly than expected. For instance, the FJ-3M comes with a nice cockpit tub that also holds a full air intake duct. Thanks to the slightly wider fuselage of the CAC 27, it could be mounted into the new fuselage halves without problems and the intake duct almost perfectly matches the intake frame from the conversion set. The tailpipe could be easily integrated without any mods, too. The fins had to be glued directly to the fuselage – but this is the way how the Sword kit is actually constructed! Even the FJ-3M’s wings match the different fuselage perfectly. The only modifications I had to make is a slight enlargement of the ventral wing opening at the front and at the read in order to take the deeper wing element from the Sword kit, but that was an easy task. Once in place, the parts blend almost perfectly into each other, just minor PSR was necessary to hide the seams!
Other mods include an extended front wheel well for the longer leg from the FJ-3M and a scratched arrester hook installation, made from wire, which is on purpose different from the Y-shaped hook of the Furies.
For the canopy I relied on the vacu piece that came with the JAYS set. Fitting it was not easy, though, it took some PSR to blend the windscreen into the rest of the fuselage. Not perfect, but O.K. for such a solution from a conversion set.
The underwing pylons were taken from the Sword kit, including the early Sidewinders. I just replaced the drop tanks – the OOB tanks are very wide, and even though they might be authentic for the FJ-3, I was skeptical if they fit at all under the wings with the landing gear extended? In order to avoid trouble and for a more modern look, I replaced them outright with more slender tanks, which were to mimic A-4 tanks (USN FJ-4s frequently carried Skyhawk tanks). They actually come from a Revell F-16 kit, with modified fins. The refueling probe comes from the Sword kit.
A last word about the Sword kit: much light, but also much shadow. While I appreciate the fine surface engravings, the recognizably cambered wings, a detailed cockpit with a two-piece resin seat and a pretty landing gear as well as the long air intake, I wonder why the creators totally failed to provide ANY detail of the arrester hook (there is literally nothing, as if this was a land-based Sabre variant!?) or went for doubtful solutions like a front landing gear that consists of five(!) single, tiny parts? Sadism? The resin seat was also broken (despite being packed in a seperate bag), and it did not fit into the cockpit tub at all. Meh!
Painting and markings:
From the start I planned to give the model the late RAN A-4Gs’ unique air superiority paint scheme, which was AFAIK introduced in the late Seventies: a two-tone wraparound scheme consisting of “Light Admiralty Grey” (BS381C 697) and “Aircraft Grey” (BS 381C 693). Quite simple, but finding suitable paints was not an easy task, and I based my choice on pictures of the real aircraft (esp. from "buzz" number 880 at the Fleet Air Arm Museum, you find pics of it with very good light condition) rather than rely on (pretty doubtful if not contradictive) recommendations in various painting instructions from models or decal sets.
I wanted to keep things simple and settled upon Dark Gull Grey (FS 36231) and Light Blue (FS 35414), both enamel colors from Modelmaster, since both are rather dull interpretations of these tones. Esp. the Light Blue comes quite close to Light Admiralty Grey, even though it should be lighter for more contrast to the darker grey tone. But it has that subtle greenish touch of the original BS tone, and I did not want to mix the colors.
The pattern was adapted from the late A-4Gs’ scheme, and the colors were dulled down even more through a light black ink wash. Some post-shading with lighter tones emphasized the contrast between the two colors again. And while it is not an exact representation of the unique RAN air superiority scheme, I think that the overall impression is there.
The cockpit interior was painted in very dark grey, while the landing gear, its wells and the inside of the air intake became white. A red rim was painted around the front opening, and the landing gear covers received a red outline, too. The white drop tanks are a detail I took from real world RAN A-4Gs - in the early days of the air superiority scheme, the tanks were frequently still finished in the old USN style livery, hence the white body but fins and tail section already in the updated colors.
The decals became a fight, though. As mentioned above, the came from an ESCI kit – and, as expected, the were brittle. All decals with a clear carrier film disintegrated while soaking in water, only those with a fully printed carrier film were more or less usable. One roundel broke and had to be repaired, and the checkered fin flash was a very delicate affair that broke several times, even though I tried to save and repair it with paint. But you can unfortunately see the damage.
Most stencils and some replacements (e. g. the “Navy” tag) come from the Sword FJ-3. While these decals are crisply printed, their carrier film is utterly thin, so thin that applying esp. the larger decals turned out to be hazardous and complicated. Another point that did not really convince me about the Sword kit.
Finally, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and some soot stains were added around the exhaust and the gun ports with graphite.
In the end, this build looks, despite the troubles and the rather exotic ingredients like a relatively simple Sabre with Australian markings, just with a different Navy livery. You neither immediately recognize the FJ-3 behind it, nor the Avon Sabre’s bigger fuselage, unless you take a close and probably educated look. Very subtle, though.
The RAN air superiority scheme from the late Skyhawks suits the Sabre/Fury-thing well – I like the fact that it is a modern fighter scheme, but, thanks to the tones and the colorful other markings, not as dull and boring like many others, e. g. the contemporary USN "Ghost" scheme. Made me wonder about an early RAAF F-18 in this livery - should look very pretty, too?
This was my fallback shot if things didn't go to plan tonight. There is a little camera shake going on which I didn't like at first but the more I looked the more it looked like an impressionist painting so in it goes.
Things did go to plan though as I came up with two new ideas. The first of which I need materials for and the second I nailed in multi-exposure mode but I want to save it till I next go out and do it properly.
This one took on a walk we went on today which was proper grim. Up on the moors near Saddleworth. Blowing a gale, freezing cold and a very barren landscape barring this grough.
These Black Stone Paths & Tree Arches Are To Die For
PBR & Fallback Materials
Animated Black Veins
Free Matching Hunt Gift @ 3rd Eye Mainstore
Event // tinyurl.com/2shjh47u
Hunt // tinyurl.com/2fac7k84
In the final rays of the sun, "08 Red" waits at Shindand Air Base for a night sortie.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
In early 1968, the Soviet Ministry of Defense decided to develop a specialized shturmovik armored assault aircraft in order to provide close air support for the Soviet Ground Forces. The idea of creating a ground-support aircraft came about after analyzing the experience of shturmovaya (ground attack) aviation during World War II, and in local wars during the 1950s and 1960s. The Soviet fighter-bombers in service or under development at this time (Su-7, Su-17, MiG-21 and MiG-23) did not meet the requirements for close air support of the army. They lacked essential armor plating to protect the pilot and vital equipment from ground fire and missile hits, and their high flight speeds made it difficult for the pilot to maintain visual contact with a target. Ordnance load and loiter time were also insufficient.
In March 1969, a competition was announced by the Soviet Air Force that called for designs for a new battlefield close-support aircraft. Participants in the competition were the Design Bureaus of Sukhoi, Yakovlev, Ilyushin and Mikoyan.
Mikoyan OKB proposed two directions: First option were designs which were based upon proven technology of the MiG-21 and -23, with an eye on short development time – e. g. the LSSh and 27Sh concepts. The other approach was a more experimental type, designed from scratch, but this concept focused more radically on survivability and excellent low altitude agility, at the expense of speed and a short development time.
All MiG OKB designs were eventually rejected by the MoD, and effectively only Ilyushin’s Il-42 (later renamed into Il-102) and Sukhoi’s T-8 (the later Su-25) remained in the official competition. But Mikoyan’s second design showed potential and was considered as a basis for an advanced jet trainer. This aircraft was approved to be developed further, but not with high priority and outside of the official shturmovik competition. Anyway, it was a fallback option, should both main contenders fail.
The project received the internal development code ‘Izdeliye 1.43’, but the forthcoming aircraft was better known under its project handle MiG-SPB (Samolet Polya Boya – ‘armored combat aircraft’) or its nickname, ла́сточка (Lastochka = Swallow). Some sources claim that the type was also designated MiG-43, but it never received an official code, despite its front line test service (see below).
The MiG-SPB’s main design objective was superior maneuverability at low speeds and altitude. It offered the pilot excellent view and a high resilience to frontline combat situations. The aircraft’s most prominent trademark was its engine location: in overall layout, the MiG-SPB resembled Sukhoi’s T-8, with straight wings and two jet engines placed in nacelles at the fuselage flanks. But in order to protect the engines from gunfire and shield the hot exhaust gases from view (e .g. from IR seeker heads, esp. from MANPADS), the nacelles were placed above the mid-set wings, with the air intakes at wing leading edge level.
Despite carrying armor around the cockpit and the central fuselage, the aircraft was surprisingly slender and elegant – so slim that the rigid landing gear, which would allow operation from field air strips, retracted into fairings which also housed the internal gun on starboard and avionics on port. As a side benefit of this complex layout, the CoG was kept very centralized, so that agility was further improved. The tail was conventional, even though the vertical stabilizer was rather high and slender.
For its low altitude duties, a large wing area, high wing aspect ratio, and large ailerons were incorporated. The high aspect ratio wing also allowed for short takeoffs and landings, permitting operations from primitive forward airfields near front lines. It was planned that the type would typically fly at a relatively slow speed of 300 knots (350 mph; 560 km/h), loiter for extended periods and operate under 1.000 ft (300 m) ceiling with 1.5 mi (2.4 km) visibility. This would have made it a much better platform for the ground-attack role than contemporary fast fighter-bombers, which often gave difficulty targeting small and slow-moving targets, or finding them again for a second attack.
Originally, the MiG-SPB was powered by two Ivchenko AI-25 turbofan with 14.7 kN (3,300 lbf) each, basically the same engine that drove the Yak-40 regional jet airliner. In early 1981 these were replaced by two much more powerful Klimov RD-33M turbofans: non-afterburning versions of the engines that powered the Mikoyan MiG-29 fighter (under development at MiG OKB at that time) and which were also introduced in the production Su-25.
Armament comprised a fixed gun in the starboard fairing and 3.500kg (7.700 lb.) of external ordnance, carried on eight wing hardpoints plus a centerline pylon under the fuselage.
Originally, a two-barreled Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-23L 23 mm cannon with 350 rounds was fitted, but that soon gave way to a more powerful 30mm GSh-30-1 cannon which could fire armor-piercing shells at 1.800 rpm. The gun's maximum effective range was 1.200 to 1.800 m (3.900 to 5.900 ft.) and, in combination with the Klen-PS laser rangefinder/targeting system in the aircraft’s nose, it was extremely accurate as well as powerful, capable of destroying a target with as few as three to five rounds.
At least one pre-production aircraft was even fitted with a single-barreled 45mm cannon.
Further avionics included a DISS-7 Doppler navigation radar, coupled with a navigation system that permitted flight in day and night conditions, both in VMC and IMC (even though the aircraft did not feature an all-weather/attack capability), and providing flight data for the weapons-control system and flight instruments. Radios for air-to-ground and air-to-air communications were fitted, as well as a weapons-control system and a full self-defense suite, incorporating infra-red, flare and chaff dispensers capable of launching about 250 flares and dipole chaff. An SRO radar warning receiver that would alert the pilot of incoming attacks on the aircraft, as well as an SPO-15 radar homing & warning system (RHAWS) and an SO-69 identification-friend-or-foe (IFF) transponder were incorporated.
With no official support the MiG-SPB’s development went on slowly, but due to several delays and specification changes in the official shturmovik competition it kept up pace and was more or less ready just in time for direct comparison. The MiG-SPB prototype first flew on 14 February 1978 and began State acceptance trials on 12 October 1979. Since the secondary use as a trainer was still on the agenda, all prototypes and pre-production machines were two-seaters, even though the plane was still primarily intended for the ground attack role and accordingly equipped.
An order for a first batch of twenty pre-production machines was placed in November 1979, and five of these had been completed by the spring of 1980 and were undergoing pre-flight tests when the Soviet MoD decided to try the type under real conditions. Together with an initial batch of Su-25s a total of five MiG-SPBs with support crews and maintenance equipment were sent to Afghanistan.
On 19 July 1981 and with the new RD-33M engines already fitted, these aircraft arrived at Shindand Airbase in western Afghanistan and were assigned to the 201st Independent Shturmovaya Air Squadron, flying together with the first Su-25 unit deployed to that country. Their main task was to conduct air strikes against mountain military positions and structures controlled by the Afghan rebels. The MiG-SPB proved to be easy to handle, esp. under “hot and high” conditions.
Flight characteristics were closely comparable to the Su-25 and the aircraft gained a good reputation among the flight crews. But field maintenance was more complicated and the electronic systems proved not to be as reliable and sturdy as the Su-25’s, though. Another drawback was the lower ordnance load of 3.500kg (the Su-25 could theoretically carry 4.500kg), which suffered further in the thin air of the Afghan summer. Usually, only 1.000 kg were carried, unguided missiles or iron bombs being the most frequent weapons.
The MiG-SPB found its niche, though: the second seat made the MiG-SPB a formidable reconnaissance and observation aircraft. The MiG-SPBs were frequently used as forward air control aircraft which would locate and mark targets, guide other fighter bombers to them and later control/assess the attack success (BDA missions).
In the late months of employment, the rear seat was also taken up by a weapon officer who would steer guided weapons, when several smart bombs and missiles as well as their respective sensor and guidance packages were tried out under field conditions.
Over the course of the Soviet war in Afghanistan, five more MiG-SPB were transferred to Afghanistan in order to keep a minimum of four machines active at all times. The aircraft performed a total of roundabout 2.500 combat sorties, ~250 per aircraft (less than the Su-25, which clocked 340 and more). Between the first deployment in 1981 and the end of the tests in April 1983, one aircraft was lost in combat operations, another one crashed in a landing accident. When NATO became aware of the type in late 1982, the MiG-SPB received the code name ‘Flintstone’.
In the end, the MiG-SPB had no future. After a long development process for the new shturmovik, the Su-25 surpassed its main competitor in the Soviet Air Force competition, the Ilyushin Il-102, as well as the MiG-SPB, and series production of Sukhoi’s type was announced by the Ministry of Defense. Since the trainer option did not show any future potential (meanwhile, the smaller and much less costly L-39 Albatros had been chosen as jet trainer), further development of the MiG-SPB was stopped – even though the experience with the type would later be incorporated into the MiG-AT trainer aircraft.
General characteristics (as flown)
Crew: Two (one pilot, one observer/WO)
Length: 15.19 m (50 ft 5½ in) incl. pitot
Wingspan: 14.79 m (49 ft 1½ in)
Height: 4.26 m (14 ft 2 in)
Wing area: 37.19 m² (400.3 ft²)
Empty weight: 9.890 kg (21.784 lb)
Loaded weight: 14.150 kg (31.186 lb)
Max. take-off weight: 17.200 kg (37.885 lb)
Powerplant:
2 × Klimov RD-33M turbofans, 44.18 kN (9,480 lbf) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 890 km/h (553 mph)
Combat radius: 400 km (250 mi)
Ferry range: 2,500 km (1,553 mi)
Service ceiling: 7,500 m (25,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 58 m/s (11,400 ft/min)
Wing loading: 490 kg/m² (100 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 0.52
Armament:
1× GSh-30-1 30mm cannon with 300 rounds
9 hardpoints for up to 3.500 kg (7.700 lb) of disposable external ordnance, including rails for 2 × R-60 (AA-8 'Aphid') or other air-to-air missiles for self-defense and a wide variety of general-purpose bombs, cluster bombs, gun pods, rocket pods, laser- or TV-guided bombs, and air-to-surface missiles.
The centerline pylon was usually only used for sensor or reconnaissance pods.
The four inner wing hardpoints were ‘wet’ for 800l drop tanks.
The kit and its assembly:
I think it’s the first time that I convert a helicopter into an aircraft. But ESCI’s fictional Ka-34 ‘Hokum’ (probably only based on satellite pictures from above and vague sketches of the real thing, the Ka-50) is so sleek and aircraft-like – why not give it a try?
My idea behind this purely fictional whif was to build a contender to the Su-25 and its real introduction story, with the long development phase since the late 60ies, the competition with the Il-102 and the Afghanistan trials. Even the submissions of Mikoyan OKB are real (yet rejected…), but my SPB was an additional design outside of the “proven technology” sandbox.
So, the Ka-34 fuselage and the ground attack role were clear and defined further design elements.
Looking for suitable straight wings I came at first across Revell’s 1:100 SnapFit A-10 as a donation kit for the wings, but these turned out to be too small. When I rummaged for alternative parts I finally found an ancient (25 years? Its white polystyrene was thoroughly yellowed…), half-built Airfix A-1 – a horrible kit which now found its final and good use! So, effectively, my MiG-SPB is a kit-bashing of two kits with some extra donations.
The Ka-34’s fuselage was more modified than initially intended: the main rotor mount was faired over and the tail fin cut away, because it looked too small/slender/modern for the massive and straight A-1 wings.
I kept the Ka-34’s original nose, but flattened its top for a better field of view and added a window in the nose for a laser range finder with fixed glazing (much like the Su-25). Some antennae, an OoA sensor and pitots were added, too. Cockpit and landing gear were taken OOB, but I added new seats and pilot figures as well as bigger wheels (from an A-7).
Other external changes include bigger engine nacelles, from a Hobby Boss Me 262. They are mounted backwards, though, and their interior outfitted with new parts from the scrap box. I left them in their helicopter-like high position above the wings, but had to raise their position due to thick A-1 wings.
Ultimately, all tail stabilizers come from the A-1 kit, since they’d fit well in size and shape. The wings were modified in so far that I filled the A-1’s landing gear wells (covers were gone, used 2C putty) and tried to hide the folding wing lines. Weapon hardpoints come from A-7 and F-16 kits, the ordnance of two B-13L and two B-8M rocket pods comes from an ICM Soviet air-to-ground weapon sets – the choice reflects the FAC duty of the type in the hot-and-high Afghanistan environment, so only unguided rockets for target marking and against small, soft targets are carried, plus two R-60 for self-defense.
Painting and markings:
Normally I keep whifs rather subtle, but this time I gave the MiG-SPB a rather weird camouflage scheme. The MiG-SPB’s stylish three-tone clover pattern has actually been applied to Soviet Mi-24 helicopters, and a similar wrap-around scheme (in olive green, though) can be found on some Ukrainian Su-25. I found this scheme very attractive, and since it looks IMHO very Russian the MiG-SPB was a nice occasion to try it out – the colors even matching the dusty/mountainous Afghanistan theatre where the model would have been used, according to its fictional story.
Basic upper colors are Humbrol 168 and ‘clover leafs’ in 84 and 98 (Hemp, Mid-Stone and Chocolate, in these “levels” above each other), later ‘tamed down’ trough dry painting with shades of light beige and grey, for a worn and bleached look.
This pattern is utterly effective in order to break up contours: Even when the thing just sat on the work bench it was hard to tell where its front or rear end would be, or how the fuselage and wing intersection would look like in detail. And it even looks flashy…
Lower side was painted in Humbrol 65 – pretty bright, but such tones are typical for Soviet/Russian aircraft.
Additionally, the whole thing received a light wash with black ink in order to emphasize panel line and details and the leading edges were lightly dry-brushed with silver.
Most markings come from the scrap box, insignia, tactical code and some emblems like the MiG OKB badge come from an Authentic Decals 1:72 MiG-29 aftermarket sheet, most stencils from the vast X-20M missile decal sheet from ICM.
All in all a nice project which was based on a spontaneous idea. But it came out better than expected, concerning both the aircraft itself but also the weird cammo scheme, which will certainly pop up under other circumstances (mecha?)!
AMTK F59PHi #451 thunders across the San Luis Rey River on the north side of Oceanside with a northbound Pacific Surfliner for LA. This train had a pretty lengthy train: two private cars, ten cars (including some regular Superliners) and another F59PHi at the rear. Unfortunately, I was oblivious to the remainder of the train and I was more focused on getting the F59 up front. The result was a pretty mediocre shot of the F59 and part of the first private car going across the bridge. So, not the best result, especially since I have little experience with pan shots. Nevertheless, it was a good way to close off the day; the rest of the group was satisfied with the catch.
AMONG DEVELOPING COUNTRIES,THE INDIAN FOREIGN SERVICE IS ONE Of THE OLDER AND BETTER-ORGANIZED DIPLOMATIC SERVICES. AN INSIDER DISCUSSES THE IFS’S ORIGINS AND CURRENT CONTOURS. (2002)
BY KISHAN S. RANA
Among the countries of the developing world, India has one of the older and better-organized diplomatic services. Part heir to the ‘Political Service’ of the renowned colonial Indian Civil Service, the Indian Foreign Service was established in 1948, a year after independence. From the outset the IFS was imbued with a sense of uniqueness and relative isolation from the rest of the central government, due primarily to the circumstances of its cre- ation as virtually a personal project of India’s first prime minister, the urbane and worldly national movement leader Jawaharlal Nehru.
In 1946, on the eve of independence, Jawaharlal Nehru articulated India’s commitment to approach the world with “clear and friendly eyes” and spoke of the newly liberated country’s right to choose an external pol- icy that reflected its independence and was not a pawn in the hands of others — the basic policy of nonalignment. Nehru functioned as his own foreign minister for his entire prime ministership, from 1947 until his death in 1964. It was Nehru who set up the Indian Foreign Service and, with his towering personality and penchant for micro-management, stamped it indelibly with his style as well as his worldview. For nearly two decades, both the IFS and the Ministry of External Affairs basked in Nehru’s reflected glory.
It is not our purpose to discuss the Nehruvian foreign policy legacy, but some instances of his passion for detail help shed light on facets of the Indian Foreign Service. It was not unusual, for example, for Nehru to write replies to incoming cipher telegrams from ambassadors, which were then sent out in the name of heads of territorial divi- sions, or even their deputies. In the very readable mem- oirs written by Badr-ud-din Tyabji, former ambassador and secretary in the MEA, Memoirs of an Egoist (Roli Books, 1988), this has been described as the syndrome of the time: “leave it to Panditji” — pushing up all decisions to Nehru, however minor.
Working on the staff of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1981-82, I came upon a set of long notes exchanged in the mid-1950s between Nehru and the Civil Service head of MEA, called the Foreign Secretary in Indian termi- nology. Nehru sent him a four-page note describing the criteria that should be applied to the selection of ambas- sadors. The Foreign Secretary sent a two-page rejoinder the same day, gently pointing to the practical difficulties in finding ideal choices, to which Nehru sent a further long response the next day. No decision was taken, the more so as selection of envoys was principally the prime minister’s prerogative, with the Foreign Secretary acting as his adviser. The exchange reflected Nehru’s passion for philosophical debate and his speed of thought, but also a certain disinclination for hard decisions.
The fact that for the first 30 years new entrants had to rank among the top 20 to 40 individuals in the Union Public Service Commission annual combined Civil Services examination merit list, out of the 20,000 to 40,000 who sat for the exam (which was the only entry route into the high civil services, including the sister ser- vice, the Indian Administrative Service), reinforced the sense of elitism.
In recent years career opportunities in India have greatly expanded. Yet the civil service, and the IFS in particular, continue to attract top talent. What are the contours of this diplomatic service today? What are its strengths and weaknesses?
The IFS Today
Structure.
The first thing to note about the Indian Foreign Service is that it is exceptionally small in size, by comparison with not just India’s needs but also the func- tions performed. To operate some 115 embassies and permanent missions and 40-odd consulates abroad, plus man the MEA, there are only some 750 officials of the rank of desk-officers and above (i.e., third secretaries and higher). By comparison the “tail” is much longer, consist- ing of about 2,800 non-diplomatic support personnel, according to the MEA Annual Report published each March.
MEA simply does not have the personnel it needs for vital tasks, and the number of missions abroad is too large. Ideally, looking to the experience of other major services, the ratio of officers at headquarters to missions should be around 1-to-1.5 or -2: in India it is 1-to-4. The IFS cadre needs urgent expansion to at least 1,000, and with it a pruning of support staff, via upgrading many to function as junior desk officials. With this must come also a reduction in the number of missions and posts. But as long as assignments abroad are seen as an essential “right,” vested interests block these cutbacks.
The results are plain to see. Public diplomacy, for example, is in its infancy in India, not because its meth- ods are not understood, but because the structure for handling this work does not exist. Today, the official head- ing the external publicity division is the MEA spokesper- son; this same person heads the entire publicity and information apparatus, and handles some aspects of public diplomacy as well, as there is no dedicated unit for this purpose.
Further, although all but one of the foreign ministries of the 19 countries of the E.U. and the G-8 have carried out structural changes since 1990 to cope with changes in the post-Cold War world (according to a comparative study by the Italian
Foreign Ministry), MEA has so far limited itself to adding a new territorial division to handle relations with the strategically important Central Asian countries. Deeper structural change has yet to materialize, though some reforms are under consideration.
There has always been an abundance of ideas — the problem is with action! The initiative of External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh to re-examine the Service’s struc- tures, set into motion at the end of 2000, was moving slowly toward concrete action until he and Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha swapped jobs in July, and it is now unclear if the planned actions will be implemented. These included creation of a Foreign Service inspec- torate (vital to undertake periodic inspection of all mis- sions, ensure uniformity of standards, and help to enhance their performance) and placement of IFS offi- cials within the administration of some states to help in their international contacts. There are also plans to expand the strength of the cadre, though not to the level needed; that would require a major decision of the gov- ernment, especially to link the expansion with cuts in the support staff.
Still, there is some expectation that the Jaswant Singh initiative may yet lead to some real improvements; the new minister has not revealed his thinking as yet. The recent reform proposals echo suggestions contained in the Pillai Committee Report of 1966, the only public doc- ument on the IFS and its reform. But the exercise that Jaswant Singh launched was different in one important respect — it was the first effort that originated at the min- isterial level, and from within MEA.
Training. Training for new entrants has improved dramatically in the past 15 years, with the establishment of the Foreign Service Institute in 1986 in New Delhi (set to move to its new campus in a year or so), and with a continuous improvement in training content. New entrants spend three months attending a common foundation course with all other entrants to the civil services for that year at the National Academy of Adminis- tration, located in the Himalayan hill-resort town of Mussourie, and then come to the Institute for a year. Their program encompasses lec- tures, workshops and visits to many partner agencies, including forma-tions of the army, navy and air force. It also calls for about five months of travel to different locations in the country to see the challenges of economic and social develop- ment, as well as two separate tours to neighboring coun- tries. Concerning languages, new recruits undergo train- ing in the assigned foreign language at the first station of assignment, and are confirmed in service after passing the language test.
What the IFS misses, however, is mid-career training — the Institute does nothing at all at this level, nor for senior officials. MEA is simply not able to spare anyone.
Recruitment and personnel management. The examination system for selection of civil servants, admin- istered by the Union Public Service Commission, now has some 300,000 applicants annually competing for about 300 to 400 jobs in all the “central services” — the other services are the Administrative Service, the Customs, Audit and Accounts, and the Police Service. The written exam is at two levels, with only about 20,000 who qualify at the first stage (the serious candidates) appearing for the second exam. Within a couple of months after the results announcement, all Civil Service entrants join the “foundation course” at Mussourie men- tioned earlier, and thereafter separate to attend training at their own services.
The IFS takes an average of around 10 new entrants each year, though in 2001 the number was stepped up to 18. A notable feature of recent years is the progressive widening of the intake — in terms of the regions and groups represented, the educational background and the presence of rural candidates. Around 20 percent of new recruits are women.
British colonial administrators borrowed the con- cept of a single open examination for the Civil Services from China. It has provided India with a stable, unified administrative structure, which has its faults — princi-pally that it has become a vehicle for corruption, and a victim of political pressures, and the two are inter- twined — but no one has come up with a remotely comparable or viable method of selection for new entrants into the Service.
Human resource management is the key issue for all organizations, the more so for diplomatic services that mainly deal in intangibles. Throughout the Indian admin- istration promotion by seniority is the norm; the only obstacle to promotion is outstanding incompetence. Since 1950 the constitutionally-mandated affirmative action pol- icy of reserving 22.5 percent of government service jobs for individuals from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes has been in effect. Now some even demand that this policy ought to apply also to promotions.
Against this background, maintaining the traditional systems of rotation among “hard” and “soft” posts and motivating individuals to perform their best are chal- lenges. Many of us lament that the system does not work optimally, but we should be thankful that it works at all.
A Learning Curve
Like many other diplomatic services, the MEA is still on a learning curve when it comes to coping with the new domestic players in diplomacy. Today as it shifts from the classic gatekeeper role in external affairs to that of the privileged coordinator, every foreign ministry has to han- dle three broad clusters of players — the official agencies beyond the foreign ministry, the non-state agents (cham- bers of commerce, academic institutions, think tanks, NGOs and the like), and the ordinary citizens who too are involved players in virtually every country. (The best definition of these new roles is provided in the opening essay by Brian Hocking in the book he has edited,
All government agencies are autonomous actors in the foreign arena. They will accept the foreign ministry as a coordinator only if they perceive this brings value to their interests and concerns. It is entirely possible for the Indian foreign ministry to do this, but to win credibility it needs to cultivate an inclusive attitude, and modify the past mindset of exclusivity and the corresponding turf- warfare reflex. There are exceptional senior MEA offi- cials who are able to get other ministries on board on spe- cific issues, but this is not the general practice as yet. Cooperation with non-state players is good in some areas, such as with the apex bodies of business and some branches of non-official international organizations, but almost nonexistent with high-profile NGOs and human rights activists.
Though performance enhancement methods, many of them borrowed from business management, have crept into the diplomatic work arena, the infrastructure to max- imize productivity is not uniformly in place. Methods to improve performance encompass annual action plans, benchmarking and service optimization (for example, in consular work, public affairs, and commercial promo- tion). MEA uses annual plans, but has not got around to tying resources into these, or carrying out a real delega- tion of financial powers. (This is a general weakness of the Indian system: even the budgeted funds of ministries, duly approved by parliament, can be spent only with the approval of the Finance Ministry, either directly for big- ticket items, or through the “financial advisers” it appoints and supervises in each ministry.) A ministry- wide computer network does not exist, though most ter- ritorial divisions have their own local area networks; they do not talk to one another, or to the higher officials. An intranet or virtual private network linking MEA and the missions remains on the drawing board.
Strengths and Weaknesses
What are the accomplishments of the IFS, and its points of strength? What might one expect from this set of professionals? My comments are necessarily subjec- tive, because within a “brotherhood” one may not find the distance for dispassionate scrutiny, and also because there exist no real tools for comparing foreign ministries and diplomats. With these caveats I offer the following.
Indians are individualists for the most part, and this
The IFS is exceptionally small in size, by comparison with India’s needs and the functions performed. shows in a huge variation between the best and the worst among diplomats. Major missions are natural concentra- tion points for talent, not just at the level of the head of mission. Anyone who has dealt with Indian counterparts in Washington, D.C., New York or Paris will bear witness that the best can hold their own against anyone. But if the true measure of a good system is that it evens out the peaks and troughs by ele- vating the performance of the lower half, then the IFS has a way to go.
In multilateral diplomacy during the 1970s and 1980s, in what we might call the heyday of declaratory diploma- cy, Indians seized the high ground at conferences, U.N. assemblies and committees — alas, not all of it very pro- ductively. In bilateral diplomacy, which is necessarily practiced on a much broader canvas, there are the bright stars, and the rest. And it is often noted that the discrep- ancy between the peaks and troughs of ability and perfor- mance among different persons is glaring. Management and business culture specialists observe the same trait of individualism, and a relative weakness at teamwork, when they look at the Indian corporate world.
One of the strong features of the IFS was an early shift to economic diplomacy. The first oil shock of 1973 deliv- ered a body blow to the Indian economy at a time when it had barely recovered from the disastrous droughts of the late 1960s (when P.L. 480 provided succor, before the Green Revolution became a reality), and from the Bangladesh War of 1971. Economic diplomacy became a matter of survival for India, and the IFS adapted rapidly, quickly learning to blend political and economic objec- tives, and practice integrated diplomacy.
The service produced role models like Bimal Sanyal and Vishnu Ahuja, both senior heads of MEA’s Economics Division, who demonstrated that being proactive involved a vast amount of internal diplomacy with the other min- istries and agencies, but reliably produced results. The two mobilized public-private partnerships at home, at a time when even this concept was in its infancy, to push for project and consultancy contracts in the Gulf region, and to win placement for Indian technicians. Simultaneously, they motivated Indian missions to blend political and eco- nomic diplomacy, a craft I, too, learnt in my first ambas- sadorship in Algeria (1975-79). Today there is hardly a diplomat or a mission that fails to treat economics as virtually the first priority at the majority of posts, on the premise that good political relations are a given condition in most countries but it is economics that explores the full enve- lope of action, and valorizes the politi- cal relationship as well. Is there an Indian negotiating style? Stephen Cohen, one of the gurus of South Asia scholarship in the U.S., has a brilliant chapter in his book,
India: Emerging Power (Brookings Institution, 2001), titled “The India That Can’t Say Yes.” Cohen’s thesis is, first, that Indians are intent on establishing the moral and political equality of the two sides and are especially touchy over “status”; second, they are patient and will wait till the terms improve; third, they negotiate for information; and fourth, they tend to have a good institutional memory, better than that of the Americans. Cohen also speaks of “a defensive arrogance and acute sensitivity to real and perceived slights,” and concludes that India seems to relish “getting to no.” He adds that MEA has tight control over foreign negotiations and is difficult to bypass.
Behind the “Indian Negotiating Style”
Some of the above criticism comes from experience with India-U.S. relations of the pre-1991 era, when India’s South-centered diplomacy (including leadership of the Nonaligned Movement, G-77 and the like) produced inevitable confrontation with much of the West. However, Strobe Talbott, whose 10-odd rounds of discussion with Jaswant Singh between 1998 and 2000 are the most inten- sive dialogue carried out by India with the U.S. or any other partner, may not agree with all of Cohen’s character- ization.
Indian negotiators are often hemmed in by an impos- sible brief, which is relatively rigid, to the point that no fallback positions are provided or flexibility given to the negotiators. The result is “positional bargaining” and an impression of negativism. For example, this was the case in the past with WTO meetings and other multilateral economic fora. By contrast, at Doha in November 2001, a strong Cabinet minister leading the Indian delegation, with the personal clout to obtain flexible instructions, managed to produce a good result, overcoming the rigidi-ties of the brief and past policy. Many individual negotiators are bril-liant, adept at winning trust and work- ing to achieve results. And generally, in multilateral settings Indians are often a popular consensus choice as rappor- teurs and committee chairmen. But in regional diplomacy, being adept at tac-tics is not enough when policy has been unimaginative or defensive. This has been the case, for example, in India’s past stance vis-à-vis ASEAN, when opportunities for close association were passed up in the 1980s. Defensiveness has crippled India’s approach to the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, where a fear of all the smaller neighbors ganging up blocked innovative ideas to overcome the impasse created by Pakistan’s obduracy.
India’s economic reforms, launched in 1991, coincided with the end of the Cold War. Both have affected the way India looks at the world, and the goals it pursues external- ly, in bilateral, regional and multilateral settings. India
remains nonaligned in the original sense of the term, but real Indian involvement with NAM and G-77 has waned. Instead, there is a clearer per- ception of self-interest, and a willing- ness to say so. This translates into hard-headed pragmatism, where ideo- logical rhetoric of the past is absent, and does not cloud actions. This is especially visible in pursuit of eco-political objectives. In the Sept. 11 attacks, India finds vindication of the battle it has long waged against terrorism, plus the opportunity to pursue new relationships in Central Asia and elsewhere that move beyond a fixation with Pakistan.
As a service, the IFS has no political bias and it is well harnessed in the pursuit of national goals. Yet it has the latent capacity to perform far better, provided that real reform can be implemented in the MEA and its process- es incrementally — for that is the only “Indian way” that produces results. ■
(Kishan S. Rana joined the Indian Foreign Service in 1960 and served in Hong Kong, Beijing (twice) and Geneva. He specialized in Chinese affairs and, later, economic diplomacy. He was ambassador to Algeria, Czechoslovakia, Kenya, Mauritius and Germany, retir- ing in 1995. He is Professor Emeritus at the Foreign Service Institute in New Delhi, and the author of Inside Diplomacy (Manas Publications, 2000) and Bilateral Diplomacy ( F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 2)
The good old timetable on yellow paper is recommended. If we no longer had this historical fallback level, we would be screwed. The steam locomotives have unfortunately already been given up. Switzerland, March 19, 2021.
DISCLAIMER
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
In early 1968, the Soviet Ministry of Defense decided to develop a specialized shturmovik armored assault aircraft in order to provide close air support for the Soviet Ground Forces. The idea of creating a ground-support aircraft came about after analyzing the experience of shturmovaya (ground attack) aviation during World War II, and in local wars during the 1950s and 1960s. The Soviet fighter-bombers in service or under development at this time (Su-7, Su-17, MiG-21 and MiG-23) did not meet the requirements for close air support of the army. They lacked essential armor plating to protect the pilot and vital equipment from ground fire and missile hits, and their high flight speeds made it difficult for the pilot to maintain visual contact with a target. Ordnance load and loiter time were also insufficient.
In March 1969, a competition was announced by the Soviet Air Force that called for designs for a new battlefield close-support aircraft. Participants in the competition were the Design Bureaus of Sukhoi, Yakovlev, Ilyushin and Mikoyan.
Mikoyan OKB proposed two directions: First option were designs which were based upon proven technology of the MiG-21 and -23, with an eye on short development time – e. g. the LSSh and 27Sh concepts. The other approach was a more experimental type, designed from scratch, but this concept focused more radically on survivability and excellent low altitude agility, at the expense of speed and a short development time.
All MiG OKB designs were eventually rejected by the MoD, and effectively only Ilyushin’s Il-42 (later renamed into Il-102) and Sukhoi’s T-8 (the later Su-25) remained in the official competition. But Mikoyan’s second design showed potential and was considered as a basis for an advanced jet trainer. This aircraft was approved to be developed further, but not with high priority and outside of the official shturmovik competition. Anyway, it was a fallback option, should both main contenders fail.
The project received the internal development code ‘Izdeliye 1.43’, but the forthcoming aircraft was better known under its project handle MiG-SPB (Samolet Polya Boya – ‘armored combat aircraft’) or its nickname, ла́сточка (Lastochka = Swallow). Some sources claim that the type was also designated MiG-43, but it never received an official code, despite its front line test service (see below).
The MiG-SPB’s main design objective was superior maneuverability at low speeds and altitude. It offered the pilot excellent view and a high resilience to frontline combat situations. The aircraft’s most prominent trademark was its engine location: in overall layout, the MiG-SPB resembled Sukhoi’s T-8, with straight wings and two jet engines placed in nacelles at the fuselage flanks. But in order to protect the engines from gunfire and shield the hot exhaust gases from view (e .g. from IR seeker heads, esp. from MANPADS), the nacelles were placed above the mid-set wings, with the air intakes at wing leading edge level.
Despite carrying armor around the cockpit and the central fuselage, the aircraft was surprisingly slender and elegant – so slim that the rigid landing gear, which would allow operation from field air strips, retracted into fairings which also housed the internal gun on starboard and avionics on port. As a side benefit of this complex layout, the CoG was kept very centralized, so that agility was further improved. The tail was conventional, even though the vertical stabilizer was rather high and slender.
For its low altitude duties, a large wing area, high wing aspect ratio, and large ailerons were incorporated. The high aspect ratio wing also allowed for short takeoffs and landings, permitting operations from primitive forward airfields near front lines. It was planned that the type would typically fly at a relatively slow speed of 300 knots (350 mph; 560 km/h), loiter for extended periods and operate under 1.000 ft (300 m) ceiling with 1.5 mi (2.4 km) visibility. This would have made it a much better platform for the ground-attack role than contemporary fast fighter-bombers, which often gave difficulty targeting small and slow-moving targets, or finding them again for a second attack.
Originally, the MiG-SPB was powered by two Ivchenko AI-25 turbofan with 14.7 kN (3,300 lbf) each, basically the same engine that drove the Yak-40 regional jet airliner. In early 1981 these were replaced by two much more powerful Klimov RD-33M turbofans: non-afterburning versions of the engines that powered the Mikoyan MiG-29 fighter (under development at MiG OKB at that time) and which were also introduced in the production Su-25.
Armament comprised a fixed gun in the starboard fairing and 3.500kg (7.700 lb.) of external ordnance, carried on eight wing hardpoints plus a centerline pylon under the fuselage.
Originally, a two-barreled Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-23L 23 mm cannon with 350 rounds was fitted, but that soon gave way to a more powerful 30mm GSh-30-1 cannon which could fire armor-piercing shells at 1.800 rpm. The gun's maximum effective range was 1.200 to 1.800 m (3.900 to 5.900 ft.) and, in combination with the Klen-PS laser rangefinder/targeting system in the aircraft’s nose, it was extremely accurate as well as powerful, capable of destroying a target with as few as three to five rounds.
At least one pre-production aircraft was even fitted with a single-barreled 45mm cannon.
Further avionics included a DISS-7 Doppler navigation radar, coupled with a navigation system that permitted flight in day and night conditions, both in VMC and IMC (even though the aircraft did not feature an all-weather/attack capability), and providing flight data for the weapons-control system and flight instruments. Radios for air-to-ground and air-to-air communications were fitted, as well as a weapons-control system and a full self-defense suite, incorporating infra-red, flare and chaff dispensers capable of launching about 250 flares and dipole chaff. An SRO radar warning receiver that would alert the pilot of incoming attacks on the aircraft, as well as an SPO-15 radar homing & warning system (RHAWS) and an SO-69 identification-friend-or-foe (IFF) transponder were incorporated.
With no official support the MiG-SPB’s development went on slowly, but due to several delays and specification changes in the official shturmovik competition it kept up pace and was more or less ready just in time for direct comparison. The MiG-SPB prototype first flew on 14 February 1978 and began State acceptance trials on 12 October 1979. Since the secondary use as a trainer was still on the agenda, all prototypes and pre-production machines were two-seaters, even though the plane was still primarily intended for the ground attack role and accordingly equipped.
An order for a first batch of twenty pre-production machines was placed in November 1979, and five of these had been completed by the spring of 1980 and were undergoing pre-flight tests when the Soviet MoD decided to try the type under real conditions. Together with an initial batch of Su-25s a total of five MiG-SPBs with support crews and maintenance equipment were sent to Afghanistan.
On 19 July 1981 and with the new RD-33M engines already fitted, these aircraft arrived at Shindand Airbase in western Afghanistan and were assigned to the 201st Independent Shturmovaya Air Squadron, flying together with the first Su-25 unit deployed to that country. Their main task was to conduct air strikes against mountain military positions and structures controlled by the Afghan rebels. The MiG-SPB proved to be easy to handle, esp. under “hot and high” conditions.
Flight characteristics were closely comparable to the Su-25 and the aircraft gained a good reputation among the flight crews. But field maintenance was more complicated and the electronic systems proved not to be as reliable and sturdy as the Su-25’s, though. Another drawback was the lower ordnance load of 3.500kg (the Su-25 could theoretically carry 4.500kg), which suffered further in the thin air of the Afghan summer. Usually, only 1.000 kg were carried, unguided missiles or iron bombs being the most frequent weapons.
The MiG-SPB found its niche, though: the second seat made the MiG-SPB a formidable reconnaissance and observation aircraft. The MiG-SPBs were frequently used as forward air control aircraft which would locate and mark targets, guide other fighter bombers to them and later control/assess the attack success (BDA missions).
In the late months of employment, the rear seat was also taken up by a weapon officer who would steer guided weapons, when several smart bombs and missiles as well as their respective sensor and guidance packages were tried out under field conditions.
Over the course of the Soviet war in Afghanistan, five more MiG-SPB were transferred to Afghanistan in order to keep a minimum of four machines active at all times. The aircraft performed a total of roundabout 2.500 combat sorties, ~250 per aircraft (less than the Su-25, which clocked 340 and more). Between the first deployment in 1981 and the end of the tests in April 1983, one aircraft was lost in combat operations, another one crashed in a landing accident. When NATO became aware of the type in late 1982, the MiG-SPB received the code name ‘Flintstone’.
In the end, the MiG-SPB had no future. After a long development process for the new shturmovik, the Su-25 surpassed its main competitor in the Soviet Air Force competition, the Ilyushin Il-102, as well as the MiG-SPB, and series production of Sukhoi’s type was announced by the Ministry of Defense. Since the trainer option did not show any future potential (meanwhile, the smaller and much less costly L-39 Albatros had been chosen as jet trainer), further development of the MiG-SPB was stopped – even though the experience with the type would later be incorporated into the MiG-AT trainer aircraft.
General characteristics (as flown)
Crew: Two (one pilot, one observer/WO)
Length: 15.19 m (50 ft 5½ in) incl. pitot
Wingspan: 14.79 m (49 ft 1½ in)
Height: 4.26 m (14 ft 2 in)
Wing area: 37.19 m² (400.3 ft²)
Empty weight: 9.890 kg (21.784 lb)
Loaded weight: 14.150 kg (31.186 lb)
Max. take-off weight: 17.200 kg (37.885 lb)
Powerplant:
2 × Klimov RD-33M turbofans, 44.18 kN (9,480 lbf) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 890 km/h (553 mph)
Combat radius: 400 km (250 mi)
Ferry range: 2,500 km (1,553 mi)
Service ceiling: 7,500 m (25,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 58 m/s (11,400 ft/min)
Wing loading: 490 kg/m² (100 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 0.52
Armament:
1× GSh-30-1 30mm cannon with 300 rounds
9 hardpoints for up to 3.500 kg (7.700 lb) of disposable external ordnance, including rails for 2 × R-60 (AA-8 'Aphid') or other air-to-air missiles for self-defense and a wide variety of general-purpose bombs, cluster bombs, gun pods, rocket pods, laser- or TV-guided bombs, and air-to-surface missiles.
The centerline pylon was usually only used for sensor or reconnaissance pods.
The four inner wing hardpoints were ‘wet’ for 800l drop tanks.
The kit and its assembly:
I think it’s the first time that I convert a helicopter into an aircraft. But ESCI’s fictional Ka-34 ‘Hokum’ (probably only based on satellite pictures from above and vague sketches of the real thing, the Ka-50) is so sleek and aircraft-like – why not give it a try?
My idea behind this purely fictional whif was to build a contender to the Su-25 and its real introduction story, with the long development phase since the late 60ies, the competition with the Il-102 and the Afghanistan trials. Even the submissions of Mikoyan OKB are real (yet rejected…), but my SPB was an additional design outside of the “proven technology” sandbox.
So, the Ka-34 fuselage and the ground attack role were clear and defined further design elements.
Looking for suitable straight wings I came at first across Revell’s 1:100 SnapFit A-10 as a donation kit for the wings, but these turned out to be too small. When I rummaged for alternative parts I finally found an ancient (25 years? Its white polystyrene was thoroughly yellowed…), half-built Airfix A-1 – a horrible kit which now found its final and good use! So, effectively, my MiG-SPB is a kit-bashing of two kits with some extra donations.
The Ka-34’s fuselage was more modified than initially intended: the main rotor mount was faired over and the tail fin cut away, because it looked too small/slender/modern for the massive and straight A-1 wings.
I kept the Ka-34’s original nose, but flattened its top for a better field of view and added a window in the nose for a laser range finder with fixed glazing (much like the Su-25). Some antennae, an OoA sensor and pitots were added, too. Cockpit and landing gear were taken OOB, but I added new seats and pilot figures as well as bigger wheels (from an A-7).
Other external changes include bigger engine nacelles, from a Hobby Boss Me 262. They are mounted backwards, though, and their interior outfitted with new parts from the scrap box. I left them in their helicopter-like high position above the wings, but had to raise their position due to thick A-1 wings.
Ultimately, all tail stabilizers come from the A-1 kit, since they’d fit well in size and shape. The wings were modified in so far that I filled the A-1’s landing gear wells (covers were gone, used 2C putty) and tried to hide the folding wing lines. Weapon hardpoints come from A-7 and F-16 kits, the ordnance of two B-13L and two B-8M rocket pods comes from an ICM Soviet air-to-ground weapon sets – the choice reflects the FAC duty of the type in the hot-and-high Afghanistan environment, so only unguided rockets for target marking and against small, soft targets are carried, plus two R-60 for self-defense.
Painting and markings:
Normally I keep whifs rather subtle, but this time I gave the MiG-SPB a rather weird camouflage scheme. The MiG-SPB’s stylish three-tone clover pattern has actually been applied to Soviet Mi-24 helicopters, and a similar wrap-around scheme (in olive green, though) can be found on some Ukrainian Su-25. I found this scheme very attractive, and since it looks IMHO very Russian the MiG-SPB was a nice occasion to try it out – the colors even matching the dusty/mountainous Afghanistan theatre where the model would have been used, according to its fictional story.
Basic upper colors are Humbrol 168 and ‘clover leafs’ in 84 and 98 (Hemp, Mid-Stone and Chocolate, in these “levels” above each other), later ‘tamed down’ trough dry painting with shades of light beige and grey, for a worn and bleached look.
This pattern is utterly effective in order to break up contours: Even when the thing just sat on the work bench it was hard to tell where its front or rear end would be, or how the fuselage and wing intersection would look like in detail. And it even looks flashy…
Lower side was painted in Humbrol 65 – pretty bright, but such tones are typical for Soviet/Russian aircraft.
Additionally, the whole thing received a light wash with black ink in order to emphasize panel line and details and the leading edges were lightly dry-brushed with silver.
Most markings come from the scrap box, insignia, tactical code and some emblems like the MiG OKB badge come from an Authentic Decals 1:72 MiG-29 aftermarket sheet, most stencils from the vast X-20M missile decal sheet from ICM.
All in all a nice project which was based on a spontaneous idea. But it came out better than expected, concerning both the aircraft itself but also the weird cammo scheme, which will certainly pop up under other circumstances (mecha?)!
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some Background:
The Hawker Typhoon was a British single-seat fighter-bomber, produced by Hawker Aircraft. It was intended to be a medium-high altitude interceptor, as a replacement for the Hawker Hurricane, but several design problems were encountered and it never completely satisfied this requirement.
Even before Hurricane production began in March 1937, Sydney Camm had embarked on designing its successor. Two preliminary designs were similar and were larger than the Hurricane. These later became known as the "N" and "R" (from the initial of the engine manufacturers), because they were designed for the newly developed Napier Sabre and Rolls-Royce Vulture engines respectively. Both engines used 24 cylinders and were designed for over 2,000 hp (1,500 kW); the difference between the two was primarily in the arrangement of the cylinders – an H-block in the Sabre and an X-block in the Vulture. Hawker submitted these preliminary designs in July 1937 but were advised to wait until a formal specification for a new fighter was issued.
In March 1938, Hawker received from the Air Ministry, Specification F.18/37 for a fighter which would be able to achieve at least 400 mph (640 km/h) at 15,000 feet (4,600 m) and specified a British engine with a two-speed supercharger. The armament fitted was to be twelve 0.303” Browning machine guns with 500 rounds per gun, with a provision for alternative combinations of weaponry. The basic design of the Typhoon was a combination of traditional Hawker construction, as used in the earlier Hawker Hurricane, and more modern construction techniques; the front fuselage structure, from the engine mountings to the rear of the cockpit, was made up of bolted and welded duralumin or steel tubes covered with skin panels, while the rear fuselage was a flush-riveted, semi-monocoque structure. The forward fuselage and cockpit skinning was made up of large, removable duralumin panels, allowing easy external access to the engine and engine accessories and most of the important hydraulic and electrical equipment.
The Typhoon’s service introduction in mid-1941 was plagued with problems and for several months the aircraft faced a doubtful future. When the Luftwaffe brought the new Focke-Wulf Fw 190 into service in 1941, the Typhoon was the only RAF fighter capable of catching it at low altitudes; as a result it secured a new role as a low-altitude interceptor.
By 1943, the RAF needed a ground attack fighter more than a "pure" fighter and the Typhoon was suited to the role (and less-suited to the pure fighter role than competing aircraft such as the Spitfire Mk IX). The powerful engine allowed the aircraft to carry a load of up to two 1,000 pounds (450 kg) bombs, equal to the light bombers of only a few years earlier. Furthermore, from early 1943 the wings were plumbed and adapted to carry cylindrical 45 imp gal (200 l; 54 US gal) drop tanks increasing the Typhoon's range from 690 miles (1,110 km) to up to 1,090 miles (1,750 km). This enabled Typhoons to range deep into France, the Netherlands and Belgium.
From September 1943, Typhoons were also armed with four "60 lb" RP-3 rockets under each wing. Although the rocket projectiles were inaccurate and took considerable skill to aim and allow for ballistic drop after firing, "the sheer firepower of just one Typhoon was equivalent to a destroyer's broadside".
By the end of 1943, eighteen rocket-equipped Typhoon squadrons formed the basis of the RAF Second Tactical Air Force (2nd TAF) ground attack arm in Europe. In theory, the rocket rails and bomb-racks were interchangeable; in practice, to simplify supply, some used the rockets only, while other squadrons were armed exclusively with bombs, what also allowed individual units to more finely hone their skills with their assigned weapons.
The Typhoon was initially exclusively operated in the European theatre of operations, but in 1944 it was clear that a dedicated variant might become useful for the RAF’s operations in South-East Asia. In the meantime, Hawker had also developed what was originally an improved Typhoon II, but the differences between it and the Mk I were so great that it was effectively a different aircraft, and it was renamed the Hawker Tempest. However, as a fallback option and as a stopgap filler for the SEAC, Hawker also developed the Typhoon Mk. IV, a tropicalized late Mk. I with a bubble canopy and powered by the new Bristol Centaurus radial engine that could better cope with high ambient temperatures than the original liquid-cooled Sabre engine. The Centaurus IV chosen for the Typhoon Mk. IV also offered slightly more power than the Sabre and the benefit of reduced vulnerability to small arms fire at low altitude, since the large and vulnerable chin cooler could be dispensed with.
3,518 Typhoons of all variants were eventually built, 201 of them late Mk. IVs, almost all by Gloster. Once the war in Europe was over Typhoons were quickly removed from front-line squadrons; by October 1945 the Typhoon was no longer in operational use, with many of the wartime Typhoon units such as 198 Squadron being either disbanded or renumbered.
The SEAC’s few operational Mk IVs soldiered on, however, were partly mothballed after 1945 and eventually in 1947 handed over or donated to regional nascent air forces after their countries’ independence like India, Pakistan or Burma, where they served as fighters and fighter bombers well into the Sixties.
The Burmese Air Force; initially only called “The military”, since there was no differentiation between the army’s nascent servies, was founded on 16 January 1947, while Burma (as Myanmar was known until 1989) was still under British rule. By 1948, the fleet of the new air force included 40 Airspeed Oxfords, 16 de Havilland Tiger Moths, four Austers, and eight Typhoon Mk. IVs as well as three Supermarine Spitfires transferred from the Royal Air Force and had a few hundred personnel.
The Mingaladon Air Base HQ, the main air base in the country, was formed on 16 June 1950. No.1 Squadron, Equipment Holding Unit and Air High Command - Burma Air Force, and the Flying Training School, were placed under the jurisdiction of the base. A few months later, on 18 December 1950, No. 2 Squadron was formed with nine Douglas Dakotas as a transport squadron. In 1953, the Advanced Flying Unit was formed under the Mingaladon Air Base with de Havilland Vampire T55s, and by the end of 1953 the Burmese Air Force had three main airbases, at Mingaladon, Hmawbi, and Meiktila, in central Burma.
In 1953, the Burmese Air Force bought 30 Supermarine Spitfires from Israel and 20 Supermarine Seafires as well as 22 more Typhoon Mk. IVs from the United Kingdom. In 1954 it bought 40 Percival Provost T-53s and 8 de Havilland Vampire Mark T55s from the United Kingdom and two years later, in 1956, the Burmese Air Force bought 10 Cessna 180 aircraft from the United States. The same year, 6 Kawasaki Bell 47Gs formed its first helicopter unit. The following year, the Burmese Air Force procured 21 Hawker Sea Fury aircraft from the United Kingdom and 9 de Havilland Canada DHC-3 Otters from Canada. In 1958, it procured 7 additional Kawasaki Bell 47Gs and 12 Vertol H-21 Shawnees from the United States. Five years later, No. 503 Squadron Group was formed with No. 51 Squadron (de Havilland Canada DHC-3 Otters and Cessna 180s) and No. 53 Squadron (Bell 47Gs, Kaman HH-43 Huskies, and Aérospatiale Alouettes) in Meiktila.
When the non-Burman ethnic groups pushed for autonomy or federalism, alongside having a weak civilian government at the center, the military leadership staged a coup d'état in 1962, and this was the only conflict in which the aging Burmese Typhoons became involved. On 2 March 1962, the military led by General Ne Win took control of Burma through a coup d'état, and the government had been under direct or indirect control by the military since then. Between 1962 and 1974, Myanmar was ruled by a revolutionary council headed by the general. Almost all aspects of society (business, media, production) were nationalized or brought under government control under the Burmese Way to Socialism, which combined Soviet-style nationalization and central planning, and also meant the end of operation of many aircraft of Western origin, including the last surviving Burmese Typhoons, which were probably retired by 1964. The last piston engine fighters in Burmese service, the Hawker Sea Furies, are believed to have been phased out in 1968.
General characteristics:
Crew: One
Length: 32 ft 6 in (9.93 m)
Wingspan: 41 ft 7 in (12.67 m)
Height: 15 ft 4 in (4.67 m)
Wing area: 279 sq ft (25.9 m²)
Airfoil: root: NACA 2219; tip: NACA 2213
Empty weight: 8,840 lb (4,010 kg)
Gross weight: 11,400 lb (5,171 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 13,250 lb (6,010 kg) with two 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs
Powerplant:
1× Bristol Centaurus IV 18-cylinder air-cooled radial engine with 2,210 hp (1,648 kW) take-off
power, driving a 4-bladed Rotol constant-speed propeller
Performance:
Maximum speed: 412 mph (663 km/h, 358 kn) at 19,000 ft (5,800 m)
Stall speed: 88 mph (142 km/h, 76 kn)
Range: 510 mi (820 km, 440 nmi) with two 500 lb (230 kg) bombs;
690 mi (1,110 km) "clean";
1,090 mi (1,750 km) with two 45 imp gal (200 l; 54 US gal) drop tanks.[65]
Service ceiling: 35,200 ft (10,700 m)
Rate of climb: 2,740 ft/min (13.9 m/s)
Wing loading: 40.9 lb/sq ft (200 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.20 hp/lb (0.33 kW/kg)
Armament:
4× 20 mm (0.787 in) Hispano Mk II cannon in the outer wings with 200 rpg
Underwing hardpoints for 8× RP-3 unguided air-to-ground rockets,
or 2× 500 lb (230 kg) or 2× 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs or a pair of drop tanks
The kit and its assembly:
The Hawker Typhoon is IMHO an overlooked WWII aircraft, and it’s also “underwiffed”. I have actually built no single Typhoon in my 45 years of model kit building - time to change that!
Inspiration was a lot of buzz in the model kit builder community after KP’s launch of several Hawker Tempest kits, with all major variants including the Sabre- and Centaurus-powered types. While the Tempest quickly outpaced the Typhoon in real life and took the glory, I wondered about a Centaurus-powered version for the SEA theatre of operations – similar to the Tempest Mk. II, which just came too late to become involved in the conflict against the Japanese forces. A similar Typhoon variant could have arrived a couple of months earlier, though.
Technically, this conversion is just an Academy Hawker Typhoon Mk Ib (a late variant without the “car door”, a strutless bubble canopy and a four-blade propeller) mated with the optional Centaurus front end from a Matchbox Hawker Tempest. Sounds simple, but there are subtle dimensional differences between the types/kits, and the wing roots of the Matchbox kit differ from the Academy kit, so that the engine/fuselage intersection as well as the wing roots called for some tailoring and PSR. However, the result of this transplantation stunt looked better and more natural than expected! Since I did not want to add extra fairings for air carburetor and oil cooler to the Wings (as on the Tempest), I gave the new creation a generous single fairing for both under the nose – the space between the wide landing gear wells offered a perfect location, and I used a former Spitfire radiator as donor part. The rest, including the unguided missiles under the wings was ordnance, was taken OOB, and the propeller (from the Academy kit) received an adapter consisting of styrene tubes to match it with the Matchbox kit’s engine and its opening for the propeller axis.
Painting and markings:
This was initially a challenge since the early Burmese aircraft were apparently kept in bare metal or painted in silver overall. This would certainly have looked interesting on a Typhoon, too – but then I found a picture of a Spitfire (UB 421) at Myanmar's Air Force Museum at Naypyidaw, which carries camouflage – I doubt that it is authentic, though, at least the colors, which markedly differ from RAF Dark Green/Dark Earth and the bright blue undersides also look rather fishy. But it was this paint scheme that I adapted for my Burmese Typhoon with Modelmaster 2027 (FS 34096, B-52 Dark Green, a rather greyish and light tone) and 2107 (French WWII Chestnut, a reddish, rich chocolate brown tone) from above and Humbrol 145 (FS 35237, USN Gray Blue) below – a less garish tone.
As usual, the model received a black ink washing and post-panel-shading for dramatic effect; the cockpit interior became very dark grey (Revell 06 Anthracite) while the landing gear became Medium Sea Grey (Humbrol 165), as a reminder of the former operator of the aircraft and its painting standards. The red spinner as well as the red-and-white-checkered rudder were inspired by Burmese Hawker Sea Furies, a nice contrast to the camouflage. It's also a decal, from a tabletop miniatures accessory sheet. This contrast was furthermore underlined through the bright and colorful national markings, which come from a Carpena decal sheet for exotic Spitfires, just the tactical code was changed.
After some signs of wear with dry-brushed silver and some graphite soot stains around the exhausts and the guns the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.
Voilà, a whiffy Hawker Typhoon – and it looks better than expected. Not only does the brawny Centaurus look good on the rather burly Typhoon, the transplantation worked out better than expected, too. However, with the radial engine the Typhoon looks even more like an Fw 190 on steroids?
German postcard by Ross Verlag, Berlin, no. 64/6. Photo: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer / Parufamet. May McAvoy in Ben-Hur (Fred Niblo, 1925).
May McAvoy (1899-1984) was an American actress of the silent screen, best known as Esther in the classic epic Ben-Hur (Fred Niblo, 1925).
Born in New York City in 1899, within a well-to-do family that owned and operated a livery stable, May left school at the age of 17 to act in her first role in the film Hate by Walter Richard Stahl. From then she had small parts, even uncredited roles in films, for various Californian film companies, until she did a few films for the J. Stuart Blackton Company. Blackton, the co-founder of and regular director at Vitagraph, had started his own production company in 1917. After two smaller parts in films for the company, she got her first lead in The House of the Tolling Bell (1920), a mystery film about a haunted house, directed by Blackton himself. Blackton let her star again, again opposite Bruce Gordon, in The Forbidden Valley (1920). In 1921 she acted e.g. in Chester M. Franklin's A Private Scandal, which script had been purposely written by Hector Turnbull for McAvoy. The film was the first of a series of seven films at Realart Pictures, in which McAvoy constantly starred, directed either by Frank O'Connor or William Desmond Taylor. The apparent success of these films convinced Paramount to lure her away with a contract. Petite as she was, McAvoy was independent enough to defend her interests.
In 1922, May McAvoy started to act at Paramount/ Famous Players-Lasky, where she already had done an occasional film in the past. It was William C. DeMille who mostly directed her at Paramount: in Clarence (1922), starring Wallace Reid and Agnes Ayres, Grumpy (1923), starring Theodore Roberts, Only 38 (1923), in which she herself had the lead, and The Bedroom Window (1924), another starring role with Malcolm McGregor and Ricardo Cortez as her co-stars, and probably McAvoy's last film for Paramount. In 1923 McAvoy got into a row with director-producer Cecil B. DeMille, because she refused the role in his film Adam's Rib, as it meant her hair would be bobbed and she had to show partial nudity. Instead, she complained parts she wanted were given to other actresses: to Betty Bronson in Peter Pan and to Betty Compson in Little Minister. After she had been suspended, she bought off her contract and started freelancing.
This didn't mean a fallback at all, as May McAvoy managed to play memorable parts in e.g. The Enchanted Cottage (John S. Robertson, 1924) starring and produced by Richard Barthelmess, Tessie (Dallas M. Fitzgerald, 1925) and in particular Lady Windermere's Fan (Ernst Lubitsch, 1925) with Ronald Colman, while McAvoy replaced Gertrude Olmstead in her best known silent film, MGM's classic super production Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ (Fred Niblo 1925). McAvoy played Esther, the love interest of the title character, played by Ramon Novarro. Her former rival at Paramount, Betty Bronson, would play the small part of the Virgin Mary. Two years after, McAvoy had an important part in what is often credited as the first sound feature, The Jazz Singer (Alan Crossland 1927), which, actually, was a part-talkie, in which most actors, including McAvoy, did not talk yet. She played Mary, the girlfriend of the male lead, played by singer-actor Al Jolson.
Afterward, May McAvoy did act in all-talkie movies, such as The Lion and the Mouse (Lloyd Bacon, 1928), and The Terror (Roy Del Ruth, 1928), shot at Warner's studio in Burbank with failing technology, distorting her voice. Not so much because of her voice, but on request of her new (1929) husband, Maurice Cleary, banker and treasurer of United Artists, she withdrew to private life and took care of their son, Patrick (1932-2012). Despite some sources write they remained married until his death, English Wikipedia has convincing proof they divorced in 1940. It also explains that in 1940 McAvoy went back to the set, but had to satisfy with bit parts. Hollywood was not kind to its former stars. Still, until 1959 she had small parts, even uncredited ones - her last part being an extra in the remake of Ben-Hur (1959) by William Wyler, himself a former assistant-director on the silent version. May McAvoy died in 1984, in Los Angeles, as the consequence of a heart attack one year earlier. She was interred in the Holy Cross Cemetery in Culver City. May McAvoy has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame at 1731 Vine Street.
Sources: Dave Lobosco (Great Entertainers), Wikipedia (English and German), and IMDb.
And, please check out our blog European Film Star Postcards.
Roadtrip Doel and Antwerp, Belgium
Antwerp
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Antwerp (disambiguation).
Antwerp
Antwerpen
Municipality of Belgium
Antwerp.jpg
Flag of Antwerp
Flag Coat of arms of Antwerp
Coat of arms
Antwerp is located in Belgium
Antwerp
Antwerp
Location in Belgium
Map of Antwerp[show]
AntwerpenLocatie.png
Coordinates: 51°13′N 04°24′ECoordinates: 51°13′N 04°24′E
Country
Belgium
Community
Flemish Community
Region
Flemish Region
Province
Antwerp
Arrondissement
Antwerp
Government
• Mayor (list)
Bart De Wever (N-VA)
• Governing party/ies
1. N-VA
2. CD&V
3. Open Vld
Area
• Total
204.51 km2 (78.96 sq mi)
Population (1 January 2013)[1]
• Total
502,604
• Density
2,500/km2 (6,400/sq mi)
Postal codes
2000–2660
Area codes
03
Website
The Onze-Lieve-Vrouwekathedraal (Cathedral of our Lady) and the Scheldt river.
Grote Markt
Antwerp (Listeni/ˈæntwɜrp/, Dutch: Antwerpen [ˈɑn̪t̪.β̞ɛr.pə(n̪)] ( listen), French: Anvers [ɑ̃ˈvɛʁ(s)], Spanish: Amberes) is a city and municipality in Belgium and the capital of the Antwerp province of Belgium. With a population of 510,610,[2] it is the second most populous city in Belgium, after the capital Brussels, and its metropolitan area, with over 1,190,769 inhabitants, is also the second metropolitan area in Belgium.[3] Antwerp is located on the river Scheldt, which is linked to the North Sea by the Westerschelde estuary. The Port of Antwerp is one of the biggest ports in the world, ranking third in Europe and within the top 20 globally.
Antwerp has long been an important city in the Low Countries, both economically and culturally, especially before the Spanish Fury (1576) in the period of the Dutch Revolt. The inhabitants of Antwerp are locally nicknamed Sinjoren, after the Spanish honorific señor or French seigneur, "lord". It refers to the leading Spanish noblemen who ruled the city during the 17th century.[4]
History[edit]
See also: Timeline of Antwerp
Origin of the name[edit]
According to folklore, notably celebrated by a statue in front of the town hall, the city got its name from a legend involving a mythical giant called Antigoon who lived near the Scheldt river. He exacted a toll from those crossing the river, and for those who refused, he severed one of their hands and threw it into the river. Eventually, the giant was slain by a young hero named Brabo, who cut off the giant's own hand and flung it into the river. Hence the name Antwerpen, from Dutch hand werpen, akin to Old English hand and wearpan (to throw), which has evolved to today's warp.[5]
However, John Lothrop Motley argues that Antwerp's name derives from an 't werf (on the wharf).[6] Aan 't werp (at the warp) is also possible. This "warp" (thrown ground) is a man-made hill, just high enough to remain dry at high tide, whereupon a farm would be built. Another word for werp is pol (hence polders).
The prevalent theory is that the name originated in the Gallo-Roman period and comes from the Latin antverpia. Antverpia would come from Ante (before) Verpia (deposition, sedimentation), indicating land that forms by deposition in the inside curve of a river (which is in fact the same origin as Germanic waerpen). Note that the river Scheldt, before a transition period between 600 to 750, followed a different track. This must have coincided roughly with the current ringway south of the city, situating the city within a former curve of the river.[7]
Pre-1500[edit]
Historical Antwerp had its origins in a Gallo-Roman vicus civilization. Excavations carried out in the oldest section near the Scheldt, 1952–1961 (ref. Princeton), produced pottery shards and fragments of glass from mid-2nd century to the end of the 3rd century.
In the 4th century, Antwerp was first named, having been settled by the Germanic Franks.[8] The name was reputed to have been derived from "anda" (at) and "werpum" (wharf).[6]
The Merovingian Antwerp, now fortified, was evangelized by Saint Amand in the 7th century. At the end of the 10th century, the Scheldt became the boundary of the Holy Roman Empire. Antwerp became a margraviate, a border province facing the County of Flanders.
In the 11th century Godfrey of Bouillon was for some years known as the marquis of Antwerp. In the 12th century, Norbert of Xanten established a community of his Premonstratensian canons at St. Michael's Abbey at Caloes. Antwerp was also the headquarters of Edward III during his early negotiations with Jacob van Artevelde, and his son Lionel, the Duke of Clarence, was born there in 1338.
16th century[edit]
After the silting up of the Zwin and the consequent decline of Bruges, the city of Antwerp, then part of the Duchy of Brabant, gained in importance. At the end of the 15th century the foreign trading houses were transferred from Bruges to Antwerp, and the building assigned to the English nation is specifically mentioned in 1510. Antwerp became the sugar capital of Europe, importing product from Portuguese and Spanish plantations. The city attracted Italian and German sugar refiners by 1550, and shipped their refined product to Germany, especially Cologne.[9] Moneylenders and financiers did a large business loaning money to the English government in the 1544–1574 period. London bankers were too small to operate on that scale, and Antwerp had a highly efficient bourse that itself attracted rich bankers from around Europe. After the 1570s the city's banking business declined; England ended its borrowing in Antwerp in 1574.[10]
Fernand Braudel states that Antwerp became "the centre of the entire international economy, something Bruges had never been even at its height."[11] Antwerp was the richest city in Europe at this time.[12] Antwerp's golden age is tightly linked to the "Age of Exploration". Over the first half of the 16th century Antwerp grew to become the second-largest European city north of the Alps by 1560s with some 200,000 people.[13][14] Many foreign merchants were resident in the city. Francesco Guicciardini, the Venetian envoy, stated that hundreds of ships would pass in a day, and 2,000 carts entered the city each week. Portuguese ships laden with pepper and cinnamon would unload their cargo. According to Luc-Normand Tellier "It is estimated that the port of Antwerp was earning the Spanish crown seven times more revenues than the Americas."[15]
Without a long-distance merchant fleet, and governed by an oligarchy of banker-aristocrats forbidden to engage in trade, the economy of Antwerp was foreigner-controlled, which made the city very cosmopolitan, with merchants and traders from Venice, Ragusa, Spain and Portugal. Antwerp had a policy of toleration, which attracted a large orthodox Jewish community. Antwerp was not a "free" city though, since it had been reabsorbed into the Duchy of Brabant in 1406 and was controlled from Brussels.
Antwerp experienced three booms during its golden age: The first based on the pepper market, a second launched by American silver coming from Seville (ending with the bankruptcy of Spain in 1557), and a third boom, after the stabilising Treaty of Cateau-Cambresis, in 1559, based on the textiles industry. At the beginning of the 16th century Antwerp accounted for 40% of world trade.[15] The boom-and-bust cycles and inflationary cost-of-living squeezed less-skilled workers. In the century after 1541, however, the city's economy and population declined dramatically, while rival Amsterdam experienced massive growth.
The religious revolution of the Reformation erupted in violent riots in August 1566, as in other parts of the Low Countries. The regent Margaret, Duchess of Parma, was swept aside when Philip II sent the Duke of Alba at the head of an army the following summer. When the Eighty Years' War broke out in 1568, commercial trading between Antwerp and the Spanish port of Bilbao collapsed and became impossible. On 4 November 1576, Spanish soldiers plundered the city during the so-called Spanish Fury; 7,000 citizens were massacred, 800 houses were burnt down, and over 2 million sterling of damage was done.
Subsequently,the city joined the Union of Utrecht in 1579 and became the capital of the Dutch revolt. In 1585, Alessandro Farnese, Duke of Parma and Piacenza, captured it after a long siege and as part of the terms of surrender its Protestant citizens were given two years to settle their affairs before quitting the city.[16] Most went to the United Provinces in the north, starting the Dutch Golden Age. Antwerp's banking was controlled for a generation by Genoa, and Amsterdam became the new trading centre.
17th–19th centuries[edit]
Map of Antwerp (1624)
Antwerp and the river Scheldt, photochrom ca. 1890–1900
The recognition of the independence of the United Provinces by the Treaty of Münster in 1648 stipulated that the Scheldt should be closed to navigation, which destroyed Antwerp's trading activities. This impediment remained in force until 1863, although the provisions were relaxed during French rule from 1795 to 1814, and also during the time Belgium formed part of the Kingdom of the United Netherlands (1815 to 1830). Antwerp had reached the lowest point of its fortunes in 1800, and its population had sunk under 40,000, when Napoleon, realizing its strategic importance, assigned two million[clarification needed] to enlarge the harbour by constructing two docks and a mole and deepening the Scheldt to allow for larger ships to approach Antwerp.[12] Napoleon hoped that by making Antwerp's harbour the finest in Europe he would be able to counter London's harbour and stint British growth, but he was defeated at the Battle of Waterloo before he could see the plan through.[17]
Antwerp, Belgium, from the left bank of the Scheldt (ca. 1890-1900)
In 1830, the city was captured by the Belgian insurgents, but the citadel continued to be held by a Dutch garrison under General David Hendrik Chassé. For a time Chassé subjected the town to periodic bombardment which inflicted much damage, and at the end of 1832 the citadel itself was besieged by a French army. During this attack the town was further damaged. In December 1832, after a gallant defence, Chassé made an honourable surrender.
Later that century, a ring of fortresses was constructed some 10 km (6 mi) from the city centre, as Antwerp was considered vital for the survival of the young Belgian state. And in the last decade Antwerp presented itself to the world via a World's Fair attended by 3 million.[18]
20th century[edit]
Antwerp was the first city to host the World Gymnastics Championships, in 1903. During World War I, the city became the fallback point of the Belgian Army after the defeat at Liège. The Siege of Antwerp lasted for 11 days, but the city was taken after heavy fighting by the German Army, and the Belgians were forced to retreat westwards. Antwerp remained under German occupation until the Armistice.
Antwerp hosted the 1920 Summer Olympics. During World War II, the city was an important strategic target because of its port. It was occupied by Germany in May 1940 and liberated by the British 11th Armoured Division on 4 September 1944. After this, the Germans attempted to destroy the Port of Antwerp, which was used by the Allies to bring new material ashore. Thousands of Rheinbote, V-1 and V-2 missiles battered the city. The city was hit by more V-2s than all other targets during the entire war combined, but the attack did not succeed in destroying the port since many of the missiles fell upon other parts of the city. As a result, the city itself was severely damaged and rebuilt after the war in a modern style. After the war, Antwerp, which had already had a sizeable Jewish population before the war, once again became a major European centre of Haredi (and particularly Hasidic) Orthodox Judaism.
Ryckewaert argued for the importance of the Ten-Year Plan for the port of Antwerp (1956–1965). It expanded and modernized the port's infrastructure over a 10-year period, with national funding, intended to build a set of canal docks. The broader importance was to facilitate the growth of the north-eastern Antwerp metropolitan region, which attracted new industry. Extending the linear layout along the Scheldt River, planners designed further urbanization along the same linear city model. Satellite communities would be connected to the main strip. Ryckewaert, argues that in contrast to the more confused Europoort plan for the port of Rotterdam, the Antwerp approach succeeded because of flexible and strategic implementation of the project as a co-production between various authorities and private parties.[19]
Starting in the 1990s, Antwerp rebranded itself as a world-class fashion centre. Emphasizing the avant-garde, it tried to compete with London, Milan, New York and Paris. It emerged from organized tourism and mega-cultural events.[20]
No correspondence. Photogr. Vve G. Balleux-Mertens of Berchem-Zurenborg (Anvers).
A generously proportioned Prussian Landsturm infantryman from the 42nd Infanterie Brigade. Of note is the Ersatz pickelhaube and XXL size M1907/10 tunic.
During World War I, the city became the fallback point of the Belgian Army after the defeat at Liège. It was taken after heavy fighting by the German Army, and the Belgians were forced to retreat westward.
_______________________________________________
Notes:
XVIII Armee-korps (Hesse)
Bezirks-Kommando: (I) Frankfurt a.M. & Hanau & (II) Limburg an der Lahn & Wetzlar
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some Background:
The Hawker Typhoon was a British single-seat fighter-bomber, produced by Hawker Aircraft. It was intended to be a medium-high altitude interceptor, as a replacement for the Hawker Hurricane, but several design problems were encountered and it never completely satisfied this requirement.
Even before Hurricane production began in March 1937, Sydney Camm had embarked on designing its successor. Two preliminary designs were similar and were larger than the Hurricane. These later became known as the "N" and "R" (from the initial of the engine manufacturers), because they were designed for the newly developed Napier Sabre and Rolls-Royce Vulture engines respectively. Both engines used 24 cylinders and were designed for over 2,000 hp (1,500 kW); the difference between the two was primarily in the arrangement of the cylinders – an H-block in the Sabre and an X-block in the Vulture. Hawker submitted these preliminary designs in July 1937 but were advised to wait until a formal specification for a new fighter was issued.
In March 1938, Hawker received from the Air Ministry, Specification F.18/37 for a fighter which would be able to achieve at least 400 mph (640 km/h) at 15,000 feet (4,600 m) and specified a British engine with a two-speed supercharger. The armament fitted was to be twelve 0.303” Browning machine guns with 500 rounds per gun, with a provision for alternative combinations of weaponry. The basic design of the Typhoon was a combination of traditional Hawker construction, as used in the earlier Hawker Hurricane, and more modern construction techniques; the front fuselage structure, from the engine mountings to the rear of the cockpit, was made up of bolted and welded duralumin or steel tubes covered with skin panels, while the rear fuselage was a flush-riveted, semi-monocoque structure. The forward fuselage and cockpit skinning was made up of large, removable duralumin panels, allowing easy external access to the engine and engine accessories and most of the important hydraulic and electrical equipment.
The Typhoon’s service introduction in mid-1941 was plagued with problems and for several months the aircraft faced a doubtful future. When the Luftwaffe brought the new Focke-Wulf Fw 190 into service in 1941, the Typhoon was the only RAF fighter capable of catching it at low altitudes; as a result it secured a new role as a low-altitude interceptor.
By 1943, the RAF needed a ground attack fighter more than a "pure" fighter and the Typhoon was suited to the role (and less-suited to the pure fighter role than competing aircraft such as the Spitfire Mk IX). The powerful engine allowed the aircraft to carry a load of up to two 1,000 pounds (450 kg) bombs, equal to the light bombers of only a few years earlier. Furthermore, from early 1943 the wings were plumbed and adapted to carry cylindrical 45 imp gal (200 l; 54 US gal) drop tanks increasing the Typhoon's range from 690 miles (1,110 km) to up to 1,090 miles (1,750 km). This enabled Typhoons to range deep into France, the Netherlands and Belgium.
From September 1943, Typhoons were also armed with four "60 lb" RP-3 rockets under each wing. Although the rocket projectiles were inaccurate and took considerable skill to aim and allow for ballistic drop after firing, "the sheer firepower of just one Typhoon was equivalent to a destroyer's broadside".
By the end of 1943, eighteen rocket-equipped Typhoon squadrons formed the basis of the RAF Second Tactical Air Force (2nd TAF) ground attack arm in Europe. In theory, the rocket rails and bomb-racks were interchangeable; in practice, to simplify supply, some used the rockets only, while other squadrons were armed exclusively with bombs, what also allowed individual units to more finely hone their skills with their assigned weapons.
The Typhoon was initially exclusively operated in the European theatre of operations, but in 1944 it was clear that a dedicated variant might become useful for the RAF’s operations in South-East Asia. In the meantime, Hawker had also developed what was originally an improved Typhoon II, but the differences between it and the Mk I were so great that it was effectively a different aircraft, and it was renamed the Hawker Tempest. However, as a fallback option and as a stopgap filler for the SEAC, Hawker also developed the Typhoon Mk. IV, a tropicalized late Mk. I with a bubble canopy and powered by the new Bristol Centaurus radial engine that could better cope with high ambient temperatures than the original liquid-cooled Sabre engine. The Centaurus IV chosen for the Typhoon Mk. IV also offered slightly more power than the Sabre and the benefit of reduced vulnerability to small arms fire at low altitude, since the large and vulnerable chin cooler could be dispensed with.
3,518 Typhoons of all variants were eventually built, 201 of them late Mk. IVs, almost all by Gloster. Once the war in Europe was over Typhoons were quickly removed from front-line squadrons; by October 1945 the Typhoon was no longer in operational use, with many of the wartime Typhoon units such as 198 Squadron being either disbanded or renumbered.
The SEAC’s few operational Mk IVs soldiered on, however, were partly mothballed after 1945 and eventually in 1947 handed over or donated to regional nascent air forces after their countries’ independence like India, Pakistan or Burma, where they served as fighters and fighter bombers well into the Sixties.
The Burmese Air Force; initially only called “The military”, since there was no differentiation between the army’s nascent servies, was founded on 16 January 1947, while Burma (as Myanmar was known until 1989) was still under British rule. By 1948, the fleet of the new air force included 40 Airspeed Oxfords, 16 de Havilland Tiger Moths, four Austers, and eight Typhoon Mk. IVs as well as three Supermarine Spitfires transferred from the Royal Air Force and had a few hundred personnel.
The Mingaladon Air Base HQ, the main air base in the country, was formed on 16 June 1950. No.1 Squadron, Equipment Holding Unit and Air High Command - Burma Air Force, and the Flying Training School, were placed under the jurisdiction of the base. A few months later, on 18 December 1950, No. 2 Squadron was formed with nine Douglas Dakotas as a transport squadron. In 1953, the Advanced Flying Unit was formed under the Mingaladon Air Base with de Havilland Vampire T55s, and by the end of 1953 the Burmese Air Force had three main airbases, at Mingaladon, Hmawbi, and Meiktila, in central Burma.
In 1953, the Burmese Air Force bought 30 Supermarine Spitfires from Israel and 20 Supermarine Seafires as well as 22 more Typhoon Mk. IVs from the United Kingdom. In 1954 it bought 40 Percival Provost T-53s and 8 de Havilland Vampire Mark T55s from the United Kingdom and two years later, in 1956, the Burmese Air Force bought 10 Cessna 180 aircraft from the United States. The same year, 6 Kawasaki Bell 47Gs formed its first helicopter unit. The following year, the Burmese Air Force procured 21 Hawker Sea Fury aircraft from the United Kingdom and 9 de Havilland Canada DHC-3 Otters from Canada. In 1958, it procured 7 additional Kawasaki Bell 47Gs and 12 Vertol H-21 Shawnees from the United States. Five years later, No. 503 Squadron Group was formed with No. 51 Squadron (de Havilland Canada DHC-3 Otters and Cessna 180s) and No. 53 Squadron (Bell 47Gs, Kaman HH-43 Huskies, and Aérospatiale Alouettes) in Meiktila.
When the non-Burman ethnic groups pushed for autonomy or federalism, alongside having a weak civilian government at the center, the military leadership staged a coup d'état in 1962, and this was the only conflict in which the aging Burmese Typhoons became involved. On 2 March 1962, the military led by General Ne Win took control of Burma through a coup d'état, and the government had been under direct or indirect control by the military since then. Between 1962 and 1974, Myanmar was ruled by a revolutionary council headed by the general. Almost all aspects of society (business, media, production) were nationalized or brought under government control under the Burmese Way to Socialism, which combined Soviet-style nationalization and central planning, and also meant the end of operation of many aircraft of Western origin, including the last surviving Burmese Typhoons, which were probably retired by 1964. The last piston engine fighters in Burmese service, the Hawker Sea Furies, are believed to have been phased out in 1968.
General characteristics:
Crew: One
Length: 32 ft 6 in (9.93 m)
Wingspan: 41 ft 7 in (12.67 m)
Height: 15 ft 4 in (4.67 m)
Wing area: 279 sq ft (25.9 m²)
Airfoil: root: NACA 2219; tip: NACA 2213
Empty weight: 8,840 lb (4,010 kg)
Gross weight: 11,400 lb (5,171 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 13,250 lb (6,010 kg) with two 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs
Powerplant:
1× Bristol Centaurus IV 18-cylinder air-cooled radial engine with 2,210 hp (1,648 kW) take-off
power, driving a 4-bladed Rotol constant-speed propeller
Performance:
Maximum speed: 412 mph (663 km/h, 358 kn) at 19,000 ft (5,800 m)
Stall speed: 88 mph (142 km/h, 76 kn)
Range: 510 mi (820 km, 440 nmi) with two 500 lb (230 kg) bombs;
690 mi (1,110 km) "clean";
1,090 mi (1,750 km) with two 45 imp gal (200 l; 54 US gal) drop tanks.[65]
Service ceiling: 35,200 ft (10,700 m)
Rate of climb: 2,740 ft/min (13.9 m/s)
Wing loading: 40.9 lb/sq ft (200 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.20 hp/lb (0.33 kW/kg)
Armament:
4× 20 mm (0.787 in) Hispano Mk II cannon in the outer wings with 200 rpg
Underwing hardpoints for 8× RP-3 unguided air-to-ground rockets,
or 2× 500 lb (230 kg) or 2× 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs or a pair of drop tanks
The kit and its assembly:
The Hawker Typhoon is IMHO an overlooked WWII aircraft, and it’s also “underwiffed”. I have actually built no single Typhoon in my 45 years of model kit building - time to change that!
Inspiration was a lot of buzz in the model kit builder community after KP’s launch of several Hawker Tempest kits, with all major variants including the Sabre- and Centaurus-powered types. While the Tempest quickly outpaced the Typhoon in real life and took the glory, I wondered about a Centaurus-powered version for the SEA theatre of operations – similar to the Tempest Mk. II, which just came too late to become involved in the conflict against the Japanese forces. A similar Typhoon variant could have arrived a couple of months earlier, though.
Technically, this conversion is just an Academy Hawker Typhoon Mk Ib (a late variant without the “car door”, a strutless bubble canopy and a four-blade propeller) mated with the optional Centaurus front end from a Matchbox Hawker Tempest. Sounds simple, but there are subtle dimensional differences between the types/kits, and the wing roots of the Matchbox kit differ from the Academy kit, so that the engine/fuselage intersection as well as the wing roots called for some tailoring and PSR. However, the result of this transplantation stunt looked better and more natural than expected! Since I did not want to add extra fairings for air carburetor and oil cooler to the Wings (as on the Tempest), I gave the new creation a generous single fairing for both under the nose – the space between the wide landing gear wells offered a perfect location, and I used a former Spitfire radiator as donor part. The rest, including the unguided missiles under the wings was ordnance, was taken OOB, and the propeller (from the Academy kit) received an adapter consisting of styrene tubes to match it with the Matchbox kit’s engine and its opening for the propeller axis.
Painting and markings:
This was initially a challenge since the early Burmese aircraft were apparently kept in bare metal or painted in silver overall. This would certainly have looked interesting on a Typhoon, too – but then I found a picture of a Spitfire (UB 421) at Myanmar's Air Force Museum at Naypyidaw, which carries camouflage – I doubt that it is authentic, though, at least the colors, which markedly differ from RAF Dark Green/Dark Earth and the bright blue undersides also look rather fishy. But it was this paint scheme that I adapted for my Burmese Typhoon with Modelmaster 2027 (FS 34096, B-52 Dark Green, a rather greyish and light tone) and 2107 (French WWII Chestnut, a reddish, rich chocolate brown tone) from above and Humbrol 145 (FS 35237, USN Gray Blue) below – a less garish tone.
As usual, the model received a black ink washing and post-panel-shading for dramatic effect; the cockpit interior became very dark grey (Revell 06 Anthracite) while the landing gear became Medium Sea Grey (Humbrol 165), as a reminder of the former operator of the aircraft and its painting standards. The red spinner as well as the red-and-white-checkered rudder were inspired by Burmese Hawker Sea Furies, a nice contrast to the camouflage. It's also a decal, from a tabletop miniatures accessory sheet. This contrast was furthermore underlined through the bright and colorful national markings, which come from a Carpena decal sheet for exotic Spitfires, just the tactical code was changed.
After some signs of wear with dry-brushed silver and some graphite soot stains around the exhausts and the guns the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.
Voilà, a whiffy Hawker Typhoon – and it looks better than expected. Not only does the brawny Centaurus look good on the rather burly Typhoon, the transplantation worked out better than expected, too. However, with the radial engine the Typhoon looks even more like an Fw 190 on steroids?
{"type":"elementor","siteurl":"https://marcofedermann.de/wp-json/","elements":[{"id":"2446903","elType":"widget","isInner":false,"isLocked":false,"settings":{"editor":"Liebe Freunde der Geschichte und der lebendigen Vergangenheit,heute möchte ich euch einen kurzen Rückblick auf die Historische Gefechtsdarstellung und den Biwak vom 16. September 2023 geben, an dem ich teilnehmen durfte. Dieser Tag war ein wahres Fest für Geschichtsbegeisterte und Freunde des Reenactments.Es war eine Freude, alte Freunde in Uniform wiederzusehen und gemeinsam in die Welt des Jahres 1813 einzutauchen. Die Schlacht an der Göhrde wurde mit beeindruckender Detailtreue nachgestellt und ich konnte nicht umhin, die Atmosphäre und die Hingabe der Teilnehmer zu bewundern.Währenddessen hatte ich die Gelegenheit, 4566 Fotos zu schießen, um die faszinierenden Momente dieses historischen Ereignisses festzuhalten. Die Reenactors, die Uniformen, die Waffen und das Lagerleben - all das fesselte mich und weckte die Vergangenheit zum Leben.Leider kann ich morgen nicht am letzten Tag der Veranstaltung teilnehmen, da private Verpflichtungen mich in Anspruch nehmen. Dennoch freue ich mich darauf, nach und nach meine Fotos auszuwerten und meine Eindrücke mit euch zu teilen. Es ist immer wieder erstaunlich, wie das Reenactment uns die Geschichte auf so lebendige Weise näherbringt.Ich hoffe, ihr hattet ebenfalls eine großartige Zeit und konntet diese einzigartige Erfahrung genießen. Bis bald, wenn ich meine Werke mit euch teilen werde!Historische Grüße Marco Federmann","pp_display_conditions":[{"_id":"40fce29","pp_condition_key":"authentication","pp_condition_shortcode_name":"","pp_condition_operator":"is","pp_condition_authentication_value":"authenticated","pp_condition_user_value":"","pp_condition_role_value":"subscriber","pp_condition_visitor_type_value":"new","pp_condition_page_value":"","pp_condition_post_value":"","pp_condition_static_page_value":"home","pp_condition_post_term_value":"","pp_condition_post_type_value":"","pp_condition_taxonomy_archive_value":"","pp_condition_term_archive_value":"","pp_condition_post_type_archive_value":"","pp_condition_date_archive_value":"","pp_condition_author_archive_value":"","pp_condition_search_results_value":"","pp_condition_date_value":"2023-09-13 to 2023-09-19","pp_condition_date_time_before_value":"2023-09-19 21:33","pp_condition_time_value":"","pp_condition_day_value":"1","pp_condition_os_value":"iphone","pp_condition_browser_value":"ie","pp_condition_search-bot_value":"all_search_bots","pp_condition_shortcode_value":"","pp_condition_request_parameter_value":""}],"pp_elements_tooltip_content":"Tooltip Content","drop_cap":"","text_columns":"","text_columns_tablet":"","text_columns_mobile":"","column_gap":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"column_gap_tablet":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"column_gap_mobile":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"align":"","align_tablet":"","align_mobile":"","text_color":"","typography_typography":"","typography_font_family":"","typography_font_size":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"typography_font_size_tablet":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"typography_font_size_mobile":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"typography_font_weight":"","typography_text_transform":"","typography_font_style":"","typography_text_decoration":"","typography_line_height":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"typography_line_height_tablet":{"unit":"em","size":"","sizes":[]},"typography_line_height_mobile":{"unit":"em","size":"","sizes":[]},"typography_letter_spacing":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"typography_letter_spacing_tablet":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"typography_letter_spacing_mobile":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"typography_word_spacing":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"typography_word_spacing_tablet":{"unit":"em","size":"","sizes":[]},"typography_word_spacing_mobile":{"unit":"em","size":"","sizes":[]},"text_shadow_text_shadow_type":"","text_shadow_text_shadow":{"horizontal":0,"vertical":0,"blur":10,"color":"rgba(0,0,0,0.3)"},"drop_cap_view":"default","drop_cap_primary_color":"","drop_cap_secondary_color":"","drop_cap_shadow_text_shadow_type":"","drop_cap_shadow_text_shadow":{"horizontal":0,"vertical":0,"blur":10,"color":"rgba(0,0,0,0.3)"},"drop_cap_size":{"unit":"px","size":5,"sizes":[]},"drop_cap_space":{"unit":"px","size":10,"sizes":[]},"drop_cap_border_radius":{"unit":"%","size":"","sizes":[]},"drop_cap_border_width":{"unit":"px","top":"","right":"","bottom":"","left":"","isLinked":true},"drop_cap_typography_typography":"","drop_cap_typography_font_family":"","drop_cap_typography_font_size":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"drop_cap_typography_font_size_tablet":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"drop_cap_typography_font_size_mobile":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"drop_cap_typography_font_weight":"","drop_cap_typography_text_transform":"","drop_cap_typography_font_style":"","drop_cap_typography_text_decoration":"","drop_cap_typography_line_height":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"drop_cap_typography_line_height_tablet":{"unit":"em","size":"","sizes":[]},"drop_cap_typography_line_height_mobile":{"unit":"em","size":"","sizes":[]},"drop_cap_typography_word_spacing":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"drop_cap_typography_word_spacing_tablet":{"unit":"em","size":"","sizes":[]},"drop_cap_typography_word_spacing_mobile":{"unit":"em","size":"","sizes":[]},"_title":"","_margin":{"unit":"px","top":"","right":"","bottom":"","left":"","isLinked":true},"_margin_tablet":{"unit":"px","top":"","right":"","bottom":"","left":"","isLinked":true},"_margin_mobile":{"unit":"px","top":"","right":"","bottom":"","left":"","isLinked":true},"_padding":{"unit":"px","top":"","right":"","bottom":"","left":"","isLinked":true},"_padding_tablet":{"unit":"px","top":"","right":"","bottom":"","left":"","isLinked":true},"_padding_mobile":{"unit":"px","top":"","right":"","bottom":"","left":"","isLinked":true},"_element_width":"","_element_width_tablet":"","_element_width_mobile":"","_element_custom_width":{"unit":"%","size":"","sizes":[]},"_element_custom_width_tablet":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_element_custom_width_mobile":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_element_vertical_align":"","_element_vertical_align_tablet":"","_element_vertical_align_mobile":"","_position":"","_offset_orientation_h":"start","_offset_x":{"unit":"px","size":"0","sizes":[]},"_offset_x_tablet":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_offset_x_mobile":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_offset_x_end":{"unit":"px","size":"0","sizes":[]},"_offset_x_end_tablet":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_offset_x_end_mobile":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_offset_orientation_v":"start","_offset_y":{"unit":"px","size":"0","sizes":[]},"_offset_y_tablet":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_offset_y_mobile":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_offset_y_end":{"unit":"px","size":"0","sizes":[]},"_offset_y_end_tablet":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_offset_y_end_mobile":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_z_index":"","_z_index_tablet":"","_z_index_mobile":"","_element_id":"","_css_classes":"","pp_display_conditions_enable":"","pp_display_conditions_output":"","pp_display_conditions_relation":"all","pp_wrapper_link_enable":"","pp_wrapper_link":{"url":"","is_external":"","nofollow":"","custom_attributes":""},"pp_custom_cursor_enable":"","pp_custom_cursor_target":"container","pp_custom_cursor_css_selector":"","pp_custom_cursor_type":"image","pp_custom_cursor_icon":{"url":"","id":"","size":""},"pp_custom_cursor_text":"","pp_custom_cursor_left_offset":{"unit":"px","size":0,"sizes":[]},"pp_custom_cursor_top_offset":{"unit":"px","size":0,"sizes":[]},"pp_custom_cursor_text_typography_typography":"","pp_custom_cursor_text_typography_font_family":"","pp_custom_cursor_text_typography_font_size":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"pp_custom_cursor_text_typography_font_size_tablet":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"pp_custom_cursor_text_typography_font_size_mobile":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"pp_custom_cursor_text_typography_font_weight":"","pp_custom_cursor_text_typography_text_transform":"","pp_custom_cursor_text_typography_font_style":"","pp_custom_cursor_text_typography_text_decoration":"","pp_custom_cursor_text_typography_line_height":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"pp_custom_cursor_text_typography_line_height_tablet":{"unit":"em","size":"","sizes":[]},"pp_custom_cursor_text_typography_line_height_mobile":{"unit":"em","size":"","sizes":[]},"pp_custom_cursor_text_typography_letter_spacing":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"pp_custom_cursor_text_typography_letter_spacing_tablet":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"pp_custom_cursor_text_typography_letter_spacing_mobile":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"pp_custom_cursor_text_typography_word_spacing":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"pp_custom_cursor_text_typography_word_spacing_tablet":{"unit":"em","size":"","sizes":[]},"pp_custom_cursor_text_typography_word_spacing_mobile":{"unit":"em","size":"","sizes":[]},"pp_custom_cursor_text_color":"","pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_background":"","pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_color":"","pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_color_stop":{"unit":"%","size":0,"sizes":[]},"pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_color_b":"#f2295b","pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_color_b_stop":{"unit":"%","size":100,"sizes":[]},"pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_gradient_type":"linear","pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_gradient_angle":{"unit":"deg","size":180,"sizes":[]},"pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_gradient_position":"center center","pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_position":"","pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_position_tablet":"","pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_position_mobile":"","pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_xpos":{"unit":"px","size":0,"sizes":[]},"pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_xpos_tablet":{"unit":"px","size":0,"sizes":[]},"pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_xpos_mobile":{"unit":"px","size":0,"sizes":[]},"pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_ypos":{"unit":"px","size":0,"sizes":[]},"pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_ypos_tablet":{"unit":"px","size":0,"sizes":[]},"pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_ypos_mobile":{"unit":"px","size":0,"sizes":[]},"pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_attachment":"","pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_repeat":"","pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_repeat_tablet":"","pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_repeat_mobile":"","pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_size":"","pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_size_tablet":"","pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_size_mobile":"","pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_bg_width":{"unit":"%","size":100,"sizes":[]},"pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_bg_width_tablet":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_bg_width_mobile":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_video_link":"","pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_video_start":"","pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_video_end":"","pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_play_once":"","pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_play_on_mobile":"","pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_privacy_mode":"","pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_video_fallback":{"url":"","id":"","size":""},"pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_slideshow_gallery":[],"pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_slideshow_loop":"yes","pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_slideshow_slide_duration":5000,"pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_slideshow_slide_transition":"fade","pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_slideshow_transition_duration":500,"pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_slideshow_background_size":"","pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_slideshow_background_size_tablet":"","pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_slideshow_background_size_mobile":"","pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_slideshow_background_position":"","pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_slideshow_background_position_tablet":"","pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_slideshow_background_position_mobile":"","pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_slideshow_lazyload":"","pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_slideshow_ken_burns":"","pp_custom_cursor_text_bg_slideshow_ken_burns_zoom_direction":"in","pp_custom_cursor_text_border_border":"","pp_custom_cursor_text_border_width":{"unit":"px","top":"","right":"","bottom":"","left":"","isLinked":true},"pp_custom_cursor_text_border_width_tablet":{"unit":"px","top":"","right":"","bottom":"","left":"","isLinked":true},"pp_custom_cursor_text_border_width_mobile":{"unit":"px","top":"","right":"","bottom":"","left":"","isLinked":true},"pp_custom_cursor_text_border_color":"","pp_custom_cursor_text_border_radius":{"unit":"px","top":"","right":"","bottom":"","left":"","isLinked":true},"pp_custom_cursor_text_padding":{"unit":"px","top":"","right":"","bottom":"","left":"","isLinked":true},"pp_custom_cursor_text_padding_tablet":{"unit":"px","top":"","right":"","bottom":"","left":"","isLinked":true},"pp_custom_cursor_text_padding_mobile":{"unit":"px","top":"","right":"","bottom":"","left":"","isLinked":true},"pp_elements_tooltip_enable":"","pp_elements_tooltip_target":"current","pp_elements_tooltip_selector":"","pp_elements_tooltip_trigger":"hover","pp_elements_tooltip_position":"top","pp_elements_tooltip_arrow":"yes","pp_elements_tooltip_animation":"fade","pp_elements_tooltip_distance":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"pp_elements_tooltip_zindex":99,"pp_elements_tooltip_bg_color":"","pp_elements_tooltip_color":"","pp_elements_tooltip_typography_typography":"","pp_elements_tooltip_typography_font_family":"","pp_elements_tooltip_typography_font_size":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"pp_elements_tooltip_typography_font_size_tablet":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"pp_elements_tooltip_typography_font_size_mobile":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"pp_elements_tooltip_typography_font_weight":"","pp_elements_tooltip_typography_text_transform":"","pp_elements_tooltip_typography_font_style":"","pp_elements_tooltip_typography_text_decoration":"","pp_elements_tooltip_typography_line_height":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"pp_elements_tooltip_typography_line_height_tablet":{"unit":"em","size":"","sizes":[]},"pp_elements_tooltip_typography_line_height_mobile":{"unit":"em","size":"","sizes":[]},"pp_elements_tooltip_typography_letter_spacing":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"pp_elements_tooltip_typography_letter_spacing_tablet":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"pp_elements_tooltip_typography_letter_spacing_mobile":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"pp_elements_tooltip_typography_word_spacing":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"pp_elements_tooltip_typography_word_spacing_tablet":{"unit":"em","size":"","sizes":[]},"pp_elements_tooltip_typography_word_spacing_mobile":{"unit":"em","size":"","sizes":[]},"pp_elements_tooltip_box_shadow_box_shadow_type":"","pp_elements_tooltip_box_shadow_box_shadow":{"horizontal":0,"vertical":0,"blur":10,"spread":0,"color":"rgba(0,0,0,0.5)"},"pp_elements_tooltip_box_shadow_box_shadow_position":" ","pp_elements_tooltip_border_border":"","pp_elements_tooltip_border_width":{"unit":"px","top":"","right":"","bottom":"","left":"","isLinked":true},"pp_elements_tooltip_border_width_tablet":{"unit":"px","top":"","right":"","bottom":"","left":"","isLinked":true},"pp_elements_tooltip_border_width_mobile":{"unit":"px","top":"","right":"","bottom":"","left":"","isLinked":true},"pp_elements_tooltip_border_color":"","pp_elements_tooltip_border_radius":{"unit":"px","top":"","right":"","bottom":"","left":"","isLinked":true},"pp_elements_tooltip_padding":{"unit":"px","top":"","right":"","bottom":"","left":"","isLinked":true},"pp_elements_tooltip_padding_tablet":{"unit":"px","top":"","right":"","bottom":"","left":"","isLinked":true},"pp_elements_tooltip_padding_mobile":{"unit":"px","top":"","right":"","bottom":"","left":"","isLinked":true},"pp_elements_tooltip_width":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"motion_fx_motion_fx_scrolling":"","motion_fx_translateY_effect":"","motion_fx_translateY_direction":"","motion_fx_translateY_speed":{"unit":"px","size":4,"sizes":[]},"motion_fx_translateY_affectedRange":{"unit":"%","size":"","sizes":{"start":0,"end":100}},"motion_fx_translateX_effect":"","motion_fx_translateX_direction":"","motion_fx_translateX_speed":{"unit":"px","size":4,"sizes":[]},"motion_fx_translateX_affectedRange":{"unit":"%","size":"","sizes":{"start":0,"end":100}},"motion_fx_opacity_effect":"","motion_fx_opacity_direction":"out-in","motion_fx_opacity_level":{"unit":"px","size":10,"sizes":[]},"motion_fx_opacity_range":{"unit":"%","size":"","sizes":{"start":20,"end":80}},"motion_fx_blur_effect":"","motion_fx_blur_direction":"out-in","motion_fx_blur_level":{"unit":"px","size":7,"sizes":[]},"motion_fx_blur_range":{"unit":"%","size":"","sizes":{"start":20,"end":80}},"motion_fx_rotateZ_effect":"","motion_fx_rotateZ_direction":"","motion_fx_rotateZ_speed":{"unit":"px","size":1,"sizes":[]},"motion_fx_rotateZ_affectedRange":{"unit":"%","size":"","sizes":{"start":0,"end":100}},"motion_fx_scale_effect":"","motion_fx_scale_direction":"out-in","motion_fx_scale_speed":{"unit":"px","size":4,"sizes":[]},"motion_fx_scale_range":{"unit":"%","size":"","sizes":{"start":20,"end":80}},"motion_fx_transform_origin_x":"center","motion_fx_transform_origin_y":"center","motion_fx_devices":["desktop","tablet","mobile"],"motion_fx_range":"","motion_fx_motion_fx_mouse":"","motion_fx_mouseTrack_effect":"","motion_fx_mouseTrack_direction":"","motion_fx_mouseTrack_speed":{"unit":"px","size":1,"sizes":[]},"motion_fx_tilt_effect":"","motion_fx_tilt_direction":"","motion_fx_tilt_speed":{"unit":"px","size":4,"sizes":[]},"sticky":"","sticky_on":["desktop","tablet","mobile"],"sticky_offset":0,"sticky_offset_tablet":"","sticky_offset_mobile":"","sticky_effects_offset":0,"sticky_effects_offset_tablet":"","sticky_effects_offset_mobile":"","sticky_parent":"","_animation":"","_animation_tablet":"","_animation_mobile":"","animation_duration":"","_animation_delay":"","_transform_rotate_popover":"","_transform_rotateZ_effect":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_rotateZ_effect_tablet":{"unit":"deg","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_rotateZ_effect_mobile":{"unit":"deg","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_rotate_3d":"","_transform_rotateX_effect":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_rotateX_effect_tablet":{"unit":"deg","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_rotateX_effect_mobile":{"unit":"deg","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_rotateY_effect":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_rotateY_effect_tablet":{"unit":"deg","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_rotateY_effect_mobile":{"unit":"deg","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_perspective_effect":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_perspective_effect_tablet":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_perspective_effect_mobile":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_translate_popover":"","_transform_translateX_effect":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_translateX_effect_tablet":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_translateX_effect_mobile":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_translateY_effect":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_translateY_effect_tablet":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_translateY_effect_mobile":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_scale_popover":"","_transform_keep_proportions":"yes","_transform_scale_effect":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_scale_effect_tablet":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_scale_effect_mobile":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_scaleX_effect":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_scaleX_effect_tablet":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_scaleX_effect_mobile":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_scaleY_effect":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_scaleY_effect_tablet":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_scaleY_effect_mobile":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_skew_popover":"","_transform_skewX_effect":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_skewX_effect_tablet":{"unit":"deg","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_skewX_effect_mobile":{"unit":"deg","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_skewY_effect":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_skewY_effect_tablet":{"unit":"deg","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_skewY_effect_mobile":{"unit":"deg","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_flipX_effect":"","_transform_flipY_effect":"","_transform_rotate_popover_hover":"","_transform_rotateZ_effect_hover":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_rotateZ_effect_hover_tablet":{"unit":"deg","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_rotateZ_effect_hover_mobile":{"unit":"deg","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_rotate_3d_hover":"","_transform_rotateX_effect_hover":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_rotateX_effect_hover_tablet":{"unit":"deg","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_rotateX_effect_hover_mobile":{"unit":"deg","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_rotateY_effect_hover":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_rotateY_effect_hover_tablet":{"unit":"deg","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_rotateY_effect_hover_mobile":{"unit":"deg","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_perspective_effect_hover":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_perspective_effect_hover_tablet":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_perspective_effect_hover_mobile":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_translate_popover_hover":"","_transform_translateX_effect_hover":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_translateX_effect_hover_tablet":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_translateX_effect_hover_mobile":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_translateY_effect_hover":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_translateY_effect_hover_tablet":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_translateY_effect_hover_mobile":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_scale_popover_hover":"","_transform_keep_proportions_hover":"yes","_transform_scale_effect_hover":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_scale_effect_hover_tablet":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_scale_effect_hover_mobile":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_scaleX_effect_hover":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_scaleX_effect_hover_tablet":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_scaleX_effect_hover_mobile":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_scaleY_effect_hover":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_scaleY_effect_hover_tablet":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_scaleY_effect_hover_mobile":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_skew_popover_hover":"","_transform_skewX_effect_hover":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_skewX_effect_hover_tablet":{"unit":"deg","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_skewX_effect_hover_mobile":{"unit":"deg","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_skewY_effect_hover":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_skewY_effect_hover_tablet":{"unit":"deg","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_skewY_effect_hover_mobile":{"unit":"deg","size":"","sizes":[]},"_transform_flipX_effect_hover":"","_transform_flipY_effect_hover":"","_transform_transition_hover":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"motion_fx_transform_x_anchor_point":"","motion_fx_transform_x_anchor_point_tablet":"","motion_fx_transform_x_anchor_point_mobile":"","motion_fx_transform_y_anchor_point":"","motion_fx_transform_y_anchor_point_tablet":"","motion_fx_transform_y_anchor_point_mobile":"","_background_background":"","_background_color":"","_background_color_stop":{"unit":"%","size":0,"sizes":[]},"_background_color_b":"#f2295b","_background_color_b_stop":{"unit":"%","size":100,"sizes":[]},"_background_gradient_type":"linear","_background_gradient_angle":{"unit":"deg","size":180,"sizes":[]},"_background_gradient_position":"center center","_background_image":{"url":"","id":"","size":""},"_background_image_tablet":{"url":"","id":"","size":""},"_background_image_mobile":{"url":"","id":"","size":""},"_background_position":"","_background_position_tablet":"","_background_position_mobile":"","_background_xpos":{"unit":"px","size":0,"sizes":[]},"_background_xpos_tablet":{"unit":"px","size":0,"sizes":[]},"_background_xpos_mobile":{"unit":"px","size":0,"sizes":[]},"_background_ypos":{"unit":"px","size":0,"sizes":[]},"_background_ypos_tablet":{"unit":"px","size":0,"sizes":[]},"_background_ypos_mobile":{"unit":"px","size":0,"sizes":[]},"_background_attachment":"","_background_repeat":"","_background_repeat_tablet":"","_background_repeat_mobile":"","_background_size":"","_background_size_tablet":"","_background_size_mobile":"","_background_bg_width":{"unit":"%","size":100,"sizes":[]},"_background_bg_width_tablet":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_background_bg_width_mobile":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_background_video_link":"","_background_video_start":"","_background_video_end":"","_background_play_once":"","_background_play_on_mobile":"","_background_privacy_mode":"","_background_video_fallback":{"url":"","id":"","size":""},"_background_slideshow_gallery":[],"_background_slideshow_loop":"yes","_background_slideshow_slide_duration":5000,"_background_slideshow_slide_transition":"fade","_background_slideshow_transition_duration":500,"_background_slideshow_background_size":"","_background_slideshow_background_size_tablet":"","_background_slideshow_background_size_mobile":"","_background_slideshow_background_position":"","_background_slideshow_background_position_tablet":"","_background_slideshow_background_position_mobile":"","_background_slideshow_lazyload":"","_background_slideshow_ken_burns":"","_background_slideshow_ken_burns_zoom_direction":"in","_background_hover_background":"","_background_hover_color":"","_background_hover_color_stop":{"unit":"%","size":0,"sizes":[]},"_background_hover_color_b":"#f2295b","_background_hover_color_b_stop":{"unit":"%","size":100,"sizes":[]},"_background_hover_gradient_type":"linear","_background_hover_gradient_angle":{"unit":"deg","size":180,"sizes":[]},"_background_hover_gradient_position":"center center","_background_hover_image":{"url":"","id":"","size":""},"_background_hover_image_tablet":{"url":"","id":"","size":""},"_background_hover_image_mobile":{"url":"","id":"","size":""},"_background_hover_position":"","_background_hover_position_tablet":"","_background_hover_position_mobile":"","_background_hover_xpos":{"unit":"px","size":0,"sizes":[]},"_background_hover_xpos_tablet":{"unit":"px","size":0,"sizes":[]},"_background_hover_xpos_mobile":{"unit":"px","size":0,"sizes":[]},"_background_hover_ypos":{"unit":"px","size":0,"sizes":[]},"_background_hover_ypos_tablet":{"unit":"px","size":0,"sizes":[]},"_background_hover_ypos_mobile":{"unit":"px","size":0,"sizes":[]},"_background_hover_attachment":"","_background_hover_repeat":"","_background_hover_repeat_tablet":"","_background_hover_repeat_mobile":"","_background_hover_size":"","_background_hover_size_tablet":"","_background_hover_size_mobile":"","_background_hover_bg_width":{"unit":"%","size":100,"sizes":[]},"_background_hover_bg_width_tablet":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_background_hover_bg_width_mobile":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_background_hover_video_link":"","_background_hover_video_start":"","_background_hover_video_end":"","_background_hover_play_once":"","_background_hover_play_on_mobile":"","_background_hover_privacy_mode":"","_background_hover_video_fallback":{"url":"","id":"","size":""},"_background_hover_slideshow_gallery":[],"_background_hover_slideshow_loop":"yes","_background_hover_slideshow_slide_duration":5000,"_background_hover_slideshow_slide_transition":"fade","_background_hover_slideshow_transition_duration":500,"_background_hover_slideshow_background_size":"","_background_hover_slideshow_background_size_tablet":"","_background_hover_slideshow_background_size_mobile":"","_background_hover_slideshow_background_position":"","_background_hover_slideshow_background_position_tablet":"","_background_hover_slideshow_background_position_mobile":"","_background_hover_slideshow_lazyload":"","_background_hover_slideshow_ken_burns":"","_background_hover_slideshow_ken_burns_zoom_direction":"in","_background_hover_transition":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_border_border":"","_border_width":{"unit":"px","top":"","right":"","bottom":"","left":"","isLinked":true},"_border_width_tablet":{"unit":"px","top":"","right":"","bottom":"","left":"","isLinked":true},"_border_width_mobile":{"unit":"px","top":"","right":"","bottom":"","left":"","isLinked":true},"_border_color":"","_border_radius":{"unit":"px","top":"","right":"","bottom":"","left":"","isLinked":true},"_border_radius_tablet":{"unit":"px","top":"","right":"","bottom":"","left":"","isLinked":true},"_border_radius_mobile":{"unit":"px","top":"","right":"","bottom":"","left":"","isLinked":true},"_box_shadow_box_shadow_type":"","_box_shadow_box_shadow":{"horizontal":0,"vertical":0,"blur":10,"spread":0,"color":"rgba(0,0,0,0.5)"},"_box_shadow_box_shadow_position":" ","_border_hover_border":"","_border_hover_width":{"unit":"px","top":"","right":"","bottom":"","left":"","isLinked":true},"_border_hover_width_tablet":{"unit":"px","top":"","right":"","bottom":"","left":"","isLinked":true},"_border_hover_width_mobile":{"unit":"px","top":"","right":"","bottom":"","left":"","isLinked":true},"_border_hover_color":"","_border_radius_hover":{"unit":"px","top":"","right":"","bottom":"","left":"","isLinked":true},"_border_radius_hover_tablet":{"unit":"px","top":"","right":"","bottom":"","left":"","isLinked":true},"_border_radius_hover_mobile":{"unit":"px","top":"","right":"","bottom":"","left":"","isLinked":true},"_box_shadow_hover_box_shadow_type":"","_box_shadow_hover_box_shadow":{"horizontal":0,"vertical":0,"blur":10,"spread":0,"color":"rgba(0,0,0,0.5)"},"_box_shadow_hover_box_shadow_position":" ","_border_hover_transition":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_mask_switch":"","_mask_shape":"circle","_mask_image":{"url":"","id":"","size":""},"_mask_notice":"","_mask_size":"contain","_mask_size_tablet":"","_mask_size_mobile":"","_mask_size_scale":{"unit":"%","size":100,"sizes":[]},"_mask_size_scale_tablet":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_mask_size_scale_mobile":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_mask_position":"center center","_mask_position_tablet":"","_mask_position_mobile":"","_mask_position_x":{"unit":"%","size":0,"sizes":[]},"_mask_position_x_tablet":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_mask_position_x_mobile":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_mask_position_y":{"unit":"%","size":0,"sizes":[]},"_mask_position_y_tablet":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_mask_position_y_mobile":{"unit":"px","size":"","sizes":[]},"_mask_repeat":"no-repeat","_mask_repeat_tablet":"","_mask_repeat_mobile":"","hide_desktop":"","hide_tablet":"","hide_mobile":"","_attributes":"","custom_css":""},"defaultEditSettings":{"defaultEditRoute":"content"},"elements":[],"widgetType":"text-editor","htmlCache":"\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\tLiebe Freunde der Geschichte und der lebendigen Vergangenheit,heute möchte ich euch einen kurzen Rückblick auf die Historische Gefechtsdarstellung und den Biwak vom 16. September 2023 geben, an dem ich teilnehmen durfte. Dieser Tag war ein wahres Fest für Geschichtsbegeisterte und Freunde des Reenactments.Es war eine Freude, alte Freunde in Uniform wiederzusehen und gemeinsam in die Welt des Jahres 1813 einzutauchen. Die Schlacht an der Göhrde wurde mit beeindruckender Detailtreue nachgestellt und ich konnte nicht umhin, die Atmosphäre und die Hingabe der Teilnehmer zu bewundern.Währenddessen hatte ich die Gelegenheit, 4566 Fotos zu schießen, um die faszinierenden Momente dieses historischen Ereignisses festzuhalten. Die Reenactors, die Uniformen, die Waffen und das Lagerleben – all das fesselte mich und weckte die Vergangenheit zum Leben.Leider kann ich morgen nicht am letzten Tag der Veranstaltung teilnehmen, da private Verpflichtungen mich in Anspruch nehmen. Dennoch freue ich mich darauf, nach und nach meine Fotos auszuwerten und meine Eindrücke mit euch zu teilen. Es ist immer wieder erstaunlich, wie das Reenactment uns die Geschichte auf so lebendige Weise näherbringt.Ich hoffe, ihr hattet ebenfalls eine großartige Zeit und konntet diese einzigartige Erfahrung genießen. Bis bald, wenn ich meine Werke mit euch teilen werde!Historische Grüße Marco Federmann\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t","editSettings":{"defaultEditRoute":"content","panel":{"activeTab":"content","activeSection":"section_editor"}}}]}
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Focke-Wulf Fw 190 Würger (English: Shrike) was a German single-seat, single-engine fighter aircraft designed by Kurt Tank in the late 1930s and widely used during World War II. Along with its well-known counterpart, the Messerschmitt Bf 109, the Fw 190 became the backbone of the Luftwaffe's Jagdwaffe (Fighter Force). The twin-row BMW 801 radial engine that powered most operational versions enabled the Fw 190 to lift larger loads than the Bf 109, allowing its use as a day fighter, fighter-bomber, ground-attack aircraft and, to a lesser degree, night fighter.
The Fw 190A started flying operationally over France in August 1941, and quickly proved superior in all but turn radius to the Royal Air Force's main front-line fighter, the Spitfire Mk. V, particularly at low and medium altitudes. The 190 maintained superiority over Allied fighters until the introduction of the improved Spitfire Mk. IX. In November/December 1942, the Fw 190 made its air combat debut on the Eastern Front, finding much success in fighter wings and specialized ground attack units called Schlachtgeschwader (Battle Wings or Strike Wings) from October 1943 onwards. The Fw 190 provided greater firepower than the Bf 109 and, at low to medium altitude, superior manoeuvrability, in the opinion of German pilots who flew both fighters.
The Fw 190A series' performance decreased at high altitudes (usually 6,000 m (20,000 ft) and above), which reduced its effectiveness as a high-altitude interceptor. From the Fw 190's inception, there had been ongoing efforts to address this with a turbo-supercharged BMW 801 in the B model, the much longer-nosed C model with efforts to also turbocharge its chosen Daimler-Benz DB 603 inverted V12 powerplant, and the similarly long-nosed D model with the Junkers Jumo 213. Problems with the turbocharger installations on the -B and -C subtypes meant only the D model would enter service, doing so in September 1944. While these "long nose" versions gave the Germans parity with Allied opponents, they arrived far too late in the war to have any real effect. The situation became more and more dire, so that, by early 1945, an emergency fighter variant, the Fw 190E, was rushed into production and service.
The Fw 190E was based on the extended D model airframe, and actually surplus airframes from the type’s production lines were converted, because its Jumo 213 inline engine was short in supply. Instead, a conversion kit for the DB 605D powerplant (the engine for the Bf 109 K) was devised in the course of just six weeks, which included a modified engine frame and a radiator bath with its respective plumbing, which would be installed under the cockpit. The rationale behind this decision was that developing a new annular radiator and engine cover would have taken too much time – and while the ventral radiator was not the aerodynamically most efficient solution, it was the most simple way to create an urgently needed high-performance fighter.
The DB 605D, with its Single-stage variable-speed centrifugal type supercharger and a methanol-water injection system, created an impressive performance: Using MW 50 and maximum boost, the Fw 190E was able to reach a maximum level speed of 710 km/h (440 mph) at 7,500 m (24,600 ft) altitude. Without MW 50 and using 1.80 ata, the E model still reached 670 km/h (416 mph) at 9,000 m (30,000 ft). The Initial Rate of climb was 850 m (2,790 ft)/min without MW 50 and 1,080 m (3,540 ft)/min, using MW 50. While the E model’s top speed was slightly higher than the D-9’s with its Jumo 213, it could only be achieved at lower altitudes.
The Fw 190E’s radio equipment was the FuG 16ZY, and the FuG 25a Erstling IFF system, as well as the FuG 125 Hermine D/F equipment, were also fitted. Internally, the oxygen bottles were relocated from the rear fuselage to the right wing.
Armament of the Fw 190E consisted of two, synchronized 13 mm (0.51 in) MG 131s in the nose with 475 RPG, firing though the propeller disc, and two more synchronized 20mm (0.78 in) MG 151/20 machine cannon with 250 RPG were mounted in the wing roots. Theoretically, a 30 mm (1.2 in) MK 108 engine-mounted cannon (Motorkanone) with 65 rounds was mounted (in the initial E-1 variant), too, but this weapon was hardly available at all (almost the complete production of the MK 108 was allocated to Me 262 and other jet fighters’ production) and it often jammed while the aircraft was manoeuvring in battle – so it was frequently removed in order to save weight, or replaced by an MK 151/20 with 100 rounds from the start (in the E-2 variant see below).
This impressive basic weaponry could even be augmented: two more cannons could be installed in the outer wings with the help of modification kits (either MG 151/20 or MK 108 with Rüstsatz R2 or R3, respectively), but this rarely happened because the weapons were not available at all. A more typical and very common modification, applied at the factory, was the Rüstsatz R1, which included racks and fusing equipment for fitting a 250 kg (550 lb) bomb or a 300l drop tank under each wing. An underfuselage hardpoint was not possible to fit, due to the ventral radiator fairing.
Production of the E-1 model started hastily at Fock Wulf’s Soltau plant in February 1945, and the first machines, which were immediately transferred, suffered from severe integration problems and poor manufacturing quality, even resulting in fatal losses as aircraft disintegrated in flight. After just 26 completed aircraft, production was stopped and switched to the E-2 variant in April, which, beyond a simplified gun armament, also incorporated technical improvements that eventually improved reliability to a normal level. Until the end of hostilities, probably 120 Fw 190E-2 were produced, with 50 more in various states of assembly in several factories, and probably 80 machines were operationally used at the Western front and for the defence of Berlin. A handful of these machines were also modified with a pair of vertical Rb 50/30 cameras (Rüstsatz R6) in the rear fuselage for low and medium altitude reconnaissance duties.
A planned high performance E-3 with a 2.250 hp DB 605 engine and a reduced armament (only three MG 1515/20) as well as a high altitude E-4 with a DB 603 engine, a pressurized cockpit and extended wings never materialized..
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 10.20 m (33 ft 5½ in)
Wingspan: 10.50 m (34 ft 5 in)
Height: 3.35 m (11 ft 0 in)
Wing area: 18.30 m² (196.99 ft²)
Empty weight: 3,490 kg (7,694 lb)
Loaded weight: 4,270 kg (9,413 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 4,840 kg (10,670 lb)
Powerplant:
1× Daimler Benz DB 605 12-cylinder inverted-Vee piston engine rated at 1.800 PS (1.295 kW)
and a temporary emergency output of 2.050 HP (1.475 kW) with MW 50 injection
Performance:
Maximum speed: 710 km/h (440 mph) at 7,500 m (24,600 ft) altitude
Range: 835 km (519 mi)
Service ceiling: 11,410 m (37,430 ft)
Rate of climb: 18 m/s (3,540 ft/min)
Wing loading: 233 kg/m² (47.7 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 0.30–0.35 kW/kg (0.18–0.22 hp/lb)
Armament:
1× 30 mm (1.2 in) engine-mounted MK 108 cannon with 65 rounds (rarely mounted)
2× 13 mm (.51 in) MG 131 machine guns with 475 RPG above the engine
2× 20 mm (.78 in) MG 151/20 cannons with 250 RPG in the wing root
Optional: 2× 250 kg (550 lb) SC 250 bombs or 300 l drop tanks under the wings
The kit and its assembly:
A popular what-if/Luft ‘46 topic: a Fw 190 with a late Bf 109 nose, and sometimes other transplants, too. This one was triggered by a fictional profile created by fellow user ysi_maniac at whatifmodelers.com, but it’s rather a personal interpretation of the idea than a hardware recreation of the artwork. The reason is simple: virtually putting together 2D profiles is an easy task, but when the 3rd dimension comes to play, things become more complicated.
One of the consequences is that such an aircraft would have been very unlikely in real life. Another factor against the idea is that the Daimler Benz engines were primarily earmarked for Messerschmitt products, esp. the late Bf 109. Even Kurt Tank’s Ta 152, powered by his favored DB 603, was hard to realize – and the RLM’s unwillingness to provide him with this engine delayed this high potential aircraft so far that the Fw 190 D-9, with its Jumo 213 as a fallback option, was realized as an interim/second best solution.
However, whifworld offers the freedom of creativity, and I have never seen a hardware realization of a Fw 190/Bf 109 hybrid, so I created the Fw 190E through the mating of a Fw 190D (Academy kit) with the engine/front end of a Bf 109K (Heller).
The transplantation was basically straightforward, starting with the Bf 109 engine cut off of the fuselage. Then a matching section from the Fw 190 nose was cut away, too. While the diameters of both sections (in a side view) match each other quite well, the fuselage diameter shapes are to tally different, and the Bf 109 engine is MUCH too narrow for the Fw 190. That’s the problem the CG whiffers can simply ignore.
The eventual solution concerned both donor parts: the DB 605 was widened by ~2mm through the insertion of wedge-shaped pieces of styrene between the halves. As an unwanted side effect, the Bf 109’s machine guns on the cowling would squint now, so they had to be erased with putty and re-drilled, once the body work was finished.
The fuselage section in front of the Fw 190’s cockpit was, on the other side, narrowed through wedges taken out, and some force – again narrowing the fuselage width by another ~2mm. That does not sound much, but at 1:72 these 4mm mean a major disparity! This modification also created a gap between the fuselage and the wing roots towards their front end, which had to be filled, too, and the wing roots themselves had to be re-shaped in order to match the much more narrow DB 605’s underside.
Furthermore, the engine internally received a styrene tube adapter for the propeller’s new metal axis, and the oil cooler intake was filled with foamed styrene (it would normally remain empty). Once the engine had dried and the fuselage halves with the OOB cockpit closed, both elements were mated and the cowling gap filled and re-sculpted with 2C putty, since the OOB part with the Fw 190’s engine-mounted machine guns would not fit anymore.
As a result, the profile view of the aircraft is O.K., it looks slender and quite plausible, but when you take a look from above, the (still) wide section in front of the cockpit looks odd, as well as the widened rear section of the BD 605 cowling.
Another central issue was the radiator installation for the DB 605. In real life, I’d expect that an annular radiator would have been the most probable solution, and the aircraft wouldn’t have differed much outwardly from the Dora. But for the sake of a different look, and following the idea of a rushed emergency conversion program that would use as many stock elements as possible, I rather went for the complete Bf 109K nose, coupled with a separate ventral radiator under the fuselage. Wing coolers (as used on board of the Bf 109) were ruled out, since I expected them to be too complicated to be quickly added to the Fw 190’s airframe and wing structure.
The radiator fairing was scratched from leftover ship hull parts – thanks to its wide and relatively flat shape, the arrangement looks quite aerodynamic and plausible.
The propeller had to be modified, too: I retained the Bf 109’s spinner, but rather used the Fw 190’s slightly bigger propeller blades, for a balanced look.
The canopy became another issue. While the Academy kit is very nice and goes together well, the clear parts, esp. the sliding part of the canopy, has a major flaw: the headrest is to be glued into it, and in order to give the builder some help with the proper position, Academy added some locator slots to the clear part. This could be nice, and the rear pair will later be covered under paint, but the front pair is plainly visible and reaches up very high into the side windows! WTF?
You can hardly sand them away, and so I dediced outright to replace the canopy altogether - I was lucky to have a Rob Tauris vacu canopy, actually for the Hasegawa Fw 190A/F in the donor bank. This does naturally not fit 100% onto the (modified) Academy fuselage, but with some (more) PSR work the vacu parts blend in quite well, and the thin material is an additional bonus.
Apart from the engine and the canopy, not much was changed. The landing gear is OOB, I just replaced the wing root gun barrels with hollow steel needles.
Painting and markings:
I did not go for anything spectacular, rather a slightly improvised look of many late-production German fighters which were painted with whatever was at hand, if at all. The overall pattern is based on the typical Fw 190D-9 scheme, with two shades of green, RLM 82 and 83 on the upper surfaces (Humbrol 102 and 75). The fuselage was painted in a greenish variant of RLM 76 (a mix of Humbrol 90 with a little 247), frequently referred to as RLM 84, but this color never officially existed. Some light mottles of the upper tones, plus an underlying layer of RLM02 mottles, were added to the flanks, too.
The wings’ undersides were left in bare metal (Revello 99), with their leading edge kept in grey primer (RLM 75, I used Humbrol 123). The undersides of the ailerons and stabilizers, as well as the vertical rudder, were painted in RLM 76 (Humbrol 247) – both a frequent late WWII practice, when the parts were manufactured in separate, outsourced factories. The mottled landing gear covers are an unusual detail, but this appreared quite frequently on late-war Fw 190s, esp. on Doras.
The cockpit interior was painted in dark grey (RLM 66, I used Humbrol 67), while the interior of the landing gear was painted with RLM 02 (Revell 45).
The tactical markings were improvised; the blue fuselage ID band for the JG 54 was created with generic decal sheet material, other markings come from various sheets, e. g. from an Academy Fw 190A/F. The black dot as a squadron marking is unusual - but as a sqaudron of a (rare) fifth group, no standard symbols were typically assigned, so this is within historic limits.
The kit received some light weathering thorugh dry.brushing and grinded graphite, and finally a coat with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri).
A more complex conversion stunt than it might seem at first glance – and proof that a virtual 2D whif is not easily transferred into hardware. The 3rd dimension still exists, and in this case it posed severe problems that could eventually be overcome with the help of (lots of) PSR. The flawed OOB canopy is another issue. However, the result does not look bad at all, even though the DB 605-powered Fw 190 somehow reminds me of the British Fairey Fulmar naval fighter, and also somewhat of the Ju 87?
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Focke-Wulf Fw 190 Würger (English: Shrike) was a German single-seat, single-engine fighter aircraft designed by Kurt Tank in the late 1930s and widely used during World War II. Along with its well-known counterpart, the Messerschmitt Bf 109, the Fw 190 became the backbone of the Luftwaffe's Jagdwaffe (Fighter Force). The twin-row BMW 801 radial engine that powered most operational versions enabled the Fw 190 to lift larger loads than the Bf 109, allowing its use as a day fighter, fighter-bomber, ground-attack aircraft and, to a lesser degree, night fighter.
The Fw 190A started flying operationally over France in August 1941, and quickly proved superior in all but turn radius to the Royal Air Force's main front-line fighter, the Spitfire Mk. V, particularly at low and medium altitudes. The 190 maintained superiority over Allied fighters until the introduction of the improved Spitfire Mk. IX. In November/December 1942, the Fw 190 made its air combat debut on the Eastern Front, finding much success in fighter wings and specialized ground attack units called Schlachtgeschwader (Battle Wings or Strike Wings) from October 1943 onwards. The Fw 190 provided greater firepower than the Bf 109 and, at low to medium altitude, superior manoeuvrability, in the opinion of German pilots who flew both fighters.
The Fw 190A series' performance decreased at high altitudes (usually 6,000 m (20,000 ft) and above), which reduced its effectiveness as a high-altitude interceptor. From the Fw 190's inception, there had been ongoing efforts to address this with a turbo-supercharged BMW 801 in the B model, the much longer-nosed C model with efforts to also turbocharge its chosen Daimler-Benz DB 603 inverted V12 powerplant, and the similarly long-nosed D model with the Junkers Jumo 213. Problems with the turbocharger installations on the -B and -C subtypes meant only the D model would enter service, doing so in September 1944. While these "long nose" versions gave the Germans parity with Allied opponents, they arrived far too late in the war to have any real effect. The situation became more and more dire, so that, by early 1945, an emergency fighter variant, the Fw 190E, was rushed into production and service.
The Fw 190E was based on the extended D model airframe, and actually surplus airframes from the type’s production lines were converted, because its Jumo 213 inline engine was short in supply. Instead, a conversion kit for the DB 605D powerplant (the engine for the Bf 109 K) was devised in the course of just six weeks, which included a modified engine frame and a radiator bath with its respective plumbing, which would be installed under the cockpit. The rationale behind this decision was that developing a new annular radiator and engine cover would have taken too much time – and while the ventral radiator was not the aerodynamically most efficient solution, it was the most simple way to create an urgently needed high-performance fighter.
The DB 605D, with its Single-stage variable-speed centrifugal type supercharger and a methanol-water injection system, created an impressive performance: Using MW 50 and maximum boost, the Fw 190E was able to reach a maximum level speed of 710 km/h (440 mph) at 7,500 m (24,600 ft) altitude. Without MW 50 and using 1.80 ata, the E model still reached 670 km/h (416 mph) at 9,000 m (30,000 ft). The Initial Rate of climb was 850 m (2,790 ft)/min without MW 50 and 1,080 m (3,540 ft)/min, using MW 50. While the E model’s top speed was slightly higher than the D-9’s with its Jumo 213, it could only be achieved at lower altitudes.
The Fw 190E’s radio equipment was the FuG 16ZY, and the FuG 25a Erstling IFF system, as well as the FuG 125 Hermine D/F equipment, were also fitted. Internally, the oxygen bottles were relocated from the rear fuselage to the right wing.
Armament of the Fw 190E consisted of two, synchronized 13 mm (0.51 in) MG 131s in the nose with 475 RPG, firing though the propeller disc, and two more synchronized 20mm (0.78 in) MG 151/20 machine cannon with 250 RPG were mounted in the wing roots. Theoretically, a 30 mm (1.2 in) MK 108 engine-mounted cannon (Motorkanone) with 65 rounds was mounted (in the initial E-1 variant), too, but this weapon was hardly available at all (almost the complete production of the MK 108 was allocated to Me 262 and other jet fighters’ production) and it often jammed while the aircraft was manoeuvring in battle – so it was frequently removed in order to save weight, or replaced by an MK 151/20 with 100 rounds from the start (in the E-2 variant see below).
This impressive basic weaponry could even be augmented: two more cannons could be installed in the outer wings with the help of modification kits (either MG 151/20 or MK 108 with Rüstsatz R2 or R3, respectively), but this rarely happened because the weapons were not available at all. A more typical and very common modification, applied at the factory, was the Rüstsatz R1, which included racks and fusing equipment for fitting a 250 kg (550 lb) bomb or a 300l drop tank under each wing. An underfuselage hardpoint was not possible to fit, due to the ventral radiator fairing.
Production of the E-1 model started hastily at Fock Wulf’s Soltau plant in February 1945, and the first machines, which were immediately transferred, suffered from severe integration problems and poor manufacturing quality, even resulting in fatal losses as aircraft disintegrated in flight. After just 26 completed aircraft, production was stopped and switched to the E-2 variant in April, which, beyond a simplified gun armament, also incorporated technical improvements that eventually improved reliability to a normal level. Until the end of hostilities, probably 120 Fw 190E-2 were produced, with 50 more in various states of assembly in several factories, and probably 80 machines were operationally used at the Western front and for the defence of Berlin. A handful of these machines were also modified with a pair of vertical Rb 50/30 cameras (Rüstsatz R6) in the rear fuselage for low and medium altitude reconnaissance duties.
A planned high performance E-3 with a 2.250 hp DB 605 engine and a reduced armament (only three MG 1515/20) as well as a high altitude E-4 with a DB 603 engine, a pressurized cockpit and extended wings never materialized..
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 10.20 m (33 ft 5½ in)
Wingspan: 10.50 m (34 ft 5 in)
Height: 3.35 m (11 ft 0 in)
Wing area: 18.30 m² (196.99 ft²)
Empty weight: 3,490 kg (7,694 lb)
Loaded weight: 4,270 kg (9,413 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 4,840 kg (10,670 lb)
Powerplant:
1× Daimler Benz DB 605 12-cylinder inverted-Vee piston engine rated at 1.800 PS (1.295 kW)
and a temporary emergency output of 2.050 HP (1.475 kW) with MW 50 injection
Performance:
Maximum speed: 710 km/h (440 mph) at 7,500 m (24,600 ft) altitude
Range: 835 km (519 mi)
Service ceiling: 11,410 m (37,430 ft)
Rate of climb: 18 m/s (3,540 ft/min)
Wing loading: 233 kg/m² (47.7 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 0.30–0.35 kW/kg (0.18–0.22 hp/lb)
Armament:
1× 30 mm (1.2 in) engine-mounted MK 108 cannon with 65 rounds (rarely mounted)
2× 13 mm (.51 in) MG 131 machine guns with 475 RPG above the engine
2× 20 mm (.78 in) MG 151/20 cannons with 250 RPG in the wing root
Optional: 2× 250 kg (550 lb) SC 250 bombs or 300 l drop tanks under the wings
The kit and its assembly:
A popular what-if/Luft ‘46 topic: a Fw 190 with a late Bf 109 nose, and sometimes other transplants, too. This one was triggered by a fictional profile created by fellow user ysi_maniac at whatifmodelers.com, but it’s rather a personal interpretation of the idea than a hardware recreation of the artwork. The reason is simple: virtually putting together 2D profiles is an easy task, but when the 3rd dimension comes to play, things become more complicated.
One of the consequences is that such an aircraft would have been very unlikely in real life. Another factor against the idea is that the Daimler Benz engines were primarily earmarked for Messerschmitt products, esp. the late Bf 109. Even Kurt Tank’s Ta 152, powered by his favored DB 603, was hard to realize – and the RLM’s unwillingness to provide him with this engine delayed this high potential aircraft so far that the Fw 190 D-9, with its Jumo 213 as a fallback option, was realized as an interim/second best solution.
However, whifworld offers the freedom of creativity, and I have never seen a hardware realization of a Fw 190/Bf 109 hybrid, so I created the Fw 190E through the mating of a Fw 190D (Academy kit) with the engine/front end of a Bf 109K (Heller).
The transplantation was basically straightforward, starting with the Bf 109 engine cut off of the fuselage. Then a matching section from the Fw 190 nose was cut away, too. While the diameters of both sections (in a side view) match each other quite well, the fuselage diameter shapes are to tally different, and the Bf 109 engine is MUCH too narrow for the Fw 190. That’s the problem the CG whiffers can simply ignore.
The eventual solution concerned both donor parts: the DB 605 was widened by ~2mm through the insertion of wedge-shaped pieces of styrene between the halves. As an unwanted side effect, the Bf 109’s machine guns on the cowling would squint now, so they had to be erased with putty and re-drilled, once the body work was finished.
The fuselage section in front of the Fw 190’s cockpit was, on the other side, narrowed through wedges taken out, and some force – again narrowing the fuselage width by another ~2mm. That does not sound much, but at 1:72 these 4mm mean a major disparity! This modification also created a gap between the fuselage and the wing roots towards their front end, which had to be filled, too, and the wing roots themselves had to be re-shaped in order to match the much more narrow DB 605’s underside.
Furthermore, the engine internally received a styrene tube adapter for the propeller’s new metal axis, and the oil cooler intake was filled with foamed styrene (it would normally remain empty). Once the engine had dried and the fuselage halves with the OOB cockpit closed, both elements were mated and the cowling gap filled and re-sculpted with 2C putty, since the OOB part with the Fw 190’s engine-mounted machine guns would not fit anymore.
As a result, the profile view of the aircraft is O.K., it looks slender and quite plausible, but when you take a look from above, the (still) wide section in front of the cockpit looks odd, as well as the widened rear section of the BD 605 cowling.
Another central issue was the radiator installation for the DB 605. In real life, I’d expect that an annular radiator would have been the most probable solution, and the aircraft wouldn’t have differed much outwardly from the Dora. But for the sake of a different look, and following the idea of a rushed emergency conversion program that would use as many stock elements as possible, I rather went for the complete Bf 109K nose, coupled with a separate ventral radiator under the fuselage. Wing coolers (as used on board of the Bf 109) were ruled out, since I expected them to be too complicated to be quickly added to the Fw 190’s airframe and wing structure.
The radiator fairing was scratched from leftover ship hull parts – thanks to its wide and relatively flat shape, the arrangement looks quite aerodynamic and plausible.
The propeller had to be modified, too: I retained the Bf 109’s spinner, but rather used the Fw 190’s slightly bigger propeller blades, for a balanced look.
The canopy became another issue. While the Academy kit is very nice and goes together well, the clear parts, esp. the sliding part of the canopy, has a major flaw: the headrest is to be glued into it, and in order to give the builder some help with the proper position, Academy added some locator slots to the clear part. This could be nice, and the rear pair will later be covered under paint, but the front pair is plainly visible and reaches up very high into the side windows! WTF?
You can hardly sand them away, and so I dediced outright to replace the canopy altogether - I was lucky to have a Rob Tauris vacu canopy, actually for the Hasegawa Fw 190A/F in the donor bank. This does naturally not fit 100% onto the (modified) Academy fuselage, but with some (more) PSR work the vacu parts blend in quite well, and the thin material is an additional bonus.
Apart from the engine and the canopy, not much was changed. The landing gear is OOB, I just replaced the wing root gun barrels with hollow steel needles.
Painting and markings:
I did not go for anything spectacular, rather a slightly improvised look of many late-production German fighters which were painted with whatever was at hand, if at all. The overall pattern is based on the typical Fw 190D-9 scheme, with two shades of green, RLM 82 and 83 on the upper surfaces (Humbrol 102 and 75). The fuselage was painted in a greenish variant of RLM 76 (a mix of Humbrol 90 with a little 247), frequently referred to as RLM 84, but this color never officially existed. Some light mottles of the upper tones, plus an underlying layer of RLM02 mottles, were added to the flanks, too.
The wings’ undersides were left in bare metal (Revello 99), with their leading edge kept in grey primer (RLM 75, I used Humbrol 123). The undersides of the ailerons and stabilizers, as well as the vertical rudder, were painted in RLM 76 (Humbrol 247) – both a frequent late WWII practice, when the parts were manufactured in separate, outsourced factories. The mottled landing gear covers are an unusual detail, but this appreared quite frequently on late-war Fw 190s, esp. on Doras.
The cockpit interior was painted in dark grey (RLM 66, I used Humbrol 67), while the interior of the landing gear was painted with RLM 02 (Revell 45).
The tactical markings were improvised; the blue fuselage ID band for the JG 54 was created with generic decal sheet material, other markings come from various sheets, e. g. from an Academy Fw 190A/F. The black dot as a squadron marking is unusual - but as a sqaudron of a (rare) fifth group, no standard symbols were typically assigned, so this is within historic limits.
The kit received some light weathering thorugh dry.brushing and grinded graphite, and finally a coat with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri).
A more complex conversion stunt than it might seem at first glance – and proof that a virtual 2D whif is not easily transferred into hardware. The 3rd dimension still exists, and in this case it posed severe problems that could eventually be overcome with the help of (lots of) PSR. The flawed OOB canopy is another issue. However, the result does not look bad at all, even though the DB 605-powered Fw 190 somehow reminds me of the British Fairey Fulmar naval fighter, and also somewhat of the Ju 87?