View allAll Photos Tagged functions
My husband and I came from Cleveland for the Herman Miller Exhibit. My husband is a carpenter and was very inspired by the perfectly crafted furniture Miller and others created. I snapped a shot of my husband sitting in one of the comfy chairs. He looked so relaxed and at ease. I love the colors of the chair against the carpet and the intricate design of the back. I think the function of the chair really comes out in this photo.
Chances functions as an attempt to bring together the factionalized LGBTIQ communities, cliques, or otherwise grouped-apart queers of Chicago. All gender expressions are welcome. It happens on the third monday of every month. www.chancesdances.org
Our Teacher Assistants, Co-curricular Programme Executives (CCPE) and Administrative Support Assistants (ASA) perform a diverse range of functions and play an important role in their schools.
Photographs celebrating functions, classrooms , conferences, performances and athletics at NMH during Fall Family Weekend, October 19 - 20, 2018. Photography by Glenn Minshall.
+++ 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 story of the Dornier Do 36 started with a small vehicle, the “Wiesel”. This was a German Armored Weapons Carrier (AWC), a light air-transportable, lightly armored tracked weapons carrier, developed by Porsche and later produced by Rheinmetall. It was quite similar to historical scouting tankettes in size, form and function, and was the only true modern tankette in use in Western Europe. The Wiesel was developed for the German Army’s airborne troops, as the infantry of the German Bundeswehr, especially airborne infantry, were considered unprepared to successfully fight enemy main battle tanks (MBT) in the 1970s. The requirements were that the vehicle should fit in common NATO transport planes and could eventually be even air-dropped. At only 2.75 metric tons (3.03 short tons), it weighed less than the armored variant of the U.S. Humvee military light truck. It should be able to fight infantry as well as enemy tanks or aircraft. Porsche produced some prototypes of the future fighting vehicle for the Bundeswehr in 1975, but the Bundeswehr stopped the project in 1978 due to lack of funds. Nevertheless, Porsche continued development, because of interest from other countries.
This effort was not in vain because the demand for this type of light vehicle – beyond the armed infantry support role – was still unanswered, and with some modifications the chassis could be used for many other light vehicles like a troop transport, command post, field ambulance or a mortar carrier, too. The Bundeswehr eventually ordered 343 of the vehicles in 1985, and deliveries of the new weapon system for the Bundeswehr began in the late 1980s. The vehicle was named Wiesel ("weasel") because of its small size and agility, which make it very difficult to detect on the battlefield.
In parallel to the Wiesel’s development in the early Eighties the Bundeswehr was considering a new light tactical transport aircraft that would fill the gap between the indigenous light Dornier Do 28 Skyservant STOL transport aircraft, which was powered by two piston engines, and the much bigger C-160 Transall, which had been developed together with France. These thoughts were fueled even more by the unsuccessful attempts to drop the Wiesel from a C-160 with parachutes – despite many attempts and technological solutions to dampen the landing, the Wiesel could not be landed safely, not to speak about potential crews inside. A potential carrier, the ambitious VTOL Do 31, which had only made it to the prototype stage in the Seventies and had then been cancelled, was not available. Therefore, Dornier was requested to design a compact transport aircraft that would a) have a cargo space diameter and a tail ramp large enough to carry up to two Wiesel or other light Bundeswehr vehicle and their crews and still have STOL capability on unprepared airfields. Primary design target was an aircraft that could deploy small airborne commando troops and ensure their support close to moving frontline units.
Dornier initially considered the adaptation of its new Do 228, the turboprop-driven successor of the robust Do 28D, but eventually rejected the idea because the light aircraft would not have the required capacities. Augmenting its structure to integrate a tail ramp as well as a floor strong enough to carry two Wiesel AFVs (the Wiesel 1's length was 3.55 m (11.6 ft), height and width 1.82 m (6.0 ft) each) was eventually just as complicated as developing a new, tailor-made aircraft from scratch, and this route was eventually followed.
The resulting Dornier Do 36 was only slightly bigger than the compact and highly popular Do 28D. unlike the Skyservant, though, It was jet-powered, with a pair of General Electric TF34-GE-100A high-bypass turbofans. An unusual design feature of the Do 36 was the use of the Coandă effect to improve STOL performance, using engine exhaust gases blown over the wing's upper surface to boost lift. To achieve this airflow the engines were mounted in nacelles close to the fuselage over the wings’ leading edge, what also reduced the engines’ sound level. Dornier’s engineers had carried out a series of "powered lift" studies some time earlier, including both externally blown flaps, as well an upper-surface blowing (USB) system, an unusual variation. As a result, the aircraft received a T-tail to keep it outside the jet efflux. In the USB system, the engine is arranged over the top surface of the wing, blowing over the flaps. When the flaps are lowered, the Coandă effect makes the jet exhaust "stick" to the flaps and bend down toward the ground, creating additional lift. Another project the engineers were interested in was the supercritical airfoil, designed by Richard Whitcomb. The supercritical design promised to lower transonic drag greatly, as much as a swept wing in some situations. This allowed an aircraft with such a wing to have low drag in cruise while also having a wing planform more suitable for lower-speed flight—swept wings have several undesirable characteristics at low speed. Both these innovative concepts were combined and incorporated into the Do 36’s design.
The cockpit was pressurized but the cargo bay, separated with a sealable bulkhead, not. The landing gear was fully retractable and featured low-pressure tires and struts with long suspension travel at allow operations on semi-prepared airfields. The front landing gear had twin wheels to lower ground pressure, and the wheels were outfitted with mudguards to protect the fuselage underside, which had relatively little ground clearance to accommodate the short tail ramp. The main landing gear struts retracted inwards and folded into sponsons on the lower side of the rear fuselage which also housed a APU for independent operations, avionics and chaff/flare dispensers.
The Do 36’s first flight was made on 31 August 1984, but production was delayed well into the late 1980s. Two major problems were found and corrected during testing: The first was a problem with air circulating around the wing when operating at low speeds, esp. when taxiing or flying close to the ground, which had a serious effect on the spreading of the jet flow through the nozzle. This led to flow separation near the flap, and a decrease in the effectiveness of the USB system. In response, Dornier’s engineers added a series of vortex generators on the upper surface of the wing, which retracted when the flap was raised above 30°. Additionally, the tail surfaces were initially placed well aft to maximize control effectiveness. But this positioning turned out to interfere with the airflow over the wings during USB operations, and a new T-tail was introduced that moved the elevator forward.
Mending the airflow troubles lasted until 1987, when the Do 36 was eventually cleared for production and officially called “Skymaster”. The first customer became the German Bundesluftwaffe with an order for six pre-production aircraft for field tests and international promotion, followed by thirty more machines that were all allocated to the newly established LTLG (Lufttransport- und Lande-Geschwader) 64, which was closely attached to the German Army’s parachutist troops (Fallschirmjäger) and its headquarters.
The trials with the six pre-production machines lasted until 1989, and during this phase of almost two years the Luftwaffe Do 36s visited several potential customer countries, including many European states, plus Israel, the USA and Canada. However, only the USA ordered twelve Do 36’s for Special Forces units under the designation C-39, which was then internationally adapted for the type.
After its introduction the Luftwaffe Do 36 saw frequent use, also outside of Germany. From 1991, German paratroopers were, together with Do 36s, regularly part of the first German contingent on foreign missions, e. g. 1993 during the German support in Somalia. Four machines accompanied the troops.
From 1996 onwards, the Airborne Brigade was disbanded with the parallel formation of the Special Forces Command as a new branch of service at the old location in Calw. At the same time, Fernspähkompanie 100 and 300 as well as the former paratrooper command companies were disbanded, and parts transferred to the KSK (Kommando Spezialkräfte). Paratroopers and KSK were jointly subordinated to the Division “Schnelle Kräfte” (Rapid Forces Division), with LTLG 64 as a central air transport and logistics Luftwaffe unit now re-located to Lechfeld near Augsburg in Southern Germany, close to the KSK headquarter.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1 or 2
Capacity: 24 passengers / 5.500 kg (12,115 lb) max. payload
Length: 14.18 m (46 ft 5½ in)
Wingspan: 18.14 m (59 ft 5 in)
Height: 4.82 m (15 ft 9½ in)
Wing area: 40 m2 (430 sq ft)
Aspect ratio: 8.3:1
Empty weight: 9.100 kg (20,062 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 15,660 kg (34,524 lb)
Fuel capacity: 1,885 kg (4,156 lb)
Powerplant:
2× General Electric TF34-GE-100A high-bypass turbofans with 9,065 lbf (40.32 kN) thrust each
Performance
Maximum speed: 795 km/h (494 mph, 429 kn)
Cruise speed: 650 km/h (400 mph, 350 kn)
Stall speed (power off, flaps down): 104 km/h (65 mph, 56 kn)
Minimum control speed (power on, flaps down): 65 km/h (40 mph, 35 kn)
Range: 2,950 km (1,830 mi, 1,590 nmi) with max fuel
1,852 km (1,151 mi, 1,000 nmi) in standard configuration
Service ceiling: 11,000 m (35,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 26 m/s (5,120 ft/min)
Armament:
No internal weapons;
2x underwing hardpoints for loads of up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) each,
incl. drop tanks or defensive ECM/chaff/flare pods
The kit and its assembly:
This whiffy Frankenstein creation had been lingering in the back of my mind for a couple of years, and I also had, over time, two Matchbox Do 28D Skyservant kits stashed away to build this rather special transport aircraft someday. The “Re-Engine” group build at whatifmodellers.com in summer 2023 was a good motivation to finally tackle this project, because I had always pushed it back because I knew that it would be challenging and thorough.
The original idea was to outfit a Do 28D with jet engines and a tricycle landing gear – after I came across some leftover Matchbox A-10 turbofan pods from my youth. These, like the Do 28D kit, were/are rather primitive (if not false) affairs but combining them could probably yield an interesting result. The large pods immediately reminded me of the American YC-14 prototype and the very similar Russian An-72 transport aircraft, both with large turbofans on the wings’ leading edges and exploiting the Coandă effect for STOL performance. However, from that simple starting point on things took a VERY demanding route through PSR surgery.
Two Do 28Ds were necessary because converting just a single kit was not enough. For a tricycle landing gear, the fuselage had to be extended with a plug in front of the wings, which was taken from the 2nd Do 28D kit behind the wings, including the side doors, because these had to be removed due to the new landing gear arrangement (see below). However, this turned out to be too low, so that the roof had to be raised with a styrene sheet plug. With the longer fuselage the wings had to be elongated to keep the proportions, too, and this was again solved with plugs (inner wing sections) from the 2nd kit – thankfully this was quite easy due to the straight leading and trailing edges.
To add value to the aircraft and to better exploit a higher payload, I also decided to modify the tail and add a ramp – bold stunt, but it worked better than expected. I used mostly the original Do 28D tail and the fin but widened the tapered tail through long cuts along the upper roof edges, with inserted styrene sheet wedges to fill the gaps, and the lower parts were cut away to make room for a flush ramp, which was scratched from styrene sheet and other bits. Since the interior would be visible now, I added basic interior to the cargo bay: a structured styrene sheet floor, and the side walls and the roof were covered with paper tissue drenched in white glue, what mimics open insulation mats inside of C-160 Transall aircraft. Additionally, side bumpers made from thin styrene profile were added to the walls, too. To display the model later in flight (for the respective pictures) I also added a vertical styrene tube inside of the fuselage as an adapter for a metal rod holder.
From the clear parts only the (poorly fitting) windscreen was used; except for six side windows any other fuselage opening was concealed – after all it’s supposed to be a military transporter for goods and vehicles and not a passenger aircraft like the Do 28D – and the windows after painting created with ClearFix (see below).
To accommodate the new retractable landing gear I implanted a well under the cockpit floor, which required some mods to the cockpit, which was mostly taken OOB but placed on a higher floor, and the cockpit section was separated from the cargo bay with a bulkhead.
The main landing gear was mounted into boxy sponsons on the lower fuselage flanks, the Do 28D’s OOB engine pods could be used/converted and match the aircraft’s overall boxy design well.
The landing gear as such caused some headaches, though, because the aircraft would require a relatively low stance for the tail ramp. I eventually settled upon parts from an Academy MiG-23 kit for both the twin front wheel (including suitable mudguards!) and the main struts, which received a wide stance for extra ground stability. Looks odd, but at the same time very purposeful and plausible, too.
As mentioned earlier, the engines came from a (“used”) Matchbox A-10, and I left them OOB except for cutouts so that they would fit onto the wings, placed upside down so that the exhausts were directed downwards. Since they would now be placed directly in the jets’ efflux the stabilizers had to be move higher, too, and I settled for a T-tail, just like the benchmark YC-14 an An-72, with a clipped original fin. The central body was taken/adapted from a Matchbox Blackburn Buccaneer, the stabilizers themselves are highly modified wings from an AZ Model Kawasaki Ki-78 that better match the increased wingspan than the thin OOB parts with a fabric structure.
Lots of PSR! The resulting airframe looks quite simple and clean, but getting there was a real long and heavy ride!
Painting and markings:
As in many cases, I wanted a rather subtle Luftwaffe paint scheme for this PSR monster, yet something unusual. Even though the time frame would promote a Norm ’83 wraparound scheme in black and two shades of green (seen on Luftwaffe Transalls, Tornados and late RF-104Gs) I rather settled for the earlier, less known Norm ’76 pattern that was applied to the first Luftwaffe Tornados. It was a more disruptive evolution of the Norm ’72 splinter scheme with a more organic pattern and an additional dark contrast color for improved low-level concealment from above. To make things really confusing, there were two Norm ’76 schemes: one for the Marineflieger and a totally different one for the Luftwaffe, yet both carried by the Tornado IDS’. While the Navy’s variant (simple Basaltgrau upper surfaces and Lichtgrau underneath) was worn by several types, the Luftwaffe scheme was exclusively carried by the first production Tornados, and probably only by those trainer aircraft operated by the Tri-National Tornado Training Establishment (TTTE) at Cottesmore. It consisted of Black (RAL 9005, even though I rather used RAL 7021 Schwarzgrau, Gelboliv (RAL 6014, a dark olive drab tone, (FS.24064) and Basaltgrau (RAL 7012, very close to RAF Dark Sea Grey), plus Silbergrau (RAL 7001 (FS.26373) underneath with a low and straight waterline.
The pattern is an adaptation from a Chilean F-80C with a tricolor camouflage – it matched the Do 36’s outlines much better than the Tornado shape. I was a bit uncertain about the engine pods, but due to their round shape (anything else is boxy with a flat underside) I gave them a wrap-around camouflage. The radome and the anti-glare panel became deep black, the landing gear and the inside of the air intakes were painted white. The cockpit interior (hard to see) and the cargo bay floor as well as the ramp were painted in a medium grey while the padded cargo bay walls were painted with a very light grey-beige mix – both inspired by Luftwaffe Transall interiors.
The decals were a mix from various resources, iron crosses, fin flashes and tactical codes were created with TL Modellbau material, plus unit badges and stencils from Luftwaffe F-84Gs. The code 59+47 was never allocated to a Luftwaffe aircraft (yet), but it is a continuation of the real Do 28D code block.
Finally, everything was sealed with matt acrylic varnish and the side windows were created with Clearfix (instead of using the OOB parts, which lack locator support and would have ended in a mess, anyway).
On November 15-16, 2018, the Ford School and Center on Finance, Law, and Policy hosted "Functions and Firms: Using Activity and Entity-based Regulation to Strengthen the Financial System" featuring Keynote speaker Jelena McWilliams, Chairman of the FDIC. Over the course of two days in Washington DC, the U.S. Office of Financial Research and the University of Michigan’s CFLP brought together regulators, policymakers, lawyers, economists, financial institutions, investors, financial technology companies, and experts on data science, cybersecurity, and finance to discuss core principles for financial regulation.
Details: fordschool.umich.edu/events/2018/functions-and-firms-usin...
This photo is available for free under the Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives 4.0 International license. Mandatory photo credit may be attributed to: Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan.
Portraits of the Bride at Prathima and Ramesh's wedding as I tried to capture the many moods of the bride through the wedding from anxiety to elation to sorrow at leaving her old home and joy at starting a new life.
The next set shall be the wedding itself
Visit me at "Random Thoughts" here at www.asundaram.com
151002-M-PC671-806
Staff with Ryubo Co. Ltd., a supermarket and department store, pose for a picture Oct. 2 during the Futenma Friendship Function at the Habu Pit on Marine Corps Air Station Futenma. They were responsible for creating the fresh tuna sushi and sashimi for the guests of the function.
Photo by Cpl. Jessica Collins.