View allAll Photos Tagged structural
It's the first shot I post here from my vacation with my darling in Karlovy Vary [Carlsbad] , it's a spa city situated in western Bohemia, Czech Republic, on the confluence of the rivers Ohře and Teplá, approximately 130 km (80.78 miles) west of Prague. It is named after King of Bohemia and Holy Roman Emperor Charles IV, who founded the city in 1370. It is historically famous for its hot springs (13 main springs, about 300 smaller springs, and the warm-water Teplá River).
----------------------------------------------------------------
Canon 50D
Canon 50mm f1.8II
Me on Facebook
I've started working on first draft instructions for my JRM Martin "Hawaii" Mars water bomber replica. I discovered a LOT of structural issues in the first couple days of work. Most of which has been refined into a solid core that literally hundreds of submodels attach to. Creating the mostly studless and clean airfoil you see. Over the next couple days I'll be outlining the rest of the steps and creating a rough set of instructions to work off of during the initial prototype build.That prototype is going to tell me when I'm ready to actually start designing the fuselage and tail. Because there is definitely going to be some more kinks to work out. The wing spans nearly 6 feet. That's a whole lot of weight to be basically hanging from the fuselage. A problem that is made more complicated by my requirement for this project to actually be somewhat reasonable to transport. Meaning the wing is going to break up into three main sections plus several other, smaller assemblies. It's a hell of a challenge and one I'm enjoying a lot, despite all of the cursing.
This lovely International was part of the Structural Transport fleet when I photographed it at Aqua Chem Corp. in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in September 1984.
I recently bought two of the Atlas trainman bulkhead flats. These cars were virtually new during the time period I model so they've been given very little weathering. The load is some evergreen styrene tube I had laying around with strapping made from thin strips of electrical tape.
Reflection of a block of flats distorted by ripples on the Hertford Union Canal, near Victoria Park London
IMG_8065
5 Image HDR/DRI 2 image stitched to relief spatial tension on right using black card technique + ND 0.9 for smoothed water and cloud effects. Art Science Museum @ Marina Bay Sands, Singapore.
A scout around the area yield interesting compositions. I figured from this angle I might be able to see the sunrise at this time of the year. The camera was positioned nearly at the edge of the water!!
+++ 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:
After World War I, the German aircraft industry had several problems. German airlines were forbidden to operate multi engine aircraft and during a period all manufacturing of aircraft in Germany was banned. By 1921, some of the restrictions was lifted, civilian aircraft could be made after approval of an international control commission if they fulfilled certain requirements. To bypass these rules and to be able to make whatever aircraft they wanted several aircraft manufacturers moved abroad. In 1921, Carl Bücker handled the purchase of a reconnaissance aircraft from Caspar-Werke in Travemünde. Because they expected problems due to the rules in the peace treaty regarding the export of German fighter aircraft, Bücker explored the possibility to smuggle the parts out of Germany and assemble the aircraft in Sweden.
To make the purchase easier, Ernst Heinkel and Bücker started Svenska Aero in Lidingö in 1921. The contract on the aircraft was transferred from Caspar to Svenska Aero. Heinkel and some German assembly workers temporarily moved to Lidingö to assemble the aircraft. During 1922 to 1923, the company moved into a former shipyard in Skärsätra on Lidingö since the company had received additional orders from the navy's air force. The parts for those aircraft were made in Sweden by Svenska Aero but assembled by TDS. In 1928, the navy ordered four J 4 (Heinkel HD 19) as a fighter with pontoons. That delivery came to be the last licens- built aircraft by Svenska Aero. In the mid-1920s, Svenska Aero created their own design department to be able to make their own aircraft models. Sven Blomberg, earlier employed by Heinkel Flugzeugwerke, was hired as head of design. In 1930, he was joined by Anders Johan Andersson from Messerschmitt. Despite that, Svenska Aero designed and made several different models on their own.
One of them was the model SA-16, a direct response to the Swedish Air Force and Navy’s interest in the new dive bomber tactics, which had become popular in Germany since the mid-Thirties and had spawned several specialized aircraft, the Junkers Ju 87 being the best-known type. The Flygvapnet (Swedish Air Force) had already conducted dive bombing trials with Hawker Hart (B 4) biplanes, but only with mixed results. Diving towards the target simplified the bomb's trajectory and allowed the pilot to keep visual contact throughout the bomb run. This allowed attacks on point targets and ships, which were difficult to attack with conventional level bombers, even en masse. While accuracy was increased through bombing runs at almost vertical dive, the aircraft were not suited for this kind of operations – structurally, and through the way the bombs were dropped.
Therefore, Svenska Aero was tasked to develop an indigenous dedicated dive bomber, primarily intended to attack ships, and with a secondary role as reconnaissance aircraft – a mission profile quite similar to American ship-based “SB” aircraft of the time. Having learnt from the tests with the Hawker Harts, the SA-16 was a very robust monoplane, resulting in an almost archaic look. It was a single-engine all-metal cantilever monoplane with a fixed undercarriage and carried a two-person crew. The main construction material was duralumin, and the external coverings were made of duralumin sheeting, bolts and parts that were required to take heavy stress were made of steel. The wings were of so-called “double-wing” construction, which gave the SA-16 considerable advantage on take-off; even at a shallow angle, large lift forces were created through the airfoil, reducing take-off and landing runs. Retractable perforated air brakes were mounted under the wings’ leading edges. The fully closed “greenhouse cabin” offered space for a crew of two in tandem, with the pilot in front and a navigator/radio operator/observer/gunner behind. To provide the rear-facing machine gun with an increased field of fire, the stabilizers were of limited span but deeper to compensate for the loss of surface, what resulted in unusual proportions. As a side benefit, the short stabilizers had, compared with a wider standard layout, increased structural integrity. Power came from an air-cooled Bristol Mercury XII nine-cylinder radial engine with 880 hp (660 kW), built by Nohab in Sweden.
Internal armament consisted of two fixed forward-firing 8 mm (0.315 in) Flygplanskulspruta Ksp m/22F (M1919 Browning AN/M2) machine guns in the wings outside of the propeller disc. A third machine gun of the same type was available in the rear cockpit on a flexible mount as defensive weapon. A total of 700 kg (1,500 lb) of bombs could be carried externally. On the fuselage centerline, a swing arm could hold bombs of up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) caliber and deploy them outside of the propeller arc when released in a, additional racks under the outer wings could hold bombs of up to 250 kg (550 lb) caliber each or clusters of smaller bombs, e. g. four 50 (110 lb) or six 12 kg (26 ½ lb) bombs.
Flight testing of the first SA-16 prototype began on 14 August 1936. The aircraft could take off in 250 m (820 ft) and climb to 1,875 m (6,152 ft) in eight minutes with a 250 kg (550 lb) bomb load, and its cruising speed was 250 km/h (160 mph). This was less than expected, and pilots also complained that navigation and powerplant instruments were cluttered and not easy to read, especially in combat. To withstand strong forces during a dive, heavy plating, along with brackets riveted to the frame and longeron, was added to the fuselage. Despite this, pilots praised the aircraft's handling qualities and strong airframe. These problems were quickly resolved, but subsequent testing and progress still fell short of the designers’ hopes. With some refinements the machine's speed was increased to 274 km/h (170 mph) at ground level and 319 km/h 319 km/h (198 mph, 172 kn) at 3,650 m (11,980 ft), while maintaining its good handling ability.
Since the Swedish Air Force was in dire need for a dive bomber, the SA-16 was accepted into service as the B 9 – even though it was clear that it was only a stopgap solution on the way to a more capable light bomber with dive attack capabilities. This eventually became the Saab 17, which was initiated in 1938 as a request from the Flygvapnet to replace its fleet of dive bombers of American origin, the B 5 (Northrop A-17), the B 6 (Seversky A8V1) and the obsolete Fokker S 6 (C.Ve) sesquiplane, after the deal with Fokker to procure the two-engine twin-boom G.I as a standardized type failed due to the German invasion of the Netherlands. The B 9 dive bomber would subsequently be replaced by the more modern and capable B 17 in the long run, too, which made its first flight on 18 May 1940 and was introduced to frontline units in March 1942. Until then, 93 SA-16s had been produced between 1937 and 1939. When the B 17 became available, the slow B 9 was quickly retired from the attack role. Plans to upgrade the aircraft with a stronger 14 cylinder engine (a Piaggio P.XIbis R.C.40D with 790 kW/1,060 hp) were not carried out, as it was felt that the design lacked further development potential in an offensive role.
Because the airframes were still young and had a lot of service life ahead of them, most SA-16s were from 1941 on relegated to patrol and reconnaissance missions along the Swedish coastlines, observing ship and aircraft traffic in the Baltic Sea and undertaking rescue missions with droppable life rafts. For long-range missions, the forked ventral swing arm was replaced with a fixed plumbed pylon for an external 682 liters (150 Imp. gal.) auxiliary tank that more than doubled the aircraft’s internal fuel capacity of 582 liters, giving it an endurance of around 8 hours. In many cases, the machine guns on these aircraft were removed to save weight. In this configuration the SA-16 was re-designated S 9 (“S” for Spaning) and the machines served in their naval observation and SAR role well into the Fifties, when the last SA-16s were retired.
General characteristics:
Crew: two, pilot and observer
Length: 9,58 m (31 ft 11 in)
Wingspan: 10,67 m (34 ft 11 in)
Height: 3,82 m (12 ft 6 in)
Wing area: 30.2 m² (325 sq ft)
Empty weight: 2,905 kg (6,404 lb)
Gross weight: 4,245 kg (9,359 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 4,853 kg (10,700 lb)
Powerplant:
1× Bristol Mercury XII nine-cylinder radial engine with 880 hp (660 kW),
driving a three-bladed variable pitch metal propeller
u>Performance:
Maximum speed: 319 km/h (198 mph, 172 kn) at 3,650 m (11,980 ft)
274 km/h (170 mph; 148 kn) at sea level
299 km/h (186 mph; 161 kn) at 2,000 m (6,600 ft)
308 km/h (191 mph; 166 kn) at 5,000 m (16,000 ft)
Stall speed: 110 km/h (68 mph, 59 kn)
Range: 1,260 km (780 mi, 680 nmi)
Service ceiling: 7,300 m (24,000 ft)
Time to altitude: 2,000 m (6,600 ft) in 4 minutes 45 seconds
4,000 m (13,000 ft) in 15 minutes 10 seconds
Armament:
2× fixed 8 mm (0.315 in) Flygplanskulspruta Ksp m/22F (M1919 Browning AN/M2) machine guns
in the wings outside of the propeller disc (with 600 RPG), plus
1× 8 mm (0.315 in) Ksp m/22F machine gun on a flexible mount in the rear cockpit with 800 rounds
Ventral and underwing hardpoints for a total external bomb load of 700 kg (1,500 lb)
The kit and its assembly:
This purely fictional Swedish dive bomber was inspired by reading about Flygvapnet‘s pre-WWII trials with dive bombing tactics and the unsuited aircraft fleet for this task. When I found a Hasegawa SOC Seagull floatplane in The Stash™ and looks at the aircraft’s profile, I thought that it could be converted into a two-seat monoplane – what would require massive changes, though.
However, I liked the SOC’s boxy and rustic look, esp. the fuselage, and from this starting point other ingredients/donors were integrated. Work started with the tail. Originally, I wanted to retain the SOCs fin and stabilizer, but eventually found them oversized for a land-based airplane. In the scrap box I found a leftover fin from an Academy P-47, and it turned out to be a very good, smaller alternative, with the benefit that it visually lengthened the rear fuselage. The stabilizers were replaced with leftover parts from a NOVO Supermarine Attacker – an unlikely choice, but their size was good, they blended well into the overall lines of the aircraft, and they helped to stabilize the fin donor. Blending these new parts into to SOC’s hull required massive PSR, though.
The wings were also not an easy choice, and initially I planned the aircraft with a retractable landing gear. I eventually settled on the outer wings (just outside of the gullwing kink) from an MPM Ju 87 B, because of their shape and the archaic “double wings” that would complement the SOC’s rustic fuselage. However, at this point I refrained from the retractable landing gear and instead went for a fixed spatted alternative, left over from an Airfix Hs 123, which would round up the aircraft’s somewhat vintage look. Because the wheels were missing, I inserted two Matchbox MiG-21 wheels (which were left over in the spares bin from two different kits, though). The tail wheel came from an Academy Fw 190.
Cowling and engine inside (thankfully a 9-cylinder radial that could pose as a Mercury) were taken OOB, just the original two-blade propeller was replaced with a more appropriate three-blade alternative, IIRC from a Hobby Boss Grumman F4F. The cockpit was taken OOB, and I also used the two pilot figures from the kit. The rear crew member just had the head re-positioned to look sideways, and had to have the legs chopped off because there’s hardly and space under the desk with the radio set he’s sitting at.
The ventral 500 kg bomb came from a Matchbox Ju 87, the bomb arms are Fw 189 landing gear parts. Additional underwing pylons came from an Intech P-51, outfitted with 50 kg bombs of uncertain origin (they look as if coming from an old Hasegawa kit). The protruding machine gun barrel fairings on the wings were scratched from styrene rod material, with small holes drilled into them.
A real Frankenstein creation, but it does not look bad or implausible!
Painting and markings:
I gave the B 9 a camouflage that was carried by some Flygvapnet aircraft in the late Thirties, primarily by fighters imported from the United States but also some bombers like the B 3 (Ju 86). The IMHO quite attractive scheme consists on the upper surfaces of greenish-yellow zinc chromate primer (Humbrol 81, FS 33481), on top of which a dense net of fine dark green wriggles (supposed to be FS 34079, but I rather used Humbrol 163, RAF Dark Green, because it is more subdued) was manually applied with a thin brush, so that the primer would still shine through, resulting in a mottled camouflage.
On the real aircraft, this was sealed with a protective clear lacquer to which 5% of the dark green had been added, and I copied this procedure on the model, too, using semi-gloss acrylic varnish with a bit of Revell 46 added. The camouflage was wrapped around the wings’ leading edges and the spatted landing gear was painted with the upper camouflage, too.
The undersides were painted with Humbrol 87 (Steel Grey), to come close to the original blue-grey tone, which is supposed to be FS 35190 on this type of camouflage. The tone is quite dark, almost like RAF PRU Blue.
The interior was painted – using a Saab J 21 cockpit as benchmark – in a dark greenish grey (RAL 7009).
The model received the usual light black ink washing and some post-panel shading on the lower surfaces, because this effect would hardly be recognizable on the highly fragmented upper surface.
The markings are reflecting Flygvapnet’s m/37 regulations, from the direct pre-WWII era when the roundels had turned from black on white to yellow on blue but still lacked the yellow edge around the roundel for more contrast. F6 Västgöta flygflottilj was chosen because it was a dive bomber unit in the late Thirties, and the individual aircraft code (consisting of large white two-digit numbers) was added with the fin and the front of the fuselage. “27” would indicate an aircraft of the unit’s 2nd division, which normally had blue as a standardized color code, incorporated through the blue bands on the spats and the small "2nd div." tag on the rudder (from a contemporary F8 Swedish Gladiator).
Roundels and codes came from an SBS Models sheet, even though they belong to various aircraft types. Everything was finally sealed with matt acrylic varnish.
This B-52C Stratofortress crashed on January 24, 1963 with nine crew members on board due to a structural failure (two survived). Pieces of the aircraft scattered in a huge area on the side of Elephant Mountain, Maine. 54 years later, nature has taken over the memorial site, but thousands of pieces of the aircraft are still visible.
Shadow of the Colossus
PlayStation 4 Pro (4K .png, Cropped Flickr Tool)
Just built-in Photo Mode
- Yet another unhearting Photo Mode
First responders from across the country were in Virginia Beach for a massive structural collapse training exercise hosted by the Virginia Beach Fire Department and Virginia Task Force 2. The annual School was held at the sprawling complex of crawl spaces and staged disaster zones representing different scenarios – things first responders have seen and experienced first-hand. This course gives urban search and rescue teams a chance to practice their skills. More than 160 people took part in the hands-on training lasting for 8 days with students coming from as far as San Francisco, California, Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Delaware.
Photographs by Craig McClure
21227
© 2021
ALL Rights reserved by City of Virginia Beach.
Contact photo[at]vbgov.com for permission to use. Commercial use not allowed.
And old building with apparenlt serious structural issues, York, England.
York’s old town is known for “The Shambles,” an old area of narrow and sometimes-curving streets lined with very old shops and businesses. (The appearance in places is “Harry Potteresque,” something that shops are now promoting.) They seem to take pains to maintain the very old and slightly off-kilter appearance of the shops, but this particular building is a standout!
And, no, your screen is not melting. This building actually looks like this, leaning precariously to one side, with the walls of the lower floor appearing to be badly distorted and cracked. I did not enter the building, nor could I find a name for it (though the sign says that ghost tours meet there), but I can only hope that there is some interior reinforcement not visible from the street!
G Dan Mitchell is a California photographer and visual opportunist. His book, “California’s Fall Color: A Photographer’s Guide to Autumn in the Sierra” is available from Heyday Books, Amazon, and directly from G Dan Mitchell.
+++ 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 Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star was the first jet fighter used operationally by the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF). Designed and built by Lockheed in 1943 and delivered just 143 days from the start of the design process, production models were flying, and two pre-production models did see very limited service in Italy just before the end of World War II.
Designed with straight wings, America's first successful turbojet-powered combat aircraft, it helped usher in the "jet age" in the USAF. The US Navy was also keen to enter the jet age, so several P-80A Shooting Stars were transferred beginning 29 June 1945, retaining their P-80 designations. At Naval Air Station Patuxent River, one Navy P-80 was modified with required add-ons, such as an arrester hook, and loaded aboard the aircraft carrier USS Franklin D. Roosevelt at Norfolk, Virginia, on 31 October 1946.
The following day the aircraft made four deck-run takeoffs and two catapult launches, with five arrested landings, flown by Marine Major Marion Carl. A second series of trials was held on 11 November. The tests were passably successful, but the P/F-80A C was not a very suitable carrier aircraft. Even with the arresting hook and the bridle attachment points it still lacked a lot desired for carrier operations: No wing fold (greatly hampering parking on the deck and below in the hangar deck, and elevator handling), not protected against the salt water environment, not optimized for low speed handling around the carrier, and perhaps most troublesome it did not have a structure robust enough for sustained carrier operations.
In parallel, the U.S. Navy had already begun procuring its own jet aircraft, but the slow pace of delivery was causing retention problems among pilots, particularly those of the Marines who were still flying Vought F4U Corsairs. To increase land-based jet-transition training in the late 1940s, 50 F-80Cs were transferred to the U.S. Navy from the U.S. Air Force in 1949 as jet trainers. Designated TO-1 by the Navy (changed to TV-1 in 1950), 25 were based at Naval Air Station North Island, California, with VF-52, and 16 assigned to the Marine Corps, equipping VMF-311 at Marine Corps Air Station El Toro. These aircraft were eventually sent to reserve units. The success of these aircraft led to the procurement by the Navy of 698 T-33 Shooting Stars (as the TO-2/TV-2) to provide a two-seat aircraft for the training role.
Concerning the single-seat fighter, the US Navy was by late 1948 impressed (or desperate) enough to order a navalized version of the F-80C, with an uprated J-33-A-35 engine, an ejection seat and fitted with 260 US gal (220 imp gal; 980 l) tiptanks. This became the F2V, which addressed many of the early carrier trial shortcomings. For instance, the wings were modified with folding hinges at about half the wings' span, and tanks in the outer wing panels were deleted. This structural weakness precluded the carriage of the F-80C's large tip tanks, though, so that smaller, integral tip tanks were added to the wing tips. Internal structure and landing gear were reinforced, externally recognizable through a slightly higher stance of the aircraft on the ground. An arrester hook was added under the rear fuselage as well as catapult launch cable hooks under the air intakes. For better low-speed handling the flaps could be lowered more strongly than on the F-80, and slats were added to the outer wing panels. In order to provide the pilot with a better field of view esp. during carrier landings, a bigger and taller teardrop canopy was fitted, with a raised position for the pilot. The armaments consisted of six 0.5" machine guns with 300 RPG, plus underwing hardpoints fo up to eight inch HVARs or two 1.000 lb bombs, similar to the USAF's F-80C.
In 1951, immediately after the first F2V-1s had been delivered and sent to Korea, a second order for an upgraded variant was placed. Basically, the F2V-2 did not differ much from its predecessor, it was just outfitted with a slightly uprated J33-A-35A engine and the internal armament was changed to four 20mm Colt Mk. 12 cannon with 100 RPG in the nose. 32 F2V-2s were ordered, plus 12 additional F2V-2Ps, an unarmed photo reconnaissance version which had a similar camera nose as the RF-80. The standard equipment included a K-17 camera with a 6" lens and two split vertical K-22 cameras with 24" lenses. While the F2V-2P did not carry any offensive capability anymore, the underwing hardpoints were retained for photo flash cartridge dischargers, allowing a limited night photography capability.
USAF F-80Cs as well as USN F2Vs saw active combat service in the Korean War and were among the first aircraft to be involved in jet-versus-jet combat. They flew both air-to-air and air-to-ground sorties, claiming several aerial victories against North Korean Yak-9s and Il-10s. But despite initial claims of success, the speed of the straight-wing F-80s was inferior to the 668 mph (1.075 km/h) MiGs, and the heavier F2V fared even worse. A further problem of the F2Vs was their poor resistance against sea water-related aircraft wear. Even though Lockheed had tried to save the airframe and the internal systems from higher humidity and salt exposure, corrosion and electrical defects plagued the aircraft during its whole career, which was relatively short. The fighters were soon replaced by the more capable Grumman F9F Panther, and type that had been from the start been designed as a naval aircraft and was built by a company with more experience in this field of work.
When sufficient Sabres were in operation to counter the MiG-15s, the Shooting Stars flew exclusively ground-attack and photo reconnaissance missions. For the latter task, 20 surplus F2V-1s were modified in field workshops to F2V-1Ps. These were basically of the same technical standard as the F2V-2P, but retained the weaker engine. In fact, by the end of hostilities, the only Shooting Stars in USAF and USN service still flying in Korea were photo-reconnaissance variants. After the Korean War, the F2V fighters were quickly phased out, just the photo reconnaissance versions were still flying in reserve units, but were also soon replaced by Grumman Panthers and Douglas Banshee recce variants. By 1958, all F2Vs were already retired.
Lockheed's experience with the F2V was not futile, though. The USN's persisting need for a carrier-compatible trainer led to a further, more advanced design development of the P-80/T-33 family, which came into being with the Lockheed designation L-245 and USN designation T2V. Lockheed's demonstrator L-245 first flew on 16 December 1953 and production deliveries to the US Navy began in 1956.
Compared to the T-33/TV-2/F2V, the T2V was almost totally re-engineered and fully optimized for carrier landings and at-sea operations. This included a redesigned tail, naval standard avionics, a further strengthened undercarriage (with catapult fittings) and lower fuselage (with a retractable arrester hook), power-operated leading-edge flaps (to increase lift at low speeds) to allow carrier launches and recoveries, and an elevated rear (instructor's) seat for improved instructor vision, among other changes. The T2V eventually had a much higher ability to withstand sea water-related aircraft wear from higher humidity and salt exposure.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 34 ft 5 in (10.49 m)
Wingspan: 40 ft 9 1/2 in (12,45 m) incl. tip tanks
Height: 11 ft 3 in (3.43 m)
Wing area: 234.8 sq ft (21.81 m²)
Aspect ratio: 6.37
Airfoil: NACA 65-213
Empty weight: 9,273 lb (4,210 kg)
Gross weight: 14,392 lb (6,534 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 17,280 lb (7,846 kg)
Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0134
Frontal area: 32 sq ft (3.0 m²)
Powerplant:
1× Allison J33-A-35A centrifugal compressor turbojet with 4,900 lbf (22 kN) dry thrust
and 6,100 lbf (27.2 kN) with water injection'Allison J33-A-24/24A turbojet,
Performance:
Maximum speed: 590 mph (950 km/h, 513 kn) at sea level
Maximum speed: Mach 0.75
Cruise speed: 439 mph (707 km/h, 381 kn)
Range: 825 mi (1,328 km, 717 nmi)
Ferry range: 1,380 mi (2,220 km, 1,200 nmi)
Service ceiling: 46,800 ft (14,300 m)
Rate of climb: 6,870 ft/min (34.9 m/s)
Time to altitude: 20,000 ft (6,100 m) in 5 minutes 30 seconds
Lift-to-drag: 17.7
Wing loading: 51.3 lb/sq ft (250 kg/m²
Thrust/weight: 0.364
0.435 with water injection.
Armament:
No cannons installed
Underwing hardpoints for up to 2× 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs, but typically left empty or outfitted with photo flash
cartridge dispensers for night photography
The kit and its assembly:
This build is another submission the "In the Navy" group build at whatifmodellers.com in early 2020, and it was a spontaneous decision, following the discussions under a "F-80 in USN service" thread elsewhere in the forum (www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php?topic=33956.0).
I remembered that I had an Airfic F-80C in the stash, and the idea was born to build a kind of a missing link between the USN's purely land-based TO/TV-1 and the later, dedicated T2V-1 carrier-capable trainer.
I wanted the modified Shooting Star to stay close to the land-based original, but with some upgrades. These included foldable wings (hinted at with profiles on the upper wings surfaces, hiding the respective joints), a raised cockpit in the form of a new/bigger canopy (from a Hasegawa F9F Panther, with an added dorsal fairing) and a modified landing gear. For the latter, the main gear was taken over, but I raised the main legs by maybe 2mm - not much, but I wanted a rather stalky, Skyhawk-esque look that conveys the upgraded landing gear. For the same reason I replaced the front leg with a leftover donor piece from a Matchbox A-4M - it has a different construction and is also longer, so that the F2V now had a nose-up stance for a better angle of attack when launching from a carrier. I contemplated and actually tried a fin fillet, but found after hardware trials that this, together with the more bulbous canopy, totally ruined the F-80's elegant lines, so it went off again.
An extra of this conversion is the camera nose, taken from the Heller T-33/RT-33 kit, a straightforward mod because the same nose was also mounted onto the RF-80C photo recce variant of the Shooting Star. However, once again the challenges of body transplants on model kits should not be underestimated. While, in theory, the RT-33 nose should have been easy to graft onto the F-80 body, it was not. While the dorsal area would fit quite well, the lower shapes, esp. in front of the air intakes, differ considerably between the models. I assume that the Airfix F-80C is slightly too narrow/sleek at its front end. Integrating the different nose necessitated some serious PSR, and while the parts do not match as good as one might have suspected, the outcome looks fine and I am happy that I now have "something different", not just a standard fighter.
I also wanted to add wing tip tanks, but neither the early underwing tanks that come with the Airfix kit, nor the large tanks from the T-33 - I found them both to be too big for a carrier-borne aircraft. Finding suitable donor parts was not easy, though; initially I dug out a pair of leftover tip tanks from a Matchbox T-2 Buckeye. which are pretty slender, but they eventually looked too modern and streamlined for an aircraft from the early Fifties. I tried some further mods but eventually rejected them. The final choice became a pair of underwing drop tanks from a Hobby Boss MiG-15 that lost their fins.
Painting and markings:
Once more, a conservative approach. While the real TO/TV-1s of the US Navy retained their bare metal finish with black markings, I gave the T2V a classic all-blue livery, because I thought that it would suit the elegant lines of the F-80 well.
The F2V was painted overall in FS 35042 (from Modelmaster), later treated with a black ink wash and some post-shading. The interior surfaces of cockpit, air brakes and landing gear wells were painted with an individually mixed zinc chromate green, consisting of Humbrol 80 and 159 in a roughly 1:1 ratio. The silver wing leading edges were created with decal material, a more convenient solution than trying to mask and paint them. The landing gear struts and wheel discs were painted in aluminium (Humbrol 56).
Decals and markings were puzzled together. The "Stars and Bars" come from an Artmodel F8F Bearcat, as well as the "Navy" tag on the fuselage. The VC 61 markings come from a Hobby Boss F9F Panther, and I added some F-80/T-33-specific markings from various aftermarket sheets. The red highlights on nose and fin were done with paint (Revell 330), framed by thin white decal strips. The ranging radar was framed with similar material, just in silver.
Even though I considered opening the camera windows in the nose and glazing them, I left them closed, since a lot of lead had to be hidden inside for a proper stance. Instead, the windows were simply filled with black, clear paint, for a glossy finish. The rest of the aircraft was sealed with a mix of matt and semi-gloss Italeri acrylic varnish, which turned out duller than hoped for - but I left it that way.
A relatively simple project - or so I thought! The rhinoplasty was more complicated than expected, the wing tip tanks became a trial-and error odyssey and the different landing gear and the canopy were also not without trouble. The resulting fictional aircraft is very subtle, though - even more so through the standard USN livery, which suits the Shooting Star VERY well and might onlookers mislead to see a Fifties Banshee or a Panther. The F2V just blends right between these types.
.
.
Art washes away from the soul, the dust of everyday life.
- Henri Matisse
.
.
Sculpture group Shoal Fly By (2003) by Bellemo & Cat at Docklands, Melbourne's precinct centre.
.
.
NO GIFS AND ANIMATED ICONS, PLEASE!
The twin towers of a 215-foot-tall structural test stand for NASA's Space Launch System (SLS), the world's most powerful rocket for human space exploration, take shape at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, in a photo from April 2016. After construction is completed, hydraulic cylinders at Test Stand 4693 will push and pull the liquid hydrogen tank of the SLS’s massive core stage to subject the tank and hardware to the same loads and stresses they will endure during launch. Test Stand 4693 is being built in Marshall's West Test Area on the foundation of the stand where the Apollo Saturn V F-1 engine was tested during the 1960s. (Photo courtesy Brasfield & Gorrie)
_____________________________________________
These official NASA photographs are being made available for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photographs. The photographs may not be used in materials, advertisements, products, or promotions that in any way suggest approval or endorsement by NASA. All Images used must be credited. For information on usage rights please visit: www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/features/MP_Photo_Guidelin...
This iconic cathedral in downtown Chicao was designed in Gothic Revival style and opened in 1875. It is the seat of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago. Over the years it has survived structural issues, a major fire, and some pretty unfortunate "modern" decor revisions in the 1960s. It's not the city's most spectacular cathedral, but is still a beautiful space to visit. The upper/ceiling area and the pipe organ are magnificent.
This was taken at Liberty Village, King West area. I see it all the time since I live in the area; but this time, it somehow looked different (better) so I had to capture it.
This photo has been featured in Torontoist Weekly Photo Roundup, Issue #82.