Year of the Rat

China Zodiac Animal - Rat

Rat is the first in the 12-year cycle of Chinese zodiac. The Years of the Rat include 1912, 1924, 1936, 1948, 1960, 1972, 1984, 1996, 2008, 2020, 2032...

 

Though people consider the rat not adorable, and it even makes its way into derogatory languages, it ranks first on the Chinese zodiac signs. It has characteristics of an animal with spirit, wit, alertness, delicacy, flexibility and vitality.

 

Earthly Branch of Birth Year: Zi

Wu Xing (The Five Elements): Shui (Water)

Yin Yang: Yang

 

Lucky Signs for People Born in Rat Year:

Lucky Numbers: 2, 3

Lucky Colors: gold, blue, green

Lucky Flowers: lily, African violet, lily of the valley

Lucky Directions: southeast, northeast

 

Things Should be Avoided:

Unlucky Numbers: 5, 9Unlucky Colors: yellow, brownUnlucky Direction: west

Personality of the Rat

People born in the Year of the Rat are instinctive, acute and alert in nature which makes them to be brilliant businessmen. They can always react properly before the worst circumstances take place. They are also sophisticated and popular in social interaction. They are sanguine and very adaptable, being popular with others.

 

Strengths

Adaptable, smart, cautious, acute, alert, positive, flexible, outgoing, cheerful

Weaknesses

Timid, unstable, stubborn, picky, lack of persistence, querulous

See more about Destiny by Birth Month, Destiny by Birth Date

Love Compatibility of the Rat

 

Best Matches: Ox, Dragon, Monkey

They can get along with Ox, Dragon and Monkey partners, and their relationship will be well maintained as fresh as before. There is no big rise and fall in their life time, but will never be a lack of romance and passion.

Bad Matches: Horse, Rooster

If they get together, there will be endless quarrels. They are all sharp in words, and seldom make compromises. Picky in each other’s faults, they cannot be tolerant, which leads to their final divergence.

See more about Chinese Zodiac Sign Compatibility

 

Career: If you're looking for a job, then you need to take education or learn new skill. Your savior will appear to guide you the job opportunity. If you encounter trouble in the career, then people around will be happy to help you. If you look for a promotion opportunity, then you will receive the support from the coworkers.

 

Job Change: If you want to apply a job in a different company, then you will have good chance to have it. If you accept the job, then new position will make you busy for a while. But you will be happy to take that job.

 

Wealth: You have opportunity to increase your wealth. House can protect our living. For you, the house is connected to Monkey. Therefore, housing investment in the real estate market is a good choice.

 

Love: Rat and Monkey have attraction relationship. This is a good time for love relationship. You can ask your mentors, parents or older friends to help you to find potential match. For men, sometimes you can try the relationship with the person older than you.

 

Social Circle: Your people relationship is pretty good. You can do more social activities. That will help your money luck and career development.

 

Quarrel: If you have argument, dispute or lawsuit with someone, then you will receive good support. Hopefully, you can win the reputation.

 

Health: Monkey will keep you busy. Therefore, you need to rest yourself regularly to avoid overwork and exhaustion. Pay attention on your kidneys, abdominal pain, and the urinary system.

 

General Fortune: It's a sign of God's blessings. You will often have a carefree and joyous mood with pleasing appearance.

  

Year of the Ox

China Zodiac Animal - Ox

Ox is the second in the 12-year cycle of Chinese zodiac sign. Years of the Ox include 1913, 1925, 1937, 1949, 1961, 1973, 1985, 1997, 2009, 2021, 2033...

 

Oxen used to be capable farming tools in agricultural society, which attach to the symbol of diligence, persistence and honesty. People born in the Year of Ox are probably tardy in action, but industrious and cautious. Most of them are conservative and hold their faith firmly.

 

Earthly Branch of Birth Year: Chou

Wu Xing (The Five Elements): Tu (Earth)

Yin Yang: Yin

 

Lucky Signs for People Born in Ox Year:

Lucky Numbers: 1, 9

Lucky Colors: red, blue, purple

Lucky Flowers: tulip, evergreen, peach blossom

Lucky Directions: southeast, south and north

 

Things Should be Avoided:

Unlucky Numbers: 3, 4Unlucky Colors: white, greenUnlucky Direction: northwest

Personality of the Ox

Ranking second in Chinese zodiacal signs, the Ox is huge. People often use it to indicate something big in size or number. People born in the Year of Ox bear persistent, simple, honest, and straightforward characteristics. They are talent leaders with strong faith, and strong devotion to work. They are contemplative before taking actions, not easily affected by the surroundings but just follow their concept and ability. Being conservative with a lack of wit in speaking, they usually look silent and sometimes stubborn in their old ways.

 

Strengths

honest, industrious, patient, cautious, level-headed, strong-willed, persistent

Weaknesses

obstinate, inarticulate, prudish, distant

See more about Destiny by Birth Month, Destiny by Birth Date

Love Compatibility of the Ox

 

Best Matches: Rat, Snake, Rooster

They are quite compatible, deeply attracted by each other. They are both responsible, willing to share the family duty. Besides, loyalty and faith are the key factors to their happy marriage.

Bad Matches: Tiger, Dragon, Horse, Sheep

They will stick on their own opinions and ideas, and they both can hardly give in. They don’t get used to forgiveness, and squabbles lead to their relationship reaction.

See more about Chinese Zodiac Sign Compatibility

 

Career: It's time to put worries and concerns aside to accept the career challenge. People needs your knowledge and help to build their business opportunities. They provide a good working environment to for you to show your talent.

 

Job Change: If you want to apply a job in a different company, then that's a good idea to make the change. Your new position should give you better career development.

 

Wealth: The money opportunity is there. This is because you are building your reputation. But money won't come in to your door directly. You need to earn money using your brain and labor.

 

Love: Cow needs heat to warm up the cold heart. Monkey doesn't contain Fire and cannot offer love to Cow directly. But Monkey can help Cow to have more social activities. For better love relationship, Cow must reserve a space of love for its partner to build the relationship.

 

Social Circle: It's a good time to build your people relationship. To join more social networks and meet people to build friendships will help your career.

 

Quarrel: If you have argument, dispute or lawsuit with someone, then you will stand on the advantage position at the beginning. But that doesn't mean you will win in the end. The carelessness can fail you.

 

Health: Just keep exercising and pleasure mood regularly. That will give you better health. Pay attention on your stomach, intestine and the entire digestive system.

 

General Fortune: As long as you would stand out to prove your ability, the opportunity can bring you to anywhere, just like wind. If you are too conservative, then your achievement will be limited.

  

The Tiger ranks the third of the animals Year of the Tiger

China Zodiac Animal - Tiger

Tiger is the third in the 12-year cycle of Chinese zodiac sign. The Years of the Tiger include 1914, 1926, 1938, 1950, 1962, 1974, 1986, 1998, 2010, 2022, 2034...

 

Tigers, considered to be brave, cruel, forceful, stately and terrifying, are the symbol of power and lordliness. In ancient times, people usually compared emperors or grandees with the tiger. Court officials often said that 'accompanying the emperor is just like being at the side of a tiger'. There are also many legends about this animal.

 

Earthly Branch of Birth Year: Yin

Wu Xing (The Five Elements): Mu (Wood)

Yin Yang: Yang

 

Lucky Signs for people born in Tiger Year:

Lucky Numbers: 1, 3, 4

Lucky Colors: grey, blue, white, orange

Lucky Flowers: cineraria, anthurium

Lucky Directions: south, east, southeast

 

Things Should be Avoided:

Unlucky Numbers: 6, 7, 8Unlucky Colors: gold, silver, brown, blackUnlucky Direction: northwest

Personality of the Tiger

In most cases, people with Chinese zodiac sign 'Tiger' are powerful, independent, confident and brave. They have strong sense of errantry, being frank and easy to win others' trust. In their middle age, their fate may be uneven, but after hardships, they will enjoy a bright prospect. While they are also likely to be dogmatic, and like showing off when accomplishing something.

 

Strengths

Tolerant, loyal, valiant, courageous, trustworthy, intelligent, virtuous

Weaknesses

Arrogant, short-tempered, hasty, traitorous

See more about Destiny by Birth Month, Destiny by Birth Date

Love Compatibility of the Tiger

Best Matches: Dragon, Horse, Pig

They can encourage and help each other, and they can be the best lovers as well as rivals. They are all ambitious and share the same value in life and money. The couple can lead a harmonious life.

Bad Matches: Ox, Tiger, Snake, Monkey

They are both aggressive, and seldom make compromise, so the relationship will be nipped in the bud. If getting married, financial problems would result in their breakup.

See more about Chinese Zodiac Sign Compatibility

 

Career: You will face the challenge and trouble in your career. It's required to use your experience, knowledge and wisdom to solve the problems. If you don't have the solution, then you have to ask and learn from someone else.

 

Job Change: If a company offers you a job, then you shouldn't take it. It's not the time to make change. Otherwise, many unexpected problems in the new position are waiting for you to solve. And you don't have that solutions now.

 

Wealth: The money luck doesn't look good. People are watching for the money in your pocket. Don't be greedy for big return and risky business. All investments must switch to conservative items.

 

Love: There is a disagreement sign in the love relationship. You need to calm and play low profile when the argument is there. If you have trouble in the communication with your lover, then ask the elder friend as the mediator or liaison.

 

Social Circle: You don't have good mood for social events. But you can attend the educational networks. You can learn new knowledge and meet new friends there.

 

Quarrel: If you have argument or lawsuit with someone, then you need the negotiation to stop the dispute. The sign shows the result of the dispute is unfavorable to you.

 

Health: You need to pay attention on the accident. Your arms and legs might get hurt. Also, take care of your liver and the nervous system.

 

General Fortune: Your fortune won't be the same as before. You need to learn new professional skills to increase your career opportunities.

  

Year of the Rabbit

China Zodiac Animal - Rabbit

Rabbit is the fourth in the 12-year cycle of Chinese zodiac sign. The Years of the Rabbit include 1915, 1927, 1939, 1951, 1963, 1975, 1987, 1999, 2011, 2023...

 

For Chinese people, the rabbit is a tame creature representing hope for a long time. It is tender and lovely. The moon goddess Chang'e in Chinese legend had a rabbit as her pet, which stimulated the thought that only this creature was amiable enough to match her noble beauty. People born in the Year of the Rabbit are not aggressive but approachable. They have a decent, noble and elegant manner.

 

Earthly Branch of Birth Year: Mao

Wu Xing (The Five Elements): Mu (Wood)

Yin Yang: Yin

 

Lucky Signs for People Born in Rabbit Year:

Lucky Numbers: 3, 4, 9

Lucky Colors: red, blue, pink, purple

Lucky Flowers: snapdragon, plantain lily, nerve plant

Lucky Directions: east, southeast, south

 

Things Should be Avoided:

Unlucky Numbers: 1, 7, 8 Unlucky Colors: dark brown, dark yellow, white Unlucky Direction: northwest

Personality of the Rabbit

People with Chinese zodiac Rabbit sign usually impress others with an image of tenderness, grace and sensitive. They are romantic in relationship, having a high demand in life quality. They avoid arguing with others, and have a capability of converting an enemy into a friend. They are homebody and hospitable, and like house fitting-up. They can work with speed and efficiency, do not insist and get angry easily. But they also like hesitating, which makes them lose many chances.

 

Strengths

Gentle, sensitive, compassionate, amiable, modest, and merciful

Weaknesses

Amorous, hesitant, stubborn, timid, conservative

See more about Destiny by Birth Month, Destiny by Birth Date

Love Compatibility of the Rabbit

Best Matches: Sheep, Monkey, Dog, Pig

They are romantic in love and adventurous in life. They know how to make compromises to make their relationship lasting and fresh. Living together, they can become more tolerant and considerate, and life will be sweet and happy.

Bad Matches: Snake, Rooster

Their relationship cannot be everlasting, for they will suffer from a series of disagreement and conflicts. They both feel suppressed in marriage life.

See more about Chinese Zodiac Sign Compatibility

 

Career: People will find you and offer the career opportunity or business relationship. You will have very good cooperative experience with the new boss or partner.

 

Job Change: If a company offers you a new position, then you can consider to take it. Don't miss the career opportunity.

 

Wealth: Your reputation will help you to create money making opportunity. Fame and wealth will come together. But, the major income still come from the job.

 

Love: There is a strong love relationship between Rabbit and Monkey. If you are looking for love, then it's a good time to take actions. If you are in love, then you could think about the deeper relationship or marriage. If you have family, then the opposite sex is still attractive to you.

 

Social Circle: You're the favorite person in your group. You will win good reputation from everybody.

 

Quarrel: You shouldn't have disputes with others during this period. But you might involve and mingle with relationships of other people, and then an argument or lawsuit occurs from there. In this case, you should make negotiation and peace with the person.

 

Health: Be careful the accident to injure at face or head, which might leave scar on it. Pay attention on your arms, legs, liver and the nervous system.

 

General Fortune: Your people relationship is pretty good. Everything will come in your way. The result will be very satisfactory to you.

  

Year of the Dragon

China Zodiac Animal - Dragon

Dragon is the fifth in the 12-year cycle of Chinese zodiac sign. The Years of the Dragon include 1916, 1928, 1940, 1952, 1964, 1976, 1988, 2000, 2012, 2024...

 

The Dragon enjoys a very high reputation in Chinese culture. Chinese people regard themselves as descendents of the dragon. In ancient China, this imaginary creature was thought to speed across the sky with divine power. It is the token of authority, dignity, honor, success, luck, and capacity. Emperors entitled themselves exclusively as 'dragon'.

 

Earthly Branch of Birth Year: Chen

Wu Xing (The Five Elements): Tu (Earth)

Yin Yang: Yang

 

Lucky Signs for People Born in Dragon Year:

Lucky Numbers: 1, 7, 6

Lucky Colors: gold, silver, hoary

Lucky Flowers: bleeding heart vine, larkspur, hyacinth

Lucky Directions: west, north, northwest

 

Things Should be Avoided:

Unlucky Numbers: 9, 8, 3Unlucky Colors: red, green, purple, blackUnlucky Direction: southeast

Personality of the Dragon

People with Chinese zodiac Dragon sign are usually a group of people who are lively, intellectual and excitable. They can clearly tell right from wrong. They are upright and frank. However, they are also a bit arrogant and impatient. Female Dragons tend to be overly confident. They hate hypocrisy, gossip and slander. They are not afraid of difficulties but hate to be used or controlled by others.

 

Strengths

Decisive, inspiring, magnanimous, sensitive, ambitious, romantic

Weaknesses

Eccentric, tactless, fiery, intolerant, unrealistic

See more about Destiny by Birth Month, Destiny by Birth Date

Love Compatibility of the Dragon

Best Matches: Rooster, Rat, Monkey

They are born to be a couple, and they can build a good and happy family. Dragons give a lot of support and guidance to Roosters and Rats, and they get tenderness and care in return. Sharing similar interests and hobbies, they can be best partners in travel.

Bad Matches: Ox, Sheep, Dog

Quarrels and conflicts take turns to show up in their life, and they even become enemy at last. The reason for their split is that they cannot tolerant each other’s flaws and they always put themselves in the first.

See more about Chinese Zodiac Sign Compatibility

 

Career: Dragon has good management skill for the organization. It knows how to assign tasks to proper people to share the authority and responsibility. If you encounter the career opportunity or heavy workload, you should ask help from your partners or coworkers to fulfill the career plan.

 

Job Change: If someone offers you a job in a different company, then you can consider to take it. Your people relationship is good. The opportunity should bring you good friendship and career opportunity.

 

Wealth: This will be a good fortune year. You will have unexpected income. It's right time to ask the financial advisor to manage your investment. If you own your business, then your reputation will help you to increase your fame, wealth and value.

 

Love: It's a very good sign for love relationship. If you are single, then you should attend more social activities. Someone might be there waiting for you. If you are in love, then you will receive more caring from your lover. Your lover relationship will be much closer in the winter time. If you are married, you and your spouse will have wonderful and memorable love year.

 

Social Circle: Dragon and Monkey have attraction relationship. You will meet many friendly people in the Monkey year. This is a good sign for your reputation and love relationship.

 

Quarrel: If you have argument, dispute or lawsuit with someone, then you have good odd to win the case because you have strong support. Unless, your opposite party has better luck than you.

 

Health: You need to pay attention on your diet. Improper food or drink might cause the problem in the cardiovascular system. Then it will cause the difficulty in movement. It's will help doing regular exercise with perseverance.

 

General Fortune: It's a good sign of endorsement, joyfulness, trouble-free and prosperity.

  

Year of the Snake

China Zodiac Animal - Snake

Snake is the sixth in the 12-year cycle of Chinese zodiac sign. The Years of the Snake include 1917, 1929, 1941, 1953, 1965, 1977, 1989, 2001, 2013, 2025, 2037...

 

Snake carries the meanings of malevolence, cattiness and mystery, as well as acumen and divination. In some places, people believe that a Snake found in their court can bring delight. However, in most cases, this animal is considered evil, which scares people from the bottom of the heart. There are some idioms in China indicating the danger of this animal, for example, once bitten by the Snake twice shy of ten years.

 

Earthly Branch of Birth Year: Si

Wu Xing (The Five Elements): Huo (Fire)

Yin Yang: Yin

 

Lucky Signs for People Born in Snake Year:

Lucky Numbers: 2, 8, 9

Lucky Colors: red, light yellow, black

Lucky Flowers: orchid, cactus

Lucky Directions: northeast, southwest, south

 

Things Should be Avoided:

Unlucky Numbers: 1, 6, 7Unlucky Colors: white, gold, brownUnlucky Direction: northwest

Personality of the Snake

Usually, people regard Snake as a cunning and sly animal, which likes hanging out in darkness. In fact, this animal is also a symbol of wisdom and wit. Therefore, people with Chinese zodiac sign 'Snake', sensitive and humorous, and most of them are gifted in literature and art, such as Goethe and Picasso. Suspicion is their weakness, which makes them hesitant and a bit paranoid.

 

Strengths

Soft-spoken, humorous, sympathetic, determined, passionate, smart

Weaknesses

Jealous, suspicious, sly, fickle, nonchalant

See more about Destiny by Birth Month, Destiny by Birth Date

Love Compatibility of the Snake

Best Matches: Dragon, Rooster

Their relationship develops through lasting attraction between each other. Both of them like to cooperate to make life better. They both are good at associating, and enjoy a high reputation in life circus. They can form a cozy and harmonious family.

Bad Matches: Tiger, Rabbit, Snake, Sheep, Pig

They are suspicious and silent. When misunderstanding occurs, they lack effective communication and they stick on the disagreement, which give rise to more conflicts.

See more about Chinese Zodiac Sign Compatibility

 

Career: Monkey contains Metal and some Water. You will encounter little trouble in the career. You need to work a little bit harder. It will be worth after all, because you will get a satisfied return.

 

Job Change: If you have a promotion chance, then you can consider to take it. The sign shows both of your career and money luck are good.

 

Wealth: Your income and investment will have stable increasing. If you can find good financial adviser to manage your finance, then you might get much more return.

 

Love: The younger generations are easier to find their matches. If you are a female, then you need to push or encourage the boy to accept the relationship. If you are a male, then you have very good love relationship. A man will have more chances to meet the girls. If you are married or in love, your love relationship will maintain well.

 

Social Circle: If you can help people, then you should spend time on it. That will help you to expand social networks, and then the money making opportunity will come after.

 

Quarrel: If you have argument or dispute with someone, then you need to take care the business by yourself. You won't get a perfect result, if you only hire someone to handle the issue.

 

Health: Try not to over-exercise and then injure the body. Pay attention to arthritis, arms, legs and shoulders.

 

General Fortune: Monkey will bring a good fortune opportunity to you. Don't miss the opportunity in the year of Monkey.

  

Year of the Horse

China Zodiac Animal - Horse

Horse is the seventh in the 12-year cycle of Chinese zodiac sign. The Years of the Horse include 1918, 1930, 1942, 1954, 1966, 1978, 1990, 2002, 2014, 2026...

 

The Five Elements of Horse is Fire (Huo), which symbolizes enthusiasm and energy. The animal gives people an impression of independence and integrity. Its spirit is recognized to be the Chinese people's ethos - making unremitting efforts to improve themselves with passion and diligence.

 

Earthly Branch of Birth Year: Wu

Wu Xing (The Five Elements): Huo (Fire)

Yin Yang: Yang

 

Lucky Signs for People born in Horse Year:

Lucky Numbers: 2, 3, 7

Lucky Colors: brown, yellow, purple

Lucky Flowers: calla lily, jasmine, marigold

Lucky Directions: northeast, southwest and northwest

 

Things Should be Avoided:

Unlucky Numbers: 1, 5, 6Unlucky Colors: blue, white, goldUnlucky Direction: southeast

Personality of the Horse

They always impress upon people with dynamic, zealous and generous image. Although endowed with many shinning points, they have to face the weaknesses in their characteristics.

 

Strengths

Most have nice personalities, such as warm-hearted, upright and easygoing. Hence, they usually have a lot of friends flocking around them. Independence and endurance makes them more powerful, and they do not easily give up when in difficulties. Positive attitude leads to a brighter direction.

Weaknesses

The love of spending seems to be the biggest problem since they must be financially well off to support their social activities and outlook. Besides, their frank attitude at times leads to letting out secret easily. Persistence is what they lack on the path of success.

See more about Destiny by Birth Month, Destiny by Birth Date

Love Compatibility of the Horse

Perfect Matches: Tiger, Sheep, Rabbit

They are born to be a well-matched couple, sharing a lot in common.

Acceptable Matches: Dragon, Dog, Monkey

Their life will be sweet and happy as long as one of them learns to be considerate, tolerant and understanding.

Complementary Match: Pig

They are a complementary couple in characteristic and capability, and good partners in housework / business.

Intimate Friend: Snake

They are not so much couple as intimate friends, enjoying the same value for fashion and art.

Avoid: Rat, Ox, Rooster, Horse

They cannot understand and support each other.

See more about Chinese Zodiac Sign Compatibility

 

Career: Your workload and responsibility will increase. That's a good sign for the career development. Your income will grow as much as you make efforts on your job.

 

Job Change: Your career luck is good. You have the chance of the promotion. Also a different company could offer you a higher position. You should accept the challenge.

 

Wealth: The money luck is pretty good. You might have a good salary raise from your work. If you have extra money for the investment, you have better to spend time and energy to review your investment portfolio and adjust your financial strategy.

 

Love: If you are looking for love, then the love opportunity is out there and you need to spend time to find it. If you are a male, you have more chances to meet girls you like to build a new relationship. If you are married or in love, what you need is be more romance with your lover.

 

Social Circle: The topics of your social networks will focus more in the career and finance. Staying in those circles, you will learn new knowledge and experience from others. Those friendships and connections will help your career development.

 

Quarrel: If you have argument, dispute or lawsuit with someone, then you have good chance to win the case. If that's involving the money, then you can get some money back.

 

Health: Try not to over-exercise and then injure the body. Pay attention on your muscle, tendon and bones. Next, watch the air quality to prevent from the problems out of the respiratory system.

 

General Fortune: Monkey brings good fortune to you. Fame and wealth are coming to you. Don't miss this opportunity.

 

Note: Don't be too serious about the above predictions. Since using the only the birth year zodiac sign, the predictions cover only 12.5% of your 2016 fortune. If your Lucky Element is Metal, you will have good luck in the year of the Monkey. See the Chinese Five Element Astrology and the Rise and Fall Chart below.

  

Year of the Sheep / Goat / Ram

China Zodiac Animal - Sheep

Sheep / Goat is the eighth in the 12-year cycle of Chinese zodiac. The Years of the Sheep include 1919, 1931, 1943, 1955, 1967, 1979, 1991, 2003, 2015, 2027, 2039, 2051...

 

Sheep (goat, or ram) is among the animals that people like most. It is gentle and calm. Since ancient times, people have learned to use its fleece to make writing brushes and fur to keep warm. The white cute creature often reminds people of beautiful things.

 

Earthly Branch of Birth Year: Wei

Wu Xing (The Five Elements): Tu (Earth)

Yin Yang: Yin

 

Lucky Signs for People Born in Sheep Year:

Lucky Numbers: 3, 4, 9

Lucky Colors: green, red, purple

Lucky Flowers: carnation, primrose, Alice flower

Lucky Directions: east, southeast, south

 

Things Should be Avoided:

Unlucky Numbers: 6, 7, 8Unlucky Colors: gold, brown, blackUnlucky Direction: west

Personality of the Sheep

People born in the Year of the Sheep are tender, polite, filial, clever, and kind-hearted. They have special sensitivity to art and beauty and a special fondness for quiet living. They are wise, gentle and compassionate and can cope with business cautiously and circumspectly. In their daily life, they try to be economical. They are willing to take good care of others, but they should avoid pessimism and hesitation.

 

Strengths

gentle, softhearted, considerate, attractive, hardworking, persistent, thrift

Weaknesses

indecisive, timid, vain, pessimistic, moody, weak-willed

See more about Destiny by Birth Month, Destiny by Birth Date

Love Compatibility of the Sheep

Best Matches: Horse, Rabbit, Pig

Sheep could make a perfect couple with Horse, Rabbit or Pig. The harmonious bond between them would bring prosperity to both their career and families. The couple will win respect from others.

Bad Matches: Ox, Tiger, Dog

If Goat people get married with Ox, Tiger or Dog people, they may hardly live a happy life. Throughout their life, they might encounter considerable difficulties and setbacks. They might spend life in tough work or even experience the pain of losing family members.

See more about Chinese Zodiac Sign Compatibility

 

Career: Don't be too conservative to your career development. It's a right time to encourage yourself to show your knowledge, experience and wisdom to people. Your talent and experience will win peoples respect and bring you good reputation.

 

Job Change: The career opportunity is coming. If you have the opportunity of the promotion or job relocation, then you can accept the challenge. It must be someone giving you good recommendation. People will help you when you get on the new position.

 

Wealth: Money won't fall down at your door directly. You still need to work hard to earn the money from your job. To build good people relationship can make it easier for you to bring money home.

 

Love: If you want a better love relationship, then you need to respect the opinions and feelings of your partner. Both of you need the self-control not to push other to the limitation. If you are a female, you need to watch your language and behavior not hurt the dignity of your lover.

 

Social Circle: The popularity of a person is always changing. Your people relationship is fair. Currently, you have better chance to build more social connections. You should learn the active spirit of Monkey. You attend more social activities to acquaint new people and maintain the friendships. People relationship is the key to bring you the opportunity of career and wealth.

 

Quarrel: If you have argument, dispute or lawsuit with someone, then you will face the trouble of the storm. But the sunny day will come after. The result will be a close call. It's better to negotiate with the opposite party to shorten the period of worry and fear.

 

Health: You need to watch for the food you have. You should eat more vegetables. Pay attention on your stomach, large intestine and the entire digestive system.

 

General Fortune: As long as you want to work harder for the coming opportunity, the fame and fortune will come to you.

  

Year of the Monkey

China Zodiac Animal - Monkey

Monkey is the ninth in the 12-year cycle of Chinese zodiac. The Years of the Monkey include 1920, 1932, 1944, 1956, 1968, 1980, 1992, 2004, 2016, 2028...

 

The monkey is a clever animal. It is usually compared to a smart person. During the Spring and Autumn Period (770 - 476 BC), the dignified Chinese official title of marquis was pronounced 'Hou', the same as the pronunciation of ‘monkey’ in Chinese. The animal was thereby bestowed with an auspicious meaning.

 

Earthly Branch of Birth Year: Shen

Wu Xing (The Five Elements): Jin (Metal)

Yin Yang: Yang

 

Lucky Signs for People Born in Monkey Year:

Lucky Numbers: 1, 7, 8

Lucky Colors: white, gold, blue

Lucky Flowers: chrysanthemum, alliums

Lucky Directions: north, northwest, west

 

Things Should be Avoided:

Unlucky Numbers: 2, 5, 9Unlucky Colors: red, black, grey, dark coffeeUnlucky Direction: east

Personality of the Monkey

The general image of people born in the Year of the Monkey is of always being smart, clever and intelligent, especially in their career and wealth. They are lively, flexible, quick-witted and versatile. In addition, their gentleness and honesty bring them an everlasting love life. Although they were born with enviable skills, they still have several shortcomings, such as an impetuous temper and a tendency to look down upon others.

 

Strengths

enthusiastic, self-assured, sociable, innovative

Weaknesses

jealous, suspicious, cunning, selfish, arrogant

See more about Destiny by Birth Month, Destiny by Birth Date

Love Compatibility of the Monkey

Perfect Matches: Ox, Rabbit

They seem like made for each other, having several similarities in personality and life. Both of them can tolerate everything of each other, as long as they have enough space and freedom. Their love lives are full of fun because they have a strong sense of curiosity to get to know each other. Usually, they share common attitudes and opinions about life.

Bad Matches: Tiger, Pig

Holding different values and views, they don’t have many common topics in daily life. It’s difficult for them to communicate with patience and respect. Quarrels and conflicts will bring lots of negative influences to their relationship.

See more about Chinese Zodiac Sign Compatibility

 

Career: The sign is that you are working very close with your coworkers for the same project. That means your career is keeping you busy. But, your career status doesn't make any change. There is no sign for promotion. If you are looking for a job, then you might need more time to get one. This is because you have many competitors out there.

 

Job Change: If you get on a new position because of the promotion or new job offering, then your working status and development won't change too much. If you work for a new company, then you will feel new competition in the new working environment. The humble and polite attitude is very important when you are in unfamiliar territory. There is no sign showing you are outsmarting over people around.

 

Wealth: In general, you don't have good money luck in the near future. The people around you are all looking for the money making opportunities. If someone asks you for a big return investment, then you had better skip it. If someone gets a loan from you, then you won't get it back soon. The money investment must be conservative during the Monkey years.

 

Love: You and your lover often have different opinions. People born in the Rabbit year can act a good mediator for you. If you are looking for your love, then you will see strong competitors out there. But you will have better opportunity with people born in Rat, Dragon or Rabbit.

 

Social Circle: To build better people relationship, you should show courtesy to others, offer favors to people and yield your opportunities to friends. Never intentionally show off your cleverness and wit in public. Being polite and humble, you will become a popular figure in your social networks.

 

Quarrel: If you have argument, dispute or lawsuit with someone, then you had better truce for peace. The negotiation is the best approach during this period. Otherwise, both of parties will become losers.

 

Health: You shouldn't have too serious health issue. But you have watch for unnecessary accident on arms and legs. You should avoid the dangerous sports and activities. Also, pay attention on your Nervous system, liver and gall bladder.

 

General Fortune: Keep your persistence in benevolence, etiquette and righteousness, the good luck will stay with you.

 

Note: Don't be too serious about the above predictions. Since using the only the birth year zodiac sign, the predictions cover only 12.5% of your 2016 fortune. If your Lucky Element is Metal, you will have good luck in the year of the Monkey. See the Chinese Five Element Astrology and the Rise and Fall Chart below.

  

Year of the Rooster

China Zodiac Animal - Rooster

Rooster is the tenth in the 12-year cycle of Chinese zodiac sign. The Years of the Rooster include 1921, 1933, 1945, 1957, 1969, 1981, 1993, 2005, 2017, 2029...

 

Rooster is almost the epitome of fidelity and punctuality. For ancestors who had no alarm clocks, the crowing was significant, as it could awaken people to get up and start to work. In Chinese culture, another symbolic meaning of chicken carries is exorcising evil spirits.

 

Earthly Branch: You 酉

Element: Metal (Jin)

Yin Yang: Yin

Season: Autumn

 

Lucky Signs for People Born in Rooster Year:

Lucky Numbers: 5, 7, 8

Lucky Colors: gold, brown, brownish yellow, yellow

Lucky Flowers: gladiola, impatiens, cockscomb

Lucky Directions: west, southwest, northeast

 

Things Should be Avoided:

Unlucky Numbers: 1, 3, 9Unlucky Colors: white, greenUnlucky Directions: east, north

Personality of the Rooster

People born in the Year of Rooster according to Chinese zodiac have many excellent characteristics, such as being honest, bright, communicative and ambitious. Most of them are born pretty or handsome, and prefer to dress up. In daily life, they seldom rely on others. However, they might be enthusiastic about something quickly, but soon be impassive. Thus, they need to have enough faiths and patience to insist on one thing.

 

Strengths

Independent, capable, warm-hearted, self-respect, quick minded

Weaknesses

Impatient, critical, eccentric, narrow-minded, selfish

See more about Destiny by Birth Month

Love Compatibility of the Rooster

Perfect Matches: Ox, Snake

If combining with people in Ox or Snake signs, most of them will obtain everlasting and harmonious marriage lives. The connection between them can become tight. In addition, couples of these combinations always become enviable ones in other people’s eyes.

Avoid: Rat, Rabbit, Horse, Rooster, Dog

They have a large chance to obtain a tough and unstable love life if they get married with people with the above five signs. During the whole life, they always meet difficulties and troubles. However, they don’t have enough abilities to solve them because of their born different opinions and attitudes with each other. Lots of divergences will damage the relationship finally.

See more about Chinese Zodiac Sign Compatibility

 

Career: The career industry is changing. You need to spend more time and energy on your job. You will feel some pressures from the project schedule. But you still can work happily as long as you follow all the instructions of your boss carefully.

 

Job Change: If you have a job offer from a different company, then you should think twice before accepting the position. The new working environment might have many different opinions in the future business direction. That's a noisy and unstable sign. If you don't like such challenge, then it's not a good time to move.

 

Wealth: You don't have strong money luck. But your friends or relatives will discuss some investment opportunities to you. They might even push you to involve the investment using the yearlong friendship. The problem is that you cannot manage and control the operation of investment. Monkey is connected to the wind. The money will disappear very quickly on a wrong investment.

 

Love: Your lover likes to show his or her ability to act as the speaker of your relationship. Your lover likes to take control over the decision making including your activities and schedules. He or she has many reasons to override your opinions. You will feel the pressures from the love relationship.

 

Social Circle: Basically, your social activities will increase. But some social networks are wasting your time. Some ones out there are talkative, seeking the limelight and publishing nonsense opinions. Therefore, just spend more time with your close friends and family members.

 

Quarrel: If you have argument, dispute or lawsuit with someone, then you had better to negotiate with your opponent. The sign shows you are underdog. A quick truce is a good approach for the current circumstance.

 

Health: The air quality is very important to your health. Pay attention on your respiratory system - lungs, nose, bronchus and throat.

 

General Fortune: The potential and unexpected pressure is out there. When you are in a joyous moment, you need to watch your words and behaviors not offending or displease someone. Then your life will be calm and safe.

 

Note: Don't be too serious about the above predictions. Since using the only the birth year zodiac sign, the predictions cover only 12.5% of your 2016 fortune. If your Lucky Element is Metal, you will have good luck in the year of the Monkey. See the Chinese Five Element Astrology and the Rise and Fall Chart below.

  

Year of the Dog

Dog is the eleventh in the 12-year cycle of Chinese zodiac sign. The Years of the Dog include 1922, 1934, 1946, 1958, 1970, 1982, 1994, 2006, 2018, 2030, 2042...

 

Dog is man's good friend who can understand the human's spirit and obey its master, whether he is wealthy or not. The Chinese regard it as an auspicious animal. If a dog happens to come to a house, it symbolizes the coming of fortune. The invincible God Erlang in Chinese legend used a loyal wolfhound to help him capture monsters.

 

Earthly Branch of Birth Year: Xu

Wu Xing (The Five Elements): Tu (Earth)

Yin Yang: Yang

 

Lucky Signs for People Born in Dog Year:

Lucky Numbers: 3, 4, 9

Lucky Colors: green, red, purple

Lucky Flowers: rose, oncidium, cymbidium orchids

Lucky Directions: east, southeast, south

 

Things Should be Avoided:

Unlucky Numbers: 1, 6, 7Unlucky Colors: blue, white, goldenUnlucky Direction: north, west

Personality of the Dog

People born in the Year of the Dog are usually independent, sincere, loyal and decisive according to Chinese zodiac analysis. They are not afraid of difficulties in daily life. These shining characteristics make them have harmonious relationship with people around.

 

Strengths

Valiant, loyal, responsible, clever, courageous, lively

Weaknesses

Sensitive, conservative, stubborn, emotional

See more about Destiny by Birth Month

Love Compatibility of the Dog

Best Matches: Rabbit

They are born to be a perfect match. Similar personality traits and common hobbies add much fun to their love relationship. They can understand each other and face difficulties with enough patience.

Bad Matches: Dragon, Sheep, Rooster

Different sense of worth cause many conflicts in their daily life. Both of them are not willing to share inner true feelings. The lack of effective communication and trust won't bring a happy and relaxing marriage life.

See more about Chinese Zodiac Sign Compatibility

 

Career: Your career luck shows quite stable. You will find a good smart, creative partner to assist your career. If you have very tight project schedule, you should assign some tasks to the younger team members to share some workloads.

 

Job Change: If you receive a promotion or new job offer, then you should accept the challenge. Changing working environment to show people your talent is a good approach for current career development.

 

Wealth: The money luck is pretty good. Your professional skills can earn money easily. Your social networks will bring you the money opportunity.

 

Water is money to Dog. Dog is connected to the mountain. When it rains, the mountain can absorb all the water. But it won't rain all the time. Don't lose the opportunity when water is there.

 

Love: Your personality is complementary to your lover. Both of you will become a good match. However, you need to give more romance moments for your lover. If you're looking for love, it's good time to attend more social activities. You will find and enjoy the easy and relaxing life style there.

 

Social Circle: It's good time to build people relationship. You should spend more time at social events. You will find people like your advices. You will feel the sense of achievement with them. You can build good friendships there.

 

Quarrel: If you have argument, dispute or lawsuit with someone, then both you and the opposite party will become the losers. You had better negotiate the truce.

 

Health: Bringing better fortune is required more social or outdoor activities. The dangerous sports should be avoided. The outdoor activities need to carry out with caution. Pay attention on not hurting arms, legs and bones.

 

General Fortune: Dog and Monkey can be energetic partners. They can generate promising fortune. Your efforts will return you the prosperity and happiness.

  

Year of the Pig

Pig is the twelfth in the 12-year cycle of Chinese zodiac sign. The Years of the Pig include 1923, 1935, 1947, 1959, 1971, 1983, 1995, 2007, 2019, 2031, 2043...

 

Pig is not thought to be a smart animal in China. It likes sleeping and eating and becomes fat. Thus it usually features laziness and clumsiness. On the positive side, it behaves itself, has no plan to harm others, and can bring affluence to people. Consequently, it has been regarded as wealth.

 

Earthly Branch of Birth Year: Hai

Wu Xing (The Five Elements): Shui (Water)

Yin Yang: Yin

 

Lucky Signs for People Born in Pig Year:

Lucky Numbers: 2, 5, 8

Lucky Colors: yellow, grey, brown, gold

Lucky Flowers: hydrangea, pitcher plant, marguerite

Lucky Directions: southeast, northeast

 

Things Should be Avoided:

Unlucky Numbers: 1, 3, 9Unlucky Colors: red, blue, greenUnlucky Directions: east, west

Personality of the Pig

People with Chinese zodiac Pig sign are considerate, responsible, independent and optimistic. They always show generousness and mercy to endure other people's mistakes, which help them gain harmonious interpersonal relationships. However, sometimes they will behave lazy and lack actions. In addition, pure hearts would let them be cheated easily in daily life.

 

Strengths

Warm-hearted, good-tempered, loyal, honest, gentle

Weaknesses

Naive, gullible, sluggish, short-tempered

See more about Destiny by Birth Month

Love Compatibility of the Pig

Perfect Matches: Tiger, Rabbit, Sheep

These combinations always have a high possibility to obtain a sweet and everlasting marriage. When meeting difficulties, they can face them together. More patience and enough encouragement are keys to solve problems. They have common goals and similar values, which add more fun in daily life.

Avoid: Snake, Monkey

Totally different personalities may lead to conflicts. They always have completely contrary opinions about one thing, and cannot reach an agreement because of their stubbornness. If getting married, one would always think about his/her own advantages and feelings, which would hurt the other.

See more about Chinese Zodiac Sign Compatibilityd

 

Career: Basically, your career luck is good. You will realize your job is much easier than before. You will receive the training, education and assistances from others. You have better knowledge to handle your position. But you still need to stay alert. Any negligence on your duty will ruin your reputation and career development.

 

Job Change: If you have a job opportunity at a different company, then you had better think twice before accepting the offer. A strong wind of Monkey is coming. That's an unstable sign.

 

Wealth: The money luck is good, if you are humble and play low profile. If you slide into the arrogant and complacent attitude, then you won't get any fortune.

 

Love: You will find people care about you very much. If you are looking for love, then attend more social activities and you will feel many people are interested on you. If you are in love, you need to plan more romantic moments for your lover.

 

Social Circle: Your people relationship is great. People care and concern about you. They will give you lots of courage, sponsor and Compliment. That might spoil your personality. You should be humble and never proud of you fortune or achievement. Otherwise, jealous people will give you negative reputation.

 

Quarrel: If you have argument, dispute or lawsuit with someone, then that will waste your time, energy and money. To negotiate with the opposite party will be the best approach. Otherwise, it might become a big and long event.

 

Health: Watch out for diabetes, diarrhea, bladder and neuralgic pain.

 

General Fortune: The good fortune sign is coming. You will be excited. You have good energy and will be eager for actions. But you need to look well before each leap. Thus a promising winner won't become a loser.

 

Note: Don't be too serious about the above predictions. Since using the only the birth year zodiac sign, the predictions cover only 12.5% of your 2016 fortune. If your Lucky Element is Metal, you will have good luck in the year of the Monkey. See the Chinese Five Element Astrology and the Rise and Fall Chart below.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The Latvian Air Force was first founded during the Latvian War of Independence in 1919. In 1939, the Aviation Regiment consisted of three fighter squadrons, armed with 24 Gloster Gladiator and 6 Bristol Bulldog (a fourth squadron was in organization), three reconnaissance squadrons, armed with up to 12 Letov Š-16LS, 2 Hawker Hind and 10 Stampe SV.5, and a naval reconnaissance squadron with 4 Fairey Seal and two other planes. The Soviet occupation in 1940 ended the activities of the Air Force. At that time there were almost 130 aircraft in service.

 

The post-Soviet Latvian Air Force was formed on 24 February 1992 at Spilve Airport. In August 1994, the air force moved to an ex-soviet Lielvārde Air Base. In the beginning of the new century two new and more heavy Mi-8MTV Hip helicopters were bought for search and rescue equipment duties, but they were also used for transportation of troops, evacuation and support of the Special Forces. In March 2004 Latvia joined NATO and the Ministry of Defense made the decision to improve the small country’s air defense with a dedicated fighter squadron. The country also bought two more Mi-8MTV's at the Russian Ulan Ude helicopter (rework) factory that year, augmenting the SAR fleet.

 

In 2005, soldiers of the Air Force Air Defense Wing started a training course in order to prepare an upgraded air defense. At the same time, the Latvian Air Force commenced the modernization of the surface air defense capabilities by signing a contract regarding procurement of RBS-70 manpads missiles from Sweden and negotiated the purchase or leasing of 2nd hand Saab JAS 39 Gripen. Coming from a neutral country, the Gripen was the LAF’s wish candidate for the new interceptor aircraft, but eventually Latvia could be convinced (primarily through the USA and with generous financial support thorugh the “Baltic Peace II” program) to buy eight F-5E fighters and two F-5F trainers with relatively low flying hours and in good overall condition from Switzerland. Besides the financial support, the type’s ruggedness and relatively low maintenance costs led to this choice.

 

The Northrop F-5E/F Tiger II itself was part of a highly successful supersonic light fighter family, initially designed in the late 1950s by Northrop Corporation. Being smaller and simpler than contemporaries such as the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II, the F-5 cost less to both procure and operate, making it a popular export aircraft. The F-5 started life as a privately funded light fighter program by Northrop in the 1950s. The design team wrapped a small, highly aerodynamic fighter around two compact and high-thrust General Electric J85 engines, focusing on performance and low cost of maintenance. Though primarily designed for the day air superiority role, the aircraft was also a capable ground-attack platform.

After winning the International Fighter Aircraft competition in 1970, a program aimed at providing effective low-cost fighters to American allies, Northrop introduced the second-generation F-5E Tiger II in 1972. This upgrade included more powerful engines, higher fuel capacity, greater wing area and improved leading edge extensions for a better turn rate, optional air-to-air refueling, and improved avionics including air-to-air radar. A total of 1,400 Tiger IIs were built before production ended in 1987, and the type is still in operational use in many countries round the world.

 

The Swiss F-5E airframes for Latvia were overhauled and the avionics suite modernized in 2006 and 2007 by SAI in Italy. Elbit Systems from Israel became the sub-contractor responsible for systems integration. Upgrades for the fighters included an Italian FIAR Grifo-F X band multi-mode radar with BVR (beyond-visual-range) missile and Look-down/shoot-down capabilities, making the modernized F-5E capable of deploying AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles, which were, together with AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs, part of the Baltic Peace II support for Latvia. The new radar necessitated an enlarged radome for its scanner antenna, resulting in a duckbill shape. The fighters’ port side M39 20 mm cannon was removed to make way for the additional avionics.

 

All machines received a revamped cockpit with new MIL-STD-1553R databuses, a GEC/Ferranti 4510 Head-up display/weapons delivery system, two BAE Systems MED-2067 Multi-function displays, Litton LN-93 inertial navigation system and Hands On Throttle-And-Stick controls (HOTAS) to reduce pilot workload. Reportedly, the Elisra SPS2000 radar warning receiver and countermeasure system was also installed.

 

The modernization process was completed by early 2007 and the machines were re-designated F-5L/M. By late 2007, the Latvian air defense had become operational and worked closely together with its Baltic neighbors and the NATO forces that were frequently deployed to the Baltic NATO countries.

The small Latvian F-5 fleet is expected to remain in service until 2024, even tough, if there is sufficient funding, the machines will certainly be replaced beforehand by more capable models. The Saab Gripen is still a favored candidate, but F-16C/Ds from USAF stocks are a potential option, too.

By end of 2009, the LAF’s Fighter Squadron moved to Lielvārde Air Base, in an attempt to ensure centralization of Air Force units and to establish an efficient command and control system, which will result in a reduction of the Air Force units’ maintenance costs. With the Fighter Squadron the Air Force carries out Latvian airspace surveillance, control and defense and provides air defense support to the Land Forces units.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 47 ft 4¾ in (14.45 m)

Wingspan: 26 ft 8 in (8.13 m)

Height: 13 ft 4½ in (4.08 m)

Wing area: 186 ft² (17.28 m²)

Airfoil: NACA 65A004.8 root, NACA 64A004.8 tip

Empty weight: 9,558 lb (4,349 kg)

Loaded weight: 15,745 lb (7,157 kg)

Max. take-off weight: 24,722 lb (11,214 kg)

Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.02

Drag area: 3.4 ft² (0.32 m²)

Aspect ratio: 3.82

Internal fuel: 677 U.S. gal (2,563 L)

External fuel: up to 3× 275 U.S. gal (1,040 L) drop tanks

 

Powerplant:

2× General Electric J85-GE-21B turbojet with 3,500 lbf (15.5 kN) dry thrust

and 5,000 lbf (22.2 kN) thrust with afterburner each

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 917 kn (Mach 1.6, 1,060 mph, 1,700 km/h) at altitude

Range: 760 nmi (870 mi, 1,405 km)

Ferry range: 2,010 nmi (2,310 mi, 3,700 km)

Service ceiling: 51,800 ft (15,800 m)

Rate of climb: 34,400 ft/min (175 m/s)

Lift-to-drag ratio: 10.0

 

Armament:

1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M39A2 Revolver cannon in the nose with 280 rounds

7 hardpoints (2× wing-tip AAM launch rails, 4× under-wing & 1× under-fuselage pylon stations,

only pylon stations 3, 4 and 5 are wet-plumbed) with a capacity of 7,000 pounds (3,200 kg)

  

The kit and its assembly:

A relatively simple build, originally inspired by a Blue Rider decal sheet for Latvian Air Force aircraft that I had bought some time ago, as part of a vague plan to build a modern what-if aircraft for each of the young and small Baltic states’ air forces. The first one had been a Lithuanian MiG-21, Estonia is still pending (even though there’s a vague idea), and the Lithuanian interceptor was recently spawned when I bought an Italeri F-5E as part of a kit lot, even though it lacked box, decals and instructions and had a slight damage.

 

The Tiger II was built mostly OOB, the only changes I made are replaced wing tip launch rails (they were damaged beyond repair), I omitted port side cannon and created a modified “shark nose” radome, which was sculpted with putty; in real life, the enlarged radome for the upgraded radar is 33cm deeper than the original F-5E radome, even though the aircraft’s overall length remained the same, as well as the nose profile. In order to make the model look a little less static I slightly lowered the slats and the flaps – easy to realize on this model. The leftover cannon received a better barrel, made from a hollow steel needle. The pair of AIM-120s and their respective launch rails come from a Hasegawa air-to-air weapons set. The ventral drop tank came from the kit.

 

The Italeri F-5E is a simple affair and goes together well, even though the section ahead of the air intakes called for considerable PSR work – not certain if that’s my fault or an innate flaw of the kit (which comes with an upper and lower fuselage half)? The raised panel lines are another weak point – the kit cannot conceal its age, and there are certainly better options today (e .g. from Hobby Boss).

  

Painting and markings:

I wanted something that would neither look too Western, nor a typical Soviet-style livery. The resulting paint scheme is purely fictional and was inspired by a grey North Korean MiG-21 and USAF aggressor schemes for F-5Es – both reminiscent of the Soviet “Pumpkin” paint scheme for export MiG-21s. For the choice of colors, the complex “Norm 81” scheme from German Luftwaffe F-4Fs had an influence.

 

The result became a primarily grey air superiority scheme with uniform light grey undersides (FS 36495, Humbrol 147) and light Ghost Grey (FS 36375, Humbrol 127) fuselage and fin. The wings’ upper surfaces became mostly Dark Gull Grey (FS 36231, Testors 1740) and patches of the same tone were applied to the fuselage and the fin, too. On the wings’ upper surfaces, some patches in a dull, greenish grey (Humbrol 111, Uniform Grey) were finally added in order to break the aircraft’s outlines from above. The result somewhat reminds of German WWII camouflage, even though unintentionally.

 

The radome was painted in Revell 75 (Light Grey, with a brownish hue) to set it apart from the rest of the aircraft. Humbrol 140 was used for the cockpit interior. The landing gear became classic glossy white, while the air intake interior was painted in Humbrol 127, matching the aircraft’s flanks. Only subtle post-shading and weathering was done.

 

As mentioned above, the Latvian air force markings came from a Blue Rider decal sheet. The tactical codes and the matching serial number come from a Begemot MiG-21sheet. Other fictional elements are the NATO emblem on the fin and a small squadron emblem on the nose, which is a vintage Polish air force motif.

Most stencils had to be salvaged from secondary sources, since the kit came without a decal sheet. Fortunately, I had a spare F-5E sheet left over from a Hobby Boss kit. As a final step, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri).

  

A rather simple project, but re-sculpting the nose was a tedious task. However, I am happy with the outcome and how the fictional paint scheme works. Together with the exotic Latvian roundels, this creates an interesting, if not plausible, look.

 

Rain has stopped play on a lot of my outdoor-related ideas recently. The first shots we did of Bhavini were in my living room but then we decided to pop out and try something different. I wasn't sure if the traditional sari would really suit a graffiti backdrop but I ended up really liking the vibrancy of the result.

 

I'm hardly shooting at all at the moment because my workload is so heavy. I also apologies for not keeping up with other's streams - I know I'm missing out on loads of great stuff! Hopefully I'll be back soon

 

Join the Facebook Group:

www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=146142419033&ref=ts#!/...

This Week’s Cover

 

“We once knew a juvenile Wild East cowpoke who hid behind a lilac bush, lassoed his father, who was galloping by with a lawn mower, and the father toppled into the lawn mower and got nicked. The father should have laughed like an understanding pal and congratulated the lad on his skills, but he didn’t. More humane than the father-roper is Amos Sewell’s small cowboy, for he will injure nobody except maybe himself. If that hardheaded gent under the hat yanks back on the lariat, the two-wheeled bronc may proceed without a rider. Even more sensational experiences might be had if the young rope artist would take after Fido, pretending he is an expendable coyote – or is this a deplorable idea calling for an apology to all good dogs?” – Editor

 

Amos Sewell (1901-1983) is best known for the covers and illustrations he designed for many magazines, including popular 20th century pulp magazines. He was privately contracted to illustrate for large national advertising accounts, but admitted that he had to give those up to focus on his added workload from “The Saturday Evening Post.” Though Amos and his wife Ruth had no children of their own, the artist idealized childhood, often choosing to depict children at play or unknowingly making mistakes. Today, Amos Sewell is remembered as one of the Post’s best artist-illustrators.

 

[Note: In this issue of the Post is Ray Bradbury's "The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms," the basis for the 1953 film.]

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background (including material from fellow modeler Devilfish at whatifmodelers.com):

The SEPECAT Cheetah was a more sophisticated variable geometry wing derivative of the Anglo-French Jaguar attack aircraft, similar to the Su-7 and later Su-17/2022 evolution.

 

The Jaguar programme began in the early 1960s, in response to a British requirement for an advanced supersonic jet trainer to replace the Folland Gnat T1 and Hawker Hunter T7, and a French requirement (ECAT or École de Combat et d'Appui Tactique, "Tactical Combat Support Trainer") for a cheap, subsonic dual role trainer and light attack aircraft to replace the Fouga Magister, Lockheed T-33 and Dassault Mystère IV.

 

Cross-channel negotiations led to the formation of SEPECAT (Société Européenne de Production de l'Avion d'École de Combat et d'Appui Tactique – the "European company for the production of a combat trainer and tactical support aircraft") in 1966 as a joint venture between Breguet and the British Aircraft Corporation to produce the airframe.

 

Though based in part on the Breguet Br.121, using the same basic configuration and an innovative French-designed landing gear, the Jaguar as built also incorporated major elements designed by BAC – notably the wing and high lift devices. Production of the aircraft components would be split between Breguet and BAC and these would be assembled on two production lines; one in the UK and one in France.

 

The first of eight prototypes flew on 8 September 1968, a two-seat design fitted with the first production model Adour engine. The second prototype flew in February 1969; a total of three prototypes appeared in flight at the Paris Air Show that year. The first French "A" prototype flew in March 1969. In October a British "S" conducted its first flight.

 

A navalized "M" prototype flew in November 1969. The "M" had a strengthened airframe, an arrester hook and different undercarriage: twin nose wheel and single mainwheels. After testing in France it went to RAE at Thurleigh for carrier landing trials from their land based catapult. In July 1970 it made real take offs and landings from the French carrier Clemenceau.

 

The RAF accepted delivery of the first of 165 single-seat Jaguar GR1s (the service designation of the Jaguar S) in 1974, and it remained in service until 2007. Anyway, the Jaguar's all-weather capacity was limited and the airframe still offered development potential, so that from 1976 on the Anglo-French SEPECAT consortium looked at improved versions with radar, more powerful engines and improved avionics and aerodynamics.

 

This led in late 1975 to the Cheetah project, which incorporated a variable geometry wing that could be mounted to the Jaguar's airframe without major structural modifications.

 

The Cheetah was designed as a multirole, twin-engined aircraft designed to excel at low-level penetration of enemy defences, but also for battlefield reconnaissance and maritime patrol duties, and both naval and land-based versions were developed.

 

The Cheetah’s primary mission envisaged during the Cold War was the delivery of conventional and nuclear ordnance on the invading forces of the Warsaw Pact countries of Eastern Europe. Advanced navigation and flight computers, including the then-innovative fly-by-wire system, greatly reduced the workload of the pilot during low-level flight and eased control of the aircraft.

 

Compared with the Jaguar, the Cheetah’s nose section was widened to carry an Ericsson PS 37 X-band mono pulse radar, which used a mechanically steered parabolic dish housed in a radome. This radar performed several functions, including air-to-ground telemetry, search, track, terrain-avoidance and cartography. Air-to-air telemetry was also provided. This capability was not the system’s functional focus, but allowed the Cheetah to engage in all weather air-to-air combat and to act as a point defense interceptor with short range AAMs (e. g. up to six AIM-9 Sidewinder).

 

Honeywell provided an automatic digital flight control system for the Cheetah, one of the first such systems in a production aircraft. To assist low altitude flight and navigation, a Honeywell radar altimeter with transmitter and receiver was used, and the aircraft was also fitted with a Decca Type 72 Doppler navigation radar. TILS (Tactical Instrument Landing System), a landing-aid system made by Cutler-Hammer AIL, improved landing accuracy to 30 m.

 

From this basis, the Cheetah’s airframe was adapted to a naval version first, which featured a more rigid structure, a beefed-up landing gear for carrier operations and other suitable modifications. This evolved into the Cheetah FRS.1 for the Royal Navy. The FRS.1 was a separate development from the Jaguar, and catered to a very different specification. By the late 60's the Royal navy knew that their big carriers were due for scrapping and that plans for the proposed CVA 01 carrier were already being shelved. In a desperate attempt to hold on to naval air power, the Admiralty put forward a plan to buy two ex-US Navy Kittyhawk class supercarriers and refit them with British equipment (mostly salvaged from the outgoing carriers, Ark Royal and Eagle).

 

Because of the cancellation of TSR.2, the treasury, in a strange turn of events, agreed that air power at sea was definitively needed. They approved the acquisition of at first one, then later a second US carrier. To supplement them, two Centaur class carriers were to be retrofitted to act as tactical carriers to aid in smaller conflicts.

 

As these were not big enough to carry and deploy the larger American types being used on the supercarriers, a smaller multi-purpose aircraft was needed. With the Cheetah, BAC offered a version of the Jaguar, fitted with the variable geometry wing, then being designed for the MRCA, to aid with slower and shorter take offs and landings. Renamed the Cheetah, the FRS.1 entered service aboard the HMS Hermes in 1978, seeing service during the Falklands conflict in 1982.

 

The land-based Cheetah differed in many details from the naval version, though, the first prototype flew in early 1977 and the RAF’s GR.2 was primarily designed for the RAF Germany forces, since the continental theatre of operations was regarded as the most critical NATO flank of that time. The RAF Cheetahs were supposed to carry out conventional and nuclear point strikes against targets in the GDR, Poland and Czechoslovakia, and defend coastal lines against fast invasion fleets, esp. in the Baltic Sea.

 

The biggest visible difference to the FRS.1 was a different variable wing geometry mechanism and a modified wing shape with a dog tooth close to the pivot section and an extended leading edge fairing at the wing roots. The GR.2’s VG mechanism was more compact than the Tornado structure originally used in the FRS.1, but also simpler in order to save as much weight as possible.

 

The GR.2’s wings could be swept backwards between 16° and 72°, and the horizontal stabilizers were adapted in shape to form a quasi delta wing when the wings were fully swept back, allowing for minimal drag during the critical low-level dash towards a well-prepared enemy. The sweep angle could be altered manually by the pilot, but also automatically. The different VG wings basically improved low altitude aerodynamics and handling of the Cheetah, as well as its STOL capabilities. With its rugged undercarriage, lent from the Jaguar, the Cheetah GR.2 was, more than the bigger and heavier Tornado, suited for tactical front line service from improvised airstrips, together with the RAF’s Harrier fleet.

 

The Cheetah FRS.1 and the GR.2 carried the Jaguar’s pair of 30mm cannon, but due to the different wing structures the hardpoints for external ordnance differed. The Cheetah was typically equipped with a total of seven hardpoints: three underneath the fuselage, and more under the wings. The FRS.1 had four wing pylons which could, thanks to the Tornado ancestry, be swept together with the wings.

The GR.2’s capacity was more limited, as it carried two large tandem pylons under each wing root, each also carrying a launch rail for defensive AAMs, and a further pair of optional wing-mounted, fixed hardpoints. This facility was rarely used, though, and they were basically reserved for drop tanks for ferry flights, but could also take weapon racks. External ordnance capacity was similar to the original Jaguar, with 10,000 lb (4,500 kg).

 

The first Cheetah GR.2 entered RAF service in 1980, and replaced basically the RAF Buccaneers as well as an early part of the Jaguar GR.1 fleet (the Jaguars kept in service were later modernized to GR.3 standard).

 

The RAF Cheetahs served together with the Jaguar Force until 2007, when both types were retired. Following their retirement from flying service, some Cheetahs continue to serve as ground instructional airframes, most notably at RAF Cosford, used in the training of RAF fitters.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: One

Length: 16.83 m (55 ft 2½ in)

Wingspan: 13.97 m (45 ft 10 in) spread 16°, XXX swept 72°

Height: 4.89 m (16 ft 0½ in)

Wing area: 37.35 m² spread, 34.16 m² swept (402.05 ft² / 367.71 ft²)

Empty weight: 7,848 kg (17,286 lb)

Loaded weight: 12,200 kg (26,872 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 15,700 kg (34,612 lb)

 

Powerplant:

2 × Rolls-Royce/Turbomeca Adour Mk 105 turbofans

with 24.50 kN (5,508 lbf) dry thrust each and 35.5 kN (7,979 lbf) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: Mach 1.8 (1,870 km/h, 1,161 mph) at 11,000 m (36,000 ft)

Mach 1.1 (1,350 km/h, 839 mph) at sea level

Combat radius: 908 km (490 nmi, 564 mi) (lo-lo-lo, external fuel)

Ferry range: 3,524 km (1,902 nmi, 2,190 mi)

Service ceiling: 14,000 m (45,900 ft)

Rate of climb: 200 m/s (39,400 ft/min)

Climb to 9,145 m (30,000 ft): 1 min 30 sec

 

Armament:

2× 30 mm (1.18 in) DEFA cannons in the lower front fuselage, 150 RPG

7 hardpoints; 1× center-line pylon stations Fore & Aft plus a pair of pylons in front of the main landing gear wells; twin inner pylon (Fore & Aft) plus launch rails for AAMs, and single Outer Pylon pair under the wings, non-moveable. Total capacity of 10,000 lb (4,500 kg) for a wide range of guided and unguided ordnance, including:

- Matra rocket pods with 18× SNEB 68 mm rockets each (up to seven at once)

- AS.37 Martel anti-radar missiles

- AS-30L laser guided air-to-ground missiles

- Various unguided or laser-guided bombs of up to 2.000 lb (907 kg) caliber

- 2× WE177A nuclear bombs

- 1× AN-52 nuclear bomb

- ECM protection pods

- Reconnaissance pods

- ATLIS laser/electro-optical targeting pod

- External drop tanks for extended range/loitering time

  

The kit and its assembly:

The final contribution to the “Cold War” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com, and another realization of a plan from the long agenda – and triggered by a similar build at the board from fellow modeler Devilfish who built a naval VG Jaguar with Tornado wings in 1:48. I took the opportunity and inspiration to build my interpretation of that theme, lending the Cheetah designation from Devilfish’s build, though, and some of the naval version’s background.

 

Anyway, my conversion plan had been different. I wanted to create an RAF aircraft, true to the Jaguar’s strike/recce role, and the VG mechanism and wings would come from a MiG-23 – inspired by a similar transplant with a Mirage F.1C I saw many moons ago (and a beautiful result, I want to try that stunt, too!).

I also had the donation kits stashed away: a Heller SEPECAT Jaguar A (actually, I had already piled up four kits for this task…) and an Academy MiG-23S.

 

Wing transplantation went straightforward and with surprisingly little difficulties. The MiG’s wings were cut out together with the spinal section and the lower wing gloves, so that the VG geometry remained unchanged. On the other side, this package went into a shallow gap that I carved out from the Jag’s ventral section. Some putty and body sculpting merged the parts, easier than expected.

 

The rest saw only minor modifications. A radome was implanted (from an Italeri F-18 Hornet), which needed some body sculpting around the nose and the MiG-23’s stabilizers were used, too, in order to form a clean wing shape. I tailored their trailing edges a bit, so that the shape would not remind too much of the MiG heritage.

 

An RAF style radar warning receiver, scratched from 1.5mm styrene, was installed into the French version’ fin. Under the wing roots a pair of pylons from a Matchbox F-14 were added, together with Sidewinder launch rails from a Tornado ADV (Italeri). The jet exhausts were drilled open for more depth, and some sensors/pitots added to the nose, made from wire. Cockpit and landing gear were taken OOB, even though I used a different ejection seat and faired the original dashboard over with a piece of styrene.

 

The BL 755 bombs and their twin racks come OOB from the Heller kit, the Sidewinders from an ESCI kit, IIRC.

  

Painting and markings:

The RAF was settled as an operator, but for a whiffy twist I applied the all-green scheme that the RAF’s Harrier GR.5 carried in the late Eighties – exclusively, AFAIK. While the all NATO Green upper side appears a bit dull, the Lichen Green underside and the very low waterline look rather psychedelic and unique. Anyway, it works well on the Cheetah, and I can imagine that other RAF aircraft would also look cool in this simple scheme?

 

The basic colors I used are Humbrol 105 (Army Green) and 120 (Light Green, FS 34227), both are pretty approximates. The basic paintwork was later panel-shaded with lighter mixes of these two tones – actually brightened up with RAF Cockpit Green (Humbrol 78). In fact, the Heller Jaguar is almost totally devoid of any surface detail... A light black ink wash was also used to emphasize edges and deepen the contrast. The wings’ leading edges were painted in a very dark green (Humbrol 91) and the cockpit interior was painted in dark grey (FS 36076 from Model Master). The landing gear struts were painted light grey, while the wells and covers became Zinc Chromate Yellow.

 

The decals are a mix of the OOB Heller sheet and aftermarket sheets for RAF Jaguars, an Italeri Tornado and a Harrier GR.5. A coat of matt acrylic varnish finally sealed everything and the ordnance was mounted.

  

An interesting conversion, and the result looks very plausible! I am certain that this thing would make people seriously wonder and think when displayed on a convention. The VG Jag looks very natural – but not much sexier than the original? Anyway, the transplantation does not look out of place, because the Jaguar’s layout is very similar to the Panavia Tornado, so that the VG wing does not appear like the total fake it actually is. ^^

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background (including material from fellow modeler Devilfish at whatifmodelers.com):

The SEPECAT Cheetah was a more sophisticated variable geometry wing derivative of the Anglo-French Jaguar attack aircraft, similar to the Su-7 and later Su-17/2022 evolution.

 

The Jaguar programme began in the early 1960s, in response to a British requirement for an advanced supersonic jet trainer to replace the Folland Gnat T1 and Hawker Hunter T7, and a French requirement (ECAT or École de Combat et d'Appui Tactique, "Tactical Combat Support Trainer") for a cheap, subsonic dual role trainer and light attack aircraft to replace the Fouga Magister, Lockheed T-33 and Dassault Mystère IV.

 

Cross-channel negotiations led to the formation of SEPECAT (Société Européenne de Production de l'Avion d'École de Combat et d'Appui Tactique – the "European company for the production of a combat trainer and tactical support aircraft") in 1966 as a joint venture between Breguet and the British Aircraft Corporation to produce the airframe.

 

Though based in part on the Breguet Br.121, using the same basic configuration and an innovative French-designed landing gear, the Jaguar as built also incorporated major elements designed by BAC – notably the wing and high lift devices. Production of the aircraft components would be split between Breguet and BAC and these would be assembled on two production lines; one in the UK and one in France.

 

The first of eight prototypes flew on 8 September 1968, a two-seat design fitted with the first production model Adour engine. The second prototype flew in February 1969; a total of three prototypes appeared in flight at the Paris Air Show that year. The first French "A" prototype flew in March 1969. In October a British "S" conducted its first flight.

 

A navalized "M" prototype flew in November 1969. The "M" had a strengthened airframe, an arrester hook and different undercarriage: twin nose wheel and single mainwheels. After testing in France it went to RAE at Thurleigh for carrier landing trials from their land based catapult. In July 1970 it made real take offs and landings from the French carrier Clemenceau.

 

The RAF accepted delivery of the first of 165 single-seat Jaguar GR1s (the service designation of the Jaguar S) in 1974, and it remained in service until 2007. Anyway, the Jaguar's all-weather capacity was limited and the airframe still offered development potential, so that from 1976 on the Anglo-French SEPECAT consortium looked at improved versions with radar, more powerful engines and improved avionics and aerodynamics.

 

This led in late 1975 to the Cheetah project, which incorporated a variable geometry wing that could be mounted to the Jaguar's airframe without major structural modifications.

 

The Cheetah was designed as a multirole, twin-engined aircraft designed to excel at low-level penetration of enemy defences, but also for battlefield reconnaissance and maritime patrol duties, and both naval and land-based versions were developed.

 

The Cheetah’s primary mission envisaged during the Cold War was the delivery of conventional and nuclear ordnance on the invading forces of the Warsaw Pact countries of Eastern Europe. Advanced navigation and flight computers, including the then-innovative fly-by-wire system, greatly reduced the workload of the pilot during low-level flight and eased control of the aircraft.

 

Compared with the Jaguar, the Cheetah’s nose section was widened to carry an Ericsson PS 37 X-band mono pulse radar, which used a mechanically steered parabolic dish housed in a radome. This radar performed several functions, including air-to-ground telemetry, search, track, terrain-avoidance and cartography. Air-to-air telemetry was also provided. This capability was not the system’s functional focus, but allowed the Cheetah to engage in all weather air-to-air combat and to act as a point defense interceptor with short range AAMs (e. g. up to six AIM-9 Sidewinder).

 

Honeywell provided an automatic digital flight control system for the Cheetah, one of the first such systems in a production aircraft. To assist low altitude flight and navigation, a Honeywell radar altimeter with transmitter and receiver was used, and the aircraft was also fitted with a Decca Type 72 Doppler navigation radar. TILS (Tactical Instrument Landing System), a landing-aid system made by Cutler-Hammer AIL, improved landing accuracy to 30 m.

 

From this basis, the Cheetah’s airframe was adapted to a naval version first, which featured a more rigid structure, a beefed-up landing gear for carrier operations and other suitable modifications. This evolved into the Cheetah FRS.1 for the Royal Navy. The FRS.1 was a separate development from the Jaguar, and catered to a very different specification. By the late 60's the Royal navy knew that their big carriers were due for scrapping and that plans for the proposed CVA 01 carrier were already being shelved. In a desperate attempt to hold on to naval air power, the Admiralty put forward a plan to buy two ex-US Navy Kittyhawk class supercarriers and refit them with British equipment (mostly salvaged from the outgoing carriers, Ark Royal and Eagle).

 

Because of the cancellation of TSR.2, the treasury, in a strange turn of events, agreed that air power at sea was definitively needed. They approved the acquisition of at first one, then later a second US carrier. To supplement them, two Centaur class carriers were to be retrofitted to act as tactical carriers to aid in smaller conflicts.

 

As these were not big enough to carry and deploy the larger American types being used on the supercarriers, a smaller multi-purpose aircraft was needed. With the Cheetah, BAC offered a version of the Jaguar, fitted with the variable geometry wing, then being designed for the MRCA, to aid with slower and shorter take offs and landings. Renamed the Cheetah, the FRS.1 entered service aboard the HMS Hermes in 1978, seeing service during the Falklands conflict in 1982.

 

The land-based Cheetah differed in many details from the naval version, though, the first prototype flew in early 1977 and the RAF’s GR.2 was primarily designed for the RAF Germany forces, since the continental theatre of operations was regarded as the most critical NATO flank of that time. The RAF Cheetahs were supposed to carry out conventional and nuclear point strikes against targets in the GDR, Poland and Czechoslovakia, and defend coastal lines against fast invasion fleets, esp. in the Baltic Sea.

 

The biggest visible difference to the FRS.1 was a different variable wing geometry mechanism and a modified wing shape with a dog tooth close to the pivot section and an extended leading edge fairing at the wing roots. The GR.2’s VG mechanism was more compact than the Tornado structure originally used in the FRS.1, but also simpler in order to save as much weight as possible.

 

The GR.2’s wings could be swept backwards between 16° and 72°, and the horizontal stabilizers were adapted in shape to form a quasi delta wing when the wings were fully swept back, allowing for minimal drag during the critical low-level dash towards a well-prepared enemy. The sweep angle could be altered manually by the pilot, but also automatically. The different VG wings basically improved low altitude aerodynamics and handling of the Cheetah, as well as its STOL capabilities. With its rugged undercarriage, lent from the Jaguar, the Cheetah GR.2 was, more than the bigger and heavier Tornado, suited for tactical front line service from improvised airstrips, together with the RAF’s Harrier fleet.

 

The Cheetah FRS.1 and the GR.2 carried the Jaguar’s pair of 30mm cannon, but due to the different wing structures the hardpoints for external ordnance differed. The Cheetah was typically equipped with a total of seven hardpoints: three underneath the fuselage, and more under the wings. The FRS.1 had four wing pylons which could, thanks to the Tornado ancestry, be swept together with the wings.

The GR.2’s capacity was more limited, as it carried two large tandem pylons under each wing root, each also carrying a launch rail for defensive AAMs, and a further pair of optional wing-mounted, fixed hardpoints. This facility was rarely used, though, and they were basically reserved for drop tanks for ferry flights, but could also take weapon racks. External ordnance capacity was similar to the original Jaguar, with 10,000 lb (4,500 kg).

 

The first Cheetah GR.2 entered RAF service in 1980, and replaced basically the RAF Buccaneers as well as an early part of the Jaguar GR.1 fleet (the Jaguars kept in service were later modernized to GR.3 standard).

 

The RAF Cheetahs served together with the Jaguar Force until 2007, when both types were retired. Following their retirement from flying service, some Cheetahs continue to serve as ground instructional airframes, most notably at RAF Cosford, used in the training of RAF fitters.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: One

Length: 16.83 m (55 ft 2½ in)

Wingspan: 13.97 m (45 ft 10 in) spread 16°, XXX swept 72°

Height: 4.89 m (16 ft 0½ in)

Wing area: 37.35 m² spread, 34.16 m² swept (402.05 ft² / 367.71 ft²)

Empty weight: 7,848 kg (17,286 lb)

Loaded weight: 12,200 kg (26,872 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 15,700 kg (34,612 lb)

 

Powerplant:

2 × Rolls-Royce/Turbomeca Adour Mk 105 turbofans

with 24.50 kN (5,508 lbf) dry thrust each and 35.5 kN (7,979 lbf) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: Mach 1.8 (1,870 km/h, 1,161 mph) at 11,000 m (36,000 ft)

Mach 1.1 (1,350 km/h, 839 mph) at sea level

Combat radius: 908 km (490 nmi, 564 mi) (lo-lo-lo, external fuel)

Ferry range: 3,524 km (1,902 nmi, 2,190 mi)

Service ceiling: 14,000 m (45,900 ft)

Rate of climb: 200 m/s (39,400 ft/min)

Climb to 9,145 m (30,000 ft): 1 min 30 sec

 

Armament:

2× 30 mm (1.18 in) DEFA cannons in the lower front fuselage, 150 RPG

7 hardpoints; 1× center-line pylon stations Fore & Aft plus a pair of pylons in front of the main landing gear wells; twin inner pylon (Fore & Aft) plus launch rails for AAMs, and single Outer Pylon pair under the wings, non-moveable. Total capacity of 10,000 lb (4,500 kg) for a wide range of guided and unguided ordnance, including:

- Matra rocket pods with 18× SNEB 68 mm rockets each (up to seven at once)

- AS.37 Martel anti-radar missiles

- AS-30L laser guided air-to-ground missiles

- Various unguided or laser-guided bombs of up to 2.000 lb (907 kg) caliber

- 2× WE177A nuclear bombs

- 1× AN-52 nuclear bomb

- ECM protection pods

- Reconnaissance pods

- ATLIS laser/electro-optical targeting pod

- External drop tanks for extended range/loitering time

  

The kit and its assembly:

The final contribution to the “Cold War” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com, and another realization of a plan from the long agenda – and triggered by a similar build at the board from fellow modeler Devilfish who built a naval VG Jaguar with Tornado wings in 1:48. I took the opportunity and inspiration to build my interpretation of that theme, lending the Cheetah designation from Devilfish’s build, though, and some of the naval version’s background.

 

Anyway, my conversion plan had been different. I wanted to create an RAF aircraft, true to the Jaguar’s strike/recce role, and the VG mechanism and wings would come from a MiG-23 – inspired by a similar transplant with a Mirage F.1C I saw many moons ago (and a beautiful result, I want to try that stunt, too!).

I also had the donation kits stashed away: a Heller SEPECAT Jaguar A (actually, I had already piled up four kits for this task…) and an Academy MiG-23S.

 

Wing transplantation went straightforward and with surprisingly little difficulties. The MiG’s wings were cut out together with the spinal section and the lower wing gloves, so that the VG geometry remained unchanged. On the other side, this package went into a shallow gap that I carved out from the Jag’s ventral section. Some putty and body sculpting merged the parts, easier than expected.

 

The rest saw only minor modifications. A radome was implanted (from an Italeri F-18 Hornet), which needed some body sculpting around the nose and the MiG-23’s stabilizers were used, too, in order to form a clean wing shape. I tailored their trailing edges a bit, so that the shape would not remind too much of the MiG heritage.

 

An RAF style radar warning receiver, scratched from 1.5mm styrene, was installed into the French version’ fin. Under the wing roots a pair of pylons from a Matchbox F-14 were added, together with Sidewinder launch rails from a Tornado ADV (Italeri). The jet exhausts were drilled open for more depth, and some sensors/pitots added to the nose, made from wire. Cockpit and landing gear were taken OOB, even though I used a different ejection seat and faired the original dashboard over with a piece of styrene.

 

The BL 755 bombs and their twin racks come OOB from the Heller kit, the Sidewinders from an ESCI kit, IIRC.

  

Painting and markings:

The RAF was settled as an operator, but for a whiffy twist I applied the all-green scheme that the RAF’s Harrier GR.5 carried in the late Eighties – exclusively, AFAIK. While the all NATO Green upper side appears a bit dull, the Lichen Green underside and the very low waterline look rather psychedelic and unique. Anyway, it works well on the Cheetah, and I can imagine that other RAF aircraft would also look cool in this simple scheme?

 

The basic colors I used are Humbrol 105 (Army Green) and 120 (Light Green, FS 34227), both are pretty approximates. The basic paintwork was later panel-shaded with lighter mixes of these two tones – actually brightened up with RAF Cockpit Green (Humbrol 78). In fact, the Heller Jaguar is almost totally devoid of any surface detail... A light black ink wash was also used to emphasize edges and deepen the contrast. The wings’ leading edges were painted in a very dark green (Humbrol 91) and the cockpit interior was painted in dark grey (FS 36076 from Model Master). The landing gear struts were painted light grey, while the wells and covers became Zinc Chromate Yellow.

 

The decals are a mix of the OOB Heller sheet and aftermarket sheets for RAF Jaguars, an Italeri Tornado and a Harrier GR.5. A coat of matt acrylic varnish finally sealed everything and the ordnance was mounted.

  

An interesting conversion, and the result looks very plausible! I am certain that this thing would make people seriously wonder and think when displayed on a convention. The VG Jag looks very natural – but not much sexier than the original? Anyway, the transplantation does not look out of place, because the Jaguar’s layout is very similar to the Panavia Tornado, so that the VG wing does not appear like the total fake it actually is. ^^

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The AH-1 Cobra was developed in the mid-1960s as an interim gunship for the U.S. Army for use during the Vietnam War. The Cobra shared the proven transmission, rotor system, and the T53 turboshaft engine of the UH-1 "Huey". By June 1967, the first AH-1G HueyCobras had been delivered. Bell built 1,116 AH-1Gs for the U.S. Army between 1967 and 1973, and the Cobras chalked up over a million operational hours in Vietnam.

The U.S. Marine Corps was very interested in the AH-1G Cobra, too, but it preferred a twin-engine version for improved safety in over-water operations, and also wanted a more potent turret-mounted weapon. At first, the Department of Defense had balked at providing the Marines with a twin-engine version of the Cobra, in the belief that commonality with Army AH-1Gs outweighed the advantages of a different engine fit. However, the Marines won out and awarded Bell a contract for 49 twin-engine AH-1J SeaCobras in May 1968. As an interim measure the U.S. Army passed on thirty-eight AH-1Gs to the Marines in 1969. The AH-1J also received a more powerful gun turret with a three-barrel 20 mm XM197 cannon based on the six-barrel M61 Vulcan cannon.

 

During the 1990s, the US forces gradually phased out its Cobra fleet. The withdrawn AH-1s were typically offered to other potential operators, usually NATO allies. Some were also given to the USDA's Forest Service for fire surveillance, and a handful AH-1s went into private hands, including the NASA. Among these airframes were some USMC AH-1Js, which had in part been mothballed in the Mojave Desert since their replacement through more powerful and modern AH-1 variants and the AH-64.

About twenty airframes were, after having been de-militarized, bought by the Kaman Corporation in 2003, in a bold move to quickly respond to more than 20 inquiries for the company’s K-1200 ‘K-Max’ crane synchropter since the type’s end of production in 2001 from firefighting, logging and industry transport requirements. While not such a dedicated medium lift helicopter as the K-1200, which had from the outset been optimized for external cargo load operations, the twin-engine AH-1J promised to be a very effective alternative and a powerful basis for a conversion into a crane helicopter.

 

The result of this conversion program was the Kaman K-1300, also known as the “K-Cobra” or “Crane Cobra”. While the basic airframe of the AH-1J was retained, extensive detail modifications were made. To reduce weight and compensate for the extensive hardware changes, the SeaCobra lost its armor, the chin turret, and the stub wings. Beyond that, many invisible changes were made; the internal structure between the engine mounts was beefed up with an additional cage structure and a cargo hook was installed under the fuselage in the helicopter’s center of lift.

 

To further optimize the K-Cobra’s performance, the dynamic components were modified and improved, too. While the engine remained the same, its oil cooler was enlarged and the original output limit to 1.500 shp was removed and the gearbox was strengthened to fully exploit the twin-engine’s available power of 1,800 shp (1,342 kW). The rotor system was also modified and optimized for the transport of underslung loads: the original UH-1 dual-blade rotors were replaced with new four-blade rotors. The new main rotor with rugged heavy-duty blades offered more lift at less rotor speed, and the blades’ lift sections were moved away from the hub so that downwash and turbulences directly under the helicopter’s CoG and man hook were reduced to keep the cargo load more stable. Due to the main rotor’s slightly bigger diameter the tail rotor was changed into a slightly smaller four-blade rotor, too. This new arrangement made the K-1300 more stable while hovering or during slow speed maneuvers and more responsive to steering input.

 

The Cobra’s crew of two was retained, but the cockpit was re-arranged and split into two compartments: the pilot retained the original rear position in the tandem cockpit under the original glazing, but the gunner’s station in front of him, together with the secondary dashboard, was omitted and replaced by a new, fully glazed cabin under the former gunner position. This cabin occupied the former gun station and its ammunition supply and contained a rearward-facing workstation for a second pilot with full controls. It was accessible via a separate door or a ladder from above, through a trap door in the former gunner’s station floor, where a simple foldable bench was available for a third person. This arrangement was chosen due to almost complete lack of oversight of the slung load from the normal cockpit position, despite a CCTV (closed circuit television) system with two cameras intended for observation of slung loads. The second pilot would control the helicopter during delicate load-handling maneuvers, while the primary pilot “above” would fly the helicopter during transfer flights, both sharing the workload.

 

To accommodate the cabin under the fuselage and improve ground handling, the AH-1J’s skids were replaced by a stalky, fixed four-wheel landing gear that considerably increased ground clearance (almost 7 feet), making the attachment of loads on the ground to the main ventral hook easier, as the K-1300 could be “rolled over” the cargo on the ground and did not have to hover above it to connect. However, an external ladder had to be added so that the pilot could reach his/her workstation almost 10 feet above the ground.

 

The bulky ventral cabin, the draggy landing gear and the new lift-optimized rotor system reduced the CraneCobra’s top speed by a third to just 124 mph (200 km/h), but the helicopter’s load-carrying capacity became 35% higher and the Cobra’s performance under “hot & high” conditions was markedly improved, too.

For transfer flights, a pair of external auxiliary tanks could be mounted to the lower fuselage flanks, which could also be replaced with cargo boxes of similar size and shape.

 

K-1300 buyers primarily came from the United States and Canada, but there were foreign operators, too. A major operator in Europe became Heliswiss, the oldest helicopter company in Switzerland. The company was founded as „Heliswiss Schweizerische Helikopter AG“, with headquarters in Berne-Belp on April 17, 1953, what also marked the beginning of commercial helicopter flying in Switzerland. During the following years Heliswiss expanded in Switzerland and formed a network with bases in Belp BE, Samedan GR, Domat Ems GR, Locarno TI, Erstfeld UR, Gampel VS, Gstaad BE and Gruyères FR. During the build-up of the rescue-company Schweizerische Rettungsflugwacht (REGA) as an independent network, Heliswiss carried out rescue missions on their behalf.

 

Heliswiss carried out operations all over the world, e. g. in Greenland, Suriname, North Africa and South America. The first helicopter was a Bell 47 G-1, registered as HB-XAG on September 23, 1953. From 1963 Heliswiss started to expand and began to operate with medium helicopters like the Agusta Bell 204B with a turbine power of 1050 HP and an external load of up to 1500 kg. From 1979 Heliswiss operated a Bell 214 (external load up to 2.8 t).

Since 1991 Heliswiss operated a Russian Kamov 32A12 (a civil crane version of the Ka-27 “Helix”), which was joined by two K-1300s in 2004. They were frequently used for construction of transmission towers for overhead power lines and pylons for railway catenary lines, for selective logging and also as fire bombers with underslung water bags, the latter managed by the German Helog company, operating out of Ainring and Küssnacht in Germany and Switzerland until 2008, when Helog changed its business focus into a helicopter flight training academy in Liberia with the support of Germany's Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

A second Kamov 32A12 joined the fleet in 2015, which replaced one of the K-1300s, and Heliswiss’ last K-1300 was retired in early 2022.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 2, plus space for a passenger

Length: 54 ft 3 in (16,56 m) including rotors

44 ft 5 in (13.5 m) fuselage only

Main rotor diameter: 46 ft 2¾ in (14,11 m)

Main rotor area: 1,677.64 sq ft (156,37 m2)

Width (over landing gear): 12 ft 6 in (3.85 m)

Height: 17 ft 8¼ in (5,40 m)

Empty weight: 5,810 lb (2,635 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 9,500 lb (4,309 kg) without slung load

13,515 lb (6,145 kg) with slung load

 

Powerplant:

1× P&W Canada T400-CP-400 (PT6T-3 Twin-Pac) turboshaft engine, 1,800 shp (1,342 kW)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 124 mph (200 km/h, 110 kn)

Cruise speed: 105 mph (169 km/h, 91 kn)

Range: 270 mi (430 km, 230 nmi) with internal fuel only,

360 mi (570 km 310 nmi) with external auxiliary tanks

Service ceiling: 15,000 ft (4,600 m)

Hovering ceiling out of ground effect: 3,000 m (9,840 ft)

Rate of climb: 2,500 ft/min (13 m/s) at Sea Level with flat-rated torque

 

External load capacity (at ISA +15 °C (59.0 °F):

6,000 lb (2,722 kg) at sea level

5,663 lb (2,569 kg) at 5,000 ft (1,524 m)

5,163 lb (2,342 kg) at 10,000 ft (3,048 m)

5,013 lb (2,274 kg) at 12,100 ft (3,688 m)

4,313 lb (1,956 kg) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)

  

The kit and its assembly:

This is/was the second contribution to the late 2022 “Logistics” Group Build at whatifmodellers.com, a welcome occasion and motivation to tackle a what-if project that had been on my list for a long while. This crane helicopter conversion of a HueyCobra was inspired by the Mil Mi-10K helicopter – I had built a 1:100 VEB Plasticart kit MANY years ago and still remembered the helicopter’s unique ventral cabin under the nose with a rearward-facing second pilot. I always thought that the AH-1 might be a good crane helicopter, too, esp. the USMC’s twin-engine variant. And why not combine everything in a fictional model?

 

With this plan the basis became a Fujimi 1:72 AH-1J and lots of donor parts to modify the basic hull into “something else”. Things started with the removal of the chin turret and part of the lower front hull to make space for the ventral glass cabin. The openings for the stub wings were faired over and a different stabilizer (taken from a Revell EC 135, including the end plates) was implanted. The attachment points for the skids were filled and a styrene tube was inserted into the rotor mast opening to later hold the new four-blade rotor. Another styrene tube with bigger diameter was inserted into the lower fuselage as a display holder adapter for later flight scene pictures. Lead beads filled the nose section to make sure the CraneCobra would stand well on its new legs, with the nose down. The cockpit was basically taken OOB, just the front seat and the respective gunner dashboard was omitted.

 

One of the big challenges of this build followed next: the ventral cabin. Over the course of several months, I was not able to find a suitable donor, so I was forced to scratch the cabin from acrylic and styrene sheet. Size benchmark became the gunner’s seat from the Cobra kit, with one of the OOB pilots seated. Cabin width was less dictated through the fuselage, the rest of the cabin’s design became a rather simple, boxy thing – not pretty, but I think a real-life retrofitted cabin would not look much different? Some PSR was done to hide the edges of the rather thick all-clear walls and create a 3D frame - a delicate task. Attaching the completed thing with the second pilot and a dashboard under the roof to the Cobra’s lower hull and making it look more or less natural without major accidents was also a tricky and lengthy affair, because I ignored the Cobra’s narrowing nose above the former chin turret.

 

With the cabin defining the ground helicopter’s clearance, it was time for the next donors: the landing gear from an Airfix 1:72 Kamow Ka-25, which had to be modified further to achieve a proper stance. The long main struts were fixed to the hull, their supporting struts had to be scratched, in this case from steel wire. The front wheels were directly attached to the ventral cabin (which might contain in real life a rigid steel cage that not only protects the second crew member but could also take the front wheels’ loads?). Looks pretty stalky!

Under the hull, a massive hook and a fairing for the oil cooler were added. A PE brass ladder was mounted on the right side of the hull under the pilot’s cockpit, while a rear-view mirror was mounted for the ventral pilot on the left side.

 

The rotor system was created in parallel, I wanted “something different” from the UH-1 dual-blade rotors. The main rotor hub was taken from a Mistercraft 1:72 Westland Lynx (AFAIK a re-boxed ZTS Plastyk kit), which included the arms up to the blades. The hub was put onto a metal axis, with a spacer to make it sit well in the new styrene tube adapter inside of the hull, and some donor parts from the Revell EC 135. Deeper, tailored blades were glued to the Lynx hub, actually leftover parts from the aforementioned wrecked VEB Plasticart 1:100 Mi-10, even though their length had to be halved (what makes you aware how large a Mi-6/10 is compared with an AH-1!). The tail rotor was taken wholesale from the Lynx and stuck to the Cobra’s tail with a steel pin.

  

Painting and markings:

Another pushing factor for this build was the fact that I had a 1:72 Begemot aftermarket decal sheet for the Kamow Ka-27/32 in The Stash™, which features, among many military helicopters, (the) two civil Heliswiss machines – a perfect match!

Using the Swiss Helix’ as design benchmark I adapted their red-over-white paint scheme to the slender AH-1 and eventually ended up with a simple livery with a white belly (acrylic white from the rattle can, after extensive masking of the clear parts with Maskol/latex milk) and a red (Humbrol 19) upper section, with decorative counter-colored cheatlines along the medium waterline. A black anti-glare panel was added in front of the windscreen. The auxiliary tanks were painted white, too, but they were processed separately and mounted just before the final coat of varnish was applied. The PE ladder as well as the rotors were handled similarly.

 

The cockpit and rotor opening interior were painted in a very dark grey (tar black, Revell 06), while the interior of the air intakes was painted bright white (Revell 301). The rotor blades became light grey (Revell 75) with darker leading edges (Humbrol 140), dark grey (Humbrol 164) hubs and yellow tips.

 

For the “HELOG/Heliswiss” tagline the lower white section had to be raised to a medium position on the fuselage, so that they could be placed on the lower flanks under the cockpit. The white civil registration code could not be placed on the tail and ended up on the engine cowling, on red, but this does not look bad or wrong at all.

The cheatlines are also decals from the Ka-32 Begemot sheet, even though they had to be trimmed considerably to fit onto the Cobra’s fuselage – and unfortunately the turned out to be poorly printed and rather brittle, so that I had to improvise and correct the flaws with generic red and white decal lines from TL Modellbau. The white cross on the tail and most stencils came from the Begemot sheet, too. Black, engine soot-hiding areas on the Cobra’s tail were created with generic decal sheet material, too.

 

The rotor blades and the wheels received a black ink treatment to emphasize their details, but this was not done on the hull to avoid a dirty or worn look. After some final details like position lights the model was sealed with semi-matt acrylic varnish, while the rotors became matt.

  

A weird-looking what-if model, but somehow a crane-copter variant of the AH-1 looks quite natural – even more so in its attractive red-and-white civil livery. The stalky landing gear is odd, though, necessitated by the ventral cabin for the second pilot. I was skeptical, but scratching the latter was more successful than expected, and the cabin blend quite well into the AH-1 hull, despite its boxy shape.

 

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The AH-1 Cobra was developed in the mid-1960s as an interim gunship for the U.S. Army for use during the Vietnam War. The Cobra shared the proven transmission, rotor system, and the T53 turboshaft engine of the UH-1 "Huey". By June 1967, the first AH-1G HueyCobras had been delivered. Bell built 1,116 AH-1Gs for the U.S. Army between 1967 and 1973, and the Cobras chalked up over a million operational hours in Vietnam.

The U.S. Marine Corps was very interested in the AH-1G Cobra, too, but it preferred a twin-engine version for improved safety in over-water operations, and also wanted a more potent turret-mounted weapon. At first, the Department of Defense had balked at providing the Marines with a twin-engine version of the Cobra, in the belief that commonality with Army AH-1Gs outweighed the advantages of a different engine fit. However, the Marines won out and awarded Bell a contract for 49 twin-engine AH-1J SeaCobras in May 1968. As an interim measure the U.S. Army passed on thirty-eight AH-1Gs to the Marines in 1969. The AH-1J also received a more powerful gun turret with a three-barrel 20 mm XM197 cannon based on the six-barrel M61 Vulcan cannon.

 

During the 1990s, the US forces gradually phased out its Cobra fleet. The withdrawn AH-1s were typically offered to other potential operators, usually NATO allies. Some were also given to the USDA's Forest Service for fire surveillance, and a handful AH-1s went into private hands, including the NASA. Among these airframes were some USMC AH-1Js, which had in part been mothballed in the Mojave Desert since their replacement through more powerful and modern AH-1 variants and the AH-64.

About twenty airframes were, after having been de-militarized, bought by the Kaman Corporation in 2003, in a bold move to quickly respond to more than 20 inquiries for the company’s K-1200 ‘K-Max’ crane synchropter since the type’s end of production in 2001 from firefighting, logging and industry transport requirements. While not such a dedicated medium lift helicopter as the K-1200, which had from the outset been optimized for external cargo load operations, the twin-engine AH-1J promised to be a very effective alternative and a powerful basis for a conversion into a crane helicopter.

 

The result of this conversion program was the Kaman K-1300, also known as the “K-Cobra” or “Crane Cobra”. While the basic airframe of the AH-1J was retained, extensive detail modifications were made. To reduce weight and compensate for the extensive hardware changes, the SeaCobra lost its armor, the chin turret, and the stub wings. Beyond that, many invisible changes were made; the internal structure between the engine mounts was beefed up with an additional cage structure and a cargo hook was installed under the fuselage in the helicopter’s center of lift.

 

To further optimize the K-Cobra’s performance, the dynamic components were modified and improved, too. While the engine remained the same, its oil cooler was enlarged and the original output limit to 1.500 shp was removed and the gearbox was strengthened to fully exploit the twin-engine’s available power of 1,800 shp (1,342 kW). The rotor system was also modified and optimized for the transport of underslung loads: the original UH-1 dual-blade rotors were replaced with new four-blade rotors. The new main rotor with rugged heavy-duty blades offered more lift at less rotor speed, and the blades’ lift sections were moved away from the hub so that downwash and turbulences directly under the helicopter’s CoG and man hook were reduced to keep the cargo load more stable. Due to the main rotor’s slightly bigger diameter the tail rotor was changed into a slightly smaller four-blade rotor, too. This new arrangement made the K-1300 more stable while hovering or during slow speed maneuvers and more responsive to steering input.

 

The Cobra’s crew of two was retained, but the cockpit was re-arranged and split into two compartments: the pilot retained the original rear position in the tandem cockpit under the original glazing, but the gunner’s station in front of him, together with the secondary dashboard, was omitted and replaced by a new, fully glazed cabin under the former gunner position. This cabin occupied the former gun station and its ammunition supply and contained a rearward-facing workstation for a second pilot with full controls. It was accessible via a separate door or a ladder from above, through a trap door in the former gunner’s station floor, where a simple foldable bench was available for a third person. This arrangement was chosen due to almost complete lack of oversight of the slung load from the normal cockpit position, despite a CCTV (closed circuit television) system with two cameras intended for observation of slung loads. The second pilot would control the helicopter during delicate load-handling maneuvers, while the primary pilot “above” would fly the helicopter during transfer flights, both sharing the workload.

 

To accommodate the cabin under the fuselage and improve ground handling, the AH-1J’s skids were replaced by a stalky, fixed four-wheel landing gear that considerably increased ground clearance (almost 7 feet), making the attachment of loads on the ground to the main ventral hook easier, as the K-1300 could be “rolled over” the cargo on the ground and did not have to hover above it to connect. However, an external ladder had to be added so that the pilot could reach his/her workstation almost 10 feet above the ground.

 

The bulky ventral cabin, the draggy landing gear and the new lift-optimized rotor system reduced the CraneCobra’s top speed by a third to just 124 mph (200 km/h), but the helicopter’s load-carrying capacity became 35% higher and the Cobra’s performance under “hot & high” conditions was markedly improved, too.

For transfer flights, a pair of external auxiliary tanks could be mounted to the lower fuselage flanks, which could also be replaced with cargo boxes of similar size and shape.

 

K-1300 buyers primarily came from the United States and Canada, but there were foreign operators, too. A major operator in Europe became Heliswiss, the oldest helicopter company in Switzerland. The company was founded as „Heliswiss Schweizerische Helikopter AG“, with headquarters in Berne-Belp on April 17, 1953, what also marked the beginning of commercial helicopter flying in Switzerland. During the following years Heliswiss expanded in Switzerland and formed a network with bases in Belp BE, Samedan GR, Domat Ems GR, Locarno TI, Erstfeld UR, Gampel VS, Gstaad BE and Gruyères FR. During the build-up of the rescue-company Schweizerische Rettungsflugwacht (REGA) as an independent network, Heliswiss carried out rescue missions on their behalf.

 

Heliswiss carried out operations all over the world, e. g. in Greenland, Suriname, North Africa and South America. The first helicopter was a Bell 47 G-1, registered as HB-XAG on September 23, 1953. From 1963 Heliswiss started to expand and began to operate with medium helicopters like the Agusta Bell 204B with a turbine power of 1050 HP and an external load of up to 1500 kg. From 1979 Heliswiss operated a Bell 214 (external load up to 2.8 t).

Since 1991 Heliswiss operated a Russian Kamov 32A12 (a civil crane version of the Ka-27 “Helix”), which was joined by two K-1300s in 2004. They were frequently used for construction of transmission towers for overhead power lines and pylons for railway catenary lines, for selective logging and also as fire bombers with underslung water bags, the latter managed by the German Helog company, operating out of Ainring and Küssnacht in Germany and Switzerland until 2008, when Helog changed its business focus into a helicopter flight training academy in Liberia with the support of Germany's Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

A second Kamov 32A12 joined the fleet in 2015, which replaced one of the K-1300s, and Heliswiss’ last K-1300 was retired in early 2022.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 2, plus space for a passenger

Length: 54 ft 3 in (16,56 m) including rotors

44 ft 5 in (13.5 m) fuselage only

Main rotor diameter: 46 ft 2¾ in (14,11 m)

Main rotor area: 1,677.64 sq ft (156,37 m2)

Width (over landing gear): 12 ft 6 in (3.85 m)

Height: 17 ft 8¼ in (5,40 m)

Empty weight: 5,810 lb (2,635 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 9,500 lb (4,309 kg) without slung load

13,515 lb (6,145 kg) with slung load

 

Powerplant:

1× P&W Canada T400-CP-400 (PT6T-3 Twin-Pac) turboshaft engine, 1,800 shp (1,342 kW)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 124 mph (200 km/h, 110 kn)

Cruise speed: 105 mph (169 km/h, 91 kn)

Range: 270 mi (430 km, 230 nmi) with internal fuel only,

360 mi (570 km 310 nmi) with external auxiliary tanks

Service ceiling: 15,000 ft (4,600 m)

Hovering ceiling out of ground effect: 3,000 m (9,840 ft)

Rate of climb: 2,500 ft/min (13 m/s) at Sea Level with flat-rated torque

 

External load capacity (at ISA +15 °C (59.0 °F):

6,000 lb (2,722 kg) at sea level

5,663 lb (2,569 kg) at 5,000 ft (1,524 m)

5,163 lb (2,342 kg) at 10,000 ft (3,048 m)

5,013 lb (2,274 kg) at 12,100 ft (3,688 m)

4,313 lb (1,956 kg) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)

  

The kit and its assembly:

This is/was the second contribution to the late 2022 “Logistics” Group Build at whatifmodellers.com, a welcome occasion and motivation to tackle a what-if project that had been on my list for a long while. This crane helicopter conversion of a HueyCobra was inspired by the Mil Mi-10K helicopter – I had built a 1:100 VEB Plasticart kit MANY years ago and still remembered the helicopter’s unique ventral cabin under the nose with a rearward-facing second pilot. I always thought that the AH-1 might be a good crane helicopter, too, esp. the USMC’s twin-engine variant. And why not combine everything in a fictional model?

 

With this plan the basis became a Fujimi 1:72 AH-1J and lots of donor parts to modify the basic hull into “something else”. Things started with the removal of the chin turret and part of the lower front hull to make space for the ventral glass cabin. The openings for the stub wings were faired over and a different stabilizer (taken from a Revell EC 135, including the end plates) was implanted. The attachment points for the skids were filled and a styrene tube was inserted into the rotor mast opening to later hold the new four-blade rotor. Another styrene tube with bigger diameter was inserted into the lower fuselage as a display holder adapter for later flight scene pictures. Lead beads filled the nose section to make sure the CraneCobra would stand well on its new legs, with the nose down. The cockpit was basically taken OOB, just the front seat and the respective gunner dashboard was omitted.

 

One of the big challenges of this build followed next: the ventral cabin. Over the course of several months, I was not able to find a suitable donor, so I was forced to scratch the cabin from acrylic and styrene sheet. Size benchmark became the gunner’s seat from the Cobra kit, with one of the OOB pilots seated. Cabin width was less dictated through the fuselage, the rest of the cabin’s design became a rather simple, boxy thing – not pretty, but I think a real-life retrofitted cabin would not look much different? Some PSR was done to hide the edges of the rather thick all-clear walls and create a 3D frame - a delicate task. Attaching the completed thing with the second pilot and a dashboard under the roof to the Cobra’s lower hull and making it look more or less natural without major accidents was also a tricky and lengthy affair, because I ignored the Cobra’s narrowing nose above the former chin turret.

 

With the cabin defining the ground helicopter’s clearance, it was time for the next donors: the landing gear from an Airfix 1:72 Kamow Ka-25, which had to be modified further to achieve a proper stance. The long main struts were fixed to the hull, their supporting struts had to be scratched, in this case from steel wire. The front wheels were directly attached to the ventral cabin (which might contain in real life a rigid steel cage that not only protects the second crew member but could also take the front wheels’ loads?). Looks pretty stalky!

Under the hull, a massive hook and a fairing for the oil cooler were added. A PE brass ladder was mounted on the right side of the hull under the pilot’s cockpit, while a rear-view mirror was mounted for the ventral pilot on the left side.

 

The rotor system was created in parallel, I wanted “something different” from the UH-1 dual-blade rotors. The main rotor hub was taken from a Mistercraft 1:72 Westland Lynx (AFAIK a re-boxed ZTS Plastyk kit), which included the arms up to the blades. The hub was put onto a metal axis, with a spacer to make it sit well in the new styrene tube adapter inside of the hull, and some donor parts from the Revell EC 135. Deeper, tailored blades were glued to the Lynx hub, actually leftover parts from the aforementioned wrecked VEB Plasticart 1:100 Mi-10, even though their length had to be halved (what makes you aware how large a Mi-6/10 is compared with an AH-1!). The tail rotor was taken wholesale from the Lynx and stuck to the Cobra’s tail with a steel pin.

  

Painting and markings:

Another pushing factor for this build was the fact that I had a 1:72 Begemot aftermarket decal sheet for the Kamow Ka-27/32 in The Stash™, which features, among many military helicopters, (the) two civil Heliswiss machines – a perfect match!

Using the Swiss Helix’ as design benchmark I adapted their red-over-white paint scheme to the slender AH-1 and eventually ended up with a simple livery with a white belly (acrylic white from the rattle can, after extensive masking of the clear parts with Maskol/latex milk) and a red (Humbrol 19) upper section, with decorative counter-colored cheatlines along the medium waterline. A black anti-glare panel was added in front of the windscreen. The auxiliary tanks were painted white, too, but they were processed separately and mounted just before the final coat of varnish was applied. The PE ladder as well as the rotors were handled similarly.

 

The cockpit and rotor opening interior were painted in a very dark grey (tar black, Revell 06), while the interior of the air intakes was painted bright white (Revell 301). The rotor blades became light grey (Revell 75) with darker leading edges (Humbrol 140), dark grey (Humbrol 164) hubs and yellow tips.

 

For the “HELOG/Heliswiss” tagline the lower white section had to be raised to a medium position on the fuselage, so that they could be placed on the lower flanks under the cockpit. The white civil registration code could not be placed on the tail and ended up on the engine cowling, on red, but this does not look bad or wrong at all.

The cheatlines are also decals from the Ka-32 Begemot sheet, even though they had to be trimmed considerably to fit onto the Cobra’s fuselage – and unfortunately the turned out to be poorly printed and rather brittle, so that I had to improvise and correct the flaws with generic red and white decal lines from TL Modellbau. The white cross on the tail and most stencils came from the Begemot sheet, too. Black, engine soot-hiding areas on the Cobra’s tail were created with generic decal sheet material, too.

 

The rotor blades and the wheels received a black ink treatment to emphasize their details, but this was not done on the hull to avoid a dirty or worn look. After some final details like position lights the model was sealed with semi-matt acrylic varnish, while the rotors became matt.

  

A weird-looking what-if model, but somehow a crane-copter variant of the AH-1 looks quite natural – even more so in its attractive red-and-white civil livery. The stalky landing gear is odd, though, necessitated by the ventral cabin for the second pilot. I was skeptical, but scratching the latter was more successful than expected, and the cabin blend quite well into the AH-1 hull, despite its boxy shape.

 

Le HSBC PARIS SEVENS (8 au 10 juin 2018 au Stade Jean-Bouin) a officiellement été lancé aujourd’hui à Paris à la Région Île-de-France.

A cette occasion les 16 capitaines hommes et 12 capitaines femmes des équipes participantes au tournoi ont pris la pose autour du trophée de la compétition dans les jardins du Musée Rodin, Paris (Crédit Photo : I.PICAREL/FFR). Ils ont ensuite rejoint les locaux de la Région Île-de-France, partenaire de cette étape parisienne, situés dans le 7ème arrondissement.

 

Le HSBC Paris Sevens

Ultime étape du circuit mondial de rugby à 7, le HSBC Paris Sevens se déroulera au stade Jean-Bouin à Paris, du vendredi 8 au dimanche 10 juin 2018. Tournoi mixte pour la première fois de son histoire, le HSBC Paris Sevens 2018 accueille les meilleures équipes masculines et féminines du monde.

Avec 79 matches entre 28 équipes en 3 jours, le spectacle sera non-stop sur la pelouse du Stade Jean-Bouin. Dernier tournoi de la saison, les titres des circuits mondiaux masculin et féminin se joueront donc au HSBC Paris Sevens. Les tribunes et le Village des Supporteurs seront également en ébullition pendant 3 jours, avec de nombreuses animations « CRAZY RUGBY » qui seront proposées à tous les spectateurs !

Le programme :

Vendredi 8 juin de 14h à 21h40 > tournoi Féminin (ouverture des portes au public à 13h30)

Samedi 9 juin de 9h à 23h > tournoi mixte (ouverture des portes au public à 8h30)

Dimanche 10 juin de 8h45 à 19h40 > phases finales féminines et masculines (ouverture des portes au public à 8h15)

Le World Rugby Sevens Series 2017-2018 est la 19e édition de la compétition la plus importante du monde de rugby à sept. Elle se déroule du 1er décembre 2017 au 10 juin 2018. L'Afrique du Sud est tenante du titre et l'Espagne est l'équipe promue de la saison.

Au mois d'avril se déroulent les Jeux du Commonwealth 2018 où dix équipes des World Rugby Sevens Series participent. La compétition enchaine ensuite avec la Coupe du monde de rugby à sept en juillet 2018.

Chaque étape est un tournoi se déroulant sur deux ou trois jours, entre le vendredi et le dimanche. À chaque étape est convié une équipe qui ne possède pas le statut d'équipe permanente, portant le nombre total d'équipes à seize.

En fonction du résultat du tournoi précédent, ou du classement de la saison passée pour le premier tournoi de la saison à Dubaï, les équipes sont réparties en chapeaux avant tirage au sort pour former quatre poules de quatre équipes. Chaque équipe joue les trois autres membres de sa poule et un classement est établi, tout d'abord sur le nombre de points (victoire 3 points, nul 2 points, défaite 1 point) puis sur le goal-average général. Les deux premiers de chaque poule passent en quart de finale de la Cup ou tournoi principal et les deux derniers passent en quart de finale du Challenge Trophy. Les équipes vaincues en quart de finale sont alors reversées en demi-finales de classement, respectivement pour la cinquième et treizième place. Les équipes battues en demi-finales ne disputent pas de petite finale de classement et remportent le même nombre de point, sauf pour les équipes battues en demi finales de Cup qui disputeront un dernier match de classement pour la troisième place.

Chaque rencontre, y compris la finale depuis l'édition 2016-2017, se dispute en deux fois sept minutes.

Créée en 2016, l’étape parisienne de rugby à 7 rassemble, de ce vendredi à dimanche, les meilleures nations mondiales pour décider du vainqueur du circuit mondial. Une belle vitrine pour la discipline dans un pays qui ne jure que par le XV.

Dixième étape de la saison, le Paris Sevens clôture ce week-end le circuit mondial de rugby à 7, réunissant les 16 meilleures nations du monde aux quatre coins de la planète. De vendredi à dimanche, dans l’enceinte du Stade Jean Bouin, les équipes masculines feront le spectacle à travers une discipline méconnue en France mais très appréciée dans de nombreux pays. Et, pour la première fois cette année, les équipes féminines ouvriront les festivités.

Une véritable fête du rugby à 7, discipline olympique depuis 2016 et en plein boom grâce à la vitrine que lui ont offert offert les Jeux de Rio. Chez les hommes, outre les nations majeures de l’Ovale comme la Nouvelle-Zélande, l’Australie, l’Angleterre ou les Fidji, le Kenya, le Canada ou encore l’Espagne font leur trou et voient dans cette discipline une chance de développer un sport mineur dans leur pays. Chez les femmes, la Chine, le Japon ou la Russie figurent dans le top 12.

Le crazy rugby à la fête

Créée en 2016, l’étape parisienne est également l’occasion pour la France de développer la discipline dans un pays qui ne jure que par le XV. «Nous sommes fiers de soutenir financièrement ce tournoi et de permettre qu’il existe», a tenu à rappeler le vice-président de la région Île-de-France, Patrick Karam. Et de poursuivre. «La région est également présente dans la sensibilisation. Vendredi, 360 lycéens pourront découvrir la discipline grâce à de nombreuses animations. Il est important pour nous de tout faire pour développer cette pratique, en vue de Paris 2024», a-t-il poursuivi, alors que la conférence de presse de présentation se tenait dans les locaux de la région, dans le 7e arrondissement parisien.

Dernière étape de la saison, le tournoi parisien représente en tout cas une belle vitrine pour la discipline, dans une ville au rayonnement mondial. «C’est formidable de pouvoir clôturer la saison dans une ville aussi magnifique, chez un hôte comme la France», ajoute de son côté Douglas Langley, directeur du tournoi et membre de World Rugby. «Nous nous réjouissons d’avance de ce week-end de ‘crazy rugby’», conclut-il. Et c’est bien là l’atout majeur de la discipline. Spectaculaire, chaque rencontre offre de nombreux essais et des sprints permanents.

Les Bleues veulent briller

Le public parisien, qui vient en nombre à chaque édition, est adepte de cette discipline. Le Stade Jean Bouin était plein en 2016 et 2017, et l’édition 2018, même s’il reste encore des places à vendre, ne dérogera certainement pas à la règle. Pourtant, ce ne sont pas les résultats des Bleus qui font venir les supporters. Malgré une 3e place en 2016, et une 5e en 2017, l’équipe masculine connaît une saison compliquée. 12e sur 16 au classement, les Bleus n’ont pas fait mieux que 7e cette année lors des neuf précédents tournois du circuit.

«Même si nos chances sont moindres, on rentre dans ce tournoi pour le gagner, et on a la chance d’avoir le soutien du public avec nous», déclare Manoël Dall’igna, capitaine de France 7. «Ces deux dernières années on a eu des supers résultats ici et on compte sur le 8e homme pour faire aussi bien», termine-t-il. Cette période de creux, due en partie à de nombreux départs en retraite en 2016, ne touche pas les féminines. 3e du circuit mondial, les coéquipières de Fanny Horta visent le podium à Paris. «On a reçu beaucoup de messages de soutien de la jeune génération, et on veut vraiment profiter de ce soutien pour garder la dynamique de la saison et faire un nouveau podium», confie la capitaine.

Mises en valeur ce week-end, les Bleues représentent «la véritable locomotive du 7 en France avec une très belle réussite sportive», estime Christophe Reigt, manager des équipes de France à 7. Suffisant pour développer la discipline en France ? Quoiqu’il en soit, avec cette étape parisienne, la Fédération se démène pour populariser le 7 dans l’Hexagone, avec un objectif majeur en ligne de mire : les Jeux olympiques de Paris en 2024.

 

The HSBC World Rugby Sevens Series 2018 Awards in Paris brought a fitting end to an enthralling season which saw South Africa and Australia crowned men’s and women’s series champions respectively.

It’s been one of the most competitive seasons on record as both the women’s and men’s series were decided by just two-point differences.

South Africa fought an incredible battle with Fiji in the men’s series to retain their title with victory at the final round in Paris, while Olympic champions Australia won their second overall title ahead of rivals New Zealand on the women’s series after reaching the podium at every one of the five rounds.

The end of season awards provided a chance to celebrate the men’s and women’s sevens players, coaches and teams that are the stars, ambassadors and role models of the sport.

World Rugby Chairman Bill Beaumont said: “It has been another tremendous year for the HSBC World Rugby Sevens Series, which continues to go from strength to strength.

“I hugely admire the skill and physicality of rugby sevens and thank the players for their outstanding commitment which makes the series such a success. It is great to see the series capturing the imagination on and off the field with year-on-year increases in attendances, broadcast and fan-engagement figures, and that is a great testament to the players, coaches, host unions and everyone involved with the events.

“Rugby sevens took a quantum leap when it joined the Olympic programme in 2016 and now we look forward to a Rugby World Cup Sevens in San Francisco in just 40 days time in an iconic city and a market with great potential. It promises to be a thrilling and spectacular event.”

the workload. It is a blessing for me to be standing here.”

Rookies of the Year

Eroni Sau is the second Fijian to be named Rookie of the Year for the men’s series after being a clear winner in the fan vote ahead of his compatriot Alosio Naduva and Australia’s Ben O’Donnell. The 28-year-old featured in all 10 rounds in his debut season, using his powerful physique to score 37 tries.

France’s Coralie Bertrand, meanwhile, claimed the women’s accolade, having featured in all five rounds and helped Les Bleues enjoy their best season, reaching a first-ever Cup final in Kitakyushu and semi-finals in Langford and Paris to clinch the series bronze medal.

Fair Play Award

This award, selected by the match officials, recognises the teams who showcase rugby’s values of integrity, passion, solidarity, discipline and respect. Japan were awarded the women’s accolade after an event that saw them lose their core team status on the series, with Kenya the men’s recipients following an exciting season which saw them reach the final in both Vancouver and Hong Kong.

Roche’s kick with the final play of the match against England to snatch the bronze medal for invitational team Ireland at the HSBC London Sevens was a clear winner of the men’s award, beating Fijian Alosio Naduva’s last-gasp winning try against Australia in the Singapore Cup final and Matias Osadczuk’s break and calm head to send Renzo Barbier over for the winning try in Argentina’s Cup semi-final against South Africa in Las Vegas.

Capgemini Coach of the Series

Another inaugural category, selected by the series’ global innovation partner Capgemini, was won by New Zealand women’s coach Alan Bunting after successive victories in the last three rounds of the series in Japan, Canada and France as well as the Commonwealth Games title in April.

South Africa coach Neil Powell, who guided the Blitzboks to retaining their series title, picked up the men’s coach of the series award and paid tribute to his victorious team: “The mental focus and composure they showed was fantastic, all credit to the boys for believing in their success. We had everything to play for and the team did an incredible job, not just today but over the whole season.

“I also want to congratulate Fiji on an amazing season, they were phenomenal.”

DHL Impact Player

The race to be named DHL Impact Player of the Year in both the men’s and women’s series went right down to the final matches. In total 16 players from 12 nations won tournament awards during this season’s series.

New Zealand’s Michaela Blyde was delighted to win the women’s award: “This is pretty special. I’m shocked and truly grateful. I put this down to my teammates who create the opportunities for me and I thank them.”

 

La Fédération française de rugby organise, du 8 au 10 juin au stade Jean-Bouin, à Paris 16e, un tournoi international de rugby à 7 masculin et féminin, étape du HSBC World Rugby Sevens Series.

Cette manifestation sportive, soutenue par la Région à hauteur de 170.000€, va rassembler 28 équipes internationales, qui s'affronteront au cours de 45 matchs masculins et 34 matchs féminins.

Le public pourra découvrir à cette occasion, jusque dans sa pratique féminine, une discipline largement méconnue.

Quant au stade Jean-Bouin, qui est l'un des sites retenus pour les JO Paris 2024, il pourra mettre en avant sa capacité d’accueil de 20.000 spectateurs.

Ce tournoi constituant la 10e et dernière étape du circuit mondial, il s'achèvera avec la remise des titres de champion et championne du monde de rugby à 7.

En soutenant l'organisation de tels grands événements sportifs franciliens, la Région Île-de-France renforce chaque fois un peu plus l'attractivité de ses territoires tout en assurant son rayonnement à l'échelle internationale.

Le titre HSBC World Rugby Sevens Series a été décidé de façon spectaculaire après que l'Afrique du Sud a battu l'Angleterre 24-14 en finale du HSBC Paris Sevens pour décrocher la médaille d'or et conserver son titre de série.

Au cours d'une des années les plus compétitives de l'histoire de la série, le titre est allé jusqu'au tout dernier match puisque l'Afrique du Sud avait besoin d'une victoire en tournoi pour dépasser les Fidji dans le classement de la série.

L'Afrique du Sud a terminé la série en tête avec 182 points, suivie des Fidji qui ont remporté l'argent avec 180 points et la Nouvelle-Zélande avec 150 points après avoir remporté la médaille de bronze à Paris avec une victoire de 38-5 contre le Canada dans la troisième place

Les champions de la série de l'année dernière, l'Afrique du Sud, ont devancé l'Espagne 15-10 en quart de finale avec un essai à la cinquième minute de Justin Deguld, après que les pointages aient été 10-10 à la fin du temps réglementaire. Les Blitzboks sud-africains ont ensuite trouvé leur rythme en demi-finale avec une victoire complète de 24-12 contre la Nouvelle-Zélande grâce à deux essais de l'impressionnant Dewald Human, 23 ans, qui a fait ses débuts il y a deux mois à Hong Kong .

Humain était de nouveau en forme de but en finale et était ravi d'être élu Joueur de la Finale: "Ca a été une expérience fantastique ici à Paris, je me suis appuyé sur moi et j'ai apprécié chaque minute sur le terrain. sommes très heureux de la victoire. "

Le capitaine de l'équipe sud-africaine, Philip Snyman, a ajouté: "Nous voulions aller jouer au rugby et nous concentrer sur ce que nous pouvions contrôler: les gars ont joué un rugby phénoménal et ont fait honneur à l'équipe. C'est un sentiment incroyable de représenter un pays si merveilleux et les gens de chez nous n'ont jamais cessé de croire en nous et de nous soutenir. "

Fidjiens ont raté l'occasion de remporter le titre plus tôt dans la journée alors qu'ils ont été vaincus 19-17 par une équipe d'Angleterre pleine d'entrain dans un quart de finale à couper le souffle. Le capitaine de l'équipe d'Angleterre, Tom Mitchell, a complété un mouvement de 26 passes pour marquer dans les dernières secondes du match et mettre un terme à la récente domination des Fidji qui les avait vaincus lors des quatre dernières manches de la série.

Les Fidjiens se sont rétablis pour battre l'Irlande 38-5 et les États-Unis 28-7 pour terminer cinquième à Paris et mettre la pression sur l'Afrique du Sud pour la finale mais finalement ce n'était pas suffisant et les Fidjiens ont été obligés de se contenter des dix tours.

L'Angleterre a produit une autre performance puissante en demi-finale avec une victoire convaincante de 26-12 contre le Canada pour atteindre sa première finale de la série 2017-18, mais ils ont été incapables de faire face aux Blitzboks en finale alors que les hommes d'Afrique du Sud couraient vainqueurs devant une foule parisienne bruyante.

Équipe Invitational L'Irlande a battu 19-5 du quart en quarts de finale, mais après sa médaille de bronze à Londres la semaine dernière, les Irlandais se sont montrés assez prometteurs au cours des deux derniers tours un brillant avenir dans le rugby à sept.

L'Argentine a remporté le Challenge Trophy, décerné à l'équipe terminant en neuvième position, après avoir vaincu le Pays de Galles 33-26.

Toute l'attention se tourne maintenant vers la Coupe du monde de rugby à sept 2018 à San Francisco du 20 au 22 juillet, où 24 équipes masculines et 16 équipes féminines s'affronteront pour devenir championnes du monde au cours de trois journées d'action excitantes. Plus de 72 000 billets ont déjà été vendus et d'autres détails peuvent être obtenus via

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The AH-1 Cobra was developed in the mid-1960s as an interim gunship for the U.S. Army for use during the Vietnam War. The Cobra shared the proven transmission, rotor system, and the T53 turboshaft engine of the UH-1 "Huey". By June 1967, the first AH-1G HueyCobras had been delivered. Bell built 1,116 AH-1Gs for the U.S. Army between 1967 and 1973, and the Cobras chalked up over a million operational hours in Vietnam.

The U.S. Marine Corps was very interested in the AH-1G Cobra, too, but it preferred a twin-engine version for improved safety in over-water operations, and also wanted a more potent turret-mounted weapon. At first, the Department of Defense had balked at providing the Marines with a twin-engine version of the Cobra, in the belief that commonality with Army AH-1Gs outweighed the advantages of a different engine fit. However, the Marines won out and awarded Bell a contract for 49 twin-engine AH-1J SeaCobras in May 1968. As an interim measure the U.S. Army passed on thirty-eight AH-1Gs to the Marines in 1969. The AH-1J also received a more powerful gun turret with a three-barrel 20 mm XM197 cannon based on the six-barrel M61 Vulcan cannon.

 

During the 1990s, the US forces gradually phased out its Cobra fleet. The withdrawn AH-1s were typically offered to other potential operators, usually NATO allies. Some were also given to the USDA's Forest Service for fire surveillance, and a handful AH-1s went into private hands, including the NASA. Among these airframes were some USMC AH-1Js, which had in part been mothballed in the Mojave Desert since their replacement through more powerful and modern AH-1 variants and the AH-64.

About twenty airframes were, after having been de-militarized, bought by the Kaman Corporation in 2003, in a bold move to quickly respond to more than 20 inquiries for the company’s K-1200 ‘K-Max’ crane synchropter since the type’s end of production in 2001 from firefighting, logging and industry transport requirements. While not such a dedicated medium lift helicopter as the K-1200, which had from the outset been optimized for external cargo load operations, the twin-engine AH-1J promised to be a very effective alternative and a powerful basis for a conversion into a crane helicopter.

 

The result of this conversion program was the Kaman K-1300, also known as the “K-Cobra” or “Crane Cobra”. While the basic airframe of the AH-1J was retained, extensive detail modifications were made. To reduce weight and compensate for the extensive hardware changes, the SeaCobra lost its armor, the chin turret, and the stub wings. Beyond that, many invisible changes were made; the internal structure between the engine mounts was beefed up with an additional cage structure and a cargo hook was installed under the fuselage in the helicopter’s center of lift.

 

To further optimize the K-Cobra’s performance, the dynamic components were modified and improved, too. While the engine remained the same, its oil cooler was enlarged and the original output limit to 1.500 shp was removed and the gearbox was strengthened to fully exploit the twin-engine’s available power of 1,800 shp (1,342 kW). The rotor system was also modified and optimized for the transport of underslung loads: the original UH-1 dual-blade rotors were replaced with new four-blade rotors. The new main rotor with rugged heavy-duty blades offered more lift at less rotor speed, and the blades’ lift sections were moved away from the hub so that downwash and turbulences directly under the helicopter’s CoG and man hook were reduced to keep the cargo load more stable. Due to the main rotor’s slightly bigger diameter the tail rotor was changed into a slightly smaller four-blade rotor, too. This new arrangement made the K-1300 more stable while hovering or during slow speed maneuvers and more responsive to steering input.

 

The Cobra’s crew of two was retained, but the cockpit was re-arranged and split into two compartments: the pilot retained the original rear position in the tandem cockpit under the original glazing, but the gunner’s station in front of him, together with the secondary dashboard, was omitted and replaced by a new, fully glazed cabin under the former gunner position. This cabin occupied the former gun station and its ammunition supply and contained a rearward-facing workstation for a second pilot with full controls. It was accessible via a separate door or a ladder from above, through a trap door in the former gunner’s station floor, where a simple foldable bench was available for a third person. This arrangement was chosen due to almost complete lack of oversight of the slung load from the normal cockpit position, despite a CCTV (closed circuit television) system with two cameras intended for observation of slung loads. The second pilot would control the helicopter during delicate load-handling maneuvers, while the primary pilot “above” would fly the helicopter during transfer flights, both sharing the workload.

 

To accommodate the cabin under the fuselage and improve ground handling, the AH-1J’s skids were replaced by a stalky, fixed four-wheel landing gear that considerably increased ground clearance (almost 7 feet), making the attachment of loads on the ground to the main ventral hook easier, as the K-1300 could be “rolled over” the cargo on the ground and did not have to hover above it to connect. However, an external ladder had to be added so that the pilot could reach his/her workstation almost 10 feet above the ground.

 

The bulky ventral cabin, the draggy landing gear and the new lift-optimized rotor system reduced the CraneCobra’s top speed by a third to just 124 mph (200 km/h), but the helicopter’s load-carrying capacity became 35% higher and the Cobra’s performance under “hot & high” conditions was markedly improved, too.

For transfer flights, a pair of external auxiliary tanks could be mounted to the lower fuselage flanks, which could also be replaced with cargo boxes of similar size and shape.

 

K-1300 buyers primarily came from the United States and Canada, but there were foreign operators, too. A major operator in Europe became Heliswiss, the oldest helicopter company in Switzerland. The company was founded as „Heliswiss Schweizerische Helikopter AG“, with headquarters in Berne-Belp on April 17, 1953, what also marked the beginning of commercial helicopter flying in Switzerland. During the following years Heliswiss expanded in Switzerland and formed a network with bases in Belp BE, Samedan GR, Domat Ems GR, Locarno TI, Erstfeld UR, Gampel VS, Gstaad BE and Gruyères FR. During the build-up of the rescue-company Schweizerische Rettungsflugwacht (REGA) as an independent network, Heliswiss carried out rescue missions on their behalf.

 

Heliswiss carried out operations all over the world, e. g. in Greenland, Suriname, North Africa and South America. The first helicopter was a Bell 47 G-1, registered as HB-XAG on September 23, 1953. From 1963 Heliswiss started to expand and began to operate with medium helicopters like the Agusta Bell 204B with a turbine power of 1050 HP and an external load of up to 1500 kg. From 1979 Heliswiss operated a Bell 214 (external load up to 2.8 t).

Since 1991 Heliswiss operated a Russian Kamov 32A12 (a civil crane version of the Ka-27 “Helix”), which was joined by two K-1300s in 2004. They were frequently used for construction of transmission towers for overhead power lines and pylons for railway catenary lines, for selective logging and also as fire bombers with underslung water bags, the latter managed by the German Helog company, operating out of Ainring and Küssnacht in Germany and Switzerland until 2008, when Helog changed its business focus into a helicopter flight training academy in Liberia with the support of Germany's Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

A second Kamov 32A12 joined the fleet in 2015, which replaced one of the K-1300s, and Heliswiss’ last K-1300 was retired in early 2022.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 2, plus space for a passenger

Length: 54 ft 3 in (16,56 m) including rotors

44 ft 5 in (13.5 m) fuselage only

Main rotor diameter: 46 ft 2¾ in (14,11 m)

Main rotor area: 1,677.64 sq ft (156,37 m2)

Width (over landing gear): 12 ft 6 in (3.85 m)

Height: 17 ft 8¼ in (5,40 m)

Empty weight: 5,810 lb (2,635 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 9,500 lb (4,309 kg) without slung load

13,515 lb (6,145 kg) with slung load

 

Powerplant:

1× P&W Canada T400-CP-400 (PT6T-3 Twin-Pac) turboshaft engine, 1,800 shp (1,342 kW)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 124 mph (200 km/h, 110 kn)

Cruise speed: 105 mph (169 km/h, 91 kn)

Range: 270 mi (430 km, 230 nmi) with internal fuel only,

360 mi (570 km 310 nmi) with external auxiliary tanks

Service ceiling: 15,000 ft (4,600 m)

Hovering ceiling out of ground effect: 3,000 m (9,840 ft)

Rate of climb: 2,500 ft/min (13 m/s) at Sea Level with flat-rated torque

 

External load capacity (at ISA +15 °C (59.0 °F):

6,000 lb (2,722 kg) at sea level

5,663 lb (2,569 kg) at 5,000 ft (1,524 m)

5,163 lb (2,342 kg) at 10,000 ft (3,048 m)

5,013 lb (2,274 kg) at 12,100 ft (3,688 m)

4,313 lb (1,956 kg) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)

  

The kit and its assembly:

This is/was the second contribution to the late 2022 “Logistics” Group Build at whatifmodellers.com, a welcome occasion and motivation to tackle a what-if project that had been on my list for a long while. This crane helicopter conversion of a HueyCobra was inspired by the Mil Mi-10K helicopter – I had built a 1:100 VEB Plasticart kit MANY years ago and still remembered the helicopter’s unique ventral cabin under the nose with a rearward-facing second pilot. I always thought that the AH-1 might be a good crane helicopter, too, esp. the USMC’s twin-engine variant. And why not combine everything in a fictional model?

 

With this plan the basis became a Fujimi 1:72 AH-1J and lots of donor parts to modify the basic hull into “something else”. Things started with the removal of the chin turret and part of the lower front hull to make space for the ventral glass cabin. The openings for the stub wings were faired over and a different stabilizer (taken from a Revell EC 135, including the end plates) was implanted. The attachment points for the skids were filled and a styrene tube was inserted into the rotor mast opening to later hold the new four-blade rotor. Another styrene tube with bigger diameter was inserted into the lower fuselage as a display holder adapter for later flight scene pictures. Lead beads filled the nose section to make sure the CraneCobra would stand well on its new legs, with the nose down. The cockpit was basically taken OOB, just the front seat and the respective gunner dashboard was omitted.

 

One of the big challenges of this build followed next: the ventral cabin. Over the course of several months, I was not able to find a suitable donor, so I was forced to scratch the cabin from acrylic and styrene sheet. Size benchmark became the gunner’s seat from the Cobra kit, with one of the OOB pilots seated. Cabin width was less dictated through the fuselage, the rest of the cabin’s design became a rather simple, boxy thing – not pretty, but I think a real-life retrofitted cabin would not look much different? Some PSR was done to hide the edges of the rather thick all-clear walls and create a 3D frame - a delicate task. Attaching the completed thing with the second pilot and a dashboard under the roof to the Cobra’s lower hull and making it look more or less natural without major accidents was also a tricky and lengthy affair, because I ignored the Cobra’s narrowing nose above the former chin turret.

 

With the cabin defining the ground helicopter’s clearance, it was time for the next donors: the landing gear from an Airfix 1:72 Kamow Ka-25, which had to be modified further to achieve a proper stance. The long main struts were fixed to the hull, their supporting struts had to be scratched, in this case from steel wire. The front wheels were directly attached to the ventral cabin (which might contain in real life a rigid steel cage that not only protects the second crew member but could also take the front wheels’ loads?). Looks pretty stalky!

Under the hull, a massive hook and a fairing for the oil cooler were added. A PE brass ladder was mounted on the right side of the hull under the pilot’s cockpit, while a rear-view mirror was mounted for the ventral pilot on the left side.

 

The rotor system was created in parallel, I wanted “something different” from the UH-1 dual-blade rotors. The main rotor hub was taken from a Mistercraft 1:72 Westland Lynx (AFAIK a re-boxed ZTS Plastyk kit), which included the arms up to the blades. The hub was put onto a metal axis, with a spacer to make it sit well in the new styrene tube adapter inside of the hull, and some donor parts from the Revell EC 135. Deeper, tailored blades were glued to the Lynx hub, actually leftover parts from the aforementioned wrecked VEB Plasticart 1:100 Mi-10, even though their length had to be halved (what makes you aware how large a Mi-6/10 is compared with an AH-1!). The tail rotor was taken wholesale from the Lynx and stuck to the Cobra’s tail with a steel pin.

  

Painting and markings:

Another pushing factor for this build was the fact that I had a 1:72 Begemot aftermarket decal sheet for the Kamow Ka-27/32 in The Stash™, which features, among many military helicopters, (the) two civil Heliswiss machines – a perfect match!

Using the Swiss Helix’ as design benchmark I adapted their red-over-white paint scheme to the slender AH-1 and eventually ended up with a simple livery with a white belly (acrylic white from the rattle can, after extensive masking of the clear parts with Maskol/latex milk) and a red (Humbrol 19) upper section, with decorative counter-colored cheatlines along the medium waterline. A black anti-glare panel was added in front of the windscreen. The auxiliary tanks were painted white, too, but they were processed separately and mounted just before the final coat of varnish was applied. The PE ladder as well as the rotors were handled similarly.

 

The cockpit and rotor opening interior were painted in a very dark grey (tar black, Revell 06), while the interior of the air intakes was painted bright white (Revell 301). The rotor blades became light grey (Revell 75) with darker leading edges (Humbrol 140), dark grey (Humbrol 164) hubs and yellow tips.

 

For the “HELOG/Heliswiss” tagline the lower white section had to be raised to a medium position on the fuselage, so that they could be placed on the lower flanks under the cockpit. The white civil registration code could not be placed on the tail and ended up on the engine cowling, on red, but this does not look bad or wrong at all.

The cheatlines are also decals from the Ka-32 Begemot sheet, even though they had to be trimmed considerably to fit onto the Cobra’s fuselage – and unfortunately the turned out to be poorly printed and rather brittle, so that I had to improvise and correct the flaws with generic red and white decal lines from TL Modellbau. The white cross on the tail and most stencils came from the Begemot sheet, too. Black, engine soot-hiding areas on the Cobra’s tail were created with generic decal sheet material, too.

 

The rotor blades and the wheels received a black ink treatment to emphasize their details, but this was not done on the hull to avoid a dirty or worn look. After some final details like position lights the model was sealed with semi-matt acrylic varnish, while the rotors became matt.

  

A weird-looking what-if model, but somehow a crane-copter variant of the AH-1 looks quite natural – even more so in its attractive red-and-white civil livery. The stalky landing gear is odd, though, necessitated by the ventral cabin for the second pilot. I was skeptical, but scratching the latter was more successful than expected, and the cabin blend quite well into the AH-1 hull, despite its boxy shape.

 

copyright © Mim Eisenberg/mimbrava studio. All rights reserved.

 

I was out weeding in the garden and taking insect and flower shots with my 60mm macro, and Zoe Bear decided it was time to RUN! I didn't have the right lens or the right exposure settings and didn't even focus. I just aimed and shot, and this is what came out. I love how it gives a sense of her joy at running free in the bright sunlight. (The shadow tells you the sun was overhead.)

 

Thank you for visiting. I'll do my best to return the favor today, but my ridiculous workload, though I'm making headway is still calling me away from Flickr. This will be the case for at least another month or so. I think that's good.

 

See my shots on flickriver:

www.flickrriver.com/photos/mimbrava/

 

Please join us on Super Eco and enter our May photo contest, “Macro May”. The contest ends May 31st.

This week is a big transition. I move into the electronic media/social media/marketing role at one job, cut back to 20 hours a week, and start going into MSH 4 days a week. It may sound like the workload has decreased, but I feel like it's doubled.

 

Today I had to take a step outside and have a few deep breaths. Everything is going to be ok. I know I'm never given more than I can handle. I know that I can do a fracking awesome job at everything I do. Now watch me kick ass.

 

Like me on Facebook!

Book TLP today!

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The Latvian Air Force was first founded during the Latvian War of Independence in 1919. In 1939, the Aviation Regiment consisted of three fighter squadrons, armed with 24 Gloster Gladiator and 6 Bristol Bulldog (a fourth squadron was in organization), three reconnaissance squadrons, armed with up to 12 Letov Š-16LS, 2 Hawker Hind and 10 Stampe SV.5, and a naval reconnaissance squadron with 4 Fairey Seal and two other planes. The Soviet occupation in 1940 ended the activities of the Air Force. At that time there were almost 130 aircraft in service.

 

The post-Soviet Latvian Air Force was formed on 24 February 1992 at Spilve Airport. In August 1994, the air force moved to an ex-soviet Lielvārde Air Base. In the beginning of the new century two new and more heavy Mi-8MTV Hip helicopters were bought for search and rescue equipment duties, but they were also used for transportation of troops, evacuation and support of the Special Forces. In March 2004 Latvia joined NATO and the Ministry of Defense made the decision to improve the small country’s air defense with a dedicated fighter squadron. The country also bought two more Mi-8MTV's at the Russian Ulan Ude helicopter (rework) factory that year, augmenting the SAR fleet.

 

In 2005, soldiers of the Air Force Air Defense Wing started a training course in order to prepare an upgraded air defense. At the same time, the Latvian Air Force commenced the modernization of the surface air defense capabilities by signing a contract regarding procurement of RBS-70 manpads missiles from Sweden and negotiated the purchase or leasing of 2nd hand Saab JAS 39 Gripen. Coming from a neutral country, the Gripen was the LAF’s wish candidate for the new interceptor aircraft, but eventually Latvia could be convinced (primarily through the USA and with generous financial support thorugh the “Baltic Peace II” program) to buy eight F-5E fighters and two F-5F trainers with relatively low flying hours and in good overall condition from Switzerland. Besides the financial support, the type’s ruggedness and relatively low maintenance costs led to this choice.

 

The Northrop F-5E/F Tiger II itself was part of a highly successful supersonic light fighter family, initially designed in the late 1950s by Northrop Corporation. Being smaller and simpler than contemporaries such as the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II, the F-5 cost less to both procure and operate, making it a popular export aircraft. The F-5 started life as a privately funded light fighter program by Northrop in the 1950s. The design team wrapped a small, highly aerodynamic fighter around two compact and high-thrust General Electric J85 engines, focusing on performance and low cost of maintenance. Though primarily designed for the day air superiority role, the aircraft was also a capable ground-attack platform.

After winning the International Fighter Aircraft competition in 1970, a program aimed at providing effective low-cost fighters to American allies, Northrop introduced the second-generation F-5E Tiger II in 1972. This upgrade included more powerful engines, higher fuel capacity, greater wing area and improved leading edge extensions for a better turn rate, optional air-to-air refueling, and improved avionics including air-to-air radar. A total of 1,400 Tiger IIs were built before production ended in 1987, and the type is still in operational use in many countries round the world.

 

The Swiss F-5E airframes for Latvia were overhauled and the avionics suite modernized in 2006 and 2007 by SAI in Italy. Elbit Systems from Israel became the sub-contractor responsible for systems integration. Upgrades for the fighters included an Italian FIAR Grifo-F X band multi-mode radar with BVR (beyond-visual-range) missile and Look-down/shoot-down capabilities, making the modernized F-5E capable of deploying AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles, which were, together with AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs, part of the Baltic Peace II support for Latvia. The new radar necessitated an enlarged radome for its scanner antenna, resulting in a duckbill shape. The fighters’ port side M39 20 mm cannon was removed to make way for the additional avionics.

 

All machines received a revamped cockpit with new MIL-STD-1553R databuses, a GEC/Ferranti 4510 Head-up display/weapons delivery system, two BAE Systems MED-2067 Multi-function displays, Litton LN-93 inertial navigation system and Hands On Throttle-And-Stick controls (HOTAS) to reduce pilot workload. Reportedly, the Elisra SPS2000 radar warning receiver and countermeasure system was also installed.

 

The modernization process was completed by early 2007 and the machines were re-designated F-5L/M. By late 2007, the Latvian air defense had become operational and worked closely together with its Baltic neighbors and the NATO forces that were frequently deployed to the Baltic NATO countries.

The small Latvian F-5 fleet is expected to remain in service until 2024, even tough, if there is sufficient funding, the machines will certainly be replaced beforehand by more capable models. The Saab Gripen is still a favored candidate, but F-16C/Ds from USAF stocks are a potential option, too.

By end of 2009, the LAF’s Fighter Squadron moved to Lielvārde Air Base, in an attempt to ensure centralization of Air Force units and to establish an efficient command and control system, which will result in a reduction of the Air Force units’ maintenance costs. With the Fighter Squadron the Air Force carries out Latvian airspace surveillance, control and defense and provides air defense support to the Land Forces units.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 47 ft 4¾ in (14.45 m)

Wingspan: 26 ft 8 in (8.13 m)

Height: 13 ft 4½ in (4.08 m)

Wing area: 186 ft² (17.28 m²)

Airfoil: NACA 65A004.8 root, NACA 64A004.8 tip

Empty weight: 9,558 lb (4,349 kg)

Loaded weight: 15,745 lb (7,157 kg)

Max. take-off weight: 24,722 lb (11,214 kg)

Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.02

Drag area: 3.4 ft² (0.32 m²)

Aspect ratio: 3.82

Internal fuel: 677 U.S. gal (2,563 L)

External fuel: up to 3× 275 U.S. gal (1,040 L) drop tanks

 

Powerplant:

2× General Electric J85-GE-21B turbojet with 3,500 lbf (15.5 kN) dry thrust

and 5,000 lbf (22.2 kN) thrust with afterburner each

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 917 kn (Mach 1.6, 1,060 mph, 1,700 km/h) at altitude

Range: 760 nmi (870 mi, 1,405 km)

Ferry range: 2,010 nmi (2,310 mi, 3,700 km)

Service ceiling: 51,800 ft (15,800 m)

Rate of climb: 34,400 ft/min (175 m/s)

Lift-to-drag ratio: 10.0

 

Armament:

1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M39A2 Revolver cannon in the nose with 280 rounds

7 hardpoints (2× wing-tip AAM launch rails, 4× under-wing & 1× under-fuselage pylon stations,

only pylon stations 3, 4 and 5 are wet-plumbed) with a capacity of 7,000 pounds (3,200 kg)

  

The kit and its assembly:

A relatively simple build, originally inspired by a Blue Rider decal sheet for Latvian Air Force aircraft that I had bought some time ago, as part of a vague plan to build a modern what-if aircraft for each of the young and small Baltic states’ air forces. The first one had been a Lithuanian MiG-21, Estonia is still pending (even though there’s a vague idea), and the Lithuanian interceptor was recently spawned when I bought an Italeri F-5E as part of a kit lot, even though it lacked box, decals and instructions and had a slight damage.

 

The Tiger II was built mostly OOB, the only changes I made are replaced wing tip launch rails (they were damaged beyond repair), I omitted port side cannon and created a modified “shark nose” radome, which was sculpted with putty; in real life, the enlarged radome for the upgraded radar is 33cm deeper than the original F-5E radome, even though the aircraft’s overall length remained the same, as well as the nose profile. In order to make the model look a little less static I slightly lowered the slats and the flaps – easy to realize on this model. The leftover cannon received a better barrel, made from a hollow steel needle. The pair of AIM-120s and their respective launch rails come from a Hasegawa air-to-air weapons set. The ventral drop tank came from the kit.

 

The Italeri F-5E is a simple affair and goes together well, even though the section ahead of the air intakes called for considerable PSR work – not certain if that’s my fault or an innate flaw of the kit (which comes with an upper and lower fuselage half)? The raised panel lines are another weak point – the kit cannot conceal its age, and there are certainly better options today (e .g. from Hobby Boss).

  

Painting and markings:

I wanted something that would neither look too Western, nor a typical Soviet-style livery. The resulting paint scheme is purely fictional and was inspired by a grey North Korean MiG-21 and USAF aggressor schemes for F-5Es – both reminiscent of the Soviet “Pumpkin” paint scheme for export MiG-21s. For the choice of colors, the complex “Norm 81” scheme from German Luftwaffe F-4Fs had an influence.

 

The result became a primarily grey air superiority scheme with uniform light grey undersides (FS 36495, Humbrol 147) and light Ghost Grey (FS 36375, Humbrol 127) fuselage and fin. The wings’ upper surfaces became mostly Dark Gull Grey (FS 36231, Testors 1740) and patches of the same tone were applied to the fuselage and the fin, too. On the wings’ upper surfaces, some patches in a dull, greenish grey (Humbrol 111, Uniform Grey) were finally added in order to break the aircraft’s outlines from above. The result somewhat reminds of German WWII camouflage, even though unintentionally.

 

The radome was painted in Revell 75 (Light Grey, with a brownish hue) to set it apart from the rest of the aircraft. Humbrol 140 was used for the cockpit interior. The landing gear became classic glossy white, while the air intake interior was painted in Humbrol 127, matching the aircraft’s flanks. Only subtle post-shading and weathering was done.

 

As mentioned above, the Latvian air force markings came from a Blue Rider decal sheet. The tactical codes and the matching serial number come from a Begemot MiG-21sheet. Other fictional elements are the NATO emblem on the fin and a small squadron emblem on the nose, which is a vintage Polish air force motif.

Most stencils had to be salvaged from secondary sources, since the kit came without a decal sheet. Fortunately, I had a spare F-5E sheet left over from a Hobby Boss kit. As a final step, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri).

  

A rather simple project, but re-sculpting the nose was a tedious task. However, I am happy with the outcome and how the fictional paint scheme works. Together with the exotic Latvian roundels, this creates an interesting, if not plausible, look.

 

Title : Alvar Aalto Studio

Other title : Ateljee Alvar Aalto; Atelier Alvar Aalto; Tiilimaki 20

Creator : Aalto, Alvar, 1889-1976

Creator role : Architect

Date : 1954-1956

Current location : Helsinki, Uusimaa, Finland

Description of work : "Because of the increase in Aalto's workload in the 1950s, the old studio at Riihitie 20 became too cramped, so in 1954 he purchase from the city a plot in Munkkiniemi, at convenient walking distance from his home. Riihitie now became his personal studio, whereas the bulk of the work was shifted to the new house. Completed in 1956, it originally consisted of a high studio wing in which he himself worked, with a diagonally placed office wing containing a workroom for a staff of 15 and a conference room on the upper floor and a little 'taverna' (the architects' lunch room) downstairs, an office, an archive room, a garage, and a small caretaker's flat. The basic idea of the white rendered brick building is the use of the angle between the two wings to produce a space that is something between a garden, a Classical theatre cavea, and an open-air auditorium for lectures...In 1962-63 the office section was enlarged with a new wing...It contains a drafting room upstairs and a new, larger tavern downstairs, allowing the old one to be converted to administrative use" (Source: Schildt, Goran. Alvar Aalto The Complete Catalogue of Architecture, Design and Art. London: Academy Editions, 1991, p. 94).

Description of view : View of person sitting at desk below large angled beams in spacious white workspace filled with desks.

Work type : Architecture and Landscape

Style of work : Modern

Culture : Finnish

Materials/Techniques : Wood

Glass

Source : Pisciotta, Henry (copyright Henry Pisciotta)

Date photographed : 2012

Resource type : Image

File format : JPEG

Image size : 2304H X 3072W pixels

Permitted uses : This image is posted publicly for non-profit educational uses, excluding printed publication. Other uses are not permitted. alias.libraries.psu.edu/vius/copyright/publicrightsarch.htm

Collection : Worldwide Building and Landscape Pictures

Filename : WB2014-0013 Aalto Studio.jpg

Record ID : WB2014-0013

Sub collection : office buildings

Copyright holder : Copyright Henry Pisciotta

 

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The Latvian Air Force was first founded during the Latvian War of Independence in 1919. In 1939, the Aviation Regiment consisted of three fighter squadrons, armed with 24 Gloster Gladiator and 6 Bristol Bulldog (a fourth squadron was in organization), three reconnaissance squadrons, armed with up to 12 Letov Š-16LS, 2 Hawker Hind and 10 Stampe SV.5, and a naval reconnaissance squadron with 4 Fairey Seal and two other planes. The Soviet occupation in 1940 ended the activities of the Air Force. At that time there were almost 130 aircraft in service.

 

The post-Soviet Latvian Air Force was formed on 24 February 1992 at Spilve Airport. In August 1994, the air force moved to an ex-soviet Lielvārde Air Base. In the beginning of the new century two new and more heavy Mi-8MTV Hip helicopters were bought for search and rescue equipment duties, but they were also used for transportation of troops, evacuation and support of the Special Forces. In March 2004 Latvia joined NATO and the Ministry of Defense made the decision to improve the small country’s air defense with a dedicated fighter squadron. The country also bought two more Mi-8MTV's at the Russian Ulan Ude helicopter (rework) factory that year, augmenting the SAR fleet.

 

In 2005, soldiers of the Air Force Air Defense Wing started a training course in order to prepare an upgraded air defense. At the same time, the Latvian Air Force commenced the modernization of the surface air defense capabilities by signing a contract regarding procurement of RBS-70 manpads missiles from Sweden and negotiated the purchase or leasing of 2nd hand Saab JAS 39 Gripen. Coming from a neutral country, the Gripen was the LAF’s wish candidate for the new interceptor aircraft, but eventually Latvia could be convinced (primarily through the USA and with generous financial support thorugh the “Baltic Peace II” program) to buy eight F-5E fighters and two F-5F trainers with relatively low flying hours and in good overall condition from Switzerland. Besides the financial support, the type’s ruggedness and relatively low maintenance costs led to this choice.

 

The Northrop F-5E/F Tiger II itself was part of a highly successful supersonic light fighter family, initially designed in the late 1950s by Northrop Corporation. Being smaller and simpler than contemporaries such as the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II, the F-5 cost less to both procure and operate, making it a popular export aircraft. The F-5 started life as a privately funded light fighter program by Northrop in the 1950s. The design team wrapped a small, highly aerodynamic fighter around two compact and high-thrust General Electric J85 engines, focusing on performance and low cost of maintenance. Though primarily designed for the day air superiority role, the aircraft was also a capable ground-attack platform.

After winning the International Fighter Aircraft competition in 1970, a program aimed at providing effective low-cost fighters to American allies, Northrop introduced the second-generation F-5E Tiger II in 1972. This upgrade included more powerful engines, higher fuel capacity, greater wing area and improved leading edge extensions for a better turn rate, optional air-to-air refueling, and improved avionics including air-to-air radar. A total of 1,400 Tiger IIs were built before production ended in 1987, and the type is still in operational use in many countries round the world.

 

The Swiss F-5E airframes for Latvia were overhauled and the avionics suite modernized in 2006 and 2007 by SAI in Italy. Elbit Systems from Israel became the sub-contractor responsible for systems integration. Upgrades for the fighters included an Italian FIAR Grifo-F X band multi-mode radar with BVR (beyond-visual-range) missile and Look-down/shoot-down capabilities, making the modernized F-5E capable of deploying AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles, which were, together with AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs, part of the Baltic Peace II support for Latvia. The new radar necessitated an enlarged radome for its scanner antenna, resulting in a duckbill shape. The fighters’ port side M39 20 mm cannon was removed to make way for the additional avionics.

 

All machines received a revamped cockpit with new MIL-STD-1553R databuses, a GEC/Ferranti 4510 Head-up display/weapons delivery system, two BAE Systems MED-2067 Multi-function displays, Litton LN-93 inertial navigation system and Hands On Throttle-And-Stick controls (HOTAS) to reduce pilot workload. Reportedly, the Elisra SPS2000 radar warning receiver and countermeasure system was also installed.

 

The modernization process was completed by early 2007 and the machines were re-designated F-5L/M. By late 2007, the Latvian air defense had become operational and worked closely together with its Baltic neighbors and the NATO forces that were frequently deployed to the Baltic NATO countries.

The small Latvian F-5 fleet is expected to remain in service until 2024, even tough, if there is sufficient funding, the machines will certainly be replaced beforehand by more capable models. The Saab Gripen is still a favored candidate, but F-16C/Ds from USAF stocks are a potential option, too.

By end of 2009, the LAF’s Fighter Squadron moved to Lielvārde Air Base, in an attempt to ensure centralization of Air Force units and to establish an efficient command and control system, which will result in a reduction of the Air Force units’ maintenance costs. With the Fighter Squadron the Air Force carries out Latvian airspace surveillance, control and defense and provides air defense support to the Land Forces units.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 47 ft 4¾ in (14.45 m)

Wingspan: 26 ft 8 in (8.13 m)

Height: 13 ft 4½ in (4.08 m)

Wing area: 186 ft² (17.28 m²)

Airfoil: NACA 65A004.8 root, NACA 64A004.8 tip

Empty weight: 9,558 lb (4,349 kg)

Loaded weight: 15,745 lb (7,157 kg)

Max. take-off weight: 24,722 lb (11,214 kg)

Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.02

Drag area: 3.4 ft² (0.32 m²)

Aspect ratio: 3.82

Internal fuel: 677 U.S. gal (2,563 L)

External fuel: up to 3× 275 U.S. gal (1,040 L) drop tanks

 

Powerplant:

2× General Electric J85-GE-21B turbojet with 3,500 lbf (15.5 kN) dry thrust

and 5,000 lbf (22.2 kN) thrust with afterburner each

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 917 kn (Mach 1.6, 1,060 mph, 1,700 km/h) at altitude

Range: 760 nmi (870 mi, 1,405 km)

Ferry range: 2,010 nmi (2,310 mi, 3,700 km)

Service ceiling: 51,800 ft (15,800 m)

Rate of climb: 34,400 ft/min (175 m/s)

Lift-to-drag ratio: 10.0

 

Armament:

1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M39A2 Revolver cannon in the nose with 280 rounds

7 hardpoints (2× wing-tip AAM launch rails, 4× under-wing & 1× under-fuselage pylon stations,

only pylon stations 3, 4 and 5 are wet-plumbed) with a capacity of 7,000 pounds (3,200 kg)

  

The kit and its assembly:

A relatively simple build, originally inspired by a Blue Rider decal sheet for Latvian Air Force aircraft that I had bought some time ago, as part of a vague plan to build a modern what-if aircraft for each of the young and small Baltic states’ air forces. The first one had been a Lithuanian MiG-21, Estonia is still pending (even though there’s a vague idea), and the Lithuanian interceptor was recently spawned when I bought an Italeri F-5E as part of a kit lot, even though it lacked box, decals and instructions and had a slight damage.

 

The Tiger II was built mostly OOB, the only changes I made are replaced wing tip launch rails (they were damaged beyond repair), I omitted port side cannon and created a modified “shark nose” radome, which was sculpted with putty; in real life, the enlarged radome for the upgraded radar is 33cm deeper than the original F-5E radome, even though the aircraft’s overall length remained the same, as well as the nose profile. In order to make the model look a little less static I slightly lowered the slats and the flaps – easy to realize on this model. The leftover cannon received a better barrel, made from a hollow steel needle. The pair of AIM-120s and their respective launch rails come from a Hasegawa air-to-air weapons set. The ventral drop tank came from the kit.

 

The Italeri F-5E is a simple affair and goes together well, even though the section ahead of the air intakes called for considerable PSR work – not certain if that’s my fault or an innate flaw of the kit (which comes with an upper and lower fuselage half)? The raised panel lines are another weak point – the kit cannot conceal its age, and there are certainly better options today (e .g. from Hobby Boss).

  

Painting and markings:

I wanted something that would neither look too Western, nor a typical Soviet-style livery. The resulting paint scheme is purely fictional and was inspired by a grey North Korean MiG-21 and USAF aggressor schemes for F-5Es – both reminiscent of the Soviet “Pumpkin” paint scheme for export MiG-21s. For the choice of colors, the complex “Norm 81” scheme from German Luftwaffe F-4Fs had an influence.

 

The result became a primarily grey air superiority scheme with uniform light grey undersides (FS 36495, Humbrol 147) and light Ghost Grey (FS 36375, Humbrol 127) fuselage and fin. The wings’ upper surfaces became mostly Dark Gull Grey (FS 36231, Testors 1740) and patches of the same tone were applied to the fuselage and the fin, too. On the wings’ upper surfaces, some patches in a dull, greenish grey (Humbrol 111, Uniform Grey) were finally added in order to break the aircraft’s outlines from above. The result somewhat reminds of German WWII camouflage, even though unintentionally.

 

The radome was painted in Revell 75 (Light Grey, with a brownish hue) to set it apart from the rest of the aircraft. Humbrol 140 was used for the cockpit interior. The landing gear became classic glossy white, while the air intake interior was painted in Humbrol 127, matching the aircraft’s flanks. Only subtle post-shading and weathering was done.

 

As mentioned above, the Latvian air force markings came from a Blue Rider decal sheet. The tactical codes and the matching serial number come from a Begemot MiG-21sheet. Other fictional elements are the NATO emblem on the fin and a small squadron emblem on the nose, which is a vintage Polish air force motif.

Most stencils had to be salvaged from secondary sources, since the kit came without a decal sheet. Fortunately, I had a spare F-5E sheet left over from a Hobby Boss kit. As a final step, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri).

  

A rather simple project, but re-sculpting the nose was a tedious task. However, I am happy with the outcome and how the fictional paint scheme works. Together with the exotic Latvian roundels, this creates an interesting, if not plausible, look.

 

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The AH-1 Cobra was developed in the mid-1960s as an interim gunship for the U.S. Army for use during the Vietnam War. The Cobra shared the proven transmission, rotor system, and the T53 turboshaft engine of the UH-1 "Huey". By June 1967, the first AH-1G HueyCobras had been delivered. Bell built 1,116 AH-1Gs for the U.S. Army between 1967 and 1973, and the Cobras chalked up over a million operational hours in Vietnam.

The U.S. Marine Corps was very interested in the AH-1G Cobra, too, but it preferred a twin-engine version for improved safety in over-water operations, and also wanted a more potent turret-mounted weapon. At first, the Department of Defense had balked at providing the Marines with a twin-engine version of the Cobra, in the belief that commonality with Army AH-1Gs outweighed the advantages of a different engine fit. However, the Marines won out and awarded Bell a contract for 49 twin-engine AH-1J SeaCobras in May 1968. As an interim measure the U.S. Army passed on thirty-eight AH-1Gs to the Marines in 1969. The AH-1J also received a more powerful gun turret with a three-barrel 20 mm XM197 cannon based on the six-barrel M61 Vulcan cannon.

 

During the 1990s, the US forces gradually phased out its Cobra fleet. The withdrawn AH-1s were typically offered to other potential operators, usually NATO allies. Some were also given to the USDA's Forest Service for fire surveillance, and a handful AH-1s went into private hands, including the NASA. Among these airframes were some USMC AH-1Js, which had in part been mothballed in the Mojave Desert since their replacement through more powerful and modern AH-1 variants and the AH-64.

About twenty airframes were, after having been de-militarized, bought by the Kaman Corporation in 2003, in a bold move to quickly respond to more than 20 inquiries for the company’s K-1200 ‘K-Max’ crane synchropter since the type’s end of production in 2001 from firefighting, logging and industry transport requirements. While not such a dedicated medium lift helicopter as the K-1200, which had from the outset been optimized for external cargo load operations, the twin-engine AH-1J promised to be a very effective alternative and a powerful basis for a conversion into a crane helicopter.

 

The result of this conversion program was the Kaman K-1300, also known as the “K-Cobra” or “Crane Cobra”. While the basic airframe of the AH-1J was retained, extensive detail modifications were made. To reduce weight and compensate for the extensive hardware changes, the SeaCobra lost its armor, the chin turret, and the stub wings. Beyond that, many invisible changes were made; the internal structure between the engine mounts was beefed up with an additional cage structure and a cargo hook was installed under the fuselage in the helicopter’s center of lift.

 

To further optimize the K-Cobra’s performance, the dynamic components were modified and improved, too. While the engine remained the same, its oil cooler was enlarged and the original output limit to 1.500 shp was removed and the gearbox was strengthened to fully exploit the twin-engine’s available power of 1,800 shp (1,342 kW). The rotor system was also modified and optimized for the transport of underslung loads: the original UH-1 dual-blade rotors were replaced with new four-blade rotors. The new main rotor with rugged heavy-duty blades offered more lift at less rotor speed, and the blades’ lift sections were moved away from the hub so that downwash and turbulences directly under the helicopter’s CoG and man hook were reduced to keep the cargo load more stable. Due to the main rotor’s slightly bigger diameter the tail rotor was changed into a slightly smaller four-blade rotor, too. This new arrangement made the K-1300 more stable while hovering or during slow speed maneuvers and more responsive to steering input.

 

The Cobra’s crew of two was retained, but the cockpit was re-arranged and split into two compartments: the pilot retained the original rear position in the tandem cockpit under the original glazing, but the gunner’s station in front of him, together with the secondary dashboard, was omitted and replaced by a new, fully glazed cabin under the former gunner position. This cabin occupied the former gun station and its ammunition supply and contained a rearward-facing workstation for a second pilot with full controls. It was accessible via a separate door or a ladder from above, through a trap door in the former gunner’s station floor, where a simple foldable bench was available for a third person. This arrangement was chosen due to almost complete lack of oversight of the slung load from the normal cockpit position, despite a CCTV (closed circuit television) system with two cameras intended for observation of slung loads. The second pilot would control the helicopter during delicate load-handling maneuvers, while the primary pilot “above” would fly the helicopter during transfer flights, both sharing the workload.

 

To accommodate the cabin under the fuselage and improve ground handling, the AH-1J’s skids were replaced by a stalky, fixed four-wheel landing gear that considerably increased ground clearance (almost 7 feet), making the attachment of loads on the ground to the main ventral hook easier, as the K-1300 could be “rolled over” the cargo on the ground and did not have to hover above it to connect. However, an external ladder had to be added so that the pilot could reach his/her workstation almost 10 feet above the ground.

 

The bulky ventral cabin, the draggy landing gear and the new lift-optimized rotor system reduced the CraneCobra’s top speed by a third to just 124 mph (200 km/h), but the helicopter’s load-carrying capacity became 35% higher and the Cobra’s performance under “hot & high” conditions was markedly improved, too.

For transfer flights, a pair of external auxiliary tanks could be mounted to the lower fuselage flanks, which could also be replaced with cargo boxes of similar size and shape.

 

K-1300 buyers primarily came from the United States and Canada, but there were foreign operators, too. A major operator in Europe became Heliswiss, the oldest helicopter company in Switzerland. The company was founded as „Heliswiss Schweizerische Helikopter AG“, with headquarters in Berne-Belp on April 17, 1953, what also marked the beginning of commercial helicopter flying in Switzerland. During the following years Heliswiss expanded in Switzerland and formed a network with bases in Belp BE, Samedan GR, Domat Ems GR, Locarno TI, Erstfeld UR, Gampel VS, Gstaad BE and Gruyères FR. During the build-up of the rescue-company Schweizerische Rettungsflugwacht (REGA) as an independent network, Heliswiss carried out rescue missions on their behalf.

 

Heliswiss carried out operations all over the world, e. g. in Greenland, Suriname, North Africa and South America. The first helicopter was a Bell 47 G-1, registered as HB-XAG on September 23, 1953. From 1963 Heliswiss started to expand and began to operate with medium helicopters like the Agusta Bell 204B with a turbine power of 1050 HP and an external load of up to 1500 kg. From 1979 Heliswiss operated a Bell 214 (external load up to 2.8 t).

Since 1991 Heliswiss operated a Russian Kamov 32A12 (a civil crane version of the Ka-27 “Helix”), which was joined by two K-1300s in 2004. They were frequently used for construction of transmission towers for overhead power lines and pylons for railway catenary lines, for selective logging and also as fire bombers with underslung water bags, the latter managed by the German Helog company, operating out of Ainring and Küssnacht in Germany and Switzerland until 2008, when Helog changed its business focus into a helicopter flight training academy in Liberia with the support of Germany's Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

A second Kamov 32A12 joined the fleet in 2015, which replaced one of the K-1300s, and Heliswiss’ last K-1300 was retired in early 2022.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 2, plus space for a passenger

Length: 54 ft 3 in (16,56 m) including rotors

44 ft 5 in (13.5 m) fuselage only

Main rotor diameter: 46 ft 2¾ in (14,11 m)

Main rotor area: 1,677.64 sq ft (156,37 m2)

Width (over landing gear): 12 ft 6 in (3.85 m)

Height: 17 ft 8¼ in (5,40 m)

Empty weight: 5,810 lb (2,635 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 9,500 lb (4,309 kg) without slung load

13,515 lb (6,145 kg) with slung load

 

Powerplant:

1× P&W Canada T400-CP-400 (PT6T-3 Twin-Pac) turboshaft engine, 1,800 shp (1,342 kW)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 124 mph (200 km/h, 110 kn)

Cruise speed: 105 mph (169 km/h, 91 kn)

Range: 270 mi (430 km, 230 nmi) with internal fuel only,

360 mi (570 km 310 nmi) with external auxiliary tanks

Service ceiling: 15,000 ft (4,600 m)

Hovering ceiling out of ground effect: 3,000 m (9,840 ft)

Rate of climb: 2,500 ft/min (13 m/s) at Sea Level with flat-rated torque

 

External load capacity (at ISA +15 °C (59.0 °F):

6,000 lb (2,722 kg) at sea level

5,663 lb (2,569 kg) at 5,000 ft (1,524 m)

5,163 lb (2,342 kg) at 10,000 ft (3,048 m)

5,013 lb (2,274 kg) at 12,100 ft (3,688 m)

4,313 lb (1,956 kg) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)

  

The kit and its assembly:

This is/was the second contribution to the late 2022 “Logistics” Group Build at whatifmodellers.com, a welcome occasion and motivation to tackle a what-if project that had been on my list for a long while. This crane helicopter conversion of a HueyCobra was inspired by the Mil Mi-10K helicopter – I had built a 1:100 VEB Plasticart kit MANY years ago and still remembered the helicopter’s unique ventral cabin under the nose with a rearward-facing second pilot. I always thought that the AH-1 might be a good crane helicopter, too, esp. the USMC’s twin-engine variant. And why not combine everything in a fictional model?

 

With this plan the basis became a Fujimi 1:72 AH-1J and lots of donor parts to modify the basic hull into “something else”. Things started with the removal of the chin turret and part of the lower front hull to make space for the ventral glass cabin. The openings for the stub wings were faired over and a different stabilizer (taken from a Revell EC 135, including the end plates) was implanted. The attachment points for the skids were filled and a styrene tube was inserted into the rotor mast opening to later hold the new four-blade rotor. Another styrene tube with bigger diameter was inserted into the lower fuselage as a display holder adapter for later flight scene pictures. Lead beads filled the nose section to make sure the CraneCobra would stand well on its new legs, with the nose down. The cockpit was basically taken OOB, just the front seat and the respective gunner dashboard was omitted.

 

One of the big challenges of this build followed next: the ventral cabin. Over the course of several months, I was not able to find a suitable donor, so I was forced to scratch the cabin from acrylic and styrene sheet. Size benchmark became the gunner’s seat from the Cobra kit, with one of the OOB pilots seated. Cabin width was less dictated through the fuselage, the rest of the cabin’s design became a rather simple, boxy thing – not pretty, but I think a real-life retrofitted cabin would not look much different? Some PSR was done to hide the edges of the rather thick all-clear walls and create a 3D frame - a delicate task. Attaching the completed thing with the second pilot and a dashboard under the roof to the Cobra’s lower hull and making it look more or less natural without major accidents was also a tricky and lengthy affair, because I ignored the Cobra’s narrowing nose above the former chin turret.

 

With the cabin defining the ground helicopter’s clearance, it was time for the next donors: the landing gear from an Airfix 1:72 Kamow Ka-25, which had to be modified further to achieve a proper stance. The long main struts were fixed to the hull, their supporting struts had to be scratched, in this case from steel wire. The front wheels were directly attached to the ventral cabin (which might contain in real life a rigid steel cage that not only protects the second crew member but could also take the front wheels’ loads?). Looks pretty stalky!

Under the hull, a massive hook and a fairing for the oil cooler were added. A PE brass ladder was mounted on the right side of the hull under the pilot’s cockpit, while a rear-view mirror was mounted for the ventral pilot on the left side.

 

The rotor system was created in parallel, I wanted “something different” from the UH-1 dual-blade rotors. The main rotor hub was taken from a Mistercraft 1:72 Westland Lynx (AFAIK a re-boxed ZTS Plastyk kit), which included the arms up to the blades. The hub was put onto a metal axis, with a spacer to make it sit well in the new styrene tube adapter inside of the hull, and some donor parts from the Revell EC 135. Deeper, tailored blades were glued to the Lynx hub, actually leftover parts from the aforementioned wrecked VEB Plasticart 1:100 Mi-10, even though their length had to be halved (what makes you aware how large a Mi-6/10 is compared with an AH-1!). The tail rotor was taken wholesale from the Lynx and stuck to the Cobra’s tail with a steel pin.

  

Painting and markings:

Another pushing factor for this build was the fact that I had a 1:72 Begemot aftermarket decal sheet for the Kamow Ka-27/32 in The Stash™, which features, among many military helicopters, (the) two civil Heliswiss machines – a perfect match!

Using the Swiss Helix’ as design benchmark I adapted their red-over-white paint scheme to the slender AH-1 and eventually ended up with a simple livery with a white belly (acrylic white from the rattle can, after extensive masking of the clear parts with Maskol/latex milk) and a red (Humbrol 19) upper section, with decorative counter-colored cheatlines along the medium waterline. A black anti-glare panel was added in front of the windscreen. The auxiliary tanks were painted white, too, but they were processed separately and mounted just before the final coat of varnish was applied. The PE ladder as well as the rotors were handled similarly.

 

The cockpit and rotor opening interior were painted in a very dark grey (tar black, Revell 06), while the interior of the air intakes was painted bright white (Revell 301). The rotor blades became light grey (Revell 75) with darker leading edges (Humbrol 140), dark grey (Humbrol 164) hubs and yellow tips.

 

For the “HELOG/Heliswiss” tagline the lower white section had to be raised to a medium position on the fuselage, so that they could be placed on the lower flanks under the cockpit. The white civil registration code could not be placed on the tail and ended up on the engine cowling, on red, but this does not look bad or wrong at all.

The cheatlines are also decals from the Ka-32 Begemot sheet, even though they had to be trimmed considerably to fit onto the Cobra’s fuselage – and unfortunately the turned out to be poorly printed and rather brittle, so that I had to improvise and correct the flaws with generic red and white decal lines from TL Modellbau. The white cross on the tail and most stencils came from the Begemot sheet, too. Black, engine soot-hiding areas on the Cobra’s tail were created with generic decal sheet material, too.

 

The rotor blades and the wheels received a black ink treatment to emphasize their details, but this was not done on the hull to avoid a dirty or worn look. After some final details like position lights the model was sealed with semi-matt acrylic varnish, while the rotors became matt.

  

A weird-looking what-if model, but somehow a crane-copter variant of the AH-1 looks quite natural – even more so in its attractive red-and-white civil livery. The stalky landing gear is odd, though, necessitated by the ventral cabin for the second pilot. I was skeptical, but scratching the latter was more successful than expected, and the cabin blend quite well into the AH-1 hull, despite its boxy shape.

 

40 hours later, The Forge is finally finished! So, what is The Forge? The Forge is a mobile asteroid mining and processing facility. It uses six tugs to collect asteroids and bring them to one of the six mining platforms near the front of the ship. The asteroids are then put through grinding drums that break them into smaller pieces. Next, any desired ore, minerals, etc. are removed from the fragments and the waste is jettisoned from the ship. The ore, minerals, etc. are sorted into seperate containers. Eight huge reinforced plates protect the shipping containers from rogue asteroids and open to allow a transport to collect them.

 

The two bridges share the workload of the ship. The rear bridge is in charge of piloting, navigation and shipping. The forward bridge handles the mining and processing operations.

 

Alright, time for some tech specs!

 

The forge measures in at a whopping 156 studs in length (The biggest SHIP I've ever built). She's 62 studs at the widest (26 at the thinnest) and 38 studs tall. I did have two big landing gears built into it but it got WAY too heavy for them, thus the stand. It also has motor-driven grinding drums in the mining platforms and the big grey button in the middle of the ship opens and closes the armored plates. The plates where also supposed to be motor-driven but I could get them working for the life of me. Oh well!

 

I hope you all enjoyed watching this beast going together as I had building it (even if I did shout some horrific profanities from time to time)! Thanks for watching and for all the support!

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The AH-1 Cobra was developed in the mid-1960s as an interim gunship for the U.S. Army for use during the Vietnam War. The Cobra shared the proven transmission, rotor system, and the T53 turboshaft engine of the UH-1 "Huey". By June 1967, the first AH-1G HueyCobras had been delivered. Bell built 1,116 AH-1Gs for the U.S. Army between 1967 and 1973, and the Cobras chalked up over a million operational hours in Vietnam.

The U.S. Marine Corps was very interested in the AH-1G Cobra, too, but it preferred a twin-engine version for improved safety in over-water operations, and also wanted a more potent turret-mounted weapon. At first, the Department of Defense had balked at providing the Marines with a twin-engine version of the Cobra, in the belief that commonality with Army AH-1Gs outweighed the advantages of a different engine fit. However, the Marines won out and awarded Bell a contract for 49 twin-engine AH-1J SeaCobras in May 1968. As an interim measure the U.S. Army passed on thirty-eight AH-1Gs to the Marines in 1969. The AH-1J also received a more powerful gun turret with a three-barrel 20 mm XM197 cannon based on the six-barrel M61 Vulcan cannon.

 

During the 1990s, the US forces gradually phased out its Cobra fleet. The withdrawn AH-1s were typically offered to other potential operators, usually NATO allies. Some were also given to the USDA's Forest Service for fire surveillance, and a handful AH-1s went into private hands, including the NASA. Among these airframes were some USMC AH-1Js, which had in part been mothballed in the Mojave Desert since their replacement through more powerful and modern AH-1 variants and the AH-64.

About twenty airframes were, after having been de-militarized, bought by the Kaman Corporation in 2003, in a bold move to quickly respond to more than 20 inquiries for the company’s K-1200 ‘K-Max’ crane synchropter since the type’s end of production in 2001 from firefighting, logging and industry transport requirements. While not such a dedicated medium lift helicopter as the K-1200, which had from the outset been optimized for external cargo load operations, the twin-engine AH-1J promised to be a very effective alternative and a powerful basis for a conversion into a crane helicopter.

 

The result of this conversion program was the Kaman K-1300, also known as the “K-Cobra” or “Crane Cobra”. While the basic airframe of the AH-1J was retained, extensive detail modifications were made. To reduce weight and compensate for the extensive hardware changes, the SeaCobra lost its armor, the chin turret, and the stub wings. Beyond that, many invisible changes were made; the internal structure between the engine mounts was beefed up with an additional cage structure and a cargo hook was installed under the fuselage in the helicopter’s center of lift.

 

To further optimize the K-Cobra’s performance, the dynamic components were modified and improved, too. While the engine remained the same, its oil cooler was enlarged and the original output limit to 1.500 shp was removed and the gearbox was strengthened to fully exploit the twin-engine’s available power of 1,800 shp (1,342 kW). The rotor system was also modified and optimized for the transport of underslung loads: the original UH-1 dual-blade rotors were replaced with new four-blade rotors. The new main rotor with rugged heavy-duty blades offered more lift at less rotor speed, and the blades’ lift sections were moved away from the hub so that downwash and turbulences directly under the helicopter’s CoG and man hook were reduced to keep the cargo load more stable. Due to the main rotor’s slightly bigger diameter the tail rotor was changed into a slightly smaller four-blade rotor, too. This new arrangement made the K-1300 more stable while hovering or during slow speed maneuvers and more responsive to steering input.

 

The Cobra’s crew of two was retained, but the cockpit was re-arranged and split into two compartments: the pilot retained the original rear position in the tandem cockpit under the original glazing, but the gunner’s station in front of him, together with the secondary dashboard, was omitted and replaced by a new, fully glazed cabin under the former gunner position. This cabin occupied the former gun station and its ammunition supply and contained a rearward-facing workstation for a second pilot with full controls. It was accessible via a separate door or a ladder from above, through a trap door in the former gunner’s station floor, where a simple foldable bench was available for a third person. This arrangement was chosen due to almost complete lack of oversight of the slung load from the normal cockpit position, despite a CCTV (closed circuit television) system with two cameras intended for observation of slung loads. The second pilot would control the helicopter during delicate load-handling maneuvers, while the primary pilot “above” would fly the helicopter during transfer flights, both sharing the workload.

 

To accommodate the cabin under the fuselage and improve ground handling, the AH-1J’s skids were replaced by a stalky, fixed four-wheel landing gear that considerably increased ground clearance (almost 7 feet), making the attachment of loads on the ground to the main ventral hook easier, as the K-1300 could be “rolled over” the cargo on the ground and did not have to hover above it to connect. However, an external ladder had to be added so that the pilot could reach his/her workstation almost 10 feet above the ground.

 

The bulky ventral cabin, the draggy landing gear and the new lift-optimized rotor system reduced the CraneCobra’s top speed by a third to just 124 mph (200 km/h), but the helicopter’s load-carrying capacity became 35% higher and the Cobra’s performance under “hot & high” conditions was markedly improved, too.

For transfer flights, a pair of external auxiliary tanks could be mounted to the lower fuselage flanks, which could also be replaced with cargo boxes of similar size and shape.

 

K-1300 buyers primarily came from the United States and Canada, but there were foreign operators, too. A major operator in Europe became Heliswiss, the oldest helicopter company in Switzerland. The company was founded as „Heliswiss Schweizerische Helikopter AG“, with headquarters in Berne-Belp on April 17, 1953, what also marked the beginning of commercial helicopter flying in Switzerland. During the following years Heliswiss expanded in Switzerland and formed a network with bases in Belp BE, Samedan GR, Domat Ems GR, Locarno TI, Erstfeld UR, Gampel VS, Gstaad BE and Gruyères FR. During the build-up of the rescue-company Schweizerische Rettungsflugwacht (REGA) as an independent network, Heliswiss carried out rescue missions on their behalf.

 

Heliswiss carried out operations all over the world, e. g. in Greenland, Suriname, North Africa and South America. The first helicopter was a Bell 47 G-1, registered as HB-XAG on September 23, 1953. From 1963 Heliswiss started to expand and began to operate with medium helicopters like the Agusta Bell 204B with a turbine power of 1050 HP and an external load of up to 1500 kg. From 1979 Heliswiss operated a Bell 214 (external load up to 2.8 t).

Since 1991 Heliswiss operated a Russian Kamov 32A12 (a civil crane version of the Ka-27 “Helix”), which was joined by two K-1300s in 2004. They were frequently used for construction of transmission towers for overhead power lines and pylons for railway catenary lines, for selective logging and also as fire bombers with underslung water bags, the latter managed by the German Helog company, operating out of Ainring and Küssnacht in Germany and Switzerland until 2008, when Helog changed its business focus into a helicopter flight training academy in Liberia with the support of Germany's Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

A second Kamov 32A12 joined the fleet in 2015, which replaced one of the K-1300s, and Heliswiss’ last K-1300 was retired in early 2022.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 2, plus space for a passenger

Length: 54 ft 3 in (16,56 m) including rotors

44 ft 5 in (13.5 m) fuselage only

Main rotor diameter: 46 ft 2¾ in (14,11 m)

Main rotor area: 1,677.64 sq ft (156,37 m2)

Width (over landing gear): 12 ft 6 in (3.85 m)

Height: 17 ft 8¼ in (5,40 m)

Empty weight: 5,810 lb (2,635 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 9,500 lb (4,309 kg) without slung load

13,515 lb (6,145 kg) with slung load

 

Powerplant:

1× P&W Canada T400-CP-400 (PT6T-3 Twin-Pac) turboshaft engine, 1,800 shp (1,342 kW)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 124 mph (200 km/h, 110 kn)

Cruise speed: 105 mph (169 km/h, 91 kn)

Range: 270 mi (430 km, 230 nmi) with internal fuel only,

360 mi (570 km 310 nmi) with external auxiliary tanks

Service ceiling: 15,000 ft (4,600 m)

Hovering ceiling out of ground effect: 3,000 m (9,840 ft)

Rate of climb: 2,500 ft/min (13 m/s) at Sea Level with flat-rated torque

 

External load capacity (at ISA +15 °C (59.0 °F):

6,000 lb (2,722 kg) at sea level

5,663 lb (2,569 kg) at 5,000 ft (1,524 m)

5,163 lb (2,342 kg) at 10,000 ft (3,048 m)

5,013 lb (2,274 kg) at 12,100 ft (3,688 m)

4,313 lb (1,956 kg) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)

  

The kit and its assembly:

This is/was the second contribution to the late 2022 “Logistics” Group Build at whatifmodellers.com, a welcome occasion and motivation to tackle a what-if project that had been on my list for a long while. This crane helicopter conversion of a HueyCobra was inspired by the Mil Mi-10K helicopter – I had built a 1:100 VEB Plasticart kit MANY years ago and still remembered the helicopter’s unique ventral cabin under the nose with a rearward-facing second pilot. I always thought that the AH-1 might be a good crane helicopter, too, esp. the USMC’s twin-engine variant. And why not combine everything in a fictional model?

 

With this plan the basis became a Fujimi 1:72 AH-1J and lots of donor parts to modify the basic hull into “something else”. Things started with the removal of the chin turret and part of the lower front hull to make space for the ventral glass cabin. The openings for the stub wings were faired over and a different stabilizer (taken from a Revell EC 135, including the end plates) was implanted. The attachment points for the skids were filled and a styrene tube was inserted into the rotor mast opening to later hold the new four-blade rotor. Another styrene tube with bigger diameter was inserted into the lower fuselage as a display holder adapter for later flight scene pictures. Lead beads filled the nose section to make sure the CraneCobra would stand well on its new legs, with the nose down. The cockpit was basically taken OOB, just the front seat and the respective gunner dashboard was omitted.

 

One of the big challenges of this build followed next: the ventral cabin. Over the course of several months, I was not able to find a suitable donor, so I was forced to scratch the cabin from acrylic and styrene sheet. Size benchmark became the gunner’s seat from the Cobra kit, with one of the OOB pilots seated. Cabin width was less dictated through the fuselage, the rest of the cabin’s design became a rather simple, boxy thing – not pretty, but I think a real-life retrofitted cabin would not look much different? Some PSR was done to hide the edges of the rather thick all-clear walls and create a 3D frame - a delicate task. Attaching the completed thing with the second pilot and a dashboard under the roof to the Cobra’s lower hull and making it look more or less natural without major accidents was also a tricky and lengthy affair, because I ignored the Cobra’s narrowing nose above the former chin turret.

 

With the cabin defining the ground helicopter’s clearance, it was time for the next donors: the landing gear from an Airfix 1:72 Kamow Ka-25, which had to be modified further to achieve a proper stance. The long main struts were fixed to the hull, their supporting struts had to be scratched, in this case from steel wire. The front wheels were directly attached to the ventral cabin (which might contain in real life a rigid steel cage that not only protects the second crew member but could also take the front wheels’ loads?). Looks pretty stalky!

Under the hull, a massive hook and a fairing for the oil cooler were added. A PE brass ladder was mounted on the right side of the hull under the pilot’s cockpit, while a rear-view mirror was mounted for the ventral pilot on the left side.

 

The rotor system was created in parallel, I wanted “something different” from the UH-1 dual-blade rotors. The main rotor hub was taken from a Mistercraft 1:72 Westland Lynx (AFAIK a re-boxed ZTS Plastyk kit), which included the arms up to the blades. The hub was put onto a metal axis, with a spacer to make it sit well in the new styrene tube adapter inside of the hull, and some donor parts from the Revell EC 135. Deeper, tailored blades were glued to the Lynx hub, actually leftover parts from the aforementioned wrecked VEB Plasticart 1:100 Mi-10, even though their length had to be halved (what makes you aware how large a Mi-6/10 is compared with an AH-1!). The tail rotor was taken wholesale from the Lynx and stuck to the Cobra’s tail with a steel pin.

  

Painting and markings:

Another pushing factor for this build was the fact that I had a 1:72 Begemot aftermarket decal sheet for the Kamow Ka-27/32 in The Stash™, which features, among many military helicopters, (the) two civil Heliswiss machines – a perfect match!

Using the Swiss Helix’ as design benchmark I adapted their red-over-white paint scheme to the slender AH-1 and eventually ended up with a simple livery with a white belly (acrylic white from the rattle can, after extensive masking of the clear parts with Maskol/latex milk) and a red (Humbrol 19) upper section, with decorative counter-colored cheatlines along the medium waterline. A black anti-glare panel was added in front of the windscreen. The auxiliary tanks were painted white, too, but they were processed separately and mounted just before the final coat of varnish was applied. The PE ladder as well as the rotors were handled similarly.

 

The cockpit and rotor opening interior were painted in a very dark grey (tar black, Revell 06), while the interior of the air intakes was painted bright white (Revell 301). The rotor blades became light grey (Revell 75) with darker leading edges (Humbrol 140), dark grey (Humbrol 164) hubs and yellow tips.

 

For the “HELOG/Heliswiss” tagline the lower white section had to be raised to a medium position on the fuselage, so that they could be placed on the lower flanks under the cockpit. The white civil registration code could not be placed on the tail and ended up on the engine cowling, on red, but this does not look bad or wrong at all.

The cheatlines are also decals from the Ka-32 Begemot sheet, even though they had to be trimmed considerably to fit onto the Cobra’s fuselage – and unfortunately the turned out to be poorly printed and rather brittle, so that I had to improvise and correct the flaws with generic red and white decal lines from TL Modellbau. The white cross on the tail and most stencils came from the Begemot sheet, too. Black, engine soot-hiding areas on the Cobra’s tail were created with generic decal sheet material, too.

 

The rotor blades and the wheels received a black ink treatment to emphasize their details, but this was not done on the hull to avoid a dirty or worn look. After some final details like position lights the model was sealed with semi-matt acrylic varnish, while the rotors became matt.

  

A weird-looking what-if model, but somehow a crane-copter variant of the AH-1 looks quite natural – even more so in its attractive red-and-white civil livery. The stalky landing gear is odd, though, necessitated by the ventral cabin for the second pilot. I was skeptical, but scratching the latter was more successful than expected, and the cabin blend quite well into the AH-1 hull, despite its boxy shape.

 

I'm having withdrawals for Bruges and it's the first time I've ever 'missed' a place in my entire life! It's inexplicable. I've moved across continents, travelled to so many places and I've never experienced any type of homesickness, let alone holidaysickness. While my mind is caught up with details and stressed over my workload, as seems to be the case constantly at the moment, my heart is tripping over cobblestones and floating along canals ...

 

(The irony is that I'm scared to go back in case I ruin a perfect memory.)

Hello all!

 

As I posted before, I will also open for commissions tomorrow (Sunday) at 6PM GMT.

 

All details:

 

The places will be available through my Bigcartel (Link through my site: zoeevergreen.wixsite.com/pearlsofdanube -- please read my commission info and rules carefully, before placing an order tomorrow! ;) )

 

I planned to accept around 15 commissions this time. Every person can send me up to 2 doll heads. (If you wish to send 2 heads, please add 2 faceups to your cart, when you check out.)

If too many people wishes to send two heads, however, I might only accept around 10 places, to keep my workload in the numbers I am prepared for.

  

I will mark the slots 'Sold Out' when those 10-15 places are filled.

  

Due to recent events, GBP is extremely low compared to the past years, so I had to raise my prices a little. If you are counting with Euro or USD, there's no real change for you in my prices. This mainly affects people who's currency is in GBP.

New prices are: £57 for tinies/1/6, £61 for MSD /1/4 size and £65 for SD/1/3 sized dolls.

  

If anyone who would like to send two heads wishes to pay in two parts, just check out with one faceup. You can send the second half when your faceup(s) are ready. ^_^

The Homestead Strike, also known as the Homestead Steel Strike, was an industrial lockout and strike which began on June 30, 1892, culminating in a battle between strikers and private security agents on July 6, 1892. The battle was one of the most serious disputes in U.S. labor history, second only to the Battle of Blair Mountain. The dispute occurred at the Homestead Steel Works in the Pittsburgh area town of Homestead, Pennsylvania, between the Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers (the AA) and the Carnegie Steel Company. The final result was a major defeat for the union and a setback for efforts to unionize steelworkers.

Carnegie Steel made major technological innovations in the 1880s, especially the installation of the open-hearth system at Homestead in 1886. It now became possible to make steel suitable for structural beams and for armor plate for the United States Navy, which paid far higher prices for the premium product. In addition, the plant moved increasingly toward the continuous system of production. Carnegie installed vastly improved systems of material-handling, like overhead cranes, hoists, charging machines, and buggies. All of this greatly sped up the process of steelmaking, and allowed the production of vastly larger quantities of the product. As the mills expanded, the labor force grew rapidly, especially with less skilled workers. In response, the more-skilled union members reacted with a strike designed to protect their historic position.

The Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers (AA) was an American labor union formed in 1876. It was a craft union representing skilled iron and steel workers. The AA's membership was concentrated in ironworks west of the Allegheny Mountains. The union negotiated national uniform wage scales on an annual basis; helped regulate working hours, workload levels and work speeds; and helped improve working conditions. It also acted as a hiring hall, helping employers find scarce puddlers and rollers.

The AA organized the independently-owned Pittsburgh Bessemer Steel Works in Homestead in 1881. The AA engaged in a bitter strike at the Homestead works on January 1, 1882 in an effort to prevent management from forcing yellow-dog contracts on all workers. Violence occurred on both sides, and the plant brought in numerous strikebreakers. The strike ended on March 20 in a complete victory for the union.

The AA struck the steel plant again on July 1, 1889, when negotiations for a new three-year collective bargaining agreement failed. The strikers seized the town and once again made common cause with various immigrant groups. Backed by 2,000 townspeople, the strikers drove off a trainload of strikebreakers on July 10. When the sheriff returned with 125 newly deputized agents two days later, the strikers rallied 5,000 townspeople to their cause. Although victorious, the union agreed to significant wage cuts that left tonnage rates less than half those at the nearby Jones and Laughlin works, where technological improvements had not been made.

Carnegie officials conceded that the AA essentially ran the Homestead plant after the 1889 strike. The union contract contained 58 pages of footnotes defining work-rules at the plant and strictly limited management's ability to maximize output.

For its part, the AA saw substantial gains after the 1889 strike. Membership doubled, and the local union treasury had a balance of $146,000. The Homestead union grew belligerent, and relationships between workers and managers grew tense.

The Homestead strike was organized and purposeful, a harbinger of the type of strike which would mark the modern age of labor relations in the United States. The AA strike at the Homestead steel mill in 1892 was different from previous large-scale strikes in American history such as the Great railroad strike of 1877 or the Great Southwest Railroad Strike of 1886. Earlier strikes had been largely leaderless and disorganized mass uprisings of workers.

Andrew Carnegie placed industrialist Henry Clay Frick in charge of his company's operations in 1881. Frick resolved to break the union at Homestead. "The mills have never been able to turn out the product they should, owing to being held back by the Amalgamated men," he complained in a letter to Carnegie.

Carnegie was publicly in favor of labor unions. He condemned the use of strikebreakers and told associates that no steel mill was worth a single drop of blood. But Carnegie agreed with Frick's desire to break the union and "reorganize the whole affair, and . . . exact good reasons for employing every man. Far too many men required by Amalgamated rules." Carnegie ordered the Homestead plant to manufacture large amounts of inventory so the plant could weather a strike. He also drafted a notice (which Frick never released) withdrawing recognition of the union.

With the collective bargaining agreement due to expire on June 30, 1892, Frick and the leaders of the local AA union entered into negotiations in February. With the steel industry doing well and prices higher, the AA asked for a wage increase; the AA represented about 800 of the 3,800 workers at the plant. Frick immediately countered with a 22% wage decrease that would affect nearly half the union's membership and remove a number of positions from the bargaining unit. Carnegie encouraged Frick to use the negotiations to break the union: "...the Firm has decided that the minority must give way to the majority. These works, therefore, will be necessarily non-union after the expiration of the present agreement." Carnegie believed that the Amalgamated was a hindrance to efficiency; furthermore it was not representative of the workers. It admitted only a small group of skilled workers. It was in its own way an elitist, discriminatory organization that was not worthy of the Republic, Carnegie felt.

Frick announced on April 30, 1892 that he would bargain for 29 more days. If no contract was reached, Carnegie Steel would cease to recognize the union. Carnegie formally approved Frick's tactics on May 4. Then Frick offered a slightly better wage scale and advised the Superintendent to tell the workers, "We do not care whether a man belongs to a union or not, nor do we wish to interfere. He may belong to as many unions or organizations as he chooses, but we think our employees at Homestead Steel Works would fare much better working under the system in vogue at Edgar Thomson and Duquesne."

Frick locked workers out of the plate mill and one of the open hearth furnaces on the evening of June 28. When no collective bargaining agreement was reached on June 29, Frick locked the union out of the rest of the plant. A high fence topped with barbed wire, begun in January, was completed and the plant sealed to the workers. Sniper towers with searchlights were constructed near each mill building, and high-pressure water cannons (some capable of spraying boiling-hot liquid) were placed at each entrance. Various aspects of the plant were protected, reinforced or shielded.

At a mass meeting on June 30, local AA leaders reviewed the final negotiating sessions and announced that the company had broken the contract by locking out workers a day before the contract expired. The Knights of Labor, which had organized the mechanics and transportation workers at Homestead, agreed to walk out alongside the skilled workers of the AA. Workers at Carnegie plants in Pittsburgh, Duquesne, Union Mills and Beaver Falls struck in sympathy the same day.

 

The Declaration of the Strike Committee, dated July 20, 1892 reads in part,

'The employees in the mill of Messrs. Carnegie, Phipps & Co., at Homestead, Pa., have built there a town with its homes, its schools and its churches; have for many years been faithful co-workers with the company in the business of the mill; have invested thousands of dollars of their savings in said mill in the expectation of spending their lives in Homestead and of working in the mill during the period of their efficiency. . . . “Therefore, the committee desires to express to the public as its firm belief that both the public and the employees aforesaid have equitable rights and interests in the said mill which cannot be modified or diverted without due process of law; that the employees have the right to continuous employment in the said mill during efficiency and good behavior without regard to religious, political or economic opinions or associations; that it is against public policy and subversive of the fundamental principles of American liberty that a whole community of workers should be denied employment or suffer any other social detriment on account of membership in a church, a political party or a trade union; that it is our duty as American citizens to resist by every legal and ordinary means the unconstitutional, anarchic and revolutionary policy of the Carnegie Company, which seems to evince a contempt [for] public and private interests and a disdain [for] the public conscience. . . .

The striking workers were determined to keep the plant closed. They secured a steam-powered river launch and several rowboats to patrol the Monongahela River, which ran alongside the plant. Men also divided themselves into units along military lines. Picket lines were thrown up around the plant and the town, and 24-hour shifts established. Ferries and trains were watched. Strangers were challenged to give explanations for their presence in town; if one was not forthcoming, they were escorted outside the city limits. Telegraph communications with AA locals in other cities were established to keep tabs on the company's attempts to hire replacement workers. Reporters were issued special badges which gave them safe passage through the town, but the badges were withdrawn if it was felt misleading or false information made it into the news. Tavern owners were even asked to prevent excessive drinking.

Frick was also busy. The company placed ads for replacement workers in newspapers as far away as Boston, St. Louis and even Europe.

But unprotected strikebreakers would be driven off. On July 4, Frick formally requested that Sheriff William H. McCleary intervene to allow supervisors access to the plant. Carnegie corporation attorney Philander Knox gave the go-ahead to the sheriff on July 5, and McCleary dispatched 11 deputies to the town to post handbills ordering the strikers to stop interfering with the plant's operation. The strikers tore down the handbills and told the deputies that they would not turn over the plant to nonunion workers. Then they herded the deputies onto a boat and sent them downriver to Pittsburgh.

Frick had ordered the construction of a solid board fence topped with barbed wire around mill property. The workers dubbed the newly fortified mill "Fort Frick." With the mill ringed by striking workers, agents from the Pinkerton National Detective Agency, which Frick had contracted to provide security at the plant in April 1892, planned to access the plant grounds from the river. Three hundred Pinkerton detectives assembled on the Davis Island Dam on the Ohio River about five miles (8 km) below Pittsburgh at 10:30 p.m. on the night of July 5, 1892. They were given Winchester rifles, placed on two specially-equipped barges and towed upriver with the object of removing the workers by force. Upon their landing, a large mêlée between workers and Pinkerton detectives ensued. Several men were killed, nine workers among them, and the riot was ultimately quelled only by the intervention of 8,000 armed state militia. Among working-class Americans, Frick's actions against the strikers were condemned as excessive, and he soon became a target of even more union organizers.

 

Battle on July 6

 

Frick's intent was to open the works with nonunion men on July 6. Knox devised a plan to get the Pinkertons onto the mill property. With the mill ringed by striking workers, the agents would access the plant grounds from the river. Three hundred Pinkerton agents assembled on the Davis Island Dam on the Ohio River about five miles below Pittsburgh at 10:30 p.m. on the night of July 5, 1892. They were given Winchester rifles, placed on two specially-equipped barges and towed upriver.

The strikers were prepared for them; the AA had learned of the Pinkertons as soon as they had left Boston for the embarkation point. The small flotilla of union boats went downriver to meet the barges. Strikers on the steam launch fired a few random shots at the barges, then withdrew—blowing the launch whistle to alert the plant. The strikers blew the plant whistle at 2:30 a.m., drawing thousands of men, women and children to the plant.

The Pinkertons attempted to land under cover of darkness about 4 a.m. A large crowd of families had kept pace with the boats as they were towed by a tug into the town. A few shots were fired at the tug and barges, but no one was injured. The crowd tore down the barbed-wire fence and strikers and their families surged onto the Homestead plant grounds. Some in the crowd threw stones at the barges, but strike leaders shouted for restraint.

The Pinkerton agents attempted to disembark, and shots were fired. Conflicting testimony exists as to which side fired the first shot. John T. McCurry, a boatman on the steamboat Little Bill (which had been hired by the Pinkerton Detective Agency to ferry its agents to the steel mill) and one of the men wounded by the strikers, said: "The armed Pinkerton men commenced to climb up the banks. Then the workmen opened fire on the detectives. The men shot first, and not until three of the Pinkerton men had fallen did they respond to the fire. I am willing to take an oath that the workmen fired first, and that the Pinkerton men did not shoot until some of their number had been wounded." But according to The New York Times, the Pinkertons shot first. The newspaper reported that the Pinkertons opened fire and wounded William Foy, a worker. Regardless of which side opened fire first, the first two individuals wounded were Frederick Heinde, captain of the Pinkertons, and Foy. The Pinkerton agents aboard the barges then fired into the crowd, killing two and wounding 11. The crowd responded in kind, killing two and wounding 12. The firefight continued for about 10 minutes.

The strikers then huddled behind the pig and scrap iron in the mill yard, while the Pinkertons cut holes in the side of the barges so they could fire on any who approached. The Pinkerton tug departed with the wounded agents, leaving the barges stranded. The strikers soon set to work building a rampart of steel beams further up the riverbank from which they could fire down on the barges. Hundreds of women continued to crowd on the riverbank between the strikers and the agents, calling on the strikers to 'kill the Pinkertons'.

The strikers continued to sporadically fire on the barges. Union members took potshots at the ships from their rowboats and the steam-powered launch. The burgess of Homestead, John McLuckie, issued a proclamation at 6:00 a.m. asking for townspeople to help defend the peace; more than 5,000 people congregated on the hills overlooking the steelworks. A 20-pounder brass cannon was set up on the shore opposite the steel mill, and an attempt was made to sink the barges. Six miles away in Pittsburgh, thousands of steelworkers gathered in the streets, listening to accounts of the attacks at Homestead; hundreds, many of them armed, began to move toward the town to assist the strikers.

The Pinkertons attempted to disembark again at 8:00 a.m. A striker high up the riverbank fired a shot. The Pinkertons returned fire, and four more strikers were killed (one by shrapnel sent flying when cannon fire hit one of the barges). Many of the Pinkerton agents refused to participate in the firefight any longer; the agents crowded onto the barge farthest from the shore. More experienced agents were barely able to stop the new recruits from abandoning the ships and swimming away. Intermittent gunfire from both sides continued throughout the morning. When the tug attempted to retrieve the barges at 10:50 a.m., gunfire drove it off. More than 300 riflemen positioned themselves on the high ground and kept a steady stream of fire on the barges. Just before noon, a sniper shot and killed another Pinkerton agent.

After a few more hours, the strikers attempted to burn the barges. They seized a raft, loaded it with oil-soaked timber and floated it toward the barges. The Pinkertons nearly panicked, and a Pinkerton captain had to threaten to shoot anyone who fled. But the fire burned itself out before it reached the barges. The strikers then loaded a railroad flatcar with drums of oil and set it afire. The flatcar hurtled down the rails toward the mill's wharf where the barges were docked. But the car stopped at the water's edge and burned itself out. Dynamite was thrown at the barges, but it only hit the mark once (causing a little damage to one barge). At 2:00 p.m., the workers poured oil onto the river, hoping the oil slick would burn the barges; attempts to light the slick failed.

The AA worked behind the scenes to avoid further bloodshed and defuse the tense situation. At 9:00 a.m., outgoing AA international president William Weihe rushed to the sheriff's office and asked McCleary to convey a request to Frick to meet. McCleary did so, but Frick refused. He knew that the more chaotic the situation became, the more likely it was that Governor Robert E. Pattison would call out the state militia.

Sheriff McCleary resisted attempts to call for state intervention until 10 a.m. on July 7. In a telegram to Gov. Pattison, he described how his deputies and the Carnegie men had been driven off, and noted that the workers and their supporters actively resisting the landing numbered nearly 5,000. Pattison responded by requiring McCleary to exhaust every effort to restore the peace. McCleary asked again for help at noon, and Pattison responded by asking how many deputies the sheriff had. A third telegram, sent at 3:00 p.m., again elicited a response from the governor exhorting McCleary to raise his own troops.

At 4:00 p.m., events at the mill quickly began to wind down. More than 5,000 men—most of them armed mill hands from the nearby South Side, Braddock and Duquesne works—arrived at the Homestead plant. Weihe wanted to prevent further trouble at Homestead, so he pleaded with Frick to confer with representatives of the Amalgamated to return to Homestead and stop the riot. Weihe urged the strikers to let the Pinkertons surrender, but he was shouted down. Weihe tried to speak again, but this time his pleas were drowned out as the strikers bombarded the barges with fireworks left over from the recent Independence Day celebration. Hugh O'Donnell, a heater in the plant and head of the union's strike committee, then spoke to the crowd. He demanded that each Pinkerton be charged with murder, forced to turn over his arms and then be removed from the town. The crowd shouted their approval.

The Pinkertons, too, wished to surrender. At 5:00 p.m., they raised a white flag and two agents asked to speak with the strikers. O'Donnell guaranteed them safe passage out of town. Upon arrival, their arms were stripped from them. With heads uncovered, to distinguish them from the mill hands, they passed along between two rows of guards armed with Winchesters. As the Pinkertons crossed the grounds of the mill, the crowd formed a gauntlet through which the agents passed. Men and women threw sand and stones at the Pinkerton agents, spat on them and beat them. Several Pinkertons were clubbed into unconsciousness. Members of the crowd ransacked the barges, then burned them to the waterline.

As the Pinkertons were marched through town to the Opera House (which served as a temporary jail), the townspeople continued to assault the agents. Two agents were beaten as horrified town officials looked on. The press expressed shock at the treatment of the Pinkerton agents, and the torrent of abuse helped turn media sympathies away from the strikers.

The strike committee met with the town council to discuss the handover of the agents to McCleary. But the real talks were taking place between McCleary and Weihe in McCleary's office. At 10:15 p.m., the two sides agreed to a transfer process. A special train arrived at 12:30 a.m. on July 7. McCleary, the international AA's lawyer and several town officials accompanied the Pinkerton agents to Pittsburgh.

But when the Pinkerton agents arrived at their final destination in Pittsburgh, state officials declared that they would not be charged with murder (per the agreement with the strikers) but rather simply released. The announcement was made with the full concurrence of the AA attorney. A special train whisked the Pinkerton agents out of the city at 10:00 a.m. on July 7.

On July 7, the strike committee sent a telegram to Gov. Pattison to attempt to persuade him that law and order had been restored in the town. Pattison replied that he had heard differently. Union officials traveled to Harrisburg and met with Pattison on July 9. Their discussions revolved not around law and order, but the safety of the Carnegie plant.

Pattison, however, remained unconvinced by the strikers' arguments. Although Pattison had ordered the Pennsylvania militia to muster on July 6, he had not formally charged it with doing anything. Pattison's refusal to act rested largely on his concern that the union controlled the entire city of Homestead and commanded the allegiance of its citizens. Pattison refused to order the town taken by force, for fear a massacre would occur. But once emotions had died down, Pattison felt the need to act. He had been elected with the backing of a Carnegie-supported political machine, and he could no longer refuse to protect Carnegie interests.

The steelworkers resolved to meet the militia with open arms, hoping to establish good relations with the troops. But the militia managed to keep its arrival in the town a secret almost to the last moment. At 9:00 a.m. on July 12, the Pennsylvania state militia arrived at the small Munhall train station near the Homestead mill (rather than the downtown train station as expected). Their commander, Major General George R. Snowden, made to clear to local officials that he sided with the owners. When Hugh O'Donnell, the head of the union's strike committee attempted to welcome Snowden and pledge the cooperation of the strikers, Snowden told him that the strikers had not been law abiding, and that "I want you to distinctly understand that I am the master of this situation." More than 4,000 soldiers surrounded the plant. Within 20 minutes they had displaced the picketers; by 10:00 a.m., company officials were back in their offices. Another 2,000 troops camped on the high ground overlooking the city.

The company quickly brought in strikebreakers and restarted production under the protection of the militia. Despite the presence of AFL pickets in front of several recruitment offices across the nation, Frick easily found employees to work the mill. The company quickly built bunk houses, dining halls and kitchens on the mill grounds to accommodate the strikebreakers. New employees, many of them black, arrived on July 13, and the mill furnaces relit on July 15. When a few workers attempted to storm into the plant to stop the relighting of the furnaces, militiamen fought them off and wounded six with bayonets. But all was not well inside the plant. A race war between nonunion black and white workers in the Homestead plant broke out on July 22, 1892.

Desperate to find a way to continue the strike, the AA appealed to Whitelaw Reid, the Republican candidate for vice president, on July 16. The AA offered to make no demands or set any preconditions; the union merely asked that Carnegie Steel reopen the negotiations. Reid wrote to Frick, warning him that the strike was hurting the Republican ticket and pleading with him to reopen talks. Frick refused.

Frick, too, needed a way out of the strike. The company could not operate for long with strikebreakers living on the mill grounds, and permanent replacements had to be found. On July 18, the town was placed under martial law, further disheartening many of the strikers.

National attention became riveted on Homestead when, on July 23, Alexander Berkman, a New York anarchist with no connection to steel or to organized labor, plotted with his lover Emma Goldman to assassinate Frick. He came in from New York, gained entrance to Frick's office, then shot and stabbed the executive. Frick survived and continued his role; Berkman was sentenced to 22 years in prison.

The Berkman assassination attempt undermined public support for the union and prompted the final collapse of the strike. Hugh O'Donnell was removed as chair of the strike committee when he proposed to return to work at the lower wage scale if the unionists could get their jobs back. On August 12, the company announced that 1,700 men were working at the mill and production had resumed at full capacity. The national AFL refused to intervene, the East European workers ignored the union and it had no strategy left. The union voted to go back to work on Carnegie's terms; the strike had failed and the union had collapsed.

The company had waged a second front in state court, and was winning. On July 18, 16 of the strike leaders were charged with conspiracy, riot and murder. Each man was jailed for one night and forced to post a $10,000 bond.

The union retaliated by charging company executives with murder as well. The company men, too, had to post a $10,000 bond, but they were not forced to spend any time in jail. One judge issued treason charges against the Advisory Committee on August 30 for making itself the law. Most of the men could not raise the bail bond, and went to jail or into hiding. A compromise was reached whereby both sides dropped their charges.

Support for the strikers evaporated. The AFL refused to call for a boycott of Carnegie products in September 1892. Wholesale crossing of the picket line occurred, first among Eastern European immigrants and then among all workers. The strike had collapsed so much that the state militia pulled out on October 13, ending the 95-day occupation. The AA was nearly bankrupted by the job action. Weekly Union relief for a member averaged $6.25 but totalled a staggering $10,000 per week when including 1,600 strikers. With only 192 out of more than 3,800 strikers in attendance, the Homestead chapter of the AA voted, 101 to 91, to return to work on November 20, 1892.

In the end, only four workers were ever tried on the actual charges filed on July 18. Three AA members were found innocent of all charges. Hugh Dempsey, the leader of the local Knights of Labor District Assembly, was found guilty of conspiring to poison nonunion workers at the plant—despite the state's star witness recanting his testimony on the stand. Dempsey served a seven-year prison term. In February 1893, Knox and the union agreed to drop the charges filed against one another, and no further prosecutions emerged from the events at Homestead.

The striking AA affiliate in Beaver Falls gave in the same day as the Homestead lodge. The AA affiliate at Union Mills held out until August 14, 1893. But by then the union had only 53 members. The union had been broken; the company had been operating the plant at full capacity for almost a year, since September 1892.

The Homestead strike broke the AA as a force in the American labor movement. Many employers refused to sign contracts with their AA unions while the strike lasted. A deepening in 1889 of the Long Depression led most steel companies to seek wage decreases similar to those imposed at Homestead.

An organizing drive at the Homestead plant in 1896 was crushed by Frick. In May 1899, 300 Homestead workers actually formed an AA lodge, but Frick ordered the Homestead works shut down and the unionization effort collapsed. Carnegie Steel remained nonunion for the next 40 years.

De-unionization efforts throughout the Midwest began against the AA in 1897 when Jones and Laughlin Steel refused to sign a contract. By 1900, not a single steel plant in Pennsylvania remained union. The AA presence in Ohio and Illinois continued for a few more years, but the union continued to collapse. Many lodges disbanded, their members disillusioned. Others were easily broken in short battles. Carnegie Steel's Mingo Junction, Ohio plant was the last major unionized steel mill in the country. But it, too, successfully withdrew recognition without a fight in 1903.

AA membership sagged to 10,000 in 1894 from its high of over 24,000 in 1891. A year later, it was down to 8,000. A 1901 strike against Carnegie's successor company, U.S. Steel collapsed. By 1909, membership in the AA had sunk to 6,300. A nationwide steel strike of 1919 also was unsuccessful.

The AA maintained a rump membership in the steel industry until its takeover by the Steel Workers Organizing Committee in 1936. The two organizations officially disbanded and formed the United Steelworkers May 22, 1942.

A railroad bridge over the Monongahela near the site of the battle is named Pinkerton's Landing Bridge in honor of the dead.

The pumphouse where the gunfight occurred remains as a museum and meeting hall. There are several historical markers as well as a metal commemorative sign with the US Steel logo that reads "In Honor Of The Workers." (Wikipedia)

 

Went on a little walk around the city yesterday. I needed a little break from all the due dates. Really, the number of post-its on my cork board is scary!

 

The reason for all the additional workload is because I decided to freelance and take on commissions. I hafta make money so I can finally buy the Lumix GF1!

 

So if you need any logos, illustrations, or posters done, write me a message! Haha! Shameless plugging for the lose. :)

 

Do not sell, use, or modify my works without my written permission. Please and thank you!

The Mersey Ferry is a ferry service operating on the River Mersey in north west England, between Liverpool and the Wirral Peninsula. Ferries have been used on this route since at least the 12th century, and continue to be popular for both local people and visitors.

 

The current fleet consists of three vessels, which were all originally from the 1960s and were named Mountwood, Woodchurch and Overchurch. All three ferries have been extensively refurbished and renamed Royal Iris of the Mersey, Snowdrop and Royal Daffodil respectively. The ferries share the workload of cross-river ferrying, charter cruises and the Manchester Ship Canal cruise. The service is managed by Merseytravel.

Mike Newton, Sergeant, loves working in the diverse geographic areas of BC whilst dealing with the wide variety of core mandate workloads that they service as Conservation Officers.

 

Region, Zone and Office: West Coast, North Island Zone

 

Learn more: news.gov.bc.ca/stories/bc-conservation-officer-service-11...

 

Seen undergoing repairs following the discovery of leaking boiler tubes is preserved LMS Princess Royal Class 4-6-2 6201 "Princess Elizabeth". The last time I encountered this locomotive was November 2011, during its final stint on the Cumbrian Mountain Express prior to undergoing major overhaul. It's condition after 6 years appears to have improved immensely since then.

 

The Princess Royal class were a set of 13 4-6-2 Pacific locomotives designed by William Stanier and built at Crewe Works between 1933 and 1935 to be the prime motive power on the West Coast Mainline between London Euston, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow, including the famous Royal Scot premier express service. At first, two prototypical locomotives were built in 1933, followed by 11 production locomotives in 1935. These were later complimented by a fleet of 38 Coronation Pacific locomotives built between 1937 and 1948, which later went on to be arguably the most power steam locomotives ever built for the British Railway network.

 

One of the original prototypes however was retained for use as a testbed for a new Turbine Locomotive project to help improve the efficiency of the engines, later being unofficially dubbed 'Turbomotive'. The engine was fitted with turbines instead of cylinders, with the forward turbine containing 18 rows of blading, resulting in an output of 2,400hp, corresponding to running at 62 mph (100 km/h). The turbine was designed to operate into a maximum back-pressure of 2 psi, allowing a conventional double blast-pipe to provide the boiler draught, and eliminating draught fans, which always seemed to give a disproportionate amount of trouble.

 

The reverse turbine had 4 rows of blades. It was engaged by a dog clutch, activated when the reverser lever being set to "0". This was originally steam-operated by a small piston and cylinder. This locomotive was later rebuilt as a conventional classmate in 1952, using new mainframes and a spare set of cylinders from one of the Coronation Pacifics, and was numbered 46202, later to be named 'Princess Anne'.

 

6201, LMS lot number 99, was built at Crewe for the sum of £11,675 (£685,000 today) and named Princess Elizabeth, after the then Duke of York’s eldest daughter, currently our Queen Elizabeth II, leaving the works on 3rd November 1933.

 

Throughout the years the Princess Royal's continued to ply their trade on the West Coast services, but the years of World War II took their toll on the fleet. The beautiful Crimson Lake was replaced by Wartime Black, and the prestige manner that these locomotives had been accustomed to was stripped away as the railways were rationalised as part of the war effort. Work hours increased, and maintenance turns reduced, meaning these engines were being forced to the very limit of their design to keep Britain moving.

 

With the end of the war in 1945 the workload began to decrease, but the railways had paid the price. The beauty and lavish luxury of the pre-war companies had been stripped and would never return, with all of Britain's main railway companies now almost bankrupt and working a fleet of very tired engines on a poorly maintained railway network. In 1948 the Labour Government nationalised these companies to create British Railways, hoping to modernise the network and rebuild the overworked system.

 

The Princess Royals and their more powerful sisters the Coronation Pacifics continued to work hard as the implementation of diesels gathered pace. Early diesels however were underpowered and suffered heavily from reliability issues, meaning on many occasions the steam locomotives that they intended to replace actually came to their rescue!

 

It was not all plain sailing though for the Princess Royals in the 1950's, as this decade was littered with many fatal accidents. On 21 September 1951, locomotive No.46207 Princess Arthur of Connaught was hauling an express passenger train that was derailed at Weedon, Northamptonshire due to a defective front bogie on the locomotive, resulting in the deaths of 15 people and the injury of 35.

 

This was followed a year later by what would turn out to be the worst rail accident in the whole of British history. On 8 October 1952, an express passenger train hauled by Coronation Class, 46242 'City of Glasgow' overran signals on a train from Perth to London Euston, striking the rear of a stopped Tring to Euston commuter train at Harrow and Wealdstone station in North London. The ensuing wreckage was then struck by a northbound Liverpool express, hauled by Jubilee Class 45637 'Windward Islands', and recently rebuilt ex-Turbomotive Princess Royal 46202 'Princess Anne', which had only entered service two months earlier. In the chaos that followed, a total of 112 people were killed and 340 were injured, with 46202 obliterated in the accident, the first and only member of the class to be lost in an accident.

 

The late 50's however began to see the end of these engines as good, reliable diesels began to be introduced to replace them, followed closely by electric traction on the West Coast Mainline out of Euston. In 1961 the first members of the class were withdrawn from service, including 6201, which was placed in store in March 1961, but returned to service in May of that year due to poor diesel reliability.

 

As more diesels were delivered, in October of the same year 6201 was again placed into storage at Carlisle Kingmoor. However, again in January 1962 6201 was returned to traffic to cover for diesel failures and continued to work until September 1962 where it was once again placed into storage. It was subsequently withdrawn by BR in October 1962 and purchased by Roger Bell. The last of the locomotives to be withdrawn was class premier and original prototype number 62000 'The Princess Royal', which was withdrawn in November 1962 and subsequently scrapped. In all, only two locomotives were preserved, number 6203 'Princess Margaret Rose' and 6201 'Princess Elizabeth'.

"Ferret came to quilting via an unconventional route, starting out life as a rocket scientist with degrees in physics and astrophysics, followed by a stint as a computer programmer before finally settling down as a professional quilter. Ignoring those hwo told her she'd never be able to make a living out of it, she went ahead and did it anyway, and now finds herself with a packed schedule, quilting for customers as well as teaching and speacking to quilt groups around the country. She tries to do a bit of everything, and not only enjoys making traditional quilts, but has also repaired teddy bears, boound sword hilts for a local Blacksmith, and made bullet proof vests and silk negliges for race cars. However, she is probably best known for her art quilts, which have won awards both in the UK and internationally. When not quilting, she can often be found at a drag strip, a hobby which started out purely as a spectator, but these days she is more commonly found helping the race teams in the pits. She considers Scadinavia to be a home away from home, and visits as often as funds and workload allow. She lives in London with a long suffering boyfriend in a house packed full of fabric, along with a large collections of books, cats, cars and motorbikes."

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The AH-1 Cobra was developed in the mid-1960s as an interim gunship for the U.S. Army for use during the Vietnam War. The Cobra shared the proven transmission, rotor system, and the T53 turboshaft engine of the UH-1 "Huey". By June 1967, the first AH-1G HueyCobras had been delivered. Bell built 1,116 AH-1Gs for the U.S. Army between 1967 and 1973, and the Cobras chalked up over a million operational hours in Vietnam.

The U.S. Marine Corps was very interested in the AH-1G Cobra, too, but it preferred a twin-engine version for improved safety in over-water operations, and also wanted a more potent turret-mounted weapon. At first, the Department of Defense had balked at providing the Marines with a twin-engine version of the Cobra, in the belief that commonality with Army AH-1Gs outweighed the advantages of a different engine fit. However, the Marines won out and awarded Bell a contract for 49 twin-engine AH-1J SeaCobras in May 1968. As an interim measure the U.S. Army passed on thirty-eight AH-1Gs to the Marines in 1969. The AH-1J also received a more powerful gun turret with a three-barrel 20 mm XM197 cannon based on the six-barrel M61 Vulcan cannon.

 

During the 1990s, the US forces gradually phased out its Cobra fleet. The withdrawn AH-1s were typically offered to other potential operators, usually NATO allies. Some were also given to the USDA's Forest Service for fire surveillance, and a handful AH-1s went into private hands, including the NASA. Among these airframes were some USMC AH-1Js, which had in part been mothballed in the Mojave Desert since their replacement through more powerful and modern AH-1 variants and the AH-64.

About twenty airframes were, after having been de-militarized, bought by the Kaman Corporation in 2003, in a bold move to quickly respond to more than 20 inquiries for the company’s K-1200 ‘K-Max’ crane synchropter since the type’s end of production in 2001 from firefighting, logging and industry transport requirements. While not such a dedicated medium lift helicopter as the K-1200, which had from the outset been optimized for external cargo load operations, the twin-engine AH-1J promised to be a very effective alternative and a powerful basis for a conversion into a crane helicopter.

 

The result of this conversion program was the Kaman K-1300, also known as the “K-Cobra” or “Crane Cobra”. While the basic airframe of the AH-1J was retained, extensive detail modifications were made. To reduce weight and compensate for the extensive hardware changes, the SeaCobra lost its armor, the chin turret, and the stub wings. Beyond that, many invisible changes were made; the internal structure between the engine mounts was beefed up with an additional cage structure and a cargo hook was installed under the fuselage in the helicopter’s center of lift.

 

To further optimize the K-Cobra’s performance, the dynamic components were modified and improved, too. While the engine remained the same, its oil cooler was enlarged and the original output limit to 1.500 shp was removed and the gearbox was strengthened to fully exploit the twin-engine’s available power of 1,800 shp (1,342 kW). The rotor system was also modified and optimized for the transport of underslung loads: the original UH-1 dual-blade rotors were replaced with new four-blade rotors. The new main rotor with rugged heavy-duty blades offered more lift at less rotor speed, and the blades’ lift sections were moved away from the hub so that downwash and turbulences directly under the helicopter’s CoG and man hook were reduced to keep the cargo load more stable. Due to the main rotor’s slightly bigger diameter the tail rotor was changed into a slightly smaller four-blade rotor, too. This new arrangement made the K-1300 more stable while hovering or during slow speed maneuvers and more responsive to steering input.

 

The Cobra’s crew of two was retained, but the cockpit was re-arranged and split into two compartments: the pilot retained the original rear position in the tandem cockpit under the original glazing, but the gunner’s station in front of him, together with the secondary dashboard, was omitted and replaced by a new, fully glazed cabin under the former gunner position. This cabin occupied the former gun station and its ammunition supply and contained a rearward-facing workstation for a second pilot with full controls. It was accessible via a separate door or a ladder from above, through a trap door in the former gunner’s station floor, where a simple foldable bench was available for a third person. This arrangement was chosen due to almost complete lack of oversight of the slung load from the normal cockpit position, despite a CCTV (closed circuit television) system with two cameras intended for observation of slung loads. The second pilot would control the helicopter during delicate load-handling maneuvers, while the primary pilot “above” would fly the helicopter during transfer flights, both sharing the workload.

 

To accommodate the cabin under the fuselage and improve ground handling, the AH-1J’s skids were replaced by a stalky, fixed four-wheel landing gear that considerably increased ground clearance (almost 7 feet), making the attachment of loads on the ground to the main ventral hook easier, as the K-1300 could be “rolled over” the cargo on the ground and did not have to hover above it to connect. However, an external ladder had to be added so that the pilot could reach his/her workstation almost 10 feet above the ground.

 

The bulky ventral cabin, the draggy landing gear and the new lift-optimized rotor system reduced the CraneCobra’s top speed by a third to just 124 mph (200 km/h), but the helicopter’s load-carrying capacity became 35% higher and the Cobra’s performance under “hot & high” conditions was markedly improved, too.

For transfer flights, a pair of external auxiliary tanks could be mounted to the lower fuselage flanks, which could also be replaced with cargo boxes of similar size and shape.

 

K-1300 buyers primarily came from the United States and Canada, but there were foreign operators, too. A major operator in Europe became Heliswiss, the oldest helicopter company in Switzerland. The company was founded as „Heliswiss Schweizerische Helikopter AG“, with headquarters in Berne-Belp on April 17, 1953, what also marked the beginning of commercial helicopter flying in Switzerland. During the following years Heliswiss expanded in Switzerland and formed a network with bases in Belp BE, Samedan GR, Domat Ems GR, Locarno TI, Erstfeld UR, Gampel VS, Gstaad BE and Gruyères FR. During the build-up of the rescue-company Schweizerische Rettungsflugwacht (REGA) as an independent network, Heliswiss carried out rescue missions on their behalf.

 

Heliswiss carried out operations all over the world, e. g. in Greenland, Suriname, North Africa and South America. The first helicopter was a Bell 47 G-1, registered as HB-XAG on September 23, 1953. From 1963 Heliswiss started to expand and began to operate with medium helicopters like the Agusta Bell 204B with a turbine power of 1050 HP and an external load of up to 1500 kg. From 1979 Heliswiss operated a Bell 214 (external load up to 2.8 t).

Since 1991 Heliswiss operated a Russian Kamov 32A12 (a civil crane version of the Ka-27 “Helix”), which was joined by two K-1300s in 2004. They were frequently used for construction of transmission towers for overhead power lines and pylons for railway catenary lines, for selective logging and also as fire bombers with underslung water bags, the latter managed by the German Helog company, operating out of Ainring and Küssnacht in Germany and Switzerland until 2008, when Helog changed its business focus into a helicopter flight training academy in Liberia with the support of Germany's Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

A second Kamov 32A12 joined the fleet in 2015, which replaced one of the K-1300s, and Heliswiss’ last K-1300 was retired in early 2022.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 2, plus space for a passenger

Length: 54 ft 3 in (16,56 m) including rotors

44 ft 5 in (13.5 m) fuselage only

Main rotor diameter: 46 ft 2¾ in (14,11 m)

Main rotor area: 1,677.64 sq ft (156,37 m2)

Width (over landing gear): 12 ft 6 in (3.85 m)

Height: 17 ft 8¼ in (5,40 m)

Empty weight: 5,810 lb (2,635 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 9,500 lb (4,309 kg) without slung load

13,515 lb (6,145 kg) with slung load

 

Powerplant:

1× P&W Canada T400-CP-400 (PT6T-3 Twin-Pac) turboshaft engine, 1,800 shp (1,342 kW)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 124 mph (200 km/h, 110 kn)

Cruise speed: 105 mph (169 km/h, 91 kn)

Range: 270 mi (430 km, 230 nmi) with internal fuel only,

360 mi (570 km 310 nmi) with external auxiliary tanks

Service ceiling: 15,000 ft (4,600 m)

Hovering ceiling out of ground effect: 3,000 m (9,840 ft)

Rate of climb: 2,500 ft/min (13 m/s) at Sea Level with flat-rated torque

 

External load capacity (at ISA +15 °C (59.0 °F):

6,000 lb (2,722 kg) at sea level

5,663 lb (2,569 kg) at 5,000 ft (1,524 m)

5,163 lb (2,342 kg) at 10,000 ft (3,048 m)

5,013 lb (2,274 kg) at 12,100 ft (3,688 m)

4,313 lb (1,956 kg) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)

  

The kit and its assembly:

This is/was the second contribution to the late 2022 “Logistics” Group Build at whatifmodellers.com, a welcome occasion and motivation to tackle a what-if project that had been on my list for a long while. This crane helicopter conversion of a HueyCobra was inspired by the Mil Mi-10K helicopter – I had built a 1:100 VEB Plasticart kit MANY years ago and still remembered the helicopter’s unique ventral cabin under the nose with a rearward-facing second pilot. I always thought that the AH-1 might be a good crane helicopter, too, esp. the USMC’s twin-engine variant. And why not combine everything in a fictional model?

 

With this plan the basis became a Fujimi 1:72 AH-1J and lots of donor parts to modify the basic hull into “something else”. Things started with the removal of the chin turret and part of the lower front hull to make space for the ventral glass cabin. The openings for the stub wings were faired over and a different stabilizer (taken from a Revell EC 135, including the end plates) was implanted. The attachment points for the skids were filled and a styrene tube was inserted into the rotor mast opening to later hold the new four-blade rotor. Another styrene tube with bigger diameter was inserted into the lower fuselage as a display holder adapter for later flight scene pictures. Lead beads filled the nose section to make sure the CraneCobra would stand well on its new legs, with the nose down. The cockpit was basically taken OOB, just the front seat and the respective gunner dashboard was omitted.

 

One of the big challenges of this build followed next: the ventral cabin. Over the course of several months, I was not able to find a suitable donor, so I was forced to scratch the cabin from acrylic and styrene sheet. Size benchmark became the gunner’s seat from the Cobra kit, with one of the OOB pilots seated. Cabin width was less dictated through the fuselage, the rest of the cabin’s design became a rather simple, boxy thing – not pretty, but I think a real-life retrofitted cabin would not look much different? Some PSR was done to hide the edges of the rather thick all-clear walls and create a 3D frame - a delicate task. Attaching the completed thing with the second pilot and a dashboard under the roof to the Cobra’s lower hull and making it look more or less natural without major accidents was also a tricky and lengthy affair, because I ignored the Cobra’s narrowing nose above the former chin turret.

 

With the cabin defining the ground helicopter’s clearance, it was time for the next donors: the landing gear from an Airfix 1:72 Kamow Ka-25, which had to be modified further to achieve a proper stance. The long main struts were fixed to the hull, their supporting struts had to be scratched, in this case from steel wire. The front wheels were directly attached to the ventral cabin (which might contain in real life a rigid steel cage that not only protects the second crew member but could also take the front wheels’ loads?). Looks pretty stalky!

Under the hull, a massive hook and a fairing for the oil cooler were added. A PE brass ladder was mounted on the right side of the hull under the pilot’s cockpit, while a rear-view mirror was mounted for the ventral pilot on the left side.

 

The rotor system was created in parallel, I wanted “something different” from the UH-1 dual-blade rotors. The main rotor hub was taken from a Mistercraft 1:72 Westland Lynx (AFAIK a re-boxed ZTS Plastyk kit), which included the arms up to the blades. The hub was put onto a metal axis, with a spacer to make it sit well in the new styrene tube adapter inside of the hull, and some donor parts from the Revell EC 135. Deeper, tailored blades were glued to the Lynx hub, actually leftover parts from the aforementioned wrecked VEB Plasticart 1:100 Mi-10, even though their length had to be halved (what makes you aware how large a Mi-6/10 is compared with an AH-1!). The tail rotor was taken wholesale from the Lynx and stuck to the Cobra’s tail with a steel pin.

  

Painting and markings:

Another pushing factor for this build was the fact that I had a 1:72 Begemot aftermarket decal sheet for the Kamow Ka-27/32 in The Stash™, which features, among many military helicopters, (the) two civil Heliswiss machines – a perfect match!

Using the Swiss Helix’ as design benchmark I adapted their red-over-white paint scheme to the slender AH-1 and eventually ended up with a simple livery with a white belly (acrylic white from the rattle can, after extensive masking of the clear parts with Maskol/latex milk) and a red (Humbrol 19) upper section, with decorative counter-colored cheatlines along the medium waterline. A black anti-glare panel was added in front of the windscreen. The auxiliary tanks were painted white, too, but they were processed separately and mounted just before the final coat of varnish was applied. The PE ladder as well as the rotors were handled similarly.

 

The cockpit and rotor opening interior were painted in a very dark grey (tar black, Revell 06), while the interior of the air intakes was painted bright white (Revell 301). The rotor blades became light grey (Revell 75) with darker leading edges (Humbrol 140), dark grey (Humbrol 164) hubs and yellow tips.

 

For the “HELOG/Heliswiss” tagline the lower white section had to be raised to a medium position on the fuselage, so that they could be placed on the lower flanks under the cockpit. The white civil registration code could not be placed on the tail and ended up on the engine cowling, on red, but this does not look bad or wrong at all.

The cheatlines are also decals from the Ka-32 Begemot sheet, even though they had to be trimmed considerably to fit onto the Cobra’s fuselage – and unfortunately the turned out to be poorly printed and rather brittle, so that I had to improvise and correct the flaws with generic red and white decal lines from TL Modellbau. The white cross on the tail and most stencils came from the Begemot sheet, too. Black, engine soot-hiding areas on the Cobra’s tail were created with generic decal sheet material, too.

 

The rotor blades and the wheels received a black ink treatment to emphasize their details, but this was not done on the hull to avoid a dirty or worn look. After some final details like position lights the model was sealed with semi-matt acrylic varnish, while the rotors became matt.

  

A weird-looking what-if model, but somehow a crane-copter variant of the AH-1 looks quite natural – even more so in its attractive red-and-white civil livery. The stalky landing gear is odd, though, necessitated by the ventral cabin for the second pilot. I was skeptical, but scratching the latter was more successful than expected, and the cabin blend quite well into the AH-1 hull, despite its boxy shape.

 

Pasted from Wikipedia:

 

[[[

 

The Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey is a multi-mission, military, tiltrotor aircraft with both a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL), and short takeoff and landing (STOL) capability. It is designed to combine the functionality of a conventional helicopter with the long-range, high-speed cruise performance of a turboprop aircraft.

 

The V-22 originated from the U.S. Department of Defense Joint-service Vertical take-off/landing Experimental (JVX) aircraft program started in 1981. It was developed jointly by the Bell Helicopter, and Boeing Helicopters team, known as Bell Boeing, which produce the aircraft.[4] The V-22 first flew in 1989, and began years of flight testing and design alterations.

 

The United States Marine Corps began crew training for the Osprey in 2000, and fielded it in 2007. The Osprey's other operator, the U.S. Air Force fielded their version of the tiltrotor in 2009. Since entering service with the U.S. Marine Corps and Air Force, the Osprey has been deployed for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

Contents

 

• 1 Development

•• 1.1 Early development

•• 1.2 Flight testing and design changes

•• 1.3 Controversy

•• 1.4 Recent development

• 2 Design

• 3 Operational history

•• 3.1 US Marine Corps

•• 3.2 US Air Force

•• 3.3 Potential operators

• 4 Variants

• 5 Operators

• 6 Notable accidents

• 7 Specifications (MV-22B)

• 8 Notable appearances in media

• 9 See also

• 10 References

• 11 External links

 

Development

 

Early development

 

The failure of the Iran hostage rescue mission in 1980 demonstrated to the United States military a need[5] for "a new type of aircraft, that could not only take off and land vertically but also could carry combat troops, and do so at speed."[6] The U.S. Department of Defense began the Joint-service Vertical take-off/landing Experimental (JVX) aircraft program in 1981, under U.S. Army leadership. Later the U.S. Navy/Marine Corps took the lead.[7][8] The JVX combined requirements from the Marine Corps, Air Force, Army and Navy.[9][10] A request for proposals (RFP) was issued in December 1982 for JVX preliminary design work. Interest in the program was expressed by Aérospatiale, Bell Helicopter, Boeing Vertol, Grumman, Lockheed, and Westland. The DoD pushed for contractors to form teams. Bell partnered with Boeing Vertol. The Bell Boeing team submitted a proposal for a enlarged version of the Bell XV-15 prototype on 17 February 1983. This was the only proposal received and a preliminary design contract was awarded on 26 April 1983.[11][12]

 

The JVX aircraft was designated V-22 Osprey on 15 January 1985; by March that same year the first six prototypes were being produced, and Boeing Vertol was expanded to deal with the project workload.[13][14] Work has been split evenly between Bell and Boeing. Bell Helicopter manufactures and integrates the wing, nacelles, rotors, drive system, tail surfaces, and aft ramp, as well as integrates the Rolls-Royce engines and performs final assembly. Boeing Helicopters manufactures and integrates the fuselage, cockpit, avionics, and flight controls.[4][15] The USMC variant of the Osprey received the MV-22 designation and the Air Force variant received CV-22; reversed from normal procedure to prevent Marine Ospreys from having a conflicting designation with aircraft carriers (CV).[16] Full-scale development of the V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft began in 1986.[2] On 3 May 1986 the Bell-Boeing partnership was awarded a $1.714 billion contract for V-22 aircraft by the Navy, thus at this point the project had acquisition plans with all four arms of the U.S. military.[17]

 

The first V-22 was rolled out with significant media attention in May 1988.[18][19] However the project suffered several political blows. Firstly in the same year, the Army left the program, citing a need to focus its budget on more immediate aviation programs.[20] The project also faced considerable dialogue in the Senate, surviving two votes that both could have resulted in cancellation.[21][22] Despite the Senate's decision, the Department of Defense instructed the Navy not to spend more money on the Osprey.[23] At the same time, the Bush administration sought the cancellation of the project.[23]

 

Flight testing and design changes

 

The first of six MV-22 prototypes first flew on 19 March 1989 in the helicopter mode,[24] and on 14 September 1989 as a fixed-wing plane.[25] The third and fourth prototypes successfully completed the Osprey's first Sea Trials on the USS Wasp in December 1990.[26] However, the fourth and fifth prototypes crashed in 1991-92.[27] Flight tests were resumed in August 1993 after changes were incorporated in the prototypes.[2] From October 1992 until April 1993, Bell and Boeing redesigned the V-22 to reduce empty weight, simplify manufacture and reduce production costs. This redesigned version became the B-model.[28]

 

Flight testing of four full-scale development V-22s began in early 1997 when the first pre-production V-22 was delivered to the Naval Air Warfare Test Center, Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland. The first EMD flight took place on 5 February 1997. The first of four low rate initial production aircraft, ordered on 28 April 1997, was delivered on 27 May 1999. Osprey number 10 completed the program's second Sea Trials, this time from the USS Saipan in January 1999.[2] During external load testing in April 1999, Boeing used a V-22 to lift and transport the M777 howitzer.[29] In 2000, Boeing announced that the V-22 would be fitted with a nose-mounted GAU-19 Gatling gun,[30] but the GAU-19 gun was later canceled.[31]

 

In 2000, there were two further fatal crashes, killing a total of 19 Marines, and the production was again halted while the cause of these crashes was investigated and various parts were redesigned.[32] The V-22 completed its final operational evaluation in June 2005. The evaluation was deemed successful; events included long range deployments, high altitude, desert and shipboard operations. The problems identified in various accidents had been addressed.[33]

 

Controversy

 

The V-22's development process has been long and controversial, partly due to its large cost increases.[34] When the development budget, first planned for $2.5 billion in 1986, increased to a projected $30 billion in 1988, then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney tried to zero out its funding. He was eventually overruled by Congress.[32] As of 2008, $27 billion have been spent on the Osprey program and another $27.2 billion will be required to complete planned production numbers by the end of the program.[2]

 

The V-22 squadron's former commander at Marine Corps Air Station New River, Lt. Colonel Odin Lieberman, was relieved of duty in 2001 after allegations that he instructed his unit that they needed to falsify maintenance records to make the plane appear more reliable.[2][35] Three officers were later implicated in the falsification scandal.[34]

 

The aircraft is incapable of autorotation, and is therefore unable to land safely in helicopter mode if both engines fail. A director of the Pentagon's testing office in 2005 said that if the Osprey loses power while flying like a helicopter below 1,600 feet (490 m), emergency landings "are not likely to be survivable". But Captain Justin (Moon) McKinney, a V-22 pilot, says that this will not be a problem, "We can turn it into a plane and glide it down, just like a C-130".[31] A complete loss of power would require the failure of both engines, as a drive shaft connects the nacelles through the wing; one engine can power both proprotors.[36] While vortex ring state (VRS) contributed to a deadly V-22 accident, the aircraft is less susceptible to the condition than conventional helicopters and recovers more quickly.[5] The Marines now train new pilots in the recognition of and recovery from VRS and have instituted operational envelope limits and instrumentation to help pilots avoid VRS conditions.[32][37]

 

It was planned in 2000 to equip all V-22s with a nose-mounted Gatling gun, to provide "the V-22 with a strong defensive firepower capability to greatly increase the aircraft's survivability in hostile actions."[30] The nose gun project was canceled however, leading to criticism by retired Marine Corps Commandant General James L. Jones, who is not satisfied with the current V-22 armament.[31] A belly-mounted turret was later installed on some of the first V-22s sent to the War in Afghanistan in 2009.[38]

 

With the first combat deployment of the MV-22 in October 2007, Time Magazine ran an article condemning the aircraft as unsafe, overpriced, and completely inadequate.[31] The Marine Corps, however, responded with the assertion that much of the article's data were dated, obsolete, inaccurate, and reflected expectations that ran too high for any new field of aircraft.[39]

 

Recent development

 

On 28 September 2005, the Pentagon formally approved full-rate production for the V-22.[40] The plan is to boost production from 11 a year to between 24 and 48 a year by 2012. Of the 458 total planned, 360 are for the Marine Corps, 48 for the Navy, and 50 for the Air Force at an average cost of $110 million per aircraft, including development costs.[2] The V-22 had an incremental flyaway cost of $70 million per aircraft in 2007,[3] but the Navy hopes to shave about $10 million off that cost after a five-year production contract starts in 2008.[41]

 

The Bell-Boeing Joint Project Office in Amarillo, Texas will design a new integrated avionics processor to resolve electronics obsolescence issues and add new network capabilities.[42]

 

Design

 

The Osprey is the world's first production tiltrotor aircraft, with one three-bladed proprotor, turboprop engine, and transmission nacelle mounted on each wingtip. It is classified as a powered lift aircraft by the Federal Aviation Administration.[43] For takeoff and landing, it typically operates as a helicopter with the nacelles vertical (rotors horizontal). Once airborne, the nacelles rotate forward 90° in as little as 12 seconds for horizontal flight, converting the V-22 to a more fuel-efficient, higher-speed turboprop airplane. STOL rolling-takeoff and landing capability is achieved by having the nacelles tilted forward up to 45°. For compact storage and transport, the V-22's wing rotates to align, front-to-back, with the fuselage. The proprotors can also fold in a sequence taking 90 seconds.[44]

 

Most Osprey missions will use fixed wing flight 75 percent or more of the time, reducing wear and tear on the aircraft and reducing operational costs.[45] This fixed wing flight is higher than typical helicopter missions allowing longer range line-of-sight communications and so improved command and control.[2] Boeing has stated the V-22 design loses 10% of its vertical lift over a Tiltwing design when operating in helicopter mode because of airflow resistance due to the wings, but that the Tiltrotor design has better short takeoff and landing performance.[46]

 

The V-22 is equipped with a glass cockpit, which incorporates four Multi-function displays (MFDs) and one shared Central Display Unit (CDU), allowing the pilots to display a variety of images including: digimaps centered or decentered on current position, FLIR imagery, primary flight instruments, navigation (TACAN, VOR, ILS, GPS, INS), and system status. The flight director panel of the Cockpit Management System (CMS) allows for fully-coupled (aka: autopilot) functions which will take the aircraft from forward flight into a 50-foot hover with no pilot interaction other than programming the system.[47] The glass cockpit of the canceled CH-46X was derived from the V-22.[48]

 

The V-22 is a fly-by-wire aircraft with triple-redundant flight control systems.[49] With the nacelles pointing straight up in conversion mode at 90° the flight computers command the aircraft to fly like a helicopter, with cyclic forces being applied to a conventional swashplate at the rotor hub. With the nacelles in airplane mode (0°) the flaperons, rudder, and elevator fly the aircraft like an airplane. This is a gradual transition and occurs over the rotation range of the nacelles. The lower the nacelles, the greater effect of the airplane-mode control surfaces.[50] The nacelles can rotate past vertical to 97.5° for rearward flight.[51][52]

 

The Osprey can be armed with one M240 7.62x51mm NATO (.308 in caliber) or M2 .50 in caliber (12.7 mm) machine gun on the loading ramp, that can be fired rearward when the ramp is lowered. A GAU-19 three-barrel .50 in gatling gun mounted below the V-22's nose has also been studied for future upgrade.[31][53] BAE Systems developed a remotely operated turreted weapons system for the V-22,[54] which was installed on half of the first V-22s deployed to Afghanistan in 2009.[38] The 7.62 mm belly gun turret is remotely operated by a gunner inside the aircraft, who acquires targets with a separate pod using color television and forward looking infrared imagery.

 

U.S. Naval Air Systems Command is working on upgrades to increase the maximum speed from 250 knots (460 km/h; 290 mph) to 270 knots (500 km/h; 310 mph), increase helicopter mode altitude limit from 10,000 feet (3,000 m) to 12,000 feet (3,700 m) or 14,000 feet (4,300 m), and increase lift performance.[55]

 

Operational history

 

US Marine Corps

 

Marine Corps crew training on the Osprey has been conducted by VMMT-204 since March 2000. On 3 June 2005, the Marine Corps helicopter squadron Marine Medium Helicopter 263 (HMM-263), stood down to begin the process of transitioning to the MV-22 Osprey.[56] On 8 December 2005, Lieutenant General Amos, commander of the II MEF, accepted the delivery of the first fleet of MV-22s, delivered to HMM-263. The unit reactivated on 3 March 2006 as the first MV-22 squadron and was redesignated VMM-263. On 31 August 2006, VMM-162 (the former HMM-162) followed suit. On 23 March 2007, HMM-266 became Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 266 (VMM-266) at Marine Corps Air Station New River, North Carolina.[57]

 

The Osprey has been replacing existing CH-46 Sea Knight squadrons.[58] The MV-22 reached initial operational capability (IOC) with the U.S. Marine Corps on 13 June 2007.[1] On 10 July 2007 an MV-22 Osprey landed aboard the Royal Navy aircraft carrier, HMS Illustrious in the Atlantic Ocean. This marked the first time a V-22 had landed on any non-U.S. vessel.[59]

 

On 13 April 2007, the U.S. Marine Corps announced that it would be sending ten V-22 aircraft to Iraq, the Osprey's first combat deployment. Marine Corps Commandant, General James Conway, indicated that over 150 Marines would accompany the Osprey set for September deployment to Al-Asad Airfield.[60][61] On 17 September 2007, ten MV-22Bs of VMM-263 left for Iraq aboard the USS Wasp. The decision to use a ship rather than use the Osprey's self-deployment capability was made because of concerns over icing during the North Atlantic portion of the trip, lack of available KC-130s for mid-air refueling, and the availability of the USS Wasp.[62]

 

The Osprey has provided support in Iraq, racking up some 2,000 flight hours over three months with a mission capable availability rate of 68.1% as of late-January 2008.[63] They are primarily used in Iraq's western Anbar province for routine cargo and troop movements, and also for riskier "aero-scout" missions. General David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, used one to fly around Iraq on Christmas Day 2007 to visit troops.[64] Then-presidential candidate Barack Obama also flew in Ospreys during his high profile 2008 tour of Iraq.[65]

 

The only major problem has been obtaining the necessary spare parts to maintain the aircraft.[66] The V-22 had flown 3,000 sorties totaling 5,200 hours in Iraq as of July 2008.[67] USMC leadership expect to deploy MV-22s to Afghanistan in 2009.[66][68] General George J. Trautman, III praised the increased range of the V-22 over the legacy helicopters in Iraq and said that "it turned his battle space from the size of Texas into the size of Rhode Island."[69]

 

Naval Air Systems Command has devised a temporary fix for sailors to place portable heat shields under Osprey engines to prevent damage to the decks of some of the Navy's smaller amphibious ships, but they determined that a long term solution to the problem would require these decks be redesigned with heat resistant deck coatings, passive thermal barriers and changes in ship structure in order to operate V-22s and F-35Bs.[70]

 

A Government Accountability Office study reported that by January 2009 the Marines had 12 MV-22s operating in Iraq and they managed to successfully complete all assigned missions. The same report found that the V-22 deployments had mission capable rates averaging 57% to 68% and an overall full mission capable rate of only 6%. It also stated that the aircraft had shown weakness in situational awareness, maintenance, shipboard operations and the ability to transport troops and external cargo.[71] That study also concluded that the "deployments confirmed that the V-22’s enhanced speed and range enable personnel and internal cargo to be transported faster and farther than is possible with the legacy helicopters it is replacing".[71]

 

The MV-22 saw its first offensive combat mission, Operation Cobra's Anger on 4 December 2009. Ospreys assisted in inserting 1,000 Marines and 150 Afghan troops into the Now Zad Valley of Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan to disrupt communication and supply lines of the Taliban.[38] In January 2010 the MV-22 Osprey is being sent to Haiti as part of Operation Unified Response relief efforts after the earthquake there. This will be the first use the Marine V-22 in a humanitarian mission.[72]

 

US Air Force

 

The Air Force's first operational CV-22 Osprey was delivered to the 58th Special Operations Wing (58th SOW) at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico on 20 March 2006. This and subsequent aircraft will become part of the 58th SOW's fleet of aircraft used for training pilots and crew members for special operations use.[73] On 16 November 2006, the Air Force officially accepted the CV-22 in a ceremony conducted at Hurlburt Field, Florida.[74]

 

The US Air Force's first operational deployment of the Osprey sent four CV-22s to Mali in November 2008 in support of Exercise Flintlock. The CV-22s flew nonstop from Hurlburt Field, Florida with in-flight refueling.[5] AFSOC declared that the 8th Special Operations Squadron reached Initial Operational Capability on 16 March 2009, with six of its planned nine CV-22s operational.[75]

 

In June 2009, CV-22s of the 8th Special Operations Squadron delivered 43,000 pounds (20,000 kg) of humanitarian supplies to remote villages in Honduras that were not accessible by conventional vehicles.[76] In November 2009, the 8th SO Squadron and its six CV-22s returned from a three-month deployment in Iraq.[77]

 

The first possible combat loss of an Osprey occurred on 9 April, 2010, as a CV-22 went down near Qalat, Zabul Province, Afghanistan, killing four.[78][79]

 

Potential operators

 

In 1999 the V-22 was studied for use in the United Kingdom's Royal Navy,[80] it has been raised several times as a candidate for the role of Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control (MASC).[81]

 

Israel had shown interest in the purchase of MV-22s, but no order was placed.[82][83] Flightglobal reported in late 2009 that Israel has decided to wait for the CH-53K instead.[84]

 

The V-22 Osprey is a candidate for the Norwegian All Weather Search and Rescue Helicopter (NAWSARH) that is planned to replace the Westland Sea King Mk.43B of the Royal Norwegian Air Force in 2015.[85] The other candidates for the NAWSARH contract of 10-12 helicopters are AgustaWestland AW101 Merlin, Eurocopter EC225, NHIndustries NH90 and Sikorsky S-92.[86]

 

Bell Boeing has made an unsolicited offer of the V-22 for US Army medical evacuation needs.[87] However the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency issued a report that said that a common helicopter design would be needed for both combat recovery and medical evacuation and that the V-22 would not be suitable for recovery missions because of the difficulty of hoist operations and lack of self-defense capabilities.[88]

 

The US Navy remains a potential user of the V-22, but its role and mission with the Navy remains unclear. The latest proposal is to replace the C-2 Greyhound with the V-22 in the fleet logistics role. The V-22 would have the advantage of being able to land on and support non-carriers with rapid delivery of supplies and people between the ships of a taskforce or to ships on patrol beyond helicopter range.[89] Loren B. Thompson of the Lexington Institute has suggested V-22s for use in combat search and rescue and Marine One VIP transport, which also need replacement aircraft.[90]

 

Variants

  

• V-22A 

•• Pre-production full-scale development aircraft used for flight testing. These are unofficially considered A-variants after 1993 redesign.[91]

  

• HV-22 

•• The U.S. Navy considered an HV-22 to provide combat search and rescue, delivery and retrieval of special warfare teams along with fleet logistic support transport. However, it chose the MH-60S for this role in 1992.[92]

  

• SV-22 

•• The proposed anti-submarine warfare Navy variant. The Navy studied the SV-22 in the 1980s to replace S-3 and SH-2 aircraft.[93]

  

• MV-22B 

•• Basic U.S. Marine Corps transport; original requirement for 552 (now 360). The Marine Corps is the lead service in the development of the V-22 Osprey. The Marine Corps variant, the MV-22B, is an assault transport for troops, equipment and supplies, capable of operating from ships or from expeditionary airfields ashore. It is replacing the Marine Corps' CH-46E[57] and CH-53D.[94]

  

• CV-22B 

•• Air Force variant for the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). It will conduct long-range, special operations missions, and is equipped with extra fuel tanks and terrain-following radar.[95][96]

 

Operators

 

•  United States

 

• United States Air Force

 

•• 8th Special Operations Squadron (8 SOS) at Hurlburt Field, Florida

•• 71st Special Operations Squadron (71 SOS) at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico

•• 20th Special Operations Squadron (20 SOS) at Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico

 

• United States Marine Corps

 

•• VMM-161

•• VMM-162

•• VMM-261

•• VMM-263

•• VMM-264

•• VMM-266

•• VMM-365

•• VMMT-204 - Training squadron

•• VMX-22 - Marine Tiltrotor Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron

 

Notable accidents

 

Main article: Accidents and incidents involving the V-22 Osprey

 

From 1991 to 2000 there were four significant crashes, and a total of 30 fatalities, during testing.[32] Since becoming operational in 2007, the V-22 has had one possible combat loss due to an unknown cause, no losses due to accidents, and seven other notable, but minor, incidents.

 

• On 11 June 1991, a mis-wired flight control system led to two minor injuries when the left nacelle struck the ground while the aircraft was hovering 15 feet (4.6 m) in the air, causing it to bounce and catch fire.[97]

 

• On 20 July 1992, a leaking gearbox led to a fire in the right nacelle, causing the aircraft to drop into the Potomac River in front of an audience of Congressmen and other government officials at Quantico, killing all seven on board and grounding the aircraft for 11 months.[98]

 

• On 8 April 2000, a V-22 loaded with Marines to simulate a rescue, attempted to land at Marana Northwest Regional Airport in Arizona, stalled when its right rotor entered vortex ring state, rolled over, crashed, and exploded, killing all 19 on board.[37]

 

• On 11 December 2000, after a catastrophic hydraulic leak and subsequent software instrument failure, a V-22 fell 1,600 feet (490 m) into a forest in Jacksonville, North Carolina, killing all four aboard. This caused the Marine Corps to ground their fleet of eight V-22s, the second grounding that year.[99][100]

 

Specifications (MV-22B)

 

Data from Boeing Integrated Defense Systems,[101] Naval Air Systems Command,[102] US Air Force CV-22 fact sheet,[95] Norton,[103] and Bell[104]

 

General characteristics

 

• Crew: Four (pilot, copilot and two flight engineers)

• Capacity: 24 troops (seated), 32 troops (floor loaded) or up to 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) of cargo (dual hook)

• Length: 57 ft 4 in (17.5 m)

• Rotor diameter: 38 ft 0 in (11.6 m)

• Wingspan: 45 ft 10 in (14 m)

• Width with rotors: 84 ft 7 in (25.8 m)

• Height: 22 ft 1 in/6.73 m; overall with nacelles vertical (17 ft 11 in/5.5 m; at top of tailfins)

• Disc area: 2,268 ft² (212 m²)

• Wing area: 301.4 ft² (28 m²)

• Empty weight: 33,140 lb (15,032 kg)

• Loaded weight: 47,500 lb (21,500 kg)

• Max takeoff weight: 60,500 lb (27,400 kg)

• Powerplant: 2× Rolls-Royce Allison T406/AE 1107C-Liberty turboshafts, 6,150 hp (4,590 kW) each

 

Performance

 

• Maximum speed: 250 knots (460 km/h, 290 mph) at sea level / 305 kn (565 km/h; 351 mph) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)[105]

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

• Range: 879 nmi (1,011 mi, 1,627 km)

• Combat radius: 370 nmi (426 mi, 685 km)

• Ferry range: 1,940 nmi (with auxiliary internal fuel tanks)

• Service ceiling: 26,000 ft (7,925 m)

• Rate of climb: 2,320 ft/min (11.8 m/s)

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

• Power/mass: 0.259 hp/lb (427 W/kg)

 

Armament

 

• 1× M240 machine gun on ramp, optional

 

Notable appearances in media

 

Main article: Aircraft in fiction#V-22 Osprey

 

See also

 

• Elizabeth A. Okoreeh-Baah, USMC - first female to pilot a V-22 Osprey

 

Related development

 

• Bell XV-15[106]

• Bell/Agusta BA609

• Bell Boeing Quad TiltRotor

 

Comparable aircraft

 

• Canadair CL-84

• LTV XC-142

 

Related lists

 

• List of military aircraft of the United States

• List of VTOL aircraft

 

References

 

Bibliography

 

• Markman, Steve and Bill Holder. "Bell/Boeing V-22 Osprey Tilt-Engine VTOL Transport (U.S.A.)". Straight Up: A History of Vertical Flight. Schiffer Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-7643-1204-9.

• Norton, Bill. Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey, Tiltrotor Tactical Transport. Midland Publishing, 2004. ISBN 1-85780-165-2.

 

External links

 

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: V-22 Osprey

 

• Official Boeing V-22 site

• Official Bell V-22 site

• V-22 Osprey web, and www.history.navy.mil/planes/v-22.html

• CV-22 fact sheet on USAF site

• www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/v-22.htm

• www.airforce-technology.com/projects/osprey/

• Onward and Upward

• "Flight of the Osprey", US Navy video of V-22 operations

 

]]]

 

Pasted from Wikipedia: Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey

 

• • • • •

 

The Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey is a multi-mission, military, tiltrotor aircraft with both a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL), and short takeoff and landing (STOL) capability. It is designed to combine the functionality of a conventional helicopter with the long-range, high-speed cruise performance of a turboprop aircraft.

 

The V-22 originated from the U.S. Department of Defense Joint-service Vertical take-off/landing Experimental (JVX) aircraft program started in 1981. It was developed jointly by the Bell Helicopter, and Boeing Helicopters team, known as Bell Boeing, which produce the aircraft.[4] The V-22 first flew in 1989, and began years of flight testing and design alterations.

 

The United States Marine Corps began crew training for the Osprey in 2000, and fielded it in 2007. The Osprey's other operator, the U.S. Air Force fielded their version of the tiltrotor in 2009. Since entering service with the U.S. Marine Corps and Air Force, the Osprey has been deployed for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

Contents

 

• 1 Development

•• 1.1 Early development

•• 1.2 Flight testing and design changes

•• 1.3 Controversy

•• 1.4 Recent development

• 2 Design

• 3 Operational history

•• 3.1 US Marine Corps

•• 3.2 US Air Force

•• 3.3 Potential operators

• 4 Variants

• 5 Operators

• 6 Notable accidents

• 7 Specifications (MV-22B)

• 8 Notable appearances in media

• 9 See also

• 10 References

• 11 External links

 

Development

 

Early development

 

The failure of the Iran hostage rescue mission in 1980 demonstrated to the United States military a need[5] for "a new type of aircraft, that could not only take off and land vertically but also could carry combat troops, and do so at speed."[6] The U.S. Department of Defense began the Joint-service Vertical take-off/landing Experimental (JVX) aircraft program in 1981, under U.S. Army leadership. Later the U.S. Navy/Marine Corps took the lead.[7][8] The JVX combined requirements from the Marine Corps, Air Force, Army and Navy.[9][10] A request for proposals (RFP) was issued in December 1982 for JVX preliminary design work. Interest in the program was expressed by Aérospatiale, Bell Helicopter, Boeing Vertol, Grumman, Lockheed, and Westland. The DoD pushed for contractors to form teams. Bell partnered with Boeing Vertol. The Bell Boeing team submitted a proposal for a enlarged version of the Bell XV-15 prototype on 17 February 1983. This was the only proposal received and a preliminary design contract was awarded on 26 April 1983.[11][12]

 

The JVX aircraft was designated V-22 Osprey on 15 January 1985; by March that same year the first six prototypes were being produced, and Boeing Vertol was expanded to deal with the project workload.[13][14] Work has been split evenly between Bell and Boeing. Bell Helicopter manufactures and integrates the wing, nacelles, rotors, drive system, tail surfaces, and aft ramp, as well as integrates the Rolls-Royce engines and performs final assembly. Boeing Helicopters manufactures and integrates the fuselage, cockpit, avionics, and flight controls.[4][15] The USMC variant of the Osprey received the MV-22 designation and the Air Force variant received CV-22; reversed from normal procedure to prevent Marine Ospreys from having a conflicting designation with aircraft carriers (CV).[16] Full-scale development of the V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft began in 1986.[2] On 3 May 1986 the Bell-Boeing partnership was awarded a $1.714 billion contract for V-22 aircraft by the Navy, thus at this point the project had acquisition plans with all four arms of the U.S. military.[17]

 

The first V-22 was rolled out with significant media attention in May 1988.[18][19] However the project suffered several political blows. Firstly in the same year, the Army left the program, citing a need to focus its budget on more immediate aviation programs.[20] The project also faced considerable dialogue in the Senate, surviving two votes that both could have resulted in cancellation.[21][22] Despite the Senate's decision, the Department of Defense instructed the Navy not to spend more money on the Osprey.[23] At the same time, the Bush administration sought the cancellation of the project.[23]

 

Flight testing and design changes

 

The first of six MV-22 prototypes first flew on 19 March 1989 in the helicopter mode,[24] and on 14 September 1989 as a fixed-wing plane.[25] The third and fourth prototypes successfully completed the Osprey's first Sea Trials on the USS Wasp in December 1990.[26] However, the fourth and fifth prototypes crashed in 1991-92.[27] Flight tests were resumed in August 1993 after changes were incorporated in the prototypes.[2] From October 1992 until April 1993, Bell and Boeing redesigned the V-22 to reduce empty weight, simplify manufacture and reduce production costs. This redesigned version became the B-model.[28]

 

Flight testing of four full-scale development V-22s began in early 1997 when the first pre-production V-22 was delivered to the Naval Air Warfare Test Center, Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland. The first EMD flight took place on 5 February 1997. The first of four low rate initial production aircraft, ordered on 28 April 1997, was delivered on 27 May 1999. Osprey number 10 completed the program's second Sea Trials, this time from the USS Saipan in January 1999.[2] During external load testing in April 1999, Boeing used a V-22 to lift and transport the M777 howitzer.[29] In 2000, Boeing announced that the V-22 would be fitted with a nose-mounted GAU-19 Gatling gun,[30] but the GAU-19 gun was later canceled.[31]

 

In 2000, there were two further fatal crashes, killing a total of 19 Marines, and the production was again halted while the cause of these crashes was investigated and various parts were redesigned.[32] The V-22 completed its final operational evaluation in June 2005. The evaluation was deemed successful; events included long range deployments, high altitude, desert and shipboard operations. The problems identified in various accidents had been addressed.[33]

 

Controversy

 

The V-22's development process has been long and controversial, partly due to its large cost increases.[34] When the development budget, first planned for $2.5 billion in 1986, increased to a projected $30 billion in 1988, then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney tried to zero out its funding. He was eventually overruled by Congress.[32] As of 2008, $27 billion have been spent on the Osprey program and another $27.2 billion will be required to complete planned production numbers by the end of the program.[2]

 

The V-22 squadron's former commander at Marine Corps Air Station New River, Lt. Colonel Odin Lieberman, was relieved of duty in 2001 after allegations that he instructed his unit that they needed to falsify maintenance records to make the plane appear more reliable.[2][35] Three officers were later implicated in the falsification scandal.[34]

 

The aircraft is incapable of autorotation, and is therefore unable to land safely in helicopter mode if both engines fail. A director of the Pentagon's testing office in 2005 said that if the Osprey loses power while flying like a helicopter below 1,600 feet (490 m), emergency landings "are not likely to be survivable". But Captain Justin (Moon) McKinney, a V-22 pilot, says that this will not be a problem, "We can turn it into a plane and glide it down, just like a C-130".[31] A complete loss of power would require the failure of both engines, as a drive shaft connects the nacelles through the wing; one engine can power both proprotors.[36] While vortex ring state (VRS) contributed to a deadly V-22 accident, the aircraft is less susceptible to the condition than conventional helicopters and recovers more quickly.[5] The Marines now train new pilots in the recognition of and recovery from VRS and have instituted operational envelope limits and instrumentation to help pilots avoid VRS conditions.[32][37]

 

It was planned in 2000 to equip all V-22s with a nose-mounted Gatling gun, to provide "the V-22 with a strong defensive firepower capability to greatly increase the aircraft's survivability in hostile actions."[30] The nose gun project was canceled however, leading to criticism by retired Marine Corps Commandant General James L. Jones, who is not satisfied with the current V-22 armament.[31] A belly-mounted turret was later installed on some of the first V-22s sent to the War in Afghanistan in 2009.[38]

 

With the first combat deployment of the MV-22 in October 2007, Time Magazine ran an article condemning the aircraft as unsafe, overpriced, and completely inadequate.[31] The Marine Corps, however, responded with the assertion that much of the article's data were dated, obsolete, inaccurate, and reflected expectations that ran too high for any new field of aircraft.[39]

 

Recent development

 

On 28 September 2005, the Pentagon formally approved full-rate production for the V-22.[40] The plan is to boost production from 11 a year to between 24 and 48 a year by 2012. Of the 458 total planned, 360 are for the Marine Corps, 48 for the Navy, and 50 for the Air Force at an average cost of $110 million per aircraft, including development costs.[2] The V-22 had an incremental flyaway cost of $70 million per aircraft in 2007,[3] but the Navy hopes to shave about $10 million off that cost after a five-year production contract starts in 2008.[41]

 

The Bell-Boeing Joint Project Office in Amarillo, Texas will design a new integrated avionics processor to resolve electronics obsolescence issues and add new network capabilities.[42]

 

Design

 

The Osprey is the world's first production tiltrotor aircraft, with one three-bladed proprotor, turboprop engine, and transmission nacelle mounted on each wingtip. It is classified as a powered lift aircraft by the Federal Aviation Administration.[43] For takeoff and landing, it typically operates as a helicopter with the nacelles vertical (rotors horizontal). Once airborne, the nacelles rotate forward 90° in as little as 12 seconds for horizontal flight, converting the V-22 to a more fuel-efficient, higher-speed turboprop airplane. STOL rolling-takeoff and landing capability is achieved by having the nacelles tilted forward up to 45°. For compact storage and transport, the V-22's wing rotates to align, front-to-back, with the fuselage. The proprotors can also fold in a sequence taking 90 seconds.[44]

 

Most Osprey missions will use fixed wing flight 75 percent or more of the time, reducing wear and tear on the aircraft and reducing operational costs.[45] This fixed wing flight is higher than typical helicopter missions allowing longer range line-of-sight communications and so improved command and control.[2] Boeing has stated the V-22 design loses 10% of its vertical lift over a Tiltwing design when operating in helicopter mode because of airflow resistance due to the wings, but that the Tiltrotor design has better short takeoff and landing performance.[46]

 

The V-22 is equipped with a glass cockpit, which incorporates four Multi-function displays (MFDs) and one shared Central Display Unit (CDU), allowing the pilots to display a variety of images including: digimaps centered or decentered on current position, FLIR imagery, primary flight instruments, navigation (TACAN, VOR, ILS, GPS, INS), and system status. The flight director panel of the Cockpit Management System (CMS) allows for fully-coupled (aka: autopilot) functions which will take the aircraft from forward flight into a 50-foot hover with no pilot interaction other than programming the system.[47] The glass cockpit of the canceled CH-46X was derived from the V-22.[48]

 

The V-22 is a fly-by-wire aircraft with triple-redundant flight control systems.[49] With the nacelles pointing straight up in conversion mode at 90° the flight computers command the aircraft to fly like a helicopter, with cyclic forces being applied to a conventional swashplate at the rotor hub. With the nacelles in airplane mode (0°) the flaperons, rudder, and elevator fly the aircraft like an airplane. This is a gradual transition and occurs over the rotation range of the nacelles. The lower the nacelles, the greater effect of the airplane-mode control surfaces.[50] The nacelles can rotate past vertical to 97.5° for rearward flight.[51][52]

 

The Osprey can be armed with one M240 7.62x51mm NATO (.308 in caliber) or M2 .50 in caliber (12.7 mm) machine gun on the loading ramp, that can be fired rearward when the ramp is lowered. A GAU-19 three-barrel .50 in gatling gun mounted below the V-22's nose has also been studied for future upgrade.[31][53] BAE Systems developed a remotely operated turreted weapons system for the V-22,[54] which was installed on half of the first V-22s deployed to Afghanistan in 2009.[38] The 7.62 mm belly gun turret is remotely operated by a gunner inside the aircraft, who acquires targets with a separate pod using color television and forward looking infrared imagery.

 

U.S. Naval Air Systems Command is working on upgrades to increase the maximum speed from 250 knots (460 km/h; 290 mph) to 270 knots (500 km/h; 310 mph), increase helicopter mode altitude limit from 10,000 feet (3,000 m) to 12,000 feet (3,700 m) or 14,000 feet (4,300 m), and increase lift performance.[55]

 

Operational history

 

US Marine Corps

 

Marine Corps crew training on the Osprey has been conducted by VMMT-204 since March 2000. On 3 June 2005, the Marine Corps helicopter squadron Marine Medium Helicopter 263 (HMM-263), stood down to begin the process of transitioning to the MV-22 Osprey.[56] On 8 December 2005, Lieutenant General Amos, commander of the II MEF, accepted the delivery of the first fleet of MV-22s, delivered to HMM-263. The unit reactivated on 3 March 2006 as the first MV-22 squadron and was redesignated VMM-263. On 31 August 2006, VMM-162 (the former HMM-162) followed suit. On 23 March 2007, HMM-266 became Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 266 (VMM-266) at Marine Corps Air Station New River, North Carolina.[57]

 

The Osprey has been replacing existing CH-46 Sea Knight squadrons.[58] The MV-22 reached initial operational capability (IOC) with the U.S. Marine Corps on 13 June 2007.[1] On 10 July 2007 an MV-22 Osprey landed aboard the Royal Navy aircraft carrier, HMS Illustrious in the Atlantic Ocean. This marked the first time a V-22 had landed on any non-U.S. vessel.[59]

 

On 13 April 2007, the U.S. Marine Corps announced that it would be sending ten V-22 aircraft to Iraq, the Osprey's first combat deployment. Marine Corps Commandant, General James Conway, indicated that over 150 Marines would accompany the Osprey set for September deployment to Al-Asad Airfield.[60][61] On 17 September 2007, ten MV-22Bs of VMM-263 left for Iraq aboard the USS Wasp. The decision to use a ship rather than use the Osprey's self-deployment capability was made because of concerns over icing during the North Atlantic portion of the trip, lack of available KC-130s for mid-air refueling, and the availability of the USS Wasp.[62]

 

The Osprey has provided support in Iraq, racking up some 2,000 flight hours over three months with a mission capable availability rate of 68.1% as of late-January 2008.[63] They are primarily used in Iraq's western Anbar province for routine cargo and troop movements, and also for riskier "aero-scout" missions. General David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, used one to fly around Iraq on Christmas Day 2007 to visit troops.[64] Then-presidential candidate Barack Obama also flew in Ospreys during his high profile 2008 tour of Iraq.[65]

 

The only major problem has been obtaining the necessary spare parts to maintain the aircraft.[66] The V-22 had flown 3,000 sorties totaling 5,200 hours in Iraq as of July 2008.[67] USMC leadership expect to deploy MV-22s to Afghanistan in 2009.[66][68] General George J. Trautman, III praised the increased range of the V-22 over the legacy helicopters in Iraq and said that "it turned his battle space from the size of Texas into the size of Rhode Island."[69]

 

Naval Air Systems Command has devised a temporary fix for sailors to place portable heat shields under Osprey engines to prevent damage to the decks of some of the Navy's smaller amphibious ships, but they determined that a long term solution to the problem would require these decks be redesigned with heat resistant deck coatings, passive thermal barriers and changes in ship structure in order to operate V-22s and F-35Bs.[70]

 

A Government Accountability Office study reported that by January 2009 the Marines had 12 MV-22s operating in Iraq and they managed to successfully complete all assigned missions. The same report found that the V-22 deployments had mission capable rates averaging 57% to 68% and an overall full mission capable rate of only 6%. It also stated that the aircraft had shown weakness in situational awareness, maintenance, shipboard operations and the ability to transport troops and external cargo.[71] That study also concluded that the "deployments confirmed that the V-22’s enhanced speed and range enable personnel and internal cargo to be transported faster and farther than is possible with the legacy helicopters it is replacing".[71]

 

The MV-22 saw its first offensive combat mission, Operation Cobra's Anger on 4 December 2009. Ospreys assisted in inserting 1,000 Marines and 150 Afghan troops into the Now Zad Valley of Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan to disrupt communication and supply lines of the Taliban.[38] In January 2010 the MV-22 Osprey is being sent to Haiti as part of Operation Unified Response relief efforts after the earthquake there. This will be the first use the Marine V-22 in a humanitarian mission.[72]

 

US Air Force

 

The Air Force's first operational CV-22 Osprey was delivered to the 58th Special Operations Wing (58th SOW) at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico on 20 March 2006. This and subsequent aircraft will become part of the 58th SOW's fleet of aircraft used for training pilots and crew members for special operations use.[73] On 16 November 2006, the Air Force officially accepted the CV-22 in a ceremony conducted at Hurlburt Field, Florida.[74]

 

The US Air Force's first operational deployment of the Osprey sent four CV-22s to Mali in November 2008 in support of Exercise Flintlock. The CV-22s flew nonstop from Hurlburt Field, Florida with in-flight refueling.[5] AFSOC declared that the 8th Special Operations Squadron reached Initial Operational Capability on 16 March 2009, with six of its planned nine CV-22s operational.[75]

 

In June 2009, CV-22s of the 8th Special Operations Squadron delivered 43,000 pounds (20,000 kg) of humanitarian supplies to remote villages in Honduras that were not accessible by conventional vehicles.[76] In November 2009, the 8th SO Squadron and its six CV-22s returned from a three-month deployment in Iraq.[77]

 

The first possible combat loss of an Osprey occurred on 9 April, 2010, as a CV-22 went down near Qalat, Zabul Province, Afghanistan, killing four.[78][79]

 

Potential operators

 

In 1999 the V-22 was studied for use in the United Kingdom's Royal Navy,[80] it has been raised several times as a candidate for the role of Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control (MASC).[81]

 

Israel had shown interest in the purchase of MV-22s, but no order was placed.[82][83] Flightglobal reported in late 2009 that Israel has decided to wait for the CH-53K instead.[84]

 

The V-22 Osprey is a candidate for the Norwegian All Weather Search and Rescue Helicopter (NAWSARH) that is planned to replace the Westland Sea King Mk.43B of the Royal Norwegian Air Force in 2015.[85] The other candidates for the NAWSARH contract of 10-12 helicopters are AgustaWestland AW101 Merlin, Eurocopter EC225, NHIndustries NH90 and Sikorsky S-92.[86]

 

Bell Boeing has made an unsolicited offer of the V-22 for US Army medical evacuation needs.[87] However the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency issued a report that said that a common helicopter design would be needed for both combat recovery and medical evacuation and that the V-22 would not be suitable for recovery missions because of the difficulty of hoist operations and lack of self-defense capabilities.[88]

 

The US Navy remains a potential user of the V-22, but its role and mission with the Navy remains unclear. The latest proposal is to replace the C-2 Greyhound with the V-22 in the fleet logistics role. The V-22 would have the advantage of being able to land on and support non-carriers with rapid delivery of supplies and people between the ships of a taskforce or to ships on patrol beyond helicopter range.[89] Loren B. Thompson of the Lexington Institute has suggested V-22s for use in combat search and rescue and Marine One VIP transport, which also need replacement aircraft.[90]

 

Variants

  

• V-22A 

•• Pre-production full-scale development aircraft used for flight testing. These are unofficially considered A-variants after 1993 redesign.[91]

  

• HV-22 

•• The U.S. Navy considered an HV-22 to provide combat search and rescue, delivery and retrieval of special warfare teams along with fleet logistic support transport. However, it chose the MH-60S for this role in 1992.[92]

  

• SV-22 

•• The proposed anti-submarine warfare Navy variant. The Navy studied the SV-22 in the 1980s to replace S-3 and SH-2 aircraft.[93]

  

• MV-22B 

•• Basic U.S. Marine Corps transport; original requirement for 552 (now 360). The Marine Corps is the lead service in the development of the V-22 Osprey. The Marine Corps variant, the MV-22B, is an assault transport for troops, equipment and supplies, capable of operating from ships or from expeditionary airfields ashore. It is replacing the Marine Corps' CH-46E[57] and CH-53D.[94]

  

• CV-22B 

•• Air Force variant for the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). It will conduct long-range, special operations missions, and is equipped with extra fuel tanks and terrain-following radar.[95][96]

 

Operators

 

•  United States

 

• United States Air Force

 

•• 8th Special Operations Squadron (8 SOS) at Hurlburt Field, Florida

•• 71st Special Operations Squadron (71 SOS) at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico

•• 20th Special Operations Squadron (20 SOS) at Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico

 

• United States Marine Corps

 

•• VMM-161

•• VMM-162

•• VMM-261

•• VMM-263

•• VMM-264

•• VMM-266

•• VMM-365

•• VMMT-204 - Training squadron

•• VMX-22 - Marine Tiltrotor Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron

 

Notable accidents

 

Main article: Accidents and incidents involving the V-22 Osprey

 

From 1991 to 2000 there were four significant crashes, and a total of 30 fatalities, during testing.[32] Since becoming operational in 2007, the V-22 has had one possible combat loss due to an unknown cause, no losses due to accidents, and seven other notable, but minor, incidents.

 

• On 11 June 1991, a mis-wired flight control system led to two minor injuries when the left nacelle struck the ground while the aircraft was hovering 15 feet (4.6 m) in the air, causing it to bounce and catch fire.[97]

 

• On 20 July 1992, a leaking gearbox led to a fire in the right nacelle, causing the aircraft to drop into the Potomac River in front of an audience of Congressmen and other government officials at Quantico, killing all seven on board and grounding the aircraft for 11 months.[98]

 

• On 8 April 2000, a V-22 loaded with Marines to simulate a rescue, attempted to land at Marana Northwest Regional Airport in Arizona, stalled when its right rotor entered vortex ring state, rolled over, crashed, and exploded, killing all 19 on board.[37]

 

• On 11 December 2000, after a catastrophic hydraulic leak and subsequent software instrument failure, a V-22 fell 1,600 feet (490 m) into a forest in Jacksonville, North Carolina, killing all four aboard. This caused the Marine Corps to ground their fleet of eight V-22s, the second grounding that year.[99][100]

 

Specifications (MV-22B)

 

Data from Boeing Integrated Defense Systems,[101] Naval Air Systems Command,[102] US Air Force CV-22 fact sheet,[95] Norton,[103] and Bell[104]

 

General characteristics

 

• Crew: Four (pilot, copilot and two flight engineers)

• Capacity: 24 troops (seated), 32 troops (floor loaded) or up to 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) of cargo (dual hook)

• Length: 57 ft 4 in (17.5 m)

• Rotor diameter: 38 ft 0 in (11.6 m)

• Wingspan: 45 ft 10 in (14 m)

• Width with rotors: 84 ft 7 in (25.8 m)

• Height: 22 ft 1 in/6.73 m; overall with nacelles vertical (17 ft 11 in/5.5 m; at top of tailfins)

• Disc area: 2,268 ft² (212 m²)

• Wing area: 301.4 ft² (28 m²)

• Empty weight: 33,140 lb (15,032 kg)

• Loaded weight: 47,500 lb (21,500 kg)

• Max takeoff weight: 60,500 lb (27,400 kg)

• Powerplant: 2× Rolls-Royce Allison T406/AE 1107C-Liberty turboshafts, 6,150 hp (4,590 kW) each

 

Performance

 

• Maximum speed: 250 knots (460 km/h, 290 mph) at sea level / 305 kn (565 km/h; 351 mph) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)[105]

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

• Range: 879 nmi (1,011 mi, 1,627 km)

• Combat radius: 370 nmi (426 mi, 685 km)

• Ferry range: 1,940 nmi (with auxiliary internal fuel tanks)

• Service ceiling: 26,000 ft (7,925 m)

• Rate of climb: 2,320 ft/min (11.8 m/s)

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

• Power/mass: 0.259 hp/lb (427 W/kg)

 

Armament

 

• 1× M240 machine gun on ramp, optional

 

Notable appearances in media

 

Main article: Aircraft in fiction#V-22 Osprey

 

See also

 

• Elizabeth A. Okoreeh-Baah, USMC - first female to pilot a V-22 Osprey

 

Related development

 

• Bell XV-15[106]

• Bell/Agusta BA609

• Bell Boeing Quad TiltRotor

 

Comparable aircraft

 

• Canadair CL-84

• LTV XC-142

 

Related lists

 

• List of military aircraft of the United States

• List of VTOL aircraft

 

References

 

Bibliography

 

• Markman, Steve and Bill Holder. "Bell/Boeing V-22 Osprey Tilt-Engine VTOL Transport (U.S.A.)". Straight Up: A History of Vertical Flight. Schiffer Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-7643-1204-9.

• Norton, Bill. Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey, Tiltrotor Tactical Transport. Midland Publishing, 2004. ISBN 1-85780-165-2.

 

External links

 

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: V-22 Osprey

 

• Official Boeing V-22 site

• Official Bell V-22 site

• V-22 Osprey web, and www.history.navy.mil/planes/v-22.html

• CV-22 fact sheet on USAF site

• www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/v-22.htm

• www.airforce-technology.com/projects/osprey/

• Onward and Upward

• "Flight of the Osprey", US Navy video of V-22 operations

Pasted from Wikipedia: Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey

 

• • • • •

 

The Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey is a multi-mission, military, tiltrotor aircraft with both a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL), and short takeoff and landing (STOL) capability. It is designed to combine the functionality of a conventional helicopter with the long-range, high-speed cruise performance of a turboprop aircraft.

 

The V-22 originated from the U.S. Department of Defense Joint-service Vertical take-off/landing Experimental (JVX) aircraft program started in 1981. It was developed jointly by the Bell Helicopter, and Boeing Helicopters team, known as Bell Boeing, which produce the aircraft.[4] The V-22 first flew in 1989, and began years of flight testing and design alterations.

 

The United States Marine Corps began crew training for the Osprey in 2000, and fielded it in 2007. The Osprey's other operator, the U.S. Air Force fielded their version of the tiltrotor in 2009. Since entering service with the U.S. Marine Corps and Air Force, the Osprey has been deployed for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

Contents

 

• 1 Development

•• 1.1 Early development

•• 1.2 Flight testing and design changes

•• 1.3 Controversy

•• 1.4 Recent development

• 2 Design

• 3 Operational history

•• 3.1 US Marine Corps

•• 3.2 US Air Force

•• 3.3 Potential operators

• 4 Variants

• 5 Operators

• 6 Notable accidents

• 7 Specifications (MV-22B)

• 8 Notable appearances in media

• 9 See also

• 10 References

• 11 External links

 

Development

 

Early development

 

The failure of the Iran hostage rescue mission in 1980 demonstrated to the United States military a need[5] for "a new type of aircraft, that could not only take off and land vertically but also could carry combat troops, and do so at speed."[6] The U.S. Department of Defense began the Joint-service Vertical take-off/landing Experimental (JVX) aircraft program in 1981, under U.S. Army leadership. Later the U.S. Navy/Marine Corps took the lead.[7][8] The JVX combined requirements from the Marine Corps, Air Force, Army and Navy.[9][10] A request for proposals (RFP) was issued in December 1982 for JVX preliminary design work. Interest in the program was expressed by Aérospatiale, Bell Helicopter, Boeing Vertol, Grumman, Lockheed, and Westland. The DoD pushed for contractors to form teams. Bell partnered with Boeing Vertol. The Bell Boeing team submitted a proposal for a enlarged version of the Bell XV-15 prototype on 17 February 1983. This was the only proposal received and a preliminary design contract was awarded on 26 April 1983.[11][12]

 

The JVX aircraft was designated V-22 Osprey on 15 January 1985; by March that same year the first six prototypes were being produced, and Boeing Vertol was expanded to deal with the project workload.[13][14] Work has been split evenly between Bell and Boeing. Bell Helicopter manufactures and integrates the wing, nacelles, rotors, drive system, tail surfaces, and aft ramp, as well as integrates the Rolls-Royce engines and performs final assembly. Boeing Helicopters manufactures and integrates the fuselage, cockpit, avionics, and flight controls.[4][15] The USMC variant of the Osprey received the MV-22 designation and the Air Force variant received CV-22; reversed from normal procedure to prevent Marine Ospreys from having a conflicting designation with aircraft carriers (CV).[16] Full-scale development of the V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft began in 1986.[2] On 3 May 1986 the Bell-Boeing partnership was awarded a $1.714 billion contract for V-22 aircraft by the Navy, thus at this point the project had acquisition plans with all four arms of the U.S. military.[17]

 

The first V-22 was rolled out with significant media attention in May 1988.[18][19] However the project suffered several political blows. Firstly in the same year, the Army left the program, citing a need to focus its budget on more immediate aviation programs.[20] The project also faced considerable dialogue in the Senate, surviving two votes that both could have resulted in cancellation.[21][22] Despite the Senate's decision, the Department of Defense instructed the Navy not to spend more money on the Osprey.[23] At the same time, the Bush administration sought the cancellation of the project.[23]

 

Flight testing and design changes

 

The first of six MV-22 prototypes first flew on 19 March 1989 in the helicopter mode,[24] and on 14 September 1989 as a fixed-wing plane.[25] The third and fourth prototypes successfully completed the Osprey's first Sea Trials on the USS Wasp in December 1990.[26] However, the fourth and fifth prototypes crashed in 1991-92.[27] Flight tests were resumed in August 1993 after changes were incorporated in the prototypes.[2] From October 1992 until April 1993, Bell and Boeing redesigned the V-22 to reduce empty weight, simplify manufacture and reduce production costs. This redesigned version became the B-model.[28]

 

Flight testing of four full-scale development V-22s began in early 1997 when the first pre-production V-22 was delivered to the Naval Air Warfare Test Center, Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland. The first EMD flight took place on 5 February 1997. The first of four low rate initial production aircraft, ordered on 28 April 1997, was delivered on 27 May 1999. Osprey number 10 completed the program's second Sea Trials, this time from the USS Saipan in January 1999.[2] During external load testing in April 1999, Boeing used a V-22 to lift and transport the M777 howitzer.[29] In 2000, Boeing announced that the V-22 would be fitted with a nose-mounted GAU-19 Gatling gun,[30] but the GAU-19 gun was later canceled.[31]

 

In 2000, there were two further fatal crashes, killing a total of 19 Marines, and the production was again halted while the cause of these crashes was investigated and various parts were redesigned.[32] The V-22 completed its final operational evaluation in June 2005. The evaluation was deemed successful; events included long range deployments, high altitude, desert and shipboard operations. The problems identified in various accidents had been addressed.[33]

 

Controversy

 

The V-22's development process has been long and controversial, partly due to its large cost increases.[34] When the development budget, first planned for $2.5 billion in 1986, increased to a projected $30 billion in 1988, then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney tried to zero out its funding. He was eventually overruled by Congress.[32] As of 2008, $27 billion have been spent on the Osprey program and another $27.2 billion will be required to complete planned production numbers by the end of the program.[2]

 

The V-22 squadron's former commander at Marine Corps Air Station New River, Lt. Colonel Odin Lieberman, was relieved of duty in 2001 after allegations that he instructed his unit that they needed to falsify maintenance records to make the plane appear more reliable.[2][35] Three officers were later implicated in the falsification scandal.[34]

 

The aircraft is incapable of autorotation, and is therefore unable to land safely in helicopter mode if both engines fail. A director of the Pentagon's testing office in 2005 said that if the Osprey loses power while flying like a helicopter below 1,600 feet (490 m), emergency landings "are not likely to be survivable". But Captain Justin (Moon) McKinney, a V-22 pilot, says that this will not be a problem, "We can turn it into a plane and glide it down, just like a C-130".[31] A complete loss of power would require the failure of both engines, as a drive shaft connects the nacelles through the wing; one engine can power both proprotors.[36] While vortex ring state (VRS) contributed to a deadly V-22 accident, the aircraft is less susceptible to the condition than conventional helicopters and recovers more quickly.[5] The Marines now train new pilots in the recognition of and recovery from VRS and have instituted operational envelope limits and instrumentation to help pilots avoid VRS conditions.[32][37]

 

It was planned in 2000 to equip all V-22s with a nose-mounted Gatling gun, to provide "the V-22 with a strong defensive firepower capability to greatly increase the aircraft's survivability in hostile actions."[30] The nose gun project was canceled however, leading to criticism by retired Marine Corps Commandant General James L. Jones, who is not satisfied with the current V-22 armament.[31] A belly-mounted turret was later installed on some of the first V-22s sent to the War in Afghanistan in 2009.[38]

 

With the first combat deployment of the MV-22 in October 2007, Time Magazine ran an article condemning the aircraft as unsafe, overpriced, and completely inadequate.[31] The Marine Corps, however, responded with the assertion that much of the article's data were dated, obsolete, inaccurate, and reflected expectations that ran too high for any new field of aircraft.[39]

 

Recent development

 

On 28 September 2005, the Pentagon formally approved full-rate production for the V-22.[40] The plan is to boost production from 11 a year to between 24 and 48 a year by 2012. Of the 458 total planned, 360 are for the Marine Corps, 48 for the Navy, and 50 for the Air Force at an average cost of $110 million per aircraft, including development costs.[2] The V-22 had an incremental flyaway cost of $70 million per aircraft in 2007,[3] but the Navy hopes to shave about $10 million off that cost after a five-year production contract starts in 2008.[41]

 

The Bell-Boeing Joint Project Office in Amarillo, Texas will design a new integrated avionics processor to resolve electronics obsolescence issues and add new network capabilities.[42]

 

Design

 

The Osprey is the world's first production tiltrotor aircraft, with one three-bladed proprotor, turboprop engine, and transmission nacelle mounted on each wingtip. It is classified as a powered lift aircraft by the Federal Aviation Administration.[43] For takeoff and landing, it typically operates as a helicopter with the nacelles vertical (rotors horizontal). Once airborne, the nacelles rotate forward 90° in as little as 12 seconds for horizontal flight, converting the V-22 to a more fuel-efficient, higher-speed turboprop airplane. STOL rolling-takeoff and landing capability is achieved by having the nacelles tilted forward up to 45°. For compact storage and transport, the V-22's wing rotates to align, front-to-back, with the fuselage. The proprotors can also fold in a sequence taking 90 seconds.[44]

 

Most Osprey missions will use fixed wing flight 75 percent or more of the time, reducing wear and tear on the aircraft and reducing operational costs.[45] This fixed wing flight is higher than typical helicopter missions allowing longer range line-of-sight communications and so improved command and control.[2] Boeing has stated the V-22 design loses 10% of its vertical lift over a Tiltwing design when operating in helicopter mode because of airflow resistance due to the wings, but that the Tiltrotor design has better short takeoff and landing performance.[46]

 

The V-22 is equipped with a glass cockpit, which incorporates four Multi-function displays (MFDs) and one shared Central Display Unit (CDU), allowing the pilots to display a variety of images including: digimaps centered or decentered on current position, FLIR imagery, primary flight instruments, navigation (TACAN, VOR, ILS, GPS, INS), and system status. The flight director panel of the Cockpit Management System (CMS) allows for fully-coupled (aka: autopilot) functions which will take the aircraft from forward flight into a 50-foot hover with no pilot interaction other than programming the system.[47] The glass cockpit of the canceled CH-46X was derived from the V-22.[48]

 

The V-22 is a fly-by-wire aircraft with triple-redundant flight control systems.[49] With the nacelles pointing straight up in conversion mode at 90° the flight computers command the aircraft to fly like a helicopter, with cyclic forces being applied to a conventional swashplate at the rotor hub. With the nacelles in airplane mode (0°) the flaperons, rudder, and elevator fly the aircraft like an airplane. This is a gradual transition and occurs over the rotation range of the nacelles. The lower the nacelles, the greater effect of the airplane-mode control surfaces.[50] The nacelles can rotate past vertical to 97.5° for rearward flight.[51][52]

 

The Osprey can be armed with one M240 7.62x51mm NATO (.308 in caliber) or M2 .50 in caliber (12.7 mm) machine gun on the loading ramp, that can be fired rearward when the ramp is lowered. A GAU-19 three-barrel .50 in gatling gun mounted below the V-22's nose has also been studied for future upgrade.[31][53] BAE Systems developed a remotely operated turreted weapons system for the V-22,[54] which was installed on half of the first V-22s deployed to Afghanistan in 2009.[38] The 7.62 mm belly gun turret is remotely operated by a gunner inside the aircraft, who acquires targets with a separate pod using color television and forward looking infrared imagery.

 

U.S. Naval Air Systems Command is working on upgrades to increase the maximum speed from 250 knots (460 km/h; 290 mph) to 270 knots (500 km/h; 310 mph), increase helicopter mode altitude limit from 10,000 feet (3,000 m) to 12,000 feet (3,700 m) or 14,000 feet (4,300 m), and increase lift performance.[55]

 

Operational history

 

US Marine Corps

 

Marine Corps crew training on the Osprey has been conducted by VMMT-204 since March 2000. On 3 June 2005, the Marine Corps helicopter squadron Marine Medium Helicopter 263 (HMM-263), stood down to begin the process of transitioning to the MV-22 Osprey.[56] On 8 December 2005, Lieutenant General Amos, commander of the II MEF, accepted the delivery of the first fleet of MV-22s, delivered to HMM-263. The unit reactivated on 3 March 2006 as the first MV-22 squadron and was redesignated VMM-263. On 31 August 2006, VMM-162 (the former HMM-162) followed suit. On 23 March 2007, HMM-266 became Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 266 (VMM-266) at Marine Corps Air Station New River, North Carolina.[57]

 

The Osprey has been replacing existing CH-46 Sea Knight squadrons.[58] The MV-22 reached initial operational capability (IOC) with the U.S. Marine Corps on 13 June 2007.[1] On 10 July 2007 an MV-22 Osprey landed aboard the Royal Navy aircraft carrier, HMS Illustrious in the Atlantic Ocean. This marked the first time a V-22 had landed on any non-U.S. vessel.[59]

 

On 13 April 2007, the U.S. Marine Corps announced that it would be sending ten V-22 aircraft to Iraq, the Osprey's first combat deployment. Marine Corps Commandant, General James Conway, indicated that over 150 Marines would accompany the Osprey set for September deployment to Al-Asad Airfield.[60][61] On 17 September 2007, ten MV-22Bs of VMM-263 left for Iraq aboard the USS Wasp. The decision to use a ship rather than use the Osprey's self-deployment capability was made because of concerns over icing during the North Atlantic portion of the trip, lack of available KC-130s for mid-air refueling, and the availability of the USS Wasp.[62]

 

The Osprey has provided support in Iraq, racking up some 2,000 flight hours over three months with a mission capable availability rate of 68.1% as of late-January 2008.[63] They are primarily used in Iraq's western Anbar province for routine cargo and troop movements, and also for riskier "aero-scout" missions. General David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, used one to fly around Iraq on Christmas Day 2007 to visit troops.[64] Then-presidential candidate Barack Obama also flew in Ospreys during his high profile 2008 tour of Iraq.[65]

 

The only major problem has been obtaining the necessary spare parts to maintain the aircraft.[66] The V-22 had flown 3,000 sorties totaling 5,200 hours in Iraq as of July 2008.[67] USMC leadership expect to deploy MV-22s to Afghanistan in 2009.[66][68] General George J. Trautman, III praised the increased range of the V-22 over the legacy helicopters in Iraq and said that "it turned his battle space from the size of Texas into the size of Rhode Island."[69]

 

Naval Air Systems Command has devised a temporary fix for sailors to place portable heat shields under Osprey engines to prevent damage to the decks of some of the Navy's smaller amphibious ships, but they determined that a long term solution to the problem would require these decks be redesigned with heat resistant deck coatings, passive thermal barriers and changes in ship structure in order to operate V-22s and F-35Bs.[70]

 

A Government Accountability Office study reported that by January 2009 the Marines had 12 MV-22s operating in Iraq and they managed to successfully complete all assigned missions. The same report found that the V-22 deployments had mission capable rates averaging 57% to 68% and an overall full mission capable rate of only 6%. It also stated that the aircraft had shown weakness in situational awareness, maintenance, shipboard operations and the ability to transport troops and external cargo.[71] That study also concluded that the "deployments confirmed that the V-22’s enhanced speed and range enable personnel and internal cargo to be transported faster and farther than is possible with the legacy helicopters it is replacing".[71]

 

The MV-22 saw its first offensive combat mission, Operation Cobra's Anger on 4 December 2009. Ospreys assisted in inserting 1,000 Marines and 150 Afghan troops into the Now Zad Valley of Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan to disrupt communication and supply lines of the Taliban.[38] In January 2010 the MV-22 Osprey is being sent to Haiti as part of Operation Unified Response relief efforts after the earthquake there. This will be the first use the Marine V-22 in a humanitarian mission.[72]

 

US Air Force

 

The Air Force's first operational CV-22 Osprey was delivered to the 58th Special Operations Wing (58th SOW) at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico on 20 March 2006. This and subsequent aircraft will become part of the 58th SOW's fleet of aircraft used for training pilots and crew members for special operations use.[73] On 16 November 2006, the Air Force officially accepted the CV-22 in a ceremony conducted at Hurlburt Field, Florida.[74]

 

The US Air Force's first operational deployment of the Osprey sent four CV-22s to Mali in November 2008 in support of Exercise Flintlock. The CV-22s flew nonstop from Hurlburt Field, Florida with in-flight refueling.[5] AFSOC declared that the 8th Special Operations Squadron reached Initial Operational Capability on 16 March 2009, with six of its planned nine CV-22s operational.[75]

 

In June 2009, CV-22s of the 8th Special Operations Squadron delivered 43,000 pounds (20,000 kg) of humanitarian supplies to remote villages in Honduras that were not accessible by conventional vehicles.[76] In November 2009, the 8th SO Squadron and its six CV-22s returned from a three-month deployment in Iraq.[77]

 

The first possible combat loss of an Osprey occurred on 9 April, 2010, as a CV-22 went down near Qalat, Zabul Province, Afghanistan, killing four.[78][79]

 

Potential operators

 

In 1999 the V-22 was studied for use in the United Kingdom's Royal Navy,[80] it has been raised several times as a candidate for the role of Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control (MASC).[81]

 

Israel had shown interest in the purchase of MV-22s, but no order was placed.[82][83] Flightglobal reported in late 2009 that Israel has decided to wait for the CH-53K instead.[84]

 

The V-22 Osprey is a candidate for the Norwegian All Weather Search and Rescue Helicopter (NAWSARH) that is planned to replace the Westland Sea King Mk.43B of the Royal Norwegian Air Force in 2015.[85] The other candidates for the NAWSARH contract of 10-12 helicopters are AgustaWestland AW101 Merlin, Eurocopter EC225, NHIndustries NH90 and Sikorsky S-92.[86]

 

Bell Boeing has made an unsolicited offer of the V-22 for US Army medical evacuation needs.[87] However the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency issued a report that said that a common helicopter design would be needed for both combat recovery and medical evacuation and that the V-22 would not be suitable for recovery missions because of the difficulty of hoist operations and lack of self-defense capabilities.[88]

 

The US Navy remains a potential user of the V-22, but its role and mission with the Navy remains unclear. The latest proposal is to replace the C-2 Greyhound with the V-22 in the fleet logistics role. The V-22 would have the advantage of being able to land on and support non-carriers with rapid delivery of supplies and people between the ships of a taskforce or to ships on patrol beyond helicopter range.[89] Loren B. Thompson of the Lexington Institute has suggested V-22s for use in combat search and rescue and Marine One VIP transport, which also need replacement aircraft.[90]

 

Variants

  

• V-22A 

•• Pre-production full-scale development aircraft used for flight testing. These are unofficially considered A-variants after 1993 redesign.[91]

  

• HV-22 

•• The U.S. Navy considered an HV-22 to provide combat search and rescue, delivery and retrieval of special warfare teams along with fleet logistic support transport. However, it chose the MH-60S for this role in 1992.[92]

  

• SV-22 

•• The proposed anti-submarine warfare Navy variant. The Navy studied the SV-22 in the 1980s to replace S-3 and SH-2 aircraft.[93]

  

• MV-22B 

•• Basic U.S. Marine Corps transport; original requirement for 552 (now 360). The Marine Corps is the lead service in the development of the V-22 Osprey. The Marine Corps variant, the MV-22B, is an assault transport for troops, equipment and supplies, capable of operating from ships or from expeditionary airfields ashore. It is replacing the Marine Corps' CH-46E[57] and CH-53D.[94]

  

• CV-22B 

•• Air Force variant for the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). It will conduct long-range, special operations missions, and is equipped with extra fuel tanks and terrain-following radar.[95][96]

 

Operators

 

•  United States

 

• United States Air Force

 

•• 8th Special Operations Squadron (8 SOS) at Hurlburt Field, Florida

•• 71st Special Operations Squadron (71 SOS) at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico

•• 20th Special Operations Squadron (20 SOS) at Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico

 

• United States Marine Corps

 

•• VMM-161

•• VMM-162

•• VMM-261

•• VMM-263

•• VMM-264

•• VMM-266

•• VMM-365

•• VMMT-204 - Training squadron

•• VMX-22 - Marine Tiltrotor Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron

 

Notable accidents

 

Main article: Accidents and incidents involving the V-22 Osprey

 

From 1991 to 2000 there were four significant crashes, and a total of 30 fatalities, during testing.[32] Since becoming operational in 2007, the V-22 has had one possible combat loss due to an unknown cause, no losses due to accidents, and seven other notable, but minor, incidents.

 

• On 11 June 1991, a mis-wired flight control system led to two minor injuries when the left nacelle struck the ground while the aircraft was hovering 15 feet (4.6 m) in the air, causing it to bounce and catch fire.[97]

 

• On 20 July 1992, a leaking gearbox led to a fire in the right nacelle, causing the aircraft to drop into the Potomac River in front of an audience of Congressmen and other government officials at Quantico, killing all seven on board and grounding the aircraft for 11 months.[98]

 

• On 8 April 2000, a V-22 loaded with Marines to simulate a rescue, attempted to land at Marana Northwest Regional Airport in Arizona, stalled when its right rotor entered vortex ring state, rolled over, crashed, and exploded, killing all 19 on board.[37]

 

• On 11 December 2000, after a catastrophic hydraulic leak and subsequent software instrument failure, a V-22 fell 1,600 feet (490 m) into a forest in Jacksonville, North Carolina, killing all four aboard. This caused the Marine Corps to ground their fleet of eight V-22s, the second grounding that year.[99][100]

 

Specifications (MV-22B)

 

Data from Boeing Integrated Defense Systems,[101] Naval Air Systems Command,[102] US Air Force CV-22 fact sheet,[95] Norton,[103] and Bell[104]

 

General characteristics

 

• Crew: Four (pilot, copilot and two flight engineers)

• Capacity: 24 troops (seated), 32 troops (floor loaded) or up to 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) of cargo (dual hook)

• Length: 57 ft 4 in (17.5 m)

• Rotor diameter: 38 ft 0 in (11.6 m)

• Wingspan: 45 ft 10 in (14 m)

• Width with rotors: 84 ft 7 in (25.8 m)

• Height: 22 ft 1 in/6.73 m; overall with nacelles vertical (17 ft 11 in/5.5 m; at top of tailfins)

• Disc area: 2,268 ft² (212 m²)

• Wing area: 301.4 ft² (28 m²)

• Empty weight: 33,140 lb (15,032 kg)

• Loaded weight: 47,500 lb (21,500 kg)

• Max takeoff weight: 60,500 lb (27,400 kg)

• Powerplant: 2× Rolls-Royce Allison T406/AE 1107C-Liberty turboshafts, 6,150 hp (4,590 kW) each

 

Performance

 

• Maximum speed: 250 knots (460 km/h, 290 mph) at sea level / 305 kn (565 km/h; 351 mph) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)[105]

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

• Range: 879 nmi (1,011 mi, 1,627 km)

• Combat radius: 370 nmi (426 mi, 685 km)

• Ferry range: 1,940 nmi (with auxiliary internal fuel tanks)

• Service ceiling: 26,000 ft (7,925 m)

• Rate of climb: 2,320 ft/min (11.8 m/s)

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

• Power/mass: 0.259 hp/lb (427 W/kg)

 

Armament

 

• 1× M240 machine gun on ramp, optional

 

Notable appearances in media

 

Main article: Aircraft in fiction#V-22 Osprey

 

See also

 

• Elizabeth A. Okoreeh-Baah, USMC - first female to pilot a V-22 Osprey

 

Related development

 

• Bell XV-15[106]

• Bell/Agusta BA609

• Bell Boeing Quad TiltRotor

 

Comparable aircraft

 

• Canadair CL-84

• LTV XC-142

 

Related lists

 

• List of military aircraft of the United States

• List of VTOL aircraft

 

References

 

Bibliography

 

• Markman, Steve and Bill Holder. "Bell/Boeing V-22 Osprey Tilt-Engine VTOL Transport (U.S.A.)". Straight Up: A History of Vertical Flight. Schiffer Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-7643-1204-9.

• Norton, Bill. Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey, Tiltrotor Tactical Transport. Midland Publishing, 2004. ISBN 1-85780-165-2.

 

External links

 

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: V-22 Osprey

 

• Official Boeing V-22 site

• Official Bell V-22 site

• V-22 Osprey web, and www.history.navy.mil/planes/v-22.html

• CV-22 fact sheet on USAF site

• www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/v-22.htm

• www.airforce-technology.com/projects/osprey/

• Onward and Upward

• "Flight of the Osprey", US Navy video of V-22 operations

Pasted from Wikipedia: Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey

 

• • • • •

 

The Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey is a multi-mission, military, tiltrotor aircraft with both a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL), and short takeoff and landing (STOL) capability. It is designed to combine the functionality of a conventional helicopter with the long-range, high-speed cruise performance of a turboprop aircraft.

 

The V-22 originated from the U.S. Department of Defense Joint-service Vertical take-off/landing Experimental (JVX) aircraft program started in 1981. It was developed jointly by the Bell Helicopter, and Boeing Helicopters team, known as Bell Boeing, which produce the aircraft.[4] The V-22 first flew in 1989, and began years of flight testing and design alterations.

 

The United States Marine Corps began crew training for the Osprey in 2000, and fielded it in 2007. The Osprey's other operator, the U.S. Air Force fielded their version of the tiltrotor in 2009. Since entering service with the U.S. Marine Corps and Air Force, the Osprey has been deployed for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

Contents

 

• 1 Development

•• 1.1 Early development

•• 1.2 Flight testing and design changes

•• 1.3 Controversy

•• 1.4 Recent development

• 2 Design

• 3 Operational history

•• 3.1 US Marine Corps

•• 3.2 US Air Force

•• 3.3 Potential operators

• 4 Variants

• 5 Operators

• 6 Notable accidents

• 7 Specifications (MV-22B)

• 8 Notable appearances in media

• 9 See also

• 10 References

• 11 External links

 

Development

 

Early development

 

The failure of the Iran hostage rescue mission in 1980 demonstrated to the United States military a need[5] for "a new type of aircraft, that could not only take off and land vertically but also could carry combat troops, and do so at speed."[6] The U.S. Department of Defense began the Joint-service Vertical take-off/landing Experimental (JVX) aircraft program in 1981, under U.S. Army leadership. Later the U.S. Navy/Marine Corps took the lead.[7][8] The JVX combined requirements from the Marine Corps, Air Force, Army and Navy.[9][10] A request for proposals (RFP) was issued in December 1982 for JVX preliminary design work. Interest in the program was expressed by Aérospatiale, Bell Helicopter, Boeing Vertol, Grumman, Lockheed, and Westland. The DoD pushed for contractors to form teams. Bell partnered with Boeing Vertol. The Bell Boeing team submitted a proposal for a enlarged version of the Bell XV-15 prototype on 17 February 1983. This was the only proposal received and a preliminary design contract was awarded on 26 April 1983.[11][12]

 

The JVX aircraft was designated V-22 Osprey on 15 January 1985; by March that same year the first six prototypes were being produced, and Boeing Vertol was expanded to deal with the project workload.[13][14] Work has been split evenly between Bell and Boeing. Bell Helicopter manufactures and integrates the wing, nacelles, rotors, drive system, tail surfaces, and aft ramp, as well as integrates the Rolls-Royce engines and performs final assembly. Boeing Helicopters manufactures and integrates the fuselage, cockpit, avionics, and flight controls.[4][15] The USMC variant of the Osprey received the MV-22 designation and the Air Force variant received CV-22; reversed from normal procedure to prevent Marine Ospreys from having a conflicting designation with aircraft carriers (CV).[16] Full-scale development of the V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft began in 1986.[2] On 3 May 1986 the Bell-Boeing partnership was awarded a $1.714 billion contract for V-22 aircraft by the Navy, thus at this point the project had acquisition plans with all four arms of the U.S. military.[17]

 

The first V-22 was rolled out with significant media attention in May 1988.[18][19] However the project suffered several political blows. Firstly in the same year, the Army left the program, citing a need to focus its budget on more immediate aviation programs.[20] The project also faced considerable dialogue in the Senate, surviving two votes that both could have resulted in cancellation.[21][22] Despite the Senate's decision, the Department of Defense instructed the Navy not to spend more money on the Osprey.[23] At the same time, the Bush administration sought the cancellation of the project.[23]

 

Flight testing and design changes

 

The first of six MV-22 prototypes first flew on 19 March 1989 in the helicopter mode,[24] and on 14 September 1989 as a fixed-wing plane.[25] The third and fourth prototypes successfully completed the Osprey's first Sea Trials on the USS Wasp in December 1990.[26] However, the fourth and fifth prototypes crashed in 1991-92.[27] Flight tests were resumed in August 1993 after changes were incorporated in the prototypes.[2] From October 1992 until April 1993, Bell and Boeing redesigned the V-22 to reduce empty weight, simplify manufacture and reduce production costs. This redesigned version became the B-model.[28]

 

Flight testing of four full-scale development V-22s began in early 1997 when the first pre-production V-22 was delivered to the Naval Air Warfare Test Center, Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland. The first EMD flight took place on 5 February 1997. The first of four low rate initial production aircraft, ordered on 28 April 1997, was delivered on 27 May 1999. Osprey number 10 completed the program's second Sea Trials, this time from the USS Saipan in January 1999.[2] During external load testing in April 1999, Boeing used a V-22 to lift and transport the M777 howitzer.[29] In 2000, Boeing announced that the V-22 would be fitted with a nose-mounted GAU-19 Gatling gun,[30] but the GAU-19 gun was later canceled.[31]

 

In 2000, there were two further fatal crashes, killing a total of 19 Marines, and the production was again halted while the cause of these crashes was investigated and various parts were redesigned.[32] The V-22 completed its final operational evaluation in June 2005. The evaluation was deemed successful; events included long range deployments, high altitude, desert and shipboard operations. The problems identified in various accidents had been addressed.[33]

 

Controversy

 

The V-22's development process has been long and controversial, partly due to its large cost increases.[34] When the development budget, first planned for $2.5 billion in 1986, increased to a projected $30 billion in 1988, then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney tried to zero out its funding. He was eventually overruled by Congress.[32] As of 2008, $27 billion have been spent on the Osprey program and another $27.2 billion will be required to complete planned production numbers by the end of the program.[2]

 

The V-22 squadron's former commander at Marine Corps Air Station New River, Lt. Colonel Odin Lieberman, was relieved of duty in 2001 after allegations that he instructed his unit that they needed to falsify maintenance records to make the plane appear more reliable.[2][35] Three officers were later implicated in the falsification scandal.[34]

 

The aircraft is incapable of autorotation, and is therefore unable to land safely in helicopter mode if both engines fail. A director of the Pentagon's testing office in 2005 said that if the Osprey loses power while flying like a helicopter below 1,600 feet (490 m), emergency landings "are not likely to be survivable". But Captain Justin (Moon) McKinney, a V-22 pilot, says that this will not be a problem, "We can turn it into a plane and glide it down, just like a C-130".[31] A complete loss of power would require the failure of both engines, as a drive shaft connects the nacelles through the wing; one engine can power both proprotors.[36] While vortex ring state (VRS) contributed to a deadly V-22 accident, the aircraft is less susceptible to the condition than conventional helicopters and recovers more quickly.[5] The Marines now train new pilots in the recognition of and recovery from VRS and have instituted operational envelope limits and instrumentation to help pilots avoid VRS conditions.[32][37]

 

It was planned in 2000 to equip all V-22s with a nose-mounted Gatling gun, to provide "the V-22 with a strong defensive firepower capability to greatly increase the aircraft's survivability in hostile actions."[30] The nose gun project was canceled however, leading to criticism by retired Marine Corps Commandant General James L. Jones, who is not satisfied with the current V-22 armament.[31] A belly-mounted turret was later installed on some of the first V-22s sent to the War in Afghanistan in 2009.[38]

 

With the first combat deployment of the MV-22 in October 2007, Time Magazine ran an article condemning the aircraft as unsafe, overpriced, and completely inadequate.[31] The Marine Corps, however, responded with the assertion that much of the article's data were dated, obsolete, inaccurate, and reflected expectations that ran too high for any new field of aircraft.[39]

 

Recent development

 

On 28 September 2005, the Pentagon formally approved full-rate production for the V-22.[40] The plan is to boost production from 11 a year to between 24 and 48 a year by 2012. Of the 458 total planned, 360 are for the Marine Corps, 48 for the Navy, and 50 for the Air Force at an average cost of $110 million per aircraft, including development costs.[2] The V-22 had an incremental flyaway cost of $70 million per aircraft in 2007,[3] but the Navy hopes to shave about $10 million off that cost after a five-year production contract starts in 2008.[41]

 

The Bell-Boeing Joint Project Office in Amarillo, Texas will design a new integrated avionics processor to resolve electronics obsolescence issues and add new network capabilities.[42]

 

Design

 

The Osprey is the world's first production tiltrotor aircraft, with one three-bladed proprotor, turboprop engine, and transmission nacelle mounted on each wingtip. It is classified as a powered lift aircraft by the Federal Aviation Administration.[43] For takeoff and landing, it typically operates as a helicopter with the nacelles vertical (rotors horizontal). Once airborne, the nacelles rotate forward 90° in as little as 12 seconds for horizontal flight, converting the V-22 to a more fuel-efficient, higher-speed turboprop airplane. STOL rolling-takeoff and landing capability is achieved by having the nacelles tilted forward up to 45°. For compact storage and transport, the V-22's wing rotates to align, front-to-back, with the fuselage. The proprotors can also fold in a sequence taking 90 seconds.[44]

 

Most Osprey missions will use fixed wing flight 75 percent or more of the time, reducing wear and tear on the aircraft and reducing operational costs.[45] This fixed wing flight is higher than typical helicopter missions allowing longer range line-of-sight communications and so improved command and control.[2] Boeing has stated the V-22 design loses 10% of its vertical lift over a Tiltwing design when operating in helicopter mode because of airflow resistance due to the wings, but that the Tiltrotor design has better short takeoff and landing performance.[46]

 

The V-22 is equipped with a glass cockpit, which incorporates four Multi-function displays (MFDs) and one shared Central Display Unit (CDU), allowing the pilots to display a variety of images including: digimaps centered or decentered on current position, FLIR imagery, primary flight instruments, navigation (TACAN, VOR, ILS, GPS, INS), and system status. The flight director panel of the Cockpit Management System (CMS) allows for fully-coupled (aka: autopilot) functions which will take the aircraft from forward flight into a 50-foot hover with no pilot interaction other than programming the system.[47] The glass cockpit of the canceled CH-46X was derived from the V-22.[48]

 

The V-22 is a fly-by-wire aircraft with triple-redundant flight control systems.[49] With the nacelles pointing straight up in conversion mode at 90° the flight computers command the aircraft to fly like a helicopter, with cyclic forces being applied to a conventional swashplate at the rotor hub. With the nacelles in airplane mode (0°) the flaperons, rudder, and elevator fly the aircraft like an airplane. This is a gradual transition and occurs over the rotation range of the nacelles. The lower the nacelles, the greater effect of the airplane-mode control surfaces.[50] The nacelles can rotate past vertical to 97.5° for rearward flight.[51][52]

 

The Osprey can be armed with one M240 7.62x51mm NATO (.308 in caliber) or M2 .50 in caliber (12.7 mm) machine gun on the loading ramp, that can be fired rearward when the ramp is lowered. A GAU-19 three-barrel .50 in gatling gun mounted below the V-22's nose has also been studied for future upgrade.[31][53] BAE Systems developed a remotely operated turreted weapons system for the V-22,[54] which was installed on half of the first V-22s deployed to Afghanistan in 2009.[38] The 7.62 mm belly gun turret is remotely operated by a gunner inside the aircraft, who acquires targets with a separate pod using color television and forward looking infrared imagery.

 

U.S. Naval Air Systems Command is working on upgrades to increase the maximum speed from 250 knots (460 km/h; 290 mph) to 270 knots (500 km/h; 310 mph), increase helicopter mode altitude limit from 10,000 feet (3,000 m) to 12,000 feet (3,700 m) or 14,000 feet (4,300 m), and increase lift performance.[55]

 

Operational history

 

US Marine Corps

 

Marine Corps crew training on the Osprey has been conducted by VMMT-204 since March 2000. On 3 June 2005, the Marine Corps helicopter squadron Marine Medium Helicopter 263 (HMM-263), stood down to begin the process of transitioning to the MV-22 Osprey.[56] On 8 December 2005, Lieutenant General Amos, commander of the II MEF, accepted the delivery of the first fleet of MV-22s, delivered to HMM-263. The unit reactivated on 3 March 2006 as the first MV-22 squadron and was redesignated VMM-263. On 31 August 2006, VMM-162 (the former HMM-162) followed suit. On 23 March 2007, HMM-266 became Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 266 (VMM-266) at Marine Corps Air Station New River, North Carolina.[57]

 

The Osprey has been replacing existing CH-46 Sea Knight squadrons.[58] The MV-22 reached initial operational capability (IOC) with the U.S. Marine Corps on 13 June 2007.[1] On 10 July 2007 an MV-22 Osprey landed aboard the Royal Navy aircraft carrier, HMS Illustrious in the Atlantic Ocean. This marked the first time a V-22 had landed on any non-U.S. vessel.[59]

 

On 13 April 2007, the U.S. Marine Corps announced that it would be sending ten V-22 aircraft to Iraq, the Osprey's first combat deployment. Marine Corps Commandant, General James Conway, indicated that over 150 Marines would accompany the Osprey set for September deployment to Al-Asad Airfield.[60][61] On 17 September 2007, ten MV-22Bs of VMM-263 left for Iraq aboard the USS Wasp. The decision to use a ship rather than use the Osprey's self-deployment capability was made because of concerns over icing during the North Atlantic portion of the trip, lack of available KC-130s for mid-air refueling, and the availability of the USS Wasp.[62]

 

The Osprey has provided support in Iraq, racking up some 2,000 flight hours over three months with a mission capable availability rate of 68.1% as of late-January 2008.[63] They are primarily used in Iraq's western Anbar province for routine cargo and troop movements, and also for riskier "aero-scout" missions. General David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, used one to fly around Iraq on Christmas Day 2007 to visit troops.[64] Then-presidential candidate Barack Obama also flew in Ospreys during his high profile 2008 tour of Iraq.[65]

 

The only major problem has been obtaining the necessary spare parts to maintain the aircraft.[66] The V-22 had flown 3,000 sorties totaling 5,200 hours in Iraq as of July 2008.[67] USMC leadership expect to deploy MV-22s to Afghanistan in 2009.[66][68] General George J. Trautman, III praised the increased range of the V-22 over the legacy helicopters in Iraq and said that "it turned his battle space from the size of Texas into the size of Rhode Island."[69]

 

Naval Air Systems Command has devised a temporary fix for sailors to place portable heat shields under Osprey engines to prevent damage to the decks of some of the Navy's smaller amphibious ships, but they determined that a long term solution to the problem would require these decks be redesigned with heat resistant deck coatings, passive thermal barriers and changes in ship structure in order to operate V-22s and F-35Bs.[70]

 

A Government Accountability Office study reported that by January 2009 the Marines had 12 MV-22s operating in Iraq and they managed to successfully complete all assigned missions. The same report found that the V-22 deployments had mission capable rates averaging 57% to 68% and an overall full mission capable rate of only 6%. It also stated that the aircraft had shown weakness in situational awareness, maintenance, shipboard operations and the ability to transport troops and external cargo.[71] That study also concluded that the "deployments confirmed that the V-22’s enhanced speed and range enable personnel and internal cargo to be transported faster and farther than is possible with the legacy helicopters it is replacing".[71]

 

The MV-22 saw its first offensive combat mission, Operation Cobra's Anger on 4 December 2009. Ospreys assisted in inserting 1,000 Marines and 150 Afghan troops into the Now Zad Valley of Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan to disrupt communication and supply lines of the Taliban.[38] In January 2010 the MV-22 Osprey is being sent to Haiti as part of Operation Unified Response relief efforts after the earthquake there. This will be the first use the Marine V-22 in a humanitarian mission.[72]

 

US Air Force

 

The Air Force's first operational CV-22 Osprey was delivered to the 58th Special Operations Wing (58th SOW) at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico on 20 March 2006. This and subsequent aircraft will become part of the 58th SOW's fleet of aircraft used for training pilots and crew members for special operations use.[73] On 16 November 2006, the Air Force officially accepted the CV-22 in a ceremony conducted at Hurlburt Field, Florida.[74]

 

The US Air Force's first operational deployment of the Osprey sent four CV-22s to Mali in November 2008 in support of Exercise Flintlock. The CV-22s flew nonstop from Hurlburt Field, Florida with in-flight refueling.[5] AFSOC declared that the 8th Special Operations Squadron reached Initial Operational Capability on 16 March 2009, with six of its planned nine CV-22s operational.[75]

 

In June 2009, CV-22s of the 8th Special Operations Squadron delivered 43,000 pounds (20,000 kg) of humanitarian supplies to remote villages in Honduras that were not accessible by conventional vehicles.[76] In November 2009, the 8th SO Squadron and its six CV-22s returned from a three-month deployment in Iraq.[77]

 

The first possible combat loss of an Osprey occurred on 9 April, 2010, as a CV-22 went down near Qalat, Zabul Province, Afghanistan, killing four.[78][79]

 

Potential operators

 

In 1999 the V-22 was studied for use in the United Kingdom's Royal Navy,[80] it has been raised several times as a candidate for the role of Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control (MASC).[81]

 

Israel had shown interest in the purchase of MV-22s, but no order was placed.[82][83] Flightglobal reported in late 2009 that Israel has decided to wait for the CH-53K instead.[84]

 

The V-22 Osprey is a candidate for the Norwegian All Weather Search and Rescue Helicopter (NAWSARH) that is planned to replace the Westland Sea King Mk.43B of the Royal Norwegian Air Force in 2015.[85] The other candidates for the NAWSARH contract of 10-12 helicopters are AgustaWestland AW101 Merlin, Eurocopter EC225, NHIndustries NH90 and Sikorsky S-92.[86]

 

Bell Boeing has made an unsolicited offer of the V-22 for US Army medical evacuation needs.[87] However the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency issued a report that said that a common helicopter design would be needed for both combat recovery and medical evacuation and that the V-22 would not be suitable for recovery missions because of the difficulty of hoist operations and lack of self-defense capabilities.[88]

 

The US Navy remains a potential user of the V-22, but its role and mission with the Navy remains unclear. The latest proposal is to replace the C-2 Greyhound with the V-22 in the fleet logistics role. The V-22 would have the advantage of being able to land on and support non-carriers with rapid delivery of supplies and people between the ships of a taskforce or to ships on patrol beyond helicopter range.[89] Loren B. Thompson of the Lexington Institute has suggested V-22s for use in combat search and rescue and Marine One VIP transport, which also need replacement aircraft.[90]

 

Variants

  

• V-22A 

•• Pre-production full-scale development aircraft used for flight testing. These are unofficially considered A-variants after 1993 redesign.[91]

  

• HV-22 

•• The U.S. Navy considered an HV-22 to provide combat search and rescue, delivery and retrieval of special warfare teams along with fleet logistic support transport. However, it chose the MH-60S for this role in 1992.[92]

  

• SV-22 

•• The proposed anti-submarine warfare Navy variant. The Navy studied the SV-22 in the 1980s to replace S-3 and SH-2 aircraft.[93]

  

• MV-22B 

•• Basic U.S. Marine Corps transport; original requirement for 552 (now 360). The Marine Corps is the lead service in the development of the V-22 Osprey. The Marine Corps variant, the MV-22B, is an assault transport for troops, equipment and supplies, capable of operating from ships or from expeditionary airfields ashore. It is replacing the Marine Corps' CH-46E[57] and CH-53D.[94]

  

• CV-22B 

•• Air Force variant for the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). It will conduct long-range, special operations missions, and is equipped with extra fuel tanks and terrain-following radar.[95][96]

 

Operators

 

•  United States

 

• United States Air Force

 

•• 8th Special Operations Squadron (8 SOS) at Hurlburt Field, Florida

•• 71st Special Operations Squadron (71 SOS) at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico

•• 20th Special Operations Squadron (20 SOS) at Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico

 

• United States Marine Corps

 

•• VMM-161

•• VMM-162

•• VMM-261

•• VMM-263

•• VMM-264

•• VMM-266

•• VMM-365

•• VMMT-204 - Training squadron

•• VMX-22 - Marine Tiltrotor Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron

 

Notable accidents

 

Main article: Accidents and incidents involving the V-22 Osprey

 

From 1991 to 2000 there were four significant crashes, and a total of 30 fatalities, during testing.[32] Since becoming operational in 2007, the V-22 has had one possible combat loss due to an unknown cause, no losses due to accidents, and seven other notable, but minor, incidents.

 

• On 11 June 1991, a mis-wired flight control system led to two minor injuries when the left nacelle struck the ground while the aircraft was hovering 15 feet (4.6 m) in the air, causing it to bounce and catch fire.[97]

 

• On 20 July 1992, a leaking gearbox led to a fire in the right nacelle, causing the aircraft to drop into the Potomac River in front of an audience of Congressmen and other government officials at Quantico, killing all seven on board and grounding the aircraft for 11 months.[98]

 

• On 8 April 2000, a V-22 loaded with Marines to simulate a rescue, attempted to land at Marana Northwest Regional Airport in Arizona, stalled when its right rotor entered vortex ring state, rolled over, crashed, and exploded, killing all 19 on board.[37]

 

• On 11 December 2000, after a catastrophic hydraulic leak and subsequent software instrument failure, a V-22 fell 1,600 feet (490 m) into a forest in Jacksonville, North Carolina, killing all four aboard. This caused the Marine Corps to ground their fleet of eight V-22s, the second grounding that year.[99][100]

 

Specifications (MV-22B)

 

Data from Boeing Integrated Defense Systems,[101] Naval Air Systems Command,[102] US Air Force CV-22 fact sheet,[95] Norton,[103] and Bell[104]

 

General characteristics

 

• Crew: Four (pilot, copilot and two flight engineers)

• Capacity: 24 troops (seated), 32 troops (floor loaded) or up to 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) of cargo (dual hook)

• Length: 57 ft 4 in (17.5 m)

• Rotor diameter: 38 ft 0 in (11.6 m)

• Wingspan: 45 ft 10 in (14 m)

• Width with rotors: 84 ft 7 in (25.8 m)

• Height: 22 ft 1 in/6.73 m; overall with nacelles vertical (17 ft 11 in/5.5 m; at top of tailfins)

• Disc area: 2,268 ft² (212 m²)

• Wing area: 301.4 ft² (28 m²)

• Empty weight: 33,140 lb (15,032 kg)

• Loaded weight: 47,500 lb (21,500 kg)

• Max takeoff weight: 60,500 lb (27,400 kg)

• Powerplant: 2× Rolls-Royce Allison T406/AE 1107C-Liberty turboshafts, 6,150 hp (4,590 kW) each

 

Performance

 

• Maximum speed: 250 knots (460 km/h, 290 mph) at sea level / 305 kn (565 km/h; 351 mph) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)[105]

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

• Range: 879 nmi (1,011 mi, 1,627 km)

• Combat radius: 370 nmi (426 mi, 685 km)

• Ferry range: 1,940 nmi (with auxiliary internal fuel tanks)

• Service ceiling: 26,000 ft (7,925 m)

• Rate of climb: 2,320 ft/min (11.8 m/s)

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

• Power/mass: 0.259 hp/lb (427 W/kg)

 

Armament

 

• 1× M240 machine gun on ramp, optional

 

Notable appearances in media

 

Main article: Aircraft in fiction#V-22 Osprey

 

See also

 

• Elizabeth A. Okoreeh-Baah, USMC - first female to pilot a V-22 Osprey

 

Related development

 

• Bell XV-15[106]

• Bell/Agusta BA609

• Bell Boeing Quad TiltRotor

 

Comparable aircraft

 

• Canadair CL-84

• LTV XC-142

 

Related lists

 

• List of military aircraft of the United States

• List of VTOL aircraft

 

References

 

Bibliography

 

• Markman, Steve and Bill Holder. "Bell/Boeing V-22 Osprey Tilt-Engine VTOL Transport (U.S.A.)". Straight Up: A History of Vertical Flight. Schiffer Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-7643-1204-9.

• Norton, Bill. Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey, Tiltrotor Tactical Transport. Midland Publishing, 2004. ISBN 1-85780-165-2.

 

External links

 

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: V-22 Osprey

 

• Official Boeing V-22 site

• Official Bell V-22 site

• V-22 Osprey web, and www.history.navy.mil/planes/v-22.html

• CV-22 fact sheet on USAF site

• www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/v-22.htm

• www.airforce-technology.com/projects/osprey/

• Onward and Upward

• "Flight of the Osprey", US Navy video of V-22 operations

Already the end of January and I ‘m only at my first blog of the year. 2015 started off with a huge workload. In addition I’m preparing a new conference for the end of February.

Tree Sparrow

For my first blog, I chose the small American Tree Sparrow. A little bird that nests in...

 

Read More... blog.trolettiphoto.com/american-tree-sparrow/

 

Le Bruant hudsonien

 

Déjà la fin du mois de janvier 2015 et j’en suis qu’à mon premier blogue de l’année. 2015 se prouve chargée de boulot en plus des préparations pour une nouvelle conférence qui débute à la fin de février.

Le bruant hudsonien

Pour mon premier blogue, j’ai choisi le petit bruant hudso...

 

blogue.trolettiphoto.com/le-bruant-hudsonien/

Pasted from Wikipedia: Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey

 

• • • • •

 

The Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey is a multi-mission, military, tiltrotor aircraft with both a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL), and short takeoff and landing (STOL) capability. It is designed to combine the functionality of a conventional helicopter with the long-range, high-speed cruise performance of a turboprop aircraft.

 

The V-22 originated from the U.S. Department of Defense Joint-service Vertical take-off/landing Experimental (JVX) aircraft program started in 1981. It was developed jointly by the Bell Helicopter, and Boeing Helicopters team, known as Bell Boeing, which produce the aircraft.[4] The V-22 first flew in 1989, and began years of flight testing and design alterations.

 

The United States Marine Corps began crew training for the Osprey in 2000, and fielded it in 2007. The Osprey's other operator, the U.S. Air Force fielded their version of the tiltrotor in 2009. Since entering service with the U.S. Marine Corps and Air Force, the Osprey has been deployed for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

Contents

 

• 1 Development

•• 1.1 Early development

•• 1.2 Flight testing and design changes

•• 1.3 Controversy

•• 1.4 Recent development

• 2 Design

• 3 Operational history

•• 3.1 US Marine Corps

•• 3.2 US Air Force

•• 3.3 Potential operators

• 4 Variants

• 5 Operators

• 6 Notable accidents

• 7 Specifications (MV-22B)

• 8 Notable appearances in media

• 9 See also

• 10 References

• 11 External links

 

Development

 

Early development

 

The failure of the Iran hostage rescue mission in 1980 demonstrated to the United States military a need[5] for "a new type of aircraft, that could not only take off and land vertically but also could carry combat troops, and do so at speed."[6] The U.S. Department of Defense began the Joint-service Vertical take-off/landing Experimental (JVX) aircraft program in 1981, under U.S. Army leadership. Later the U.S. Navy/Marine Corps took the lead.[7][8] The JVX combined requirements from the Marine Corps, Air Force, Army and Navy.[9][10] A request for proposals (RFP) was issued in December 1982 for JVX preliminary design work. Interest in the program was expressed by Aérospatiale, Bell Helicopter, Boeing Vertol, Grumman, Lockheed, and Westland. The DoD pushed for contractors to form teams. Bell partnered with Boeing Vertol. The Bell Boeing team submitted a proposal for a enlarged version of the Bell XV-15 prototype on 17 February 1983. This was the only proposal received and a preliminary design contract was awarded on 26 April 1983.[11][12]

 

The JVX aircraft was designated V-22 Osprey on 15 January 1985; by March that same year the first six prototypes were being produced, and Boeing Vertol was expanded to deal with the project workload.[13][14] Work has been split evenly between Bell and Boeing. Bell Helicopter manufactures and integrates the wing, nacelles, rotors, drive system, tail surfaces, and aft ramp, as well as integrates the Rolls-Royce engines and performs final assembly. Boeing Helicopters manufactures and integrates the fuselage, cockpit, avionics, and flight controls.[4][15] The USMC variant of the Osprey received the MV-22 designation and the Air Force variant received CV-22; reversed from normal procedure to prevent Marine Ospreys from having a conflicting designation with aircraft carriers (CV).[16] Full-scale development of the V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft began in 1986.[2] On 3 May 1986 the Bell-Boeing partnership was awarded a $1.714 billion contract for V-22 aircraft by the Navy, thus at this point the project had acquisition plans with all four arms of the U.S. military.[17]

 

The first V-22 was rolled out with significant media attention in May 1988.[18][19] However the project suffered several political blows. Firstly in the same year, the Army left the program, citing a need to focus its budget on more immediate aviation programs.[20] The project also faced considerable dialogue in the Senate, surviving two votes that both could have resulted in cancellation.[21][22] Despite the Senate's decision, the Department of Defense instructed the Navy not to spend more money on the Osprey.[23] At the same time, the Bush administration sought the cancellation of the project.[23]

 

Flight testing and design changes

 

The first of six MV-22 prototypes first flew on 19 March 1989 in the helicopter mode,[24] and on 14 September 1989 as a fixed-wing plane.[25] The third and fourth prototypes successfully completed the Osprey's first Sea Trials on the USS Wasp in December 1990.[26] However, the fourth and fifth prototypes crashed in 1991-92.[27] Flight tests were resumed in August 1993 after changes were incorporated in the prototypes.[2] From October 1992 until April 1993, Bell and Boeing redesigned the V-22 to reduce empty weight, simplify manufacture and reduce production costs. This redesigned version became the B-model.[28]

 

Flight testing of four full-scale development V-22s began in early 1997 when the first pre-production V-22 was delivered to the Naval Air Warfare Test Center, Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland. The first EMD flight took place on 5 February 1997. The first of four low rate initial production aircraft, ordered on 28 April 1997, was delivered on 27 May 1999. Osprey number 10 completed the program's second Sea Trials, this time from the USS Saipan in January 1999.[2] During external load testing in April 1999, Boeing used a V-22 to lift and transport the M777 howitzer.[29] In 2000, Boeing announced that the V-22 would be fitted with a nose-mounted GAU-19 Gatling gun,[30] but the GAU-19 gun was later canceled.[31]

 

In 2000, there were two further fatal crashes, killing a total of 19 Marines, and the production was again halted while the cause of these crashes was investigated and various parts were redesigned.[32] The V-22 completed its final operational evaluation in June 2005. The evaluation was deemed successful; events included long range deployments, high altitude, desert and shipboard operations. The problems identified in various accidents had been addressed.[33]

 

Controversy

 

The V-22's development process has been long and controversial, partly due to its large cost increases.[34] When the development budget, first planned for $2.5 billion in 1986, increased to a projected $30 billion in 1988, then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney tried to zero out its funding. He was eventually overruled by Congress.[32] As of 2008, $27 billion have been spent on the Osprey program and another $27.2 billion will be required to complete planned production numbers by the end of the program.[2]

 

The V-22 squadron's former commander at Marine Corps Air Station New River, Lt. Colonel Odin Lieberman, was relieved of duty in 2001 after allegations that he instructed his unit that they needed to falsify maintenance records to make the plane appear more reliable.[2][35] Three officers were later implicated in the falsification scandal.[34]

 

The aircraft is incapable of autorotation, and is therefore unable to land safely in helicopter mode if both engines fail. A director of the Pentagon's testing office in 2005 said that if the Osprey loses power while flying like a helicopter below 1,600 feet (490 m), emergency landings "are not likely to be survivable". But Captain Justin (Moon) McKinney, a V-22 pilot, says that this will not be a problem, "We can turn it into a plane and glide it down, just like a C-130".[31] A complete loss of power would require the failure of both engines, as a drive shaft connects the nacelles through the wing; one engine can power both proprotors.[36] While vortex ring state (VRS) contributed to a deadly V-22 accident, the aircraft is less susceptible to the condition than conventional helicopters and recovers more quickly.[5] The Marines now train new pilots in the recognition of and recovery from VRS and have instituted operational envelope limits and instrumentation to help pilots avoid VRS conditions.[32][37]

 

It was planned in 2000 to equip all V-22s with a nose-mounted Gatling gun, to provide "the V-22 with a strong defensive firepower capability to greatly increase the aircraft's survivability in hostile actions."[30] The nose gun project was canceled however, leading to criticism by retired Marine Corps Commandant General James L. Jones, who is not satisfied with the current V-22 armament.[31] A belly-mounted turret was later installed on some of the first V-22s sent to the War in Afghanistan in 2009.[38]

 

With the first combat deployment of the MV-22 in October 2007, Time Magazine ran an article condemning the aircraft as unsafe, overpriced, and completely inadequate.[31] The Marine Corps, however, responded with the assertion that much of the article's data were dated, obsolete, inaccurate, and reflected expectations that ran too high for any new field of aircraft.[39]

 

Recent development

 

On 28 September 2005, the Pentagon formally approved full-rate production for the V-22.[40] The plan is to boost production from 11 a year to between 24 and 48 a year by 2012. Of the 458 total planned, 360 are for the Marine Corps, 48 for the Navy, and 50 for the Air Force at an average cost of $110 million per aircraft, including development costs.[2] The V-22 had an incremental flyaway cost of $70 million per aircraft in 2007,[3] but the Navy hopes to shave about $10 million off that cost after a five-year production contract starts in 2008.[41]

 

The Bell-Boeing Joint Project Office in Amarillo, Texas will design a new integrated avionics processor to resolve electronics obsolescence issues and add new network capabilities.[42]

 

Design

 

The Osprey is the world's first production tiltrotor aircraft, with one three-bladed proprotor, turboprop engine, and transmission nacelle mounted on each wingtip. It is classified as a powered lift aircraft by the Federal Aviation Administration.[43] For takeoff and landing, it typically operates as a helicopter with the nacelles vertical (rotors horizontal). Once airborne, the nacelles rotate forward 90° in as little as 12 seconds for horizontal flight, converting the V-22 to a more fuel-efficient, higher-speed turboprop airplane. STOL rolling-takeoff and landing capability is achieved by having the nacelles tilted forward up to 45°. For compact storage and transport, the V-22's wing rotates to align, front-to-back, with the fuselage. The proprotors can also fold in a sequence taking 90 seconds.[44]

 

Most Osprey missions will use fixed wing flight 75 percent or more of the time, reducing wear and tear on the aircraft and reducing operational costs.[45] This fixed wing flight is higher than typical helicopter missions allowing longer range line-of-sight communications and so improved command and control.[2] Boeing has stated the V-22 design loses 10% of its vertical lift over a Tiltwing design when operating in helicopter mode because of airflow resistance due to the wings, but that the Tiltrotor design has better short takeoff and landing performance.[46]

 

The V-22 is equipped with a glass cockpit, which incorporates four Multi-function displays (MFDs) and one shared Central Display Unit (CDU), allowing the pilots to display a variety of images including: digimaps centered or decentered on current position, FLIR imagery, primary flight instruments, navigation (TACAN, VOR, ILS, GPS, INS), and system status. The flight director panel of the Cockpit Management System (CMS) allows for fully-coupled (aka: autopilot) functions which will take the aircraft from forward flight into a 50-foot hover with no pilot interaction other than programming the system.[47] The glass cockpit of the canceled CH-46X was derived from the V-22.[48]

 

The V-22 is a fly-by-wire aircraft with triple-redundant flight control systems.[49] With the nacelles pointing straight up in conversion mode at 90° the flight computers command the aircraft to fly like a helicopter, with cyclic forces being applied to a conventional swashplate at the rotor hub. With the nacelles in airplane mode (0°) the flaperons, rudder, and elevator fly the aircraft like an airplane. This is a gradual transition and occurs over the rotation range of the nacelles. The lower the nacelles, the greater effect of the airplane-mode control surfaces.[50] The nacelles can rotate past vertical to 97.5° for rearward flight.[51][52]

 

The Osprey can be armed with one M240 7.62x51mm NATO (.308 in caliber) or M2 .50 in caliber (12.7 mm) machine gun on the loading ramp, that can be fired rearward when the ramp is lowered. A GAU-19 three-barrel .50 in gatling gun mounted below the V-22's nose has also been studied for future upgrade.[31][53] BAE Systems developed a remotely operated turreted weapons system for the V-22,[54] which was installed on half of the first V-22s deployed to Afghanistan in 2009.[38] The 7.62 mm belly gun turret is remotely operated by a gunner inside the aircraft, who acquires targets with a separate pod using color television and forward looking infrared imagery.

 

U.S. Naval Air Systems Command is working on upgrades to increase the maximum speed from 250 knots (460 km/h; 290 mph) to 270 knots (500 km/h; 310 mph), increase helicopter mode altitude limit from 10,000 feet (3,000 m) to 12,000 feet (3,700 m) or 14,000 feet (4,300 m), and increase lift performance.[55]

 

Operational history

 

US Marine Corps

 

Marine Corps crew training on the Osprey has been conducted by VMMT-204 since March 2000. On 3 June 2005, the Marine Corps helicopter squadron Marine Medium Helicopter 263 (HMM-263), stood down to begin the process of transitioning to the MV-22 Osprey.[56] On 8 December 2005, Lieutenant General Amos, commander of the II MEF, accepted the delivery of the first fleet of MV-22s, delivered to HMM-263. The unit reactivated on 3 March 2006 as the first MV-22 squadron and was redesignated VMM-263. On 31 August 2006, VMM-162 (the former HMM-162) followed suit. On 23 March 2007, HMM-266 became Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 266 (VMM-266) at Marine Corps Air Station New River, North Carolina.[57]

 

The Osprey has been replacing existing CH-46 Sea Knight squadrons.[58] The MV-22 reached initial operational capability (IOC) with the U.S. Marine Corps on 13 June 2007.[1] On 10 July 2007 an MV-22 Osprey landed aboard the Royal Navy aircraft carrier, HMS Illustrious in the Atlantic Ocean. This marked the first time a V-22 had landed on any non-U.S. vessel.[59]

 

On 13 April 2007, the U.S. Marine Corps announced that it would be sending ten V-22 aircraft to Iraq, the Osprey's first combat deployment. Marine Corps Commandant, General James Conway, indicated that over 150 Marines would accompany the Osprey set for September deployment to Al-Asad Airfield.[60][61] On 17 September 2007, ten MV-22Bs of VMM-263 left for Iraq aboard the USS Wasp. The decision to use a ship rather than use the Osprey's self-deployment capability was made because of concerns over icing during the North Atlantic portion of the trip, lack of available KC-130s for mid-air refueling, and the availability of the USS Wasp.[62]

 

The Osprey has provided support in Iraq, racking up some 2,000 flight hours over three months with a mission capable availability rate of 68.1% as of late-January 2008.[63] They are primarily used in Iraq's western Anbar province for routine cargo and troop movements, and also for riskier "aero-scout" missions. General David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, used one to fly around Iraq on Christmas Day 2007 to visit troops.[64] Then-presidential candidate Barack Obama also flew in Ospreys during his high profile 2008 tour of Iraq.[65]

 

The only major problem has been obtaining the necessary spare parts to maintain the aircraft.[66] The V-22 had flown 3,000 sorties totaling 5,200 hours in Iraq as of July 2008.[67] USMC leadership expect to deploy MV-22s to Afghanistan in 2009.[66][68] General George J. Trautman, III praised the increased range of the V-22 over the legacy helicopters in Iraq and said that "it turned his battle space from the size of Texas into the size of Rhode Island."[69]

 

Naval Air Systems Command has devised a temporary fix for sailors to place portable heat shields under Osprey engines to prevent damage to the decks of some of the Navy's smaller amphibious ships, but they determined that a long term solution to the problem would require these decks be redesigned with heat resistant deck coatings, passive thermal barriers and changes in ship structure in order to operate V-22s and F-35Bs.[70]

 

A Government Accountability Office study reported that by January 2009 the Marines had 12 MV-22s operating in Iraq and they managed to successfully complete all assigned missions. The same report found that the V-22 deployments had mission capable rates averaging 57% to 68% and an overall full mission capable rate of only 6%. It also stated that the aircraft had shown weakness in situational awareness, maintenance, shipboard operations and the ability to transport troops and external cargo.[71] That study also concluded that the "deployments confirmed that the V-22’s enhanced speed and range enable personnel and internal cargo to be transported faster and farther than is possible with the legacy helicopters it is replacing".[71]

 

The MV-22 saw its first offensive combat mission, Operation Cobra's Anger on 4 December 2009. Ospreys assisted in inserting 1,000 Marines and 150 Afghan troops into the Now Zad Valley of Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan to disrupt communication and supply lines of the Taliban.[38] In January 2010 the MV-22 Osprey is being sent to Haiti as part of Operation Unified Response relief efforts after the earthquake there. This will be the first use the Marine V-22 in a humanitarian mission.[72]

 

US Air Force

 

The Air Force's first operational CV-22 Osprey was delivered to the 58th Special Operations Wing (58th SOW) at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico on 20 March 2006. This and subsequent aircraft will become part of the 58th SOW's fleet of aircraft used for training pilots and crew members for special operations use.[73] On 16 November 2006, the Air Force officially accepted the CV-22 in a ceremony conducted at Hurlburt Field, Florida.[74]

 

The US Air Force's first operational deployment of the Osprey sent four CV-22s to Mali in November 2008 in support of Exercise Flintlock. The CV-22s flew nonstop from Hurlburt Field, Florida with in-flight refueling.[5] AFSOC declared that the 8th Special Operations Squadron reached Initial Operational Capability on 16 March 2009, with six of its planned nine CV-22s operational.[75]

 

In June 2009, CV-22s of the 8th Special Operations Squadron delivered 43,000 pounds (20,000 kg) of humanitarian supplies to remote villages in Honduras that were not accessible by conventional vehicles.[76] In November 2009, the 8th SO Squadron and its six CV-22s returned from a three-month deployment in Iraq.[77]

 

The first possible combat loss of an Osprey occurred on 9 April, 2010, as a CV-22 went down near Qalat, Zabul Province, Afghanistan, killing four.[78][79]

 

Potential operators

 

In 1999 the V-22 was studied for use in the United Kingdom's Royal Navy,[80] it has been raised several times as a candidate for the role of Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control (MASC).[81]

 

Israel had shown interest in the purchase of MV-22s, but no order was placed.[82][83] Flightglobal reported in late 2009 that Israel has decided to wait for the CH-53K instead.[84]

 

The V-22 Osprey is a candidate for the Norwegian All Weather Search and Rescue Helicopter (NAWSARH) that is planned to replace the Westland Sea King Mk.43B of the Royal Norwegian Air Force in 2015.[85] The other candidates for the NAWSARH contract of 10-12 helicopters are AgustaWestland AW101 Merlin, Eurocopter EC225, NHIndustries NH90 and Sikorsky S-92.[86]

 

Bell Boeing has made an unsolicited offer of the V-22 for US Army medical evacuation needs.[87] However the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency issued a report that said that a common helicopter design would be needed for both combat recovery and medical evacuation and that the V-22 would not be suitable for recovery missions because of the difficulty of hoist operations and lack of self-defense capabilities.[88]

 

The US Navy remains a potential user of the V-22, but its role and mission with the Navy remains unclear. The latest proposal is to replace the C-2 Greyhound with the V-22 in the fleet logistics role. The V-22 would have the advantage of being able to land on and support non-carriers with rapid delivery of supplies and people between the ships of a taskforce or to ships on patrol beyond helicopter range.[89] Loren B. Thompson of the Lexington Institute has suggested V-22s for use in combat search and rescue and Marine One VIP transport, which also need replacement aircraft.[90]

 

Variants

  

• V-22A 

•• Pre-production full-scale development aircraft used for flight testing. These are unofficially considered A-variants after 1993 redesign.[91]

  

• HV-22 

•• The U.S. Navy considered an HV-22 to provide combat search and rescue, delivery and retrieval of special warfare teams along with fleet logistic support transport. However, it chose the MH-60S for this role in 1992.[92]

  

• SV-22 

•• The proposed anti-submarine warfare Navy variant. The Navy studied the SV-22 in the 1980s to replace S-3 and SH-2 aircraft.[93]

  

• MV-22B 

•• Basic U.S. Marine Corps transport; original requirement for 552 (now 360). The Marine Corps is the lead service in the development of the V-22 Osprey. The Marine Corps variant, the MV-22B, is an assault transport for troops, equipment and supplies, capable of operating from ships or from expeditionary airfields ashore. It is replacing the Marine Corps' CH-46E[57] and CH-53D.[94]

  

• CV-22B 

•• Air Force variant for the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). It will conduct long-range, special operations missions, and is equipped with extra fuel tanks and terrain-following radar.[95][96]

 

Operators

 

•  United States

 

• United States Air Force

 

•• 8th Special Operations Squadron (8 SOS) at Hurlburt Field, Florida

•• 71st Special Operations Squadron (71 SOS) at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico

•• 20th Special Operations Squadron (20 SOS) at Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico

 

• United States Marine Corps

 

•• VMM-161

•• VMM-162

•• VMM-261

•• VMM-263

•• VMM-264

•• VMM-266

•• VMM-365

•• VMMT-204 - Training squadron

•• VMX-22 - Marine Tiltrotor Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron

 

Notable accidents

 

Main article: Accidents and incidents involving the V-22 Osprey

 

From 1991 to 2000 there were four significant crashes, and a total of 30 fatalities, during testing.[32] Since becoming operational in 2007, the V-22 has had one possible combat loss due to an unknown cause, no losses due to accidents, and seven other notable, but minor, incidents.

 

• On 11 June 1991, a mis-wired flight control system led to two minor injuries when the left nacelle struck the ground while the aircraft was hovering 15 feet (4.6 m) in the air, causing it to bounce and catch fire.[97]

 

• On 20 July 1992, a leaking gearbox led to a fire in the right nacelle, causing the aircraft to drop into the Potomac River in front of an audience of Congressmen and other government officials at Quantico, killing all seven on board and grounding the aircraft for 11 months.[98]

 

• On 8 April 2000, a V-22 loaded with Marines to simulate a rescue, attempted to land at Marana Northwest Regional Airport in Arizona, stalled when its right rotor entered vortex ring state, rolled over, crashed, and exploded, killing all 19 on board.[37]

 

• On 11 December 2000, after a catastrophic hydraulic leak and subsequent software instrument failure, a V-22 fell 1,600 feet (490 m) into a forest in Jacksonville, North Carolina, killing all four aboard. This caused the Marine Corps to ground their fleet of eight V-22s, the second grounding that year.[99][100]

 

Specifications (MV-22B)

 

Data from Boeing Integrated Defense Systems,[101] Naval Air Systems Command,[102] US Air Force CV-22 fact sheet,[95] Norton,[103] and Bell[104]

 

General characteristics

 

• Crew: Four (pilot, copilot and two flight engineers)

• Capacity: 24 troops (seated), 32 troops (floor loaded) or up to 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) of cargo (dual hook)

• Length: 57 ft 4 in (17.5 m)

• Rotor diameter: 38 ft 0 in (11.6 m)

• Wingspan: 45 ft 10 in (14 m)

• Width with rotors: 84 ft 7 in (25.8 m)

• Height: 22 ft 1 in/6.73 m; overall with nacelles vertical (17 ft 11 in/5.5 m; at top of tailfins)

• Disc area: 2,268 ft² (212 m²)

• Wing area: 301.4 ft² (28 m²)

• Empty weight: 33,140 lb (15,032 kg)

• Loaded weight: 47,500 lb (21,500 kg)

• Max takeoff weight: 60,500 lb (27,400 kg)

• Powerplant: 2× Rolls-Royce Allison T406/AE 1107C-Liberty turboshafts, 6,150 hp (4,590 kW) each

 

Performance

 

• Maximum speed: 250 knots (460 km/h, 290 mph) at sea level / 305 kn (565 km/h; 351 mph) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)[105]

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

• Range: 879 nmi (1,011 mi, 1,627 km)

• Combat radius: 370 nmi (426 mi, 685 km)

• Ferry range: 1,940 nmi (with auxiliary internal fuel tanks)

• Service ceiling: 26,000 ft (7,925 m)

• Rate of climb: 2,320 ft/min (11.8 m/s)

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

• Power/mass: 0.259 hp/lb (427 W/kg)

 

Armament

 

• 1× M240 machine gun on ramp, optional

 

Notable appearances in media

 

Main article: Aircraft in fiction#V-22 Osprey

 

See also

 

• Elizabeth A. Okoreeh-Baah, USMC - first female to pilot a V-22 Osprey

 

Related development

 

• Bell XV-15[106]

• Bell/Agusta BA609

• Bell Boeing Quad TiltRotor

 

Comparable aircraft

 

• Canadair CL-84

• LTV XC-142

 

Related lists

 

• List of military aircraft of the United States

• List of VTOL aircraft

 

References

 

Bibliography

 

• Markman, Steve and Bill Holder. "Bell/Boeing V-22 Osprey Tilt-Engine VTOL Transport (U.S.A.)". Straight Up: A History of Vertical Flight. Schiffer Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-7643-1204-9.

• Norton, Bill. Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey, Tiltrotor Tactical Transport. Midland Publishing, 2004. ISBN 1-85780-165-2.

 

External links

 

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: V-22 Osprey

 

• Official Boeing V-22 site

• Official Bell V-22 site

• V-22 Osprey web, and www.history.navy.mil/planes/v-22.html

• CV-22 fact sheet on USAF site

• www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/v-22.htm

• www.airforce-technology.com/projects/osprey/

• Onward and Upward

• "Flight of the Osprey", US Navy video of V-22 operations

Chassis n° 2071GT

Engine n° 2071GT

 

Bonhams : the Zoute Sale

Estimated : € 1.200.000 - 1.600.000

 

Zoute Grand Prix 2019

Knokke - Zoute

België - Belgium

October 2019

 

By the early 1960s, road car production had ceased to be a sideline for Ferrari and was seen as vitally important to the company's future stability. Thus the 250, Ferrari's first volume-produced model, can be seen as critically important, though production of the first of the line - the 250 Europa, built from 1953 to '54 - amounted to fewer than 20. Before the advent of the Europa, Ferrari had built road-going coupés and convertibles in small numbers, usually to special customer order using a sports-racing chassis as the basis. Ghia and Vignale of Turin and Touring of Milan were responsible for bodying many of these but there was no attempt at standardisation for series production and no two cars were alike.

 

The introduction of the 250 Europa heralded a significant change in Ferrari's preferred coachbuilder; whereas previously Vignale had been the most popular carrozzeria among Maranello's customers, from now on Pinin Farina (later 'Pininfarina') would be Ferrari's number one choice, bodying no fewer than 48 out of the 53 Europa/Europa GTs built. Pinin Farina's experiments eventually crystallised in a new Ferrari 250 GT road car that was first displayed publicly at the Geneva Salon in March 1956. However, the Torinese Carrozzeria was not yet in a position to cope with the increased workload, resulting in production being entrusted to Carrozzeria Boano after Pinin Farina had completed a handful of prototypes.

 

The 250 GT featured the lighter and more compact Colombo-designed 3.0-litre V12 in place of its predecessor's bulkier Lampredi unit. Power output of the single-overhead-camshaft all-aluminium engine was 220bhp at 7,000rpm. Shorter in the wheelbase (by 200mm) than that of the Europa, the 250 GT chassis followed Ferrari's established practice, being a multi-tubular frame tied together by oval main tubes, though the independent front suspension now employed coil springs instead of the previous transverse leaf type. A four-speed all-synchromesh gearbox transmitted power to the live rear axle, while braking was looked after by hydraulic drums all round.

 

True series production began with the arrival of Pininfarina's 'notch back' Coupé on the 250 GT chassis, some 353 of which were built between 1958 and 1960 within the sequence '0841' to '2081'. However, the relatively small scale of production meant that cars could still be ordered with subtle variations according to customer choice, as well as enabling a handful of show cars and 'specials' to be constructed on the 250 GT chassis.

 

A number of prominent European coachbuilders offered a variety of body styles on the 250 GT chassis, with Scaglietti and Pininfarina producing elegant open-top spyder and cabriolet models. Exhibited at the 1957 Geneva Salon, the latter's first 250 GT Cabriolet, which, unusually, featured a Vintage-style cut-down driver's door, was snapped up by Ferrari works driver Peter Collins, who later had the car converted to disc brakes. After a handful of alternative versions had been built, series production began in July 1957, around 40 Series I Pininfarina Cabriolets being completed before the introduction of the Series II in 1959. Effectively an open-top version of the Pininfarina-built 250 GT Coupé, whose chassis and mechanicals it shared, the Cabriolet was built alongside its closed cousin until 1962. Overall design followed that of the Coupé, with short nose and long rear overhang, while a more-vertical windscreen provided greater headroom in the generously sized cockpit. As well as the aforementioned improvements to brakes and transmission, the Series II cars benefited from the latest, 240bhp V12 with outside sparkplugs, coil valve springs, and 12-port cylinder heads. The 250 GT was the most successful Ferrari of its time, production of all types exceeding 900 units, of which 200 were Series II Cabriolets like that offered here.

 

A number of important developments occurred during 250 GT production: the original 128C 3.0-litre engine being superseded by the twin-distributor 128D, which in turn was supplanted in 1960 by the outside-plug 128F engine which did away with its predecessor's Siamesed inlets in favour of six separate ports. On the chassis side, four-wheel disc brakes arrived late in 1959 and a four-speeds-plus-overdrive gearbox the following year, the former at last providing the 250 GT with stopping power to match its speed. More refined and practical than any previous road-going Ferrari, yet retaining the sporting heritage of its predecessors, the 250 GT is a landmark model of immense historical significance. Despite this, original survivors are relatively few, as many have been modified and converted into replicas of more exotic Ferraris such as the 250 GTO, Testarossa, etc.

 

According to the accompanying Massini Report, chassis number '2071' is the 66th of the 200 units built, and as a Series II car has the added advantage of disc brakes all round. Originally finished in the handsome combination of Grigio Argento with Nero interior, the Ferrari was sold new in 1960 via Jacques Swaters' Garage Francorchamps, the official Ferrari importer for Belgium, to its first owner, Jean Blaton. A wealthy Belgian industrialist, Ferrari aficionado and gentleman racing driver, who raced under the name 'Beurlys', Jean Blaton had an excellent taste and was a personal friend of Jacques Swaters, from whom he bought numerous Ferraris over the years.

 

Blaton is best remembered for his daring exploits in the Le Mans 24-Hour Race in which he drove a succession of Ferraris over a 10-year period between 1958 and 1967, finishing on the podium on nearly every outing. On many occasions he drove his own Ferraris, including a 250 GT MM, 250 GT Testarossa, 250 GT LWB Tour de France, 250 GT SWB, 250 GTO, 250 LM, and 330 P3/P4. He secured his best result at Le Mans in 1963 when he finished 2nd overall with co-driver Langlois van Ophen at the wheel of a Ferrari 250 GTO, winning the GT Class for Swaters' racing team, Écurie Francorchamps.

 

Jean Blaton was also a friend of Enzo Ferrari, who was only too happy to accommodate his highly regarded customer's special requests. In the case of his 250 GT Cabriolet, Blaton specified that the car should have large side vents in the front wings, similar to those of the Series III 410 Superamerica, which were incorporated by Pinin Farina on Mr Ferrari's instruction. These vents not only make the car appear more sporting, they also serve to break up its lengthy flanks to good effect. Blaton's car, with its special features, was prominently displayed in Ferrari's 1960 yearbook.

 

In 1964, Blaton sold '2071' to Luigi Chinetti, another gentleman racing driver and sole importer of Ferraris into the USA. The car was then sold to a Mr Gilbertson from Vista, California. Following Mr Gilbertson's death, the Ferrari was acquired from his widow in 1978 by Mr Ken Gerber of San Diego, California, who kept it for the next 32 years. A member of the Ferrari Owners' Club, Mr Gerber enjoyed the car throughout the 1980s, attending various events.

 

During Mr Gerber's ownership (in 1992-1994) a fastidious restoration was carried out, the precision machining work on the engine and mechanical systems being entrusted to recognised specialist Bob Wallace of Phoenix, Arizona. Original parts were retained wherever possible and the few that were not saveable were either replaced with originals or perfect reproductions. The car was refinished in Rosso Rubino and completed in time for the 1994 International Ferrari Concours in Monterey.

 

Ken Gerber sold the Ferrari in 2010 and the following year the car moved to the UK having been bought by DK Engineering. The car was sold to Belgium in 2012, since when it has belonged to the current lady owner. Carrying the very suitable registration, '250 – GTS', the car has been enjoyed by its owner on numerous occasions and at prestigious events including the Zoute Rally. Now presented in excellent condition after recent cosmetic re-commissioning, it affords the prospect of comfortable open-top cruising in unparalleled style. Possessing links to Belgian and excellent provenance, this unique Ferrari 250 GT Cabriolet is worthy of the closest inspection.

Porsche 917-001

Chassis 001, assembled in early March 1969, was the first of the twenty-five 917s completed for homologation. This chassis was used for a multitude of events, though never raced. Its workload consisted of testing at the Nürburgring and display duty in places such as the Geneva Motor Show in 1969 or Frankfurt International Auto Show in 1970.

By October 1970, 917-001 was part of the Press Department of Porsche and painted in the now famous Salzburg paint scheme of the 1970 24 Hours of Le Mans winner.

 

Festival Automobile International 2017, Paris

Project 365 - Image 170/365

 

During the week Mireille discovered that a few things needed fixed around the house while I was away with work, thankfully in my absence we appear to have another budding engineer in the form of Wage.

 

Even today he heard that one of the handles on the steps into the swimming pool was just a tiny bit loose, and within no time he had raided my toolbox for the appropriately sized spanner and was down fixing it.

 

Maybe I can convince him to go on the work trips with me too, and let him share the workload?

 

From the Uglydoll blog at adventuresinuglyworld.blogspot.com

Hill Aerospace Museum

 

History of the OV-10A "Bronco"

The OV-10A is a turboprop, light attack aircraft developed under a U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps tri-service program to create a versatile counter- insurgency airplane. After these aircraft first took flight in 1967, some of their missions included observation, forward air control, armed reconnaissance, interdiction missions on the Ho Chi Minh Trail, and limited ground attack during the Vietnam War.

 

The OV-10A "Bronco" at Hill Air Force Base

The first OV-10 arrived at Hill Air Force Base in 1988 for structural refurbishment, rewiring, and installation of a secure voice radio. Personnel at Hill performed work on 48 OV-10s within five years. After the main workload for OV-10s at Hill ended in 1990, the Mature and Proven Aircraft Division on base continued to manage this airframe. The OV-10A on display was manufactured in 1968 and was assigned to the Da Nang Air Base, South Vietnam, the following year, in 1991, after several base transfers, the aircraft was sent to and modified by the Ogden Air Logistics Center to support a United States State Department drug-interdiction project for the Colombian Air Force. In 2006, the aircraft was put on display here at the Hill Aerospace Museum.

 

Interesting Fact

The aircraft is painted to closely resemble its appearance while serving with the 23rd Tactical Air Support Squadron in Thailand.

 

Specifications

S/N 67-14675

Manufacturer: North American Aviation

Crew: One

Engines: Two Garrett-AiResearch T76-G turboprops: 715 horsepower each

Wingspan: 40 ft

Length: 41 ft 7 in

Height: 15 ft 1 in

Weight: 7,190 pounds (empty): 14,444 pounds (maximum)

Speed: 281 mph (maximum); 223 mph (cruising)

Range: 1,240 miles Ceiling: 26,000 ft

Armaments Centerline station for 20 mm gun pod, or stores; four 7.62 mm M60 machine guns in sponsons; four sponson stations for rockets, mini guns or stores; two wing stations for rockets or missiles

Name: Andrew Pliszka

Hometown: San Antonio, TX

Major: Biology, BA

Expected Graduation: Spring 2018

CNS Council for Diversity Engagement Member

 

What sparked your interest in science?

 

I became interested in science after taking biology my freshman year in high school. After attending a lecture on epigenetics during a class field trip, I became interested in pursuing a career in science/medicine.

 

Why did you choose UT Austin?

 

I chose UT Austin because it was the most rigorous university I could afford. Its large population, exceptional faculty, and rich social life offered many opportunities for me to grow as a person.

 

How (or why) did you choose your major?

 

I chose to major in biology because I really enjoyed the subject in high school. I find the subjects of genetics and interactions among organ systems in the human body to be very interesting.

 

Over the course of your time here, what have you gained/experienced that you perhaps did not expect?

 

Over the course of my freshman year, I learned that time management is very important.

 

What academic programs and student orgs have you participated in?

 

I am a part of the American Medical Student Association (AMSA), Hispanic Health Professions Organization (HHPO), Gamma Beta Pi, Alpha Lambda Delta & Phi Eta Sigma (ALDPES), and I am a mentor for the Biology Scholars Program.

 

What has been your most rewarding or exciting experience as a CNS student?

 

Performing well on tests and doing research through the Freshman Research Initiative.

 

What advice do you have (or what myth/concern would you like to dispel) for students considering joining CNS?

 

It is a myth that the workload is overwhelming -- if one manages his or her time well, he or she will have plenty of time for extracurricular activities without sacrificing academics.

 

If you had to sum up your experience at UT in one sentence, what would it be?

 

UT accelerates the process of growing up; although that sounds scary, one eventually realizes that's a good thing.

 

Plans after graduation?

Medical School

 

Holding for departure from RAF Valley's runway 19, it's nice to see the crew can still acknowledge the gathered enthusiast's, even when the workload in the cockpit must be quite high.

bolt!

 

Window-shopping in Akihabara. Actually, more like oogling the ladies as there's lots of girls wearing bizarre outfits in an attempt to sell you something. But don't tell my girlfriend.

 

Anyone with CS4? Can you view this large (the first link in the photo description) and tell me what font is used for my watermark? It's in the top-left corner (or this one). The font came with CS4 and I'm now apparently missing it in CS3 :( I'll return the favour with a cup of coffee (should you live in Toronto that is)!

 

(I'm trying to make for some good Flickr-time for checking out streams but haven't anticipated the workload that Macroeconomics and Accounting courses would create. I should know better.. *sigh* But the uploading will continue lol.)

  

My Blog | Basic HDR Tutorial | Bokehrama Tutorial

The last few weeks I've been guilty of carrying around an irritable mood - a bad attitude that's been an impediment to my day-to-day tasks. It wasn't until I sat down tonight and looked at my calendar that I realized the root of it all.

 

It wasn't the workload, it wasn't stress, it wasn't my spouse, it wasn't even Grenada...

 

It was homesickness.

 

Exactly one year ago today I was on a plane, cruising at 600mph to my Minnesota destination, anxious to race into my father's driveway and throw my arms around him.

 

Plans are still in a rough draft, but I'm hoping to make a swing through the Heartland in late July to recharge on some Minnesota Nice and reconnect with the other (and often neglected) half of my life.

 

These are some nearly-forgotten, year-old photos of my family's 4th of July BBQ.

 

Paradise Park

Chisago City, MN USA

H & W now heavily involved with wind farms. Note the large blades beneath the monstrous, iconic crane.

 

Harland and Wolff Heavy Industries is a British heavy industrial company, specialising in shipbuilding and offshore construction, located in Belfast, Northern Ireland.

 

The shipyard has built many ships; among the more famous are the White Star trio Olympic, Titanic and Britannic, the Royal Navy's HMS Belfast, Royal Mail's Andes, Shaw Savill's Southern Cross and P&O's Canberra.

 

As of 2011, the expanding offshore wind power industry has taken centre stage and 75% of the company's work is based on offshore renewable energy.

 

In recent years the company has indeed seen its ship-related workload increase slightly. Whilst Harland & Wolff has no involvement in any shipbuilding projects for the foreseeable future, the company is increasingly involved in overhaul, re-fitting and ship repair, as well as the construction and repair of off-shore equipment such as oil platforms. In late 2007, the 'Goliath' gantry crane was re-commissioned, having been moth-balled in 2003 due to the lack of heavy-lifting work at the yard.

 

In March 2008, the construction of the world's first commercial tidal stream turbine, for Marine Current Turbines, was completed at the Belfast yard. The installation of the 1.2MW SeaGen Tidal System was begun in Strangford Lough in April 2008.

 

In June 2008, assembly work at the Belfast yard was underway on 60 Vestas V90-3MW wind turbines for the Robin Rigg Wind Farm. This was the second offshore wind farm assembled by the company for Vestas.

 

In July 2010, Harland and Wolff secured a contract to make tidal turbines for Scotrenewables Ltd.

 

On 1 February 2011 it was announced that Harland & Wolff had won the contract to refurbish the SS Nomadic, effectively rekindling its nearly 150-year association with the White Star Line. A recent £2.27m EU grant means it will now meet the 2011 completion deadline. Work on the ship began on February 10th 2011.

 

As of February 2011, the booming offshore wind power industry has taken centre stage. Harland & Wolff are working on turbines for its third offshore wind farm and on a tidal energy device. Seventy-five per cent of the company's work is based on offshore renewable energy. Harland & Wolff is one of many UK and international companies profiting from the emergence of UK wind- and marine-generated electricity, which is attracting significant inward investment.

The News Line: News Wednesday, 26 March 2014

 

TEACHERS OUT TODAY!

 

The NUT on the march through central London during their strike last year

 

www.wrp.org.uk/images/photos/14-03-25-9557.jpg

 

HUNDREDS of thousands of teachers are striking against government attacks on their terms and conditions today, with mass marches planned in towns and cities throughout the country.

 

The London demonstration assembles at 11.30am in Duchess Street, W1 and marches to Downing Street.

 

Tom Davies, past president Ealing NUT, told News Line: ‘It’s going to be really effective. All I hear from different NUT Secretaries across the London Region is that they will be out solid.

 

‘The majority of schools in London should be closed or running a skeletal service and nationally I’m sure it will be similar.

 

‘We have a secretary of state for education who is not only ignorant but arrogant and won’t talk to the trade unions, so strike action is our only alternative.

 

‘The issues are workload, pay and pensions. Teachers’ conditions have been completely undermined over the past four years and of course we are now faced with performance-related pay, to which we are completely opposed.’

 

Christine Blower, NUT General Secretary, said: ‘Teachers deeply regret the disruption caused by this strike action to parents and teachers. The Government’s refusal, however, to engage to resolve the dispute means that we have no alternative other than to demonstrate the seriousness of our concerns.

 

‘Teachers’ levels of workload are intolerable – the Government’s own survey, published last month, shows that primary school teachers work nearly 60 hours a week and secondary school teachers work nearly 56 hours a week. 2 in 5 teachers are leaving the profession in the first 5 years of teaching as are many others. This is bad for children and bad for education.

 

‘Destroying the national pay framework means that in every school head teachers and governors have to worry about developing a pay system instead of focussing on teaching and learning. The Government’s performance-related pay is unnecessary and will build unfairness and additional bureaucracy. Further, international evidence shows that performance-related pay does not work for schools.

 

‘Teachers do not believe that they can work to the age of 68 or even later for a full pension – and they don’t believe it is educationally desirable either.’

 

www.wrp.org.uk/news/9623

 

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

 

Some background

After Mil Helicopters' Mi-28 combat helicopter did not find takers, the design bureau decided in the 2000s to take a huge development step forward and question the basic helicopter layout. The result was the Mil Mi-62 (NATO reporting name: Hepcat), a single-seat attack gyrodyne/compound helicopter: a VTOL aircraft with a helicopter-like rotor system that is driven by its engine for take-off and landing but basically relies on conventional means of propulsion to provide forward thrust during cruising flight. Lift during forward flight is provided by a combination of the rotor, like an autogyro, as well as conventional wings, even though these alone would not keep the aircraft in the air.

 

The Mi-62 featured a tip-jet-powered rotor that burned a mixture of fuel and compressed air, bled from two wing-root-mounted jet engines. The rotor was only driven during the start/landing phase and at low speed. The air for the rotor was produced by compressors driven through a clutch off the main engines, though, which was fed through ducting up to the rotor head. Two Progress AI-222-25 turbofans, each rated at 24.52 KN (5.512 lbf), provided thrust for translational flight while the rotor autorotated, enabling VTOL and STOL start with overload. The cockpit controls included a cyclic and collective pitch lever, as in a conventional helicopter.

 

Each engine supplied air for a pair of opposite rotor blades. The rotor blades were a symmetrical airfoil around a load-bearing spar. The airfoil was made of carbon fiber and light alloy because of center of gravity concerns. The compressed air was channeled through three tubes within the blade to tip-jet combustion chambers, where the compressed air was mixed with fuel and burned, driving the rotor. As a torque-less rotor system, no anti-torque correction system was required. Propeller pitch was controlled by the rudder pedals for low-speed yaw control. To support handling at low speed, bleed air from the main engines was also ducted to a control vent system in the tail.

 

Transition from helicopter to autogiro took place at around 60 mph by extinguishing the tip-jets, and at higher speeds up to half the lift was provided by the fixed wings. At high cruising speed, the Mi-62 almost behaved like a standard aircraft. Cruising speed was to be at about 500 km/h (312 mph), coupled with a range of up to 1400 km (870 ml).

 

Since the speed of the advancing rotor tip is a primary limitation to the maximum speed of a helicopter, this arrangement allowed a faster maximum speed than pure helicopters such as the Mi-24/35 or the AH-64. The elimination of the tail rotor is a qualitative advantage, too, because the torque-countering tail rotor can use up to 30% of engine power. Furthermore, the vulnerable boom and rear gearbox are fairly common causes of helicopter losses in combat. The Mi-62’s entire transmission presents a comparatively small target to ground fire, and is a rather simple/rigid arrangement with much less moving parts than a standard helicopter.

 

The Mi-62 was designed as an alternative to Kamov's successful Ka-50/52 program, and regarded as a heavier alternative. While the Ka-50 was designed to be small, fast and agile to improve survivability and lethality, the Mi-62 was to rely on speed, quick acceleration and decelleration as well as on good low altitude handling, coupled with sufficient protection against small caliber weapons. Since operation would be primarily at low level and using the landscape as cover, not much emphasis was put on stealth features, even though many passive protection elements like RAM were incorporated into the aircraft.

 

One of the program priorities was to enhance the helicopter's survivability. With this goal in mind, the configuration and systems' arrangement were chosen, assemblies designed, and structural materials tested, beyond the robust rotor propulsion system. The following measures to enhance pilot survivability were taken:

 

• Engines were placed on both sides of the airframe to prevent a single hit from destroying both engines

• The gyroplane could fly on a single engine in various modes – even with a damaged rotor a controlled landing glide was possible

• The cockpit was armored and screened with combined steel/aluminum armor and armored Plexiglas

• The hydraulic steering system compartment was armored and screened

• Vital units were screened by less important ones

• Self-sealing fuel tanks were filled with polyurethane foam

• Composites were used to preserve the helicopter's efficiency when its load-carrying elements are damaged

• A two-contour rotor-blade spar was developed, integrating the air ducts

• Control rod diameter was increased by positioning most of them inside the armored cockpit

• The powerplant and compartments adjacent to the fuel tanks were fire-protected

• The hydraulic system is capable of operating for 30 minutes if the oil system is damaged

• The power supply systems, control circuits etc. were made redundant and placed on opposite sides of the airframe

 

The armor consisted of spaced-aluminum plates with a total weight of more than 300 kg. The armor is fitted into the fuselage load-bearing structure, which reduces the total weight of the helicopter. GosNIIAS tests confirmed the pilot's protection up to 20mm caliber cannon rounds and shell fragments.

 

Another unique feature of the Mi-62 is the use of a rocket-parachute ejection system in case of an emergency. The helicopter emergency-escape system uses the K-37-800 ejection seat that was developed by the Zvezda Scientific Production Association (Chief Designer Guy Severin). The pilot's safety was also ensured by the undercarriage design. The undercarriage is capable of absorbing large loads in an emergency landing, and the cockpit has a crunch zone of up to 10-15% upon impact.

 

Basic armament consists of a twin-barreled Sh2A42 30-mm gun. The gun is mounted in a shallow turret which can rotate full 360° near the center of fuselage. It has 460 rounds of ammunition, firing high-fragmentation, explosive incendiary rounds and armor-piercing rounds.

The cannon has a dual-feed, which allows for a cyclic rate of fire between 300 to 900 RPM. Its effective range varies from 1500 meters for ground vehicles to 2,500 meters for air targets. Stated penetration for the 3UBR8 is 25 mm of RHA at 1,500 meters.

 

Beyond that, the aircraft carries a substantial load of weapons in six external hardpoints under the stub wings. An total of some 2.000 kg mixed ordnance, including AAMs, AGMs, gun and unguided rocket pods which include the S-13 and S-8 rockets, can be carried. Even unguided and guided (IR, optical, laser) bombs have been successfully tested, so that the Mi-62 could eventually replace early Su-25 combat aircraft in the CAS role. The "dumb" rocket pods can be upgraded to laser guided with the proposed Ugroza system.

 

The main armament against moving ground targets consists of up to sixteen laser-guided Vikhr anti-tank missiles (transl. Vortex or whirlwind) with a maximum range of some 8 km. The laser guidance is reported to be virtually jam-proof and the system features automatic guidance to target, enabling evasive action immediately after missile launch.

 

Like the Ka-50, the Mil gyrodyne was from the outset to be operated by a single pilot only. Mil’s designers concluded after thorough research of helicopter combat in Afghanistan and other war zones that the typical attack mission phases of low-level approach, pop-up target acquisition and weapon launch would not simultaneously demand navigation, maneuvering and weapons operation of the pilot. Thus, with well-designed support automation, a single pilot was expected to carry out the entire mission alone.

 

During operational testing from 1995 to 1996 the workload on the pilot was found to be similar to that of a fighter-bomber pilot, and the pilot could perform both flying and navigation duties. Later flight tests of the Mi-62 prototypes proved that its handling was more like an aircraft with VTOL capabilities than a standard helicopter, so that jet pilots could master it with some training.

 

Initially the Mi-62 was to be have been fitted with the Merkury Low-Light TV (LLTV) system. Due to a lack of funding, the system was late and experienced reliability and capability issues. As a result, focus shifted to Forward Looking Infra-Red (FLIR) systems, including the Shkval-N sighting system with an infrared sensor. Many versions were tried; on some the original "Shkval" was supplemented by a thermal imaging system, while others saw a complete replacement by the "Samshit" day-and-night system, which has become the final sensor standard, mounted in a chin sensor turret.

 

The fire control system automatically shares all target information among the four Mi-62 of a typical flight in real time, allowing one helicopter to engage a target spotted by another, and the system can also input target information from ground-based forward scouts with personnel-carried target designation gear.

 

The Mi-62 was, after a lengthy development and constant lack of funds, eventually adopted for service in the Russian army in 2015. It is currently manufactured by the new Russian Helicopters company that was founded in 2009 in Moscow, and built at the Mil Moscow Helicopter Plant. It has been introduced to both Air Force (Mi-62 sans suffix, ‘Hepcat A’) and Naval Aviation (Mi-62K, ‘Hepcat B’) and is being used as a heavily armed attack helicopter against both ground and airborne targets.

 

The navalized Mi-62K derivative has been selected as the new ship-borne attack type for the Russian Naval Aviation (Aviatsiya Voenno-morskogo Flota Rossii). It will feature folding rotor blades and life-support systems for the crew, who will fly in immersion suits. The fuselage and systems will be given special anti-corrosion treatment and a new fire-control radar will be capable of operating in "Sea Mode" and of supporting anti-ship missiles. Aviatsiya Voenno-morskogo Flota Rossii will need no fewer than 20 Mi-62, which will be operated together with Ka-52Ks.

 

The first Mi-62K is tentatively slated to enter squadron service by late 2014 or early 2015, coinciding with the delivery of the first carrier of the new Mistral class amphibious assault ships, ordered by the Russian Defense Ministry. These small carriers will contain rotary-wing assets, formed into aviation groups, and each of these groups is planned to include eight attack and eight assault/transport helicopters.

  

General characteristics

Crew: One

Length (fuselage only): 13,46 m (44 ft 1 in)

Rotor diameter: 15,40 m (50 ft 5 1/2 in)

Height: 4.60 m (15 ft 1 in)

Disc area: 186.3 m² (1.998 ft²)

Empty weight: 7,700 kg (17,000 lb)

Loaded weight: 9,800 kg / 10,400 kg (21,600 lb / 22,930 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 10,800 kg (23,810 lb)

Powerplant

2× Progress AI-222-25 turbofans, 24.52 KN (5.512 lbf) each plus

4× rotor tip jet burning compressed air/fuel, 4.4 kN (1,000 lbf) thrust each

Performance

Never exceed speed: 550 km/h (297 knots, 342 mph) in dive

Maximum speed: 515 km/h (278 knots, 320 mph) in level flight

Cruise speed: 370 km/h (200 knots, 230 mph)

Range: 545 km (339 ml)

Combat radius: 800 km (500 ml)

Ferry range: 1400 km (870 ml) with 4 drop tanks

Service ceiling: 5,500 m (18,000 ft)

Rate of climb: 10.7 m/s (2,105 ft/min)

 

Armament

1× turret-mounted, wtin-barreled 30 mm Shipunov Sh2A42 cannon (460 rounds total, dual feeding AP or HE-Frag) under the fuselage

6×wing hardpoints with a capacity of 2,000 kg and provisions to carry combinations of launch pods for 80 mm S-8 rockets or 122 mm S-13 rockets, APU-6 Missile racks or up to 20× 9K121 Vikhr anti-tank missiles, 6× Vympel R-73 (NATO: AA-11 Archer) air-to-air missiles, Kh-25 semi-active laser guided tactical air-to-ground missiles, 4× 250 kg (550 lb) bombs or 2x 500 kg (1,100 lb) bombs, plus 23 mm UPK-23-250 gun pods (240 rounds each) or 500 l (130 US gal) external fuel tanks.

Two compartments in the lower fuselage with flare and chaff countermeasure dispensers, typically 4× UV-26 dispensers each (total 512 chaff/flare cartridges in each pod)

  

The kit and its assembly:

Another entry for the “Za Rodinu - The Anthony P Memorial Build” at whatifmodelers.com, and this time it’s a modern and rather exotic whif. Helicopters are rare among whiffers, so I thought I’d give that subject a chance, and I actually had the basis kit in store for some time, as I intended to build it for another GB but never got that kick to start it.

 

The fictional Mi-62 is a conversion of a snap-fit kit from Kotobukiya from a series of generic, roughly 1:72 scale mecha vehicles that do not belong to a specific series or movie, but they seem to be intended to go well with Gundam or Dougram. These are rather toy-like, sturdy things, but they have potential for more – especially the gyroplanes (two different types exist).

 

These seem to be unmanned drones/UAVs, though, and that immediately leads to the conversions I made. Most important change is a manned cockpit with a clear canopy (from a KP Su-25) and the respective, scratched interior.

 

Another big change was the deletion of the original, gigantic gatling gun under the fuselage, replaced by a much smaller twin cannon turret. That left a lot of ground clearance – as a late modification I decided to chop the landing gear and the respective fin/wing endplates by more than 1cm, so that the gyroplane would sit closer to the ground.

 

Further small cosmetics include an asymmetrical radome and a protruding pitot boom, some antenna bulges, new engine exhausts, chaff dispensers in the fuselage flanks, and free-standing main wheels.

 

The ordnance comes from a Dragon Soviet-Air-To-Ground-Ordnance kit, hung onto six new wing hardpoints (from a 1:144 F-4E and an ESCI Ka-34 in 1:72, IIRC).

  

Painting and markings:

Choosing a proper scheme was tricky. The helicopter was to look realistic, but still exotic, at least for Russian standards. I considered various options:

● An all-mid-grey livery, inspired by current Mi-35 attack helicopters. Too dull & simple!

● A trefoil-style scheme in khaki and olive drab, with blue undersides. Flashy, but IMHO rather old-school.

 

I finally found an original scheme on a Ka-62 prototype (shown at MAKS-2009): a wraparound scheme in olive drab, medium grey and chocolate brown. The colors are enamels, I used Olive Drab ANA 613 (ModelMaster #2050), German Uniform “Feldgrau” (ModelMaster #2014) Grey and German Armor Red Brown (Humbrol 160), later highlighted through dry-brushing with lighter shades of the basic tones and a black ink wash, standard process.

 

The interior was to be Russian-style, too, but instead of the eye-boggling turquoise I went for PRU Blue (Humbrol 230) inside of the cockpit. Still looks odd, but it’s not so bright.

 

As a twist I decided to use Russian Navy markings – and the real world introduction of Mistral Class ships was a good excuse for a naval version of this attack helicopter. The Naval Aviation used to and does employ many land-based aircraft and helicopters, incl. e. g. the Mi-24, in similar liveries to the Air Force or Army cousins.

 

The markings were puzzled together from various aftermarket decal sheets from Begemot , Authentic Decals and TL Modellbau, as well as from the scrap box. After some additional dry-brushing with medium grey overall, the kit was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish.

Until that day I'd never seen this type of cap. I gifted it to an old friend but years later wished that I’d gigted it to a friend who works in that Canadian Federal Government Department. This cap was my favourite of my small mostly Police cap collection.

 

members.shaw.ca/customs/Issue/

 

In the late 1950's Canada Customs Inspectors wore dark navy blue uniforms and dark navy forage caps with this three piece hat badge. In the early 1960's Customs changed the hats to a white forage cap but retained the hat badge until 1967.

 

History: members.shaw.ca/customs/History/

  

HISTORY OF CANADA CUSTOMS

 

Customs officers have long been Canada’s first line of protection. Canada Customs has played a long and honourable role in the development of Canada and is the oldest law enforcement agency in the country. The agency was created in 1841, predating the Dominion Police (1868) and the Northwest Mounted Police (1873). The Dominion Police were absorbed into the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Canada on February 1,1920. Canada Customs finds it’s beginning in Her Majesty’s Customs service in Britain. The first record of Customs in Britain was in 742. The customs tariff was imposed by statute during the reign of Edward 1 (1272-1307). For centuries Britain and France contracted out the job of collecting revenue to the highest bidder in exchange for an annual payment into the royal treasury and applied this system to their colonies in North America. As the British felt that revenue was being lost under this system they ended this practice in 1671 and began appointing customs collectors in the colonies in 1696. It is unclear as to where the first crown-appointed customs collector in Canada was established but there is record of a collector at Annapolis Royal in 1719. It was impossible to control the collection from England so the American Board of Customs was established in 1767. Thus Customs in Canada was run from Massachusetts. The American Board of Customs dissolved at the start of the American Revolutionary War in 1776.

 

In 1787 the British Board of Trade recommended that the Canadian legislature be allowed to regulate inland trade with the United State. The first interior Customs office was established in St. Jean (Quebec) in 1788 with the intention of regulating trade along the Vermont-Canada border. The Customs Consolidation Act of 1841 created a single system for the new province of United Canada. With this consolidation of Upper and Lower Canada came the creation of Canada Customs. By 1845 there were 63 customs ports in Canada, the three largest being, Quebec, Montreal and St. Jean. Toronto at that time was considered an outport. In 1846 England regarded free trade more favourably and gave up direct control of trade in the colonies. At the time of Confederation a separate ministry of Customs was established along with a department of Inland Revenue which was responsible for collection of excise duties. It was not until 1921 that these two departments where amalgamated into one department called Customs and Excise. In 1925 income tax collection, begun in 1917, was placed under Customs and Excise. Two years later the department’s name was changed to National Revenue.

 

Throughout the history of Canada Customs there have been colourful personalities involved in its ranks. One such personality was Edward S. Busby (Busby of the Yukon).

 

Since the inception of Canada Customs, its officers have always been known for their cordial and professional manner in dealing with the public. As early as 1911 memos were issued about Officers appearance, conduct and dealings with the public. During the next two decades the heavy emphasis on courtesy towards the tourist increased, especially the American tourist. The department enforced their rules on treatment of tourists by “threats of banishment to the freight yards.” In April 1928 an advisory was issued regarding complaints which had reached the Department regarding the demeanor of certain officers:

 

“An examining officer who allows his temper to show itself, and acts in a discourteous manner, will not be allowed to continue in that capacity. If he is retained in Service then he will be sent to the freight yards or the manifest room where his peculiar temperament will not offend others. The Tourist season is about to open and visitors to Canada by automobile and railway must be treated with constant courtesy by National Revenue officers whose duties bring them into contact with the travelling public. There is no place in the Service for an officer who is rude and discourteous, and the sooner this is realized the better it will be for all concerned.”

 

During the 1930s the number of tourists continued to increase as did the number of inquires. The following are a few examples of some of the more “interesting” ones received by Customs:

 

“How can I address and seal a parcel so as to ensure that Canadian Customs will not open and examine it”

“What are the most satisfactory methods of smuggling goods across the Border”

“Has Ottawa any Capital”

“How much liquor can I drink in Manitoba”

Asked if they were U.S. citizens: “no just farmers”

Asked to state the length of residence in Canada: “Thirty feet by forty feet”

Asked if he was visiting Canada for pleasure, a traveler replied: “No, I’m seeing my wife’s folks”

In 1939, at the outbreak of the Second World War Canada Customs officers found themselves with added responsibilities. One of the many duties included searching for illegal exports that might be of use to the enemy. Officers also had to control the amount of money being taken out of the country. During the war the Canadian seaports provided Customs with the largest workload. Customs, along with the Navy, exercised control over all activity in the ports. All neutral ships were searched and secured by Customs. In the port of Vancouver, while searching a Japanese vessel a list of German agents in South America was discovered. Canada Customs war effort was not limited to the seaports. In Windsor, Ontario a customs officer captured an escaping German prisoner of war on the engine of a passenger train.

 

Up until the Second World War Canada Customs was almost exclusively male except for a few women on special duty at major ports. In 1947 the government imposed foreign exchange controls requiring more personal searches resulting in more female hires. By 1982 39.1 per cent of all employees in Customs and Excise were women.

 

After the Second World War the number of travelers to and from Canada increased rapidly. Originally the clearance of travelers dealt only with the protection and collection of revenue. All other matters such as immigration and agriculture were dealt with by officers of those respective departments. As the number of federal department increased so did the line-ups as separate questioning and examinations were required by each individual department. On Oct. 1, 1969 customs officer were responsible for questioning of travellers on behalf of all federal departments. Today, along with its own acts and regulations, Customs enforces 57 acts of Parliament and acts on behalf of over 80 other government departments.

 

The Canada Customs uniform has seen a number changes in its history. The first uniform, fashioned after Her Majesty’s Customs Service in England, was a traditional British Navy style, dark blue, double-breasted uniform. The department issued the brass uniform buttons and provided $7.00 a year towards the purchase of clothing. In 1931 the standard uniform allowance was increased to two uniforms a year at a cost of $27.50 each. The uniform saw a radical change in the 1970s when the department went to a teal uniform with a yellow shirt. On April 1, 1977 the department once again change the uniform to a peacock blue with a light blue shirt. In 1994 Customs return to the dark blue uniform however the shirt remained light blue. The uniform of today consists of a woolen military–style sweater, light blue shirt (long and short sleeve), dark pants, nylon patrol jacket (replacing the tunic) and a dark blue ball cap (replacing the traditional forage cap). The forage cap and a dark blue tunic are still worn for ceremonial purposes.

 

The basic insignia of Canada Customs has always been the same: a portcullis under a crown on a gold maple leaf. Under the portcullis is “Canada” and under that “Customs-Douanes”. These words were added in 1977. Douanes is the French word for customs and dates from about 1372. The connection between the portcullis and Customs dates from 1604 when a London merchant sued King James I for increasing customs duties without Parliamentary consent. The merchant lost, the judges decided that “seaports are the King’s gates, which he may open and shut to whom he pleases.” Since a portcullis is a large gate with spiked bars that can be raised and lowered to control access to castles, it has been said that Customs inspectors “guard our frontiers to control access to our ‘castle’: Canada. The hat badge from the early 1960s was the first to incorporate the ‘basic insignia’. This hat badge was one continuos piece out of gilt and enamel and had the ‘basic insignia’ in the center of Canada and Customs. In the mid 1960s the composition of the hat badge (the words "Canada" and "Customs" separated by the ‘basic insignia') remained the same but each piece was separate. The green uniform of the 1970s saw the "Canada" title omitted and replaced by "Douanes". The hat badge read "Douanes" (basic insignia) "Customs" for those in Quebec and "Customs" (basic insignia) "Douanes" for the rest of Canada. The male officer wore this on his forage cap. The female officer wore a bowler style hat with an embroidered one-piece hat badge. When the department changed to the peacock blues it also change to the current one-piece hat badge we see today.

 

Nearly all the original customs houses in Canada were at seaports or on the land frontier. As Canada’s industries and settlements grew so did the need for Inland ports. The inward expansion continued because of the railroads, highways, and air traffic routes. Today the majority of the customs ports are inland.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

 

Some background

After Mil Helicopters' Mi-28 combat helicopter did not find takers, the design bureau decided in the 2000s to take a huge development step forward and question the basic helicopter layout. The result was the Mil Mi-62 (NATO reporting name: Hepcat), a single-seat attack gyrodyne/compound helicopter: a VTOL aircraft with a helicopter-like rotor system that is driven by its engine for take-off and landing but basically relies on conventional means of propulsion to provide forward thrust during cruising flight. Lift during forward flight is provided by a combination of the rotor, like an autogyro, as well as conventional wings, even though these alone would not keep the aircraft in the air.

 

The Mi-62 featured a tip-jet-powered rotor that burned a mixture of fuel and compressed air, bled from two wing-root-mounted jet engines. The rotor was only driven during the start/landing phase and at low speed. The air for the rotor was produced by compressors driven through a clutch off the main engines, though, which was fed through ducting up to the rotor head. Two Progress AI-222-25 turbofans, each rated at 24.52 KN (5.512 lbf), provided thrust for translational flight while the rotor autorotated, enabling VTOL and STOL start with overload. The cockpit controls included a cyclic and collective pitch lever, as in a conventional helicopter.

 

Each engine supplied air for a pair of opposite rotor blades. The rotor blades were a symmetrical airfoil around a load-bearing spar. The airfoil was made of carbon fiber and light alloy because of center of gravity concerns. The compressed air was channeled through three tubes within the blade to tip-jet combustion chambers, where the compressed air was mixed with fuel and burned, driving the rotor. As a torque-less rotor system, no anti-torque correction system was required. Propeller pitch was controlled by the rudder pedals for low-speed yaw control. To support handling at low speed, bleed air from the main engines was also ducted to a control vent system in the tail.

 

Transition from helicopter to autogiro took place at around 60 mph by extinguishing the tip-jets, and at higher speeds up to half the lift was provided by the fixed wings. At high cruising speed, the Mi-62 almost behaved like a standard aircraft. Cruising speed was to be at about 500 km/h (312 mph), coupled with a range of up to 1400 km (870 ml).

 

Since the speed of the advancing rotor tip is a primary limitation to the maximum speed of a helicopter, this arrangement allowed a faster maximum speed than pure helicopters such as the Mi-24/35 or the AH-64. The elimination of the tail rotor is a qualitative advantage, too, because the torque-countering tail rotor can use up to 30% of engine power. Furthermore, the vulnerable boom and rear gearbox are fairly common causes of helicopter losses in combat. The Mi-62’s entire transmission presents a comparatively small target to ground fire, and is a rather simple/rigid arrangement with much less moving parts than a standard helicopter.

 

The Mi-62 was designed as an alternative to Kamov's successful Ka-50/52 program, and regarded as a heavier alternative. While the Ka-50 was designed to be small, fast and agile to improve survivability and lethality, the Mi-62 was to rely on speed, quick acceleration and decelleration as well as on good low altitude handling, coupled with sufficient protection against small caliber weapons. Since operation would be primarily at low level and using the landscape as cover, not much emphasis was put on stealth features, even though many passive protection elements like RAM were incorporated into the aircraft.

 

One of the program priorities was to enhance the helicopter's survivability. With this goal in mind, the configuration and systems' arrangement were chosen, assemblies designed, and structural materials tested, beyond the robust rotor propulsion system. The following measures to enhance pilot survivability were taken:

 

• Engines were placed on both sides of the airframe to prevent a single hit from destroying both engines

• The gyroplane could fly on a single engine in various modes – even with a damaged rotor a controlled landing glide was possible

• The cockpit was armored and screened with combined steel/aluminum armor and armored Plexiglas

• The hydraulic steering system compartment was armored and screened

• Vital units were screened by less important ones

• Self-sealing fuel tanks were filled with polyurethane foam

• Composites were used to preserve the helicopter's efficiency when its load-carrying elements are damaged

• A two-contour rotor-blade spar was developed, integrating the air ducts

• Control rod diameter was increased by positioning most of them inside the armored cockpit

• The powerplant and compartments adjacent to the fuel tanks were fire-protected

• The hydraulic system is capable of operating for 30 minutes if the oil system is damaged

• The power supply systems, control circuits etc. were made redundant and placed on opposite sides of the airframe

 

The armor consisted of spaced-aluminum plates with a total weight of more than 300 kg. The armor is fitted into the fuselage load-bearing structure, which reduces the total weight of the helicopter. GosNIIAS tests confirmed the pilot's protection up to 20mm caliber cannon rounds and shell fragments.

 

Another unique feature of the Mi-62 is the use of a rocket-parachute ejection system in case of an emergency. The helicopter emergency-escape system uses the K-37-800 ejection seat that was developed by the Zvezda Scientific Production Association (Chief Designer Guy Severin). The pilot's safety was also ensured by the undercarriage design. The undercarriage is capable of absorbing large loads in an emergency landing, and the cockpit has a crunch zone of up to 10-15% upon impact.

 

Basic armament consists of a twin-barreled Sh2A42 30-mm gun. The gun is mounted in a shallow turret which can rotate full 360° near the center of fuselage. It has 460 rounds of ammunition, firing high-fragmentation, explosive incendiary rounds and armor-piercing rounds.

The cannon has a dual-feed, which allows for a cyclic rate of fire between 300 to 900 RPM. Its effective range varies from 1500 meters for ground vehicles to 2,500 meters for air targets. Stated penetration for the 3UBR8 is 25 mm of RHA at 1,500 meters.

 

Beyond that, the aircraft carries a substantial load of weapons in six external hardpoints under the stub wings. An total of some 2.000 kg mixed ordnance, including AAMs, AGMs, gun and unguided rocket pods which include the S-13 and S-8 rockets, can be carried. Even unguided and guided (IR, optical, laser) bombs have been successfully tested, so that the Mi-62 could eventually replace early Su-25 combat aircraft in the CAS role. The "dumb" rocket pods can be upgraded to laser guided with the proposed Ugroza system.

 

The main armament against moving ground targets consists of up to sixteen laser-guided Vikhr anti-tank missiles (transl. Vortex or whirlwind) with a maximum range of some 8 km. The laser guidance is reported to be virtually jam-proof and the system features automatic guidance to target, enabling evasive action immediately after missile launch.

 

Like the Ka-50, the Mil gyrodyne was from the outset to be operated by a single pilot only. Mil’s designers concluded after thorough research of helicopter combat in Afghanistan and other war zones that the typical attack mission phases of low-level approach, pop-up target acquisition and weapon launch would not simultaneously demand navigation, maneuvering and weapons operation of the pilot. Thus, with well-designed support automation, a single pilot was expected to carry out the entire mission alone.

 

During operational testing from 1995 to 1996 the workload on the pilot was found to be similar to that of a fighter-bomber pilot, and the pilot could perform both flying and navigation duties. Later flight tests of the Mi-62 prototypes proved that its handling was more like an aircraft with VTOL capabilities than a standard helicopter, so that jet pilots could master it with some training.

 

Initially the Mi-62 was to be have been fitted with the Merkury Low-Light TV (LLTV) system. Due to a lack of funding, the system was late and experienced reliability and capability issues. As a result, focus shifted to Forward Looking Infra-Red (FLIR) systems, including the Shkval-N sighting system with an infrared sensor. Many versions were tried; on some the original "Shkval" was supplemented by a thermal imaging system, while others saw a complete replacement by the "Samshit" day-and-night system, which has become the final sensor standard, mounted in a chin sensor turret.

 

The fire control system automatically shares all target information among the four Mi-62 of a typical flight in real time, allowing one helicopter to engage a target spotted by another, and the system can also input target information from ground-based forward scouts with personnel-carried target designation gear.

 

The Mi-62 was, after a lengthy development and constant lack of funds, eventually adopted for service in the Russian army in 2015. It is currently manufactured by the new Russian Helicopters company that was founded in 2009 in Moscow, and built at the Mil Moscow Helicopter Plant. It has been introduced to both Air Force (Mi-62 sans suffix, ‘Hepcat A’) and Naval Aviation (Mi-62K, ‘Hepcat B’) and is being used as a heavily armed attack helicopter against both ground and airborne targets.

 

The navalized Mi-62K derivative has been selected as the new ship-borne attack type for the Russian Naval Aviation (Aviatsiya Voenno-morskogo Flota Rossii). It will feature folding rotor blades and life-support systems for the crew, who will fly in immersion suits. The fuselage and systems will be given special anti-corrosion treatment and a new fire-control radar will be capable of operating in "Sea Mode" and of supporting anti-ship missiles. Aviatsiya Voenno-morskogo Flota Rossii will need no fewer than 20 Mi-62, which will be operated together with Ka-52Ks.

 

The first Mi-62K is tentatively slated to enter squadron service by late 2014 or early 2015, coinciding with the delivery of the first carrier of the new Mistral class amphibious assault ships, ordered by the Russian Defense Ministry. These small carriers will contain rotary-wing assets, formed into aviation groups, and each of these groups is planned to include eight attack and eight assault/transport helicopters.

  

General characteristics

Crew: One

Length (fuselage only): 13,46 m (44 ft 1 in)

Rotor diameter: 15,40 m (50 ft 5 1/2 in)

Height: 4.60 m (15 ft 1 in)

Disc area: 186.3 m² (1.998 ft²)

Empty weight: 7,700 kg (17,000 lb)

Loaded weight: 9,800 kg / 10,400 kg (21,600 lb / 22,930 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 10,800 kg (23,810 lb)

Powerplant

2× Progress AI-222-25 turbofans, 24.52 KN (5.512 lbf) each plus

4× rotor tip jet burning compressed air/fuel, 4.4 kN (1,000 lbf) thrust each

Performance

Never exceed speed: 550 km/h (297 knots, 342 mph) in dive

Maximum speed: 515 km/h (278 knots, 320 mph) in level flight

Cruise speed: 370 km/h (200 knots, 230 mph)

Range: 545 km (339 ml)

Combat radius: 800 km (500 ml)

Ferry range: 1400 km (870 ml) with 4 drop tanks

Service ceiling: 5,500 m (18,000 ft)

Rate of climb: 10.7 m/s (2,105 ft/min)

 

Armament

1× turret-mounted, wtin-barreled 30 mm Shipunov Sh2A42 cannon (460 rounds total, dual feeding AP or HE-Frag) under the fuselage

6×wing hardpoints with a capacity of 2,000 kg and provisions to carry combinations of launch pods for 80 mm S-8 rockets or 122 mm S-13 rockets, APU-6 Missile racks or up to 20× 9K121 Vikhr anti-tank missiles, 6× Vympel R-73 (NATO: AA-11 Archer) air-to-air missiles, Kh-25 semi-active laser guided tactical air-to-ground missiles, 4× 250 kg (550 lb) bombs or 2x 500 kg (1,100 lb) bombs, plus 23 mm UPK-23-250 gun pods (240 rounds each) or 500 l (130 US gal) external fuel tanks.

Two compartments in the lower fuselage with flare and chaff countermeasure dispensers, typically 4× UV-26 dispensers each (total 512 chaff/flare cartridges in each pod)

  

The kit and its assembly:

Another entry for the “Za Rodinu - The Anthony P Memorial Build” at whatifmodelers.com, and this time it’s a modern and rather exotic whif. Helicopters are rare among whiffers, so I thought I’d give that subject a chance, and I actually had the basis kit in store for some time, as I intended to build it for another GB but never got that kick to start it.

 

The fictional Mi-62 is a conversion of a snap-fit kit from Kotobukiya from a series of generic, roughly 1:72 scale mecha vehicles that do not belong to a specific series or movie, but they seem to be intended to go well with Gundam or Dougram. These are rather toy-like, sturdy things, but they have potential for more – especially the gyroplanes (two different types exist).

 

These seem to be unmanned drones/UAVs, though, and that immediately leads to the conversions I made. Most important change is a manned cockpit with a clear canopy (from a KP Su-25) and the respective, scratched interior.

 

Another big change was the deletion of the original, gigantic gatling gun under the fuselage, replaced by a much smaller twin cannon turret. That left a lot of ground clearance – as a late modification I decided to chop the landing gear and the respective fin/wing endplates by more than 1cm, so that the gyroplane would sit closer to the ground.

 

Further small cosmetics include an asymmetrical radome and a protruding pitot boom, some antenna bulges, new engine exhausts, chaff dispensers in the fuselage flanks, and free-standing main wheels.

 

The ordnance comes from a Dragon Soviet-Air-To-Ground-Ordnance kit, hung onto six new wing hardpoints (from a 1:144 F-4E and an ESCI Ka-34 in 1:72, IIRC).

  

Painting and markings:

Choosing a proper scheme was tricky. The helicopter was to look realistic, but still exotic, at least for Russian standards. I considered various options:

● An all-mid-grey livery, inspired by current Mi-35 attack helicopters. Too dull & simple!

● A trefoil-style scheme in khaki and olive drab, with blue undersides. Flashy, but IMHO rather old-school.

 

I finally found an original scheme on a Ka-62 prototype (shown at MAKS-2009): a wraparound scheme in olive drab, medium grey and chocolate brown. The colors are enamels, I used Olive Drab ANA 613 (ModelMaster #2050), German Uniform “Feldgrau” (ModelMaster #2014) Grey and German Armor Red Brown (Humbrol 160), later highlighted through dry-brushing with lighter shades of the basic tones and a black ink wash, standard process.

 

The interior was to be Russian-style, too, but instead of the eye-boggling turquoise I went for PRU Blue (Humbrol 230) inside of the cockpit. Still looks odd, but it’s not so bright.

 

As a twist I decided to use Russian Navy markings – and the real world introduction of Mistral Class ships was a good excuse for a naval version of this attack helicopter. The Naval Aviation used to and does employ many land-based aircraft and helicopters, incl. e. g. the Mi-24, in similar liveries to the Air Force or Army cousins.

 

The markings were puzzled together from various aftermarket decal sheets from Begemot , Authentic Decals and TL Modellbau, as well as from the scrap box. After some additional dry-brushing with medium grey overall, the kit was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

 

Some background

After Mil Helicopters' Mi-28 combat helicopter did not find takers, the design bureau decided in the 2000s to take a huge development step forward and question the basic helicopter layout. The result was the Mil Mi-62 (NATO reporting name: Hepcat), a single-seat attack gyrodyne/compound helicopter: a VTOL aircraft with a helicopter-like rotor system that is driven by its engine for take-off and landing but basically relies on conventional means of propulsion to provide forward thrust during cruising flight. Lift during forward flight is provided by a combination of the rotor, like an autogyro, as well as conventional wings, even though these alone would not keep the aircraft in the air.

 

The Mi-62 featured a tip-jet-powered rotor that burned a mixture of fuel and compressed air, bled from two wing-root-mounted jet engines. The rotor was only driven during the start/landing phase and at low speed. The air for the rotor was produced by compressors driven through a clutch off the main engines, though, which was fed through ducting up to the rotor head. Two Progress AI-222-25 turbofans, each rated at 24.52 KN (5.512 lbf), provided thrust for translational flight while the rotor autorotated, enabling VTOL and STOL start with overload. The cockpit controls included a cyclic and collective pitch lever, as in a conventional helicopter.

 

Each engine supplied air for a pair of opposite rotor blades. The rotor blades were a symmetrical airfoil around a load-bearing spar. The airfoil was made of carbon fiber and light alloy because of center of gravity concerns. The compressed air was channeled through three tubes within the blade to tip-jet combustion chambers, where the compressed air was mixed with fuel and burned, driving the rotor. As a torque-less rotor system, no anti-torque correction system was required. Propeller pitch was controlled by the rudder pedals for low-speed yaw control. To support handling at low speed, bleed air from the main engines was also ducted to a control vent system in the tail.

 

Transition from helicopter to autogiro took place at around 60 mph by extinguishing the tip-jets, and at higher speeds up to half the lift was provided by the fixed wings. At high cruising speed, the Mi-62 almost behaved like a standard aircraft. Cruising speed was to be at about 500 km/h (312 mph), coupled with a range of up to 1400 km (870 ml).

 

Since the speed of the advancing rotor tip is a primary limitation to the maximum speed of a helicopter, this arrangement allowed a faster maximum speed than pure helicopters such as the Mi-24/35 or the AH-64. The elimination of the tail rotor is a qualitative advantage, too, because the torque-countering tail rotor can use up to 30% of engine power. Furthermore, the vulnerable boom and rear gearbox are fairly common causes of helicopter losses in combat. The Mi-62’s entire transmission presents a comparatively small target to ground fire, and is a rather simple/rigid arrangement with much less moving parts than a standard helicopter.

 

The Mi-62 was designed as an alternative to Kamov's successful Ka-50/52 program, and regarded as a heavier alternative. While the Ka-50 was designed to be small, fast and agile to improve survivability and lethality, the Mi-62 was to rely on speed, quick acceleration and decelleration as well as on good low altitude handling, coupled with sufficient protection against small caliber weapons. Since operation would be primarily at low level and using the landscape as cover, not much emphasis was put on stealth features, even though many passive protection elements like RAM were incorporated into the aircraft.

 

One of the program priorities was to enhance the helicopter's survivability. With this goal in mind, the configuration and systems' arrangement were chosen, assemblies designed, and structural materials tested, beyond the robust rotor propulsion system. The following measures to enhance pilot survivability were taken:

 

• Engines were placed on both sides of the airframe to prevent a single hit from destroying both engines

• The gyroplane could fly on a single engine in various modes – even with a damaged rotor a controlled landing glide was possible

• The cockpit was armored and screened with combined steel/aluminum armor and armored Plexiglas

• The hydraulic steering system compartment was armored and screened

• Vital units were screened by less important ones

• Self-sealing fuel tanks were filled with polyurethane foam

• Composites were used to preserve the helicopter's efficiency when its load-carrying elements are damaged

• A two-contour rotor-blade spar was developed, integrating the air ducts

• Control rod diameter was increased by positioning most of them inside the armored cockpit

• The powerplant and compartments adjacent to the fuel tanks were fire-protected

• The hydraulic system is capable of operating for 30 minutes if the oil system is damaged

• The power supply systems, control circuits etc. were made redundant and placed on opposite sides of the airframe

 

The armor consisted of spaced-aluminum plates with a total weight of more than 300 kg. The armor is fitted into the fuselage load-bearing structure, which reduces the total weight of the helicopter. GosNIIAS tests confirmed the pilot's protection up to 20mm caliber cannon rounds and shell fragments.

 

Another unique feature of the Mi-62 is the use of a rocket-parachute ejection system in case of an emergency. The helicopter emergency-escape system uses the K-37-800 ejection seat that was developed by the Zvezda Scientific Production Association (Chief Designer Guy Severin). The pilot's safety was also ensured by the undercarriage design. The undercarriage is capable of absorbing large loads in an emergency landing, and the cockpit has a crunch zone of up to 10-15% upon impact.

 

Basic armament consists of a twin-barreled Sh2A42 30-mm gun. The gun is mounted in a shallow turret which can rotate full 360° near the center of fuselage. It has 460 rounds of ammunition, firing high-fragmentation, explosive incendiary rounds and armor-piercing rounds.

The cannon has a dual-feed, which allows for a cyclic rate of fire between 300 to 900 RPM. Its effective range varies from 1500 meters for ground vehicles to 2,500 meters for air targets. Stated penetration for the 3UBR8 is 25 mm of RHA at 1,500 meters.

 

Beyond that, the aircraft carries a substantial load of weapons in six external hardpoints under the stub wings. An total of some 2.000 kg mixed ordnance, including AAMs, AGMs, gun and unguided rocket pods which include the S-13 and S-8 rockets, can be carried. Even unguided and guided (IR, optical, laser) bombs have been successfully tested, so that the Mi-62 could eventually replace early Su-25 combat aircraft in the CAS role. The "dumb" rocket pods can be upgraded to laser guided with the proposed Ugroza system.

 

The main armament against moving ground targets consists of up to sixteen laser-guided Vikhr anti-tank missiles (transl. Vortex or whirlwind) with a maximum range of some 8 km. The laser guidance is reported to be virtually jam-proof and the system features automatic guidance to target, enabling evasive action immediately after missile launch.

 

Like the Ka-50, the Mil gyrodyne was from the outset to be operated by a single pilot only. Mil’s designers concluded after thorough research of helicopter combat in Afghanistan and other war zones that the typical attack mission phases of low-level approach, pop-up target acquisition and weapon launch would not simultaneously demand navigation, maneuvering and weapons operation of the pilot. Thus, with well-designed support automation, a single pilot was expected to carry out the entire mission alone.

 

During operational testing from 1995 to 1996 the workload on the pilot was found to be similar to that of a fighter-bomber pilot, and the pilot could perform both flying and navigation duties. Later flight tests of the Mi-62 prototypes proved that its handling was more like an aircraft with VTOL capabilities than a standard helicopter, so that jet pilots could master it with some training.

 

Initially the Mi-62 was to be have been fitted with the Merkury Low-Light TV (LLTV) system. Due to a lack of funding, the system was late and experienced reliability and capability issues. As a result, focus shifted to Forward Looking Infra-Red (FLIR) systems, including the Shkval-N sighting system with an infrared sensor. Many versions were tried; on some the original "Shkval" was supplemented by a thermal imaging system, while others saw a complete replacement by the "Samshit" day-and-night system, which has become the final sensor standard, mounted in a chin sensor turret.

 

The fire control system automatically shares all target information among the four Mi-62 of a typical flight in real time, allowing one helicopter to engage a target spotted by another, and the system can also input target information from ground-based forward scouts with personnel-carried target designation gear.

 

The Mi-62 was, after a lengthy development and constant lack of funds, eventually adopted for service in the Russian army in 2015. It is currently manufactured by the new Russian Helicopters company that was founded in 2009 in Moscow, and built at the Mil Moscow Helicopter Plant. It has been introduced to both Air Force (Mi-62 sans suffix, ‘Hepcat A’) and Naval Aviation (Mi-62K, ‘Hepcat B’) and is being used as a heavily armed attack helicopter against both ground and airborne targets.

 

The navalized Mi-62K derivative has been selected as the new ship-borne attack type for the Russian Naval Aviation (Aviatsiya Voenno-morskogo Flota Rossii). It will feature folding rotor blades and life-support systems for the crew, who will fly in immersion suits. The fuselage and systems will be given special anti-corrosion treatment and a new fire-control radar will be capable of operating in "Sea Mode" and of supporting anti-ship missiles. Aviatsiya Voenno-morskogo Flota Rossii will need no fewer than 20 Mi-62, which will be operated together with Ka-52Ks.

 

The first Mi-62K is tentatively slated to enter squadron service by late 2014 or early 2015, coinciding with the delivery of the first carrier of the new Mistral class amphibious assault ships, ordered by the Russian Defense Ministry. These small carriers will contain rotary-wing assets, formed into aviation groups, and each of these groups is planned to include eight attack and eight assault/transport helicopters.

  

General characteristics

Crew: One

Length (fuselage only): 13,46 m (44 ft 1 in)

Rotor diameter: 15,40 m (50 ft 5 1/2 in)

Height: 4.60 m (15 ft 1 in)

Disc area: 186.3 m² (1.998 ft²)

Empty weight: 7,700 kg (17,000 lb)

Loaded weight: 9,800 kg / 10,400 kg (21,600 lb / 22,930 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 10,800 kg (23,810 lb)

Powerplant

2× Progress AI-222-25 turbofans, 24.52 KN (5.512 lbf) each plus

4× rotor tip jet burning compressed air/fuel, 4.4 kN (1,000 lbf) thrust each

Performance

Never exceed speed: 550 km/h (297 knots, 342 mph) in dive

Maximum speed: 515 km/h (278 knots, 320 mph) in level flight

Cruise speed: 370 km/h (200 knots, 230 mph)

Range: 545 km (339 ml)

Combat radius: 800 km (500 ml)

Ferry range: 1400 km (870 ml) with 4 drop tanks

Service ceiling: 5,500 m (18,000 ft)

Rate of climb: 10.7 m/s (2,105 ft/min)

 

Armament

1× turret-mounted, wtin-barreled 30 mm Shipunov Sh2A42 cannon (460 rounds total, dual feeding AP or HE-Frag) under the fuselage

6×wing hardpoints with a capacity of 2,000 kg and provisions to carry combinations of launch pods for 80 mm S-8 rockets or 122 mm S-13 rockets, APU-6 Missile racks or up to 20× 9K121 Vikhr anti-tank missiles, 6× Vympel R-73 (NATO: AA-11 Archer) air-to-air missiles, Kh-25 semi-active laser guided tactical air-to-ground missiles, 4× 250 kg (550 lb) bombs or 2x 500 kg (1,100 lb) bombs, plus 23 mm UPK-23-250 gun pods (240 rounds each) or 500 l (130 US gal) external fuel tanks.

Two compartments in the lower fuselage with flare and chaff countermeasure dispensers, typically 4× UV-26 dispensers each (total 512 chaff/flare cartridges in each pod)

  

The kit and its assembly:

Another entry for the “Za Rodinu - The Anthony P Memorial Build” at whatifmodelers.com, and this time it’s a modern and rather exotic whif. Helicopters are rare among whiffers, so I thought I’d give that subject a chance, and I actually had the basis kit in store for some time, as I intended to build it for another GB but never got that kick to start it.

 

The fictional Mi-62 is a conversion of a snap-fit kit from Kotobukiya from a series of generic, roughly 1:72 scale mecha vehicles that do not belong to a specific series or movie, but they seem to be intended to go well with Gundam or Dougram. These are rather toy-like, sturdy things, but they have potential for more – especially the gyroplanes (two different types exist).

 

These seem to be unmanned drones/UAVs, though, and that immediately leads to the conversions I made. Most important change is a manned cockpit with a clear canopy (from a KP Su-25) and the respective, scratched interior.

 

Another big change was the deletion of the original, gigantic gatling gun under the fuselage, replaced by a much smaller twin cannon turret. That left a lot of ground clearance – as a late modification I decided to chop the landing gear and the respective fin/wing endplates by more than 1cm, so that the gyroplane would sit closer to the ground.

 

Further small cosmetics include an asymmetrical radome and a protruding pitot boom, some antenna bulges, new engine exhausts, chaff dispensers in the fuselage flanks, and free-standing main wheels.

 

The ordnance comes from a Dragon Soviet-Air-To-Ground-Ordnance kit, hung onto six new wing hardpoints (from a 1:144 F-4E and an ESCI Ka-34 in 1:72, IIRC).

  

Painting and markings:

Choosing a proper scheme was tricky. The helicopter was to look realistic, but still exotic, at least for Russian standards. I considered various options:

● An all-mid-grey livery, inspired by current Mi-35 attack helicopters. Too dull & simple!

● A trefoil-style scheme in khaki and olive drab, with blue undersides. Flashy, but IMHO rather old-school.

 

I finally found an original scheme on a Ka-62 prototype (shown at MAKS-2009): a wraparound scheme in olive drab, medium grey and chocolate brown. The colors are enamels, I used Olive Drab ANA 613 (ModelMaster #2050), German Uniform “Feldgrau” (ModelMaster #2014) Grey and German Armor Red Brown (Humbrol 160), later highlighted through dry-brushing with lighter shades of the basic tones and a black ink wash, standard process.

 

The interior was to be Russian-style, too, but instead of the eye-boggling turquoise I went for PRU Blue (Humbrol 230) inside of the cockpit. Still looks odd, but it’s not so bright.

 

As a twist I decided to use Russian Navy markings – and the real world introduction of Mistral Class ships was a good excuse for a naval version of this attack helicopter. The Naval Aviation used to and does employ many land-based aircraft and helicopters, incl. e. g. the Mi-24, in similar liveries to the Air Force or Army cousins.

 

The markings were puzzled together from various aftermarket decal sheets from Begemot , Authentic Decals and TL Modellbau, as well as from the scrap box. After some additional dry-brushing with medium grey overall, the kit was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

 

Some background

After Mil Helicopters' Mi-28 combat helicopter did not find takers, the design bureau decided in the 2000s to take a huge development step forward and question the basic helicopter layout. The result was the Mil Mi-62 (NATO reporting name: Hepcat), a single-seat attack gyrodyne/compound helicopter: a VTOL aircraft with a helicopter-like rotor system that is driven by its engine for take-off and landing but basically relies on conventional means of propulsion to provide forward thrust during cruising flight. Lift during forward flight is provided by a combination of the rotor, like an autogyro, as well as conventional wings, even though these alone would not keep the aircraft in the air.

 

The Mi-62 featured a tip-jet-powered rotor that burned a mixture of fuel and compressed air, bled from two wing-root-mounted jet engines. The rotor was only driven during the start/landing phase and at low speed. The air for the rotor was produced by compressors driven through a clutch off the main engines, though, which was fed through ducting up to the rotor head. Two Progress AI-222-25 turbofans, each rated at 24.52 KN (5.512 lbf), provided thrust for translational flight while the rotor autorotated, enabling VTOL and STOL start with overload. The cockpit controls included a cyclic and collective pitch lever, as in a conventional helicopter.

 

Each engine supplied air for a pair of opposite rotor blades. The rotor blades were a symmetrical airfoil around a load-bearing spar. The airfoil was made of carbon fiber and light alloy because of center of gravity concerns. The compressed air was channeled through three tubes within the blade to tip-jet combustion chambers, where the compressed air was mixed with fuel and burned, driving the rotor. As a torque-less rotor system, no anti-torque correction system was required. Propeller pitch was controlled by the rudder pedals for low-speed yaw control. To support handling at low speed, bleed air from the main engines was also ducted to a control vent system in the tail.

 

Transition from helicopter to autogiro took place at around 60 mph by extinguishing the tip-jets, and at higher speeds up to half the lift was provided by the fixed wings. At high cruising speed, the Mi-62 almost behaved like a standard aircraft. Cruising speed was to be at about 500 km/h (312 mph), coupled with a range of up to 1400 km (870 ml).

 

Since the speed of the advancing rotor tip is a primary limitation to the maximum speed of a helicopter, this arrangement allowed a faster maximum speed than pure helicopters such as the Mi-24/35 or the AH-64. The elimination of the tail rotor is a qualitative advantage, too, because the torque-countering tail rotor can use up to 30% of engine power. Furthermore, the vulnerable boom and rear gearbox are fairly common causes of helicopter losses in combat. The Mi-62’s entire transmission presents a comparatively small target to ground fire, and is a rather simple/rigid arrangement with much less moving parts than a standard helicopter.

 

The Mi-62 was designed as an alternative to Kamov's successful Ka-50/52 program, and regarded as a heavier alternative. While the Ka-50 was designed to be small, fast and agile to improve survivability and lethality, the Mi-62 was to rely on speed, quick acceleration and decelleration as well as on good low altitude handling, coupled with sufficient protection against small caliber weapons. Since operation would be primarily at low level and using the landscape as cover, not much emphasis was put on stealth features, even though many passive protection elements like RAM were incorporated into the aircraft.

 

One of the program priorities was to enhance the helicopter's survivability. With this goal in mind, the configuration and systems' arrangement were chosen, assemblies designed, and structural materials tested, beyond the robust rotor propulsion system. The following measures to enhance pilot survivability were taken:

 

• Engines were placed on both sides of the airframe to prevent a single hit from destroying both engines

• The gyroplane could fly on a single engine in various modes – even with a damaged rotor a controlled landing glide was possible

• The cockpit was armored and screened with combined steel/aluminum armor and armored Plexiglas

• The hydraulic steering system compartment was armored and screened

• Vital units were screened by less important ones

• Self-sealing fuel tanks were filled with polyurethane foam

• Composites were used to preserve the helicopter's efficiency when its load-carrying elements are damaged

• A two-contour rotor-blade spar was developed, integrating the air ducts

• Control rod diameter was increased by positioning most of them inside the armored cockpit

• The powerplant and compartments adjacent to the fuel tanks were fire-protected

• The hydraulic system is capable of operating for 30 minutes if the oil system is damaged

• The power supply systems, control circuits etc. were made redundant and placed on opposite sides of the airframe

 

The armor consisted of spaced-aluminum plates with a total weight of more than 300 kg. The armor is fitted into the fuselage load-bearing structure, which reduces the total weight of the helicopter. GosNIIAS tests confirmed the pilot's protection up to 20mm caliber cannon rounds and shell fragments.

 

Another unique feature of the Mi-62 is the use of a rocket-parachute ejection system in case of an emergency. The helicopter emergency-escape system uses the K-37-800 ejection seat that was developed by the Zvezda Scientific Production Association (Chief Designer Guy Severin). The pilot's safety was also ensured by the undercarriage design. The undercarriage is capable of absorbing large loads in an emergency landing, and the cockpit has a crunch zone of up to 10-15% upon impact.

 

Basic armament consists of a twin-barreled Sh2A42 30-mm gun. The gun is mounted in a shallow turret which can rotate full 360° near the center of fuselage. It has 460 rounds of ammunition, firing high-fragmentation, explosive incendiary rounds and armor-piercing rounds.

The cannon has a dual-feed, which allows for a cyclic rate of fire between 300 to 900 RPM. Its effective range varies from 1500 meters for ground vehicles to 2,500 meters for air targets. Stated penetration for the 3UBR8 is 25 mm of RHA at 1,500 meters.

 

Beyond that, the aircraft carries a substantial load of weapons in six external hardpoints under the stub wings. An total of some 2.000 kg mixed ordnance, including AAMs, AGMs, gun and unguided rocket pods which include the S-13 and S-8 rockets, can be carried. Even unguided and guided (IR, optical, laser) bombs have been successfully tested, so that the Mi-62 could eventually replace early Su-25 combat aircraft in the CAS role. The "dumb" rocket pods can be upgraded to laser guided with the proposed Ugroza system.

 

The main armament against moving ground targets consists of up to sixteen laser-guided Vikhr anti-tank missiles (transl. Vortex or whirlwind) with a maximum range of some 8 km. The laser guidance is reported to be virtually jam-proof and the system features automatic guidance to target, enabling evasive action immediately after missile launch.

 

Like the Ka-50, the Mil gyrodyne was from the outset to be operated by a single pilot only. Mil’s designers concluded after thorough research of helicopter combat in Afghanistan and other war zones that the typical attack mission phases of low-level approach, pop-up target acquisition and weapon launch would not simultaneously demand navigation, maneuvering and weapons operation of the pilot. Thus, with well-designed support automation, a single pilot was expected to carry out the entire mission alone.

 

During operational testing from 1995 to 1996 the workload on the pilot was found to be similar to that of a fighter-bomber pilot, and the pilot could perform both flying and navigation duties. Later flight tests of the Mi-62 prototypes proved that its handling was more like an aircraft with VTOL capabilities than a standard helicopter, so that jet pilots could master it with some training.

 

Initially the Mi-62 was to be have been fitted with the Merkury Low-Light TV (LLTV) system. Due to a lack of funding, the system was late and experienced reliability and capability issues. As a result, focus shifted to Forward Looking Infra-Red (FLIR) systems, including the Shkval-N sighting system with an infrared sensor. Many versions were tried; on some the original "Shkval" was supplemented by a thermal imaging system, while others saw a complete replacement by the "Samshit" day-and-night system, which has become the final sensor standard, mounted in a chin sensor turret.

 

The fire control system automatically shares all target information among the four Mi-62 of a typical flight in real time, allowing one helicopter to engage a target spotted by another, and the system can also input target information from ground-based forward scouts with personnel-carried target designation gear.

 

The Mi-62 was, after a lengthy development and constant lack of funds, eventually adopted for service in the Russian army in 2015. It is currently manufactured by the new Russian Helicopters company that was founded in 2009 in Moscow, and built at the Mil Moscow Helicopter Plant. It has been introduced to both Air Force (Mi-62 sans suffix, ‘Hepcat A’) and Naval Aviation (Mi-62K, ‘Hepcat B’) and is being used as a heavily armed attack helicopter against both ground and airborne targets.

 

The navalized Mi-62K derivative has been selected as the new ship-borne attack type for the Russian Naval Aviation (Aviatsiya Voenno-morskogo Flota Rossii). It will feature folding rotor blades and life-support systems for the crew, who will fly in immersion suits. The fuselage and systems will be given special anti-corrosion treatment and a new fire-control radar will be capable of operating in "Sea Mode" and of supporting anti-ship missiles. Aviatsiya Voenno-morskogo Flota Rossii will need no fewer than 20 Mi-62, which will be operated together with Ka-52Ks.

 

The first Mi-62K is tentatively slated to enter squadron service by late 2014 or early 2015, coinciding with the delivery of the first carrier of the new Mistral class amphibious assault ships, ordered by the Russian Defense Ministry. These small carriers will contain rotary-wing assets, formed into aviation groups, and each of these groups is planned to include eight attack and eight assault/transport helicopters.

  

General characteristics

Crew: One

Length (fuselage only): 13,46 m (44 ft 1 in)

Rotor diameter: 15,40 m (50 ft 5 1/2 in)

Height: 4.60 m (15 ft 1 in)

Disc area: 186.3 m² (1.998 ft²)

Empty weight: 7,700 kg (17,000 lb)

Loaded weight: 9,800 kg / 10,400 kg (21,600 lb / 22,930 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 10,800 kg (23,810 lb)

Powerplant

2× Progress AI-222-25 turbofans, 24.52 KN (5.512 lbf) each plus

4× rotor tip jet burning compressed air/fuel, 4.4 kN (1,000 lbf) thrust each

Performance

Never exceed speed: 550 km/h (297 knots, 342 mph) in dive

Maximum speed: 515 km/h (278 knots, 320 mph) in level flight

Cruise speed: 370 km/h (200 knots, 230 mph)

Range: 545 km (339 ml)

Combat radius: 800 km (500 ml)

Ferry range: 1400 km (870 ml) with 4 drop tanks

Service ceiling: 5,500 m (18,000 ft)

Rate of climb: 10.7 m/s (2,105 ft/min)

 

Armament

1× turret-mounted, wtin-barreled 30 mm Shipunov Sh2A42 cannon (460 rounds total, dual feeding AP or HE-Frag) under the fuselage

6×wing hardpoints with a capacity of 2,000 kg and provisions to carry combinations of launch pods for 80 mm S-8 rockets or 122 mm S-13 rockets, APU-6 Missile racks or up to 20× 9K121 Vikhr anti-tank missiles, 6× Vympel R-73 (NATO: AA-11 Archer) air-to-air missiles, Kh-25 semi-active laser guided tactical air-to-ground missiles, 4× 250 kg (550 lb) bombs or 2x 500 kg (1,100 lb) bombs, plus 23 mm UPK-23-250 gun pods (240 rounds each) or 500 l (130 US gal) external fuel tanks.

Two compartments in the lower fuselage with flare and chaff countermeasure dispensers, typically 4× UV-26 dispensers each (total 512 chaff/flare cartridges in each pod)

  

The kit and its assembly:

Another entry for the “Za Rodinu - The Anthony P Memorial Build” at whatifmodelers.com, and this time it’s a modern and rather exotic whif. Helicopters are rare among whiffers, so I thought I’d give that subject a chance, and I actually had the basis kit in store for some time, as I intended to build it for another GB but never got that kick to start it.

 

The fictional Mi-62 is a conversion of a snap-fit kit from Kotobukiya from a series of generic, roughly 1:72 scale mecha vehicles that do not belong to a specific series or movie, but they seem to be intended to go well with Gundam or Dougram. These are rather toy-like, sturdy things, but they have potential for more – especially the gyroplanes (two different types exist).

 

These seem to be unmanned drones/UAVs, though, and that immediately leads to the conversions I made. Most important change is a manned cockpit with a clear canopy (from a KP Su-25) and the respective, scratched interior.

 

Another big change was the deletion of the original, gigantic gatling gun under the fuselage, replaced by a much smaller twin cannon turret. That left a lot of ground clearance – as a late modification I decided to chop the landing gear and the respective fin/wing endplates by more than 1cm, so that the gyroplane would sit closer to the ground.

 

Further small cosmetics include an asymmetrical radome and a protruding pitot boom, some antenna bulges, new engine exhausts, chaff dispensers in the fuselage flanks, and free-standing main wheels.

 

The ordnance comes from a Dragon Soviet-Air-To-Ground-Ordnance kit, hung onto six new wing hardpoints (from a 1:144 F-4E and an ESCI Ka-34 in 1:72, IIRC).

  

Painting and markings:

Choosing a proper scheme was tricky. The helicopter was to look realistic, but still exotic, at least for Russian standards. I considered various options:

● An all-mid-grey livery, inspired by current Mi-35 attack helicopters. Too dull & simple!

● A trefoil-style scheme in khaki and olive drab, with blue undersides. Flashy, but IMHO rather old-school.

 

I finally found an original scheme on a Ka-62 prototype (shown at MAKS-2009): a wraparound scheme in olive drab, medium grey and chocolate brown. The colors are enamels, I used Olive Drab ANA 613 (ModelMaster #2050), German Uniform “Feldgrau” (ModelMaster #2014) Grey and German Armor Red Brown (Humbrol 160), later highlighted through dry-brushing with lighter shades of the basic tones and a black ink wash, standard process.

 

The interior was to be Russian-style, too, but instead of the eye-boggling turquoise I went for PRU Blue (Humbrol 230) inside of the cockpit. Still looks odd, but it’s not so bright.

 

As a twist I decided to use Russian Navy markings – and the real world introduction of Mistral Class ships was a good excuse for a naval version of this attack helicopter. The Naval Aviation used to and does employ many land-based aircraft and helicopters, incl. e. g. the Mi-24, in similar liveries to the Air Force or Army cousins.

 

The markings were puzzled together from various aftermarket decal sheets from Begemot , Authentic Decals and TL Modellbau, as well as from the scrap box. After some additional dry-brushing with medium grey overall, the kit was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish.