Author Topic: Apophenia's Offerings  (Read 401945 times)

Offline Small brown dog

  • Dwelling too long on the practicalities of such things can drive you mad.
  • Woof!
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2325 on: October 11, 2019, 04:54:56 PM »
ooh....I could be a little hot and sweaty!
Nicely done by the way ;)
« Last Edit: October 11, 2019, 04:57:09 PM by Small brown dog »
Its not that its not real but it could be that its not true.

Offline apophenia

  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2326 on: October 13, 2019, 02:29:25 AM »
Thanks folks!  :D

Nemesis - The 'Simplified Spitfire' Delivered

The first batch of 20 North American NA-53M Nemesis fighters rolled out of NAA's plant at LA in late May 1940. As intended, these airframes were far from complete. Crated and shipped incomplete from LA to Southampton, all standard Spitfire components were to be installed in the UK. Airframe wings, forward fuselages, and tailplanes were boxed separately. Unfortunately, these crates were also divided between two different cargo ships ... a pattern which would be avoided in future.

For this first Nemesis batch, four of the wing sets and all of the tailplanes were hoisted aboard a Greek cargo ship at San Pedro Bay. Just under a month later - on 19 June 1940 - the 3,440 ton SS Adamandios Georgandis was torpedoed by U-28 off the south-west coast of Ireland. Of the ship's crew, 14 survived the attack but 41 were killed. All onboard Nemesis parts accompanied the SS Adamandios Georgandis almost 9 fathoms down to the bottom of the Atlantic.

Such was the urgent need for modern fighters, that 16 of the first Nemesis batch were assembled without tails. [1] Fortunately, at the tail break point ( fuselage station 19), the Nemesis was identical to the Spitfire. So, to the list of needed Spitfire components to complete the Nemesis was added tailplanes. Many of the needed components were gleaned from damaged Spitfires under repair. As a result, hybrid fighters could be fairly quickly delivered with Spitfire tails. These 16 hybrids were designated Nemesis Mk.Ia.

Top A Nemesis Mk.Ia of No. 92 (East India) Squadron, RAF Biggin Hill, September 1940. Note the standard Spitfire tailplane distinct to this hybrid Mark.

The second Nemesis series were shipped with complete airframe crates batched together to avoid the confusion of Nemesis Mk.Ia. The first Nemesis Mk.I airframes arrived at Southampton in late July 1940. All 20 Mk.Is from this batch were in squadron service by the end of August 1940.

Bottom Vi et armis: a standard Nemesis Mk.I, No. 65 Squadron, RAF Hornchurch, October 1940.

__________________________

[1] The remaining four wingless and tailless Nemesis fuselages were retained as spares.
“Technology is a word that describes something that doesn’t work yet.” Douglas Adams

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2327 on: October 13, 2019, 04:51:02 AM »
In the Morgan/Shacklady book, it says that Supermarine actually did look at a P-51 style radiator installation.

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2328 on: October 13, 2019, 05:08:22 AM »
More interesting whiffing candidates in this installment.  I love the look you have here.

Offline Brian da Basher

  • He has an unnatural attraction to Spats...and a growing fascination with airships!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hulk smash, Brian bash
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2329 on: October 13, 2019, 06:30:35 AM »
They'll probably ban me from the pub for this but I like your version even better than the original!

That radiator installation seems most sensible and along with the squared off fin/rudder gives it a very tough, workman like appearance.

Well done, apophenia!

 :icon_beer:
(last pint before the landlord reads this)
Brian da Basher

Offline AXOR

  • Our returned Monkey Box man
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2330 on: October 13, 2019, 07:03:20 AM »
Woow...just awesome...I mean...wooow
I must bring into discussion that fantastic Bell model 11/XP-45 which deserve at some point...racing clothes
So many great works since my last visit...great job sir !
Alex

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2331 on: October 13, 2019, 07:58:30 AM »
Love it Stephen. Just a comment, see that first vertical panel line behind the exhaust stubs, that's what's called Frame 5, also the engine bulkhead. It's also where the wing main spar was attached to.  On the Spiteful, the laminar wing main spar was also attached there, so what would it look like if you moved the wing forward a bit, and line up the spar line of the Mustang wing to it.

When I built this below, I goofed up on where the wing should have been. I'm going to move it forward sometime in the future and line the spar up with the Frame 5.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2019, 08:05:56 AM by kitnut617 »

Offline apophenia

  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2332 on: October 13, 2019, 11:15:39 AM »
Thanks folks.

Robert: I considered following the Spiteful example but, in the end, went with shallow aesthetics rather than reality  :-[

My dodge was removing most of the lower half of the Spitfire. The rationale was that the one-piece wing could be mounted anywhere along the new lower longerons. Realistic? Probably not ... but I like the overall balanced look of the RW Mustang.

Relating to that ...gotta say I really like the look of your "goofed up" Spiteful   :smiley:  Somehow the accurate Spiteful never quite looks 'right' to me  :icon_surprised:
« Last Edit: October 14, 2019, 03:38:09 AM by apophenia »
“Technology is a word that describes something that doesn’t work yet.” Douglas Adams

Offline apophenia

  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2333 on: October 14, 2019, 03:43:12 AM »
Long-Range - The PR Nemesis and the Birth of the Mustang

North American had designed the Nemesis to accommodate Spitfire-style under-wing radiators should the RAF prefer that option. However, the adoption of the under-slung belly radiator bath left the rear portion of the NA-53M's laminar-flow wing 'empty'. The RAF would later accept North American's suggestion of addition fuel tanks in the wings. This led to the longer-range 'Intruder' Nemesis F.Mk.II and cannon-armed F.Mk.IIA.

Proceeding both long-range fighter variants into service was the Nemesis PR Mk.III. This unarmed photo-reconnaissance aircraft made for a much simpler conversion than the equivalent, wet-winged PR Spitfires. The Nemesis PR Mk.III also had 'longer legs' than the early PR Spitfires.

Top Nemesis PR Mk.III of No. 1 Photographic Reconnaissance Unit, RAF Benson, late February 1941.

The USAAF had long had an interest in the Nemesis since it dramatically out-performed their P-40s. American pilots had a brief opportunity to test fly NA330 before she was disassembled for shipment but, with its litany of UK-made Spitfire components,  production of the Nemesis for US use simply wasn't practical. Actually, the entire approach to producing the Nemesis would eventually come to be seen as impractical for all concerned.

North American Aviation was encouraged by the British to develop a Nemesis variant entirely independent of UK-built parts. With its own future use in mind, the USAAF was happy to release the Allison V-1710 V-12 engine to power such a variant. Ed Schmued concluded that NAA could devise a superior fuselage to the Nemesis' Spitfire-based unit and began a complete redesign. The result was the NA-73X of which two prototypes were built - the first being delivered to the A&AEE at Boscombe Down, the second going to the USAAF for testing and development.

Bottom North American NA-73X (second prototype), undergoing USAAF trials at Wright Field, Autumn 1942. Note that this aircraft's new retractable tail wheel is stuck in the 'down' position.

The NA-73 was quickly productionized as the North American Mustang for the RAF and P-51 for the USAAF. But that, as they say, is another story ...
« Last Edit: October 14, 2019, 03:44:55 AM by apophenia »
“Technology is a word that describes something that doesn’t work yet.” Douglas Adams

Offline Brian da Basher

  • He has an unnatural attraction to Spats...and a growing fascination with airships!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hulk smash, Brian bash
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2334 on: October 14, 2019, 03:57:40 AM »
I had to look twice at the NA-73X it's that convincing!

Few have your talent at rendering a natural metal finish, apophenia. Pardon the pun, but your work really shines here.

Outstanding!

Brian da Basher

Offline apophenia

  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2335 on: October 14, 2019, 04:00:29 AM »
Thanks Brian. In truth, that shine came almost exclusively from a photo of N51Z - the restored "Shanty Irish"   ;)
“Technology is a word that describes something that doesn’t work yet.” Douglas Adams

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2336 on: October 14, 2019, 06:00:27 AM »
I had to look twice at the NA-73X it's that convincing!

Few have your talent at rendering a natural metal finish, apophenia. Pardon the pun, but your work really shines here.

Outstanding!
What he said.  Beautiful work and an elegant alternate to the NA-73X.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2337 on: October 14, 2019, 12:42:01 PM »
Wasn't the Spiteful wing similar to the Mustang wing?

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2338 on: October 14, 2019, 11:20:02 PM »
Wasn't the Spiteful wing similar to the Mustang wing?

No, but it was Supermarine's attempt at a laminar flow wing, after Rolls Royce had discovered when they were converting a Mustang Mk.I to a Merlin engine and then testing it against a latest mark Spitfire with an identical Merlin and prop, that the Mustang was about 30 mph faster at almost all engine settings. They put it down to the wing that was making the difference. The closest you'll find to a Spiteful wing is on an Supermarine Attacker jet, which is what I used on my model because at the time I built it, I didn't know of any 1/72 Spiteful kit that was available.

Offline apophenia

  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2339 on: October 15, 2019, 05:05:48 AM »
The Mustang had a one-piece wing (or, rather, port and starboard sections which were bolted together on the centre line). The Spiteful had a two separate wing panels which, as on the Spitfire, bolted onto the side of the fuselage (the main spar at fuselage frame 5, as kitnut617 noted earlier).

Other than that, in a general way, both fighters had 2-spar laminar-flow wings (with their main spars at the thickest point in the airfoil section (~30% of chord). Lots of detail differences, though.

The most obvious morphological difference was the Mustang's constant taper (except ahead of the wheel bays in versions before the 'light weights'). By contrast, the Spiteful wings' taper increased outboard of the gun bays. The Spiteful wing also had a noticeably reduced dihedral angle compared with a Mustang.

The Spiteful's wing taper dictated a slightly cranked rear spar. It also featured a reinforcing auxiliary spar along its leading edge. On the Mustang, an auxiliary spar was used only in front of the wheel well opening. A Mustang's flaps are separate from the wings. Spiteful flaps were split. Attached are plan-views of the two types (actually a navalized Seafang) roughly to scale.

BTW: The rear fuselage of the Spiteful XIV was essentially the same as that of the non-bubble canopies Spitfires. The Spiteful cockpit (and forward fuselage decking) were raised by comparison with the Spit.

... The closest you'll find to a Spiteful wing is on an Supermarine Attacker jet, which is what I used on my model because at the time I built it, I didn't know of any 1/72 Spiteful kit that was available.

I did the same back in the day  ...  Rareplanes vacuform Spiteful combined with Frog Attacker wings  :D
“Technology is a word that describes something that doesn’t work yet.” Douglas Adams

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2340 on: October 15, 2019, 06:07:00 AM »
To elaborate on the Spitfire/Spiteful wings, they had a main spar and an auxiliary spar (rear) which was basically used to mount the control surfaces to. The main spar connected to the fuselage using a massive seven-bolt drop-forged interlocking lug, the auxiliary spar though was connected with a single pin which was held in place by a washer and cotter pin. This pin was horizontal and ran parallel to the fuselage centerline. In effect, it means the auxiliary spar could 'flap' up or down and I've always thought that under extreme maneuvers, there was some sort of 'wing-warping' going on which would enhance what the ailerons were doing, the wing twisting around the main spar.

All this I've got from the Morgan/Shacklady book, except where my thoughts are.

The rear fuselage of the second and third prototype Spiteful also had the same side profile as a standard Spitfire, but a different cross-section above the datum longeron to accommodate the raised cockpit. However, Frame 19 (the tail assembly joint frame) was the same as any Spitfire.

I built this a while ago mating a Spiteful fuselage to a Spitfire wing
« Last Edit: October 15, 2019, 06:16:41 AM by kitnut617 »

Offline apophenia

  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2341 on: October 22, 2019, 09:26:54 AM »
I built this a while ago mating a Spiteful fuselage to a Spitfire wing

Very nice, Robert  :smiley:  Some time ago, I did an ur-Spiteful profile somewhat along that line ...

But for now, some election-day trouble-making ...  >:D
__________________________

Canada's Future Fighter Capability Project (FFCP) which collapsed in the Spring of 2023. DND attempted to launch a New Future Fighter Capability (NFFC) project without success. After the 44rd Canadian general election (held on 16 October 2023), a major bureaucratic revisions to defence procurement was made. Under those revisions, the AIR 3026 program was begun.

AIR 3026 Phase 1 - aka CSIA/AISC or the Canadian Sovereignty Interceptor Aircraft Program/Programme canadien des aéronefs intercepteurs de la souveraineté - represented a broader contest for a more restricted fighter role. [1] This was one outcome of the 2023-2027 Canada Defence Plan resulting from a majority agreement within Parliament. AIR 3026 moved through to completion with tremendous speed (by previous Canadian procurement standards) but the outcome would prove just as contentious.

Since most modern fighters are designed as multi-purpose aircraft, it proved difficult to find a range of dedicated interceptors. As potential AIR 3026 candidates were winnowed, only one design remained viable - based on performance, availability, and cost. This was the J-20 'Mighty Dragon' from China's Chengdu Aerospace Corporation (CAC). Incorporating little Western technology, the J-20 immediately raised concerns over compatibility with the aircraft's primary intended role - satisfying Canada's NORAD commitments. The United States government also had ideological 'issues' with the supplier.

Unbeknownst to Washington, the J-20 purchase was actually a component of addressing Ottawa's own concerns about dealing with the People's Republic of China. A previous Canadian government had sign a trade treaty with the PRC - the Foreign Investment Protection Agreement (FIPA) - which compromised Canadian sovereignty in several respects. [2] China was willing to abandon FIPA without penalty in exchange for opening Canadian military procurement - especially shipbuilding - to potential Chinese suppliers. So, the J-20 fit the bill for a new long-range RCAF interceptor while also meeting a pre-condition of escaping from the terms of FIPA.

Enter the 'Dragon - the CAC CF-200 Canuck II Interceptor

In RCAF service, the Chengdu interceptor would be known as the CF-200A Canuck II. It represented a slightly less capable fighter than its PLAAF equivalent - most notably in lacking the J-20's thrust-vectoring Shenyang WS-15 turbofan engines. Instead, the CF-200 retained the earlier Shenyang WS-10C engines - designated CFM/Shenyang TF-10 in the West. These engines reduce the CF-200's manoeuvrability (and 'supercruise' potential) but these were capabilities seen as non-essential for the Canadian interceptor role.

Equipment for the CF-200 has a mixture of Western and Chinese origin. Examples of retained PRC electronics include the PeDAS (Photo-electric Distributed Aperture System) electro-optic sensors, EORD-31 IR search and track, EOTS-86 EO targeting system, and AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) radar - assigned the JETDS/NORAD designation AN/APG(C)-98C. The most important Western electronics are the MADL (Multi-function Advanced Datalink) network and Link 16 communications system (installed in Canada at US DOD insistance).

From the RCAF's retiring CF-18M fleet, the CF-200 inherited the pilot's JHMCS (Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System), AN/ARC-210 radios, AN/AYQ-9 Stores Management System, and pylon-mounted ACMI (Air Combat Manoeuvring Instrumentation) system. CF-18 330 gallon drop tanks can also be carried on the CF-200 Canuck II's removable wing pylons.

Also carried over from the CF-18M were AIM-120 missiles. Standard load in the CF-200A's main missile bay is four SD-15J long-range BVRAAMs. A shorter-range AIM-120 missile is carried on either side of the main bay (in a smaller, lateral weapon bay) for self-defence. [3] As needed, four wing pylons can be mounted and used to carry weapons (although, as noted above, these pylons are used almost exclusively to carry drop tanks for ferry flights).

Procurement Politics Go Cross-Border

Multiple objections were made to the Canadian purchase of a Chinese-made interceptor to satisfy NORAD. US President Mike Pence went so far as accusing Prime Minister McKenna of personal interference in the procurement process while endangering North American security. European objections to the RCAF abandoning the ground-attack role would ease once Canada confirmed that Land Forces (including upgraded Leopard 2a8M tanks) would soon be returning to reinforce NATO in Europe. How all this plays out politically, remains to be seen ...

____________________________

[1] Plans to fill the NORAD interceptor role while abandoning NATO/Coalition ground attack missions became an election issue in 2023. This decision sprang from choices made by Chrystia Freeland, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Andrew Leslie, Parliamentary Secretary for Military Reform and Procurement.

[2] In official circles, this treaty was labelled the Canada-China Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments Agreement (CCPRPIA). This agreement came to be seen to unfairly favour Chinese investors - including those representing state-owned Chinese businesses.

[3] AIM-120s often form the sole armament on twin-seat CF-200B trainers. On PLAAF J-20s, those lateral bays carry 'short-range' Luoyang PL-10 IR AAMs.
“Technology is a word that describes something that doesn’t work yet.” Douglas Adams

Offline The Big Gimper

  • Any model will look better in RCAF, SEAC or FAA markings
  • Global Moderator
  • Cut. Cut. Cut. Measure. Cut. Cut. Crap. Toss.
    • Photobucket Modeling Album
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2342 on: October 22, 2019, 09:38:40 AM »
Wow. You are a real s**t disturber tonight!  ;D

Looks like I will have to now build my J-20 as a CF-200.

Nice touch given tonight's entertainment.
Work in progress ::

I am giving up listing them. They all end up on the shelf of procrastination anyways.

User and abuser of Bothans...

Offline Brian da Basher

  • He has an unnatural attraction to Spats...and a growing fascination with airships!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hulk smash, Brian bash
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2343 on: October 22, 2019, 05:29:29 PM »
Anything named Canuck I can't help but support. And buy a beer.
 :icon_beer:
Or two
 :icon_beer: :icon_beer:
or three
 :icon_beer: :icon_beer: :icon_beer:
Not that they drink too much or anything.

Yet more fantastic profiles that are utterly convincing. And get more convincing the more beers you have.
 :icon_beer: :icon_beer: :icon_beer: :icon_beer:
I think I'd better call a cab.
 :-X
Great stuff, Apophenia!
 8)
Brian da Basher

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2344 on: October 23, 2019, 01:29:00 PM »
 ;D ;D ;D ;D

Do the avionics come with built in backdoors, to allow remote access?  ;D
“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Offline ChernayaAkula

  • Was left standing in front when everyone else took one step back...
  • Global Moderator
  • Putting the "pro" in procrastination since...?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2345 on: October 25, 2019, 07:23:31 AM »
<...>
Looks like I will have to now build my J-20 as a CF-200. <...>

Same here.  :smiley: Have one in the stash - though it may be amongst the drowned and warped ones, not sure -, but no real whiffing idea for it. Until now. Leafy roundels look great on this.
Cheers,
Moritz

"The appropriate response to reality is to go insane!"

Offline apophenia

  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2346 on: October 25, 2019, 10:03:53 AM »
Thanks folks! I'd love to see the CF-200 in polystyrene

Do the avionics come with built in backdoors, to allow remote access?  ;D

Jon: Doubtless that was the original plan. However, the immense distances involved precluded remote access (it's almost 9,500 km from PVG to the RCAF's FOL at YFB, for example). Thus, a simpler approach was needed.

The solution arrived at by the Ministry of State Security (MSS) was the CHEATER (Chinese Hidden Electronics Access Technician, Emergency Response) programme. Under CHEATER, Chengdu was directed by the MSS to include a false wall in the avionics bay. Inside that conditioned compartment, a diminutive agent awaited any signal from home to hit the 'kill' switch.

As an elite unit, the CHEATER programme accepted only select individuals. Firstly, CHEATER operatives could measure no more than 150 cm in height and weigh less than 45 kg. Successful CHEATER candidates must also produce transcripts proving that they have graduated in the bottom third of their class. Although a lonely occupation, CHEATER accommodations are pressurized with avionics provide heat (for technician comfort) and microwave radiation (for zapping pre-packaged noodles and gaifan).

"... Don't matter how stumpy!"

The extent of the CHEATER programme only became apparent due to malfunctions with its sophisticated Fēngmì tǒng (蜂蜜桶) system. Following standard PRC commercial practices (eg, Chinese-flagged freighters about to enter Canadian waters), the 'FT' was to be emptied only once the CF-200 began its final approach. Contrary to official expectations, these 'Honey Bucket' bombing runs did not remain completely unnoticed. Aircraft Structure Technician complaints about unsightly (and rather pungent) staining of the RF-shielding paintwork aft of the avionics bays also raised RCAF suspicions.

Once the first CHEATER operatives were uncovered (and immediately rushed to the nearest shower facilities for a hose-down), Ottawa issued a formal protest to Ambassador Cong Peiwu at the Embassy of the People's Republic of China in Canada. In H.E. Mr. Cong response, it was noted that CHEATER operatives were technically employees of Sinopec (China Petroleum & Chemical Corporation). As such, CHEATER operatives were simply exercising their remaining rights under the amended FIPA treaty. It seemed that an impasse had been reached. However, the RCAF found its own solution to these unwelcome hitchhikers.

An AvsTech at CFB Bagotville suggested a simply but highly-effective 'cure'. The key to cplc JS Tonsourd's plan was wiring a cheap (but not Chinese-made) MP3 player and speaker into the avionics bay. A perpetual loop of My Heart Will Go On and Pour Que Tu M'aimes Encore would then be broadcast towards the CHEATER compartment. Once implemented, Chinese officials denounced this RCAF move as psychological warfare. Ottawa rejected this claim. Firstly, the PRC had said that CHEATER operatives were civilian employees of Sinopec. Secondly, as was well-known, everyone loves Céline Dion!

One outcome of the RCAFs 'Co-Chea' (Counter CHEATER) campaign was a sudden spike in refugee claims emanating from the vicinity of their avionics compartments. For his efforts, caporal-chef Tonsourd was named 'Airperson of the Year' for 2026.
“Technology is a word that describes something that doesn’t work yet.” Douglas Adams

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2347 on: October 25, 2019, 11:19:25 AM »
*SNORT!*  I loved that!
« Last Edit: October 26, 2019, 11:45:28 AM by elmayerle »

Offline apophenia

  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2348 on: October 26, 2019, 11:24:13 AM »
Cheers Evan!

Now in the U.S. Enters WWII Early (1940) GB ... The North American NA-60A Notenkraker:

http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=8810.msg161429#new
“Technology is a word that describes something that doesn’t work yet.” Douglas Adams

Offline Brian da Basher

  • He has an unnatural attraction to Spats...and a growing fascination with airships!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hulk smash, Brian bash
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2349 on: October 26, 2019, 08:16:14 PM »
You've come up with more stunners, apophenia!

Those are great! Headed over to the GB thread now...

Brian da Basher
« Last Edit: October 26, 2019, 08:21:27 PM by Brian da Basher »