Apophenia's Offerings

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Something to keep in mind regarding stores pylons/bomb rack placement under the wings with aircraft designs of that era is that many of these aircraft were fitted with zero-length rocket launcher units ...

In lieu of any sign of wing rails, I mentioned short pylons for AIM-9Ls or similar. Considering the intended role, probably more likely that the G.291 featured further outboard pylons for additional SNEB pods.

Lovely profiles!!

Yes, if anything, I would think that one Aim-9 Sidewinder for self-defence would be a good balance and not detracting from it's intended role apophenia.

MAD

I did do a fit-check of the AIM-9 Sidewinder launch rail/pylon on the new locations on my Monogram F-86 Sabre and there were no fit issues when placed in the new outboard stores pylon locations so it would appear to be a matter of choice in having an additional pair of Sidewinders at these new outboard locations or a pair of stores pylons for free-fall bombs or rocket pods.  Granted the weight capacity would be much less than those inboard stations but it still looks good and practical/convincing to the casual observer. 

If I had the kits to resource I would love to have that "Y-Shaped" twin Sidewinder launcher pylon from the F-100 Super Sabre.  Mounting that on the inboard stores station to replace the single Sidewinder pylon would give the F-86 Sabre a much needed upgrade in capability.  So far the only source for the twin Sidewinder launcher in 1/48th scale if from the rather expensive Trumpeter F-100 Super Sabre kits.   

[apophenia]

I did do a fit-check of the AIM-9 Sidewinder launch rail/pylon on the new locations on my Monogram F-86 Sabre and there were no fit issues when placed in the new outboard stores pylon locations so it would appear to be a matter of choice in having an additional pair of Sidewinders at these new outboard locations or a pair of stores pylons for free-fall bombs or rocket pods.  Granted the weight capacity would be much less than those inboard stations but it still looks good and practical/convincing to the casual observer. 

Going back a generation, you did see G.91s carrying 250 lb dumb-bombs on their outboard pylons. Granted the third G.291 pylon is still further outboard but, if it could carry a Sidewinder (190 lbs + rail) a 250 wouldn't be that big of an issue.

If I had the kits to resource I would love to have that "Y-Shaped" twin Sidewinder launcher pylon from the F-100 Super Sabre.  Mounting that on the inboard stores station to replace the single Sidewinder pylon would give the F-86 Sabre a much needed upgrade in capability.  So far the only source for the twin Sidewinder launcher in 1/48th scale if from the rather expensive Trumpeter F-100 Super Sabre kits.   

On your Y-shaped pylon conundrum, here's an off-the-wall possibility. Wrong period/continent but, I note, that the Tamiya Tornado F3 comes with those mid-'90s drop-tank/rails combo pylon. Could that set be pruned of its drop-tank attachment to leave just the Y-shaped mounts for the LAU-7s?

[apophenia]

Lovely profiles!!

Yes, if anything, I would think that one Aim-9 Sidewinder for self-defence would be a good balance and not detracting from it's intended role apophenia.

MAD

Cheers M.A.D 

I think you are right about the AIM-9 on the G.291. It occurs to me that mixing the load-out on formations might also have been a good idea. Maybe (in a two pairs formation) three G.291s with full ground-attack ordnance and one 'cover' aircraft carrying 'winders outboard?

[Jeffry Fontaine]

On your Y-shaped pylon conundrum, here's an off-the-wall possibility. Wrong period/continent but, I note, that the Tamiya Tornado F3 comes with those mid-'90s drop-tank/rails combo pylon. Could that set be pruned of its drop-tank attachment to leave just the Y-shaped mounts for the LAU-7s?

Tamiya Tornado F.3?  I require bits and pieces in 1/48th scale.  The "Y-Shape" twin Sidewinder launcher pylon from the F-100 has a very unique shape to it and is I believe a solid construction unit.  Not that it really matters, I suspect in time I may be able to find the parts through networking by trading or purchase of the items in question. 

[apophenia]

Tamiya Tornado F.3?  I require bits and pieces in 1/48th scale...

Yep. Sorry Jeff ... got my scale wires crossed 

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Tamiya Tornado F.3?  I require bits and pieces in 1/48th scale...

Yep. Sorry Jeff ... got my scale wires crossed 

It's all good.  I wonder if the HobbyBoss, Revell or Italeri Tornado kits might have these bits.  Will have to do some research at ScaleMates to see what the kits contain.   a s

***edit to elaborate.  Just checked via ScaleMates and it would appear that the pylons in question will not be suitable for conversion to the desired inverted "Y-Shape" of the F-100 Super Sabre Sidewinder twin launcher pylon.  Worth the time spent to check though. -- jjf

[apophenia]

...  not be suitable for conversion to the desired inverted "Y-Shape" of the F-100 Super Sabre Sidewinder twin launcher pylon...

I notice a twin-rail launcher on Danish F-100s but, at a  glance, they seem to be flat-bottomed - ie: an inverted 'T' rather than a 'Y'. I'm assuming that those are a different (later?) type from your desired inverted 'Y'.

[Kerick]

I could use a sprue of just Sidewinder and Maverick launchers.

[Jeffry Fontaine]

I could use a sprue of just Sidewinder and Maverick launchers.

Scale? 

[Jeffry Fontaine]

...  not be suitable for conversion to the desired inverted "Y-Shape" of the F-100 Super Sabre Sidewinder twin launcher pylon...

I notice a twin-rail launcher on Danish F-100s but, at a  glance, they seem to be flat-bottomed - ie: an inverted 'T' rather than a 'Y'. I'm assuming that those are a different (later?) type from your desired inverted 'Y'.

More than likely it is the same launcher adapter unit/pylon for the RDAF F-100.  The real Sidewinder launcher/pylon is a very shallow "Y-Shape," very hard to discern from a "T-Shape" at a distance because it is so shallow.  It is designed to align the Sidewinders so the control surfaces are vertical and horizontal (+ shape) to the line of flight instead of the usual "X" shape that most other aircraft utilize for carriage of the Sidewinder.  Mirage III being another example of the offset to carry the Sidewinder in the "+" arrangement.   

[apophenia]

The Canadian Ram cruiser tank was a very ambitious project for a sprawling nation with a population of only 11.5 million people. However, the major components were imported from the United States. The lower hulls and running gear were based directly on the American M3 medium tank. As a result, Continental R-975 engines came in from Detroit while gearboxes came originated with Iowa Transmission Co. of Waterloo, Iowa. These were in short supply - due to the scaling-up of M3 production - but the Canadian Tank Arsenal (CTA) in Montreal received regular deliveries. Large armour castings imported from the US were another matter.

The Ram's upper hull casting was well beyond the means of CTA managers, Montreal Locomotive Works. Instead, these massive casting were done in the Commonwealth plant of General Steel Castings in Granite City, Illinois. Delays in perfecting and delivering these hull castings threatened the entire Ram programme. As an interim, it was decided to develop an easier-to-assemble Ram variant. Like the lower hulls created in Montreal, this interim Ram would have a bolted and riveted upper hull - very much like that of the US M3. It took rather longer to sort out the nature of this interim cruiser tank's turret type.

'Interim Ram'

For the first model of this 'Interim Ram' (M3.IR), it was proposed to use the American upper turret from the M3 Lee tank. This would be armed with the same American 37 mm M3 L/56.6 gun as the M3 but lack the uppermost machine turret (which had proved unpopular with British crews). This proposed arrangement, it was thought, would be the quickest method to getting Ram cruisers to the frontlines. Alas, this proposal was immediately rejected by the Royal Tank Regiment which felt that such a vehicle offered little advantage over its existing, UK-made cruiser tanks. However, the RTR was somewhat more interested in the second proposed arrangement for the 'Interim Ram'.

CTA's back-up scheme was an 'Interim Ram' fitted with the originally planned turret for the cast-hulled Rams. These cast turrets would also be imported from the US but were less difficult castings to create than the upper hulls. Of interest to the RTR was the use of its preferred internal mantlet to hold a 6-pounder main gun. Despite crew trepidations about the bolted and riveted armour plate of M3s, this approach was considered acceptable while waiting for 'full production' Ram cruisers with cast hull armour. As a result, a British order was placed for the M3.IR 'Interim Ram' cruiser tank as the Ram Mk.X. These would be delivered with no main guns - the new 6-pounders to be fitted in Britain.

Ram Mk.X in North Africa

From the outset, the Ram Mk.X had been intended for use in the Western Desert and provision had been made for extensive turret cooling fans. The first Ram Mk.X cruisers saw action in North Africa late in the Battle of Gazala in June 1942. Like the American M3s, the Ram Mk.X received a British code name - 'Guide' (perhaps as a match to 'Pilot' for the M3. The Canadian tanks acquitted themselves well against Panzer IIIs during the fighting west of Tobruk. However, the follow-on Ram Mk.XA armed with the longer, American 6-pounder - the 57mm M1 with an L/50 barrel - was eagerly awaited. These long-barrelled Rams reached the front in September 1942 but, within a month, the Ram was being eclipsed by a new American medium tank - the M4 Sherman armed with a 75 mm turret gun.

The Ram cruiser received no further British orders. After some hulls were completed as 2-pounder armed Ram Mk.XI training tanks for the Canadian Army, the Canadian Tank Arsenal shifted production to 25-pdr self-propelled guns.

Image Shown is a long-barrelled Ram Mk.XA in North Africa. Note that these cruiser tanks were delivered without sand shields (although these were often fitted in the field.

The scrap views show the rejected American 37 mm M3 turret (top) and the short-barrelled Ram Mk.X (bottom).

[apophenia]

Inspired by Frank3k's comment on The Spanish Civil War, rethought thread.
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10987.msg215949#msg215949
_________________________________________________________

The first 20 ex-US Army Air Corps Martin B-10s arrived at the port of Sagunto in València during January of 1937. Being 20 miles from the Aeroport de València, remote Sagunto wasn't ideal. However, it took pressure off of the overcrowded Porto de València and minimized the odds of crated machines being caught in the open during a Nationalist air raid. The crates were then shipped to El Racó for re-assembly and test-flying from the Aeroport de València. [1]

In Aviación repúblican service, the B-10 was dubbed the 'Martinete' - meaning 'drop hammer' or 'pile driver'. [2] To the fascistas, the Martins were simply 'Martíns' or, for propaganda purposes, 'Mártires' ('Martyrs'). With a maximum speed over 210 mph, the Martin could easily outpace He 51B biplane fighters of the Legión Cóndor while only an unfortunately-placed Fiat C.R.32 had any real chance of interception. [3]

Top: A newly-delivered Martin B-10B operating from the Aeroport de Castelló in the Summer of 1937. The camouflage green and grey had applied over a USAAC scheme prior to delivery. American preparers had also positioned Republican roundels above and below the wings - although this practice was actually quite rare in the AR.

Already, blanc dos has taken on some personal markings. The fuselage band has a yellow stripe added, suggesting a Catalan crew - red and gold being the colours of the Senyera (the Catalonian flag). Below the rear cockpit, a CNT poster has also been doped into place.

Bottom: A well-worn 'Martinete' with overpainted camouflage to better-suit the terrain of the Meseta Central. By early-1938, the Martin was losing its edge over opposing fighters. To better-defend itself, blanco cuatro has been stripped of its rear cockpit canopies and armed with twinned Brownings.

On the fuselage band, the slogan '¡No pasarán!' has been added (along with signatures of the crew). Perhaps the latter gesture was meant as a pledge? Regardless, blanco cuatro succumbed to Italian AA fire while on a mission over Mérida. By this stage, the surviving Martins were being replaced by Soviet Tupolev SBs - which were some 65 mph faster than the 'Martinete'.
_________________________________________________________

[1] At the time, the Valènciano word aeroport was prefered to the Spanish aeropuerto.

[2] As it happens, martinete is also a flamenco singing style and the name of a Cuban heron species.

[3] The Heinkel He 51B's top speed was only 210 mph, the Fiat C.R.32's was 220 mph. The latter were mainly flown by the Italian-manned Aviazione Legionaria but Spanish Aviación Nacional pilots eventually flew both types.

[Frank3k]

Wow - nice work on both! Off to find a suitable B-10...

[GTX_Admin]

 

[Old Wombat]

The B-10 always looks like a failed amphibian*, to me.




[*: Low/mid-mounted wings, not good for an amphibious aircraft.]

[apophenia]

Thanks folks!

The B-10 always looks like a failed amphibian*, to me...

At first, I thought you were body-shaming pot-bellied salamanders 

I couldn't resist ... here is a Glenn Martin 139WV (Watervliegtuig) - a ML-KNIL landplane conversion on loan to bolster local MLD strength. The 139WVs were modified to accept the twin float gear from retired Fokker T.IVa patrol bombers. This aircraft operated from Marinevliegkamp Morokrembangan at Soerabaja, Java. MLD M529 was downed by Japanese fighters over the Java Sea on 02 March 1942.

[GTX_Admin]

The B-10 always looks like a failed amphibian*, to me.

You were saying…

[ericr]

  long live floatplanes / seaplanes

[Old Wombat]

The B-10 always looks like a failed amphibian*, to me.

You were saying…

Right! So, take away the big floats, fit smaller floats at/near the wing-tips, then raise the wing to the shoulder or go parasol (as per the Catalinas) ...

... & NOW the "pot-bellied salamander" looks like a proper amphibian.

[apophenia]

You were saying…

Just when you think it is safe to use your imagination, reality hoves into view! Is it still whiffery if some clever bastard actually did it almost 90 years ago? 

[GTX_Admin]

Maybe someone took the idea and your profile and then jumped in a time machine/sent the image back in the past to create it for real...just to mess with you.

[apophenia]

Maybe someone took the idea and your profile and then jumped in a time machine/sent the image back in the past to create it for real...just to mess with you.

That's just plain unfair. They had access to a time machine and Edo floats 

[apophenia]

More alternative Spanish Civil War stuff ...
_____________________________________________

The Vickers 6-ton light tank was never adopted by the British Army but it proved a very successful export type. In 1933, the US Army's Rock Island Arsenal designed a new light tank prototype - designated T2 - which used the simple leaf-spring suspension system from the Vickers 6-ton. However, the US Army was unsatisfied with this suspension's cross-country performance and speed limitations. Accordingly, in 1935, Rock Island produced a follow-on light tank prototype - the T2E1 which incorporated a superior Vertical Volute Spring System (VVSS) suspension. The T2E1 would be refined into the production-model M1 Combat Cars and M2 Light Tanks.

Beginning in January 1937, the US, Britain, and France began co-operating on armoured vehicle development with the aim of reducing redundancies while also speeding deliveries to Republican Spain. France assumed that its cast-armoured Char légers - the Renault R35 and Hotchkiss H35 - would become the basis for standard model western light tanks. However, American and British assessment teams would judge these well-protected infantry tanks to be heavy and slow (as well as difficult to steer off-road, in the case of the R35). This led to a breakdown in negotiations to produce a common allied light tank. However, the US and British armies agreed to continue exchanging technical details on new armoured vehicle developments.

On the American side, the key benefit came from extensive firing trials with the British 47 mm tank gun - the Ordnance QF 3-pounder. The timing worked out well. Observing operation tank use in the Spanish Civil War had shown that America's currently-planned machine gun-armed light tanks would be inadequate in combat. The war in Spain was also revealing the limitations of the 250 surplus M1917 tanks supplied, including those with short-barrelled 37 mm M1916 cannons. In January 1937, the Ordnance Committee had acquired two modern German anti-tank guns - PaK 36s - which were meant to form the basis for future T3A1 tank guns. Instead, trials with the dual-purpose British 3-pounder resulted in the Watervliet Arsenal producing its 47 mm gun M4 for the US Army.

On the British side, the information exchange bore fruit when Vickers redesigned in Mark E 6-ton light tank to take a VVSS suspension based on the Rock Island Arsenal's T2E1 design. By contract, Vickers agreed to refrain from exporting this new Mark G 7-ton [1] light tank - accept for use by Republican Spain. In Spain, the new tank was, invariably, known as the 'Siete Toneladas' or '7-ton'. Initially, both infantry and 'cruiser' variants were planned but all production '7-tons' were dual-purpose types armed with the Ordnance QF 3-pounder gun.

Right A Vickers 'Siete Toneladas' tank in Spain. This '7-ton' run out of fuel while on the Ávila? front. Abandoned by its Republican crew, all attempts to set the tank alight failed. Captured, the vehicle is shown with its turret painted over in the colours of the Nationalist flag.

Compared with the 6-ton, the 'Siete Toneladas' had rather more power. While the 6-ton had an 90 hp Armstrong Siddeley Puma 4-cylinder, the 7-ton featured a 150 hp Wolseley Viper V8 engine.

Old School - the 6-Ton Lives on

Due to its agreement not to export VVSS suspensions, Vickers also continued to employ its original leaf-spring suspensions from the 6-ton tank. Other than for exports, this suspension type was also incorporated into a line of artillery vehicles for the British Army. Confusingly, the Royal Armoured Corps' Dragon Mark I artillery tractor was known by Vickers as its Medium Dragon Mark IV. In Spanish Republican service, a similar type was dubbed el Dragón TA (Tractor de Artillería). The Dragón TAF of 1938 was uprated with an 85 bhp Ford Dagenham-built 'sidevalve' V8 engine.

Derived from the Tractors de Artillería were the revised Autopropulsados - akin to the earlier Birch Guns. These self-propelled guns had enlarged, open-topped fighting compartments which extended rearward over the engine. In the centre was mounted an artillery piece. Above the engine compartment was a rack for stored ammunition (with ready-rounds carried next to the gun).  The main Dragón AP variant was, officially, the 84 mm Obús Autopropulsado - despite the Ordnance QF 18 pounder actually being a field gun rather than a howitzer.

Left: A newly-delivered Dragón AP variant armed with a 76 mm Ordnance QF 13-pounder gun. These former horse artillery pieces were donated in some numbers - including from the Canadian and Australian armies. The rarer 13-pdr Dragón APs were supplied exclusively to the Galacian front where their slightly lower combat weight was appreciated for mobility over rougher terrain.

______________________________

[1] Vickers designations were rather obtuse. Mk.E covered a large family of evolving vehicles. Other than basic design, what unified Vickers-built Mk.Es was their Armstrong-Siddeley engines. The one-off Mk.F prototype tried a 125 hp Rolls-Royce Phantom II 6-cylinder but no orders were received. As noted, the Mk.G switch to a British-built Ford flathead V8 engine.

[GTX_Admin]

 

[Frank3k]

The Vickers 6/7 ton with the VVSS suspension  is messing with my mind. I think I have enough parts to build it (using a 7TP/T-26 Mirage kit)