<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:creativeCommons="http://backend.userland.com/creativeCommonsRssModule"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Aeroretronautics</title>
	<atom:link href="http://airminded.org/2010/05/22/aeroretronautics/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://airminded.org/2010/05/22/aeroretronautics/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=aeroretronautics</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 11:25:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: Brett Holman</title>
		<link>http://airminded.org/2010/05/22/aeroretronautics/comment-page-1/#comment-162460</link>
		<dc:creator>Brett Holman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 04:13:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://airminded.org/?p=4097#comment-162460</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In &lt;a href=&quot;http://airminded.org/2010/05/22/aeroretronautics/comment-page-1/#comment-141607&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a comment above&lt;/a&gt;, I noted that a photo from the same series as the line abreast one appeared in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1938/1938%20-%203285.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;24 November 1938&lt;/a&gt; issue of &lt;em&gt;Flight&lt;/em&gt;. Looking at it only marginally more closely, it is in fact just a cropped version of the very same photo. Duh.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In <a href="http://airminded.org/2010/05/22/aeroretronautics/comment-page-1/#comment-141607" rel="nofollow">a comment above</a>, I noted that a photo from the same series as the line abreast one appeared in the <a href="http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1938/1938%20-%203285.html" rel="nofollow">24 November 1938</a> issue of <em>Flight</em>. Looking at it only marginally more closely, it is in fact just a cropped version of the very same photo. Duh.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brett Holman</title>
		<link>http://airminded.org/2010/05/22/aeroretronautics/comment-page-1/#comment-142747</link>
		<dc:creator>Brett Holman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 May 2010 12:04:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://airminded.org/?p=4097#comment-142747</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[JDK:

Yes, I didn&#039;t want to get into NIVO and WWI camouflage, and I already partially corrected myself &lt;a href=&quot;http://airminded.org/2010/05/22/aeroretronautics/comment-page-1/#comment-141607&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;above&lt;/a&gt;. Fair point on the polish and dope.

Speaking of anachronisms, it must have been an odd experience to be in biplane-vs-biplane combat in WWII, such as when a RAF pilot flying a Gladiator scored a probable kill of an Iraqi Gladiator (!) in May 1941.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>JDK:</p>
<p>Yes, I didn't want to get into NIVO and WWI camouflage, and I already partially corrected myself <a href="http://airminded.org/2010/05/22/aeroretronautics/comment-page-1/#comment-141607" rel="nofollow">above</a>. Fair point on the polish and dope.</p>
<p>Speaking of anachronisms, it must have been an odd experience to be in biplane-vs-biplane combat in WWII, such as when a RAF pilot flying a Gladiator scored a probable kill of an Iraqi Gladiator (!) in May 1941.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JDK</title>
		<link>http://airminded.org/2010/05/22/aeroretronautics/comment-page-1/#comment-142624</link>
		<dc:creator>JDK</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 May 2010 03:30:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://airminded.org/?p=4097#comment-142624</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[OK, to get back to the topic of Brett&#039;s post!  I&#039;d agree that they look odd - and thus anachronistic.  

Furies indeed rarely wore camouflage.  Apart from the illustrated example, there were a couple in camouflage in the Spanish Civil War (one serving on both sides) while the South African Air Force used them in North Africa in W.W.II.

But the sense of anachronism tells us a lot about the power of publicity.  There never were that many Furies built, but when they were new, they were heavily promoted (photographed and used as the subject of illustrations) so they became disproportionately &#039;familiar&#039; in silver. Then, in W.W.II the propaganda bias ensured that &#039;our fighters&#039; that were being promoted would be the newest and best to receiving the most publicity, while the obsolete (but still in use) would be eclipsed, both literally as well as figuratively.  

But there weren&#039;t that many biplanes in use by W.W.II were there?  

Well, those that were - were busy.

As well as the biplane fighter SAAF Furies in N Africa (and RAAF and RAF Gloster Gladiators and even Gauntlets) there were Gladiators in service in France during the &#039;Sitzkrieg&#039; and even one unit of Glads in the Battle of Britain - while Norway saw RAF Glads, and the Med had RN Sea Gladiators serve.  On biplanes, we must not forget the Fairey Swordfish (not a fighter, of course) remarkably served &lt;i&gt;throughout&lt;/i&gt; W.W.II.  Biplanes were there.

Meanwhile, pedanting (I hope with some merit) as we are operating beyond Brett&#039;s mention of those poor souls to whom they are all &quot;...just be a bunch of old aeroplanes.&quot;

&quot;...bare metal finish...&quot; The cowlings would normally be &lt;i&gt;very&lt;/i&gt; polished metal (except the Fleet Air Arm equivalents, which were dull anodised) and Aluminium (it&#039;s a colour in this context) pigmented dope over the fabric wings, tail and fuselage surfaces.

&quot;...the RAF didn’t start camouflaging its aircraft until the Sudeten crisis in 1938...&quot; I know what you mean, but the RAF&#039;s heavy bombers were generally NIVO (green) overall, and the RAF&#039;s &lt;i&gt;Great War&lt;/i&gt; fighters (after the RAF&#039;s creation on April 1 1918) were camouflaged.  As well as acknowledging that we were excepting the previous war from the discussion, another oddity or difference here is that &lt;i&gt;these&lt;/i&gt; are in &lt;i&gt;disruptive&lt;/i&gt; camouflage, rather than a single upper colour.

All very interesting...

Regards,]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OK, to get back to the topic of Brett's post!  I'd agree that they look odd &#8211; and thus anachronistic.  </p>
<p>Furies indeed rarely wore camouflage.  Apart from the illustrated example, there were a couple in camouflage in the Spanish Civil War (one serving on both sides) while the South African Air Force used them in North Africa in W.W.II.</p>
<p>But the sense of anachronism tells us a lot about the power of publicity.  There never were that many Furies built, but when they were new, they were heavily promoted (photographed and used as the subject of illustrations) so they became disproportionately 'familiar' in silver. Then, in W.W.II the propaganda bias ensured that 'our fighters' that were being promoted would be the newest and best to receiving the most publicity, while the obsolete (but still in use) would be eclipsed, both literally as well as figuratively.  </p>
<p>But there weren't that many biplanes in use by W.W.II were there?  </p>
<p>Well, those that were &#8211; were busy.</p>
<p>As well as the biplane fighter SAAF Furies in N Africa (and RAAF and RAF Gloster Gladiators and even Gauntlets) there were Gladiators in service in France during the 'Sitzkrieg' and even one unit of Glads in the Battle of Britain &#8211; while Norway saw RAF Glads, and the Med had RN Sea Gladiators serve.  On biplanes, we must not forget the Fairey Swordfish (not a fighter, of course) remarkably served <i>throughout</i> W.W.II.  Biplanes were there.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, pedanting (I hope with some merit) as we are operating beyond Brett's mention of those poor souls to whom they are all "&#8230;just be a bunch of old aeroplanes."</p>
<p>"&#8230;bare metal finish&#8230;" The cowlings would normally be <i>very</i> polished metal (except the Fleet Air Arm equivalents, which were dull anodised) and Aluminium (it's a colour in this context) pigmented dope over the fabric wings, tail and fuselage surfaces.</p>
<p>"&#8230;the RAF didn’t start camouflaging its aircraft until the Sudeten crisis in 1938&#8230;" I know what you mean, but the RAF's heavy bombers were generally NIVO (green) overall, and the RAF's <i>Great War</i> fighters (after the RAF's creation on April 1 1918) were camouflaged.  As well as acknowledging that we were excepting the previous war from the discussion, another oddity or difference here is that <i>these</i> are in <i>disruptive</i> camouflage, rather than a single upper colour.</p>
<p>All very interesting&#8230;</p>
<p>Regards,</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JDK</title>
		<link>http://airminded.org/2010/05/22/aeroretronautics/comment-page-1/#comment-142594</link>
		<dc:creator>JDK</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 May 2010 05:11:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://airminded.org/?p=4097#comment-142594</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Just a passing comment on &#039;shadow shading&#039; as Martin&#039;s mentioned.  The documentation of lighter green and brown on lower wings of biplanes in practice is thin, often misunderstood from interpreting contemporary black and white photos (the very nature of the effect striven for meaning it was hard to discern) and seems to have faded (hem) out later in the war as stocks of monoplane darker colours were used rather than the rarer lighter biplane-lower-wing-only paints.  That said, many researchers miss that the RN and later RAF Supermarine Walruses usually *did* have shadow shading, with a divide halfway up the hull (when the sides were camouflaged with the upper colours).  If you know what you are looking for you can see it, but it&#039;s subtle.

Also my understanding has been that &#039;shadow shading&#039; was a specific part of the use of &#039;disruptive camouflage&#039; not the use of two form-hiding upper surface colours.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just a passing comment on 'shadow shading' as Martin's mentioned.  The documentation of lighter green and brown on lower wings of biplanes in practice is thin, often misunderstood from interpreting contemporary black and white photos (the very nature of the effect striven for meaning it was hard to discern) and seems to have faded (hem) out later in the war as stocks of monoplane darker colours were used rather than the rarer lighter biplane-lower-wing-only paints.  That said, many researchers miss that the RN and later RAF Supermarine Walruses usually *did* have shadow shading, with a divide halfway up the hull (when the sides were camouflaged with the upper colours).  If you know what you are looking for you can see it, but it's subtle.</p>
<p>Also my understanding has been that 'shadow shading' was a specific part of the use of 'disruptive camouflage' not the use of two form-hiding upper surface colours.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Spitfire Site</title>
		<link>http://airminded.org/2010/05/22/aeroretronautics/comment-page-1/#comment-142573</link>
		<dc:creator>Spitfire Site</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 May 2010 16:14:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://airminded.org/?p=4097#comment-142573</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[To may knowledge, during the Sudeten crisis the RAF issued a general order to camouflage all first-line aircraft, not only fighters. The initial instructions called for two-tone (dark green &amp; dark earth) upper camouflage on monoplane aircraft and &quot;shadow shading&quot; four-tone on biplanes (dark green &amp; dark earth, light green &amp; light earth on lower plane). In the event shadow-shading doesn&#039;t seem to have been used very often.

Martin, post-blogging the Battle of Britain at
http://spitfiresite.com
The Spitfire Site]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To may knowledge, during the Sudeten crisis the RAF issued a general order to camouflage all first-line aircraft, not only fighters. The initial instructions called for two-tone (dark green &amp; dark earth) upper camouflage on monoplane aircraft and "shadow shading" four-tone on biplanes (dark green &amp; dark earth, light green &amp; light earth on lower plane). In the event shadow-shading doesn't seem to have been used very often.</p>
<p>Martin, post-blogging the Battle of Britain at<br />
<a href="http://spitfiresite.com" rel="nofollow">http://spitfiresite.com</a><br />
The Spitfire Site</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brett Holman</title>
		<link>http://airminded.org/2010/05/22/aeroretronautics/comment-page-1/#comment-142540</link>
		<dc:creator>Brett Holman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 May 2010 12:01:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://airminded.org/?p=4097#comment-142540</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[JDK:

I know you weren&#039;t scoring points, I was on your behalf :)

Christopher:

Thanks. I have no problem going to &#039;hobbyist&#039; works, especially if it&#039;s an area that professional historians aren&#039;t interested in. There are often interesting devils in the details.

Alex:

Thanks very much for that. It seems like an appropriate method to use. In fact the ex-physicist in me is thinking of ways to plot the data graphically ...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>JDK:</p>
<p>I know you weren't scoring points, I was on your behalf :)</p>
<p>Christopher:</p>
<p>Thanks. I have no problem going to 'hobbyist' works, especially if it's an area that professional historians aren't interested in. There are often interesting devils in the details.</p>
<p>Alex:</p>
<p>Thanks very much for that. It seems like an appropriate method to use. In fact the ex-physicist in me is thinking of ways to plot the data graphically &#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex Crawford</title>
		<link>http://airminded.org/2010/05/22/aeroretronautics/comment-page-1/#comment-141782</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex Crawford</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 May 2010 17:57:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://airminded.org/?p=4097#comment-141782</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi,

JDK has asked me to help clarify when 43 Squadron last used Furys. My info comes from The K File by Air Britain. This book contains most of the info that is held on the aircraft movement cards for all aircraft in the &#039;K&#039; serial range.

As an example Fury K1930 was delivered to 43 Sqn on 15 April 1931. It then passed to Home Aircraft Depot on 19 October 1935, 3 ASU 19 April 1936, 25 Sqn 1 July 1936, 43 Sqn 29 July 1936, 5 Maintenance Unit 6 February 1939 and finally as an instructional airframe 2196M on 29 August 1940.

So from the above it may be safe to assume that K1930 was still with 43 Squadron up until 6 February 1939 when it was taken on charge by 5 Maintenance Unit. 

Operational Record Books don&#039;t always give details on aircraft movements to and from the squadron. When a squadron received new aircraft the old machines were still to be found with the squadron for a few months longer.

Pilot log books would give a better indication on how long the older aircraft lingered on with a squadron. Some would be used as hacks while others were still used to give flying hours to new pilots. 

Last year I had  the first volume of a two part book on the Hawker Fury published by Phil Listemann, which is an expanded version of the book I wrote for Mushroom Model Publications.

Regards,

Alex]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi,</p>
<p>JDK has asked me to help clarify when 43 Squadron last used Furys. My info comes from The K File by Air Britain. This book contains most of the info that is held on the aircraft movement cards for all aircraft in the 'K' serial range.</p>
<p>As an example Fury K1930 was delivered to 43 Sqn on 15 April 1931. It then passed to Home Aircraft Depot on 19 October 1935, 3 ASU 19 April 1936, 25 Sqn 1 July 1936, 43 Sqn 29 July 1936, 5 Maintenance Unit 6 February 1939 and finally as an instructional airframe 2196M on 29 August 1940.</p>
<p>So from the above it may be safe to assume that K1930 was still with 43 Squadron up until 6 February 1939 when it was taken on charge by 5 Maintenance Unit. </p>
<p>Operational Record Books don't always give details on aircraft movements to and from the squadron. When a squadron received new aircraft the old machines were still to be found with the squadron for a few months longer.</p>
<p>Pilot log books would give a better indication on how long the older aircraft lingered on with a squadron. Some would be used as hacks while others were still used to give flying hours to new pilots. </p>
<p>Last year I had  the first volume of a two part book on the Hawker Fury published by Phil Listemann, which is an expanded version of the book I wrote for Mushroom Model Publications.</p>
<p>Regards,</p>
<p>Alex</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Christopher Amano-Langtree</title>
		<link>http://airminded.org/2010/05/22/aeroretronautics/comment-page-1/#comment-141651</link>
		<dc:creator>Christopher Amano-Langtree</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 May 2010 11:05:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://airminded.org/?p=4097#comment-141651</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;m going to stick my neck out here an recommend A Scale Aircraft Monograph (No. 2 The Battle of Britain). This has a history of camouflage development which started in 1933. Definitive bomber camouflage designs were ready in 1936 and fighter designs by 25 March 1937 (Air Diagram 1160). Earlier schemes seem to have been trialed in Januray 1934 with Nos 4 and 111 Squadrons but not Hurricanes. Camouflage was first used in 1935 during the Abyssinian crisis when aircraft sent to the region were painted at Malta. Hurricanes themselves were receiving camouflage in early 1938 and were being delivered in camouflage. This subject is actually rather confused and unclear as to when things happened.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I'm going to stick my neck out here an recommend A Scale Aircraft Monograph (No. 2 The Battle of Britain). This has a history of camouflage development which started in 1933. Definitive bomber camouflage designs were ready in 1936 and fighter designs by 25 March 1937 (Air Diagram 1160). Earlier schemes seem to have been trialed in Januray 1934 with Nos 4 and 111 Squadrons but not Hurricanes. Camouflage was first used in 1935 during the Abyssinian crisis when aircraft sent to the region were painted at Malta. Hurricanes themselves were receiving camouflage in early 1938 and were being delivered in camouflage. This subject is actually rather confused and unclear as to when things happened.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JDK</title>
		<link>http://airminded.org/2010/05/22/aeroretronautics/comment-page-1/#comment-141639</link>
		<dc:creator>JDK</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 May 2010 10:40:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://airminded.org/?p=4097#comment-141639</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Just to be clear - I&#039;m not aiming to score points off Osprey - or my friend Andy Saunders!  I suspect the difference may be down to (quality of) source data.  I&#039;ll ask Alex what his statement was based on.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just to be clear &#8211; I'm not aiming to score points off Osprey &#8211; or my friend Andy Saunders!  I suspect the difference may be down to (quality of) source data.  I'll ask Alex what his statement was based on.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brett Holman</title>
		<link>http://airminded.org/2010/05/22/aeroretronautics/comment-page-1/#comment-141607</link>
		<dc:creator>Brett Holman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 May 2010 05:30:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://airminded.org/?p=4097#comment-141607</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Now that the &lt;em&gt;Flight&lt;/em&gt; archive is back up, it&#039;s time for some corrections! The photo can&#039;t have been taken any later than November 1938, because &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flightglobal.com/imagearchive/Image.aspx?GalleryName=Photo%20Archive/1939-1945&amp;Image=FA_16472s&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;one of the same series&lt;/a&gt; appeared in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1938/1938%20-%203284.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;24 November&lt;/a&gt; issue. (Which squares with JDK&#039;s info -- if 43 began to re-equip with Hurricanes in November 1938 and lost its last 6 Furies in February 1939, it&#039;s unlikely to have been able to fly Furies in formation strength that same month. MMP Books 1, Osprey 0.)

The RAF did not start camouflaging &#039;its aircraft&#039; in the Sudeten crisis, as I wrote in the post, or even 1938; this seems to apply only to fighters (maybe). &lt;em&gt;Flight&lt;/em&gt; had an article on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1937/1937%20-%201084.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;29 April 1937&lt;/a&gt; about the RAF&#039;s switch to &#039;shadow shading&#039;, a scheme &#039;lately evolved&#039; by Air Ministry experts, for heavy and medium bombers and army co-operation aircraft. (It&#039;s interesting in terms of the anachronicity discussion that the article describes the appearance of aircraft with shadow shading as &#039;bizarre&#039;, when it now seems natural.) Examples from later 1937 issues show a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1937/1937%20-%201422.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Whitley&lt;/a&gt; and a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1937/1937%20-%201904.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Battle&lt;/a&gt;. No reason is given for excluding fighters at this time, but there is a photo of Hurricanes of 3 Squadron in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1938/1938%20-%201485.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;26 May 1938&lt;/a&gt; issue with shadow shading. So the switch for at least some fighters was made much earlier than the Sudeten crisis.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Now that the <em>Flight</em> archive is back up, it's time for some corrections! The photo can't have been taken any later than November 1938, because <a href="http://www.flightglobal.com/imagearchive/Image.aspx?GalleryName=Photo%20Archive/1939-1945&#038;Image=FA_16472s" rel="nofollow">one of the same series</a> appeared in the <a href="http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1938/1938%20-%203284.html" rel="nofollow">24 November</a> issue. (Which squares with JDK's info &#8212; if 43 began to re-equip with Hurricanes in November 1938 and lost its last 6 Furies in February 1939, it's unlikely to have been able to fly Furies in formation strength that same month. MMP Books 1, Osprey 0.)</p>
<p>The RAF did not start camouflaging 'its aircraft' in the Sudeten crisis, as I wrote in the post, or even 1938; this seems to apply only to fighters (maybe). <em>Flight</em> had an article on <a href="http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1937/1937%20-%201084.html" rel="nofollow">29 April 1937</a> about the RAF's switch to 'shadow shading', a scheme 'lately evolved' by Air Ministry experts, for heavy and medium bombers and army co-operation aircraft. (It's interesting in terms of the anachronicity discussion that the article describes the appearance of aircraft with shadow shading as 'bizarre', when it now seems natural.) Examples from later 1937 issues show a <a href="http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1937/1937%20-%201422.html" rel="nofollow">Whitley</a> and a <a href="http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1937/1937%20-%201904.html" rel="nofollow">Battle</a>. No reason is given for excluding fighters at this time, but there is a photo of Hurricanes of 3 Squadron in the <a href="http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1938/1938%20-%201485.html" rel="nofollow">26 May 1938</a> issue with shadow shading. So the switch for at least some fighters was made much earlier than the Sudeten crisis.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
