View allAll Photos Tagged Configuration
While in the landed configuration for the last time before arriving on Mars, NASA’s InSight lander was commanded to deploy its solar arrays to test and verify the exact process that it will use on the surface of the Red Planet. During the test on Jan. 23, 2018 from the Lockheed Martin clean room in Littleton, Colorado, engineers and technicians evaluated that the solar arrays fully deployed and conducted an illumination test to confirm that the solar cells were collecting power.
This is actually the cane configuration I found I liked best after finishing the cane and playing around with it...
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The FVM JF-22 ("JF" for Jaktflygplan = fighter aircraft) was a Swedish biplane fighter. It had been designed as a private venture by Gösta von Porat and Henry Kjellson at Flygcompaniets Verkstäder at Malmen (FVM) as a potential replacement for to the Swedish Air Force’s contemporary main fighter aircraft, the J1. This was the Austro-Hungarian Phönix D.III, a design dating back to WWI. A total of 10 J1s were operated since 1920, but the type was already outdated upon arrival, and the fleet’s small size was not sufficient, either.
The original design was designated JF-21. It was one of three biplanes amongst the FVM designs submitted to the Swedish Defense Department, along with competing designs from the national ASJA and Sparmann companies. After an extensive review the JF-21 was chosen in 1923 for limited production for evaluative purposes. The first prototype aircraft was built in early 1924. The JF-21 was a single-bay, unstaggered biplane of conventional configuration. The wings were braced with N-struts at around half-span, ailerons were only fitted to the lower wings in order to simplify construction and save weight, and the aircraft was powered by an imported Hispano-Suiza V8 engine that delivered 224 kW (300 hp). A training version, a two-seater designated Ö-21, was also created, powered with the same engine as the fighter but with a less powerful 180 hp version.
Testing revealed some serious stability deficiencies in the JF-21, and the first prototype was lost in a crash on 25th on May 1924, almost killing the pilot. Production was halted after just four airframes, but FVM did not give up on the design. A subsequent redesign in late 1924 morphed the aircraft into its final form as the JF-22. Changes included a wider span of the upper wing, a slightly longer rear fuselage with bigger tail surfaces (a fixed fin was added to the all-movable rudder) and a lifting fairing for the landing gear axle. All these measures were intended to improve flight stability and low speed handling. Furthermore, the interplane bracing was straightened and allowed, as a positive side effect, for a better field of view for the pilot.
Initially, two JF-22s were built during the winter 1924/25 and ready for testing in Spring 1925. Even though the flight characteristics were markedly improved the aircraft still showed some nervous handling characteristics that called for an experienced pilot. Further measures like spats on the main wheels (tested on the 1st prototype in late 1925) did not much improve these deficiencies. In consequence, the Swedish Air Force formally rejected the JF-22 in 1926, after three fighters and two trainers had been built and handed over to frontline units for trials and field evaluation.
At that time, FVM also had two further, experimental variants of the aircraft on the drawing boards, but none of them made it to the hardware stage. These were the JF-22J with a more powerful Jupiter radial engine (with an eye on the export market) and a dedicated race plane, the JF-22R, which was powered by a boosted HS-8Fb engine that delivered 298 kW (400 hp) and was outfitted with the JF-21’s former, shorter wings. The Swedish air force showed no interest and export customers did not materialize, either. In June 1927, FVM was successful in trials staged by the Belgian Air Force and submitted a JF-22 (the 3rd prototype), but the type was once again not accepted.
Instead of the FVM JF-22, the Swedish Air Force adopted the J2 and J3 for service, even though these were rather observation aircraft than pure fighters. Eventually, the indigenous J5/6 was chosen as Sweden’s new single seat fighter in 1930 – and by that time the technical development had advanced so far that the JF-22 had become obsolete.
General characteristics:
Crew: One
Length: 6.87 m (22 ft 6 in)
Wingspan: 8.90 m (29 ft 2 in)
Height: 2.74 m (9 ft 0 in)
Wing area: 21 m² (240 sq ft)
Empty weight: 765 kg (1,687 lb)
Gross weight: 1,075 kg (2,370 lb)
Fuel capacity: 140 kg (310 lb)
Powerplant:
1× Hispano-Suiza 8Fb V-8 water-cooled piston engine, 224 kW (300 hp) at 1,850rpm,
driving a 2-bladed wooden propeller
Performance:
Maximum speed: 250 km/h (160 mph, 130 kn)
Stall speed: 90 km/h (56 mph, 49 kn)
Range: 600–650 km (370–400 mi, 320–350 nmi)
Time to altitude: 7,000 m (23,000 ft) in 35 min
Armament:
2× m/22 fixed 8 mm (0.315 in) machine guns (license built .30 AN/M2's) with 500 rounds each,
fitted with synchronization gear and firing through the propeller.
The kit and its assembly:
This relatively simple whif was actually inspired by a decal set for a Swedish J1 biplane. In order to have a “canvas” to put this scheme onto, a suitable aircraft had to be found – and it became the vintage (and dirty cheap) KP kit of the Avia H-21.
The kit turned out to be much better than expected. It has some flash, but the surface and interior details are nice, the kit comes with anything you’d ask for. It’s really good except for a mediocre fit, but that’s acceptable for the molds’ age and, thanks to the simple shapes, PSR is an easy task.
Even though the model depicts a fictional Swedish fighter, the kit was built almost OOB and stays close to the Avia H-21, which is IMHO quite elegant. I just reduced the lower wings’ span (which are on the H-21 wider than the upper wing!) for a slightly more conventional look. The propeller was replaced with a better one from the scrap box (IIRC from a Revell SPAD XIII), together with a metal axis and a respective styrene tube adapter. A small fin was added in front of the free-standing rudder (from a Revell Sopwith Triplane), and I added a set of spats that I had found in the spares bin, too. Rigging was done post-painting with heated/stretched black sprue material.
Painting and markings:
The paint scheme is based on a Swedish J1 around 1925, with a pretty three-tone camouflage consisting of two green tones and a sand brown. According to the cource, the undersides were light blue, but I have doubts because unpainted linen ("Duk") was more common on the J1s.
With this basis I did some legwork in trustworthy literature and found the following guesstimates for the respective colors: Ljusbrun: Humbrol 234 (Dark Skin Tone, for a pale reddish earth tone), Mellangrön: Revell 363 (Fern Green) and Mörkgron (I used Modelmaster’s RAF Dark Green, similar to USAF Forest Green FS 34079). Instead of the contemporary standard lacquered fabric underneath I painted the undersides in Humbrol 23 (RAF Duck Egg Green).
The engine cover was painted with Humbrol 56, the cockpit interior in Tamiya 57 (Light Buff), simulating unpainted but lacquered fabric. The wing struts as well as the propeller blades were painted in a streaky wet-in-wet mix of Humbrol 62 and 71, simulating wood grain on lacquered wood. The rudder flash was painted with Humbrol 99 and 104.
The model was lightly weathered with a thin black ink washing and some dry-brushing, emphasizing the fabric structures and the model's fine raised surface details. Graphite was used for some exhaust stains.
Markings/decals were minimal: The 1927-style roundels came from a Swedish pre-WWII D.H. Tiger Moth trainer (AZ Models aftermarket sheet), the tactical code was created with single digits in a proper Swedish 1927 font (Flying Colors Aerodecals). Everything was sealed with matt acrylic varnish and the rigging was done as the final step.
A small and quick project, building was done in just two days plus final rigging on day three. While not spectacular, the modified Avia H-21 in Swedish markings looks quite convincing, even more so because it depicts a prototype that never made it into service. And it’s colorful, too! ^^
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
After the Saab 38 (also known as B3LA) had been cancelled in 1979 in favor of the more advanced Saab JAS 39 Gripen multi-role fighter, Saab presented in 1991 a new trainer design to the Swedish Air Force as a replacement for the Saab 105 (Sk 60) transitional trainer, light attack and reconnaissance aircraft. This new aircraft was internally called "FSK900". The aircraft was a conservative design, with such a configurational resemblance to the Dassault-Dornier Alpha Jet that it is hard to believe Saab engineers didn't see the Alpha Jet as a model for what they wanted to do. However, even if that was the case, the FSK900 was by no means a copy of the Alpha Jet, and the two machines could be easily told apart at a glance. FSK900 had a muscular, rather massive appearance, while the Alpha Jet was more wasp-like and very sleek. The FSK900 was also bigger in length and span and had an empty weight about 10% greater.
The FSK900 was mostly made of aircraft aluminum alloys, with some control surfaces made of carbon-fiber / epoxy composite, plus very selective use of titanium. It had high-mounted swept wings, with a supercritical airfoil section and a leading-edge dogtooth; a conventional swept tail assembly; tricycle landing gear; twin engines, one mounted in a pod along each side of the fuselage; and a tandem-seat cockpit with dual controls.
The wings had a sweep of 27.5°, an anhedral droop of 7°, and featured ailerons for roll control as well as double slotted flaps. The tailplanes were all-moving, and also featured an anhedral of 7°. An airbrake was mounted on each side of the rear fuselage. Flight controls were hydraulic, and hydraulic systems were dual redundant.
Instructor and cadet sat in tandem in a common cockpit, both on zero-zero ejection seats, with the instructor's seat in the rear raised 27 centimeters (10.6 inches) to give a good forward view. The cockpit was pressurized and featured a one-piece canopy, hinged open to the right, which provided excellent visibility.
The landing gear assemblies all featured single wheels, with the nose gear retracting forward and the main gear retracting forward and into the fuselage, featuring an antiskid braking system. The twin engines were two Williams International FJ44-4M turbofans without reheat, each rated at 16.89 kN (3,790 lbst). These were the same engines that Saab had also proposed for Saab’s Sk 60 modernization program, even though a less powerful variant for the lighter aircraft.
The FSK900 could be fitted with two pylons under each wing and under the fuselage centerline, for a total of five hardpoints and a total external payload of 2,500 kg (5,500 lb). The inner wing pylons were wet and could take 450 liter (119 US gallon) auxiliary tanks. External stores included a centerline target winch for the target tug role, an air-sampling pod for detection of fallout or other atmospheric pollutants, jammer or chaff pods for electronic warfare training, a camera/sensor pod and a baggage pod for use in the liaison role. The aircraft also featured a baggage compartment in the center fuselage, which also offered space for other special equipment or future updates.
Potential armament comprised a conformal ventral pod with a single 27 mm Mauser BK-27 revolver cannon with 120 rounds (the same weapon that eventually went into the Saab Gripen). Other weapons included various iron and cluster bombs of up to 454 kg (1.000 lb) caliber, unguided missiles of various calibers and the Rb.74 (AIM-9L Sidewinder) AAM. A radar was not mounted, but the FSK900’s nose section offered enough space for a radome.
The Swedish Air Force accepted the Saab design, leading to a contract for two nonflying static-test airframes and four flying prototypes. Detail design was complete by the end of 1993 and prototype construction began in the spring of 1994, leading to first flight of the initial prototype on 29 July 1994. The first production "Sk 90A", how the basic trainer type was officially dubbed, was delivered to the Swedish Air Force in 1996.
A total of 108 production Sk 90s were built until 1999 in several versions. The initial Sk 90A trainer was the basis for the Sk 90B variant, which carried a weather radar (this variant was not adopted by the Swedish air force but sold to Austria) and the C variant with a set of cameras in the nose for the Swedish air force. In service, the type was regarded as strong, agile, and pleasant to fly, while being cheap to operate. Swedish Sk 90As flying in the training role were typically painted in the unique “Fields & Meadows” splinter camouflage, although decorative paint jobs showed up on occasion and many aircraft received additional dayglow markings. Some of the few aircraft given to operational squadrons, which used them for keeping up flight hours and as hacks, had been painted in an all-grey camouflage to match the combat aircraft they shared the flight line with.
Despite its qualities and potential, the Sk 90 did not attain much foreign interest, primarily suffering from bad timing and from the focus on domestic demands. The aircraft came effectively 10 years too late to become a serious export success, and in the end the Sk 90 was very similar to the Dassault/Dornier Alpha Jet (even though it was cheaper to operate) - at a time when the German Luftwaffe started to prematurely phase out its attack variant and flooded the global´market with cheap second hand aircraft in excellent condition. Furthermore, the Saab Sk 90 had, with the BAe Hawk, another proven competitor with a long operational track record all over the world.
Potential buyers were Malaysia as well as Singapore, Myanmar, Finland, Poland and Hungary. Austria eventually procured 36 Sk 90 Ö in 2002, replacing its Saab 105 fleet and keeping up its close connection with Saab since the Seventies, and a late customer became the independent Republic of Scotland in 2017, initially with a dozen leased Saab Sk 90A trainers.
This procurement was preceded by a White Paper published by the Scottish National Party (SNP) in 2013, which stated that an independent Scotland would have an air force equipped with up to 16 air defense aircraft, six tactical transports, utility rotorcraft and maritime patrol aircraft, and be capable of “contributing excellent conventional capabilities” to NATO. Outlining its ambition to establish an air force with an eventual 2,000 uniformed personnel and 300 reservists, the SNP stated the organization would initially be equipped with “a minimum of 12 interceptors in the Eurofighter/Typhoon class, based at Lossiemouth, a tactical air transport squadron, including around six Lockheed Martin C-130J Hercules, and a helicopter squadron”.
According to the document, “Key elements of air forces in place at independence, equipped initially from a negotiated share of current UK assets, will secure core tasks, principally the ability to police Scotland’s airspace, within NATO.” An in-country air command and control capability would be established within five years of a decision in favor of independence, it continues, with staff also to be “embedded within NATO structures”.
This plan was immediately set into action after the country's independence from Great Britain in late 2017 with the purchase of twelve refurbished Saab JAS 39A Gripen interceptors for Quick Reaction Alert duties and former Swedish Air Force Sk 90A trainers for the nascent Republic of Scotland Air Corps (RoScAC), locally called Saab Sk90A “Iolaire” (Eaglet) T.1. These machines either came from operational Swedish squadrons or were put back into operation from mothballed overstock.
All machines were delivered to Scotland in the Swedish all-grey paint scheme, the machines taken from operational service had their original Swedish markings just painted over. The were all exclusively allocated to the newly established Eaglais a' Bhaile Ùir Flying Training School at Kirknewtoun (a former RAF air base) near Edinburgh. In 2019, the RoScAC’s first brand new aircraft arrived in the form of TF-50 “Golden Eagle” fighters from South Korea, which, as multi-role two seaters, complemented the Saab Sk 90’s in the advanced trainer role and also took over air space patrol duties from the Scottish JAS 39.
In early 2020, the leasing contract for the Sk 90s with Sweden was changed into a formal purchase, and the Iolaire fleet (as well as the Gripen fighters) gradually received the RoScAC’s new camouflage scheme in grey and green, which had been introduced with the TF-50s.
General characteristics:
Crew: two pilots in tandem
Length incl. pitot: 13.0 m (42 ft 8 in) for the A trainer, 13.68 m (44 ft 10 in) for the S variant
Wingspan: 9.94 m (32 ft 7 in)
Height: 4.6 m (15 ft 1 in)
Empty weight: 3,790 kg (8,360 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 7,500 kg (16,530 lb)
Powerplant:
2× Williams International FJ44-4M turbofans without reheat, rated at 16.89 kN (3,790 lbst) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 1,038 km/h (645 mph)
Range: 1,670 km (900 nm)
Armament:
No internal gun; five hardpoints for 2,500 kg (5,500 lb) of payload and a variety of ordnance
The kit and its assembly:
This whif is a rarity among my builds, since it is an alternative reality model. A fictional air force of an independent Scotland crept into my mind after the hysterical “Brexit” events in 2016 and the former (failed) public vote concerning the independence of Scotland from the UK. However, the situation bore some serious storytelling potential: What would happen to the military if the independence would have actually taken place and British forces had left the country?
The aforementioned Scottish National Party (SNP) paper from 2013 is actually real, and I took it as a guideline. Primary focus would certainly be set on air space defense, and the Gripen appeared as a good and not too expensive choice. An advanced trainer would also have been needed, and the Sk 90 (a personal invention and already built as a Swedish and Austrian aircraft) would fulfill a complementary role.
A Scottish Sk 90 had been on my agenda since 2016, and now materialized as an addition to my Scottish TF-50 and two Sk 90s (a swedish and an Austrian one). The Saab Sk 90 is basically the 1:72 Kawasaki T-4 from Hasegawa, and since it was to depict an original Sk 90A, formerly operated by Sweden, it was built without modifications. The kit is relatively simple and fit is quite good, even though some PSR was necessary on almost any seam – there are actually two T-4 molds, and this one is the more recent offering.
Painting and markings:
I wanted to depict a RoScAC aircraft of the first hour, so I went for a Swedish look with tactical markings from the new operator. Since I already had a Sk 90 in Swedish “Fields & Meadows” camouflage, I decided to go for a Gripen-esque grey-in-grey livery.
Swedish JAS 39 carry a two-tone livery; the upper tone is called pansargrå (tank grey, which is, according to trustworthy sources, very close to FS 36173, Neutral Grey), while the undersides are painted in duvagrå (dove grey, FS 36373, a tone with the confusing name ”High Low Visibility Light Grey”), and the simple pattern was faithfully adapted to the T-4.
After checking a lot of Gripen pictures I selected different tones, though, because the colors appear much lighter in real life. I ended up with FS 36231 (Dark Gull Grey, Testors 1740) and RLM 63 (Lichtgrau, Testors 2077) – in combination, these tones come IMHO quite close to the real thing?
After a light black ink wash I emphasized single panels with Humbrol 165 and 147. The cockpit interior was painted with Revell 47 (Mausgrau) while the landing gear became glossy white.
For the RoScAC look I added some manually overpainted patches where the former Swedish roundels and tactical markings would have been. As a trainer, I also added orange dayglow markings on the fin and the wings, created with generic decal sheet material (TL Modellbau). The de-icing devices on the wings’ and fin’s leading edges were created with black decal stripes instead of paint, a very tidy and simple method. Decal strips in silver were used on the fin’s rudder and on the flaps. Small things, but they grade the grey model up visually.
Another creative field were the national markings: how could fictional Scottish roundels look like, and how to create them so that they are easy to make and replicate (for a full set for this kit, as well as for potential future builds…)? Designing and printing marking decals myself was an option, but I eventually settled for a composite solution which somewhat influenced the roundels’ design, too.
My Scottish roundel interpretation, already used on my RoScAC T-50, consists of a simple blue disk with a white cross – a straightforward solution since it’s different from any other contemporary national marking, esp. the UK roundel, and easy to create from single decal parts. In fact, the roundel discs were die-punched from blue decal sheet, and the cross consists of two thin white decal strips, cut into the correct length with the same stencil, again using generic sheet material from TL Modellbau.
Another issue was the potential tactical code, and a small fleet only needs a simple system. Going back to a WWII system with letter codes for squadrons and individual aircraft was one option, but, IMHO, still too complicated. However, for individual aircraft identification I adopted the familiar British single letter aircraft code, and since the RoScAC would certainly not operate too many squadrons, I rather adapted a system similar to the Swedish or Spanish format with a single number representing the squadron – or, in this case a letter, because the fictional Flying Training School would not be a front line unit.
The result is a simple 2-digit code, and I adapted the German system of placing the tactical code on the fuselage, separated by the roundel. Keeping British traditions up I repeated the individual aircraft code letter on the fin, where I also placed a Scottish flag (scratched from the same decal material as the roundels. A small serial number, created from single black letters (once more Tl Modellbau material) was added on the rear fuselage, and, for some local pride, I added a self-printed coat-of-arms of Edinburgh to the air intakes.
Finally, after some light weathering, the kit was finally sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri).
Creating this whif, based on an alternative historic timeline and with a near future perspective, was fun – and it might spawn more models that circle around this story. A certain future build is a Saab Gripen in RoScAC colors and there might also be an entry level trainer (Shorts Tucano?), some helicopters for the army or SAR duties and maybe a transport aircraft, but not a big one. The foundation has been laid out, now it’s time to fill Scotland’s alternative recent history with detail and hardware proof. ;-)
Company/Owner: Luzon Cisco Transport, Inc.
Fleet/Bus Number: 302
Classification: Air-conditioned Provincial Bus
Coachbuilder: (Suzhou) Higer Bus Company, Ltd.
Body Model: Higer V91 KLQ6119QE3
Engine Model: Yuchai YC6L280-30 (L38MA/L53SA)
Chassis Model: Higer KLQ6112 (LKLR1HSG9CB)
Transmission: Manual (6-speed forward, 1-speed reverse)
Suspension: Air Suspension
Seating Configuration: 2×2
Seating Capacity: 49
Route: Cubao, Quezon City–Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija via N1 (Maharlika Highway)
Municipalities/Cities passing: Santa Rita (Guiguinto)/Plaridel/Pulilan/Baliuag/San Rafael/San Ildefonso/San Miguel/Gapan City/San Leonardo/Santa Rosa
Type of Operation: Provincial Operation Public Utility Bus (Regular Class)
Area of Operation: Central Luzon (Region III)
––––––––––
Company/Owner: Baliwag Transit, Inc.
Fleet/Bus Number: 9909
Classification: Air-conditioned Provincial Bus
Coachbuilder: Pilipinas Hino Bus Body, Inc.
Body Model: Pilipinas Hino MR53 RK
Engine Model: Hino J08C-TK
Chassis Model: Hino RK1JMT (Short Wheelbase version)
Transmission: Manual (6-speed forward, 1-speed reverse)
Suspension: Leaf Spring Suspension
Seating Configuration: 2×2
Seating Capacity: 45
Route: Baliuag, Bulacan–Balintawak/Cubao, Quezon City via Old Cagayan Valley Road / N1 (Doña Remedios Trinidad Highway)
Municipalities/cities passing: Pulilan/Plaridel/Santa Rita (Guiguinto)
Type of Operation: Provincial Operation Public Utility Bus (Regular Class)
Area of Operation: Central Luzon (Region III)
Shot Location: Doña Remedios Trinidad Highway (Maharlika Highway), Barangay Cut-cot, Pulilan, Bulacan
Date Taken: July 21, 2015
Notices:
* Please DON'T GRAB A PHOTO WITHOUT A PERMISSION. If you're going to GRAB IT, please give A CREDIT TO THE OWNER. Also, don't PRINT SCREEN my photos.
** If I have mistakes on the specifications, please comment in a good manner so that I can edit it immediately.
*** The specifications and routes (for provincial, inter-provincial, and city operation) mentioned above are subjected for verification and may be changed without prior notice.
**** The vehicle's registration plate(s), conduction sticker(s), and/or persons (if applicable) were pixelated/blurred to prevent any conflict with the photographer, the bus company and/or to the car owner for their security and/or privacy purposes. So, don't use their plate number, conduction sticker, and vehicle tag as an evidence for any incident. And, I have taken this photo for bus fanatics, bus enthusiasts, and bus lovers purposes.
Intel Core i7 3.4Ghz
12GB DDR3 1333Mhz RAM
AMD Radeon HD 6970M 1GB
120GB OCZ SATA3 Vortex 3
1TB Western Digital Caviar Black 7200RPM HDD
Wireless Keyboard
Magic Trackpad
Magic Mouse
Avro Vulcan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Avro Vulcan (later Hawker Siddeley Vulcan[2] from July 1963)[3] is a jet-powered tailless delta wing high-altitude strategic bomber, which was operated by the Royal Air Force (RAF) from 1956 until 1984. Aircraft manufacturer A.V. Roe and Company (Avro) designed the Vulcan in response to Specification B.35/46. Of the three V bombers produced, the Vulcan was considered the most technically advanced and hence the riskiest option. Several reduced-scale aircraft, designated Avro 707, were produced to test and refine the delta wing design principles.
The Vulcan B.1 was first delivered to the RAF in 1956; deliveries of the improved Vulcan B.2 started in 1960. The B.2 featured more powerful engines, a larger wing, an improved electrical system and electronic countermeasures (ECM); many were modified to accept the Blue Steel missile. As a part of the V-force, the Vulcan was the backbone of the United Kingdom's airborne nuclear deterrent during much of the Cold War. Although the Vulcan was typically armed with nuclear weapons, it was capable of conventional bombing missions, a capability which was used in Operation Black Buck during the Falklands War between the United Kingdom and Argentina in 1982.
The Vulcan had no defensive weaponry, initially relying upon high-speed high-altitude flight to evade interception. Electronic countermeasures were employed by the B.1 (designated B.1A) and B.2 from circa 1960. A change to low-level tactics was made in the mid-1960s. In the mid-1970s nine Vulcans were adapted for maritime radar reconnaissance operations, redesignated as B.2 (MRR). In the final years of service six Vulcans were converted to the K.2 tanker configuration for aerial refuelling.
After retirement by the RAF one example, B.2 XH558, named The Spirit of Great Britain, was restored for use in display flights and air shows, whilst two other B.2s, XL426 and XM655, have been kept in taxiable condition for ground runs and demonstrations at London Southend Airport and Wellesbourne Mountford Airfield respectively. B.2 XH558 flew for the last time in October 2015, before also being kept in taxiable condition at Doncaster Sheffield Airport.
jsc2022e062415 (July 29, 2022) - A view of the full Gateway configuration with Orion attached.
Credit: NASA
The Supermarine Spitfire is a British single-seat fighter aircraft that was used by the Royal Air Force and many other Allied countries during and after the Second World War. The Spitfire was built in many variants, using several wing configurations, and was produced in greater numbers than any other British aircraft. It was also the only British fighter to be in continuous production throughout the war. The Spitfire continues to be a popular aircraft, with approximately 55 Spitfires being airworthy, while many more are static exhibits in aviation museums all over the world.
The Spitfire was designed as a short-range, high-performance interceptor aircraft by R. J. Mitchell, chief designer at Supermarine Aviation Works (which operated as a subsidiary of Vickers-Armstrong from 1928). In accordance with its role as an interceptor, Mitchell designed the Spitfire's distinctive elliptical wing to have the thinnest possible cross-section; this thin wing enabled the Spitfire to have a higher top speed than several contemporary fighters, including the Hawker Hurricane. Mitchell continued to refine the design until his death from cancer in 1937, whereupon his colleague Joseph Smith took over as chief designer, overseeing the development of the Spitfire through its multitude of variants.
During the Battle of Britain (July–October 1940), the Spitfire was perceived by the public to be the RAF fighter, though the more numerous Hawker Hurricane shouldered a greater proportion of the burden against the Luftwaffe. However, because of its higher performance, Spitfire units had a lower attrition rate and a higher victory-to-loss ratio than those flying Hurricanes.
After the Battle of Britain, the Spitfire superseded the Hurricane to become the backbone of RAF Fighter Command, and saw action in the European, Mediterranean, Pacific and the South-East Asian theatres. Much loved by its pilots, the Spitfire served in several roles, including interceptor, photo-reconnaissance, fighter-bomber and trainer, and it continued to serve in these roles until the 1950s. The Seafire was a carrier-based adaptation of the Spitfire which served in the Fleet Air Arm from 1942 through to the mid-1950s. Although the original airframe was designed to be powered by a Rolls-Royce Merlin engine producing 1,030 hp (768 kW), it was strong enough and adaptable enough to use increasingly powerful Merlin and, in later marks, Rolls-Royce Griffon engines producing up to 2,340 hp (1,745 kW); as a consequence of this the Spitfire's performance and capabilities improved, sometimes dramatically, over the course of its life.
Mk V (Types 331, 349 & 352)
Spitfire LF.Mk VB, BL479, flown by Group Captain M.W.S Robinson, station commander of RAF Northolt, August 1943. This Spitfire has the wide bladed Rotol propeller, the internal armoured windscreen and "clipped" wings.
Late in 1940, the RAF predicted that the advent of the pressurised Junkers Ju 86P bomber series over Britain would be the start of a new sustained high altitude bombing offensive by the Luftwaffe, in which case development was put in hand for a pressurised version of the Spitfire, with a new version of the Merlin (the Mk VI). It would take some time to develop the new fighter and an emergency stop-gap measure was needed as soon as possible: this was the Mk V.
The basic Mk V was a Mk I with the Merlin 45 series engine. This engine delivered 1,440 hp (1,074 kW) at take-off, and incorporated a new single-speed single-stage supercharger design. Improvements to the carburettor also allowed the Spitfire to use zero gravity manoeuvres without any problems with fuel flow. Several Mk I and Mk II airframes were converted to Mk V standard by Supermarine and started equipping fighter units from early 1941. The majority of the Mk Vs were built at Castle Bromwich.
The VB became the main production version of the Mark Vs. Along with the new Merlin 45 series the B wing was fitted as standard. As production progressed changes were incorporated, some of which became standard on all later Spitfires. Production started with several Mk IBs which were converted to Mk VBs by Supermarine. Starting in early 1941 the round section exhaust stacks were changed to a "fishtail" type, marginally increasing exhaust thrust. Some late production VBs and VCs were fitted with six shorter exhaust stacks per side, similar to those of Spitfire IXs and Seafire IIIs; this was originally stipulated as applying specifically to VB(trop)s. After some initial problems with the original Mk I size oil coolers, a bigger oil cooler was fitted under the port wing; this could be recognised by a deeper housing with a circular entry. From mid-1941 alloy covered ailerons became a universal fitting.
Spitfire VC(trop), fitted with Vokes filters and "disc" wheels, of 417 Squadron RCAF in Tunisia in 1943.
A constant flow of modifications were made as production progressed. A "blown" cockpit hood, manufactured by Malcolm, was introduced in an effort to further increase the pilot's head-room and visibility. Many mid to late production VBs - and all VCs - used the modified, improved windscreen assembly with the integral bullet resistant centre panel and flat side screens introduced with the Mk III. Because the rear frame of this windscreen was taller than that of the earlier model the cockpit hoods were not interchangeable and could be distinguished by the wider rear framing on the hood used with the late-style windscreen.
Different propeller types were fitted, according to where the Spitfire V was built: Supermarine and Westland manufactured VBs and VCs used 10 ft 9 in (3.28 m) diameter, 3 bladed de Havilland constant speed units, with narrow metal blades, while Castle Bromwich manufactured VBs and VCs were fitted with a wide bladed Rotol constant speed propeller of either 10 ft 9 in (3.28 m) diameter, with metal blades, or (on late production Spitfires) 10 ft 3 in (3.12 m) diameter, with broader, "Jablo" (compressed wood) blades. The Rotol spinners were longer and more pointed than the de Havilland leading to a 3.5 in (8.9 cm) increase in overall length. The Rotol propellers allowed a modest speed increase over 20,000 ft (6,100 m) and an increase in the service ceiling. A large number of Spitfire VBs were fitted with "gun heater intensifier" systems on the exhaust stacks. These piped additional heated air into the gun bays. There was a short tubular intake on the front of the first stack and a narrow pipe led into the engine cowling from the rear exhaust.
The VB series were the first Spitfires able to carry a range of specially designed "slipper" drop tanks which were fitted underneath the wing centre-section. Small hooks were fitted, just forward of the inboard flaps: when the tank was released these hooks caught the trailing edge of the tank, swinging it clear of the fuselage.
With the advent of the superb Focke Wulf Fw 190 in August 1941 the Spitfire was for the first time truly outclassed, hastening the development of the "interim" Mk IX. In an effort to counter this threat, especially at lower altitudes, the VB was the first production version of the Spitfire to use "clipped" wingtips as an option, reducing the wingspan to 32 ft 2 in (9.8 m).The clipped wings increased the roll rate and airspeed at lower altitudes. Several different versions of the Merlin 45/50 family were used, including the Merlin 45M which had a smaller "cropped" supercharger impeller and boost increased to +18 lb. This engine produced 1,585 hp (1,182 kW) at 2,750 ft (838 m), increasing the L.F VB's maximum rate of climb to 4720 ft/min (21.6 m/s) at 2,000 ft (610 m).
VB Trop of 40 Squadron SAAF fitted with the "streamlined" version of the Aboukir filter, a broad-bladed, 10 ft 3 in (3.12 m) diameter Rotol propeller, and clipped wings.
The Mk VB(trop) (or type 352) could be identified by the large Vokes air filter fitted under the nose; the reduced speed of the air to the supercharger had a detrimental effect on the performance of the aircraft, reducing the top speed by 8 mph (13 km/h) and the climb rate by 600 ft/min (3.04 m/s), but the decreased performance was considered acceptable. This variant was also fitted with a larger oil tank and desert survival gear behind the pilot's seat. A new "desert" camouflage scheme was applied. Many VB(trop)s were modified by 103 MU (Maintenance Unit-RAF depots in which factory fresh aircraft were brought up to service standards before being delivered to squadrons) at Aboukir, Egypt by replacing the Vokes filter with locally manufactured "Aboukir" filters, which were lighter and more streamlined. Two designs of these filters can be identified in photos: one had a bulky, squared off filter housing while the other was more streamlined. These aircraft were usually fitted with the wide blade Rotol propeller and clipped wings.
Triumph Spitfire Mk I Roadster
The Triumph Spitfire is a small English two-seat sports car, introduced at the London Motor Show in 1962.[3] The vehicle was based on a design produced for Standard-Triumph in 1957 by Italian designer Giovanni Michelotti. The platform for the car was largely based upon the chassis, engine, and running gear of the Triumph Herald saloon, and was manufactured at the Standard-Triumph works at Canley, in Coventry. As was typical for cars of this era, the bodywork was fitted onto a separate structural chassis, but for the Spitfire, which was designed as an open top or convertible sports car from the outset, the ladder chassis was reinforced for additional rigidity by the use of structural components within the bodywork. The Spitfire was provided with a manual hood for weather protection, the design improving to a folding hood for later models. Factory-manufactured hard-tops were also available.
The Triumph Spitfire was originally devised by Standard-Triumph to compete in the small sports car market that had opened up with the introduction of the Austin-Healey Sprite. The Sprite had used the basic drive train of the Austin A30/35 in a light body to make up a budget sports car; Triumph's idea was to use the mechanicals from their small saloon, the Herald, to underpin the new project. Triumph had one advantage, however; where the Austin A30 range was of unitary construction, the Herald featured a separate chassis. It was Triumph's intention to cut that chassis down and clothe it in a sports body, saving the costs of developing a completely new chassis / body unit.
Italian designer Michelotti—who had already penned the Herald—was commissioned for the new project, and came up with a traditional, swooping body. Wind-up windows were provided (in contrast to the Sprite/Midget, which still featured sidescreens, also called curtains, at that time), as well as a single-piece front end which tilted forwards to offer unrivaled access to the engine. At the dawn of the 1960s, however, Standard-Triumph was in deep financial trouble, and unable to put the new car into production; it was not until the company was taken over by the Leyland organization funds became available and the car was launched. Leyland officials, taking stock of their new acquisition, found Michelotti's prototype hiding under a dust sheet in a corner of the factory and rapidly approved it for production.
Spitfire 4 or Mark I (1962-1964)
Overview:
Production1962–1964
45,753 made
Powertrain:
Engine1,147 cc (1.1 l) I4
Transmission4-speed manual with optional overdrive on top and third from 1963 onwards
Dimensions:
Curb weight1,568 lb (711 kg) (unladen U.K.-spec)
The production car changed little from the prototype, although the full-width rear bumper was dropped in favour of two part-bumpers curving round each corner, with overriders. Mechanicals were basically stock Herald. The engine was an 1,147 cc (1.1 l) 4-cylinder with a pushrod OHV cylinder head and 2 valves per cylinder, mildly tuned for the Spitfire, fed by twin SU carburettors. Also from the Herald came the rack and pinion steering and coil-and-wishbone front suspension up front, and at the rear a single transverse-leaf swing axle arrangement. This ended up being the most controversial part of the car: it was known to "tuck in" and cause violent over steer if pushed too hard, even in the staid Herald. In the sportier Spitfire (and later the 6-cylinder Triumph GT6 and Triumph Vitesse) it led to severe criticism. The body was bolted to a much-modified Herald chassis, the outer rails and the rear outriggers having been removed; little of the original Herald chassis design was left, and the Spitfire used structural outer sills to stiffen its body tub.
The Spitfire was an inexpensive small sports car and as such had very basic trim, including rubber mats and a large plastic steering wheel. These early cars were referred to both as "Triumph Spitfire Mark I" and "Spitfire 4", not to be confused with the later Spitfire Mark IV.
In UK specification the in-line four produced 63 bhp (47 kW) at 5750 rpm, and 67 lb·ft (91 N·m)of torque at 3500 rpm. This gave a top speed of 92 mph (148 km/h), and would achieve 0 to 60 mph (97 km/h) in 17.3 seconds. Average fuel consumption was 31mpg.
For 1964 an overdrive option was added to the 4-speed manual gearbox to give more relaxed cruising. Wire wheels and a hard top were also available.
Text regarding the Supermarine Spitfire aeroplane and Triumph Spitfire Roadster has been taken from excerpts of Wikipedia articles on each model.
The Supermarine Spitfire Mk VB aircraft and 1962 Triumph Spitfire Mk I road car have been modelled in Lego miniland-scale for Flickr LUGNuts' 79th Build Challenge, - 'LUGNuts goes Wingnuts, ' - featuring automotive vehicles named after, inspired by, or with some relationship to aircraft.
Company/Owner: Baliwag Transit, Inc.
Fleet/Bus Number: 1521
Classification: Air-conditioned Provincial Bus
Coachbuilder: Santarosa Motor Works, Inc./Columbian Manufacturing Corporation
Body Model: Santarosa Daewoo Bus BS106
Engine Model: Doosan DE08TIS
Chassis Model: Daewoo BS106 (PL5UM52HDEK)
Transmission: Manual (6-speed forward, 1-speed reverse)
Suspension: Leaf Spring Suspension
Seating Configuration: 2×2
Seating Capacity: 49
Route: Grace Park, Caloocan City–Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija via N1 (Maharlika Highway)
Municipalities/cities passing: Santa Rita (Guiguinto)/Plaridel/Pulilan/Baliuag/San Rafael/San Ildefonso/San Miguel/Gapan City/San Leonardo/Santa Rosa
Type of Operation: Provincial Operation Public Utility Bus (Regular Class)
Area of Operation: Central Luzon (Region III)
Shot Location: Doña Remedios Trinidad Highway (Maharlika Highway), Barangay Cut-cot, Pulilan, Bulacan
Date Taken: July 21, 2015
Notices:
* Please DON'T GRAB A PHOTO WITHOUT A PERMISSION. If you're going to GRAB IT, please give A CREDIT TO THE OWNER. Also, don't PRINT SCREEN my photos.
** If I have mistakes on the specifications, please comment in a good manner so that I can edit it immediately.
*** The specifications and routes (for provincial, inter-provincial, and city operation) mentioned above are subjected for verification and may be changed without prior notice.
**** The vehicle's registration plate(s), conduction sticker(s), and/or persons (if applicable) were pixelated/blurred to prevent any conflict with the photographer, the bus company and/or to the car owner for their security and/or privacy purposes. So, don't use their plate number, conduction sticker, and vehicle tag as an evidence for any incident. And, I have taken this photo for bus fanatics, bus enthusiasts, and bus lovers purposes.
Company/Owner: Victory Liner, Inc.
Fleet/Bus Number: 1878
Classification: Air-conditioned Provincial Bus
Coachbuilder: Santarosa Motor Works, Inc./Columbian Motors Corporation
Body Model: Nissan Diesel/Santarosa EXFOH
Engine Model: Nissan Diesel PF6-TA (PF6-A)
Chassis Model: Nissan Diesel JA450SSN
Transmission: Manual (6-speed forward, 1-speed reverse)
Suspension: Leaf Spring Suspension
Seating Configuration: 2×2
Seating Capacity: 49
Route: N/A (Tourist Chartered); Cubao, Quezon City–Alaminos City, Pangasinan
Municipalities/cities passing: N/A
Type of Operation: Provincial Operation Public Utility Bus (Special Trip; Regular Class)
Area of Operation: Any point of Luzon; Ilocos Region (Region I)
Shot location: In-front of Barasoain Church, Malolos City, Bulacan
Date taken: November 21, 2014
Notices:
* Please DON'T GRAB A PHOTO WITHOUT A PERMISSION. If you're going to GRAB IT, please give A CREDIT TO THE OWNER. Also, don't PRINT SCREEN my photos.
** If I have mistakes on the specifications, please comment in a good manner so that I can edit it immediately.
*** The specifications and routes (for provincial, inter-provincial, and city operation) mentioned above are subjected for verification and may be changed without prior notice.
**** The vehicle's registration plate(s), conduction sticker(s), and/or persons (if applicable) were pixelated/blurred to prevent any conflict with the photographer, the bus company and/or to the car owner for their security and/or privacy purposes. So, don't use their plate number, conduction sticker, and vehicle tag as an evidence for any incident. And, I have taken this photo for bus fanatics, bus enthusiasts, and bus lovers purposes.
The basic configuration of the M35 cargo truck is rated to carry 5,000 pounds (2,300 kg) off-road or haul 10,000 pounds (4,500 kg) on the highway.
Matchbox Collectibles:
Transporter SPLY-2
Military Collection
M35 2.5 Ton Cargo Truck*
* A woodland camouflage version of this is marked M34 2.5 ton on the package, while these desert variations are listed as "Transporter". The real deal M34 series has only 6 wheels, while the M35 series has 10.
Sky background appearing courtesy of:
Snapshot In Time by Tim Kuzdrowski
#1stPixMatchbox
#1stPixUSMil
For more info about the dioramas, check out the FAQ:
(Updated October 2025) 1stPix FAQ
“An artist concept of Saturn C1 configuration. Planned in several versions, Saturn will be one of the nation's prime space exploration vehicles for several years. Fueled, the C1 version weighs about one million pounds. The second stage S-IV is built by Douglas Aircraft Corp., it will generate 90,000 lbs. of thrust. The S-IV in later Saturn configurations will be the third stage."
Double matted. “R.J. Stewart” I assume to be a former, possibly original(?) owner. Artist last name appears to be “Case”, and likely was employed by Douglas Aircraft Company. 20” x 24” total size I’d guess... I have no tape measure at the moment.
Above description is that associated with 61-SA1-19, the 8” x 10” equivalent:
stellar-views.com/images/Apollo_61-SA1-19.jpg
Credit: Stellar Views website. Home to many other nice photos.
The previous/original owner. Mr. Stewart, who is number 5, in the back row:
apollo-saturn.com/the-people-of-ksc/mcdonnell-douglas/
Credit: Jonathan Ward/“Apollo-Saturn Launch Processing at KSC” website
Homing in on the final design, this drawing shows a fixed sphere inside a tapering lower cowling or shroud with a flat landing 'foot', the viewport angled at 20 degrees down, a science drawer and robotic manipulator arm on an extending rail under the sphere. 'Egress trunk' refers to the combined view port/access hatch design, rather than the earlier idea of keeping the sphere as two halves bolted together and opening a bit like a clam shell.
Lent by James Cameron.
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines- 1151
Bus No: 1151
Year released: 2017
Capacity: 49; 2x2 seating configuration
Route: Manila/Avenida-Tarlac via Dau/SCTEX-Concepcion/Capas/San Miguel
Body: Santarosa Motorworks Inc.
Model: 2017 SR-Cityliner ORD RE Series (rehabbed by JACG)
Chassis: Daewoo BV115
Engine: Daewoo De12TiS-BA
Fare: Airconditioned
Transmission System: M/T
Suspension: Leaf-Spring Suspension
Taken on: October 16, 2018
Location: McArthur Highway, Brgy. San Sebastian, Tarlac City, Tarlac
Classification: Airconditioned Provincial Operation
Coachbuilder: Xiamen Golden Dragon Tourism Autos
Model: Golden Dragon XML6127 "Marcopolo"
Engine: YuChai YC6G300-20
Chassis: Golden Dragon XML6127D52
Airconditioning unit: Overhead Unit
Suspension: Air-Suspension
Seating Configuration: 2x2
Seating Capacity: 53 Passengers
On July 25, 1962, NASA invited 11 firms to submit proposals for the LEM. Of the 11 invited, 9 submitted proposals. The firms that submitted proposals were Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop, Ling-Temco-Vought, Grumman, Douglas, General Dynamics Convair, Republic, and Martin Marietta. Grumman won.
Convair's proposed vehicle featured a single throttleable main engine backed by two standby thrust chambers. It was to be a partially staged configuration with a side-by-side crew arrangement and a probe-drogue docking mechanism. The lower structure held the descent tankage, which was to be depressurized 15 seconds prior to touchdown. The depressurized tankage, along with the crushable vehicle skirt, were to offer a back-up to the landing system in the event of a landing accident.
The engines were protected against landing damage through use of a crushable main engine nozzle skirt and the placement of the standby engines above the descent tankage. The reaction control thrusters were mounted on hinged arms, which folded 120 degrees to allow the vehicle to be stowed in the SIVB stage of the Saturn V rocket.
The concept was derived from studies of the probability of successful abort and complete mission success. Although the studies indicated that a multiple engine, two-stage vehicle had higher safety characteristics at higher levels of landing damage, Convair chose the stage and a half configuration due to the lower weight requirement.
Docking was to have been achieved by a probe and drogue mechanism. The method was to allow the crew to take advantage of good visibility and not have to change positions. Controls, displays and cues would not change during docking. Once the probe was aligned with the drogue, it would be locked in place, and the LEM rotated 90 degrees for final mating and crew transfer.
SDASM collection.
www.autogespot.com/porsche-991-carrera-s-cabriolet-1/2014...
This is for sure the best Porsche 991 Carrera S Cabriolet I've ever seen, and probably it won't be beated. The Exterior in white, the whole interior is red carrera in Natural leather. Also combine with the red hood. And the rims in black are more beautiful than the stock color. Althought I'd choose the 20" Carrera Classic rims.
Company/Owner: King's Coach Tour and Transport Corporation
Fleet/Bus Number: 807
Classification: Air-conditioned Tourist Chartered Bus
Coachbuilder: Kia Motors Corporation
Body Model: Kia Granbird SD-I Greenfield (Hyundai Universe face-lifted)
Engine Model: Hyundai D6AC (Q340)
Chassis Model: Kia KM948 (KN2GBB122YK)
Transmission: Manual (5-speed forward, 1-speed reverse)
Suspension: Air Suspension
Seating Configuration: 2+1×2
Seating Capacity: 60 (49 + 11 jump-seats)
Route: Various (Tourist Chartered)
Municipalities/cities passing: N/A
Type of Operation: Tourist Operation Non-Public Utility Bus (Special Trip / Tourist Class)
Area of Operation: Any point of Luzon: Ilocos Region (Region I), Cagayan Valley (Region II), Central Luzon (Region III), CALABARZON (Region IV-A), MIMAROPA (Region IV-B), Bicol Region (Region V), Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR)
––––––––––
Company/Owner: AJU Global Transport Corporation
Fleet/Bus Number: 832
Classification: Air-conditioned Tourist Chartered Bus
Coachbuilder: Isuzu-Kawasaki Coach, Ltd.
Body Model: Isuzu Grand Cruiser
Engine Model: Isuzu 10PC1
Chassis Model: Isuzu P-LV719R
Transmission: Manual (6-speed forward, 1-speed reverse)
Suspension: Air Suspension
Seating Configuration: 2+1×2
Seating Capacity: 60 (49 + 11 jump-seats)
Route: Various (Tourist Chartered)
Municipalities/cities passing: N/A
Type of Operation: Tourist Operation Non-Public Utility Bus (Special Trip / Tourist Class)
Area of Operation: Any point of Luzon: Ilocos Region (Region I), Cagayan Valley (Region II), Central Luzon (Region III), CALABARZON (Region IV-A), MIMAROPA (Region IV-B), Bicol Region (Region V), Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR)
Shot Location: In-front of Barasoain Church, Malolos City, Bulacan
Date Taken: September 17, 2015
Notices:
* Please DON'T GRAB A PHOTO WITHOUT A PERMISSION. If you're going to GRAB IT, please give A CREDIT TO THE OWNER. Also, don't PRINT SCREEN my photos.
** If I have mistakes on the specifications, please comment in a good manner so that I can edit it immediately.
*** The specifications mentioned above are subjected for verification and may be changed without prior notice.
**** The vehicle's registration plate(s), conduction sticker(s), and/or persons (if applicable) were pixelated/blurred to prevent any conflict with the photographer, the bus company and/or to the car owner for their security and/or privacy purposes. So, don't use their plate number, conduction sticker, and vehicle tag as an evidence for any incident. And, I have taken this photo for bus fanatics, bus enthusiasts, and bus lovers purposes.
“SPACE SHUTTLE SYSTEM--Space Shuttle orbiter deploys satellite payload that will be carried to synchronous orbit by command-controlled Space Tug, following delivery of payload to Earth orbit. North American Rockwell’s (NR) Space Division will build multi-billion dollar reusable shuttle space transportation system under contract to National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Space Shuttle will be able to deliver up to 65,000 pounds of varied payload to Earth orbit, then return to Earth for future missions.”
Note the low-mounted & canted/angled OMS pod(s). And of course at this time, the hinged, flip-out forward RCS thrusters.
Thanks to the excellent “SECRET PROJECTS Forum” website, specifically, user flateric’s June 4, 2007 post, the orbiter depicted is “Pre-Phase-C, Configuration E-0401”. As extracted from AIAA paper 78-1469, “Space Shuttle Orbiter Configuration Case History”, presented at the AIAA AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE, Los Angeles, California, August 21-23, 1978. OUTSTANDING! At (account (recommended) required to resolve):
www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/us-space-shuttle-project...
Artwork possibly by Henry Lozano Jr.? Donald Bester? Or, although I think it’s before his time, Manuel E. Alvarez?
Company/Owner: Victory Liner, Inc.
Fleet/Bus Number: 232
Classification: Air-conditioned Provincial Bus
Coachbuilder: (Zhengzhou) Yutong Bus Company, Ltd.
Body Model: Yutong C12PRO II ZK6122HD9
Engine Model: Yuchai YC6L310-20 (L32YA)
Chassis Model: Yutong ZK6122CRD9 (LZYTATE60D1)
Transmission: Manual (6-speed forward, 1-speed reverse)
Suspension: Air Suspension
Seating Configuration: 2×2
Seating Capacity: 51
Route: N/A [Baguio City, Benguet–Cubao, Quezon City]
Municipalities/cities passing: N/A
Type of Operation: Provincial Operation Public Utility Bus (Regular Class)
Area of Operation: Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR)
––––––––––
Company/Owner: Victory Liner, Inc.
Fleet/Bus Number: 6028
Classification: Air-conditioned Provincial Bus
Coachbuilder: Santarosa Motor Works, Inc./Columbian Motors Corporation
Body Model: Nissan Diesel/Santarosa EXFOH
Engine Model: Nissan Diesel PF6-TA (PF6-A)
Chassis Model: Nissan Diesel JA450SSN
Transmission: 6-speed Manual Transmission
Suspension: Leaf Spring Suspension
Seating Configuration: 2×2
Seating Capacity: 49
Route: N/A [Baguio City, Benguet–Sampaloc, Manila City]
Municipalities/cities passing: N/A
Type of Operation: Provincial Operation Public Utility Bus (Regular Class)
Area of Operation: Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR)
––––––––––
Company/Owner(s): Victory Liner, Inc.
Fleet/Bus Number(s): 2107 and 2139
Classification(s): Air-conditioned Provincial Bus
Coachbuilder(s): Santarosa Motor Works, Inc./Columbian Motors Corporation
Body Model(s): MAN/Santarosa EXFOH HD A55
Engine Model(s): MAN D2866LOH27
Chassis Model(s): MAN 18.310 HOCL (PBMA55)
Transmission(s): Automatic (6-speed forward, 1-reverse)
Suspension(s): Electronically-Controlled Air Suspension (ECAS)
Seating Configuration(s): 2×2
Seating Capacity(ies): 49
Route(s): N/A [2107: Baguio City, Benguet–Cubao, Quezon City; 2139: Baguio City, Benguet–Sampaloc, Manila City]
Municipalities/cities passing: N/A
Type of Operation: Provincial Operation Public Utility Bus (Regular Class)
Area of Operation(s): Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR)
Shot Location: Victory Liner Baguio Passenger Center, Utility Road corner Marcoville Street, Baguio City, Benguet
Date Taken: June 8, 2015
Notices:
* Please DON'T GRAB A PHOTO WITHOUT A PERMISSION. If you're going to GRAB IT, please give A CREDIT TO THE OWNER. Also, don't PRINT SCREEN my photos.
** If I have mistakes on the specifications, please comment in a good manner so that I can edit it immediately.
*** The specifications and routes (for provincial, inter-provincial, and city operation) mentioned above are subjected for verification and may be changed without prior notice.
**** The vehicle's registration plate(s), conduction sticker(s), and/or persons (if applicable) were pixelated/blurred to prevent any conflict with the photographer, the bus company and/or to the car owner for their security and/or privacy purposes. So, don't use their plate number, conduction sticker, and vehicle tag as an evidence for any incident. And, I have taken this photo for bus fanatics, bus enthusiasts, and bus lovers purposes.
jsc2022e062422 (July 29, 2022) - A view of the full Gateway configuration with Orion approaching.
Credit: NASA
As some of you know, I sell windows and doors for a living. Most of the time I work in an office, but on occasion I have to go out to someone's home to pick up a balance, re-measure a window, etc.
Last year, I was at a home re-measuring some basement windows and I noticed a box full of railroad photos. The elderly gentlemen informed me that he was a retired EMD employee, and that he worked there for some 40 years. He was nice enough to let me sift through the box and take a few photos home with me. He told me I could do whatever I want with them. These were scanned from very nice, crisp, clean 8x10 photos.
Here, we have some Santa Fe warbonnets. I believe this is an A-B-A configuration. No data was written on the back of the photo, so I have no idea when or where this was taken.
Model of a mining excavator in front shovel configuration in scale 1:28.5. This 300 tonne machine is a representative of Liebherr's most popular size class and is ideally suited to load a fleet of 100 tonne payload mining trucks.
When LEGO introduced its 42100 Liebherr R 9800, I knew I had to get that set immediately after release. But I also knew from the beginning, that I would not like the official model's Technic design and that I had to build my own version.
Here it is, scaled larger than 42100, but on the other hand representing a much smaller machine than the 9800. About 300 vs. 800 tonnes in real life. This allowed me to use the main components of the official LEGO model to build my R 994 B. I used the clamshell bucket, the Power Functions XL actuators and the tracks and sprockets.
The main difference from 42100 lies in the electric components of my model. The following functions are all powered by two Power Functions rechargeable battery boxes and controlled by three SBricks via bluetooth connection and Brick Controller 2 app:
- Left and right crawler treads each using a Power Functions L motor
- Slewing of the upper structure using two Power Functions M motors
- Boom cylinders: one Power Functions XL motor
- Stick cylinders: one Power Functions L motor
- Bucket cylinders: one Power Functions M motor
- Clamshell bucket: one Brick Engine V1 motor (compatible to Power Functions)
- Access ladder: one Power Functions M motor
- Service flap: one Power Functions M motor
- Lighting: three pairs of Power Functions LEDs
Besides the main drive and digging functions, the model features a retractable access ladder and a lowerable service flap on the underside of the upper structure frame. The service flap is used to refuel and grease the excavator.
While building the Liebherr R 994 B Litronic in 1:28.5 scale, I could refer to a highly detailed diecast model of the very same machine in 1:50 scale.
The T-34 is a Soviet medium tank from World War II. When introduced, its 76.2 mm (3 in) tank gun was more powerful than its contemporaries, and its 60-degree sloped armour provided good protection against anti-tank weapons. The T-34 had a profound effect on the conflict on the Eastern Front, and had a long-lasting impact on tank design. The tank was praised by multiple German generals when encountered during Operation Barbarossa, although its armour and armament were surpassed later in the war. Though, its main strength was its cost and production time, meaning that German panzer forces would often fight against Soviet tank forces several times their size. The T-34 is also a critical part of the mechanized divisions that form the backbone of the Deep Battle Strategy.
The T-34 was the mainstay of the Soviet Red Army armoured forces throughout the war. Its general specifications remained nearly unchanged until early 1944, when it received a firepower upgrade with the introduction of the greatly improved T-34-85 variant. Its production method was continuously refined and rationalized to meet the needs of the Eastern Front, making the T-34 quicker and cheaper to produce. The Soviets ultimately built over 80,000 T-34s of all variants, allowing steadily greater numbers to be fielded despite the loss of tens of thousands in combat against the German Wehrmacht.
Replacing many light and medium tanks in Red Army service, it was the most-produced tank of the war, as well as the second most-produced tank of all time (after its successor, the T-54/T-55 series). With 44,900 lost during the war, it also suffered the most tank losses ever. Its development led directly to the T-44, then the T-54 and T-55 series of tanks, which in turn evolved into the later T-62, that form the armoured core of many modern armies. T-34 variants were widely exported after World War II, and as recently as 2010 more than 130 were still in service.
Development and production
Origins
In 1939, the most numerous Soviet tank models were the T-26 infantry tank and the BT series of fast tanks. The T-26 was slow-moving, designed to keep pace with infantry on the ground. The BT tanks were cavalry tanks: fast-moving and light, designed for manoeuver warfare. Both were Soviet developments of foreign designs from the early 1930s: the T-26 was based on the British Vickers 6-Ton, and the BT tanks were based on a design from American engineer J. Walter Christie.
In 1937, the Red Army had assigned engineer Mikhail Koshkin to lead a new team to design a replacement for the BT tanks at the Kharkiv Komintern Locomotive Plant (KhPZ). The prototype tank, designated A-20, had a modified BA-20 engine and was specified with 20 mm (0.8 in) of armour, a 45 mm (1.77 in) gun, the production model used a Model V-2-34 engine, a less-flammable diesel fuel in a V12 configuration designed by Konstantin Chelpan. It also had an 8×6-wheel convertible drive similar to the BT tank's 8×2, which allowed it to run on wheels without caterpillar tracks. This feature had greatly saved on maintenance and repair of the unreliable tank tracks of the early 1930s, and allowed tanks to exceed 85 kilometres per hour (53 mph) on roads, but gave no advantage in combat and its complexity made it difficult to maintain. By 1937–38, track design had improved and the designers considered it a waste of space, weight, and maintenance resources, despite the road speed advantage. The A-20 also incorporated previous research (BT-IS and BT-SW-2 projects) into sloped armour: its all-round sloped armour plates were more likely to deflect rounds than perpendicular armour.
During the Battle of Lake Khasan in July 1938 and the Battles of Khalkhin Gol in 1939, an undeclared border war with Japan on the frontier with occupied Manchuria, the Soviets deployed numerous tanks against the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA). Although the IJA Type 95 Ha-Go light tanks had diesel engines, the Red Army's T-26 and BT tanks used petrol engines which, while common in tank designs of the time, often burst into flames when hit by IJA tank-killer teams using Molotov cocktails. Poor-quality welds in the Soviet armour plates left small gaps between them, and flaming petrol from the Molotov cocktails easily seeped into the fighting and engine compartment; portions of the armour plating that had been assembled with rivets also proved to be vulnerable. The Soviet tanks were also easily destroyed by the Japanese Type 95 tank's 37 mm gunfire, despite the low velocity of that gun, or "at any other slightest provocation". The use of riveted armour led to a problem whereby the impact of enemy shells, even if they failed to disable the tank or kill the crew on their own, would cause the rivets to break off and become projectiles inside the tank.
After these battles, Koshkin convinced Soviet leader Joseph Stalin to let him develop a second prototype, a more heavily armed and armoured "universal tank" that reflected the lessons learned and could replace both the T-26 and the BT tanks. Koshkin named the second prototype A-32, after its 32 mm (1.3 in) of frontal armour. It had an L-10 76.2 mm (3 in) gun, and the same Model V-2-34 diesel. Both were tested in field trials at Kubinka in 1939, with the heavier A-32 proving to be as mobile as the A-20. A still heavier version of the A-32, with 45 mm (1.77 in) of front armour, wider tracks, and a newer L-11 76.2 mm gun, was approved for production as the T-34. Koshkin chose the name after the year 1934, when he began to formulate his ideas about the new tank, and to commemorate that year's decree expanding the armoured force and appointing Sergo Ordzhonikidze to head tank production.
Valuable lessons from Lake Khasan and Khalkhin Gol regarding armour protection, mobility, quality welding, and main guns were incorporated into the new T-34 tank, which represented a substantial improvement over the BT and T-26 tanks in all four areas. Koshkin's team completed two prototype T-34s in January 1940. In April and May, they underwent a grueling 2,000-kilometre (1,200 mi) drive from Kharkiv to Moscow for a demonstration for the Kremlin leaders, to the Mannerheim Line in Finland, and back to Kharkiv via Minsk and Kiev. Some drivetrain shortcomings were identified and corrected.
Initial production
Resistance from the military command and concerns about high production cost were finally overcome by anxieties about the poor performance of Soviet tanks in the Winter War in Finland, and the effectiveness of German tanks during the Battle of France. The first production T-34s were completed in September 1940, completely replacing the production of the T-26, the BT series and the multi-turreted T-28 medium tank at the KhPZ plant. Koshkin died of pneumonia (exacerbated by the drive from Kharkiv to Moscow) at the end of that month, and the T-34's drivetrain developer, Alexander Morozov, was appointed Chief Designer.
The T-34 posed new challenges for the Soviet industry. It had heavier armour than any medium tank produced to date, and there were problems with defective armour plates. Only company commanders' tanks could be fitted with radios (originally the 71-TK-3 radio set), due to their expense and short supply – the rest of the tank crews in each company signalled with flags. The L-11 gun did not live up to expectations, so the Grabin Design Bureau at Gorky Factory N.92 designed the superior 76.2 mm F-34 gun. No bureaucrat would approve production of the new gun, but Gorky and KhPZ started producing it anyway; official permission came from the State Defense Committee only after troops praised the weapon's performance in combat against the Germans.
Production of this first T-34 series – the Model 1940 – totalled only about 400, before production was switched to the Model 1941, with the F-34 gun, 9-RS radio set (also installed on the SU-100), and even thicker armour.
Mass production
Subassemblies for the T-34 originated at several plants: Kharkiv Diesel Factory N.75 supplied the model V-2-34 engine, Leningrad Kirovsky Factory (formerly the Putilov works) made the original L-11 gun, and the Dinamo Factory in Moscow produced electrical components. Tanks were initially built at Plant N.183, in early 1941 at the Stalingrad Tractor Factory (STZ), and starting in July at Krasnoye Sormovo Factory N.112 in Gorky.
Total Soviet tank production
TypeNumber
Light tanks14,508
T-3435,119
T-34-8529,430
KV and KV-854,581
IS-3,854
SU-7612,671
SU-852,050
SU-1001,675
SU-1221,148
SU-1524,779
After Germany's surprise invasion of the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941 (Operation Barbarossa), the Wehrmacht's rapid advances forced the evacuation and relocation of Soviet tank factories eastwards to the Ural Mountains, an undertaking of immense scale and haste that presented enormous logistic difficulties and was extremely punishing to the workers involved. Alexander Morozov personally supervised the evacuation of all skilled engineers and laborers, machinery and stock from KhPZ to re-establish the factory at the site of the Dzerzhinsky Ural Railcar Factory in Nizhny Tagil, renamed Stalin Ural Tank Factory N.183. The Kirovsky Factory, evacuated just weeks before the Germans surrounded Leningrad, moved with the Kharkiv Diesel Factory to the Stalin Tractor Factory in Chelyabinsk, soon to be nicknamed Tankograd ("Tank City"). The workers and machinery from Leningrad's Voroshilov Tank Factory N.174 were incorporated into the Ural Factory and the new Omsk Factory N.174. The Ordzhonikidze Ural Heavy Machine Tool Works (UZTM) in Sverdlovsk absorbed workers and machines from several small machine shops in the path of German forces.
While these factories were being rapidly moved, the industrial complex surrounding the Dzerzhinsky Tractor Factory in Stalingrad continued to work double shifts throughout the period of withdrawal (September 1941 to September 1942) to make up for production lost, and produced 40% of all T-34s during the period. As the factory became surrounded by heavy fighting in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942, the situation there grew desperate: manufacturing innovations were necessitated by material shortages, and stories persist of unpainted T-34 tanks driven out of the factory directly to the battlefields around it. Stalingrad kept up production until September 1942.
Soviet designers were aware of design deficiencies in the tank, but most of the desired remedies would have slowed tank production and so were not implemented: the only changes allowed on the production lines through to 1944 were those to make production simpler and cheaper. New methods were developed for automated welding and hardening the armour plate, including innovations by Prof. Evgeny Paton. The design of the 76.2 mm F-34 gun Model 1941 was reduced from an initial 861 parts to 614. The initial narrow, cramped turrets, both the cast one and the one welded of rolled armour plates bent to shape, were since 1942 gradually replaced with the somewhat less cramped hexagonal one; as it was mostly cast with only a few, simple flat armour plates welded in (roof etc.), this turret was actually faster to produce. Limited rubber supplies led to the adoption of all-steel, internally sprung road wheels, and a new clutch was added to an improved five-speed transmission and engine, improving reliability.
Over two years, the unit production cost of the T-34 was reduced from 269,500 Rbls in 1941, to 193,000 Rbls, and then to 135,000 Rbls.
In 1943, T-34 production had reached an average of 1,300 per month; this was the equivalent of three full-strength tank divisions. By the end of 1945, over 57,300 T-34s had been built: 34,780 T-34 tanks in multiple variants with 76.2 mm guns in 1940–44, and another 22,609 of the revised T-34-85 model in 1944–45. The single largest producer was Factory N.183 (UTZ), building 28,952 T-34s and T-34-85s from 1941 to 1945. The second-largest was Krasnoye Sormovo Factory N.112 in Gorky, with 12,604 in the same period.
At the start of the German-Soviet war, T-34s comprised about four percent of the Soviet tank arsenal, but by the end it made up at least 55% of tank production (based on figures from; Zheltov lists even larger numbers.
Following the end of the war, a further 2,701 T-34s were built prior to the end of Soviet production. Under licence, production was restarted in Poland (1951–55) and Czechoslovakia (1951–58), where 1,380 and 3,185 T-34-85s were made, respectively, by 1956. Altogether, as many as 84,070 T-34s are thought to have been built, plus 13,170 self-propelled guns built on T-34 chassis. It was the most-produced tank of the Second World War, and the second most-produced tank of all time, after its successor, the T-54/55 series.
Design
The T-34 had well-sloped armour, a relatively powerful engine and wide tracks. The initial T-34 version had a powerful 76.2 mm gun, and is often called the T-34/76 (originally a World War II German designation, never used by the Red Army). In 1944, a second major version began production, the T-34-85, with a larger 85 mm gun intended to deal with newer German tanks.
Comparisons can be drawn between the T-34 and the U.S. M4 Sherman tank. Both tanks were the backbone of the armoured units in their respective armies, both nations distributed these tanks to their allies, who also used them as the mainstay of their own armoured formations, and both were upgraded extensively and fitted with more powerful guns. Both were designed for mobility and ease of manufacture and maintenance, sacrificing some performance for these goals. Both chassis were used as the foundation for a variety of support vehicles, such as armour recovery vehicles, tank destroyers, and self-propelled artillery. Both were an approximately even match for the standard German medium tank, the Panzer IV, though each of these three tanks had particular advantages and weaknesses compared with the other two. Neither the T-34 nor the M4 was a match for Germany's heavier tanks, the Panther (technically a medium tank) or the Tiger I; the Soviets used the IS-2 heavy tank and the U.S. used the M26 Pershing as the heavy tanks of their forces instead.
Armour
The heavily sloped armour design made the tank better protected than the armour thickness alone would indicate. The shape also saved weight by reducing the thickness required to achieve equal protection. A few tanks also had appliqué armour of varying thickness welded onto the hull and turret. Tanks thus modified were called s ekranami (Russian: с экранами, "with screens").
The USSR donated two combat-used Model 1941 T-34s to the United States for testing purposes in late 1942. The examinations, performed at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, revealed problems with overall armour build quality, especially of the plate joins and welds, as well as the use of soft steel combined with shallow surface tempering. Leak issues were noted: "In a heavy rain lots of water flows through chinks/cracks, which leads to the disabling of the electrical equipment and even the ammunition". Earlier models of the T-34, until the Model 1942, had cast turrets whose armour was softer than that of the other parts of the tank, and offered poor resistance even to 37 mm anti-aircraft shells. Early T-34s also suffered from poor quality welds, leading to instances of shells which would not have penetrated the tank under normal circumstances to penetrate anyway. They also suffered from rushed manufacturing, leading to inconsistent protection.
In addition, close examination of the T-34 at the Aberdeen Testing Ground showed that a variety of alloys were used in different portions of the armour on the T-34. "Mn-Si-Mo steels were employed for the thinner rolled armour sections, Cr-Mo steels for the thicker rolled armour sections, Mn-Si-Ni-Cr-Mo steels were employed for both rolled and cast steel components from 2" to 5" in thickness, and Ni-Cr-Mo steels were employed for some of the moderately thick cast armour sections". The armour was heat-treated in order to prevent penetration by armour-piercing shells, but this also caused it to be structurally weak, as the armor was very hard and thus brittle, resulting in strikes by high explosive shells causing spalling.
Despite these deficiencies, the T-34's armour proved problematic for the Germans in the initial stages of the war on the Eastern Front. In one wartime account, a single T-34 came under heavy fire upon encountering one of the most common German anti-tank guns at that stage of the war: "Remarkably enough, one determined 37 mm gun crew reported firing 23 times against a single T-34 tank, only managing to jam the tank’s turret ring." Similarly, a German report of May 1942 noted the ineffectiveness of their 50 mm gun as well, noting that "Combating the T-34 with the 5 cm KwK tank gun is possible only at short ranges from the flank or rear, where it is important to achieve a hit as perpendicular to the surface as possible." However, a Military Commissariat Report of the 10th Tank Division, dated 2 August 1941 reported that within 300–400 m the 37 mm Pak 36's armour-piercing shot could defeat the frontal armour. According to an examination of damaged T-34 tanks in several repair workshops in August to September 1942, collected by the People's Commissariat for Tank Industry in January 1943, 54.3% of all T-34 losses were caused by the German long-barreled 5 cm KwK 39 gun.
As the war went on, the T-34 gradually lost some of its initial advantages. The Germans responded to the T-34 by fielding large numbers of improved anti-tank weapons such as the towed 7.5 cm Pak 40 anti-tank gun, while hits from 88 mm-armed Tigers, anti-aircraft guns and 8.8 cm Pak 43 anti-tank guns usually proved lethal. In 1942 the German Panzer IVs were refitted with the 7.5 cm KwK 40 due to the inadequate anti-tank performance of previous German tank designs against the T-34. The upgunned Panzer IV posed a serious threat to the T-34-76, being able to penetrate the frontal turret of a T-34-76 at a range of 1,200 m (3,900 ft) at any angle.
A Wa Pruef 1 report estimated that, with the target angled 30° sideward, a Panther tank could penetrate the turret of a T-34-85 from the front at ranges up to 2000 m, the mantlet at 1200 m, and the frontal hull armour at 300 m. According to the Pantherfibel (the Panther tank manual for its crew), the T-34's glacis could be penetrated from 800 m and the mantlet from 1500 m at 30° sideward angle.
A Waffenamt-Prüfwesen 1 report estimated that with the T-34 angled 30 degrees sidewards and APCBC round, the Tiger I's 8.8 cm KwK 36 L/56 would have to close in to 100 m (110 yd) to achieve a penetration in the T-34's glacis, and could penetrate the frontal turret of a T-34-85 at 1,400 m, the mantlet at 400 m, and the nose at 300 m Ground trials by employees of NIBT Polygon in May 1943 reported that the 88 mm KwK 36 gun could pierce the T-34 frontal hull from 1,500 meters at 90 degrees and cause a disastrous burst effect inside the tank. The examined hull showed cracks, spalling, and delamination due to the poor quality of the armour. It was recommended to increase and improve the quality of welds and armour.
Analysis of destroyed T-34 tanks in the Korean War found that the 76 and 90 mm armour-piercing rounds of the M41 Walker Bulldog and M46 Patton could penetrate the T-34 at most angles from 800 yd (730 m). The maximum range at which the tanks could penetrate the T-34 could not be determined due to a lack of data at higher combat ranges.
In late 1950 a T-34-85 tank was captured by the UN security force in the Korean War. An evaluation of the tank was conducted by the USA which found that the sloped armour of the T-34 was desirable for deflecting shells. They also concluded that the armour was deemed as satisfactory as armour strength was comparable to US armour of similar hardness and that the quality of the material used was "high-grade". Similarly, casting was seen as high quality although casting defects were found in the side armour of the tank that negatively affected armour strength. The abundance of gaps in the joints of the armour was seen as an undesirable feature of the tank due to the risk of injury from "entry of bullet splash and shell fragments".
Firepower
The 76.2 mm (3.00 in) F-34 gun, fitted on the vast majority of T-34s produced through to the beginning of 1944, was able to penetrate any early German tank's armour at normal combat ranges. When firing APCR shells, it could pierce 92 mm (3.6 in) at 500 m (1,600 ft) and 60 mm (2.4 in) of armour at 1,000 m (3,300 ft) The best German tanks of 1941, the Panzer III and Panzer IV, had no more than 50 or 60 mm (2.0 or 2.4 in) of flat frontal armour. However by 1942 the Germans had increased the hull armour on the Panzer IV to 80 mm (3.1 in) which provided good protection at normal combat distances. The F-34 also fired an adequate high explosive round.
The gun sights and range finding for the F-34 main gun (either the TMFD-7 or the PT4-7) were rather crude, especially compared to those of their German adversaries, affecting accuracy and the ability to engage at long ranges.[68] As a result of the T-34's two-man turret, weak optics and poor vision devices, the Germans noted:
T-34s operated in a disorganized fashion with little coordination or else tended to clump together like a hen with its chicks. Individual tank commanders lacked situational awareness due to the poor provision of vision devices and preoccupation with gunnery duties. A tank platoon would seldom be capable of engaging three separate targets but would tend to focus on a single target selected by the platoon leader. As a result, T-34 platoons lost the greater firepower of three independently operating tanks.
The Germans also noted that the T-34 was very slow to find and engage targets, while their own tanks could typically get off three rounds for every one fired by the T-34. As the war progressed the Germans created heavier tank designs like the Tiger I or Panther which were both immune to the 76mm gun of the T-34 when fired upon from the front. This meant that they could only be penetrated from the sides at ranges of a few hundred metres. Due to low anti-tank performance, the T-34 was upgraded to the T-34-85 model. This model, with its 85 mm (3.35 in) ZiS gun, provided greatly increased firepower compared to the previous T-34's 76.2mm gun. The 85 mm gun could penetrate the turret front of a Tiger I tank from 500 m (550 yd) and the driver's front plate from 300 m (330 yd) at the side angle of 30 degrees, and the larger turret enabled the addition of another crew member, allowing the roles of commander and gunner to be separated and increasing the rate of fire and overall effectiveness. The D-5T was capable of penetrating the Tiger I's upper hull armour at 1,000 metres. When firing on the frontal armour of the Panther at an angle of 30 degrees sidewards, the T-34-85 could not penetrate its turret at 500 m (550 yd). This meant that the T-34 would have to resort to using tungsten rounds or firing on the weaker sides of the Panther to destroy it.
The greater length of the 85 mm gun barrel – 4.645 m (15 ft 2.9 in) – made it necessary for crews to be careful not to plough it into the ground on bumpy roads or in combat. Tank commander A.K. Rodkin commented: "the tank could have dug the ground with it in the smallest ditch [filling the barrel with dirt]. If you fired it after that, the barrel would open up at the end like the petals of a flower", destroying the barrel. Standard practice when moving the T-34-85 cross-country in non-combat situations was to fully elevate the gun, or reverse the turret.
During the Korean War, the USA captured a T-34-85. US engineering analysis and testing concluded that the T-34-85 could penetrate 4.1 in (100 mm) at 1,000 yd (910 m), performing similarly to the HVAP rounds of the M41. The Americans also concluded the maximum range of the gun was 2–3 km (1.2–1.9 mi), but the effective range was only up to 1,900 m (1.2 mi).
Mobility
The T-34 was powered by a Model V-2-34 38.8 L V12 Diesel engine of 500 hp (370 kW),[d] giving a top speed of 53 km/h (33 mph). It used the coil-spring Christie suspension of the earlier BT-series tanks, using a "slack track" tread system with a rear-mounted drive sprocket and no system of return rollers for the upper run of track, but dispensed with the heavy and ineffective convertible drive. T-34 tanks equipped with the 4-speed gearbox could only use 4th gear on road, being limited to 3rd on terrain. In the first batch of T-34s, shifting from 2nd to 3rd required a force of 46-112 kg. In September 1941, however, changes were made which lowered the effort to under 31 kg by changing the 3rd gear ratio, which lowered top speed in 3rd gear from 29 km/h to 25 km/h, but made shifting easier. Using the 5-speed gearbox allowed the T-34 to use 4th gear on terrain, with which it could reach 30 km/h.
The T-34-76's ground pressure was around 0.72 kg/cm². Its wide tracks allowed for superior performance on dirt roads and off-road when compared to contemporary tanks. There were, however, still examples of T-34s getting stuck in mud. For example, in 1944 February 4, the 21st Guards Tank Brigade with 32 T-34, was ordered to proceed by road to Tolstoye Rogi, a journey of approximately 80 kilometers. Of the 32 tanks, no less than 19 got stuck in the mud or suffered mechanical breakdowns.
Ergonomics
The original 76mm armed T-34 suffered from the unsatisfactory ergonomic layout of its crew compartment compared to the later 85mm variant. The two-man turret crew arrangement required the commander to aim and fire the gun, an arrangement common to most Soviet tanks of the day. The two-man turret was "cramped and inefficient" and was inferior to the three-man (commander, gunner, and loader) turret crews of German Panzer III and Panzer IV tanks. The Germans noted the T-34 was very slow to find and engage targets while the Panzers could typically get off three rounds for every one fired by the T-34.
Early in the war, the commander fought at a further disadvantage; the forward-opening hatch and the lack of a turret cupola forced him to observe the battlefield through a single vision slit and traversable periscope.[81] German commanders liked to fight "heads-up", with their seat raised and having a full field of view – in the T-34 this was impossible. Soviet veterans condemned the turret hatches of the early models. Nicknamed pirozhok ("stuffed bun") because of its characteristic shape, it was heavy and hard to open. The complaints of the crews urged the design group led by Alexander Morozov to switch in August 1942 to using two hatches in the turret.
The loader also had a difficult job due to the lack of a turret basket (a rotating floor that moves as the turret turns); the same fault was present on all German tanks prior to the Panzer IV. The floor under the T-34's turret was made up of ammunition stored in small metal boxes, covered by a rubber mat. There were nine ready rounds of ammunition stowed in racks on the sides of the fighting compartment. Once these rounds had been used, the crew had to pull additional ammunition out of the floor boxes, leaving the floor littered with open bins and matting and reducing their performance.
The main weakness [of the two-man turret of a T-34 Model 1941] is that it is very tight. The Americans couldn't understand how our tankers could fit inside during a winter when they wear sheepskin jackets. The electrical mechanism for rotating the turret is very bad. The motor is weak, very overloaded and sparks horribly, as a result of which the device regulating the speed of the rotation burns out, and the teeth of the cogwheels break into pieces. They recommend replacing it with a hydraulic or simply manual system. Due to not having a turret basket the crew was [sic] could be injured by getting caught in the drive mechanism, this could leave them out of combat for a while, the lack of a turret basket also caused general discomfort to the crew, having to manually turn.
Most of the problems created by the cramped T-34/76 turret, known before the war, were corrected with the provision of a bigger cast three-man turret[86] on the T-34-85 in 1944.
General reliability
The T-34's wide track and good suspension gave it excellent cross-country performance. Early in the tank's life, however, this advantage was greatly reduced by the numerous teething troubles the design displayed: a long road trip could be a lethal exercise for a T-34 tank at the start of the war. When in June 1941, the 8th Mechanised Corps under Dmitry Ryabyshev marched 500 km towards Dubno, the corps lost half of its vehicles. A.V. Bodnar, who was in combat in 1941–42, recalled:
From the point of view of operating them, the German armoured machines were almost perfect, they broke down less often. For the Germans, covering 200 km was nothing, but with T-34s something would have been lost, something would have broken down. The technological equipment of their machines was better, the combat gear was worse.
The T-34 gearbox had four forward and one reverse gear, replaced by a five-speed box on the last of the 1943 model of the T-34.
The tracks of early models were the most frequently repaired part. A.V. Maryevski later remembered:
The caterpillars used to break apart even without a bullet or shell hits. When earth got stuck between the road wheels, the caterpillar, especially during a turn – strained to such an extent that the pins and tracks themselves couldn't hold out.
The USSR donated two combat-used Model 1941 T-34s to the United States for testing purposes in late 1942. The examinations, performed at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, highlighted these early faults, which were in turn acknowledged in a 1942 Soviet report on the results of the testing:
The Christie's suspension was tested a long time ago by the Americans and unconditionally rejected. On our tanks, as a result of the poor steel on the springs, it very quickly fatigues and as a result clearance is noticeably reduced. The deficiencies in our tracks from their viewpoint result from the lightness of their construction. They can easily be damaged by small-caliber and mortar rounds. The pins are extremely poorly tempered and made of poor steel. As a result, they quickly wear and the track often breaks.
Testing at Aberdeen also revealed that engines could grind to a halt from dust and sand ingestion, as the original "Pomon" air filter was almost totally ineffective and had an insufficient air-inflow capacity, starving the combustion chambers of oxygen, lowering compression, and thereby restricting the engine from operating at full capacity. The air filter issue was later remedied by the addition of "Cyclone" filters on the Model 1943, and even more efficient "Multi-Cyclone" filters on the T-34-85.
The testing at Aberdeen revealed other problems as well. The turret drive also suffered from poor reliability. The use of poorly machined, low quality steel side friction clutches and the T-34's outdated and poorly manufactured transmission meant frequent mechanical failure occurred and that they "create an inhuman harshness for the driver". A lack of properly installed and shielded radios – if they existed at all – restricted their operational range to under 16 km (9.9 mi).
Judging by samples, Russians when producing tanks pay little attention to careful machining or the finishing and technology of small parts and components, which leads to the loss of the advantage what would otherwise accrue from what on the whole are well-designed tanks. Despite the advantages of the use of diesel, the good contours of the tanks, thick armor, good and reliable armaments, the successful design of the tracks etc., Russian tanks are significantly inferior to American tanks in their simplicity of driving, manoeuvrability, the strength of firing (reference to muzzle velocity), speed, the reliability of mechanical construction and the ease of keeping them running.
Soviet tests on newly built T-34’s showed that in April 1943 only 10.1% could complete a 330 km trial and in June ’43 this went down to 7.7%. The percentage stayed below 50% till October 1943 when it rose to 78%, in the next month it dropped to 57% and in the period December ’43 – January ’44 the average was 82%. During February 1944 tests, 79% of tanks reached 300 kilometers, and of the test batches 33% reached 1,000 kilometers. This became immediately apparent to the tank troops. The deputy commander of the 1st Guards Tank Army, P. G. Dyner, commented that tanks in 1943 would reach only 75 percent of their guaranteed life span in engine hours and mileage, but in 1944 they reached 150 percent.
In 1944 June, a report written by the 2. Panzerjäger-Abteilung Company 128 (23. PzDiv.) described experiences acquired during operations with its Beutepanzer SU-85 and T-34:
Despite not having much experience yet, it can be said that the Russian battle tank is not suitable for carrying out long marches as well as high-speed marches. A maximum driving speed of 10–12 km / h has become convenient. During the marches and in order to allow the engines to cool down, it is absolutely necessary to make a stop every half hour for a minimum duration of between fifteen and twenty minutes.
Steering gears have caused problems and breakdowns on all new battle tanks. In difficult terrain, during the gears or also during the course of attacks where many changes of direction are made, the steering clutch heats up and covers with oil quickly: consequently the clutch does not engage and it is impossible to maneuver the vehicle. Once it has cooled down, the clutch should be cleaned with copious amounts of fuel.
In relation to the armament and based on the experiences acquired so far, it can be affirmed that the power of the 7.62 cm cannon is good. If the barrel is adjusted correctly it has good precision even at great distances. The same can be said of the rest of the automatic weapons of the battle tank. The weapons have good precision and reliability, although a slow rate of fire.
The Company has had the same positive experiences with the 8.5 cm assault gun. Regarding the true power of fire compared to the 7.62 cm gun, the Company is not yet able to give details. The effect of explosive projectiles ( Sprenggranaten ) at great distances and its precision is much higher than that of the 7.62 cm cannon.
The optical systems of the Russian battle tank are, in comparison with the Germans, much inferior. The German gunner has to get used to the Russian telescopic sight. Observing the impact or the trajectory of the projectile through the telescopic sight is only partially possible. The gunner of the Russian T-43 [sic] battle tank has only a panoramic optic, located in the upper left area, in front of the telescopic sight. In order for the loader to be able to observe the trajectory of the projectile in any case, the Company has additionally incorporated a second panoramic optics for this member of the crew.
In the Russian tank it is very difficult to steer the vehicle or a unit and shoot simultaneously. Coordinating fire within a company is only partially possible.
On January 29, 1945, the State Defense Committee approved a decree that extended the service life guarantee of the T-34's V-2-34 engine from 200 hours to 250 hours. A report by the 2nd Guards Tank Army in February 1945 revealed that the average engine service life of a T-34 was lower than the official warranty at 185–190 hours. For comparison, the US M4 Sherman had an average engine service life of 195–205 hours.
Operational history
Operation Barbarossa (1941)
Germany launched Operation Barbarossa, its invasion of the Soviet Union, on 22 June 1941. At the start of hostilities, the Red Army had 967 T-34 tanks and 508 KV tanks concentrated in five of their twenty-nine mechanized corps. The existence of the T-34 and KV heavy tanks proved a psychological shock to German soldiers, who had expected to face an inferior enemy. The T-34 was superior to any tank the Germans then had in service. The diary of Alfred Jodl seems to express surprise at the appearance of the T-34 in Riga, noting "the surprise at this new and thus unknown wunder-armament being unleashed against the German assault divisions". Paul Ludwig Ewald von Kleist, called it "the finest tank in the world" and Heinz Guderian affirmed the T-34's "vast superiority" over German tanks.
Initially, the Wehrmacht had great difficulty destroying T-34s in combat, as standard German anti-tank weaponry proved ineffective against its heavy, sloped armour. In one of the first known encounters, a T-34 crushed a 3.7 cm PaK 36, destroyed two Panzer IIs, and left a 14-kilometre (8.7 mi) long swathe of destruction in its wake before a howitzer destroyed it at close range. In another incident, a single Soviet T-34 was hit more than 30 times by a battalion-sized contingent of German 37mm and 50mm anti-tank guns, yet survived intact and drove back to its own lines a few hours later. The inability to penetrate the T-34's armour led to the Germans' standard anti-tank gun, the 37 mm PaK 36, being dubbed the Panzeranklopfgerät ("tank door knocker") because the PaK 36 crew simply revealed their presence and wasted their shells without damaging the T-34's armour. Anti-tank gunners began aiming at tank tracks, or vulnerable margins on the turret ring and gun mantlet, rather than the bow and turret armour. The Germans were forced to deploy 105 mm field guns and 88 mm anti-aircraft guns in a direct fire role to stop them.
Despite this, the Soviet corps equipped with these new tanks lost most of them within weeks. The combat statistics for 1941 show that the Soviets lost an average of over seven tanks for every German tank lost. The Soviets lost a total of 20,500 tanks in 1941 (approximately 2,300 of them T-34s, as well as over 900 heavy tanks, mostly KVs). The destruction of the Soviet tank force was accomplished not only by the glaring disparity in the tactical and operational skills of the opponents, but also by mechanical defects that afflicted Soviet armour. Besides the poor state of older tanks, the new T-34s and KVs suffered from initial mechanical and design problems, particularly with regard to clutches and transmissions. Mechanical breakdowns accounted for at least 50 percent of the tank losses in the summer fighting, and recovery or repair equipment was not to be found. The shortage of repair equipment and recovery vehicles led the early T-34 crews to enter combat carrying a spare transmission on the engine deck.
Other key factors diminishing the initial impact of T-34s on the battlefield were the poor state of leadership, tank tactics, initial lack of radios in tanks, and crew training; these factors were partially consequences of Stalin's purge of the Soviet officer corps in 1937, reducing the army's efficiency and morale. This was aggravated as the campaign progressed by the loss of many of the properly trained personnel during the Red Army's disastrous defeats early in the invasion. Typical crews went into combat with only basic military training plus 72 hours of classroom instruction; according to historian Steven Zaloga:
The weakness of mechanized corps lay not in the design of their equipment, but rather in its poor mechanical state, the inadequate training of their crews, and the abysmal quality of Soviet military leadership in the first month of the war.
Further action (1942–1943)
As the invasion progressed, German infantry began receiving increasing numbers of the 7.5 cm Pak 40 anti-tank guns, which were capable of penetrating the T-34's armour at long range. Larger numbers of the 88 mm Flak guns also arrived, which could easily defeat a T-34 at very long ranges, though their size and general unwieldiness meant that they were often difficult to move into position in the rough Soviet terrain.
At the same time, the Soviets incrementally upgraded the T-34. The Model 1942 featured increased armour on the turret and many simplified components. The Model 1943 (confusingly also introduced in 1942) had yet more armour, as well as increased fuel capacity and more ammunition storage. Also added were an improved engine air filter and a new clutch mated to an improved and more reliable five-speed transmission. Finally, the Model 1943 also had a new, slightly roomier (but still two-man) turret of a distinctive hexagonal shape that was easier to manufacture, derived from the abandoned T-34M project.
The T-34 was essential in resisting the German summer offensive in 1942, and executing the double encirclement manoeuvre that cut off the German Sixth Army at Stalingrad in December 1942. The Sixth Army was surrounded, and eventually surrendered in February 1943, a campaign widely regarded as the turning point of the war on the Eastern Front.
In 1943, the Soviets formed Polish and Czechoslovak armies-in-exile, and these started to receive the T-34 Model 1943 with a hexagonal turret. Like the Soviet forces themselves, the Polish and Czechoslovak tank crews were sent into action quickly with little training, and suffered high casualties.
In July 1943, the Germans launched Operation Citadel, in the region around Kursk, their last major offensive on the Eastern Front in the Second World War. It was the debut of the German Panther tank, although the numbers employed at the resulting Battle of Kursk were small and the brunt of the burden was carried by the Panzer III, StuG III, and Panzer IV. The campaign featured the largest tank battles in history. The high-water mark of the battle was the massive armour engagement at Prokhorovka, which began on 12 July, though the vast majority of armour losses on both sides were caused by artillery and mines, rather than tanks. Over 6,000 fully tracked armoured vehicles, 4,000 combat aircraft, and 2 million men are believed to have participated in these battles.
The Soviet high command's decision to focus on one cost-effective design, cutting costs and simplifying production wherever possible while only allowing relatively minor improvements, had proven to be an astute choice for the first two years of the war. However, the battles in the summer of 1943 demonstrated that the 76.2 mm gun of the T-34 was no longer as effective as it was in 1941. Soviet tank crews struggled at longer ranges with the additional frontal armour applied to the later variants of the Panzer III and Panzer IV, and were unable to penetrate the frontal armour of the new German Panther or Tiger I tank at standard combat ranges without tungsten rounds, and had to rely on tactical skill through flanking manoeuvres and combined arms.
T-34-85
After improved German Panzer IVs with the high-velocity 7.5cm (2.95 in) KwK 40 gun were encountered in combat in 1942, a project to design an entirely new Soviet tank was begun, with the goals of increasing armour adding modern features like a torsion-bar suspension and a three-man turret. The new tank, the T-43, was intended to be a universal model to replace both the T-34 and the KV-1 heavy tank. However, the T-43 prototype's armour, though heavier, was not capable against German 88 mm guns, while its mobility was found to be inferior to the T-34. Finally, although the T-43 shared over 70% of its components with the T-34, manufacturing it would still have required a significant slow-down in production. Consequently, the T-43 was cancelled.
Not only were the weapons of German tanks improving, so was their armour. Soviet firing tests against a captured Tiger I heavy tank in April 1943 showed that the T-34's 76 mm gun could not penetrate the front of the Tiger I at all, and the side only at very close range. A Soviet 85 mm anti-aircraft gun, the M1939 (52-K), was found capable of doing the job, and so derivatives of it were developed for tanks. One of the resulting guns used on the original T-34 85 model (the D-5T) was capable of penetrating the Tiger I's upper hull armour at 1,000 metres. It was still not enough to match the Tiger, which could destroy the T-34 from a distance of 1,500 to 2,000 m (4,900 to 6,600 ft), but it was a noticeable improvement.
With the T-43 canceled, the Soviet command made the decision to retool the factories to produce an improved version of the T-34. Its turret ring was enlarged from 1,425 mm (56 in) to 1,600 mm (63 in), allowing a larger turret to be fitted supporting the larger 85 mm gun. The prototype T-43's turret design was hurriedly adopted by Vyacheslav Kerichev at the Krasnoye Sormovo Factory to fit the T-34. This was a larger three-man turret, with radio (previously in the hull) and observation cupola in the roof. Now the tank commander needed only to command (aided by cupola and radio systems), leaving the operation of the gun to the gunner and the loader. The turret was bigger and less sloped than the original T-34 turret, making it a bigger target (due to the three-man crew and bigger gun), but with thicker 90 mm armour, making it more resistant to enemy fire. The shells were 50% heavier (9 kg) and were much better in the anti-armour role, and reasonable in a general purpose role, though only 55–60 could be carried, instead of 90–100 of the earlier shells. The resulting new tank, the T-34-85, was seen as a compromise between advocates for the T-43 and others who wanted to continue to build as many 76 mm-armed T-34s as possible without interruption.
Production of the T-34-85 began in January 1944 at Factory No. 112, first using the D-5T 85 mm gun. Parallel to the production of the T-34-85 with the D-5T gun, production of the T-34-85 using the S-53 gun (later to be modified and redesignated as the ZIS-S-53 gun) began in February 1944 at Factory No. 112. The improved T-34-85 became the standard Soviet medium tank, with an uninterrupted production run until the end of the war. A T-34-85 initially cost about 30 percent more to produce than a Model 1943, at 164,000 Rbls; by 1945 this had been reduced to 142,000 Rbls during the course of World War II the cost of a T-34 tank had almost halved, from 270,000 Rbls in 1941, while its top speed remained about the same, and its main gun's armour penetration and turret frontal armour thickness both nearly doubled.
The T-34-85 gave the Red Army a tank with better armour and mobility than the German Panzer IV tank and StuG III assault gun. While it could not match the armour or weapons of the heavier Panther and Tiger tanks, its improved firepower made it much more effective than earlier models, and overall it was more cost-effective than the heaviest German tanks. In comparison with the T-34-85 program, the Germans instead chose an upgrade path based on the introduction of completely new, expensive, heavier, and more complex tanks, greatly slowing the growth of their tank production and helping the Soviets to maintain a substantial numerical superiority in tanks. By May 1944, T-34-85 production had reached 1,200 tanks per month. In the entire war, production figures for all Panther types reached no more than 6,557, and for all Tiger types (including the Tiger I and Tiger II) 2,027. Production figures for the T-34-85 alone reached 22,559.
On 12 January 1945, a column of Tiger IIs and other tanks from 424th Heavy Panzer Battalion were involved in a short-range engagement with T-34-85 tanks near the village of Lisow. Forty T-34-85 tanks commanded by Colonel N. Zhukov were attacked by the 424th Heavy Panzer battalion, which had been reinforced by 13 Panthers. The Germans permanently lost five Tiger IIs, seven Tiger Is and five Panthers for the loss of four T-34-85 tanks burnt out.
German use of T-34s
The German army often employed as much captured materiel as possible and T-34s were not an exception. Large numbers of T-34s were captured in fighting on the Eastern Front though few were T-34-85s. These were designated by the Germans as Panzerkampfwagen T-34 747. From late 1941, captured T-34s were transported to a German workshop for repairs and modification to German requirements. In 1943 a local tank factory in Kharkiv was used for this purpose. These were sometimes modified to German standards by the installation of a German commander's cupola and radio equipment.
The first captured T-34s entered German service during the summer of 1941. In order to prevent recognition mistakes, large-dimension crosses or even swastikas were painted on the tanks, including on top of the turret, in order to prevent attack by Axis aircraft. Badly damaged tanks were either dug in as pillboxes or were used for testing and training purposes.
After the end of World War II, East Germany continued to utilize the T-34.
Manchurian campaign (August 1945)
Just after midnight on 9 August 1945, though the terrain was believed by the Japanese to be impassable by armoured formations, the Soviet Union invaded Japanese-occupied Manchuria. Red Army combined-arms forces achieved complete surprise and used a powerful, deep-penetrating attack in a classic double encirclement pattern, spearheaded by the T-34-85. The opposing Japanese forces had been reduced as elite units had been drawn off to other fronts and the remaining forces were in the middle of a redeployment. The Japanese tanks remaining to face them were all held in the rear and not used in combat; the Japanese had weak support from IJAAF forces, engineering, and communications. Japanese forces were overwhelmed, though some put up resistance. The Japanese emperor transmitted a surrender order on 14 August, but the Kwantung Army was not given a formal cease-fire until 17 August.
Korean War (1950–1953)
A full North Korean People's Army (KPA) brigade equipped with about 120 Soviet-supplied T-34-85s spearheaded the invasion of South Korea in June 1950. The WWII-era 2.36-inch bazookas initially used by the US troops in South Korea were useless against the KPA's T-34 tanks, as were the 75 mm main guns of the M24 Chaffee light tank. However, following the introduction of heavier and more capable armour into the war by US and UN forces, such as the American M4 Sherman, M26 Pershing and M46 Patton tanks, as well as the British Comet and Centurion tanks, the KPA began to suffer more T-34 tank losses in combat from enemy armour, aside from further losses due to numerous US/UN airstrikes and increasingly-effective anti-tank firepower for US/UN infantry on the ground, such as the then-new 3.5-inch M20 "Super Bazooka" (replacing the earlier 2.36-inch model). By the time the NKPA were forced to withdraw from the south, about 239 T-34s and 74 SU-76 assault guns had been lost or abandoned. After October 1950, NKPA armour was rarely encountered. Despite China's entry into the conflict in the following month, no major armour deployments were carried out by them, as the Chinese focus was on massed infantry attacks rather than large-scale armour assaults. Several T-34-85s and a few IS-2 tanks were fielded, primarily dispersed amongst their infantry, thus making armoured engagements with US and UN forces rare from then on.
A Chinese T-34 tank No. 215 from 4th Tank Regiment, 2nd Tank Division, allegedly destroyed four enemy tanks and damaged another M46 Patton tank during its fight from 6 to 8 July 1953. It also destroyed 26 bunkers,9 artillery pieces, and a truck. That tank is now preserved in the Military Museum of the Chinese People's Revolution.
In summary, a 1954 US military survey concluded that there were, in all, 119 tanks vs. tank actions involving US Army and US Marine units against North Korean and Chinese forces during the Korean War, with 97 T-34-85 tanks knocked out and another 18 considered probable. American losses were somewhat greater.
Angolan Civil War (1975–1988)
One of the last modern conflicts which saw the extensive combat deployment of the T-34-85 was the Angolan Civil War. In 1975, the Soviet Union shipped eighty T-34-85s to Angola as part of its support for the ongoing Cuban military intervention there. Cuban crewmen instructed FAPLA personnel in their operation; other FAPLA drivers and gunners accompanied Cuban crews in an apprentice role.
FAPLA began deploying T-34-85s against the UNITA and FNLA forces on June 9, 1975. The appearance of FAPLA and Cuban tanks prompted South Africa to reinforce UNITA with a single squadron of Eland-90 armoured cars.
Other regions and countries
In early 1991, the Yugoslav People's Army possessed 250 T-34-85s, none of which were in active service. During the breakup of Yugoslavia, the T-34-85s were inherited by the national armies of Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Serbia and Montenegro and continued to see action during the Yugoslav Wars. Some were also acquired from Yugoslav reserve stocks by Serbian separatist armies, namely the Army of the Republic of Serb Krajina (SVK) and the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS). Most of these tanks were in poor condition at the beginning of the conflict and some were soon rendered unserviceable, likely through inadequate maintenance and lack of spares.
On 3 May 1995, a VRS T-34-85 attacked an UNPROFOR outpost manned by the 21st Regiment of the Royal Engineers in Maglaj, Bosnia, injuring six British peacekeepers, with at least one of them sustaining a permanent disability. A number of T-34s being stored by the VRS at a base in Zvornik were temporarily confiscated by UNPROFOR as part of a local disarmament programme the following year.
Middle East
Czechoslovak-produced T-34-85s were used by Egypt in the Arab-Israeli Wars of 1956 and 1967 (Six-Day War) in the Sinai Peninsula. Egypt went on to build the T-34-100, a local and unique conversion that was made up of a Soviet BS-3 100 mm heavy field-artillery gun mounted within a heavily modified turret, as well as the T-34-122 mounting the D-30 gun. In 1956, they were used as regular tanks to support Egyptian infantry, the tank was still in use by the Yom Kippur War in October 1973.
The Syrian Army also received T-34-85s from the Soviet Union and they took part in the many artillery duels with Israeli tanks in November 1964 and in the Six-Day War of 1967.
Warsaw Pact
T-34-85s equipped many of the armies of Eastern European countries (later forming the Warsaw Pact) and the armies of other Soviet client-states elsewhere. East German, Hungarian and Soviet T-34-85s served in the suppression of the East German uprising of 17 June 1953 as well as the Hungarian Revolution of 1956.
Afghanistan
T-34-85s were sporadically available in Afghanistan. During the Soviet–Afghan War, most of the T-34s were fielded by the Sarandoy internal security forces. Some were also kept in service with the Army of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan.
China
After the formation of the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1949, the Soviet Union sent many T-34-85s to the PRC's People's Liberation Army (PLA). Factory 617 had the ability to produce every part of the T-34-85, and during decades of service many modifications were made that visibly distinguish the PRC T-34-85 from the original specification, but no T-34-85 was actually made in China. The production plan of the T-34-85 in China was ended soon after the PRC received T-54A main battle tanks from the Soviet Union and began to build the Type 59 tank, a licensed production version of the T-54A.
Cuba
Cuba received 150 T-34-85 tanks as military aid from the Soviet Union in 1960. The T-34-85 was the first Soviet tank to enter service with the Cuban Revolutionary Armed Forces (FAR), along with the IS-2. Many T-34-85 tanks first saw action in April 1961 during the Bay of Pigs Invasion with an unknown number destroyed or knocked out during the battle. In 1975, many T-34-85s were also donated by the USSR to the FAR to support its lengthy intervention in the Angolan Civil War.
A platoon of five Cuban T-34-85s saw combat in Angola against South African troops during the Battle of Cassinga. The tanks were based along with a company of Cuban mechanized infantry equipped with BTR-152 armoured personnel carriers. In May 1978, South Africa launched a major airborne raid on Cassinga with the objective of destroying a SWAPO (South West African People's Organisation) base there. The Cuban forces were mobilised to stop them. As they approached Cassinga they were strafed by South African aircraft, which destroyed most of the BTR-152s and three of the T-34-85s; a fourth T-34-85 was disabled by an anti-tank mine buried in the road. The remaining tank continued to engage the withdrawing South African paratroops from a hull down position until the battle was over.
Over a hundred Cuban T-34-85s and their respective crews remained in Angola as of the mid 1980s. In September 1986, Cuban president Fidel Castro complained to General Konstantin Kurochkin, head of the Soviet military delegation to Angola, that his men could no longer be expected to fight South African armour with T-34s of "World War II vintage"; Castro insisted that the Soviets furbish the Cuban forces with a larger quantity of T-55s. By 1987 Castro's request appeared to have been granted, as Cuban tank battalions were able to deploy substantial numbers of T-54Bs, T-55s, and T-62s; the T-34-85 was no longer in service.
Cyprus
Cypriot National Guard forces equipped with some 35 T-34-85 tanks helped to support a coup by the Greek junta against President Archbishop Makarios on 15 July 1974. They also saw extensive action against Turkish forces during the Turkish invasion in July and August 1974, with two major actions at Kioneli and at Kyrenia on 20 July 1974.
Namibia
In 1984, the South West African People's Organisation (SWAPO) made a concerted attempt to establish its own conventional armoured battalion through its armed wing, the People's Liberation Army of Namibia (PLAN). As part of this effort, SWAPO diplomatic representatives in Europe approached the German Democratic Republic with a request for ten T-34 tanks, which were delivered. PLAN T-34s were never deployed during offensive operations against the South African military, being confined to the role of protecting strategic bases inside northern Angola.
By 1988 the PLAN T-34-85s had been stationed near Luanda, where their crews received training from Cuban instructors. In March 1989, the PLAN tanks were mobilised and moved south towards the Namibian border. South Africa accused PLAN of planning a major offensive to influence Namibia's pending general elections, but the tank crews did not cross the border and refrained from intervening in a series of renewed clashes later that year. Between 1990 and 1991, SWAPO ordered the PLAN tanks in Angola repatriated to Namibia at its own expense. Four later entered service with the new Namibian Army.
Finland
The Soviet and Finnish armies used T-34s until the 1960s; the former included the 76.2 mm-armed versions until at least 1968, when they were used in filming the sequel to the movie The Alive and the Dead. The Finnish tanks were captured directly from the Soviets or purchased from Germany's captured stocks. Many of the Т-34-85s were enhanced with Finnish or Western equipment, such as improved optics.
Vietnam
During the Vietnam War, the North Vietnamese Army was equipped with many Soviet T-34-85 and these were used in the Operation Lam Son 719, the 1972 Easter Offensive and the 1975 Spring Offensive. They were later used during the Vietnamese invasion of Kampuchea and the Sino-Vietnamese War. A small number are currently being used as trainers. The rest are in storage and no longer serve as active duty battle tanks.
Yemen
In 2015, both T-34-85 Model 1969 tanks and SU-100 self-propelled guns were photographed being used in Houthi takeover in Yemen. Some were even being fitted with anti-tank guided missiles.
Current active service
In 2018, there were nine countries that maintained T-34s in the inventories of their national armed forces: Cuba, Yemen, the Republic of the Congo, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Namibia, North Korea, Laos, and Vietnam. Of these operators, Vietnam possessed the largest known surviving fleet of T-34 series tanks, with 45. Yemen possessed 30, Guinea 30, Guinea-Bissau 10, Mali 21, and Laos 30. It was unclear how many Cuban and North Korean T-34s remained in service. All the Congolese, Namibian and Malian tanks were believed to be in reserve storage or inoperable. The Laotian Army retired its T-34s in early 2019 and sold them to Russia, to be used for public displays and museum exhibits.
Successors
In 1944, pre-war development of a more advanced T-34 tank was resumed, leading to the T-44. The new tank had a turret design based on the T-34-85's, but featured a new hull with torsion-bar suspension and transversely mounted engine; it had a lower profile than the T-34-85 and was simpler to manufacture. Between 150 and 200 of these tanks were built before the end of the war. With substantial drivetrain changes, a new turret, and 100 mm gun, it became the T-54, starting production in 1947
Aniceto Bus Line Co. Inc.- B1
Bus No: B1
Year released: 2010
Capacity: 45; 2x2 seating configuration
Route: Manila/Sampaloc-Vigan via Dau/Bamban/Capas/Tarlac/Gerona/Paniqui/Moncada/San MAnuel/Carmen/Urdaneta/Pozzorubio/Sison/La Union
Body: Hyundai Motors Korea
Model: 2010 Hyundai Aero Space LS Series
Chassis: Hyundai KMJK
Engine: Hyundai D6AB
Fare: Airconditioned
Transmission System: M/T
Suspension: Air Suspension
Taken on: August 9, 2016
Location: Mabalacat City Bus Terminal, Brgy. Dau, Mabalacat City, Pampanga
This is the Shadowclaw Mk II Prime built in the C6 method. This is an improvement on my first Shadowclaw. It has 1 direct fire system (right arm cannon), 2 hand to hand systems (laser right torso and laser left arm), and 1 yellow system (active radar dome top left torso). This is based on the Shadowcat primary configuration battletech. This is for Mobile Frame Zero (MFZ).
Santrans
Bus Number: 2925
Body: Yutong Bus Ltd.
Model: 2010 Yutong ZK6100H
Engine: Yuchai
Fare: Ordinary Fare
Aircon System: n/a
Transmission System: M/T
Seating Configuration: 2x3
Capacity: 61
Shot Location: Cubao
Wind tunnel testing on the 70-metric-ton configuration of SLS, conducted at the Langley Research Center.
Image credit: NASA/LaRC
Original image:
www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/multimedia/gallery/w...
More about the wind tunnel testing:
www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/sls_wind_tunnel.html
More about SLS:
www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/index.html
Space Launch System Flickr photoset:
www.flickr.com/photos/28634332@N05/sets/72157627559536895/
_____________________________________________
These official NASA photographs are being made available for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photographs. The photographs may not be used in materials, advertisements, products, or promotions that in any way suggest approval or endorsement by NASA. All Images used must be credited. For information on usage rights please visit: www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/features/MP_Photo_Guidelin...
Company/Owner: Baliwag Transit, Inc.
Fleet/Bus Number: 1527
Classification: Air-conditioned Provincial Bus
Coachbuilder: Santarosa Motor Works, Inc./Columbian Manufacturing Corporation
Body Model: Santarosa Daewoo Bus BS106
Engine Model: Doosan DE08TIS
Chassis Model: Daewoo BS106 (PL5UM52HDEK)
Transmission: Manual (6-speed forward, 1-speed reverse)
Suspension: Leaf Spring Suspension
Seating Configuration: 2×2
Seating Capacity: 49
Route: Grace Park, Caloocan City–San Jose City, Nueva Ecija via N1 (Maharlika Highway)
Municipalities/cities passing: Santa Rita (Guiguinto)/Plaridel/Pulilan/Baliuag/San Rafael/San Ildefonso/San Miguel/Gapan City/San Leonardo/Santa Rosa/Cabanatuan City/Talavera/Santo Domingo/Science City of Muñoz
Type of Operation: Provincial Operation Public Utility Bus (Regular Class)
Area of Operation: Central Luzon (Region III)
Shot Location: Doña Remedios Trinidad Highway (Maharlika Highway), Barangay Cut-cot, Pulilan, Bulacan
Date Taken: July 20, 2015
Notices:
* Please DON'T GRAB A PHOTO WITHOUT A PERMISSION. If you're going to GRAB IT, please give A CREDIT TO THE OWNER. Also, don't PRINT SCREEN my photos.
** If I have mistakes on the specifications, please comment in a good manner so that I can edit it immediately.
*** The specifications and routes (for provincial, inter-provincial, and city operation) mentioned above are subjected for verification and may be changed without prior notice.
**** The vehicle's registration plate(s), conduction sticker(s), and/or persons (if applicable) were pixelated/blurred to prevent any conflict with the photographer, the bus company and/or to the car owner for their security and/or privacy purposes. So, don't use their plate number, conduction sticker, and vehicle tag as an evidence for any incident. And, I have taken this photo for bus fanatics, bus enthusiasts, and bus lovers purposes.
This is a test configuration of my Takahashi FSQ-106ED, a QHY mini guide 'scope with Starlight Xpress Lodestar X2 guide camera, and a finder 'scope the I plan to install in my small observatory that I am remodeling. My new Paramount MYT mount that will carry the above equipment is in my previous photo. The imaging camera is a Starlight Xpress Trius SX-36 with a "Maxi" filter wheel.
I would like to put both the guide 'scope/camera and the finder 'scope on the top plate, but doing so uses some of the holes that I need to mount the top plate to the OTA rings. I would have to drill some new holes, and I may do that, but I hate to mar that beautifully machined and anodized plate from PrimaLuce Lab. Stay tuned.
Strobist: bare Profoto B1 500 AirTTL bounced from ceiling. Triggered by Profoto AirRemote TTL-C.
The Supermarine Spitfire is a British single-seat fighter aircraft that was used by the Royal Air Force and many other Allied countries during and after the Second World War. The Spitfire was built in many variants, using several wing configurations, and was produced in greater numbers than any other British aircraft. It was also the only British fighter to be in continuous production throughout the war. The Spitfire continues to be a popular aircraft, with approximately 55 Spitfires being airworthy, while many more are static exhibits in aviation museums all over the world.
The Spitfire was designed as a short-range, high-performance interceptor aircraft by R. J. Mitchell, chief designer at Supermarine Aviation Works (which operated as a subsidiary of Vickers-Armstrong from 1928). In accordance with its role as an interceptor, Mitchell designed the Spitfire's distinctive elliptical wing to have the thinnest possible cross-section; this thin wing enabled the Spitfire to have a higher top speed than several contemporary fighters, including the Hawker Hurricane. Mitchell continued to refine the design until his death from cancer in 1937, whereupon his colleague Joseph Smith took over as chief designer, overseeing the development of the Spitfire through its multitude of variants.
During the Battle of Britain (July–October 1940), the Spitfire was perceived by the public to be the RAF fighter, though the more numerous Hawker Hurricane shouldered a greater proportion of the burden against the Luftwaffe. However, because of its higher performance, Spitfire units had a lower attrition rate and a higher victory-to-loss ratio than those flying Hurricanes.
After the Battle of Britain, the Spitfire superseded the Hurricane to become the backbone of RAF Fighter Command, and saw action in the European, Mediterranean, Pacific and the South-East Asian theatres. Much loved by its pilots, the Spitfire served in several roles, including interceptor, photo-reconnaissance, fighter-bomber and trainer, and it continued to serve in these roles until the 1950s. The Seafire was a carrier-based adaptation of the Spitfire which served in the Fleet Air Arm from 1942 through to the mid-1950s. Although the original airframe was designed to be powered by a Rolls-Royce Merlin engine producing 1,030 hp (768 kW), it was strong enough and adaptable enough to use increasingly powerful Merlin and, in later marks, Rolls-Royce Griffon engines producing up to 2,340 hp (1,745 kW); as a consequence of this the Spitfire's performance and capabilities improved, sometimes dramatically, over the course of its life.
Mk V (Types 331, 349 & 352)
Spitfire LF.Mk VB, BL479, flown by Group Captain M.W.S Robinson, station commander of RAF Northolt, August 1943. This Spitfire has the wide bladed Rotol propeller, the internal armoured windscreen and "clipped" wings.
Late in 1940, the RAF predicted that the advent of the pressurised Junkers Ju 86P bomber series over Britain would be the start of a new sustained high altitude bombing offensive by the Luftwaffe, in which case development was put in hand for a pressurised version of the Spitfire, with a new version of the Merlin (the Mk VI). It would take some time to develop the new fighter and an emergency stop-gap measure was needed as soon as possible: this was the Mk V.
The basic Mk V was a Mk I with the Merlin 45 series engine. This engine delivered 1,440 hp (1,074 kW) at take-off, and incorporated a new single-speed single-stage supercharger design. Improvements to the carburettor also allowed the Spitfire to use zero gravity manoeuvres without any problems with fuel flow. Several Mk I and Mk II airframes were converted to Mk V standard by Supermarine and started equipping fighter units from early 1941. The majority of the Mk Vs were built at Castle Bromwich.
The VB became the main production version of the Mark Vs. Along with the new Merlin 45 series the B wing was fitted as standard. As production progressed changes were incorporated, some of which became standard on all later Spitfires. Production started with several Mk IBs which were converted to Mk VBs by Supermarine. Starting in early 1941 the round section exhaust stacks were changed to a "fishtail" type, marginally increasing exhaust thrust. Some late production VBs and VCs were fitted with six shorter exhaust stacks per side, similar to those of Spitfire IXs and Seafire IIIs; this was originally stipulated as applying specifically to VB(trop)s. After some initial problems with the original Mk I size oil coolers, a bigger oil cooler was fitted under the port wing; this could be recognised by a deeper housing with a circular entry. From mid-1941 alloy covered ailerons became a universal fitting.
Spitfire VC(trop), fitted with Vokes filters and "disc" wheels, of 417 Squadron RCAF in Tunisia in 1943.
A constant flow of modifications were made as production progressed. A "blown" cockpit hood, manufactured by Malcolm, was introduced in an effort to further increase the pilot's head-room and visibility. Many mid to late production VBs - and all VCs - used the modified, improved windscreen assembly with the integral bullet resistant centre panel and flat side screens introduced with the Mk III. Because the rear frame of this windscreen was taller than that of the earlier model the cockpit hoods were not interchangeable and could be distinguished by the wider rear framing on the hood used with the late-style windscreen.
Different propeller types were fitted, according to where the Spitfire V was built: Supermarine and Westland manufactured VBs and VCs used 10 ft 9 in (3.28 m) diameter, 3 bladed de Havilland constant speed units, with narrow metal blades, while Castle Bromwich manufactured VBs and VCs were fitted with a wide bladed Rotol constant speed propeller of either 10 ft 9 in (3.28 m) diameter, with metal blades, or (on late production Spitfires) 10 ft 3 in (3.12 m) diameter, with broader, "Jablo" (compressed wood) blades. The Rotol spinners were longer and more pointed than the de Havilland leading to a 3.5 in (8.9 cm) increase in overall length. The Rotol propellers allowed a modest speed increase over 20,000 ft (6,100 m) and an increase in the service ceiling. A large number of Spitfire VBs were fitted with "gun heater intensifier" systems on the exhaust stacks. These piped additional heated air into the gun bays. There was a short tubular intake on the front of the first stack and a narrow pipe led into the engine cowling from the rear exhaust.
The VB series were the first Spitfires able to carry a range of specially designed "slipper" drop tanks which were fitted underneath the wing centre-section. Small hooks were fitted, just forward of the inboard flaps: when the tank was released these hooks caught the trailing edge of the tank, swinging it clear of the fuselage.
With the advent of the superb Focke Wulf Fw 190 in August 1941 the Spitfire was for the first time truly outclassed, hastening the development of the "interim" Mk IX. In an effort to counter this threat, especially at lower altitudes, the VB was the first production version of the Spitfire to use "clipped" wingtips as an option, reducing the wingspan to 32 ft 2 in (9.8 m).The clipped wings increased the roll rate and airspeed at lower altitudes. Several different versions of the Merlin 45/50 family were used, including the Merlin 45M which had a smaller "cropped" supercharger impeller and boost increased to +18 lb. This engine produced 1,585 hp (1,182 kW) at 2,750 ft (838 m), increasing the L.F VB's maximum rate of climb to 4720 ft/min (21.6 m/s) at 2,000 ft (610 m).
VB Trop of 40 Squadron SAAF fitted with the "streamlined" version of the Aboukir filter, a broad-bladed, 10 ft 3 in (3.12 m) diameter Rotol propeller, and clipped wings.
The Mk VB(trop) (or type 352) could be identified by the large Vokes air filter fitted under the nose; the reduced speed of the air to the supercharger had a detrimental effect on the performance of the aircraft, reducing the top speed by 8 mph (13 km/h) and the climb rate by 600 ft/min (3.04 m/s), but the decreased performance was considered acceptable. This variant was also fitted with a larger oil tank and desert survival gear behind the pilot's seat. A new "desert" camouflage scheme was applied. Many VB(trop)s were modified by 103 MU (Maintenance Unit-RAF depots in which factory fresh aircraft were brought up to service standards before being delivered to squadrons) at Aboukir, Egypt by replacing the Vokes filter with locally manufactured "Aboukir" filters, which were lighter and more streamlined. Two designs of these filters can be identified in photos: one had a bulky, squared off filter housing while the other was more streamlined. These aircraft were usually fitted with the wide blade Rotol propeller and clipped wings.
Triumph Spitfire Mk I Roadster
The Triumph Spitfire is a small English two-seat sports car, introduced at the London Motor Show in 1962.[3] The vehicle was based on a design produced for Standard-Triumph in 1957 by Italian designer Giovanni Michelotti. The platform for the car was largely based upon the chassis, engine, and running gear of the Triumph Herald saloon, and was manufactured at the Standard-Triumph works at Canley, in Coventry. As was typical for cars of this era, the bodywork was fitted onto a separate structural chassis, but for the Spitfire, which was designed as an open top or convertible sports car from the outset, the ladder chassis was reinforced for additional rigidity by the use of structural components within the bodywork. The Spitfire was provided with a manual hood for weather protection, the design improving to a folding hood for later models. Factory-manufactured hard-tops were also available.
The Triumph Spitfire was originally devised by Standard-Triumph to compete in the small sports car market that had opened up with the introduction of the Austin-Healey Sprite. The Sprite had used the basic drive train of the Austin A30/35 in a light body to make up a budget sports car; Triumph's idea was to use the mechanicals from their small saloon, the Herald, to underpin the new project. Triumph had one advantage, however; where the Austin A30 range was of unitary construction, the Herald featured a separate chassis. It was Triumph's intention to cut that chassis down and clothe it in a sports body, saving the costs of developing a completely new chassis / body unit.
Italian designer Michelotti—who had already penned the Herald—was commissioned for the new project, and came up with a traditional, swooping body. Wind-up windows were provided (in contrast to the Sprite/Midget, which still featured sidescreens, also called curtains, at that time), as well as a single-piece front end which tilted forwards to offer unrivaled access to the engine. At the dawn of the 1960s, however, Standard-Triumph was in deep financial trouble, and unable to put the new car into production; it was not until the company was taken over by the Leyland organization funds became available and the car was launched. Leyland officials, taking stock of their new acquisition, found Michelotti's prototype hiding under a dust sheet in a corner of the factory and rapidly approved it for production.
Spitfire 4 or Mark I (1962-1964)
Overview:
Production1962–1964
45,753 made
Powertrain:
Engine1,147 cc (1.1 l) I4
Transmission4-speed manual with optional overdrive on top and third from 1963 onwards
Dimensions:
Curb weight1,568 lb (711 kg) (unladen U.K.-spec)
The production car changed little from the prototype, although the full-width rear bumper was dropped in favour of two part-bumpers curving round each corner, with overriders. Mechanicals were basically stock Herald. The engine was an 1,147 cc (1.1 l) 4-cylinder with a pushrod OHV cylinder head and 2 valves per cylinder, mildly tuned for the Spitfire, fed by twin SU carburettors. Also from the Herald came the rack and pinion steering and coil-and-wishbone front suspension up front, and at the rear a single transverse-leaf swing axle arrangement. This ended up being the most controversial part of the car: it was known to "tuck in" and cause violent over steer if pushed too hard, even in the staid Herald. In the sportier Spitfire (and later the 6-cylinder Triumph GT6 and Triumph Vitesse) it led to severe criticism. The body was bolted to a much-modified Herald chassis, the outer rails and the rear outriggers having been removed; little of the original Herald chassis design was left, and the Spitfire used structural outer sills to stiffen its body tub.
The Spitfire was an inexpensive small sports car and as such had very basic trim, including rubber mats and a large plastic steering wheel. These early cars were referred to both as "Triumph Spitfire Mark I" and "Spitfire 4", not to be confused with the later Spitfire Mark IV.
In UK specification the in-line four produced 63 bhp (47 kW) at 5750 rpm, and 67 lb·ft (91 N·m)of torque at 3500 rpm. This gave a top speed of 92 mph (148 km/h), and would achieve 0 to 60 mph (97 km/h) in 17.3 seconds. Average fuel consumption was 31mpg.
For 1964 an overdrive option was added to the 4-speed manual gearbox to give more relaxed cruising. Wire wheels and a hard top were also available.
Text regarding the Supermarine Spitfire aeroplane and Triumph Spitfire Roadster has been taken from excerpts of Wikipedia articles on each model.
The Supermarine Spitfire Mk VB aircraft and 1962 Triumph Spitfire Mk I road car have been modelled in Lego miniland-scale for Flickr LUGNuts' 79th Build Challenge, - 'LUGNuts goes Wingnuts, ' - featuring automotive vehicles named after, inspired by, or with some relationship to aircraft.
My "grab as i run out the door" camera case.
I have owned this case for over 20 years. It was too small to carry my SLR gear back in the day but is now perfect for my Micro 4/3rds cameras.
In the case in this image are:
- E=PL3 - This is the very first camera I bought new since my EOS 5 kit in the 90s. Fitted in this pic with a legacy Tamron zoom lens.
- Lumix GF2 - Bought second hand. Fitted with the Olympus 17mm pancake lens that I LOVE. Would be my favourite Micro 4/3rds camera if the flash power was adjustable.
- Canon G12 - Bought second hand and EASILY the most used of all of my cameras. I shoot night street photography and this camera is perfect for that job, its terrible for landscapes and above iso 400 is rough but thats ok.
This case is in a constant state of flux! :)
check out my photography at brettfoster.net
Company/Owner: Pangasinan Five Star Bus Company, Inc.
Fleet/Bus Number: 88164 (former 88149)
Classification: Air-conditioned Provincial Bus
Coachbuilder: Hyundai Motor Company
Body Model: Hyundai New Premium Universe Space Luxury
Engine Model: Hyundai D6AB (Q300)
Chassis Model: Hyundai Universe (KMJKG18BPDC)
Transmission: Manual (5-speed forward, 1-speed reverse)
Suspension: Air Suspension
Seating Configuration: 2×2
Seating Capacity: 49
Route: San Antonio, Nueva Ecija–Cubao, Quezon City via Jose Abad Santos Avenue (Olongapo–Gapan Road) / N1 (Maharlika Highway)
Municipalities/cities passing: Jaen/San Isidro/Gapan City/San Miguel/San Ildefonso/San Rafael/Baliuag/Pulilan/Plaridel/Santa Rita (Guiguinto)
Type of Operation: Provincial Operation Public Utility Bus (Regular Class)
Area of Operation: Central Luzon (Region III)
Shot Location: Doña Remedios Trinidad Highway (Maharlika Highway), Barangay Cut-cot, Pulilan, Bulacan
Date Taken: July 21, 2015
Notices:
* Please DON'T GRAB A PHOTO WITHOUT A PERMISSION. If you're going to GRAB IT, please give A CREDIT TO THE OWNER. Also, don't PRINT SCREEN my photos.
** If I have mistakes on the specifications, please comment in a good manner so that I can edit it immediately.
*** The specifications and routes (for provincial, inter-provincial, and city operation) mentioned above are subjected for verification and may be changed without prior notice.
**** The vehicle's registration plate(s), conduction sticker(s), and/or persons (if applicable) were pixelated/blurred to prevent any conflict with the photographer, the bus company and/or to the car owner for their security and/or privacy purposes. So, don't use their plate number, conduction sticker, and vehicle tag as an evidence for any incident. And, I have taken this photo for bus fanatics, bus enthusiasts, and bus lovers purposes.
Victory Liner Inc.
Bus Number: 67
Coachbuilder: Hyundai Motor Company
Chassis: KMJKJ18BPSC
Model: Hyundai Universe Space Luxury
Engine: Hyundai D6AB
Airconditioning Unit: Overhead Unit
Suspension: Air-Suspension
Seating Configuration: 2x2
Seating Capacity: 45 Passengers
Shot Location : Cubao
Model of a mining excavator in front shovel configuration in scale 1:28.5. This 300 tonne machine is a representative of Liebherr's most popular size class and is ideally suited to load a fleet of 100 tonne payload mining trucks.
When LEGO introduced its 42100 Liebherr R 9800, I knew I had to get that set immediately after release. But I also knew from the beginning, that I would not like the official model's Technic design and that I had to build my own version.
Here it is, scaled larger than 42100, but on the other hand representing a much smaller machine than the 9800. About 300 vs. 800 tonnes in real life. This allowed me to use the main components of the official LEGO model to build my R 994 B. I used the clamshell bucket, the Power Functions XL actuators and the tracks and sprockets.
The main difference from 42100 lies in the electric components of my model. The following functions are all powered by two Power Functions rechargeable battery boxes and controlled by three SBricks via bluetooth connection and Brick Controller 2 app:
- Left and right crawler treads each using a Power Functions L motor
- Slewing of the upper structure using two Power Functions M motors
- Boom cylinders: one Power Functions XL motor
- Stick cylinders: one Power Functions L motor
- Bucket cylinders: one Power Functions M motor
- Clamshell bucket: one Brick Engine V1 motor (compatible to Power Functions)
- Access ladder: one Power Functions M motor
- Service flap: one Power Functions M motor
- Lighting: three pairs of Power Functions LEDs
Besides the main drive and digging functions, the model features a retractable access ladder and a lowerable service flap on the underside of the upper structure frame. The service flap is used to refuel and grease the excavator.
While building the Liebherr R 994 B Litronic in 1:28.5 scale, I could refer to a highly detailed diecast model of the very same machine in 1:50 scale.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Cessna Model 336 and 337 “Skymaster” were American twin-engine civil utility aircraft built in a unique push-pull configuration. Their engines were mounted in the nose and rear of its pod-style fuselage. Twin booms extended aft of the wings to the vertical stabilizers, with the rear engine between them. The horizontal stabilizer was aft of the pusher propeller, mounted between and connecting the two booms.
The first Skymaster, Model 336, had fixed landing gear and initially flew on February 28, 1961. It went into production in May 1963 with 195 being produced through mid-1964. In February 1965, Cessna introduced the larger Model 337 Super Skymaster with more powerful engines, retractable landing gear, and a dorsal air scoop for the rear engine (the "Super" prefix was subsequently dropped from the name). In 1966, the turbocharged T337 was introduced, and in 1973, the pressurized P337G entered production.
The type was very prolific and Cessna built 2.993 Skymasters of all variants, including 513 military O-2 (nicknamed "Oscar Deuce") versions from 1967 onwards. The latter featured underwing ordnance hard points to hold unguided rockets, gun pods or flares, and served in the forward air control (FAC) role and psychological operations (PSYOPS) by the US military between 1967 and 2010. Production in America ended in 1982, but was continued by Reims in France, with the FTB337 STOL and the military FTMA “Milirole”.
Both civil and military Cessna 336/337 version had long service careers, and some were considerably modified for new operators and uses. Among the most drastic conversions was the Spectrum SA-550, built by Spectrum Aircraft Corporation of Van Nuys, California, in the mid-1980s: Spectrum took the 336/337 airframe and removed the front engine, lengthened the nose to maintain the center of gravity, and replaced the rear piston engine with a pusher turboprop which offered more power than the combined pair of original petrol engines. The Spectrum SA-550 conversion also came together with an optional modernization package that prolonged the airframes’ service life, so that modified machines could well serve on for 20 years or more.
This drastic conversion was executed for both military and civil operators. The best-known military SA-550s were six former USAF O-2A airframes, which had been transferred to the U.S. Navy in 1983 for use as range controllers with VA-122 at NAS Lemoore, California. These aircraft were operationally nicknamed “Pelican”, due to the characteristic new nose shape, and the name unofficially caught on.
However, the SA-550 package was only adopted sporadically by private operators, but it became quite popular among several major police and fire departments. Typical duties for these machines included border/drug patrol, surveillance/observation duties (e.g. traffic, forest fire) and special tasks, including drug interdiction as well for SAR missions and undercover operations like narcotics and serialized criminal investigations. Some SA-550s were accordingly modified and individually outfitted with suitable sensors, including IR/low light cameras, searchlights, and internal auxiliary tanks. None were armed, even though some aircraft featured underwing hardpoints for external extra tanks, flare dispensers for nocturnal operations or smoke charge dispensers for ground target marking to guide water bombers to hidden forest fires.
The type’s versatility, low noise level, high travel speed and good loitering time in the operational area at low speed proved to be vital assets for these public service operators and justified its relatively high maintenance costs. A handful of the modernized Spectrum SA-550 machines were still in active service after the Millennium, primarily in the USA.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1 + 3 passengers (up to 5 passengers possible in special seat configuration)
Length: 32 ft 6½ in (9.94 m)
Wingspan: 38 ft ¾ in (11.62 m)
Height: 9 ft 2 in (2.79 m)
Wing area: 201 sq ft (18.81 m²)
Aspect ratio: 7.18:1
Airfoil: NACA 2412 at root, NACA 2409 at tip
Empty weight: 2,655 lb (1,204 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 4,400 lb (1,996 kg)
Fuel capacity: 92 US gal (77 imp gal; 350 l) normal,
128 US gal (107 imp gal; 480 l) with auxiliary tank
in the cabin instead of two passenger seats
Powerplant:
1× Pratt & Whitney PT6A-27 turboprop engine, delivering 550 shp (410 kW) and
driving a four-blade McCauley fully-feathering, constant-speed propeller, 6 ft 4 in (1.93 m) diameter
Performance:
Maximum speed: 199 mph (320 km/h, 173 kn) at sea level
Cruise speed: 144 mph (232 km/h, 125 kn) at 10,000 ft (3,000 m) (econ cruise)
Stall speed: 69 mph (111 km/h, 60 kn)
Range: 1421 mi (2.288 km, 1.243 nmi) at 10.000 ft (3.050 m) altitude and economy cruise
Service ceiling: 19,500 ft (5,900 m)
Rate of climb: 1,200 ft/min (6.1 m/s)
Takeoff distance to 50 ft (15m): 1,545 ft (471 m)
Landing distance from 50 ft (15m): 1,650 ft (500 m)
The kit and its assembly:
This build is the combination of ingredients that had already been stashed away for a long time, and the “Red Lights” Group Build at whatifmodellers.com in early 2021 was a good motivator and occasion to finally put everything together.
The basis is an ARII 1:72 Cessna T337 model kit – I had purchased it long ago with the expectation to create a military Skymaster from it, but I was confused by a fixed landing gear which would make it a 336? Well, without a further concrete plan the kit preliminarily landed in The Stash™…
However, the ARII model features the optional observation windows in the doors on the starboard side, in the form of a complete(!) fuselage half, so that it lends itself to a police or firefighter aircraft of some sort. This idea was furthermore fueled by a decal sheet that I had been given from a friend, left over from a 1:72 Italeri JetRanger, with three optional police helicopter markings.
The final creative element was the real-world “Pelican” conversion of six O-2As for the US Navy, as mentioned in the background above: the front engine was replaced with a longer nose and the engine configuration changed to a pusher-only aircraft with a single powerful turboprop engine. This looked so odd that I wanted to modify the ARII Cessna in a similar fashion, too, and all these factors came together in this model.
My Arii Cessna 337 kit is a re-boxing from 2009, but its origins date back to Eidai in 1972 and that’s just what you get: a vintage thing with some flash and sinkholes, raised (but fine) surface details and pretty crude seams with bulges and gaps. Some PSR is direly necessary, esp. the fit of the fuselage halves is cringeworthy. The clear parts were no source of joy, either; especially the windscreen turned out to be thick, very streaky (to a degree that I’d almost call it opaque!) and even not fully molded! The side glazing was also not very clear. I tried to improve the situation through polishing, but if the basis is already poor, there’s little you can do about it. Hrmpf.
However, the kit was built mostly OOB, including the extra O-2 glazing in the lower doors, but with some mods. One is a (barely visible) extra tank in the cabin’s rear, plus a pilot and an observer figure placed into the tight front seats. The extended “Pelican” nose was a lucky find – I was afraid that I had had to sculpt a nose from scratch with 2C putty. But I found a radome from a Hasegawa RA-5C, left over from a model I built in the Eighties and that has since long fallen apart. However, this nose fitted almost perfectly in size and shape, I just “blunted” the tip a little. Additionally, both the hull in front of the dashboard and the Vigilante radome were filled with as many lead beads as possible to keep the nose down.
The kit’s OOB spatted, fixed landing gear was retained – even though it is dubious for a Cessna 337, because this type had a fully retractable landing gear, and the model has the landing gear covers actually molded into the lower fuselage. On the other side, the Cessna 336’s fixed landing gear looks quite different, too! However, this is a what-if model, and a fixed landing gear might have been a measure to reduce maintenance costs?
The propeller was replaced with a resin four-blade aftermarket piece (from CMK, probably the best-fitting thing on this build!) on my standard metal axis/styrene tube adapter arrangement. The propeller belongs to a Shorts Tucano, but I think that it works well on the converted Cessna and its powerful pusher engine, even though in the real world, the SA-550 is AFAIK driven by a three-blade prop. For the different engine I also enlarged the dorsal air intake with a 1.5 mm piece of styrene sheet added on top of the molded original air scoop and added a pair of ventral exhaust stubs (scratched from sprue material).
Another addition is a pair of winglets, made from 0.5 mm styrene sheet – an upgrade which I found on several late Cessna 337s in various versions. They just add to the modernized look of the aircraft. For the intended observation role, a hemispherical fairing under the nose hides a 180° camera, and I added some antennae around the hull.
However, a final word concerning the model kit itself: nothing fits, be warned! While the kit is a simple affair and looks quite good in the box, assembling it turned out to be a nightmare, with flash, sinkholes, a brittle styrene and gaps everywhere. This includes the clear parts, which are pretty thick and blurry. The worst thing is the windscreen, which is not only EXTRA thick and EXTRA blurry, it was also not completely molded, with gaps on both sides. I tried to get it clearer through manual polishing, but the streaky blurs are integral – no hope for improvement unless you completely replace the parts! If I ever build a Cessna 337/O-2 again, I will give the Airfix kit a try, it can only be better…
Painting and markings:
The choice between the operator options from the JetRanger sheet was hard, it included Sweden and Italy, but I eventually settled for the LAPD because the livery looks cool and this police department not only operates helicopters, but also some fixed-wing aircraft.
I adapted the LAPD’s classic black-and-white police helicopter livery (Gloss White and Black, Humbrol 22 and 21, respectively) to the Cessna and extended it to the wings. At this point – already upset because of the poor fit of the hardware – disaster struck in the form of Humbrol’s 22 turning into a pinkish ivory upon curing! In the tin, the paint and its pigments looked pretty white and “clean”, and I assume that it’s the thinner that caused this change. What a crap! It’s probably the third tin with 22 that causes trouble, even though in different peculiarities!
The result was total rubbish, though, and I tried to rub the paint off as good as possible on the small model with its many windows, the fixed, delicate landing gear and the wing support struts. Then I overpainted the areas with Revell 301 (Semi-matt White). While this enamel yielded the intended pure white tone, the paint itself is rather gooey and not easy to work with, so that the overall finish turned out worse than desired. At least the black paint worked properly. The demarcations were created with black decal stripes (TL Modellbau), because the tiny model left little room for complex masking measures – and I did not risk any more painting accidents.
Since the aircraft would be kept shiny and clean, I just did a light black ink washing to emphasize surface details and did a light panel post-shading on the black areas, not for weathering but rather to accent surface structures. No further weathering was done (and necessary).
The markings/decals come – as mentioned above – from an Italeri 1:72 JetRanger, but they were augmented with some additional markings, e. g. grey walkways on the wings and “L-A-P-D” in large black letters under the wings, to distract from the poor finish of the white paint around them…
Finally, the kit was sealed overall with Italeri semi-gloss acrylic varnish, just with a matt anti-glare shield in front of the windscreen, which received thin white trim lines (generic decal stripes).
A challenging build due to the Arii kit’s rather poor basis, the massive rhinoplasty and the crisp paint scheme. However, I like the result – what-if models do not always have to be armed military vehicles, there’s potential in other genres, too. And this mono-engine “Pelican” Skymaster plays its role as a “flying eye” in police service credibly and well. However, this was my first and last Eidai kit…
Artist's view of the two configurations of Ariane 6 using two boosters (A62) or four boosters (A64).
ESA and European industry are currently developing a new-generation launcher: Ariane 6. This follows the decision taken at the ESA Council meeting at Ministerial level in December 2014, to maintain Europe’s leadership in the fast-changing commercial launch service market while responding to the needs of European institutional missions.
This move is associated with a change in the governance of the European launcher sector, based on a sharing of responsibility, cost and risk by ESA and industry.
The participating states are: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland.
Credit: ESA–David Ducros, 2016
Model of a mining excavator in front shovel configuration in scale 1:28.5. This 300 tonne machine is a representative of Liebherr's most popular size class and is ideally suited to load a fleet of 100 tonne payload mining trucks.
When LEGO introduced its 42100 Liebherr R 9800, I knew I had to get that set immediately after release. But I also knew from the beginning, that I would not like the official model's Technic design and that I had to build my own version.
Here it is, scaled larger than 42100, but on the other hand representing a much smaller machine than the 9800. About 300 vs. 800 tonnes in real life. This allowed me to use the main components of the official LEGO model to build my R 994 B. I used the clamshell bucket, the Power Functions XL actuators and the tracks and sprockets.
The main difference from 42100 lies in the electric components of my model. The following functions are all powered by two Power Functions rechargeable battery boxes and controlled by three SBricks via bluetooth connection and Brick Controller 2 app:
- Left and right crawler treads each using a Power Functions L motor
- Slewing of the upper structure using two Power Functions M motors
- Boom cylinders: one Power Functions XL motor
- Stick cylinders: one Power Functions L motor
- Bucket cylinders: one Power Functions M motor
- Clamshell bucket: one Brick Engine V1 motor (compatible to Power Functions)
- Access ladder: one Power Functions M motor
- Service flap: one Power Functions M motor
- Lighting: three pairs of Power Functions LEDs
Besides the main drive and digging functions, the model features a retractable access ladder and a lowerable service flap on the underside of the upper structure frame. The service flap is used to refuel and grease the excavator.
While building the Liebherr R 994 B Litronic in 1:28.5 scale, I could refer to a highly detailed diecast model of the very same machine in 1:50 scale.