Fortus: Solos flying in carrier landing configuration with #5 inverted, establishing a "mirror image" effect.

One of the jets flying inverted, in this mirror formation in Seafair 2010 airshow.

The McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet is a supersonic, all-weather carrier-capable multirole fighter jet, designed to dogfight and attack ground targets (F/A for Fighter/Attack). The fighter's primary missions are fighter escort, fleet air defense, suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD), air interdiction, close air support and aerial reconnaissance.

The F/A-18 is a twin engine, mid-wing, multi-mission tactical aircraft. It is highly maneuverable, owing to its good thrust to weight ratio, digital fly-by-wire control system, and leading edge extensions (LEX).

Source: www.Wikipedia.org

All these maneuvers were performed in really bad weather. It was overcast and raining all day that Saturday.

August 7, 2010, Seattle, Washington, Over the lake, from the park here.

This current configuration of the lighthouse is located at Sandy Cove in Terence Bay, Halifax County (H.R.M.), Nova Scotia. The photo was taken in the "thick of fog", so there are some adjacent land forms and the bay itself that are not visible in the picture. It was the first time that I had been all the way out to the site and went there on foot via a pathway.

'Nuff Said!!!!

Walgreens doubles filling up! Photo: Murray Markanen.

Train routier Walgreens en train de faire le plein! Photo: Murray Markanen.

“Firing of operational configuration of the US Army developed U.S. Air Force Jupiter IRBM from Cape Canaveral launching site of the Air Force Missile Test Center.

Photo by: Bundy”

More specifically & accurately, it’s the launch of Jupiter CM-217, on a “Live Systems Test”, from Launch Complex 26A. Note the opened “flower petal shelter” panels radiating out from the launch pedestal.

Above information per the superior & amazingly informative NASA Spaceflight.com website, at:

forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=25741.80

And the photo itself, at:

forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic...

There are even additional photos of the vehicle being prepared for launch, amazing!

Also, per the excellent Space Launch Report website:

"After completing Jupiter’s R&D test flights, the ABMA team performed one last “Live Systems Test” launch on October 20, 1960. The launch used tactical ground support equipment for the first time. An IOC missile, CM-217, performed the successful test flight from LC 26A."

With an excellent view of a Jupiter with the "flower petals" shelter/environmental cover closed:

www.spacelaunchreport.com/ctlp.jpg

Along with great reading:

www.spacelaunchreport.com/jupiter6.html

Virginia Air & Space Science Center

NASA Langley Visitor Center

Baseline

S-2 Fillet

C-4 Canard

A number of shuttle configurations, variations on the basic Orbiter theme, have been developed and tested at Langley

Orbiter C.G. Extension Study Configuration

Note: In separated flow regions, the brush marks of the original oil coating can still be seen

Crews have installed a temporary concrete barrier to separate traffic during construction.

My new North American diesel engine in the Canadian Nation Railway scheme is the first Lego loco I have built since my childhood days and was strongly inspired by the EMD-GP 7, 9 and 20 diesel engines and other similar types that came in full high hood configuration, but I went on to building the model rather freely, leaving out things I didn’t want and not sticking to any particular real model.

Being 9+ studs wide, it’s quite a beast and fits very well to the “large city minifigure scale” preferred by ER0L and me. It drives on two 9V train motors from the 90s. The lighting is realized with materials from that time as well, energized by a separate battery box in the shorter section of the hood and thus illuminating the two fronts and cabin of the engine independently from the transformer. That way, the light can be on even when the model stands still.

I went for moving pilots, even though they don’t exist on such models in reality. This was mostly due to the prolonged bionicle trucks I wanted to use here, which would otherwise have made the stairs stand out too far from the trucks in curves and switches.

I have nearly finished building the first of several tank cars for it, so consider these pics an “opener” for more train equipment to come from me.

Yes, waves, m8's..

After all clouds *ARE* comprised of WATER, yes?

How to disable Network Manager on Linux

If you would like to use this photo, be sure to place a proper attribution linking to xmodulo.com

Seaboard Coast Line view taken from the U.S. # 301 overpass detailing the track configuration at Owensboro, near Trilby, Florida, January 1981. The single mainline track seen in the distance heading into the curve comes from Trilby and heads to the South. The mainline track to the left comes from Ocala and joins the other mainline track at the Owensboro switch seen near the center of the photo to head South. You can see the two mainline block signals that are provided for both directions to control the turnout to the Ocala mainline.

Detoured way!!!!

Bus No: 5087

Year released: 2000

Capacity: 66; 2x3 seating configuration

Route: Cubao/Pasay-Sta. Cruz, Zambales via Dau/SCTEX-Concepcion/Capas/San Miguel/Tarlac/Sta. Ignacia/Camiling/San Clemente/Mangatarem/Aguilar/Socony/Alaminos

Body: Five Star Bus Body (rebodied)

Previous Body: 2000 Pilipinas Hino Bus Body

Chassis: Hino RF821

Engine: Hino EK100D

Fare: ORdinary Fare

Transmission System: M/T

Plate No.: TVY-590 (NCR-National Capital Region)

Taken on: May 29, 2013

Location: McArthur Highway, Brgy. San Nicolas, Tarlac City, Tarlac

Note: Any individual or representative of this subjected bus who wants to use this picture for commercial or personal purposes, pls coordinate me by sending a private message in my FB Account:

www.facebook.com/leonidas.smith.984?ref=tn_tnmn

Thank you and have a good day.....

I had no idea what scrum or agile development was at the time, but this configuration of tables and chairs in the hallway of the 3rd floor of Microsoft's Building 114 just made sense to me.

I found these tables abandoned or stuck in hallways from other floors and dragged them here with my new team members. Then I ordered comfortable chairs from Microsoft's internal portal. We were set and took off and developed like mad.

The person, my friend, in the foreground found our environment to her liking, quiet, convenient yet friendly and joined us; as many travelers or consultants did from time to time. This worked for many reasons and gave MS full-timers the ability to find and interact with us without having to search around much.

Due to the location, our rules were straight forward; low tones, quiet, leave nothing in the room when leaving, push in your chair, and police your area. We had one phone for 18 + people. It rarely rang. The person being sought was nearly always there.

Twice in several months there was a slight disagreement about how open or closed the blinds should be but that environment worked very well for the team. We launched our project on time of course.

I absolutely loved working with them.

Lookit The MARX BROTHERS' HISTORY fer details, yes?

HMMWVs can be designed to your specifications or they can be fitted with kits, depending on the intended use. Click the link to see more goo.gl/RicT3U

given by a very specific Lie group, smooth and inter-continuous.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

The Supermarine Spitfire was a British single-seat fighter aircraft used by the Royal Air Force and other Allied countries before, during and after World War II. Many variants of the Spitfire were built, using several wing configurations, and it was produced in greater numbers than any other British aircraft. It was also the only British fighter produced continuously throughout the war.

Since the Taurus-powered Spitfire turned out to be quite ineffective (it was no good either in the fighter or in an alternative ground attack role and 20 mph slower than the comparable Mk. V), production was already stopped in late 1942 after 353 aircraft. At the same time, the Spitfire Mk. IX with a much more powerful Merlin engine entered service, and all resources were immediately allocated to this more potent fighter variant and the idea of the Spitfire with a radial engine was ultimately dropped. Since the Taurus-powered type was quickly phased out of frontline service, the designation was later re-used for a pressurized high-altitude photo reconnaissance variant of the Spitfire, the PR.X, of which only 16 machines were built.

General characteristics:

Crew: one pilot

Length: 29 ft 6 in (9.00 m)

Wingspan: 32 ft 2 in (9.80 m)

Height: 11 ft 5 in (3.86 m)

Wing area: 242.1 ft2 (22.48 m²)

Airfoil: NACA 2213 (root)

NACA 2209.4 (tip)

Empty weight: 5,065 lb (2,297 kg)

Loaded weight: 6,622 lb (3,000 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 6,700 lb (3,039 kg)

Powerplant:

1× Bristol Taurus VI 14-Cylinder sleeve valve radial engine, 1.130 hp (830 kW)

Performance:

Maximum speed: 350 mph (312 kn, 565 km/h)

Combat radius: 410 nmi (470 mi/756 km)

Ferry range: 991 nmi (1,135 mi/1,827 km)

Service ceiling: 36,500 ft (11,125 m)

Rate of climb: 2,535 ft/min (12.9 m/s)

Wing loading: 27.35 lb/ft2 (133.5 kg/m²)

Power/mass: 0.22 hp/lb (0.36 kW/kg)

Armament:

2× 20 mm Hispano Mk II with 60 RPG

4× .303 in Browning Mk II machine guns with 350 RPG

The kit and its assembly:

My third contribution to the “RAF Centenary” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com, and the next one in chronological order. This one was spawned by the simple thought of “What would a Spitfire with a radial engine look like…?”. I have seen this stunt done in the form of a Fw190/Spitfire kitbash – nice result, but it did IMHO just not look like a “real” Spitfire with a radial engine, rather like an Fw 190 with elliptical wings. And the fact that I had already successfully transplanted a Centaurus engine onto a P-51 airframe made me feel positive that the stunt could be done!

Consequently, the conversion was pretty straightforward. The basis is a Revell 1:72 Spitfire VB (1996 mold), which was – except for the nose section – taken OOB. A simple, nice kit, even though it comes with some flaws, like a depression at the rear of the wing/fuselage intersection and the general need for PSR – not much, but I expected a better fit for such a relatively young mold?

For the engine, I used a personal replacement favorite, the cowling and the engine block from a Mitsubishi A6M2 “Zero” (Hasegawa). The Nakajima Sakae radial engine has a relatively small diameter, so that it serves well as a dummy for the compact Bristol Taurus engine – a replacement I have already used for a radial-powered Westland Whirlwind. The other benefit of the small diameter is that it is relatively easy to blend the round front end into the oval and very slender fuselage of the early Spitfire airframe. This was realized through massive body sculpting from scratch with 2C putty, widening the area in front of the cockpit and expanding its width to match the cowling – I guess that real life engineers would have followed a similar, simple path.

Since the radial engine would not need a radiator, I simple omitted this piece (cut out from the single piece lower wing half) and faired the respective underwing area over with a piece of styrene sheet and PSR. The asymmetrical oil cooler was retained, though. The propeller is a replacement from the scrap box, with a smaller diameter spinner and more slender blades which better suit the open cowling.

Since the Taurus had its best performance at low altitudes, I used the Revell kit’s OOB option of clipped wing tips – a move that makes the aircraft look much faster, esp. with the new, deeper nose section.

Painting and markings:

I did not want classic RAF markings, but still keep the model well within the Centenary GB confines. The original plan had been a classic Dark Green/Ocean Grey livery, which all Spitfire’s in USAAF service and based in the UK received. But I rather wanted to create a frontline aircraft, operated during Operation Torch in late 1942/early 1943 with American roundels – and the grey/green look would not look plausible on a machine taking part in the North African campaign. In fact, any Spitfire with American roundels I found that was used in North Africa carried the RAF Tropical Scheme in Dark Earth/Middle Stone. And, AFAIK, during Operation 'Torch' all British aircraft received American markings in the hope that the Vichy French, who were anti-British due to them bombing their ships in 1940, would switch to the allied cause. They were supposed to think that the Americans would be invading, not British troops as well. So I eventually switched to the classic Tropical Scheme (using Humbrol 29 and Modelmaster 2052 as basic tones), and it does not look bad at all - even though the yellow trim around the roundels does not stand out as much as on a Grey/Green aircraft.

Typically, the RAF codes were retained, as well as – at least during the early phases of Operation Torch – the RAF fin flash. A little personal twist is the pale blue (Humbrol 23, Duck Egg Blue) underside of the aircraft, instead of the typical Azure Blue. The rationale behind is that the Tropical Scheme was originally designed with Sky undersides, and the blue shades were later modifications after initial field experience.

The red spinner is a typical Northern Africa marking, and found on many 5th FS aircraft.

The interior (cockpit, landing gear wells) was painted with RAF Cockpit Green (Modelmaster), while wheels and struts became light grey.

As a standard procedure, the kit received a light black ink wash and a post shading treatment.

The decals were puzzled together from various sheets and sources, the design benchmark was a real USAAF Spitfire Vb from Operation Torch, though. The code letters were taken from an Xtradecal sheet, the roundels come from a Carpena Spitfire sheet, even though I placed American markings in all six positions – the roundels without yellow trim under the wings were taken from a Hobby Boss F6F sheet.

The serial number comes from the Revell kit’s OOB sheet, because it fits perfectly into the kit’s intended time frame. The nose art comes from a P-38 sheet (PrintScale) – not a typical feature for an RAF Spitfire, but a frequent personal decoration among USAAF machines during Operation Torch (e.g. on P-40s).

The Allied yellow ID markings on the wings’ leading edges, which were typically carried by Operation Torch Spitfires, too, were created with generic yellow decal sheet (TL Modellbau), while the maroon machine gun nozzle covers are part of Revell’s OOB sheet.

Finally, the kit received some soot stains around gun and exhaust nozzles, and was finally sealed with matt acrylic varnish.

A bold experiment, and it turned out well. The Zero’s cowling has the perfect diameter for this transplant, and the scratch-sculpted new front fuselage section blends well with the new engine – the whole thing really looks intentional! I am just not certain if the resulting aircraft still deserves the “Spitfire” designation? Even though only the engine was changed, the aircraft looks really different and has a Ki-43ish aura? I guess that a dark green livery and some hinomaru would also look great and pretty plausible?

Dutch triathlon athlete performing full cardiopulmonary exercise testing with full configuration Quark CPET metabolic cart and stress testing ECG. Source: www.sportarts.org

Fujifilm X-pro1 with Voigtlander 25mm Color Skopar Leica M39 mount lens with various hood configurations

Trix model construction sets were originally produced in 1931 by a Nuremberg company, Andreas Förtner (Anfoe). The German patent for the basic Trix pieces had been granted the previous year, in 1930.

The origin of the name Trix is uncertain; it has been suggested (by Adrie Wind) that it could have referred to the triple-hole configuration of the basic pieces.

A friendship between Stephan Bing, owner of Anfoe, and the English toy manufacturer W J Bassett-Lowke led to the founding of the London company Trix Ltd in 1932. In the United Kingdom, Trix sets challenged the British-invented Meccano model construction sets.

www.trix-metaal.nl/Dozen/1931-1940.htm

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

Some background:

The P-74 "Charger" was a fighter aircraft built by Lockheed for the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF). Its configuration was unusual as it was designed as a twin boom pusher configuration, where the propeller is mounted in the rear of the fuselage, pushing the aircraft forward.

The P-74 entered service with the USAAF in late 1944, its conception dated back to 1939 when the U.S. Army Air Corps requested with the Circular Proposal R40C domestic manufacturers to develop high performance fighter types, allowing (even demanding) unusual configurations. Lockheed did not respond immediately and missed the chance to sign a development contract in mid-1940 until early 1941. Twenty-three proposals were submitted to R40C, and after a fist selection of ideas three companies, Vultee with the large XP-54 Swoose Goose, Curtiss with its XP-55 Ascender and Northrop's XP-56 Black Bullet were able to secure prototype contracts.

Vultee eventually won the competition, but all these innovative new aircraft suffered from various flaws or development delays, missing various performance goals, so that none ever entered service.

In the meantime, Lockheed had been working on the 1939 request in the background on a private venture basis, as it was clear that by 1944 a successor to the company's own P-38 Lightning had to be offered to the USAAC.

The new North American P-51 Mustang was also a sharp competitor, esp. for the Pacific conflict theatre where long range was needed. This role was filled out very well by the P-38, but it was a relatively large and complicated aircraft, so an alternative with a single engine was strived for. Even though jet engines already showed their potential, it was clear that the requested range for the new type could only be achieved through a piston engine.

This aircraft became the XP-74, originally christened “Laelaps”, following Lockheed’s tradition, after a female Greek mythological dog who never failed to catch what she was hunting. It was presented as a mock-up to USAAC officials on August 8th 1942 and immediately found sponsorship: with the disappointing results from the XP-54,55 and 56 was immediately ushered into the prototype stage. Its name, though, was rejected, and the more common name “Charger” was adopted.

Just like Lockheed’s successful P-38 the XP-74 Charger was designed as a twin-boom aircraft, but it was driven by only a single Packard (License-built Rolls Royce Merlin) V-1650 pusher engine in the aft part of the fuselage. The tail was mounted rearward between two mid-wing booms, with a four-bladed 12-ft propeller between them. The design also included a "ducted wing section" developed by the NACA that enabled installation of cooling radiators and intercoolers in the wing root section.

The advantages of a pusher design are that the view forward is unobstructed and armament can be concentrated in the nose, while a major drawback is difficulty in escaping from the aircraft in an emergency, as the pilot could get drawn into the propeller blades. Lockheed deliberated between systems that would eject the pilot, or jettison the propeller or the engine, via a system of explosive bolts. Lockheed eventually installed an early ejector seat which was driven by pressurized air, combined with a mechanism that would blow the canopy off. The system was successfully tested in summer 1943, even though skepticism remained among pilots.

Initial armament comprised one 20mm Hispano cannon and four 12.7mm Browning machine guns, the same as in the P-38, but two machine guns were relocated from the nose into the front ends of the tail booms because of the new aircraft’s smaller overall dimensions.

The first prototype was ready in October 1943, with a different engine and heavier armor fitted. The second prototype was built to this specification from the start, which would become the serial production standard, the P-74A.

The P-74A used the new V-1650-9 engine, a version of the Merlin that included Simmons automatic supercharger boost control with water injection, allowing War Emergency Power as high as 2,218 hp (1,500 kW). Another change concerned the armament: a longer weapon range was deemed necessary, so the gun armament was changed into four 20mm Hispano cannons, two of the placed in the fuselage nose and one in each tail boom front end. Each gun was supplied with 250 RPG.

Alternatively, a nose installment with a single 37mm cannon and two 12.7mm Browning MGs was tested on the first prototype, but this arrangement was found to be less effective than the four 20mm cannons. Another factor that turned this option down was the more complicated logistics demands for three different calibers in one aircraft.

The P-74A was ready for service in summer 1944, but its deployment into the Pacific region took until December – the 5th Air Force first units replaced most of its P-38 and also early P-47Ds with the P-74A.These new aircraft had their first clashes with Japanese forces in January 1945.

The P-74 was used in a variety of roles. It was designed as an intreceptor against bombers, but its good range and handling at all altitudes made it suitable for tasks like fighter sweeps against enemy airfields, support for U.S. ground forces and protection of sea convoys and transport routes.

While the P-74 could not out-turn the A6M Zero and most other Japanese fighters when flying below 200 mph (320 km/h), its superior speed coupled with a good rate of climb meant that it could utilize energy tactics, making multiple high-speed passes at its target. Also, its focused firepower was deadly to lightly armored Japanese warplanes.

Because of its late service introduction, only 305 P-74s were ever produced until the end of hostilities, and they were exclusively used in the Pacific theatre. The P-74's service record shows mixed results, but usually because of misinformation. P-74s have been described as being harder to fly than traditional, single-engined aircraft, but this was because of inadequate training in the first few months of service.

Another drawback was the ejection seat system – it worked basically well, but the tank for the pressurized air turned out to be very vulnerable to enemy fire. Several P-74s literally exploded in midair after cannon fire hits, and this poeblem could only be cured when the tank section behind the cockpit received a more rigid structure and additional armor. Anyway, the P-74 was quickly retired after WWII, as the USAAF focussed on P-47 and P-51.

General characteristics

Crew: 1

Length: 10.45 m (34 ft 3 in)

Wingspan: 11.6 m (38 ft 0 in)

Height: 3.97 (13 ft 0 in)

Wing area: 22.2 m² (238.87 ft²)

Empty weight: 3,250 kg (7,165 lb)

Loaded weight: 4,150 kg (9,149 lb)

Max. take-off weight: 4,413 kg (9,730 lb)

Powerplant:

1× Packard (License-built Rolls Royce Merlin) V-1650-9 ,

rated at 1,380 hp (1,030 kW) and 2,218 hp (1,500 kW) w. water injection

Performance

Maximum speed: 640 km/h (343 knots, 398 mph)

Cruise speed: 495 km/h (265 knots, 308 mph)

Range: 1,105 mi (1,778 km)

Ferry range: 1,330 nmi (1,530 mi, 2,460 km)

Service ceiling: 11,000 m (36,090 ft)

Rate of climb: 15 m/s (2,950 ft/min)

Armament

4× 20 mm (0.79 in) Hispano-Suiza HS.404 cannons with 250 RPG

2× hardpoints for up to 2,000 lb (907 kg) of bombs, 6 or 10× T64 5.0 in (127 mm) H.V.A.R rockets

The kit and its assembly:

This whif was inspired by a CG rendition of a Saab J21 in a natural metal finish and with (spurious) USAAF markings, probably a skin for a flight simulator. Anyway, I was more or less enchanted by the NMF on the Saab – I had to build one, and it would become the P-74, the only USAF fighter code that had never been used.

The kit is the venerable Heller Saab J21A, an “old style” design with raised panel lines. But it is still around and affordable. No big mods were made to the kit during its transition into a USAAF fighter, even though I changed some minor things:

● Main landing gear was completely exchanged through struts from an Airfix A-1 Skyraider and the wheels from a Hasegawa P-51D; thin wire was added as hydraulic tubes

● New propeller blades: instead of the three-bladed original I added four much broader blades with square tips (from a Heller P-51D) to the original spinner

● Different exhaust stubs, which actually belong to a Spitfire Merlin (Special Hobby kit)

● Underfuselage flap was slightly opened

● A pilot figure was added to the nice cockpit

● The gun barrels were replaced with hollow styrene tubes

Painting and markings:

NMF was certain, but the rest…? I wanted to have a colorful aircraft, and eventually settled for a machine in the Pacific theatre of operations. When I browsed for options I eventually decided to apply broad black stripes on wings and fuselage, typical 5th Air Force markings that were used e. g. on P-47Ds and P-51Ds.

Overall design benchmark for my aircraft is a P-47D-28 of 310th FS/58th FG. The tail would be all white, and the rudder sported red and white stripes, early war insignia. The red nose trim and the deep yellow spinner were taken over from this aircraft, too. The blue individual code number is a personal addition, as well as the nose art, which was puzzled together from a Czech 'Perdubice' Meeting MiG-21 and leftover bits from a Pacific use P-51.

The aircraft was basically painted with Aluminum Metallizer (Humbrol 27002) and Polished Steel Metallizer (Modelmaster), and some panels were contrasted with Aluminum (Humbrol 56).

The anti-glare panel in front of the cockpit was painted in Olive Drab (Humbrol 66), the red nose trim with Humbrol 19. The tail was painted with a mix of Humbrol 34 & 196, for a very light grey, and later dry-painted with pure white.

The black ID stripes as well as the red and blue rudder trim were not painted, but rather created through decal sheet material (from TL Modellbau), cut to size and shape to fit into their respective places. The tail was a PITA, but for the black stripes this turned out to be very effective and convenient - an experiment that willcertainly see more future use.

Cockpit interior was painted in Humbrol 226 (Cockpit Green) and Zinc Chromate Green from Model Master, the landing gear wells received a chrome yellow primer (Humbrol 225) finish.

The landing gear struts were kept in bare Aluminum.

For weathering the kit received a rubbing treatment with grinded graphite, which adds a dark, metallic shine and emphasizes the kit’s raised panel lines. Some dry painting with Aluminum was added, too, simulating chipped paint on the leading edges, and on the black ID stripes some dark grey shading was added.

A relatively simple whif, but I love how the Saab 21 looks in the unusual, shiny NMF finish - and the USAAF markings with the prominent ID stripes suit it well, even though it looks a bit like a circus attraction now?

New configuration, new category and new factory. "She takes after Auntie Giulia !"

1972 - 1984

1.186 cc

4 Cylinder Boxer

63 cv @ 6.000 rpm

83 Nm @ 3.500 rpm

Vmax : 152 km/h

920 kg

900.925 ex. (Alfasud)

Museo Storico Alfa-Romeo

Viale Alfa-Romeo

Arese

Italy - Italia

November 2018

[Image]

Make = NIKON CORPORATION

Model = NIKON D50

X Resolution = 300

Y Resolution = 300

Resolution Unit = inch

Software = Ver.1.00

Date Time = 2005-11-12 00:00:21

YCbCr Positioning = co-sited

Exif IFD Pointer = Offset: 336

A401 = 0

A402 = 1

A403 = 0

A404 = 1/1

A405 = 0

A406 = 0

A407 = 1

A408 = 0

A409 = 0

A40A = 0

A40C = 0

[Camera]

Exposure Time = 1/50"

F Number = F0

Exposure Program = Manual

Exif Version = Version 2.21

Date Time Original = 2005-11-12 00:00:21

Date Time Digitized = 2005-11-12 00:00:21

Components Configuration = YCbcr

Compressed Bits Per Pixel = 4

Exposure Bias Value = ¡À0EV

Max Aperture Value = F1

Metering Mode = CenterWeightedAverage

Light Source = unknown

Flash = Off

Focal Length = 0mm

Maker Note = 24866 Byte

User Comment =

Subsec Time =

Subsec Time Original =

Subsec Time Digitized =

Flashpix Version = Version 1.0

Color Space = sRGB

Exif Image Width = 1496

Exif Image Height = 2256

Sensing Method = One-chip color area sensor

File Source = DSC

Scene Type = A directly photographed image

CFA Pattern =

[Thumbnail Info]

Compression = JPEG Compressed (Thumbnail)

X Resolution = 300

Y Resolution = 300

Resolution Unit = inch

JPEG Interchange Format = Offset: 25778

JPEG Interchange Format Length = Length: 11386

YCbCr Positioning = co-sited

[Thumbnail]

Thumbnail = 120 x 160

[MakerNote (Nikon)]

Makernote Version = 0210

ISO Speed Used = 1600

Quality = FINE

White Balance = AUTO

Sharpening = AUTO

Focus Mode = MANUAL

Flash Setting = NORMAL

Auto Flash Mode =

White Balance Bias Value = 0

000D = 00, 01, 06, 00

Exposure Diff = 00, 01, 0C, 00

ThumbOffset = 1662

Flash Compensation = 00, 01, 06, 00

ISO Speed Requested = 1600

Photo corner coordinates = 0, 0, 2256, 1496

0017 = 00, 01, 06, 00

Flash Bracket Compensation Applied = 00, 01, 06, 00

AE Bracket Compensation Applied = 0EV

001D = D50

Tone Compensation (Contrast) = AUTO

Lens Type = 1

Lens Min/Max Focal Length, Max Aperture = 0/10, 0/10, 0/10, 0/10

Flash Used = Flash Not Used

Auto Focus Area = 00, 00, 00, 00

Bracketing & Shooting Mode = 0

008A = 0

008B = 00, 01, 0C, 00

Colour Mode = MODE3a

Lighting Type = NATURAL

0091 = 30, 32, 30, 35, 32, D6, 38, A5, 01, 4C, 86, AF, C7, B4, C4, AC, 7D, 4D, F2, 93, 24, A2, 10, 6D, B8, F4, 14, 37, 3F, 31, 1C, F1, B5, 9C, 0A, 74, 1B, 8A, EB, 35, 71, 9C, A1, BF, A7, 9E, 74, 36, ED, 90, 22, A3, 13, 72, 38, FD, 29, B8, 4E, 47, 2F, 06, CC, 81, DD, B8, 3A, 55, 0B, 5A, 98, C5, E1, EC, E6, CF, A7, 6E, 24, C9, 5D, 28, 52, B3, 03, 42, 70, 45, 99, 94, 7E, 02, 4A, 7C, D6, 40, C8, A2, C0, EE, AE, 80, E2, 04, 51, F5, 16, 1D, 97, 6D, D4, 0C, CD, 37, 83, 37, F3, 12, 20, B1, 09, E7, AE, 67, 0F, A6, 2C, A1, 58, F2, 30, BE, BE, 50, 70, B0, 94, 26, EE, BA, D2, A4, 2C, FC, 68, 3A, 18, 86, B6, 48, 7A, BC, 2C, 9C, 70, 22, AB, DC, 76, 64, 30, 02, 40, 8E, 44, 07, 65, F0, 6E, 83, 17, 9A, 41, AB, 02, 4F, AD, D0, E2, E3, D3, B2, 80, 3D, E9, 84, 0E, 87, EE, 47, 8D, C0, 94, 89, 89, 9B, CB, 9A, 58, 05, AA, 2B, 4C, A4, 6C, A9, 0E, A2, 16, 27, F8, 7C, C8, 85, DA, BA, 52, D3, D3, 82, 2D, E7, D1, BC, A4, 48, 63, FB, B4, 75, 28, 88, 0A, 6F, F4, 38, 71, 61, 87, 95, 97, 54, 61, 1A, B3, 52, E0, 5D, C9, 24, 6E, A7, CF, E6, EC, E1, C5, 98, 5A, 0B, AB, 3A, B8, 25, 81, CC, 06, 2F, 47, 4E, 44, 29, FD, C0, 72, 13, A3, 22, 90, ED, 39, 74, 9E, B7, BF, B6, 9C, 71, 35, E8, 8A, 1B, 9B, 0A, 68, B5, F1, 1C, 36, 3F, 37, 1E, F4, B9, 6D, 10, A2, 23, 93, F2, 40, 7D, A9, C4, CE, C7, AF, 86, 4C, 31, 87, 38, D6, 2B, C3, DB, 50, A4, 60, 6D, 0A, 6D, 39, CC, A4, 49, DD, 62, D9, 34, 6E, D7, F0, 27, A3, 15, FE, D7, 9F, 47, FC, 94, 0F, F1, DE, F9, 73, 3E, 98, E8, 51, BC, 96, 5F, 17, BE, D4, D9, 16, 5B, 02, 43, 73, 92, A0, 9D, 89, 64, 2E, E7, 8F, 26, AC, 21, 87, D8, 1A, 4B, 73, B9, 87, 1A, BE, 73, 39, 10, F8, 71, FB, D6, BD, 00, 32, 53, 63, 62, 50, 2D, F9, B4, 5E, F7, 80, 89, A3, CE, 0A, 57, B5, 24, 01, 0A, 28, F5, B1, 5C, F6, 7F, E4, 4F, B4, F0, 2D, 3C, E2, 63, 53, 32, 00, BD, 69, 04, 8E, 07, 6F, C6, 0C, 41, 65, 78, 7A, 6B, 4B, 1A, D8, 85, 21, AC, 26, 8F, E7, 2E, 64, 89, 9D, A0, 92, 73, 43, 02, B0, 60, 5E, 54, BE, 3A, B7, 96, BC, D1, D5, C8, AA, 56, DD, EA, 88, 38, 49, FC, 56, B2, 04, FE, 14, 34, 82, F0, C2, AE, DA, D2, 60, F2, 1E, A4, EE, 0A, B2, 66, 6C, 61, 45, 18, DA, 8B, 2B, BA, 38, B7, 44, 49, 81, A2, CE, 88, 8E, A7, 55, 40, EA, BB, C3

Hue Adjustmen = 0

Noise Reduction = OFF

0097 = 30, 32, 30, 35, 2A, BA, 39, A5, 00, 4C, 87, AF, C7, CE, C4, A9, 7D, 40, F3, 38, 22, A2, 11, 6D, B8, 48, 19, 30, 3F, 37, 1C, F1, B5, 68, 0A, 9B, 1A, 8A, EF, 2A, 72, 3C, B3, 01, B7, 80, 70, 79, EF, 37, 26, C4, 17, 75, C0, F1, 28, BF, 4E, 0B, 2F, 91, CC, 9C, 27, 82, 38, 2A, 0B, E1, 98, 4A, E3, 82, E4, EE, E6, 2C, 60, 8B, 1E, A2, 16, F1, 00, C1, 70, 72, 99, 94, 7E, 28, 3E, C6, 7F, 23, B4, 18, 69, 89, FB, 1B, 48, 55, 51, 3C, 16, DF, 97, 3E, D4, 59, CD, 30, 82, C3, F3, 12, 20, 1D, 09, E4, AE, 67, 0F, A6, 2C, A1, 05, 58, 9A, CB, EB, FA, F8, 1A, C1, 73, 46, 10, 87, F1, 84, 16, 3D, 7F, B2, 2C, E3, 1D, D0, 52, 79, CB, DE, 88, FF, 89, DC, CE, 75, 57, CA, 24, DB, 35, A8, 75, 31, DC, 76, FF, 77, DE, 34, 79, AD, D0, E2, E3, D3, B2, 80, 3D, E9, 84, 0E, 87, EF, 46, 8C, C1, E5, F8, FA, EB, CB, 9A, 58, 05, A1, 2C, A6, 0F, 67, AE, E4, 09, 1D, 20, 12, F3, C3, 82, 30, CD, 59, D4, 3E, 97, DF, 16, 3C, 51, 55, 48, 2A, FB, BB, 6A, 08, 6A, 11, 83, D6, E0, 57, 81, 94, 66, 8D, 8F, 42, FC, B3, AD, E0, A2, C9, DB, 6E, 58, CF, 19, EC, 1E, C5, 67, 5A, F4, AB, C5, B8, 91, 8E, CB, 0F, 26, 47, 4E, 44, 28, 7E, C1, 44, E7, 55, 22, 88, B8, 39, F4, 34, A2

0098 = 30, 32, 30, 31, 2B, BA, 38, A5, 01, 4C, 86, AF, C7, CE, C4, A9, 7D, 40, F2, 93, 23, A2, 10, 6D, B9, F4, 1E, 37, 3F, 36, 1C

009A = 78/10, 78/10

00A0 =

00A2 = 1729714

00A3 = 0

Total Number of Shutter Releases for Camera = 10938

00A8 = 30, 31, 30, 30, 00, 48, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00

Image optimisation = NORMAL

Saturation = NORMAL

Digital Vari-Program =

+++ 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 Messerschmitt Me 262 F was a series of multi-purpose jet planes designed by Messerschmitt for the Luftwaffe that entered service during the final phase of the Second World War in Europe. The aircraft’s design was begun in the summer of 1943 under the project handle P.1099, intended as an improvement to the successful Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighter and also as a replacement for the Arado Ar 234 bomber/reconnaissance aircraft. The primary focus was on more payload, being either usable for more fuel (since early jet engines had poor mileage and therefore range and endurance) or for weapons, including bombs in an internal bomb bay that would enable the aircraft to fulfil a similar tactical role as the British de Havilland Mosquito. Beyond this high-speed bomber (Schnellbomber) variant, the P.1099 would also be a suitable basis for a fast reconnaissance plane, interceptors and night fighters, and trainer versions were also planned.

Only a handful Me 262 F-2a Pulkzerstörer were eventually fielded and operated before the end of hostilities – beyond the low production numbers the lack of fuel and loss of suitable airfields highly limited the aircraft’s potential. Probably less than ten were used by operational units, including JG 53 “Pik As”, in which they served alongside other interceptors, including other Me 262 variants. Typically, bomber formations were approached from the side of a bomber formation, where their silhouettes were widest, and while still out of range of the bombers' machine guns. This broadside-attack tactic was very effective, and the aircraft’s high speed allowed the interceptors to turn around 180° and make at least a second attack run from the opposite side, before the machines dashed off and returned to their bases.

General characteristics

Crew: One

Length: 14,32 m (46 ft 11 in) overall

12,00 m (39 ft 3¾ in) fuselage only, w/o brake parachute housing

Wingspan: 12,61 m (41 ft 3¾ in)

Height: 4,43 m (14 ft 6 in)

Wing area: 24,2 m² (236 sq ft)

Empty weight: 5.061 kg (11,148 lb)

Loaded weight: 8.762 kg (19,300 lb)

Max. take-off weight: 10.062 kg (22,163 lb)

Powerplant:

2× Junkers Jumo 004 C turbojets with 12 kN (2,697 lb st) each

Performance

Maximum speed: 930 km/h (577 mph, 505 kn)

Cruising speed: 805 km/h (500 mph, 438 kn) at 6.500 m (21,290 ft)

Range: 1.340 km (830 ml, 728 nm) at 6000 m with internal fuel only

Service ceiling: 11,450 m (37,570 ft)

Rate of climb: 18 m/s (3,540 ft/min) at max. weight

Armament:

1× 55 mm (1.96 in) MK 112 machine cannon with 60 rounds

1× 30 mm (1.18 in) MK 108 machine cannon with 100 rounds

Hardpoints under the outer wings for racks with twelve 55mm R4M unguided air-to-air missiles

The kit and its assembly:

This became a submission to the late 2021 “Gunships” group build at whatifmodellers.com – what would such a competition be without at least one gun-toting German Luft ’46 interceptor? The Messerschmitt P.1099 lent itself for such a build. Since 1996 Revell offers a 1:72 IP model kit of this paper aircraft, depicting more or less the two planned versions: a basic single-seat day fighter and a heavy two-seater Zerstörer, both based on the same basis.

This what-if model was based on Revell’s interpretation of the P.1099A, and the kit goes together well. Fit is very good, even though some designs are IMHO a bit dubious. The kit’s weakest point: Revell unfortunately missed the important detail of the modified engine nacelles: the kit comes with standard Me 262 wings and engines, but due to CoG reasons the P.1099 would have had its engines moved back by about 900 mm, as mentioned in the background. I corrected this on this build with some PSR – sounds simple, but since the nacelles are not expected to be stuck to the wings in their new position roughly 1 cm further back, some serious bodywork had to be done.

Otherwise the kit was basically built OOB. I just left away the inner wheels from the main landing gear because I found the twin wheels to be “too much” for this upgraded Me 262. The P.1099 might have been heavier than the Me 262, but…? And the wheels’ tractor-like tread design looks IMHO out of place, too, so that I replaced them with a pair of MiG-21 wheels, left over from a KP kit.

The cockpit was taken OOB, even though I have doubts concerning the canopy. And when you look at mockup pictures of the P.1099 you realize that cockpit access had been facilitated through a side door at starboard, similar to the D. H. Mosquito. The cockpit tub does not consider this hatch at all, and the engraved door on the fuselage (it’s actually there!) is so tiny that only a Halfling might use it?

Well, I stuck with it “as is” and just added a pilot figure (specifically from a Matchbox Hawker tempest, because it is one of the rare cases that you get a WWII pilot wearing an oxygen mask) and a “barrel” behind the bulbous pilot seat because there’s a lot of free space in this single seat variant that is otherwise occupied by a rear gunner in Revell’s P.1099B kit. I also have doubts concerning the kit’s canopy, since the original P.1099 had a cockpit for two seated side-by-side, with a canopy that resembled the D.H. Mosquito’s a lot. I am also not certain about the stabilizers – the kit comes with standard Me 262 parts, but trustworthy sources I consulted suggest that not only the fin had been enlarged (depicted well in Revell’s kit), but also the stabilizers? To improve this, I implanted a pair of modified stabilizers that came from a Heller PZL P.23 light bomber. Sounds odd, but they were a very good match in size, shape and thickness!

The only major modification concerns the armament, even though it became just a “graft-on” solution. On the lower left side, the upper gun port was PSRed away. On the right side I added a bulged fairing for the MK 112. It was sculpted from a Matchbox Saab J29 drop tank and blended into the hull with PSR. Protruding spent cases fairings were added for both guns. The MK 112 gun barrel is a resin piece, left over from a ModelTrans tank conversion set and actually depicts a German 55 mm gun, so that this became a perfect donor piece.

Since the airframe still looked rather clean and boring I finally added a pair of JATO bottle racks to the rear fuselage (scratched from styrene profile but left empty) and a brake parachute fairing under the fin, carved from a piece of sprue.

Furthermore, a display adapter was installed into the fuselage for in-flight pictures.

Painting and markings:

This became a challenge, because I wanted a rather unusual livery, neither a standard RLM 81/82/76 late-war combo nor an improvised-cammo-over-bare-metal finish. After some research I settled upon something that was actually carried by some He 177 bombers around 1944: a uniform RLM 74 (Graugrün, Humbrol 245) upper surface with “cloudy” mottles in RLM 76 (Humbrol 247). This appears like a winter camouflage, but it’s actually quite effective at medium altitude, esp. over a cloudy landscape. The original bombers had light blue (RLM 65) undersides, but for the P.1099 from a later period and as a fighter I rather used a darker shade of RLM76 in the form of Tamiya XF-23 (Light Blue). The model received a black ink washing and some post-panel-shading.

The cockpit interior became RLM 66 (Schwarzgrau, Humbrol 67) while the landing gear and the well were painted in uniform RLM 02 (I used Revell 45, a slightly more greenish tone), with wheel discs in RLM 66, too.

Unit markings became minimal and quite sober. I gave the aircraft a typical late-war “Reichsverteidigung” fuselage band, and in JG 53’s case it is plain black. The black band was deliberately chosen because it is a good, much darker contrast to the murky RLM 74, so that the latter appears lighter than it actually is, lowering the contrast to the RLM 76 spots.

The decals were puzzled together from various sources. As an aircraft of the 3rd group the unit’s ID color would be yellow, reflected in the tactical code and the fin tip. For some contrast and to emphasize the long gun barrel I gave it white and black stripes – as a security measure for ground handling. For some more variety I painted one air intake in very dark grey (Revell 06, Anthracite) and the other one in steel Metallizer, simulating replacement parts. The Balkenkreuze come from various sheets – I used simplified “low viz” versions all around. The undulating yellow bar for the 3rd group comes from a TL Modellbau sheet, while the yellow “4” came from a Fw 190 A sheet from Sky Models. A small “4” on the nose was added as a wacky detail, too, the “Pik As” unit markings came IIRC from a Hobby Boss Bf 109 sheet. Since they turned out to have poor contrast/opacity I only used a few stencils from the P.1099A sheet, but due to the disruptive paint scheme this is not apparent.

Finally, the model was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and a wire antenna, scratched from heated black sprue material, was added between cockpit and fin.

Well, this modified Messerschmitt P.1099A looks simple, but the modified engine nacelles as well as the gun fairing under the nose called for serious PSR. The result looks quite natural, though, and AFAIK this weapon configuration was actually on German drawing boards. However, I am not certain about the cockpit canopy and other details on Revell’s kit, reference information is contradictive.

The paint scheme looks good, even though it was lent from a heavy bomber, and the poor Humbrol enamels did not yield a finish that I had hoped for – the paintwork could certainly have been better, but the overall impression of a late-war Pulkzerstörer is O.K., and this eventually counts.

Taken inside UST Campus (Beside the Field) - February 16, 2010

JAC LINER, INC.

Bus number: 8807

Classification: Airconditioned Provincial Operation Bus

Coachbuilder: Zhengzhou Yutong Bus Company, Ltd. (Yutong Bus)

Chassis Manufacturer: Zhengzhou Yutong Bus Company, Ltd

Chassis: Yutong ZK6100CRU (LZYTBTD6)

Model: Yutong ZK6100H

Engine: YuChai YC6A240-30

Cylinders: I-6

Displacement: 440.797 cu. inches (7,255 cc / 7.3 Liters)

Aspiration: Turbocharged

Power Output: 236.72 bhp (240 PS - metric hp / 176.52 kW) @ 2,200 rpm

Torque Output: 663.72 lb.ft (900 N.m) @ 1,400-1,600 rpm

Chassis Clutch: SACHS 430

Transmission: 5-Speed Forward, 1-Speed Reverse

Maximum Speed: 74.6 mph (120 km/hr) - [estimated]

Layout: Rear-Mounted Engine Rear-Wheel Drive

Airconditioning Unit: Overhead Unit

Suspension: Leaf Spring Suspension

Seating Configuration: 2x2

Seating Capacity: 45 Passengers

Overall length: 34.42 feet (10.49 Meters)

Overall width: 8.14 feet (2.48 Meters)

Overall height: 11.75 feet (3.58 Meters)

Wheel Base: 19.75 feet (6.02 Meters)

Gross Vehicle Weight: 31,420 lbs (14,230 kg)

Fuel Consumption: 4.55 km / Liter

Wiki

The Arc is located on the right bank of the Seine at the centre of a dodecagonal configuration of twelve radiating avenues. It was commissioned in 1806 after the victory at Austerlitz by Emperor Napoleon at the peak of his fortunes. Laying the foundations alone took two years and, in 1810, when Napoleon entered Paris from the west with his bride Archduchess Marie-Louise of Austria, he had a wooden mock-up of the completed arch constructed. The architect, Jean Chalgrin, died in 1811 and the work was taken over by Jean-Nicolas Huyot. During the Bourbon Restoration, construction was halted and it would not be completed until the reign of King Louis-Philippe, between 1833 and 1836, by the architects Goust, then Huyot, under the direction of Héricart de Thury. On 15 December 1840, brought back to France from Saint Helena, Napoleon's remains passed under it on their way to the Emperor's final resting place at the Invalides.[8] Prior to burial in the Panthéon, the body of Victor Hugo was exposed under the Arc during the night of 22 May 1885.

The sword carried by the Republic in the Marseillaise relief broke off on the day, it is said, that the Battle of Verdun began in 1916. The relief was immediately hidden by tarpaulins to conceal the accident and avoid any undesired ominous interpretations[citation needed]. On 7 August 1919, Charles Godefroy successfully flew his biplane under the Arc.[9] Jean Navarre was the pilot who was tasked to make the flight, but he died on 10 July 1919 when he crashed near Villacoublay while training for the flight.

Following its construction, the Arc de Triomphe became the rallying point of French troops parading after successful military campaigns and for the annual Bastille Day Military Parade. Famous victory marches around or under the Arc have included the Germans in 1871, the French in 1919, the Germans in 1940, and the French and Allies in 1944[10] and 1945. A United States postage stamp of 1945 shows the Arc de Triomphe in the background as victorious American troops march down the Champs-Élysées and U.S. airplanes fly overhead on 29 August 1944. After the interment of the Unknown Soldier, however, all military parades (including the aforementioned post-1919) have avoided marching through the actual arch. The route taken is up to the arch and then around its side, out of respect for the tomb and its symbolism. Both Hitler in 1940 and de Gaulle in 1944 observed this custom.

By the early 1960s, the monument had grown very blackened from coal soot and automobile exhaust, and during 1965–1966 it was cleaned through bleaching.

In the prolongation of the Avenue des Champs-Élysées, a new arch, the Grande Arche de la Défense, was built in 1982, completing the line of monuments that forms Paris's Axe historique. After the Arc de Triomphe du Carrousel and the Arc de Triomphe de l'Étoile, the Grande Arche is the third arch built on the same perspective.

The 3-cylinder (fan-configuration) Dual-Over-Head-Cam (DOHC) engine has all cylinders above the center line, but uses a master rod and 2 articulating rods like those used in a radial engine. Each cylinder has two valves (one for intake and one for exhaust) and the camshafts are belt driven 1:2 off of the crankshaft. Two camshafts operate the valves in each cylinder head. One camshaft operates the intake valves and the other the exhaust valves, thus “dual overhead cams.”

See More Schillings Engines at: www.flickr.com/photos/15794235@N06/sets/72157650830753031/

See More Three Cylinder Engines at: www.flickr.com/photos/15794235@N06/sets/72157651691030122/

See More Radial Engines at: www.flickr.com/photos/15794235@N06/sets/72157636169553994/

See Our Model Engine Collection at: www.flickr.com/photos/15794235@N06/sets/72157602933346098/

Visit Our Photo Sets at: www.flickr.com/photos/15794235@N06/sets

Courtesy of Paul and Paula Knapp

Miniature Engineering Museum

www.engine-museum.com

Velos Designwerks has just released an inventory update for Fall 2016. Check out their Fall wheel lineup below with their respective fitment sizes and color options. If you have any questions regarding size or the order process, feel free to contact Vivid Racing at 1-480-966-3040. You can also v...

www.vividracing.com/blog/announcing-new-products-specials...

Check out my blog: marciabeckett.blogspot.com

Chelsea Market a food hall, shopping mall, office building and television production facility in the Meatpacking District a neighbourhood in Manhattan, New York City.

The building was constructed in the 1890s and was originally the site of the National Biscuit Company (Nabisco) factory complex where the Oreo cookie was invented and produced. The complex was redeveloped in the 1990s and features a retail concourse at ground level with office space above. Chelsea Market is currently owned by Alphabet Inc, parent company of Google.

Construction of baking facilities began in the 1890s, and merger of several companies into the National Biscuit Company occurred in 1898. The final configuration consists of 19 separate structures taking up the entire city block, and included both production areas and offices. Several decades of varying levels of occupancy and light industrial use followed Nabisco's departure as the commercial character of the neighborhood declined.

Since its redevelopment by Irwin Cohen with Jeff Vandeberg and Vandenberg Architects in the 1990s, the complex has featured a retail concourse at ground level with office space above, and is distinguished by its light-hearted touches and re-use of historic urban artifacts.

The majority of the original buildings consist of heavy timber wood construction with brick facades and were designed by the firm of Romeyn & Stever. There is also an interior pedestrian bridge on some upper levels to allow people to cross from the north to south sides of the courtyard. The building on the Tenth Avenue side is a later structure designed in the 1930s by Nabisco's then-architect Louis Wirsching Jr. that replaced the original baking facilities there.

Information Source:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Market

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

USS Missouri at sea in her 1980s configuration

History

United States

Namesake: The State of Missouri

Ordered: 12 June 1940

Builder: Brooklyn Navy Yard

Laid down: 6 January 1941

Launched: 29 January 1944

Sponsored by: Mary Margaret Truman

Commissioned: 11 June 1944

Decommissioned: 26 February 1955

Recommissioned: 10 May 1986

Decommissioned: 31 March 1992

Struck: 12 January 1995

Identification: Hull symbol: BB-63

Motto: "Strength for Freedom"

Nickname(s): "Mighty Mo" or "Big Mo"

Honors and

awards:

11 battle stars

World War II

Korean War

Gulf War

Status: Museum ship in Pearl Harbor

Notes: Final battleship to be completed by the United States

Badge: USS Missouri COA.png

General characteristics (1943)

Class and type: Iowa-class battleship

Displacement: 45,000 tons

Length: 887.2 ft (270.4 m)

Beam: 108.2 ft (33.0 m)

Draft: 28.9 ft (8.8 m)

Speed: 32.7 kn (37.6 mph; 60.6 km/h)

Range: 14,890 mi (23,960 km)

Complement: 2,700 officers and men

Armament:

9 × 16 in (406 mm)/50 cal Mark 7 guns

20 × 5 in (127 mm)/38 cal Mark 12 guns

80 × 40 mm/56 cal anti-aircraft guns

49 × 20 mm/70 cal anti-aircraft cannons

Armor:

Belt: 12.1 in (310 mm)

Bulkheads: 11.3 in (290 mm)

Barbettes: 11.6 to 17.3 in (290 to 440 mm)

Turrets: 19.7 in (500 mm)

Decks: 7.5 in (190 mm)

General characteristics (1984)

Class and type: Iowa-class battleship

Complement: 1,851 officers and men

Sensors and

processing systems:

AN/SPS-49 Air Search Radar

AN/SPS-67 Surface Search Radar

AN/SPQ-9 Surface Search / Gun Fire Control Radar

Electronic warfare

& decoys:

AN/SLQ-32

AN/SLQ-25 Nixie Decoy System

8 × Mark 36 SRBOC Super Rapid Bloom Rocket Launchers

Armament:

9 × 16 in (406 mm)/50 cal Mark 7 guns

12 × 5 in (127 mm)/38 cal Mark 12 guns

32 × BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles

16 × RGM-84 Harpoon Anti-Ship missiles

4 × 20 mm/76 cal Phalanx CIWS

USS Missouri (BB-63)

U.S. National Register of Historic Places

USS Missouri (BB-63) is located in Hawaii

USS Missouri (BB-63)

Location Pearl Harbor, Hawaii

Coordinates 21°21′44″N 157°57′12″WCoordinates: 21°21′44″N 157°57′12″W

Built 1944

Architect New York Naval Shipyard

NRHP Reference # 71000877

Added to NRHP 14 May 1971

USS Missouri (BB-63) ("Mighty Mo" or "Big Mo") is a United States Navy Iowa-class battleship and was the third ship of the U.S. Navy to be named in honor of the U.S. state of Missouri. Missouri was the last battleship commissioned by the United States and was best remembered as the site of the surrender of the Empire of Japan which ended World War II.

Missouri was ordered in 1940 and commissioned in June 1944. In the Pacific Theater of World War II she fought in the battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa and shelled the Japanese home islands, and she fought in the Korean War from 1950 to 1953. She was decommissioned in 1955 into the United States Navy reserve fleets (the "Mothball Fleet"), but reactivated and modernized in 1984 as part of the 600-ship Navy plan, and provided fire support during Operation Desert Storm in January/February 1991.

Missouri received a total of 11 battle stars for service in World War II, Korea, and the Persian Gulf, and was finally decommissioned on 31 March 1992, but remained on the Naval Vessel Register until her name was struck in January 1995. In 1998, she was donated to the USS Missouri Memorial Association and became a museum ship at Pearl Harbor.

Construction

Main articles: Iowa-class battleship and Armament of the Iowa-class battleship

Missouri was one of the Iowa-class "fast battleship" designs planned in 1938 by the Preliminary Design Branch at the Bureau of Construction and Repair. She was laid down at the Brooklyn Navy Yard on 6 January 1941, launched on 29 January 1944 and commissioned on 11 June with Captain William Callaghan in command. The ship was the third of the Iowa class, but the fourth and final Iowa-class ship commissioned by the U.S. Navy.[1][2][3][4] The ship was christened at her launching by Mary Margaret Truman, daughter of Harry S. Truman, then a United States Senator from Missouri.[5]

Missouri's main battery consisted of nine 16 in (406 mm)/50 cal Mark 7 guns, which could fire 2,700 lb (1,200 kg) armor-piercing shells some 20 mi (32.2 km). Her secondary battery consisted of twenty 5 in (127 mm)/38 cal guns in twin turrets, with a range of about 10 mi (16 km). With the advent of air power and the need to gain and maintain air superiority came a need to protect the growing fleet of allied aircraft carriers; to this end, Missouri was fitted with an array of Oerlikon 20 mm and Bofors 40 mm anti-aircraft guns to defend allied carriers from enemy airstrikes. When reactivated in 1984 Missouri had her 20 mm and 40 mm AA guns removed, and was outfitted with Phalanx CIWS mounts for protection against enemy missiles and aircraft, and Armored Box Launchers and Quad Cell Launchers designed to fire Tomahawk missiles and Harpoon missiles, respectively.[6]

Missouri was the last U.S. battleship to be completed.[2][7] Wisconsin, the highest-numbered U.S. battleship built, was completed before Missouri; BB-65 to BB-71 were ordered but cancelled.

World War II (1944–1945)

Shakedown and service with Task Force 58, Admiral Mitscher

After trials off New York and shakedown and battle practice in the Chesapeake Bay, Missouri departed Norfolk, Virginia on 11 November 1944, transited the Panama Canal on 18 November and steamed to San Francisco for final fitting out as fleet flagship. She stood out of San Francisco Bay on 14 December and arrived at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on 24 December 1944. She departed Hawaii on 2 January 1945 and arrived in Ulithi, West Caroline Islands on 13 January. There she was temporary headquarters ship for Vice Admiral Marc A. Mitscher. The battleship put to sea on 27 January to serve in the screen of the Lexington carrier task group of Mitscher's TF 58, and on 16 February the task force's aircraft carriers launched the first naval air strikes against Japan since the famed Doolittle raid, which had been launched from the carrier Hornet in April 1942.[5]

Missouri then steamed with the carriers to Iwo Jima where her main guns provided direct and continuous support to the invasion landings begun on 19 February. After TF 58 returned to Ulithi on 5 March, Missouri was assigned to the Yorktown carrier task group. On 14 March, Missouri departed Ulithi in the screen of the fast carriers and steamed to the Japanese mainland. During strikes against targets along the coast of the Inland Sea of Japan beginning on 18 March, Missouri shot down four Japanese aircraft.[5]

Raids against airfields and naval bases near the Inland Sea and southwestern Honshū continued. When the carrier Franklin incurred battle damage, the Missouri's carrier task group provided cover for the Franklin's retirement toward Ulithi until 22 March, then set course for pre-invasion strikes and bombardment of Okinawa.[5]

Missouri joined the fast battleships of TF 58 in bombarding the southeast coast of Okinawa on 24 March, an action intended to draw enemy strength from the west coast beaches that would be the actual site of invasion landings. Missouri rejoined the screen of the carriers as Marine and Army units stormed the shores of Okinawa on the morning of 1 April. An attack by Japanese forces was repulsed successfully.[5]

A Japanese Zero about to hit Missouri 11 April 1945

On 11 April, a low-flying kamikaze, although fired upon, crashed on Missouri's starboard side, just below her main deck level. The starboard wing of the plane was thrown far forward, starting a gasoline fire at 5 in (127 mm) Gun Mount No. 3. The battleship suffered only superficial damage, and the fire was brought quickly under control.[5] The remains of the pilot were recovered on board the ship just aft of one of the 40 mm gun tubs. Captain Callaghan decided that the young Japanese pilot had done his job to the best of his ability, and with honor, so he should be given a military funeral. The following day he was buried at sea with military honors.[8]

About 23:05 on 17 April, Missouri detected an enemy submarine 12 mi (19 km) from her formation. Her report set off a hunter-killer operation by the light carrier Bataan and four destroyers, which sank the Japanese submarine I-56.[5]

Missouri was detached from the carrier task force off Okinawa on 5 May and sailed for Ulithi. During the Okinawa campaign she had shot down five enemy planes, assisted in the destruction of six others, and scored one probable kill. She helped repel 12 daylight attacks of enemy raiders and fought off four night attacks on her carrier task group. Her shore bombardment destroyed several gun emplacements and many other military, governmental, and industrial structures.[5]

Service with the Third Fleet, Admiral Halsey

Missouri arrived at Ulithi on 9 May and then proceeded to Apra Harbor, Guam, arriving on 18 May.[5] USS Louisville delivered Bull Halsey’s 50 officers and 100 staff to USS Missouri BB 63 at Guam from Man of War.[9] That afternoon Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander Third Fleet, brought his command into the Missouri.[10] She passed out of the harbor on 21 May, and by 27 May was again conducting shore bombardment against Japanese positions on Okinawa. Missouri led the 3rd Fleet in strikes on airfields and installations on Kyūshū on 2–3 June. She rode out a fierce storm on 5 and 6 June that wrenched the bow off the cruiser Pittsburgh. Some topside fittings were smashed, but Missouri suffered no major damage. Her fleet again struck Kyūshū on 8 June, then hit hard in a coordinated air-surface bombardment before retiring towards Leyte. She arrived at San Pedro Bay, Leyte on 13 June, after almost three months of continuous operations in support of the Okinawa campaign.[5]

Here she rejoined the powerful 3rd Fleet in strikes at the heart of Japan from within its home waters. The fleet set a northerly course on 8 July to approach the Japanese main island, Honshū. Raids took Tokyo by surprise on 10 July, followed by more devastation at the juncture of Honshū and Hokkaidō, the second-largest Japanese island, on 13–14 July. For the first time, naval gunfire destroyed a major installation within the home islands when Missouri joined in a shore bombardment on 15 July that severely damaged the Nihon Steel Co. and the Wanishi Ironworks at Muroran, Hokkaido.[5]

During the nights of 17 and 18 July, Missouri bombarded industrial targets in Honshū. Inland Sea aerial strikes continued through 25 July, and Missouri guarded the carriers as they attacked the Japanese home islands.[5]

Signing of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender

Main article: Japanese Instrument of Surrender

Missouri (left) transfers personnel to Iowa in advance of the surrender ceremony planned for 2 September.

Allied sailors and officers watch General of the Army Douglas MacArthur sign documents during the surrender ceremony aboard Missouri on 2 September 1945. The unconditional surrender of the Japanese to the Allies officially ended the Second World War.

Strikes on Hokkaidō and northern Honshū resumed on 9 August, the day the second atomic bomb was dropped.[5]

After the Japanese agreed to surrender, Admiral Sir Bruce Fraser of the Royal Navy, the Commander of the British Pacific Fleet, boarded Missouri on 16 August and conferred the honour of Knight of the British Empire upon Admiral Halsey. Missouri transferred a landing party of 200 officers and men to the battleship Iowa for temporary duty with the initial occupation force for Tokyo on 21 August. Missouri herself entered Tokyo Bay early on 29 August to prepare for the signing by Japan of the official instrument of surrender.[5]

High-ranking military officials of all the Allied Powers were received on board on 2 September, including Chinese General Hsu Yung-Ch'ang, British Admiral-of-the-Fleet Sir Bruce Fraser, Soviet Lieutenant-General Kuzma Nikolaevich Derevyanko, Australian General Sir Thomas Blamey, Canadian Colonel Lawrence Moore Cosgrave, French Général d'Armée Philippe Leclerc de Hautecloque, Dutch Vice Admiral Conrad Emil Lambert Helfrich, and New Zealand Air Vice Marshal Leonard M. Isitt.

Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz boarded shortly after 0800, and General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, the Supreme Commander for the Allies, came on board at 0843. The Japanese representatives, headed by Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu, arrived at 0856. At 0902, General MacArthur stepped before a battery of microphones and opened the 23-minute surrender ceremony to the waiting world by stating,[5] "It is my earnest hope—indeed the hope of all mankind—that from this solemn occasion a better world shall emerge out of the blood and carnage of the past, a world founded upon faith and understanding, a world dedicated to the dignity of man and the fulfillment of his most cherished wish for freedom, tolerance, and justice."[11]

During the surrender ceremony, the deck of Missouri was decorated with a 31-star American flag that had been taken ashore by Commodore Matthew Perry in 1853 after his squadron of "Black Ships" sailed into Tokyo Bay to force the opening of Japan's ports to foreign trade. This flag was actually displayed with the reverse side showing, i.e., stars in the upper right corner: the historic flag was so fragile that the conservator at the Naval Academy Museum had sewn a protective linen backing to one side to help secure the fabric from deteriorating, leaving its "wrong side" visible. The flag was displayed in a wood-framed case secured to the bulkhead overlooking the surrender ceremony.[12] Another U.S. flag was raised and flown during the occasion, a flag that some sources have indicated was in fact that flag which had flown over the U.S. Capitol on 7 December 1941. This is not true; it was a flag taken from the ship's stock, according to Missouri's Commanding Officer, Captain Stuart "Sunshine" Murray, and it was "...just a plain ordinary GI-issue flag".[13]

By 09:30 the Japanese emissaries had departed. In the afternoon of 5 September, Admiral Halsey transferred his flag to the battleship South Dakota, and early the next day Missouri departed Tokyo Bay. As part of the ongoing Operation Magic Carpet she received homeward bound passengers at Guam, then sailed unescorted for Hawaii. She arrived at Pearl Harbor on 20 September and flew Admiral Nimitz's flag on the afternoon of 28 September for a reception.[5]

Photo (c) : Michel FOURNIER (+)

Keep designs underwent a significant change in the 12th century when square configurations gave way to more rounded forms. But at Chateau Gaillard, Richard the Lionheart’s donjon is in a shape of its own. Its exterior walls are sloped outward. At the front they join and project forward at a sharp angle. This unique form makes it more resistant to projectiles. On the opposite side, the keep backs onto a sheer cliff, making any approach from this side virtually impossible. Inside, Richard I’s last line of defence is a mere eight metres in diameter. The current point of entry is believed to date from a later period, as the original door would have almost certainly been positioned above ground and reached by a ladder or stairway. With no evidence of a fireplace, well, or latrine, it appears that this particular keep was built exclusively for defence.

Battle Castle is an action documentary series starring Dan Snow that is now airing on History Television and is scheduled to premiere on Discovery Knowledge in the UK in Spring 2012 and on various BBC-affiliated channels in the near future.

For the latest air dates, Like us on Facebook (www.battlecastle.com/facebook) or follow us on Twitter (www.twitter.com/battlecastle)

This show brings to life mighty medieval fortifications and the epic sieges they resist: clashes that defy the limits of military technology, turn empires to dust, and transform mortals into legends.

Website: www.battlecastle.tv/

Twitter: www.twitter.com/battlecastle

YouTube: www.youtube.com/battlecastle

Flickr: www.flicker.com/battlecastle

Facebook: www.facebook.com/battlecastle

Castles conjure thoughts of romantic tales, but make no mistake, they are built for war.

Dover: Prince Louis' key to England. Malaga: the Granadans final stronghold. And Crac des Chevaliers: Crown Jewel of Crusader castles. Through dynamic location footage and immersive visual effects, Battle Castle reveals a bloody history of this epic medieval arms race.

As siege weapons and technology become more ruthless, the men who design and built these castles reply ... or perish. Follow host Dan Snow as he explores the military engineering behind these medieval megastructures and the legendary battles that became testaments to their might.

Each episode will climax in the ultimate test of the castle's military engineering -- a siege that will change the course of history. Which castles will be conquered and which will prevail? You'll have to watch to find out.

But the journey doesn't end there --in fact, it's just beginning. Battle Castle extends into a multi-platform quest, taking us deep into the secret world of medieval warfare and strategy. Become the ultimate 'Castle Master'. Stay tuned for more on the Battle Castle experience.

Date: 3-16-2012

Make, Model: Isuzu Cubic

Engine: 6QA2

Chassis: LV314K

Seating Configuration: 2x3

Operator: Nuestra Señora Del Carmen Transport Services, Inc.

Fare Class Operation: Air-conditioned

Route: Santa Maria (Bulacan)-Baclaran (Parañaque City) via EDSA, Ayala Ave., NLEX-Bocaue exit

Remarks:

Specifications are subjected for verification and may be changed without prior notice.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

The Supermarine Spitfire was a British single-seat fighter aircraft used by the Royal Air Force and other Allied countries before, during and after World War II. Many variants of the Spitfire were built, using several wing configurations, and it was produced in greater numbers than any other British aircraft. It was also the only British fighter produced continuously throughout the war.

Since the Taurus-powered Spitfire turned out to be quite ineffective (it was no good either in the fighter or in an alternative ground attack role and 20 mph slower than the comparable Mk. V), production was already stopped in late 1942 after 353 aircraft. At the same time, the Spitfire Mk. IX with a much more powerful Merlin engine entered service, and all resources were immediately allocated to this more potent fighter variant and the idea of the Spitfire with a radial engine was ultimately dropped. Since the Taurus-powered type was quickly phased out of frontline service, the designation was later re-used for a pressurized high-altitude photo reconnaissance variant of the Spitfire, the PR.X, of which only 16 machines were built.

General characteristics:

Crew: one pilot

Length: 29 ft 6 in (9.00 m)

Wingspan: 32 ft 2 in (9.80 m)

Height: 11 ft 5 in (3.86 m)

Wing area: 242.1 ft2 (22.48 m²)

Airfoil: NACA 2213 (root)

NACA 2209.4 (tip)

Empty weight: 5,065 lb (2,297 kg)

Loaded weight: 6,622 lb (3,000 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 6,700 lb (3,039 kg)

Powerplant:

1× Bristol Taurus VI 14-Cylinder sleeve valve radial engine, 1.130 hp (830 kW)

Performance:

Maximum speed: 350 mph (312 kn, 565 km/h)

Combat radius: 410 nmi (470 mi/756 km)

Ferry range: 991 nmi (1,135 mi/1,827 km)

Service ceiling: 36,500 ft (11,125 m)

Rate of climb: 2,535 ft/min (12.9 m/s)

Wing loading: 27.35 lb/ft2 (133.5 kg/m²)

Power/mass: 0.22 hp/lb (0.36 kW/kg)

Armament:

2× 20 mm Hispano Mk II with 60 RPG

4× .303 in Browning Mk II machine guns with 350 RPG

The kit and its assembly:

My third contribution to the “RAF Centenary” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com, and the next one in chronological order. This one was spawned by the simple thought of “What would a Spitfire with a radial engine look like…?”. I have seen this stunt done in the form of a Fw190/Spitfire kitbash – nice result, but it did IMHO just not look like a “real” Spitfire with a radial engine, rather like an Fw 190 with elliptical wings. And the fact that I had already successfully transplanted a Centaurus engine onto a P-51 airframe made me feel positive that the stunt could be done!

Consequently, the conversion was pretty straightforward. The basis is a Revell 1:72 Spitfire VB (1996 mold), which was – except for the nose section – taken OOB. A simple, nice kit, even though it comes with some flaws, like a depression at the rear of the wing/fuselage intersection and the general need for PSR – not much, but I expected a better fit for such a relatively young mold?

For the engine, I used a personal replacement favorite, the cowling and the engine block from a Mitsubishi A6M2 “Zero” (Hasegawa). The Nakajima Sakae radial engine has a relatively small diameter, so that it serves well as a dummy for the compact Bristol Taurus engine – a replacement I have already used for a radial-powered Westland Whirlwind. The other benefit of the small diameter is that it is relatively easy to blend the round front end into the oval and very slender fuselage of the early Spitfire airframe. This was realized through massive body sculpting from scratch with 2C putty, widening the area in front of the cockpit and expanding its width to match the cowling – I guess that real life engineers would have followed a similar, simple path.

Since the radial engine would not need a radiator, I simple omitted this piece (cut out from the single piece lower wing half) and faired the respective underwing area over with a piece of styrene sheet and PSR. The asymmetrical oil cooler was retained, though. The propeller is a replacement from the scrap box, with a smaller diameter spinner and more slender blades which better suit the open cowling.

Since the Taurus had its best performance at low altitudes, I used the Revell kit’s OOB option of clipped wing tips – a move that makes the aircraft look much faster, esp. with the new, deeper nose section.

Painting and markings:

I did not want classic RAF markings, but still keep the model well within the Centenary GB confines. The original plan had been a classic Dark Green/Ocean Grey livery, which all Spitfire’s in USAAF service and based in the UK received. But I rather wanted to create a frontline aircraft, operated during Operation Torch in late 1942/early 1943 with American roundels – and the grey/green look would not look plausible on a machine taking part in the North African campaign. In fact, any Spitfire with American roundels I found that was used in North Africa carried the RAF Tropical Scheme in Dark Earth/Middle Stone. And, AFAIK, during Operation 'Torch' all British aircraft received American markings in the hope that the Vichy French, who were anti-British due to them bombing their ships in 1940, would switch to the allied cause. They were supposed to think that the Americans would be invading, not British troops as well. So I eventually switched to the classic Tropical Scheme (using Humbrol 29 and Modelmaster 2052 as basic tones), and it does not look bad at all - even though the yellow trim around the roundels does not stand out as much as on a Grey/Green aircraft.

Typically, the RAF codes were retained, as well as – at least during the early phases of Operation Torch – the RAF fin flash. A little personal twist is the pale blue (Humbrol 23, Duck Egg Blue) underside of the aircraft, instead of the typical Azure Blue. The rationale behind is that the Tropical Scheme was originally designed with Sky undersides, and the blue shades were later modifications after initial field experience.

The red spinner is a typical Northern Africa marking, and found on many 5th FS aircraft.

The interior (cockpit, landing gear wells) was painted with RAF Cockpit Green (Modelmaster), while wheels and struts became light grey.

As a standard procedure, the kit received a light black ink wash and a post shading treatment.

The decals were puzzled together from various sheets and sources, the design benchmark was a real USAAF Spitfire Vb from Operation Torch, though. The code letters were taken from an Xtradecal sheet, the roundels come from a Carpena Spitfire sheet, even though I placed American markings in all six positions – the roundels without yellow trim under the wings were taken from a Hobby Boss F6F sheet.

The serial number comes from the Revell kit’s OOB sheet, because it fits perfectly into the kit’s intended time frame. The nose art comes from a P-38 sheet (PrintScale) – not a typical feature for an RAF Spitfire, but a frequent personal decoration among USAAF machines during Operation Torch (e.g. on P-40s).

The Allied yellow ID markings on the wings’ leading edges, which were typically carried by Operation Torch Spitfires, too, were created with generic yellow decal sheet (TL Modellbau), while the maroon machine gun nozzle covers are part of Revell’s OOB sheet.

Finally, the kit received some soot stains around gun and exhaust nozzles, and was finally sealed with matt acrylic varnish.

A bold experiment, and it turned out well. The Zero’s cowling has the perfect diameter for this transplant, and the scratch-sculpted new front fuselage section blends well with the new engine – the whole thing really looks intentional! I am just not certain if the resulting aircraft still deserves the “Spitfire” designation? Even though only the engine was changed, the aircraft looks really different and has a Ki-43ish aura? I guess that a dark green livery and some hinomaru would also look great and pretty plausible?

Ford - V8

Not the first maker of Vee-eights, Ford most definitely made them available to the common man. Having first democratised the car, with the Model-T, production methods for which helped reduce the cost to under $500. The following model, the 'A' would begin production in 1927. The next Model the 'B' arrived in 1932, and with it a V8 version, the model '18'. This 'V8' became the staple for the hotrodding fraternity for decades.

The original V8 was configured as a 90-degree V8, of 'flathead' design. A feature of the engine was the casting and machining of the block as a single unit.

The replacement for the 'Flathead' was the 'Y-Block', inroduced into Ford cars in 1954, and into the truck model in 1955. The engine was available in a number of capacities from early on, beginning with a 256 CID (4.2 litre). The model featured here is the 292 CID (4.8 litre) which produce 212 hp. The engine was designated the 'Thunderbird' engine, and was used in Mercurys, the Ford Thunderbird, and other high-end Ford models, including Fairlanes (the top trim level of the full-sized Ford from 1957).

An even larger 312 CID was available, also used in Thunderbirds, Mercurys and high-trim Fords. Optional higher power configurations via induction carburation and even a supercharged version.

The model 1957 Ford Fairlane and the 292 CID Y-Bock Vee-Eight have been built for Flickr LUGNuts' 64th build challenge - 'Mad Motor Skills' - focusing on the engines that power our favourite rides, be they car, bike or truck.

Chelsea, Manhattan

These modest rowhouses at 145-147 Eighth Avenue are a pair of highly intact 3 1/2 story Federal style houses constructed 1827 for owner Aaron Dexter, a dry goods merchant, who retained ownership of the property until 1846.

At the time of its completion they were situated between Greenwich Village and Chelsea. They have continuously housed both residential tenants and businesses, reflecting the evolving commercial character of Eighth Avenue. Over the course of centuries, the original storefront configuration of the ground floor has had several alterations, most notably the historic 1940 arcaded shop front.

These row houses are intact above its storefront and exhibits all of the attributes of Federal style houses of the era. The building has a steeply pitched roof with double dormer windows, shares a party wall and central chimney with its neighbor, and a façade clad in Flemish bond brickwork. The windows on the second and third floors have flat stone lintels and sills. No. 145, together with 147 Eighth Avenue is among the rare extant significantly intact Federal style houses with a commercial ground floor that have survived north of 14th Street.

Early History of the Site

Prior to the arrival of European fur traders and the Dutch West India Company, Manhattan and much of the modern-day tri-state area were populated by bands of Lenape Indians. The Lenape traveled from one encampment to another with the seasons. Fishing camps along the river were occupied in the summer and inland camps were used during the fall and winter to harvest crops and hunt. In 1626, Dutch West India Company Director Peter Minuit “purchased” the island from the Lenape for sixty guilders worth of trade goods. Under the Dutch, the area along this portion of the Hudson River shoreline, the current west side of midtown Manhattan, was divided into a series of large farms, which continued through the 18th century. In the 19th century, the area was described as a largely rural space of market gardens, and estates.

During the early 19th century, a vast portion of the area was under the ownership of George Rapelje, son of one of the earliest Dutch settlers of New York, Joris Rapelje. George Rapelje purchased the tract from James Rivington in 1790.2 Rivington according to the 1790 census owned eight slaves. The tract was roughly bounded by 18th Street to the north, 16th Street to the south, Fitzroy Road (Seventh Avenue) to the east, and Tenth Avenue to the west. The Rapelje family owned slaves. George Rapelje mentioned owning two slaves and recalled a man named Shadrach that his family owned in his narratives.

In 1825, the entire population of New York numbered 166,000 and very few people lived north of 14th Street.4 Gradually however, the west side of Manhattan began attracting new residents, many of them new immigrants looking for less expensive places to live. In May 1825, George Rapelje’s grandson - also named George - and his wife Susanna began to sell sections of farm land as development tracts.5

The neighborhood of Chelsea was once a village in Manhattan, in the 18th and 19th centuries the island consisted of a series of small villages, that later, all became an indistinguishable part of the metropolis. No. 145 Eighth Avenue sits in a small area situated between Greenwich Village to the south, the then-suburb of Chelsea to the north and Paisley Place to the east. Today this area is widely considered to be a part of the neighborhood of Chelsea.

Chelsea

Captain Thomas Clarke, veteran of the French and Indian Wars, built a house on a hill overlooking the Hudson, and called it Chelsea---in reference to London’s Royal Chelsea Hospital for old soldiers. The family resided here until fire destroyed the building a short time later. The house was rebuilt by his wife, who lived there until her death in 1802, when the building became the property of her grandson, Clement Clarke Moore, who expanded his estate from 19th Street to 24th Street, from 8th Avenue to the Hudson River.7 Clement Clarke Moore, whose father Benjamin Moore was president of Columbia College, received an advanced degree there in 1801. He inherited the estate in 1809, living the life of the landed gentleman, enjoying his extensive property, and dabbling in politics through the writing of several political pamphlets, as well as the first American-produced lexicon of the Hebrew language. The owner of a large estate, Moore held slaves at this time.

Flourishing domestic and foreign trade brought prosperity and population growth to New York. The population grew from 124,000 in 1820 to 203,000 in 1830. To accommodate this growth, Chelsea’s isolation as a small village ended by 1835, as detached mansions on separate estates were developed with many new, smaller homes. Moore began opening streets and avenues through his Chelsea property, and used covenants and agreements to control the plans and appearance of new houses.8 Moore sought and achieved a pleasing variety of stylistic, detail within a harmonious uniformity of building dimensions, materials, quality of construction, and relations of buildings to each other and to the streetscape. Later covenants gave a detailed list of prohibited uses, including "any kind of manufacturing, trade or business whatever which may in any ways be noxious to the neighboring inhabitants." Still later, the covenant would prohibit the use of a building for "what is generally termed a community or tenement house.”9

By 1830 a community had developed near the General Theological Seminary, around Chelsea Square, including many tenants of Clement Moore.10 The seminary was growing and began to add more buildings. They started a Sunday school for local children, and in 1831 St. Peter’s Church was organized. Clement Moore was a major contributor to St. Peter’s new building, which was constructed in 1836-7. From 1831­1840 more than 500,000 immigrants came to New York; many settled in Chelsea, and were generally of British descent.11

During the boom years of the early 1830s development started moving north in Manhattan at an unprecedented pace. It was temporarily stopped by the Panic of 1837, but continued again by the early 1840s. Huge numbers of people were moving to the city and speculators began to build long rows of townhouses for well-to-do businessmen.12 As the population increased, commercial activity moved into previously residential areas, forcing residential growth northward. This was the beginning of major development in Chelsea.

As Chelsea developed in the 1840s, it appears that the character of the neighborhood changed from block to block. The Hudson Railroad laid tracks along 10th and 11th Avenues (in 1847), bringing light industry to the area. Factories were locating west of 10th Avenue and those who worked in them settled in tenements nearby. Gradually more and more of the marshy land west of 10th Avenue was filled in, creating more inexpensive land that became home to many of the city’s recent immigrants, including a large group of Irish workers. The city’s first stagecoach line began in 1838 and ran on Broadway from South Ferry to 23rd Street and 9th Avenue, increasing Chelsea’s accessibility. Large estate houses began to give way to smaller homes built along the newly-opened streets.

Although much of Chelsea was developed with an eye toward wealthy and middle-class families, they did not stay long in the area and less-affluent, often Irish-Catholic families took their places.13 A quote from a local newspaper in 1855 stated: “Recent neighborhood changes had not helped make Chelsea the court end of town. Tongues very different from English were heard on its streets.”14

During much of the 20th century, the area became less affluent. With the construction of Pennsylvania Station just to the north, more factories and warehouses located nearby and residential units were taken over by less fortunate residents.

Eighth Avenue

Although Eighth Avenue has different names at different points in Manhattan, it is one uninterrupted span of road. The New York Commissioners adopted a plan that established a street and avenue grid system in 1811. It was not until 1835, however, that the avenues were regulated and extended northward to 155th Street. Eighth Avenue was one of the first avenues under construction; its first section was completed in 1816. This section was initially intended to connect with Hudson Street and run to the Hudson River, however, the Commissioners decided Eighth Avenue would extend from Greenwich Lane to Old Road at 121st Street; it would later be extended approximately to the Harlem River.

As parts of northern Manhattan developed Eighth Avenue became one of the major thoroughfares to the commercial part of the city, allowing citizens that had moved to other parts of the island easy access to jobs and other commercial interests.17 Eighth Avenue developed as a commercial center for the middle west side of Manhattan and was considered the middle west side's "Main Street." During the early 1900s the section of Eighth Avenue between 17th and 23rd Streets was considered “The Bowery of the West Side; because, after dark it was one of the liveliest and noisiest streets in town.”18

Construction, 19th Century Ownership and Tenancy of the 145 Eighth Avenue House19

In 1827, dry goods merchant Aaron Dexter purchased two lots north of 17th Street.20

Dexter constructed 145 Eighth Avenue in 1827-28 and conducted business there for close to twenty years before selling the property in 1846.21 No. 145 Eighth Avenue was built for commercial as well as residential use. Over the years, the property changed hands several times.22 According to census records, there is no evidence that Dexter was ever a slave owner. In 1846 the property was acquired by Elizabeth Montgomery. Dr. C. Dixon Varley purchased the property in 1852. He was a graduate of New York University Medical School, treasurer of the Alumni Association, and a founding member of the Church of the Holy Apostles (Protestant Episcopal). While it is not known whether or not Dr. Varley practiced medicine here, he owned the property for thirty-five years, and upon his death in April of 1887, the property went to his heirs and remained in the family until 1925.23

From the 1850s to the present, 145 Eighth Avenue was rented to a variety of tradesmen and laborers and their families. As noted by Elizabeth Blackmar in her book Manhattan for Rent, 1785-1850, these households often included lodgers who helped pay the rent.24 From 1850 until 1870 it was the address of the studio of renowned portraitist and photographer Fernando Dessaur.25 Another photographer named Roya also rented studio space here in the 1930s.26

Later History

There has been a steady stream of commercial tenants housed in the ground-floor storefront of 145 Eighth Avenue. The original owner operated a shoe store well into the 1840s; Murray’s Shoes occupied the ground floor from 1929 to 1937; Sundial Shoes from 1938 to 1949.27 The earliest known images of the house are a 1937 photograph by an unknown photographer28 and the c.1940 tax photograph. At that time, the red brick building was strikingly similar to the house-shops of the early nineteenth century.

In 1931 Oscar Hanpachian acquired this property, but later lost it to foreclosure. It is listed as his address however, well into the late 1960s. Harry ZaZula leased the property in 1940 and purchased the property in 1944.29 A New York City Buildings Department application was filed in 1940 to alter the storefront. Mr. ZaZula is listed as the lessee and the arcaded shop front is credited to this period.30 He and his wife Anna owned the property until 1975.

No. 145 Eighth Avenue contains an historic arcaded shop front, which was typically found in upscale shops along Fifth Avenue in Manhattan. The arcaded shop front was first introduced in 1925 at the Exposition des Arts Decoratifs in Paris. This new configuration increased the linear amount of show window by recessing the entrance and linking the resulting exterior passageway with display windows.31 The increase in the popularity of the arcaded shop front was fueled by retail businesses trying to attract middle-class buyers, whose tastes for luxury items increased due to a booming economy and expanded European travel. The arcaded shop front was well suited to mass merchandizing establishments, the window shopper could peruse potential purchases from the passage, away from street, yet protected from the elements. Several different type of businesses exploited this display configuration, including booksellers, shoe stores, perfumers, cosmeticians, and beauticians.32

Federal Style Rowhouses in Manhattan

As the city of New York grew in the period after the Revolution, large plots of land in Manhattan were sold and subdivided for the construction of groups of brick-clad houses. Their architectural style has been called “Federal” after the new republic, but in form and detail they continued the Georgian style of Great Britain. Federal style houses were constructed from the Battery as far north as 23rd Street between the 1790s and 1830s.

The size of the lot dictated the size of the house: typically each house lot was 20 or 25 feet wide by 90 to 100 feet deep, which accorded with the rectilinear plan of New York City, laid out in 1807 and adopted as the Commissioners’ Plan in 1811. The rowhouse itself was as wide as the lot, and 35 to 40 feet deep. This allowed for a stoop and small front yard or areaway, and a fairly spacious rear yard, which usually contained a buried cistern to collect fresh water and the privy.

During the early 19th century, several houses were often constructed together, sharing common party walls, chimneys, and roof timbering to form a continuous group. The houses were of load-bearing masonry construction or modified timber-frame construction with brick-clad front facades. With shared structural framing and party walls, each house in a row was dependent on its neighbor for structural stability.

With the increasing availability of pattern books, such as Asher Benjamin’s American Builders Companion (published in six editions between 1806 and 1827), local builders had access to drawings and instructions for exterior and interior plans and details. Federal style rowhouses usually had a three-bay facade with two full stories over a high basement and an additional half story under a peaked roof with the ridge line running parallel to the front facade. (Very modest houses were sometimes two bays wide, while grander houses had three full stories, and could be up to five bays wide). The front (and sometimes rear) facade was usually clad in red brick laid in the Flemish bond pattern, which alternated a stretcher and a header in every row. This system allowed the linking of the more expensive face brick with the cheaper, rougher brick behind. Walls were usually two “wythes,” or eight inches, thick. Because brick was fabricated by hand in molds (rather than by machine), it was relatively porous. To protect the brick surface and slow water penetration, facades were often painted.

The planar quality of Federal style facades was relieved by ornament in the form of lintels, entrances, stoops with iron railings, cornices, and dormers. Doorway and window lintels, seen in a variety of types (flat, incised or molded), were commonly brownstone. The most ornamental feature was the doorway, often framed with columns and sidelights and topped with a rectangular transom or fanlight, and having a single wooden paneled door. The entrance was usually raised and approached by a stoop – a flight of brownstone steps placed to one side of the facade – which created a basement level below the parlor floor. Commercial structures retained the simple detailing but with minor variations. The raised entry was usually eliminated in favor of a ground story entrance which provided access to residential accommodations at the upper stories and ground story shop for customer convenience. Window openings at the parlor and second stories were usually the same height (the size sometimes diminished on the third story) and were aligned and the same width from story to story. The wood-framed sash was double-hung and multi-light (typically six-over-six). Shutters were common on the exterior, a wooden box cornice with a molded fascia extended across the front along the eave, which carried a built-in gutter. A leader head and downspout that drained onto the sidewalk extended down the facade on the opposite side from the doorway. Pedimented or segmental dormers on the front roof slope usually had decorative wood trim, and the top sashes were often arched with decorative muntins. Typically, the roof was covered with continuous wood sheathing over the rafters and clad in slate.

Significant remaining features of the modest 21-foot-wide and 3-1/2-story rowhouse at 145 Eighth Avenue characteristic of the Federal style are its brick cladding, fenestration pattern on the second story, simple brownstone lintels and sills, peaked roof, molded cornice, and pedimented dormer. Given the lack of a raised basement and stoop, it is likely that there was originally a shop on the ground story, common on such modest houses in this period and vicinity.

The earliest known depiction of the house is a c. 1937 photograph; at that time the building had a version of the current ground-story configuration with flanking display window, recessed central entrance, and a secondary entrance to the left to the residential floors. Despite some alterations, 145 Eighth Avenue, notable singly and as part of a pair along with 147 Eighth Avenue, is among the relatively rare surviving and significantly intact Manhattan buildings of the Federal style period. In particular, it is a very rare surviving modest Federal style rowhouse of the 3-1/2-story, 3­bay, double-dormers and peaked-roof type, with a commercial ground story. Its survival is particularly noticeable on a commercial thoroughfare north of 14th Street. 34

Description: 145 Eighth Avenue

The modest 21-foot-wide 3 and 1/2 story row house at 145 Eighth Avenue retains characteristics of the Federal style: Flemish bond brick cladding, side entrance and evenly-spaced second-and third-floor windows with simple stone sills, and a steeply pitched roof with two dormer windows. Given the lack of a raised basement and stoop and its location on a historically busy thoroughfare it is likely that there was originally a shop on the ground floor. The current appearance shows the historic 1940 configuration.

The ground floor storefront has a tripartite division including a deeply recessed central store entrance with a single wood-and-glass door with transom reached by a passage-way from the street. Flanking angled display windows that run the depth of the passage-way, feature seamless glazing and metal casing. The left side culminates in a protruding hexagonal display case. Both glass display cases rest on concrete and glazed metal bulkheads, with non-historic metal basement access doors in front of the northern display window.

The floor of the passage-way is clad in alternating light and dark terra­cotta colored glazed tile, outlined in the darker tile. The entrance to the upper floors at the southern bay is deeply inset within a molded wood reveal. The wood and multi-light door sits on a single stone step and is topped by a denticulated wood cornice and a stained glass transom. The pediment above the door has been removed. A continuous canvas box awning runs the entire width at the top of the ground floor. Throughout the second and third story levels are one-over-one double-hung replacement windows with shaved lintels. Two pedimented dormers are clad in metal siding, with one over-one double-hung replacement windows. The main part of the building is capped by a wood cornice with a plain wide frieze. The building shares a chimney that has been parged, with the building to the north. A metal fire escape extends up the north side of the façade, from the second floor to the dormer window.

Description 147 Eighth Avenue

The modest 21-foot-wide 3 1/2 story row house at 147 Eighth Avenue retains characteristics of the Federal style: Flemish bond brick cladding, side entrance and evenly-spaced second-and third-floor windows with simple stone sills, and a steeply pitched roof with twin dormer windows.

Given the lack of a raised basement and stoop and the buildings location on a historically busy thoroughfare it is likely that there was originally a shop on the ground floor. The store front has had several alterations. In 1914 the storefront was moved flush with the front building line.28 The current modern ground floor storefront has been totally re-configured. The entire storefront is made of seamless glass; the storefront entrance was recessed and relocated to southern part of the facade, and the display window that rests on a wood and concrete bulkhead, with non-historic metal basement access doors in front of a display window.29

The entrance to the upper floors consists of a non-historic wood door up one stone step with a non-historic light fixture above. Above the storefront non-historic metal awning housing contains light boxes and runs the width of the storefront. The northern façade is partially obscured by neighboring buildings at the first and second floors; the upper part of this façade retains the shadow of an earlier building showing eaves and wooden anchors. The stone lintels have been shaved and the one-over-one double-hung windows have been replaced throughout. The roof and two pedimented dormers are clad in tar, with one-over-one double-hung windows. The shared chimney with 145 Eighth Avenue has been parged. A non-historic metal-and-glass skylight sits just above and between the two dormers.

- From the 2009 NYCLPC Landmark Designation Report

New configuration, new category and new factory. "She takes after Auntie Giulia !"

1972 - 1984

1.186 cc

4 Cylinder Boxer

63 cv @ 6.000 rpm

83 Nm @ 3.500 rpm

Vmax : 152 km/h

920 kg

900.925 ex. (Alfasud)

Museo Storico Alfa-Romeo

Viale Alfa-Romeo

Arese

Italy - Italia

November 2018

An Atlas-D rocket in Mercury-Atlas Configuration is on display at Kennedy Space Center.

Atlas LV-3B

The Atlas LV-3B, Atlas D Mercury Launch Vehicle or Mercury-Atlas Launch Vehicle, was a human-rated expendable launch system used as part of the United States Project Mercury to send astronauts into low Earth orbit. Manufactured by American aircraft manufacturing company Convair, it was derived from the SM-65D Atlas missile, and was a member of the Atlas family of rockets.

The Atlas D missile was the natural choice for Project Mercury since it was the only launch vehicle in the US arsenal that could put the spacecraft into orbit and also had a large number of flights to gather data from. But its reliability was far from perfect and Atlas launches ending in explosions were an all-too common sight at Cape Canaveral. Thus, significant steps had to be taken to human-rate the missile and make it safe and reliable unless NASA wished to spend several years developing a dedicated launch vehicle for crewed programs or else wait for the next-generation Titan II ICBM to become operational. Atlas’s stage-and-a-half configuration was seen as somewhat preferable to the two stage Titan in that all engines were ignited at liftoff, making it easier to test for hardware problems during prelaunch checks.

Shortly after being chosen for the program in early 1959, the Mercury astronauts were taken to watch the second D-series Atlas test, which exploded a minute into launch. This was the fifth straight complete or partial Atlas failure and the booster was at this point nowhere near reliable enough to carry a nuclear warhead or an uncrewed satellite, let alone a human passenger. Plans to human-rate Atlas were effectively still on the drawing board and Convair estimated that 75% reliability would be achieved by early 1961 and 85% reliability by the end of the year.

•General Specifications:

oFunction: Crewed Expendable Launch System

oManufacturer: Convair

oCountry of Origin: United States

•Size:

oHeight: 28.7 meters (94.3 ft)

oDiameter: 3.0 meters (10.0 ft); Width Over Boost Fairing: 4.9 meters (16 ft)

oMass: 120,000 kilograms (260,000 lb)

oStages: 1½

•Capacity:

oPayload to LEO: 1,360 kilograms (3,000 lb)

•Launch History:

oStatus: Retired

oLaunch Sites: CCAFS LC-14

oTotal Launches: 9

oSuccesses: 7

oFailures: 2

oFirst Flight: July 29, 1960

oLast Flight: May 15, 1963

•Boosters:

oNumber of Boosters: 1

oEngines: 2

oThrust: 1,517.4 kilonewtons (341,130 lbf)

oBurn Time: 134 seconds

oFuel: RP-1/LOX

•First Stage:

oDiameter: 3.0 meters (10.0 ft)

oEngines: 1

oThrust: 363.22 kilonewtons (81,655 lbf)

oBurn Time: 5 minutes

oFuel: RP-1/LOX

Quality Assurance

Aside from the modifications described below, Convair set aside a separate assembly line dedicated to Mercury-Atlas vehicles which was staffed by personnel who received special orientation and training on the importance of the crewed space program and the need for as high quality workmanship as possible. Components used in the Mercury-Atlas vehicles were given thorough testing to ensure proper manufacturing quality and operating condition, in addition components and subsystems with excessive operating hours, out-of-specification performance, and questionable inspection records would be rejected. All components approved for the Mercury program were earmarked and stored separately from hardware intended for other Atlas programs and special handling procedures were done to protect them from damage.

Propulsion systems used for the Mercury vehicles would be limited to standard D-series Atlas models of the Rocketdyne MA-2 engines which had been tested and found to have performance parameters closely matching NASA’s specifications.

All launch vehicles would have to be complete and fully flight-ready at delivery to Cape Canaveral with no missing components or unscheduled modifications/upgrades. After delivery, a comprehensive inspection of the booster would be undertaken and prior to launch, a flight review board would convene to approve each booster as flight-ready. The review board would conduct an overview of all prelaunch checks, and hardware repairs/modifications. In addition, Atlas flights over the past few months in both NASA and Air Force programs would be reviewed to make sure no failures occurred involving any components or procedures relevant to Project Mercury.

The NASA Quality Assurance Program meant that each Mercury-Atlas vehicle took twice as long to manufacture and assemble as an Atlas designed for uncrewed missions and three times as long to test and verify for flight.

Systems Modified

Abort Sensor

Central to these efforts was the development of the Abort Sensing and Implementation System (ASIS), which would detect malfunctions in the Atlas’s various components and trigger a launch abort if necessary. Added redundancy was built in; if ASIS itself failed, the loss of power would also trigger an abort. The system was tested on a few Atlas ICBM flights prior to Mercury-Atlas 1 in July 1960, where it was operated open-loop (MA-3 in April 1961 would be the first closed-loop flight).

The Mercury launch escape system (LES) used on Redstone and Atlas launches was identical, but the ASIS system varied considerably between the two boosters as Atlas was a much larger, more complex vehicle with five engines, two of which were jettisoned during flight, a more sophisticated guidance system, and inflated balloon tanks that required constant pressure to not collapse.

Atlas flight test data was used to draw up a list of the most likely failure modes for the D-series vehicles, however simplicity reasons dictated that only a limited number of booster parameters could be monitored. An abort could be triggered by the following conditions, all of which could be indicative of a catastrophic failure:

•The booster flight path deviated too far from the planned trajectory

•Engine thrust or hydraulic pressure dropped below a certain level

•Propellant tank pressure dropped below a certain level

•The intermediate tank bulkhead showed signs of losing structural integrity

•The booster electrical system ceased operating

•The ASIS system ceased operating

Some failure modes such as an erroneous flight path did not necessarily pose an immediate danger to the astronaut’s safety and the flight could be terminated via a manual command from the ground (e.g. Mercury-Atlas 3). Other failure modes such as loss of engine thrust in the first few moments of liftoff required an immediate abort signal as there would be little or no time to command a manual abort.

An overview of failed Atlas test flights showed that there were only a few times that malfunctions occurred suddenly and without prior warning, for instance on Missile 6B when one turbopump failed 80 seconds into the launch. Otherwise, most failures were preceded by obvious deviations from the booster’s normal operating parameters. Automatic abort was only necessary in a situation like Atlas 6B where the failure happened so fast that there would be no time for a manual abort and most failure modes left enough time for the astronaut or ground controllers to manually activate the LES. A bigger concern was setting up the abort system so as to not go off when normal, minor performance deviations occurred.

Rate Gyros

The rate gyro package was placed much closer to the forward section of the LOX tank due to the Mercury/LES combination being considerably longer than a warhead and thus producing different aerodynamic characteristics (the standard Atlas D gyro package was still retained on the vehicle for the use of the ASIS). Mercury-Atlas 5 also added a new reliability feature—motion sensors to ensure proper operation of the gyroscopes prior to launch. This idea had originally been conceived when the first Atlas B launch in 1958 went out of control and destroyed itself after ground crews forgot to power on the gyroscope motors during prelaunch preparation, but it was phased into Atlas vehicles only gradually. One other Atlas missile test in 1961 also destroyed itself during launch, in that case because the gyroscope motor speed was too low. The motion sensors would thus eliminate this failure mode.

Range Safety

The range safety system was also modified for the Mercury program. There would be a three-second delay between engine cutoff and activation of the destruct charges so as to give the LES time to pull the capsule to safety. The ASIS system could not terminate engine thrust for the first 30 seconds of flight in order to prevent a malfunctioning launch vehicle from coming down on or around the pad area; during this time only the Range Safety Officer could send a manual cutoff command.

Autopilot

The old-fashioned electromechanical autopilot on the Atlas (known as the “round” autopilot due to the shape of the containers its major components were housed in) was replaced by a solid-state model (the “square” autopilot) that was more compact and easier to service, but it would prove a serious headache to debug and man-rate. On Mercury-Atlas 1, the autopilot system functioned well until launch vehicle destruction a minute into the flight. On Mercury-Atlas 2, there was a fair bit of missile bending and propellant slosh. Mercury-Atlas 3 completely failed and had to be destroyed shortly after launch when the booster did not perform the pitch and roll maneuver. After this debacle, the programmer was recovered and examined. Several causes were proposed including contamination of pins in the programmer or perhaps a transient voltage. The autopilot was extensively redesigned, but Mercury-Atlas 4 still had high vibration levels for the first 20 seconds of launch which led to further modifications. Finally on Mercury-Atlas 5, the autopilot worked perfectly.

Antenna

The guidance antenna was modified to reduce signal interference.

LOX Boil-Off Valve

Mercury-Atlas vehicles utilized the boil-off valve from the C-series Atlas rather than the standard D-series valve for reliability and weight-saving reasons.

Combustion Sensors

Combustion instability was an important problem that needed to be fixed. Although it mostly only occurred in static firing tests of the MA-2 engines, three launches (Missiles 3D, 51D, and 48D) had demonstrated that unstable thrust in one engine could result in immediate, catastrophic failure of the entire missile as the engine backfired and ruptured, leading to a thrust section fire. On Missile 3D, this had occurred in flight after a propellant leak starved one booster engine of LOX and led to reduced, unstable thrust and engine failure. The other two launches suffered rough combustion at engine start, ending in explosions that severely damaged the launch stand. Thus, it was decided to install extra sensors in the engines to monitor combustion levels and the booster would also be held down on the pad for a few moments after ignition to ensure smooth thrust. The engines would also use a “wet start”, meaning that the propellants were injected into the combustion chamber prior to igniter activation as opposed to a “dry start” where the igniter was activated first, which would eliminate rough ignition (51D and 48D had both used dry starts). If the booster failed the check, it would be automatically shut down. Once again, these upgrades required testing on Atlas R&D flights. By late 1961, after a third missile (27E) had exploded on the pad from combustion instability, Convair developed a significantly upgraded propulsion system that featured baffled fuel injectors and a hypergolic igniter in place of the pyrotechnic method, but NASA was unwilling to jeopardize John Glenn’s upcoming flight with these untested modifications and so declined to have them installed in Mercury-Atlas 6’s booster. As such, that and Scott Carpenter’s flight on MA-7 used the old-style Atlas propulsion system and the new variant was not employed until Wally Schirra’s flight late in 1962.

Static testing of Rocketdyne engines had produced high-frequency combustion instability, in what was known as the “racetrack” effect where burning propellant would swirl around the injector head, eventually destroying it from shock waves. On the launches of Atlas 51D and 48D, the failures were caused by low-order rough combustion that ruptured the injector head and LOX dome, causing a thrust section fire that led to eventual complete loss of the missile. The exact reason for the back-to-back combustion instability failures on 51D and 48D was not determined with certainty, although several causes were proposed. This problem was resolved by installing baffles in the injector head to break up swirling propellant, at the expense of some performance as the baffles added additional weight reduced the number of injector holes that propellants were sprayed through. The lessons learned with the Atlas program later proved vital to the development of the much larger Saturn F-1 engine.

Electrical System

Added redundancy was made to the propulsion system electrical circuitry to ensure that SECO would occur on time and when commanded. The LOX fuel feed system received added wiring redundancy to ensure that the propellant valves would open in the proper sequence during engine start.

Tank Bulkhead

Mercury vehicles up to MA-6 had foam insulation in the intermediate bulkhead to prevent the super-chilled LOX from causing the RP-1 to freeze. During repairs to MA-6 prior to John Glenn’s flight, it was decided to remove the insulation for being unnecessary and an impediment during servicing of the boosters in the field. NASA sent out a memo to GD/A requesting that subsequent Mercury-Atlas vehicles not include bulkhead insulation.

LOX Turbopump

In early 1962, two static engine tests and one launch (Missile 11F) fell victim to LOX turbopump explosions caused by the impeller blades rubbing against the metal casing of the pump and creating a friction spark. This happened after over three years of Atlas flights without any turbopump issues and it was not clear why the rubbing occurred, but all episodes of this happened when the sustainer inlet valve was moving to the flight-ready “open” position and while running untested hardware modifications. A plastic liner was added to the LOX turbopump to prevent friction rubbing. In addition Atlas 113D, the booster used for Wally Schirra’s flight, was given a PFRT (Pre-Flight Readiness Test) to verify proper functionality of the propulsion system.

Pneumatic System

Mercury vehicles used a standard D-series Atlas pneumatic system, although studies were conducted over the cause of tank pressure fluctuation which was known to occur under certain payload conditions. These studies found that the helium regulator used on early D-series vehicles had a tendency to induce resonant vibration during launch, but several modifications to the pneumatic system had been made since then, including the use of a newer model regulator that did not produce this effect.

Propellant Utilization System

In the event that the guidance system failed to issue the discreet cutoff command to the sustainer engine and it burned to propellant depletion, there was the possibility of a LOX-rich shutdown which could result in damage to engine components from high temperatures. For safety reasons, the PU system was modified to increase the LOX flow to the sustainer engine ten seconds before SECO. This was to ensure that the LOX supply would be completely exhausted at SECO and prevent a LOX-rich shutdown.

Skin

After MA-1 was destroyed in-flight due to a structural failure, NASA began requesting that Convair deliver Atlases with thicker skin. Atlas 10D (as well as its backup vehicle 20D which was later used for the first Atlas-Able flight), the booster used for the Big Joe test in September 1959, had sported thick skin and verified that this was needed for the heavy Mercury capsule. Atlas 100D would be the first thick-skinned booster delivered while in the meantime, MA-2’s booster (67D) which was still a thin-skinned model, had to be equipped with a steel reinforcement band at the interface between the capsule and the booster. Under original plans, Atlas 77D was to have been the booster used for MA-3. It received its factory rollout inspection in September 1960, but shortly afterwards, the postflight findings for MA-1 came out which led to the thin-skinned 77D being recalled and replaced by 100D.

Guidance

The vernier solo phase, which would be used on ICBMs to fine-tune the missile velocity after sustainer cutoff, was eliminated from the guidance program in the interest of simplicity as well as improved performance and lift capacity. Since orbital flights required an extremely different flight path from missiles, the guidance antennas had to be completely redesigned to ensure maximum signal strength. The posigrade rocket motors on the top of the Atlas, designed to push the spent missile away from the warhead, were moved to the Mercury capsule itself. This also necessitated adding a fiberglass insulation shield to the LOX tank dome so it wouldn’t be ruptured by the rocket motors.

Engine Alignment

A common and normally harmless phenomenon on Atlas vehicles was the tendency of the booster to develop a slight roll in the first few seconds following liftoff due to the autopilot not kicking in yet. On a few flights however, the booster developed enough rolling motion to potentially trigger an abort condition if it had been a crewed launch. Although some roll was naturally imparted by the Atlas’s turbine exhaust, this could not account for the entire problem which instead had more to do with engine alignment. Acceptance data from the engine supplier (Rocketdyne) showed that a group of 81 engines had an average roll movement in the same direction of approximately the same magnitude as that experienced in flight. Although the acceptance test-stand and flight-experience data on individual engines did not correlate, it was determined that offsetting the alignment of the booster engines could counteract this roll motion and minimize the roll tendency at liftoff. After Schirra’s Mercury flight did experience momentary roll problems early in the launch, the change was incorporated into Gordon Cooper’s booster on MA-9.

Launches

Nine LV-3Bs were launched, two on uncrewed suborbital test flights, three on uncrewed orbital test flights, and four with crewed Mercury spacecraft. Atlas LV-3B launches were conducted from Launch Complex 14 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida.

It first flew on July 29, 1960, conducting the suborbital Mercury-Atlas 1 test flight. The rocket suffered a structural failure shortly after launch, and as a result failed to place the spacecraft onto its intended trajectory. In addition to the maiden flight, the first orbital launch, Mercury-Atlas 3 also failed. This failure was due to a problem with the guidance system failing to execute pitch and roll commands, necessitating that the Range Safety Officer destroy the vehicle. The spacecraft separated by means of its launch escape system and was recovered 1.8 kilometers (1.1 mi) from the launch pad.

A further series of Mercury launches was planned, which would have used additional LV-3Bs; however these flights were canceled after the success of the initial Mercury missions. The last LV-3B launch was conducted on 15 May 1963, for the launch of Mercury-Atlas 9. NASA originally planned to use leftover LV-3B vehicles to launch Gemini-Agena Target Vehicles, however an increase in funding during 1964 meant that the agency could afford to buy brand-new Atlas SLV-3 vehicles instead, so the idea was scrapped.

Mercury-Atlas Vehicles Built and Eventual Disposition

•10D—Launched Big Joe 9/14/59

•20D—Backup vehicle for Big Joe. Reassigned to Atlas-Able program and launched 11/26/59.

•50D—Launched Mercury-Atlas 1 7/29/60

•67D—Launched Mercury-Atlas 2 2/21/61

•77D—Original launch vehicle for Mercury-Atlas 3, replaced by Atlas 100D after postflight findings from Mercury-Atlas 1

•88D—Launched Mercury-Atlas 4 9/13/61

•93D—Launched Mercury-Atlas 5 11/29/61

•100D—Launched Mercury-Atlas 3 4/25/61

•103D—Cancelled

•107D—Launched Aurora 7 (Mercury-Atlas 7) 5/24/62

•109D—Launched Friendship 7 (Mercury-Atlas 6) 2/21/62

•113D—Launched Sigma 7 (Mercury-Atlas 8) 10/3/62

•130D—Launched Faith 7 (Mercury-Atlas 9) 5/15/63

•144D—Cancelled, was planned launch vehicle for Mercury-Atlas 10

•152D—Cancelled

•167D—Cancelled

INSTRUCTIONS AVAILABLE FOR P558 SUPERDUTY - MULTIPLE CONFIGURATIONS

On September 24, 2015, Ford unveiled the 2017 Ford Super Duty line at the 2015 State Fair of Texas. he frame is made from 95% high strength steel and the body (like the contemporary F-150) is made from 6000 series aluminum alloy. For the first time since 1999, both the Super Duty and F-150 lines are constructed using the same cab.

For 2017 production, the Super Duty line shares its powertrain lineup with its 2016 predecessor: a 6.2L gasoline V8, 6.8L V10 (F-450 and above), with a 6.7L diesel V8 available in all versions. The 6.2L gasoline V8 engine remains at 385 hp but torque rises from 405 lb-ft to 430 lb-ft. Additionally, the gasoline V8 produces its max torque at over 700 rpm less than the previous 405 lb-ft engine. The 6.7L diesel engine also remains at the same 440 hp (323 kW) but torque increases from 860 lb-ft upwards to 925 lb-ft.

The 2020 Super Duty debuted at the 2019 Chicago Auto Show. It features a revised grille and tailgate design, new wheel options, and higher-quality interior materials for the Limited trim. A new 7.3-liter gasoline engine is available. Nicknamed "Godzilla", it makes 430 horsepower and 475 lb-ft of torque.

Cab configurations continue to be 2-Door Regular Cab, 4-Door Super Cab, and 4-Door Super Crew Cab, with Short Box (6' 9") and Long Box (8') bed lengths. The truck will be available in F-250, F-350, and F-450 pickup truck models, and F-350, F-450, and F-550 chassis cab models. All will be available in both 4X2 and 4X4 configurations. The F-350 will be the only model available in either Single Rear Wheel (SRW) or Dual Rear Wheel (DRW) configurations, the F-450 and F-550 will only be available in a Dual Rear Wheel (DRW) configuration, and the F-250 will only be available in a Single Rear Wheel configuration.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

The Supermarine Spitfire was a British single-seat fighter aircraft used by the Royal Air Force and other Allied countries before, during and after World War II. Many variants of the Spitfire were built, using several wing configurations, and it was produced in greater numbers than any other British aircraft. It was also the only British fighter produced continuously throughout the war.

Since the Taurus-powered Spitfire turned out to be quite ineffective (it was no good either in the fighter or in an alternative ground attack role and 20 mph slower than the comparable Mk. V), production was already stopped in late 1942 after 353 aircraft. At the same time, the Spitfire Mk. IX with a much more powerful Merlin engine entered service, and all resources were immediately allocated to this more potent fighter variant and the idea of the Spitfire with a radial engine was ultimately dropped. Since the Taurus-powered type was quickly phased out of frontline service, the designation was later re-used for a pressurized high-altitude photo reconnaissance variant of the Spitfire, the PR.X, of which only 16 machines were built.

General characteristics:

Crew: one pilot

Length: 29 ft 6 in (9.00 m)

Wingspan: 32 ft 2 in (9.80 m)

Height: 11 ft 5 in (3.86 m)

Wing area: 242.1 ft2 (22.48 m²)

Airfoil: NACA 2213 (root)

NACA 2209.4 (tip)

Empty weight: 5,065 lb (2,297 kg)

Loaded weight: 6,622 lb (3,000 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 6,700 lb (3,039 kg)

Powerplant:

1× Bristol Taurus VI 14-Cylinder sleeve valve radial engine, 1.130 hp (830 kW)

Performance:

Maximum speed: 350 mph (312 kn, 565 km/h)

Combat radius: 410 nmi (470 mi/756 km)

Ferry range: 991 nmi (1,135 mi/1,827 km)

Service ceiling: 36,500 ft (11,125 m)

Rate of climb: 2,535 ft/min (12.9 m/s)

Wing loading: 27.35 lb/ft2 (133.5 kg/m²)

Power/mass: 0.22 hp/lb (0.36 kW/kg)

Armament:

2× 20 mm Hispano Mk II with 60 RPG

4× .303 in Browning Mk II machine guns with 350 RPG

The kit and its assembly:

My third contribution to the “RAF Centenary” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com, and the next one in chronological order. This one was spawned by the simple thought of “What would a Spitfire with a radial engine look like…?”. I have seen this stunt done in the form of a Fw190/Spitfire kitbash – nice result, but it did IMHO just not look like a “real” Spitfire with a radial engine, rather like an Fw 190 with elliptical wings. And the fact that I had already successfully transplanted a Centaurus engine onto a P-51 airframe made me feel positive that the stunt could be done!

Consequently, the conversion was pretty straightforward. The basis is a Revell 1:72 Spitfire VB (1996 mold), which was – except for the nose section – taken OOB. A simple, nice kit, even though it comes with some flaws, like a depression at the rear of the wing/fuselage intersection and the general need for PSR – not much, but I expected a better fit for such a relatively young mold?

For the engine, I used a personal replacement favorite, the cowling and the engine block from a Mitsubishi A6M2 “Zero” (Hasegawa). The Nakajima Sakae radial engine has a relatively small diameter, so that it serves well as a dummy for the compact Bristol Taurus engine – a replacement I have already used for a radial-powered Westland Whirlwind. The other benefit of the small diameter is that it is relatively easy to blend the round front end into the oval and very slender fuselage of the early Spitfire airframe. This was realized through massive body sculpting from scratch with 2C putty, widening the area in front of the cockpit and expanding its width to match the cowling – I guess that real life engineers would have followed a similar, simple path.

Since the radial engine would not need a radiator, I simple omitted this piece (cut out from the single piece lower wing half) and faired the respective underwing area over with a piece of styrene sheet and PSR. The asymmetrical oil cooler was retained, though. The propeller is a replacement from the scrap box, with a smaller diameter spinner and more slender blades which better suit the open cowling.

Since the Taurus had its best performance at low altitudes, I used the Revell kit’s OOB option of clipped wing tips – a move that makes the aircraft look much faster, esp. with the new, deeper nose section.

Painting and markings:

I did not want classic RAF markings, but still keep the model well within the Centenary GB confines. The original plan had been a classic Dark Green/Ocean Grey livery, which all Spitfire’s in USAAF service and based in the UK received. But I rather wanted to create a frontline aircraft, operated during Operation Torch in late 1942/early 1943 with American roundels – and the grey/green look would not look plausible on a machine taking part in the North African campaign. In fact, any Spitfire with American roundels I found that was used in North Africa carried the RAF Tropical Scheme in Dark Earth/Middle Stone. And, AFAIK, during Operation 'Torch' all British aircraft received American markings in the hope that the Vichy French, who were anti-British due to them bombing their ships in 1940, would switch to the allied cause. They were supposed to think that the Americans would be invading, not British troops as well. So I eventually switched to the classic Tropical Scheme (using Humbrol 29 and Modelmaster 2052 as basic tones), and it does not look bad at all - even though the yellow trim around the roundels does not stand out as much as on a Grey/Green aircraft.

Typically, the RAF codes were retained, as well as – at least during the early phases of Operation Torch – the RAF fin flash. A little personal twist is the pale blue (Humbrol 23, Duck Egg Blue) underside of the aircraft, instead of the typical Azure Blue. The rationale behind is that the Tropical Scheme was originally designed with Sky undersides, and the blue shades were later modifications after initial field experience.

The red spinner is a typical Northern Africa marking, and found on many 5th FS aircraft.

The interior (cockpit, landing gear wells) was painted with RAF Cockpit Green (Modelmaster), while wheels and struts became light grey.

As a standard procedure, the kit received a light black ink wash and a post shading treatment.

The decals were puzzled together from various sheets and sources, the design benchmark was a real USAAF Spitfire Vb from Operation Torch, though. The code letters were taken from an Xtradecal sheet, the roundels come from a Carpena Spitfire sheet, even though I placed American markings in all six positions – the roundels without yellow trim under the wings were taken from a Hobby Boss F6F sheet.

The serial number comes from the Revell kit’s OOB sheet, because it fits perfectly into the kit’s intended time frame. The nose art comes from a P-38 sheet (PrintScale) – not a typical feature for an RAF Spitfire, but a frequent personal decoration among USAAF machines during Operation Torch (e.g. on P-40s).

The Allied yellow ID markings on the wings’ leading edges, which were typically carried by Operation Torch Spitfires, too, were created with generic yellow decal sheet (TL Modellbau), while the maroon machine gun nozzle covers are part of Revell’s OOB sheet.

Finally, the kit received some soot stains around gun and exhaust nozzles, and was finally sealed with matt acrylic varnish.

A bold experiment, and it turned out well. The Zero’s cowling has the perfect diameter for this transplant, and the scratch-sculpted new front fuselage section blends well with the new engine – the whole thing really looks intentional! I am just not certain if the resulting aircraft still deserves the “Spitfire” designation? Even though only the engine was changed, the aircraft looks really different and has a Ki-43ish aura? I guess that a dark green livery and some hinomaru would also look great and pretty plausible?

360 degree image of the Study Zone

Image Disclaimer - Please note that all of the images shown are for illustrative purposes only. The rooms pictured are not necessarily typical of the accommodation available at Murano Street, which can vary in terms of size, configuration, and finish.

The baseline configuration of the Oshkart SMTV (Scalable Medium Tactical Vehicle) family, the Mk601A is the standard two-door 6x6 cargo hauler configuration.

Features include opening doors and top hatch, a cab capable of seating 2 minifigs with body armor and headgear, foldable gunner’s seat, turning front wheels, center-pivoting rear axles, and spare tire with lift arm.

A special thanks needs to be given to Abdullah750Pakistan. This originally started as a project to clean up and make a buildable and more minifig-friendly version of his Ural 63708. As you can see though, it’s turned into a project to create a series of trucks in the same vein of the Oshkosh MTVR, Navistar 7000 MV, and Ural 63704-0010 families.

As with my other builds, all parts used in this are real production pieces.

If you're interested in this build, a file can be found here:

www.bricklink.com/v3/studio/design.page?idModel=230421

The second configuration sacrifices the ability to engage in melee combat in exchange for increased firepower. It is armed with an arm-mounted twin barreled rapid-fire beam gun, an arm-mounted beam cannon, a shoulder-mounted rapid-fire beam gun, and a shoulder-mounted heavy beam cannon (which is able to fold backwards for storage).

Boeing 737 Next Gen - MSN 31135 - N881NN

Airline American Airlines

Country : USA

Date : 1934 -

Codes AA AAL

Callsign : American

Web site : www.aa.com

Serial number31135 LN:3862

Type737-823

First flight date22/11/2011

Test registration

Plane age4.5 years

Seat configuration

Engines2 x CFMI CFM56-7B24

13/12/2011American AirlinesN881NN

The baseline configuration of the Oshkart SMTV (Scalable Medium Tactical Vehicle) family, the Mk601A is the standard two-door 6x6 cargo hauler configuration.

Features include opening doors and top hatch, a cab capable of seating 2 minifigs with body armor and headgear, foldable gunner’s seat, turning front wheels, center-pivoting rear axles, and spare tire with lift arm.

A special thanks needs to be given to Abdullah750Pakistan. This originally started as a project to clean up and make a buildable and more minifig-friendly version of his Ural 63708. As you can see though, it’s turned into a project to create a series of trucks in the same vein of the Oshkosh MTVR, Navistar 7000 MV, and Ural 63704-0010 families.

As with my other builds, all parts used in this are real production pieces.

If you're interested in this build, a file can be found here:

www.bricklink.com/v3/studio/design.page?idModel=230421

Contractor crews are moving into a new phase of construction on the I-5 M Street to Portland Avenue HOV project in Tacoma. As early as the morning of Thursday, Feb. 15, drivers may notice that the southbound I-5 collector distributor lanes are in a new configuration.

The SB I-5 c/d lanes will be shifted to the right, and a workzone will be created in-between the southbound c/d lanes and the three mainline southbound lanes.

The new workzone allows crews to continue removing the original concrete of southbound I-5 and replacing it.

More information on this project is found here:

www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/I5/MStToPortland/default.htm

Keep designs underwent a significant change in the 12th century when square configurations gave way to more rounded forms. But at Chateau Gaillard, Richard the Lionheart’s donjon is in a shape of its own. Its exterior walls are sloped outward. At the front they join and project forward at a sharp angle. This unique form makes it more resistant to projectiles. On the opposite side, the keep backs onto a sheer cliff, making any approach from this side virtually impossible. Inside, Richard I’s last line of defence is a mere eight metres in diameter. The current point of entry is believed to date from a later period, as the original door would have almost certainly been positioned above ground and reached by a ladder or stairway. With no evidence of a fireplace, well, or latrine, it appears that this particular keep was built exclusively for defence.

Battle Castle is an action documentary series starring Dan Snow that is now airing on History Television and is scheduled to premiere on Discovery Knowledge in the UK in Spring 2012 and on various BBC-affiliated channels in the near future.

For the latest air dates, Like us on Facebook (www.battlecastle.com/facebook) or follow us on Twitter (www.twitter.com/battlecastle)

This show brings to life mighty medieval fortifications and the epic sieges they resist: clashes that defy the limits of military technology, turn empires to dust, and transform mortals into legends.

Website: www.battlecastle.tv/

Twitter: www.twitter.com/battlecastle

YouTube: www.youtube.com/battlecastle

Flickr: www.flicker.com/battlecastle

Facebook: www.facebook.com/battlecastle

Castles conjure thoughts of romantic tales, but make no mistake, they are built for war.

Dover: Prince Louis' key to England. Malaga: the Granadans final stronghold. And Crac des Chevaliers: Crown Jewel of Crusader castles. Through dynamic location footage and immersive visual effects, Battle Castle reveals a bloody history of this epic medieval arms race.

As siege weapons and technology become more ruthless, the men who design and built these castles reply ... or perish. Follow host Dan Snow as he explores the military engineering behind these medieval megastructures and the legendary battles that became testaments to their might.

Each episode will climax in the ultimate test of the castle's military engineering -- a siege that will change the course of history. Which castles will be conquered and which will prevail? You'll have to watch to find out.

But the journey doesn't end there --in fact, it's just beginning. Battle Castle extends into a multi-platform quest, taking us deep into the secret world of medieval warfare and strategy. Become the ultimate 'Castle Master'. Stay tuned for more on the Battle Castle experience.

This is a photograph from the 4th and final round of the 2017 Pat Finnerty Memorial 5KM Road League which was held in Belvedere House and Gardens, Mullingar, Co. Westmeath, Ireland on Wednesday 24th May 2017 at 20:00. This is the final round and consequently some of the decisions around the final configuration of the category prizes are still open for resolution. The Road League is promoted and organised by Mulligar Harriers Athletic Club and sponsored by local sponsors including O'Brien's Renault dealership. This is a very well established as an annual event which takes place on every Wednesday night in the month of May. Tonight's weather was absolutely wonderful. Warm summer air filled the Belvedere area as the runners were treated to perfect summer weather. Just under 200 participants took part in the race which runs a traffic free course over a mix of road and hilly forest trail. Congratulations are due to all of the Mullingar Harriers club who put this excellent series together.

Timing and event management was provided by http://www.myrunresults.com/. Their website will contain the results to today's race.

The full set of photographs is available at: www.flickr.com/photos/peterm7/albums/72157684232399025

Can I use these photographs directly from Flickr on my social media account(s)?

Yes - of course you can! Flickr provides several ways to share this and other photographs in this Flickr set. You can share directly to: email, Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, Twitter, Tumblr, LiveJournal, and Wordpress and Blogger blog sites. Your mobile, tablet, or desktop device will also offer you several different options for sharing this photo page on your social media outlets.

BUT..... Wait there a minute....

We take these photographs as a hobby and as a contribution to the running community in Ireland. We do not charge for our photographs. Our only "cost" is that we request that if you are using these images: (1) on social media sites such as Facebook, Tumblr, Pinterest, Twitter,LinkedIn, Google+, VK.com, Vine, Meetup, Tagged, Ask.fm,etc or (2) other websites, blogs, web multimedia, commercial/promotional material that you must provide a link back to our Flickr page to attribute us or acknowledge us as the original photographers.

This also extends to the use of these images for Facebook profile pictures. In these cases please make a separate wall or blog post with a link to our Flickr page. If you do not know how this should be done for Facebook or other social media please email us and we will be happy to help suggest how to link to us.

I want to download these pictures to my computer or device?

You can download this photographic image here directly to your computer or device. This version is the low resolution web-quality image. How to download will vary slight from device to device and from browser to browser. Have a look for a down-arrow symbol or the link to 'View/Download' all sizes. When you click on either of these you will be presented with the option to download the image. Remember just doing a right-click and "save target as" will not work on Flickr.

I want get full resolution, print-quality, copies of these photographs?

If you just need these photographs for online usage then they can be used directly once you respect their Creative Commons license and provide a link back to our Flickr set if you use them. For offline usage and printing all of the photographs posted here on this Flickr set are available free, at no cost, at full image resolution.

Please email petermooney78 AT gmail DOT com with the links to the photographs you would like to obtain a full resolution copy of. We also ask race organisers, media, etc to ask for permission before use of our images for flyers, posters, etc. We reserve the right to refuse a request.

In summary please remember when requesting photographs from us - If you are using the photographs online all we ask is for you to provide a link back to our Flickr set or Flickr pages. You will find the link above clearly outlined in the description text which accompanies this photograph. Taking these photographs and preparing them for online posting takes a significant effort and time. We are not posting photographs to Flickr for commercial reasons. If you really like what we do please spread the link around your social media, send us an email, leave a comment beside the photographs, send us a Flickr email, etc. If you are using the photographs in newspapers or magazines we ask that you mention where the original photograph came from.

I would like to contribute something for your photograph(s)?

Many people offer payment for our photographs. As stated above we do not charge for these photographs. We take these photographs as our contribution to the running community in Ireland. If you feel that the photograph(s) you request are good enough that you would consider paying for their purchase from other photographic providers or in other circumstances we would suggest that you can provide a donation to any of the great charities in Ireland who do work for Cancer Care or Cancer Research in Ireland.

Let's get a bit technical: We use Creative Commons Licensing for these photographs

We use the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License for all our photographs here in this photograph set. What does this mean in reality?

The explaination is very simple.

Attribution- anyone using our photographs gives us an appropriate credit for it. This ensures that people aren't taking our photographs and passing them off as their own. This usually just mean putting a link to our photographs somewhere on your website, blog, or Facebook where other people can see it.

ShareAlike – anyone can use these photographs, and make changes if they like, or incorporate them into a bigger project, but they must make those changes available back to the community under the same terms.

Above all what Creative Commons aims to do is to encourage creative sharing. See some examples of Creative Commons photographs on Flickr: www.flickr.com/creativecommons/

I ran in the race - but my photograph doesn't appear here in your Flickr set! What gives?

As mentioned above we take these photographs as a hobby and as a voluntary contribution to the running community in Ireland. Very often we have actually ran in the same race and then switched to photographer mode after we finished the race. Consequently, we feel that we have no obligations to capture a photograph of every participant in the race. However, we do try our very best to capture as many participants as possible. But this is sometimes not possible for a variety of reasons:

     ►You were hidden behind another participant as you passed our camera

     ►Weather or lighting conditions meant that we had some photographs with blurry content which we did not upload to our Flickr set

     ►There were too many people - some races attract thousands of participants and as amateur photographs we cannot hope to capture photographs of everyone

     ►We simply missed you - sorry about that - we did our best!

You can email us petermooney78 AT gmail DOT com to enquire if we have a photograph of you which didn't make the final Flickr selection for the race. But we cannot promise that there will be photograph there. As alternatives we advise you to contact the race organisers to enquire if there were (1) other photographs taking photographs at the race event or if (2) there were professional commercial sports photographers taking photographs which might have some photographs of you available for purchase. You might find some links for further information above.

Don't like your photograph here?

That's OK! We understand!

If, for any reason, you are not happy or comfortable with your picture appearing here in this photoset on Flickr then please email us at petermooney78 AT gmail DOT com and we will remove it as soon as possible. We give careful consideration to each photograph before uploading.

I want to tell people about these great photographs!

Great! Thank you! The best link to spread the word around is probably http://www.flickr.com/peterm7/sets