Configuration photos on Flickr

www.vividracing.com/blog/vividracing-client-cars/bmw-f85-...

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.

Monogram 1/400 Boeing 2707-200 SST by Bill Abbott

2

The other side of this one.... its a sllightly different configuration of 2707-200 but generally very similar to the Revell double kit that came with one in landing/takeoff configuration (like this. wings forward, AND nose drooped) and the other in high speed cruise configuration- wings swept, nose up. 1/200 and quick big, this "little" kit is no small potatoes. With the Concorde settled into the Mach 2, dumb-old-aluminum 100+ passenger niche, the airliner makers, airlines, FAA and Congress whipped themselves into a fizz with a titanium airframe, 250+ passengers, Mach 3 or better.

The variable geometry "Swing wing" was meant to provide maximum lift at low speeds and minimum drag at high speeds... In the end, the US fielded two VG airplanes, the F-111 and the F-14, the Soviets built three, the Su-17/22 ("FLANKER"?), an evolution of the Su-11, the MiG-23/27 "FLOGGER" family and the Su-24 "FENCER". Panavia's Tornado 200 multirole aircraft for UK, Germany, Italy and (later) Saudi Arabia rounds out the collection.

The weight penalty for swing wings was larger than hoped, and particularly for a commercial airliner. When the airframe detailed design and the GE engine detailed design were done, Boeing had an airplane that could hold the target number of passengers, and could fly the Atlantic- New York to Paris, as required, but not do both at the same time. The transatlantic flight only worked with no passengers or luggage....

If you don't believe my "treehugger" opinion, check out any competent history of Boeing, say Legend and Legacy. At the end of the day, the 2707-300 had a similar fuselage with a fixed wing, just like the Lockheed bid that was rejected for being not high tech enough.

Ok, but I still think the 2707-200 was a beautiful airplane. To be a successful SST, it would have had to be scaled down- same engines with smaller passenger volume, larger fuel volume and possibly greater wing area. I'm pretty fond of the F-14, MiG-23/27, F-111 and Tornado, but we're unlikely to see another plane along these lines built.

DSC_0048

Shotgun Concept by Darthtoa

3 1

The top is the standard configuration, bottom is a longer barrelled model with an attempt at a custom red dot sight.

Made in PMG 0.7

145-147 Eighth Avenue Houses by Emilio Guerra

2

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

Bicol Isarog Transport System Inc. 995 by K_u_L_e_T "Dos"

3

Location: Brgy. Turbina, Calamba City, Laguna

Operator: Bicol Isarog Transport System Inc.

Bus No: 998

Classification: Air Conditioned

Area of Operation: Provincial Operation

Model: Higer KLQ6125

Body: Higer Bus Co. Ltd.

Seating Configuration: 2x2

Transmission: Manual (6 gears forward & 1 reverse)

#TransportPH

BMW F85 X5M on Transparent Light Gold Velos XX 3-Piece Forged Wheels by Vivid Racing

All Velos Designwerks forged wheel styles are available in 1, 2, and 3-piece configurations. The Velos XX wheel is the latest addition to their lineup of custom-made forged wheels. As the anchor for their luxury line, the XX implements 3D-like geometry and unique features that are consistent w...

Atlas-D (37D) in Mercury-Atlas Configuration by Alec Frazier

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

Saulog Transit, Inc. BAR Seating Configuration by Ron Camia

6 1

Operator: Saulog Transit, Inc.

Bus body no.: 71782, 71785, 71784

Manufacturer: BAR (Daewoo Surplus)

Model: Golden Dragon Marcopolo

A/C System: Overhead

Seating Configuration: 2 x 3

Seating Capacity: 56

Route: Cavite City or Ternate - Lawton

Shot Location: Saulog Transit, Inc. Cavite City Terminal

11155 - 2022 NTT IndyCar Series - 30 Christian Lundgaard - Rahal Letterman Lanigan Racing, Shield Cleansers (Road Course Configuration) - high res by GreenLight Collectibles

Configuration God by Khalifa Saud

4 23

SMTV Mk601A Standard (DBG) by Richards McGhee

3

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

Secondary Configuration by Echo_419

1

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).

United Boeing 737-900 landing configuration Fleet Week airshow DSC_0280 (1) by Bill Abbott

5

1:72 Supermarine Spitfire Mk. XVIe Trop (Type 361); aircraft "١٥٤ ﻞ/L 154" of 2nd Squadron, Lebanese Air Force (LAF) (القوات الجوية اللبنانية‎/Al Quwwat al-Jawwiya al-Lubnaniyya); Rayak Air Base, 1951 (Whif/Heller kit conversion) by Dizzyfugu

+++ 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 Supermarine Spitfire is a British single-seat fighter aircraft that was used by the Royal Air Force and many other Allied countries during and after the Second World War. The Spitfire was built in many variants, using several wing configurations, and was produced in greater numbers than any other British aircraft.

The Spitfire was designed as a short-range, high-performance interceptor aircraft by R. J. Mitchell, chief designer at Supermarine Aviation Works (which operated as a subsidiary of Vickers-Armstrong from 1928). In accordance with its role as an interceptor, Mitchell designed the Spitfire's distinctive elliptical wing to have the thinnest possible cross-section; this thin wing enabled the Spitfire to have a higher top speed than several contemporary fighters, including the Hawker Hurricane.

It was the only British fighter to be in continuous production throughout World War II, and remained in service with several air forces around the world for several years. One of its post-war operators was the Lebanese Air Force, or Al Quwwat al-Jawwiya al-Lubnaniyya (لقوات الجوية اللبنانية‎).
The Lebanese Air Force was established in 1949 under the command of then-Lieutenant Colonel Emile Boustany who later became commander of the army. Soon after its establishment, a number of planes were donated by the British, French, and Italian governments, with additional planes donated by Britain and Italy later that same year.

Britain donated 4 Percival Prentices, 2 World War II-era Percival Proctors and seven trpocailized Supermarine Spitfires (six Mk. XVIe and one TR.8 two-seater), while Italy donated 4 Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 bombers which were mainly used for transportation.

The Mk XVI Spitfire was a WWII design, and the last variant powered by a Merlin engine and based on the original, sleek fuselage. It was basically the same as the Mk IX, except for the engine, a Merlin 266. The Merlin 266 was the Merlin 66 and was built under licence in the USA by the Packard Motor Company. The "2" was added as a prefix in order to avoid confusion with the engines, as they required different tooling.

All Mk XVI aircraft produced (a total of 1,054 Mk XVIs left Castle Bromwich) were of the Low-Altitude Fighter (LF) variety. This was not determined by the length of the wings (clipped wings were fitted to most LF Spitfires), but by the engine, which had been optimised for low-altitude operation. All production Mk XVIs had clipped wings for low altitude work and were fitted with the rear fuselage fuel tanks with a combined capacity of 75 gal. Many XVIs featured cut-down rear fuselages with bubble canopies. On these aircraft the rear fuselage tank capacity was limited to 66 gal.

Because of a slightly taller intercooler and rearranged accessories on the Packard Merlins a new, bulged upper cowling was introduced, a detail that also appeared on late production IXs. For the service in the Middel East region the Lebanese machines received dust filters which considerably changed the aircraft's silhouette.

Armament consisted of two 20 mm Hispano II cannons - each with 120 rpg - and two 0.50 calibre Browning machine guns - each with 250 rpg. 1 × 500 lb (227 kg) bomb could be carried underneath the centre rack, and 1 × 250 lb (114 kg) bomb could be slung under each wing. As a special feature, the wing hardpoints of the Lebanese Spitfires were "wet" so that slipper tanks with 24 gal. each could be carried, compensating for the reduces rear fuselage tank due to the bubble canopy's lowered dorsal spine.

The Lebanese Spitfires only saw a short service, since in 1953, jet fighters were introduced when 16 de Havilland Vampire jets were received, and the first Hawker Hunters arrived in 1959, which replaced the obsolete Spitfires. This initial Hunter batch was followed by more Hunters through 1977.

In 1968, 12 Mirage IIIELs were delivered from France but were grounded in the late 1970s due to lack of funds. In 2000, the grounded Mirages were sold to Pakistan, and four Hunters were even revived in 2008 and served until 2014.

General characteristics:

Crew: one pilot

Length: 29 ft 11 in (9.12 m)

Wingspan: 36 ft 10 in (11.23 m)

Height: 11 ft 5 in (3.86 m)

Wing area: 242.1 ft2 (22.48 m2)

Airfoil: 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× Rolls-Royce Merlin 60 supercharged V12 engine,

rated at 1.470 hp (1.096 kW) at 9.250 ft (2.820 m)

Performance:

Maximum speed: 370 mph, (322 kn, 595 km/h)

Combat radius: 410 nmi (470 mi, 760 km)

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

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

Rate of climb: 2,600 ft/min (13.2 m/s)

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

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

Armament:

2x 20mm Hispano Mk II cannon (120 RPG)

2x .5 in Browning machine guns (250 RPG)

Three hardpoints (1 ventral, 1 under each outer wing) for up to 1.000 lb (454 kg).

The kit and its assembly:

This whif is based on a simple idea: how did Lebanon's Air Force start? Small countries make a good whif playground, and I guess that nobody has the Lebanon on his/her list...?

Another factor was that I had some Austrian roundels left in store that could, with a green dot, easily be turned into Lebanese markings. So the theme was quickly settled, but the details take some preparation time, so the idea lingered for some time.

After some legwork I deemed a simple Spitfire with a dust filter worthy as an initial aircraft, and the respective Hobby Boss kit of a Spitfire Mk. VB in the stash came handy.

But somehow this was a bit dull, and at the inception of the Lebanon Air Force there were better option available than an early Mk. V. I still wanted a sleek, Merlin-powered Spitfire variant, though, and eventually settled for the Mk. XVI - with its clipped wings and the bubble canopy it has a very distinctive look.

When a "1 Week group Build" at whatifmodelers.com in the Easter Week 2015 was announced, I took this occassion to build the Lebanese Spitfire.

By that time I already had a basis kit at hand (Heller's Spitfire XVI) as well as some donation parts and decals.

Work was strightforward, the Heller kit was built almost OOB. It's a rather old model kit, with raised panel lines, but good detail. The material is thin, so the built item lacks some structural stability! On the other side, this makes some minor mods really easy: I lowered the flaps and moved the tail rudders slightly off of neutral position. I also opened the cockpit "door" on the left side for later static display, even though the cockpit itself was left OOB. It's a bit "flat", but for the kit's age it's pretty good, and the injected canopy is crystal clear and fits perfectly.

I had some major woes concerning the fit for the forward fuselage, and even more when I tried to mate wings and fuselage: there was a 1mm gap(!) on both sides that had to be bridged with putty, and the thin and flexible material did help much...

Other mods concern the propeller (added a styrene tube and a metal axis for free spin), the radiators (these are molded into the lower wings - sounds horrible, but is made very well and thin, I just added some foamed styrene inside as protective mesh because OOB there's just a blank "box" inside) and the kit received a dust filter - a resin piece taken from a Pavla conversion set for Hawker Hurricanes.

Painting and markings:

While a donated RAF Spitfire would certainly have carried a desert paint scheme in Dark Earth/Mid Stone/Azure Blue or a late WWII Dark Green/Ocean Grey/Light Sea Grey livery I settled for something more individual and effective for the rugged Levantine terrain.

In this case I went for the rarely used RAF 'Tropical Scheme' in Mid Stone/Dark Green from above and with Mediterrenean Blue undersides.

The pattern itself is standard RAF, the upper cammo taken down onto the dust filter's flanks was taken over from RAAF Spitfires during WWII (RAF aircraft would carry a higher waterline, with the filter painted completely in the lower surface's tone). Basic paints are RAF Dark Green from Modelmaster and Humbrol 84 (RAF Mid Stone) - rather authentic. But I used Humbrol 87 (Steel Grey) for the undersides - it's rather intense and has a greenish hue, and by far not as dark as the typical RAF Azure Blue or PRU Blue.

Interior surfaces were painted in RAF Cockpit Green (Modelmaster Authentic), while the landing gear and its wells were kept in Aluminum Dope (Humbrol 56).

Decals/markings were puzzled together and improvised. The Lebanese roundels are actually Austrian national markings into which a dark green dot has ben added manually... the fin flash and the roman/arabic codes come from an Xtradecal aftermarket sheet.

Beyond these basic markings I did not add anything flashy - in 1951 things were rather simple,

The kit received a light shading and some dry painting with light grey, plus a light black ink wash. Soot/exhaust stains were created with grinded graphite and around the engine some leaked oil was added with Tamiya's "Smoke", and everything was sealed under a coat of matt acrylic varnish.

I'll admit it's not a spectacular whif, and overall rather simple concerning build and painting. But a proud addition to whatifmodelers.com's "! Week Group Build", even though this was already finished in just three days from sprues to beauty pics...

Southbound I-5 collector/distributor lane shift graphic by Washington State Dept of Transportation

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

SMTV Mk601A Standard (DBG) by Richards McGhee

3

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

Battle Castle: Gaillard - the keep by Battle Castle

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/

City Centre 1 (to be completed in 2018) will include 5 000m2 of retail space including convenience shops. A residential component consisting of approximately 740 apartments will feature eleven different configurations of one to three bedroom units and pen by Fin24 (Part of News24)

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.

City Centre 1 (to be completed in 2018) will include 5 000m2 of retail space including convenience shops. A residential component consisting of approximately 740 apartments will feature eleven different configurations of one to three bedroom units and penthouses.

Atlas-D (37D) in Mercury-Atlas Configuration by Alec Frazier

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

Battle Castle: Gaillard - the keep by Battle Castle

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/

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.

Arriva Midlands 4795 - W366 VGJ: Charles Street, Leicester, 25/04/2013 by 47609FireFly

5

This Alexander ALX400 bodied DAF DB250 was new to Arriva London South. Now, post refurbishment, which saw it converted to single door configuration, it has swapped Norwood garage for Arriva Midlands' Wigston depot in Leicestershire.

c10_View_Site_up_B&W by Scanclimber Oy

Battle Castle: Gaillard - the keep by Battle Castle

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/