View allAll Photos Tagged System
An eastbound on the B&OCT hits Conrail's ex PRR FT. Wayne Line at Clarke Jct. in Gary, Indiana in the Falll of 1986. Conrail was in the process of single tracking the old Pennsy, and new signals bagged off are seen to the right as well as behing the semaphore. The semaphore was a Wabash train order signal. Eastbound Wabash trains left trackage rights just behind where I am standing and entered the 4th District rails, so grabbed orders at Clarke Jct. The tower was to the left of the semaphore.
OmniMD resolves the headaches of the medical billing process by providing quality medical billing softwares, medical billing services. Medical billing company.
Free download this Rainmeter clock and system monitor skin at: Digital Rainmeter Clock and System Monitor Skin
GP7 #5730 and GP40-2 #4283 power CG41 northbound (timetable west) at Wheatfield, NY on October 30, 1983. This train is utilizing trackage rights on Conrail's Niagara Falls Branch to make it's way to Canada.(CSS1208c)
+++ 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 Lockheed F-94 Starfire was a first-generation jet aircraft of the United States Air Force. It was developed from the twin-seat Lockheed T-33 Shooting Star in the late 1940s as an all-weather, day/night interceptor, replacing the propeller-driven North American F-82 Twin Mustang in this role. The system was designed to overtake the F-80 in terms of performance, but more so to intercept the new high-level Soviet bombers capable of nuclear attacks on America and her Allies - in particular, the new Tupelov Tu-4. The F-94 was furthermore the first operational USAF fighter equipped with an afterburner and was the first jet-powered all-weather fighter to enter combat during the Korean War in January 1953.
The initial production model, the F-94A, entered operational service in May 1950. Its armament consisted of four 0.50 in (12.7 mm) M3 Browning machine guns mounted in the fuselage with the muzzles exiting under the radome for the APG-33 radar, a derivative from the AN/APG-3, which directed the Convair B-36's tail guns and had a range of up to 20 miles (32 km). Two 165 US Gallon (1,204 litre) drop tanks, as carried by the F-80 and T-33, were carried on the wingtips. Alternatively, these could be replaced by a pair of 1,000 lb (454 kg) bombs under the wings, giving the aircraft a secondary fighter bomber capability. 109 were produced.
The subsequent F-94B, which entered service in January 1951, was outwardly virtually identical to the F-94A. Its Allison J33 turbojet had a number of modifications made, though, which made it a very reliable engine. The pilot was provided with a roomier cockpit and the canopy received a bow frame in the center between the two crew members. A new Instrument Landing System (ILS) was fitted, too, which made operations at night and/or in bad weather much safer. However, this new variant’s punch with just four machine guns remained weak, and, to improve the load of fire, wing-mounted pods with two additional pairs of 0.5” machine guns were introduced – but these hardly improved the interceptor’s effectiveness. 356 of the F-94B were nevertheless built.
The following F-94C was extensively modified and initially designated F-97, but it was ultimately decided just to treat it as a new version of the F-94. USAF interest was lukewarm since aircraft technology had already developed at a fast pace – supersonic performance had already become standard. Lockheed funded development themselves, converting two F-94B airframes to YF-94C prototypes for evaluation with a completely new, much thinner wing, a swept tail surface and a more powerful Pratt & Whitney J48. This was a license-built version of the afterburning Rolls-Royce Tay, which produced a dry thrust of 6,350 pounds-force (28.2 kN) and approximately 8,750 pounds-force (38.9 kN) with afterburning. Instead of machine guns, the proposed new variant was exclusively armed with unguided air-to-air missiles.
Tests were positive and eventually the F-94C was adopted for USAF service, since it was the best interim solution for an all-weather fighter at that time. It still had to rely on Ground Control Interception Radar (GCI) sites to vector the interceptor to intruding aircraft, though.
The F-94C's introduction and the availability of the more effective Northrop F-89C/D Scorpion and the North American F-86D Sabre interceptors led to a quick relegation of the earlier F-94 variants from mid-1954 onwards to second line units and to Air National Guards. By 1955 most of them had already been phased out of USAF service, and some of these relatively young surplus machines were subsequently exported or handed over to friendly nations, too. When sent to the ANG, the F-94As were modified by Lockheed to F-94B standards and then returned to the ANG as B models. They primarily replaced outdated F-80C Shooting Stars and F-51D/H Mustangs.
At that time the USAF was looking for a tactical reconnaissance aircraft, a more effective successor for the RF-80A which had shown its worth and weaknesses during the Korea War. For instance, the plane could not fly at low altitude long enough to perform suitable visual reconnaissance, and its camera equipment was still based on WWII standards. Lockheed saw the opportunity to fill this operational gap with conversions of existing F-94A/B airframes, which had, in most cases, only had clocked few flying hours, primarily at high altitudes where Soviet bombers were expected to lurk, and still a lot of airframe life to offer. This led to another private venture, the RF-94B, auspiciously christened “Stargazer”.
The RF-94B was based on the F-94B interceptor with its J33 engine and the original unswept tail. The F-94B’s wings were retained but received a different leading-edge profile to better cope with operations at low altitude. The interceptor’s nose with the radome and the machine guns underneath was replaced by a new all-metal nose cone, which was more than 3 feet longer than the former radar nose, with windows for several sets of cameras; the wedge-shaped nose cone quickly earned the aircraft the unofficial nickname “Crocodile”.
One camera was looking ahead into flight direction and could be mounted at different angled downward (but not moved during flight), followed by two oblique cameras, looking to the left and the right, and a vertical camera as well as a long-range camera focussed on the horizon, which was behind a round window at port side. An additional, spacious compartment in front of the landing gear well held an innovative Tri-Metrogen horizon-to-horizon view system that consisted of three synchronized cameras. Coupled with a computerized control system based on light, speed, and altitude, it adjusted camera settings to produce pictures with greater delineation.
All cameras could be triggered individually by pilot or a dedicated observer/camera systems operator in the 2nd seat. Talking into a wire recorder, the crew could describe ground movements that might not have appeared in still pictures. A vertical view finder with a periscopic presentation on the cockpit panel was added for the pilot to enhance visual reconnaissance and target identification directly under the aircraft. Using magnesium flares carried under its wings in flash-ejector cartridges, the RF-94B was furthermore able to fly night missions.
The RF-94B was supposed to operate unarmed, but it could still carry a pair of 1.000 lb bombs under its wings or, thanks to added plumbings, an extra pair of drop tanks for ferry flights. The F-94A/B’s machine gun pods as well as the F-94C’s unguided missile launchers could be mounted to the wings, too, making it a viable attack aircraft in a secondary role.
The USAF was highly interested in this update proposal for the outdated interceptors (almost 500 F-94A/Bs had been built) and ordered 100 RF-94B conversions with an option for 100 more – just when a severe (and superior) competitor entered the stage after a lot of development troubles: Republic’s RF-84F Thunderflash reconnaissance version. The first YRF-84F had already been completed in February 1952 and it had an overall slightly better performance than the RF-94B. However, it offered more internal space for reconnaissance systems and was able to carry up to fifteen cameras with the support of many automatized systems, so that it was a single seater. Being largely identical to the F-84F and sharing its technical and logistical infrastructures, the USAF decided on short notice to change its procurement decision and rather adopt the more modern and promising Thunderflash as its standard tactical reconnaissance aircraft. The RF-94B conversion order was reduced to the initial 100 aircraft, and to avoid operational complexity these aircraft were exclusively delivered to Air National Guardss that had experience with the F-94A/B to replace their obsolete RF-80As.
Gradual replacement lasted until 1958, and while the RF-94B’s performance was overall better than the RF-80A’s, it was still disappointing and not the expected tactical intelligence gathering leap forward. The airframe did not cope well with constant low-level operations, and the aircraft’s marginal speed and handling did not ensure its survivability. However, unlike the RF-84F, which suffered from frequent engine problems, the Stargazers’ J33 made them highly reliable platforms – even though the complex Tri-Metrogen device turned out to be capricious, so that it was soon replaced with up to three standard cameras.
For better handling and less drag esp. at low altitude, the F-94B’s large Fletcher type wingtip tanks were frequently replaced with smaller ones with about half capacity. It also became common practice to operate the RF-94Bs with only a crew of one, and from 1960 on the RF-94B was, thanks to its second seat, more and more used as a trainer before pilots mounted more potent reconnaissance aircraft like the RF-101 Voodoo, which eventually replaced the RF-94B in ANG service. The last RF-94B was phased out in 1968, and, unlike the RF-84F, it was not operated by any foreign air force.
General characteristics:
Crew: 2 (but frequently operated by a single pilot)
Length: 43 ft 4 3/4 in (13.25 m)
Wingspan (with tip tanks): 40 ft 9 1/2 in (12.45 m)
Height: 12 ft. 2 (3.73 m)
Wing area: 234' 8" sq ft (29.11 m²)
Empty weight: 10,064 lb (4,570 kg)
Loaded weight: 15,330 lb (6,960 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 24,184 lb (10,970 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Allison J33-A-33 turbojet, rated at 4,600 lbf (20.4 kN) continuous thrust,
5,400 lbf (24 kN) with water injection and 6,000 lbf (26.6 kN) thrust with afterburner
Performance:
Maximum speed: 630 mph (1,014 km/h) at height and in level flight
Range: 930 mi (813 nmi, 1,500 km) in combat configuration with two drop tanks
Ferry range: 1,457 mi (1,275 nmi, 2,345 km)
Service ceiling: 42,750 ft (14,000 m)
Rate of climb: 6,858 ft/min (34.9 m/s)
Wing loading: 57.4 lb/ft² (384 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.48
Armament:
No internal guns; 2x 165 US Gallon (1,204 liter) drop tanks on the wing tips and…
2x underwing hardpoints for two additional 165 US Gallon (1,204 liter) ferry tanks
or bombs of up to 1.000 lb (454 kg) caliber each, plus…
2x optional (rarely fitted) pods on the wings’ leading edges with either a pair of 0.5" (12.7 mm)
machine guns or twelve 2.75” (70 mm) Mk 4/Mk 40 Folding-Fin Aerial Rockets each
The kit and its assembly:
This project was originally earmarked as a submission for the 2021 “Reconnaissance & Surveillance” group build at whatifmodellers.com, in the form of a Heller F-94B with a new nose section. The inspiration behind this build was the real-world EF-94C (s/n 50-963): a solitary conversion with a bulbous camera nose. However, the EF-94C was not a reconnaissance aircraft but rather a chase plane/camera ship for the Air Research and Development Command, hence its unusual designation with the suffix “E”, standing for “Exempt” instead of the more appropriate “R” for a dedicated recce aircraft. There also was another EF-94C, but this was a totally different kind of aircraft: an ejection seat testbed.
I had a surplus Heller F-94B kit in The Stash™ and it was built almost completely OOB and did – except for some sinkholes and standard PSR work – not pose any problem. In fact, the old Heller Starfire model is IMHO a pretty good representation of the aircraft. O.K., its age might show, but almost anything you could ask for at 1:72 scale is there, including a decent, detailed cockpit.
The biggest change was the new camera nose, and it was scratched from an unlikely donor part: it consists of a Matchbox B-17G tail gunner station, slimmed down by the gunner station glazing's width at the seam in the middle, and this "sandwich" was furthermore turned upside down. Getting the transitional sections right took lots of PSR, though, and I added some styrene profiles to integrate the new nose into the rest of the hull. It was unintentional, but the new nose profile reminds a lot of a RF-101 recce Voodoo, and there's, with the straight wings, a very F-89ish look to the aircraft now? There's also something F2H-2ish about the outlines?
The large original wing tip tanks were cut off and replaced with smaller alternatives from a Hasegawa A-37. Because it was easy to realize on this kit I lowered the flaps, together with open ventral air brakes. The cockpit was taken OOB, I just modified the work station on the rear seat and replaced the rubber sight protector for the WSO with two screens for a camera operator. Finally, the one-piece cockpit glazing was cut into two parts to present the model with an open canopy.
Painting and markings:
This was a tough decision: either an NMF finish (the natural first choice), an overall light grey anti-corrosive coat of paint, both with relatively colorful unit markings, or camouflage. The USAF’s earlier RF-80As carried a unique scheme in olive drab/neutral grey with a medium waterline, but that would look rather vintage on the F-94. I decided that some tactical camouflage would make most sense on this kind of aircraft and eventually settled for the USAF’s SEA scheme with reduced tactical markings, which – after some field tests and improvisations in Vietnam – became standardized and was officially introduced to USAF aircraft around 1965 as well as to ANG units.
Even though I had already built a camouflaged F-94 some time ago (a Hellenic aircraft in worn SEA colors), I settled for this route. The basic colors (FS 30219, 34227, 34279 and 36622) all came from Humbrol (118, 117, 116 and 28, respectively), and for the pattern I adapted the paint scheme of the USAF’s probably only T-33 in SEA colors: a trainer based on Iceland during the Seventies and available as a markings option in one of the Special Hobby 1:32 T-33 kits. The low waterline received a wavy shape, inspired by an early ANG RF-101 in SEA camouflage I came across in a book. The new SEA scheme was apparently applied with a lot of enthusiasm and properness when it was brand new, but this quickly vaned. As an extra, the wing tip tanks received black anti-glare sections on their inner faces and a black anti-glare panel was added in front of the windscreen - a decal from a T-33 aftermarket sheet. Beyond a black ink wash the model received some subtle panel post-shading, but rather to emphasize surface details than for serious weathering.
The cockpit became very dark grey (Revell 06) while the landing gear wells were kept in zinc chromate green primer (Humbrol 80, Grass Green), with bright red (Humbrol 60, Matt Red) cover interiors and struts and wheels in aluminum (Humbrol 56). The interior of the flaps and the ventral air brakes became red, too.
The decals/markings came from a Special Hobby 1:72 F-86H; there’s a dedicated ANG boxing of the kit that comes with an optional camouflaged aircraft of the NY ANG, the least unit to operate the “Sabre Hog” during the Seventies. Since this 138th TFS formerly operated the F-94A/B, it was a perfect option for the RF-94B! I just used a different Bu. No. code on the fin, taken from a PrintScale A/T-37 set, and most stencils were perocured from the scrap box.
After a final light treatment with graphite around the afterburner for a more metallic shine of the iron metallic (Revell 97) underneath, the kit was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish (Italeri).
A camouflaged F-94 is an unusual sight, but it works very well. The new/longer nose considerably changes the aircraft's profile, and even though the change is massive, the "Crocodile" looks surprisingly plausible, if not believable! And, despite the long nose, the aircraft looks pretty sleek, especially in the air.
Gillig Phantom of the former San Diego County Transit System (CTS) at Grossmont Station in La Mesa. CTS has since been absorbed into the Metropolitan Transit System.
Looking straight up a wall with a humoinguous "200" (outlined in black on white) painted on on the wall, advertising the Beaumont Tiles showroom on Grote Street, Adelaide.
Taken with iPhone 4S.
First seen here, but I guess women have done this hundreds of years...
simple-green-frugal-co-op.blogspot.com/2009/06/are-you-us...
Konvolut system = saa og saa meget til dit... og dat...og dut og saa ved jeg maaske hvor meget jeg bruger paa hver afdeling :-)
February 10, 2018:.
18-531118.
USA
Florida
Tampa Bay FL
Tampa Bay Transit
US Transit System
HART (Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority)
US Transit Bus Fleet
HART 1019 Gillig 40' Bus,
This logo was designed for the Natural Areas System. It appears earlier in my portfolio as (www.flickr.com/photos/steveczajka/9002115853/). I am pleased to say that it is now being used as the new branding for the Natural Areas System at the City of Mississauga. The Natural Areas Survey is a study which identifies and inventories natural areas within the City including woodlands, wetlands, creeks and streams. These areas comprise roughly 9% of the total area of the City and are referred to as Natural Areas System. The study also recommends strategies and guidelines for their future protection. The study consists of 4 phases: review of existing reports and databases; survey of public opinion on environmental issues; site visits to remnant natural areas; and development of databases for the natural areas. Each year one quadrant of the City is updated.
This is one of the projects that I manage in my professional life, but in this case I have also contributed with a logo design. While I did not create this featured brochure or website, I did help to steer the overall design and use of powerful infographics to simplify the story and make it interesting for the reader. The brochure was created in Adobe InDesign, the website (www.mississauga.ca/nas) created in a variety of tools including esri mapping, and the logo created in Inkscape/GIMP and authentically hand created calligraphy.
I am seeing more often that my professional career is being influenced by my artistic background, and this is one example of that.
Cheers
Steve
Nike-Hercules Missile, designation MIM-14 (initially SAM-N-25), was a solid fuel propelled surface-to-air missile, used by US and NATO armed forces for high- and medium-altitude air defense. It could also be employed in a surface-to-surface role.The Nike-Hercules system, a follow-up to the Nike-Ajax missile, was developed during the Cold War to destroy enemy bombers and enemy bomber formations, as well as serve as an anti-ballistic missile system. Western Electric, Bell Laboratories, and Douglas Aircraft Company were chief contractors for the system. Nuclear-armed Nike Hercules missiles were deployed in the United States, Greece, Italy, and Turkey, and with Belgian, Dutch, and U.S. forces in West Germany. Conventionally-armed Nike Hercules missiles also served in the United States, Germany, Denmark, Japan, Norway, and Taiwan.The first deployments in Europe began in 1959 and the last nuclear-armed Nike Hercules missiles in Europe were deactivated in 1988. The Nike-Hercules missile systems sold to Japan (Nike J) were subsequently upgraded the internal guidance systems by replacing the original vacuum tube systems with transistorized ones.The guidance and control area (Integrated Fire Control, IFC) was located a distance (about 1 mile) from the area from where the missile was launched (Launching Area, LA). The IFC had an acquisition radar to detect (enemy) aircraft. After detecting and identifying a hostile aircraft this aircraft was followed or tracked in elevation, azimuth and range by a Target Tracking Radar (TTR). An analog (later digital) computer computed a point in the sky where the missile and target should meet (intercept point). After the missile was launched by the Battery Control Officer (BCO) a Missile Tracking Radar (MTR) followed the missile and the computer constantly updated the intercept point even if the hostile aircraft performed evasive actions. Steering corrections were sent to the missile by the MTR. When the missile neared the intercept point a command signal was sent to the missile to explode. To measure the range to the target under jamming conditions the IFC also was equipped with a Target Ranging Radar (TRR).
Il MIM-14 Nike Hercules è un missile di fabbricazione statunitense per la difesa antiaerea. Prodotto a partire dagli anni cinquanta fu in dotazione a molte forze armate che aderivano alla NATO.
Il missile MIM-14 Nike Hercules, fece il suo ingresso nel 1958. Pesava circa 5 tonnellate, con 4 motori ausiliari molto simile al precedente sistema missilistico Ajax.Venne utilizzato anche tra le schiere dell'Aeronautica Militare Italiana, che equipaggiò 3 stormi, complessivamente 96 lanciatori, con il suddetto sistema terra-aria.Al giorno d'oggi i MIM-14, sono stati tutti radiati con cerimonia ufficiale.Originariamente il missile venne chiamato SAM-A-25 Nike Hercules, ma poi nelle varie vicissitudini che ebbero le designazioni americane di quel decennio, venne ribattezzato M6, e infine MIM-14. Nel 1958 esso entrò in servizio, rimpiazzando l'Ajax per le basi a difesa di New York, Chicago e Washington D.C..Il nuovo sistema missilistico era quindi stato progettato per essere un'arma formidabile. Esso aveva prestazioni per l'epoca eccezionali, soprattutto in termini di gittata e di quota, tanto che i bombardieri pilotati stratosferici, anche se supersonici, vennero messi in dubbio, e dopo l'avvento di questo sistema non avrebbero più avuto la stessa importanza di prima.La sua struttura, molto caratteristica, era aguzza e possente al tempo stesso, con un insieme di caratteristiche che lo rendevano unico tra i pur numerosi missili antiaerei dell'epoca. Esso era bistadio: il primo aveva ben 4 motori a razzo con propellenti solidi, riuniti in un complesso chiamato M42, studiato per ridurre la lunghezza del missile a valori accettabili, e realizzato con i motori di accelerazione (booster) M5E1. Esso era dotato anche di 4 ali cruciformi per la stabilizzazione. Questo complesso pesava da solo 2345 kg e dava quasi 80.000 kg di spinta per 3,4 secondi.Una volta finita la spinta, veniva sganciato per non appesantire inutilmente il corpo missile vero e proprio, di diametro minore, e che era dotato di una struttura a 'pallottola allungata', con 4 alette anteriori fisse, 4 grandi alette triangolari posteriori per la stabilità del volo ma anche con elevoni per il controllo della direzione e quota, sistemati nella parte finale.Anche la guida del missile era su comando radio. Non appare infatti che esso avesse nessun sistema di bordo per l'acquisizione semiautonoma o autonoma del bersaglio di tipo radar o IR, ma le alette anteriori erano utilizzate come antenne per ricevere i comandi radio da terra ,mentre esisteva un trasponder per dare la posizione del missile alla stazione radar.
Font : Wikipedia
Another old pic of Jupiter I found. At the time taken a year ago, I really didn't have the Photoshop skills to correctly process this. Now, I do. Not great, but still not bad.
I needed some new speakers for my desktop computer system at home. I've been tolerating JBL creature 2.1 system for a couple of years now and I'd finally had enough. The JBLs suffered from a depressing lack of critical midrange detail. This, coupled with the fact that the kids now hog the main system in the front room, means that I can't get access to my iTunes library readily.
A few years ago I was doing some research into speakers and I came across the Quad 11l actives. They were very well reviewed in a couple of Australian and New Zealand hi-fi publications. From what I could gather at the time they were not widely available in the UK. When I did eventually track them down their price tag was £600 for a pair. Prohibitively expensive for a desktop audio system. These things are marketed as pro-level near field monitors. They have their own build in amps. Two per speaker. 60W for the bass driver and 40W for the treble driver.
Anyway a couple of weeks ago I decided to have a casual squint at eBay and see if I could pick up a second hand pair at a vastly reduced price. There were none available. One seller was selling individual speakers new for £250. apiece. Still too expensive. Crestfallen, I gave up. A couple of days later I had another look. Another seller was offering a pair of Quad actives for £229. Stunned, I had a closer look. Apart from a different badge, Quad Industrial, these looked identical to the Quad 11l actives. Plus, they were brand new, in unopened boxes.
After a few hours of research I discovered that IAG, Quad's parent company, has an Industrial division that market audio equipment for hotels, conference centres, lecture theatres, and the like. Hence the different branding. The speaker also goes by another name, the Quad QPM1. Other than that it is identical in every way to the Quad 11l active monitor.
This was a game changer. Prior to this I was considering the Audioengine 2 model as my desktop speaker replacement. I phoned the supplier to check that there was no mistake in their pricing in the advert. They confirmed that they were on sale for £229 for the pair. I placed my order immediately.
I was very excited to hear these speakers given the reviews I'd read. I'm also a big fan of the Quad sound. My front room consists of the Quad 12l2s as main speakers in my 5.1 kit, Quad Centre, Quad l-ite satellites for rear and Quad l-ite subwoofer. Now I could have the Quad sound as part of my desktop system at a fraction of the price.
Quad speakers are known for being extremely neutral. In other words they take nothing away from or add anything to the original recording or source. Although my Quads were all very well reviewed at the time of their release, around 2004-2007, there are other great speakers out there. For me I liked the cachet associated with being a Quad owner. I clearly liked the sound and most importantly I got all the kit at bargain prices. Most of it was ex-dem so I saved at least 20% on the normal retail price. Another important factor was matching the speakers across the whole 5.1 kit. All of them should work well together. The 5.1 kit is driven by an Arcam AVR 300 that again was ex-dem. The front speakers are bi-amped and bi-wired. This affords them 120 watts per channel and per driver.
Being a hi-fi enthusiast makes you a bit picky about what you’ll listen to. So how do the Quad actives sound? Well put it this way... I've not stopped playing them since the minute they arrived in the house. I've thrown everything at them. From Led Zepp to Beethoven. Alison Krauss through to Prokofiev. Unbelievable! If anything the Quad actives may sound better than the 12l2s in my front room due to the fact that their bi-amp design is perfectly matched to the drivers in a way that any other amp would struggle to better. There is plenty of power and the signal path is not compromised by additional cabling and junction points. So the sound could be characterised as being clean, clear with tight bass control and a surprising amount of depth considering the cabinet size. However being nearfield monitors they are very revealing! If the recording is poor it sounds poor through these. You are very conscious of it. Also after a few days I became very aware of the deficiencies of the iMac's sound card. There was a constant low hum and other nasties such as buzzing and clicks. Hissing too. Another issue was that I wanted to run an old radio tuner through these. All I could lay my hands on at short notice was a phono switchbox. This worked but it was difficult to control the volume of the tuner other than messing around at the back of the monitors. Not really ideal.
I realised I need to look for some kind of preamp. Nothing suitable for desktop audio seemed immediately available. Initially I started looking at pro audio solutions. Mixers and the like. Not only were these really expensive but they also took up a lot of desk space. The other thing that seemed clear was that some kind of external signal processing solution would improve on the sound the iMac was capable of producing. Looked like a DAC was required. This took me into a whole new ballpark. It came down to two companies in the end. Cambridge Audio’s Dacmagic or NuForce’s uDac or Icon products. Fundamentally it came down to my need to switch sources easily and the ability to control volume at the turn of a dial or via an installed remote app on an iPhone. The Dacmagic looked very tempting but there was no preamp function or headphone amplifier. This left me with the NuForce products.
NuForce’s website information is confusing. Being new to the world of DACs and desktop audio I knew little about using USB as a means of feeding an external digital to analogue converter with a digital signal. I was familiar with toslink optical links from the Arcam processor but USB was new to me. So I started reading about jitter and the degrading effect is has on sound quality and the technology used by NuForce to take correct these issues. I also read some astonishing reviews on their uDac, Icon 2 and Icon HDP products. Turns out NuForce are an American company that specialises in really high end digital amplifiers and DACs. We’re talking thousands of pounds. Their ‘desktop’ range is much more affordable however. The uDac was offered to me for £55 for example. In the end I got a fantastic deal on the Icon HDP. I had to make a couple of phone calls at this point. I can’t say how much I saved but I got a better bargain on this than I got on the Quads! The Icon HDP is a combined class A headphone, preamp and top quality DAC rolled into one. Perfect for my needs.
Now we have the combined effect of the iMac and its ability to feed a purely digital signal from iTunes or Spotify Premium to the NuForce Icon HDP via USB and then onto the Quad QPMs. The effect the Icon HDP had on the system was staggering. This truly is a phenomenal product. Undoubtedly the most accomplished, best sounding and most useful piece of hi-fi equipment I’ve ever bought. The whole soundstage opened right up. Subtle nuances present in the recordings were revealed in extraordinary detail. A truly three dimensional space is presented to the listener. Given I’m used to the full Quad/Arcam experience in the front room it’s amazing how lifelike and articulate my bargain desktop audio solution really is. The Quads in themselves are remarkable for the price but the Icon HDP is literally a revelation.
As you’ll see from the photos I’ve experimented with this system in all sorts of combinations. At one point I even hooked up the Quad sub to hear the difference it made. I concluded it’s really not required the system is already capable of producing almost terrifying levels of deep controlled bass without it. Midrange too is superb. Treble crisp and smear free. I’ve been particularly enjoying the albums below. I’ve pretty much moved into the backroom! All in all, a pretty good October week…
Trentemøller – The Very Last Resort
Mercan Dede – 800
Sergei Rachmaninoff – Rachmaninov
Alison Krauss – Lonely Runs Both Ways
John Hiatt – Hiatt Comes Alive At Budokan?
Booka Shade – Memento
Avishai Cohen – Aurora
By the way the Quads are still available on eBay, last few remaining. Other speakers shown for comparison.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
The origins of the Turbo Fury reach back to 1943, when the piston-driven Hawker Sea Fury's development was formally initiated in response to a wartime requirement of the RAF.
As the Second World War drew to a close, the RAF cancelled their order for the aircraft. However, the Royal Navy saw the type as a suitable carrier aircraft to replace a range of increasingly obsolete or poorly suited aircraft being operated by the Fleet Air Arm. Development of the Sea Fury proceeded, and the type began entering operational service in 1947.
The Sea Fury had many design similarities to Hawker's preceding Tempest fighter, but the Sea Fury was a considerably lighter aircraft. Both the Sea Fury's wings and fuselage originated from the Tempest but were significantly modified and redesigned.
The Sea Fury attracted international orders as both a carrier and land-based aircraft; it was operated by countries including Australia, Burma, Canada, Cuba, Egypt, West Germany, Iraq, and Pakistan. The Sea Fury was retired by the majority of its military operators in the late 1950s in favour of jet-propelled aircraft. One of the largest export customers for the type, Pakistan, went a different way.
A total of 87 new-build Sea Furies were purchased and delivered to Pakistan between 1950 and 1952, but some ex-FAA and Iraqi Sea Furies were also subsequently purchased.
The Sea Fury began to be replaced by the jet-powered North American F-86 Sabre in 1955, but it became quickly clear that the Sabre was primarily a fighter, not a ground attack aircraft. It also lacked adequate performance in 'hot and high' operation theatres, and the PAF's B-57 bombers were too big for certain CAS tasks, and their number highly limited.
Hence the decision was taken to modernize a part of the PAF Sea Fury fleet for the ground attack role. This was to be achieved with a better engine that would deliver more power, a better overall performance as well as an extended range for prolonged loiter times close to the potential battlefield.
Engine choice fell on the Allison T56 turboshaft engine, which had originally been developed for the C-130 Hercules transporter (later also installed in the P-3 and E-2) - the type had just been bought by the PAF, so that low maintenance cost due to parts and infrastructure commonality was expected. Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (commonly abbreviated 'PAC') was tasked to develop a suitable update, and this lead to the integration of a turboprop engine into the Sea Fury airframe.
For the relatively small Sea Fury airframe the T56 was downrated to 3.000 hp, to which approximately 750 lbs of thrust from its exhaust could be added. The latter was bifurcated and ran along the fuselage flanks, ending in fairings at the wings' trailing edge. In order to cope with the additional power, the original five-bladed propeller had to be replaced by a six-bladed, indigenously developed propeller. Together with the more pointed spinner and the raised propeller position, the Sea Fury's profile changed dramatically, even though the good field of view for the pilot was retained. Officially, the modified machines were just called 'Sea Fury FB.61', inofficially they were called 'Turbo Furies' or 'وایلار' (Urdu: Wailer), for their characteristic, penetrating engine and propeller sound.
Internally, structural reinforcements had to be made and new wing spars were introduced. These allowed higher g forces for low level maneuvers and also carried additional ordnance hardpoints under the outer wings - these enabled the aircraft to carry HVARs of American origin and/or several small caliber bombs instead of only a single pair of up to 1.000 lb (454 kg) caliber.
The last piston engine Sea Furies in Pakistani service were ultimately retired in 1960, while the Turbo Fury fleet was used throughout the 1965 India-Pakistan War. After the end of hostilities, the 'Turbo Furies' were quickly phased out since it had become clear that they had become too vulnerable in battlefield conditions.
Some of these machines were sold to Thailand, though, where it served with the Royal Thai Marine Corps (นาวิกโยธินแห่งราชอาณาจักรไทย) in the CAS role and saw frequent use: The Chanthaburi and Trat borders with Cambodia gave the Marine Corps Department its first assignment, safeguarding the coastline and southeastern border. Since 1970 the Marine Corps' Chanthaburi-Trat Task Force had been officially assigned the defense of this area.
During 1972 and 1973, Thai Marines were involved in the "Sam-Chai" anti-communist operations in Phetchabun Province and the "Pha-Phum" anti-communist operations in Chiang Rai Province. In 1973 and 1974, they took part in anti-communist operations in the southern provinces of Pattani, Yala and Narathiwat. After ten years of frequent and successful use, the end of the Thai TurBo Furies came - the type was retired in late 1975. Two specimen were sold into the USA to Flight Systems Inc., where the machines were de-militarized and modified to be used as fast low-level target tugs.
Still, the aircraft would see a late career for the USAF, even though only an indirect one - and ironically against another WWII veteran reincarnation! In 1971 Piper Aircraft Corp. at Lakeland, Florida, built for the USAF's PAVE COIN programm (calling for a simple aircraft tailored to the ground attack role for small armies) two Piper Enforcers by heavily modifying two existing P-51 Mustang aircraft and fitting them with Lycoming T55-L9A turboprop engines, along with numerous other significant modifications.
Prior to the PAVE COIN evaluation, N202PE was lost in a crash off the Florida Coast. Although the Enforcer performed well in PAVE COIN, Piper failed to secure a United States Air Force contract. Anyway, Piper kept on lobbying Congress for another 8 years to force the USAF to officially re-evaluate the Enforcer.
Eventually in the 1979 defense bill $11.9 million was allocated for Piper to build two new prototypes and for the USAF to perform another flight evaluation. Since the Enforcer was never in the Air Force inventory, it was not given an official military designation and did not receive an Air Force serial number. Instead, it carries the Piper designation PA-48 and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) registration numbers N481PE and N482PE.
During 1983 and 1984 the PA-48s were pitted against several "modern" jets at 1984 at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida and Edwards Air Force Base, California. Beyond 'state of the art' competirion, the USAF wanted a direct competitor - and found Flight Systems Inc's Turbo Furies. One of these, aircraft N287FS, was leased in 1981 and revamped to military status in order to act as a further benchnmark and as aggressor.
By the time the machine had already undergone some major modifications, including an ejection seat for the pilot and a new five-bladed propeller plus exhaust dampers in order to minimize the machine's distinctive, penetrating noise.
Further modifications saw the re-installment of armament, including wing hardpoints and the respective wiring, as well as adding four 20mm cannon, this time domestic Pontiac M39A1 revolver cannon - easily recognizable through the longer gun barrels that protruded from the wings' leading edge.
During the two years of evaluation the revamped Turbo Fury fared well, while its sister ship remained in the target tug role - and it was the only machine to survive, since N287FS crashed on 8th of August 1984 at Eglin AB due to hydraulic failure, with the pilot escaping securely thanks to the new ejection seat.
General characteristics
Crew: One
Length: 36 ft 2 in (11.05 m)
Wingspan: 38 ft 43⁄4 in (11.69 m)
Height: 15 ft 101⁄2 in (4.84 m)
Wing area: 280 ft2 (26.01 m2)
Empty weight: 10.500 lb (4.767 kg)
Loaded weight: 14,100 lb (6.400 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 15,650 lb (7.105 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Allison T56 turboshaft engine rated at 2.206 kW (3.000 hp) plus 750 lbs of residual thrust
Performance:
Maximum speed: 490 mph (427 knots, 790 km/h) at 18,000 ft (5,500 m)
Range: 700 mi (609 nmi, 1,126 km) with internal fuel;
1,040 mi (904 nmi, 1,674 km) with two drop tanks
Service ceiling: 35,800 ft (10,910 m)
Rate of climb: 4,320 ft/min (21.9 m/s)
Armament:
4× 20 mm (0.787 in) Pontiac M39A1 revolver cannon
Eight underwing hardpoints for an external load of 4.000 lb (1.814 kg),
including bombs, unguided rockets, napalm tanks or drop tanks
The kit and its assembly:
Turbo Fury V3.0, spinning forth the initial fictional background story of this whif conversion. The combination of a WWII figher design and a C-130 Hercules sounds unlikely, but that's what I built. The idea of revamped piston-engine aircraft for a post-WWII-use has its charm and continually brings forth impressive designs, like the real world Piper PA-48.
Inspiration came with a set of 1:72 aftermarket C-130J resin engine nacelles from OzMods, which I had bunkered a while ago. This time the engine was mated again to the single seater kit from Pioneer2/PM Models. The Hercules engines are an almost perfect fit - the original fuselage just had to be cut away behind the original exhaust reflectors. Some sculpting had to be done on both sides, and the wing roots filled up in order to match the new, more narrow engine, but things went really smoothly.
This time, the Turbo Fury was to have a more modern touch - we are in the 80ies now. So I decided to use the original C-130 sickle blades that come with the OzMods conversion kit, even though I only used five of them instead of six (the spinner was modified accordingly). Another idea was to conceal the original exhaust pipes under the cockpit - I scratched dampers with intakes that would muffle engine sound and mix the hot gases with fresh air. These break up the sleek lines of the Fury, but I think that this installation makes sense, also as a potential survival measure that reduces the aircraft's IR signature?
Otherwise, only little things were changed. In the cockpit a new seat and a dashboard cover were added. The underwing hardpoints were new, too, and I added some antennae for a more modern and purposeful look. All pylons are new, and the bomb ordnance was puzzled together from the spares box, including four Rockeye CBUs from an Italeri F-16, an camera pod (from an Italeri F-18, IIRC) and a single ACMI pod from an Italeri F-21.
Painting and markings:
Piper's PA-48 was a bit of inspiration for this build, and I wanted the final Turbo Fury to be an American aircraft. USAF use would have been unlikely, though, but a private operator like Flight Systems Inc. (Which also operated F-86 as target tugs!) opened a new opportunity, as well as the historic trials of the PA-48 in the early 80ies.
Well, how to paint the Turbo Fury? An early idea had been a simple, all Gunship Grey aircraft with low-viz markings, but I eventually settled for the contemporary "USMC Land Scheme", applied to helicopters (AH-1, CH-46) and some of the USMC's OA-10. On a classic airframe like the Sea Fury's it would look totally anachronistic - but for an aggressor and test aircraft? Why not?
This wraparound scheme consists of grey, green and black - I used FS 35237 (Humbrol 145), FS 34097 (Humbrol 105) and FS 37038 (Humbrol 85, slightly lightened with some Humbrol 32 Dark Grey). The cockpit interior was kept in dark gray, the landing gear is in Aluminum, just like on the former builds of this series.
As per usual the kit received a light black ink wash and some dry painting that emphasizes the panel lines.
Decals were puzzled together from the scrap box, with some typical US markings and modern stencils.
Even though the paint finish turned out to look a bit more worn than initially intended, I am very happy with the result of this "Final Turbo Fury", esp. with its modern details. It looks rather odd and purposeful! And there's still one Hercules engine left... maybe a forth Turbo Fury might come forth, in the hands of another obscure operator's hands. ;)
Sometimes I feel like building digitally makes me lazy, and the physical stuff was more challenging.
Then I port something into LDD and that pretty much gets affirmed.
Climbing beans in Rwanda perform more than three times better than other varieties, but delivery systems to get them to farmers are key. Visit: www.pabra-africa.org
Credit: ©2015CIAT/GeorginaSmith
Please credit accordingly and leave a comment when you use a CIAT photo.
For more info: ciat-comunicaciones@cgiar.org
ODC-SYSTEM - SYNONYMS and ANTONYMS
Gardening in the Fingerlakes has been a challenge, however with time we're figuring it out. The best system we've come to embrace is "Raised Bed Gardening." It is much easier to plant than having to be right at ground level; you can concentrate your fertilizing in one area much better and it helps eliminate weed accumulation giving you a greater control over the area you have to tend.
The task at our photography club recently was to capture bubbles ... and I would say that a majority of us found it's not as easy as it sounds ! Here's my feeble effort.
I did like the colours of the bubble and it reminded me of a planet ... it looked a little boring on its own, so I added a 'sun' and some 'stars' ! The black 'background' is a length of a velvet type material.
Topaz 'Clarity' and 'Star FX' was used.