Engine Type: Steam, Passenger

Configuration: 4-6-2

Engine Class: A3

Designer: Sir Nigel Gresley

Build Date: 1923

Road number: 4172 (brown)

Locomotive names: Prudence

Builder: Doncaster Works

Current Owner: Lego Rail Transport Society (LRTS)

Length: 56 studs (with tender)

Width: 8 studs

Height: 11 ⅓ bricks

Top Speed: 108 MPH

Original design by the LEGO Group for the Emerald Night, revised by Me

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

Some background:

Although the performance increases of jet-powered aircraft introduced towards the end of World War II over their piston-powered ancestors were breathtaking, there were those at the time who believed that much more was possible. As far back as 1943, the British Ministry of Aircraft Production had issued a specification designated "E.24/43" for a supersonic experimental jet aircraft that would be able to achieve 1,600 KPH (1,000 MPH).

The Levin served only with RAF 29 and 65 Squadron, the latter re-instated in 1970 as a dedicated fighter squadron. When in November 1984 the Tornado squadrons began to form, the Levin was gradually phased out and replaced until April 1987 by the Tornado F.3.

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length w/o pitot: 51 ft 5 in (15,70 m), 55 ft 8 in (16.99 m) overall

Wingspan incl. wingtip launch rails: 34 ft 9 in (10.54 m)

Height: 19 ft 7 in (5.97 m)

Wing area: 474.5 ft² (44.08 m²)

Empty weight: 8937 kg (lb)

Loaded weight: 13,570 kg (29,915)

Max. takeoff weight: 15,210 kg (33,530 lb)

Powerplant:

1× Rolls-Royce RB.106-10S afterburning turbojet,

rated at 20,000 lbf (89 kN) dry and 26,000 lbf (116 kN) with afterburning

Performance:

Maximum speed:

- 1,150 km/h (620 kn, 715 mph, Mach 0.94) at sea level

- 2,230 km/h (1.202 kn, 1,386 mph, Mach 2.1;), clean with 2× Red Top AAMs at high altitude

- Mach 2.4 absolute top speed in clean configuration at 50.000 ft.

Range: 1,650 km (890 nmi, 1,025 mi) on internal fuel

Combat radius: 500 km (312 mi); clean, with a pair of wing tip Red Top AAMs

Ferry range: 1,270 mi (1.100 NM/ 2.040 km) with overwing tanks

Service ceiling: 16,760 m (55,000 ft)

Rate of climb: 136.7 m/s (27,000 ft/min)

Wing loading: 76 lb/ft² (370 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight: 0.78

Takeoff roll: 950 m (3,120 ft)

Landing roll: 700 m (2,300 ft)

Armament:

2× 30 mm (1.18 in) ADEN cannons with 120 RPG in the upper front fuselage

2× wing tip hardpoints for mounting air-to-air missiles (2 Red Top of Firestreak AAMs)

2× overwing pylon stations for 260 gal ferry tanks

Optional, but rarely used: 2× hardpoints under the front fuselage for mounting air-to-air missiles

(2 Red Top of Firestreak AAMs)

The kit and its assembly:

Another contribution to the Cold War GB at whatifmodelers.com, and the realization of a project I had on the agenda for long. The EE P.6/1 was a real project for a Mach 2+ research aircraft, as described above, but it never went off the drawing board. Its engine, the RB.106, also never saw the light of day, even though its later career as the Canadian Orenda Iroquois for the stillborn CF-105.

Building this aircraft as a model appears simple, because it’s a classic Lightning (actually a F.1 with the un-kinked wing and the small fin), just with a single engine and a rather tubular fuselage. But creating this is not easy at all…

I did not want to replicate the original P.6/1, but rather a service aircraft based on the research aircraft. Therefore I used parts from a Lightning F.6 (a vintage NOVO/Frog kit). For the fuselage I settled for a Su-17, from a MasterCraft kit. The kit’s selling point was its small price tag and the fuselage construction: the VG mechanism is hidden under a separate spine piece, and I wanted to transplant the Lightning’s spine and cockpit frame, so I thought that this would make things easier.

Nope.

Putting the parts from the VERY different kits/aircraft together was a major surgery feat, with several multiple PSR sessions on the fuselage, the air intake section (opened and fitted with both an internal splitter and a bulkhead to the cockpit section), the wings, the stabilizers, the fin… This model deserves the title “kitbash” like no other, because no major sections had ever been intended to be glued together, and in the intended position!

The landing gear was more or less taken OOB, but the main struts had to be elongated by 2mm – somehow the model turned out to be a low-riding tail sitter! The cockpit interior was improvised, too, consisting of a Su-17 cockpit tub, a scratched dashboard and a Martin Baker ejection seat from an Italeri Bae Hawk trainer.

Since most of the fuselage surface consists of various materials (styrene and two kinds of putty), I did not dare to engrave panel lines – after all the PSR work almost any surface detail was gone. I rather went for a graphic solution (see below). Some antennae and air scoops were added, though.

The overwing tanks come OOB from the NOVO kit, as well as the Red Top missiles, which ended up on improvised wing tip launch rails, based on design sketches for Lightning derivatives with this layout.

Colors and markings:

There are several “classic” RAF options, but I settled for a low-viz Eighties livery taken from BAC Lightnings. There’s a surprising variety of styles, and my version is a mix of several real world aircraft.

I settled for Dark Sea Grey upper surfaces (Modelmaster Authentic) with a high waterline, a fuselage completely in Medium Sea Grey (Humbrol 165 – had to be applied twice because the first tin I used was obviously old and the paint ended up in a tone not unlike PRU Blue!) and Light aircraft Grey underwing surfaces (Humbrol 166). The leading edges under the wings are Dark Sea Grey, too.

The cockpit interior was painted in dark grey (Humbrol 32 with some dry-brushing), while the landing gear is Aluminum (Humbrol 56).

Once the basic painting was done I had to deal with the missing panel lines on the fuselage and those raised lines that were sanded away during the building process. I decided to simulate these with a soft pencil, after the whole kit was buffed with a soft cotton cloth and some grinded graphite. This way, the remaining raised panel lines were emphasized, and from these the rest was drawn up. A ruler and masking tape were used as guidance for straight lines, and this worked better than expected, with good results.

As a next step, the newly created panels were highlighted with dry-brushed lighter tones of the basic paints (FS 36492 and WWII Italian Blue Grey from Modelmaster, and Humbrol 126), more for a dramatic than a weathered effect. The gun ports and the exhaust section were painted with Modelmaster Metallizer (Titanium and Magnesium).

The decals come from several Xtradecal aftermarket sheets, including a dedicated Lightning stencils sheet, another Lightning sheet with various squadron markings and a sheet for RAF Tornado ADVs.

The code number “XS970” was earmarked to a TSR.2, AFAIK, but since it was never used on a service aircraft it would be a good option for the Levin.

The kit received a coat of matt acrylic varnish from the rattle can – jn this case the finish was intended to bear a slight shine.

This was a project with LOTS of effort, but you hardly recognize it – it’s a single engine Lightning, so what? But welding the Lightning and Su-17 parts together for something that comes close to the P.6/1 necessitated LOTS of body work and improvisation, carving it from wood would probably have been the next complicated option. Except for the surprisingly long tail I am very happy with the result, despite the model’s shaggy origins, and the low-viz livery suits the sleek aircraft IMHO very well.

This isn't how the case will be configured permanently; I just threw in some gear for this picture. But it's pretty close, I guess.

Top row, from left: Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM, with four batteries and a charger on top of a pad; Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM; and backup camera - Canon Rebel XT (350D).

Middle row, from left: Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro (with Tamron lens cap); Kenko Extension Tubes (12mm, 20mm, 36mm); Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II (in Lowepro padded case); Canon 420EX Speedlite flash (in Lowepro case with Eneloop batteries), with digital recorder on top..

Bottom row, from left: Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM; Canon EF 28-105mm f/4-5.6 USM (underneath), covered by Kenko 2x teleconvter; battery charger for Eneloops (white), and Gepe Card Safe (gray); and main camera body -- Canon Rebel XTi (400D), with main lens, Sigma 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 DC.

+++ 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:

During the 1950s, Hindustan Aircraft Limited (HAL) had developed and produced several types of trainer aircraft, such as the HAL HT-2. However, elements within the firm were eager to expand into the then-new realm of supersonic fighter aircraft. Around the same time, the Indian government was in the process of formulating a new Air Staff Requirement for a Mach 2-capable combat aircraft to equip the Indian Air Force (IAF). However, as HAL lacked the necessary experience in both developing and manufacturing frontline combat fighters, it was clear that external guidance would be invaluable; this assistance was embodied by Kurt Tank.

A radar upgrade, together with the introduction of better air-to-ai missiles with a higher range and look down/shoot down capability was considered but never carried out. Furthermore, the idea of a true HF-26 2nd generation variant, powered by a pair of Tumansky R-11F-300 afterburner jet engines (from the license-built MiG-21FLs), was dropped, too – even though this powerplant eventually promised to fulfill the Teer’s design promise of Mach 2 top speed. A total of only 82 HF-26s (including thirteen two-seat trainers with a lengthened fuselage and reduced fuel capacity, plus eight prototypes) were built. The last aircraft were retired from IAF service in 1988 and replaced with Mirage 2000 fighters procured from France that were armed with the Matra Super 530 AAM.

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 14.97 m (49 ft ½ in)

Wingspan: 9.43 m (30 ft 11 in)

Height: 4.03 m (13 ft 2½ in)

Wing area: 30.6 m² (285 sq ft)

Empty weight: 7,000 kg (15,432 lb)

Gross weight: 10,954 kg (24,149 lb) with full internal fuel

Max takeoff weight: 15,700 kg (34,613 lb) with external stores

Powerplant:

2× Tumansky RD-9 afterburning turbojet engines; 29 kN (6,600 lbf) dry thrust each

and 36.78 kN (8,270 lbf) with afterburner

Performance:

Maximum speed: 1,700 km/h (1,056 mph; 917 kn; Mach 1.6) at 11,000 m (36,000 ft)

1,350 km/h (840 mph, 730 kn; Mach 1.1) at sea level

Combat range: 725 km (450 mi, 391 nmi) with internal fuel only

Ferry range: 1,700 km (1,100 mi, 920 nmi) with four drop tanks

Service ceiling: 18,100 m (59,400 ft)

g limits: +6.5

Time to altitude: 9,145 m (30,003 ft) in 1 minute 30 seconds

Wing loading: 555 kg/m² (114 lb/sq ft)

Armament

6× hardpoints (four underwing and two under the fuselage) for a total of 2.500 kg (5.500 lb);

Typical interceptor payload:

- two IR-guided R-3 or R-60 air-to-air-missiles or

two PTB-490 drop tanks on the outer underwing stations

- two semi-active radar-guided ‚Saanp’ air-to-air missiles or two more R-3 or R-60 AAMs

on inner underwing stations

- two 500 l drop tanks or two gun pods with a 23 mm GSh-23L autocannon and 200 RPG

each under the fuselage

The kit and its assembly:

This whiffy delta-wing fighter was inspired when I recently sliced up a PM Model Su-15 kit for my side-by-side-engine BAC Lightning build. At an early stage of the conversion, I held the Su-15 fuselage with its molded delta wings in my hand and wondered if a shortened tail section (as well as a shorter overall fuselage to keep proportions balanced) could make a delta-wing jet fighter from the Flagon base? Only a hardware experiment could yield an answer, and since the Su-15’s overall outlines look a bit retro I settled at an early stage on India as potential designer and operator, as “the thing the HF-24 Marut never was”.

True to the initial idea, work started on the tail, and I chopped off the fuselage behind the wings’ trailing edge. Some PSR was necessary to blend the separate exhaust section into the fuselage, which had to be reduced in depth through wedges that I cut out under the wings trailing edge, plus some good amount of glue and sheer force the bend the section a bit upwards. The PM Model's jet exhausts were drilled open, and I added afterburner dummies inside - anything would look better than the bleak vertical walls inside after only 2-3 mm! The original fin was omitted, because it was a bit too large for the new, smaller aircraft and its shape reminded a lot of the Suchoj heavy fighter family. It was replaced with a Mirage III/V fin, left over from a (crappy!) Pioneer 2 IAI Nesher kit.

Once the rear section was complete, I had to adjust the front end - and here the kitbashing started. First, I chopped off the cockpit section in front of the molded air intake - the Su-15’s long radome and the cockpit on top of the fuselage did not work anymore. As a remedy I remembered another Su-15 conversion I did a (long) while ago: I created a model of a planned ground attack derivative, the T-58Sh, and, as a part of the extensive body work, I transplanted the slanted nose from an academy MiG-27 between the air intakes – a stunt that was relatively easy and which appreciably lowered the cockpit position. For the HF-26M I did something similar, I just transplanted a cockpit from a Hasegawa/Academy MiG-23 with its ogival radome that size-wise better matched with the rest of the leftover Su-15 airframe.

The MiG-23 cockpit matched perfectly with the Su-15's front end, just the spinal area behind the cockpit had to be raised/re-sculpted to blend the parts smoothly together. For a different look from the Su-15 ancestry I also transplanted the front sections of the MiG-23 air intakes with their shorter ramps. Some mods had to be made to the Su-15 intake stubs, but the MiG-23 intakes were an almost perfect fit in size and shape and easy to integrate into the modified front hill. The result looks very natural!

However, when the fuselage was complete, I found that the nose appeared to be a bit too long, leaving the whole new hull with the wings somewhat off balance. As a remedy I decided at a rather late stage to shorten the nose and took out a 6 mm section in front of the cockpit - a stunt I had not planned, but sometimes you can judge things only after certain work stages. Some serious PSR was necessary to re-adjust the conical nose shape, which now looked more Mirage III-ish than planned!

The cockpit was taken mostly OOB, I just replaced the ejection seat and gave it a trigger handle made from thin wire. With the basic airframe complete it was time for details. The PM Model Su-15s massive and rather crude main landing gear was replaced with something more delicate from the scrap box, even though I retained the main wheels. The front landing gear was taken wholesale from the MiG-23, but had to be shortened for a proper stance.

A display holder adapter was integrated into the belly for the flight scenes, hidden well between the ventral ordnance.

The hardpoints, including missile launch rails, came from the MiG-23; the pylons had to be adjusted to match the Su-15's wing profile shape, the Anab missiles lost their tail sections to create the fictional Indian 'Saanp' AAMs. The R-3s on the outer stations were left over from a MP MiG-21. The ventral pylons belong to Academy MiG-23/27s, one came from the donor kit, the other was found in the spares box. The PTB-490 drop tanks also came from a KP MiG-21 (or one of its many reincarnations, not certain).

Painting and markings:

The paint scheme for this fictional aircraft was largely inspired by a picture of a whiffy and very attractive Saab 37 Viggen (an 1:72 Airfix kit) in IAF colors, apparently a model from a contest. BTW, India actually considered buying the Viggen for its Air Force!

IAF aircraft were and are known for their exotic and sometimes gawdy paint schemes, and with IAF MiG-21 “C 992” there’s even a very popular (yet obscure) aircraft that sported literal tiger stripes. The IAF Viggen model was surely inspired by this real aircraft, and I adopted something similar for my HF-26M.

IAF 1 Squadron was therefore settled, and for the paint scheme I opted for a "stripish" scheme, but not as "tigeresque" as "C 992". I found a suitable benchmark in a recent Libyian MiG-21, which carried a very disruptive two-tone grey scheme. I adapted this pattern to the HA-26M airframe and replaced its colors, similar to the IAF Viggen model, which became a greenish sand tone (a mix of Humbrol 121 with some 159; I later found out that I could have used Humbrol 83 from the beginning, though...) and a very dark olive drab (Humbrol 66, which looks like a dull dark brown in contrast with the sand tone), with bluish grey (Humbrol 247) undersides. With the large delta wings, this turned out to look very good and even effective!

For that special "Indian touch" I gave the aircraft a high-contrast fin in a design that I had seen on a real camouflaged IAF MiG-21bis: an overall dark green base with a broad, red vertical stripe which was also the shield for the fin flash and the aircraft's tactical code (on the original bare metal). The fin was first painted in green (Humbrol 2), the red stripe was created with orange-red decal sheet material. Similar material was also used to create the bare metal field for the tactical code, the yellow bars on the splitter plates and for the thin white canopy sealing.

After basic painting was done the model received an overall black ink washing, post-panel shading and extensive dry-brushing with aluminum and iron for a rather worn look.

The missiles became classic white, while the drop tanks, as a contrast to the camouflaged belly, were left in bare metal.

Decals/markings came primarily from a Begemot MiG-25 kit, the tactical codes on the fin and under the wings originally belong to an RAF post-WWII Spitfire, just the first serial letter was omitted. Stencils are few and they came from various sources. A compromise is the unit badge on the fin: I needed a tiger motif, and the only suitable option I found was the tiger head emblem on a white disc from RAF No. 74 Squadron, from the Matchbox BAC Lightning F.6&F.2A kit. It fits stylistically well, though. ;-)

Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (except for the black radome, which became a bit glossy) and finally assembled.

A spontaneous build, and the last one that I completed in 2022. However, despite a vague design plan the model evolved as it grew. Bashing the primitive PM Model Su-15 with the Academy MiG-23 parts was easier than expected, though, and the resulting fictional aircraft looks sturdy but quite believable - even though it appears to me like the unexpected child of a Mirage III/F-4 Phantom II intercourse, or like a juvenile CF-105 Arrow, just with mid-wings? Nevertheless, the disruptive paint scheme suits the delta wing fighter well, and the green/red fin is a striking contrast - it's a colorful model, but not garish.

Nikon D800E + 70-200mm F/2.8 Nikkor Lens vs. Sony A7r + 35mm F/2.8 Carl Zeiss Lens! Both in 45surfer bracket configurations, with Sony NEX-6 cameras attached to the upper cameras with a bracket, for shooting stills and video at the same time! Guess which is heavier! :) The new 45surfer rig is a bit lighter, but that will change a bit when Sony comes out with longer zooms for the Sony A7r.

Both are great! The Sony NEX-6 bracketed to the D800E has the 50mm F/1.8 lens on it, while the Sony NEX-6 bracketed to the Sony A7R has the 35mm F/2.8 lens on it!

Check out some video!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiOMrZIEzg8

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7gq_gCk0jE

The Sony ILCE7R A7r rocks! Was using the B+W 49mm Kaesemann Circular Polarizer MRC Filter on partly cloudy day with some intermittent sun, but mostly cloudy. Check out the low glare off the rocks and water and dramatic, polarizwer-enhanced sky! Super sharp images and crystal-clear pictures!

Was testing the Sony HVL-F60M External Flash on the Sony A7r. You can see it going off in some of the photos (check the exif if in doubt)--worked great, but it overheated a bit sooner than my Nikon flash on the D800E. But it's all good!

Here's some epic goddess video shot at the same time as stills using my 45surfer method/philosophy:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUbE0ay7UeI

www.youtube.com/watch?v=eC-M9fVwk9k

Join Johnny Ranger McCoy's youtube channel for goddess video shot @ the same time as the stills with the Sony A7 !

www.youtube.com/user/bikiniswimsuitmodels

Beautiful swimsuit bikini model goddess on a beautiful December Malibu afternoon! Shot it yesterday. :) Love, love, love the new Sony A7 R!

Was a fun test shoot. Many, many more to come!

All the best on your Epic Hero's Journey from Johnny Ranger McCoy!

Join my facebook!

www.facebook.com/45surfHerosJourneyMythology

Follow me on facebook www.facebook.com/elliot.mcgucken !

The Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-17 (Russian: Микоян и Гуревич МиГ-17) (NATO reporting name "Fresco") is a Soviet jet fighter aircraft, in service from 1952.

The MiG-17 design was generally based on a previously successful Mikoyan and Gurevich fighter, the MiG-15. The major novelty was its introduction of a swept wing with a "compound sweep" configuration: a 45° angle near the fuselage, and a 42° angle for the outboard part of the wings. Other easily visible differences to its predecessor were the three wing-fences on each wing, instead of the MiG-15's two, and the addition of a ventral fin. The MiG-17 shared the same Klimov VK-1 engine and the rest of its construction was similar. The first prototype, designated "SI" by the construction bureau, was flown on the 14 January 1950, piloted by Ivan Ivashchenko.

Despite the SI prototype's crash on 17 March 1950, tests of another prototype "SI-2" and experimental series aircraft "SI-02" and "SI-01" in 1951, were generally successful, and on 1 September 1951 the aircraft was accepted for production. It was estimated that with the same engine as the MiG-15's, the MiG-17's maximum speed is higher by 40-50 km/h, and the fighter has greater manoeuvrability at high altitude.

Serial production started in August 1951. During production, the aircraft was improved and modified several times. The basic MiG-17 was a general-purpose day fighter, armed with three cannons and considered to be most effective in action against enemy aircraft. It could also act as a fighter-bomber, but its bombload was considered light relative to other aircraft of the time, and it usually carried additional fuel tanks instead of bombs.

The second prototype variant, "SP-2", was an interceptor equipped with a radar. Soon a number of MiG-17P all-weather fighters were produced with the Izumrud radar and front air intake modifications. In the spring of 1953 the MiG-17F day fighter entered production. Fitted with the VK-1F engine with an afterburner, which improved its performance, it became the most popular variant of the MiG-17. The next mass-produced variant with afterburner and radar was the MiG-17PF. In 1956 a small series (47 aircraft) was converted to the MiG-17PM standard (also known as PFU) with four first-generation Kaliningrad K-5 (NATO reporting name AA-1 'Alkali') air-to-air missiles. A small series of MiG-17R reconnaissance aircraft were built with VK-1F engine (after first being tested with the VK-5F engine).

Several thousand MiG-17s were built in the USSR by 1958.

Licence production

Lim-5 in Polish Air Force markingsIn 1955, Poland received a license for MiG-17 production. The MiG-17F was produced by the WSK-Mielec factory under the designation Lim-5. The first Lim-5 was built on November 28 1956 and 477 were built by 1960. An unknown number were built as the Lim-5R reconnaissance variant, fitted with the AFA-39 camera. In 1959-1960, 129 MiG-17PF interceptors were produced as the Lim-5P. PZL-WSK also developed several Polish attack plane variants based on the MiG-17: the Lim-5M, produced from 1960; Lim-6bis, produced from 1963; and Lim-6M (converted in the 1970s); as well as two reconnaissance variants: the Lim-6R (Lim-6bisR) and MR.

In China, an initial MiG-17F was assembled from parts in 1956, with license production following in 1957 at Shenyang. The Chinese-built version is known as the Shenyang J-5 (for local use) or F-5 (for export — not to be confused with the F-5 Freedom Fighter). According to some sources, earlier MiG-17s which had been delivered directly from the USSR were designated "J-4". From 1964, the Chinese produced a radar-equipped variant similar to the MiG-17PF, which was known as the J-5A (F-5A). The Chinese also developed a two-seat trainer variant, the JJ-5 (FT-5 for export), which integrated the cabin of the JJ-2 (a license-built MiG-15UTI) with the J-5. It was produced in 1966-1986, being the last-produced MiG-17 variant and its only twin-seater variant. The Soviets did not produce a two-seat MiG-17 as they felt that the training variant of the older MiG-15 was sufficient.

[edit] Technical description

Day-fighter variants (MiG-17, MiG-17F) were armed with two NR-23 23 mm cannons (80 rounds each) and one N-37 37 mm cannon (40 rounds), which were mounted on a common bed under the central air intake. The gun bed could be easily wound down for maintenance. On radar-equipped variants (MiG-17P, MiG-17PF), the N-37 37 mm cannon was replaced with a third NR-23 23 mm cannon (carrying 100 rounds each) to compensate for the weight aft of the radar. All variants could carry 100 kg bombs on two underwing pylons and some could carry 250 kg bombs; however, these pylons were usually used for 400 l fuel tanks. The MiG-17R was armed with two 23 mm cannons.

The only variant with air-to-air missiles was the MiG-17PM (or MiG-17PFU), which could carry four K-5 (NATO: AA-1 'Alkali'). It had no cannons. Some countries occasionally modified their MiG-17s to carry unguided rockets or bombs on additional pylons.

The MiG-17P was equipped with the Izumrud-1 (RP-1) radar, while the MiG-17PF was initially fitted with the RP-1 which was later replaced with the Izumrud-5 (RP-5) radar. The MiG-17PM was also equipped with a radar, used to aim its missiles. Other variants had no radar.

[edit] Operational history

A Soviet-built Egyptian MiG-17The strategic purpose of this, and most other Soviet fighters, was to shoot down US bombers, not engage in dogfights. This subsonic (.93 Mach) fighter was effective against slower (.6-.8 Mach), heavily loaded US fighter-bombers, as well as the mainstay American strategic bombers during the MiG-17's development cycle (such as the B-50 or B-36, which were both still powered by piston engines). Even if the target had sufficient warning and time to shed weight and drag by dropping external ordnance and accelerate to supersonic escape speeds, doing so would have inherently forced the enemy aircraft to abort its bombing mission. By the time the USAF introduced strategic bombers capable of cruising at supersonic speeds such as the B-58 Hustler and FB-111, however, the MiG-17 became obsolete in PVO service and was supplanted by supersonic interceptors such as the MiG-21 and MiG-23.

Twenty countries flew MiG-17s. The MiG-17 became a standard fighter in all Warsaw Pact countries in the late 1950s and early 1960s. They were also bought by many other countries, mainly in Africa and Asia, that were neutrally aligned or allied with the USSR.

MiG-17s were not available for the Korean War, but saw combat for the first time over the Straits of Taiwan when PRC MiG-17s clashed with ROC F-86 Sabres in 1958. The MiG-17 was the primary interceptor of the fledgling Vietnam People's Air Force in 1965 and scored its first victories and saw considerable action during the Vietnam War, when they frequently worked in conjunction with MiG-21s and MiG-19s. Some Vietnamese pilots, in fact, preferred the MiG-17 over the MiG-21; it was more agile, though not as fast.

The American fighter community was shocked in 1965 when elderly, subsonic MiG-17s downed sophisticated Mach-2-class F-105 Thunderchief fighter-bombers over North Vietnam. To redress disappointing combat performance against smaller, more agile fighters like the MiGs, the Americans established dissimilar air combat training (DACT) in training programs such as "TOPGUN", which employed subsonic A-4 Skyhawk aircraft to mimic more manoeuvrable opponents such as the MiG-17. The US Navy also set Adversary squadrons equipped with the nimble A-4 at each of its fighter and attack Master jet bases to provide DACT.

MiG-17s also flew against Israel in the various Arab-Israeli conflicts. At least 24 of them served with the Nigerian Air Force and were flown by a mixed group of Nigerian and mercenary pilots from East Germany, Russia, Great Britain and South Africa during the 1967-70 Nigerian Civil War.

Scandinavia-based JAS1A Valkyrie 15/24 from SVF-15 climbs into the sky in clean configuration, except for the standard GU-11 gun pod.

Another historic classic, another "child" of the late 70ies: an anime interpretation of the famous 'Fields & Meadows' camouflage, characteristic for the Swedish Saab 37 'Viggen' jet plane family (and also used on other Swedish military vehicles, but the Viggen is/was the most prominent one).

This weirdo idea had been lurking in the back of my mind for a long time, and when a friend of mine uttered the idea of such a color variant for a Valkyrie, too, I decided to start a kind of competion - for comparison purposes, to see how an individual interpretation of this unique paradigm on a Valykrie from both of us would look like?

The kit is, as usual, a simple, vintage 1:100 scale VF-1A Valkyrie Fighter from ARII. Since the livery would be the "star" of the kit, only minor things were changed/enhanced. Usual added cockpit details include a HUD, a pilot figure, seat belts and an ejection seat trigger. Some typical Valkyrie antennae on the outside were added, too, and the rudders re-positioned off of the neutral position.

Additional external features are a IR pod under the nose, small bulges in tne air intake area which are supposed to contain guidance antennae for the air-to-ground missiles (see below), and two outriggers under the vertical fins which contain a (fictional) radar warning system and a chaff dispenser. Viggen would frequently carry such equipment in external pods, so why not be more effective and integrate them into the hull?

Now for the camouflage scheme... that one was tricky. The colors themselves are already a riddle. I guess that anyone who tries to match the original colors through photographs becomes crazy at some point, because light and weathering make them look VERY different from machine to machine, and even from picture to picture!

The Viggen's proportions hardly match a Valkyrie, but I tried my best to apply the 'Fields & Meadows' scheme on the upper surfaces. But transferring a scheme from a fixed double delta wing airplane onto a variable geometry wing fighter just leaves lots of room for interpretation... After extensive research (and experience with two 'Fields & Meadows' Viggens in 1/72 scale in the past) I finally settled for the small Valykrie on:

Light Green "322M" = Testors/Model Master 1734 (Green Zinc Chromate)

Dark Green "326M" = Humbrol 117 (Leaf Green, FS34102)

Black "093M" = Mix of Humbrol's 33 & 91 (Flat Black & Black Green) in 1:1 ratio

Earth "507M" = Testors/Model Master 2008 (Raw Sienna)

Grey undersides "058M" = Testors/Model Master 2086 (RLM76, Lichtblau)

The Zinc Chromate sounds crude and IS very bright, but on the 1/100 scale Valkyrie this extreme green is O.K., esp. with the later black ink wash which tones down everything a bit. At 1/72 scale I would have rather used Humbrol's 80 (Grass Green), which is a bit "milder" and comes IMHO very close to the real life color.

Humbrol 117 for the dark green tone is a compromise, and IMHO still a bit too dark. During pre-tests I found more authentic but even darker greens like Humbrol's 116 (FS 34079), 75 (Bronze Green) or 30 (Dark Green) to be too murky for the small kit. 117 is already considerably "brighter", and this contrast was simply necessary for a good overall impression of the camouflage scheme - the dark green was supposed to stand out against both the light green and the black fields. I should have used RAL6003, but the way it turned out is still acceptable.

Instead of pure black which 'Fields & Meadows' is supposed to contain, I went for a very dark green, which also yields a slightly bleached look. Some pictures of real Viggen also suggest that the "Black" is actually a greenish tone.

Testors' Raw Sienna from their figure color series is a very good match for the Viggen's light earth color patches. Another, more common but also very plausible alternative is Humbrol's 118 (US Tan, FS30219). Again, pictures of real Viggen suggest a wide variety of light brown shades due to fading and light influences! The Sienna is more yellowish, though, so I went for that tone.

Finally, RLM76 for the undersides was a surprise find! Originally, FS36375 (Humbrol 127) was my choice. But when I checked other paints in store I found Testors' RLM76 to be a tad lighter and with a stronger bluish hue - exactly the look I had been searching for for this kit, without need for mixing.

The radar nose became semi-gloss black and the wings' leading edges were painted in flatr aluminium Markings were consciously left simple, trying to emulate the stern original Viggen look as much as possible, with no flashy distractions. Consequently, there are just standard Macross roundels instead of Swedish insignia (which look, in red/white instead of blue/yellow, a bit disturbing?), a yellow squadron number at the cockpit (for SVF-15) and the red individual airplane number on the vertical fins' outsides. Only a falcon squadron empblem in red and yellow found its way onto the fins (it comes from an Israeli IAI Kfir from a Hasegawa kit), because the colors matched well with the overall look of the kit.

After basic painting, the kit received a light wash with black ink and some fine liner treatment. Then, decals and finally a coat of matte varnish was appllied. The end result looks cool, though, whatever one might quibble about authenticity!

Some extra effort went into the ordnance under this VF-1A's wings, though: the outer pylons hold a 4-missile launcher each (leftover from a fictional but neat ESCI Kamow Ka-34 'Hokum' kit), the inner pylons carry larger cruise missiles which were inspired by the characteristic Rb04E and more modern Rbs-15 anti-ship/surface missiles the AJ37 used to carry in its heydays.

These are actually modified Norwegian AGM-119C 'Penguin' missiles in 1/72 which I found in a Hasegawa F-16 weapon kit and never has a use for. I shortened the fuselage, changed the main fins into wing end plate types and added details like an underbelly air intake for a jet engine (like the more modern RBS-15 missile now carried by the Gripen) and an exhaust nozzle. Finally, these missiles were painted to look like a Rb04E in white, black and aluminium - they help a lot in order to create a "vintage AJ37 feel" to this Valkyrie.

Even when the finish is not perfect, it is amazing to see how well even such an exotic livery works on a Macross Valkyrie - it suits her well, as an hommage to one of the most famous (and attractive?) camouflage schemes ever applied to military verhicles.

This is the admin/build/feeds page. Feeds comes with a series of preconfigured Importers for common tasks.

This is what used to be called the "Standard" bedroom on Amtrak configured in the nighttime (beds down) configuration. Amtrak has renamed these to "Roomettes". Roomettes sleep two adults in two beds, bunk style (top bunk folds down and the two seats slide together to form the bottom bed).

In the Viewliner cars (the single decker cars mostly run east of Chicago) include a toilet and sink in the roomette. Superliner cars (double decker cars), roomette's do not include sink & toilet in the room.

(file: 080909-08.46.05)

Copyright set info: Found here...

galleryget.com/gallery/amtrak%20auto%20train%20roomette

www.carcabin.com/-amtrak-roomette-sleeper-car-on-the-silv...

+++ 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 became the backbone of RAF Fighter Command, and saw action in the European, Mediterranean, Pacific and the South-East Asian theatres during World War II. Much loved by its pilots, the Spitfire served in several roles, including interceptor, photo-reconnaissance, fighter-bomber, carrier-based fighter, and trainer. It was built in many variants, using several wing configurations. Although the original airframe was designed to be powered by a Rolls-Royce Merlin engine producing 1,030 hp (768 kW), it was adaptable enough to use increasingly powerful Merlin and later Rolls-Royce Griffon engines producing up to 2,035 hp (1,520 kW) and was exported and used by many countries, even after WWII. One of these operators was the Republic of China, which used late fighter versions like the powerful F Mk. 22 and the F Mk. 24. The Mk 24 was the last land-based fighter variant of the Spitfire. Very similar to Mk 22, this variant could also carry rocket projectiles and introduced some minor changes to equipment and installations, e .g. a larger, Spiteful-type tail with a double trim tab.

.

The kit and its assembly:

Another what-if model, even though a simple one. I must admit that I am not a big fan of the Spitfire (as well as the Bf 109), so I prefer other types, but the late Griffon-powered versions got something beefy about them, so I gave in and did this one.

This whif was inspired by a fantasy side profile from whatifmodelers.com, created by fellow user Darth Panda who did a range of several late Spitfires in China Nationalist/Taiwanese markings – obviously inspired by a sheet from Tiger Wing Decals (for P-51s). Very plausible, though, and this is just my interpretation of that nice idea – and another contribution to the 2013 Asiarama Group Build of the forum.

The basis for the build is the excellent Special Hobby Spitfire F Mk. 24 kit, which actually contains a vast collection of optional parts that allow LOTS of land- and sea-based late Spitfires (as well as fictional combinations…) to be built. The parts are crisply molded, fit is very good and surface details are just great – the kit almost falls together. The thing is pricy, but you get good value and lots of spares for future projects.

The kit was built almost 100% OOB as a Mk. 24, I just modified the propeller with a metal axis so that it can spin freely (for the pictures). The drop tank comes from the kit, as well as the (empty) rocket attachment points under the wings.

Painting and markings:

This whif was supposed to have a ‘Flying Tigers’ aura around it, so I settled for a simple Olive Drab/Neutral Grey livery, which was carried e. g. by P-47s. On a Spitfire this looks a bit odd, but that’s what makes the model interesting, as it combines a well-known and simple paint scheme with something unusual for it.

To add some excitement I decided to apply a worn and flaked look, with a primer coat in acrylic Aluminum (Revell) and some grinded salt as mask before the final colors were applied. Later the salt was rubbed away, revealing the bare metal in small clusters – the effect is good, even though the technique is rather dedicated to larger scale military vehicles.

The colors are ‘Olive Drab ANA 613’ from Modelmaster (#2050) and Humbrol 87 (Steel Grey) – the latter is lighter than true ‘Neutral Grey’ (e. g. FS 36173, Humbrol 176), which looks IMHO a bit dark on a 1:72 scale model. After a black ink wash the whole kit received additional weathering through dry-brushing, esp. on the upper surfaces in order to simulate sun-bleached paint. Tones used here are ‘Faded Olive Drab’ and FS 34087 from Modelmaster (#2051 and 1711), while Humbrol 128 (FS 36320) was used for the lower surfaces.

All interior surfaces were painted in Chromate Yellow primer – initially only as a color contrast to the green/grey livery, but later I found pics that suggest that such a color was actually used on/in the Mk. 22/24? Anyway it’s just for the look.

The decals were puzzled together. Roundels actually belong to a RoCAF F-100 (from a MicroScale sheet), the striped rudder was improvised and the tactical codes come from the scrap box. The shark mouth actually belongs to a Russian MiG-29, but makes a perfect detail on this Spitfire and suits the elegant aircraft very well! ;)

In the end, a simple project without much need for body work, and the worn look turned out very well!

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For other ships of the same name, see USS Omaha.

Omaha, World War II configuration

USS Omaha (CL-4), in New York Harbor, 10 February 1943.

History

United States

Name: Omaha

Namesake: City of Omaha, Nebraska

Ordered: 29 August 1916

Awarded:

26 December 1916

21 February 1919 (supplementary contract)

Builder: Todd Dry Dock & Construction Co., Tacoma, Washington

Cost: $1,541,396 (cost of hull & machinery)[1]

Laid down: 6 December 1918

Launched: 14 December 1920

Sponsored by: Louise Bushnell White

Completed: 1 August 1921

Commissioned: 24 February 1923

Decommissioned: 1 November 1945

Struck: 28 November 1945

Identification:

Hull symbol:CL-4

Code letters:NISL

ICS November.svgICS India.svgICS Sierra.svgICS Lima.svg

Honors and

awards: Bronze-service-star-3d.png 1 × battle star

Fate: Scrapped in February 1946

General characteristics (as built)[2][3]

Class & type: Omaha-class light cruiser

Displacement: 7,050 long tons (7,163 t) (standard)

Length:

555 ft 6 in (169.32 m) oa

550 ft (170 m) pp

Beam: 55 ft (17 m)

Draft: 14 ft 3 in (4.34 m) (mean)

Installed power:

12 × Yarrow boilers

90,000 ihp (67,000 kW) (Estimated power produced on trials)

Propulsion:

4 × Westinghouse reduction geared steam turbines

4 × screws

Speed:

35 knots (65 km/h; 40 mph)

33.7 knots (62.4 km/h; 38.8 mph) (Estimated speed on trials)

Crew: 29 officers 429 enlisted (peace time)

Armament:

2 × twin 6 in (152 mm)/53 caliber

8 × single 6 in (152 mm)/53 caliber

2 × 3 in (76 mm)/50 caliber guns anti-aircraft

6 × triple 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes

4 × twin 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes

224 × mines (removed soon after completion)

Armor:

Belt: 3 in (7.6 cm)

Deck: 1 1⁄2 in (38 mm)

Conning Tower: 1 1⁄2 in (38 mm)

Bulkheads: 1 1⁄2–3 in (38–76 mm)

Aircraft carried: 2 × floatplanes

Aviation facilities:

2 × Amidship catapults

crane

General characteristics (1945)[4]

Armament:

2 × twin 6 in (152 mm)/53 caliber

6 × single 6 in (152 mm)/53 caliber

8 × 3 in (76 mm)/50 caliber anti-aircraft guns

6 × triple 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes

3 × twin 40 mm (1.6 in) Bofors guns

14 × single 20 mm (0.79 in) Oerlikon cannons

USS Omaha (CL-4) was the lead ship of Omaha-class light cruiser, originally classified as a scout cruiser, of the United States Navy. She was the second US Navy ship named for the city of Omaha, Nebraska. She spent most of her career in the Atlantic. At this time her primary mission was training, and she proved to be very capable by consistently winning fleet awards in gunnery and communications. She made many ports-of-call throughout the Mediterranean and Caribbean during her peacetime cruises, displaying the Stars and Stripes. Later she was assigned to Neutrality Patrol, during which she captured the German blockade runners Odenwald. She also supported Operation Dragoon, the invasion of the south of France.

Contents

1 Construction and design

1.1 Armament changes

2 Inter-war period

2.1 Capture of Odenwald

3 World War II

4 Awards

5 References

6 External links

Construction and design

Omaha was laid down on 6 December 1918 by the Todd SB & DD Co. of Tacoma, Washington.[5] The ship was launched on 14 December 1920 and was sponsored by Louise Bushnell White. She was commissioned on 24 February 1923, with Captain David C. Hanrahan in command.[2]

Omaha was 550 feet (170 metres) long at the waterline with an overall length of 555 feet 6 inches (169.32 metres), her beam was 55 feet 4 inches (16.87 metres) and a mean draft of 13 feet 6 inches (4.11 metres). Her standard displacement was 7,050 long tons (7,160 t) and 9,508 long tons (9,661 t) at full load.[3][6] Her crew, during peace time, consisted of 29 officers and 429 enlisted men.[4][7]

Omaha was powered by four Westinghouse geared steam turbines, each driving one screw, using steam generated by 12 Yarrow boilers. The engines were designed to produce 90,000 indicated horsepower (67,000 kW) and reach a top speed of 35 knots (65 km/h; 40 mph).[3] She was designed to provided a range of 10,000 nautical miles (19,000 km; 12,000 mi) at a speed of 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph), but was only capable of 8,460 nautical miles (15,670 km; 9,740 mi) at a speed of 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph)[6]

Omaha's main armament went through many changes while she was being designed. Originally she was to mount ten 6-inch (150 mm)/53 caliber guns; two on either side at the waist, with the remaining eight mounted in tiered casemates on either side of the fore and aft superstructures. After America's entry into World War I the US Navy worked alongside the Royal Navy and it was deceided to mount four six-inch/53 caliber guns in two twin gun turrets fore and aft and keep the eight guns in the tiered casemates so that she would have an eight gun broadside and, due to limited arcs of fire from the casemate guns, four to six guns firing fore or aft. Her secondary armament consisted of two 3-inch (76 mm)/50 caliber anti-aircraft guns in single mounts.[8] [9]Omaha was initially built with the capacity to carry 224 mines, but these were removed early in her career to make way for more crew accommodations.[10] She also carried two triple and two twin, above-water, torpedo tube mounts for 21-inch (533 mm) torpedoes. The triple mounts were fitted on either side of the upper deck, aft of the aircraft catapults, and the twin mounts were one deck lower on either side, covered by hatches in the side of the hull.[6]

The ship lacked a full-length waterline armor belt. The sides of her boiler and engine rooms and steering gear were protected by 3 inches (76 mm) of armor. The transverse bulkheads at the end of her machinery rooms were 1.5 inches (38 mm) thick forward and three inches thick aft. The deck over the machinery spaces and steering gear had a thickness of 1.5 inches. The gun turrets were not armored and only provided protection against muzzle blast and the conning tower had 1.5 inches of armor.[9] Omaha carried two floatplanes aboard that were stored on the two catapults. Initially these were probably Vought VE-9s, but the ship operated Curtiss SOC Seagulls from 1935 and Vought OS2U Kingfishers after 1940.[11]

Armament changes

During her career Omaha went through several armament changes, some of these changes were save weight, but others were to increase her AA armament. The lower torpedo tube mounts proved to be very wet and were removed, and the openings plated over, before the start of World War II. Another change made before the war was to increase the 3-inch (76 mm) guns to eight, all mounted in the ship's waist. After 1940 the lower aft 6-inch (150 mm) guns were removed and the casemates plated over for the same reason as the lower torpedo mounts.[8] The ship's anti-aircraft armament were originally augmented by three quadruple 1.1 in (28 mm)/75 gun mounts by early 1942, however, these didn't prove reliable and were replaced by twin 40 mm (1.6 in) Bofors guns later in the war. At about the same time, Omaha also received 14 20 mm (0.79 in) Oerlikon cannons.[4]

Inter-war period

Following her commissioning, Omaha joined the Atlantic Fleet in peacetime. At this time, her primary mission was training, and she proved to be very capable by consistently winning fleet awards in gunnery and communications. She made many ports of call throughout the Mediterranean and Caribbean during her peacetime cruises, displaying the US flag.

Capture of Odenwald

Just prior to the US entry into World War II, on 6 November 1941, while on neutrality patrol with Somers in the mid-Atlantic near the equator, Omaha sighted a vessel which aroused much suspicion by her actions. Refusing to satisfactorily identify herself, and taking evasive action, the stranger was ordered to heave to. She flew the American flag and carried the name Willmoto of Philadelphia on her stern.

Omaha crew members posing on the deck of the Odenwald[12]

As Omaha's crew dispatched a boarding party to the freighter, its crew took to lifeboats and hoisted a signal which indicated that the ship was sinking. When their party pulled alongside, they could hear explosions from within the hull, while one of the fleeing crewmen shouted "This is a German ship and she is sinking!" In short order, the men of Omaha – despite the extreme risk – salvaged the vessel, rendered her safe and had her underway for Puerto Rico. The "American freighter Wilmoto", as it turned out, was the German freighter Odenwald carrying a cargo of rubber.

Odenwald was taken to Puerto Rico. An admiralty court ruled that since the ship was illegally claiming American registration, there was sufficient grounds for confiscation. A legal case was started claiming that the crews of the two American ships had salvage rights because Odenwald's crew attempting to scuttle the ship was the equivalent of abandoning her. The court case – settled in 1947 – ruled the members of the boarding party and the prize crew were entitled to $3,000 apiece while all the other crewmen in Omaha and Somers were entitled to two months’ pay and allowances. This was the last prize money awarded by the US Navy.[13]

World War II

After the United States entered the war, Omaha continued her South Atlantic patrol, instructed to stop German blockade runners. While patrolling out of a base in Brazil on 4 January 1944, with Jouett, she spotted a ship which immediately showed signs of being scuttled. The ship's crew took to the boats and she began settling by the stern. The following day, another ship was sighted and its crew set her afire. Omaha opened fire and the vessel disappeared beneath the waves. Both ships carried cargoes of rubber, which the Germans desperately needed.

In March, Omaha proceeded to Naples to prepare for landings in southern France. On 19 August, she protected the flank of the units bombarding Toulon, and three days later took part in the operations that resulted in the surrender of the German garrison on the island of Porquerolles.

Omaha was present at the surrender of Giens on 23 August, and on 25 August, she delivered a sustained bombardment on targets in the Toulon area. Shortly thereafter, she was detached from the operation and returned to patrol duties. The termination of hostilities (15 August 1945) found her patrolling in the South Atlantic.

Omaha sailed for Philadelphia upon detachment from patrol, arriving on 1 September. By 17 October, she was slated for retirement, and she decommissioned on 1 November. Omaha was struck from the Naval Vessel Register on 28 November, and scrapped in February 1946 at the Philadelphia Navy Yard.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

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

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

General characteristics:

Crew: one pilot

Length: 29 ft 6 in (9.00 m)

Wingspan: 32 ft 2 in (9.80 m)

Height: 11 ft 5 in (3.86 m)

Wing area: 242.1 ft2 (22.48 m²)

Airfoil: NACA 2213 (root)

NACA 2209.4 (tip)

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

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

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

Powerplant:

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

Performance:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Armament:

2× 20 mm Hispano Mk II with 60 RPG

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

The kit and its assembly:

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

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

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

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

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

Painting and markings:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BASIC DETAILS

Bus Company/Operator: VALLACAR TRANSIT, INC.

Bus Name: CERES TOURS

Fleet Number: 883

Classification: Air conditioned Inter Provincial Operation Bus

Franchise Route:

Route:

Seating Configuration: 2x2 seater

Seating Capacity: 45 passengers

BUS BODY

Bus Manufacturer: VTI-TEBBAP (Vallacar Transit, Inc. - Transport Engineering Bus Body Assembly Plant)

Bus Model: VTI-TEBBAP Yanson ViKing 11th Generation

CHASSIS

Chassis Manufacturer: Hino Motors, Ltd.

Chassis Model: Hino RK1JMT

Suspension: Leaf Spring Suspension

ENGINE

Engine Manufacturer: Hino Motors, Ltd.

Engine Model: Hino J08C-TK

TRANSMISSION

Type: Manual Transmission

Gear: 6 speed forward and 1 speed reverse

BASIC DETAILS

Bus Company: VALLACAR TRANSIT, INC.

Bus Name: CERES LINER

Fleet Number: 8397

Classification: Non-air Conditioned Inter Provincial Operation Bus

Franchise Route:

Route:

Seating Configuration: 3x2 seater

Seating Capacity 39 passengers

Bus Manufacturer: Yanson VTI-TEBBAP(Vallacar Transit Inc.-Transport Engineering and Bus Body Assembly Plant)

Bus Model: VTI-TEBBAP Yanson Coaster Hino FB

CHASSIS

Chassis Manufacturer: Hino Motors, Ltd.

Chassis Model: Hino FB4J

(FB4J14776)

Suspension: Leaf Spring Suspension

ENGINE

Engine Manufacturer: Hino Motors, Ltd.

Engine Model: Hino J05C-TE

(J05CTE17629)

TRANSMISSION

Type: Manual Transmission

Gear: 5 speed forward and 1 speed reverse

BASIC DETAILS

Bus Company/Operator: VALLACAR TRANSIT, INC.

Bus Name: CERES TOURS

Fleet Number: 80044

Classification: Air Conditioned Inter Provincial Operation Bus

Franchise Route: Cebu City-Santander

Route: Cebu City-Bato via Dalaguete-Oslob

Seating Configuration: 2x2 seater

Seating Capacity: 45+1 passengers

BUS BODY

Bus Manufacturer: Xiamen King Long United Automotive Industry Co., Ltd.

Bus Model: King Long XMQ6111Y

CHASSIS

Chassis Manufacturer: Xiamen King Long United Automotive Industry Co., Ltd.

Chassis Model: XMQ6110R1 LA6R1FS

(LA6R1FSF0CB101336)

Suspension: Air Suspension

ENGINE

Engine Manufacturer: China Yuchai International, Ltd./Guangxi Yuchai Machinery Group, Ltd.

Engine: Yuchai YC6G270-20 G4606

(YC6G27020G4606C00013)

TRANSMISSION

Type: Manual Transmission

Gear: 6 speed forward and 1 speed reverse

BASIC DETAILS

Bus Company: VALLACAR TRANSIT, INC.

Bus Name: CERES LINER

Fleet Number: 8357

Classification: Non-air Conditioned Inter Provincial Operation Bus

Franchise Route:

Route:

Seating Configuration: 3x2 seater

Seating Capacity: 39 passenger

Bus Manufacturer: Yanson VTI-TEBBAP(Vallacar Transit Inc.-Transport Engineering and Bus Body Assembly Plant)

Bus Model: VTI-TEBBAP Yanson Coaster Hino FB

CHASSIS

Chassis Manufacturer: Hino Motors, Ltd.

Chassis Model: Hino FB4J

(FB4J14768)

Suspension: Leaf Spring Suspension

ENGINE

Engine Manufacturer: Hino Motors, Ltd.

Engine Model: Hino J05C-TE

(J05CTE17621)

TRANSMISSION

Type: Manual Transmission

Gear: 5 speed forward and 1 speed reverse

Location: Cebu South Bus Terminal

Natalio B. Bacalso Avenue, Cebu City, Cebu, Philippines

Date Taken: August 22, 2018

*Specifications are subject to verification and may be changed without any prior notice.

How to disable Network Manager on Linux

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

Work is nearly complete on the southbound I-5 ramp that will take drivers between Harrison Avenue and Mellen Street. Contractor crews are putting the finishing touches before the switch in late-March. Drivers will exit southbound I-5 at Harrison Avenue to reach their destinations at Mellen Street. The new configuration will help reduce highway backups and improve safety. Project info www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/I5/MellentoGrandMound/phase3

A standard "Kitsune" configuration Tanuki Corp. modular starfighter is accompanied by a Kitsune/Mujina Droid-controlled fighter variant on a deep space security patrol of a popular shipping lane.

The Tanuki Corp. modular starfighter system is easily adaptable to varying needs. By replacing the cockpit module with a droid control system, this otherwise standard Kitsune configuration becomes a very capable drone fighter.

It's not uncommon for strike wings of up to 6 Kitsune/Mujina Droid-controlled fighter (K/M-DCF) variants accompanying a single human-piloted standard configuration Kitsune fighter to be very effective in attack and defense missions. The AI necessary for such effectiveness is likened to that of a trained police dog, obeying the masters commands and actions with a series of pre-programmed algorithmic responses and analytical reactions to unforeseen situations.

Results of completely un-manned K/M-DCF flight wings have, however, ranged from disappointing to disastrous, depending on the amount of free will the AI is given. One account of a test flight of a group of K/M-DCFs with the standard "police dog" AI ended in a brawl over who would be the pack leader, inciting multiple attempts to "assert dominance" that caused multiple hull breaches and the loss of one Droid Control Module before safety measures could be enacted.

- I'm having a lot of fun coming up with names for these things. The modular nature of the concept makes it hard to pin down actual names, but the idea that certain configurations are popular enough to be 'standard' helped address that. Since the modules can cause the fighters to take on different shapes, I've been playing with shapeshifters of Japanese folklore - "Kitsune" being the Fox, "Mujina" being a type of spirit that can often take the shape of a faceless human (which gave birth to the idea of the droid control module in place of the cockpit). The corporation that builds these is Tanuki, yet another shapeshifter.

LEGO Digital Designer files

Droid Control Module

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

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

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

General characteristics:

Crew: one pilot

Length: 29 ft 6 in (9.00 m)

Wingspan: 32 ft 2 in (9.80 m)

Height: 11 ft 5 in (3.86 m)

Wing area: 242.1 ft2 (22.48 m²)

Airfoil: NACA 2213 (root)

NACA 2209.4 (tip)

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

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

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

Powerplant:

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

Performance:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Armament:

2× 20 mm Hispano Mk II with 60 RPG

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

The kit and its assembly:

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

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

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

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

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

Painting and markings:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Check out my blog: marciabeckett.blogspot.com

The church dedicated to the Saviour's Configuration ("Metamorfosi tou Sotira") is built in the middle of "Palio Chorio" ("Old Village"). It was constructed in the 16th century (1520) and it has the same architectural style as the other two small churches of the village, that of "Panagia Theotokos" and that of Saint George "Perachoritis". Up until 1994, liturgies were conducted daily since it was considered as the village's main church.

It is a rectangular church of the Basilica style and with elements of the Byzantine style. It can accommodate up to 100-150 faithful. Externally it is made of stone and whitewashed.

The inhabitants built extensions to the church in 1880 and 1960 because the village was continuously growing. When they dug the floor they discovered many pieces of frescoes, which surely came from this church. Indeed, they were able to read the name of the hagiographer who was named Symeon Afxentis. He is known for his frescoes of the "Panagia Theotokos" and "Archangel" churches in the village of Galata.

The icon screen is woodcut, as also are the two Psalters that can be found in the church.

There are various remarkable representations dating back to the 16th and 17th century. The icon screen is of various different chronologies.

www.kakopetriavillage.com/churches.html

The settlement of Kakopetria, although mentioned by the mediaeval annalists, existed -at least- since the Frank domination era. The village's region was inhabited around the 6th - 7th century and the various excavations that have been conducted in 1938 around the old village of Kakopetria (in the Ailades venue) prove this. During the excavations a dispenser of an ancient shrine -most probably belonging to the goddess Athena- came to light. A large number of movable findings were found, mainly terra-cotta, many of which depict the goddess Athena, as well as small, limestone, statues and parts of statues and bronze and iron shafts from spearheads and arrows. The findings most probably date back to the Archaic and Classic eras of Cyprus. Other statuettes represent Hercules and are an indication that he was also worshiped in the area along with the goddess Athena. These findings are found in the Archaeological Museum of Nicosia.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakopetria

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

Some background:

At the end of WW2, Sweden was in search of a new fighter offering better performance than the J21 could offer. The latter was an indigenous fighter/attack aircraft from SAAB that first took to the air in 1943 and dated back to a requirement from 1941. The J21 was designed as an unusual twin boom pusher configuration, where the propeller was mounted in the rear of the fuselage, pushing the aircraft forward. The advantages of a pusher design were that the view forward was unobstructed and armament could be concentrated in the nose, while the heavy engine was placed close to the center of gravity for better handling and agility. A major drawback was the difficulty in escaping from the aircraft in an emergency, though, as the pilot could get drawn into the propeller blades. SAAB deliberated between systems that would eject the pilot, or jettison the propeller or even the whole engine, via a system of explosive bolts, and eventually installed an early, explosives-powered ejector seat developed by Bofors for this purpose.

However, the SAAB 21 had its share of trouble (overheating an unreliable DB 605 engine), and in 1944 a new requirement for a more powerful and conventional fighter was issued. Selecting the Rolls Royce Griffon as the powerplant, SAAB initially looked into adapting the engine to the J21. However, this proved impractical, so SAAB started work on a clean-sheet design.

The last J27A was, after serving with fighter units primarily in southern Sweden, already retired from frontline duties in 1955. Some aircraft, though, were kept in service as target tugs, liaison aircraft for the air staff and for dissimilar air combat training. The last machine was finally decommissioned in summer 1961.

General characteristics:

Crew: One

Length: 9.90 m (32 ft 5 in)

Wingspan: 11.84 m (38 ft 9 1/2 in)

Height: 4.19 (13 ft 9 in)

Wing area: 22.2 m² (238.87 ft²)

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

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

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

Powerplant:

1× license-built Rolls-Royce Griffon 83 liquid-cooled V-12 engine, 2,340 hp (1,745 kW),

driving a six-bladed contraprop

Performance:

Maximum speed: 435 mph (700 km/h) at 20,000 ft (6,100 m)

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

Range: 1,100 mi (1,770 km)

Service ceiling: 40,000 ft (12,190 m)

Rate of climb: 3,800 ft/min (19.3 m/s)

Armament:

4× 20 mm Bofors cannon (license-built Hispano Mk.II cannon) with 200 rpg in the outer wings

Underwing hardpoints for 8-12 × 3inch "60 lb" rocket projectiles

or 2× 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs

or a pair of 45 gal (205 l) or 90 gal (409 l) drop tanks.

The kit and its assembly:

This is a “real” what-if model, or at least the attempt to build a phantom aircraft from single parts! The SAAB 27 is a bit of a mystery, because valid information is sparse, especially concerning details about its shape. You find some drawings or profiles, but IMHO these are based on guesswork and rather vague. The J27 is frequently described as a “Swedish Spitfire with a P-51 radiator” or a “Swedish Super-Spitfire”, but that leaves much to be desired, because the similarity is only superficial. Hence, this model here is rather a free interpretation of what a service J27 could have looked like.

For long time I fought with two building options: either convert a Fairey Firefly (Airfix’ Mk. 5 would have been my bet), or use a Spitfire Mk. 22. After long considerations I settled for the latter one, because I feared that the Firefly would result in a rather massive aircraft, and the Airfix kit itself is vintage and worth a building fight on its own.

So I used an Airfix Spitfire Mk. 22, but from this (very nice!) kit just a few things were taken, because I wanted a more individual look. Only the fuselage, cockpit interior and landing gear survived, and I even inserted a 2.5mm wide “wedge plug” around the cockpit and wedge-shaped inserts at the fuselage halves’ seams in order to add some beef to the sleek (if not spindly) Spitfire. I think it’s hard to notice, but the overall proportions look good. At the tail and the front end, the original fuselage width was kept, though.

Reason behind this was the P-51 radiator’s width (leftover from a Matchbox kit) that was considerably wider than the Spitfire fuselage. Furthermore, the thicker/more massive wings from a P-47 (from an early MPM kit) also called for a more massive body.

For the new wings, some adaptations to the Spitfire wing roots had to be made, though, e.g. a bulged mid-wing section under the fuselage. The Thunderbolt parts also had the benefit of wells for a landing gear that retracts inwards. I also used P-47 landing gear parts, even though the struts were shortened at their bases by 3mm and the covers accordingly. For the sake of a different look (the Spitfire wheels are very characteristic) I used different main wheels from a Revell G.91R. The landing gear cover arrangement differs from J27 sketches (as far as I can tell, it must have been similar to the P-51's), but I stuck with the P-47 parts because they match well with the rest of the aircraft.

The contraprop belongs to a late mark Seafire, left over from a Special Hobby kit. The propeller was in so far modified that I added a metal axis and a styrene tube adapter for the fuselage, so that both propeller parts can (theoretically) spin. OOB, the Special Hobby solution is simply to be glued onto the nose, fixed, despite being constructed in two separate parts?

Furthermore, the carburetor intake was changed: the Spitfire’s scoop at the wings’ leading edge was replace by a Firefly-style lip intake right behind the propeller.

The whole tail section was reconditioned, too. Descriptions of the J27’s tail are corny, but “more square than a Spitfire’s”. Instead of simple cosmetic surgery I thoroughly replaced the OOB fin with a Supermarine Attacker’s (Novo kit) with some mods to the outline, which fits well in size and is …more square!

The new tail is a bit taller and has a fin fillet, making it look very P-51-ish, but that’s O.K. for me. At least it’s different from the round Spitfire shape.

I also exchanged the stabilizers, the round Spitfire parts gave way to differently shaped pieces from a Hobby Boss La-7. Their shape is similar to a P-47’s, but they are smaller and match J27 illustrations well.

The canopy was also changed. Through the widened fuselage around the cockpit the tight OOB Spitfire hood would hardly match, anyway. The bubble layout remained, and I adapted a bigger Matchbox P-51 canopy to the new fuselage contours, and moved forward as far as possible.

Painting and markings:

The Swedish Air Force as operator was settled, as well as early post-WWII markings. But I did not want the standard, uniform olive green/blue grey livery, so I painted the upper surfaces with camouflage scheme made from two green tones: a medium green tone (Humbrol 102, Army Green, ~FS 34096) and a bluish, dark green (Humbrol 91, RLM 70 equivalent), applied in bands – somewhat inspired by a scheme carried by some SAAB 32 Lansen in the early 60ies.

The underside was kept in the typical Swedish blue-grey, for which I used Humbrol 87. The waterline was placed very low so that the upper camouflage was also taken to the radiator flanks under the fuselage and wings.

The cockpit was painted in very dark grey (Humbrol 32), while the landing gear and the wells were kept in Aluminum (Humbrol 56).

As a 2nd squadron machine, the code letter became blue, as well as the two-part spinner, latter’s paint was mixed, based on the squadron code letter decal’s tone on the tail.

The roundels and the 'R' codes come from an RBD Studio aftermarket sheet from Sweden, further decals like the yellow ‘9’ code, the squadron’s ‘Bonzo’ dog mascot emblem as well as most stencils come from a Heller SAAB 21.

A complex build, yet the model aircraft looks so innocent… Anyway, the goal was IMHO achieved: this J27 model just looks like a “Swedish Spitfire with a P-51 radiator”, and at first glance you cannot be certain if this is a modified Griffon Spitfire or a P-51D. Both is true, to a certain degree, but also not correct, because the changes are more fundamental and the wings are completely different from either. So, the mission’s been accomplished. ;)

And I feel inclined to tackle a J23, too, a Bf109/P-51B design hybrid that was designed as a conservative alternative to the pusher J21.

New to Transdev - London Sovereign(SP76), with dual-door configuration, in 10/2009, this smart OmniCity later operated for RATP Group - London Sovereign as their SP40076. It then transferred Go South Coast - Morebus, numbered 1180, prior to transferring north Go North West, in preparation for Bee Network, where it received fleetnumber 3608. After transfer to Stagecoach Manchester under Tranche 2 of Bee Network, which began on 24/03/2024, it is seen here on Shudehill, Manchester, approaching the transport interchange on 04/09/2024. It is operating Bee Network Service 93 13:45 Carr Clough, Sandy Meade - Kersal Vale, Gargrave Street - Charlestown, Castle Irwell - Manchester, Shudehill Interchange. This Scania has since been withdrawn. This service changed operator under Tranche 2 of Bee Network. It was previously operated by Go North West out of the Manchester Queens Road depot which is now operated by Stagecoach Manchester under Bee Network.

In Tranche 1 of Bee Network, which started on 24/09/2023, Stagecoach Manchester(Greater Manchester West) lost the Wigan depot to Go North West and under Tranche 2 of Bee Network, which started on 24/03/2024, Stagecoach Manchester(Greater Manchester South) gained Manchester Queens Road depot from Go North West and the Oldham Mumps depot from First Manchester. In Tranche 3, which started on 05/01/2025, Stagecoach Manchester(Greater Manchester South) lost Ashton-under-Lyne, Manchester Hyde Road, and Manchester Sharston to Comfort DelGro Metroline Manchester who also gained Arriva Manchester's Wythenshawe depot. Stagecoach Manchester(Greater Manchester South) kept their Stockport depots. © Peter Steel 2024.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lookit The MARX BROTHERS' HISTORY fer details, yes?

The Windows Boot configuration Data (BCD) store file contains some invalid information. WINDOWS 7

Answer from Google Gemini AI..

What does this mean on a failed reboot.... The Windows Boot configuration Data (BCD) store file contains some invalid information. WINDOWS 7

That message indicates that your computer's Boot Configuration Data (BCD) file has become corrupted or contains errors. The BCD is a critical file that tells your computer how and where to boot the Windows operating system. When it's invalid, the system can't find the necessary files to start Windows, leading to a failed reboot.

What is the BCD?

The BCD is a file that holds important boot-related information. Think of it as a map for your computer's startup process. . It tells the computer things like:

Which hard drive and partition to boot from.

The location of the Windows operating system files.

The boot menu options (if you have more than one operating system installed).

When the BCD file is "invalid," it means the map is unreadable or has wrong directions, so your computer gets lost during the boot process.

Why does the BCD get corrupted?

Several things can cause the BCD to become invalid:

Sudden power loss during a system update or file write operation.

Improper shutdown of the computer.

Hard drive failures or bad sectors.

Malware or virus attacks that target system files.

Installing a new operating system in a way that overwrites or corrupts the existing boot data.

How to Fix the Problem

The most common way to fix an invalid BCD is by using the Windows 7 installation or repair disc. Here's the general process:

Boot from the installation media. You may need to change the boot order in your computer's BIOS.

Choose "Repair your computer" from the installation screen.

Navigate to the System Recovery Options and select "Command Prompt."

In the Command Prompt, you can use specific commands to rebuild the BCD. The most common commands are:

bootrec /fixmbr

bootrec /fixboot

bootrec /rebuildbcd

These commands will scan your system for a Windows installation and rebuild the BCD file with the correct information, effectively creating a new, valid "map" for your computer to follow.

I just did a power reset....

When you perform a power reset, also known as a hard reset or power cycle, you're essentially clearing all temporary data from your computer's memory (RAM) and some peripheral devices. This is different from a simple restart or shutdown because it physically drains all power from the system, forcing it to reload everything from scratch.

How a Power Reset Works

A power reset involves three main steps:

Shut down the computer.

Unplug all power sources. This includes the AC power cord for desktops and the battery and AC adapter for laptops.

Hold down the power button for 15-30 seconds. This drains any remaining electrical charge from the capacitors on the motherboard and other components. .

Why do a Power Reset?

A power reset can fix various issues by clearing temporary glitches or corrupted data that a regular restart can't fix. It's often used when:

Your computer is frozen or unresponsive and a normal shutdown isn't possible.

Peripherals like USB devices, monitors, or keyboards are not working correctly.

The computer turns on but doesn't show anything on the screen (a "no POST" situation).

You are experiencing boot-related issues, as it can sometimes resolve minor conflicts that prevent the system from starting properly.

When NOT to do a Power Reset

While a power reset is a powerful troubleshooting tool, it's not a solution for every problem. It's not the same as a factory reset, which wipes your hard drive. A power reset won't erase your files, but it also won't fix software-level issues like corrupted drivers or a failing operating system. For those problems, you'd need to use software-based solutions like system restores or reinstallation.

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

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

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

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

General characteristics:

Crew: one pilot

Length: 29 ft 6 in (9.00 m)

Wingspan: 32 ft 2 in (9.80 m)

Height: 11 ft 5 in (3.86 m)

Wing area: 242.1 ft2 (22.48 m²)

Airfoil: NACA 2213 (root)

NACA 2209.4 (tip)

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

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

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

Powerplant:

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

Performance:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Armament:

2× 20 mm Hispano Mk II with 60 RPG

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

The kit and its assembly:

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

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

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

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

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

Painting and markings:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apple iPhone 5S comes with faster processor, longer battery life, and better gaming prowess; however this phone isn’t a major upgrade over the predecessor.

Wiki

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

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

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

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

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

Henry Parohl miniaturized almost every configuration of internal combustion engine that was invented, including this Wankel (Mazda type) rotary engine. It is a four-cycle engine that burns gasoline with oil mixed in for lubrication. The tank sits above the engine and the fuel is gravity fed into carburetor’s float bowl (cylindrical tank next to the carburetor. The float bowl retains a steady level of fuel and maintains constant pressure for the fuel available to the carburetor. The spark for the ignition is provided by an external battery and coil.

See More Henry Parohl Engines at: www.flickr.com/photos/15794235@N06/sets/72157634219050453/

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

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

Courtesy of Paul and Paula Knapp

Miniature Engineering Museum

www.engine-museum.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

Courtesy of Paul and Paula Knapp

Miniature Engineering Museum

www.engine-museum.com

Configuration Setting

- Program Auto

- spot metering

- AFS

　by handheld

INSTRUCTIONS AVAILABLE FOR P558 SUPERDUTY - MULTIPLE CONFIGURATIONS

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

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

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

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

How to configure Raspberry Pi for the first time

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

Ref. V9609.

Chasis Solido nº 23 3-74.

Peugeot 504 Break Dangel (1980-1983).

Escala 1/43.

"Collection Passion".

Verem/Solido.

Made in France (1998-2001).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peugeot 504

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Peugeot 504 is a mid-size, front-engine, rear wheel drive automobile manufactured and marketed by Peugeot for model years 1968-1983 over a single generation, primarily in four-door sedan and wagon configurations — but also with two-door coupe, convertible and pickup truck variants.

The 504 was noted for its robust body structure, long suspension travel, and torque tube drive shaft — enclosed in a rigid tube attached at each end to the gearbox housing and differential casing, relieving drive train torque reactions. The 504 ultimately achieved widespread popularity in far-flung rough-terrain countries — including Brazil, Argentina, Australia, Ivory Coast, Ghana, Cameroon, Benin, Kenya and Nigeria.

More than three million 504s were manufactured in its European production, with production continuing globally under various licensing arrangements — including 27,000 assembled in Kenya and 425,000 assembled in Nigeria, using knock-down kits — with production extending into 2006.

Having debuted as Peugeot's flagship at the 1968 Paris Salon, the 504 received the 1969 European Car of the Year.

In 2013, the LA Times called it "Africa's workhorse."

(...)

-------------------

Peugeot 504

Manufacturer

Peugeot SA

Also called

Guangzhou-Peugeot GP 7200

Production

European France: 1968–1983

Argentina: 1969–1999

South Africa: 1970–1985

China: 1989–1997

Nigeria: 1968–2006

Kenya: 1968–2004

Taiwan: 1979–1984

Assembly

Sochaux, France

Buenos Aires, Argentina (Sevel)

Melbourne, Australia (Renault Australia Pty Ltd.)

Los Andes, Chile

Canton, China

Cairo, Egypt (AAV)

Mombasa, Kenya

Thames, New Zealand

Kaduna, Nigeria

Setúbal, Portugal (Movauto)

Natalspruit, Transvaal, South Africa

Pretoria, South Africa (Sigma)

Changhua, Taiwan

La Marsa, Tunisia (STAFIM)

Designer

Aldo Brovarone at Pininfarina

Class

Large family car (D)

Body style

4-door saloon

5-door estate

2-door coupé

2-door convertible

2-door coupé utility (pickup)

Layout

FR layout

Engine

1.8 L I4

2.0 L I4

1.9 L I4 diesel

2.1 L I4 diesel

2.3 L I4 diesel

2.7 L V6

Transmission

4-speed manual

3-speed automatic ZF 3HP12

3-speed automatic ZF 3HP22

3-speed automatic GM 407 (V6)

5-speed manual

Dimensions

Wheelbase

2,740 mm (108 in)

(saloon/berline)

Length

4,486.3 mm (176.63 in)

(saloon/berline)

4,800 mm (190 in)

(break)

Width

1,690 mm (67 in)

Height

1,460 mm (57 in)

Curb weight

1,200–1,300 kg (2,600–2,900 lb)

Chronology

Predecessor

Peugeot 404

Successor

Peugeot 505

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peugeot_504

More info:

les-peugeot-mythique.com/la-peugeot-504-berline/

www.garage24.net/0504-6.htm

www.autoevolution.com/peugeot/504/

lautomobileancienne.com/peugeot-504-1968-1983/

stubs-auto.fr/peugeot/peugeot-504-1968-1983/

elblogdeautosdenelsonmuntz.blogspot.com.es/2016/08/peugeo...

This configuration was manufactured between 1919 and 1924.

The following link takes you to my set with more photos of this camera and photos that I took with it:

www.flickr.com/photos/60348236@N07/sets/72157631861621266/

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

The mythical dual tablet configuration, including, at right, the "A configuration."

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

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

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

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

Website: www.battlecastle.tv/

Twitter: www.twitter.com/battlecastle

YouTube: www.youtube.com/battlecastle

Flickr: www.flicker.com/battlecastle

Facebook: www.facebook.com/battlecastle

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

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

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

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

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

This project is part of the Ars electronica Garden Lima. As we immerse ourselves in the network of alliances, approximations and relationships currently experienced through computers, we are enveloped in an innate need to connect / communicate and stay current in the virtual world; a simulacrum of life itself further established by a pandemic that has confined us to a “flat prison cell”. It is this virtual architecture precisely that makes it possible to place the world at a remove, shortening time and distances thanks to technologies that underpin an ecosystem for discussion and exchange with multiple agents.

For more informations please visit:

ars.electronica.art/keplersgardens/en/lima/

Credit: Edi Hirose

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

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

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

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

General characteristics:

Crew: one pilot

Length: 29 ft 6 in (9.00 m)

Wingspan: 32 ft 2 in (9.80 m)

Height: 11 ft 5 in (3.86 m)

Wing area: 242.1 ft2 (22.48 m²)

Airfoil: NACA 2213 (root)

NACA 2209.4 (tip)

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

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

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

Powerplant:

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

Performance:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Armament:

2× 20 mm Hispano Mk II with 60 RPG

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

The kit and its assembly:

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

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

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

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

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

Painting and markings:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Burst cannon configuration

A very rare shot from about 1953, maybe 1954.

That's an M1A1 Carbine in the back, probably in original configuration and seemingly without the later-added bayonet lug on the upper band. All the original M1A1 Carbines were by Inland, albeit there's no proof this one is still the original carbine in that wood.

French Army archives.

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

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

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

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

Website: www.battlecastle.tv/

Twitter: www.twitter.com/battlecastle

YouTube: www.youtube.com/battlecastle

Flickr: www.flicker.com/battlecastle

Facebook: www.facebook.com/battlecastle

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

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

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

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

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

FCH-150 Hydrogen Fuel Cell Commercial Aircraft - IO Aircraft - Iteration 2

www.ioaircraft.com

Iteration 2, Some refinements. Similar size as a 737 Max 10 apx 1/2 the operating costs - Wings and Canard fold to 100' Span, Fuselage Length 150', Configuration (Current) 184 Econ and 1st class, 5,000+ NM Range, Does not use liquid hydrogen. Uses 8,000 PSI Compressed H2 or CNG for 95% fuel weight reduction. Airframe, 3D Printed Graphene (technology already developed), kevlar and carbon fiber. Almost no metal used in the airframe 50%+ airframe weight reduction & 10+ X the strength.

I focus on Hypersonics and vtol, not this one. This applied many of those technologies to create the foundation of a true zero carbon commercial aircraft.

LengthL 150ft | Span 120.6ft | Cruise M.88-.92

Cruise: 35,000-38,000ft | Ceiling 41,000-45,000ft

Range: 5,000+ NM

Estimated Empty Weight: 65,000 LBS

Estimated T/O Weight (Full Fuel and Passengers/Baggage) 134,000 LBS

Estimated MTOW: 195,000

Fuel: 30,000 Gallons 8,000+ Max PSI Compressed Hydrogen or Natural Gas Using High Pressure Conforming Tank Technology, 500,000PSIA Integrity

Fuel Weight: Apx 9,000 LBS (Compared to 180,300 LBS if Liquid Fueled)

Current Passenger Configuration: 184 / 12 1st Class & 172 Main Cabin

Operating Costs: $2,500 - $3,500 hr

Estimated Maintenance Costs, Apx 1/2 Compared to 737's, A320's, etc

Estimated Unit Price in Production: Apx $105 Million

Reduction in Operating/Maintenance Costs Over the Life Cycle of the Aircraft, $20-$50 Million or greater.

Motors, zero maintenance required for greater then 5,000 operating hours.

-----------------------------------

100% viable Electric Commercial aircraft, in a 737 MAX class. Compressed Hydrogen Fueled (Not liquid [obsolete]), 100% electric. NO carbon foot print. Even the hydrogen can be generated on the ground via water electrolysis on top of terminals. Also saving operators $20-$50 million or more, over an aircraft's life cycle.

Non, zero carbon, could use CNG, then reformation to extract the Hydrogen.

Ready to build today, all tech is already developed. Makes ALL commercial aircraft in existence obsolete. PLUS all hybrid aicraft on the drawing board right now with Boeing, Airbus, etc.

Airframe is 3D printed Graphene wafering, 33X stronger then titatnium; and carbon fiber/kevlar.

Specs:

Length: 150 ft | Span: 120.6 ft | Cruise M.9-.92)

Ceiling: Estimate 45,000 ft. Cruise: 38,000 ft

Range: 5,000+ NM

Estimated Empty Weight: 65,000 LBS

Estimate T/O Weight (Full fuel and passengers): 134,000 LBS

MTOW Estimate: 195,000 LBS

Fuel: 30,000 Gallon 8,000 PSI Max Compressed Hydrogen or Natural Gas Using High Pressure Conforming Tank Technology

Fuel Weight: Apx 9,000 LBS (Compared to 180,300 LBS if Jet A liquid)

Current Passenger Configuration: 184 passengers; 172 Main Cabin & 12 1st Class

Operating Costs, apx $2,500-$3,500 hr.

Estiumated Maintenance Costs: Apx 1/2 current commercial aircraft.

Estimate Unit Price in Production: Apx $105 million

Reduction in Operating Costs Over the Aircrafts Life Cycle: $20-$50 Million (Or More) in Savings.

#hybrid #sustainability #hydrogen #hydrogenfuelcell #commercialaircraft #airbus #boeing #comac #innovation #lockheed #raytheon #bae #bombardier #northopgrumman #generaldynamics #utc #ge #afrl #onr #afosr #ReactionEngines #spacex #virginorbit #usaf #darpa #mda #rollsroyce #nasa #tesla #safran #embraer #3dprinting #supersonic #collinsaerospace #rockwell #generalatomics #cessna #dassault #arl #navair #diu #dia #usaf #unitedtechnologies #bae #cessana #piper #saab #defenseadvancedresearchprojectagency #graphene #additivemanufacturing #gkn #eaa #aopa #icao #tesla #nikolamotors #zerocarbon #embraer #electricaircraft

hybrid, sustainability, hydrogen, hydrogen fuel cell, hybrid commercial aircraft, hybrid commercial plane, commercial aircraft, airbus, boeing, comac, innovation, lockheed, raytheon, bae, bombardier, northop grumman, general dynamics, utc, ge, afrl, onr, afosr, usaf, darpa, mda, rolls royce, nasa, tesla, safran, embraer, 3d printing, supersonic, collins aerospace, rockwell, general atomics, cessna, dassault aviation, arl, navair, diu, dia, usaf, united technologies, bae, cessana, piper, saab, defense advanced research project agency, graphene, additive manufacturing, gkn, eaa, aopa, icao, tesla, nikola motors, zero carbon, embraer, electricaircraft, Composite Aircraft, Composite Commercial Aircraft,

boeing, airbus, embraer, ge aviation, rolls-royce, dassault aviation, bae raytheon, collins aerospace, lockheed martin, bombardier, Gulfstream Aerospace, safran, ge aviation, united technologies, united airlines, virgin airlines, All Nippon Airways, Delta Air Lines, british airways, southwest airlines, ryanair, virgin atlantic, qatar airways, emirates, lufthansa, etihad airways, KLM, Guillaume Faury, Greg Hyslop, Lynne Hopper, Paul Perera, Bruno Clermont, Tim Deaver, Paul Eremenko, Jean-Brice Dumont, Dirk Hoke, Marillyn Hewson, Richard Ambrose, Charles Woodburn, Philippe PETITCOLIN, Stéphane CUEILLE