View allAll Photos Tagged evaluation
See notes if you're interested! Over all.. I think I did pretty okay :) Plus I learned how to spindle spin, which wasn't even on the list! :D
I'll try to make a new list of goals for 2012 this month. *to be continued*
(oh and yes, I'm interested in your goals too! Let's inspire each other ^_^)
This is not my shot.
This is a DNGfile from a Pentax K3 and HD DA560mm shot (yes, that $7K big tele), cropped from 6016x4000 to 1467px square and processed it quick&dirty to see what I could get out of this RAW file.
LR5:
Exposure +1,02
Whites +34
Blacks -17
Clarity +7
Contrast Normal
Sharpness +25 (std LRsetting)
WB set to 4850
Then exported as TIFF to CS5:
Duplicated layer processed in Topaz Adjust, boosted sharpness and small detail. Applied and flattened image, exported as 8bit jpg.
Allthough some small amount of colorfringing appeared I`m impressed...Even forgot to apply NR...
+++ 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 Bell XP-68A owed its existence to the manufacturer’s rather disappointing outcome of its first jet fighter design, the XP-59A Airacomet. The Airacomet was a twin jet-engined fighter aircraft, designed and built during World War II after Major General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold became aware of the United Kingdom's jet program when he attended a demonstration of the Gloster E.28/39 in April 1941. He requested, and was given, the plans for the aircraft's powerplant, the Power Jets W.1, which he took back to the U.S. He also arranged for an example of the engine, the Whittle W.1X turbojet, to be flown to the U.S., along with drawings for the more powerful W.2B/23 engine and a small team of Power Jets engineers. On 4 September 1941, he offered the U.S. company General Electric a contract to produce an American version of the engine, which subsequently became the General Electric I-A. On the following day, he approached Lawrence Dale Bell, head of Bell Aircraft Corporation, to build a fighter to utilize it. As a disinformation tactic, the USAAF gave the project the designation "P-59A", to suggest it was a development of the unrelated, canceled Bell XP-59 fighter project. The P-59A was the first design fighter to have its turbojet engine and air inlet nacelles integrated within the main fuselage. The jet aircraft’s design was finalized on 9 January 1942 and the first prototype flew in October of the same year.
The following 13 service test YP-59As had a more powerful engine than their predecessor, the General Electric J31, but the improvement in performance was negligible, with top speed increased by only 5 mph and a slight reduction in the time they could be used before an overhaul was needed. One of these aircraft, the third YP-59A, was supplied to the Royal Air Force, in exchange for the first production Gloster Meteor I for evaluation and flight-offs with domestic alternatives.
British pilots found that the YP-59A compared very unfavorably with the jets that they were already flying. The United States Army Air Forces were not impressed by its performance either and cancelled the contract when fewer than half of the originally ordered aircraft had been produced. No P-59s entered combat, but the type paved the way for the next design generation of U.S. turbojet-powered aircraft and helped to develop appropriate maintenance structures and procedures.
In the meantime, a new, more powerful jet engine had been developed in Great Britain, the Halford H-1, which became later better known as the De Havilland Goblin. It was another centrifugal compressor design, but it produced almost twice as much thrust as the XP-59A’s J31 engines. Impressed by the British Gloster Meteor during the USAAF tests at Muroc Dry Lake - performance-wise as well as by the aircraft’s simplicity and ruggedness - Bell reacted promptly and proposed an alternative fighter with wing-mounted engine nacelles, since the XP-59A’s layout had proven to be aerodynamically sub-optimal and unsuited for the installation of H-1 engines. In order to save development time and because the aircraft was rather regarded as a proof-of-concept demonstrator instead of a true fighter prototype, the new aircraft was structurally based on Bell’s current piston-engine P-63 “Kingcobra”. The proposal was accepted and, in order to maintain secrecy, the new jet aircraft inherited once more a designation of a recently cancelled project, this time from the Vultee XP-68 “Tornado” fighter. Similar to the Airacomet two years before, just a simple “A” suffix was added.
Bell’s development contract covered only three XP-68A aircraft. The H-1 units were directly imported from Great Britain in secrecy, suspended in the bomb bays of B-24 Liberator bombers. A pair of these engines was mounted in mid-wing nacelles, very similar to the Gloster Meteor’s arrangement. The tailplane was given a 5° dihedral to move it out of the engine exhaust. In order to bear the new engines and their power, the wing main spars were strengthened and the main landing gear wells were moved towards the aircraft’s centerline, effectively narrowing track width. The landing gear wells now occupied the space of the former radiator ducts for the P-63’s omitted Allison V-1710 liquid-cooled V12 engine. Its former compartment behind the cockpit was used for a new fuel tank and test equipment. Having lost the propeller and its long drive shaft, the nose section was also redesigned: the front fuselage became deeper and the additional space there was used for another fuel tank in front of the cockpit and a bigger weapon bay. Different armament arrangements were envisioned, one of each was to be tested on the three prototypes: one machine would be armed with six 0.5” machine guns, another with four 20mm Hispano M2 cannon, and the third with two 37mm M10 cannon and two 0.5” machine guns. Provisions for a ventral hardpoint for a single drop tank or a 1.000 lb (550 kg) bomb were made, but this was never fitted on any of the prototypes. Additional hardpoints under the outer wings for smaller bombs or unguided missiles followed the same fate.
The three XP-68As were built at Bell’s Atlanta plant in the course of early 1944 and semi-officially christened “Airagator”. After their clandestine transfer to Muroc Dry Lake for flight tests and evaluations, the machines were quickly nicknamed “Barrelcobra” by the test staff – not only because of the characteristic shape of the engine nacelles, but also due to the sheer weight of the machines and their resulting sluggish handling on the ground and in the air. “Cadillac” was another nickname, due to the very soft acceleration through the new jet engines and the lack of vibrations that were typical for piston-engine- and propeller-driven aircraft.
Due to the structural reinforcements and modifications, the XP-68A had become a heavy aircraft with an empty weight of 4 tons and a MTOW of almost 8 tons – the same as the big P-47 Thunderbolt piston fighter, while the P-63 had an MTOW of only 10,700 lb (4,900 kg). The result was, among other flaws, a very long take-off distance, especially in the hot desert climate of the Mojave Desert (which precluded any external ordnance) and an inherent unwillingness to change direction, its turning radius was immense. More than once the brakes overheated during landing, so that extra water cooling for the main landing gear was retrofitted.
Once in the air, the aircraft proved to be quite fast – as long as it was flying in a straight line, though. Only the roll characteristics were acceptable, but flying the XP-68A remained hazardous, esp. after the loss of one of the H-1s engines: This resulted in heavily asymmetrical propulsion, making the XP-68A hard to control at all and prone to spin in level flight.
After trials and direct comparison, the XP-68A turned out not to be as fast and, even worse, much less agile than the Meteor Mk III (the RAF’s then current, operational fighter version), which even had weaker Derwent engines. The operational range was insufficient, too, esp. in regard of the planned Pacific theatre of operations, and the high overall weight precluded any considerable external load like drop tanks.
However, compared with the XP-59A, the XP-68A was a considerable step forward, but it had become quickly clear that the XP-68A and its outfit-a-propeller-design-with jet-engines approach did not bear the potential for any service fighter development: it was already outdated when the prototypes were starting their test program. No further XP-68A was ordered or built, and the three prototypes fulfilled their test and evaluation program until May 1945. During these tests, the first prototype was lost on the ground due to an engine fire. After the program’s completion, the two remaining machines were handed over to the US Navy and used for research at the NATC Patuxent River Test Centre, where they were operated until 1949 and finally scrapped.
General characteristics.
Crew: 1
Length: 33 ft 9 in (10.36 m)
Wingspan: 38 ft 4 in (11.7 m)
Height: 13 ft (3.96 m)
Wing area: 248 sq ft (23 m²)
Empty weight: 8,799 lb (3,995 kg)
Loaded weight: 15,138 lb (6,873 kg)
Max. take-off weight: 17,246 lb (7,830 kg)
Powerplant:
2× Halford H-1 (De Havilland Goblin) turbojets, rated at 3,500 lbf (15.6 kN) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 559 mph (900 km/h)
Range: 500 mi (444 nmi, 805 km)
Service ceiling: 37,565 ft (11,450 m)
Rate of climb: 3.930 ft/min (20 m/s)
Wing loading: 44.9 lb/ft² (218.97 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.45
Time to altitude: 5.0 min to 30,000 ft (9,145 m)
Armament:
4× Hispano M2 20 mm cannon with 150 rounds
One ventral hardpoint for a single drop tank or a 1.000 lb (550 kg) bomb
6× 60 lb (30 kg) rockets or 2× 500 lb (227 kg) bombs under the outer wings
The kit and its assembly:
This whiffy Kingcobra conversion was spawned by a post by fellow user nighthunter in January 2019 at whatifmodelers.com about a potential jet-powered variant. In found the idea charming, since the XP-59 had turned out to be a dud and the Gloster Meteor had been tested by the USAAF. Why not combine both into a fictional, late WWII Bell prototype?
The basic idea was simple: take a P-63 and add a Meteor’s engine nacelles, while keeping the Kingcobra’s original proportions. This sounds pretty easy but was more challenging than the first look at the outcome might suggest.
The donor kits are a vintage Airfix 1:72 Gloster Meteor Mk.III, since it has the proper, small nacelles, and an Eastern Express P-63 Kingcobra. The latter looked promising, since this kit comes with very good surface and cockpit details (even with a clear dashboard) as well as parts for several P-63 variants, including the A, C and even the exotic “pinball” manned target version. However, anything comes at a price, and the kit’s low price point is compensated by soft plastic (which turned out to be hard to sand), some flash and mediocre fit of any of the major components like fuselage halves, the wings or the clear parts. It feels a lot like a typical short-run kit. Nevertheless, I feel inclined to build another one in a more conventional fashion some day.
Work started with the H-1 nacelles, which had to be cut out from the Meteor wings. Since they come OOB only with a well-visible vertical plate and a main wing spar dummy in the air intake, I added some fine mesh to the plate – normally, you can see directly onto the engine behind the wing spar. Another issue was the fact that the Meteor’s wings are much thicker and deeper than the P-63s, so that lots of PSR work was necessary.
Simply cutting the P-63 OOB wings up and inserting the Meteor nacelles was also not possible: the P-63 has a very wide main landing gear, due to the ventral radiators and oil coolers, which were originally buried in the wing roots and under the piston engine. The only solution: move the complete landing gear (including the wells) inward, so that the nacelles could be placed as close as possible to the fuselage in a mid-span position. Furthermore, the - now useless - radiator openings had to disappear, resulting in a major redesign of the wing root sections. All of this became a major surgery task, followed by similarly messy work on the outer wings during the integration of the Meteor nacelles. LOTS of PSR, even though the outcome looks surprisingly plausible and balanced.
Work on the fuselage started in parallel. It was built mainly OOB, using the optional ventral fin for a P-63C. The exhaust stubs as well as the dorsal carburetor intake had to disappear (the latter made easy thanks to suitable optional parts for the manned target version). Since the P-63 had a conventional low stabilizer arrangement (unlike the Meteor with its cruciform tail), I gave them a slight dihedral to move them out of the engine efflux, a trick Sukhoi engineers did on the Su-11 prototype with afterburner engines in 1947, too.
Furthermore, the whole nose ahead of the cockpit was heavily re-designed, because I wanted the “new” aircraft to lose its propeller heritage and the P-63’s round and rather pointed nose. Somewhat inspired by the P-59 and the P-80, I omitted the propeller parts altogether and re-sculpted the nose with 2C putty, creating a deeper shape with a tall, oval diameter, so that the lower fuselage line was horizontally extended forward. In a profile view the aircraft now looks much more massive and P-80esque. The front landing gear was retained, just its side walls were extended downwards with the help of 0.5mm styrene sheet material, so that the original stance could be kept. Lots of lead in the nose ensured that the model would properly stand on its three wheels.
Once the rhinoplasty was done I drilled four holes into the nose and used hollow steel needles as gun barrels, with a look reminiscent of the Douglas A-20G.
Adding the (perfectly) clear parts of the canopy as a final assembly step also turned out to be a major fight against the elements.
Painting and markings:
With an USAAF WWII prototype in mind, there were only two options: either an NMF machine, or a camouflage in Olive Drab and Neutral Grey. I went for the latter and used Tamiya XF-62 for the upper surfaces and Humbrol 156 (Dark Camouflage Grey) underneath. The kit received a light black ink wash and some post shading in order to emphasize panels. A little dry-brushing with silver around the leading edges and the cockpit was done, too.
The cockpit interior became chromate green (I used Humbrol 150, Forest Green) while the landing gear wells were painted with zinc chromate yellow (Humbrol 81). The landing gear itself was painted in aluminum (Humbrol 56).
Markings/decals became minimal, puzzled together from various sources – only some “Stars and Bars” insignia and the serial number.
Somehow this conversion ended up looking a lot like the contemporary Soviet Sukhoi Su-9 and -11 (Samolyet K and LK) jet fighter prototype – unintentionally, though. But I am happy with the outcome – the P-63 ancestry is there, and the Meteor engines are recognizable, too. But everything blends into each other well, the whole affair looks very balanced and believable. This is IMHO furthermore emphasized by the simple paint scheme. A jet-powered Kingcobra? Why not…?
VX-4 Evaluators F-4J Phantom II BuNo 153783, XF-1 (Vandy 1,) parked on the ramp, October 1975. Photo by R.R. Leader.
Template
by Anne Madsen
DrawMore - Graphic Facilitation & Visual Recording
Contact:
drawmorestuff (at) gmail.com
Ushaw College (formally St Cuthbert's College, Ushaw), is a former Catholic seminary near the village of Ushaw Moor, County Durham, England, which is now a heritage and cultural tourist attraction. The college is known for its Georgian and Victorian Gothic architecture and listed nineteenth-century chapels. The college now hosts a programme of art exhibitions, music and theatre events, alongside tearooms and a café.
It was founded in 1808 by scholars from the English College, Douai, who had fled France after the French Revolution. Ushaw College was affiliated with Durham University from 1968 and was the principal Roman Catholic seminary for the training of Catholic priests in the north of England.
In 2011, the seminary closed, due to the shortage of vocations. It reopened as a visitor attraction, marketed as Ushaw: Historic House, Chapels & Gardens in late 2014 and, as of 2019, receives around 50,000 visitors a year. The County Durham Music Service and Durham University Centre for Evaluation and Monitoring are based at the college and buildings at the college are also used by Durham University Business School.
The English College, Douai was founded in 1568 but was forced to leave France in 1795 following the French Revolution. Part of the college settled temporarily at Crook Hall near Lanchester, northwest of Durham. In 1804 Bishop William Gibson began to build at Ushaw Moor, four miles west of Durham. These buildings, designed by James Taylor, were opened as St Cuthbert's College in 1808. There was a steady expansion during the nineteenth century with new buildings put up to cater for the expanding number of clerical and secular students. In 1847, the newly built chapel, designed by Augustus Welby Northmore Pugin was opened. This was followed by the Big Library and Exhibition Hall designed by Joseph Hansom, 1849–1851. The Junior House, designed by Peter Paul Pugin, was added in 1859. St Cuthbert's Chapel, designed by Dunn and Hansom, was opened in 1884, replacing AWN Pugin's 1847 chapel which the seminary had outgrown. The Refectory was designed and built by E. W. Pugin. The final development came in the early 1960s with the opening of a new East wing, providing additional classrooms and single bedrooms for 75 students. The main college buildings are Grade II listed, the College Chapel is Grade II* and the Chapel of St Michael is Grade I.
Although independent, Ushaw College had a close working relationship with Durham University. The college became a Licensed Hall of Residence of the University of Durham in 1968. It was independent of the university but offered courses validated by the university, and both Church and lay students studied at the college. The Junior House closed in 1972, its younger students being transferred to St Joseph's College, Up Holland in Lancashire.
In 2002, the college rejected a report from the Roman Catholic hierarchy that it should merge with St Mary's College, Oscott, near Birmingham. However, in October 2010 it was announced that the college would close in 2011 due to the shortage of vocations in the Roman Catholic Church, and that the site might be sold. Following a detailed feasibility study by the college's Trustees and Durham University, and with support from Durham County Council and English Heritage, it was announced in January 2012 that Durham Business School would temporarily relocate to the college during rebuilding of the school's buildings in Durham. This was seen as the first step in a long-term education-based vision for the site.
The university also agreed to catalogue and archive the Ushaw library and inventory the other collections to ensure their preservation and specialist conservation, with a view to creating a proposed Ushaw Centre for Catholic Scholarship and Heritage. In March 2019, an uncatalogued early charter of King John was found in the library manuscript collection.
In 2017, Durham University announced plans to develop an international residential research library at Ushaw College, with the aim of attracting scholars from around the world to work on the collections of Ushaw, Durham University and Durham Cathedral. The university has also confirmed that it has extended the agreement to lease the east wing of the college (used by the Business School) to 2027. The college is also used for numerous musical events and for the Ushaw Lecture Series, organised by the university's Centre for Catholic Studies.
In 2018, Durham University's Centre for Evaluation and Monitoring (CEM) moved into the east wing of the college, previously used by the Business School.
The college armorial bearings are "Per pale dexter Argent a Cross Gules on a Canton Azure a Cross of St Cuthbert proper sinister impaling Allen Argent three Rabbits couchant in pale Sable."
Various emblems on shield represent the college's history and foundation, for example:-
Three coneys are from the family coat of arms of William Allen, the founder of English College, Douai. See Three hares.
The small cross of St Cuthbert represents the college's patron saint (it is modelled on St Cuthbert's own pectoral cross, which is kept in the Treasury at Durham Cathedral).
The large cross of St George honours the English Roman Catholic Martyrs.
Alumni
Clergy
Nicholas Cardinal Wiseman – first Archbishop of Westminster
Francis Cardinal Bourne – Archbishop of Westminster
Arthur Cardinal Hinsley – Archbishop of Westminster
William Cardinal Godfrey – Archbishop of Westminster
John Carmel Cardinal Heenan – Archbishop of Westminster
Rafael Cardinal Merry del Val y Zulueta – Cardinal Secretary of State
Charles Petre Eyre – Archbishop of Glasgow.
Louis Charles Casartelli – 4th Bishop of Salford
Hugh Lindsay – 10th Bishop of Hexham and Newcastle
James Chadwick – 2nd Bishop of Hexham and Newcastle
Alexander Goss – Bishop of Liverpool
Thomas Grant – Bishop of Southwark
Mark Davies, Bishop of Shrewsbury
John Lingard – author of The History Of England, From the First Invasion by the Romans to the Accession of Henry VIII
Bernard Łubieński - Redemptorist missionary priest
John Furniss – English Roman Catholic priest, known for his mission to children
James Nugent – Roman Catholic priest of the Archdiocese of Liverpool
Nicholas Rigby – English Roman Catholic priest and author of The Real Doctrine of the Church on Scripture
Constantine Scollen – Irish Roman Catholic missionary priest and outstanding linguist in Canada in the mid- to late 19th century and author of Thirty Years among the Indians of the Northwest
Paul Swarbrick - Bishop of Lancaster
Philip Moger - Auxiliary Bishop of Southwark
Lay
George Goldie – nineteenth-century ecclesiastical architect
Edward Goldie – nineteenth- and twentieth-century ecclesiastical architect
Alexander Martin Sullivan – Irish lawyer and defence counsel in the trial of Roger Casement
Charles Napier Hemy – artist and Royal Academician
Francis Thompson – English poet
Joseph Gillow – author of Bibliographical Dictionary of the English Roman Catholics
William Shee – first Roman Catholic to sit as a judge in England and Wales since the Reformation
Francis Joseph Sloane (aka Francesco Giuseppe Sloane) - born 1794, died October 23, 1871, tutor at Ushaw and lifelong friend of Nicolas (later Cardinal) Wiseman, responsible for reviving the Montecatini Val di Cecina copper mine, which was the largest in Europe
Paul Goggins – Labour Member of Parliament for Wythenshawe and Sale East and junior minister in the Northern Ireland Office.
Joseph Scott – attorney in Los Angeles, founder of the Southwest Museum of the American Indian, vice-president of the Panama-Pacific International Exposition (1915)
A.J. Hartley bestselling novelist and Shakespeare scholar
Lafcadio Hearn (also known as Koizumi Yakumo) – author, best known for his books about Japan
Francis Petre - prominent New Zealand-born architect designed the Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament, Christchurch
Peter Paul Pugin – English architect
James Joseph Foy – Ontario Attorney General and political figure
Myles William Patrick O'Reilly – Roman Catholic soldier and politician
Archibald Matthias Dunn – Roman Catholic ecclesiastical architect
Joe Tasker - Himalayan climber
Charles Bruzon – Gibraltarian government minister and curate
List of presidents
1794–1810 Thomas Eyre
1811–1828 John Gillow
1828–1833 Thomas Youens
1833–1836 John Briggs
1836–1837 Thomas Youens
1837–1863 Charles Newsham
1863–1876 Robert Tate
1876–1877 Francis Wilkinson
1877–1878 James Chadwick
1878–1885 William Wrennall
1885–1886 William Dunderdale
1886–1890 James Lennon
1890–1909 Thomas Wilkinson
1909–1910 Joseph Corbishley
1910–1934 William Brown
1934–1950 Charles Corbishley
1950–1967 Paul Grant
1967–1977 Philip Loftus
1977–1984 Peter Cookson
1984–1991 Peter Walton
1991–1997 Richard Atherton
1997–2003 James O’Keefe
2003–2008 Terence Drainey
2008–2011 John Marsland
"Committed to Safety"
Leaving Castlegar yard, heading east to Nelson. I caught up with the train in the Brilliant, across the Columbia River from Castlegar.
On my YouTube channel
US Navy Navy North American RA-5C Vigilante 156643 cn 316-36 Naval Air Test and Evaluation Museum - Patuxent River PAX
A gray squirrel sits atop a shepherd's hook in my back yard trying to decide which bird feeder to raid.
The Geomantic Compass
The geomantic compass used in Feng Shui evaluations is called the luopan in Chinese meaning "all" and "bowl". It is said that all the knowledge pertaining to the physics and flow of energies of the planet is written inside the compass.
The original Geomantic Compass had 36 rings, whereas, the most recent ones are simpler and have from 8 to 24 rings. In these rings, aside from the needle always pointing North/South, we find the correct information to do a perfect feng shui evaluation. The concentric circles of the compass contain the numbers of the Magic Squares (9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1), the 8 Trigrams of the I Ching (Yiying) and their corresponding directions, as well as the Heavenly Stems and Earth Branches. Also in the circles are contained the 28 equatorial divisions which are an important part of the evaluation because they help determine not only the ideal site, but the correct place for that particular individual to live.
In order for a feng shui evaluation to be accurate and correct the compass must be used. This is because the individual must be evaluated as to their personal data first in order to proceed with the terrain (topography) and site evaluation for that particular person. For example, in South Florida we have flat land with some areas below sea level. We also have swampy grasslands which are not favorable because stagnant water can attract negative energies. Using the compass we can determine the correct site to avert the negative energies of the stagnant water. This also apply to areas crowded with buildings, particularly apartment buildings.
best in large view View On Black
strobist: speedlite 430 exII in mid softbox camera left, second unit high camera right through umbrella, silver reflector low center
filippo scarpi
reinventing media - fc/mc the alternative G20 protest media experiment.
FC/MC– International Media Center
++ Conclusions of the FC MC ++
++ FC MC will contribute to the evaluation of the events ++
A week after the end of the G20 summit in Hamburg, the International Media Center FC/MC draws its conclusions. The volunteer crew of the FC/MC self-organized a platform for over 1000 accreditated media workers, non-commercially and professionally. Workers were almost equally spread between freelancers, employees and media activists. The journalists came out of two dozen countries from South Africa to Russia. All types of media were present: print, online, television and radio. “At this G20 summit in Hamburg, we have experienced something that will keep us occupied for a long time. Our goal was to contribute to a differentiated perception of the G20 summit and the protests. This work wasn't something that we simply wanted to do - it was political necessity”, says Maren Grimm from the organizing team of the independent, international Media Center FC/MC, that for six days reported critically about the G20 from the FC St. Pauli stadium.
Conclusions of the FC MC
The FC/MC offered space to work, produced a live stream with reports from the streets, daily press conferences, facilitated interviews with representatives of social movements and NGOs, and integrated local and international media workers into the production process: Anybody who wanted to, could edit the materials there or work with the editorial team. New cooperations and a
productive, temporary community developed, which resulted in diverse content, in many formats - from documentaries to satire to video essays.
Multilingual twitter accounts of the FC/MC showed (and still show) not only the diverse produced materials, but also delivered timely reports of the
protests with checked and verified facts. The video ticker continously showed the current situation. Oliver Leistert from the organizing team said: “Our starting point and slogan was simply an monumental endavour: Re-invent critical journalism in times of affective populism. This still continues to be our task. The FC/MC has at least given an impetus, it has offered a proposal and
has shown that the way out of the journalistic crisis needs to be taken by the media workers themselves.” The FC/MC looked critically at the 'battle for the pictures in a fight about who has the power to interprete the events': “The FC/ MC editorial teams repeatedly discussed whether also to focus on the images that other channels such as n-tv and NDR streamed for hours. We decided against the 'riot porn', against focusing on the display of violence.” Without a broad support it would have been impossible to set up the FC/MC in such a short time from scratch - Solidarity came in the form of work time, materials and donations. We want to thank everybody who helped us: the members of the Chaos Computer Club and everyone from radical tech collectives who
kept network, servers and streams up and running; the many local companies that lent equipment and brought their expertise; the security crews who were available around the clock; the Mecklenbörgern who fed us, as well as the coffee collectives Aroma Zapatista and El Rojito; and the numerous people who gave the FC/MC their power and their sweat. Last but not least: 'You'll never walk alone' is real. About our cooperation with the FC St. Pauli we can only say one thing: “St. Pauli is the only option!”
And now?
The work of the FC/MC did not finished with the summit. There is still a lot of material that needs to be anaylised, processed and presented to the public. Also the editorial work continues: “It is now important to analyse the so-called 'display of modern police work' in the broader context of the events. We also set up the FC/MC because it was already obvious before the summit, that it would be used to move the discourse about security to set new standards for police operations in Germany. It now needs to be assessed in detail how far this procedure created the desired reality. The violations of fundamental rights,
and the breaches of the law, by the Police, must have consequences. We want to contribute to this with the material available at the FC/MC,” said Maren Grimm at the closing press conference of the FC/MC on 9 July. Our future work aims at documenting events, as well as rejecting the hegemonic discourse and its diffusion through the mass media, countering it with an insistence on the essential legitimacy of protest, it's urgency and its foundational importance. Beside the diverse protests and the violent clashes, there was police violence, attacks against lawyers, disregard for the freedom of the press and the freedom of assembly, and last but not least massive restrictions on the daily lives of people living in Hamburg. The G20 summit in Hamburg, its side effects, the political decisions and the police operation needs to be investigated and resolved.
Press contact: press@fcmc.tv
FC MC: fcmc.tv/
Recordings: media.ccc.de/c/fcmc17
YouTube channel: www.youtube.com/channel/UCHDTjtjyMFJqAhE4DxjAg9Q
Twitter: @fcmc_tv, @fcmc_info, @fcmc_n
BNSF 8321 overtakes a tied down manifest underneath Dayton's Bluff in Saint Paul with track evaluation car, BNSF 92, a former Ringling Circus coach.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Lockheed XFV (sometimes erroneously referred to as the "Salmon", even though this was actually the name of one of its test pilots and not an official designation) was an American experimental tailsitter prototype aircraft built by Lockheed in the early 1950s to demonstrate the operation of a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) fighter for protecting convoys.
The Lockheed XFV originated as a result of a proposal issued by the U.S. Navy in 1948 for an aircraft capable of vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aboard platforms mounted on the afterdecks of conventional ships. Both Convair and Lockheed competed for the contract, but in 1950 the requirement was revised with a call for a research aircraft capable of eventually evolving into a VTOL ship-based convoy escort fighter. On 19 April 1951, two prototypes were ordered from Lockheed under the designation XFO-1 (company designation was Model 081-40-01). Soon after the contract was awarded, the project designation changed to XFV-1 when the Navy's code for Lockheed was changed from O to V.
The XFV was powered by a 5,332 hp (3,976 kW) Allison YT40-A-6 turboprop engine, composed of two Allison T38 power sections driving three-bladed contra-rotating propellers via a common gearbox. The aircraft had no landing gear, just small castoring wheels at the tips of the tail surfaces which were a reflected cruciform v-tail (forming an x) that extended above and below the fuselage. The wings were diamond-shaped and relatively thin, with straight and sharp leading edges – somewhat foretelling the design of Lockheed’s Mach-2-capable F-104 Starfighter.
To begin flight testing, a temporary non-retractable undercarriage with long braced V-legs was attached to the fuselage, and fixed tail wheels attached to the lower pair of fins. In this form, the aircraft was trucked to Edwards AFB in November 1953 for ground testing and taxiing trials. During one of these tests, at a time when the aft section of the large spinner had not yet been fitted, Lockheed chief test pilot Herman "Fish" Salmon managed to taxi the aircraft past the liftoff speed, and the aircraft made a brief hop on 22 December 1953. The official first flight took place on 16 June 1954.
Full VTOL testing at Edwards AFB was delayed pending the availability of the 7,100 shp Allison T54, which was earmarked to replace the T40 and power eventual serial production aircraft. But the T54 faced severe development delays, esp. its gearbox. Another problem that arose with the new engine was that the propeller blade tips would reach supersonic speed and therefore compressibility problems.
After the brief unintentional hop, the prototype aircraft made a total of 32 flights. The XFV-1 was able to make a few transitions in flight from the conventional to the vertical flight mode and back, and had briefly held in hover at altitude, but the T40 output was simply not enough to ensure proper and secure VTOL operations. Performance remained limited by the confines of the flight test regime. Another issue that arose through the advancements of jet engine designs was the realization that the XFV's top speed would be eclipsed by contemporary fighters. Additionally, the purely manual handling of the aircraft esp. during landing was very demanding - the XFV could only be controlled by highly experienced pilots.
Both Navy and the Marines Corps were still interested in the concept, though, so that, in early 1955, the decision was made to build a limited pre-production series of the aircraft, the FV-2, for operational field tests and evaluation. The FV-2 was the proposed production version (Model 181-43-02), primarily conceived and optimized as a night/all-weather interceptor for point defense, and officially baptized “Solstice”. The FV-2 was powered by the T54-A-16 turboprop, which had eventually overcome its teething troubles and offered a combined power output equivalent of 7,500 shp (5,600 kW) from the propellers and the twin-engines’ residual thrust. Outwardly the different engine was recognizable through two separate circular exhausts which were introduced instead of the XFV’s single shallow ventral opening. The gearbox had been beefed up, too, with additional oil coolers in small ventral fairings behind the contraprops and the propeller blades were aerodynamically improved to better cope with the higher power output and rotation speed. Additionally, an automatic pitch control system was introduced to alleviate the pilot from the delicate control burdens during hover and flight mode transition.
Compared with the XFV, the FV-2 incorporated 150 lb (68 kg) of cockpit armor, along with a 1.5 in (38 mm) bullet-proof windscreen. A Sperry Corporation AN/APS-19 type radar was added in the fixed forward part of the nose spinner under an opaque perspex radome. The AN/APS-19 was primarily a target detection radar with only a limited tracking capability, and it had been introduced with the McDonnell F2H-2N. The radar had a theoretical maximum detection range of 60 km, but in real life air targets could only be detected at much shorter distances. At long ranges the radar was mainly used for navigation and to detect land masses or large ships.
Like the older AN/APS-6, the AN/APS-19 operated in a "Spiral Scan" search pattern. In a spiral scan the radar dish spins rapidly, scanning the area in front of the aircraft following a spiral path. As a result, however targets were not updated on every pass as the radar was pointing at a different angle on each pass. This also made the radar prone to ground clutter effects, which created "pulses" on the radar display. The AN/APS-19 was able to lock onto and track targets within a narrow cone, out to a maximum range of about 1 mile (1.5 km), but to do so the radar had to cease scanning.
The FV-2’s standard armament consisted of four Mk. 11 20 mm cannon fitted in pairs in the two detachable wingtip pods, with 250 rounds each, which fired outside of the wide propeller disc. Alternatively, forty-eight 2¾ in (70 mm) folding-fin rockets could be fitted in similar pods, which could be fired in salvoes against both air and ground targets. Instead of offensive armament, 200 US gal. (165 imp. gal./750 l) auxiliary tanks for ferry flights could be mounted onto the wing tips.
Until June 1956 a total of eleven FV-2s were built and delivered. With US Navy Air Development Squadron 8 (also known as VX-8) at NAS Atlantic City, a dedicated evaluation and maintenance unit for the FV-2 and the operations of VTOL aircraft in general was formed. VX-2 operated closely with its sister unit VX-3 (located at the same base) and operated the FV-2s alongside contemporary types like the Grumman F9F-8 Cougar, which at that time went through carrier-qualification aboard the USS Midway. The Cougars were soon joined by the new, supersonic F-8U-1 Crusaders, which arrived in December 1956. The advent of this supersonic navy jet type rendered the FV-2’s archaic technology and its performance more and more questionable, even though the VTOL concept’s potential and the institutions’ interest in it kept the test unit alive.
The FV-2s were in the following years put through a series of thorough field tests and frequently deployed to land bases all across the USA and abroad. Additionally, operational tests were also conducted on board of various ship types, ranging from carriers with wide flight decks to modified merchant ships with improvised landing platforms. The FV-2s also took part in US Navy and USMC maneuvers, and when not deployed elsewhere the training with new pilots at NAS Atlantic City continued.
During these tests, the demanding handling characteristics of the tailsitter concept in general and the FV-2 in specific were frequently confirmed. Once in flight, however, the FV-2 handled well and was a serious and agile dogfighter – but jet aircraft could easily avoid and outrun it.
Other operational problems soon became apparent, too: while the idea of a VTOL aircraft that was independent from runways or flight bases was highly attractive, the FV-2’s tailsitter concept required a complex and bulky maintenance infrastructure, with many ladders, working platforms and cranes. On the ground, the FV-2 could not move on its own and had to be pushed or towed. However, due to the aircraft’s high center of gravity it had to be handled with great care – two FV-2s were seriously damaged after they toppled over, one at NAS Atlantic City on the ground (it could be repaired and brought back into service), the other aboard a ship at heavy sea, where the aircraft totally got out of control on deck and fell into the sea as a total loss.
To make matters even worse, fundamental operational tasks like refueling, re-arming the aircraft between sorties or even just boarding it were a complicated and slow task, so that the aircraft’s theoretical conceptual benefits were countered by its cumbersome handling.
FV-2 operations furthermore revealed, despite the considerably increased power output of the T54 twin engine that more than compensated for the aircraft’s raised weight, only a marginal improvement of the aircraft’s performance; the FV-2 had simply reached the limits of propeller-driven aircraft. Just the rate of climb was markedly improved, and the extra power made the FV-2’s handling safer than the XFV’s, even though this advancement was only relative because the aircraft’s hazardous handling during transition and landing as well as other conceptual problems prevailed and could not be overcome. The FV-2’s range was also very limited, esp. when it did not carry the fuel tanks on the wing tips, so that the aircraft’s potential service spectrum remained very limited.
Six of the eleven FV-2s that were produced were lost in various accidents within only three years, five pilots were killed. The T54 engine remained unreliable, and the propeller control system which used 25 vacuum tubes was far from reliable, too. Due to the many problems, the FV-2s were grounded in 1959, and when VX-8 was disestablished on 1 March 1960, the whole project was cancelled and all remaining aircraft except for one airframe were scrapped. As of today, Bu.No. 53-3537 resides disassembled in storage at the National Museum of the United States Navy in the former Breech Mechanism Shop of the old Naval Gun Factory on the grounds of the Washington Navy Yard in Washington, D.C., United States, where it waits for restoration and eventual public presentation.
As a historic side note, the FV-2’s detachable wing tip gun pods had a longer and more successful service life: they were the basis for the Mk.4 HIPEG (High Performance External Gun) gun pods. This weapon system’s main purpose became strafing ground targets, and it received a different attachment system for underwing hardpoints and a bigger ammunition supply (750 RPG instead of just 250 on the FV-2). Approximately 1.200 Mk. 4 twin gun pods were manufactured by Hughes Tool Company, later Hughes Helicopter, in Culver City, California. While the system was tested and certified for use on the A-4, the A-6, the A-7, the F-4, and the OV-10, it only saw extended use on the A-4, the F-4, and the OV-10, esp. in Vietnam where the Mk. 4 pod was used extensively for close air support missions.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length/Height: 36 ft 10.25 in (11.23 m)
Wingspan: 30 ft 10.1 in (9.4 m)
Wing area: 246 sq ft (22.85 m²)
Empty weight: 12,388 lb (5,624 kg)
Gross weight: 17,533 lb (7,960 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 18,159 lb (8,244 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Allison T54-A-16 turboprop with 7,500 shp (5,600 kW) output equivalent,
driving a 6 blade contra-rotating propeller
Performance:
Maximum speed: 585 mph (941 km/h, 509 kn
Cruise speed: 410 mph (660 km/h, 360 kn)
Range: 500 mi (800 km, 430 nmi) with internal fuel
800 mi (1,300 km, 700 nmi) with ferry wing tip tanks
Service ceiling: 46,800 ft (14,300 m)
Rate of climb: 12,750 ft/min (75.0 m/s)
Wing loading: 73.7 lb/sq ft (360 kg/m²)
Armament:
4× 20 mm (.79 in) Mk. 11 machine cannon with a total of 1.000 rounds, or
48× 2.75 in (70 mm) rockets in wingtip pods, or
a pair of 200 US gal. (165 imp. gal./750 l) auxiliary tanks on the wing tips
The kit and its assembly:
Another submission to the “Fifties” group build at whatifmodellers-com, and a really nice what-if aircraft that perfectly fits into the time frame. I had this Pegasus kit in The Stash™ for quite a while and the plan to build an operational USN or USMC aircraft from it in the typical all-dark-blue livery from the early Fifties, and the group build was a good occasion to realize it.
The Pegasus kit was released in 1992, the only other option to build the XFV in 1:72 is a Valom kit which, as a bonus, features the aircraft’s fixed landing gear that was used during flight trials. The Pegasus offering is technically simple and robust, but it is nothing for those who are faint at heart. The warning that the kit requires an experienced builder is not to be underestimated, because the IP kit from the UK comes with white metal parts and no visual instructions, just a verbal description of the building steps. The IP parts (including the canopy, which is one piece, quite thick but also clear) and the decals look good, though.
The IP parts feature flash and uneven seam lines, sprue attachment points are quite thick. The grey IP material had on my specimen different grades of hard-/brittleness, the white metal parts (some of the propeller blades) were bent and had to be re-aligned. No IP parts would fit well (there are no locator pins or other physical aids), the cockpit tub was a mess to assemble and fit into the fuselage. PSR on any seam all around the hull. But even though this sound horrible, the kit goes together relatively easy – thanks to its simplicity.
I made some mods and upgrades, though. One of them was an internal axis construction made from styrene tubes that allow the two propeller discs to move separately (OOB, you just stack and glue the discs onto each other into a rigid nose cone), while the propeller tip with its radome remained fixed – just as in real life. However, due to the parts’ size and resistance against each other, the props could not move as freely as originally intended.
Separate parts for the air intakes as well as the wings and tail surfaces could be mounted with less problems than expected, even though - again – PSR was necessary to hide the seams.
Painting and markings:
As already mentioned, the livery would be rather conservative, because I wanted the aircraft to carry the uniform USN scheme in all-over FS 35042 with white markings, which was dropped in 1955, though. The XFV or a potential serial production derivative would just fit into this time frame, and might have carried the classic all-blue livery for a couple of years more, especially when operated by an evaluation unit. Its unit, VX-8, is totally fictional, though.
The cockpit interior was painted in Humbrol 80 (simulating bright zinc chromate primer), and to have some contrasts I added small red highlights on the fin pod tips and the gun pods' anti-flutter winglets. For some more variety the radome became earth brown with some good weathering, simulating an opaque perspex hood, and I added white (actually a very light gray) checkerboard markings on the "propeller rings", a bit inspired by the spinner markings on German WWII fighters. Subtle, but it looks good and breaks the otherwise very simple livery.
Some post-panel-shading with a lighter blue was done all over the hull, the exhaust area and the gun ports were painted with iron (Revell 91) and treated with graphite for a more metallic shine.
Silver decal stripe material was used to create the CoroGuard leading edges and the fine lines at the flaps on wings and fins - much easier than trying to solve this with paint and brush...
The decals were puzzled together from various dark blue USN aircraft, including a F8F, F9F and F4U sheet. The "XH" code was created with single 1cm hwite letters, the different font is not obvious, thanks to the letter combination.
Finally, the model was sealed with semi-gloss acrylic varnish (still shiny, but not too bright), the radome and the exhaust area were painted with matt varnsh, though.
A cool result, despite the rather dubious kit base. The Pegasus kit is seriously something for experienced builders, but the result looks convincing. The blue USN livery suits the XFV/FV-2 very well, it looks much more elegant than in the original NMF - even though it would, in real life, probably have received the new Gull Gray/White scheme (introduced in late 1955, IIRC, my FV-2 might have been one of the last aircraft to be painted blue). However, the blue scheme IMHO points out the aircraft's highly aerodynamic teardrop shape, esp. the flight pics make the aircraft almost look elegant!
Quotation source: Drew Frank, Twitter twitter.com/ugafrank/status/476750574478966784
Image Source (CC): Orin Zebist, Flickr www.flickr.com/photos/orinrobertjohn/2351499538
Aleksanders Samoilovs from Latvia kicking sand in the air the get the exact direction of the wind before serving into it.
Women-Centered Perspectives (Contemporary Issues in Biomedicine, Ethics, and Society)
Women most fully experience the consequences of human reproductive technologies. Men who convene to evaluate such technologies discuss "them": the women who must accept, avoid, or even resist these technologies; the women who consume technologies they did not devise; the women who are the objects of policies made by men. So often the input of women is neither sought nor listened to. The privileged insights and perspectives that women bring to the consideration of technologies in human reproduction are the subject of these volumes, which constitute the revised and edited record of a Workshop on "Ethical Issues in Human Reproduction Technology: Analysis by Women" (EIRTAW), held in June, 1979, at Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts. Some 80 members of the workshop, 90 percent of them women (from 24 states), represented diverse occupations and personal histories, different races and classes, varied political commitments. They included doctors, nurses, and scientists, lay midwives, consumer advocates, historians, and sociologists, lawyers, policy analysts, and ethicists. Each session, however, made plain that ethics is an everyday concern for women in general, as well as an academic profession for some.
More DES DiEthylStilbestrol Resources
* All our posts tagged DES, the DES-exposed and DES victims.
* DES studies on cancer, breast cancer, CCA, vaginal cancer, screening.
* DES studies on fertility, gender identity, pregnancy.
* DES studies on in-utero exposure to DES and DES side-effects.
* DES articles on lawsuits and various studies.
* Watch DES videos, read more about DES Daughters and DES Sons.
View taken from...
Marina Bay Sands is an integrated resort fronting Marina Bay in Singapore. Developed by Las Vegas Sands (LVS), it is billed as the world's most expensive stand-alone casino property at US$ 5.7 billion, including the cost of the prime land.
Marina Bay Sands is situated on 15.5 hectares of land with the gross floor area of 581,000 square metres. The iconic design has transformed Singapore's skyline and tourism landscape since it opened on 27 April, 2010. The property has a hotel, convention and exhibition facilities, theatres, entertainment venues, retailers, and restaurants.
Marina Bay Sands was one of two winning proposals for Singapore's first integrated resorts, the other being the Resorts World Sentosa, which incorporates Universal Studios Theme Park. The two resorts aimed to meet Singapore's economic and tourism objectives, and have 30-year casino licenses, exclusively for the first ten years.
Bidders were assessed based on four criteria:
tourism appeal and contribution
architectural concept and design
development investment
strength of the consortium and partners
On 27 May, 2006, Las Vegas Sands (LVS) was declared as the winner to develop the Marina Bay site in the prime new business district of Marina South. LVS highlighted its forte in Meetings, Incentives, Conferencing, Exhibitions (MICE). LVS's founder Sheldon Adelson is a pioneer in Las Vegas and the key to his early business success.[3] In the Design Evaluation portion of the tender, a panel of local and international architects commended Sands' design as superior to other bids in terms of pedestrian circulation and layout, and it also fit in with the Marina Bay landscape best. They liked that the hotel towers were set back from the waterfront to open up expansive views of the city and the entire Marina Bay, making the skyline for Singapore's downtown more attractive and distinctive.Construction of the property commenced in early 2007 and was expected to be completed by 2009.
Singapore Tourism Board highlighted Sands' line-up of six celebrity chefs, such as Tetsuya Wakuda, Wolfgang Puck, Daniel Boulud and Mario Batali.
LVS submitted its winning bid on its own. Its original partner City Developments Limited (CDL), with a proposed 15% equity stake, pulled out of the partnership in the second phase of the tender process. CDL's CEO, Kwek Leng Beng said his company's pullout was a combination of factors – such as difficulties in getting numerous companies he owns to comply in time, as well as reluctance of some parties to disclose certain private information in probity checks required by the Singapore government. However, Kwek was retained as an advisor for Sands' bid.
Las Vegas Sands initially committed to invest S$3.85 billion in the project, not including the fixed S$1.2 billion cost of the 6,000,000 square feet (560,000 m2) site itself. With the escalating costs of materials, such as sand and steel, and labour shortages owing to other major infrastructure and property development in the country, Sheldon Adelson placed the total cost of the development at S$8 billion as of July 2009.
Las Vegas Sands declared the undertaking as "one of the world's most challenging construction projects and certainly the most expensive stand-alone integrated resort property ever built". It expects the casino to generate at least $1 billion in annual profit. Two months after the initial phased opening, the casino attracts around 25,000 visitors daily, about a third being Singaporeans and permanent residents who pay a $100 daily entry levy or $2,000 for annual unlimited access. Half a million gamblers passed through the casino in June 2010. In the third quarter of 2012, the revenues of the Marina Bay Sands fell almost 28 per cent from a year earlier.
For the economy, Marina Bay Sands is projected to stimulate an addition of $2.7 billion or 0.8% to Singapore's Gross Domestic Product by 2015, employing 10,000 people directly and 20,000 jobs being created in other industries.
Moshe Safdie was approached to lead the design on this massive project. Taking inspiration from the form of card decks, led to the unique design of the three hotel towers. Other key structures of the property include the 200,000-square-foot (19,000 m2) ArtScience Museum, The Shoppes, Expo and Convention center and the casino. During the resort's planning and construction phases, feng shui consultants, the late Master Chong Swan Lek and Master Louisa Ong-Lee were consulted in regards to divination.
The engineering for the project was headed by Arup and Parsons Brinkerhoff (MEP/ELV). Arup had originally worked on prestigious projects such as the Beijing National Aquatics Centre and the Sydney Opera House. In spite of their experience in constructing challenging designs, the Marina Bay Sands project was described as the 'most difficult to carry out in the whole world' due to the amount of integration of the varied and advanced technologies needed to complete the project.
The extensive background music system was installed by Singapore based contractor Electronics & Engineering Pte Ltd
The Marina Bay Sands hotel has three 55-story towers with 2,561 luxury rooms and suites, which is capped by the Sands SkyPark, which offers 360-degree views of Singapore's skyline. The SkyPark is home to restaurants, gardens, a 150-metre vanishing edge and the world's largest public cantilever housing an observation deck. This architectural marvel stands at the height of 200 metres and boasts 12,400 square metres of space. Dining options at the Skypark include local celebrity chef restaurant, Sky on 57 (by Justin Quek), restaurant and nightclub KU DÉ TA, and executive club lounge The Club at Marina Bay Sands.
To help the Skypark withstand the natural motion of the towers caused by wind, engineers designed and constructed four movement joints beneath the main pools, each possessing a unique range of motion. The total range of motion is 500 millimetres (19.68 inches). In addition to wind, the hotel towers are also subject to settlement in the earth over time, hence custom jack legs were built and installed to allow for future adjustment at more than 500 points beneath the pool system. This jacking system is important primarily to ensure the infinity edge of the pool continues to function properly.[citation needed]
Connected to the hotel towers are the Sands Expo and Convention Centre, Marina Bay Sands Casino and The Shoppes at Marina Bay Sands.
The Sands Expo and Convention Centre has more than 120,000 square metres or 1.3 million square feet of meeting space, making it one of the largest and most flexible locations in Asia. It is also the biggest MICE (Meeting, Incentives, Conference and Exhibitions) facility in Singapore, and the ballroom is the largest in Southeast Asia, capable of hosting up to 11,000 delegates. The Sands Expo and Convention Centre has five floors of exhibition and convention space, with up to 2,000 exhibition booths and 250 meeting rooms. It has hosted events ranging from banquets, theater-style conventions, to exhibitions and roadshows.
Located near the Sands Expo and Convention Centre is the Marina Bay Sands Casino. Spanning 15,000 square metres over four levels of gaming, the casino features over 600 gaming tables and 1,500 slot machines along with two noodle bars, The Nest and Tong Dim, and local Chinese eatery, Fatt Choi Express.
Another attraction found at Marina Bay Sands is The Shoppes at Marina Bay Sands. With close to 800,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space, The Shoppes at Marina Bay Sands is Singapore's first large-scale luxury shopping mall in the Central Business District with boutiques such as Ralph Lauren, Chanel, Cartier and Prada. Other luxury stores include Salon by Surrender, Gucci, Hermès, Emporio Armani, Chopard, REDValentino, Dior, Dunhill, Vertu, Miu Miu, Saint Laurent Paris, Salvatore Ferragamo, Montblanc, Blancpain, and an Hermès Watch Boutique. Also housed within the Shoppes are the five of the six Celebrity Chef Restaurants – Cut (by Wolfgang Puck), Waku Ghin (by Tetsuya Wakuda), Pizzeria and Osteria Mozza (by Mario Batali), Guy Savoy (by Guy Savoy), and DB Bistro Moderne (by Daniel Boulud).
Other attractions within The Shoppes at Marina Bay Sands include a canal which runs through the length of the Shoppes, in the same style as the Venetian in Las Vegas, two Crystal Pavilions, one housing renowned nightclubs – Avalon and Pangaea and the other the world's largest Louis Vuitton boutique. An indoor skating rink (synthetic ice) measuring 6,500 square feet (600 m2) as well as the MasterCard Theatres, compromising of the Sands Theatre and Grand Theatre which seat 1,680 people and 2,155 people respectively can also be found at The Shoppes at Marina Bay Sands.
The MasterCard Theatres has played host to many international acts and plays since its opening, with Broadway smash musicals like The Lion King, Wicked, Annie, and The Phantom of the Opera. Other acts such as Cirque Éloize and A. R. Rahman's Jai Ho, located in the latter during their world tours.
Visitors to the Event Plaza at The Shoppes can enjoy the nightly Wonder Full show, a 13-minute light and water show featuring lasers, lights, water movements and graphics, set against the backdrop of Marina Bay Sands.
Marina Bay Sands is also home to the ArtScience Museum, With a form reminiscent of the lotus, the ArtScience Museum has been called "The Welcoming Hand of Singapore". It features an adjustable roof waterfall which uses rainwater collected when the roof is sealed in the day.
The resort also features an Art Path designed by Moshe Safdie, incorporating 11 installations by five artists including Zheng Chongbin, Antony Gormley, and Sol LeWitt. The 11 art installations were commissioned to integrate seamlessly with Moshe Safdie's iconic architecture. These art installations form the largest art commissions ever completed as part of an integrated architectual proccess
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
The A-14 program originally started in 2005 as a private venture, initiated by Northrop-Grumman together with the Elbit Group as a joint venture through Elbit’s Texas-based aircraft division M7 Aerosystems, an approved supplier to major aerospace clients. The aircraft was intended to replace the USAF’s A-10 attack aircraft as well as early F-16s in the strike role from 2010 onwards. The time slot for the project turned out to be advantageous, because at that time the USAF was contemplating to replace the simple and sturdy A-10 with the much more complex F-35, eventually even with its VTOL variant, and the highly specialized F-117 was retired, too.
The A-14 revived conceptual elements of Grumman’s stillborn A-12 stealth program for the US Navy, which had also been part of the USAF’s plans to replace the supersonic F-111 tactical bomber, but on a less ambitious and expensive level concerning technology, aiming for a more effective compromise between complexity, survivability and costs. The basic idea was an updated LTV A-7D (the A-10’s predecessor from the Vietnam War era), which had far more sophisticated sensor and navigation equipment than the rather simple but sturdy A-10, but with pragmatic stealth features and a high level of survivability in a modern frontline theatre or operations.
M7 Aerosystems started on a blank sheet, even though Northrop-Grumman’s A-12 influence was clearly visible, and to a certain degree the aircraft shared the basic layout with the F-117A. The A-14 was tailored from the start to the ground attack role, and therefore a subsonic design. Measures to reduce radar cross-section included airframe shaping such as alignment of edges, fixed-geometry serpentine inlets that prevented line-of-sight of the engine faces from any exterior view, use of radar-absorbent material (RAM), and attention to detail such as hinges and maintenance covers that could provide a radar return. The A-14 was furthermore designed to have decreased radio emissions, infrared signature and acoustic signature as well as reduced visibility to the naked eye.
The resulting airframe was surprisingly large for an attack aircraft – in fact, it rather reminded of a tactical bomber in the F-111/Su-24 class than an alternative to the A-10. The A-14 consisted of a rhomboid-shaped BWB (blended-wing-and-body) with extended wing tips and only a moderate (35°) wing sweep, cambered leading edges, a jagged trailing edge and a protruding cockpit section which extended forward of the main body.
The majority of the A-14’s structure and surface were made out of a carbon-graphite composite material that is stronger than steel, lighter than aluminum, and absorbs a significant amount of radar energy. The central fuselage bulge ended in a short tail stinger with a pair of swept, canted fins as a butterfly tail, which also shrouded the engine’s hot efflux. The fins could have been omitted, thanks to the aerodynamically unstable aircraft’s fly-by-wire steering system, and they effectively increased the A-14’s radar signature as well as its visual profile, but the gain in safety in case of FBW failure or physical damage was regarded as a worthwhile trade-off. Due to its distinctive shape and profile, the A-14 quickly received the unofficial nickname “Squatina”, after the angel shark family.
The spacious and armored cockpit offered room for the crew of two (pilot and WSO or observer for FAC duties), seated side-by-side under a generous glazing, with a very good field of view forward and to the sides. The fuselage structure was constructed around a powerful cannon, the five-barrel GAU-12/U 25 mm ‘Equalizer’ gun, which was, compared with the A-10’s large GAU-8/A, overall much lighter and more compact, but with only little less firepower. It fired a new NATO series of 25 mm ammunition at up to 4.200 RPM. The gun itself was located under the cockpit tub, slightly set off to port side, and the front wheel well was offset to starboard to compensate, similar in arrangement to the A-10 or Su-25. The gun’s ammunition drum and a closed feeding belt system were located behind the cockpit in the aircraft’s center of gravity. An in-flight refueling receptor (for the USAF’s boom system) was located in the aircraft’s spine behind the cockpit, normally hidden under a flush cover.
Due to the gun installation in the fuselage, however, no single large weapon bay to minimize radar cross section and drag through external ordnance was incorporated, since this feature would have increased airframe size and overall weight. Instead, the A-14 received four, fully enclosed compartments between the wide main landing gear wells and legs. The bays could hold single iron bombs of up to 2.000 lb caliber each, up to four 500 lb bombs or CBUs, single laser-guided GBU-14 glide bombs, AGM-154 JSOW or GBU-31/38 JDAM glide bombs, AGM-65 Maverick guided missiles or B61 Mod 11 tactical nuclear weapons, as well as the B61 Mod 12 standoff variant, under development at that time). Retractable launch racks for defensive AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles were available, too, and additional external pylons could be added, e.g. for oversize ordnance like AGM-158C Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) or AGM-158 Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM), or drop tanks for ferry flights. The total in- and external ordnance load was 15,000 lb (6,800 kg).
The A-14 was designed with superior maneuverability at low speeds and altitude in mind and therefore featured a large wing area, with high wing aspect ratio on the outer wing sections, and large ailerons areas. The ailerons were placed at the far ends of the wings for greater rolling moment and were split, making them decelerons, so that they could also be used as air brakes in flight and upon landing.
This wing configuration promoted short takeoffs and landings, permitting operations from primitive forward airfields near front lines. The sturdy landing gear with low-pressure tires supported these tactics, and a retractable arrester hook, hidden by a flush cover under the tail sting, made it possible to use mobile arrested-recovery systems.
The leading edge of the wing had a honeycomb structure panel construction, providing strength with minimal weight; similar panels covered the flap shrouds, elevators, rudders and sections of the fins. The skin panels were integral with the stringers and were fabricated using computer-controlled machining, reducing production time and cost, and this construction made the panels more resistant to damage. The skin was not load-bearing, so damaged skin sections could be easily replaced in the field, with makeshift materials if necessary.
Power came from a pair of F412-GE-114 non-afterburning turbofans, engines that were originally developed for the A-12, but de-navalized and lightened for the A-14. These new engines had an output of 12,000 lbf (53 kN) each and were buried in blended fairings above the wing roots, with jagged intakes and hidden ducts. Flat exhausts on the wings’ upper surface minimized both radar and IR signatures.
Thanks to the generous internal fuel capacity in the wings and the fuselage, the A-14 was able to loiter and operate under 1,000 ft (300 m) ceilings for extended periods. It typically flew at a relatively low speed of 300 knots (350 mph; 560 km/h), which made it a better platform for the ground-attack role than fast fighter-bombers, which often have difficulty targeting small, slow-moving targets or executing more than just a single attack run on a selected target.
A mock-up was presented and tested in the wind tunnel and for radar cross-section in late 2008. The A-14’s exact radar cross-section (RCS) remained classified, but in 2009 M7 Aerosystems released information indicating it had an RCS (from certain angles) of −40 dBsm, equivalent to the radar reflection of a "steel marble". With this positive outcome and the effective design, M7 Aerosystems eventually received federal funding for the production of prototypes for an official DT&E (Demonstration Testing and Evaluation) program.
Three prototypes/pre-production aircraft were built in the course of 2010 and 2011, and the first YA-14 made its maiden flight on 10 May 2011. The DT&E started immediately, and the machines (a total of three flying prototypes were completed, plus two additional airframes for static tests) were gradually outfitted with mission avionics and other equipment. This included GPS positioning, an inertial navigation system, passive sensors to detect radar usage, a small, gyroscopically stabilized turret, mounted under the nose of the aircraft, containing a FLIR boresighted with a laser spot-tracker/designator, and an experimental 3-D laser scanning LIDAR in the nose as a radiation-less alternative to a navigation and tracking radar.
Soon after the DT&E program gained momentum in 2012, the situation changed for M7 Aerosystems when the US Air Force considered the F-35B STOVL variant as its favored replacement CAS aircraft, but concluded that the aircraft could not generate a sufficient number of sorties. However, the F-35 was established as the A-14’s primary rival and remained on the USAF’s agenda. For instance, at that time the USAF proposed disbanding five A-10 squadrons in its budget request to cut its fleet of 348 A-10s by 102 to lessen cuts to multi-mission aircraft in service that could replace the specialized attack aircraft.
In August 2013, Congress and the Air Force examined various proposals for an A-10 replacement, including the A-14, F-35 and the MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial vehicle, and, despite the A-14’s better qualities in the ground attack role, the F-35 came out as the overall winner, since it was the USAF’s favorite. Despite its complexity, the F-35 was – intended as a multi-role tri-service aircraft and also with the perspective of bigger international sales than the more specialized A-14 – regarded as the more versatile and, in the long run, more cost-efficient procurement option. This sealed the A-14’s fate and the F-35A entered service with U.S. Air Force F-35A in August 2016 (after the F-35B was introduced to the U.S. Marine Corps in July 2015). At that time, the U.S. planned to buy 2,456 F-35s through 2044, which would represent the bulk of the crewed tactical airpower of the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps for several decades.
Since the A-14’s technology was considered to be too critical to be marketed to export customers (Israel showed early interest in the aircraft, as well as South Korea), the program was cancelled in 2016.
General characteristics:
Crew: 2 (pilot, WSO)
Length: 54 ft 11 1/2 in (16.78 m)
Wingspan: 62 ft 11 1/2 in (19.22 m)
Height: 11 ft 3 3/4 in (3.45 m)
Wing area: 374.9 ft² (117.5 m²)
Empty weight: 24,959 lb (11,321 kg)
Loaded weight: 30,384 lb (13,782 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 50,000 lb (22,700 kg)
Internal fuel capacity: 11,000 lb (4,990 kg)
Powerplant:
2× General Electric Whitney F412-GE-114 non-afterburning turbofans
with 12,000 lbf (53 kN) thrust each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 630 mph (1,010 km/h, 550 kn) at 40,000 ft altitude /
Mach 0.95 at sea level
Cruise speed: 560 mph (900 km/h, 487 kn) at 40,000 ft altitude
Range: 1,089 nmi (1,253 mi, 2,017 km)
Ferry range: 1,800 nmi (2,100 mi, 3,300 km)
Service ceiling: 50,000 ft (15,200 m)
Rate of climb: 50,000 ft/min (250 m/s)
Wing loading: 133 lb/ft² (193 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.48 (full internal fuel, no stores)
Take-off run: 1,200 m (3,930 ft) at 42,000 lb (19,000 kg) over a 15 m (30 ft) obstacle
Armament:
1× General Dynamics GAU-12/U Equalizer 25 mm (0.984 in) 5-barreled rotary cannon
with 1,200 rounds (max. capacity 1,350 rounds)
4x internal weapon bays plus 4x external optional hardpoints with a total capacity of
15,000 lb (6,800 kg) and provisions to carry/deploy a wide range of ordnance
The kit and its assembly:
A major kitbashing project which I had on my idea list for a long time and its main ingredients/body donors already stashed away – but, as with many rather intimidating builds, it takes some external motivation to finally tackle the idea and bring it into hardware form. This came in August 2020 with the “Prototypes” group build at whatifmodellers.com, even though is still took some time to find the courage and mojo to start.
The original inspiration was the idea of a stealthy successor for the A-10, or a kind of more modern A-7 as an alternative to the omnipresent (and rather boring, IMHO) F-35. An early “ingredient” became the fuselage of a Zvezda Ka-58 stealth helicopter kit – I liked the edgy shape, the crocodile-like silhouette and the spacious side-by-side cockpit. Adding wings, however, was more challenging, and I remembered a 1:200 B-2A which I had turned into a light Swedish 1:72 attack stealth aircraft. Why not use another B-2 for the wings and the engines, but this time a bigger 1:144 model that would better match the quite bulbous Ka-58 fuselage? This donor became an Italeri kit.
Work started with the fuselage: the Ka-58’s engine and gearbox hump had to go first and a generous, new dorsal section had to be scratched with 1mm styrene sheet and some PSR. The cockpit and its glazing could be retained and were taken OOB. Under the nose, the Ka-58’s gun turret was omitted and a scratched front landing gear well was implanted instead.
The wings consist of the B-2 model; the lower “fuselage half” had its front end cut away, then the upper fuselage half of the Ka-58 was used as benchmark to cut the B-2’s upper wing/body part in two outer wing panels. Once these elements had been glued together, the Ka-58’s lower nose and tail section were tailored to match the B-2 parts. The B-2 engine bays were taken OOB and mounted next, so that the A-14’s basic hull was complete and the first major PSR session could start. Blending the parts into each other turned out to be a tedious process, since some 2-3 mm wide gaps had to be filled.
Once the basic BWP pack had been finished, I added the fins. These were taken from an 1:72 F-117 kit (IIRC from Italeri), which I had bought in a lot many moons ago. The fins were just adapted at their base to match the tail sting slope, and they were mounted in a 45° angle. This looks very F-117ish but was IMHO the most plausible solution.
Now that the overall length of the aircraft was defined, I could work on the final major assembly part: the wing tips. The 1:144 B-2 came with separate wing tip sections, but they proved to be much too long for the Squatina. After some trials I reduced their length by more than half, so that the B-2’s jagged wing trailing edge was kept. The result looks quite natural, even though blending the cut wing tips to the BWB turned out to be a PSR nightmare because their thickness reduces gently towards the tip – since I took out a good part of the inner section, the resulting step had to be sanded away and hidden with more PSR.
Detail work started next, including the cockpit glazing, the bomb bay (the B-2 kit comes with one of its bays open, and I kept this detail and modified the interior) and the landing gear, the latter was taken from the F-117 donor bank and fitted surprisingly well.
Some sensors were added, too, including a flat glass panel on the nose tip and a triangular IRST fairing under the nose, next to the landing gear well.
Painting and markings:
For a stealth aircraft and a prototype I wanted something subdued or murky, but not an all-black or -grey livery. I eventually settled for the rather dark paint scheme that the USAF applied to its late B-52Gs and the B-1Bs, which consists of two tones from above, FS 36081 (Dark Grey, a.k.a. Dark Gunship Grey) and 34086 (Green Drab), and underneath (FS 36081 and 36118 (Gunship Grey). The irregular pattern was adapted (in a rather liberal fashion) from the USAF’s early B-1Bs, using Humbrol 32, 108 and 125 as basic colors. The 108 turned out to be too bright, so I toned it down with an additional coat of thinned Humbrol 66. While this considerably reduced the contrast between the green and the grey, the combination looks much better and B-1B-esque.
The wings’ leading edges were painted for more contrast with a greyish black (Tar Black, Revell 09), while the landing gear, the interior of the air intakes and the open bomb bay became glossy white. The cockpit was painted in medium grey (Humbrol 140) and the clear parts received a thinned inner coating with a mix of transparent yellow and brown, simulating an anti-radar coating – even though the effect turned out to be minimal, now it looks as of the plastic parts had just yellowed from age…
After the initial livery had been finished the model received a black ink washing and some post-panel shading with slightly brightened variations of the basic tones (using Humbrol 79, 144 and 224). Decals were added next, an individual mix from various sources. The “Stars-and-Bars” come from a PrintScale A-7 sheet, most stencils come from an F-16 sheet.
After some more detail painting and a treatment with graphite on the metal areas (exhausts, gun port), the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri).
Batman’s next Batwing? Maybe, there’s certainly something fictional about this creation. But the “Squatina” turned out much more conclusive (and even pretty!) than I expected, even though it became a bigger aircraft than intended. And I am positively surprised how good the bodywork became – after all, lots of putty had to be used to fill all the gaps between parts that no one ever expected to be grafted together.
CP 2210, a rebuilt GP20 "Aardvark," led a track evaluation train westbound along the IC&E on 6-25-13, inspecting the track at a leisurely 20 MPH here at Irene Road near Kirkland, IL.
Template
by Anne Madsen
DrawMore - Graphic Facilitation & Visual Recording
Contact:
drawmorestuff (at) gmail.com
VX-4 Evaluators Grumman F-14A Tomcat BuNo 159853, XF-43, AIM-54 Phoenix missile. Date, location and photographer unknown.
evaluation on calculator. Please feel free to use this image that I've created on your website or blog. If you do, I'd greatly appreciate a link back to my blog as the source: CreditDebitPro.com
Example: Photo by Credit Score Guide
Thanks!
Mike Lawrence
Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel delivers remarks during a welcome ceremony Aug. 4, 2014, at the Pentagon in Arlington, Va. During the event, Hagel formally commissioned Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Christine Wormuth, Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) Michael McCord, Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Jessica Wright and Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation Jamie Morin into their posts. (DoD photo by Glenn Fawcett/Released)