View allAll Photos Tagged reliability
C&NW C41-8 8577 shows off it's special "Safety and Reliability" paint at Boone, IA in August of 1993.
First , reliability
An advertising on the wall of a house. It was for supermarket products
An important warning ( in life )
This jewel-bright image from the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope shows NGC 1385, a spiral galaxy 68 million light-years from Earth, which lies in the constellation Fornax. The image was taken with Hubble’s Wide Field Camera 3, which is often referred to as Hubble’s workhorse camera thanks to its reliability and versatility. It was installed in 2009 when astronauts last visited Hubble, and 12 years later it remains remarkably productive.
NGC 1385’s home – the Fornax constellation – is not named after an animal or an ancient god, as are many of the other constellations. Fornax is simply the Latin word for a furnace. The constellation was named Fornax by Nicolas-Louis de Lacaille, a French astronomer born in 1713. Lacaille named 14 of the 88 constellations we still recognize today. He seems to have had a penchant for naming constellations after scientific instruments, including Atlia (the air pump), Norma (the ruler, or set square), and Telescopium (the telescope).
Text credit: European Space Agency (ESA)
Image credit: ESA/Hubble & NASA, J. Lee and the PHANGS-HST Team
For more information: www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/2021/hubble-views-a-ga...
General Motors/Electro Motive Division Diesel electric locomotive.
Rant ahead: This locomotive is now rotting in Inchicore Rail Works Dublin . All because it's not push pull capable. The only places that 201 class locomotives run today are head end power for the De Dietrich push pull trains that run from Connolly Station Dubin to Belfast, and head end power on the mark 4 push pull trains that run from Hueston Station Dublin to Cork. I always thought some should be saved to back up the 071 class locomotives on freight trains such as the tara mines iron ore train. They have been on the rails since the late 70s and reliability could begun to fade as they get older. I have seen photos of Irish Rail using push pull adapted 201 class locomotives on frieight trains. If they break down or get damaged, worst case scenario, they're leaving the Cork and Belfast runs without a train.
Flying Scotsman Rally 2013
Number 2, a 1925 Bentley 3-4½ litre - BF 6428 - entered by William Medcalf and Peter Scott, seen competing in the Flying Scotsman Rally 2013.
Press "L" to view large.
IN ENGLISH BELOW THE LINE
Es tracta d'una càmera de 16mm, de les més famoses de mitjans del s. XX, part d'una família de llarga producció i fiabilitat, les Bell & Howell Filmo 70.
En concret, aquesta és una Bell & Howell Filmo 70-D, fabricada a Chicago cap al 1929-30; el motor d'aquesta càmera funciona amb una molla de torsió, el que t'allibera de necessitar endolls o bateries, però limita el temps de filmació seguit a uns 20 segons. Apart de la càmera, també venia amb el lot (comprat als Estats Units) la funda de cuiro original amb diversos manuals d'instruccions, la garantia original i fins un potet amb oli Bell&Howell per a lubricar-la. Dels objectius, només el Taylor-Hobson Cooke 1 Inch f3.5 venia amb aquesta càmera. Fa gracia per que és el mateix objectiu que els primers models 70-A del 1923. Els altres objectius els vaig comprar apart, però son força antics, també. La càmera sembla funcionar perfectament.
Ah, finalment hi ha el detall que la maleta està marcada amb el propietari original de la càmera: un tinent-coronel del exèrcit nord-americà afincat a Westbury, Long Island, NY.
Les Filmo 70 es produiren entre el 1923 i els anys 50, i son d'una fiabilitat a proba de bombes, i increiblement senzilles de fer anar, sobretot els models d'un sol objectiu. El model 70-D encara fa servir pel·licula de 16mm amb dues perforacions, el que limita el tipus d'emulsions que es poden fer servir (tot i que encara s'en produeixen en webs especialitzades).
Aquestes càmeres s'empraren durant la Segona Guerra Mundial per la seva fermesa i fiabilitat, juntament amb la seva "germana gran" de 35mm, la Eyemo. Encara avui en dia s'han fet servir en cinema per a escenes "perilloses" per a la càmera.
www.vintagecameras.fr/bell-howell/filmo-70da
www.vintagecameras.fr/bell-howell/filmo-70da
super8wiki.com/index.php/Bell_and_Howell_70
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpP40tCNaCg
======================
This movie camera is a Bell & Howell Filmo 70-D, made in Chicago c.1929-30. Like all Filmo cameras, this one works with a spring motor, which frees you of the need of plugs or batteries, but limits the continuos shooting time to about 20 seconds. It has a turret for 3 lenses, and a rotary field-of-view selector in the finder (although it does not magnify, only restricts the view acordingly, so the longer lenses just show a tiny square with wich compose your scene.
Apart from the camera, the lot (purchased in the United States) also came with the original leather case with several instruction manuals, the original warranty and even a tiny bottle of Bell&Howell oil to lubricate it. Of the lenses, only the Taylor-Hobson Cooke 1 Inch f3.5 came with this camera. It's interesting because it's the same lens as the original Filmo 70-A models from 1923. I bought the other lenses separately, but they're pretty old, too. The camera seems to work perfectly.
Oh, and finally there's the detail that the camera case is marked with the camera's original owner: a US Army lieutenant colonel who lived in Westbury, Long Island, NY. Most probably he served in WW2.
The Filmo 70s were produced between 1923 and the 50's, and are bomb-proof, really built like a tank, and incredibly easy to operate, especially single-lens models. This D model still uses the old style "double perforated" 16mm film, which is harder to find (but still produced).
The Filmo 70s were used during World War II for their sturdiness and reliability, along with their 35mm "big sister", the Eyemo. Even today they have been used in cinema for “dangerous” scenes for the camera.
www.vintagecameras.fr/bell-howell/filmo-70da
www.vintagecameras.fr/bell-howell/filmo-70da
Even thought the curvature of the earth has been enhanced very slightly in this birds eye view, the Ford grain truck and the silver tile elevator are what makes this image so cool. Having only 90 seconds to deploy the drone and elevate to 100 feet, BNSF 8532 won’t slack up on its 50 mph speed for me with westbound grain loads here at Danville, KS. on 10-07-2020. Compare the painted silver tile grain elevator with almost hidden steel annex bins to the mega bushel white concrete elevators built 50 years later. Today the Danville Co-op elevators only ship grain out by truck, not in covered railroad hoppers. And as best I can find, the Ford C is 57 years old………..good old Ford reliability!
“MAN’S CONTRIBUTION TO A SPACE FLIGHT SYSTEM will be important enough to outweigh the training and risk involved in sending him aloft, according to the manager of Life Sciences for the Martin Company’s APOLLO study. His usefulness will be generally in the fields of reliability, maintenance, control and decision-making. This was concluded by Martin after a long series of human factors studies relating to the APOLLO manned circumlunar flight system for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.”
No signature. Martin Company. 1960/61. John Gorsuch maybe?
Some of the instrument panel labels are actually legible.
Also, the pilot seems to have no direct view to the outside. The cockpit window possibly still having its protective panels/shielding in place?
This is one of Route 159s buses seen blinded for Transport For London. All buses on the route are currently terminating at Oxford Circus, in order to keep up with reliability during roadworks on bridge street. On 14th December the route will be restored to Marble Arch but will be cut back again to Oxford Circus again in the future as part of TFLs plan to remove buses off of Oxford Street
+++ 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 Korean People's Army Air and Anti-Air Force began as the "Korean Aviation Society" in 1945. It was organized along the lines of flying clubs in the Soviet Union. In 1946, the society became a military organization and became an aviation division of the Korean People's Army (KPA). It became a branch of the army in its own right in November 1948. The KPAF incorporated much of the original Soviet air tactics, as well as North Korean experience from the UN bombings during the Korean War.
North Korea’s first indigenous jet fighter aircraft, the Wonsan Aircraft Works 여-1 (known as “W-1” outside of the country), started its existence in China as the Shenyang J-3 (Jianjiji = fighter). The J-3 was a project to exploit the knowledge and hardware gained through the license production of the Soviet MiG-15UTI trainer, locally designated JJ-2 (Jianjiji Jiaolianji – fighter trainer), a study that was primarily intended to improve China’s aircraft industry and the country’s respective engineering know how after the Korean War. The Soviet VVS and PVO had been the primary users of the MiG-15 during the Korean war, but not the only ones; it was also used by the PLAAF and KPAF (known as the United Air Army).
The J-3 was designed during the Korean War between 1952 and 1953 and two prototypes were built with Soviet help and tested in 1953, but the aircraft came too late – and it was not regarded as a successor or even an alternative to the Soviet MiG-15, because it lacked modern features like swept wings. The J-3’s design drew more on American rather than British inspiration, having elected to use features such as a very thin (but almost straight) wing akin to the Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star and a basic configuration comparable to the North American F-86 Sabre. Due to its conceptual interceptor role, an emphasis had been placed on a fast rate of climb. Power came from a Klimov VK-1 centrifugal-flow turbojet, a derivative of the British Rolls-Royce Nene Mk.104B that also powered the MiG-15. Armament consisted of four 23 mm (0.906 in) Nudelman-Suranov NS-23 autocannon under the nose.
The J-3’s rate of progress on the project was such that, within 15 months of design work having formally started, the first prototype had been fully constructed. On 28 October 1953, the first J-3 fighter prototype conducted its first flight, even though it still lacked pressurization, armament, and other military equipment. Gradually, new hardware was integrated and tested, and a second aircraft joined the tests in January 1954. Flight tests followed quickly and showed that the J-3 was easy to fly and had exceptional performance and maneuverability for a straight-wing aircraft. Unfortunately, it soon became clear that the laminar flow section used for the original tail unit was totally unsuitable, with extremely severe buffeting setting in at 500 km/h (310 mph). The buffeting was so bad that the test pilots were thrown about in the cockpit, banging their head on the canopy, and the needles fell off all the flight instruments. Fortunately, accidents could be avoided, and the tailplane section was changed with much improved results.
The gun armament caused troubles, too. Firing all four NS-23 at once made the robust engine surge – a problem that did not occur on the MiG-15, but it only carried two of these weapons. A remedy was eventually found through the introduction of a slightly elongated nose that kept the air intake further away from the gun blast shock waves. The flight and test program lasted until 1955, and a total of five J-3 prototypes were built, but with no serious plan to put this aircraft into series production, even more so after China had been offered to produce the even more modern and capable Soviet MiG-17 fighter under license as the J-5. In the People's Republic of China (PRC), an initial MiG-17F was assembled from parts in 1956, with license production following in 1957 at Shenyang. The Chinese-built version was/is known as the Shenyang J-5 (for local use) or F-5 (for export). After this decision, the J-3 program was stopped, but the machines were retained in flightworthy condition as testbeds and chase planes by the PLAAF until the late Sixties
However, this was not the end of the J-3. After fighting had ended on 27 July 1953 when the Korean Armistice Agreement was signed, the Korean People's Army Air and Anti-Air Force (KPAAF) was keen to boost its capabilities and build a domestic aircraft industry, beyond the option to produce existing designs in license. Turning to its main sponsor China, North Korea was offered the plans for the J-3 and its tools, together with a supply of Chinese-built VK-1 engines. Even though the J-3 did not represent the state-of-the-art in jet fighters anymore, it was the best option for an industrial quickstart and until 1956 a dedicated production site for the J-3 was built at Wonsan, leading to the Wonsan Aircraft Works (Wonsan hang-gong-gi jag-eob , 원산 항공기 작업) and its first military product, the 여-1 (Yeo-1 = W-1). When NATO became aware of the aircraft it received the reporting code name “Freshman”.
However, despite the J-3’s plans and tools at hand, the W-1’s production was hampered by the lack of experience, sub-optimal materials, and poor logistics (esp. concerning vital imported components like the Chinese WP-5 engine, a license-built VK-1). Consequently, it took almost three years to roll out the first pre-serial production aircraft in 1959, and even then, the W-1 was plagued with material and reliability problems. Furthermore, once the W-1 became operational in 1961, the aircraft had become outdated. The W-1 had been designed to intercept straight-and-level-flying enemy bombers, not for air-to-air combat (dogfighting) with other fighters. The subsonic (Mach .76) fighter was effective against slower (Mach .6-.8), heavily loaded U.S. fighter-bombers from the Fifties, as well as the mainstay American strategic bombers during the aircraft's development cycle (such as the Boeing B-50 Superfortress or Convair B-36 Peacemaker, which were both still powered by piston engines). It was not however able to intercept the new generation of British jet bombers such as the Avro Vulcan and Handley Page Victor, which could both fly higher. Most W-1s were initially used as night fighters – even though they lacked any on-board radar and the pilot had to rely on visual contact and/or radio guidance from ground stations to make out and close in on a potential target. The USAF's introduction of strategic bombers capable of supersonic dash speeds such as the B-58 Hustler and General Dynamics FB-111 rendered the W-1 totally obsolete in front-line KPAAF service, and they were quickly supplanted by supersonic interceptors such as the MiG-21 and MiG-23.
The rugged aircraft was not retired, though, and found use as ground attack aircraft (despite its limited payload of around 2 tons) and as an advanced fighter trainer. Total production numbers are uncertain, but less than 100 W-1s were produced until 1969, with no further variants becoming known. In 1990, probably forty were still operational, and even after 2000 some KPAAF W-1s were still flying.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 10.73 m (35 ft 2 in)
Wingspan: 12.16 m (39 ft 10½ in)
Height: 4.46 m (14 ft 7½ in)
Wing area: 23.8 m² (256 sq ft)
Aspect ratio: 7.3
Empty weight: 4,142 kg (9,132 lb)
Gross weight: 7,404 kg (16,323 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 7,900 kg (17,417 lb)
Powerplant:
1× Wopen WP-5 (Rolls-Royce Nene Mk.104B) centrifugal-flow turbojet
with 26.5 kN (5,950 lbf) thrust
Performance:
Maximum speed: 940 km/h (580 mph, 510 kn) at sea level
Maximum speed: Mach 0.76
Cruise speed: 750 km/h (470 mph, 400 kn)
Maximum Mach number: M0.83
Combat range: 450 km (280 mi, 240 nmi)
Ferry range: 920 km (570 mi, 500 nmi)
Service ceiling: 13,000 m (43,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 38 m/s (7,500 ft/min)
Take-off run: 783 m (2,569 ft)
Landing run: 910 m (2,986 ft)
Armament:
4× 23 mm (0.906 in) Nudelman-Suranov NS-23 autocannon with 100 rounds per gun
2× underwing hardpoints for 2.000 kg of payload, including a variety of unguided iron bombs such
as 2× 250 kg (500 lb) bombs, napalm tanks, pods with unguided missiles, or 2× 350 l (92 US
gal; 77 imp gal) drop tanks for extended range.
The kit and its assembly:
I always thought that the tubby Dassault Ouragan had something “Soviet-ish” about it, looking much like one of the obscure early Yakowlew jet fighter prototypes (e .g. the straight-wing Yak-25 [first use of this designation in 1947] or the swept-wing Yak-30) around 1950. With this idea I had stashed away a Heller Ouragan for a while, and recently wondered about an indigenous North-Korean aircraft that could have emerged after the Korean War? The Ouragan looked like a good basis, and so this project started as a simple conversion of the Heller kit.
While most of the airframe was retained, I made some cosmetic changes to change the aircraft’s looks and add a Warsaw Pact flavor. The characteristic wing tip tanks disappeared, and the wings’ ends were rounded off. The fin tip was extended with a piece of 1.5 mm styrene sheet and a different fin shape was sculpted from it. The original stabilizers were replaced with what I think are stabilizers from a VEB Plasticart 1:100 An-24 – they better match the wing shape than the OOB parts!
The cockpit was taken OOB, I just replaced the ejection seat with a different piece from a KP 1:72 MiG-19. The air intake was modified with the opening from a Heller 1:72 F-84G, extending and narrowing it slightly, even though the internal splitter plate (which also bears the front wheel well) was retained. The landing gear was also basically taken OOB, but the main wheels were now mounted on the outside position (with an adaptation of the covers), and the front wheel was moved 3 mm further forward, to compensate for the slightly longer nose section, and its cover was modified accordingly. The flaps were lowered, primarily because this modification is easy to realize on this kit and it makes the simple aircraft look “livelier”, and the canopy was cut into three parts for open display.
Pylons were added under the wings, together with drop tanks from a Hobby Boss 1:72 MiG-15. The same source provided the swept antenna mast behind the cockpit and the small but characteristic altimeter sensors under the wings. As a final twist of “Sovietization” I added small fences to the wings, made from styrene profiles – they would not be necessary on the aircraft’s straight wings, but they help change the model’s overall look. 😉
Building the Heller Ouragan was a straightforward affair, even though the plastic of the recent re-boxing I used was pretty soft and took long to cure after gluing parts together. A real problem occurred when I tried to close the fuselage halves, though, because the parts did not align well behind the cockpit, as if they were warped? The walls were rather thin, too, and as a result a lot of PSR went into the spine and the ventral area behind the wings, which mismatched badly. The rather thin material in these areas did not help much, either. I have built the Ouragan before, and I do not remember these massive troubles?!
Painting and markings:
I initially considered a North-Korean night fighter camouflage from the Korea War, but since the aircraft would have been introduced into service after the open hostilities, I rather settled for a very dry NMF finish with minimal markings. Therefore, the model received an overall coat with “White Aluminum” from the rattle can and a light overall rubbing treatment with graphite to emphasize the raised panel lines and add a slightly irregular metallic shine to the paint. Since they had disappeared through PSR, I also added/recreated some panel lines with a soft pencil.
The cockpit interior was painted in medium grey and Soviet cockpit turquoise, the landing gear and its wells became metallic-grey (Humbrol 56). The areas around the exhaust and the guns were painted with Revell 91 (Iron), the only color contrasts are red trim tabs.
The large KPAAF roundels with a white background came from a Cutting Edge MiG-15 sheet, the large red tactical code was left over from an unidentifiable “Eastern Bloc” model’s decal sheet. After some more graphite treatment around the guns and the tail section the model was sealed with a coat of semi-gloss acrylic varnish (Italeri), resulting in a nice metallic shine that looks better than expected on this uniform aircraft.
Well, this converted Ouragan looks pretty dull at first sight, due to its simple livery. But this makes it pretty plausible, and the small cosmetic changes add a serious Soviet-esque touch to the aircraft.
A formation of Lockheed Martin F-35A "Lightning IIs", from the 388th Fighter Wing and 419th FW, refuel over the Utah Test and Training Range, Utah, as part of a combat power exercise Nov. 19, 2018. The exercise aims to confirm their ability to quickly employ a large force of jets against air and ground targets, and demonstrate the readiness and lethality of the F-35. As the first combat-ready F-35 units in the Air Force, the 388th and 419th FWs at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, are ready to deploy anywhere in the world at a moment's notice.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor is a fifth-generation, single-seat, twin-engine, all-weather stealth tactical fighter aircraft developed for the United States Air Force (USAF). The result of the USAF's Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) program, the aircraft was designed primarily as an air superiority fighter, but also has ground attack, electronic warfare, and signal intelligence capabilities. The prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, built most of the F-22's airframe and weapons systems and conducted final assembly, while Boeing provided the wings, aft fuselage, avionics integration, and training systems.
The aircraft was variously designated F-22 and F/A-22 before it formally entered service in December 2005 as the F-22A. Despite its protracted development and various operational issues, USAF officials consider the F-22 a critical component of the service's tactical air power. Its combination of stealth, aerodynamic performance, and situational awareness enable unprecedented air combat capabilities.
Service officials had originally planned to buy a total of 750 ATFs. In 2009, the program was cut to 187 operational production aircraft due to high costs, a lack of clear air-to-air missions due to delays in Russian and Chinese fighter programs, a ban on exports, and development of the more versatile F-35. The last F-22 was delivered in 2012.
Development
Origins
In 1981, the U.S. Air Force identified a requirement for an Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) to replace the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon. Code named "Senior Sky", this air-superiority fighter program was influenced by emerging worldwide threats, including new developments in Soviet air defense systems and the proliferation of the Su-27 "Flanker"- and MiG-29 "Fulcrum"-class of fighter aircraft. It would take advantage of the new technologies in fighter design on the horizon, including composite materials, lightweight alloys, advanced flight control systems, more powerful propulsion systems, and most importantly, stealth technology. In 1983, the ATF concept development team became the System Program Office (SPO) and managed the program at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. The demonstration and validation (Dem/Val) request for proposals (RFP) was issued in September 1985, with requirements placing strong emphasis on stealth and supercruise. Of the seven bidding companies, Lockheed and Northrop were selected on 31 October 1986. Lockheed teamed with Boeing and General Dynamics while Northrop teamed with McDonnell Douglas, and the two contractor teams undertook a 50-month Dem/Val phase, culminating in the flight test of two technology demonstrator prototypes, the YF-22 and the YF-23, respectively.
Dem/Val was focused on risk reduction and technology development plans over specific aircraft designs. Contractors made extensive use of analytical and empirical methods, including computational fluid dynamics, wind-tunnel testing, and radar cross-section calculations and pole testing; the Lockheed team would conduct nearly 18,000 hours of wind-tunnel testing. Avionics development was marked by extensive testing and prototyping and supported by ground and flying laboratories. During Dem/Val, the SPO used the results of performance and cost trade studies conducted by contractor teams to adjust ATF requirements and delete ones that were significant weight and cost drivers while having marginal value. The short takeoff and landing (STOL) requirement was relaxed in order to delete thrust-reversers, saving substantial weight. As avionics was a major cost driver, side-looking radars were deleted, and the dedicated infra-red search and track (IRST) system was downgraded from multi-color to single color and then deleted as well. However, space and cooling provisions were retained to allow for future addition of these components. The ejection seat requirement was downgraded from a fresh design to the existing McDonnell Douglas ACES II. Despite efforts by the contractor teams to rein in weight, the takeoff gross weight estimate was increased from 50,000 lb (22,700 kg) to 60,000 lb (27,200 kg), resulting in engine thrust requirement increasing from 30,000 lbf (133 kN) to 35,000 lbf (156 kN) class.
Each team produced two prototype air vehicles for Dem/Val, one for each of the two engine options. The YF-22 had its maiden flight on 29 September 1990 and in flight tests achieved up to Mach 1.58 in supercruise. After the Dem/Val flight test of the prototypes, on 23 April 1991, Secretary of the USAF Donald Rice announced the Lockheed team as the winner of the ATF competition. The YF-23 design was considered stealthier and faster, while the YF-22, with its thrust vectoring nozzles, was more maneuverable as well as less expensive and risky. The aviation press speculated that the Lockheed team's design was also more adaptable to the U.S. Navy's Navalized Advanced Tactical Fighter (NATF), but by 1992, the Navy had abandoned NATF.
Production and procurement
As the program moved to full-scale development, or the Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD) stage, the production version had notable differences from the YF-22, despite having a broadly similar shape. The swept-back angle of the leading edge was decreased from 48° to 42°, while the vertical stabilizers were shifted rearward and decreased in area by 20%. To improve pilot visibility, the canopy was moved forward 7 inches (18 cm), and the engine intakes moved rearward 14 inches (36 cm). The shapes of the wing and stabilator trailing edges were refined to improve aerodynamics, strength, and stealth characteristics. Increasing weight during development caused slight reductions in range and maneuver performance.
Prime contractor Lockheed Martin Aeronautics manufactured the majority of the airframe and performed final assembly at Dobbins Air Reserve Base in Marietta, Georgia; program partner Boeing Defense, Space & Security provided additional airframe components as well as avionics integration and training systems. The first F-22, an EMD aircraft with tail number 4001, was unveiled at Marietta, Georgia, on 9 April 1997, and first flew on 7 September 1997. Production, with the first lot awarded in September 2000, supported over 1,000 subcontractors and suppliers from 46 states and up to 95,000 jobs, and spanned 15 years at a peak rate of roughly two airplanes per month. In 2006, the F-22 development team won the Collier Trophy, American aviation's most prestigious award. Due to the aircraft's advanced nature, contractors have been targeted by cyberattacks and technology theft.
The USAF originally envisioned ordering 750 ATFs at a total program cost of $44.3 billion and procurement cost of $26.2 billion in fiscal year (FY) 1985 dollars, with production beginning in 1994. The 1990 Major Aircraft Review led by Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney reduced this to 648 aircraft beginning in 1996. By 1997, funding instability had further cut the total to 339, which was again reduced to 277 by 2003. In 2004, the Department of Defense (DoD) further reduced this to 183 operational aircraft, despite the USAF's preference for 381. A multi-year procurement plan was implemented in 2006 to save $15 billion, with total program cost projected to be $62 billion for 183 F-22s distributed to seven combat squadrons. In 2008, Congress passed a defense spending bill that raised the total orders for production aircraft to 187.
The first two F-22s built were EMD aircraft in the Block 1.0 configuration for initial flight testing, while the third was a Block 2.0 aircraft built to represent the internal structure of production airframes and enabled it to test full flight loads. Six more EMD aircraft were built in the Block 10 configuration for development and upgrade testing, with the last two considered essentially production quality jets. Production for operational squadrons consisted of 37 Block 20 training aircraft and 149 Block 30/35 combat aircraft; one of the Block 35 aircraft is dedicated to flight sciences at Edwards Air Force Base.
The numerous new technologies in the F-22 resulted in substantial cost overruns and delays. Many capabilities were deferred to post-service upgrades, reducing the initial cost but increasing total program cost. As production wound down in 2011, the total program cost is estimated to be about $67.3 billion, with $32.4 billion spent on Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) and $34.9 billion on procurement and military construction (MILCON) in then year dollars. The incremental cost for an additional F-22 was estimated at about $138 million in 2009.
Ban on exports
The F-22 cannot be exported under US federal law to protect its stealth technology and other high-tech features. Customers for U.S. fighters are acquiring earlier designs such as the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon or the newer F-35 Lightning II, which contains technology from the F-22 but was designed to be cheaper, more flexible, and available for export. In September 2006, Congress upheld the ban on foreign F-22 sales. Despite the ban, the 2010 defense authorization bill included provisions requiring the DoD to prepare a report on the costs and feasibility for an F-22 export variant, and another report on the effect of F-22 export sales on U.S. aerospace industry.
Some Australian politicians and defense commentators proposed that Australia should attempt to purchase F-22s instead of the planned F-35s, citing the F-22's known capabilities and F-35's delays and developmental uncertainties. However, the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) determined that the F-22 was unable to perform the F-35's strike and close air support roles. The Japanese government also showed interest in the F-22 for its Replacement-Fighter program. The Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) would reportedly require fewer fighters for its mission if it obtained the F-22, thus reducing engineering and staffing costs. However, in 2009 it was reported that acquiring the F-22 would require increases to the Japanese government's defense budget beyond the historical 1 percent of its GDP. With the end of F-22 production, Japan chose the F-35 in December 2011. Israel also expressed interest, but eventually chose the F-35 because of the F-22's price and unavailability.
Production termination
Throughout the 2000s, the need for F-22s was debated, due to rising costs and the lack of relevant adversaries. In 2006, Comptroller General of the United States David Walker found that "the DoD has not demonstrated the need" for more investment in the F-22, and further opposition to the program was expressed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon R. England, Senator John McCain, and Chairman of U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services Senator John Warner. The F-22 program lost influential supporters in 2008 after the forced resignations of Secretary of the Air Force Michael Wynne and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force General T. Michael Moseley.
In November 2008, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that the F-22 was not relevant in post-Cold War conflicts such as irregular warfare operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in April 2009, under the new Obama Administration, he called for ending production in FY2011, leaving the USAF with 187 production aircraft. In July, General James Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated to the Senate Committee on Armed Services his reasons for supporting termination of F-22 production. They included shifting resources to the multirole F-35 to allow proliferation of fifth-generation fighters for three service branches and preserving the F/A-18 production line to maintain the military's electronic warfare (EW) capabilities in the Boeing EA-18G Growler.[60] Issues with the F-22's reliability and availability also raised concerns. After President Obama threatened to veto further production, the Senate voted in July 2009 in favor of ending production and the House subsequently agreed to abide by the 187 production aircraft cap. Gates stated that the decision was taken in light of the F-35's capabilities, and in 2010, he set the F-22 requirement to 187 aircraft by lowering the number of major regional conflict preparations from two to one.
In 2010, USAF initiated a study to determine the costs of retaining F-22 tooling for a future Service Life Extension Program (SLEP).[66] A RAND Corporation paper from this study estimated that restarting production and building an additional 75 F-22s would cost $17 billion, resulting in $227 million per aircraft, or $54 million higher than the flyaway cost. Lockheed Martin stated that restarting the production line itself would cost about $200 million. Production tooling and associated documentation were subsequently stored at the Sierra Army Depot, allowing the retained tooling to support the fleet life cycle. There were reports that attempts to retrieve this tooling found empty containers, but a subsequent audit found that the tooling was stored as expected.
Russian and Chinese fighter developments have fueled concern, and in 2009, General John Corley, head of Air Combat Command, stated that a fleet of 187 F-22s would be inadequate, but Secretary Gates dismissed General Corley's concern. In 2011, Gates explained that Chinese fifth-generation fighter developments had been accounted for when the number of F-22s was set, and that the U.S. would have a considerable advantage in stealth aircraft in 2025, even with F-35 delays. In December 2011, the 195th and final F-22 was completed out of 8 test EMD and 187 operational aircraft produced; the aircraft was delivered to the USAF on 2 May 2012.
In April 2016, the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee proposed legislation that would direct the Air Force to conduct a cost study and assessment associated with resuming production of the F-22. Since the production halt directed in 2009 by then Defense Secretary Gates, lawmakers and the Pentagon noted that air warfare systems of Russia and China were catching up to those of the U.S. Lockheed Martin has proposed upgrading the Block 20 training aircraft into combat-coded Block 30/35 versions as a way to increase numbers available for deployment. On 9 June 2017, the Air Force submitted their report to Congress stating they had no plans to restart the F-22 production line due to economic and operational issues; it estimated it would cost approximately $50 billion to procure 194 additional F-22s at a cost of $206–$216 million per aircraft, including approximately $9.9 billion for non-recurring start-up costs and $40.4 billion for aircraft procurement costs.
Upgrades
The first aircraft with combat-capable Block 3.0 software flew in 2001. Increment 2, the first upgrade program, was implemented in 2005 for Block 20 aircraft onward and enabled the employment of Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM). Certification of the improved AN/APG-77(V)1 radar was completed in March 2007, and airframes from production Lot 5 onward are fitted with this radar, which incorporates air-to-ground modes. Increment 3.1 for Block 30 aircraft onward provided improved ground-attack capability through synthetic aperture radar mapping and radio emitter direction finding, electronic attack and Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) integration; testing began in 2009 and the first upgraded aircraft was delivered in 2011. To address oxygen deprivation issues, F-22s were fitted with an automatic backup oxygen system (ABOS) and modified life support system starting in 2012.
Increment 3.2 for Block 35 aircraft is a two-part upgrade process; 3.2A focuses on electronic warfare, communications and identification, while 3.2B includes geolocation improvements and a new stores management system to show the correct symbols for the AIM-9X and AIM-120D.[83][84] To enable two-way communication with other platforms, the F-22 can use the Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN) as a gateway. The planned Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) integration was cut due to development delays and lack of proliferation among USAF platforms. The F-22 fleet is planned to start receiving Increment 3.2B as well as a software upgrade for cryptography capabilities and avionics stability in May 2019. A Multifunctional Information Distribution System-Joint (MIDS-J) radio that replaces the current Link-16 receive-only box is expected to be operational by 2020. Subsequent upgrades are also focusing on having an open architecture to enable faster future enhancements.
In 2024, funding is projected to begin for the F-22 mid-life upgrade (MLU), which is expected to include new sensors and antennas, hardware refresh, cockpit improvements, and a helmet mounted display and cuing system. Other enhancements being developed include IRST functionality for the AN/AAR-56 Missile Launch Detector (MLD) and more durable stealth coating based on the F-35's.
The F-22 was designed for a service life of 8,000 flight hours, with a $350 million "structures retrofit program". Investigations are being made for upgrades to extend their useful lives further. In the long term, the F-22 is expected to be superseded by a sixth-generation jet fighter to be fielded in the 2030s.
Design
Overview
The F-22 Raptor is a fifth-generation fighter that is considered fourth generation in stealth aircraft technology by the USAF.[91] It is the first operational aircraft to combine supercruise, supermaneuverability, stealth, and sensor fusion in a single weapons platform. The F-22 has four empennage surfaces, retractable tricycle landing gear, and clipped delta wings with reverse trailing edge sweep and leading edge extensions running to the upper outboard corner of the inlets. Flight control surfaces include leading-edge flaps, flaperons, ailerons, rudders on the canted vertical stabilizers, and all-moving horizontal tails (stabilators); for speed brake function, the ailerons deflect up, flaperons down, and rudders outwards to increase drag.
The aircraft's dual Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 augmented turbofan engines are closely spaced and incorporate pitch-axis thrust vectoring nozzles with a range of ±20 degrees; each engine has maximum thrust in the 35,000 lbf (156 kN) class. The F-22's thrust-to-weight ratio at typical combat weight is nearly at unity in maximum military power and 1.25 in full afterburner. Maximum speed without external stores is approximately Mach 1.8 at military power and greater than Mach 2 with afterburners.
The F-22's high cruise speed and operating altitude over prior fighters improve the effectiveness of its sensors and weapon systems, and increase survivability against ground defenses such as surface-to-air missiles. The aircraft is among only a few that can supercruise, or sustain supersonic flight without using fuel-inefficient afterburners; it can intercept targets which subsonic aircraft would lack the speed to pursue and an afterburner-dependent aircraft would lack the fuel to reach. The F-22's thrust and aerodynamics enable regular combat speeds of Mach 1.5 at 50,000 feet (15,000 m). The use of internal weapons bays permits the aircraft to maintain comparatively higher performance over most other combat-configured fighters due to a lack of aerodynamic drag from external stores. The aircraft's structure contains a significant amount of high-strength materials to withstand stress and heat of sustained supersonic flight. Respectively, titanium alloys and composites comprise 39% and 24% of the structural weight.
The F-22's aerodynamics, relaxed stability, and powerful thrust-vectoring engines give it excellent maneuverability and energy potential across its flight envelope. The airplane has excellent high alpha (angle of attack) characteristics, capable of flying at trimmed alpha of over 60° while maintaining roll control and performing maneuvers such as the Herbst maneuver (J-turn) and Pugachev's Cobra. The flight control system and full-authority digital engine control (FADEC) make the aircraft highly departure resistant and controllable, thus giving the pilot carefree handling.
Stealth
The F-22 was designed to be highly difficult to detect and track by radar. Measures to reduce radar cross-section (RCS) include airframe shaping such as alignment of edges, fixed-geometry serpentine inlets and curved vanes that prevent line-of-sight of the engine faces and turbines from any exterior view, use of radar-absorbent material (RAM), and attention to detail such as hinges and pilot helmets that could provide a radar return. The F-22 was also designed to have decreased radio emissions, infrared signature and acoustic signature as well as reduced visibility to the naked eye. The aircraft's flat thrust-vectoring nozzles reduce infrared emissions of the exhaust plume to mitigate the threat of infrared homing ("heat seeking") surface-to-air or air-to-air missiles. Additional measures to reduce the infrared signature include special topcoat and active cooling of leading edges to manage the heat buildup from supersonic flight.
Compared to previous stealth designs like the F-117, the F-22 is less reliant on RAM, which are maintenance-intensive and susceptible to adverse weather conditions. Unlike the B-2, which requires climate-controlled hangars, the F-22 can undergo repairs on the flight line or in a normal hangar. The F-22 has a Signature Assessment System which delivers warnings when the radar signature is degraded and necessitates repair. While the F-22's exact RCS is classified, in 2009 Lockheed Martin released information indicating that from certain angles the aircraft has an RCS of 0.0001 m² or −40 dBsm – equivalent to the radar reflection of a "steel marble". Effectively maintaining the stealth features can decrease the F-22's mission capable rate to 62–70%.
The effectiveness of the stealth characteristics is difficult to gauge. The RCS value is a restrictive measurement of the aircraft's frontal or side area from the perspective of a static radar. When an aircraft maneuvers it exposes a completely different set of angles and surface area, potentially increasing radar observability. Furthermore, the F-22's stealth contouring and radar absorbent materials are chiefly effective against high-frequency radars, usually found on other aircraft. The effects of Rayleigh scattering and resonance mean that low-frequency radars such as weather radars and early-warning radars are more likely to detect the F-22 due to its physical size. However, such radars are also conspicuous, susceptible to clutter, and have low precision. Additionally, while faint or fleeting radar contacts make defenders aware that a stealth aircraft is present, reliably vectoring interception to attack the aircraft is much more challenging. According to the USAF an F-22 surprised an Iranian F-4 Phantom II that was attempting to intercept an American UAV, despite Iran's assertion of having military VHF radar coverage over the Persian Gulf.
GBRf's 92023 heads south on the Northampton loop with 6L48, the 1549 Garston to Dagenham Dock empty car carriers.
92023 carries the livery and reliability enhancements intended for use on Caledonian Sleepers. However, through 2016 this working was hauled by one of GBRf's Caledonian Sleeper locomotive fleet.
The London Euston to Inverness Caledonian Sleeper service pauses to drop off passengers at Kingussie station in the Highlands of Scotland. Initially it was planned for pairs of the re-engined 73/9s to operate the train over the Highland Main Line, but there were reliability and power issues. A 73/9 is still required in the consist to provide power supply for the coaching stock.
Locomotives: GBRf Class 66/7 66760 "David Gordon Harris" and Class 73/9 73969.
Location: Kingussie station, Badenoch and Strathspey, Highland Region, Scotland.
Song Reference: "Caledonia", Dougie MacLean.
Not exactly proving its environmental efficiency, DB Schenker Class 66, 66115, kicks out some smoke as accelerates away from a brief stop at Peterborough while working the Middleton Towers to Arpley Sidings loaded stone train. On this particular day I passed this train three times, the first when it was waiting for my Class 170 to overtake it at Ely, the second here at Peterborough, and the third time at Leicester as it awaited my Class 170 to overtake it again!
One of Britain's, and indeed Europe's, most numerous diesel locomotives, the Class 66 has become the face of nearly every freight operating rail company on the UK network, a simple, utilitarian design with an enormous, powerful engine. But with it's popularity among rail companies came a price, as it is often listed as one of the most hated locomotives ever to hit the UK rails, largely because of the slew of older BR classic locomotives it replaced from the late 1990's onward.
But is it really deserving of such a bum rap?
By the mid-1990's it was apparent that a majority of the ex-British Rail locomotives were well beyond their bloom of youth. Aside from the Class 58's of 1983, the Class 60's of 1989, and the American built Class 59's of 1985, most locomotives in the service of freight companies were coming up to 30 or 40 years old, and reliability was a major issue. Years of under-investment in the BR freight sector Railfreight Distribution, had resulted in a fleet comprised of decrepit diesels such as the Class 37's and Class 47's, being worked into the ground to keep the company rolling. Although the opening of the Channel Tunnel in 1994 was a catalyst to investments for freight trains working those particular trunk routes to the South East, with the construction of the Class 92's and the refurbishment of Wembley based Class 47's, the remainder of the freight operators, by this time led by shadow franchises Loadhaul, Transrail and Mainline, were left with a fleet that was slowly dying before their eyes. Class 47's, especially, needed a major overhaul every seven years, costing £400,000; yet had an average daily availability of less than 65% with only 16 days between major failures.
Enter Wisconsin Central, who, in 1996, bought the three franchises together with Railfreight Distribution and mail operator Rail Express Systems to create EWS, or English, Welsh & Scottish Railways. As part of the franchise commitment, the intention was to replace the ageing diesel fleet with a standard design that would reduce maintenance and operating costs substantially, with higher levels of reliability and efficiency. Looking at the fleet of diesels in general, it was noted that among the most reliable classes in the UK were the small fleet of 15 Class 59's, built by General Motors between 1985 and 1995 for private Aggregate operators such as Foster Yeoman and Hanson, as well as energy company National Power for the haulage of their coal trains between Collieries and Power Stations. These engines were, for the most part, substantially younger than the likes of the Class 20's, 31's, 37's and 47's, and more reliable than the early built Class 56's from Romania, which were infamous for their poor build quality.
Seeing their success, EWS placed an order in 1997 for 250 locomotives based on similar principles to that of the Class 59, often dubbed one of the biggest locomotive orders since the age of Steam. Locomotives were built at GM's factory in London, Ontario, and externally the bodyshell and design shared that with the Class 59. Internally though, the engines took many of GM's previous developments and updated the engine and traction motors to enable higher speeds. The new locomotive was fitted with the 20 year old design of the EMD 710 12-cylinder diesel engine, found originally in the GP60 freight locomotives of North America. However, some of GM's newer creations also made it into the mix, such as updated cab-control systems, the kind found in the Irish Railways Class 201 of 1994.
Originally designated Class 61, the first of these new locomotives arrived by boat at Immingham in June 1998, prior to proving tests at Derby. The locomotives then shipped at a rate of 11 per month into the UK via Newport Docks, until the order was completed in December 2001. After unloading, EWS engineers then simply took off the tarpaulin, unblocked the suspension, and finally as each was shipped with water and fuel, hooked up the batteries, before starting the engine and handing the locomotive into service. Almost immediately, other UK freight operators took interest in the Class, and operators such as Freightliner, GB Railfreight and Direct Rail Services also placed orders for the class.
Upon their introduction, reliability levels for EWS's operations improved substantially. Each locomotive is specified and guaranteed to 95% availability, aiming for a minimum of 180 days mean time between failures. It is designed to cover 1·6million km between major rebuilds, equivalent to 18 years' service, with each major rebuild costed at £200,000. But with their success came the sad reality that the much loved classes of yesteryear were going to be given the push, and this is where a majority of the Class 66's unpopularity comes from. It could have been understood the replacement of the 40 year old Class 20's, 31's, 37's and 47's, as it was quite clear they were past their prime, the same could equally be said for some of the earlier Class 56's of the late 1970's. However, the line was stepped across with the withdrawal of the Class 58's and Class 60's, as the desire of EWS to have a standardised fleet, resulted in the removal of locomotives that were nowhere near life-expired. The large-scale retirement of these extremely reliable and powerful locomotives that weren't even 20 years old was seen as a travesty, and whilst some Class 60's have seen a revival with other operators as of late, the Class 58's are all but extinct, whilst many Class 60's continue to languish in yards across the UK, mostly at Toton in the East Midlands.
Nevertheless, the class continued to grow over the years, and, upon the conclusion of Class 66 production in the UK in 2014, 446 of the class were eventually built. But we can't forget also that the class has seen major success across Europe as well, with dozens of engines in operation in Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, France, and Poland, with certification pending in the Czech Republic and Italy.
Today, a majority of the class is still in service with a variety of operators. DB Schenker, the successor to EWS, continues to operate the largest fleet of 249 locomotives. Freightliner operates 141, DRS operates 19, GBRf operates 72 and Colas Rail operates 5. Not all of the locomotives however remain with us, as three have been written off.
The first was 66521 on the 28th February, 2001, where after hitting a Land Rover that had fallen down an embankment from the M62 motorway, a southbound GNER InterCity 225 set led by lightweight Class 82 DVT, 82221, derailed and ran straight into the path of the oncoming Class 66 which was working a northbound coal train. With an estimated closing speed of 142mph, the DVT was obliterated upon hitting the Class 66, and the freight locomotive was mangled and distorted as it was crushed between its loaded coal train behind and the passenger coaches in front. In the disaster, 10 people were killed, including 66521's driver Stephen Dunn, although his instructor Andrew Hill, who was also riding in the cab, was able to survive. The locomotive however was for the most part destroyed, and scrapped later that year.
The second was on the 4th January, 2010 involving 66048, which derailed at Carrbridge in snowy weather. Coming down the Highland Mainline with a loaded container train, it passed a signal at danger and was derailed at trap points, subsequently falling down an embankment into trees and injuring the two crew members.
The third was on the 28th June 2012, where GBRf 66734 derailed at Loch Treig whilst working Alcan Tanks. The inability of recovery crews to access the highly remote and dangerous location resulted in the engine being cut-up on site.
Additionally, many Class 66's have suffered low-speed collisions and derailments, either through faults in the track, driver error, or faults with the rolling stock.
However, despite the criticism, and often being dubbed as bland and utilitarian, the Class 66 is still a major part of the UK freight network, working behind the scenes without need of major attention so as to get the job done. Indeed it may find a home among rail enthusiasts, and perhaps one day it'll be dubbed a classic like the Class 37's and 47's it replaced, but at the moment it's the UK networks humble hero, plying its trade the best way it knows how.
Great Rocks signal box houses one of the Tyer type of electric token machines for the single line to Buxton.
Fascinating Victorian pieces of kit that just keep going and going with few reliability problems.
The Rabbis taught: Four [Sages] entered the Pardes [literally "the orchard."]. Rashi explains that they ascended to heaven by utilizing the [Divine] Name [i.e., they achieved a spiritual elevation through intense meditation on G‑d's Name] (Tosafot, ad loc). They were Ben Azzai, Ben Zoma, Acher [Elisha ben Avuya, called Acher— the other one — because of what happened to him after he entered the Pardes] and Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Akiva said to them [prior to their ascension]: "When you come to the place of pure marble stones, do not say, 'Water! Water!' for it is said, 'He who speaks untruths shall not stand before My eyes' (Psalms 101:7)." Ben Azzai gazed [at the Divine Presence - Rashi] and died. Regarding him the verse states, "Precious in the eyes of G‑d is the death of His pious ones" (Psalms 116:15). Ben Zoma gazed and was harmed [he lost his sanity — Rashi]. Regarding him the verse states, "Did you find honey? Eat only as much as you need, lest you be overfilled and vomit it up" (Proverbs 25:16). Acher cut down the plantings [he became a heretic]. Rabbi Akiva entered in peace and left in peace. Ramak now cites the Tikunei Zohar which adds some details not mentioned in the Talmud. The ancient Saba [an old man] stood up and said [to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai], "Rabbi, Rabbi! What is the meaning of what Rabbi Akiva said to his students, "When you come to the place of pure marble stones, do not say, 'Water! Water!' lest you place yourselves in danger, for it is said, 'He who speaks untruths shall not stand before My eyes.' But it is written, "There shall be a firmament between the waters and it shall separate between water [above the firmament] and water [below the firmament]" (Genesis 1:6). Since the Torah describes the division of the waters in to upper and lower, why should it be problematic to mention this division? Furthermore, since there are [in fact] upper and lower waters, why did Rabbi Akiva warn them, "do not say, 'Water! Water!'"
The Holy Lamp [a title accorded to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai] replied, "Saba, it is proper that you reveal this secret that the chevraya [Rabbi Shimon's circle of disciples] have not grasped clearly." The ancient Saba answered, "Rabbi, Rabbi, Holy Lamp. Surely the pure marble stones are the letter yud — one the upper yud of the letter aleph, and one the lower yud of the letter aleph [an aleph in script is formed by an upright yud at the top to the right, and an upside-down yud at the bottom to the left, joined by a vav, the diagonal line between them]. Here there is no spiritual impurity; only pure marble stones, and so there is no separation between one water and the other; they form a single unity from the aspect of the Tree of Life, which is the vav in the midst of the letter aleph. In this regard it states, "[lest he put forth his hand] and if he take of the Tree of Life [and eat and live forever]…(Gen. 3:22) Ramak now begins to analyze these passages. The meaning of Rabbi Akiva's exhortation is that the Sages should not declare that there are two types of water. Since there are not [two types of water] one would be causing a separation. This is the meaning of "do not say, 'water, water'" — do not say that there are two types of water, lest you endanger yourself because of the sin of separation. For this reason the old man asked two questions, both of which are real questions: "There shall be a firmament between the waters and it shall separate…" (Genesis 1:6). Thus there are two types of water and a separation between them. In this case, does it not appear to be permissible to refer to two types of water? Even more problematic is that the Torah itself states, "It shall separate between water and water" — the water above the firmament and the water below the firmament. This is a complete separation. The marble stones represent the letter yud. The old man asked a second question — the waters are in fact of two types: water of the firmament and water below the firmament [in rivers, lakes and seas]. Why then did Rabbi Akiva exhort them not to say "water, water, lest they endanger themselves?" On the contrary; it should be permitted to mention two types of water, for this is no worse than the language used by the Torah, and this is also the situation in fact! Now Rabbi Shimon did not wish to explain this matter himself; he wanted his disciples to hear it from the old man. The old man explained that each of the marble stones represents the letter yud. As we have explained elsewhere this means a yud at the beginning, and a yud at the end, according to the mystical explanation of "I am first and I am last" (Isaiah 44:6). The first yud represents chochma, and the second yud represents malchut, which is also chochma according to the mystical explanation of the light that returns from below to above (called or chozer). The upper yud is the yud of the Tetragrammaton (Yud-Hei-Vav-Hei) while the lower yud is the yud of the Name Alef-Dalet-Nun-Yud. The latter is the concept of "female waters" (Mayin Nukvin), and the former the concept of "male waters" (Mayin Dechurin). They are called "female waters" because they receive from below, from the performance of the commandments, and through them a person has the ability to affect the higher worlds so that the light will shine forth and become clothed in them, as in a palace. Thus the light that is elicited [by the performance of the commandments is like] a king in his palace. These are also the keys to the inner and outer aspects. The inner aspect is the light of the Tetragrammaton, which undoubtedly descends as or yashar from above to below. The outer aspect is that which returns according to the mystical explanation of or chozer. This is the meaning of the statement in regard to the sefirot "from below to above, and from above to below," as explained elsewhere. This is signified by the top and the bottom yuds of the aleph. This is also the secret of the intertwining (shiluv) of the two Names --Yud-Alef-Hei-Dalet-Vov-Nun-Hei-Yud — with the upper yud at the beginning and the lower yud at the end. These two yuds are referred to in the passage "pure marble stones." Each of the yuds is a stone because its shape is round like a stone. It is called "marble" because marble is generally white, which is indicative of the attribute of Mercy (in Hebrew rachamim). In this sense it is also similar to water [which represents kindness]. Now since these two yuds are the aspect of compassion, just like water, which is called "waters of kindness," they are therefore referred to as "marble," as we just explained. We can also explain this by way of [the science of] tzeiruf (letter combinations and permutations): The sefira of chochma is called yesh — "being" [since it is the first immanent sefira], spelled Yud-Shin in Hebrew. The lower chochma [i.e., malchut] is called shai [Shin-Yud — the identical letters, but in reverse order]. When both words are combined they form the word shayish — Shin-Yud-Shin ("marble"). The yud is chochma, the source, and the shin is the emanation of its branches [i.e., the branching out into sefirot according to the mystical explanation of or yashar]…Malchut is called shai according to the mystical explanation of the light that reverses (or chozer). When these two words, signifying these two types of light, are combined to form the word shayish (the two yuds combine into one). They are the letter yud...the upper and lower yuds of the aleph are joined by a diagonal vav
They are called "pure," for there are a number of different types of water [mentioned in the Torah]; one of these is mei nida — literally waters of impurity [because they are used to purify a person after he became contaminated by contact with the dead. Water from a living spring is mixed with the ashes of the red heifer and is then sprinkled upon the impure person]. Separation and division is mentioned in regard to this type of water, as will be explained. These waters [of the pure] marble stones are completely pure and pertain to Atzilut.
"They are the letter yud — one the upper yud of the letter aleph…" We already explained above that the Name Yud-Alef-Hei-Dalet-Vav-Nun-Hei-Yud has the upper and lower aspects of chochma [represented by the two yuds] and six letters in between, alluding to the letter vav [which has a numerical value of 6. Note that the upper and lower yuds of the aleph are joined by a diagonal vav. This is the way a scribe traditionally writes the letter א]. This symbolizes tiferet, which branches out into six extremities [tiferet is the central sefira of the six sefirot of Zeir Anpin]. The vav is situated between the yuds in order to join them. That is to say, through tiferet the daughter [malchut] is able to ascend "to her father's house as in her youth."
It is for this reason that Rabbi Akiva warned them not to say that those two marble stones were separated from one another, G‑d forbid, for this is not true. On the contrary, the firmament between them, which is tiferet, actually unites them and through it they are joined together. There is no separation other than in a place of spiritual impurity, as it is written, "to separate between the impure and the pure" (Leviticus 11:47). But in a place of purity — pure marble stones — "do not say, 'water, water." This is what the old man was explaining, "Here there is no spiritual impurity… they are from the aspect of the Tree of Life…" These waters are in Atzilut and therefore there is no separation between them… on the contrary, the firmament unites them….
The tree of life. It is arguably one of the most popular symbols in the Bible. It’s too bad that so many people read Genesis, discover the tree of life, and think it’s literal. To do so robs the mind of this ancient symbol’s true beauty and essence! Sometimes called the cosmic or world tree, the tree of life did not originate with the authors of Genesis. For thousands of years it has been used in sacred literature to describe man’s connection with the divine. Although different cultures have known this tree by different names, the essence of this tree’s significance is essentially the same; it represents both divine and natural man, the spiritual and natural world. And just as the tree of life symbolically spans all the worlds of existence, so does man. I know the above sounds super spiritual, so what does it really mean for all of us down here on earth? Simply put, the tree of life is about the evolution of subjective consciousness from the lower planes to the higher planes—the world of physical matter to the world of energetic spirit. And consciousness is the center of it all! Consider the Buddha. He was enlightened under the great Bodhi tree. Is it really just a coincidence that Odin gained supernatural abilities (enlightenment) under the branches of Yggdrasil, the mythological tree of the ancient Scandinavians? How about the fact that ancient Mayan kings, including Pakal Votan, were portrayed on stone monuments with the world tree emerging from their headdress (more enlightenment imagery)? I apologize in advance to the fundamentalist that believes the concept behind the tree of life is unique to Biblical literature, but I don’t think all this imagery is coincidental. In fact, we can easily connect enlightenment with the Biblical tree of life. Consider the scripture from Revelations: “…To him that overcometh [achieves enlightenment] will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God” (Rev. 2:7). The seven seals being opened throughout the course of the Book of Revelations corresponds to the opening of the seven chakras, the cause of enlightenment, and eating from the tree of life is symbolic of the fruit one gains after traversing the many planes of consciousness. They key to understanding the above statement must include a knowledge of both the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. ,Let’s review the scripture from genesis that references both trees. Unveiling it will reveal some heavy esoteric knowledge . “And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil” (Genesis 2:9). Why do you think the Genesis author implies that both trees are in the midst of the garden? It is because together they represent different aspects of ONE tree! The world tree is comprised of both the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. In the realm of duality you cannot have one tree without the other. The experience of man includes both trees, from limited individual consciousness to the liberation gained through cosmic consciousness. When consciousness (spirit) incarnated on the physical plane, man began living out his existence among hardship and pain. This is part of the growing process, and there is going to be some wounds to lick. But to he who overcomes by continuing to grow consciously will be given to eat of the tree of life.
The key is in the fruit! Within the experience of duality lies consciousness evolution and moving up the tree of life to partake of its fruit. Again, we can prove all this with scripture. Review Genesis 2:9 again. God said the trees in the garden were for food. This has nothing to do with physical food. It’s a about spiritual food. Let’s compare the fruit of each tree from Gaskell’s Dictionary of Scripture and myth. Fruit of the tree of life: “Symbolic of the higher emotions and faculties of the buddhic [Christ] nature laid up for the soul when perfected.” In Revelations Jesus states that the tree of life on either side of the river bears twelve fruits that provide healing. What causes us to express the higher emotions and mental faculties of the Christ? It is through the acquisition of wisdom, which brings healing. “She [wisdom] is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her…” (Proverbs 3:18). How does anyone gain wisdom? It starts with obedience to God on the physical plane. It ends when one truly learns the lessons (on the soul level) that experience in duality provides. Now consider the other side of this coin: Fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil: “A symbol of the experience acquired through the activities of the lower nature and the development of the moral nature.” How does the Bible explain how man acquired experience and learned to develop the moral nature? By being kicked out of the garden (spiritual existence) to live life among “thorns” and “thistles” (duality). This is the fruit of the knowledge of the tree of good and evil! Sometimes the tree of life is inverted in Kabbalah. The inverted tree of life has its roots firmly established in heaven (spiritual planes) and the rest of the tree emanates into the physical world. Likewise, man originated in the Eden, a spiritual plane, and ended up in the physical world, earth. The inverted tree depicts this process. Now it is up to us to climb back up the spiritual worlds. I like to picture the inverted tree as the tree of life and the right-side up tree as the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It makes sense for me to picture the two in this way because remember that the true world tree contains both the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Picturing one tree as inverted and the other right-side up helps me to get a clear picture for the functions of both trees. Tree of LifeThe tree of life then is the ultimate motif of the evolution of consciousness. Its branches reach into heaven, the spiritual planes. The trunk resides on the material plane, and the roots grow into the earth, or underworld, which represents many subconscious aspects of our soul.
The consciousness of man then can be likened unto a tree itself. The ultimate goal is to become complete and whole, which is the true meaning of Biblical perfection. This is accomplished through following and understanding the deeper esoteric meanings of God’s commands.
“And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf [true ideals] shall not wither; and whatsoever he does shall prosper” (Psalm 1:3).
Returning to the tree of life is to gain enlightenment. It is guarded by Cherubim because we must go through the planes of existence and experience duality in order to raise consciousness before we can gain access. It’s that simple.
Every day that you wake up, consider it your day to experience something that brings you one step closer to again gaining access to the tree of life, or enlightenment! And it’s all Biblical! I especially want Christians who are questioning orthodox interpretation to know this, so I’ll say it again. It’s all Biblical! Don’t fret the fact that the Bible is truly a book with eastern concepts woven throughout. Doing so only limits the truths provided through this great book. It certainly isn’t of isolation.
Did the Tree of Life mentioned in the book of Genesis, have power to impart immortality to mortal man, as might be deduced from Genesis 3:22?’
The Tree of Life stood in the centre of the Garden of Eden which elsewhere is called ‘The Garden of the LORD’.1 It was a real tree, to be sure, but let me suggest that it was also symbolic of the fact that God was, and is, the source of eternal life and blessing. Adam and Eve were to have their life centred in Him, even as the Tree was in the centre of His Garden. Other parts of the Bible also mention The Tree of Life. In Ezekiel 47:12 (NASB) we read of trees whose ‘fruit will be for food and their leaves for healing’. This image is taken up also in Revelation 22:2. It is clear particularly in Proverbs where a number of things are referred to as ‘a tree of life’ (wisdom (3:15), the fruit of the righteous (11:30), desire fulfilled (13:12), and a soothing tongue (15:4)) that the Tree of Life in these references symbolises that which brings joy and healing to people. This, I suspect, was what the original, the real Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden symbolised. It was material, yet it stood for the blessing of eternal life which God would give to Adam and Eve, and their descendants, if they were to pass the test of obedience. They were permitted to eat of any tree in the Garden except the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil on pain of death.2 Now, use a little lateral thinking. What else in the Bible is real and material, yet at the same time symbolises the life which is in Christ and points us repeatedly to Him? Something in which Christians share, and which reminds them that Jesus’ death brings us life? It is the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.
IF ADAM PASSED THE TEST OF OBEDIENCE, IT WOULD BE THE MEANS OF GOD’S IMPARTING ETERNAL LIFE TO HIM. Now, let us return to the Garden of Eden. I want to suggest that the Tree of Life was there to perform such a sacramental function. If Adam passed the test of obedience, it would be the means of God’s imparting eternal life to him, not by magic, but by the working of his Spirit ‘by, with and under’ the fruit of the Tree. But Adam sinned. He failed the test and lost his right to eat from the Tree. As one commentator puts it, ‘that he might understand himself to be deprived of his former life, a solemn excommunication is added; not that the Lord would cut him off from all hope of salvation, but, by taking away what he had given, would cause man to seek new assistance elsewhere.’3 Just as Christians who profane the Lord’s Supper are subject to judgment, so Adam would have been further condemned if he had presumed to eat the fruit to which he was not now entitled. In doing so, he would have been trying to rob life from God, a grave blasphemy. The implication of Genesis 3:22 (NIV) ‘And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live for ever,”’ is that he, and us with him,4 would have been plunged into a condition of absolute lostness. He would have lived eternally cut off from God without hope of escape from the terrible consequences of sin. This would have been God’s just punishment for such a presumptuous sin, not merely a ‘magical’ effect of the Tree of Life. Mercifully, God did not permit this to happen.5 Adam was cast out of the Garden of Eden. No longer could he even contemplate eating from the Tree of Life. It was beyond his reach. Physical death now began to enter the human race. Adam began to die! The last Adam (Christ) later came to Earth to die so that through faith in Jesus, we may now inherit the eternal life Adam forfeited. Indeed, Jesus says to those who persevere in faith, ‘To him who overcomes, I will grant to eat of the Tree of Life which is in the Paradise of God.’6 The Genesis account of the Tree of Life reminds us there is only one way to attain to an eternal life of blessedness—the way God has appointed. That is through His Son, the Creator of heaven and Earth—the Lord Jesus Christ. It is He alone who can say, ‘I am the way, the truth and the life.’
The Muslim man explained that probably the most fundamental difference is that the Koran2 speaks of Jesus as a prophet—definitely not the Son of God. That evening, the Australian-born student told her father of the encounter, and asked, ‘Dad, I’ve been thinking … our bodies are unclean! Why would God, who is pure, sully himself by coming down to Earth in human form?’ After her father failed to give a reasoned answer, she turned her back on the church, converted to Islam and later married a Muslim.3. Such a question requires only a basic understanding of the Atonement to answer. Salvation required a sacrificial ‘last Adam’ (1 Cor. 15:45) to shed His blood in death, one who was a physical descendant of the first, yet sinless. This could be fulfilled only through God incarnate, Jesus Christ (Hebrews 9:12, 22). Notice, though, how all this is built upon the foundational Genesis truths of the first Adam bringing in sin and death, and the first shedding of blood as a covering for sin (Genesis 3:21). The increasing confusion caused in the church by long-age compromises (which, by putting suffering, death and bloodshed before Adam, undermine these truths) is a major reason why so many today cannot give reasoned answers to basic Gospel-related questions (contravening 1 Peter 3:15). This leaves young people in the church vulnerable to being tossed by winds of false doctrine (Ephesians 4:14).
Following September 11, 2001, the increased prominence of Islam in the media, and public declarations by government (and many church) leaders that Islam is a ‘great’ religion, will likely raise further questions in the minds of many young people in the churches. E.g. ‘Do Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same God?’ and ‘What does the Koran say about the Bible?’ Many Christian commentators have sought to raise awareness of fundamental doctrinal differences between the Koran and the Bible (see below), but few people are aware of how the Muslim’s holy book starkly contradicts the Biblical account of our origins. Genesis provides a unified description of Creation; the Koran does not. Creation, The Fall, Flood and Babel . Genesis provides a unified description of Creation; the Koran does not. Instead, fragmented passages are scattered across many of its 114 chapters (‘Sura’). The tables (below) attempt to assimilate these fragments for a clearer picture of what the Koran says, compared to the Bible. The many contradictions highlighted in these tables surely demolish any claims that the ‘revelation’ given to Muhammad is not a corruption of, but reliably builds upon, Judeo-Christian history. Eve’s distorted view, obviously wrong, is portrayed as truth in the Koran. For instance, the Koranic account prohibits Adam from going anywhere near the Forbidden Tree, while Genesis says that God only commanded Adam not to eat its fruit (see Table 2). (Man had been placed in the garden to tend it (Genesis 2:15), which seems to require physical access to each tree for e.g. pruning.) Interestingly, the Bible relates that Eve, who was deceived (1 Timothy 2:14), had misconstrued God’s instruction to not eat of the fruit from the tree to instead also mean not to touch it (Genesis 3:3). Yet Eve’s distorted view, obviously wrong, is portrayed as truth in the Koran [update: see Did Eve lie before the Fall?—Ed.]. The Biblical account of origins also makes more sense of today’s world than does the Koran—e.g. the presence of sin, violence, death and the origin of languages (and concomitant minor ‘racial’ differences). The Bible explains why the whole creation is so obviously groaning, in bondage to decay (Romans 8:19–22). In contrast, the Koran makes God responsible for death and suffering (see Tables 1 and 2), in common with long-age and evolutionary Christian views, and Eastern religions.
The Koran and evolution
With the increased adoption of evolution-based curricula, some Muslim leaders and scholars began to recognize the threat to Islam from a rising tide of evolutionary thinking. Their response has been either to attack evolution, or, more commonly, to blend it with Islam.
New Scientist reported that Islamic creationist books cite and copy Christian creationists, but with Biblical references deleted.
1. The Islamic creationists
The creationist Muslims claim that ‘The theory [of evolution] and the holy Qur’an are in direct conflict with each other and no compatibility is possible anywhere.’4 New Scientist reported that Islamic creationist books cite and copy Christian creationists, but with Biblical references deleted.5
2. The Islamic evolutionists
Evolution-believing Muslims seem to be far more numerous, and vocal, than creationist Muslims.
They have a substantial strategic advantage precisely because the Koran is so vague, nebulous and seemingly open to various interpretations.6 They delight in pointing out that, in contrast, ‘There is absolutely no ambiguity whatsoever in the Biblical description of the Creation in six days followed by a day of rest, the sabbath, analogous with the days of the week.’7 These evolution-accommodating Muslims are adamant that the ‘days’ of Creation in the Koran ‘mean in reality “very long Periods, or Ages, or Aeons”?’.7 Muslim apologists gleefully point out that the Koran is compatible with evolution where the Bible is not. Muslim apologists gleefully point out that the Koran is compatible with evolution where the Bible is not, e.g.: ‘Neither here nor anywhere else in the Holy Qur-án is it affirmed that Adam was the first man, or that there was no creation by God before Adam, nor that Adam lived or man was created, or the earth made, only six thousand years ago.’8,9 Long-age Muslims exploit the Bible’s explicit detail of the Flood, too. They say that because the Bible clearly says there was a recent global Flood, while ‘science’ says there was not, the Bible is wrong and the Koran is thus confirmed to be right!10 Some of the Muslim literature even claims that the Koran shows that Allah revealed to Muhammad details about the ‘big bang’, ancient universe and evolution long before scientists began to ‘discover’ such ‘facts’.11
Christian awareness: In the same way that being aware of evolutionary challenges to our faith helps us to be ready with answers,12 so, too, we need to be aware of what religions, including Islam, actually say, in order to be better prepared to answer our children’s questions.13 When men teach things that are contrary to the Bible, we are commanded to actively oppose such ideas (2 Corinthians 10:5). Christians need to be ready to help guide young people through the kinds of ‘intellectual crisis of faith’ that many confront in their teenage years—whether because of exposure to evolutionary teaching, or to other religions.
Knowing that the Word of God accurately explains our world ahead of all opposing ideas not only strengthens our own faith, but gives us the confidence to reach out in love to challengers—including Muslims. In Koran 6:91, the Book given to Moses is described as ‘a light and guidance to man …’
Using Genesis to reach Muslims?
Just as the Apostle Paul used Athenian beliefs to draw his Greek listeners to the truth of the Gospel (Acts 17:22–23, 28), Christians could use a similar approach when talking with Muslims. One could start by reminding the Muslim that the Koran says that the Scriptures of Jews and Christians were given by God, e.g. Koran 2:87—‘We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of Apostles; We gave Jesus the son of Mary Clear (Signs) and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit.’ Similarly, in Koran 6:91, the Book given to Moses is described as ‘a light and guidance to man …’ . So why so many irreconcilable differences between Genesis 1–11 and the Koran? A Muslim might say that today’s copies of the Bible have been corrupted. But the earliest Biblical manuscripts (e.g. in the British Museum14) date from before Muhammad, demonstrating the reliability of our current copies. The Bible explains that death, violence, pain and decay entered a once-perfect Creation as a result of Adam’s sin in the garden of Eden. A further challenge for the Muslim would concern the presence of death, suffering, grief, etc., in the world. Consider the following exchange between American TV host Larry King and Georgetown University’s Islamic professor of theology, Maysam Al-Faruqi:
KING: Maysam, if you believe in heaven and paradise, then dying is good?
AL-FARUQI: Absolutely. And dying is perfectly natural, it’s the end of things.
KING: Why do we treat it tragically? … …
AL-FARUQI: Well, there is the pain …15
So in this Muslim (also theistic evolutionary) view of death as ‘perfectly natural’, why grieve and wail at the death of a loved one? The Islamic professor’s answer, ‘Well, there is the pain …’ begs the question: ‘So pain and suffering are a “natural”? part of God’s good (Koran 32:7) creation, too?’ Clearly, Muslims have no satisfactory answer.But the Bible explains that death, violence, pain and decay entered a once-perfect Creation as a result of Adam’s sin in the garden of Eden (Genesis 2:17, 3:19; Romans 5:12–17; 8:19–22; 1 Corinthians 15:21–22). Thankfully, this situation is only temporary, as God gave his Son, Jesus Christ, the second Person of the Trinity, that those who believe in Him can look forward to the coming restoration, to a world with ‘no more death, mourning, crying or pain’, i.e. no more Genesis Curse (John 1:18, 3:16; Acts 3:21; Revelation 21:4, 22:3).
In Islam, Adam (Ādam; Arabic: آدم), whose role is being the father of humanity, is looked upon by Muslims with reverence. Eve (Ḥawwāʼ;Arabic: حواء ) is the “mother of humanity.” The creation of Adam and Eve is referred to in the Qurʼān, although different Qurʼanic interpreters give different views on the actual creation story (Qurʼan, Surat al-Nisaʼ, verse 1).
In al-Qummi’s tafsir on the Garden of Eden, such place was not entirely earthly. According to the Qurʼān, both Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit in a Heavenly Eden (See alsoJannah). As a result, they were both sent down to Earth as God’s representatives. Each person was sent to a mountain peak: Adam on al-Safa, and Eve on al-Marwah. In this Islamic tradition, Adam wept 40 days until he repented, after which God sent down the Black Stone, teaching him the Hajj. According to a prophetic hadith, Adam and Eve reunited in the plain of ʻArafat, near Mecca. They had two sons together, Qabil (Cain) and Habil (Abel). There is also a legend of a younger son, named Rocail, who created a palace and sepulcher containing autonomous statues that lived out the lives of men so realistically they were mistaken for having souls. The concept of original sin does not exist in Islam, because Adam and Eve were forgiven by God. When God orders the angels to bow to Adam, Iblis questioned, “Why should I bow to man? I am made of pure fire and he is made of soil.” The liberal movements within Islam have viewed God’s commanding the angels to bow before Adam as an exaltation of humanity, and as a means of supporting human rights; others view it as an act of showing Adam that the biggest enemy of humans on earth will be their ego. The Garden of Eden is spoken about prominently in the Quran and the tafsir (interpretation). This includes surat Sad, which features 21 verses on the subject, surat al-Baqarah, surat al-A’raf, and surat al-Hijr. The narrative mainly surrounds the expulsion of Iblis from the garden and his subsequent tempting of Adam and Eve. After Iblis refuses to follow God’s command to bow down to Adam for being his greatest creation, Allah transforms him into Satan as a punishment. Unlike the Biblical account, the Quran mentions only one tree in Eden, the tree of immortality, which Allah specifically forbade to Adam and Eve. Satan, disguised as a serpent, repeatedly told Adam to eat from the tree, and eventually both Adam and Eve did so, thus disobeying Allah.These stories are also featured in the Islamic hadith collections, including al- Tabari. The Tree of Immortality (Arabic: شجرة الخلود) is the tree of life motif as it appears in the Quran. It is also alluded to in hadiths and tafsir. Unlike the biblical account, the Quran mentions only one tree in Eden, also called the tree of immortality, which Allah specifically forbade to Adam and Eve. Satan, disguised as a serpent, repeatedly told Adam to eat from the tree, and eventually both Adam and Eve did so, thus disobeying Allah. The hadiths however speak about other trees in heaven.
Robertsons of Yell have taken delivery of a pair of smart lookimg Volvo B8RLE MCV Evolution low floors to replace the pair of Volvo B7R Plaxton Profile coaches due to reliability problems. They are perhaps not the first MCV Evolutions as Leasks have a pair on the B7RLE but are the first Volvo B8RLEs on the island and are also the first ever low floors for Robertsons.
SJ16 CRX is seen here parked at the Northlink ferry terminal in Holmsgarth in lerwick, awaiting collection from its new owner to be taken up to Yell having arrived off the ferry this morning, its twin SJ16CRZ has also arrived yesterday morning but is already up in the Yell garage for service prep.
The pair are to be used on predominately the 21 to Hillswick and as they both now in Yell getting inspected, they should hit the road hopefully next week. All will be known in time.....
First generation (1990–1994)
When the first Ford Explorer rolled off the assembly line on April 12, 1990, it was released in May, 1990 for the 1991 model year. First generation Explorers were equipped with the then new 155 hp (116 kW) 4.0 L Cologne V-6, manufactured in Cologne, Germany. Vehicles came with either Ford's own 4-speed A4LD automatic transmission, built in France, or Mazda's 5-speed M5OD manual transmission. Like the Bronco II it replaced, it was an SUV derivative of the Ranger pickup, thus Explorers came equipped with many of the Ranger's optional features. Like its direct competitor, the Chevrolet S-10 Blazer, Explorers were available in both 3-door and 5-door body styles and with either rear-wheel drive or four-wheel drive. The four-wheel drive versions were equipped with a Borg Warner 13–54 part-time four-wheel drive transfer case. The 13–54 was available with either "Touch Drive" electronic push-button shifting or manual lever-operated shifting. Both were "shift-on-the-fly" designs that allowed the SUVs to be shifted from two-wheel drive to "four-high" at any speed and into "four-low" when the vehicle was stopped. All Explorers were equipped with the Ford 8.8 axle in either a limited slip or open version with a variety of available gear ratios. Four-wheel-drive front axles were the TTB ("Twin Traction Beam") Dana 35 with some Dana 44-spec components.
Explorers initially came in 4 trim levels: the base model XL (which was later replaced with the XLS trim package as the base trim), XLT, Sport (which was what the 3-door version was called), and the upscale Eddie Bauer edition. For the 1993 model year, engine output was increased by 5 hp (4 kW) for a total of 160 hp (119 kW). The Limited edition, added for the 1993 model year, was available only in the 5-door body style and was positioned at the top of the lineup above the Eddie Bauer edition. It featured automatic headlights, an auto-dimming rear-view mirror, foglamps, a center roof console with compass and outside thermometer, unique wheels and grille, and an automatic transmission as standard equipment. The grill and headlight trims on the Limited edition were paint-matched to the body color, unlike the chrome (XLT) or black plastic (XL) versions on other trim levels.
Similar to the 5-door Ford Explorer, the 3-door Explorer Sport model came in both rear-wheel drive and four-wheel drive variants. It replaced the Ford Bronco II as Ford's 3-door mid-size SUV. A variant of the Explorer Sport was sold by Mazda as the Navajo, which won Motor Trend Truck of the Year award, until it was discontinued in 1994.
A common complaint about the first generation models is that the light-duty A4LD automatic transmission, which was basically the 3-speed Ford C3 transmission with an overdrive gear, was not well-suited for towing and was unable to cope with higher power output from modified engines. The A4LD was also known to suffer premature failure of the overdrive gear (or 4th gear) when used to frequently tow or haul heavy loads. Improved fluid cooling using aftermarket transmission coolers can alleviate these issues. Also, the automatic locking front hubs on four-wheel drive vehicles tended to fail prematurely; the manual versions, made for Ford by Warn, suffered from fewer reliability problems.
[Text from Wikipedia]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Explorer
This Lego miniland-scale Ford Explorer Eddie Bauer Edition - 1990, has been created for Flickr LUGNuts' 90th Build Challenge, - "Fools Rush In!", - to the subtheme - "Monster Garage!". The 90th build challenge presenting 13 different subthemes to choose to build to.
This vehicle was the donor to one of the 'Monster Garage' builds - you can see what they get up to here:
+++ 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 Panther tank, officially Panzerkampfwagen V Panther (abbreviated PzKpfw V) with ordnance inventory designation Sd.Kfz. 171, was a German medium tank of World War II. It was used on the Eastern and Western Fronts from mid-1943 to the end of the war. The Panther was intended to counter the Soviet T-34 medium tank and to replace the Panzer III and Panzer IV. Nevertheless, it served alongside the Panzer IV and the heavier Tiger I until the end of the war. It is considered one of the best tanks of World War II for its excellent firepower, protection, and mobility although its reliability in early times were less impressive.
The Panther was a compromise. While having essentially the same Maybach V12 petrol (700 hp) engine as the Tiger I, it had better gun penetration, was lighter and faster, and could traverse rough terrain better than the Tiger I. The trade-off was weaker side armor, which made it vulnerable to flanking fire. The Panther proved to be effective in open country and long-range engagements.
The Panther was far cheaper to produce than the heavy Tiger I. Key elements of the Panther design, such as its armor, transmission, and final drive, were simplifications made to improve production rates and address raw material shortages. Despite this the overall design remain described by some as "overengineered". The Panther was rushed into combat at the Battle of Kursk in the summer of 1943 despite numerous unresolved technical problems, leading to high losses due to mechanical failure. Most design flaws were rectified by late 1943 and early 1944, though the bombing of production plants, increasing shortages of high-quality alloys for critical components, shortage of fuel and training space, and the declining quality of crews all impacted the tank's effectiveness.
Though officially classified as a medium tank, at 44.8 metric tons the Panther was closer to a heavy tank weight and the same category as the American M26 Pershing (41.7 tons), British Churchill (40.7 tons) and the Soviet IS-2 (46 tons) heavy tanks. The Panther's weight caused logistical problems, such as an inability to cross certain bridges, otherwise the tank had a very high power-to-weight ratio which made it highly mobile.
The Panther was only used marginally outside of Germany, mostly captured or recovered vehicles, some even after the war. Japan already received in 1943 a specimen for evaluation. During March–April 1945, Bulgaria received 15 Panthers of various makes (D, A, and G variants) from captured and overhauled Soviet stocks; they only saw limited (training) service use. In May 1946, Romania received 13 Panther tanks from the USSR, too.
After the war, France was able to recover enough operable vehicles and components to equip its army and offer vehicles for sale. The French Army's 503e Régiment de Chars de Combat was equipped with a force of 50 Panthers from 1944 to 1947, in the 501st and 503rd Tank Regiments. These remained in service until they were replaced by French-built ARL 44 heavy tanks.
In 1946, Sweden sent a delegation to France to examine surviving specimens of German military vehicles. During their visit, the delegates found a few surviving Panthers and had one shipped to Sweden for further testing and evaluation, which continued until 1961.
However, this was not the Panther’s end of service. The last appearance by WWII German tanks on the world’s battlefields came in 1967, when Syria’s panzer force faced off against modern Israeli armor. Quite improbably, Syria had assembled a surprisingly wide collection of ex-Wehrmacht vehicles from a half-dozen sources over a decade and a half timeframe. This fleet consisted primarily of late production Panzer V, StuGIII and Jagdpanzer IVs, plus some Hummel SPAAGs and a handful Panthers. The tanks were procured from France, Spain, and Czechoslovakia, partly revamped before delivery.
All of the Panthers Syria came from Czechoslovakia. Immediately after Germany’s collapse in May 1945, the Soviet army established a staging area for surrendered German tanks at a former Wehrmacht barracks at Milovice, about 24 miles north of Prague, Czechoslovakia. By January 1946, a total of roughly 200 operational Panzer IVs and Panthers of varying versions were at this facility. Joining them was a huge cache of spare parts found at a former German tank repair depot in Teplice, along with ammunition collected from all over Czechoslovakia and the southern extremity of the Soviet occupation zone in Germany. Throughout 1946, the Czechoslovak government’s clean-up of WWII battlefields recovered more than one hundred further tank wrecks, of which 80 were pieced back together to operational status and handed over to the Czechoslovakian Army,
In early 1948, the now-nationalized CKD Works began a limited upkeep of the tanks, many of which had not had depot-level overhauls since the war. A few were rebuilt with a Czechoslovak-designed steering system, but this effort was halted due to cost. These tanks remained operational in the Czechoslovak army until the end of 1954, when sufficient T-34s were available to phase them out.
A Syrian military delegation visited Prague from 8 April – 22 April 1955. An agreement was struck for the sale, amongst other items, of 45 Panzer IVs and 15 Panthers. Despite their obsolescence the Czechoslovaks were not about to just give the tanks away and demanded payment in a ‘hard’ western currency, namely British pounds. The cost was £4,500 each (£86,000 or $112,850 in 2016 money), far above what they were probably worth militarily, especially considering the limited amount of foreign currency reserves available to the Damascus government. The deal included refurbishment, a full ammunition loadout for each, and a limited number of spare parts. Nonetheless, the deal was closed, and the tanks’ delivery started in early November 1955.
The Syrians were by that time already having dire problems keeping their French-sourced panzers operational, and in 1958, a second contract was signed with CKD Works for 15 additional Panzer IVs and 10 more Panthers, these being in lesser condition or non-operational, for use as spare parts hulks. An additional 16 refurbished Maybach engines for both types were also included in this contract, as well as more ammunition.
The refurbished Panthers for Syria had their original 7.5 cm KwK 42 L70 replaced with the less powerful Rheinmetall 7.5 cm KwK 40 L48 gun – dictated by the fact that this gun was already installed in almost all other Syrian tanks of German origin and rounds for the KwK 42 L70 were not available anymore. and the Panther’s full ammo load was 87 rounds. The KwK 40 L48 fired a standard APCBC shell at 750 m/s and could penetrate 109 mm (4.3 in) hardened steel at 1.000 m range. This was enough to take out an M4 Sherman at this range from any angle under ideal circumstances. With an APCR shell the gun was even able to penetrate 130 mm (5.1 in) of hardened steel at the same distance.
Outwardly, the gun switch was only recognizable through the shorter barrel with a muzzle brake, the German WWII-era TZF.5f gunsight was retained by the Syrians. Additionally, there were two secondary machine guns, either MG-34s or MG-42s, one coaxial with the main gun and a flexible one in a ball mount in the tank’s front glacis plate.
A few incomplete Panther hulls without turret were also outfitted with surplus Panzer IV turrets that carried the same weapon, but the exact share of them among the Syrian tanks is unknown – most probably less than five, and they were among the batch delivered in the course of the second contract from 1958.
As they had been lumped all together in Czechoslovak army service, the Syrians received a mixed bag of Panzer IV and Panther versions, many of them “half-breeds” or “Frankensteins”. Many had the bow machine gun removed, either already upon delivery or as a later field modification, and in some cases the machine gun in the turret was omitted as well.
An obvious modification of the refurbished Czech export Panthers for Syria was the installation of new, lighter road wheels. These were in fact adapted T-54 wheels from Czechoslovakian license production that had just started in 1957 - instead of revamping the Panthers’ original solid steel wheels, especially their rubberized tread surfaces, it was easier to replace them altogether, what also made spare parts logistics easier. The new wheels had almost the same diameter as the original German road wheels from WWII, and they were simply adapted to the Panther’s attachment points of the torsion bar suspension’s swing arms. Together with the lighter main gun and some other simplifications, the Syrian Panthers’ empty weight was reduced by more than 3 tonnes.
The Czechoslovaks furthermore delivered an adapter kit to mount a Soviet-made AA DShK 12.7mm machine gun to the commander cupola. This AA mount had originally been developed after WWII for the T-34 tank, and these kits were fitted to all initial tanks of the 1955 order. Enough were delivered that some could be installed on a few of the Spanish- / French-sourced tanks, too.
It doesn’t appear that the Czechoslovaks updated the radio fit on any of the ex-German tanks, and it’s unclear if the Syrians installed modern Soviet radios. The WWII German Fu 5 radio required a dedicated operator (who also manned the bow machine gun); if a more modern system was installed not requiring a dedicated operator, this crew position could be eliminated altogether, what favored the deletion of the bow machine gun on many ex-German Syrian tanks. However, due to their more spacious hull and turret, many Panthers were apparently outfitted with a second radio set and used as command tanks – visible through a second whip antenna on the hull.
A frequent domestic Panther upgrade were side skirts to suppress dust clouds while moving and to prevent dust ingestion into the engines and clogged dust filters. There was no standardized solution, though, and solutions ranged from simple makeshift rubber skirts bolted to the tanks’ flanks to wholesale transplants from other vehicles, primarily Soviet tanks. Some Panthers also had external auxiliary fuel tanks added to their rear, in the form of two 200 l barrels on metal racks of Soviet origin. These barrels were not directly connected with the Panther’s fuel system, though, but a pump-and-hose kit was available to re-fuel the internal tanks from this on-board source in the field. When empty or in an emergency - the barrels were placed on top of the engine bay and leaking fuel quite hazardous - the barrels/tanks could be jettisoned by the crew from the inside.
Inclusive of the cannibalization hulks, Syria received a total of roughly 80 former German tanks from Czechoslovakia. However, at no time were all simultaneously operational and by 1960, usually only two or three dozen were combat-ready.
Before the Six Day War, the Syrian army was surprisingly unorganized, considering the amount of money being pumped into it. There was no unit larger than a brigade, and the whole Syrian army had a sort of “hub & spokes” system originating in Damascus, with every individual formation answering directly to the GHQ rather than a chain of command. The Panthers, Panzer IVs and StuG IIIs were in three independent tank battalions, grossly understrength, supporting the normal tank battalions of three infantry brigades (the 8th, 11th, and 19th) in the Golan Heights. The Jagdpanzer IVs were in a separate independent platoon attached to a tank battalion operating T-34s and SU-100s. How the Hummel SPGs were assigned is unknown.
The first active participation of ex-German tanks in Syrian service was the so-called “Water War”. This was not really a war but rather a series of skirmishes between Israel and Syria during the mid-1960s. With increasing frequency starting in 1964, Syria emplaced tanks on the western slope of the Golan Heights, almost directly on the border, to fire down on Israeli irrigation workers and farmers in the Galilee region. Surprisingly (considering the small number available) Syria chose the Panzer IV for this task. It had no feature making it better or worse than any other tank; most likely the Syrians felt they were the most expendable tanks in their inventory as Israeli counterfire was expected. The panzers were in defilade (dug in) and not easy to shoot back at; due to their altitude advantage.
In 1964, Syria announced plans to divert 35% of the Jordan River’s flow away from Israel, to deprive the country of drinking water. The Israelis responded that they would consider this an act of war and, true to their word, engaged the project’s workers with artillery and sniper fire. Things escalated quickly; in 1965, Israeli M4 Shermans on Israeli soil exchanged fire with the Syrian Panzer IVs above inconclusively. A United Nations peacekeeping team ordered both sides to disengage from the border for a set period of time to “cool off”, but the UN “Blue Berets” were detested and considered useless by both the Israelis and Syrians, and both sides used the lull to prepare their next move. When the cooling-off period ended, the Syrians moved Panzer IVs and now some Panthers, too, back into position. However, the IDF had now Centurion tanks waiting for them, with their fire arcs pre-planned out. The Cold War-era Centurion had heavy armor, a high-velocity 105mm gun, and modern British-made optics. It outclassed the WWII panzers in any imaginable way and almost immediately, two Syrian Panzer IVs and a Panther were destroyed. Others were abandoned by their crews and that was the end of the situation.
Syria’s participation in the Six Say War that soon followed in 1967 war was sloppy and ultimately disastrous. Israel initially intended the conflict to be limited to a preemptive strike against Egypt to forestall an imminent attack by that country, with the possibility of having to fight Syria and Jordan defensively if they responded to the operations against Egypt. The war against Egypt started on 5 June 1967. Because of the poor organization of the Syrian army, news passed down from Damascus on the fighting in the Sinai was scarce and usually outdated by the time it reached the brigade level. Many Syrian units (including the GHQ) were using civilian shortwave radios to monitor Radio Cairo which was spouting off outlandish claims of imaginary Egyptian victories, even as Israeli divisions were steamrolling towards the Suez Canal.
Syrian vehicles of German origin during the Six Day War were either painted overall in beige or in a dark olive drab green. Almost all had, instead of tactical number codes, the name of a Syrian soldier killed in a previous war painted on the turret in white. During the Six Day War, no national roundel was typically carried, even though the Syrian flag was sometimes painted to the turret flanks. However just as the conflict was starting, white circles were often painted onto the top sides of tanks as quick ID markings for aircraft, and some tanks had red recognition triangles added to the side areas: Syrian soldiers were notoriously trigger-happy, and the decreased camouflage effect was likely cancelled out by the reduced odds of being blasted by a comrade!
During the evening of 5 June, Syrian generals in Damascus urged the government to take advantage of the situation and mount an immediate invasion of Israel. Planning and preparation were literally limited to a few hours after midnight, and shortly after daybreak on 6 June, Syrian commanders woke up with orders to invade Israel. The three infantry brigades in the Golan, backed up by several independent battalions, were to spearhead the attack as the rest of the Syrian army mobilized.
There was no cohesion at all: Separate battalions began their advance whenever they happened to be ready to go, and brigades went forward, missing subunits that lagged behind. A platoon attempting a southern outflank maneuver tried to ford the Jordan River in the wrong spot and was washed away. According to a KGB report, at least one Syrian unit “exhibited cowardice” and ignored its orders altogether.
On 7 June, 24 hours into their attack, Syrian forces had only advanced 2 miles into Israel. On 8 June, the IDF pushed the Syrians back to the prewar border and that afternoon, Israeli units eliminated the last Egyptian forces in the Sinai and began a fast redeployment of units back into Israel. Now the Syrians were facing serious problems.
On 9 June, Israeli forces crossed into the Golan Heights. They came by the route the Syrians least expected, an arc hugging the Lebanese border. Now for the first time, Syria’s panzers (considered too slow and fragile for the attack) were encountered. The next day, 10 June 1967, was an absolute rout as the Syrians were being attacked from behind by IDF units arcing southwards from the initial advance, plus Israel’s second wave coming from the west. It was later estimated that Syria lost between 20-25% of its total military vehicle inventory in a 15-hour span on 10 June, including eight Panthers. A ceasefire was announced at midnight, ending Syria’s misadventure. Syria permanently lost the Golan Heights to Israel.
By best estimate, Syria had just five Panthers and twenty-five Panzer IVs fully operational on 6 June 1967, with maybe another ten or so tanks partially operational or at least functional enough to take into combat. Most – if not all – of the ex-French tanks were probably already out of service by 1967, conversely the entire ex-Spanish lot was in use, along with some of the ex-Czechoslovak vehicles. The conflict’s last kill was on 10 June 1967 when a Panzer IV was destroyed by an Israeli M50 Super Sherman (an M4 Sherman hull fitted with a new American engine, and a modified turret housing Israeli electronics and a high-velocity French-made 75mm gun firing HEAT rounds). Like the Centurion, the Super Sherman outclassed the Panzer IV, and the Panther only fared marginally better.
Between 1964-1973 the USSR rebuilt the entire Syrian military from the ground up, reorganizing it along Warsaw Pact lines and equipping it with gear strictly of Soviet origin. There was no place for ex-Wehrmacht tanks and in any case, Czechoslovakia had ended spares & ammo support for the Panzer IV and the Panthers, so the types had no future. The surviving tanks were scrapped in Syria, except for a single Panzer IV survivor sold to a collector in Jordan.
Specifications:
Crew: Five (commander, gunner, loader, driver, radio operator)
Weight: 50 tonnes (55.1 long tons; 45.5 short tons)
Length: 6.87 m (22 ft 6 in) hull only
7.52 m (24 ft 7¾ in) overall with gun facing forward
Width: 3.42 m (11 ft 3 in) hull only
3,70 m (12 ft 1¾ in) with retrofitted side skirts
Height: 2.99 m (9 ft 10 in)’
Ground clearance: 56 cm (22 in)
Suspension: Double torsion bar, interleaved road wheels
Fuel capacity: 720 liters (160 imp gal; 190 US gal),
some Syrian Panthers carried two additional external 200 l fuel drums
Armor:
15–80 mm (0.6 – 3.93 in)
Performance:
Maximum road speed: 56 km/h (35 mph)
Operational range: 250 km (160 mi) on roads; 450 km (280 mi)with auxiliary fuel tanks
100 km (62 mi) cross-country
Power/weight: 14 PS (10.1 kW)/tonne (12.7 hp/ton)
Engine & transmission:
Maybach HL230 V-12 gasoline engine with 700 PS (690 hp, 515 kW)
ZF AK 7-200 gearbox with 7 forward 1 reverse gear
Armament:
1× 7,5 cm KwK 40 (L/48) with 87 rounds
2× 7.92 mm MG 34 or 42, or similar machine guns;
one co-axial with the main gun, another in the front glacis plate
with a total of 5.100 rounds (not always mounted)
Provision for a 12.7 mm DShK or Breda anti-aircraft machine gun on the commander cupola
The kit and its assembly:
A rather exotic what-if model, even though it’s almost built OOB. Inspiration came when I stumbled upon the weird Syrian Panzer IVs that were operated against Israel during the Six Day War – vehicles you would not expect there, and after more than 20 years after WWII. But when I did some more research, I was surprised about the numbers and the variety of former German tanks that Syria had gathered from various European countries, and it made me wonder if the Panther could not have been among this shaggy fleet, too?
I had a surplus Dragon Panther Spähpanzer in The Stash™, to be correct a “PzBeobWg V Ausf. G”, an observation and artillery fire guidance conversion that actually existed in small numbers, and I decided to use it as basis for this odd project. The Dragon kit has some peculiarities, though: its hull is made from primed white metal and consists of an upper and lower half that are held together by small screws! An ambiguous design, because the parts do not fit as good as IP parts, so that the model has a slightly die-cast-ish aura. PSR is necessary at the seams, but due to the metal it’s not easy to do. Furthermore, you have to use superglue everywhere, just as on a resin kit. On the other side, surface details are finely molded and crisp, even though many bits have to be added manually. However, the molded metal pins that hold the wheels are very robust and relatively thin – a feature I exploited for a modified running gear (see below).
For the modified Panther in my mind I had to retrograde the turret back to a late standard turret with mantlet parts left over from a Hasegawa kit – they fitted perfectly! The PzBeobWg V only comes with a stubby gun barrel dummy. But I changed the armament, anyway, and implanted an aftermarket white metal and brass KwK 40 L48, the weapon carried by all Syrian Panzer IVs, the Jagdpanzer IVs as well as the StuG IIIs. This standardization would IMHO make sense, even if it meant a performance downgrade from the original, longer KwK 42 L70.
For a Syrian touch, inspired by installations on the Panzer IVs, I added a mount for a heavy DShK machine gun on the commander’s cupola, which is a resin aftermarket kit from Armory Models Group (a kit that consists of no less than five fiddly parts for just a tiny machine gun!).
To change and modernize the Panther’s look further, I gave it side skirts, leftover from a ModelCollect T-72 kit, which had to be modified only slightly to fit onto the molded side skirt consoles on the Panther’s metal hull. A further late addition were the fuel barrels from a Trumpeter T-54 kit that I stumbled upon when I looked for the skirts among my pile of tank donor parts. Even though they look like foreign matter on the Panther’s tail, their high position is plausible and similar to the original arrangement on many Soviet post-WWII tanks. The whip antennae on turret and hull were created with heated black sprue material.
As a modern feature and to change the Panther’s overall look even more, I replaced its original solid “dish” road wheels with T-54/55 “starfish” wheels, which were frequently retrofitted to T-34-85s during the Fifties. These very fine aftermarket resin parts (all real-world openings are actually open, and there’s only little flash!) came from OKB Grigorovich from Bulgaria. The selling point behind this idea is/was that the Panther and T-54/55 wheels have almost the same diameter: in real life it’s 860 vs. 830 mm, so that the difference in 1:72 is negligible. Beneficially, the aftermarket wheels came in two halves, and these were thin enough to replace the Panther’s interleaved wheels without major depth problems.
Adapting the parts to the totally different wheel arrangement was tricky, though, especially due to the Dragon kit’s one-piece white metal chassis that makes any mods difficult. My solution: I retained the inner solid wheels from the Panther (since they are hardly visible in the “3rd row”), plus four pairs of T-54/55 wheels for the outer, more rows of interleaved wheels. The “inner” T-54/55 wheel halves were turned around, received holes to fit onto the metal suspension pins and scratched hub covers. The “outside” halves were taken as is but received 2 mm spacer sleeves on their back sides (styrene tube) for proper depth and simply to improve their hold on the small and rounded metal pin tips. This stunt worked better than expected and looks really good, too!
Painting and markings:
Basically very simple, and I used pictures of real Syrian Panzer IVs as benchmark. I settled for the common green livery variant, and though simple and uniform, I tried to add some “excitement” to it and attempted to make old paint shine through. The hull’s lower surface areas were first primed with RAL 7008 (Khakigrau, a rather brownish tone), then the upper surfaces were sprayed with a lighter sand brown tone, both applied from rattle cans.
On top of that, a streaky mix of Revell 45 and 46 – a guesstimate for the typical Syrian greyish, rather pale olive drab tone - was thinly applied with a soft, flat brush, so that the brownish tones underneath would shine through occasionally. Once dry, the layered/weathered effect was further emphasized through careful vertical wet-sanding and rubbing on all surfaces with a soft cotton cloth.
The rubber side skirts were painted with an anthracite base and the dry-brushed with light grey and beige.
The model then received an overall washing with a highly thinned mix of grey and dark brown acrylic artist paint. The vinyl tracks (as well as the IP spare track links on the hull) were painted, too, with a mix of grey, red brown and iron, all acrylic paints, too, that do not interact chemically with the soft vinyl.
The decals/markings are minimal; the Arabian scribble on the turret (must be a name?), using the picture of a Syrian Panzer IV as benchmark, was painted in white by hand, as well as the white circle on the turret roof. The orange ID triangles are a nice contrast, even though I was not able to come up with real-life visual evidence for them. I just found a color picture of a burned T-34-85 wreck with them, suggesting that the color was a dull orange red and not florescent orange, as claimed in some sources. I also found illustrations of the triangles as part of 1:35 decal sets for contemporary Syrian T-34-85s from FC Model Trend and Star Models, where they appear light red. For the model, they were eventually cut out from decal sheet material (TL-Modellbau, in a shade called “Rotorange”, what appears to be a good compromise).
Dry-brushing with light grey and beige to further emphasize edges and details followed. Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic vanish overall, and some additional very light extra dry-brushing with silver was done to simulate flaked paint. Dirt and rust residues were added here and there with watercolors. After final assembly, the lower areas of the model were furthermore powdered with mineral pigments to simulate dust.
The idea of a modernized WWII Panther: a simple idea that turned into a major conversion. With the resin DShK machine gun and T-54/55 wheel set the costs of this project escalated a little, but in hindsight I find that the different look and the mix of vintage German and modern Soviet elements provide this Panther with that odd touch that sets it apart from a simple paint/marking variation? I really like the outcome, and I think that the effort was worthwhile - this fictional Panther shoehorns well into its intended historical framework. :-D
The Z-car is a series of sports cars manufactured by Nissan Motors Ltd.. The original Z was sold in October 1969 in Japan as the Nissan Fairlady Z and was sold in Japan at Nissan Exhibition dealerships that previously sold the Nissan Bluebird. It was exported as the Datsun 240Z. Since 2009 Nissan has manufactured the newest Z, the 370Z.
The earlier models of the Nissan Z were built at the Nissan Shatai plant in Hiratsuka until 2000, while the later models (350Z and 370Z) are built at Oppama (2002–2004) and Tochigi (2004–present). Enthusiasts praise the cars for their looks, reliability, performance, and affordability. Nissan Z cars currently hold the record for the best selling sports car series of all time with over 2 million cars sold. Every Z car has been sold in Japan as the Fairlady Z and elsewhere under the names 240Z, 260Z, 280Z, 280ZX, 300ZX, 350Z and 370Z.
Nissan was a relatively small automaker when it entered the international market in the 1960s and partnered with Yamaha to design a new sports car prototype to update the Nissan Fairlady. Nissan executives saw the prototype as a halo car that would improve their company's image in the minds of consumers. By 1964 Nissan realized that Yamaha's DOHC 2.0-liter engine was not meeting Nissan's expectations and the project was scrapped. Yamaha later finished a prototype and took their design to Toyota, resulting in the Toyota 2000GT.
Yutaka Katayama, the president of Nissan USA at the time, realized the importance of an affordable sports car internationally. Nissan had already produced for many decades the successful series of Fairlady roadsters that competed mainly with English and Italian roadsters, and product planners envisioned a new line of GT cars that would be stylish, innovative, fast, and relatively inexpensive through the use of interchangeable parts with other Nissan vehicles. Nissan also had the engineering background and product development experience with the recently acquired Prince Motor Company, which manufactured the Prince Skyline that was later renamed Nissan Skyline in 1966.
The 240Z design project was carried out primarily by 10 people:
Mr. Yutaka Katayama (President of Nissan USA, known as "Mr. K")
Mr. Teiichi Hara (Manager, Nissan Design and Development)
Mr. Kazumi Yotsurnoto (Manager, Passenger Car Styling Section)
Mr. Yoshihiko Matsuo (Chief of Design, Styling Studio #4)
Mr. Akio Yoshida (Assistant Designer on Exterior Design)
Mr. Sue Chiba (Interior Design)
Mr. Eiichi Oiwa (Styling Studio Assistant)
Mr. Kiichi Nishikawa (Styling Studio Assistant)
Mr. Hidemi Kamahara (Design Engineer)
Mr. Tsuneo Benitani (Design Engineer)
First generation: Nissan 240Z (S30)
Sales of the Nissan Z Car started on October 1969 (for 1970 model year), with 2 separate versions: one for the Japanese market and one for the US market. The Japanese Fairlady Z featured a SOHC L20A inline-6 producing 130 PS (96 kW), while the US 240Z featured a 2.4L L24 inline-6 with twin Hitachi SU-type carburetors that produced 151 hp (113 kW) (SAE gross horsepower). A third Z, the Z432 (PS30) shared a performance version of the DOHC 2.0 L S20 engine with the Nissan Skyline 2000 GT-R.
In Japan, the Z was still known as the Fairlady to keep the car in line with the previous generation Datsun Sports roadster. However, Yutaka Katayama ensured the American version had all Nissan badging replaced with "Datsun" and prevented all dealer shipments until they were replaced.[citation needed]
The 240Z was released in America on October 22, 1969. Combining good looks, and powerful performance, it sold over 45,000 units through the '71 model year and over 50,000 and 40,000 in 1972 and 1973, respectively.[citation needed]
The 260Z was released in 1974, it featured an increased engine displacement of 2.6 L and an available 2+2 model with a slightly longer wheelbase. Despite the engine size increase, power decreased to 139 hp (104 kW) (SAE net horsepower) in most areas of the US due to new camshafts, carburetors, and lower compression that were introduced to comply with new emissions regulations. In other export regions the power was increased to 154 PS (113 kW).
The 280Z was released in 1975 in North America (not to be confused with the 280ZX, which is a second-generation Z-car) and featured another engine displacement enlargement to 2.8 L. A major change was the introduction of Bosch fuel injection, replacing the previous SU carburetors. This resulted in a power increase to 170 hp (127 kW), offsetting increased weight from added luxury features and an enlarged bumper that met US Federal regulations. Export markets outside North America continued to receive the Datsun 260Z until the introduction of the Datsun 280ZX at the end of 1978.
Wikipedia
One of the very same TM Travel ex-Lothian E400s I saw in Sheffield in May made an appearance at Chatsworth, with 1414 still sporting its replacement panel and its tree air freshener. It makes the turn in front of Chatsworth House with a 218 on 26.10.24
(And these ex-hybrids were meant to be kept off this route due to bad reliability!)
SN61 BCF
Number 40, a red 1937 Aston Martin Speed Model - HMK 10 - entered by Simon Arscott and Emily Anderson, seen participating in the 2024 Flying Scotsman Rally.
Press "L" to view large.
Adopted in Burkina Faso by the majority of government agencies and NGOs for its reliability, the Toyota HiLux is the symbol of field missions in the provinces. These vehicles are widely distributed through the CFAO network, which notably represents the Toyota and Suzuki brands.
Adopté au Burkina Faso par la majorité des services étatiques et des ONG pour sa fiabilité, le Toyota HiLux est le symbole des missions de terrain dans les provinces. Elles sont très largement distribuées par le réseau CFAO qui représente notamment les marques Toyota et Suzuki.
Used to be an LTU airplane until 2011, then it was repainted into Air Berlin colours.
LTU, an airline many people in Germany really do miss. They were standing for good reliability, great service...
Strolling through Old Aberdeen on my way to the University this beauty caught my eye, just had to capture the image to archive on Flickr.
Vehicle make: LAND ROVER
Date of first registration: October 2012
Year of manufacture: 2012
Cylinder capacity (cc): 2198 cc
CO₂Emissions: 266 g/km
Fuel type: DIESEL
Export marker: No
Vehicle status: Tax not due
Vehicle colour: BLUE
Vehicle type approval: N1
Wheelplan: 2 AXLE RIGID BODY
Revenue weight: 2505kg
The Land Rover Defender (initially called the Land Rover Ninety and Land Rover One Ten) is a British four-wheel-drive off-road SUV developed from the original Land Rover Series launched in June 1948.
In October 2013 Land Rover announced that production would end in December 2015 after a continuous run of 67 years.
Production finally ended on 29 January 2016 when the last Defender, H166 HUE, rolled off the production line at 9:22.
Jaguar Land Rover announced their intention to launch a replacement new Defender, which motoring journalists speculate will be different from the original version.
The model was introduced in 1983 as "Land Rover One Ten", and in 1984 the "Land Rover Ninety" was added - the numbers representing the respective wheelbases in inches. (In fact the Ninety was nearer 93 inches at 92.9".)
The number was spelled in full in advertising and in handbooks and manuals, and the vehicles also carried badges above the radiator grille which read "Land Rover 90" or "Land Rover 110", with the number rendered numerically.
The Ninety and One Ten replaced the earlier Land Rover Series, and at the time of launch, the only other Land Rover model in production was the Range Rover.
In 1989, a third model was brought out by Land Rover to be produced in parallel with the other two: the Land Rover Discovery.
To avoid possible confusion, from 1991 the Ninety and the One Ten were renamed the "Defender 90" and "Defender 110". These carried front badges that said "Defender", with a badge on the rear of the vehicle saying "Defender 90" or "Defender 110".
The most recent model, from 2007-2016, still featured the space above the radiator for the badge but was blank. Instead had "Land Rover" spelled across the leading edge of the bonnet in raised individual letters, in keeping with the Discovery and Freelander. At the rear was a new style of '"Defender" badge with an underlining "swoosh". On these last models there are no badges defining the wheelbase model of the vehicle.
The 127-inch (3,226 mm) wheelbase Land Rover 127, available from 1985, was always marketed with the name rendered numerically. Following the adoption of the Defender name, it became the "Defender 130", although the wheelbase remained unchanged.
The North American Specification (NAS) Defender 110 sold for the 1993 model year carried a badge above the radiator grille which read "Defender," whereas the NAS Defender 90 sold for the 1994 to 1997 model years had "Land Rover" spelled across the top of the radiator grille in individual letter decals. NAS Defenders also carried a cast plaque on the rear tub in the original style of the Series Station wagons with "Defender 110" or "Defender 90" below the Land Rover lozenge and the vehicle's unique limited edition production run number.
Production of the model now known as the Defender began in 1983 as the Land Rover 110, a name which reflected the 110-inch (2,800 mm) length of the wheelbase. The Land Rover 90, with 93-inch (2,362 mm) wheelbase, and Land Rover 127, with 127-inch (3,226 mm) wheelbase, soon followed.[4]
Outwardly, there is little to distinguish the post-1983 vehicles from the Series III Land Rover. A full-length bonnet, revised grille, plus the fitting of wheel arch extensions to cover wider-track axles are the most noticeable changes. Initially the Land Rover was also available with a part-time 4WD system familiar to all derivatives produced since 1949. The part-time system failed to sell and was quickly dropped from the options list by 1984. While the engine and other body panels carried over from the Series III, mechanically the 90 and 110 were modernized, including:
Coil springs, offering a more comfortable ride and improved axle articulation
A permanent four-wheel-drive system derived from the Range Rover, featuring a two-speed transfer gearbox with a lockable centre differential
A modernised interior
A taller one-piece windscreen
A new series of progressively more powerful and modern engines
The 110 was launched in 1983, and the 90 followed in 1984. From 1984, wind-up windows were fitted (Series models and very early 110s had sliding panels), and a 2.5-litre (153 cu in), 68 horsepower (51 kW) diesel engine was introduced. This was based on the earlier 2.3-litre (140 cu in) engine, but had a more modern fuel-injection system as well as increased capacity. A low compression version of the 3.5-litre (214 cu in) V8 Range Rover engine transformed performance. It was initially available in the 110 with a four-speed transmission with integral transfer case, then later in conjunction with a high strength "Santana" five-speed transmission.[5]
This period saw Land Rover market the utility Land Rover as a private recreational vehicle. While the basic pick-up, 4x4 and van versions were still working vehicles, the County 4x4s were sold as multi-purpose family vehicles, featuring improved interior trim and more comfortable seats. This change was reflected in Land Rover starting what had long been common practice in the car industry — detail changes and improvements to the County model from year to year in order to attract new buyers and to encourage existing owners to trade in for a new vehicle. These changes included different exterior styling graphics and colour options, and the introduction of new options, such as radio-cassette players, styled wheels, headlamp wash and wipe systems, as well as accessories such as surfboard carriers and bike racks. The switch from leaf spring to coil spring suspension was a key part of the new model's success. It offered improved off-road ability, load capacity, handling, and ride comfort.
The 127 (and 130)
From 1983, Land Rover introduced a third wheelbase to its utility line-up, a 127-inch (3,226 mm) wheelbase vehicle designed to accommodate larger, heavier loads than the 110. Called the "Land Rover 127", it was designed specifically with use by utility and electrical companies in mind, as well as military usage.
In its standard form, it is a four-door six-seater consisting of the front half of a 110 4x4, and the rear of a 110 high-capacity pick up (HCPU).
The logic was that this allowed a workcrew and their equipment to be carried in one vehicle at the same time. The 127 could carry up to a 1.4 tonnes (1.4 long tons; 1.5 short tons) payload, compared to the 1.03 tonnes (1.01 long tons; 1.14 short tons) payload of the 110 and the 0.6 tonnes (0.59 long tons; 0.66 short tons) of the 90
Land Rover 127s were built on a special production line, and all started life as 110 4x4 chassis (the model was initially marketed as the 110 crew cab, before the more logical 127 name was adopted). These were then cut in two and the 17 inches (432 mm) of extra chassis length welded on before the two original halves were reunited. These models did not receive their own dedicated badging like the other two models, instead they used the same metal grille badges as used on the Series III 109 V8 models, that simply said "Land-Rover".
Land Rover Defender 130; fully equipped car in the desert
Although the standard body-style was popular, the 127 was a common basis for conversion to specialist uses, such as mobile workshops, ambulances, fire engines and flatbed transports. In South Africa, the Land Rover assembly plant offered a 127 4x4 with seating for 15. Land Rover also offered the 127 as a bare chassis, with just front bodywork and bulkhead, for easy conversion.
127" chassis with double cab and bimobil camper module
Initially held back by the low power of the Land Rover engines (other than the thirsty petrol V8 engine), the 127 benefited from the improvements to the line-up, and by 1990 was only available with the two highest power engines, the 134 hp (100 kW) 3.5-litre V8 petrol, and the 85 hp (63 kW) 2.5-litre turbo diesel .
Engine development
The original 110 of 1983 was available with the same engine line-up as the Series III vehicles it replaced, namely 2.25-litre (137 cu in) petrol and diesel engines, and a 3.5-litre (210 cu in) V8 petrol unit, although a small number of 3.2-litre (200 cu in) V8s were produced.
In 1981 the 2.25 l engines were upgraded from three- to five-crankshaft bearings in preparation for the planned increases in capacity and power.
The 2.5-litre version of the diesel engine, displacing 2,495 cubic centimetres (152.3 cu in) and producing 68 hp (51 kW), was introduced in both the 110 and the newly arrived 90. This was a long-stroke version of the venerable 2.25-litre unit, fitted with updated fuel injection equipment and a revised cylinder head for quieter, smoother and more efficient running. A timing belt also replaced the older engine's chain.
In 1985 the petrol units were upgraded. An enlarged four-cylinder engine was introduced. This 83 hp (62 kW) engine shared the same block and cooling system (as well as other ancillary components) as the diesel unit. Unlike the diesel engine, this new 2.5-litre petrol engine retained the chain-driven camshaft of its 2.25-litre predecessor. At the same time, the 114 hp (85 kW) V8 was also made available in the 90- the first time a production short-wheelbase Land Rover had been given V8 power.
The V8 on both models was now mated to an all-new five-speed manual gearbox.
The year 1986 saw improvements in engines to match the more advanced offerings by Japanese competitors. The "Diesel Turbo" engine was introduced in September, a lightly turbocharged version of the existing 2.5-litre diesel, with several changes to suit the higher power output, including a re-designed crankshaft, teflon-coated pistons and nimonic steel exhaust valves to cope with the higher internal temperatures.[4][6] Similarly, an eight-bladed cooling fan was fitted, together with an oil cooler.
The changes for the turbo diesel were kept as slight as possible, in the aim of making the car saleable in Land Rover's traditional export markets across the globe.
The 2.5 diesel, 2.5 petrol and Diesel Turbo engines all shared the same block castings and other components such as valve-gear and cooling system parts, allowing them to be built on the same production line. The Diesel Turbo produced 85 hp (63 kW), a 13% increase over the naturally aspirated unit, and a 31.5% increase in torque to 150 lb·ft (203 N·m) at 1800 rpm.
Externally, turbo-diesel vehicles differed from other models only by having an air intake grille in the left-hand wing to supply cool air to the turbo. The engine was adopted as the standard engine for UK and European markets.
Early turbo-diesel engines gained a reputation for poor reliability, with major failures to the bottom-end and cracked pistons. A revised block and improved big end bearings were introduced in 1988, and a re-designed breather system in 1989. These largely solved the engine's problems, but it remained (like many early turbo-diesels) prone to failure if maintenance was neglected.
At the same time that the Diesel Turbo was introduced, the V8 engine was upgraded. Power was increased to 134 hp (100 kW), and SU carburettors replaced the Zenith models used on earlier V8s.
Sales turnaround
The new vehicles with their more modern engines, transmissions, and interiors reversed the huge decline in sales that took place in the 1980s (a 21% fall in a single year, 1980–1981). This growth was mainly in the domestic UK market and Europe. African, Australian and Middle-Eastern sales failed to recover significantly - Land Rover had not been immune to the poor reputation caused by poor build quality and unreliability which had afflicted the rest of British Leyland, of which Land Rover was still part. In these markets Japanese vehicles such as the Toyota Landcruiser and Nissan Patrol gradually took over what had been a lucrative export market for Land Rover for decades. Meanwhile, the company itself adopted more modern practices, such as using marketing campaigns to attract new buyers who would not previously have been expected to buy a Land Rover. The operation was streamlined, with most of the satellite factories in the West Midlands that built parts for the Land Rover being closed and production brought into the Solihull factory, which was expanded.
To maximise sales in Europe, Land Rover set up the Special Vehicles Division, which handled special low-number conversions and adaptations to the vehicles. The bulk of the division's work was the construction of stretched-wheelbase mobile workshops and crew carriers for British and European utility companies, often including six-wheel-drive conversions, but more unusual projects were undertaken, such as the construction of an amphibious Land Rover 90 used by the company as part of its sponsorship of Cowes Week from 1987 to 1990.
The Special Projects Division also handled specialised military contracts, such as the building of a fleet of 127-inch (3,226 mm)
V8-powered Rapier missile launchers for the British Army. The Rapier system actually consisted of three Land Rovers: a 127 which carried the launching and aiming equipment, and two 110s which carried the crew and additional equipment.
Land Rover Defender
The biggest change to the Land Rover came in late 1990, when it became the Land Rover Defender, instead of the Land Rover 90 or 110. This was because in 1989 the company had introduced the Discovery model, requiring the original Land Rover to acquire a name.
The Discovery also had a new turbodiesel engine, the 200TDi. This was also loosely based on the existing 2.5-litre turbo unit, and was built on the same production line, but had a modern alloy cylinder head, improved turbocharging, intercooling and direct injection.
It retained the block, crankshaft, main bearings, cambelt system, and other ancillaries as the Diesel Turbo. The breather system included an oil separator filter to remove oil from the air in the system, thus finally solving the Diesel Turbo's main weakness of re-breathing its own sump oil. The 200Tdi, produced 107 hp (80 kW) and 195 lb·ft (264 N·m) of torque, which was nearly a 25% improvement on the engine it replaced (although as installed in the Defender the engine was de-tuned slightly from its original Discovery 111 hp (83 kW) specification due to changes associated with the turbo position and exhaust routing).
This engine finally allowed the Defender to cruise comfortably at high speeds, as well as tow heavy loads speedily on hills while still being economical.
In theory it only replaced the older Diesel Turbo engine in the range, with the other four-cylinder engines (and the V8 petrol engine) still being available. However, the Tdi's combination of performance and economy meant that it took the vast majority of sales. Exceptions were the British Army and some commercial operators, who continued to buy vehicles with the 2.5-litre naturally aspirated diesel engine (in the army's case, this was because the Tdi was unable to be fitted with a 24 volt generator). Small numbers of V8-engined Defenders were sold to users in countries with low fuel costs or who required as much power as possible (such as in Defenders used as fire engines and ambulances).
Along with the 200Tdi engine, the 127's name was changed to the "Land Rover Defender 130". The wheelbase remained the same; the new figure was simply a tidying up exercise. More importantly, 130s were no longer built from "cut-and-shut" 110s, but had dedicated chassis built from scratch. The chassis retained the same basic structure as the 90 and 110 models, but with a longer wheelbase.
1994 saw another development of the Tdi engine, the 300Tdi. Although the 200Tdi had been a big step forward, it had been essentially a reworking of the old turbocharged diesel to accept a direct injection system. In contrast the 300Tdi was virtually new, despite the same capacity, and both the Defender and the Discovery had engines in the same state of tune, 111 bhp (83 kW), 195 lbf·ft (264 N·m).
Throughout the 1990s the vehicle attempted to climb more and more upmarket, while remaining true to its working roots. This trend was epitomised by limited-edition vehicles, such as the SV90 in 1992 with roll-over protection cage, alloy wheels and metallic paint and the 50th anniversary 90 in 1998, equipped with automatic transmission, air conditioning and Range Rover 4.0-litre V8 engine.
A new variant was the Defender 110 double cab, featuring a 4x4-style seating area, with an open pick up back. Although prototypes had been built in the Series days, it was not until the late 1990s that this vehicle finally reached production.
2012 updates
In August 2011, Land Rover announced an update of the Defender for the 2012 model year. By this time, Land Rover publicly acknowledged that it was working on a project to produce an all-new replacement for the Defender. This would lead to the unveiling of the first DC100 concept vehicle in September that year. While emissions and safety regulations have threatened the Defender since the early 2000s, these had either been avoided or Land Rover had found ways to modify the vehicle to economically meet the new requirements. However, safety regulations due for introduction in 2015 requiring minimum pedestrian safety standards and the fitment of airbags to commercial vehicles cannot be met without a wholesale redesign of the Defender.
The main change for the 2012 models was the installation of a different engine from the Ford Duratorq engine range. Ford decided, due to cost reasons, not to modify the 2.4-litre engine introduced in 2007 to meet the upcoming Euro V emissions standards and so the engine was replaced with the ZSD-422 engine, essentially a 2.2-litre variant of the same engine. Although smaller than the existing unit the power and torque outputs remained unchanged and the same six-speed gearbox was used as well.
The engine included a diesel particulate filter for the first time on a Defender. The only other change was the reintroduction of the soft top body style to the general market. This had been a popular option for the Land Rover Series but by the introduction of the Defender had been relegated to special order and military buyers only. Land Rover stated that the option was being brought back due to customer feedback.
The last Defender, a soft-top "90" rolled off the Solihull production line at 9:22 on Friday 29 January 2016. The BBC reports that the Defender's replacement is due to be launched in 2018/2019.