Ottawa, ON – Testing is underway at Valcartier to ensure the reliability, availability, maintainability and durability of the vehicle.

 

---

 

Ottawa, ON – Les essais sont en cours à Valcartier afin de veiller à la fiabilité, à la disponibilité, à la maintenabilité et à la durabilité du véhicule.

2016 Nissan Navara NP300 reliability

2016 Nissan Navara NP300 reliability-Each of the 5 trim levels features a wealth of conventional devices, beginning with practical Visia trim, that includes 16in steel wheels,...

 

autobestcar.com/2016/03/2016-nissan-navara-np300-reliabil...

A helicopter works with transmission linemen in a bucket to install a new transmission line.

Another bus now familiar to pounding York's streets is Volvo B7TL Wright Eclipse Gemini PO55 PYL. This was new to Burnley and Pendle for the Witchway X43 service between Colne/Nelson and Manchester; the batch were cascaded elsewhere when replaced by newer vehicles in 2013, though ironically some have gone back since then as the X43 has recently been extended to Skipton so requires more vehicles. Both this and 2763 went to Harrogate and District to be used as spares for the 36 service and also for the 770 service, and have been the only double deckers to gain the Harrogate Connect livery. But for 2016 as was the case in 2015 too, both have gone for a summer break to Malton depot with Yorkshire Coastliner though this one has repeat visits to York to cover Cityzap services as one of the resident fleet isn't noted for reliability. Today it's operating the 197 raceday service on behalf of York Pullman, and is at the racecourse - though the destination would suggest this bus has some unusual ambitions that are unlikely to be fulfilled (considering the 10 route passes under 2 low bridges so double deckers are prohibited from it)

To help enhance service reliability for customers, Jersey Central Power & Light (JCP&L) is continuing construction work this summer and throughout the remainder of 2016 on distribution and transmission infrastructure projects totaling approximately $387 million in its northern and central New Jersey service areas.

"Any system that depends on reliability is unreliable"

-Anonymous

Robust, fast and reliable: Trakker is the ideal vehicle to work on any terrain. Learn more about its features on Iveco.

A helicopter pilot carefully guides a lead line onto a pulley as one of the first steps in the transmission cable pulling process.

Go North East's Deptford-based "Laser" branded Mercedes Citaro 0530N/Mercedes Citaro 5303 (NK08 CHJ) is pictured here on Southwick Road, Sunderland, whilst working service 35A to Low Moorsley. 25/01/15

 

Go North East has released details of the service changes it has planned to come into effect from Sunday 25th January and Sunday 1st February 2015 respectively. These changes will result in improved reliability and new connections for many passengers. Full details of these changes can be viewed here.

 

The evening and Sunday 29A service, which is secured by Nexus, has been replaced by service 35A. The route remains unchanged between Heworth Interchange and Park Lane Interchange, but has been re-numbered to coincide with the new route numbering for the North Sunderland services. From Heworth, the service extends to Houghton-le-Spring, with one run hourly extending to Low Moorsley, as per the old "Laser" 35 route.

 

The PVR of the new 35/36 services is 15 vehicles. There are currently 12 "Laser" branded Mercedes Citaros in the fleet (numbered 5298 - 5309), and three of the current "Silver Arrows" branded Mercedes Citaros (5325 - 5327) are to join these vehicles for allocation to the new 35/36 services. It is likely that the current "Laser" branded vehicles will be de-branded prior to the service changes commencing, and the new services will fall under a new brand.

 

Although the service changes became operational from Sunday 25th January 2015, most buses had not yet been de-branded or re-branded for the new and/or revised services, as depicted above.

1990 Ferrari 348 TS & 1999 Land Rover Discovery 2

Power and reliability are the key to winning any stage. Learn more about Iveco Powerstar.

+++ 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 Nakajima J9N Kitsuka (中島 橘花, "Orange Blossom", pronounced Kikka in Kanji used traditionally by the Japanese) was Japan's first jet aircraft. In internal IJN documents it was also called Kōkoku Nigō Heiki (皇国二号兵器, "Imperial Weapon No.2"). After the Japanese military attaché in Germany witnessed trials of the Messerschmitt Me 262 in 1942, the Imperial Japanese Navy issued a request to Nakajima to develop a similar aircraft to be used as a fast attack bomber. Among the specifications for the design were the requirements that it should be able to be built largely by unskilled labor, and that the wings should be foldable. This latter feature was not intended for potential use on aircraft carriers, but rather to enable the aircraft to be hidden in caves and tunnels around Japan as the navy began to prepare for the defense of the home islands.

 

Nakajima designers Kazuo Ohno and Kenichi Matsumura laid out an aircraft that bore a strong but superficial resemblance to the Me 262. Compared to the Me 262, the J9N airframe was noticeably smaller and more conventional in design, with straight wings and tail surfaces, lacking the slight sweepback of the Me 262. The triangular fuselage cross section characteristic of the German design was less pronounced, due to smaller fuel tanks. The main landing gear of the Kikka was taken from the A6M Zero and the nose wheel from the tail of a Yokosuka P1Y bomber.

The Kikka was designed in preliminary form to use the Tsu-11, a rudimentary motorjet style jet engine that was essentially a ducted fan with an afterburner. Subsequent designs were planned around the Ne-10 (TR-10) centrifugal-flow turbojet, and the Ne-12, which added a four-stage axial compressor to the front of the Ne-10. Tests of this powerplant soon revealed that it would not produce anywhere near the power required to propel the aircraft, and the project was temporarily stalled. It was then decided to produce a new axial flow turbojet based on the German BMW 003.

 

Development of the engine was troubled, based on little more than photographs and a single cut-away drawing of the BMW 003. A suitable unit, the Ishikawa-jima Ne-20, was finally built in January 1945. By that time, the Kikka project was making progress and the first prototype made its maiden flight. Due to the worsening war situation, the Navy considered employing the Kikka as a kamikaze weapon, but this was quickly rejected due to the high cost and complexity associated with manufacturing contemporary turbojet engines. Other more economical projects designed specifically for kamikaze attacks, such as the simpler Nakajima Tōka (designed to absorb Japanese stock of obsolete engines), the pulsejet-powered Kawanishi Baika, and the infamous Yokosuka Ohka, were either underway or already in mass production.

 

The following month the prototype was dismantled and delivered to Kisarazu Naval Airfield where it was re-assembled and prepared for flight testing. The aircraft performed well during a 20-minute test flight, with the only concern being the length of the takeoff run – the Ne 20 only had a thrust of 4.66 kN (1,047 lbf), and the engine pair had barely sufficient power to get the aircraft off the ground. This lack of thrust also resulted in a maximum speed of just 623 km/h (387 mph, 336 kn) at sea level and 696 km/h (432 mph; 376 kn) at 10,000 m (32,808 ft).

For the second test flight, four days later, rocket assisted take off (RATO) units were fitted to the aircraft, which worked and gave the aircraft acceptable field performance. The tests went on, together with a second prototype, but despite this early test stage, the J9N was immediately rushed into production.

 

By May 1945 approximately forty airframes had been completed and handed over to IJN home defense frontline units for operational use and conversion training. These were structurally identical with the prototypes, but they were powered by more potent and reliable Ne-130 (with 8.826 kN/900 kgf) or Ne-230 (8.679 kN/885 kgf) engines, which finally gave the aircraft a competitive performance and also made the RATO boosters obsolete - unless an 800 kg bomb was carried in overload configuration. Most were J9N1 day fighter single seaters, armed with two 30 mm Type 5 cannons with 50 rounds per gun in the nose. Some operational Kitsukas had, due to the lack of equipment, the 30 mm guns replaced with lighter 20 mm Ho-5 cannon. A few were unarmed two-seaters (J9N2) with dual controls and a second seat instead of the fuselage fuel tank. This markedly limited the aircraft’s range but was accepted for a dedicated trainer, but a ventral 500 l drop tank could be carried to extend the two-seater’s range to an acceptable level.

 

A small number, both single- and two-seaters, were furthermore adapted to night fighter duties and equipped with an experimental ”FD-2” centimeter waveband radar in the nose with an “antler” antenna array, similar to German radar sets of the time. The FD-2 used four forward-facing Yagi style antennae with initially five and later with seven elements (the sideway facing rods) each. These consisted of two pairs, each with a sending (top and bot) and a receiving antenna (left and right). The set used horizontal lobe switching to find the target, an electrical shifter would continuously switch between the sets. The signal strengths would then be compared to determine the range and azimuth of the target, and the results would then be shown on a CRT display.

 

In order to fit the electronics (the FD-2 weighed around 70 kg/155 lb) the night fighters typically had one of the nose-mounted guns replaced by a fixed, obliquely firing Ho-5 gun ("Schräge Musik"-style), which was mounted in the aircraft’s flank behind the cockpit, and the 500l drop tank became a permanent installation to extend loiter time, at the expense of top speed, though. These machines received the suffix “-S” and flew, despite the FD-2’s weaknesses and limitations, a few quite effective missions against American B-29 bombers, but their impact was minimal due to the aircrafts’ small numbers and poor reliability of the still experimental radar system. However, the FD-2’s performance was rather underwhelming, though, with an insufficient range of only 3 km. Increased drag due to the antennae and countermeasures deployed by B-29 further decreased the effectiveness, and the J9N2-S’s successes could be rather attributed to experienced and motivated crews than the primitive radar.

 

Proposed follow-on J9N versions had included a reconnaissance aircraft and a fast attack aircraft that was supposed to carry a single bomb under the fuselage against ships. There was also a modified version of the design to be launched from a 200 m long catapult, the "Nakajima Kikka-kai Prototype Turbojet Special Attacker". All these proposed versions were expected to be powered by more advanced developments of the Ne-20, the Ne-330 with 13 kN (1.330 kg) thrust, but none of them reached the hardware stage.

 

The J9Ns’ overall war contribution was negligible, and after the war, several airframes (including partial airframes) were captured by Allied forces. Three airframes (including a two-seat night fighter with FD-2 radar) were brought to the U.S. for study. Today, two J9N examples survive in the National Air and Space Museum: The first is a Kikka that was taken to the Patuxent River Naval Air Base, Maryland for analysis. This aircraft is very incomplete and is believed to have been patched together from a variety of semi-completed airframes. It is currently still in storage at the Paul E. Garber Preservation, Restoration and Storage Facility in Silver Hill, MD. The second Kikka is on display at the NASM Udvar-Hazy Center in the Mary Baker Engen Restoration Hangar.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 2

Length: 8.13 m (26 ft 8 in) fuselage only

10.30 m (33 ft 8¾ in) with FD-2 antenna array

Wingspan: 10 m (32 ft 10 in)

Height: 2.95 m (9 ft 8 in)

Wing area: 13.2 m² (142 sq ft)

Empty weight: 2,300 kg (5,071 lb)

Gross weight: 3,500 kg (7,716 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 4,080 kg (8,995 lb)

 

Powerplant:

2× Ishikawajima Ne-130 or Ne-230 axial-flow turbojet engines

each with 8.83 kN/900 kg or 8.68 kN/885 kg thrust

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 785 km/h (487 mph, 426 kn)

Range: 925 km (574 mi, 502 nmi) with internal fuel

Service ceiling: 12,000 m (39,000 ft)

Rate of climb: 10.5 m/s (2,064 ft/min)

Wing loading: 265 kg/m² (54 lb/sq ft)

Thrust-to-weight ratio: 0.43

 

Armament:

1× 30 mm (1.181 in) Type 5 cannon with 50 rounds in the nose

1× 20 mm (0.787 in) Type Ho-2 cannon with 80 rounds, mounted obliquely behind the cockpit

1× ventral hardpoint for a 500 l drop tank or a single 500 kg (1,102 lb) bomb

  

The kit and its assembly:

This is in fact the second Kikka I have built, and this time it’s a two-seater from AZ Models – actually the trainer boxing, but converted into a personal night fighter interpretation. The AZ Models kit is a simple affair, but that's also its problem. In the box things look quite good, detail level is on par with a classic Matchbox kit. But unlike a Matchbox kit, the AZ Models offering does not go together well. I had to fight everywhere with poor fit, lack of locator pins, ejection marks - anything a short run model kit can throw at you! Thanks to the experience with the single-seater kit some time ago, things did not become too traumatic, but it’s still not a kit for beginners. What worked surprisingly well was the IP canopy, though, which I cut into five sections for an optional open display – even though I am not certain if the kit’s designers had put some brain into their work because the canopy’s segmentation becomes more and more dubious the further you go backwards.

 

The only personal mods is a slightly changed armament, with one nose gun deleted and faired over with a piece of styrene sheet, while the leftover gun was mounted obliquely onto the left flank. I initially considered a position behind the canopy but rejected this because of CoG reasons. Then I planned to mount it directly behind the 2nd seat, so that the barrel would protrude through the canopy, but this appeared unrealistic because the (utterly tiny) sliding canopy for the rear crewman could not have been opened anymore? Finally, I settled for an offset position in the aircraft’s flanks, partly inspired by “Schräge Musik” arrangements on some German Fw 190 night fighters.

 

The antennae come from a Jadar Model PE set for Italeri’s Me 210s, turning it either into a night fighter or a naval surveillance aircraft.

  

Painting and markings:

This became rather lusterless; many late IJN night fighters carried a uniform dark green livery with minimalistic, toned-down markings, e. g. hinomaru without a white high-contrast edge, just the yellow ID bands on the wings’ leading edges were retained.

For this look the model received an overall basis coat of Humbrol 75 (Bronze Green), later treated with a black ink washing, dry-brushed aluminum and post-shading with lighter shades of dark green (including Humbrol 116 and Revell 67). The only colorful highlight is a red fin tip (Humbrol 19) and a thin red stripe underneath (decal). The yellow and white ID bands were created with decal material.

 

The cockpit interior was painted in a yellowish-green primer (trying to simulate a typical “bamboo” shade that was used in some late-war IJN cockpits), while the landing gear wells were painted in aodake iro, a clear bluish protective lacquer. The landing gear struts themselves became semi-matt black.

 

The markings are fictional and were puzzled together from various sources. The hinomaru came from the AZ Models’ Kikka single seater sheet (since it offers six roundels w/o white edge), the tactical code on the fin was created with red numbers from a Fujimi Aichi B7A2 Ryusei.

 

Finally, the kit received a coat of matt acrylic varnish and some grinded graphite around the jet exhausts and the gun nozzles.

  

Well, this fictional Kikka night fighter looks quite dry, but that makes it IMHO more credible. The large antler antenna array might look “a bit too much”, and a real night fighter probably had a simpler arrangement with a single Yagi-style/arrow-shaped antenna, but a description of the FD-2 radar suggested the layout I chose – and it does not look bad. The oblique cannon in the flank is another odd detail, but it is not unplausible. However, with all the equipment and esp. the draggy antennae on board, the Kikka’s mediocre performance would surely have seriously suffered, probably beyond an effective use. But this is whifworld, after all. ;-)

Having been the most reliable Class 92 in the fleet for several months with nigh-on 100% availability, GB Railfreight's Class 92, 92 033 had a bit of a wobble recently and had a three week spell on the sidelines at Wembley.

 

However, with everything seemingly back in order, 92033 has returned to Sleeper duties, seen here working the Caledonian Sleeper Highlander service (1S25) north through Hartford.

Bosphorus 15th June 2015

The mechanical reliability of MTA New York City Transit’s fleet of 6,200 subway cars has been a major source of pride for employees. That achievement stems from a simple idea; fix things before they break. That is the philosophy behind the Scheduled Maintenance System (SMS) program developed by the Division of Car Equipment as a way of maintaining the reliability of new subway cars and older subway cars that had gone through the General Overhaul (GOH) program.

 

Photo: Patrick Cashin / Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The 501 reliability and strength were unchanged in the sport version too, and this was the basis for the car tuning. One of the most famous tuners was the Milanese technician Eugenio Silvani, who designed just for the 501 model a cylinder head modification with the conversion of the distribution from side valves to head valves. The famous “Superculasse Silvani” cylinder head was sold as a performing kit with all the gaskets, manifolds and valve shafts necessary for the fitting; it had a large diffusion thanks to its easy fitting. The “Superculasse Silvani” gave more power, acceleration and running flexibility to the engine.

 

The Fiat 501 S shown in the museum was apparently ordered by the Fiat agents in Bombay for the maharajah of Patiala and is fitted with the “Superculasse Silvani”. The body has been rebuilt in the Seventies.

 

1.460 cc

4 in-line

26,5 bhp @ 3.000 rpm

Vmax : 120 km/h

2.614 ex.

 

Museo Nicolis

Villafranca di Verona

Italy - Italia

February 2019

Fast for the Dakar, reliable at work. Learn more about the Iveco Trakker.

50038 Formidable waits time at Exeter St David's on the Sundays only 1M36 1320 Plymouth to Liverpool on 22nd November 1981.

 

1M36 was a very good bet for a 50, and it didn't disappoint on this day. I recall we were returning north after a Party Travel trip to Plymouth, having set off on the 0030 Liverpool - Euston early the previous day.

 

Exeter Middle Signal Box can just be seen on the right of the photo with the old NCL parcels depot behind the train.

Every child deserves its own aureole, bleu is the color of reliability, trustworthiness, dependability, and serenity.

Several airlines in the world are particularly fond of the Rolls Royce engines. Air New Zealand is one such example. Seen here at London Heathrow LHR is one of the airline's Boeing 747-400 equipped with 4x Rolls-Royce power plants.

 

The Eddystone name and trademark was first registered in 1925 and the lighthouse device, bearing the name of the famous lighthouse off Cornwall, was a great visual metaphor, signaling strength, communication and reliability. The first radio set, bearing the name 'Eddystone' was manufactured in 1926 and by the 1930s, Eddystone products were very much focused on short wave sets, reflecting the global interest generated by radio amateurs.

 

What's fascinating about Eddystone, is that the former Birmingham based radio company was initially rooted in the hair-clip and badge manufacturing business. Known as Stratton & Co Ltd, the company specialised in this market but a significant change in women's hair fashion started a downturn in business. The Flapper 'Bob' hairstyle fashion of the Roaring Twenties resulted in many women cutting their hair significantly shorter and the need for hair-clips was not a priority!

 

Running parallel to this fashion phenomenon was the groundswell of interest in the emerging radio technology and Stratton's decided to diversify into this new market by making small radio components for local and global markets.

 

By the 1930s Eddystone receivers were being used for many scientific expeditions such as the British Arctic Route Expedition and the Hudson Strait Settlement Expedition. This gave their equipment an excellent reputation with a strong endorsement from the forces during the WW11 years.

 

Although Eddystone was eventually sold to Marconi, the name Eddystone Radio Company became part of Marconi Communications Ltd with a sales focus on professional receivers and broadcast transmitters.

 

Photography, layout and design: Argy58

 

(This image also exists as a high resolution jpeg and tiff - ideal for a variety of print sizes

e.g. A4, A3, A2 and A1. The current uploaded format is for screen based viewing only: 72pi)

www.beamish.org.uk/events/reliability-run/

A helicopter pilot threads a lead line to a monopole that will eventually carry new transmission lines.

+++ 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

 

Materials scientist Paul Vianco peers through an experimental setup of printed wiring assemblies used to validate modeling in a Sandia National Laboratories project to study solder failure. Vianco said computational modeling of solder joint fatigue is critical to Sandia’s role in life extension programs for nuclear weapons.

 

Learn more at share-ng.sandia.gov/news/resources/news_releases/solder_r....

 

Photo by Randy Montoya.

. . . flight to Bangkok

________________________

 

The Airbus A340 is a long-range, four-engine, wide-body commercial passenger jet airliner developed and produced by the European aerospace company Airbus. The A340 was assembled at Toulouse, France. It seats up to 375 passengers in the standard variants and 440 in the stretched -600 series. Depending on the model, it has a range of between 6,700 to 9,000 nautical miles (12,400 to 16,700 km; 7,700 to 10,400 mi). Its distinguishing features are four high-bypass turbofan engines and three-bogie main landing gears.

 

The A340 was manufactured in four fuselage lengths. The initial variant, A340-300, which entered service in 1993, measured 63.69. The shorter -200 was developed next, and the A340-600 was a 15.96 metres stretch of the -200. The -600 was developed alongside the shorter A340-500, which would become the longest-range commercial airliner until the arrival of the Boeing 777-200LR. The -200 and -300 models were powered by the 151 kilonewtons (34,000 lbf) CFM56-5C, while the 267-kilonewton (60,000 lbf) Rolls-Royce Trent 500 was the exclusive powerplant for the extended-range -500 and -600 models. The initial A340-200 and -300 variants share the fuselage and wing of the twin-engine Airbus A330 with which it was concurrently designed. The heavier A340-500 and -600 are longer and have larger wings.

 

Launch customers Lufthansa and Air France placed the A340 into service in March 1993. In September 2011, 379 orders had been placed (not including private operators), of which 375 were delivered. The most common type were the A340-300 model, with 218 aircraft delivered. Lufthansa is the biggest operator of the A340, having acquired 59 aircraft. The A340 is used on long-haul, trans-oceanic routes due to its immunity from ETOPS restrictions; however, with reliability and fuel efficiency in engines improving, airlines have gradually phased out the type in favour of the more economical Boeing 777 twinjet, while Airbus has positioned the larger variants of the Airbus A350 as a successor. Airbus announced on 10 November 2011 that A340 production had been concluded.

 

DEVELOPMENT

BACKGROND

When Airbus designed the Airbus A300 during the 1970s, it envisioned a broad family of airliners to compete against Boeing and Douglas, two established US aerospace manufacturers. From the moment of formation, Airbus had begun studies into derivatives of the Airbus A300B in support of this long-term goal. Prior to the service introduction of the first Airbus airliners, Airbus had identified nine possible variations of the A300 known as A300B1 to B9. A 10th variation, conceived in 1973, later the first to be constructed, was designated the A300B10. It was a smaller aircraft that would be developed into the long-range Airbus A310. Airbus then focused its efforts on the single-aisle market, which resulted in the Airbus A320 family, which was the first digital fly-by-wire commercial aircraft. The decision to work on the A320, instead of a four-engine aircraft proposed by the Germans, created divisions within Airbus. As the SA or "single aisle" studies (which later became the successful Airbus A320) underwent development to challenge the successful Boeing 737 and Douglas DC-9 in the single-aisle, narrow-body airliner market, Airbus turned its focus back to the wide-body aircraft market.

 

The A300B11, a derivative of the A310, was designed upon the availability of "ten ton" engines. It would seat between 180 and 200 passengers, and have a range of 6,000 nautical miles (11,000 km). It was deemed the replacement for the less-efficient Boeing 707s and Douglas DC-8s still in service. The A300B11 was joined by another design, the A300B9, which was a larger derivative of the A300. The B9 was developed by Airbus from the early 1970s at a slow pace until the early 1980s. It was essentially a stretched A300 with the same wing, coupled with the most powerful turbofan engine at the time. It was targeted at the growing demand for high-capacity, medium-range, transcontinental trunk routes. The B9 would offer the same range and payload as the McDonnell Douglas DC-10, but would use between 25% to 38% less fuel. The B9 was therefore considered the replacement for the DC-10 and the Lockheed L-1011 Tristar.

 

To differentiate the programme from the SA studies, the B9 and B11 were redesignated the TA9 and TA11 (TA standing for "twin aisle"), respectively. In an effort to save development costs, it was decided that the two would share the same wing and airframe; the projected savings were estimated at US$500 million (about £490 million or €495 million). The adoption of a common wing structure also had one technical advantage: the TA11's outboard engines could counteract the weight of the longer-range model by providing bending relief. Another factor was the split preference of those within Airbus and, more importantly, prospective airliner customers. Airbus vice president for strategic planning, Adam Brown, recalled,

 

North American operators were clearly in favour of a twin[jet], while Asians wanted a quad[jet]. In Europe, opinion was split between the two. The majority of potential customers were in favour of a quad despite the fact, in certain conditions, it is more costly to operate than a twin. They liked that it could be ferried with one engine out, and could fly 'anywhere' - ETOPS (extend-range twin-engine operations) hadn't begun then.

 

DESIGN EFFORT

The first specifications of the TA9 and TA11 were released in 1982. While the TA9 had a range of 3,300 nautical miles (6,100 km), the TA11 range was up to 6,830 nautical miles (12,650 km). At the same time, Airbus also sketched the TA12, a twin-engine derivative of the TA11, which was optimised for flights of a 2,000 nautical miles (3,700 km) lesser range. By the time of the Paris Air Show in June 1985, more refinements had been made to the TA9 and TA11, including the adoption of the A320 flight deck, fly-by-wire (FBW) flight control system and side-stick control. Adopting a common cockpit across the new Airbus series allowed operators to make significant cost savings; flight crews would be able to transition from one to another after one week of training. The TA11 and TA12 would use the front and rear fuselage sections of the A310. Components were modular and also interchangeable with other Airbus aircraft where possible to reduce production, maintenance and operating costs.Airbus briefly considered a variable camber wing; the concept was that the wing could change its profile to produce the optimum shape for a given phase of flight. Studies were carried out by British Aerospace (BAe) at Hatfield and Bristol. Airbus estimated this would yield a 2% improvement in aerodynamic efficiency. However, the plan was later abandoned on grounds of cost and difficulty of development.

 

Airbus had held discussions with McDonnell Douglas to jointly produce the aircraft, which would have been designated as the AM 300. This aeroplane would have combined the wing of the A330 with the fuselage of the McDonnell Douglas MD-11. However, talks were terminated as McDonnell Douglas insisted on the continuation of its trijet heritage. Although from the start it was intended for the A340 would be powered by four CFM56-5 turbofan engines, each capable of 25,000 pounds-force (110 kN), Airbus had also considered developing the aircraft as a trijet due to the limited power of engines available at the time, namely the Rolls-Royce RB211-535 and Pratt & Whitney JT10D-232.

 

On 27 January 1986, the Airbus Industrie Supervisory Board held a meeting in Munich, West Germany, after which board-chairman Franz Josef Strauß released a statement, "Airbus Industrie is now in a position to finalise the detailed technical definition of the TA9, which is now officially designated the A330, and the TA11, now called the A340, with potential launch customer airlines, and to discuss with them the terms and conditions for launch commitments". The designations were originally reversed because the airlines believed it illogical for a two-engine jet airliner to have a "4" in its name, whilst a quad-jet would not. On 12 May 1986, Airbus dispatched fresh sale proposals to five prospective airlines including Lufthansa and Swissair.

 

PRODUCTION AND TESTING

In preparations for production of the A330/A340, Airbus's partners invested heavily in new facilities. Filton was the site of BAE's £7 million investment in a three-storey technical centre with an extra 15,000 square metres of floor area. BAe also spent £5 million expanding the Chester wing production plant by 14,000 m2 to accommodate a new production line. However, France saw the biggest changes with Aérospatiale starting construction of a new Fr.2.5 billion ($411 million) assembly plant, adjacent to Toulouse-Blagnac Airport, in Colomiers. By November 1988, the first 21 m pillars were erected for the new Clément Ader assembly hall. The assembly process, meanwhile, would feature increased automation with holes for the wing-fuselage mating process drilled by eight robots. The use of automation for this particular process saved Airbus 20% on labour costs and 5% on time.

 

British Aerospace accepted £450 million funding from the UK government, short of the £750 million originally requested. Funds from the French and German governments followed thereafter. Airbus also issued subcontracts to companies in Austria, Australia, Canada, China, Greece, Italy, India, Japan, South Korea, Portugal, the United States of America, and the former Yugoslavia. The A330 and A340 programmes were jointly launched on 5 June 1987, just prior to the Paris Air Show. The order book then stood at 130 aircraft from 10 customers, apart from the above-mentioned Lufthansa and International Lease Finance Corporation (ILFC). Eighty-nine of the total orders were A340 models. Over at McDonnell Douglas, ongoing tests of the MD-11 revealed a significant shortfall in the aircraft's performance. An important carrier, Singapore Airlines (SIA), required a fully laden aircraft that could fly from Singapore to Paris, against strong headwinds during mid-winter in the northern hemisphere. The MD-11, according to test results, would experience fuel starvation over the Balkans. Due to the less-than-expected performance figures, SIA cancelled its 20-aircraft MD-11 order on 2 August 1991, and ordered 20 A340-300s instead. The MD-11 failed commercially and unsuccessfully competed with the A340.

 

The first flight of the A340 occurred on 21 October 1991, marking the start of a 2,000-hour test flight programme involving six aircraft. From the start, engineers noticed that the wings were not strong enough to carry the outboard engines at cruising speed without warping and fluttering. To alleviate this, an underwing bulge called a plastron was developed to correct airflow problems around the engine pylons and to add stiffness. European JAA certification was obtained on 22 December 1992; FAA followed on 27 May 1993.

 

ENTRY INTO SERVICE AND DEMONSTRATION

Airbus delivered the first A340, a -200, to Lufthansa on 2 February 1993. The 228-seat A340-200, named Nürnberg, entered service on 15 March. The A340s were intended to replace aging DC-10s on the airline's Frankfurt–New York services. Meanwhile, Air France took its first A340-300 on 26 February, the first of nine it planned to operate by the end of the year. The A340 replaced the Boeing 747s on Paris–Washington D.C., flying four times weekly. Coincidentally, the first Air France A340 was the 1000th Airbus aircraft to leave the Toulouse facility since the consortium's beginning.

 

During the Paris Air Show, on 16 June 1993 an A340-200 named The World Ranger took off for a round-the-world demonstration and publicity-stunt flight. The aircraft, carrying 22 persons, had been modified for the flight, including the addition of five center tanks. Taking off at 11:58 local time, The World Ranger made only one stop en route – in Auckland, New Zealand – and arrived back in Paris 48 hours and 22 minutes later, at 12:20. The flight broke six world records at the time. Among the six was the longest non-stop flight by an airliner, when the aircraft flew 19,277 kilometres (10,409 nmi) from Paris, arriving in Auckland in record time. The A340 would hold this record for a total of 12 years; in 2005, a Boeing 777-200LR flew from Hong Kong eastward toward London, successfully completing a 21,602 kilometres (11,664 nmi) journey.

 

FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS AND END OF PRODUCTION

During the 1990s, the A340-300 was challenged by the more fuel-efficient Boeing 777-200ER twinjet. In addition, airlines were looking for replacement aircraft for their 1970s-era Boeing 747-100s and -200s, so Airbus investigated a stretched airframe in the form of the A340-400X. This proved unpopular, as the CFM56 engines were at the limits of their growth capability and the range would have decreased to around 10,000 km (5,400 nmi). A new plan to develop an A340 variant with a larger wing and engine combination was decided upon. Pratt & Whitney, Rolls-Royce and General Electric competed to be selected as the supplier of the new engine to power the type; talks between General Electric and Airbus over an exclusive engine arrangement collapsed in 1997 following disagreement over cost and risk-sharing. Airbus ultimately decided to adopt a variant of the Rolls-Royce Trent engine series, which was viewed as cost-effective as it did not involve developing an independent power plant. In April 1996, Airbus announced that it would offer a stretched variant of the aircraft, designated as the A340-600. The A340-500/600 would be developed as ultra-long range (ULR) aircraft.

 

During the 2000s, sales slowed despite the introduction of the A340-500 and A340-600 and their high gross weight variants, the A340-500IGW and A340-600HGW, respectively as the Boeing 777-200LR and -300ER began to dominate the long-range, 300-400 seating sector. Airbus confirmed in January 2006 that it had conducted studies into developing an A340-600E (Enhanced). Airbus projected that it would be more fuel-efficient than earlier A340s, closing the 8–9% disparity with the Boeing 777 via the use of the new Trent 1500 engine as well as technologies derived from the A350 programme. In 2007, Airbus predicted that another 127 A340 aircraft would likely be produced through 2016, the projected end of production.

 

On 10 November 2011, Airbus announced the end of the A340 program. At that time, the company indicated that all firm orders had been delivered. The decision to terminate the program came as A340-500/600 orders came to a halt, with analyst Nick Cunningham pointing out that the A340 "was too heavy and there was a big fuel burn gap between the A340 and Boeing’s 777". Bertrand Grabowski, managing director of aircraft financier DVB Bank SE, noted "in an environment where the fuel price is high, the A340 has had no chance to compete against similar twin engines, and the current lease rates and values of this aircraft reflect the deep resistance of any airlines to continue operating it”. Airbus has positioned the larger versions of the A350, specifically the A350-900 and A350-1000, as the successors to the A340-500 and A340-600.

 

As a sales incentive amid low customer demand during the Great Recession, Airbus had offered buy-back guarantees to airlines that chose to procure the A340. By 2013, the resale value of an A340 declined by 30% over ten years, and both Airbus and Rolls-Royce were incurring related charges amounting to hundreds of millions of euros. Some analysts have expected the price of a flight-worthy, CFM56-powered A340 to drop below $10 million by 2023. As an effort to support the A340's resale value, Airbus has proposed reconfiguring the aircraft's interior for a single class of 475 seats. As the Trent 500 engines are half the maintenance cost of the A340, Rolls-Royce proposed a cost-reducing maintenance plan similar to the company's existing program that reduced the cost of maintaining the RB211 engine powering Iberia's Boeing 757 freighters. Key to these programs is the salvaging, repair and reuse of serviceable parts from retired older engines. Airbus could offer used A340s to airlines wishing to retire older aircraft such as the Boeing 747-400, claiming that the cost of purchasing and maintaining a second-hand A340 with increased seating and improved engine performance reportedly compared favourably to the procurement costs of a new Boeing 777.

 

DESIGN

The Airbus A340 is a widebody twin-aisle passenger airliner which, along with its sibling the A330, has the distinction of being the first truly long-range aircraft to be produced by Airbus. It is powered by four FADEC turbofan jet engines, optimized to perform long distance routes. The A340 had built upon developments made in the production of earlier Airbus aircraft and as such shares many features with those aircraft, such as a common cockpit design with the Airbus A320 and A330; as the aircraft was developed at the same time as the A330 the two aircraft employ many similar components and sections, such as identical fly-by-wire control systems and similar wings. Both before and after the A340 entered revenue service, the features and improvements that were developed for the type were usually shared with the A330, a significant beneficial factor in performing such programs.

 

The A340 is a low-wing cantilever monoplane, the wing itself is virtually identical to that of the A330. The wings were designed and manufactured by BAe, which developed a long slender wing with a very high aspect ratio to provide high aerodynamic efficiency.[Nb 1] The wing is swept back at 30 degrees and, along with other design features, allows a maximum operating Mach number of 0.86. The wing has a very high thickness-to-chord ratio of 12.8 per cent, which means that a long span and high aspect ratio can be attained without a severe weight penalty. For comparison, the rival MD-11 has a thickness-to-chord ratio of 8–9 per cent. Each wing also has a 2.74 m tall winglet instead of the wingtip fences found on earlier Airbus aircraft. The failure of International Aero Engines' radical ultra-high-bypass V2500 "SuperFan", which had promised around 15 per cent fuel burn reduction for the A340, led to multiple enhancements including wing upgrades to compensate. Originally designed with a 56 m span, the wing was later extended to 58.6 m and finally to 60.3 m. At 60.3 m, the wingspan is similar to that of the larger Boeing 747-200, but with 35 percent less wing area.

 

The flight deck of the A340 is a glass cockpit, based upon the control systems first used on the smaller A320. Instead of a conventional control yoke, the flight deck features side-stick controls. The main instrument panel is dominated by a total of six cathode ray tube monitors which display information to the flight crew; on later aircraft these monitors have been replaced by liquid crystal displays. Flight information is directed via the Electronic Flight Instrument System (EFIS) and systems information through the Electronic Centralised Aircraft Monitor (ECAM). The aircraft monitoring system is connected to various sensors throughout the aircraft and automatically alerts the crew to any parameters detected outside of their normal range; pilots can also manually inspect systems of their choosing at any time. The information display system is designed to be easily interpreted and give a clear picture of the aircraft's operational status. Instead of paper manuals, electronic CD-ROM-based manuals are used; Airbus offers web-based updates to electronic documentation as an option.

 

Many measures were taken from the start of the A340's design process to reduce the difficulty and cost of maintenance, which was reportedly half of that of the earlier Airbus A310 despite the increase in size. The aircraft's four engines featured improved controls and monitoring systems that enabled engine parameters to be more readily checked and avoid unnecessary early removals; the four-engine approach also avoided the stringent ETOPS requirements such as more frequent inspections. The A340 also has a centralised maintenance computer which provides comprehensive easily understandable systems information, which can be transmitted in real-time to ground facilities via the onboard satellite-based ACARS datalink. Some aspects of the maintenance, such as structural changes, remained unchanged, while increased sophistication of technology in the passenger cabin, like the in-flight entertainment systems, were increased over preceding airliners.

 

OPERATIONAL HISTORY

The first variant of the A340 to be introduced, the A340-200, entered service with the launch customer, Lufthansa, in 1993. It was followed shortly thereafter by the A340-300 with its operator, Air France. Lufthansa's first A340, which had been dubbed Nürnberg (D-AIBA), began revenue service on 15 March 1993. Air Lanka (later renamed Sri Lankan Airlines) became the Asian launch customer of the Airbus A340; the airline received its first A340-300, registered (4R-ADA), in September 1994. British airline Virgin Atlantic was an early adopter of the A340; in addition to operating several A340-300 aircraft, Virgin Atlantic announced in August 1997 that it was to be the worldwide launch customer for the new A340-600. The first commercial flight of the A340-600 was performed by Virgin in July 2002.

 

Singapore Airlines ordered 17 A340-300s and operated them until October 2013. The A340-300s were purchased by Boeing as part of an order for Boeing 777s in 1999.[75] The airline then purchased five long-range A340-500s, which joined the fleet in December 2003. In February 2004, the airline's A340-500 performed the longest non-stop commercial air service in the world, conducting a non-stop flight between Singapore and Los Angeles In 2007, Singapore Airlines launched an even longer non-stop route using the A340-500 between Newark and Singapore, SQ 21, a 15,344 kilometres (8,285 nmi) journey that was the longest scheduled non-stop commercial flight in the world. The airline continued to operate this route regularly until the airline decided to retire the type in favour of new A380 and A350 aircraft; its last A340 flight was performed in late 2013.

The A340 was typically used by airlines as a medium-sized long-haul aircraft, and was often a replacement for older Boeing 747s as it was more likely profitable. Airbus produced a number of A340s as large private jets for VIP customers, often to replace aging Boeing 747s in this same role. In 2008, Airbus launched a dedicated corporate jetliner version of the A340-200: one key selling point of this aircraft was a range of up to 8,000 nautical miles (15,000 km). Airbus had built up to nine different customized versions of the A340 to private customer's specific demands prior to 2008.

 

The A340 has frequently been operated as a dedicated transport for heads of state. A pair of A340-300s were acquired from Lufthansa by the Flugbereitschaft of the German Air Force; they serve as VIP transports for the German Chancellor and other key members of the German government. The A340 is also operated by the air transport division of the French Air Force, where it is used as a strategic transport for troop deployments and supply missions, as well as to transport government officials. A one-of-a-kind aircraft, the A340-8000, was originally built for Prince Jefri Bolkiah, brother of the Sultan of Brunei Hassanal Bolkiah. The aircraft was unused and stored in Hamburg until it was procured by Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal of the House of Saud, and later sold to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, then-President of Libya; the aircraft was operated by Afriqiyah Airways and was often referred to as Afriqiyah One.

 

In 2008, jet fuel prices doubled compared to the year before; consequently, the A340's fuel consumption led airlines to reduce flight stages exceeding 15 hours. Thai Airways International cancelled its 17-hour, nonstop Bangkok–New York/JFK route on 1 July 2008, and placed its four A340-500s for sale. While short flights stress aircraft more than long flights and result in more frequent fuel-thirsty take-offs and landings, ultra-long flights require completely full fuel tanks. The higher weights in turn require a greater proportion of an aircraft's fuel fraction just to take off and to stay airborne. In 2008, Air France-KLM SA's chief executive Pierre-Henri Gourgeon disparagingly referred to the A340 as a "flying tanker with a few people on board". While Thai Airways consistently filled 80% of the seats on its New York City–Bangkok flights, it estimated that, at 2008 fuel prices, it would need an impossible 120% of seats filled just to break even. Other airlines also re-examined long-haul flights. In August 2008 Cathay Pacific stated that rising fuel costs were hurting its trans-Pacific long-haul routes disproportionately, and that it would cut the number of such flights and redeploy its aircraft to shorter routes such as between Hong Kong and Australia. "We will ... reshap[e] our network where necessary to ensure we fly aircraft to where we can cover our costs and also make some money." Aviation Week noted that rapid performance increases of twin-engine aircraft has led to the detriment of four-engine types of comparable capacity such as the A340 and 747.

 

By 2014, Singapore Airlines had phased out the type, while Emirates Airlines decided to accelerate the retirement of its A340 fleet. International Airlines Group, the parent of Iberia Airlines (which is also the operator of the last production A340 built), is overhauling its A340-600s for continued service for the foreseeable future, while it is retiring its A340-300s. The IAG overhaul featured improved conditions and furnishings in the business and economy classes; the business-class capacity was raised slightly while not changing the type's overall operating cost. Lufthansa, which operates both Airbus A340-300s and -600s, concluded that, while it is not possible to make the A340 more fuel efficient, it can respond to increased interest in business-class services by replacing first-class seats with more business-class seats to increase revenue.

 

In 2013, Snecma announced that they planned to use the A340 as a flying testbed for the development of a new open rotor engine. This test aircraft is forecast to conduct its first flight in 2019. Open rotor engines are typically more fuel-efficient but noisier than conventional turbofan engines; introducing such an engine commercially has been reported as requiring significant legislative changes within engine approval authorities due to its differences from contemporary jet engines. The engine, partly based on the Snecma M88 turbofan engine used on the Dassault Rafale, is being developed under the European Clean Sky research initiative.

 

VARIANTS

There are four variants of the A340. The A340-200 and A340-300 were launched in 1987 with introduction into service in March 1993 for the -200. The A340-500 and A340-600 were launched in 1997 with introduction into service in 2002. All variants were available in a corporate version.

 

A340-200

The -200 is one of two initial versions of the A340; it has seating for 261 passengers in a three-class cabin layout with a range of 13,800 kilometres (7,500 nmi) or seating for 240 passengers also in a three-class cabin layout for a range of 15,000 kilometres (8,100 nmi). This is the shortest version of the family and the only version with a wingspan measuring greater than its fuselage length. It is powered by four CFMI CFM56-5C4 engines and uses the Honeywell 331–350[A] auxiliary power unit (APU). It initially entered service with Air France in May 1993. Due to its large wingspan, four engines, low capacity and improvements to the larger A340-300, the -200 proved heavy and unpopular with mainstream airlines. Only 28 A340-200s were produced. The closest Boeing competitor is the Boeing 767-400ER.

 

One version of this type (referred to by Airbus as the A340-8000) was ordered by the prince Jefri Bolkiah requesting a non-stop range of 15,000 kilometres (8,100 nmi). This A340-8000, in the Royal Brunei Airlines livery had an increased fuel capacity, an MTOW of 275 tonnes (606,000 lb), similar to the A340-300, and minor reinforcements to the undercarriage. It is powered by the 150 kilonewtons (34,000 lbf) thrust CFM56-5C4s similar to the -300E. Only one A340-8000 was produced. Besides the -8000, some A340-200s are used for VIP or military use; users include Royal Brunei Airlines, Qatar Amiri Flight, Arab Republic of Egypt Government, Royal Saudi Air Force, Jordan and the French Air Force. Following the -8000, other A340-200s were later given performance improvement packages (PIPs) that helped them achieve similar gains in capability as to the A340-8000. Those aircraft are labeled A340-213X. The range for this version is 15,000 kilometres (8,100 nmi).

 

As of April 2016, there are 11 Airbus A340-200s in service, of which 6 are used in government fleets.

 

A340-300

The A340-300 flies 295 passengers in a typical three-class cabin layout over 6,700 nautical miles (12,400 km). This is the initial version, having flown on 25 October 1991, and entered service with Lufthansa and Air France in March 1993. It is powered by four CFMI CFM56-5C engines and uses the Honeywell 331–350[A] APU, similar to the -200. Its closest competitor is the Boeing 777-200ER. The A340-300 will be superseded by the A350-900. 218 -300s were delivered in total.

 

The A340-300E, often mislabelled as A340-300X, has an increased MTOW of up to 275 tonnes (606,000 lb) and is powered by the more powerful 34,000 lbf (150 kN) thrust CFMI CFM56-5C4 engines. Typical range with 295 passengers is between 7,200 to 7,400 nautical miles (13,300 to 13,700 km). The largest operator of this type is Lufthansa, who has operated a fleet of 30 aircraft. The A340-300 Enhanced is the latest version of this model and was first delivered to South African Airways in 2003, with Air Mauritius receiving the A340-300 Enhanced into its fleet in 2006. It received newer CFM56-5C4/P engines and improved avionics and fly-by-wire systems developed for the A340-500 and -600.

 

As of April 2016, there were 135 Airbus A340-300s in service.

 

A340-500

The A340-500 was introduced as the world's longest-range commercial airliner. It first flew on 11 February 2002, and was certified on 3 December 2002. Air Canada was supposed to be the launch customer, but filed for bankruptcy in January 2003, delaying delivery to March. This allowed early deliveries to the new launch customer, Emirates, allowing the carrier to launch nonstop service from Dubai to New York—its first route in the Americas. The A340-500 can fly 313 passengers in a three-class cabin layout over 16020 km (8650 nm). Compared with the A340-300, the -500 features a 4.3-metre fuselage stretch, an enlarged wing, significant increase in fuel capacity (around 50% over the -300), slightly higher cruising speed, a larger horizontal stabilizer and a larger vertical tailplane. The centerline main landing gear was changed to a four-wheel bogie to support additional weight. The A340-500 is powered by four 240 kN (54,000 lbf) thrust Rolls-Royce Trent 553 turbofans and uses the Honeywell 331–600[A] APU. It was the world's longest-range commercial airliner until the introduction of its direct rival, Boeing 777-200LR, in February 2006.

 

Due to its range, the -500 is capable of travelling non-stop from London to Perth, Western Australia, though a return flight requires a fuel stop due to headwinds. Singapore Airlines used this model (initially in a two-class, 181-passenger layout, later in a 100-passenger business-only layout) for its Newark–Singapore nonstop route, SQ 21: an 18-hour, 45-minute "westbound" (really northbound to 130 km (70 nm) abeam the North Pole; then south from there across Russia, Mongolia and People's Republic of China), 18-hour, 30-minute eastbound, 15,344 kilometres (8,285 nmi) journey that was the longest scheduled non-stop commercial flight in the world, this flight route ceased operation in 2013. The Singapore Airlines -500 is the first aircraft to include a corpse cupboard, used for storing the body of a passenger who dies during a flight.

 

The A340-500IGW (Increased Gross Weight) version has a range of 17,000 km (9,200 nmi) and a MTOW of 380 t (840,000 lb) and first flew on 13 October 2006. It uses the strengthened structure and enlarged fuel capacity of the A340-600. The certification aircraft, a de-rated A340-541 model, became the first delivery, to Thai Airways International, on 11 April 2007. Nigerian airline Arik Air received a pair of A340-542s in November 2008, using the type to immediately launch two new routes, Lagos–London Heathrow and Lagos–Johannesburg; a non-stop Lagos–New York route began in January 2010. The A340-500IGW is powered by four 250 kN (56,000 lbf) thrust Rolls-Royce Trent 556 turbofans.

 

In April 2016, there were 8 A340-500s in service.

 

A340-600

Designed to replace early-generation Boeing 747 airliners, the A340-600 is capable of carrying 379 passengers in a three-class cabin layout 13,900 km (7,500 nmi). It provides similar passenger capacity to a 747 but with 25 percent more cargo volume, and at lower trip and seat costs. First flight of the A340-600 was made on 23 April

 

2001. Virgin Atlantic began commercial services in August 2002. The variant's main competitor is the 777-300ER. The A340-600 will eventually be replaced by the A350-1000.

 

The A340-600 is 12 m longer than a -300, more than 4 m longer than the Boeing 747-400 and 2.3 m longer than the A380. It held the record as the world's longest commercial aircraft until February 2010 with the first flight of the Boeing 747-8. The A340-600 is powered by four 250 kN (56,000 lbf) thrust Rolls-Royce Trent 556 turbofans and uses the Honeywell 331–600[A] APU. As with the -500, it has a four-wheel undercarriage bogie on the fuselage centre-line to cope with the increased MTOW along with the enlarged wing and rear empennage. Upper deck main cabin space can be optionally increased by locating facilities such as crew rest areas, galleys, and lavatories upon the aircraft's lower deck. In early 2007, Airbus reportedly advised carriers to reduce cargo in the forward section by 5.0 t to compensate for overweight first and business class sections; the additional weight caused the aircraft's centre of gravity to move forward thus reducing cruise efficiency. Affected airlines considered filing compensation claims with Airbus.

 

The A340-600HGW (High Gross Weight) version first flew on 18 November 2005 and was certified on 14 April 2006. It has an MTOW of 380 t and a range of up to 14,630 km (7,900 nmi), made possible by strengthened structure, increased fuel capacity, more powerful engines and new manufacturing techniques like laser beam welding. The A340-600HGW is powered by four 61,900 lbf (275 kN) thrust Rolls-Royce Trent 560 turbofans. Emirates became the launch customer for the -600HGW when it ordered 18 at the 2003 Paris Air Show; but postponed its order indefinitely and later cancelled. Rival Qatar Airways, which placed its order at the same airshow, took delivery of only four aircraft with the first aircraft on 11 September 2006. The airline has since let its purchase options expire in favour of orders for the Boeing 777-300ER.

 

In July 2015, seven airlines worldwide operated A340-600s. In April 2016, there were 77 A340-600s in service

 

OPERATORS

A total of 227 aircraft (all A340 variants) were in airline service in July 2015 with operators Lufthansa (41), Iberia (24), South African Airways (17), Swiss International Air Lines (15), Air France (13), Virgin Atlantic (11), Etihad Airways (11), Cathay Pacific (8), Scandinavian Airlines (8), and other airlines with fewer aircraft of the type.

  

ACCIDENTS AND INCIDENTS

As of September 2015, the A340 has never been involved in a fatal incident, although there have been five hull losses:

 

20 January 1994 – an Air France A340-200 registered F-GNIA was burnt out after a fire started during servicing at Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport.

24 July 2001 – an A340-300 of SriLankan Airlines was destroyed on the ground at Bandaranaike International Airport; being one of 26 aircraft which were damaged or destroyed during a major attack upon the airport by Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam militants.

2 August 2005 – Air France Flight 358, a crash and fire after A340-300 F-GLZQ overran runway 24L at Toronto Pearson International Airport while landing in a thunderstorm. The aircraft slid into Etobicoke Creek and caught fire. All 297 passengers and 12 crew survived; 43 people were injured, 12 serious.

9 November 2007 – an Iberia Airlines A340-600 was badly damaged after sliding off the runway at Ecuador's Mariscal Sucre International Airport. The landing gear collapsed and two engines broke off. All 333 passengers and crew were evacuated via inflatable slides, and there were no serious injuries. The aircraft was scrapped.

15 November 2007 – an A340-600 was damaged beyond repair during ground testing at Airbus' facilities at Toulouse Blagnac International Airport. During a pre-delivery engine test, multiple safety checks had been disabled, leading to the non-chocked aircraft accelerating to 57 km/h and colliding with a concrete blast deflection wall. The right wing, tail, and left engines made contact with the ground or wall, leaving the forward section elevated several meters and the cockpit broken off; nine people on board were injured, four of them seriously. The aircraft was written off and was later used at Virgin Atlantic's cabin crew training facility in Crawley. It was due to be delivered to Etihad Airways.

20 March 2009 – Emirates Flight 407 was an Emirates flight flying from Melbourne to Dubai-International using an A340-500. The flight failed to take off properly from Melbourne Airport, hitting several structures at the end of the runway before eventually climbing enough to return to the airport for a safe landing. The occurrence was severe enough to be classified an accident by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.

 

WIKIPEDIA

Crews prepare three transformers for their final leg of a trip that started in Taiwan. The new units will be installed at a nearby substation to improved reliability of service to customers in the Middletown area.

A helicopter pilot works with transmission linemen in a bucket to install a new transmission line.

This Highway 1 four-laning project through the Village of Chase will improve safety and reliability for people travelling along this important corridor.

This project will be delivered through the following two phases with separate, but coordinated, schedules.

 

Chase Creek Road to Chase West

 

Widening 3.3 km of highway to four lanes on the western end of the Village of Chase including access management, median and roadside barrier and active transportation improvements.

 

Chase West to Chase Creek Bridge

 

Widening 1.6 km of highway to four lanes through the Village of Chase including new grade-separated access, median and roadside barrier, active transportation and municipal infrastructure improvements.

www.beamish.org.uk/events/reliability-run/

Reliabilityweb.com CEO Terrence O'Hanlon keynote address at FIATECH-2016

Photo Credit: Abby Wood, Smithsonian's National Zoo

Date: Nov. 6, 2013

In this photo (Left to right): Leigh Pitsko, Jessica Siegal-Willot

MALE: Bandar

 

Two Sumatran tiger cubs took a brisk doggy paddle at the Smithsonian’s National Zoo today and passed their swim reliability test. The male and female cubs, named Bandar and Sukacita (SOO-kah-CHEE-tah), were born at the Zoo Aug. 5. All cubs born at the Great Cats exhibit must undergo the swim reliability test and prove that they are ready to be on exhibit. Bandar and Sukacita were able to keep their heads above water, navigate to the shallow end of the moat and climb onto dry land. Now that they have passed this critical step, the cubs are ready to explore the yard with their mother, 4-year-old Damai.

 

“Tigers are one of the few species of cats that enjoy taking a dip in water,” said Craig Saffoe, curator of Great Cats. “The moat exists for the safety of our visitors, but it could present an obstacle for young cats. Our job is to make sure that if the cubs venture into the moat, they know how and where to get out. These cubs represent hope for their critically endangered species’ future, so we need to take every precaution to ensure their survival.”

 

Both cubs took the test under the guard of animal keepers Dell Guglielmo and Marie Magnuson, who gently guided the cubs in the right direction. The shallow end of the moat is approximately 2 ½ feet deep. The side of the moat closest to the public viewing area is about 9 feet deep and is an essential safety barrier that effectively keeps the cats inside their enclosure.

This is the first litter of tiger cubs born at the Zoo since 2006 and the first litter for Damai. The cubs were sired by the Zoo’s 12-year-old male tiger, Kavi. Friends of the National Zoo hosted an opportunity to name one of the Zoo’s tiger cubs on the website Charity Buzz. On Nov. 1, the winning bidder elected to name the female cub Sukacita, which means “joy” in Indonesian. The $25,000 donation supports ongoing research and education outreach at the Great Cats exhibit. Keepers selected the male cub’s name, Bandar, in honor of Bandar Lampung—a southern port city in Sumatra.

 

Starting Monday Nov. 18, keepers will decide on a day-to-day basis whether Sukacita and Bandar will spend time in the yard and for how long they will be out. This decision will be based on weather and how the cubs adjust to being outdoors. The Zoo will continue to share the latest updates and photos on Facebook and Twitter.

 

Sumatran tigers are listed as critically endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. It is estimated that between 400 and 500 exist in the wild. There are 65 Sumatran tigers living in accredited zoos in North America in addition to these cubs.

 

For decades, the Zoo’s Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute scientists have been recognized as global leaders for their work in tiger-range countries in Asia helping to protect tigers in the wild. In just the past two years they have co-hosted training courses for teams of frontline conservation practitioners. The course participants spent time both in the classroom and in the field, learning to use state-of-the art law-enforcement monitoring systems and about tiger biology, law-enforcement, illegal trade and how to work with local communities.

 

# # #

  

This was meant to take on the world this was, but sadly it didn’t get very far! The Rover 800 had so many possibilities, so many variants could have been derived from it, but unfortunately the management was once again very quick to nip this beautiful car in the bud, and the Rover 800 would join that long line of ‘what-could-have-been’ motors that seem to pave British motoring history.

 

The origin of the Rover 800 goes back to the late 1970’s, when nationalised British car manufacturer and all around general failure British Leyland was absolutely desperate to fix its seemingly endless list of problems. The company had now garnered a reputation for creating some of the worst, most outdated cars of all time, the likes of the Morris Marina, the Austin Allegro and the Triumph TR7 being derided in both critical and customer reviews. A mixture of strike action by uncontrollable Trade Unions led by the infamous Red Robbo had meant that cars were only put together for a few hours per day on a three day week. As such, reliability was atrocious on a biblical scale, be it mechanical, cosmetic or electrical.

 

As such, in 1979, British Leyland began talks with Japanese car manufacturer Honda to try and help improve the reliability of their machines. The pioneer of this brave new deal was the Triumph Acclaim of 1980, BL’s first reliable car and not a bad little runabout. Basically a rebadged Honda Ballade, the Acclaim wasn’t meant to set the world ablaze, but it certainly helped get the company back onto people’s driveways, selling reasonably well thanks to its reliable mechanics (even if rust was something of an issue). As such, BL decided that from now on it would give its fleet a complete overhaul, basing their new models on Japanese equivalents. From 1984, the Rover 200 arrived on the scene, again, a rebadged Honda Ballade, while the Maestro and the Montego ranges also took on several tips from their Japanese counterparts, though they were primarily based on British underpinnings.

 

The Rover 800 however spawned quite early on, in 1981 to be exact. Following the catastrophic failure of the Rover SD1 in the American market, which only sold 774 cars before Rover removed itself from the USA altogether, the company was desperate to get another foothold across the pond. As such, the new project, dubbed project XX, would be the icing on the cake in terms of British Leyland’s fleet overhaul, a smooth and sophisticated executive saloon to conquer the world. However, plans were pushed back after the launch of the Montego and the Maestro, and thus project XX wouldn’t see the light of day again until about 1984.

 

Still in production and suffering from being long-in-the-tooth, the Rover SD1 was now coming up on 10 years old, and though a sublime car in terms of style and performance, it was now struggling in sales. Rover really needed to replace this golden oldie, and thus project XX was back on. In the usual fashion, Honda was consulted, and it was decided that the car would be based on that company’s own executive saloon, the Honda Legend. Jointly developed at Rover’s Cowley plant and Honda’s Tochigi development centre, both cars shared the same core structure and floorplan, but they each had their own unique exterior bodywork and interior. Under the agreement, Honda would supply the V6 petrol engine, both automatic and manual transmissions and the chassis design, whilst BL would provide the 4-cylinder petrol engine and much of the electrical systems. The agreement also included that UK-market Honda Legends would be built at the Cowley Plant, and the presence of the Legend in the UK would be smaller than that of the Rover 800, with profits from the 800 shared between the two companies.

 

Launched on July 10th, 1986, the Rover 800 was welcomed with warm reviews regarding its style, its performance and its reliability. Though driving performance was pretty much the same as the Honda Legend, what put the Rover above its Japanese counterpart was its sheer internal elegance and beauty, combined with a differing external design that borrowed cues from the outgoing SD1. The 800 also provided the company with some much-needed optimism, especially following the gradual breakup of British Leyland by the Thatcher Government between 1980 and 1986.

 

Following her election in 1979, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher took a no nonsense attitude to the striking unions, and the best form of defence was attack. To shave millions from the deficit, she reduced government spending on nationalised companies such as British Airways, British Coal Board, British Steel and British Leyland by selling them to private ownership. For British Leyland, the slow breakup of the company started with the sale of Leyland Trucks and Buses to DAF of Holland and Volvo, respectively. 1984 saw Jaguar made independent and later bought by Ford, but when rumours circulated that the remains of British Leyland would be sold to foreign ownership, share prices crashed, and the company was privatised and put into the hands of British Aerospace on the strict understanding that the company could not be sold again for four years. With this move, British Leyland was renamed Rover Group, the Austin badge being dropped, and the only remaining brands left being the eponymous Rover and sporty MG.

 

In the light of this tumultuous period, many of Rover and MG’s projects had to be scrapped in light of turbulent share prices and income, these projects including the Austin AR16 family car range (based largely off the Rover 800) and the MG EX-E supercar. The Rover 800 however was the first model to be released by the company following privatisation, and doing well initially in terms of sales, hopes were high that the Rover 800 would herald the end of the company’s troubled spell under British Leyland. The Rover 800 was planned to spearhead multiple Rover ventures, including a return to the US-market in the form of the Sterling, and a coupe concept to beat the world, the sublime Rover CCV.

 

However, British Leyland may have been gone, but their management and its incompetence remained. Rather than taking the formation of Rover Group as a golden opportunity to clean up the company’s act, to the management it was business as usual, and the Rover 800 began to suffer as a consequence. A lack of proper quality control and a cost-cutting attitude meant that despite all the Japanese reliability that had been layered on these machines in the design stage, the cars were still highly unreliable when they left the factory.

 

Perhaps the biggest sentiment to the 800’s failure was the Sterling in America. The Sterling had been named as such due to Rover’s reputation being tarnished by the failure of the unreliable SD1. Initial sales were very promising with the Sterling, a simple design with oodles of luxury that was price competitive with family sedan’s such as the Ford LTD and the Chevy Caprice. However, once the problems with reliability and quality began to rear their heads, sales plummeted and the Sterling very quickly fell short of its sales quota, only selling 14,000 of the forecast 30,000 cars per annum. Sales dropped year by year until eventually the Sterling brand was axed in 1991.

 

With the death of the Sterling came the death of the CCV, a luxury motor that had already won over investors in both Europe and the USA. The fantastic design that had wooed the American market and was ready to go on sale across the States was axed unceremoniously in 1987, and with it any attempt to try and capture the American market ever again.

 

In 1991, Rover Group, seeing their sales were still tumbling, and with unreliable callbacks to British Leyland like the Maestro and Montego still on sale, the company decided to have yet another shakeup to try and refresh its image. The project, dubbed R17, went back to the company’s roots of grand old England, and the Rover 800 was the first to feel its touch. The R17 facelift saw the 800’s angular lines smoothed with revised light-clusters, a low-smooth body, and the addition of a grille, attempting to harp back to the likes of the luxurious Rover P5 of the 1960’s. Engines were also updated, with the previous M16 Honda engine being replaced by a crisp 2.0L T16, which gave the car some good performance. The car was also made available in a set of additional ranges, including a coupe and the sport Vitesse, complete with a higher performance engine.

 

Early reviews of the R17 800 were favourable, many critics lauding its design changes and luxurious interior, especially given its price competitiveness against comparable machines such as the Vauxhall Omega and the Ford Mondeo. Even Jeremy Clarkson, a man who fervently hated Rover and everything it stood for, couldn’t help but give it a good review on Top Gear. However, motoring critics were quick to point out the fact that by this time Honda was really starting to sell heavily in the UK and Europe, and people now asked themselves why they’d want to buy the Rover 800, a near carbon-copy of the Honda Legend, for twice the price but equal performance. Wood and leather furnishings are very nice, but not all motorists are interested in that, some are just interested in a reliable and practical machine to run around in.

 

As such, the Rover 800’s sales domestically were very good, it becoming the best-selling car in the UK for 1992, but in Europe not so much. Though Rover 800’s did make it across the Channel, the BMW 5-Series and other contemporary European models had the market sown up clean, and the Rover 800 never truly made an impact internationally. On average, the car sold well in the early 1990’s, but as time went on the car’s place in the market fell to just over 10,000 per year by 1995. Rover needed another shake-up, and the Rover 75 did just that.

 

In 1994, Rover Group was sold to BMW, and their brave new star to get the company back in the good books of the motoring public was the Rover 75, an executive saloon to beat the world. With this new face in the company’s showrooms, the Rover 800 and its 10 year old design was put out to grass following its launch in 1998. Selling only around 6,500 cars in its final full year of production, the Rover 800 finished sales in 1999 and disappeared, the last relic of the British Leyland/Honda tie up from the 1980’s.

 

Today the Rover 800 finds itself under a mixed reception. While some argue that it was the last true Rover before the BMW buyout, others will fervently deride it as a Honda with a Rover badge, a humiliation of a Rover, and truly the point where the company lost its identity. I personally believe it to be a magnificent car, a car with purpose, a car with promise, but none of those promises fulfilled. It could have truly been the face of a new Rover in the late 1980’s, and could have returned the company to the front line of the motoring world, at least in Britain. But sadly, management incompetence won again for the British motor industry, and the Rover 800 ended its days a lukewarm reminder that we really didn’t know a good thing until it was gone.

Reliability: 120 x 100 cm.

Mixed media painting

Model: Renke / Eddie

 

Ringlight. So very in love with it. Look at the wonderful reflection!

I'm gonna try to visit everyone today. Not sure I will suceed 'cause there so much no stuff I haven't seen yet.

See this locomotive in the video here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5heNfT7NhU

 

Departing with a morning train to Leeds is Virgin Trains East Coast Class 91, 91114 'Durham Cathedral'. Note the dual pantographs, an attempt by East Coast to improve reliability of the fleet in case one of the pantographs breaks or fails during travel.

 

Virgin Trains East Coast commenced operations on the East Coast Mainline on March 1st, 2015, taking over from the nationally operated service provider East Coast.

 

In order to follow this curious tale, you need to go back to about 2006 when the East Coast Mainline was under management of GNER (Great North Eastern Railway). It was around this time that GNER, who had been operating the route since 1996 after taking over from InterCity at privatisation, was suffering financially due to problems with parent company Sea Containers of Bermuda. In October 2006 Sea Containers filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection so as to allow their unstable financial situation to be resolved, but in doing so lost confidence with the Department for Transport, who decided to strip them of their hold on the franchise in December of that year, but with the understanding that they could still operate trains for another two years or until a new franchise holder was elected.

 

In early 2007, bids were made from Arriva, First, National Express and Virgin Rail Group to become the franchise operator, with National Express being chosen in August of that year. Transfer from GNER to National Express East Coast took place on December 9th 2007. At the time rail analysts had speculated that the Group had paid too much for the franchise.

 

By 2009 NXEC was under increasing financial pressure due to rising fuel prices and the economic downturn. Instead of projected increases in revenue from the franchise, in the first half of 2009 NXEC ticket sales income decreased by 1%. In April 2009 National Express confirmed that it was still pursuing talks with the government over possible financial assistance with the franchise, either through a reduction in the premium due, or other assistance.

 

In July 2009 it was announced that National Express planned to default on the franchise, having failed to renegotiate the contractual terms of operation, with National Express stating that it would not provide any further financial support necessary to ensure NXEC remained solvent. This meant NXEC would run out of cash by the end of 2009. As a result, the Department for Transport announced it would establish a publicly owned company to take over the franchise.

 

On the 13th November 2009, National Express East Coast ceased and the route was taken over by the Department for Transport through its commercial arm, Directly Operated Railways or DOR. Originally, the intention was to operate the system publicly until December 2013, but following a highly publicised flaw in the franchising process during the proposed takeover of the West Coast Mainline franchise by First Group from Virgin, these plans were put on hold until a new franchising system could be organised. Eventually, bids were shortlisted between three parent companies, FirstGroup, Keolis/Eurostar and Stagecoach/Virgin.

 

In November 2014, the eight-year franchise was awarded to the Stagecoach/Virgin joint venture company Inter City Railways Limited, and commenced operating on 1 March 2015 trading as Virgin Trains East Coast. Although Stagecoach holds a 90% share in the franchise, it has chosen to give the company the Virgin name for brand recognition purposes. This technically means that Virgin/Stagecoach has a monopoly on the three main routes from London to the North of England, with Virgin Trains operating trains from King's Cross and Euston on the East and West Coast Mainlines to Scotland, whilst Stagecoach operates East Midlands Trains from London St Pancras on the Midland Mainline to Derby, Chesterfield and Sheffield.

Thanks to the reliability of his Powerstar, Hans Stacey can really lay on the gas and maintain 7th place in the overall ranking.. Follow Iveco's adventure at the Dakar!

Museum Director Richard Evans with a Morris Commercial Vehicle, which will be taking part in the Beamish Reliability Run on Sunday 19th June, 2011:

 

www.beamish.org.uk/reliability-run-2011/

Penelec, a subsidiary of FirstEnergy Corp. (NYSE: FE), has begun a significant project to help prevent or minimize service disruptions in downtown Johnstown, Cambria County, by reinforcing its underground electrical network.

Reliabilityweb.com CEO Terrence O'Hanlon keynote address at FIATECH-2016

A helicopter pulls a lead line to new monopoles.

UNESCO Tentativelist.

  

whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/5906/

 

Ancient City of Kaunos

Turkey

Date of Submission: 15/04/2014

Criteria: (i)(ii)(iii)(iv)

Category: Cultural

Submitted by:

Permanent Delegation of Turkey to UNESCO

State, Province or Region:

City of Mugla, Mediterranean Region

The Secretariat of the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the World Heritage Centre do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement or other information or documentation provided by the States Parties to the World Heritage Convention to the Secretariat of UNESCO or to the World Heritage Centre.

The publication of any such advice, opinion, statement or other information documentation on the World Heritage Centre’s website and/or on working documents also does not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of UNESCO or of the World Heritage Centre concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its boundaries.

Property names are listed in the language in which they have been submitted by the State Party

Description

 

The property within boundaries of District of Koycegiz is located in the face of Dalyan City and on the right shores of Dalyan Stream (Calbis) which connect Koycegiz Lake to Mediterranean. It was the capital of the ‘Kaunos Region’ between the Caria and Lycia until the beginning of the 4th BC.

The existence of Kaunos had known by the scholars but its location was a mystery until English archaeologist Hoskyn discovered it in 1842. Swedish archaeologist P. Roos defined the independent state boundaries of Kaunos as follows: “Starting from the Fethiye Bay at the north and Ancient City of Krya at the north of the bay; extending till Tlos at the 35 km east of Fethiye, Idyma at Gokova Bay at the west and Çamkoy located in the west of Urla which is little forward to north.” In today’s context, the coastal area starting from the south plains of Mugla and extending till the mountains between Mugla and Antalya was under the sovereignty of Kaunos. Kaunos has kept this borders until the 4th century BC but then lost its statue of sovereign state after the Persian invasion. It was one of two cities resisting against Persian invasion (other is Xanthos) such that they paid high taxes to prevailing states many times in order to keep their independency as a port city.

Kaunos was mentioned as Ksibde in Lycian scripts, while as Kbid in the scripts of other surrounding cities. Life style and language of Kaunos people share similarities with Carian people except five letters in their alphabet are not seen in latter which makes Kaunos language is unique to them. Heredot reveals in this respect that “There is Carian influence in their language or their influence in Carian language. This is an issue which I couldn’t clarify.” In fact, epigraphic materials in Carian language are found mostly in Kaunos today. Kaunosian could not be understood until very recently just because Carian language was not decoded. However, by virtue of a stela written in Greek and Carian, it has been possible to unravel Carian language and a little of Kaunosian due to Greek language had already been known.

Kaunos was an important sea port city with two ports; one is in the south at the southeast of Küçük Kale (Small Castle) and the inner port at its northwest, the present Sülüklü Göl (the Lake of the Leeches). The southern port was used from the foundation of the city till roughly the end of the Hellenistic era, after which it became inaccessible due to its drying out. The latter was used till the late days of Kaunos, but due to the silting of the delta and the ports, Kaunos had by then lost its important function as a trade port and started becoming poor. After Caria had been captured by Turkish tribes and the serious malaria epidemic of the 15th century AD, Kaunos was completely abandoned.

The city was constructed on terraces; significant religious structures like Baselius Kaunios Temple, Apollon Sanctuary and Demeter Sacred Rocks on one side and Bath, Theatre and other structures including Palaestra on a large terrace which is called Upper City on the other. The monumental terrace on which the Upper City situated connects Baliklar Mountain with the Acropolis by extending the city into Mediterranean like a tongue and naturally creating a second harbour basin in the east.

In many places in the ancient city, it has been found stone cutlery and arrowheads from Palaeolithic era. The finding and remains in Kaunos reveal the prosperity of the city as a great power of its time and that it was a sovereign state which minted on its behalf. The coins printed in this region especially in the first half of the 5th century BC are of great importance since a winged figure is displayed on the front side while pyramidal formed monoliths on the back. Besides, letters of K and B found on the coins are important due to they are the first two letters of the first name of Kaunos, Kbid.

The oldest find at the Kaunos archaeological site is the neck of a Protogeometric amphora dating back to the 9th century BC, or even earlier. A statue found at the western gate of the city walls, pieces of imported Attic ceramics and the South – Southeast oriented city walls show habitation in the 6th century BC. Although none of the architectural finds at Kaunos itself dates back to earlier than the 4th century BC, history of Kaunos is believed much earlier than that.

Because of the paleogeographic formation of Dalyan Delta and the silting of the former Bay of Dalyan (from approx. 200 BC onwards), Kaunos is now located about 8 km from the coast.

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaunos

 

Humber belonged to one of the oldest car makers of the Routes Group. In 1928 the connection was made and since 1932 completely controlled.

The Super Snipe was on top of the Humber range, and was very popular for its reliability.

The MK2 was announced in Sept. 1948 and was followed up by the 1951-52 MK3 with the same body.

 

4086 cc 6 cylinder engine.

Production Super Snipe MK2: 1949-1950.

Production Super Snipe all models divided over five gen.: 1938-1967.

Original old British license number.

 

Picture is taken from the book: G.F. Steinbuch, De Automobiel, Handboek voor autobestuurders, monteurs, reparateurs en technici, deel II Het Chassis, De Carrosserie, Uitg. Kluwer, 1949.

Original photographer unknown.

I found this book in a recycle shop.

 

Naarden, April 2, 2016.

 

© 2016 Sander Toonen Amsterdam | All Rights Reserved

The New Trakker make every job possible even in extreme offroad conditions.

Discover it and download the app in Apple App Store or in Google Play Store!

  

JCP&L plans to spend $357 million in 2018 on infrastructure projects and other work to enhance customer reliability across its 13-county northern and central New Jersey service area. Major projects scheduled include replacing remote-controlled substation equipment used to monitor and respond to grid conditions, replacing 34.5 kilovolt (kV) substation circuit breakers and upgrading distribution circuit breakers and more than 90 circuit upgrades.

JCP&L plans to spend $357 million in 2018 on infrastructure projects and other work to enhance customer reliability across its 13-county northern and central New Jersey service area. Major projects scheduled include replacing remote-controlled substation equipment used to monitor and respond to grid conditions, replacing 34.5 kilovolt (kV) substation circuit breakers and upgrading distribution circuit breakers and more than 90 circuit upgrades.

The reliability and luxurious design of the C4 earned the Spyker the accolade in England of ‘Rolls-Royce of the Continent’.

 

This Spyker C4 is upholstered in simulated snakeskin. The luggage rack has a jagged edge to discourage mischievous little boys from hitching a ride on the back. The car is powered by a 5.7-litre, six-cylinder engine by the German zeppelin and motorcar manufacturer Maybach. The engine has an additional two-speed cooling fan. This car was fitted with four-wheel brakes, which was a novelty at the time. Note that there are four spare wheels on the running boards, and a wing mirror, which was also unusual. The number plate shows a G-registration for the Dutch province of Noord-Holland.

 

Selwyn Francis Edge, who set the 24-hour speed record at Brooklands in 1907 with a Napier which is also on display in the museum, returned to Brooklands in 1922, but this time with a Spyker C4 for the ‘Double Twelve’. It was no longer possible to race at Brooklands at night because the track was situated in a residential area, so the record attempt was held in two stints of 12 hours each. Edge set a new speed record with the Spyker, covering a total distance of 2,860 kilometres at an average speed of nearly 120 km/h.

 

5,7 Liter

6 in-line

70 hp

 

Louwman Museum

Den Haag - The Hague

Nederland - Netherlands

March 2013