Some cool cheap building supplies images:
Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center: Vought F4U-1D Corsair, with P-40 Warhawk in background
Image by Chris Devers
Quoting Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum | Vought F4U-1D Corsair :
By V-J Day, September 2, 1945, Corsair pilots had amassed an 11:1 kill ratio against enemy aircraft. The aircraft’s distinctive inverted gull-wing design allowed ground clearance for the huge, three-bladed Hamilton Standard Hydromatic propeller, which spanned more than 4 meters (13 feet). The Pratt and Whitney R-2800 radial engine and Hydromatic propeller was the largest and one of the most powerful engine-propeller combinations ever flown on a fighter aircraft.
Charles Lindbergh flew bombing missions in a Corsair with Marine Air Group 31 against Japanese strongholds in the Pacific in 1944. This airplane is painted in the colors and markings of the Corsair Sun Setter, a Marine close-support fighter assigned to the USS Essex in July 1944.
Transferred from the United States Navy.
Vought Aircraft Company
Country of Origin:
United States of America
Overall: 460 x 1020cm, 4037kg, 1250cm (15ft 1 1/8in. x 33ft 5 9/16in., 8900lb., 41ft 1/8in.)
All metal with fabric-covered wings behind the main spar.
R-2800 radial air-cooled engine with 1,850 horsepower, turned a three-blade Hamilton Standard Hydromatic propeller with solid aluminum blades spanning 13 feet 1 inch; wing bent gull-shaped on both sides of the fuselage.
• • • • •
Quoting Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum | Curtiss P-40E Warhawk (Kittyhawk IA):
Whether known as the Warhawk, Tomahawk, or Kittyhawk, the Curtiss P-40 proved to be a successful, versatile fighter during the first half of World War II. The shark-mouthed Tomahawks that Gen. Claire Chennault’s "Flying Tigers" flew in China against the Japanese remain among the most popular airplanes of the war. P-40E pilot Lt. Boyd D. Wagner became the first American ace of World War II when he shot down six Japanese aircraft in the Philippines in mid-December 1941.
Curtiss-Wright built this airplane as Model 87-A3 and delivered it to Canada as a Kittyhawk I in 1941. It served until 1946 in No. 111 Squadron, Royal Canadian Air Force. U.S. Air Force personnel at Andrews Air Force Base restored it in 1975 to represent an aircraft of the 75th Fighter Squadron, 23rd Fighter Group, 14th Air Force.
Donated by the Exchange Club in Memory of Kellis Forbes.
Curtiss Aircraft Company
Country of Origin:
United States of America
Overall: 330 x 970cm, 2686kg, 1140cm (10ft 9 15/16in. x 31ft 9 7/8in., 5921.6lb., 37ft 4 13/16in.)
Single engine, single seat, fighter aircraft.
2011 Mac Mini Server Disassembly / Raid-0 SSD Upgrade
Image by Schill
(This is a summary from my Mac Mini SSD RAID-0 Project, see the set for more photos and a video.)
[ General disclaimer: These are my findings posted for the curious, you do all of this at your own risk, don’t blame me if stuff breaks etc. ]
Holy crap, I don’t want to ever have to do that again. Hopefully, it still works when reassembled with 8 GB of RAM and dual SSDs. In theory, it just might work. (Update: I now feel comfortable with this after tearing down and rebuilding a few times – and two weeks’ of running time later, no problems.)
Yes, this whole operation is somewhat frivolous. The stock dual 7200-RPM 500-GB 2.5" drives will themselves be configured as SPAN and in an external enclosure, driven via Firewire 800.
Not in the frame: Mainboard.
Tools used: Torx T6 and T8 screwdrivers (and, I think, a Philips #00) and a Dogfish Head 90-minute IPA.
I referenced a teardown guide from ifixit for the "steps" and post-it notes, so I could remember what went where when reassembling. (Note: not all steps apply, you don’t need to disconnect the bluetooth module etc.)
For the hard drive removal / upgrade process, this OWC video was handy and has rather hilarious background muzak. Note that there are different videos for server vs. non-server models.
Don’t bother with the crappy screwdriver "kits" (eg. the blue and green ones by the RAM in this photo) – go to your local hardware store (or online) and pay the or whatever it might cost per tool for quality Torx T6, T8, and (if needed) Philips #00 screwdrivers. One of the cheap ones, in one case, didn’t fit one fan screw I was trying to remove. However, the so-called plastic "spudger" tool did come in handy for pulling up cables and nudging other things where fingers wouldn’t reach, and where metal was not a good choice to use.
Removing the "mainboard"
The OWC video suggested you should put screwdrivers into holes on the mainboard, and pull back; this seems like a great way to break or snap the PCB and/or accidentally ruin traces along the way. I tried pulling several times, but it seemed that no amount of careful force would budge the thing.
Instead, I turned the mini around and carefully pushed the heat sink / vent outward using my thumbs, and with a little pressure, was able to pop the board out. The heatsink is just behind where the screw holes are shown in the video, toward the connector plate. It is pretty tight as the plate (where all the USB + power connectors etc. are) has snaps/clips on either end holding it in, but it does eventually give.
Once you get the mainboard, the rest is easy. Don’t pull the board fully out until any attached power cables etc. have been disconnected – and once the board is out, you can take out the power supply and HD chassis.
I also recommend booting the computer upside-down and with the bottom cover off once after reassembling, just to make sure the fan starts up; I noticed that mine didn’t at first(!), because the tiny fan power connector was not fully-seated on the mainboard when I put it back in. No fan would’ve meant a toasted CPU at some point, so make sure you check that. Use a flat plastic tool or something to push the connector flush with the board, to ensure it’s seated nicely.
Also, there’s a bit of a trick with the wireless module / antenna / grill assembly when popping it out and in – I think it slides underneath into place, so keep that in mind. Similar moves apply to the black plastic cowling at the bottom left near the fan. Sometimes things need a little jiggling to get into place.
Re-installing Lion: ⌘-R / Internet Recovery FTW
On mid-2011(?) Mac hardware, push and hold Apple-R (⌘-R) during boot to kickstart the Lion Recovery mode, with wifi or an ethernet cable connected. It’ll attempt to boot from a Lion recovery partition normally installed, and when that fails, it will magically go out on the Internets, and download and install and boot the recovery partition. That will run and after disk set-up and partitioning etc., another download of up to 7 GB (at least, according to my router’s traffic for that day) will happen, Lion will install, reboot, and voila.
Partitioning the SSDs, overprovisioning and stripe block size
From what I read online, it was recommended to leave up to 20% "unpartitioned" empty space for "overprovisioning" with an SSD to help with performance (garbage collection) and reliability. I got two OCZ Vertex III 60 GB SSDs, and using the disk utility built into the Lion installer, set them up with two partitions: [ 48 GB ext3 / 12 GB empty space ]. As for stripe block size, I had heard 64 KB or 128 KB as general recommendations, so I used 128.
With SATA 3.0 (up to 6 gbps) and SandForce 2xxx controllers on the OCZ SSDs pushing up to 550 MB/sec read rates, I was able to get 1000+ MB/sec on larger files in benchmarks.
RAID-0 pros/cons: Worth it, or is one SSD enough?
– Wow, up to 1000 MB/sec. That is a shiny number.
– If one drive goes south, you lose everything.
– In most cases, 1000 MB/sec is a theoretical maximum you’ll hit only in benchmarks. Small bursts may be more realistic, and in most cases with less-compressible data, numbers will be much lower (albeit, 250+ MB/sec or whatever is still nothing to sneeze at.)
If you’re a tinkerer / overclocking fan and don’t fear the risk of data loss (i.e., you make time machine or image backups), RAID-0 is worth trying just for the fun of it. Otherwise, I think one SSD alone makes a huge difference in responsiveness given near-zero seek times etc., and with theoretical maximums of 500 MB/sec, that’s plenty of I/O for just about anybody.
Image by alex drennan
, also known as the BAC-111 or the BAC-1-11, was a British short-range jet airliner of the 1960s and 1970s. Conceived by Hunting Aircraft, it was developed and produced by the British Aircraft Corporation when Hunting merged into BAC along with other British aircraft makers in 1960.
The One-Eleven was designed to replace the Vickers Viscount on short-range routes. It was the second short-haul jet airliner to enter service, the first being the French Sud Aviation Caravelle. Due to its later service entry, the One-Eleven took advantage of more efficient engines and airline experience of jets. This made it popular, with over half of the sales at its launch being in the largest and most lucrative market, the United States. The One-Eleven was one of the most successful British airliner designs, and served until its widespread retirement in the 1990s due to noise restrictions
On 9 May 1961 British United Airways (BUA) placed the first order for ten One-Eleven 200s. On 23 October Braniff in the United States ordered six. Other orders followed from Mohawk for four, Kuwait Airways for three, and Central African Airways for two. Braniff subsequently doubled its order to twelve, while Aer Lingus ordered four. Western Airlines ordered ten aircraft but later cancelled. Bonanza Air Lines also wanted to order One-Elevens at a later stage but was stopped by a protectionist action of the US Department of Transportation
In May 1963, BAC announced the One-Eleven 300 and 400. The new versions used the Mk. 511 version of the Spey with increased power, allowing more fuel upload and hence longer range. There were a number of other changes, with the main visual difference being in the nosewheel doors. The difference between the 300 and 400 lay in their equipment and avionics, with the 400 intended for sales in the USA and thus equipped with US instruments. American Airlines ordered fifteen aircraft on 17 July 1963, bringing the order total to sixty, plus options for many more. American Airlines eventually bought a total of thirty of the 400-series, making that airline the largest ever customer of One-Elevens. This was assumed to be enough for BAC to break even on the project. In retrospect, however, many have doubted whether BAC and its successors made money on the One-Eleven.
The prototype (G-ASHG) rolled out of the Hurn assembly hall on 28 July 1963, its first flight following soon on 20 August. This was almost a year ahead of the competing US airliner, the Douglas DC-9. This lead was commercially most important, since — as shown by the Bonanza case — US authorities could refuse to approve sales of foreign aircraft to domestic airlines where an American alternative existed.
The One-Eleven prototype, flown by test pilot Mike Lithgow, crashed with the loss of all on board on 22 October during stall testing. The investigation led to the discovery of what became known as deep stall or superstall, a phenomenon caused by reduced airflow to the tailplane caused by the combined blanking effects of the wing and the aft-mounted engine nacelles at high angles of attack, which prevents recovery of normal (nose-down) flight. To preclude such stalls, BAC designed and added devices known as stick shakers and stick pushers to the One-Eleven’s control system. It also redesigned the wing’s leading edge to smooth airflow into the engines and over the tailplane. The specially modified aircraft used for testing this problem is located at Brooklands Museum, Weybridge, Surrey, UK.
Despite the crash, testing continued and customer confidence remained high. American Airlines and Braniff took up their optional orders and placed further ones in February 1964. Further orders came from Mohawk, Philippine Airlines and Helmut Horten who ordered the first Executive modification of the aircraft. By the end of 1964, thirteen aircraft had rolled off the production line.
The One-Eleven was certified and the first handover, of G-ASJI to BUA, was on 22 January 1965. After several weeks of route-proving flights, the first revenue service flew on 9 April from Gatwick to Genoa. Braniff took delivery of their first aircraft on 11 March, while Mohawk received their first on 15 May. Deliveries continued, and by the end of 1965 airlines had received 34 aircraft. Demand continued to be buoyant, with a second production line set up at Weybridge.
In 1967 a larger 119-seat version was introduced as the One-Eleven 500 (also known as Super One-Eleven). This "stretched" version was delayed for at least a year while its launch customer BEA assessed its requirements. This gave competing US aircraft (the DC-9 and Boeing 737) the chance to make up for the One-Eleven’s early penetration of their domestic market. The British aircraft’s initial one-year advantage now turned into a one-year delay and the 500 failed to sell in the USA. Compared with earlier versions, the One-Eleven 500 was longer by 8 ft 4in (2.54 m) ahead of the wing and 5 ft 2in (1.57 m) behind it. The wing span was increased by 5 ft (1.5 m), and the latest Mk. 512 version of the Spey was used. The new version sold reasonably well across the world, particularly to European charter airlines. In 1971 it received an incremental upgrade to reduce drag and reduce runway requirements.
BEA/British Airways 500 series aircraft (denoted 1-11 510ED) varied significantly from other 1-11s, at BEA’s request. The One-Eleven 510ED had a modified cockpit which incorporated instrumentation and avionics from or similar to that of the Hawker Siddeley HS.121 Trident, for better commonality with the type (which at the time was the BEA/BA shorthaul workhorse). Their additional equipment included a more sophisticated autoflight system, which allowed CAT II autolandings and included an autothrottle (autoland functionality was removed from most aircraft later in their careers). The modifications went as far as reversing the "on" position of most switches to match that of the Trident; indeed, the 510ED was so different from other One-Elevens and 500 series aircraft that a different type rating was required to fly it, despite the fact that aside from the flight deck it was basically identical to all other 500 series aircraft.
Having faced competition "from above" with the aforementioned US aircraft by 1966, by 1970 the One-Eleven also faced competition "from below." The new competitor was the Fokker F28. Available as a four-member "family," it was lighter, less complex, and cheaper. The One-Eleven 475 of 1970 was launched to compete with the F.28. It combined the 400 fuselage with the higher power and larger wing of the 500 and was intended for hot and high operations. Only ten of the One-Eleven Mk 475 were sold. In 1977, the One-Eleven 670, a quiet and updated 475, was offered to the Japanese domestic market, failing to sell.
Total deliveries for 1966 stood at 46 aircraft, and another 120 were delivered by 1971. At this point orders slowed to a trickle. British production continued until 1982. There were two reasons why the production line was kept open for just 35 aircraft delivered over 11 years: first, BAC hoped that Rolls-Royce would develop a quieter and more powerful version of the Spey engine, making possible further One-Eleven developments; second, throughout the early part of the period Romania was negotiating to buy the entire One-Eleven programme and transfer production of the type to Bucharest.
By 1974, BAC invested significant effort into launching the One-Eleven 700. This had a longer body with a 134-seat interior and the projected Spey 67 engine producing greater power. It was approximately the same size as the latest DC-9s and 737s and would have been available in time to prevent large-scale defections by One-Eleven clients to McDonnell-Douglas and Boeing. Rolls-Royce was still recovering from bankruptcy, however, and the uprated Spey failed to materialise. An altogether less ambitious 700 made a reappearance in 1978 as a 500 with specially "hush-kitted" Speys which would be replaced by the proposed RB432 in the mid-1980s. This was offered to British Airways in competition with Boeing 737-200s, but was rejected.
In 1977, BAC merged with Hawker Siddeley to form British Aerospace (BAe) and the One-Eleven 800 was proposed with CFM-56 engines. It would have accommodated some 150 passengers in a mixed class layout. The One-Eleven 800’s fate was involved with the development of a European competitor to ubiquitous U.S. short/medium range airliners and it did not progress to the design stage.
The BAC Two-Eleven and BAC Three-Eleven were British airliner studies proposed by the British Aircraft Corporation in the late 1960s which never made it to production.
On 9 June 1979, Romanian president Nicolae Ceauşescu signed the contract for One-Eleven licence production in Romania. This was to involve the delivery of three complete One-Elevens plus the construction of at least 22 in Bucharest, with reducing British content. It also involved Romanian production of Spey engines and certification of the aircraft to British and US standards. A market for up to 60 or even 80 cheap Romanian-built aircraft was mooted at the time, largely in China, the Third World and possibly Eastern Europe. The aircraft was redesignated ROMBAC 1-11.
The first Rombac One-Eleven, (YR-BRA cn 401) a series 561RC was rolled out at Romaero Băneasa factory on 27 August 1982, and flew for the first time on 18 September 1982. Production continued until 1989 at a much slower pace than foreseen in the contract: nine aircraft were delivered. The first aircraft was delivered to TAROM on 29 December 1982. The Romanian carrier took delivery of all but two of the aircraft produced, with the remaining two going to Romavia, the last of which (YR-BRI cn 409) was delivered on 1 January 1993.
There were three reasons why the Rombac initiative failed: Romania’s economy and international position deteriorated to the point where supplies for One-Eleven manufacture slowed to a trickle; the market foreseen by the Romanians failed to show an interest, though some Rombac machines were leased out to European operators; the One-Eleven’s noise level and fuel economy had failed to keep pace with US and West European competition. With reference to the last reason, Rolls-Royce repeatedly refused to allow its Tay engine to be used on Romanian One-Elevens. This reluctance is assumed[by whom?] to reflect fears that the Fokker 100, the Tay’s launch airframe, would suffer from Romanian competition
Total production of the One-Eleven in British and Romanian factories was 244, with two airframes left incomplete in Romania. A major initiative to re-engine corporate One-Elevens with Tay engines gathered pace in the USA in the late 1980s and early 1990s but came to nought after several successful test flights. Passive opposition from the engine maker among other factors is claimed to have sabotaged its chances of success.
One-Elevens served widely in the USA until displaced by the indigenous Douglas DC-9 and Boeing 737 in the early 1970s. In Europe they were common, continuing in widespread use until the mid-1980s and into the 1990s. Many One-Elevens then moved to smaller airlines, notably in the Far East and Africa. The last major operations were in Nigeria, where they were grounded after a crash in 2002. Today only a handful are still operating, mainly in Africa, though corporate versions survive in the USA and Europe. A further nail in the coffin for the One-Eleven in Europe was the Stage III noise abatement regulations which took effect from March 2003. The costs of bringing the Rolls-Royce Spey engines into compliance with this, by developing a hush kit, proved an expensive prospect for the smaller operators still using this aircraft type. Therefore very few 1-11s were fitted with hush kits, and most European operators disposed of the type from their fleet. Several dozen One-Elevens are in storage and for sale around the world.
British Airways retired its last One-Eleven in 1998.
In 2010, the EASA accepted an Airbus request to revoke the Type Certificate for the British Aerospace BAC One Eleven (BAC 1-11). As a result, BAC 1-11 aircraft registered in any EU Member State will no longer be eligible for a Normal Certificate of Airworthiness