New

Idaho III SP-545 - History

Idaho III SP-545 - History

Idaho III

(SP-545: t.23; 1.60';b.12'6";dr.4"; s.11k.;a.1mg.)

The third Idaho (SP-545), a motor boat, was built in 1907 by Stearns & McKay. Marblehead, Mass.; acquired from her owner, W. W. Vensel of Pittsburgh, in June 1917; and commissioned at Cape May, N.J., 12 July 1917, Chief Quartermaster W. H. Naylor, USNRF, in command.

Idaho was assigned to the 4th Naval District for patrol and general duties, serving on harbor entrance patrol and submarine net patrol in the Cape May and Philadelphia areas. She was out of commission during the winter of 1917-18, and finally returned to her owner 30 November 1918.


Hatshepsut

Hatshepsut, daughter of King Thutmose I, became queen of Egypt when she married her half-brother, Thutmose II, around the age of 12. Upon his death, she began acting as regent for her stepson, the infant Thutmose III, but later took on the full powers of a pharaoh, becoming co-ruler of Egypt around 1473 B.C. As pharaoh, Hatshepsut extended Egyptian trade and oversaw ambitious building projects, most notably the Temple of Deir el-Bahri, located in western Thebes, where she would be buried. Depicted (at her own orders) as a male in many contemporary images and sculptures, Hatshepsut remained largely unknown to scholars until the 19th century. She is one of the few and most famous female pharaohs of Egypt.


Concealed Weapons

Idaho statute allows residents 18 years of age, not disqualified from having a permit, to carry a concealed firearm statewide without a permit except in certain designated places including a courthouse, juvenile detention or jail facility, or public or private school unless specifically authorized.

A person does not have to have a concealed weapons license to carry or be in possession of a deadly weapon or firearm in the following circumstances:

  • Any deadly weapon located in plain view
  • Any lawfully possessed shotgun or rifle
  • Any deadly weapon concealed in a motor vehicle
  • A firearm that is not loaded and is secured in a case
  • A firearm that is disassembled or permanently altered such that it is not readily operable and
  • Any deadly weapon concealed by a person who is:
    • Over eighteen (18)) years of age
    • A citizen of the United States or a current member of the armed forces of the 1United States and
    • Is not disqualified from being issued a license under Idaho Code § 18-3302(11)(b) – (n).

    A person does not need to have a concealed weapons license in order to carry a deadly weapon or firearm concealed and loaded in a vehicle.

    It is unlawful for any person to carry a concealed weapon on or about his person when intoxicated or under the influence of an intoxicating drink or drug.

    Concealed weapon licenses are still available from your County Sheriff. Residents must secure one to gain reciprocity in other states. The license is valid for five years.


    Contents

    By the early to mid-1930s, de Havilland had built a reputation for innovative high-speed aircraft with the DH.88 Comet racer. Later, the DH.91 Albatross airliner pioneered the composite wood construction used for the Mosquito. The 22-passenger Albatross could cruise at 210 mph (340 km/h) at 11,000 ft (3,400 m), faster than the Handley Page H.P.42 and other biplanes it was replacing. [10] [nb 1] The wooden monocoque construction not only saved weight and compensated for the low power of the de Havilland Gipsy Twelve engines used by this aircraft, but also simplified production and reduced construction time. [11]

    Air Ministry bomber requirements and concepts Edit

    On 8 September 1936, the British Air Ministry issued Specification P.13/36, which called for a twin-engined, medium bomber capable of carrying a bomb load of 3,000 lb (1,400 kg) for 3,000 mi (4,800 km) with a maximum speed of 275 mph (445 km/h) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m) a maximum bomb load of 8,000 lb (3,600 kg) that could be carried over shorter ranges was also specified. [12] Aviation firms entered heavy designs with new high-powered engines and multiple defensive turrets, leading to the production of the Avro Manchester and Handley Page Halifax. [13]

    In May 1937, as a comparison to P.13/36, George Volkert, the chief designer of Handley Page, put forward the concept of a fast, unarmed bomber. In 20 pages, Volkert planned an aerodynamically clean, medium bomber to carry 3,000 lb (1,400 kg) of bombs at a cruising speed of 300 mph (485 km/h). Support existed in the RAF and Air Ministry Captain R N Liptrot, Research Director Aircraft 3, appraised Volkert's design, calculating that its top speed would exceed that of the new Supermarine Spitfire, but counter-arguments held that although such a design had merit, it would not necessarily be faster than enemy fighters for long. [14] The ministry was also considering using non-strategic materials for aircraft production, which, in 1938, had led to specification B.9/38 and the Armstrong Whitworth Albemarle medium bomber, largely constructed from spruce and plywood attached to a steel-tube frame. The idea of a small, fast bomber gained support at a much earlier stage than is sometimes acknowledged, though the Air Ministry likely envisaged it using light alloy components. [15]

    Inception of the de Havilland fast bomber Edit

    Based on his experience with the Albatross, Geoffrey de Havilland believed that a bomber with a good aerodynamic design and smooth, minimal skin area, would exceed the P.13/36 specification. [16] Furthermore, adapting the Albatross principles could save time. In April 1938, performance estimates were produced for a twin Rolls-Royce Merlin-powered DH.91, with the Bristol Hercules (radial engine) and Napier Sabre (H-engine) as alternatives. [12] On 7 July 1938, de Havilland wrote to Air Marshal Wilfrid Freeman, the Air Council's member for Research and Development, discussing the specification and arguing that in war, shortages of aluminium and steel would occur, but supplies of wood-based products were "adequate." [nb 2] Although inferior in tension, the strength-to-weight ratio of wood is equal to or better than light alloys or steel, hence this approach was feasible. [12] [16]

    A follow-up letter to Freeman on 27 July said that the P.13/36 specification could not be met by a twin Merlin-powered aircraft and either the top speed or load capacity would be compromised, depending on which was paramount. For example, a larger, slower, turret-armed aircraft would have a range of 1,500 mi (2,400 km) carrying a 4,000 lb bomb load, with a maximum of 260 mph (420 km/h) at 19,000 ft (5,800 m), and a cruising speed of 230 mph (370 km/h) at 18,000 ft (5,500 m). De Havilland believed that a compromise, including eliminating surplus equipment, would improve matters. [12] On 4 October 1938, de Havilland projected the performance of another design based on the Albatross, powered by two Merlin Xs, with a three-man crew and six or eight forward-firing guns, plus one or two manually operated guns and a tail turret. Based on a total loaded weight of 19,000 lb (8,600 kg), it would have a top speed of 300 mph (480 km/h) and cruising speed of 268 mph (431 km/h) at 22,500 ft (6,900 m). [13]

    Still believing this could be improved, and after examining more concepts based on the Albatross and the new all-metal DH.95 Flamingo, de Havilland settled on designing a new aircraft that would be aerodynamically clean, wooden, and powered by the Merlin, which offered substantial future development. [13] The new design would be faster than foreseeable enemy fighter aircraft, and could dispense with a defensive armament, which would slow it and make interception or losses to anti-aircraft guns more likely. Instead, high speed and good manoeuverability would make evading fighters and ground fire easier. [13] The lack of turrets simplified production, reduced drag and reduced production time, with a delivery rate far in advance of competing designs. Without armament, the crew could be reduced to a pilot and navigator. Whereas contemporary RAF design philosophy favoured well-armed heavy bombers, this mode of design was more akin to the German philosophy of the Schnellbomber. [19] At a meeting in early October 1938 with Geoffrey de Havilland and Charles Walker (de Havilland's chief engineer), the Air Ministry showed little interest, and instead asked de Havilland to build wings for other bombers as a subcontractor. [20]

    By September 1939, de Havilland had produced preliminary estimates for single- and twin-engined variations of light-bomber designs using different engines, speculating on the effects of defensive armament on their designs. [21] One design, completed on 6 September, was for an aircraft powered by a single 2,000 hp (1,500 kW) Napier Sabre, with a wingspan of 47 ft (14 m) and capable of carrying a 1,000 lb (450 kg) bomb load 1,500 mi (2,400 km). On 20 September, in another letter to Wilfrid Freeman, de Havilland wrote ". we believe that we could produce a twin-engine[d] bomber which would have a performance so outstanding that little defensive equipment would be needed." [21] By 4 October, work had progressed to a twin-engined light bomber with a wingspan of 51 ft (16 m) and powered by Merlin or Griffon engines, the Merlin favoured because of availability. [21] On 7 October 1939, a month into the war, the nucleus of a design team under Eric Bishop moved to the security and secrecy of Salisbury Hall to work on what was later known as the DH.98. [22] [nb 3] For more versatility, Bishop made provision for four 20 mm cannon in the forward half of the bomb bay, under the cockpit, firing via blast tubes and troughs under the fuselage. [24]

    The DH.98 was too radical for the ministry, which wanted a heavily armed, multi-role aircraft, combining medium bomber, reconnaissance, and general-purpose roles, that was also capable of carrying torpedoes. [20] With the outbreak of war, the ministry became more receptive, but was still sceptical about an unarmed bomber. It was thought the Germans would produce fighters that were faster than had been expected. [25] and suggested the incorporation of two forward- and two rear-firing machine guns for defence. [26] The ministry also opposed a two-man bomber, wanting at least a third crewman to reduce the work of the others on long flights. [24] The Air Council added further requirements such as remotely controlled guns, a top speed of 275 mph (445 km/h) at 15,000 ft on two-thirds engine power, and a range of 3,000 mi (4,800 km) with a 4,000-lb bomb load. [26] To appease the ministry, de Havilland built mock-ups with a gun turret just aft of the cockpit, but apart from this compromise, de Havilland made no changes. [24]

    On 12 November, at a meeting considering fast-bomber ideas put forward by de Havilland, Blackburn, and Bristol, Air Marshal Freeman directed de Havilland to produce a fast aircraft, powered initially by Merlin engines, with options of using progressively more powerful engines, including the Rolls-Royce Griffon and the Napier Sabre. Although estimates were presented for a slightly larger Griffon-powered aircraft, armed with a four-gun tail turret, Freeman got the requirement for defensive weapons dropped, and a draft requirement was raised calling for a high-speed, light-reconnaissance bomber capable of 400 mph (645 km/h) at 18,000 ft. [27]

    On 12 December, the Vice-Chief of the Air Staff, Director General of Research and Development, and the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief (AOC-in-C) of RAF Bomber Command met to finalise the design and decide how to fit it into the RAF's aims. The AOC-in-C would not accept an unarmed bomber, but insisted on its suitability for reconnaissance missions with F8 or F24 cameras. [28] After company representatives, the ministry, and the RAF's operational commands examined a full-scale mock-up at Hatfield on 29 December 1939, the project received backing. [29] This was confirmed on 1 January 1940, when Freeman chaired a meeting with Geoffrey de Havilland, John Buchanan (Deputy of Aircraft Production), and John Connolly (Buchanan's chief of staff). De Havilland claimed the DH.98 was the "fastest bomber in the world. it must be useful". Freeman supported it for RAF service, ordering a single prototype for an unarmed bomber to specification B.1/40/dh, which called for a light bomber/reconnaissance aircraft powered by two 1,280 hp (950 kW) Rolls-Royce RM3SM (an early designation for the Merlin 21) with ducted radiators, capable of carrying a 1,000 lb (450 kg) bomb load. [22] [28] The aircraft was to have a speed of 400 mph (640 km/h) at 24,000 ft (7,300 m) and a cruising speed of 325 mph (525 km/h) at 26,500 ft (8,100 m) with a range of 1,500 mi (2,400 km) at 25,000 ft (7,600 m) on full tanks. Maximum service ceiling was to be 32,000 ft (9,800 m). [28]

    On 1 March 1940, Air Marshal Roderic Hill issued a contract under Specification B.1/40, for 50 bomber-reconnaissance variants of the DH.98 this contract included the prototype, which was given the factory serial E-0234. [30] [31] In May 1940, specification F.21/40 was issued, calling for a long-range fighter armed with four 20 mm cannon and four .303 machine guns in the nose, after which de Havilland was authorised to build a prototype of a fighter version of the DH.98. After debate, that this prototype, given the military serial number W4052, was decided to carry airborne interception (AI) Mk IV equipment as a day and night fighter. [nb 4] By June 1940, the DH.98 had been named "Mosquito". [29] Having the fighter variant kept the Mosquito project alive, as doubts remained within the government and Air Ministry regarding the usefulness of an unarmed bomber, even after the prototype had shown its capabilities. [29]

    Project Mosquito Edit

    With design of the DH.98 started, mock-ups were built, the most detailed at Salisbury Hall, where E-0234 was later constructed. Initially, the concept was for the crew to be enclosed in the fuselage behind a transparent nose (similar to the Bristol Blenheim or Heinkel He 111H), but this was quickly altered to a more solid nose with a conventional canopy. [32]

    Work was cancelled again after the Battle of Dunkirk, when Lord Beaverbrook, as Minister of Aircraft Production, decided no production capacity remained for aircraft like the DH.98, which was not expected to be in service until early 1942. Beaverbrook told Air Vice-Marshal Freeman that work on the project should stop, but he did not issue a specific instruction, and Freeman ignored the request. [33] In June 1940, however, Lord Beaverbrook and the Air Staff ordered that production should concentrate on five existing types, namely the Supermarine Spitfire, Hawker Hurricane fighter, Vickers Wellington, Armstrong-Whitworth Whitley, and Bristol Blenheim bombers. [28] Work on the DH.98 prototype stopped. Apparently, the project shut down when the design team were denied materials for the prototype. [34]

    The Mosquito was only reinstated as a priority in July 1940, after de Havilland's general manager, L.C.L. Murray, promised Lord Beaverbrook 50 Mosquitos by December 1941. This was only after Beaverbrook was satisfied that Mosquito production would not hinder de Havilland's primary work of producing Tiger Moth and Airspeed Oxford trainers, repairing Hurricanes, and manufacturing Merlin engines under licence. [34] In promising Beaverbrook such a number by the end of 1941, de Havilland was taking a gamble, because they were unlikely to be built in such a limited time. As it transpired, only 20 aircraft were built in 1941, but the other 30 were delivered by mid-March 1942. [35] During the Battle of Britain, interruptions to production due to air raid warnings caused nearly a third of de Havilland's factory time to be lost. [36] Nevertheless, work on the prototype went ahead quickly at Salisbury Hall since E-0234 was completed by November 1940. [37]

    In the aftermath of the Battle of Britain, the original order was changed to 20 bomber variants and 30 fighters. Whether the fighter version should have dual or single controls, or should carry a turret, was still uncertain, so three prototypes were built: W4052, W4053, and W4073. The second and third, both turret armed, were later disarmed, to become the prototypes for the T.III trainer. [38] This caused some delays, since half-built wing components had to be strengthened for the required higher combat loading. The nose sections also had to be changed from a design with a clear perspex bomb-aimer's position, to one with a solid nose housing four .303 machine guns and their ammunition. [20]

    Prototypes and test flights Edit

    On 3 November 1940, the prototype aircraft, painted in "prototype yellow" and still coded E-0234, was dismantled, transported by road to Hatfield and placed in a small, blast-proof assembly building. Two Merlin 21 two-speed, single-stage supercharged engines were installed, driving three-bladed de Havilland Hydromatic constant-speed controllable-pitch propellers. Engine runs were made on 19 November. [39] On 24 November, taxiing trials were carried out by Geoffrey de Havilland Jr., the de Havilland test pilot. On 25 November, the aircraft made its first flight, piloted by de Havilland Jr., accompanied by John E. Walker, the chief engine installation designer. [nb 5]

    For this maiden flight, E-0234, weighing 14,150 lb (6,420 kg), took off from the grass airstrip at the Hatfield site. The takeoff was reported as "straightforward and easy" and the undercarriage was not retracted until a considerable altitude was attained. [40] The aircraft reached 220 mph (355 km/h), with the only problem being the undercarriage doors – which were operated by bungee cords attached to the main undercarriage legs – that remained open by some 12 in (300 mm) at that speed. [40] This problem persisted for some time. The left wing of E-0234 also had a tendency to drag to port slightly, so a rigging adjustment, i.e., a slight change in the angle of the wing, was carried out before further flights. [39] [nb 6]

    On 5 December 1940, the prototype, with the military serial number W4050, experienced tail buffeting at speeds between 240 and 255 mph (385 and 410 km/h). The pilot noticed this most in the control column, with handling becoming more difficult. During testing on 10 December, wool tufts were attached to suspect areas to investigate the direction of airflow. The conclusion was that the airflow separating from the rear section of the inner engine nacelles was disturbed, leading to a localised stall and the disturbed airflow was striking the tailplane, causing buffeting. To smooth the air flow and deflect it from forcefully striking the tailplane, nonretractable slots fitted to the inner engine nacelles and to the leading edge of the tailplane were tested. [43] These slots and wing-root fairings fitted to the forward fuselage and leading edge of the radiator intakes, stopped some of the vibration experienced, but did not cure the tailplane buffeting. [44]

    In February 1941, buffeting was eliminated by incorporating triangular fillets on the trailing edge of the wings and lengthening the nacelles, the trailing edge of which curved up to fair into the fillet some 10 in (250 mm) behind the wing's trailing edge this meant the flaps had to be divided into inboard and outboard sections. [45] [nb 7] With the buffeting problems largely resolved, John Cunningham flew W4050 on 9 February 1941. He was greatly impressed by the "lightness of the controls and generally pleasant handling characteristics". Cunningham concluded that when the type was fitted with AI equipment, it might replace the Bristol Beaufighter night fighter. [45]

    During its trials on 16 January 1941, W4050 outpaced a Spitfire at 6,000 ft (1,800 m). The original estimates were that as the Mosquito prototype had twice the surface area and over twice the weight of the Spitfire Mk II, but also with twice its power, the Mosquito would end up being 20 mph (30 km/h) faster. Over the next few months, W4050 surpassed this estimate, easily beating the Spitfire Mk II in testing at RAF Boscombe Down in February 1941, reaching a top speed of 392 mph (631 km/h) at 22,000 ft (6,700 m) altitude, compared to a top speed of 360 mph (580 km/h) at 19,500 ft (5,900 m) for the Spitfire. [1]

    On 19 February, official trials began at the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment (AAEE) based at Boscombe Down, although the de Havilland representative was surprised by a delay in starting the tests. [46] On 24 February, as W4050 taxied across the rough airfield, the tailwheel jammed leading to the fuselage fracturing. Repairs were made by early March, using part of the fuselage of the photo-reconnaissance prototype W4051. [nb 8] In spite of this setback, the Initial Handling Report 767 issued by the AAEE stated, "The aeroplane is pleasant to fly . aileron control light and effective . " The maximum speed reached was 388 mph (624 km/h) at 22,000 ft (6,700 m), with an estimated maximum ceiling of 34,000 ft (10,000 m) and a maximum rate of climb of 2,880 ft/min (880 m/min) at 11,500 ft (3,500 m). [46]

    W4050 continued to be used for various test programmes, as the experimental "workhorse" for the Mosquito family. [47] In late October 1941, it returned to the factory to be fitted with Merlin 61s, the first production Merlins fitted with a two-speed, two-stage supercharger. The first flight with the new engines was on 20 June 1942. [48] W4050 recorded a maximum speed of 428 mph (689 km/h) at 28,500 ft (8,700 m) (fitted with straight-through air intakes with snow guards, engines in F.S. gear) and 437 mph (703 km/h) at 29,200 ft (8,900 m) without snow guards. [49] [nb 9] In October 1942, in connection with development work on the NF Mk XV, W4050 was fitted with extended wingtips, increasing the span to 59 ft 2 in (18.03 m), first flying in this configuration on 8 December. [50] Fitted with high-altitude-rated, two-stage, two-speed Merlin 77s, it reached 439 mph (707 km/h) in December 1943. [7] Soon after these flights, W4050 was grounded and scheduled to be scrapped, but instead served as an instructional airframe at Hatfield. In September 1958, W4050 was returned to the Salisbury Hall hangar where it was built, restored to its original configuration, and became one of the primary exhibits of the de Havilland Aircraft Heritage Centre. [51] [52]

    W4051, which was designed from the outset to be the prototype for the photo-reconnaissance versions of the Mosquito, was slated to make its first flight in early 1941. However, the fuselage fracture in W4050 meant that W4051's fuselage was used as a replacement W4051 was then rebuilt using a production standard fuselage and first flew on 10 June 1941. This prototype continued to use the short engine nacelles, single-piece trailing-edge flaps, and the 19 ft 5.5 in (5.931 m) "No. 1" tailplane used by W4050, but had production-standard 54 ft 2 in (16.51 m) wings and became the only Mosquito prototype to fly operationally. [53]

    Construction of the fighter prototype, W4052, was also carried out at the secret Salisbury Hall facility. It was powered by 1,460 hp (1,090 kW) Merlin 21s, and had an altered canopy structure with a flat, bullet-proof windscreen the solid nose had mounted four .303 British Browning machine guns and their ammunition boxes, accessible by a large, sideways hinged panel. [54] Four 20-mm Hispano Mk II cannon were housed in a compartment under the cockpit floor with the breeches projecting into the bomb bay and the automatic bomb bay doors were replaced by manually operated bay doors, which incorporated cartridge ejector chutes. [55]

    As a day and night fighter, prototype W4052 was equipped with AI Mk IV equipment, complete with an "arrowhead" transmission aerial mounted between the central Brownings and receiving aerials through the outer wing tips, and it was painted in black RDM2a "Special Night" finish. [56] [nb 10] It was also the first prototype constructed with the extended engine nacelles. [58] W4052 was later tested with other modifications, including bomb racks, drop tanks, barrage balloon cable cutters in the leading edge of the wings, Hamilton airscrews and braking propellers, and drooping aileron systems that enabled steep approaches and a larger rudder tab. The prototype continued to serve as a test machine until it was scrapped on 28 January 1946. [7] 4055 flew the first operational Mosquito flight on 17 September 1941. [59]

    During flight testing, the Mosquito prototypes were modified to test a number of configurations. W4050 was fitted with a turret behind the cockpit for drag tests, after which the idea was abandoned in July 1941. W4052 had the first version of the Youngman Frill airbrake fitted to the fighter prototype. The frill was mounted around the fuselage behind the wing and was opened by bellows and venturi effect to provide rapid deceleration during interceptions and was tested between January and August 1942, but was also abandoned when lowering the undercarriage was found to have the same effect with less buffeting. [59]

    Production plans and American interest Edit

    The Air Ministry authorised mass production plans on 21 June 1941, by which time the Mosquito had become one of the world's fastest operational aircraft. [7] It ordered 19 photo-reconnaissance (PR) models and 176 fighters. A further 50 were unspecified in July 1941, these were confirmed to be unarmed fast bombers. [7] By the end of January 1942, contracts had been awarded for 1,378 Mosquitos of all variants, including 20 T.III trainers and 334 FB.VI bombers. Another 400 were to be built by de Havilland Canada. [60]

    On 20 April 1941, W4050 was demonstrated to Lord Beaverbrook, the Minister of Aircraft Production. The Mosquito made a series of flights, including one rolling climb on one engine. Also present were US General Henry H. Arnold and his aide Major Elwood Quesada, who wrote "I . recall the first time I saw the Mosquito as being impressed by its performance, which we were aware of. We were impressed by the appearance of the airplane that looks fast usually is fast, and the Mosquito was, by the standards of the time, an extremely well-streamlined airplane, and it was highly regarded, highly respected." [45] [61]

    The trials set up future production plans between Britain, Australia, and Canada. Six days later, Arnold returned to America with a full set of manufacturer's drawings. As a result of his report, five companies (Beech, Curtiss-Wright, Fairchild, Fleetwings, and Hughes) were asked to evaluate the de Havilland data. The report by Beech Aircraft summed up the general view: "It appears as though this airplane has sacrificed serviceability, structural strength, ease of construction and flying characteristics in an attempt to use construction material which is not suitable for the manufacture of efficient airplanes." [62] The Americans did not pursue the proposal for licensed production, the consensus arguing that the Lockheed P-38 Lightning could fulfill the same duties. However, Arnold urged the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) to evaluate the design even if they would not adopt it. On 12 December 1941, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the USAAF requested one airframe for this purpose. [59]

    Overview Edit

    While timber construction was considered outmoded by some, de Havilland claimed that their successes with techniques used for the DH 91 Albatross could lead to a fast, light bomber using monocoque-sandwich shell construction. [63] Arguments in favour of this included speed of prototyping, rapid development, minimisation of jig-building time, and employment of a separate category of workforce. The ply-balsa-ply monocoque fuselage and one-piece wings with doped fabric covering would give excellent aerodynamic performance and low weight, combined with strength and stiffness. At the same time, the design team had to fight conservative Air Ministry views on defensive armament. Guns and gun turrets, favoured by the ministry, would impair the aircraft's aerodynamic properties and reduce speed and manoeuvrability, in the opinion of the designers. Whilst submitting these arguments, Geoffrey de Havilland funded his private venture until a very late stage. The project was a success beyond all expectations. The initial bomber and photo-reconnaissance versions were extremely fast, whilst the armament of subsequent variants might be regarded as primarily offensive. [ citation needed ]

    The most-produced variant, designated the FB Mk VI (Fighter-bomber Mark 6), was powered by two Merlin Mk 23 or Mk 25 engines driving three-bladed de Havilland hydromatic propellers. The typical fixed armament for an FB Mk VI was four Browning .303 machine guns and four 20-mm Hispano cannons, while the offensive load consisted of up to 2,000 lb (910 kg) of bombs, or eight RP-3 unguided rockets. [64]

    Performance Edit

    The design was noted for light and effective control surfaces that provided good manoeuvrability, but required that the rudder not be used aggressively at high speeds. Poor aileron control at low speeds when landing and taking off was also a problem for inexperienced crews. [65] For flying at low speeds, the flaps had to be set at 15°, speed reduced to 200 mph (320 km/h), and rpm set to 2,650. The speed could be reduced to an acceptable 150 mph (240 km/h) for low-speed flying. [66] For cruising, the optimum speed for obtaining maximum range was 200 mph (320 km/h) at 17,000 lb (7,700 kg) weight. [66]

    The Mosquito had a low stalling speed of 120 mph (190 km/h) with undercarriage and flaps raised. When both were lowered, the stalling speed decreased from 120 to 100 mph (190 to 160 km/h). Stall speed at normal approach angle and conditions was 100 to 110 mph (160 to 180 km/h). Warning of the stall was given by buffeting and would occur 12 mph (19 km/h) before stall was reached. The conditions and impact of the stall were not severe. The wing did not drop unless the control column was pulled back. The nose drooped gently and recovery was easy. [66]

    Early on in the Mosquito's operational life, the intake shrouds that were to cool the exhausts on production aircraft overheated. Flame dampers prevented exhaust glow on night operations, but they had an effect on performance. Multiple ejector and open-ended exhaust stubs helped solve the problem and were used in the PR.VIII, B.IX, and B.XVI variants. This increased speed performance in the B.IX alone by 10 to 13 mph (16 to 21 km/h). [7]

    Fuselage Edit

    The oval-section fuselage was a frameless monocoque shell built in two vertically separate halves formed over a mahogany or concrete mould. [nb 11] Pressure was applied with band clamps. The shell sandwich skins comprised birch three-ply outers, with cores of Ecuadorean balsa. [nb 12] In many generally smaller but vital areas, such as around apertures and attachment zones, stronger timbers, including aircraft-quality spruce, replaced the balsa core. The main areas of the sandwich skin were only 0.55 in (14 mm) thick. [67] Together with various forms of wood reinforcement, often of laminated construction, the sandwich skin gave great stiffness and torsional resistance. The separate fuselage halves speeded construction, permitting access by personnel working in parallel with others, as the work progressed. [68]

    Work on the separate half-fuselages included installation of control mechanisms and cabling. Screwed inserts into the inner skins that would be under stress in service were reinforced using round shear plates made from a fabric-Bakelite composite. [69]

    Transverse bulkheads were also compositely built-up with several species of timber, plywood, and balsa. Seven vertically halved bulkheads were installed within each moulded fuselage shell before the main "boxing up" operation. Bulkhead number seven was especially strongly built, since it carried the fitments and transmitted the aerodynamic loadings for the tailplane and rudder. [70] [nb 13] The fuselage had a large ventral section cut-out, strongly reinforced, that allowed the fuselage to be lowered onto the wing centre-section at a later stage of assembly. [72]

    For early production aircraft, the structural assembly adhesive was casein-based. At a later stage, this was replaced by "Aerolite", a synthetic urea-formaldehyde type, which was more durable. [73] [nb 14] To provide for the edge joints for the fuselage halves, zones near the outer edges of the shells had their balsa sandwich cores replaced by much stronger inner laminations of birch plywood. For the bonding together of the two halves ("boxing up"), a longitudinal cut was machined into these edges. The profile of this cut was a form of V-groove. Part of the edge bonding process also included adding further longitudinal plywood lap strips on the outside of the shells. [68] [72] The half bulkheads of each shell were bonded to their corresponding pair in a similar way. Two laminated wooden clamps were used in the after portion of the fuselage to provide supports during this complex gluing work. The resulting large structural components had to be kept completely still and held in the correct environment until the glue cured. [68] [76]

    For finishing, a covering of doped madapollam (a fine, plain-woven cotton) fabric was stretched tightly over the shell and several coats of red, followed by silver dope, were added, followed by the final camouflage paint. [77]

    Wing Edit

    The all-wood wing pairs comprised a single structural unit throughout the wingspan, with no central longitudinal joint. [79] Instead, the spars ran from wingtip to wingtip. There was a single continuous main spar and another continuous rear spar. Because of the combination of dihedral with the forward sweep of the trailing edges of the wings, this rear spar was one of the most complex units to laminate and to finish machining after the bonding and curing. It had to produce the correct 3D tilt in each of two planes. Also, it was designed and made to taper from the wing roots towards the wingtips. Both principal spars were of ply box construction, using in general 0.25-in plywood webs with laminated spruce flanges, plus a number of additional reinforcements and special details. [ citation needed ]

    Spruce and plywood ribs were connected with gusset joints. Some heavy-duty ribs contained pieces of ash and walnut, as well as the special five ply that included veneers laid up at 45°. The upper skin construction was in two layers of 0.25-in five-ply birch, separated by Douglas fir stringers running in the span-wise direction. [80] The wings were covered with madapollam fabric and doped in a similar manner to the fuselage. The wing was installed into the roots by means of four large attachment points. [81] [82] The engine radiators were fitted in the inner wing, just outboard of the fuselage on either side. These gave less drag. The radiators themselves were split into three sections: an oil cooler section outboard, the middle section forming the coolant radiator and the inboard section serving the cabin heater. [83]

    The wing contained metal-framed and -skinned ailerons, but the flaps were made of wood and were hydraulically controlled. The nacelles were mostly wood, although for strength, the engine mounts were all metal, as were the undercarriage parts. [84] Engine mounts of welded steel tube were added, along with simple landing gear oleos filled with rubber blocks. Wood was used to carry only in-plane loads, with metal fittings used for all triaxially loaded components such as landing gear, engine mounts, control-surface mounting brackets, and the wing-to-fuselage junction. [85] The outer leading wing edge had to be brought 22 in (56 cm) further forward to accommodate this design. [83] The main tail unit was all wood built. The control surfaces, the rudder, and elevator were aluminium-framed and fabric-covered. [84] The total weight of metal castings and forgings used in the aircraft was only 280 lb (130 kg). [86]

    In November 1944, several crashes occurred in the Far East. At first, these were thought to be a result of wing-structure failures. The casein glue, it was said, cracked when exposed to extreme heat and/or monsoon conditions. This caused the upper surfaces to "lift" from the main spar. An investigating team led by Major Hereward de Havilland travelled to India and produced a report in early December 1944 stating, "the accidents were not caused by the deterioration of the glue, but by shrinkage of the airframe during the wet monsoon season". [nb 15] However, a later inquiry by Cabot & Myers firmly attributed the accidents to faulty manufacture and this was confirmed by a further investigation team by the Ministry of Aircraft Production at Defford, which found faults in six Mosquito marks (all built at de Havilland's Hatfield and Leavesden plants). The defects were similar, and none of the aircraft had been exposed to monsoon conditions or termite attack. [ citation needed ]

    The investigators concluded that construction defects occurred at the two plants. They found that the ". standard of glueing. left much to be desired." [88] [89] Records at the time showed that accidents caused by "loss of control" were three times more frequent on Mosquitos than on any other type of aircraft. The Air Ministry forestalled any loss of confidence in the Mosquito by holding to Major de Havilland's initial investigation in India that the accidents were caused "largely by climate" [90] To solve the problem of seepage into the interior, a strip of plywood was set along the span of the wing to seal the entire length of the skin joint. [88]

    Systems Edit

    The fuel systems gave the Mosquito good range and endurance, using up to nine fuel tanks. Two outer wing tanks each contained 58 imp gal (70 US gal 260 L) of fuel. [91] These were complemented by two inner wing fuel tanks, each containing 143 imp gal (172 US gal 650 L), located between the wing root and engine nacelle. In the central fuselage were twin fuel tanks mounted between bulkhead number two and three aft of the cockpit. [92] In the FB.VI, these tanks contained 25 imp gal (30 US gal 110 L) each, [91] while in the B.IV and other unarmed Mosquitos each of the two centre tanks contained 68 imp gal (82 US gal 310 L). [93] [94] Both the inner wing, and fuselage tanks are listed as the "main tanks" and the total internal fuel load of 452 imp gal (545 US gal 2,055 L) was initially deemed appropriate for the type. [91] In addition, the FB Mk VI could have larger fuselage tanks, increasing the capacity to 63 imp gal (76 US gal 290 L). Drop tanks of 50 imp gal (60 US gal 230 L) or 100 imp gal (120 US gal 450 L) could be mounted under each wing, increasing the total fuel load to 615 or 715 imp gal (739 or 859 US gal 2,800 or 3,250 L). [91]

    The design of the Mark VI allowed for a provisional long-range fuel tank to increase range for action over enemy territory, for the installation of bomb release equipment specific to depth charges for strikes against enemy shipping, or for the simultaneous use of rocket projectiles along with a 100 imp gal (120 US gal 450 L) drop tank under each wing supplementing the main fuel cells. [95] The FB.VI had a wingspan of 54 ft 2 in (16.51 m), a length (over guns) of 41 ft 2 in (12.55 m). It had a maximum speed of 378 mph (608 km/h) at 13,200 ft (4,000 m). Maximum take-off weight was 22,300 lb (10,100 kg) and the range of the aircraft was 1,120 mi (1,800 km) with a service ceiling of 26,000 ft (7,900 m). [96]

    To reduce fuel vaporisation at the high altitudes of photographic reconnaissance variants, the central and inner wing tanks were pressurised. The pressure venting cock located behind the pilot's seat controlled the pressure valve. As the altitude increased, the valve increased the volume applied by a pump. This system was extended to include field modifications of the fuel tank system. [97]

    The engine oil tanks were in the engine nacelles. Each nacelle contained a 15 imp gal (18 US gal 68 l) oil tank, including a 2.5 imp gal (3.0 US gal 11 l) air space. The oil tanks themselves had no separate coolant controlling systems. The coolant header tank was in the forward nacelle, behind the propeller. The remaining coolant systems were controlled by the coolant radiators shutters in the forward inner wing compartment, between the nacelle and the fuselage and behind the main engine cooling radiators, which were fitted in the leading edge. Electric-pneumatic operated radiator shutters directed and controlled airflow through the ducts and into the coolant valves, to predetermined temperatures. [98]

    Electrical power came from a 24 volt DC generator on the starboard (No. 2) engine and an alternator on the port engine, which also supplied AC power for radios. [99] The radiator shutters, supercharger gear change, gun camera, bomb bay, bomb/rocket release and all the other crew controlled instruments were powered by a 24 V battery. [98] The radio communication devices included VHF and HF communications, GEE navigation, and IFF and G.P. devices. The electric generators also powered the fire extinguishers. Located on the starboard side of the cockpit, the switches would operate automatically in the event of a crash. In flight, a warning light would flash to indicate a fire, should the pilot not already be aware of it. In later models, to save liquids and engine clean up time in case of belly landing, the fire extinguisher was changed to semi-automatic triggers. [100]

    The main landing gear, housed in the nacelles behind the engines, were raised and lowered hydraulically. The main landing gear shock absorbers were de Havilland manufactured and used a system of rubber in compression, rather than hydraulic oleos, with twin pneumatic brakes for each wheel. [99] The Dunlop-Marstrand anti-shimmy tailwheel was also retractable.

    The de Havilland Mosquito operated in many roles, performing medium bomber, reconnaissance, tactical strike, anti-submarine warfare and shipping attacks and night fighter duties, until the end of the war. [101] In July 1941, the first production Mosquito W4051 (a production fuselage combined with some prototype flying surfaces – see Prototypes and test flights) was sent to No. 1 Photographic Reconnaissance Unit (PRU), at RAF Benson. [102] The secret reconnaissance flights of this aircraft were the first operational missions of the Mosquito. In 1944, the journal Flight gave 19 September 1941 as date of the first PR mission, at an altitude "of some 20,000 ft". [103]

    On 15 November 1941, 105 Squadron, RAF, took delivery at RAF Swanton Morley, Norfolk, of the first operational Mosquito Mk. B.IV bomber, serial no. W4064. [104] Throughout 1942, 105 Squadron, based next at RAF Horsham St. Faith, then from 29 September, RAF Marham, undertook daylight low-level and shallow dive attacks. [105] [nb 16] Apart from the Oslo and Berlin raids, the strikes were mainly on industrial and infrastructure targets in occupied Netherlands and Norway, France and northern and western Germany. [106] The crews faced deadly flak and fighters, particularly Focke-Wulf Fw 190s, which they called snappers. Germany still controlled continental airspace and the Fw 190s were often already airborne and at an advantageous altitude. Collisions within the formations also caused casualties. It was the Mosquito's excellent handling capabilities, rather than pure speed, that facilitated successful evasions. [107]

    The Mosquito was first announced publicly on 26 September 1942 after the Oslo Mosquito raid of 25 September. It was featured in The Times on 28 September and the next day the newspaper published two captioned photographs illustrating the bomb strikes and damage. [108] [109] On 6 December 1942, Mosquitos from Nos. 105 and 139 Squadrons made up part of the bomber force used in Operation Oyster, the large No. 2 Group raid against the Philips works at Eindhoven. [ citation needed ]

    From mid-1942 to mid-1943, Mosquito bombers flew high-speed, medium and low-altitude daylight missions against factories, railways and other pinpoint targets in Germany and German-occupied Europe. From June 1943, Mosquito bombers were formed into the Light Night Striking Force to guide RAF Bomber Command heavy bomber raids and as "nuisance" bombers, dropping Blockbuster bombs – 4,000 lb (1,800 kg) "cookies" – in high-altitude, high-speed raids that German night fighters were almost powerless to intercept. [ citation needed ]

    As a night fighter from mid-1942, the Mosquito intercepted Luftwaffe raids on Britain, notably those of Operation Steinbock in 1944. Starting in July 1942, Mosquito night-fighter units raided Luftwaffe airfields. As part of 100 Group, it was flown as a night fighter and as an intruder supporting Bomber Command heavy bombers that reduced losses during 1944 and 1945. [110] [nb 17]

    The Mosquito fighter-bomber served as a strike aircraft in the Second Tactical Air Force (2TAF) from its inception on 1 June 1943. [111] The main objective was to prepare for the invasion of occupied Europe a year later. In Operation Overlord three Mosquito FB VI wings flew close air support for the Allied armies in co-operation with other RAF units equipped with the North American B-25 Mitchell medium bomber. In the months between the foundation of 2TAF and its duties from D day onwards, vital training was interspersed with attacks on V-1 flying bomb launch sites. [112]

    In another example of the daylight precision raids carried out by the Mosquitos of Nos. 105 and 139 Squadrons, on 30 January 1943, the 10th anniversary of the Nazis' seizure of power, a morning Mosquito attack knocked out the main Berlin broadcasting station while Luftwaffe Chief Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring was speaking, putting his speech off the air. A second sortie in the afternoon inconvenienced another speech, by Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels. [113] Lecturing a group of German aircraft manufacturers, Göring said:

    In 1940 I could at least fly as far as Glasgow in most of my aircraft, but not now! It makes me furious when I see the Mosquito. I turn green and yellow with envy. The British, who can afford aluminium better than we can, knock together a beautiful wooden aircraft that every piano factory over there is building, and they give it a speed which they have now increased yet again. What do you make of that? There is nothing the British do not have. They have the geniuses and we have the nincompoops. After the war is over I'm going to buy a British radio set – then at least I'll own something that has always worked. [114]

    During this daylight-raiding phase, Nos. 105 and 139 Squadrons flew 139 combat operations and aircrew losses were high. [115] Even the losses incurred in the squadrons' dangerous Blenheim era were exceeded in percentage terms. The Roll of Honour shows 51 aircrew deaths from the end of May 1942 to April 1943. [116] In the corresponding period, crews gained three Mentions in Despatches, two DFMs and three DFCs. The low-level daylight attacks finished on 27 May 1943 with strikes on the Schott glass and Zeiss instrument works, both in Jena. Subsequently, when low-level precision attacks required Mosquitos, they were allotted to squadrons operating the FB.IV version. Examples include the Aarhus air raid and Operation Jericho. [ citation needed ]

    Since the beginning of the year, the German fighter force had become seriously overstretched. [117] In April 1943, in response to "political humiliation" caused by the Mosquito, Göring ordered the formation of special Luftwaffe units (Jagdgeschwader 25, commanded by Oberstleutnant Herbert Ihlefeld and Jagdgeschwader 50, under Major Hermann Graf) to combat the Mosquito attacks, though these units, which were "little more than glorified squadrons", were unsuccessful against the elusive RAF aircraft. [118] Post-war German histories also indicate that there was a belief within the Luftwaffe that Mosquito aircraft "gave only a weak radar signal.". [119] [nb 18]

    The first Mosquito Squadron to be equipped with Oboe (navigation) was No. 109, based at RAF Wyton, after working as an experimental unit at RAF Boscombe Down. They used Oboe in anger for the first time on 31 December 1942 and 1 January 1943, target marking for a force of heavy bombers attacking Düsseldorf. [122] [nb 19] . On 1 June, the two pioneering Squadrons joined No. 109 Squadron in the re-formed No. 8 Group RAF (Bomber Command). Initially they were engaged in moderately high altitude (about 10,000 ft (3,000 m)) night bombing, with 67 trips during that summer, mainly to Berlin. Soon after, Nos. 105 and 139 Squadron bombers were widely used by the RAF Pathfinder Force, marking targets for the main night-time strategic bombing force. [ citation needed ]

    In what were, initially, diversionary "nuisance raids," Mosquito bombers dropped 4,000 lb Blockbuster bombs or "Cookies." Particularly after the introduction of H2S (radar) in some Mosquitos, these raids carrying larger bombs succeeded to the extent that they provided a significant additional form of attack to the large formations of "heavies." [123] Latterly in the war, there were a significant number of all-Mosquito raids on big German cities involving up to 100 or more aircraft. On the night of 20/21 February 1945, for example, Mosquitos of No. 8 Group mounted the first of 36 consecutive night raids on Berlin. [124]

    From 1943, Mosquitos with RAF Coastal Command attacked Kriegsmarine U-boats and intercepted transport ship concentrations. After Operation Overlord, the U-boat threat in the Western Approaches decreased fairly quickly, but correspondingly the Norwegian and Danish waters posed greater dangers. Hence the RAF Coastal Command Mosquitos were moved to Scotland to counter this threat. The Strike Wing at Banff stood up in September 1944 and comprised Mosquito aircraft of No's 143, 144, 235 and 248 Squadrons Royal Air Force and No.333 Squadron Royal Norwegian Air Force. Despite an initially high loss rate, the Mosquito bomber variants ended the war with the lowest losses of any aircraft in RAF Bomber Command service. [125]

    The Mosquito also proved a very capable night fighter. Some of the most successful RAF pilots flew these variants. For example, Wing Commander Branse Burbridge claimed 21 kills, and Wing Commander John Cunningham claimed 19 of his 20 victories at night on Mosquitos.

    Mosquitos of No. 100 Group RAF acted as night intruders operating at high level in support of the Bomber Command "heavies", to counter the enemy tactic of merging into the bomber stream, which, towards the end of 1943, was causing serious allied losses. [126] These RCM (radio countermeasures) aircraft were fitted with a device called "Serrate" to allow them to track down German night fighters from their Lichtenstein B/C (low-UHF-band) and Lichtenstein SN-2 (lower end of the VHF FM broadcast band) radar emissions, as well as a device named "Perfectos" that tracked German IFF signals. These methods were responsible for the destruction of 257 German aircraft from December 1943 to April 1945. Mosquito fighters from all units accounted for 487 German aircraft during the war, the vast majority of which were night fighters. [127]

    One Mosquito is listed as belonging to German secret operations unit Kampfgeschwader 200, which tested, evaluated and sometimes clandestinely operated captured enemy aircraft during the war. The aircraft was listed on the order of battle of Versuchsverband OKL ' s, 2 Staffel, Stab Gruppe on 10 November and 31 December 1944. However, on both lists, the Mosquito is listed as unserviceable. [128]

    The Mosquito flew its last official European war mission on 21 May 1945, when Mosquitos of 143 Squadron and 248 Squadron RAF were ordered to continue to hunt German submarines that might be tempted to continue the fight instead of submarines all the Mosquitos encountered were passive E-boats. [129]

    The last operational RAF Mosquitos were the Mosquito TT.35's, which were finally retired from No. 3 Civilian Anti-Aircraft Co-Operation Unit (CAACU) in May 1963. [130]

    In 1947–49, up to 180 Canadian surplus Mosquitoes flew many operations for the Nationalist Chinese under Chiang Kai-shek in the civil war against Communist forces. Pilots from three squadrons of Mosquitoes claimed to have sunk or damaged 500 ships during one invasion attempt. As the Communists assumed control, the remaining aircraft were evacuated to Formosa, where they flew missions against shipping. [131]

    Until the end of 1942 the RAF always used Roman numerals (I, II, . ) for mark numbers 1943–1948 was a transition period during which new aircraft entering service were given Arabic numerals (1, 2, . ) for mark numbers, but older aircraft retained their Roman numerals. From 1948 onwards, Arabic numerals were used exclusively. [ citation needed ]

    Prototypes Edit

    Three prototypes were built, each with a different configuration. The first to fly was W4050 on 25 November 1940, followed by the fighter W4052 on 15 May 1941 and the photo-reconnaissance prototype W4051 on 10 June 1941. W4051 later flew operationally with 1 Photographic Reconnaissance Unit (1 PRU). [ citation needed ]


    Vlad the Impaler

    Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

    Vlad the Impaler, in full Vlad III Dracula or Romanian Vlad III Drăculea, also called Vlad III or Romanian Vlad Țepeș, (born 1431, Sighișoara, Transylvania [now in Romania]—died 1476, north of present-day Bucharest, Romania), voivode (military governor, or prince) of Walachia (1448 1456–1462 1476) whose cruel methods of punishing his enemies gained notoriety in 15th-century Europe. Some in the scholarly community have suggested that Bram Stoker’s Dracula character was based on Vlad.

    How did Vlad the Impaler become famous?

    Vlad was a voivode (prince) of Walachia (part of modern Romania). Surrounded by enemies that included the Hungarians, the Ottomans, his younger brother, and Walachian nobility, Vlad employed extremely cruel measures to inspire fear in those who opposed him. He earned his nickname by impaling his enemies on stakes.

    What was Vlad the Impaler’s childhood like?

    Vlad was the second son of Vlad II Dracul. When he was 11 years old, Vlad was sent to the court of the Ottoman sultan Murad II as a hostage. His father and elder brother were assassinated when he was 16, and Vlad spent the rest of his life fighting to claim his father's title.

    How did Vlad the Impaler change the world?

    Vlad was a minor player during the early period of Ottoman domination of what is today Romania. He likely would have remained a historical curiosity known only to scholars of the region had it not been for Bram Stoker's novel Dracula. Stoker may have taken some inspiration from Vlad to create the archetypal vampire.

    How did Vlad the Impaler die?

    In 1476 Vlad was ambushed by an Ottoman patrol and killed. He was reportedly decapitated, and his head was sent to the sultan in Constantinople as a trophy.

    Vlad was the second of four brothers born into the noble family of Vlad II Dracul. His sobriquet Dracula (meaning “son of Dracul”) was derived from the Latin draco (“dragon”) after his father’s induction into the Order of the Dragon, created by Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund for the defense of Christian Europe against the Ottoman Empire. Vlad moved to Târgoviște, Walachia, in 1436 when his father assumed leadership of the Walachian voivodate (principality). In 1442 Vlad and his younger brother were sent to the court of Ottoman Sultan Murad II as collateral to assure the sultan that their father, in a reversal of his previous position, would support Ottoman policies. Vlad returned in 1448, having been informed of the assassination of his father and elder brother at the hands of Walachian boyars (nobles) the year before.

    Vlad then embarked upon the first of a lifelong series of campaigns to regain his father’s seat. His opponents included the boyars as well as his younger brother, who was supported by the Ottoman sultan. He emerged briefly victorious in 1448 but was deposed after only two months. After an eight-year struggle, Vlad again claimed the voivodate.

    It was during this period of rule that he committed the atrocities for which he was best known. His penchant for impaling his enemies on stakes in the ground and leaving them to die earned him the name Vlad the Impaler (Romanian: Vlad Țepeș). He inflicted this type of torture on foreign and domestic enemies alike: notably, as he retreated from a battle in 1462, he left a field filled with thousands of impaled victims as a deterrent to pursuing Ottoman forces. That year he escaped Ottoman capture only to be intercepted by Hungarian forces and imprisoned by Matthias I of Hungary, whose assistance he had sought. Vlad regained his seat in 1476 but was killed in battle the same year. He remained a folk hero in the region for his efforts against Ottoman encroachment.

    It often has been thought that Stoker based the title character of Dracula on Vlad. Though Stoker’s notes for the novel do include mentions of “Dracula,” the historical account from which the notes were taken mentions only the appellation, not the deeds for which its bearer was known. Some scholars have speculated that Stoker’s conversations with a noted historian, Hermann Bamburger, may have provided him with information on Vlad’s violent nature, though there is no concrete evidence to support that theory.


    Revisionist History: beyond the gatekeepers

    Pre-publication Sale: Michael Hoffman's Twilight Language book

    ___________________

    The ADL's Defamatory Fantasies about Hoffman

    ___________________

    Refuting a scurrilous lie: Independent History and Research is not a " holocaust denial" organization



    Dedicated to love for all of humanity

    We strive to love as Jesus did



    Provocative insights, original research
    Browse our secure, online bookstore



    News Bureau
    ___________________

    The Real Neo-Nazis



    ___________________


    Idaho State Department of Education

    Talented coaches are needed in all regions of Idaho to help K-3 teachers learn and apply the science of reading – rocket fuel to turn our youngest readers into lifelong learners.

    IMPORTANT: We will be performing maintenance on all SDE applications starting Wednesday, December 27, 2018 at 5:00 pm M.S.T. All applications and services will be online by Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 8:00 am M.S.T.

    If you have any questions regarding this maintenance, please contact our support directly at 208-332-6987 or email [email protected] for assistance.

    Sherri Ybarra
    Superintendent of Public Instruction

    Idaho education is in transition, but commitment and ingenuity remain strong.

    As the state of Idaho slowly emerges from its ‘stay home’ order, this is still an uncertain time for Idahoans, and all Americans. But one certainty is our commitment to helping schools and students succeed – and stay safe.

    If anything, that commitment throughout Idaho’s K-12 system has strengthened during this pandemic crisis. Teachers and administrators throughout the state work tirelessly to maintain continuity of learning as best they can and come up with new ways to provide essential services, convey information and give students the personal connection so essential to learning. Parents throughout the state did an amazing job helping with at-home schooling while juggling their own jobs and family responsibilities.

    Summer learning has never been more important than it is this year, and I urge parents and students to read, explore ideas and make use of available courses and educational games. The State Department of Education offers a wealth of online resources for parents and educators, from broadband providers to the Khan Academy, updated frequently and collected at two online sites maintained by the SDE : the school resources page of the governor’s Idaho coronavirus website, and our Educational Resources for Parents & Educators page.

    As we move through the stages of reopening and enjoy increasing options for activity and gatherings, I join Gov. Little in urging Idahoans to comply with the governor’s ‘Stay Healthy’ guidelines, including social distancing and wearing a mask in public, particularly when the circumstance places you closer than 6 feet from other people.

    I’m continually impressed with how Idahoans are weathering this storm, and I know the strength and innovation of this time will serve us well in the future.


    RECENT HEADLINES

    FarWest Regionals Volunteers Needed

    REMAINDER OF 2021 ODP CYCLE CANCELLED

    After extensive effort to piece together opportunities for ODP in Idaho this year, we have made the very difficult decision to cancel our 2021 ODP cycle.

    2021 Spring RTC Training Registration Open

    Idaho Regional Training Centers are kicking off across the State NEXT MONTH. Are you in yet?

    USSF National "C" License Coaching Course coming to Idaho

    Idaho Youth Soccer is pleased to announce our approval of Hosting a National “C” Course for 2021! Below are the pertinent details for the upcoming course. *All participants must make each.

    Virtual PCA "Second Goal Parent" Workshop Feb. 2nd!

    Parents have an especially important role to play as a Second-Goal Parent who helps their child become a Triple-Impact Competitor who makes self, teammates and the game better.

    Idaho ESPORTS Winter Tournament January 30th!

    Idaho Youth Soccer Association is excited to present the FIFA21 Idaho Esports Winter Tournament! This 1v1 tournament is exclusively open to youth, 13+ years of age and older. There is no entry.

    THE GIRLS ACADEMY STRIKE A STRATEGIC RELATIONSHIP WITH MAJOR LEAGUE SOCCER.

    THE GA SERVES AS US YOUTH SOCCER’S PREMIER GIRLS PLATFORM IN A PARTNERSHIP IN CONJUNCTION WITH MAJOR LEAGUE SOCCER

    NOTICE OF ODP TRYOUT CANCELLATION

    IYSA members, after extensive thought, consultation, and careful deliberation, we have made the very difficult decision to cancel our ODP tryouts and trainings for the remainder of the 2020.

    ODP Inter-Regional Selections

    Congratulations to the Idaho ODP players that have been selected to participate in the US Youth Soccer ODP Inter-regional Event being held in Orlando, FL. Boys Session: November 19 – 23.

    Coaching Courses Added

    Blended Grassroots 7v7 and 11v11 starting in October. Blended National D Course starting in November. Blended= Virtual + In Person component.


    STAR CARD Quick Facts

    Is a Star Card mandatory?   No.

    A license or ID without a Star can still be used for most functions, just not for airport security to fly commercially or access to federal buildings, including military bases after May 3, 2023. Go to Choosing not to get a Star Card for a list of alternative documents that allow you to fly commercially or access a federal facility without getting a Star Card.

    What does a Star Card look like?

    The only visual difference between the current Idaho driver's license and ID card design and the Star Card is the Star on the right hand side of the card. Both allow you to legally drive and prove your identity for tasks like buying alcohol, obtaining social services, or registering to vote.

    How can I get a Star Card?

    Star Card will be available beginning in early 2018 in Idaho at the same locations where you get a driver's license or ID card. Obtaining a Star Card requires more documents than the process to get a license or identification (ID) card without the star.

    You will need to provide documents such as a birth certificate, social security card, and two proofs of Idaho residency such as a mortgage statement, or current utility bill to verify:

    Go to Acceptable Documents for a full list of the documents you can use to get the Star or use the Add the Star tool to develop a personal list of the documents you will need. Simply answer a few questions and the system will create a customized list of documents you need to bring with you to the DMV to get a Star Card.


    Liberty Matters: A Forum for the Discussion of Ideas About Liberty Liberty and Virtue: Frank Meyer's Fusionism (June 2021)

    Welcome to our June 2021 edition of Liberty Matters. This month Stephanie Slade, managing editor at Reason magazine, has written our lead essay on Frank Meyer. Liberty Fund publishes Meyer’s most widely cited book In Defense of Freedom and related essays which also includes a number of Meyer’s more well known essays. Meyer was one of the founders, along with William F. Buckley, of National Re.


    Watch the video: The Horrors Of The Old Pen (December 2021).

Video, Sitemap-Video, Sitemap-Videos