View allAll Photos Tagged Maximizer
Explore: Dec 14th 2010
On the tail end of one of my multiple dives for the day, my dive computer was starting to get moody about me having been down deep for so long. Unfortunately as a photographer, you spend a lot of time down in the corals, where if you did not do photography you would be hovering 10-15' above. I needed to do my safety stop still, and looking ahead I saw that around the mooring line I could see some higher corals in and around 20-30', so I quickly swam ahead and spent the last bit of my dive maximizing my photography options at this depth. My computer was instantly happy, so I was able to use another 500 psi of oxygen at this depth before heading up to do my safety stop. A lot of the divers in the group were doing their safety stops, so I spent some time photographing them hovering about.
Canon 40D
Tokina 10-17 Fisheye
Ikelite 40D Housing
Ikelite 8" Dome
(2) Ikelite DS-160 Strobes
Was/is there ever a more disgusting architectural statement in Vancouver than the "Vancouver Special" ? Nothing IMO, they are/were butt ugly.
Vancouver artist Ken Lum created a replica of a Vancouver Special in a vacant lot on Union Street by Gore Avenue Vancouver in February 2015. The art installation was meant to be a comment on housing affordability in the city. - is titled "Vancouver Especially".
The cost of a Vancouver Special was about $45,000, the same amount Lum received to build and display his replica.
The Vancouver Special was an architectural style of affordable home designed to maximize square footage on small lots. About 10,000 of them were built in Vancouver between 1965 and 1985.
Lum's sculpture is made of brick, wood and stucco, and looks weathered in the same way as some of the still standing Vancouver Specials.
VANCOUVER SUN
Opinion: Vancouver Specials offering many lessons on housing.
Vancouver Sun 23 August 2017
By: Elizabeth Murphy.
vancouversun.com/author/emurphy
The infamous “Vancouver Special” house has had a profound impact across the city, especially on the east side. It is important to put some context to where it came from and lessons applicable to today.
Builders developed them on spec for immigrant families in the 1960s and ’70s. But Specials were broadly detested because they were large, sprawled across the lot, ugly and resulted in the demolition of character houses that destroyed the streetscape.
The Special was credited for being easily converted to two units. However, the original character houses had future potential to be converted into multiple suites and infill that Specials couldn’t achieve since they sprawled over the rear yard. So the original character house wasn’t just more attractive and made of superior materials and craftsmanship, but also could accommodate more future growth.
Construction costs of the Special were reduced by stripping out everything that was unnecessary beyond basic building-code requirements. It maximized the floor-plate size to build the largest house possible within the allowed setbacks without having to build either a below-grade basement or a second storey.
Up to 1974, the area of the lower floor wasn’t counted if it was one foot below grade. So the earlier versions of the Special took advantage of this option with another storey above. Later, versions were the same except slightly smaller with a slab-on-grade entrance.
This meant that most of the lot was covered by the house, which eliminates the option for a laneway house. Even more so when the garage or carport was attached at the back and the rest of the lot was a paved driveway.
Finishes were the least expensive possible, such as stucco, aluminum windows, no trims, no porch, with a little brick in the front facade. The roof was at the minimum slope to shed water.
Why would anyone create housing so lacking in design taste that it was considered hideous and reviled by most people? To understand the origins of the Special, it helps to understand the man behind it, Larry Cudney, my stepfather.
He originally was training to be an architect, but had a falling out with the company he was interning with. Without architect certification, he was limited as a draftsman to working only on single-family houses. So he started his own drafting service called Prana Group.
A client spec-builder came up with the house concept that Cudney drafted into what became his Vancouver Special stock plans. He could provide permit-ready drawings at an extremely low price of about $50.
Creating a completely tasteless form of housing was his revenge on the architect profession with which he was in conflict.
But it was more than that. It also reflected his general miserly approach to living. To be blunt, the man was cheap and proud of it, living well below his means. For example, he once bought a second-hand suit for 75 cents and proudly wore a price tag on his lapel to make the point. He gave us “Second Hand Santa” at Christmas, with only gifts he found at the thrift store. He ate at MacDonald’s whenever he could. You get the picture.
Although reusing second-hand items was a sustainable option, he unfortunately didn’t take that approach in his buildings. It was more like the equivalent to the fast-serve, junk-food approach.
How he managed to charge so little for his services is that he cut his costs to the bone. He had low office rent by locating at Main Street and East 33rd Avenue. When that got a little too expensive for him in the 1970s, he moved to Fraser and East 49th Avenue.
He also worked from a home office and employed his children part-time. When I was 11 years old I started printing copy sets from the big ammonia printing machine he had in our rec room, with the ping-pong table for layout. Friends thought we washed our windows a lot since the house always smelled of ammonia. Into my early teens I was helping amend his many stock plans using basic drafting skills. It beat babysitting.
It wasn’t until we moved back to Vancouver a few years later that I realized what I had been working on. There were so many of these detested Vancouver Specials that had replaced beautiful heritage houses. I was horrified. How wasteful to be demolishing these livable superior houses that just needed updating.
However, I also have been encouraged to see that many of the Vancouver Specials are now being updated for current use. Although they were so reviled, many young families are now buying them and renovating. So they’re now becoming quite a popular option, even trendy, contrary to the Special’s original intent.
Cudney said he wouldn’t design “a big stupid house as a monument to someone’s big stupid life.” Ironically, he designed the biggest houses allowed under the rules that sprawled as much as possible over the lot. Indeed “a big stupid house.” But he actually took pride in the fact that Specials were ugly and disliked.
The Vancouver Special ended in about 1976 when Cudney retired, due in part to glaucoma. But with each passing decade the builders’ ‘specials’ have become increasingly larger.
In the 1980s there were the pink-stucco “monster” houses. This was stopped through conditional zoning changes and design guidelines. But in 2009 those provisions were reversed and now we have even bigger, “luxury” monster houses with faux stone and tile facades.
Design guidelines and conditional zoning are essential to prevent this. As the city moves to revise zoning to incentivize character-house retention, it’s important to remember the lessons of the Vancouver Special.
For almost every Vancouver Special built there was a character house taken down. That character house had higher-quality craftsmanship with potential for conversion to more units or infill, even more so than the Special. Demolishing these character houses was pointless and wasteful.
We can have more affordable-housing choices and still meet design and livability objectives. Continuing poor-quality, new, builders’ ‘specials’ should be avoided.
Elizabeth Murphy is a private-sector project manager and was formerly a property-development officer for the City of Vancouver’s housing and properties department and for B.C. Housing. She can be reached at: info@elizabethmurphy.ca.
This plant is carnivorous. It eats insects and other invertebrates which are trapped by the red tentacles.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drosera_anglica
Drosera anglica, commonly known as the English sundew or Great sundew, is a carnivorous plant species belonging to the sundew genus. It is a temperate species with a generally circumboreal range, although it does occur as far south as Japan, southern Europe, and the island of Kauaʻi in Hawaiʻi, where it grows as a subtropical sundew. It is thought to originate from an amphidiploid hybrid of D. rotundifolia and D. linearis, meaning that a sterile hybrid between these two species doubled its chromosomes to produce fertile progeny which stabilized into the current D. anglica
Morphology
Drosera anglica is a perennial herb which forms an upright, stemless rosette of generally linear-spatulate leaves. As is typical for sundews, the laminae are densely covered with stalked mucilaginous glands, each tipped with a clear droplet of a viscous fluid used for trapping insects. The lamina, which is 15–35 millimetres (0.59–1.4 in) long,[2] is held semi-erect by a long petiole, bringing the total leaf size to 30–95 mm. Plants are green, coloring red in bright light. In all populations except those in Kaua'i, D. anglica forms winter resting buds called hibernacula. These consist of a knot of tightly curled leaves at ground level, which unfurl in spring at the end of the dormancy period. The root system is weak and penetrates only a few centimeters, serving mainly as an anchor and for water absorption. Nitrogen is in short supply in bogs and trapping and digesting insects provides an alternate source.
D. anglica flowers in the summer, sending up peduncles 6–18 centimetres (2.4–7.1 in). long bearing several white flowers which open individually. Like other sundews, the flowers have five sepals, petals, and stamens. The petals for this species are 8–12 mm long, and the flowers have branched 2-lobed styles.[2] The odorless, nectar-less flowers do not rely on insect pollinators for pollination, rather setting seed well through self-pollination (autogamy).[3] The black ovoid seed forms in a dehiscent capsule and is 1 to 1½ mm long.
Carnivory
Like all sundews, D. anglica uses stalked mucilaginous glands called tentacles which cover its laminae to attract, trap, and digest small arthropods, usually insects. These are attracted by a sugary scent exuded by the glands, and upon alighting on the plant adhere to the sticky drops of mucilage. Although most of its prey consists of small insects such as flies, bulkier insects with large wings are also caught. Small butterflies, damselflies, and even dragonflies can become immobilized by the plant's sticky mucilage.
The plant's initial response to contact with prey consists of thigmotropic (movement in response to touch) tentacle movement, with tentacles bending toward the prey and the center of the leaf to maximize contact. D. anglica is also capable of further movement, being able to bend the actual leaf blade around prey to further the digestion process. Tentacle movement can occur in a matter of minutes, whereas the leaf takes hours or days to bend. When something gets caught, the tentacles touching the prey exude additional mucilage to mire down the prey, which eventually dies of exhaustion or is asphyxiated as the mucilage clogs its tracheae. Once the prey has been digested and the resulting nutrient solution has been absorbed by the plant, the leaf unfurls, leaving only the prey's exoskeleton behind.
Habitat
D. anglica grows in open, non-forested habitat with wet, often calcium-rich soils. These include bogs, marl fens, quaking bogs, cobble shores, and other calcareous habitats.[4] This tolerance of calcium is relatively rare in the rest of the genus. D. anglica is often associated with various sphagnum mosses, and many times grows in a soil substrate that is entirely composed of living, dead, or decomposed sphagnum. The sphagnum wicks moisture to the surface while simultaneously acidifying it. What soil nutrients are not seeped away by the constant moisture are often used up by the sphagnum or made unavailable by the low soil pH. Since nutrient availability is low, competition from other plants is diminished, allowing the carnivorous English sundew to flourish.
Distribution
D. anglica is one of the most widely distributed sundews in the world. It is generally circumboreal, meaning that it is found at high latitudes around the globe. In a few areas, however, it is found farther south, particularly in Japan, southern Europe, the Hawaiian island of Kauaʻi, and California. Plants from the Hawaiʻi, where it is known as mikinalo, are generally smaller than normal and do not experience a winter dormancy period. Its natural habitat includes 12 U.S. states, including Alaska, and 11 Canadian provinces and territories.[5] The altitudinal range is from 5 m to at least 2000 m.[
Special origins
All North American Drosera species except for D. anglica have a chromosome count of 2n=20. In 1955, Wood noted that D. anglica had a chromosome count of 2n=40, and hypothesized that it was of hybrid amphidiploid origin.[7] Since the leaf morphology of D. anglica is an intermediary between that of D. rotundifolia and D. linearis and the two occur sympatrically in several locations, Wood conjectured that D. anglica likely originated from a hybrid between these two.[7]
All North American Drosera species produce sterile hybrids. The natural hybrid D. rotundifolia × D. linearis (conventionally but incorrectly referred to as Drosera ×anglica), is also sterile but is morphologically similar to the modern D. anglica.[1] Errors in meiosis during ovule and pollen production, however, can result in a chromosome doubling which can allow for viable seed to be produced. The resulting plants, known as amphiploids, would be fertile. Woods noted that this appeared to be an ongoing process with D. anglica speciating from D. rotundifolia × D. linearis through amphidiploidy in multiple locations.[7] The question remains as to why D. anglica is so widespread, whereas the range of D. linearis is limited to the Great Lakes region of North America. The greater adaptability of D. anglica to varied habitat conditions could be a major factor.
Botanical history
Drosera anglica was first described by William Hudson in 1778. It has frequently been confused with the other circumpolar long-leaf Drosera, D. intermedia. This confusion was fueled by the resurfacing of an older name, D. longifolia (described by Carl Linnaeus in 1753), which was regarded as being too ambiguous in description and had been applied to specimens of both D. anglica and D. intermedia. Herbarium specimens were also a mix of the two species. These points led Martin Cheek to propose D. longifolia for rejection as a species name in 1998.[8] The proposal was accepted and the taxon listed as rejected in 1999.
Rosaly helping me with my obsessive maximizing of my favorite red wig, recently covered in white paint. (See previous photoshoot.) I was going for a sense of confused yet controlled upward flow. Make-up by me.
Featureing Rosaly Welsh.
As some of you know I received an early invite to test out and participate in Google's latest entry into the social networking world Google+. I did an early comparison piece between Google+, Facebook, Flickr, 500px and Twitter the week before last. I wanted to write and update my thoughts on Google+ for photo sharing now that I've gotten a few weeks under my belt, as well as share with you all my own strategy for sharing photographs going forward.
Google+ completely changes the photo sharing game. Not just a little bit -- alot. This may be the most significant shift in photo sharing that we've seen since the introduction of Flickr. There is more engagement going on with photographs on G+, more ways to share photographs on G+, and it is growing at a rate that blows my mind away. Photos are elegantly presented as large oversized thumbnails in stream views (in contrast to Facebook's stingy microscopic photo thumbnails that I've never quite understood). When you click through the photo you get the most elegant lightbox view (on black) of any photo sharing site out there today.
Here are some tips for those of you who would like to maximize your photo sharing potential on Google+
1. Post your photos directly to Google+. This is probably the number one most important thing to do to promote your work there. If you post a link to Flickr, a link to your blog, a link to some other site, you get a small little thumbnail at best. If you upload your photo *directly* to Google+ you get a massive oversized thumbnail (is that like saying jumbo shrimp?). The larger your work is presented, the more likely it is to be engaged with. Even better, photos posted to G+ don't count towards your Picasa storage limits so Google is effectively giving you unlimited photo sharing on G+ for free. What a deal.
2. Get the balance right. You don't want to post too little or too much to G+. Your photos posted to G+ have a limited life. In the first hour that you post your photo it will receive 50% of the attention. In the next 3 hours 25% more, in the next 6 hours 10% more. In the next 24 hours 12% more. After a day and a half your photo will likely be buried. So it's important to regularly be adding photos to your stream. On the other hand, if you inundate people with too many photos (like 10 in a row within 10 minutes) people will drop you faster than a hot potato and you will lose visibility -- there's a fine line between sharing photos and whoring photos. Find a rate for uploads that feels right. At present I'm uploading about 5 photos a day to G+ spread out throughout the day and night. This feels about right to me.
3. Share your best work. Don't upload *everything* you take to G+. If you want to archive all your work use Flickr or Picasa. Save G+ to showcase some of what you feel is your strongest work. This will encourage other people to share your work and promote it more.
4. Don't use watermarks and signatures on your work. Don't hate me for this one. I'm so tired of haters. If you want to watermark the crap out of your work, go for it. It's your work, do WHATEVER you want with it. YOU own it. It's YOURS. Don't shoot the messenger. I'm just saying that watermarks, sigs, logos, etc. look *especially* bad when people pull up your photos in the large lightbox view. I've noticed that photos that are mared up by watermarks tend to not do as well on G+.
5. Make sure you understand sharing and make your posts *public*. Alot of people make the mistake early on of only sharing their photos with their circles without even realizing that they are limiting themselves. This means that your photo goes out to *alot* less people. This would be the same as marking a photo as private on flickr so that only your friends and family could see it. These photos will get alot less attention because most people *can't* see it due to Google's privacy settings. When people first start using G+ if they are browsing in a circle of their contacts and they share a photo from that screen, it limits the photo to only that circle. If you want your photo to be seen, make sure when you post it that it says "public" when you are sharing it.
6. Invite people from your other social networks. Post on your Facebook Wall about your Google+ stream. Offer to send invitations to your contacts there. Tweet links out to your G+ stream. Post it on your blog or tumblr account. Most importantly, post to FLICKR your Google+ stream so that your photo sharing contacts on Flickr can add you on G+. There is no easy way to transfer flickr contacts to G+ other than by word of mouth. It's up to you to get the word out to your other photo sharing channels and get them to follow you on your new G+ account.
7. Engage with people who engage with you. Pay attention to the +1's (fave/like) your photos receive. Pay attention to the comments. Go check out the people that are faving and commenting on your stuff. Social networks are largely about reciprocation. If they are a talented photographer consider adding them to a circle. If you like some of their work fave and comment on it too. Don't just post your own stuff. Engage with the community there.
8. Try some hangouts with other photographers. I've hosted a few hangouts so far. It was great hanging out with Scott Jarvie who is one of the top wedding photographers out there. Trey Ratcliff seems to always be hosting them. Popular ones will fill up quickly (hangouts are video chats limited to 10 people) -- but keep trying to get in those or maybe even set up one of your own. Don't be shy on a hangout. Talk about photography. This is a great opportunity for you to virtually network with some other great photographers. It's easy. Drop in, drop out. Make sure you've got your clothes on though, this is not Chatroulette.
9. Write good titles and descriptions for your photos. If you enter a description in for a photo in Lightroom or whatever other photo processing tool you use and write it as the photo's caption, it will automatically populate into Google+ when you upload it. You'll still need to manually add a title or headline. Make your titles interesting and engaging. Don't upload something as DSC10989. Give it a good strong title. Don't overkill on the caption, but a nice one or two sentence caption can be nice.
10. Be early. Don't wait to get involved with G+. Get yourself an invite and signup NOW. Photo Sharing on G+ feels alot like the earliest days of Flickr. It's the early frontier. Many of Flickr's most popular users are popular because they got on the site EARLY and built a following before there was as much competition. Right now there is a huge brand new audience, HUNGRY for great photography on G+. It is early still and people are figuring out who to follow. Get involved and super active early to help build your own audience there. If you wait six months, or six weeks, or heck, six days as fast as Google+ is growing, you'll miss out on some of the strongest, fastest early growth.
Bonus Tip: check out who your other photographer friends have added to *their* circles. You will likely find alot of people you know to add by doing this.
One final note. I've been asked by TONS of people about what the Google TOS means for photographers. There is a lot of FUD flying around out there about that now. As a policy I no longer comment about anything copyright related, so please don't ask about that here or on G+. I won't answer any questions about it. I will point you to an insightful post on the topic though written last night by Vincent Mo (who works for Google) on the matter.
If you don't have an invite to Google+ yet and want one, either email me tom(at)thomashawk.com or flickrmail me your email address and I will try and invite you. I'm doing the best I can to keep up with the invite requests, so bear with me if it takes some time to get it out to you.
Also if you are already on Google+ and want to follow my work there you can do that here.
Maximize for a better view....
Water Spout over Lake Erie
(TREC) Tom Ridge Environmental Center Erie, Pa
June 19, 2008
11:27 am.
.50 cal magnetically assisted anti-biological gun.
"Guaranteed to put down your neighbourhood abomination, or your money back!"
- Informal advertisement from GC Kinetics.
A high-power sidearm jointly developed by GC Kinetics, Archwell Defense, and Barton Precision Industries (with GC spearheading the project), at the behest of the International Security and Defense Force (ISDF).
The rising threats of humanoid autonomous combat systems (HACS) saw the development of anti-HACS weapons being carried out on a massive scale by many arms manufacturers. The MAG-50 is one of many weapons produced from this surge, featuring a revolutionary armor-piercing frangible round.
Due to the HACS' ability to withstand an immense amount of damage courtesy of experimental armor, accelerated regeneration, extensive use of pain inhibitors and several other factors, the aforementioned round was designed to neutralize most (if not all) inherent advantages within a single strike.
The .50 cal. APFN-EMADS (Armor Piercing Fragmenting Necro-toxin, Electro-Magnetically Assisted Discarding Sabot) round deals with the HACS enhanced combat abilities in three phases: First, the primary armor piercing module punches through most conventional anti-ballistic armor thanks to an increased muzzle velocity (courtesy of the magnetically powered barrel). Next, upon reaching the optimal location for fragmentation, the round ejects eight shards, which, in conjunction with the primary module, greatly increases the chances of striking a vital area (such as the heart or brain) - the shards themselves possess excellent yawing cavitation to maximize damage dealt. Finally, once the shards have settled, a necro-toxin is released from the primary module, inhibiting natural healing factors and generally making the target more susceptible to conventional fire.
Since the rounds do not rely on gunpowder to propel each round, the MAG-50 boasts excellent recoil control, which makes follow up shots easy. However, due to the size of each round, magazine capacity is limited to just eight rounds.
Other features include a match barrel, illuminated sights, and a laser aiming module.
A major factor affecting your conversions is user flow. It’s the path a user follows through your website interface to complete a task (make a reservation, purchase a product, subscribe to something). It’s also called user journey.
In order to maximize your conversions, you have to get the user flow right – build one that matches user’s needs.
Learn more about designing user flow and optimizing websites at ConversionXL Institute. Enroll today!
The wrong way to go about designing your site
You need to decide what your new website will be like. Two most common ways people approach it:
Scenario A
You keep everything as it is on your current / old site, but just make it look “better”.
Scenario B
You start with the building blocks.
Okay, the logo goes in the top left corner. Lets put the menu to the right. A nice image in the header. Cool.
And so on and so on.
Both of these are the wrong way to get going.
Start with the objectives
Your primary aim is to fulfill the business objectives (either your own or the one set by your client). Business objectives might be getting users to sign up for something, getting people to purchase products or join an email list.
Just as in real life, quickies are very rare. People don’t just come to your site, and right away do what you want them to do. In most cases, they need to go through a set of steps leading up to the action.
Next time you’re thinking about designing a site (note: design is not just how it looks, but how it works), start with figuring out what user flows you are trying to create through the website.
In order to do this you need to know 2 things:
Your business objectives. It’s the action you want visitors to take on the site.
User objectives, the desires or needs that they want to satisfy.
So start with being clear about your own goals and identify each user objective to create design flows that meet all of them.
Source / medium determines the message
Customers don’t arrive on a particular page on your site from nowhere. The first step in a flow is mapping out how they get onto your site.
Once they land on your site, they won’t immediately perform the action you want them to. Specific sequences of actions lead visitors through your website as they try to accomplish their tasks.
Match users needs with your business objectives
Your goal is to map users paths – flows that take users from their entry pages through conversion funnels – toward the final action (signup, purchase etc). The final action needs to provide value both to the user as well as the business – otherwise the conversion won’t happen.
If the user wants to clean their car, and your goal is to get the user to order a car cleaning service, you have a meeting of goals and the conversion can take place. On the other hand, if they want their car cleaned (right away), and you want them to join your car-related newsletter, there isn’t a match.
Designing user flows
In order to come up with the user flows through your site, you need to establish possible entry points, and the flow from there on toward the final goal.
Some typical entry points:
Organic search. A user comes via Google, after searching for a particular keyword. Often lands on a deep link.
Paid advertising. Visitors that come via PPC advertising (AdWords etc), banner ads or other kind of promotions. Arrives on your landing page.
Social media. A user coming from a friend’s post on Facebook or Twitter, or via social news site like Reddit.
Email. A user coming from an email newsletter or a link they saw in an email sent to them.
Press or news item. Visitors who come after a mention in the news or a blog post.
Direct link. A regular visitor, has been on your site many times and knows the URL by heart.
How they end up on your site largely determines their needs, expectations and what they know of your product or even the general category. This means you need to treat different people differently.
Sample user flows
So what do these user flows look like? Here are 3 sample flows.
Link in Google results
↓Direct to your site
↓Click on a PPC ad
↓
Landing page
↓Home page
↓Landing page
↓
Joins email listProduct page
↓Makes a purchase
Adds to cart
↓
Completes a purchase
You get the idea.
Stacked user flows
Sometimes you want them to join the email list on their first visit, but ultimately you want to sell them a product. In those cases, you should map stacked user flows: the first one that is completed by joining the email list, and the second one that starts AFTER the first flow has been completed.
Click on an ad → Landing page → Joins email list
↓
Gets an email → Product page → Adds to cart → Completes purchase
The user who has already been through the first flow, is much more knowledgeable than a first-time visitor, has some kind of a relationship with you and you should treat her accordingly.
The steps in the flow depend on your users and the product
In order to design the best possible user flow, you need to understand the visitor and his motivations. Start by answering these questions:
What needs or desires do your visitors have? Which problem do they want to solve?
Why do they need it?
What qualities (about your product or service) are most important to them?
What are all the questions they have about the product?
What are their doubts or hesitations?
What information do they need to take action?
What’s their emotional hotspot to propel them towards taking action?
In order to answer these questions, you need to talk to your customers (or your clients’, if you’re a service provider). You can’t just pull the answers out of thin air. Yes, you should use buyer personas, but those should be based on actual customers and their needs.
Here’s an interesting case study detailing how customer journey maps were used in Boeing.
Another article you might want to read is about designing a hotel booking experience.
The answers to the questions above determine how things are presented on your website. You have to demote certain things and emphasize others. You cannot be all things to all people, your website cannot be about 10 different actions. You need to build focus into your site.
Present sufficient information
The flow must fill in the gaps of information by providing the user with the information they need at the moment they needed in order to eventually be converted.
The mistake a lot of websites make is asking for the sale (signup etc) too soon. There’s little we people do without the adequate amount of information.
Your goal is to keep them moving down the funnel, towards the desired action. Optimize the content on each screen for conversions.
In each step present a clear, benefit-oriented value proposition.
Explain how your offer is useful and how it all works. Invite to read more detailed information.
Back it up by easy-to-digest proof points (references, testimonials, studies etc).
Minimize friction. Ask for the minimum amount of information, reduce the number of fields, extra clicks and page-loading time. Use trust elements.
Create clear and attractive calls to action that guide them to the next step
Designing users flows does not mean that you forget about all the other conversion stuff, au contraire.
State diagrams
Flows are made out of individual screens where interactions take place. A screen offers some possibilities and the user chooses one. Then something happens, and the screen changes. It’s an ongoing conversation.
In each moment in a flow, their (computer) screen is showing something and the user is reacting to it. A good and understandable way to map steps in the flow is to use state diagrams:
what the user sees
what the user does
→
what the user sees next
what the user does next
Above the bar is what the user sees. Below the bar is what they do. An arrow connects the user’s action to a new screen with yet another action. These are called state diagrams in computer science.
Using these diagrams help you focus on the most wanted action on every screen the users lands on. It’s also very useful when explaining the flow to your colleagues or clients.
Example
Let’s say it’s a website for a car detailing service.
service description
click “book now”
→
booking form
submit valid data
→
booking confirmation message
Do this for every page on your site. Define the key content you want to present to the user and a most wanted action. The next action from a screen doesn’t have to be just one thing, the flow can break into 2 or 3 alternative paths. The important thing is that you plan ahead for each path, and design each screen accordingly.
Doing this requires ruthless focus on your part, but the boost in conversions will make it all worth your while.
User flow that supports Flow
Flow, as a mental state, was first proposed by psychology professor Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. It’s a state of being that makes an experience genuinely satisfying. Everybody has experienced it. Most people refer to it as being “in the zone” or “in the groove”.
During flow, people typically experience deep enjoyment, creativity, and a total involvement with the task at hand. There’s a book about it.
Ideally your user flow helps to nurture the flow experience in your users. Three ingredients for the “flow” experience are challenge of the right level, immediate feedback and a skill that can be mastered.
In order to design your site for flow, according to Jim Ramsey you must:
Have clear goals for users that help them understand where they’re going and each step they’ll take to get there.
Provide immediate feedback – whether they click on a button, fill a form or navigate from one page to another – tell them how they’re doing, and what’s going on. The messages and copy have a critical role here.
Maximize efficiency Once a user becomes familiar with your site, they’ll want to start using it more efficiently. When they’re experiencing flow, users want to work more quickly and want the site to feel more responsive. Heavily use the key features of your site and see if there are any annoying, repetitive tasks. Pay close attention to the feedback you get in your user tests. Think hard about how to turn the experience frictionless.
Allow for discovery. Once a user has begun to work with maximum efficiency, there’s a chance that they’ll feel less engaged and grow bored with their experience on the site. In order to avoid this, you should make content and features available for discovery.
When the smooth path is interrupted, or something doesn’t seem to fit, users notice and the flow is broken, which means that the experience is also momentarily broken. These small episodes of friction are cumulative. Unfortunately, the breaks in flow weigh more heavily on the experience than the positive, frictionless moments. Experimenting and testing are key to getting it right.
Clutter, animation, and surprises may interrupt and be disruptive. Online, people don’t like surprises (especially the kind where they go “now what?”, “how do I…” or “what’s that?”). Take out or improve that might cause friction. Less is more: remove visual and navigational noise that might seem like clutter to users.
I’m an Amazon user and have bought a million things from it. I’m very familiar with their interface and while on it, it’s a flow-like experience for me. Today I was browsing Home Depot website looking for certain things, and it was a pretty bad experience. No flow over there.
The far side faces the ocean. They have sensibly built the house above dyke level, although the cars may get wet in the coming floods :)-
The former Santa Fe franchise has always been centered around their mostly double-track CTC Chicago-to-L.A. Transcon mainline. That has been greatly enhanced with hundreds of millions in capital invested by BNSF since the BN+Santa Fe merger.
Here is a great example of that benefit just east of Hereford, TX at milepost 595. On main track two, the XHERRYL9-14 (#3829) has just completed it's unloading of 114 hopper loads of corn to the ADM elevator in Hereford, TX and is coming out onto the mainline for it's trip to Royal, NE and another corn load. The rear-end of the empty grain train is still on the elevator loop track so he moves at restricted speed onto the mainline.
Without losing a beat, the dispatcher in Fort Worth has routed the hot Z-train, ZPHXWSP7-13L (#7131) over to main one to pass the empty corn train. The Willow Springs-bound Z-train from Phoenix with a total of 60 UPS and FedEx loads will not be delayed by the slower train entering the mainline as the DS will cross the Z-train back over the main two at the next crossover. Keeping the Transcon fluid is the main priority, especially with volumes on the Transcon regularly reaching 90-100 trains per day now.
Private investment and project consultancy involves providing expert advice and support to individuals or companies seeking to invest in various projects. Read more:
Please maximize the image.
Incised onto the surface of this large gravestone is the image of a warrior standing on a ground line facing right. His name, Athanias, is inscribed at the top of the stele in either Boeotian or Sikyonian script. He wears a conical helmet decorated with a wreath, a short belted tunic that exposes his right shoulder, and sandals. A sheathed sword suspended by a baldric hangs by his left side. In his right hand he carries a downward-pointing spear; his left hand rests atop his shield. The interior of the shield is decorated with a scene of Bellerophon astride Pegasos, thrusting his spear into the Chimaera below. Incised stelai such as this were once painted, but no traces of pigment remain.
Black limestone grave stele
Height 160 cm; width 75 – 80 cm
Late 5th – Early 4th century BC.
Thebes, Archaeological Museum
Maximize this pic.
I mean he's nice and loyal towards my channel but just look at his name. Its a mixture of flaminbabies735, David, my name and jpo1997's name all mixed together !
I hope he doesn't get offended if he looks at this, but I find this absolutely HILARIOUS
See my main account for my photography, videos, fractal images and more here: www.flickr.com/photos/josh-rokman/
Made with the Bing Image Creator, powered by DALL-E 3.
I think that AI image generation is similar in many ways to photography. The camera itself handles all the fine details, but the photographer is in charge of curating the types of images that will be created.
Ultimately, it is all about maximizing the probability that something good will be created.
This is very similar to AI image generation, in terms of the skills involved and what the human does vs. what the machine does.
You can't compare AI image generation to the process of actually making these images from scratch with 3D software or paint/pencils, where the human controls every detail.
However, I think the process really is very similar to that of photography, as I made the case for above.
- Josh
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
In the late 1970s the Mikoyan OKB began development of a hypersonic high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft. Designated "Izdeliye 301" (also known as 3.01), the machine had an unusual design, combining a tailless layout with variable geometry wings. The two engines fueled by kerosene were located side by side above the rear fuselage, with the single vertical fin raising above them, not unlike the Tu-22 “Blinder” bomber of that time, but also reminiscent of the US-American SR-71 Mach 3 reconnaissance aircraft.
Only few and rather corny information leaked into the West, and the 301 was believed not only to act as a reconnaissance plane , it was also believed to have (nuclear) bombing capabilities. Despite wind tunnel testing with models, no hardware of the 301 was ever produced - aven though the aircraft could have become a basis for a long-range interceptor that would replace by time the PVO's Tupolew Tu-28P (ASCC code "Fiddler"), a large aircraft armed solely with missiles.
Despite limitations, the Tu-28P served well in its role, but the concept of a very fast interceptor aircraft, lingered on, since the Soviet Union had large areas to defend against aerial intruders, esp. from the North and the East. High speed, coupled with long range and the ability to intercept an incoming target at long distances independently from ground guidance had high priority for the Soviet Air Defence Forces. Even though no official requirement was issued, the concept of Izdeliye 301 from the Seventies was eventually developed further into the fixed-wing "Izdeliye 701" ultra-long-range high-altitude interceptor in the 1980ies.
The impulse for this new approach came when Oleg S. Samoylovich joined the Mikoyan OKB after having worked at Suchoi OKB on the T-60S missile carrier project. Similar in overall design to the former 301, the 701 was primarily intended as a kind of successor for the MiG-31 Foxhound for the 21st century, which just had completed flight tests and was about to enter PVO's front line units.
Being based on a long range cruise missile carrier, the 701 would have been a huge plane, featuring a length of 30-31m, a wing span of 19m (featuring a highly swept double delta wing) and having a maximum TOW of 70 tons! Target performance figures included a top speed of 2.500km/h, a cruising speed of 2.100km/h at 17.000m and an effective range of 7.000km in supersonic or 11.000km in subsonic mode. Eventually, the 701 program was mothballed, too, being too ambitious and expensive for a specialized development that could also have been a fighter version of the Tu-22 bomber!
Anyway, while the MiG-31 was successfully introduced in 1979 and had evolved in into a capable long-range interceptor with a top speed of more than Mach 3 (limited to Mach 2.8 in order to protect the aircraft's structural integrity), MiG OKB decided in 1984 to take further action and to develop a next-generation technology demonstrator, knowing that even the formidable "Foxhound" was only an interim solution on the way to a true "Four plus" of even a 6th generation fighter. Other new threats like low-flying cruise missiles, the USAF's "Project Pluto" or the assumed SR-71 Mach 5 successor “Aurora” kept Soviet military officials on the edge of their seats, too.
Main objective was to expand the Foxhound's state-of the-art performance, and coiple it with modern features like aerodynamic instability, supercruise, stealth features and further development potential.
The aircraft's core mission objectives comprised:
- Provide strategic air defense and surveillance in areas not covered by ground-based air defense systems (incl. guidance of other aircraft with less sophisticated avionics)
- Top speed of Mach 3.2 or more in a dash and cruise at Mach 3.0 for prolonged periods
- Long range/high speed interception of airspace intruders of any kind, including low flying cruise missiles, UAVs and helicopters
- Intercept cruise missiles and their launch aircraft from sea level up to 30.000m altitude by reaching missile launch range in the lowest possible time after departing the loiter area
Because funding was scarce and no official GOR had been issued, the project was taken on as a private venture. The new project was internally known as "Izdeliye 710" or "71.0". It was based on both 301 and 701 layout ideas and the wind tunnel experiences with their unusual layouts, as well as Oleg Samoylovich's experience with the Suchoi T-4 Mach 3 bomber project and the T-60S.
"Izdeliye 710" was from the start intended only as a proof-of-concept prototype, yet fully functional. It would also incorporate new technologies like heat-resistant ceramics against kinetic heating at prolonged high speeds (the airframe had to resist temperatures of 300°C/570°F and more for considerable periods), but with potential for future development into a full-fledged interceptor, penetrator and reconnaissance aircraft.
Overall, “Izdeliye 710" looked like a shrinked version of a mix of both former MiG OKB 301 and 701 designs, limited to the MiG-31's weight class of about 40 tons TOW. Compared with the former designs, the airframe received an aerodynamically more refined, partly blended, slender fuselage that also incorporated mild stealth features like a “clean” underside, softened contours and partly shielded air intakes. Structurally, the airframe's speed limit was set at Mach 3.8.
From the earlier 301 design,the plane retained the variable geometry wing. Despite the system's complexity and weight, this solution was deemed to be the best approach for a combination of a high continuous top speed, extended loiter time in the mission’s patrol areas and good performance on improvised airfields. Minimum sweep was a mere 10°, while, fully swept at 68°, the wings blended into the LERXes. Additional lift was created through the fuselage shape itself, so that aerodynamic surfaces and therefore drag could be reduced.
Pilot and radar operator sat in tandem under a common canopy with rather limited sight. The cockpit was equipped with a modern glass cockpit with LCD screens. The aircraft’s two engines were, again, placed in a large, mutual nacelle on the upper rear fuselage, fed by large air intakes with two-dimensional vertical ramps and a carefully modulated airflow over the aircraft’s dorsal area.
Initially, the 71.0 was to be powered by a pair of Soloviev D-30F6 afterburning turbofans with a dry thrust of 93 kN (20,900 lbf) each, and with 152 kN (34,172 lbf) with full afterburner. These were the same engines that powered the MiG-31, but there were high hopes for the Kolesov NK-101 engine: a variable bypass engine with a maximum thrust in the 200kN range, at the time of the 71.0's design undergoing bench tests and originally developed for the advanced Suchoj T-4MS strike aircraft.
With the D-30F6, the 71.0 was expected to reach Mach 3.2 (making the aircraft capable of effectively intercepting the SR-71), but the NK-101 would offer in pure jet mode a top speed in excess of Mach 3.5 and also improve range and especially loiter time when running as a subsonic turbofan engine.
A single fin with an all-moving top and an additional deep rudder at its base was placed on top of the engine nacelle. Additional maneuverability at lower speed was achieved by retractable, all-moving foreplanes, stowed in narrow slits under the cockpit. Longitudinal stability at high speed was improved through deflectable stabilizers: these were kept horizontal for take-off and added to the overall lift, but they could be folded down by up to 60° in flight, acting additionally as stabilizer strakes.
Due to the aircraft’s slender shape and unique proportions, the 71.0 quickly received the unofficial nickname "жура́вль" (‘Zhurávl' = Crane). The aircaft’s stalky impression was emphasized even more through its unusual landing gear arrangement: Due to the limited internal space for the main landing gear wells between the weapons bay, the wing folding mechanisms and the engine nacelle, MiG OKB decided to incorporate a bicycle landing gear, normally a trademark of Yakovlew OKB designs, but a conventional landing gear could simply not be mounted, or its construction would have become much too heavy and complex.
In order to facilitate operations from improvised airfields and on snow the landing gear featured twin front wheels on a conventional strut and a single four wheel bogie as main wheels. Smaller, single stabilizer wheels were mounted on outriggers that retracted into slender fairings at the wings’ fixed section trailing edge, reminiscent of early Tupolev designs.
All standard air-to-air weaponry, as well as fuel, was to be carried internally. Main armament would be the K-100 missile (in service eventually designated R-100), stored in a large weapons bay behind the cockpit on a rotary mount. The K-100 had been under development at that time at NPO Novator, internally coded ‘Izdeliye 172’. The K-100 missile was an impressive weapon, and specifically designed to attack vital and heavily defended aerial targets like NATO’s AWACS aircraft at BVR distance.
Being 15’ (4.57 m) long and weighing 1.370 lb (620 kg), this huge ultra-long-range weapon had a maximum range of 250 mi (400 km) in a cruise/glide profile and attained a speed of Mach 6 with its solid rocket engine. This range could be boosted even further with a pair of jettisonable ramjets in tubular pods on the missile’s flanks for another 60 mi (100 km). The missile could attack targets ranging in altitude between 15 – 25,000 meters.
The weapon would initially be allocated to a specified target through the launch aircraft’s on-board radar and sent via inertial guidance into the target’s direction. Closing in, the K-100’s Agat 9B-1388 active seeker would identify the target, lock on, and independently attack it, also in coordination with other K-100’s shot at the same target, so that the attack would be coordinated in time and approach directions in order to overload defense and ensure a hit.
The 71.0’s internal mount could hold four of these large missiles, or, alternatively, the same number of the MiG-31’s R-33 AAMs. The mount also had a slot for the storage of additional mid- and short-range missiles for self-defense, e .g. three R-60 or two R-73 AAMs. An internal gun was not considered to be necessary, since the 71.0 or potential derivatives would fight their targets at very long distances and rather rely on a "hit-and-run" tactic, sacrificing dogfight capabilities for long loitering time in stand-by mode, high approach speed and outstanding acceleration and altitude performance.
Anyway, provisions were made to carry a Gsh-301-250 gun pod on a retractable hardpoint in the weapons bay instead of a K-100. Alternatively, such pods could be carried externally on four optional wing root pylons, which were primarily intended for PTB-1500 or PTB-3000 drop tanks, or further missiles - theoretically, a maximum of ten K-100 missiles could be carried, plus a pair of short-range AAMs.
Additionally, a "buddy-to-buffy" IFR set with a retractable drogue (probably the same system as used on the Su-24) was tested (71.2 was outfitted with a retractable refuelling probe in front of the cockpit), as well as the carriage of simple iron bombs or nuclear stores, to be delivered from very high altitudes. Several pallets with cameras and sensors (e .g. a high resolution SLAR) were also envisioned, which could easily replace the missile mounts and the folding weapon bay covers for recce missions.
Since there had been little official support for the project, work on the 710 up to the hardware stage made only little progress, since the MiG-31 already filled the long-range interceptor role in a sufficient fashion and offered further development potential.
A wooden mockup of the cockpit section was presented to PVO and VVS officials in 1989, and airframe work (including tests with composite materials on structural parts, including ceramic tiles for leading edges) were undertaken throughout 1990 and 1991, including test rigs for the engine nacelle and the swing wing mechanism.
Eventually, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 suddenly stopped most of the project work, after two prototype airframes had been completed. Their internal designations were Izdeliye 71.1 and 71.2, respectively. It took a while until the political situation as well as the ex-Soviet Air Force’s status were settled, and work on Izdeliye 710 resumed at a slow pace.
After taking two years to be completed, 71.1 eventually made its roll-out and maiden flight in summer 1994, just when MiG-31 production had ended. MiG OKB still had high hopes in this aircraft, since the MiG-31 would have to be replaced in the next couple of years and "Izdeliye 710" was just in time for the potential procurement process. The first prototype wore a striking all-white livery, with dark grey ceramic tiles on the wings’ leading edges standing out prominently – in this guise and with its futuristic lines the slender aircraft reminded a lot of the American Space Shuttle.
71.1 was primarily intended for engine and flight tests (esp. for the eagerly awaited NK-101 engines), as well as for the development of the envisioned ramjet propulsion system for full-scale production and further development of Izdeliye 710 into a Mach 3+ interceptor. No mission avionics were initially fitted to this plane, but it carried a comprehensive test equipment suite and ballast.
Its sister ship 71.2 flew for the first time in late 1994, wearing a more unpretentious grey/bare metal livery. This plane was earmarked for avionics development and weapons integration, especially as a test bed for the K-100 missile, which shared Izdeliye 710’s fate of being a leftover Soviet project with an uncertain future and an even more corny funding outlook.
Anyway, aircraft 71.2 was from the start equipped with a complete RP-31 ('Zaslon-M') weapon control system, which had been under development at that time as an upgrade for the Russian MiG-31 fleet being part of the radar’s development program secured financial support from the government and allowed the flight tests to continue. The RP-31 possessed a maximum detection range of 400 km (250 mi) against airliner-sized targets at high altitude or 200 km against fighter-sized targets; the typical width of detection along the front was given as 225 km. The system could track 24 airborne targets at one time at a range of 120 km, 6 of which could be simultaneously attacked with missiles.
With these capabilities the RP-31 suite could, coupled with an appropriate carrier airframe, fulfil the originally intended airspace control function and would render a dedicated and highly vulnerable airspace control aircraft (like the Beriev A-50 derivative of the Il-76 transport) more or less obsolete. A group of four aircraft equipped with the 'Zaslon-M' suite would be able to permanently control an area of airspace across a total length of 800–900 km, while having ultra-long range weapons at hand to counter any intrusion into airspace with a quicker reaction time than any ground-based fighter on QRA duty. The 71.0, outfitted with the RP-31/K-100 system, would have posed a serious threat to any aggressor.
In March 1995 both prototypes were eventually transferred to the Kerchenskaya Guards Air Base at Savasleyka in the Oblast Vladimir, 300 km east of Mocsow, where they received tactical codes of '11 Blue' and '12 Blue'. Besides the basic test program and the RP-31/K-100 system tests, both machines were directly evaluated against the MiG-31 and Su-27 fighters by the Air Force's 4th TsBPi PLS, based at the same site.
Both aircraft exceeded expectations, but also fell short in certain aspects. The 71.0’s calculated top speed of Mach 3.2 was achieved during the tests with a top speed of 3,394 km/h (2.108 mph) at 21,000 m (69.000 ft). Top speed at sea level was confirmed at 1.200 km/h (745 mph) indicated airspeed.
Combat radius with full weapon load and internal fuel only was limited to 1,450 km (900 mi) at Mach 0.8 and at an altitude of 10,000 m (33,000 ft), though, and it sank to a mere 720 km (450 mi) at Mach 2.35 and at an altitude of 18,000 m (59,000 ft). Combat range with 4x K-100 internally and 2 drop tanks was settled at 3,000 km (1,860 mi), rising to 5,400 km (3,360 mi) with one in-flight refueling, tested with the 71.2. Endurance at altitude was only slightly above 3 hours, though. Service ceiling was 22,800 m (74,680 ft), 2.000 m higher than the MiG-31.
While these figures were impressive, Soviet officials were not truly convinced: they did not show a significant improvement over the simpler MiG-31. MiG OKB tried to persuade the government into more flight tests and begged for access to the NK-101, but the Soviet Union's collapse halted this project, too, so that both Izdeliye 710 had to keep the Soloviev D-30F6.
Little is known about the Izdeliye 710 project’s progress or further developments. The initial tests lasted until at least 1997, and obviously the updated MiG-31M received official favor instead of a completely new aircraft. The K-100 was also dropped, since the R-33 missile and later its R-37 derivative sufficiently performed in the long-range aerial strike role.
Development on the aircraft as such seemed to have stopped with the advent of modernized Su-27 derivatives and the PAK FA project, resulting in the Suchoi T-50 prototype. Unconfirmed reports suggest that one of the prototypes (probably 71.1) was used in the development of the N014 Pulse-Doppler radar with a passive electronically scanned array antenna in the wake of the MFI program. The N014 was designed with a range of 420 km, detection target of 250km to 1m and able to track 40 targets while able to shoot against 20.
Most interestingly, Izdeliye 710 was never officially presented to the public, but NATO became aware of its development through satellite pictures in the early Nineties and the aircraft consequently received the ASCC reporting codename "Fastback".
Until today, only the two prototypes have been known to exist, and it is assumed – had the type entered service – that the long-range fighter had received the official designation "MiG-41".
General characteristics:
Crew: 2 (Pilot, weapon system officer)
Length (incl. pitot): 93 ft 10 in (28.66 m)
Wingspan:
- minimum 10° sweep: 69 ft 4 in (21.16 m)
- maximum 68° sweep: 48 ft 9 in (14,88 m)
Height: 23 ft 1 1/2 in (7,06 m )
Wing area: 1008.9 ft² (90.8 m²)
Weight: 88.151 lbs (39.986 kg)
Performance:
Maximum speed:
- Mach 3.2 (2.050 mph (3.300 km/h) at height
- 995 mph (1.600 km/h) supercruise speed at 36,000 ft (11,000 m)
- 915 mph (1.470 km/h) at sea level
Range: 3.705 miles (5.955 km) with internal fuel
Service ceiling: 75.000 ft (22.500 m)
Rate of climb: 31.000 ft/min (155 m/s)
Engine:
2x Soloviev D-30F6 afterburning turbofans with a dry thrust of 93 kN (20,900 lbf) each
and with 152 kN (34,172 lbf) with full afterburner.
Armament:
Internal weapons bay, main armament comprises a flexible missile load; basic ordnance of 4x K-100 ultra long range AAMs plus 2x R-73 short-range AAMs: other types like the R-27, R-33, R-60 and R-77 have been carried and tested, too, as well as podded guns on internal and external mounts. Alternatively, the weapon bay can hold various sensor pallets.
Four hardpoints under the wing roots, the outer pair “wet” for drop tanks of up to 3.000 l capacity, ECM pods or a buddy-buddy refueling drogue system. Maximum payload mass is 9000 kg.
The kit and its assembly
The second entry for the 2017 “Soviet” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com – a true Frankenstein creation, based on the scarce information about the real (but never realized) MiG 301 and 701 projects, the Suchoj T-60S, as well as some vague design sketches you can find online and in literature.
This one had been on my project list for years and I already had donor kits stashed away – but the sheer size (where will I leave it once done…?) and potential complexity kept me from tackling it.
The whole thing was an ambitious project and just the unique layout with a massive engine nacelle on top of the slender fuselage instead of an all-in-one design makes these aircraft an interesting topic to build. The GB was a good motivator.
“My” fictional interpretation of the MiG concepts is mainly based on a Dragon B-1B in 1:144 scale (fuselage, wings), a PM Model Su-15 two seater (donating the nose section and the cockpit, as well as wing parts for the fin) and a Kangnam MiG-31 (for the engine pod and some small parts). Another major ingredient is a pair of horizontal stabilizers from a 1:72 Hasegawa A-5 Vigilante.
Fitting the cockpit section took some major surgery and even more putty to blend the parts smoothly together. Another major surgical area was the tail; the "engine box" came to be rather straightforward, using the complete rear fuselage section from the MiG-31 and adding the intakes form the same kit, but mounted horizontally with a vertical splitter.
Blending the thing to the cut-away tail section of the B-1 was quite a task, though, since I not only wanted to add the element to the fuselage, but rather make it look a bit 'organic'. More than putty was necessary, I also had to made some cuts and transplantations. And after six PSR rounds I stopped counting…
The landing gear was built from scratch – the front wheel comes mostly from the MiG-31 kit. The central bogie and its massive leg come from a VEB Plasticart 1:100 Tu-20/95 bomber, plus some additional struts. The outriggers are leftover landing gear struts from a Hobby Boss Fw 190, mated with wheels which I believe come from a 1:200 VEB Plasticart kit, an An-24. Not certain, though. The fairings are slender MiG-21 drop tanks blended into the wing training edge. For the whole landing gear, the covers were improvised with styrene sheet, parts from a plastic straw(!) or leftover bits from the B-1B.
The main landing gear well was well as the weapons’ bay themselves were cut into the B-1B underside and an interior scratched from sheet and various leftover materials – I tried to maximize their space while still leaving enough room for the B-1B kit’s internal VG mechanism.
The large missiles (two were visible fitted and the rotary launcher just visibly hinted at) are, in fact, AGM-78 ‘Standard’ ARMs in a fantasy guise. They look pretty Soviet, though, like big brothers of the already not small R-33 missiles from the MiG-31.
While not in the focus of attention, the cockpit interior is completely new, too – OOB, the Su-15 cockpit only has a floor and rather stubby seats, under a massive single piece canopy. On top of the front wheel well (from a Hasegawa F-4) I added a new floor and added side consoles, scratched from styrene sheet. F-4 dashboards improve the decoration, and I added a pair of Soviet election seats from the scrap box – IIRC left over from two KP MiG-19 kits.
The canopy was taken OOB, I just cut it into five parts for open display. The material’s thickness does not look too bad on this aircraft – after all, it would need a rather sturdy construction when flying at Mach 3+ and withstanding the respective pressures and temperatures.
Painting
As a pure whif, I was free to use a weirdo design - but I rejected this idea quickly. I did not want a garish splinter scheme or a bright “Greenbottle Fly” Su-27 finish.
With the strange layout of the aircraft, the prototype idea was soon settled – and Soviet prototypes tend to look very utilitarian and lusterless, might even be left in grey. Consequently, I adapted a kind of bare look for this one, inspired by the rather shaggy Soviet Tu-22 “Blinder” bombers which carried a mix of bare metal and white and grey panels. With additional black leading edges on the aerodynamic surfaces, this would create a special/provisional but still purposeful look.
For the painting, I used a mix of several metallizer tones from ModelMaster and Humbrol (including Steel, Magnesium, Titanium, as well as matt and polished aluminum, and some Gun Metal and Exhaust around the engine nozzles, partly mixed with a bit of blue) and opaque tones (Humbrol 147 and 127). The “scheme” evolved panel-wise and step by step. The black leading edges were an interim addition, coming as things evolved, and they were painted first with black acrylic paint as a rough foundation and later trimmed with generic black decal stripes (from TL Modellbau). A very convenient and clean solution!
The radomes on nose and tail and other di-electric panels became dark grey (Humbrol 125). The cockpit tub was painted with Soviet Cockpit Teal (from ModelMaster), while the cockpit opening and canopy frames were kept in a more modest medium grey (Revell 57). On the outside of the cabin windows, a fat, deep yellow sealant frame (Humbrol 93, actually “Sand”) was added.
The weapon bay was painted in a yellow-ish primer tone (seen on pics of Tu-160 bombers) while the landing gear wells received a mix of gold and sand; the struts were painted in a mixed color, too, made of Humbrol 56 (Aluminum) and 34 (Flat White). The green wheel discs (Humbrol 131), a typical Soviet detail, stand out well from the rather subdued but not boring aircraft, and they make a nice contrast to the red Stars and the blue tactical code – the only major markings, besides a pair of MiG OKB logos under the cockpit.
Decals were puzzled together from various sheets, and I also added a lot of stencils for a more technical look. In order to enhance the prototype look further I added some photo calibration markings on the nose and the tail, made from scratch.
A massive kitbashing project that I had pushed away for years - but I am happy that I finally tackled it, and the result looks spectacular. The "Firefox" similarity was not intended, but this beast really looks like a movie prop - and who knwos if the Firefox was not inspired by the same projects (the MiG 301 and 701) as my kitbash model?
The background info is a bit lengthy, but there's some good background info concerning the aforementioned projects, and this aircraft - as a weapon system - would have played a very special and complex role, so a lot of explanations are worthwhile - also in order to emphasize that I di not simply try to glue some model parts together, but rather try to spin real world ideas further.
Mighty bird!