View allAll Photos Tagged Overcomer
A post featuring Designer Prim's skybox from the Back to Black event.
Clothing by DROP, new release shape from Anatomy (David)
Pose by oOo Studio
Full credits: slposh.blogspot.com/2012/02/overcoming-of-it.html
Overcome with aquatic plant growth, the Swamp Devil, or Cookie Cutter as it is often referred to; chops the vegetation into small manageable pieces that the Aquatic Plant Harvester will collect and then haul to shore.
Our praise & worship team singing, "Overcome" during our wonderful Easter Sunday morning worship service here. There were 2 services held: one at 9 a.m. and the 2nd one at the usual 10:30 a.m. This was during the 2nd service. It looked like we had a lot of people in attendance this morning, as well! This was at The Point Church in San Jose, CA. It was certainly a great Easter Sunday worship service this morning!
(Filmed Sunday morning, April 16, 2017)
*Easter, or Resurrection Sunday, is a festival and holiday celebrating the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Many Christians feel strongly that the day on which we celebrate Jesus' resurrection should not be referred to as "Easter Sunday." Rather, something like "Resurrection Sunday" would be far more appropriate and biblical. For the Christian, it is unthinkable that we would allow the silliness of Easter eggs and the Easter bunny to be the main focus of the day instead of Jesus' resurrection.
The scooter enables Alex to get around the village and even do some shopping! What a great idea! She is seriously disabled, and I thought I'd just like to show folks how people adapt and overcome their their health issues.
The mule deer lived in the open range southeast of the Denver Metropolitan area. In the 1990’s the population growth exploded and there was development all along the front range of Colorado. Some of the wildlife moved away but the mule deer stayed and used the strength in their back legs to cross the man-made boundaries.
My little friend Schnozel has overcome his shyness and agreed to make his film debut. I used to feel so sorry for this little fellow with his overgrown and deformed beak, now I only feel admiration for him...he's a little star in my garden. In this film you will see some footage I took of him yesterday on his favorite cane feeder:)
Yesterday, I was hosing Billy down and he kept attacking the hose water. I decided that I wanted to get some pictures of his rat /dreads looking self. He's a great poser, but hard to get him to stay. The aftermath of this, he got a wonderful bath and looked so fresh and clean!
We're in the All Ireland Junior Cup Final!
by Roger Corbett
Bangor produced an awesome display of power and composure to overcome a strong Clogher Valley side by 9-6 and book their place in this season’s final.
With both sides able to field their full-strength starting fifteens, backed up by an equally proficient seven man bench, this all-Ulster semi-final between two of the top teams within the Qualifying League had caught the attention of many rugby enthusiasts who were anticipating a memorable contest. The playing surface and weather conditions were just about perfect, with what little breeze there was blowing across the pitch and of little advantage to either side.
With hundreds of spectators lining the touchlines, and many more watching from the warmth and comfort of the clubhouse, Bangor’s Jason Morgan got proceedings underway. The home side didn’t want to repeat the early mistakes of last week’s game at CIYMS, and appeared to be focussed from the outset. However, Clogher Valley were obviously mindful of their last visit to Upritchard Park and started with power and purpose. The first couple of set pieces showed why their pack is a force to be reckoned with, pushing Bangor back with worrying ease. Building on this early dominance, Clogher took play into Bangor’s twenty two and mounted several good attacking moves. Bangor’s defence held firm on each occasion, until Clogher decided the only way they were going to come away with some points for these efforts was to take a drop goal, giving them an early lead by 0-3.
Having been under considerable pressure, Bangor started to work their way back into the game and were eventually rewarded with a Mark Widdowson penalty, which levelled the scores at 3-3 after 20 minutes. Further pressure from the home side soon resulted in another Clogher infringement at the breakdown, which resulted in another Widdowson penalty which put Bangor ahead for the first time by 6-3.
Although Clogher still looked dangerous in attack, when Bangor regained possession they quickly turned defence into attack through sensible and accurate positional kicking from Jason Morgan. Having gained good territory, Bangor then fought hard to stay there, even to the point where they managed to charge down two Clogher clearance kicks, although to the visitors’ relief the ball bounced out of play. However, the sustained pressure being exerted through Bangor’s back line eventually led to another penalty, which Widdowson converted to extend the lead to 9-3, which brought the first half to a close.
The first good attacking opportunity of the second half fell to Clogher after just 6 minutes. From a penalty in mid-field, a good kick brought the line-out close to Bangor’s 5 metre line. This is usually the platform from where Clogher are most deadly – their line-out and driving maul is a difficult force to stop. However, Bangor were prepared and not only stopped the drive, but turned the ball over and cleared their lines. Then to drive home the fact, they did it again a few minutes later. Given Clogher’s rightful reputation for their prowess in this area, the defensive response by Bangor’s forwards was truly impressive.
The only worrying time for Bangor came after 14 minutes when captain Jamie Clegg was somewhat harshly yellow-carded for pulling down a maul. From the resulting penalty, Clogher clawed back 3 points, making the score now 9-6.
However, obviously buoyed by their earlier dominance in the forwards, the seven man scrum of Bangor was now pushing the eight man Clogher pack backwards. Psychologically, this was a turning point, as Bangor now assumed control and prevented their opponents from developing any meaningful attacks. This, combined with Morgan’s positional kicking, resulted in Clogher being pinned down for most of the final quarter in their own half. Clogher’s situation became even more difficult when, after 22 minutes, one of their second row forwards was yellow-carded for not rolling away from a tackle.
With both sides finding it hard to break through each other’s defence, Bangor played tactically by simply preventing their opponents to build meaningful attacks through committed and effective defence, and then pushing them back deep into their own territory through long kicks for touch. On at least two occasions, Bangor came close to crossing Clogher’s line through breaks by Curtis Stewart and Davy Charles. They then had an opportunity within the final 5 minutes to extend their lead when Widdowson had another penalty kick from the right of Clogher’s posts. However, a sudden attack of cramp in his run-up resulted in the kick being miss-hit, and the ball drifted wide of the mark. Although disappointed not to have scored, Bangor stuck to their plan, and continued to thwart any chance of a counter attack, finally running down the clock to record a famous victory.
While the final score-line may not suggest it, this was an enthralling game from start to finish, played in good spirit and without any major injuries. For the visitors’ part, they may feel that they didn’t play to their normal high standard. However, they came up against a Bangor side that has proved so far in this competition that it can match and better the best junior sides in Ireland. Bangor’s route to the final has been as difficult as it could be possible – Clonmel (one of the pre-tournament favourites, and Munster champions) in round 1, Enniscorthy (the current cup holders) in the quarter finals, and now Clogher Valley (last year’s beaten finalists, and the current QL1 champions) in the semis. What lies ahead on 31st January 2015 is still unclear, following a 25-25 draw at the other semi-final between CIYMS and Dundalk. What is clear, however, is that Bangor can rightly look forward in confidence to face whoever is to come between them and the title. In the meantime, there are still vital games ahead in the league, resuming with a home fixture against Cooke next weekend.
Bangor side: P Whyte, A Jackson, J Leary, G Irvine, J Henly, R Latimer, J Clegg (c), C Stewart, R Armstrong, J Morgan, M Widdowson, M Aspley, M Weir, D Charles, C Morgan
Subs: O McIlmurry, S Irvine, F Black, D Kelly, D Fusco, M Thompson, A McCusker
Bangor scores: M Widdowson (3P)
Quinn the Wonder Dog & his mate, Ziggy, both rescued from the wilds of West Virginia & now living happily on Gina's farm with 4 other dogs & 24 horses.
That's Fickle Fay leaning over the fence to inspect & possibly nip Quinn & Ziggy.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the model, the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Bachem Ba 349 Natter (English: Colubrid, grass-snake) was a World War II German point-defence rocket-powered interceptor, which was to be used in a very similar way to a manned surface-to-air missile. In 1943, Luftwaffe air superiority was being challenged by the Allies over the Reich and radical innovations were required to overcome the crisis. Surface-to-air missiles appeared to be a promising approach to counter the Allied strategic bombing offensive; a variety of projects were started, but invariably problems with the guidance and homing systems prevented any of these from attaining operational status. Providing the missile with a pilot, who could operate a weapon during the brief terminal approach phase, offered a solution.
Submissions for a simple target defense interceptor were requested by the Luftwaffe in early 1944 under the umbrella of the Jägernotprogramm, literally "Emergency Fighter Program". The Natter was one of several design proposals, first conceived by Dr Erich Bachem in August 1944, after witnessing an American bombing raid on a major German city. He believed there ought to be a way to break up these large formations of bombers. His BP-20 ("Natter") was a development from a design he had worked on at Fieseler, the Fi 166 concept, but considerably more radical than the other submissions.
The Natter was designed to be built by unskilled labor with poor-quality tools and inexpensive material. Various stringent economies were imposed on an already frugal design. The Natter had no landing gear, which saved weight, expense, and construction time. It was built using glued and nailed wooden parts with an armor-plated bulkhead and bulletproof glass windshield at the front of the cockpit. The initial plan was to power the machine with a Walter HWK 109-509A-2 rocket engine; however, only the 109-509A-1, as used in the Me 163, was available. It had a sea level thrust variable between 100 kg (220 lb) at "idle" to 1,600 kg (3,500 lb) at full power, with the Natter's intended quartet of rear flank-mount Schmidding SG34 solid fuel rocket boosters used in its vertical launch to provide an additional 4,800 kg (10,600 lb) thrust for 10 seconds before they burned out and were jettisoned. The experimental prototypes slid up a 20 m (66 ft)-tall vertical steel launch tower for a maximum sliding length of 17 m (56 ft) in three guideways, one for each wing tip and one for the lower tip of the ventral tail fin. By the time the aircraft left the tower it was hoped that it would have achieved sufficient speed to allow its aerodynamic surfaces to provide stable flight.
Under operational conditions, once the Natter had left the launcher, it would be guided to the proximity of the Allied bombers by an autopilot with the possibility of an added beam guidance similar to that used in some V2 rocket launches. Only then would the pilot take control, aim and fire the armament, which was originally proposed to be a salvo of nineteen 55mm R4M rockets. Later, 28 R4Ms or a number of the larger, 73mm Henschel Hs 297 Föhn rockets were suggested, with either variety of unguided rocket fired from the Natter's nose-mounted cellular launch tubes. Alternatively, a pair of 30 mm (1.181 in) MK 108 cannon with 30 rpg were proposed, but the lack of resources did not allow this to be realized or even tested.
The Natter was intended to fly up and over the bombers, by which time its Walter engine would probably be out of propellant. Following its one-time attack with its rockets, the pilot would dive his Natter, now effectively a glider, to an altitude of around 3,000 m (9,800 ft), flatten out, release the nose of the aircraft and a small braking parachute from the rear fuselage. The fuselage would decelerate, and the pilot would be ejected forwards by his own momentum and land by means of a personal parachute.
In an early proposal in August 1944, the Natter design had a concrete nose; it was suggested that the machine might ram a bomber, but this proposal was subsequently withdrawn in later Project Natter outlines. Bachem stated clearly in the initial proposal that the Natter was not a suicide weapon, and much effort went into designing safety features for the pilot. The design had one decisive advantage over its competitors – it eliminated the necessity to control and land an unpowered gliding machine at an airbase, which, as the history of the Me 163 rocket aircraft had clearly demonstrated, made an aircraft extremely vulnerable to attack by Allied fighters and required a trained pilot – a resource the Luftwaffe was running out steadily.
Wind tunnel testing on a wooden model, scaled to 40% of full size, was performed at the Deutsche Versuchsanstalt für Luftfahrt (DVL), the Institute for Aerodynamics at Berlin-Adlershof in September 1944 at speeds up to 504 km/h (313 mph). Results from these tests were reported in January 1945 to the Bachem-Werk. Further model tests were carried out at the Luftfahrtforschungsanstalt Hermann Göring (LFA) facility in Völkenrode-Braunschweig, at speeds close to Mach 1. In March the Bachem-Werk simply received a statement that satisfactory flying qualities should be expected with speeds up to 1,100 km/h (680 mph).
After a rather fast and troublesome development phase the Natter was rushed into production. The SS ordered 150 Natters, and the Luftwaffe ordered 50, and the first serial production aircraft, now designated Ba 349 A-1, reached operational status in April 1945 with the Erprobungskommando (EK) 349. An operational launch site under the code name Operation Krokus was being established in a small, wooded area called Hasenholz, south of the Stuttgart to Munich autobahn and to the east of Nabern unter Teck. Around the end of February and the beginning of March the Organisation Todt had been in action, constructing each set of the trios of concrete foundations (or "footings") for the stationary launch towers. These three launch pads and their towers were arranged at the corners of an equilateral triangle, 120 m per side. At the same time mobile launch rigs were developed, the so-called “Meillerwagen II”, which was based on repurposed Königstiger battle tank hulls that had their engine moved into a mid-chassis position behind the driver’s compartment and carried an erectable ramp on the rear section with a vacuum-powered launch sled. This device could, beyond the Natter, also be used to start the unmanned Fieseler Fi 103 “V1” cruise missile and the Messerschmitt E-4 “Enzian” anti-aircraft missile.
As EK 349 commenced small-scale combat operations with the Ba 349 A-1 in April 1945, the aircraft’s velocity and small size were something Allied fighter pilots were at a loss to counter. The Natter attacked singly or in pairs, often even faster than the intercepting escort fighters could dive. A typical tactic was to fly vertically upward through the bombers at 9,000 m (30,000 ft), climb to 10,700–12,000 m (35,100–39,400 ft), then dive through the formation again, firing as they went. Most of the flight to the Allied bombers was to be controlled by an autopilot. The primary role of the relatively untrained pilot was to aim the aircraft at its target bomber and fire its armament, a single salvo of unguided Henschel Hs 297 Föhn 73mm rocket shells. The pilot and the fuselage containing the rocket engine would then land using separate parachutes, while the nose section was disposable.
By August 1945, 91 aircraft had been delivered to EK 349 and the first operational unit, the JG 400, into which the test unit was soon integrated. But a persistent lack of fuel, staff and maintenance resources kept most of them grounded. It was clear that the original plan for a huge network of Ba 349 bases that protected important locations would never be realized. Up to that point, only six aircraft had been lost due to enemy action, though, but nineteen Ba 349 A-1s had been lost to other causes, mostly due to explosions of the highly volatile fuel in the start phase, but also because of material failures on the rocket engine and the wooden airframe. Plans to field an upgraded version of the Natter, with more armament options and a rocket engine with two chambers that would allow a longer operational time in the air, so that two or even three attack runs could be made before the small aircraft would have to land again, never materialized.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 6 m (19 ft 8 in)
Wingspan: 4 m (13 ft 1 in)
Height: 2.25 m (7 ft 5 in) (without fins)
Wing area: 4.7 m² (51 sq ft)
Empty weight: 880 kg (1,940 lb), with fuel expended
Gross weight with boosters: 2,232 kg (4,921 lb)
Gross weight boosters jettisoned: 1,769 kg (3,900 lb)
Fuel capacity: 650 kg
Powerplant:
1× Walter HWK 109-509A-1 bi-fuel rocket engine, 15.7 kN maximum thrust
4× Schmidding SG 34 solid fuel booster rockets, 4.9 kN (1,100 lbf) thrust each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 1,000 km/h (620 mph, 540 kn) at 5,000 m (16,404 ft)
Cruise speed: 800 km/h (500 mph, 430 kn)
Range: 60 km (37 mi, 32 nmi) after climb at 3,000 m (9,843 ft)
55 km (34 mi)after climb at 6,000 m (19,685 ft)
42 km (26 mi)after climb at 9,000 m (29,528 ft)
40 km (25 mi)after climb at 10,000 m (32,808 ft)
Endurance: 4.36 minutes at 6,000 m (19,685 ft)
3.15 minutes at 9,000 m (29,528 ft)
Service ceiling: 12,000 m (39,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 190 m/s (37,000 ft/min)
Time to altitude: 62 seconds to 12 km (7.5 mi)
Armament:
24× 73 mm (2.874 in) Henschel Hs 297 Föhn 73mm rocket shells, or
33× 55 mm (2.165 in) R4M rocket shells
(Alternatively/proposed) 2× 30 mm (1.181 in) MK 108 cannon with 30 rpg
The kit and its assembly:
This small and simple what-if model was inspired by two things: first of all, there was no operational Ba 349 – there were glide tests and a single launch which ended in a catastrophe. So, what could a late-war service aircraft have looked like? The other factor was the idea to build a mobile launch platform for the tiny rocket fighter – in real life the tests were conducted with stationary rigs in Southern Germany, but a self-propelled device would certainly have improved the Natter’s operational value and survivability of its complex infrastructure. The latter, however, is worth its own post and description, so this here is only about the Natter’s model.
The kit is the Brengun model of the Natter, and it’s quite nice for a short-run IP kit. The cockpit has decent detail, just the fin is IMHO a bit chunky, and it requires some PSR to make the fuselage parts blend together well. I just wonder if there had not been a less complicated and user-friendly mold solution for the rocket booster bottles, which consist of four parts each – two halves for the twin bottles, but also twin halves for the tiny nozzles! What a mess! :-/
The only thing I changed was the canopy, which was cut into two pieces to present the Ba 349 with an open cockpit on its wooden rack – unlike the Heller kit, which comes with a lower and more delicate rack, the Brengun offering lacks wheels so that it rather looks like a museum display and not a field tool of the Luftwaffe. I must have a Scheuch-Schlepper from an Academy Me 163 kit somewhere, maybe I can adapt that for the Natter?
Painting and markings:
The whiffier aspect of the model: an in-service camouflage for the Ba 349. I took inspiration from late Me 163s and gave the tiny aircraft a camouflage consisting of RLM 76 Lichtblau underneath (Modelmaster 2086) and on the flanks, with RLM 81 and 82 (Braunviolett, Humbrol 251, which is a very brownish interpretation of that tone, and Dunkelgrün, respectively, Modelmaster 2091) on the wings and the spine and sharply edged blotches on the flanks. For better visibility from underneath, as a support for Flak units, the wings and the lower fuselage behind the cockpit were painted black.
After basic painting the model received a light black ink washing and some panel-shading.
As a late-war aircraft the cockpit interior became (very) dark grey while the rocket booster bottles were painted in universal RLM 02.
As a service aircraft the Natter would IMHO carry standard Luftwaffe national and unit insignia (any model shows the Natter devoid of anything, except the test machines which had some photo calibration and orientation markings), and I adapted late-war markings with simplified white crosses in six positions, a serial number on the lower fin, a unit badge (suitably from a JG 400 Me 163) and white tactical code and squadron marking as a thin ring around the nose. Stencils were generously taken from the Brengun OOB sheet. All quite simple and straightforward, but it works and adds a purposeful look to the wee aircraft.
Soot stains were created with graphite around the rocket launcher in the nose and around the rocket nozzles in the tail area, and finally everything was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.
A quick build, but only part of a much bigger project, the respective mobile launch platform (based on a Jagdtiger and a Japanese aircraft steam catapult kit!). The late-war Luftwaffe colors and markings suit the Natter well, adding a very convincing touch to this desperate attempt to fight off incoming Allied bombers.