View allAll Photos Tagged Refuse
Beat up carry can. Combination was a regular sight when Lomita & LA County was still Manual Collected
Operated by: Minneapolis Refuse Inc. Minneapolis, MN
Unit Number: n/a
Body: Leach 2RII
Chassis: CCC
Notes:
____________________________________________
Contractor hauler serving the City of Minneapolis.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Please do not use this photo or any part of this photo without first asking for permission, thank you.
____________________________________________
The days of the rear open loading refuse vehicle were numbered as wheelie bins were beginning to make an impact., no longer would we hear the pop/splat of a black bin bag bursting when the compressor blade was used.
Birmingham waste management Dennis/Phoenix VN08 LPZ (2331) makes a bin bag collection in Petersfield Road Hall Green. The last tax for the Dennis expired in November 2017
Copyright Geoff Dowling: All rights reserved
Heres a photo I did for the fitness clothing line Refuse to Fail. It was a lot of fun and very rewarding to work with these models!
Strobist: AB1600 Octa camera right AB 800 thru BD camera left
Triggered by Scybersyncs
There's another foot of snow in the high country, and it tried to snow in the city today. But I'm here, refusing to accept winter. :)
© Web-Betty: digital heart, analog soul
A Freightliner Condor refuse packer with Dempster body in use by the Centerville, Ohio Public Works Department.
The Newstead Gasworks was established in 1887, as the second Brisbane gasworks. The surviving Newstead Gasworks No.2 gasholder (remnants) and guide framing was erected at that time and was probably moved from the original gas works site at Petrie Bight where it was erected in 1873.
From 1861 to 1864, Brisbane's population more than doubled, to 12,551. In the mid-1860s, Brisbane's infrastructure blossomed, with construction of the first cross-river bridge, a new Town Hall, a vastly improved water supply and its first gasworks. Commercial gas supply originated in London in 1812, Sydney in 1841 and Melbourne in 1856.
The Brisbane Municipal Council was anxious to provide street lighting, for which gas was seen as the only feasible system. Earlier in the decade, the Colonial Government, supposedly for health reasons, refused permission for the Council to establish a gasworks on a site at Petrie's Bight. On the same site, however, in 1864, the Government authorised private enterprise to establish this new public utility. Central to these decisions was the Minister for Lands and Works, Arthur Macalister, then at the epicentre of friction between the Government and the Brisbane Council, friction which has erupted on several occasions ever since.
One of the founding directors of the Company in 1864 was Lewis Adolphus Bernays, secretary for the first 37 years, and eventually a board member, of the (Brisbane) Board of Waterworks. Bernays, also listed in Who's Who from 1851-1905, was prominent in a number of Queensland organisations including the Acclimatisation Society, and held the position of clerk of the Legislative Assembly.
Brisbane Gas Company production started at Petrie Bight in November 1865. The streets of Brisbane were lit. Soon after, however, Council's arrears of payment resulted in its gas being turned off, with the streets plunged back into darkness. The streets remained unlit until the Council's (and the Colony's) financial situation had recovered sufficiently, in 1870. By 1873, the boot was on the other foot. The Council's cash flow had recovered, but gas flow could not satisfy demand. The Company duly solved the problem by installing another, larger (No.2) gasholder (probably known then as a gasometer).
The 81 year long association of the Cowlishaw family with the board of the Company started in this same year of 1873. James Cowlishaw, later the Hon. James Cowlishaw, MLC, an architect, was Chairman for 41years. He served on the board for a total of 45 years. His brother George also served on the board for 28 years from 1884. James Cowlishaw was succeeded in the chair by his son Thomas O Cowlishaw, who served for 34 years until 1954. A fourth Cowlishaw, George O Cowlishaw, was involved with the Company in 1939.
The main demand for gas during the 1870s was probably for lighting, and the Municipal Council was almost certainly the Brisbane Gas Company's biggest customer. After the financial woes of the later 1860s there followed two decades of steady growth in Brisbane, reflected in an increase of demand for gas, for both lighting and for domestic and industrial fuel. Supply was expanded to, among other places, South Brisbane. The Company had outgrown the Petrie's Bight site, and acquired 22 acres of suitable land at Newstead, in 1883. Further adjoining land was bought in 1885 to facilitate the Company's first major expansion.
The Company's engineer for the shift from Petrie Bight to Newstead was JH Tomlinson, arriving in 1880 from a previous appointment in Birmingham. He presumably managed the design, supply and erection of the new gasworks. The equipment, much of it imported from England, was landed at the Company's wharf at the river frontage of the site. The Company first manufactured and stored town gas at Newstead in 1887 after a period of 22 years manufacture at Petrie Bight.
As part of the shift to Newstead, the Petrie's Bight gasholder No.2, constructed in 1873 from puddled iron, was re-erected on the recently acquired land at Longland Street. No.1 gasholder remained at Petrie Bight. At this time, the first weight-controlled governor would have been installed in its governor house.
Just as had occurred in the early 1860s, the land boom of the 1880s was reflected in booming demand for gas. Events proved that there was room for a second gasworks. The South Brisbane Gas and Light Company Limited was formed in 1885, entered the market very aggressively, and produced its first gas at the end of 1886. By this time, gas was increasingly in use for domestic fuel as well as for lighting. A price-cutting war lasted until 1889 when the companies, without any concerns about restrictive trade practices, carved Brisbane up into north and south of the river as their respective marketing territories. It was not until the Gas Act of 1916 that the Government saw fit to look more closely at the cosy arrangements between gas companies, which by that stage included the Wynnum and Manly Gas and Lighting Company Limited, formed in 1912. The Act dealt with product quality and pressure, and provided for gas examiners. Price was also dealt with. (A later piece of legislation, the Profiteering Prevention Act, also encompassed gas).
A further consideration in the 1880s was the emergence in Brisbane of electricity generation for power and lighting. Eventually, as electricity technology advanced, gas lighting would literally fade into the background, the demand for gas as fuel outstripping the demand for use for lighting. Active defence was mounted to protect the gas companies' interests in lighting, and it was not until 1917 that the first permanent electric lighting took to the streets of Brisbane.
The demise of gas lighting would not have been immediate, and the demand for gas continued to grow. In 1929, No.3 gasholder at Doggett Street was commissioned, a four-lift frame-guided steel tank gasholder, again made from puddled iron, with a capacity of 2,500,000 cu. ft. (70,800 m3), by far the largest in Brisbane.
In 1937, gasholder No.2 was fitted with a new crown of riveted steel plate.
In the post-W.W.II period, demand for gas again boomed, to such an extent that at one stage some 5000 newly constructed northside dwellings were completed without their gas having been connected. The core of the problem lay in English gasworks manufacturers' inability to deliver. A major retort augmentation planned for completion in 1950 finally came on stream in 1954, but not until an emergency measure had been taken to erect a Humphreys and Glasgow water-gas plant, for which coke was the feedstock. This came on stream just in time for the winter of 1953.
When dieselisation of the Queensland Railways took place in the 1960s, it was judged that there would be a risk of serious damage if a locomotive were to derail near No.2 gasholder. Accordingly, a reinforced concrete wall was built as a shield between the railway spur line and the gasholder. Diesel locomotives were seen as a greater risk than their apparently cuddly coal-fired steam counterparts that had used the same track, in the same proximity, for the previous half-century.
By 1965, No.1 gasholder in Ann Street had been dismantled. In 1999, so had No.3, and No.2 has been disabled by splitting a hole in the crown plating, leaving the inside of the gasholder exposed to a moist oxidising atmosphere, ideal conditions for rapid rust.
Gas manufacture
The foregoing history has been compiled in the context of gas storage, with the emphasis on the remaining No.2 gasholder (remnants) and guide framing, which has stored and delivered both town gas and natural gas.
The sources of gasholder feed have been a series of gas manufacturing plants on the site, of which there are none left. The size and programming of the manufacturing plants have been determined by several factors:
(i) Current technology, both of outlet appliances and gas manufacture technology;
(ii) Demand, always closely related to population growth and economic conditions;
(iii) Feedstock
(iv) Working conditions at the gasworks.
The following is a brief history of the major manufacturing installations at Newstead since 1887.
The first manufacture at Newstead in 1887 was in a retort house containing ten benches of manually operated horizontal retorts. Feedstock was Ipswich coking coal. Output was "town" gas.
A new 1,500,000 cu. ft. per day West's vertical retort house, embarked upon during World War I, was eventually completed in 1920, with six settings of eight 33" (825mm) vertical retorts 20 ft long.
In 1926, a Whessoe washer was imported, used to remove ammonia and naphthalene after completion of all other purification.
A further ten benches were added to the horizontal retort house in 1927 when the horizontal retort house was revamped to mechanical operation.
Several additions were made in 1947, in preparation for a major increase in plant capacity planned to be on stream by 1950. A Woodhall-Duckham electrostatic de-tarrer was imported from England, and a Livesay washer was constructed locally. These were of 4,000,000 cu. ft. per day capacity, matching the capacity of the proposed new Glover-West plant on order from England. Also, constructed locally to (English) Holmes design, multi-film washers. Additional Connersville meters were also installed.
The new Glover-West vertical retort carbonising plant, with a capacity of 4,000,000 cu. ft. per day, was eventually opened in 1954. In view of delays in supply of specialised plant from post-war England, a Humphreys-Glasgow carburetted water-gas plant was installed as an emergency measure by MR Hornibrook Pty Ltd, prior to the winter of 1953. While less efficient than the carbonisation process, this process, one of several known as gasification, used coke as its feedstock and was more easily automated. It is probable that the Bryan-Donkin diaphragm-operated governors, housed immediately to the north of and in series with the original governor, were installed as part of the 1954 revamp.
With the arrival of natural gas, the retort houses and the water-gas plant were duly retired from service, to be replaced, in 1968 with a Vickers-Zimmer plant, supplemented in 1973 by an Onia-Geigy plant ex Adelaide. These gasification plants synthesised town gas from oil refinery material and natural gas, until the eventual 1996 conversion of the older suburbs to natural gas.
The older carbonisation plants were demolished in 1994, and the gasification plants in 1999, along with gasholder No.3 in Doggett Street. In 2002, approval was given to demolish the brick governor houses and to remove associated machinery and pipe work, to demolish the storage shed and concrete safety wall, and to construct new commercial buildings and an adjacent road surrounding the gasometer. Approval was also given to excavate the site and remove its crown and inner gaslifts.
**Queensland Heritage Register**
Dunno, found the brush-like refuse interesting, stopped to photograph it. Stood out among the various wrappers and styrofoam coffee cups.
Chassis: Peterbilt Model 520
Body: Labrie Automizer Right-Hand
Hauler: Sanitary Disposal
Location: Boardman, OR
Date: July 2026
See More "Trashy" Photos & Videos At: The Thrash 'N' Trash Website
+++ DISCLAIMER +++Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Gudkov Gu-1 was a Soviet fighter aircraft produced shortly after World War II in small numbers at the start of the jet age, but work on the Gudkov Gu-1 already started in 1944. Towards the end of World War II the Soviet Union saw the need for a strategic bombing capability similar to that of the United States Army Air Forces. The Soviet VVS air arm had the locally designed Petlyakov Pe-8 four-engined heavy bomber in service at the start of the war, but only 93 had been built by the end of the war and the type had become obsolete. By that time the U.S. regularly conducted bombing raids on Japan from distant Pacific forward bases using B-29 Superfortresses, and the Soviet Air Force lacked this capability.
Joseph Stalin ordered the development of a comparable bomber, and the U.S. twice refused to supply the Soviet Union with B-29s under Lend Lease. However, on four occasions during 1944, individual B-29s made emergency landings in Soviet territory and one crashed after the crew bailed out. In accordance with the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact, the Soviets were neutral in the Pacific War and the bombers were therefore interned and kept by the Soviets. Despite Soviet neutrality, America demanded the return of the bombers, but the Soviets refused. Three repairable B-29s were flown to Moscow and delivered to the Tupolev OKB. One B-29 was dismantled, the second was used for flight tests and training, and the third one was left as a standard for cross-reference.
Stalin told Tupolev to clone the Superfortress in as short a time as possible. The reverse-engineering effort involved 900 factories and research institutes, who finished the design work during the first year. 105,000 drawings were made, and the American technology had to be adapted to local material and manufacturing standards – and ended in a thorough re-design of the B-29 “under the hood”. By the end of the second year, the Soviet industry was to produce 20 copies of the aircraft ready for State acceptance trials.
While work on what would become the Tupolev Tu-4 was on the way, the need for a long range escort fighter arose, too. Soviet officials were keen on the P-51 Mustang, but, again, the USA denied deliveries, so that an indigenous solution had to be developed. With the rising tension of international relationships, this became eventually the preferred solution, too.
While the design bureau Lavochkin had already started with work on the La-9 fighter (which entered service after WWII) and the jet age was about to begin, the task of designing a long range escort fighter for the Tu-4 was relegated to Mikhail I. Gudkov who had been designing early WWII fighters like the LaGG-1 and -3 together with Lavochkin. Internally, the new fighter received the project handle "DIS" (Dalnij Istrebitel' Soprovozhdenya ="long-range escort fighter").
In order to offer an appropriate range and performance that could engage enemy interceptors in the bombers’ target area it was soon clear that neither a pure jet nor a pure piston-engine fighter was a viable solution – a dilemma the USAAF was trying to solve towards 1945, too. The jet engine alone did not offer sufficient power, and fuel consumption was high, so that the necessary range could never be achieved with an agile fighter. Late war radials had sufficient power and offered good range, but the Soviet designers were certain that the piston engine fighter had no future – especially when fast jet fighters had to be expected over enemy territory.
Another problem arose through the fact that the Soviet Union did not have an indigenous jet engine at hand at all in late 1945. War booty from Germany in the form of Junkers Jumo 004 axial jet engines and blueprints of the more powerful HeS 011 were still under evaluation, and these powerplants alone did neither promise enough range nor power for a long range fighter aircraft. Even for short range fighters their performance was rather limited – even though fighters like the Yak-15 and the MiG-9 were designed around them.
After many layout experiments and calculation, Gudkov eventually came up with a mixed powerplant solution for the DIS project. But unlike the contemporary, relatively light I-250 (also known as MiG-13) interceptor, which added a mechanical compressor with a primitive afterburner (called VRDK) to a Klimov VK-107R inline piston engine, the DIS fighter was equipped with a powerful radial engine and carried a jet booster – similar to the US Navy’s Ryan FR-1 “Fireball”. Unlike the FR-1, though, the DIS kept a conservative tail-sitter layout and was a much bigger aircraft.
The choice for the main powerplant fell on the Shvetsov ASh-82TKF engine, driving a large four blade propeller. This was a boosted version of the same 18 cylinder twin row radial that powered the Tu-4, the ASh-73. The ASh-82TKF for the escort fighter project had a rating of 2,720 hp (2,030 kW) while the Tu-4's ASh-73TK had "only" a temporary 2,400 hp (1,800 kW) output during take-off. The airframe was designed around this massive and powerful engine, and the aircraft’s sheer size was also a result of the large fuel capacity which was necessary to meet the range target of at least 3.000 km (1.860 mi, 1.612 nmi).
The ASh-82TKF alone offered enough power for a decent performance, but in order to take on enemy jet fighters and lighter, more agile propeller-driven fighters, a single RD-20 axial-flow turbojet with 7.8 kN (1,754 lbf) thrust was added in the rear-fuselage. It was to add power for take-off and in combat situations only. Its fixed air intakes were placed on the fuselage flanks, right behind the cockpit, and the jet pipe was placed under the fin and the stabilizers.
Outwardly, Gudkov’s DIS resembled the late American P-47D or the A-1 Skyraider a lot, and the beefy aircraft was comparable in size and weight, too. But the Soviet all-metal aircraft was a completely new construction and featured relatively small and slender laminar flow wings. The wide-track landing gear retracted inwards into the inner wings while the tail wheel retracted fully into a shallow compartment under the jet pipe.
The pilot sat in a spacious cockpit under a frameless bubble canopy with very good all-round visibility and enjoyed amenities for long flights such as increased padding in the seat, armrests, and even a urinal. In addition, a full radio navigation suite was installed for the expected long range duties over long stretches of featureless landscape like the open sea.
Armament consisted of four 23 mm Nudelman-Suranov NS-23 cannons with 100 RPG in the wings, outside of the propeller arc. The guns were good for a weight of fire of 6kg (13.2 lb)/sec, a very good value. Five wet hardpoints under the fuselage, the wings outside of the landing gear well and under the wing tips could primarily carry auxiliary drop tanks or an external ordnance of up to 1.500 kg (3.300 lb).
Alternatively, iron bombs of up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) caliber could be carried on the centerline pylon, and a pair of 250 kg (550 lb) bombs under the wings, but a fighter bomber role was never seriously considered for the highly specialized and complex aircraft.
The first DIS prototype, still without the jet booster, flew in May 1947. The second prototype, with both engines installed, had its fuel capacity increased by an additional 275 l (73 US gal) in an additional fuel tank behind the cockpit. The aircraft was also fitted with larger tires to accommodate the increased all-up weight, esp. with all five 300 l drop tanks fitted for maximum range and endurance.
Flight testing continued until 1948 and the DIS concept proved to be satisfactory, even though the complicated ASh-82TKF hampered the DIS’ reliability - to the point that fitting the ASh-73TK from the Tu-4 was considered for serial production, even if this would have meant a significant reduction in performance. The RD-20 caused lots of trouble, too. Engine reliability was generally poor, and re-starting the engine in flight did not work satisfactorily – a problem that, despite several changes to the starter and ignition system, could never be fully cured. The jet engine’s placement in the tail, together with the small tail wheel, also caused problems because the pilots had to take care that the tail would not aggressively hit the ground upon landings, because the RD-20 and its attachments were easily damaged.
Nevertheless, the DIS basically fulfilled the requested performance specifications and was, despite many shortcomings, eventually cleared for production in mid 1948. It received the official designation Gudkov Gu-1, honoring the engineer behind the aircraft, even though the aircraft was produced by Lavochkin.
The first machines were delivered to VVS units in early 1949 - just in time for the Tu-4's service introduction after the Russians had toiled endlessly on solving several technical problems. In the meantime, jet fighter development had quickly progressed, even though a purely jet-powered escort fighter for the Tu-4 was still out of question. Since the Gu-1 was capricious, complex and expensive to produce, only a limited number left the factories and emphasis was put on the much simpler and more economical Lavochkin La-11 escort fighter, a lightweight evolution of the proven La-9. Both types were regarded as an interim solution until a pure jet escort fighter would be ready for service.
Operationally the Gu-1s remained closely allocated to the VVS’ bomber squadrons and became an integral part of them. Anyway, since the Tu-4 bomber never faced a serious combat situation, so did the Gu-1, which was to guard it on its missions. For instance, both types were not directly involved in the Korean War, and the Gu-1 was primarily concentrated at the NATO borders to Western Europe, since bomber attacks in this theatre would certainly need the heavy fighter’s protection.
The advent of the MiG-15 - especially the improved MiG-15bis with additional fuel capacities and drop tanks, quickly sounded the death knell for the Gu-1 and any other post-WWII piston-engine fighter in Soviet Service. As Tu-4 production ended in the Soviet Union in 1952, so did the Gu-1’s production after only about 150 aircraft. The Tu-4s and their escort fighters were withdrawn in the 1960s, being replaced by more advanced aircraft including the Tupolev Tu-16 jet bomber (starting in 1954) and the Tupolev Tu-95 turboprop bomber (starting in 1956).
The Gudkov Gu-1, receiving the NATO ASCC code “Flout”, remained a pure fighter. Even though it was not a success, some proposals for updates were made - but never carried out. These included pods with unguided S-5 air-to-air-rockets, to be carried on the wing hardpoints, bigger, non-droppable wing tip tanks for even more range or, alternatively, the addition of two pulsejet boosters on the wing tips.
There even was a highly modified mixed powerplant version on the drawing boards in 1952, the Gu-1M. Its standard radial powerplant for cruise flight was enhanced with a new, non-afterburning Mikulin AM-5 axial flow jet engine with 2.270 kgf/5,000 lbf/23 kN additional thrust in the rear fuselage. With this temporary booster, a top speed of up to 850 km/h was expected. But to no avail - the pure jet fighter promised a far better performance and effectiveness, and the Gu-1 remained the only aircraft to exclusively carry the Gudkov name.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 12 m (39 ft 4 in)
Wingspan: 14 m (45 ft 11 in)
Height: 4.65 m (15 ft 3 in)
Wing area: 28 m² (301.388 ft²)
Airfoil:
Empty weight: 4,637 kg (10,337 lb)
Loaded weight: 6.450 kg (14.220 lb)
Maximum take-off weight: 7,938 kg (17,500 lb)
Powerplant:
1× Shvetsov ASh-82TKF 18-cylinder air-cooled radial engine, rated at 2,720 hp (2,030 kW)
1x RD-20 axial-flow turbojet with 7.8 kN (1,754 lbf) thrust as temporary booster
Performance
Maximum speed: 676 km/h (420 mph) at 29,000 ft (8,839 m) with the radial only,
800 km/h (497 mph/432 kn,) with additional jet booster
Cruise speed: 440 km/h (237 kn, 273 mph)
Combat radius: 820 nmi (945 mi, 1,520 km)
Maximum range: 3.000 km (1.860 mi, 1.612 nmi) with drop tanks
Service ceiling: 14,680 m (48,170 ft)
Wing loading: 230.4 kg/m² (47.2 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 0.28 kW/kg (0.17 hp/lb)
Climb to 5,000 m (16,400 ft): 5 min 9 sec;
Climb to 10,000 m (32,800 ft): 17 min 38 sec;
Climb to 13,000 m (42,640 ft): 21 min 03 sec
Armament
4× 23 mm Nudelman-Suranov NS-23 cannons with 100 RPG in the outer wings
Five hardpoints for an external ordnance of 1.500 kg (3.300 lb)
The kit and its assembly:
This whif is the incarnation of a very effective kitbashing combo that already spawned my fictional Japanese Ki-104 fighter, and it is another submission to the 2018 “Cold War” group build at whatifmodelers.com. This purely fictional Soviet escort fighter makes use of my experiences from the first build of this kind, yet with some differences.
The kit is a bashing of various parts and pieces:
· Fuselage, wing roots, landing gear and propeller from an Academy P-47D
· Wings from an Ark Model Supermarine Attacker (ex Novo)
· Tail fin comes from a Heller F-84G
· The stabilizers were taken from an Airfix Ki-46
· Cowling from a Matchbox F6F, mounted and blended onto the P-47 front
· Jet exhaust is the intake of a Matchbox Me 262 engine pod
My choice fell onto the Academy Thunderbolt because it has engraved panel lines, offers the bubble canopy as well as good fit, detail and solid material. The belly duct had simply been sliced off, and the opening later faired over with styrene sheet and putty, so that the P-47’s deep belly would not disappear.
The F6F cowling was chosen because it looks a lot like the ASh-73TK from the Tu-4. But this came at a price: the P-47 cowling is higher, tighter and has a totally different shape. It took serious body sculpting with putty to blend the parts into each other. Inside of the engine, a styrene tube was added for a metal axis that holds the uncuffed OOB P-47 four blade propeller. The P-47’s OOB cockpit tub was retained, too, just the seat received scratched armrests for a more luxurious look.
The Attacker wings were chosen because of their "modern" laminar profile. The Novo kit itself is horrible and primitive, but acceptable for donations. OOB, the Attacker wings had too little span for the big P-47, so I decided to mount the Thunderbolt's OOB wings and cut them at a suitable point: maybe 0.5", just outside of the large main wheel wells. The intersection with the Attacker wings is almost perfect in depth and width, relatively little putty work was necessary in order to blend the parts into each other. I just had to cut out new landing gear wells from the lower halves of the Attacker wings, and with new attachment points the P-47’s complete OOB landing gear could be used.
With the new wing shape, the tail surfaces had to be changed accordingly. The trapezoid stabilizers come from an Airfix Mitsubishi Ki-46, and their shape is a good match. The P-47 fin had to go, since I wanted something bigger and a different silhouette. The fuselage below was modified with a jet exhaust, too. I actually found a leftover F-84G (Heller) tail, complete with the jet pipe and the benefit that it has plausible attachment points for the stabilizers far above the jet engine in the Gu-1’s tail.
However, the F-84 jet pipe’s diameter turned out to be too large, so I went for a smaller but practical alternative, a Junkers Jumo 004 nacelle from a Me 262 (the ancestor of the Soviet RD-20!). Its intake section was cut off, flipped upside down, the fin was glued on top of it and then the new tail was glued to the P-47 fuselage. Some (more serious) body sculpting was necessary to create a more or less harmonious transition between the parts, but it worked.
The plausible placement of the air intakes and their shape was a bit of a challenge. I wanted them to be obvious, but still keep an aerodynamic look. An initial idea had been to keep the P-47’s deep belly and widen the central oil cooler intake under the nose, but I found the idea wacky and a bit pointless, since such a long air duct would not make much sense since it would waste internal space and the long duct’s additional weight would not offer any benefit?
Another idea were air intakes in the wing roots, but these were also turned down since the landing gear wells would be in the way, and placing the ducts above or below the wings would also make no sense. A single ventral scoop (looking like a P-51 radiator bath) or two smaller, dorsal intakes (XP-81 style) behind the cockpit were other serious candidates – but these were both rejected because I wanted to keep a clean side profile.
I eventually settled for very simple, fixed side intakes, level with the jet exhaust, somewhat inspired by the Lavochkin La-200B heavy fighter prototype. The air scoops are simply parts from an Italeri Saab 39 Gripen centerline drop tank (which has a flat, oval diameter), and their shape is IMHO a perfect match.
Painting and markings:
While the model itself is a wild mix of parts with lots of improvisation involved, I wanted to keep the livery rather simple. The most plausible choice would have been an NMF finish, but I rather wanted some paint – so I used Soviet La-9 and -11 as a benchmark and settled for a simple two-tone livery: uniform light grey upper and light blue lower surfaces.
I used RAF Medium Sea Grey (Humbrol 165) and Soviet Underside Blue (Humbrol 114) as basic tones, and, after a black ink wash, these were lightened up through dry-brushed post-shading. The yellow spinner and fin tip are based on typical (subtle) squadron markings of the late 40ies era.
The cockpit as well the engine and landing gear interior became blue-grey (Revell 57), similar to the typical La-9/11’s colors. The green wheel discs and the deep blue propeller blades are not 100% in the aircraft's time frame, but I added these details in order to enhance the Soviet touch and some color accents.
Tactical markings were kept simple, too. The "38" and the Red Stars come form a Mastercraft MiG-15, the Guards badge from a Begemoth MiG-25 sheet and most of the stencils were taken from a Yak-38 sheet, also from Begemoth.
Finally, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and it received some mild soot stains and chipped paint around the cockpit and on the leading edges. Some oil stains were added around the engine (with Tamiya Smoke), too.
A massive aircraft, and this new use of the P-47/Attacker combo results again in a plausible solution. The added jet engine might appear a bit exotic, but the mixed powerplant concept was en vogue after WWII, but only a few aircraft made it beyond the prototype stage.
While painting the model I also wondered if an all dark blue livery and some USN markings could also have made this creation the Grumman JetCat? With the tall fin, the Gu-1 could also be an F8F Bearcat on steroids? Hmmm...
Liverpool Corporation Leyland octopus Bulk refuse vehicle,refuse body built by Glover Webb and Liversidge
Mastronardi's was based in Cortland, New York and operated this International CO or VCO-200 refuse truck. This photo dates from 1974.
A trip to the rubbish trip and there's always the satisfying crash as you throw your stuff over the edge and into the rubbish hopper.
Things I learnt:
1 - the rubbish containers can hold around 8 - 9 tonnes of rubbish,
2 - they can fill up in as little as four hours, and
3 - the hydraulic ram pushes with a force of around 20 tonnes.
This old storage box had been sitting around at home for ages so time for it to be be thrown out. Good to watch the whole thing drop into the hopper and then being destroyed, the creaking as it slowly succumbs to the pressure in the ram and you can hear it pop.
Toter model EVR II 96
The major local hauler serving the City of Everett, WA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Please do not use this photo or any part of this photo without first asking for permission, thank you.
____________________________________________