View allAll Photos Tagged based
- www.kevin-palmer.com - I waited around in Lincoln, and tried to decide which storm I should head toward. But then this new storm formed and strengthened right by me. So I followed it east of town.
Original work based on many photos of motion and emotion at the shoreline, i was like usual half here and another half there, my childhood and my actual feet !
I love the water and the sand but i didn't want to slip :)
It took some soulful time to interpret them.
________________________________________________
All images in this photostream are original works of art by Salwa Afef .
You may NOT reproduce, copying and/or distributing these images in any manner or in any venue without my explicit WRITTEN permission in advance.
Distributing these images without my permission is strictly prohibited.
© All rights reserved
Home based 47583 'County of Hertfordshire' in BR large logo livery stands alongside B + C Maintenance Sheds. This being the third Open Day organised by the depot the large crowds made it increasingly difficult to get a 'clean' shot of the exhibits.
Details: Praktica MTL-3, 50mm 1/250 @ f4. Ilfocolour 100 film
Base B8301786
Camera 5 (X81115A5)
Text 1: Tommy's Buck trail
Battery Level: 50%
Pics on camera: 7
camera5/p_001688.jpg: PIR Trigger
Collier, John,, 1913-1992,, photographer.
Civil Air Patrol Base, Bar Harbor, Maine
1943 June
1 transparency : color.
Notes:
Title from FSA or OWI agency caption.
Photograph shows the Stinson HW-75, or 105 Voyager airplane. The design was later modified to the L-5 Sentinel for the war. (Source: Flickr Commons project, 2011)
Transfer from U.S. Office of War Information, 1944.
Subjects:
United States.--Civil Air Patrol
World War, 1939-1945
Airplanes
Air bases
National security
United States--Maine--Bar Harbor (Town)
Format: Transparencies--Color
Rights Info: No known restrictions on publication.
Repository: Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division, Washington, D.C. 20540 USA, hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/pp.print
Part Of: Farm Security Administration - Office of War Information Collection 12002-46 (DLC) 93845501
General information about the FSA/OWI Color Photographs is available at hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/pp.fsac
Higher resolution image is available (Persistent URL): hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/fsac.1a34550
Call Number: LC-USW36-779
Base B8301786
Camera 1 (X8111595)
Text 1: Quarry Trail
Battery Level: 100%
Pics on camera: 15
camera1/p_000180.jpg: PIR Trigger
Just a teaser. There is still some work to do...
The station will have a few more modules and I'll add at least the 2 missing baseplates in the lower left corner. Detail photos will follow...
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Korean People's Army Air and Anti-Air Force began as the "Korean Aviation Society" in 1945. It was organized along the lines of flying clubs in the Soviet Union. In 1946, the society became a military organization and became an aviation division of the Korean People's Army (KPA). It became a branch of the army in its own right in November 1948. The KPAF incorporated much of the original Soviet air tactics, as well as North Korean experience from the UN bombings during the Korean War.
North Korea’s first indigenous jet fighter aircraft, the Wonsan Aircraft Works 여-1 (known as “W-1” outside of the country), started its existence in China as the Shenyang J-3 (Jianjiji = fighter). The J-3 was a project to exploit the knowledge and hardware gained through the license production of the Soviet MiG-15UTI trainer, locally designated JJ-2 (Jianjiji Jiaolianji – fighter trainer), a study that was primarily intended to improve China’s aircraft industry and the country’s respective engineering know how after the Korean War. The Soviet VVS and PVO had been the primary users of the MiG-15 during the Korean war, but not the only ones; it was also used by the PLAAF and KPAF (known as the United Air Army).
The J-3 was designed during the Korean War between 1952 and 1953 and two prototypes were built with Soviet help and tested in 1953, but the aircraft came too late – and it was not regarded as a successor or even an alternative to the Soviet MiG-15, because it lacked modern features like swept wings. The J-3’s design drew more on American rather than British inspiration, having elected to use features such as a very thin (but almost straight) wing akin to the Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star and a basic configuration comparable to the North American F-86 Sabre. Due to its conceptual interceptor role, an emphasis had been placed on a fast rate of climb. Power came from a Klimov VK-1 centrifugal-flow turbojet, a derivative of the British Rolls-Royce Nene Mk.104B that also powered the MiG-15. Armament consisted of four 23 mm (0.906 in) Nudelman-Suranov NS-23 autocannon under the nose.
The J-3’s rate of progress on the project was such that, within 15 months of design work having formally started, the first prototype had been fully constructed. On 28 October 1953, the first J-3 fighter prototype conducted its first flight, even though it still lacked pressurization, armament, and other military equipment. Gradually, new hardware was integrated and tested, and a second aircraft joined the tests in January 1954. Flight tests followed quickly and showed that the J-3 was easy to fly and had exceptional performance and maneuverability for a straight-wing aircraft. Unfortunately, it soon became clear that the laminar flow section used for the original tail unit was totally unsuitable, with extremely severe buffeting setting in at 500 km/h (310 mph). The buffeting was so bad that the test pilots were thrown about in the cockpit, banging their head on the canopy, and the needles fell off all the flight instruments. Fortunately, accidents could be avoided, and the tailplane section was changed with much improved results.
The gun armament caused troubles, too. Firing all four NS-23 at once made the robust engine surge – a problem that did not occur on the MiG-15, but it only carried two of these weapons. A remedy was eventually found through the introduction of a slightly elongated nose that kept the air intake further away from the gun blast shock waves. The flight and test program lasted until 1955, and a total of five J-3 prototypes were built, but with no serious plan to put this aircraft into series production, even more so after China had been offered to produce the even more modern and capable Soviet MiG-17 fighter under license as the J-5. In the People's Republic of China (PRC), an initial MiG-17F was assembled from parts in 1956, with license production following in 1957 at Shenyang. The Chinese-built version was/is known as the Shenyang J-5 (for local use) or F-5 (for export). After this decision, the J-3 program was stopped, but the machines were retained in flightworthy condition as testbeds and chase planes by the PLAAF until the late Sixties
However, this was not the end of the J-3. After fighting had ended on 27 July 1953 when the Korean Armistice Agreement was signed, the Korean People's Army Air and Anti-Air Force (KPAAF) was keen to boost its capabilities and build a domestic aircraft industry, beyond the option to produce existing designs in license. Turning to its main sponsor China, North Korea was offered the plans for the J-3 and its tools, together with a supply of Chinese-built VK-1 engines. Even though the J-3 did not represent the state-of-the-art in jet fighters anymore, it was the best option for an industrial quickstart and until 1956 a dedicated production site for the J-3 was built at Wonsan, leading to the Wonsan Aircraft Works (Wonsan hang-gong-gi jag-eob , 원산 항공기 작업) and its first military product, the 여-1 (Yeo-1 = W-1). When NATO became aware of the aircraft it received the reporting code name “Freshman”.
However, despite the J-3’s plans and tools at hand, the W-1’s production was hampered by the lack of experience, sub-optimal materials, and poor logistics (esp. concerning vital imported components like the Chinese WP-5 engine, a license-built VK-1). Consequently, it took almost three years to roll out the first pre-serial production aircraft in 1959, and even then, the W-1 was plagued with material and reliability problems. Furthermore, once the W-1 became operational in 1961, the aircraft had become outdated. The W-1 had been designed to intercept straight-and-level-flying enemy bombers, not for air-to-air combat (dogfighting) with other fighters. The subsonic (Mach .76) fighter was effective against slower (Mach .6-.8), heavily loaded U.S. fighter-bombers from the Fifties, as well as the mainstay American strategic bombers during the aircraft's development cycle (such as the Boeing B-50 Superfortress or Convair B-36 Peacemaker, which were both still powered by piston engines). It was not however able to intercept the new generation of British jet bombers such as the Avro Vulcan and Handley Page Victor, which could both fly higher. Most W-1s were initially used as night fighters – even though they lacked any on-board radar and the pilot had to rely on visual contact and/or radio guidance from ground stations to make out and close in on a potential target. The USAF's introduction of strategic bombers capable of supersonic dash speeds such as the B-58 Hustler and General Dynamics FB-111 rendered the W-1 totally obsolete in front-line KPAAF service, and they were quickly supplanted by supersonic interceptors such as the MiG-21 and MiG-23.
The rugged aircraft was not retired, though, and found use as ground attack aircraft (despite its limited payload of around 2 tons) and as an advanced fighter trainer. Total production numbers are uncertain, but less than 100 W-1s were produced until 1969, with no further variants becoming known. In 1990, probably forty were still operational, and even after 2000 some KPAAF W-1s were still flying.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 10.73 m (35 ft 2 in)
Wingspan: 12.16 m (39 ft 10½ in)
Height: 4.46 m (14 ft 7½ in)
Wing area: 23.8 m² (256 sq ft)
Aspect ratio: 7.3
Empty weight: 4,142 kg (9,132 lb)
Gross weight: 7,404 kg (16,323 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 7,900 kg (17,417 lb)
Powerplant:
1× Wopen WP-5 (Rolls-Royce Nene Mk.104B) centrifugal-flow turbojet
with 26.5 kN (5,950 lbf) thrust
Performance:
Maximum speed: 940 km/h (580 mph, 510 kn) at sea level
Maximum speed: Mach 0.76
Cruise speed: 750 km/h (470 mph, 400 kn)
Maximum Mach number: M0.83
Combat range: 450 km (280 mi, 240 nmi)
Ferry range: 920 km (570 mi, 500 nmi)
Service ceiling: 13,000 m (43,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 38 m/s (7,500 ft/min)
Take-off run: 783 m (2,569 ft)
Landing run: 910 m (2,986 ft)
Armament:
4× 23 mm (0.906 in) Nudelman-Suranov NS-23 autocannon with 100 rounds per gun
2× underwing hardpoints for 2.000 kg of payload, including a variety of unguided iron bombs such
as 2× 250 kg (500 lb) bombs, napalm tanks, pods with unguided missiles, or 2× 350 l (92 US
gal; 77 imp gal) drop tanks for extended range.
The kit and its assembly:
I always thought that the tubby Dassault Ouragan had something “Soviet-ish” about it, looking much like one of the obscure early Yakowlew jet fighter prototypes (e .g. the straight-wing Yak-25 [first use of this designation in 1947] or the swept-wing Yak-30) around 1950. With this idea I had stashed away a Heller Ouragan for a while, and recently wondered about an indigenous North-Korean aircraft that could have emerged after the Korean War? The Ouragan looked like a good basis, and so this project started as a simple conversion of the Heller kit.
While most of the airframe was retained, I made some cosmetic changes to change the aircraft’s looks and add a Warsaw Pact flavor. The characteristic wing tip tanks disappeared, and the wings’ ends were rounded off. The fin tip was extended with a piece of 1.5 mm styrene sheet and a different fin shape was sculpted from it. The original stabilizers were replaced with what I think are stabilizers from a VEB Plasticart 1:100 An-24 – they better match the wing shape than the OOB parts!
The cockpit was taken OOB, I just replaced the ejection seat with a different piece from a KP 1:72 MiG-19. The air intake was modified with the opening from a Heller 1:72 F-84G, extending and narrowing it slightly, even though the internal splitter plate (which also bears the front wheel well) was retained. The landing gear was also basically taken OOB, but the main wheels were now mounted on the outside position (with an adaptation of the covers), and the front wheel was moved 3 mm further forward, to compensate for the slightly longer nose section, and its cover was modified accordingly. The flaps were lowered, primarily because this modification is easy to realize on this kit and it makes the simple aircraft look “livelier”, and the canopy was cut into three parts for open display.
Pylons were added under the wings, together with drop tanks from a Hobby Boss 1:72 MiG-15. The same source provided the swept antenna mast behind the cockpit and the small but characteristic altimeter sensors under the wings. As a final twist of “Sovietization” I added small fences to the wings, made from styrene profiles – they would not be necessary on the aircraft’s straight wings, but they help change the model’s overall look. 😉
Building the Heller Ouragan was a straightforward affair, even though the plastic of the recent re-boxing I used was pretty soft and took long to cure after gluing parts together. A real problem occurred when I tried to close the fuselage halves, though, because the parts did not align well behind the cockpit, as if they were warped? The walls were rather thin, too, and as a result a lot of PSR went into the spine and the ventral area behind the wings, which mismatched badly. The rather thin material in these areas did not help much, either. I have built the Ouragan before, and I do not remember these massive troubles?!
Painting and markings:
I initially considered a North-Korean night fighter camouflage from the Korea War, but since the aircraft would have been introduced into service after the open hostilities, I rather settled for a very dry NMF finish with minimal markings. Therefore, the model received an overall coat with “White Aluminum” from the rattle can and a light overall rubbing treatment with graphite to emphasize the raised panel lines and add a slightly irregular metallic shine to the paint. Since they had disappeared through PSR, I also added/recreated some panel lines with a soft pencil.
The cockpit interior was painted in medium grey and Soviet cockpit turquoise, the landing gear and its wells became metallic-grey (Humbrol 56). The areas around the exhaust and the guns were painted with Revell 91 (Iron), the only color contrasts are red trim tabs.
The large KPAAF roundels with a white background came from a Cutting Edge MiG-15 sheet, the large red tactical code was left over from an unidentifiable “Eastern Bloc” model’s decal sheet. After some more graphite treatment around the guns and the tail section the model was sealed with a coat of semi-gloss acrylic varnish (Italeri), resulting in a nice metallic shine that looks better than expected on this uniform aircraft.
Well, this converted Ouragan looks pretty dull at first sight, due to its simple livery. But this makes it pretty plausible, and the small cosmetic changes add a serious Soviet-esque touch to the aircraft.
Thats our way to get a well presentation for our minfigures.
There is a standard base for one minfigure wich can be connected with another one. Two bases are connected by the legs of a minifigure in the retral line. So you get two lines of minfigures with a great view of all of them.
More information and pics up: THE BRICK TIME
Be sure to visit the BrickLink-Shop: THE BRICK TIME - Store
My LEGO display of part of the Battle of Hoth, which was displayed as part of the Brick.ie display at Kildare County Show in Athy, Ireland on 18 June 2017.
The rebel base and power generator are my own design. The AT-ATs are designed by raskolnikov (one built by davenocheese). The snowspeeders are based on brickdoctor's design.
Beyond the Horizon Air and Space show at Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery, Alabama, April 6, 2024
You are welcome to share, please give credit: www.lancerogersphotos.com www.instagram.com/lancerogersphotos #lancerogersphotos.com
The Annapurna Base Camp was the destination of my trekking trip in Nepal.
It is considered to be one of the most picturesque trekking routes in Nepal and it was a real challenge for me.
Every meter and step ( I had to manage several 10000) through bamboo and rhododendron forests, beautiful mountain villages, rice fields, hot springs, wild high mountain landscapes and breathtaking views of the many 7 and 8000s. It was worth it.
The Basecamp is located at the foot of the southern Annapurna Glacier, surrounded by Annapurna-South (7219 m), Annapurna I (8091 m), Khangsar Kang (7465 m), Gangapurna (7485 m) and Annapurna III (7555 m)It was an unforgettable experience.
A big thanksto my tour guid Krishan and
my Porter Dawa.
A really cool letterpress broadside from Chandler O'Leary (Anagram Press) and Jessica Spring (Springtide Press) broadside, printed on a Vandercook Universal One with the aid of the Boxcar base and Boxcar plates (94FL). Read more at the Boxcar Blog: www.boxcarpress.com/us/blog
Lance Cpl. Patrick Raymond Lewis fires at enemy targets during a base defense training excercise at Saber Strike 2012. Lewis, and other Marines assigned to 3rd Battalion, 25th Marine Regiment, was defending a Marine stronghold by neutralizing notional opposing forces. 3/25 is a Pennsylvania-based Reserve unit. The role player was played by a Latvian army soldier. Saber Strike 2012 is a multinational, tactical field training and command post exercise that involves more than 2,000 personnel from the U.S. Army's 2nd Cavalry Regiment, Pennsylvania National Guard, 21st Theater Sustainment Command, the 4th U.S. Marine Division, the 127th Wing of the Michigan Air National Guard, Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian armed forces, with contingents from Canada, Finland, France and the U.K. The exercise, led by U.S. Army Europe, is designed to enhance joint and combined interoperability between the U.S. forces and partner nations, and will help prepare participants to operate successfully in a joint, multinational, interagency, integrated environment.
(U.S. Marine Corps photo by Sgt. Ray Lewis)
To read more visit:
www.marines.mil/unit/marforres/Pages/USMarinesworkwithLat...
McDonnell Douglas KC-10A EXTENDER (MSN 48219) USAF/60th AMW/AMC (83-0078) BASE DE MORÓN (LEMO) SPAIN
+++ 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 Fiat G.91 was an Italian jet fighter aircraft, the winner of the NATO competition in 1953 as standard equipment for Allied air forces. European manufacturers were invited to submit their designs for this requested Light Weight Strike Fighter (LWSF) role. The G.91 was designed to this specification by the Italian engineer Giuseppe Gabrielli, hence the "G" designation. The competition was intended to produce an aircraft that was light, small, expendable, equipped with basic weapons and avionics and capable of operating with minimal ground support. These specifications were developed for two reasons: the first was the nuclear threat to large air bases, many cheaper aircraft could be better dispersed, and the other was to counter the trend towards larger and more expensive aircraft.
The technical requirements were:
• 1,100 m (3,610 ft) takeoff distance over a 15 m (49 ft) obstacle
• Capability to operate from grass strips and streets
• Maximum speed of Mach 0.95
• Range of 280 km (170 mi) with 10 minutes over the target
• Armoured protection for the pilot and the fuel tanks
• 4 × 12.7 mm (.5 in) or 2 × 20 mm or 30 mm guns
• A maximum of 2,200 kg (4,850 lb) empty weight and 4,700 kg (10,360 lb) max weight
The challenge of providing an engine that matched the requirements of lightness and power, reliability and ease of maintenance was solved by using the Bristol Siddeley Orpheus turbojet.
After the loss of the G.91 prototype, the French government preferred to pursue development of the locally-designed Étendard. The British government similarly ignored the competition to concentrate on Hawker Hunter production for the same role. The type was also considered by Austria, Norway, Switzerland, and even the United States Army, which briefly evaluated the type as a possible Forward Air Control (FAC) aircraft before relinquishing all fixed-wing aircraft operations to the USAF.
The G.91 entered operational service with the Italian Air Force in 1961, with West Germany's Luftwaffe in 1962, and later with the Portuguese Air Force (German surplus machines). The first G.91s entered service with the Royal Norwegian Air Force in August 1967. The original R/5 variant for Norway with increased range had been cancelled, but the RNoAF took over fourty-two G.91 R/4 aircraft from a cancelled Greek/Turkish order. These planes were originally armed with four 12.7 mm (0.5 in) Colt-Browning machine guns and powered by the Rolls-Royce Orpheus turbojet engine. Their main role was close air support, tactical sea combat and reconnaissance. One special Norwegian feature was the retrofitted brake parachute housing under the base of the fin.
In 1980, the Norwegian planes saw a major overhaul (MLU), combined with an update concerning both performance and attack capability. The Orpheus was replaced by a single Rolls-Royce Turbomeca Adour Mk. 106 turbofan (developed for the SEPECAT Jaguar), which offered not only slightly better dry thrust than the former engine but also a better fuel consumption and an afterburner for enhanced rate of climb and acceleration. As a side effect. top speed was slightly improved, as well as range and the weapon load. A similar step was taken with the G.91 Y in Italy, where the original Bristol Siddeley Orpheus engine was replaced with two General Electric afterburner J85 units - only that this "Yankee" was literally a new aircraft.
In order to achieve true all-weather capability, esp. against targets at sea, the G.91N, how the planes were called now, were fitted with a Thomson-CSF Agave radar in a new nose section, reminiscent of the F-86D/K "Sabre Dog" interceptor. The original cameras in the nose were deleted, an external camera pod was developed for reconnaissance duties.
The planes’ strike potential was also heavily augmented by the integration of the Norwegian AGM-119 "Penguin" short-to-medium range (up to 50km) naval guided missile. The AGM-119 was developed by Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace (KDA) and was the first AShM of the western world with a passive IR seeker instead of the commonly used active radar technology. Propelled by a solid rocket engine and flying at low altitude and high subsonmic speed, it performs random weaving maneuvres at target approach and hits the target close to the waterline, its 120 kg warhead detonates inside the target ship by using a delay fuze. Additionally, the original four 0.5” machine guns were replaced by a pair of DEFA 552 30 mm cannons with 125 RPG, and AIM-9 Sidewinder could be carried for self-defense.
In this new guise, the Norwegian "Ginos", as they were called by their crews, soldiered on until 1991, when they were retired and replaced by the much more capable and versatile F-16.
All in all, the G.91 remained in production for 19 years, the last planes retired in Italy in 1995. 756 aircraft were completed, including the prototypes and pre-production models. The assembly lines were finally closed in 1977. The Fiat G.91 enjoyed a long service life that extended over 35 years.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 10.5 m (34 ft 5 in)
Wingspan: 8.56 m (28 ft 1 in)
Height: 4.0 m (13 ft 1 in)
Wing area: 16.4 m² (177 ft²)
Empty weight: 3,300 kg (6,830 lb)
Loaded weight: 5,640 kg (11,990 lb)
Max. take-off weight: 5,700 kg (12,100 lb)
Maximum speed: 1,125 km/h (608 kn, 700 mph) at optimum height
Range: 1,700 km (920 nmi, 1.060 mi)
Service ceiling: 13,100 m (43,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 85 m/s (16.725 ft/min)
Wing loading: 331 kg/m² (67.8 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 0.42
Powerplant:
Rolls-Royce/Turbomeca Adour Mk 106 turbofan with 6,000 lb (27.0 KN) dry / 8,430 lb (37.5 KN) with reheat
Armament:
2× 30 mm (1.18 in) DEFA 552 30 mm cannon with 125 rounds per gun
4× under-wing pylon stations holding up to maximum of 1,814 kg/4,000 lb of payload, including 2x AGM-119 Penguin missiles, Matra rocket pods (each with 19× SNEB 68 mm rockets or 18× Hispano SURA R80 80 mm rockets. AIM-9 Sidewinder can be carried for self defense, as well as a wide variety of air-to-ground ordnance including unguided iron bombs, gun pods in addition to auxiliary drop tanks for extended range.
The kit and its assembly
This model came to be after finding a discussion at whatifmodelers.com, where the (tragic) fate of the Fiat G.91 was discussed. This light NATO attack fighter would have entered the air forces of virtually all European countries, but it became victim of politics and just ended up in Italy, Germany and (in late days) Portugal. Anyway, an inspiring thought is what would have been possible, e .g. in countries like Spain, Greece or Norway?
The basis is a G.91 P.A.N. from the Frecce Tricolori 50th anniversary kit, made by Italeri. It is, in fact, the Revell kit, nicely detailed and only with few trouble zones (e .g. the fuselage halves needed putty to fit, as well as the panels with the alternative guns). The kit was mostly built right out of the box. Only changes are the new radar nose - the front part of a P-61 drop tank - some antennae on the fin which sports a radar warning system. Additionally, a new and longer jet exhaust nozzle was fitted, simulating the new afterburner engine.
Landing flaps were partly opened from neutral position, the air brakes under the belly fixed into an open position (the latter is a standard kit feature, though). Further mods include a brake parachute container under the tail fin and the armament: The DEFA guns come as alternative side panels with the kit, and the guns themselves were simulated with steel tubes (syringes). The Penguin missiles as well as the ALQ-131 ECM pod come from Hasegawa weapon sets. The fourth free weapon station was filled with a Bofors BOZ-107 chaff/flare dispenser, lent from a Tornado.
Painting
The true whif comes with livery and markings, and IMHO the more subtle the look, the more convincing the result. Hence I chose a very simple livery for my G.91N: an overall finish in FS36270 (US Medium Grey, Humbrol 126), the same as RNoAF F-16 aircraft. Only contrast marks are the black nose, the colourful roundels and some red warning markings all over the plane.
The national markings come from an aftermarket sheet from TL Decals. Stencilling is taken from an old Matchbox G.91Y and the scrap box. Numbers etc. were improvised, too, based on pictures from other Norwegian planes (airliners.net is a great source for reference here).
I did some light washing with black ink to emphasize panel lines and engravings, and also did some weathering with dry-brushed lighter shades of grey (mainly Humbrol 140, very subtle), giving the uniform grey a faded/bleached look on the upper sides and leading edges. Finally, the kit received a coat of matte varnish (Dupli Color Acryllic, form the rattle can), the radome was painted with Humbrol's semi-matte varnish.
The result: a simple but effective whif, which also shows what could have become of the original G.91 design over time and technical development, if it had not become victim to political decisions and national vanities.
Rakaposhi (Räkapoşi) (Urdu: راکا پہشئ, Hindi: राकापोशी) is a mountain in the Karakoram mountain range in Pakistan. It is situated in the Nagar Valley approximately 100 km north of the city of Gilgit. Rakaposhi means "Snow Covered" in the local language. Rakaposhi is also known as Dumani ("Mother of Mist"). It is ranked 27th highest in the world and 12th highest in Pakistan, but it is more popular for its beauty than its rank might suggest.
IF, THEN, AND THE ATHEIST DILEMMA.
All scientific theories are based on ‘if’ and ‘then’. The proposition being; IF such a thing is so, THEN we can expect certain effects to be evident.
For example: there are only two competing alternatives for the origin/first cause of everything.
A natural, first cause, OR a supernatural, first cause.
Atheists believe in a natural, first cause.
Theists believe in a supernatural, first cause.
IF the first cause is natural, THEN progressive evolution of the universe (cosmos) and life are deemed to be expected, even essential.
Conversely, IF the first cause is supernatural, THEN an evolutionary scenario of the cosmos and/or life is not required, not probable, but not impossible.
In other words, while evolution, and an enormous, time frame are perceived as absolutely essential for atheist naturalism, theism could (perhaps reluctantly) accept evolution and/or a long, time frame as possible in a creation scenario.
Crucially, if the evidence doesn’t stack up for cosmic evolution, biological evolution, and a long evolutionary time frame, atheist naturalism is perceived to fail.
For atheism, evolution is an Achilles heel. Atheists have an ideological commitment to a natural origin of everything from nothing - which, if it were possible, would essentially require both cosmic and biological evolution and a vast timescale.
Consequently, atheist scientists can never be genuinely objective in assessing evidence. Only theist scientists can be truly objective.
However, the primary Achilles heel for atheist naturalism is its starting proposition.
Because the ‘IF’ proposal of a natural, first cause, is fatally flawed, the subsequent ‘THEN’ is a non sequitur.
The atheist ‘IF’ (a natural, first cause) is logically impossible according to the laws of nature, because all natural entities are contingent, temporal and temporary.
In other words:
All natural entities depend on an adequate cause.
All natural entities have a beginning.
And all natural entities are subject to entropy.
Whereas a first cause MUST be non-contingent, infinite and eternal.
But, just suppose we ignore this insurmountable obstacle and, for the sake of argument, assume that the ‘THEN’ which follows from the atheist ‘IF’ proposition of a natural, first cause is worth considering.
We realise that both cosmic and biological evolution are still not possible as NATURAL occurrences.
The law of cause and effect tells us that whatever caused the universe (whether it evolved or not) could not be inferior, in any way, to the sum total of the universe.
An effect cannot be greater than its cause.
So, we know that cosmic evolution from nothing could not happen naturally.
That traps atheists in an impossible, catch 22 situation, by supporting cosmic evolution, they are supporting something which could not happen naturally, according to natural laws.
It doesn’t get any better with biological evolution, in fact it gets worse. The Law of Biogenesis (which has never been falsified) rules out the spontaneous generation of life from sterile matter. Atheists choose to ignore this firmly established law and have, perversely, invented their own law (abiogenesis), which says the exact opposite. However, their cynical disregard for laws of nature, ironically, fails to solve their problem.
Crucially ...
An origin of life, arising of its own volition from sterile matter, conditions permitting (abiogenesis), would require an inherent predisposition/potential of matter to automatically develop life.
The atheist dilemma here is; where does such an inherent predisposition to automatically produce life come from? In a purposeless universe, which arose from nothing, how could matter have acquired such a potential or property?
A predisposed potential for spontaneous generation of life would require a purposeful creation (some sort of blueprint/plan for life intrinsic to matter). So, by advocating abiogenesis, atheists are unintentionally supporting a purposeful creation.
Following on from that, we also realise that abiogenesis requires an initial input of constructive, genetic information. Information Theory tells us; there is no NATURAL means by which such information can arise of its own accord in matter.
Then there is the problem of the law of entropy (which derives from the Second Law of Thermodynamics). How can abiogenesis defy that law? The only way that order can increase is by an input of guided energy. Raw energy has the opposite effect. What could possibly direct or guide the energy to counter the natural effects of entropy?
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life'
Suppose we are stupid enough to ignore all this and we carry on speculating further by proposing a progressive, microbes-to-human evolution (Darwinism).
Starting with the limited, genetic information in the first cell (which originated how, and from where? nobody knows). The only method of increasing that original information is through a long, incremental series of beneficial mutations (genetic, copying MISTAKES). Natural selection cannot produce new information, it simply selects from existing information.
Proposing mistakes as a mechanism for improvement is not sensible. In fact, it is completely bonkers. Billions of such beneficial mutations would be required to transform microbes into humans and every other living thing.
Once again, it would need help from a purposeful creator.
So, we can conclude that the atheist ‘IF’, of a natural, first cause, is not only a non-starter, but also every ‘THEN’, which would essentially arise from that proposal, ironically supports the theist ‘IF’.
Consequently ...
If you don't believe in cosmic evolution you (obviously) support a creator.
If you do believe in cosmic evolution you (perhaps unintentionally) also support a creator.
And...
If you don’t believe in abiogenesis and biological evolution, you (obviously) support a creator.
If you do believe in abiogenesis and biological evolution you (perhaps unintentionally) also support a creator.
Conclusion:
The inevitable and amazing conclusion is that everyone (intentionally or unintentionally) supports the existence of a creator, whatever scenario they propose for the origin of the universe.
No one can devise an origin scenario for the universe that doesn’t require a Creator. That is a fact, whether you like it or not!
The Bible correctly declares:
Only the fool in his heart says there is no God.
Theists have no ideological need to be dogmatic. Unlike atheists, they can assess all the available scientific evidence objectively. Because a long timescale, and even an evolutionary scenario, in no way disproves a creator. In fact, as I have already explained, a creator would still be essential to enable: cosmic evolution, the origin of life, and microbes-to-human evolution. Whereas, both a long timescale and biological evolution are deemed essential to (but are no evidence for) the beliefs of atheist naturalism.
Atheist scientists are hamstrung by their own preconceptions.
It is impossible for atheists to be objective regarding any evidence. They are forced by their own ideological commitment to make dogmatic assumptions. It is unthinkable that atheists would even consider any interpretation of the evidence, other than that which they perceive (albeit erroneously) to support naturalism. They force science into a straitjacket of their own making.
All scientific hypotheses/theories about past events, that no one witnessed, rely on assumptions. None can be claimed as FACT.
The biggest assumption of all, and one that is logically and scientifically unsustainable, is the idea of a natural, first cause. If this is your starting assumption, then everything that follows is flawed.
The new atheist nonsense, is simply the old, pagan nonsense of naturalism in a new guise.
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk
The poison in our midst - progressive politics.
Hello to all my flickr friends. I have been out for a bit, but have been enjoying your great images. I have been trying out my new D600 whenever possible and on this particular morning Paul Bowman and I tried our luck at a sunrise at Mt Hood. It was uneventfull and we decided to see what was going on at Yocum. As we started our trek I say "it's not that far, we shouldn't need our snow shoes" opps. We post holed calf to knee deep the whole way but it was worth the cool ice formations at the base of the falls. I have been here many times and the icy conditions are definitely the best look.
NF-5A 3055/55 Turk-Yildizlari(Turkish Stars), Turkish Air Force/ THK. Volkel Air Base, Netherlands. (Open-House) 16-06-2007.
Before the birds I got stuck in a loop exploring things made with a waterbomb base as a modular unit. It started with a discussion between Philip Chapman-Bell and Mélisande about a heron cube inspired by a heron he had created with a unique twist. The cube was made with waterbomb base units, something I hadn't seen before. Not a huge fan of modular stuff because I work mostly from my chair with the keyboard of my laptop as my surface.
She also posted a photo of something she called a waterbomb cube made from 6 squares of copy paper.
www.flickr.com/photos/melisande-origami/52249060019/in/ph...
Given the discussion about the other cube, I assumed it was also made from waterbomb base units. A quick look made me think something wasn't right, so I downloaded a copy to look at later. Then I cut up bunch of my cheap paper into four squares per sheet to play. Every day I played around with the bases I made and in the meantime searched everywhere online for more info. The closest thing I could find was Robert Neale's skeletal octahedron. I had no idea how Mélisande*' could possibly get that model out of six of these units. If I had been paying attention, I would have noticed that she posted another model a few days later of a waterbomb carpet.
www.flickr.com/photos/melisande-origami/52256579419/in/ph...
And I might have noticed that she never said either model was made from waterbomb base units. Every day I went back to folding my birds and I'd see something that made me think about my challenge. At the end of the day I'd play with the pieces while watching TV.
This week I switched from birds to pigs and a couple of times I saw something that gave me an aha! moment that took me down another path. Then finally while folding Roman Diaz's inflatable pig (pictures next week of the pigs) it hit me. I picked up one of my hubby's waterbombs from the shelf and turned it into a cube. Then I turned it inside out and saw the light. I turned all my tired base units into flat waterbombs and tried to figure out how to connect them. It took me a while to sort out how to do the modules until I remembered that the bit underneath the floor was the other half of the waterbomb
As you can see, I have figured out that these units will in fact make Mélisande*''s model. Now I have to figure out how to connect them. I made a separate model as my coloured pieces are getting tired. I connected with short triangular tabs to which I added a bit of Pritt stick to make them tacky. There has to be another method of connection. I've gone this far -- will keep it up until I solve it.
Based on the 1986 model year E30 3-Series, the E30 M3 used the BMW S14 engine.
In contrast to later M3 iterations, the E30 M3 was campaigned by BMW as well as other racing teams including Prodrive and AC Schnitzer in many forms of motor sport including rallying and racing. The latter included campaigns in the World Touring Car Championship, Deutsche Tourenwagen Meisterschaft, British Touring Car Championship, Italian Touring Car Championship, French Touring Car Championship and the Australian Touring Car Championship. The production of the E30 road car was to homologate the M3 for Group A Touring Car racing. It was to compete with various models including the "2.3-16V" variant of the Mercedes-Benz W201 190E that was introduced in 1983.
In full race trim, the naturally aspirated 2.3 L S14 engine produced approximately 300 hp (224 kW; 304 PS). With the introduction of the 2.5 L evolution engine into racing in 1990, power increased to approximately 380 hp (283 kW; 385 PS).
The E30 M3 road car[edit]
The road car engine produced 195 PS (143 kW) with a catalytic converter and 215 PS (158 kW) without a catalytic converter for the later version.
The "Evolution" model (also called "EVO2") produced up to 220 PS (160 kW). Other Evolution model changes included larger wheels (16 X 7.5 inches), thinner rear and side window glass, a lighter bootlid, a deeper front splitter and additional rear spoiler. It was only available in coupe and convertible bodies, no saloon option was available.
Later the "Sport Evolution" model production run of 600 (sometimes referred as "EVO3") increased engine displacement to 2.5 L and produced 238 PS (175 kW). Sport Evolution models have enlarged front bumper openings and an adjustable multi-position front splitter and rear wing. Brake cooling ducts were installed in place of front foglights. An additional 786 convertibles were also produced.
[Text from Wikipedia]