View allAll Photos Tagged develop
Moscow. Kubinka tank museum.
The Iosif Stalin tank (or IS tank, named after the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin), was a heavy tank developed by the Soviet Union during World War II. The tanks in the series are also sometimes called JS or ИС tanks.
The heavy tank was designed with thick armour to counter the German 88 mm guns, and sported a main gun that was capable of defeating the German Tiger and Panther tanks. It was mainly a breakthrough tank, firing a heavy high-explosive shell that was useful against entrenchments and bunkers. The IS-2 was put into service in April 1944, and was used as a spearhead in the Battle for Berlin by the Red Army in the final stage of the war.
The IS-3 had a superior armour layout, with a hemispherical turret like many later Soviet tanks
In late 1944 the design was upgraded to the IS-3. This tank had improved armour layout, and a hemispherical cast turret (resembling an overturned "soup bowl") which was to be the hallmark of post-war Soviet tanks. While this low, hemispherical turret may have made the IS-3 a smaller target, it also imposed severe penalties inside the tank by significantly diminishing the working headroom, especially for the loader (Soviet tanks in general are characterized by uncomfortably small interior space compared to Western tanks). The low turret also limited the maximum depression of the main gun, since the gun breech had little room inside the turret to pivot on its vertical axis. As a result, the IS-3 was less able to take advantage of hull-down positions, a tactic at which Western tanks were better suited (Perrett 1987:21). The IS-3's pointed prow earned it the nickname Shchuka (Pike) by its crews. It weighed slightly less and stood 30 cm lower.
The IS-3 came too late to see action in World War II. Though some older sources claim that the tank saw action at the end of the war in Europe, there are no official reports to confirm this. It is now generally accepted that the tank saw no action against the Germans, although one regiment may have been deployed against the Japanese in Manchuria.
In 1952, a further development was put into production, the IS-10. Due of the political climate in the wake of Stalin's 1953 death, it was renamed T-10.
In the mid-1950s, the remaining IS-2 tanks (mostly model 1944 variants) were upgraded to keep them battle-worthy. This upgrade produced the IS-2M, which introduced fittings such as external fuel tanks on the rear hull (the basic IS-2 had these only on the hull sides), stowage bins on both sides of the hull, and protective skirting along the top edges of the tracks. IS-3 was also slightly modernized as IS-3M.
[edit] Operational history
The IS-2 tank first saw combat in the spring of 1944. IS-2s were assigned to separate heavy tank regiments, normally of 21 tanks each. These regiments were used to reinforce the most important attack sectors during major offensive operations. Tactically, they were employed as breakthrough tanks. Their role was to support infantry in the assault, using their large guns to destroy bunkers, buildings, dug-in crew-served weapons, and other 'soft' targets. They were also capable of taking on any German AFVs if required. Once a breakthrough was achieved, lighter, more mobile T-34s would take over the exploitation.
Frontal view of an IS-3. The squat, solid-looking front profile and pointed prow are highly distinctive.
The IS-3 first appeared to Western observers at the Allied Victory Parade in Berlin in September 1945. The IS-3 was an impressive development in the eyes of Western military observers, the British in particular, who responded with heavy tank designs of their own.
By the 1950s, the emergence of the main battle tank concept - combining medium tank mobility with the firepower of the heavy tank - had rendered heavy tanks obsolete in Soviet operational doctrine. In the late 1960s, the remaining Soviet heavy tanks were transferred to Red Army reserve service and storage. The IS-2 Model 1944 remained in active service much longer in the armies of Cuba, China and North Korea. A regiment of Chinese IS-2s was available for use in the Korean War, but saw no service there. In response to border disputes between the Soviet Union and China, some Soviet IS-3s were dug in as fixed pillboxes along the Soviet-Chinese border. The IS-3 was used in the 1956 Soviet invasion of Hungary and the Prague Spring in 1968.
During the early 1950s all IS-3s were modernised as IS-3M models. The Egyptian Army acquired about 100 IS-3M tanks in all from the Soviet Union.[5] During the Six Day War, a single regiment of IS-3M tanks was stationed with the 7th Infantry Division at Rafah and the 125th Tank Brigade of the 6th Mechanized Division at Kuntilla was also equipped with about 60 IS-3M tanks.[6] Israeli infantry and paratrooper units had considerable difficulty with the IS-3M when it was encountered due to its thick armour, which shrugged off hits from normal infantry anti-tank weapons such as the bazooka.[6] Even the 90mm AP shell fired by the main gun of the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) M-48A2 Patton tanks could not penetrate the frontal armour of the IS-3s at normal battle ranges.[6] There were a number of engagements between the M48A2 Pattons of the IDF 7th Armoured Brigade and IS-3s supporting Egyptian positions at Rafah in which several M48A2s were knocked out in the fighting.[6] Despite this, the slow rate of fire, poor engine performance (the engine was not well suited to hot-climate operations), and rudimentary fire control of the IS-3s proved to be a significant handicap, and about 73 IS-3s were lost in the 1967 war.[6] Most Egyptian IS-3 tanks were withdrawn from service, though at least one regiment of IS-3 tanks was retained in service as late as the 1973 October war.[6] The IDF itself experimented with a few captured IS-3M tanks, but found them ill-suited to fast moving desert tank warfare; those that were not scrapped were turned into stationary defensive pillbox emplacements in the Jordan River area.[6]
After the Korean War, China attempted to reverse-engineer the IS-2/IS-3 as Type 122 medium tank.[7] The project was cancelled in favour of the Type 59, a copy of the Soviet T-54A.
Here are some professional photo editing tools, lightroom presets, video/photo luts and overlays that Ben Heine developed with FixThePhoto, you can view them here: fixthephoto.com/benheine
All of these pro tools are currently 30% OFF, It's not a joke! Once the discount is activated, it is available automatically on ALL products. Simply follow one of the following links, activate the discount once and you're good to choose among thousands of high ended photo and video editing tools with your 30% discount (some other promotions may even be added). There are also free effects and products that you can try!
Lightroom Presets:
fixthephoto.com/benheine/matte-collection-lrp#discount-co...
Mobile Presets:
fixthephoto.com/benheine/wonderland-mobile-lrp#discount-c...
Video Luts:
fixthephoto.com/benheine/premiere-luts#discount-code-30-p...
Photo Retouching Package:
fixthephoto.com/benheine/high-end-retouching-package#disc...
Photoshop Actions:
fixthephoto.com/benheine/double-exposure-collection-psa#d...
Photoshop Overlays:
fixthephoto.com/benheine/bokeh-overlays-collection#discou...
Video Overlays:
fixthephoto.com/benheine/glitch-effect-vo#discount-code-3...
Photo Luts:
fixthephoto.com/benheine/photoshop-luts#discount-code-30-...
Photo Textures:
fixthephoto.com/benheine/rustic-wood-textures#discount-co...
Free products: fixthephoto.com/benheine/freebies
All the products:
To activate the discount, simply add this code to any of the product URL: #discount-code-30-percent
+++ 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 Helwan Aircraft HA-410 (Arabic: حلوان ٤٠٠) was an indigenous supersonic jet fighter aircraft developed in Egypt during the late 1960s. Its design took place in the wake of the less successful lightweight HA-300 interceptor, designed by famous German aircraft engineer Willy Messerschmitt. Like its smaller stable mate, the HA-410 was an ambitious project for Egypt, at the time seeking to expand both its aerial civilian and defence industry.
Compared to the HA-300, the HA-400, how the project was initially called, was a much bigger aircraft, comparable to the North American F-100 ‘Super Sabre’ and similar in operational and political respects to the Indian Hindustan Industries ‘Marut’ fighter. The aircraft was planned as a home-grown alternative to the Soviet Su-7 fighter bomber, which had been acquired by the Egyptian Air Force (EAF; Arabic: القوات الجوية المصرية, Al-Qūwāt al-Gawwīyä al-Miṣrīyä) and employed in the Six Day War in 1967. This event uncovered certain deficiencies of the type, like the Su-7’s relatively poor ordnance load and range, as well as its high landing speed.
Under the influence of the ensuing War of Attrition with Israel, the HA-400 prototype was designed around the same Lyulka AL-7 turbojet engine as the Su-7, inheriting its power but also the poor reliability – even though the engine’s high resilience against FOD, sand and dust was a vital aspect for the EAF.
The HA-400’s design was conventional, with a barrel-shaped (non-area-ruled) fuselage, reminiscent of the US-American North American F-100 Super Sabre or the French Dassault Super Mystère B2. But the HA-400 incorporated different features like a translating centerbody, a movable cone in the air intake for managing airflow to the engine at supersonic speeds. It also featured clipped delta mid-wings with a 60° sweep, not unlike those of the MiG-21 and a one-piece, all-moving tailplane.
The main landing gear retracted inwards, partly into the lower fuselage, the twin-wheeled front landing gear retracted forward. The landing gear was rigid and suitable for operations on semi-prepared airfields. The pilot sat in a pressurized cockpit, offering better for- and downward vision than the Su-7.
The Armament comprised two 30mm cannons in the lower forward fuselage, plus sevem ordnance hardpoints for a total external weapon load of about 3 tons.
The first prototype flew on August 6th 1968, two additional airframes followed. The EAF’s operational evaluation from November 1968 to December 1996 found the new fighter to have superior performance but declared it not ready for wide-scale deployment due to various deficiencies. These findings were subsequently confirmed during operational suitability tests. Particularly troubling was the poor directional instability in certain regimes of flight. The aircraft could develop a sudden yaw and roll which would happen too fast for the pilot to correct and would eventually overstress the aircraft structure to disintegration. As a remedy, the fin was enlarged and a ventral fin for better longitudinal stability added. Another critical point was field performance: the initially pure delta-winged HA-400 showed poor take-off and landing characteristics, offering almost no improvement in comparison with the Su-7.
Helwan Aircraft investigated a new wing design with extended wingtips for an increased wing area and boundary layer control. The result was a new "cranked" wing, with wingtips at a shallower sweep of only 45° just outboard of the wing fence. The new wing also featured a boundary-layer control (BLC, "blown flaps") system, with engine air bleed blown over the flaps to keep them effective at lower speeds. These improvements made takeoffs and landings less ‘hot’ and intimidating. Unfortunately, the Lyulka AL-7F-1 didn't provide enough bleed air to make the BLC system very effective, but the new wing alone improved slow speed flying characteristics enough to justify its use. An additional brake parachute, housed in a fairing at the fin’s base, reduced landing distance even further.
Under the lingering tense atmosphere with Israel, serial production of the modified aircraft, which had been re-designated HA-410 by November 1969, started in early 1970. Soon the new aircraft saw their baptism in fire in 1973 during the Yom Kippur War. Success was limited, though, due to teething troubles with the hydraulic and BLC system, general engine unreliability and the lack of a powerful radar which would allow true all-weather/night attack capability - the HA-410 only featured a RP-21 ‘Sapfir’ radar system, the same as used in export versions of the MiG-21. Consequently, the HA-410 was almost exclusively used in the daylight ground attack role, even though some machines were, equipped with up to four IR-guided K-13 AAMs, used for point defence around air bases. EAF HA-410 were later also actively deployed in the Egyptian-Libyan War, a border skirmish in July 1977.
A total of 75 aircraft were built, including 13 two-seated trainers, equipping three EAF squadrons, made exclusively up from this type. The EAF was the only user of the HA-410. Yugoslavia showed interest in the type in the late 70ies, as well as India, but no plane was ever exported. The HA-410, as an aircraft, proved to be tough and capable, despite its reliability shortcomings and stability problems which called for an alert pilot. No aircraft were ever lost in air-to-air combat. However, twelve were lost due to accidents and technical failures, six were lost to ground fire and three were lost due to friendly AA fire, since the HA-410’s silhouette was easily mistaken for an Israeli Super Mystère B2.
The last examples were withdrawn from service in 1988 and consequently scrapped, being replaced by Su-20/22 and F-16.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length (fuselage only): 50 ft. 8 in (15.48m),
Length incl. pitot: 57 ft 8½ in (17.57 m)
Wingspan: 28 ft 7¼ in (8.71 m)
Wing area: 394 ft² (36.6 m²)
Wing loading: 77.4 lb/ft² (379 kg/m²)
Height: 16 ft 9 in (5.11 m)
Empty weight: 21,000 lb (9,500 kg)
Loaded weight: 28,847 lb (13,085 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Lyulka AL-7F-1 turbojet with 66.6 kN (14,980 lbs) of dry thrust of and 94.1 kN (22,150 lbs) with afterburner
Performance:
Maximum speed: 1.025 mph (895 knots/1.650 km/h/Mach 1.52) at 36,000 ft (11,000 m)
Cruise speed: 570 mph (495 knots/915 km/h)
Service ceiling: 59.000 ft (18.000 m)
Range: 1.580 km (981 miles)
Ferry range: 3.200 km (2.000 mi) with drop tanks
Rate of climb: 31,950 ft/min (162.3 m/s)
Armament:
2× 30 mm Nudelmann-Richter NR-30 cannons (120 rounds per gun) in the lower front fuselage.
Seven hardpoints (3× under-fuselage, 4× under-wing, outer pair “wet” for drop tanks) for a total of 7,040 lbs (3,190 kg) of ordnance, including drop tanks, unguided missiles, iron bombs, napalm tanks and K-13 AAMs.
The kit and its assembly
If you recognize what’s behind the fictional HA-410, you are well-informed about aircraft history indeed! Believe it or not, this model was derived from a real-life, Cold War era cruise missile! Sick idea? Maybe, but a nice challenge!
The HA-410 is actually a Raduga/OKB MiG Kh-20M (AS-3 “Kangaroo”) nuclear warhead missile, which had been developed from the unsuccessful MiG I-7 jet fighter from the late 50ies. The mighty Kh-20 had exclusively been carried by Tu-95K (“Bear B”) bombers until the late 70ies. The basis for this model is A Model’s 1:72 scale Kh-20M kit, which includes the massive ground handling trolley for this huge weapon - the kit is about 21cm long!
I had hoped that just changing the vertical fin would be enough, but all wing areas are much too small for a plane that actually takes off of the ground by its own power. At first I considered wings from an A-7 and the tail fin of an F-16, but when I recently was given a Su-15 from PM Models from a friend – a rather crude and basic kit – I just found what I needed to create a complete aircraft.
Bashing both kits was an efficient solution, since the Su-15 not only provided wings and stabilizer parts, but also a complete landing gear with wells, as well as a clear canopy that would fit well onto the bare Kh-20M. As a side note, I decided to attribute this plane to Helwan Aircraft as a kind of tribute - calling it a MiG or Suchoj design would have been too obvious, and using Egypt as part of the whif game made the contsruction of the background easier.
But back to the subject: Biggest challenge was to outfit the bulgy missile with anything an operational, manned aircraft would need: a cockpit plus canopy, a complete landing gear including their respective wells, and accessories like weapon hardpoints.
Any such “extras” were collected from the scrap box:
● All tail areas come from the PM Model Su-15
● Wings and lower fuselage also come from the Su-15, but had to be modified (see below)
● Main landing gear struts and wheels were taken 100% from the PM Su-15, too
● The double front wheel was also taken from the Su-15, the well is from an Italeri IAI Kfir
● Cockpit canopy comes from the Su-15
● Cockpit tub is also a part of an Italeri Kfir, with some extensions
● The dashboard comes from a Heller Alpha Jet
● Not certain where the seat comes from, the pilot figure is from a vintage Matchbox kit
● All weapon hardpoints come from the scrap box
● Ordnance is a collection of spare parts:
- Drop tanks come from a KP Su-25 kit
- Bombs are modified Matchbox 1.000 lbs bombs, with clipped fins and an added balistic rings
Lots of work, despite the plane’s rather simple look. Especially the integration of the lower fuselage was a tough job, since it is one piece with the wings. Not only the part's width had to be trimmed, stability also had to be guaranteed, and fitting this part with a square diameter into the circular Kh-20M's body was not a simple task! had to fit a basically square part into the round Kh-20 fuselage… But the result looks IMHO good.
Many surface details like air scoops, antennae, the two guns and weapon stations were added, and the Su-15 canopy needed a matching fairing on the Kh-20's hull, which was built with polystyrene strips.
Painting
I settled for an indigenous Egyptian camouflage paint scheme for the HA-410, which is called "Nile" or “Nile Valley”. This scheme has been used by the EAF on various planes like MiG-17 and -21, as well as Su-7, -17/20 and even Tu-16 bombers. With its wavy lines and strong color contrast, "nile Valley" is very unique and attractive, IMHO, and even authentic for the model’s era. There seems to be no defined pattern or even color paradigm, just that sand is involved, a dark contrast color which ranges from dark brown to drak grey, and a demarkation line between these colors which ranges from light green through slate grey to blue-grey. AFAIK, any available paint was used in Egypt, even car paint, so choice of color is a true 'free for all'.
The basic colours I chose are Humbrol 74 (Linen), 78 (Cockpit Green) and 98 (Chocolate), but that was only the beginning. Some layers of dry painting with lighter shades like Humbrol 103 (Cream), 121 (Light Sand) and 71 (Beige), RLM 02 on the green areas and a mix of 98 and 64 as well as pure 168 (Hemp) on the brown areas, lightened everything up. Lower sides were painted in Humbrol 65, a light blue with a greenish hue, and treated with FS 36320. Overall, the kit received a light black ink wash and a weathering touch with dry-brushed light grey (Humbrol 64) and Hemp (Humbrol 168).
EAF markings come from a vintage Matchbox MiG-21MF (PK-41). The arabic number comes from a Su-24 aftermarket decal sheets. Stencils and warning signs come from the vast OOB decal sheet for the Kh-20M.
Overall, the fictious HA-410 looks either like a fat MiG-21 or a short Su-7, but features details uncommon to both! Very Soviet, but unlike anything that rolled off of Cold War fabrication lines. Really subtle... o.-
+++ 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:
Following good performance from the pioneering diesel-hydraulic locomotive the DB Class V 80, the Deutsche Bundesbahn planned in 1953 to build several types of new diesel locomotive, primarily to replace steam powered locomotives.These were: V 60, and V 65, both shunters, the V 65.2, also for shunting as well as light freight trains, the heavy DB Class V 200, for express passenger trains, and the universal V 160 for both freight and passenger work on the main network.
The new V 160 class was a central piece in this line-up, because it would replace important steam-powered engines such as the BR 03, BR 23, BR 38.10 (former Prussian P 8 class), BR 39 (ex P 10), BR 50, BR 57 (ex G 10) and BR 78 (ex T 18). Steam heating for passenger coaches was necessary, and a top speed of 120 km/h was specified. Initially, a 1,600 hp powerplant, consisting of two engines of the same type as in the light V 80 was planned, the first newly developed diesel locomotive built for main line service by the Deutsche Bundesbahn (but only built in 10 examples). This dual engine arrangement had already been successfully introduced in the heavy V 200, which was initially powered by two 1,000 hp diesel engines. However, it was soon realized, that, if a single, high-powered engine could be used, weight, complexity and therefore maintenance and other costs would be considerably reduced. The V 160’s design was modified accordingly and a single MTU V16 four-stroke diesel engine was chosen. Both two-axle bogies were powered via drive shafts from a two speed hydraulic drive from Voith, which offered a compromise between the requested high speed for light passenger trains and the alternative reduced second gear with lower top speed, but much higher torque, for freight train service. Gears could only be switched when the locomotive was standing still, though.
In the spring of 1956, V 160 development began at Krupp. Welded steel components along with other lightweight materials were used to keep the axle load well below 20t, so that the V 160 could be safely operated on secondary lines. However, in the main production series of locomotives, some of the lighter weight welded construction was abandoned in favor of less expensively produced components - leading to an increase in axle weight from ~18.5 to ~20t, which was still acceptable but lowered overall production costs. This was furthermore not regarded as a major problem since the DB perspectively started to abandon branch lines, switching to more economical diesel multiple units or giving them up altogether towards the Seventies.
The first V 160 unit was delivered on 6 August 1960, with eight more following by 1962 from both Krupp and Henschel. These prototype units, due to their rounded, “busty” front end, were later to become unusual amongst the entire V 160 family and earned them the nickname “Lollo” (in allusion to Gina Lollobrigida). A final prototype V 160 010, the tenth, was manufactured by Henschel in 1963 and the first to feature the serial locomotives’ angled front end, which was inspired by the design of the super-heavy V 320 Henschel prototype.
Despite the single main engine, the V 160 was still a complex locomotive. In addition to the main engine, the V 160 featured a small, independent auxiliary diesel engine, driving a generator providing the 110 V electrical supply for lighting as well as driving an electric air compressor for the brakes. The steam heating apparatus, sourced from Hagenuk and powered by fuel oil, took up one end of the locomotive, between the engine and drivers cabin. It had the capacity to satisfactorily heat 10 coaches when the outside temperature was -10°C. For passenger train service, most V 160 locomotives were also equipped for push-pull operation, as well as for multiple working, controlled via a 36 pin control cable and respective sockets on the locomotives front ends.
The prototypes performed well, and volume production began, numbers V 160 011 to V 160 224 being built between 1964 and 1968 by Krupp, Henschel, KHD, Krauss-Maffei and MaK. The first V 160/216 locomotives entered service on the Hamburg to Lübeck line, working push-pull double decked passenger trains, replacing the BR 38.10 and BR 78 steam engines. The engines were also used on freight workings as well. On push-pull passenger working, the locomotives were sometimes found in the middle of the train - which facilitated easier separation of carriages en route.
By the time the 156th example was under completion, the Deutsche Bundesbahn changed its numbering system. From then on, the V 160 class were re-designated as Class (Baureihe = BR) 216, with the individual unit numbering continuing as before. Over the next decade, because of changing requirements – mostly in terms of increased power, speed as well as the requirement for electrical passenger heating – a number of related classes sprang up, the BR 210, 215, 217, 218 and 219. Although some were a little longer and carried additional components (e.g. an auxiliary jet engine), all of them were essentially based on the original V 160 and more than 800 machines of all types were eventually built.
Since the 1990s, the Bundesbahn’s BR 216 locomotives scope of work started to shift more on freight than on passenger trains because of the lack of steam-heated passenger stock. From 2000 onwards, the Deutsche Bahn AG’s BR 216 fleet was phased out, with the last locomotive being decommissioned in 2004.
Several locomotives were sold to private operators like rail construction companies and remained in frequent use, and some retired BR 216s were re-built and offered for sale, too. The first in the series of rebuilt Class 216s was called type “DH 1504” and created in 1998 by the firm 'On Rail'. Despite only little external changes, the result was an almost completely new locomotive, only the transmission, bogies and frame were saved from the original locomotive. The original V16 diesel engine with 1,370 kW (1.900 hp), was replaced with a lighter but more powerful 1500 kW (2,085 hp) V12 four-stroke diesel engine, also from MTU. On customer demand, a new electric Webasto heating system could be installed instead of the original steam heating system, making the DH 1504 capable of operating modern passenger trains, and for this purpose the units were also fitted for multiple working as well as for remote control operation (e.g. for shunting). Another option was additional ballast, so that the axle load could be kept at 20 tons for better traction. Otherwise, 18 t axle load was standard for the revamped DH 1504.
Since 1998, 6 of these locomotives were re-built for private operators in Germany. By late 2019, three DH 1504 locomotives were in the use of the Osthannoversche Eisenbahnen (OHE), two work for the Niederrheinische Verkehrsbetriebe (NIAG) and one for the Mindener Kreisbahnen (MKB). However, the biggest sales success for OnRail’s modernized BR 216 was the export to Poland, where the PKP (Polskie Koleje Państwowe, Polish State Railways). After its privatization in 2001, the PKP was looking for a low-cost replacement for its last ST-43 Class diesel electric freight locomotives of Romanian origin, which dated back to the 1960ies. Twenty DH 1504 locomotives for mixed duties were built by OnRail between 2001 and 2005 and entered PKP service as Class SU-29 (spalinowa uniwersalna = mixed-traffic diesel locomotive with hydraulic transmission and multiple-unit control). Their initial primary field of duty was the cross-border freight traffic on the east-west relation on the PKP “Polskie line Kolejowe”, the so-called “Niederschlesische Gütermagistrale”. Since 2005, this route had been expanded, electrified and became double-railed, so that the SU-29s gradually took over more and more passenger train duties on non-electrified major lines. The SU-29 machines are expected to remain in PKP service beyond 2030.
General characteristics:
Gauge: 1,435 mm (4 ft 8½ in) standard gauge
UIC axle arrangement: B´B´
Overall length: 16,800 mm (52 ft 57⁄8 in)
Pivot distance: 8,600 mm
Bogie distance: 2,800 mm
Wheel diameter (when new): 1000 mm
Fuel supply: 3,800 l
Service weight: 80 t
Engine:
MTU 4000R20 V12diesel engine with 1500 kW (2,085 hp) at 1,800 RPM
Gearbox:
Voith L821rs 2-speed gearbox
Performance:
Maximum speed: 120 km/h (75 mph) or 80 km/h (50 mph)
Torque: 235,2 kN
The kit and its assembly:
Well, this is a rather unusual what-if “build”, since this not a model kit as such but rather the conversion of a readymade H0 gauge model railway locomotive for the “Back into service” group build at whatifmodelers.com in late 2019.
The inspiration was not original, though: some time ago I stumbled across a gift set from the former East-German manufacturer Piko, apparently for the Polish market. It contained a set of double deck passenger wagons, and a (highly simplified, toy-like) German BR 216 in PKP markings. It was called SU-29 and carried a very crude and garish green livery with yellow front ends – inspired by real world PKP diesel locomotives, but… wrong. I found this so bizarre that it stuck in my mind. When I dug a little further, my surprise even grew when I found out that there were other national adaptations of this simple Piko BR 216 (e .g. for Denmark) and that Piko’s competitor Roco offered a similar BR 215 in PKP colors, too! This time, the fictional locomotive was designated SU-47 (which cannot be since this would indicate a locomotive with electric power transmission – poor job!), and it also wore a bright green livery with yellow front markings. Bizarre… And the PKP does NOT operate any BR 216 at all?!
However, with the GB topic in mind, I decided to create my own interpretation of this interesting topic – apparently, there’s a market for whiffy model locomotives? The basis became a 2nd hand Märklin 3075 (a BR 216 in the original red DB livery), not a big investment since this is a very common item.
In order to easy painting, the locomotive was disassembled into its major sections and the body stripped of any paint in a one-week bath in oven cleaner foam, a very mild and effective method.
The heavy metal chassis was not modified, it just received a visual update (see below).
The upper body underwent some cosmetic surgery, though, but nothing dramatic or structural, since the DH 1504 described above only differs in minor external details from the original BR 216. I decided to modify the front ends, especially the lights: Locomotives in PKP service tend to have VERY large lamps, and I tried to incorporate this characteristic feature through masks that were added over the original light conductors, scratched from styrene tube material.
In the course of this facial surgery, the molded handles at the lower front corners were lost. They were later replaced with three-dimensional silver wire, mounted into small holes that were drilled into the hull at the appropriate positions. Fiddly stuff, but I think the effort was worth it.
The original vent grills between the lower lamps were sanded away and covers for the multiple working cable adapters on the front ends added – scratched with small styrene profile bits.
For a cleaner, modern look, I removed the original decorative aluminum profile frame around the upper row of cooling louvers. The roof was modified, too: beyond the bigger headlight fairing, the exhaust for the auxiliary diesel engine was removed, as well as the chimney for the old steam heating system. The diesel engine’s exhaust pipes were lengthened (inspired by similar devices carried by DB BR 218), so that the fumes would be deviated away from the locomotive’s hull and the following wagons. Horns and a blade antenna for each driver’s cabin were added, too.
Painting and markings:
Both Piko and Roco V 160s in PKP markings look garish – righteously, though, since PKP locomotives used to carry for many years very striking colors, primarily a dark green body with a light green/teal contrast area on the flanks and yellow quick recognition front markings. However, I did not find any of the two model designs convincing, since they rather looked like a simple toy (Piko) or just wrong (Roco, with a surreal grass green contrast tone instead of the pale teal).
I rather went for something inspired by real world locomotives, like the PKP’s SU- and SP-45s. The basic design is an upper body with a dark green base (Humbrol 76, Uniform Green) and a pale green-grey area around the upper row of louvres (an individual mix of Humbrol 96 and 78). The kink under the front windows was used for waterline reference, the front section under the windows (in the dark green base) was painted in bright yellow (Humbrol 69) as a high-viz contrast, a typical feature of PKP locomotives. The chassis received a grey-green frame (somewhat visually stretching the locomotive) with bright red (Humbrol 19) headstocks, a nice color contrast to the green body and the yellow bib.
Silver 1.5mm decal stripes (TL Modellbau) were used to create a thin cheatline along and around the whole lower section. At some time I considered another cheatline between the light and dark green, but eventually ignored this idea because it would have looked too retro. The locomotive’s roof became medium grey (Revell 47).
The running gear and the tanks between the bogies were painted in very dark grey (Humbrol 67, similar to the original DB livery in RAL 7021) and weathered with a light black ink wash, some thinned Burnt Umbra (simulating dust and rust) plus some light dry-brushing with dark grey that emphasized the surface details. This used look was also taken to the upper body of the locomotive with watercolours (Grey, Black and some Sienna and Burnt Umbra) for a more natural look of daily service – rather subtle, and I emphasized the louvres, esp. on the light background, where they tended to disappear.
Individual markings consist of single decal letters in silver and white in various sizes (also TL Modellbau) for the locomotive’s registration code as well as of H0 scale catenary warnings from Nothaft Hobbybedarf, plus some generic stencils from various model decal sheets (incl. Cyrillic stencils from an 1:72 MiG-21 decal sheet…).
For a uniform finish I gave the locomotive an overall coat of matt acrylic varnish from the rattle can – it still has a slightly sheen finish and matches well the look of Märklin’s standard rolling stock.
A different kind of what-if project, but this has not been my first H0 scale locomotive conversion. The fictional PKP SU-29 looks a bit weird, with the garish paint scheme and the oversized headlights, but this strangeness makes this model IMHO quite convincing. The model is fully functional, even the light works well in the enlarged headlight fairings. Maybe I’ll sell it, since I do not have the appropriate model railway set at hand to effectively use it (which is also the reason for the rather limited scope of pictures of the finished item). And I am curious what people might be willing to pay for such a unique, fictional item?
Developed for Air France, the Loire 102 pictured here's in a Test Phase for its new single stabilized Tailfin and enhanced Engines (Streamline, Cooler...)
Indeed, previous Version had a double Tail and some overheating Probs.
Its Net Weight was over 17Ton, moved manually by man.
Original Gelatin-Silver Photograph
In the heart of the flower. Digitalis purpurea is an herbaceous biennial or short-lived perennial plant. The leaves are spirally arranged, simple, 10–35 cm (3.9–13.8 in) long and 5–12 cm (2–5 in) broad, and are covered with gray-white pubescent and glandular hairs, imparting a woolly texture. The foliage forms a tight rosette at ground level in the first year.
The flowering stem develops in the second year, typically 1–2 m (3.3–6.6 ft) tall, sometimes longer. The flowers are arranged in a showy, terminal, elongated cluster, and each flower is tubular and pendent. The flowers are typically purple, but some plants, especially those under cultivation, may be pink, rose, yellow, or white. The inside surface of the flower tube is heavily spotted. The flowering period is early summer, sometimes with additional flower stems developing later in the season. The plant is frequented by bees, which climb right inside the flower tube to gain the nectar within.
The fruit is a capsule which splits open at maturity to release the numerous tiny 0.1-0.2 mm seeds.
Wanna to take your business worldwide
Start E-commerce-Give it a strong virtual presence
For more info contact us:
Develop: process reversal
Film 24x36: Foton Mikrofilm Negatyw Super Orto,
expired 08.1995, dev: 10.2015
ap:Nikon FG
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the model, the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Panzerkampfwagen E-100, also known as Gerät 383 and TG-01, was a German super-heavy tank design developed towards the end of World War II. It was proposed to be the basis for a heavy artillery system, an anti-aircraft vehicle, and a heavy tank destroyer.
The basic design was ordered by the Waffenamt as a parallel development to Porsche's heavy tank design "Maus" in June 1943, but part of the new, standardized Entwicklung (E) series of vehicles, consisting of the E-5, E-10, E-25, E-50, E-75 and finally the E-100. The latter was the heaviest and biggest chassis of the family, which was meant to standardize as many components as possible.
In March 1944, Adlerwerke company from Frankfurt am Main submitted blueprint 021A38300 for a super-heavy tank called E-100, after the tank was proposed in April 1943 along with the other Entwicklung series vehicles. According to the blueprints, the tank would be armed with a both a 150 mm gun and a 75 mm gun in a huge turret.
Two types of engines were proposed: one was a 700 hp Maybach HL230, with a transmission and turning mechanism borrowed from the Tiger II. The estimated top speed was 23 km/h, and it was clear that this powerplant was utterly undersized for the E-100, which would be almost twice as heavy as the already underpowered Tiger II.
The second variant,l which was favored for serial production, would have a new, turbocharged 1200 hp Maybach HL 232 engine and a top speed estimated at 40 km/h. Other engines in the 1.000+ hp range were considered, too, e. g. modified Daimler Benz aircraft engines, or torpedo boat engines.
The design had removable side skirts and narrow transport tracks to make rail transport more viable. This design was very similar to the original 'Tiger-Maus' proposal, but had larger 900 mm diameter road wheels and a new spring based suspension rather than the original torsion bars. A new turret was designed, too, intended to be simpler and lighter than the massive Maus turret - effectively the E-100 was 40 tons lighter than the 188 ton Maus prototype.
However, in July 1944 the development of any super heavy tanks was halted, but work on the E-100 continued at a low priority and with the outlook to produce a limited number of these massive vehicles for special purposes, using existing components. Eventually, permission was granted to proceed with the SdKfz. 193, with the intention to the E-100 as a tank destroyer with either a 15 cm StuK L/63 or 17 cm StuK L/53 gun.
The first prototype was completed in January 1945, and from the start several variants were slated for the limited serial production. Four battle tank variants were defined, differing basically through the turret designs and the armament. The first three variants A-C carried the 15 cm StuK as main armament, while the D variant was an interim solution that would carry the new 140mm PaK 46 L/50 cannon, which was originally earmarked for the tank hunter variants of the E-75 and E-100 family. However, since the dedicated E-100 tank hunter SPG "Krokodil" (the SdKfz. 197) with a low, casemate-style hull was still going through troublesome trials in late 1945, it was decided to adapt the new and powerful gun with the already developed cannon mount in a turret and mate it with the E-100 battle tank hull.
The result was a battle tank/SPG hybrid with a huge, boxy turret on the E-100's standard chassis, which could be fully rotated by 360°. The turret's front offered excellent ballistic protection, but the tall and massive silhouette made the vehicle hard to conceal.
Designed only as a stopgap solution, only about 20 E-100 Ausf. D were produced in total. Having learnt the painful lesson of the heavy Elefant/Ferdinand SPG deployments, the E-100 Ausf. D was primarily and right from the start only used in defensive roles for strategically important locations, and not as a classic, highly mobile battle tank. Targets could be engaged at very long distances, and the PaK 46 L/60 was able to destroy heavy tanks like the heavily armored Soviet IS-3 with a single, head-on shot.
The PaK 46 L/60 was a very powerful weapon, and, like its predecessor, the 12.8 cm PaK 44 L/55, very accurate and deadly even at greater distances. The gun was fed with two-piece ammunition, the projectile and cartridge making up separate pieces. Because of this, the gun could be fired using three different sized propellant charges; a light, medium and heavy charge. The light and medium charges were normally used when the gun was fulfilling the role of an artillery piece, where they would launch the ~32 kg projectiles to a muzzle velocity of 885 m/s and 940 m/s respectively.
The heavy charge was used when the gun was fulfilling its intended role as an anti-tank gun, where it fired a 35.4 kg APCBC-HE projectile (PzGr.46) at a muzzle velocity of 1,050 m/s. During practice, the estimated probability of a first round hit on a 2 m (6 ft 7 in) high, 2.5 m (8 ft 2 in) wide target only dropped below 100 percent at ranges beyond 1,500 m (0.93 mi), to 95–97 percent at 2,000 m (1.24 mi) and 85–87 percent at 3,000 m (1.8 mi), depending on ammunition type. Recorded combat performance was lower, but still over 80 percent at 1,500 m, in the 60s at 2,500 m and the 40s at 3,000 m. Penetration of armoured plate inclined at 30 degrees was 242 and 192 mm (9.5 and 7.5 in) at 100 m (110 yd) and 2,000 m (1.2 mi) respectively for the armour-piercing shell.
In order to take on smaller, lightly armored targets, an MK 103 30 mm machine cannon (firing 425 RPM and having an effective range of up to 5.700m) was mounted co-axially, as well as a light MG 34. Another light machine gun was added in a ball mount in the turret's rear, in order to defend the loading hatches against infantry attacks. Another, manually operated machine gun was mounted on the commander's cupola against aircraft and close soft targets.
Aiming of the main weapons was improved by a built-in stereoscopic rangefinder — using twin matching armored blisters, one on each turret side. A "Sperber/FG 1250" night vision scope on the commander's cupola, together with a 30cm infrared searchlight with range of 600m.
Some of the vehicles where deployed in the upper Rhine and Ruhrgebiet area, while others were used in the defense of Berlin against the Red Army, and most of the time only one of two of these heavy tanks were allocated to units in which other, more agile vehicles could support and defend them.
Nevertheless, like all E-100 tank variants, the Ausf. D variant suffered from a general lack of mobility, so that it was not easy to field it or to change position after a shot. While the heavy armor could absorb a lot of hits and punishment, even from the latest enemy heavy tanks and anti-tank guns, many E-100s had to be abandoned or destroyed by their crews since they could not be saved from advancing enemy forces.
Another general weakness of the whole E-100 series was the massive fuel consumption of the HL 232 engine: with 10l per km (2,35 mpg) the tank had very short legs (only 120 km/75 ml with internal fuel) and was therefore even less suited for dynamic combat situations which involved quick advances or tactical position changes. Even in stationary use, its effectiveness was highly limited.
Another flaw, specific to the D variant, was its tall and heavy turret. The layout resulted in a very high center of gravity, so that the turret bearing and its hydraulic traverse mechanism was frequently over-stressed. If the crew would not pay attention to the tank's orientation and the underground conditions, the turret would easily get stuck - another reason why many of these super-heavy tanks were lost in action without direct enemy involvement.
Specifications:
Weight: 140 tonnes (154 short tons; 138 long tons)
Length (overall): 10.44 m (34 ft 2.4 in)
Width: 4.48 m (14 ft 8 in)
Height: 3.29 m (10 ft 10 in)
Suspension: Belleville washer coil spring
Crew: 6 (Commander, Driver, Radio Operator, Gunner, 2x Loader)
Armor:
Hull front: 150–200 mm (5.9–7.9 in)
Hull sides and rear: 120–150 mm (4.7–5.9in)
Hull top: 40 mm (1.6 in)
Hull bottom: 40–80 mm (1.6–3.1 in)
Turret front: 200 mm (7.9 in)
Turret sides & rear: 80–150 mm (3.1–5.9 in)
Turret top: 40 mm (1.6 in)
Engine:
1x turbocharged Maybach HL232 V12 gasoline engine with 1.200 hp
Performance:
Maximum road speed: 40 km/h (25 mph)
Sustained road speed: 36 km/h (22 mph)
Cross country speed: 14 to 20 km/h (8.7 to 12.4 mph)
Power/weight: 8,57 hp/ton
Range on raod: 120 km (74 mi)
Range cross counrty: 85 km (53 mi)
Armament:
1x 140mm (5.51 in) PaK 46 L/60 with 55 rounds
1x co-axial 30 mm (1.18 in) MK 103 machine cannon with 100 rounds
3x 7.92 mm MG34 (1x co-axial with main gun, 1x in ball mount in the turret's back side
and 1x anti aircraft gun on top of the commander's cupola) with a total of 5,850 rounds
The kit and its assembly:
This is an “in between” project, which I tackled on short notice while waiting for parts for another project. I am not a big fan of the huge E-100 tank, but I was given a surplus chassis from a friend who had bought a ModelCollect 12.8mm twin flak on an E-100 chassis in 1:72 – only for the gun, because this combo was less expensive than the flak alone (available separately). Since he had no use for the turret-less E-100 chassis I gladly took it.
It was the perfect occasion to invest and try an aftermarket conversion set from the German company Model Trans/Silesian Models, based in Essen, which offers a wide range of resin conversion sets for tanks and other military vehicles – including some Heer ’46 conversions/whiffs.
The turret for the fictional “E-100 Ausf. D” is one of these, and I like it for its bizarre, KW-2-esque style. The turret, certainly adapted from the Jagdpanther/E-100 tank hunter hull, looks impressive, even though it features some fishy details like the inward-canted rear wall or the rear of the turret overlapping the engine opening. But, hell, it’s a whiffy design, and the “cheese wedge” look of the turret certainly turns heads.
The turret set consists only of two massive resin parts, the turret itself and the barrel. The cast is excellent (no bubbles, almost no flash, crisp detail and clean surfaces; only the barrel had to be cleaned up a little), and I assume that the parts were moulded after parts from other ModelCollect kit parts.
Some missing parts like the hatch for the commander cupola or the Sperber infrared sight can be taken from the E-100 kit (even if it comes without a turret). Gaps between the barrel and the gun's mount were filled with paper tissue soaked with thinned white glue, imitating a leather of cloth shroud.
The pieces go together well and the turret base also matches perfectly the turret ring in the E-100 hull.
The E-100 kit itself is more challenging, though. While it is basically of simple construction, the sheer size of the parts and the fact that the hull consists of separate floor, side and rear walls and the upper deck, makes assembly a bit complicated. The fact that the floor and the side walls were slightly twisted did not help either. While everything went together well, I had to use putty in order to close some seams and bridge small gaps. Nothing dramatic, but modelers should be wary.
Mounting the wheels is not easy - esp. the sprocket wheel in the front and even more the idelr wheel at the rear have a very complicated and flimsy construction with a very thin and short locator pin. The PVC tracks also turned out to be too short, unfortunately I found this out I had painted and weathered them. Thankfully the massive side skirts help hiding the gaps, since I could not mount the tracks under any tension.
A nice solution are the separate side skirts and the complete engine compartment with separate hatches, a nicely detailed engine block and exhaust manifold as well as coolers.
I’ve built the E-100 hull OOB and left away the PE parts on purpose, since the mess of cutting them out or mounting them to the hull (e. g. microscopic lugs or a grate for the air intakes that are so dense that any paint applied by brush would immediately clog and ruin them) would IMHO not really improve the kit.
Painting and markings:
I wanted a fictional paint scheme for this one – no standard Hinterhalt camouflage tones, but still with a German feel. The inspiration for this green/grey scheme was lent from the Ma.K./Maschinenkrieger/ZbV3000 model universe, where many vehicles/mecha carry a pseudo-German scheme, some inspired by WWII Luftwaffe aircraft.
For the E-100 I adapted one of the Ma.K. designs and used Luftwaffe tones: the pale tone is RLM02 (the base is Revell’s 45, modern RAL 7003, which is slightly more olive green than the original grey), while the dark patches are German Panzergrau (Humbrol 67, modern RAL 7024, and actually a tone from early WWII). The latter turned out to appear very dark, due to the strong contrast to the RLM02, so that the scheme unintentionally reminds a lot of the late-war Allied “Mickey Mouse” scheme in olive drab and black? This was later slightly mended through the addition of RLM74 during the weathering process (see below), but the similarity remains, and once the kit became more and more complete the whole thing started looking like a modern German Bundeswehr Panzerhaubitze 2000?
In order to create an improvised and worn look, the camouflage was applied only thinly over an overall base coat with Humbrol 70 (Brick Red), which looks very much like stretched late war primer with which many tanks left the factories, to be camouflaged by the units in the field.
As a small color detail the barrel’s front end received a different scheme in Dunkelgelb (Revell 16, from below, kind of counter-shading against the sky) and Red Brown (Humbrol 160) from above, simulating a replacement part.
Once the basic camouflage had been applied, the kit was weathered with a highly thinned wash of dark brown, grey and black acrylic paint. Once dry the major surfaces were lightly wet-sanded, revealing more of the underlying red primer. Next, details and areas were highlighted through dry-brushing with true RLM02 (Humbrol 247) and RLM74 (Humbrol 245). After the application of the few marking decals, the whole kit received another dry brushing treatment, this time with Revell 75 (Hellgrau) and Humbrol 72 (Khaki drill). Some rust traces were painted with thinned sienna red acrylic artist paint.
Matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) was used to seal the kit, and once the (also weathered) PVC tracks and the side skirts had been mounted, the lower hull received a treatment with grey/beige/brown pigments, simulation dust and mud residue.
A relatively quick build, realized in less than a week, and some (minor) challenges. What a huge vehicle the E-100 has been – but what a waste of effort, resources and tactical limitations due to the vehicle’s sheer size and weight. Looks impressive, though, esp. when you place this hulk next to a “normal” tank…
In the end I am not really convinced of my paint scheme idea, but I ran with it since I wanted something different from the obvious German late war standard scheme.
picassocam pinhole camera, paper negative, 8 sec exp, developed in Caffenol C, colorized in Photoshop.
The eastern border of California along Interstate 8 is the location of some really great, expansive sand dunes! My kids really wanted to visit, because the Tatoonie scenes of Star Wars were filmed here. I really wanted to try and capture the Dunes in pinhole, hoping the wide-angled nature of my cameras might capture it's utter vastness.
I am still trying to decide if that vastness was captured or not. It seems that the wide-angleness flattened out the inclines of the sand slopes, making the landscape seem more even elevation-wise than it actually was.
As far as the brightness of the scenes went, I was lucky that an approaching storm made the skies partly cloudy, so the bright sand under a semi-bright sky didn't make my exposures too squirrely. Still, exposure times were about 1/3 of what I am used to, so it was pretty bright!
There are many places to experience the Imperial Dunes. Some places are wilderness areas, so one can't walk out onto them, but simply enjoy their natural beauty.. Other places are recreational areas, and people in ATVs are riding all over them. Different strokes for different folks! (or different moods in the same person)
Since we were just passing through, we stopped at exit 156- Grant's Well Road, which is a recreation area. You have to buy a week-long permit to have full access to the dunes, but the very nice camp host let us walk on to the dunes without charge, as long as we didn't take our vehicle out onto them.
Developing fruits.
They are ~3 inch diameter - one of the largest eucalypt flowers.
This image in Wikipedia now de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucalyptus_macrocarpa
Developed an obsession with the Ladas in Baku. A relic of the old Soviet era, they are so endearing and many people still use them daily!
Installed in the 1920s after a major renovation, the triptych of stained glass chancel windows were created by Melbourne stained glass manufacturer Brooks, Robinson and Company Glass Merchants, who dominated the market in stained glass in Melbourne during the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s.
Across the bottom of the three are written "Behold a voice cut of a cloud saying this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. Hear ye Him", which is taken from the book of Matthew.
The left hand window shows Moses clutching the tablets on which are inscribed the Ten Commandments. The right window features Saint Peter, one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus, holding his Gospel book. The central window of the triptych features Jesus descending from heaven. Alpha and Omega appear in the quatrefoil windows above Moses and Saint Peter, whilst "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" appear in the quinfoil window above the central lancet window of Jesus.
Blackwood reredos beneath the triptych, dating from 1939, feature a mosaic of the last supper also created by stained glass and church outfitters Brooks, Robinson and Company. A similar one may be found at St. Matthews Church of England in High Street, Prahran.
Built amid workers' cottages and terrace houses of shopkeepers, St. Mark the Evangelist Church of England sits atop an undulating rise in the inner Melbourne suburb of Fitzroy. Nestled behind a thick bank of agapanthus beyond its original cast-iron palisade fence, it would not look out of place in an English country village with its neat buttresses, bluestone masonry and simple, unadorned belfry.
St. Mark the Evangelist was the first church to be built outside of the original Melbourne grid as Fitzroy developed into the city's first suburb. A working-class suburb, the majority of its residents were Church of England and from 1849 a Mission Church and school served as a centre for religious, educational and recreational facilities. The school was one of a number of denominational schools established by the Church of England and was partly funded by the Denominational School Board.
St. Mark the Evangelist Church of England was designed by architect James Blackburn and built in Early English Gothic style. Richard Grice, Victorian pastoralist and philanthropist, generously contributed almost all the cost of its construction. Work commenced in 1853 to accommodate the growing Church of England congregation of Fitzroy. On July 1st, 1853, the first stone of St. Mark the Evangelist was laid by the first Bishop of Melbourne, The Right Rev. Charles Perry.
Unfortunately, Blackburn did not live to see its completion, dying the following year in 1854 of typhoid. This left St. Mark the Evangelist without an architect to oversee the project, and a series of other notable Melbourne architects helped finish the church including Lloyd Tayler, Leonard Terry and Charles Webb. Even then when St. Mark the Evangelist opened its doors on Sunday, January 21st, 1855, the church was never fully completed with an east tower and spire never realised. The exterior of the church is very plain, constructed of largely unadorned bluestone, with simple buttresses marking structural bays and tall lancet windows. The church's belfry is similarly unadorned, yet features beautiful masonry work. It has a square tower and broach spire.
Inside St. Mark the Evangelist Church of England it is peaceful and serves as a quiet sanctuary from the noisy world outside. I visited it on a hot day, and its enveloping coolness was a welcome relief. Walking across the old, highly polished hardwood floors you cannot help but note the gentle scent of the incense used during mass. The church has an ornately carved timber Gothic narthex screen which you walk through to enter the nave. Once there you can see the unusual two storey arcaded gallery designed by Leonard Terry that runs the entire length of the east side of building. Often spoken of as “The Architect’s Folly” Terry's gallery was a divisive point in the Fritzroy congregation. Some thought it added much beauty to the interior with its massive square pillars and seven arches supporting the principals of the roof. Yet it was generally agreed that the gallery was of little effective use, and came with a costly price tag of £3,000.00! To this day, it has never been fully utlised by the church. St. Mark the Evangelist has been fortunate to have a series of organs installed over its history; in 1854 a modest organ of unknown origin: in 1855 an 1853 Foster and Andrews, Hull, organ which was taken from the Athenaeum Theatre in Melbourne's Collins Street: in 1877 an organ built by Melbourne organ maker William Anderson: and finally in 1999 as part of major renovation works a 1938 Harrison and Harrison, Durham, organ taken from St. Luke's Church of England in Cowley, Oxfordshire. The church has gone through many renovations over the ensuing years, yet the original marble font and pews have survived these changes and remain in situ to this day. Blackwood reredos in the chancel, dating from 1939, feature a mosaic of the last supper by stained glass and church outfitters Brooks, Robinson and Company. A similar one can be found at St. Matthew's Church of England in High Street in Prahran. The fine lancet stained glass windows on the west side of St. Mark the Evangelist feature the work of the stained glass firms Brooks, Robinson and Company. and William Montgomery. Many of the windows were installed in the late Nineteenth Century.
The St. Mark the Evangelist Parish Hall and verger's cottage were added in 1889 to designs by architects Hyndman and Bates. The hall is arranged as a nave with clerestorey windows and side aisles with buttresses. In 1891 the same architects designed the Choir Vestry and Infants Sunday School on Hodgson Street, to replace the earlier school of 1849 which had been located in the forecourt of the church.
The present St. Mark the Evangelist's vicarage, a two-storey brick structure with cast-iron lacework verandahs, was erected in 1910.
I am very grateful to the staff of Anglicare who run the busy adjoining St. Mark's Community Centre for allowing me to have free range of the inside of St. Mark the Evangelist for a few hours to photograph it so extensively.
James Blackburn (1803 - 1854) was an English civil engineer, surveyor and architect. Born in Upton, West Ham, Essex, James was the third of four sons and one daughter born to his parents. His father was a scalemaker, a trade all his brothers took. At the age of 23, James was employed by the Commissioners of Sewers for Holborn and Finsbury and later became an inspector of sewers. However, his life took a dramatic turn in 1833, when suffering economic hardship, he forged a cheque. He was caught and his penalty was transportation to Van Diemen’s Land (modern day Tasmania). As a convicted prisoner, yet also listed as a civil engineer, James was assigned to the Roads Department under the management of Roderic O’Connor, a wealthy Irishman who was the Inspector of Roads and Bridges at the time. On 3 May 1841 James was pardoned, whereupon he entered private practice with James Thomson, another a former convict. In April 1849, James sailed from Tasmania aboard the "Shamrock" with his wife and ten children to start a new life in Melbourne. Once there he formed a company to sell filtered and purified water to the public, and carried out some minor architectural commissions including St. Mark the Evangelist in Fitzroy. On 24 October he was appointed city surveyor, and between 1850 and 1851 he produced his greatest non-architectural work, the basic design and fundamental conception of the Melbourne water supply from the Yan Yean reservoir via the Plenty River. He was injured in a fall from a horse in January 1852 and died on 3 March 1854 at Brunswick Street, Collingwood, of typhoid. He was buried as a member of St. Mark The Evangelist Church of England. James is best known in Tasmania for his ecclesiastical architectural work including; St Mark's Church of England, Pontville, Tasmania (1839-1841), Holy Trinity Church, Hobart, Tasmania (1841-1848): St. George's Church of England, Battery Point, Tasmania, (1841-1847).
Leonard Terry (1825 - 1884) was an architect born at Scarborough, Yorkshire, England. Son of Leonard Terry, a timber merchant, and his wife Margaret, he arrived in Melbourne in 1853 and after six months was employed by architect C. Laing. By the end of 1856 he had his own practice in Collins Street West (Terry and Oakden). After Mr. Laing's death next year Leonard succeeded him as the principal designer of banks in Victoria and of buildings for the Anglican Church, of which he was appointed diocesan architect in 1860. In addition to the many banks and churches that he designed, Leonard is also known for his design of The Melbourne Club on Collins Street (1858 - 1859) "Braemar" in East Melbourne (1865), "Greenwich House" Toorak (1869) and the Campbell residence on the corner of Collins and Spring Streets (1877). Leonard was first married, at 30, on 26 June 1855 to Theodosia Mary Welch (d.1861), by whom he had six children including Marmaduke, who trained as a surveyor and entered his father's firm in 1880. Terry's second marriage, at 41, on 29 December 1866 was to Esther Hardwick Aspinall, who bore him three children and survived him when on 23 June 1884, at the age of 59, he died of a thoracic tumor in his last home, Campbellfield Lodge, Alexandra Parade, in Collingwood.
Lloyd Tayler (1830 - 1900) was an architect born on 26 October 1830 in London, youngest son of tailor William Tayler, and his wife Priscilla. Educated at Mill Hill Grammar School, Hendon, and King's College, London, he is said to have been a student at the Sorbonne. In June 1851 he left England to join his brother on the land near Albury, New South Wales. He ended up on the Mount Alexander goldfields before setting up an architectural practice with Lewis Vieusseux, a civil engineer in 1854. By 1856 he had his own architectural practice where he designed premises for the Colonial Bank of Australasia. In the 1860s and 1870s he was lauded for his designs for the National Bank of Australasia, including those in the Melbourne suburbs of Richmond and North Fitzroy, and further afield in country Victoria at Warrnambool and Coleraine. His major design for the bank was the Melbourne head office in 1867. With Edmund Wright in 1874 William won the competition for the design of the South Australian Houses of Parliament, which began construction in 1881. The pair also designed the Bank of Australia in Adelaide in 1875. He also designed the Australian Club in Melbourne's William Street and the Melbourne Exchange in Collins Street in 1878. Lloyd's examples of domestic architecture include the mansion "Kamesburgh", Brighton, commissioned by W. K. Thomson in 1872. Other houses include: "Thyra", Brighton (1883): "Leighswood", Toorak, for C. E. Bright: "Roxcraddock", Caulfield: "Cherry Chase", Brighton: and "Blair Athol", Brighton. In addition to his work on St. Mark the Evangelist in Fitzroy, Lloyd also designed St. Mary's Church of England, Hotham (1860); St Philip's, Collingwood, and the Presbyterian Church, Punt Road, South Yarra (1865); and Trinity Church, Bacchus Marsh (1869). The high point of Lloyd's career was the design for the Melbourne head office of the Commercial Bank of Australia. His last important design was the Metropolitan Fire Brigade Headquarters Station, Eastern Hill in 1892. Lloyd was also a judge in 1900 of the competition plans for the new Flinders Street railway station. Lloyd was married to Sarah Toller, daughter of a Congregational minister. They established a comfortable residence, Pen-y-Bryn, in Brighton, and it was from here that he died of cancer of the liver on the 17th of August 1900 survived by his wife, four daughters and a son.
Charles Webb (1821 - 1898) was an architect. Born on 26 November 1821 at Sudbury, Suffolk, England, he was the youngest of nine children of builder William Webb and his wife Elizabeth. He attended Sudbury Academy and was later apprenticed to a London architect. His brother James had migrated to Van Diemen's Land in 1830, married in 1833, gone to Melbourne in 1839 where he set up as a builder in and in 1848 he bought Brighton Park, Brighton. Charles decided to join James and lived with James at Brighton. They went into partnership as architects and surveyors. The commission that established them was in 1850 for St Paul's Church, Swanston Street. It was here that Charles married Emma Bridges, daughter of the chief cashier at the Bank of England. Charles and James built many warehouses, shops and private homes and even a synagogue in the city. After his borther's return to England, Charles designed St. Andrew's Church, Brighton, and receiving an important commission for Melbourne Church of England Grammar School in 1855. In 1857 he added a tower and a slender spire to Scots Church, which James had built in 1841. He designed Wesley College in 1864, the Alfred Hospital and the Royal Arcade in 1869, the South Melbourne Town Hall and the Melbourne Orphan Asylum in 1878 and the Grand Hotel (now the Windsor) in 1884. In 1865 he had designed his own home, "Farleigh", in Park Street, Brighton, where he died on 23 January 1898 of heat exhaustion. Predeceased by Emma in 1893 and survived by five sons and three daughters, he was buried in Brighton cemetery.
Brooks, Robinson and Company first opened their doors on Elizabeth Street in Melbourne in 1854 as importers of window and table glass and also specialised in interior decorating supplies. Once established the company moved into glazing and were commonly contracted to do shopfronts around inner Melbourne. In the 1880s they commenced producing stained glass on a small scale. Their first big opportunity occurred in the 1890s when they were engaged to install Melbourne's St Paul's Cathedral's stained-glass windows. Their notoriety grew and as a result their stained glass studio flourished, particularly after the closure of their main competitor, Ferguson and Urie. They dominated the stained glass market in Melbourne in the early 20th Century, and many Australian glass artists of worked in their studio. Their work may be found in the Princess Theatre on Melbourne's Spring Street, in St John's Church in Toorak, and throughout churches in Melbourne. Brooks, Robinson and Company was taken over by Email Pty Ltd in 1963, and as a result they closed their stained glass studio.
Home developed with Rodinal 1:50, 24° C, 6m 30s. Scanned with mirrorless and tweaked in Darktable.
There are many things I dislike about the old soviet camera, but one thing I like is the ability to do long exposures without a shutter release cable. Time mode or the ability to lock the shutter button while in bulb mode is rare.
Kodak Developing Powders for Kodak Film Tank Made by Kodak (Australasia) PTY . LTD,. Works . Melbourne Australia.
Day 336 // Y4 // 28.01.2012
This is how the messy face-paint game generally works for Libby - line the colours up in a row, throw them on your face in now particular order and hope that the result is satisfactory.
Week 4: Develop and Emulation #121 for My Face is My Canvas (and inspired by).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was developed in Merritt Island, Florida by Mr. Jim Leppeck of the Brevard Rare Fruit Council, Florida from unidentified parentage.
Canistel is believed to have originated in Belize, Guatemala, and Southern Mexico, where it can be found growing in the wild.
Possibly the prettiest member of the Sapotaceae family, known also as the Yellow Sapote, the Egg Fruit name comes from the pulp that is often likened in texture to the yolk of a hard-boiled egg.
The fruit, extremely variable in shape and size, may be nearly round, with or without a pointed apex, or may be oval, or spindle shaped. Length varies from 3 to 5 inches and width from 2 to 3 inches.
Unripe fruit is green skinned, hard and gummy internally. When ripe, the skin turns yellow and is usually smooth and glossy. The flesh is yellow, firm and mealy. The flavor is similar to that of a Sweet Potato.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALL ABOUT CANISTEL
edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/HS/HS29900.pdf
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A ripe Canistel cracked open from unknown causes (a 2.54cm/1inch diameter coin for comparison).
Pouteria campechiana
Family Sapotaceae
The Hunt Grove, Merritt Island, Florida, USA.
======================================================
with lubitel 166U on kodak TMAX 400 @400
developed in D76 stock, 7:30min
epson v600 negative scan
The Long Goodbye
A 365 midlife-crisis self-portrait project
Documenting my 39th year
Camera: Rolleiflex 6008i
Lens: Rollei 120mm F/4 Makro-Planar HFT PQ
Focal length: 120mm
Aperture: f5.6
Exposure: 1/2
Film: Ilford Delta 3200 @ 6400
Rollei Teleconverter 2x
Developed with rotation technique.
Developer: Ilford DD-X
Stop Bath: Ilford Ilfostop
Fixer: Ilford Rapid Fixer
Develops your Dog's "Hidden Intelligence" To eliminate bad behavior and Create the obedient, well-behaved pet of your dreams.
👉Watch here healthforfit.wixsite.com/dog-training
Taken yesterday using re-rolled 120 film, inside a 1960 Kodak box camera. I don't know what happened to the film, but I suspect I may have been too rough rolling the delicate Foma film. Still, the streaks add to it in a way. I must take a box camera out more often. The sky renders so well with the yellow filter pulled.
Kodak Brownie Flash III box camera
Yellow filter toggled on
Foma Fomapan Creative 200 film (rolled onto 620 spindles).
Developed in R09
Digitally scanned film with Epson Perfection V500.
ODC, Apr 26, 2023; Finally FINISHED shooting enough rolls of color film to justify mixing C41 chemistry. I think this represents close to 10 months worth of film and I don't remember what camera I used for any of the rolls.
Intrepid 4x5 Camera
Schneider-Krueznach 135mm f/5.6
Arista EDU Ultra 100
Developed with Rodinal 1:25
My friend got these films developed as a favor, but i think they were rushed because a lot of them have developing marks.
New film negatives just developed! Very excited about these :) - iPhone5
Rolleiflex SL66E + new film back without overlap issues + Carl Zeiss Planar 80mm f2 HFT + 120 Kodak Tri-X film,
Photos were taken in low light so I shot Kodak Tri-X 400@1600 approx then in developing wanted to create high contrast images so I did my usual Rodinal semi-stand development for 45mins at 21 degrees but with agitations every 10 minutes.
The negatives were therefore shot underexposed by 2 stops. I wanted to keep the blacks black and get the highlights to the brightness I saw when taking the image. By agitating more during the development the highlights get developed more than with regular stand developing to hopefully have 'correctly' exposed highlights.
The lighting for most of these photos was contrasty anyway so I had no interest to keep shadow detail.
This roll was witht Katie modelling in London this week as part of the portrait photography workshop, using both film cameras and digital cameras
mrleica.com/2014/11/14/3-day-leica-photography-workshop/
Rodinal Semi-stand Development - mrleica.com/2014/10/22/rodinal-semi-stand-development-2/