View allAll Photos Tagged development
The timber tram/bus shelters are important for their association with the development of public transport in Brisbane, particularly the tramway system. The shelters are important for remaining in continuous use as waiting shelters for the public transport system in Brisbane since the early 20th century. The shelters are important as evidence of the former tram routes and of a form of public transport no longer in existence in Brisbane. In form, materials, arrangement of elements and location these shelters are representative of tram/bus waiting shelters. Robust functional structures with simple elegant lines the shelters are distinctive visual elements in the streetscape. The tram/ bus shelters are important for their association with the work of the Brisbane City Council’s Transport Department, responsible for the operation of the tramway system from 1925 to 1969.
Shelter Design Trams were a feature of Brisbane streets from 1885 until 1969. From the 1920s to the 1950s The Brisbane Tramway Trust and then the Brisbane City Council erected a number of timber waiting shelter sheds along the tram/bus routes. Most shelters were constructed by Brisbane City Council in response to petitioning by community groups or progress associations. A survey of usage was undertaken by BCC to determine the most viable locations for the shelters. Waiting sheds promoted the use of the tram/bus system by providing a comfortable waiting area with some protection from the elements. Some shelters were large and purpose-built for the site but most were free-standing shelters constructed to standard designs. In this survey three standard shelter types used during this period were identified – P.1008 Standard Waiting Shelter (hipped roof pavilion shelter); Standard Small Type Tramway Shelter Shed No. 2512 (skillion roof shelter); and the gable roof shelter. Only drawings for the P.1008 and No. 2512 types were located during this study.
The gable roof shelter design may have been from a shelter constructed earlier in the 20th century during the time The Brisbane Tramway Company owned and operated the tramway network. The shelter in Chatsworth Road near the corner with Upper Cornwall Street was constructed in 1915 to shelter Greenslopes tram patrons. It had points for lights that the tram drivers would turn on at sunset and off when the last tram left. The P.1008 drawings were drawn up by the Brisbane City Council Department of Works, Planning and Building Branch and signed by City Architect F.G. Costello in 1946. The Standard Small Type Shelter No. 2512 was drawn up by the Transport Department of the Planning and Building Branch and signed by City Architect F.G. Costello in 1945. The P.1008 type shelter closely resembles the shelters constructed by the Brisbane Tramway Trust in the 1920s and 1930s. No drawings for these earlier shelters have been located and this study has been unable to confirm that the 1946 drawings were based on these earlier shelters but the physical evidence suggests that this is the case. The designs for the shelters are uncharacteristic of work designed by Costello which may indicate that the shelter designs are continuing an earlier idiom.
Brisbane Tramway History:
In 1884 a private company, the Metropolitan Tramway and Investment Company, laid Brisbane’s first tram tracks along approximately 10.5 kilometres from Woolloongabba to Breakfast Creek, with branches to the Exhibition Building and New Farm. The company began the operation of a horse-drawn passenger tram system in 1885 with the trams running on rails from the North Quay to the Exhibition Building and Breakfast Creek and later extending the routes to Bulimba Ferry, New Farm, Logan Road and West End.
A power station to supply current to electric trams was constructed in Countess Street in 1897 and The Brisbane Tramways Company introduced the first electric trams to Brisbane that year after purchasing the early horse car system, converting it to electric operation and expanding and extending the routes. Brisbane’s tramway system experienced rapid expansion in response to the growth in the City’s population. From a population of 101,554 in 1891 Brisbane had expanded to a population of 139,480 in 1911, which then doubled to 209,168 by 1921. The number of cars in operation increased from 20 in 1897 to 172 in 1916. At the conclusion of the First World War there was general support for the notion that the tramway system be owned and operated by a public authority rather than a private company. In 1922, the Brisbane Tramway Trust was inaugurated by an Act of Parliament and the Trust assumed ownership and control of the tramways in January 1923. The tramway system had failed to keep pace with the expansion of Brisbane so the Trust faced a considerable backlog of work. It undertook the construction of repair workshops and car depots, laying of additional tracks, purchase of additional cars and the introduction of remote control of points at busy intersections. Innovations introduced by the Trust included the construction of passenger waiting shelter sheds, advertising in trams and a suggestions board scheme. The 1920s and 1930s was a period of tramways expansion following the Brisbane City Council acquisition of the tramways system from the Brisbane Tramways Trust in 1925. The Council continued with the upgrading and extension of the system. During the first half of the 20th century public transport was important in Brisbane and remained the principal form of transport for most residents. By the 1950s Brisbane had one of the highest levels of public transport usage in Australia. The tram system was the principal form of public transport in Brisbane until the 1960s. It is thought that the hipped roof and skillion roof shelters identified in this study were constructed between the 1920s and 1950s by the Brisbane Tramway Trust and then by Brisbane City Council. Most of the routes on which these shelters have been identified were constructed during this period. Further research is required to establish construction dates for the gable roof shelters. As the tram routes to Windsor and Coorparoo were established in 1914 and 1915, the shelter construction post dates this. The construction of the hipped roof waiting shelter in Merthyr Road, New Farm was approved by the Trust in 1924 and probably constructed in 1925.
In 1924 the Brisbane Tramway Trust extended the tram service to Ashgrove, demonstrating a confidence in the future of the suburb. The release of 855 allotments in the Glenlyon Gardens estate in 1924 was the catalyst for the development of Ashgrove as a residential suburb. It is thought that the waiting shelters along Waterworks Road (Ithaca Bridge, Oleander Drive and Stewart Place) were constructed at sometime between the mid-1920s and the 1940s. The Rosalie line opened along Elizabeth Street, Rosalie in 1904 and was extended in 1930 to Rainworth, terminating in Boundary Road adjacent to Rainworth Primary School. The shelters on Boundary Road were built after this 1930 extension of the line. Between 1937 and 1939 the tramline extended to Bardon and the Simpsons Road shelter was built some time after this. From 1940 the Brisbane City Council trialed the use of buses with diesel engines in areas not serviced by trams. In 1940 a diesel bus service ran from Kelvin Grove through Herston and along Butterfield Street to the City. The shelter on Butterfield Street remains as evidence of the diesel bus service which became the backbone of Brisbane City Council public transport after the closure of the tramway system in 1969.
Following the Second World War, Brisbane experienced a housing boom which encouraged the Council to extend its electric tramway network. At this time the Monday to Friday the morning peak services had 246 tram cars operating and 296 cars were required to meet the evening peak traffic. During the day each route was serviced by a tram every ten minutes. However from the 1950s various factors converged to influence a decline in the patronage of the tram system. An increasing reliance on the private motor car reduced the number of tram passengers and the growth of the Brisbane City Council’s bus fleet gradually outstripped that of the tram system. Urban sprawl saw more and more families move to outer suburbs not connected to the tram system, and a lack of investment in the technological development of trams compared with increasing expenditure on diesel buses contributed to the conversion of Brisbane’s public transport system from trams to buses. In 1962 the Paddington tram depot was burned to the ground with the loss of 65 trams (20% of the fleet). In 1965 the Wilbur Smith Plan, a report on the future transport and traffic requirements of Brisbane, recommended the closure of the tramway system and a conversion to a bus program. As a result of all these various influences and events, the tram system in Brisbane was discontinued in 1969. The tram waiting shelters remain, providing evidence of a mode of transport no longer in use.
Source: Brisbane City Council Heritage Register.
trying some macro...
old beroflex AF 35-70mm lens from an old minolta dynax 3ix cam. as i don't have any adapter on my e-mount, i used some piece of toilette paper roll :).
proceed in darktable
heuer microsplit LED / LCD 1/100-stopwatch development (from left): ref. HL 820 (1973) - ref. 520 (1974, this one is a ref. 530) - ref. 320 (1975) - ref. 370 (1976).
the development can see as a revolution. the size is always getting smaller, also the batterys (from 4 x AAA to 2 x LR1130 - some specials-models with accus)
> the first microsplit was designed inhouse, the other ones by richard sapper.
> the first two models are with split- and taylor-function, the following models only with split-function.
from the ref. 820 you get ref. 802 with 1/10 s. from the ref. 520 there are also models with 1/100 min. or 1/100 h. the ref. 320 has a following model in plastic (also without split-function), who endet up as a solar-model (also to TAGheuer) in diverse colours. the ref. 370 you can have with silver body und black strap.
I've been searching the last two years a way to turn digital raw into pastel like Fujifilm 400H Pro colors.
I've failed a million times and thought that it's impossible since film reacts to light differently each time vs. digital sensor.
I've come close, but the results vary between lighting situations from bad to excellent. But now I've really cracked something cool.
This particular preset + method editing 8bit jpg (now raw) has been revolutionary discovery. I've gotten excellent results every time and the pictures are always blooming with bright pastel like colors.
I'm about to write this to my blog and release this updated 400H preset in the next few days.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
In the late 1970s the Mikoyan OKB began development of a hypersonic high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft. Designated "Izdeliye 301" (also known as 3.01), the machine had an unusual design, combining a tailless layout with variable geometry wings. The two engines fueled by kerosene were located side by side above the rear fuselage, with the single vertical fin raising above them, not unlike the Tu-22 “Blinder” bomber of that time, but also reminiscent of the US-American SR-71 Mach 3 reconnaissance aircraft.
Only few and rather corny information leaked into the West, and the 301 was believed not only to act as a reconnaissance plane , it was also believed to have (nuclear) bombing capabilities. Despite wind tunnel testing with models, no hardware of the 301 was ever produced - aven though the aircraft could have become a basis for a long-range interceptor that would replace by time the PVO's Tupolew Tu-28P (ASCC code "Fiddler"), a large aircraft armed solely with missiles.
Despite limitations, the Tu-28P served well in its role, but the concept of a very fast interceptor aircraft, lingered on, since the Soviet Union had large areas to defend against aerial intruders, esp. from the North and the East. High speed, coupled with long range and the ability to intercept an incoming target at long distances independently from ground guidance had high priority for the Soviet Air Defence Forces. Even though no official requirement was issued, the concept of Izdeliye 301 from the Seventies was eventually developed further into the fixed-wing "Izdeliye 701" ultra-long-range high-altitude interceptor in the 1980ies.
The impulse for this new approach came when Oleg S. Samoylovich joined the Mikoyan OKB after having worked at Suchoi OKB on the T-60S missile carrier project. Similar in overall design to the former 301, the 701 was primarily intended as a kind of successor for the MiG-31 Foxhound for the 21st century, which just had completed flight tests and was about to enter PVO's front line units.
Being based on a long range cruise missile carrier, the 701 would have been a huge plane, featuring a length of 30-31m, a wing span of 19m (featuring a highly swept double delta wing) and having a maximum TOW of 70 tons! Target performance figures included a top speed of 2.500km/h, a cruising speed of 2.100km/h at 17.000m and an effective range of 7.000km in supersonic or 11.000km in subsonic mode. Eventually, the 701 program was mothballed, too, being too ambitious and expensive for a specialized development that could also have been a fighter version of the Tu-22 bomber!
Anyway, while the MiG-31 was successfully introduced in 1979 and had evolved in into a capable long-range interceptor with a top speed of more than Mach 3 (limited to Mach 2.8 in order to protect the aircraft's structural integrity), MiG OKB decided in 1984 to take further action and to develop a next-generation technology demonstrator, knowing that even the formidable "Foxhound" was only an interim solution on the way to a true "Four plus" of even a 6th generation fighter. Other new threats like low-flying cruise missiles, the USAF's "Project Pluto" or the assumed SR-71 Mach 5 successor “Aurora” kept Soviet military officials on the edge of their seats, too.
Main objective was to expand the Foxhound's state-of the-art performance, and coiple it with modern features like aerodynamic instability, supercruise, stealth features and further development potential.
The aircraft's core mission objectives comprised:
- Provide strategic air defense and surveillance in areas not covered by ground-based air defense systems (incl. guidance of other aircraft with less sophisticated avionics)
- Top speed of Mach 3.2 or more in a dash and cruise at Mach 3.0 for prolonged periods
- Long range/high speed interception of airspace intruders of any kind, including low flying cruise missiles, UAVs and helicopters
- Intercept cruise missiles and their launch aircraft from sea level up to 30.000m altitude by reaching missile launch range in the lowest possible time after departing the loiter area
Because funding was scarce and no official GOR had been issued, the project was taken on as a private venture. The new project was internally known as "Izdeliye 710" or "71.0". It was based on both 301 and 701 layout ideas and the wind tunnel experiences with their unusual layouts, as well as Oleg Samoylovich's experience with the Suchoi T-4 Mach 3 bomber project and the T-60S.
"Izdeliye 710" was from the start intended only as a proof-of-concept prototype, yet fully functional. It would also incorporate new technologies like heat-resistant ceramics against kinetic heating at prolonged high speeds (the airframe had to resist temperatures of 300°C/570°F and more for considerable periods), but with potential for future development into a full-fledged interceptor, penetrator and reconnaissance aircraft.
Overall, “Izdeliye 710" looked like a shrinked version of a mix of both former MiG OKB 301 and 701 designs, limited to the MiG-31's weight class of about 40 tons TOW. Compared with the former designs, the airframe received an aerodynamically more refined, partly blended, slender fuselage that also incorporated mild stealth features like a “clean” underside, softened contours and partly shielded air intakes. Structurally, the airframe's speed limit was set at Mach 3.8.
From the earlier 301 design,the plane retained the variable geometry wing. Despite the system's complexity and weight, this solution was deemed to be the best approach for a combination of a high continuous top speed, extended loiter time in the mission’s patrol areas and good performance on improvised airfields. Minimum sweep was a mere 10°, while, fully swept at 68°, the wings blended into the LERXes. Additional lift was created through the fuselage shape itself, so that aerodynamic surfaces and therefore drag could be reduced.
Pilot and radar operator sat in tandem under a common canopy with rather limited sight. The cockpit was equipped with a modern glass cockpit with LCD screens. The aircraft’s two engines were, again, placed in a large, mutual nacelle on the upper rear fuselage, fed by large air intakes with two-dimensional vertical ramps and a carefully modulated airflow over the aircraft’s dorsal area.
Initially, the 71.0 was to be powered by a pair of Soloviev D-30F6 afterburning turbofans with a dry thrust of 93 kN (20,900 lbf) each, and with 152 kN (34,172 lbf) with full afterburner. These were the same engines that powered the MiG-31, but there were high hopes for the Kolesov NK-101 engine: a variable bypass engine with a maximum thrust in the 200kN range, at the time of the 71.0's design undergoing bench tests and originally developed for the advanced Suchoj T-4MS strike aircraft.
With the D-30F6, the 71.0 was expected to reach Mach 3.2 (making the aircraft capable of effectively intercepting the SR-71), but the NK-101 would offer in pure jet mode a top speed in excess of Mach 3.5 and also improve range and especially loiter time when running as a subsonic turbofan engine.
A single fin with an all-moving top and an additional deep rudder at its base was placed on top of the engine nacelle. Additional maneuverability at lower speed was achieved by retractable, all-moving foreplanes, stowed in narrow slits under the cockpit. Longitudinal stability at high speed was improved through deflectable stabilizers: these were kept horizontal for take-off and added to the overall lift, but they could be folded down by up to 60° in flight, acting additionally as stabilizer strakes.
Due to the aircraft’s slender shape and unique proportions, the 71.0 quickly received the unofficial nickname "жура́вль" (‘Zhurávl' = Crane). The aircaft’s stalky impression was emphasized even more through its unusual landing gear arrangement: Due to the limited internal space for the main landing gear wells between the weapons bay, the wing folding mechanisms and the engine nacelle, MiG OKB decided to incorporate a bicycle landing gear, normally a trademark of Yakovlew OKB designs, but a conventional landing gear could simply not be mounted, or its construction would have become much too heavy and complex.
In order to facilitate operations from improvised airfields and on snow the landing gear featured twin front wheels on a conventional strut and a single four wheel bogie as main wheels. Smaller, single stabilizer wheels were mounted on outriggers that retracted into slender fairings at the wings’ fixed section trailing edge, reminiscent of early Tupolev designs.
All standard air-to-air weaponry, as well as fuel, was to be carried internally. Main armament would be the K-100 missile (in service eventually designated R-100), stored in a large weapons bay behind the cockpit on a rotary mount. The K-100 had been under development at that time at NPO Novator, internally coded ‘Izdeliye 172’. The K-100 missile was an impressive weapon, and specifically designed to attack vital and heavily defended aerial targets like NATO’s AWACS aircraft at BVR distance.
Being 15’ (4.57 m) long and weighing 1.370 lb (620 kg), this huge ultra-long-range weapon had a maximum range of 250 mi (400 km) in a cruise/glide profile and attained a speed of Mach 6 with its solid rocket engine. This range could be boosted even further with a pair of jettisonable ramjets in tubular pods on the missile’s flanks for another 60 mi (100 km). The missile could attack targets ranging in altitude between 15 – 25,000 meters.
The weapon would initially be allocated to a specified target through the launch aircraft’s on-board radar and sent via inertial guidance into the target’s direction. Closing in, the K-100’s Agat 9B-1388 active seeker would identify the target, lock on, and independently attack it, also in coordination with other K-100’s shot at the same target, so that the attack would be coordinated in time and approach directions in order to overload defense and ensure a hit.
The 71.0’s internal mount could hold four of these large missiles, or, alternatively, the same number of the MiG-31’s R-33 AAMs. The mount also had a slot for the storage of additional mid- and short-range missiles for self-defense, e .g. three R-60 or two R-73 AAMs. An internal gun was not considered to be necessary, since the 71.0 or potential derivatives would fight their targets at very long distances and rather rely on a "hit-and-run" tactic, sacrificing dogfight capabilities for long loitering time in stand-by mode, high approach speed and outstanding acceleration and altitude performance.
Anyway, provisions were made to carry a Gsh-301-250 gun pod on a retractable hardpoint in the weapons bay instead of a K-100. Alternatively, such pods could be carried externally on four optional wing root pylons, which were primarily intended for PTB-1500 or PTB-3000 drop tanks, or further missiles - theoretically, a maximum of ten K-100 missiles could be carried, plus a pair of short-range AAMs.
Additionally, a "buddy-to-buffy" IFR set with a retractable drogue (probably the same system as used on the Su-24) was tested (71.2 was outfitted with a retractable refuelling probe in front of the cockpit), as well as the carriage of simple iron bombs or nuclear stores, to be delivered from very high altitudes. Several pallets with cameras and sensors (e .g. a high resolution SLAR) were also envisioned, which could easily replace the missile mounts and the folding weapon bay covers for recce missions.
Since there had been little official support for the project, work on the 710 up to the hardware stage made only little progress, since the MiG-31 already filled the long-range interceptor role in a sufficient fashion and offered further development potential.
A wooden mockup of the cockpit section was presented to PVO and VVS officials in 1989, and airframe work (including tests with composite materials on structural parts, including ceramic tiles for leading edges) were undertaken throughout 1990 and 1991, including test rigs for the engine nacelle and the swing wing mechanism.
Eventually, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 suddenly stopped most of the project work, after two prototype airframes had been completed. Their internal designations were Izdeliye 71.1 and 71.2, respectively. It took a while until the political situation as well as the ex-Soviet Air Force’s status were settled, and work on Izdeliye 710 resumed at a slow pace.
After taking two years to be completed, 71.1 eventually made its roll-out and maiden flight in summer 1994, just when MiG-31 production had ended. MiG OKB still had high hopes in this aircraft, since the MiG-31 would have to be replaced in the next couple of years and "Izdeliye 710" was just in time for the potential procurement process. The first prototype wore a striking all-white livery, with dark grey ceramic tiles on the wings’ leading edges standing out prominently – in this guise and with its futuristic lines the slender aircraft reminded a lot of the American Space Shuttle.
71.1 was primarily intended for engine and flight tests (esp. for the eagerly awaited NK-101 engines), as well as for the development of the envisioned ramjet propulsion system for full-scale production and further development of Izdeliye 710 into a Mach 3+ interceptor. No mission avionics were initially fitted to this plane, but it carried a comprehensive test equipment suite and ballast.
Its sister ship 71.2 flew for the first time in late 1994, wearing a more unpretentious grey/bare metal livery. This plane was earmarked for avionics development and weapons integration, especially as a test bed for the K-100 missile, which shared Izdeliye 710’s fate of being a leftover Soviet project with an uncertain future and an even more corny funding outlook.
Anyway, aircraft 71.2 was from the start equipped with a complete RP-31 ('Zaslon-M') weapon control system, which had been under development at that time as an upgrade for the Russian MiG-31 fleet being part of the radar’s development program secured financial support from the government and allowed the flight tests to continue. The RP-31 possessed a maximum detection range of 400 km (250 mi) against airliner-sized targets at high altitude or 200 km against fighter-sized targets; the typical width of detection along the front was given as 225 km. The system could track 24 airborne targets at one time at a range of 120 km, 6 of which could be simultaneously attacked with missiles.
With these capabilities the RP-31 suite could, coupled with an appropriate carrier airframe, fulfil the originally intended airspace control function and would render a dedicated and highly vulnerable airspace control aircraft (like the Beriev A-50 derivative of the Il-76 transport) more or less obsolete. A group of four aircraft equipped with the 'Zaslon-M' suite would be able to permanently control an area of airspace across a total length of 800–900 km, while having ultra-long range weapons at hand to counter any intrusion into airspace with a quicker reaction time than any ground-based fighter on QRA duty. The 71.0, outfitted with the RP-31/K-100 system, would have posed a serious threat to any aggressor.
In March 1995 both prototypes were eventually transferred to the Kerchenskaya Guards Air Base at Savasleyka in the Oblast Vladimir, 300 km east of Mocsow, where they received tactical codes of '11 Blue' and '12 Blue'. Besides the basic test program and the RP-31/K-100 system tests, both machines were directly evaluated against the MiG-31 and Su-27 fighters by the Air Force's 4th TsBPi PLS, based at the same site.
Both aircraft exceeded expectations, but also fell short in certain aspects. The 71.0’s calculated top speed of Mach 3.2 was achieved during the tests with a top speed of 3,394 km/h (2.108 mph) at 21,000 m (69.000 ft). Top speed at sea level was confirmed at 1.200 km/h (745 mph) indicated airspeed.
Combat radius with full weapon load and internal fuel only was limited to 1,450 km (900 mi) at Mach 0.8 and at an altitude of 10,000 m (33,000 ft), though, and it sank to a mere 720 km (450 mi) at Mach 2.35 and at an altitude of 18,000 m (59,000 ft). Combat range with 4x K-100 internally and 2 drop tanks was settled at 3,000 km (1,860 mi), rising to 5,400 km (3,360 mi) with one in-flight refueling, tested with the 71.2. Endurance at altitude was only slightly above 3 hours, though. Service ceiling was 22,800 m (74,680 ft), 2.000 m higher than the MiG-31.
While these figures were impressive, Soviet officials were not truly convinced: they did not show a significant improvement over the simpler MiG-31. MiG OKB tried to persuade the government into more flight tests and begged for access to the NK-101, but the Soviet Union's collapse halted this project, too, so that both Izdeliye 710 had to keep the Soloviev D-30F6.
Little is known about the Izdeliye 710 project’s progress or further developments. The initial tests lasted until at least 1997, and obviously the updated MiG-31M received official favor instead of a completely new aircraft. The K-100 was also dropped, since the R-33 missile and later its R-37 derivative sufficiently performed in the long-range aerial strike role.
Development on the aircraft as such seemed to have stopped with the advent of modernized Su-27 derivatives and the PAK FA project, resulting in the Suchoi T-50 prototype. Unconfirmed reports suggest that one of the prototypes (probably 71.1) was used in the development of the N014 Pulse-Doppler radar with a passive electronically scanned array antenna in the wake of the MFI program. The N014 was designed with a range of 420 km, detection target of 250km to 1m and able to track 40 targets while able to shoot against 20.
Most interestingly, Izdeliye 710 was never officially presented to the public, but NATO became aware of its development through satellite pictures in the early Nineties and the aircraft consequently received the ASCC reporting codename "Fastback".
Until today, only the two prototypes have been known to exist, and it is assumed – had the type entered service – that the long-range fighter had received the official designation "MiG-41".
General characteristics:
Crew: 2 (Pilot, weapon system officer)
Length (incl. pitot): 93 ft 10 in (28.66 m)
Wingspan:
- minimum 10° sweep: 69 ft 4 in (21.16 m)
- maximum 68° sweep: 48 ft 9 in (14,88 m)
Height: 23 ft 1 1/2 in (7,06 m )
Wing area: 1008.9 ft² (90.8 m²)
Weight: 88.151 lbs (39.986 kg)
Performance:
Maximum speed:
- Mach 3.2 (2.050 mph (3.300 km/h) at height
- 995 mph (1.600 km/h) supercruise speed at 36,000 ft (11,000 m)
- 915 mph (1.470 km/h) at sea level
Range: 3.705 miles (5.955 km) with internal fuel
Service ceiling: 75.000 ft (22.500 m)
Rate of climb: 31.000 ft/min (155 m/s)
Engine:
2x Soloviev D-30F6 afterburning turbofans with a dry thrust of 93 kN (20,900 lbf) each
and with 152 kN (34,172 lbf) with full afterburner.
Armament:
Internal weapons bay, main armament comprises a flexible missile load; basic ordnance of 4x K-100 ultra long range AAMs plus 2x R-73 short-range AAMs: other types like the R-27, R-33, R-60 and R-77 have been carried and tested, too, as well as podded guns on internal and external mounts. Alternatively, the weapon bay can hold various sensor pallets.
Four hardpoints under the wing roots, the outer pair “wet” for drop tanks of up to 3.000 l capacity, ECM pods or a buddy-buddy refueling drogue system. Maximum payload mass is 9000 kg.
The kit and its assembly
The second entry for the 2017 “Soviet” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com – a true Frankenstein creation, based on the scarce information about the real (but never realized) MiG 301 and 701 projects, the Suchoj T-60S, as well as some vague design sketches you can find online and in literature.
This one had been on my project list for years and I already had donor kits stashed away – but the sheer size (where will I leave it once done…?) and potential complexity kept me from tackling it.
The whole thing was an ambitious project and just the unique layout with a massive engine nacelle on top of the slender fuselage instead of an all-in-one design makes these aircraft an interesting topic to build. The GB was a good motivator.
“My” fictional interpretation of the MiG concepts is mainly based on a Dragon B-1B in 1:144 scale (fuselage, wings), a PM Model Su-15 two seater (donating the nose section and the cockpit, as well as wing parts for the fin) and a Kangnam MiG-31 (for the engine pod and some small parts). Another major ingredient is a pair of horizontal stabilizers from a 1:72 Hasegawa A-5 Vigilante.
Fitting the cockpit section took some major surgery and even more putty to blend the parts smoothly together. Another major surgical area was the tail; the "engine box" came to be rather straightforward, using the complete rear fuselage section from the MiG-31 and adding the intakes form the same kit, but mounted horizontally with a vertical splitter.
Blending the thing to the cut-away tail section of the B-1 was quite a task, though, since I not only wanted to add the element to the fuselage, but rather make it look a bit 'organic'. More than putty was necessary, I also had to made some cuts and transplantations. And after six PSR rounds I stopped counting…
The landing gear was built from scratch – the front wheel comes mostly from the MiG-31 kit. The central bogie and its massive leg come from a VEB Plasticart 1:100 Tu-20/95 bomber, plus some additional struts. The outriggers are leftover landing gear struts from a Hobby Boss Fw 190, mated with wheels which I believe come from a 1:200 VEB Plasticart kit, an An-24. Not certain, though. The fairings are slender MiG-21 drop tanks blended into the wing training edge. For the whole landing gear, the covers were improvised with styrene sheet, parts from a plastic straw(!) or leftover bits from the B-1B.
The main landing gear well was well as the weapons’ bay themselves were cut into the B-1B underside and an interior scratched from sheet and various leftover materials – I tried to maximize their space while still leaving enough room for the B-1B kit’s internal VG mechanism.
The large missiles (two were visible fitted and the rotary launcher just visibly hinted at) are, in fact, AGM-78 ‘Standard’ ARMs in a fantasy guise. They look pretty Soviet, though, like big brothers of the already not small R-33 missiles from the MiG-31.
While not in the focus of attention, the cockpit interior is completely new, too – OOB, the Su-15 cockpit only has a floor and rather stubby seats, under a massive single piece canopy. On top of the front wheel well (from a Hasegawa F-4) I added a new floor and added side consoles, scratched from styrene sheet. F-4 dashboards improve the decoration, and I added a pair of Soviet election seats from the scrap box – IIRC left over from two KP MiG-19 kits.
The canopy was taken OOB, I just cut it into five parts for open display. The material’s thickness does not look too bad on this aircraft – after all, it would need a rather sturdy construction when flying at Mach 3+ and withstanding the respective pressures and temperatures.
Painting
As a pure whif, I was free to use a weirdo design - but I rejected this idea quickly. I did not want a garish splinter scheme or a bright “Greenbottle Fly” Su-27 finish.
With the strange layout of the aircraft, the prototype idea was soon settled – and Soviet prototypes tend to look very utilitarian and lusterless, might even be left in grey. Consequently, I adapted a kind of bare look for this one, inspired by the rather shaggy Soviet Tu-22 “Blinder” bombers which carried a mix of bare metal and white and grey panels. With additional black leading edges on the aerodynamic surfaces, this would create a special/provisional but still purposeful look.
For the painting, I used a mix of several metallizer tones from ModelMaster and Humbrol (including Steel, Magnesium, Titanium, as well as matt and polished aluminum, and some Gun Metal and Exhaust around the engine nozzles, partly mixed with a bit of blue) and opaque tones (Humbrol 147 and 127). The “scheme” evolved panel-wise and step by step. The black leading edges were an interim addition, coming as things evolved, and they were painted first with black acrylic paint as a rough foundation and later trimmed with generic black decal stripes (from TL Modellbau). A very convenient and clean solution!
The radomes on nose and tail and other di-electric panels became dark grey (Humbrol 125). The cockpit tub was painted with Soviet Cockpit Teal (from ModelMaster), while the cockpit opening and canopy frames were kept in a more modest medium grey (Revell 57). On the outside of the cabin windows, a fat, deep yellow sealant frame (Humbrol 93, actually “Sand”) was added.
The weapon bay was painted in a yellow-ish primer tone (seen on pics of Tu-160 bombers) while the landing gear wells received a mix of gold and sand; the struts were painted in a mixed color, too, made of Humbrol 56 (Aluminum) and 34 (Flat White). The green wheel discs (Humbrol 131), a typical Soviet detail, stand out well from the rather subdued but not boring aircraft, and they make a nice contrast to the red Stars and the blue tactical code – the only major markings, besides a pair of MiG OKB logos under the cockpit.
Decals were puzzled together from various sheets, and I also added a lot of stencils for a more technical look. In order to enhance the prototype look further I added some photo calibration markings on the nose and the tail, made from scratch.
A massive kitbashing project that I had pushed away for years - but I am happy that I finally tackled it, and the result looks spectacular. The "Firefox" similarity was not intended, but this beast really looks like a movie prop - and who knwos if the Firefox was not inspired by the same projects (the MiG 301 and 701) as my kitbash model?
The background info is a bit lengthy, but there's some good background info concerning the aforementioned projects, and this aircraft - as a weapon system - would have played a very special and complex role, so a lot of explanations are worthwhile - also in order to emphasize that I di not simply try to glue some model parts together, but rather try to spin real world ideas further.
Mighty bird!
This is a massive development in Saanich, which is home to the Home Depot. This is the old Thrifty Food liqueur store that's been torn down now.
All of the images are "tracings" and hail from various sources. The entry covers at least two or three days from last week and more or less reads from top to bottom.
see the whole thing here. it cuts off at the super dramatic part, haha. I promise it gets better, and there's only like 30 seconds more. go watch it!
I really don't blame you if this doesn't make sense to you. It was for school. But here it is anyway.
For my school project, I had to make an exhibit to go with a portfolio of writing. Instead of doing some sort of statue-creation-type thing like most kids, I decided to make a stop motion. It represents how I've 'come of age' as a reader, writer, and a person.
Model is Annie.
Nikon D4s in development (image by Nikon)
Read more here
www.kentyuphotography.com/blog/2014/01/nikon-d4s-is-here/
-----------------------------------------------------
Kent Yu Photography
Wellington Wedding Photographer
Subscribe us to see more of our work
Big Developments:
Whilst we have been away from the spotlight for a while many new developments have taken place behind the scenes.
1. National Park park and rides:
For some time now we have been working with the national parks authority on trying to reduce emissions from road transport in the national park areas. Together we have found that the best solution is to create a series of park and rides outside National parks on their approaches, with attractive luxury vehicles and pricing to tempt more passengers. Over the past year existing park and ride sites have been extended and new ones created in strategic towns and cities near national parks. The first of these to be completed is the two for the Lake district National Park.
Two new park and ride sites have been created at Lancaster and Carlisle near to the motorway to tempt more travellers. There will be three services running through the park, each requiring 7 vehicles to keep up a 20 minute frequency. We have ordered Plaxton elite interdecks for these services as they provide wheelchair access with the luxury of a coach, however these are to the new shorter 13.8m length as on stagecoach’s X7 route in Scotland.
A new brand, called National Park Connect, has been created for what will eventually be a network of services that cover most national parks within the country, with the intention of linking these in time with Crosslinks services to the park and ride sites. One of the Elites is below.
Many thanks to Chris H for the net.
Cleaner Emissions for TFL
As part of TFL’s mission to reduce bus emissions by using new exhaust technology to clean up older vehicles, Sullivan’s are the next fleet to be retrofitted with the SCRT system for reducing particulates under the TFL programme. This will affect all vehicles built in 2001 to 2004, a significant proportion of the fleet. We have been assure that it will cost nothing to us and mean that the emissions of these vehicles are close to Euro 6 levels, however with other technologies we have been using (such as the GKN flyweel system) we believe emission may be well under that target one all modifications are completed.
Introduction of Eminox technology
Since last year we have been trialing the eminox fuel additive in the Crossways fleet. It saves around 1% of fuel used by a normal bus over the year. Although this may not sound like much, it is still on average a £500 per bus per year saving on fuel costs even when factoring in the cost of buying the additive.
Since trials have been successful, all fleets within the Crossways Group will now start to use the technology, potentially saving us £50,000 per year and further reducing our emissions. Crossways has already been using the technology (including the events fleet), however fleets affected by this will be the Cross Bristol, Sullivan Buses, Crosslinks, Rail Replacement and National Park Fleets.
Working the Jasper housing development here in Prescott Valley along the Iron King Trail. PV is growing by leaps and bounds.
Prescott Valley, Arizona
January 3, 2018
this land used to be an informal settlement now reclaimed by the national government for development
Instead of working on the important stuff in life, I of course chose something else to do ;). After having a quick look through the Bricklink Designer Program palette for Series 7, I quickly got inspired to build something for it, and now that submissions have closed I'm happy to say that this little steam tram will be a part of the Public Vote starting February 10th!
For now, I'll stick to these teasers, but expect more details and pictures soon!
The Development of Armidale. What is so special about Armidale? Well it is a cathedral city with both Anglican and Catholic cathedrals; it is a wealthy city with a prosperous hinterland and many mansions; it is Australia’s highest city with a bracing English style climate; it is an education city with a university and several prestigious boarding schools; it was one of a number of sites considered for the Australian capital city site after Federation; it has been one of the centres wanting to secede from the rest of NSW; and it has an interesting history with a squatting phase, mining phase, agricultural phase etc. It is also a regional capital and has always been considered the “capital” of the New England region - a distinctive Australian region defined by rainfall, altitude, etc. And it has always been on the main inland route between Sydney and Brisbane but that is no longer of importance in this aviation transport era.
The origins of Armidale district go back to Henry Dumaresq when he squatted on land here and took out leaseholds on Saumarez and Tilbuster stations in 1834. He and other squatters soon displaced the local aboriginal people after a period of considerable violence. The turning point in terms of the city came in 1839 when George Macdonald was appointed Commissioner for Crown Lands for the New England District. He arrived with a small police force and he set about building a house and office headquarters. The site he chose is now Macdonald Park. NSW land regulations allowed the government to set aside reserves for future towns or to resume leasehold land for the creation of towns. Macdonald immediately surveyed the local landowners of which there were 37 in New England, giving it a population of 422 people. But this was the convict era of NSW and half of the population were assigned convicts. They provided the brawn to develop the stations, build the shepherd’s huts, dig the wells and dams, and fell the timber and clear the land. Of the original 422 people in New England only 10 were females, probably wives of shepherds or convict women who were cooks etc. Most stations had between 8 and 12 assigned convicts. Saumarez for example, had 11 convicts and 8 free male workers in 1839. In 1841 convicts still accounted for 42% of the population of New England and as they completed their seven year terms, many stayed on to become the founders of towns like Armidale. Transportation of convicts to NSW ceased around 1843 and so convict assignees gradually declined in the region, but ex-convicts remained.
Macdonald named the town site Armidale after the Armadale estate on the Isle of Skye. Macdonald had barracks built for the police men, stables, a store shed, his own house and he enclosed some paddocks for the growing of wheat and vegetables. His first years were often taken up with writing reports about Aboriginal massacres and deaths including the Bluff Rock Massacre on the Everett brothers’ run at Ollera near Guyra. Macdonald seldom investigated reports of Aboriginal deaths closely. He was a pompous little man, just 4 feet 10 inches tall with a deformed hunched back. But he was meticulous in most matters. In 1841 he was jilted just before his proposed wedding to a local woman. He remained in Armidale until 1848 overseeing the early development of the town.
By 1843 a small town had emerged with a Post Office and a Court House, blacksmith, wheelwright, hotel, general store etc. The town provided government and commercial services to the surrounding pastoral estates. But the town reserve included other lands that were sold or leased to farmers- agriculturists who grew wheat. By 1851 Armidale had two flour mills. The long transport route to Newcastle and on to Sydney meant all wheat had to be converted to flour before it was transported to the markets. The old dray route down to the coast was also used for the transport of the region’s major product- wool. The official town was surveyed and the streets laid out in 1849. Many of the early pastoralists were commemorated in street names – Beardy, Dumaresq, Dangar, Marsh, Faulkner and Rusden to name a few.
In 1851 Armidale also had local industries for the regional population- two breweries, general stores, chemist, butcher etc. In the early 1850s the churches began to erect their first buildings and the town became “civilised” with more and more women living there. Then gold discoveries near Uralla and towards the eastern escarpment boosted the town’s population and services. A newspaper was founded, a hospital was built and the population reached 858 in 1856. A gaol was built on South Hill in 1863, the town became a municipality in 1864, and the Robertson’s Land Acts (1861) were introduced throughout NSW to break up the big pastoral estates for ‘selectors” or small scale farmers on 320 acre blocks. This boosted the total population of the Armidale region but as noted elsewhere the pastoralists also used this era to buy up large lots of land freehold for themselves by the process of “dummying”- using relatives and employees to buy small parcels of land which they sold on to the large land owners. But the early years of growing wheat around Armidale collapsed in the 1870s as the wheat lands of South Australia opened up and cheap SA imports destroyed the New England wheat industry. Other forms of agriculture were then taken up in New England.
Another key factor in the growth of Armidale in the late 1870s and into the 1890s was its English style climate. In 1885 Armidale was proclaimed a city. It had a population of 3,000 residents - a remarkable achievement for a locale so far from the coast. This was of course boosted further with the arrival of the railway in Armidale in 1883. The line soon reached the Queensland border with a connection on to Brisbane. But the railway was not all good news as the city of Armidale could then receive beer and other supplies on the railway from Newcastle or Sydney and some local industries closed down with the arrival of the railway. By the 1880s the boom years were apparent as large mansions and prominent commercial buildings were erected in the growing city.
The fact that Armidale is equidistant from Sydney and Brisbane was one of the factors considered in its application to become the new Federal capital. The fact that Armidale had nearby reservoirs and a large water supply big enough for a large capital city was also an important consideration. The new Federal government was considering the site of the capital city after a long drought so access to water supplies was a major concern. As we known the site of Canberra near Yass was finally selected despite its lesser supply of water but it was closer to Sydney.
Regional Art gallery and Aboriginal Art Centre.
This gallery is one of the regional galleries funded by the NSW government. It is especially noted for its outstanding collection of Australia Art which was donated to the gallery by Howard Hinton (1867-1948.) Hinton was a company director and art collector. Despite poor eyesight he travelled the world looking at galleries and he befriended several artists. In Sydney he met and lived with noted Australian painter such as Tom Roberts, Arthur Stretton and Julian Ashton. He made his first donation of art to the National Gallery of NSW in 1914. Over the years he gave 122 paintings to that gallery. He was a trustee of the National Gallery of NSW from 1919-1948. He was knighted in 1935 for his services to art. In 1928 when the National Gallery of NSW refused some of his donations he decided to endow the relatively new Teachers’ College at Armidale with a collection of art. The Director of Education who was in charge of the College concurred with the idea and the first paintings were received in Armidale in 1929. He later gave over 1,000 paintings to the Teachers’ College and over 700 art books for its library. His collection illustrated the development of Australian art in particular from the 1880s through to the 1940s. The artist Norman Lindsey described the collection as the only complete collection of Australian art. A portrait of Howard Hinton is held by the former Armidale College of Advanced Education which is now part of the University of New England. The art collection has been transferred on to the Armidale Regional Art Gallery. The Hinton Collection is partially on display always. The Persian Love Cake in the Art Gallery café is to die for!
Teachers College and the Education Museum.
In the 19th century most school teachers were untrained but a few were trained in Fort Street Normal School in Sydney from 1848. The first teachers college was not established until 1912 in some temporary buildings. The college opened in new premises in 1920 which were not completed until 1924. But Armidale got the second teachers college in NSW in 1928 with its first proper building being constructed in 1930 at the height of the Great Depression. Why was this so? The answer is political. New England was in the midst of a secession movement in the late 1920s and New England was the home to several Country Party politicians with great influence. The Country Party came to power in NSW in 1927 and the new Minister for Education, David Drummond was the local member for New England. Drummond favoured a second teachers college because the staff at Sydney Teachers College had complained that country students coming to Sydney to be trained were being seduced by the ways of the sinful city and they seldom wanted rural school postings after a stint in Sydney! A Teachers College in Armidale would stop the debauchery! Although Armidale Teachers’ College was the first, the government made plans for additional teachers colleges in Bathurst and Wagga Wagga which eventually were established. The 1863 gaol in Armidale was closed in 1920 and was demolished to make way for the new teachers college building. As one commentator said at the time “a new Parthenon on the hill was to replace the penitentiary on the hill”!
The government appointed Cecil Bede Newling (1883-1975) as the principal of the new college. Today the old Teachers College building is named the Newling building. Newling had gone out as a probationary teacher in 1899 before attending courses at Fort Street Normal School from 1904. He later described his teacher training as dull. He was first appointed head teacher at Cootamundra in 1923, and then inspector at Broken Hill in 1925. He had a rapid rise in the Education Department. By 1925 he had also been awarded a BA and a MA from the University of Sydney. As first principal of the Armidale Teachers College he influenced everything. He had a forceful personality and took interest in all aspects of the College from the grounds and gardens to the curriculum and to the health of the students. During World War Two he became secret custodian of priceless art and written materials from the Mitchell Library and the National Gallery of NSW. He retired in 1947 with his “college on the hill” well established and valued. It is open weekday afternoons from 2 to 4 pm to members of the public.
Central Park Historical Walk and Nearby Structures.
The buildings of significance around Central Park are the old Wesley Methodist Hall and the now Uniting Church- just off the Park in Rusden Street; St. Paul’s Presbyterian Church and Hall; St. Peter’s Anglican Cathedral, Deanery and Parish Hall; and St. Mary’s Catholic Cathedral. Nearby along Faulkner Street is the Town Hall( just off Faulkner), the Post Office, the Court House, and the entrance to the Mall.
•Masonic Building. The Lodge here in Armidale purchased this land in 1860 and had a lodge built by a local builder Frederick Nott. A new severe classical style Lodge was erected in 1924 to replace the earlier one.
•Lindsay House is at 128 Faulkner Street and it dates from the mid 1920s. It is a mock Tudor house with exposed beams and woodwork on the exterior and stucco areas. This “English” style of house was popular in New England at this time. It is a typical “gentleman’s “house and it was built for a local doctor. In 1972 the former Armidale College of Advanced Education purchased the house for staff accommodation and they renamed it Lindsay House. Today it is a luxury bed & breakfast establishment.
•Southall is a fine 1888 residence at 88 Barney Street oppopsite Central Park. At one stage it was called Girrawheen Boarding House as it provided accommodation for the girls enrolled at New England Ladies College. This house was purchased in 1928 by the Armidale Teachers’ College for accommodation for female teaching students. It was linked to Smith House, next door, in 1960 and then became a university residential college but it is now a backpackers complex. Apart from wrought iron lace work it features two toned brick work on the quoins and the bricks are done in Flemish bond pattern.
•Catholic Cathedral and Convent. See next page.
•Anglican Cathedral and Deanery. See next page.
•St. Paul’s Presbyterian Church. The foundation stone dates the building to 1881. Its Gothic style, tall steeple, wrought iron decorations and lancet windows add considerably to the appearance of Central Park. The white painted masonry quoins, window surrounds etc contrast sharply with the dark coloured bricks.
•Old Wesley Methodist Hall and Church. The Old Wesley Church was erected in 1864 and is one of the oldest still standing churches of Armidale. It was replaced by a new Methodist Church in 1893 and it then became the church hall. The Old Wesley Church also has Red Cedar joinery inside.
•The Folk Museum. This is housed in the old School of Arts and Mechanics Institute building of 1863. Such places were crucial education centres in the 19th century. It was used as the town library for many years and is now a museum.
•Armidale Town Hall. This impressive structure was completed in 1883 just before Armidale became a city in 1885. It has many decorative features including pilasters (flat columns), scroll work, a central triangular pediment above the main entrance, a niche like entrance with a curved upper balcony and balustrade. In 1990 the City decorated the interior in Art Deco style!
•The Armidale Post Office. The first PO was established in 1843. This building was constructed in 1880. The beautiful arched veranda and upper balcony were added in 1897. It is still the city Post Office.
•Lands Board building now the Lands Office. This elegant building with its filigree lace work on the upper balcony and the lower veranda originally had a slate roof and slate chimney pots. The symmetry of this building is superb. It was designed by the same architect who did the government Post Office next door and the style would date it to the same period -1880.
•Opposite are the architectural plans for the amazing Imperial Hotel. It was built in 1890 William Miller who was of the original discoverer of gold at Hillgrove. He made his fortune on the gold fields and then erected the finest hotel in Armidale. It is noted for its proportions, classical style, ornate parapets along the roof line and filigree caste iron. The urns atop the “floating” triangular pediments are wonderful. It demonstrates how important the travelling public were to early hoteliers like William Miller. Miller began life as a poor farmer at Saumarez Ponds. It is run down today.
•On the opposite corner is the current Westpac Bank. It was formerly the Bank of NSW and it was put up in 1938 in classical style. The 1817 on the parapet refers to the founding of the Bank of NSW by Mary Reibey, a former convict, depicted on our $20 note. Along from this is the marvellous AMP building with its statute on top.
•Armidale Court House in the Mall. This imposing building with a classical Greek façade with columns, and wrought iron gates was built in 1859. It was extensively altered in 1870 when the two side wings were attached. The clock tower was added in 1878. Inside the joinery is all Australian Red Cedar. Note the cobblestoned courtyard. At the rear of the Court House is the original Sheriff’s Cottage (1870) which was originally a “lock up “for prisoners!
•Hanna’s Arcade in Barney Street. See the leadlight mural, wooden arcade, and fine department store.
Catholic Cathedral and building.
The first Catholic priest to arrive in Armidale came in 1853. He took services in a small wooden Catholic Church that had opened in 1848. The priest then built a parsonage which became part of De La Salle College, now O’Connor High School. It has since been demolished. In 1862 the Catholic Diocese of Armidale was established but it was 1869 before the first bishop, Bishop O’Mahony, settled in Armidale. He was consecrated as bishop in 1871 at the same time as the commissioning of the cathedral. It was dedicated in 1872 but replaced by the current cathedral in 1912. When Bishop O’Mahony left he was replaced by Bishop Torreggiani who was replaced by Bishop O’Connor in 1904.
The new cathedral of St. Mary and St. Joseph was built in Pyrmont stone from Sydney and Armidale polychrome (or multi- coloured) bricks. Such brick work was popular in the 1880s but out of fashion by 1912. Brown, cream and red bricks were used for the cathedral to highlight its architectural features. It is a much larger structure than the Anglican cathedral and dominates the townscape around Central Park. The brickwork was used for quoins, cross banding and other feature work. It was designed in Gothic style by Sherrin and Hennessy in Sydney and constructed by a local builder Frederick Nott. It has a turreted tower with a needle spire on top with louvre windows. It has the original slate roof and fine marble work inside and outside in the form of fine marble statues. The interior is also noted for its fine hammer beam ceiling. The pipe organ was made in 1900 in England and rebuilt here in 1912. Like the Anglicans, the Catholics divided the New England diocese in 1887 when the Diocese of Grafton was established.
Near the cathedral but further along Barney Street is the Merici House which was built as a Catholic School and convent very early in 1882. Angela Merici was the founder of the Ursuline Order of Nuns who began teaching at that school in 1883. The Ursulines arrived from London in 1882 to do missionary work in Armidale. Their order was established in Italy in 1534. The Ursulines in Armidale established their mother house here and sent nuns out to many other communities across NSW and Qld from Armidale. But in Armidale they set up St. Ursulines College from their small origins in Merici House near the Catholic Cathedral. It was erected as a fine two storey house for a local businessman in 1877. He sold it to the Ursuline Order in 1882. St. Ursuline College operated from 1882 until it merged with the Catholic boys’ school, La Salle College (established 1906 by Bishop O’Connor) in 1975. The amalgamated school was renamed O’Connor High School after Bishop O’Connor. O’Connor High School operates on a different site in the city of Armidale to the north east of the town.
Anglican Cathedral and associated buildings.
Bishop Broughton conducted the first Anglican service in Armidale in 1845 with the first church opening in 1850, followed by a parsonage for Rev. Tingcombe who was the first minister arriving in 1846. Armidale was part of the Diocese of Newcastle. Then in 1869 the diocese of Grafton and Armidale was established. The founding Bishop was James Turner from Norfolk, England. His diocese was the size of England! He started with 10 clergy and 21 churches. He appointed John Horbury Hunt to design and oversee the building of a suitable cathedral in Armidale. The foundation stone was laid in 1873 and the cathedral opened in 1875 as St. Peter’s. Hunt designed a relatively small cathedral of brick, his favourite building medium, rather than stone. Turner continued as Bishop until 1893. Before he left the diocese of Armidale he had the Christ Church Cathedral erected in Grafton in 1884 and a new Grafton diocese created. Bishop Turner also used John Horbury Hunt for cathedral that we saw in Grafton. By the time Turner left he had 2 diocese and 58 churches.
The Anglican Cathedral was made of Armidale blue bricks with clay taken from Saumarez station. The vestry was added in 1910 according to Hunt’s design (he died in 1903) and the tower, again according to Hunt’s design in 1936. The cathedral features Gothic arches, a square tower, small pyramids on top of buttresses, moulded bricks for special areas and interesting English bonds and patterns. Uralla granite was used for keystones and the foundations. The Deanery was also designed by Hunt and built of the same Armidale blue bricks in 1891. Hunt was known to make great demands on the brickies as he was a perfectionist and supervised all the intricate brickwork very closely. The result was an outstandingly fine cathedral. Note the band of green tiles above the main door included by Hunt. Note also the fine stained glass windows, and one is a memorial to Bishop Turner’s wife who died in 1879. The cathedral has a fine timber ceiling. Hunt even selected the pulpit and lectern to suit his design. The pulpit has an effigy of St. Peter carved in the sandstone. Some of Hunt’s original plans can be viewed in the Tower Room.
Row houses in Anacostia, Southeast, Washington, D.C.. While there are definite signs of resurgence in this area, there is still a long road ahead. A number of government agencies, including Homeland Security, are expected to move into the area in the near future, so development may possibly forge ahead faster than one might expect. The biggest problem is that many landowners have sat upon their properties and have done absolutely nothing. Perhaps the expected bonanza of Federal dollars may change their minds. Then again, such activity could bring about wholesale demolition, something I'm never in favor of seeing.
(spy)camera > Porst KX50 (Yashica Atoron rebranded) (*)
film > Minox Minocolor400 (@200iso)
development > Tetenal Colortec C41, 38 °C, homemade in tank AP Compact, attached on an old film 120 already developed.
scanned > Epson V600
negli ultimi frame, la pellicola è uscita dalla spirale e ha restituito questi colori strani... ;/)
Drug development is a risky business. More than half of candidate drugs that look promising in the research lab will ultimately fail. More than a quarter of drugs that reach the clinical trial stage will be rejected as ineffective. However, the wealth of genomic information now available through public databases - in particular, the rapidly growing number of known associations between diseases and specific genes - may significantly improve the drug-development success rate. At least, success rates will improve if drug developers let genomics guide their choice of molecular targets for research, according to a team of pharmaceutical industry and academic scientists.
Credit: Ernesto del Aguila III, NHGRI.