View allAll Photos Tagged phasor
Valery Shpak - weddings and events photographer from New York Film & Digital productions @valeryshpakphotography
Pictured: Physical fitness, stamina and core strength are hugely important to the British Army. Fitness in recruits is built up progressively both in the gym and out in the field during combat marches.
A series of images taken to replace the imagery at ATR Pirbright. The images depict day to day life and training of Phase 1 recruits.
Fur: Tonkinese - Blue Mink
Eyes: Dry Olive (Shape: Curious | Pupil: Small)
Shade: Twinkle
Tail: Fluffy
Ears: Scotty Fold
Whiskers: White (Shape: Odyssey FrazzyWave)
Size: 21 cm (8.2 inch)
Version: 1.49
Owner: 1GaJulia Resident
ID: af6dbee5-c3f6-ec25-7db0-9d318ef3f169
Pedigree: kittycats.ws/p.php?9b60fd37-a247188-30243
Visit this location at FelineS KittyCatS - The City... *NEW* in Second Life
This bunker is a Radarbunker for Mammut Radar type Phased array, long-range Early warning radar Construction by the Luftwaffe .
The FuMG 41/42 Mammut was a long-range, phased array, early warning radar built by Germany in the latter days of World War II. Developed by the GEMA company, it consisted of six or eight Freya antenna arrays, switched together and coupled to two Freya devices. The arrays were fixed and the beam could be electronically steered on a 100° arc in front and behind the antenna, leaving 80° blind arcs on each side. It was the world's first phased array radar and was able to detect targets flying at an altitude of 8,000m at a range of 300km.
The British intelligence codename, "hoarding", was probably related to the shape of the large array. As late in the war as April 20th, 1945, intelligence reports reflected the erroneous opinion that only development prototypes existed but no operational stations had been fielded
#AtlanticWall #Regelbau #Bunker
️ SPQR - Phase I ️
▶️ Watch the Model Film in 4K on YouTube:
▶️ Intro to SPQR Project:
Support this unprecedented project on Patreon:
www.patreon.com/RoccoButtliere
Parts: 104,000+ (~1,700 unique)
Scale: 1:650
Dimensions: 57in x 289in (143cm x 231cm)
Research Time: 2,000+ hours since 2019
Design Time: 1,000+ hours in 200 days
Build Time: 600+ hours in 90 days
Photography: EClarke Photo 📷
© MMXXIII - Rocco Buttliere, LLC
Kroger Marketplace Construction
...Luckily, you can bet that once demolition of the current store begins, it will go fast, and the parking situation will be resolved as quickly as possible! The new parking will shift to columns from rows (if you're looking north, as these [kinda crappy] screengrabs are), and will be broken up on the left area by the new home of the Kroger Fuel Center. Having the fuel center up in the parking lot is not 'Plan A,' I assume, but it'll have to do, especially since they want to expand to what I believe will be twenty fuel pumps. It's also probably going to help in relieving traffic at that Commerce Street entrance, even though you'd think a gas station would traditionally want to remain along that busy roadway (although I did find, in the original plans for the store accessible via the county website, that Kroger would have utitlized that same area had they not acquired the Commerce frontage!). Instead, the entrance will be reworked to be a little less cramped, and the space that remains will become an outlot. Whatever, if anything, chooses to open there, will be dealing with a very tight space!! It'd probably be best used as an extension of neighboring McDonald's parking or just greenspace...
Stick around: tomorrow, I've got some outside updates from here, then Saturday I've got a look at a place that's nowhere near as busy as this store will be, yet may very well be larger!
-----
This photo is not mine! For that matter, I'm not sure it's that of the construction company I got it from, either - so what I'll say is that this is Kroger's property, and I am posting it only to act as a visual aid, no ill intent.
It's technically phase four or five, but this is the first I'm showing. I started with the gray middle, put little dots with a pen for eyes, but the "head" didn't look big enough, so I added some nice white eyes! Then he needed pupils, so I used a Sharpie marker to darken up two little pieces, then nestled them into the pupil sockets. I know there aren't pupil sockets, but this guy has them! Then I added the flagella.
I'm thinking appendages next, thoughts? :)
Medium: 3M Adhesive Putty
Body Coloring: Oxidization and dirt from hands.
Pupil coloring: Sharpie
Have I mentioned recently how MUCH I love my Joby Gorillapod? :)
Back on November 7th, of 2004, a short visit to Joliet Union Station, yielded a Phase III Amtrak P42. At the time, three Phase III's remained. Less than a year later, there weren't any Amtrak Phase III's remaining.
AMTK 822 and three more "Genesis" locomotives power the westbound California Zephyr towards Galesburg. On the end of the train were 10 private cars heading to Washington State.
LIKE our Facebook Page here:
www.facebook.com/chesterjohnphoto
Model: Cassandra
Hair & Make up: Tina Yong
Grip: Jonny T
Photographer: Chester John Bajamundi
Retouching: Celly Artigas-Bajamundi
Phase One 645Df | Phase One P30+ | Phase One V-Grip Air | Schneider Krueznach 80mm LS Lens | Mola Setti + Avenger A2030D | Elinchrom Ranger RX | S Head | Jinbei MF-100 Barebulb speedlite | Jinbei MF-35 BatterPack |
On 19-22 November 2019, our Top 10 Innovators took part in a bootcamp where they received skills development trainings relevant to their proposed solutions to prevent #teenagepregnancy.
This bootcamp aimed to give guidance and mentorship to our innovators as they polish their business ideas for the upcoming pitch contest. Our Innovators toured C&H Garments and Positivo BGH at the Special Economic Zone to get first hand insight on business modeling.
Our top 10 #Innovators practiced pitching different aspects of their solutions, including cost structure, value proposition, revenue streams & customer relationship, among others. This training was facilitated by @DOTRwanda.
#iAccelerator2
The Ajanta Caves (Ajiṇṭhā leni; Marathi: अजिंठा लेणी) in Aurangabad district of Maharashtra, India are about 30 rock-cut Buddhist cave monuments which date from the 2nd century BCE to about 480 or 650 CE. The caves include paintings and sculptures described by the government Archaeological Survey of India as "the finest surviving examples of Indian art, particularly painting", which are masterpieces of Buddhist religious art, with figures of the Buddha and depictions of the Jataka tales. The caves were built in two phases starting around the 2nd century BCE, with the second group of caves built around 400–650 CE according to older accounts, or all in a brief period of 460 to 480 according to the recent proposals of Walter M. Spink. The site is a protected monument in the care of the Archaeological Survey of India, and since 1983, the Ajanta Caves have been a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
The caves are located in the Indian state of Maharashtra, near Jalgaon and just outside the village of Ajinṭhā 20°31′56″N 75°44′44″E), about 59 kilometres from Jalgaon railway station on the Delhi – Mumbai line and Howrah-Nagpur-Mumbai line of the Central Railway zone, and 104 kilometres from the city of Aurangabad. They are 100 kilometres from the Ellora Caves, which contain Hindu and Jain temples as well as Buddhist caves, the last dating from a period similar to Ajanta. The Ajanta caves are cut into the side of a cliff that is on the south side of a U-shaped gorge on the small river Waghur, and although they are now along and above a modern pathway running across the cliff they were originally reached by individual stairs or ladders from the side of the river 35 to 110 feet below.
The area was previously heavily forested, and after the site ceased to be used the caves were covered by jungle until accidentally rediscovered in 1819 by a British officer on a hunting party. They are Buddhist monastic buildings, apparently representing a number of distinct "monasteries" or colleges. The caves are numbered 1 to 28 according to their place along the path, beginning at the entrance. Several are unfinished and some barely begun and others are small shrines, included in the traditional numbering as e.g. "9A"; "Cave 15A" was still hidden under rubble when the numbering was done. Further round the gorge are a number of waterfalls, which when the river is high are audible from outside the caves.
The caves form the largest corpus of early Indian wall-painting; other survivals from the area of modern India are very few, though they are related to 5th-century paintings at Sigiriya in Sri Lanka. The elaborate architectural carving in many caves is also very rare, and the style of the many figure sculptures is highly local, found only at a few nearby contemporary sites, although the Ajanta tradition can be related to the later Hindu Ellora Caves and other sites.
HISTORY
Like the other ancient Buddhist monasteries, Ajanta had a large emphasis on teaching, and was divided into several different caves for living, education and worship, under a central direction. Monks were probably assigned to specific caves for living. The layout reflects this organizational structure, with most of the caves only connected through the exterior. The 7th-century travelling Chinese scholar Xuanzang informs us that Dignaga, a celebrated Buddhist philosopher and controversialist, author of well-known books on logic, lived at Ajanta in the 5th century. In its prime the settlement would have accommodated several hundred teachers and pupils. Many monks who had finished their first training may have returned to Ajanta during the monsoon season from an itinerant lifestyle.
The caves are generally agreed to have been made in two distinct periods, separated by several centuries.
CAVES OF THE FIRST (SATAVAHANA) PERIOD
The earliest group of caves consists of caves 9, 10, 12, 13 and 15A. According to Walter Spink, they were made during the period 100 BCE to 100 CE, probably under the patronage of the Satavahana dynasty (230 BCE – c. 220 CE) who ruled the region. Other datings prefer the period 300 BCE to 100 BCE, though the grouping of the earlier caves is generally agreed. More early caves may have vanished through later excavations. Of these, caves 9 and 10 are stupa halls of chaitya-griha form, and caves 12, 13, and 15A are vihāras (see the architecture section below for descriptions of these types). The first phase is still often called the Hinayāna phase, as it originated when, using traditional terminology, the Hinayāna or Lesser Vehicle tradition of Buddhism was dominant, when the Buddha was revered symbolically. However the use of the term Hinayana for this period of Buddhism is now deprecated by historians; equally the caves of the second period are now mostly dated too early to be properly called Mahayana, and do not yet show the full expanded cast of supernatural beings characteristic of that phase of Buddhist art. The first Satavahana period caves lacked figurative sculpture, emphasizing the stupa instead, and in the caves of the second period the overwhelming majority of images represent the Buddha alone, or narrative scenes of his lives.
Spink believes that some time after the Satavahana period caves were made the site was abandoned for a considerable period until the mid-5th century, probably because the region had turned mainly Hindu
CAVES OF THE LATER OR VAKATAKA PERIOD
The second phase began in the 5th century. For a long time it was thought that the later caves were made over a long period from the 4th to the 7th centuries CE, but in recent decades a series of studies by the leading expert on the caves, Walter M. Spink, have argued that most of the work took place over the very brief period from 460 to 480 CE, during the reign of Emperor Harishena of the Vakataka dynasty. This view has been criticized by some scholars, but is now broadly accepted by most authors of general books on Indian art, for example Huntington and Harle.
The second phase is still often called the Mahāyāna or Greater Vehicle phase, but scholars now tend to avoid this nomenclature because of the problems that have surfaced regarding our understanding of Mahāyāna.
Some 20 cave temples were simultaneously created, for the most part viharas with a sanctuary at the back. The most elaborate caves were produced in this period, which included some "modernization" of earlier caves. Spink claims that it is possible to establish dating for this period with a very high level of precision; a fuller account of his chronology is given below. Although debate continues, Spink's ideas are increasingly widely accepted, at least in their broad conclusions. The Archaeological Survey of India website still presents the traditional dating: "The second phase of paintings started around 5th – 6th centuries A.D. and continued for the next two centuries". Caves of the second period are 1–8, 11, 14–29, some possibly extensions of earlier caves. Caves 19, 26, and 29 are chaitya-grihas, the rest viharas.
According to Spink, the Ajanta Caves appear to have been abandoned by wealthy patrons shortly after the fall of Harishena, in about 480 CE. They were then gradually abandoned and forgotten. During the intervening centuries, the jungle grew back and the caves were hidden, unvisited and undisturbed, although the local population were aware of at least some of them.
REDISCOVERY
On 28 April 1819, a British officer for the Madras Presidency, John Smith, of the 28th Cavalry, while hunting tiger, accidentally discovered the entrance to Cave No. 10 deep within the tangled undergrowth. There were local people already using the caves for prayers with a small fire, when he arrived. Exploring that first cave, long since a home to nothing more than birds and bats and a lair for other larger animals, Captain Smith vandalized the wall by scratching his name and the date, April 1819. Since he stood on a five-foot high pile of rubble collected over the years, the inscription is well above the eye-level gaze of an adult today. A paper on the caves by William Erskine was read to the Bombay Literary Society in 1822. Within a few decades, the caves became famous for their exotic setting, impressive architecture, and above all their exceptional, all but unique paintings. A number of large projects to copy the paintings were made in the century after rediscovery, covered below. In 1848 the Royal Asiatic Society established the "Bombay Cave Temple Commission" to clear, tidy and record the most important rock-cut sites in the Bombay Presidency, with John Wilson, as president. In 1861 this became the nucleus of the new Archaeological Survey of India. Until the Nizam of Hyderabad built the modern path between the caves, among other efforts to make the site easy to visit, a trip to Ajanta was a considerable adventure, and contemporary accounts dwell with relish on the dangers from falls off narrow ledges, animals and the Bhil people, who were armed with bows and arrows and had a fearsome reputation.
Today, fairly easily combined with Ellora in a single trip, the caves are the most popular tourist destination in Mahrashtra, and are often crowded at holiday times, increasing the threat to the caves, especially the paintings. In 2012, the Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation announced plans to add to the ASI visitor centre at the entrance complete replicas of caves 1, 2, 16 & 17 to reduce crowding in the originals, and enable visitors to receive a better visual idea of the paintings, which are dimly-lit and hard to read in the caves. Figures for the year to March 2010 showed a total of 390,000 visitors to the site, divided into 362,000 domestic and 27,000 foreign. The trends over the previous few years show a considerable growth in domestic visitors, but a decline in foreign ones; the year to 2010 was the first in which foreign visitors to Ellora exceeded those to Ajanta.
PAINTINGS
Mural paintings survive from both the earlier and later groups of caves. Several fragments of murals preserved from the earlier caves (Caves 9 and 11) are effectively unique survivals of court-led painting in India from this period, and "show that by Sātavāhana times, if not earlier, the Indian painter had mastered an easy and fluent naturalistic style, dealing with large groups of people in a manner comparable to the reliefs of the Sāñcī toraņa crossbars".
Four of the later caves have large and relatively well-preserved mural paintings which "have come to represent Indian mural painting to the non-specialist", and fall into two stylistic groups, with the most famous in Caves 16 and 17, and apparently later paintings in Caves 1 and 2. The latter group were thought to be a century or more later than the others, but the revised chronology proposed by Spink would place them much closer to the earlier group, perhaps contemporary with it in a more progressive style, or one reflecting a team from a different region. The paintings are in "dry fresco", painted on top of a dry plaster surface rather than into wet plaster.
All the paintings appear to be the work of painters at least as used to decorating palaces as temples, and show a familiarity with and interest in details of the life of a wealthy court. We know from literary sources that painting was widely practised and appreciated in the courts of the Gupta period. Unlike much Indian painting, compositions are not laid out in horizontal compartments like a frieze, but show large scenes spreading in all directions from a single figure or group at the centre. The ceilings are also painted with sophisticated and elaborate decorative motifs, many derived from sculpture. The paintings in cave 1, which according to Spink was commissioned by Harisena himself, concentrate on those Jataka tales which show previous lives of the Buddha as a king, rather than as an animal or human commoner, and so show settings from contemporary palace life.
In general the later caves seem to have been painted on finished areas as excavating work continued elsewhere in the cave, as shown in caves 2 and 16 in particular. According to Spink's account of the chronology of the caves, the abandonment of work in 478 after a brief busy period accounts for the absence of painting in caves such as 4 and 17, the later being plastered in preparation for paintings that were never done.
COPIES
The paintings have deteriorated significantly since they were rediscovered, and a number of 19th-century copies and drawings are important for a complete understanding of the works. However, the earliest projects to copy the paintings were plagued by bad fortune. In 1846, Major Robert Gill, an Army officer from Madras presidency and a painter, was appointed by the Royal Asiatic Society to replicate the frescoes on the cave walls to exhibit these paintings in England. Gill worked on his painting at the site from 1844 to 1863 (though he continued to be based there until his death in 1875, writing books and photographing) and made 27 copies of large sections of murals, but all but four were destroyed in a fire at the Crystal Palace in London in 1866, where they were on display.
Another attempt was made in 1872 when the Bombay Presidency commissioned John Griffiths, then principal of the Bombay School of Art, to work with his students to make new copies, again for shipping to England. They worked on this for thirteen years and some 300 canvases were produced, many of which were displayed at the Imperial Institute on Exhibition Road in London, one of the forerunners of the Victoria and Albert Museum. But in 1885 another fire destroyed over a hundred paintings that were in storage. The V&A still has 166 paintings surviving from both sets, though none have been on permanent display since 1955. The largest are some 3 × 6 metres. A conservation project was undertaken on about half of them in 2006, also involving the University of Northumbria. Griffith and his students had unfortunately painted many of the paintings with "cheap varnish" in order to make them easier to see, which has added to the deterioration of the originals, as has, according to Spink and others, recent cleaning by the ASI.
A further set of copies were made between 1909 and 1911 by Christiana Herringham (Lady Herringham) and a group of students from the Calcutta School of Art that included the future Indian Modernist painter Nandalal Bose. The copies were published in full colour as the first publication of London's fledgling India Society. More than the earlier copies, these aimed to fill in holes and damage to recreate the original condition rather than record the state of the paintings as she was seeing them. According to one writer, unlike the paintings created by her predecessors Griffiths and Gill, whose copies were influenced by British Victorian styles of painting, those of the Herringham expedition preferred an 'Indian Renascence' aesthetic of the type pioneered by Abanindranath Tagore.
Early photographic surveys were made by Robert Gill, who learnt to use a camera from about 1856, and whose photos, including some using stereoscopy, were used in books by him and Fergusson (many are available online from the British Library), then Victor Goloubew in 1911 and E.L. Vassey, who took the photos in the four volume study of the caves by Ghulam Yazdani (published 1930–1955).
ARCHITECTURE
The monasteries mostly consist of vihara halls for prayer and living, which are typically rectangular with small square dormitory cells cut into the walls, and by the second period a shrine or sanctuary at the rear centred on a large statue of the Buddha, also carved from the living rock. This change reflects the movement from Hinayana to Mahāyāna Buddhism. The other type of main hall is the narrower and higher chaitya hall with a stupa as the focus at the far end, and a narrow aisle around the walls, behind a range of pillars placed close together. Other plainer rooms were for sleeping and other activities. Some of the caves have elaborate carved entrances, some with large windows over the door to admit light. There is often a colonnaded porch or verandah, with another space inside the doors running the width of the cave.
The central square space of the interior of the viharas is defined by square columns forming a more or less square open area. Outside this are long rectangular aisles on each side, forming a kind of cloister. Along the side and rear walls are a number of small cells entered by a narrow doorway; these are roughly square, and have small niches on their back walls. Originally they had wooden doors. The centre of the rear wall has a larger shrine-room behind, containing a large Buddha statue. The viharas of the earlier period are much simpler, and lack shrines. Spink in fact places the change to a design with a shrine to the middle of the second period, with many caves being adapted to add a shrine in mid-excavation, or after the original phase.
The plan of Cave 1 shows one of the largest viharas, but is fairly typical of the later group. Many others, such as Cave 16, lack the vestibule to the shrine, which leads straight off the main hall. Cave 6 is two viharas, one above the other, connected by internal stairs, with sanctuaries on both levels.
The four completed chaitya halls are caves 9 and 10 from the early period, and caves 19 and 26 from the later period of construction. All follow the typical form found elsewhere, with high ceilings and a central "nave" leading to the stupa, which is near the back, but allows walking behind it, as walking around stupas was (and remains) a common element of Buddhist worship (pradakshina). The later two have high ribbed roofs, which reflect timber forms, and the earlier two are thought to have used actual timber ribs, which have now perished. The two later halls have a rather unusual arrangement (also found in Cave 10 at Ellora) where the stupa is fronted by a large relief sculpture of the Buddha, standing in Cave 19 and seated in Cave 26. Cave 29 is a late and very incomplete chaitya hall.
The form of columns in the work of the first period is very plain and un-embellished, with both chaitya halls using simple octagonal columns, which were painted with figures. In the second period columns were far more varied and inventive, often changing profile over their height, and with elaborate carved capitals, often spreading wide. Many columns are carved over all their surface, some fluted and others carved with decoration all over, as in cave 1.
The flood basalt rock of the cliff, part of the Deccan Traps formed by successive volcanic eruptions at the end of the Cretaceous, is layered horizontally, and somewhat variable in quality, so the excavators had to amend their plans in places, and in places there have been collapses in the intervening centuries, as with the lost portico to cave 1. Excavation began by cutting a narrow tunnel at roof level, which was expanded downwards and outwards; the half-built vihara cave 24 shows the method. Spink believes that for the first caves of the second period the excavators had to relearn skills and techniques that had been lost in the centuries since the first period, which were then transmitted to be used at later rock-cut sites in the region, such as Ellora, and the Elephanta, Bagh, Badami and Aurangabad Caves.
The caves from the first period seem to have been paid for by a number of different patrons, with several inscriptions recording the donation of particular portions of a single cave, but according to Spink the later caves were each commissioned as a complete unit by a single patron from the local rulers or their court elites. After the death of Harisena smaller donors got their chance to add small "shrinelets" between the caves or add statues to existing caves, and some two hundred of these "intrusive" additions were made in sculpture, with a further number of intrusive paintings, up to three hundred in cave 10 alone.
A grand gateway to the site, at the apex of the gorge's horsehoe between caves 15 and 16, was approached from the river, and is decorated with elephants on either side and a nāga, or protective snake deity.
ICONOGRAPHY OF THE CAVES
In the pre-Christian era, the Buddha was represented symbolically, in the form of the stupa. Thus, halls were made with stupas to venerate the Buddha. In later periods the images of the Buddha started to be made in coins, relic caskets, relief or loose sculptural forms, etc. However, it took a while for the human representation of the Buddha to appear in Buddhist art. One of the earliest evidences of the Buddha's human representations are found at Buddhist archaeological sites, such as Goli, Nagarjunakonda, and Amaravati. The monasteries of those sites were built in less durable media, such as wood, brick, and stone. As far as the genre of rock-cut architecture is concerned it took many centuries for the Buddha image to be depicted. Nobody knows for sure at which rock-cut cave site the first image of the Buddha was depicted. Current research indicates that Buddha images in a portable form, made of wood or stone, were introduced, for the first time, at Kanheri, to be followed soon at Ajanta Cave 8 (Dhavalikar, Jadhav, Spink, Singh). While the Kanheri example dates to 4th or 5th century CE, the Ajanta example has been dated to c. 462–478 CE (Spink). None of the rock-cut monasteries prior to these dates, and other than these examples, show any Buddha image although hundreds of rock-cut caves were made throughout India during the first few centuries CE. And, in those caves, it is the stupa that is the object of veneration, not the image. Images of the Buddha are not found in Buddhist sailagrhas (rock-cut complexes) until the times of the Kanheri (4th–5th century CE) and Ajanta examples (c. 462–478 CE).
The caves of the second period, now all dated to the 5th century, were typically described as "Mahayana", but do not show the features associated with later Mahayana Buddhism. Although the beginnings of Mahāyāna teachings go back to the 1st century there is little art and archaeological evidence to suggest that it became a mainstream cult for several centuries. In Mahayana it is not Gautama Buddha but the Bodhisattva who is important, including "deity" Bodhisattva like Manjushri and Tara, as well as aspects of the Buddha such as Aksobhya, and Amitabha. Except for a few Bodhisattva, these are not depicted at Ajanta, where the Buddha remains the dominant figure. Even the Bodhisattva images of Ajanta are never central objects of worship, but are always shown as attendants of the Buddha in the shrine. If a Bodhisattva is shown in isolation, as in the Astabhaya scenes, these were done in the very last years of activities at Ajanta, and are mostly 'intrusive' in nature, meaning that they were not planned by the original patrons, and were added by new donors after the original patrons had suddenly abandoned the region in the wake of Emperor Harisena's death.
The contrast between iconic and aniconic representations, that is, the stupa on one hand and the image of the Buddha on the other, is now being seen as a construct of the modern scholar rather than a reality of the past. The second phase of Ajanta shows that the stupa and image coincided together. If the entire corpus of the art of Ajanta including sculpture, iconography, architecture, epigraphy, and painting are analysed afresh it will become clear that there was no duality between the symbolic and human forms of the Buddha, as far as the 5th-century phase of Ajanta is concerned. That is why most current scholars tend to avoid the terms 'Hinayana' and 'Mahayana' in the context of Ajanta. They now prefer to call the second phase by the ruling dynasty, as the Vākāţaka phase.
CAVES
CAVE 1
Cave 1 was built on the eastern end of the horse-shoe shaped scarp, and is now the first cave the visitor encounters. This would when first made have been a less prominent position, right at the end of the row. According to Spink, it is one of the latest caves to have been excavated, when the best sites had been taken, and was never fully inaugurated for worship by the dedication of the Buddha image in the central shrine. This is shown by the absence of sooty deposits from butter lamps on the base of the shrine image, and the lack of damage to the paintings that would have been happened if the garland-hooks around the shrine had been in use for any period of time. Although there is no epigraphic evidence, Spink believes that the Vākāţaka Emperor Harishena was the benefactor of the work, and this is reflected in the emphasis on imagery of royalty in the cave, with those Jakata tales being selected that tell of those previous lives of the Buddha in which he was royal.
The cliff has a more steep slope here than at other caves, so to achieve a tall grand facade it was necessary to cut far back into the slope, giving a large courtyard in front of the facade. There was originally a columned portico in front of the present facade, which can be seen "half-intact in the 1880s" in pictures of the site, but this fell down completely and the remains, despite containing fine carving, were carelessly thrown down the slope into the river, from where they have been lost, presumably carried away in monsoon torrents.
This cave has one of the most elaborate carved façades, with relief sculptures on entablature and ridges, and most surfaces embellished with decorative carving. There are scenes carved from the life of the Buddha as well as a number of decorative motifs. A two pillared portico, visible in the 19th-century photographs, has since perished. The cave has a front-court with cells fronted by pillared vestibules on either side. These have a high plinth level. The cave has a porch with simple cells on both ends. The absence of pillared vestibules on the ends suggest that the porch was not excavated in the latest phase of Ajanta when pillared vestibules had become a necessity and norm. Most areas of the porch were once covered with murals, of which many fragments remain, especially on the ceiling. There are three doorways: a central doorway and two side doorways. Two square windows were carved between the doorways to brighten the interiors.
Each wall of the hall inside is nearly 12 m long and 6.1 m high. Twelve pillars make a square colonnade inside supporting the ceiling, and creating spacious aisles along the walls. There is a shrine carved on the rear wall to house an impressive seated image of the Buddha, his hands being in the dharmachakrapravartana mudra. There are four cells on each of the left, rear, and the right walls, though due to rock fault there are none at the ends of the rear aisle. The walls are covered with paintings in a fair state of preservation, though the full scheme was never completed. The scenes depicted are mostly didactic, devotional, and ornamental, with scenes from the Jataka stories of the Buddha's former existences as a bodhisattva), the life of the Gautama Buddha, and those of his veneration. The two most famous individual painted images at Ajanta are the two over-life size figures of the protective bodhisattvas Padmapani and Vajrapani on either side of the entrance to the Buddha shrine on the wall of the rear aisle (see illustrations above). According to Spink, the original dating of the paintings to about 625 arose largely or entirely because James Fegusson, a 19th-century architectural historian, had decided that a scene showing an ambassador being received, with figures in Persian dress, represented a recorded embassy to Persia (from a Hindu monarch at that) around that date.
CAVE 2
Cave 2, adjacent to Cave 1, is known for the paintings that have been preserved on its walls, ceilings, and pillars. It looks similar to Cave 1 and is in a better state of preservation.
Cave 2 has a porch quite different from Cave one. Even the façade carvings seem to be different. The cave is supported by robust pillars, ornamented with designs. The front porch consists of cells supported by pillared vestibules on both ends. The cells on the previously "wasted areas" were needed to meet the greater housing requirements in later years. Porch-end cells became a trend in all later Vakataka excavations. The simple single cells on porch-ends were converted into CPVs or were planned to provide more room, symmetry, and beauty.
The paintings on the ceilings and walls of this porch have been widely published. They depict the Jataka tales that are stories of the Buddha's life in former existences as Bodhisattva. Just as the stories illustrated in cave 1 emphasize kingship, those in cave 2 show many "noble and powerful" women in prominent roles, leading to suggestions that the patron was an unknown woman. The porch's rear wall has a doorway in the center, which allows entrance to the hall. On either side of the door is a square-shaped window to brighten the interior.
The hall has four colonnades which are supporting the ceiling and surrounding a square in the center of the hall. Each arm or colonnade of the square is parallel to the respective walls of the hall, making an aisle in between. The colonnades have rock-beams above and below them. The capitals are carved and painted with various decorative themes that include ornamental, human, animal, vegetative, and semi-divine forms.
Paintings appear on almost every surface of the cave except for the floor. At various places the art work has become eroded due to decay and human interference. Therefore, many areas of the painted walls, ceilings, and pillars are fragmentary. The painted narratives of the Jataka tales are depicted only on the walls, which demanded the special attention of the devotee. They are didactic in nature, meant to inform the community about the Buddha's teachings and life through successive rebirths. Their placement on the walls required the devotee to walk through the aisles and 'read' the narratives depicted in various episodes. The narrative episodes are depicted one after another although not in a linear order. Their identification has been a core area of research since the site's rediscovery in 1819. Dieter Schlingloff's identifications have updated our knowledge on the subject.
CAVE 4
The Archeological Survey of India board outside the caves gives the following detail about cave 4: "This is the largest monastery planned on a grandiose scale but was never finished. An inscription on the pedestal of the buddha's image mentions that it was a gift from a person named Mathura and paleographically belongs to 6th century A.D. It consists of a verandah, a hypostylar hall, sanctum with an antechamber and a series of unfinished cells. The rear wall of the verandah contains the panel of Litany of Avalokiteśvara".
The sanctuary houses a colossal image of the Buddha in preaching pose flanked by bodhisattvas and celestial nymphs hovering above.
CAVES 9-10
Caves 9 and 10 are the two chaitya halls from the first period of construction, though both were also undergoing an uncompleted reworking at the end of the second period. Cave 10 was perhaps originally of the 1st century BCE, and cave 9 about a hundred years later. The small "shrinelets" called caves 9A to 9D and 10A also date from the second period, and were commissioned by individuals.
The paintings in cave 10 include some surviving from the early period, many from an incomplete programme of modernization in the second period, and a very large number of smaller late intrusive images, nearly all Buddhas and many with donor inscriptions from individuals. These mostly avoided over-painting the "official" programme and after the best positions were used up are tucked away in less prominent positions not yet painted; the total of these (including those now lost) was probably over 300, and the hands of many different artists are visible.
OTHER CAVES
Cave 3 is merely a start of an excavation; according to Spink it was begun right at the end of the final period of work and soon abandoned. Caves 5 and 6 are viharas, the latter on two floors, that were late works of which only the lower floor of cave 6 was ever finished. The upper floor of cave 6 has many private votive sculptures, and a shrine Buddha, but is otherwise unfinished. Cave 7 has a grand facade with two porticos but, perhaps because of faults in the rock, which posed problems in many caves, was never taken very deep into the cliff, and consists only of the two porticos and a shrine room with antechamber, with no central hall. Some cells were fitted in.
Cave 8 was long thought to date to the first period of construction, but Spink sees it as perhaps the earliest cave from the second period, its shrine an "afterthought". The statue may have been loose rather than carved from the living rock, as it has now vanished. The cave was painted, but only traces remain.
SPINK´S DETAILED CHRONOLOGY
Walter M. Spink has over recent decades developed a very precise and circumstantial chronology for the second period of work on the site, which unlike earlier scholars, he places entirely in the 5th century. This is based on evidence such as the inscriptions and artistic style, combined with the many uncompleted elements of the caves. He believes the earlier group of caves, which like other scholars he dates only approximately, to the period "between 100 BCE – 100 CE", were at some later point completely abandoned and remained so "for over three centuries", as the local population had turned mainly Hindu. This changed with the accession of the Emperor Harishena of the Vakataka Dynasty, who reigned from 460 to his death in 477. Harisena extended the Central Indian Vakataka Empire to include a stretch of the east coast of India; the Gupta Empire ruled northern India at the same period, and the Pallava dynasty much of the south.
According to Spink, Harisena encouraged a group of associates, including his prime minister Varahadeva and Upendragupta, the sub-king in whose territory Ajanta was, to dig out new caves, which were individually commissioned, some containing inscriptions recording the donation. This activity began in 462 but was mostly suspended in 468 because of threats from the neighbouring Asmaka kings. Work continued on only caves 1, Harisena's own commission, and 17–20, commissioned by Upendragupta. In 472 the situation was such that work was suspended completely, in a period that Spink calls "the Hiatus", which lasted until about 475, by which time the Asmakas had replaced Upendragupta as the local rulers.
Work was then resumed, but again disrupted by Harisena's death in 477, soon after which major excavation ceased, except at cave 26, which the Asmakas were sponsoring themselves. The Asmakas launched a revolt against Harisena's son, which brought about the end of the Vakataka Dynasty. In the years 478–480 major excavation by important patrons was replaced by a rash of "intrusions" – statues added to existing caves, and small shrines dotted about where there was space between them. These were commissioned by less powerful individuals, some monks, who had not previously been able to make additions to the large excavations of the rulers and courtiers. They were added to the facades, the return sides of the entrances, and to walls inside the caves. According to Spink, "After 480, not a single image was ever made again at the site", and as Hinduism again dominated the region, the site was again abandoned, this time for over a millennium.
Spink does not use "circa" in his dates, but says that "one should allow a margin of error of one year or perhaps even two in all cases".
IMPACT ON MODERN INDIAN PAINTINGS
The Ajanta paintings, or more likely the general style they come from, influenced painting in Tibet and Sri Lanka.
The rediscovery of ancient Indian paintings at Ajanta provided Indian artists examples from ancient India to follow. Nandlal Bose experimented with techniques to follow the ancient style which allowed him to develop his unique style. Abanindranath Tagore also used the Ajanta paintings for inspiration.
WIKIPEDIA
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Messerschmitt Me 262 F was a series of multi-purpose jet planes designed by Messerschmitt for the Luftwaffe that entered service during the final phase of the Second World War in Europe. The aircraft’s design was begun in the summer of 1943 under the project handle P.1099, intended as an improvement to the successful Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighter and also as a replacement for the Arado Ar 234 bomber/reconnaissance aircraft. The primary focus was on more payload, being either usable for more fuel (since early jet engines had poor mileage and therefore range and endurance) or for weapons, including bombs in an internal bomb bay that would enable the aircraft to fulfil a similar tactical role as the British de Havilland Mosquito. Beyond this high-speed bomber (Schnellbomber) variant, the P.1099 would also be a suitable basis for a fast reconnaissance plane, interceptors and night fighters, and trainer versions were also planned.
The Messerschmitt P.1099 was a 12 m long, conventional-looking aircraft with a wingspan of 12.6 m. It had a much wider fuselage than the Messerschmitt Me 262. It had a circular shape with a diameter of 1.7m (5 ft 6¾ in) and the cockpit was now moved closer to the aircraft’s nose, above the front landing gear well. The baseline aircraft featured a side-by-side cockpit for a crew of two, even though different layouts were envisioned for the specialized variants, including single-seaters. To save development time and to use existing jigs and tools as much as possible, the P.1099 retained the wings and the tail section of the Me 262A-2a. Despite a higher total weight (the P.1099’ MTOW was about 3 tons higher), the planned powerplants were initially two uprated Junkers Jumo 004 turbojet engines, later to be replaced by more powerful Heinkel HeS 011 turbojets.
In January 1944 the P.1099 was accepted by the RLM and received, despite the aircraft’s different structure, the designation “Me 262 F”. The first variant, the Me 262 F-1 (internally designated P.1099A), was the baseline aircraft under the handle “Jäger I”, a jet-powered single seat daytime fighter. There were three planned versions, differing mainly in armament: Version F-1a was armed with four MK 108 30 mm cannon in the lower fuselage, comparable with the earlier Me 262 A fighter, just with more fuel and ammunition. Version F-1b carried two MK 103 30 mm cannon with longer range, firepower and ammunition supply, and Version F-1c was a heavy daytime fighter with two MK 108 and two MK 103 cannon in the nose.
In parallel the Me 262 F-2 was developed as a more heavily armed and armored variant, as a dedicated heavy bomber interceptor (“Pulkjäger” or “Zerstörer”) under the handle “Jäger II”. Again, three versions were foreseen: Version F-2a would be armed with a single MK 108 cannon and a heavy MK 112 55 mm cannon in the nose. Version F-2b was the same, but it was armed with a MK 114 50 mm cannon instead of the Mk 112. Both were single seaters with a heavily armored cockpit and canopy.
The F-2c was a more thoroughly modified two-seater version; it was armed with a single MG151/20 in a small nose turret, a pair of Mk 103 in the rear of the cockpit firing up- and backwards and two defensive MG 131 in remote-controlled FDL 151 barbettes in the tail. Due to the significant changes this model had the internal project designation P.1099B.
Another two-seater, the F-2d, remained very close to the original baseline aircraft with a crew of two in a side-by-side cockpit. This aircraft was armed with the standard four MK 108 in the nose, plus one launch rail under each wing for Ruhrstahl X-4 guided missiles, which were launched and steered by the second crewman via a wire connection with the mothership. This variant did not come to fruition, however, after the X-4 missile project had been cancelled in early 1945.
All P.1099 fighters also had hardpoints under the outer wings for racks with twelve 55mm R4M unguided air-to-air missiles each, a detail taken over from the Me 262 A, even though the fuel load had to be reduced to carry them. The radio equipment of all these versions would be a FuG 16, Peil G6, FuG 101 radio altimeter, FuBl 2 blind landing equipment, as well as the FuG 25a Erstling identification friend or foe transceiver.
Beyond these initial day fighter variants, further types based on the P.1099 airframe were envisioned, too. The F-3 was a dedicated night fighter version, developed in parallel to the Me 262 G. It was based on the F-2a heavy day fighter, but it carried a crew of two (the pilot and a rearward-facing radar operator) and was equipped with a FuG 240 “Berlin” radar set and a rotating dish antenna under a streamlined plywood cover in the nose. The armament consisted of four MK 108 under the nose, similar to the F-1a day fighter, plus two additional, upward-firing MK 108 cannon (“Schräge Musik”) in the rear fuselage.
Other proposed variants (with less priority, though) were the F-4 and the F-5, which were to become the basis for fast bombers and reconnaissance aircraft with only light defensive armament, typically only a pair of MG 131 in remote-controlled tail barbettes was to be carried. The F-4 resembled the baseline P.1099A, with two bomb bays in front of and behind the main landing gear wells and a crew of two seated side-by-side in a pressurized cockpit. Two MK 108 were carried in the nose, plus the MG 131 tail barbettes. The F-5 was similar but featured a glazed bomb aimer/navigator station in the nose instead of the MK 108’s and the glazing above the pilot’s station was reduced and asymmetrical. In both bomber variants the fuselage tanks were re-arranged to make room for a single SC 1.200 in the front bomb bay, but combinations of smaller bombs could be carried, too. Alternatively, mounts for up to three cameras or a 1.350 l auxiliary tank for extended range could be carried in the bays, too.
Initial flight tests of the Me 262 F in late 1944 showed severe directional instability: especially after fuel and ammunition had been depleted and the center of gravity shifted the aircraft tended to become nose-heavy and ditch down if it was not carefully monitored and trimmed by the pilot. To cope with this problem, the engine mounts were modified, so that the CoG was shifted back. Compared with the original Me 262 the engines were placed roughly 900 mm (35.5 in) further back under the wings. The emptying sequence of the fuselage tanks was also changed, and this mostly mended the problems. Another measure to mend the directional instability issues was the enlargement of the tail surfaces, even though later production aircraft frequently had smaller Me 262 A stabilizers fitted due to material shortages and simple lack of parts.- However, due to the higher weight the Me 262 F’s handling and agility were very limited – but most of its intended roles rather relied on speed, anyway, so that dogfights could be avoided.
From 1944 on the war situation worsened considerably, and production of the new Me 262 F superseded the A variant only on selected production lines. A disused mine complex under the Walpersberg mountain was adapted for the production of complete aircraft. These were hauled to the flat top of the hill where a runway had been cleared and flown out. Between 20 and 30 Me 262 Fs were built here until early 1946, primarily fighters, the underground factory being overrun by Allied troops before it could reach a meaningful output. Wings were produced in Germany's oldest motorway tunnel at Engelberg, to the west of Stuttgart. At B8 Bergkristall-Esche II, a vast network of tunnels was excavated beneath St. Georgen/Gusen, Austria, where fully equipped fuselages for the Me 262 at a planned monthly rate of 450 units on large assembly lines were to be produced from early 1945.
After the type’s introduction to frontline units in early 1945 further handling problems arose through the aircraft’ weight, resulting from its high wing load. Both starting and landing run were excessive, so that the number of airfields from which it could be operated was relatively small. No real short-term solution could be found without fully re-designing the wings, so that RATO bottles were frequently used to get a fully loaded Me 262 F up into the air from standard airfields. These were typically fitted to racks which were mounted under the fuselage, flanking the rear bomb bay.
The Me 262 F’s landing speed was dangerously high, too. A retrofittable brake parachute, housed in a simple tubular fairing under the tail, was developed to reduce the landing distance and save brakes, which frequently overheated and could set the landed aircraft aflame.
From the Me 262 F-2a “Pulkzerstörer I”, only a small number were built and eventually entered service. Its main armament, the MK 112, was a heavy German machine cannon produced by Rheinmetall-Borsig from 1945 on – in fact, the MK 112 was basically a scaled-up MK 108, a very compact weapon with relatively low weight. The MK 112 had a caliber of 55 mm and thus fired much larger shells than the 30 mm MK 108, but the rate of fire was significantly lower (300 rounds / min compared to about 600-660 rounds / min of the MK 108). This large-caliber gun was designed primarily to combat heavy bombers, its rate of fire would have been too slow for effective aerial battles with escort fighters – but the Me 262 F would not have been a dogfighter, anyway, so that the “hit-and-run” mission profile suited the aircraft well. Fire tests showed that a single MK 112 hit with mine grenades could destroy a bomber, and with a rate of fire of five shells per second this weapon could inflict considerably higher losses on the incoming streams of Allied bombers compared to other on-board weapons used on the German side. Only the unguided R4M missiles were as effective, but the MK 112 offered considerably higher accuracy and the opportunity to execute more than just a single attack run on an incoming bomber formation.
The MK 112 was mounted in the lower starboard section of the Me 262 F-2a’s nose, its barrel protruded more than 2 m (7 ft) from its nose. The gun’s drum magazine with sixty rounds partly took up the rear space of the cockpit behind the pilot and the gun mount even used up space of the weapon bay on port side, so that only a single MK 108 with 100 rounds as an additional weapon was mounted in the lower port side weapon bay.
Its sister, the Me 262 F-2b, remained on the drawing board, because its main weapon, the 50 mm MK 114 autocannon that had been derived from the 5 cm Pak 38 anti-tank gun, had turned out to be over-complicated, overweight and unreliable. A refined version was developed as the MK 214A, though, but after flight test from February 1945, but the weapon was not deployed operationally.
Only a handful Me 262 F-2a Pulkzerstörer were eventually fielded and operated before the end of hostilities – beyond the low production numbers the lack of fuel and loss of suitable airfields highly limited the aircraft’s potential. Probably less than ten were used by operational units, including JG 53 “Pik As”, in which they served alongside other interceptors, including other Me 262 variants. Typically, bomber formations were approached from the side of a bomber formation, where their silhouettes were widest, and while still out of range of the bombers' machine guns. This broadside-attack tactic was very effective, and the aircraft’s high speed allowed the interceptors to turn around 180° and make at least a second attack run from the opposite side, before the machines dashed off and returned to their bases.
General characteristics
Crew: One
Length: 14,32 m (46 ft 11 in) overall
12,00 m (39 ft 3¾ in) fuselage only, w/o brake parachute housing
Wingspan: 12,61 m (41 ft 3¾ in)
Height: 4,43 m (14 ft 6 in)
Wing area: 24,2 m² (236 sq ft)
Empty weight: 5.061 kg (11,148 lb)
Loaded weight: 8.762 kg (19,300 lb)
Max. take-off weight: 10.062 kg (22,163 lb)
Powerplant:
2× Junkers Jumo 004 C turbojets with 12 kN (2,697 lb st) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 930 km/h (577 mph, 505 kn)
Cruising speed: 805 km/h (500 mph, 438 kn) at 6.500 m (21,290 ft)
Range: 1.340 km (830 ml, 728 nm) at 6000 m with internal fuel only
Service ceiling: 11,450 m (37,570 ft)
Rate of climb: 18 m/s (3,540 ft/min) at max. weight
Armament:
1× 55 mm (1.96 in) MK 112 machine cannon with 60 rounds
1× 30 mm (1.18 in) MK 108 machine cannon with 100 rounds
Hardpoints under the outer wings for racks with twelve 55mm R4M unguided air-to-air missiles
The kit and its assembly:
This became a submission to the late 2021 “Gunships” group build at whatifmodellers.com – what would such a competition be without at least one gun-toting German Luft ’46 interceptor? The Messerschmitt P.1099 lent itself for such a build. Since 1996 Revell offers a 1:72 IP model kit of this paper aircraft, depicting more or less the two planned versions: a basic single-seat day fighter and a heavy two-seater Zerstörer, both based on the same basis.
This what-if model was based on Revell’s interpretation of the P.1099A, and the kit goes together well. Fit is very good, even though some designs are IMHO a bit dubious. The kit’s weakest point: Revell unfortunately missed the important detail of the modified engine nacelles: the kit comes with standard Me 262 wings and engines, but due to CoG reasons the P.1099 would have had its engines moved back by about 900 mm, as mentioned in the background. I corrected this on this build with some PSR – sounds simple, but since the nacelles are not expected to be stuck to the wings in their new position roughly 1 cm further back, some serious bodywork had to be done.
Otherwise the kit was basically built OOB. I just left away the inner wheels from the main landing gear because I found the twin wheels to be “too much” for this upgraded Me 262. The P.1099 might have been heavier than the Me 262, but…? And the wheels’ tractor-like tread design looks IMHO out of place, too, so that I replaced them with a pair of MiG-21 wheels, left over from a KP kit.
The cockpit was taken OOB, even though I have doubts concerning the canopy. And when you look at mockup pictures of the P.1099 you realize that cockpit access had been facilitated through a side door at starboard, similar to the D. H. Mosquito. The cockpit tub does not consider this hatch at all, and the engraved door on the fuselage (it’s actually there!) is so tiny that only a Halfling might use it?
Well, I stuck with it “as is” and just added a pilot figure (specifically from a Matchbox Hawker tempest, because it is one of the rare cases that you get a WWII pilot wearing an oxygen mask) and a “barrel” behind the bulbous pilot seat because there’s a lot of free space in this single seat variant that is otherwise occupied by a rear gunner in Revell’s P.1099B kit. I also have doubts concerning the kit’s canopy, since the original P.1099 had a cockpit for two seated side-by-side, with a canopy that resembled the D.H. Mosquito’s a lot. I am also not certain about the stabilizers – the kit comes with standard Me 262 parts, but trustworthy sources I consulted suggest that not only the fin had been enlarged (depicted well in Revell’s kit), but also the stabilizers? To improve this, I implanted a pair of modified stabilizers that came from a Heller PZL P.23 light bomber. Sounds odd, but they were a very good match in size, shape and thickness!
The only major modification concerns the armament, even though it became just a “graft-on” solution. On the lower left side, the upper gun port was PSRed away. On the right side I added a bulged fairing for the MK 112. It was sculpted from a Matchbox Saab J29 drop tank and blended into the hull with PSR. Protruding spent cases fairings were added for both guns. The MK 112 gun barrel is a resin piece, left over from a ModelTrans tank conversion set and actually depicts a German 55 mm gun, so that this became a perfect donor piece.
Since the airframe still looked rather clean and boring I finally added a pair of JATO bottle racks to the rear fuselage (scratched from styrene profile but left empty) and a brake parachute fairing under the fin, carved from a piece of sprue.
Furthermore, a display adapter was installed into the fuselage for in-flight pictures.
Painting and markings:
This became a challenge, because I wanted a rather unusual livery, neither a standard RLM 81/82/76 late-war combo nor an improvised-cammo-over-bare-metal finish. After some research I settled upon something that was actually carried by some He 177 bombers around 1944: a uniform RLM 74 (Graugrün, Humbrol 245) upper surface with “cloudy” mottles in RLM 76 (Humbrol 247). This appears like a winter camouflage, but it’s actually quite effective at medium altitude, esp. over a cloudy landscape. The original bombers had light blue (RLM 65) undersides, but for the P.1099 from a later period and as a fighter I rather used a darker shade of RLM76 in the form of Tamiya XF-23 (Light Blue). The model received a black ink washing and some post-panel-shading.
The cockpit interior became RLM 66 (Schwarzgrau, Humbrol 67) while the landing gear and the well were painted in uniform RLM 02 (I used Revell 45, a slightly more greenish tone), with wheel discs in RLM 66, too.
Unit markings became minimal and quite sober. I gave the aircraft a typical late-war “Reichsverteidigung” fuselage band, and in JG 53’s case it is plain black. The black band was deliberately chosen because it is a good, much darker contrast to the murky RLM 74, so that the latter appears lighter than it actually is, lowering the contrast to the RLM 76 spots.
The decals were puzzled together from various sources. As an aircraft of the 3rd group the unit’s ID color would be yellow, reflected in the tactical code and the fin tip. For some contrast and to emphasize the long gun barrel I gave it white and black stripes – as a security measure for ground handling. For some more variety I painted one air intake in very dark grey (Revell 06, Anthracite) and the other one in steel Metallizer, simulating replacement parts. The Balkenkreuze come from various sheets – I used simplified “low viz” versions all around. The undulating yellow bar for the 3rd group comes from a TL Modellbau sheet, while the yellow “4” came from a Fw 190 A sheet from Sky Models. A small “4” on the nose was added as a wacky detail, too, the “Pik As” unit markings came IIRC from a Hobby Boss Bf 109 sheet. Since they turned out to have poor contrast/opacity I only used a few stencils from the P.1099A sheet, but due to the disruptive paint scheme this is not apparent.
Finally, the model was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and a wire antenna, scratched from heated black sprue material, was added between cockpit and fin.
Well, this modified Messerschmitt P.1099A looks simple, but the modified engine nacelles as well as the gun fairing under the nose called for serious PSR. The result looks quite natural, though, and AFAIK this weapon configuration was actually on German drawing boards. However, I am not certain about the cockpit canopy and other details on Revell’s kit, reference information is contradictive.
The paint scheme looks good, even though it was lent from a heavy bomber, and the poor Humbrol enamels did not yield a finish that I had hoped for – the paintwork could certainly have been better, but the overall impression of a late-war Pulkzerstörer is O.K., and this eventually counts.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) technicians contact and work with state, local partners, and residents to survey and help stop the spread of the spotted lanternfly, a destructive insect that feeds on a wide range of fruit, ornamental, and hardwood trees, including grapes, apples, walnut, and oak; a serious threat to the United States' agriculture and natural resources, such as here in Elverson, Pennsylvania, on August 29, 2018. Quick reference pest identification cards and door hangers are left to inform people and residents. If invited to survey their property and SLF are found, they are invited to volunteer for treatment of their outdoor property. In this wooded area, hundreds of SLF from each Tree of Heaven seen here are expelling a drizzle of sticky excrement down onto this homeowner’s lawn, ornamental plants, garden ornaments and outdoor fire pit sitting area, blackening the surface and promoting the growth of mold. To prevent entry and transportation to other areas the residents keep the windows and doors of vehicles and structures closed.
The pest damages plants as it sucks sap from branches, stems, and tree trunks. The repeated feedings leave the tree bark with dark scars. Spotted lanternfly also excretes a sticky fluid, which promotes mold growth and further weakens plants and puts our agriculture and forests at risk. Native to Asia, the spotted lanternfly has no natural enemies in North America. it's free to multiply and ravage orchards, vineyards, and wooded areas. The invasive insect was first detected in the United States in Pennsylvania in 2014, and has now spread to several states, by people who accidentally move infested material or items containing egg masses.
Most states are at risk of the pest. USDA and our state and local partners are working hard to stop the spread of this invasive pest, but we need your help. Look for signs of spotted lanternfly. Inspect your trees and plants for young spotted lanternfly, adults, and egg masses. Adult spotted lanternflies are approximately 1 inch long and one-half inch wide, and they have large and visually striking wings. Their forewings are light brown with black spots at the front and a speckled band at the rear. Their hind wings are scarlet with black spots at the front and white and black bars at the rear. Their abdomen is yellow with black bars. Nymphs in their early stages of development appear black with white spots and turn to a red phase before becoming adults. Egg masses are yellowish-brown in color, covered with a gray, waxy coating prior to hatching. Look for nymphs, adults, and eggs on trees. The Tree of Heaven is the preferred tree. Spotted lanternfly lay their eggs on a variety of smooth surfaces. Look for egg masses (which are off-white to grey and textured patches) on tree bark, vehicles, buildings, and outdoor items. USDA Photo by Lance Cheung.
Find it, report it!
Contact your State Department of Agriculture or the Extension specialist near you to report signs of spotted lanternfly. If possible, take a picture or capture the insect in alcohol.
Stop the Spread
Everyone can play a role in stopping the spread of spotted lanternfly
Remove and Destroy
Crush nymph and adult spotted lanternflies. Scrape egg masses into hand sanitizer or rubbing alcohol.
For more information about the Spotted Lanternfly, please see www.aphis.usda.gov/hungrypests/slf
For more information about the Tree of Heaven, please see www.nps.gov/shen/learn/nature/tree-of-heaven.htm
Phase One 645DF
Schneider Kreuznach LS 55mm f/2.8
Phase One P45+
Model: Shannia
Production: Bobo Zhang
Lighting: Samuel and Xiao Yu
Big thanks to Central Studios, Shanghai (http://www.centralstudios.cn), the boss Rodney Evans and his team..you guys are the best!! Xie Xie!!!
A team of astronomers used NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope to survey the starburst galaxy Messier 82 (M82), which is located 12 million light-years away in the constellation Ursa Major. M82 hosts a frenzy of star formation, sprouting new stars 10 times faster than the Milky Way galaxy. Webb’s infrared capabilities enabled scientists to peer through curtains of dust and gas that have historically obscured the star formation process.
This image from Webb’s NIRCam (Near-Infrared Camera) instrument shows M82’s center in an unprecedented level of detail. With Webb’s resolution, astronomers can distinguish small, bright compact sources that are either individual stars or star clusters. Obtaining an accurate count of the stars and clusters that compose M82’s center can help astronomers understand the different phases of star formation and the timelines for each stage.
Read more: science.nasa.gov/missions/webb/nasas-webb-probes-an-extre...
Credit: NASA, ESA, CSA, STScI, Alberto Bolatto (UMD)
+++ 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:
Even in the early phase of the development of the Panzerkampfwagen V “Panther”, there were doubts as to whether the Panther would still be sufficiently protected against enemy anti-tank weapons in 1943. The attempt to introduce reinforced armor in the development of the "normal" Panther failed. For this reason, a further development called "Panther II" was worked on. The initial design of the vehicles differed only in terms of armor thickness. However, at a meeting on February 10, 1943, MAN 's chief development engineer, Dr. Wiebecke, said that the Panther in its original form did not meet the requirements of the Eastern Front.
In the days that followed, the Army Weapons Office called on the two companies Henschel and MAN to work more closely together, also because the logistical problems with the supply of spare parts for various types of tanks on the Eastern Front were obvious. The goal was, as set out in a meeting on February 17, 1943, to convert the production of the medium battle tank V Panther, which was just being introduced, to the advanced model of this vehicle at the latest with the introduction of the main battle tank Tiger Ausf. B (Tiger II), which could have as many common assemblies as possible with the second generation of the heavy main battle tank. One such standardization of the types had been demanded by the Panzer Commission. For example, the ZF AK 7/200 gearbox and the Maybach HL 230 engine were to be installed in both vehicles. In parallel, the development of a completely new vehicle generation, the “Entwicklungspanzer” (also known as “E-Panzer” and later “Einheitspanzer”) tank series, which took the interchangeability of elements and production simplification even further, was pushed. The perspective was that from 1945 on the Panther would be replaced with the medium E-50 battle tank with an 88mm main gun.
This development was not certain, though, so that the Panther was further updated as a stopgap solution until E-50 production was running sufficiently. Consequently, the Army Office's WaPrüf 6 department also involved the Rheinmetall company and discussed the design of a new, simplified turret for the Panther II on February 18 that could accept the powerful new 8.8 cm KwK 43. Many specifications were made in the planning phase, for example a maximum turret radius had to be observed so that the driver and radio operator hatch could be opened in every turret position. Other dimensions were also specified to ensure access to the engine compartment. On February 19, the installation of machine gun 42 in tank turrets was discussed with Krupp, Rheinmetall and Daimler-Benz.
During a development meeting on March 5, 1943, it was determined that either a Maybach-Olvar or a ZF all-claw manual transmission could be installed in the drive area of both the Tiger II and Panther II. By March 20th, construction plans for the steering gear and side transmission should be ready. Then, on March 30, it was determined that Krupp should begin production of the Panther II, and MIAG should supply parts for this. From April 1943 the project designation Panther II was used, and MAN had already promised a prototype for mid-August 1943.
In the period that followed, MAN developed the "rubber-saving rollers" for the project. These were later tested on the Panther Ausf. G and were used on the Tiger II and Tiger I. However, it was discovered that the Panther's track had problems with these rollers and the project was expanded to develop a new track to be used with these rollers. Both were gradually introduced to the still running Panther production or retrofitted to damaged/recovered earlier Panther models in field workshops. It was planned that in view of the alignment of the chassis, the regular Panther II track should be usable as a transport track for the Tiger II. However, the Panther track would be shorter, since it would have two rollers less than the Tiger II. The rubber-saving track rollers were a major point in the discussions surrounding the introduction of the Panther II since they meant an additional 2 tons of weight. To compensate for this, the use of side skirts on the hull was discussed. It had already shown during the first operations on the Eastern Front that the sensitivity of the Panther’s side armor to the fire from the well-known Soviet anti-tank rifles was less than feared. To simplify production and save material, the lateral reinforcement was consequently not implemented.
On January 4, 1944, there was a meeting of the tank commission, where the changes to the armored hull of the Panther were discussed as the main problem of standardization. If a temporarily reduced production would be accepted by the German command, the following identical components should be used from the Tiger II: its Maybach HL 230 engine, same cooling system, same gearbox AK 7/200 or Olvar B, steering gear, side transmission, and the rubber-saving rollers with the modified track. However, some of these changes should already be used on the Panther Ausf. G, which was the current production variant. Ultimately, it was decided that reduced output of Panthers was unacceptable. Overall, Dr. Blaicher from the Main Committee determined that series production of the Panther II could only begin in late 1944 or early 1945.
The general design of the Panther II followed the conception of the Panzerkampfwagen V Panther. However, the armor at the front was to be increased to 100 or even 120 mm, and the side armor was planned to be brought to 60 mm. Furthermore, gun mantlet, turret front, roof, sides and rear were also supposed to be better armored, what led to the so-called “Schmalturm”. This new design was introduced with the Panther Ausf. F, the first standardized interim variant on the way to the true Panther II. However, this turret was only outfitted with a long-barreled 7,5-cm-KwK 44/I (L/70) without a muzzle brake, so that there was no significant improvement in firepower in comparison with other contemporary German tanks. Nevertheless, offering improved protection, an overall lowered weight and simplified production effort, the Schmalturm entered production and was, beyond the Panther Ausf. F, also combined with some late Panzer IV hulls as well as with early E-50s.
After that, further turret development for the Panther and the E-Series of medium/heavy battle tanks was pushed forward independently from the base vehicle, since a modular concept appeared to be the most effective way to ensure constant output of new tanks.
Eventually, the “Panther II” never materialized. In the meantime, the E-50/75’s development as well as Panther production had continued, and the latter gradually adopted new elements from the E-Series of tanks as well as simplifications that saved material and reduced overall production time. This gradual evolution led to two Panther hybrid variants. These vehicles, even though they looked quite different from the early Panther variants, retained the original SdKfz. 171 ordnance inventory designation. The most common variant was the Panther Ausf. F with the standardized rubber-saving running gear and the Schmalturm with the long-barreled 7,5 cm gun. The other standardized crossbreed was the Panther Ausf. H; it was based on a simplified late Panther Ausf. G hull with 50 mm side walls, but it featured a new welded 100 mm front glacis plate without any openings for either the driver or the radio operator’s machine gun. Sight for the crew members in the hull was provided exclusively through periscopic mirrors. Like the Panther Ausf. F, the Ausf. H featured the simplified running gear with rubber-saving rollers and a track that consisted of the Tiger I/II’s train transport track.
However, the Panther Ausf. H’s engine was new: it introduced a Maybach HL 234 V-12 gasoline engine, which was a HL-230, used in former Panther and Tiger tanks, upgraded with a fuel injection system which allowed easier engine operation even at low engine temperatures (such as a cold start), good adaptation to a wide range of altitudes and ambient temperatures, precisely governed engine speeds (including at idle and redline) and improved fuel efficiency. The HL-234 had originally been developed for the heavier E-50/75 and even the super-heavy E-100 tanks, and it was designed to deliver up to 900 hp (650 kW) in them. However, for the lighter Panther it was limited to just 700 hp (434 kW), with emphasis on torque at low engine speeds and durability. In the Panther Ausf. H this extra power was transferred through E-50/75 transmission elements, which had generous dimensions and material strength, what greatly improved the tank’s mechanical reliability. Thanks to the more powerful engine and transmission, the Panther Ausf. H was more agile than the earlier versions, despite a higher overall weight of 53 vs. 45 tons, which was almost on par with the earlier Tiger I. With the new drive train, the Panther Ausf. H was able to achieve a top speed of 56 km/h (35 mph) on level terrain or roads, and acceleration from standstill was markedly improved so that the tank was less likely to be hit during battles when it changed positions.
To improve the Panther’s firepower and get it on par with the retired Tiger I that it replaced, a 8.8 cm KwK 43 cannon was mounted in a new turret called ‘Langturm’. The Langturm was another E-50/75 development element that was adapted to the old Panther hull. It was in fact just an extended variant of the Schmalturm from the Panther Ausf. F and it shared the same layout and armor level, but it had an overhang at the rear to make space for the KwK 43’s longer gun carriage and a bigger ammunition supply. As a beneficial side effect, the overhang also provided a counterweight for the long and heavy gun barrel, alleviating the turret bearing. Because the KwK 43 had a different and heavier turret mount than the KwK 44/I from the Panther Ausf. F, a different mantlet had to be used. Turret movement was supported by an electric drive and targeting was supported by a built-in stereoscopic rangefinder, with optics in twin matching armored blisters on the turret’s flanks in front of the commander’s cupola. Fully rotatable periscopes in the turret roof replaced pistol ports in the turret flanks, thereby removing these weak armor spots.
To provide the Panther with some form of defense against infantry attacks after the deletion of its hull machine gun, a Nahverteidigungswaffe grenade launcher was mounted in the turret roof. This was a simple breech-loaded launcher tube oriented at a fixed 50° angle and fitted in a fully 360° traversable mounting. The Nahverteidigungswaffe was designed to mate with the standard 26 mm Kampfpistole flare gun. It could be loaded and fired under full armor and sealed by an armored plug when not in use. Aiming was by periscopes located on the turret and cupola. Typically, Sprenggranatpatrone 326 LP anti-personnel explosives were fired; this device had a range of 7 to 10 meters (23 to 33 ft) around the tank with a blast point of 0.5 to 2 meters (2 to 7 ft) above the ground. It splintered to a circumferential distance of 100 meters (328 ft) after an initial delay time of one second. It turned out to be very effective, even though all turret hatches and openings were to be closed when the 326 LP round was fired. Alternatively, the Nahverteidigungswaffe could fire a range of flare, signal or smoke grenades, too.
Compared with the earlier Panther variants with the 7.5 cm main weapon, its 8.8 cm gun meant considerably more firepower, and the KwK 43’s long range made it possible to keep the tank out of most enemy weapon’s range. As long as the crew was able to keep the Panther Ausf. H’s reinforced, sloped front armor facing towards its enemies the vehicle was virtually invulnerable to almost any Allied medium tank in late 1945, except for very close range or when the tracks were targeted to immobilize the tank. The only real threat at the time was the Soviet IS-3 with its heavy 122 mm D-25 gun, or surprise attacks against the weaker flanks.
The interleaved running gear still made maintenance and operations in wintertime challenging, though, but this was regarded as a reasonable price to pay for the tank’s overall effectiveness. As a benefit from the complex running gear, the Panther had probably the best suspension system of all German tanks of the time, offering a very smooth ride, and it was therefore very popular among its crews. However, the high-quality steel that was needed for the Panther’s torsion bar suspension system became more and more rare. The situation became so dire that these suspension elements were recovered from damaged vehicles directly at the front lines, collected and then conveyed to the MAN production line to complete new Panthers and put out as many as possible.
Nevertheless, due to the E-50/75’s ongoing development, its rising production priority from late 1945 on and an ever-worsening resource situation, the final Panther variants, the Ausf. F and H, were only produced between early 1945 and summer 1946. After that, Panther production ceased altogether in favor of the new Einheitspanzer family. Exact production numbers of the Panther Ausf. H are uncertain, because of the many hybrids and the chaotic production conditions, but less than 250 were finished and sent to frontline units.
Specifications:
Crew: Five (commander, gunner, loader, driver, radio operator)
Weight: 53 tonnes (52.1 long tons; 58.2 short tons)
Length: 6.87 m (22 ft 6 in) hull only
9,14 m (29 ft 11½ in) overall with gun facing forward
Width: 3.42 m (11 ft 3 in)
Height: 2,81 m (9 ft 2½ in)
Suspension: Double torsion bar, interleaved road wheels
Fuel capacity: 720 liters (160 imp gal; 190 US gal)
Armor:
15–100 mm (0.6 – 3.93 in)
Performance:
Maximum road speed: 56 km/h (35 mph)
Operational range: 250 km (160 mi) on roads
100 km (62 mi) cross-country
Power/weight: 13.2 PS (9.5 kW)/tonne (12.02 hp/ton)
Engine & transmission:
Maybach HL234 V-12 gasoline engine with 700 PS (690 hp, 515 kW)
Maybach OLVAR OG 44 16 11 A gearbox with 8 forward and 2 reverse gears
Armament:
1× 8.8 cm KwK 43 (L/56) with 67 rounds, stored in the turret and the hull
1× 7.92 mm MG 42, mounted co-axially with the main gun with 2.500 rounds
1× 26 mm Nahverteidigungswaffe in the turret roof
Optional 6× Schnellnebelkerze 39 smoke dischargers, mounted to the turret flanks
Provision for a 7.92 mm MG 42 or MG 34 FlaMG on the commander cupola
The kit and its assembly:
This fictional Heer ’46 Panther variant was inspired by a Hasegawa Panther Ausf. F kit, which features rubber-saving all-steel wheels and a Schmalturm as optional parts – effectively a ‘whif-out-of-the-box’. I got it dead cheap, but just the plastic, without box, decals or instructions. I wondered how this hybrid could be even more upgraded, so that it could become a (fictional) stopgap solution to bridge the delayed introduction of the E-50/75 tank family? The result became my fictional ‘Ausführung H’.
To this end, I gave the Panther a bigger 8.8 cm gun, but this necessitated an enlarged turret. To keep things simple, I used the OOB Schmalturm to create a fictional extended version with a longer overhang at the rear – a “variant” that is actually available as one of the Modelcollect OOB E-50 kits, too. The overhang was scratched with the Schmalturm’s rear wall, styrene sheet material and 2C putty – the overhang is not large, but IMHO the turret looks now much more balanced than the original Schmalturm? For an individual look I also modified the gun mantlet, using early Panther parts from the Hasegawa kit and an 88 mm gun barrel with a muzzle brake left over from an Armorfast Jagdpanther. Additionally, some details were added to the turret, including a cover for the Nahverteidigungswaffe, periscopes and some free-standing lugs.
Another small modification: I removed the machine gun opening from the front glacis plate as a production simplification measure – after the driver’s visor slit had disappeared from the late production Panther Gs, removing the only other weak point in the front armor appeared like a plausible step. To create an even more E-50ish look I moved the light from the mudguards to the center of the glacis plate.
The running gear was taken OOB from the Hasegawa kit. To create a different look, I omitted the Panther’s standard side skirts that had protected the tank’s weak spot in the running gear above its tracks.
PE grates from a Modelcollect E-50/75 were fitted over the cooling fan openings (even though they did not fit perfectly), and I scratched two small smoke grenade mortar clusters for the turret flanks from sprue material. Tools and a container for a replacement main gun barrel segment were taken from the Hasegawa kit.
Painting and markings:
Another reason for this whiffy Panther was a camouflage concept that I had been wanting to test on a model for a while. It was inspired by French tank paint schemes from the early WWII phase: some vehicles carried a paint scheme consisting of horizontal, wavy high-contrast bands – an attempt to mimic a landscape with the horizon, consisting of relatively dark colors on low tank areas and light colors, even light grey or blue, on the turret. While some French tanks carried rather garish colors, I thought that this concept could work well with more subdued tones, only using the color contrast and trying to maximize the camouflage effect depending on the viewer’s perspective on the tank : either horizontally against the horizon, but also from above, when the vehicle would need a different camouflage against the ground.
The typical German “Hinterhalt” camouflage colors, Dunkelgelb, Olivgrün and the darker Rotbraun (RAL 7028, 6003 and 8017, respectively) were a good, limited palette to try this stunt, using Modelmaster 2095, a mix of Humbrol 86 and 78 for a lighter shade of green and Humbrol 180. Conforming to German standards, the running gear was painted uniformly, and I used RAL 7028 all around as a countershading measure. RAL 7028 was also applied to the turret flanks and to the barrel’s underside, to reduce the contrast of these areas against the sky.
RAL 6003 and 8017 were then primarily applied to the roof areas of hull, turret, and barrel, with only small RAL 7028 spots here and there to break these dark areas up against the ground when seen from above. To generally break the tank’s outlines up, the demarcation lines between the light and dark areas were painted with sharp, very wavy, “amoeba-esque” edges.
The model received an overall washing with dark brown ink and some dry-brushing with light grey to emphasize edges and details. The vinyl tracks were painted, too, with a mix of grey, red brown and iron (acrylic paints). The decals/markings are minimal, all taken from the scrap box, and the model was finally sealed with matt acrylic vanish overall, plus some very light extra dry-brushing with silver to simulate flaked paint, and dirt and rust residues were added here and there with watercolors. After final assembly, the lower areas of the model were furthermore powdered with mineral pigments to simulate mud crusts and dust.
A straightforward what-if/Heer ’46 project. From a hardware perspective, the idea of an upgraded Panther as an E-50 stopgap for late 1945 with a bigger turret and gun works IMHO well, as the model combines old and new elements. The paint scheme experiment worked, too; when seen from the side, the wavy contrast between the light and dark areas breaks up the Panther’s silhouette against the horizon, while the rather dark colors from above conceal the vehicle against the ground, e. g. when it would be hidden under trees or in the shadows between buildings. The overall package looks quite plausible! :D
*************************************************************************
Photographed in New Haven, Indiana, USA
(just outside Fort Wayne)
For this shallow total lunar eclipse (length of total phase only 65 minutes), Helen and I drove 620 km from our home in Toronto to Indiana, where the forecast was for a clearer sky than we would likely get in Ontario.
We were rewarded with very good conditions, including no wind and a comfortable temperature of 5 C. at mid-eclipse.
This image, captured at at 01.27 EDT, shows the Moon advancing into Earth;'s umbral shadow, 17 minutes after the start of the partial phase and 69 minutes before the start of the 65-minute long total phase of the eclipse.
For a wide angle view of the Moon at mid-eclipse, showing several surrounding stars, click here:
www.flickr.com/photos/97587627@N06/54388871548
Compare this image with my photographs of the total eclipse of 2014 April 14-15, almost exactly 131 months earlier, which I observed 224 km to the west, in Ottawa, Illinois:
www.flickr.com/photos/97587627@N06/albums/72157644114323234/
______________________________________________
Technical information:
Nikon Z7 camera body on Explore Scientific 152 mm (6") apochromatic refracting telescope (focal length 1253 mm)
Single frame: ISO 200, 1/800 sec. exposure at f/8
Processed in Photoshop CS6
*************************************************************************
Handmade replica of the early "black and white" phaser prop used in the first eight episodes of Star Trek. Originally thought to be more "serious"-looking, the B&W phaser was ultimately deemed too hard to see on the TV screen. Prop genius Wah Chang was enlisted to modify the pistols into the more familiar grays-and-bronze version that was used for the remainder of the series.
NOTE: the ATL replicas were a private project and not made for sale. None are available.