The Postcard

 

A postally unused postcard , on the divided back of which is printed:

 

'Printed in Paris - La Pina'

 

Rin Tin Tin

 

Nénette and Rintintin were the source of the name of the Hollywood film star dog Rin Tin Tin.

 

Rin Tin Tin (September 1918 – August 10, 1932) was a male German Shepherd dog born in Flirey, France, who became an international star in motion pictures.

 

He was rescued from a Great War battlefield by an American soldier, Lee Duncan, who nicknamed him "Rinty". Duncan trained Rin Tin Tin, and obtained silent film work for the dog.

 

Rin Tin Tin was an immediate box-office success, and went on to appear in 27 Hollywood films, gaining worldwide fame. Rin Tin Tin was responsible for greatly increasing the popularity of German Shepherd dogs as family pets.

 

The immense profitability of his films contributed to the success of Warner Bros. studios, and helped advance the career of Darryl F. Zanuck from screenwriter to producer and studio executive.

 

After Rin Tin Tin died in 1932, the name was given to several related German Shepherd dogs featured in fictional stories on film, radio, and television. Rin Tin Tin Jr. appeared in some serialized films, but was not as talented as his father.

 

Rin Tin Tin III, said to be Rin Tin Tin's grandson, but probably only distantly related, helped promote the military use of dogs during World War II. Rin Tin Tin III also appeared in a film with child actor Robert Blake in 1947.

 

Duncan groomed Rin Tin Tin IV for the 1950's television series The Adventures of Rin Tin Tin, but the dog performed poorly in a screen test, and was replaced in the TV show by trainer Frank Barnes's dogs, primarily one named Flame Jr., called JR, with the public being led to believe otherwise.

 

Instead of shooting episodes, Rin Tin Tin IV stayed at home in Riverside, California. The TV show Rin Tin Tin was nominated for a PATSY Award in both 1958 and 1959, but did not win.

 

After Duncan died in 1960, the screen property of Rin Tin Tin passed to TV producer Herbert B. Leonard, who worked on further adaptations such as the 1988–1993 Canadian-made TV show Katts and Dog, which was called Rin Tin Tin: K-9 Cop in the US, and Rintintin Junior in France.

 

Following Leonard's death in 2006, his lawyer James Tierney made the 2007 children's film Finding Rin Tin Tin, an American–Bulgarian production based on Duncan's discovery of the dog in France.

 

Meanwhile, a Rin Tin Tin memorabilia collection was being amassed by Texas resident Jannettia Propps Brodsgaard, who had purchased several direct descendant dogs from Duncan, beginning with Rinty Tin Tin Brodsgaard in 1957.

 

Brodsgaard bred the dogs to keep the bloodline. Brodsgaard's granddaughter, Daphne Hereford, continued to build on the tradition and bloodline of Rin Tin Tin from 1988 to 2011; she was the first to trademark the name Rin Tin Tin.

 

Hereford also opened a short-lived Rin Tin Tin museum in Latexo, Texas. Hereford passed the tradition to her daughter, Dorothy Yanchak, in 2011. The current dog, Rin Tin Tin XII, owned by Yanchak, takes part in public events to represent the Rin Tin Tin legacy.

 

The Origins of Rin Tin Tin

 

Following advances made by American forces during the Battle of Saint-Mihiel, Corporal Lee Duncan, an armourer of the U.S. Army Air Service, was sent forward on the 15th. September 1918, to the small French village of Flirey to see if it would make a suitable flying field for his unit, the 135th. Aero Squadron.

 

The area had been subjected to aerial bombing and artillery fire, and Duncan found a severely damaged kennel which had once supplied the Imperial German Army with German Shepherd dogs. The only dogs left alive in the kennel were a starving mother with a litter of five nursing puppies, their eyes still shut because they were less than a week old. Duncan rescued the dogs, and brought them back to his unit.

 

When the puppies were weaned, he gave the mother to an officer and three of the litter to other soldiers, but he kept one puppy of each sex. He felt that these two dogs were symbols of his good luck.

 

He dubbed them Rin Tin Tin and Nanette after a pair of good luck charms called Rintintin and Nénette that French children often gave to the American soldiers. The soldiers were told that Rintintin and Nénette were lucky lovers who had survived a bombing attack, but the original dolls had been designed by Francisque Poulbot before the war in late 1913 to look like Paris street urchins. Contrary to linguistic clues and popular usage, Poulbot said that Rintintin was the girl doll.

 

Duncan sensed that Nanette was the more intelligent of the two puppies.

 

In July 1919, Duncan sneaked the dogs aboard a ship taking him back to the US at the end of the war. When he got to Long Island, New York, for re-entry processing, he put his dogs in the care of a Hempstead breeder named Mrs. Leo Wanner, who trained police dogs.

 

Nanette was diagnosed with pneumonia; as a replacement, the breeder gave Duncan another female German Shepherd puppy. Duncan travelled to California by rail with his dogs. While Duncan was travelling by train, Nanette died in Hempstead. As a memorial, Duncan named his new puppy Nanette II, but he called her Nanette.

 

Duncan, Rin Tin Tin, and Nanette II settled at his home in Los Angeles. Rin Tin Tin was a dark sable colour, and had very dark eyes. Nanette II was much lighter in colour.

 

An athletic silent film actor named Eugene Pallette was one of Duncan's friends. The two men enjoyed the outdoors; they took the dogs to the Sierras, where Pallette liked to hunt, while Duncan taught Rin Tin Tin various tricks. Duncan thought that his dog might win a few awards at dog shows and thus be a valuable source of puppies bred with Nanette for sale.

 

In 1922, Duncan was a founding member of the Shepherd Dog Club of California, based in Los Angeles. At the club's first show, Rin Tin Tin showed his agility, but also demonstrated an aggressive temper, growling, barking, and snapping.

 

It was a very poor performance, but the worst moment came afterward when Duncan was walking home. A heavy bundle of newspapers was thrown from a delivery truck and landed on the dog, breaking his left front leg. Duncan had the injured limb set in plaster, and he nursed the dog back to health for nine months.

 

Ten months after the break, the leg was healed and Rin Tin Tin was entered in a show for German Shepherd dogs in Los Angeles. Rin Tin Tin had learned to leap great heights.

 

At the dog show while making a winning leap, he was filmed by Duncan's acquaintance Charley Jones, who had just developed a slow-motion camera. Seeing his dog being filmed, Duncan became convinced Rin Tin Tin could become the next Strongheart, a successful film dog that lived in his own full-sized stucco bungalow with its own street address in the Hollywood Hills, separate from the mansion of his owners, who lived a street away next to Roy Rogers.

 

Duncan later wrote:

 

"I was so excited over the film idea

that I found myself thinking of it night

and day."

 

The Film Career of Rin Tin Tin

 

Duncan walked his dog up and down Poverty Row, talking to anyone in a position to put Rin Tin Tin in film, however modest the role.

 

The dog's first break came when he was asked to replace a camera-shy wolf in The Man from Hell's River (1922) featuring Wallace Beery. The wolf was not performing properly for the director, but under the guidance of Duncan's voice commands, Rin Tin Tin was very easy to work with. When the film was completed, the dog was billed as "Rin Tan".

 

Rin Tin Tin would be cast as a wolf or wolf-hybrid many times in his career, because it was much more convenient for filmmakers to work with a trained dog.

 

In another 1922 film titled My Dad, Rin Tin Tin picked up a small part as a household dog. The credits read:

 

"Rin Tin Tin – Played by himself".

 

Rin Tin Tin's first starring role was in Where the North Begins (1923), in which he played alongside silent screen actress Claire Adams. This film was a huge success, and has often been credited with saving Warner Bros. from bankruptcy.

 

It was followed by 24 more screen appearances. Each of these films was very popular, making such a profit for Warner Bros. that Rin Tin Tin was called "the mortgage lifter" by studio insiders.

 

A young screenwriter named Darryl F. Zanuck was involved in creating stories for Rin Tin Tin; the success of the films raised him to the position of film producer. In New York City, Mayor Jimmy Walker gave Rin Tin Tin a key to the city.

 

Rin Tin Tin was much sought after, and was signed for endorsement deals. Ken-L Ration, Ken-L-Biskit, and Pup-E-Crumbles all featured him in their advertisements. Warner Bros. fielded fan letters by the thousands, sending back a glossy portrait signed with a paw print and a message written by Duncan:

 

"Most faithfully, Rin Tin Tin."

 

In the 1920's, Rin Tin Tin's success for Warner Bros. inspired several imitations from other studios looking to cash in on his popularity, notably RKO's Ace the Wonder Dog, also a German Shepherd dog.

 

Around the world, Rin Tin Tin was extremely popular because as a dog he was equally well understood by all viewers. At the time, silent films were easily adapted for various countries by simply changing the language of the intertitles. Rin Tin Tin's films were widely distributed.

 

Film historian Jan-Christopher Horak wrote that by 1927, Rin Tin Tin was the most popular actor with the very sophisticated film audience in Berlin. One fan wrote:

 

"He is a human dog, "human in

the real big sense of the word."

 

A Hollywood legend holds that at the first-ever Academy Awards competition in 1929, Rin Tin Tin was voted Best Actor, but that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, wishing to appear more serious and thus determined to have a human actor win the award, removed Rin Tin Tin as a choice and re-ran the vote, leading to German actor Emil Jannings winning the award.

 

Author Susan Orlean stated this story as fact in her 2011 book Rin Tin Tin: The Life and the Legend. However, former Academy head Bruce Davis has written that the 1928 ballots, kept in storage at the Academy's Margaret Herrick Library, show a complete absence of votes for Rin Tin Tin.

 

Davis called the story an urban legend that probably originated in a joke ballot circulated that year by Zanuck, who wanted to mock the concept of the Academy Awards.

 

Although primarily a star of silent films, Rin Tin Tin did appear in four sound features, including the 12-part Mascot Studios chapter-play The Lightning Warrior (1931), co-starring with Frankie Darro. In these films, vocal commands would have been picked up by the microphones, so Duncan likely guided Rin Tin Tin by hand signals.

 

Rin Tin Tin and the rest of the crew filmed much of the outdoor action footage for The Lightning Warrior on the Iverson Movie Ranch in Chatsworth, Los Angeles, known for its huge sandstone boulders and widely recognized as the most heavily filmed outdoor shooting location in the history of the movies.

 

Rin Tin Tin and Nanette II produced at least 48 puppies; Duncan kept two of them, selling the rest or giving them as gifts. Greta Garbo, W. K. Kellogg, and Jean Harlow each owned one of Rin Tin Tin's descendants.

 

The Death of Rin Tin Tin

 

On the 10th. August 1932, Rin Tin Tin died at Duncan's home on Club View Drive in Los Angeles. Duncan wrote about the death in his unpublished memoir: He heard Rin Tin Tin bark in a peculiar fashion, so he went to see what was wrong. He found the dog lying on the ground, moments away from death.

 

In the United States, Rin Tin Tin's death set off a national response. Regular programming was interrupted by a news bulletin. An hour-long program about Rin Tin Tin played the next day.

 

Newspapers across the nation carried obituaries. Magazine articles were written about his life, and a special Movietone News feature was shown to movie audiences.

 

In the press, aspects of the death were fabricated in various ways, such as Rin Tin Tin dying on the set of the film Pride of the Legion (where Rin Tin Tin Jr. was working), dying at night, or dying at home on the front lawn in the arms of actress Jean Harlow, who lived on the same street.

 

In a private ceremony, Duncan buried Rin Tin Tin in a bronze casket in his own backyard with a plain wooden cross to mark the location. Duncan was suffering the financial effects of the Great Depression and could not afford a finer burial, nor even his own expensive house.

 

He sold his house, and quietly arranged to have the dog's body returned to his country of birth for reburial in the Cimetière des Chiens et Autres Animaux Domestiques, the pet cemetery in the Parisian suburb of Asnières-sur-Seine.

 

In a ceremony on the 8th. February 1960, Rin Tin Tin was honored with a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame at 1627 Vine Street.

Before tossing seventeen years of heavy magazines away (notice the bow of the shelf) I had to document them. On the left is the premiere issue of Wired and at the top is the very latest issue (they are placed in order, left to right). I just found a few more laying around the house but this photo should do for proper documentation.

 

By the looks of it, Wired's 8th year was their most profitable: each issue is much thicker (presumably with lots of ads and their revenue) than in any other year.

Cap'n Nobeard in a particularly piratical mood after a not-so profitable raiding journey.

 

The grog Cap'n Nobeard is holding is Screech, a rum from the Canadian province of Newfoundland. Back in the day salted cod from Newfoundland was traded in the Caribbean for Jamaican rum which resulted in fish becoming the main dish in Jamaica and rum being the official drink in Newfoundland. Screech is a slang term for moonshine with a high alcohol content.

 

Also way, way back in the day, Newfoundland, along with Nova Scotia, were rumoured to be safe havens for pirates after profitable raids along the Atlantic seaboard of North America and the Caribbean. There are also rumours of long buried treasure, specifically by Blackbeard and Captain Kidd in Atlantic Canada.

 

There has been an interminably long and dreadfully boring reality TV series call The Curse of Oak Island in which treasure hunters have been trying to find the long lost treasure of Captain Kidd. Oak Island is just south of Halifax, Nova Scotia and to date, no treasure has been found.

 

We're Here celebrates Talk Like a Pirate Day and as a "modern day pirate" Cap'n Nobeard wears glasses with a true "eye patch". Arrrhh!

Quoting Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum | North American P-51C, "Excalibur III":

 

On May 29, 1951, Capt. Charles F. Blair flew Excalibur III from Norway across the North Pole to Alaska in a record-setting 10½ hours. Using a system of carefully plotted "sun lines" he developed, Blair was able to navigate with precision where conventional magnetic compasses often failed. Four months earlier, he had flown Excalibur III from New York to London in less than 8 hours, breaking the existing mark by over an hour.

 

Excalibur III first belonged to famed aviator A. Paul Mantz, who added extra fuel tanks for long-distance racing to this standard P-51C fighter. With it Mantz won the 1946 and 1947 Bendix air race and set a transcontinental speed record in 1947 when the airplane was named Blaze of Noon. Blair purchased it from Mantz in 1949 and renamed it Excalibur III, after the Sikorsky VS-44 flying boat he flew for American Export Airlines.

 

Gift of Pan American World Airways

 

Manufacturer:

North American Aircraft Company

 

Date:

1944

 

Country of Origin:

United States of America

 

Dimensions:

Wingspan: 11.3 m (37 ft)

Length: 9.8 m (32 ft 3 in)

Height: 3.9 m (12 ft 10 in)

Weight, empty: 4,445 kg (9,800 lb)

Weight, gross: 5,052 kg (11,800 lb)

Top speed: 700 km/h (435 mph)

 

Materials:

Overall: Aluminum

 

Physical Description:

Single seat, single engine, low wing monoplane, World War II fighter modified for racing.

 

• • • • •

 

Quoting Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum | Boeing 367-80 Jet Transport:

 

On July 15, 1954, a graceful, swept-winged aircraft, bedecked in brown and yellow paint and powered by four revolutionary new engines first took to the sky above Seattle. Built by the Boeing Aircraft Company, the 367-80, better known as the Dash 80, would come to revolutionize commercial air transportation when its developed version entered service as the famous Boeing 707, America's first jet airliner.

 

In the early 1950s, Boeing had begun to study the possibility of creating a jet-powered military transport and tanker to complement the new generation of Boeing jet bombers entering service with the U.S. Air Force. When the Air Force showed no interest, Boeing invested $16 million of its own capital to build a prototype jet transport in a daring gamble that the airlines and the Air Force would buy it once the aircraft had flown and proven itself. As Boeing had done with the B-17, it risked the company on one roll of the dice and won.

 

Boeing engineers had initially based the jet transport on studies of improved designs of the Model 367, better known to the public as the C-97 piston-engined transport and aerial tanker. By the time Boeing progressed to the 80th iteration, the design bore no resemblance to the C-97 but, for security reasons, Boeing decided to let the jet project be known as the 367-80.

 

Work proceeded quickly after the formal start of the project on May 20, 1952. The 367-80 mated a large cabin based on the dimensions of the C-97 with the 35-degree swept-wing design based on the wings of the B-47 and B-52 but considerably stiffer and incorporating a pronounced dihedral. The wings were mounted low on the fuselage and incorporated high-speed and low-speed ailerons as well as a sophisticated flap and spoiler system. Four Pratt & Whitney JT3 turbojet engines, each producing 10,000 pounds of thrust, were mounted on struts beneath the wings.

 

Upon the Dash 80's first flight on July 15, 1954, (the 34th anniversary of the founding of the Boeing Company) Boeing clearly had a winner. Flying 100 miles per hour faster than the de Havilland Comet and significantly larger, the new Boeing had a maximum range of more than 3,500 miles. As hoped, the Air Force bought 29 examples of the design as a tanker/transport after they convinced Boeing to widen the design by 12 inches. Satisfied, the Air Force designated it the KC-135A. A total of 732 KC-135s were built.

 

Quickly Boeing turned its attention to selling the airline industry on this new jet transport. Clearly the industry was impressed with the capabilities of the prototype 707 but never more so than at the Gold Cup hydroplane races held on Lake Washington in Seattle, in August 1955. During the festivities surrounding this event, Boeing had gathered many airline representatives to enjoy the competition and witness a fly past of the new Dash 80. To the audience's intense delight and Boeing's profound shock, test pilot Alvin "Tex" Johnston barrel-rolled the Dash 80 over the lake in full view of thousands of astonished spectators. Johnston vividly displayed the superior strength and performance of this new jet, readily convincing the airline industry to buy this new airliner.

 

In searching for a market, Boeing found a ready customer in Pan American Airway's president Juan Trippe. Trippe had been spending much of his time searching for a suitable jet airliner to enable his pioneering company to maintain its leadership in international air travel. Working with Boeing, Trippe overcame Boeing's resistance to widening the Dash-80 design, now known as the 707, to seat six passengers in each seat row rather than five. Trippe did so by placing an order with Boeing for 20 707s but also ordering 25 of Douglas's competing DC-8, which had yet to fly but could accommodate six-abreast seating. At Pan Am's insistence, the 707 was made four inches wider than the Dash 80 so that it could carry 160 passengers six-abreast. The wider fuselage developed for the 707 became the standard design for all of Boeing's subsequent narrow-body airliners.

 

Although the British de Havilland D.H. 106 Comet and the Soviet Tupolev Tu-104 entered service earlier, the Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8 were bigger, faster, had greater range, and were more profitable to fly. In October 1958 Pan American ushered the jet age into the United States when it opened international service with the Boeing 707 in October 1958. National Airlines inaugurated domestic jet service two months later using a 707-120 borrowed from Pan Am. American Airlines flew the first domestic 707 jet service with its own aircraft in January 1959. American set a new speed mark when it opened the first regularly-scheduled transcontinental jet service in 1959. Subsequent nonstop flights between New York and San Francisco took only 5 hours - 3 hours less than by the piston-engine DC-7. The one-way fare, including a $10 surcharge for jet service, was $115.50, or $231 round trip. The flight was almost 40 percent faster and almost 25 percent cheaper than flying by piston-engine airliners. The consequent surge of traffic demand was substantial.

 

The 707 was originally designed for transcontinental or one-stop transatlantic range. But modified with extra fuel tanks and more efficient turbofan engines, the 707-300 Intercontinental series aircraft could fly nonstop across the Atlantic with full payload under any conditions. Boeing built 855 707s, of which 725 were bought by airlines worldwide.

 

Having launched the Boeing Company into the commercial jet age, the Dash 80 soldiered on as a highly successful experimental aircraft. Until its retirement in 1972, the Dash 80 tested numerous advanced systems, many of which were incorporated into later generations of jet transports. At one point, the Dash 80 carried three different engine types in its four nacelles. Serving as a test bed for the new 727, the Dash 80 was briefly equipped with a fifth engine mounted on the rear fuselage. Engineers also modified the wing in planform and contour to study the effects of different airfoil shapes. Numerous flap configurations were also fitted including a highly sophisticated system of "blown" flaps which redirected engine exhaust over the flaps to increase lift at low speeds. Fin height and horizontal stabilizer width was later increased and at one point, a special multiple wheel low pressure landing gear was fitted to test the feasibility of operating future heavy military transports from unprepared landing fields.

 

After a long and distinguished career, the Boeing 367-80 was finally retired and donated to the Smithsonian in 1972. At present, the aircraft is installated at the National Air and Space Museum's new facility at Washington Dulles International Airport.

 

Gift of the Boeing Company

 

Manufacturer:

Boeing Aircraft Co.

 

Date:

1954

 

Country of Origin:

United States of America

 

Dimensions:

Height 19' 2": Length 73' 10": Wing Span 129' 8": Weight 33,279 lbs.

 

Physical Description:

Prototype Boeing 707; yellow and brown.

 

• • • • •

 

Quoting Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum | Concorde, Fox Alpha, Air France:

 

The first supersonic airliner to enter service, the Concorde flew thousands of passengers across the Atlantic at twice the speed of sound for over 25 years. Designed and built by Aérospatiale of France and the British Aviation Corporation, the graceful Concorde was a stunning technological achievement that could not overcome serious economic problems.

 

In 1976 Air France and British Airways jointly inaugurated Concorde service to destinations around the globe. Carrying up to 100 passengers in great comfort, the Concorde catered to first class passengers for whom speed was critical. It could cross the Atlantic in fewer than four hours - half the time of a conventional jet airliner. However its high operating costs resulted in very high fares that limited the number of passengers who could afford to fly it. These problems and a shrinking market eventually forced the reduction of service until all Concordes were retired in 2003.

 

In 1989, Air France signed a letter of agreement to donate a Concorde to the National Air and Space Museum upon the aircraft's retirement. On June 12, 2003, Air France honored that agreement, donating Concorde F-BVFA to the Museum upon the completion of its last flight. This aircraft was the first Air France Concorde to open service to Rio de Janeiro, Washington, D.C., and New York and had flown 17,824 hours.

 

Gift of Air France.

 

Manufacturer:

Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale

British Aircraft Corporation

 

Dimensions:

Wingspan: 25.56 m (83 ft 10 in)

Length: 61.66 m (202 ft 3 in)

Height: 11.3 m (37 ft 1 in)

Weight, empty: 79,265 kg (174,750 lb)

Weight, gross: 181,435 kg (400,000 lb)

Top speed: 2,179 km/h (1350 mph)

Engine: Four Rolls-Royce/SNECMA Olympus 593 Mk 602, 17,259 kg (38,050 lb) thrust each

Manufacturer: Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale, Paris, France, and British Aircraft Corporation, London, United Kingdom

 

Physical Description:

Aircaft Serial Number: 205. Including four (4) engines, bearing respectively the serial number: CBE066, CBE062, CBE086 and CBE085.

Also included, aircraft plaque: "AIR FRANCE Lorsque viendra le jour d'exposer Concorde dans un musee, la Smithsonian Institution a dores et deja choisi, pour le Musee de l'Air et de l'Espace de Washington, un appariel portant le couleurs d'Air France."

From William and Mary's own Nottoway Quarter tobacco, to the Tau Chi Literary Society's "large and curious smoking pipe," a cigarette holder decorated with (near-mascot) pugs, to a musical ashtray in William and Mary's green and gold, Swem Library's Special Collections Research Center holds documents and artifacts that reflect the history and changing fashions of tobacco in America.

 

Students in the NIAHD Field School in Material Culture (HIST 491-03/591-03, Prof. Susan Kern) have curated an exhibition of tobacco objects from Swem’s collection. Come visit the exhibition, but remember...No Smoking Allowed!

  

The Tobacco Economy

 

Since 1612, when John Rolfe first experimented with tobacco at Jamestown, throughout American history this cash crop has been a profitable commodity. During the colonial period, tobacco was used as legal tender to pay bills, clear debts, fund businesses and educational institutions, including the College of William and Mary. Virginia's 19th century tobacco economy spurred the growth of manufacturing, corporations, and transportation systems. Tobacco's story is tied to the beginning of slavery, and tobacco revenue helped the United States pay for the expenses of the Civil War.

 

This exhibit contains documents from William and Mary's own past as a producer and beneficiary of tobacco, as well as other business papers in Swem Library’s collection that show many aspects of the business of tobacco in Virginia.

    

Parts of A Tobacco Flower

William Tatham. An Historical and Practical Essay on the Culture and Commerce of Tobacco. London, 1800.

    

A Tobacco Flower

Jonathan Carver. A Treatise on the Culture of the Tobacco Plant; with the manner in which it is usually cured. Adapted to northern climates, and designed for the use of the landowners of Great-Britain. London, 1779.

     

John Player & Sons Tobacco Cards, England, 1926.

 

Purchase, January 2010.

 

John Player & Sons was a tobacco and cigarette manufacturer in England and one of the first English companies to include sets of general interest collectible cards in their cigarettes. Cigarette cards advertised for their brands. They were started in 1879 as a single card with the company’s name and contact information on it included in a cigarette pack. By 1885 cigarette brands began to compete for the most attractive images and information on their cards. Card-collecting quickly became popular throughout Europe and America and many consumers switched between cigarette brands in order to collect the most attractive cigarette cards.

 

This specific set of cigarette cards was made in 1926 and portrays the process of manufacturing tobacco from the field to the consumer.

 

Ephemera Collection, Mss. 1.02, Acc. 2010.084

  

“From Plantation to Smoker,” John Player & Sons Tobacco Cards, England, 1926.

Card #6: Topping Tobacco:

In order to maximize leaf production on tobacco when the plant begins to flower in late summer, planters remove the flower, a process called “topping.” Removing the flower causes the tobacco plant to switch from a seed producing plant to a plant with larger, heavier leaves.

Suckers: Once a tobacco plant has been through the topping process new buds begin to appear which are known as “suckers.” Suckers are removed manually by simply breaking them off of the plant.

  

Tobacco Leaves

Jonathan Carver. A Treatise on the Culture of the Tobacco Plant; with the manner in which it is usually cured. Adapted to northern climates, and designed for the use of the landowners of Great-Britain. London, 1779.

 

The location of a particular leaf on a tobacco plant determines its marketable value based on how much nicotine it contains. “Tips” are the shortest leaves at the top of the plant and contain the highest level of nicotine. “Leaf” are near the top of the plant and are longer and wider than tips with a moderate amount of nicotine. “Subleaf” and “cutters” are below the leaf level with a relative decrease in nicotine content. “Lugs” are the lowest leaves being short and wide in appearance with the least amount of nicotine.

    

Tobacco Hornworm

William Tatham. An Historical and Practical Essay on the Culture and Commerce of Tobacco. London, 1800.

 

Tobacco hornworms get their name from the prominent horn on the top of their last abdominal segment. The green color of the larvae allows them to be easily camouflaged when they are feeding on tobacco leaves. Because they damage valuable leaves, they are removed and destroyed by either drowning or snapping off of their heads. Once tobacco hornworms complete their transformation into adulthood they are known as either hawk moths or sphinx moths. The large moths are typically orange with yellow spots and have long forewings. The alkaloid (nicotine) in tobacco leaves is toxic to most insects except the hornworm.

     

Warehouses

William Tatham. An Historical and Practical Essay on the Culture and Commerce of Tobacco. London, 1800.

 

In 1713, in order to enforce tobacco inspections, the Virginia House of Burgesses established a warehouse system. In 1730, the Tobacco Inspection Act was passed which stated that all tobacco exported from Virginia had to meet a minimum standard of quality. Once tobacco passed inspection it was stored in official warehouses until it was shipped to England. In exchange for their crop passing inspection, planters received tobacco notes or warehouse receipts that could be used as currency.

    

Jonathan Carver. A Treatise on the Culture of the Tobacco Plant; with the manner in which it is usually cured. Adapted to northern climates, and designed for the use of the landowners of Great-Britain. London, 1779.

   

Letter, James Thomas, Jr., Richmond, Virginia. 1852.

 

Purchase, February 1939.

 

James Thomas, Jr. was a tobacco processor in Richmond. This letter is an example of his many correspondences regarding tobacco prices, accountings, and record of laborers.

 

James Thomas, Jr. Papers, Mss. 39.2 T38

    

Ledger, E.T. Pierce, Virginia. 1883-1885.

 

This is the ledger of E. T. Pierce, a merchant who sold tobacco fertilizers in both News Ferry and Halifax County, Virginia. Store merchants used ledgers to keep a detailed inventory of the products they bought and sold. Ledgers were especially valuable to tobacco merchants because they aided in keeping accurate records of all transactions that they would then be required to pay taxes on. Inaccurate records could lead to either overpaying or underpaying taxes, which would be considered an act of fraud. This ledger now is just as valuable to historians and genealogists searching for information about the past. Look carefully; do you recognize one of your ancestor’s names?

 

E. T. Pierce Ledger, Mss. MsV Ame T2 Oversize

    

Methods of Transporting Tobacco to Market

William Tatham. An Historical and Practical Essay on the Culture and Commerce of Tobacco. London, 1800.

 

Planters sent their tobacco to warehouses in large barrels called hogsheads that weighed about 1,000 pounds when fully packed. Water was the preferred route of travel. Hogsheads could be tied onto two canoes lashed together or on the flat-bottomed boats called bateaux that were developed during the 18th century for use on the sometimes-shallow upper James River.

 

Virginia's bumpy, and alternately dusty or muddy roads required other methods, none of which was as efficient as water carriage. Wagons could carry only a few hogsheads at a time. Rolling meant attaching a shaft to a single hogshead and harnessing draft animals to pull it to its destination.

    

Tax Stamp, R. A. Lively, Williamsburg, Virginia. 1883.

 

Gift of S.F. Royal via the Williamsburg Historic Records Association, 1990.

 

A Tax Stamp, also called an “Excise Stamp” or “Revenue Stamp,” was a physical representation of a tax. The stamp was placed in a specified location on tobacco and alcohol containers so when the product was opened the stamp would be broken. The United States Internal Revenue department originally taxed tobacco and alcohol to raise money to fund the Civil War.

 

S. F. (Bill) Royall, Jr. Papers, Acc. 1990.16

    

A Penny A Pound

 

During the colonial period, the College of William and Mary received money from tobacco in two ways. Beginning in 1692, the Navigation Act specified that William and Mary was to receive a penny for every pound of tobacco leaving the colonies of Virginia and Maryland for other plantations in the Americas. During the 18th century William and Mary owned plantation lands where College-owned slaves grew tobacco for export.

     

Tobacco Duties

Account of Duty, Lower Port James River, October 10, 1763-April 5, 1764.

 

Customs collectors from tobacco ports on the Pocomoke, Accomack, Rappahannock, York, Potomac, South Potomack, and the two James River districts (Upper and Lower Ports), sent accounts of duty to the College of William and Mary bursar. The collectors logged ships, cargo, and "whither bound." Various accounts show the College collecting money from tobacco headed to London, Newfoundland, Salem, Newbury, Piscataqua, New England, Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Georgia, Antigua, Barbados, and Grenada.

 

Accounts note duties paid in paper money, gold, German gold, and silver. In 1726, President James Blair made a plea to the Lords of Trade and Commissioners of Customs in England, for the College to collect duties from the "three lower counties in Pennsylvania" and from North Carolina to be paid in £ sterling and not in each colony's changeable currency.

 

College Papers Collection, UA 14

    

Account of Duties on Tobacco, July 28, 1769.

 

As late as 1769, the College of William and Mary Burser's Account recorded payment in the traditional English calendar terms of quarter days not by months. Hence the cycle of the year as Ladymass, Midsummer, Michaelmas, Xmas (Christmas).

 

College Papers Collection, UA 14

     

Bills of Lading

February 26, 1763, showing cipher for the College of William and Mary and record of shipment.

August 24, 1763, detail of "Nottoway Quarter" on reverse.

 

Tobacco from William and Mary's Nottoway Quarter plantation moved through inspection stations on the James River to ships bound for London. The Nottoway Quarter produced as many as 25 hogsheads of tobacco in a year - about 25,000 pounds of the weed. From 1718 to 1777 William and Mary owned between 17 and 30 slaves who grew tobacco to fund scholarships for students.

 

College Papers Collection, UA 14

    

Virginia Gazette, Dixon and Hunter, November 28, 1777 [copy].

 

The College of William and Mary sold its slaves and "plantation utensils" at auction in 1777.

     

Account of Receipt

C & O Hanbury, London, December 15, 1767.

 

The London merchant house of Capel and Osgood Hanbury, later Hanbury and Lloyd, managed the sale of College of William and Mary tobacco in European markets and the collection of funds owed to William and Mary from English sources, such as the Brafferton estate. Hanbury's letters often explain the highs and lows of the international tobacco markets, including two years of meager revenues due to College tobacco that was "mean" or showed "poorness of quality." In 1769, one London merchant advised the president and masters of the College "that the seed be changed & the overseer be admonished to be more careful in his conduct respecting [the crop]."

 

College Papers Collection, UA 14

      

Tobacco as Legal Tender

Minutes of the Faculty, William and Mary College, December 29, 1779, [transcription].

 

The College of William and Mary both collected and paid debts using tobacco.

 

In 1779, the College faculty decided "that a Student on paying annually one thousand pounds of Tobacco shall be entitled to attend any two of the following Professors, viz: of Law & Police, of Natural Philosophy & Mathematics, & of Moral Philosophy, the Laws of Nature & Nations, & of the fine arts, & that for fifteen hundred pound pounds [sic] he shall be entitled to attend the three said Professors, the fees to be paid at the at Period of the year when the Courses of Lecture commence."

 

The faculty paid a College steward in tobacco and slaves for his use: "Mr. James Wilson be allowed 3,000 lbs. of Tobacco pr annum, two men & a Boy, & any Benefit he can derive from the Garden after supplying the President & Professors with vegetables, as Steward & Gardener of the College."

  

From the Special Collections Research Center, Earl Gregg Swem Library at the College of William and Mary. See swem.wm.edu/scrc/ for further information and assistance.

SPECIAL REPORT: WHAT WENT WRONG

DO BUILDERS' BUCKS BUY POLITICAL POWER?

LISA GETTER Herald Staff Writer

December 20, 1992

Page: 7SR

 

As developers transformed the landscape of Dade County in the decade before Hurricane Andrew, more and more of their money fueled Metro Commission campaigns.

In 1980, building interests contributed almost one of every four campaign dollars collected, a Miami Herald analysis of campaign contributions showed. In 1986, when construction was booming, the building industry gave at least one of every three campaign dollars.

 

"Contributions from builders helped make it easier, quicker and more profitable for them to build," said political strategist Philip Hamersmith.

 

"People don't give contributions for better government reasons. They give for greater access to the County Commission and ultimately, to get the action or position they want."

 

To study the local political clout of the building industry, The Herald created a computer database to analyze major campaign contributions to Metro Commission candidates. The

commission has the final say over zoning and revisions to the South Florida Building Code. It also appoints the Board of Rules and Appeals, the panel that oversees the code.

 

The database included contributions of $100 or more that were given to any commission candidate who collected at least $20,000 for the six elections between 1980 and 1990. The study was limited to contributions of $500 or more for the 1988 election. The final database included 17,268 contributions.

 

It showed that:

 

* Building money accounted for about 27 percent of the money collected by commission candidates during the study period.

 

* Builders contributed about $2.2 million in the six elections -- more money than was collected in any single election year by all major candidates combined.

 

* More than half of the money that came from builders throughout the study period was contributed during the 1986 and 1988 elections, years when there was increased growth in the county.

 

* Political dollars from builders peaked in 1986, when 38 percent of the money collected came from the construction industry.

 

* Contributions from builders dropped significantly in 1990 to the 20 percent level, where they had been in 1982.

 

Engineer Herbert Gopman said his tenure on the Board of Rules and Appeals illustrates the power campaign money can buy.

 

Records show that Mayor Steve Clark appointed Gopman to the board in 1984, but Gopman said he really was the appointee of the trade unions.

 

Former Commissioner Beverly Phillips said appointments to the board often were made the way Gopman described. "We used to call the building and zoning people or the unions or the building trades" for names of nominees, she said. In hindsight, she said, it was "maybe the fox going into the hen house."

 

Gopman said trade unions considered him accountable to them. The study showed trade unions contributed about $80,500 to commissioners.

 

"In a controversial matter, they will call you out and say, 'You've got to vote this way.' I didn't always meet their demands," Gopman said. "I wasn't reappointed."

 

The 1992 grand jury concluded last week that "parts of the construction industry continually exert undue influence" on the board's decisions.

 

Homeowners' representatives say they are powerless to raise the kind of money that comes from the building industry.

 

"It's very difficult. You can sit and have a party for a commissioner and maybe raise $1,000 or $2,000," said Neal Alper, an officer in the Kendall Federation of Homeowners Associations. "But a developer, who stands to make hundreds of thousands of dollars in profits, can just contribute $1,000 at a time."

 

Chuck Lennon, the executive director of the Builders Association of South Florida, said the 1,100-member organization's political action committee contributes money every year to commission candidates -- about $23,000 during the decade, the study showed. Before contributing money, the PAC interviews candidates and makes endorsements.

 

"The only thing it does is give you entry. It doesn't give you their vote, but it does give you an opportunity to get their ear," Lennon said.

 

Mayor Clark, who received more money from builders than any other candidate, said he thinks builders supported him because he had been a general contractor. "If builders contributed to my campaign, I thank them for that," he said. "I didn't give them special treatment."

 

Former Commissioner Phillips, who often voted against builders, said she never sought their money. But she said she would at least listen to people who contributed to her.

 

"They gave money to me just so they could have my ear on occasion," she said.

 

The Latin Builders Association also interviews candidates and makes endorsements. Although its political action committee contributed only $8,000 throughout the decade, individual members have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars more.

 

Among past and present LBA members who contributed more than $10,000 during the decade, either individually or through their firms, were homebuilder Pedro Adrian, developers Erelio Pena, Jesus Portela and Felix Lima, engineering contractor Rolando Iglesias and plumbing company owner Sergio Pino.

 

"It gives you an open door with the commissioner. You're at least able to get an appointment with a commissioner and explain your case," said LBA executive director William Delgado.

 

Once the LBA board of directors decides who it will support, the organization sends a mailing to its approximately 1,000 members. The group also holds fund-raisers. It raised $45,000 for Sherman Winn at a 1986 fund-raiser and $77,000 for Clara Oesterle at a 1988 fund-raiser.

 

Under the guidance of zoning lawyer Tom Carlos, the LBA was successful in persuading the commission in 1985 to open 2,900 acres to development in West and Southwest Dade.

 

"There was a period there when the commission was definitely dominated by pro-development views. That can best be shown by votes on Master Plan applications," said Metro Commissioner Harvey Ruvin.

 

Ruvin voted against most of the changes in the county land- use plan. "As it turns out, a lot of that development, especially in the Southwest, did experience extreme hurricane damage," he said.

 

After the 1985 hearings, Carlos told the LBA leadership it needed to financially support the commissioners who voted for the changes.

 

"These events were very important," Carlos said in a 1988 interview about the fund-

 

raisers. "I wanted the commissioners to associate faces with contributions. Later, when we go to the commission on an application, I want the commissioners to think of the individual contributors when they see me. I want them to be accountable to the person who is an applicant and my client."

 

Reginald Walters, who retired this year after 28 years as Metro planning director, said special interests contribute money "to keep in good favor with the commissioners."

 

"As long as I had been with Dade County, growth had been very rampant and very strong and the building industry had always had a great influence over the commission," Walters said.

 

ANDREW'S WINDS EXPOSED FLAWS IN INSPECTION SYSTEM

Continued from Page 6SR,

INSPECTIONS: A BREAKDOWN IN THE SYSTEM

LISA GETTER Herald Staff Writer

 

inspections, saying he had jeopardized the public's safety. The surveillance showed that he spent 64 minutes of his day making 38 inspections, approving 30.

 

"That's in the past," Varona said in a recent interview. "That's over with me."

 

The computer showed that Varona had logged five days with more than 50 inspections, including the day in 1990 he reported making 82. Varona said he did not remember ever doing that many in a day. The most, he said, was "probably 50 or 55."

 

Everett said the high number of inspections he performed is misleading because he worked long days. The computer showed 40 times since 1988 when he was sent out on more than 50 inspections in a day.

 

"The grand jury had a report. They said you can't do that many. What I would say is go to the homeowner who reported seeing me at 8:30 p.m.," he said. "I have had many people come up to me after the hurricane and say, 'Mr. Everett, you may not remember me, but you inspected my house and it's still standing.' "

 

Tucker, the inspector who did 68 inspections in one day in 1988, said it's possible to do an excellent job if all the inspections are in the same neighborhood and many are rejected. The computer database indicates on that day he rejected 13 inspections and the remainder -- mostly slab and framing inspections -- were approved. He would not comment directly.

 

The county's chief code compliance officer, Charles Danger, said he doesn't think any inspector should make more than 20 inspections in a day. The department's new goal is 18. Danger was amazed to learn that inspectors made more than 50.

 

"It's impossible for a person to do that amount of inspections and do a good job on it," Danger said. "It's humanly impossible."

 

Inspectors testified to the 1990 grand jury that their inspections had been "inadequate and falsified" in many instances. They blamed the large number of daily inspections required.

 

"While we are certain that there are many qualified and dedicated building inspectors doing an effective job, we are also certain that others are not," the grand jurors wrote.

 

Grand jury investigators caught inspectors spending part of their work day watching women bowl, reading a newspaper in a library, sleeping in a car or going home early.

 

"Prior to the grand jury, the message that I had from upper management was to be more efficient as possible. We really tried to work our tails off," said Chief Building Inspector Roberto Pineiro. "The emphasis was put on productivity. After the grand jury report, the emphasis was put on quality."

 

Pineiro said he found it hard to believe that the computer database was accurate in pinpointing so many instances of high inspection days. His theories: clerks entered the data wrong; the inspections listed on those days were canceled; the inspections on those days were all in the same neighborhood.

 

"Building and zoning supervisors appear out of touch with the actual operations of the inspection department," the 1990 grand jurors concluded.

 

Inspector Rodriguez said times have changed since the days when inspectors were asked to make more inspections in a day than they could realistically complete. The computer database showed 33 times since 1988 in which he logged more than 50 daily inspections. Once, Rodriguez said, he was given a daily route sheet calling for him to make 110 inspections.

 

"We were being demanded to do all of our inspections. We just ran right through them," he said.

 

Sometimes, other inspectors would help. And sometimes, Rodriguez said he carried over inspections to the following day -- a practice that was frowned on by the department. The days in which Rodriguez carried over his inspections were not included in the Herald computer study.

 

Joaquin Avino, who has been county manager since 1988, said it would be "unrealistic" to make 110 inspections in a day. "Needless to say, as county manager, you don't look at the number of inspections an inspector was doing," he said.

 

The 1990 surveillance caught some inspectors who never left their cars when doing inspections. To some investigators, that's worse than taking money.

 

"I really don't know if it's the giving of money that's totally corrupt. Maybe it's not getting your butt out of your car to see if something was built right that's really corrupt," Metro-Dade detective Anthony Kost said in a recent interview. Kost worked on the 1986 undercover probe of the building department.

 

In that case, contractors literally threw money into the car of a Metro detective who was posing as an inspector. Eventually, 24 contractors, developers, homeowners and one building inspector were charged -- most with giving $10 and $20 bribes.

 

Roofing contractor Ernesto Valladares pleaded no contest after he gave the undercover officer $100 to approve three roofing inspections that had been rejected. Thirty homes contracted by Valladares' firm were uninhabitable after Andrew, computer data show.

 

"There was an awful lot of bribery going on. It was a common way of doing business," said former state prosecutor David Troyer, who handled the case. "I think it would be unreasonable to assume it began and ended with that investigation."

 

But none of the 15 who pleaded guilty in the 1986 probe got a harsh sentence. Judges were not inclined to sentence a developer to jail for a $20 bribe.

 

Ten years before Troyer's investigation, a 1976 grand jury condemned county inspections.

 

"Instead of requiring thorough, proper inspections, the county gave into the pressure of the building industry," the 1976 grand jury wrote. "The county should have been prepared to adequately staff the department during peak periods of construction with trained personnel. It was not prepared."

 

Franklyn Tarbox, an inspector from 1966 until 1982, said he never had to meet a quota.

 

"In the '70s and '60s, you checked how many nails were in the boards. I don't know, I guess it might have changed," he said. "How long would it take? Sometimes a half hour, sometimes an hour."

 

The importance of a thorough inspection became apparent when dentist Jeffrey Glasser had his South Dade house built in 1976. The county stopped work on the house after a building inspector supervisor discovered code violations that another inspector had missed.

 

The construction was so bad that an engineer determined the house would be "insecure under hurricane wind loads."

 

Glasser got a new contractor. The county suspended for three days the inspector who missed the shoddy work. The house survived Andrew.

 

Dade experienced another building boom in the 1980s. Instead of learning from its mistakes, the county repeated them.

 

"We kept increasing the fees, but we never kept up with the inspection needs," said former Metro Commissioner Beverly Phillips, who was defeated in 1988. The fees from building permits finance code enforcement.

 

The county increased the number of daily inspections each inspector was supposed to make -- from 22 in 1985 to 27 in 1989 to 29 in 1990, rather than provide enough money to adequately staff the department, or attract young inspectors who want to make the job a career.

 

Because the job requires construction experience, many don't become inspectors until after they have retired from another job. Dave Bacon, for instance, didn't become an inspector until he was 65. He died in 1982 at 75 -- while still on the county payroll as an inspector. Julio Aldecocea became an inspector this year. He is 63.

 

General contractor Eduardo Roca, 36, joined the building department as an inspector in July 1991. He left after three months for a better job.

 

"In a lot of cases, they're taking the rap for no need," Roca said of the inspectors. "In my experience, what I saw, the work was being carried out in a very professional manner and they were doing everything to the best of their abilities."

 

While the county was tight with money for code enforcement, the code itself was undergoing a transformation. Builders, seeking cheaper and faster ways to construct homes, began using products not envisioned by the writers of the original 1957 code.

 

Many developers relied on letters from engineers that certified they were using building products -- like premanufactured roof trusses -- that met the code. The letters were rarely challenged by inspectors. Roof trusses failed repeatedly in the storm.

 

"There was a lot of stuff run under engineering letters. I have no idea how good they were," former inspector Kurtz said. "If an engineer certified that it was done according to code, we would accept it."

 

A major problem in the hurricane was the failure of roof tiles. Code compliance chief Danger said the problem could have been lessened had inspectors been given scales to test for wind uplift. Danger said inspectors told him they don't have the scales or know how to use them.

 

But chief inspector Pineiro, who said inspectors were given scales, said they weren't needed. "With a scale you could go fishing," he said. "It's not required. It's a gadget."

 

Retired inspector Tarbox said he became concerned when the county began allowing builders to use staples to attach shingles to roofs.

 

But inspectors are powerless to change the code. It was adopted and can be changed only by the Metro Commission. The job of interpreting the code is left to the Board of Rules and Appeals, whose members are appointed by the commission.

 

Inspector Rodriguez blamed the shoddy construction uncovered by Andrew on several factors. "I think there was a combination of a lot of things: poor design, poor workmanship, no supervision, and just maybe if we had spent more time on inspections," he said.

 

Copyright 1992 Miami Herald

Profitable Soda Fountain Operation

Profitable Soda Fountain Operation

Chennai Central, erstwhile Madras Central, is the main railway terminus in the city of Chennai, formerly known as Madras. It lies adjacent to the current headquarters of the Southern Railway, as well as the Ripon Building, and is one of the most important railway hubs in South India. The other major railway hub stations in the city are Chennai Egmore and Tambaram. Chennai Central connects the city to New Delhi and prominent cities of India such as Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Coimbatore, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kolkata, Lucknow, Mumbai, Patna, Varanasi, Thiruvananthapuram, Visakhapatnam and so forth. The 142-year-old building of the railway station, one of the most prominent landmarks of Chennai, was designed by architect George Harding. Along with Chennai Beach, the station is also a main hub for the Chennai Suburban Railway system.

 

Chennai Central serves as a symbolic landmark for people in South India as this station served as the main gateway for all people who travelled to South India during the British times. About 350,000 passengers use the terminus every day. Chennai Egmore, Coimbatore Junction and Chennai Central are the most profitable stations of Southern Railways. As per a report published in 2007 by the Indian Railways, Chennai Central and Secunderabad were awarded 183 points out of a maximum of 300 for cleanliness, the highest in the country.

 

HISTORY

Marking the initial days of the railways in the Indian Subcontinent, the Madras Railway Company began to network South India in 1856. The first station was built at Royapuram, which remained the main station at that time. Expansion of the Madras Railways network, particularly the completion of the Madras–Vyasarpadi line, called for a second station in Madras, resulting in Madras Central coming into being.

 

Madras Central was built in 1873 at Parktown as a second terminus to decongest the Royapuram harbour station, which was being utilised for port movements. The station was built on the open grounds that had once been called John Pereira's Gardens, belonging to Joao Pereira de Faria (John Pereira), a Portuguese merchant in the port town of Negapatam (present day Nagapattinam) who settled in Madras in 1660. The garden had a house used by Pereira for rest and recreation. Having fallen into disuse, the garden had become a gaming den, with cock-fighting being the favourite sport at that time, until when the Trinity Chapel was built nearby in 1831 and the Railways moved into the area in the 1870s.

 

In 1907, Madras Central was made the Madras Railway Company's main station. The station gained prominence after the beach line was extended further south in the same year, and Royapuram was no longer a terminus for Madras. All trains were then terminated at Madras Central instead. The Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Company was formed in 1908 and took over the Central station from the Madras Railway Company. The station's position was further strengthened after the construction of the headquarters of the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway (erstwhile Madras Railway and now known as the Southern Railway) adjacent to it in 1922.

 

Madras Central was part of South Indian Railway Company during the British rule. The company was established in 1890 and was initially headquartered in Trichinopoly. Egmore Railway Station was made its northern terminus in 1908. It was then shifted to Madurai and later to Madras Central. With the opening of the Egmore Railway Station, plans were first made of linking Madras Central and Egmore, which was later dropped. The company operated a suburban electric train service for Madras city from May 1931 onwards in the Madras Beach-Tambaram section. In 1959, additional changes were made to the station. Electrification of the lines at the station began in 1979, when the section up to Gummidipoondi was electrified on 13 April 1979. The lines up to Tiruvallur were electrified on 29 November 1979 while the tracks along Platforms 1 to 7 were electrified on 29 December 1979.

 

EXPANSION

In the 1980s, the Southern Railway required land for expansion of the terminus and was looking for the erstwhile Moore Market building located next to the terminus. In 1985, when the market building caught fire and was destroyed, the structure was transferred to the Railways by the government, and the Railways built a 13-storied complex to house the suburban terminus and railway reservation counter. The land in front of the building was made into a car park. Following the renaming of the city of Madras in 1996, the station became known as Chennai Central. Due to increasing passenger movement, the main building was extended in 1998 with the addition of a new building on the western side with a similar architecture to the original. After this duplication of the main building, the station had 12 platforms. Capacity at the station was further augmented when the multi-storeyed Moore Market Complex was made a dedicated terminus with three separate platforms for the Chennai Suburban Railway system. In the 1990s, when the IRCTC was formed, modular stalls came up and food plazas were set up.

 

In 2005, the buildings were painted a light brown colour, but concurring with the views of a campaign by the citizens of Chennai and also to retain the old nostalgic charm, they were repainted in their original brick-red color. The station is the first in India to be placed on the cyber map.

 

LOCATION

The terminus lies on the southern arm of the diamond junction of Chennai's railway network, where all the lines of the Chennai Suburban Railway meet. The terminus is located about 19 km from Chennai International Airport. The main entrance is located at Park Town at the intersection of the arterial Poonamallee High Road, Pallavan Salai, and Wall Tax Road between the People's Park and the Southern Railways headquarters. The station premises is located on either side of the Buckingham Canal, formerly known as Cochrane's Canal, which separates the main station and the suburban terminus. Wall Tax Road runs alongside the station on the eastern side. There are two other entrances on the eastern and western sides of the complex. The eastern entrance on Wall Tax Road leads to platform no. 1, and the western entrance lies at the entrance of the suburban terminus. The station is connected with the Park railway station and the Government General Hospital, both located across the road, by means of subways. During the building of the Chennai Metro the connection from Chennai Park to Chennai Central is by means of a steel footbridge.

 

LAYOUT

ARCHITECTURE

Built in the Gothic Revival style, the original station was designed by George Harding and consisted of four platforms and a capacity to accommodate 12-coach trains. It took another five years for the work to be completed, when the station was modified further by Robert Fellowes Chisholm with the addition of the central clock tower, Travancore 'caps' on the main towers, and other changes. The redesign was eventually completed in 1900. The main building, a combination of Gothic and Romanesque styles has been declared as a heritage building. The clock tower with the flagstaff, the tallest of the towers of the main building, has four faces and reaches a height of 136 ft. It is set to chime every quarter of an hour and every hour.

 

PLATFORMS

Chennai Central station is a terminal station with bay platforms. The average length of railway tracks in the station is 600 metres. The entire complex has 15 platforms to handle long-distance trains with 3 platforms exclusively for suburban trains. The total length of the station is about 950 m. The main building has 12 platforms and handles long distance trains. The complex for suburban trains is popularly known as the Moore Market complex. There is a platform 2A between platforms 2 and 3; it is used to handle relatively short length trains like the Chennai Rajdhani Express, Vijayawada Jan Shatabdi Express, Bangalore/Mysore Shatabdi Express and the Gudur Passenger. The 13-storied annex building, the Moore Market Complex Building, has 3 platforms and handles north- and westbound suburban trains.

 

Chennai Central used to have trains with special liveries until the early 1990s. The Brindavan Express used to have green livery with a yellow stripe running above and below the windows; Nilgiri Express (popularly known as the Blue Mountain Express) had blue livery. All trains now have the standard blue livery (denoting air-braked bogies). Notable exceptions include the Rajadhani, Shatabdi and the Jan Shatabdi expresses. The Saptagiri/Tirupati Express has a vivid green/cream livery combination with a matching WAM4 6PE loco from Arakkonam (AJJ) electric loco shed.

 

The Chennai Central Station, unlike many other major railway stations in India, is a terminus. The next station to Chennai Central, Basin Bridge Junction, is the railway junction where three different lines meet.

 

As of 2015, all platforms except 2A platforms, in the station were able to accommodate trains with 24 coaches. Platform 2A is the shortest of all platforms in the station and can accommodate trains with 18 coaches. Chennai Central is the only station that has a platform numbered 2A. Though it was built actually for delivering water and goods to the station staff, the Shatabdi Express now starts from here.

 

BRIDGE

Bridge No.7 across the Buckingham Canal connects the terminus with the railway yards and stations to the north. The bridge, measuring 33.02 m in length and carrying six tracks, acts as the gateway to the terminus. The bridge was originally resting on cast iron screw pile. Following the 2001 accident of Mangalore–Chennai express killing 52 passengers, Southern Railway started replacing all bridges resting on screw piles, and the bridge was replaced with a new RCC box bridge resting on well foundation in September 2010, with ancillary works getting completed by March 2011.

 

TRAFFIC

On an average, 19 trains are operated daily from the station of which 12 have 24 coaches. About 200 trains arrive and depart at the station daily, including about 46 pairs of mail/express trains, in addition to 257 suburban trains handled by the three platforms at the station's suburban terminus. About 400,000 passengers use the terminus every day, in addition to 20,000 visitors accompanying them to see-off or receive them, generating a revenue of ₹6,590,214,293 (US$98 million) as of 2012–2013, making it the top revenue-generating station of the Southern Railway. There is likely to be around 180,000 passengers in the station at a given point.

 

The terminus also faces traffic problems. Often, express trains and EMU services that arrive at the Basin Bridge Junction in time have to be detained for non-availability of platforms at Chennai Central. Blocking of lines is a daily challenge owing to the traffic.

 

SERVICES

Chennai Central is a major transit point for shipment of inland and sea fish in South India through trains. The terminus handles fish procured from Kasimedu which is sent to Kerala and sea fish from the West Coast which is brought to Chennai and ferried to West Bengal. As of 2012, on an average, the terminus handles transportation of 200 boxes of fish, each comprising 50 kilograms to 70 kilograms of consumable fish. The station also handles 5,000 postal bags daily.

 

FACILITIES

The station has bookshops, restaurants, accommodation facilities, Internet browsing centres, and a shopping mall. The main waiting hall can hold up to 1,000 people. In spite of being the most important terminus of the region, the station lacks several facilities such as drinking water facility, a medical unit and coach position display boards. The main concourses too have long exhausted their capacity to handle the increasing passenger crowd. There are passenger operated enquiry terminals and seven touch-screen PNR status machines in the station. The station has three split-flap timing boards, electronic display boards and Plasma TVs that mention train timings and platform number. A passenger information center in the station has been upgraded with "Spot your Train" live train display facility, information kiosks and passenger digital assistance booths. The terminus, however, has only 10 toilets, which is inadequate to its 350,000 passengers.

 

As of 2008, there were 607 licensed railway porters in Chennai Central. Four-seater battery operated vehicles are available to cater to the needs of the elderly and the physically impaired.

 

On 26 September 2014, Chennai Central station became the first in the country to get free Wi-Fi connectivity. The facility is being provided by RailTel, a public sector telecom infrastructure provider.

 

EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE

In November 2012, a public interest writ petition was filed in the Madras High Court citing the lack of a full-fledged emergency medical care centre at the terminus. Further to this, the Southern Railway invited expression of interest from several hospitals in the city to establish a medical care centre.

 

On 15 April 2013, a new emergency medical care centre was opened. The centre has three beds, two doctors on duty and another on standby, four nurses, a paramedic team, and a round-the-clock ambulance. The centre is equipped with oxygen cylinders, an ECG, a defibrillator and resuscitation equipment. The terminus is the first railway station in the country to have facilities of an ambulance.

 

PARKING

The station has parking facilities for more than 1,000 two-wheelers. About 1,000 cars are parked in the standard car park every day. Since March 2008, a premium car park facility for 80 cars in addition to its regular car park is functioning at the station. The cement-concrete-paved premium parking is located between the Moore Market reservation complex and the station's main building. However, the station still faces parking problems. About 3,000 taxis arrives at the station every day.

 

MAINTENANCE

Chennai Central suffers from lack of enough maintenance crew, which lead to dirty and unhygienic trains. According to the Railway sources, as of July 2012, Chennai Central was 180 short of the sanctioned 405 maintenance employees, including mechanical, electrical and general maintenance, required for cleaning the interiors and exteriors of trains and undertaking routine mechanical and electrical maintenance of trains. Contracts for cleaning the station has been awarded for a period of three years from 2010 for a value of ₹ 43.1 million. In 2007, the number of dustbins in the station was 28.50 per 10,000 passengers.

 

On average, about 51 train units depart and arrive at the station from different parts of the country everyday. Of the 102 trains, a 12 are sent during the day and another 7 at night to the Basin Bridge Train Care Centre for primary maintenance, which involves complete exterior and interior cleaning and total mechanical and electrical overhaul. The rest of the trains go through secondary maintenance or 'other-end attention' at the depot or 'turn back train attention' at Chennai Central itself. Secondary maintenance includes filling water, while the third is the 'other-end attention', in which the train, especially the toilets, is cleaned. The fourth category of trains, such as Sapthagiri Express and Pallavan Express, are turn-back trains, which arrive and leave in a short time from Chennai Central after toilet-cleaning and water-filling is done right at the terminus platform.

 

The station has been divided into two zones for mechanised cleaning contracts. As of 2008, Chennai Central had about 30 sanitary workers employed on a contractual basis in Zone I (platforms 1 to 6). Zone II (platforms 7 to 12) was cleaned by close to 40 railway employees.

 

YARDS AND SHEDS

TRAIN CARE CENTRE

A broad-gauge coach maintenance depot, called the Basin Bridge Train Care Centre, is located at the northern side of the terminus, where trains of 18 to 24 coaches are checked, cleaned and readied for its next trip after they return from round trips. It is the largest train care centre under the Southern Railway where 30 pairs of trains are inspected every day. The yard has 14 pit lines, each 3-ft deep, to inspect undercarriage of trains, but only two lines can accommodate 24-coach trains. The rest are designed to park 18-coach trains. Five to six people are allotted to each train. As of 2012, the centre has 3,500 employees, a shortage of about 400.

 

Water accumulated in pit lines are let out into the Buckingham Canal by means of drainage channels. However, as the yard is located in a basin area, water does not drain quickly enough. In addition, the centre faces pests and other hygiene issues too.

 

ELECTRIC TRIP SHED

The terminus has an electric locomotive trip shed, the Basin Bridge electric loco trip shed, located north of the train care centre. It is one of the five loco trip sheds of the Southern Railway. To lessen load on the shed, an additional electric trip shed has been created at Tondiarpet, which also serves as a crew change point for freights.

 

GOODS SHED

The terminus has a goods shed attached to it at Salt Cotaurs.

 

RENOVATION

Chennai Central Station gets renovation after 2010, is undertaken by the building division of the Southern Railway with the technical assistance provided by the Chennai circle of Archaeological Survey of India. the work is carried out to ensure the original character of the building is maintained.The Station building has maroon colour since its inception in 1873.

 

CONNECTIVITY

Chennai Central railway station is a hub for suburban trains. Suburban lines originating from Chennai Central include West North Line, North Line, and West Line. Chennai Park suburban station is in proximity to the station, thus facilitating connectivity to Tambaram/Chengalpet/Tirumalpur routes through South Line and South West Line. Chennai Central can be directly reached from all suburban stations and MRTS stations in and around Chennai (except Washermanpet and Royapuram) either through its own MMC Complex for suburban trains or through the nearby Park suburban station or the Park Town MRTS station. Currently, there is only one direct suburban train that plies from Chennai Beach Junction to Chennai Central via Washermanpet and Royapuram, and hence there is no frequent direct connectivity for these two stations to Chennai Central. The Chennai Park Town MRTS station is close to Chennai Central station.

 

Chennai Central is connected to the Chennai Mofussil Bus Terminus and other parts of the city by buses operated by the Metropolitan Transport Corporation, by means of separate bus lanes near the main entrance, close to the concourse. There are prepaid auto and taxi stands at the station premises. However, only 30 autorickshaws are presently attached to the prepaid counter parking, as Chennai Metro Rail has acquired its parking area for station construction.

 

The terminus is connected to the Park railway station and the Government General Hospital by two subways on either side. The two subways, which are one of the first in the city, are used by thousands of commuters day round. Nevertheless, jaywalking prevails as a substantial number of commuters prefer crossing the road, at times resulting in accidents.

 

The terminus is connected with the Egmore station, the other most important terminus of the city, by a circuitous and congested route covering a distance of 11.2 km via Chennai Beach. There was initially a proposal to connect the two termini by means of an elevated section with double-line broad-gauge electrified track with two elevated platforms at Chennai Central, at the cost of ₹ 930 million, which would cut the distance to 2.5 km. The project, approved on 8 April 2003 and initially aimed to be completed by 2005, was later scrapped owing to the expected rate of return on the project being only 1 to 2 percent, poor soil conditions on the Poonamallee High Road, and other issues.

 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

The portion of the Buckingham canal running near the terminus and beneath Pallavan Salai is covered for 250 m, which makes the task of maintaining the canal difficult. After being desilted in 1998, the covered stretch of the canal near the terminus was cleaned in September 2012. Garbage is dumped into the canal via the openings near the Chennai Central premises. An estimated 6,000 cubic meters of silt was removed from the 2-m-deep canal.

 

INCIDENTS

On 14 August 2006, a major fire broke out in Chennai Central station, completely destroying a bookshop.

 

On 29 April 2009, a suburban EMU train from Chennai Central Suburban terminal was hijacked by an unidentified man, who rammed it into a stationary goods train at the Vyasarpadi Jeeva railway station, 4 kilometres northwest of Chennai Central. 4 passengers were killed and 11 were injured. The train which was scheduled to depart at 5:15 am started at 4:50 am instead. The train was moving with a speed of 92 km per hour with 35 passengers on board at the time of collision.

 

On 6 August 2012, a man hailing from Nepal perched atop the clock tower of the station's main building, creating a commotion. He was later safely persuaded back down the tower by the City Police and Southern Railway officials.

 

On 1 May 2014, the station witnessed two low-intensity blasts in two coaches S4 and S5 of the stationary Bangalore-Guwahati express, killing one female passenger and injuring at least fourteen.

 

SECURITY

In a first of its kind for the railways, a bomb disposal squad of the railway protection force, equipped with state-of-the-art gadgets imported at a cost of over ₹ 2.5 million, was inaugurated at Chennai Central on May 2002. The squad functions round the clock and its personnel were trained at the National Security Guard Training Centre at Maneswar and the Tamil Nadu Commando School. In 2009, following the train accident at the Vyasarpadi Jeeva station, surveillance cameras were installed at the suburban terminus platforms. A security boundary wall 200 m long was erected along platform 14 to check unauthorised persons entering the station. Two security booths were planned, one each at the main terminus and the suburban terminus. A government railway police (GRP) station is located on the first floor at the western end, headed by a DSP and two inspectors.[86]

 

In 2009, 39 CCTV cameras were installed in the premises along with a control room. In 2012, about 120 CCTV cameras are to be installed in Chennai Central. In April 2012, the GRP and the Railway Protection Force (RPF) together launched a helpline known as Kaakum karangal (literally meaning 'Protecting hands'). This involved dividing the terminus into six sectors and deploying 24 police personnel for security.

 

On 15 November 2012, Integrated Security System (ISS) was launched at the station, which comprises sub-systems such as CCTV surveillance system with 54 IP-based cameras, under-vehicle scanning system (UVSS) for entries and exits, and personal and X-ray baggage screening system. In addition, explosive detection and disposal squad have been deployed. The sub-system will be integrated by networking and monitored at the centralised control rooms. Existing CCTV network of suburban platforms has also been integrated to this system.

 

FUTURE

In 2004, a second terminal was planned near the Moore Market Complex, with six platforms to be constructed in the first phase of the project and four platforms each in the second and third phases. For additional infrastructure, the goods yard at Salt Cotaurs will be closed to provide more pit line and stabling line facilities for the new terminal.

 

In 2007, the Railway Board declared a plan to develop the terminus into a world-class one at a cost of ₹200 million (US$3.0 million), along with two other stations (Thiruvananthapuram Central and Mangalore Central), and a high-level committee was formed in 2009 to expedite the project at a total cost of ₹1,000 million (US$15 million). The plan included creating multi-level platforms where express and suburban trains could arrive and depart from the same complex. However, the project is yet to begin.

 

An underground metro station of the ongoing Chennai Metro Rail project is under construction at the Chennai Central station. It is one of the two metro stations where Corridor I (Airport–Washermanpet) of the project will intersect with Corridor II (Chennai Central–St. Thomas Mount via Egmore, CMBT). The metro station, being constructed at a depth of 25 metres, will be the largest of all metro stations in the city with an area of over 70,000 square metres. The station will act as a transit point for passengers from the Central, Park Town, and Park railway stations. It is estimated that more than 100,000 commuters will utilise the station daily.

 

In June 2012, the first skywalk in Chennai connecting Chennai Central, Park Railway Station and Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital was planned at a cost of ₹200 million (US$3.0 million). It will be 1 kilometre long, linking the station with nine points, including Evening Bazaar, Government Medical College and Ripon Buildings on Poonamallee High Road.

 

In February 2013, as part of a national initiative to eliminate ballast tracks at major stations, washable aprons - ballastless tracks or tracks on a concrete bed - were installed along the entire length of tracks of platforms 3, 4 and 5 at the terminus. Washable aprons that are already present for a few metres in some of the platforms at the terminus will be extended, viz. 30 metres on platform 3, 200 metres on platform 4, and 50 metres on platform 5, while new ones will be built on platforms with ballast tracks.

 

IN POPULAR CULTURE

Chennai Central railway station is one of the most prominent landmarks in the city that is often featured in movies and other pop culture in the region. The station has been used in numerous Indian novels and film and television productions over the years. Many films and television programs have been filmed at the station, including:

 

The station has been poetized by Vijay Nambisan in his 1988 award-winning poem 'Madras Central' published in 1989. The poem is regarded as a modern classic.

 

In 2009, the Department of Posts featured Chennai Central in a postal stamp.

 

WIKIPEDIA

Profitable poultry..

London :Darton & Co.,1854..

biodiversitylibrary.org/page/33902268

The early 1960's was a time of great change for Detroit. The economic recession that had set in in 1958, had cut great swathes from the profitability of the 'Big 3' auto makers - General Motors, Ford and Chrysler Corporation. It had also meant the end for many of the smaller independents, and critically wounded the others.

 

The other great change it had wrought was the introduction of the 'compact' US models, Corvair, Falcon and Valiant. These models gained share at the expense of the mid-scale, Big-3 brands, and also the offerings in the full-size classes.

 

These larger model were not forgotten about though. many of them gained space-age names, and used their extra size and market position to become more glamorous. Perhaps, also playing a part, was the rejection of such excessive styling. Though the fins had shrunk from the ultimate excess of the 1959 Cadillac, other stylistic features were still unrestrained. Chrysler had continued to evolve their 'forward look', first shown in 1957. For the 1961 Polara though, the cars reversed the rake of the fins, scalloping them out and framing the tail light, like a rocket-pod. At the front, a wide, concave grille with dual headlamps smoothed out and modernised the 'face'. Most of the central body still exhibited the form launched in 1960.

 

The companion 'Matador' model was discontinued, whilst the shorter-wheelbase 'Junior Dodge', the Dart, received the front end change, but with a more modest sweep of chrome on the rear flanks, joined by low-mounted tail lamps.

 

The pattern was set though, and volumes of full-size Dodges fell precipitously. Only 14,032 Polara were sold in the US for the 1961 model year.

 

As unappreciated as they were at the time, they now mark the end of an era in full-size US stylistic excess, and cut a fine line in a historic car show today.

 

This Lego miniland-scale 1961 Dodge Polara Hardtop and Convertible have been modelled for Flickr LUGNuts 69th Build Challenge, - 'The Summer of '69', celebrating vehicle of all makes and from any country made through the 1960's.

Profitable Soda Fountain Operation

Kerikeri stone store and Kemp House (and surroundings) - 08 October 2013

 

The Stone Store at Kerikeri in the Bay of Islands is New Zealand’s oldest surviving stone building.

Part of the first Church Missionary Society station in New Zealand, the store was designed by John Hobbs to replace an earlier wooden store house. The Stone Store was erected between 1832 and 1836 by mason William Parrott, carpenter Ben Nesbitt and a team of Māori. Construction was of sandstone from Australia, local volcanic rocks and burnt shell mortar. Iron ties and window bars were forged by James Kemp, (though these unfortunately corroded the sandstone). Initially it had a wooden belfry on one side.

The Stone Store was intended to be the base of the Church Missionary Society’s trading post, selling produce from the farms at Te Waimate mission to ships, and European goods to Māori. Marsden planned to build a flour mill on the adjacent Kerikeri River, but this was eventually built at te Waimate instead. Stone was used to protect wheat from rats, for defence against Māori and to reduce the risk of fire.

  

Stone Store

By the mid-1830s the mission stations could not compete with the private enterprise of other European settlers, either as traders or farmers, and the store was not profitable.

The building was converted into the mission library by Bishop Selwyn in the early 1840s. Following the sacking of Kororareka in the Flagstaff War, it was briefly taken over by Governor George Grey for use as a magazine and barracks. After the cessation of hostilities in 1845, the stone store was leased to become the centre of Kauri gum trading operation, and then in 1863 it was used to house a boys' school. The building was sold to the Kemp family in 1874, and was used as a general store, although it increasingly became a tourist attraction. The Stone Store was purchased from the Kemps by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust in 1975. Conservation work was done in the 1990s. The store, together with the neighbouring Mission House now form a small museum.

  

The Mission House at Kerikeri in New Zealand was completed in 1822[1] as part of the Kerikeri Mission Station by the Church Missionary Society, and is New Zealand’s oldest surviving building. It is sometimes known as Kemp House.

Samuel Marsden established the Anglican mission to New Zealand with lay preachers, who lived in the Bay of Islands under the protection of Hongi Hika, the chief of the local tribe, the Ngapuhi. In November 1819, Marsden purchased 13,000 acres (53 km²) from the Ngapuhi.

Marsden instructed the Reverend John Butler to erect buildings for the mission station under the shelter of the Ngapuhi Pa or fortress of Kororipo at Kerikeri, (Marsden, himself, Thomas Kendall and Hongi Hika left for Britain). Using Māori and skilled European labour, Butler had completed the centre piece Mission House by 1822, (despite being interrupted by the return of Kendall and Hongi Hika with a thousand muskets, and Kororipo being used as a base for the subsequent Ngapuhi military campaign in the Musket Wars).

  

Mission House

Butler’s house was a weatherboard clad, two-storey Georgian design with a verandah and two chimneys. It was built primarily from Kauri. At some point in the 1830s, a skilling was added, and the verandah was replaced with an enlarged design in 1843. In the 1920s a bathroom was added behind the kitchen.

Butler was sacked in 1823, and George Clarke occupied the building until the early 1830s, by which time the Ngapuhi had abandoned Kororipo, but the mission station was strong enough to feel no need for protection.

The house was occupied by James and Charlotte Kemp in 1832 and although initially part of an expanded mission presence, (including the Stone Store), it was later purchased by the Kemps, and stayed in that family for 142 years, until Ernest Kemp donated it to the New Zealand Historic Places Trust in 1976.

The Trust has restored the building to an approximation of its 1843 appearance, (although the verandah was higher, and the roof was not shingled). Together with the Stone Store, the Mission house is now a museum open to the public.

  

source:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Store

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_House

 

Quoting Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum | Grumman F8F-2, Bearcat, "Conquest I":

 

In 1969, Darryl Greenamyer broke the 30-year-old speed record for piston-engine aircraft held by the German Messerschmitt Me 209 when he reached 777 kilometers (483 miles) per hour in this heavily modified Grumman Bearcat. Greenamyer also won the National Air Races six times with this airplane before he donated it to the Smithsonian in 1977.

 

Grumman designed the Bearcat late in World War II as a replacement for the F6F Hellcat Navy fighter. It was noted for its exceptional climbing ability and maneuverability. Conquest 1 featured a shorter wingspan than the production Bearcat, a special small bubble canopy, a larger propeller taken from a Douglas A-1 Skyraider, and a propeller spinner from a North American P-51D Mustang. Special high-octane gasoline, fuel additives, and putty-sealed gaps to reduce drag greatly increased its speed.

 

Gift of the Fighter Aircraft Museum

 

Manufacturer:

Grumman Aircraft Engineering

 

Date:

1948

 

Country of Origin:

United States of America

 

Dimensions:

Wingspan:8.7 m (28 ft 6 in)

Length:8.4 m (27 ft 8 in)

Height:4.2 m (13 ft 8 in)

Weight, empty:3,488 kg (7,690 lb)

Weight, gross:6,121 kg (13,494 lb)

Top speed:777 km/h (483 mph)

Engine:Pratt & Whitney R-2800, 3,100 hp (modified)

 

• • • • •

 

Quoting Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum | Turner RT-14 Meteor:

  

Following his first Thompson Trophy victory in 1934, famed racing pilot Roscoe Turner contracted with the Lawrence W. Brown Aircraft Company to build a new racing aircraft. Designed by Turner and engineered by University of Minnesota professor Howard Barlow, the Turner racer was completed in mid-1936. Following flight tests, Matty Laird extensively redesigned the aircraft and added a larger wing and flaps.

 

Known as the Laird Turner LTR-14 and later the Turner RT-14, the modified racer placed third in the 1937 Thompson Trophy event at the National Air Races and won the 1938 and 1939 contests. With this aircraft, Turner became the only three-time winner of the Thompson Trophy. In 1939 the aircraft was sponsored by Champion Spark Plugs and therefore carried the name "Miss Champion" on its fuselage.

 

Donated by the Estate of Roscoe Turner

 

Manufacturer:

Lawrence W. Brown Aircraft Co. and Matty Laird

 

Designer:

Roscoe Turner

 

Date:

1930

 

Country of Origin:

United States of America

 

Dimensions:

Wingspan 7.71 m (25 ft. 3.5 in.)

Length 7.11 m (23 ft. 4 in.)

Height 3.05 m (10 ft.)

Weight 1,427 kg (3,300 lb.) empty

 

• • • • •

 

Quoting Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum | Boeing 367-80 Jet Transport:

 

On July 15, 1954, a graceful, swept-winged aircraft, bedecked in brown and yellow paint and powered by four revolutionary new engines first took to the sky above Seattle. Built by the Boeing Aircraft Company, the 367-80, better known as the Dash 80, would come to revolutionize commercial air transportation when its developed version entered service as the famous Boeing 707, America's first jet airliner.

 

In the early 1950s, Boeing had begun to study the possibility of creating a jet-powered military transport and tanker to complement the new generation of Boeing jet bombers entering service with the U.S. Air Force. When the Air Force showed no interest, Boeing invested $16 million of its own capital to build a prototype jet transport in a daring gamble that the airlines and the Air Force would buy it once the aircraft had flown and proven itself. As Boeing had done with the B-17, it risked the company on one roll of the dice and won.

 

Boeing engineers had initially based the jet transport on studies of improved designs of the Model 367, better known to the public as the C-97 piston-engined transport and aerial tanker. By the time Boeing progressed to the 80th iteration, the design bore no resemblance to the C-97 but, for security reasons, Boeing decided to let the jet project be known as the 367-80.

 

Work proceeded quickly after the formal start of the project on May 20, 1952. The 367-80 mated a large cabin based on the dimensions of the C-97 with the 35-degree swept-wing design based on the wings of the B-47 and B-52 but considerably stiffer and incorporating a pronounced dihedral. The wings were mounted low on the fuselage and incorporated high-speed and low-speed ailerons as well as a sophisticated flap and spoiler system. Four Pratt & Whitney JT3 turbojet engines, each producing 10,000 pounds of thrust, were mounted on struts beneath the wings.

 

Upon the Dash 80's first flight on July 15, 1954, (the 34th anniversary of the founding of the Boeing Company) Boeing clearly had a winner. Flying 100 miles per hour faster than the de Havilland Comet and significantly larger, the new Boeing had a maximum range of more than 3,500 miles. As hoped, the Air Force bought 29 examples of the design as a tanker/transport after they convinced Boeing to widen the design by 12 inches. Satisfied, the Air Force designated it the KC-135A. A total of 732 KC-135s were built.

 

Quickly Boeing turned its attention to selling the airline industry on this new jet transport. Clearly the industry was impressed with the capabilities of the prototype 707 but never more so than at the Gold Cup hydroplane races held on Lake Washington in Seattle, in August 1955. During the festivities surrounding this event, Boeing had gathered many airline representatives to enjoy the competition and witness a fly past of the new Dash 80. To the audience's intense delight and Boeing's profound shock, test pilot Alvin "Tex" Johnston barrel-rolled the Dash 80 over the lake in full view of thousands of astonished spectators. Johnston vividly displayed the superior strength and performance of this new jet, readily convincing the airline industry to buy this new airliner.

 

In searching for a market, Boeing found a ready customer in Pan American Airway's president Juan Trippe. Trippe had been spending much of his time searching for a suitable jet airliner to enable his pioneering company to maintain its leadership in international air travel. Working with Boeing, Trippe overcame Boeing's resistance to widening the Dash-80 design, now known as the 707, to seat six passengers in each seat row rather than five. Trippe did so by placing an order with Boeing for 20 707s but also ordering 25 of Douglas's competing DC-8, which had yet to fly but could accommodate six-abreast seating. At Pan Am's insistence, the 707 was made four inches wider than the Dash 80 so that it could carry 160 passengers six-abreast. The wider fuselage developed for the 707 became the standard design for all of Boeing's subsequent narrow-body airliners.

 

Although the British de Havilland D.H. 106 Comet and the Soviet Tupolev Tu-104 entered service earlier, the Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8 were bigger, faster, had greater range, and were more profitable to fly. In October 1958 Pan American ushered the jet age into the United States when it opened international service with the Boeing 707 in October 1958. National Airlines inaugurated domestic jet service two months later using a 707-120 borrowed from Pan Am. American Airlines flew the first domestic 707 jet service with its own aircraft in January 1959. American set a new speed mark when it opened the first regularly-scheduled transcontinental jet service in 1959. Subsequent nonstop flights between New York and San Francisco took only 5 hours - 3 hours less than by the piston-engine DC-7. The one-way fare, including a $10 surcharge for jet service, was $115.50, or $231 round trip. The flight was almost 40 percent faster and almost 25 percent cheaper than flying by piston-engine airliners. The consequent surge of traffic demand was substantial.

 

The 707 was originally designed for transcontinental or one-stop transatlantic range. But modified with extra fuel tanks and more efficient turbofan engines, the 707-300 Intercontinental series aircraft could fly nonstop across the Atlantic with full payload under any conditions. Boeing built 855 707s, of which 725 were bought by airlines worldwide.

 

Having launched the Boeing Company into the commercial jet age, the Dash 80 soldiered on as a highly successful experimental aircraft. Until its retirement in 1972, the Dash 80 tested numerous advanced systems, many of which were incorporated into later generations of jet transports. At one point, the Dash 80 carried three different engine types in its four nacelles. Serving as a test bed for the new 727, the Dash 80 was briefly equipped with a fifth engine mounted on the rear fuselage. Engineers also modified the wing in planform and contour to study the effects of different airfoil shapes. Numerous flap configurations were also fitted including a highly sophisticated system of "blown" flaps which redirected engine exhaust over the flaps to increase lift at low speeds. Fin height and horizontal stabilizer width was later increased and at one point, a special multiple wheel low pressure landing gear was fitted to test the feasibility of operating future heavy military transports from unprepared landing fields.

 

After a long and distinguished career, the Boeing 367-80 was finally retired and donated to the Smithsonian in 1972. At present, the aircraft is installated at the National Air and Space Museum's new facility at Washington Dulles International Airport.

 

Gift of the Boeing Company

 

Manufacturer:

Boeing Aircraft Co.

 

Date:

1954

 

Country of Origin:

United States of America

 

Dimensions:

Height 19' 2": Length 73' 10": Wing Span 129' 8": Weight 33,279 lbs.

 

Physical Description:

Prototype Boeing 707; yellow and brown.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!

  

Some background:

Aeroflot is one of the oldest airlines in the world, tracing its history back to 1923. During the Soviet era, Aeroflot was the Soviet national airline and the largest airline in the world. Following the dissolution of the USSR, the carrier has been transformed from a state-run enterprise into a semi-privatized company which ranked 19th most profitable airline in the world in 2007. Aeroflot is still considered to be the de facto national airline of Russia, being 51%-owned by the Russian Government.

 

After WWII, Aeroflot's route network had extended to 295,400 kilometers (183,600 mi), and by 1950 it carried 1,603,700 passengers, 151,070 tonnes (333,050,000 lb) of freight and 30,580 tonnes (67,420,000 lb) of mail during the same year. The 20th Communist Party Congress, held in 1956, saw plans for Aeroflot services to be dramatically increased. The airline would see its overall activities increased from its then current levels by 3.8 times, and it was set the target of the carriage of 16,000,000 passengers by 1960. In order to meet these goals, Aeroflot introduced higher capacity turbojet and turbine-prop aircraft on key domestic routes, and on services to Aeroflot destinations abroad.

 

A major step for Aeroflot occurred on 15 September 1956 when the Tupolev Tu-104 jet airliner entered service on the Moscow-Omsk-Irkutsk route, marking the world's first sustained jet airline service. The airline began international flights with the type on 12 October 1956 with flights from Moscow to Prague. The aircraft placed Aeroflot in an envious position, as airlines in the West had operated throughout the 1950s with large piston-engine aircraft. By 1958 the route network covered 349,200 kilometers (217,000 mi), and the airline carried 8,231,500 passengers, and 445,600 tons of mail and freight, with fifteen percent of all-Union services being operated by jet aircraft.

 

Aeroflot introduced the Antonov An-10 and Ilyushin Il-18 in 1959, and together with its existing jet aircraft, the airline was able to extend services on modern aircraft to some twenty cities during 1960. The Tupolev Tu-114, then the world's largest airliner, entered service with the Soviet carrier on 24 April 1961 on the Moscow-Khabarovsk route; covering a distance of 6,980 kilometers (4,340 mi) in 8 hours 20 minutes. The expansion of the Aeroflot fleet saw services with modern aircraft being extended to more than forty cities in 1961, with fifty percent of all-Union services being operated by these aircraft. This fleet expansion also saw the number of passengers carried in 1961 skyrocketing to 21,800,000.

 

Further expansion came in 1962 when various medium and short-haul routes were started and respective aircraft types such as the Tupolev Tu-124, Ilyushin Il-60 and Antonov An-24 entered regular service with Aeroflot. The Tu-124 was a jet airliner, technically an 75% version of the Tu-104, while the An-24 was a lighter twin turboprop aircraft in the class of the Fokker F.27. The Il-60 was the latest addition to the domestic services, falling in between both other types.

 

Development of the Ilyushin Il-60 dated back to 12 October 1951, when the Soviet Council of Ministers published a specification for a medium-range aircraft carrying 50 to 70 passengers and 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) of cargo on routes up to 2,000 km (1,100 nmi; 1,200 mi) with a cruising speed of about 600 km/h (320 kn; 370 mph). The type was to replace the piston engine Ilyushin Il-14 on domestic routes. The number and type of engines were not specified, but jet or turboprop engines were expected and emphasis was put on ruggedness and ease of operations for operations on rural airstrips with a minimum of infrastructure.

 

Ilyushin’s OKB-240 responded at first with a scaled-down Il-18 turboprop airliner, somewhat inspired by an idea of Czech manufacturer Avia for a smaller, short-range airliner for the CSA’s Central European routes. This machine had only two engines and overall reduced dimensions, but used many components of the original airliner. But it soon became clear that the Tu-104 with its jet engines had already set higher standards, so that a completely new and more innovative design was started.

 

Internally known as “Aircraft 60”, the machine introduced some innovations while still being a conservative design. The aircraft was a two turboprop-engine low-wing monoplane with slightly swept (20° at quarter chord) wings, a circular pressurized fuselage and a conventional, yet markedly swept tail (both fin and stabilizer at 45°). The aircraft had two entry doors on the port-side before and after the wing, two overwing emergency exits on each side, and featured a retractable stairway under the rear fuselage so that passengers could directly enter the aircraft from the airfield. An APU was integrated in the rear fuselage, under the fin, for independent operation of the air condition system and starting the engines without external support.

The tricycle landing gear had four wheels fitted on the main leg bogies, which retracted inwards to lie under the fuselage instead of into the engine nacelles. The front wheel also had twin wheels, retracting forward in a well under the cockpit floor, and the aircraft’s low-pressure tires allowed operations even from grass airfields or snowy ground. Another novel feature at the time was the fitting of a weather radar in the nose, a civilian RPSN-2 "Emblema" system, doing away with the typical glazed navigator position of other former Soviet airliner designs. In order to support all-weather operations and ease the pilots’ work, “Aircraft 60” was also outfitted with an automatic approach system, supported by the radar which allowed blind navigation.

 

Despite vibration and noise problems, experienced with the earlier Il-18 airliner, Ilyushin insisted on turboprop propulsion because it was the more fuel-efficient option. He furthermore expected that no another jet-driven airliner would be politically “allowed” along the Tu-124 short haul airliner, at that time under parallel development.

 

“Aircraft 60” was powered by a pair of Kuznetsow NK-6K turboprops. This engine was one of several developments after World War II by a team of Russian scientists and deported German engineers under Ferdinand Brandner, which had worked for Junkers previously, evolving from late war German turboprop studies. This the post-war development was based on the wartime Jumo 022 turboprop design that developed 6000 eshp in a 3000 kg engine. The efforts continued with a 5000 ehp engine that weighed in at 1700 kg, completed by 1947, and with further weight savings and more modern materials, the NK-6, one of several development directions, became a large single-spool engine that was optimized for use on board of commercial aircraft like “Aircraft 60”.

 

For security reasons, the engines were mounted in front and above of the wings’ leading edge. In order to keep the wing structure as clean and simple and possible and not risk collateral damage to the landing gear in case of an engine fire, the landing gear was retracted into wells under the wing roots. This measure also kept the engine nacelle’s dimensions in very compact limits.

In order to minimize noise and vibrations, 2x4-bladed contraprops with an automatic feathering system were mounted, resulting in a characteristic humming noise when the engines were running. Due to the lower speed of these propellers, compared to a standard four- or five-blade propeller, the internal and external noise level could be significantly reduced (compared to the Il-18, which could drone at 110db in the cabin above the wings!), even though the lower frequency caused other problems, mainly vibrations at certain speeds that shook the whole airframe.

 

The standard seating of the initial version, the Il-60A, was 52 seats at a 90cm distance between the five-seat rows (two seats on port side and three on starboard). Alternatively, a maximum of 72 could be mounted in a cramped “tourist class” configuration with only 78cm distance between the seat rows, which became the late production standard configuration as Il-60B.

 

The first of two prototypes made its first flight from Zhukovsky airfield on 24 March 1960. The second prototype followed in June 1960. Two other airframes served as a static test cells. Testing was successful, and the aircraft entered production at Machinery Plant No. 30 located at Khodynka, near Moscow, replacing the Il-18 in production. Deliveries to Aeroflot began in August 1962, with the type operating its first scheduled passenger service, between Moscow and Tallinn in Estonia, on 2 October 1962.

 

The Il-60’s production remained only on a small scale, though: being a pure jet, the Tu-124 was preferred by the Aeroflot for short haul duties, as well as by the Powers That Be. Despite the type’s merits esp. in harsh climate conditions (most Il-60 were allocated to Aeroflot’s feederline services in the Soviet Union’s northern regions), the type was not popular among its crews. While the two turboprops gave sufficient power, had good handling across the whole speed envelope and the aircraft had no trouble remaining airborne with one engine shut down, the asymmetrical drag/thrust in this emergency condition was considerable and navigating the Il-60, and even more landing the aircraft, with only one engine was a challenging task.

 

Furthermore, the stalky landing gear, which prompted the crews' inofficial nickname "косино́жки" (kosinozhki = daddy longlegs), could start to vibrate under certain conditions and wobble, making a start or landing run a shaky if not dangerous affair, esp. on snow-packed and non-permanent runways. Furthermore, two Il-60 crashed on runways or airfields after hitting obstacles ubnder snow - the long front landing gear collapsed. Nobody on board was seriosuly hurt in both cases, but these accidents did not improve the type's reputation among both pilots and passengers alike.

 

Only a total of 44 machines were built: 18 Il-60As for selected connections abroad (e. g. to Scandinavia and Poland), plus 26 Il-60Bs with higher seat capacity for purely domestic service. Both machines were identical from the outside, though, and all production aircraft featured a characteristic spinal fin root extension that covered several radio and navigation antennae.

 

Ilyushin had plans for a stretched version (with two plugs inserted into the fuselage in front of and behind the wings) with a 2.2m longer fuselage and a maximum capacity of 85 passengers, and also worked on a jet-powered update with engine nacelles on pylons under and in front of the wings. But none of these improvements was turned into hardware, since not only the Tu-124 had become the preferred short/medium haul airliner for Aeroflot, the following Tu-134 had also become the political favorite, and OKB-240 focused on its long-range airliner Il-62.

 

Il-60 production already ended after only two years in 1964, and Aeroflot decommissioned its last twelve Il-60s on 21 January 1980, after more and more structural problems (wing spar cracks, caused by the NK-6’s vibrations) had become apparent and several aircraft had to be grounded.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 3 (captain, first officer and a flight engineer),

plus another seat for an optional navigator or a radio officer,

plus a three- or four-person cabin crew

Capacity: 52 – 72

Payload: 8.4 t (9.3 short tons)

Length: 32,54 m (106 ft 7 in)

Wingspan: 34.3 m (112 ft 6 in)

Height: 11,74 m (38 ft 5 1/2 in)

Wing area: 146.7 m² (1,579 sq ft)

Empty weight: 22.2 t (24.5 sT)

Max. takeoff weight: 46 t (50.7 sT)

 

Powerplant:

2× Kusnetzow NK-6K turboprop engines, rated at 3,318 kW (4,612 ehp) each

 

Performance

Maximum speed: 805 km/h (500 mph/435 knots)

Cruise speed: 665 km/h (424 mph/370 knots)

Range (Typical payload, 2 hr reserve): 2,400 km (1,300 nmi/1,490 mi)

Rate of climb: 2,750 ft/min (14.0 m/s)

Service ceiling: 11,000 m (36,000 ft)

  

The kit and its assembly:

“In Soviet Union, Aeroflot flies you!” And in order to prove this theory, this whiffy airliner is contribution #3 to the “Soviet Group Build” at whatifmodelers.com in early 2017.

 

It’s been a very long time that I had built a small-scale airliner, but then I found a (crappy!) 1:144 Mistercraft Caravelle III in my stash (actually, a re-boxed kit from a company called “Ruch” from the Sixties!), that I had originally bought just for the wings as a pure donor kit. This appears to be a blunt copy of the also rather vintage Airfix kit, but the latter has much more crisp details. O.K., the Mistercraft kit was cheap – but you have to pay otherwise…

 

Anyway, anything Soviet without an elegant Aeroflot airliner would not be complete, so I tackled this idea on short notice. The project had also been fueled by another project idea: a modern short-haul airliner like the Tu-204, but outfitted with turboprops instead of turbofan engines. For this idea (and other uses), I also had a conversion set from a Russian company called “Kompakt Mir” stashed away, with four resin 1:144 NK-14 engines. It’s actually as an aftermarket upgrade set for the Trumpeter Tu-95 model kit, but came in handy – and it is excellent stuff, by the way, with crisp detail, almost no flash or sinkholes.

 

With these ingredients, work went on quickly and straightforward, and wings and fuselage were started separately. The wings (a combined piece with a mutual underside) received fairings for engine nacelles, made basically from drop tank halves glued to the upper wing surface. Then the resin engines were mounted to the fairings’ front ends the gaps and the nacelles’ underside sculpted with 2C putty, plus some later fine-tuning with NC putty. The Caravelle’s inward-retracting landing gear was retained, keeping the engine fairings rather short and compact.

 

On the fuselage, the Caravelle's original engines and their attachment points disappeared. The triangular windows were drilled open into circular shape, later, as a final finishing step, filled with Humbrol ClearFix for shiny window panes - this improves the overall look a lot.

 

Lead was added in the nose, the retractable stairway under the rear fuselage kept (a very Soviet design detail!) and the Caravelle’s characteristic round fin tip was cut away, to be replaced with a square scratch transplant. The stabilizers were moved down and their round tips clipped, too.

 

On the nose, a scratched thimble radome was added and blended into the fuselage, for an Il-18-ish look. While these were rather simple, cosmetic measures on the fuselage, the look of the whole aircraft was changed into a much more modern design!? This was even more emphasized when the wings and stabilizers were added – the Il-60 looks very contemporary, nothing of the Caravelle’s Fifties flavor remains.

 

The landing gear is new, bashed from the bogies of the recently slashed Dragon 1:144 B-1B bomber I abused for my Fastback build, and leftover struts from an Acedemy 1:144 Tu-22M. The latter also donated a pair of main wheels for the front leg, which is, again, from the B-1B.

The new arrangement is considerably taller than the Caravelle’s, but with the large propellers this is a convenient and plausible arrangement, despite a rather stalky appearance due to the relatively short wheelbase. The eight main wheels were taken from the RUCH kit, even though the attachment point would not fit the B-1 struts at all...

  

Painting and markings:

One can argue about Soviet aircraft design or reliability – but I must admit that I liked the Aeroflot aircraft liveries since I can remember them as a child, sometimes even witnessing Tupolev or Yak jets at the local airport. The white-and-blue outfit with almost baroque trim and details was and is IMHO a very elegant design, worthy of a state airline (which had a menacing, if not mysterious Big Brother image during the Cold War times in which I grew up).

 

Another interesting fact is that, despite the basic colors were set, each Aeroflot type bore a typical and different paint scheme, plus some exotic designs like the polar service machines with lots of red added.

 

Consequently, I had a lot of freedom, and work was made even more easy through the Mistercraft Caravelle kit: it actually contains markings for a Caravelle in Aeroflot markings! “Nonsense!”, you might say – but this aircraft actually existed: it was a movie prop (actually Air France’s F-BJTR) for filming “Enigma” at Le Bourget Airport in 1981 (check this for reference: www.airliners.net/photo/Aeroflot-%28Air-France%29/Sud-SE-...). As a side note, there was another Caravelle in fictional Interflug or ČSA colors, too, as well as a camouflaged SMB2 Super Mystère and a NMF Mystère IV with red stars on white discs, both playing the role of Soviet MiG-19s!

 

Anyway, the OOB decal sheet offered enough material for my plans, even though the blue trim was created from generic decal sheet. But door decals and most Aeroflot markings came from the movie aircraft.

 

Painting was also a pretty straightforward affair: the fuselage was painted white with acrylic paint from the rattle can, the lower fuselage by brush with Polished Aluminum Metallizer from Humbrol (which creates a very bright and clean finish) on top of a Revell Acrylics Aluminum primer coat.

For some contrast to the white and blue I painted the fixed wing parts with light grey, the rudders in Aluminum and Steel, and orange wing and stabilizer tips were added as small, additional contrasts, later even highlighted with dayglow orange.

 

In order to add some weirdness to the look, the propeller blades were painted bright blue with yellow tips. Unusual, but a common Soviet/Russian/Chinese practice.

  

A rather simple conversion, but highly effective. The Caravelle’s traces are almost not to be identified anymore, even though fuselage and wings consist of OOB material with only superficial modifications or re-locations. The engines on the wings change the look, too, and despite being massive NK-12’s they are a good match for the compact airliner – I am very happy with the outcome, even though the overall lines look much more modern than late Fifties design – even though no more modern parts were actually integrated? Weird, but entertaining. J

My friend takes a Church member through the good person test. She thought she was a good person.

 

It is written in Proverbs 20:6 "Most men will proclaim every one his own goodness: but a faithful man who can find?"

 

It is a common practice for people to play down their sinfulness by declaring, "nobody's perfect" as if to admit that they make mistakes but overall they are good and God will find favor in their acts of kindness, giving and sacrifice.

 

It is written in Proverbs 14:12 "There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death."

 

The Word of God alone has authority to teach us all that we need to know about what is good.

 

"I have not departed from the command of His lips; I have treasured the words of His mouth more than my necessary food." Job 23:12

 

It is written in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."

 

And God is the source of all knowledge and wisdom.

 

As it is written in Colossians 2:1-4 "For I want you to know how great a struggle I have on your behalf and for those who are at Laodicea, and for all those who have not personally seen my face, that their hearts may be encouraged, having been knit together in love, and attaining to all the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God’s mystery, that is, Christ Himself, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I say this so that no one will delude you with persuasive argument."

 

And it is also written in Colossians 2:8-10 "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority."

 

God instructs us in His Word that no one on earth does good or is good.

 

As it is written in Psalm 53:2-3 "God looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. Every one of them has turned aside; together they have become corrupt; There is no one who does good, not even one."

 

And it is also written in Romans 3:10-12

 

"...There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God; All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, there is not even one."

 

It is also written in Jeremiah 17:9 that "The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?"

 

And in Mark 10:18 Jesus said to the rich young ruler, "...Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone." Mark 10:18

 

And in Ecclesiastes 7:20 it is written, "Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins."

 

If we are able to be honest with ourselves it becomes clear that no matter how much we try to make up for our sins of the past we are still guilty.

 

As it is written in Isaiah 64:6 "For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us wither like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away."

 

"The exercise of justice is joy for the righteous, But is terror to the workers of iniquity." Proverbs 21:15

 

Confessing our guilt does not exonerate us from our transgressions against God. To understand this we could imagine a person standing before an earthly judge who is guilty of a crime and there is audio/video evidence along with witness testimony. The criminal confesses their crimes and pleads guilty but the person does not go free simply because they take responsibility for their actions. A good judge will not let a criminal go free. All of the criminal's righteous acts of the past, present and future are worthless to the judge who must be just in his ruling. A good judge will not be bribed.

 

"For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil." Ecclesiastes 12:14

 

As it is written in Nahum 1:3 that "The LORD is slow to anger and great in power, And the LORD will by no means leave the guilty unpunished. In whirlwind and storm is His way, And clouds are the dust beneath His feet."

 

Sin is a serious offense. No matter how minor the transgression there is an eternal consequence for every action.

 

As it is written in 1 Corinthians 15:56 that, "The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law."

 

And in Ezekiel 18:4 it is written, "Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die."

 

And in Revelations 21:8 it is written, "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

 

Notice that just one act of disobedience will result in eternal separation from God's love & mercy.

 

"For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all." James 2:10

 

"Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you, Reprove a wise man and he will love you." Proverbs 9:8

 

As it is written in Ephesians 5:6,"Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience."

 

Always test every thing you hear and read with the inspired Word of God .

 

As it is written in 1 John 4:1, "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."

 

And in 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22, "Do not quench the Spirit; do not despise prophetic utterances. But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil."

 

If we have a fear of God's wrath because we have an understanding of His knowledge of our transgressions against Him then hopefully our fear will lead us to "seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness" as it is written in Matthew 6:33.

 

In Proverbs 1:7 it is written, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction."

 

Hopefully you understand as it is written in Romans 9:16 that, "...it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy."

 

As an unbeliever I am spiritually dead in my sins and transgressions because it is shown in Ephesians 2:1-2 that Christians were all at one time in their lives, "dead in trespasses and sins, in which they formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience."

 

With my heart humbled by the teachings of God and with great humility I agree with the Scriptures that in James 4:10 to, "Humble yourselves in the presence of the Lord, and He will exalt you" and in 1 Peter 5:5 "...Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”

 

"Desire realized is sweet to the soul, But it is an abomination to fools to turn away from evil." Proverbs 13:19

 

Let us be like the tax collector and cry out to God for mercy as it is written in Luke 18:13, "...standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, the sinner!"

 

"Seek the LORD while He may be found; Call upon Him while He is near." Isaiah 55:6

 

And let us learn from the Scriptures of Psalm 51 what it means to repent toward God as it is written,

 

"1Be gracious to me, O God, according to Your lovingkindness;

According to the greatness of Your compassion blot out my transgressions.

2Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity

And cleanse me from my sin.

 

3For I know my transgressions,

And my sin is ever before me.

 

4Against You, You only, I have sinned

And done what is evil in Your sight,

So that You are justified when You speak

And blameless when You judge.

 

5Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,

And in sin my mother conceived me.

 

6Behold, You desire truth in the innermost being,

And in the hidden part You will make me know wisdom.

 

7Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;

Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.

 

8Make me to hear joy and gladness,

Let the bones which You have broken rejoice.

 

9Hide Your face from my sins

And blot out all my iniquities.

 

10Create in me a clean heart, O God,

And renew a steadfast spirit within me.

 

11Do not cast me away from Your presence

And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.

 

12Restore to me the joy of Your salvation

And sustain me with a willing spirit.

 

13Then I will teach transgressors Your ways,

And sinners will be converted to You.

 

14Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, the God of my salvation;

Then my tongue will joyfully sing of Your righteousness.

 

15O Lord, open my lips,

That my mouth may declare Your praise.

 

16For You do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it;

You are not pleased with burnt offering.

 

17The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;

A broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise.

 

18By Your favor do good to Zion;

Build the walls of Jerusalem.

 

19Then You will delight in righteous sacrifices,

In burnt offering and whole burnt offering;

Then young bulls will be offered on Your altar."

 

Repent toward God and put your faith in Jesus Christ alone to save you from the wrath of God.

 

Jesus said, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:3

 

"He has regarded the prayer of the destitute And has not despised their prayer." Psalm 102:17

 

Let us not worry in our minds about the wrongs committed by others, especially those who appear as hypocrites.

 

"Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? (Romans 2:1-4)

 

Jesus said, "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." Matthew 7:13-14

 

As the Apostle Paul wrote in Acts 20:20-21 as He was inspired by God, "how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly and from house to house, solemnly testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ."

 

So let me conclude with both the bad and Good News of the Gospel.

 

"Do you deserve Heaven or Hell when you die? It is written in Hebrews 9:27 that we are appointed to die once and then comes the judgement. Will you be innocent or guilty when you stand before the good Judge who is angry with the wicked every day? (Psalm 7:11)

 

Remember that He knows your every thought? Take this very important test so that you may know with certainty. Have you ever told a lie, stolen anything, or used God's name in vain? Jesus said, "Whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

 

Which of God's commandments have you transgressed? Sin is transgression of the law and I regret that I have very bad news so please listen very carefully so that you might be snatched from the fire that awaits unbelievers.(Jude 1:23) God's Word tells us that "...all liars will have their part in the lake of fire." (Revelations 21:8) "...No thief or adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-11) and "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain." (Deuteronomy 5:11)

 

Will you be guilty on Judgment Day? The Word of God says that if you break one of His commandments, you are guilty of all of them.(James 2:10) God sees us as law breakers. If you have admitted to breaking the commandments mentioned above then by your own admission you are a lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterer at heart. God has given us a conscience to know right from wrong and God's inspired Word warns that everyone is guilty and deserves God's wrath.

 

Jesus said in Matthew 10:28, "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

 

But that's not God's will for His Children. Remeber in John 1:1 it is written that, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." and in John 1:14 it is written, "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."

 

God dwelt among us in the person of Jesus Christ, fully God and in the likeness of sinful man as it is written in Romans 8:3. Jesus lived a sinless life as it is written in 1 Peter 2:22, "He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in His mouth," He performed many signs and miracles that were witnessed by many as it is written in John 11:47, "Therefore the chief priests and the Pharisees convened a council, and were saying, "What are we doing? For this man is performing many signs." Also John 12:37, "But though He had performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him." He fulfilled Prophecy as it was foretold in Scripture Isaiah 9:6, Psalm 22:1-31 and Zechariah 11:12-13 and many more. He received worship as it is written in, Matthew 2:11, "After coming into the house they saw the Child with Mary His mother; and they fell to the ground and worshiped Him. Then, opening their treasures, they presented to Him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh," and in Matthew 28:9 it is written about Mary Magdalene and the other Mary who after hearing the Good News from the Angel that Jesus had risen they met Jesus on the way to the disciples as it is written, "And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him."

 

Only God is able to receive worship. "I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images." Isaiah 42:8.

 

Jesus forgave sins which only God is able to do so as it is written in Mark 2:5-7, "And Jesus seeing their faith said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” But some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, “Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?”

 

God sent His Son to suffer and die on the cross for His elect. (Mark 13:27) Because "...without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin." (Hebrews 9:22): We've broken God's Law, but Jesus has paid the fine in full with His shed blood on the cross. Taking upon Himself the punishment His Children deserve as it is written in Romans 3:25, "whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness..." and God is able to legally dismiss your case. He can commute your death sentence as it is written in Romans 8:1, "Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."

 

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) Then He rose from the dead, defeated death and now sits and the right hand of God. Jesus said, "...repent...and believe the Gospel..." (Mark 1:15) today and trust in Jesus alone for your Salvation, and God will grant you the gift of everlasting life. He will, "...give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you" (Ezekiel 36:26) because, "if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come." (2 Corinthians 5:17)

 

"Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. “You are witnesses of these things. “And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.” Luke 24:44-49

 

Read your Bible daily because as believers our, "...delight is in the law of the LORD, And in His law he meditates day and night." (Psalm 1:2) and obey God's Word.

 

As it is written in Matthew 7:21-23 Jesus said, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’

 

There are two foundations. One is good and the other bad. Which foundation is your eternal soul built upon. As it is written in Matthew 7:24-27,

 

“Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. “And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. “Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. “The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell—and great was its fall.”

 

May we agree with the Apostles, "But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29)

  

Free Christian Living resources

www.gty.org/Resources/Browse/topic/Christian+Living

  

Are you a Christian already? Click the link and read 10 Christian principles for saving yourself some pain.

www.saveyourselfsomepain.com

Shot Tower Taroona Tasmania

Australia’s first shot tower, at Taroona, was built by Joseph Moir and is one of three still existing in the country, the others being in Melbourne. Joseph Moir's factory, which operated for 35 years from 1870, manufactured lead shot for contemporary muzzle loading sports guns. Although the factory struggled for most of its existence its most recognisable feature, the tallest stone shot tower in the southern hemisphere, has been a prominent landmark in the district for well over a century.

 

Joseph Moir

His Shot Tower on the Kingston Road is noted throughout the colonies, and Mr Moir’s enterprising spirit is there illustrated in a most remarkable manner. Though a speculation of a very hazardous kind, he had faith in its success, and his estimate, as was afterwards discovered, was not found on any erroneous basis. The manufacture of shot was a profitable venture under his management.

Mercury 12 March 1874

 

Just twenty years old, Scotsman Joseph Moir arrived in Hobart in 1829, one of thousands of hopeful free immigrants who sailed to Van Diemen’s Land in the 1820s. By 1840 he had acquired several properties, government employment and a reputation as a builder of notable colonial buildings such as St Mark’s Anglican Church, Pontville. He returned briefly to Scotland in 1844 to marry Elizabeth Paxton with whom he had at least five children.

 

A prominent businessman, Moir was active in Hobart’s civic affairs between 1846 and 1873, a year before his death. He revisited Britain in 1849 ‘to arrange to carry on an ironmonger’s business’, returning to Hobart with a stock of hardware items and opening a store with his brother at ‘Economy House’ in Murray Street. The business operated until sold by his son, Joseph in 1884. Moir purchased 39 acres on Brown’s River Rd in 1855 and moved to a new house at ‘Queenborough Glens’ (as he called the property) with his family in 1862. He then built the shot tower and its associated buildings and poured his first shot in 1870.

 

When he died after a long illness in 1874 Moir left his major business concerns to his sons, James and Joseph. Together with Elizabeth (who only survived him by 15 months) and a daughter, Mary (who died in 1853 at the age of seven) Moir was encrypted in the family mausoleum on the cliffs below the shot tower. Their remains were later re-interred in unmarked graves at Queenborough Cemetery after Joseph relinquished the property in 1901. This cemetery’s graves were removed by Hobart Council in 1963 and Moir’s final resting place remains unknown.

 

The Shot Tower

This shot tower was built by the proprietor, Joseph Moir, in the year 1870. In its erection he acted as Engineer, Architect, Carpenter and Overseer. With merely the assistance of two masons it was completed in 8 months, when the secrets of shot-making had to be discovered. After many persevering efforts the first shot was dropped 8th September, 1870.

 

Joseph Moir erected his shot making enterprise on 39 acres subdivided from an 1817 grant of 100 acres to John Williamson. He chose his site carefully. A road frontage facilitated straightforward transport of raw materials and product. A windmill pumped water from a reliable creek to a cistern on the site of the current overflow carpark and substantial timber reserves provided fuel for the furnaces and cauldrons. Sited far from residential neighbourhoods Moir could also relax in the knowledge that toxic fumes would blow safely out to sea or over forestland.

 

Moir probably began building his shot making works after erecting the family home between 1855 and 1862. A stone building above the cliffs overlooking the River Derwent stored gun powder for his ironmongery as well as stores of arsenic and antimony. Another building south-west of the magazine contained the furnace for preparing lead with the arsenic and antimony.

 

The tower was constructed of dressed curved sandstone blocks quarried at the nearby abandoned Brown’s River Convict Probation Station. A remarkable tapered structure 48m (157 feet 6 inches) tall it features an internal spiral staircase of pitsawn timber and an external gallery at its top which was probably used to store firewood for the upper cauldron. The staircase provided scaffolding during the construction of the tower and access to the upper cauldron and shot-making colanders. The tower is 10 metres in diameter at the base and tapers to 3.9 metres at the top . The walls are a metre thick at the bottom and thin out to .45 centimetres at the top.

 

A three level stone factory abutting the tower was erected at the same time, then was extended soon after. The stone for the factory was probably recycled from the abandoned probation station.

 

The Manufacturing Process

 

The manufacture of shot is an industry which in England has always been conducted with the greatest secrecy, and consequently witnessed by very few except the initiated. This industry has recently been introduced in this colony by Mr Alderman Moir, and we learn that it is his intention to throw his Shot Tower open to the inspection of visitors on Monday and Tuesday next, when the process of shot making will be in operation, on which occasion we have no doubt many of our citizens will avail themselves of this opportunity of witnessing the interesting process.

 

Mercury,10 March 1871.

 

Shot manufacturing is thought to have been invented by Prince Rupert in the seventeenth century. It seems likely that Moir studied William Watts’ patented method of 1796 while in Britain in 1849-50. Moir’s exact process is unknown — considerable experimentation was required by most manufacturers to perfect what is a very complex process requiring a detailed understanding of physics and metallurgy. Most of Moir’s raw materials would have been imported increasing his costs substantially

 

Moir’s process was probably as follows:

 

Lead was prepared in a furnace at the south-eastern corner of the property. Moir added 900g of arsenic (to decrease surface tension) and 6.35kg of antimony (to harden the shot) to every 45.35 kg of lead.

The resultant ‘poisoned lead’ was cast into 7.7 kg ingots, conveyed to the factory, then remelted in cauldrons on the upper level of the factory for small shot and the top of the tower for larger shot. Firewood had to be winched to the upper cauldron. The molten lead was then poured through colanders, forming droplets which became spherical as they dropped. They fell into a tub of water at the base of the tower. The size of the shot depended on the amount of arsenic, the size of the holes in the colander and the height of the fall. Watts’ patent stipulated that large sized shot required a fall of 45.75m (150 feet), hence the height of Moir’s shot tower at 48m with the colander 46.36m above the base.

The lead cooled partly while falling, then completely in the water. The antinomy hardener ensured that it maintained shape under the impact of the water.

The cooled shot, green in colour, was winched to the factory’s upper floor where it was dried and run over inclined glass planes to separate out defective shot (which did not roll true). Imperfect shot was remelted and the process repeated.

The shot was polished in a revolving drum (likened to a farmer’s barrel churn) using plumbago (graphite) then lowered through a trapdoor to the ground floor where it passed through ten sieves for grading into sizes ranging from fine birdshot to large balls. The graded shot was bagged into 12.7kg (28lb) handsewn linen bags stencilled with the manufacturer’s name and sent to market. At its peak the factory produced 100 tons of shot per annum.

Working Conditions

 

Little is known of working conditions in Joseph Moir’s shot tower. The work was highly skilled, noisy and almost certainly dangerous. That workers took great pride in their trade is indicated by an engraving in a window in the factory, reading, ‘George Matson Premier Shot Maker Tasmanian and Australian’. No further information about George Matson is known. The following descriptions of a contemporary works, Melbourne’s Coop shot tower (now incorporated in the Melbourne Central complex on Little Lonsdale St) provides some indication of the nature of the work involved.

 

Pouring the lead was ‘an operation which needs great skill and constant watching. The man is used to his work but the novice would probably make a considerable bungle of it’. As the lead droplets fell there was ‘a sharp incessant shower of silvery rain . . . mak[ing] a noise very like that of an overflow waste pipe high up in one’s wall’. When shovelling shot from the water tub it was ‘quite certain that if the man who is so energetically shovelling . . . was to cease from his labours for any appreciable length of time the tank would be soon full of lead. . . . all the while the strange shower descends the man with the shovel is busily at work’. The noise of grading the shot through the sieves was ‘well nigh deafening’ while a woman sat with needle and thread sewing the 12.7kg linen bags for the finished shot.

 

House and Garden

Joseph Moir began building his residence soon after acquiring the property in 1855. Family lore suggests that he built the battlemented tower as practise before attempting the more substantial shot tower. By 1885 the property was well known for its gardens and orchards with its hot houses, summer houses and conservatories.

 

"Mr [James] Moir has a prolific little orchard and kitchen garden, which latter, the flower garden and conservatories are watered from a considerable storage reservoir above. An amusing freak of the owner is to invite strangers into a summer house, and to be seated a moment or two out of the sun. He predicts rain shortly, however cloudless the sky — when hey presto: a shower immediately commences, a real earnest one. It is brought about by turning the tap of a pipe connecting with the circular piping on top of the summer house, the latter being perforated round its outside. A little defectiveness in the roof allowed of my receiving a slight baptism of spray, so I must be considered initiated." Tasmanian Mail,13 June 1885

 

Perhaps the youthful James Moir (he was 30 in 1885) had a better sense of fun than business sense. He had mortgaged the property the previous year and defaulted on his payments two years later.

 

Later History

 

Moir’s sons, James and Joseph, carried on the business after his death in 1874. Although James won merit certificates at the 1879 Sydney International Exhibition and the 1880-81 Melbourne Exhibition the business struggled and it was leased by the mortgagors to his brother, Joseph in 1887. Joseph found himself unable compete with mainland competitors when generous colonial tariffs were removed after Federation. He relinquished the lease to his brother-in-law, William Baynton who continued the business until closing its doors in 1905. During these years Baynton’s wife, Florence, operated a tea house in the residence.

 

The property subsequently passed through several hands until 1956 when 3.24 hectares was purchased by the Tasmanian government and proclaimed a Scenery Reserve. Although it included the tower and residence, the reserve excluded the powder magazine, conservatory, antimony furnace and mausoleum. The reserve was gazetted as an historic site in 1971 under the National Parks and Wildlife Act. Since 1956 it has been leased to several concessionaires and has been open as a tourist site. Various conservation works have been conducted at the shot tower over the years to maintain its heritage significance.

 

Ref www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=2820

The term "Kadayawan" is derived from the Mandaya word “madayaw”, a warm and friendly greeting used to explain a thing that is valuable, superior, beautiful, good, or profitable.

 

Long time ago, Davao’s ethnic tribes residing at the foot of Mount Apo would converge during a bountiful harvest. This ritual serves as their thanksgiving to the gods particularly to the “Manama” (the Supreme Being).

 

Various farming implements, fruits, flowers, vegetables, rice and corn grains were displayed on mats as villagers give their respect and thanks for the year's abundance. Singing, dancing and offerings to their divine protectors are the highlights of this ritual.

 

Although times have changed, this practice of thanksgiving or “pahinungod” is still very much practiced by modern day Dabawenyos. This tradition flourished and evolved into an annual festival of thanksgiving.

 

In the 1970’s, Mayor Elias B. Lopez, a Bagobo, initiated tribal festivals featuring the lumad and the Muslim tribes of Davao City where they showcase their dances and rituals of thanksgiving.

 

Later in 1986, a program called "Unlad Proyekto Davao" was initiated by the government which was aimed to unite the Dabawenyos after the turbulent Martial Law era. At that time, the festival was called "Apo Duwaling," a name created from the famous icons of Davao: Mt. Apo, the country's highest peak; Durian, the king of fruits; and Waling-waling, the queen of orchids.

 

“Apo Duwaling” was meant to showcase the city as a peaceful destination to visit and to do business after 1986 EDSA Revolution.

 

Finally in 1988, City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte renamed the festival as "Kadayawan sa Dabaw" to celebrate the bountiful harvest of Davao’s flowers, fruits and other produce as well as the wealth of the city’s cultures. To this day, the festival continues to honor the city's richness and diverse artistic, cultural and historical heritage in a grand celebration of thanksgiving for all of Davao City's blessings. - taken from www.kadayawan.com

 

Photo taken during the Indak-Indak sa Kadalanan (Street Dancing) last August 21, 2010 from the streets of Davao City, Philippines. Entry of Magallanes Elementary School and 3rd Runner-Up placer.

Disabled Army veteran, new farmer and owner-operator of Prado Recreation Inc. Ruben Llamas, leases more than 585 acres from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, where his family and employees farm more than half of that and maintain the rest as a dog training facility, where the U.S. Department of Agriculture USDA Natural Resources and Conservation Service NRCS has helped him improve the health of the land and the profitability of the farm with the replacement of six new tractors, a loader, and technical assistance in the basin of the Prado Dam area, in Chino, CA, on Oct. 21, 2022. The facility is 36 miles east of Los Angeles, 11 miles south of Ontario, in what is known as the Inland Empire.

 

Sergeant Llamas served in the U.S. Army for 13 years as a Combat Engineer and a Scout. He was assigned to the U.S. Army 578th Brigade Engineer Battalion and the California Army National Guard 18th Calvery Regiment. He and his wife have six children; two are serving in the U.S. Army, one in the U.S. Coast Guard, and one is considering enlisting herself.

 

The basin’s range of environments and topography supports a wide variety of training grounds for sporting dogs, rescue tracking dogs, obedience training, and the ability to provide kennel facilities and the maintenance of waterfowl habitats and outdoor recreation areas. The farm fields of grasses and natural meadows provide nesting. Their seeds feed migrating birds near a hunting club and the broader wetlands. Hunting dog trainers use the forests, fields, meadows, ponds, and islands to train dogs to find game birds for hunters.

 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers controls the approximately 4,500-acres Prado Dam area. Their lease is for more than 500 acres near the dam and Highway 71.

 

They purchased the business 16 years ago. The land ranges from farm fields to wetlands and woodlands. Three counties with about 15 million people surround the area.

 

The farm produces alfalfa, corn, and other forage crops for silage sold to local dairies. Winter crops are wheat, winter wheat, oats, and ryegrass. In the summer, they grow sorghum, corn, milo, and various types of grass. All the fields at different stages of growth are used for hunting dog training, as it provides cover for waterfowl and challenges to rescue dogs in training.

 

Ruben Llamas is a new farmer who wants to be as profitable as possible and develop his best practices. To help him, Llamas discovered the USDA Natural Resources and Conservation Service online at usda.gov. He called the nearest NRCS Field Office in Redlands, CA. District Conservationist Tomas Aguilar-Campos answered the phone and immediately helped him with the information and ways to begin networking. To better understand Llamas’s farm and conservation needs Campos went to see him at the farm in the Prado Dam basin. Llamas was hesitant to provide information to the government and work with them but decided to try it. He now compares his experience with USDA to be similar to a bank customer and their banker.

 

The business came with 40-year-old tractors that were unreliable, produced higher emissions, and were expensive to maintain. Thanks to the USDA Environmental Quality Incentives Program EQIP and the USDA assistance with the application process, he qualified for the replacement of six tractors and a loader. Now, there is no problem operating any of them at any time. The robust and reliable equipment accomplishes twice the work in half the time and does it with 30 percent less fuel, says Llamas.

 

NRCS EQIP provides technical and financial assistance to producers to address natural resource concerns and deliver environmental benefits such as improved water and air quality, conserved ground and surface water, increased soil health and reduced soil erosion and sedimentation, improved or created wildlife habitat, and mitigation against drought and increasing weather volatility.

 

Equally as old were the irrigation systems. So, next, the pump and mainline, and distribution pipe needed improvement. To test the system Tomas and another specialist came to test the irrigation system. He recommended larger lines and a smaller pump for lower energy costs and better efficiency.

 

“The field representative, they’re always there, ready to help, says Llamas. With whatever question I have, they will help me.”

During the winter, the lower wetlands and farm fields become flooded with rainwater. The water attracts local and migratory birds. They come to eat, rest and leave the soil richer from their time there.

In the lowest field, seasonal flooding made it difficult to farm. Aguilar-Campos responded by asking a USDA soil specialist to examine the land. Compost was the recommendation, resulting in consistent farming and increased yields.

 

Because of the varying soils, Aguilar-Campos had a soil analysis performed. It showed that composting would help. The compost revitalized the soil to the point that certain crops needed 30 percent less water, and corn required 18 percent less water. Another result is that weed suppression has improved, so chemical use is down from an already sparing use.

 

Ruben Llamas says, “It’s been a really great relationship. I mean, I got seven pieces of equipment, so it’s been really, really good.”

 

For more information about EQIP, go to nrcs.usda.gov/programs-initiatives/eqip-environmental-quality-incentives

 

For more information about NRCS Conservation Practice 533 Pumping Plant please see efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/api/CPSFile/14941/533_NC_CPS_Pumping_Plant_2011

For more information about NRCS Conservation Practice 430, Irrigation Pipe, please see nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/Irrigation_Pipeline_430_Overview_9_2020.pdf

 

For more information about NRCS Conservation Practice 443 Irrigation System please see nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/Irrigation_System_Surface_And_Subsurface_443_Overview.pdf

 

Courtesy Photo

Australia’s first shot tower, at Taroona, was built by Joseph Moir and is one of three still existing in the country, the others being in Melbourne. Joseph Moir's factory, which operated for 35 years from 1870, manufactured lead shot for contemporary muzzle loading sports guns. Although the factory struggled for most of its existence its most recognisable feature, the tallest stone shot tower in the southern hemisphere, has been a prominent landmark in the district for well over a century. Joseph Moir His Shot Tower on the Kingston Road is noted throughout the colonies, and Mr Moir’s enterprising spirit is there illustrated in a most remarkable manner. Though a speculation of a very hazardous kind, he had faith in its success, and his estimate, as was afterwards discovered, was not found on any erroneous basis. The manufacture of shot was a profitable venture under his management. Mercury 12 March 1874 Just twenty years old, Scotsman Joseph Moir arrived in Hobart in 1829, one of thousands of hopeful free immigrants who sailed to Van Diemen’s Land in the 1820s. By 1840 he had acquired several properties, government employment and a reputation as a builder of notable colonial buildings such as St Mark’s Anglican Church, Pontville. He returned briefly to Scotland in 1844 to marry Elizabeth Paxton with whom he had at least five children. A prominent businessman, Moir was active in Hobart’s civic affairs between 1846 and 1873, a year before his death. He revisited Britain in 1849 ‘to arrange to carry on an ironmonger’s business’, returning to Hobart with a stock of hardware items and opening a store with his brother at ‘Economy House’ in Murray Street. The business operated until sold by his son, Joseph in 1884. Moir purchased 39 acres on Brown’s River Rd in 1855 and moved to a new house at ‘Queenborough Glens’ (as he called the property) with his family in 1862. He then built the shot tower and its associated buildings and poured his first shot in 1870. When he died after a long illness in 1874 Moir left his major business concerns to his sons, James and Joseph. Together with Elizabeth (who only survived him by 15 months) and a daughter, Mary (who died in 1853 at the age of seven) Moir was encrypted in the family mausoleum on the cliffs below the shot tower. Their remains were later re-interred in unmarked graves at Queenborough Cemetery after Joseph relinquished the property in 1901. This cemetery’s graves were removed by Hobart Council in 1963 and Moir’s final resting place remains unknown. The Shot Tower This shot tower was built by the proprietor, Joseph Moir, in the year 1870. In its erection he acted as Engineer, Architect, Carpenter and Overseer. With merely the assistance of two masons it was completed in 8 months, when the secrets of shot-making had to be discovered. After many persevering efforts the first shot was dropped 8th September, 1870. Joseph Moir erected his shot making enterprise on 39 acres subdivided from an 1817 grant of 100 acres to John Williamson. He chose his site carefully. A road frontage facilitated straightforward transport of raw materials and product. A windmill pumped water from a reliable creek to a cistern on the site of the current overflow carpark and substantial timber reserves provided fuel for the furnaces and cauldrons. Sited far from residential neighbourhoods Moir could also relax in the knowledge that toxic fumes would blow safely out to sea or over forestland. Moir probably began building his shot making works after erecting the family home between 1855 and 1862. A stone building above the cliffs overlooking the River Derwent stored gun powder for his ironmongery as well as stores of arsenic and antimony. Another building south-west of the magazine contained the furnace for preparing lead with the arsenic and antimony. The tower was constructed of dressed curved sandstone blocks quarried at the nearby abandoned Brown’s River Convict Probation Station. A remarkable tapered structure 48m (157 feet 6 inches) tall it features an internal spiral staircase of pitsawn timber and an external gallery at its top which was probably used to store firewood for the upper cauldron. The staircase provided scaffolding during the construction of the tower and access to the upper cauldron and shot-making colanders. The tower is 10 metres in diameter at the base and tapers to 3.9 metres at the top . The walls are a metre thick at the bottom and thin out to .45 centimetres at the top. A three level stone factory abutting the tower was erected at the same time, then was extended soon after. The stone for the factory was probably recycled from the abandoned probation station. The Manufacturing Process The manufacture of shot is an industry which in England has always been conducted with the greatest secrecy, and consequently witnessed by very few except the initiated. This industry has recently been introduced in this colony by Mr Alderman Moir, and we learn that it is his intention to throw his Shot Tower open to the inspection of visitors on Monday and Tuesday next, when the process of shot making will be in operation, on which occasion we have no doubt many of our citizens will avail themselves of this opportunity of witnessing the interesting process. Mercury,10 March 1871. Shot manufacturing is thought to have been invented by Prince Rupert in the seventeenth century. It seems likely that Moir studied William Watts’ patented method of 1796 while in Britain in 1849- 50. Moir’s exact process is unknown — considerable experimentation was required by most manufacturers to perfect what is a very complex process requiring a detailed understanding of physics and metallurgy. Most of Moir’s raw materials would have been imported increasing his costs substantially Moir’s process was probably as follows: Lead was prepared in a furnace at the south-eastern corner of the property. Moir added 900g of arsenic (to decrease surface tension) and 6.35kg of antimony (to harden the shot) to every 45.35 kg of lead. The resultant ‘poisoned lead’ was cast into 7.7 kg ingots, conveyed to the factory, then remelted in cauldrons on the upper level of the factory for small shot and the top of the tower for larger shot. Firewood had to be winched to the upper cauldron. The molten lead was then poured through colanders, forming droplets which became spherical as they dropped. They fell into a tub of water at the base of the tower. The size of the shot depended on the amount of arsenic, the size of the holes in the colander and the height of the fall. Watts’ patent stipulated that large sized shot required a fall of 45.75m (150 feet), hence the height of Moir’s shot tower at 48m with the colander 46.36m above the base. The lead cooled partly while falling, then completely in the water. The antinomy hardener ensured that it maintained shape under the impact of the water. The cooled shot, green in colour, was winched to the factory’s upper floor where it was dried and run over inclined glass planes to separate out defective shot (which did not roll true). Imperfect shot was remelted and the process repeated. The shot was polished in a revolving drum (likened to a farmer’s barrel churn) using plumbago (graphite) then lowered through a trapdoor to the ground floor where it passed through ten sieves for grading into sizes ranging from fine birdshot to large balls. The graded shot was bagged into 12.7kg (28lb) handsewn linen bags stencilled with the manufacturer’s name and sent to market. At its peak the factory produced 100 tons of shot per annum. Working Conditions Little is known of working conditions in Joseph Moir’s shot tower. The work was highly skilled, noisy and almost certainly dangerous. That workers took great pride in their trade is indicated by an engraving in a window in the factory, reading, ‘George Matson Premier Shot Maker Tasmanian and Australian’. No further information about George Matson is known. The following descriptions of a contemporary works, Melbourne’s Coop shot tower (now incorporated in the Melbourne Central complex on Little Lonsdale St) provides some indication of the nature of the work involved. Pouring the lead was ‘an operation which needs great skill and constant watching. The man is used to his work but the novice would probably make a considerable bungle of it’. As the lead droplets fell there was ‘a sharp incessant shower of silvery rain . . . mak[ing] a noise very like that of an overflow waste pipe high up in one’s wall’. When shovelling shot from the water tub it was ‘quite certain that if the man who is so energetically shovelling . . . was to cease from his labours for any appreciable length of time the tank would be soon full of lead. . . . all the while the strange shower descends the man with the shovel is busily at work’. The noise of grading the shot through the sieves was ‘well nigh deafening’ while a woman sat with needle and thread sewing the 12.7kg linen bags for the finished shot. House and Garden Joseph Moir began building his residence soon after acquiring the property in 1855. Family lore suggests that he built the battlemented tower as practise before attempting the more substantial shot tower. By 1885 the property was well known for its gardens and orchards with its hot houses, summer houses and conservatories. "Mr [James] Moir has a prolific little orchard and kitchen garden, which latter, the flower garden and conservatories are watered from a considerable storage reservoir above. An amusing freak of the owner is to invite strangers into a summer house, and to be seated a moment or two out of the sun. He predicts rain shortly, however cloudless the sky — when hey presto: a shower immediately commences, a real earnest one. It is brought about by turning the tap of a pipe connecting with the circular piping on top of the summer house, the latter being perforated round its outside. A little defectiveness in the roof allowed of my receiving a slight baptism of spray, so I must be considered initiated." Tasmanian Mail,13 June 1885 Perhaps the youthful James Moir (he was 30 in 1885) had a better sense of fun than business sense. He had mortgaged the property the previous year and defaulted on his payments two years later. Later History Moir’s sons, James and Joseph, carried on the business after his death in 1874. Although James won merit certificates at the 1879 Sydney International Exhibition and the 1880-81 Melbourne Exhibition the business struggled and it was leased by the mortgagors to his brother, Joseph in 1887. Joseph found himself unable compete with mainland competitors when generous colonial tariffs were removed after Federation. He relinquished the lease to his brother-in-law, William Baynton who continued the business until closing its doors in 1905. During these years Baynton’s wife, Florence, operated a tea house in the residence. The property subsequently passed through several hands until 1956 when 3.24 hectares was purchased by the Tasmanian government and proclaimed a Scenery Reserve. Although it included the tower and residence, the reserve excluded the powder magazine, conservatory, antimony furnace and mausoleum. The reserve was gazetted as an historic site in 1971 under the National Parks and Wildlife Act. Since 1956 it has been leased to several concessionaires and has been open as a tourist site. Various conservation works have been conducted at the shot tower over the years to maintain its heritage significance.

 

Ref www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=2820

profitable small businesses

 

"How I Make 5 Figures A Month carrying a Pizza Box !" You're

Gonna S$#@ When You See ?This...

 

Click to see the video of profitable small businesses

Profitable poultry..

London :Darton & Co.,1854..

biodiversitylibrary.org/page/33902274

"Amateur Photographer" started in 1884.

It is now published by Kelsey Media.

Shot Tower Taroona Tasmania

Australia’s first shot tower, at Taroona, was built by Joseph Moir and is one of three still existing in the country, the others being in Melbourne. Joseph Moir's factory, which operated for 35 years from 1870, manufactured lead shot for contemporary muzzle loading sports guns. Although the factory struggled for most of its existence its most recognisable feature, the tallest stone shot tower in the southern hemisphere, has been a prominent landmark in the district for well over a century.

 

Joseph Moir

His Shot Tower on the Kingston Road is noted throughout the colonies, and Mr Moir’s enterprising spirit is there illustrated in a most remarkable manner. Though a speculation of a very hazardous kind, he had faith in its success, and his estimate, as was afterwards discovered, was not found on any erroneous basis. The manufacture of shot was a profitable venture under his management.

Mercury 12 March 1874

 

Just twenty years old, Scotsman Joseph Moir arrived in Hobart in 1829, one of thousands of hopeful free immigrants who sailed to Van Diemen’s Land in the 1820s. By 1840 he had acquired several properties, government employment and a reputation as a builder of notable colonial buildings such as St Mark’s Anglican Church, Pontville. He returned briefly to Scotland in 1844 to marry Elizabeth Paxton with whom he had at least five children.

 

A prominent businessman, Moir was active in Hobart’s civic affairs between 1846 and 1873, a year before his death. He revisited Britain in 1849 ‘to arrange to carry on an ironmonger’s business’, returning to Hobart with a stock of hardware items and opening a store with his brother at ‘Economy House’ in Murray Street. The business operated until sold by his son, Joseph in 1884. Moir purchased 39 acres on Brown’s River Rd in 1855 and moved to a new house at ‘Queenborough Glens’ (as he called the property) with his family in 1862. He then built the shot tower and its associated buildings and poured his first shot in 1870.

 

When he died after a long illness in 1874 Moir left his major business concerns to his sons, James and Joseph. Together with Elizabeth (who only survived him by 15 months) and a daughter, Mary (who died in 1853 at the age of seven) Moir was encrypted in the family mausoleum on the cliffs below the shot tower. Their remains were later re-interred in unmarked graves at Queenborough Cemetery after Joseph relinquished the property in 1901. This cemetery’s graves were removed by Hobart Council in 1963 and Moir’s final resting place remains unknown.

 

The Shot Tower

This shot tower was built by the proprietor, Joseph Moir, in the year 1870. In its erection he acted as Engineer, Architect, Carpenter and Overseer. With merely the assistance of two masons it was completed in 8 months, when the secrets of shot-making had to be discovered. After many persevering efforts the first shot was dropped 8th September, 1870.

 

Joseph Moir erected his shot making enterprise on 39 acres subdivided from an 1817 grant of 100 acres to John Williamson. He chose his site carefully. A road frontage facilitated straightforward transport of raw materials and product. A windmill pumped water from a reliable creek to a cistern on the site of the current overflow carpark and substantial timber reserves provided fuel for the furnaces and cauldrons. Sited far from residential neighbourhoods Moir could also relax in the knowledge that toxic fumes would blow safely out to sea or over forestland.

 

Moir probably began building his shot making works after erecting the family home between 1855 and 1862. A stone building above the cliffs overlooking the River Derwent stored gun powder for his ironmongery as well as stores of arsenic and antimony. Another building south-west of the magazine contained the furnace for preparing lead with the arsenic and antimony.

 

The tower was constructed of dressed curved sandstone blocks quarried at the nearby abandoned Brown’s River Convict Probation Station. A remarkable tapered structure 48m (157 feet 6 inches) tall it features an internal spiral staircase of pitsawn timber and an external gallery at its top which was probably used to store firewood for the upper cauldron. The staircase provided scaffolding during the construction of the tower and access to the upper cauldron and shot-making colanders. The tower is 10 metres in diameter at the base and tapers to 3.9 metres at the top . The walls are a metre thick at the bottom and thin out to .45 centimetres at the top.

 

A three level stone factory abutting the tower was erected at the same time, then was extended soon after. The stone for the factory was probably recycled from the abandoned probation station.

 

The Manufacturing Process

 

The manufacture of shot is an industry which in England has always been conducted with the greatest secrecy, and consequently witnessed by very few except the initiated. This industry has recently been introduced in this colony by Mr Alderman Moir, and we learn that it is his intention to throw his Shot Tower open to the inspection of visitors on Monday and Tuesday next, when the process of shot making will be in operation, on which occasion we have no doubt many of our citizens will avail themselves of this opportunity of witnessing the interesting process.

 

Mercury,10 March 1871.

 

Shot manufacturing is thought to have been invented by Prince Rupert in the seventeenth century. It seems likely that Moir studied William Watts’ patented method of 1796 while in Britain in 1849-50. Moir’s exact process is unknown — considerable experimentation was required by most manufacturers to perfect what is a very complex process requiring a detailed understanding of physics and metallurgy. Most of Moir’s raw materials would have been imported increasing his costs substantially

 

Moir’s process was probably as follows:

 

Lead was prepared in a furnace at the south-eastern corner of the property. Moir added 900g of arsenic (to decrease surface tension) and 6.35kg of antimony (to harden the shot) to every 45.35 kg of lead.

The resultant ‘poisoned lead’ was cast into 7.7 kg ingots, conveyed to the factory, then remelted in cauldrons on the upper level of the factory for small shot and the top of the tower for larger shot. Firewood had to be winched to the upper cauldron. The molten lead was then poured through colanders, forming droplets which became spherical as they dropped. They fell into a tub of water at the base of the tower. The size of the shot depended on the amount of arsenic, the size of the holes in the colander and the height of the fall. Watts’ patent stipulated that large sized shot required a fall of 45.75m (150 feet), hence the height of Moir’s shot tower at 48m with the colander 46.36m above the base.

The lead cooled partly while falling, then completely in the water. The antinomy hardener ensured that it maintained shape under the impact of the water.

The cooled shot, green in colour, was winched to the factory’s upper floor where it was dried and run over inclined glass planes to separate out defective shot (which did not roll true). Imperfect shot was remelted and the process repeated.

The shot was polished in a revolving drum (likened to a farmer’s barrel churn) using plumbago (graphite) then lowered through a trapdoor to the ground floor where it passed through ten sieves for grading into sizes ranging from fine birdshot to large balls. The graded shot was bagged into 12.7kg (28lb) handsewn linen bags stencilled with the manufacturer’s name and sent to market. At its peak the factory produced 100 tons of shot per annum.

Working Conditions

 

Little is known of working conditions in Joseph Moir’s shot tower. The work was highly skilled, noisy and almost certainly dangerous. That workers took great pride in their trade is indicated by an engraving in a window in the factory, reading, ‘George Matson Premier Shot Maker Tasmanian and Australian’. No further information about George Matson is known. The following descriptions of a contemporary works, Melbourne’s Coop shot tower (now incorporated in the Melbourne Central complex on Little Lonsdale St) provides some indication of the nature of the work involved.

 

Pouring the lead was ‘an operation which needs great skill and constant watching. The man is used to his work but the novice would probably make a considerable bungle of it’. As the lead droplets fell there was ‘a sharp incessant shower of silvery rain . . . mak[ing] a noise very like that of an overflow waste pipe high up in one’s wall’. When shovelling shot from the water tub it was ‘quite certain that if the man who is so energetically shovelling . . . was to cease from his labours for any appreciable length of time the tank would be soon full of lead. . . . all the while the strange shower descends the man with the shovel is busily at work’. The noise of grading the shot through the sieves was ‘well nigh deafening’ while a woman sat with needle and thread sewing the 12.7kg linen bags for the finished shot.

 

House and Garden

Joseph Moir began building his residence soon after acquiring the property in 1855. Family lore suggests that he built the battlemented tower as practise before attempting the more substantial shot tower. By 1885 the property was well known for its gardens and orchards with its hot houses, summer houses and conservatories.

 

"Mr [James] Moir has a prolific little orchard and kitchen garden, which latter, the flower garden and conservatories are watered from a considerable storage reservoir above. An amusing freak of the owner is to invite strangers into a summer house, and to be seated a moment or two out of the sun. He predicts rain shortly, however cloudless the sky — when hey presto: a shower immediately commences, a real earnest one. It is brought about by turning the tap of a pipe connecting with the circular piping on top of the summer house, the latter being perforated round its outside. A little defectiveness in the roof allowed of my receiving a slight baptism of spray, so I must be considered initiated." Tasmanian Mail,13 June 1885

 

Perhaps the youthful James Moir (he was 30 in 1885) had a better sense of fun than business sense. He had mortgaged the property the previous year and defaulted on his payments two years later.

 

Later History

 

Moir’s sons, James and Joseph, carried on the business after his death in 1874. Although James won merit certificates at the 1879 Sydney International Exhibition and the 1880-81 Melbourne Exhibition the business struggled and it was leased by the mortgagors to his brother, Joseph in 1887. Joseph found himself unable compete with mainland competitors when generous colonial tariffs were removed after Federation. He relinquished the lease to his brother-in-law, William Baynton who continued the business until closing its doors in 1905. During these years Baynton’s wife, Florence, operated a tea house in the residence.

 

The property subsequently passed through several hands until 1956 when 3.24 hectares was purchased by the Tasmanian government and proclaimed a Scenery Reserve. Although it included the tower and residence, the reserve excluded the powder magazine, conservatory, antimony furnace and mausoleum. The reserve was gazetted as an historic site in 1971 under the National Parks and Wildlife Act. Since 1956 it has been leased to several concessionaires and has been open as a tourist site. Various conservation works have been conducted at the shot tower over the years to maintain its heritage significance.

 

Ref www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=2820

+++ DISCLAIMER +++Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!

  

Some background:

Aeroflot is one of the oldest airlines in the world, tracing its history back to 1923. During the Soviet era, Aeroflot was the Soviet national airline and the largest airline in the world. Following the dissolution of the USSR, the carrier has been transformed from a state-run enterprise into a semi-privatized company which ranked 19th most profitable airline in the world in 2007. Aeroflot is still considered to be the de facto national airline of Russia, being 51%-owned by the Russian Government.

 

After WWII, Aeroflot's route network had extended to 295,400 kilometers (183,600 mi), and by 1950 it carried 1,603,700 passengers, 151,070 tonnes (333,050,000 lb) of freight and 30,580 tonnes (67,420,000 lb) of mail during the same year. The 20th Communist Party Congress, held in 1956, saw plans for Aeroflot services to be dramatically increased. The airline would see its overall activities increased from its then current levels by 3.8 times, and it was set the target of the carriage of 16,000,000 passengers by 1960. In order to meet these goals, Aeroflot introduced higher capacity turbojet and turbine-prop aircraft on key domestic routes, and on services to Aeroflot destinations abroad.

 

A major step for Aeroflot occurred on 15 September 1956 when the Tupolev Tu-104 jet airliner entered service on the Moscow-Omsk-Irkutsk route, marking the world's first sustained jet airline service. The airline began international flights with the type on 12 October 1956 with flights from Moscow to Prague. The aircraft placed Aeroflot in an envious position, as airlines in the West had operated throughout the 1950s with large piston-engine aircraft. By 1958 the route network covered 349,200 kilometers (217,000 mi), and the airline carried 8,231,500 passengers, and 445,600 tons of mail and freight, with fifteen percent of all-Union services being operated by jet aircraft.

 

Aeroflot introduced the Antonov An-10 and Ilyushin Il-18 in 1959, and together with its existing jet aircraft, the airline was able to extend services on modern aircraft to some twenty cities during 1960. The Tupolev Tu-114, then the world's largest airliner, entered service with the Soviet carrier on 24 April 1961 on the Moscow-Khabarovsk route; covering a distance of 6,980 kilometers (4,340 mi) in 8 hours 20 minutes. The expansion of the Aeroflot fleet saw services with modern aircraft being extended to more than forty cities in 1961, with fifty percent of all-Union services being operated by these aircraft. This fleet expansion also saw the number of passengers carried in 1961 skyrocketing to 21,800,000.

 

Further expansion came in 1962 when various medium and short-haul routes were started and respective aircraft types such as the Tupolev Tu-124, Ilyushin Il-60 and Antonov An-24 entered regular service with Aeroflot. The Tu-124 was a jet airliner, technically an 75% version of the Tu-104, while the An-24 was a lighter twin turboprop aircraft in the class of the Fokker F.27. The Il-60 was the latest addition to the domestic services, falling in between both other types.

 

Development of the Ilyushin Il-60 dated back to 12 October 1951, when the Soviet Council of Ministers published a specification for a medium-range aircraft carrying 50 to 70 passengers and 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) of cargo on routes up to 2,000 km (1,100 nmi; 1,200 mi) with a cruising speed of about 600 km/h (320 kn; 370 mph). The type was to replace the piston engine Ilyushin Il-14 on domestic routes. The number and type of engines were not specified, but jet or turboprop engines were expected and emphasis was put on ruggedness and ease of operations for operations on rural airstrips with a minimum of infrastructure.

 

Ilyushin’s OKB-240 responded at first with a scaled-down Il-18 turboprop airliner, somewhat inspired by an idea of Czech manufacturer Avia for a smaller, short-range airliner for the CSA’s Central European routes. This machine had only two engines and overall reduced dimensions, but used many components of the original airliner. But it soon became clear that the Tu-104 with its jet engines had already set higher standards, so that a completely new and more innovative design was started.

 

Internally known as “Aircraft 60”, the machine introduced some innovations while still being a conservative design. The aircraft was a two turboprop-engine low-wing monoplane with slightly swept (20° at quarter chord) wings, a circular pressurized fuselage and a conventional, yet markedly swept tail (both fin and stabilizer at 45°). The aircraft had two entry doors on the port-side before and after the wing, two overwing emergency exits on each side, and featured a retractable stairway under the rear fuselage so that passengers could directly enter the aircraft from the airfield. An APU was integrated in the rear fuselage, under the fin, for independent operation of the air condition system and starting the engines without external support.

The tricycle landing gear had four wheels fitted on the main leg bogies, which retracted inwards to lie under the fuselage instead of into the engine nacelles. The front wheel also had twin wheels, retracting forward in a well under the cockpit floor, and the aircraft’s low-pressure tires allowed operations even from grass airfields or snowy ground. Another novel feature at the time was the fitting of a weather radar in the nose, a civilian RPSN-2 "Emblema" system, doing away with the typical glazed navigator position of other former Soviet airliner designs. In order to support all-weather operations and ease the pilots’ work, “Aircraft 60” was also outfitted with an automatic approach system, supported by the radar which allowed blind navigation.

 

Despite vibration and noise problems, experienced with the earlier Il-18 airliner, Ilyushin insisted on turboprop propulsion because it was the more fuel-efficient option. He furthermore expected that no another jet-driven airliner would be politically “allowed” along the Tu-124 short haul airliner, at that time under parallel development.

 

“Aircraft 60” was powered by a pair of Kuznetsow NK-6K turboprops. This engine was one of several developments after World War II by a team of Russian scientists and deported German engineers under Ferdinand Brandner, which had worked for Junkers previously, evolving from late war German turboprop studies. This the post-war development was based on the wartime Jumo 022 turboprop design that developed 6000 eshp in a 3000 kg engine. The efforts continued with a 5000 ehp engine that weighed in at 1700 kg, completed by 1947, and with further weight savings and more modern materials, the NK-6, one of several development directions, became a large single-spool engine that was optimized for use on board of commercial aircraft like “Aircraft 60”.

 

For security reasons, the engines were mounted in front and above of the wings’ leading edge. In order to keep the wing structure as clean and simple and possible and not risk collateral damage to the landing gear in case of an engine fire, the landing gear was retracted into wells under the wing roots. This measure also kept the engine nacelle’s dimensions in very compact limits.

In order to minimize noise and vibrations, 2x4-bladed contraprops with an automatic feathering system were mounted, resulting in a characteristic humming noise when the engines were running. Due to the lower speed of these propellers, compared to a standard four- or five-blade propeller, the internal and external noise level could be significantly reduced (compared to the Il-18, which could drone at 110db in the cabin above the wings!), even though the lower frequency caused other problems, mainly vibrations at certain speeds that shook the whole airframe.

 

The standard seating of the initial version, the Il-60A, was 52 seats at a 90cm distance between the five-seat rows (two seats on port side and three on starboard). Alternatively, a maximum of 72 could be mounted in a cramped “tourist class” configuration with only 78cm distance between the seat rows, which became the late production standard configuration as Il-60B.

 

The first of two prototypes made its first flight from Zhukovsky airfield on 24 March 1960. The second prototype followed in June 1960. Two other airframes served as a static test cells. Testing was successful, and the aircraft entered production at Machinery Plant No. 30 located at Khodynka, near Moscow, replacing the Il-18 in production. Deliveries to Aeroflot began in August 1962, with the type operating its first scheduled passenger service, between Moscow and Tallinn in Estonia, on 2 October 1962.

 

The Il-60’s production remained only on a small scale, though: being a pure jet, the Tu-124 was preferred by the Aeroflot for short haul duties, as well as by the Powers That Be. Despite the type’s merits esp. in harsh climate conditions (most Il-60 were allocated to Aeroflot’s feederline services in the Soviet Union’s northern regions), the type was not popular among its crews. While the two turboprops gave sufficient power, had good handling across the whole speed envelope and the aircraft had no trouble remaining airborne with one engine shut down, the asymmetrical drag/thrust in this emergency condition was considerable and navigating the Il-60, and even more landing the aircraft, with only one engine was a challenging task.

 

Furthermore, the stalky landing gear, which prompted the crews' inofficial nickname "косино́жки" (kosinozhki = daddy longlegs), could start to vibrate under certain conditions and wobble, making a start or landing run a shaky if not dangerous affair, esp. on snow-packed and non-permanent runways. Furthermore, two Il-60 crashed on runways or airfields after hitting obstacles ubnder snow - the long front landing gear collapsed. Nobody on board was seriosuly hurt in both cases, but these accidents did not improve the type's reputation among both pilots and passengers alike.

 

Only a total of 44 machines were built: 18 Il-60As for selected connections abroad (e. g. to Scandinavia and Poland), plus 26 Il-60Bs with higher seat capacity for purely domestic service. Both machines were identical from the outside, though, and all production aircraft featured a characteristic spinal fin root extension that covered several radio and navigation antennae.

 

Ilyushin had plans for a stretched version (with two plugs inserted into the fuselage in front of and behind the wings) with a 2.2m longer fuselage and a maximum capacity of 85 passengers, and also worked on a jet-powered update with engine nacelles on pylons under and in front of the wings. But none of these improvements was turned into hardware, since not only the Tu-124 had become the preferred short/medium haul airliner for Aeroflot, the following Tu-134 had also become the political favorite, and OKB-240 focused on its long-range airliner Il-62.

 

Il-60 production already ended after only two years in 1964, and Aeroflot decommissioned its last twelve Il-60s on 21 January 1980, after more and more structural problems (wing spar cracks, caused by the NK-6’s vibrations) had become apparent and several aircraft had to be grounded.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 3 (captain, first officer and a flight engineer),

plus another seat for an optional navigator or a radio officer,

plus a three- or four-person cabin crew

Capacity: 52 – 72

Payload: 8.4 t (9.3 short tons)

Length: 32,54 m (106 ft 7 in)

Wingspan: 34.3 m (112 ft 6 in)

Height: 11,74 m (38 ft 5 1/2 in)

Wing area: 146.7 m² (1,579 sq ft)

Empty weight: 22.2 t (24.5 sT)

Max. takeoff weight: 46 t (50.7 sT)

 

Powerplant:

2× Kusnetzow NK-6K turboprop engines, rated at 3,318 kW (4,612 ehp) each

 

Performance

Maximum speed: 805 km/h (500 mph/435 knots)

Cruise speed: 665 km/h (424 mph/370 knots)

Range (Typical payload, 2 hr reserve): 2,400 km (1,300 nmi/1,490 mi)

Rate of climb: 2,750 ft/min (14.0 m/s)

Service ceiling: 11,000 m (36,000 ft)

  

The kit and its assembly:

“In Soviet Union, Aeroflot flies you!” And in order to prove this theory, this whiffy airliner is contribution #3 to the “Soviet Group Build” at whatifmodelers.com in early 2017.

 

It’s been a very long time that I had built a small-scale airliner, but then I found a (crappy!) 1:144 Mistercraft Caravelle III in my stash (actually, a re-boxed kit from a company called “Ruch” from the Sixties!), that I had originally bought just for the wings as a pure donor kit. This appears to be a blunt copy of the also rather vintage Airfix kit, but the latter has much more crisp details. O.K., the Mistercraft kit was cheap – but you have to pay otherwise…

 

Anyway, anything Soviet without an elegant Aeroflot airliner would not be complete, so I tackled this idea on short notice. The project had also been fueled by another project idea: a modern short-haul airliner like the Tu-204, but outfitted with turboprops instead of turbofan engines. For this idea (and other uses), I also had a conversion set from a Russian company called “Kompakt Mir” stashed away, with four resin 1:144 NK-14 engines. It’s actually as an aftermarket upgrade set for the Trumpeter Tu-95 model kit, but came in handy – and it is excellent stuff, by the way, with crisp detail, almost no flash or sinkholes.

 

With these ingredients, work went on quickly and straightforward, and wings and fuselage were started separately. The wings (a combined piece with a mutual underside) received fairings for engine nacelles, made basically from drop tank halves glued to the upper wing surface. Then the resin engines were mounted to the fairings’ front ends the gaps and the nacelles’ underside sculpted with 2C putty, plus some later fine-tuning with NC putty. The Caravelle’s inward-retracting landing gear was retained, keeping the engine fairings rather short and compact.

 

On the fuselage, the Caravelle's original engines and their attachment points disappeared. The triangular windows were drilled open into circular shape, later, as a final finishing step, filled with Humbrol ClearFix for shiny window panes - this improves the overall look a lot.

 

Lead was added in the nose, the retractable stairway under the rear fuselage kept (a very Soviet design detail!) and the Caravelle’s characteristic round fin tip was cut away, to be replaced with a square scratch transplant. The stabilizers were moved down and their round tips clipped, too.

 

On the nose, a scratched thimble radome was added and blended into the fuselage, for an Il-18-ish look. While these were rather simple, cosmetic measures on the fuselage, the look of the whole aircraft was changed into a much more modern design!? This was even more emphasized when the wings and stabilizers were added – the Il-60 looks very contemporary, nothing of the Caravelle’s Fifties flavor remains.

 

The landing gear is new, bashed from the bogies of the recently slashed Dragon 1:144 B-1B bomber I abused for my Fastback build, and leftover struts from an Acedemy 1:144 Tu-22M. The latter also donated a pair of main wheels for the front leg, which is, again, from the B-1B.

The new arrangement is considerably taller than the Caravelle’s, but with the large propellers this is a convenient and plausible arrangement, despite a rather stalky appearance due to the relatively short wheelbase. The eight main wheels were taken from the RUCH kit, even though the attachment point would not fit the B-1 struts at all...

  

Painting and markings:

One can argue about Soviet aircraft design or reliability – but I must admit that I liked the Aeroflot aircraft liveries since I can remember them as a child, sometimes even witnessing Tupolev or Yak jets at the local airport. The white-and-blue outfit with almost baroque trim and details was and is IMHO a very elegant design, worthy of a state airline (which had a menacing, if not mysterious Big Brother image during the Cold War times in which I grew up).

 

Another interesting fact is that, despite the basic colors were set, each Aeroflot type bore a typical and different paint scheme, plus some exotic designs like the polar service machines with lots of red added.

 

Consequently, I had a lot of freedom, and work was made even more easy through the Mistercraft Caravelle kit: it actually contains markings for a Caravelle in Aeroflot markings! “Nonsense!”, you might say – but this aircraft actually existed: it was a movie prop (actually Air France’s F-BJTR) for filming “Enigma” at Le Bourget Airport in 1981 (check this for reference: www.airliners.net/photo/Aeroflot-%28Air-France%29/Sud-SE-...). As a side note, there was another Caravelle in fictional Interflug or ČSA colors, too, as well as a camouflaged SMB2 Super Mystère and a NMF Mystère IV with red stars on white discs, both playing the role of Soviet MiG-19s!

 

Anyway, the OOB decal sheet offered enough material for my plans, even though the blue trim was created from generic decal sheet. But door decals and most Aeroflot markings came from the movie aircraft.

 

Painting was also a pretty straightforward affair: the fuselage was painted white with acrylic paint from the rattle can, the lower fuselage by brush with Polished Aluminum Metallizer from Humbrol (which creates a very bright and clean finish) on top of a Revell Acrylics Aluminum primer coat.

For some contrast to the white and blue I painted the fixed wing parts with light grey, the rudders in Aluminum and Steel, and orange wing and stabilizer tips were added as small, additional contrasts, later even highlighted with dayglow orange.

 

In order to add some weirdness to the look, the propeller blades were painted bright blue with yellow tips. Unusual, but a common Soviet/Russian/Chinese practice.

  

A rather simple conversion, but highly effective. The Caravelle’s traces are almost not to be identified anymore, even though fuselage and wings consist of OOB material with only superficial modifications or re-locations. The engines on the wings change the look, too, and despite being massive NK-12’s they are a good match for the compact airliner – I am very happy with the outcome, even though the overall lines look much more modern than late Fifties design – even though no more modern parts were actually integrated? Weird, but entertaining. J

South Carolina up to the War of Independence Continued.

Apart from rice the other profitable crop grown in the lowlands and swamps of Sth Carolina was indigo. The blue flowering Indigofera tinctoria, a member of the pea family provided dye for the expanding textile mills of England and France. Sth Carolina also had a native indigo plant, Baptisia australias, false blue indigo but it did not yield as much dye as the Indian plant. Indigo was grown in Sth Carolina from its origins in 1670 as the Jamaica and Barbados settlers had grown it in the Caribbean. But a woman, Eliza Lucas Pinckney is credited with starting the commercial industry in 1740. (One of her sons was a signer of the ratification of the US constitution.) Records however, show that much indigo was grown before then. The crop required a skilled workforce and it teamed excellently with rice as a crop as the rice was tended in spring and autumn, and the indigo in summer. The Black slaves of Sth Carolina had also grown rice in West Africa and many arrived with these agricultural skills. The Indigofera plant had to be stripped, soaked and treated to produce a cake of solid indigo dye. The industry died out in Sth Carolina around 1800. Indigo is still used to dye blue jeans but from synthetic indigo these days.

 

During the War of Independence more battles were fought in Sth Carolina than any other colony. Its wealth was a prize the British wanted and many wealthy planters were loyalists. Yet it was the first colony to declare independence and ratify a new state constitution. The English captured Charleston in 1780 and most of the colony. A local brigadier, Francis Marion emerged as a skilled guerrilla fighter. He had learnt these skills from the Indians whom he had fought and slaughtered during the Indian Wars around 1760. During the War of Independence he escaped capture several times by escaping with his militia into the swamps, hence his nicknamed given by the British- the Swampfox. There is a statue of Marion in the central park in Charleston opposite the Marion Hotel. Go inside to the hotel lobby to see beautiful antique furniture. The hotel restaurant is called the Swampfox.

 

Charleston in the Antebellum Era.

Also in the central square is a statue of Senator John Calhoun high on a stone column. It is said the statue is so high to prevent the former slaves from defacing it! But who could blame them as Calhoun was a rabid racist. He was one of many racist slave owners who dominated the Sth Carolina legislature. It enacted new slave codes in 1800 and 1820 to make manumission (freeing so slaves) almost impossible. Calhoun in Washington was the one who led the crisis about secession in 1832. Sth Carolina threaded to secede from the Union over a tariff bill. Sth Carolina and its politicians were always champions of slavery and states’ rights. Then in 1822 Denmark Vesey, a slave who had purchased his freedom before the new laws of 1820, planned a major bloodbath in Charleston. Thousands of slaves in Charleston knew about the planned uprising but eventually two ratted on Vesey and he was arrested before the uprising began. 131 slaves were charged with conspiracy and 35 hung, including Vesey. His little house in Charleston (probably not the actual one) is now a National Landmark. It was also a Sth Carolinian Congressman in 1835 who got the “gag rule” passed in Congress to stop Abolitionist pamphlets and mail going to the South. It passed in 1836 and was known as the Pinckney Resolution. It was finally rescinded in 1844 when the Northern Democrats got control of Congress. Later in 1856 it was Congressman Preston Brooks of Sth Carolina who led the attack on the pro-slavery Northerner Charles Sumner on the floor of the US Senate. Sumner (a Republican like Lincoln) was bashed with a cane whilst pro-slavery Southern friends of Brooks protected him from irate Northern Senators who could do nothing to help Charles Sumner. Sumner took over three years to recover from this attack. This was one of the finale events that polarised anti-Southern and pro-slavery abolition support in the North. Sth Carolina always led the vanguard of propaganda against the Abolitionists and against the North. But they also had much to fear. In coastal Sth Carolina slaves outnumbered whites and when the white planters retreated to Charleston for the summer season, many rural counties became 98% black slave. In the 1850s Sth Carolinians became more and more militant and not surprisingly they were the first state to vote for secession upon the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860. They wanted to protect their privileged and gracious life style of which we can see remnants today in Charleston –the beautiful mansions and public buildings. In this antebellum period Charleston was extremely wealthy as the major importing and exporting port of the South. It handled the cotton from upstate and a large part of the slave market. The international slave trade was banned from 1808 but many shiploads of black slaves still entered American illegally after that date. The wealthy planting class imported their chandeliers from France, their fine furniture and porcelain from England and their silk fabrics for the ladies ball gowns from Paris. In your free afternoon you can enter some of these mansions and see theirs and their slaves’ living conditions especially at the Aiken-Rhett house.

 

Charleston during the Civil War.

The first shots of the Civil War were fired in Charleston Harbour by the Confederates but few shots were fired at Charleston by the Union forces. A small battle outside the city in 1862 saw the Confederates being victorious and the Unions forces retreating. That ended any immediate threat of land invasion of Charleston. Charleston Harbour had always been well protected with forts in addition to Fort Sumter in case of Spanish or British attack. The Confederates used these forts to protect the city. But the Anaconda Plan meant that from the start of the Civil War the Union naval blockade was reasonably successful. Gun runners still managed to bring supplies into Charleston from France but goods were limited. In the latter stages of the Civil War, Charleston like other areas of the South was basically without food for whites or slaves. People were starving. Yet despite this in the final year of the Civil War the Charlestonians still had their grand balls for the season with French ball gowns smuggled into the city when some were starving. At the same time General Vance with his North Carolina Army was enduring the freezing winter of northern Virginia with his troops in thread bare uniforms and worn boots. But resources from Sth Carolina were not advanced to help the troops from North Carolina. They were kept aside for Sth Carolina. This was one of the many great weaknesses of the Confederacy- blind obsession with states’ rights. The continuing extravagances of the Charlestonian elite also angered starving Southerners and added to the decline in morale in the South. In February 1865 when General Sherman advanced towards Charleston from Savannah the Confederate General Beauregard, ordered the evacuation of Confederate troops from Charleston. The Mayor of Charleston was then able to surrender to Sherman and avoid the city being bombarded or destroyed. We must be thankful for that and the decision of the ladies of Charleston to preserve as many historic houses as they could. They began this around 1955.

 

+++ DISCLAIMER +++Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!

  

Some background:

Aeroflot is one of the oldest airlines in the world, tracing its history back to 1923. During the Soviet era, Aeroflot was the Soviet national airline and the largest airline in the world. Following the dissolution of the USSR, the carrier has been transformed from a state-run enterprise into a semi-privatized company which ranked 19th most profitable airline in the world in 2007. Aeroflot is still considered to be the de facto national airline of Russia, being 51%-owned by the Russian Government.

 

After WWII, Aeroflot's route network had extended to 295,400 kilometers (183,600 mi), and by 1950 it carried 1,603,700 passengers, 151,070 tonnes (333,050,000 lb) of freight and 30,580 tonnes (67,420,000 lb) of mail during the same year. The 20th Communist Party Congress, held in 1956, saw plans for Aeroflot services to be dramatically increased. The airline would see its overall activities increased from its then current levels by 3.8 times, and it was set the target of the carriage of 16,000,000 passengers by 1960. In order to meet these goals, Aeroflot introduced higher capacity turbojet and turbine-prop aircraft on key domestic routes, and on services to Aeroflot destinations abroad.

 

A major step for Aeroflot occurred on 15 September 1956 when the Tupolev Tu-104 jet airliner entered service on the Moscow-Omsk-Irkutsk route, marking the world's first sustained jet airline service. The airline began international flights with the type on 12 October 1956 with flights from Moscow to Prague. The aircraft placed Aeroflot in an envious position, as airlines in the West had operated throughout the 1950s with large piston-engine aircraft. By 1958 the route network covered 349,200 kilometers (217,000 mi), and the airline carried 8,231,500 passengers, and 445,600 tons of mail and freight, with fifteen percent of all-Union services being operated by jet aircraft.

 

Aeroflot introduced the Antonov An-10 and Ilyushin Il-18 in 1959, and together with its existing jet aircraft, the airline was able to extend services on modern aircraft to some twenty cities during 1960. The Tupolev Tu-114, then the world's largest airliner, entered service with the Soviet carrier on 24 April 1961 on the Moscow-Khabarovsk route; covering a distance of 6,980 kilometers (4,340 mi) in 8 hours 20 minutes. The expansion of the Aeroflot fleet saw services with modern aircraft being extended to more than forty cities in 1961, with fifty percent of all-Union services being operated by these aircraft. This fleet expansion also saw the number of passengers carried in 1961 skyrocketing to 21,800,000.

 

Further expansion came in 1962 when various medium and short-haul routes were started and respective aircraft types such as the Tupolev Tu-124, Ilyushin Il-60 and Antonov An-24 entered regular service with Aeroflot. The Tu-124 was a jet airliner, technically an 75% version of the Tu-104, while the An-24 was a lighter twin turboprop aircraft in the class of the Fokker F.27. The Il-60 was the latest addition to the domestic services, falling in between both other types.

 

Development of the Ilyushin Il-60 dated back to 12 October 1951, when the Soviet Council of Ministers published a specification for a medium-range aircraft carrying 50 to 70 passengers and 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) of cargo on routes up to 2,000 km (1,100 nmi; 1,200 mi) with a cruising speed of about 600 km/h (320 kn; 370 mph). The type was to replace the piston engine Ilyushin Il-14 on domestic routes. The number and type of engines were not specified, but jet or turboprop engines were expected and emphasis was put on ruggedness and ease of operations for operations on rural airstrips with a minimum of infrastructure.

 

Ilyushin’s OKB-240 responded at first with a scaled-down Il-18 turboprop airliner, somewhat inspired by an idea of Czech manufacturer Avia for a smaller, short-range airliner for the CSA’s Central European routes. This machine had only two engines and overall reduced dimensions, but used many components of the original airliner. But it soon became clear that the Tu-104 with its jet engines had already set higher standards, so that a completely new and more innovative design was started.

 

Internally known as “Aircraft 60”, the machine introduced some innovations while still being a conservative design. The aircraft was a two turboprop-engine low-wing monoplane with slightly swept (20° at quarter chord) wings, a circular pressurized fuselage and a conventional, yet markedly swept tail (both fin and stabilizer at 45°). The aircraft had two entry doors on the port-side before and after the wing, two overwing emergency exits on each side, and featured a retractable stairway under the rear fuselage so that passengers could directly enter the aircraft from the airfield. An APU was integrated in the rear fuselage, under the fin, for independent operation of the air condition system and starting the engines without external support.

The tricycle landing gear had four wheels fitted on the main leg bogies, which retracted inwards to lie under the fuselage instead of into the engine nacelles. The front wheel also had twin wheels, retracting forward in a well under the cockpit floor, and the aircraft’s low-pressure tires allowed operations even from grass airfields or snowy ground. Another novel feature at the time was the fitting of a weather radar in the nose, a civilian RPSN-2 "Emblema" system, doing away with the typical glazed navigator position of other former Soviet airliner designs. In order to support all-weather operations and ease the pilots’ work, “Aircraft 60” was also outfitted with an automatic approach system, supported by the radar which allowed blind navigation.

 

Despite vibration and noise problems, experienced with the earlier Il-18 airliner, Ilyushin insisted on turboprop propulsion because it was the more fuel-efficient option. He furthermore expected that no another jet-driven airliner would be politically “allowed” along the Tu-124 short haul airliner, at that time under parallel development.

 

“Aircraft 60” was powered by a pair of Kuznetsow NK-6K turboprops. This engine was one of several developments after World War II by a team of Russian scientists and deported German engineers under Ferdinand Brandner, which had worked for Junkers previously, evolving from late war German turboprop studies. This the post-war development was based on the wartime Jumo 022 turboprop design that developed 6000 eshp in a 3000 kg engine. The efforts continued with a 5000 ehp engine that weighed in at 1700 kg, completed by 1947, and with further weight savings and more modern materials, the NK-6, one of several development directions, became a large single-spool engine that was optimized for use on board of commercial aircraft like “Aircraft 60”.

 

For security reasons, the engines were mounted in front and above of the wings’ leading edge. In order to keep the wing structure as clean and simple and possible and not risk collateral damage to the landing gear in case of an engine fire, the landing gear was retracted into wells under the wing roots. This measure also kept the engine nacelle’s dimensions in very compact limits.

In order to minimize noise and vibrations, 2x4-bladed contraprops with an automatic feathering system were mounted, resulting in a characteristic humming noise when the engines were running. Due to the lower speed of these propellers, compared to a standard four- or five-blade propeller, the internal and external noise level could be significantly reduced (compared to the Il-18, which could drone at 110db in the cabin above the wings!), even though the lower frequency caused other problems, mainly vibrations at certain speeds that shook the whole airframe.

 

The standard seating of the initial version, the Il-60A, was 52 seats at a 90cm distance between the five-seat rows (two seats on port side and three on starboard). Alternatively, a maximum of 72 could be mounted in a cramped “tourist class” configuration with only 78cm distance between the seat rows, which became the late production standard configuration as Il-60B.

 

The first of two prototypes made its first flight from Zhukovsky airfield on 24 March 1960. The second prototype followed in June 1960. Two other airframes served as a static test cells. Testing was successful, and the aircraft entered production at Machinery Plant No. 30 located at Khodynka, near Moscow, replacing the Il-18 in production. Deliveries to Aeroflot began in August 1962, with the type operating its first scheduled passenger service, between Moscow and Tallinn in Estonia, on 2 October 1962.

 

The Il-60’s production remained only on a small scale, though: being a pure jet, the Tu-124 was preferred by the Aeroflot for short haul duties, as well as by the Powers That Be. Despite the type’s merits esp. in harsh climate conditions (most Il-60 were allocated to Aeroflot’s feederline services in the Soviet Union’s northern regions), the type was not popular among its crews. While the two turboprops gave sufficient power, had good handling across the whole speed envelope and the aircraft had no trouble remaining airborne with one engine shut down, the asymmetrical drag/thrust in this emergency condition was considerable and navigating the Il-60, and even more landing the aircraft, with only one engine was a challenging task.

 

Furthermore, the stalky landing gear, which prompted the crews' inofficial nickname "косино́жки" (kosinozhki = daddy longlegs), could start to vibrate under certain conditions and wobble, making a start or landing run a shaky if not dangerous affair, esp. on snow-packed and non-permanent runways. Furthermore, two Il-60 crashed on runways or airfields after hitting obstacles ubnder snow - the long front landing gear collapsed. Nobody on board was seriosuly hurt in both cases, but these accidents did not improve the type's reputation among both pilots and passengers alike.

 

Only a total of 44 machines were built: 18 Il-60As for selected connections abroad (e. g. to Scandinavia and Poland), plus 26 Il-60Bs with higher seat capacity for purely domestic service. Both machines were identical from the outside, though, and all production aircraft featured a characteristic spinal fin root extension that covered several radio and navigation antennae.

 

Ilyushin had plans for a stretched version (with two plugs inserted into the fuselage in front of and behind the wings) with a 2.2m longer fuselage and a maximum capacity of 85 passengers, and also worked on a jet-powered update with engine nacelles on pylons under and in front of the wings. But none of these improvements was turned into hardware, since not only the Tu-124 had become the preferred short/medium haul airliner for Aeroflot, the following Tu-134 had also become the political favorite, and OKB-240 focused on its long-range airliner Il-62.

 

Il-60 production already ended after only two years in 1964, and Aeroflot decommissioned its last twelve Il-60s on 21 January 1980, after more and more structural problems (wing spar cracks, caused by the NK-6’s vibrations) had become apparent and several aircraft had to be grounded.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 3 (captain, first officer and a flight engineer),

plus another seat for an optional navigator or a radio officer,

plus a three- or four-person cabin crew

Capacity: 52 – 72

Payload: 8.4 t (9.3 short tons)

Length: 32,54 m (106 ft 7 in)

Wingspan: 34.3 m (112 ft 6 in)

Height: 11,74 m (38 ft 5 1/2 in)

Wing area: 146.7 m² (1,579 sq ft)

Empty weight: 22.2 t (24.5 sT)

Max. takeoff weight: 46 t (50.7 sT)

 

Powerplant:

2× Kusnetzow NK-6K turboprop engines, rated at 3,318 kW (4,612 ehp) each

 

Performance

Maximum speed: 805 km/h (500 mph/435 knots)

Cruise speed: 665 km/h (424 mph/370 knots)

Range (Typical payload, 2 hr reserve): 2,400 km (1,300 nmi/1,490 mi)

Rate of climb: 2,750 ft/min (14.0 m/s)

Service ceiling: 11,000 m (36,000 ft)

  

The kit and its assembly:

“In Soviet Union, Aeroflot flies you!” And in order to prove this theory, this whiffy airliner is contribution #3 to the “Soviet Group Build” at whatifmodelers.com in early 2017.

 

It’s been a very long time that I had built a small-scale airliner, but then I found a (crappy!) 1:144 Mistercraft Caravelle III in my stash (actually, a re-boxed kit from a company called “Ruch” from the Sixties!), that I had originally bought just for the wings as a pure donor kit. This appears to be a blunt copy of the also rather vintage Airfix kit, but the latter has much more crisp details. O.K., the Mistercraft kit was cheap – but you have to pay otherwise…

 

Anyway, anything Soviet without an elegant Aeroflot airliner would not be complete, so I tackled this idea on short notice. The project had also been fueled by another project idea: a modern short-haul airliner like the Tu-204, but outfitted with turboprops instead of turbofan engines. For this idea (and other uses), I also had a conversion set from a Russian company called “Kompakt Mir” stashed away, with four resin 1:144 NK-14 engines. It’s actually as an aftermarket upgrade set for the Trumpeter Tu-95 model kit, but came in handy – and it is excellent stuff, by the way, with crisp detail, almost no flash or sinkholes.

 

With these ingredients, work went on quickly and straightforward, and wings and fuselage were started separately. The wings (a combined piece with a mutual underside) received fairings for engine nacelles, made basically from drop tank halves glued to the upper wing surface. Then the resin engines were mounted to the fairings’ front ends the gaps and the nacelles’ underside sculpted with 2C putty, plus some later fine-tuning with NC putty. The Caravelle’s inward-retracting landing gear was retained, keeping the engine fairings rather short and compact.

 

On the fuselage, the Caravelle's original engines and their attachment points disappeared. The triangular windows were drilled open into circular shape, later, as a final finishing step, filled with Humbrol ClearFix for shiny window panes - this improves the overall look a lot.

 

Lead was added in the nose, the retractable stairway under the rear fuselage kept (a very Soviet design detail!) and the Caravelle’s characteristic round fin tip was cut away, to be replaced with a square scratch transplant. The stabilizers were moved down and their round tips clipped, too.

 

On the nose, a scratched thimble radome was added and blended into the fuselage, for an Il-18-ish look. While these were rather simple, cosmetic measures on the fuselage, the look of the whole aircraft was changed into a much more modern design!? This was even more emphasized when the wings and stabilizers were added – the Il-60 looks very contemporary, nothing of the Caravelle’s Fifties flavor remains.

 

The landing gear is new, bashed from the bogies of the recently slashed Dragon 1:144 B-1B bomber I abused for my Fastback build, and leftover struts from an Acedemy 1:144 Tu-22M. The latter also donated a pair of main wheels for the front leg, which is, again, from the B-1B.

The new arrangement is considerably taller than the Caravelle’s, but with the large propellers this is a convenient and plausible arrangement, despite a rather stalky appearance due to the relatively short wheelbase. The eight main wheels were taken from the RUCH kit, even though the attachment point would not fit the B-1 struts at all...

  

Painting and markings:

One can argue about Soviet aircraft design or reliability – but I must admit that I liked the Aeroflot aircraft liveries since I can remember them as a child, sometimes even witnessing Tupolev or Yak jets at the local airport. The white-and-blue outfit with almost baroque trim and details was and is IMHO a very elegant design, worthy of a state airline (which had a menacing, if not mysterious Big Brother image during the Cold War times in which I grew up).

 

Another interesting fact is that, despite the basic colors were set, each Aeroflot type bore a typical and different paint scheme, plus some exotic designs like the polar service machines with lots of red added.

 

Consequently, I had a lot of freedom, and work was made even more easy through the Mistercraft Caravelle kit: it actually contains markings for a Caravelle in Aeroflot markings! “Nonsense!”, you might say – but this aircraft actually existed: it was a movie prop (actually Air France’s F-BJTR) for filming “Enigma” at Le Bourget Airport in 1981 (check this for reference: www.airliners.net/photo/Aeroflot-%28Air-France%29/Sud-SE-...). As a side note, there was another Caravelle in fictional Interflug or ČSA colors, too, as well as a camouflaged SMB2 Super Mystère and a NMF Mystère IV with red stars on white discs, both playing the role of Soviet MiG-19s!

 

Anyway, the OOB decal sheet offered enough material for my plans, even though the blue trim was created from generic decal sheet. But door decals and most Aeroflot markings came from the movie aircraft.

 

Painting was also a pretty straightforward affair: the fuselage was painted white with acrylic paint from the rattle can, the lower fuselage by brush with Polished Aluminum Metallizer from Humbrol (which creates a very bright and clean finish) on top of a Revell Acrylics Aluminum primer coat.

For some contrast to the white and blue I painted the fixed wing parts with light grey, the rudders in Aluminum and Steel, and orange wing and stabilizer tips were added as small, additional contrasts, later even highlighted with dayglow orange.

 

In order to add some weirdness to the look, the propeller blades were painted bright blue with yellow tips. Unusual, but a common Soviet/Russian/Chinese practice.

  

A rather simple conversion, but highly effective. The Caravelle’s traces are almost not to be identified anymore, even though fuselage and wings consist of OOB material with only superficial modifications or re-locations. The engines on the wings change the look, too, and despite being massive NK-12’s they are a good match for the compact airliner – I am very happy with the outcome, even though the overall lines look much more modern than late Fifties design – even though no more modern parts were actually integrated? Weird, but entertaining. J

Midtown Manhattan, Manhattan, New York City, New York, United States

 

The Hearst Magazine Building was designed in 1926-27 by Joseph Urban in association with George B. Pest & Sons . Stretching a full block along the west side of Eighth Avenue between 56th and 57th Streets, the building remains the expectant six-story base of an office tower that was never constructed. It is a stylistic synthesis of Art Deco ornament, Secessionist influence and Baroque theatricality. Further enriched by classical allusions which are both imposing and dramatic, the building survives as a relic of unrealized plans to transform greater Columbus Circle into New York's new cultural and commercial center as well as the corporate headquarters of Hearst's vast publishing empire. The unique product of a uniquely skilled designer, the Hearst Magazine Building is an important monument in the architectural heritage of New York.

 

William Randolph Hearst

 

Hearst was born in San Francisco on April 29, 1863, the son of a United States Senator who also owned several newspapers. In 1882 young "Willie" Hearst enrolled in Harvard University where, aside from American history, he showed little interest in his studies. Instead, he became involved in the Hasty Pudding Club and especially the Harvard lampoon which Hearst made profitable for the first time in years. After a rowdy career , Hearst was expelled from Harvard in his senior year. He returned to California and persuaded his father to let him take over the San Francisco Examiner. Within eight years he transformed this unprofitable four-page daily — "easily the worst in San Francisco" — into the largest newspaper on the West Coast. And while it remained the political mouthpiece of Senator Hearst, the Examiner also launched independent crusades against civic, corporate and governmental corruption. Thriving on sensational journalism, it previewed the trend of ''gee whiz emotion" that

would characterize Hearst's later publications and which lay at the core of his multi-million dollar fortune-

 

Eager to achieve national prominence, Hearst moved to New York with the purchase of the Morning Journal in 1895- He burst upon Printing House Square, quickly violating all the traditions of this previously sedate bastion of newspaper publishing. Hearst's major opponent was Joseph Pulitzer whose World he studied, copied, and ultimately conquered- He reduced the price of the Journal to a penny and through enormous salary increases manned his staff with the best managers, editors and reporters, most cf whan were lured away from Pulitzer. In time Hearst also took Pulitzer's publisher and when, in 1927-28, he built the International Magazine Building near Columbus Circle, he employed the successor firm of George B. Post, architect of Pulitzer's World Building in 1889-90 .

 

By 1900 Hearst was personally involved in national politics. He was twice elected New York State Congressman , but otherwise launched unsuccessful bids for the vice-presidency and presidency of the United States, mayoralty and governorship of New York. He was defeated in the latter after Secretary of State Elihu Root accused him of responsibility for the assassination of President McKinley.

 

In the coarse of his political career, Hearst continued to build his publishing empire. To the Morning Journal he added the Evening Journal which, within a year, had the largest circulation in the English speaking world. He also established or purchased the New York Morning Advertiser and Daily Mirror as well as other newspapers in virtually every major American city. By 1926 Hearst was receiving an annual income of $150 million from the 72 companies of which he was sole proprietor; he had no stockholders.

 

In addition to his 26 newspapers, Hearst owned over a dozen magazines, Cosmopolitan , Good Housekeeping , Harper's Bazaar and Hearst's Internationa1 among them. In 1923 he became a newsreel pioneer with the Hearst-Selig Weekly, subsequently increasing his film involvements with motion pictures, most of which were vehicles for actress Marion Davies. Hearst met Miss Da vies in 1917 when she appeared as a chorus girl in Florenz Ziegfeld's Follies. The production was especially memorable for its dreamy stage sets by Joseph Urban. In the following years, Hearst, Urban and Ziegfeld had various associations, the most important being the new Ziegf eld Theater on 56th Street and Sixth Avenue which Hearst subsidized and Urban designed . In the same year Hearst engaged his by then close friend Joseph Urban to design the International Magazine Building. It was to be located on West 57th Street, a rapidly developing section of New York already distinguished by imposing commercial buildings, Carnegie Hall , the Art Students' league and numerous art galleries ranch frequented by Hearst.

 

Columbus Circle Development and the Vision of "Hearst Plaza"

 

When Hearst came to New York in 1895, he leased two floors in the Tribune Building at Printing House Square- The concentration of newspapers in this part of town grew naturally frcm its proximity to Wall Street, City Hall and the Criminal Courts, all of which furnished the bulk of late nineteenth-century news. With the development of telephones and rapid transit, however, growing newspaper operations were free to seek larger quarters in more fashionable uptcwn districts. In 1895 the Herald moved to 34th Street and gave its name to the intersection at Sixth Avenue and Broadway. The New York Times likewise relocated in 1904, prompting the rechristening of longacre Square to Times Square. Hie Daily News continued the northern migration in 1929 when it commissioned Raymond Hood to design its new building several blocks east on 42nd Street. Hearst himself had moved into the area as early as 1912 with offices located at 119 West 40th Street.

 

Hearst was intent on making known his presence in New York. He envisioned a midtown headquarters as early as 1895, when he purchased the small block between Columbus Circle and 58th Street, Broadway and Eighth Avenue . Plans for the development of this site with a "lofty structure" were eclipsed, however, in 1903 when Hearst acquired the larger block immediately south . Reportedly the latter site was to told "a mamroouth structure to provide a" hone for . In this instance he commissioned from commercial architect James C. Green a design for a three- story Gothic structure. It was reinforced from the beginning for the later addition of a tower "30 or more stories in height." The Gothic building was erected in 1912, but never enlarged, allegedly because its irregular plot could "not meet the requirements of a large and satisfactory business structure.,

 

Instead, Hearst acquired in 1920 a large plot between 58th and 59th Streets where he intended to erect a "25-story building to house the headquarters of his eastern enterprises." Plans for the setback structure, again unexecuted, were drawn 15) by architect Charles E. Birge who worked en a number of commercial and residential commissions for Hearst. Four months later Hearst bought the Hotel Essex on Madison and 58th Street for "possible future occupancy [by the] International Magazine." In the following year he purchased "the largest available vacant lot in the Columbus Circle District." Located on Eighth Avenue between 56th and 57th Streets and ultimately developed with the International Magazine Building, the site was originally intended to hold a two-story mixed-use structure with stores, offices and a 2,500 seat auditorium. By contrast, Hearst's publications were to be housed in a sprawling seven-story building located on the block he owned between Eleventh and Twelfth Avenues, 44th and 45th Streets. In the end Hearst abandoned the latter scheme presumably because its far West Side location was too far removed frcm the center of town and because of the growing prestige of the Eighth Avenue site. After several false starts, he hired Joseph Urban and George B. Post & Sons to design for the Eighth Avenue site a low-rise building to be completed with a tower at a later date. In a pattern that was by now typical, the addition never materialized.

 

Hearst's real estate ventures in western midtown were daringly speculative and characteristically — and in the end, ruinously — extravagant. He was encouraged by expectations for Columbus Circle's future as the inevitable extension of New York's growing theater district. The construction of Carnegie Hall on 57th Street and Seventh Avenue had set the stage in 1891. Nearly a dozen theaters followed, most of them concurrent with the International Magazine Building.

 

Hearst's relationship with Miss Davies predisposed him to theater involvements. For the opening of her motion picture When Knighthood Was in Flower he hired Joseph Urban to refurbish the Criterion Theater, arri in the following year had him do the same for the Cosmopolitan Theater in Columbus Circle which Hearst had purchased for the debut of Miss Davies' film Little Old New York In 1926 Hearst entered the legitimate stage with construction of the Ziegf eld Theater on the southeast corner of Sixth Avenue and 54th Street. He simultaneously planned the Billy Burke Theater , to be located across the street. The feverish development of the new theater district was encouraged by the Metropolitan Cpera which had announced plans to build a new house on 57th Street in late 1923. Two months later Hearst purchased the adjacent lots that were ultimately developed with the International Magazine Building. The grand scheme for a cultural center at Columbus Circle faltered, however, when the Opera met strenuous boxholder opposition and consequently abandoned its 57th Street site.

 

Although disappointed by the Opera's withdrawal, tremendous potential remained for the commercial development of Columbus Circle, the nexus of six major traffic arteries. One of the .most important was Eighth Avenue which, in the 1920s, saw unprecedented midtown activity. Its growth was encouraged by new zoning for higher buildings and construction of the Eighth Avenue subway . Within a decade property values on Eighth Avenue between 42nd Street and Columbus Circle had increased more than 200%. The area was fast becoming New York's new business district, attracting such prominent tenants as the U.S. Rubber Company , the Fisk and Gotham banks, General Motors — and William Randolph Hearst.

 

Hearst was advised in real estate by Arthur Brisbane . Hearst bought huge amounts of property in the area around 57th Street and Eighth Avenue, making purchases every one or two months. In addition to his theaters and the many sites for the International Magazine Building, he owned several large hotels and townhouses. His ultimate objective was the creation of "Hearst Plaza," an urban focus which by its central location and sheer expanse would eclipse the rival publishing centers at Park Row, Times and Herald Squares. Its location in Columbus Circle, site of the Maine Monument was particularly appropriate given Hearst's pivotal role in the Spanish-American War.

 

The Hearst Magazine Building is the sole survivor of this grand scheme, collapsed by the Depression and Hearst's own uncurtailed lavishness. He continued to buy Columbus Circle properties until 1930 but was forced to liquidate within the decade. In 1937 Hearst relinquished financial control of his publishing empire. Drained by too many unprofitable newspapers, financially disastrous films and scores of inflated mortgages, his total debts amounted to a whopping $126 million.

 

Architects of the Hearst Magazine Building

 

Joseph Urban was born in Vienna on May 26, 1872. His father, a leading Austrian educator, sent him to law school only to discover two years later that his son had spent the entire time studying painting and architecture at the Wiener Akademie as well as construction at the Polytechnicum. His deception discovered, Urban fled frcm hems.

 

He was given a scholarship to the Akademie by its president Baron Carl Kasenauer who, one year later, sent the 19-year old student to decorate the Abdin Palace at Cairo for the Khedive of Egypt. Urban returned to Vienna in 1892 where he completed his architectural training, but under the influence of Secessionist architect Otto Wagner soon repudiated academic formalism. He became an accomplished book illustrator and in 1896 won the Kaiser Prize, the Austrian Gold Medal for Fine Arts in 1898 and the Grand Prix two years later. In 1898 Urban prevailed over a hundred contestants with his first independent architectural design, a bridge for Vienna. In the same year he became associated with the Secessionists at the Art and Industry Exhibition out of which developed Urban's commission to design Count Carl Esterhazy's castle. In 1900 he was awarded the Grand Prix for his decoration at the Paris Exposition, only to return to a Vienna scandalized over the paintings he had selected for the exhibition. As a result, Urban alienated himself from the Secessionists and formed the alternative Hagenbund.

 

The Hagenbund's varied membership led Urban almost inevitably to theater design. After a trip to St. Louis where he designed the interior of the Austrian Pavilion at the Louisiana Purchase Exposition , he returned to Vienna to design stage sets for the legitimate stage and Royal Opera. He came to America in 1911 as art director for the Boston Opera. Commissions for stage sets followed in Paris, London and ultimately New York where Urban made spectacular designs for "The Garden of Paradise." Unfortunately this artistically acclaimed production went bankrupt almost immediately, leaving Urban temporarily stranded. His fortune changed in 1914 when he met Florenz Ziegfeld and began designing stage sets for his 'Tollies."

 

Through Ziegfeld and his chorus girl Marion Davies, Urban was introduced to Hearst, initiating a lengthy professional association and close personal friendship between these two lovers of sensation. Xp 1916 Urban became art director of Hearst's new film-making studio, and subsequently remodeled the Criterion and Cosmopolitan theaters for him. Ten years later Urban designed the Hearst-financed Ziegfeld Theater while simultaneously continuing his long-term position as set designer for the Metropolitan Opera. In the following year , Urban collaborated with Benjamin Wistar Morris on the design of the Opera's new house on 57th

 

Street. He had filed plans for Hearst's adjacent International Magazine Building just three months prior. Urban's involvement in both projects assured unified architectural effect. Each of the proposals, however, included high-rise components, an aspect of building with which Urban had little experience. At the International Magazine Building, the expertise was supplied by George B. Post & Sons, noted commercial architects.

 

The firm of George B. Post & Sons was established in 1904 when George Browne Post took on as equal partners his sons William Stone Post and James Otis Post . The father had studied civil engineering at New York University before training in Richard Morris Hunt's 10th Street Studio, after which he formed a brief partnership with Charles Gambrill . Following service in the Civil War, Post resumed practice in New York, first with various associations but independently after 1368. In that year his premiated design for the Equitable Life Assurance Building — one of the first "elevator buildings" in New York — launched his long and distinguished career in residential, hotel and commercial design. Among his many notable commissions in New York were the Western Union Building , Williamsburgh Savings Bank , Long Island Historical Society Building , the Cornelius Vanderbilt House , the Produce Exchange , New York Stock Exchange , north campus of City College and the Mills Building where Post established himself as "a good planner." In light of his firm's involvement in the Hearst Magazine Building it is significant to note that Pest was architect of the original New York Times Building as well as of Pulitzer's Wbrld Building .

 

A pioneer in the development of tall buildings, Post's reputation for sound commercial design was continued by his sons whose successor firm retained their father's name long after his death in 1913. William Post joined the office after graduation from Columbia University and a year of travel abroad. He collaborated with his father on the New York Stock Exchange and City College north campus. In 1901 William was joined in the office by his younger brother James who had likewise graduated from Columbia but who also studied at the Ecole des Beaux Arts. After their father's death the two Post brothers made a specialty of commercial and institutional architecture with offices in both New York and Cleveland. Among their most notable commissions are the Statler hotels in Cleveland, Detroit, St. Louis, Boston and Buffalo, the Roosevelt Hotel in New York and the Hotel Olympic in Seattle, as well as the Wisconsin State Capitol and north building of the Prudential Insurance Company in Newark, New Jersey. After William Post's death in 1940, James continued the firm until his own death eleven years later before which time he had designed Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, St. Mary's Hospital for Children in Bayside, Samaritan Hospital in Troy and another in Stamford, Connecticut. James Post also designed the town of Cradock, Virginia for the United States Housing Bureau.

 

The Hearst Magazine Building and its Sculptural Program

 

Over the course of two decades Hearst had purchased no fewer than a half dozen midtown properties as potential sites for his new building. Meanwhile his publishing empire continued its meteoric growth. By 1926 Hearst was the unchallenged publishing giant in America and perhaps in the world. His decision to consolidate his magazine operations on Eighth

Avenue and 56-57th Street was directly related to the commercial and cultural development of Columbus Circle and to Hearst's intention to establish in the area a grand plaza befitting his publication prowess.

 

Initial plans for the site were relatively modest, calling for its development by the little known architect Michael Bernstein with three ccraroercial buildings, each three stories high, to contain a motion picture theater. This proposal was replaced one year later by a more ambitious scheme for a six-storv theater and office building by the aninent theater architect Thranas Iamb. This short-lived plan was likewise withdrawn in mid-August, 1926 and replaced by Joseph Urban's design for the present structure. Urban's ccmmission came just three months prior to the public announcement of his appointment as architect of the new Metropolitan Opera House to be built on neighboring 57th Street lots. The two designs are sympathetic in their scale and intent-

 

Like the Opera, Hearst's building was to convey its cultural importance, expressing the influence of his magazines "on the thought and education of the reading public." It was designed with an auditorium for "concerts, lectures and similar educational activities." Its role in the new art, music and theater district is suggested by "the six sculptural groups which 28-year old Henry Kreis executed for the building's chamfered corners, main entrance on Eighth Avenue and 57th Street entrance .

 

Born in Essen, Germany, on July 27, 1899, Kreis received a public school education before apprenticing at age 14 with Meister Goldkuhle, a local tombstone cutter. After four years' training Kreis spent three additional years in Munich where he studied with Joseph Wackerle. In 1923 he left war-ravaged Germany for America. Nearly destitute, Kreis relied on his early training, setting up tombstones and later, carving stone in Buffalo. He then attended the Beaux Arts School of Design 'in Manhattan. The building boon brought hint numerous jobs for architectural ornament, but its perfunctory execution prompted Kreis to seek more creative outlets for his talent. His opportunity came with a trip to Palm Beach c.1925 where Joseph Urban was executing the Hutton residence, a house "with lots of figures on it." Kreis got the job, became foreman of fifteen carvers, and in the following year was again engaged by Urban, this time on sulpture for the Hearst Magazine Building. Kreis' twelve dramatic figures brought him to public attention and led, after five years additional training with Paul Manship and Carl Paul* Jennewein, to important commissions for the United States Post Office in the Bronx and especially in Washington where he worked on the War Department Building, Social Security Building, and Department of Justice Building to name only a few. After a long and distinguished career Kreis died in his Essex, Connecticut heme at age 63 .

 

Kreis' work is characterized by strong composition, simplified and frequently angular forms, qualities particularly appropriate to an architectural setting. His subtle drama is evident at the Hearst Building where allegorical figures merge with their columnar supports in a theatrical play of light and brooding shadow. In each case the figures respond to the cultural development of Columbus Circle, much as their dorsal columns echo the column of the Columbus Monument two blocks to the north . The main entrance on Eighth Avenue is flanked by "Comedy and Tragedy" on the left amd "Music and Art" on the right, a pattern repeated at what was originally an entrance on 57th Street- "Sport and Industry" are installed above the chamfered corner at 56th Street. Appropriately/ "Printina and the Sciences" appear on the building's major corner at 57th Street.'

 

The figures are placed atop pylons which break theatrically through an otherwise continuous second-story balustrade, emphasized by the almost exclamatory verticality of the columns behind. The building's third story setback also tends to feature the sculpture, rendering the ground floor shops and second-story offices a great pedestal or stage. Spatial drama is especially forceful at the structure's,angled corners where building masses project, step up and simultaneously recede in an exciting Baroque display. The angled corners are themselves an urbane gesture to pedestrian traffic and contribute heavily to the scenographic effect of the building as a whole, connecting rather than terminating the three elevations for greater visibility. An unusually generous use of space in a commercial building, they break the standard rectilinear grid and create a space which was uniquely Hearst's.

 

Theatrical forces are likewise at work on the building's Eighth Avenue entrance. Pierced by a triumphal arch with overscaled keystone, it recalls the self-consciously grand world's fair architecture of which Urban was a veteran designer. The entrance also recalls Otto Wagner's unexecuted scheme for the Kriegsministerium of 1907/08.

 

Architectural historians have been irked in their attempts to stylistically classify the building which, while constructed in the early stages of Art Deco, shows only token elements of that style . Aged 54 in 1926, Joseph Urban was older than most Art Deco architects and less inclined toward its dynamic display. He drew instead from his Secessionist background and from his experience as an exposition, theater and stage set designer. With these he combined an abstracted classicism, the sobriety of which was appropriate to the Hearst Building's position next to the proposed Opera .

 

The six-story Hearst Building was sympathetic to the low-rise Opera house. Its cornices emphasize horizontality and add surface interest, especially belcw the third-story balustrade whose notched lower edge casts a bold dentillated shadew. The building's genteel scale was reccsnnended by a contemporary who found in it a theatrical contrast against its taller neighbors. But unknown to the critic, the six-story building was irerely the base of a tower to be erected at a later date. From the beginning it was structurally reinforced to receive the additionand given six elevator shafts . Construction in two stages was a familiar pattern in New York in general and to Hearst in particular.

 

No attempt to build the tower was made until almost a decade after Urban's death. But in 1945-47 George B. Post & Sons prepared a series of proposals for nine additional stories on the six story base.^ Although largely unremarkable as architectural designs, the new schemes for completion allow the current building to be seen as the base it was intended to be, removing its truncated aspect. The plans were filed in 1946, but never executed. The proposed addition was the greatest potential alteration to a building which has otherwise remained largely- intact. Its most significant change has occurred at ground level where shopfrorrts were uniformly altered with aluminum and glass replacements in 1970 after numerous piecemeal alterations in preceding years.

 

Significance of the Hearst Magazine Building

 

On May 29, 1927 , Hearst's newspapers ran an editorial .on American architecture which Hearst himself had written. In it he praised New York for developing:

 

the most magnificent architecture in the world — an architecture that is not an imitation of some other period, a modification of some other type, but that is new and distinctly American in character. This architecture represents the energy, the imagination and the aspiration of the American spirit. It embodies the ambition of a great race to erect fitting monuments to its period and purposes....Those who are truly artistic, truly progressive and indeed truly patriotic, welcome this new and inspiring development....The old fogies, the back-numbers, the "has-beens," the live-in-the-past- dead-in-the-present contingent of obstructionists must not be allowed to control, or rather to prevent, the natural and national development of American architecture.

 

The unique character to which Hearst referred could well be applied to his International Magazine Building. Designed outside the Art Deco norm, it combined multiple influences to achieve what might be called an "avant- garde traditionalism." Its low scale, dramatic statuary and bristling columns anticipate the projected tower and impart to the six-story base its special character. But in the words of a leading authority on Urban, this unusual character derives from its execution in "an unusual style, by an unusual [and unusually talented] designer."' The building gains in importance as one of only two extant examples of Urban's work in New York

 

Aside from its considerable architectural significance, the building is a testament to the urge "to erect fitting monuments." It is a rare survivor of a grand development scheme for greater Columbus Circle which, if executed, would have had profound urban consequence. The product of distinguished artistic talent, stong personalities and vast personal wealth, it was designed in conjunction with the Opera as a major component of a new commercial and cultural center . Carefully considered were both surface and subway traffic, the building being directly connected with the Eighth Avenue Rapid Transit. The scheme collapsed when the Opera abandoned its 57th Street site in 1927, debilitated further by the onslaught of the Depression. It was simultaneously undermined by the rise five blocks south of Rockefeller Center whose formidable competition for large corporate tenants went so far as to lure the U.S. Rubber Company away-from its headquarters in Columbus

 

Circle. In the end, the same cultural-commercial-thematic art-traffic oriented-personal wealth scenario would be replayed at Rockefeller Center. And it was there that the promise of "Hearst Plaza" was realized in terms so successful that it remains unchallenged to this day.

 

Description of the Building

 

Wrapping around three sides of a western courtyard, the Hearst Magazine Building fronts on Eighth Avenue with its two side exposed elevations on West 56th and West 57th Streets. The six-story cast limestone structure has chamfered north- and southwest comers, each with paired sculptural figures and ornamental columns. Hie building rises in three stages: a two-story base with commercial ground floor and second story offices, surmounted by three additional stories of offices and terminating attic

 

The major Eighth Avenue facade is symmetrically arranged on either side of its entrance, a large arch with oversized, projecting and beveled keystone flanked on either side by smaller square-headed doors . The arch provides a recessed outer vestibule, its walls and barrel vault relieved by embossed octagonal coffers arranged in a projecting grid of half-round section above an unpolished gray granite base. At the far end of the vestibule a large cusped bronze arch frames the building's four bronze-framed glass doors. Narrow bronze jambs rise to the arch intrados, dividing the glazed lunette into four vertical sections. The lunette is further subdivided by a broad ridged bronze fascia. Above the fascia stationary clear glass panels have frosted borders. Belcw the fascia are four clear side pivot windows. The vestibule's right/northern wall is pierced by a subway entrance, the head of its open stairwell illuminated by a bronze-framed rectangular light flush with the ceiling. The left/southern wall holds a small shopfront with recessed entrance . The shop's bronze-framed windows rise above the vestibule's granite base. The vestibule's coffered barrel vault is pierced on the left and right by four recessed bronze-framed, single pane casement windows. From the center of the vault hangs an hexagonal bronze and glass chandelier.

 

On either side of the triumphal arch-like entrance pylons rise flush from the sidewalk, serving as third story pedestals for paired sculptural figures dorsally engaged to tall fluted columns. "Comedy and Tragedy are installed on the left; "Music and Art" on the right. The columns are engaged to the building by a vertical series of shallow, stepped and angled setbacks. The columns rise above the sixth story attic where, freestanding, they are crowned by quadrapod-supported urns relieved by a horizontal zigzag band. Between the pylon-colums is a three-window bay, each of its four stories glazed with three-over-three double hung steel sash. At third floor level, the keystone of the arched entrance overlaps a projecting and slightly bowed balcony, along the lower edge of which runs an extended chevron moulding. Below the third, fourth and fifth story windows are fluted stone spandrels which visually tie the central bay to the ornamental columns that flank it. A severe cornice separates the fifth

 

story from the attic, above which a recessed mechanical housing shed rises.

 

On either side of the central bay, the Eighth Avenue facade is symmetrical: a two-story base with modern ground floor shcpfronts/display windows and seven slightly recessed one-over-one double hung steel sash on the second floor. The base is separated from the upper stories by a balcony whose lower notched edge has recessed overlapping chevrons. In each case the continuous balcony extends from the central bay paylon to the building's chamfered north- and southeast corners. The third through fifth stories, set back behind the balcony, have seven one-over-three double-hung steel sash recessed behind prominent unornamented pilaster strips. A severe frieze and cornice separate the fifth story from the sixth story attic whose unrelieved surface is pierced by seven steel sash. The attic terminates in three simple, slightly stepped horizontal stone bands.

 

The building's two chamfered corners differ only in their sculpture: "Sport and Industry" are installed on 56th Street; "Printing and the Sciences" on 57th. In each case a modern shop entrance is surmounted by three one-over-one steel sash in a narrow-broad-narrow arrangement). Above, the building rises to form a pedestal for the paired sculptural figures and fluted column behind. On either side of the pedestal are seminal third story balconies which, however, have no balusters. Behind the column the building cuts back with stepped and angled verticals to an acute angle. The fifth story cornice breaks on either side of the column, emphasizing the corner's multiple planes in its own faceting.

 

The 57th Street facade repeats that on Eighth Avenue, differing only in two respects. Instead of an arched building entrance, the original doorway has been altered for use as a display window, flanked on the left by a service door, and on the right by a retail shop entrance. Above and on either side of the display window are two unrelieved square escutcheons which project slightly from the building plane. "Comedy and Tragedy" and "Music and Art" are installed on the third story pedestals , just as they are on Eighth Avenue. The 57th Street facade also differs in its inclusion of an .additional two-window bay which forms the building's western termination. 'This bay rises sheer from the sidewalk and does not set back at third story level. It does not include a full third story balcony, but only continues its lcwer notched and chevron lower edge as a decorative molding.

 

The 56th Street facade differs significantly from the building's two other exposed elevations. Like them, it rises on a. two-story base with modern ground floor shopfronts/display windows. The westernmost bay, however, is used as a freight entrance with a roll-down metal gate. The facade is divided into two unequal masses. At the east, it continues the standard building treatment with a third story balcony behind which the structure sets back. Unlike the similar seven-window bays on Eighth Avenue and 57th Street, this bay has eight double-hung steel sash windows in its second through sixth stories. The larger building mass to the west does not set back at third story level, but rises sheer from the sidewalk. It does not have a balcony but, like the far western bay on 57th Street, merely continues the balcony's notched and chevron lower edge as an ornamental molding at third story level. This portion of the building is divided into six bays. On the second through fifth stories each bay contains paired one-over-three double hung steel sash framed by pilaster strips which are more shallow than those elsewhere on the building. Above the cornice , the sixth story steel sash are likewise paired.

 

- From the 1988 NYCLPC Landmark Designation Report

In truth my friends, it's natural, no need for material, you focus on the 6th dimension of the underworld and directly in dimension 9 on the pleroma, it's childish ... but who said that the wu wei, this famous idea of "let it go" in intuitive mode and in the idea that you can connect directly to the matrix. We recognize, today, that the magnetism of buildings exists. Until then we explained the functions of architecture or other gardens by rules based on criteria of profitability, or worse, architectural mode. We realized that a building generates electrical impulses and both chemical and electromagnetic reactions occur. We are now making devices that measure very small amounts of electricity. This allows electroarchitectographies. By means of pendulums, we can study the reactions of a facade when we look at it, when we observe its rhythm or study its singularity. We were able to draw real images on Photoshop and we realized that human architecture generates both electricity and magnetism.

 

According to the feng shui concept of the east, the north of the residence is in the old factory of ETAM , which is not good, thus we sealed off and designed a garden here, this allows all the functional space behind the building there. The view is very good, private, quiet, relaxing while avoiding cold winds in the winter.

 

While both buildings required to face to the South by the client Quartus and his Feng-Shui master, the design of spacious cantilever winter garden and bow-window for each unit has been proposed by the architect Bruno Couratier, to prevent the strong direct sunlight and create enough shading during the late afternoon.

 

The involutive circulation of the invisible matter coming from the reverse movement of the magma with the iron and silica core put together in the state of plasma, and well, this movement causes tensions in geobiological mode that Tesla understood very well and undergoes under a very human form.

  

The invisible forces cross the earth's mantle until they become a multitude of networks that the masters of Fengshui call the school of the compass. You can use a pendulum to locate yourself but the famous dragonvein is located by connecting you to intraterrestrial dimensions. It is a fatra of inaudible information for a brain with an IQ limited by academic information generally distributed in schools, "less is more" said A Loos, or loose?

 

The Compass School focuses on the eight mansion, or eight cardinal directions. Each of these directions has its own Qi energy, which a designer must take into account. To do this, they use the Luo Pan. This is a disc that’s built around a Feng Shui compass. There are several concentric circles on the face of this disc, each of which has its own formula. The Luo Pan specifically refers to the Earth's electromagnetic field. Feng Shui practitioners note that this field holds all matter together.

 

The Form School focuses on the environment’s shape . A typical street of the time when the industry had not yet formatted buildings with mice and copy and paste functions, in order to find a location that has good Qi energy.

 

It takes several things into consideration. These include the important events that relate to a space or structure and the concept of yin and yang. This school also incorporates the Five Elements Theory. It examines the relationship that the following elements have to the space:

 

Fire

Earth

Wood

Water

Metal

The positioning of these elements makes a huge difference. You could create either a constructive or destructive cycle based on your choices.

 

In the destructive cycle, these elements cancel each other out. Water extinguishes flame, metal slices through wood, and so on.

 

On a constructive cycle, these elements create a harmonious environment. Water becomes the source of moisture that wood, in the form of trees, needs to grow. This wood becomes the fuel that fire needs. The ashes of the fire fuel the earth, and so on. We know that two magnets with which two identical poles are brought together repel and mate north-south. We also know that the needle of our compass points us north. We know, again, that the geographic north and the magnetic north are neighbors but not superimposable, and that their small distance varies regularly. This is not sensitive to our scale, and we will admit that the two directions are confused. We have, therefore, on our compass, a magnetic needle whose north side indicates the geographic north pole to us but, since two magnetic norths repel each other, we are obliged to note that the geographic north is, in fact, the magnetic south ( which therefore attracts the needle of the compass). It is necessary, from this, to conclude that the lines of force of the Earth magnet pass, internally, from the geographic north to the south and, externally, from the geographic south to the north.

There are two consequences for everyday life:

- insofar as man himself is a magnet, the head as the north pole, this head is attracted by magnetic south or geographic north. Sleep being a state of physical weakness in which the receptivity to outside influences is greater than in the waking state, the logical position of a bed is that the head is directed towards true north.

- the lines of force of the terrestrial magnetic field having a geographical south-north direction, it is necessary to place all the earths to the north of our houses. Without this, all the electromagnetic pollution that we evacuate in this way crosses the place of life and the earth connections are ineffective. Better to be south of a power line than north.

All current statistics show an upsurge in cancer in urban areas, at the same rate as electrical equipment. Knowing that the mental level and the physical level of the body are related to electromagnetism, we can easily understand that, if we find ourselves placed in a particular electric field like that of a high voltage line, our organism will react. on both counts. Even if, currently, scientists have not been able to demonstrate the correlation between electric fields and cancer, the statistics seem to speak for themselves.

Modern man lives in an increasingly high and permanent electromagnetic field. At home: microwave oven, electric dryer, machines of all kinds, television, metro and electric trains to go to work, computers, elevators, etc. All this has, inevitably, an impact on the heart and on the mind, which will lead to a change in the functioning of thought and a change in behavior with others, hence aggressiveness. The energetic body being disturbed, there is immediate repercussion on the physical body with production of stress, psychosomatization, organic or nervous diseases.

 

Achieving a constructive cycle is the main aim in the Form School.

 

Architects who try to do Feng Shui combine these two schools of thought in this facade. Bruno, in all modesty, told me that the less he tries to understand and the more he acts with his clear feelings, in short, the less his ego works, the better it pulses, well, it matches with the energies, I mean ... More academically here, it takes into account the three fundamental principles of the practice:

 

Qi energy. this is a good trick that works even with unbelievers, it is the energy that flows through all living things. It is still flowing, a bit like water. However, just like water, it is possible to block the flow of Qi. If this happens, the blocked Qi can have a negative effect on the environment. The goal is to ensure an unobstructed flow of Qi at all times.

The natural elements. We've covered most of them by explaining the form school. However, there are other elements, such as air and space. Each of these elements has its own set of attributes. These include color, texture, and shape. Achieving balance between them creates a flow of positive energy.

The Bagua. This is a concept that is not as closely related to architecture as the other two principles. Instead, it's about the placement of objects that represent your life's journey through space. A Bagua is a table that maps your energy centers in relation to a space. It is based on a grid, with each part of the grid representing an aspect of your life. These include things like the position of the street in the city, or even the height of neighboring buildings, among many other aspects. You are using the Bagua to achieve the balance between all of these things, thus allowing you to lead a happy life.

Although it all sounds somewhat esoteric, many modern designers follow these principles in their work.

 

This covers some of the basics. They are entire study schools devoted to Feng Shui. The Bagua also comes into play with the placement of two bronze roofs at the top desk . These symbolically guard the building as well as symbolising prosperity.

 

The design choices allow the flow of energy in a clockwise direction. And that benefits Quartus.

 

In the northern hemisphere, water moves counterclockwise. When Qi energy reflects this flow, you create a comfortable atmosphere.

 

The building on rue M overturns this concept. It encourages Qi to flow clockwise to encourage confusion. This confusion can lead people to make more individuation, and to feel less interdependent, even, even downright free to not resemble each other, well, if it is still possible and desirable .... It can also make them more sensitive to the needs of creating a vegetal environment and to cultivate the taste of returning to the origin of the village. The idea is to prevent people from thinking logically. In this state, they make more decisions according to their wishes, which is a good thing for the future of our beautiful city.

 

It seems to work too. The building has won a lot of sympathy, and, the commercialization will not pose any problem for the bankers, they will even realize that beautiful equal profitable, and, that the fengshui could even be materialistic, which seems really incredible.

  

academy.archistar.ai/the-basic-principles-of-feng-shui-an...

Australia’s first shot tower, at Taroona, was built by Joseph Moir and is one of three still existing in the country, the others being in Melbourne. Joseph Moir's factory, which operated for 35 years from 1870, manufactured lead shot for contemporary muzzle loading sports guns. Although the factory struggled for most of its existence its most recognisable feature, the tallest stone shot tower in the southern hemisphere, has been a prominent landmark in the district for well over a century. Joseph Moir His Shot Tower on the Kingston Road is noted throughout the colonies, and Mr Moir’s enterprising spirit is there illustrated in a most remarkable manner. Though a speculation of a very hazardous kind, he had faith in its success, and his estimate, as was afterwards discovered, was not found on any erroneous basis. The manufacture of shot was a profitable venture under his management. Mercury 12 March 1874 Just twenty years old, Scotsman Joseph Moir arrived in Hobart in 1829, one of thousands of hopeful free immigrants who sailed to Van Diemen’s Land in the 1820s. By 1840 he had acquired several properties, government employment and a reputation as a builder of notable colonial buildings such as St Mark’s Anglican Church, Pontville. He returned briefly to Scotland in 1844 to marry Elizabeth Paxton with whom he had at least five children. A prominent businessman, Moir was active in Hobart’s civic affairs between 1846 and 1873, a year before his death. He revisited Britain in 1849 ‘to arrange to carry on an ironmonger’s business’, returning to Hobart with a stock of hardware items and opening a store with his brother at ‘Economy House’ in Murray Street. The business operated until sold by his son, Joseph in 1884. Moir purchased 39 acres on Brown’s River Rd in 1855 and moved to a new house at ‘Queenborough Glens’ (as he called the property) with his family in 1862. He then built the shot tower and its associated buildings and poured his first shot in 1870. When he died after a long illness in 1874 Moir left his major business concerns to his sons, James and Joseph. Together with Elizabeth (who only survived him by 15 months) and a daughter, Mary (who died in 1853 at the age of seven) Moir was encrypted in the family mausoleum on the cliffs below the shot tower. Their remains were later re-interred in unmarked graves at Queenborough Cemetery after Joseph relinquished the property in 1901. This cemetery’s graves were removed by Hobart Council in 1963 and Moir’s final resting place remains unknown. The Shot Tower This shot tower was built by the proprietor, Joseph Moir, in the year 1870. In its erection he acted as Engineer, Architect, Carpenter and Overseer. With merely the assistance of two masons it was completed in 8 months, when the secrets of shot-making had to be discovered. After many persevering efforts the first shot was dropped 8th September, 1870. Joseph Moir erected his shot making enterprise on 39 acres subdivided from an 1817 grant of 100 acres to John Williamson. He chose his site carefully. A road frontage facilitated straightforward transport of raw materials and product. A windmill pumped water from a reliable creek to a cistern on the site of the current overflow carpark and substantial timber reserves provided fuel for the furnaces and cauldrons. Sited far from residential neighbourhoods Moir could also relax in the knowledge that toxic fumes would blow safely out to sea or over forestland. Moir probably began building his shot making works after erecting the family home between 1855 and 1862. A stone building above the cliffs overlooking the River Derwent stored gun powder for his ironmongery as well as stores of arsenic and antimony. Another building south-west of the magazine contained the furnace for preparing lead with the arsenic and antimony. The tower was constructed of dressed curved sandstone blocks quarried at the nearby abandoned Brown’s River Convict Probation Station. A remarkable tapered structure 48m (157 feet 6 inches) tall it features an internal spiral staircase of pitsawn timber and an external gallery at its top which was probably used to store firewood for the upper cauldron. The staircase provided scaffolding during the construction of the tower and access to the upper cauldron and shot-making colanders. The tower is 10 metres in diameter at the base and tapers to 3.9 metres at the top . The walls are a metre thick at the bottom and thin out to .45 centimetres at the top. A three level stone factory abutting the tower was erected at the same time, then was extended soon after. The stone for the factory was probably recycled from the abandoned probation station. The Manufacturing Process The manufacture of shot is an industry which in England has always been conducted with the greatest secrecy, and consequently witnessed by very few except the initiated. This industry has recently been introduced in this colony by Mr Alderman Moir, and we learn that it is his intention to throw his Shot Tower open to the inspection of visitors on Monday and Tuesday next, when the process of shot making will be in operation, on which occasion we have no doubt many of our citizens will avail themselves of this opportunity of witnessing the interesting process. Mercury,10 March 1871. Shot manufacturing is thought to have been invented by Prince Rupert in the seventeenth century. It seems likely that Moir studied William Watts’ patented method of 1796 while in Britain in 1849- 50. Moir’s exact process is unknown — considerable experimentation was required by most manufacturers to perfect what is a very complex process requiring a detailed understanding of physics and metallurgy. Most of Moir’s raw materials would have been imported increasing his costs substantially Moir’s process was probably as follows: Lead was prepared in a furnace at the south-eastern corner of the property. Moir added 900g of arsenic (to decrease surface tension) and 6.35kg of antimony (to harden the shot) to every 45.35 kg of lead. The resultant ‘poisoned lead’ was cast into 7.7 kg ingots, conveyed to the factory, then remelted in cauldrons on the upper level of the factory for small shot and the top of the tower for larger shot. Firewood had to be winched to the upper cauldron. The molten lead was then poured through colanders, forming droplets which became spherical as they dropped. They fell into a tub of water at the base of the tower. The size of the shot depended on the amount of arsenic, the size of the holes in the colander and the height of the fall. Watts’ patent stipulated that large sized shot required a fall of 45.75m (150 feet), hence the height of Moir’s shot tower at 48m with the colander 46.36m above the base. The lead cooled partly while falling, then completely in the water. The antinomy hardener ensured that it maintained shape under the impact of the water. The cooled shot, green in colour, was winched to the factory’s upper floor where it was dried and run over inclined glass planes to separate out defective shot (which did not roll true). Imperfect shot was remelted and the process repeated. The shot was polished in a revolving drum (likened to a farmer’s barrel churn) using plumbago (graphite) then lowered through a trapdoor to the ground floor where it passed through ten sieves for grading into sizes ranging from fine birdshot to large balls. The graded shot was bagged into 12.7kg (28lb) handsewn linen bags stencilled with the manufacturer’s name and sent to market. At its peak the factory produced 100 tons of shot per annum. Working Conditions Little is known of working conditions in Joseph Moir’s shot tower. The work was highly skilled, noisy and almost certainly dangerous. That workers took great pride in their trade is indicated by an engraving in a window in the factory, reading, ‘George Matson Premier Shot Maker Tasmanian and Australian’. No further information about George Matson is known. The following descriptions of a contemporary works, Melbourne’s Coop shot tower (now incorporated in the Melbourne Central complex on Little Lonsdale St) provides some indication of the nature of the work involved. Pouring the lead was ‘an operation which needs great skill and constant watching. The man is used to his work but the novice would probably make a considerable bungle of it’. As the lead droplets fell there was ‘a sharp incessant shower of silvery rain . . . mak[ing] a noise very like that of an overflow waste pipe high up in one’s wall’. When shovelling shot from the water tub it was ‘quite certain that if the man who is so energetically shovelling . . . was to cease from his labours for any appreciable length of time the tank would be soon full of lead. . . . all the while the strange shower descends the man with the shovel is busily at work’. The noise of grading the shot through the sieves was ‘well nigh deafening’ while a woman sat with needle and thread sewing the 12.7kg linen bags for the finished shot. House and Garden Joseph Moir began building his residence soon after acquiring the property in 1855. Family lore suggests that he built the battlemented tower as practise before attempting the more substantial shot tower. By 1885 the property was well known for its gardens and orchards with its hot houses, summer houses and conservatories. "Mr [James] Moir has a prolific little orchard and kitchen garden, which latter, the flower garden and conservatories are watered from a considerable storage reservoir above. An amusing freak of the owner is to invite strangers into a summer house, and to be seated a moment or two out of the sun. He predicts rain shortly, however cloudless the sky — when hey presto: a shower immediately commences, a real earnest one. It is brought about by turning the tap of a pipe connecting with the circular piping on top of the summer house, the latter being perforated round its outside. A little defectiveness in the roof allowed of my receiving a slight baptism of spray, so I must be considered initiated." Tasmanian Mail,13 June 1885 Perhaps the youthful James Moir (he was 30 in 1885) had a better sense of fun than business sense. He had mortgaged the property the previous year and defaulted on his payments two years later. Later History Moir’s sons, James and Joseph, carried on the business after his death in 1874. Although James won merit certificates at the 1879 Sydney International Exhibition and the 1880-81 Melbourne Exhibition the business struggled and it was leased by the mortgagors to his brother, Joseph in 1887. Joseph found himself unable compete with mainland competitors when generous colonial tariffs were removed after Federation. He relinquished the lease to his brother-in-law, William Baynton who continued the business until closing its doors in 1905. During these years Baynton’s wife, Florence, operated a tea house in the residence. The property subsequently passed through several hands until 1956 when 3.24 hectares was purchased by the Tasmanian government and proclaimed a Scenery Reserve. Although it included the tower and residence, the reserve excluded the powder magazine, conservatory, antimony furnace and mausoleum. The reserve was gazetted as an historic site in 1971 under the National Parks and Wildlife Act. Since 1956 it has been leased to several concessionaires and has been open as a tourist site. Various conservation works have been conducted at the shot tower over the years to maintain its heritage significance.

 

Ref www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=2820

Shot Tower Taroona Tasmania

Australia’s first shot tower, at Taroona, was built by Joseph Moir and is one of three still existing in the country, the others being in Melbourne. Joseph Moir's factory, which operated for 35 years from 1870, manufactured lead shot for contemporary muzzle loading sports guns. Although the factory struggled for most of its existence its most recognisable feature, the tallest stone shot tower in the southern hemisphere, has been a prominent landmark in the district for well over a century.

 

Joseph Moir

His Shot Tower on the Kingston Road is noted throughout the colonies, and Mr Moir’s enterprising spirit is there illustrated in a most remarkable manner. Though a speculation of a very hazardous kind, he had faith in its success, and his estimate, as was afterwards discovered, was not found on any erroneous basis. The manufacture of shot was a profitable venture under his management.

Mercury 12 March 1874

 

Just twenty years old, Scotsman Joseph Moir arrived in Hobart in 1829, one of thousands of hopeful free immigrants who sailed to Van Diemen’s Land in the 1820s. By 1840 he had acquired several properties, government employment and a reputation as a builder of notable colonial buildings such as St Mark’s Anglican Church, Pontville. He returned briefly to Scotland in 1844 to marry Elizabeth Paxton with whom he had at least five children.

 

A prominent businessman, Moir was active in Hobart’s civic affairs between 1846 and 1873, a year before his death. He revisited Britain in 1849 ‘to arrange to carry on an ironmonger’s business’, returning to Hobart with a stock of hardware items and opening a store with his brother at ‘Economy House’ in Murray Street. The business operated until sold by his son, Joseph in 1884. Moir purchased 39 acres on Brown’s River Rd in 1855 and moved to a new house at ‘Queenborough Glens’ (as he called the property) with his family in 1862. He then built the shot tower and its associated buildings and poured his first shot in 1870.

 

When he died after a long illness in 1874 Moir left his major business concerns to his sons, James and Joseph. Together with Elizabeth (who only survived him by 15 months) and a daughter, Mary (who died in 1853 at the age of seven) Moir was encrypted in the family mausoleum on the cliffs below the shot tower. Their remains were later re-interred in unmarked graves at Queenborough Cemetery after Joseph relinquished the property in 1901. This cemetery’s graves were removed by Hobart Council in 1963 and Moir’s final resting place remains unknown.

 

The Shot Tower

This shot tower was built by the proprietor, Joseph Moir, in the year 1870. In its erection he acted as Engineer, Architect, Carpenter and Overseer. With merely the assistance of two masons it was completed in 8 months, when the secrets of shot-making had to be discovered. After many persevering efforts the first shot was dropped 8th September, 1870.

 

Joseph Moir erected his shot making enterprise on 39 acres subdivided from an 1817 grant of 100 acres to John Williamson. He chose his site carefully. A road frontage facilitated straightforward transport of raw materials and product. A windmill pumped water from a reliable creek to a cistern on the site of the current overflow carpark and substantial timber reserves provided fuel for the furnaces and cauldrons. Sited far from residential neighbourhoods Moir could also relax in the knowledge that toxic fumes would blow safely out to sea or over forestland.

 

Moir probably began building his shot making works after erecting the family home between 1855 and 1862. A stone building above the cliffs overlooking the River Derwent stored gun powder for his ironmongery as well as stores of arsenic and antimony. Another building south-west of the magazine contained the furnace for preparing lead with the arsenic and antimony.

 

The tower was constructed of dressed curved sandstone blocks quarried at the nearby abandoned Brown’s River Convict Probation Station. A remarkable tapered structure 48m (157 feet 6 inches) tall it features an internal spiral staircase of pitsawn timber and an external gallery at its top which was probably used to store firewood for the upper cauldron. The staircase provided scaffolding during the construction of the tower and access to the upper cauldron and shot-making colanders. The tower is 10 metres in diameter at the base and tapers to 3.9 metres at the top . The walls are a metre thick at the bottom and thin out to .45 centimetres at the top.

 

A three level stone factory abutting the tower was erected at the same time, then was extended soon after. The stone for the factory was probably recycled from the abandoned probation station.

 

The Manufacturing Process

 

The manufacture of shot is an industry which in England has always been conducted with the greatest secrecy, and consequently witnessed by very few except the initiated. This industry has recently been introduced in this colony by Mr Alderman Moir, and we learn that it is his intention to throw his Shot Tower open to the inspection of visitors on Monday and Tuesday next, when the process of shot making will be in operation, on which occasion we have no doubt many of our citizens will avail themselves of this opportunity of witnessing the interesting process.

 

Mercury,10 March 1871.

 

Shot manufacturing is thought to have been invented by Prince Rupert in the seventeenth century. It seems likely that Moir studied William Watts’ patented method of 1796 while in Britain in 1849-50. Moir’s exact process is unknown — considerable experimentation was required by most manufacturers to perfect what is a very complex process requiring a detailed understanding of physics and metallurgy. Most of Moir’s raw materials would have been imported increasing his costs substantially

 

Moir’s process was probably as follows:

 

Lead was prepared in a furnace at the south-eastern corner of the property. Moir added 900g of arsenic (to decrease surface tension) and 6.35kg of antimony (to harden the shot) to every 45.35 kg of lead.

The resultant ‘poisoned lead’ was cast into 7.7 kg ingots, conveyed to the factory, then remelted in cauldrons on the upper level of the factory for small shot and the top of the tower for larger shot. Firewood had to be winched to the upper cauldron. The molten lead was then poured through colanders, forming droplets which became spherical as they dropped. They fell into a tub of water at the base of the tower. The size of the shot depended on the amount of arsenic, the size of the holes in the colander and the height of the fall. Watts’ patent stipulated that large sized shot required a fall of 45.75m (150 feet), hence the height of Moir’s shot tower at 48m with the colander 46.36m above the base.

The lead cooled partly while falling, then completely in the water. The antinomy hardener ensured that it maintained shape under the impact of the water.

The cooled shot, green in colour, was winched to the factory’s upper floor where it was dried and run over inclined glass planes to separate out defective shot (which did not roll true). Imperfect shot was remelted and the process repeated.

The shot was polished in a revolving drum (likened to a farmer’s barrel churn) using plumbago (graphite) then lowered through a trapdoor to the ground floor where it passed through ten sieves for grading into sizes ranging from fine birdshot to large balls. The graded shot was bagged into 12.7kg (28lb) handsewn linen bags stencilled with the manufacturer’s name and sent to market. At its peak the factory produced 100 tons of shot per annum.

Working Conditions

 

Little is known of working conditions in Joseph Moir’s shot tower. The work was highly skilled, noisy and almost certainly dangerous. That workers took great pride in their trade is indicated by an engraving in a window in the factory, reading, ‘George Matson Premier Shot Maker Tasmanian and Australian’. No further information about George Matson is known. The following descriptions of a contemporary works, Melbourne’s Coop shot tower (now incorporated in the Melbourne Central complex on Little Lonsdale St) provides some indication of the nature of the work involved.

 

Pouring the lead was ‘an operation which needs great skill and constant watching. The man is used to his work but the novice would probably make a considerable bungle of it’. As the lead droplets fell there was ‘a sharp incessant shower of silvery rain . . . mak[ing] a noise very like that of an overflow waste pipe high up in one’s wall’. When shovelling shot from the water tub it was ‘quite certain that if the man who is so energetically shovelling . . . was to cease from his labours for any appreciable length of time the tank would be soon full of lead. . . . all the while the strange shower descends the man with the shovel is busily at work’. The noise of grading the shot through the sieves was ‘well nigh deafening’ while a woman sat with needle and thread sewing the 12.7kg linen bags for the finished shot.

 

House and Garden

Joseph Moir began building his residence soon after acquiring the property in 1855. Family lore suggests that he built the battlemented tower as practise before attempting the more substantial shot tower. By 1885 the property was well known for its gardens and orchards with its hot houses, summer houses and conservatories.

 

"Mr [James] Moir has a prolific little orchard and kitchen garden, which latter, the flower garden and conservatories are watered from a considerable storage reservoir above. An amusing freak of the owner is to invite strangers into a summer house, and to be seated a moment or two out of the sun. He predicts rain shortly, however cloudless the sky — when hey presto: a shower immediately commences, a real earnest one. It is brought about by turning the tap of a pipe connecting with the circular piping on top of the summer house, the latter being perforated round its outside. A little defectiveness in the roof allowed of my receiving a slight baptism of spray, so I must be considered initiated." Tasmanian Mail,13 June 1885

 

Perhaps the youthful James Moir (he was 30 in 1885) had a better sense of fun than business sense. He had mortgaged the property the previous year and defaulted on his payments two years later.

 

Later History

 

Moir’s sons, James and Joseph, carried on the business after his death in 1874. Although James won merit certificates at the 1879 Sydney International Exhibition and the 1880-81 Melbourne Exhibition the business struggled and it was leased by the mortgagors to his brother, Joseph in 1887. Joseph found himself unable compete with mainland competitors when generous colonial tariffs were removed after Federation. He relinquished the lease to his brother-in-law, William Baynton who continued the business until closing its doors in 1905. During these years Baynton’s wife, Florence, operated a tea house in the residence.

 

The property subsequently passed through several hands until 1956 when 3.24 hectares was purchased by the Tasmanian government and proclaimed a Scenery Reserve. Although it included the tower and residence, the reserve excluded the powder magazine, conservatory, antimony furnace and mausoleum. The reserve was gazetted as an historic site in 1971 under the National Parks and Wildlife Act. Since 1956 it has been leased to several concessionaires and has been open as a tourist site. Various conservation works have been conducted at the shot tower over the years to maintain its heritage significance.

 

Ref www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=2820

+++ DISCLAIMER +++Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!

  

Some background:

Aeroflot is one of the oldest airlines in the world, tracing its history back to 1923. During the Soviet era, Aeroflot was the Soviet national airline and the largest airline in the world. Following the dissolution of the USSR, the carrier has been transformed from a state-run enterprise into a semi-privatized company which ranked 19th most profitable airline in the world in 2007. Aeroflot is still considered to be the de facto national airline of Russia, being 51%-owned by the Russian Government.

 

After WWII, Aeroflot's route network had extended to 295,400 kilometers (183,600 mi), and by 1950 it carried 1,603,700 passengers, 151,070 tonnes (333,050,000 lb) of freight and 30,580 tonnes (67,420,000 lb) of mail during the same year. The 20th Communist Party Congress, held in 1956, saw plans for Aeroflot services to be dramatically increased. The airline would see its overall activities increased from its then current levels by 3.8 times, and it was set the target of the carriage of 16,000,000 passengers by 1960. In order to meet these goals, Aeroflot introduced higher capacity turbojet and turbine-prop aircraft on key domestic routes, and on services to Aeroflot destinations abroad.

 

A major step for Aeroflot occurred on 15 September 1956 when the Tupolev Tu-104 jet airliner entered service on the Moscow-Omsk-Irkutsk route, marking the world's first sustained jet airline service. The airline began international flights with the type on 12 October 1956 with flights from Moscow to Prague. The aircraft placed Aeroflot in an envious position, as airlines in the West had operated throughout the 1950s with large piston-engine aircraft. By 1958 the route network covered 349,200 kilometers (217,000 mi), and the airline carried 8,231,500 passengers, and 445,600 tons of mail and freight, with fifteen percent of all-Union services being operated by jet aircraft.

 

Aeroflot introduced the Antonov An-10 and Ilyushin Il-18 in 1959, and together with its existing jet aircraft, the airline was able to extend services on modern aircraft to some twenty cities during 1960. The Tupolev Tu-114, then the world's largest airliner, entered service with the Soviet carrier on 24 April 1961 on the Moscow-Khabarovsk route; covering a distance of 6,980 kilometers (4,340 mi) in 8 hours 20 minutes. The expansion of the Aeroflot fleet saw services with modern aircraft being extended to more than forty cities in 1961, with fifty percent of all-Union services being operated by these aircraft. This fleet expansion also saw the number of passengers carried in 1961 skyrocketing to 21,800,000.

 

Further expansion came in 1962 when various medium and short-haul routes were started and respective aircraft types such as the Tupolev Tu-124, Ilyushin Il-60 and Antonov An-24 entered regular service with Aeroflot. The Tu-124 was a jet airliner, technically an 75% version of the Tu-104, while the An-24 was a lighter twin turboprop aircraft in the class of the Fokker F.27. The Il-60 was the latest addition to the domestic services, falling in between both other types.

 

Development of the Ilyushin Il-60 dated back to 12 October 1951, when the Soviet Council of Ministers published a specification for a medium-range aircraft carrying 50 to 70 passengers and 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) of cargo on routes up to 2,000 km (1,100 nmi; 1,200 mi) with a cruising speed of about 600 km/h (320 kn; 370 mph). The type was to replace the piston engine Ilyushin Il-14 on domestic routes. The number and type of engines were not specified, but jet or turboprop engines were expected and emphasis was put on ruggedness and ease of operations for operations on rural airstrips with a minimum of infrastructure.

 

Ilyushin’s OKB-240 responded at first with a scaled-down Il-18 turboprop airliner, somewhat inspired by an idea of Czech manufacturer Avia for a smaller, short-range airliner for the CSA’s Central European routes. This machine had only two engines and overall reduced dimensions, but used many components of the original airliner. But it soon became clear that the Tu-104 with its jet engines had already set higher standards, so that a completely new and more innovative design was started.

 

Internally known as “Aircraft 60”, the machine introduced some innovations while still being a conservative design. The aircraft was a two turboprop-engine low-wing monoplane with slightly swept (20° at quarter chord) wings, a circular pressurized fuselage and a conventional, yet markedly swept tail (both fin and stabilizer at 45°). The aircraft had two entry doors on the port-side before and after the wing, two overwing emergency exits on each side, and featured a retractable stairway under the rear fuselage so that passengers could directly enter the aircraft from the airfield. An APU was integrated in the rear fuselage, under the fin, for independent operation of the air condition system and starting the engines without external support.

The tricycle landing gear had four wheels fitted on the main leg bogies, which retracted inwards to lie under the fuselage instead of into the engine nacelles. The front wheel also had twin wheels, retracting forward in a well under the cockpit floor, and the aircraft’s low-pressure tires allowed operations even from grass airfields or snowy ground. Another novel feature at the time was the fitting of a weather radar in the nose, a civilian RPSN-2 "Emblema" system, doing away with the typical glazed navigator position of other former Soviet airliner designs. In order to support all-weather operations and ease the pilots’ work, “Aircraft 60” was also outfitted with an automatic approach system, supported by the radar which allowed blind navigation.

 

Despite vibration and noise problems, experienced with the earlier Il-18 airliner, Ilyushin insisted on turboprop propulsion because it was the more fuel-efficient option. He furthermore expected that no another jet-driven airliner would be politically “allowed” along the Tu-124 short haul airliner, at that time under parallel development.

 

“Aircraft 60” was powered by a pair of Kuznetsow NK-6K turboprops. This engine was one of several developments after World War II by a team of Russian scientists and deported German engineers under Ferdinand Brandner, which had worked for Junkers previously, evolving from late war German turboprop studies. This the post-war development was based on the wartime Jumo 022 turboprop design that developed 6000 eshp in a 3000 kg engine. The efforts continued with a 5000 ehp engine that weighed in at 1700 kg, completed by 1947, and with further weight savings and more modern materials, the NK-6, one of several development directions, became a large single-spool engine that was optimized for use on board of commercial aircraft like “Aircraft 60”.

 

For security reasons, the engines were mounted in front and above of the wings’ leading edge. In order to keep the wing structure as clean and simple and possible and not risk collateral damage to the landing gear in case of an engine fire, the landing gear was retracted into wells under the wing roots. This measure also kept the engine nacelle’s dimensions in very compact limits.

In order to minimize noise and vibrations, 2x4-bladed contraprops with an automatic feathering system were mounted, resulting in a characteristic humming noise when the engines were running. Due to the lower speed of these propellers, compared to a standard four- or five-blade propeller, the internal and external noise level could be significantly reduced (compared to the Il-18, which could drone at 110db in the cabin above the wings!), even though the lower frequency caused other problems, mainly vibrations at certain speeds that shook the whole airframe.

 

The standard seating of the initial version, the Il-60A, was 52 seats at a 90cm distance between the five-seat rows (two seats on port side and three on starboard). Alternatively, a maximum of 72 could be mounted in a cramped “tourist class” configuration with only 78cm distance between the seat rows, which became the late production standard configuration as Il-60B.

 

The first of two prototypes made its first flight from Zhukovsky airfield on 24 March 1960. The second prototype followed in June 1960. Two other airframes served as a static test cells. Testing was successful, and the aircraft entered production at Machinery Plant No. 30 located at Khodynka, near Moscow, replacing the Il-18 in production. Deliveries to Aeroflot began in August 1962, with the type operating its first scheduled passenger service, between Moscow and Tallinn in Estonia, on 2 October 1962.

 

The Il-60’s production remained only on a small scale, though: being a pure jet, the Tu-124 was preferred by the Aeroflot for short haul duties, as well as by the Powers That Be. Despite the type’s merits esp. in harsh climate conditions (most Il-60 were allocated to Aeroflot’s feederline services in the Soviet Union’s northern regions), the type was not popular among its crews. While the two turboprops gave sufficient power, had good handling across the whole speed envelope and the aircraft had no trouble remaining airborne with one engine shut down, the asymmetrical drag/thrust in this emergency condition was considerable and navigating the Il-60, and even more landing the aircraft, with only one engine was a challenging task.

 

Furthermore, the stalky landing gear, which prompted the crews' inofficial nickname "косино́жки" (kosinozhki = daddy longlegs), could start to vibrate under certain conditions and wobble, making a start or landing run a shaky if not dangerous affair, esp. on snow-packed and non-permanent runways. Furthermore, two Il-60 crashed on runways or airfields after hitting obstacles ubnder snow - the long front landing gear collapsed. Nobody on board was seriosuly hurt in both cases, but these accidents did not improve the type's reputation among both pilots and passengers alike.

 

Only a total of 44 machines were built: 18 Il-60As for selected connections abroad (e. g. to Scandinavia and Poland), plus 26 Il-60Bs with higher seat capacity for purely domestic service. Both machines were identical from the outside, though, and all production aircraft featured a characteristic spinal fin root extension that covered several radio and navigation antennae.

 

Ilyushin had plans for a stretched version (with two plugs inserted into the fuselage in front of and behind the wings) with a 2.2m longer fuselage and a maximum capacity of 85 passengers, and also worked on a jet-powered update with engine nacelles on pylons under and in front of the wings. But none of these improvements was turned into hardware, since not only the Tu-124 had become the preferred short/medium haul airliner for Aeroflot, the following Tu-134 had also become the political favorite, and OKB-240 focused on its long-range airliner Il-62.

 

Il-60 production already ended after only two years in 1964, and Aeroflot decommissioned its last twelve Il-60s on 21 January 1980, after more and more structural problems (wing spar cracks, caused by the NK-6’s vibrations) had become apparent and several aircraft had to be grounded.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 3 (captain, first officer and a flight engineer),

plus another seat for an optional navigator or a radio officer,

plus a three- or four-person cabin crew

Capacity: 52 – 72

Payload: 8.4 t (9.3 short tons)

Length: 32,54 m (106 ft 7 in)

Wingspan: 34.3 m (112 ft 6 in)

Height: 11,74 m (38 ft 5 1/2 in)

Wing area: 146.7 m² (1,579 sq ft)

Empty weight: 22.2 t (24.5 sT)

Max. takeoff weight: 46 t (50.7 sT)

 

Powerplant:

2× Kusnetzow NK-6K turboprop engines, rated at 3,318 kW (4,612 ehp) each

 

Performance

Maximum speed: 805 km/h (500 mph/435 knots)

Cruise speed: 665 km/h (424 mph/370 knots)

Range (Typical payload, 2 hr reserve): 2,400 km (1,300 nmi/1,490 mi)

Rate of climb: 2,750 ft/min (14.0 m/s)

Service ceiling: 11,000 m (36,000 ft)

  

The kit and its assembly:

“In Soviet Union, Aeroflot flies you!” And in order to prove this theory, this whiffy airliner is contribution #3 to the “Soviet Group Build” at whatifmodelers.com in early 2017.

 

It’s been a very long time that I had built a small-scale airliner, but then I found a (crappy!) 1:144 Mistercraft Caravelle III in my stash (actually, a re-boxed kit from a company called “Ruch” from the Sixties!), that I had originally bought just for the wings as a pure donor kit. This appears to be a blunt copy of the also rather vintage Airfix kit, but the latter has much more crisp details. O.K., the Mistercraft kit was cheap – but you have to pay otherwise…

 

Anyway, anything Soviet without an elegant Aeroflot airliner would not be complete, so I tackled this idea on short notice. The project had also been fueled by another project idea: a modern short-haul airliner like the Tu-204, but outfitted with turboprops instead of turbofan engines. For this idea (and other uses), I also had a conversion set from a Russian company called “Kompakt Mir” stashed away, with four resin 1:144 NK-14 engines. It’s actually as an aftermarket upgrade set for the Trumpeter Tu-95 model kit, but came in handy – and it is excellent stuff, by the way, with crisp detail, almost no flash or sinkholes.

 

With these ingredients, work went on quickly and straightforward, and wings and fuselage were started separately. The wings (a combined piece with a mutual underside) received fairings for engine nacelles, made basically from drop tank halves glued to the upper wing surface. Then the resin engines were mounted to the fairings’ front ends the gaps and the nacelles’ underside sculpted with 2C putty, plus some later fine-tuning with NC putty. The Caravelle’s inward-retracting landing gear was retained, keeping the engine fairings rather short and compact.

 

On the fuselage, the Caravelle's original engines and their attachment points disappeared. The triangular windows were drilled open into circular shape, later, as a final finishing step, filled with Humbrol ClearFix for shiny window panes - this improves the overall look a lot.

 

Lead was added in the nose, the retractable stairway under the rear fuselage kept (a very Soviet design detail!) and the Caravelle’s characteristic round fin tip was cut away, to be replaced with a square scratch transplant. The stabilizers were moved down and their round tips clipped, too.

 

On the nose, a scratched thimble radome was added and blended into the fuselage, for an Il-18-ish look. While these were rather simple, cosmetic measures on the fuselage, the look of the whole aircraft was changed into a much more modern design!? This was even more emphasized when the wings and stabilizers were added – the Il-60 looks very contemporary, nothing of the Caravelle’s Fifties flavor remains.

 

The landing gear is new, bashed from the bogies of the recently slashed Dragon 1:144 B-1B bomber I abused for my Fastback build, and leftover struts from an Acedemy 1:144 Tu-22M. The latter also donated a pair of main wheels for the front leg, which is, again, from the B-1B.

The new arrangement is considerably taller than the Caravelle’s, but with the large propellers this is a convenient and plausible arrangement, despite a rather stalky appearance due to the relatively short wheelbase. The eight main wheels were taken from the RUCH kit, even though the attachment point would not fit the B-1 struts at all...

  

Painting and markings:

One can argue about Soviet aircraft design or reliability – but I must admit that I liked the Aeroflot aircraft liveries since I can remember them as a child, sometimes even witnessing Tupolev or Yak jets at the local airport. The white-and-blue outfit with almost baroque trim and details was and is IMHO a very elegant design, worthy of a state airline (which had a menacing, if not mysterious Big Brother image during the Cold War times in which I grew up).

 

Another interesting fact is that, despite the basic colors were set, each Aeroflot type bore a typical and different paint scheme, plus some exotic designs like the polar service machines with lots of red added.

 

Consequently, I had a lot of freedom, and work was made even more easy through the Mistercraft Caravelle kit: it actually contains markings for a Caravelle in Aeroflot markings! “Nonsense!”, you might say – but this aircraft actually existed: it was a movie prop (actually Air France’s F-BJTR) for filming “Enigma” at Le Bourget Airport in 1981 (check this for reference: www.airliners.net/photo/Aeroflot-%28Air-France%29/Sud-SE-...). As a side note, there was another Caravelle in fictional Interflug or ČSA colors, too, as well as a camouflaged SMB2 Super Mystère and a NMF Mystère IV with red stars on white discs, both playing the role of Soviet MiG-19s!

 

Anyway, the OOB decal sheet offered enough material for my plans, even though the blue trim was created from generic decal sheet. But door decals and most Aeroflot markings came from the movie aircraft.

 

Painting was also a pretty straightforward affair: the fuselage was painted white with acrylic paint from the rattle can, the lower fuselage by brush with Polished Aluminum Metallizer from Humbrol (which creates a very bright and clean finish) on top of a Revell Acrylics Aluminum primer coat.

For some contrast to the white and blue I painted the fixed wing parts with light grey, the rudders in Aluminum and Steel, and orange wing and stabilizer tips were added as small, additional contrasts, later even highlighted with dayglow orange.

 

In order to add some weirdness to the look, the propeller blades were painted bright blue with yellow tips. Unusual, but a common Soviet/Russian/Chinese practice.

  

A rather simple conversion, but highly effective. The Caravelle’s traces are almost not to be identified anymore, even though fuselage and wings consist of OOB material with only superficial modifications or re-locations. The engines on the wings change the look, too, and despite being massive NK-12’s they are a good match for the compact airliner – I am very happy with the outcome, even though the overall lines look much more modern than late Fifties design – even though no more modern parts were actually integrated? Weird, but entertaining. J

عشرة أسباب للاستثمار في تركيا, Rimall Invest, rimallinvest.com, rimall investment, rimall.com, www.rimallinvest.com, Istanbul Real Estate, Property, Property Investment, Real Estate in Turkey, Land in Turkey, Land in Istanbul, ten reasons to invest in Turkey, invest in Turkey, property investment in Turkey, profitable lands in Turkey, mega projects in Turkey, how to buy land in Turkey, i want to buy land in Turkey, Türkiye'de yatırımın en akıllı yolu, invest in ıstanbul, property investment in ıstanbul, profitable lands in ıstanbul, mega projects in ıstanbul, how to buy land in ıstanbul, i want to buy land in ıstanbul, residence in Turkey, villa in Turkey, house at Bosphorus

Australia’s first shot tower, at Taroona, was built by Joseph Moir and is one of three still existing in the country, the others being in Melbourne. Joseph Moir's factory, which operated for 35 years from 1870, manufactured lead shot for contemporary muzzle loading sports guns. Although the factory struggled for most of its existence its most recognisable feature, the tallest stone shot tower in the southern hemisphere, has been a prominent landmark in the district for well over a century. Joseph Moir His Shot Tower on the Kingston Road is noted throughout the colonies, and Mr Moir’s enterprising spirit is there illustrated in a most remarkable manner. Though a speculation of a very hazardous kind, he had faith in its success, and his estimate, as was afterwards discovered, was not found on any erroneous basis. The manufacture of shot was a profitable venture under his management. Mercury 12 March 1874 Just twenty years old, Scotsman Joseph Moir arrived in Hobart in 1829, one of thousands of hopeful free immigrants who sailed to Van Diemen’s Land in the 1820s. By 1840 he had acquired several properties, government employment and a reputation as a builder of notable colonial buildings such as St Mark’s Anglican Church, Pontville. He returned briefly to Scotland in 1844 to marry Elizabeth Paxton with whom he had at least five children. A prominent businessman, Moir was active in Hobart’s civic affairs between 1846 and 1873, a year before his death. He revisited Britain in 1849 ‘to arrange to carry on an ironmonger’s business’, returning to Hobart with a stock of hardware items and opening a store with his brother at ‘Economy House’ in Murray Street. The business operated until sold by his son, Joseph in 1884. Moir purchased 39 acres on Brown’s River Rd in 1855 and moved to a new house at ‘Queenborough Glens’ (as he called the property) with his family in 1862. He then built the shot tower and its associated buildings and poured his first shot in 1870. When he died after a long illness in 1874 Moir left his major business concerns to his sons, James and Joseph. Together with Elizabeth (who only survived him by 15 months) and a daughter, Mary (who died in 1853 at the age of seven) Moir was encrypted in the family mausoleum on the cliffs below the shot tower. Their remains were later re-interred in unmarked graves at Queenborough Cemetery after Joseph relinquished the property in 1901. This cemetery’s graves were removed by Hobart Council in 1963 and Moir’s final resting place remains unknown. The Shot Tower This shot tower was built by the proprietor, Joseph Moir, in the year 1870. In its erection he acted as Engineer, Architect, Carpenter and Overseer. With merely the assistance of two masons it was completed in 8 months, when the secrets of shot-making had to be discovered. After many persevering efforts the first shot was dropped 8th September, 1870. Joseph Moir erected his shot making enterprise on 39 acres subdivided from an 1817 grant of 100 acres to John Williamson. He chose his site carefully. A road frontage facilitated straightforward transport of raw materials and product. A windmill pumped water from a reliable creek to a cistern on the site of the current overflow carpark and substantial timber reserves provided fuel for the furnaces and cauldrons. Sited far from residential neighbourhoods Moir could also relax in the knowledge that toxic fumes would blow safely out to sea or over forestland. Moir probably began building his shot making works after erecting the family home between 1855 and 1862. A stone building above the cliffs overlooking the River Derwent stored gun powder for his ironmongery as well as stores of arsenic and antimony. Another building south-west of the magazine contained the furnace for preparing lead with the arsenic and antimony. The tower was constructed of dressed curved sandstone blocks quarried at the nearby abandoned Brown’s River Convict Probation Station. A remarkable tapered structure 48m (157 feet 6 inches) tall it features an internal spiral staircase of pitsawn timber and an external gallery at its top which was probably used to store firewood for the upper cauldron. The staircase provided scaffolding during the construction of the tower and access to the upper cauldron and shot-making colanders. The tower is 10 metres in diameter at the base and tapers to 3.9 metres at the top . The walls are a metre thick at the bottom and thin out to .45 centimetres at the top. A three level stone factory abutting the tower was erected at the same time, then was extended soon after. The stone for the factory was probably recycled from the abandoned probation station. The Manufacturing Process The manufacture of shot is an industry which in England has always been conducted with the greatest secrecy, and consequently witnessed by very few except the initiated. This industry has recently been introduced in this colony by Mr Alderman Moir, and we learn that it is his intention to throw his Shot Tower open to the inspection of visitors on Monday and Tuesday next, when the process of shot making will be in operation, on which occasion we have no doubt many of our citizens will avail themselves of this opportunity of witnessing the interesting process. Mercury,10 March 1871. Shot manufacturing is thought to have been invented by Prince Rupert in the seventeenth century. It seems likely that Moir studied William Watts’ patented method of 1796 while in Britain in 1849- 50. Moir’s exact process is unknown — considerable experimentation was required by most manufacturers to perfect what is a very complex process requiring a detailed understanding of physics and metallurgy. Most of Moir’s raw materials would have been imported increasing his costs substantially Moir’s process was probably as follows: Lead was prepared in a furnace at the south-eastern corner of the property. Moir added 900g of arsenic (to decrease surface tension) and 6.35kg of antimony (to harden the shot) to every 45.35 kg of lead. The resultant ‘poisoned lead’ was cast into 7.7 kg ingots, conveyed to the factory, then remelted in cauldrons on the upper level of the factory for small shot and the top of the tower for larger shot. Firewood had to be winched to the upper cauldron. The molten lead was then poured through colanders, forming droplets which became spherical as they dropped. They fell into a tub of water at the base of the tower. The size of the shot depended on the amount of arsenic, the size of the holes in the colander and the height of the fall. Watts’ patent stipulated that large sized shot required a fall of 45.75m (150 feet), hence the height of Moir’s shot tower at 48m with the colander 46.36m above the base. The lead cooled partly while falling, then completely in the water. The antinomy hardener ensured that it maintained shape under the impact of the water. The cooled shot, green in colour, was winched to the factory’s upper floor where it was dried and run over inclined glass planes to separate out defective shot (which did not roll true). Imperfect shot was remelted and the process repeated. The shot was polished in a revolving drum (likened to a farmer’s barrel churn) using plumbago (graphite) then lowered through a trapdoor to the ground floor where it passed through ten sieves for grading into sizes ranging from fine birdshot to large balls. The graded shot was bagged into 12.7kg (28lb) handsewn linen bags stencilled with the manufacturer’s name and sent to market. At its peak the factory produced 100 tons of shot per annum. Working Conditions Little is known of working conditions in Joseph Moir’s shot tower. The work was highly skilled, noisy and almost certainly dangerous. That workers took great pride in their trade is indicated by an engraving in a window in the factory, reading, ‘George Matson Premier Shot Maker Tasmanian and Australian’. No further information about George Matson is known. The following descriptions of a contemporary works, Melbourne’s Coop shot tower (now incorporated in the Melbourne Central complex on Little Lonsdale St) provides some indication of the nature of the work involved. Pouring the lead was ‘an operation which needs great skill and constant watching. The man is used to his work but the novice would probably make a considerable bungle of it’. As the lead droplets fell there was ‘a sharp incessant shower of silvery rain . . . mak[ing] a noise very like that of an overflow waste pipe high up in one’s wall’. When shovelling shot from the water tub it was ‘quite certain that if the man who is so energetically shovelling . . . was to cease from his labours for any appreciable length of time the tank would be soon full of lead. . . . all the while the strange shower descends the man with the shovel is busily at work’. The noise of grading the shot through the sieves was ‘well nigh deafening’ while a woman sat with needle and thread sewing the 12.7kg linen bags for the finished shot. House and Garden Joseph Moir began building his residence soon after acquiring the property in 1855. Family lore suggests that he built the battlemented tower as practise before attempting the more substantial shot tower. By 1885 the property was well known for its gardens and orchards with its hot houses, summer houses and conservatories. "Mr [James] Moir has a prolific little orchard and kitchen garden, which latter, the flower garden and conservatories are watered from a considerable storage reservoir above. An amusing freak of the owner is to invite strangers into a summer house, and to be seated a moment or two out of the sun. He predicts rain shortly, however cloudless the sky — when hey presto: a shower immediately commences, a real earnest one. It is brought about by turning the tap of a pipe connecting with the circular piping on top of the summer house, the latter being perforated round its outside. A little defectiveness in the roof allowed of my receiving a slight baptism of spray, so I must be considered initiated." Tasmanian Mail,13 June 1885 Perhaps the youthful James Moir (he was 30 in 1885) had a better sense of fun than business sense. He had mortgaged the property the previous year and defaulted on his payments two years later. Later History Moir’s sons, James and Joseph, carried on the business after his death in 1874. Although James won merit certificates at the 1879 Sydney International Exhibition and the 1880-81 Melbourne Exhibition the business struggled and it was leased by the mortgagors to his brother, Joseph in 1887. Joseph found himself unable compete with mainland competitors when generous colonial tariffs were removed after Federation. He relinquished the lease to his brother-in-law, William Baynton who continued the business until closing its doors in 1905. During these years Baynton’s wife, Florence, operated a tea house in the residence. The property subsequently passed through several hands until 1956 when 3.24 hectares was purchased by the Tasmanian government and proclaimed a Scenery Reserve. Although it included the tower and residence, the reserve excluded the powder magazine, conservatory, antimony furnace and mausoleum. The reserve was gazetted as an historic site in 1971 under the National Parks and Wildlife Act. Since 1956 it has been leased to several concessionaires and has been open as a tourist site. Various conservation works have been conducted at the shot tower over the years to maintain its heritage significance.

 

Ref www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=2820

IID 2962913 IM0001 SL01

 

Albert State School is a heritage-listed state school with war memorial at 210-220 Albert Street, Maryborough, Fraser Coast Region, Queensland, Australia. It was designed by Robert Ferguson and built in 1883 by George William and Edwin Negus. It was added to the Queensland Heritage Register on 28 November 2014.

 

History

Albert State School in Maryborough opened in 1883 in a substantial new building designed by architect, Robert Ferguson, in a period when the town was undergoing major expansion and during the establishment of important institutions. As Maryborough grew, the school expanded to include other structures and landscape elements. The school has been in continuous operation since establishment and has long been a focus for the local community as a place for important social and cultural activity.

 

On the traditional land of the Badtjala (Butchulla) people, the small town of Maryborough grew quickly from its establishment in 1847. After relocating downstream from its original position between 1852 and 1856, Maryborough was proclaimed a Port of Entry in 1859 and a municipality in 1861. Early exports from the port included wool, timber, tallow, sugar, and coal. Maryborough became the port for Gympie after gold was discovered there in 1867.

 

The 1880s were a prosperous time for the colony of Queensland generally. The population of Maryborough and district grew dramatically between 1876 and 1881, and this continued into the late 1880s. Maryborough's dominance as a regional centre was strengthened when the North Coast railway line connecting Gympie to Maryborough's port was completed in 1881. The years 1870 to 1890 were extremely profitable for Maryborough and new commercial establishments, industries and financial and other institutions were established in the town.

 

Although the first government school (Maryborough Central State School) opened in the town in 1862, Maryborough experienced a dramatic growth in schools beginning in 1875, with nine schools opening in 16 years. Granville State School and Tinana State School opened in 1875, the Sisters of Mercy Convent School in 1880, Maryborough Grammar School in 1881, St Helens State School in 1882, Albert State School in 1883, Maryborough West State School in 1886, a Christian Brothers School in 1888, and Sunbury State School in 1891.

 

The provision of state-administered education was important to the colonial governments of Australia. National schools were established in 1848 in New South Wales and continued in Queensland following the colony's creation in 1859. After the introduction of the Education Act 1860, Queensland's public schools grew from four in 1860 to 230 by 1875. The State Education Act 1875 provided for free, compulsory and secular primary education and the establishment of the Department of Public Instruction. This further standardised the provision of education, and despite difficulties, achieved the remarkable feat of bringing basic literacy to most Queensland children by 1900.

 

The establishment of schools was considered an essential step in the development of early communities and integral to their success. Locals often donated land and labour for a school's construction and the school community contributed to maintenance and development. Schools became a community focus, a symbol of progress, and a source of pride, with enduring connections formed with past pupils, parents, and teachers. The inclusion of war memorials and community halls reinforced these connections and provided a venue for a wide range of community events in schools across Queensland.

 

Planning for Albert State School occurred during 1881 beginning with choosing a 2 acres (0.81 ha) in January. Fundraising began in March and tenders were called in August for construction of a 'spacious and well-designed school house, and a master's residence'. This was won by local contractor, Messrs George William and Edwin Negus. The final construction cost was £2500.

 

Many significant buildings were constructed in Maryborough in the late 1870s and 1880s, reflecting the prosperity of the times, including Maryborough Court House (1877), the Bank of New South Wales (1877), St Paul's Church of England (1879), Maryborough railway station (1880), Maryborough Grammar School buildings (boys' in 1881 and girls' in 1883), the Criterion Hotel (1883), Maryborough Mortuary Chapel (1884), Maryborough Hospital (1888), and the Maryborough School of Arts (1888) - as well as fine, architect-designed suburban villas for wealthy residents. The substantial building for Albert State School was constructed in the midst of this boom.

 

Albert State School was built to a standard plan supplied by the Queensland Government. The government developed standard plans for its school buildings to help ensure consistency and economy. From the 1860s until the 1960s, Queensland school buildings were predominantly timber-framed, an easy and cost-effective approach that also enabled the government to provide facilities in remote areas. Standard designs were continually refined in response to changing needs and educational philosophy and Queensland school buildings were particularly innovative in climate control, lighting, and ventilation. Standardisation produced distinctly similar schools across Queensland with complexes of typical components.

 

The teaching building for Albert State School was built facing northeast to Albert Street and was a standard design by architect, Robert Ferguson. Ferguson was appointed in 1879 by the Department of Public Instruction as its first Superintendent of Buildings. Ferguson immediately revised the design of schools to address deficiencies in ventilation and lighting and this period of school design was pivotal in this regard. Ferguson introduced tall and decorative ventilation spires to the roof and louvred panels to the gable apex to vent the classrooms. Additional and larger windows were incorporated with high sill heights that did not allow draughts and sunlight to enter the room. The overall form was lowset on brick piers and in larger schools multiple classrooms were arranged symmetrically around a parade ground. The designs remained single-skin to eliminate "receptacles for germs and vermin" but were lined externally rather than internally to address the previous weathering problem. Notably, Ferguson's buildings were decoratively-treated with a variety of elaborate timber work and were heralded by educationalists as "far superior in design, material and workmanship to any we have before built".

 

In 1885 Robert Ferguson was replaced by his brother John Ferguson who continued to implement his brother's designs until his death in 1893, when responsibility for school buildings passed back to the Department of Public Works. The Ferguson period (1879-1893) is distinct and marked by extensive redesign of school buildings including associated structures and furniture. The Ferguson brothers' designs were reflective of educational requirements of the time, responsive to criticism of previous designs, revolutionary in terms of internal environmental quality, technically innovative, popular and successful and provided a long-lasting legacy of good school design.

 

The teaching building at Albert State School was typical of Ferguson's designs. It was a large, lowset timber-framed building with a multi-gabled roof and prominent ventilation roof spire. It accommodated students in three large classrooms with verandahs on all sides. The building was attractively decorated with Carpenter Gothic timber work. The central wing accommodated rooms for hats, cloaks and lavatories at either end, and was separated by passageways from the classrooms in each side wing.

 

The school opened on 9 July 1883 with 220 children and 80 visitors present. Although the building was designed to accommodate up to 250 students, by September there was an average attendance of 320 students, and by the end of the school year attendance reached 450. The unusually rapid increase of students was remarkable, demanding more classroom space urgently.[19] Extensions to the building, also by Robert Ferguson, were designed in late 1884. A large classroom was added to the rear of each side wing, and two hat and cloak rooms were added to both the northwest and southeast outer verandahs. In form and detail, the new work was identical to the existing. Construction began immediately and was completed in 1885 by contractor John Jones. A newspaper reported that year that Albert State School was "said to be the second best in the colony".

 

In 1891 the average daily attendance was 611, making it the largest coeducational school in Queensland. A newspaper report of 1896 said it was the largest and best equipped school in Maryborough, the district, and (in some respects) Queensland. It emphasised the high academic achievement of its graduates and its superior and extensive educational equipment, the excellent sanitary facilities, and the beautiful grounds with camphor laurel and fig trees.

 

The grounds of Albert State School were extensively planted and accommodated large open play areas, typical of Queensland schools. The provision of outdoor play space was a result of an early and continued commitment to play-based education and schools were built on spacious grounds to facilitate this. The grounds were planted with trees and gardens for beautification and shade, critical in Queensland. A 1915 report of Albert State School stated that the trees were tended with "solicitous care" and the school grounds were densely shaded, with classes held under the trees, benefiting the health of the pupils. The school was described as one of the "beauty spots" of the town and the Education Department should "justly be proud of its educative work in this direction".

 

A war memorial was built at the front of Albert State School and was unveiled by the Mayor of Maryborough, George Holbut, on 14 December 1917. It was a tall sandstone obelisk to commemorate past pupils killed during World War I, which was still ongoing at that time, and was built from donations by relatives and friends of the dead servicemen. It had 25 names on two of its four marble panels - another 18 names would later be added as the war continued. Over time, the obelisk became the site for remembrance ceremonies for the school and local community.

 

Over time, the Ferguson teaching building at Albert State School was altered to meet contemporary educational demands, particularly for improved lighting and ventilation. The Department of Public Works greatly improved the natural ventilation and lighting of classroom interiors, experimenting with different combinations of roof ventilators, ceiling and wall vents, larger windows, dormer windows and ducting. Achieving an ideal or even adequate level of natural light in classrooms, without glare, was of critical importance to educationalists and consequently it became central to the design and layout of all school buildings. Existing lowset buildings were raised for increased ventilation with the added benefit of providing a covered play space in the understorey. In 1926 the Ferguson teaching building at Albert State School was raised on tall brick piers and the ground underneath was concreted to create a large, understorey play space.

 

Another standard alteration was to the fenestration and classroom size of existing buildings. At schools across the state, windows were enlarged and sills lowered to let in more light generally. Smaller classrooms provided a greater amount of natural light so large classrooms were subdivided. Interiors became lighter and airier and met with immediate approval from educationalists. During the 1920s and 1930s alterations were made to the vast majority of older school buildings to upgrade their lighting and ventilation. Although these changes occurred at Albert State School, it was to a lesser extent than most schools, with the Ferguson teaching building retaining most of its high-level windows. However, the existing windows in the gable walls facing the street were enlarged using banks of casements to brighten and better ventilate the rooms. In addition, all but one of the classrooms were divided with new partitions to create smaller rooms.

 

In 1930 a marble tablet was unveiled by Director of Education, BJ McKenna in front of a very large gathering at the school. The tablet was prominently mounted centrally at the front of the Ferguson teaching building and was a memorial to the late George James, head teacher of the school for 24 years.

 

In 1932 a new highset teaching building was constructed at Albert State School to a standard design by the Department of Public Works. Accommodating infants, this building was attached to the rear of the eastern wing of the Ferguson building and was extended and altered over time.

 

The accommodation at the school remained relatively static between 1932 and the 1980s; however, the grounds were expanded to provide more room for recreation.[31] An additional 0.5 acres (0.20 ha) of land was obtained on the southeast side of the school between 1951 and 1961, while land across Zante Street to the northwest was acquired from 1960.[32] Land was also obtained c. 1977 on the other side of Albert Street from the school, for a pre-school building, and later sold.

 

Over time, some alteration of the Ferguson teaching building occurred, however, as this work was minor, the bulk of the building remained largely unchanged. To modernise and brighten the classrooms, in 1954 the interior walls were lined with sheet material and a flat ceiling was installed concealing the roof trusses. Between 1973 and 1977 the hat and cloak rooms on the verandahs were extended, providing small rooms for storage and staff. The large classroom in the centre wing was altered to accommodate administration in 1978 and in 1981 part of a verandah was enclosed for a staff room.[34] In 1988 a further part of a verandah was enclosed and more partitions were inserted. At some time, the roof fleches were removed.

 

Between the 1960s and 1980s Queensland education was reformed. The Education Act 1964 was a turning point and the first major update of Queensland education's governing legislation since 1875. Effectively, a new era of state education began and required new architectural responses. The Department of Education (as it had been renamed in 1957) continued to give the responsibility of school design to the architects of the Department of Public Works. New materials, technologies, educational philosophies, government policies, architectural styles, and functional requirements influenced the evolution of standard designs and the predominance of highset, timber-framed buildings decreased.

 

After a long period of relative inactivity, changes began to occur at Albert State School that reflected the push to modernise. The original teacher's residence, on the corner of Albert and Zante streets, was removed c. 1979-1988. In 1985 a tuckshop and toilet block was built behind the main building; a janitor's and sports equipment store was added to the northwest in 1986, and in 1987 a new two-storey teaching building was constructed on the site of the original tennis courts, later extended in 1989 and 1992. Shade structures were added in the 1990s and in 2010 two new buildings were added to the school grounds - a multipurpose hall and a teaching building. Through a gradual acquisition of land across Zante Street (including a closed section of the road itself), the school grounds totalled 2.9 hectares (7.2 acres) by 2014.

 

In 2014, the school continues to operate from the site and the Ferguson teaching building remains highly intact. The school is important to the city having operated since 1883 and having taught generations of Maryborough students. Since establishment it has been a key social focus for the Maryborough community with the grounds and buildings having been the location of many social events over time.

 

Description

Albert State School comprises a substantial teaching building and war memorial standing on spacious grounds with mature trees on a corner site in Maryborough. The school is in a low-density residential neighbourhood near the main centre of town and is prominent within its context.

 

Facing northeast and overlooking the main entrance on Albert Street is a large, symmetrical building (Ferguson teaching building) set back from the front boundary behind an expansive lawn, garden beds and mature trees. A formally-arranged memorial garden is situated at the entrance comprising timber flagstaff, concrete paths and low hedges in symmetrically arranged brick garden beds. Within the garden, a sandstone obelisk bears four leaded marble tablets listing 43 past pupils who died in World War I. Behind the memorial, mounted to the front of the school building, is a marble tablet memorial to George James, a past head teacher of the school.

 

The Ferguson teaching building is highly intact. It is a large, timber-framed building clad in chamferboards and highset on steel posts with perimeter brick walls and square brick piers around an open understorey play area with concrete floor and small, brick store rooms. The bricks are visibly of two different ages indicating the original lowset form of the building. Each of the three wings of the U-shaped building, formed around a parade ground, has wide verandahs running lengthways on both sides with attached teachers' rooms. The prominent corrugated metal-clad roof has multiple, intersecting and projecting gables. Its gable ends feature a variety of elaborate timberwork, including: moulded barge boards; scrolled, paired eaves brackets; fretwork; mouldings; stop-chamfering; lattice; finials; and pendants. Metal louvres in the apex of the gables vent the roof space.

 

The building retains hood mouldings and windows that rarely survive at other, similar schools and are distinguishing features. The gable ends of the side wings retain sheet-metal hood mouldings, over banks of timber-framed casement windows with fanlights and sunhoods, which indicate the location and size of the original narrow windows. In other locations above high level sills are original tall, narrow windows with vertically centre-pivoting sashes and later casement windows.

 

Accessed by timber stairs, the verandahs feature a variety of high-quality, decorative treatments, including diagonally-laid timber board ceilings, brackets, stop chamfered posts with mouldings, and an elaborate, cross-braced balustrade. The verandahs also retain original tall, high-level windows into the classrooms, as well as banks of later timber-framed, double hung sashes with fanlights. Mounted on the front verandah wall facing the street are large, timber honour boards that list high-achieving pupils and more of these boards are in storage on site. The building retains rows of metal hat hooks as well as an early sink. Original timber French doors with tall fanlights provide access into the interior.

 

Internally, the original large classrooms are divided by more recent light-weight partitions into smaller rooms; however, the northwest wing retains one classroom of original size. The interior walls of the classrooms and teacher's rooms are lined with more recent sheet material and a suspended ceiling has been installed throughout. The partitions and linings are reversible. Short lengths of the verandahs have been enclosed and the verandah wall removed to incorporate this space into the classroom. The building retains original doors including large, braced board doors and panelled doors with bolection moulding and original door and window hardware.

 

An early school bell is mounted to a timber post near the verandah of the northwest wing and the school retains a collection of early school-related paraphernalia including desks, cabinets, chairs, administration books, a bell, photographs, trophies, shields, sewing, an ink well, cane, and piano with stool.

 

Other structures within the heritage boundary are not considered to be of cultural heritage significance.

 

Heritage listing

Albert State School was listed on the Queensland Heritage Register on 28 November 2014 having satisfied the following criteria.

 

The place is important in demonstrating the evolution or pattern of Queensland's history.

 

Albert State School (established in 1883) is important in demonstrating the evolution of state education and its associated architecture in Queensland. The place retains an excellent, representative example of a standard government-designed school building that was an architectural response to prevailing government educational philosophies.

 

Constructed during a major boom period, Albert State School is also important in demonstrating the expansion of Maryborough in the 1870s and 1880s. Maryborough was a prominent and prosperous centre in colonial Queensland, which is reflected by the high-quality and size of the Ferguson teaching building.

 

The place is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a particular class of cultural places.

 

Albert State School is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of early Queensland state schools with their later modifications. These include: generous, landscaped sites with mature shade trees and assembly/play areas; and highset timber-framed teaching buildings of standard designs that incorporate understorey play areas, verandahs, and classrooms with high levels of natural light and ventilation.[1]

 

The substantial, timber-framed teaching building designed by architect, Robert Ferguson is highly-intact, which is rare, and is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of this type. It retains: a symmetrical, U-shaped plan form of large classrooms surrounded by generous verandahs with projecting teacher's rooms; high-quality timber decorative detailing; and effective natural lighting and ventilation features.

 

The place is important because of its aesthetic significance.

 

Albert State School is important for its aesthetic significance and generates a strong sense of place. The school is a landmark with the substantial Ferguson teaching building prominently sited in generous, landscaped grounds with large shade trees. The war memorial at the front entrance of the school, comprising a large sandstone obelisk, paths, garden beds and a tall flagstaff, has symbolic meaning and remains the focal point for annual remembrance ceremonies. Highly-intact, the Ferguson teaching building has considerable architectural value as a building of high-quality materials and construction with well-composed symmetrical elevations and layout, and decorative, finely-crafted timber work.

 

The place has a strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons.

 

Queensland schools have always played an important part in Queensland communities. They typically retain a significant and enduring connection with former pupils, parents, and teachers; provide a venue for social interaction and volunteer work; and are a source of pride, symbolising local progress and aspirations. Albert State School has a strong and ongoing association with the Maryborough community. It was established in 1883 through the fundraising efforts of the local community and has educated generations of Maryborough children. The place is important for its contribution to the educational development of Maryborough and is a prominent community focal point and gathering place for social and commemorative events with widespread community support.

 

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_State_School

IID 2962913 IM0003 SL03

 

Albert State School is a heritage-listed state school with war memorial at 210-220 Albert Street, Maryborough, Fraser Coast Region, Queensland, Australia. It was designed by Robert Ferguson and built in 1883 by George William and Edwin Negus. It was added to the Queensland Heritage Register on 28 November 2014.

 

History

Albert State School in Maryborough opened in 1883 in a substantial new building designed by architect, Robert Ferguson, in a period when the town was undergoing major expansion and during the establishment of important institutions. As Maryborough grew, the school expanded to include other structures and landscape elements. The school has been in continuous operation since establishment and has long been a focus for the local community as a place for important social and cultural activity.

 

On the traditional land of the Badtjala (Butchulla) people, the small town of Maryborough grew quickly from its establishment in 1847. After relocating downstream from its original position between 1852 and 1856, Maryborough was proclaimed a Port of Entry in 1859 and a municipality in 1861. Early exports from the port included wool, timber, tallow, sugar, and coal. Maryborough became the port for Gympie after gold was discovered there in 1867.

 

The 1880s were a prosperous time for the colony of Queensland generally. The population of Maryborough and district grew dramatically between 1876 and 1881, and this continued into the late 1880s. Maryborough's dominance as a regional centre was strengthened when the North Coast railway line connecting Gympie to Maryborough's port was completed in 1881. The years 1870 to 1890 were extremely profitable for Maryborough and new commercial establishments, industries and financial and other institutions were established in the town.

 

Although the first government school (Maryborough Central State School) opened in the town in 1862, Maryborough experienced a dramatic growth in schools beginning in 1875, with nine schools opening in 16 years. Granville State School and Tinana State School opened in 1875, the Sisters of Mercy Convent School in 1880, Maryborough Grammar School in 1881, St Helens State School in 1882, Albert State School in 1883, Maryborough West State School in 1886, a Christian Brothers School in 1888, and Sunbury State School in 1891.

 

The provision of state-administered education was important to the colonial governments of Australia. National schools were established in 1848 in New South Wales and continued in Queensland following the colony's creation in 1859. After the introduction of the Education Act 1860, Queensland's public schools grew from four in 1860 to 230 by 1875. The State Education Act 1875 provided for free, compulsory and secular primary education and the establishment of the Department of Public Instruction. This further standardised the provision of education, and despite difficulties, achieved the remarkable feat of bringing basic literacy to most Queensland children by 1900.

 

The establishment of schools was considered an essential step in the development of early communities and integral to their success. Locals often donated land and labour for a school's construction and the school community contributed to maintenance and development. Schools became a community focus, a symbol of progress, and a source of pride, with enduring connections formed with past pupils, parents, and teachers. The inclusion of war memorials and community halls reinforced these connections and provided a venue for a wide range of community events in schools across Queensland.

 

Planning for Albert State School occurred during 1881 beginning with choosing a 2 acres (0.81 ha) in January. Fundraising began in March and tenders were called in August for construction of a 'spacious and well-designed school house, and a master's residence'. This was won by local contractor, Messrs George William and Edwin Negus. The final construction cost was £2500.

 

Many significant buildings were constructed in Maryborough in the late 1870s and 1880s, reflecting the prosperity of the times, including Maryborough Court House (1877), the Bank of New South Wales (1877), St Paul's Church of England (1879), Maryborough railway station (1880), Maryborough Grammar School buildings (boys' in 1881 and girls' in 1883), the Criterion Hotel (1883), Maryborough Mortuary Chapel (1884), Maryborough Hospital (1888), and the Maryborough School of Arts (1888) - as well as fine, architect-designed suburban villas for wealthy residents. The substantial building for Albert State School was constructed in the midst of this boom.

 

Albert State School was built to a standard plan supplied by the Queensland Government. The government developed standard plans for its school buildings to help ensure consistency and economy. From the 1860s until the 1960s, Queensland school buildings were predominantly timber-framed, an easy and cost-effective approach that also enabled the government to provide facilities in remote areas. Standard designs were continually refined in response to changing needs and educational philosophy and Queensland school buildings were particularly innovative in climate control, lighting, and ventilation. Standardisation produced distinctly similar schools across Queensland with complexes of typical components.

 

The teaching building for Albert State School was built facing northeast to Albert Street and was a standard design by architect, Robert Ferguson. Ferguson was appointed in 1879 by the Department of Public Instruction as its first Superintendent of Buildings. Ferguson immediately revised the design of schools to address deficiencies in ventilation and lighting and this period of school design was pivotal in this regard. Ferguson introduced tall and decorative ventilation spires to the roof and louvred panels to the gable apex to vent the classrooms. Additional and larger windows were incorporated with high sill heights that did not allow draughts and sunlight to enter the room. The overall form was lowset on brick piers and in larger schools multiple classrooms were arranged symmetrically around a parade ground. The designs remained single-skin to eliminate "receptacles for germs and vermin" but were lined externally rather than internally to address the previous weathering problem. Notably, Ferguson's buildings were decoratively-treated with a variety of elaborate timber work and were heralded by educationalists as "far superior in design, material and workmanship to any we have before built".

 

In 1885 Robert Ferguson was replaced by his brother John Ferguson who continued to implement his brother's designs until his death in 1893, when responsibility for school buildings passed back to the Department of Public Works. The Ferguson period (1879-1893) is distinct and marked by extensive redesign of school buildings including associated structures and furniture. The Ferguson brothers' designs were reflective of educational requirements of the time, responsive to criticism of previous designs, revolutionary in terms of internal environmental quality, technically innovative, popular and successful and provided a long-lasting legacy of good school design.

 

The teaching building at Albert State School was typical of Ferguson's designs. It was a large, lowset timber-framed building with a multi-gabled roof and prominent ventilation roof spire. It accommodated students in three large classrooms with verandahs on all sides. The building was attractively decorated with Carpenter Gothic timber work. The central wing accommodated rooms for hats, cloaks and lavatories at either end, and was separated by passageways from the classrooms in each side wing.

 

The school opened on 9 July 1883 with 220 children and 80 visitors present. Although the building was designed to accommodate up to 250 students, by September there was an average attendance of 320 students, and by the end of the school year attendance reached 450. The unusually rapid increase of students was remarkable, demanding more classroom space urgently.[19] Extensions to the building, also by Robert Ferguson, were designed in late 1884. A large classroom was added to the rear of each side wing, and two hat and cloak rooms were added to both the northwest and southeast outer verandahs. In form and detail, the new work was identical to the existing. Construction began immediately and was completed in 1885 by contractor John Jones. A newspaper reported that year that Albert State School was "said to be the second best in the colony".

 

In 1891 the average daily attendance was 611, making it the largest coeducational school in Queensland. A newspaper report of 1896 said it was the largest and best equipped school in Maryborough, the district, and (in some respects) Queensland. It emphasised the high academic achievement of its graduates and its superior and extensive educational equipment, the excellent sanitary facilities, and the beautiful grounds with camphor laurel and fig trees.

 

The grounds of Albert State School were extensively planted and accommodated large open play areas, typical of Queensland schools. The provision of outdoor play space was a result of an early and continued commitment to play-based education and schools were built on spacious grounds to facilitate this. The grounds were planted with trees and gardens for beautification and shade, critical in Queensland. A 1915 report of Albert State School stated that the trees were tended with "solicitous care" and the school grounds were densely shaded, with classes held under the trees, benefiting the health of the pupils. The school was described as one of the "beauty spots" of the town and the Education Department should "justly be proud of its educative work in this direction".

 

A war memorial was built at the front of Albert State School and was unveiled by the Mayor of Maryborough, George Holbut, on 14 December 1917. It was a tall sandstone obelisk to commemorate past pupils killed during World War I, which was still ongoing at that time, and was built from donations by relatives and friends of the dead servicemen. It had 25 names on two of its four marble panels - another 18 names would later be added as the war continued. Over time, the obelisk became the site for remembrance ceremonies for the school and local community.

 

Over time, the Ferguson teaching building at Albert State School was altered to meet contemporary educational demands, particularly for improved lighting and ventilation. The Department of Public Works greatly improved the natural ventilation and lighting of classroom interiors, experimenting with different combinations of roof ventilators, ceiling and wall vents, larger windows, dormer windows and ducting. Achieving an ideal or even adequate level of natural light in classrooms, without glare, was of critical importance to educationalists and consequently it became central to the design and layout of all school buildings. Existing lowset buildings were raised for increased ventilation with the added benefit of providing a covered play space in the understorey. In 1926 the Ferguson teaching building at Albert State School was raised on tall brick piers and the ground underneath was concreted to create a large, understorey play space.

 

Another standard alteration was to the fenestration and classroom size of existing buildings. At schools across the state, windows were enlarged and sills lowered to let in more light generally. Smaller classrooms provided a greater amount of natural light so large classrooms were subdivided. Interiors became lighter and airier and met with immediate approval from educationalists. During the 1920s and 1930s alterations were made to the vast majority of older school buildings to upgrade their lighting and ventilation. Although these changes occurred at Albert State School, it was to a lesser extent than most schools, with the Ferguson teaching building retaining most of its high-level windows. However, the existing windows in the gable walls facing the street were enlarged using banks of casements to brighten and better ventilate the rooms. In addition, all but one of the classrooms were divided with new partitions to create smaller rooms.

 

In 1930 a marble tablet was unveiled by Director of Education, BJ McKenna in front of a very large gathering at the school. The tablet was prominently mounted centrally at the front of the Ferguson teaching building and was a memorial to the late George James, head teacher of the school for 24 years.

 

In 1932 a new highset teaching building was constructed at Albert State School to a standard design by the Department of Public Works. Accommodating infants, this building was attached to the rear of the eastern wing of the Ferguson building and was extended and altered over time.

 

The accommodation at the school remained relatively static between 1932 and the 1980s; however, the grounds were expanded to provide more room for recreation.[31] An additional 0.5 acres (0.20 ha) of land was obtained on the southeast side of the school between 1951 and 1961, while land across Zante Street to the northwest was acquired from 1960.[32] Land was also obtained c. 1977 on the other side of Albert Street from the school, for a pre-school building, and later sold.

 

Over time, some alteration of the Ferguson teaching building occurred, however, as this work was minor, the bulk of the building remained largely unchanged. To modernise and brighten the classrooms, in 1954 the interior walls were lined with sheet material and a flat ceiling was installed concealing the roof trusses. Between 1973 and 1977 the hat and cloak rooms on the verandahs were extended, providing small rooms for storage and staff. The large classroom in the centre wing was altered to accommodate administration in 1978 and in 1981 part of a verandah was enclosed for a staff room.[34] In 1988 a further part of a verandah was enclosed and more partitions were inserted. At some time, the roof fleches were removed.

 

Between the 1960s and 1980s Queensland education was reformed. The Education Act 1964 was a turning point and the first major update of Queensland education's governing legislation since 1875. Effectively, a new era of state education began and required new architectural responses. The Department of Education (as it had been renamed in 1957) continued to give the responsibility of school design to the architects of the Department of Public Works. New materials, technologies, educational philosophies, government policies, architectural styles, and functional requirements influenced the evolution of standard designs and the predominance of highset, timber-framed buildings decreased.

 

After a long period of relative inactivity, changes began to occur at Albert State School that reflected the push to modernise. The original teacher's residence, on the corner of Albert and Zante streets, was removed c. 1979-1988. In 1985 a tuckshop and toilet block was built behind the main building; a janitor's and sports equipment store was added to the northwest in 1986, and in 1987 a new two-storey teaching building was constructed on the site of the original tennis courts, later extended in 1989 and 1992. Shade structures were added in the 1990s and in 2010 two new buildings were added to the school grounds - a multipurpose hall and a teaching building. Through a gradual acquisition of land across Zante Street (including a closed section of the road itself), the school grounds totalled 2.9 hectares (7.2 acres) by 2014.

 

In 2014, the school continues to operate from the site and the Ferguson teaching building remains highly intact. The school is important to the city having operated since 1883 and having taught generations of Maryborough students. Since establishment it has been a key social focus for the Maryborough community with the grounds and buildings having been the location of many social events over time.

 

Description

Albert State School comprises a substantial teaching building and war memorial standing on spacious grounds with mature trees on a corner site in Maryborough. The school is in a low-density residential neighbourhood near the main centre of town and is prominent within its context.

 

Facing northeast and overlooking the main entrance on Albert Street is a large, symmetrical building (Ferguson teaching building) set back from the front boundary behind an expansive lawn, garden beds and mature trees. A formally-arranged memorial garden is situated at the entrance comprising timber flagstaff, concrete paths and low hedges in symmetrically arranged brick garden beds. Within the garden, a sandstone obelisk bears four leaded marble tablets listing 43 past pupils who died in World War I. Behind the memorial, mounted to the front of the school building, is a marble tablet memorial to George James, a past head teacher of the school.

 

The Ferguson teaching building is highly intact. It is a large, timber-framed building clad in chamferboards and highset on steel posts with perimeter brick walls and square brick piers around an open understorey play area with concrete floor and small, brick store rooms. The bricks are visibly of two different ages indicating the original lowset form of the building. Each of the three wings of the U-shaped building, formed around a parade ground, has wide verandahs running lengthways on both sides with attached teachers' rooms. The prominent corrugated metal-clad roof has multiple, intersecting and projecting gables. Its gable ends feature a variety of elaborate timberwork, including: moulded barge boards; scrolled, paired eaves brackets; fretwork; mouldings; stop-chamfering; lattice; finials; and pendants. Metal louvres in the apex of the gables vent the roof space.

 

The building retains hood mouldings and windows that rarely survive at other, similar schools and are distinguishing features. The gable ends of the side wings retain sheet-metal hood mouldings, over banks of timber-framed casement windows with fanlights and sunhoods, which indicate the location and size of the original narrow windows. In other locations above high level sills are original tall, narrow windows with vertically centre-pivoting sashes and later casement windows.

 

Accessed by timber stairs, the verandahs feature a variety of high-quality, decorative treatments, including diagonally-laid timber board ceilings, brackets, stop chamfered posts with mouldings, and an elaborate, cross-braced balustrade. The verandahs also retain original tall, high-level windows into the classrooms, as well as banks of later timber-framed, double hung sashes with fanlights. Mounted on the front verandah wall facing the street are large, timber honour boards that list high-achieving pupils and more of these boards are in storage on site. The building retains rows of metal hat hooks as well as an early sink. Original timber French doors with tall fanlights provide access into the interior.

 

Internally, the original large classrooms are divided by more recent light-weight partitions into smaller rooms; however, the northwest wing retains one classroom of original size. The interior walls of the classrooms and teacher's rooms are lined with more recent sheet material and a suspended ceiling has been installed throughout. The partitions and linings are reversible. Short lengths of the verandahs have been enclosed and the verandah wall removed to incorporate this space into the classroom. The building retains original doors including large, braced board doors and panelled doors with bolection moulding and original door and window hardware.

 

An early school bell is mounted to a timber post near the verandah of the northwest wing and the school retains a collection of early school-related paraphernalia including desks, cabinets, chairs, administration books, a bell, photographs, trophies, shields, sewing, an ink well, cane, and piano with stool.

 

Other structures within the heritage boundary are not considered to be of cultural heritage significance.

 

Heritage listing

Albert State School was listed on the Queensland Heritage Register on 28 November 2014 having satisfied the following criteria.

 

The place is important in demonstrating the evolution or pattern of Queensland's history.

 

Albert State School (established in 1883) is important in demonstrating the evolution of state education and its associated architecture in Queensland. The place retains an excellent, representative example of a standard government-designed school building that was an architectural response to prevailing government educational philosophies.

 

Constructed during a major boom period, Albert State School is also important in demonstrating the expansion of Maryborough in the 1870s and 1880s. Maryborough was a prominent and prosperous centre in colonial Queensland, which is reflected by the high-quality and size of the Ferguson teaching building.

 

The place is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a particular class of cultural places.

 

Albert State School is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of early Queensland state schools with their later modifications. These include: generous, landscaped sites with mature shade trees and assembly/play areas; and highset timber-framed teaching buildings of standard designs that incorporate understorey play areas, verandahs, and classrooms with high levels of natural light and ventilation.[1]

 

The substantial, timber-framed teaching building designed by architect, Robert Ferguson is highly-intact, which is rare, and is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of this type. It retains: a symmetrical, U-shaped plan form of large classrooms surrounded by generous verandahs with projecting teacher's rooms; high-quality timber decorative detailing; and effective natural lighting and ventilation features.

 

The place is important because of its aesthetic significance.

 

Albert State School is important for its aesthetic significance and generates a strong sense of place. The school is a landmark with the substantial Ferguson teaching building prominently sited in generous, landscaped grounds with large shade trees. The war memorial at the front entrance of the school, comprising a large sandstone obelisk, paths, garden beds and a tall flagstaff, has symbolic meaning and remains the focal point for annual remembrance ceremonies. Highly-intact, the Ferguson teaching building has considerable architectural value as a building of high-quality materials and construction with well-composed symmetrical elevations and layout, and decorative, finely-crafted timber work.

 

The place has a strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons.

 

Queensland schools have always played an important part in Queensland communities. They typically retain a significant and enduring connection with former pupils, parents, and teachers; provide a venue for social interaction and volunteer work; and are a source of pride, symbolising local progress and aspirations. Albert State School has a strong and ongoing association with the Maryborough community. It was established in 1883 through the fundraising efforts of the local community and has educated generations of Maryborough children. The place is important for its contribution to the educational development of Maryborough and is a prominent community focal point and gathering place for social and commemorative events with widespread community support.

 

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_State_School

+++ DISCLAIMER +++Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!

  

Some background:

Aeroflot is one of the oldest airlines in the world, tracing its history back to 1923. During the Soviet era, Aeroflot was the Soviet national airline and the largest airline in the world. Following the dissolution of the USSR, the carrier has been transformed from a state-run enterprise into a semi-privatized company which ranked 19th most profitable airline in the world in 2007. Aeroflot is still considered to be the de facto national airline of Russia, being 51%-owned by the Russian Government.

 

After WWII, Aeroflot's route network had extended to 295,400 kilometers (183,600 mi), and by 1950 it carried 1,603,700 passengers, 151,070 tonnes (333,050,000 lb) of freight and 30,580 tonnes (67,420,000 lb) of mail during the same year. The 20th Communist Party Congress, held in 1956, saw plans for Aeroflot services to be dramatically increased. The airline would see its overall activities increased from its then current levels by 3.8 times, and it was set the target of the carriage of 16,000,000 passengers by 1960. In order to meet these goals, Aeroflot introduced higher capacity turbojet and turbine-prop aircraft on key domestic routes, and on services to Aeroflot destinations abroad.

 

A major step for Aeroflot occurred on 15 September 1956 when the Tupolev Tu-104 jet airliner entered service on the Moscow-Omsk-Irkutsk route, marking the world's first sustained jet airline service. The airline began international flights with the type on 12 October 1956 with flights from Moscow to Prague. The aircraft placed Aeroflot in an envious position, as airlines in the West had operated throughout the 1950s with large piston-engine aircraft. By 1958 the route network covered 349,200 kilometers (217,000 mi), and the airline carried 8,231,500 passengers, and 445,600 tons of mail and freight, with fifteen percent of all-Union services being operated by jet aircraft.

 

Aeroflot introduced the Antonov An-10 and Ilyushin Il-18 in 1959, and together with its existing jet aircraft, the airline was able to extend services on modern aircraft to some twenty cities during 1960. The Tupolev Tu-114, then the world's largest airliner, entered service with the Soviet carrier on 24 April 1961 on the Moscow-Khabarovsk route; covering a distance of 6,980 kilometers (4,340 mi) in 8 hours 20 minutes. The expansion of the Aeroflot fleet saw services with modern aircraft being extended to more than forty cities in 1961, with fifty percent of all-Union services being operated by these aircraft. This fleet expansion also saw the number of passengers carried in 1961 skyrocketing to 21,800,000.

 

Further expansion came in 1962 when various medium and short-haul routes were started and respective aircraft types such as the Tupolev Tu-124, Ilyushin Il-60 and Antonov An-24 entered regular service with Aeroflot. The Tu-124 was a jet airliner, technically an 75% version of the Tu-104, while the An-24 was a lighter twin turboprop aircraft in the class of the Fokker F.27. The Il-60 was the latest addition to the domestic services, falling in between both other types.

 

Development of the Ilyushin Il-60 dated back to 12 October 1951, when the Soviet Council of Ministers published a specification for a medium-range aircraft carrying 50 to 70 passengers and 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) of cargo on routes up to 2,000 km (1,100 nmi; 1,200 mi) with a cruising speed of about 600 km/h (320 kn; 370 mph). The type was to replace the piston engine Ilyushin Il-14 on domestic routes. The number and type of engines were not specified, but jet or turboprop engines were expected and emphasis was put on ruggedness and ease of operations for operations on rural airstrips with a minimum of infrastructure.

 

Ilyushin’s OKB-240 responded at first with a scaled-down Il-18 turboprop airliner, somewhat inspired by an idea of Czech manufacturer Avia for a smaller, short-range airliner for the CSA’s Central European routes. This machine had only two engines and overall reduced dimensions, but used many components of the original airliner. But it soon became clear that the Tu-104 with its jet engines had already set higher standards, so that a completely new and more innovative design was started.

 

Internally known as “Aircraft 60”, the machine introduced some innovations while still being a conservative design. The aircraft was a two turboprop-engine low-wing monoplane with slightly swept (20° at quarter chord) wings, a circular pressurized fuselage and a conventional, yet markedly swept tail (both fin and stabilizer at 45°). The aircraft had two entry doors on the port-side before and after the wing, two overwing emergency exits on each side, and featured a retractable stairway under the rear fuselage so that passengers could directly enter the aircraft from the airfield. An APU was integrated in the rear fuselage, under the fin, for independent operation of the air condition system and starting the engines without external support.

The tricycle landing gear had four wheels fitted on the main leg bogies, which retracted inwards to lie under the fuselage instead of into the engine nacelles. The front wheel also had twin wheels, retracting forward in a well under the cockpit floor, and the aircraft’s low-pressure tires allowed operations even from grass airfields or snowy ground. Another novel feature at the time was the fitting of a weather radar in the nose, a civilian RPSN-2 "Emblema" system, doing away with the typical glazed navigator position of other former Soviet airliner designs. In order to support all-weather operations and ease the pilots’ work, “Aircraft 60” was also outfitted with an automatic approach system, supported by the radar which allowed blind navigation.

 

Despite vibration and noise problems, experienced with the earlier Il-18 airliner, Ilyushin insisted on turboprop propulsion because it was the more fuel-efficient option. He furthermore expected that no another jet-driven airliner would be politically “allowed” along the Tu-124 short haul airliner, at that time under parallel development.

 

“Aircraft 60” was powered by a pair of Kuznetsow NK-6K turboprops. This engine was one of several developments after World War II by a team of Russian scientists and deported German engineers under Ferdinand Brandner, which had worked for Junkers previously, evolving from late war German turboprop studies. This the post-war development was based on the wartime Jumo 022 turboprop design that developed 6000 eshp in a 3000 kg engine. The efforts continued with a 5000 ehp engine that weighed in at 1700 kg, completed by 1947, and with further weight savings and more modern materials, the NK-6, one of several development directions, became a large single-spool engine that was optimized for use on board of commercial aircraft like “Aircraft 60”.

 

For security reasons, the engines were mounted in front and above of the wings’ leading edge. In order to keep the wing structure as clean and simple and possible and not risk collateral damage to the landing gear in case of an engine fire, the landing gear was retracted into wells under the wing roots. This measure also kept the engine nacelle’s dimensions in very compact limits.

In order to minimize noise and vibrations, 2x4-bladed contraprops with an automatic feathering system were mounted, resulting in a characteristic humming noise when the engines were running. Due to the lower speed of these propellers, compared to a standard four- or five-blade propeller, the internal and external noise level could be significantly reduced (compared to the Il-18, which could drone at 110db in the cabin above the wings!), even though the lower frequency caused other problems, mainly vibrations at certain speeds that shook the whole airframe.

 

The standard seating of the initial version, the Il-60A, was 52 seats at a 90cm distance between the five-seat rows (two seats on port side and three on starboard). Alternatively, a maximum of 72 could be mounted in a cramped “tourist class” configuration with only 78cm distance between the seat rows, which became the late production standard configuration as Il-60B.

 

The first of two prototypes made its first flight from Zhukovsky airfield on 24 March 1960. The second prototype followed in June 1960. Two other airframes served as a static test cells. Testing was successful, and the aircraft entered production at Machinery Plant No. 30 located at Khodynka, near Moscow, replacing the Il-18 in production. Deliveries to Aeroflot began in August 1962, with the type operating its first scheduled passenger service, between Moscow and Tallinn in Estonia, on 2 October 1962.

 

The Il-60’s production remained only on a small scale, though: being a pure jet, the Tu-124 was preferred by the Aeroflot for short haul duties, as well as by the Powers That Be. Despite the type’s merits esp. in harsh climate conditions (most Il-60 were allocated to Aeroflot’s feederline services in the Soviet Union’s northern regions), the type was not popular among its crews. While the two turboprops gave sufficient power, had good handling across the whole speed envelope and the aircraft had no trouble remaining airborne with one engine shut down, the asymmetrical drag/thrust in this emergency condition was considerable and navigating the Il-60, and even more landing the aircraft, with only one engine was a challenging task.

 

Furthermore, the stalky landing gear, which prompted the crews' inofficial nickname "косино́жки" (kosinozhki = daddy longlegs), could start to vibrate under certain conditions and wobble, making a start or landing run a shaky if not dangerous affair, esp. on snow-packed and non-permanent runways. Furthermore, two Il-60 crashed on runways or airfields after hitting obstacles ubnder snow - the long front landing gear collapsed. Nobody on board was seriosuly hurt in both cases, but these accidents did not improve the type's reputation among both pilots and passengers alike.

 

Only a total of 44 machines were built: 18 Il-60As for selected connections abroad (e. g. to Scandinavia and Poland), plus 26 Il-60Bs with higher seat capacity for purely domestic service. Both machines were identical from the outside, though, and all production aircraft featured a characteristic spinal fin root extension that covered several radio and navigation antennae.

 

Ilyushin had plans for a stretched version (with two plugs inserted into the fuselage in front of and behind the wings) with a 2.2m longer fuselage and a maximum capacity of 85 passengers, and also worked on a jet-powered update with engine nacelles on pylons under and in front of the wings. But none of these improvements was turned into hardware, since not only the Tu-124 had become the preferred short/medium haul airliner for Aeroflot, the following Tu-134 had also become the political favorite, and OKB-240 focused on its long-range airliner Il-62.

 

Il-60 production already ended after only two years in 1964, and Aeroflot decommissioned its last twelve Il-60s on 21 January 1980, after more and more structural problems (wing spar cracks, caused by the NK-6’s vibrations) had become apparent and several aircraft had to be grounded.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 3 (captain, first officer and a flight engineer),

plus another seat for an optional navigator or a radio officer,

plus a three- or four-person cabin crew

Capacity: 52 – 72

Payload: 8.4 t (9.3 short tons)

Length: 32,54 m (106 ft 7 in)

Wingspan: 34.3 m (112 ft 6 in)

Height: 11,74 m (38 ft 5 1/2 in)

Wing area: 146.7 m² (1,579 sq ft)

Empty weight: 22.2 t (24.5 sT)

Max. takeoff weight: 46 t (50.7 sT)

 

Powerplant:

2× Kusnetzow NK-6K turboprop engines, rated at 3,318 kW (4,612 ehp) each

 

Performance

Maximum speed: 805 km/h (500 mph/435 knots)

Cruise speed: 665 km/h (424 mph/370 knots)

Range (Typical payload, 2 hr reserve): 2,400 km (1,300 nmi/1,490 mi)

Rate of climb: 2,750 ft/min (14.0 m/s)

Service ceiling: 11,000 m (36,000 ft)

  

The kit and its assembly:

“In Soviet Union, Aeroflot flies you!” And in order to prove this theory, this whiffy airliner is contribution #3 to the “Soviet Group Build” at whatifmodelers.com in early 2017.

 

It’s been a very long time that I had built a small-scale airliner, but then I found a (crappy!) 1:144 Mistercraft Caravelle III in my stash (actually, a re-boxed kit from a company called “Ruch” from the Sixties!), that I had originally bought just for the wings as a pure donor kit. This appears to be a blunt copy of the also rather vintage Airfix kit, but the latter has much more crisp details. O.K., the Mistercraft kit was cheap – but you have to pay otherwise…

 

Anyway, anything Soviet without an elegant Aeroflot airliner would not be complete, so I tackled this idea on short notice. The project had also been fueled by another project idea: a modern short-haul airliner like the Tu-204, but outfitted with turboprops instead of turbofan engines. For this idea (and other uses), I also had a conversion set from a Russian company called “Kompakt Mir” stashed away, with four resin 1:144 NK-14 engines. It’s actually as an aftermarket upgrade set for the Trumpeter Tu-95 model kit, but came in handy – and it is excellent stuff, by the way, with crisp detail, almost no flash or sinkholes.

 

With these ingredients, work went on quickly and straightforward, and wings and fuselage were started separately. The wings (a combined piece with a mutual underside) received fairings for engine nacelles, made basically from drop tank halves glued to the upper wing surface. Then the resin engines were mounted to the fairings’ front ends the gaps and the nacelles’ underside sculpted with 2C putty, plus some later fine-tuning with NC putty. The Caravelle’s inward-retracting landing gear was retained, keeping the engine fairings rather short and compact.

 

On the fuselage, the Caravelle's original engines and their attachment points disappeared. The triangular windows were drilled open into circular shape, later, as a final finishing step, filled with Humbrol ClearFix for shiny window panes - this improves the overall look a lot.

 

Lead was added in the nose, the retractable stairway under the rear fuselage kept (a very Soviet design detail!) and the Caravelle’s characteristic round fin tip was cut away, to be replaced with a square scratch transplant. The stabilizers were moved down and their round tips clipped, too.

 

On the nose, a scratched thimble radome was added and blended into the fuselage, for an Il-18-ish look. While these were rather simple, cosmetic measures on the fuselage, the look of the whole aircraft was changed into a much more modern design!? This was even more emphasized when the wings and stabilizers were added – the Il-60 looks very contemporary, nothing of the Caravelle’s Fifties flavor remains.

 

The landing gear is new, bashed from the bogies of the recently slashed Dragon 1:144 B-1B bomber I abused for my Fastback build, and leftover struts from an Acedemy 1:144 Tu-22M. The latter also donated a pair of main wheels for the front leg, which is, again, from the B-1B.

The new arrangement is considerably taller than the Caravelle’s, but with the large propellers this is a convenient and plausible arrangement, despite a rather stalky appearance due to the relatively short wheelbase. The eight main wheels were taken from the RUCH kit, even though the attachment point would not fit the B-1 struts at all...

  

Painting and markings:

One can argue about Soviet aircraft design or reliability – but I must admit that I liked the Aeroflot aircraft liveries since I can remember them as a child, sometimes even witnessing Tupolev or Yak jets at the local airport. The white-and-blue outfit with almost baroque trim and details was and is IMHO a very elegant design, worthy of a state airline (which had a menacing, if not mysterious Big Brother image during the Cold War times in which I grew up).

 

Another interesting fact is that, despite the basic colors were set, each Aeroflot type bore a typical and different paint scheme, plus some exotic designs like the polar service machines with lots of red added.

 

Consequently, I had a lot of freedom, and work was made even more easy through the Mistercraft Caravelle kit: it actually contains markings for a Caravelle in Aeroflot markings! “Nonsense!”, you might say – but this aircraft actually existed: it was a movie prop (actually Air France’s F-BJTR) for filming “Enigma” at Le Bourget Airport in 1981 (check this for reference: www.airliners.net/photo/Aeroflot-%28Air-France%29/Sud-SE-...). As a side note, there was another Caravelle in fictional Interflug or ČSA colors, too, as well as a camouflaged SMB2 Super Mystère and a NMF Mystère IV with red stars on white discs, both playing the role of Soviet MiG-19s!

 

Anyway, the OOB decal sheet offered enough material for my plans, even though the blue trim was created from generic decal sheet. But door decals and most Aeroflot markings came from the movie aircraft.

 

Painting was also a pretty straightforward affair: the fuselage was painted white with acrylic paint from the rattle can, the lower fuselage by brush with Polished Aluminum Metallizer from Humbrol (which creates a very bright and clean finish) on top of a Revell Acrylics Aluminum primer coat.

For some contrast to the white and blue I painted the fixed wing parts with light grey, the rudders in Aluminum and Steel, and orange wing and stabilizer tips were added as small, additional contrasts, later even highlighted with dayglow orange.

 

In order to add some weirdness to the look, the propeller blades were painted bright blue with yellow tips. Unusual, but a common Soviet/Russian/Chinese practice.

  

A rather simple conversion, but highly effective. The Caravelle’s traces are almost not to be identified anymore, even though fuselage and wings consist of OOB material with only superficial modifications or re-locations. The engines on the wings change the look, too, and despite being massive NK-12’s they are a good match for the compact airliner – I am very happy with the outcome, even though the overall lines look much more modern than late Fifties design – even though no more modern parts were actually integrated? Weird, but entertaining. J

SS United States at her Berth Pier 82 in Philadelphia, PA on August-14th-2021.

SS United States is a retired ocean liner built in 1950–51 for the United States Lines at a cost of US$79.4 million (equivalent to $829 million in 2021). The ship is the largest ocean liner constructed entirely in the United States and the fastest ocean liner to cross the Atlantic in either direction, retaining the Blue Riband for the highest average speed since her maiden voyage in 1952. She was designed by American naval architect William Francis Gibbs and could be converted into a troopship if required by the Navy in time of war. United States maintained an uninterrupted schedule of transatlantic passenger service until 1969 and was never used as a troopship.

 

The ship has been sold several times since the 1970s, with each new owner trying unsuccessfully to make the liner profitable. Eventually, the ship's fittings were sold at auction, and hazardous wastes, including asbestos panels throughout the ship, were removed, leaving her almost completely stripped by 1994. Two years later, she was towed to Pier 82 on the Delaware River, in Philadelphia, where she remains today.

 

Since 2009, a preservation group called the SS United States Conservancy has been raising funds to save the ship. The group purchased her in 2011 and has drawn up several unrealized plans to restore the ship, one of which included turning the ship into a multi-purpose waterfront complex. In 2015, as its funds dwindled, the group began accepting bids to scrap the ship; however, sufficient donations came in via extended fundraising. Large donations have kept the ship berthed at her Philadelphia dock while the group continues to further investigate restoration plans

 

Inspired by the service of the British liners Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth, which transported hundreds of thousands of US troops to Europe during World War II, the US government sponsored the construction of a large and fast merchant vessel that would be capable of transporting large numbers of soldiers. Designed by American naval architect and marine engineer William Francis Gibbs (1886–1967), the liner's construction was a joint effort by the United States Navy and United States Lines. The US government underwrote $50 million of the $78 million construction cost, with the ship's prospective operators, United States Lines, contributing the remaining $28 million. In exchange, the ship was designed to be easily converted in times of war to a troopship. The ship has a capacity of 15,000 troops, and could also be converted to a hospital ship.

 

The vessel was constructed from 1950 to 1952 at the Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company in Newport News, Virginia. The hull was constructed in a dry dock. United States was built to exacting Navy specifications, which required that the ship be heavily compartmentalized, and have separate engine rooms to optimize wartime survival.A large part of the construction was prefabricated. The ship's hull comprised 183,000 pieces.

 

The construction of the ship's superstructure involved the most extensive use of aluminum in any construction project up to that time, which posed a galvanic corrosion challenge to the builders in joining the aluminum superstructure to the steel decks below. However, the extensive use of aluminum meant significant weight savings, as well.[self-published source] United States had the most powerful steam turbines of any merchant marine vessel at the time, with a total power of 240,000 shp (180 MW) delivered to four 18 ft (5.5 m)-diameter manganese-bronze propellers. The ship was capable of steaming astern at over 20 kn (37 km/h; 23 mph), and could carry enough fuel and stores to steam non-stop for over 10,000 nmi (19,000 km; 12,000 mi) at a cruising speed of 35 kn (65 km/h; 40 mph).[

 

Interior design

The interiors were designed by Dorothy Marckwald & Anne Urquhart, the same designers that did the interiors for SS America. The goal was to "create a modern fresh contemporary look that emphasized simplicity over palatial, restrained elegance over glitz and glitter".They would also hire artists to produce American themed artwork for the public spaces,[ including Hildreth Meière, Louis Ross, Peter Ostuni, Charles Lin Tissot, William King, Charles Gilbert, Raymond Wendell, Nathaniel Choate, muralist Austin M. Purves, Jr., and sculptor Gwen Lux.[21] Interior décor also included a children's playroom designed by Edward Meshekoff.[22] Markwald and Urquhart were also tasked with the challenge of creating interiors that were completely fireproof.

 

Fire safety

As a result of a various maritime disasters involving fire, including SS Morro Castle and SS Normandie, designer William Francis Gibbs specified that the ship incorporate the most rigid fire safety standards.

 

To minimize the risk of fire, the designers of United States prescribed using no wood in the ship's framing, accessories, decorations, or interior surfaces, although the galley did feature a wooden butcher's block. Fittings, including all furniture and fabrics, were custom made in glass, metal, and spun-glass fiber, to ensure compliance with fireproofing guidelines set by the US Navy. Asbestos-laden paneling was used extensively in interior structures. The clothes hangers in the luxury cabins were aluminum. The ballroom's grand piano was originally designed to be aluminum, but was made from mahogany and accepted only after a demonstration in which gasoline was poured upon the wood and ignited, without the wood itself ever catching fire.[26]

 

Deck plans

First Class Deck Plan

Cabin Class Deck Plan

Tourist Class Deck Plan

1954 Deck Plans

History

Commercial service (1952–1969)

 

United States photographed from Portsmouth during her return maiden voyage to New York, summer 1952

On her maiden voyage—July 3–7, 1952—United States broke the eastbound transatlantic speed record (held by RMS Queen Mary for the previous 14 years) by more than 10 hours, making the maiden crossing from the Ambrose lightship at New York Harbor to Bishop Rock off Cornwall, UK in 3 days, 10 hours, 40 minutes at an average speed of 35.59 kn (65.91 km/h; 40.96 mph). and winning the coveted Blue Riband. On her return voyage United States also broke the westbound transatlantic speed record, also held by Queen Mary, by returning to America in 3 days 12 hours and 12 minutes at an average speed of 34.51 kn (63.91 km/h; 39.71 mph). In New York her owners were awarded the Hales Trophy, the tangible expression of the Blue Riband competition.

 

The maximum speed attained by United States is disputed, as it was once held as a military secret.[30] The issue stems from an alleged speed of 43 kn (80 km/h; 49 mph) that was leaked to reporters by engineers after the first speed trial. In a 1991 issue of Popular Mechanics, author Mark G. Carbonaro wrote that while she could do 43 kn (80 km/h; 49 mph), that speed was never actually attained.[31] Other sources, including a paper by John J. McMullen & Associates, place the ship's highest possible sustained top speed at 35 kn (65 km/h; 40 mph).[32]

 

During the 1950s and early 1960s the United States was popular for transatlantic travel. She attracted frequent repeat celebrity passengers, such as the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, along with celebrities like Marilyn Monroe, Judy Garland, Cary Grant, Salvador Dalí, Duke Ellington, and Walt Disney, who featured the ship in the 1962 film Bon Voyage!.[citation needed]

 

By the mid-to-late 1960s, with the advent of jet-powered airliners, the market for transatlantic travel by ship had dwindled. America was sold in 1964, Queen Mary was retired in 1967, and Queen Elizabeth in 1968. United States was no longer profitable. Unbeknownst to her passengers, crew, or the public, United States completed her last voyage (Number 400) on November 7, 1969, when she arrived in New York.[citation needed]

 

In late 1969 before the decision was made to retire the SS United States. United States Lines announced a 55-day Grand Pacific Cruise which was to set sail on January 21, 1970, however, this was canceled in December 1969

 

Layup in Virginia and visit to Europe (1969–1996)

After this voyage, the liner sailed to Newport News for her scheduled annual overhaul. While there, the United States Lines announced its decision to withdraw her from service. The decision was due to the skyrocketing expenses of operating the ship and the U.S. government's discontinuation of its operating subsidies. The announcement halted all work on the ship, leaving various tasks incomplete, like the repainting of the funnels; the partially finished paint coating on the funnels can still be faintly seen today. The ship was sealed up, with all furniture, fittings, and crew uniforms left in place.[23]

 

In June 1970, the ship was relocated across the James River, to the Norfolk International Terminal, in Norfolk, Virginia. In 1973, the United States Lines officially transferred ownership of the vessel to the United States Maritime Administration. In 1976, Norwegian Caribbean Cruise Line (NCL) was reported to be interested in purchasing the ship and converting her into a Caribbean cruise ship, but the U.S. Maritime Administration refused the sale due to the classified naval design elements of the ship and NCL purchased the former SS France instead. The Navy finally declassified the ship's design features in 1977.That same year, a group headed by Harry Katz sought to purchase the ship and dock her in Atlantic City, New Jersey, where she would be used as a hotel and casino. However, nothing came of the plan. United States was briefly considered by the US Navy to be converted into a troopship or a hospital ship, to be called USS United States. This plan never materialized, being dropped in favor of converting two San Clemente class supertankers. The liner was seen as obsolete for Naval use by 1978, and was put up for sale by the U.S. Maritime Administration.

 

In 1980, the vessel was sold for $5 million to a group headed by Seattle developer Richard H. Hadley, who hoped to revitalize the liner in a time share cruise ship format.[citation needed]

 

In 1984, to pay creditors, the ship's fittings and furniture, which had been left in place since the ship was sealed in 1969, were sold at auction in Norfolk, Virginia. After a week-long auction from October 8–14, 1984, about 3,000 bidders paid $1.65 million for objects from the ship. Some of the artwork and furniture went to various museums including the Mariners' Museum of Newport News, while the largest collection was installed at the now defunct Windmill Point Restaurant in Nags Head, North Carolina.[citation needed]

 

On March 4, 1989, the vessel was relocated, towed across Hampton Roads to the CSX coal pier in Newport News.

Richard Hadley's plan of a time-share style cruise ship eventually failed financially, and the ship, which had been seized by US marshals, was put up for auction by the U.S. Maritime Administration on April 27, 1992. At auction, Marmara Marine Inc.—which was headed by Edward Cantor and Fred Mayer, but with Julide Sadıkoğlu, of the Turkish shipping family, as majority owner—purchased the ship for $2.6 million.

 

The ship was towed to Turkey, departing the US on June 4, 1992 and reaching the Sea of Marmara on July 9. She was then towed to Ukraine, where, in Sevastopol Shipyard, she underwent asbestos removal which lasted from 1993 to 1994.] The interior of the ship was almost completely stripped down to the bulkheads during this time. Her open lifeboats which would not meet new SOLAS requirements if the ship were to sail again were also removed and scrapped along with their davits.

 

In the U.S., no plans could be finalized for repurposing the vessel, and in June 1996, she was towed back across the Atlantic, to South Philadelphia.

 

Layup in Philadelphia (1996–present)

In November 1997, Edward Cantor purchased the ship for $6 million.[42] Two years later, the SS United States Foundation and the SS United States Conservancy (then known as the SS United States Preservation Society, Inc.) succeeded in having the ship placed on the National Register of Historic Places on June 3, 1999.

 

In 2003, Norwegian Cruise Line (NCL) purchased the ship at auction from Cantor's estate, after his death. NCL's intent was to fully restore the ship to a service role in their newly announced American-flagged Hawaiian passenger service called NCL America. United States was one of the few ships eligible to enter such service because of the Passenger Service Act, which requires that any vessel engaged in domestic commerce be built and flagged in the U.S. and operated by a predominantly American crew. NCL began an extensive technical review in late 2003, after which they stated that the ship was in sound condition. The cruise line cataloged over 100 boxes of the ship's blueprints.In August 2004, NCL commenced feasibility studies regarding a new build-out of the vessel; and in May 2006, Tan Sri Lim Kok Thay, chairman of Malaysia-based Star Cruises (the owner of NCL), stated that United States would be coming back as the fourth ship for NCL after refurbishment. Meanwhile, the Windmill Point restaurant, which had contained some of the original furniture from the ship, closed in 2007. The furniture was donated to the Mariners' Museum and Christopher Newport University, both in Newport News, Virginia.

 

When NCL America first began operation in Hawaii, it used the ships Pride of America, Pride of Aloha, and Pride of Hawaii, rather than United States. NCL America later withdrew Pride of Aloha and Pride of Hawaii from its Hawaiian service. In February 2009, it was reported that United States would "soon be listed for sale".

 

Founding of the SS United States Conservancy and threat of scrapping

The SS United States Conservancy was then created that year as a group trying to save United States by raising funds to purchase her. On July 30, 2009, H. F. Lenfest, a Philadelphia media entrepreneur and philanthropist, pledged a matching grant of $300,000 to help the United States Conservancy purchase the vessel from Star Cruises.[50] A noteworthy supporter, former US president Bill Clinton, has also endorsed rescue efforts to save the ship, having sailed on her himself in 1968.

 

In March 2010, it was reported that bids for the ship, to be sold for scrap, were being accepted. Norwegian Cruise Lines, in a press release, noted that there were large costs associated with keeping United States afloat in her current state—around $800,000 a year—and that, as the SS United States Conservancy was not able to tender an offer for the ship, the company was actively seeking a "suitable buyer".By May 7, 2010, over $50,000 was raised by the SS United States Conservancy.

  

An artist's rendering of the planned "multi-purpose waterfront complex"

In November 2010, the Conservancy announced a plan to develop a "multi-purpose waterfront complex" with hotels, restaurants, and a casino along the Delaware River in South Philadelphia at the proposed location of the stalled Foxwoods Casino project. The results of a detailed study of the site were revealed in late November 2010, in advance of Pennsylvania's December 10, 2010, deadline for a deal aimed at Harrah's Entertainment taking over the casino project. However, the Conservancy's deal soon collapsed, when on December 16, 2010, the Gaming Control Board voted to revoke the casino's license.

 

Saved by the SS United States Conservancy

The Conservancy eventually bought United States from NCL in February 2011 for a reported $3 million with the help of money donated by philanthropist H.F. Lenfest. The group had funds to last 20 months (from July 1, 2010) that were to go to supporting a development plan to clean the ship of toxins and make the ship financially self-supporting, possibly as a hotel or other development project. SS United States Conservancy executive director Dan McSweeney stated that he planned on placing the ship at possible locations that include Philadelphia, New York City, and Miami.

  

The SS United States Conservancy assumed ownership of United States on February 1, 2011Talks about possibly locating the ship in Philadelphia, New York City, or Miami continued into March. In New York City, negotiations with a developer were underway for the ship to become part of Vision 2020, a waterfront redevelopment plan costing $3.3 billion. In Miami, Ocean Group, in Coral Gables, was interested in putting the ship in a slip on the north side of American Airlines Arena. With an additional $5.8 million donation from H. F. Lenfest, the conservancy had about 18 months from March 2011 to make the ship a public attraction. On August 5, 2011, the SS United States Conservancy announced that after conducting two studies focused on placing the ship in Philadelphia, she was "not likely to work there for a variety of reasons". However, discussions to locate the ship at her original home port of New York, as a stationary attraction, were reported to be ongoing. The Conservancy's grant specifies that the refit and restoration must be done in the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard for the benefit of the Philadelphia economy, regardless of her eventual mooring site.

 

On February 7, 2012, preliminary work began on the restoration project to prepare the ship for her eventual rebuild, although a contract had not yet been signed. In April 2012, a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) was released as the start of an aggressive search for a developer for the ship. A Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued in May.[63] In July 2012, the SS United States Conservancy launched a new online campaign called "Save the United States", a blend of social networking and micro-fundraising that allowed donors to sponsor square inches of a virtual ship for redevelopment, while allowing them to upload photos and stories about their experience with the ship. The Conservancy announced that donors to the virtual ship would be featured in an interactive "Wall of Honor" aboard the future SS United States museum.

 

By the end of 2012, a developer was to be chosen, who would put the ship in a selected city by summer 2013. In November 2013, it was reported that the ship was undergoing a "below-the-deck" makeover, which lasted into 2014, in order to make the ship more appealing to developers as a dockside attraction. The SS United States Conservancy was warned that if its plans were not realized quickly, there might be no choice but to sell the ship for scrapIn January 2014, obsolete pieces of the ship were sold to keep up with the $80,000-a-month maintenance costs. Enough money was raised to keep the ship going for another six months, with the hope of finding someone committed to the project, New York City still being the likeliest location.

 

In August 2014, the ship was still moored in Philadelphia and costs for the ship's rent amounted to $60,000 a month. It was estimated that it would take $1 billion to return United States to service on the high seas, although a 2016 estimate for restoration as a luxury cruise ship was said to be, "as much as $700 million". On September 4, 2014, a final push was made to have the ship bound for New York City. A developer interested in re-purposing the ship as a major waterfront destination made an announcement regarding the move. The Conservancy had only weeks to decide if the ship needed to be sold for scrap.[On December 15, 2014, preliminary agreements in support of the redevelopment of United States were announced. The agreements included providing for three months of carrying costs, with a timeline and more details to be released sometime in 2015. In February 2015, another $250,000 was received by the Conservancy from an anonymous donor which went towards planning an onboard museum.

 

In October 2015, the SS United States Conservancy began exploring potential bids for scrapping the ship. The group was running out of money to cover the $60,000-per-month cost to dock and maintain the ship. Attempts to re-purpose the ship continued. Ideas included using the ship for hotels, restaurants, or office space. One idea was to install computer servers in the lower decks and link them to software development businesses in office space on the upper decks. However, no firm plans were announced. The conservancy said that if no progress was made by October 31, 2015, they would have no choice but to sell the ship to a "responsible recycler". As the deadline passed it was announced that $100,000 had been raised in October 2015, sparing the ship from immediate danger. By November 23, 2015, it was reported that over $600,000 in donations had been received for care and upkeep, buying time well into the coming year for the SS United States Conservancy to press ahead with a plan to redevelop the vessel.

 

Crystal Cruises purchase option

On February 4, 2016, Crystal Cruises announced that it had signed a purchase option for United States. Crystal would cover docking costs, in Philadelphia, for nine months while conducting a feasibility study on returning the ship to service as a cruise ship based in New York City. On April 9, 2016, it was announced that 600 artifacts from United States would be returned to the ship from the Mariners' Museum and other donors.

 

On August 5, 2016, the plan was formally dropped, with Crystal Cruises citing the presence of too many technical and commercial challenges. The cruise line then made a donation of $350,000 to help with preservation through the end of the year.The SS United States Conservancy continued to receive donations, which included one for $150,000 by cruise industry executive Jim Pollin.In January 2018, the conservancy made an appeal to US president Donald Trump to take action regarding "America's Flagship".[83] If the group runs out of money, alternative plans for the ship include sinking her as an artificial reef rather than scrapping her.

  

On September 20, 2018, the conservancy consulted with Damen Ship Repair & Conversion about redevelopment of United States. Damen had converted the former ocean liner and cruise ship SS Rotterdam into a hotel and mixed-use development.

 

RXR Realty redevelopment plans

On December 10, 2018, the conservancy announced an agreement with the commercial real estate firm RXR Realty, of New York City, to explore options for restoring and redeveloping the ocean liner. In 2015, RXR had expressed interest in developing an out-of-commission ocean liner as a hotel and event venue at Pier 57 in New York. The conservancy requires that any redevelopment plan preserve the ship's profile and exterior design, and include approximately 25,000 sq ft (2,323 m2) for an onboard museum.RXR's press release about United States stated that multiple locations would be considered, depending on the viability of restoration plans.

 

In March 2020, RXR Realty announced its plans to repurpose the ocean liner as a permanently-moored 600,000 sq ft (55,740 m2) hospitality and cultural space, requesting expressions of interest from a number of major US waterfront cities including Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Miami, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego.

 

Artifacts

Artwork

The Mariners' Museum of Newport News, Virginia, holds many objects from United States, including the ''Expressions of Freedom'' by Gwen Lux, the aluminum sculpture from the main dining room, purchased during the 1984 auction.

 

Artwork designed by Charles Gilbert that included glass panels etched with sea creatures and plants from the first class ballroom, were purchased by Celebrity Cruises and had initially been incorporated onboard the Infinity in her SS United States themed specialty restaurant.

 

At the National Museum of American History, “The Currents” mural by Raymond John Wendell is on display. Hildreth Meière cabin class lounge mural Mississippi, Father of Waters had also been relocated to the museum, but is not currently on display.

  

The ship used four 60,000 lb (27,000 kg) manganese bronze propellers, two four-bladed screws outboard, and two inboard five-bladed. One of the four-bladed propellers is mounted at the entrance to the Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum in New York City, while the other is mounted outside the American Merchant Marine Museum on the grounds of the United States Merchant Marine Academy in Kings Point, New York. The starboard-side five-bladed propeller is mounted near the waterfront at SUNY Maritime College in Fort Schuyler, New York, while the other is at the entrance of the Mariner's Museum in Newport News, Virginia, mounted on an original 63 ft (19 m) long drive shaft.[90]

 

The ship's bell is kept in the clock tower on the campus of Christopher Newport University in Newport News, Virginia. It is used to celebrate special events, including being rung by incoming freshman and by outgoing graduates.[91]

 

One of the ship's horns stood on display for decades above the Rent-A-Tool building in Revere, Massachusetts, and has since been sold to a private collector in Texas for $8,000 in 2017.

 

The large collection of dining room furniture and other memorabilia that had been purchased during the 1984 auction, and incorporated at the Windmill Point Restaurant in Nags Head, North Carolina, was donated to the Mariners' Museum and Christopher Newport University in Newport News after the restaurant shut down in 2007.The chairs from the tourist class dining room are used in the Mariners' Museum cafe.

 

Speed records

With both the eastbound and westbound speed records, SS United States obtained the Blue Riband which marked the first time a US-flagged ship had held the record since SS Baltic claimed the prize 100 years earlier. United States maintained a 30 kn (56 km/h; 35 mph) crossing speed on the North Atlantic in a service career that lasted 17 years. The ship remained unchallenged for the Blue Riband throughout her career. During this period the fast trans-Atlantic passenger trade moved to air travel, and many regard the story of the Blue Riband as having ended with United States. Her east-bound record has since been broken several times (first, in 1986, by Virgin Atlantic Challenger II), and her west-bound record was broken in 1990 by Destriero, but these vessels were not passenger-carrying ocean liners. The Hales Trophy itself was lost in 1990 to Hoverspeed Great Britain, setting a new eastbound speed record for a commercial vessel.

   

Midtown Manhattan, New York City, New York, United States

 

The 21-story Look Building dates to 1948-50, when the minimalist aesthetics of European Modernism first began to transform the character of “setback” office buildings. Located on the west side of Madison Avenue, between 51st and 52nd Streets, this handsome mid-20th century modern structure combines tiers of ribbon-like windows with tightly-rounded corners and setbacks faced with white brick to create a unique and memorable silhouette.

 

Two second-generation, family-run, businesses were responsible for its construction: Uris Brothers, developers, and Emery Roth & Sons, architects. Though they first began to collaborate in the mid-1920s, it wasn’t until the death of each firm’s founder in the mid1940s, that the sons Percy and Harold D. Uris and Julian and Richard Roth, began to focus on commercial development. This informal partnership, which lasted until the 1970s, produced a great number of large Manhattan office buildings. Richard Roth, who attended the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, served as lead architect. Planned to be stylish and profitable, the building closely followed the requirements of the 1916 zoning code to maximize the square footage while using industrial materials to create sleek, streamlined elevations that suggest the influence of not only the German Expressionist architect Erich Mendelsohn, but also the 1931 Starrett-Lehigh Building and the 1947 Universal Pictures Building in Manhattan.

 

The new structure was named for Look magazine, which was part of the Cowles media empire. With a strong emphasis on photography, Look became one of the most widely-read magazines in the United States and it remained at this location until ceasing publication in 1971. Other prominent tenants included Esquire Magazine; Pocket Books; the music publisher Witmark & Sons, where singer-songwriter Bob Dylan made some of his earliest studio recordings; the industrial designer Raymond Loewy, and the building’s architects. During the late 1990s, a major and sympathetic restoration of the facade was undertaken by the architects Hardy Holzman & Pfeiffer Associates. At this time, the steel windows were replaced with similar aluminum frames and a new entrance portico was created. The Look Building was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 2004 and the facade is subject to a conservation easement filed with the Trust for Architectural Easements.

 

DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS

 

Building Site

 

The Look Building, at 488 Madison Avenue, stands directly north of the St. Patrick’s Cathedral complex and the Villard Houses . Prior to the First World War, this section of midtown Manhattan was primarily residential, with a mix of free-standing mansions, brownstone row houses, and a growing number of hotels.

 

Transit improvements, including the extension of the subway north along Lexington Avenue in 1918, as well as on Sixth Avenue in the 1930s, would attract commercial development to the area. While some elegant Fifth Avenue residences, including houses owned by George W. Vanderbilt , Morton & Nellie Plant , and Edward & Frances Holbrook , were converted to new uses around 1917, many structures were demolished and replaced by retail stores and office buildings. Rockefeller Center , which grew out of plans for a large performing arts center, was midtown’s most ambitious commercial ensemble, incorporating stores, offices, and entertainment venues.

 

In the vicinity of St. Patrick’s Cathedral, the Roman Catholic diocese of New York owned several structures, including the rectory and cardinal’s residence that flank the Lady Chapel on Madison Avenue, as well as the Villard Houses. It also owned the block on the west side of Madison Avenue, between 51st and 52nd Streets, where the Look Building would later be erected. This site was originally part of the Roman Catholic Asylum and in 1893 a three-andhalf-story Gothic Revival-style structure was erected to serve as a trade school for boys.

 

When much of the asylum’s property from Fifth Avenue to Park Avenue was sold in 1902, the structure became Cathedral College, a preparatory seminary to train men for careers in the priesthood. The New York Times called it “a midtown landmark which for two generations had offered a haven for quiet study and religious activities.” In 1942, the school moved to “modern facilities” on West End Avenue and 87th Street and the building was temporarily used by Catholic chaplains serving in the Second World War.

 

On East 51st Street, the Look Building stands beside a group of low-rise structures, including the former residence of contractor John Pierce . Designed by the prominent architect John Duncan, this five-story neo-Renaissance structure is clad with light-grey granite and was converted to commercial use after 1933. On East 52nd Street, the site adjoins 16 East 52nd Street , a 15-story brownish brick building with limestone details, designed by Schwartz & Gross.

 

Uris Brothers

 

Uris Brothers, acting as Neprock Realty, Inc., negotiated the purchase of the L-shaped site from St. Joseph’s Seminary & College in October 1948 for $2.6 million. The demand for office space in midtown Manhattan was growing and this market became their primary focus. Percy Uris and Harold D. Uris were the sons of Harris H. Uris , a Russian immigrant from Latvia, who arrived in New York City in 1892. By the first decade of the 20th century, he and his brothers operated a large iron foundry at 525 West 26th Street where a workforce of about 160 produced ornamental ironwork for the New York City subway system and other clients.

 

Percy Uris attended Columbia University, graduating with a degree in business administration in 1920. He and his father became commercial developers in the early 1920s, specializing in the construction of hotels and apartment buildings. Harold, who trained as a civil engineer at Cornell University, joined them in 1925. Together, they built numerous Manhattan structures, including the Court Square Building at 2 Lafayette Street, 1 University Place at the corner of Waverly Place, and the Hotel St. Moritz on Central Park South. They experienced great success but, like many of their contemporaries, struggled during the early years of the Depression and lost some of their best-known properties. In the late 1930s, they reentered the real estate field, hiring Emery Roth to design apartment buildings at 2 Sutton Place South and 930 Fifth Avenue . Roth also designed 880 Fifth Avenue, their last residential project, in 1946-48.

 

Few of Manhattan’s leading builders of the 1920s remained active following the Second World War. The New York Times described the Urises as being, along with the Tishmans, the “only builders . . . who are descended from the leaders of the Nineteen Twenties boom.” Percy and Harold Uris would accomplish this by focusing almost entirely on office building construction. The forecast for this type of real estate was particularly optimistic and using the skills they learned with their father, they would, over the next three decades, create more than 13 million square feet of new office space. Time magazine reported in 1954 that they:

 

. . . made a fortune out of conforming to the latest taste in office buildings. Their recent constructions in Manhattan have been compared both to wedding cakes and to Assyrian ziggurats, and have more layers than the former, more bulk than the latter and about as much esthetic merit as both combined. Says Percy Uris: “We’re not building in a vacuum. We’re building in a market.”

 

The company’s productivity was a remarkable accomplishment, one that transformed the midtown skyline and streetscape. Harold Uris recalled:

 

We had a policy of creating the greatest amount of space for the lowest cost . . . We bought better and built faster than anyone else . . . Efficiency was the key to our success.

 

In terms of architectural aesthetics, however, their ambitions were modest. They produced a portfolio of buildings that were modern but hardly radical, fresh but conventional. In 1972, Uris explained:

 

I happen to believe that the interior of a building is more important that the exterior. None of the architectural people agree with me. But you build for those who occupy it, not for those who stand across the street and look at it. We have always built good buildings. I won’t say I am not a perfectionist. I can’t help it if people think every building should be the Taj Mahal.

 

In 1960, Uris Brothers issued stock to finance future projects which resulted in such colossal structures as the New York Hilton , the Uris Building at 1633 Broadway , and 55 Water Street , which was at the time of completion the world’s largest office building. Shortly after the stock offering was made they began a series of major gifts to Columbia University which financed construction of a new building for the School of Business, called Uris Hall . They also made significant contributions to Cornell University, Lenox Hill Hospital, and the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Following the death of Percy, Harold sold his stock in the Uris Buildings Corporation to the National Kinney Corporation in 1973.

 

Emery Roth & Sons

 

Both before and after the Second World War, the Urises turned to architect Emery Roth with great frequency to produce buildings that were stylish and profitable. Emery Roth, the firm’s founder, was born in Hungary in 1871 and came to the United States around 1884. His talent as a draftsman was quickly recognized and in the decade that followed he worked in Chicago with the architects Burnham & Root, and in New York City with Richard Morris Hunt and Ogden Codman, Jr.

 

In 1895 he opened his own office and later purchased the practice that would initially be known as Stein, Cohen & Roth. Many of New York City’s finest residential structures were designed by him, such as the Bellclaire Hotel , Ritz Tower , the Beresford , the San Remo , the St. George Hotel in Brooklyn Heights, and the Normandy Apartments . Though his early works display rich and inventive exterior ornamentation, the character of his later buildings is more restrained, reflecting the growing popularity of the Art Deco and Moderne styles.

 

Roth first collaborated with the Uris family in 1924, designing the Buckingham Apartments, at the northwest corner of Sixth Avenue and 57th Street. It was during this decade that Roth’s sons, Julian and Richard, joined the firm. Julian Roth attended Columbia University and may have been a classmate of Percy Uris. Though not licensed as an architect, he “specialized in building materials, construction methods, cost estimates and the technology of curtain walls.” Richard Roth graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1928 and after briefly working with Allen & Collens in Boston, entered his father’s practice, which was renamed Emery Roth & Sons in 1938. Steven Ruttenbaum, author of Mansions in the Clouds: The Skyscraper Palazzi of Emery Roth, claimed this change had little impact on the firm’s operations and the elder Roth remained “the man who made the decisions, who maintained client contact, and set the fees. He shared the responsibilities of overseeing design development with no one.”

 

In the 1940s, however, ill health caused Emery Roth to relinquish control of the office. One of his last commissions was 300 East 57th Street, an 18-story tan brick apartment house. Built for developer Samuel Rudin in 1944-48, it featured unusual recessed terraces that were probably added by Richard who became the firm’s chief designer. This sleek project received a medal from the New York Chapter of the American Institute of Architects as one of the city’s best new residential structures. His next project was 505 Park Avenue , a 21story tan brick office building. Located at the northeast corner of 57th Street, the elevations had a strong horizontal orientation, with a “continuous glass front . . . to give a maximum amount of natural light.” This was the first of many buildings Richard designed for Uris Brothers, followed by 4 West 58th Street , incorporating the Paris Theater, and 575 Madison Avenue , between 56th and 57th Streets. Begun in January 1948, the latter building shares many features with the Look Building, such as a two-story base, white brick elevations, and continuous windows that “run entirely around the structure above the second floor level, providing maximum flexibility in the arrangement and subdivision of offices.”

 

These family-run businesses would remain closely aligned for several decades. Julian Roth later recalled:

 

Percy Uris would call me and say, Julian, I’ve just bought a plot of land. How soon can Richard have the plans ready?”

 

Emery Roth & Sons became one of New York City’s most prolific firms. As architect, or architect of record, they were involved in at least 150 structures after the Second World War. In 1967, reporter Thomas Ennis said that Roth has “earned most of the praise – or blame – for the way Manhattan’s business district looks today.” The firm developed a reputation for superior efficiency, employing mostly predictable formulas that maximized square footage and speed of construction. In addition, they collaborated on such high-profile projects as the Pan Am Building , the World Trade Center , and the Citicorp Building . One writer observed: “It seems unlikely any firm in history has been responsible for so many tall buildings within such a short span of time.”

 

Designing the Look Building

 

Richard Roth began to prepare his scheme in late 1948 and the final drawings were completed in July 1949. Built on speculation, the Look Building needed to be fashionable, practical, and profitable. Throughout his career, Richard pursued a pragmatic approach to design. Not only did he try to maximize the square footage in buildings but he believed this type of plan created the kind of interior space favored by prospective tenants. When he addressed the Real Estate Board of New York in 1952, Richard urged architects entering the field to develop “a working knowledge of the various codes, laws, regulations, and ruling affecting buildings.” Though he acknowledged that slender towers could be dramatic and beautiful, he believed the market for offices on the smaller, upper floors was limited.

 

While higher rents may be obtained from tower floors, he said there are fewer good tenants for 5,000 square feet of space than there are for 15,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet.

 

The 1940s proved to be a transitional period in office building design and the Look Building combines characteristics associated with Streamlined Modernism, sometimes referred to as Art Moderne, and the International Style. In terms of massing, its shape was determined by the 1916 zoning resolution, which was conceived to protect access to light and air in Manhattan’s most crowded districts. To accomplish this, commercial buildings were required to set back at a certain height, which was determined by location and street width. Bulk was regulated and diminished in stages, creating wedding-cake-like silhouettes in which the uppermost floors could cover only 25 per cent of the lot. Slender towers, consequently, were discouraged on all-but-thelargest of properties.

 

While Roth’s setback massing was fairly conventional, stepping back at every other floor above the 12th story, the treatment of the elevations was somewhat new. Faced with industrial materials, the facade has a strong horizontal emphasis. The building’s developer, Percy Uris, defended this trend toward simplicity, saying:

 

The new facade, with its horizontal lines and absence of ornamentation is generally admired, but there are some who consider the modern exterior too severe. Actually, if a building has good lines, its simplicity will add to its beauty.

 

The Look Building has bands of ribbon-like windows that alternate with white brick spandrels. Roth was most likely influenced by two local projects: the Starrett-Lehigh Building and the Universal Pictures Building . Both structures feature continuous bands of fenestration that reflect contemporary interest in functional aesthetics and possibly the work of the German Expressionist architect Erich Mendelsohn, who immigrated to the United States in 1941. Many of his works had a distinctive streamlined appearance, such as the Rudolf Petersdorf Department Store in Breslau, which was illustrated in the New York Times in March 1931 under the headline “German Architecture Goes Modern.”

 

Of probable greater importance was the Universal Pictures Building, 445 Park Avenue, completed in 1947. Designed by Kahn & Jacobs, the project architect was Elsa Gidoni, who trained in Berlin and was later described as “highly attuned to the International Style work of Erich Mendelsohn.” Built on a comparable block-long site, this 21-story office building has similar bulk and massing, ribbon-like windows, terraces, and air conditioning. It was a great success and entirely rented prior to completion. Developer Paul Tishman asserted these amenities would increase “working efficiency” and “make it possible for tenants to obtain maximum use of space on each floor . . . there just won’t be any unusable areas.”

 

For the Look Building, Roth fine tuned many of these ideas. While the number of floors and massing is similar, the curved corners allow the windows and spandrels to flow without interruption. According to Percy Uris, this type of fenestration had various benefits. Not only did it provide better lighting and a sense of openness, but he believed it was part of:

 

. . . a real step forward in office planning. Where the space is used as a large open general office, the effect is light and cheerful. These windows also make for easy subdivision into smaller rooms with more flexibility than formerly possible when masonry and columns more or less determined individual office spaces.

 

Roth claimed that this approach would satisfy “status conscious tenants . . . because it permitted an even distribution of window space for executive offices, a matter of considerable importance to corporate tenants.”

 

The stacked, multiple curves give the elevations an organic, almost biomorphic quality. Marv Rothenstein, who worked for Uris Brothers, later wrote:

 

Everything about them was special, starting with the curved structural steel,

 

followed by curved concrete forms, curved bricks, curved window frames, and

 

curved glass.

 

The corners have a three-and-a-half foot radius and are faced with radial brick. In New York City, buildings with rounded corners are found in Lower Manhattan, where irregularly-shaped parcels provided architects with opportunities to emphasize specific vistas, facades, and entrances. Though concave and convex facades gained greater popularity in the late 1930s and were present in various pavilions at the New York World’s Fair, such features were rarely used in office buildings. It was, however, used to great advantage at the Starrett-Lehigh Building, as well as in Roth’s much simpler design for 505 Park Avenue. These streamlined buildings, however, have much wider curves and were erected with less costly “straight segments.”

 

Above the 12th story, the Look Building’s setbacks function as private terraces. These unbroken, wrap-around spaces were part of the original design, and appear in the blueprints at Avery Library, Columbia University, with glass doors and metal railings.

 

In contrast to Rockefeller Center, which had common landscaped gardens on the rooftops, these shallow outdoor spaces seem closer in spirit to residential terraces and, like the upper floors of the Cities Service Building , 70 Pine Street in lower Manhattan, and the Universal Pictures Building, were reached from inside offices. Such amenities were also part of a broader trend after the Second World War to blur the boundaries between interior and exterior space.

 

To give the Look Building a stylish, modern appearance, Roth faced it with white brick. This material was introduced in the first decade of the 20th century but did not become popular until construction of Manhattan House . Built by the architects Skidmore Owings & Merrill on East 66th Street in 1947-51, this 21-story structure is considered Manhattan’s earliest white brick apartment house, influencing the design of numerous imitators and possibly Richard Roth. Though some explained the popularity of this brick in practical terms, saying it was self-washing and would reflect light into the surrounding area, white was also strongly associated with the European avant-garde, particularly the early minimalist works of Le Corbusier and Alvar Aalto.

 

Construction

 

Plans for construction of a $6 million structure at 488 Madison Avenue were filed with the Department of Buildings in November 1948. Several months later, during February 1949, D.

 

E. H. Demolition began tearing down the former home of Cathedral College and excavation of the site began. The Harris Structural Steel Company began to deliver the steel components in June 1949 and by the end of August 1949 the framework was “topped” out. The New York Times reported that this was “considered a postwar record for steel erection.” According to Marv Rothstein, as many as seven four-men riveting teams were involved in the process. The concrete floors were finished in early September 1949, and shortly after, the white brick elevations. About four floors were enclosed each week. As this task progressed, the steel casement windows were installed. Once this job was completed, the interior plastering began. Tenants began to occupy the air-conditioned structure in early 1950.

 

Tenants

 

With Cross & Brown as the building’s rental agent, all of the office floors were leased by November 1949 – several months before construction was complete – and all of the retail space by May 1, 1950. This section of midtown Manhattan was a lively hub of media activity, especially around Rockefeller Center. Several magazines were early tenants, including Look, Esquire, and Seventeen. Look was launched by Gardner “Mike” Cowles, Jr., in Des Moines, Iowa, in January 1937. He consolidated the editorial offices at 522 Fifth Avenue, where it remained for a decade. Modeled on European picture magazines, it became a significant rival to Life magazine, which was based in Rockefeller Center, and by 1948 the magazine had a paid circulation of three million. Look would become the largest tenant, with offices on the 10th, 11th and 12th floors.

 

Uris Brothers agreed to name the building for Look in early 1950. Esquire, which claimed it was “embarrassed by the “new look,” took legal action to stop this, arguing that the change would “convey the false impression” that Esquire was “published or sponsored by the publishers of Look.” No action, however, was taken by the courts and until 1980 large capital letters spelled out “Look Building” on the mechanical tower’s south side. The 1950s would be heyday of Look’s popularity, reaching an estimated 21 per cent of all U.S. adults in 1961. It was the third most popular magazine in the nation and in 1963 it would sign a new lease, almost doubling its office space to more than 200,000 square feet. The New York Times Company purchased the Cowles Media Company in 1971, which included Family Circle and various regional newspapers.

 

Pocket Books, Inc., a division of Simon & Shuster, which published popular best sellers, was also an original tenant, as was the Music Publishers Holding Company, with such subsidiaries as Harms, Inc., Remick Music, New World Music, Advances Music, and Witmark & Sons. In Witmark’s fifth floor studio, a young Bob Dylan produced a series of important early demo recordings during 1962 and 1963.

 

Emery Roth & Sons joined the prestigious roster of tenants in April 1950. The New York Times reported that it was only the firm’s “fourth move” in fifty years and they occupied part of the 18th floor until the late 1950s. Three floors above, on the 21st floor, was Raymond Loewy, one of the 20th century’s most significant industrial designers, who appeared on the cover of Time magazine in October 1949 and would design the interiors of Lever House , completed nearby at 390 Park Avenue in 1952. Later tenants have included the Institutional Investor and Abbeville Press.

 

Subsequent History

 

In April 1953, the property was sold to the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Several months later, in August 1953, the building was leased back to Uris Brothers. Since the 1970s, it has been owned by the 488 Madison Avenue Associates and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

 

The two-story retail base was remodeled with tinted black glass and new shop entrances in the 1980s. Horowitz Immerman Architects were responsible for these alterations. The rest of the exterior was renovated with great sensitivity by Hardy Holzman Pfeiffer Associates in 1998. Architect Malcolm Holzman was the partner in charge of the project. He said that his main objective was to “keep the building as it is and not make it into something it will never be.” At the time, the original steel windows were replaced by similar aluminum frames and the glazed brick was cleaned. Additionally, about 20 per cent of the brick was replaced, as well as the original slate windowsills.

 

Interest in mid-20th century modern architecture was growing in the 1990s and the building’s careful restoration was described in a New York Times article, as well as in a small exhibition, New Life for a Modern Monument: A Salute to 488 Madison Avenue, organized by the Municipal Art Society in autumn 1998. The brochure’s text praised the owners and architects, commenting “The Look Building’s restoration shows how successfully the best postwar buildings can be updated, rewarding investors and delighting passerby.” In 2004, the Look Building was added to the National Register of Historic Places and the facade is subject to a conservation easement filed with the Trust of Architectural Easements.

 

Description

 

The Look Building stands on the west side of Madison Avenue, between 51st and 52nd Streets. It occupies an L-shaped lot, measuring 200 feet on Madison Avenue, 140 feet on 51st Street, and 75 feet on 52nd Street. Above the second story, the facade is mainly white brick. Continuous non-historic aluminum windows , three horizontal panes tall, extend continuously around the facade, starting at the west ends of the north and south facades. The center panes are operable and open out from the bottom. Above the 12-story base, every second floor sets back, climaxing with a mostly windowless tower, which incorporates horizontal louvers on the east front.

 

The two-story retail base is non-historic and dates to the late 1980s. It is divided from the third story on all facades by what appears to be charcoal-colored cast-stone panels, crowned by a curved aluminum molding. The two stories of glass panels are transparent or tinted black and the water table may be granite. The main entrance is at the center of the sloping Madison Avenue facade. There is a recessed passage that leads to a single revolving glass entrance door, flanked by conventional glass doors. The entrance passage is paved with contrasting light and dark gray granite. The exterior panels that face the street are polished black granite and the walls that flank the passage are light brown-and-black marble.

 

There is a ribbed aluminum ceiling with recessed lighting fixtures, as well as square service panel near center. Above the entrance passage is a wide non-historic aluminum marquee with curved corners and free-standing numerals that identify the address. To the left are three storefronts with recessed entrances. The one closest to the entrance has a horizontal aluminum sign with white lettering. At the corner of 51st Street is a revolving door with dark tinted glass. Directly to the right of this door is a conventional recessed store entrance. To the right of the main entrance is a single storefront with clear glass windows. This storefront incorporates several horizontal aluminum signs with white lettering: on Madison Avenue, at the corner of 52nd Street, and on 52nd Street.

 

The Fifty-First street facade has four non-historic storefronts, at 19, 21 and 23 East 51st Street. The last address has two entrances. Most of the first-story businesses are identified above the storefronts with metal letters against black glass panels. Though most of the glass on the second story is tinted black, the windows nearest Madison Avenue are transparent. At the west end of the facade, a vertical banner is strung between two horizontal brass poles. A significant number of glass panels toward the west end of the second story have been replaced with horizontal metal louvers. Near the top of the 11th story, at center, a white horizontal box projects out from the facade. In addition, there are four vertical boxes attached at the corner above the third story. There is a fan-like security gate at the west edge of the 7th story.

 

Fifty-Second Street has a single storefront that extends around the corner from Madison Avenue. To the west of the last window is a single vertical panel of horizontal louvers. At the corner, above the aluminum sign, are two small black boxes with visible wires. The service entrance, with two metal doors that open outward, is located at the west end of the first story. At the middle of the 4th story, two of the upper windows have been replaced with horizontal louvers. Fan-like security gates have been installed at the west end of two of the uppermost floors.

 

- From the 2010 NYCLPC Landmark Designation Report

Profitable Soda Fountain Operation

+++ DISCLAIMER +++Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!

  

Some background:

Aeroflot is one of the oldest airlines in the world, tracing its history back to 1923. During the Soviet era, Aeroflot was the Soviet national airline and the largest airline in the world. Following the dissolution of the USSR, the carrier has been transformed from a state-run enterprise into a semi-privatized company which ranked 19th most profitable airline in the world in 2007. Aeroflot is still considered to be the de facto national airline of Russia, being 51%-owned by the Russian Government.

 

After WWII, Aeroflot's route network had extended to 295,400 kilometers (183,600 mi), and by 1950 it carried 1,603,700 passengers, 151,070 tonnes (333,050,000 lb) of freight and 30,580 tonnes (67,420,000 lb) of mail during the same year. The 20th Communist Party Congress, held in 1956, saw plans for Aeroflot services to be dramatically increased. The airline would see its overall activities increased from its then current levels by 3.8 times, and it was set the target of the carriage of 16,000,000 passengers by 1960. In order to meet these goals, Aeroflot introduced higher capacity turbojet and turbine-prop aircraft on key domestic routes, and on services to Aeroflot destinations abroad.

 

A major step for Aeroflot occurred on 15 September 1956 when the Tupolev Tu-104 jet airliner entered service on the Moscow-Omsk-Irkutsk route, marking the world's first sustained jet airline service. The airline began international flights with the type on 12 October 1956 with flights from Moscow to Prague. The aircraft placed Aeroflot in an envious position, as airlines in the West had operated throughout the 1950s with large piston-engine aircraft. By 1958 the route network covered 349,200 kilometers (217,000 mi), and the airline carried 8,231,500 passengers, and 445,600 tons of mail and freight, with fifteen percent of all-Union services being operated by jet aircraft.

 

Aeroflot introduced the Antonov An-10 and Ilyushin Il-18 in 1959, and together with its existing jet aircraft, the airline was able to extend services on modern aircraft to some twenty cities during 1960. The Tupolev Tu-114, then the world's largest airliner, entered service with the Soviet carrier on 24 April 1961 on the Moscow-Khabarovsk route; covering a distance of 6,980 kilometers (4,340 mi) in 8 hours 20 minutes. The expansion of the Aeroflot fleet saw services with modern aircraft being extended to more than forty cities in 1961, with fifty percent of all-Union services being operated by these aircraft. This fleet expansion also saw the number of passengers carried in 1961 skyrocketing to 21,800,000.

 

Further expansion came in 1962 when various medium and short-haul routes were started and respective aircraft types such as the Tupolev Tu-124, Ilyushin Il-60 and Antonov An-24 entered regular service with Aeroflot. The Tu-124 was a jet airliner, technically an 75% version of the Tu-104, while the An-24 was a lighter twin turboprop aircraft in the class of the Fokker F.27. The Il-60 was the latest addition to the domestic services, falling in between both other types.

 

Development of the Ilyushin Il-60 dated back to 12 October 1951, when the Soviet Council of Ministers published a specification for a medium-range aircraft carrying 50 to 70 passengers and 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) of cargo on routes up to 2,000 km (1,100 nmi; 1,200 mi) with a cruising speed of about 600 km/h (320 kn; 370 mph). The type was to replace the piston engine Ilyushin Il-14 on domestic routes. The number and type of engines were not specified, but jet or turboprop engines were expected and emphasis was put on ruggedness and ease of operations for operations on rural airstrips with a minimum of infrastructure.

 

Ilyushin’s OKB-240 responded at first with a scaled-down Il-18 turboprop airliner, somewhat inspired by an idea of Czech manufacturer Avia for a smaller, short-range airliner for the CSA’s Central European routes. This machine had only two engines and overall reduced dimensions, but used many components of the original airliner. But it soon became clear that the Tu-104 with its jet engines had already set higher standards, so that a completely new and more innovative design was started.

 

Internally known as “Aircraft 60”, the machine introduced some innovations while still being a conservative design. The aircraft was a two turboprop-engine low-wing monoplane with slightly swept (20° at quarter chord) wings, a circular pressurized fuselage and a conventional, yet markedly swept tail (both fin and stabilizer at 45°). The aircraft had two entry doors on the port-side before and after the wing, two overwing emergency exits on each side, and featured a retractable stairway under the rear fuselage so that passengers could directly enter the aircraft from the airfield. An APU was integrated in the rear fuselage, under the fin, for independent operation of the air condition system and starting the engines without external support.

The tricycle landing gear had four wheels fitted on the main leg bogies, which retracted inwards to lie under the fuselage instead of into the engine nacelles. The front wheel also had twin wheels, retracting forward in a well under the cockpit floor, and the aircraft’s low-pressure tires allowed operations even from grass airfields or snowy ground. Another novel feature at the time was the fitting of a weather radar in the nose, a civilian RPSN-2 "Emblema" system, doing away with the typical glazed navigator position of other former Soviet airliner designs. In order to support all-weather operations and ease the pilots’ work, “Aircraft 60” was also outfitted with an automatic approach system, supported by the radar which allowed blind navigation.

 

Despite vibration and noise problems, experienced with the earlier Il-18 airliner, Ilyushin insisted on turboprop propulsion because it was the more fuel-efficient option. He furthermore expected that no another jet-driven airliner would be politically “allowed” along the Tu-124 short haul airliner, at that time under parallel development.

 

“Aircraft 60” was powered by a pair of Kuznetsow NK-6K turboprops. This engine was one of several developments after World War II by a team of Russian scientists and deported German engineers under Ferdinand Brandner, which had worked for Junkers previously, evolving from late war German turboprop studies. This the post-war development was based on the wartime Jumo 022 turboprop design that developed 6000 eshp in a 3000 kg engine. The efforts continued with a 5000 ehp engine that weighed in at 1700 kg, completed by 1947, and with further weight savings and more modern materials, the NK-6, one of several development directions, became a large single-spool engine that was optimized for use on board of commercial aircraft like “Aircraft 60”.

 

For security reasons, the engines were mounted in front and above of the wings’ leading edge. In order to keep the wing structure as clean and simple and possible and not risk collateral damage to the landing gear in case of an engine fire, the landing gear was retracted into wells under the wing roots. This measure also kept the engine nacelle’s dimensions in very compact limits.

In order to minimize noise and vibrations, 2x4-bladed contraprops with an automatic feathering system were mounted, resulting in a characteristic humming noise when the engines were running. Due to the lower speed of these propellers, compared to a standard four- or five-blade propeller, the internal and external noise level could be significantly reduced (compared to the Il-18, which could drone at 110db in the cabin above the wings!), even though the lower frequency caused other problems, mainly vibrations at certain speeds that shook the whole airframe.

 

The standard seating of the initial version, the Il-60A, was 52 seats at a 90cm distance between the five-seat rows (two seats on port side and three on starboard). Alternatively, a maximum of 72 could be mounted in a cramped “tourist class” configuration with only 78cm distance between the seat rows, which became the late production standard configuration as Il-60B.

 

The first of two prototypes made its first flight from Zhukovsky airfield on 24 March 1960. The second prototype followed in June 1960. Two other airframes served as a static test cells. Testing was successful, and the aircraft entered production at Machinery Plant No. 30 located at Khodynka, near Moscow, replacing the Il-18 in production. Deliveries to Aeroflot began in August 1962, with the type operating its first scheduled passenger service, between Moscow and Tallinn in Estonia, on 2 October 1962.

 

The Il-60’s production remained only on a small scale, though: being a pure jet, the Tu-124 was preferred by the Aeroflot for short haul duties, as well as by the Powers That Be. Despite the type’s merits esp. in harsh climate conditions (most Il-60 were allocated to Aeroflot’s feederline services in the Soviet Union’s northern regions), the type was not popular among its crews. While the two turboprops gave sufficient power, had good handling across the whole speed envelope and the aircraft had no trouble remaining airborne with one engine shut down, the asymmetrical drag/thrust in this emergency condition was considerable and navigating the Il-60, and even more landing the aircraft, with only one engine was a challenging task.

 

Furthermore, the stalky landing gear, which prompted the crews' inofficial nickname "косино́жки" (kosinozhki = daddy longlegs), could start to vibrate under certain conditions and wobble, making a start or landing run a shaky if not dangerous affair, esp. on snow-packed and non-permanent runways. Furthermore, two Il-60 crashed on runways or airfields after hitting obstacles ubnder snow - the long front landing gear collapsed. Nobody on board was seriosuly hurt in both cases, but these accidents did not improve the type's reputation among both pilots and passengers alike.

 

Only a total of 44 machines were built: 18 Il-60As for selected connections abroad (e. g. to Scandinavia and Poland), plus 26 Il-60Bs with higher seat capacity for purely domestic service. Both machines were identical from the outside, though, and all production aircraft featured a characteristic spinal fin root extension that covered several radio and navigation antennae.

 

Ilyushin had plans for a stretched version (with two plugs inserted into the fuselage in front of and behind the wings) with a 2.2m longer fuselage and a maximum capacity of 85 passengers, and also worked on a jet-powered update with engine nacelles on pylons under and in front of the wings. But none of these improvements was turned into hardware, since not only the Tu-124 had become the preferred short/medium haul airliner for Aeroflot, the following Tu-134 had also become the political favorite, and OKB-240 focused on its long-range airliner Il-62.

 

Il-60 production already ended after only two years in 1964, and Aeroflot decommissioned its last twelve Il-60s on 21 January 1980, after more and more structural problems (wing spar cracks, caused by the NK-6’s vibrations) had become apparent and several aircraft had to be grounded.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 3 (captain, first officer and a flight engineer),

plus another seat for an optional navigator or a radio officer,

plus a three- or four-person cabin crew

Capacity: 52 – 72

Payload: 8.4 t (9.3 short tons)

Length: 32,54 m (106 ft 7 in)

Wingspan: 34.3 m (112 ft 6 in)

Height: 11,74 m (38 ft 5 1/2 in)

Wing area: 146.7 m² (1,579 sq ft)

Empty weight: 22.2 t (24.5 sT)

Max. takeoff weight: 46 t (50.7 sT)

 

Powerplant:

2× Kusnetzow NK-6K turboprop engines, rated at 3,318 kW (4,612 ehp) each

 

Performance

Maximum speed: 805 km/h (500 mph/435 knots)

Cruise speed: 665 km/h (424 mph/370 knots)

Range (Typical payload, 2 hr reserve): 2,400 km (1,300 nmi/1,490 mi)

Rate of climb: 2,750 ft/min (14.0 m/s)

Service ceiling: 11,000 m (36,000 ft)

  

The kit and its assembly:

“In Soviet Union, Aeroflot flies you!” And in order to prove this theory, this whiffy airliner is contribution #3 to the “Soviet Group Build” at whatifmodelers.com in early 2017.

 

It’s been a very long time that I had built a small-scale airliner, but then I found a (crappy!) 1:144 Mistercraft Caravelle III in my stash (actually, a re-boxed kit from a company called “Ruch” from the Sixties!), that I had originally bought just for the wings as a pure donor kit. This appears to be a blunt copy of the also rather vintage Airfix kit, but the latter has much more crisp details. O.K., the Mistercraft kit was cheap – but you have to pay otherwise…

 

Anyway, anything Soviet without an elegant Aeroflot airliner would not be complete, so I tackled this idea on short notice. The project had also been fueled by another project idea: a modern short-haul airliner like the Tu-204, but outfitted with turboprops instead of turbofan engines. For this idea (and other uses), I also had a conversion set from a Russian company called “Kompakt Mir” stashed away, with four resin 1:144 NK-14 engines. It’s actually as an aftermarket upgrade set for the Trumpeter Tu-95 model kit, but came in handy – and it is excellent stuff, by the way, with crisp detail, almost no flash or sinkholes.

 

With these ingredients, work went on quickly and straightforward, and wings and fuselage were started separately. The wings (a combined piece with a mutual underside) received fairings for engine nacelles, made basically from drop tank halves glued to the upper wing surface. Then the resin engines were mounted to the fairings’ front ends the gaps and the nacelles’ underside sculpted with 2C putty, plus some later fine-tuning with NC putty. The Caravelle’s inward-retracting landing gear was retained, keeping the engine fairings rather short and compact.

 

On the fuselage, the Caravelle's original engines and their attachment points disappeared. The triangular windows were drilled open into circular shape, later, as a final finishing step, filled with Humbrol ClearFix for shiny window panes - this improves the overall look a lot.

 

Lead was added in the nose, the retractable stairway under the rear fuselage kept (a very Soviet design detail!) and the Caravelle’s characteristic round fin tip was cut away, to be replaced with a square scratch transplant. The stabilizers were moved down and their round tips clipped, too.

 

On the nose, a scratched thimble radome was added and blended into the fuselage, for an Il-18-ish look. While these were rather simple, cosmetic measures on the fuselage, the look of the whole aircraft was changed into a much more modern design!? This was even more emphasized when the wings and stabilizers were added – the Il-60 looks very contemporary, nothing of the Caravelle’s Fifties flavor remains.

 

The landing gear is new, bashed from the bogies of the recently slashed Dragon 1:144 B-1B bomber I abused for my Fastback build, and leftover struts from an Acedemy 1:144 Tu-22M. The latter also donated a pair of main wheels for the front leg, which is, again, from the B-1B.

The new arrangement is considerably taller than the Caravelle’s, but with the large propellers this is a convenient and plausible arrangement, despite a rather stalky appearance due to the relatively short wheelbase. The eight main wheels were taken from the RUCH kit, even though the attachment point would not fit the B-1 struts at all...

  

Painting and markings:

One can argue about Soviet aircraft design or reliability – but I must admit that I liked the Aeroflot aircraft liveries since I can remember them as a child, sometimes even witnessing Tupolev or Yak jets at the local airport. The white-and-blue outfit with almost baroque trim and details was and is IMHO a very elegant design, worthy of a state airline (which had a menacing, if not mysterious Big Brother image during the Cold War times in which I grew up).

 

Another interesting fact is that, despite the basic colors were set, each Aeroflot type bore a typical and different paint scheme, plus some exotic designs like the polar service machines with lots of red added.

 

Consequently, I had a lot of freedom, and work was made even more easy through the Mistercraft Caravelle kit: it actually contains markings for a Caravelle in Aeroflot markings! “Nonsense!”, you might say – but this aircraft actually existed: it was a movie prop (actually Air France’s F-BJTR) for filming “Enigma” at Le Bourget Airport in 1981 (check this for reference: www.airliners.net/photo/Aeroflot-%28Air-France%29/Sud-SE-...). As a side note, there was another Caravelle in fictional Interflug or ČSA colors, too, as well as a camouflaged SMB2 Super Mystère and a NMF Mystère IV with red stars on white discs, both playing the role of Soviet MiG-19s!

 

Anyway, the OOB decal sheet offered enough material for my plans, even though the blue trim was created from generic decal sheet. But door decals and most Aeroflot markings came from the movie aircraft.

 

Painting was also a pretty straightforward affair: the fuselage was painted white with acrylic paint from the rattle can, the lower fuselage by brush with Polished Aluminum Metallizer from Humbrol (which creates a very bright and clean finish) on top of a Revell Acrylics Aluminum primer coat.

For some contrast to the white and blue I painted the fixed wing parts with light grey, the rudders in Aluminum and Steel, and orange wing and stabilizer tips were added as small, additional contrasts, later even highlighted with dayglow orange.

 

In order to add some weirdness to the look, the propeller blades were painted bright blue with yellow tips. Unusual, but a common Soviet/Russian/Chinese practice.

  

A rather simple conversion, but highly effective. The Caravelle’s traces are almost not to be identified anymore, even though fuselage and wings consist of OOB material with only superficial modifications or re-locations. The engines on the wings change the look, too, and despite being massive NK-12’s they are a good match for the compact airliner – I am very happy with the outcome, even though the overall lines look much more modern than late Fifties design – even though no more modern parts were actually integrated? Weird, but entertaining. J

Profitable Soda Fountain Operation

Australia’s first shot tower, at Taroona, was built by Joseph Moir and is one of three still existing in the country, the others being in Melbourne. Joseph Moir's factory, which operated for 35 years from 1870, manufactured lead shot for contemporary muzzle loading sports guns. Although the factory struggled for most of its existence its most recognisable feature, the tallest stone shot tower in the southern hemisphere, has been a prominent landmark in the district for well over a century. Joseph Moir His Shot Tower on the Kingston Road is noted throughout the colonies, and Mr Moir’s enterprising spirit is there illustrated in a most remarkable manner. Though a speculation of a very hazardous kind, he had faith in its success, and his estimate, as was afterwards discovered, was not found on any erroneous basis. The manufacture of shot was a profitable venture under his management. Mercury 12 March 1874 Just twenty years old, Scotsman Joseph Moir arrived in Hobart in 1829, one of thousands of hopeful free immigrants who sailed to Van Diemen’s Land in the 1820s. By 1840 he had acquired several properties, government employment and a reputation as a builder of notable colonial buildings such as St Mark’s Anglican Church, Pontville. He returned briefly to Scotland in 1844 to marry Elizabeth Paxton with whom he had at least five children. A prominent businessman, Moir was active in Hobart’s civic affairs between 1846 and 1873, a year before his death. He revisited Britain in 1849 ‘to arrange to carry on an ironmonger’s business’, returning to Hobart with a stock of hardware items and opening a store with his brother at ‘Economy House’ in Murray Street. The business operated until sold by his son, Joseph in 1884. Moir purchased 39 acres on Brown’s River Rd in 1855 and moved to a new house at ‘Queenborough Glens’ (as he called the property) with his family in 1862. He then built the shot tower and its associated buildings and poured his first shot in 1870. When he died after a long illness in 1874 Moir left his major business concerns to his sons, James and Joseph. Together with Elizabeth (who only survived him by 15 months) and a daughter, Mary (who died in 1853 at the age of seven) Moir was encrypted in the family mausoleum on the cliffs below the shot tower. Their remains were later re-interred in unmarked graves at Queenborough Cemetery after Joseph relinquished the property in 1901. This cemetery’s graves were removed by Hobart Council in 1963 and Moir’s final resting place remains unknown. The Shot Tower This shot tower was built by the proprietor, Joseph Moir, in the year 1870. In its erection he acted as Engineer, Architect, Carpenter and Overseer. With merely the assistance of two masons it was completed in 8 months, when the secrets of shot-making had to be discovered. After many persevering efforts the first shot was dropped 8th September, 1870. Joseph Moir erected his shot making enterprise on 39 acres subdivided from an 1817 grant of 100 acres to John Williamson. He chose his site carefully. A road frontage facilitated straightforward transport of raw materials and product. A windmill pumped water from a reliable creek to a cistern on the site of the current overflow carpark and substantial timber reserves provided fuel for the furnaces and cauldrons. Sited far from residential neighbourhoods Moir could also relax in the knowledge that toxic fumes would blow safely out to sea or over forestland. Moir probably began building his shot making works after erecting the family home between 1855 and 1862. A stone building above the cliffs overlooking the River Derwent stored gun powder for his ironmongery as well as stores of arsenic and antimony. Another building south-west of the magazine contained the furnace for preparing lead with the arsenic and antimony. The tower was constructed of dressed curved sandstone blocks quarried at the nearby abandoned Brown’s River Convict Probation Station. A remarkable tapered structure 48m (157 feet 6 inches) tall it features an internal spiral staircase of pitsawn timber and an external gallery at its top which was probably used to store firewood for the upper cauldron. The staircase provided scaffolding during the construction of the tower and access to the upper cauldron and shot-making colanders. The tower is 10 metres in diameter at the base and tapers to 3.9 metres at the top . The walls are a metre thick at the bottom and thin out to .45 centimetres at the top. A three level stone factory abutting the tower was erected at the same time, then was extended soon after. The stone for the factory was probably recycled from the abandoned probation station. The Manufacturing Process The manufacture of shot is an industry which in England has always been conducted with the greatest secrecy, and consequently witnessed by very few except the initiated. This industry has recently been introduced in this colony by Mr Alderman Moir, and we learn that it is his intention to throw his Shot Tower open to the inspection of visitors on Monday and Tuesday next, when the process of shot making will be in operation, on which occasion we have no doubt many of our citizens will avail themselves of this opportunity of witnessing the interesting process. Mercury,10 March 1871. Shot manufacturing is thought to have been invented by Prince Rupert in the seventeenth century. It seems likely that Moir studied William Watts’ patented method of 1796 while in Britain in 1849- 50. Moir’s exact process is unknown — considerable experimentation was required by most manufacturers to perfect what is a very complex process requiring a detailed understanding of physics and metallurgy. Most of Moir’s raw materials would have been imported increasing his costs substantially Moir’s process was probably as follows: Lead was prepared in a furnace at the south-eastern corner of the property. Moir added 900g of arsenic (to decrease surface tension) and 6.35kg of antimony (to harden the shot) to every 45.35 kg of lead. The resultant ‘poisoned lead’ was cast into 7.7 kg ingots, conveyed to the factory, then remelted in cauldrons on the upper level of the factory for small shot and the top of the tower for larger shot. Firewood had to be winched to the upper cauldron. The molten lead was then poured through colanders, forming droplets which became spherical as they dropped. They fell into a tub of water at the base of the tower. The size of the shot depended on the amount of arsenic, the size of the holes in the colander and the height of the fall. Watts’ patent stipulated that large sized shot required a fall of 45.75m (150 feet), hence the height of Moir’s shot tower at 48m with the colander 46.36m above the base. The lead cooled partly while falling, then completely in the water. The antinomy hardener ensured that it maintained shape under the impact of the water. The cooled shot, green in colour, was winched to the factory’s upper floor where it was dried and run over inclined glass planes to separate out defective shot (which did not roll true). Imperfect shot was remelted and the process repeated. The shot was polished in a revolving drum (likened to a farmer’s barrel churn) using plumbago (graphite) then lowered through a trapdoor to the ground floor where it passed through ten sieves for grading into sizes ranging from fine birdshot to large balls. The graded shot was bagged into 12.7kg (28lb) handsewn linen bags stencilled with the manufacturer’s name and sent to market. At its peak the factory produced 100 tons of shot per annum. Working Conditions Little is known of working conditions in Joseph Moir’s shot tower. The work was highly skilled, noisy and almost certainly dangerous. That workers took great pride in their trade is indicated by an engraving in a window in the factory, reading, ‘George Matson Premier Shot Maker Tasmanian and Australian’. No further information about George Matson is known. The following descriptions of a contemporary works, Melbourne’s Coop shot tower (now incorporated in the Melbourne Central complex on Little Lonsdale St) provides some indication of the nature of the work involved. Pouring the lead was ‘an operation which needs great skill and constant watching. The man is used to his work but the novice would probably make a considerable bungle of it’. As the lead droplets fell there was ‘a sharp incessant shower of silvery rain . . . mak[ing] a noise very like that of an overflow waste pipe high up in one’s wall’. When shovelling shot from the water tub it was ‘quite certain that if the man who is so energetically shovelling . . . was to cease from his labours for any appreciable length of time the tank would be soon full of lead. . . . all the while the strange shower descends the man with the shovel is busily at work’. The noise of grading the shot through the sieves was ‘well nigh deafening’ while a woman sat with needle and thread sewing the 12.7kg linen bags for the finished shot. House and Garden Joseph Moir began building his residence soon after acquiring the property in 1855. Family lore suggests that he built the battlemented tower as practise before attempting the more substantial shot tower. By 1885 the property was well known for its gardens and orchards with its hot houses, summer houses and conservatories. "Mr [James] Moir has a prolific little orchard and kitchen garden, which latter, the flower garden and conservatories are watered from a considerable storage reservoir above. An amusing freak of the owner is to invite strangers into a summer house, and to be seated a moment or two out of the sun. He predicts rain shortly, however cloudless the sky — when hey presto: a shower immediately commences, a real earnest one. It is brought about by turning the tap of a pipe connecting with the circular piping on top of the summer house, the latter being perforated round its outside. A little defectiveness in the roof allowed of my receiving a slight baptism of spray, so I must be considered initiated." Tasmanian Mail,13 June 1885 Perhaps the youthful James Moir (he was 30 in 1885) had a better sense of fun than business sense. He had mortgaged the property the previous year and defaulted on his payments two years later. Later History Moir’s sons, James and Joseph, carried on the business after his death in 1874. Although James won merit certificates at the 1879 Sydney International Exhibition and the 1880-81 Melbourne Exhibition the business struggled and it was leased by the mortgagors to his brother, Joseph in 1887. Joseph found himself unable compete with mainland competitors when generous colonial tariffs were removed after Federation. He relinquished the lease to his brother-in-law, William Baynton who continued the business until closing its doors in 1905. During these years Baynton’s wife, Florence, operated a tea house in the residence. The property subsequently passed through several hands until 1956 when 3.24 hectares was purchased by the Tasmanian government and proclaimed a Scenery Reserve. Although it included the tower and residence, the reserve excluded the powder magazine, conservatory, antimony furnace and mausoleum. The reserve was gazetted as an historic site in 1971 under the National Parks and Wildlife Act. Since 1956 it has been leased to several concessionaires and has been open as a tourist site. Various conservation works have been conducted at the shot tower over the years to maintain its heritage significance.

 

Ref www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=2820

Australia’s first shot tower, at Taroona, was built by Joseph Moir and is one of three still existing in the country, the others being in Melbourne. Joseph Moir's factory, which operated for 35 years from 1870, manufactured lead shot for contemporary muzzle loading sports guns. Although the factory struggled for most of its existence its most recognisable feature, the tallest stone shot tower in the southern hemisphere, has been a prominent landmark in the district for well over a century. Joseph Moir His Shot Tower on the Kingston Road is noted throughout the colonies, and Mr Moir’s enterprising spirit is there illustrated in a most remarkable manner. Though a speculation of a very hazardous kind, he had faith in its success, and his estimate, as was afterwards discovered, was not found on any erroneous basis. The manufacture of shot was a profitable venture under his management. Mercury 12 March 1874 Just twenty years old, Scotsman Joseph Moir arrived in Hobart in 1829, one of thousands of hopeful free immigrants who sailed to Van Diemen’s Land in the 1820s. By 1840 he had acquired several properties, government employment and a reputation as a builder of notable colonial buildings such as St Mark’s Anglican Church, Pontville. He returned briefly to Scotland in 1844 to marry Elizabeth Paxton with whom he had at least five children. A prominent businessman, Moir was active in Hobart’s civic affairs between 1846 and 1873, a year before his death. He revisited Britain in 1849 ‘to arrange to carry on an ironmonger’s business’, returning to Hobart with a stock of hardware items and opening a store with his brother at ‘Economy House’ in Murray Street. The business operated until sold by his son, Joseph in 1884. Moir purchased 39 acres on Brown’s River Rd in 1855 and moved to a new house at ‘Queenborough Glens’ (as he called the property) with his family in 1862. He then built the shot tower and its associated buildings and poured his first shot in 1870. When he died after a long illness in 1874 Moir left his major business concerns to his sons, James and Joseph. Together with Elizabeth (who only survived him by 15 months) and a daughter, Mary (who died in 1853 at the age of seven) Moir was encrypted in the family mausoleum on the cliffs below the shot tower. Their remains were later re-interred in unmarked graves at Queenborough Cemetery after Joseph relinquished the property in 1901. This cemetery’s graves were removed by Hobart Council in 1963 and Moir’s final resting place remains unknown. The Shot Tower This shot tower was built by the proprietor, Joseph Moir, in the year 1870. In its erection he acted as Engineer, Architect, Carpenter and Overseer. With merely the assistance of two masons it was completed in 8 months, when the secrets of shot-making had to be discovered. After many persevering efforts the first shot was dropped 8th September, 1870. Joseph Moir erected his shot making enterprise on 39 acres subdivided from an 1817 grant of 100 acres to John Williamson. He chose his site carefully. A road frontage facilitated straightforward transport of raw materials and product. A windmill pumped water from a reliable creek to a cistern on the site of the current overflow carpark and substantial timber reserves provided fuel for the furnaces and cauldrons. Sited far from residential neighbourhoods Moir could also relax in the knowledge that toxic fumes would blow safely out to sea or over forestland. Moir probably began building his shot making works after erecting the family home between 1855 and 1862. A stone building above the cliffs overlooking the River Derwent stored gun powder for his ironmongery as well as stores of arsenic and antimony. Another building south-west of the magazine contained the furnace for preparing lead with the arsenic and antimony. The tower was constructed of dressed curved sandstone blocks quarried at the nearby abandoned Brown’s River Convict Probation Station. A remarkable tapered structure 48m (157 feet 6 inches) tall it features an internal spiral staircase of pitsawn timber and an external gallery at its top which was probably used to store firewood for the upper cauldron. The staircase provided scaffolding during the construction of the tower and access to the upper cauldron and shot-making colanders. The tower is 10 metres in diameter at the base and tapers to 3.9 metres at the top . The walls are a metre thick at the bottom and thin out to .45 centimetres at the top. A three level stone factory abutting the tower was erected at the same time, then was extended soon after. The stone for the factory was probably recycled from the abandoned probation station. The Manufacturing Process The manufacture of shot is an industry which in England has always been conducted with the greatest secrecy, and consequently witnessed by very few except the initiated. This industry has recently been introduced in this colony by Mr Alderman Moir, and we learn that it is his intention to throw his Shot Tower open to the inspection of visitors on Monday and Tuesday next, when the process of shot making will be in operation, on which occasion we have no doubt many of our citizens will avail themselves of this opportunity of witnessing the interesting process. Mercury,10 March 1871. Shot manufacturing is thought to have been invented by Prince Rupert in the seventeenth century. It seems likely that Moir studied William Watts’ patented method of 1796 while in Britain in 1849- 50. Moir’s exact process is unknown — considerable experimentation was required by most manufacturers to perfect what is a very complex process requiring a detailed understanding of physics and metallurgy. Most of Moir’s raw materials would have been imported increasing his costs substantially Moir’s process was probably as follows: Lead was prepared in a furnace at the south-eastern corner of the property. Moir added 900g of arsenic (to decrease surface tension) and 6.35kg of antimony (to harden the shot) to every 45.35 kg of lead. The resultant ‘poisoned lead’ was cast into 7.7 kg ingots, conveyed to the factory, then remelted in cauldrons on the upper level of the factory for small shot and the top of the tower for larger shot. Firewood had to be winched to the upper cauldron. The molten lead was then poured through colanders, forming droplets which became spherical as they dropped. They fell into a tub of water at the base of the tower. The size of the shot depended on the amount of arsenic, the size of the holes in the colander and the height of the fall. Watts’ patent stipulated that large sized shot required a fall of 45.75m (150 feet), hence the height of Moir’s shot tower at 48m with the colander 46.36m above the base. The lead cooled partly while falling, then completely in the water. The antinomy hardener ensured that it maintained shape under the impact of the water. The cooled shot, green in colour, was winched to the factory’s upper floor where it was dried and run over inclined glass planes to separate out defective shot (which did not roll true). Imperfect shot was remelted and the process repeated. The shot was polished in a revolving drum (likened to a farmer’s barrel churn) using plumbago (graphite) then lowered through a trapdoor to the ground floor where it passed through ten sieves for grading into sizes ranging from fine birdshot to large balls. The graded shot was bagged into 12.7kg (28lb) handsewn linen bags stencilled with the manufacturer’s name and sent to market. At its peak the factory produced 100 tons of shot per annum. Working Conditions Little is known of working conditions in Joseph Moir’s shot tower. The work was highly skilled, noisy and almost certainly dangerous. That workers took great pride in their trade is indicated by an engraving in a window in the factory, reading, ‘George Matson Premier Shot Maker Tasmanian and Australian’. No further information about George Matson is known. The following descriptions of a contemporary works, Melbourne’s Coop shot tower (now incorporated in the Melbourne Central complex on Little Lonsdale St) provides some indication of the nature of the work involved. Pouring the lead was ‘an operation which needs great skill and constant watching. The man is used to his work but the novice would probably make a considerable bungle of it’. As the lead droplets fell there was ‘a sharp incessant shower of silvery rain . . . mak[ing] a noise very like that of an overflow waste pipe high up in one’s wall’. When shovelling shot from the water tub it was ‘quite certain that if the man who is so energetically shovelling . . . was to cease from his labours for any appreciable length of time the tank would be soon full of lead. . . . all the while the strange shower descends the man with the shovel is busily at work’. The noise of grading the shot through the sieves was ‘well nigh deafening’ while a woman sat with needle and thread sewing the 12.7kg linen bags for the finished shot. House and Garden Joseph Moir began building his residence soon after acquiring the property in 1855. Family lore suggests that he built the battlemented tower as practise before attempting the more substantial shot tower. By 1885 the property was well known for its gardens and orchards with its hot houses, summer houses and conservatories. "Mr [James] Moir has a prolific little orchard and kitchen garden, which latter, the flower garden and conservatories are watered from a considerable storage reservoir above. An amusing freak of the owner is to invite strangers into a summer house, and to be seated a moment or two out of the sun. He predicts rain shortly, however cloudless the sky — when hey presto: a shower immediately commences, a real earnest one. It is brought about by turning the tap of a pipe connecting with the circular piping on top of the summer house, the latter being perforated round its outside. A little defectiveness in the roof allowed of my receiving a slight baptism of spray, so I must be considered initiated." Tasmanian Mail,13 June 1885 Perhaps the youthful James Moir (he was 30 in 1885) had a better sense of fun than business sense. He had mortgaged the property the previous year and defaulted on his payments two years later. Later History Moir’s sons, James and Joseph, carried on the business after his death in 1874. Although James won merit certificates at the 1879 Sydney International Exhibition and the 1880-81 Melbourne Exhibition the business struggled and it was leased by the mortgagors to his brother, Joseph in 1887. Joseph found himself unable compete with mainland competitors when generous colonial tariffs were removed after Federation. He relinquished the lease to his brother-in-law, William Baynton who continued the business until closing its doors in 1905. During these years Baynton’s wife, Florence, operated a tea house in the residence. The property subsequently passed through several hands until 1956 when 3.24 hectares was purchased by the Tasmanian government and proclaimed a Scenery Reserve. Although it included the tower and residence, the reserve excluded the powder magazine, conservatory, antimony furnace and mausoleum. The reserve was gazetted as an historic site in 1971 under the National Parks and Wildlife Act. Since 1956 it has been leased to several concessionaires and has been open as a tourist site. Various conservation works have been conducted at the shot tower over the years to maintain its heritage significance.

 

Ref www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=2820

Shot Tower Taroona Tasmania

Australia’s first shot tower, at Taroona, was built by Joseph Moir and is one of three still existing in the country, the others being in Melbourne. Joseph Moir's factory, which operated for 35 years from 1870, manufactured lead shot for contemporary muzzle loading sports guns. Although the factory struggled for most of its existence its most recognisable feature, the tallest stone shot tower in the southern hemisphere, has been a prominent landmark in the district for well over a century.

 

Joseph Moir

His Shot Tower on the Kingston Road is noted throughout the colonies, and Mr Moir’s enterprising spirit is there illustrated in a most remarkable manner. Though a speculation of a very hazardous kind, he had faith in its success, and his estimate, as was afterwards discovered, was not found on any erroneous basis. The manufacture of shot was a profitable venture under his management.

Mercury 12 March 1874

 

Just twenty years old, Scotsman Joseph Moir arrived in Hobart in 1829, one of thousands of hopeful free immigrants who sailed to Van Diemen’s Land in the 1820s. By 1840 he had acquired several properties, government employment and a reputation as a builder of notable colonial buildings such as St Mark’s Anglican Church, Pontville. He returned briefly to Scotland in 1844 to marry Elizabeth Paxton with whom he had at least five children.

 

A prominent businessman, Moir was active in Hobart’s civic affairs between 1846 and 1873, a year before his death. He revisited Britain in 1849 ‘to arrange to carry on an ironmonger’s business’, returning to Hobart with a stock of hardware items and opening a store with his brother at ‘Economy House’ in Murray Street. The business operated until sold by his son, Joseph in 1884. Moir purchased 39 acres on Brown’s River Rd in 1855 and moved to a new house at ‘Queenborough Glens’ (as he called the property) with his family in 1862. He then built the shot tower and its associated buildings and poured his first shot in 1870.

 

When he died after a long illness in 1874 Moir left his major business concerns to his sons, James and Joseph. Together with Elizabeth (who only survived him by 15 months) and a daughter, Mary (who died in 1853 at the age of seven) Moir was encrypted in the family mausoleum on the cliffs below the shot tower. Their remains were later re-interred in unmarked graves at Queenborough Cemetery after Joseph relinquished the property in 1901. This cemetery’s graves were removed by Hobart Council in 1963 and Moir’s final resting place remains unknown.

 

The Shot Tower

This shot tower was built by the proprietor, Joseph Moir, in the year 1870. In its erection he acted as Engineer, Architect, Carpenter and Overseer. With merely the assistance of two masons it was completed in 8 months, when the secrets of shot-making had to be discovered. After many persevering efforts the first shot was dropped 8th September, 1870.

 

Joseph Moir erected his shot making enterprise on 39 acres subdivided from an 1817 grant of 100 acres to John Williamson. He chose his site carefully. A road frontage facilitated straightforward transport of raw materials and product. A windmill pumped water from a reliable creek to a cistern on the site of the current overflow carpark and substantial timber reserves provided fuel for the furnaces and cauldrons. Sited far from residential neighbourhoods Moir could also relax in the knowledge that toxic fumes would blow safely out to sea or over forestland.

 

Moir probably began building his shot making works after erecting the family home between 1855 and 1862. A stone building above the cliffs overlooking the River Derwent stored gun powder for his ironmongery as well as stores of arsenic and antimony. Another building south-west of the magazine contained the furnace for preparing lead with the arsenic and antimony.

 

The tower was constructed of dressed curved sandstone blocks quarried at the nearby abandoned Brown’s River Convict Probation Station. A remarkable tapered structure 48m (157 feet 6 inches) tall it features an internal spiral staircase of pitsawn timber and an external gallery at its top which was probably used to store firewood for the upper cauldron. The staircase provided scaffolding during the construction of the tower and access to the upper cauldron and shot-making colanders. The tower is 10 metres in diameter at the base and tapers to 3.9 metres at the top . The walls are a metre thick at the bottom and thin out to .45 centimetres at the top.

 

A three level stone factory abutting the tower was erected at the same time, then was extended soon after. The stone for the factory was probably recycled from the abandoned probation station.

 

The Manufacturing Process

 

The manufacture of shot is an industry which in England has always been conducted with the greatest secrecy, and consequently witnessed by very few except the initiated. This industry has recently been introduced in this colony by Mr Alderman Moir, and we learn that it is his intention to throw his Shot Tower open to the inspection of visitors on Monday and Tuesday next, when the process of shot making will be in operation, on which occasion we have no doubt many of our citizens will avail themselves of this opportunity of witnessing the interesting process.

 

Mercury,10 March 1871.

 

Shot manufacturing is thought to have been invented by Prince Rupert in the seventeenth century. It seems likely that Moir studied William Watts’ patented method of 1796 while in Britain in 1849-50. Moir’s exact process is unknown — considerable experimentation was required by most manufacturers to perfect what is a very complex process requiring a detailed understanding of physics and metallurgy. Most of Moir’s raw materials would have been imported increasing his costs substantially

 

Moir’s process was probably as follows:

 

Lead was prepared in a furnace at the south-eastern corner of the property. Moir added 900g of arsenic (to decrease surface tension) and 6.35kg of antimony (to harden the shot) to every 45.35 kg of lead.

The resultant ‘poisoned lead’ was cast into 7.7 kg ingots, conveyed to the factory, then remelted in cauldrons on the upper level of the factory for small shot and the top of the tower for larger shot. Firewood had to be winched to the upper cauldron. The molten lead was then poured through colanders, forming droplets which became spherical as they dropped. They fell into a tub of water at the base of the tower. The size of the shot depended on the amount of arsenic, the size of the holes in the colander and the height of the fall. Watts’ patent stipulated that large sized shot required a fall of 45.75m (150 feet), hence the height of Moir’s shot tower at 48m with the colander 46.36m above the base.

The lead cooled partly while falling, then completely in the water. The antinomy hardener ensured that it maintained shape under the impact of the water.

The cooled shot, green in colour, was winched to the factory’s upper floor where it was dried and run over inclined glass planes to separate out defective shot (which did not roll true). Imperfect shot was remelted and the process repeated.

The shot was polished in a revolving drum (likened to a farmer’s barrel churn) using plumbago (graphite) then lowered through a trapdoor to the ground floor where it passed through ten sieves for grading into sizes ranging from fine birdshot to large balls. The graded shot was bagged into 12.7kg (28lb) handsewn linen bags stencilled with the manufacturer’s name and sent to market. At its peak the factory produced 100 tons of shot per annum.

Working Conditions

 

Little is known of working conditions in Joseph Moir’s shot tower. The work was highly skilled, noisy and almost certainly dangerous. That workers took great pride in their trade is indicated by an engraving in a window in the factory, reading, ‘George Matson Premier Shot Maker Tasmanian and Australian’. No further information about George Matson is known. The following descriptions of a contemporary works, Melbourne’s Coop shot tower (now incorporated in the Melbourne Central complex on Little Lonsdale St) provides some indication of the nature of the work involved.

 

Pouring the lead was ‘an operation which needs great skill and constant watching. The man is used to his work but the novice would probably make a considerable bungle of it’. As the lead droplets fell there was ‘a sharp incessant shower of silvery rain . . . mak[ing] a noise very like that of an overflow waste pipe high up in one’s wall’. When shovelling shot from the water tub it was ‘quite certain that if the man who is so energetically shovelling . . . was to cease from his labours for any appreciable length of time the tank would be soon full of lead. . . . all the while the strange shower descends the man with the shovel is busily at work’. The noise of grading the shot through the sieves was ‘well nigh deafening’ while a woman sat with needle and thread sewing the 12.7kg linen bags for the finished shot.

 

House and Garden

Joseph Moir began building his residence soon after acquiring the property in 1855. Family lore suggests that he built the battlemented tower as practise before attempting the more substantial shot tower. By 1885 the property was well known for its gardens and orchards with its hot houses, summer houses and conservatories.

 

"Mr [James] Moir has a prolific little orchard and kitchen garden, which latter, the flower garden and conservatories are watered from a considerable storage reservoir above. An amusing freak of the owner is to invite strangers into a summer house, and to be seated a moment or two out of the sun. He predicts rain shortly, however cloudless the sky — when hey presto: a shower immediately commences, a real earnest one. It is brought about by turning the tap of a pipe connecting with the circular piping on top of the summer house, the latter being perforated round its outside. A little defectiveness in the roof allowed of my receiving a slight baptism of spray, so I must be considered initiated." Tasmanian Mail,13 June 1885

 

Perhaps the youthful James Moir (he was 30 in 1885) had a better sense of fun than business sense. He had mortgaged the property the previous year and defaulted on his payments two years later.

 

Later History

 

Moir’s sons, James and Joseph, carried on the business after his death in 1874. Although James won merit certificates at the 1879 Sydney International Exhibition and the 1880-81 Melbourne Exhibition the business struggled and it was leased by the mortgagors to his brother, Joseph in 1887. Joseph found himself unable compete with mainland competitors when generous colonial tariffs were removed after Federation. He relinquished the lease to his brother-in-law, William Baynton who continued the business until closing its doors in 1905. During these years Baynton’s wife, Florence, operated a tea house in the residence.

 

The property subsequently passed through several hands until 1956 when 3.24 hectares was purchased by the Tasmanian government and proclaimed a Scenery Reserve. Although it included the tower and residence, the reserve excluded the powder magazine, conservatory, antimony furnace and mausoleum. The reserve was gazetted as an historic site in 1971 under the National Parks and Wildlife Act. Since 1956 it has been leased to several concessionaires and has been open as a tourist site. Various conservation works have been conducted at the shot tower over the years to maintain its heritage significance.

 

Ref www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=2820

The real estate industry is increasingly influenced by rapid technological advancements and significant demographic shifts, which include growing urbanization, longevity of Baby Boomers, and differentiated lifestyle patterns of Millennials. In addition, macroeconomic and regulatory developments continue to impact profitability. How can companies gain a competitive advantage and drive top- and bottom-line growth? Here are some trends to pay attention to in 2017.

 

Economic outlook: Growth tempered by higher interest rates?

Gross domestic product growth will likely increase 2.5 percent in 2017, according to Deloitte’s Q3 2016 US Economic Forecast. The modest economic improvement could temper the pace of commercial real estate (CRE) transaction activity.

 

Volatile global markets have led to continued low interest rates. The Deloitte economics team anticipates the Federal Reserve is likely to raise interest rates in the short-to-medium term. Higher interest rates are likely to increase mortgage costs and could deter real estate investments to some extent.

 

An improving employment scenario and rising labor participation are expected to result in an unemployment rate of less than 5 percent. The employment-to-population ratio is projected to peak in 2018, as retiring Baby Boomers may reduce the share of employed. The improving labor markets and household wealth will likely boost consumer confidence.

 

Regulatory outlook: Greater compliance costs on the horizon

New accounting standards on lease accounting and revenue recognitionwill likely increase the compliance and administration costs for real estate investment trusts (REITs) and engineering and construction (E&C) companies.

 

While increased exemptions under the Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act of 1980 (FIRPTA) will increase foreign investments in CRE,risk retention rules will likely lower commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) issuance and reduce capital availability in secondary and tertiary markets.

 

In addition, the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes (PATH) Act of 2015 will not only ease REIT tax provisions and research and development (R&D) tax credits for E&C companies, it will also increase the flexibility to invest in startups for R&D experimentation. At the same time, corporate tax reforms will reduce flexibility for corporations to spin off real estate assets into REIT structures.

 

Disruptive trends: Shaking up the CRE marketplace

Collaborative economy. Startups based on the sharing or collaborative economy, like Airbnb or WeWork, are disrupting the way organizations lease and use CRE. Companies face challenges from new competitors that are providing dynamically configurable spaces and flexible leases. Owners need to rethink their approach toward space design, lease administration, and lease duration.

 

Disintermediation of brokerage and leasing. Technological advancements are making CRE data more ubiquitous and transparent. These changes are enabling online leasing in a cost-effective, real-time manner and threatening the traditional brokerage model. Traditional brokers should consider diversifying their core business focus to include consultative opportunities, invest in data and technology, and collaborate with startups to get ahead in the game.

 

Competition for talent. A shortage of candidates with strong skills in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM); rising urbanization; and Millennials’ preference for an open and flexible work culture are changing the employment marketplace and will result in significant competition for talent. There is likely to be greater demand for mixed-use developments as consumers prefer to “live, work, and play” in proximity; office space usage will be redefined and even rationalized. Companies should choose locations in areas that have concentrations of STEM talent and revamp design and development teams to cater to changing consumer preferences.

 

Last mile. Online retailing, on-demand manufacturing, and innovations in speed and mode of delivery (such as same-day delivery and e-lockers) are disrupting the retail and industrial markets. Demand for large retail and industrial spaces will contract, and there will be a blurring of lines between these two property types. For example, retail properties could double as fulfillment centers. While retail owners can try different store formats and enhance end-customer experience, industrials should potentially focus on smaller and more flexible spaces within cities to enable faster delivery.

 

Future of mobility: Emergence of “pay-per-use” is beginning to challenge the model of personally owned vehicles. Along with this, the advent of self-driving vehicles will potentially transform the entire mobility ecosystem. This has the potential to change demand-supply dynamics, free up large parking spaces in prime areas that can be put to different uses, and shift tenant demography. Companies need to be more strategic in analyzing the impact of mobility patterns and options on their long-term revenue and profitability, exploring design changes to existing spaces, and revisiting tenant strategies.

 

Homebuilders: Demand-supply mismatch may offset rising confidence

Homebuilders’ confidence is on a rise due to improved employment, household income, and strong demand from Millennials. However, a demand-supply mismatch may continue due to ongoing labor shortages and permit issuance delays. Housing starts increased by 0.9 percent year-over-year in August 2016, even though housing permits reduced 1.2 percent year-over-year in August. Deloitte’s Q3 2016 US Economic Forecast suggests that housing starts are likely to reach 1.5 million in 2017 compared with an estimated 1.3 million in 2016. In contrast, in the first half of 2016, orders for homebuilders grew by an average of 29 percent compared with in the second half of 2015, but deliveries by homebuilders declined an average of 14 percent. As a result, the average order backlog has climbed to 36 percent, due primarily to labor shortages and permit issuance delays.

 

Home prices are likely to grow, albeit at a slower pace, due to limited inventory and supply. According to the quarterly Zillow® Home Price Expectations Survey, the Midwest region may witness a surge in demand due to job growth and relatively lower prices compared with the coastal markets.

 

In 2016, total home sales are expected to grow at approximately 3.6 percent on an annual basis. The slower growth is likely to be driven by supply constraints, potentially higher interest rates, and rising prices. Sales for new homes are expected to grow by 21.3 percent year-over-year to 609,000 homes. In contrast, sales for existing homes are expected to grow at a slower rate, approximately 1.9 percent year-over-year, to 5.3 million homes. This is in line with the Deloitte economics team’s 3Q 2016 forecast.

 

Home mortgage originations and delinquency rates improved in 2015, but they could be impacted by an imminent interest rate hike, even though banks have gradually loosened residential mortgage standards.

 

Homebuilders are building more units for rent, as rental demand and rental values have been strong and homebuilders look to grow and diversify. This strategy is likely to influence homebuilders’ business models and blur lines with multifamily owners.

 

A time for reinvention and change

Real estate companies will need to reinvent their strategies in 2017 to prepare and respond to the changes in the macroeconomic and built environment. Specifically, companies will need to:

 

•Consider the influence of Real Link technology advancements, urbanization, changing consumer preferences, security, climate change, and resource scarcity concerns on real estate decisions.

•Leverage technologies such as the Internet of Things, cloud computing, mobility, 3D printing, and advanced analytics to be innovative with respect to locating future developments.

•Resolve integration issues with legacy systems while adopting new technologies.

•Adopt a targeted and multipronged cybersecurity strategy that is secure, vigilant, and resilient.

•Drive innovation by partnering with existing startups, establishing research and innovation labs, and creating corporate accelerators.

•Invest in the tools and talent to respond to the changes in the ecosystem at a desirable pace.

 

Australia’s first shot tower, at Taroona, was built by Joseph Moir and is one of three still existing in the country, the others being in Melbourne. Joseph Moir's factory, which operated for 35 years from 1870, manufactured lead shot for contemporary muzzle loading sports guns. Although the factory struggled for most of its existence its most recognisable feature, the tallest stone shot tower in the southern hemisphere, has been a prominent landmark in the district for well over a century. Joseph Moir His Shot Tower on the Kingston Road is noted throughout the colonies, and Mr Moir’s enterprising spirit is there illustrated in a most remarkable manner. Though a speculation of a very hazardous kind, he had faith in its success, and his estimate, as was afterwards discovered, was not found on any erroneous basis. The manufacture of shot was a profitable venture under his management. Mercury 12 March 1874 Just twenty years old, Scotsman Joseph Moir arrived in Hobart in 1829, one of thousands of hopeful free immigrants who sailed to Van Diemen’s Land in the 1820s. By 1840 he had acquired several properties, government employment and a reputation as a builder of notable colonial buildings such as St Mark’s Anglican Church, Pontville. He returned briefly to Scotland in 1844 to marry Elizabeth Paxton with whom he had at least five children. A prominent businessman, Moir was active in Hobart’s civic affairs between 1846 and 1873, a year before his death. He revisited Britain in 1849 ‘to arrange to carry on an ironmonger’s business’, returning to Hobart with a stock of hardware items and opening a store with his brother at ‘Economy House’ in Murray Street. The business operated until sold by his son, Joseph in 1884. Moir purchased 39 acres on Brown’s River Rd in 1855 and moved to a new house at ‘Queenborough Glens’ (as he called the property) with his family in 1862. He then built the shot tower and its associated buildings and poured his first shot in 1870. When he died after a long illness in 1874 Moir left his major business concerns to his sons, James and Joseph. Together with Elizabeth (who only survived him by 15 months) and a daughter, Mary (who died in 1853 at the age of seven) Moir was encrypted in the family mausoleum on the cliffs below the shot tower. Their remains were later re-interred in unmarked graves at Queenborough Cemetery after Joseph relinquished the property in 1901. This cemetery’s graves were removed by Hobart Council in 1963 and Moir’s final resting place remains unknown. The Shot Tower This shot tower was built by the proprietor, Joseph Moir, in the year 1870. In its erection he acted as Engineer, Architect, Carpenter and Overseer. With merely the assistance of two masons it was completed in 8 months, when the secrets of shot-making had to be discovered. After many persevering efforts the first shot was dropped 8th September, 1870. Joseph Moir erected his shot making enterprise on 39 acres subdivided from an 1817 grant of 100 acres to John Williamson. He chose his site carefully. A road frontage facilitated straightforward transport of raw materials and product. A windmill pumped water from a reliable creek to a cistern on the site of the current overflow carpark and substantial timber reserves provided fuel for the furnaces and cauldrons. Sited far from residential neighbourhoods Moir could also relax in the knowledge that toxic fumes would blow safely out to sea or over forestland. Moir probably began building his shot making works after erecting the family home between 1855 and 1862. A stone building above the cliffs overlooking the River Derwent stored gun powder for his ironmongery as well as stores of arsenic and antimony. Another building south-west of the magazine contained the furnace for preparing lead with the arsenic and antimony. The tower was constructed of dressed curved sandstone blocks quarried at the nearby abandoned Brown’s River Convict Probation Station. A remarkable tapered structure 48m (157 feet 6 inches) tall it features an internal spiral staircase of pitsawn timber and an external gallery at its top which was probably used to store firewood for the upper cauldron. The staircase provided scaffolding during the construction of the tower and access to the upper cauldron and shot-making colanders. The tower is 10 metres in diameter at the base and tapers to 3.9 metres at the top . The walls are a metre thick at the bottom and thin out to .45 centimetres at the top. A three level stone factory abutting the tower was erected at the same time, then was extended soon after. The stone for the factory was probably recycled from the abandoned probation station. The Manufacturing Process The manufacture of shot is an industry which in England has always been conducted with the greatest secrecy, and consequently witnessed by very few except the initiated. This industry has recently been introduced in this colony by Mr Alderman Moir, and we learn that it is his intention to throw his Shot Tower open to the inspection of visitors on Monday and Tuesday next, when the process of shot making will be in operation, on which occasion we have no doubt many of our citizens will avail themselves of this opportunity of witnessing the interesting process. Mercury,10 March 1871. Shot manufacturing is thought to have been invented by Prince Rupert in the seventeenth century. It seems likely that Moir studied William Watts’ patented method of 1796 while in Britain in 1849- 50. Moir’s exact process is unknown — considerable experimentation was required by most manufacturers to perfect what is a very complex process requiring a detailed understanding of physics and metallurgy. Most of Moir’s raw materials would have been imported increasing his costs substantially Moir’s process was probably as follows: Lead was prepared in a furnace at the south-eastern corner of the property. Moir added 900g of arsenic (to decrease surface tension) and 6.35kg of antimony (to harden the shot) to every 45.35 kg of lead. The resultant ‘poisoned lead’ was cast into 7.7 kg ingots, conveyed to the factory, then remelted in cauldrons on the upper level of the factory for small shot and the top of the tower for larger shot. Firewood had to be winched to the upper cauldron. The molten lead was then poured through colanders, forming droplets which became spherical as they dropped. They fell into a tub of water at the base of the tower. The size of the shot depended on the amount of arsenic, the size of the holes in the colander and the height of the fall. Watts’ patent stipulated that large sized shot required a fall of 45.75m (150 feet), hence the height of Moir’s shot tower at 48m with the colander 46.36m above the base. The lead cooled partly while falling, then completely in the water. The antinomy hardener ensured that it maintained shape under the impact of the water. The cooled shot, green in colour, was winched to the factory’s upper floor where it was dried and run over inclined glass planes to separate out defective shot (which did not roll true). Imperfect shot was remelted and the process repeated. The shot was polished in a revolving drum (likened to a farmer’s barrel churn) using plumbago (graphite) then lowered through a trapdoor to the ground floor where it passed through ten sieves for grading into sizes ranging from fine birdshot to large balls. The graded shot was bagged into 12.7kg (28lb) handsewn linen bags stencilled with the manufacturer’s name and sent to market. At its peak the factory produced 100 tons of shot per annum. Working Conditions Little is known of working conditions in Joseph Moir’s shot tower. The work was highly skilled, noisy and almost certainly dangerous. That workers took great pride in their trade is indicated by an engraving in a window in the factory, reading, ‘George Matson Premier Shot Maker Tasmanian and Australian’. No further information about George Matson is known. The following descriptions of a contemporary works, Melbourne’s Coop shot tower (now incorporated in the Melbourne Central complex on Little Lonsdale St) provides some indication of the nature of the work involved. Pouring the lead was ‘an operation which needs great skill and constant watching. The man is used to his work but the novice would probably make a considerable bungle of it’. As the lead droplets fell there was ‘a sharp incessant shower of silvery rain . . . mak[ing] a noise very like that of an overflow waste pipe high up in one’s wall’. When shovelling shot from the water tub it was ‘quite certain that if the man who is so energetically shovelling . . . was to cease from his labours for any appreciable length of time the tank would be soon full of lead. . . . all the while the strange shower descends the man with the shovel is busily at work’. The noise of grading the shot through the sieves was ‘well nigh deafening’ while a woman sat with needle and thread sewing the 12.7kg linen bags for the finished shot. House and Garden Joseph Moir began building his residence soon after acquiring the property in 1855. Family lore suggests that he built the battlemented tower as practise before attempting the more substantial shot tower. By 1885 the property was well known for its gardens and orchards with its hot houses, summer houses and conservatories. "Mr [James] Moir has a prolific little orchard and kitchen garden, which latter, the flower garden and conservatories are watered from a considerable storage reservoir above. An amusing freak of the owner is to invite strangers into a summer house, and to be seated a moment or two out of the sun. He predicts rain shortly, however cloudless the sky — when hey presto: a shower immediately commences, a real earnest one. It is brought about by turning the tap of a pipe connecting with the circular piping on top of the summer house, the latter being perforated round its outside. A little defectiveness in the roof allowed of my receiving a slight baptism of spray, so I must be considered initiated." Tasmanian Mail,13 June 1885 Perhaps the youthful James Moir (he was 30 in 1885) had a better sense of fun than business sense. He had mortgaged the property the previous year and defaulted on his payments two years later. Later History Moir’s sons, James and Joseph, carried on the business after his death in 1874. Although James won merit certificates at the 1879 Sydney International Exhibition and the 1880-81 Melbourne Exhibition the business struggled and it was leased by the mortgagors to his brother, Joseph in 1887. Joseph found himself unable compete with mainland competitors when generous colonial tariffs were removed after Federation. He relinquished the lease to his brother-in-law, William Baynton who continued the business until closing its doors in 1905. During these years Baynton’s wife, Florence, operated a tea house in the residence. The property subsequently passed through several hands until 1956 when 3.24 hectares was purchased by the Tasmanian government and proclaimed a Scenery Reserve. Although it included the tower and residence, the reserve excluded the powder magazine, conservatory, antimony furnace and mausoleum. The reserve was gazetted as an historic site in 1971 under the National Parks and Wildlife Act. Since 1956 it has been leased to several concessionaires and has been open as a tourist site. Various conservation works have been conducted at the shot tower over the years to maintain its heritage significance.

 

Ref www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=2820

Australia’s first shot tower, at Taroona, was built by Joseph Moir and is one of three still existing in the country, the others being in Melbourne. Joseph Moir's factory, which operated for 35 years from 1870, manufactured lead shot for contemporary muzzle loading sports guns. Although the factory struggled for most of its existence its most recognisable feature, the tallest stone shot tower in the southern hemisphere, has been a prominent landmark in the district for well over a century. Joseph Moir His Shot Tower on the Kingston Road is noted throughout the colonies, and Mr Moir’s enterprising spirit is there illustrated in a most remarkable manner. Though a speculation of a very hazardous kind, he had faith in its success, and his estimate, as was afterwards discovered, was not found on any erroneous basis. The manufacture of shot was a profitable venture under his management. Mercury 12 March 1874 Just twenty years old, Scotsman Joseph Moir arrived in Hobart in 1829, one of thousands of hopeful free immigrants who sailed to Van Diemen’s Land in the 1820s. By 1840 he had acquired several properties, government employment and a reputation as a builder of notable colonial buildings such as St Mark’s Anglican Church, Pontville. He returned briefly to Scotland in 1844 to marry Elizabeth Paxton with whom he had at least five children. A prominent businessman, Moir was active in Hobart’s civic affairs between 1846 and 1873, a year before his death. He revisited Britain in 1849 ‘to arrange to carry on an ironmonger’s business’, returning to Hobart with a stock of hardware items and opening a store with his brother at ‘Economy House’ in Murray Street. The business operated until sold by his son, Joseph in 1884. Moir purchased 39 acres on Brown’s River Rd in 1855 and moved to a new house at ‘Queenborough Glens’ (as he called the property) with his family in 1862. He then built the shot tower and its associated buildings and poured his first shot in 1870. When he died after a long illness in 1874 Moir left his major business concerns to his sons, James and Joseph. Together with Elizabeth (who only survived him by 15 months) and a daughter, Mary (who died in 1853 at the age of seven) Moir was encrypted in the family mausoleum on the cliffs below the shot tower. Their remains were later re-interred in unmarked graves at Queenborough Cemetery after Joseph relinquished the property in 1901. This cemetery’s graves were removed by Hobart Council in 1963 and Moir’s final resting place remains unknown. The Shot Tower This shot tower was built by the proprietor, Joseph Moir, in the year 1870. In its erection he acted as Engineer, Architect, Carpenter and Overseer. With merely the assistance of two masons it was completed in 8 months, when the secrets of shot-making had to be discovered. After many persevering efforts the first shot was dropped 8th September, 1870. Joseph Moir erected his shot making enterprise on 39 acres subdivided from an 1817 grant of 100 acres to John Williamson. He chose his site carefully. A road frontage facilitated straightforward transport of raw materials and product. A windmill pumped water from a reliable creek to a cistern on the site of the current overflow carpark and substantial timber reserves provided fuel for the furnaces and cauldrons. Sited far from residential neighbourhoods Moir could also relax in the knowledge that toxic fumes would blow safely out to sea or over forestland. Moir probably began building his shot making works after erecting the family home between 1855 and 1862. A stone building above the cliffs overlooking the River Derwent stored gun powder for his ironmongery as well as stores of arsenic and antimony. Another building south-west of the magazine contained the furnace for preparing lead with the arsenic and antimony. The tower was constructed of dressed curved sandstone blocks quarried at the nearby abandoned Brown’s River Convict Probation Station. A remarkable tapered structure 48m (157 feet 6 inches) tall it features an internal spiral staircase of pitsawn timber and an external gallery at its top which was probably used to store firewood for the upper cauldron. The staircase provided scaffolding during the construction of the tower and access to the upper cauldron and shot-making colanders. The tower is 10 metres in diameter at the base and tapers to 3.9 metres at the top . The walls are a metre thick at the bottom and thin out to .45 centimetres at the top. A three level stone factory abutting the tower was erected at the same time, then was extended soon after. The stone for the factory was probably recycled from the abandoned probation station. The Manufacturing Process The manufacture of shot is an industry which in England has always been conducted with the greatest secrecy, and consequently witnessed by very few except the initiated. This industry has recently been introduced in this colony by Mr Alderman Moir, and we learn that it is his intention to throw his Shot Tower open to the inspection of visitors on Monday and Tuesday next, when the process of shot making will be in operation, on which occasion we have no doubt many of our citizens will avail themselves of this opportunity of witnessing the interesting process. Mercury,10 March 1871. Shot manufacturing is thought to have been invented by Prince Rupert in the seventeenth century. It seems likely that Moir studied William Watts’ patented method of 1796 while in Britain in 1849- 50. Moir’s exact process is unknown — considerable experimentation was required by most manufacturers to perfect what is a very complex process requiring a detailed understanding of physics and metallurgy. Most of Moir’s raw materials would have been imported increasing his costs substantially Moir’s process was probably as follows: Lead was prepared in a furnace at the south-eastern corner of the property. Moir added 900g of arsenic (to decrease surface tension) and 6.35kg of antimony (to harden the shot) to every 45.35 kg of lead. The resultant ‘poisoned lead’ was cast into 7.7 kg ingots, conveyed to the factory, then remelted in cauldrons on the upper level of the factory for small shot and the top of the tower for larger shot. Firewood had to be winched to the upper cauldron. The molten lead was then poured through colanders, forming droplets which became spherical as they dropped. They fell into a tub of water at the base of the tower. The size of the shot depended on the amount of arsenic, the size of the holes in the colander and the height of the fall. Watts’ patent stipulated that large sized shot required a fall of 45.75m (150 feet), hence the height of Moir’s shot tower at 48m with the colander 46.36m above the base. The lead cooled partly while falling, then completely in the water. The antinomy hardener ensured that it maintained shape under the impact of the water. The cooled shot, green in colour, was winched to the factory’s upper floor where it was dried and run over inclined glass planes to separate out defective shot (which did not roll true). Imperfect shot was remelted and the process repeated. The shot was polished in a revolving drum (likened to a farmer’s barrel churn) using plumbago (graphite) then lowered through a trapdoor to the ground floor where it passed through ten sieves for grading into sizes ranging from fine birdshot to large balls. The graded shot was bagged into 12.7kg (28lb) handsewn linen bags stencilled with the manufacturer’s name and sent to market. At its peak the factory produced 100 tons of shot per annum. Working Conditions Little is known of working conditions in Joseph Moir’s shot tower. The work was highly skilled, noisy and almost certainly dangerous. That workers took great pride in their trade is indicated by an engraving in a window in the factory, reading, ‘George Matson Premier Shot Maker Tasmanian and Australian’. No further information about George Matson is known. The following descriptions of a contemporary works, Melbourne’s Coop shot tower (now incorporated in the Melbourne Central complex on Little Lonsdale St) provides some indication of the nature of the work involved. Pouring the lead was ‘an operation which needs great skill and constant watching. The man is used to his work but the novice would probably make a considerable bungle of it’. As the lead droplets fell there was ‘a sharp incessant shower of silvery rain . . . mak[ing] a noise very like that of an overflow waste pipe high up in one’s wall’. When shovelling shot from the water tub it was ‘quite certain that if the man who is so energetically shovelling . . . was to cease from his labours for any appreciable length of time the tank would be soon full of lead. . . . all the while the strange shower descends the man with the shovel is busily at work’. The noise of grading the shot through the sieves was ‘well nigh deafening’ while a woman sat with needle and thread sewing the 12.7kg linen bags for the finished shot. House and Garden Joseph Moir began building his residence soon after acquiring the property in 1855. Family lore suggests that he built the battlemented tower as practise before attempting the more substantial shot tower. By 1885 the property was well known for its gardens and orchards with its hot houses, summer houses and conservatories. "Mr [James] Moir has a prolific little orchard and kitchen garden, which latter, the flower garden and conservatories are watered from a considerable storage reservoir above. An amusing freak of the owner is to invite strangers into a summer house, and to be seated a moment or two out of the sun. He predicts rain shortly, however cloudless the sky — when hey presto: a shower immediately commences, a real earnest one. It is brought about by turning the tap of a pipe connecting with the circular piping on top of the summer house, the latter being perforated round its outside. A little defectiveness in the roof allowed of my receiving a slight baptism of spray, so I must be considered initiated." Tasmanian Mail,13 June 1885 Perhaps the youthful James Moir (he was 30 in 1885) had a better sense of fun than business sense. He had mortgaged the property the previous year and defaulted on his payments two years later. Later History Moir’s sons, James and Joseph, carried on the business after his death in 1874. Although James won merit certificates at the 1879 Sydney International Exhibition and the 1880-81 Melbourne Exhibition the business struggled and it was leased by the mortgagors to his brother, Joseph in 1887. Joseph found himself unable compete with mainland competitors when generous colonial tariffs were removed after Federation. He relinquished the lease to his brother-in-law, William Baynton who continued the business until closing its doors in 1905. During these years Baynton’s wife, Florence, operated a tea house in the residence. The property subsequently passed through several hands until 1956 when 3.24 hectares was purchased by the Tasmanian government and proclaimed a Scenery Reserve. Although it included the tower and residence, the reserve excluded the powder magazine, conservatory, antimony furnace and mausoleum. The reserve was gazetted as an historic site in 1971 under the National Parks and Wildlife Act. Since 1956 it has been leased to several concessionaires and has been open as a tourist site. Various conservation works have been conducted at the shot tower over the years to maintain its heritage significance.

Ref www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=2820

Covington’s Collision Center owners and twin brothers Bucky and Rocky Covington keep the family business, in Westmoreland, TN, fun and profitable, especially when American Idol finalist Bucky grabs his guitar and pretends the shop and office is his stage when brother Rocky and auto body specialist Josh Gregory try to focus on work that is made easier and faster thanks to the fast fiber-optic cables connection to North Central Telephone Cooperative Corporation (NCTC), in Lafayette, TN, on Sept. 27, 2018. The high-speed connection makes phone calls clear and consistent; the search for auto body parts fast, and the ability to quickly send photos of previously unseen body damage to insurance adjusters and to keep customers visually aware of the progress of work.

 

North Central Telephone Cooperative Corporation (NCTC), headquartered in Lafayette, Tennessee has been an active borrower with U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Utilities Service (RUS) since 1951. They service subscribers in several exchanges across both Tennessee and Kentucky. The cooperative is a full-service provider, providing voice, video, data, broadband, home security, cloud services, and data center solutions.

 

Over the past 10 years, NCTC has received funds in the form of $101,782,663M in loans and $25,930,868M in grants.

 

The company’s most recent loan, which was obligated in 2017, will be used to make system improvements in 5 of North Central's 10 exchanges (Green Grove, Hillsdale, Red Boiling Springs, Scottville, and Lafayette). This will complete their fiber to the premises network throughout their territory. This project is currently in the “construction” phase.

 

USDA’s Rural Utilities Service (RUS) administers programs that provide much-needed infrastructure or infrastructure improvements to rural communities. These include water and waste treatment, electric power, and telecommunications services. All of these services play a critical role in helping to expand economic opportunities and improve the quality of life for rural residents.

 

USDA Photo by Lance Cheung.

  

A harvest photo for the Vintage Photos Theme Park.

 

Kansas photographer and postcard publisher William H. Martin (1865-1940) used pre-digital photomontage techniques to create amusing real photo postcards like this one that purported to show farmers with giant fruits, vegetable, and grains.

 

Other Martin postcards with harvest scenes include Bringing in the Sheaves, Harvesting Wheat in Missouri, and Pumpkins Grown in Kansas Soil Are Profitable (see below).

 

Corn and other crops also appear in other Martin cards, such as The Land of Big Corn, Good Corn Makes Good Hogs, Our County Fair Contest on Nebraska Corn, and Prosperity (see below),