A complete scan of the October 1948 Popular Mechanics magazine:


http://books.google.com/books?id=H9kDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PP1&dq=%22popular+mechani cs%22+october+1948

Some metalworking articles, and a lot of ads for early tools.


Other issues listed he

http://books.google.com/books?q=%22popular+mechanics%22+october+1948&btnG= Search+Books


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

On Sep 20, 11:46*am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
* A complete scan of the October 1948 Popular Mechanics magazine:

http://books.google.com/books?id=H9kDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PP1&dq=%22popular+me...

* *Some metalworking articles, and a lot of ads for early tools.

Other issues listed he

http://books.google.com/books?q=%22popular+mechanics%22+october+1948&....

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

WTF ?"
I didn't find a first article until page 89 !

"John R. Carroll" wrote:


This is really something.

http://www.laubly.com/1948tucker.htm


I seem to remember reading a book about Tucker many years ago. Can't remember the details
other than I wish he had survived as a firm.

Sure liked that steerable headlight idea though!

Wes

Half-Nutz wrote:
On Sep 20, 11:46 am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
A complete scan of the October 1948 Popular Mechanics magazine:


http://books.google.com/books?id=H9kDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PP1&dq=%22popular+me...

Some metalworking articles, and a lot of ads for early tools.

Other issues listed he


http://books.google.com/books?q=%22popular+mechanics%22+october+1948&...

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

WTF ?"
I didn't find a first article until page 89 !

Lame.

This is really something.

http://www.laubly.com/1948tucker.htm


--
John R. Carroll

John R. Carroll wrote:


This is really something.

http://www.laubly.com/1948tucker.htm




Sweet!

Half-Nutz wrote:

On Sep 20, 11:46 am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
A complete scan of the October 1948 Popular Mechanics magazine:

http://books.google.com/books?id=H9kDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PP1&dq=%22popular+me...

Some metalworking articles, and a lot of ads for early tools.

Other issues listed he

http://books.google.com/books?q=%22popular+mechanics%22+october+1948&...

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

WTF ?"
I didn't find a first article until page 89 !


Did you notice that it was over 300 pages?


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

I seem to remember reading a book about Tucker many years ago. Can't
remember the details other than I wish he had survived as a firm.


In the San Diego Auto Museum they have one of Tucker's developmental engines
on display. A very interesting piece of machinery with few parts, and needs
very few tools. It used a hydraulic stystem for valve operation that was
it's failing point, as they could not find a fluid that would work, until
the Germans developed synthetics during the war. Too late for Tucker. The
helicopter engine was too expensive and too small.
--
Stupendous Man,
Defender of Freedom, Advocate of Liberty

Wes wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:


This is really something.

http://www.laubly.com/1948tucker.htm


I seem to remember reading a book about Tucker many years ago. Can't
remember the details other than I wish he had survived as a firm.

"Wheels", and they made it into a movie.


--
John R. Carroll

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote:


This is really something.

http://www.laubly.com/1948tucker.htm


I seem to remember reading a book about Tucker many years ago. Can't
remember the details
other than I wish he had survived as a firm.

Sure liked that steerable headlight idea though!

Wes

these were an interesting car - I wonder how it compares overall to my 56
porsche - about the same age, both are rear engine - similar top speed too -
my wretchedly underpowered 356 tops out just under 90 unless it's down hill
with a tail wind.... but I can go LA to SF and drive around all weekend on a
tank of gas (that's a ten gallon tank, by the way) so mileage is pretty
good - no steerable headlight on my 356 though

On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 20:15:04 -0700, "Stupendous Man"
wrote:

I seem to remember reading a book about Tucker many years ago. Can't
remember the details other than I wish he had survived as a firm.


In the San Diego Auto Museum they have one of Tucker's developmental engines
on display. A very interesting piece of machinery with few parts, and needs
very few tools. It used a hydraulic stystem for valve operation that was
it's failing point, as they could not find a fluid that would work, until
the Germans developed synthetics during the war. Too late for Tucker. The
helicopter engine was too expensive and too small.


I thought that the Tucker used Franklin engines. In fact, didn't
Tucker actually buy Franklin to guarantee a source of engines?

John R. Carroll wrote:
This is really something.

http://www.laubly.com/1948tucker.htm

How about his “Carioca”:
http://usera.imagecave.com/tuckerfan/tucker_w1.jpg
http://usera.imagecave.com/tuckerfan/tucker_w2.jpg

(from the text of the above link)

Bob

I thought that the Tucker used Franklin engines. In fact, didn't
Tucker actually buy Franklin to guarantee a source of engines?




Yes, his engine wouldn't run for more than a few minutes before the
hydraulic fluid foamed and the valves stopped working.

From http://jalopnik.com/335574/tucker-48

Tucker's original vision called for a rear mounted 589 cubic inch
(9.7-liter) Hemi flat-6 that was to be fuel injected and have overhead
valves operated by hydraulic pressure as opposed to cams. How far ahead of
its time was that? Well, fuel-injection didn't show up in a passenger car
until 8-years later in the form of a Bosch mechanical unit in the 1955 MB
300 SL. While I can't think of a case where oil pressure was used to run
valves (correct me if I'm wrong), oil pressure is used to vary valve
timing. The 589 was so massive that it required a 24-volt electrical system
to get it to crank. However, the monster engine turned out to be a little
too innovative - they couldn't make it work.
What do you do if your name is Preston Tucker and your nearly 10-liter
flat-6 don't work? That's right, you try and cram a Lycoming aircraft
engine into the engine bay. Did I mention the Tucker 48 was rear engined?
Only trouble was, it wouldn't fit. So, you grab an air-cooled helicopter
engine that does. After his engineers converted the 335 cu. in. Franklin
flat-6 to water-cooled, it pumped out a pretty healthy for the day 166 hp
(Tucker had promised 150 hp from his 589 cu. in. beast) and an insane (for
1947) 372 ft-lb of torque. How insane? Under full acceleration, first gear
could rip teeth off the transmission. Just to make sure that no one else
got a crack at the engine, Tucker bought Franklin (which was later sold to
Poland in 1975).

"Bill Noble" wrote:

these were an interesting car - I wonder how it compares overall to my 56
porsche - about the same age, both are rear engine - similar top speed too -
my wretchedly underpowered 356 tops out just under 90 unless it's down hill
with a tail wind.... but I can go LA to SF and drive around all weekend on a
tank of gas (that's a ten gallon tank, by the way) so mileage is pretty
good - no steerable headlight on my 356 though

I looked up a picture of a 356, it isadorable.

Coupe or convertable?

Wes

Wes wrote:
"Bill Noble" wrote:

these were an interesting car - I wonder how it compares overall to my 56
porsche - about the same age, both are rear engine - similar top speed too -
my wretchedly underpowered 356 tops out just under 90 unless it's down hill
with a tail wind.... but I can go LA to SF and drive around all weekend on a
tank of gas (that's a ten gallon tank, by the way) so mileage is pretty
good - no steerable headlight on my 356 though

I looked up a picture of a 356, it isadorable.

Coupe or convertable?

Wes
....or Roadster!

"Jeff" wrote in message
s.com...
Wes wrote:
"Bill Noble" wrote:

these were an interesting car - I wonder how it compares overall to my
56 porsche - about the same age, both are rear engine - similar top
speed too - my wretchedly underpowered 356 tops out just under 90 unless
it's down hill with a tail wind.... but I can go LA to SF and drive
around all weekend on a tank of gas (that's a ten gallon tank, by the
way) so mileage is pretty good - no steerable headlight on my 356 though

I looked up a picture of a 356, it isadorable.

Coupe or convertable?

Wes
...or Roadster!

well, mine is a coupe - I bought it used in pretty sad shape about 1973,
spiffed it up and have had it ever since - but it's now in a place where
it's hard to get out so I haven't driven it since about 1994 or so - it's
smooth and shiny but I need to put new tires on it and fix the fuel system -
the gas in it congealed into basically napalm.... I guess I ought to put a
photo on my web page some day (wbnoble.com) - I have photos of some other
interesting cars of mine, but not that one (click on hobbies)

I looked up a picture of a 356, it isadorable.


I saw a 356 C coupe under restoration at a body shop in San Carlos (San
Francisco bay) friday, the thing had rusted badly and they replace the
floors, a lot of the tunnel, the rockers, the lower door and fender
sections. Way too much rust repair for a California car, it should have been
crushed. I suppose the welds will make it stronger, but the thing will
probably fold up in a collision.

"seat darkening event"

Aviation equivalent is "Pucker Factor"

"He had a starfish embossed on his motorcycle seat."

Stupendous Man wrote:


"seat darkening event"

Aviation equivalent is "Pucker Factor"

"He had a starfish embossed on his motorcycle seat."


OK, you owe me a damned keyboard! (and my boss is casting an eye my way)

RBnDFW wrote:

Stupendous Man wrote:


"seat darkening event"

Aviation equivalent is "Pucker Factor"

"He had a starfish embossed on his motorcycle seat."


OK, you owe me a damned keyboard! (and my boss is casting an eye my way)


Don't step on it! He'll be even madder if you squish his eye! ;-)


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:44:07 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


RBnDFW wrote:

Stupendous Man wrote:


"seat darkening event"

Aviation equivalent is "Pucker Factor"

"He had a starfish embossed on his motorcycle seat."


OK, you owe me a damned keyboard! (and my boss is casting an eye my way)


Don't step on it! He'll be even madder if you squish his eye! ;-)
Give him a sharp image
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada

Gerald Miller wrote:

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:44:07 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


RBnDFW wrote:

Stupendous Man wrote:


"seat darkening event"

Aviation equivalent is "Pucker Factor"

"He had a starfish embossed on his motorcycle seat."


OK, you owe me a damned keyboard! (and my boss is casting an eye my way)


Don't step on it! He'll be even madder if you squish his eye! ;-)
Give him a sharp image


I doubt that a rolling eyeball has much depth of field! ;-)


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 04:15:01 -0400, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Gerald Miller wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:44:07 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
RBnDFW wrote:
Stupendous Man wrote:

"seat darkening event"

Aviation equivalent is "Pucker Factor"

"He had a starfish embossed on his motorcycle seat."

OK, you owe me a damned keyboard! (and my boss is casting an eye my way)

Don't step on it! He'll be even madder if you squish his eye! ;-)
Give him a sharp image

I doubt that a rolling eyeball has much depth of field! ;-)

I pray to differ - if the focus muscles still work, it could have
arbitrary depth of field (like a regular eye) - but the depth _perception_
would be zilch. ;-)

Aughra had one in "The Dark Crystal", but she never threw it; just plucked
it out and put it in the appropriate viewing spot. ;-)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083791/

Cheers!
Rich