|
Ring gearing was Gearbox efficiency while back-driving
Side topic:
I have read that the Wehrmacht's tanks, esp. the later ones that were so large, suffered badly from final drive failures. So much so that a road march of them for any distance would disable say 33%. This helped me better understand Allied anti-railroad tactics...forcing them onto the roads. [They also lacked tank retrievers of enough strength to salvage them....] The failures were because of 2 basic reasons: they lacked sufficient chromium to fully harden the gearing, and the second was my question..... This source (that I now can't find again...) said there was a way to better design/machine the ring gears needed, but Germany lacked the tooling/resources to use that approach, and instead used less strong methods. I inferred the better way needed more time or a better mill but beyond that, I don't know. I'm curious about what that might have meant, and wonder if anyone can speak to gear design issues... -- A host is a host from coast to & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 |
Ring gearing was Gearbox efficiency while back-driving
On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 15:49:25 +0000 (UTC), David Lesher
wrote: Side topic: I have read that the Wehrmacht's tanks, esp. the later ones that were so large, suffered badly from final drive failures. So much so that a road march of them for any distance would disable say 33%. This helped me better understand Allied anti-railroad tactics...forcing them onto the roads. [They also lacked tank retrievers of enough strength to salvage them....] The failures were because of 2 basic reasons: they lacked sufficient chromium to fully harden the gearing, and the second was my question..... This source (that I now can't find again...) said there was a way to better design/machine the ring gears needed, but Germany lacked the tooling/resources to use that approach, and instead used less strong methods. I inferred the better way needed more time or a better mill but beyond that, I don't know. I'm curious about what that might have meant, and wonder if anyone can speak to gear design issues... Only in fragments. If the issue was an internal-tooth ring gear, as for a planetary gearset, that wasn't a milling issue. That was a gear-shaper issue. They also can be broached, but I don't see that as likely during the war, on big gears. Perhaps that's the tooling that Germany lacked. It requires very big pieces of high-quality tool steel, and chromium shortages would be an issue. Germany had some very good gearmaking capability but that of the US was better at that time. Gleason was the world leader in making big, strong gears of several types. BTW, the US had power-transmission issues on some tanks at the time, too. Caterpillar made a big 24-cylinder porcupine diesel engine that was supposed to be the end-all for our largest tanks. But it had so much torque that it twisted off driveshafts like they were swizzle sticks. -- Ed Huntress |
Ring gearing was Gearbox efficiency while back-driving
"David Lesher" wrote in message
... Side topic: I have read that the Wehrmacht's tanks, esp. the later ones that were so large, suffered badly from final drive failures. So much so that a road march of them for any distance would disable say 33%. This helped me better understand Allied anti-railroad tactics...forcing them onto the roads. [They also lacked tank retrievers of enough strength to salvage them....] The failures were because of 2 basic reasons: they lacked sufficient chromium to fully harden the gearing, and the second was my question..... This source (that I now can't find again...) said there was a way to better design/machine the ring gears needed, but Germany lacked the tooling/resources to use that approach, and instead used less strong methods. I inferred the better way needed more time or a better mill but beyond that, I don't know. I'm curious about what that might have meant, and wonder if anyone can speak to gear design issues... I haven't been able to find adequate details of the problem from a military historian / machinist. Supposedly the bombing had purposely targeted the makers of gear hobbers and shapers, along with ball bearings. The stainless tanks and plumbing for the hydrogen peroxide subs consumed most of their chromium and nickel. This may help but I can't check it with dial-up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9NCPthmTsU The Wiki is as good as anything else I've found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank jsw |
Ring gearing was Gearbox efficiency while back-driving
On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 12:05:18 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 15:49:25 +0000 (UTC), David Lesher wrote: Side topic: I have read that the Wehrmacht's tanks, esp. the later ones that were so large, suffered badly from final drive failures. So much so that a road march of them for any distance would disable say 33%. This helped me better understand Allied anti-railroad tactics...forcing them onto the roads. [They also lacked tank retrievers of enough strength to salvage them....] The failures were because of 2 basic reasons: they lacked sufficient chromium to fully harden the gearing, and the second was my question..... This source (that I now can't find again...) said there was a way to better design/machine the ring gears needed, but Germany lacked the tooling/resources to use that approach, and instead used less strong methods. I inferred the better way needed more time or a better mill but beyond that, I don't know. I'm curious about what that might have meant, and wonder if anyone can speak to gear design issues... Only in fragments. If the issue was an internal-tooth ring gear, as for a planetary gearset, that wasn't a milling issue. That was a gear-shaper issue. They also can be broached, but I don't see that as likely during the war, on big gears. Perhaps that's the tooling that Germany lacked. It requires very big pieces of high-quality tool steel, and chromium shortages would be an issue. Germany had some very good gearmaking capability but that of the US was better at that time. Gleason was the world leader in making big, strong gears of several types. BTW, the US had power-transmission issues on some tanks at the time, too. Caterpillar made a big 24-cylinder porcupine diesel engine that was supposed to be the end-all for our largest tanks. But it had so much torque that it twisted off driveshafts like they were swizzle sticks. Steven Ambrose has some interesting comments in "Citizen Soldier" about the Sherman tank. The allied soldiers in Europe reportedly disliked it because it was so wimpy compared to the big German tanks -- but Eisenhower could get three Shermans for every one big US tank (I can't remember what we had), and a Sherman used less gasoline. The thinking was that as soon as the allies broke out in Normandy and started for Berlin that the mobility of the Sherman tanks would outweigh the size difference. It's hard to say who was right, but we did win using those little tanks. -- Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com |
Ring gearing was Gearbox efficiency while back-driving
On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 12:09:24 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote: On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 12:05:18 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote: On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 15:49:25 +0000 (UTC), David Lesher wrote: Side topic: I have read that the Wehrmacht's tanks, esp. the later ones that were so large, suffered badly from final drive failures. So much so that a road march of them for any distance would disable say 33%. This helped me better understand Allied anti-railroad tactics...forcing them onto the roads. [They also lacked tank retrievers of enough strength to salvage them....] The failures were because of 2 basic reasons: they lacked sufficient chromium to fully harden the gearing, and the second was my question..... This source (that I now can't find again...) said there was a way to better design/machine the ring gears needed, but Germany lacked the tooling/resources to use that approach, and instead used less strong methods. I inferred the better way needed more time or a better mill but beyond that, I don't know. I'm curious about what that might have meant, and wonder if anyone can speak to gear design issues... Only in fragments. If the issue was an internal-tooth ring gear, as for a planetary gearset, that wasn't a milling issue. That was a gear-shaper issue. They also can be broached, but I don't see that as likely during the war, on big gears. Perhaps that's the tooling that Germany lacked. It requires very big pieces of high-quality tool steel, and chromium shortages would be an issue. Germany had some very good gearmaking capability but that of the US was better at that time. Gleason was the world leader in making big, strong gears of several types. BTW, the US had power-transmission issues on some tanks at the time, too. Caterpillar made a big 24-cylinder porcupine diesel engine that was supposed to be the end-all for our largest tanks. But it had so much torque that it twisted off driveshafts like they were swizzle sticks. Steven Ambrose has some interesting comments in "Citizen Soldier" about the Sherman tank. The allied soldiers in Europe reportedly disliked it because it was so wimpy compared to the big German tanks -- but Eisenhower could get three Shermans for every one big US tank (I can't remember what we had), and a Sherman used less gasoline. The thinking was that as soon as the allies broke out in Normandy and started for Berlin that the mobility of the Sherman tanks would outweigh the size difference. It's hard to say who was right, but we did win using those little tanks. Yeah, I've always wondered how we shot up Tigers with Shermans. Did the Shermans have the high-velocity 90mm guns, our answer to the German 88s? -- Ed Huntress |
Ring gearing was Gearbox efficiency while back-driving
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
... Yeah, I've always wondered how we shot up Tigers with Shermans. Did the Shermans have the high-velocity 90mm guns, our answer to the German 88s? -- Ed Huntress The Panther and Tiger were susceptible to ambush from the side where the armor was much thinner, though this upgunned British version could penetrate their frontal armor if it managed to shoot first: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Firefly http://www.achtungpanzer.com/michael-wittmann.htm "British Sherman VC "Firefly" armed with 17 pounder gun was capable of penetrating Tiger's armor at range of 800m. " General Hatcher claimed that our bridging equipment wasn't strong enough for the heavy tank we had designed. The Germans retreated across intact bridges and then demolished them. We chose instead to use a gun too large for a turret in the open-topped Tank Destroyer, which required infantry support and didn't suit Blitzkrieg assaults but fit Eisenhower's slow, steady approach. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_destroyer "The weight saved from the lack of a turret could allow more armour to be fitted, and the lower profile allowed this armour to be concentrated in the hull." "In part because of the effectiveness of US TD tactics, no German campaign against the US ever achieved its objectives, nor did any TD unit lose more vehicles than its German opponent." The Bulge area was defended by a thin screen of infantry since we considered it poor tank country. jsw |
Ring gearing was Gearbox efficiency while back-driving
On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 13:47:32 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message .. . Yeah, I've always wondered how we shot up Tigers with Shermans. Did the Shermans have the high-velocity 90mm guns, our answer to the German 88s? -- Ed Huntress The Panther and Tiger were susceptible to ambush from the side where the armor was much thinner, though this upgunned British version could penetrate their frontal armor if it managed to shoot first: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Firefly http://www.achtungpanzer.com/michael-wittmann.htm "British Sherman VC "Firefly" armed with 17 pounder gun was capable of penetrating Tiger's armor at range of 800m. " General Hatcher claimed that our bridging equipment wasn't strong enough for the heavy tank we had designed. The Germans retreated across intact bridges and then demolished them. We chose instead to use a gun too large for a turret in the open-topped Tank Destroyer, which required infantry support and didn't suit Blitzkrieg assaults but fit Eisenhower's slow, steady approach. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_destroyer "The weight saved from the lack of a turret could allow more armour to be fitted, and the lower profile allowed this armour to be concentrated in the hull." "In part because of the effectiveness of US TD tactics, no German campaign against the US ever achieved its objectives, nor did any TD unit lose more vehicles than its German opponent." The Bulge area was defended by a thin screen of infantry since we considered it poor tank country. jsw Very interesting. Thanks. -- Ed Huntress |
Ring gearing was Gearbox efficiency while back-driving
On 2013-08-02, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 15:49:25 +0000 (UTC), David Lesher wrote: Side topic: I have read that the Wehrmacht's tanks, esp. the later ones that were so large, suffered badly from final drive failures. So much so that a road march of them for any distance would disable say 33%. This helped me better understand Allied anti-railroad tactics...forcing them onto the roads. [They also lacked tank retrievers of enough strength to salvage them....] The failures were because of 2 basic reasons: they lacked sufficient chromium to fully harden the gearing, and the second was my question..... This source (that I now can't find again...) said there was a way to better design/machine the ring gears needed, but Germany lacked the tooling/resources to use that approach, and instead used less strong methods. I inferred the better way needed more time or a better mill but beyond that, I don't know. I'm curious about what that might have meant, and wonder if anyone can speak to gear design issues... Only in fragments. If the issue was an internal-tooth ring gear, as for a planetary gearset, that wasn't a milling issue. That was a gear-shaper issue. They also can be broached, but I don't see that as likely during the war, on big gears. Perhaps that's the tooling that Germany lacked. It requires very big pieces of high-quality tool steel, and chromium shortages would be an issue. Germany had some very good gearmaking capability but that of the US was better at that time. Gleason was the world leader in making big, strong gears of several types. BTW, the US had power-transmission issues on some tanks at the time, too. Caterpillar made a big 24-cylinder porcupine diesel engine that was supposed to be the end-all for our largest tanks. But it had so much torque that it twisted off driveshafts like they were swizzle sticks. Everything is a problem with tanks, because they are so heavy, and yet required to go very fast, off road, and turn on a dime. The large tanks of Hitler were more of a liability, than an asset, they could only be transported with great difficulty, could not go over most bridges, and as you mentioned, could not easily be retrieved. They were more of a Hitler's play toy than a way to win the war. i |
Ring gearing was Gearbox efficiency while back-driving
"Jim Wilkins" writes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_destroyer "The weight saved from the lack of a turret could allow more armour to be fitted, and the lower profile allowed this armour to be concentrated in the hull." The tank destroyer story I liked {and feared} was when Patton was trying to relieve Bastogne; he sent several M18 Hellcats at top speed to attack the German rear and create confusion. A Hellcat, powered by a 9 cyc. 450HP radial aircraft engine, could do 60 MPH full out and these did just that. Imagine those 40,000 lbs going 60 mph up a narrow road.... -- A host is a host from coast to & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 |
Ring gearing was Gearbox efficiency while back-driving
David Lesher wrote: "Jim Wilkins" writes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_destroyer "The weight saved from the lack of a turret could allow more armour to be fitted, and the lower profile allowed this armour to be concentrated in the hull." The tank destroyer story I liked {and feared} was when Patton was trying to relieve Bastogne; he sent several M18 Hellcats at top speed to attack the German rear and create confusion. A Hellcat, powered by a 9 cyc. 450HP radial aircraft engine, could do 60 MPH full out and these did just that. Imagine those 40,000 lbs going 60 mph up a narrow road.... The image of a group of angry Tasmanian Devils popped into my head. I loved those stupid cartoons. :) -- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge. |
Ring gearing was Gearbox efficiency while back-driving
"David Lesher" wrote in message
... A Hellcat, powered by a 9 cyc. 450HP radial aircraft engine, could do 60 MPH full out and these did just that. Imagine those 40,000 lbs going 60 mph up a narrow road.... This 15,000 lbs at 30-40MPH was about all I could handle on narrow, winding Bavarian back roads, the Ultimate Driving Machine's native habitat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:M-...p_Van_pic1.JPG The Romans built straighter, wider roads for foot and wagon traffic. One road across an open field meandered in sync with a stream a few hundred meters away, as if following an ancient land boundary. They were fun in a Jeep or my VW, though once a convoy of British APCs forced me to dart into the wood when we met in a corner. Coming down a twisty mountain road as passenger in a heavily loaded 5-ton I watched the tach hit 5000 RPM, twice the redline. I suppose the engine can survive whatever full scale on the tach is, right? jsw |
Ring gearing was Gearbox efficiency while back-driving
On 2013-08-03, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"David Lesher" wrote in message ... A Hellcat, powered by a 9 cyc. 450HP radial aircraft engine, could do 60 MPH full out and these did just that. Imagine those 40,000 lbs going 60 mph up a narrow road.... This 15,000 lbs at 30-40MPH was about all I could handle on narrow, winding Bavarian back roads, the Ultimate Driving Machine's native habitat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:M-...p_Van_pic1.JPG The Romans built straighter, wider roads for foot and wagon traffic. One road across an open field meandered in sync with a stream a few hundred meters away, as if following an ancient land boundary. They were fun in a Jeep or my VW, though once a convoy of British APCs forced me to dart into the wood when we met in a corner. Coming down a twisty mountain road as passenger in a heavily loaded 5-ton I watched the tach hit 5000 RPM, twice the redline. I suppose the engine can survive whatever full scale on the tach is, right? jsw Not if it is Cummins NHC-250 |
Ring gearing was Gearbox efficiency while back-driving
"Jim Wilkins" on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 08:13:42 -0400
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following: "David Lesher" wrote in message ... A Hellcat, powered by a 9 cyc. 450HP radial aircraft engine, could do 60 MPH full out and these did just that. Imagine those 40,000 lbs going 60 mph up a narrow road.... This 15,000 lbs at 30-40MPH was about all I could handle on narrow, winding Bavarian back roads, the Ultimate Driving Machine's native habitat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:M-...p_Van_pic1.JPG The Romans built straighter, wider roads for foot and wagon traffic. One road across an open field meandered in sync with a stream a few hundred meters away, as if following an ancient land boundary. They were fun in a Jeep or my VW, though once a convoy of British APCs forced me to dart into the wood when we met in a corner. Coming down a twisty mountain road as passenger in a heavily loaded 5-ton I watched the tach hit 5000 RPM, twice the redline. I suppose the engine can survive whatever full scale on the tach is, right? jsw Depends. One thing if you are using the engine as a large air-compressor "brake, another thing if you are trying to get power out of it at that RPM. Your Mileage (engine hours) will vary -- pyotr filipivich "With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone." |
Ring gearing was Gearbox efficiency while back-driving
On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 11:28:44 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote: "Jim Wilkins" on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 08:13:42 -0400 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following: "David Lesher" wrote in message ... A Hellcat, powered by a 9 cyc. 450HP radial aircraft engine, could do 60 MPH full out and these did just that. Imagine those 40,000 lbs going 60 mph up a narrow road.... This 15,000 lbs at 30-40MPH was about all I could handle on narrow, winding Bavarian back roads, the Ultimate Driving Machine's native habitat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:M-...p_Van_pic1.JPG The Romans built straighter, wider roads for foot and wagon traffic. One road across an open field meandered in sync with a stream a few hundred meters away, as if following an ancient land boundary. They were fun in a Jeep or my VW, though once a convoy of British APCs forced me to dart into the wood when we met in a corner. Coming down a twisty mountain road as passenger in a heavily loaded 5-ton I watched the tach hit 5000 RPM, twice the redline. I suppose the engine can survive whatever full scale on the tach is, right? jsw Depends. One thing if you are using the engine as a large air-compressor "brake, another thing if you are trying to get power out of it at that RPM. Your Mileage (engine hours) will vary Not much difference. Limits on rpm are mostly a matter of mechanical accelerations -- piston accelerations, valve accelerations, accelerative force vectors on rotating parts -- not of force applied to pistons from combustion. -- Ed Huntress -- pyotr filipivich "With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone." |
Ring gearing was Gearbox efficiency while back-driving
In article , Ed Huntress
writes On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 11:28:44 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote: "Jim Wilkins" on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 08:13:42 -0400 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following: "David Lesher" wrote in message ... A Hellcat, powered by a 9 cyc. 450HP radial aircraft engine, could do 60 MPH full out and these did just that. Imagine those 40,000 lbs going 60 mph up a narrow road.... This 15,000 lbs at 30-40MPH was about all I could handle on narrow, winding Bavarian back roads, the Ultimate Driving Machine's native habitat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:M-...p_Van_pic1.JPG The Romans built straighter, wider roads for foot and wagon traffic. One road across an open field meandered in sync with a stream a few hundred meters away, as if following an ancient land boundary. They were fun in a Jeep or my VW, though once a convoy of British APCs forced me to dart into the wood when we met in a corner. Coming down a twisty mountain road as passenger in a heavily loaded 5-ton I watched the tach hit 5000 RPM, twice the redline. I suppose the engine can survive whatever full scale on the tach is, right? jsw Depends. One thing if you are using the engine as a large air-compressor "brake, another thing if you are trying to get power out of it at that RPM. Your Mileage (engine hours) will vary Not much difference. Limits on rpm are mostly a matter of mechanical accelerations -- piston accelerations, valve accelerations, accelerative force vectors on rotating parts -- not of force applied to pistons from combustion. Isn't there a risk of flywheels bursting at extreme overspeed? ISTR hearing of British tank transporter vehicles having this problem if the brakes failed going down a steep hill. -- Chris Holford |
Ring gearing was Gearbox efficiency while back-driving
On Sat, 3 Aug 2013 23:25:49 +0100, Chris Holford
wrote: In article , Ed Huntress writes On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 11:28:44 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote: "Jim Wilkins" on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 08:13:42 -0400 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following: "David Lesher" wrote in message ... A Hellcat, powered by a 9 cyc. 450HP radial aircraft engine, could do 60 MPH full out and these did just that. Imagine those 40,000 lbs going 60 mph up a narrow road.... This 15,000 lbs at 30-40MPH was about all I could handle on narrow, winding Bavarian back roads, the Ultimate Driving Machine's native habitat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:M-...p_Van_pic1.JPG The Romans built straighter, wider roads for foot and wagon traffic. One road across an open field meandered in sync with a stream a few hundred meters away, as if following an ancient land boundary. They were fun in a Jeep or my VW, though once a convoy of British APCs forced me to dart into the wood when we met in a corner. Coming down a twisty mountain road as passenger in a heavily loaded 5-ton I watched the tach hit 5000 RPM, twice the redline. I suppose the engine can survive whatever full scale on the tach is, right? jsw Depends. One thing if you are using the engine as a large air-compressor "brake, another thing if you are trying to get power out of it at that RPM. Your Mileage (engine hours) will vary Not much difference. Limits on rpm are mostly a matter of mechanical accelerations -- piston accelerations, valve accelerations, accelerative force vectors on rotating parts -- not of force applied to pistons from combustion. Isn't there a risk of flywheels bursting at extreme overspeed? Yes. That's what I meant by my arch description, "accelerative force vectors on rotating parts." I didn't want to risk the wrath of the obsessives by mentioning "centrifugal force." g ISTR hearing of British tank transporter vehicles having this problem if the brakes failed going down a steep hill. Flywheels can blow up. Drag racers used to blow them up with some regularity. Covering them with a protective shield was an early use for Kevlar. A lot of guys were relieved when they moved engines to the rear, where the flywheel and the ring-and-pinion were well clear of their testicles. d8-) -- Ed Huntress |
Ring gearing was Gearbox efficiency while back-driving
"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
... "Jim Wilkins" on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 08:13:42 -0400 Coming down a twisty mountain road as passenger in a heavily loaded 5-ton I watched the tach hit 5000 RPM, twice the redline. I suppose the engine can survive whatever full scale on the tach is, right? jsw Depends. One thing if you are using the engine as a large air-compressor "brake, another thing if you are trying to get power out of it at that RPM. Your Mileage (engine hours) will vary pyotr filipivich No matter, we had a rich Uncle who would pay for what we broke, usually without asking questions. jsw |
Ring gearing was Gearbox efficiency while back-driving
"Jim Wilkins" on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 19:33:28 -0400
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following: "pyotr filipivich" wrote in message .. . "Jim Wilkins" on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 08:13:42 -0400 Coming down a twisty mountain road as passenger in a heavily loaded 5-ton I watched the tach hit 5000 RPM, twice the redline. I suppose the engine can survive whatever full scale on the tach is, right? jsw Depends. One thing if you are using the engine as a large air-compressor "brake, another thing if you are trying to get power out of it at that RPM. Your Mileage (engine hours) will vary pyotr filipivich No matter, we had a rich Uncle who would pay for what we broke, usually without asking questions. jsw There is that. Not to mention buying the AV gas for your plane (but that is a more .. specialized group, those active members of Uncle Sam's Flying Club.) -- pyotr filipivich "With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone." |
Ring gearing was Gearbox efficiency while back-driving
"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
... "Jim Wilkins" on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 19:33:28 -0400 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following: No matter, we had a rich Uncle who would pay for what we broke, usually without asking questions. jsw There is that. Not to mention buying the AV gas for your plane (but that is a more .. specialized group, those active members of Uncle Sam's Flying Club.) pyotr filipivich What really impressed me was that they would provide a Captain pilot to transport a Sergeant.repair tech. What didn't impress me the same way was the second-tour pilot's demo of how to unexpectedly drop like a rock into a hot LZ in Nam. Excuse me, Sir, but aren't the helicopter's blades supposed to be in the blue instead of the green direction? jsw |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:56 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter