Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #81   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 07:54:45 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"John B. Slocomb" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:02:12 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Did "Navy Yards" build ships? I thought that all navy vessels were
built under contract. Portsmouth Navy Yard, in New Hampshire didn't
built ships but did do maintenance. The U.S. Army Arsenals may have
made small arms but certainly never in the necessary quantities to
support a war. Or, at least in every war since the Revolution the
Army
has obtained small arms from outside sources.
--
Cheers,
John B.


The Portsmouth Navy Yard most certainly DID build submarines until
1969, in 1958 I watched the Growler slide out of the construction shed
and into the river, drenching us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portsmouth_Naval_Shipyard
Afterwards I toured a Diesel boat and decided not to join the Navy.
Now they only refurbish them at dockside. On their 200th anniversary
Open House I walked through the boomer USS Maine.


Yes, a while after I wrote that reply I remembered a fellow I talked
to about welding and he was telling me about when he worked on
submarines and the Union used to take them out on strike at,
Portsmouth. I was going to correct my message but you were too fast
for me.

The Army made service rifles at the Springfield Armory until McNamara
closed it.
http://www.nps.gov/spar/index.htm


The government armories weren't large enough to quickly supply an
all-out war because officially our peacetime policies prevented the
next one.

-jsw


Certainly, exactly as I said.
--
Cheers,

John B.

  #82   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 05:53:05 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:57:03 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:02:12 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. Slocomb on Wed, 27 Aug 2014 08:31:17
I don't know that the Military ever "made their own stuff" :-)

Once upon a time, there were Army Arsenals, and Navy Yards, where
the work got done.


Indeed there were.

It was not all contractors and bids and slush funds


Didn't they use soldiers and sailors to build those, keeping the
troops in shape and busy during times we were not at war? Take the
labor fees away from building a ship and it gets a whole lot cheaper.


What do you think it costs to train soldiers and sailors? If I
remember correctly when I was in the Service the A.F. calculated that
if they got one year's actual use out of guys in some of the technical
career fields that they were doing good, which is one of the reasons
that they had rather elaborate re-enlistment programs. And the cost of
the support system, housing, food, laundry, medical care, retirement,
etc.
--
Cheers,

John B.

  #83   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 10:58:32 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 10:53:02 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 05:53:05 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:57:03 -0700, Gunner Asch

wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:02:12 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. Slocomb on Wed, 27 Aug 2014
08:31:17
I don't know that the Military ever "made their own stuff" :-)

Once upon a time, there were Army Arsenals, and Navy Yards, where
the work got done.

Indeed there were.

It was not all contractors and bids and slush funds

Didn't they use soldiers and sailors to build those, keeping the
troops in shape and busy during times we were not at war? Take the
labor fees away from building a ship and it gets a whole lot
cheaper.

I didn't realize you were such a fan of socialism, Larry. In fact,
you're really nudging toward communism there.

But that isn't the way it was. My grandfather was a civilian panel
carver at the Portsmouth Navy Yard, carving the mahogany filagree
around the hatches of officers' quarters on submarines during WWI.
Those were civilian workers.

--
Ed Huntress


Skippers' memoirs mention the assigned crew helping complete the
construction work on new submarines, but they don't say how much of
that doubled as hands-on training to repair the machinery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plankowner

-jsw


The Navy Yard was a major civilian employer in Portsmouth. And, of
course, the Bath Iron Works, which built hundreds of Navy ships, was
the big employer in Bath, ME.


But Bath was a civilian company, wasn't it?
--
Cheers,

John B.

  #84   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 07:07:19 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 10:58:32 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 10:53:02 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 05:53:05 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:57:03 -0700, Gunner Asch

wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:02:12 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. Slocomb on Wed, 27 Aug 2014
08:31:17
I don't know that the Military ever "made their own stuff" :-)

Once upon a time, there were Army Arsenals, and Navy Yards, where
the work got done.

Indeed there were.

It was not all contractors and bids and slush funds

Didn't they use soldiers and sailors to build those, keeping the
troops in shape and busy during times we were not at war? Take the
labor fees away from building a ship and it gets a whole lot
cheaper.

I didn't realize you were such a fan of socialism, Larry. In fact,
you're really nudging toward communism there.

But that isn't the way it was. My grandfather was a civilian panel
carver at the Portsmouth Navy Yard, carving the mahogany filagree
around the hatches of officers' quarters on submarines during WWI.
Those were civilian workers.

--
Ed Huntress

Skippers' memoirs mention the assigned crew helping complete the
construction work on new submarines, but they don't say how much of
that doubled as hands-on training to repair the machinery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plankowner

-jsw


The Navy Yard was a major civilian employer in Portsmouth. And, of
course, the Bath Iron Works, which built hundreds of Navy ships, was
the big employer in Bath, ME.


But Bath was a civilian company, wasn't it?


Yes, and that's part of the point. It's a civilian operation using
civilians to build military equipment.

Most of the above responds to the statement "Once upon a time, there
were Army Arsenals, and Navy Yards, where the work got done."

--
Ed Huntress
  #85   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,888
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 07:07:19 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:


But Bath was a civilian company, wasn't it?


Yes, and that's part of the point. It's a civilian operation using
civilians to build military equipment.

Most of the above responds to the statement "Once upon a time, there
were Army Arsenals, and Navy Yards, where the work got done."

--
Ed Huntress


The "up or out" policy is a primary reason why the military can't
maintain the highly skilled technical workforce to operate an armory:
http://www.g2mil.com/let.htm
"This produces a paranoid officer corps skilled at avoiding blame and
evading problems as they focus their attention on the limited number
chairs for when the music stops and selection board convenes."

-jsw




  #86   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,888
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'


"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 07:07:19 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:


But Bath was a civilian company, wasn't it?


Yes, and that's part of the point. It's a civilian operation using
civilians to build military equipment.

Most of the above responds to the statement "Once upon a time,
there
were Army Arsenals, and Navy Yards, where the work got done."

--
Ed Huntress


The "up or out" policy is a primary reason why the military can't
maintain the highly skilled technical workforce to operate an
armory:
http://www.g2mil.com/let.htm
"This produces a paranoid officer corps skilled at avoiding blame
and evading problems as they focus their attention on the limited
number chairs for when the music stops and selection board
convenes."

-jsw


A corollary problem was that the career demand to rotate through
command positions meant that officers temporarily assigned to
procurement (buying stuff) slots were novices in the extreme legal and
technical complexity of writing government contracts and evaluating
contractors' bids, and the probability that they could deliver.

I had to keep my RFQs and purchase orders below $5000 to avoid
humongous scrutiny and red tape.

Mitre assisted them on the more technically complex projects, as did
this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense...ion_University
"... for providing the Department of Defense Acquisition, Technology
and Logistics workforce with a professional career path..."

as opposed to having to leave acquisition and command troops to
qualify for promotion.



  #87   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 755
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On 8/27/2014 3:57 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:

Once upon a time, there were Army Arsenals, and Navy Yards, where
the work got done.


Indeed there were.

It was not all contractors and bids and slush funds


OTOH, we had Springfield Arsenal pushing their own designs when there
were better ones available. The trapdoor Springfield was a scandal long
before the Litle Big Horn, the Krag was redesigned and ended up a weaker
action with an inferior round to the Norwegian original, and the only
thing new and good about the M1903 was the introduction of the 30'06
round. We would have been better off licensing the M98 Mauser.

The Garand was finally a rifle for the next war instead of the last one,
but they still hadn't worked out the bugs by 1940 and it was never an
easy rifle to build. Which is why we built a lot of M1 carbines, easy to
make for a lot of manufacturers and to carry by those who weren't
primarily riflemen.

Then we got the M14, which Congress approved after Springfield lied
about being able to reuse Garand tooling to save costs. And that put us
back to using a rifle for the last war, not the next one.

I won't address the MANY issues of the M16 and its inadequate descendents...

David



  #88   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,888
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

"David R. Birch" wrote in message
...
On 8/27/2014 3:57 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:

Once upon a time, there were Army Arsenals, and Navy Yards, where
the work got done.


Indeed there were.

It was not all contractors and bids and slush funds


OTOH, we had Springfield Arsenal pushing their own designs when
there were better ones available. The trapdoor Springfield was a
scandal long before the Litle Big Horn, the Krag was redesigned and
ended up a weaker action with an inferior round to the Norwegian
original, and the only thing new and good about the M1903 was the
introduction of the 30'06 round. We would have been better off
licensing the M98 Mauser.

The Garand was finally a rifle for the next war instead of the last
one, but they still hadn't worked out the bugs by 1940 and it was
never an easy rifle to build. Which is why we built a lot of M1
carbines, easy to make for a lot of manufacturers and to carry by
those who weren't primarily riflemen.

Then we got the M14, which Congress approved after Springfield lied
about being able to reuse Garand tooling to save costs. And that put
us back to using a rifle for the last war, not the next one.

I won't address the MANY issues of the M16 and its inadequate
descendents...

David


Did you get that from "Misfire"? Hallahan's technical understanding is
lacking, to be generous. He printed all the dirt he could dig up
without sifting it, for an uncritical scandal-seeking audience.
-jsw


  #89   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,355
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

John B. Slocomb on Wed, 27 Aug 2014 17:57:11
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:02:12 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. Slocomb on Wed, 27 Aug 2014 08:31:17
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Yup. The illustrious McNamara. And General Dynamics was a Texas
company :-)

But, I'm not sure how much blame actually should be attributed to
McNamara personally, other than of course he was the captain of the
ship and thus responsible for everything that happened. The lying,
cheating, back-biting and stealing that went on there between the
various branches of the military and governmental and non-governmental
organizations was amazing.


The Air Force's number one enemy was the Navy Aviation. The
commies came in after the number two enemy - Army Aviation.


If you were referring to Vietnam I can't even remember the Navy's A.F.


I'm not talking about the SE Asia War games (big grin). No, I'm
referring to the ever so more important conflict, the existential
battle for survival, waged in the corridors of the Pentagon and
Congress. The battle for survival which is in the drafting of the
Appropriation Bill.

being mentioned when I was there, but there was considerable friction
with the Army over the helicopters. Apparently there was some sort of
agreement that the Army was supposed to be the only force with armed
helicopters and when we built a couple with miniguns the Army
complained to MACV. The A.F. argued that they were for "Base Defense"
and got to keep them.


After the Army Air Force became the US Air Force, the decision was
made that basically, if it had wings, it belonged to the Air Force.
Helicopters were seen as a way around that restriction, and now drones
....
The Warthog was designed from as a support platform for the Vulcan
chain gun. Simple, rugged, and it did the job.

On the general subject, I recall what General Curry said: 'the
best is the enemy of the good'. In his case, it was a better tank in
five years, verse the good enough tanks he needed now. Yeah, it would
be nice to have the Wonder Weapon, but we need something "now". That
ol' cliche about you go to war with the army you have, not the army
you wish you had.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."
  #90   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 20:28:46 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 07:07:19 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 10:58:32 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 10:53:02 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 05:53:05 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:57:03 -0700, Gunner Asch

wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:02:12 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. Slocomb on Wed, 27 Aug 2014
08:31:17
I don't know that the Military ever "made their own stuff" :-)

Once upon a time, there were Army Arsenals, and Navy Yards, where
the work got done.

Indeed there were.

It was not all contractors and bids and slush funds

Didn't they use soldiers and sailors to build those, keeping the
troops in shape and busy during times we were not at war? Take the
labor fees away from building a ship and it gets a whole lot
cheaper.

I didn't realize you were such a fan of socialism, Larry. In fact,
you're really nudging toward communism there.

But that isn't the way it was. My grandfather was a civilian panel
carver at the Portsmouth Navy Yard, carving the mahogany filagree
around the hatches of officers' quarters on submarines during WWI.
Those were civilian workers.

--
Ed Huntress

Skippers' memoirs mention the assigned crew helping complete the
construction work on new submarines, but they don't say how much of
that doubled as hands-on training to repair the machinery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plankowner

-jsw


The Navy Yard was a major civilian employer in Portsmouth. And, of
course, the Bath Iron Works, which built hundreds of Navy ships, was
the big employer in Bath, ME.


But Bath was a civilian company, wasn't it?


Yes, and that's part of the point. It's a civilian operation using
civilians to build military equipment.

Most of the above responds to the statement "Once upon a time, there
were Army Arsenals, and Navy Yards, where the work got done."


A great deal of the military's support activity is civilian. Edwards
AFB, the flight test center, is very largely civilian. When I was
there the metal working shops were all civilian and it appeared to be
the same in all the shops.

I believe that Springfield Armory, that someone mentioned was largely
civilian.
--
Cheers,

John B.



  #91   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 02:47:17 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. Slocomb on Wed, 27 Aug 2014 17:57:11
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:02:12 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. Slocomb on Wed, 27 Aug 2014 08:31:17
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Yup. The illustrious McNamara. And General Dynamics was a Texas
company :-)

But, I'm not sure how much blame actually should be attributed to
McNamara personally, other than of course he was the captain of the
ship and thus responsible for everything that happened. The lying,
cheating, back-biting and stealing that went on there between the
various branches of the military and governmental and non-governmental
organizations was amazing.

The Air Force's number one enemy was the Navy Aviation. The
commies came in after the number two enemy - Army Aviation.


If you were referring to Vietnam I can't even remember the Navy's A.F.


I'm not talking about the SE Asia War games (big grin). No, I'm
referring to the ever so more important conflict, the existential
battle for survival, waged in the corridors of the Pentagon and
Congress. The battle for survival which is in the drafting of the
Appropriation Bill.


A great deal of very fast and fancy footwork goes on at that level :-)
But you are right. Using a cheap airplane to sink an expensive battle
ship was really dirty pool :-)

being mentioned when I was there, but there was considerable friction
with the Army over the helicopters. Apparently there was some sort of
agreement that the Army was supposed to be the only force with armed
helicopters and when we built a couple with miniguns the Army
complained to MACV. The A.F. argued that they were for "Base Defense"
and got to keep them.


After the Army Air Force became the US Air Force, the decision was
made that basically, if it had wings, it belonged to the Air Force.
Helicopters were seen as a way around that restriction, and now drones
...


Not to mention the battles between the rocket shooters and the big
bomber boys :-)

The Warthog was designed from as a support platform for the Vulcan
chain gun. Simple, rugged, and it did the job.

On the general subject, I recall what General Curry said: 'the
best is the enemy of the good'. In his case, it was a better tank in
five years, verse the good enough tanks he needed now. Yeah, it would
be nice to have the Wonder Weapon, but we need something "now". That
ol' cliche about you go to war with the army you have, not the army
you wish you had.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

--
Cheers,

John B.

  #92   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 755
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On 8/27/2014 8:37 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"David R. Birch" wrote in message
...
On 8/27/2014 3:57 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:

Once upon a time, there were Army Arsenals, and Navy Yards, where
the work got done.

Indeed there were.

It was not all contractors and bids and slush funds


OTOH, we had Springfield Arsenal pushing their own designs when
there were better ones available. The trapdoor Springfield was a
scandal long before the Litle Big Horn, the Krag was redesigned and
ended up a weaker action with an inferior round to the Norwegian
original, and the only thing new and good about the M1903 was the
introduction of the 30'06 round. We would have been better off
licensing the M98 Mauser.

The Garand was finally a rifle for the next war instead of the last
one, but they still hadn't worked out the bugs by 1940 and it was
never an easy rifle to build. Which is why we built a lot of M1
carbines, easy to make for a lot of manufacturers and to carry by
those who weren't primarily riflemen.

Then we got the M14, which Congress approved after Springfield lied
about being able to reuse Garand tooling to save costs. And that put
us back to using a rifle for the last war, not the next one.

I won't address the MANY issues of the M16 and its inadequate
descendents...

David


Did you get that from "Misfire"? Hallahan's technical understanding is
lacking, to be generous. He printed all the dirt he could dig up
without sifting it, for an uncritical scandal-seeking audience.
-jsw


I haven't read that book, I just pay attention.

David

  #93   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,355
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

John B. Slocomb on Thu, 28 Aug 2014 07:07:19
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 05:53:05 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:57:03 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:02:12 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. Slocomb on Wed, 27 Aug 2014 08:31:17
I don't know that the Military ever "made their own stuff" :-)

Once upon a time, there were Army Arsenals, and Navy Yards, where
the work got done.

Indeed there were.

It was not all contractors and bids and slush funds


Didn't they use soldiers and sailors to build those, keeping the
troops in shape and busy during times we were not at war? Take the
labor fees away from building a ship and it gets a whole lot cheaper.


What do you think it costs to train soldiers and sailors? If I
remember correctly when I was in the Service the A.F. calculated that
if they got one year's actual use out of guys in some of the technical
career fields that they were doing good, which is one of the reasons
that they had rather elaborate re-enlistment programs. And the cost of
the support system, housing, food, laundry, medical care, retirement,
etc.


that's today. "Back then..." (when ever "back then" was) - I do
not know enough to say definitively.

However, that said, what I'm understanding is that back in the day
(usually of Wooden Ships and Iron Men) - the navy had yards where the
Navy had ships built, outfitted and overhauled. It was Navy
paymasters in charge. There may have been _civilian_ workers, but
they worked for the Navy.

I understand as well, that a lot of the Roman Roads were ...
occupational deployments of the Legion to keep them busy and out of
trouble. The Roman Road was in many senses a wall laying on the on
the ground.


--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."
  #94   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,355
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

John B. Slocomb on Thu, 28 Aug 2014 18:13:41
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 02:47:17 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. Slocomb on Wed, 27 Aug 2014 17:57:11
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:02:12 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. Slocomb on Wed, 27 Aug 2014 08:31:17
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Yup. The illustrious McNamara. And General Dynamics was a Texas
company :-)

But, I'm not sure how much blame actually should be attributed to
McNamara personally, other than of course he was the captain of the
ship and thus responsible for everything that happened. The lying,
cheating, back-biting and stealing that went on there between the
various branches of the military and governmental and non-governmental
organizations was amazing.

The Air Force's number one enemy was the Navy Aviation. The
commies came in after the number two enemy - Army Aviation.

If you were referring to Vietnam I can't even remember the Navy's A.F.


I'm not talking about the SE Asia War games (big grin). No, I'm
referring to the ever so more important conflict, the existential
battle for survival, waged in the corridors of the Pentagon and
Congress. The battle for survival which is in the drafting of the
Appropriation Bill.


A great deal of very fast and fancy footwork goes on at that level :-)
But you are right. Using a cheap airplane to sink an expensive battle
ship was really dirty pool :-)


Or worse - not having a program ready to go, and having to buy a
_Navy_ designed airplane.

being mentioned when I was there, but there was considerable friction
with the Army over the helicopters. Apparently there was some sort of
agreement that the Army was supposed to be the only force with armed
helicopters and when we built a couple with miniguns the Army
complained to MACV. The A.F. argued that they were for "Base Defense"
and got to keep them.


After the Army Air Force became the US Air Force, the decision was
made that basically, if it had wings, it belonged to the Air Force.
Helicopters were seen as a way around that restriction, and now drones
...


Not to mention the battles between the rocket shooters and the big
bomber boys :-)


A replay of the Battle Ship Admirals ...
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."
  #95   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,888
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
news
John B. Slocomb on Thu, 28 Aug 2014 07:07:19
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 05:53:05 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:57:03 -0700, Gunner Asch

wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:02:12 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:
John B. Slocomb on Wed, 27 Aug 2014
08:31:17


I understand as well, that a lot of the Roman Roads were ...
occupational deployments of the Legion to keep them busy and out of
trouble. The Roman Road was in many senses a wall laying on the on
the ground.
--
pyotr filipivich


During WW1 British Army practice was to rotate troops between guarding
the trenches and support or construction duty behind them. Much of the
duty was digging, including laying turf-covered hidden railroad tracks
that allowed heavy guns to be brought up and fired from positions
unknown to enemy artillery plotters at night and then moved back to
safety before dawn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_duty
-jsw




  #96   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 22:18:59 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. Slocomb on Thu, 28 Aug 2014 07:07:19
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 05:53:05 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:57:03 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:02:12 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. Slocomb on Wed, 27 Aug 2014 08:31:17
I don't know that the Military ever "made their own stuff" :-)

Once upon a time, there were Army Arsenals, and Navy Yards, where
the work got done.

Indeed there were.

It was not all contractors and bids and slush funds

Didn't they use soldiers and sailors to build those, keeping the
troops in shape and busy during times we were not at war? Take the
labor fees away from building a ship and it gets a whole lot cheaper.


What do you think it costs to train soldiers and sailors? If I
remember correctly when I was in the Service the A.F. calculated that
if they got one year's actual use out of guys in some of the technical
career fields that they were doing good, which is one of the reasons
that they had rather elaborate re-enlistment programs. And the cost of
the support system, housing, food, laundry, medical care, retirement,
etc.


that's today. "Back then..." (when ever "back then" was) - I do
not know enough to say definitively.

However, that said, what I'm understanding is that back in the day
(usually of Wooden Ships and Iron Men) - the navy had yards where the
Navy had ships built, outfitted and overhauled. It was Navy
paymasters in charge. There may have been _civilian_ workers, but
they worked for the Navy.


From what I've seen of civilians working for the Government I'd guess
that a straight out cost plus contract with a civilian yard would be
cheaper :-)

I understand as well, that a lot of the Roman Roads were ...
occupational deployments of the Legion to keep them busy and out of
trouble. The Roman Road was in many senses a wall laying on the on
the ground.


I believe that you are correct, but road building must have been part
of almost any Roman campaign, particularly outside Italy as with no
roads it is very difficult to move large numbers of men and supplies.



--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

--
Cheers,

John B.

  #97   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 22:18:59 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. Slocomb on Thu, 28 Aug 2014 18:13:41
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 02:47:17 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. Slocomb on Wed, 27 Aug 2014 17:57:11
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:02:12 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. Slocomb on Wed, 27 Aug 2014 08:31:17
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Yup. The illustrious McNamara. And General Dynamics was a Texas
company :-)

But, I'm not sure how much blame actually should be attributed to
McNamara personally, other than of course he was the captain of the
ship and thus responsible for everything that happened. The lying,
cheating, back-biting and stealing that went on there between the
various branches of the military and governmental and non-governmental
organizations was amazing.

The Air Force's number one enemy was the Navy Aviation. The
commies came in after the number two enemy - Army Aviation.

If you were referring to Vietnam I can't even remember the Navy's A.F.

I'm not talking about the SE Asia War games (big grin). No, I'm
referring to the ever so more important conflict, the existential
battle for survival, waged in the corridors of the Pentagon and
Congress. The battle for survival which is in the drafting of the
Appropriation Bill.


A great deal of very fast and fancy footwork goes on at that level :-)
But you are right. Using a cheap airplane to sink an expensive battle
ship was really dirty pool :-)


Or worse - not having a program ready to go, and having to buy a
_Navy_ designed airplane.

being mentioned when I was there, but there was considerable friction
with the Army over the helicopters. Apparently there was some sort of
agreement that the Army was supposed to be the only force with armed
helicopters and when we built a couple with miniguns the Army
complained to MACV. The A.F. argued that they were for "Base Defense"
and got to keep them.

After the Army Air Force became the US Air Force, the decision was
made that basically, if it had wings, it belonged to the Air Force.
Helicopters were seen as a way around that restriction, and now drones
...


Not to mention the battles between the rocket shooters and the big
bomber boys :-)


A replay of the Battle Ship Admirals ...
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."


I suppose that now it is the unmanned aircraft guys against the manned
aircraft.
--
Cheers,

John B.

  #98   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,355
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

John B. Slocomb on Fri, 29 Aug 2014 18:20:07
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 22:18:59 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:
John B. Slocomb on Thu, 28 Aug 2014 07:07:19
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 05:53:05 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:57:03 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:02:12 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:
John B. Slocomb on Wed, 27 Aug 2014 08:31:17
I don't know that the Military ever "made their own stuff" :-)
Once upon a time, there were Army Arsenals, and Navy Yards, where
the work got done.

Indeed there were.

It was not all contractors and bids and slush funds

Didn't they use soldiers and sailors to build those, keeping the
troops in shape and busy during times we were not at war? Take the
labor fees away from building a ship and it gets a whole lot cheaper.

What do you think it costs to train soldiers and sailors? If I
remember correctly when I was in the Service the A.F. calculated that
if they got one year's actual use out of guys in some of the technical
career fields that they were doing good, which is one of the reasons
that they had rather elaborate re-enlistment programs. And the cost of
the support system, housing, food, laundry, medical care, retirement,
etc.


that's today. "Back then..." (when ever "back then" was) - I do
not know enough to say definitively.

However, that said, what I'm understanding is that back in the day
(usually of Wooden Ships and Iron Men) - the navy had yards where the
Navy had ships built, outfitted and overhauled. It was Navy
paymasters in charge. There may have been _civilian_ workers, but
they worked for the Navy.


From what I've seen of civilians working for the Government I'd guess
that a straight out cost plus contract with a civilian yard would be
cheaper :-)


Some things never have changed, eh?

I understand as well, that a lot of the Roman Roads were ...
occupational deployments of the Legion to keep them busy and out of
trouble. The Roman Road was in many senses a wall laying on the on
the ground.


I believe that you are correct, but road building must have been part
of almost any Roman campaign, particularly outside Italy as with no
roads it is very difficult to move large numbers of men and supplies.


Which then let you move a legion or two to someplace new, where
they could build roads, aqueducts, sewers, public baths, fora,
schools, vineyards and city walls. "But aside from all that, what
have the Romans done for us?"

--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."
  #99   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,355
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

John B. Slocomb on Fri, 29 Aug 2014 18:20:07
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 22:18:59 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. Slocomb on Thu, 28 Aug 2014 18:13:41
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 02:47:17 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. Slocomb on Wed, 27 Aug 2014 17:57:11
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:02:12 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. Slocomb on Wed, 27 Aug 2014 08:31:17
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Yup. The illustrious McNamara. And General Dynamics was a Texas
company :-)

But, I'm not sure how much blame actually should be attributed to
McNamara personally, other than of course he was the captain of the
ship and thus responsible for everything that happened. The lying,
cheating, back-biting and stealing that went on there between the
various branches of the military and governmental and non-governmental
organizations was amazing.

The Air Force's number one enemy was the Navy Aviation. The
commies came in after the number two enemy - Army Aviation.

If you were referring to Vietnam I can't even remember the Navy's A.F.

I'm not talking about the SE Asia War games (big grin). No, I'm
referring to the ever so more important conflict, the existential
battle for survival, waged in the corridors of the Pentagon and
Congress. The battle for survival which is in the drafting of the
Appropriation Bill.


A great deal of very fast and fancy footwork goes on at that level :-)
But you are right. Using a cheap airplane to sink an expensive battle
ship was really dirty pool :-)


Or worse - not having a program ready to go, and having to buy a
_Navy_ designed airplane.

being mentioned when I was there, but there was considerable friction
with the Army over the helicopters. Apparently there was some sort of
agreement that the Army was supposed to be the only force with armed
helicopters and when we built a couple with miniguns the Army
complained to MACV. The A.F. argued that they were for "Base Defense"
and got to keep them.

After the Army Air Force became the US Air Force, the decision was
made that basically, if it had wings, it belonged to the Air Force.
Helicopters were seen as a way around that restriction, and now drones
...

Not to mention the battles between the rocket shooters and the big
bomber boys :-)


A replay of the Battle Ship Admirals ...
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."


I suppose that now it is the unmanned aircraft guys against the manned
aircraft.


Steam vs Sail, Sail vs Oars, etc.

My own opinion is that as technological innovations come along,
they get applied to _everything_, from the practical to the "patent
medicine". E.G., when the gasoline engine was invented, it was not
long before someone applied on to powering a wagon, a motorcycle, a
boat, a washing machine. I'm sure that some bright 'lad' even
considered mounting didloes to one. "Just a minute honey, I need to
prime the carburetor."
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."
  #100   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:54:18 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. Slocomb on Fri, 29 Aug 2014 18:20:07
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 22:18:59 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:
John B. Slocomb on Thu, 28 Aug 2014 07:07:19
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 05:53:05 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:57:03 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:02:12 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:
John B. Slocomb on Wed, 27 Aug 2014 08:31:17
I don't know that the Military ever "made their own stuff" :-)
Once upon a time, there were Army Arsenals, and Navy Yards, where
the work got done.

Indeed there were.

It was not all contractors and bids and slush funds

Didn't they use soldiers and sailors to build those, keeping the
troops in shape and busy during times we were not at war? Take the
labor fees away from building a ship and it gets a whole lot cheaper.

What do you think it costs to train soldiers and sailors? If I
remember correctly when I was in the Service the A.F. calculated that
if they got one year's actual use out of guys in some of the technical
career fields that they were doing good, which is one of the reasons
that they had rather elaborate re-enlistment programs. And the cost of
the support system, housing, food, laundry, medical care, retirement,
etc.

that's today. "Back then..." (when ever "back then" was) - I do
not know enough to say definitively.

However, that said, what I'm understanding is that back in the day
(usually of Wooden Ships and Iron Men) - the navy had yards where the
Navy had ships built, outfitted and overhauled. It was Navy
paymasters in charge. There may have been _civilian_ workers, but
they worked for the Navy.


From what I've seen of civilians working for the Government I'd guess
that a straight out cost plus contract with a civilian yard would be
cheaper :-)


Some things never have changed, eh?

I understand as well, that a lot of the Roman Roads were ...
occupational deployments of the Legion to keep them busy and out of
trouble. The Roman Road was in many senses a wall laying on the on
the ground.


I believe that you are correct, but road building must have been part
of almost any Roman campaign, particularly outside Italy as with no
roads it is very difficult to move large numbers of men and supplies.


Which then let you move a legion or two to someplace new, where
they could build roads, aqueducts, sewers, public baths, fora,
schools, vineyards and city walls. "But aside from all that, what
have the Romans done for us?"


Contributed a lot of language that is used by lawyers :-)

--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

--
Cheers,

John B.



  #101   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 10:29:09 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. Slocomb on Fri, 29 Aug 2014 18:20:07
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 22:18:59 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. Slocomb on Thu, 28 Aug 2014 18:13:41
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 02:47:17 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. Slocomb on Wed, 27 Aug 2014 17:57:11
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:02:12 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. Slocomb on Wed, 27 Aug 2014 08:31:17
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Yup. The illustrious McNamara. And General Dynamics was a Texas
company :-)

But, I'm not sure how much blame actually should be attributed to
McNamara personally, other than of course he was the captain of the
ship and thus responsible for everything that happened. The lying,
cheating, back-biting and stealing that went on there between the
various branches of the military and governmental and non-governmental
organizations was amazing.

The Air Force's number one enemy was the Navy Aviation. The
commies came in after the number two enemy - Army Aviation.

If you were referring to Vietnam I can't even remember the Navy's A.F.

I'm not talking about the SE Asia War games (big grin). No, I'm
referring to the ever so more important conflict, the existential
battle for survival, waged in the corridors of the Pentagon and
Congress. The battle for survival which is in the drafting of the
Appropriation Bill.


A great deal of very fast and fancy footwork goes on at that level :-)
But you are right. Using a cheap airplane to sink an expensive battle
ship was really dirty pool :-)

Or worse - not having a program ready to go, and having to buy a
_Navy_ designed airplane.

being mentioned when I was there, but there was considerable friction
with the Army over the helicopters. Apparently there was some sort of
agreement that the Army was supposed to be the only force with armed
helicopters and when we built a couple with miniguns the Army
complained to MACV. The A.F. argued that they were for "Base Defense"
and got to keep them.

After the Army Air Force became the US Air Force, the decision was
made that basically, if it had wings, it belonged to the Air Force.
Helicopters were seen as a way around that restriction, and now drones
...

Not to mention the battles between the rocket shooters and the big
bomber boys :-)

A replay of the Battle Ship Admirals ...
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."


I suppose that now it is the unmanned aircraft guys against the manned
aircraft.


Steam vs Sail, Sail vs Oars, etc.

My own opinion is that as technological innovations come along,
they get applied to _everything_, from the practical to the "patent
medicine". E.G., when the gasoline engine was invented, it was not
long before someone applied on to powering a wagon, a motorcycle, a
boat, a washing machine. I'm sure that some bright 'lad' even
considered mounting didloes to one. "Just a minute honey, I need to
prime the carburetor."
--


I'm not sure that all innovations, internal combustion engines for
example, are designed in isolation. The steam Engine, if I remember
correctly, was designed specifically to pump water out of mines, and
later used for transportation.

pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

--
Cheers,

John B.

  #102   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,797
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On Sunday, August 17, 2014 8:04:00 PM UTC-7, jon_banquer wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l73IyO1Qdqo


Just like to point out that slow Eddy lied again when he claimed no one reads discussions I start.

No one participates in my LinkedIn group either, slow Eddy :)

http://lnkd.in/bvFimum

slow Eddy has been making a complete fool out of himself on Usenet for decades. Good thing Mark Wieber lies more and is more outrageous with his lies, right slow Eddy.



  #103   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,399
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 10:29:09 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

My own opinion is that as technological innovations come along,
they get applied to _everything_, from the practical to the "patent
medicine". E.G., when the gasoline engine was invented, it was not
long before someone applied on to powering a wagon, a motorcycle, a
boat, a washing machine. I'm sure that some bright 'lad' even
considered mounting didloes to one. "Just a minute honey, I need to
prime the carburetor."


http://www.wmmr.com/shows/preston-an...PhotoID=769300

http://gizmodo.com/5466997/the-steam...-machines-nsfw

etcetc


"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke
  #104   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,355
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

John B. Slocomb on Sat, 30 Aug 2014 07:49:16
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 10:29:09 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:
John B. Slocomb on Fri, 29 Aug 2014 18:20:07
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 22:18:59 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:
John B. Slocomb on Thu, 28 Aug 2014 18:13:41
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 02:47:17 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:
John B. Slocomb on Wed, 27 Aug 2014 17:57:11
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:02:12 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:
John B. Slocomb on Wed, 27 Aug 2014 08:31:17
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
Yup. The illustrious McNamara. And General Dynamics was a Texas
company :-)

But, I'm not sure how much blame actually should be attributed to
McNamara personally, other than of course he was the captain of the
ship and thus responsible for everything that happened. The lying,
cheating, back-biting and stealing that went on there between the
various branches of the military and governmental and non-governmental
organizations was amazing.

The Air Force's number one enemy was the Navy Aviation. The
commies came in after the number two enemy - Army Aviation.

If you were referring to Vietnam I can't even remember the Navy's A.F.

I'm not talking about the SE Asia War games (big grin). No, I'm
referring to the ever so more important conflict, the existential
battle for survival, waged in the corridors of the Pentagon and
Congress. The battle for survival which is in the drafting of the
Appropriation Bill.

A great deal of very fast and fancy footwork goes on at that level :-)
But you are right. Using a cheap airplane to sink an expensive battle
ship was really dirty pool :-)

Or worse - not having a program ready to go, and having to buy a
_Navy_ designed airplane.

being mentioned when I was there, but there was considerable friction
with the Army over the helicopters. Apparently there was some sort of
agreement that the Army was supposed to be the only force with armed
helicopters and when we built a couple with miniguns the Army
complained to MACV. The A.F. argued that they were for "Base Defense"
and got to keep them.

After the Army Air Force became the US Air Force, the decision was
made that basically, if it had wings, it belonged to the Air Force.
Helicopters were seen as a way around that restriction, and now drones...

Not to mention the battles between the rocket shooters and the big
bomber boys :-)

A replay of the Battle Ship Admirals ...

I suppose that now it is the unmanned aircraft guys against the manned
aircraft.


Steam vs Sail, Sail vs Oars, etc.

My own opinion is that as technological innovations come along,
they get applied to _everything_, from the practical to the "patent
medicine". E.G., when the gasoline engine was invented, it was not
long before someone applied on to powering a wagon, a motorcycle, a
boat, a washing machine. I'm sure that some bright 'lad' even
considered mounting didloes to one. "Just a minute honey, I need to
prime the carburetor."


I'm not sure that all innovations, internal combustion engines for
example, are designed in isolation. The steam Engine, if I remember
correctly, was designed specifically to pump water out of mines, and
later used for transportation.


"We have this thing, what else can we do with it?" Steam
engines cam out of the technology for boring cannon barrels. Once
they realized they could pump water, they figured "power source" and
started putting Engine on what ever they could fit one too. Some
where in the files I have the designs for a steam powered model
airplane.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."
  #105   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,355
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

Gunner Asch on Sat, 30 Aug 2014 08:43:25 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 10:29:09 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

My own opinion is that as technological innovations come along,
they get applied to _everything_, from the practical to the "patent
medicine". E.G., when the gasoline engine was invented, it was not
long before someone applied on to powering a wagon, a motorcycle, a
boat, a washing machine. I'm sure that some bright 'lad' even
considered mounting didloes to one. "Just a minute honey, I need to
prime the carburetor."


http://www.wmmr.com/shows/preston-an...PhotoID=769300

http://gizmodo.com/5466997/the-steam...-machines-nsfw


Like I said - guys will try to figure out how to use a new
technology to either make things go fast, or be used for sex. Tis the
nature of the beast.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."


  #106   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,888
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
...
John B. Slocomb on Sat, 30 Aug 2014 07:49:16

I'm not sure that all innovations, internal combustion engines for
example, are designed in isolation. The steam Engine, if I remember
correctly, was designed specifically to pump water out of mines, and
later used for transportation.


"We have this thing, what else can we do with it?" Steam
engines cam out of the technology for boring cannon barrels. Once
they realized they could pump water, they figured "power source" and
started putting Engine on what ever they could fit one too. Some
where in the files I have the designs for a steam powered model
airplane.
--
pyotr filipivich


The first steam machine that performed useful work was Thomas Savery's
1698 pump, which applied the steam pressure and vacuum directly to the
water it sucked up and then blew out of the mine. The only moving
parts were manually operated steam and water valves, except when the
walls of the boiler decided to make a run for freedom. The result of
explosions was that steam under pressure was avoided for a century,
instead the Newcomen (and Watt) engine condensed unpressurized steam
to create a vacuum that pulled the piston down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...e_steam_engine

Watt didn't really "discover" that steam pressure was useful by
watching a teakettle, in fact he actively opposed attempts to employ
steam under pressure. The real unheralded genius who developed the
high pressure steam engine was Oliver Evans, safely out of Watt's
reach in Philadelphia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Evans

-jsw


  #107   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,888
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message


...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Evans

-jsw


To show how innovative and far ahead of his time Evans was, he
experimented with pressurizing the firebox and injecting water
directly into the flame to flash into steam, in effect the burner of a
jet engine. He demonstrated that high pressure combustion was
possible, and also that a continuous supercharged air and fuel flow
was hopelessly impossible with the low tech of the time.
-jsw


  #108   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,399
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 08:53:19 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. Slocomb on Sat, 30 Aug 2014 07:49:16
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 10:29:09 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:
John B. Slocomb on Fri, 29 Aug 2014 18:20:07
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 22:18:59 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:
John B. Slocomb on Thu, 28 Aug 2014 18:13:41
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 02:47:17 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:
John B. Slocomb on Wed, 27 Aug 2014 17:57:11
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:02:12 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:
John B. Slocomb on Wed, 27 Aug 2014 08:31:17
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
Yup. The illustrious McNamara. And General Dynamics was a Texas
company :-)

But, I'm not sure how much blame actually should be attributed to
McNamara personally, other than of course he was the captain of the
ship and thus responsible for everything that happened. The lying,
cheating, back-biting and stealing that went on there between the
various branches of the military and governmental and non-governmental
organizations was amazing.

The Air Force's number one enemy was the Navy Aviation. The
commies came in after the number two enemy - Army Aviation.

If you were referring to Vietnam I can't even remember the Navy's A.F.

I'm not talking about the SE Asia War games (big grin). No, I'm
referring to the ever so more important conflict, the existential
battle for survival, waged in the corridors of the Pentagon and
Congress. The battle for survival which is in the drafting of the
Appropriation Bill.

A great deal of very fast and fancy footwork goes on at that level :-)
But you are right. Using a cheap airplane to sink an expensive battle
ship was really dirty pool :-)

Or worse - not having a program ready to go, and having to buy a
_Navy_ designed airplane.

being mentioned when I was there, but there was considerable friction
with the Army over the helicopters. Apparently there was some sort of
agreement that the Army was supposed to be the only force with armed
helicopters and when we built a couple with miniguns the Army
complained to MACV. The A.F. argued that they were for "Base Defense"
and got to keep them.

After the Army Air Force became the US Air Force, the decision was
made that basically, if it had wings, it belonged to the Air Force.
Helicopters were seen as a way around that restriction, and now drones...

Not to mention the battles between the rocket shooters and the big
bomber boys :-)

A replay of the Battle Ship Admirals ...

I suppose that now it is the unmanned aircraft guys against the manned
aircraft.

Steam vs Sail, Sail vs Oars, etc.

My own opinion is that as technological innovations come along,
they get applied to _everything_, from the practical to the "patent
medicine". E.G., when the gasoline engine was invented, it was not
long before someone applied on to powering a wagon, a motorcycle, a
boat, a washing machine. I'm sure that some bright 'lad' even
considered mounting didloes to one. "Just a minute honey, I need to
prime the carburetor."


I'm not sure that all innovations, internal combustion engines for
example, are designed in isolation. The steam Engine, if I remember
correctly, was designed specifically to pump water out of mines, and
later used for transportation.


"We have this thing, what else can we do with it?" Steam
engines cam out of the technology for boring cannon barrels. Once
they realized they could pump water, they figured "power source" and
started putting Engine on what ever they could fit one too. Some
where in the files I have the designs for a steam powered model
airplane.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."


http://www.elfie.org/~croaker/individ.html


"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke
  #109   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,584
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On 9/5/2014 9:52 AM, wrote:

Still Richard, the 1950's A4 isn't worth it, because it can't take hits and keep flying as you can see with this film clip: --
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tynni6wpYZ0

Even today, this is the problem with the F-18. It could run into other planes on the flight deck: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LY_mgjrMFc

The f-35 solves that problem by landing like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XnZXQYG-LQ




Don't try to bate me, boy.

  #110   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 992
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On Sunday, August 24, 2014 10:10:54 PM UTC-4, Richard wrote:
On 8/24/2014 10:29 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote:

Gunner on Sun, 24 Aug 2014 13:28:16 -0700


typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:


It's a national treasure. The Air Force wants to kill it:


http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the...-bu-1562789528


This airframe should be kept. I'd say a wing of them for special ops.


They are special and maybe 30 kept with the 270 or so kept for parts.


Keep troops trained as pilots and ground advisers if needed.


You need more of them than that. It is Close Air Support.


Something which you need right now, not in twenty minutes. "If I


wanted it in twenty minutes, I would have asked for it in twenty


minutes!"


I am reminded of a story form the Korean war, to the effect that


the Air Force jets would check in with the FAC (Forward Air Controller


- the target designator) and tell him "I've got a couple bombs and


twenty minutes." Meanwhile,the Navy/Marines in the A-1 (Later known


as the Sandy) would check in with "I've got bombs, rockets and about


an hour and a half to kill."


Simply cost effective. If a central American country goes wacko or some


people within do it might be just the trick. A billion dollar machine


that flies to fast and can't turn or hide isn't needed.


Seems like they, the DOD, thinks we can fight a war sitting on our sofa


waiting for updates.


Yep.


http://www.military.com/video/off-duty/humor/drone-operator-vs-vista-support/663148157001/


Personally, I think the entire fleet should be transferred to the Army.


They LOVE that ugly thing.


At least the guys on the ground do.


Hell yes!!!!


Air Force still seems to want billion dollar super jets.


Tech wienies are like that. Good folks if you have deep pockets


The Air Force is still enamored of the FB-111 concept: One plane


to do it all - badly.


I'm not too positive about these numbers, but ---

F35 $98 to 116 million per aircraft

F22 $420 million per plane

Ed Heinemann's little A4 hot-rod - $1 million per aircraft - in 1954

dollars.

Do you think 420 A4s could defeat a single F22?

I certainly do.


Still Richard, the 1950's A4 isn't worth it, because it can't take hits and keep flying as you can see with this film clip: -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tynni6wpYZ0

Even today, this is the problem with the F-18. It could run into other planes on the flight deck: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LY_mgjrMFc

The f-35 solves that problem by landing like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XnZXQYG-LQ


  #111   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 992
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On Thursday, September 4, 2014 10:16:14 AM UTC-4, Richard wrote:
On 9/5/2014 9:52 AM, wrote:



Still Richard, the 1950's A4 isn't worth it, because it can't take hits and keep flying as you can see with this film clip: --
https://www.youtube..com/watch?v=Tynni6wpYZ0



Even today, this is the problem with the F-18. It could run into other planes on the flight deck: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LY_mgjrMFc




The f-35 solves that problem by landing like this: https://www.youtube..com/watch?v=1XnZXQYG-LQ


Don't try to bate me, boy.


THIS does not look very "survivable" to me:
-- https://www.google.com/search?q=a-10...20%3B800%3B485
  #112   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,797
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On Saturday, September 6, 2014 9:33:09 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, September 4, 2014 10:16:14 AM UTC-4, Richard wrote:

On 9/5/2014 9:52 AM, wrote:








Still Richard, the 1950's A4 isn't worth it, because it can't take hits and keep flying as you can see with this film clip: --
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tynni6wpYZ0







Even today, this is the problem with the F-18. It could run into other planes on the flight deck: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LY_mgjrMFc








The f-35 solves that problem by landing like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XnZXQYG-LQ




Don't try to bate me, boy.




THIS does not look very "survivable" to me:

-- https://www.google.com/search?q=a-10...20%3B800%3B485


www.tinyurl.com
  #113   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 992
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On Saturday, September 6, 2014 2:12:35 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:
On Saturday, September 6, 2014 9:33:09 AM UTC-7, wrote:

On Thursday, September 4, 2014 10:16:14 AM UTC-4, Richard wrote:




On 9/5/2014 9:52 AM, wrote:
















Still Richard, the 1950's A4 isn't worth it, because it can't take hits and keep flying as you can see with this film clip: --
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tynni6wpYZ0















Even today, this is the problem with the F-18. It could run into other planes on the flight deck: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LY_mgjrMFc
















The f-35 solves that problem by landing like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XnZXQYG-LQ








Don't try to bate me, boy.








THIS does not look very "survivable" to me:




-- https://www.google.com/search?q=a-10...20%3B800%3B485



www.tinyurl.com


Thanks jon, I'll try to start using that cite.
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Angle of Sharpening Plane on hand plane jloomis[_2_] Woodworking Plans and Photos 6 February 26th 12 08:55 PM
built in or built under single oven? benpost UK diy 4 January 25th 08 07:37 PM
Router plane vs Plough plane nautilus Woodworking 1 January 17th 07 07:02 PM
Plane ignorant person needs some plane advice. Modat22 Woodworking 20 June 2nd 05 11:55 PM
Darwin Awards: Man rails against seatbelts, then killed in survivable rollover. Bruce L. Bergman Metalworking 78 January 23rd 05 02:27 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:41 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"