When discussing the tools that feller was selling on eBay (That 33K
shop) one of our contributors referred to the old Unisaw 'quality'.
That got me thinking.... (yes, it happens).
I think quality is like art. You know you like it when you see it.
The look and feel of things.

Find me something modern that idles like a well-tuned Buick Straight-8
or cruises like a 600 cc vintage BMW boxer, anything that sounds like
the shutter of a well-maintained Leica? What sounds like a 350-year-old
Guarneri cello?

In 1929, in Newcastle on Tyne, they built a small tanker. It sailed the
Great Lakes as The Texaco Brave. It had a triple expansion steam engine.
As a summer job, as a wheelsman, I would spend a lot of my free time
down below, just listening and admiring that engine as it was putting
out that whopping 120 RPM.

All modern equivalents, even if proven scientifically superior, miss
something. I think it's a piece of the craftsman's/machinist's
heart/guts who made it. Is that what we call quality?

I was looking at a very old Carl Zeiss microscope one day with its
replacement, a brand new Wild Heerbrugg, sitting beside it. The proud
owner was extolling the virtues of the new Wild, the clarity of the
optics, but why didn't the focus mechanism feel the same?

It is mystical.

0¿0
˜

Rob---who once was removed from under his hat by firing a 'light' load
from a 460 WeatherbyMk5, another one of those devices that just felt and
looked right.
I'm sure many of you here have similar things that would fit that
elusive category.

On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 09:19:37 -0500, Robatoy
wrote:


Rob---who once was removed from under his hat by firing a 'light' load
from a 460 WeatherbyMk5, another one of those devices that just felt and
looked right.
I'm sure many of you here have similar things that would fit that
elusive category.

There's an old saying in aviation, if it looks good, it'll fly good.
Two of the best looking airplanes ever, in my opinion, were the P-51
Mustang, and the Lockheed Constellation. By all accounts they were
delights to fly.

What brings that to mind is watching the TV program that documented
the X-plane competition to determine which aircraft will be developed
to replace the F-22 just coming on line. Both of the X-planes were the
butt ugliest planes I've ever seen (even more so than the F-117) and
amazingly, the DoD selected the uglier of the two.


- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
When discussing the tools that feller was selling on eBay (That 33K
shop) one of our contributors referred to the old Unisaw 'quality'.
That got me thinking.... (yes, it happens).
I think quality is like art. You know you like it when you see it.
The look and feel of things.

All modern equivalents, even if proven scientifically superior, miss
something. I think it's a piece of the craftsman's/machinist's
heart/guts who made it. Is that what we call quality?

I was looking at a very old Carl Zeiss microscope one day with its
replacement, a brand new Wild Heerbrugg, sitting beside it. The proud
owner was extolling the virtues of the new Wild, the clarity of the
optics, but why didn't the focus mechanism feel the same?

It is mystical.

Sure is.

How often do we see the question, what is the best (fill in: automobile,
table saw, gas range, camera, stereo, hand gun, plane, pencil, whatever)?

Invariably, someone will tout a high priced item while another says my
Harbor Freight version gets the job done. There is something about quality
and craftsmanship that cannot be put into works alone. It is the feel, the
sound, the resonance in one's heart that says, "this is quality".

Getting the job done is important, but what make it satisfying in the joy of
the journey.
--
Ed
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/

I think the connection with the tool is important. It motivates and inspires
me to do better and more work.
Your personal values dictate which tool you find attractive. I like old
stuff. I had a 53 Ford pickup and wouldn't even look at the newer trucks
which to me were shaped like bricks. I finally did buy a new 98 Ram because
it had the high crown hood and prominent fenders that reminded me of my 53.
In tools, I have or had a shop filled with what some people refer to as
antiques. My tablesaw was a Yates G89 made in 1933. It had direct drive and
a top that took 5 men to lift. My bandsaw is a Walker Turner 16 with cast
iron everything. I have a South Bend 16 inch lathe shipped on St Patty's day
ion 1945.
I have a friend that is in to new, Italian, and expensive. His cars,
cookware, tools were all the latest and greatest. He had no patience to work
with old and clunky.
My Yates served me well for 10 years and inspired me to ever more difficult
projects. I finally sold it and bought a new Powermatic cabinet saw so I
could install a sliding table. Worst decision I've made tool wise. The
factory sent me three replacement tops to get one that was right.
max


"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
When discussing the tools that feller was selling on eBay (That 33K
shop) one of our contributors referred to the old Unisaw 'quality'.
That got me thinking.... (yes, it happens).
I think quality is like art. You know you like it when you see it.
The look and feel of things.

All modern equivalents, even if proven scientifically superior, miss
something. I think it's a piece of the craftsman's/machinist's
heart/guts who made it. Is that what we call quality?

I was looking at a very old Carl Zeiss microscope one day with its
replacement, a brand new Wild Heerbrugg, sitting beside it. The proud
owner was extolling the virtues of the new Wild, the clarity of the
optics, but why didn't the focus mechanism feel the same?

It is mystical.

Sure is.

How often do we see the question, what is the best (fill in: automobile,
table saw, gas range, camera, stereo, hand gun, plane, pencil, whatever)?

Invariably, someone will tout a high priced item while another says my
Harbor Freight version gets the job done. There is something about quality
and craftsmanship that cannot be put into works alone. It is the feel, the
sound, the resonance in one's heart that says, "this is quality".

Getting the job done is important, but what make it satisfying in the joy of
the journey.

Robatoy wrote:
When discussing the tools that feller was selling on eBay (That 33K
shop) one of our contributors referred to the old Unisaw 'quality'.
That got me thinking.... (yes, it happens).
I think quality is like art. You know you like it when you see it.
The look and feel of things.

Find me something modern that idles like a well-tuned Buick Straight-8
or cruises like a 600 cc vintage BMW boxer, anything that sounds like
the shutter of a well-maintained Leica? What sounds like a 350-year-old
Guarneri cello?

In 1929, in Newcastle on Tyne, they built a small tanker. It sailed the
Great Lakes as The Texaco Brave. It had a triple expansion steam engine.
As a summer job, as a wheelsman, I would spend a lot of my free time
down below, just listening and admiring that engine as it was putting
out that whopping 120 RPM.

All modern equivalents, even if proven scientifically superior, miss
something. I think it's a piece of the craftsman's/machinist's
heart/guts who made it. Is that what we call quality?

I was looking at a very old Carl Zeiss microscope one day with its
replacement, a brand new Wild Heerbrugg, sitting beside it. The proud
owner was extolling the virtues of the new Wild, the clarity of the
optics, but why didn't the focus mechanism feel the same?

It is mystical.

0¿0
˜

Rob---who once was removed from under his hat by firing a 'light' load
from a 460 WeatherbyMk5, another one of those devices that just felt and
looked right.
I'm sure many of you here have similar things that would fit that
elusive category.

Well, there's certainly an aesthetic to good tools and machinery.
For me, though, 'quality' means fitness to purpose. Aesthetics are
definitely secondary.

--RC

LRod wrote:
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 09:19:37 -0500, Robatoy
wrote:


Rob---who once was removed from under his hat by firing a 'light' load

from a 460 WeatherbyMk5, another one of those devices that just felt and

looked right.
I'm sure many of you here have similar things that would fit that
elusive category.


There's an old saying in aviation, if it looks good, it'll fly good.
Two of the best looking airplanes ever, in my opinion, were the P-51
Mustang, and the Lockheed Constellation. By all accounts they were
delights to fly.

What brings that to mind is watching the TV program that documented
the X-plane competition to determine which aircraft will be developed
to replace the F-22 just coming on line. Both of the X-planes were the
butt ugliest planes I've ever seen (even more so than the F-117) and
amazingly, the DoD selected the uglier of the two.


- -
LRod

Not amazing at all. Sometimes planes that look terrible also fly very
well. The F-4
Phantom II was widely criticized as butt-ugly when it was introduced and
the P-47 wasn't exactly considered beautiful. The DeHavlind Comet was
much prettier than the Boeing 707 but it wasn't nearly as good as an
airliner (even leaving aside the Comet's design flaw).

--RC

In article ,
LRod wrote:
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 09:19:37 -0500, Robatoy
wrote:


Rob---who once was removed from under his hat by firing a 'light' load
from a 460 WeatherbyMk5, another one of those devices that just felt and
looked right.
I'm sure many of you here have similar things that would fit that
elusive category.

There's an old saying in aviation, if it looks good, it'll fly good.
Two of the best looking airplanes ever, in my opinion, were the P-51
Mustang, and the Lockheed Constellation. By all accounts they were
delights to fly.

What brings that to mind is watching the TV program that documented
the X-plane competition to determine which aircraft will be developed
to replace the F-22 just coming on line. Both of the X-planes were the
butt ugliest planes I've ever seen (even more so than the F-117) and
amazingly, the DoD selected the uglier of the two.


"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." grin

Military aircraft design considers only as an 'afterthought' how
easy or 'delightful' the plane is to fly.

Pretty much everything else pales into insignificance, vs the ability
to 'get the mission accomplished'.

There's an old saying in aviation, if it looks good, it'll fly
good.
Two of the best looking airplanes ever, in my opinion, were the
P-51
Mustang, and the Lockheed Constellation. By all accounts they were
delights to fly.

Not amazing at all. Sometimes planes that look terrible also fly very

well. The F-4
Phantom II was widely criticized as butt-ugly when it was introduced
and
the P-47 wasn't exactly considered beautiful. The DeHavlind Comet was

much prettier than the Boeing 707 but it wasn't nearly as good as an
airliner (even leaving aside the Comet's design flaw).

I guess it's all in the eyes of the beholder. I've flown the F-4. I
always liked the way it looked, but it only flew well while
supersonic. I flew the L1011 which I always thought unnatractive, but
some models flew well and others didn't. I've flown the Cessna 750
which flew well but I didn't like its looks particularly. I do agree
(and I've been told) about the P51 and the Connie.

On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 19:49:56 -0000,
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:

Military aircraft design considers only as an 'afterthought' how
easy or 'delightful' the plane is to fly.

Pretty much everything else pales into insignificance, vs the ability
to 'get the mission accomplished'.

I didn't think I was going to have to explain this. "Delight to fly"
in the military sense means being able to go into the fight with the
fastest, quickest (not the same thing), best armed ship in the fight.
The P-51 was always that (in WWII) and didn't require the pilot to
have to manhandle it out and back. Thus, "delight to fly" has/had more
than one implication.


- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

"LRod" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 09:19:37 -0500, Robatoy
wrote:


Rob---who once was removed from under his hat by firing a 'light' load
from a 460 WeatherbyMk5, another one of those devices that just felt and
looked right.
I'm sure many of you here have similar things that would fit that
elusive category.

There's an old saying in aviation, if it looks good, it'll fly good.
Two of the best looking airplanes ever, in my opinion, were the P-51
Mustang, and the Lockheed Constellation. By all accounts they were
delights to fly.

What brings that to mind is watching the TV program that documented
the X-plane competition to determine which aircraft will be developed
to replace the F-22 just coming on line. Both of the X-planes were the
butt ugliest planes I've ever seen (even more so than the F-117) and
amazingly, the DoD selected the uglier of the two.


I believe you are refering to the competition for the Joint Strike Fighter
(JSF) which will replace the F-16, F-18 and Harrier, not the F-22. I'll
grant you that neither plane was exactly pleasing to the eye, but the losing
Boeing entry was downright strange looking. At least the Lockheed entry
looked something like a conventional jet fighter.



- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

On 5 Mar 2005 12:23:53 -0800, "Bernoulli"
wrote:


I guess it's all in the eyes of the beholder. I've flown the F-4. I
always liked the way it looked, but it only flew well while
supersonic. I flew the L1011 which I always thought unnatractive, but
some models flew well and others didn't.

From the controller's point of view, the F-4 was great.
"Can you be level in 20 miles?"
"Affirmative"
(Four miles later): "November Kilo 25 level FL 350."

The 1011 had its good points and bad points. After the Arab oil
embargo of the '70s all the operators slowed their aircraft down to
..83 M. Except the 1011s, which because of the deck angle at cruise
actually burned more fuel at .83 than they did at .85 which they all
wound up cruising at. They outran everyone else as a consequence.

However, if you were trying to top anyone with a 1011, you better have
a lot of room, because they didn't climb worth ****. I had a TWA 1011
one day take all the way to LMN (Lamoni, IA) from ORD (O'Hare) to get
to FL310. That's more than 250 miles. And it wasn't even an overseas
flight.

It had the best jump seat view of all, however.

- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

Rob notes:"who once was removed from under his hat by firing a 'light'
load
from a 460 WeatherbyMk5, another one of those devices that just felt
and
looked right.
I'm sure many of you here have similar things that would fit that
elusive category."

Oh, yeah. How about a Norton Manx 500cc thumper in a featherbed frame,
with reverse cone muffler. A friend had one and it was my first trip to
100 on a bike.

Rick Cook notes:

Not amazing at all. Sometimes planes that look terrible also fly very
well. The F-4
Phantom II was widely criticized as butt-ugly when it was introduced
and
the P-47 wasn't exactly considered beautiful. The DeHavlind Comet was
much prettier than the Boeing 707 but it wasn't nearly as good as an
airliner (even leaving aside the Comet's design flaw).

I have to wonder about the Crusader (F8). We had a couple squadrons of
those things at Kaneohe Bay back in the late '50s, and, in one sense,
the Marine Corps loved the job their machine guns would do. But the
pilots said it was unstable as hell during landing, and had the glide
ratio of a rock. Last fighter aircraft built with guns as the main
weapons system, by the way. It looked a little more like an old
seaplane than a jet fighter from some angles.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
oups.com...
Rick Cook notes:

Not amazing at all. Sometimes planes that look terrible also fly very
well. The F-4
Phantom II was widely criticized as butt-ugly when it was introduced
and
the P-47 wasn't exactly considered beautiful. The DeHavlind Comet was
much prettier than the Boeing 707 but it wasn't nearly as good as an
airliner (even leaving aside the Comet's design flaw).

I have to wonder about the Crusader (F8). We had a couple squadrons of
those things at Kaneohe Bay back in the late '50s, and, in one sense,
the Marine Corps loved the job their machine guns would do. But the
pilots said it was unstable as hell during landing, and had the glide
ratio of a rock. Last fighter aircraft built with guns as the main
weapons system, by the way. It looked a little more like an old
seaplane than a jet fighter from some angles.


Hi Charlie and all,
Sorry to burst in here, but I used to an ADJ in a RA5C squadron. The Vigi
shared the same engines as the Phantom. The NPF (Non Powered Flight) Ratio
of both birds was horrendous. The Vigi would fall 16 feet for every foot
forward while the Phantom would fall 32 feet per foot forward. Some folks
would say all the aerodynamics of a bumble bee. Me, I look at it like this,
if you strap two J-79's to a ****can, its going to fly and fast as hell
right up to where it runs out of gas. If your mech was good enough, you
could get about three and a half to four hours at conserve. You want hustle
you can burn the lot (something like 20,000 lbs.) in fifteen minutes at full
AB. I always thought your F-8 was a sharp looking bird. Must have been an
Hydraulicsman's nightmare though with that tilting wing. Glad I wasn't a
bubblechaser in those outfits. I guess someone liked the airframe though.
They made A-7 look like a blunt nosed F-8. Though for A-7 they decided to
use the Rolls TF-41 vice the PW J-57. Damned shame if you ask me. I was
never fond of Turbo Fan engines. Thanks for the listen, and the trip down
memory lane.
Later,
Beej

On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 14:52:17 +0000, LRod
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 09:19:37 -0500, Robatoy
wrote:


Rob---who once was removed from under his hat by firing a 'light' load
from a 460 WeatherbyMk5, another one of those devices that just felt and
looked right.
I'm sure many of you here have similar things that would fit that
elusive category.

There's an old saying in aviation, if it looks good, it'll fly good.
Two of the best looking airplanes ever, in my opinion, were the P-51
Mustang, and the Lockheed Constellation. By all accounts they were
delights to fly.

What brings that to mind is watching the TV program that documented
the X-plane competition to determine which aircraft will be developed
to replace the F-22 just coming on line. Both of the X-planes were the
butt ugliest planes I've ever seen (even more so than the F-117) and
amazingly, the DoD selected the uglier of the two.


If you are referring to the JSF competition (it doesn't replace the F-22,
merely complements it -- like the F15/F16 combination), the DoD picked the
better looking of the two when choosing the Lockheed F-35. The Boeing
entry was bad-ugly (IMO), it looked like a sleek fighter was trying to get
out, but was trapped by this ugly bulge on the fuselage underside. Kind of
like the sleek fighter had landed on top of an A-6.


- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

"LRod" wrote in message
I didn't think I was going to have to explain this. "Delight to fly"
in the military sense means being able to go into the fight with the
fastest, quickest (not the same thing), best armed ship in the fight.
The P-51 was always that (in WWII) and didn't require the pilot to
have to manhandle it out and back. Thus, "delight to fly" has/had more
than one implication.

First time pilots would sometimes flip on takeoff from the engine torque.
Once that was overcome, it was a sweet machine. IMO, it is the best
looking, most graceful military plane ever built. At least one step ahead
of the Corsair. If I could own any one plane, it would be the 51D

On 5 Mar 2005 13:01:28 -0800, "Charlie Self"
wrote:

Rob notes:"who once was removed from under his hat by firing a 'light'
load
from a 460 WeatherbyMk5, another one of those devices that just felt
and
looked right.
I'm sure many of you here have similar things that would fit that
elusive category."

Oh, yeah. How about a Norton Manx 500cc thumper in a featherbed frame,
with reverse cone muffler. A friend had one and it was my first trip to
100 on a bike.

Snortin' Norton 750 Commando "S" here. I have a picture of it on my
webpage. 409 pounds dry. At the time (1968) it was the fastest (or
quickest; not necessarily the same) street legal production bike in
the world.

- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

Yeah... quality tools, I am very blessed that I get to use Oliver equipement in
adult ed. A 14/16" table saw, 12" jointer and a 24" thicknesser/planer. Awesome
machines too, they have this "arcane" beauty and quality to them that is undaunted.
Sorry for the bad terminology but I have no way of describing it. I hear from a saw
service business owner (http://www.carbide.com/) that there are people out there
that are obsessed with Oliver machines, dealing in them and collecting them. There
is an Oliver No. 80 at a local lumber and hardware business and that saw is amazing.
The whole table tilts, has it's own sliding sections if I remember correctly, and the
huge motor has shafts on both ends. The other end has it's own lower table so it can
be used as a borer. Sounds like a space ship engine from Star Wars, like the jointer
at adult ed. The No. 80 can be set up two ways, belt drive and as it is, direct drive.

--
Alex
cravdraa_at-yahoo_dot-com
not my site: http://www.e-sword.net/

In article ,
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:


[snipperectomy]


There is something about quality
and craftsmanship that cannot be put into works alone. It is the feel, the
sound, the resonance in one's heart that says, "this is quality".

Zactly! You can't put your finger on it.

I agree with LRod that the P51 was a sexy looking bird.I am attracted to
the Supermarine Spitfire for the same reason.

The Mosquito bomber is attractive in the same way Julia Roberts is
attractive. In an odd way. *EG*

Didn't know so many flyboys are dorkers. Me thinks the thread spun out a
little..LOL

"Robatoy" wrote in message


Didn't know so many flyboys are dorkers. Me thinks the thread spun out a
little..LOL

When my computer at work boots up, instead of that silly Windows thing, mine
plays a P-51 fly by.

LRod wrote:
On 5 Mar 2005 12:23:53 -0800, "Bernoulli"
wrote:



However, if you were trying to top anyone with a 1011, you better
have
a lot of room, because they didn't climb worth ****. I had a TWA 1011
one day take all the way to LMN (Lamoni, IA) from ORD (O'Hare) to
get
to FL310. That's more than 250 miles. And it wasn't even an overseas
flight.
Depended entirely on the model and engines as with all the planes I've
flown. I've flown doggy L1011 100s and nice 200s. Same with the 747s.
I've flown doggy 100s and fantastic 300s with the GE engines. I've
flown 200s with all manner of P&W engines as well as RRs. It all
depended on power to weight.

It had the best jump seat view of all, however.

Very nice cockpit - not as good visibility as the DC10, but much
roomier than the 747.

On 5 Mar 2005 19:57:11 -0800, "Bernoulli"
wrote:


Depended entirely on the model and engines as with all the planes I've
flown. I've flown doggy L1011 100s and nice 200s. Same with the 747s.
I've flown doggy 100s and fantastic 300s with the GE engines. I've
flown 200s with all manner of P&W engines as well as RRs. It all
depended on power to weight.

The problem was, we could never tell what you had. A three legged '10
looked just like a four legged '10 on the flight progress strip. Also,
although we could generally infer that a 747 on its way to Narita was
probably not going to climb well, we could never be sure how full the
74 on its way to LAX was and could be pleasantly or unpleasantly
surprised.

Who'd you fly for? Equipment sounds like TWA or Delta. I don't think
Eastern ever had 74s. I don't think AmTran did either. Who else (U.S.)
flew 1011s? Of course who said you flew for a U.S. carrier?

I was in Jacksonville Center from '68 to '73 and Chicago Center from
'73 until I retired in '97, with a couple of stints at ORD thrown in.

- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

LRod wrote:

snip

...the fastest, quickest (not the same thing), best armed ship in the fight.
The P-51 was always that...

snip

I always thought so too, until I learned Richard Bong, the top U.S.
ace of WWII did it in a P-38 Lighting.

On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 05:47:50 GMT, Kevin
wrote:

LRod wrote:

snip

...the fastest, quickest (not the same thing), best armed ship in the fight.
The P-51 was always that...

snip

I always thought so too, until I learned Richard Bong, the top U.S.
ace of WWII did it in a P-38 Lighting.

And #2 (McQuire?) was a P-38 pilot, too, I believe.

However, different theater, different adversary.

Incidentally, of the top ten U.S. aces (and ties) in WWII, three of
the fourteen flew P-51s, three flew P-38s, two flew P-47s, two flew
F6Fs, two flew Corsairs, one flew a Spit!?!?, and one flew an F4F.

Just to reinforce Chuck Yeager's (and many others') feeling, that it's
not the airplane, it's the pilot, Joe Foss, the 2nd highest Marine ace
and #7 on the list, flew the F4F. The Wildcat isn't even in the top
ten of WWII fighters.

(Top ten WWII fighters, in no particular order: P-51, P-38, P-47, F6F,
F4U, Spitfire, Hurricane, BF-109, FW-190, Zero. One should somehow
find a way to include the ME-262; maybe a top eleven?)

- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
om...

"Robatoy" wrote in message


Didn't know so many flyboys are dorkers. Me thinks the thread spun out a
little..LOL

When my computer at work boots up, instead of that silly Windows thing,
mine
plays a P-51 fly by.



Wallpaper an XB-70, probably the sexiest plane ever.

If you ever go to Wright-Patterson, it really stands out. It's just an
incredible piece of work. Compared to other knockoffs, like the Tu-144,
I've seen, it's just gorgeous.

Charlie Self wrote:

Oh, yeah. How about a Norton Manx 500cc thumper in a featherbed frame,
with reverse cone muffler. A friend had one and it was my first trip to
100 on a bike.

First bike I ever fell off, a gardengate manx, mum made dad sell it
after that, I was only 10 at the time....Got me a few BMW's down the
years, still got a '52 G80C Matchless though ;-)

Badger wrote:

Charlie Self wrote:

Oh, yeah. How about a Norton Manx 500cc thumper in a featherbed frame,
with reverse cone muffler. A friend had one and it was my first trip to
100 on a bike.

First bike I ever fell off, a gardengate manx, mum made dad sell it
after that, I was only 10 at the time....Got me a few BMW's down the
years, still got a '52 G80C Matchless though ;-)


The Brits are great at names that convey the thing they name
Jaguar
Triumph
Matchless
Nomad
Panther Cub
(ok so the Royal Enfield was a stretch)

And their warships sound like warships
HMS Invinceable
HMS Indominable
HMS Vindicator
HMS Get the **** Out of MY Ocean
(got carried away - sorry.)

Ours
Indiana
Forrestal
Carl Vincent (?)

Their fighter planes
Spitfire
Harrier

Ours
P-38
B-29

charlie b

On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 10:35:24 -0800, charlie b
wrote:

The Brits are great at names that convey the thing they name
Jaguar
Triumph
Matchless
Nomad
Panther Cub
(ok so the Royal Enfield was a stretch)

Lucas Electrics...the reason for warm beer in the UK.

And their warships sound like warships
HMS Invinceable
HMS Indominable
HMS Vindicator
HMS Get the **** Out of MY Ocean
(got carried away - sorry.)

And you forgot the HMS Dreadnought, the first all big gun battleship,
and whose name has devolved to generically mean all capital ships.

Ours
Indiana

The Navy had naming conventions for a long time that drove these
things. Battleships were named after states. You can be sure there was
significant lobbying for a name from each delegation whenever a new
battleship was laid down. Cruisers were named after cities (probably
same thing). Submarines were named after sea creatures. Aircraft
carriers were often named for battles, although the first was named
for an aviation pioneer, and the Enterprise (CV6) was one of a long
line of naval ships so named..

The first Indiana (BB-1) was the first numbered US battleship. The
second one (BB-58) served in WWII.

Forrestal

First Secretary of Defense? Doesn't he deserve something?

Carl Vincent (?)

Carl Vinson. Probably the most influential Senator for DoD
appropriations in history. He deserves a carrier named after him more
than a couple of presidents I know.

Not all of the Royal Navy ships' names were so intimidating. The HMS
Rodney comes immediately to mind, as does Ark Royal.

Their fighter planes
Spitfire
Harrier

Ours
P-38
B-29

Come on. Be fair. Do apples to apples. If you insist on calling the
Lightning (pretty good name, I think) a P-38, then you have to refer
to the Spitfire as the Supermarine Type 300 MK (whatever).

And the B-29 was a SuperFortress. I can't imagine a less namby-pamby
name than that.

The Hawker-Siddley AV8A? That's the equivalent name for the Harrier.
By the way, do you know what Harrier pilots are called? AV8ers.


- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

In article ,
Badger wrote:

Charlie Self wrote:

Oh, yeah. How about a Norton Manx 500cc thumper in a featherbed frame,
with reverse cone muffler. A friend had one and it was my first trip to
100 on a bike.

First bike I ever fell off, a gardengate manx, mum made dad sell it
after that, I was only 10 at the time....Got me a few BMW's down the
years, still got a '52 G80C Matchless though ;-)

A Brough would be my dream bike.

In article ,
LRod wrote:

Come on. Be fair. Do apples to apples. If you insist on calling the
Lightning (pretty good name, I think) a P-38, then you have to refer
to the Spitfire as the Supermarine Type 300 MK (whatever).

That brings us to the A-10 ...Warthog....aptly named... in a Julia
Roberst sort of way.

I think the A-10 is one impressive bird. A frickin' tank with wings.
One of my favourite all-time aircraft.

SR-71....another great one.

But the A-10 is on my desktop.

On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 15:42:59 -0500, Robatoy
wrote:

In article ,
LRod wrote:

Come on. Be fair. Do apples to apples. If you insist on calling the
Lightning (pretty good name, I think) a P-38, then you have to refer
to the Spitfire as the Supermarine Type 300 MK (whatever).

That brings us to the A-10 ...Warthog....aptly named... in a Julia
Roberst sort of way.

Actually, the official name is Thunderbolt II. Warthog is an
unofficial, affectionate name given to her by aircrew. You can tell
it's a Republic airplane by the wide track of the main gear. Looks
just like the Jug, the Thud (also unofficial names), and the F-84
Thunderstreak.

The late Jeff Ethel, when doing a flying demonstration of the P-47,
said that it took a lot of runway landing it. He said, "if you could
build a runway around the world, Republic would build an airplane that
would use all of it."

I think the A-10 is one impressive bird. A frickin' tank with wings.
One of my favourite all-time aircraft.

Me too.

SR-71....another great one.

Yep.


- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
That brings us to the A-10 ...Warthog....aptly named... in a Julia
Roberst sort of way.

I think the A-10 is one impressive bird. A frickin' tank with wings.
One of my favourite all-time aircraft.

SR-71....another great one.

But the A-10 is on my desktop.

An airplane which proved unsuited to the task for which it was intended -
hosing Soviet armor as it tried to force the Fulda gap.

Planned to be a two-seater, made a single, where the load on the pilot was
so large in the weather that prevails so often in Germany, it went into the
guard in record time. It's done great work in clear air and with upgrade
avionics.

The blackbird is one of the finest machines out there. When dad first came
to Beale, he described an SR with a T38 chase as "the shark and a
pilotfish." Of course, the Okinawans called her Habu, which also seemed
suitable. A night takeoff was almost a religious experience for onlookers.

"charlie b" wrote in message
Ours
Indiana
Forrestal
Carl Vincent (?)

That would be the Carl Vinson. I posted a couple of pics of it on ABPW

On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 10:35:24 -0800, charlie b
wrote:

Badger wrote:

.... snip
The Brits are great at names that convey the thing they name
Jaguar
Triumph
Matchless
Nomad
Panther Cub
(ok so the Royal Enfield was a stretch)

And their warships sound like warships
HMS Invinceable
HMS Indominable
HMS Vindicator
HMS Get the **** Out of MY Ocean
(got carried away - sorry.)

Ours
Indiana
Forrestal
Carl Vincent (?)




Their fighter planes
Spitfire
Harrier

Ours
P-38
B-29


Not exactly:

P-38 Lightning
B-29 Superfortress
B-17 Flying Fortress
B-24 Liberator
P-51 Mustang
F-15 Eagle
F-22 Raptor
F-16 Falcon
F-117 Nighthawk

I'd say we have a pretty good history of naming things. Although I grant
you the Brit's choice for warships is pretty good. Ours were more for
states (battleships), and for people of note (Kennedy, Reagan, Forrestal,
Eisenhower). OTOH, our sub class name choices aren't too bad: Sea Wolf,
Poseidon, Trident. Some of our missile choices are pretty good: Sidewinder,
Tomahawk, Maverick, HARM, Javelin, Minuteman, Titan.


charlie b



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Ba r r y wrote:

On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 15:42:59 -0500, Robatoy
wrote:


I think the A-10 is one impressive bird. A frickin' tank with wings.
One of my favourite all-time aircraft.

We have a squadron of them based here in CT. An acquaintance of mine
flys them on weekends, a former employee maintains electronics on
them.

Luckily, he's never been subjected to a bird strike from the rear that
the fighter pilots keep advising him to watch out for.

Is that the plane that flys at or slightly above the speed of smell
(plagarized /stolen from Ron White, humorist Texan and part
time alcoholic?)

charlie b

Badgerf responds:

Oh, yeah. How about a Norton Manx 500cc thumper in a featherbed
frame,
with reverse cone muffler. A friend had one and it was my first trip
to
100 on a bike.


First bike I ever fell off, a gardengate manx, mum made dad sell it
after that, I was only 10 at the time....Got me a few BMW's down the
years, still got a '52 G80C Matchless though ;-)

Love to get hold of an old Matchless or AJS. I'm not sure what the
Gardengate version of Manx was...in the States we only got the Manx,
hairpin valve springs and all.

The friend who owned that Manx raced it at Laconia (NH) a couple of
times before things got as formal as they are now...they barely
required a helmet back then ('56, '57, '58). I don't know what happened
to the bike, and I haven't heard from Gene since he showed up at my
apartment in Albany, NY, with girlfriend (something he was never
without after about his 14th birthday), driving an old VW back from CA.
Every concealed spot on that car was filled with grass (not for sale,
though). This was about '68 or '69. He was a real wandered, by that
time a master machinist, and still crazy. He was in touch with my
mother a few times after that, but I could never catch up with him.
Then she moved.

But...

Didn't we (Muricans) name a tank after Norm?

UA100, trying to bring it back around to being on topic....

It was somewhere outside Barstow when "George" george@least wrote:

Wallpaper an XB-70, probably the sexiest plane ever.

Compared to other knockoffs, like the Tu-144,
I've seen, it's just gorgeous.

But the Tu144 bore no relation to the XB70. If anything it was a
knock-off of Concorde.

Of course it wasn't a knock off of anything - just a product of the
Soviet's highly advanced powerful, fast engine technologies, allied to
their somewhat underdeveloped airframes. It was a paper dart with
rockets on, if you compare it to Concorde. Look at the wing leading
edge planform - the Tu144 was no more advanced than the first series
of Vulcans from the '50s. Fuel burn and limited range was thus much as
you might expect.

George wrote:
Wallpaper an XB-70, probably the sexiest plane ever.

If you ever go to Wright-Patterson, it really stands out. It's just an
incredible piece of work. Compared to other knockoffs, like the Tu-144,
I've seen, it's just gorgeous.


I've seen that plane at Wright -Patterson and you are right... it makes a P-51
look like a Jenny. Scared the hell out of the Russkies too...




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

"Andy Dingley" wrote in message
...
It was somewhere outside Barstow when "George" george@least wrote:

Wallpaper an XB-70, probably the sexiest plane ever.

Compared to other knockoffs, like the Tu-144,
I've seen, it's just gorgeous.

But the Tu144 bore no relation to the XB70. If anything it was a
knock-off of Concorde.



Drop nose, forward canard, low delta wing - yeah, right. They don't look
anything like each other.