Tool quality.

Page 2 of 3  


When my computer at work boots up, instead of that silly Windows thing, mine plays a P-51 fly by.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Drop nose, forward canard, low delta wing - yeah, right. They don't look anything like each other.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The XB70 didn't have a "delta wing" (beyond the level of something vaguely triangular) - that was the whole point of it. The XB70's lift came from a shock wave trapped under the lifting surface and retained there by those huge downward-folding wingtips. This isn't the way that any other aircraft (except a couple beginning with X) have flown and certainly not the Tu144.
When the XB70 flew at low speed, with the wing working as a more traditional wing, it was (to be honest) something of a dog. This was one of the reasons the project was cancelled - it made a great aircraft for an attacking dash at high speed, but loiter performance was poor. And if you're going to build your deterrence around that strategy, use missiles.
As to the canards, then canards have been a popular bodge since the days of Santos Dumont. The Soviets used them because they didn't have Aerospatiale's understanding of the aerodynamics of really high performance deltas. It didn't need them at cruise - that's easy for a delta, but retaining adequate control for a safe all-weather low-speed landing envelope with a heavy delta aircraft is quite another matter.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
George wrote:

that matter the Tu 144 was a whole lot more of an original design than it was a knock-off of the Concord. (Although the Soviets did have a very active espionage effort to learn as much as they could from the Concorde.)
--RC
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

When the Concorde design team started feeding them clearly dodgy info they had no choice but to go their own way (Tupolev later said this)
The aerodynamics are seriously compromised on the 144 compared to Concorde - that the Yanks would consider using one for supersonic research 25 tears after the Brits and Frogs had perfected it and placed it into commercial service makes me chuckle.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
George wrote:

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

snipped-for-privacy@carolina.rr.com.REMOVE
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Can you guys change the subject line to airplanes so I don't keep clicking on these posts. Thanks max

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 11:58:30 GMT, the inscrutable "Mortimer Schnerd,

I still prefer the Supermarine Spitfire Mk. 1A to the P-51 or XB-70. http://www.rdrop.com/users/hoofj /
http://www.fighter-planes.com/big/spitfire.jpg
========================================================= I drank WHAT? + http://www.diversify.com --Socrates + Web Application Programming
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

There's also the person who is recommending the item's experience level, ability, budget, and personal biases. A.K.A. - perspective.
Fairly often, people go to newsgroups looking for equipment recommendations. Without knowing the background and abilities of the person praising or panning a certain item, the recommendation is often useless.
Someone who's been using a rock to shape a board may find a BORG Buck Brothers chisel a fantastic tool. A bicyclist who's only ridden Eastern European, communist provided "water pipe" bicycles with balloon tires may find a Wal-Mart bicycle to be a high quality item. Others with more experience or more specific needs may disagree.
Barry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

Well, there's certainly an aesthetic to good tools and machinery. For me, though, 'quality' means fitness to purpose. Aesthetics are definitely secondary.
--RC
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self wrote:

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 ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Badger 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)
And their warships sound like warships HMS Invinceable HMS Indominable HMS Vindicator HMS Get the Fuck 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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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

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

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.

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

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.

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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."

Me too.

Yep.
- - LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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.
Barry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.