Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Thu Apr 18, 2024 7:20 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific Luftwaffe Resource Center
When Hollywood Ruled The Skies - Volumes 1 through 4 by Bruce Oriss


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2020 4:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 7:02 am
Posts: 316
Location: Up the Hill,Norwest from Brizzy
ZRX61 wrote:
Spitty wrote:
When building a british plane....Jig drill with xxxxxxxx part...
And fettling with lots of swearing about the handbuilt extra complication of British cottage industrial assemblies.... :axe:


That's why we invented the elongated bolt hole. If Part A has a 1/8x1/2in hole on the X axis & Part B has the same size hole on the Y axis you now have a 1/2x1/2in area in which to get the bolt in the 1/8in *hole*. First came across this on a Spitfire, wouldn't at all surprise me to find the same thing on a new Typhoon...

And there's bigger versions, 3/16x3/4 & 1/4x1in spring to mind. 3/16x3/4 are VERY popular. If you ever get a chance to look inside a Spitfire fuselage behind the cockpit you'll be all "Holy sugar, he wasn't joking" :spit :drink3:

Considering most of the bolts holding bits on are 2ba,4ba and 6ba which sorta equals to 3/16",5/32" and 1/8" then yes theres a looot of elongated holes ...Or just drill new ones...Edge distance?Whats that!!!!

_________________
If the CO ask,s you to be Tail End Charlie...Just Shoot Him..A Piece of Cake


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2020 10:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 141
Location: Salisbury Plain England
ZRX61 wrote:
Spitty wrote:
When building a british plane....Jig drill with xxxxxxxx part...
And fettling with lots of swearing about the handbuilt extra complication of British cottage industrial assemblies.... :axe:


That's why we invented the elongated bolt hole. If Part A has a 1/8x1/2in hole on the X axis & Part B has the same size hole on the Y axis you now have a 1/2x1/2in area in which to get the bolt in the 1/8in *hole*. First came across this on a Spitfire, wouldn't at all surprise me to find the same thing on a new Typhoon...

And there's bigger versions, 3/16x3/4 & 1/4x1in spring to mind. 3/16x3/4 are VERY popular. If you ever get a chance to look inside a Spitfire fuselage behind the cockpit you'll be all "Holy sugar, he wasn't joking" :spit :drink3:


Perfectly acceptable engineering practice on a steam locomotive and it shouldn't be forgotten that Mitchell started his career in a Locomotive works.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2020 11:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2020 2:18 pm
Posts: 154
ZRX61 wrote:
Spitty wrote:
When building a british plane....Jig drill with xxxxxxxx part...
And fettling with lots of swearing about the handbuilt extra complication of British cottage industrial assemblies.... :axe:


That's why we invented the elongated bolt hole. If Part A has a 1/8x1/2in hole on the X axis & Part B has the same size hole on the Y axis you now have a 1/2x1/2in area in which to get the bolt in the 1/8in *hole*. First came across this on a Spitfire, wouldn't at all surprise me to find the same thing on a new Typhoon...

And there's bigger versions, 3/16x3/4 & 1/4x1in spring to mind. 3/16x3/4 are VERY popular. If you ever get a chance to look inside a Spitfire fuselage behind the cockpit you'll be all "Holy sugar, he wasn't joking" :spit :drink3:



Attachment:
aviation parts.JPG
aviation parts.JPG [ 538.01 KiB | Viewed 737 times ]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 27, 2020 5:08 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:48 pm
Posts: 1648
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
shrike wrote:
It's an interesting thought, but it would only work when 'new' designs were developed in secrecy >during< a conflict.
Just like bold markings on otherwise camouflaged vehicles, in operational practice knowing what your own stuff is is more important than depriving the enemy of that casual knowledge. (a good, albeit obscure example is the Polish Wz35 'Uruguay' an effective anti-tank rifle so shrouded in secrecy, that when they were needed, no one knew they existed)
Also, in peace time, commercial concerns arise. A manufacturer is more than happy to produce things for export where allowed, and marketing is required (TBH, marketing is required to get something adopted within a normal procurement. "Sexiness" and selling sometimes trump conventional or best practice, which is why the F-117 was black instead of splinter blue, and the F-35 isn't the F-24 like it should be

I was looking through old newspapers today and I happened to come across a relevant article:
AP wrote:
U.S. Planes Prove Able to Dispose of Nazi Craft
[Unrelated text omitted]
Okeh Popular Names
At the same time the war and navy departments announced official adoption of popular names, such as Flying Fortresses and Liberator bombers, for combat aircraft. The two services have been using code letters to identify types of planes. They adopted popular names "in order that the general public may get a better idea of the character of military aircraft and more easily identify the combat planes mentioned in press dispatches form the battlefields of the world."
[Unrelated text omitted]
In adopting popular names, the army and navy fall in line with a practice long in effect in England. Some of the British names for U.S. aircraft have been approved, and the British are being asked to call the navy's carrier fighter the Grumman Wildcat instead of "Martlet," as it is known in England.
'Harvard' Becomes 'Texan'
At the request of the manufacturer, North American's advanced trainer, known in Britain as the "Harvard," will be called the "Texan" in the army-navy listing. The name "Warhawk" was adopted for the Curtiss P-40 which has been called in series the "Tomahawk," "Kittyhawk" and "Warhawk."
[List of aircraft names omitted]

Source: “U.S. Planes Prove Able to Dispose of Nazi Craft,” Salt Lake Tribune, January 4, 1943, 2.

_________________
Tri-State Warbird Museum Collections Manager & Museum Attendant

Warbird Philosophy Webmaster


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2020 9:42 am 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 10:31 pm
Posts: 1655
What a great thread -- a wrenching span of miscommunication.

I'm not tyred of it in any way.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2020 9:23 pm 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 10:16 am
Posts: 2295
Spitty wrote:
ZRX61 wrote:
Spitty wrote:
When building a british plane....Jig drill with xxxxxxxx part...
And fettling with lots of swearing about the handbuilt extra complication of British cottage industrial assemblies.... :axe:


That's why we invented the elongated bolt hole. If Part A has a 1/8x1/2in hole on the X axis & Part B has the same size hole on the Y axis you now have a 1/2x1/2in area in which to get the bolt in the 1/8in *hole*. First came across this on a Spitfire, wouldn't at all surprise me to find the same thing on a new Typhoon...

And there's bigger versions, 3/16x3/4 & 1/4x1in spring to mind. 3/16x3/4 are VERY popular. If you ever get a chance to look inside a Spitfire fuselage behind the cockpit you'll be all "Holy sugar, he wasn't joking" :spit :drink3:

Considering most of the bolts holding bits on are 2ba,4ba and 6ba which sorta equals to 3/16",5/32" and 1/8" then yes theres a looot of elongated holes ...Or just drill new ones...Edge distance?Whats that!!!!


I was translating into SAE ;)

_________________
Those who possess real knowledge are rare.

Those who can set that knowledge into motion in the physical world are rarer still.

The few who possess real knowledge and can set it into motion of their own hands are the rarest of all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 29, 2020 5:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2011 11:23 am
Posts: 698
Quote:
He wouldn't budge on anything else though, especially "aluminium".


Aluminium actually makes perfect sense. Do we Americans talk about potassum, chromum, magnesum, titanum, etc.? Of course not, so why should "aluminum" be the sole exception?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2020 8:06 am 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:51 pm
Posts: 1185
Location: Chandler, AZ
Stephan Wilkinson wrote:
Quote:
He wouldn't budge on anything else though, especially "aluminium".


Aluminium actually makes perfect sense. Do we Americans talk about potassum, chromum, magnesum, titanum, etc.? Of course not, so why should "aluminum" be the sole exception?


Platinum, Molybdenum, Lanthanum, Tantalum

_________________
Lest Hero-worship raise it's head and cloud our vision, remember that World War II was fought and won by the same sort of twenty-something punks we wouldn't let our daughters date.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2020 3:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2011 11:23 am
Posts: 698
The truth, it turns out, is that the guy who discovered the element Al, Sir Joshua Davy, named it himself, as he had every right to do. Unfortunately, he first named it alumin. Then he changed his mind and renamed it aluminium. And finally he changed his mind again and dubbed it aluminum. So it's all his fault. The British chose to call it aluminium simply because somebody in a position of authority liked the sound of it. The Americans went with Davy's wishes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2020 8:09 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:48 pm
Posts: 1648
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
So, I think I found the source of Mr. Savile-Sneath's ire:
AP wrote:
Airplane Name For the Future
---
(By Associated Press.)
Washington, Oct. 27. - The name aeroplane to designate heavier than aircraft has been discarded officially by the national advisory committee for aeronautics. In a report issues (sic) today on "Nomenclature for aeronautice" (sic) the name airplane is substituted for any "form of aircraft heavier than air which has wing surfaces for sustenation, with stabilizing surfaces, rudders for steering, and power plant for propulsion through the air. The landing gear may be suited for either land or water use."

An introduction to the report says it is to eliminate duplications and erroneous use of aeronautical terms. Only new terms, peculiar to aeronautics, are defined in the appended list of 142 words and phrases.

Examination of the preferred terms shown, indicates that an effort has been made to eliminate also all foreign words which have come into use through the development of aircraft. Most of these are French. Very few such words have been retained, however, even such terms as volplane being discarded in favor of glide and volpique rejected for nose dive. One French term retained is cabre, which is defined as meaning the flying attitude of a machine which travels "down by the stern when in air.

(Source: “Airplane Name For the Future,” Charlotte News, October 27, 1916, 1.)

I would think he would at least be happy that the French terms were being thrown out. I do find it ironic that the claimed premise for the change also seems to be based on the idea of only using the most logical and accurate terms, since that is one of his objections to the American term "propeller".

As an aside, I seem to remember it being suggested somewhere that the reason for the "V" in the hull classification symbol for aircraft carriers ("CV") and designations for naval squadrons ("VF") was that it came from the French word "voler" meaning "to fly". Apparently, the former begin in 1920, so this article could be seen providing evidence against that argument. (I have to admit, it sounds just as equally flimsy an explanation as the multiple theories for why U.S. aircraft registrations start with "N".)

_________________
Tri-State Warbird Museum Collections Manager & Museum Attendant

Warbird Philosophy Webmaster


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Chris Brame, ErrolC, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], mike furline and 173 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group