Comments on: More books to read… http://blog.autospeed.com/2008/12/09/more-books-to-read/ AutoSpeed's Blog. Opinion and Auto News Comment Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:07:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Ron Bunting http://blog.autospeed.com/2008/12/09/more-books-to-read/comment-page-1/#comment-53821 Ron Bunting Tue, 16 Dec 2008 05:11:03 +0000 http://blog.autospeed.com/?p=5398#comment-53821 As per usual someone has to write a book furthering the myth that the Wrights were the first to fly a plane. Not a by a long shot unfortunately. New Zealands Richard Pearce Flew a plane of his own design with an engine he built himself long before the Wrights and the plane still exists. I would say that because New Zealand was this unknown little country at the bottom of the world,news of Pearces efforts were practically unknown outside his own district. There were others who flew around the same time,but their names escape for the present. Cheers! As per usual someone has to write a book furthering the myth that the Wrights were the first to fly a plane. Not a by a long shot unfortunately. New Zealands Richard Pearce Flew a plane of his own design with an engine he built himself long before the Wrights and the plane still exists. I would say that because New Zealand was this unknown little country at the bottom of the world,news of Pearces efforts were practically unknown outside his own district. There were others who flew around the same time,but their names escape for the present. Cheers!

]]> By: doctorpat http://blog.autospeed.com/2008/12/09/more-books-to-read/comment-page-1/#comment-52425 doctorpat Wed, 10 Dec 2008 04:49:01 +0000 http://blog.autospeed.com/?p=5398#comment-52425 I wonder if the horrifying (by today's standards) details are what you would get... if you were building military aircraft under conditions where your actually factories were being bombed, and producing 100 aircraft where 3 have structural failures is actually a better result that producing 80 aircraft with no structural failures, because in the first case you win the battle and aren't invaded. The battle of Britain was an extreme case of aircraft manufacture, and it's only human to expect that the habits formed then wouldn't have faded by the early 1950s. Same engineers, workmen and management after all. I wonder if the horrifying (by today’s standards) details are what you would get… if you were building military aircraft under conditions where your actually factories were being bombed, and producing 100 aircraft where 3 have structural failures is actually a better result that producing 80 aircraft with no structural failures, because in the first case you win the battle and aren’t invaded.

The battle of Britain was an extreme case of aircraft manufacture, and it’s only human to expect that the habits formed then wouldn’t have faded by the early 1950s. Same engineers, workmen and management after all.

]]> By: Darren Roles http://blog.autospeed.com/2008/12/09/more-books-to-read/comment-page-1/#comment-52385 Darren Roles Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:30:52 +0000 http://blog.autospeed.com/?p=5398#comment-52385 With regards to the Comet and the practice of drilling a hole at the end of a crack (Stop drilling). This is a valid repair for a lot of metallic structures in aircraft and is in widespread use in an aircraft maintenance environment. However in a design environment, signing off on a stop drilled crack that appeared during production is very much a no-no. It means the design and/or the production process are flawed. Things like edge preparation, corner radii and bend allowances for the temper of the material used are to blame. The stresses achieved in flight for the airframe aren't all that unusual depending on what the structure is, but when coupled with the previously mentioned stop-drilled cracks it was always going to make the evening news. I guess that's how some of todays design rules & regs came into being, through crashes. Flying in a plane is still safer than driving on the roads, even helicopters are safer than driving... With regards to the Comet and the practice of drilling a hole at the end of a crack (Stop drilling). This is a valid repair for a lot of metallic structures in aircraft and is in widespread use in an aircraft maintenance environment. However in a design environment, signing off on a stop drilled crack that appeared during production is very much a no-no. It means the design and/or the production process are flawed. Things like edge preparation, corner radii and bend allowances for the temper of the material used are to blame. The stresses achieved in flight for the airframe aren’t all that unusual depending on what the structure is, but when coupled with the previously mentioned stop-drilled cracks it was always going to make the evening news.
I guess that’s how some of todays design rules & regs came into being, through crashes. Flying in a plane is still safer than driving on the roads, even helicopters are safer than driving…

]]> By: Ben http://blog.autospeed.com/2008/12/09/more-books-to-read/comment-page-1/#comment-52185 Ben Tue, 09 Dec 2008 09:51:38 +0000 http://blog.autospeed.com/?p=5398#comment-52185 You don't happen to have a book called 'How to Build a Sports Car for 250 Pounds' do you? Rumour is that it's pretty good manual for building a clubman stye car. I think it deals with converting an escort, but in theory any front engine rear drive can be used. You don’t happen to have a book called ‘How to Build a Sports Car for 250 Pounds’ do you? Rumour is that it’s pretty good manual for building a clubman stye car. I think it deals with converting an escort, but in theory any front engine rear drive can be used.

]]>