I see, That's what I though too :-)
--
Mike
"JGS" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email protected]...
Hi Mike,
I meant to imply that you might have four flat sides but they would not
likely be parallel. JG
Mike wrote:
> "JGS" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
> [email protected]...
> > Or parallelness (sp). JG
> >
>
> I am curious, How?
> I can understand we can have 4 sides perfectly flat, but parallel??
>
> --
> Mike
On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 05:56:42 GMT, Dale Scroggins <[email protected]>
wrote:
>CW wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 18:12:30 -0800, "CW" <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"George" <george@least> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> If
>>>>
>>>>>you ever get close enough to see it, you'll find antique furniture was
>>>>
>>>>often
>>>>
>>>>>left as is from the scrub, not even the jack, on the insides and
>>>>>underneaths.
>>>>
>>>>I build airplanes for a living. I wonder what they would say if my goal
>>
>> was
>>
>>>>to build them like they did 100 years ago?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Doubtless the FAA inspector would have a long, serious conversation
>>>with you about things like basic safety standards.
>>>
>>>The construction details on some of those old airplanes were just
>>>plain scary.
>>
>>
>> No doubt.
>>
>>
>
>Some years ago, a childhood friend called and invited me to join him in
>rebuilding a couple of airplanes. They were French-built, in the 1930s.
> I could read a little French at the time, and all the manuals were in
>French. I remember marveling at the workmanship of the woodworkers who
>built those airframes. I have never seen any wood more finely crafted.
>
>Thirty-five years later, I'm again working on French airplanes. Metal
>and composite now, with amazing performance and technology. The
>workmanship is still superb, but no better than that of the workers who
>built those airframes of wood in the 1930s.
>
>Dale Scroggins
By the 1930s aircraft designers and constructors knew what they were
doing and the standards of aircraft workmanship were extremely high
everywhere.
Before, say, 1910, it was a very different story.
--RC
"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.
In article <[email protected]>,
Tim <[email protected]> wrote:
>Can you sufficiently plane a piece of wood on a jointer?
>
>
Sufficient for what?
--
Larry Wasserman Baltimore, Maryland
[email protected]
Hi Mike,
I meant to imply that you might have four flat sides but they would not
likely be parallel. JG
Mike wrote:
> "JGS" <[email protected]> a =E9crit dans le message de news:
> [email protected]...
> > Or parallelness (sp). JG
> >
>
> I am curious, How?
> I can understand we can have 4 sides perfectly flat, but parallel??
>
> --
> Mike
For what?
You can use it to establish a flat face easily, a nearly parallel without
too much effort, and a perfectly parallel face with some work . Use the
techniques you would use if hand planing on the side to be made parallel.
OTOH, you don't need perfect parallel on most stuff, do you? You even take
what is, and ruin it with planing, sanding and tweaking after assembly. If
you ever get close enough to see it, you'll find antique furniture was often
left as is from the scrub, not even the jack, on the insides and
underneaths.
"Tim" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Can you sufficiently plane a piece of wood on a jointer?
>
>
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "George" <george@least> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> If
> > you ever get close enough to see it, you'll find antique furniture was
> often
> > left as is from the scrub, not even the jack, on the insides and
> > underneaths.
>
> I build airplanes for a living. I wonder what they would say if my goal
was
> to build them like they did 100 years ago?
>
>
They'd probably say you are chronically obtuse.
Now if you built them like they did _fifty_ years ago, they'd be good for
another twenty of bomb hauling....
"George" <george@least> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
If
> you ever get close enough to see it, you'll find antique furniture was
often
> left as is from the scrub, not even the jack, on the insides and
> underneaths.
I build airplanes for a living. I wonder what they would say if my goal was
to build them like they did 100 years ago?
"JGS" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email protected]...
> Or parallelness (sp). JG
>
I am curious, How?
I can understand we can have 4 sides perfectly flat, but parallel??
--
Mike
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 18:12:30 -0800, "CW" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"George" <george@least> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
> If
>> you ever get close enough to see it, you'll find antique furniture was
>often
>> left as is from the scrub, not even the jack, on the insides and
>> underneaths.
>
>I build airplanes for a living. I wonder what they would say if my goal was
>to build them like they did 100 years ago?
>
Doubtless the FAA inspector would have a long, serious conversation
with you about things like basic safety standards.
The construction details on some of those old airplanes were just
plain scary.
--RC
"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.
CW wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 18:12:30 -0800, "CW" <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"George" <george@least> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>> If
>>>
>>>>you ever get close enough to see it, you'll find antique furniture was
>>>
>>>often
>>>
>>>>left as is from the scrub, not even the jack, on the insides and
>>>>underneaths.
>>>
>>>I build airplanes for a living. I wonder what they would say if my goal
>
> was
>
>>>to build them like they did 100 years ago?
>>>
>>
>>Doubtless the FAA inspector would have a long, serious conversation
>>with you about things like basic safety standards.
>>
>>The construction details on some of those old airplanes were just
>>plain scary.
>
>
> No doubt.
>
>
Some years ago, a childhood friend called and invited me to join him in
rebuilding a couple of airplanes. They were French-built, in the 1930s.
I could read a little French at the time, and all the manuals were in
French. I remember marveling at the workmanship of the woodworkers who
built those airframes. I have never seen any wood more finely crafted.
Thirty-five years later, I'm again working on French airplanes. Metal
and composite now, with amazing performance and technology. The
workmanship is still superb, but no better than that of the workers who
built those airframes of wood in the 1930s.
Dale Scroggins
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 18:12:30 -0800, "CW" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"George" <george@least> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> > If
> >> you ever get close enough to see it, you'll find antique furniture was
> >often
> >> left as is from the scrub, not even the jack, on the insides and
> >> underneaths.
> >
> >I build airplanes for a living. I wonder what they would say if my goal
was
> >to build them like they did 100 years ago?
> >
> Doubtless the FAA inspector would have a long, serious conversation
> with you about things like basic safety standards.
>
> The construction details on some of those old airplanes were just
> plain scary.
No doubt.