Guy Martin helps restore a Spitfire -ch4 12Oct
Discussion
Simpo Two said:
dr_gn said:
Not really. It's about 0,25mm which is absolutely huge in machining terms, plus it was ground, not machined, and you can get tolerances in millionths of an inch for that process.
Are you sure that 0.0001" is 0.25mm? If his micrometer was in inches then the fourth decimal place was used. It was one ten-thousandths of an inch, not one thousandths of an inch.Regardless of how many 1000's of an inch were ground or whatever off that bolt, does anyone know how much of the original aircraft was within the airframe once finished or was it simply a registration number?
I love Guy and his enthusiasm for all things mechanical, I'm not sure how much is scripted but it all works very well.
How proud the two girls mist have felt seeing it fly and what a character the WWII pilot appeared to be
I love Guy and his enthusiasm for all things mechanical, I'm not sure how much is scripted but it all works very well.
How proud the two girls mist have felt seeing it fly and what a character the WWII pilot appeared to be
Andy RV said:
One thou / 0.0001" is 0.0254mm.
A good grinder is capable of producing components (of the diameter of that bolt for instance) to within a couple of microns / 0.002mm if you are very careful!
One thou is 0.001". Or it was when I did metalwork at school.A good grinder is capable of producing components (of the diameter of that bolt for instance) to within a couple of microns / 0.002mm if you are very careful!
Why they need a grinder to machine down 7 thou is beyond me. I'd have done it in my lathe in about 30 seconds...........
Riff Raff said:
Andy RV said:
One thou / 0.0001" is 0.0254mm.
A good grinder is capable of producing components (of the diameter of that bolt for instance) to within a couple of microns / 0.002mm if you are very careful!
One thou is 0.001". Or it was when I did metalwork at school.A good grinder is capable of producing components (of the diameter of that bolt for instance) to within a couple of microns / 0.002mm if you are very careful!
Why they need a grinder to machine down 7 thou is beyond me. I'd have done it in my lathe in about 30 seconds...........
dr_gn said:
davepoth said:
HoHoHo said:
Does that make it 'that' aircraft then?
ETA - legally?
That's the idea. It would be impossible to make a new Spitfire and have it meet the current regulations. So instead you build an "old" one. ETA - legally?
I heard a tale, it may have been in Amherst Villiers autobiography, concerning Ford and Packard starting production of the Merlin engine.
The Americans complained to Rolls-Royce management about the production tolerances. RR snootily assumed the Americans were unable to work to their tolerances but the truth was that almost every RR component required time consuming fettling to fit, whereas Ford parts were all consistent and interchangeable as their tolerances were far tighter than those at RR.
The upshot was that using US production line methods, production rates increased dramatically.
The Americans complained to Rolls-Royce management about the production tolerances. RR snootily assumed the Americans were unable to work to their tolerances but the truth was that almost every RR component required time consuming fettling to fit, whereas Ford parts were all consistent and interchangeable as their tolerances were far tighter than those at RR.
The upshot was that using US production line methods, production rates increased dramatically.
It's a shame that to get a show like that made these days you have have a celebrity attached to it. I hated the way they kept calling it 'Guys Spitfire' when in reality he probably put in a weeks work in over 2 years. Don't get me wrong, I like the bloke and his enthusiasm for all thing engineering, but at least be truthful about his input.
I've never seen riveting up a fuel tank described in such a dramatic manner before! All that talk of robots these days when in reality most aircraft are still pretty much hand built the same as that Spitfire was.
I've never seen riveting up a fuel tank described in such a dramatic manner before! All that talk of robots these days when in reality most aircraft are still pretty much hand built the same as that Spitfire was.
kev b said:
I heard a tale, it may have been in Amherst Villiers autobiography, concerning Ford and Packard starting production of the Merlin engine.
The Americans complained to Rolls-Royce management about the production tolerances. RR snootily assumed the Americans were unable to work to their tolerances but the truth was that almost every RR component required time consuming fettling to fit, whereas Ford parts were all consistent and interchangeable as their tolerances were far tighter than those at RR.
The upshot was that using US production line methods, production rates increased dramatically.
True.The Americans complained to Rolls-Royce management about the production tolerances. RR snootily assumed the Americans were unable to work to their tolerances but the truth was that almost every RR component required time consuming fettling to fit, whereas Ford parts were all consistent and interchangeable as their tolerances were far tighter than those at RR.
The upshot was that using US production line methods, production rates increased dramatically.
You have to remember, uniform mass production as effectively developed by Ford (and later the other US automakers prior to WW2, was almost non-existant in the UK in any form, and certainly an alien concept to RR.
eccles said:
It's a shame that to get a show like that made these days you have have a celebrity attached to it. I hated the way they kept calling it 'Guys Spitfire' when in reality he probably put in a weeks work in over 2 years. Don't get me wrong, I like the bloke and his enthusiasm for all thing engineering, but at least be truthful about his input.
I've never seen riveting up a fuel tank described in such a dramatic manner before! All that talk of robots these days when in reality most aircraft are still pretty much hand built the same as that Spitfire was.
I think guy himself stated numerous times about his involvement and being allowed to work on the aircraft. As for the other information you need to remember it's aimed at people who don't know about engineering and spitfires whilst just covering enough to keep those in the know interested. I've never seen riveting up a fuel tank described in such a dramatic manner before! All that talk of robots these days when in reality most aircraft are still pretty much hand built the same as that Spitfire was.
ecsrobin said:
eccles said:
It's a shame that to get a show like that made these days you have have a celebrity attached to it. I hated the way they kept calling it 'Guys Spitfire' when in reality he probably put in a weeks work in over 2 years. Don't get me wrong, I like the bloke and his enthusiasm for all thing engineering, but at least be truthful about his input.
I've never seen riveting up a fuel tank described in such a dramatic manner before! All that talk of robots these days when in reality most aircraft are still pretty much hand built the same as that Spitfire was.
I think guy himself stated numerous times about his involvement and being allowed to work on the aircraft. As for the other information you need to remember it's aimed at people who don't know about engineering and spitfires whilst just covering enough to keep those in the know interested. I've never seen riveting up a fuel tank described in such a dramatic manner before! All that talk of robots these days when in reality most aircraft are still pretty much hand built the same as that Spitfire was.
I thought it was also very good in that they actually interviewed some of the blokes doing the work, normally they just the faceless blokes in overalls in the background.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff