 |
Woodworking Online
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Robatoy
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 7:19 pm Post subject: Tool quality. |
 |
|
When discussing the tools that feller was selling on eBay (That 33K
shop) one of our contributors referred to the old Unisaw 'quality'.
That got me thinking.... (yes, it happens).
I think quality is like art. You know you like it when you see it.
The look and feel of things.
Find me something modern that idles like a well-tuned Buick Straight-8
or cruises like a 600 cc vintage BMW boxer, anything that sounds like
the shutter of a well-maintained Leica? What sounds like a 350-year-old
Guarneri cello?
In 1929, in Newcastle on Tyne, they built a small tanker. It sailed the
Great Lakes as The Texaco Brave. It had a triple expansion steam engine.
As a summer job, as a wheelsman, I would spend a lot of my free time
down below, just listening and admiring that engine as it was putting
out that whopping 120 RPM.
All modern equivalents, even if proven scientifically superior, miss
something. I think it's a piece of the craftsman's/machinist's
heart/guts who made it. Is that what we call quality?
I was looking at a very old Carl Zeiss microscope one day with its
replacement, a brand new Wild Heerbrugg, sitting beside it. The proud
owner was extolling the virtues of the new Wild, the clarity of the
optics, but why didn't the focus mechanism feel the same?
It is mystical.
0¿0
˜
Rob--->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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
LRod
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 7:52 pm Post subject: Re: Tool quality. |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 09:19:37 -0500, Robatoy <design@BULLtopworks.ca>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Rob--->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.
|
There's an old saying in aviation, if it looks good, it'll fly good.
Two of the best looking airplanes ever, in my opinion, were the P-51
Mustang, and the Lockheed Constellation. By all accounts they were
delights to fly.
What brings that to mind is watching the TV program that documented
the X-plane competition to determine which aircraft will be developed
to replace the F-22 just coming on line. Both of the X-planes were the
butt ugliest planes I've ever seen (even more so than the F-117) and
amazingly, the DoD selected the uglier of the two.
- -
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Edwin Pawlowski
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 8:34 pm Post subject: Re: Tool quality. |
|
|
"Robatoy" <design@BULLtopworks.ca> wrote in message
news:design-18D63D.09193605032005@news.bellglobal.com...
| Quote: |
When discussing the tools that feller was selling on eBay (That 33K
shop) one of our contributors referred to the old Unisaw 'quality'.
That got me thinking.... (yes, it happens).
I think quality is like art. You know you like it when you see it.
The look and feel of things.
All modern equivalents, even if proven scientifically superior, miss
something. I think it's a piece of the craftsman's/machinist's
heart/guts who made it. Is that what we call quality?
I was looking at a very old Carl Zeiss microscope one day with its
replacement, a brand new Wild Heerbrugg, sitting beside it. The proud
owner was extolling the virtues of the new Wild, the clarity of the
optics, but why didn't the focus mechanism feel the same?
It is mystical.
|
Sure is.
How often do we see the question, what is the best (fill in: automobile,
table saw, gas range, camera, stereo, hand gun, plane, pencil, whatever)?
Invariably, someone will tout a high priced item while another says my
Harbor Freight version gets the job done. There is something about quality
and craftsmanship that cannot be put into works alone. It is the feel, the
sound, the resonance in one's heart that says, "this is quality".
Getting the job done is important, but what make it satisfying in the joy of
the journey.
--
Ed
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
max
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 11:15 pm Post subject: Re: Tool quality. |
|
|
I think the connection with the tool is important. It motivates and inspires
me to do better and more work.
Your personal values dictate which tool you find attractive. I like old
stuff. I had a 53 Ford pickup and wouldn't even look at the newer trucks
which to me were shaped like bricks. I finally did buy a new 98 Ram because
it had the high crown hood and prominent fenders that reminded me of my 53.
In tools, I have or had a shop filled with what some people refer to as
antiques. My tablesaw was a Yates G89 made in 1933. It had direct drive and
a top that took 5 men to lift. My bandsaw is a Walker Turner 16 with cast
iron everything. I have a South Bend 16 inch lathe shipped on St Patty's day
ion 1945.
I have a friend that is in to new, Italian, and expensive. His cars,
cookware, tools were all the latest and greatest. He had no patience to work
with old and clunky.
My Yates served me well for 10 years and inspired me to ever more difficult
projects. I finally sold it and bought a new Powermatic cabinet saw so I
could install a sliding table. Worst decision I've made tool wise. The
factory sent me three replacement tops to get one that was right.
max
| Quote: |
"Robatoy" <design@BULLtopworks.ca> wrote in message
news:design-18D63D.09193605032005@news.bellglobal.com...
When discussing the tools that feller was selling on eBay (That 33K
shop) one of our contributors referred to the old Unisaw 'quality'.
That got me thinking.... (yes, it happens).
I think quality is like art. You know you like it when you see it.
The look and feel of things.
All modern equivalents, even if proven scientifically superior, miss
something. I think it's a piece of the craftsman's/machinist's
heart/guts who made it. Is that what we call quality?
I was looking at a very old Carl Zeiss microscope one day with its
replacement, a brand new Wild Heerbrugg, sitting beside it. The proud
owner was extolling the virtues of the new Wild, the clarity of the
optics, but why didn't the focus mechanism feel the same?
It is mystical.
Sure is.
How often do we see the question, what is the best (fill in: automobile,
table saw, gas range, camera, stereo, hand gun, plane, pencil, whatever)?
Invariably, someone will tout a high priced item while another says my
Harbor Freight version gets the job done. There is something about quality
and craftsmanship that cannot be put into works alone. It is the feel, the
sound, the resonance in one's heart that says, "this is quality".
Getting the job done is important, but what make it satisfying in the joy of
the journey. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rick Cook
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 12:13 am Post subject: Re: Tool quality. |
|
|
Robatoy wrote:
| Quote: |
When discussing the tools that feller was selling on eBay (That 33K
shop) one of our contributors referred to the old Unisaw 'quality'.
That got me thinking.... (yes, it happens).
I think quality is like art. You know you like it when you see it.
The look and feel of things.
Find me something modern that idles like a well-tuned Buick Straight-8
or cruises like a 600 cc vintage BMW boxer, anything that sounds like
the shutter of a well-maintained Leica? What sounds like a 350-year-old
Guarneri cello?
In 1929, in Newcastle on Tyne, they built a small tanker. It sailed the
Great Lakes as The Texaco Brave. It had a triple expansion steam engine.
As a summer job, as a wheelsman, I would spend a lot of my free time
down below, just listening and admiring that engine as it was putting
out that whopping 120 RPM.
All modern equivalents, even if proven scientifically superior, miss
something. I think it's a piece of the craftsman's/machinist's
heart/guts who made it. Is that what we call quality?
I was looking at a very old Carl Zeiss microscope one day with its
replacement, a brand new Wild Heerbrugg, sitting beside it. The proud
owner was extolling the virtues of the new Wild, the clarity of the
optics, but why didn't the focus mechanism feel the same?
It is mystical.
0¿0
˜
Rob--->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.
|
Well, there's certainly an aesthetic to good tools and machinery.
For me, though, 'quality' means fitness to purpose. Aesthetics are
definitely secondary.
--RC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rick Cook
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 12:18 am Post subject: Re: Tool quality. |
|
|
LRod wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 09:19:37 -0500, Robatoy <design@BULLtopworks.ca
wrote:
Rob--->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.
There's an old saying in aviation, if it looks good, it'll fly good.
Two of the best looking airplanes ever, in my opinion, were the P-51
Mustang, and the Lockheed Constellation. By all accounts they were
delights to fly.
What brings that to mind is watching the TV program that documented
the X-plane competition to determine which aircraft will be developed
to replace the F-22 just coming on line. Both of the X-planes were the
butt ugliest planes I've ever seen (even more so than the F-117) and
amazingly, the DoD selected the uglier of the two.
- -
LRod
Not amazing at all. Sometimes planes that look terrible also fly very |
well. The F-4
Phantom II was widely criticized as butt-ugly when it was introduced and
the P-47 wasn't exactly considered beautiful. The DeHavlind Comet was
much prettier than the Boeing 707 but it wasn't nearly as good as an
airliner (even leaving aside the Comet's design flaw).
--RC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Bonomi
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 12:49 am Post subject: Re: Tool quality. |
|
|
In article <9ghj21dd4g52dfpqhl8i5ptgrtefvnq9c7@4ax.com>,
LRod <LRod-removethispart@pobox.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 09:19:37 -0500, Robatoy <design@BULLtopworks.ca
wrote:
Rob--->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.
There's an old saying in aviation, if it looks good, it'll fly good.
Two of the best looking airplanes ever, in my opinion, were the P-51
Mustang, and the Lockheed Constellation. By all accounts they were
delights to fly.
What brings that to mind is watching the TV program that documented
the X-plane competition to determine which aircraft will be developed
to replace the F-22 just coming on line. Both of the X-planes were the
butt ugliest planes I've ever seen (even more so than the F-117) and
amazingly, the DoD selected the uglier of the two.
|
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." <grin>
Military aircraft design considers only as an 'afterthought' how
easy or 'delightful' the plane is to fly.
Pretty much everything else pales into insignificance, vs the ability
to 'get the mission accomplished'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bernoulli
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 1:23 am Post subject: Re: Tool quality. |
|
|
| Quote: |
There's an old saying in aviation, if it looks good, it'll fly
good.
Two of the best looking airplanes ever, in my opinion, were the
P-51
Mustang, and the Lockheed Constellation. By all accounts they were
delights to fly.
Not amazing at all. Sometimes planes that look terrible also fly very
well. The F-4
Phantom II was widely criticized as butt-ugly when it was introduced
and
the P-47 wasn't exactly considered beautiful. The DeHavlind Comet was
much prettier than the Boeing 707 but it wasn't nearly as good as an
airliner (even leaving aside the Comet's design flaw).
I guess it's all in the eyes of the beholder. I've flown the F-4. I |
always liked the way it looked, but it only flew well while
supersonic. I flew the L1011 which I always thought unnatractive, but
some models flew well and others didn't. I've flown the Cessna 750
which flew well but I didn't like its looks particularly. I do agree
(and I've been told) about the P51 and the Connie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LRod
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 1:47 am Post subject: Re: Tool quality. |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 19:49:56 -0000, bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:
| Quote: |
Military aircraft design considers only as an 'afterthought' how
easy or 'delightful' the plane is to fly.
Pretty much everything else pales into insignificance, vs the ability
to 'get the mission accomplished'.
|
I didn't think I was going to have to explain this. "Delight to fly"
in the military sense means being able to go into the fight with the
fastest, quickest (not the same thing), best armed ship in the fight.
The P-51 was always that (in WWII) and didn't require the pilot to
have to manhandle it out and back. Thus, "delight to fly" has/had more
than one implication.
- -
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guy
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 1:50 am Post subject: Re: Tool quality. |
|
|
"LRod" <LRod-removethispart@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:9ghj21dd4g52dfpqhl8i5ptgrtefvnq9c7@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 09:19:37 -0500, Robatoy <design@BULLtopworks.ca
wrote:
Rob--->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.
There's an old saying in aviation, if it looks good, it'll fly good.
Two of the best looking airplanes ever, in my opinion, were the P-51
Mustang, and the Lockheed Constellation. By all accounts they were
delights to fly.
What brings that to mind is watching the TV program that documented
the X-plane competition to determine which aircraft will be developed
to replace the F-22 just coming on line. Both of the X-planes were the
butt ugliest planes I've ever seen (even more so than the F-117) and
amazingly, the DoD selected the uglier of the two.
|
I believe you are refering to the competition for the Joint Strike Fighter
(JSF) which will replace the F-16, F-18 and Harrier, not the F-22. I'll
grant you that neither plane was exactly pleasing to the eye, but the losing
Boeing entry was downright strange looking. At least the Lockheed entry
looked something like a conventional jet fighter.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LRod
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 2:00 am Post subject: Re: Tool quality. |
|
|
On 5 Mar 2005 12:23:53 -0800, "Bernoulli" <usefultools@gmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
I guess it's all in the eyes of the beholder. I've flown the F-4. I
always liked the way it looked, but it only flew well while
supersonic. I flew the L1011 which I always thought unnatractive, but
some models flew well and others didn't.
|
From the controller's point of view, the F-4 was great.
"Can you be level in 20 miles?"
"Affirmative"
(Four miles later): "November Kilo 25 level FL 350."
The 1011 had its good points and bad points. After the Arab oil
embargo of the '70s all the operators slowed their aircraft down to
..83 M. Except the 1011s, which because of the deck angle at cruise
actually burned more fuel at .83 than they did at .85 which they all
wound up cruising at. They outran everyone else as a consequence.
However, if you were trying to top anyone with a 1011, you better have
a lot of room, because they didn't climb worth shit. I had a TWA 1011
one day take all the way to LMN (Lamoni, IA) from ORD (O'Hare) to get
to FL310. That's more than 250 miles. And it wasn't even an overseas
flight.
It had the best jump seat view of all, however.
- -
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charlie Self
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 2:01 am Post subject: Re: Tool quality. |
|
|
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charlie Self
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 2:10 am Post subject: Re: Tool quality. |
|
|
Rick Cook notes:
Not amazing at all. Sometimes planes that look terrible also fly very
well. The F-4
Phantom II was widely criticized as butt-ugly when it was introduced
and
the P-47 wasn't exactly considered beautiful. The DeHavlind Comet was
much prettier than the Boeing 707 but it wasn't nearly as good as an
airliner (even leaving aside the Comet's design flaw).
I have to wonder about the Crusader (F . We had a couple squadrons of
those things at Kaneohe Bay back in the late '50s, and, in one sense,
the Marine Corps loved the job their machine guns would do. But the
pilots said it was unstable as hell during landing, and had the glide
ratio of a rock. Last fighter aircraft built with guns as the main
weapons system, by the way. It looked a little more like an old
seaplane than a jet fighter from some angles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Beej-in-GA
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 2:41 am Post subject: Re: Tool quality. |
|
|
"Charlie Self" <charliediy@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1110057024.270227.265920@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
Rick Cook notes:
Not amazing at all. Sometimes planes that look terrible also fly very
well. The F-4
Phantom II was widely criticized as butt-ugly when it was introduced
and
the P-47 wasn't exactly considered beautiful. The DeHavlind Comet was
much prettier than the Boeing 707 but it wasn't nearly as good as an
airliner (even leaving aside the Comet's design flaw).
I have to wonder about the Crusader (F. We had a couple squadrons of
those things at Kaneohe Bay back in the late '50s, and, in one sense,
the Marine Corps loved the job their machine guns would do. But the
pilots said it was unstable as hell during landing, and had the glide
ratio of a rock. Last fighter aircraft built with guns as the main
weapons system, by the way. It looked a little more like an old
seaplane than a jet fighter from some angles.
|
Hi Charlie and all,
Sorry to burst in here, but I used to an ADJ in a RA5C squadron. The Vigi
shared the same engines as the Phantom. The NPF (Non Powered Flight) Ratio
of both birds was horrendous. The Vigi would fall 16 feet for every foot
forward while the Phantom would fall 32 feet per foot forward. Some folks
would say all the aerodynamics of a bumble bee. Me, I look at it like this,
if you strap two J-79's to a shitcan, its going to fly and fast as hell
right up to where it runs out of gas. If your mech was good enough, you
could get about three and a half to four hours at conserve. You want hustle
you can burn the lot (something like 20,000 lbs.) in fifteen minutes at full
AB. I always thought your F-8 was a sharp looking bird. Must have been an
Hydraulicsman's nightmare though with that tilting wing. Glad I wasn't a
bubblechaser in those outfits. I guess someone liked the airframe though.
They made A-7 look like a blunt nosed F-8. Though for A-7 they decided to
use the Rolls TF-41 vice the PW J-57. Damned shame if you ask me. I was
never fond of Turbo Fan engines. Thanks for the listen, and the trip down
memory lane.
Later,
Beej |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark & Juanita
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 3:07 am Post subject: Re: Tool quality. |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 14:52:17 +0000, LRod <LRod-removethispart@pobox.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 09:19:37 -0500, Robatoy <design@BULLtopworks.ca
wrote:
Rob--->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.
There's an old saying in aviation, if it looks good, it'll fly good.
Two of the best looking airplanes ever, in my opinion, were the P-51
Mustang, and the Lockheed Constellation. By all accounts they were
delights to fly.
What brings that to mind is watching the TV program that documented
the X-plane competition to determine which aircraft will be developed
to replace the F-22 just coming on line. Both of the X-planes were the
butt ugliest planes I've ever seen (even more so than the F-117) and
amazingly, the DoD selected the uglier of the two.
|
If you are referring to the JSF competition (it doesn't replace the F-22,
merely complements it -- like the F15/F16 combination), the DoD picked the
better looking of the two when choosing the Lockheed F-35. The Boeing
entry was bad-ugly (IMO), it looked like a sleek fighter was trying to get
out, but was trapped by this ugly bulge on the fuselage underside. Kind of
like the sleek fighter had landed on top of an A-6.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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 vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in