What plastic did the the nation's premiere fighter aircraft

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Feb 27, 2011.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    "Stealt materials."

    http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&

    plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog:
    27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:5d5351e5-8a5f-4073-9428-
    c3129cabdf6a

    Costly corrosion problems on the F-22 caused by stealth materials and
    coatings have been addressed on the F-35, but risks remain, concludes
    a report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

    The GAO's presentation to Congress on its review of the DoD's
    corrosion evaluation report on the F-22 and F-35, completed at the end
    of September, says:

    "Corrosion of the aluminum skin panels on the F-22 was first observed
    in spring 2005, less than 6 months after the Air Force first
    introduced the aircraft to a severe environment. By October 2007, a
    total of 534 instances of corrosion were documented, and corrosion in
    the substructure was becoming prevalent. For corrosion damage
    identified to date, the government is paying $228 million to make F-22
    corrosion-related repairs and retrofits through 2016."
     
    RichA, Feb 27, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:
    >
    >Costly corrosion problems on the F-22 caused by stealth materials and
    >coatings have been addressed on the F-35, but risks remain, concludes
    >a report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
    >
    >The GAO's presentation to Congress on its review of the DoD's
    >corrosion evaluation report on the F-22 and F-35, completed at the end
    >of September, says:
    >
    >"Corrosion of the aluminum skin panels on the F-22 was first observed
    >in spring 2005, less than 6 months after the Air Force first
    >introduced the aircraft to a severe environment. By October 2007, a
    >total of 534 instances of corrosion were documented, and corrosion in
    >the substructure was becoming prevalent. For corrosion damage
    >identified to date, the government is paying $228 million to make F-22
    >corrosion-related repairs and retrofits through 2016."



    That's the trouble with metal. It corrodes.

    It would have been far better to make the aircraft out of composite
    materials, otherwise known as "plastic".
     
    Bruce, Feb 27, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Rich Guest

    On Feb 27, 2:00 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    > RichA <> wrote:
    >
    > >Costly corrosion problems on the F-22 caused by stealth materials and
    > >coatings have been addressed on the F-35, but risks remain, concludes
    > >a report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

    >
    > >The GAO's presentation to Congress on its review of the DoD's
    > >corrosion evaluation report on the F-22 and F-35, completed at the end
    > >of September, says:

    >
    > >"Corrosion of the aluminum skin panels on the F-22 was first observed
    > >in spring 2005, less than 6 months after the Air Force first
    > >introduced the aircraft to a severe environment. By October 2007, a
    > >total of 534 instances of corrosion were documented, and corrosion in
    > >the substructure was becoming prevalent. For corrosion damage
    > >identified to date, the government is paying $228 million to make F-22
    > >corrosion-related repairs and retrofits through 2016."

    >
    > That's the trouble with metal.  It corrodes.  
    >
    > It would have been far better to make the aircraft out of composite
    > materials, otherwise known as "plastic".


    Really? B-52's flew for 50 years. Metal. F-4s, metal decades of
    use, F-16s, F-14s, F-15s, F-18s, C5s, etc, etc. Plastic did it to
    metal and if plastic was indeed a suitable material to use for 100% of
    the plane's construction, they might use it. But it isn't.
     
    Rich, Feb 28, 2011
    #3
  4. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Rich <> wrote:
    >On Feb 27, 2:00 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> RichA <> wrote:
    >> >Costly corrosion problems on the F-22 caused by stealth materials and
    >> >coatings have been addressed on the F-35, but risks remain, concludes
    >> >a report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

    >>
    >> >The GAO's presentation to Congress on its review of the DoD's
    >> >corrosion evaluation report on the F-22 and F-35, completed at the end
    >> >of September, says:

    >>
    >> >"Corrosion of the aluminum skin panels on the F-22 was first observed
    >> >in spring 2005, less than 6 months after the Air Force first
    >> >introduced the aircraft to a severe environment. By October 2007, a
    >> >total of 534 instances of corrosion were documented, and corrosion in
    >> >the substructure was becoming prevalent. For corrosion damage
    >> >identified to date, the government is paying $228 million to make F-22
    >> >corrosion-related repairs and retrofits through 2016."

    >>
    >> That's the trouble with metal.  It corrodes.  
    >>
    >> It would have been far better to make the aircraft out of composite
    >> materials, otherwise known as "plastic".

    >
    >Really? B-52's flew for 50 years. Metal. F-4s, metal decades of
    >use, F-16s, F-14s, F-15s, F-18s, C5s, etc, etc. Plastic did it to
    >metal and if plastic was indeed a suitable material to use for 100% of
    >the plane's construction, they might use it. But it isn't.



    Did you ever have a sense of humour?

    Have you ever smiled - even just once - in your sad little life?

    Has anything ever made you laugh? Would you know how to?

    I picture you with a permanent deep scowl. ;-)
     
    Bruce, Feb 28, 2011
    #4
  5. RichA

    shiva das Guest

    In article <>,
    "R. Mark Clayton" <> wrote:

    >
    > BTW do the F22 and F35 come with a camera built in?


    There are also two separate infrared camera systems onboard the F-35.
    The AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System consists of six infrared
    cameras placed around the fuselage of the F-35. Working together, the
    cameras create a 360-degree spherical image that can be viewed in the
    pilot¹s helmet-mounted display. The cameras provide the pilot with an
    infrared image equivalent to roughly 20/20 human vision, said Dave
    Jeffreys, Lockheed Martin¹s senior manager for F-35 Improvements and
    Derivatives. Additionally, these cameras also provide the pilot with
    missile warning, cueing of air and surface targets, and air-to-air
    situational awareness.

    The second infrared camera type is the Lockheed Martin AN/AAQ-40
    Electro-optical Targeting System, which is similar to the Sniper
    targeting pod mounted on the F-16 but is carried in an internal mounting
    in the F-35¹s nose. The camera provides very high-resolution video with
    a continuous zoom feature, which would be useful during nontraditional
    ISR missions in support of ground troops, he said. The camera will also
    provide the F-35 with long-range passive air-to-air search and track
    abilities.

    <http://www.c4isrjournal.com/story.php?F=4756598>
     
    shiva das, Mar 1, 2011
    #5
  6. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Mar 1, 12:14 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > On 2011-03-01 06:06:30 -0800, "R. Mark Clayton"
    > <> said:
    >
    > <Le Snip>
    >
    >
    >
    > > BTW do the F22 and F35 come with a camera built in?

    >
    > Several.
    > A gun camera, and several methods of recording other data images as
    > well as missile targeting events.
    >
    > --
    > Regards,
    >
    > Savageduck


    And the missles have cameras in their noses, some of them.
     
    RichA, Mar 1, 2011
    #6
  7. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 3/1/2011 9:06 AM, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
    > "Rich"<> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > On Feb 27, 2:00 pm, Bruce<> wrote:
    >> RichA<> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Costly corrosion problems on the F-22 caused by stealth materials and
    >>> coatings have been addressed on the F-35, but risks remain, concludes
    >>> a report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

    >>

    > SNIP
    >>
    >> That's the trouble with metal. It corrodes.
    >>
    >> It would have been far better to make the aircraft out of composite
    >> materials, otherwise known as "plastic".

    >
    > Really? B-52's flew for 50 years. Metal. F-4s, metal decades of
    > use, F-16s, F-14s, F-15s, F-18s, C5s, etc, etc. Plastic did it to
    > metal and if plastic was indeed a suitable material to use for 100% of
    > the plane's construction, they might use it. But it isn't.
    >
    > Various materials have been used to make aeroplanes: -
    >
    > Wood - e.g. De Haviland Mosquito


    Wood the Spruce goose and probably millions of flying planes made mostly
    of balsa wood.





    > Aluminium - most recent civil and military aircraft
    > Stainless Steel - English Electric Lightning (fighter and interceptor)
    > Titanium - Lockheed SR71
    > Plastic - Boeing 787
    >
    > In fact most of these and magnesium have been made to make cameras too.
    >
    > The only material unlikely to be affected by corrosion is gold, but for a
    > number of reasons this is unsuitable for aviation use or to make cameras.
    >
    > BTW do the F22 and F35 come with a camera built in?
    >
    >



    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Mar 2, 2011
    #7
  8. RichA

    Mike Guest

    On 27/02/2011 17:18, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2011-02-27 09:11:19 -0800, RichA <> said:
    >
    >> "Stealt materials."
    >>
    >> http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&
    >>
    >>
    >> plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog:
    >>

    > 27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:5d5351e5-8a5f-4073-9428-
    > c3129cabdf6a
    >
    > Costly
    >>
    >> corrosion problems on the F-22 caused by stealth materials and
    >> coatings have been addressed on the F-35, but risks remain, concludes
    >> a report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
    >>
    >> The GAO's presentation to Congress on its review of the DoD's
    >> corrosion evaluation report on the F-22 and F-35, completed at the end
    >> of September, says:
    >>
    >> "Corrosion of the aluminum skin panels on the F-22 was first observed
    >> in spring 2005, less than 6 months after the Air Force first
    >> introduced the aircraft to a severe environment. By October 2007, a
    >> total of 534 instances of corrosion were documented, and corrosion in
    >> the substructure was becoming prevalent. For corrosion damage
    >> identified to date, the government is paying $228 million to make F-22
    >> corrosion-related repairs and retrofits through 2016."

    >
    > If I were you, Rich, I wouldn't buy an F22, or F35 for any of my
    > photography needs.
    > Unless you really need a very stealthy camera made with aluminum skin
    > panels.
    >


    Ahh but it can bomb the s**t out of those pesky p&s and olympus cameras.


    Mike
     
    Mike, Mar 2, 2011
    #8
  9. RichA

    Mike Guest

    On 27/02/2011 19:00, Bruce wrote:
    > RichA<> wrote:
    >>
    >> Costly corrosion problems on the F-22 caused by stealth materials and
    >> coatings have been addressed on the F-35, but risks remain, concludes
    >> a report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
    >>
    >> The GAO's presentation to Congress on its review of the DoD's
    >> corrosion evaluation report on the F-22 and F-35, completed at the end
    >> of September, says:
    >>
    >> "Corrosion of the aluminum skin panels on the F-22 was first observed
    >> in spring 2005, less than 6 months after the Air Force first
    >> introduced the aircraft to a severe environment. By October 2007, a
    >> total of 534 instances of corrosion were documented, and corrosion in
    >> the substructure was becoming prevalent. For corrosion damage
    >> identified to date, the government is paying $228 million to make F-22
    >> corrosion-related repairs and retrofits through 2016."

    >
    >
    > That's the trouble with metal. It corrodes.


    Maybe the manufacturer should speak to the european automotive
    manufacturers who by and large have managed to make cars that resist
    corrosion provided they are maintained properly.

    > It would have been far better to make the aircraft out of composite
    > materials, otherwise known as "plastic".


    Cameras made out of metal, planes made out of plastic and dresses made
    out of meat, my god it's madness, madness I tell you!!!

    I think my cat may be part methane.

    Mike
     
    Mike, Mar 2, 2011
    #9
  10. RichA

    Tarasz Guest

    Le Wed, 02 Mar 2011 00:28:01 -0800, Savageduck a écrit :

    > Apparently you are not familiar with the Alfa Sud (life expectancy 18-36
    > months) and various 1970's & 1980's Lancias.


    At this time, as some other manufacturers, they were reluctant to invest
    in electrocoating process. The result was a commercial disaster.
     
    Tarasz, Mar 2, 2011
    #10
  11. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >On 2011-03-02 00:10:33 -0800, Mike <> said:
    >> Maybe the manufacturer should speak to the european automotive
    >> manufacturers who by and large have managed to make cars that resist
    >> corrosion provided they are maintained properly.

    >
    >Apparently you are not familiar with the Alfa Sud (life expectancy
    >18-36 months) and various 1970's & 1980's Lancias.



    The Alfasud and Lancias represented a low point in manufacturing
    quality of steel bodies. It was the unique combination of modern
    thin, high strength steels and the historic inability of Italian car
    manufacturers to prevent or delay rusting that led to those problems.

    It was a wake-up call for European manufacturers. Even Volkswagen's
    standards had slipped, and they led the way in inproving corrosion
    resistance by a combination of better design (avoiding rust traps),
    improved priming and painting and, especially, wax injection of
    cavities. Most of the severe rust problems were caused by internal
    rusting within cavities bursting through the paintwork, and the wax
    put a stop to this.

    Despite the fact that British roads have more de-icing salts applied
    to them in winter than ever before, rust problems are a thing of the
    past. There was some backsliding caused by the change from
    solvent-based to water-based paints, which brought added problems
    (especially to Mercedes-Benz), but almost every manufacturer selling
    cars in the UK now offers a warranty against rusting. It just isn't a
    problem any more.

    Ironically, among the brands whose bodywork is most resistant to
    corrosion is ... Alfa Romeo.

    I don't know about Lancia because the range was withdrawn from the UK
    market after the rust problems of the 70s/80s and never came back.
     
    Bruce, Mar 2, 2011
    #11
  12. RichA

    Mike Guest

    On 02/03/2011 08:28, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2011-03-02 00:10:33 -0800, Mike <> said:
    >
    >> On 27/02/2011 19:00, Bruce wrote:
    >>> RichA<> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> Costly corrosion problems on the F-22 caused by stealth materials and
    >>>> coatings have been addressed on the F-35, but risks remain, concludes
    >>>> a report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
    >>>>
    >>>> The GAO's presentation to Congress on its review of the DoD's
    >>>> corrosion evaluation report on the F-22 and F-35, completed at the end
    >>>> of September, says:
    >>>>
    >>>> "Corrosion of the aluminum skin panels on the F-22 was first observed
    >>>> in spring 2005, less than 6 months after the Air Force first
    >>>> introduced the aircraft to a severe environment. By October 2007, a
    >>>> total of 534 instances of corrosion were documented, and corrosion in
    >>>> the substructure was becoming prevalent. For corrosion damage
    >>>> identified to date, the government is paying $228 million to make F-22
    >>>> corrosion-related repairs and retrofits through 2016."
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> That's the trouble with metal. It corrodes.

    >>
    >> Maybe the manufacturer should speak to the european automotive
    >> manufacturers who by and large have managed to make cars that resist
    >> corrosion provided they are maintained properly.

    >
    > Apparently you are not familiar with the Alfa Sud (life expectancy 18-36
    > months) and various 1970's & 1980's Lancias.
    >
    >


    Alfa Suds where the worst by far and IIRC had to recall them here in the
    UK as most where failing their first MOT (roadworthiness test done on
    cars from the third anniversary of registration). Since then they have
    improved enormously.

    Mike
     
    Mike, Mar 2, 2011
    #12
  13. RichA

    DanP Guest

    On Mar 2, 12:18 pm, Bruce <> wrote:

    > Ironically, among the brands whose bodywork is most resistant to
    > corrosion is ... Alfa Romeo.


    I have just scrapped my 10 year old Alfa 156. Rust, among other things
    was on the MOT failure report.
    My financial loss does not upset me as much as the car being taken off
    the road.

    DanP
     
    DanP, Mar 2, 2011
    #13
  14. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 3/2/2011 2:56 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 19:00:53 -0800, Savageduck
    > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    >> On 2011-03-01 16:23:38 -0800, Eric Stevens<> said:
    >>
    >>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 14:06:30 -0000, "R. Mark Clayton"
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "Rich"<> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>> On Feb 27, 2:00 pm, Bruce<> wrote:
    >>>>> RichA<> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Costly corrosion problems on the F-22 caused by stealth materials and
    >>>>>> coatings have been addressed on the F-35, but risks remain, concludes
    >>>>>> a report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
    >>>>>
    >>>> SNIP
    >>>>>
    >>>>> That's the trouble with metal. It corrodes.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It would have been far better to make the aircraft out of composite
    >>>>> materials, otherwise known as "plastic".
    >>>>
    >>>> Really? B-52's flew for 50 years. Metal. F-4s, metal decades of
    >>>> use, F-16s, F-14s, F-15s, F-18s, C5s, etc, etc.
    >>>
    >>> All of these aircraft have ongoing corrosion problems.

    >>
    >> Perhaps you should have phrased that, "All aircraft have ongoing
    >> corrosion problems."
    >> Here is a little FAA brochure;
    >> < http://www.tc.faa.gov/its/cmd/visitors/data/AAR-430/aainsp.pdf>
    >>
    >> They get suspicious when this type of thing happens;
    >> < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bDNCac2N1o&feature=related>

    >
    > I suspect someone should have become suspicious before this happened.
    >
    > Regards,
    >


    Some could have been paid not to be.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Mar 3, 2011
    #14
  15. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Rich <> wrote:
    >On Feb 27, 2:00 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> RichA <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >Costly corrosion problems on the F-22 caused by stealth materials and
    >> >coatings have been addressed on the F-35, but risks remain, concludes
    >> >a report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

    >>
    >> >The GAO's presentation to Congress on its review of the DoD's
    >> >corrosion evaluation report on the F-22 and F-35, completed at the end
    >> >of September, says:

    >>
    >> >"Corrosion of the aluminum skin panels on the F-22 was first observed
    >> >in spring 2005, less than 6 months after the Air Force first
    >> >introduced the aircraft to a severe environment. By October 2007, a
    >> >total of 534 instances of corrosion were documented, and corrosion in
    >> >the substructure was becoming prevalent. For corrosion damage
    >> >identified to date, the government is paying $228 million to make F-22
    >> >corrosion-related repairs and retrofits through 2016."

    >>
    >> That's the trouble with metal.  It corrodes.  
    >>
    >> It would have been far better to make the aircraft out of composite
    >> materials, otherwise known as "plastic".

    >
    >Really? B-52's flew for 50 years. Metal.


    That metal corroded, too.

    --
    Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
    | The new GOP ideal
     
    Ray Fischer, Mar 19, 2011
    #15
  16. RichA

    ScotchBright Guest

    On 19 Mar 2011 21:09:38 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

    >Rich <> wrote:
    >>On Feb 27, 2:00 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    >>> RichA <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> >Costly corrosion problems on the F-22 caused by stealth materials and
    >>> >coatings have been addressed on the F-35, but risks remain, concludes
    >>> >a report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
    >>>
    >>> >The GAO's presentation to Congress on its review of the DoD's
    >>> >corrosion evaluation report on the F-22 and F-35, completed at the end
    >>> >of September, says:
    >>>
    >>> >"Corrosion of the aluminum skin panels on the F-22 was first observed
    >>> >in spring 2005, less than 6 months after the Air Force first
    >>> >introduced the aircraft to a severe environment. By October 2007, a
    >>> >total of 534 instances of corrosion were documented, and corrosion in
    >>> >the substructure was becoming prevalent. For corrosion damage
    >>> >identified to date, the government is paying $228 million to make F-22
    >>> >corrosion-related repairs and retrofits through 2016."
    >>>
    >>> That's the trouble with metal.  It corrodes.  
    >>>
    >>> It would have been far better to make the aircraft out of composite
    >>> materials, otherwise known as "plastic".

    >>
    >>Really? B-52's flew for 50 years. Metal.

    >
    >That metal corroded, too.


    Actually the whole program is corroded.

    The F-22 was originally supposed to cost between 90 and 180
    million depending on specs.
    The Pentagon and Lockheed (now Lockheed-Martin) agreed on a
    package for 120 million per plane, and then Lockheed went behind their
    backs and got the government to lower the specifications but leave the
    price as was.
    The Pentagon got wise and decided to cancel further orders,
    saying they'd just buy the F-35 (the "low cost" strike fighter that
    was supposed to be an adjunct to the F-22) and be done with the F-22
    boondoggle.
    Lockheed responded by saying that so much of what went into
    the F-35 was just scaled down from the F-22, and they needed to
    recover their research and development dollars, so they couldn't sell
    the F-35 at the originally agreed price of 60-some million per plane,
    and instead would have to charge the Pentagon 113 million per plane.
    The latest sale to Canada, with maintenance costs factored
    into the per plane equation will have Canadians paying more than 200
    million per plane for a plane that is about half as capable as the
    F-22, which was over priced at 120 million.
     
    ScotchBright, Mar 22, 2011
    #16
  17. RichA

    Mr Cheerless Guest

    On 01/03/2011 17:33, RichA wrote:
    > On Mar 1, 12:14 pm, Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >> On 2011-03-01 06:06:30 -0800, "R. Mark Clayton"
    >> <> said:
    >>
    >> <Le Snip>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> BTW do the F22 and F35 come with a camera built in?

    >>
    >> Several.
    >> A gun camera, and several methods of recording other data images as
    >> well as missile targeting events.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Regards,
    >>
    >> Savageduck

    >
    > And the missles have cameras in their noses, some of them.


    Yes, but despite them having metal bodies, the IQ is just crap.
     
    Mr Cheerless, Mar 25, 2011
    #17
  18. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    RichA wrote:
    >
    > "Stealt materials."


    <edited for brevity>

    > Costly corrosion problems on the F-22 caused by stealth materials and
    > coatings have been addressed on the F-35, but risks remain, concludes
    > a report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
    >
    > The GAO's presentation to Congress on its review of the DoD's corrosion
    > evaluation report on the F-22 and F-35, completed at the end of September,
    > says:
    >
    > "Corrosion of the aluminum skin panels on the F-22 was first observed
    > in spring 2005, less than 6 months after the Air Force first introduced
    > the aircraft to a severe environment. By October 2007, a total of 534
    > instances of corrosion were documented, and corrosion in the substructure
    > was becoming prevalent. For corrosion damage identified to date, the
    > government is paying $228 million to make F-22 corrosion-related
    > repairs and retrofits through 2016."



    Your subject title is just as incoherent, as its author is.

    Furthermore, "the nation's premiere fighter aircraft" isn't a product
    of >your< crummy country. The issues with Canada's military aircraft
    don't involve plastic...instead, the Canucks' "warbirds" are often
    grounded, because of engine faults (i.e., their rubber bands break).

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Mar 31, 2011
    #18
  19. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    PeterN wrote:
    >
    > > On 3/1/2011 9:06 AM, R. Mark Clayton wrote:


    <edited for brevity>

    > > Various materials have been used to make aeroplanes: -
    > >
    > > Wood - e.g. De Haviland Mosquito

    >
    > Wood the Spruce goose and probably millions of flying planes
    > made mostly of balsa wood.


    <edited>

    Few of the balsa/tissue model airplanes that I ever built,
    were capable of successful flight. Damned disappointing,
    considering all the time and effort I'd put into them.

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Mar 31, 2011
    #19
  20. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    Bruce wrote:
    >
    > > Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > >> On 2011-03-02 00:10:33 -0800, Mike <> said:
    > >> Maybe the manufacturer should speak to the european automotive
    > >> manufacturers who by and large have managed to make cars that
    > >> resist corrosion provided they are maintained properly.

    > >
    > > Apparently you are not familiar with the Alfa Sud (life expectancy
    > > 18-36 months) and various 1970's & 1980's Lancias.

    >
    > The Alfasud and Lancias represented a low point in manufacturing
    > quality of steel bodies. It was the unique combination of modern
    > thin, high strength steels and the historic inability of Italian car
    > manufacturers to prevent or delay rusting that led to those problems.


    "Bruce" is an automobile authority, too! If only those aforementioned
    companies had known of his expertise, they could've employed him as a
    consultant...and hence, avoided such debacles.

    > It was a wake-up call for European manufacturers. Even Volkswagen's
    > standards had slipped, and they led the way in inproving corrosion
    > resistance by a combination of better design (avoiding rust traps),
    > improved priming and painting and, especially, wax injection of
    > cavities. Most of the severe rust problems were caused by internal
    > rusting within cavities bursting through the paintwork, and the wax
    > put a stop to this.


    That's truly fascinating, old man. Obviously, Volkswagen hired you and
    heeded your sage advice.

    > Despite the fact that British roads have more de-icing salts applied
    > to them in winter than ever before, rust problems are a thing of the
    > past. There was some backsliding caused by the change from
    > solvent-based to water-based paints, which brought added problems
    > (especially to Mercedes-Benz), but almost every manufacturer selling
    > cars in the UK now offers a warranty against rusting. It just isn't
    > a problem any more.


    Yes, it's not "a problem anymore," for British-built cars. They simply
    fall apart >mechanically<, before having a chance to rust away.

    > Ironically, among the brands whose bodywork is most resistant to
    > corrosion is ... Alfa Romeo.


    Wow!

    > I don't know about Lancia because the range was withdrawn from
    > the UK market after the rust problems of the 70s/80s and never
    > came back.


    It was their own fault, "Bruce" -- they should've listened to
    you, back in the dark ages.

    Luckily, Olympus hasn't repeated that mistake, in these more
    enlightened times ("Bruce" speaks fluent Japanese and most
    camera makers seek his wise counsel).

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Mar 31, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. JaR
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    2,458
  2. Jankins

    Fighter planes pictures

    Jankins, Sep 18, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    1,618
    Sexy Susan
    Sep 21, 2003
  3. J.D. Parker

    Fighter Planes (yeah more of them)

    J.D. Parker, Sep 22, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    574
    Steve
    Oct 3, 2003
  4. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    460
    DVD Verdict
    Jul 7, 2005
  5. Jeanette Guire
    Replies:
    44
    Views:
    3,084
    Michael A. Terrell
    Oct 16, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page