At risk of being called a spoilsport, and much as I love aeroplanes (one of
the guys in Bath Engineering said that most boys are interested in nature
and model aircraft, and so to some extent it's chance as to whether you get
ensnared by engineering or biology) I feel that the present discussion has
got a bit out of hand!!
I was relying on Jim Gordon's insight for my comments. His thesis was that
wood is the most efficient material (best specific properties for making
durable structures) so that the Spruce Goose (underpowered though it might
have been - problems in the metallic tradition, unless the engines used
wooden pistons, which my dad said was a commonplace in the late '40s and
'50s when 2nd-hand car salesmen were, as they say, unregulated) was the
largest aircraft that could have been built at the time. I should also
point out to Jim (though he can obviously claim no responsibility) that the
Morgan sportscar was banned in the US for quite a period because it uses so
much wood in its body work, and this was considered to be an inferior
material so that the car was deemed unsafe. True or False?? Opinion here
claims that the Morgan is safer because of the wood (though there is
relatively little used). Better to go for the Mini Marcos, which had the
whole body shell made of formed wood. Very light, durable and efficient!?
Julian Vincent
|