Hello Folks,

There was a discussion on here maybe earlier this year, maybe last year 
about whether the thread on a tripod/camera was 1/4-20 Whitworth or UNC. 
  ISTR we got into discussions about thread angles and somebody pointed 
out that Wikipedia was (allegedly) wrong.

Thing is, I can't remember who had the last word, and I can't find the 
discussion on Google Groups.

Without wishing to open the debate again, did anyone find the definitive 
answer, cos my colleagues and I were having fun recently with a load of 
(supposed) Whitworth bolts/nuts and studding, some of which was 
compatible and some of which wasn't!

1. Stud would screw into camera
2. Bolt would *not* screw into camera
3. Nut would screw onto *both* stud and bolt

Cheers,

Rumble

"Dave Osborne" <rumble@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:6cvb2eF23b8U1@mid.individual.net...
> Hello Folks,
>
> There was a discussion on here maybe earlier this year, maybe last year 
> about whether the thread on a tripod/camera was 1/4-20 Whitworth or UNC. 
> ISTR we got into discussions about thread angles and somebody pointed out 
> that Wikipedia was (allegedly) wrong.
>
> Thing is, I can't remember who had the last word, and I can't find the 
> discussion on Google Groups.
>
> Without wishing to open the debate again, did anyone find the definitive 
> answer, cos my colleagues and I were having fun recently with a load of 
> (supposed) Whitworth bolts/nuts and studding, some of which was compatible 
> and some of which wasn't!
>
> 1. Stud would screw into camera
> 2. Bolt would *not* screw into camera
> 3. Nut would screw onto *both* stud and bolt
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rumble
As I recall, it is Whitworth - the camera standard was set before UNC was 
introduced in 1948.

UNC is a 60 degree form and Whitworth is 55 degree. Pitch is the same - 20 
threads per inch. Obviously there are manufacturing tolerances which may 
explain your experience.

Dave Osborne wrote:

> There was a discussion on here maybe earlier this year, maybe last year
> about whether the thread on a tripod/camera was 1/4-20 Whitworth or UNC.
> ISTR we got into discussions about thread angles and somebody pointed
> out that Wikipedia was (allegedly) wrong.
> 
> Thing is, I can't remember who had the last word, and I can't find the
> discussion on Google Groups.

It's Whitworth. I've just fished out one of my ancient cameras that dates
back to the early '50s when the standard was Whitworth. It's held in it's
ever-ready case with a screw which goes into the tripod bush and has a
female thread on the bottom for mounting on a tripod while in the case. The
screw fits my current digital camera and also mates with the screw on my
fairly recent tripod. So I'd say that the current standard is still
Whitworth, or is given a generous clearance so that both Whitworth and UNC
will fit.

-- 
Mike Clarke

"Dave Osborne" <rumble@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:6cvb2eF23b8U1@mid.individual.net...
> Hello Folks,
>
> There was a discussion on here maybe earlier this year, maybe last year 
> about whether the thread on a tripod/camera was 1/4-20 Whitworth or UNC. 
> ISTR we got into discussions about thread angles and somebody pointed out 
> that Wikipedia was (allegedly) wrong.
>
> Thing is, I can't remember who had the last word, and I can't find the 
> discussion on Google Groups.
>
> Without wishing to open the debate again, did anyone find the definitive 
> answer, cos my colleagues and I were having fun recently with a load of 
> (supposed) Whitworth bolts/nuts and studding, some of which was compatible 
> and some of which wasn't!
>
> 1. Stud would screw into camera

Running fit thread.

> 2. Bolt would *not* screw into camera

Normal

> 3. Nut would screw onto *both* stud and bolt

Nuts are usually always slack  (Fnarrrrrr !)

In article <v-CdnQNmPuszM_fVnZ2dnUVZ8sPinZ2d@posted.plusnet>,
   Mike Clarke  wrote:
> > There was a discussion on here maybe earlier this year, maybe last
> > year about whether the thread on a tripod/camera was 1/4-20 Whitworth
> > or UNC. ISTR we got into discussions about thread angles and somebody
> > pointed out that Wikipedia was (allegedly) wrong.
> > 
> > Thing is, I can't remember who had the last word, and I can't find the
> > discussion on Google Groups.

> It's Whitworth. I've just fished out one of my ancient cameras that dates
> back to the early '50s when the standard was Whitworth.

It may have been in the UK - but the UK was never a major camera maker?   

> It's held in it's ever-ready case with a screw which goes into the
> tripod bush and has a female thread on the bottom for mounting on a
> tripod while in the case. The screw fits my current digital camera and
> also mates with the screw on my fairly recent tripod. So I'd say that
> the current standard is still Whitworth, or is given a generous
> clearance so that both Whitworth and UNC will fit.

The other one that hasn't been mentioned is American Coarse.

-- 
*Work like you don't need the money.  Love like you've never been hurt.  

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News)  wrote:

> The other one that hasn't been mentioned is American Coarse.

No such thing as American Coors. It's all brewed at the old Bass factory
in Alton.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <v-CdnQNmPuszM_fVnZ2dnUVZ8sPinZ2d@posted.plusnet>,
>    Mike Clarke  wrote:
>>> There was a discussion on here maybe earlier this year, maybe last
>>> year about whether the thread on a tripod/camera was 1/4-20 Whitworth
>>> or UNC. ISTR we got into discussions about thread angles and somebody
>>> pointed out that Wikipedia was (allegedly) wrong.
>>>
>>> Thing is, I can't remember who had the last word, and I can't find the
>>> discussion on Google Groups.
> 
>> It's Whitworth. I've just fished out one of my ancient cameras that dates
>> back to the early '50s when the standard was Whitworth.
> 
> It may have been in the UK - but the UK was never a major camera maker?   
> 
AFAIK the thread is the same everywhere.  Certainly my tripod has fitted 
fine on a German, a Japanese, and an American camera.

So I googled...

"I think you will find that 1/4" BSW (British Standard Whitworth) is
close enough to 1/4-20 UNC (Unified National Coarse) to be considered
interchangeable for non-critical applications such as this (if this
were an airplane, I'd think differently).  The differences are out in
the third decimal place, being on the order of 0.005" or less.

This interchangeability is fortunate, since BSW is considered
obsolete and is approaching extinction (Britain having gone metric),
while the UNC should be around for a good while longer.  Certainly
tooling in UNC is a lot cheaper than BSW."  (this was in a discussion 
about Rollei, so not toy cameras)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripod_%28photography%29

"The de facto standard threading for the screw that attaches the camera 
to the tripod is Whitworth 1/4"-20 for small cameras or Whitworth 
3/8"-16 for larger cameras. (This otherwise obsolete thread system is 
similar to the Unified Thread Standard still used in the USA, but with a 
different thread angle.)

Most cameras and tripods—even those manufactured and used in countries 
which use the metric system exclusively—are built with Whitworth tripod 
threading."

HTH

Andy

In article <1ijgxc2.1m0baf81y30untN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
   Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> Dave Plowman (News)  wrote:

> > The other one that hasn't been mentioned is American Coarse.

> No such thing as American Coors. It's all brewed at the old Bass factory
> in Alton.

Sounds like you should lay off it for a while.

-- 
*Elephants are the only mammals that can't jump *

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News)  wrote:

> In article <1ijgxc2.1m0baf81y30untN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
>    Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> > Dave Plowman (News)  wrote:
> 
> > > The other one that hasn't been mentioned is American Coarse.
> 
> > No such thing as American Coors. It's all brewed at the old Bass factory
> > in Alton.
> 
> Sounds like you should lay off it for a while.

The probability of me drinking Coors is about the same as the
probability of you sitting down for a nice pint of petrol with a
paraffin chaser.

In article <1ijh6uq.qu1r255jafsjN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
   Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> Dave Plowman (News)  wrote:

> > In article <1ijgxc2.1m0baf81y30untN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
> >    Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Dave Plowman (News)  wrote:
> > 
> > > > The other one that hasn't been mentioned is American Coarse.
> > 
> > > No such thing as American Coors. It's all brewed at the old Bass
> > > factory in Alton.
> > 
> > Sounds like you should lay off it for a while.

> The probability of me drinking Coors is about the same as the
> probability of you sitting down for a nice pint of petrol with a
> paraffin chaser.

How do you know I'm not a fire eater?

-- 
*No sentence fragments *

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News)  wrote:

> In article <1ijh6uq.qu1r255jafsjN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
>    Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> > Dave Plowman (News)  wrote:
> 
> > > In article <1ijgxc2.1m0baf81y30untN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
> > >    Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > Dave Plowman (News)  wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > The other one that hasn't been mentioned is American Coarse.
> > > 
> > > > No such thing as American Coors. It's all brewed at the old Bass
> > > > factory in Alton.
> > > 
> > > Sounds like you should lay off it for a while.
> 
> > The probability of me drinking Coors is about the same as the
> > probability of you sitting down for a nice pint of petrol with a
> > paraffin chaser.
> 
> How do you know I'm not a fire eater?

I haven't seen you in the Cathedral close.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Andy Champ 
saying something like:

>Most cameras and tripods?even those manufactured and used in countries 
>which use the metric system exclusively?are built with Whitworth tripod 
>threading."

So, in the world of photography, there will be a small corner that is,
forever, Britain.
-- 
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a

"It's a moron working with power tools.
 How much more suspenseful can you get?"
 - House

Grimly Curmudgeon  wrote:
>
>So, in the world of photography, there will be a small corner that is,
>forever, Britain.


More of a small helix, really.  ;-)

"Andy Champ"  wrote in message 
news:r66dnaNRXsNMdfbVRVnyuAA@eclipse.net.uk...
...
> "I think you will find that 1/4" BSW (British Standard Whitworth) is
> close enough to 1/4-20 UNC (Unified National Coarse) to be considered
> interchangeable for non-critical applications such as this (if this
> were an airplane, I'd think differently).  The differences are out in
> the third decimal place, being on the order of 0.005" or less...

That was rather the point of the Unified thread - to provide something that 
would work with both British and US standard threads, to improve 
interchangability between allies during the war. They were, incidentally, 
used in some aircraft equipment although, according to my late father who 
was an aircraft instrument fitter, where the British aircraft were designed 
so that you could dismantle anything with a standard toolkit, the Americans 
would design the aircraft first, then a set of specialised tools you needed 
to get to the fixings they had put behind things.

Colin Bignell

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname
here>.me.uk> saying something like:

>They were, incidentally, 
>used in some aircraft equipment although, according to my late father who 
>was an aircraft instrument fitter, where the British aircraft were designed 
>so that you could dismantle anything with a standard toolkit, the Americans 
>would design the aircraft first, then a set of specialised tools you needed 
>to get to the fixings they had put behind things.

Reminds me of an old RAF airframe guy who told me the Spitfire was an
utter bastard to repair battle damage on, as everything was crammed in
and needed lots of time to take panels off and rivet back on, whereas
the Hurricane was repairable with a pot of glue and a bedsheet.
-- 
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a

"It's a moron working with power tools.
 How much more suspenseful can you get?"
 - House

On 2 Jul, 21:45, Andy Champ  wrote:

> This interchangeability is fortunate, since BSW is considered
> obsolete and is approaching extinction (Britain having gone metric),

Yet the tooling remains readily available and, according to the
supplier, will continue to be available for the foreseeable future.

In article <g4lkun$qlk$4@registered.motzarella.org>, Grimly Curmudgeon
 scribeth thus
>We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
>drugs began to take hold. I remember "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname
>here>.me.uk> saying something like:
>
>>They were, incidentally, 
>>used in some aircraft equipment although, according to my late father who 
>>was an aircraft instrument fitter, where the British aircraft were designed 
>>so that you could dismantle anything with a standard toolkit, the Americans 
>>would design the aircraft first, then a set of specialised tools you needed 
>>to get to the fixings they had put behind things.
>
>Reminds me of an old RAF airframe guy who told me the Spitfire was an
>utter bastard to repair battle damage on, as everything was crammed in
>and needed lots of time to take panels off and rivet back on, whereas
>the Hurricane was repairable with a pot of glue and a bedsheet.

Yep thats what my  dad and uncle told me too, and they used to do those
very jobs;!...
-- 
Tony Sayer

"Grimly Curmudgeon"  wrote in message 
news:g4lkun$qlk$4@registered.motzarella.org...
> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
> drugs began to take hold. I remember "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname
> here>.me.uk> saying something like:
>
>>They were, incidentally,
>>used in some aircraft equipment although, according to my late father who
>>was an aircraft instrument fitter, where the British aircraft were 
>>designed
>>so that you could dismantle anything with a standard toolkit, the 
>>Americans
>>would design the aircraft first, then a set of specialised tools you 
>>needed
>>to get to the fixings they had put behind things.
>
> Reminds me of an old RAF airframe guy who told me the Spitfire was an
> utter bastard to repair battle damage on, as everything was crammed in
> and needed lots of time to take panels off and rivet back on, whereas
> the Hurricane was repairable with a pot of glue and a bedsheet.

The Hurricane won the battle of Britain as the spitfire didn't have the fire 
power to bring down the bombers and there were ten times as many Hurricanes.
Somehow they couldn't pin a medal on a piece of furniture.

dennis@home wrote:
> 
> The Hurricane won the battle of Britain as the spitfire didn't have the 
> fire power to bring down the bombers and there were ten times as many 
> Hurricanes.
> Somehow they couldn't pin a medal on a piece of furniture.
> 

The Spitfire won the Battle of Britain, because the Hurri didn't have 
the speed to keep the 109s off.  Or it was the Defiant.  Or the barrage 
balloons.  Or the Home Guard.

Or perhaps they all played a part?

Andy

"Andy Champ"  wrote in message 
news:_u6dnd11taK6A_PVRVnygwA@eclipse.net.uk...
> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>> The Hurricane won the battle of Britain as the spitfire didn't have the 
>> fire power to bring down the bombers and there were ten times as many 
>> Hurricanes.
>> Somehow they couldn't pin a medal on a piece of furniture.
>>
>
> The Spitfire won the Battle of Britain, because the Hurri didn't have the 
> speed to keep the 109s off.  Or it was the Defiant.  Or the barrage 
> balloons.  Or the Home Guard.
>
> Or perhaps they all played a part?

Probably the people really.
It wasn't the spitfire as is frequently told.
>
> Andy

In article ,
   nightjar <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk> wrote:
> That was rather the point of the Unified thread - to provide something
> that would work with both British and US standard threads, to improve
> interchangability between allies during the war.

Don't think that's so at all. There are very few sizes where AC will fit
Whitworth - and none I know of where AF will fit BSF. They were
essentially new threads to a common standard.

-- 
*Two many clicks spoil the browse *

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> Don't think that's so at all. There are very few sizes where AC will fit
> Whitworth - and none I know of where AF will fit BSF. They were
> essentially new threads to a common standard.

AC and AF?  Do you mean American Coarse and Fine?  I've not heard of 
those designations before.  Pre-WW2 American threads were NC and NF 
(National Coarse/Fine) [1].  The unification which gave us UNC and UNF 
[2]  was, AIUI, not so much about making US parts interchangeable with 
our BSW and BSF as about having a common standard adopted on both sides 
of the pond.  The Yanks would use UNC/UNF instead of NC/NF and we would 
use UNC/UNF instead of BSW/BSF.  This was only partially successful 
because Whit-form parts remained widely available and used in the UK - 
although the automotive industry did eventually switch to Unified.

[1] http://www.sizes.com/tools/thread_NCNF.htm
[2] http://www.sizes.com/tools/thread_american.htm

-- 
Andy

Andy Wade coughed up some electrons that declared:

> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> 
>> Don't think that's so at all. There are very few sizes where AC will fit
>> Whitworth - and none I know of where AF will fit BSF. They were
>> essentially new threads to a common standard.
> 
> AC and AF?  Do you mean American Coarse and Fine?  I've not heard of
> those designations before.  Pre-WW2 American threads were NC and NF
> (National Coarse/Fine) [1].  The unification which gave us UNC and UNF
> [2]  was, AIUI, not so much about making US parts interchangeable with
> our BSW and BSF as about having a common standard adopted on both sides
> of the pond.  The Yanks would use UNC/UNF instead of NC/NF and we would
> use UNC/UNF instead of BSW/BSF.  This was only partially successful
> because Whit-form parts remained widely available and used in the UK -
> although the automotive industry did eventually switch to Unified.
> 
> [1] http://www.sizes.com/tools/thread_NCNF.htm
> [2] http://www.sizes.com/tools/thread_american.htm
> 

AF was quite common nomenclature about 20+ years ago, at least in the car
fixing circles...

Tim S wrote:

> AF was quite common nomenclature about 20+ years ago, at least in the car
> fixing circles...

... but meant "across flats" rather than "American Fine"?

-- 
Andy

"Andy Wade"  wrote in message 
news:6d9f6uF1gtvsU1@mid.individual.net...
> Tim S wrote:
>
>> AF was quite common nomenclature about 20+ years ago, at least in the car
>> fixing circles...
>
> ... but meant "across flats" rather than "American Fine"?

IIRC 1/2" AF was 5/16" bolt usually UNC thread in my day but there was a lot 
of whitworth and UNF about.

In article ,
   Andy Wade  wrote:
> > Don't think that's so at all. There are very few sizes where AC will fit
> > Whitworth - and none I know of where AF will fit BSF. They were
> > essentially new threads to a common standard.

> AC and AF?  Do you mean American Coarse and Fine?  I've not heard of 
> those designations before.  Pre-WW2 American threads were NC and NF 
> (National Coarse/Fine) [1].

They tend to be known as American coarse and fine here - or at least in my
circles. ;-) 

>  The unification which gave us UNC and UNF 
> [2]  was, AIUI, not so much about making US parts interchangeable with 
> our BSW and BSF as about having a common standard adopted on both sides 
> of the pond.

Correct. But those unified threads owed far more to NF and NC than BSW or
BSF.

>  The Yanks would use UNC/UNF instead of NC/NF and we would 
> use UNC/UNF instead of BSW/BSF.  This was only partially successful 
> because Whit-form parts remained widely available and used in the UK - 
> although the automotive industry did eventually switch to Unified.

And NC and NF are still common in the US. Sadly unified not so in the UK
as it was a far better system for general use than metric, IMHO.

-- 
*If all is not lost, where the hell is it?

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Andy Wade wrote:
> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> 
>> Don't think that's so at all. There are very few sizes where AC will fit
>> Whitworth - and none I know of where AF will fit BSF. They were
>> essentially new threads to a common standard.
> 
> AC and AF?  Do you mean American Coarse and Fine?  I've not heard of 
> those designations before.  Pre-WW2 American threads were NC and NF 
> (National Coarse/Fine) [1].  The unification which gave us UNC and UNF 
> [2]  was, AIUI, not so much about making US parts interchangeable with 
> our BSW and BSF as about having a common standard adopted on both sides 
> of the pond.  The Yanks would use UNC/UNF instead of NC/NF and we would 
> use UNC/UNF instead of BSW/BSF.  This was only partially successful 
> because Whit-form parts remained widely available and used in the UK - 
> although the automotive industry did eventually switch to Unified.
> 

It went metric actually. Then it died.

> [1] http://www.sizes.com/tools/thread_NCNF.htm
> [2] http://www.sizes.com/tools/thread_american.htm
>

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article ,
>    Andy Wade  wrote:
>>> Don't think that's so at all. There are very few sizes where AC will fit
>>> Whitworth - and none I know of where AF will fit BSF. They were
>>> essentially new threads to a common standard.
> 
>> AC and AF?  Do you mean American Coarse and Fine?  I've not heard of 
>> those designations before.  Pre-WW2 American threads were NC and NF 
>> (National Coarse/Fine) [1].
> 
> They tend to be known as American coarse and fine here - or at least in my
> circles. ;-) 
> 
>>  The unification which gave us UNC and UNF 
>> [2]  was, AIUI, not so much about making US parts interchangeable with 
>> our BSW and BSF as about having a common standard adopted on both sides 
>> of the pond.
> 
> Correct. But those unified threads owed far more to NF and NC than BSW or
> BSF.
> 
>>  The Yanks would use UNC/UNF instead of NC/NF and we would 
>> use UNC/UNF instead of BSW/BSF.  This was only partially successful 
>> because Whit-form parts remained widely available and used in the UK - 
>> although the automotive industry did eventually switch to Unified.
> 
> And NC and NF are still common in the US. Sadly unified not so in the UK
> as it was a far better system for general use than metric, IMHO.
> 
Rubbish. Life wouldn't be the same without M3, 6BA, 1/8" whitworth, 1/8" 
UNC and UNF..

Andy Wade coughed up some electrons that declared:

> Tim S wrote:
> 
>> AF was quite common nomenclature about 20+ years ago, at least in the car
>> fixing circles...
> 
> ... but meant "across flats" rather than "American Fine"?
> 

So it did...

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Andy Wade wrote:
>> - although the automotive industry did eventually switch to 
>> Unified.
> 
> It went metric actually. Then it died.

Unified first, then metric.  Not straight from BSW/BSF to metric.

-- 
Andy

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> And NC and NF are still common in the US.

And NPT.

> Sadly unified not so in the UK as it was a far better system for
> general use than metric, IMHO.

Why, OOI?

-- 
Andy

In article ,
   Andy Wade  wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> > Andy Wade wrote:
> >> - although the automotive industry did eventually switch to 
> >> Unified.
> > 
> > It went metric actually. Then it died.

> Unified first, then metric.  Not straight from BSW/BSF to metric.

Yup. Most UK made cars were Unified (in the main) from after WW2 to about
'70. Although electrical parts stayed with BA.

But pre-war designed parts often stayed with the older threads - one
example being the MG XP series of engines that continued in production
until the mid '50s. And they had some strange threads - the big end bolts
were an extremely fine one - not BSF. Rileys too - until both makers
adopted the BMC drive train. Although general purpose nuts and bolts might
well have been Unified.

-- 
*I pretend to work. - they pretend to pay me.

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
   Andy Wade  wrote:
> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> > And NC and NF are still common in the US.

> And NPT.

> > Sadly unified not so in the UK as it was a far better system for
> > general use than metric, IMHO.

> Why, OOI?

For general purpose fixings on cars UNF was the usual - and seemed to hold
rather better than standard metric. Less prone to vibrate loose.

-- 
*The older you get, the better you realize you were.

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message 
news:4fba8be2b7dave@davenoise.co.uk...
> In article ,
>   Andy Wade  wrote:
>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>
>> > And NC and NF are still common in the US.
>
>> And NPT.
>
>> > Sadly unified not so in the UK as it was a far better system for
>> > general use than metric, IMHO.
>
>> Why, OOI?
>
> For general purpose fixings on cars UNF was the usual - and seemed to hold
> rather better than standard metric. Less prone to vibrate loose.

Not IME.
They both vibrated loose unless you locked them.

Anyway having one that vibrates loose twice as slowly as another is still 
useless.
Even ten times longer is still useless.

On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 21:20:13 +0100, "dennis@home"
 wrote:

>The Hurricane won the battle of Britain as the spitfire didn't have the fire 
>power to bring down the bombers 

BB period, Hurricane firepower ?   Spitifire firepower?

Both of them had just the same eight .303 wing guns. The Hurricane IIb
did have twelve, but didn't show up until after the BoB.  Both were
later re-armed with the 20mm Hispano cannon, but the Spitfire got these
first.

So, just another Dennisism...

On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 08:54:11 +0100, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname
here>.me.uk> wrote:

>That was rather the point of the Unified thread - to provide something that 
>would work with both British and US standard threads, to improve 
>interchangability between allies during the war. 

Actually it was _after_ the war.   The Unified standards weren't agreed
until 1949, as a response to problems during the war. They weren't fixed
at the time because the disruption to production would have been
immense.  

During the war itself the US kit used American National standards,
previously known as United States Standard. Nothing inter-worked with
British kit. For some kit, such as the Sherman Firefly, this literally
meant one set of spanners to work on the (British) gun and another set
of wrenches to work on the US-built chassis and engine.

Andy Dingley wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 21:20:13 +0100, "dennis@home"
>  wrote:
> 
>> The Hurricane won the battle of Britain as the spitfire didn't have the fire 
>> power to bring down the bombers 
> 
> BB period, Hurricane firepower ?   Spitifire firepower?
> 
> Both of them had just the same eight .303 wing guns. The Hurricane IIb
> did have twelve, but didn't show up until after the BoB.  Both were
> later re-armed with the 20mm Hispano cannon, but the Spitfire got these
> first.
> 
> So, just another Dennisism...
I think he menas that there were abut 3 times as many hurricanes available.

Andy Dingley wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 08:54:11 +0100, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname
> here>.me.uk> wrote:
> 
>> That was rather the point of the Unified thread - to provide something that 
>> would work with both British and US standard threads, to improve 
>> interchangability between allies during the war. 
> 
> Actually it was _after_ the war.   The Unified standards weren't agreed
> until 1949, as a response to problems during the war. They weren't fixed
> at the time because the disruption to production would have been
> immense.  
> 
> During the war itself the US kit used American National standards,
> previously known as United States Standard. Nothing inter-worked with
> British kit. For some kit, such as the Sherman Firefly, this literally
> meant one set of spanners to work on the (British) gun and another set
> of wrenches to work on the US-built chassis and engine.
A situation that more or less persisted right up to british leyland 
days.. I can remember AF spanners on the Chassis and whitworth or BSF on 
the endgine, or something.

And computers..half the screws are yank the other half metric..

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Andy Dingley wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 21:20:13 +0100, "dennis@home"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> The Hurricane won the battle of Britain as the spitfire didn't have 
>>> the fire power to bring down the bombers 
>>
>> BB period, Hurricane firepower ?   Spitifire firepower?
>>
>> Both of them had just the same eight .303 wing guns. The Hurricane IIb
>> did have twelve, but didn't show up until after the BoB.  Both were
>> later re-armed with the 20mm Hispano cannon, but the Spitfire got these
>> first.
>>
>> So, just another Dennisism...
> I think he menas that there were abut 3 times as many hurricanes available.

You might be right - but Dennis claimed there were 10 times as many and 
phrased it in a way that seemed to say that the numerical superiority 
was on top of individual aircraft firepower power superiority.

-- 
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious 
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
<www.thyromind.info> <www.thyroiduk.org> <www.altsupportthyroid.org>

"Andy Dingley"  wrote in message 
news:hbg574t5mbvgm558k6sl8239tfugqhqikg@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 21:20:13 +0100, "dennis@home"
>  wrote:
>
>>The Hurricane won the battle of Britain as the spitfire didn't have the 
>>fire
>>power to bring down the bombers
>
> BB period, Hurricane firepower ?   Spitifire firepower?
>
> Both of them had just the same eight .303 wing guns. The Hurricane IIb
> did have twelve, but didn't show up until after the BoB.  Both were
> later re-armed with the 20mm Hispano cannon, but the Spitfire got these
> first.
>
> So, just another Dennisism...

The hurricane still got 80% of the kills.

In article ,
   The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote:
> > During the war itself the US kit used American National standards,
> > previously known as United States Standard. Nothing inter-worked with
> > British kit. For some kit, such as the Sherman Firefly, this literally
> > meant one set of spanners to work on the (British) gun and another set
> > of wrenches to work on the US-built chassis and engine.
> A situation that more or less persisted right up to british leyland 
> days.. I can remember AF spanners on the Chassis and whitworth or BSF on 
> the endgine, or something.

More likely a mix of Unified and Metric, if BL. BMC - different.
Most of the engines, etc BL used were designed before they were formed and
used Unified. It would make little sense to re-engineer for another thread.

-- 
*'ome is where you 'ang your @ *

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote:

>In article ,
>   The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote:
>> > During the war itself the US kit used American National standards,
>> > previously known as United States Standard. Nothing inter-worked with
>> > British kit. For some kit, such as the Sherman Firefly, this literally
>> > meant one set of spanners to work on the (British) gun and another set
>> > of wrenches to work on the US-built chassis and engine.
>> A situation that more or less persisted right up to british leyland 
>> days.. I can remember AF spanners on the Chassis and whitworth or BSF on 
>> the endgine, or something.
>
>More likely a mix of Unified and Metric, if BL. BMC - different.
>Most of the engines, etc BL used were designed before they were formed and
>used Unified. It would make little sense to re-engineer for another thread.


My father's 1970 Hillman Avenger needed two sets of spanners to work
on it.  I cannot recall which two types they were, but the engine
needed one set and the rest of the car the other.

Rod wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> Andy Dingley wrote:
>>> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 21:20:13 +0100, "dennis@home"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Hurricane won the battle of Britain as the spitfire didn't have 
>>>> the fire power to bring down the bombers 
>>>
>>> BB period, Hurricane firepower ?   Spitifire firepower?
>>>
>>> Both of them had just the same eight .303 wing guns. The Hurricane IIb
>>> did have twelve, but didn't show up until after the BoB.  Both were
>>> later re-armed with the 20mm Hispano cannon, but the Spitfire got these
>>> first.
>>>
>>> So, just another Dennisism...
>> I think he menas that there were abut 3 times as many hurricanes 
>> available.
> 
> You might be right - but Dennis claimed there were 10 times as many and 
> phrased it in a way that seemed to say that the numerical superiority 
> was on top of individual aircraft firepower power superiority.
> 
Well the whole issue of firewpwer was predicated on a completely false 
set of assumptins that unravelled as soon as combat in te real sense 
happened.

The thory was you atackecet at 800 yards with 8 machine guns, and that 
wold be enough to take the buggers ouit. In fact it soon became clear 
from 'enemy attacked and driven away eastwards' tat harmonising ti 200 
yards or less, and concentrating firepower in certain areas - wing 
roots, fuel tanks and the pilot, was the key.

And when the germans equipped with cannon, that one canon shell was 
likely to do a lot more damage then 50 303 bullets.

There is some devastating footage of IIRC a Tempest doing ground attack 
on lorries and so on with cannon fire. Things simply disintegrate when hit.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Rod wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> Andy Dingley wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 21:20:13 +0100, "dennis@home"
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Hurricane won the battle of Britain as the spitfire didn't have 
>>>>> the fire power to bring down the bombers 
>>>>
>>>> BB period, Hurricane firepower ?   Spitifire firepower?
>>>>
>>>> Both of them had just the same eight .303 wing guns. The Hurricane IIb
>>>> did have twelve, but didn't show up until after the BoB.  Both were
>>>> later re-armed with the 20mm Hispano cannon, but the Spitfire got these
>>>> first.
>>>>
>>>> So, just another Dennisism...
>>> I think he menas that there were abut 3 times as many hurricanes 
>>> available.
>>
>> You might be right - but Dennis claimed there were 10 times as many 
>> and phrased it in a way that seemed to say that the numerical 
>> superiority was on top of individual aircraft firepower power 
>> superiority.
>>
> Well the whole issue of firewpwer was predicated on a completely false 
> set of assumptins that unravelled as soon as combat in te real sense 
> happened.
> 
> The thory was you atackecet at 800 yards with 8 machine guns, and that 
> wold be enough to take the buggers ouit. In fact it soon became clear 
> from 'enemy attacked and driven away eastwards' tat harmonising ti 200 
> yards or less, and concentrating firepower in certain areas - wing 
> roots, fuel tanks and the pilot, was the key.
> 
> And when the germans equipped with cannon, that one canon shell was 
> likely to do a lot more damage then 50 303 bullets.
> 
> There is some devastating footage of IIRC a Tempest doing ground attack 
> on lorries and so on with cannon fire. Things simply disintegrate when hit.
> 
I can be thankful that the Luftwaffe continued to use at least some 
machine guns. My father was hit by a bullet from one of their guns, in 
the chest, just above his heart.

We have the mangled pair of scissors that just happened to be in his 
pocket at the time. This was the worst (maybe even the only) injury he 
received in 67 ops over occupied territory, plus flying service in 
India, Burma, etc. Had that been a canon shell... well, I might not have 
been able to be thankful...

-- 
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious 
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
<www.thyromind.info> <www.thyroiduk.org> <www.altsupportthyroid.org>

"Rod"  wrote in message 
news:6dgu3sF2h5t5U1@mid.individual.net...
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> Rod wrote:
>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> Andy Dingley wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 21:20:13 +0100, "dennis@home"
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Hurricane won the battle of Britain as the spitfire didn't have 
>>>>>> the fire power to bring down the bombers
>>>>>
>>>>> BB period, Hurricane firepower ?   Spitifire firepower?
>>>>>
>>>>> Both of them had just the same eight .303 wing guns. The Hurricane IIb
>>>>> did have twelve, but didn't show up until after the BoB.  Both were
>>>>> later re-armed with the 20mm Hispano cannon, but the Spitfire got 
>>>>> these
>>>>> first.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, just another Dennisism...
>>>> I think he menas that there were abut 3 times as many hurricanes 
>>>> available.
>>>
>>> You might be right - but Dennis claimed there were 10 times as many and 
>>> phrased it in a way that seemed to say that the numerical superiority 
>>> was on top of individual aircraft firepower power superiority.
>>>
>> Well the whole issue of firewpwer was predicated on a completely false 
>> set of assumptins that unravelled as soon as combat in te real sense 
>> happened.
>>
>> The thory was you atackecet at 800 yards with 8 machine guns, and that 
>> wold be enough to take the buggers ouit. In fact it soon became clear 
>> from 'enemy attacked and driven away eastwards' tat harmonising ti 200 
>> yards or less, and concentrating firepower in certain areas - wing roots, 
>> fuel tanks and the pilot, was the key.
>>
>> And when the germans equipped with cannon, that one canon shell was 
>> likely to do a lot more damage then 50 303 bullets.
>>
>> There is some devastating footage of IIRC a Tempest doing ground attack 
>> on lorries and so on with cannon fire. Things simply disintegrate when 
>> hit.
>>
> I can be thankful that the Luftwaffe continued to use at least some 
> machine guns. My father was hit by a bullet from one of their guns, in the 
> chest, just above his heart.
>
> We have the mangled pair of scissors that just happened to be in his 
> pocket at the time. This was the worst (maybe even the only) injury he 
> received in 67 ops over occupied territory, plus flying service in India, 
> Burma, etc. Had that been a canon shell... well, I might not have been 
> able to be thankful...
>

If it had been a cannon it probably wouldn't have hit him,
the machine gun bullet must have been pretty spent or they were extremely 
good scissors.

dennis@home wrote:
> 
> 
> "Rod"  wrote in message 
> news:6dgu3sF2h5t5U1@mid.individual.net...
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> Rod wrote:
>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> Andy Dingley wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 21:20:13 +0100, "dennis@home"
>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Hurricane won the battle of Britain as the spitfire didn't 
>>>>>>> have the fire power to bring down the bombers
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BB period, Hurricane firepower ?   Spitifire firepower?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both of them had just the same eight .303 wing guns. The Hurricane 
>>>>>> IIb
>>>>>> did have twelve, but didn't show up until after the BoB.  Both were
>>>>>> later re-armed with the 20mm Hispano cannon, but the Spitfire got 
>>>>>> these
>>>>>> first.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, just another Dennisism...
>>>>> I think he menas that there were abut 3 times as many hurricanes 
>>>>> available.
>>>>
>>>> You might be right - but Dennis claimed there were 10 times as many 
>>>> and phrased it in a way that seemed to say that the numerical 
>>>> superiority was on top of individual aircraft firepower power 
>>>> superiority.
>>>>
>>> Well the whole issue of firewpwer was predicated on a completely 
>>> false set of assumptins that unravelled as soon as combat in te real 
>>> sense happened.
>>>
>>> The thory was you atackecet at 800 yards with 8 machine guns, and 
>>> that wold be enough to take the buggers ouit. In fact it soon became 
>>> clear from 'enemy attacked and driven away eastwards' tat harmonising 
>>> ti 200 yards or less, and concentrating firepower in certain areas - 
>>> wing roots, fuel tanks and the pilot, was the key.
>>>
>>> And when the germans equipped with cannon, that one canon shell was 
>>> likely to do a lot more damage then 50 303 bullets.
>>>
>>> There is some devastating footage of IIRC a Tempest doing ground 
>>> attack on lorries and so on with cannon fire. Things simply 
>>> disintegrate when hit.
>>>
>> I can be thankful that the Luftwaffe continued to use at least some 
>> machine guns. My father was hit by a bullet from one of their guns, in 
>> the chest, just above his heart.
>>
>> We have the mangled pair of scissors that just happened to be in his 
>> pocket at the time. This was the worst (maybe even the only) injury he 
>> received in 67 ops over occupied territory, plus flying service in 
>> India, Burma, etc. Had that been a canon shell... well, I might not 
>> have been able to be thankful...
>>
> 
> If it had been a cannon it probably wouldn't have hit him,
> the machine gun bullet must have been pretty spent or they were 
> extremely good scissors.
> 
> 
They certainly looked to have been good quality, solid Sheffield steel. 
Sort of kitchen scissor size. (Why he had them with him, I have no 
idea.) The two parts were completely separated. Each curled round into a 
near-semi-circle. Some parts discoloured and lost a bit of chrome.

It seems entirely likly that the bullet had passed through some part of 
the structure to get to him - possibly a Wellington or, more likely, a 
Lancaster. Probably wireless operator's position.

-- 
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious 
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
<www.thyromind.info> <www.thyroiduk.org> <www.altsupportthyroid.org>

Rod wrote:
> I can be thankful that the Luftwaffe continued to use at least some 
> machine guns. My father was hit by a bullet from one of their guns, in 
> the chest, just above his heart.
> 
> We have the mangled pair of scissors that just happened to be in his 
> pocket at the time. This was the worst (maybe even the only) injury he 
> received in 67 ops over occupied territory, plus flying service in 
> India, Burma, etc. Had that been a canon shell... well, I might not have 
> been able to be thankful...
> 

My father still has the .300 (ish) calibre bullet his mechanic found in 
his seat after a mission over Korea in the 50s.

Though of course it may have been ground fire.

Andy

"Rod"  wrote in message 
news:6dh225F25jh8U1@mid.individual.net...
> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Rod"  wrote in message 
>> news:6dgu3sF2h5t5U1@mid.individual.net...
>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> Rod wrote:
>>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>> Andy Dingley wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 21:20:13 +0100, "dennis@home"
>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Hurricane won the battle of Britain as the spitfire didn't have 
>>>>>>>> the fire power to bring down the bombers
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BB period, Hurricane firepower ?   Spitifire firepower?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Both of them had just the same eight .303 wing guns. The Hurricane 
>>>>>>> IIb
>>>>>>> did have twelve, but didn't show up until after the BoB.  Both were
>>>>>>> later re-armed with the 20mm Hispano cannon, but the Spitfire got 
>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>> first.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, just another Dennisism...
>>>>>> I think he menas that there were abut 3 times as many hurricanes 
>>>>>> available.
>>>>>
>>>>> You might be right - but Dennis claimed there were 10 times as many 
>>>>> and phrased it in a way that seemed to say that the numerical 
>>>>> superiority was on top of individual aircraft firepower power 
>>>>> superiority.
>>>>>
>>>> Well the whole issue of firewpwer was predicated on a completely false 
>>>> set of assumptins that unravelled as soon as combat in te real sense 
>>>> happened.
>>>>
>>>> The thory was you atackecet at 800 yards with 8 machine guns, and that 
>>>> wold be enough to take the buggers ouit. In fact it soon became clear 
>>>> from 'enemy attacked and driven away eastwards' tat harmonising ti 200 
>>>> yards or less, and concentrating firepower in certain areas - wing 
>>>> roots, fuel tanks and the pilot, was the key.
>>>>
>>>> And when the germans equipped with cannon, that one canon shell was 
>>>> likely to do a lot more damage then 50 303 bullets.
>>>>
>>>> There is some devastating footage of IIRC a Tempest doing ground attack 
>>>> on lorries and so on with cannon fire. Things simply disintegrate when 
>>>> hit.
>>>>
>>> I can be thankful that the Luftwaffe continued to use at least some 
>>> machine guns. My father was hit by a bullet from one of their guns, in 
>>> the chest, just above his heart.
>>>
>>> We have the mangled pair of scissors that just happened to be in his 
>>> pocket at the time. This was the worst (maybe even the only) injury he 
>>> received in 67 ops over occupied territory, plus flying service in 
>>> India, Burma, etc. Had that been a canon shell... well, I might not have 
>>> been able to be thankful...
>>>
>>
>> If it had been a cannon it probably wouldn't have hit him,
>> the machine gun bullet must have been pretty spent or they were extremely 
>> good scissors.
>>
>>
> They certainly looked to have been good quality, solid Sheffield steel. 
> Sort of kitchen scissor size. (Why he had them with him, I have no idea.) 
> The two parts were completely separated. Each curled round into a 
> near-semi-circle. Some parts discoloured and lost a bit of chrome.
>
> It seems entirely likly that the bullet had passed through some part of 
> the structure to get to him - possibly a Wellington or, more likely, a 
> Lancaster. Probably wireless operator's position.

Probably just an old soldiers tale.

The message 
from Bruce  contains these words:

> >More likely a mix of Unified and Metric, if BL. BMC - different.
> >Most of the engines, etc BL used were designed before they were formed and
> >used Unified. It would make little sense to re-engineer for another thread.


> My father's 1970 Hillman Avenger needed two sets of spanners to work
> on it.  I cannot recall which two types they were, but the engine
> needed one set and the rest of the car the other.

My half inch socket set was bought in 1964 along with a set of open
ended spanners. IIRC the socket set alone cost £12 which was a
horrendous price in those days. Both sets covered AF and Whitworth. I
don't think I bought a single metric spanner in the next 10 years.

I missed the earlier part of this thread and Dennis lives in my killfile
anyway but on the Hurricane/Spitfire /Battle of Britain controversy it
is my understanding that the Spitfires were targeted at the fighter
escorts as they were faster and more manoeuvrable than the Hurricanes
and the Hurricanes were targeted  at the bombers.

-- 
Roger Chapman

dennis@home wrote:
> 
> 
> "Rod"  wrote in message 
> news:6dh225F25jh8U1@mid.individual.net...
>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Rod"  wrote in message 
>>> news:6dgu3sF2h5t5U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> Rod wrote:
>>>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>> Andy Dingley wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 21:20:13 +0100, "dennis@home"
>>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Hurricane won the battle of Britain as the spitfire didn't 
>>>>>>>>> have the fire power to bring down the bombers
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BB period, Hurricane firepower ?   Spitifire firepower?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Both of them had just the same eight .303 wing guns. The 
>>>>>>>> Hurricane IIb
>>>>>>>> did have twelve, but didn't show up until after the BoB.  Both were
>>>>>>>> later re-armed with the 20mm Hispano cannon, but the Spitfire 
>>>>>>>> got these
>>>>>>>> first.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, just another Dennisism...
>>>>>>> I think he menas that there were abut 3 times as many hurricanes 
>>>>>>> available.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You might be right - but Dennis claimed there were 10 times as 
>>>>>> many and phrased it in a way that seemed to say that the numerical 
>>>>>> superiority was on top of individual aircraft firepower power 
>>>>>> superiority.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Well the whole issue of firewpwer was predicated on a completely 
>>>>> false set of assumptins that unravelled as soon as combat in te 
>>>>> real sense happened.
>>>>>
>>>>> The thory was you atackecet at 800 yards with 8 machine guns, and 
>>>>> that wold be enough to take the buggers ouit. In fact it soon 
>>>>> became clear from 'enemy attacked and driven away eastwards' tat 
>>>>> harmonising ti 200 yards or less, and concentrating firepower in 
>>>>> certain areas - wing roots, fuel tanks and the pilot, was the key.
>>>>>
>>>>> And when the germans equipped with cannon, that one canon shell was 
>>>>> likely to do a lot more damage then 50 303 bullets.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is some devastating footage of IIRC a Tempest doing ground 
>>>>> attack on lorries and so on with cannon fire. Things simply 
>>>>> disintegrate when hit.
>>>>>
>>>> I can be thankful that the Luftwaffe continued to use at least some 
>>>> machine guns. My father was hit by a bullet from one of their guns, 
>>>> in the chest, just above his heart.
>>>>
>>>> We have the mangled pair of scissors that just happened to be in his 
>>>> pocket at the time. This was the worst (maybe even the only) injury 
>>>> he received in 67 ops over occupied territory, plus flying service 
>>>> in India, Burma, etc. Had that been a canon shell... well, I might 
>>>> not have been able to be thankful...
>>>>
>>>
>>> If it had been a cannon it probably wouldn't have hit him,
>>> the machine gun bullet must have been pretty spent or they were 
>>> extremely good scissors.
>>>
>>>
>> They certainly looked to have been good quality, solid Sheffield 
>> steel. Sort of kitchen scissor size. (Why he had them with him, I have 
>> no idea.) The two parts were completely separated. Each curled round 
>> into a near-semi-circle. Some parts discoloured and lost a bit of chrome.
>>
>> It seems entirely likly that the bullet had passed through some part 
>> of the structure to get to him - possibly a Wellington or, more 
>> likely, a Lancaster. Probably wireless operator's position.
> 
> Probably just an old soldiers tale.
> 
> 
> 
Which bit?

-- 
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious 
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
<www.thyromind.info> <www.thyroiduk.org> <www.altsupportthyroid.org>

"Rod"  wrote in message 
news:6dj6kkF2m391U3@mid.individual.net...
> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Rod"  wrote in message 
>> news:6dh225F25jh8U1@mid.individual.net...
>>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Rod"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:6dgu3sF2h5t5U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>> Rod wrote:
>>>>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>> Andy Dingley wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 21:20:13 +0100, "dennis@home"
>>>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Hurricane won the battle of Britain as the spitfire didn't 
>>>>>>>>>> have the fire power to bring down the bombers
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> BB period, Hurricane firepower ?   Spitifire firepower?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Both of them had just the same eight .303 wing guns. The Hurricane 
>>>>>>>>> IIb
>>>>>>>>> did have twelve, but didn't show up until after the BoB.  Both 
>>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>> later re-armed with the 20mm Hispano cannon, but the Spitfire got 
>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>> first.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, just another Dennisism...
>>>>>>>> I think he menas that there were abut 3 times as many hurricanes 
>>>>>>>> available.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You might be right - but Dennis claimed there were 10 times as many 
>>>>>>> and phrased it in a way that seemed to say that the numerical 
>>>>>>> superiority was on top of individual aircraft firepower power 
>>>>>>> superiority.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well the whole issue of firewpwer was predicated on a completely 
>>>>>> false set of assumptins that unravelled as soon as combat in te real 
>>>>>> sense happened.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The thory was you atackecet at 800 yards with 8 machine guns, and 
>>>>>> that wold be enough to take the buggers ouit. In fact it soon became 
>>>>>> clear from 'enemy attacked and driven away eastwards' tat harmonising 
>>>>>> ti 200 yards or less, and concentrating firepower in certain areas - 
>>>>>> wing roots, fuel tanks and the pilot, was the key.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And when the germans equipped with cannon, that one canon shell was 
>>>>>> likely to do a lot more damage then 50 303 bullets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is some devastating footage of IIRC a Tempest doing ground 
>>>>>> attack on lorries and so on with cannon fire. Things simply 
>>>>>> disintegrate when hit.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I can be thankful that the Luftwaffe continued to use at least some 
>>>>> machine guns. My father was hit by a bullet from one of their guns, in 
>>>>> the chest, just above his heart.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have the mangled pair of scissors that just happened to be in his 
>>>>> pocket at the time. This was the worst (maybe even the only) injury he 
>>>>> received in 67 ops over occupied territory, plus flying service in 
>>>>> India, Burma, etc. Had that been a canon shell... well, I might not 
>>>>> have been able to be thankful...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If it had been a cannon it probably wouldn't have hit him,
>>>> the machine gun bullet must have been pretty spent or they were 
>>>> extremely good scissors.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> They certainly looked to have been good quality, solid Sheffield steel. 
>>> Sort of kitchen scissor size. (Why he had them with him, I have no 
>>> idea.) The two parts were completely separated. Each curled round into a 
>>> near-semi-circle. Some parts discoloured and lost a bit of chrome.
>>>
>>> It seems entirely likly that the bullet had passed through some part of 
>>> the structure to get to him - possibly a Wellington or, more likely, a 
>>> Lancaster. Probably wireless operator's position.
>>
>> Probably just an old soldiers tale.
>>
>>
>>
> Which bit?

All of it.

dennis@home wrote:
> 
> 
> "Rod"  wrote in message 
> news:6dj6kkF2m391U3@mid.individual.net...
>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Rod"  wrote in message 
>>> news:6dh225F25jh8U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Rod"  wrote in message 
>>>>> news:6dgu3sF2h5t5U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>> Rod wrote:
>>>>>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Andy Dingley wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 21:20:13 +0100, "dennis@home"
>>>>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Hurricane won the battle of Britain as the spitfire 
>>>>>>>>>>> didn't have the fire power to bring down the bombers
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> BB period, Hurricane firepower ?   Spitifire firepower?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Both of them had just the same eight .303 wing guns. The 
>>>>>>>>>> Hurricane IIb
>>>>>>>>>> did have twelve, but didn't show up until after the BoB.  Both 
>>>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>>> later re-armed with the 20mm Hispano cannon, but the Spitfire 
>>>>>>>>>> got these
>>>>>>>>>> first.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, just another Dennisism...
>>>>>>>>> I think he menas that there were abut 3 times as many 
>>>>>>>>> hurricanes available.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You might be right - but Dennis claimed there were 10 times as 
>>>>>>>> many and phrased it in a way that seemed to say that the 
>>>>>>>> numerical superiority was on top of individual aircraft 
>>>>>>>> firepower power superiority.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well the whole issue of firewpwer was predicated on a completely 
>>>>>>> false set of assumptins that unravelled as soon as combat in te 
>>>>>>> real sense happened.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The thory was you atackecet at 800 yards with 8 machine guns, and 
>>>>>>> that wold be enough to take the buggers ouit. In fact it soon 
>>>>>>> became clear from 'enemy attacked and driven away eastwards' tat 
>>>>>>> harmonising ti 200 yards or less, and concentrating firepower in 
>>>>>>> certain areas - wing roots, fuel tanks and the pilot, was the key.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And when the germans equipped with cannon, that one canon shell 
>>>>>>> was likely to do a lot more damage then 50 303 bullets.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is some devastating footage of IIRC a Tempest doing ground 
>>>>>>> attack on lorries and so on with cannon fire. Things simply 
>>>>>>> disintegrate when hit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can be thankful that the Luftwaffe continued to use at least 
>>>>>> some machine guns. My father was hit by a bullet from one of their 
>>>>>> guns, in the chest, just above his heart.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have the mangled pair of scissors that just happened to be in 
>>>>>> his pocket at the time. This was the worst (maybe even the only) 
>>>>>> injury he received in 67 ops over occupied territory, plus flying 
>>>>>> service in India, Burma, etc. Had that been a canon shell... well, 
>>>>>> I might not have been able to be thankful...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If it had been a cannon it probably wouldn't have hit him,
>>>>> the machine gun bullet must have been pretty spent or they were 
>>>>> extremely good scissors.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> They certainly looked to have been good quality, solid Sheffield 
>>>> steel. Sort of kitchen scissor size. (Why he had them with him, I 
>>>> have no idea.) The two parts were completely separated. Each curled 
>>>> round into a near-semi-circle. Some parts discoloured and lost a bit 
>>>> of chrome.
>>>>
>>>> It seems entirely likly that the bullet had passed through some part 
>>>> of the structure to get to him - possibly a Wellington or, more 
>>>> likely, a Lancaster. Probably wireless operator's position.
>>>
>>> Probably just an old soldiers tale.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Which bit?
> 
> All of it.
> 
> 
> 

I have seen the scissors mahny times.
I have talked to the person it happened to, his wife, his sister.
Do you think they all colluded in the story?
I can think of no other explanation for the scissors looking as they do.

-- 
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious 
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
<www.thyromind.info> <www.thyroiduk.org> <www.altsupportthyroid.org>

1501 wrote:
> On 2 Jul, 21:45, Andy Champ  wrote:
> 
>> This interchangeability is fortunate, since BSW is considered
>> obsolete and is approaching extinction (Britain having gone metric),
> 
> Yet the tooling remains readily available and, according to the
> supplier, will continue to be available for the foreseeable future.
> 

I was pleased to see that modern Meccano still uses a 3/32 Whit thread.
even if it is made in France. It's all compatible with my old stuff from
the 70's and the even older collections that I've picked up.

They've gone back to square nuts (shame) and put hex sockets for allen
keys in the head which tear out as soon as you try to tighten them. Hmmm
perhaps they've mis-applied the term "cheesehead".

On 8 Jul, 09:07, "Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote:

> More likely a mix of Unified and Metric, if BL.

Longer-lived vehicles used 3 thread standards (and of course BA too).
UNF & Metric were obvious and needed spanners, but coarse threads into
cast iron could remain as Whit for a very long time, although not
often needing to be worked on at the garage-mechanic level.

Roger wrote:
> The message 
> from Bruce  contains these words:
> 
>>> More likely a mix of Unified and Metric, if BL. BMC - different.
>>> Most of the engines, etc BL used were designed before they were formed and
>>> used Unified. It would make little sense to re-engineer for another thread.
> 
> 
>> My father's 1970 Hillman Avenger needed two sets of spanners to work
>> on it.  I cannot recall which two types they were, but the engine
>> needed one set and the rest of the car the other.
> 
> My half inch socket set was bought in 1964 along with a set of open
> ended spanners. IIRC the socket set alone cost £12 which was a
> horrendous price in those days. Both sets covered AF and Whitworth. I
> don't think I bought a single metric spanner in the next 10 years.
> 
> I missed the earlier part of this thread and Dennis lives in my killfile
> anyway but on the Hurricane/Spitfire /Battle of Britain controversy it
> is my understanding that the Spitfires were targeted at the fighter
> escorts as they were faster and more manoeuvrable than the Hurricanes
> and the Hurricanes were targeted  at the bombers.
> 
That was in general true, but a hurricane by virtue of its wing area 
could out turn a ME109, and conversely the ME109 was much faster..the 
Spitfire reduced the differential, but the main advantage the RAF had, 
was its radar and the fact that the fight was over home soil. The ME's 
were always over hostile ground so a loss of a plane meant the the 
effective loss of a pilot, and their ability to stay in escort duty was 
marginal at best.


A situation which reversed in the latter parts of the war, until the 
longer range Mustangs Thunderbolts and Lightnings arrived, and the large 
4 engined bombers able to carry decent defensive armament were 
available. Germany never had any 4 engined bombers AFAICR. Their 
response was the massive and highly effective deployment of flak guns.

Rod wrote:
> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Rod"  wrote in message 
>> news:6dj6kkF2m391U3@mid.individual.net...
>>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Rod"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:6dh225F25jh8U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Rod"  wrote in message 
>>>>>> news:6dgu3sF2h5t5U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rod wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Andy Dingley wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 21:20:13 +0100, "dennis@home"
>>>>>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Hurricane won the battle of Britain as the spitfire 
>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't have the fire power to bring down the bombers
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> BB period, Hurricane firepower ?   Spitifire firepower?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Both of them had just the same eight .303 wing guns. The 
>>>>>>>>>>> Hurricane IIb
>>>>>>>>>>> did have twelve, but didn't show up until after the BoB.  
>>>>>>>>>>> Both were
>>>>>>>>>>> later re-armed with the 20mm Hispano cannon, but the Spitfire 
>>>>>>>>>>> got these
>>>>>>>>>>> first.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, just another Dennisism...
>>>>>>>>>> I think he menas that there were abut 3 times as many 
>>>>>>>>>> hurricanes available.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You might be right - but Dennis claimed there were 10 times as 
>>>>>>>>> many and phrased it in a way that seemed to say that the 
>>>>>>>>> numerical superiority was on top of individual aircraft 
>>>>>>>>> firepower power superiority.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well the whole issue of firewpwer was predicated on a completely 
>>>>>>>> false set of assumptins that unravelled as soon as combat in te 
>>>>>>>> real sense happened.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The thory was you atackecet at 800 yards with 8 machine guns, 
>>>>>>>> and that wold be enough to take the buggers ouit. In fact it 
>>>>>>>> soon became clear from 'enemy attacked and driven away 
>>>>>>>> eastwards' tat harmonising ti 200 yards or less, and 
>>>>>>>> concentrating firepower in certain areas - wing roots, fuel 
>>>>>>>> tanks and the pilot, was the key.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And when the germans equipped with cannon, that one canon shell 
>>>>>>>> was likely to do a lot more damage then 50 303 bullets.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is some devastating footage of IIRC a Tempest doing ground 
>>>>>>>> attack on lorries and so on with cannon fire. Things simply 
>>>>>>>> disintegrate when hit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can be thankful that the Luftwaffe continued to use at least 
>>>>>>> some machine guns. My father was hit by a bullet from one of 
>>>>>>> their guns, in the chest, just above his heart.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have the mangled pair of scissors that just happened to be in 
>>>>>>> his pocket at the time. This was the worst (maybe even the only) 
>>>>>>> injury he received in 67 ops over occupied territory, plus flying 
>>>>>>> service in India, Burma, etc. Had that been a canon shell... 
>>>>>>> well, I might not have been able to be thankful...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it had been a cannon it probably wouldn't have hit him,
>>>>>> the machine gun bullet must have been pretty spent or they were 
>>>>>> extremely good scissors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> They certainly looked to have been good quality, solid Sheffield 
>>>>> steel. Sort of kitchen scissor size. (Why he had them with him, I 
>>>>> have no idea.) The two parts were completely separated. Each curled 
>>>>> round into a near-semi-circle. Some parts discoloured and lost a 
>>>>> bit of chrome.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems entirely likly that the bullet had passed through some 
>>>>> part of the structure to get to him - possibly a Wellington or, 
>>>>> more likely, a Lancaster. Probably wireless operator's position.
>>>>
>>>> Probably just an old soldiers tale.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Which bit?
>>
>> All of it.
>>
>>
>>
> 
> I have seen the scissors mahny times.
> I have talked to the person it happened to, his wife, his sister.
> Do you think they all colluded in the story?
> I can think of no other explanation for the scissors looking as they do.
> 
Oh, they were most cetrainly hit by something, but a full velocity 303 
round would have punched them out the otherside of his body. Almost 
certainly a ricochet or piece of generic shrapnel. Not quite sure, but 
most pilot armour plating was at least 1/4" steel plate.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c>
saying something like:

> Germany never had any 4 engined bombers AFAICR.

Because of Hitler's decree that 4-engined bombers wouldn't be needed as
the war would be so short. There was no shortage of heavy bomber
designs, but they were killed at birth.

They did have the Kondor, but it was mainly used for long-range convoy
surveillance in the N.Atlantic, and very effective it was, too. It could
carry some bombload, but not enough and the number of Kondors was fairly
small.
-- 
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a

"It's a moron working with power tools.
 How much more suspenseful can you get?"
 - House

On 9 Jul, 13:48, The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c> wrote:

> Germany never had any 4 engined bombers AFAICR.

They had several, albeit not widely used. This was largely because
they had France as an operational base and far shorter ranges to
contend with. The only majorly significant (in impact) one was the
Condor, which being used for naval aviation did require range and
endurance.

"Rod"  wrote in message 
news:6djaf1F2ri85U1@mid.individual.net...


>
> I have seen the scissors mahny times.
> I have talked to the person it happened to, his wife, his sister.
> Do you think they all colluded in the story?
> I can think of no other explanation for the scissors looking as they do.

Why would they have to collude?
All it takes is for one person to make the claim.