Wikipedia

Talk:Fahlin SF-2 Plymocoupe/Archive 1

< Talk:Fahlin SF-2 Plymocoupe
Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1

Propeller shaft

Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

The passage of the propeller shaft from the crankshaft to the front end of the aircraft was accomplished by drilling a hole at the centre of the radiator.

— This can't be literally correct. "Drilling" a "hole" in the radiator would of course create a huge coolant leak. Doh. What apparently is meant is, a channel for the propeller shaft was built into the radiator. (And since this is an American aircraft, I suggest we use the U.S. spelling for center.) Sca (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The reliable source says: "The propeller is geared to the motor through a hole cut in the centre of the radiator". That they plugged the hole through engineering design is implicit. So we don't have to actually say it. As far as the spelling, the engineers were from Sweden and thus any spelling is ok and does not have to be changed. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Nevertheless, it is ludicrous to speak of "drilling a hole" through the radiator. They didn't "drill" anything. Sca (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
To drill: "produce (a hole) in something by or as if by boring with a drill". But I wasn't there to see how they produced the opening, so I am not going to argue this. Therefore I modified the sentence. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps English isn't your first language?
Yes, "creating an opening" is better, although one could also say "was accommodated by an opening."
The Plymocoupe was interesting as an unusual, if misguided, experiment. An L-head, six-cylinder, liquid-cooled auto engine producing about 65 hp seems an odd choice for an airplane, even in 1935.
You might be interested in Aerocar. Sca (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps English isn't your first language? Perhaps you can keep your snide comments to yourself. I have neither the need nor the inclination to prove anything to you. And your expression "was accommodated by an opening." creates repetition because the sentence before also uses the participle of "acommodate": ...while accommodating the operational requirements of the propeller.... Am I going now to make any generalisations about your command of English or start wondering if you are a native English speaker or not? That's simply not my style. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
True, I overlooked the repetition of accommodate. My point was that the passage wasn't drilled or otherwise "created" after the radiator was constructed, which was the implication of your syntax, but was part of its initial design. (Nor, for that matter, did they "plug" any "hole.")
Since we're now trading shots, "accommodating the operational requirements of the propeller" is an abstract, prolix way of saying that the propeller had to be turned by a shaft, which is obvious.
"Snide?" Listen to you.
Goodbye. Sca (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that you advise me to listen to myself while at the same time refusing to listen to yourself. Let me give you some advice: Next time try not to patronise other editors. Obviously I won't hold my breath. Goodbye. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Since we're now trading shots, "accommodating the operational requirements of the propeller" is an abstract, prolix way of saying that the propeller had to be turned by a shaft, which is obvious. Not true. If you had read more carefully the sentence: The propeller was driven directly from the crankshaft via the gearbox using a 2:1 gear-reduction ratio which enabled the engine to operate at full power while accommodating the operational requirements of the propeller which necessitated the slower maximum rotational speed of 1800 rpm So it was not a matter of saying that the propeller had to be turned by a shaft, which is obvious. but that the operational requirements also included the non-obvious constraint of the 1,800 rpm limit. Nothing prolix, abstract or obvious about that. Again, am I going to question your ability to understand the text? Let's put it this way: I will not follow any examples. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fahlin SF-2 Plymocoupe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fahlin_SF-2_Plymocoupe/Archive_1&oldid=767654962"