Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #160645

Re: The True Aficionado?

From	"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net>
Newsgroups	alt.folklore.computers
Subject	Re: The True Aficionado?
Date	2016-03-06 23:18 -0600
Message-ID	<dk4h9tF3g61U1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	(11 earlier) <PM00052D2521DCF4E4@aca40c8f.ipt.aol.com> <p71mqc-ho4.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> <PM00052D38F4E28E9A@aca41c7c.ipt.aol.com> <nbcdcd01ib8@news6.newsguy.com> <10063c53-63c8-4857-baf2-43b6b781354d@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> Steam locomotives were known to have individual characteristics, and
> engineers had to learn them to best operate them.  However, I don't
> believe diesel engines were the same; they were more mass produced
> (which was part of their advantage; they were easier to maintain).
>
> They used to say that it would take a minute to debug a steam engine
> but an hour to repair, while it would take an hour to debug a diesel
> but a minute to repair.  Diesel power often ran as multiple units.
> Sometimes on the road, one of the units would fail, but the other units
> would keep the train moving.  The fireman had to go back into the engine
> room and try to identify and fix the problem.  It was not a fun job.
> I believe today's units are far more reliable.

Your mention of repairing diesel engines in service reminded me of doing the 
same thing with airplanes.  I poked around and found this article in an old 
Popular Mechanics magazine from 1930.  The Dornier DO-X had tunnels in the 
wings so the mechanic could crawl out to one of the 12 engines and do minor 
repairs.  I think there were 288 spark plugs on those engines, two per 
cylinder.  There are lot of pictures of the plane itself on your favorite 
picture search engine.

https://books.google.com/books?id=qOIDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA906&lpg=PA906&dq=dornier+do-x+engine+repair&source=bl&ots=bA-AFVxY9B&sig=lTAVunLt5GVc61HLxT7VKRx3hDY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjG9LTD4K3LAhVIn4MKHdAJBssQ6AEIVTAM#v=onepage&q=dornier%20do-x%20engine%20repair&f=false

Thread

Re: The True Aficionado? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-21 15:48 +0000
  Re: The True Aficionado? mentificium@gmail.com - 2016-02-21 13:43 -0800
    Re: The True Aficionado? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-23 13:13 +0000
      Re: The True Aficionado? mentificium@gmail.com - 2016-02-23 06:06 -0800
      Re: The True Aficionado? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 04:40 +1100
        Re: The True Aficionado? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-23 09:50 -0800
        Re: The True Aficionado? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-24 13:40 +0000
          Re: The True Aficionado? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 03:14 +1100
            Re: The True Aficionado? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-01 13:55 +0000
              Re: The True Aficionado? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 01:30 +1100
                Re: The True Aficionado? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-02 14:19 +0000
                Re: The True Aficionado? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 03:51 +1100
                Re: The True Aficionado? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-03 13:39 +0000
                Re: The True Aficionado? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-03 16:18 +0100
                Re: The True Aficionado? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 03:52 +1100
                Re: The True Aficionado? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-04 13:22 +0000
                Re: The True Aficionado? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-04 16:33 +0000
                Re: The True Aficionado? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-03-04 15:47 -0600
                Re: The True Aficionado? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-05 01:04 +0000
                Re: The True Aficionado? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-05 13:57 +0000
                Re: The True Aficionado? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-06 11:40 -0800
                Re: The True Aficionado? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-06 23:18 -0600
                Re: The True Aficionado? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-04 17:18 +0100
                Re: The True Aficionado? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-04 22:09 -0500
                Re: The True Aficionado? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-05 13:57 +0000
                Re: The True Aficionado? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-03-05 14:36 +0000
                Re: The True Aficionado? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-06 14:08 +0000
                Re: The True Aficionado? "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 02:03 +1100
                Re: The True Aficionado? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-06 17:28 +0100
                Re: The True Aficionado? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-06 11:54 -0800
                Re: The True Aficionado? "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 07:39 +1100
                Re: The True Aficionado? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-06 17:24 -0700
                Re: The True Aficionado? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-05 18:43 +0100
                Re: The True Aficionado? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-06 11:34 -0800
                Re: The True Aficionado? Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-07 16:24 -0600
                Re: The True Aficionado? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 03:45 +1100
                Re: The True Aficionado? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-03-03 16:01 -0600

csiph-web