"...but I don't have a lathe."

[[email protected]]

"...but I don't have a lathe."

Sound familiar? The truth is, you probably have any number of things
around your shop that can serve as a lathe.

In a lathe, the work rotates against the cutting tool. ( In a milling
machine, it's the cutting tool that rotates against the work.) The
main purpose of a lathe is to produce a circular part, which is
achieved by pressing the cutting tool against the work-piece as it
rotates. Anything that achieves that goal with sufficient accuracy for
the task at hand will allow you to do the job.

The most common thing used to rotate the work is the ubiquitous
quarter-inch drill-motor. A drill press works even better. And the
cutting tool may be anything from a hand-held file to an angle-head
grinder fitted with a flapper wheel; even a portable belt sander can be
your 'cutting tool.'

"Tried that," they usually say. "Didn't work." Odds are,
they didn't try hard enough :-)

The trick to holding the work-piece in a drill-chuck is to use a
coupling nut. Put the coupling nut into the chuck and tighten it
evenly, taking the slack out of all three jaws. (Just put the chuck
key in each hole in turn, taking out any slack. If you tighten a
Jacob's chuck at only one point there will always be some slack in
the other two positions, usually enough so that whatever is chucked
will not run true.)

The centroid of the work-piece is then drilled to accommodate a bolt
that matches the coupling nut. The standard 1/4-20 will serve for most
work but coupling nuts come in all sizes. To keep the work-piece from
spinning on the bolt you may use a lock washer.

When using a hand-held tool as your cutter, be it a file or even a
belt-sander, the trick to producing a true edge is to use your eye to
align the OPPOSITE edge of the work with a known-true reference, such
as the string of a plumb-bob. Or the blade of a protractor, if
you're creating an angle. Any deviation is instantly apparent and
just as quickly corrected.

In most drill presses the chuck is attached to the quill with a simple
taper. A taper has the advantage of providing a virtually error-free
alignment but has the disadvantage of not being able to withstand much
of a side-load. Even a 3M fiber-wheel (used for dressing aluminum
edges) may cause the chuck to leap off those cheap Chinese drill
presses. To prevent that from happening when using the drill press as
a lathe, the head of the bolt you use to secure the work-piece to the
coupling nut should be drilled in a cone large enough to accept a small
ball bearing. Simply trapping the ball between the drill-table and the
bolt will provide enough axial pressure to prevent the chuck from
coming adrift.

- - - - - - - - - - -

There are endless elaborations to this theme but the basic idea is that
you DO have a lathe, if you put a bit of thought into it. Although
crude in appearance such jury-rigged tools are accurate enough to allow
turning down a piece of 4130 tubing to fit a standard bearing, make
circular flanging dies of any diameter and even create the plug for a
10 x 12 inch spinner for your propeller hub.

-R.S.Hoover

[LCT Paintball]

.. Put the coupling nut into the chuck and tighten it
> evenly, taking the slack out of all three jaws. (Just put the chuck
> key in each hole in turn, taking out any slack. If you tighten a
> Jacob's chuck at only one point there will always be some slack in
> the other two positions, usually enough so that whatever is chucked
> will not run true.)

The hole you choose to tighten a chuck has no bearing on the centering of
the jaws. They're all on the same screw.

[dodger]

It is indeed the same screw, but the mating surfaces of the chuck are
not perfect and tightening only one hole will cause some off centering.
Tightening all three holes reduces any such tendency. Ask any machinist
they will tell you "tighten at all holes".

[LCT Paintball]

> Tightening all three holes reduces any such tendency. Ask any machinist
> they will tell you "tighten at all holes".


I've been a Tool and Die maker for over 20 years and I disagree with your
statement. A drill chuck isn't meant to be accurate, nor is it meant to be a
three jaw lathe chuck. I'm not saying you can't do some cheating here and
there, but expect the accuracy of your equipment to take a beating. I do
understand that you can't always have the perfect tool for every job that
needs to be done, but you gotta be careful when you improvise. Remember, a
drill press isn't designed to take side loads, and neither is a drill chuck.
With that being said, I'll admit that before I bought my first CNC lathe, I
used one of my CNC mills as a lathe to make simple plastic parts.

Perhaps the difference is the quality of my equipment. The drill chucks I
use are completely rebuildable, and cost almost as much as some people spend
on their whole drill press. Perhaps that's why I've never had an accuracy
issue when tightening only one hole. Or, maybe it's because if I really need
it to be accurate, I use collets instead.

I think your ideas are very reasonable if the craftsman doesn't get in a
hurry and chooses his cutting tools carefully. Avoid clamping things to the
table, and feeding in with cross slides if you have that capability. As long
as you're using hand held tools, it would be difficult to overload your
bearings, and with your mounting idea, you'll be less likely to have the
part go flying across your shop. Especially if you back up the end of the
part like you suggested.

[abripl]

You can get an import mini lathe for under $400. I got one for building
my home built making many valuable custom precision parts and do not
regret the investment. There is no way you can reach the versitility or
precission with a drill chuck. There is a 7x12 mini lather for sale on
eBay now for $360 with no bids
http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-METAL-LATHE-MINI-LATHE_W0QQitemZ4399935871QQcategoryZ11704QQrdZ1QQc mdZViewItem

--------------------------------------------------------------
SQ2000 canard: http://www.abri.com/sq2000

[Ernest Christley]

LCT Paintball wrote:
>>Tightening all three holes reduces any such tendency. Ask any machinist
>>they will tell you "tighten at all holes".
>
>
>

> I think your ideas are very reasonable if the craftsman doesn't get in a
> hurry and chooses his cutting tools carefully. Avoid clamping things to the

Mr. Paintball, I think the giveaway was when Veedubber mentioned "cheap
chinese drillpress". In my mind this is one of the $30 Harbor Freight
models. It takes about two of those to complete a Dyke Delta. (the
first one wears out halfway through). Combining precision in the same
sentence with one of these is a great injustice to the english language.

Now not every piece on an airplane requires millionth of an inch
accuracy. Will an airplane crash if the plug used to make lightening
holes is slightly oblong?

--
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

[ຮູ້ເທ້າບ�່ຖຶງ�ານ]

Thanks again veeduber!

[Flyingmonk]

Thanks again veeduber!

[Michael Horowitz]

On 17 Aug 2005 10:57:42 -0700, wrote:

>"...but I don't have a lathe."
>
<in this article, Bob describes how to chuck something like a 2"
washer (using a coupling) so that one can reduce the washer's
diameter.>

I'm staring at a piece of 11/16" 4130 steel tubing, three inches long
which is supposed to slip into a piece of 3/4 OD tubing and act as an
inner sleeve. this inner-sleeve-to-be needs to be turned just a
scooch so that it will fit.

It seems to me that there must be a simply way to do this; I
immediately go to to the most Rube Goldberg arrangement I can dream
up.

At the moment I'm thinking of turning down two washers so that they
matches the ID of the work piece; that will keep the work centered on
a piece of threaded rod.

Open to other ideas - MIke

[Charles Vincent]

Michael Horowitz wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2005 10:57:42 -0700, wrote:
>
>> "...but I don't have a lathe."
>>
> <in this article, Bob describes how to chuck something like a 2"
> washer (using a coupling) so that one can reduce the washer's
> diameter.>
>
> I'm staring at a piece of 11/16" 4130 steel tubing, three inches long
> which is supposed to slip into a piece of 3/4 OD tubing and act as an
> inner sleeve. this inner-sleeve-to-be needs to be turned just a
> scooch so that it will fit.
>
> It seems to me that there must be a simply way to do this; I
> immediately go to to the most Rube Goldberg arrangement I can dream
> up.
>
> At the moment I'm thinking of turning down two washers so that they
> matches the ID of the work piece; that will keep the work centered on
> a piece of threaded rod.
>
> Open to other ideas - MIke
>

How much needs to be taken off?

Charles

[Dan[_12_]]

Michael Horowitz wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2005 10:57:42 -0700, wrote:
>
>> "...but I don't have a lathe."
>>
> <in this article, Bob describes how to chuck something like a 2"
> washer (using a coupling) so that one can reduce the washer's
> diameter.>
>
> I'm staring at a piece of 11/16" 4130 steel tubing, three inches long
> which is supposed to slip into a piece of 3/4 OD tubing and act as an
> inner sleeve. this inner-sleeve-to-be needs to be turned just a
> scooch so that it will fit.
>
> It seems to me that there must be a simply way to do this; I
> immediately go to to the most Rube Goldberg arrangement I can dream
> up.
>
> At the moment I'm thinking of turning down two washers so that they
> matches the ID of the work piece; that will keep the work centered on
> a piece of threaded rod.
>
> Open to other ideas - MIke
>


If your live end cone is big enough that takes care of that end. A
wood dowel forced into the other end takes care of that end. Make your
own dowel and LEAVE it in the chuck when you put the tube over it. If
you move the wood it will never again be true to you.

If you'd rather use a metal dowel/tube you may need to use Locktite™
to keep it from slipping. That's where the fun ends, removing the metal
dowel/tube is a great deal of fun since heating everything to at least
300º to soften the Locktite™. Again, leave the dowel/tube in the chuck
until you are done working.

There is a third way if you have a piece of round stock long enough
to go through the tube. The round stock has to be greater in diameter
than the ID of the tube. Start by using a center drill on the end of the
round stock to put your live end into to prevent wobble. Then turn the
round stock down so you have a length longer than the tube and a slip
fit. You then thread the end and use a washer and nut to secure the
tube. The nut should tighten the tube against the shoulder where you
turned down the round stock, not the chuck. Tightening against the chuck
will ensure you pull the round stock out of the chuck when you tighten
the nut. Again, leave the round stock in the chuck until the work is
complete. Hex stock can also be used.

BTW, you shouldn't use technical terms like "a scooch" in this group
since it is obscure. I prefer "a tad."

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan[_12_]]

Charles Vincent wrote:
> Michael Horowitz wrote:
>> On 17 Aug 2005 10:57:42 -0700, wrote:
>>
>>> "...but I don't have a lathe."
>>>
>> <in this article, Bob describes how to chuck something like a 2"
>> washer (using a coupling) so that one can reduce the washer's
>> diameter.>
>>
>> I'm staring at a piece of 11/16" 4130 steel tubing, three inches long
>> which is supposed to slip into a piece of 3/4 OD tubing and act as an
>> inner sleeve. this inner-sleeve-to-be needs to be turned just a
>> scooch so that it will fit.
>> It seems to me that there must be a simply way to do this; I
>> immediately go to to the most Rube Goldberg arrangement I can dream
>> up.
>>
>> At the moment I'm thinking of turning down two washers so that they
>> matches the ID of the work piece; that will keep the work centered on
>> a piece of threaded rod.
>> Open to other ideas - MIke
>>
>
> How much needs to be taken off?
>
> Charles

He said a "scooch" which could mean "as much as can be removed using
emery cloth while watching the news" or "just enough so I don't need a
BFH to make it fit."

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[John Ammeter]

Dan wrote:
> Charles Vincent wrote:
>> Michael Horowitz wrote:
>>> On 17 Aug 2005 10:57:42 -0700, wrote:
>>>
>>>> "...but I don't have a lathe."
>>>>
>>> <in this article, Bob describes how to chuck something like a 2"
>>> washer (using a coupling) so that one can reduce the washer's
>>> diameter.>
>>>
>>> I'm staring at a piece of 11/16" 4130 steel tubing, three inches long
>>> which is supposed to slip into a piece of 3/4 OD tubing and act as an
>>> inner sleeve. this inner-sleeve-to-be needs to be turned just a
>>> scooch so that it will fit.
>>> It seems to me that there must be a simply way to do this; I
>>> immediately go to to the most Rube Goldberg arrangement I can dream
>>> up.
>>>
>>> At the moment I'm thinking of turning down two washers so that they
>>> matches the ID of the work piece; that will keep the work centered on
>>> a piece of threaded rod.
>>> Open to other ideas - MIke
>>>
>>
>> How much needs to be taken off?
>>
>> Charles
>
> He said a "scooch" which could mean "as much as can be removed using
> emery cloth while watching the news" or "just enough so I don't need a
> BFH to make it fit."
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


I believe a "scooch" is defined as equal to two RPH's....

John

[Dan[_12_]]

John Ammeter wrote:
>
>
> Dan wrote:
>> Charles Vincent wrote:
>>> Michael Horowitz wrote:
>>>> On 17 Aug 2005 10:57:42 -0700, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "...but I don't have a lathe."
>>>>>
>>>> <in this article, Bob describes how to chuck something like a 2"
>>>> washer (using a coupling) so that one can reduce the washer's
>>>> diameter.>
>>>>
>>>> I'm staring at a piece of 11/16" 4130 steel tubing, three inches long
>>>> which is supposed to slip into a piece of 3/4 OD tubing and act as an
>>>> inner sleeve. this inner-sleeve-to-be needs to be turned just a
>>>> scooch so that it will fit.
>>>> It seems to me that there must be a simply way to do this; I
>>>> immediately go to to the most Rube Goldberg arrangement I can dream
>>>> up.
>>>>
>>>> At the moment I'm thinking of turning down two washers so that they
>>>> matches the ID of the work piece; that will keep the work centered on
>>>> a piece of threaded rod.
>>>> Open to other ideas - MIke
>>>>
>>>
>>> How much needs to be taken off?
>>>
>>> Charles
>>
>> He said a "scooch" which could mean "as much as can be removed using
>> emery cloth while watching the news" or "just enough so I don't need a
>> BFH to make it fit."
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>
> I believe a "scooch" is defined as equal to two RPH's....
>
> John

Or 4 BCHs?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Ernest Christley]

Charles Vincent wrote:
> Michael Horowitz wrote:
>> At the moment I'm thinking of turning down two washers so that they
>> matches the ID of the work piece; that will keep the work centered on
>> a piece of threaded rod.
>> Open to other ideas - MIke
>>
>
> How much needs to be taken off?
>
> Charles

Put the two washers in a piece of threaded rod. A couple more washers,
that fit the ID of the tube, on the inside to locate the tube. Go easy
with a file, or even a piece of plumber's tape.

The chuck out of a burned up drill, sunk into a piece of hardwood, makes
a nice live center in a pinch.

[Michael Horowitz]

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 09:32:28 -0500, Charles Vincent
> wrote:

>Michael Horowitz wrote:
>> On 17 Aug 2005 10:57:42 -0700, wrote:
>>
>>> "...but I don't have a lathe."
>>>
>> <in this article, Bob describes how to chuck something like a 2"
>> washer (using a coupling) so that one can reduce the washer's
>> diameter.>
>>
>> I'm staring at a piece of 11/16" 4130 steel tubing, three inches long
>> which is supposed to slip into a piece of 3/4 OD tubing and act as an
>> inner sleeve. this inner-sleeve-to-be needs to be turned just a
>> scooch so that it will fit.
>>
>> It seems to me that there must be a simply way to do this; I
>> immediately go to to the most Rube Goldberg arrangement I can dream
>> up.
>>
>> At the moment I'm thinking of turning down two washers so that they
>> matches the ID of the work piece; that will keep the work centered on
>> a piece of threaded rod.
>>
>> Open to other ideas - MIke
>>
>
>How much needs to be taken off?
>
>Charles


..014 - MIke

[Michael Horowitz]

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 09:39:18 -0500, Dan > wrote:

>Charles Vincent wrote:
>> Michael Horowitz wrote:
>>> On 17 Aug 2005 10:57:42 -0700, wrote:
>>>
>>>> "...but I don't have a lathe."
>>>>
>>> <in this article, Bob describes how to chuck something like a 2"
>>> washer (using a coupling) so that one can reduce the washer's
>>> diameter.>
>>>
>>> I'm staring at a piece of 11/16" 4130 steel tubing, three inches long
>>> which is supposed to slip into a piece of 3/4 OD tubing and act as an
>>> inner sleeve. this inner-sleeve-to-be needs to be turned just a
>>> scooch so that it will fit.
>>> It seems to me that there must be a simply way to do this; I
>>> immediately go to to the most Rube Goldberg arrangement I can dream
>>> up.
>>>
>>> At the moment I'm thinking of turning down two washers so that they
>>> matches the ID of the work piece; that will keep the work centered on
>>> a piece of threaded rod.
>>> Open to other ideas - MIke
>>>
>>
>> How much needs to be taken off?
>>
>> Charles
>
> He said a "scooch" which could mean "as much as can be removed using
>emery cloth while watching the news" or "just enough so I don't need a
>BFH to make it fit."
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Damn, he's good! - :) MIke

[Michael Horowitz]

Here's how I ended up 'chucking' the tubing.
I used Bob's trick to reduce the diameter of 4 washers to just
smaller than the ID of the tubing.
I mounted this combination on a piece of threaded rod at either end of
the rod sticking out of the tube: nut, washer, grommet,washer,nut.
When I tightened the nut, the grommet expanded and held the tube in
place from the inside.

I"ll keep my eye open for a dead drill so I can use the chuck as a
'tailstock'

Now the mystery..... the ID of the outer tube should have been .694
and the OD of the inner tube .680, giving me .014. I thought I'd be
able to slip that right in, but ended up having to turn it down.

I'm going out there and remeasure the ID of the new stuff


I'm back. The stuff I ordered was advertised as 11/16 which if you
divide = .680
The measured OD of the 3/4" tube minus 2x the wall thickness of .028
gives an ID of .694.
The 11/16 should slip in.
An actual measurement of the 11/16 yields .690! .010 thicker than
expected.

Is this lack of precision to be expected and planned for? - Mike

[Dan[_12_]]

Michael Horowitz wrote:
> Here's how I ended up 'chucking' the tubing.
> I used Bob's trick to reduce the diameter of 4 washers to just
> smaller than the ID of the tubing.
> I mounted this combination on a piece of threaded rod at either end of
> the rod sticking out of the tube: nut, washer, grommet,washer,nut.
> When I tightened the nut, the grommet expanded and held the tube in
> place from the inside.
>
> I"ll keep my eye open for a dead drill so I can use the chuck as a
> 'tailstock'
>
> Now the mystery..... the ID of the outer tube should have been .694
> and the OD of the inner tube .680, giving me .014. I thought I'd be
> able to slip that right in, but ended up having to turn it down.
>
> I'm going out there and remeasure the ID of the new stuff
>
>
> I'm back. The stuff I ordered was advertised as 11/16 which if you
> divide = .680
> The measured OD of the 3/4" tube minus 2x the wall thickness of .028
> gives an ID of .694.
> The 11/16 should slip in.
> An actual measurement of the 11/16 yields .690! .010 thicker than
> expected.
>
> Is this lack of precision to be expected and planned for? - Mike
>
>

Industry standards give plus or minus tolerances. There is such a
thing as precision stock, but you pay for it. Structural tubing rarely
requires a high degree of precision.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Tech Support]

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 09:39:18 -0500, Dan > wrote:

>Charles Vincent wrote:
>> Michael Horowitz wrote:
>>> On 17 Aug 2005 10:57:42 -0700, wrote:
>>>
>>>> "...but I don't have a lathe."
>>>>
>>> <in this article, Bob describes how to chuck something like a 2"
>>> washer (using a coupling) so that one can reduce the washer's
>>> diameter.>
>>>
>>> I'm staring at a piece of 11/16" 4130 steel tubing, three inches long
>>> which is supposed to slip into a piece of 3/4 OD tubing and act as an
>>> inner sleeve. this inner-sleeve-to-be needs to be turned just a
>>> scooch so that it will fit.
>>> It seems to me that there must be a simply way to do this; I
>>> immediately go to to the most Rube Goldberg arrangement I can dream
>>> up.
>>>
>>> At the moment I'm thinking of turning down two washers so that they
>>> matches the ID of the work piece; that will keep the work centered on
>>> a piece of threaded rod.
>>> Open to other ideas - MIke
>>>
>>
>> How much needs to be taken off?
>>
>> Charles
>
> He said a "scooch" which could mean "as much as can be removed using
>emery cloth while watching the news" or "just enough so I don't need a
>BFH to make it fit."
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

************************************************** ***************************************

Is a "scooch" the same as when us Irish say "A Wee Bit"?

Big John

[Morgans[_2_]]

<Tech Support> wrote
>
> Is a "scooch" the same as when us Irish say "A Wee Bit"?

Whoooah, there. I think not!

The only time I've heard "a wee bit" was as in " I'll take a wee bit of the
spirit for my cup here, if ye please!"

In that case, I believe that did NOT mean a scooch! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 00:42:46 -0400, "Morgans" > wrote:

>
> <Tech Support> wrote
> >
> > Is a "scooch" the same as when us Irish say "A Wee Bit"?
>
> Whoooah, there. I think not!
>
> The only time I've heard "a wee bit" was as in " I'll take a wee bit of the
> spirit for my cup here, if ye please!"
>
> In that case, I believe that did NOT mean a scooch! <g>

Could have been a scooch, 'specially if the guy had the right accent.... :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[Dan[_12_]]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 00:42:46 -0400, "Morgans" > wrote:
>
>> <Tech Support> wrote
>>> Is a "scooch" the same as when us Irish say "A Wee Bit"?
>> Whoooah, there. I think not!
>>
>> The only time I've heard "a wee bit" was as in " I'll take a wee bit of the
>> spirit for my cup here, if ye please!"
>>
>> In that case, I believe that did NOT mean a scooch! <g>
>
> Could have been a scooch, 'specially if the guy had the right accent.... :-)
>
> Ron Wanttaja

But, would an Irishman order a scooch?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[RST Engineering]

"Skosh" is the pidgen English derivation of the Japanese "sukoshi", which
means "just a little bit" or "a small portion".

Jim

--
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought
without accepting it."
--Aristotle


"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> <Tech Support> wrote
>>
>> Is a "scooch" the same as when us Irish say "A Wee Bit"?
>
> Whoooah, there. I think not!
>
> The only time I've heard "a wee bit" was as in " I'll take a wee bit of
> the spirit for my cup here, if ye please!"
>
> In that case, I believe that did NOT mean a scooch! <g>
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
"RST Engineering" > wrote:

> "Skosh" is the pidgen English derivation of the Japanese "sukoshi", which
> means "just a little bit" or "a small portion".

A scooch is 1/4 skosh.

[Dan[_12_]]

Steve Hix wrote:
> In article >,
> "RST Engineering" > wrote:
>
>> "Skosh" is the pidgen English derivation of the Japanese "sukoshi", which
>> means "just a little bit" or "a small portion".
>
> A scooch is 1/4 skosh.

Metric or imperial skosh?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[jan olieslagers[_2_]]

Dan schreef:
> Steve Hix wrote:
>> In article >,
>> "RST Engineering" > wrote:
>>
>>> "Skosh" is the pidgen English derivation of the Japanese "sukoshi",
>>> which means "just a little bit" or "a small portion".
>>
>> A scooch is 1/4 skosh.
>
> Metric or imperial skosh?

This has been one of the most instructive threads ever, round here.
Thanks to all! Next time at the bar of my local airport I will
definitely sound like the expert I always knew myself to be.

And my next homebuilt project will fly like a - ehhm what was it -
scroodge? scurge? scgodre? sgootsh?

[Dan[_12_]]

jan olieslagers wrote:
> Dan schreef:
>> Steve Hix wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> "RST Engineering" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Skosh" is the pidgen English derivation of the Japanese "sukoshi",
>>>> which means "just a little bit" or "a small portion".
>>>
>>> A scooch is 1/4 skosh.
>>
>> Metric or imperial skosh?
>
> This has been one of the most instructive threads ever, round here.
> Thanks to all! Next time at the bar of my local airport I will
> definitely sound like the expert I always knew myself to be.
>
> And my next homebuilt project will fly like a - ehhm what was it -
> scroodge? scurge? scgodre? sgootsh?

OK, now you are into an entirely different terminology. Flying terms
starting with "sc" include scuzzy which refers to as unclean and thus
draggy or poor handling. Not to be confused with a scuzzy pilot.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Anthony W]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 00:42:46 -0400, "Morgans" > wrote:
>
>> <Tech Support> wrote
>>> Is a "scooch" the same as when us Irish say "A Wee Bit"?
>> Whoooah, there. I think not!
>>
>> The only time I've heard "a wee bit" was as in " I'll take a wee bit of the
>> spirit for my cup here, if ye please!"
>>
>> In that case, I believe that did NOT mean a scooch! <g>
>
> Could have been a scooch, 'specially if the guy had the right accent.... :-)
>
> Ron Wanttaja

A scooch of scotch? That's not enough to warm anybody's bones.

Tony

[Steve Hix]

In article >, Dan >
wrote:

> Steve Hix wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "RST Engineering" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Skosh" is the pidgen English derivation of the Japanese "sukoshi", which
> >> means "just a little bit" or "a small portion".
> >
> > A scooch is 1/4 skosh.
>
> Metric or imperial skosh?
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Whitworth.

[Dan[_12_]]

Steve Hix wrote:
> In article >, Dan >
> wrote:
>
>> Steve Hix wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> "RST Engineering" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Skosh" is the pidgen English derivation of the Japanese "sukoshi", which
>>>> means "just a little bit" or "a small portion".
>>> A scooch is 1/4 skosh.
>> Metric or imperial skosh?
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> Whitworth.

As opposed to BA skoosh.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 09:40:47 -0500, Dan > wrote:

> Steve Hix wrote:
> > In article >, Dan >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Steve Hix wrote:
> >>> In article >,
> >>> "RST Engineering" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Skosh" is the pidgen English derivation of the Japanese "sukoshi", which
> >>>> means "just a little bit" or "a small portion".
> >>> A scooch is 1/4 skosh.
> >> Metric or imperial skosh?
> >>
> >> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
> >
> > Whitworth.
>
> As opposed to BA skoosh.

Heck, I went to school with B. A. Skoosh.....

Ron Wanttaja

[Dan[_12_]]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 09:40:47 -0500, Dan > wrote:
>
>> Steve Hix wrote:
>>> In article >, Dan >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Steve Hix wrote:
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> "RST Engineering" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Skosh" is the pidgen English derivation of the Japanese "sukoshi", which
>>>>>> means "just a little bit" or "a small portion".
>>>>> A scooch is 1/4 skosh.
>>>> Metric or imperial skosh?
>>>>
>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>> Whitworth.
>> As opposed to BA skoosh.
>
> Heck, I went to school with B. A. Skoosh.....
>
> Ron Wanttaja

OK, that did it, I need a scooch on the rooks.

"Waitress, I love the way you roll your r's"
"You should see when I wear heels"

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[RST Engineering]

How many RCH in a skoosh?

Jim

--
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought
without accepting it."
--Aristotle

[Dan[_12_]]

RST Engineering wrote:
> How many RCH in a skoosh?
>
> Jim
>

Depends, are we talking metric or imperial CHs?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[RST Engineering]

Most owners of RCHs that I've known are truly imperial.

Jim

--
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought
without accepting it."
--Aristotle


"Dan" > wrote in message ...
> RST Engineering wrote:
>> How many RCH in a skoosh?
>>
>> Jim
>>
>
> Depends, are we talking metric or imperial CHs?
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Fred the Red Shirt]

On Sep 7, 10:39*am, Dan > wrote:
> Charles Vincent wrote:
> > Michael Horowitz wrote:
> >> On 17 Aug 2005 10:57:42 -0700, wrote:
>
> >>> "...but I don't have a lathe."
>
> >> <in this article, Bob describes how to chuck something like a 2"
> >> washer (using a coupling) so that one can reduce the washer's
> >> diameter.>
>
> >> I'm staring at a piece of 11/16" 4130 steel tubing, three inches long
> >> which is supposed to slip into a piece of 3/4 OD tubing and act as an
> >> inner sleeve. *this inner-sleeve-to-be needs to be turned just a
> >> scooch so that it will fit.
> >> It seems to me that there must be a simply way to do this; I
> >> immediately go to to the most Rube Goldberg arrangement I can dream
> >> up.
>
> >> At the moment I'm thinking of turning down two *washers so that they
> >> matches the ID of the work piece; that will keep the work centered on
> >> a piece of threaded rod.
> >> Open to other ideas - MIke
>
> > How much needs to be taken off?
>
> > Charles
>
> * *He said a "scooch" which could mean "as much as can be removed using
> emery cloth while watching the news" or "just enough so I don't need a
> BFH to make it fit."
>

My first thought was to use a brake cylinder hone. They should
be available at most good auto parts stores or via the web. Mine
has three stones and it wouldn't fit into the rear cylinder of my
Pinto, so I removed one and repositioned the other two opposite
each other.

Then there is the West Virginia Tool and Die hone, a strip of emery
paper duct taped to a wooden dowel chucked into a drill.

--

FF

[stol]

On Sep 9, 10:37*am, "RST Engineering" > wrote:
> How many RCH in a skoosh?
>
> Jim
>
> --
> "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought
> without accepting it."
> * * * * --Aristotle

Ok. I probably shouldn't post this but................

A few years back during a rather wild party at my house that same
topic came up. Keep in mind this is entirely "un scientific".... I had
5 girls donate samples. 2 blondes, one redhead, one brunette and an
asian, And I mean jet black hair... I am a machinist and I got out
my tenths mic and went to work. The one blonde was .0035, the other
one was.0032. Red head was right at .0039 and the asian was .0042.
The red one was by far the smoothest feeling. The smallest hair blonde
was a true blonde, the other one had a darker tint . Read into this as
you see fit but that was the results..

God why did I just disclose that ????

B.

[Steve Hix]

In article
>,
stol > wrote:

> On Sep 9, 10:37*am, "RST Engineering" > wrote:
> > How many RCH in a skoosh?
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > --
> > "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought
> > without accepting it."
> > * * * * --Aristotle
>
> Ok. I probably shouldn't post this but................
>
> A few years back during a rather wild party at my house that same
> topic came up. Keep in mind this is entirely "un scientific".... I had
> 5 girls donate samples. 2 blondes, one redhead, one brunette and an
> asian, And I mean jet black hair... I am a machinist and I got out
> my tenths mic and went to work. The one blonde was .0035, the other
> one was.0032. Red head was right at .0039 and the asian was .0042.
> The red one was by far the smoothest feeling. The smallest hair blonde
> was a true blonde, the other one had a darker tint . Read into this as
> you see fit but that was the results..

Looks reasonable, given similar experiments done decades ago.

What you really need to do, though, is to get a larger sample group.

Say, 25 of each type, and see what the ranges work out to. Then figure
standard deviation, etc.

Think of it as a Science Experiment(tm).

> God why did I just disclose that ????

Just how wild *was* that party? And is the statute of limitations up yet?

[Dan[_12_]]

Steve Hix wrote:
> In article
> >,
> stol > wrote:
>
>> On Sep 9, 10:37 am, "RST Engineering" > wrote:
>>> How many RCH in a skoosh?
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>> --
>>> "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought
>>> without accepting it."
>>> --Aristotle
>> Ok. I probably shouldn't post this but................
>>
>> A few years back during a rather wild party at my house that same
>> topic came up. Keep in mind this is entirely "un scientific".... I had
>> 5 girls donate samples. 2 blondes, one redhead, one brunette and an
>> asian, And I mean jet black hair... I am a machinist and I got out
>> my tenths mic and went to work. The one blonde was .0035, the other
>> one was.0032. Red head was right at .0039 and the asian was .0042.
>> The red one was by far the smoothest feeling. The smallest hair blonde
>> was a true blonde, the other one had a darker tint . Read into this as
>> you see fit but that was the results..
>
> Looks reasonable, given similar experiments done decades ago.
>
> What you really need to do, though, is to get a larger sample group.
>
> Say, 25 of each type, and see what the ranges work out to. Then figure
> standard deviation, etc.
>
> Think of it as a Science Experiment(tm).
>
>> God why did I just disclose that ????
>
> Just how wild *was* that party? And is the statute of limitations up yet?

A party is not officially wild unless police, fire department and
animal have to be called.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan[_12_]]

RST Engineering wrote:
> Most owners of RCHs that I've known are truly imperial.
>
> Jim
>

A true BCH is finer.

Old avionics adage: when in doubt tune for maximum flame and minimum
smoke.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Anthony W]

stol wrote:
> Ok. I probably shouldn't post this but................
>
> A few years back during a rather wild party at my house that same
> topic came up. Keep in mind this is entirely "un scientific".... I had
> 5 girls donate samples. 2 blondes, one redhead, one brunette and an
> asian, And I mean jet black hair... I am a machinist and I got out
> my tenths mic and went to work. The one blonde was .0035, the other
> one was.0032. Red head was right at .0039 and the asian was .0042.
> The red one was by far the smoothest feeling. The smallest hair blonde
> was a true blonde, the other one had a darker tint . Read into this as
> you see fit but that was the results..
>
> God why did I just disclose that ????
>
> B.

Disclose??? Hell if this were me, I'd still be bragging...

Tony

[Andy Asberry[_2_]]

On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 18:51:00 -0700 (PDT), stol >
wrote:

>On Sep 9, 10:37*am, "RST Engineering" > wrote:
>> How many RCH in a skoosh?
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> --
>> "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought
>> without accepting it."
>> * * * * --Aristotle
>
>Ok. I probably shouldn't post this but................
>
>A few years back during a rather wild party at my house that same
>topic came up. Keep in mind this is entirely "un scientific".... I had
>5 girls donate samples. 2 blondes, one redhead, one brunette and an
>asian, And I mean jet black hair... I am a machinist and I got out
>my tenths mic and went to work. The one blonde was .0035, the other
>one was.0032. Red head was right at .0039 and the asian was .0042.
>The red one was by far the smoothest feeling. The smallest hair blonde
>was a true blonde, the other one had a darker tint . Read into this as
>you see fit but that was the results..
>
>God why did I just disclose that ????
>
>B.

If you didn't collect the samples, there is no chain of evidence.
Results are tainted. You'll have perform it all over again...for
science.

--Andy Asberry--
------Texas-----

[Barnyard BOb]

>
>Ok. I probably shouldn't post this but................

Wow.
Once in a while you do get things right!

Guess it's true even a blind pig finds an acorn now and then.

Congrats.

>
>A few years back during a rather wild party at my house that same
>topic came up. Keep in mind this is entirely "un scientific".... I had
>5 girls donate samples. 2 blondes, one redhead, one brunette and an
>asian, And I mean jet black hair... I am a machinist and I got out
>my tenths mic and went to work. The one blonde was .0035, the other
>one was.0032. Red head was right at .0039 and the asian was .0042.
>The red one was by far the smoothest feeling. The smallest hair blonde
>was a true blonde, the other one had a darker tint . Read into this as
>you see fit but that was the results..
>


>God why did I just disclose that ????
>
>B.

Cause you're an off topic freaking idiot?

This is rec.aviation.HOMEBUILT


For respect, feel free to post in.....

rec.fruitloop.legend.in.own.mind



Tailwinds,

- Barnyard BOb -

[stol]

On Sep 14, 2:25*am, Barnyard BOb > wrote:
> >Ok. I probably shouldn't post this but................
>
> Wow.
> Once in a while you do get things right!
>
> Guess it's true *even a blind pig finds an acorn now and then.
>
> Congrats.
>
>
>
> >A few years back during a rather wild party at my house that same
> >topic came up. Keep in mind this is entirely "un scientific".... I had
> >5 girls donate samples. 2 blondes, one redhead, one brunette and an
> >asian, And I mean *jet black hair... *I am a machinist and I got out
> >my tenths mic and went to work. The one blonde was .0035, the other
> >one was.0032. Red head was right at .0039 and the asian was .0042.
> >The red one was by far the smoothest feeling. The smallest hair blonde
> >was a true blonde, the other one had a darker tint . Read into this as
> >you see fit but that was the results..
>
> >God why did I just disclose that ????
>
> >B.
>
> Cause you're an off topic freaking idiot?
>
> This is rec.aviation.HOMEBUILT
>
> For respect, feel free to post in.....
>
> rec.fruitloop.legend.in.own.mind
>
> Tailwinds,
>
> - Barnyard BOb -

Barnyard BLOB has returned..... This going to be fun
too !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ed]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 03:25:23 -0500, Barnyard BOb
> wrote:

>
>>
>>Ok. I probably shouldn't post this but................
>
>Wow.
>Once in a while you do get things right!
>
>Guess it's true even a blind pig finds an acorn now and then.
>
>Congrats.
>
>>
>>A few years back during a rather wild party at my house that same
>>topic came up. Keep in mind this is entirely "un scientific".... I had
>>5 girls donate samples. 2 blondes, one redhead, one brunette and an
>>asian, And I mean jet black hair... I am a machinist and I got out
>>my tenths mic and went to work. The one blonde was .0035, the other
>>one was.0032. Red head was right at .0039 and the asian was .0042.
>>The red one was by far the smoothest feeling. The smallest hair blonde
>>was a true blonde, the other one had a darker tint . Read into this as
>>you see fit but that was the results..
>>
>
>
>>God why did I just disclose that ????
>>
>>B.
>
>Cause you're an off topic freaking idiot?
>
>This is rec.aviation.HOMEBUILT
>
>
>For respect, feel free to post in.....
>
>rec.fruitloop.legend.in.own.mind
>
>
>
>Tailwinds,
>
>- Barnyard BOb -
>
Bob, is that an interanally or externally generated tailwind?

[Ed]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 03:25:23 -0500, Barnyard BOb
> wrote:


>
>This is rec.aviation.HOMEBUILT
>
>
>For respect, feel free to post in.....
>
>rec.fruitloop.legend.in.own.mind
>
>
>
>Tailwinds,
>
>- Barnyard BOb -
>
Bob, are your tailwilnds internally or externally generated?

Ed Sullivan, the curmudge

[jerry wass]

Ed wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 03:25:23 -0500, Barnyard BOb
> > wrote:
>
>
>> This is rec.aviation.HOMEBUILT
>>
>>
>> For respect, feel free to post in.....
>>
>> rec.fruitloop.legend.in.own.mind
>>
>>
>>
>> Tailwinds,
>>
>> - Barnyard BOb -
>>
> Bob, are your tailwilnds internally or externally generated?
>
> Ed Sullivan, the curmudge

I liked your first spelling better--interanally--<G> Jerry