Boeing Engineering

Tulio · **Joined:** Mon May 03, 2004 1:05 am **Posts:** 3236

Many years ago -I have published this here before- I bought this at an antique shop in Wichita, KS

The note and telephone number were on the display, they are not mine.

The question remains, what is it?

I asked the Boeing historian, and he had no idea.

Maybe one of y'all know?

Saludos,

Tulio

CAPFlyer · **Posted:** Thu Oct 15, 2020 10:59 pm

Not knowing what the material is, but guessing it's probably Aluminum, I'd say it's some representation of the amount of that metal per given area/weight?

Cvairwerks · **Posted:** Thu Oct 15, 2020 11:54 pm

Maybe a representation of engineering hours required between proposal and 1st flight?

martin_sam_2000 · **Joined:** Sun Jan 08, 2012 10:05 am **Posts:** 397

Maybe just a representation of total weight. Easy way to compare between different airframes.

Try weighing them, find the ratio between 2, and see if it matches the ratio of the real airframes.

Sean

JohnB · **Posted:** Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:17 am

Just an idea...or wild guess...

The thickness of the metal represents the amount of written (paper) engineering and analysis each type produced.
As the types grew more complex, the analysis went from a few pages of analysis and computations to binders full. Think about it, in the B-17 days, they had just a few engineers doing stresses with sliderules, 30 years later probably dozens of guys using early computers.

A rough equivalent would be the size of pilot's operating handbooks (or Air Force Dash-1s)...my C-47 book is about an inch and a half thick, and who knows how thick a 787 manual would be if they actually printed them on paper.

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11324

I'll throw my wild guess into the mix!

Maybe the amount of 7075 alloy aluminum used in the construction? In the B-17 and B-29 days it would have been 75ST alloy. The blocks do look like aluminum.

JohnB · **Posted:** Fri Oct 16, 2020 12:16 pm

Bdk...
Allow me to offer a correction: the B-17 and B-29 used 24ST,the B-50 switched to 75ST, it's one of the major engineering differences between it and the '29.

Michel Lemieux · **Posted:** Fri Oct 16, 2020 3:45 pm

Tulio. Were those solid? I guess for the thinner one yes. But the bigger ones?

Michel Lemieux · **Posted:** Fri Oct 16, 2020 3:48 pm

Quote:

This slide shows the range of either metal or nonmetal materials in the Saturn V. The Saturn V’s are significant for the numerous and exotic array of metals and nonmetal materials that were used in its construction; aluminum, titanium, urethane foam, and even cork. The first stage was even fabricated of asbestos panels. It was important to understand what there was and how the materials were fabricated- extrusions, sheets, and so forth. Saturn V rocket was built primarily of aluminum.

https://www.ncptt.nps.gov/blog/the-space-age-in-construction/#:~:text=The%20Saturn%20V's%20are%20significant,urethane%20foam%2C%20and%20even%20cork.&text=Saturn%20V%20rocket%20was%20built%20primarily%20of%20aluminum.

Pretty exotic beast!

And for those in need of a chuckle.....no it is not going to be a static only restoration: https://www.theregister.com/2020/04/01/nasa_mulls_restoring_saturn_v/

Tulio · **Joined:** Mon May 03, 2004 1:05 am **Posts:** 3236

Michel Lemieux wrote:

Tulio. Were those solid? I guess for the thinner one yes. But the bigger ones?

Yes Michael, they are solid.

I have somewhere, a kitchen digital scale. Once I find it, I will weigh the bars.

No clue if they are aluminum. They look to me, to be steel, but what do I know?
I do not want to scratch them for any kind of testing.

Whatever material they are, they were polished.

Thank you all for your ideas and opinions.

Saludos,

Tulio

C VEICH · **Joined:** Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:40 pm **Posts:** 1471

No way it's a direct comparison of weight or quantity of material used in each airframe. Much more likely that it represents engineering hours or man hours or something like that in my opinion. Maybe it's a wing loading comparison!

DH82EH · **Posted:** Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:08 pm

Tulio wrote:

Michel Lemieux wrote:

Tulio. Were those solid? I guess for the thinner one yes. But the bigger ones?

Yes Michael, they are solid.

I have somewhere, a kitchen digital scale. Once I find it, I will weigh the bars.

No clue if they are aluminum. They look to me, to be steel, but what do I know?
I do not want to scratch them for any kind of testing.

Whatever material they are, they were polished.

Thank you all for your ideas and opinions.

Saludos,

Tulio

Put something like a fridge magnet on them Tulio. They will do no damage and will tell you if they are steel.
Looks like aluminum to me though. A magnet will tell you one way or the other.

Neat thread

Andy

Tulio · **Joined:** Mon May 03, 2004 1:05 am **Posts:** 3236

[/quote]
Put something like a fridge magnet on them Tulio. They will do no damage and will tell you if they are steel.
Looks like aluminum to me though. A magnet will tell you one way or the other.

Neat thread

Andy[/quote]

LOL!!!

DUH!!! it did not even occur to me, to use a magnet!!!!

No, they are not magnetic, but they are in-toto, heavy.

I will find the scale and weigh them.

Gracias, and saludos, Andy!!!

Tulio

menards · **Joined:** Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:46 pm **Posts:** 543

C VEICH wrote:

No way it's a direct comparison of weight or quantity of material used in each airframe. Much more likely that it represents engineering hours or man hours or something like that in my opinion. Maybe it's a wing loading comparison!

My guess is the difference in thickness is relative to the value (in $) of the government contract. After all, no bucks, no buck Rogers.

Tulio · **Joined:** Mon May 03, 2004 1:05 am **Posts:** 3236

Here you go:

All pieces are:

3 1/2" wide
2 6/16" high

B-17 is 1/16" deep, 13gr

B-29 is 3/16" deep, 72gr

B-47 is 10/16" deep, 237gr

B-52 is 1" deep, 384gr

Saturn is 2 6/16" deep, 932gr

Saludos,

Tulio

Warbird Information Exchange

Boeing Engineering

Who is online