05 May 2025, 15:27 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: XP-38  Posted: 14 Feb 2022, 19:05 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
Joined: 12/08/12
Posts: 1216
Post Likes: +1596
Location: Ukiah, California
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Malcolm separated from the company to develop an invention of his own for the automotive world. His idea was to use a hydraulic actuator to provide brakes for all four wheels (up to this time, cars only had brakes on the rear wheels and were mechanically actuated IIRC). Ah, so Malcolm is the one to blame. I have '53 MG TD that has Lockheed brakes. The car gets driven maybe 80 miles a year. Yet every year when I bring it out of storage I have to spend half a day fiddling with the brakes to get any stopping capabilities at all.
If the brakes are your only problem with a 1953 MG, you are walking in tall cotton. Typically most of the problems are in the "go" category rather than the "whoa" category.
When I was bending wrenches on cars in the 60s, I do remember the Lockheed name associated with brake parts but at the time did not realize the Allan/Malcolm connection.
Dan
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: XP-38 Posted: 14 Feb 2022, 19:32 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 08/26/15
Posts: 9917
Post Likes: +9804
Company: airlines (*CRJ,A320)
Location: Florida panhandle
Aircraft: Travel Air,T-6B,etc*
|
|
Username Protected wrote: If the brakes are your only problem with a 1953 MG, you are walking in tall cotton. Typically most of the problems are in the "go" category rather than the "whoa" category. '53 might be too far back a vintage but I thought MGs used Girling and/or ATE for their brake OEMs- at least by the 1960s those were pretty widely used on British cars. Then again, I don't know if either of those companies' brakes were licensed designs or if they were in-house designs.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: XP-38 Posted: 14 Feb 2022, 20:25 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/13/09
Posts: 1100
Post Likes: +843
Location: Boise, Idaho
Aircraft: Bonanza A35
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
Ah, so Malcolm is the one to blame.
I have '53 MG TD that has Lockheed brakes. The car gets driven maybe 80 miles a year. Yet every year when I bring it out of storage I have to spend half a day fiddling with the brakes to get any stopping capabilities at all.
If the brakes are your only problem with a 1953 MG, you are walking in tall cotton. Typically most of the problems are in the "go" category rather than the "whoa" category.
Well, that car has plenty of problems with the "go" as well. But as tiny and lightweight as it is, it doesn't take much "go" to get exciting. Especially if there is very little "whoa".
"I'd rather drive a slow car fast than drive a fast car slow" - Abner Perney
_________________
Frank Stutzman
'49 A35 Bonanza ("the Hula Girl")
Boise, ID
|
|
| Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2025
|
|
|
|
