fStop Fitzgerald - RevuAIR

Why Three Views are Necessary

By fStop Fitzgerald | 2 July 2017 | Comments 0 Comment

We live in a three-dimensional (physicists may say four, fantasists say more) world. To visually represent that, one needs to meld length, width, and depth. Absent any one and the result is a bizarre view of the world.

Hence, we can start with something as seemingly complex as this flat, 2-dimensional—up and down, left and right—drawing . . .

And get something that looks a bit more real-worldly with not only left-right, up-down, but also front-back.

What if one dimension is missing?

Archaeologists, historians, and other scholars have for years been wondering what the Confederate submersible H. L. Hunley really looked like. The historic vessel was discovered a number of years ago, has been raised, and is currently under minute excavation and discovery in Charleston, South Carolina. Many questions have been answered, especially what she looked like. (https://hunley.org/) Here is a link to the most recent detailed (extremely!) analysis of the vessel by the Underwater Archaeology Branch of the Naval History and Heritage Command. (https://www.history.navy.mil/research/underwater-archaeology/sites-and-projects/ship-wrecksites/hl-hunley/recovery-report.html)

But before this, to envision the boat, historians had to rely on a written record, no known photographs exist. There were a few sketches and one watercolor wash painting by R. G. Skerrett, which gave a fair idea of her form, but they—as is all art—were reliant on the artist’s eye and especially, hand. What is real? (Naval History and Heritage Command)

One of the early references was this two-view tracing of a predecessor boat, the “Rebel Submarine Ram” Pioneer. It was from a contemporary 1864 Civil War report from U.S. Navy Fleet Engineer William H. Shock to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy. (National Archives and Records Administration)

The upper drawing shows a side view of the ram, with some interior details. The bottom drawing shows a top view looking down of the vessel.

There is nothing, however, to show us the third dimension, a front view. The illustrations below will demonstrate the impact of that missing third dimension.

All the views you will see were made with this set of lines that I pulled from the original drawing. The only thing that is different between the pairs of renders is that in one, I let the original drawings determine the final shapes, and in the other one I assumed the third dimension to be curved.

These are the top views of the two versions, the lower has many more lines because those are necessary to draw the curves in the 3D rendering of these lines. Note however that the external lines of each part are identical. This reflects the lines’ origins from the lines pulled from the original.

This shows the resultant 3D render.

Similarly, here are the side views, again with the lower drawing and render showing the addition of curved lines.

And this drawing shows the resultant third dimension, the front views, based on the base (left) and curved lines.

Here are the resultant images in full 3D.

Note that, both 3D renderings match the original 2D drawing. Which is correct?

While that is certainly obvious, this is just an illustration of issues that can occur in the absence of information.

This rendering further illustrates the need for three views. Notice the two highlighted areas.

Many times with all three views provided, even that information is not enough. Sometimes it is a confusion on the part of the original craftsman with regard to how a particular line should be depicted in each of the three views. More often, however, lines are hidden. These require either additional drawings, or better yet, a perspective drawing of their intersections. No examples come immediately to mind, but I am certain at least one will crop up on an upcoming drawing. I will address that when it happens.

This final rendering shows the curved 3D version over the original lines. The other version would similarly line up.

CSS Tennessee Brooke Rifles

By fStop Fitzgerald | 25 June 2017 | Comments 0 Comment

The Confederate ironclad Tennessee was effectively armed with a concentrated and powerful armament of two 7-inch Brooke double-banded rifles fore and aft on pivot mounts and four 6.4-inch Brooke double-banded rifles, two per broadside.

The 7-inch rifles, weighing 15,300 pounds each, were manufactured in Selma, Alabama. This, the bow gun, tube no. S-10, is property of the Naval History and Heritage Command (NHHC) and located at the Washington Navy Yard in Washington, DC. Its companion tube, no. S-5 at the stern pivot, is also the property of NHHC, is on loan and on display outside the Selma City Hall. In the background, the three visible guns are from Tennessee’s four-gun broadside battery.

This gun is one of the four 9,000 pound 6.4-inch broadside rifles, three of which are also at NHHC in Washington. It was forged at the Tredegar Ironworks in Richmond, Virginia.

This illustration shows the guns mounts. The pivot guns were mounted on large sliding carriages and the broadside guns on two-wheel Marsilly carriages.

CSS Tennessee

By fStop Fitzgerald | 25 June 2017 | Comments 0 Comment

Making Sausage: You Really Don’t Want to Know

This is an incomplete project. Although portions of it were published in the December 2009 issue of Naval History magazine, they were carefully cropped to eliminate errors that exist because of lack of documentation and skill on my part. My goal is to do the definitive model with accurate interior detail.

I am posting this to ping the greater world for more information so that I can properly detail the interior and fix the exterior, and perhaps rework the whole drawing. These renders are eight years old, so my skills have improved, but until I get more information this will sit on a back burner.

For the hull and casemate, I was only able to find these two drawings.

I do not have my sources readily at hand, but the profile and plan are obviously from a book. They are small and while apparently detailed, it is all lost in the small reproduction on poor absorbent paper. I believe the sections are from a different source. They are larger and cleaner, a big help.

The only way to approach a subject is to envision it in the simplest parts possible to keep your drawing time to a minimum. One fortunate aspect of ships (along with aircraft) is that you generally only have to do 50 percent of the project because of symmetry along the centerline. You simply copy, paste, reflect, and merge your work. With Tennessee, I created three basic pieces; the hull, hull armor, and casemate. Everything else is detail.

Using Illustrator, I created the lines for each. This is not a difficult process, but is somewhat challenging in trying to visualize your 2-dimensional work in 3-dimensions. Once those are complete, I import them into my 3-D software, Strata 3D, and proceed to extrude, lathe, hull, and whatever else needs to be done to get something that resembles Tennessee.

The hull sections, as noted, were clean and easy to reconstruct.

Once drawn, they were laid out in position along the length of the hull for “erecting” in the 3D program.

The failings of the hull—primarily because of my inexperience—is the plating. The interior, however, is another matter. Despite their size, the interior plan was really quite good for its level of detail. It allowed for proper positioning of the guns and their interaction. The funnel drops down through the gun deck to the engine room below. The capstan has an interesting position, but again, its linkages, unless below deck, are non-existent.

But details of the interior are sorely lacking. The gun handling fixtures are pretty much standard, so those details were easily added. But the real issue is the wheel stand and its workings. The drawings show that it was elevated above the gun deck and hung from the overhead, but how? How was the wheel linked to the rudder? What navigational equipment was associated with it? How did they use a compass surrounded by all that iron? Many questions, no answers. So the wheel is just suspended over the deck.

I added a drawing to illustrate the composite laminated construction of the casemate armor. It’s interesting to see how the laminations go together and how thick the armor was in relation to its backing.

I don’t normally share rejects. The faults in this are obvious, but it is here because it shows relationships and details, especially in the overhead grating, not visible in the others.The overhead view shows the layout of the fore (right) and aft 7-inch Brooke double-banded rifles on swivel mounts. These align with the three fore- and aft-most gunports. The four 6.4-inch Brooke double-banded rifles occupy the four broadside ports.

These are some other interior views as well as the overall fore and aft views.

Again, if you can help by pointing me toward drawings that will get this closer to what it should be, please let me know.

…Her Name is Sal…

By fStop Fitzgerald | 19 June 2017 | Comments 0 Comment

Some photographs from one of my favorite museums

The Erie Canal Museum in Syracuse, New York, is arguably the centerpiece of a state-wide program centered around the historic Erie Canal. The museum is housed in the Weighlock Building built in 1850 to weigh canal boats to determine their tolls. It is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is the sole survivor of seven on the canal system. As its name indicates, it consisted of a lock, which when drained would lower the boat onto a set of scales. The boat’s annual empty registered weight was subtracted from the Weighlock weight to determine the weight of its freight.

The Greek Revival style building was used for 74 years as a state office building after tolls were abolished in 1883. In 1957 it was slated for demolition, but saved by citizens interested in the building and the canal’s history.

In its present form, the majority of the formerly open but covered lock is now enclosed in glass panels and houses a full-size canal boat, which visitors can board. These images do not give the full breadth of the museum’s displays. Each aspect of the canal from its inception and first plans, to the surveys, to excavation, to impact on the nation are all (and more) graphically represented.

Photography as Photography

By fStop Fitzgerald | 18 June 2017 | Comments 0 Comment

Thoughts on viewing a photographic exhibit at the Everson Museum of Art

First off, so you know where I am coming from, I have been a professional photojournalist for more than 40 years. That means I’ve gotten my hands wet with chemicals, mixed my own chemistry, got really sick from licking a ferrocyanide brush, and placed the Hand of God between many an enlarger lens and print-to-be. I’ve had six years of college education in photography and journalism, and another ten years or so apprenticeship under some of the world’s greatest unknown photographers.

My photography has always been nuts and bolts. Four to six assignments a day, and at times many more, spot news when it happens and all with a deadline looming overhead. Call it photography’s version of meatball surgery. So although I had six years of learning, working, and honing the niceties of the craft (operative term), my profession called for a lot of short circuits to deliver a photograph to the daily doorstep. Fact: some negatives lasted no longer than the first printing. They were processed so fast that the first exposure to enlarger light killed them.

All this is a long way of saying I know a little bit about photography.

My slice of photography is recording the moment. It is not the “moment” that high cotton photojournalists describe and write books about. My moments are that 1/125th of a second of someone’s life and the 30-second exposure of a snippet of a city’s life. At Syracuse, my fellow neophyte shooters would discuss their “style.” We would talk of the masters—Cartier-Bresson, Weston, Eisenstadt, Stieglitz, Smith, Lange, Capa, Feininger, Adams (Ansel, not Eddie), Cunningham, Penn, and the then young guns such as Mark, Erwitt, Winogrand, Warhol, and many others. After six years, I left school with no style in hand. I was a loss. So I went to work. It was only after about five years I discovered I did indeed have a style, but it wasn’t quite a style. It was a philosophy.

I came to have a deep rooted faith in the camera as a tool to provide the single most important, accurate, and—if you will—perfect record of a specific instant in time. Regretfully—very regretfully—I now have to include the phrase “in the hands of an ethical person” to this belief. When that shutter clicks (or used to) everything within the four walls of the (then) film frame were captured for all eternity (if the black-and-white film was properly processed). As a photographer, I was an instant historian. Over time I came to see that in everybody’s photography, not just those of us who were paid for having the fun and excitement of that process. Indeed, as a columnist, my mantra was for everyone to dig out their shoebox archives—for that was the storage medium of choice for negatives and prints—and preserve and share them with family members to identify as fully as possible names, locations, and situations. With the passing of each generation, those very salient pieces of information so critical to the significance of the image are lost forever.

The bottom line of all this is photography is an art and a craft. It is very much akin to baking. A negative needed to be exposed to a specific amount of light for optimum image capture. It then needed to be processed at a critical temperature for an exact amount of time to have that image properly developed. It further required critical steps for “fixing” the image against further light exposure and its permanent preservation. Similarly, the print required the same critical steps. Any deviation from time and temperature resulted in a less than optimum image, which is readily apparent to one who has walked the walk.

So this distills to an image that looks like what the photographer saw.

This brings me to an exhibit I saw this past weekend at the Everson Museum of Art in Syracuse, New York. This is not to be seen as a condemnation of the Everson or the artist. Just an observation on my failing to understand the artist’s communication.

This is the display. It is an amalgam of numerous photographs, approximately 150, on an approximately 62 1/2-feet long, by about 18- to 20-feet tall wall. Each of the prints was about 5×7 inches.

As individual images, there was no craftsmanship displayed. The image quality was poor, at best. There was no evidence of individual treatment. Most of those that I could see—for it was absolutely impossible to view those that were mounted more than eight feet or so above the floor—were snapshots; i.e., they had no discernible composition or point of focus. Subject matter was all over the map: a wine rack, a shop front, a pair of nude men, footprints in sand, dirt. There were groupings of two, three, or more images, again with no seeming relationship.

The artist also appeared to have little care for his/her presentation as image borders were not completely trimmed (see red box).

Art is a tremendously important and effective means of communication. That process, however, to be successful, has five basic elements: the sender, the message, the medium for transmission of the message, a recipient, and feedback from the recipient to the sender. The lack of any one means communication has not occurred.

This is a failed communication. What is the message? We can identify the sender (artist), medium (photographs pasted on a wall), recipient (museum visitors). Feedback is also easily determined—what the hell am I looking at? And why am I looking at it?

Not as Advertised

By fStop Fitzgerald | 10 June 2017 | Comments 0 Comment

When is the Battle of Midway NOT the Battle of Midway?

Research is everything. Your output, no matter what the format—words, painting, oratory, conversation, whatever—is wholly dependent upon those nuggets of information it stands on.

Assume you know nothing about the battle, which was remembered just last week on the 75th anniversary. You go to a “primary” web site, such as the Navy’s own Naval History and Heritage Command. (https://www.history.navy.mil/) This is official Navy. It is their history site. On it you will find many original documents and images from throughout the Navy’s nearly 250 year history. It is a great resource. [ed. note: I am employed by NHHC and thus am not an impartial source.]

A search for the site for “Battle of Midway” results in some 963 hits. The fourth entry is this painting by Rodolfo Claudus. Its title, by the artist, is officially “Battle of Midway, 3 June 1942.” And that is where the rub is. Nothing about the battle as depicted by the artist is correct. It is not inaccurate, it is flat wrong.

First, take the title. Most historians—and in particular, the U.S. Navy—deem the battle as spanning from 4 to 7 June 1942. On 3 June, a PBY patrol plane spotted the occupation force, not the main force including the carriers as reported. Nine Army Air Force B-17s launched from Midway to attack the fleet. After three hours of flight they found the transports some 660 miles from their base. Battling through heavy antiaircraft fire, they dropped their bombs and claimed four hits. In fact, they inflicted no damage. This attack, solely by the Army, on the transport force was the only combat on 3 June.

This segues into the content of the painting. There are four elements and one action.

The actions shows a carrier in combat. Nothing like this occurred on 3 June.

The primary element is an aircraft carrier. The artist has done a credible likeness of an Essex (CV-9)-class carrier, in particular the long-hull variant. Now the “howevers” begin . . .

The first and name-ship of the Essex class was not commissioned until December 1942, so obviously, none of the class fought at Midway. The artist does mark the ship with the number 10 on the funnel, indicating CV-10, USS Yorktown. That would be appropriate . . . if . . . that was the right Yorktown. The Yorktown at Midway was CV-5, which was badly damaged on 4 June and sunk on 6 June. Another relatively minor point, but a factual error nevertheless, CV-10 was a short-hull Essex, not long-hull.

The next most prominent element is the Japanese aircraft. There is little to quibble here except, of course, that none were shot down on 3 June.

The third element, to the left, is a destroyer. The artist has depicted either an Allen M. Sumner (DD-692)- or Gearing (DD-710)-class ship. In either case, the very first of these ships was not laid down until July 1943. They didn’t exist at the time of the battle.

The final element is a battleship to the right shrouded in mist or haze. Unlike the other two ships, this is a bit less specific, however, its length, shape of the bow, and closely spaced, tall thin stacks favor the North Carolina (BB-55) class over the Iowa (BB-61). It is definitely not meant to be a single-stack South Dakota (BB-57) or any of the pre-war battleships. Once again, in any case, this element is moot. No U.S. battleships were anywhere near Midway and none participated in the battle.

So, what you have here is a painting that in every element has no relation (except perhaps ships at sea, in combat, with aircraft) to its title.

Sadly, it must be filed under its official title, hence, misleading the unknowing.

Everything hinges on the caption, and the one provided is of no help. It gives the painting as c.1950, yet in the artist’s hand it is labelled 1956.

Bottom line—question everything. Even these comments.

This Was Going to Be a Happy Page Until . . .

By fStop Fitzgerald | 31 May 2017 | Comments 0 Comment

H. L. Hunley: Recovery Operations

Edited by Robert S. Neyland and Heather G. Brown

Washington Navy Yard, DC: U.S. Navy, Naval History and Heritage Command, 2016. 348 pages. Free PDF.

This page was intended to be fun, full of joy, because I was just going to point you to a FREE 350-page book, that, if you have any interest in the Civil War navies, archaeology, or practical science would prove to be a treasure. I was not going to review it, primarily because I edited it. But then, in searching for a photograph of its cover to post with this, well, I made a disturbing discovery.

First, a little aside about books. There are editors, then there are editors. Dr. Neyland and Heather Brown are the editors as listed on the cover. This is their book. Essentially, editor in this case is a different type of author. They compiled, organized, solicited papers, and in a few cases, wrote them, to create this book. I was the editor who went behind them to clean it up. Frankly, it was among the easiest editing jobs I ever had, because basically all I had to do was read it, and with the exception of one chapter (which was so far beyond my comprehension) it was a particularly enjoyable—and easy—read.

For me, this book provides all the information I wanted to know about Hunley ever since I first read of her discovery. And, it is very readable. Of course, as I freely note, these are very biased comments. I never intended to write them. I was just going to say, if you have such interests as noted above, here is the link to a free PDF of it. It may be worth your while.

To find a cover photograph to accompany this piece, I made a Google search for the book title. The largest image was at Amazon. Going to the site, I immediately noticed the book only had three stars. Three stars? For this? What idiots are out there?

Then I looked at the reviews. (https://www.amazon.com/H-L-Hunley-Recovery-Operations/dp/1542856094) There were only two, one with five stars, the other with just one.

I couldn’t have written a better five-star review than the one there. The author, Mike Crisafulli, even adds a last sentence I would have added. And I respond to it: The archaeologists and conservationists are preparing such a follow-up book. I can’t wait, either.

The author of the one-star, “Florida Buyer,” is not an idiot either. I would have written this same review as well. “Poor B&W printout of a color PDF. Get the color PDF free.” That opened my eyes.

Our books—that is those books produced by the U.S. Government at government (read taxpayer) expense—are free. They belong to you and me because we have already paid for them. In practicality, the physical documents of course do cost. But, with the medium of PDF and eBooks, they can be widely and genuinely distributed for free. That is why you will see me hawking a lot of them. I want everybody to know these exist. They are yours, you’ve paid for them, all you have to do is pick them up.

The government outlet for federally produced books has always been, by statute, the GPO—Government Publishing Office (formerly Government Printing Office). There you could purchase books at a bargain because you were just charged actual printing and shipping costs. Books purchased from them are as they were intended for publication and as you would see them at a brick-and-mortar book shop. But they cannot print and store every book created by all government agencies. They have to be selective, so not everything is available. Electronic files have changed that.

The government’s freely available PDFs, however, have allowed other retailers to step in. And this is the apparent genesis of the one-star review.

You, me, or anyone else can download these free PDFs and have them reproduced by print-on-demand printers to have hard copies. Yes, that is correct. Everyone with internet access—YOU, right now—are a book publisher with a simple two-step process. (1) Download the PDF. (2) Send it to an on-demand printer.

I checked out the publisher for the $35 version of this book on Amazon, and guess what? CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform is an Amazon company. Without any other knowledge, I am going to extrapolate here at the risk of being sued. On the surface of things, it looks like Amazon discovered a cash (federal) cow.

Granted you do get something for your $35. However, and again this is based solely on the Amazon page and the review, the quality is not as intended. The original book you would have received from GPO was printed in four-color on slick glossy paper. The type and images were sharp, crisp, and clean. Apparently this is not so with the Amazon version.

I’d like to check the copyright page on that reprint. Legally, to reprint the book for sale, a republisher is supposed to (1) get permission from the government for reprinting, (2) purchase and receive a new and different ISBN number, and (3) file for a new CIP data block. I’d like to know if Amazon did this or if they are using the government data, which would be illegal.

Bottom line: If you are buying from Amazon, or any other on-line store, check the book’s publisher. You can easily take the exact same PDF file they have and reprint through on-demand for a lot less than their $35.

Now, go enjoy the book. For free.

Source: H. L. Hunley: Recovery Operations

Good Starter Book

By fStop Fitzgerald | 29 May 2017 | Comments 0 Comment

Aviation Records in the Jet Age: The Planes and Technologies Behind the Breakthroughs

by William A. Flanagan

Specialty Press, 2017. 192 pages. $39.95

My sense—and that is all it is, a sense—is that the author’s title was much closer to simply Aviation Records rather than as now titled, and that marketing got a hold of it, and tried to spin it for sales. Frankly, if purchased by title alone, you should get your money back. The first jet doesn’t appear until page 32 of the 183-page book; losing nearly 20 percent of the real estate. And that doesn’t include about 20 more pages concerning non-jet aircraft, but are technically within the scope of the title as their records were set in the jet “age.”

Enough about titles and spin. Ignore the title. What do you get for your money?

Easily more than 50 percent of the book is dedicated to imagery, most of it large, and all of it very detailed. They are well reproduced on the typical slick glossy stock one recognizes as a Specialty Press trademark. The text is well written and authoritative, but it is not Ernie Gann. And that is okay; because the book is aimed at facts, not prose.

But with that in mind along with the title, one would expect to see easily digestible charts showing progression over time or comparisons of higher, faster, farther. There are none. If you want to know the speed increase from 1945 to 1955, you’ll have to search for each in the text and make the comparisons yourself. The only enumeration of records can be found in three pages of two appendices, and at that these are not readily decipherable as each entry is in narrative form. Frankly, I haven’t figured them out.

Appendix One: Speed Records, sub-category Progressive Speed Records In Aviation History lists just 13 records. Obviously this is incomplete. Worse, it has four “No. 10”s. Two could be justified, I guess, because they are for “First Speed Record Faster Than 2,000 mph” in both jet and rocket categories. But the other two 10s are for 3k and 4k mph, all on different dates. Sub-category Major World Speed Records, which numbers to 24, begins with No. 2, includes two No. 4s, and is missing (I think) Nos. 6, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, and 19. Thankfully, the third sub-category, Significant Speed Flights by Mach Number, is not listed by number so there is no confusion on that score.

In the absence of any explanation for this numbering, this is indicative of poor—very poor—editing. What about the rest of the book?

And among the triumvirate of aviation records, farther does not appear at all.

The author provides each of the chapters with a variety of interesting and well-illustrated sidebars to expand on his work. For instance, Chapter 5 relating to airliners and Mach 2 fighters includes a near full-page reproduction of a Fairey Aviation Company advertisement hawking their Delta 2’s official world speed record of 1,132 mph, a sidebar on boosted flight control systems, and one on Russia’s race to have the first jetliner. And that is typical of the chapters. There is so much more here than simply records that it is obvious the author was thinking far beyond the range of the limitation put on his work by the current title.

For me, this book was disappointing in that it did not add much to what I already knew. I am always interested in comparisons and an author’s reasoning for why and how such advances occurred. While there was little to change my views on the subjects, that will not be the case for all readers.

There is much very good and well-explained detail in this book and I highly recommend it for those getting their feet wet in aviation and its goals of higher, faster, farther.

Aviation Records in the Jet Age is available from Specialty Press at 1-800-895-4585 or www.specialtypress.com.

Reviewed May 2017

This Delivers

By fStop Fitzgerald | 29 May 2017 | Comments 0 Comment

buy Pregabalin World’s Fastest Single-Engine Jet Aircraft: The Story of Convair’s F-106 Delta Dart Interceptor

By Doug Barbier

Specialty Press, 2017. 228 pages. $44.95.

I like this book not least because I like the aircraft, but mostly because of the Delta Dart’s relative invisibility among comprehensive aircraft histories and this fills that gap. Certainly there are the Squadron Signal monographs, but they only barely scratch the surface of this incredibly complex aircraft and the air defense system of which it was a part.

The author does a credible job at exposing and explaining the complexities. It was very good to see Mike Machat listed as the book’s editor. That alone adds an imprimatur of accuracy and authenticity. Bravo to Specialty Press for that hire!

The book is typical of Special Press’s 10-inchers; their square-format, approximately 200-page, glossy white paper aero books. “Typical” is not condescending; here, it means quality and expectation—many high quality, often large, well-reproduced photographs, and crisp, clean reproduction with graphics that ease the reader through the text.

World’s Fastest delivers.

It is because of the F-106’s complexity that the book has 23 (!) chapters to better organize and aid reader absorption of all the information. The narrative traces the delta speedster from its origins in the F-102B, its MA-1 electronic “heart,” weapons, design studies and proposed variants, issues with service integration, deployments, the addition of a gun, squadrons and markings, NASA service, and much more. There are also six appendices, which provide the detail facts and figures of contracts, model numbers and differences, and more.

I don’t want to call it the complete book, but it is as close as I can imagine. I do, however, have a quibble, and from where I sit as both a reader and editor, it is not insignificant.

The title sucks. Fourteen words is entirely too long. The main title is very misleading. Its wording led me to believe that this was a book about all fast single-engine jet aircraft. If it was titled The World’s . . ., I would have immediately known it was the Delta Dart. As I noted in a previous review, it is my sense that marketing stepped all over this, and again, to the book’s detriment. I am not intending to re-title it, but I would more likely pick up something that read like Slashing Dart: The F-106 Story or its ilk than as titled.

A title should intrigue not be the whole story.

This book is worthy of your time and money.

Reviewed May 2017

Wow! A real gem!

By fStop Fitzgerald | 27 May 2017 | Comments 0 Comment

http://fft3.com/saudi.php The Gurney Eagle Formula One Car

by Dave Friedman

GMP, 2004. 90 pages

If you have any interest in the All American Racers Eagle or Dan Gurney, buy this book.

If you follow F1, buy this book.

If you follow auto racing, buy this book.

If you like cars, buy this book.

This is by far the best $10 I’ve ever spent on anything. I’ve been a photojournalist for 40 years and appreciate good photography. This has it in spades. I was hoping for at least 8×10 format, but I wanted to see what this looked like (I can’t pass on anything Dan Gurney). I was not disappointed.

The photography is excellent and the book provides a beautiful, succinct, and—with Dan’s and Evi’s help—authoritative narrative.

Honestly, if you have any of the interests above, you’d be hard pressed to find a better use for $10.

Reviewed July 2016